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.

I don't understand why Bikes can't hold objectives if they are a troop choice. If it's because of their speed, do Jump units that are troops not hold objectives?

Nobody I know says that bikes can't hold objectives. Bikes are considered infantry by the game rules.

The thing people are up in arms about is that the DA codex has a troops unit that includes a vehicle, which has to operate separately, and then declares that all units from that squadron are scoring units. Our initial decision (which is currently on the "review" list) was that the codex specifically referred to a 4th edition rule, and that the 5th edition definition of scoring units took precedence. The regular bikers and the attack bike were never in doubt, only the landspeeder.

Also, why is it that Daemonhunters can't get into transports purchased for another unit? When GW was hollering the benefits of 5th edition they had a flyer with 3 things every army gained in 5th edition. Grey Knights getting into storm troopers transports was one of them.

Essentially, because the Daemonhunter codex specifically says so. Yes, I realize that it contradicts what we said above, but its one of the reasons why the first one is under review.

As mentioned in posts in this thread, the following have not yet been added to the main list of reviews needed:

ORK.93H.01
RB.69B.01
RB.48B.01
RB.70H.01
ORK.38A.01

All those deal with two issues: the relationship between ramming and tank shocking, and the interaction of IC's and units that have special rules because other models/wargear in that unit grant special rules to that unit. Which will be reviewed.

""The Council" LOL...
Sorry, but are you guys some kind of backworld Jedi or something?

I stopped reading the FAQ after this post.......
"RB.70H.01 – Q: If a transport vehicle is ‘Destroyed’ in
the same movement phase it moves ‘flat out’ (by
ramming another vehicle, for example) are the
models onboard destroyed?
A: No, in this case all models onboard count as being
destroyed [clarification]."

There's a specific rule in the transport section which says that models may not disembark from a transport in the same turn that it moves "flat out." Involuntary disembarkation due to your transport being destroyed is still disembarkation.

DarthDiggler wrote:How about this.... no. This is the way it will be played. I don't feel it necessary for anyone to have a long debate, with citations, about this or much of anything else for that matter. If you don't like it, then don't come to Chicago and play. Lord knows there are enough know-it-alls that will be at this tournament and we could always do without one more. Ahhh it was such a nicer event weekend when the numbers were under 100........

Good stance. If I lived in the US I'd be happy to go to a tournament run with this attitude.

Despite the unwavering insistence of some folks here, there are plenty of areas in the rules which are unambiguous but still difficult to apply or understand; and also several areas which are genuinely ambiguous and can be validly understood in different ways. Tournaments often throw up cases where two players have different but equally valid interpretations and it causes bad blood when this arises in the middle of a game, when the players have already committed to plans based on their differing understanding.

Far better to have a fairly comprehensive set of answers to these situations, so everyone is on the same page before the games start.

Well, that rule needs to be revisited because Destroyed - Wrecked behaves differently than Destroyed - Explodes.

RAW already makes an exception for not being allowed to embark and disembark in the same turn, so really there is no strong argument for ruling that they are destroyed or not destroyed.

Unless you want "Wrecked" to behave differently than "Explodes" in which case, the answer still needs clarification.

BRB pg. 67.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:Cent -
You can imagine the amount of headaches simply disappeared.

And the players too.

Just so everyone knows - the AdeptiCon Gladiator runs a little differently with Bill and me. I carry a hot brand because branding is much more fun and personal.

As one of the original proponents of the "melee sportsmanship device" (a la the 2nd edition carnifex, gripped firmly, and used to bash poor sports upside the head), Greg and I are having a disagreement about whether it'll be more effective to carry around hot brands, or whether simply wiring each table with a remote-operated taser would work better.

General Hobbs wrote:
I would take the word of someone who works for the company, and has the oppurtunity to email the GW studio for any major issues over someone who doesn't.

