Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So the v5.0.1 version of the INAT FAQ has now been posted.

The v5.0.1 update is a house cleaning update that fixed a few small typos and rulings I incorrectly did not change before publishing the document. Specifically: GK.37C.05 (incorrect ruling), GK.37G.01 (typo), GK.37G.02 (typo) & GK.54F.01/GK.54J.01 (incorrect ruling).

You can find it (as always) from the INAT FAQ homepage by clicking on the INAT FAQ link at the top of the page or visiting inatfaq.com.

Sorry for any confusion!

Hello Dakka, I'm back from the dead. Anyway, love the INAT FAQ, because it clarifies sooo much and is at least some standard of objectivity that a group can vote on accepting when it comes to dicey rules.

To this particular version of the FAQ, I, as always, am asking too much for my precious Necrons.

First off, there are two contradictory rulings in the FAQ for Necrons, NEC.17A.01 and NEC.17A.02. To clarify, in the first ruling the leadership value given by Soulless is "not a leadership modifier" but the second cites the Book of St. Lucius as an example of an ability that gives an "unmodified Ld" value to nearby units. If Soulless isn't a leadership modifier, then the Book of St. Lucius would still grant only Ld 7 according to the other ruling's terminology. Either that or stubborn units as well as the Book should ignore the Soulless rule.

Second (actually several related questions, and these situations have come up repeatedly in games) if a squad of Necrons is further than 6" from another Necron unit of the same type, but still within 12" of a Tomb Spyder, its members can roll WBB and are added to another unit on the battlefield of the same type.

A) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose which unit they are attached to?

B) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose to have some of the members join one of the eligible units and some join another?

C) Are the models that failed a WBB roll in this kind of situation eligible for re-roll if their new unit is sent through a monolith portal?

Third, Necron units often can get new members, sometimes even to the point where the squad has more members than it started with. In some cases a unit can lose several of its members, but a lucky roll can return them all to the fight. In such a situation, if the unit is not involved in a combat, are they placed in coherency simultaneously or one by one? For example, if 20 downed Necron Warriors are coming back to a unit that has only one Necron Warrior left standing, are they simultaneously placed within 2" of that one model, or are they placed one by one, each in coherency with a member that has successfully resurrected? Keep in mind that 20 Warriors do not fit in coherency with a single Warrior (so what happens to the ones that don't fit in coherency if the resurrection is simultaneous?) and that a unit can stretch across a significant distance if it receives enough new models if those models are placed one by one (2" + a warrior base + 2" + a warrior base, etc. etc.)

Fourth, a Tomb Spyder that makes a Scarab Swarm suffers a wound if it rolls a one for its Artificer rule. Can the Spyder take its 3+ save against the wound, as is the case for a "Gets Hot!" roll from a plasma weapon?

Fifth, a Tomb Spyder makes Scarab Swarms at the beginning of the Assault Phase. When a swarm is created, is there a specific location it has to be placed (does it have to be in base-to-base contact or can it be within 2" coherency)? The issue here is that a swarm can be placed within 2" coherency via RAW, effectively extending the assault range of a Tomb Spyder unit by more than 3.5"

Sixth, Phase Out is calculated "at the beginning of the Necron turn" "after all We'll Be Back! rolls have been taken." The reason I separated the two quotes is that they are (seemingly) contradictory. Monoliths can cause a re-roll of WBB, so at the beginning of the turn it is quite possible that all of the WBB rolls have not been taken yet. I think most people understand how this likely works, but it needs clarification. Is Phase Out calculated after the first, "normal," set of WBB rolls are taken, or ASAP after all rolls, including the Monolith re-rolls, are taken?

Thanks Yakface, and keep up the beautiful, excellent, and thank-you-so-much-for-fixing-this-stuff work.

Inconsistencies between dreadnoughts in destroyed BA and GK stormravens, one is destroyed and one is not.
Other rules seem to do with BA vs GK combat squads on arriving from reserve.

The same inconsistency for Soulless is also in the Witch Hunters FAQ (it modifies but doesn't modify, see rules WH30B.02 and WH30B.03).

When using the Neural Shredder, how do you determine the LD value that you use to wound? Is it the highest value in the unit, the majority value, or some other method?

