PDA

View Full Version : INAT FAQ v3.2 Released



noobzilla
08-02-2010, 23:37
I wasn't sure this was good enough to be put into the rumors section, and I didn't want to get into trouble with the mods :angel: So I figured I'd post here and tell you all that the INAT FAQ v3.2 has been released and addresses some key issues with the New Tyranid Codex and a few others in preparation for AdeptiCon.

While it is by no means official, most of their rulings are pretty accurate, and it's the best global FAQ we have at the moment, I figured that I'd post that it's up now.

http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/inat/INATFAQv3.2.pdf

Enjoy all who will.

Falkman
09-02-2010, 01:12
Most of it seems solid, couple of things I don't agree with (only checked Tyranid part).
Funny how they kept misspelling Termagant.

noobzilla
09-02-2010, 01:14
Most of it seems solid, couple of things I don't agree with (only checked Tyranid part).
Funny how they kept misspelling Termagant.

This will probably be the case with everyone. Nobody will agree with everything. Yes, most people think that it's spelled "Termagaunt" I did until I bought the codex for real.

Inquisitor Engel
09-02-2010, 01:55
It SHOULD be spelt Termagaunt. It's a gaunt FFS.

Blink
09-02-2010, 02:22
Huh, don't agree with half the stuff in that FAQs. Intermixed units should be able to provide cover to one another. There's no reason why they shouldn't.

Dark Primus
09-02-2010, 02:34
Good that it cleared a lot of issues I could only have guessed to.

SPYDER68
09-02-2010, 02:37
biggest fail of an faq by Adepticon that ive seen in awhile.

Vepr
09-02-2010, 02:45
The Doom ruling is not what I expected. So it does affect units in transports but its power is subject to a cover save?

The Marshel
09-02-2010, 03:25
just a quick question, when they say rule change, do they mean they changed the rules themselves based on rai?

noobzilla
09-02-2010, 04:07
biggest fail of an faq by Adepticon that ive seen in awhile.

I disagree. Just because you don't agree with all the rulings doesn't make it a fail of a FAQ, its a lot better than the limited versions we get from GW, which we wont get for at least another month.

@The Marshel: Yes, that's what rule change means.

druchii
09-02-2010, 06:12
Good that it cleared a lot of issues I could only have guessed to.

Weird, they ruled the opposite way I would have on both of the Doom questions.


just a quick question, when they say rule change, do they mean they changed the rules themselves based on rai?

Sometimes. Sometimes adepticon changes a rule for the sake of balance, too.

d

SPYDER68
09-02-2010, 06:16
I disagree. Just because you don't agree with all the rulings doesn't make it a fail of a FAQ, its a lot better than the limited versions we get from GW, which we wont get for at least another month.

@The Marshel: Yes, that's what rule change means.

to many flat out rule changes that shouldnt be there.

FaQ = Frequently asked questions.. not random rules changes.

noobzilla
09-02-2010, 06:40
I still think it's a pretty solid FAQ overall in terms of the scope of answering questions and the number of question it answered.

It's at least a foundation when the GW FAQ fails to mention something.

aquilius
09-02-2010, 06:54
Huh, don't agree with half the stuff in that FAQs. Intermixed units should be able to provide cover to one another. There's no reason why they shouldn't.

Except the reason that it is power gaming to the extreme and in completely unbalanced?

For the most part I find the INAT to be what I would expect the answer to be, and when the answer makes me scratch my head I understand where they were coming from and how their ruling keeps the game balanced.

The problem I find with games workshop, is that they appear to only have a design team, and completely lack a development team and rules manager. The game would be so much nicer if they hired someone who enjoyed ripping rules apart to find loopholes and who knew how to word things so that they worked as intended as they are written.

Vexbane
09-02-2010, 07:04
I think it is a decent FAQ as well. At least something we can go by until the real GW FAQ comes out. Are GW FAQ usually the same as adepticon?

Dangersaurus
09-02-2010, 07:18
Getting to be too many "clarifications" that are outright "rules changes." Not as impressed as I previously was. Still, a good resource.

