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.

Warhammer 40K FAQ and Championship Updates

Happy New Year! Hot off the presses, the AdeptiCon 2016 Warhammer 40,000 Rules Addendum and FAQ is now ready for your reading enjoyment.

In case you missed it, we also made some tweaks to the Warhammer 40K Approved Imperial Armour Units list , the Warhammer 40K Championship rules and the Warhammer 40K Championship Primers over the holiday break.

 1PlusLogan wrote:
Basically what I'm finding in various playtesting as well. If you aren't spamming obsec (read as: huge amounts of Jetbikes and/or Battle Company) you don't really have a hope of scoring the objectives.

I've found the exact opposite.

1 unit of say nurglings hidden in a building denies the entire zone to any number of tac squads, rhinos or jet bike units.

The theory based sentiment here that the zone sizes favor ob sec armies is not what I'm finding.

ANY form of progressive objective favors ob sec, whether it's NOVA, ITC, or ATC missions. The large zones actually reign it in a bit because 1 ob sec unit well placed and well protected can hold up an entirely ob sec army.

***Nevermind, it got added already***

My looking at this new faq update, with the changes to how the clarify characters, does that remove any doubt then on Sky Hammer allowing characters to charge turn 1?

Thanks very much for the updates!

Matthias wrote:Warhammer 40K FAQ and Championship Updates

Happy New Year! Hot off the presses, the AdeptiCon 2016 Warhammer 40,000 Rules Addendum and FAQ is now ready for your reading enjoyment.

In case you missed it, we also made some tweaks to the Warhammer 40K Approved Imperial Armour Units list , the Warhammer 40K Championship rules and the Warhammer 40K Championship Primers over the holiday break.

I did miss, thanks for the post! I'll take a look today.

At first glance, glad to see that Knight armies are allowed again. While I dislike playing against them, the removal seemed... unnecessary.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

 1PlusLogan wrote:
Basically what I'm finding in various playtesting as well. If you aren't spamming obsec (read as: huge amounts of Jetbikes and/or Battle Company) you don't really have a hope of scoring the objectives.

I've found the exact opposite.

1 unit of say nurglings hidden in a building denies the entire zone to any number of tac squads, rhinos or jet bike units.

The theory based sentiment here that the zone sizes favor ob sec armies is not what I'm finding.

ANY form of progressive objective favors ob sec, whether it's NOVA, ITC, or ATC missions. The large zones actually reign it in a bit because 1 ob sec unit well placed and well protected can hold up an entirely ob sec army.

Well first, an army full of ObSec can and will clear out a few Troops before the end of the game, so that's kind of a bad example.

The other thing is, and the point people were trying to make, is that any army without ObSec can't even hope to score a single progressive point in that mission unless they go against another like them. That's not just Decurion - KDK, Eldar, AdMech, and Tau all have entire armies that are without ObSec, and will struggle to win either of the first two missions unless they're able to deal major damage extremely quickly.

The difference between this type and NOVA/ITC/ATC is the extremely limited zones. 1 in the first mission, 2 in the second. When there's multiple across the board - you can place them, you can kill off of them, you can bodyblock them. However, with one giant zone in the dead center of the board, you can do none of those things. Oh sure, maybe you can take out all of the Troops of a regular CAD that's not Battle Company, but generally not before they score enough points and then you're still generally not getting any of your own. In other mission types, you can spread around, defend certain points, etc. In these, your opponent basically just needs ObSec nearly anywhere on the board to outscore you without really trying.

This isn't a "I don't like it so change it" whine. I'll probably just end up bringing a different list and playing with that, I have a Necron CAD and a Chaos CSM/Daemon list that I can bring (in fact, I've been working on a Summoning list lately and have been pretty excited about it). This is a bit of "this is pretty poorly designed and invalidates a lot of very popular lists" feedback, which I think is important for any organization that's providing a service to lots of people.

A mission favoring certain list types is fine, no matter how impartial you are some armies will always do better than others at scoring certain types of points. If it was all Kill Point missions with nothing else, Decurion would be among one of the more broken lists out there! But, the missions making it completely pointless to take certain lists doesn't seem ok in my book. Just an opinion.

