Proof reading the ITC FAQ

[Guest]

Constructive Criticism Only. Not debating their rulings, just reading and attempting to understand Rules As Written (RAW).

 

Current FAQ can be found here:https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/40k-faq/

[Guest]

Regarding invisibility:

 

For ITC format events, The Invisibility psychic power is altered to read: units shooting at the Invisible unit do so at BS1, and hit it in melee on a 5+.

So if not using the format, the invisibility is NOT modded by the FAQ to deny snaps, despite being in the FAQ...

 

That said, it is modded in this respect:

 

Use the following clarifications for the Invisibility psychic power:

• Any attacks or special abilities that can cause damage (i.e. hits, wounds and/or vehicle damage) without rolling to hit (e.g. Codex: Chaos Daemons Warp Storm Tables, etc) affect invisible units normally.
• Nova psychic powers affect invisible units normally.
• Stomp attacks affect invisible units normally.
• So long as the invisible unit is not the declared target of an attack, Blast and Template weapons affect invisible units normally.
• If a model in close combat with an invisible unit would normally hit in close combat on a fixed value (e.g. Kharn the Betrayer), the player whose turn it is determines whether the fixed value or the Invisibility psychic power takes precedence.

 

....

[pretre]

I suppose if you're using the ITC FAQ at a non-ITC Format event...

[Guest]

I suppose if you're using the ITC FAQ at a non-ITC Format event...

That would be the OFCC for this year, if I'm not mistaken.

[pretre]

I don't really see that as an error, simply a choice.

[Guest]

So, another one of those is the Destroyer weapons

 

Destroyer Weapons:

For ITC format events, we use the following profile for ranged Destroyer Weapons in place of that found in the book: D Weapons with the Distort Scythe special rule still subtract 1 from the table below.

• Roll of a 1: No damage occurs.
• Roll of a 2-5: Target model takes D2 wounds, or hull points with a penetrating hit.
• Roll of a 6: Target model takes 2 automatic wounds with no saves allowed, or 2 hull points with a penetrating hit with no saves allowed. This attack never inflicts instant death, regardless of the target model’s toughness.

So, the OFCC is using full strength D weapons, unless they modify their listing....This is because they are using the ITC FAQ, but not the format.

 

PS: I'm not going to the OFCC and I do expect this to get addressed as I don't think it is an intended function of the OFCC to allow full strength ranged D.

[Guest]

I don't really see that as an error, simply a choice.

It's not an error, but I don't think most people are playing it this way, so a clarification seemed warranted. I think it functions in an "unintended manner" because most people think the ITC FAQ does these things by default, not just in ITC format events.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

It's not an error, but I don't think most people are playing it this way, so a clarification seemed warranted. I think it functions in an "unintended manner" because most people think the ITC FAQ does these things by default, not just in ITC format events.

Why do you presume that? I think most people understand it to be an FAQ in some regards and an addendum in others (nerf implies deeply a change to core rules).

[pretre]

I think you're separating things to an extent that wasn't intended.

[winterman]

Regarding the general topic.  One of the things that INAT had over the way they are doing things with ITC is there's no Q to go with the A.  So there's no context.  I am sure the guys on the council know exactly what they are addressing and rule it just fine at their events, but it can be tricky when you are the TO/player trying to make a ruling.  An example was the old super heavy move through cover ruling used in 6ed.  I had people try and claim the ITC ruling applied to the assault move even though move through cover did not apply to assault moves in 6ed.  Without the actual Question being answered it was easy to extrapolate the answer out to unrelated rules.

 

 

 

I suppose if you're using the ITC FAQ at a non-ITC Format event...

There are events that use the Independent Tournament Council FAQ (ITC FAQ) is often used at non-Independent Tournament Circuit Format Events (ITC format events).  Adepticon is an example. The previously non-FLG run wargames con was another. I was doing the same at our events here in Spokane for various reasons as well, but likely won't because it was so confusing to West Coasters that were unaware of the FAQ predating the circuit and format by several years.

[pretre]

Specifically, anyone using the ITC FAQ is assumed to be using the ITC Format. If they aren't, they just say they are using the ITC FAQ in its entirety.

[Guest]

Specifically, anyone using the ITC FAQ is assumed to be using the ITC Format. If they aren't, they just say they are using the ITC FAQ in its entirety.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-season-40k-tournament-format/

 

That would be the format. First I've heard that the format is to be used without mentioning that the format is being used....

[Guest]

Regarding the general topic.  One of the things that INAT had over the way they are doing things with ITC is there's no Q to go with the A.  So there's no context.  I am sure the guys on the council know exactly what they are addressing and rule it just fine at their events, but it can be tricky when you are the TO/player trying to make a ruling.  An example was the old super heavy move through cover ruling used in 6ed.  I had people try and claim the ITC ruling applied to the assault move even though move through cover did not apply to assault moves in 6ed.  Without the actual Question being answered it was easy to extrapolate the answer out to unrelated rules.

