Comments for The Assault Phase

Comment on Events by Warhammer 40k "Twin Linked" Teams tournament | The Assault Phase

Warhammer 40k "Twin Linked" Teams tournament | The Assault Phase — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:32:09 +0000

[...] Register HERE [...]

Comment on Scratch Built Warhound Titan – Part 2 Upper Torso by SadPanda

SadPanda — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:32:32 +0000

Yea, it’s wicked cool. Very nice man.

Comment on Scratch Built Warhound Titan – Part 2 Upper Torso by Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:29:19 +0000

What the crap! DC, this is actually really awesome. taking the hobby scene to another level.

Josh

Comment on Scratch Built Warhound Titan – Part 1 Legs by SadPanda

SadPanda — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:15:00 +0000

Color me impressed man. It’s really looking good!

Comment on Building a Display Board Part 2 by Papa JJ

Papa JJ — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:27:16 +0000

Nicely done, the display board looks great! Thank you for the links, this looks like a very helpful tutorial. I’ll need to build a display board or two in the coming months and will refer back to your advice. Thanks!

Comment on INAT FAQ v4.1 (w/revised Blood Angel & Tyranid sections) now available! by SuTech

SuTech — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:25:06 +0000

We rarely need a FAQ in AP tournaments other than what GW has put out. Try at a tourny with over a hundred folks and big bucks on the line though. Things can get pretty complicated.

Comment on INAT FAQ v4.1 (w/revised Blood Angel & Tyranid sections) now available! by sadpandabear

sadpandabear — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 12:35:47 +0000

Do we really have rules arguments come up that often that require something like this? I kind of don’t have an opinion on what one to use, because any time I have ever had a rules question it was pretty easy to solve just by asking a veteran player.

We probably do need to keep a closer eye on rules in general though. I recently discovered that I’ve been doing some things wrong, and people generally don’t even notice because either they do some of the same things, or neither of us are paying attention enough.

Comment on INAT FAQ v4.1 (w/revised Blood Angel & Tyranid sections) now available! by rle68

rle68 — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:42:17 +0000

Now to add a lil validity to my above comment i have just finished reading all of the codex faq’s of this document. i have found more then a few items of varying discrepency. rules made up with no basis from anything gw has done that both positively and negatively affect these armies. A large portion of these “clarifications” are pretty common sense in most of them i found a few that were actually helpful , however they are not based on the wh40krb but on opinions of this group. The one ruling i have the most issue with is their determination of land speeders weapons, they in fact call them hull mounted severally limiting their firing arcs. Now unless i have missed something gw has said, there is no factual basis for this limitation and therefore i would not abide by this limitation. not when the firing arcs of these model is so easy to distinguish. My own interpretation would be the underslung weapon has a 180 degree firing arc where the top mounted weapon has 90 degrees and that is based entirely on how the model is built not on anything GW has said or not said. I am in fact trying to remember back to 4th editon that they did indeed provide firing arcs for several models but i wont swear to that fact.

I have added a bit more then my 2 cents but i felt the added information was something of value

Comment on INAT FAQ v4.1 (w/revised Blood Angel & Tyranid sections) now available! by Rob

Rob — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:50:31 +0000

I have never been a fan of this “faq” as they term it. in fact no other tournament i have ever participated in has used this. this group has the idea that its ok to make up rules as they go along simply because the organiser of adepticon bought and owns dakka dakka. that doesnt give them any more credence than any other group. If you want to play 40k play 40k if you want to play adepticon 40k then by all means please do so. The rules in that faq are no more legal than anything i hand out saying its official. So what is the point? ill say this if you post an open invite for a tournament people will show up thinking you are playing by games workshop rules not rules made up to suit their own ideas from adepticon. You can post you will use those rules all day long and still people will show up and not know this. Now this would absolve you from responsibility in the fact you posted it ahead of time but the fcat that theses people will leave and probably never come back and the word will be out you dont play by the rules.
GW has their own faq’s and errata in place that almost everyone is aware of. you now wish to introduce a new element that has limited support and no real validity? Ill pass on that one. gw’s may not be the best but it is the standard

Comment on INAT FAQ v4.1 (w/revised Blood Angel & Tyranid sections) now available! by Scott916

Scott916 — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:49:50 +0000

I think the INAT FAQ is mostly good, but like Josh said, they do make some odd calls here and there, and I’m not really a fan of the instances where they make actual changes to the rules as written. I need to read over the latest one in detail, but I wouldn’t be opposed to giving it a test run and seeing what everyone thinks.

I think GW has been much more on the ball with their FAQs of late, but there’s still room for expansion/improvement.