Warhammer 40K INAT FAQ version 2.0 Released...

[Wolf Brother Spyrle]

The orignial discussion is here:

 

Discussion Here

 

Here is a link to the document.

 

Click here to download version 2.0 of the INAT FAQ

 

I only looked over the Space Wolves section. It was a mixed bag, we got Space Marine Codex Prices for transports but no 2 attacks for BC or Ragnar on counter charge. Also, they started confusing Wolf Tooth Necklaces and Wolf Tail Talismans.

 

I know "we" have our own opinions about many of these things, this is our chance to contact the makers of this "unofficial" FAQ and convince them of why we are right.

 

The FAQ is not the final version, yet and they are accepting criticism and comments.

[Hfran Morkai]

What? Rune Priests don't let a unit strike at initiative 10 if charging but if they are charged. ouch, this doesn,t seem right that our only psyhic power is useless in an assault. I also think that Blood Claws should get the 2+ attack bonus as it is fluffy. Are these people non-wolf players or something? Hahaha. Confusing talismans and necklaces. Do they even have a space wolf dex with them? I might well send over a pack of scouts to monitor and control the situation.

 

*Deploys several scout packs to monitor and assess*

[Max_Dammit]

And i have to take this seriously why? :D

 

The even mixed up wolf tooth necklace with wolf tail ;)

 

They like the word RAW so my wolves hit first when in storm caller as this is RAW in my codex

 

And the +2 is instead of a +1 for charging so i don't see this as a good guide :D

[LPetersson]

And i have to take this seriously why? :huh:

 

I was just thinking the same thing :tu:

 

Given that they directly either disregard rules for us or just don't bother reading them, I suspect that this was written by people who have been spanked by us a little bit too often :-)

 

Maybe they need to :D our codex a bit...

 

Edit:

Couldn't help myself, went over and commented...

[Grey Mage]

I need to get an account over there.... they really need to explain a couple of these clarifications... like Blood Claws Countercharge. And since when is our ability to use weapons from the space marine codex a "clarification"? That is RAW.

 

Ill also note that theyve done some weird things with the eldar section. I really, really wish they spelled out more of why they made the decisions they did.

[WolfLordLars]

Ugh...

 

Nope, not going to bother. I have heard nothing good come from Dakkadakka and besides, everyone knows B&C is the place to go for anything marine related.

 

Give them hell, and a boot to the head which might (hopefully) instill come common sense.

[G. A. K.]

What are they thinking?? Wolves DO NOT form a retinue... they form a unit. I don't think they are distingushing between a unit and a retinue while the BBB makes a CLEAR distinction. I see nothing in that document that makes me think they know anything about the rules and are just talking out thier :lol:

 

G

[WolfLordLars]

So, the consensus is to stick with our FAQ on here? :lol:

[LPetersson]

So, the consensus is to stick with our FAQ on here? :)

 

I'm prety certain that's an affirmative :)

[Battle-Brother Wags]

I must admit, I was quite disapointed with the read as well.

 

One thing I am somewhat astounded at, however, is the [rulechange]s I found. An official FAQ can change rules (or erratas, whatever), if they want, because hey, they're GW, its their game, their ruleset, they can change it if they want! But I am flabbergasted that an independent group would presume to do an outright rulechange.

[Spacefrisian]

Its completely rubbish if you ask me.

 

Some stuff already mentioned like the mix up of things.

 

And since when did our Wolfguard bodyguard became honourguard?

 

I'll stick with the GW faq. And if you someone doesn't like it i got 2 words for ya

[LPetersson]

I'll stick with the GW faq. And if you someone doesn't like it i got 2 words for ya

 

If someone told me they wanted to use those 'rules' I'd probably laugh at them before I could stop myself :-)

And then pull out my printouts of whatever Codices/FAQs would be relevant to our fight ;-)

 

Although in all fairness to them, they do write that it isn't the final version...

 

Edit:

And it looks like the only people in favour of Berserk Charge not working in conjunction with Counter Attack are the two writers of the silly thing.

I'm stuck on a train at 21:08 on X-myth eve so seeing them being spanked by their readers is the one thing bringing x-myth cheer to my grimdark existence :D

[Hfran Morkai]

Just to report in, my scouts have infiltrated the territory and will be providing me with rlevant feedback.

[muzzyman1981]

To play a little bit of devil's advocate....the rulebook and FAQs/Errata are basically GWs "house rules". They may change anything they want, technically....however GW (presumably) took at least some effort to make up the rules. Remember, it was generally agreed by us at B&C SW that Space Wolves can take Chronus as a vehicle upgrade (no, I'm not trying to start that over again) but most people thought we couldn't and because they get to change/decide how rules are read, we don't get to use him.

