Adepticon FAQ

[revnow]

I would recommend checking out the Daemonhunter section of the Beta FAQ for Adepticon this year.

[Tauren]

Link?

[Melissia]

Assuming he means Adepticon 2009... a google search reveals this:

 

 

http://www.adepticon.org/modules.php?name=...tit&lid=101

Description: AdeptiCon 2008 with the help of Jon (Yakface) Regul of DakkaDakka.com has invested a large amount of time compiling a comprehensive tournament FAQ to document how unclear rules or specific game issues will be handled during the Warhammer 40K tournaments occuring AdeptiCon weekend. All 40K tournament players should download this FAQ and read and understand the various rulings.

 

 

Unfortunately, it does not seem to work.

 

Not Found

 

The requested URL /files/INAT_FAQ.pdf was not found on this server.

[revnow]

Oops sorry, link

http://www.adepticon.org/files/INATFAQv2.0.pdf

[iamnothere]

Seems to be pretty standard, nothing outrageous. I was pleased to see the moving large vehicles on from reserves isssue had been addressed in this case.

[revnow]

I think the important part is that it is widespread justification for certain rules concerns that have been hashed over several times on this board. For example the old school Force Weapon concept.

[Melissia]

Hrm...

 

Up to two models can fire from the top hatch fire point.

 

They call that a clarification, but what are they using? There is nothing that says that in C:WH...

[Master Constantine]

yee-owch

wonder if i can use these rules in normal gaming as clears up a lot of questions i've been fielding lately

[Marid]

DH.22B.01 – Q: If an Inquisitor uses ‘Iron Will’ to

pass a Morale Check in close combat does this trigger

‘No Retreat’ wounds?

A: Yes [clarification].

 

This seems like the wrong call to me. Choosing to pass a morale test should be different than the automatic pass that Fearless grants.

 

I see that this ruling is the same as the one for the God of War power of Calgar's. At least it is consistent.

[number6]

DH.22B.01 – Q: If an Inquisitor uses ‘Iron Will’ to

pass a Morale Check in close combat does this trigger

‘No Retreat’ wounds?

A: Yes [clarification].

 

This seems like the wrong call to me. Choosing to pass a morale test should be different than the automatic pass that Fearless grants.

The BRB says otherwise.

It's not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to automatically pass them for some reason (they may have the 'fearless' special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special rule).

Iron Will lets the player choose to automatically pass or fail a Morale check. The fact that you get to choose is immaterial, passing the test is still automatic and so the No Retreat! special rule is in effect.

[boreas]

I debated this in the "Shall They Know Fear" =I= sub thread, until someone pointed that:

 

In that case, what I'll add is from the standard definition of automatic on dictionary.com. While the first entry doesn't seem to apply, the second seems to fit what the rules seem to mean. Automatic, in this case, can be a synonym for 'involuntary.' And when Iron Will is used to pass a morale test, it is clearly a voluntary act.

 

The other definitions listed, like "occurs spontaneously" also don't seem to fit the idea that using Iron Will means an automatic morale test is passed.

 

Automatic means "no choice". In this case, the Inquisitor definitely has a choice to pass or not. At least, they made it so all over the board.

 

Phil

[revnow]

That is true only if you take 'automatic' out of the context of internal meaning or sentence structure. What you are doing with the word is the equivalent of saying that an ice cream cone is a cylindrical object that tapers sharply towards the top, composed primarily of a frozen combination of water and the fat skimmed from milk. In the context of the sentence, as number6 pointed out, automaticaly clearly means: without having to roll dice. Which means that if you have to take a morale check after combat, and you pass without your dice hitting the table, the unit is subject to "no retreat".

 

I mean no offense, but I think the FAQ gives momentum to some really positive balance changes for DH in 5th Edition. And trying to grab at everything by twisted semantics could generate resistance to more meaningful rulings.

[boreas]

Oh, no offense taken... I actually argued that the IL was subject to No Retreat. But the gentlemen has a point that "automatic", no matter to context, does not have anything to do with rolling dice, but rather to having a choice or not. The IL could actually fail the test, should he choose to do so, so does not automatically pass it. And this is not about grasping as much straws as possible for the =I=, as it would actually benefit the Space Marines a lot more than us (as Marneus is more played and has a broader effect than a mere IL)!

 

Phil

[Marid]

... it would actually benefit the Space Marines a lot more than us (as Marneus is more played and has a broader effect than a mere IL)!

 

Phil

 

I'm actually pretty happy about the ruling after further thought. It was pretty annoying playing a SM army where my GKs got hosed for having Fearless while my opponent would just choose to pass his tests with no penalty. Now we'll just have to see if this is broadly applied in the community.

[Gentlemanloser]

Wow!

 

I was caught out by that, we'd not be using auto passing Moral in CC triggering No Retreat.

 

But it seems it sohuld.

 

That makes Stubborn so much better now. And Lysander a more attractive choice than Marneus.

 

With the removal of any penalty to Moral rolls in shooting, and Stubborn ignoring the *utterly* stupid uncapped penalty in CC, I'll take the chance at rolling over a 9/10 for moral/pinning over the extra wounds in CC any day.

[boreas]

Definitely... Book of St-Lucius is by far the best moral-test-affecting item/ability in the game.

 

Phil

[revnow]

Alright, so I was curious and went to dictionary.com and the first definition clearly justifies the position that automatic means "without rolling dice" not involuntarily

 

 

"1. having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently"

From Dictionary.com

based on Random House Unabridged

 

In the case of Iron Will, passing a morale test independent of the normally required roll.

