Games Workshop is releasing a first draft FAQ for 40K: Check it out!
Bare in mind, these are rough draft answers. Many of these are actually changing as we read them, so leave feedback to encourage them in answering questions, be respectful and offer feedback on some of the crazier stuff to let your voice be heard!
The ITC will wait and see the final draft before reacting to any of this.
There are some huge game-changers in there. Especially relative to the ITC FAQ in many cases, but some of them are opposite to just about anything I’ve seen, like Grenades against Walkers/MCs in Assaults.
Most of the calls are actually in alignment with the ITC FAQ, even some of the rules “changes” we mad,e like LoS! on Stomps, etc. However, we’ll wait for the final draft.
Stomps effecting units outside of combat is different certainly…
That is actually RAW now, there was no need to FAQ it. We made a rules change for that one, already.
I literally just had a debate with someone in a pickup game about this. I thought it was clear that stomps effected whatever, he didn’t. We defaulted to ITC.
Fair play. It was actually a rules change, RAW is quite clear that you can stomp all over the dang place. That one will probably be a non-starter for us.
“In many cases” was perhaps an overstatement, but there are definitely some that are going to shake up the ITC environment big time.
Man… Battle Brothers can no longer deploy on allied transports.
RIP Culuxus droppod shenanigans.
You can still start him outside a rhino and hop in turn 1!
But certainly the market is going to be flooded with rock bottom priced drop pods and dark eldar raiders.
Yeah, I do that most of the time now, anyway. Stinks for Drop Pods, though.
Can’t even do that! His aura won’t interact with the battlefield from inside the transport according to the draft FAQ.
Yeah, that’s brutal.
That one has very big implications, both good and bad.
Oh man, no more Blood Angels taxi service, sorry Admech!
Yup. Sad day for Blood Angels
Actually it does not affect BA much, we just got pulled off bitch duty :p
Couldn’t you guys just rule to ignore that stipulation? It feels counter intuitive and is a pretty integral part of many armies.
It’s a possibility.
I like it. It is fluffy, and balances imperials with other armies to some degree.
Might as well take the next step and get rid of Battle Bros altogether to fix deathstars while we are at it.
I disagree (and I use my SW Fast Attack Drop Pod all the time for my Culexus).
Busting up the Battle Brothers shenanigans is probably the single best way to make the game better, IMHO.
Too bad these changes don’t effect Deathstars at all.
Hopefully this is just the precursor to the additional updated rules rumored to be coming in September. I could see a simple change to battle brothers or how special rules (I.e. Hit and run,etc.) might not apply unless all members of the unit have them might make the cut and continue to weaken Death Stars.
I don’t think GW likes super friends or allied taxi service armies, and want to bring armies more in line with the fluff.
Let’s hope so.
They did have one answer in movement that said that a unit of several mixed types was highly unlikely and even ludicrous. Don’t think they think it’s a thing.
Right? But it so is! haha
They must have forgotten that Deathwatch formation they put out last month 😛
LOL exactly, Blight1, I laughed so hard when the GW guy said “ludicrously improbable unit.”
Don’t forget the skitarii too.
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
lol
This right here, the most game breaking thing in the FAQ
“Game breaking” as in “you goddamn Imperials are gonna have to buy your transports the old-fashioned way like everyone else,” you mean.
I got no sympathy.
My dark eldar who were holding on with deepstriking fire dragons are weeping as well though. Now I can’t use my deepstriking medusae unit either because if the vehicle jinks they snapshoot.
Well, you can still join a Webway Portal to the Dragons and whatnot, so it’s not nearly as bad for DE as it could’ve been- but certainly it doesn’t do them a lot of favors.
The change to Jink really hurts them bad, though.
Point me to some Ad Mech transports for 40k then =p
Next IA will be about admech+marines vs tau and FW will be bringing 30k Admech vehicles and non-battlebot units to 40k. That includes the Triaros.
I love the single word answers. “No, why would they be able to? Thats crazy!”
Just to break tons of lists.
My favorite in that respect is the Ordnance section. Just a litany of “no, your special unique snowflake does not get an exception to the rules for Ordnance, read the rulebook.”
Bye bye Ad mech War convo as we knew it. Back to the drawing board.
People are playing it without Drop Pods already, the transition won;t be too bad. It does suck though if folks modeled up Drop Pods and such for their army =(
Ya. I just started painting my pods… oh well. I have heard of other builds just haven’t put much thought into them as pods were the best way to go.
All foot with double Knights has been doing very well in the War Convo
It’s interesting to see how this all shakes out.
I’m wondering how ITC handles some clearly laid out contradictions. For example Templates hitting any model underneath them. The new Helldrake will make hiding in ruins the most dangerous thing in the world if you follow the RAW, and at this point they even clarify RAI to say yes they ment every level!
Yeah, some of these rulings are (IMO) not positive changes for tournament play. We will wait and see the final draft, but most of the answers we actually like. Some are VERY strange and some probably will not work for the ITC. We shall see.
Have they contacted you at all? Considering they could save themselves a boat load of trouble by just taking the ITC rulings.
We talk to them in very limited ways, but they do not consult us or anything, no. We’d be happy to work with them, though.
If it’s a draft, why not contribute before the final draft sets it in stone?
Yeah, we can jump in and contribute!
I think for many armies that use blasts and templates heavily it’s a big bonus. It’s really annoying to have a dev squad or some other long range infantry stack up on 3 levels of a ruin so you can only hit a max of 2 models with a large blast.
The rule was crystal clear in the rule book already – people just loved hanging in 6th edition with that rule. I actually fully agree with the explanation in the FAQ – Blasts should be deadly in more than 2 dimensions.
I love this change! Makes more sense, doesn’t let an entire army hide under bits of ceiling. This is 40k – these flamers and bombs will collapse through the whole building! The grimdark is big and scary – can’t hide forever!
This is still the first draft, so we can expect there to be changes. I did notice a few key things though in regards to my playstyle.
* Huge nurfs to VSGs. While a 24″ diameter of protection is still huge, players won’t be able to string one model within the VSG to extend that another 8″. Players will need to clump into the VSG to get protection.
* Fixes to targeting FMCs. Currently you can beam a FMC in Nova, or can scatter a blast template on top of one. This changes it so FMCs can’t get hit at all.
* Psychic Shriek got a buff (wha?)
* No stacking cursed earth
* Battle Brothers can’t start in transports. If this FAQ stays, it will be as if millions of lists suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced
* Nurfs to stormsurges and knights by forcing them to declare all their shooting before rolling dice. This means single shot weapons can be wasted.
MCs and walkers no longer soil their knickers while faced with tank bustas.
Yeah, that was a MAJOR shift IMO.
And for the worse, IMO. It makes it incredibly difficult for infantry to fight Vehicles, Walkers and MCs which to me, is a negative.
I think it’s been the consensus for a while now that walkers are subpar. MC’s are better in every way. Maybe that’s because we’re all stupid.
