Independent National Warhammer 40k Tournament FAQ v.3.2 (02/08/2010)

[Mycroft Holmes]

The Adepticon site has a new version of it's FAQ up. (http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/inat/INATFAQv3.2.pdf)

It includes a section on the new Codex: Tyranids.

[rle68]

Leave it to these people to think they can write rules whenever they want same dog different day .. this is why i wont go to any of their events

[Shavnir]

Leave it to these people to think they can write rules whenever they want same dog different day .. this is why i wont go to any of their events

Yea, how dare a tournament based event solidify the swiss cheese that is the 40k ruleset to be actually complete.

[rle68]

your sarcasm is well deteced lest you forget the people who run this event have a well known history for making up rules when they dont like the way they are printed.

but go if you like mr yakface and i agree to disagree

[Madness]

It's their tournament if they want to mix up things and say the WS and BS scores are to be swapped due to a chaosphere universe situation so be it.

The rulebook is not a sacred text, you can do whatever you want as long as you're having fun with it.

[Sangre]

These people are charged with the heinous crime of "Having Fun" and must desist immediately.

[rle68]

It's their tournament if they want to mix up things and say the WS and BS scores are to be swapped due to a chaosphere universe situation so be it.

The rulebook is not a sacred text, you can do whatever you want as long as you're having fun with it.

And youd would be correct except when they were a part of GW'S tournement circuit with GW sponsoring the events they made their own rules up for someone elses event .. thus ended the lesson

[BuFFo]

Leave it to these people to think they can write rules whenever they want same dog different day .. this is why i wont go to any of their events

Let me educate you....

These guys are the same people that have been writing the FAQs you use on the GW Website since around 2006.

Merry Christmas.

[Madness]

Even skipping what BuFFo says, variants of the GW hobby are still warhammer 40k, it takes more than "troops should be positioned where a vehicle once stood when such vehicle is destroyed [...]" to make it a different game.

An 'open' tournament can still be very official. It's not like they don't tell you what the rules are beforehand.

You're free to dislike those rules and not participate, but to say that coming up with new/altered rules is a sin against the Emprah and such preposterous behaviour should not have place in sanctioned events is a little over the top.

Bottomline: having new rules is ok, read them and decide if you'd like to try them out, if you don't then don't go, if you do then go.

The whole "oooh, apparently someone is too good for the normal rules, what's it hot shot, you can't play the game like the rest of us?" vibe I'm getting is pretty silly. "R-word" silly.

[BuFFo]

Even skipping what BuFFo says....

If you choose ignorance, that is your choice.

[Madness]

I'm saying that there's a reason even beyond your consideration, I'm not saying you're lying, I'm saying it's irrelevant, even if it was written by a random nobody my point would stand.

[Shavnir]

If you choose ignorance, that is your choice.

Speaking of that (and since FAQ authorship is of question and a bit more on-topic in this thread) do you happen to have a rebuttal of Bean's counterpoint from a while back regarding who created which FAQ?

[Polonius]

These threads always make me laugh. There's no shortage of individual rulings I disagree with, but with hundreds of rulings that seems likely.

What makes me chuckle are posters that come down the mountain to declare the whole event tainted, coupled with protestations of "and that's why I don't attend." It makes me laugh, because odds are there are a half dozen reasons aside from the FAQ that you're not going to Adepticon; making you at best mildly deluded and at worst a liar. If true, that you'd really not go to the biggest 40k event in the country because they play by a slightly different set of rules you use down at Bubba's Gamin' Shack... well that just makes you seem sad and bitter. there is a third group: those who had a single ruling they relied upon break against them.

It's simply petty gamer iconoclasm. Nobody wants to admit that there are other ways to play, and so anybody that plays differently is wrong and bad. it would be funny if it wasn't only a few steps from the rhetoric used by separatist militias...

[Atrotos]

Documents such as these are a boon to us all. It shakes the foundations a little and lets people know that it's ok to take game rules into their own hands if it helps them compete and have fun and that good things can come of it.

Sadly Adepticon still doesn't allow Imperial Armor units - can't wait till that changes, its always been an inexplicable decision to me.

[Shavnir]

Sadly Adepticon still doesn't allow Imperial Armor units - can't wait till that changes, its always been an inexplicable decision to me.

I haven't really looked much at the other tournaments but there's a list of them that are fair game in the gladiator tournament.

[Lerra]

Certain IA units are allowed in the Gladiator and Team Tournaments, but not any of the other competitions. I'd like to see them accepted more widely, too, especially since only the balanced units are allowed.

[Melissia]

Meh, I dislike the Adepticon FAQ for other reasons. Like the ruling about the Culexis assassin's Soulless ability not modifying leadership values, therefor it can modify the leadership values of those with Stubborn. Unless the unit has a Book of St. Lucius which passes along the unmodified leadership value to the squad...

... wait what?

[Herald of Nurgle]

I find that lack of win disturbing.


Aww man! Because of this ruleset my super special awesome secret uber broken unbeatable unit of death just got nerfed! I'm not going to Adepticon because I am (delete as appropriate) bitter / deranged / tired / too british to live / other (please note below).
This is fairly useful, actually. If anything else, I can bring this in and hand it to a bunch of people I regularly have casual games with so that we can have a common ground to stand on till an actual 'FAQ/Errata' comes out for things such as Nids. Damn straight.

[Melissia]

When did I complain about some uberunit or other? The Book of St. Lucius is in every infantry unit in my Sisters army, always and without exception. It's a very important wargear, as important to Sisters as ATSKNF is to Marines.

If they can't even decide on a definition of "modify" and stick to it in different rulings on the same page then how exactly can they claim to make a good FAQ?

[Polonius]

When did I complain about some uberunit or other? The Book of St. Lucius is in every infantry unit in my Sisters army, always and without exception. It's a very important wargear, as important to Sisters as ATSKNF is to Marines.