I have the emails for several members of the Games Dev studio. I've also been told flat out by people like Jervis that they've got no real intention or interest in maintaining a thorough and conclusive FAQ. It's not that they think their rules are perfect, but its that they feel players should work out differences among themselves. Which is fine for friendly games, but in a tournament situation, even one where there's nothing on the line but pride and bragging rights, its far better to figure out answers to those problems ahead of time.

dancingcricket wrote:And hey, there's the purpose of the FAQ, letting people know that the rules say you play this way, not the way you've been playing, or interpreting the rules.

Actually, that's not the purpose of the FAQ. the purpose of the FAQ is to let people know how the game will be played. As Yakface wrote in the introduction to the FAQ:

INAT FAQ wrote:The purpose of this FAQ is to give players advance knowledge of how tournament judges will be ruling the myriad of tricky situations that arise in games of 40k at the event they are planning to attend.
The answers in this FAQ are based on the rules as written (RAW) when possible (in fact, much more so than last year’s FAQ*). However, in situations where the rules are unclear or, in the opinion of the FAQ council, the RAW dictated a solution that was absurd, unfun or went against the style of play of the vast majority of players, we didn’t hesitate to rule against the printed word with the ultimate goal being a smooth and coherent gaming experience.

Trekari wrote:Well, that rule needs to be revisited because Destroyed - Wrecked behaves differently than Destroyed - Explodes.

RAW already makes an exception for not being allowed to embark and disembark in the same turn, so really there is no strong argument for ruling that they are destroyed or not destroyed.

Unless you want "Wrecked" to behave differently than "Explodes" in which case, the answer still needs clarification.

BRB pg. 67.

There's your problem. The rule in question is on pg70 of the BRB. It clearly states that passengers may not disembark if a fast vehicle has gone "flat out" in that movement phase.

Regardless, in either case (Wrecked or Explodes!) the passengers are forced to disembark when the vehicle receives a Destroyed result. If the vehicle moved flat out, they cannot do so, and are counted as destroyed. I fail to see where this is an issue. You do realize that this can only happen during the vehicle controller's turn, right?

If you're gonna ram someone with a Wave Serpent full of Dire Avengers, be prepared to pay the price.

Boss Ardnutz wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:How about this.... no. This is the way it will be played. I don't feel it necessary for anyone to have a long debate, with citations, about this or much of anything else for that matter. If you don't like it, then don't come to Chicago and play. Lord knows there are enough know-it-alls that will be at this tournament and we could always do without one more. Ahhh it was such a nicer event weekend when the numbers were under 100........

Good stance. If I lived in the US I'd be happy to go to a tournament run with this attitude.

Give Darth a break...he just wants to keep the competition down so he can win another Gladiator against a smaller field.

as to the argument about a vehicle moving flat out and being destroyed

one thing i noticed is that on a damage result of a 6 it never says that passengers disembark just that the vehicle is removed and the dudes are placed where the vehicle was. so there's something more to argue about

GW Ork FAQ wrote:Q. If a Trukk suffers a Kareen! result, what happens if the random movement forces it into friendly models or off the table?
A. The vehicle stops as soon as it comes into contact with friendly models or the table's edge.

So we have a ruling from GW that shows us that movements which are described as stopping short of models or impassable terrain should be halted rather than go off the table.

INAT FAQ v2.0 wrote:RB.11E.01 – Q: Can involuntary/random movement
force models off of the table?
A: Unless specified in the rule itself, if random/involuntary
movement would take any part of a model off the table, it
stops moving at the edge of the table instead [clarification].

Here we have an INAT FAQ answer which is consistent with the interpretation taken by GW in the Ork FAQ.

