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 ordered one of the meal tickets, should make the GT a bit easier to manage, what with me not wandering around looking for food.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Ok, I admit to confusion. It's regarding the Gladiator and allies/force org stuff.

Here are the two parts of the rules packet I'm confused about:

"Armies will consist of a base list of 2500 points or less using a standard Force Organization Chart with an optional secondary Force Organization Chart and additional Primary Detachment rules (Warhammer 40,000 rulebook, pg. 109).
o 1 Fortification per standard Force Organization Chart
o 1 Allied Detachment per standard Force Organization Chart (See Super Heavy or Gargantuan Creature Rules Below)

and

Only one Super Heavy or Gargantuan Creature may be taken per army. That unit MUST be of the same codex as the Primary Detachment and is allocated as the entire second optional standard Force Organizational Chart."

Now does that mean if I took say CSM and a Warhound Titan. Would I still be able to take two allied detachments or just one?

You give up the entire second option. So no you do not get the 2nd allied detachment.

Sounds good. Probably should clear up the wording on the rules but I'm cool with it. Mostly didn't want to get blindsided by it

Preregistration Extended for 72 Hours!

Since several people missed the preregistration deadline last Friday, we are re-opening the web cart for 72 hours in order to give people one last chance to pick up tickets and Weekend Badges.

The cart will close permanently at 9:00AM on Thursday, April 4th. After that, the only way to get tickets will be onsite – no special exceptions will be made! This is your final chance! Don’t delay!

AdeptiCon 2013 Registration

Warhammer 40K Rules Addendum and FAQ v1.1

This document is for use at AdeptiCon 2013 and exists solely to serve as a transparent means of informing our attendees how our judges will rule in the case of certain rules disputes. Forewarned is forearmed!

It includes Games Workshop (rulebook and codex-specific), Forge World (Imperial Armour and Apocalypse) questions, new questions/clarifications and has been recently updated to include Codex: Chaos Daemons.

Questions not covered by an official FAQ document, that you wish answered for this specific event, may be submitted by using the AdeptiCon 2013 Warhammer 40K FAQ Submission Form.

AdeptiCon 2013 Warhammer 40K Rules Addendum and FAQ v1.1

 Matthias wrote:
Warhammer 40K Rules Addendum and FAQ v1.1

This document is for use at AdeptiCon 2013 and exists solely to serve as a transparent means of informing our attendees how our judges will rule in the case of certain rules disputes. Forewarned is forearmed!

It includes Games Workshop (rulebook and codex-specific), Forge World (Imperial Armour and Apocalypse) questions, new questions/clarifications and has been recently updated to include Codex: Chaos Daemons.

Questions not covered by an official FAQ document, that you wish answered for this specific event, may be submitted by using the AdeptiCon 2013 Warhammer 40K FAQ Submission Form.

AdeptiCon 2013 Warhammer 40K Rules Addendum and FAQ v1.1

What if we asked a question via that form, and it didn't get included in the FAQ? Unsure if asking again is the right call..

Target wrote:

What if we asked a question via that form, and it didn't get included in the FAQ? Unsure if asking again is the right call..

Well, not every question gets included in the FAQ simply because this FAQ is looking to be much more stringent than the INAT was in order to try to keep it as small as possible.

However, if you can remind me what the question is/was, I can give you further details as to why it wasn't included (either intentionally or unintentionally).

 yakface wrote:

Target wrote:

What if we asked a question via that form, and it didn't get included in the FAQ? Unsure if asking again is the right call..

Well, not every question gets included in the FAQ simply because this FAQ is looking to be much more stringent than the INAT was in order to try to keep it as small as possible.

However, if you can remind me what the question is/was, I can give you further details as to why it wasn't included (either intentionally or unintentionally).

Shooting you a pm, Matthias also shot me one and I responded, thanks for all the assisstance guys!

 yakface wrote:

Target wrote:

What if we asked a question via that form, and it didn't get included in the FAQ? Unsure if asking again is the right call..

Well, not every question gets included in the FAQ simply because this FAQ is looking to be much more stringent than the INAT was in order to try to keep it as small as possible.

