New INAT replacement?

[andalucien]

Hmm, I have actually HAD questions come up during games about many of the things that you file under "not needed" - flyers leaving airspace after vector striking, swarms, etc (in those 2 particular examples we came to agreements but weren't really sure it was clear in the rules).    Objuration Mechanicum, assaulting quad guns, range limitation on the wound pool, etc, have all had many long argumetns on the internets about them - even on this forum.   So, while you have definite opinions on all these thigns and may consider them easy to answer, I still think that the game would benefit from a single widely adopted source that gives "conensus interpretations" (like we used to have with the INAT).

[Mannahnin]

Keith, I agree with you that some of these IMO aren't needed, but they may represent questions which these TOs have found are frequently asked.  I saw very few that seemed to be to be based on nothing.

Being “removed from play” is the same thing as being “removed as a casualty”.

I can certainly see ruling this way, given the FAQ on Celestine.

The Objuration Mechanicum psychic power has no effect on Zooming Flyers.

I can deduce what they based this on.  They're trying to draw a clear and simple line on what constitutes an "attack", given that it's not a defined term in the rulebook except as pertains to assault.  The main rulebook FAQ on Zooming Flyers and Swooping FMCs says you can't A) cause hits on them by any means other than Snap Shooting, or B) target them with any attack which affects the target by any other means than Snap Shooting.  On the INAT council we had to have a similar discussion about Brotherhood of Psykers, which says that any attack which specifically targets psykers is resolved against the Justicar or Knight of the Flame in the squad, not against the entire unit.  The question arose- what counts as an attack?  Do Psyk-Out Grenades count as an attack, and thus if one GK Strike Squad asssaulted another, ONLY the Justicar in the unit receiving the charge would be reduced to I1?  We finally agreed that it was an "attack" if it caused or could potentially cause wounds or damage results.  This made for a clean ruling, and avoided some unitutive stuff like Psyk Out Grenades only affecting one psyker out of a squad full of them.  If they're using that same definition for attack, then Objuration Mechanicum would fall into it because it deals Haywire hits to vehicles.

As for the Imotekh Lightning/Njal's storm effects, I actually have to say I agree with them; those would be disallowed by the main rulebook FAQ because they both cause "hits" by a mechanism other than Snap Shooting.  We just had two big discussions about this on Dakka, one focusing on Zzzap from Weirdboys, and one focusing on Tesla Arc bounces:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/506146.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/506529.page

[keithb]

"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.

I've bolded all the relevant parts.

So Objur Mechanum.  Not an attack, not a weapon, not a maelstrom, beam, or nova.

If the lightning special thing is an attack, then it shouldn't work. If it is global effect put on the table(IE shit just gets hit by lightning), it should work as is.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Keith.  I agree with Andalucien, most (but not all) of the things you labeled as "not needed" certainly were needed, they were an open question.

For instance, there is indeed an argument about just what counts as "engaged", when that happens, and how it affects overwatch.  It's stupid obvious if you just follow the RAI, but people want to get all super technical about the RAW again, and that futzz's it up. 

I actually agree with them completely on the Big guns and Scouring thing.  I think the RAI is pretty clear, this whole Scoring-but-not-Denial idea is based on, again, an over technical reading of the rules.  GW rules break when you try to be too technical.

But I disagree with them on the Objuration thing.  Maledictions are not attacks, they are debuffs cast in movement phase.  They don't "automatically hit" they don't "hit" at all. 

[keithb]

Hmm, I have actually HAD questions come up during games about many of the things that you file under "not needed" - flyers leaving airspace after vector striking, swarms, etc (in those 2 particular examples we came to agreements but weren't really sure it was clear in the rules).    Objuration Mechanicum, assaulting quad guns, range limitation on the wound pool, etc, have all had many long argumetns on the internets about them - even on this forum.   So, while you have definite opinions on all these thigns and may consider them easy to answer, I still think that the game would benefit from a single widely adopted source that gives "conensus interpretations" (like we used to have with the INAT).

I understand that no one has encountered everything in the game.  But if all those things are is a handy look up to where the rules are and what the answer is, they shouldn't be mixed in with things that are just a "best guess" or "how we want it to work", as a reader will think they are all officially by the book.