INAT FAQ v2.0 wrote:SM.69C.01 – If a Space Marine Drop Pod’s scatter
would take it off the table is the scatter reduced as
if it were landing in impassable terrain?
A: No, in this case the Drop Pod suffers a Deep Strike
mishap. Make one roll for both the Pod and the embarked
unit on the mishap table [RAW].
Ref: BT.22B.01, BA.06O.01, DA.35B.01

But here we have an INAT FAQ answer which is not consistent with the interpretation taken by GW in the Ork FAQ, nor with the interpretation taken in the INAT FAQ RB.11E.01.

t seems to me that the same ruling should be applied consistently to all forms of involuntary movement that have a safety feature (such as drop pod scatter). For example, BT.22B.01 says that BT drop pods that scatter off-table roll on the mishap table but it seems fairer and more consistent that they would simply stop at the table edge, per RB.11E.01. All the drop pods basically seem to be worded the same way, which rules out mishaps for landing on models or impassable terrain - which is the same wording as the Trukk Ramshackle. Since we have an indication in the Ork FAQ of how GW intended this wording to be read, it would be consistent and fair to apply this reading to drop pods.

crashwell wrote:

Trekari wrote:Well, that rule needs to be revisited because Destroyed - Wrecked behaves differently than Destroyed - Explodes.

RAW already makes an exception for not being allowed to embark and disembark in the same turn, so really there is no strong argument for ruling that they are destroyed or not destroyed.

Unless you want "Wrecked" to behave differently than "Explodes" in which case, the answer still needs clarification.

BRB pg. 67.

There's your problem. The rule in question is on pg70 of the BRB. It clearly states that passengers may not disembark if a fast vehicle has gone "flat out" in that movement phase.

Regardless, in either case (Wrecked or Explodes!) the passengers are forced to disembark when the vehicle receives a Destroyed result. If the vehicle moved flat out, they cannot do so, and are counted as destroyed. I fail to see where this is an issue. You do realize that this can only happen during the vehicle controller's turn, right?

If you're gonna ram someone with a Wave Serpent full of Dire Avengers, be prepared to pay the price.

By all means, please demonstrate in the rules on pg. 67 where it states passengers Disembark from a transport that suffers a Destroyed - Explodes result. What you will find is that the vehicle blows up around them, and they are placed where the vehicle was.

As I mentioned in my first quote, unless you want "Wrecked" to behave differently than "Explodes," the answer needs clarification. RAW already provide a mechanism for bypassing the "may not embark and disembark in the same turn" clause, so I believe there are a few choices to be made:

1) Wrecked = death, Explodes = placed where vehicle was.
2) Wrecked and Explodes both = death, no RAW to support this extension
3) Wrecked and Explodes both = normal results, RAW precedent supports this as a plausible exception

There's my problem.

My issue with the Trukk ruling is that it leads to very easy exploitation of what SHOULD be a risk/reward situation. You will, by the current ruling, be providing a situation where Ork players pray for a 3-4 to be rolled because nothing bad can possibly happen provided the position their Trukks along the table edge with a few models positioned behind and to the side.

At that point, the only direction the Trukk can go is forward, without ANY risk of veering off the table.

Everything else that scatters can do so off the table. Except, evidently, the technologically advanced Ork Trukks.

Trekari wrote:My issue with the Trukk ruling is that it leads to very easy exploitation of what SHOULD be a risk/reward situation. You will, by the current ruling, be providing a situation where Ork players pray for a 3-4 to be rolled because nothing bad can possibly happen provided the position their Trukks along the table edge with a few models positioned behind and to the side.

At that point, the only direction the Trukk can go is forward, without ANY risk of veering off the table.

+1 for the "We want Orks to win" category, along with the bogus "special rules aren't special rules if granted by wargear" ruling.

OK I'm going to take this on. If you will admit that the faq writers overruling a GW FAQ for game balance issues is a huge can of worms that will likely confuse and enrage more people than the alternate view, then I will entertain the idea that you might be right on the merits.

Now I disagree with this as well. I think that the fewer "lose your whole unit at once based on bad luck when they easily could have survived given a different result on one die roll" events that happen in the game the better. I love the addition of the deepstrike mishap table for this reason. It balances the risk/reward better, and allows the use of the whole table. Your way would require a more cautious, hug the middle approach, that I think is less fun. Also, I consider the board edges to be somewhat arbitrary in a wargame. All in all, I am in favor of this spirit for each and every interaction with the board edge that is not covered by another rule (ie fallback). So this goes for infernus shells, the blood angel rhino ruling, and probably more. You should have to kill units, not involuntarily push them back behind an arbitrary barrier.