Pyriel- wrote:Inconsistencies between dreadnoughts in destroyed BA and GK stormravens, one is destroyed and one is not.
Other rules seem to do with BA vs GK combat squads on arriving from reserve.

The inconsistency between the two Dreadnought/Stormraven rulings was fixed in v5.0.1, but has since been superceeded by GW's new official FAQ rulings (which will therefore be removed from the next INAT update).

What precisely is the BA vs. GK combat squad inconsistency you've spotted?

Kitzz wrote:The same inconsistency for Soulless is also in the Witch Hunters FAQ (it modifies but doesn't modify, see rules WH30B.02 and WH30B.03).

That is actually intended. 'Modifiers' are actually something semi-defined in the rules as something that adds or subtracts to the characteristic. A power that replaces or changes a model or unit's Ld is still modifying the model/unit's Ld, but this is not a 'modifier'.

In other words, a modifier is definitely modifying Ld, but not everything that modifies Ld is a 'modifier' as defined in the rules.

Therefore, since the Book of St Lucius always allows units to use its bearer's 'unmodified' Ld this is the strongest possible worded rule, whereas something that simply ignore Ld modifiers would still be affected by a power that replaces or totally changes the model/unit's Ld value.

At least that was the majority vote that we decided on the matter!

Kitzz wrote:
First off, there are two contradictory rulings in the FAQ for Necrons, NEC.17A.01 and NEC.17A.02. To clarify, in the first ruling the leadership value given by Soulless is "not a leadership modifier" but the second cites the Book of St. Lucius as an example of an ability that gives an "unmodified Ld" value to nearby units. If Soulless isn't a leadership modifier, then the Book of St. Lucius would still grant only Ld 7 according to the other ruling's terminology. Either that or stubborn units as well as the Book should ignore the Soulless rule.

As I discussed above, this distinction was actually intentional. All Ld 'modifier's modify Ld, but not everything that modifies Ld is a 'modifier' and hence the difference in our opinion.

Second (actually several related questions, and these situations have come up repeatedly in games) if a squad of Necrons is further than 6" from another Necron unit of the same type, but still within 12" of a Tomb Spyder, its members can roll WBB and are added to another unit on the battlefield of the same type.

A) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose which unit they are attached to?

B) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose to have some of the members join one of the eligible units and some join another?

C) Are the models that failed a WBB roll in this kind of situation eligible for re-roll if their new unit is sent through a monolith portal?

2A & 2B) I don't see any reasoning that would deny the Necron player to choose which among any valid units to join any new member to or am I missing something obvious? If its just a matter of it would be nice to have the question included, its probably (sadly) going to fall into the category of being left out just because its an older codex and it has to be a really legitimately confusing situation to be added to the INAT at this point (as opposed to just reinforcing the existing rules).


2C) This question confuses me a bit I have to admit! We clarified our position regarding the Monolith portal and re-rolling WBB rolls in the INAT. To reiterate, a downed model is still considered part of its original unit (for the purposes of Monolith re-rolls) unless it stands back up and joins a different unit. So if a downed model fails its WBB roll then the only way it can get a Monolith re-roll is if its existing unit then teleports through the Portal...so as to your question, there's no way they can be part of a 'new' unit unless they passed their WBB roll, in which case they obviously don't get to benefit from the Monolith's re-roll (as they're already repaired).

Third, Necron units often can get new members, sometimes even to the point where the squad has more members than it started with. In some cases a unit can lose several of its members, but a lucky roll can return them all to the fight. In such a situation, if the unit is not involved in a combat, are they placed in coherency simultaneously or one by one? For example, if 20 downed Necron Warriors are coming back to a unit that has only one Necron Warrior left standing, are they simultaneously placed within 2" of that one model, or are they placed one by one, each in coherency with a member that has successfully resurrected? Keep in mind that 20 Warriors do not fit in coherency with a single Warrior (so what happens to the ones that don't fit in coherency if the resurrection is simultaneous?) and that a unit can stretch across a significant distance if it receives enough new models if those models are placed one by one (2" + a warrior base + 2" + a warrior base, etc. etc.)

This probably should get added to the INAT. I think by the RAW (as I read them), you are technically taking your WBB rolls one model at a time (even if people do group them together by unit and roll them all at once) so therefore you'd place your newly arisen models into unit coherency one at a time and should technically be able to totally spread out your coherency as you see fit. However, I do think that's iffy enough that we should probably vote on it to see what several people think and put it in the INAT...so look for that in a future update at some point.