MoonReaper
09-02-2010, 07:29
didnt like it.
I generally dont like "rules change" from unofficial sources, even though if you decide to follow them, they do make gaming more fluid.

Geep
09-02-2010, 07:34
I only read the Tyranids part, but in general I like it.

I disagree with some rulings, but I agree with most- I wouldn't feel bad if this was the official GW FAQ.

Blink
09-02-2010, 07:58
Except the reason that it is power gaming to the extreme and in completely unbalanced?

Eh, I don't see how it's power gaming. It hardly benefits me since I play Necron and don't usually have to rely on intervening model cover saves unless I'm using a Mobile Defense Force setup, but if I can only see half a squad of hormies and half a squad of termagaunts because they're racing through each other (very believable), then it's understandable that each would give each other a cover save.

EffigyoftheSwarm
09-02-2010, 08:14
It SHOULD be spelt Termagaunt. It's a gaunt FFS.

Well no, seeing as Termagant is an already exisiting word that they are named after.

ehlijen
09-02-2010, 08:23
Eh, I don't see how it's power gaming. It hardly benefits me since I play Necron and don't usually have to rely on intervening model cover saves unless I'm using a Mobile Defense Force setup, but if I can only see half a squad of hormies and half a squad of termagaunts because they're racing through each other (very believable), then it's understandable that each would give each other a cover save.

The idea of cover saves is that something is in the way of the shot. It logically follows that that something is therefore exposed to the the shot. The claim that two units should be able to give cover to each other defies that basic logic. It's like saying I should be protected because I have a shield but at the same time able to hide the shield behind my body so it won't get damaged.

tu33y
09-02-2010, 08:54
in the IG section i was impressed by the clarification of the "desperadoes" in relation to the penal custodian- it was fuzzy but they fit RAW and RAI together well

DIDNT like the fact a priest or a techpriest can be the mandatory HQ choice.... thats lame and wrong.

Blink
09-02-2010, 09:09
The idea of cover saves is that something is in the way of the shot. It logically follows that that something is therefore exposed to the the shot. The claim that two units should be able to give cover to each other defies that basic logic. It's like saying I should be protected because I have a shield but at the same time able to hide the shield behind my body so it won't get damaged.

What is with this website and very strange unfitting metaphors? It's stood out to me ever since I joined and someone made some weird comparison of a Necron rule to keys, which he couldn't defend after I asked him about it.

Anyway, no your logic is flawed and it's not like you have a shield and you have to decide whether to damage your shield or body. To make your metaphor work, in this context, you would have to stick your arm in front of the shield or something while you're behind it since this is about BOTH units obscuring over 50% of each other.

Without making any rule changes like this FAQs thing did, it should work like this (considering shots are coming from the right):
A= unit 1
B= unit 2

AA
BB
No cover save
AB
AB
Cover save A
BA
BA
Cover save B
AB
BA
Cover save AB

Using the same example I said before with Hormagaunts and Termagaunts, if they're racing through each other, that makes it hard to target any particular squad, and as the rulebook says a cover save represents anything from physically being behind a wall, being obscured and hard to target (this situation), or moving so fast it's hard to aim at, it seems to make perfect sense.

Granted I never see this situation happen, but it would be exciting to see and surprisingly fitting if they had a Swarmlord in their army who's known for pulling crap like that.

Thanatos_elNyx
09-02-2010, 09:11
The Doom ruling is not what I expected. So it does affect units in transports but its power is subject to a cover save?

While I beleive that you should get a Cover save from Doom and the other one.
The idea that you can do anything to units in transports is just silly.

Blink
09-02-2010, 09:20
The idea that you can do anything to units in transports is just silly.

Personally, I find it silly that you generally can't. Especially to units in an open topped vehicle.

EmperorEternalXIX
09-02-2010, 09:34
just a quick question, when they say rule change, do they mean they changed the rules themselves based on rai? Actually if I remember from the last FAQ, it means they changed it because they felt it was wrong. For example, they FAQed the very clear ATSKNF rule in their last FAQ to just consolidate 6" instead of 3" + normal movement, and to not allow the firing of heavy weapons afterward.

They changed this because they thought it was unfair.