We’ve collectively been allowing ourselves to throw as many grenades as we want. Because it makes perfect sense for ten to twenty Warriors of the grim dark to toss one high explosive grenade each in front of them as they charge into combat. Or, you know, basket ball toss grenades at a raging Dreadnought when they’re all in base to base contact hypothetically punching or slicing one another. It’s GW that’s being illogical.
Some units pay way too much for these options though. Others get them at no cost.
GG swooping hawks you suck again. DE Wyches are laughing.
I appreciate that it helps the AV12 and lower walkers a lot, but on the other hand it means that units which have to buy grenades for every member are being ridiculously overcharged (such as the Tau Pathfinders mentioned in the FAQ example.)
I view it as a plus. AV12 dreadnoughts have long feared the basic tac squad and their krak grenade spam.
Anything that gives the rarely seen dreadnought a bonus is goodness in my eyes.
From that perspective, yes, I agree it is a benefit. But in general terms, I feel it is a net loss. Some armies, that’s one of their only methods of dealing with armor or Knights, such as Orks.
It’s funny with the grenade rule FAQ they flat out quote how the rule reads and that line is nowhere in the assault use for grenades. For shooting phase yes, for assault it clearly says every model can use a grenade against specific targets.
GW strikes again.
Ahhh, that is the confusion! Haha
yeah, if only walkers were survivable with massed S6 and grav out there, we might actually see them.
We’ve been discussing offering up the rule change for the ITC of: “Walkers treat immobilised results as a Weapon Destroyed result on the damage chart” to offset this.
I see how that would help some, but the skitarii iron strides only have one weapon each. Immobilization or destroyed weapon means tgey become mostly useless..
Being immobilized does the same thing in most cases =(
Perhaps, we could word it as: the Walker has the choice to make an immobilized result a weapon destroyed result. That way shooty walkers aren’t punished.
It feels like they should. They aren’t called Tank-sometimes-do-one-hull-pointers. Tankbustas should be able to crack tanks.
I agree 100%. Poor Orks, that was their best answer to MCs and SHWs =/
Tank hammers!
lol
The VSG one is a bit of a bummer as being able to stop Grav was a good thing for the meta, IMO. I agree that the shield should only affect models within 12″ though, not units. Most of the changes I like personally, some of them…not so much, haha.
It’s hilarious about the VSG because in another section of the FAQ they say “graviton and haywire attacks do not count as making armor penetration rolls”.
Lol, right? There are a lot of contradictions in that document.
IMO I think that is for when other abilities take effect. such as an bility that forces you to re-roll the armor penetration.
The ITC went a bit hog wild with the VSG. Gauss should have worked on it. It was too pejorative to necrons.
Also we should have always done models instead of units.
At least there won’t be a vsg in every single list anymore.
Well, it wasn’t actually the ITC, it was the INAT, but I’m splitting hairs. I agree that it should be models not units, and I am fine with Gauss working on it, personally. For me, it’s just grav that needs to be curbed a bit.
How would you “fix” Grav?
IMO, the problem with grav is the number of shots not necessarily the mechanic. Salvo 3/5 is ridiculous compared to say, a lascannon/melta/plasma gun. Reducing it to salvo 2/3 for the cannon and 1/2 for the gun would still make it tremendously powerful but just.. a little less ridiculous.
GW isn’t likely to address a weapon profile in the FAQ, but a guy can hope.
Reduce the number of shots, or modify the point cost.
The other possibility that would be more in keeping with the whole “use the target’s mass against it” would be to tie the wound roll to the target’s base size, and make it a dedicated anti-big targets gun. Could be a better design that the current “plasma guns except better in most situations” state of affairs.
I’ve thought since their introduction that the Salvo Rules should be revised so that they work (as described) as heavier versions of Rapid Fire Weapons. Larger number of shots out to half Range, smaller number from there to full Range. Stays the same regardless of whether or not you move, but can’t Charge after firing them unless Relentless.
>How would you “fix” Grav?
Grav has two problems- one, as you mention, is the number of shots; second is the ability to hurt virtually everything in the game effectively. A Grav Cannon is actually better than a Heavy Bolter against anything with a 5+ or better save due to the extreme number of shots it puts out and the ability to reroll wounds. Moreover, it’s not just an exceptional anti-infantry gun but also the most brutal weapon in the game against MCs and a more than passable vehicle-killer.
Grav Cannons do _everything_, and they do it well. If they cost more in the neighborhood of 60pts that might be acceptable, but when they cost only a token amount more than other guns that really isn’t good.
I would go so far as to say that the entire concept of grav (bypassing the normal wounding chart) isn’t good, though. There are already mechanics that do that (poison, fleshbane, etc)- it seems absurd to have yet another way to do so.
The weird one is Melta. It specifically calls out Melta as working on the Projected Void Shield, but… how? I guess you’re measuring to the model you declare as your target to see if you get the extra d6, even though the hit goes on the Shield?
Well, with the void shield not protecting units further out now and only being models, it would make sense that if you are within 18″ of the generator itself (assuming a standard melta gun here) you would get the bonus as you are within 6″ of where the shield extends to. It’s a set bubble so your distance to it no longer differs
There’s some problems with that, though- for example, say you are 13″ away from the Void Shield Generator building and shooting at a unit that is well inside the Shield (let’s say it is 11″ away from you.) You are within 6″ of the nominal Shield radius but not within 6″ of your target- and, remember, the Projected Void Shields do NOT have any physical representation on the table or even anything more than a vague conceptual bubble representing their position. It seems strange to be drawing range to something that doesn’t exist.
Fully agreed, under this ruling it’s one of the oddest occurrences in the game. Would be nice if we could get diagrams for situations like this to truly illustrate how it is supposed to work.
most of the rules that haven’t effected the VSG to this point only effect vehicles not buildings: melta, haywire, gauss, grav, etc. So its kinda interesting that they’re faqing them to
Buildings, except where noted otherwise, are treated exactly like immobile vehicles. Melta, Haywire, Armorbane, Tank Hunter, and other similar abilities all work just fine on buildings as per the BRB- it is only ITC has that FAQed them not to work for some reason.
FMCs got brutalized though now that they don’t get area cover – regardless of their flight mode. Hopefully they clarify that. Also jinking = no vector strike. Nid players like myself have our finger hovering over the panic button on this.
Yeah that one was a little odd. Shouldn’t have an effect on them if they are gliding.
I haven’t seen the big boosts to Stomp mentioned. Stomping units that aren’t engaged, and you can still stomp at initiative after killing everything you’re engaged with.
That is one of the rulings that concerns me a great deal. Stomping out of combat is really a poor ruling for competitive play, particularly for models that get lots of stomp attacks like a Brass Scorpion. It can stop things 18″ away from the combat, lol.
It’s just rolling around the table like a dog scratching its back.
lol!