Fourth, a Tomb Spyder that makes a Scarab Swarm suffers a wound if it rolls a one for its Artificer rule. Can the Spyder take its 3+ save against the wound, as is the case for a "Gets Hot!" roll from a plasma weapon?

That's another good question given how much GW waffles back and forth about these things when they aren't specifically stated. I think you'd definitely get an armor save as written, but I could see why people would think you can't (hence why its a good candidate).

Fifth, a Tomb Spyder makes Scarab Swarms at the beginning of the Assault Phase. When a swarm is created, is there a specific location it has to be placed (does it have to be in base-to-base contact or can it be within 2" coherency)? The issue here is that a swarm can be placed within 2" coherency via RAW, effectively extending the assault range of a Tomb Spyder unit by more than 3.5"

Looking at the rules, it says it has to be placed in contact with the Spyder, and yes I see no reason why this can't allow the Spyder 'unit' to essentially gain a slight increase in its assault range by placing a Scarab base in this way...so I'm not really thinking this is anything that the INAT would need to cover.

Sixth, Phase Out is calculated "at the beginning of the Necron turn" "after all We'll Be Back! rolls have been taken." The reason I separated the two quotes is that they are (seemingly) contradictory. Monoliths can cause a re-roll of WBB, so at the beginning of the turn it is quite possible that all of the WBB rolls have not been taken yet. I think most people understand how this likely works, but it needs clarification. Is Phase Out calculated after the first, "normal," set of WBB rolls are taken, or ASAP after all rolls, including the Monolith re-rolls, are taken?

I see exactly what you're saying (and you're right) but its specific enough that I can't imagine anyone coming up with any viable argument that a tournament judge would ever rule another way on. WBB rolls are taken 'at the start of every Necron turn', so its pretty clear that phase out is calculated at the start of the turn after these WBB rolls are taken. Technically the rule probably should have been written that phase out is calculated 'after WBB rolls are completed at the start of each Necron turn', but like I said, I can't imagine a legitimate counter-argument that would ever sway a tournament judge and therefore its not really a good candidate for the INAT.

Thanks Yakface, and keep up the beautiful, excellent, and thank-you-so-much-for-fixing-this-stuff work.

You are very welcome, glad the document is of use to you and thank you so much for your feedback!

yakface wrote:

Kitzz wrote:
A) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose which unit they are attached to?

B) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose to have some of the members join one of the eligible units and some join another?

2A & 2B) I don't see any reasoning that would deny the Necron player to choose which among any valid units to join any new member to or am I missing something obvious?

Actually, checking into this a bit more closely I realized I made a mistake when I said this. The WBB rules clearly say that a Necron which repairs is then placed into coherency with the closest unit of the same type. Even when a Tomb Spyder is in play, there is nothing to indicate this same rule isn't in effect. So you'd still have to join each repaired Necron model into the closest unit of the same type, its just that with the Tomb Spyder in play this could be a unit of the same type anywhere on the table.

Kitzz wrote:
Second (actually several related questions, and these situations have come up repeatedly in games) if a squad of Necrons is further than 6" from another Necron unit of the same type, but still within 12" of a Tomb Spyder, its members can roll WBB and are added to another unit on the battlefield of the same type.

A) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose which unit they are attached to?

B) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose to have some of the members join one of the eligible units and some join another?

There is only going to be one "closest" unit. If unit A is 12" away and unit B is 12.0001 inches away, you must join unit A.

Forgive me if this is not the right area. But I was looking over the ork FAQ's from here and games workshop and I noticed one inconsistency:

ORK.98A.01 – Q: Can a Painboy in a Nobz mob take a
bosspole, Waaagh! banner, Ammo runt or ‘eavy
armour?
A: Yes, as the Nob can take any of these upgrades before
being made into a Painboy (he just can’t upgrade his
weapons as those have to be replaced when he becomes a
Painboy) [clarification].

from 40k's faq's Ork codex 1.1 5jul2011

Q: Can a Painboy in a unit of Nobs take the ‘eavy
armour, bosspole, Waaagh! Banner or ammo runt
upgrades? (p98)
A: No.

sirlynchmob wrote:Forgive me if this is not the right area. But I was looking over the ork FAQ's from here and games workshop and I noticed one inconsistency:

ORK.98A.01 – Q: Can a Painboy in a Nobz mob take a
bosspole, Waaagh! banner, Ammo runt or ‘eavy
armour?
A: Yes, as the Nob can take any of these upgrades before
being made into a Painboy (he just can’t upgrade his
weapons as those have to be replaced when he becomes a
Painboy) [clarification].

from 40k's faq's Ork codex 1.1 5jul2011

Q: Can a Painboy in a unit of Nobs take the ‘eavy
armour, bosspole, Waaagh! Banner or ammo runt
upgrades? (p98)
A: No.

