GW Releases an FAQ Rough Draft

FAQ

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.

Tags:

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

400 Responses to “GW Releases an FAQ Rough Draft”

  1. westrider May 4, 2016 12:08 pm #

    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.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 12:32 pm #

      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.

      • Nathan Fluger May 4, 2016 12:58 pm #

        Stomps effecting units outside of combat is different certainly…

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 1:55 pm #

          That is actually RAW now, there was no need to FAQ it. We made a rules change for that one, already.

          • Nathan Fluger May 4, 2016 1:57 pm
            #

            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.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 1:59 pm
            #

            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.

      • westrider May 4, 2016 1:08 pm #

        “In many cases” was perhaps an overstatement, but there are definitely some that are going to shake up the ITC environment big time.

  2. Mirthless May 4, 2016 12:11 pm #

    Man… Battle Brothers can no longer deploy on allied transports.

    RIP Culuxus droppod shenanigans.

    • bogalubov May 4, 2016 12:17 pm #

      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.

      • Reecius
        Reecius May 4, 2016 12:34 pm #

        Yeah, I do that most of the time now, anyway. Stinks for Drop Pods, though.

      • mansam May 4, 2016 1:30 pm #

        Can’t even do that! His aura won’t interact with the battlefield from inside the transport according to the draft FAQ.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 12:33 pm #

      That one has very big implications, both good and bad.

      • Adam
        Adam (TheDiceAbide.com) May 4, 2016 1:10 pm #

        Oh man, no more Blood Angels taxi service, sorry Admech!

        • White925 May 4, 2016 3:51 pm #

          Yup. Sad day for Blood Angels

          • Nightman May 4, 2016 5:29 pm
            #

            Actually it does not affect BA much, we just got pulled off bitch duty :p

      • Sean May 4, 2016 1:34 pm #

        Couldn’t you guys just rule to ignore that stipulation? It feels counter intuitive and is a pretty integral part of many armies.

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 1:55 pm #

          It’s a possibility.

        • tag8833 May 4, 2016 2:40 pm #

          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.

        • PrimoFederalist May 4, 2016 6:05 pm #

          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.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 6:18 pm
            #

            Too bad these changes don’t effect Deathstars at all.

          • Chosen of Khorne May 4, 2016 6:51 pm
            #

            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.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 7:49 pm
            #

            Let’s hope so.

          • Blight1 May 4, 2016 8:46 pm
            #

            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.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 9:10 pm
            #

            Right? But it so is! haha

          • Kartr_Kana May 4, 2016 11:29 pm
            #

            They must have forgotten that Deathwatch formation they put out last month 😛

          • fleetofclaw May 4, 2016 11:34 pm
            #

            LOL exactly, Blight1, I laughed so hard when the GW guy said “ludicrously improbable unit.”

    • DirtyDeeds May 4, 2016 5:17 pm #

      Don’t forget the skitarii too.

  3. Axis of Entropy May 4, 2016 12:13 pm #

    Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?

    A: No.

    lol

    • WrenthFaceless May 4, 2016 12:14 pm #

      This right here, the most game breaking thing in the FAQ

      • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 5:02 pm #

        “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.

        • lessthanjeff May 4, 2016 5:43 pm #

          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.

          • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 6:18 pm
            #

            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.

        • WrentheFaceless May 4, 2016 9:01 pm #

          Point me to some Ad Mech transports for 40k then =p

          • Blightstar May 4, 2016 10:24 pm
            #

            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.

    • Vercingatorix May 4, 2016 12:15 pm #

      I love the single word answers. “No, why would they be able to? Thats crazy!”

      • DeeJay May 4, 2016 12:19 pm #

        Just to break tons of lists.

      • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 5:03 pm #

        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.”

    • T6Ted May 4, 2016 12:34 pm #

      Bye bye Ad mech War convo as we knew it. Back to the drawing board.