Anybody who alters an already-clear rule because they don't like it can't be considered a good source, and all the people I see touting this FAQ as gospel around here ought to be ashamed of themselves. The last one altered for the writers' edification more things than it clarified.

INAT = trash. I wouldn't use this FAQ at our gaming group for a bloody thing.

Blink
09-02-2010, 10:02
This INAT thing seems to make the game less fun if nothing else if you followed ALL the rules. I guess it's great on opinion based matters as a third party to chime in on a situation, but a lot of it seems very opinionated and unprofessional (They use terms like "obviously" when a simple "yes" would suffice).

Squallish
09-02-2010, 10:15
The one that bugs me most is the Tyrant's Hive Commander stacking. Based on the wording, it should be the exact opposite.

To me:
If "a" Tyrant has HC, then "a" unit of Troops can Outflank implies 1 Outflank even if two Tyrants.
While "the" Tyrant is alive, gain +1 to reserves implies each reserve bonus is unique.. and thus should stack.

Also.. they supported the DeathLeaper's off-table Leadership modification using "while alive", but shot down the Tyrant's HC reserve bonus while off table using the exact same wording.

Pretty much a big blunder of an FAQ that nerfs a huge 25pt upgrade.. I hope GW will reverse the above on.

Blink
09-02-2010, 10:18
It makes a few too many assumptions to be credible.

Thanatos_elNyx
09-02-2010, 11:41
Personally, I find it silly that you generally can't. Especially to units in an open topped vehicle.

I'll concede that Open Topped Vehicles should leave units open to effects.

I used to be a fan of the INAT but they seem to have gone off the deep end.

ehlijen
09-02-2010, 13:40
What is with this website and very strange unfitting metaphors? It's stood out to me ever since I joined and someone made some weird comparison of a Necron rule to keys, which he couldn't defend after I asked him about it.

Anyway, no your logic is flawed and it's not like you have a shield and you have to decide whether to damage your shield or body. To make your metaphor work, in this context, you would have to stick your arm in front of the shield or something while you're behind it since this is about BOTH units obscuring over 50% of each other.

Without making any rule changes like this FAQs thing did, it should work like this (considering shots are coming from the right):
A= unit 1
B= unit 2

AA
BB
No cover save
AB
AB
Cover save A
BA
BA
Cover save B
AB
BA
Cover save AB

Using the same example I said before with Hormagaunts and Termagaunts, if they're racing through each other, that makes it hard to target any particular squad, and as the rulebook says a cover save represents anything from physically being behind a wall, being obscured and hard to target (this situation), or moving so fast it's hard to aim at, it seems to make perfect sense.

Granted I never see this situation happen, but it would be exciting to see and surprisingly fitting if they had a Swarmlord in their army who's known for pulling crap like that.

That's abusing the fact that groups of seperate entities are treated as the same entity ruleswise. The fact is, 2 of your 4 guys are in the front without cover no matter which way you arrange them. That means there's someone without cover to catch all the bullets and someone to be shielded. To give all 4 guys the benefit of cover is absurd.

If anything, large numbers of models should not grant cover saves at all as the enemy will simply spray the area with bullets secure in the knowledge that he'll hit something.

rjderouin
09-02-2010, 14:29
I would have no problem with someone mixing units to get a cover save, he just has to find a way to move them squad by squad effectively cutting 2 - 3 inches off his movement.

EmperorEternalXIX
09-02-2010, 19:09
It's also pretty unpleasant when players try this against an ordnance barrage.

Although knowing the self-servient writers of this FAQ, they probably made ordnance barrages small blasts and always grant cover, just for the hell of it.

Phazael
09-02-2010, 19:41
So many mistakes, its hard to know where to begin. The Nid section alone makes my p3nix flaccid. Spotting and LoS are two different things? Really? The Doom ruling is the reverse of both balance and common sense. A ton of other random made up things in there too, like walkers taking glances from acid blood (uh whut?).