However, if you can remind me what the question is/was, I can give you further details as to why it wasn't included (either intentionally or unintentionally).

Wait, Yakface, did you help write the adepticon FAQ?

 Happygrunt wrote:

Wait, Yakface, did you help write the adepticon FAQ?

Wow, Fiends got amazing.

When a unit makes a shooting attack at a vehicle that is completely out of the firing unit’s LoS cannot be affected by that shooting attack (unless the attack does not require LoS, of course).

What is this meant to say?

 Mannahnin wrote:
Wow, Fiends got amazing.

When a unit makes a shooting attack at a vehicle that is completely out of the firing unit’s LoS cannot be affected by that shooting attack (unless the attack does not require LoS, of course).

What is this meant to say?

That clarification is missing the word 'it', so it should be:

When a unit makes a shooting attack at a vehicle that is completely out of the firing unit’s LoS it cannot be affected by that shooting attack (unless the attack does not require LoS, of course).

So basically vehicles that are completely out of line of sight of the firing unit cannot be damaged by their shooting, unless a particular shooting attack doesn't require LOS (like a barrage weapon).

How does it make a shooting attack at a vehicle which is out of LOS, without a weapon which doesn't require LOS? Is this talking about (e.g.) placing a direct fire blast weapon so that the center is over a model in a unit you can see, but part of the blast covers a vehicle which is completely out of LOS?

 Mannahnin wrote:
How does it make a shooting attack at a vehicle which is out of LOS, without a weapon which doesn't require LOS? Is this talking about (e.g.) placing a direct fire blast weapon so that the center is over a model in a unit you can see, but part of the blast covers a vehicle which is completely out of LOS?

Yep, this clarification covers this situation, but it also covers vehicle squadrons (those vehicles in the unit which are out of LOS cannot be affected) and also strange situations like the Necron Death Ray, etc.

Basically the rules for shooting against a non-vehicle unit has kind of a 2 part restriction on LOS...you have to have overall LOS to the unit AND ALSO those models in the target unit that are completely out of LOS can't be casualties.

The vehicle rules are much, much more vague and the rules for vehicle squadrons even more so. However, the general voting consensus was that this was not some sort of secret easter egg that vehicles are supposed to be able to be hit when out of LOS more than non-vehicle units, so we just sort of clarified across the board that vehicles are treated essentially like models in non-vehicle units in that, if they are completely out of LOS from a firing unit then they aren't getting damaged by that shooting (unless the attacks ignore LOS, of course).

You guys ruled that fiends assaulting a unit that has a Initiative of 5 or less doesn't get to attack because they lower the initiative to zero?

spaguatyrine wrote:
You guys ruled that fiends assaulting a unit that has a Initiative of 5 or less doesn't get to attack because they lower the initiative to zero?

That is a really tough one. I think everybody hopes that GW comes out and issues an errata to clarify what Initiative 0 means in close combat before Adepticon because nobody was happy with the ruling, but every other alternative seems like kind of a big stretch.

The rules clearly allow characteristics to be lowered to 0, but then the CC section only specifies that there are I10-I1 steps. While the rulebook never says what happens with I0 in CC, based on what they do specify for WS0, for example, it seems to fall in line with that concept.

The other issue is that SOME abilities in the CD codex have a minimum included on them, but there are several different Initiative modifier abilities that don't say any such thing...so do we assume that GW made a mistake in ALL cases and that Initiative modifiers never can take a Initiative to below 0, despite the fact that most other characteristics can? Or do we step out on a limb and make up a rule allow for an Initiative 0 CC step, despite the fact that GW's basic tenant is that when a characteristic is reduced to 0 it means the model cannot do whatever it is the characteristic is supposed to do (in this case attack in combat)?

So yeah, we ruled that if a model gets its Initiative reduced to 0, it means they don't get to attack because they are I0 and there is no I0 step in CC.

But like I said, its a ruling nobody is really happy with and hopefully GW will issue some FAQs for April soon and shed some light on exactly what the hell they were hoping to go for with some of these rules.

However, yes, for the time being, Fiends are absolutely lethal.

yakface wrote:
However, if you can remind me what the question is/was, I can give you further details as to why it wasn't included (either intentionally or unintentionally).