Requizen wrote:

Well first, an army full of ObSec can and will clear out a few Troops before the end of the game, so that's kind of a bad example.

Not in my experience. The zones are so big, and with player placed terrain it's very easy to put a LOS blocker in but on the edge of the zone. Then you have to go over there, through the other guy's army, and root out the single OS unit.

Requizen wrote:

The other thing is, and the point people were trying to make, is that any army without ObSec can't even hope to score a single progressive point in that mission unless they go against another like them. That's not just Decurion - KDK, Eldar, AdMech, and Tau all have entire armies that are without ObSec, and will struggle to win either of the first two missions unless they're able to deal major damage extremely quickly.

That's more of a problem with progressive objectives. You're almost equally unlikely to score any progressive points vs battle company in NOVA and ATC missions. Perhaps having only 1 or 2 progressive objectives as opposed to 6 exacerbates the problem slightly. But again, having the big zones makes it easier to draw out the objective, so I kind of see these as a wash.

Requizen wrote:

The difference between this type and NOVA/ITC/ATC is the extremely limited zones. 1 in the first mission, 2 in the second. When there's multiple across the board - you can place them, you can kill off of them, you can bodyblock them. However, with one giant zone in the dead center of the board, you can do none of those things. Oh sure, maybe you can take out all of the Troops of a regular CAD that's not Battle Company, but generally not before they score enough points and then you're still generally not getting any of your own. In other mission types, you can spread around, defend certain points, etc. In these, your opponent basically just needs ObSec nearly anywhere on the board to outscore you without really trying.

Again, because of the zone size (and the player placed terrain) it's extremely easy to draw out the zones with only a few OS units.

Requizen wrote:

This isn't a "I don't like it so change it" whine. I'll probably just end up bringing a different list and playing with that, I have a Necron CAD and a Chaos CSM/Daemon list that I can bring (in fact, I've been working on a Summoning list lately and have been pretty excited about it). This is a bit of "this is pretty poorly designed and invalidates a lot of very popular lists" feedback, which I think is important for any organization that's providing a service to lots of people.

A mission favoring certain list types is fine, no matter how impartial you are some armies will always do better than others at scoring certain types of points. If it was all Kill Point missions with nothing else, Decurion would be among one of the more broken lists out there! But, the missions making it completely pointless to take certain lists doesn't seem ok in my book. Just an opinion.

I agree you need a list with at least some OS to compete. But I feel the exact same way about NOVA and ATC (and to a lesser extent the ITC because their maelstrom isn't the same a progressive objectives).

Overall I think your point that 1 - 2 progressive objectives favors all OS armies is partially correct. It makes it impossible for the guy with only a few OS units to score any points from the progressive objectives. But I don't see how that's actually all that different than when there are 6 objectives on the board. The guy with only a few OS units gets 1-2, but the OS spam army gets 3-4. It's still impossible for the guy with only a few OS units to net more points than the OS spammer.

And your critiques that the zone size favors the all OS armies I vehemently disagree with. Many guys in my play group had the same gut reaction and after MANY games they have all changed their minds.

Looking through the FAQ it states the Castigator's Tempest attack does not stack with it's Deflagrate rule.

However every place that I have seen has shown FW e-mails saying that they do indeed stack with each other.

Chris, Hank is this a rules change on your parts or were you unaware FW has ruled the Tempest attack and Deflagrate do stack.

I do remember Hank coming to me in early Gladiators showing me his latest FW e-mail in order to change the FAQ's.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Requizen wrote:

The other thing is, and the point people were trying to make, is that any army without ObSec can't even hope to score a single progressive point in that mission unless they go against another like them. That's not just Decurion - KDK, Eldar, AdMech, and Tau all have entire armies that are without ObSec, and will struggle to win either of the first two missions unless they're able to deal major damage extremely quickly.

That's more of a problem with progressive objectives. You're almost equally unlikely to score any progressive points vs battle company in NOVA and ATC missions. Perhaps having only 1 or 2 progressive objectives as opposed to 6 exacerbates the problem slightly. But again, having the big zones makes it easier to draw out the objective, so I kind of see these as a wash.

