The time has come to lock things down for the LVO 2017 40k events!
We have been holding our breath waiting for GW final draft Codex FAQs, but on a hot tip from Lady Cleo, we believe the official codex FAQs will not in fact be coming out this week but most likely won’t happen. We had to make choices for the LVO so that everyone coming isn’t waiting any longer. We’re locking things down, people! The format is now what it is. No new material will be permitted in regards to supplements (including any Fall of Cadia material), codexes, etc. as of today, January 11th 2017, and no further changes will be made to the ITC FAQ or to the format. We are including some interim rulings on current material that is not FAQ’d at this time such as with Genestealer Cults and Traitor Legoins. We are going with our best interpretations on theses issues and hope they mirror what GW gives us in their final Codex FAQs. If there are discrepancies between our ruling and theirs, our rulings will hold until after the LVO 2017, at which point we will adopt GW’s rulings for the 2017 ITC Season.
Knowing our luck, these FAQs may come very soon (although we do not believe this will happen), but this is the decision the LVO and ITC staff have made in order to take care of those bold gamers making the trek out to Vegas for our events!
If you have specific rules questions, please post them in the comments section, below or email us and the LVO 40k judging staff will address them.
Thanks and see you in Las Vegas!
I’m sure all the people losing their minds about Cawl/Celestine feel much better now. Thanks for being expedient about it, boys!
Yeah, that is a fortuitous circumstance for those individuals, but unintentional. We’ve actually been working this out for a few days now as we got our hot tip from Lady Cleo earlier in the week and began our reaction to it, then.
I’m sure there will be some people who will be upset by this, but thank you for drawing a line and not letting things get stuck in limbo. This is a good call.
This actually wasn’t a reaction to the leaks today, we’ve been working on this since Monday, haha. It’s just coincidental timing.
Works out for the best, either way!
=)
I can vouch for this. It is not a “knee-jerk”.
Fantastic. Thank you to all involved!
You got it! Took a group effort of quite a few dedicated individuals. Had to be done though, we couldn’t wait any longer.
Where/when will we see the interim rulings for GSC and TLs
Already on the ITC FAQ which is linked in the article above.
Follow up question on the GSC FAQs. If a unit with Heavy Weapons arrives from on going reserve, via Cult Ambush, on a roll of 3+, do they count as having moved i.e. do the heavy weapons fire snap shots. I assume so, but just wanted to check.
I believe that is answered in sub bullet point 4 on the GSC rulings.
Maybe it’s implied, but it’s not explicit. sub bullet point 4 refers to units summoned and arriving from CA. What about those that are just in ongoing reserve and come on, on a 3+?
This was answered in more detail further down the comments. Units coming on the board after deployment, i.e. once turn 1 has begun, count as moving.
OK – something came up today with Genestealers that I hadn’t thought about. If you are infiltrating and using Cult Ambush, do you roll cult ambush for each unit, then place it, and then roll for the next one and place it, or can you roll for cult ambush for all units at once, and then place them. Same for when they come out of ongoing reserve I guess.
You roll for each unit individually.
In other words. Pick a unit, roll, resolve, pick again.
Also a follow up question for GSC. If you kill a unit in deployment via the 5 result. Does this count as first strike in missions which use it?
Yes. It would count as First Strike or First Blood if I was asked that during the event.
Yes, it does. It would count for First Blood or First Strike.
What about imperial knights and barrage weapons? The interim FAQ says facing of shield is facing of fire. That ruling makes a big difference for knights.
Do you mean interim in this case not as our interim FAQ but GW’s draft FAQ? If you are referring to GW’s Codex FAQ drafts then no, we are not using them. They weren’t done in time for the LVO, unfortunately. There is probably quite a few things like the one you describe that some folks will have wanted and others will not have wanted. And, I am willing to bet there are quite a few changes that are coming that you (and others) may not have liked that won’t be in effect, either.
We were willing to wait till Friday for them but the birdies are saying it may not be till the end of the month, and we determined that that was too long to wait in regards to the LVO. Sorry if that is upsetting to you.
I was referring to the barrage ruling in the GW Imperial Knights Codex FAQ from last summer. The ruling was that for ion shield facing determination, barrage weapons are presumed to be coming from the direction of the firing unit. The locked down ITC FAQ doesn’t say anything on barrage and ion shield saves. I think under current ITC rules knights flatly don’t get ion shield saves against barrage weapons.