EmperorEternalXIX
09-02-2010, 19:54
Walker DO take hits from acid blood, I thought? (after a roll, anyway)

Either way I'm sure that they probably FAQed it to be better or worse based on whether the guy who wrote that particularly page owned/got owned by the new nid codex...

druchii
10-02-2010, 05:36
So many mistakes, its hard to know where to begin. The Nid section alone makes my p3nix flaccid. Spotting and LoS are two different things? Really? The Doom ruling is the reverse of both balance and common sense. A ton of other random made up things in there too, like walkers taking glances from acid blood (uh whut?).

Most of the stuff in this post is funny.

Night Fighting and LOS are COMPLETELY different things (read the entry..come on), and walkers DO take glancing hits from acid blood (did you read that entry, either?).

Only thing I can agree with you on is the oddity that the DOooOm can effect units in transports AND allow cover saves, it should be just the opposite.


d

Pink Horror
10-02-2010, 06:39
What kind of cover save does a unit get for being completely encased in a vehicle, anyway?

noobzilla
10-02-2010, 06:42
It's funny that you guys bag on a group of guys who work really hard to put out an FAQ for all the rules queries that we bicker about constantly on this forum. And while it's not magic fix all, and nor will everybody agree with it, it's a pretty damn good foundation for all of the questions that GW has never answered.

I in no way demanded that you play by the INAT FAQ, but I figured that the people who do (such as my gaming club and most people I play against in the Midwest) would appreciate knowing that the FAQ was released and would answer some of their Tyranid questions for now while GW sits on their asses twiddling their thumbs while we struggle to play the game without an FAQ.

@ Pink Horror, the INAT FAQ says that you get a 4+ from Doom in a vehicle.

Hive Fleet Bahamut
10-02-2010, 06:56
Thanks for posting the FAQ. As you say no one is demanding that you use these rules in your games if you don't want to (unless of course you're playing in a tourney which uses these rules). Love the Rock, Paper, Scissors quote for the sig as well.

I just realized that everything I wrote above in brackets was the kind of common sense the interweb lacks. In real life I would only say that to someone out of sarcasm. Here I best be careful lest the nitpickers pick my nits.

EmperorEternalXIX
10-02-2010, 08:17
No offense meant to the OP, but I would think that a thread full of people from all over the world saying how bad the INAT FAQs are would tip you off that maybe you should use a new source.

But then again I guess if I was a nid player I'd love a power that worked through a transport and nerfed marines out the wazoo.

AbusePuppy
10-02-2010, 08:44
Oh, INAT, your bizarre and often counterproductive/intuitive rulings are always good for a laugh.

Hive Commander doesn't stack, except when it does! It doesn't work when you're not in play, even though it explicitly does! Hive Commander is inexplicably cumulative with Pheremone Trail! And with the bonus from a Swarmlord for some reason!

I also like how embarked units somehow get a cover save against the DoM. Why? Because we said so! And it's not a rules change, because we also said so!

Oh man, and they're self-contradictory with Deathleaper's "It's After Me" vs. Hive Tyrant's "Hive Commander," too! JUST BECAUSE THEY BOTH SAY "WHILE IT'S ALIVE" DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.

So bad. If there weren't enough reasons to ignore Adepticon already...

WinglessVT2
10-02-2010, 12:29
People actually take this thing seriously?

Squallish
10-02-2010, 12:41
When your local tournament uses INAT as its official FAQ, then yes.. it is taken seriously.

IMHO, it completely nerfs some Tyranid army builds that were borderline weak to begin with (talking 2 Tyrant HC reserves denial), despite the wording being pretty clear.

Vaktathi
10-02-2010, 12:42
While there's obviously a lot of work and good intentions that go into this document, I'm really not a fan of it. Too many outright rules changes hidden under "clarifications", too many "RAW" that aren't, and lots of nonsensical or contradictory rulings. More thorough than GW's FAQ's? Yes, but I don't think necessarily really any better. I wouldn't want to play with this or attempt to get other players to agree to use it.

WinglessVT2
10-02-2010, 12:59
This isn't a FAQ, but an unofficial errata, that makes very little sense, and changes things for no real reason.

Ironhand
10-02-2010, 13:05
When your local tournament uses INAT as its official FAQ, then yes.. it is taken seriously.

