Wednesday, July 25, 2012

NOVA FAQ v6th.1 - DRAFT for Input and Absent Rulings

All,

The first draft of NOVA FAQ v6th.1 is linked below.

A couple of guide rules and heads up:

1) This is a DRAFT document; I'm still working heavily on formatting for clarity and polish
2) Some and/or several rulings you WANT to see may be missing
 - Some may not be in there because they do not suit the purpose of the NOVA FAQ (i.e., the rule is answered clearly in the book, and is a "frequently" asked question due to people not reading it carefully)
 - Some may not be in there because we've simply missed them
3) Some and/or several rulings may be what you believe to be INCORRECT

We will release the FINAL version of the FAQ for 2012 on August 1 or sooner. Please read through it, and follow the instructions in the Introduction for getting your questions or challenges addressed and potentially added to the FAQ by that deadline.

As a general rule, most of the large questions regarding how to prepare your army should be answered in this DRAFT document. You can rely on the fact that further changes will be marginal, and must be very well argued with clear construction and minimum emotion.

The finalized version of the FAQ will go out in the August 1 newsletter. The longer you delay in reading through it and posting any additional questions / clarifications / arguments, the less chance they will be addressed in time.

Meanwhile, we will continue to canvas for major questions that require entry into the FAQ through our own update deadline.

Remember, the NOVA FAQ is the opposite of the INAT FAQ (which I am a proud council member for). It is intended to be a streamlined tournament-ready minimalist document answering the largest and most pertinent questions for both gameplay, and in help constructing lists safely (in terms of how fuzzy rules actually will be ruled). It is NOT intended to answer every loophole and possible question out there; that's what our judges are for, and we rely on larger rules documents, and our own exhaustive playtest and communication to be well prepared for each of these. The NOVA Rules Forum can also help make sure judges and staff are well informed of and ready for the more esoteric or rare rules questions; furthermore, they provide you an opportunity to have these questions answered by and communicated with NOVA Open staff and judges.

We are releasing the DRAFT FAQ for two reasons:
1) To give you as much lead time as possible
2) To give the community as much opportunity as possible to continue to be a part of the iterative improvement process of the NOVA Open

Enjoy, and thanks for your patience! We're doing our best here - the ONLY benefit to us for running the NOVA is seeing the community bettered, and our attendees happy. Helps us out in that goal as much as you are able!

 - Mike Brandt, NOVA

64 comments:

  1. Two minor issues that I had:

    1. The MSS vs Challenges portion is a little hard to understand because of the multiple uses of "model". Maybe clarify MSS Bearer versus Victim.

    2. Any reason why Grav Chute got some love but Shadow Skies did not? No biggie, but just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for all you and your team's hard work on this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike,

    I'm not going but wish you and your team the best. Nice work in such a short amount of time. It may not be perfect.. but then again what is?

    I'll be in some corner...

    CK

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, thanks for all your work Mike. Your draft is already better than some of GW's final releases!

    ReplyDelete
  5. So if an Overlord with MSS is alone and in combat, and is in B2B with a valid Challenge target and some other models.

    If the MSS goes on the Challenge target, and the Challenger refuses, the attacks are still resolved onto the unit. If the Challenger accepts, he must hit himself.

    If the MSS goes on some other target, and the Challenge is accepted, the other target will attack the Challenge target.

    Is this correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The rules stipulate that models may not choose not to fight if engaged. I would *suggest* that allowing players to refuse a Challenge to avoid such an effect (as MSS) breaks the spirit of the rule, if not the letter of it.

      Delete
  6. Hey Mike,

    One thing that might have gotten missed in from the FMC grounding discussion on your board but Neil pointed it out and I think it needs clarification.

    When a FMC enters from reserve it has to declare whether it's swooping or gliding. Daemons deepstrike, entering from reserve (even the first wave) per their codex. Can the FMC choose to be swooping and would he count as swooping as there is no indication of distance moved when you deepstrike?

