Writing a comprehensive FAQ for Feast of Blades, input needed

[Cruor Vault]

Hey all. I'm one of the guys working on Feast of Blades (http://www.feastofblades.com) with your beloved mod Duke. We are looking for input and help with our FAQ.

So far we have a wonderful Grey Knights FAQ (http://www.feastofblades.com/p/faq.html) and we are working tirelessly to have all the books finished before our premier event this November (4th-6th).

But we need your help! With so many books to go through we sometimes miss things. It would be a huge help to us if the community would send us their rules questions. This way we can have as comprehensive a FAQ as possible so our judges will be better prepared to answer any bizarre questions that arise during the event.

Questions can either be submitted here in this thread or online at [email protected]

[AngeloftheBlood]

Sword of Sanguinius Codex Blood Angels

Does not give a start or end time frame IE the quickening ( until the end of the assualt phase)

ruled at another GT that one cast all CC attacks are S10 for the game as it seems in the codex

Is this how it will be played?

[AbusePuppy]

Having a solid method for resolving Tank Shocks would be nice, as per the rulebook there are many situations where you can Tank Shock a unit and have no legal way to place models afterwords (move only models under the tank, stay in coherency, shortest distance.)

The Sword of Sanguinous one is common.

In your GK FAQ, you mention Interceptors being able to board a Land Raider, which is patently illegal. Jump Infantry cannot board transports except for the Stormraven, which has a special exception, and superheavy transports.

You also mention the Cruicible removing GK vehicles from play, but this is also impossible, as the Psychic Pilot rule specifically notes that they are only considered Psykers for the purposes of Psychic tests and Psychic Hoods.

It would be good to clarify how Combat Squads and reserves interact, as I've generally seen it played that squads that are in reserve cannot Squad (as per the rules), but are allowed to do so once they deploy from reserve (as opposed to never being able to use CS if they were ever in reserve.) The GK entry is a bit unclear on this.

Resolving whether Jaws of the World Wolf, Murderous Hurricane, Blood Lance, etc, require to-hit rolls would be a good idea.

Stubborn vs. Leadership-changing/penalizing (not modifying) abilities. The official GK FAQ strongly implied that Stubborn only worked on modifiers to a roll, not on penalties to the Ld value from other sources (such as Weaken Resolve), viz the Psychotroke Grenades entry. It would be good for you to clarify how your tournament intends to take this ruling.

Do Jump Infantry have to take a test if they both enter and leave Difficult Terrain in the same phase? The answer is fairly RAW, but I see it come up a lot (and get played wrong) anyways.

I know there's a bunch of other stuff I'm forgetting, but those are the ones that jump to mind right now.

[whitestar333]

Can you guys PLEASE fix the Tyranid FAQ? It would certainly open the doors for more people to play with their army, in an environment where you traditionally see very few Tyranid players. The only questions that I think need fixing are:
1) Let mycetic spores drop empty
2) Shadow in the warp can affect psykers in vehicles
3) Let ICs (Tyranid Prime) join units that arrive via mycetic spore

In fact, I think that those three things are consistent with other codexes (like Space Marines) and the BRB. IF you allow people to do those three things, I anticipate that you'll have a higher turnout of Tyranid players.

[Cruor Vault]

Thanks for the replies guys. Great questions all of you.

@AngeloftheBlood


Sword of Sanguinius Codex Blood Angels

Does not give a start or end time frame IE the quickening ( until the end of the assualt phase)

ruled at another GT that one cast all CC attacks are S10 for the game as it seems in the codex

Is this how it will be played?

This is obviously a case of GW not actually reading what they wrote. Sanguine sword lasts until the end of the assault phase in which it was cast.

@AbusePuppy


Having a solid method for resolving Tank Shocks would be nice, as per the rulebook there are many situations where you can Tank Shock a unit and have no legal way to place models afterwords (move only models under the tank, stay in coherency, shortest distance.)

That one is a little harder to have a written format for as there are so many possible combinations. suffice to say, it will not be possible to pull any "tricks" with Tank shocking such as forcing models off the table without their failing a leadership test or other such nonsense.



In your GK FAQ, you mention Interceptors being able to board a Land Raider, which is patently illegal. Jump Infantry cannot board transports except for the Stormraven, which has a special exception, and superheavy transports.

Simply a screw up on our part. it will be corrected in the future.


You also mention the Cruicible removing GK vehicles from play, but this is also impossible, as the Psychic Pilot rule specifically notes that they are only considered Psykers for the purposes of Psychic tests and Psychic Hoods.