I certainly always appreciate heads-up about inconsistencies between the INAT and GW's FAQs, but everytime GW releases a new FAQ that pulls questions from the INAT there are invariably going to be some questions they rule differently on. We always then put out a new version of the INAT a bit after that which removes any inconsistencies (which I'm currently working on now).

So, really the only inconsistencies I need a heads-up on are those that are still in the INAT after we've done at least one update since the last GW FAQ release. So if I put out a NEW version of the INAT now and that Ork inconsistency was accidentally left in the INAT then I would definitely love for people to point that out (so I can take it out).

But yes, for that inconsistency (and a few more) that were introduced with the last round of GW FAQ updates, I am on it!


But again, thanks so much for the feedback!

More Necron questions, as always.

Deceive!

A) The Deceive power of the Deceiver can only be used during the shooting phase. His Dread power can only be used during the Necron assault phase. Does this mean that he can use Deceive during the enemy shooting phase?

B) Can the Deceiver use Deceive in a shooting phase in which he runs?

Etheric Tempest!

A) If my opponent's unit is on the board edge and The Nightbringer is facing it directly, will it be destroyed similar to other units that fall back and find the table edge?
B) If my opponent is situated according to the X in the following picture, with The Nightbringer being 0 and impassible terrain/enemy/friendly models being |, is the unit Trapped! and thus destroyed? Assume that both spaces left and right of The Nightbringer are not large enough for the unit to move through without being within 1" of an enemy.
|||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| X ||||||||| ||||||||| O |||||||||||
C) Same question as C, with a twist. Assume that both spaces left and right of The Nightbringer are large enough for the unit to move through without being within 1" of an enemy.
-------Opponent's Table Edge------- O |||||| X ||||| |||||||||||||||||| -----------Your Table Edge------------
D) Do questions A-C work on fearless units?

General question that pertains to the Monolith!

I have for the duration of 5th ed. played that as long as the center hole of the blast is over an enemy model, it is a legal target. This is incredibly important to the Monolith, which treats all models under the hole as ap1 rather than ap3. There have been many situations where more than one model, including even multiple vehicles, have been under the center hole, and I believe that both models suffer ap1 hits. Am I correct?

Non-general questions that pertain to the Monolith!

A) If a Monolith rams in the movement phase, can it fire its Particle Whip in the subsequent shooting phase?

B) The Monolith can teleport squads of Necrons as if they were disembarking. Unfortunately, it has only one access point, and larger squads (including Warrior squads with 17+ members) can't all fit within the given 2" for disembarking. RAW the extra models seem to be destroyed, even though there is no damage done to the monolith, unless they can use an "emergency disembarkation." If they can use an "emergency disembarkation," are they then prohibited from doing anything for the rest of the turn, as in the "emergency disembarkation" rule? Note that the starting squad size of a Necron Warrior squad can be as high as 20.

C) Which Monolith facing, if any, is “the front” for the purposes of tank shocking?

D) Ehh this is complicated, so I've attached a jpeg to this message for you to refer to. In the image, the square shape is the Monolith, from a bird's-eye view, hollowed out so you can see what is underneath it as it is Deep Striking. The black circles represent a squad of models (let's say IG) that the monolith is landing on. Assume that model A is equidistant from all four sides of the Monolith. Assume that model B is currently 2" away from the nearest model to it.

Di) Given the above, and as the Monolith's rules imply that you do the moving, can you decide which side A is moved to, or does your opponent? Will this apply to all models equidistant from two or more sides of a Deep Striking monolith? Is there an order in which you move models, or is it considered simultaneous? Note that if a large vehicle was southwest of B, B might have to be moved a significant distance.