Nids got a huge buff IMO. Mawlocs hitting all floors and sheik auto hits? How about that haywire framers template flyrants have nuking vehicle flyers? Nids got better results
Bro just got to look at the pros!
Well, we already made a rules change in the ITC for blasts and templates not hitting all floors so for us, nothing has changed (unless the ITC community wants to change it, of course).
Well mawlocs won’t get that since it says specifically in their rules that they only hit the ground floor. They might change it with the Tyranid FAQ.
Mawlocs leaping through all levels of a building, blargh!!!! haha
I’d like a revote on the blasts not hitting all floors in ITC. I agree with thier reasoning of simplification.
It definitely makes Stomp more powerful, but I’m not sure if it’s really as strong as you give it credit for. It’s definitely a boost to Stormsurges, Wraithknights, and similar things that don’t really need it, though.
My issue is that you can kill units you can’t even see, away from the combat with Stomps, which is silly and not fun.
Yeah, although that problem is not specific to Stomps- all blast weapons can do that already.
Sure, but they can also miss, Stomps don’t, and blasts don’t 6 you out, either. Plus, melee attacks reaching across the table is just silly.
But, anyway, our FAQ already addresses how we handle stomps so it’s moot unless folks want to change it.
it’s also not fun for a brass scorpion or a warlord titan to only be able to stomp the lone grot that’s left in combat with it when 2 inches away is another target. if you want the other extreme
makes one question, if you can stomp during every assault phase (even if you are unengaged) simply because you do not need to have a target in melee to do such.
Overall I think these are pretty good. We will see what the final looks like.
Yeah, I like most of them, personally.
Not being able to move through ruin walls is huge, especially given typical ITC terrain boards have massive walls blocking the center. Guess they really want assault to be viable only for fast movers.
Did they include height levels again or can bikes still dribe up and down walls like they are Ghost Rider?
I think that is a rule we can quite easily ignore. NOVA Open too, would get screwed by that. They have huge walls all over their tables. We’ll just rule that the walls can be moved through for ease of tournament play.
Can I shoot through walls too – or is this just a little extra help for those poor struggling assault deathstars that never win anything?
The sarcasm is strong with this one! =)
The FAQ actually stipulates that some walls are “permeable” and some are not. So, you can Kool-Aide through some walls and others you cannot. We’ll wait and see how it pans out. However, please remember that while not allowing Deathstars to move through walls seems like it would hurt them (and it probably would) it would also hurt everyone else, too.
Your Spot Sarcasm is rolling hot today.
Yeah you can throw them a bone if you like 🙂
Personally I like the terrain to be meaningful and high walls should be a real problem for foot-slogging units to get over and usually easier to go round. You never know, enough of that and Jump Infantry might just get a look-in for having a worthwhile niche other than in special formations.
Perhaps a mix of impassible and permeable walls? That could be fun. You just don’t want to screw over infantry too badly.
Walls with holes/windows/doors = permeable
Walls without holes/windows/doors = no koolaid for u
Yeah, I like that. If there are holes blown in it, windows or doors, or whatever, you can go through it as Difficult Terrain. If it’s a solid wall, start heading around.
Edgy.
The post you reply to clearly states “for ease of tournament play”, but hey, let’s have a jab at it anyway.
Agreed. I don’t see why that rule needs to be ignored. Walls that bikes and Wolves don’t just phase through would be a nice change.
A big building will stop infantry form getting around it for most of the game and keep them from actually participating, it would have a huge impact on units, more so than folks may be considering.
Plus, double check, but I am pretty sure it specifies certain types of walls.
Vehicles wouldn’t be able to go through them either.
completely agree
Cloverslaves are rolling over in the grave. Moving thru walls is absurd (IMO), maybe wraiths because they ‘phase”.
I thought that one specifically was called out as being a question about the rules for the Shrine of the Aquilla or something like that (in contrast with a generic ruin)? I can’t seem to find it anymore, though.
Yeah they used the Shrine as an example. I really hope it was specific to the Shrine because this only makes jet / jump units even more dominating over standard infantry.
It would make more sense if it were just the Shrine, because that one actually has solid walls pretty much everywhere, while most of the sections on the others have something that would be reasonable to move through. And many of them are doors, which means we can have both LoS blocking and movement through them.
This. All ruins now have impassable walls. No close combat for you, 40K players. What were they thinking? There you go, stand in the open with your Tyranid tshirt save. Oh, you think you can go Flyrant spam instead? No ruin cover save for them either, yeah take that!
Really liking the changes, some things have completely doomed army list like the drop war convocation but others have helped out armies immensely. Being able to summon a dthirster is huge for all the chaos factions, gargantuans and super heavies having to declare their targets before any dice is rolled is big.
Yeah, some of the changes are cool, IMO. Some are really wonky like only 1 grenade attack per unit? That seriously stinks for a lot of units.
Yeah the grenade realllly hurts units like marines, eldar swooping hawks and multiple melta bombs but then again av 12 is safer from it (looking at you mauler fiends and dreadnaughts)
On the other hand, I no longer feel so bad for all the Units that got knocked down to only one Model being able to take Meltabombs/Haywire Grenades 😉
me neither hahahah
Makes me sad for poor Tank Bustas =( That was what made them good.
if it is really just one grenade why do they allow the whole unit to get them? like tau fire warriors pay 1 point each
Yeah, doesn’t really make sense.
1pt each? Oh man, only in my dreams- they pay double that for the privilege of a weapon they’ll never use.
I guess you pay for redundancy.
I’ve been going over the grenade rules and can’t believe that I have missed the one grenade per phase bit. Old habits die hard.
My Helbrutes and Maulerfiends rejoice!
And it sucked a whole hell of a lot more for all av12 walkers and every ground based MC in the game. Not to even mention losing toxicrenes to krak grenades from tacticals with no saves. You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t so much care about your unit of boyz that are all carrying rocket launchers not being able to instagib any walker or MC in the game at I1.
Thanks Reece!
Np!
I have yet too see a single part of this I hate. Keep up the good work GW
Well, they do answer questions about initiative order with a number of Warp Charges you get. I wouldn’t say I hate that but good work?
?oh=165589201b17ac9b5c25b98313ba553b&oe=57AFE4A2
Their images got screwed up in one or two places, yeah, but they actually fix it in the raw text associated with the images- and they did so pretty quickly, to boot.
I really like how GW went out of their way to make it clear that Leman Russes with ordnance weapons are, indeed, garbage. Thanks GW.
Also (stealing a joke here), the real heroes are the folks asking about unbound armies of nothing but buildings.
lololol!
Both of these things are so very true.
What about strength 6 Dreadnaughts with Dreadnaught close combat weapons going to strength 12? This has been a question I’ve wanted answered for a long time.
Q: The rulebook says that Strength values can never go above 10, but I want mine to be higher. Can I have a Strength 12 unit?
A: You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.
lol
HAHA
It’s under double penetration, page 69.
Oh there’s DP in there?
Daemon Princes are listed in the codices, not in the base rulebook.
