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.

Hey guys. I know that the Inferno Shell has caused some controversy on the forum and since I use a Griffon with that shell in my games, I'd thought I ask the IA rules writer himself. Here is the response to the email I sent him. I received this this morning. Here it is:

Hi
Apologies for the later response, but due to other commitments I have been unable to answer the IA inbox for some time.
This is classic unstoppable force meets immoveable object problem. In this case I'd refer to the main rulebook, and as Fearless is into the main 40K rulebook, and Griffon inferno shells aren't, then the Fearless rule stands. Fearless troops will not fall back from inferno shells. They're too mad to run off!
Hope that helps
Warwick Kinrade
Imperial Armour Editor

Thanks, CaptK!

Give it a week and then ask him the same question again

why would he change his mind? It seems like he took the time to look into it rather than making a snap decision.

Capt K

Imperial Armor Editors, like the Chaos Gods, are fickle beings that can only be pleased by the blood of the fallen.

either way he gave a straight answer. Not like some of the cryptic weirdness I have seen in some FAQ's

Capt K

Warwick's actually pretty squared away. When warwick answers something, you pretty much know its good to go, since he wrote the dang rules.

He's not just some redshirt stocking shelves.

And that's how I've played it, anyways.

the_trooper wrote:
Imperial Armor Editors, like the Chaos Gods, are fickle beings that can only be pleased by the blood of the fallen.

Warwick is the only IA editor (when it comes to IA rules). Have you had some experience with him randomly chaging his mind?

I sure haven't. The best thing about emailing Warwick is that since you're only dealing with one person, you can expect him to give a consistent ruling to a situation right or wrong. That and since you're dealing with the guy who actually writes all the IA rules, he doesn't have problems owning up about problems with his rules.

Agreed. Well I guess that everyone can put this little rules debate to rest finally.

Capt K

Agreed, Infurno shells do not cause fearless units to make a fall back move.

For the record never dealt with IA developers just GW ones. I think I got three answers for the danged direct fire ord question, my favorite one was:

Question: My Russ targeted a space marine squad in the open, the shot deviated 6 inches and landed square on his command squad that was hiding behind a building out of line of sight. Even though I wounded them all, my opponent refused to remove any models as he claimed "you can only remove casualties from line of sight. Was he correct?

Answer: He was incorrect, the command squad was destroyed, however remember that a unit must be in range and line of sight to take casualties.

(my only response was WTF?)

Posted By yakface 08/07/2006 8:38 PM

the_trooper wrote:
Imperial Armor Editors, like the Chaos Gods, are fickle beings that can only be pleased by the blood of the fallen.

Warwick is the only IA editor (when it comes to IA rules). Have you had some experience with him randomly chaging his mind?

I sure haven't. The best thing about emailing Warwick is that since you're only dealing with one person, you can expect him to give a consistent ruling to a situation right or wrong. That and since you're dealing with the guy who actually writes all the IA rules, he doesn't have problems owning up about problems with his rules.

I was just joking.