Now that I have argued with you, in a thread that's about issues, not arguing, will you admit that overruling the GW FAQs for game balance is well beyond the scope of what the FAQ writers are trying to do?

Trekari wrote:

crashwell wrote:

Trekari wrote:Well, that rule needs to be revisited because Destroyed - Wrecked behaves differently than Destroyed - Explodes.

RAW already makes an exception for not being allowed to embark and disembark in the same turn, so really there is no strong argument for ruling that they are destroyed or not destroyed.

Unless you want "Wrecked" to behave differently than "Explodes" in which case, the answer still needs clarification.

BRB pg. 67.

There's your problem. The rule in question is on pg70 of the BRB. It clearly states that passengers may not disembark if a fast vehicle has gone "flat out" in that movement phase.

Regardless, in either case (Wrecked or Explodes!) the passengers are forced to disembark when the vehicle receives a Destroyed result. If the vehicle moved flat out, they cannot do so, and are counted as destroyed. I fail to see where this is an issue. You do realize that this can only happen during the vehicle controller's turn, right?

If you're gonna ram someone with a Wave Serpent full of Dire Avengers, be prepared to pay the price.

By all means, please demonstrate in the rules on pg. 67 where it states passengers Disembark from a transport that suffers a Destroyed - Explodes result. What you will find is that the vehicle blows up around them, and they are placed where the vehicle was.

As I mentioned in my first quote, unless you want "Wrecked" to behave differently than "Explodes," the answer needs clarification. RAW already provide a mechanism for bypassing the "may not embark and disembark in the same turn" clause, so I believe there are a few choices to be made:

1) Wrecked = death, Explodes = placed where vehicle was.
2) Wrecked and Explodes both = death, no RAW to support this extension
3) Wrecked and Explodes both = normal results, RAW precedent supports this as a plausible exception

There's my problem.

And I brought this up on the first page of this thread. It will be revisited, im sure.

Trekari wrote:My issue with the Trukk ruling is that it leads to very easy exploitation of what SHOULD be a risk/reward situation. You will, by the current ruling, be providing a situation where Ork players pray for a 3-4 to be rolled because nothing bad can possibly happen provided the position their Trukks along the table edge with a few models positioned behind and to the side.

At that point, the only direction the Trukk can go is forward, without ANY risk of veering off the table.

Everything else that scatters can do so off the table. Except, evidently, the technologically advanced Ork Trukks.

Well GW ruled this is the case on this issue, so Id take up your problems with the people who wrote the GW FAQ rather then what has been ruled here. If anything, things that can scatter off the table, most commonly things that are using the Deep Strike rules (if there is any other way, please inform me), already have a system built in to the rules reguarding how to resolve this issue. The Orc system did not, and so GW through their own FAQ took care of the situation.

I respect your opinion, though I still disagree.

As for the GW FAQ issue, their own defined scope involves much more than just clarifying a few questions. They've also mentioned that they don't really care what the rulesmonkeys/GW has to say about a particular topic.

On a side note, "my way" would require the Ork player to actually think, rather than just shove Trukks up the side of the board.

Marius -

I listed it as an issue that hadn't been added to the main "we'll look at these issues" post yet.

It was responded to, comments were made about it, and I was discussing those comments and explaining why it needed to be looked at. As I initially brought it up on pg. 1, I was defending my position and reason for mentioning it.

Centurian99 wrote:

Boss Ardnutz wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:How about this.... no. This is the way it will be played. I don't feel it necessary for anyone to have a long debate, with citations, about this or much of anything else for that matter. If you don't like it, then don't come to Chicago and play. Lord knows there are enough know-it-alls that will be at this tournament and we could always do without one more. Ahhh it was such a nicer event weekend when the numbers were under 100........

Good stance. If I lived in the US I'd be happy to go to a tournament run with this attitude.