Some of them were argued When the FAQ ruling was first made, or when the book first came out. That is fine, then they are settled.  Again, shouldn't be mixed in.

[keithb]

Keith.  I agree with Andalucien, most (but not all) of the things you labeled as "not needed" certainly were needed, they were an open question.

For instance, there is indeed an argument about just what counts as "engaged", when that happens, and how it affects overwatch.  It's stupid obvious if you just follow the RAI, but people want to get all super technical about the RAW again, and that futzz's it up. 

I actually agree with them completely on the Big guns and Scouring thing.  I think the RAI is pretty clear, this whole Scoring-but-not-Denial idea is based on, again, an over technical reading of the rulesActual reading of rules.  GW rules break when you try to be too technical.

But I disagree with them on the Objuration thing.  Maledictions are not attacks, they are debuffs cast in movement phase.  They don't "automatically hit" they don't "hit" at all.

I disagree about RAI in regards to scouring or big guns.  For all we know GW was like, "Hey lets make these things able to score uncontested objectives in some missions", Not "Hey lets make these things be able to score and contest any objective in some missions".  A clear, plain word reading of the rules supports the former, not the latter.  This might be a mistake on GW fault, but don't pretend I am "overly technical" on my rule reading.  Besides, infantry from Fast attack or Heavy Support are ALREADY DENIAL.

[keithb]

Keith, I agree with you that some of these IMO aren't needed, but they may represent questions which these TOs have found are frequently asked.  I saw very few that seemed to be to be based on nothing.

Being “removed from play” is the same thing as being “removed as a casualty”.

I can certainly see ruling this way, given the FAQ on Celestine.

The Objuration Mechanicum psychic power has no effect on Zooming Flyers.

I can deduce what they based this on.  They're trying to draw a clear and simple line on what constitutes an "attack", given that it's not a defined term in the rulebook except as pertains to assault.  The main rulebook FAQ on Zooming Flyers and Swooping FMCs says you can't A) cause hits on them by any means other than Snap Shooting, or B) target them with any attack which affects the target by any other means than Snap Shooting.  On the INAT council we had to have a similar discussion about Brotherhood of Psykers, which says that any attack which specifically targets psykers is resolved against the Justicar or Knight of the Flame in the squad, not against the entire unit.  The question arose- what counts as an attack?  Do Psyk-Out Grenades count as an attack, and thus if one GK Strike Squad asssaulted another, ONLY the Justicar in the unit receiving the charge would be reduced to I1?  We finally agreed that it was an "attack" if it caused or could potentially cause wounds or damage results.  This made for a clean ruling, and avoided some unitutive stuff like Psyk Out Grenades only affecting one psyker out of a squad full of them.  If they're using that same definition for attack, then Objuration Mechanicum would fall into it because it deals Haywire hits to vehicles.

As for the Imotekh Lightning/Njal's storm effects, I actually have to say I agree with them; those would be disallowed by the main rulebook FAQ because they both cause "hits" by a mechanism other than Snap Shooting.  We just had two big discussions about this on Dakka, one focusing on Zzzap from Weirdboys, and one focusing on Tesla Arc bounces:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/506146.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/506529.page

I can certainly agree about the first one, I don't have much of any issue with it.

As to the other stuff. They clearly reference "Attack" and "Weapon" and "maelstrom, beams, novas"  So while Tesla ark hits are from a weapon(even if they are not an attack), Imotek's ability is neither an attack or generating from a weapon AFAIK, so it doesn't trigger the conditions.

Likewise, a malediction is neither an attack, nor generating from a weapon, nor a nova/beam/maelstrom. So it doesn't trigger  the conditions either.   Also, Fliers should be able to be cursed, if you want to argue that the haywire hit doesn't happen to fliers, I would still disagree, but to say I can't affect a flier in any way ever, unless it is a snap shot/vector strike/skyfire, is wrong.

[Mannahnin]

...whereas I think the GW FAQ ruling is quite comprehensive, and is indeed meant to prevent basically anything from hitting or targeting a ZF/SFMC which didn't have to Snap Shoot.  Let me quote one of my posts from the second thread, above:

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.