But I want to field an army of bastions! It would be so cool…..
Wait? There is a game involved?
An army of fortifications is what is know as a “city” and it’s what you fight _over_, not fight _with_.
I like the Independent Characters not being able to share detachment rules (such as Loth and Skyhammer). I think that was an ITC ruling anyway but my gaming group always prefers playing RAW (with some exceptions, such as S10 for Thunderwolf Cavalry/IC with Thunderwolves and Fists)
Now, if only they made Invisibility BS/WS1, with exceptions made to Markerlights…
Yeah, a lot of the rules “changes” we made in the ITC are actually reflected in the GW FAQ, which is cool.
From what i hear (could be rumor mongers) but that is no coincidence.
Hey, that would be rad! We’d be stoked to hear that we helped the overall community in some way.
Looks like FMCs lost the toe in cover rule?
Q: Do Flyers, Super-heavy vehicles, Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures gain cover while standing on the ‘base’ of a terrain piece, e.g. ruins or dense thickets, or do they need to be at least 25% obscured by the scenery for cover to apply?
A: The 25% rule applies in all types of terrain if the target is a Flyer, Super-heavy Vehicle, Flying Monstrous Creature or Gargantuan Creature. All other targets count as being in cover if they are in or on the terrain’s base, even if not 25% obsured
Yeah, GMCs and FMCs lost “Toe in Cover”. I actually agree with that ruling and the GMC ruling we already have in the ITC.
Out in my neck of the woods, we’ve played the GMC that way for awhile. Glad to see GW acknowledge that as well as the toe in cover stuff.
Interesting that MCs lost it too.
Did they? They seemed to only specify FMCs.
Oh, you’re right.
What happens when a FMC is in glide mode? Is it no longer able to get ‘toe in cover’?
It seems odd that it cannot, yet the GUO next to it can…
I know, right? The language indicates that FMCs never get toe in cover saves.
Except that in the document that say, FMCs are both FMCs and MCs, so no matter what mode the FMC is in, they are still a FMC and thus will not benefit from the toe in cover rule.
Right, I was saying I agree I could see it being better if it only worked when they were flying.
Really? FMCs lose area cover, regardless of flight mode is no problem? RIP Nids.
So a bloodthirster wont get toe in cover, since it is technically FMC? Personally i’d prefer no toe in for GMC or swooping fmc.
Yeah, I could see it while Swooping only, true.
On the other hand it’d be nice for wings/flying to not just be a strait upgrade you should always take, become a flyer and gain mobility but lose the use of cover.
While in Gliding mode it’s technically a Jump Monstrous Creature, so MC rules apply.
Vehicles aren’t on that list. Does that mean vehicles standing in terrain now get cover saves?
Looks like that to me. Toe in for Rhinos!
No, they already did not get that benefit.
The wording is as follows:
“Q: Do Flyers, Super-heavy vehicles, Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures gain cover while standing on the ‘base’ of a terrain piece, e.g. ruins or dense thickets, or do they need to be at least 25% obscured by the scenery for cover to apply? A: The 25% rule applies in all types of terrain if the target is a Flyer, Super-heavy Vehicle, Flying Monstrous Creature or Gargantuan Creature. All other targets count as being in cover if they are in or on the terrain’s base, even if not 25% obsured.”
The key part is:
“All other targets count as being in cover if they are in or on the terrain’s base, even if not 25% obscured.”
Note that they only specify Flyers/Superheavy vehicles, and FMCs/GCs above. NOT standard vehicles or standard MCs. I’m reading that as they’re actively overwriting the 25% restriction in vehicles in the BRB.
True, but vehicles have their own cover rules which I would argue are the more specific rules.
Wouldn’t the FAQ trump that? They mentioned super heavy vehicles don’t get it, and every other unit does… It seems pretty clear that they know vehicles are units and covered by that answer.
In my opinion it wouldn’t override, because the original question had nothing to do with non super vehicles (and was a poorly written question, which plagues this whole process something fierce). Context of an FAQs question is important or you get a lot of weird rulings
goodbye, tyranids!
Quantum Shielding just got hit so hard. It gets ignored completly by lance weapons. Which is way worse than “just” being reduced to 12.
Yeah, that was a weird one.
Yeah but not a ton of lance weapons out there anymore.
Nor very many Quantum units these days.
Well this ain’t gonna help with that 😉
I think we’ll see more as a result of the loss of massed grenadiers.
Psychic scream Auto hits now which is good for Steeler cult. But it is bad for flying tyrant if I understood what they were saying you are so hit with it now.
Yeah, we have to see if it works on flying models.
40K RULEBOOK
Page 27 – The Psychic Phase, Witchfire
Add the following sentence after the fourth sentence of the first paragraph:
‘However, some witchfire powers do not have a weapon profile (such as the Telepathy power, Psychic Shriek); where this is the case, no To Hit roll is required – the attack hits automatically.’
Q: Does a template weapon aimed at a unit at ground level but also touching a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature hit it? Does a blast marker that drifts onto a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature hit it?
A: No, in both cases. Template and Blast weapons and other attacks that don’t roll To Hit cannot hit Flying Monstrous Creatures that are Swooping.
Seems from both of these since it hits automatically, PS can’t be used against FMC/GMC period.
Novas automatically hit, and they hit both zooming flyers and swooping FMCs.
Novas explicitly say that they work on those unit types. There are always exceptions to any rule.
I looked that is up and I see what you’re getting at, but it seems like its added language not meant to be taken this way. I would like to see clarification on this on the actual flying monstrous creatures faq page.
It’s really good for my tetrad list when facing stormsurges.
I will just swoop around and shriek the surges down. Now I can jink without needing to snap shoot that shriek.
Will that work? I thought i recalled something about attacks that hit automatically not being usable while snapshooting. They also stopped vector striking while jinking so I feel like that would be consistent with that ruling.
You are correct- shooting attacks that do not roll to hit in the standard fashion (including blasts, templates, beams, and anything which hits automatically) cannot be Snapfired.
Do they still count as shooting attacks if they don’t have a profile?
Yep. The Witchfire section is pretty clear about that. All Witchfires are Shooting Attacks.
Zooming flyers can’t be hit my psychic shriek now. Only in hover mode.
the Hard to hit rule still states that any attack that automatically hits can not hit a swooping monstrous creature or zooming flyer
you mean the shots are resolved as snap fires and there for can’t be used against a FMC because you can’t snap fire such attacks, right? I’m 99% sure that’s what you mean, but want to clarify cause I got confused at first.
Skyfire templates and blast can shoot at Zooming Flyers and Swooping FMC. Heldrake got some new teeth.
Only one relic per model.
Garg can shoot all weapons. Finally cleared that up.
Yeah, those were nice clarifications.
Good thing we don’t have to use the new death from the skies rules for regular games as they took away Heldrake’s skyfire!
You do know that just like curse of the wulfen it actually says these rules replace those in their codex and the main rulebook right?
