Author Topic: New INAT replacement?  (Read 1883 times)

andalucien

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
New INAT replacement?
« on: February 14, 2013, 05:10:07 PM »
http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/02/14/40k-independent-tournament-faq/

I suggest we latch onto this ASAP for Battlegrounds tourneys.
Name:  Matthew Forsyth
Club:  Errybody in the gettin tips
Where I play: basically I only show up for tourneys or when I'm on my way up to New Hampshire to visit my folks.  I live about 45 mins from both stores, to the south.

andalucien

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
Re: New INAT replacement?
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2013, 05:13:25 PM »
Scanning through it, it's pretty concise, and there are a lot of rulings in there which really needed a decision.  The fact that they haven't been brought up to Sam yet is just luck.
Name:  Matthew Forsyth
Club:  Errybody in the gettin tips
Where I play: basically I only show up for tourneys or when I'm on my way up to New Hampshire to visit my folks.  I live about 45 mins from both stores, to the south.

PhoenixFire

  • Epic Tier Level 30
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
Re: New INAT replacement?
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2013, 06:05:57 PM »
Some interesting rulings in there, some definitely need a ruling like banner of devastation and others i hadn't even thought of as a potential problem like drop pods losing a hull point when they deploy

keithb

  • Epic Tier Level 24
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: New INAT replacement?
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2013, 06:33:19 PM »
There were errors before I had to scroll down, not a good sign.

andalucien

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
Re: New INAT replacement?
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2013, 06:36:44 PM »
By errors, did you mean like, spelling errors, or what you see as bad rulings?

Here's a key excerpt:
"Please note, this is a working draft of the FAQ as voted upon by a council of Independent Tournament Organizers... This is also the FAQ you will see at many events, including Adepticon, WargamesCon, Feast of Blades, etc. so the rulings here will be in common use."

I believe that the TO's for these events are all participating in this document's creation.   
Name:  Matthew Forsyth
Club:  Errybody in the gettin tips
Where I play: basically I only show up for tourneys or when I'm on my way up to New Hampshire to visit my folks.  I live about 45 mins from both stores, to the south.

Loranus

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
  • Pyromaniac with a Hat
    • Gaming with a Hat
    • Email
Re: New INAT replacement?
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2013, 09:10:43 PM »
Quote
Blast Weapons

Models completely out of LoS of the firing unit can be hit by a blast template and add wounds to the wound pool for the shooting attack.  However, models completely out of LoS cannot have unsaved wounds allocated to them, and so cannot be removed as a casualties.

That ruling itself doesn't make sense to me just like the Flame one right below it. So normal shooting would be able to allocate wounds to units not in LOS but a Blast can not? If most of the unit is out of LOS they get a cover save that is the purpose of the Focus Fire Special rule is to deny that cover save to get more kills.
I ride in on my Bike with my Hat of awesome and say Nay this place should be on fire.

http://gamingwithahat.wordpress.com

Sir_Prometheus

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
    • Email
Re: New INAT replacement?
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2013, 09:54:04 PM »
Normal shooting cannot cause wounds to be allocated to models out of LOS, no.

Mannahnin

  • Heroic Tier Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 83
    • Email
Re: New INAT replacement?
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2013, 10:04:47 PM »
Normal shooting can't ever hit/wound models out of LOS.  Blasts have specific permission to do so (the rulebook just allowed scattering blasts to do so, then the FAQ said they can do it when they don't scatter too), but they don't have specific permission to allocate wounds to models out of LOS.  Personally i think that blasts probably should be allowed to, but I can see the reason they ruled it this way; to be a bit more consistent with the general principle that non-barrage shooting can't kill guys the firers can't see.

Sir_Prometheus

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
    • Email
Re: New INAT replacement?
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2013, 10:42:44 PM »
THis is one of those things I disagree with, I kinda think blasts and flamers should be able to wound things they can't see too. 

It does have the advantage that ime means you can play LOS blocking shenanigans with rhinos to maybe assault a pack of flamers and only lose a guy or two. Meh, theory I heard.   