IMHO, it completely nerfs some Tyranid army builds that were borderline weak to begin with (talking 2 Tyrant HC reserves denial), despite the wording being pretty clear.


This isn't a FAQ, but an unofficial errata, that makes very little sense, and changes things for no real reason.

One reason why I stopped going to tournaments a number of years ago.

Some of the rulings seem arbitrary and capricious to say the least.

Phazael
10-02-2010, 16:42
Most of the stuff in this post is funny.

Night Fighting and LOS are COMPLETELY different things (read the entry..come on), and walkers DO take glancing hits from acid blood (did you read that entry, either?).

Only thing I can agree with you on is the oddity that the DOooOm can effect units in transports AND allow cover saves, it should be just the opposite.


Night Fighting and spotting are completely different? Since when? People have been blasting my Harlequins with Smart Missile Systems for years, so I guess this is news to me.

Whats horse crap about the acid blood is that they are giving the walkers an Initiative test on TOP of the 4+ to hit, to avoid getting a glance, which was obviously not even remotely the intent of the wording. Unless you think a one in six chance to glance the average walker makes acid blood so overpowered......

hellhammer6
10-02-2010, 16:43
I don’t agree with ALL of the rulings, but this FAQ is very good because it is damn thorough. It leaves little room for arguments and surprise rulings. It is exactly what is needed for a competitive tournament.

Who cares which way some rules have changed? As long as you are aware ahead of time and can create your list and tactics based on solid data, seems great to me.

Bravo and thank you to the creators of INAT.

WinglessVT2
10-02-2010, 16:45
"Who cares which way some rules have changed? "

I do, and others do, too, as indicated by the posters in this thread.
This is a pdf of houserules.

IJW
10-02-2010, 16:54
Night Fighting and spotting are completely different? Since when?
Since always?

People have been blasting my Harlequins with Smart Missile Systems for years, so I guess this is news to me.
You was robbed. Veil of Tears is triggered by targeting the Harlequins, no matter whether LoS is involved or not.

Vampiric16
10-02-2010, 17:19
I particularly liked the 'Yes, living battering ram is completly pointless on Old One Eye'
Its almost like the rending issue the broodlord had when 5th ed came out; rends were now made on a roll to wound, but he ignored saves anyway :P

noobzilla
10-02-2010, 18:15
I do apologize to those who do not like the INAT FAQ, I simply thought that the people who do like it would enjoy knowing a new version had been released.

SPYDER68
10-02-2010, 18:17
I do apologize to those who do not like the INAT FAQ, I simply thought that the people who do like it would enjoy knowing a new version had been released.

I always like seeing the new version, i just think they are going in the wrong direction with their FaQ's now.

Hoodwink
10-02-2010, 18:20
LOL Good lord people like to whine.

People complain, complain, complain and then when a FAQ comes out that's contrary to what they want, they complain some more.

People are never satisfied unless they get exactly what they want, when they want it. I actually enjoy getting something somewhat "official" whether I agree with it or not.

I play nids and even if the Doom ruling against embarked units was weird, I think it's a very good compromise. People keep saying that Mech armies will still crush nids, but all of a sudden nids get SOMETHING that helps out a little more against mech and everyone cries and moans like we just killed their game.

Mawloc and spore mines able to DS ontop of people? Exactly how you could tell the creators intended.

LOS and nightfighting ruling with the Hive Guard? Matches the rules and fluff perfectly.

People need to find something more constructive to do than complain all the time, really. :rolleyes:

Omniassiah
10-02-2010, 18:31
I like seeing a new INAT FAQ as well but they really need to determine what they are attempting to do with it. Bouncing between RAW and RAI and Just changing things with what appears to be no reason. Personally having done FAQs for Tournaments before the INAT guys need to really explain the thought process behind some of the rulings. Prime example on this one is the "while alive" between the death leaper and Hive Tyrant. Those needed to be either both yes or both no. This version has more internal consistency issues then the books they are trying to FAQ.

hellhammer6
10-02-2010, 18:34
"Who cares which way some rules have changed? "

I do, and others do, too, as indicated by the posters in this thread.
This is a pdf of houserules.