If they can't even decide on a definition of "modify" and stick to it in different rulings on the same page then how exactly can they claim to make a good FAQ?

There is a pothole on the Freeway near my house. Therefore, the Interstate Highway System obviously is a failure.

[Melissia]

The Book of St. Lucius is a huge issue for my army. It'd be like if they seriously screwed up an interpretation of ATSKNF, Mob Rule, etc.

[Polonius]

The Book of St. Lucius is a huge issue for my army. It'd be like if they seriously screwed up an interpretation of ATSKNF, Mob Rule, etc.

Myabe I'm missing something, but the only reference in the new FAQ to the Book is that things like Soulless don't override the unmodified part of the characters LD.

So, I don't see where the problem is.

[Melissia]

Read on the same page, and you'll see that a very similar rule-- Stubborn-- however IS affected by Soulless. Thus my point. They can't decide what "modify" means, so there's something inherently wrong with their logic, since they contradicted themselves in two rulings on the same page.

I don't consider that minor, but then I find the logic and reasoning behind a decision to be more important than whether or not it benefits or harms me.

[Absolutionis]

Standardization is good. As long as someone of even mild authority steps up and makes a ruling it is much better than a group of people arguing on the internet.

[Polonius]

Ok, I see your problem. Essentially, soulless works against stubborn units because it doesn't modify, but a model with the Book affected by souless still trasnmits her "unmodified" leadership.

I guess I agree that that's sloppy and inconsistent, but with all due respect you're talking about how one of the more obscure units in the game (Culexus) interacts with two low profile rules (stubborn and the Book). I'm not trying to denigrate anything, I'm just guessing that the number of times this situation will come up is very low. I'm guessing they had two rulings: souless replaces, not modifies; and the Book always allows the natural LD of the model to be transmitted. When those two rules interact, they went with always allowing the book to work.

There is also the fact that stubborn allows a model to ignore negative modifiers, while the book allows the use of unmodified leadership. There is a difference. Soulless isn't a negative modifier, but once in place, it's hard to argue that the models leadership hasn't been "modified." If you read "negative modifiers" to mean incremental penalties, and "unmodified" to mean unchanged or base, than there isn't any conflict at all.

It seems like you're viewing these rulings as the product of a fundamentally unsound foundation of reasoning, when it's more likely that simply made two separate judgment calls, and aren't aware of the discrepancy.

To return to my highway analogy, this is like pointing out that there is a three lane stretch of road in a low volume area and a two lane stretch in a high volume area, and then decide that the designers clearly don't' know how to design a highway. Instead, it was probably an oversight.

This is my point: this is a ruling that will probably come up twice a decade, and not really something worth rejecting the entire document over.

[BuFFo]

Speaking of that (and since FAQ authorship is of question and a bit more on-topic in this thread) do you happen to have a rebuttal of Bean's counterpoint from a while back regarding who created which FAQ?

No reason to.

[Shavnir]

No reason to.

So given that only 7 of the FAQs mention Yakface you're going to just throw a blanket statement over the rest of them?

[Bean]

Not to mention that they're not the most recent seven.

For the record, here're the facts on that issue, again:

Six FAQ documents have the following note at the end:



The questions answered in our FAQs have been gathered from
many sources. Some have been submitted by members of the
public, others by representatives of the online gaming
community and more still are the result of face to face
meetings with keen and inquisitive players at a myriad of
gaming events. We are always happy to consider more
questions, and aim to update these FAQs as frequently as is
practical. See the Contact Us page of the Games Workshop
website for the address to which you can send your questions.
Thanks to all those who have done so already!

These are:
- FAQ Space Wolves (January 2010)
- FAQ Planetstrike: (October 2009)
- FAQ Imperial Guard: (August 2009)
- FAQ Space Marines (November 2009)
- FAQ Dark Angels (October 2008)
- Witch Hunters FAQ (2004-2008)


Seven have the following note at the end:



Thanks to Jon ‘yakface’ Regul and his FAQ ruling council
These are:
- FAQ Orks (2007)
- Necrons FAQ (2004-2008)
- Dark Eldar FAQ (2004-2008)
- Daemonhunters FAQ (2004-2008)
- Tau Empire FAQ (2006-2008)
- Eldar FAQ (2008-05)
- Chaos Space Marines FAQ (2008-05)


Four have no such note at the end at all. These are:
- Tyranids FAQ (2006-2008)
- Blood Angel's Codex and FAQ (2007-2008)
- Black Templars FAQ (2006-2008)
- 40k Rule Book (March 2009)

So, a grand total of zero name their authors. Less than half mention Jon Regul at all. The notes at the bottoms of the FAQs simply are not enough evidence to convince any reasonable person that the FAQs are being written by non-GW personnel.

Got anything else, Buffo?

[Duke]

There is a pothole on the Freeway near my house. Therefore, the Interstate Highway System obviously is a failure.

Careful Polonius... using logic is a dangerous thing and will most likely invite rage.

Duke

[Crevab]

Over on Dakka, Gwar! was kvetching up a storm as he claims they lifted the bulk of his Space Wolf FAQ word for word without named credit.

[Duke]

Yea, I heard that... And honestly it is almost word for word, so I can see his anger.

Duke

PS - 1000th post!!!

[Polonius]

The Wolf FAQ is word for word lifted from Gwar's text, or at least large chunks of it are. I'd be upset, but Gwar is a self aggrandizing PITA that contributed to my leaving Dakka.

[Polonius]

Careful Polonius... using logic is a dangerous thing and will most likely invite rage.

Duke

Lol. I understand that not everybody is on the same page with the INAT FAQ, but I just wish more people were honest and admitted that the real reason is simple provincialism, instead of the increasingly trivial nit picks that are cited.

Now, if I were an Ork player that was bringing 6 deff rollas, I'd be pretty annoyed at the document. Even then, I question building an army around an extremely polarizing ruling.

