Thursday, August 1, 2013

Short-Turn Draft FAQ - Responses Solicited


The following link is to the INITIAL DRAFT 40k FAQ for the 2013 NOVA Open. While primarily complete, your feedback is requested for addressing critical absent responses, and any major rules conundrums you feel should be addressed / re-addressed.

Dispassionate feedback only, please, with rules references and cogent arguments to support your point of view. We follow a Rules as Reasonable approach, leaning Rules as Written when in doubt.

The 40k Chief Rules Judge will be reviewing the document internally, and we will publish a final version by Tuesday AM. All changes will be implemented after NOON on Monday.

Please remain respectful with any rules / rulings you feel especially passionate about, and keep in mind the NOVA's only intent with the production of this document is the adjudication of difficult or fuzzy rules/rulings at the NOVA Open itself.

Thanks for all the feedback, rules amalgamation, and Q&A we've had so far - it's been incredibly helpful!



  1. hey mike,

    1) Black Mace Toughness Tests are only taken once the assault phase is complete; this may result in a
    Black Mace character finishing an assault phase locked in combat, but not in base contact with an
    enemy model.

    - Counter point: The rule for the black mace's Cursed special rule reads as follows -
    "Cursed: If a model suffer an unsaved Wound from the Black Mace it must immediately take a Toughness test. If the test is faild, remove the model as a casualty with no saves of any kind allowed. In addition, at the end of a phase in which the Black Mace causes one or more unsaved wounds, all non-vehicle enemy models withing 3" of the bearer, which haven't suffered an unsaved wound from the Black Mace, must make a Toughness test. Any models that fail the test suffer a Wound with no saves of any kind allowed." (pg. 69)

    There is no requirement for base contact, nor for the model to even still be engaged in combat for the ability to go off. This can also affect models that were not in the combat to begin with.

    2) When rolling for a model’s Daemonic Rewards, Warp-forged Armor and the Unbreakable Hide Greater
    Reward are not considered to be duplicates.

    Counter argument - I would like to challenge this ruling as both provide the exact same thing. They are both demonic gifts that provide a 3+ armor save. If you want to even go to RAI, the fluff above the warp-forged armor entry states: "Clad in daemonic armour laden with unholy runes, the Daemon's hide is all but immune to the blows of mortals." (pg. 63) In addition, in the Daemonic Rewards rules it states: "Each reward can be duplicated across the army, but can only be taken once per model (even if the reward is included in the model's army list entry); duplicate results must be re-rolled." (pg. 66) The effects of the ability are exact duplicates of each other, the only difference is the name, which I do not feel is enough to warrant the ruling that they are different.

    1. Charlie,

      First one, not sure you're point. We weren't saying it wouldn't work as you describe, only that you'd remain locked in combat even if the toughness tests removed models from base contact entirely.

      To the other, going with the RAW most likely.

    2. Ok, it wasn't clear after reading it through the first time. At first glance it read that you could only activate the ability if in B2B contact. After re-reading I can see the way you meant it.

      On the other, I don't see how RAW makes them different? They are both giving a 3+ armor save.

    3. Power armour is not the same as a crisis battle suit.

    4. true but there is no way for a model to purchase two identical armor saves in the game. A power armor wearing model has no way to purchase another 3+ armor save. There are ways to purchase an improved armor save, but it is impossible in every other codex to duplicate an armor save.

      Basically you are saying that demons are the only codex in the game that can duplicate their armor save through upgrade purchases.

    5. As far as Warp Forged Armor/Unbreakable Hide goes, it's the only reward in the book that the "(even if the reward is included in the model's army list entry)" line can possibly refer to.

      No model in the book has any other kind of reward in their profile, so that line must be about Warp Forged Armor.

    6. actually, the bloodthirster has the Axe of Khorne. That truly is the only entry that is word for word duplicated, name and everything. But the intention is very clear in my opinion to include the armor save because you can just pick up an aether blade for a second specialist weapon.

    7. Yeah, you can't roll for an Axe of Khorne, so being able to reroll doesn't make much sense and can't be what it is referring to.

      If you had to Reroll for picking an Axe of Khorne, you could essentially just get whatever reward on that table you want - if you got something you didn't want, you could just default to the Axe and get a free reroll indefinitely.

  2. I assume that since GoI works with Belial's ability it also works with Farsight's warlord trait? Just making sure since it wasn't noted in the FAQ.

