Tournament FAQs

[CoolKidRoc]

Hi Guys,

I'm going to be judging at a Tournament next weekend, The Railhead Rumble, and was wondering what common rules questions I can preemptively research and answer so I can keep games moving fast and make sure I'm making the fair call. So if you've run across some common questions that are not already FAQ'ed by GW please feel free to list them here and I'll get working on it.

Thanks!

[Chapters Unwritten]

One thing I have seen constantly, if you have any Nid players, is how the Mawloc's attack where he comes up from under the ground works. But that is covered in the FAQ, I think.

The INAT FAQ is a list of supposedly common questions but in all honesty almost all of them seem predicated around people just not knowing the game rules very well. I'd say if any conflict arises, check the books; 9 times out of 10 the precise wording of a rule will explain away the issue, as most folks don't carry the book and don't look things up if they do.

[CoolKidRoc]

Well I've got all but I think two of the books, so that shouldn't be an issue. I always look at them for rulings, but it's nice to try to head off some of the issues. Say heavy incenerator placements and things of that sort.

As for INAT, I'm not a huge fan of it, I'm much more familiar with GW ones, and INAT is meant to replace the GW ones. So I don't want to pick and choose between two answers to the same question that can be different. Then there's just the fact that some INAT rulings make my brain hurt just like some of the GW ones.

[TheGreatDalmuti]

Well, while you don't agree with the INAT, it does have most of the questions so you can go from there. Leave the answers or try to answer them yourself.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Exactly. As a judge you need a quick and impartial answer. The INAT is great for that. Whether you think it's a good call is not very important compared with being and seeming impartial.

[copper.talos]

Most common dramatic issues I've seen in the forums

FNP & Entropic strike/hexrife
Sweeping Advance & Necron units with joined ICs
DoW & Chimeras deploying as part of the platoon

There are more than enough posts on these to help you make your mind.

PS I've deliberately not taken sides on these issues. Let's not make it another flamefest...

[Homer S]

Hopefully the TO has specified what the "official rules" are WRT the tourney. Particular issues of the GW rules and GW FAQs. That way, at least everyone has a basis to work from. Also, it might be handy to take a copy of the INAT FAQ with you. Even if you don't agree with the rulings, at least they have identified the cases where the RAW are not completely clear.

Also, it might not be a bad idea to have the judges, assuming there are at least 3, confer briefly on big issues to ensure the same rulings are made. Nothing will frustrate players faster than getting different answers in round 3 than they got in round 1. At least, have each judge keep track of the ruling for a given query and stick with it right or wrong.

Homer

[Chapters Unwritten]

Exactly. As a judge you need a quick and impartial answer. The INAT is great for that. Whether you think it's a good call is not very important compared with being and seeming impartial.

The INAT is anything but impartial. Until recently it actively nerfed ATSKNF and the current one changes the rules for exploding vehicles. Right in the FAQ it explains that some items are changes simply because the creators feel the rules are ridiculous.

[radical ed]

One rule that catches a lot of people is the assualt rule regarding attacking enemies that have just joined an ongoing combat. Yes you can attack them.

also make sure you understand the mutiple assualt rules.

know the difference between ordnance and barrage ordanance

and make sure you know the skinny on the latest faq's

[Lord Inquisitor]

The INAT is anything but impartial. Until recently it actively nerfed ATSKNF and the current one changes the rules for exploding vehicles. Right in the FAQ it explains that some items are changes simply because the creators feel the rules are ridiculous.

It is impartial, it has no bias to one player or the other in any given rules dispute. If you disagree with their rulings or think that they've exceeded their remit for clarifications is rather irrelevant. It remains a fantastic tool for tournament organizers. The best part is you tell the players you are using it and they can resolve things by themselves. And if you do get called over you have a quick reference to resolve disputes with no bias (or perceived bias) to the players.

It's been a while since I went through the INAT and I think they're well with rights to make clarifications and outright changes personally. There are a lot of cases where RAW is patently stupid and/or unintended an making sensible rulings is not a bad thing. But the point of the resource is that it is carefully compiled and considered and better than making on the fly judgements.

[TheGreatDalmuti]

It's best merit is that it is available.
The TO can make all the changes he sees fit and have it available online for the participents if he disagrees with some rulings. Availability is key and it leads to consistency.

[Rated_lexxx]

One rule that catches a lot of people is the assualt rule regarding attacking enemies that have just joined an ongoing combat. Yes you can attack them.

also make sure you understand the mutiple assualt rules.

know the difference between ordnance and barrage ordanance

and make sure you know the skinny on the latest faq's

Assault seems to be the most area of disaggreement. Don't know y but it seems like it

[Reivax26]

It says in the rulebook that if you are already in close combat with a squad and someone else charges in on you that you have to swing at the squad you were already in close combat with. Where is this corrected at in any ruling?

[Sami]

It says in the rulebook that if you are already in close combat with a squad and someone else charges in on you that you have to swing at the squad you were already in close combat with. Where is this corrected at in any ruling?