Dii) Given the above, and as the Monolith's rules state that models in the way of its Deep Strike are moved the minimum distance necessary to make space for the monolith, will B thus be out of coherency with the rest of its squad? note the implications of question Di as it relates to this issue.

Edited because I'm silly and leaped before I looked so to speak. Disregard.

In the Chaos Daemons Codex, it says a squad with Karanak is taken as a normal Elites choice (page 55). Does this mean the squad, normally taken as Fast Attack now becomes an Elite choice or do you think it's a typo?

-Reece

GK Codex, Mindstrike Missile (Wargear)

If a Stormraven hits a single psyker with 3 Mindstrike Missiles, does the psyker have to take 3 Perils tests or just 1?

(Is this at all similar to multiple pinning weapons fired from a single unit?)

In the instance that the INAT disagrees with the FAQ, which should we go with?

Our TO rules INAT > FAQ.

The most recent example was:

"Does JotWW require a To Hit roll, as the affected models already must pass an Initiative test in order to save/avoid it?"

FAQ says yes, based upon the power being categorised as a PSA as it is used in the Shooting Phase of a player turn. However, INAT says "No"

AvatarForm wrote:In the instance that the INAT disagrees with the FAQ, which should we go with?

Our TO rules INAT > FAQ.

The most recent example was:

"Does JotWW require a To Hit roll, as the affected models already must pass an Initiative test in order to save/avoid it?"

FAQ says yes, based upon the power being categorised as a PSA as it is used in the Shooting Phase of a player turn. However, INAT says "No"

There's kind of two different instances there.

1) In some cases, GW updates their FAQs after we put out an INAT update and they often have rulings that contradict the INAT. In those cases (as stated on the first page of the INAT) the GW FAQs obviously take precedence.


2) In the second case, you have specific questions in the INAT that are actually generated in response to a GW FAQ answer, as is the case with the question you brought up. In these cases, the INAT is making a ruling based on an ambiguous situation that GW's FAQ has either created itself or does not properly cover. So if you're choosing to use the INAT then you'd be going with our interpretation of that situation instead of whatever interpretation you personally have.

In the case of Jaws of the World Wolf and rolling to hit, the situation is far from clear-cut in GW's FAQs and therefore our ruling is not a contradiction, but rather an interpretation. There are obviously situations where a psychic shooting attack does not need a roll to hit. A very obvious example would be a PSA that is a template weapon. So the question breaks down to: even given GW's ruling, when exactly is a PSA's language specific enough to preclude making a roll to hit?

Well, we argued about it for a long while, but eventually we decided that when a power actually has a different process for determining 'hits' then this is specific enough to mean that you do not roll to hit. The reason for this is because there is nothing explicit that tells us what could or should happen if we did roll 'to hit' for JotWW and 'missed'. The rules for JotWW say that you draw a line and any models under that line are those that are 'hit', so precisely when and where should you be rolling 'to hit' for JotWW and how did you come to that conclusion?

Sure you can say that you roll 'to hit' and that if you fail to 'to hit' then you don't get to draw the line at all for JotWW, but all that is made up conclusions with no actual basis in the rules because JotWW essentially breaks (or supersedes) much of the basic shooting rules.

We ultimately felt that the special rules for JotWW and Blood Lance effectively replace the normal 'to hit' process for shooting attacks (as they use a different method to determine hits, much like a template weapon), and therefore even with GW's FAQ ruling, those powers do not have to make a roll 'to hit', or even if they do, failing their 'to hit' roll has no impact on how the power works.

yakface wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:In the instance that the INAT disagrees with the FAQ, which should we go with?

Our TO rules INAT > FAQ.

The most recent example was:

"Does JotWW require a To Hit roll, as the affected models already must pass an Initiative test in order to save/avoid it?"

FAQ says yes, based upon the power being categorised as a PSA as it is used in the Shooting Phase of a player turn. However, INAT says "No"

There's kind of two different instances there.

1) In some cases, GW updates their FAQs after we put out an INAT update and they often have rulings that contradict the INAT. In those cases (as stated on the first page of the INAT) the GW FAQs obviously take precedence.


2) In the second case, you have specific questions in the INAT that are actually generated in response to a GW FAQ answer, as is the case with the question you brought up. In these cases, the INAT is making a ruling based on an ambiguous situation that GW's FAQ has either created itself or does not properly cover. So if you're choosing to use the INAT then you'd be going with our interpretation of that situation instead of whatever interpretation you personally have.