Since all other instances of Psychic vehicles don't specify such silliness as the GK rules do we decided to make a minor change to the GK Psychic Pilot rules. Frankly its asinine that a GK vehicle only counts as a psyker when its beneficial for it to, and doesn't count as a psyker at all other times.


It would be good to clarify how Combat Squads and reserves interact, as I've generally seen it played that squads that are in reserve cannot Squad (as per the rules), but are allowed to do so once they deploy from reserve (as opposed to never being able to use CS if they were ever in reserve.) The GK entry is a bit unclear on this.

Reserving a unit with the combat squads rule prevents the unit from splitting, period. The only exception to this is deploying from a drop pod.


Resolving whether Jaws of the World Wolf, Murderous Hurricane, Blood Lance, etc, require to-hit rolls would be a good idea.

We are still debating this one. Most of us agree that its idiotic to force powers such as Avenger or Jaws to make a roll to hit, but we still have an ongoing debate amongst our FaQ staff. Expect an answer to this shortly.


Stubborn vs. Leadership-changing/penalizing (not modifying) abilities. The official GK FAQ strongly implied that Stubborn only worked on modifiers to a roll, not on penalties to the Ld value from other sources (such as Weaken Resolve), viz the Psychotroke Grenades entry. It would be good for you to clarify how your tournament intends to take this ruling.

Indeed, per the Grey Knight FaQ anything that "reduces" leadership appears to be unaffected by stubborn. Currently we are ruling that anything that "resets/reduces" the target's leadership is unaffected by stubborn ( IE Psychotroke Grenades, Weaken Resolve, etc), but anything that incurs a "modifier" (losing combat, fear the darkness, etc) are ignored.


Do Jump Infantry have to take a test if they both enter and leave Difficult Terrain in the same phase? The answer is fairly RAW, but I see it come up a lot (and get played wrong) anyways.

Only a single test is required.

@whitestar333


Can you guys PLEASE fix the Tyranid FAQ? It would certainly open the doors for more people to play with their army, in an environment where you traditionally see very few Tyranid players. The only questions that I think need fixing are:
1) Let mycetic spores drop empty
2) Shadow in the warp can affect psykers in vehicles
3) Let ICs (Tyranid Prime) join units that arrive via mycetic spore

Those are tough calls my friend. Currently we are trying to limit our FaQs to simply correcting oversights in the GW rules or clarifying things that are unclear. While we did make one minor change to the GK rules, currently we are not prepared to make such enormous changes that are in direct opposition to an existing official FaQ.

[whitestar333]

Thanks for the replies guys. Great questions all of you.
Those are tough calls my friend. Currently we are trying to limit our FaQs to simply correcting oversights in the GW rules or clarifying things that are unclear. While we did make one minor change to the GK rules, currently we are not prepared to make such enormous changes that are in direct opposition to an existing official FaQ.

I understand; it was worth asking. I just think that we'll continue to see few Tyranid armies at these kinds of events until someone changes those three entries in the FAQ for Tyranids, which, honestly, have no RAW basis and contradict rulings in other armies. It's like saying that the IG don't get a bonus attack from counter charge, but Space Wolves do.

Anyway, I don't blame you, but I figured I'd throw my hat in the ring anyway.

[AngeloftheBlood]

So sword will not be in my list but how about this

fear the darkness, two libbies in the same unit cast this at the same target unit
do they take two -2 leadership tests
one -4 leadership test
or two -4 leadership tests ?????

[Ghoulio]

If you were to make one ruling for the Tyranids it should be correcting Shadow in the Warp not effecting embarked Psykers. This rule makes no sense as it is the ONLY psychic defense in any version of Warhammer 40k to not effect psykers in a vehicle. Tyranids can cancel out entire solar systems with Shadow in the Warp but can't stop someone in a phone booth from casting JAWS, makes no sense. I definitely wouldn't call it an "enormous" change by any means as all that would do is correct what should of been in the original FAQ anyways. Just my 2 cents :)

[SeattleDV8]

If you were to make one ruling for the Tyranids it should be correcting Shadow in the Warp not effecting embarked Psykers. This rule makes no sense as it is the ONLY psychic defense in any version of Warhammer 40k to not effect psykers in a vehicle.

Except of course that nothing in the game can directly effect any embarked unit.
I tire of the 'Nid players whining about this.
While I will agree the Mycetic Spore rules and FAQ's make no sense, the FAQ ruling on Shadow of the Warp does follow all the FAQ rulings.

