# INAT FAQ 3.3 published



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

For anyone who uses it.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/283265.page


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

If someone pulled this out to justify a ruling I'd probably laugh in their face.


----------



## gannam (May 2, 2009)

That's an odd thing to say. What would you use to settle a dispute instead of INAT is my question. A dice? Pulling it out of your ass?


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

INAT is a non-partisan set of rulings. If you accept it or not, it's at least something that can be pointed to until GW FAQS come out. And if you go to Adepticon in the US, this is what you'll use. And most of the independent tournaments use it too, just because it covers everything, agree or disagree with it. And yes, some of the rulings are...bizzare.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

gannam said:


> That's an odd thing to say. What would you use to settle a dispute instead of INAT is my question. A dice? Pulling it out of your ass?


My own interpretation of the rules, common sense or a dice. If its not official it holds absolutely no weight at all to me.

*Edit - Of course, if the tournament in question was using this PDF it would be official, I'm talking purely in an unrelated game where this hasn't been put into use. If you pulled this out of your case and said "this happens because this says so" I'd suggest you wipe your "ass" on it. Man.


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

My local gaming group also decided to use this set of FAQS for any games involving the group, such as the challenge pyramids and tournaments. 

But yes, no one is forced to use any "unofficial" FAQ if they choose not to. It is, however, an argument that "lots of people" think the way the FAQ is written, if you're in a NET flame war.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

> NEC.17A.01 – Q: Does the Pariah‟s „Soulless‟ special rule affect „Stubborn‟ units who are taking a morale test?
> A: Yes, the „Soulless‟ special rule is not a „modifier‟ and therefore „Stubborn‟ has no effect on it [clarification].
> Ref: DH.27.02, IG.47D.02, TYR.59B.01, WH.30B.02
> NEC.17A.02 – Q: If a character‟s Ld is reduced to 7 by a Pariah unit, and that character has the ability to pass his Ld onto other units (such as Space Marines „Rites of Battle‟), what Ld value would these other units use?
> ...


Am I the only one to be laughing at those 2 rulings?


----------



## Catpain Rich (Dec 13, 2008)

That is rather hilarious to be fair.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I don't see a problem with the 1st, the second is stupid, you always use the highest available leadership for tests you are required to make.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

and thats why I agree you can use it to wipe your ass on, I'd never let anyone use this with me, some of the answers are just silly, and some of the questions are just pathetic, and of course its unofficial answers, so its about as useful as a fart in a can.


----------



## Masked Jackal (Dec 16, 2009)

Hate to say it, but looking at some of these rulings, this crap just doesn't fly. I wouldn't use it, and I don't think any proper tourney should use it either.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

I think its useful as a first glance for rules debates (or an 'unbiased' viewpoint) but for a full tournament I wouldnt use it. Doesnt help when there are the odd silly decisions but throw in a couple that are just plain wrong and you start to lose faith in it: no its not possible to DS spore mines onto the enemy... there are by definition/RAW no enemy to DS onto when spore mines are deployed.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Tim/Steve said:


> I think its useful as a first glance for rules debates (or an 'unbiased' viewpoint) but for a full tournament I wouldnt use it. Doesnt help when there are the odd silly decisions but throw in a couple that are just plain wrong and you start to lose faith in it: no its not possible to DS spore mines onto the enemy... there are by definition/RAW no enemy to DS onto when spore mines are deployed.


They could deepstrike onto other sporemines actually  Really though, I think that's just a hold-over from the old rules, and while they changed some of the wording (thusly it's in red), they forgot to change the example unit.

Generally, it's full of pretty useful rulings, but no-one ever agrees with all of them, and some of them just seem strange altogether(mainly because they don't put the reasoning behind them in the FAQ itself). A lot more things should be marked with [Rules Change] rather that [clarification]. It's useful to some who want a more concrete rules set to work from, but it just won't fly with most players unless it was actually official.

Personally though, I wish GW could look at a lot of the questions being asked, and aim to answer them in their own FAQs. Not all of them really, there are a lot of minor clarifications that don't really need to be said officially, but a few more answers would certainly be helpful.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

Did anyone else notice how it was a 'Yakface' that posted that INAT FAQ but that its also a Yakface that does all the GW FAQs as well... if they are the same person you would have thought he could speed up a bit with his own rulings.


----------



## fynn (Sep 19, 2008)

i belive its the same yakface, but haveing a quick nose at the last few FAQ's released, i dont think he does the ones for GW anymore, as he is no longer mentioned on the faq's like he used to be.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Tim/Steve said:


> Did anyone else notice how it was a 'Yakface' that posted that INAT FAQ but that its also a Yakface that does all the GW FAQs as well... if they are the same person you would have thought he could speed up a bit with his own rulings.