 

That being said, most of the crap is completely off the wall. Some people's kids....

[obs0l3te]

My main problem with this is they override GW on alot of things.

 

Your Codex overrides rules in the rule book. +1 attack for counter charge, but bloodclaws get +2 instead of the normal +1.

 

Thats like saying, you can't use true grit cause its not in the book.

 

This was made by a bunch of rules lawyers with no time on their hands. Thank god its only for adepicon though, not cannon or any thing.

[WolfLordLars]

Ok, I lied.. I went and looked at the forum (though dont see the need to check the document until I get home this weekend).

 

Just with the debates, it looks like a few guys got together and decided to "fix" what they saw as "broken" regardless of if it needed clarification or not.

 

For what its worth, as long as I am keeping up the SW FAQ on this forum, I will try to level with folks regarding the rules. If the rules support something, I will say so. If its iffy, I will say so. I will try to keep anything thats even close to a change (and will clearly label it as such) off.

 

We are not here to re-write the rules, just to make sense of what we have been given.

[G. A. K.]

This is what I posted on my local forum 'madison40kgamers.com':

 

This thing is so full of holes, i doubt if they even play the game. I for one reject this FAQ written by so-called experts and will wait until GW does their own.

example:

all terminators (other than new SM codex ones) cann't move and fire rapid fire ones up to their max range or heavy weapons for that matter, because they don't say they are 'relentless' rule in their description (which didn't exsist when the codexes were written), which is total crap (btw wolves still can ;) )

or

troops who embark in a transport that is destroyed that same turn are all lost!! Which on pg 66 of the BBB states this exact example as the only time you can embark and disembark in the same turn. One is voluntary the other is not.

or

The fact that they cann't tell the difference between the wolf tail talisman (negates pshycic attacks on a 6+) and the wolf tooth necklace (hits enemies on a 3+ in CC)

 

However, on the issue of the Talos (which NEEDED some clarifications); their rulings don't completly change its rules and are pretty basic. (though in the heat of battle one looks for any help which can be found. Stupid "judge", sorry joe :) )

 

G

[obs0l3te]

This FAQ is just for ADEPTICON. Any one who takes it as "the rules" and not "house rules" has issues.

 

Every one should play with the spirit of the game.

 

I just totally don't agree with TDA not being relentless with all other armies.

I don't agree with the +1 charge w/ blood claws.

I don't agree with assault cannons not being the same with gray knights.

 

GW needs to streamline there stuff, and get their act together.

[WolfLordLars]

This FAQ is just for ADEPTICON. Any one who takes it as "the rules" and not "house rules" has issues.

 

... well, just another reason for me not to bother going to ADEPTICON to play 40k there.

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

aint that the truth omar.

 

wolf lord kieran

[Torin]

why even bother playing with such rules.

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

because you cant beat SW, and wish to nerf them...

 

oh, you meant good reasons! sorry, like the fools who made this "faq", i am fresh out of those!

 

wolf lord kieran

[WolfLordLars]

What bothers me are tournaments like this. Where they go and make up rules for whatever reason, and that gives others the idea that they can do the same for their tournaments.

 

An iffy rules issue that could go either way that is against how I see it, fine. That happens. If I have to pay C:SW costs for a Rhino rather than C:SM costs, thats ok. But to blatantly change the rules, to disregard the existing rulebooks and documents (codex, FAQ, etc)... just doesnt sit well with me.

 

To each their own. If thats what they feel the best thing to do is, that is their decision. I disagree with that sort of thinking 100%. We play with what we have, and do our best to muddle through it and figure out answers to our questions. Most can be solved by just looking at the rules (90% anyway), and for the rest, we work through them. These guys took that 10% and added about 40% more that didnt need their special brand of 'clarification'.

 

Oh well, the only thing we can do is express our displeasure and dismay over what they have done, and refuse to enter or support their event.

[Crimson Devil]

Ugh...

 

Nope, not going to bother. I have heard nothing good come from Dakkadakka and besides, everyone knows B&C is the place to go for anything marine related.

 

Give them hell, and a boot to the head which might (hopefully) instill come common sense.

 

 

If you don't like this FAQ then don't use it. Bashing Dakka or Yak to vent your geek rage will do nothing constructive. The B&C is not universally loved either. Spend some time on other boards and you'll see quite a bit of venom towards you. For fluff and painting tips B&C is excellent. If you want to learn rules and tactics than Dakkadakka is better.

 

I agree with most of it, so I will use it. I've never felt comfortable with either the "strike first" on storm caller or "+2 attacks" on counter attack.

[The_Betrayed_Spacewolf]

even when the rules clearly say different eh?