    Not sure what page it was on in that thread but it might be worth taking a look at and adding in. I don't have a dog in the hunt as I'm not bringing a Daemon flying circus but Fateweaver would be pretty sick if he counted as swooping the turn he landed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe fateweaver can, and all flying daemons. Will revisit. Worth noting, in playtest, fatey is still quite easy to deal with, especially in msu lists that can reliably ground him.

      Delete
    2. Oh I don't think it's to crazy personally. For the point cost of flying MC's you don't have much left and they don't do a ton of damage themselves, they're just annoying so I'm cool with it. Just thought it might be good to clarify so people know it's possible when someone does it. As it could get quite heated.

      And for what it's worth Neil and I couldn't find a reason it shouldn't work rules wise and neither of us wanted it to work :)

      Delete
  7. You may also want to rule on what kind of weapon a Sanguinary Guard Glaive is.

    Good work getting this done!

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's a two handed master crafted power weapon. So it's whatever you model it as. RAW no FAQ needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not that simple, as the arguments on multiple blogs can attest. Because the models themselves come with an assortment of swords and axes.

      Everyone who's thought it's simple to figure out, has backtracked and agreed with me after I point out (in person) the two contradictory paragraphs on the same page which attempt to define power weapons based on the number of special rules, or is that UNIQUE special rules? It's simply not clear. As written, it can't be reasoned out clearly.

      The possibilities:

      1) They're power weapons with 2 or more special rules, so they're AP3 at normal initiative (left hand paragraph). Regardless of how they're modeled.

      2) They have 2 special rules, but those special rules aren't unique, so they're either swords or axes, according to how they're modeled (right hand paragraph). Making the Axes AP1 +1S at I1.

      3) They're defined in their own entry in the Blood Angels codex. Since codex overrides rulebook, they're AP3 at normal initiative. Just as they've always been.

      Someone just has to make an arbitrary decision. GW may do it later, but Mike needs to do it now for his event.

      Delete
    2. Quantity of arguments don't impress me, I not only have my BS in BS, but I progressed to even MS and then got Piled higher & Deeper. In this case, what two "special rules" make this thing special?

      Glaive Encarmine: A Glaive Encarmine is a two-handed master-crafted power weapon.

      Well, since GW does use a lot of artistic license on its weapon naming and points out that there are variations even among things like "The Black Sword" (which on the front of Helsreach looks more like a Chinese polearm/sword), we cannot stick too much emphasis on the name "Glaive".

      Given the description and since it doesn't do anything really special, I'd say RAW, it is two handed so you cannot gain +1A from wielding a second CCW (pg43), it is master crafted, so you get the one re-roll to hit (pg39) and it is a power weapon, so if you play me, I'm going to tell you to treat it as modeled. Sword looking, S:User AP3, Axe/Polearm looking S:+1 AP2 Unweildy (although if it is something like a pudao or naginata, I would probably let you call it a sword or axe at your discretion, but I'm sure MVB will want it on the list), etc.

      IMO, the new PW rules are self limiting and even though there are some potential extreme cases that could give an advantage in some situations, just go with WYSIWYG.

      For an example of potential extreme, consider the "Black Sword" isn't necessarily a sword, so modeled as a maul it would be S:+4(!) AP4, Concussive, which has its ups & downs. Yes, it can Instakill multiwound models of T4, but power armored foes still get their 3+ armor save. I don't see this as that big a deal since I'm fairly sure modeling it as an axe to be S:+3 AP2 Unwieldy wouldn't give people much grief. (Well, except for the guy that owned those Terminators that kept missing with their PF.)

      Delete
    3. I've seen equally logical arguments both ways.

      But you can't just ad-hoc it for every opponent. Because the difference between AP1 S5 I1 and AP3 S4 I4 is great enough that it requires the rest of an army to be built differently depending on which way it's ultimately ruled. Plus opponents will tend to argue passionately for whichever way is least bad for their particular army.