 

It makes even more sense when you consider the two definitions implemented against each other, replacing the word automatic in the rule.

 

It's not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or pass them independent of the normally required roll for some reason (they may have the 'fearless' special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special rule).

 

It's not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or to involuntarily pass them for some reason (they may have the 'fearless' special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special rule).

 

While the second definition does clearly justify fearless, only the first covers all three examples in the parens specifically the "other special rule" clause.

[boreas]

"1. having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently"

From Dictionary.com

based on Random House Unabridged

 

In the case of Iron Will, passing a morale test independent of the normally required roll.

 

It's not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or pass them independent of the normally required roll for some reason (they may have the 'fearless' special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special rule).

 

The problem with this is that you added an "of the normally require roll" that is not in the definition. Using your definition would give:

 

It's not uncommon for units to be immune to Morale checks for losing an assault, or pass them independently for some reason (they may have the 'fearless' special rule, be subject to a vow or some other special rule).

 

But it's not the case... It's dependant on the player's choice, whereas a player with GK has no choice, so the squad will independantly pass it's moral test.

 

 

Of course, I'm just arguing RAW for the sake of it here, mainly to help build a counter-case if an opponent would like go argue against that FAQ! I'm actually in the "you take wounds" team. ^_^

 

Phil

[revnow]

I think the counter argument back is that in this case the words "having the capability of" indicates the potential choice for the player, and the words "starting, operating, moving" is replaced by passing.

[Marid]

I think it could also be said that the "No Retreat" rule only makes sense if it was applied to every losing side. Why should the odd rag-tag squad of guardsmen somehow by chance manage to stand in the face of the enemy and not take extra wounds? While the strongest and most skilled warriors of the Empire always take extra wounds when they lose?

 

Oh well, that's an argument for another place. ^_^

[Melissia]

Mostly because otherwise fearless is EXTREMELY powerful.

 

Any model with fearless or a rule equivalent to it would thus have to be jacked up in price.

[SamaNagol]

DH.18K.01 – Q: How does a Daemonhunter Storm

Shield work?

A: Pick one enemy model in the unit the bearer is engaged

with – if that model is directing its attacks against the

bearer’s unit it must roll ‘to hit’ and ‘to wound’ separately.

Only wounds from this enemy model may be saved by the

Storm Shield [clarification].

 

Is that definition of Storm Shields standard?

 

If so that makes them better than SM Storm Shields. I can nominate any model I am engaged with and make that model resolve all of his hits against the model armed with the Storm Shield. Then I can make 4++ saves against those hits. That basically means that against Hidden solitary Fists, I will get an invulnerable save against all of their attacks as long as the model with the Storm Shield and the PF bearer are engaged in combat.

[Melissia]

Eh? Erm, in most cases, the person recieving wounds chooses where to apply them, right?

 

So really, one could give the hidden fist wound to that sergeant with the 3++ storm shield anyway... AND the storm shield works in the shooting phase, too...

[SamaNagol]

No, you allocate CC wounds as you would in shooting. "The player must allocate one wound to each model in the target unit before he can allocate a second wound to the same model"

 

However the FAQ definition of the DH Storm Shield implicitly states that you pick one enemy model's attacks and resolve all of them separately against your SS model. Meaning that Vet Sergeant with 3 attacks on the charge would normally be putting down one wound on each model, but instead allocates ALL of his hits to the model with the SS instead. It is a quite different mechanic to the usual wound allocation rules. It means you can feasibly soak up more of those PF attacks with your Shield than if you were to have a solitary one in a SM unit.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

If thats true, then taking the TH+SS combo is a really attractive option. That nasty Hive Tyrant or Daemon Prince has to waste all their attacks on a single model (probably still kill him), and leaves the rest of the unit untouched. The other TH+SS models probably wound it, and thus stun it. Then you just keep trying to fry it with the GM/bash it death. He loses a 150-200 point monster, you lose one Terminator. Pretty awesome trade.

 

Applied more generally, you can basically prevent a hidden powerfist (up to 3-4, depending on how many in the retinue you give TH+SS to) from ever reaching the GM. Interesting to pit that against a Nob Biker squad....hmmm....

 

Biker Boss+Nob Biker squad = 500 points (just the 5-man usual version, not the 10-man monster, only 2 hidden klaws)

 

Grandmaster, storm shield, NFW

7 x GKT's with TH+SS

(477 points)

 

They shoot you on the way in, killing one Terminator (18 burst cannon shots essentially, twin-linked so re-rolls, and then about 6 wounds inflicted, one Termie falls)

 

Grandmaster goes first, picks out Warboss. Out of 5 attacks, probably gets a wound past his 5+ cybork. Leadership test fries the big guy. If not, still took a wound off him.

Painboy+2 x normal Nobz hack away, doing nothing (2+ saves, woot).

Retinue and the powerklaws (plus the Warboss, if he's still alive) go same-time. The thunderhammers inflict 5 wounds, thus hitting every member of the unit bar the Warboss (unless they choose to target the Warboss exclusively). So, you either squish the Warboss, or you kill three Nob Bikers (remember to make all of them roll their saves, 5+ isn't terribly reliable so it's entirely possible they all die). The powerklaws from the Nobz only kill one Terminator, and the Warboss (if still alive after Grandmaster) only manages another kill himself. Warboss leadership+bosspole keeps them from running, so they keep fighting.

 

Next round, Grandmaster and retinue finish off the remaining Nobz, powerklaws claim another Terminator. You win combat, trading 138 points to kill 500 points of death.