Give Darth a break...he just wants to keep the competition down so he can win another Gladiator against a smaller field.

I wasn't having a go - I meant what I said.

Trekari wrote:I respect your opinion, though I still disagree.

As for the GW FAQ issue, their own defined scope involves much more than just clarifying a few questions. They've also mentioned that they don't really care what the rulesmonkeys/GW has to say about a particular topic.

On a side note, "my way" would require the Ork player to actually think, rather than just shove Trukks up the side of the board.

We never said that what had been written in an GW FAQ was something that wasnt cared about. I would be careful not miss interpret what C99 said in reguards to Mr. Spencer and other "Rulezboyz" as a blanket statemet that also covered Online GW Publications.

For your side note this can in its own way relate to the moving "Flat Out" and the transporting units question above. Just shoving models forward with no ability to accidentally kill the unit inside should your vehicle be destroyed is just that. No thinking required. By making this ruling cover both forms of destruction, its making the player think how best to use their resources at hand a little more then having no risk, or merly a 1 in 6 risk of something bad happening. Not that this was the thought process behind said ruling, but based on what you said about Orks and how "your way" would be, I think it applies just fine from my point of view on how you like things.

Trekari wrote:Marius -

I listed it as an issue that hadn't been added to the main "we'll look at these issues" post yet.

It was responded to, comments were made about it, and I was discussing those comments and explaining why it needed to be looked at. As I initially brought it up on pg. 1, I was defending my position and reason for mentioning it.

I did not see it wasnt listed, though I am sure it will be brought up again

Boss Ardnutz wrote:
t seems to me that the same ruling should be applied consistently to all forms of involuntary movement that have a safety feature (such as drop pod scatter). For example, BT.22B.01 says that BT drop pods that scatter off-table roll on the mishap table but it seems fairer and more consistent that they would simply stop at the table edge, per RB.11E.01. All the drop pods basically seem to be worded the same way, which rules out mishaps for landing on models or impassable terrain - which is the same wording as the Trukk Ramshackle. Since we have an indication in the Ork FAQ of how GW intended this wording to be read, it would be consistent and fair to apply this reading to drop pods.

The difference is that Drop Pods are deployed using the Deep Strike rules (modified to avoid impassable terrain and enemy models). The Deep Strike rules have a specific provision that allows for scattering off the table.

A clear case of the specific overruling the general.

Tortuga932 wrote:as to the argument about a vehicle moving flat out and being destroyed

one thing i noticed is that on a damage result of a 6 it never says that passengers disembark just that the vehicle is removed and the dudes are placed where the vehicle was. so there's something more to argue about

Now that is an interesting point. My gut feeling would be that it would be hard to argue that the models aren't disembarking, but I can see a sustainable argument in that position.

Disembarking to me, means exiting the vehicle through designated access points.

However, when your vehicle simply explodes around you, you don't have to be very careful about opening the hatch first, seeing as how the hull has been blown to pieces.

Janthkin wrote:

Zubb wrote:More Qs from Ru community:
General. Can a psyker who is able to use "two(or more) psychic powers per turn" use the same one twice?

Given that there aren't that many psykers out there who can use multiple powers in the same phase, this is probably better handled on the "specific" level, rather than the "general." (Eldar Farseers, for example, are specifically prohibited from using the same power twice, except for all of Eldrad's clones.) Did you have a particular one in mind?

Tzeench Sorcerers
Space Marine Librarians
at least (thats all i can recall its 5 hours into the night here)

Trekari wrote:Disembarking to me, means exiting the vehicle through designated access points.

However, when your vehicle simply explodes around you, you don't have to be very careful about opening the hatch first, seeing as how the hull has been blown to pieces.

The addition of Forced Disembarkation into the rules modify this thought however. Before, access points were strictly the only places you could get out reguardless of why as long as it was not open topped. In 5th this has now changed, under certian circumstances. Its a game mechanic, rather then a logical "real world" thought process. When looking over the rules, one must do the best to stick with the presented game mechanics, as using "real world" logic can go in circles all to often especially when Fluff gets thrown in.