Requizen wrote:

This isn't a "I don't like it so change it" whine. I'll probably just end up bringing a different list and playing with that, I have a Necron CAD and a Chaos CSM/Daemon list that I can bring (in fact, I've been working on a Summoning list lately and have been pretty excited about it). This is a bit of "this is pretty poorly designed and invalidates a lot of very popular lists" feedback, which I think is important for any organization that's providing a service to lots of people.

A mission favoring certain list types is fine, no matter how impartial you are some armies will always do better than others at scoring certain types of points. If it was all Kill Point missions with nothing else, Decurion would be among one of the more broken lists out there! But, the missions making it completely pointless to take certain lists doesn't seem ok in my book. Just an opinion.

I agree you need a list with at least some OS to compete. But I feel the exact same way about NOVA and ATC (and to a lesser extent the ITC because their maelstrom isn't the same a progressive objectives).

Overall I think your point that 1 - 2 progressive objectives favors all OS armies is partially correct. It makes it impossible for the guy with only a few OS units to score any points from the progressive objectives. But I don't see how that's actually all that different than when there are 6 objectives on the board. The guy with only a few OS units gets 1-2, but the OS spam army gets 3-4. It's still impossible for the guy with only a few OS units to net more points than the OS spammer.

And your critiques that the zone size favors the all OS armies I vehemently disagree with. Many guys in my play group had the same gut reaction and after MANY games they have all changed their minds.

Agree to disagree, I guess we'll see how things work out!

I personally think the missions are a bit limiting for list building, but if that's the way it's going to be for this year, it won't deter me from going. I'll just go and have fun with a different list, that's the point of these things, is to have a good time, right? I just wanted to give feedback to the people putting it together, voicing opinions is never a bad thing.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Looking through the FAQ it states the Castigator's Tempest attack does not stack with it's Deflagrate rule.

However every place that I have seen has shown FW e-mails saying that they do indeed stack with each other.

Chris, Hank is this a rules change on your parts or were you unaware FW has ruled the Tempest attack and Deflagrate do stack.

I do remember Hank coming to me in early Gladiators showing me his latest FW e-mail in order to change the FAQ's.

We in general have never accepted an "Email" as an official response. This ruling was in the FAQ since last year. Should FW publish an official update / FAQ for the model we will adjust accordingly.

Gotta love it on the Tau rule FAQs. So basically no point bringing either formation, since we both don't have ObSec to handle any of the actual missions that basically require you to have ObSec to guard huge swaths of terrain and we won't have the ability to actually attempt to table any remotely competitive list. Sorry but this just remains a joke, are these intended to be actual readings of the rule or simple curbs on expected problems?

From the Updated FAQ:
Use the following clarifications for the Coordinated Firepower command benefit:
o Signature Systems, wargear and other special rules that alter the way that a unit fires (e.g., Skyfire) do not
apply to other units using the Coordinated Firepower command benefit.
o Special rules that allow a model to fire at different target than the one generating benefits from
Coordinated Firepower (e.g., Split Fire) function normally.
o If a model fires at a unit other than the one generating the benefits from Coordinated Firepower then that
model does not receive any of the benefits (though they may still receive benefits applying to the unit
from other sources as normal).
o The +1 BS from the Coordinated Firepower command benefit does not apply to Snap Shots.
Mont’Ka Campaign Supplement
• Models in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation may not leave the table using the Rearm and Refuel special rule
the same turn that they arrive from Reserves or Ongoing Reserves.
• The phrase “at full strength” in the Piranha Firestream Wing formation’s Rearm and Refuel special rule refers only
to regenerating hull points, removing damage effects, and replenishing drones and seeker missiles. Piranhas that
have been destroyed, abandoned due to an Immobilized vehicle damage result, or were never part of the unit to
begin with are not added back to the unit when they return to play.

Hey so will the Knight Atrapos be allowed? What about the Ordinatos Minoris which has a 700pt variant?

Asking for a friend ^_______________^;;

iNcontroL wrote:
Hey so will the Knight Atrapos be allowed? What about the Ordinatos Minoris which has a 700pt variant?