So we have two sentences giving clear and distinct prohibitions/limitations, and three explaining at some length what all kinds of attacks they apply to.  There are only four sentences, but the third one fits in both categories. 

Sentence two tells us that the only way to cause a "hit" on a ZF/SFMC is a Snap Shot.  This rules out a number of things which may or may not be shooting and might be unclear about whether they are "attacks", sometimes because they don't target a unit (as attacks generally do), like Imotekh's lightning or Tesla Arc bounces.

Sentence three tells us that any attack which doesn't roll to hit and uses any sort of mechanism other than rolling to hit to affect a model, is not even allowed to target a ZF/SFMC. 

The two of them together seem to pretty comprehensively cover just about any way to damage these units other than Snap Shots.

Sentences 1, 3, and 4 all list out all sorts of possible things and categories and types of weapons and attacks which can normally hit or target a unit, and confirms they're talking about all of them.

The only ambiguity I'm seeing is whether one might consider a Malediction an "attack", which would be forbidden from targeting them by sentence three.  This is a bit unclear, but I think I'd come down on the side of "no", especially given that Maledictions are specifically allowed to target units in close combat.  We had to have a similar discussion about what constitutes an "attack" on the INAT council in regards to Brotherhood of Psykers, which says that any "attack" which specifically targets psykers is resolved against the Justicar or Knight of the Flame in the squad, not the whole squad.  We decided that "attack" in practical terms must be limited to things which cause wounds or damage, because it wouldn't make any sense (for example) for Psyk-Out Grenades to only lower the initiative of the Justicar, as they're all really Psykers.

IMO Objuration Mechanicum falls under both the first and second prohibitions.  Because it causes Haywire hits but doesn't Snap Fire, and because it's an attack which targets a ZF/SFMC which, again, automatically hits and doesn't need to roll to hit using BS.

Again, the operative prohibitions are

Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures.

and

, any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Keith.  I agree with Andalucien, most (but not all) of the things you labeled as "not needed" certainly were needed, they were an open question.

For instance, there is indeed an argument about just what counts as "engaged", when that happens, and how it affects overwatch.  It's stupid obvious if you just follow the RAI, but people want to get all super technical about the RAW again, and that futzz's it up. 

I actually agree with them completely on the Big guns and Scouring thing.  I think the RAI is pretty clear, this whole Scoring-but-not-Denial idea is based on, again, an over technical reading of the rulesActual reading of rules.  GW rules break when you try to be too technical.

But I disagree with them on the Objuration thing.  Maledictions are not attacks, they are debuffs cast in movement phase.  They don't "automatically hit" they don't "hit" at all.

I disagree about RAI in regards to scouring or big guns.  For all we know GW was like, "Hey lets make these things able to score uncontested objectives in some missions", Not "Hey lets make these things be able to score and contest any objective in some missions".  A clear, plain word reading of the rules supports the former, not the latter.  This might be a mistake on GW fault, but don't pretend I am "overly technical" on my rule reading.  Besides, infantry from Fast attack or Heavy Support are ALREADY DENIAL.

I think it's bad form to modify things in quotes.

Yes, I think you're being over technical, though if it makes you feel better, you're not the only one. 

I have trouble believing that GW intended something to be scoring, but not denial.  I would have no trouble at all believing the reverse (and of course they already did that).  Scoring but not denial doesn't actually have a great impact on the game; despite my protests I have yet to actually see it come up. But, if it did come up, it would strike me as finicky, subtle and weird. 

Why should a GK dreadknight and a Dreadnought both be able to score, but only the NDK can contest?  It's just weird.  It's also a situation that doesn't come up in "normal" play, while being able to Deny but not Score does all the time.  It just seems super-clear to me that scoring is a subset of abilities that is supposed to nest inside the denial set.  No, GW didn't quite write it that way.....have you figured out they suck at rules, yet?

The thing is, frankly, I don't think GW has any clue what the 2nd and 3rd tier derivative effects of any particular rules language they have is most of the time.  When they do, it's usually a very old situation that has been rehashed for years. 