  3. Heads up on a couple missed enclave rulings:

    1) Can units from Enclave or Tau Empire (vice versa) spend markerlight points generated by models from the other detachment (IE, are they both considered to be units from Codex Tau Empire)

    2) This is a very obvious one, but probably should still be mentioned. Earth Caste Pilot Array seems designed for models in riptide battlesuits, but riptides don't actually have access to signature systems (but it does have a point value, so it can't only be intended for O'Vesa). Could you clarify whether a riptide can take this system?

    I feel like I'm forgetting one more, but that's whatI have for now, other than that all the stuff in the FAQ looks good.

    1. Any unit selected from Codex: Tau, even if part of an Enclaves army.

      And the signature system question is answered by the Enclaves book, which explicitly states Enclaves Riptides can take Farsight signature systems.

    2. Don't act like i should own a copy of the book before discussing rules from it! The NERVE!


    3. How dare you, sir! I reject you reality and substitute my own!

  4. 1) Vengeance Weapons Battery
     Treat the Battle Cannon / Punisher Gatling Cannon on a Vengeance Weapons Battery as a Gun Emplacement; keep in mind the roof is impassable / units may not legally come into base contact with these Gun Emplacements. They may still be fired automatically per the Vengeance Weapons Battery rules. This is a clarification to address the fuzzy mixed use of Gun Emplacements and Emplaced Weapons in the 40k Rulebook (i.e., in different references to Bastion Icarus/Quadgun emplacements), Vengeance Weapons Battery rules, and Vengeance descriptions.

    I am in disagreement with the ruling that the Vengeance Batteries are actually a building/gun emplacement combination rather than being treated as a building with a emplaced weapon like the heavy bolters on a bastion or fortress of redemption.

    -On page 96 of BRB the rules for emplaced weapons are discussed. They are considered a part of the structure they are mounted upon having no separate profile and subject to the appropriate damage results upon the building. On the opposite page has a diagram with clearly shows the bolter on the bastion is a Emplaced Weapon. In the paragraph to its left a sentence refers to the emplaced weapons on the bastion as an Icarus Lascannon and the heavy bolter. This is where the confusion stems. It should be noted that nowhere in any actual rules provided by the BRB, or in the rules provided in the Vengeance Kit is it referred to as a Gun Emplacement with a separate profile. The only other instance of these two "units" being conflated is on GW merchant site which refers to it as a Gun Emplacement in the fluff description. While potentially confusing it is hardly a good source to base this ruling from.

    -Gun Emplacement v. Emplaced Weapons in the army list entries the delineation between these two units is pretty clear. Whenever a gun emplacement is purchasable it clearly identifies the units a "Gun Emplacement with Quad gun or Icarus lascannon. In the Fortress of Redemption entry on pg. 117 it lists the weapons as an emplaced missile silo w/ fragstorm missiles and emplaced Twin-linked Icarus Lascannon. Note that unlike the bastion or aegis defense line you are not purchasing a Gun Emplacement w/ a weapon system.

  5. -The GW faq, clearly makes a distinction between Emplaced Weapons and Gun Emplacements (Quad and Icarus). In every instance in the actual unit entry delineate between emplaced weapons that are part of the structure and gun emplacements which are purchased as an option and are considered separate units.
    Q: Can a unit occupying a Bastion manually fire a gun emplacement (eg. quad gun) on the Bastion’s roof? (p116)
    A: No – a model must be in base contact to manually fire a gun emplacement, therefore the unit must be on the Bastion’s roof.
    This FAQ is pertinent because the Sentry Defense System rule states: A Building with this special rule can use automated fire against enemy fire and be targeted by enemy attacks even if its unoccupied.
    This rule only allows the building to circumvent restriction against unoccupied buildings firing their emplaced weapons pg. 96 and allowing enemies to target the building if unoccupied. By making the VWB a gun emplacement per the current FAQ ruling the Gun Emplacement should not be able to fire at all as Vehicles cannot fire gun emplacements and its impossible for the building to be in base contact as it cannot be on its own roof. The gun and the building are separate units by the ruling and therefore the gun cannot be fired.
    Q. If so, do battlements count as a separate building, or is the bastion a multi-part building? (p95)
    A: Battlements are treated as being separate from the building itself, simply acting as cover for any models on top of the building in question – see the rules for battlements on page 95.
    Also the battlement in which the VWB would be placed upon is considered separate building and thus the gun emplacement cannot be fired.
    -Finally there is no rules what so ever for firing a Gun Emplacement automatically. It has to be fired manually or not at all. The Sentry Defense System rule only provides that a building can use automated fire even if its unoccupied. This does not cover Gun Emplacements which have a entirely different profile than the building.

    1. I am ruling the Vengeance Weapons battery as an "emplaced weapon" (pg 96) not a "gun emplacement" (pg 105)

      This means that it cannot be specifically targeted by shooting and/or assault, only the building can.