This is an update to flyers of all types period.
Still not sure the skyfire blast answer means what people think it means. It says that they can be targeted which is fine since it’s no longer snap firing but the specific rules for flyers says they cannot be hit by them. Their FAQ answer doesn’t say they can be hit by skyfire blasts just targeted.
I haven’t check out Death from the Skies, what happened to the Heldrake?
It’s now an Attack Flyer. Only Interceptors get to use Skyfire anymore.
I’m also glad they clarified how you have to declare all your targets for all your shots first on Gargantuans and Super Heavies.
Yeah, that one was super ambiguous.
I’m not sure but by this wording some vehicles mit not be able to pivot at all anymore. They tried to fix them getting additional movement out of it but the way it says it can not start closer or father away from any unit than exaclty how it moved it sounds like a lot of vehicles can only realy pivot in place now, especialy something as long as a Raider.
I’d say simply measure from the hull and then place the vehicle no further than that point facing any direction you desire. Nice and simple.
That makes way too much sense and took only one sentence to explain. They’ll never write that.
That still leaves pivoting along a single measuring point open for abuse (in a silly way as before but still). Their wording is actually necessary to stop that.
Fair play.
lol I was trying to think how I could possibly keep track of this and that makes perfect sense.
Did anyone else see this from the assault faq:
Q: Can a single model make a disordered charge against two or more enemy units?
A: Yes.
I guess that means big models like knights (of all types) can multi charge units if theyre close enough together? That’s ridiculous.
Yeah, that is a big one.
It is worth remembering, however, that you have to go into the nearest model in the unit, which will limit your ability to multicharge with big guys. So long as the units aren’t grouped close together, you will have a lot of trouble doing so.
Yeah, it is very hard to do unless the models are positioned just right.
I would say its basically impossible unless you’re charging a unit behind another. You have to move the shortest distance and you can’t spin your base once you’re in contact so you’d have to swivel around a target, make base, then stay in base as you moved the shortest distance. The practical effect of this would basically be that single model units don’t have to follow the closest to closest rule!
Is there anything prohibiting you from rotating your base? I’m not aware of anything specific that would.
A model with a big base can slide along a unit in front of it to reach a unit behind it and get both. It is hard to do though, as you noted.
Rotating your base would be extra movement. You’re required to take the shortest path.
EDIT: Its actually prohibited except under very extreme circumstances.
a) You must charge the closest model in the enemy unit.
b) You CAN’T touch a model in the secondary unit unless you can’t touch an unengaged model in the primary unit.
So it is possible IF all models in the primary target are engaged by models from another squad AND the secondary target lies in between you and the closest model in the primary target such that the shortest path to the primary target goes through the secondary target.
Previously, that was true. However, with the new FAQ you _explicitly_ are allowed to multicharge with a single model- and there are plenty of ways to do that by using the width of your base to do stuff. Typically it will involve the primary target being more distant or equidistant than the secondary target.
IMO the FAQ directly contradicts the rules for multi-charging.
If they want to add this ability to the game, it needs to be an errata that allows single models to ignore all the other rules for multi-charging.
Otherwise, the FAQ answer is technically true in the edge case described above (charging an enemy unit that is behind the secondary target and the closest model is already engaged) but practically useless.
It most certainly does, but many of the FAQ answers contradict existing rules- the only meaningful way to interpret the document is to assume that it supersedes the normal printed rules.
the better application of this rule is that you declare a multi-assault with the primary being 9″ away, and the secondary being 3″ away, where if you fail the charge for the primary you still get in assault with the secondary
Nope. If you can’t reach your Primary, it’s just a Failed Charge.
Actually, the whole thing contradicts the Multi-Charge Rules, which say that only Models who can’t make BtB with the Primary Target can go BtB with a Secondary Target.
Yes, well, that’s no surprise- GW’s “FAQs” are rules changes as often as not.
Wow – Interesting on the Skyfire ruling. Specific to Flyers and a no to Drop Pods… guess they’re dropping in too hot and heavy. makes sense against deepstriking units like terminators, tunneling Trygons and many other units for sure
they were talking about units with skyfire and interceptor being able to shoot non-flyers at full BS, with an example of a drop pod coming in from DS being used.
i don’t see anywhere you can’t otherwise normally interceptor fire at drop pods.
Ah i get it… It is nice to see GW take ownership of their rules!
I have to say I am quite (positively) surprised by how many of GW’s rulings lined up with ITC rulings.
Good stuff!
Yeah, us too! Many of the straight rules changes we made are in the FAQ, which is cool to see some alignment in philosophies. I wonder if they actually read the ITC FAQ? Doesn’t matter too much, honestly, just glad to see them answering some questions.
Some of them line up too much it would be odd if the hadn’t read your FAQ.
Well, no ego from our team. If it did influence them in some small way, awesome! If not, no big deal. What’s important is that we have answers.
Wow some huge changes, really looking forward to seeing the finalized FAQ now.
Graviton affecting void shields? Seems a bit wonky..
Psychic Shriek ignoring void shields? That hurts!
Oh and Psychic Shriek hitting automatically? Ouch! Automatically hitting FMCs!? Double ouch!
Only a single model being allowed to use a grenade in combat really sucks. Even half the unit would be fine, but a single model is major sadface.
Yeah, agreed, Ibushi. Only 1 grenade is brutal, makes some units go from awesome to bad just like that. We may have to look at that for the ITC as a vote question.
It makes Walkers happy though, haha.
I totally agree about Grav and the VSG, that is a bummer as I feel VSG stopping Grav helps the meta a lot.
Interesting enough going back and looking at the 7th rules it’s clear that it is 1 grenade per unit per phase! We all missed it I guess
Really? Not just in shooting but in assault, too? Wow if so, lol.
“shooting attacks or attacks in the Fight sub-phase, albeit to different effect. Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per phase”
Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Warhammer 40,000.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
yup pg 180…
Godddd…. I finally “get” why you guys always laughed at Wyches for not having Assault Grenades when they have Plasma… which it seems are better… lool
The argument had definitely just been made, I just think that it had been rejected by the community as a whole as not being what they thought it should be more having a particularly clear-cut RAW argument to make it stick. Obviously GW disagrees, though.
In the 7th Edition rules you can only “Throw” 1 per phase.
Grenades used in assault aren’t Thrown, they are “Clamped On”. Which is how we always played it. There was no restriction to how many grenades you could clamp on.
There was lots of discussion around this when 7th dropped, and the overwhelming consensus was that you could use multiple grenades in assault.
Here is the rule in question:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6wchi2Keyt2VS1GMTd2bzNtaHc/view?usp=sharing
I think this is an issue that warrants a vote in the ITC, personally.
Does this mean warp spiders are auto hit by pshriek and can’t jump away?
Good question. Are they being targeted, now? Will have to investigate further.
Psychic Shriek is still a shooting attack and still targets a unit. The fact that it does not roll to hit is irrelevant to the use of Flickerjump.