Hell, they're still f__king up how assault ramps are supposed to work.  Language in the BRB that makes it pretty clear they don't work if destroyed, and thus you can't "assault out of the wreck",  but then language in a FAQ that basically says "durr, of course they can charge".  They had the exact same problem in 5th, fixed in the exact same way, but they still wrote it all the same and went through all the same motions.  Hell, it was probably like that in 4th, I can't remember. 

Point is, it is really clear that GW intends that if your Land Raider is destroyed, you can still assault next round.  But at least twice now, they have actually written the exact opposite, only to later fix it in a very backhanded way in the FAQ-- never really addressing it directly but pretending the rule said you could. 

I used to be a RAW disciple.  I'me a technically minded guy, I like to be precise.  I also had hope they'd get get better over time.  They're not, though.  So now I'm at the point where I'm tired of this crap.  I'm adopting Matt F's Rules As They Should Be flag.  RATSB

[keithb]

I think it's bad form to modify things in quotes.

I left your original text in strike through, for people to read, so frankly, I really don't care.

Yes, I think you're being over technical, though if it makes you feel better, you're not the only one. 

Bullshit.

I have trouble believing that GW intended something to be scoring, but not denial.  I would have no trouble at all believing the reverse (and of course they already did that).  Scoring but not denial doesn't actually have a great impact on the game; despite my protests I have yet to actually see it come up. But, if it did come up, it would strike me as finicky, subtle and weird. 

So your basis for me being technical is that you think GW typo'd their rules, or forgot that vehicles are not denial inherently?  Just because I don't share what you want the rules to be, doesn't mean I am "being too technical".  Vehicles were specifically ruled in this edition to have a harder time taking objectives by themselves(IE, they can't).  Why is it so hard to think that GW intended this to be the case, it is true all over the book.

Why should a GK dreadknight and a Dreadnought both be able to score, but only the NDK can contest?  It's just weird.  It's also a situation that doesn't come up in "normal" play, while being able to Deny but not Score does all the time.  It just seems super-clear to me that scoring is a subset of abilities that is supposed to nest inside the denial set.  No, GW didn't quite write it that way.....have you figured out they suck at rules, yet?

I know they suck at rules. I am the first one to fly that banner at all times.  I happen to agree that vehicles shouldn't be able to score/contest in most/all situations.  How is scoring a subset of abilities? It is one ability.  Do you score? [Yes/No].  Nice "subset" Matt.  Oh and the denial "set" of abilities, or in other words [Yes/No].  Now who is being to technical?  It doesn't make your points better btw.

The thing is, frankly, I don't think GW has any clue what the 2nd and 3rd tier derivative effects of any particular rules language they have is most of the time.  When they do, it's usually a very old situation that has been rehashed for years. 

Right, so why trust their point cost for units in codex's?  Why trust that the flier ruleset is in any way balanced or that fliers are pointed appropriately?

[quote
I used to be a RAW disciple.  I'me a technically minded guy, I like to be precise.  I also had hope they'd get get better over time.  They're not, though.  So now I'm at the point where I'm tired of this crap.  I'm adopting Matt F's Rules As They Should Be flag.  RATSB
[/quote]

Now we are getting somewhere.  I can sympathize Matt.  Have you ever looked at the ETC restrictions for WHFB?  Or the 22 page FAQ thread?   The difference there, is that there is accountability.  The group that makes the restrictions/rule changes are voted in.  And the drafts are voted on several times per year.  Maybe the 40k community is finally growing up and realizing they can do better than GW.  Great, I am all for that, but there needs to be some accountability for the group doing it.  Not just some random TO's who decided to do it.

GW really fucked up with 8th edition fantasy.  The ruleset is bad.  The magic is insane. The scenarios are terribly balanced, the scoring system is intentionally stupid.  The only thing they have done is make the armies more balanced(at least the new ones) though it is still a lot of Rock/Paper/Scissors.  Rather than learn from this, they implemented the worst stuff over to 40k.

[keithb]

...whereas I think the GW FAQ ruling is quite comprehensive, and is indeed meant to prevent basically anything from hitting or targeting a ZF/SFMC which didn't have to Snap Shoot.  Let me quote one of my posts from the second thread, above:

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.