Units embarked may effect things out of the transport, nothing can directly affect an embarked unit.

[Ghoulio]

Except of course that nothing in the game can directly effect any embarked unit.
I tire of the 'Nid players whining about this.
While I will agree the Mycetic Spore rules and FAQ's make no sense, the FAQ ruling on Shadow of the Warp does follow all the FAQ rulings.

Units embarked may effect things out of the transport, nothing can directly affect an embarked unit.

This statement 100% makes ZERO sense to me. So...psychic hoods can cancel out powers cast by psykers embarked in a transport but the Tyranid version of a psychic hood cannot? I wouldn't care if you couldn't cast powers out of a transport or use your psychic hoods while being embarked in a transport but the fact of the matter is you can so Nid players shouldn't be the only CODEX IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME to be gimped in this fashion. In regards to Doom of Malantai I 100% agree with this ruling but it fells to me that SiTW just got thrown into this category without any thought whatsoever.

Bottom Line: Shadow in the Warp is a psychic defense EXACTLY like a Psychic Hood or Runes of Warding and like THOSE ABILITIES should be able to effect psykers embarked in a transport. In my mind this is a 100% black and white argument and I can't for the life of me figure out why GW felt the need to FAQ this already garbage codex the way they did and why people still argue against it.

[Tynskel]

You really should attack the one that makes no sense:

Why can't a Tyranid Prime ride in a Spore Pod with Warriors? I understand not in a pod with gaunts, but not warriors, the squad it is INTENDED to join (ie. has special rules for that squad)?

[DarkLink]

Except of course that nothing in the game can directly effect any embarked unit.

Except Psychic Hoods;).

[Cruor Vault]

@AngeloftheBlood


fear the darkness, two libbies in the same unit cast this at the same target unit
do they take two -2 leadership tests
one -4 leadership test
or two -4 leadership tests ?????

The leadership test is made immediately after the power is cast. So the target would have to take 2 tests at -2.

@Ghoulio

I know it's asinine, the changes made to the Tyranid book by the FaQ nerfed it hard. But currently we are not willing to completely contradict existing rules/FaQs on such as scale.

[AbusePuppy]

I know it's asinine, the changes made to the Tyranid book by the FaQ nerfed it hard. But currently we are not willing to completely contradict existing rules/FaQs on such as scale.

This is a good attitude to take, but please don't contradict GW's FAQs/rules at all, even on minor issues. I play 'Nids and I hate the FAQ as much as any man alive, but rules is rules.

I disagree with your interpretation of Combat Squads, but *shrug*. Not my problem to deal with, I suppose. TheKingElessar makes a very good argument for the other case on his blog, if you're interested.

Your stance on GK vehicles, on the other hand, I think is a poor choice; you're contradicting your own guideline from above for... what, exactly? "We wanted to depower GK so we let a niche ability affect them"? It isn't just beneficial effects that it bypasses- a Culexus assassin gains no extra shots from having GK tanks nearby because they aren't counted as psykers for his rule. The Psychic Pilot wording is very specific in what it does and how it functions, and overwriting that for convenience's sake sets a bad precedent, I feel. It also results in some absurdities, like a Witch Hunters Culexus assassin being near a tank and the tank being forced to take a morale check or fall back because it's a psyker. Any time your rules result in a vehicle making morale checks, you should probably rethink things.

Also with regards to Stubborn, the Fear the Darkness power incurs a penalty to Ld, not a modifier to the test, so it should work, unless I'm misunderstanding your stance.

[SeattleDV8]

Except Psychic Hoods;).

Ah ,but the pyschic hood effects the power not the caster.
Shadow in the Warp affects the caster.
It is not the same as a Hood.

[Ghoulio]

Ah ,but the pyschic hood effects the power not the caster.
Shadow in the Warp affects the caster.
It is not the same as a Hood.

Runes of Warding work the exact same way as Shadow in The Warp (forces caster to roll 3d6 for LD test) and they work against casters embarked in vehicles.

[Cruor Vault]

This is a good attitude to take, but please don't contradict GW's FAQs/rules at all, even on minor issues. I play 'Nids and I hate the FAQ as much as any man alive, but rules is rules.

I disagree with your interpretation of Combat Squads, but *shrug*. Not my problem to deal with, I suppose. TheKingElessar makes a very good argument for the other case on his blog, if you're interested.

I would love to read what he has there, though I personally think the question is dead ever since the Marine FaQ rather specifically stated flat out no combat squads if held in reserves.


