[Plainville MA] Warhammer 40k 1850pt Singles Tournament - 3/30/2013

[Chase]

For this event we will be using the GW FAQ.  Lots of rules questions have come up and been ruled on previous.

I expect relatively few (zero) controversial rules questions to come up.  Going forward we may use the Adepticon FAQ, however.

[Mannahnin]

Remember that the AdeptiFAQ, like the INAT was, is a supplement to the GW FAQs.  They use the GW FAQs too; they mostly just answer some more questions.

[robpro]

Those faqs also made a couple big changes, like flyers being able to shoot straight down. Just wondering if that would be the case here or if we're sticking to the 45 degree angle in the book. It doesn't matter to me what gets used, I do want to know ahead of time so I don't play it wrong in the game.

[Sir_Prometheus]

The last draft I saw (possibly there's a newer one) of the new INAT-ish FAQ had several glaring errors and covered things that had already been covered by GW FAQs.  It's a good idea in general but it didn't seem ready for primetime.  I imagine it will be much better post-adepticon. 

[andalucien]

The Adepticon FAQ and the theFrontline Gaming FAQ are all the same thing.  (And they are also the same as the Bay Area Open FAQ and the Feast of Blades FAQ and the WargamesCon FAQ).

These links may be to slightly separate versions, but you can see that the questions and wording are obviously from the same source.

http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2013/40KAddendum.pdf
http://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/40k-faq/

These were supposedly hashed out over 100 or so hours of conference calls between these TO's, bringing up concerns that they and their players had, and voting on them.  Supposedly Yakface (the guy who maintained INAT) also participated.

In MY opinion, there are not obvious "errors" and they answer a lot of questions which are not covered by GW faq's.   I would be much happier going to tournaments where there was a pre-existing widely read and understood answer to all of these things, just like we used to have with the INAT.
   

[Sir_Prometheus]

Dark Angels units using the Deathwing Assault special rule are ignored for the purposes of calculating the number of units that may be held in Reserves. [pg. 44, C:DA]

There's no reason to think that. 

• When Chaos Daemons are taken as an allied detachment, two Daemonic Heralds may still be taken as a single HQ selection. [pg. 80, C:CD]

 

Why?  It's fine that they want to allow this, but it's completely made up out of thin air. 


Nothing else leaps out at me, this appears to be more recent than the draft I was talking about. 

[Loranus]

I agree with Matt.

Deathwing Assault is a Choice. Unlike Drop Pods, Flyers, and Legion of the Damned that have to start in reserve you can put Deathwing on the table as a normal unit. Rulebook states if It must start in reserve it does not count toward having half on the table. Anything else counts towards it.

The Chaos Daemon one is based off the old Codex for Chaos Daemons. So you can not use any ruling in that FAQ for Chaos Daemons cause it is Out of Date ruling. The new Codex about that ruling says in your PRIMARY Detachment you can take up to 4 heralds in one HQ Slot. So if you were to take them as Allies each Herald would then take a full HQ slot by itself.

[Mannahnin]

Dark Angels units using the Deathwing Assault special rule are ignored for the purposes of calculating the number of units that may be held in Reserves. [pg. 44, C:DA]

There's no reason to think that. 

The argument for it is that you're forced to designate units making a DW assault before regular Reserves are declared, and by the time you get around to organizing your Reserves, those guys are basically out of consideration.  Overall I agree that it's still a choice, and IMO I think they should count, but I can see why folks would think that.

• When Chaos Daemons are taken as an allied detachment, two Daemonic Heralds may still be taken as a single HQ selection. [pg. 80, C:CD]

 

Why?  It's fine that they want to allow this, but it's completely made up out of thin air. 

It's from the old codex.  They specifically note that it hasn't been updated yet for the new codex. 

[keithb]

It is like I said before in a discussion about this.

They should clearly designate and FAQ sections with answers strickly by RAW that is mainly a convinence document.  And have a separate section for "Errata", where they flat out state how they want things to work, but have either shaky footing rules wise or no standing rules wise.  Then more events would use at least the FAQ part of it.

[Chase]

Sadly, lots of the new guys have dropped from the event.  Bummer. 

[Mannahnin]

They should clearly designate and FAQ sections with answers strickly by RAW that is mainly a convinence document. And have a separate section for "Errata", where they flat out state how they want things to work, but have either shaky footing rules wise or no standing rules wise.  Then more events would use at least the FAQ part of it.

They already enable this by specifically offering the document up for other people to use or modify as they see fit.  Extreme examples of "errata" like the flyer LOS ruling are rare.  In practice there is often a lot of disagreement about which exact rulings in a given FAQ are are "RAW" and which are changes.  The Deathwing Assault ruling is a classic example.  There are folks who will argue fervently that RAW is clear that they don't count.

I'd be happy as a clam to use the AdeptiFAQ; if I were modifying it for my own event I'd probably just say we were using it except for the flyer LOS ruling.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Sadly, lots of the new guys have dropped from the event.  Bummer. 

Does that mean there is no more room?  I know someone that wanted to play.

[robpro]

How many people are going now? Any spots available?

[Chancetragedy]

I'm still signed up and attending as far as I know!  Hopefully everything is still good, I'm sure it will be a blast regardless of numbers.

[keithb]

I'm still signed up and attending as far as I know!  Hopefully everything is still good, I'm sure it will be a blast regardless of numbers.

Yeah but higher numbers = more prize support for Bill.