Asking for a friend ^_______________^;;

At this time we are not considering allowing those models.

Regards,

Chris

Any reason why on the atrapos in particular? It is 40k legal and released a solid 3 months+ before the tourney..

I just wish I could have space marine rapier weapons.....

Quad mortar,

iNcontroL wrote:
Any reason why on the atrapos in particular? It is 40k legal and released a solid 3 months+ before the tourney..

I think the idea is that if it's not in a published FW book, it isn't a permitted model.

Well the 700 point non experimental Minoris Ordinatus is.. so that can't be it?

I think they should allow it, so if I get matched against one I can just concede, buy him a drink, and get on with my day

 1PlusLogan wrote:

iNcontroL wrote:
Any reason why on the atrapos in particular? It is 40k legal and released a solid 3 months+ before the tourney..

I think the idea is that if it's not in a published FW book, it isn't a permitted model.

Castigator was not published in a book last year was it? It was allowed last year.

Oh I see, you guys just copy and pasted in the new ITC rules for the Coordinated Firepower since they finally got around to actually putting text in their FAQ for them since that lame ass vote. What a waste of time. I usually think of Adepticon as the big boys version compared to ITC. Instead it's just adapting the same joke rules. Why not go full bore this year and take their Invisibility rules to flip the bird to Marines and Eldar as well? Since we're in the process of nerf batting builds while we go.

PS The ITC are being a bunch of morons when writing their FAQs - anyone notice that they quote Skyfire (a rule that no wargear gives to unit wide) and Split Fire (A rule the Tau don't have access to AT ALL) as examples of what Coordinated Firepower doesn't share? And we're supposed to trust them people with the game's rules? Admittedly GW has dropped the ball on keeping things up to date - but this is not helpful and rampant balance comping is what over time killed the WHF community leading to AoS which I don't think any of us want to see happen to W40k. Balance comping should be a last resort once we know something is hurting the balance of the game when played as written and intended.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarthDiggler wrote:

 1PlusLogan wrote:

iNcontroL wrote:
Any reason why on the atrapos in particular? It is 40k legal and released a solid 3 months+ before the tourney..

I think the idea is that if it's not in a published FW book, it isn't a permitted model.

Castigator was not published in a book last year was it? It was allowed last year.

Agreed, what the hell happened here. I don't recall a Castigator curb stomping last years results or anything. It's a July 2013 model with 40k Approved Lord of War rules. I'm certain I saw them in 2015 during actual play.

GreyDragoon wrote:
Oh I see, you guys just copy and pasted that lame ass vote. What a waste of time. I usually think of boys. joke. Why not flip the bird as well?

PS ITC are a bunch of morons.

I bolded the funny parts.

GreyDragoon wrote:
Instead it's just adapting the same joke rules. Why not go full bore this year and take their Invisibility rules to flip the bird to Marines and Eldar as well? Since we're in the process of nerf batting builds while we go.

I don't have much to say in the way of the way ITC or any other organization does things, but this made me actually laugh out loud.

Oh yes, with the nerf, Invisibility is useless and Marines and Eldar are weak. Totally.

axisofentropy wrote:

GreyDragoon wrote:
Oh I see, you guys just copy and pasted that lame ass vote. What a waste of time. I usually think of boys. joke. Why not flip the bird as well?

PS ITC are a bunch of morons.

I bolded the funny parts.

Didn't bold much of anything there, just used quote and removed large sections of what I said to make it sound ridiculous. You may not agree, but please don't misquote/misrepresent what I said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Requizen wrote:

GreyDragoon wrote:
Instead it's just adapting the same joke rules. Why not go full bore this year and take their Invisibility rules to flip the bird to Marines and Eldar as well? Since we're in the process of nerf batting builds while we go.

I don't have much to say in the way of the way ITC or any other organization does things, but this made me actually laugh out loud.

Oh yes, with the nerf, Invisibility is useless and Marines and Eldar are weak. Totally.

Entirely agreed that itc's change to invisibility doesn't fully remove the strength in Marines or Eldar, but it does significantly limit the strength of a number of builds that are much stronger in Adepticon, the ETC, and most east coast tournaments. Not all builds, but certainly those that would want to take invis since it suddenly gives IG and Tau solid blast based responses to invis.