Okay, I've got one...

How is it that a Bloodslaughter of Khorne and a Brass Scorpion of Khorne and a Plaguehulk of Nurgle are not considered Daemons of the relevant gods and are simply daemons? With the new Daemon codex, you can't even have unaligned daemon princes or soulgrinders anymore, yet these obviously aligned units are left hanging?

 Redbeard wrote:

yakface wrote:
However, if you can remind me what the question is/was, I can give you further details as to why it wasn't included (either intentionally or unintentionally).

Okay, I've got one...

How is it that a Bloodslaughter of Khorne and a Brass Scorpion of Khorne and a Plaguehulk of Nurgle are not considered Daemons of the relevant gods and are simply daemons? With the new Daemon codex, you can't even have unaligned daemon princes or soulgrinders anymore, yet these obviously aligned units are left hanging?

I wasn't involved in the FAQ process at all. IMHO, however, giving them "Daemon of X" is giving them extra rules that weren't paid for. The Daemons codex bundles a number of USRs into each "Daemon of X" rule, so, for example, giving "Daemon of Nurgle" to a Plaguehulk gives it Shrouding at no additional cost.

The FAQ looks to be trying to stick to RAW where it's possible, even where it is unlikely that GW will do so in any eventual FAQ (see, e.g., Fiends). Adding the "Daemons of X" rules to FW units would seem to deviate from that philosophy.

 Redbeard wrote:

Okay, I've got one...

How is it that a Bloodslaughter of Khorne and a Brass Scorpion of Khorne and a Plaguehulk of Nurgle are not considered Daemons of the relevant gods and are simply daemons? With the new Daemon codex, you can't even have unaligned daemon princes or soulgrinders anymore, yet these obviously aligned units are left hanging?

The goal here was ultimately to try to get things in a playable state for this year's Adepticon based on the rules that exist currently. Obviously FW will be updating these rules at some point to bring everything into line with the new Chaos Daemons and CSM books, but honestly we can't go completely overboard and just re-write the rules for these units because it would be kind of a pain for players to have to play half from the printed rules and half from a bunch of errata changes from the Adepticon FAQ.

Admittedly there are still a few places where that ended up being the case, but those were the units whose rules were really, really wonky.

So the dividing line really was if a unit was only available to be taken in a Daemon army, then obviously this is a Daemon unit and had to be made to roughly match how the Daemon army book works. That's why the Daemon Lords and the two Daemon Prince special characters (Uraka and Mamon) got the rules for being 'Daemons of X'...because they are undoubtably from the Daemon army and therefore need to be able to interact as such.

With the Plague Drones, Plague Hulk and Bloodslaughterers, these are all units that can be either taken in Daemon armies OR CSM armies. So there is always the question of which one of these books are they ultimately from. In the CSM book there are clearly Daemon Engines that aren't 'Daemons of X' in the form of the Defiler, Maulerfiend and Forgefiend.

So the decision was made to just go with the minimum amount of changes to make those units just work...and for the most part they do just work as written, and just incorporating the new generic 'Daemon' rule along with the standard Daemonic invulnerability to being shaken/stunned where needed.

The funny thing is, I was actually able to get a bit of a heads-up about where FW is likely to be heading with the rules for these units when they update them, and they likely will be 'Daemons of X', but they are also likely to get quite a few changes on top of that as well. So again, if we were going to go down that route of trying to change them to what FW is 'going to do' then we're talking about making major changes to the printed rules without any official basis for doing so.

So although it is not the optimal solution, when it comes to FW and the wacky way they have to update stuff after a codex hits, there are sometimes just going to be these strange little periods which just happens to fall this year during Adepticon.

AdeptiCon 2013 Dice Are In!

18mm custom-cast, white or black pearl dice that can also be used to scatter everything from ordinance blasts to cannonballs!



Not too late to place an order - the web cart is open through Thursday morning! Dice will be also be available onsite.

Silly question, but will the FW event model be available at Adepticon. The email was not particularly clear weather the model was only at the FW day or all events with FW present.

 Happygrunt wrote:
Silly question, but will the FW event model be available at Adepticon. The email was not particularly clear weather the model was only at the FW day or all events with FW present.