      So it needs a ruling. I don't care what it is.

      Delete
    4. Um, no? The Black Sword has Unique Melee Rules, so is AP3. Full stop. The model only matters when not Unique.

      Delete
    5. @Sandwyrm: I can make logical arguments for both sides, it all depends on my assumptions. At which point you have to get to the validity of the assumptions. Master Crafting and Two handed are not unique, they are USRs. So, what makes them unique? Because the fluff says so?

      @The_King_Elessar: Really? You mean the S+2 rule? Or something really unique like if you hit one model in CC, all similar models in the same CC take a hit? Or the weapon ignores invulnerable saves? Or even "the weapon ignores all armor saves"? Or is it just a PW with +2S that can vary in shape and form?

      The point here is unique = something not covered by USR and/or PW rules.

      Delete
    6. Yeah, S+2 is a unique rule, even though it applies to several other weapons. If you consider, for instance, Master Crafting and 2-Handed-ness, to be non-Unique because they are USRs (not that that term exists anymore) and/or because they apply reasonably commonly, then Glaive Encarmines (to use but one example) have NO effect in combat beyond the MC'ing. They cease to be Power Weapons as they do not fit the classification of normal PWs (only check the model if it has no additional special rules - it does, so continue beyond the chart...if it has rules that are not 'unique melee rules' then if does not fit the Unique classification either, and so has no AP, and loses the 'ignores Armour Saves' text as it isn't present in the Codex (as I recall, it's not here in front of me. If they DO have that text [pretty certain they don't!] then there are other examples.)

      Long story short - there are 2 *official* types of PW; ordinary, and unique. There is a 3rd category into which many weapons fall that fits neither, because the rules were written as though by someone unfamiliar with the majority of Codexes.

      The last kind has no actual rules, it is an anomaly, and is therefore no more than a CCW with Ap-.

      Delete
  9. I don't get the MSS ruling at all. Looks like a case of reading too deep into things.

    Ever-Living getting overriden by "removes from play" doesn't make any sense either. Previous FAQs specifically mention that Ever-Living always works, so what's up with the reversal?

    Also, a ruling on all the fancy power weapons would be appreciated. I'm pretty sure I get them, but obviously a lot of folks don't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chumby, can you send me all the fancy power weapons in one list? I'm a little incapacitated today.

      Delete
    2. I list a bunch in my Part 2 of what I emailed the link to yesterday: http://hobbyinfobythekingelessar.blogspot.com/2012/07/nova-faq-dear-mikepart-2-99-problems.html

      Delete
  10. Grey Knights:

    Does the Brotherhood Banner prevent Perils of the Warp as well as automatically passing the Psychic Test? Put another way: does a unit using the Brotherhood Banner still have to take a psychic test, and risk Perils of the Warp?

    Tyranids:

    Can a Mawloc use Terror from the Deep on a Zooming Flyer?

    What is the AP of a Bonesword, or Acid Maw? Do they combine with Hammer of Wrath? Does Blinding Venom combine with Hammer of Wrath?

    Can a Broodlord use witchfire powers?

    Can a unit under the effect of Onslaught charge after running if it has the Fleet rule?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My Nid Codex isn't here, but remember Fleet has impact on Charging after Running in the BRB.

      Also, Hammer of Wrath "is resolved at the model's unmodified Strength with an AP of -" - so I have no clue where this bullshit about AP comes in. Weapons (Bonesword, Mirrorswords, a few others) can ignore Armour Saves without having an AP, and a weapon with no AP is AP-. *shrug* Very simple.

      Delete
    2. So your saying they still ignore Armour Saves, but are AP - against vehicles right?

      Not that they lose their armor save ignoring ability...(just for clarification)...cause that would be absurd :).

      Delete
    3. Precisely. Their Attacks ignore saves, and Hammer of Wrath is classified as an attack.