It can be difficult enough to hammer problems out based on rules and precidents alone. Throwing in Fluff and "real world" logic just muddies the water way to much. As Fluff and said logic often cant even exsist simutaniously.

Spelling error:
RB.48A.02 – Q: Can an Independent Character end its
move within 2” of a unit it cannot joint (like a
vehicle)?

they are saying the unit can't smoke up moz

Also, why is it that Daemonhunters can't get into transports purchased for another unit? When GW was hollering the benefits of 5th edition they had a flyer with 3 things every army gained in 5th edition. Grey Knights getting into storm troopers transports was one of them.

Essentially, because the Daemonhunter codex specifically says so. Yes, I realize that it contradicts what we said above, but its one of the reasons why the first one is under review.

There lies a problem with the writing of a 10 year old codex. Those rules were copy and pasted from the 3rd edition rulebook. It's pretty clear that GW wants that changed, and the only reason Daemonhunters CUSTOMERS are suffering, is because GW doesn't feel they need to support the army any more. It just feels like common sense is being defeated by lazy GW writers. Can't we overcome that for major tournaments?

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that makes me hold off buying tickets.

Miggidy Mack wrote:

Also, why is it that Daemonhunters can't get into transports purchased for another unit? When GW was hollering the benefits of 5th edition they had a flyer with 3 things every army gained in 5th edition. Grey Knights getting into storm troopers transports was one of them.

Essentially, because the Daemonhunter codex specifically says so. Yes, I realize that it contradicts what we said above, but its one of the reasons why the first one is under review.

There lies a problem with the writing of a 10 year old codex. Those rules were copy and pasted from the 3rd edition rulebook. It's pretty clear that GW wants that changed, and the only reason Daemonhunters CUSTOMERS are suffering, is because GW doesn't feel they need to support the army any more. It just feels like common sense is being defeated by lazy GW writers. Can't we overcome that for major tournaments?

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that makes me hold off buying tickets.

In all fairness, when a person (or group) starts re-wrighting things because of what they feel GW is going to these days, where does that interpretation stop.

Just with Deamonhunters and transports?

As soon as you open the door to such major Codex revisions, good intentions or not, then people come clamouring for the rest. If Deamonhunters were given this, then one will argue that DA, BA and BT (and Chaos Marines for the last example) all deserve the new Storm Shields and Landraider transport capacities.

The above are just examples. Sure some rules get changed, but actual "Rules Change" and "GW FAQ Overrule" are rare in the FAQ presented here.

With Deamonhunters in mind, what counts as a "Deamon" was revised in this FAQ. I believe this to have been a signicant change made in order to give Deamonhunters players some teeth back into their army against the foe they were designed to fight. But now that door was opened, my example of clamouring for more has become evident. Now the ability to transport differant units is being asked for. Its a slippery slope and a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Is the army at all unplayable with this ruling? Not one bit! How playable is the army before the revision of whats a "Deamon"? Not very much. That seems to me to be the line thatw as drawn when ti came to dealing with a massivly outdated Codex.

Marius Xerxes wrote:

Miggidy Mack wrote:

Also, why is it that Daemonhunters can't get into transports purchased for another unit? When GW was hollering the benefits of 5th edition they had a flyer with 3 things every army gained in 5th edition. Grey Knights getting into storm troopers transports was one of them.

Essentially, because the Daemonhunter codex specifically says so. Yes, I realize that it contradicts what we said above, but its one of the reasons why the first one is under review.

There lies a problem with the writing of a 10 year old codex. Those rules were copy and pasted from the 3rd edition rulebook. It's pretty clear that GW wants that changed, and the only reason Daemonhunters CUSTOMERS are suffering, is because GW doesn't feel they need to support the army any more. It just feels like common sense is being defeated by lazy GW writers. Can't we overcome that for major tournaments?

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that makes me hold off buying tickets.