In the case of Jaws of the World Wolf and rolling to hit, the situation is far from clear-cut in GW's FAQs and therefore our ruling is not a contradiction, but rather an interpretation. There are obviously situations where a psychic shooting attack does not need a roll to hit. A very obvious example would be a PSA that is a template weapon. So the question breaks down to: even given GW's ruling, when exactly is a PSA's language specific enough to preclude making a roll to hit?

Well, we argued about it for a long while, but eventually we decided that when a power actually has a different process for determining 'hits' then this is specific enough to mean that you do not roll to hit. The reason for this is because there is nothing explicit that tells us what could or should happen if we did roll 'to hit' for JotWW and 'missed'. The rules for JotWW say that you draw a line and any models under that line are those that are 'hit', so precisely when and where should you be rolling 'to hit' for JotWW and how did you come to that conclusion?

Sure you can say that you roll 'to hit' and that if you fail to 'to hit' then you don't get to draw the line at all for JotWW, but all that is made up conclusions with no actual basis in the rules because JotWW essentially breaks (or supersedes) much of the basic shooting rules.

We ultimately felt that the special rules for JotWW and Blood Lance effectively replace the normal 'to hit' process for shooting attacks (as they use a different method to determine hits, much like a template weapon), and therefore even with GW's FAQ ruling, those powers do not have to make a roll 'to hit', or even if they do, failing their 'to hit' roll has no impact on how the power works.

While I understand and agree with your rationale, this is the rationale I took to the arguement, the latest GQ FAQ says that JotWW needs to roll To Hit as it is a PSA...

Not sure if this is the correct thread but under the Feel No Pain universal special rule there is a typo that invalidates part of the rule that has bugged me.

“Neither can it be used against wounds from AP1 and AP2 weapons”

It isn’t possible for the same ranged weapon to have two different AP values as the conjunction “and” ties both statements together logically.

It should read:

“Neither can it be used against wounds from AP1 or AP2, weapons”

Since I don't see GW lifting a finger anytime soon on the issue, what, if any, would the time-frame be for adding the SoB WD codex to the INAT FAQ to address some of the various "typos" and other issues present in said codex?

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:Since I don't see GW lifting a finger anytime soon on the issue, what, if any, would the time-frame be for adding the SoB WD codex to the INAT FAQ to address some of the various "typos" and other issues present in said codex?

Typically our goal is to do a FAQ for something new about 1 1/2 months after something is released. In the case of the new SOB codex, that would be 1 1/2 months after part 2 is released. The reason we wait this long is to allow most of the issues to be found instead of jumping the gun and putting something out that is very incomplete.

And actually, GW has been doing a great job of timely FAQ updates, so I don't think you can count out a SOB FAQ from them.

For your consideration:

I feel DE.63I.01 is not quite clear on where the Shock Prow grants extra D3 armour.
As per the Shock Prow entry on page 63 of the Dark Eldar codex, it only grants extra armour when ramming enemy vehicles.
Maybe this is implied in your use of

when calculating ram hits

but it could be made more clear by using the wording of the entry itself, or redirecting to the codex entry.

Hey for
◊GK.54A.01 – Q: Do all of the wounds caused by an
Independent Character with an ‘active’ Nemesis
Force Weapon inflict ‘Instant Death’ (or is only a
single wounded enemy model affected as with
standard Force Weapons)?
A: Yes, once an IC ‘activates’ his Nemesis Force Weapon all
wounds inflicted by him for the phase inflict ‘Instant Death’
[clarification].

Can you clarify this for Dreadknights and Dreadnoughts as well? I know they both have Nemesis force weapons but the clarification above specifically refers to independent characters.

I've got a question about your rulings on page 4:
RB.09.01 – Q: Do actions that happen at the ‘start of the turn’ take place at the beginning of the movement phase or is there some sort of pre-movement phase?
A: There are only three phases in a turn, so unless specified otherwise, all actions that happen at the start of the game or player turn are indeed taking place at the very start of a player’s movement phase [RAW].

RB.09.02 – Q: How does a player resolve multiple actions that are supposed to be performed at the ‘start of the turn’?
A: All events or actions that occur at the start of the turn/movement phase must be performed before the player takes any voluntary actions. Beyond that restriction, all ‘start of the turn/movement phase’ actions may be performed in any order the player wishes, unless specified otherwise [clarification].