So we have two sentences giving clear and distinct prohibitions/limitations, and three explaining at some length what all kinds of attacks they apply to.  There are only four sentences, but the third one fits in both categories. 

Sentence two tells us that the only way to cause a "hit" on a ZF/SFMC is a Snap Shot.  This rules out a number of things which may or may not be shooting and might be unclear about whether they are "attacks", sometimes because they don't target a unit (as attacks generally do), like Imotekh's lightning or Tesla Arc bounces.

Sentence three tells us that any attack which doesn't roll to hit and uses any sort of mechanism other than rolling to hit to affect a model, is not even allowed to target a ZF/SFMC. 

The two of them together seem to pretty comprehensively cover just about any way to damage these units other than Snap Shots.

Sentences 1, 3, and 4 all list out all sorts of possible things and categories and types of weapons and attacks which can normally hit or target a unit, and confirms they're talking about all of them.

The only ambiguity I'm seeing is whether one might consider a Malediction an "attack", which would be forbidden from targeting them by sentence three.  This is a bit unclear, but I think I'd come down on the side of "no", especially given that Maledictions are specifically allowed to target units in close combat.  We had to have a similar discussion about what constitutes an "attack" on the INAT council in regards to Brotherhood of Psykers, which says that any "attack" which specifically targets psykers is resolved against the Justicar or Knight of the Flame in the squad, not the whole squad.  We decided that "attack" in practical terms must be limited to things which cause wounds or damage, because it wouldn't make any sense (for example) for Psyk-Out Grenades to only lower the initiative of the Justicar, as they're all really Psykers.

IMO Objuration Mechanicum falls under both the first and second prohibitions.  Because it causes Haywire hits but doesn't Snap Fire, and because it's an attack which targets a ZF/SFMC which, again, automatically hits and doesn't need to roll to hit using BS.

Again, the operative prohibitions are

Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures.

and

, any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them.

I disagree about it being an attack.  It is a debuff that has an additional secondary effect for vehicles.  So does Objure work on flying MCs since it doesn't cause a haywire hit and is therefore not and attack by your definition?

[Mannahnin]

Let's not make it personal, Keith, okay?   It's not "my" definition per se.   But I can understand why they would use that one.

Amd yeah, if it were my call, and I were going with that definition of "attack" for issues like Brotherhood of Psykers and the flyer FAQ, I would say that it doesn't count as an attack when it's targeted at a SFMC.

[andalucien]

Keith, I agree with you that a document like this will get better if the authors are able to get more inclusive while still retaining the ability to make decisions.  Sounds like the ETC does a really good job with that?  Something to aspire to.

It's easier said than done to set up such a system, especially when nobody does it full time.  In the meantime, the fact that some high profile TO's are getting together to organize this document is a step in the right direction.  And in my opinion, as a store running smaller events, it would be a good idea to piggyback on it.   

I might disagree with some rulings, but that is small beans compared to the appeal of having less possibility for throw-up-your-hands rules confusion during a game.

[keithb]

Let's not make it personal, Keith, okay?   It's not "my" definition per se.   But I can understand why they would use that one.

Amd yeah, if it were my call, and I were going with that definition of "attack" for issues like Brotherhood of Psykers and the flyer FAQ, I would say that it doesn't count as an attack when it's targeted at a SFMC.

Sorry, the definition you provided, wasn't trying personalize it.   So things can be attack sometimes?  Seems a slippery slope to be on.

One of my favorite things that ETC does in its documents is the segmentation of the document itself.

One of the first sections is this:  Rule Changes:  They make clear what is changing.  Then have any restrictions and FAQs in other areas.

[Loranus]

I agree with Keith on a lot of things.

Please note, this is a working draft of the FAQ as voted upon by a council of Independent Tournament Organizers and is subject to change. This overrides any previous rulings I have made. 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 find the fact that you will see this at these tournaments bugs me. It hasn't been put to use yet no one has played with it yet. Unless someone can give me a source saying these Tournaments are confirming the use of this FAQ it is a false claim IMHO. Until I get a verified source of a tournament it being used at I say Battlegrounds shouldn't use it. Inat was used and tested at many tournaments and it is why Battlegrounds used it. This is claiming it will be used and until it is I do not see any justification to using it.