Yeah, I asked that in a thread a while ago, and Don Mondo had a good answer for it:



don_mondo said:


> Not quite correct. GW used some of what he did and credited it to him (thanked him) and the INAT Council (9 members, IIRC) in some of their FAQs. In no way was Jon responsible for actually writing the FAQs. GW even changed some answers from what was in the INAT.


So he's not the one actually doing the FAQs, the credits they put in for him are only for some of the questions and some of the answers (which GW reviewed and changed as needed), which he and the INAT council came up with. GW are still horrendously lazy at putting out FAQs. Most of the rulings could be made in less than a month (leave it a few weeks so you find out what the problems are), but GW usually just like putting up one FAQ a few months afterwards, and almost never updating it ,except when it contains obvious errors like the SWs one. They could just put out a decent set of rulings on the major problems quickly, then update as needed, but they can't seem to grasp the idea. This is why the INAT FAQ became popular among certain groups of gamers, despite it's drawbacks. If they could do an offical version "oh yes, this is what we meant by this" it would become much easier...


----------



## Keelia (Aug 3, 2009)

The INAT Faq is crap. Some of their rules go as far to even mention the GW rule then override it. Like this one....which is complete BS 

DE.15K.01 – Q: The online GW rulebook FAQ says wargear doesn‟t affect enemy models unless the rule specifically says so. With this in mind, does the „Goblet of Spite‟ affect enemy units?

A: Yes, this is a case where the wargear can (and does) affect enemy units [rules change].

With this ruling it completely makes Dark Eldar wyches ineffective. Why run wyches who 1/2 your WS and make most models hit them on 4's rather than 3's, always hit you on 3's. Just a stupid ruling and makes me laugh.

Or how about this one....Youll get a kick out of this one.

TYR.58B.01 – Q: Can (does) „Spirit Leech‟ affect units embarked in vehicles/buildings? If so, what happens if it causes enough wounds to force a Morale check?

A: It does affect embarked units, however even if they suffer 25% casualties they will not fall back out of a vehicle or building [clarification].
Ref: RB.66E.02, SW.53G.03, TAU.33E.01, TAU.42H.01

They did have one thing that i did agree with. Sorry Chaos players:

DH.20Q.01 – Q: Exactly what models are currently considered a “daemon”?

A: Ignore the rule in the codex and instead consult the following guidelines [rules change]: 
All models from the Chaos Daemons codex (excluding Spawn created by „Boon of Mutation‟). 
Chaos Space Marine Daemon Princes, Possessed Chaos Space Marines, vehicles with the Daemonic Possession upgrade, Summoned Greater and Lesser Daemons. 
The Eldar Avatar. 
Imperial Armor Daemon Lords and Spined Chaos Beasts.

Either way if someone pulled out a INAT faq on me at the game store i would laugh in there face and begin to pack my gear and say good game, tool.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Keelia said:


> The INAT Faq is crap. Some of their rules go as far to even mention the GW rule then override it. Like this one....which is complete BS
> 
> DE.15K.01 – Q: The online GW rulebook FAQ says wargear doesn‟t affect enemy models unless the rule specifically says so. With this in mind, does the „Goblet of Spite‟ affect enemy units?
> 
> ...


Actually, that one is pretty right actually, the purpose of the rule was to effect enemy units, so they ruled it that way, despite the BRB FAQ answer. It's not RAW (thusly the [rules change], but it is and was RAI. Wyches don't have to have it, so they certainly aren't made useless by that ruling. 




Keelia said:


> Or how about this one....Youll get a kick out of this one.
> 
> 
> TYR.58B.01 – Q: Can (does) „Spirit Leech‟ affect units embarked in vehicles/buildings? If so, what happens if it causes enough wounds to force a Morale check?
> ...


That's actually about as close to RAW as you might want to get. Spirit leech can (by RAW) effect units inside of vehicles. They changed the moral test part, because the rules for taking moral tests in a vehicle just aren't there, so they should have mentioned [rule change], but it's not a ridiculous ruling.

There are far worse rulings than those  you've got to dig a little deeper. Like I mentioned, mostly a decent set of rulings, some that are just controversial, and some which change the rules entirely. Remember, these rules are done up for their own Tournaments, so they can change rules as they feel like to balance things, which becomes a problem for people outside of that setting. sometimes.


----------



## gannam (May 2, 2009)

damn spirit leech finding its way into every thread on the internets.


----------



## Keelia (Aug 3, 2009)

ELD.31A.02-Q: Do banshees benefit from the iniative bonous provided by their banshee masks on a turn they assault through cover?

A: Yes

Page 36 BRB "To represent this, if an assaulting unit had to take a difficult or dangerous terrain test during their assault move, all of its models have their Initiative value lowered to 1 when attacking, REGARDLESS OF OTHER INITIATIVE MODIFIERS"


Complete contradiction to the rules as writen.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Keelia said:


> ELD.31A.02-Q: Do banshees benefit from the iniative bonous provided by their banshee masks on a turn they assault through cover?
> 
> A: Yes
> 
> ...