This whole thing could be called the psychic shriek buff edition. It’s almost silly how many of these questions concern it and all make it better.
lol
You know it’s true. I fully expect to find something about using Psychic Shriek to force your opponent to iron your laundry next.
The answer being “yes of course it can do that!” obviously.
That would actually be pretty useful! haha
“…Instead of inflicting damage, on a successful Manifestation of Psychic Shriek, you may force your Opponent to go get you a beer.”
Ahriman? 3 pshrieks per turn?!
I may be biased but I like the idea of Grav, Melta, Haywire affecting Void Shields normally. It still protects your army from some shots and it’s not a lot of points. As far as Grav being able to work, I did the math and 15 grav shots with re rolls for the 6 on average would knock off 3 void shields and nothing more. So maybe a few more wounds if you roll well. I think the VSG still does its job.
I feel a little sympathy for weaker armies that rely on the void shields, but I also see people protecting wraithknights, riptides, stormsurges, knights, etc in them and I’m happy the alpha strike is more viable.
I wonder if the “old formations no longer available” question applies to green tide?
Also grav working on VSG in addition to the “no one outside” addendum is a hefty nerf to it. Alpha strike lists can now grav cannon for days and not be too worried about shields.
This will be such a clusterfuck.
Exactly, that is my number 1 concern. Double Skyhammer, or Imperial Fists all Centurion armies will not have to worry about counters. That is problematic.
Daemons won’t mind.
Yeah, I think the real limiter on Grav will be the armies it simply isn’t good against- and Daemons are #1 on that list, though there are plenty of others as well. Void Shield helped armies that otherwise couldn’t mitigate it on their own, but it wasn’t a universal solution and its removal won’t be a universal problem.
Yeah, I’d wager you’ll still have people gun-shy about pure grav spam just because some armies give no shits about it at all.
Ya all hail our new cent star overlords! With the new powers, the conclave and stranding the assassin on foot that list looks to me to be back in full swing.
Yeah….ugh.
One thing to remember, though, is that you can no longer join a Battle Bro character to the Cents when they are in a Drop Pod- although typically it was a White Scars Libby with Hunter’s Eye, plenty of people used other things as well, which are no longer viable.
Who said anything about drop pods my cent star will ride in style on their flying skyshield landing pad! I am only half kidding here I feel with taking the fast assassin out of the game those all ready really good new powers are now insane. Getting your star around the table is now going to be child’s play. I am just concerned that death stars are really being helped in this FAQ more than I am comfortable with.
They are, and I agree. GW doesn’t seem to think people play that way, which is why I think some of these rulings are inadvertently buffing Deathstars.
They took out so many Battle Bro tricks but somehow the Star on the ground sitll works perfectly. Bikes turboboost even attached to units that can’t and my personal favorite:
Add a single model with a jetpack, walk it normal in the back and then have the whole Thunderbikestar use the jetpack rules during the charge. Wonderfull.
Yeah, that had my dying, lol, a single Jump Pack speeds up the entire unit. Follow my, boys, awaaaaaay!! haha
no more battle bros in the ITC 😛 ??
so, all stormsurges just made room for the velocity tracker, since skyfire template weapons can hit flyers now. Right?!
Lolololol
Honestly, they should’ve been before as well. FMCs are getting more and more common these days and having 50%+ of your army unable to shoot at them is a bad plan.
Worth noting that these are the FAQs just for the Rule Book, individual army/book FAQs are going to be put out in separate posts.
I wonder when that will be
another side note, the dark talon “space church” just became quite frightening for other flyers.
True! A lot of flyers got a lot better.
Why do you say that? What did I miss?
You can fire that S10 AP2 (or Str D, depending on how you roll) blast at an enemy flyer.
Humorously enough, you can also drop your Stasis Bomb on them.
We may have to wait and see if “Death from the Skies 2”, or whatever it’s called ends up being used as official part of the rules or just a “for fun addon”, since that might change things up.
might*
Except that Skies of Death made Dark Talon Attack Craft and only Fighters can have Skyfire now.
rip greyknights
rip eldar/ dark eldar alliance
rip drop pod skitrii
rip wulfen in landraider spearhead
rib culuxus assassin in drop pod
rip airborne imperium (imperial guard)
rip dedicated transports for grav centurions
rip blood angel motor pool
this is a green tide all over again…
Grey Knights are still just fine. At Storm of Silence, I think only one of the four(?) players with GK in their army would’ve been affected by the change.
Purifiers in Drop Pods, a great list, is gone, now =(
Yeah, that part is sad, but most GK units didn’t need the Pods. The fact that Purifiers did was kinda silly.
Yeah, troof. Wtf do Purifiers not deep strike, lol?
Well, you see, they are the most highly-trained of all Grey Knights and the most pure of spirit, therefore they have forgotten the most basic training for their order.
Lol
They’re are the most pure of spirit thus they would spontaneously combust if exposed to the warp via teleporting 😛
oh? i thought that grey knight’s only option of winning was the purfier drop pod spam. is there any other build that makes knights any good?
Pairing the Nemesis Strike Force up with other aggressive elements isn’t top-tier, but it can work reasonably well and can place fairly decently in 20-40 person tournaments. Skyhammer and Ravenwing are both good complements to GK, as are lots of other Imperial allies in various forms.
Sad to see purifiers in pods gone but worth it to see admech lose their taxis imo
Awww man… I can’t even put my new Deathwatch Marines in a drop pod or rhino… come on… I might have been the only person even using them… 🙁 doh!
Glad for the clarification on O’vessa. No, he can’t join up with any other ICs.
Yeah, that was good.
except it says you can join a monstrous ic to another unit. in the monstrous creatures FAQ. It’s not excactly a contradiction. you could join it to a unit that contains other ic’s but not to a unit that conatains only IC’s.
o’vessa and the wraith seer wait with baited breath
curious if that means that the flying hive tyrant can join and leave tyrant guard throughout the game now.
Join yes, but he can’t leave due to the tyrant guard’s rules
Infiltrate units, even deployed normally, can’t be joined by non-infiltrate IC’s, but’s no mention of the reverse.
Thank goodness no apoc formations in non-apoc games.
Does the relic/artefact thing apply to Tau Signature Systems?
unfortunately I think not. In the Tau codex under the commander HQ profile there is a bullet point that says: May take items from the Signature Systems list. yes items with an ‘s’ and under the signature systems it only says one per army as the limit. So the buffmander still exists. This FAQ is on the core rulebook and therefore wouldn’t supersede the codex. We’ll have to wait until the Tau faq comes out to see if they change that.
The only problem is there is no Artifact/Relic section in the core rule book. It’s clearly about someone’s codex, so it’s intended to supersede at least 2 codices.
I can see your point, but I’d still say because its ‘part’ or an addition to the core rules that the codex rules would supersede it. Otherwise all these faq/errata’s would supersede the codices? or are you saying only the ones that don’t have a current ‘section’ in the rulebook?