They were at Adepticon in previous years, but you might want to e-mail Forgeworld to check for sure.

Just got the latest update email, and watched the Greg/Brad video discussing deployment and pregame setup. Awesome to be able to get table assignments via text message. Bravo!

The video was a nice intro to the pre-game sequence and alternating deployment of terrain. It should be especially helpful to folks who haven't been practicing the new Adepticon style of terrain setup. However, though i have practiced it a bit, the video did prompt a couple of questions for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahVMcXMeGTs

1. They stated that Fortifications are allowed to be placed anywhere on your half. As opposed to the primer packet, which required them to be at least 5" from the table edges and from any other Fortification.
2. They stated that terrain pieces just need to be 4" from any table edge, Fortification, or piece of terrain, as opposed to 5".

Are those the final instructions for the Championships, Gladiator, and/or 40k Team Tournament?

Tangential note: Did I misunderstand, or Brad brain cramp, generating one rulebook power for his Space Marine Librarian and thinking he was allowed to keep his second Codex power? Or did he actually have two psykers, the first of which just had one power?

Very nice innovation with text alerts for table assignments.

How is the wifi and cell reception at the hotel?

Cell reception was actually pretty good last year, no issues I noticed.

Signed up for the alerts as I hate the crunch at the sheets.

Email/text notifications for table assignments?

Finally, the future is here!

Its both about time and a wonderful thing to see (as I know its an additional technical hurdle to get over and more work to organize as well).

However, I have no doubt it will greatly improve things overall.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The video was a nice intro to the pre-game sequence and alternating deployment of terrain. It should be especially helpful to folks who haven't been practicing the new Adepticon style of terrain setup. However, though i have practiced it a bit, the video did prompt a couple of questions for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahVMcXMeGTs

1. They stated that Fortifications are allowed to be placed anywhere on your half. As opposed to the primer packet, which required them to be at least 5" from the table edges and from any other Fortification.
2. They stated that terrain pieces just need to be 4" from any table edge, Fortification, or piece of terrain, as opposed to 5".

Are those the final instructions for the Championships, Gladiator, and/or 40k Team Tournament?

Tangential note: Did I misunderstand, or Brad brain cramp, generating one rulebook power for his Space Marine Librarian and thinking he was allowed to keep his second Codex power? Or did he actually have two psykers, the first of which just had one power?

Wow. I almost don't need to go now - I've gotten my quota of Brad/Sparky banter for the year.

It is FANTASTIC to have email or text message options for table assignments.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The video was a nice intro to the pre-game sequence and alternating deployment of terrain. It should be especially helpful to folks who haven't been practicing the new Adepticon style of terrain setup. However, though i have practiced it a bit, the video did prompt a couple of questions for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahVMcXMeGTs

1. They stated that Fortifications are allowed to be placed anywhere on your half. As opposed to the primer packet, which required them to be at least 5" from the table edges and from any other Fortification.
2. They stated that terrain pieces just need to be 4" from any table edge, Fortification, or piece of terrain, as opposed to 5".

Are those the final instructions for the Championships, Gladiator, and/or 40k Team Tournament?

Take a look at any of the rules documents or Primer packets again (make sure to refresh in case you have a cached copy). The Orders Sheet has been updated. After several terrain placement tests, we decided to reduce the distance between terrain elements to 4" in order to give people a little more wiggle room. Along the same lines, and to bring things in line with the rulebook, we also removed the restriction on fortifications and the board edge.

I'll send out an addendum to yesterday's e-mail just so everyone is aware.

Hmmm it will be interesting to see how the terrain placement goes. I can see some people taking forever setting it up actually. I can also see that if player one in the video had forced each piece to max forward position then there would have been know way to place the final pice while adhereing to the 4 inch rule where his aegis was unless they "settle" where it can be placed. I am sure in most cases it will be a none issue but I will be interested in hearing the few cases where a beardy guy with a shooty army makes him place the final piece behind that aegis causing severe congestion lol

The text alerts is an awesome feature, I definitely hope it works well and that more tournaments start using this.

Working on my team army down to the wire.. but can't wait for next week.