What I'm trying to point out though is that it is massively inconsistent to try and take just the coordinated firepower rule from ITC and not take the rest of their nerf-based decisions that are not FAQs so much as they are rule changes to modify power levels. And I was quite happy with Adepticon and ETC (and many of the midwest and eastern independent groups) keeping faqs only to clarifications and fixes to items that quite literally can break the game as resolution is impossible or totally unclear. ITC has made it clear they care more about the game from the perspective of the casual gamer, I had always thought Adepticon's focus was more on high level play for their GT - which generally means a focus on the RAW with a fallback to RAI. Actual changes to text only being used when a ruling cannot be made using either of those properly.

GreyDragoon wrote:

What I'm trying to point out though is that it is massively inconsistent to try and take just the coordinated firepower rule from ITC and not take the rest of their nerf-based decisions that are not FAQs so much as they are rule changes to modify power levels. And I was quite happy with Adepticon and ETC (and many of the midwest and eastern independent groups) keeping faqs only to clarifications and fixes to items that quite literally can break the game as resolution is impossible or totally unclear. ITC has made it clear they care more about the game from the perspective of the casual gamer, I had always thought Adepticon's focus was more on high level play for their GT - which generally means a focus on the RAW with a fallback to RAI. Actual changes to text only being used when a ruling cannot be made using either of those properly.

I think you're vastly over estimating the clarity of the coordinated fire power rule. To say that your's is the only way a rule could possible be read, and that anyone who disagrees is out to nerf you, is lazy thinking.

GreyDragoon wrote:
What I'm trying to point out though is that it is massively inconsistent to try and take just the coordinated firepower rule from ITC and not take the rest of their nerf-based decisions that are not FAQs so much as they are rule changes to modify power levels. And I was quite happy with Adepticon and ETC (and many of the midwest and eastern independent groups) keeping faqs only to clarifications and fixes to items that quite literally can break the game as resolution is impossible or totally unclear. ITC has made it clear they care more about the game from the perspective of the casual gamer, I had always thought Adepticon's focus was more on high level play for their GT - which generally means a focus on the RAW with a fallback to RAI. Actual changes to text only being used when a ruling cannot be made using either of those properly.

[Reposted from a different thread, as it applies here.]

Couple of things (disagree if you will, I won't argue it. I'm just laying out the thought process behind the decisions):

1) The AdeptiCon faq ruling on Coordinated Firepower, despite its similarities in print, is not merely a copy/paste from the ITC faq. The committees driving the 'ITC' and AdeptiCon faqs no longer share members (until recently, they did), and the process by which the AdeptiCon faq committee arrived at its decision did not involve offering a 'vote' to players. Essentially, the following abilities/allowances are expressly made by Coordinated Firepower: Ignore restriction of shooting with one unit at a time. Ignore restriction of markerlights only benefitting one unit (at a time). Gaining a (conditional) +1BS against a nominated target. That is all.

2) The decision regarding restoring units to 'Full Strength' centered around the fact that 'Full Strength' is insufficiently defined. It could mean that I purchase a single Piranha, and then, subsequent to leaving the table, I return that unit with the maximum number of Piranha allowed by the codex (a 'Full Strength' unit). It could mean that I replace 'lost' Piranha up to the number I purchased (as per the Damocles rule, yes?). It could mean that I repair missing hull points, remove damage effects (Weapon Destroyed) and replenish Seeker Missiles and Drones. Of these three options, the first is absurd, the second is not stated explicitly in the formation's rules, and the third still satisfies returning the unit at full strength.