      Delete
  11. Mike,
    I will shoot an email with the page numbers from the BRB but I wanted to address the MSS and the Reanimation Protocols ones here so others may input their opinions and I can see if I’m incorrect in my train of thought (as I cannot access the BRB for rule pages at work)

    Ever-living vs Jaws Ruling

    Ever-Living Page 29:
    If a model with this special rule is removed as a causality, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit. Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play. At the end of the phase….

    The fact that Ever-Living itself includes when the model is removed from Play makes it clear enough to me, that when the models are removed they maintain their counters.

    MSS vs Challenge

    Necron FAQ:
    Mindshackle Scarabs:
    At the start of the Fight sub-phase, randomly select a model in base contact with the bearer of the…

    Rulebook:
    Challenges are declared at the start of the Fight sub-phase…

    The page number I am requesting assistance on is the section in the beginning of the rulebook that mentions when to effects trigger at the same time, the player whose turn it is may determine the order they trigger.

    This means that when a combat is engaged, if it was the Necron players turn, he can choose to trigger the challenge first, moving the challengers, then choosing MSS to trigger with the challenge-e being the only model considered in base contact as per the challenge rules.

    If it were the Opponents turn, they can choose MSS to trigger, where the Overlord will then activate the ability, and trigger MSS effects, then the Opponent chooses Challenge, moving the challengers after the MSS effect has been used.

    GlanceOnASix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll revisit ever living ... On mss, it happens simultaneous with the issuance of a challenge, not the resolution of one (i.e. Acceptance, base contact, etc). They aren't contradictory, so both can be done de facto simultaneously. Randomization of mss target, and resolution of response to challenge.

      Delete
    2. Jaws doesn't remove *as a casualty* it simply removes from play.

      Delete
    3. Hence the:
      "place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play."

      Line being important

      Delete
    4. I get why you might think that. However "If a model with this special rule is removed as a causality, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit. Instead" - You only refer to the second sentence if you would normally have placed a RP counter. Since that is not the case, you do not go to (b) or collect £200.

      Delete
    5. @The_King_Elessar: You seem to enjoy research, I've noted in the codices I can lay hands on easily that the ones by Phil Kelly are the only ones who use the "removed from play" phrase and so far, only when it is referring to a model that has failed a stat check.

      Even the supposedly "RAW" 5th Ed reading of Sweeping Advance as "removed from play" is false when read in context with the entire bullet which lists the multiple possible reasons the models of a unit are removed from play...and every last one of them fit the dictionary definition of "casualty".

      The Necrons even have in their codex a piece of wargear that operates in the exact same manner (stat check) as the ones in DE & SW, but Matt Ward uses removed as casualty language.

      So, the burden of proof is to find some kind of evidence that this isn't merely a difference in writers' styles all puffed up into some kind of serious rule, since otherwise there is no real difference between the two phrases being used.

      In fact, trying to read the Necron RP & EL sections while maintaining this gap between two normally interchangeable phrases makes for some seriously weird interpretations.

      Oh unless it is literal with Phil Kelly writes it and figurative when Matt Ward writes it.

      Delete
    6. I have said things to a similar effect. I used to play with them counting as different rules but it quickly becomes nonsensical and I realised I was playing illegal moves. So, what's the problem here?

      Let's say there is a unit of 5 Necron warriors on the field, with nothing attached. 4 are whittled down by bolter fire. 1 is removed by failing a Jaws of the Wild Wolf caused initiative test. Before, I removed all my counters and said I couldn't roll for any of them. This is not only wrong but actually cheating. You see, whilst the rule says I can't attempt to roll for a model in a unit that is destroyed, I can only remove counters if I fail the roll or if my last model is REMOVED AS A CASUALTY. My counters for the 4 shot models must now remain on the board in perpetuity, unable to be removed as I haven't failed my roll and my last model was removed from play, not removed as a casualty. There is no way around this loophole unless removed from play and removed as a casualty are in fact interpreted the same.