Well, what would you prefer? People at a local tournament arguing and screaming at each other over every move? Never finishing a game past turn 2 or 3 because of constantly calling for a rules ref? Not being able to count on your tactics because it is "up in the air" how things work?

I mean this in the nicest way possible - honestly though, no one is forcing you to use it.

@ noobzilla: thank you for posting the faq :)

SPYDER68
10-02-2010, 18:36
LOL Good lord people like to whine.

People complain, complain, complain and then when a FAQ comes out that's contrary to what they want, they complain some more.

People are never satisfied unless they get exactly what they want, when they want it. I actually enjoy getting something somewhat "official" whether I agree with it or not.

I play nids and even if the Doom ruling against embarked units was weird, I think it's a very good compromise. People keep saying that Mech armies will still crush nids, but all of a sudden nids get SOMETHING that helps out a little more against mech and everyone cries and moans like we just killed their game.

Mawloc and spore mines able to DS ontop of people? Exactly how you could tell the creators intended.

LOS and nightfighting ruling with the Hive Guard? Matches the rules and fluff perfectly.

People need to find something more constructive to do than complain all the time, really. :rolleyes:

People arent complaining about the Mawloc Ruling.. they find the Doom ruling odd but not to worried about it..

What people do not like are the many flat out rule changes they are adding now, and rule changes hidden in so called [clarifications].

For example, per tyranid codex, hive tyrant cannot leave their squad, INAT flat out changed it to he could leave at any time.. Which makes for abuse of winged tyrants moving up in his squad them jumping out of the squad and assaulting 18" away.

There are just many things that dont make sense.

Hoodwink
10-02-2010, 18:38
Well, what would you prefer? People at a local tournament arguing and screaming at each other over every move? Never finishing a game past turn 2 or 3 because of constantly calling for a rules ref? Not being able to count on your tactics because it is "up in the air" how things work?

I mean this in the nicest way possible - honestly though, no one is forcing you to use it.

@ noobzilla: thank you for posting the faq :)

Exactly what I am referring to.

If this FAQ answered in favor of someone, then he praises the FAQ for being written to clarify against the naysayers.

If it answers contrary to what said person wants, he complains nonstop on the forums because it is broken or whatever.

I'm just glad I won't have to argue back and forth whether I agree or not. The game is about fun and a lot of people seem to have forgotten that aspect.

@Spyder
Whether it makes sense or not is going to vary from person to person. You can't create a game like this and make everything mesh perfectly with rules. There WILL be some aspects that require interpretation and some that require assumptions. That's how it is. Otherwise, you will have a rulebook in the 4-digits length-wise that no one will want to read and everyone will just complain about that.

And again, this isn't set-in-stone. You don't HAVE to follow this with gaming buddies. It's just a nice, somewhat "halfway official" way to at least have SOMETHING on paper.

Pink Horror
10-02-2010, 18:46
While it is by no means official, most of their rulings are pretty accurate, and it's the best global FAQ we have at the moment, I figured that I'd post that it's up now.


I do apologize to those who do not like the INAT FAQ, I simply thought that the people who do like it would enjoy knowing a new version had been released.

:rolleyes:

Vaktathi
10-02-2010, 18:48
I do apologize to those who do not like the INAT FAQ, I simply thought that the people who do like it would enjoy knowing a new version had been released.

Lol, its not your fault if people don't like it, it's good to see news about it at least to see if they changed it in a way we liked :p

hellhammer6
10-02-2010, 18:53
@ spyder68: The tyranids codex does not say the tyrant cannot detatch from the tyrant guard. It says that tyrant can join a group of guard exactly as if it were a special character. Special characters are allowed to detatch from thier unit.

Am I reading this wrong?

Hoodwink
10-02-2010, 18:55
@ spyder68: The tyranids codex does not say the tyrant cannot detatch from the tyrant guard. It says that tyrant can join a group of guard exactly as if it were a special character. Special characters are allowed to detatch from thier unit.

Am I reading this wrong?

Yeah I literally just reread that and went to post it.
/ninja'd :cries:

hellhammer6
10-02-2010, 19:01
A naked winged hive tyrant with 2 guard costs 350 points!
It has only 4 wounds and no invuln save.