      • Reecius
        Reecius May 4, 2016 12:38 pm #

        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 =(

        • T6Ted May 4, 2016 12:46 pm #

          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.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 12:48 pm
            #

            All foot with double Knights has been doing very well in the War Convo

  4. Ryantsg May 4, 2016 12:16 pm #

    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!

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 12:34 pm #

      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.

      • Vercingatorix May 4, 2016 12:47 pm #

        Have they contacted you at all? Considering they could save themselves a boat load of trouble by just taking the ITC rulings.

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 12:49 pm #

          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.

          • Nurglitch May 5, 2016 8:33 am
            #

            If it’s a draft, why not contribute before the final draft sets it in stone?

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 5, 2016 9:45 am
            #

            Yeah, we can jump in and contribute!

    • Nalathani May 5, 2016 7:17 pm #

      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.

      • Diceskill May 5, 2016 11:32 pm #

        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.

    • Nick Wenker May 8, 2016 8:37 am #

      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!

  5. DeeJay May 4, 2016 12:17 pm #

    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.

    • bogalubov May 4, 2016 12:31 pm #

      MCs and walkers no longer soil their knickers while faced with tank bustas.

      • Nathan Fluger May 4, 2016 1:00 pm #

        Yeah, that was a MAJOR shift IMO.

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 1:56 pm #

          And for the worse, IMO. It makes it incredibly difficult for infantry to fight Vehicles, Walkers and MCs which to me, is a negative.

          • Anenemy May 4, 2016 2:59 pm
            #

            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.

          • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 5:08 pm
            #

            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.)

          • Hiveminded May 4, 2016 5:09 pm
            #

            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.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 5:56 pm
            #

            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.

          • Lysere May 4, 2016 5:57 pm
            #

            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.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 6:18 pm
            #

            Ahhh, that is the confusion! Haha

          • nathan May 4, 2016 7:34 pm
            #

            yeah, if only walkers were survivable with massed S6 and grav out there, we might actually see them.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 7:51 pm
            #

            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.

          • Oddish.043 May 5, 2016 9:53 am
            #

            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..

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 5, 2016 9:57 am
            #

            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.

      • tag8833 May 4, 2016 2:42 pm #

        It feels like they should. They aren’t called Tank-sometimes-do-one-hull-pointers. Tankbustas should be able to crack tanks.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 12:35 pm #

      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.

      • bogalubov May 4, 2016 12:37 pm #

        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”.

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 12:38 pm #

          Lol, right? There are a lot of contradictions in that document.

        • Hotsauceman May 4, 2016 8:06 pm #

          IMO I think that is for when other abilities take effect. such as an bility that forces you to re-roll the armor penetration.

      • tag8833 May 4, 2016 2:47 pm #

        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.

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 2:53 pm #

          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.

          • CWDub May 4, 2016 8:03 pm
            #

            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.

          • punchymango May 4, 2016 10:15 pm
            #

            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.

          • westrider May 4, 2016 10:31 pm
            #

            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.

          • abusepuppy May 6, 2016 1:10 am
            #

            >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.

        • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 5:10 pm #

          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?

          • Brother Cart May 4, 2016 5:30 pm
            #

            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

          • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 6:22 pm
            #

            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.

          • Brother Cart May 4, 2016 6:34 pm
            #

            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.

          • Elwrath May 5, 2016 11:10 pm
            #

            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

          • abusepuppy May 6, 2016 1:11 am
            #

            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.

    • fleetofclaw May 4, 2016 11:38 pm #

      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.

      • White925 May 5, 2016 4:01 pm #

        Yeah that one was a little odd. Shouldn’t have an effect on them if they are gliding.

  6. Axis of Entropy May 4, 2016 12:29 pm #

    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.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 12:40 pm #

      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.

      • Vercingatorix May 4, 2016 12:49 pm #

        It’s just rolling around the table like a dog scratching its back.

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 1:00 pm #

          lol!

          • ehegner May 5, 2016 8:08 am
            #

            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!

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 5, 2016 9:48 am
            #

            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).