Page? And if it's the page I think you're going to post, remember that "combats" start after all charge moves have been made and defenders react.

[ehlijen]

As said: 'combat' is not the same as 'assault phase'. All that rule says that you're quoting, Reivax, is that a model fighting later in the initiative step is still bound by whatever targets were legal before any blows were struck (but after assault moves are made), even if all models in btb have been killed by the time it gets to attack.

[DoctorTom]

It says in the rulebook that if you are already in close combat with a squad and someone else charges in on you that you have to swing at the squad you were already in close combat with. Where is this corrected at in any ruling?

It's corrected in the main rulebook FAQ by having it say round of combat. If someone tries to argue that you can only attack someone that you are in contact with at the very beginning of the round (before the second unit charges in that turn), point out that by those same rules the unit that charged in that turn wasn't in contact with anyone at the beginning so wouldn't be able to attack anyone.

[Chapters Unwritten]

It is impartial, it has no bias to one player or the other in any given rules dispute. If you disagree with their rulings or think that they've exceeded their remit for clarifications is rather irrelevant. It remains a fantastic tool for tournament organizers. The best part is you tell the players you are using it and they can resolve things by themselves. And if you do get called over you have a quick reference to resolve disputes with no bias (or perceived bias) to the players.

It's been a while since I went through the INAT and I think they're well with rights to make clarifications and outright changes personally. There are a lot of cases where RAW is patently stupid and/or unintended an making sensible rulings is not a bad thing. But the point of the resource is that it is carefully compiled and considered and better than making on the fly judgements.

How is rewriting rules that are not in question, that affect roughly half the game's armies, unbiased? There's nothing that isn't sensible about the current vehicle explosion rules, for example; they just felt like they weren't fair or cool and altered them.

To me, the minute you play that, you aren't playing Warhammer 40k anymore. Not to mention the problem that arises if, in the middle of your event, someone abruptly learns that all of their exploded vehicle situations should have gone very differently than the commonly played way by the FAQ you pledge your event to.

[Lord Inquisitor]

How is rewriting rules that are not in question, that affect roughly half the game's armies, unbiased? There's nothing that isn't sensible about the current vehicle explosion rules, for example; they just felt like they weren't fair or cool and altered them.

To me, the minute you play that, you aren't playing Warhammer 40k anymore. Not to mention the problem that arises if, in the middle of your event, someone abruptly learns that all of their exploded vehicle situations should have gone very differently than the commonly played way by the FAQ you pledge your event to.

The answers may or may not be biased, but the point is there is no question that they are impartial with regard to the specific gamers with the dispute in any given tournament. Which is the point. A judge making a call at a tournament might well know the players personally, might have their own biases towards the armies, might be inclined to give the losing player a break, so on and so forth. Or, conceivably, might be biased the other way to not appear biased towards friends or clubmates, for example. Even if they are entirely impartial, it may not appear that way - if a judge rules for his friend, then that could be taken as favouritism even if that's genuinely the best call. The INAT FAQ is impartial, the judge in not required to make an on-the-fly answer and there is no possibility of any perception of bias towards one player or the other.

Incidentally, you keep bringing up the explosions FAQ. Are you saying that you play it as "each model in range" and actually allocate the hits to those models individually, rather than treating like a blast weapon? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the issue you keep alluding to.

[Seattledv8]

Indeed, the current ruling from the INAT is the correct one.

RB.61K.02 – Q: When a vehicle ‘explodes’ is each
model within range rolled for separately or are the
normal casualty removal rules for shooting used? Are
cover saves allowed against this explosion?
A: Use the normal casualty removal rules for shooting,
including cover saves. Draw line of sight from the center of
the exploding vehicle to the affected unit(s) to determine
whether or not they are in cover [clarification].
Ref: TYR.49C.01

Granted I don't agree with every ruling they make, most are well thought out and do what you need in a tourney setting.
They give you a quick unbaised (as per Lord Inq's post) source that can be checked before you even reach the table.
Not perfect ,but very useful to a TO.
Also they has this statement as part of the INAT

As a tournament organizer, if you don’t care for any of our rulings we urge you to feel free to change what you don’t like to
fit your event or even to take our questions as a base and create an entirely new FAQ. This document is meant to be a tool
and a resource to help create great tournaments. If it helps you in any way to do so, then we’re all a little better off as a
community and as gamers.

[Chapters Unwritten]

RB.67F.01 – Q: When a transport vehicle suffers a ‘Destroyed – explodes!’ result its passengers must be placed ‘where the vehicle used to be’. What exactly does this mean?
A: Passengers must be placed wholly inside the area of the table that the vehicle’s hull previously occupied [clarification]. Any models that cannot fit entirely within this area or are within 1” of an enemy model are removed from
play as a casualty. In addition, the models count as having disembarked from a vehicle (and so cannot assault the same turn if the vehicle wasn’t open-topped, for example) [rules change].

Emphasis mine. Real rule says no such thing.

The previous iteration of the INAT also nerfed ATSKNF.