I very much agree. It's not really an FAQ and I think context would really help some of these get answered.

[Guest]

I don't really see that as an error, simply a choice.

thread seems to be going in a bit of different direction. I editing the OP to reflect.

[Guest]

 

Multiple psykers that are part of the same unit cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power during a single psychic phase.

Sounds pretty reasonable until you look at GK.

 

Can't re-attempt Force or Hammerhand by the ITC FAQ, even if you have multiple psykers within the unit (like any GK IC attached to any GK unit). A good one to know when facing GK.

[pretre]

Sounds pretty reasonable until you look at GK.

 

Can't re-attempt Force or Hammerhand by the ITC FAQ, even if you have multiple psykers within the unit (like any GK IC attached to any GK unit). A good one to know when facing GK.

So I don't get the thread. Are we just grousing about rulings now?

[Guest]

 

Destroyer Weapons:

• When resolving a Destroyer weapon attack, roll on the Destroyer Weapon Attack Table (DWAT) for each hit generated and then allocate wounds normally. E.g., a Blast weapon with strength D hits five enemy models from the same unit. The attacker rolls five times on the DWAT getting results of 1, 2, 5, 6, and 6. The attacking player chooses to allocate the group of 2 and 5 results first followed by the group of 6 results.

Makes destroyer weapons more lethal, as allows D player to choose order they are allocated AFTER rolling on the attack table.

[pretre]

Makes destroyer weapons more lethal, as allows D player to choose order they are allocated AFTER rolling on the attack table.

Except it doesn't since you still get the same hits to the same unit, you just choose order.

[Guest]

So I don't get the thread. Are we just grousing about rulings now?

Basically, proof reading the ITC FAQ to get an understanding of these rules in context to how they'd function in games.

 

I, for one, have never seen most of these used in ITC events, or even mentioned in the threads when we debate ITC rulings.

 

Like, in example, that long debate regarding the ITC FAQ and Ranged D/Vortex weapons would be easily solved by mentioning that this only applies in ITC format events. If my event doesn't specifically follow the format, the ITC FAQ doesn't apply there.

[pretre]

Like, in example, that long debate regarding the ITC FAQ and Ranged D/Vortex weapons would be easily solved by mentioning that this only applies in ITC format events. If my event doesn't specifically follow the format, the ITC FAQ doesn't apply there.

I don't think that is true. Any event using the ITC FAQ is going to use the ITC Format parts too. You are creating a false distinction.

[Guest]

 

Makes destroyer weapons more lethal, as allows D player to choose order they are allocated AFTER rolling on the attack table.

 

Except it doesn't since you still get the same hits to the same unit, you just choose order.

So, I hit your SW cavalry unit with a large D blast (shadowsword, in example). I get 4 hits. I roll on the DWAT. I get a 6 and three 2-5 results.

 

Now you've got that SS guy in front, as normal, and then some guys without SS behind. If I resolve the 6 first, I can kill off the guy in front with the SS, then kill off one or two of the remaining models by while denying armor only. Even with ITC nerfed ranged D, the ability to force the guy with the SS to take the 2 auto-wounds denying saves before the other models is a pretty large boost.

 

The actual destroyer rules would make this very iffy, as I'd assign hits based on LoS and resolve, one at a time to the model in front, then the others. I am much more likely to waste D shots on that SS in this manner.

 

This also is a huge boost to melee D.

[winterman]

I don't think that is true. Any event using the ITC FAQ is going to use the ITC Format parts too. You are creating a false distinction.

Adepticon uses the FAQ but has their own format.  I have been using the FAQ for years, long before it was tied to the circuit and BAO format.

 

It was never intended to be tied to the format, it just has been due to the confusion of naming it ITC (where C stands for Council or Circuit)

[Guest]

I don't think that is true. Any event using the ITC FAQ is going to use the ITC Format parts too. You are creating a false distinction.

Then why include it in the FAQ?

 

If it is a False distinction, which it may be, that does put it on topic, as it is something to be addressed via proof reading.

[pretre]

Adepticon uses the FAQ but has their own format.  I have been using the FAQ for years, long before it was tied to the circuit and BAO format.

 

It was never intended to be tied to the format, it just has been due to the confusion of naming it ITC (where C stands for Council or Circuit)

The ITC FAQ explicitly says that Adepticon uses all of it.

[pretre]

Then why include it in the FAQ?

 

If it is a False distinction, which it may be, that does put it on topic, as it is something to be addressed via proof reading.

It's a false distinction because only you are worried about it.