Sir_Prometheus

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
    • Email
Re: New INAT replacement?
« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2013, 10:55:08 PM »
Err, I think I found one that's just plain wrong:

Quote
A marked Independent Character from the Chaos Space Marines codex cannot join a unit from the Chaos Daemons codex without a mark but devoted to a different god (e.g. Lucius the Eternal cannot join a unit of Bloodletters)

Isn't there a special rule for the demon codex, that no non-demon IC can join their units at all?  Battle brothers, yes, I don't think CSM and Demon ICs can join each others squads under any circumstance.

Mannahnin

  • Heroic Tier Level 2
  • **
  • Posts: 83
    • Email
Re: New INAT replacement?
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2013, 01:26:31 AM »
Yes.  It's on the first page of the daemons FAQ.

keithb

  • Epic Tier Level 24
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: New INAT replacement?
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2013, 09:18:55 AM »
By errors, did you mean like, spelling errors, or what you see as bad rulings?

Here's a key excerpt:
"Please note, this is a working draft of the FAQ as voted upon by a council of Independent Tournament Organizers... This is also the FAQ you will see at many events, including Adepticon, WargamesCon, Feast of Blades, etc. so the rulings here will be in common use."

I believe that the TO's for these events are all participating in this document's creation.

Rulings that are against clear rules, or fabricated out of no where to determine how things "should" work.

There is also a complete lack of East coast events on that list.

andalucien

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
Re: New INAT replacement?
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2013, 10:02:32 AM »
Yeah the Nova Open is kinda glaring in its omission there, isn't it?   On the Frontline Gaming podcast, I'm pretty sure I remember Mike Brandt being a part of the discussions as well.  I wonder if they had a falling out, or if he just randomly didn't type all the names, or what...  well, we'll see how it plays out.

I agree that some of these rulings are "out there" but I actually like that, and mostly like the rulings.  Especially for items where GW clearly left the rules unfinished, like the Skyshield Landing pad.  I'm telling you, RATSB - Rules As They Should Be.
Name:  Matthew Forsyth
Club:  Errybody in the gettin tips
Where I play: basically I only show up for tourneys or when I'm on my way up to New Hampshire to visit my folks.  I live about 45 mins from both stores, to the south.

keithb

  • Epic Tier Level 24
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: New INAT replacement?
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2013, 11:12:45 AM »
Yeah the Nova Open is kinda glaring in its omission there, isn't it?   On the Frontline Gaming podcast, I'm pretty sure I remember Mike Brandt being a part of the discussions as well.  I wonder if they had a falling out, or if he just randomly didn't type all the names, or what...  well, we'll see how it plays out.

I agree that some of these rulings are "out there" but I actually like that, and mostly like the rulings.  Especially for items where GW clearly left the rules unfinished, like the Skyshield Landing pad.  I'm telling you, RATSB - Rules As They Should Be.

While NOVA is the largest East coast GT, there are many. It seems a joke that they don't even mention them.

Anyways...

Quote
Being “removed from play” is the same thing as being “removed as a casualty”.
Really? GW has had 10 years+ to fix this if it were a problem, and have not.

Quote
When a unit makes a shooting attack, so long as a model in the target unit was within range and LoS of at least one model in the firing unit when To Hit rolls were made the target model may have wounds allocated to it and be removed as a casualty.

Not needed.

Quote
The Assault Phase

Units are considered to be locked in close combat as soon as any enemy model moves into base to base contact with the unit.  This prevents them from firing Overwatch against other units charging later in the Assault phase. [pg. 23, W40KRB]
Units may choose not to make a Consolidation move after winning an assault.  If they choose not to all models in the unit are left in their exact positions.  [pg. 27, W40KRB]
If a unit chooses to make a Consolidation move all models in the unit must end the movement 1” away from all enemy models. This means that if a unit chooses to make a Consolidation move it must end the move 1” away from all enemy vehicles, including those it may have just attacked in close combat. [pg. 27, W40KRB]

All not needed.