      Per "Buildings of all types use aspects of the Transport vehicle rules. The main difference between buildings and actual vehicles is that they can't move and units from either side can go inside" (pg 92?).

      You also cannot land on top of it (no more than you could land on top of a razorback), unless it has a battlement (Which specifically governs how models are placed on top of it).

  6. Looks like you packed a lot of contentious ones at the top, lol! :) Got through the basic rulings so far. Here's what I got for areas of consideration.

    1) You have a FAQ about blast weapon hits being able to be counted for models out of LoS, but wounds cannot be allocated (3.1.8). This was already FAQ'ed by GW, and your ruling is no longer needed (and also incorrect :P /hugz)

    BRB FAQ first page:

    Add to the end of the final paragraph: “Remember to keep the
    wounds inflicted by weapons with the Blast special rule in their
    own wound pool, and that wounds from this pool can be
    allocated to the closest model in the target unit even if it is out of sight of any models from the attacking unit”.

    As a result of this, though, what would be super useful is for you to FAQ what kind of cover save I'm going to get when allocating wounds to a model you cannot see at all! Because GW didn't think that through, looks like.

    2) In regards to 3.1.7, what exactly are you classifying as a "non-shooting passive ability"? We know that Imotekh can hit flyers, but that power is explicitly allowed to do so by FAQ. No other power is explicitly allowed to do so nor is there a classification called "non-shooting passive ability". So, would like to know in this case what is it that is being allowed by this FAQ?

    3) To the unit with Infiltrate allowing an IC to join them in Reserve and confer Outflank.

    Pg. 38 - "An Independent Character without the Infiltrate special rule cannot join a unit of Infiltrators during deployment."

    Bars ICs from joining units of infiltrators during deployment.

    Pg. 38 - "Having Infiltrate also confers the Outflank special rule to units of Infiltrators that are kept as Reserves
    (see page 40)."

    Clearly shows that a unit with the Infiltrate special rule is still considered a unit of Infiltrators even while kept in Reserve.

    Pg. 124 - "During deployment, when declaring which units are kept as Reserves, the player must clearly explain the organisation of his Reserves to the opponent."

    Clearly shows that Reserve organization is done DURING DEPLOYMENT.

    Pg. 124 - "First, he must specify to the opponent if any of his Independent Characters left in reserve are joining a unit, in which case they will arrive together"

    Shows that ICs join units while reserve are being organized.


    1) IC's can't join Infiltrators during deployment.
    2) Organizing reserves and joining ICs definitely happens during deployment.
    3) Units with Infiltrate are still Infiltrators during deployment even if they are being placed into Reserve.

    My opinion:
    I get that there may be some intent position here, but the RaW, is as close to air tight as it gets and the RaI is unclear. So, although I would love to Outflank my Ethereal with Kroot, I don't think it's legal.

    4) 3.2.1

    "Whether glued shut or not, Drop Pods are never considered to block Line of Sight, and their doors are always ignored."

    I played this way for a long time but last event I had somebody very clearly showed me that when you actually add the guns, harness straps, etc. to a Drop Pod and then take a look, you can barely draw LoS through it and even then, only at some very small angles. This was surprising to me. Would really suggest you take a look at a Drop Pod that is properly built and see what I mean on this one.

    This is minor, btw. Just in case you were like me and had never actually bothered to check before.

    1. I totally agree with the blast one - this is very clear in the FAQ. However, I would argue the cover is already sorted. If a unit is obscured (in this case, LOS totally blocked by) then you gain the cover of the thing obscuring it. So, if you fired into ruins and hit 5 models with 2 out of LOS, they'd get 4+ cover as they're blocked by ruins.

  7. Got another one for you here:

     Doom only permits re-rolling Failed rolls to wound

    Straight from my iPad Page 114:

    "2. Doom (2)

    Warp Charge 1
    Doom is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". If the target is a non-vehicle unit, all failed To Wound rolls made against the target can be re-rolled whilst this power is in effect. If the target is a vehicle, all failed Armour Penetration rolls made against it can be re-rolled whilst this power is in effect."

    The way your FAQ is written, you are saying that doesn't work on vehicles.

    1. Sorry, that's a good catch; the point was some dumb question I found / received where b/c the summary in the back of the book doesn't say "failed," people were wondering could they just use the summary ruling instead and re-roll things like successful bladestorms that didn't rend.

  8. Last 2, and these are clearly contentious and have already been beaten to death I'm sure.

    1) 3.2.12

    "The various abilities of Njal’s storm all affect Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures and Zooming Flyers"

    "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."