[Melissia]

You may consider it a mminor deal, but it isn't to me. Sisters are my primary army and the Book of St. Lucius is possibly the most important wargear for the army. And then there's the fact that they outright go and list psychic powers that Shield of Faith effects... whether or not that list is complete isn't the point of that objection, its' the fact that they have the list at all. Shield of Faith nullifies all psychic powers which affect a unit with the Adepta Sororitas special rule, not just some of them.

Minor nitpicks? Maybe. But reading through it gives me lots of nits to pick, and that's not a good feature for a FAQ. There's lots of unnecssary changes, little nitpicky things like this, several logical flaws such as the one regarding the BoSL, and it all adds up to me just not liking it. Mind you, I have no problem with an international FAQ designed to make rules consistent throughout the world. I just have a problem with THIS one.


Careful Polonius... using logic is a dangerous thing and will most likely invite rage.Logic? On the Lounge? Pshaw. And next you'll be saying that Buffo thinks GW's FAQs are official (and that his opinion is worth anything).

[Sangre]

Sisters are two editions old. They still haven't caught up with the new changes in special rules. You know this to be true.

[Melissia]

Yes, but that doesn't excuse someone contradicting themselves on the same page :P

[Polonius]

You may consider it a mminor deal, but it isn't to me. Sisters are my primary army and the Book of St. Lucius is possibly the most important wargear for the army. And then there's the fact that they outright go and list psychic powers that Shield of Faith effects... whether or not that list is complete isn't the point of that objection, its' the fact that they have the list at all. Shield of Faith nullifies all psychic powers which affect a unit with the Adepta Sororitas special rule, not just some of them.

I never understood this. They listed the psychic powers that could be cancelled, and somehow that's a problem? Do you think there are powers that aren't listed that should be? This document is meant to be used by judges in tournaments, and they might not know all of the rules for every power at all times. They can simply consult the list.

I think that the BoSL is a major item, but I think the way it interacts with a culexus assassin is pretty minor.


Minor nitpicks? Maybe. But reading through it gives me lots of nits to pick, and that's not a good feature for a FAQ. There's lots of unnecssary changes, little nitpicky things like this, several logical flaws such as the one regarding the BoSL, and it all adds up to me just not liking it. Mind you, I have no problem with an international FAQ designed to make rules consistent throughout the world. I just have a problem with THIS one.

So, you'd have no problem if everybody played 40k exactly as you did? that's basically what you're saying, that you reject this document simply because it doesn't match the way you interpret rules.

[Polonius]

Yes, but that doesn't excuse someone contradicting themselves on the same page :P

It's less of a contradiction than it is a distinction, as I explained above.

[Melissia]

The point is that EVERY psychic power that targets a Sisters unit can be canceled. Maybe that's a full extensive list of said powers, maybe it even goes overboard and includes powers that would normally not be affected (because they can't target Sisters, for example), maybe it's not a complete list and is twice as bad. But my issue was the very fact that they were listed in the first place instead of keeping it simple and keeping it "all". It's unnecessary, adds a damn list to search through and, if they messed it up, potentially abusable (whether or not they did is irrelevant). All in all? It's a very poor choice for them to do so.


The Soulless ruling still a contradiction in my eyes. Actually technically they did not write a clarification on the Soulless rule but a rules change. Rather than keeping it simple they decided to screw things up and make it so that Soulless affects Stubborn, and then they wipped around and made it not affect the BoSL. A "modifier" is simply something that changes something else, and Soulless modifies leadership values to 7. So Stubborn as far as RAW goes ignores it. Just like the BoSL does. All arguments to the contrary are based on the flawed principle that modifying a number is not modifying a number. I'm perfectly fine with this to be honest, they want to make Soulless more powerful, that's fine as it doesn't really overpower the unit and hey, might even make the Culexis Assassin actually worth having occasionally. But they didn't even stick with that, because apparently modifying a number isn't modifying a number unless it's modifying a number. And no, this isn't oversimplification. They're essentially using three separate definitions of "modify" on a single page-- the fault isn't oversimplification on my part, but over-complicating it on theirs.


As for your final comment; no, also screw you. I quote myself:

I find the logic and reasoning behind a decision to be more important than whether or not it benefits or harms me.The apparent reasoning behind some rulings are shaky at best, and utterly flawed at worst. That is all that matters. Whether or not I play it the way is irrelevant. I've done houserules many times, changed the rules quite drastically in some cases (we tried out new night fighting rules that proved hilariously unbalanced towards Tau several months back for example), and I'm not opposed to playing things differently.

But this isn't intended to be merely a set of house rules for use between friends. If that's all it was, I wouldn't really care, maybe try it out once, then probably drop it for the regular RAW rules or our own house rules. But no. It is intended to be a document for competitive tournament play in order to standardize tournaments internationally, and therefor I hold it to a higher standard.

[Duke]

...Logic? On the Lounge? Pshaw. And next you'll be saying that Buffo thinks GW's FAQs are official (and that his opinion is worth anything).

LOL on all points.

Duke

[BuFFo]

Logic? On the Lounge? Pshaw. And next you'll be saying that Buffo thinks GW's FAQs are official (and that his opinion is worth anything).

I have learned to ignore the children on these sites for the better part (including you).

It helps with my blood pressure, being that the Lounge is a virtual battlefield due to the lack of any forum rules at all.

Keep telling yourselves that the crew at Adepticon don't write the majority of the FAQs, or that the FAQs are law. Must be nice living in ignorance.

(I wait the witty retort of turning my comment here against myself)

[Sangre]

I have learned to ignore the children on these sites for the better part (including you).

It helps with my blood pressure, being that the Lounge is a virtual battlefield due to the lack of any forum rules at all.

Keep telling yourselves that the crew at Adepticon don't write the majority of the FAQs, or that the FAQs are law. Must be nice living in ignorance.