Is that ruling in their draft codex FAQ for Knights? If draft, no, we are not using it as stated, or any of the other draft FAQs, either. We were hoping they’d be finalized and published this week but it turns out that wasn’t going to happen, unfortunately.
I totally get the rules lockdown. It needs to happen so that the tournament can work. Kudos for banging out all the rules. The GSC stuff is on the mark.
As a player though, I really do want to know, do knights get ion shield saves against barrage weapons and wall of mirrors attacks at the LVO?
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/05/breaking-new-40k-knights-deathwatch-gs-cult-faqs.html
That is a draft FAQ, sorry. All of the “First Draft” FAQs are not GW official, yet. They will be probably around the end of the month I would guess, and most likely with quite a few changes.
But to your question, no, none of those are going to stick for the LVO.
The rulebook FaQ hekps, solving this issue, now for vehicle vs barrage, we take the position of the center of the first blast to determine which side is hit.
So easy peasy to determine if you get an ion shield or not.
And if the targeting player picks the “center” of the knight and rolls a direct hit … what facing?
The door =)
No seriously, if your shield is on either side, why would anybody pick the exact center of the model ? Just place the template in the center, but slightly offset by 0.01 inch towards the side you want to hit (just be clear to your opponent). That way if you don’t scatter you know exactly which side is hit. And if you do scatter, 0.01 inches won’t do any difference given the knight size and the fact we scatter X full inches anyway.
Can genestealer cult guys return to shadows if they have gone to ground or are falling back?
No. You must be able to move normally in the movement phase, if you’ve gone to ground or are falling back you cannot.
what? The codex says they specifically cannot move to go into the shadows.. why would you interpret this as they must be able to move?
It says “instead of moving”. A unit that cannot move due to other circumstances cannot forfeit movement it does not have to enact the rule. It is not my interpretation by the way, but it does make sense. You cannot do something instead of moving if you are precluded from movement.
I’ve never seen a rule in WH40k read that way lol. If I can’t move and another completely separate action asks that I don’t move to do that action it has NEVER been read as well it wasn’t my choice to do the required action so I therefor don’t benefit in this other situation?
Sorry Geoff, I understand your perspective.
Is the link dead for anyone else?
Which link?
The link to then FAQ in the text of the post works for me on chrome, firefox, ando mobile.
Where does this leave us regarding the Inquisition and Sisters of Battle Codexs? Which are still on sale and from the Cadia “rumors” are directly referenced in at least on formation. I would assume that we can use both the codex and the Imperial Agents books (with the exception that dataslates published in the Imp. Agents book replace those in the codex).
Yes, you’re correct. Cadia is not allowed but the other material released before Jan 11, 2017 is allowed.
Please make a ruling if the wasps purchased in the Eldar forgeworld wasp phalanx formation gain deep strike. RAI it is clear what they wanted but forgeworld has refused to make a dedicated ruling on it after I emailed them months ago they said in short, “that was the intent”.
Also is the Skathach Wraithknight able to move 18″ with it’s special move or RAW. A forgeworld email has gone out indicating that the Wraithknight is able to move the 18″ move instead of the deep strike scatter they indicated. Many players are using the email as an excuse to use the 18″ move instead of the scatter.
Thank You.
No. They do not gain it, you can only have Corsair wasps deep strike if they have also bought Void burners for the unit.
But…. its an Eldar Craftworlds Warhost Aux Formation. You cannot take Corsair upgrades as Craftworld Eldar and the formation only benefits when you Deepstrike. (in essence, its a no gainer)
That said, it IS a way to get Wasps into an ECW, if you really wanted them.
Indian givers. I was told on Jan 2 I could use the new Celestine. You know, before anyone knew she was amazing. This is a pretty upsetting.
How could we have told you could use a new model before it was out? And again, this is not in reaction to leaked material, this is coming in reaction to us learning that GW FAQs were not imminent. We’ve been working on this for several days, now.
I emailed contact@frontlinegaming.org with the question, and someone manning the inbox replied with confirmation the new material could be used.
The old Celestine rules will still be valid. Feel free to use the new model.