      This is neither nit picking nor a desperate attempt to "have my cake and eat it". It is simply a case where creating a distinction breaks the game. So, what do I do with my phantom warriors? I can't remove the counters, so does the unit count as victory points? Are they passable? Do they count as a unit? Can anything interact with them? Can it claim objectives as it's technically scoring?

      I am firmly of the belief that there is not only no difference in the way the rules were meant to be taken but in fact this should never have been an argument. How am I removing models if they aren't casualties by any meaningful definition of the word casualty? Not only that but things like the transdimensional beamer (throws things into a pocket dimension) have incredibly similar rules in game to things like JOTWW yet for some reason are played totally differently. Again, it's worth restating that RFP seems exclusive to Phil Kelly codices, yet RAAC is Mat Ward's way of writing the same thing.

      If someone spots a flaw in this, please point it out because I've been checking this for 15 mins now. Can we all agree it's the same thing now?

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Does a Daemon Prince with wings from the Chaos Space Marine codex count as a flying monstrous creature? From what I remember, the FAQ doesn't clarify like it does for other armies. Though it seems like it would be a FMC, people will argue against it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The CSM FAQ renders units with the Wings upgrade as "Jump" to their unit type. So, by FAQ, Daemon Princes for CSM are oddly different from Princes for Daemons.

      Delete
    2. Thanks! Definitely makes a difference.

      Delete
    3. It does ... kind of an odd thing, but understandable ... not only are CSM getting a new dex in a matter of a month or so, their DP's would be a little crazy if they could be FMC's with 3+/5++ for 130 points.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  14. Hey Mike,


    With the ruling you made on Flying monstrous creatures, wouldn't they be impossible to assault as even if you ground them they are always flying??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the grounded rule covers this. Basically the only changes to the swooping rule that occur are the ones noted in the grounded rules. Basically it's being played as strict RAW (which in this case I agree with).

      If you are grounded you can be assaulted in the following assault phase.

      Delete
  15. Thank you very much hulksmash. It was just a little bit confusing. That and I am glad someone already asked about wither or not daemons can deep strike and fly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The thing about the Grounding tests rule is that the rule provides the FMC which fails a Grounding test with a new capitalized status: Grounded (like Swooping or Gliding) but then does not define what Grounded actually is. So if there was ever a future rule that applied to something being Grounded, we could all say "yup, that FMC sure does have that status" but at this point the status means nothing unless you take "Grounded" to mean "no longer Swooping." I respect NOVA's call to go with RAW on this, but I suspect that GW will say "well, Duh, if it's grounded it's not flying." Which will suck.

      Delete
    2. That is what I would have thought too. I figured that if a model is grounded, it is not flying. If they are flying you cannot assault them. So how are they flying and yet still able to be assaulted????


      I too respect the decision because the whole tournament looks awesome, but I personally would not make that choice for the tournaments I run because it seems like the fliers have a double status.

      Delete
    3. I respect the ruling, but I do not agree with it. I believe that when they state that you have to choose between Gliding and Swooping, it infers the "states" of MC are mutually exclusive. Which means that when the "state" changes to Grounded, it cannot be Swooping or Gliding any longer.
      It's good that a decision was made on it at least, as that's better than having to argue it out every game.

      Delete
  16. Dear, again in the Buy WOW Goldvalentine's day. I don't know Buy RS Gold how many of you have me to your chocolate, but I see clearly...Buy Diablo 3 Gold !This year I can send--to reduce weight tea?

    ReplyDelete
  17. For clarity/ease of reference:
    http://hobbyinfobythekingelessar.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/nova-faq-dear-mike99-problems-continues.html
    http://hobbyinfobythekingelessar.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/nova-faq-dear-mikepart-2-99-problems.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. Is your ruling on Grav Chutes intended to allow Grav Chute deployment in the movement phase? If so, why make this kind of overt rules change?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Because you can never disembark or embark a vehicle if it moves flat out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The codex rule, being more specific than the rulebook and explicitly allow disembarking when moving Flat Out, override the restriction.