    As per GW FAQ, only snapshots can hit flyers. Doesn't matter what the ability is or how it gets classified, passive, non-shooting, whatever or not. If it's not a snapshot. no hits against FMCs or Flyers.

    Further, even if one were to assume that Njal's ability might apply because of some kind of alternate classification, creating a new classification for Njal's abilities is rules unsupported, thereby just flatly creating new rules. There is no such classification as "non-shooting passive" and indeed, if you do classify Njal's ability as neither shooting nor an attack, nor a weapon, the rule book thereby never gives permission for his ability to be able to be resolved in any way as applying hits, damage, etc. all come in the rules from some kind of attack or weapon. (Permissive rule set) This also means that not only are you creating new rules to somehow classify Njal as something, you are also creating entirely new rules for how his ability works in terms of damage, wounds, etc. (Create No Rules Canon)

    Imotekh's ruling goes against that but is explicit. There is no such ruling for Njal. So, using that as a basis to allow Njal's non-snap shot hits to apply to a Flyer isn't legal and is an unsupported extrapolation. (Slippery Slope Canon)

    My Opinion:
    Was just as shocked as everyone else that they FAQ'ed Imotekh, but to apply that ruling to Njal without permission will make it go against the precedent that has been in place for almost a year now and also be a ruling outside of what everyone else is doing in this case. This shouldn't have weight in finding a right answer, but it is important for an event, nonetheless.

    2) 3.2.14

    "Independent Characters (i.e., Parasite of Mortrex, Tyranid Primes) may join Hive Tyrants or The Swarmlord regardless of the presence of Tyrant Guard, and may join units consisting of only a single Carnifex."

    A Tyrant/Swarmie is always a unit consisting of one model, just like any IC is albeit they do not have the IC rule.

    Tyrant Guard have a Shield Wall special rule that lets Tyrants join them explicitly.

    I'm missing where an IC has permission to join a Tyrant, then.

    1. #1 Neil - the ruling would also match what ETC is doing ... that unless it's specifically a shooting attack / classified as a weapon, it affects flyers, and is supported by the Imotekh ruling (whose effects area also not attacks/weapons, and are not resolved as snap shots, even though they require a 6 to inflict damage on a given unit).

    2. Additionally, the fact ETC rules this way, and the fact we're leaning this way, should help infer that not "practically everyone" plays it the other way around.

    3. Just echoing a largely held opinion here..

      But the ETC is notoriously/historically bad with their rulings, largely contributed by the conglomeration of interpretations of the rulebook from multiple languages. Of all events, the ETC is the least likely to hold sway on good rules precedence for a lot of us who keep our finger on the pulse of contentious rulings.

      Much more apt to go with rulings from larger events here in the US which effect us or from larger UK events.

      I recognize that's all opinion, but I just wanted to throw that notion out there as it is a popular one.

      This is especially true since the case against it, to me, is so strong.

      Rune priests are strong in the meta, and this will certainly add a lot of value to Njal, making him more than viable now for his cost of that of 2 x priests. So, it might be worth it in the long run just to blow dust off him.

    4. Hey Neil and Mike. Using the BRB FAQ for the ability hitting flyers thing is like playing Russian Roulette.

      As per the BRB FAQ. Anything that Auto-Hits that snap fires, still auto-hits.

      Then, right after that, Anything that auto-hits cannot affect flyers.

    5. Just my 2 cents on the Njal ruling. I usually run global effects like that (Immotek, warpstorm, Njal) such that if they need to roll to "hit" like the warpstorm or Immotek need 6s, then they can hit flyers, if they auto hit, then they cannot.

    6. Except I cant find anywhere in the book saying that is a roll to hit or a snap shot...

    7. No shooting in the game rolls to hit and then rolls d6 wounds after it hits. This isnt fantasy and I dont see any great cannons out there. ;)

      Its a special rule that on a "6". This unit is automatically hit by this. The lightning has explicit permission to do so. That doesn't mean everything does. If they wanted them all to hit they would faq it as such like they did the lightning. Why would they clarify one without clarifying any of the others unless they were not intended to hit flyers.

  9. Q. Does the Daemonic Possession result on the Warp Storm Table affect psykers in a transport and if so how would the created herald be placed?

    Q. What is the points value of created unit in relation to Victory Points and what is the points value of the Chaos Spawn created by the Mutating Warp Blade (no codex entry).

  10. IN support of Neil on blast rulings, you directly contradicted the GW FAQ, which was very clear that wounds from a blast CAN be allocated to models that are not in LOS.