Sorry for any confusion, they probably thought you were referring to the current Celestine rules (in the Sister’s digital codex) as those were the only rules available. Approving rules we hadn’t seen or knew were coming out would not be a decision as a staff we’d want to make.
‘Indian giver” is a bit racist FYI.
So how are barrage weapons working at lvo? I thought the most recent itc vote had them hitting all levels. But the faq while worded oddly seems to reference them hitting only the top level of ruins and skyshields.
That will be fixed soon. We’ll let you know when to check the doc again for an update.
Haha ok. So much for final locked faq.
While you’re at it might as well delete the whole sentence about using yriels eye in the eldar section in challenges since he can’t use it in challenges.
We’re human, sorry we made a mistake.
No we’re not, we’re cybernetic organisms sent from the future to destroy John Connor!
Don’t get salty John. Was just poking a bit of fun. You guys have a lot of work to do and do a great job.
I’m not worried either way. I’m pretty sure the faq has a line in it that says one slot in the finals is reserved for me anyway so I keep it light and easy.
I know Sean, I was having fun back. I’m not as salty as my name would imply! 😉
Also, my bad, I misread what you said and should have given Reece’s response.
No, the ruling for blasts and ruins is already in the FAQ, we omitted it because it is in the GW FAQ. The reference to barrage weapons ties in with that as it hits all levels. Your question has been answered, my friend.
Ok no problem. It’s just worded in a way to give people the idea that it only hits the top. But reading it with the right intent behind it I can see what you mean. No problem. I’ll tell people to leave their silly warp spiders at home when facing the renegades lol.
All good buddy, glad you asked.
After reading the GSC clarification I’m still confused on cult ambush results of 3+ as the bullet point only relates to summoned units not those already in ongoing reserve.
Are non summoned units that enter by cult ambush classed as moving and how does this effect the firing of heavy weapons?
We’ve been playing it like an infiltrate move where they can’t move any further but fire heavies at full BS at least until we have clarification from GW.
This seemed more akin to an ‘ambush’
Yes, units that ambush onto the table during the course of the game as part of reserves are treated as moving, so heavy weapons snap fire when they appear.
The point of contention is the cult ambush rules for options 3+ state they are deployed not moved on the table which is different in my understanding. This would seem to closer to infiltrate than a standard move on to the table from ongoing reserves.
As well as options 3+ saying ‘set up’ against their individual results.
It seems to be a bit of a mess and will be interesting to see GW official ruling.
As they’re supposed to be an ambush infiltrating and firing at full BS would make sense as they’re lying in wait for the enemy, not suddenly appearing from deepstrike etc.
GW is pretty consistent with anything that enters from reserve count as moving unless given Relentless. While I understand the fluff reasoning, from a mechanic perspective, GW clarified that “deploy” means setting up a unit on the battlefield but also when units come out from reserve, and typically, GW uses the terms deploy and set up interchangeably. Again, I’d love more consistency from them, but that is the ruling that we went with.
Need a definitive spelled out warm fuzzy. Can I, or can I not, play the old Celestine from the old pre-Imperium Agents Adeptas Sororitas codex?
Per GW, you can play either Sister’s codex, you just can’t mix and match.
Groovy. See you in Vegas.
See you there!
I’ve been playing 3+ is not a move but 1-2 specify moving so they of course do.. just like the codex says.
Seems you may need to change the way you play it based on the 4th bullet point.
Not really. Just wait until the official GW FAQ comes out. This is only ITCs interpretation for their events and could be wrong.
Correct.
That’s also correct Alan. If the GW FAQ is indeed different it will be used after the LVO for the ITC.
Interesting under the CSM section you guys say
“Two Independent Characters with different Marks of Chaos can both join the same unmarked unit.”
So could you then take say Sorcerers with Mark of Tzeentch as well as a Chaos Lord with Mark of Khorne and attach them both to a unit of Flesh Hounds? Seems here you would be able to.
Yes.
The ITC FAQ says, “For ITC events, GC’s may only take a cover save if they are at least 25% obscured from the point of view of the shooting unit.”
The GW FAQ says, “Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a
cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does
this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and
Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being
inside terrain such as woods or ruins.”