For that price, it SHOULD be able to detatch and assault 18".

Tethylis
10-02-2010, 19:07
For example, per tyranid codex, hive tyrant cannot leave their squad, INAT flat out changed it to he could leave at any time.. Which makes for abuse of winged tyrants moving up in his squad them jumping out of the squad and assaulting 18" away.

The Tyranid codex says Hive Tyrant may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly like an independent character, any IC can leave a unit by moving out of coherency during movement. How has this changed?

On the whole, while some rulings may be slightly off or not exactly what players wanted to hear I think it is a good thing to have a constant and comprehensive guide we can all turn to as reference point for settling things not covered in GW FAQ's

Worsle
10-02-2010, 19:18
Tethylis it is because you can only join a squad like a IC not that they become a IC. IC can join and leave squads when they want, tyrants can only join squads as that is the only thing that rule allows you to do.

The rules are not just slightly off but just pulled out of no where or going completely against the codex. This does not give you a consistent tool to work with and given the way it strays from the rules it does not give you any form of reference point. I am not sure why any one would take this seriously.

Hellhammer just cause you waisted points does not mean things should be better than they are. The game just does not work like that.

SPYDER68
10-02-2010, 19:49
As Worsle said..

The rule allows to only join the unit like an independent character.

At the same time.. this does not make him an IC..

Which means you cannot target him out in combat anymore, and you cannot detach him from the squad.

noobzilla
10-02-2010, 20:23
I would like to point out that even as someone who likes the idea of the INAT FAQ as well as some of the rulings it clarifies there are aspects of it that I do not like myself.

For example, so of the "rules changes" that have been pointed out by my fellow posters, and the sometimes ridiculous rulings.

I hear that the INAT team tries to rule in a conservative manner, erring on the side of caution, but I'm not so sure anymore after this update.

SPYDER68
10-02-2010, 20:35
I would like to point out that even as someone who likes the idea of the INAT FAQ as well as some of the rulings it clarifies there are aspects of it that I do not like myself.

For example, so of the "rules changes" that have been pointed out by my fellow posters, and the sometimes ridiculous rulings.

I hear that the INAT team tries to rule in a conservative manner, erring on the side of caution, but I'm not so sure anymore after this update.

INAT can be a very good FaQ i like most of the others armies things, but i just feel they rushed this one out due to adepticon being in 30-40 days away now.

druchii
10-02-2010, 21:13
Night Fighting and spotting are completely different? Since when? People have been blasting my Harlequins with Smart Missile Systems for years, so I guess this is news to me.

Whats horse crap about the acid blood is that they are giving the walkers an Initiative test on TOP of the 4+ to hit, to avoid getting a glance, which was obviously not even remotely the intent of the wording. Unless you think a one in six chance to glance the average walker makes acid blood so overpowered......

Yeah, you got pimped on the NF vs Harlies deal. That's pretty explicit (shame on you for not catching that, too). Apparently this is good news for your little space-clowns?

I'm sure we'll see a lot of Acid Blood big bugs at Adepticon.

...

Or not.

Since always?

You was robbed. Veil of Tears is triggered by targeting the Harlequins, no matter whether LoS is involved or not.

Beat me to it.

d

hellhammer6
10-02-2010, 22:16
@ spyder and worsle:

I do see your logic, however the wording is not "like", it is "exactly as if."

So there are two sides to the debate and I happen to think that "exactly as if" it were a special character, would allow it to disengage "exactly as if" it were a special character. But until there is an official GW faq there is no 100% clear answer, just different interpretations.

This wording has caused debates in the past (like sw countercharge).

And btw, I didn't waste any points, as I refuse to run any form of hive tyrant due to the overly high points cost and lack of invuln saves from shooting. In playtesting, mech guard was able to kill 2 tyrants easily on turn 1-2 shooting - over and over again.

noobzilla
10-02-2010, 23:17
INAT can be a very good FaQ i like most of the others armies things, but i just feel they rushed this one out due to adepticon being in 30-40 days away now.

