Friday, September 7, 2012

New FAQ's, NOVA Results, and Upcoming Events

So, the results for the NOVA Open are up on the website, on the frontpage, at

That said, here's some quicklinks:
Results of all Tournaments

40k GT Competitive Sort breakdown
40k Invitational Competitive sort breakdown

Others will be forthcoming as we make details more robust and available ... the time that staff has available to do this sort of thing is definitely an issue with the time required to get it all up in super detailed granularity!

Games Workshop has updated its 40k FAQ's in entirety. These can be found here:

Several of the FAQ answers coincide with NOVA FAQ and rulings, several do not coincide. Thank You GW! Now we get to remove the harder-to-make calls and defer to the designers (i.e. grounded flyers).

I wish they'd ruled on Doom Scythe LOS!

Our ruling on Njal remains the same. They did state that weapons with area of effects / auto-hits (i.e. nova, maelstrom, beam) do not affect Zooming Flyers, but they didn't encompass "effects" or other sorts of things. Since his abilities remain effects, that one doesn't change.

We'll update the NOVA FAQ largely by removing things they answered, and try to have a v2 of that up soon, since several upcoming tournaments have declared a desire to use the NOVA FAQ.

Speaking of upcoming events, I'll be at Battle for Salvation again ... and you should too! A high volume of awesome guys and players are attending, and it'll be a great event to continue stretching out those 40k legs.

I do not know if I'll be competing again, or attending as a judge. It depends heavily on my ability to either
a) Settle on a njal/guard list that I want to use (if you follow the forums, I've been brainstorming these list styles openly for a couple months)
b) Decide to use my psychoir

and coupled with

c) My ability to properly paint and build what I need for these to my newer, higher personal standards for appearance in time.

Right now, signs are pointing to: Helping them out as a judge. (semi sad face)

NOVA just took away my hobby time!

Lots of posts about my opinions on missions, responses to feedback, and many of the things we'll be improving already for next year incoming.

One thing that's nice, is now we actually have a year to properly tune things to the new edition. As we move forward, however, the NOVA has become a true convention ... we sold over 600 weekend badges and day passes this year, with only a little over a third of our actual attendees coming for 40k-related events. My focus, and the blog's focus, etc., will expand to reflect that in the months and years ahead.

 - Mike


  1. Thanks for the event Mike. :) You guys did a fantastic job.


    The FAQ ruling does encompass Njal as well. :P

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

    The "or otherwise don't need to roll to hit" part is what covers it. It also is encompassing Imotekh, Objuration, Machine Curse, and a lot more.

    1. Shooting attacks, psychic shooting attacks, cc attacks, yes. Effects that happen to inflict damage, no.

    2. Just says "attacks" Mike. Doesn't make any distinction about the type of attack or the source of the attack. Unless you want to argue that Njal's ability somehow isn't an attack, not sure how you are going to get around. (The specification that you are making simply aren't listed. I posted the direct quote above.)

    3. Shooting and CC attacks are all defined as such. Other things are defined as effects. Show me where effects, maledictions, etc., are attacks. And it's certainly not in the targeting (or else blessings suddenly are also attacks), yada yada.

      Attacks aren't defined, unless you go by things called XYZ "attacks" throughout the book (referred universally as shooting or close combat attacks).

      This also further jives with the actual full FAQ:

      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 Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)

      A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Gliding
      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.

      You'll also note the question refers to WEAPONS, and then clarifies what types of attacks from weapons apply.

      Further, if you want to read the FAQ too closely, it erroneously typo's GLIDING Monstrous Creatures. Is the argument further that all of these effects work fine against SWOOPING monstrous creatures, but not against jump mode FMC's?

    4. Likewise, the only rules in the rulebook that let you penetrate armor, wound, etc. also all refer to weapons and attacks. So, if you are really going to take the position to split hairs that something which does damage is somehow not an attack or weapon but an "effect" (which also isn't defined anywhere in the rules), then there are no rules that support how you would resolve anything it does, and by a permissive rule set, would mean that it does nothing. (common sense has to be applied to make it work to begin with)

      Just for example: "Once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a D6 add the weapon's Strength" <--- we can't start making arbitrary distinctions between what is and is not an attack or "weapon" (in this case) because the rules will fall apart.

      Basically, I get your point, but it's going to be an uphill struggle I think to make a case that Njal's abilities are not an attack but instead are some sort of "other thing" when "other thing" isn't defined anywhere nor how "other thing" would interact in the rules. And lastly, it says "attacks" not "Attacks" which means it's not using a defined word for the book (not that "Attacks" is defined either).