Err... are you familiar with Banshee masks at all? Their ruling on this is quite right, and is perfectly in line with RAI, and just about how everyone I know plays it. Banshee masks are supposed to negate cover and grenades, so the Banshees just always have I10 no matter what. The only reason it needs to be clarified is because of the change in editions and the change in the way cover works from 4th to 5th, so that Cover became a negative to the attackers, rather than a bonus to the defenders, which left the Banshee mask obvious in it's intention, but useless against cover by pure RAW. 

You could argue it should be [Rule Change] rather than [Clarification], but that isn't a major problem for this ruling - they aren't just making it up, and if GW ever did FAQ it, this would be the answer they give, no question. The problem is once again that they haven't explained the reasons that they've made these rulings - it makes them hard to follow sometimes.


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

Codex Rules, and does not contradict that. "In the first round of an assault a model wearing a banshee mask has initiative 10 and negates any initiative bonus conferred by cover and grenades"

They are clarifying cover is negated by banshee masks, RAW. Not that the INAT is not crazy, it's just a central repository of Crazy.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

I only read page up to page 10, and I won't bother reading more.
Page 9 last one, flat out wrong, other than that there was nothing terrible that I read.

*edit*


Keelia said:


> ELD.31A.02-Q: Do banshees benefit from the iniative bonous provided by their banshee masks on a turn they assault through cover?
> 
> A: Yes
> 
> ...





Keelia said:


> ELD.31A.02-Q: Do banshees benefit from the iniative bonous provided by their banshee masks on a turn they assault through cover?
> 
> A: Yes
> 
> ...


Wraung, just wraung.
Banshee masks ignore any other Initiative bonuses.
Initiative bonus doesn't mean a gain of Initiative, it means, according to the dictionary, 'an additional thing, which is good'.
No mention of WHOSE bonus it has to be, but your enemy losing I is surely enough a bonus.
Sure there's a contradiction, both ignore the other, that's why codex>BRB.

RAW, Banshee masks do ignore cover.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Winterous said:


> I only read page up to page 10, and I won't bother reading more.
> Page 9 last one, flat out wrong, other than that there was nothing terrible that I read.


Pretty much what I've always said. Mostly reasonable rulings, occasional things you don't agree with.

As for the last question on P9, they actually discuss it there on the link, between Yakface and Aramoro at least as it relates to eldrad. I wouldn't really agree with it, but he's pretty reasonable about it, and explains why they ruled it that way.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

maddermax said:


> Pretty much what I've always said. Mostly reasonable rulings, occasional things you don't agree with.
> 
> As for the last question on P9, they actually discuss it there on the link, between Yakface and Aramoro at least as it relates to eldrad. I wouldn't really agree with it, but he's pretty reasonable about it, and explains why they ruled it that way.


Actually, I think that's a perfectly acceptable rationale.
I mean, look at Marneus Cowgar.
He has two Power Fists.
He also has a Power Sword.
By RAW, he doesn't get the +1A bonus for having two Power Fists.
Now this is plainly ridiculous.

I am adopting the 'using two different weapons' interpretation.
So you can't use, say, a Witch Blade and a Power Weapon at the same time and gain +1A with the stats of the Power Weapon, but you can have the Witch Blade on your belt, and whip out your pistol.

Because unintended side-effects branch from the 'obvious' interpretation, this makes the completely valid alternate interpretation make sense.
It doesn't specify that if you are equipped with multiple different weapons that you cannot gain the +1A bonus, it says that if the combination of two equipped CC weapons you choose to use is two different special weapons, then you don't gain the +1A bonus.

Sweet, so we have a valid RAW reason for that


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Winterous said:


> Sweet, so we have a valid RAW reason for that


Well there's a change of heart and a half :laugh: from "flat out wrong" to "Sweet!" in a single post. It's amazing what conclusions you come to when you actually get to see the reasoning behind it.

As for it being RAW, well, you'll still have people on one side or the other, that's the nature of it. It could well be argued that having two-fits gives an additional attack in the rules, which is different from the bonus attack given for fighting with two weapons, and which is disallowed by the 2 special weapon rules. This would mean that Eldrad wouldn't be able to do it, but Calgar would get the Additional attack (gained from the 2-special weapons rule). Who knows really though, I certainly wouldn't mind allowing the extra attack in a game though, but who knows what the RAW really means.


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

That's the whole point of the INAT. It's a decision. They make wrong ones. They correct some of them. It's a living document. But it's something you can point to and say "This is a decision. Everyone abide by this decision, and the arguments will not happen - until FAQ day"


----------