(I wait the witty retort of turning my comment here against myself)

Your mum turns against myself.

Boom! There goes the dynamite.

[Madness]

The point is that EVERY psychic power that targets a Sisters unit can be canceled. Maybe that's a full extensive list of said powers, maybe it even goes overboard and includes powers that would normally not be affected (because they can't target Sisters, for example), maybe it's not a complete list and is twice as bad. But my issue was the very fact that they were listed in the first place instead of keeping it simple and keeping it "all". It's unnecessary, adds a damn list to search through and, if they messed it up, potentially abusable (whether or not they did is irrelevant). All in all? It's a very poor choice for them to do so.

Allright, this is ridiculous, you're criticizing something you didn't even bother checking. Seriously, get a grip.

There's no such thing as excessively throrough while organizing big events by the way.

[Polonius]

As for your final comment; no, also screw you.

Done and Done!

[Melissia]

There's no such thing as excessively throrough while organizing big events by the way.
Thorough no, complicated yes.


"All" means "All". If it affects a Sister of Battle model, then Shield of Faith can cancel it. That's thorough.

Having a huge list of crap MAY be thorough, but you'd have to update it every codex and faq release, and it's far more complicated than "all". Therefor it is an unnecessary addition that does nothing good for the FAQ. Yes, it is nitpicking, but then when reading through it I find that I have a lot of nits to pick with this thing so it's easier to focus on ones that are most relevant to me.

[Faolain]

I lol'ed at how they couldn't even spell Termagant right. Termagant is a word. Notice how your spell check doesn't underline it? Termagaunt is not a word, not even in the Warhammerverse. Termagant is one of the three misogynistic terms used for Tyranid names. It means a brash and abrasive woman.

Come on folks, get it right!

I disagree on at least half of their rulings for Tyranids. I really hope GW doesn't use this document for inspiration on the real Nids FAQ.

[Melissia]

I was gonna correct him, but apparently Faolain is right...

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1020009&prodId=prod380003a

For some reason it's "termagant" and "hormagaunt" rather than -gaunt being a suffix.

[Madness]

Thorough no, complicated yes.


"All" means "All". If it affects a Sister of Battle model, then Shield of Faith can cancel it. That's thorough.

Having a huge list of crap MAY be thorough, but you'd have to update it every codex and faq release, and it's far more complicated than "all". Therefor it is an unnecessary addition that does nothing good for the FAQ. Yes, it is nitpicking, but then when reading through it I find that I have a lot of nits to pick with this thing so it's easier to focus on ones that are most relevant to me.

Unless maybe in this faq it's not all, or it's all+1, or maybe some of the powers are ambiguous regarding the way they fit the definition of what gets nullified. Just because you think you can interpret it right away doesn't mean other can't have problems with it.

Extreme prejudice is ok only if you're roleplaying.

[Sangre]

Termagant (n) /'tɜ:məgənt/
1. A quarrelsome, scolding woman

[Melissia]

Unless maybe in this faq it's not all, or it's all+1, or maybe some of the powers are ambiguous regarding the way they fit the definition of what gets nullified.There is no ambiguity in which powers are affected by the Shield of Faith. If it affects a Sisters of Battle model (or targets Sisters, or includes Sisters in its area of effect), then it is affected by the Shield of Faith. If it does not affect a Sisters of Battle model (for example, targeting a vehicle, or an inducted/allied unit), then it is unaffected by Shield of Faith.

You seriously can't get less ambiguous than that. Also, don't think powergaming is somehow nonexistent in roleplaying games :P

[gcsmith]

To me the document is a shambles. They say things like *clarification* after saying rules like Spore cannot assult. They cannot clarify rules as GW have not put their seal on it, secondly they word it saying that since their MOVE is replaced by drift it replaces their assult move. Fine ill use that clarification to assult MOVE my assult marines 12". They totaly missrepresent rules. Looking at nids. The deathleaper says to a minium of 1 dice in his special slow rule. and yet they some how *clarify* it to stopping movement completely when his rule says clearly. They you have the +1 reserve from tyrants saying WHILE ALIVE. Since models off the board are alive they affect while off the board, yet they *clarify* it to not affect saying theres no rule.

The rules are there, and rules in the dexes overide them. The fact they also have comp scores for fantasy and Im glad im not an American gamer. They show sloppy reading. and at least the GW ones are written by the rules makers so actually know the RAI.

[Shavnir]

The fact they also have comp scores for fantasy and Im glad im not an American gamer. They show sloppy reading. and at least the GW ones are written by the rules makers so actually know the RAI.

Without some sort of comp scores in fantasy it would just be a VC vs DoC grudge match.

Without this document running a tournament would be wholy at the whims of the TOs. The fact that this document exists speaks volumes about the horrible ruleswriting on GW's part.

[gcsmith]

Shavnir, Ive only ever needed the GW FAQ's they answer most questions ive had. They aint that sloppy unless ur a rules b**** who shouldnt be playing anyway. Lol comp scores are never needed, DoC aint great and VC aint great ive beaten both and will proceed to do so with HE

[Polonius]

There is no ambiguity in which powers are affected by the Shield of Faith. If it affects a Sisters of Battle model (or targets Sisters, or includes Sisters in its area of effect), then it is affected by the Shield of Faith. If it does not affect a Sisters of Battle model (for example, targeting a vehicle, or an inducted/allied unit), then it is unaffected by Shield of Faith.

You seriously can't get less ambiguous than that. Also, don't think powergaming is somehow nonexistent in roleplaying games :P

I'm very confused why listing the powers offends you so much. I'm guessing they are listed to prevent the following scenario:
Eldar player: I fortune my seer council that's in HtH with your Sisters.
Sisters Player: Since fortune affects my ability to do damage, I get a 5+ chance to ignore it.
Eldar Player: No you don't!
Sister Player: yes I do!
Both: Judge!

It's stupid, and the judge should make the correct call, but with this document, it's clear what's included.