I think this one in particular was to clear up the argument about space marine characters being able to take one or more than one.
Woot, the Maleceptor just got a boost!
It no longer needs to roll to hit with it’s predetermined power. This changes makes the model almost playable…..almost.
lol, love the optimism!
LOL… uh probably not, but better than a kick in the shorts! Better than… say… our 1 semi-survivable unit losing area cover at all times.
So what are the (current) major hiccups/anomalies/straight bad FAQ rulings so far?
Currently;
FAQ – On grenades, could be instead Errata’d to allow all models (Is that too powerful?). It needlessly gibs infantry.
FAQ – Grav/VSG, contradiction to be corrected/addressed.
FAQ – Single model disordered charge. Shouldn’t this be nigh-on impossible? Unless the primary target is behind the secondary but within the models base “… Curious?
FAQ – Stomp.. to instead be Errata’d, if not to eliminate the issue then to mitigate it.
Also, I think is fine;
FAQ – Battle Brother transports; May upset lists but super-friend armies can get out of hand. The meta can adapt. And does is really just resolve around Assassins?
FAQ – Preferred Enemy + Gets Hot/Missed Blast Markers; Good, I did always feel -bad- doing that.
Not only is it great that they (GW) are trying to provide answers.. it is also that they are working out the questions too – which is a great step in acknowledging the various questions/issues/difficulties with RAW 40k. IMHO 🙂
It’s much easier to make units assault immune now, just make sure you occupy enough space on a level to deny wobbly model 🙁
But overall, nice job GW!
I thought that was the opposite of what it said- both in the rulebook and in the FAQ?
I guess it depends on how you read wobbly, does the unit have to be able to stay there for 1-2 sec? My imperssion is a knight can never charge a unit staying on the second floor unless the space is huge?
My understanding of it is that there has to be sufficient _space_ for the unit to get to the position, but you do not have to actually be able to balance the model there- so provided a building isn’t heavily enclosed or otherwise inaccessible a Knight can charge to the upper floors, but if you leave no room at all to assault onto something (which is actually surprisingly hard) it’s possible to deny charges.
wobbly on a knight is funny, you don’t have to have the base be flat[obviously, hence wobbly] so you can parck it on a crazy angle leaning on the building with a bit of base on the level and it’ll be fine…
not really the ruling I was hoping for though. you really shouldn’t be able to stop an assault by just having some guys in the way….that you are assaulting
or that the model could easily touch[a knight vs people on a second story] not get into combat
Wow, the one grenade per phase rule is in the BRB, clear as day. It’s even in bold font. How did we all miss it? I feel a little sheepish.
Look in the “Grenades of the 41st Millenium” section of the rules, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, bold font.
“Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per phase.”
It was the use of the word “thrown”. Meltabombs and such talk specifically about being clamped in place in CC in their description, not thrown.
I think people read “thrown” literally as a shooting attack. And I hear all models could use grenades in CC in 6th edition? Inertia.
Farther down that same page it states, “Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.”
It seems very clear that throwing grenades is not the same thing as using them in combat.
So Stormsurges can target flyers with blasts? The Skies book nonsense and then this?
The summer of never again seeing flyers.
Reece, Dark Eldar open topped transports making their passengers jink is devastating. DEVASTATING for that already dismal codex. What about having the ITC look at making this not a thing?
And I just picked up the IA11 book this week. Corsairs pay 25 points to give a unit Haywire grenades. There’s no possible way that rule was written with the intent of only allowing one WS4 grenade to shoot for a glance.
What would you suggest as a change to the passengers and jinking? Simply say everyone but dark Eldar? Even tho it’s sad to See a non top tier army get a nerf, I don’t see a viable way to correct it for them without it just ignoring or countering the new FAQ which is very clear in the wording and intent.
Does anyone besides DE and Crons even have access to Open Topped Transports (or even Transports with Fire Points) that can Jink?
Orks have one skimmer transport through FW, the Warkopta. SM have the Land Speeder Storm. Tau have all of their vehicles (since the Drones treat things as open-topped.)
However, the ruling also affects Jinking transports that aren’t open-topped, including stuff like Stormravens and Night Scythes and whatnot.
Didn’t even think about that but this means if you disembark after jinking you still snapfire right? If that is true Serpents just became at least bit less terrifiying if they fly Wraithguard with D Scythes at me.
Ooh, yeah, forgot that it could persist after they disembarked.
Harlequins do as well. But they usually only shoot a few pistols out of them now and then so they only sort of count.
I’d just throw out the whole ruling for any army that has open topped skimmers.
Yeah I agree. Dark Eldar desperately needed a buff, and now even their skimmers are poor. Not sure what the solution is here but they are as bad, if not worse than the chaos book now. Being hit by flame rankin transports, loosing most of your squad o s4 vehicle explosions and now the snap fire jink nerf makes them all but unplayable even in fluffy games.
Wouldn’t the thought of the grenades be that in hopes they make it past the first round of fighting they have another one to “throw”?
There are some real interesting changes:
No more War convocation and or Assassins in Drop pods
IC’s can now gain the benefit of formations Skyhammer/ dunestrider rules etc
No more immobilized Jink
Stomp out of Combat
Blasts now hit all levels in terrain.
Preferred enemy doesn’t let you re-roll gets hot anymore
Most of all I am happy that the actually let us see the draft version and asked for feedback before releasing it officially.
ICs can’t gain the benefit of formations/detachments they aren’t taken as a part of. The images got screwed up somehow and that page has the same answers as another one, the actual answers are written in the post for each pic on Facebook.
Anyone notice that the rules for IC’s casing the same psychic power in a unit in the Psychic Phase section completely contradict the ruling in the Independent Character section?
The pictures had lots of problems. They mixed up questions and answers on a few of them. Read the text description and it will be clear.
Okay, so with this FAQ my flyers lost all ability to gain area terrain saves unless 25% obscured, this means going back to the traditional ‘blob’ with venomthropes which mitigates actually giving the tyrant wings or just hoping that they miss their snap shots. With more skyfire being introduced I can’t see any FMC lasting too long T5 4+ and t6 3+ is not survivable anymore.
FMC’s jinking can’t vector strike!? That hurts. In a book that struggles to deal with armour, VS’ing was a great tool for us to get some damage in
Yeah Nids got rolled by those FAQs. I hope at the very least they fix it so that Gliding FMCs get area cover. Blobbing with Vthropes just doesn’t work, they’re way too easy to kill, then there goes all your shrouding. #1 problem with non FMC Nids is that the whole concept of “Synergy” doesn’t work when your “Synergy” just involves everything on the table depending on a handful of easy to kill models to survive. The game has evolved way beyond T6 3+ saves being hard to kill, while Nids are still stuck in 5e. Just my 2 cents.
Fifth ed? Nids never really even made it into 5th 🙁
So buffmander is dead?
no… It clearly states “relics”, not “signature systems” completely different. Plus Tau codex specifically states they can take more than 1
Question for Reece.