Quote
Multiple instances of the same Malediction cast by different models do stack with each other. [pg. 68, W40KRB]
Not needed.

Quote
The Objuration Mechanicum psychic power has no effect on Zooming Flyers.
 
Pure fabrication.  Objuration Mechanicum is not an attack, as such it isn't bound by the rules of shooting a flier.

Quote
If a model with the Swarms special rule is wounded by a template or blast weapon that also causes Instant Death, the number of wounds is doubled and then an entire model is removed for each wound (e.g. if a Helldrake with a Baleflamer causes 3 wounds to a unit of Necron Scarabs 6 Scarab models would be removed as casualties).  [pgs. 16 & 43, W40KRB]
Not needed.

Quote
A unit can perform a Vector Strike in the same turn that it leaves Combat Airspace.  [pgs. 43 & 81, W40KRB]
Not needed.

Quote
Any attacks or special abilities that automatically effect enemy units without rolling to hit (e.g. an Ork Weirdboy’s Zzap psychic power, Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm or Njal’s Lord of Tempests special rules) have no effect on Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. This is true even if the attacking unit has the Skyfire special rule. 
Two issues with this one.  First, if they have skyfire, that means they don't need to do snapshots to hit a flier, which would mean, they don't fail the test of not being able to hit.   Secondly, "special abilities" are just that, special.  They follow their own rules.  Last time I checked, Airplanes can be hit by lightning.  Pure fabrication on this one.

Quote
Models completely out of LoS of the firing unit can be hit by a blast template and add wounds to the wound pool for the shooting attack.  However, models completely out of LoS cannot have unsaved wounds allocated to them, and so cannot be removed as a casualties.
This seems specifically against the rules of the book.

Quote
A unit with an allied Independent Character attached cannot embark or begin the game embarked upon a transport vehicle. [pg. 112, W40KRB]
Allies of Convenience are scoring units for the purchasing player, provided they meet all requirements to be a scoring unit. [pg. 112, W40KRB]
Neither are needed.

Quote
Gun emplacements cannot be targeted by psychic powers, tank shocked, or assaulted.  If while in assault with another unit a gun emplacement is engaged in close combat, attacks may be directed at the gun emplacement as if it was a separate unit.
Why can't you assault them, you can assault vehicles.

Quote
Any model with a BS greater than 0 may fire a gun emplacement, including all vehicles and models without a ranged weapon. [pg. 105, W40KRB]
This explicitly allows tyranids to fire the guns, which is in direct opposition to the FAQs.

Quote
Fast Attack and Heavy Support choices count as denial units in The Scouring and The Big Guns Never Tire missions respectively.
Changing them rules.

Quote
A drop pod themed army may only start every unit in reserve if the following conditions are met:
Every unit (except Independent Characters) begins the game in their own dedicated drop pod transport.
Every Independent Character is joined to a unit inside their own dedicated drop pod transport.
So read the rule book?


I'll do the individual army ones later, but there seems to be a trend >50% of them are "Read the rule book" and the rest seem evenly split between reasonably clarifications of rules and then total fabrications based on nothing.  More bad than good.

Also, notice how much they buff fliers in this list?  I did.

Typhus

  • Heroic Tier Level 10
  • **
  • Posts: 358
    • Email
Re: New INAT replacement?
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2013, 11:33:14 AM »
"Last time I checked, Airplanes can be hit by lightning"

They FAQ'd it.  Things that count as "auto-hits" such as lightning cannot hurt a flyer.

Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with
Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use
blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or
otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes
weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the
Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic
powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and
novas.

0000 - Rest Period - BUT YOU BETTER NOT SPEND FOUR WHOLE HOURS SLEEPING. IF YOU DO YOU ARE NOT ANGRY ENOUGH AND TOMORROW YOU GET THE FIRST CHANCE TO PLAY PIN THE TAU ON THE CARNIFEX.