  11. This is probably a dumb question but here goes as me and a friend who is actually going to nova are interested in the answer. With the terrify psychic ruling being

    "-If the Terrify psychic power causes a unit locked in close combat to fall back, they leave combat and make a normal fall back move. If they were the only unit locked in combat with the enemy, the enemy may neither Consolidate or perform a Sweeping Advance."

    Does this mean that if I terrify a unit of necron wraiths(/insert anything fearless) and beat them in combat I can't sweeping advance them?

    Or does this ruling mean that if the wraiths are locked in combat->I terrify them->then they fail the morale check that is taken right away, they can't be swept when they try to flee.

    1. "Does this mean that if I terrify a unit of necron wraiths(/insert anything fearless) and beat them in combat I can't sweeping advance them? "


      "Or does this ruling mean that if the wraiths are locked in combat->I terrify them->then they fail the morale check that is taken right away, they can't be swept when they try to flee."


  12. Regarding the Skyshield landing pad, you state the legs give a cover, but what about on the landing pad itself? Seeing as the shield is part of the fortification, there is no justification stating you do not get a cover save? It's part of the model, and the entire model is a fortification!

  13. "Units that may fire two weapons (i.e., Monstrous Creatures, Multi-tracker Suits) in the Shooting Phase may also do so when firing Overwatch."

    Can you please justify this? As it's clearly written in the RAW that the extra weapon can only be fired in the shooting phase.

    1. Pg51: More than one weapon
      Unless otherwise stated, if a model has more than one Shooting weapon, he must choose which one to shoot - he cannot fire both in the same Shooting Phase.

      The whole restriction on number of weapons is only applied in the shooting phase.

    2. Also:

      Pg21: An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack (albeit one resolved in the enemy's Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on. Unlike a normal shooting attack, Overwatch cannot cause Morale checks or Pinning tests. Any shots fired as Overwatch can only be fired as Snap Shots.

      Bolding is mine. Overwatch is resolved as in the Shooting phase, with the only restrictions that there are no Morale or Pinning checks and all shots are Snapshots. There would need to be a further rule that wargear that works in the shooting phase doesn't work for Overwatch.

    3. "And so on" seems like it would be referring to the sequence of roll to hit to wound etc... Conferring that rules that apply during the shooting phase apply during overwatch. That much I would say everyone would agree on. However I would not agree that "and so on" confers that the phase is in fact now the shooting phase during an overwatch, which is what would have to happen for monstrous creatures and Tau suits to fire more than one weapon during overwatch. If this is the final ruling it is what it is, but it does seem like a fairly questionable ruling that true only benefits on army.

    4. Then look at the first rule I quoted. The limit of one weapon per dude also only applies in the shooting phase. If you hold that multi tracker doesn't work then everyone can fire everything they have on overwatch.

      Multi trackers working is a better outcome than a marine firing his bolter and bolt pistol, or a scout biker firing his twin bolters, bolt pistol, shotgun, and tossing a krak grenade for good measure.

  14. Mike,

    In regards to the Vengeance Weapons Battery:

    Your FAQ states that "Treat the Battle Cannon / Punisher Gatling Cannon on a Vengeance Weapons Battery as a Gun Emplacement; keep in mind the roof is impassable / units may not legally come into base contact with these Gun Emplacements. They may still be fired automatically per the Vengeance Weapons Battery rules. This is a clarification to address the fuzzy mixed use of Gun Emplacements and Emplaced Weapons in the 40k Rulebook (i.e., in different references to Bastion Icarus/Quadgun emplacements), Vengeance Weapons Battery rules, and Vengeance descriptions."

    This fails to account for models that *can*, in fact, legally end their move in impassable territory, such as Eldar/Dark Eldar Jetbikes, and thereby actually achieve legal base to base contact with those weapons.

  15. Hi everyone.
    For those that do not know me or know of me, my name is Mike Somerville and I have been given the task of finalizing the edits to the NOVA 2013 40k FAQ.

    I am also the head rules judge for the 40k GT and Invitational.

    With that said, I wanted to introduce myself before replying to your individual rules queries.


  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. It seems the heldrake will be getting a bit of a nerf with current flyer rulings. you measure LOS from head and cannot wound models that are out of LOS.

    you can only get los for ground models within a 22.5 degree down arc. I have not measured but it seems there will be a pretty large no kill zone around the heldrake when it is done this way.

    1. Heldrake's flamer is turret mounted, not hull mounted. The 22.5 arc is for hull mounted only.

  18. I noticed that the FAQ has clarifications for the Skyshield but the Mission Primer still says that Skyshields are not allowed. So, which is it?