Indicating that monstrous creatures (including FMC as they are monstrous creatures) do not get toe in cover, does this apply to the ITC?
Yes, they are subject to the 25% rule also
Thank you for the prompt answer.
Can you clarify the answer the the FAQ question, “Q: Do Gauss, Melta, Haywire, and Graviton special rules
affect void shields?
A: Yes – Gauss, Melta and Haywire special rules work as
normal. Graviton hits cause a void shield to collapse on a
roll of 6, but cannot affect void shields on buildings.”
Does this mean grav effects void shields generated by a void shield generator? I think it would depending on what you targeted (that was protected by the void shield) with the grav If you targeted the fortification itself, then graviton says that it has no effect. If you target a non-building, then I would says yes it does. Is that correct?
There are 2 types of void shields, projected and skin(only affects the building). It is the latter that the wording “but cannot affect void shields on buildings” is referring to.
So yes, grav can hurt a void shield generated by the VSG. You may also target the building, knock down the void shields but not hurt the building once the void shield are down
Thank you for the clarification.
Wait, where did you get 2 types of void shields from?
I read this as void shields on non buildings (e.g. titans) being effected, but void shields on buildings not being effected (which would primarily be the vsg).
I don’t get one vsg generating 2 types of void shield depending on what is being targeted under the same shield, that’s really unintuitive and IMHO wrong.
Is Adam S. his post the definitive flg answer for lvo?
Adam is one of the 4 head judges. Yes, it is the answer.
Bunkers and bastions and such can take a void shield but it only affects them. It is not projected like from a VSG. That is what they are trying to address.
Did the ITC ever rule on the imperial knight moving through cover rule?
Yes. GW took the ruling we had pretty much verbatim.
Wonderful, 1 and 5 record is now in my sites
The GW rulebook FAQ states that a model may only ever have one artefact/relic. What defines artefact or relic as they are called numerous kings in numerous books? Is it only items that contain the word artefact or relic? Is it only groupings of items called artefacts or relics?
For example:
Elder they are called Remnants of Glory
Tau they are called Signature Systems
Orks they are called gifts of Gork and Mork
In my mind it’s pretty clear that GWs intent is that all of these items be included. However I only ask as I still see people running multiple items on tau commanders.
Reece, I don’t understand the logic of at least pushing the GW rules into the ITC FAQ. Such as barrage weapons and the main brb section. Especially at this time close to the convention people have been going off those mostly because those seem to be coming close.
I can understand not handling rules for balance such as invis or answering rules that are not there but this one is frustrating.
They address this above I think. They missed removing reference to ruins and barrage so an update should be coming.
The GW faq for the BRB are incorporated into, and used in conjunction, with the ITC faq.
If you have a specific question please let us know
I asked this above, but it might have been missed. When deploying via cult ambush, do you roll on the table for each unit, deploy that unit in accordance with the result, then move on to the next unit, or can you roll on the cult ambush table for all of them at once, and then deploy them.
Pick a unit, roll for it, resolve, move on to the next…
Hey john, could you check out my question 4 up plz man.
Which one?
The GW rulebook FAQ states that a model may only ever have one artefact/relic. What defines artefact or relic as they are called numerous kings in numerous books? Is it only items that contain the word artefact or relic? Is it only groupings of items called artefacts or relics?
For example:
Eldar they are called Remnants of Glory
Tau they are called Signature Systems
Orks they are called gifts of Gork and Mork
In my mind it’s pretty clear that GWs intent is that all of these items be included. However I only ask as I still see people running multiple items on tau commanders.
Tau is different. The wording in the Tau codex says they may take Signature Systems, plural, and the Signature Systems entry states that Tau may take one of each per army. Implying Tau can take multiple SS as long as they aren’t duplicates.
In short Tau can take multiple SS, yes.
Just so I’m clear – when you say “pick a unit, roll for it, resolve, move on to the next” do you mean “pick a unit, roll for it, deploy, move on to the next”? What about when you come in from ongoing reserve – same?
Yes to both.
@the judge staff: Does the ‘hunter’s eye’ space marine relic effect psychic shooting attacks in the same unit?
The Hunter’s Eye effects ranged weapons. Psychic shooting attacks are attacks, not weapons. Hunter’s Eye does not apply to attacks made by psychic shooting attacks.