      It's whichever, man, but I think you are probably going to end up on the wrong side of this one. :)

      Either way, thanks again for running the NoVA and tell all staff we said thanks. Everyone I know who went is still talking about how awesome it was.

    5. To the first paragraph, that's not actually true - dangerous terrain inflicts wounds, but it is not an attack. I'm failing to see how causing armor damage or wounds is always caused by weapons and attacks. IN fact, Njal's rules or Imotekh's rules or the like don't refer to attacks or weapons at all.

      The positive comments are good ... the presumptions of wrong-sidedness I'd rather avoid. It's a matter of discussing the realities of what they wrote and doing our best (my best?) as TO's to come up with fair and accurate rulings.

      I'm not at all attached to an outcome on this one.

    6. To an addendum, the corollary for you is a serious one - if ANYTHING that causes wounds is both a weapon and attack, then does taking a dangerous terrain test constitute being attacked?

    7. Dangerous terrain test is not really a good example here at all because I'm not making a case that everything is an attack or weapon but that things get treated like that for the sake of being able to resolve them.

      A dangerous terrain test tells you fully how to resolve it from start to finish.

      Something that is not an attack or even a weapon has no such rules. You have to assume that it works just like a weapon or attack to even have it do anything at all.

      The counter-proof then is that if you assume that it cannot be treated just as an attack or weapon, then you are also stating that none of the other rules about how to resolve it will apply either.

      And really, we are arguing about if Njal destroying your stuff is Njal attacking you or not. I think it stands to reason just on that alone. :)

      Seriously, though, I'm not attached to it either, and I need to get back to work. :) I'm out! Good luck with it.

    8. The key sentence is actually this one:

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

      This is an answer provided to a specific question, but it is a general statement. It is followed by specific consequences and examples of that general statement: "Therefore..." but those don't change the general statement, so the use of the word "attacks" in that sentence is a specific example of a subset of the general statement, but does not narrow the general statement. Anything that causes "hits" cannot affect a flier unless it can be snapshot.

    9. For what it's worth, Vengeful Tornado (another lord of tempest game effect) is defined as "a physical force attacking target" in SW FAQ. It may help clarify what chain lightning is :)

    10. Eiusdem generis; the list is not exclusive.

      Purg is right.

    11. It's fruitless to argue about whether something is an "attack" or not when the term "attack" as it is used in this FAQ entry is not defined anywhere in the rules. GW is notorious for using imprecise language and using various terms interchangeably.

      On top of that, Purgatus is correct in his argument that the "attack or not" discussion is a complete red herring.

      The line "Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Gliding Flying Monstrous Creatures" is an assertion of the general rule that explains the rest of the answer.

      The rest of that answer gives examples of how that general rule is applied. We have to read the answer as a whole. And when we read it together with "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" it seems clear that it isn't whether or not Njal's power is an attack that matters, what matters is the fact that Njal's power "otherwise [doesn't] roll to hit". 'Cause if it doesn't roll to hit, it isn't a snap shot. If it isn't a snap shot, it can't target fliers.

      Hope this helps!

  2. Objuration is a Malediction, not an attack, so it is not covered by this.

    1. Interesting take, but I will imagine it will be a hard position to defend that an ability which removes hull points and inflicts S1 hits isn't an attack.

    2. Taking dangerous terrain tests removes hull points and inflicts immobilizations, and they are certainly not attacks.

      Not all things which inflict damage are attacks, at all.

    3. If Objuration causes a "hit" it cannot be used against Flyers. Whether it's an attack or not is a Red Herring. The first sentence of the answer is the general ruling, the rest of the paragraph are examples of subsets of that ruling.

  3. Maledictions are used in the movement phase, are a separate category from 'psychic shooting attacks', and can be used against models locked in close combat. I think it is pretty clear that Maledictions as a whole do not follow the rules for attacks.

    Vector Strikes are an example of something that inflicts hits with a strength value, is not an attack, and can be used against flyers. So there is a precedent for something that shares characteristics with an attack but is not in fact an attack.

    1. Ultimately, in the rules, there are only rules for how to roll to wound, roll for armor pen, etc. when not using "weapons" or "attacks", of some kind, repeatedly. So, basically, if it's not an attack, then there are no rules for how to resolve it unless there is a special section listed for "how to resolve stuff that isn't an attack". Basically, I'm not going to argue if it's absurd or not, but it will come to a point that if you want to split hairs about what is/is not an attack, weapon, effect, etc. that you will have to apply that distinction throughout the ruleset, and the rules will probably fall apart. :P

    2. I get that, I'm just not sure it's a well-developed argument yet, perhaps on either part.

      The brushing sweep of "EVERYTHING IS AN ATTACK!111" isn't necessary, if you break down what is CLEARLY an attack. Firing a weapon is an attack, in fact, it's often referred to as such in the rules - shooting attacks. Swinging even a fist in close combat is referred to as a close combat ATTACK. Firing a witchfire of any sort is a psychic shooting ATTACK. Maledictions? Blessings? Dangerous Terrain Tests? Terrain and model-special-rule effects? Why do these have to be defined as attacks to prevent the rules from breaking?