      Delete
  20. Mike and Hulksmash,

    Currently as it is not written Flying monstrous creatures can be tank shocked. Do we need a ruling on this?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Why are you asking Hulk? LOL.

    Ask Mike instead, the actual authority.

    FMC get tank shocked by RAW, and so what? The vast majority are fearless, and flyers that fall back off the board fall under the leaving combat airspace rules. Funny how that works.

    Personally I'm all for silencing the obvious rules errors, but as everyone should know by now GW did not even remotely playtest the FMC rules nor even bother to just copy/paste the Flyer rules straight in then modify them. It's almost as if two people wrote those rules without checking each others work. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. As everyone should know by now Stellie has absolutely zero inside knowledge as is evident by the amount of times he swung and missed at his supposed 6th edition since March ownership. Harpies are good anti air? Necrons can't deal with AV14? Please...tell me more Stellie.

      Delete
    3. Oh and lets not forget you telling Mike point blank that "all his terrain efforts will be invalidated by 6th edition"...that somehow failed to come to fruition as well. Fraud.

      Delete
  22. I did ask Mike. I also asked Hulk as a side note a team mate of mine from Adepticon.

    I play against a lot of daemon players that fight the tank shock even though it is obvious. I also think being grounded is obvious but can deal with the current ruling. I do like the idea of tank shocking fateweaver away from other units to deny his re-roll bubble. And tank shocking a FMC off the board on turn 5 or 6 is an awesome idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spaguatyrine,



      But how can you tank shock a fearless model? They just move out of the way, and you cannot move models off of the board by doing that.


      What is the point?

      Delete
  23. Hey Mike, how are ya'll ruling Open Topped/Assault vehicles being wrecked on your opponents turn. Are they not allowed to assault on their subsequent turn?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hey Mike,



    I have a good comment for you. The official GW faq says that Typhon's Manreaper is a force axe (so AP2) and a daemon weapon (so AP3). Is there any particular reason you decided to go with the useless AP vs the good one?



    It seems like the force axe thing would over ride the daemon weapon, because it specifically references it in the FAQ, so that over rides the codex, which over rides the rulebook.


    Or did I get something confused?? Thanks, have a great day! Enjoy the super hot weather!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Draft FAQ, being corrected in final, thank you for the catch.

      Delete
  25. Ask Mike instead, the actual Www.nike13.cOM authority. FMC get HTtp://www.tRaDE-MArtS.cOm/ tank shocked by RAW, and so what? The vast majority are fearless, and flyers that fall back off the board fall under the leaving combat airspace rules. Funny how that works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a good comment for you. The official GW faq says that Typhon's Manreaper is a force axe (so AP2) and a daemon weapon (so AP3). Is there any particular reason you decided to go with the useless AP vs the good one? It seems like the force axe thing would over ride the daemon weapon, because it specifically references it in the FAQ, so that over rides the codex, which ISaBEl MArANt SHOeS over rides the rulebook. Or did I get something confused?? Thanks, have a great day! Enjoy ISAbel MaRaNT SnEakERS the super hot weather!

      Delete
    2. Next we wanted a covering, I saw Desiree. but its voice is loud. Tell me! Did you mean it? had none of them found his way to the world outside? two words from me would have produced an explosion. Where is wholesale basketball shoes the cave? urged us away, Still they rushed wholesale basketball shoes forward,

      Delete
  26. The China Style Week features its newest collection in men's put on, contrary to last year's occasion. This year, Wang Qing, Chairman of China Fashion Week, shares that they are going to encourage much more designers to concentrate more on creating men's put on their priority.

    ReplyDelete
  27. he China Style Week features its newest collection in men's put on

    ReplyDelete