One of the mistakes I think you keep making is assuming that because things are clear and unambiguous to you, they must be clear to everybody else. That is, alas, seldom true. I don't agree with every ruling, but I think most are based on some form of reasoning. And I know, you care more about the reasoning than the results, but that's in some ways more demanding. You don't want the results that agree, you only want to play by rules created by people that think like you do.

[MVBrandt]

That's pretty much it, point on. It's hardly the worst of their FAQ entries, and there certainly are people who would argue that fortune point. Opinions not affected by the myopia of only caring about one army would be nice.

That said, the INAT FAQ is full of fail. As much as credit might be due for putting together an exhaustive FAQ for the entire game, the lengths to which rules are amended or changed to suit their own opinions is a little over the top. Some rules SHOULD be determined much more simply.

I don't play Orks, but will forever be irritated by the irrationality of their deffrollas/ram ruling. Rawr.

[Shavnir]

I don't play Orks, but will forever be irritated by the irrationality of their deffrollas/ram ruling. Rawr.

If ram was a type of tank shock it would have to stop an inch from an enemy vehicle which sort of makes it a bit pointless eh? Besides deffrollas hitting vehicles is some of the most overpowered crap I've ever seen.

[Bean]

It's true--while I'm inclined to agree that Ramming is a type of Tank Shock, that conclusion has unfortunate consequences: i.e. that Ramming doesn't work at all.

So, I'm basically alright with that particular resolution.

[Polonius]

That's pretty much it, point on. It's hardly the worst of their FAQ entries, and there certainly are people who would argue that fortune point. Opinions not affected by the myopia of only caring about one army would be nice.

That said, the INAT FAQ is full of fail. As much as credit might be due for putting together an exhaustive FAQ for the entire game, the lengths to which rules are amended or changed to suit their own opinions is a little over the top. Some rules SHOULD be determined much more simply.

I don't play Orks, but will forever be irritated by the irrationality of their deffrollas/ram ruling. Rawr.

I'm not trying to start anything, but the Deff rolla is the perfect example of the sort of 6-5 pick'em that everybody thinks is clear cut. For what it's worth, the guys wanted to allow it, but changed to match the British GTs.

There seems to be this idea that answering rules questions is like geometric proofs. Many are pretty clear once textual analysis is applied, but a lot are still unclear. They're judgement calls. I'm a lawyer, and many federal court decisions are about interpreting statutes, each of which have far more background than Gw's rules. Courts still make decisions that plenty of people disagree with. Are they wrong? No, they just picked a different horse.

Realize too, that for every interpretation that makes you made, there's one that you totally agree with that is making somebody else mad. You can assume that the other person is wrong and you are right, but that seems a bit presumptious, if you ask me...

[Lerra]

I like the INAT FAQ despite my annoyance with some of the rulings. FAQs reduce drama and nerdrage in tournaments. I'd much rather be annoyed at home than travel half way across the country to a tournament only to find out in the middle of a game that my army list is illegal or the combo that I built my army around doesn't work. Also, if you get angry by an FAQ ruling, you are angry at the FAQ and not at your opponent or the judge, and you don't end up with deffrollas working differently on round 2 than they did on round 1.

My biggest annoyance with the INAT FAQ is that Tau are not allowed to purchase a devilfish using a troops slot, despite the devilfish being listed under troops and not under dedicated transports. It sucked when I built my silly mechanized kroot list only to learn that it was disallowed, but I'd still rather know in advance. I hadn't even considered it to be controversial and I wouldn't have know without the FAQ.

[Madness]

The whole discussion boils down to "it's clear to me, so no one will ever have doubt on that issue".

That's not how it works, because it's clear to me that if you use call_user_func_array in php without passing the second parameter as reference you're going to have troubles with servers using php 5.3, but apparently there's someone who doesn't know that, even among php developers, not to mention those who know but act like they don't. Maybe they are just stupid, or mean, or just tired and forgot about it, but having a clear ruling helps.

You think it's obvious? Good for you. You'll be surprised tho how often in your life you find out that what you thought to be obvious is not to someone else, or even worse, is not how you thought it to be. A clarification doesn't hurt anyone.

You seriously have no place in complaining about this. You might not like the resulting game with the new ruleset, in that case do not participate. But complaining? Come on.

[Polonius]

The whole discussion boils down to "it's clear to me, so no one will ever have doubt on that issue".

That's not how it works, because it's clear to me that if you use call_user_func_array in php without passing the second parameter as reference you're going to have troubles with servers using php 5.3, but apparently there's someone who doesn't know that, even among php developers, not to mention those who know but act like they don't. Maybe they are just stupid, or mean, or just tired and forgot about it, but having a clear ruling helps.

You think it's obvious? Good for you. You'll be surprised tho how often in your life you find out that what you thought to be obvious is not to someone else, or even worse, is not how you thought it to be. A clarification doesn't hurt anyone.

You seriously have no place in complaining about this. You might not like the resulting game with the new ruleset, in that case do not participate. But complaining? Come on.

Well done sir. Well said.

[Renegade]

Glad that the UK circuit doesnt rely on the INAT so much. To many inconsistencies and rules changes. Its ok as a standby, but it has some shocking judgements in places.

These guys really need to learn what needs meddling with and what is good by RAW, meddling for the sake of meddling (which it does a lot of) is stupid.

[MVBrandt]

See, here's the perfect example. Ramming's very first line is that it is a special type of tank shock, that follows all the regular rules *except* blah blah blah (1" limitations etc). Somehow you get a lot of very intelligent people having the argument, resolving it, and by the time they're done the simple text of it all is long forgotten.

INAT seems like a mess largely for that massive reason.

[Bean]

The ram rules do not contain an exception to the 1" rule.

Really, though, having read it again, Ramming just doesn't work at all. It's executed in the same way as a tank shock--that means the tank can't come within an inch of enemy models. It's not allowed to come into contact with the enemy tank at all.