3) The AdeptiCon faq has already ruled that the Piranha from the formation cannot enter from reserves and leave the table on the same turn. The reasoning has nothing to do with an opponent's inability to 'interact' (AdeptiCon abides by Invisibility and 2++ rerollables as written). The reasoning has to do with the following problem: No unit in the game has express permission to enter from reserves and then leave the table in the same turn. Several (Flyers and Swooping Hawks as examples) are expressly forbidden from doing so. The Piranha formation, while describing the conditions by which it can leave the table, does not address whether or not it can exercise that ability on the turn it enters from reserves. So, we can assume one of two things: 1) Any unit with the ability to leave the table may exercise that option on the turn it enters from reserves unless expressly forbidden from doing so (see: Flyers and Swooping Hawks). 2) Any unit with the ability to leave the table may NOT exercise that option on the turn it enters from reserves unless expressly permitted to do so. Influencing the decision between these two options is the understanding of 40K as a 'permissive' rules set (not implying in any way that you are not aware of this, merely including it for the sake of completeness). The committee came down on the side of the second assumption.

Cheers!

GreyDragoon wrote:
Oh I see, you guys just copy and pasted in the new ITC rules for the Coordinated Firepower since they finally got around to actually putting text in their FAQ for them since that lame ass vote. What a waste of time. I usually think of Adepticon as the big boys version compared to ITC. Instead it's just adapting the same joke rules. Why not go full bore this year and take their Invisibility rules to flip the bird to Marines and Eldar as well? Since we're in the process of nerf batting builds while we go.

Because Marines and Eldar are so bad in ITC...

GreyDragoon wrote:

PS The ITC are being a bunch of morons when writing their FAQs - anyone notice that they quote Skyfire (a rule that no wargear gives to unit wide) and Split Fire (A rule the Tau don't have access to AT ALL) as examples of what Coordinated Firepower doesn't share? And we're supposed to trust them people with the game's rules?

Skyfire comes from Mysterious Objectives, and applies to full units. Tau have access to multiple versions of Split Fire which is provided as an example, this is simply ease of wording.

Is there a reason AdeptiCon decided to go with 9th Age for the big fantasy events, rather than Kings of War? I know there are big Kings of War events too, but I was hoping those might expand to fulfill the traditional fantasy role at AdeptiCon... now it almost feels like there will be two competing tracks for the same players with WHFB no more.

I know this isn't AdeptiCon's fault, but rather GW's, but just wondering.

For myself, alas I think my KoW army won't arrive back until just after the tourney... painter queues are loooong! But I am really looking forward to checking out the KoW events regardless

 RiTides wrote:
Is there a reason AdeptiCon decided to go with 9th Age for the big fantasy events, rather than Kings of War? I know there are big Kings of War events too, but I was hoping those might expand to fulfill the traditional fantasy role at AdeptiCon... now it almost feels like there will be two competing tracks for the same players with WHFB no more.

I know this isn't AdeptiCon's fault, but rather GW's, but just wondering.

For myself, alas I think my KoW army won't arrive back until just after the tourney... painter queues are loooong! But I am really looking forward to checking out the KoW events regardless

The KoW event is pretty big, with a lot of players, two days, and 2500 point armies. Feel free to stop by and watch my Ogres fight it out for the wooden spoon!

 RiTides wrote:
Is there a reason AdeptiCon decided to go with 9th Age for the big fantasy events, rather than Kings of War? I know there are big Kings of War events too, but I was hoping those might expand to fulfill the traditional fantasy role at AdeptiCon... now it almost feels like there will be two competing tracks for the same players with WHFB no more.

I know this isn't AdeptiCon's fault, but rather GW's, but just wondering.

For myself, alas I think my KoW army won't arrive back until just after the tourney... painter queues are loooong! But I am really looking forward to checking out the KoW events regardless

Hey Steve,

AdeptiCon is working to offer a variety of events so attendees can have the option to pick and choose what they really desire to play. As with the 40K side, former Warhammer Fantasy Battles players have been split on how and what to play. So instead of forcing all pegs into one hole, we are offering a variety of events for KoW, AoS and 9th Age, which appeal to different players.

Steve,

To expand on what Greg said, we have had a great response to the KoW events, having to expand space multiple times to meet the demand. Then KoW national events at AdeptiCon will be the largest "Fantasy" events at AdeptiCon this year.

With the end of WFB 8th edition, we are looking to KoW, AOS, 9th Age, and Saga to fill the "Fantasy" space. Much like we no longer have one 40k format that appeals to everyone, people will have to look to a variety of events to scratch the "Fantasy" itch.

-Hank