When I'm playing Eldar I cast my psychic powers at the beginning of my turn. I also deploy my reserve units at the beginning of my movement phase. By your answer to RB.09.01 deploying reserves (beginning of the movement phase) and casting my psychic powers (beginning of my turn) happen at the same time. Therefore, by your answer to RB.09.02, I can deploy a reserved Farseer (not voluntary), cast his psychic power (voluntary) and then move the rest of my units.

This is the opposit of how I've been playing it. I've been casting psychic powers (voluntary, used at the start of my turn) and then deploying reserves (start of movement phase) and then moving the rest of my units.

Is this how your gaming group plays?

While this would normally be how they meant it, it is the opposite of the GW BRB FAQ ruling. Any other circumstances upon which two or more events occur at the same time, this would come into play.

Hellstorm - it helps if you quote the rule or at least what page it's on.

From Page 7 of the GW rulebook FAQ
Q: If a unit is in reserve, and it has an ability occurs at the start of a turn can they use that the turn they arrive? (p94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.

I've always played that the "start of the turn" happens before the start of the movement phase. INAT FAQs above read that start of the turn = start of the movement phase. That gets my head spinning about the wording of Homing Beacons now...

Similarly - can my Farseer that's already on the board at the beginning of the game use a psychic power on one of my units that just came in from reserves?

ryan3740 wrote:Hellstorm - it helps if you quote the rule or at least what page it's on.

From Page 7 of the GW rulebook FAQ
Q: If a unit is in reserve, and it has an ability occurs at the start of a turn can they use that the turn they arrive? (p94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.

I've always played that the "start of the turn" happens before the start of the movement phase. INAT FAQs above read that start of the turn = start of the movement phase. That gets my head spinning about the wording of Homing Beacons now...

Similarly - can my Farseer that's already on the board at the beginning of the game use a psychic power on one of my units that just came in from reserves?

Sorry, I put a link in with the GW FAQ and you can click on it but it doesn't show up as link very well. But yeah, that is the question I was talking about. As far as the Farseer, I don't think so because it appears that "At the start of the turn/movement phase..." comes before Reserves.

ryan3740 wrote:I've got a question about your rulings on page 4:
RB.09.01 – Q: Do actions that happen at the ‘start of the turn’ take place at the beginning of the movement phase or is there some sort of pre-movement phase?
A: There are only three phases in a turn, so unless specified otherwise, all actions that happen at the start of the game or player turn are indeed taking place at the very start of a player’s movement phase [RAW].

RB.09.02 – Q: How does a player resolve multiple actions that are supposed to be performed at the ‘start of the turn’?
A: All events or actions that occur at the start of the turn/movement phase must be performed before the player takes any voluntary actions. Beyond that restriction, all ‘start of the turn/movement phase’ actions may be performed in any order the player wishes, unless specified otherwise [clarification].

When I'm playing Eldar I cast my psychic powers at the beginning of my turn. I also deploy my reserve units at the beginning of my movement phase. By your answer to RB.09.01 deploying reserves (beginning of the movement phase) and casting my psychic powers (beginning of my turn) happen at the same time. Therefore, by your answer to RB.09.02, I can deploy a reserved Farseer (not voluntary), cast his psychic power (voluntary) and then move the rest of my units.

This is the opposit of how I've been playing it. I've been casting psychic powers (voluntary, used at the start of my turn) and then deploying reserves (start of movement phase) and then moving the rest of my units.

Is this how your gaming group plays?

The 'unless specified otherwise' in the key here.

GW's rulebook FAQ makes it clear that you cannot use 'start of turn' abilities with a model that is arriving from Reserves that same turn. So our ruling does not apply to that particular situation as GW's FAQ specifies otherwise.

But I'll probably add a little clarifier to our ruling to make it perfectly clear that people need to know about GW's ruling in regards to models arriving from reserve.

That still doesn't answer the question - can a Farseer cast a psychic power on a unit that arrived from deepstrike that turn?

Locator beacons and Teleport homers must be on the board at the "Start of the turn" in order to be used. According to your ruling that clause can be triggered after I move units on from reserve, which happens "at the beginning of my movement phase."