Your stance on GK vehicles, on the other hand, I think is a poor choice; you're contradicting your own guideline from above for... what, exactly? "We wanted to depower GK so we let a niche ability affect them"? It isn't just beneficial effects that it bypasses- a Culexus assassin gains no extra shots from having GK tanks nearby because they aren't counted as psykers for his rule. The Psychic Pilot wording is very specific in what it does and how it functions, and overwriting that for convenience's sake sets a bad precedent, I feel. It also results in some absurdities, like a Witch Hunters Culexus assassin being near a tank and the tank being forced to take a morale check or fall back because it's a psyker. Any time your rules result in a vehicle making morale checks, you should probably rethink things.

My own interpretation is that GW screwed up writing that ruling, ALL the other vehicles that can cast psychic powers count as psykers at all times, so the precedent is already there. And it would be stupid for one set of Psychic vehicles to have a completely different set of rules than the others just because GW never actually play tests their rules. The FaQ answer was written to bring the GK into line with everyone else, not "nerf" them.


Also with regards to Stubborn, the Fear the Darkness power incurs a penalty to Ld, not a modifier to the test, so it should work, unless I'm misunderstanding your stance.

No, FotD is a penalty to the test, not a modifier. So it is ignored by stubborn. I would rule as follows. If FotD is used against a stubborn unit then the test is taken, but the -2 is ignored.

[AbusePuppy]

I would love to read what he has there, though I personally think the question is dead ever since the Marine FaQ rather specifically stated flat out no combat squads if held in reserves.

It's a matter of how you interpret the ruling; I think both have valid points behind them, but I personally feel the "you can combat squad but not WHILE you're in reserve" ruling is more in line with what I feel is correct.

http://hobbyinfobythekingelessar.blogspot.com/2011/09/stop-playing-game-wrong-aka-why-i.html


My own interpretation is that GW screwed up writing that ruling, ALL the other vehicles that can cast psychic powers count as psykers at all times, so the precedent is already there. And it would be stupid for one set of Psychic vehicles to have a completely different set of rules than the others just because GW never actually play tests their rules. The FaQ answer was written to bring the GK into line with everyone else, not "nerf" them.

Be fair: "all other vehicles" means the one other vehicle in the game that can do so, which is a really weak precedent, and the Psychic Pilot rule is not worded the same, so who is to say which is correct? Different abilities work differently, I don't really see that as being stupid.



No, FotD is a penalty to the test, not a modifier. So it is ignored by stubborn. I would rule as follows. If FotD is used against a stubborn unit then the test is taken, but the -2 is ignored.

The actual power itself says that it imposes a -2 modifier, not penalty. I understand your reasoning here, but if you're going to write an FAQ for people, I suggest you try and be as consistent as possible in your rulings and as explicit as possible in the rationale behind them. GW is already bad enough on those fronts, imposing an additional layer of confusion won't help.

I hope I'm not coming across as overly nit-picky or aggressive here; I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think it best to take steps now to avoid making the mistakes GW and especially INAT have made in the past.

[thecactusman17]

If a unit would become subject to the Furious Charge USR mid assault but before it has made the attacks.

My suggestions would be to allow the USR to kick in, as the BRB suggests should happen. Notably, this can occur most commonly to Dark Eldar and Tyranids under certain circumstances, especially DE with their pain token system. I do note that the Tyranid FAQ forbids this, despite fairly explicit wording to the contrary in the BRB that suggests it should occur. I would override the Tyranid FAQ on this one, and the DE FAQ does not address this subject.

[AbusePuppy]

If a unit would become subject to the Furious Charge USR mid assault but before it has made the attacks.

My suggestions would be to allow the USR to kick in, as the BRB suggests should happen. Notably, this can occur most commonly to Dark Eldar and Tyranids under certain circumstances, especially DE with their pain token system. I do note that the Tyranid FAQ forbids this, despite fairly explicit wording to the contrary in the BRB that suggests it should occur. I would override the Tyranid FAQ on this one, and the DE FAQ does not address this subject.

Actually, the BA FAQ notes that Furious Charge (and similar abilities) are "checked" when the model would make its attacks, so it's an already-resolved issue. I guess Dark Eldar was a side to that I hadn't thought of, though...

[thecactusman17]

You would think so, AbusePuppy, but Tyranids sadly beg to differ with their FAQ. Personally, I think that Tyranids are being subjected to yet one more BS ruling by that.

[Tynskel]

I suggest chucking the tyranids FAQ. The thing is so full of BS it is basically a mini INAT FAQ.