[rle68]

Let me educate you....

These guys are the same people that have been writing the FAQs you use on the GW Website since around 2006.

Merry Christmas.

Yes i was aware of that i also know they are no longer doing that

[Bean]

Yes i was aware of that i also know they are no longer doing that

Buffo lives in his own little world of make-believe and fairies, suffering only occasionally from brushes with such alien concepts as "facts" and "reality," which quickly fade from memory and cease to trouble him.

[Melissia]

For an above post way above... the only reason I "didn't check" whether or not they included all psychic powers that Shield of Faith effects is because I don't own all of the codices and it's a ton of work for a forum post in a pointless argument, so screw it. Not looking at every psychic power and trying to imagine every situation in where it might be able to effect a Sisters of Battle unit. That would be stupid to even try.


I'm very confused why listing the powers offends you so much. I'm guessing they are listed to prevent the following scenario:
Eldar player: I fortune my seer council that's in HtH with your Sisters.
Sisters Player: Since fortune affects my ability to do damage, I get a 5+ chance to ignore it.
Eldar Player: No you don't!
Sister Player: yes I do!
Both: Judge!They could argue that, but they would be very clearly wrong and blatantly powergaming just like the people whom have argued that if they have two units lined up like this, both units get a 4+ cover save:

AAAAABBBBB
BBBBBAAAAA
BBBBBAAAAA

People argue anything to get an advantage, and people could even argue with the wording in the FAQs where they claim "clarification" in odd situations. No matter how heavily you FAQ an item, you're still going ot have to make judgement calls. It's NOT better to add tons of text to a FAQ. Instead, it's better to encourage maturity and discourage immaturity within a tournament setting.

[BuFFo]

Buffo lives in his own little world of make-believe and fairies, suffering only occasionally from brushes with such alien concepts as "facts" and "reality," which quickly fade from memory and cease to trouble him.

Once you hit 16 years old, then I'll include you in the big boy discussions :p :p

[Shavnir]

Once you hit 16 years old, then I'll include you in the big boy discussions :p :p

Yes, lest our petty minds be rent apart by the arcane machinations that lead to your utterly illogical and yet constantly asserted opinions on the authorship of FAQs.

[Madness]

Not looking at every psychic power and trying to imagine every situation in where it might be able to effect a Sisters of Battle unit. That would be stupid to even try. I strongly disagree, it's just prevention, and yes, rules are stupid and we shouldn't need them, but on the average people is MORE stupid, so we do need them.

[Melissia]

It's nigh-impossible to think of EVERYTHING when it comes to rules, and having a bunch of rules means rules-lawyering-- the more rules, the more lawyering. Encouraging maturity is far better, even if it's not as easy.

[Polonius]

I'd love to hear you explain how a black and white list encourages rules lawyering.

[Melissia]

I'm not going to; I just know that people will rules lawyer anything, even if it is utterly illogical. Even if the rules specifically say otherwise.

[Polonius]

the question isn't about what people will argue, it's how quickly a third party judge can make a ruling. If the list is correct, it will always be quicker to simply check a list then to try to figure out the situation, particularly if the judge isnt' an expert on sisters.

Your argument breaks down unless you make the assumption that the list is wrong. If the list is correct than it's at worst exactly the same, at best more convenient for all parties. Seriously, you're trying to argue that an exhaustive list is somehow more prone to abuse than a rule?

[Lerra]

Among a group of friends, the FAQ isn't needed and does make rules arguments take longer. It's easy in a casual game to just 4+ a dispute, or come up with a common-sense or fluff-based solution.

In a tournament, it doesn't work that way, and people are likely to get angry when money is at stake (potentially a lot of money). It really is easier to have a massive pdf to consult.

[Melissia]

Seriously, you're trying to argue that an exhaustive list is somehow more prone to abuse than a rule?
No, I am not. I'm saying I think it's bad FAQ design.

[BuFFo]

I'm not going to; I just know that people will rules lawyer anything, even if it is utterly illogical. Even if the rules specifically say otherwise.

This is the reason why I have stopped posting 'books' in my responses to people online because there is no point. Online, people will argue just for the sake of arguing, whether they are actually right or wrong, and despite what people may think of me, I avoid 'ego discussions' like the plague. That is reserved for the realm of the child-minded. I do not need to post to make myself feel smart, so I keep my posts short and sweet.

The one thing that separates online posters and real life gamers is compromise. I do not play with OBVIOUS rules lawyers in real life. They aren't worth my time and fun. If my opponent and I have a disagreement that we cannot come to an accord with, I will usually let them have the right of way, mainly due to the fact I will probably stomp them into submission anyway, and after that game, I am leery of playing that person ever again.

[Melissia]

Yes yes yes, we know you're a troll Buffo, no need to go ranting about it :P But anyway, jesting and pointless paragraphs aside...

Also:

I do not need to post to make myself feel smartAlways good to know you keep realistic expectations of yourself :D

Of course not, I wouldn't willingly play with rules lawyers either. But this is tourney play we're talking about. It attracts them like sharks to bloody water. Yes, we know you don't like or care for tournaments, but they are a part of the game that a great many people DO like-- the competitive side of the gaming aspect of 40k, if you will.

[BuFFo]

Yes yes yes, we know you're a troll Buffo, no need to go ranting about it :P But anyway, jesting and pointless paragraphs aside...

Also:
Always good to know you keep realistic expectations of yourself :D

Of course not, I wouldn't willingly play with rules lawyers either. But this is tourney play we're talking about. It attracts them like sharks to bloody water. Yes, we know you don't like or care for tournaments, but they are a part of the game that a great many people DO like-- the competitive side of the gaming aspect of 40k, if you will.

I know your ego doesn't allow for the acknowledgment of the existence of opinions outside your own.