They had a deadline because other people needed/wanted rulings on questions in order to build their armies for AdeptiCon. Some based on these rulings.

Squallish
10-02-2010, 23:18
hellhammer: I have found the same thing with Tyrants, which is why I was hoping for the opposite ruling for HC to at least make Winged HCHTs reserve denial armies have a chance in the meta.. but maybe it will be reversed before the tourney I'm worried about in September.

Vepr
10-02-2010, 23:21
@ spyder and worsle:

I do see your logic, however the wording is not "like", it is "exactly as if."

So there are two sides to the debate and I happen to think that "exactly as if" it were a special character, would allow it to disengage "exactly as if" it were a special character. But until there is an official GW faq there is no 100% clear answer, just different interpretations.

This wording has caused debates in the past (like sw countercharge).

And btw, I didn't waste any points, as I refuse to run any form of hive tyrant due to the overly high points cost and lack of invuln saves from shooting. In playtesting, mech guard was able to kill 2 tyrants easily on turn 1-2 shooting - over and over again.

I love the Tyrant but they are very hard to keep alive now even with tyrant guards and it does not even have to be IG shooting, more than a few armies can put out enough firepower to drop the Tyrant before they even reach combat.

hellhammer6
11-02-2010, 16:18
While I do like having this FAQ for reference until GW does the official one,
I have to admit that I am not at all happy about "the Doom"s spirit leech.

I don't need him to kill things inside of vehicles. I need him to weaken tough squads like space marines, longfangs, or terminators. Granting cover saves hurts this bug's effectiveness considerably.

MystheDevourer
11-02-2010, 18:27
To me it sounds like someone got trounced by a decent Nid Army and said ******* THAT!

But that is my humble Hive Mind opinion. . .

WinglessVT2
11-02-2010, 21:25
I would never play using this collection of horrible houserules.
If I have to use them for a tournament, what's the point of me owning the codex in the first place?

It's not like they follow what's listed in it, anyway.

dude.sweet101@yahoo.co.uk
16-02-2010, 13:04
ooooh, oooh new rules resolution idea:

1) Use an imperfect but nigh on all encompassing FAQ/Errata put together by well intentioned individuals that is accessible by all

or

2) Dice roll:

1= Moan about your opponents army

2=Moan about GW and the guy who "F!"% nerfed my codex, man...it was much better in X edition, oh X edition, where are you now?". Sniff.

3= Call your opponent cheesy and secretly give him a bad army comp score/sportsmanship

4=Pack up your toys and go home

5= Arm wrestle for it

6= Ro'shambo for it and argue about who goes first.

Repeat this process until there is only 1 player stood at the table-they are then declared the winner.

WinglessVT2
16-02-2010, 13:08
Or we could play with a 'FAQ' that's not really related to what's written in the normal books, leave the official material at home, and sit around a table with cardboard cut-outs.

Thanatos_elNyx
16-02-2010, 14:56
Make community Codexs and discard the GW ones.

This way when the Codex is unclear or unbalanced the codex is fixed immediately.
Like Linux Vs Windows

Dangersaurus
16-02-2010, 22:54
ooooh, oooh new rules resolution idea:

1) Use an imperfect but nigh on all encompassing FAQ/Errata put together by well intentioned individuals that is accessible by all

or

2) Dice roll:

1= Moan about your opponents army

2=Moan about GW and the guy who "F!"% nerfed my codex, man...it was much better in X edition, oh X edition, where are you now?". Sniff.

3= Call your opponent cheesy and secretly give him a bad army comp score/sportsmanship

4=Pack up your toys and go home

5= Arm wrestle for it

6= Ro'shambo for it and argue about who goes first.

Repeat this process until there is only 1 player stood at the table-they are then declared the winner.

3) Play the game by the rules with people who understand the difference between RAI, RAW, and GAP. If you encounter problems, gather opinions then make your own choice.

Absolutionis
16-02-2010, 23:10
3) Play the game by the rules with people who understand the difference between RAI, RAW, and GAP. If you encounter problems, gather opinions then make your own choice.Addendum to #3: If gathering opinions does not lead to a fair an acceptable consensus, go to #1 for a final opinion.