    3. I don't think the situation is quite as dire as all that, and in this specific case the FAQ author's specifically singled out "maelstroms, beams, and novas". Those are all Witchfire powers that do not roll to hit. So I think the intent is clear, but I have been very certain and very wrong more than once. ;) So we shall see.

      I am curious though, as to your answer to Mike's question about Dangerous Terrain tests. By your reasoning here it seems as though it either counts as an attack, which is hard to fathom, or it is impossible to resolve.

    4. You and me both, brother (on the dead certain and dead wrong more than once)!

      See above on the dangerous terrain. The short is because dangerous terrain does tell you how to completely resolve it without conflict. (Roll, wound, saves) only relying on a very little bit at the end (knowing to remove models with 0 wounds). It's an apples/oranges scenario because of that.

      Further, I'm not stating that everything is an attack but rather that everything has to be treated as an attack would be treated at some level to make the game work at all.

      Taking Imotekh as an example, all we know about his special ability is that it does S8 hits on side armor. From there, though, we have to go to vehicle rules to determine how to apply S8 to side armor and it says very clearly to use the "weapon's" strength. So, if we don't want to classify Imotekh's lightning as a Weapon in order to bypass this (admitedly hamfisted) FAQ ruling, then we're stuck.

      We all had to treat ti like an attack (read Weapon) prior to this FAQ ruling in order to have it do anything (wound or pen armor) to start with. Nothing has changed here, but now basically going to split hairs that somehow it's not a weapon for this purpose......... which I get because it is a hamfisted FAQ ruling.... but yeah.... kind of is what it is.

      Fact for me is, we don't know if they really "meant" EVERYTHING or not. Hard to tell by looking at that FAQ ruling. All it says is "attacks" and then a lot of hamfisted language about "everything else".

    5. Hey look! It's the Doom of Malantai "It's an effect" arguement again, I wonder how that turned out?

      Purg is/will be right.

    6. That anon comment was me, didn't mean for it to sound rude if it does, I was going for sarcastic funny, lol.

      Anyway, fair example; this is exactly the like Dooms "it's an effect" arguement and we all know the answer to that.

      Again, Purg is right. Wanting Njal to break the rules is wishful thinking. Nice try though. Amoung other things, he can't snap shoot it, he's done.

      There isn't much more to it.

  4. Um ....

    Q: Does the Tempest’s Wrath psychic power affect Flyers? (p37)
    A: No.

    Doesn't that settle this?

    1. I don't think so. A Flyer is not a Skimmer, Jetbike, or Jump Infantry, nor does it deploy by Deep Strike, so it doesn't actually meet any of the criteria for Tempest's Wrath.

    2. Tempest's Wrath is different from Njall's Lord of Tempest ability.

  5. Oh do I'm a dumb ass, please delete

  6. Thanks again for the amazing event Mike, and you were a joy to meet in person.

    (I vote psychoir if that matters ;) )


  7. I totally second glanceonasix. You were a real nice guy to meet Mike. Your event was the best I have ever seen and it was not only extremely fun but very competetive. The people were almost all very nice and the judges were so professional to make one think they were getting paid for it.

    I definitely am planning on coming next year and bringing some of my mates too. The Nova is well worth every penny. Also, the hotel was amazing. Their staff was good too, except the cash bar people sucked.

    Thanks again Mike! Coming from a first timer, great job!

  8. There is a suspicion of a point over to the army of the champion.

  9. I might actually be more in agreement w/ the Njal/Imotek/etc. affected by this than not. Fortunately, a year to decide (heh)

    1. You never know, maybe they'll even release a faq before the event next year, maybe. A lot can happen in a year, or not, hahahaha.

  10. I vote we ban anyone who has ever made a mistake playing warhammer 40k for life, so we may always have perfect games... but who will i play? wait! will i get banned myself?

  11. To Mike and Team: Kudos! You guys put on another great event. I'll see you next year with a new army! (or sooner if you hit the replacement springfield store)

  12. Home windows seven Dwelling Primary: The house Basic version is accessible in rising marketplaces, for example Brazil, China windows 7 ultimate product key, India, Mexico, Pakistan and Thailand. Aero choices and several other new characteristics are not incorporated within this version.