So obviously there are some FAQs that are different from how ITC has ruled. In these circumstances are you defaulting to official GW ruling or will you be leaving the ITC as is since it’s basically player decided?
Welp I just realized an unfortunate side effect of no Bb Transports.
Blitz Brigade no longer works, as well as the Vendetta formation for Astra Militarum.
But to everyone complaining about Open Topped Skimmers and Jinking/passenger shooting, you should be rejoicing in the fact that they now get a ‘toe in cover’ save
I don’t believe the intent is for formations of vehicles to be unusable by the same army.
As in guard are not ally with themselves. They are from the same codex or supplement for the same codex.
Yeah, your own faction is not a Battle Brother, it is identical. (Certain codices, namely Tau and SM, can _treat_ some kinds of detachments as Battle Brothers, but that’s a more specialized case.)
Otherwise, by that rationale NO model would be able to embark on a transport at the start of the game, since you would always be Battle Brothers with yourself.
Not true, tyranids are battle brothers with tyranids. CSM is battle brothers with CSM. etc… It is very clear that such is the intent of the BRB under the allies matrix.
The allies matrix is specifically labeled to be used for different factions.
It needs clarifying in the faq but I think the intent is for armies made using the same codex or supplement of that codex to be the same army whereas armies comprised of different codex detachments to use the allies chart. This solves issues regarding formations comprised entirely of transports being unusable by the same codex.
Yes this will allow things like iron hands transports with ultramarine tac squads however that type of scenario is already limited by the chapter tactic rules in that book.
So you believe that the intention of the ruling was to disallow all models from beginning the game embarked on a transport, then?
BB can still use transports…. Just not deploy in them.
Take that tactical marines! No longer throwing 10 krak grenades at my poor killa kans!
So what are you nid-players gonna do with your plastic monsters? Im thinking of melting them to a pile, painting ut brown and sendig it back to Nottingham.
How is this a change from how they treated them for the last five years?
I confused how are nids worse off?
Transport jinking doesn’t bother them.
Grenades in assault helps them a lot.
Disorderly charges with single model should help them occasionally.
Fmc can’t be hit by blasts even scatters helps them.
Psychic shriek improves them
Nova, beans etc can’t target fmc
Compared to most other armies they are ok
FMC’s lost toe in cover and jink vector strike, they were just scraping by in competitive with that, without it they are in a new level of struggle.
Also compared to the fact everyone else got brought down a notch. Nids comparatively are better off.
No grenades, no jinking transported units, no be transports, the Psychic ML change drastically reduces conclave and demons. The multiple weapons that no longer hurt fmc. On tables like ITC with good cover 25-% cover isn’t that hard.nids are ok.
We still have codex rule changes that I am sure will nerf other armies more. These rule faqs are very conservative.
No, with the grav change alone Space marines went up a notch. The one counter to a grav alpha strike (Void shield generator) is in the dumpster. Meanwhile Tyranids, Dark Eldar and Guard got straight nerfs. The strong got stronger and the weak weaker.
Not all FMCs, really just Flyrants. Daemon FMCs will be fine, IMO.
Fmc lose toe in cover but not mc.
Yet they deep strike now and still have 25% obscure rule.
Nids will be fine.
I think you underestimate how important area cover was to Nid’s 1 survivable unit, and really the biggest problem is not having area cover when gliding. Top competitive Nid lists involve 4-5 Flyrants, you can’t DS all of them, the rest of your army will get blown off the table. Not getting area cover while in glide feels like an oversight that, if corrected, could help. But especially Turn 5 when Flyrants have to start landing to grab objectives the lack of area cover would be a severe problem.
Oh and limiting mobility of our only mobile unit – by forcing them to find obscuring cover – is a much bigger tactical blow than you think as well. It’s a game of inches, and Nids lost as much as anyone in this.
Shriek will autohit fmc
No Vector Jinking is a minor thing; no toe in cover is bigger, but still not critical- the Flyrant model is actually relatively small, so getting obscurement is pretty doable.
Bel Akor is small, a flyrant correctly modeled aint 😉
Actually since you can’t target wings, weapons, tails, horns, or the carapace vent stack things, it is actually pretty easy to get obscurement on… basically anything that isn’t honkin’ huge like a Wraithknight.
Because you can’t target the tail, it doesn’t count for being Obscured, either, so you need something fairly tall to provide cover for a Flyrant that’s actually using the “Flyrant” pose for the current Model.
Nova do hit fmc, it specifically said so. How do they get buffed by psychic shriek?
You can use it now without a profile. Maleceptor and genecult thanks you
Sorry but the change to profile-less whitchfire powers does not make the Maleceptor usable.
Not Psychic Shriek, but the not that witchfire powers without a weapon profile don’t roll to hit, and instead follow the alternate rules given in the powers. Maleceptors, Neurothropes, and Genestealer Patriarchs all benefit from this.
Novas hit fliers because they are given permission too. According to this FAQ, anything that doesn’t roll to hit can’t hit a swooping FMC. Since they also ruled that Psychic Shriek hits automatically it can no longer target swooping FMCs.
Shriek certainly does NOT improve them. ya they auto hit now vs on a 3+, obviously better. In return, now instead of needing a 6 to hit them due to flying, you auto hit. This is a devestating blow to nids and all FMC. I play eldar, i find scat bikes worthless vs flyrants (hitting on 6s, wounding on 4s, than not even forcing a jink they get 3+ and usually FNP with spells up). Now i can take a double farseer and have a good chance of atleast wiping out 1 per turn from the spell when before i wouldnt even consider casting it.
Good gravy, this FAQ nerfs Dark Eldar hard. Completely uncalled-for.
And Space Marines got better? Grav was already the best weapon in the game (especially with the new psychic powers) and now it’s buffed? Are you kidding me? The strong got stronger and the weak got weaker for sure.
And I actually like 90% of this FAQ. The other 10% though really hurts competitive play.
Well, we can take a good look at the final draft and decide how to work with it.
I do like most of this stuff though.
Hopefully the ITC keeps things it outright voted for (keeping stomps in pants-range, etc) barring the community asking for go-go gadget stomp legs way over there.
A Knight with spring-legs would be awesome though.
GW butchered the rules originally, just because they put up an FAQ shouldnt invalidate things that were voted on or that work, and VSG not being damaged by grav works. (especailly now with the shields reduced effectiveness with the full unit needing to be inside the bubble)
zyekian – I agree, I feel like DE and Nids took the biggest hit in this. Significant nerfs to open top transports and FMC’s… hmmm.
All of the good Harlequin psychic powers no longer need to roll to hit with a BS4 Shadowseer, that’s good stuff.
So a unit with mixed factions counts as all factions present. This seem to mean that a space marine unit with an Astra militarum character stuck to it can recieve orders. Since it counts as both an Astra militarum and a Space marine unit.