In all fairness, when a person (or group) starts re-wrighting things because of what they feel GW is going to these days, where does that interpretation stop.

Just with Deamonhunters and transports?

As soon as you open the door to such major Codex revisions, good intentions or not, then people come clamouring for the rest. If Deamonhunters were given this, then one will argue that DA, BA and BT (and Chaos Marines for the last example) all deserve the new Storm Shields and Landraider transport capacities.

My IG would like to be able to share their transports with others. Alas, they cannot, as their codex specifies that no other unit may use a dedicated transport.

ORK.35.01 - there is an argument that the Bzzap result should not scatter. The other results either say "resolve the shot" or "any model hit by the template" which indicate scatter. The Bzzap result says "only the model under the hole is hit" which suggests that this replaces the scatter.

speaking of scatter on the SAG, I asked Phil Kelly at Baltimore GDs about that and he said that on the mishap table, the SAG never scatters. His reasoning was that once you roll a mishap you stop the normal progression of the shot and only do what the specific result on the mishap table tells you to do.

He agreed that it could have been written more clearly...

so there's your RAI from the writer of the codex. Don't have to believe me of course.

Burdo,

That reminds me ... Last year with the INAT FAQ one of our more controversial rulings revolved around our interpretation of the Lash of Submission.

Phil Kelly was at AdeptiCon. I will start off saying that both Phil and Graham outstanding special guests. Both of them fantastic with our attendees and staff. We ask a number of things of our special guests depending on their role with in GW. Guest judging, playing some games, holding a seminar, etc… and both Phil and Graham handled it all with class.

Phil happened to be on the floor and got called into a Lash of Submission question. He made the call and then proceeded to come over to the main 40K judging table and told us how he called it. Explained his reasoning and was pretty firm about this position. But also was concerned that he was on the same page as the rest of the AdeptiCon rule judges. His call much to my amusement was exactly the way we had called it. So all was good. All the heat, debate, and long hours of discussion on the council to then to be vindicated by one of GW’s lead designers well frankly it felt pretty good.

Sometime after Adepticon, GW updated the Chaos FAQ/Errata and the ruling / position of Lash was completely different . So it was good while it lasted.

I have thought long about that experience. What if Phil Kelly had written the Chaos FAQ instead? Would the GW “Official” word on Lash be different? I think we as fans and players tend to think of the GW Studio as some oracle on high .. that hands down 40K rulings with the certainty of the ten commandments, everything in lock step agreement. When the reality is there is probably as much disagreement and play differences among the studio as there is within the GW community. With 5th edition we are still dealing with books written and influenced by people now long gone from the company ( Andy Chambers, Pete Haines, Gav Thorpe, ) … new faces are in the studio and working on books. All putting their mark on the games we play. But there has not been a consistent language/terminology/guidance across all the works. Jervis’s vision of 40K is greatly different that Andy’s. It has been made clear to me they are not interested in writing rules to support a tourney environment. It is the hand we have been dealt. This FAQ attempts to bridge the gap to make the game playable and enjoyable under events like AdeptiCon.

What I will say is the one thing that has stayed consistent is those of us that continue to play the games. GW as far as companies go is a young company whose focus especially in the early years target market wise was teenage boys. A fact remains that I am not sure GW has full grasped yet is 20 years later those of us in the original target market have well …grown up, hold jobs, got married, have kids, and yes still play this game as well as others. As Jervis has discovered … things have come full circle as some of us begin the process of getting our own children into the game as well .. which is a new challenge.

I will close this very long and maybe off topic post ... by saying a bit of thanks ... The commitment that Jon "Yakface" Regal has to this document and to the community is frankly amazing. The core of the council certainly dedicated some long hours to this document but it was Jon that collected the questions, referenced, footnoted, crafted responses, and frankly did all the dirty editiing work to make this document happen and make the time that the rest of us had to invest minimal. The amount of hours invested mind blowing once again this year. So publicly much thanks Jon, once again a pleasure working with you on this document and your work on this makes events like AdeptiCon a better experience.