It must be hard being you :)

[Melissia]

The irony here is baffling... especially considering I stated that I know some people like things that I'm not into i the very post you quoted when you made that statement.

More importantly, I know that many people do like the international FAQ linked to in the OP. But I don't. I don't disrespect people who like it, but (and this is a concept I'm rather not sure you grasp) respect does not equal agreement. Certainly I don't think I've insulted anyone for liking it, though I have no control over how people interpret my posts. Still, if this thread exists for nothing more than a bunch of people circle-jerking about how much they love this FAQ, then the thread does not need to exist at all. A discussion forum needs more than one side to each discussion (better to have more than two sides, for that matter), after all.

The FAQ has several logical errors, errors in recording changes as clarifications, and many things which just somehow bug me. I could say the same thing about many GW products in general. How WFB treats spears is a big one, for example (if a group of horsemen charged a spearwall of a disciplined and orderly army, then they should be rather worse off for it... but in WFB that's a viable tactic), Saying I think this FAQ is flawed and I would not use it does not equate to disrespecting anyone who thinks otherwise.

[Madness]

Actually no one is directly praising the faq, I'm just stating that being excessively throrough is not possible in situations like these, you can only be insufficiently throrough. You don't like the faq for whatever reason? Fine, you're obviously entitled to.

But trying to put an objective spin on what's really just a subjective opinion is just wrong.

Passing rulings you disagree with as "logical errors" is not appliable, even if the faq took warhammer 40k and made it a completely different game, it would still not "count as" logical error, it's a choice they took, you can either agree or disagree, but there's no way your opinion can be ruled as "truth" while their is "lie".

The faq is not flawed, it's not filled with errors, it's not irrational, it's a point of view the tournament organizers have expressed on how 40k should be played in their enviroment.

[Melissia]

Yes, you say that, but with no real argument or logic behind it.

A game can be illogical in its core rules, so saying that it makes a completely new game does not make a difference to me. An internally consistent game is generally more playable than one which is internally inconsistent, I'm sure most people will agree-- it's why many people have a problem with the multiple definitions of many types of wargear, aged codices are not consistent with more recent ones, and so 40k itself is flawed in many peoples' eyes because of that, amongst other reasons. Which necessitates the need for a FAQ like this. But it doesn't excuse the FAQ itself introducing new flaws.

[Madness]

And how do you prove internal consistency? Because if you can't prove it conclusively it's an opinion and not a fact. Subjective, not objective.

There is opinion, there is consensus and there is fact.

Your opinion is that the FAQ is flawed, which doesn't make it a fact, and it doubtly makes it a consensus.

[Mycroft Holmes]

"And how do you prove internal consistency? Because if you can't prove it conclusively it's an opinion and not a fact. Subjective, not objective."

It may not be able to prove internal consistency, but it's pretty damn easy to disprove.

FAQ A
"Counter Attack does not trigger Furious Charge."

FAQ B
"Counter Attack does trigger Furious Charge."

Pretty easy to point out logic errors, when the only thing that differs between the two explanations is the unit using the ability.

[Madness]

You're paraphrasing.

[yergerjo]

Personally I am not a fan of the INAT FAQ as I strongly dislike several of their interpretations and BLATENT rules changes (which they clearly label).

When looking at the sections that directly concern my armies (Vulkan Space Marines and Dark Eldar) several things come to note.

+DE.11A.01 – Reaver Jetbike Squad: The Toughness of this unit should be listed as T3(4) as the +1 Toughness (and Strength too!) have already been added to their profile for having a Reaver Jetibke [clarification].

Unfortunately, the Codex Stat line of the unit is a base 4/4/4/4/1/6/1/8/4+. Why should the Thunderwolf Cavalry get a real bonus to Toughness while ours gets broken down?

DE.12C.01 – Q: The GW online DE FAQ says that Talos uses all the rules for Monstrous Creatures. Does that mean its own „Skimmer‟ rule is no longer used?
A: The Talos follows the rules for Monstrous Creatures as well as its own „Skimmer‟ rule which means it ignores the effects of terrain as it moves but if it ends the move in terrain it must then take a dangerous terrain test [clarification].

Per the GW Dark Eldar Codex FAQ, the Talos is only treated as a Monstrous Creature and not a skimmer. BTW, the DE FAQ was also written by Yakface. Mind you this is also a total rules change from the Codex.

DE.12C.04 – Q: When the Talos attacks a vehicle in close combat does it get the 2D6 penetration roll for being a Monstrous Creature as well as the „Talos Claws‟ special rule?
A: Yes, the Talos only hits an enemy vehicle once no matter how many „hits‟ are rolled. Armor penetration is then 7+2D6 and +1 for each additional hit that was rolled after the first [RAW].

This is a further rules change building on their DE: FAQ ruling. The Codex only gives the Talos it's S7 + 1 per hit against the vehicle. I understand that by their ruling this way it would benefit myself as a player, it is still a rules change.

DE.14N.01 – Poisoned Blades: Are a poisoned weapon as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook [clarification].[i]

Codex states that Poisoned Blades always wound on a 2+ regardless of Toughness. Mind you this is NOT a power weapon attack so Armor saves apply AND we cannot combine this weapon with any others to gain a bonus attack such as for a pistol and CCW since it is a special weapon and the Codex explicitly states this fact. (Oh and we lose the benefit of plasma grenades if we charge into cover with it too).

[i]DE.15E.01 – Q: Can a Terrorfex cause a Fearless unit to become Pinned („Go to Ground‟)?
A: No, the Ld test caused by a Terrorfex is considered a Pinning Test [clarification].

Per the Codex it is a Leadership test which failure causes pinning. This means by our "Doom" logic it is a characteristic test, and Fearless units only automatically pass Morale tests and Pinning tests.

I do not personally use this wargear as it feels like an exploitation of a loophole, but since by the same logic Doom should cause Fearless units to suffer with it, I just might start.

+DE.15H.02 – Q: Can a Webway Portal be deployed by an embarked model?
A: No, as you must actually place the marker in contact with the model carrying it [RAW].

Uhm...as we have determined previous for all things regarding an embarked unit except shooting you measure to the hull of a vehicle. Therefore, provided the vehicle did not move during the previous movement phase you may deploy the WWP into base contact with the Raider.

+DE.15K.01 – Q: The online GW rulebook FAQ says wargear doesn‟t affect enemy models unless the rule specifically says so. With this in mind, does the „Goblet of Spite‟ affect enemy units?
A: Yes, this is a case where the wargear can (and does) affect enemy units [rules change].

Ok, by the Codex models in base contact with the Model carrying the Goblet of Spite always hit on a 3+; the rulebook FAQ adds the restriction that it must specify "Friend or Foe" to work...so what rule takes precedence? Unfortunately, I'd have to agree and run Codex trumps rulebook and it affects the enemy.

+RB.52B.01 – Q: If a non Jump-Infantry model is able to „move as‟ Jump Infantry (such as a Tyranid Hive Tyrant with wings, for example), does that mean they are also allowed to Deep Strike?
A: Yes it does [clarification].

So we are just handing out special rules and characteristics now? Unless the unit has the deep strike rule explained as part of their upgrade or base statistics then no.

SM.57H.02 – Q: Can „The Gate of Infinity‟ be used on a unit (including the Psyker) that is falling back or locked in close combat?
A: A unit that is falling back (because they are unable to regroup that turn) or locked in close combat, including the psyker himself, may not be transported via „The Gate of Infinity‟ [clarification].

By the Codex, there is no reason why this couldn't pull the unit out of close combat. It is NOT a shooting psychic power, it is used in the movement phase, nothing of which restricts it's use.

SM.84B.01 – Q: If a unit uses „God of War‟ to pass a Morale Check in close combat does this trigger „No Retreat‟ wounds?
A: Yes [clarification].
Ref: DH.22B.01, WH.26B.01

Uhm, units benefiting from God of War do not automatically pass morale checks, they still take them but CHOOSE to Pass. Therefore they should not trigger No Retreat.

SM.93A.01 – Q: Does Vulkan‟s Chapter Tactics benefit weaponry of allied units included in the army (such as allied Sisters of Battle flamers, for example)?
A: Yes, if the weapon is part of his army, including inquisitorial allies, then it benefits from his Chapter Tactics special rule [RAW].
Ref: IG.GEN.01, SW.56B.01

I'm a Vulkan Marine player, have been since the Codex came out, but while by the RAW this works, it still just "feels" wrong to me.

****
These are just specific cases where I have issue with the INAT FAQ. Personally I will not knowingly play a tournament someplace that has accepted the INAT FAQ carte blanche.

[Lerra]

DE.14N.01 – Poisoned Blades: Are a poisoned weapon as described in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook [clarification].

Codex states that Poisoned Blades always wound on a 2+ regardless of Toughness. Mind you this is NOT a power weapon attack so Armor saves apply AND we cannot combine this weapon with any others to gain a bonus attack such as for a pistol and CCW since it is a special weapon and the Codex explicitly states this fact. (Oh and we lose the benefit of plasma grenades if we charge into cover with it too).

I'm not understanding your problem here. DE poison blades still wound on a 2+ as is stated in the codex. The only change is that all poison weapons in 5th ed get a re-roll is the wielder's strength is greater than or equal to the target's toughness. The FAQ simply clarifies that Poisoned Blades are, in fact, poison weapons. That seems reasonable.

[AbusePuppy]

+RB.52B.01 – Q: If a non Jump-Infantry model is able to „move as‟ Jump Infantry (such as a Tyranid Hive Tyrant with wings, for example), does that mean they are also allowed to Deep Strike?
A: Yes it does [clarification].

So we are just handing out special rules and characteristics now? Unless the unit has the deep strike rule explained as part of their upgrade or base statistics then no.

While INAT may be trash 90% of the time, in this case they're actually right. The ability to Deep Strike is listed under the movement rules of Jump Infantry, so a unit that "moves like" (which I presume to mean "has the movement rules of") Jump Infantry also gains their ability to Deep Strike.

A lot of the DE stuff is pretty bulls***, though.


SM.93A.01 – Q: Does Vulkan‟s Chapter Tactics benefit weaponry of allied units included in the army (such as allied Sisters of Battle flamers, for example)?
A: Yes, if the weapon is part of his army, including inquisitorial allies, then it benefits from his Chapter Tactics special rule [RAW].
Ref: IG.GEN.01, SW.56B.01

I'm a Vulkan Marine player, have been since the Codex came out, but while by the RAW this works, it still just "feels" wrong to me.

it may "feel" wrong, but think about it this way: do Dreadnaughts, Land Speeders, and other units that lack Combat Tactics benefit from Vulkan's ability? Then why not allies? The fluff justification ("But they're not space marines!") is meaningless here, as we're talking about rules.

[Sangre]

Fair being fair, I wouldn't blame them for getting DE rules wrong, they're so old I don't think even Jervis and Gav remember the rules they wrote.

[BuFFo]

+DE.15K.01 – Q: The online GW rulebook FAQ says wargear doesn‟t affect enemy models unless the rule specifically says so. With this in mind, does the „Goblet of Spite‟ affect enemy units?
A: Yes, this is a case where the wargear can (and does) affect enemy units [rules change].

Ok, by the Codex models in base contact with the Model carrying the Goblet of Spite always hit on a 3+; the rulebook FAQ adds the restriction that it must specify "Friend or Foe" to work...so what rule takes precedence? Unfortunately, I'd have to agree and run Codex trumps rulebook and it affects the enemy.

The Goblet no longer affects enemy units as per the rule book FAQ. If you go by the Codex, there still is no mention of an enemy unit, which is what is now needed!

Goblet is so much awesome.... :)