          • Blight1 May 5, 2016 8:20 am
            #

            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.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 5, 2016 9:47 am
            #

            Mawlocs leaping through all levels of a building, blargh!!!! haha

          • Sanchezsam2 May 5, 2016 10:11 am
            #

            I’d like a revote on the blasts not hitting all floors in ITC. I agree with thier reasoning of simplification.

      • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 5:11 pm #

        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.

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 5:56 pm #

          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.

          • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 6:22 pm
            #

            Yeah, although that problem is not specific to Stomps- all blast weapons can do that already.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 6:39 pm
            #

            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.

          • Pascalnz May 5, 2016 4:21 am
            #

            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

      • donthemagnificent May 5, 2016 7:31 am #

        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.

  7. Horton May 4, 2016 12:37 pm #

    Overall I think these are pretty good. We will see what the final looks like.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 12:40 pm #

      Yeah, I like most of them, personally.

  8. winterman May 4, 2016 12:42 pm #

    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.

    • AngryPanda May 4, 2016 12:48 pm #

      Did they include height levels again or can bikes still dribe up and down walls like they are Ghost Rider?

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 1:01 pm #

      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.

      • Happy_Inquisitor May 4, 2016 1:32 pm #

        Can I shoot through walls too – or is this just a little extra help for those poor struggling assault deathstars that never win anything?

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 1:54 pm #

          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.

          • Happy_Inquisitor May 4, 2016 2:09 pm
            #

            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.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 2:23 pm
            #

            Perhaps a mix of impassible and permeable walls? That could be fun. You just don’t want to screw over infantry too badly.

          • zenist May 5, 2016 8:32 am
            #

            Walls with holes/windows/doors = permeable
            Walls without holes/windows/doors = no koolaid for u

          • westrider May 5, 2016 1:08 pm
            #

            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.

        • Karaghul May 4, 2016 1:57 pm #

          Edgy.

          The post you reply to clearly states “for ease of tournament play”, but hey, let’s have a jab at it anyway.

        • AngryPanda May 4, 2016 1:58 pm #

          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.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 2:01 pm
            #

            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.

          • White925 May 4, 2016 4:04 pm
            #

            Vehicles wouldn’t be able to go through them either.

          • zenist May 5, 2016 8:32 am
            #

            completely agree

      • FM May 5, 2016 1:11 am #

        Cloverslaves are rolling over in the grave. Moving thru walls is absurd (IMO), maybe wraiths because they ‘phase”.

    • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 5:12 pm #

      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.

      • fleetofclaw May 4, 2016 11:41 pm #

        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.

        • westrider May 5, 2016 1:10 pm #

          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.

    • N.I.B. May 9, 2016 2:47 am #

      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!

  9. ryan bridges May 4, 2016 12:42 pm #

    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.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 1:02 pm #

      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.

      • ryan bridges May 4, 2016 1:10 pm #

        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)

      • westrider May 4, 2016 1:11 pm #

        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 😉

        • ryan bridges May 4, 2016 1:27 pm #

          me neither hahahah

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 2:11 pm #

          Makes me sad for poor Tank Bustas =( That was what made them good.

      • T6Ted May 4, 2016 6:06 pm #

        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

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 6:18 pm #

          Yeah, doesn’t really make sense.

        • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 6:24 pm #

          1pt each? Oh man, only in my dreams- they pay double that for the privilege of a weapon they’ll never use.

        • Thomas May 4, 2016 9:55 pm #

          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!

      • Galahad911 May 5, 2016 4:01 pm #

        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.

  10. Kwodd May 4, 2016 12:48 pm #

    Thanks Reece!

  11. HotSauceMan May 4, 2016 12:57 pm #

    I have yet too see a single part of this I hate. Keep up the good work GW

  12. Nathan Fluger May 4, 2016 1:03 pm #

    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.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 1:05 pm #

      lololol!

    • AngryPanda May 4, 2016 1:24 pm #

      Both of these things are so very true.

    • White925 May 4, 2016 4:06 pm #

      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.

      • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 5:14 pm #

        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.

      • Nightman May 4, 2016 5:43 pm #

        It’s under double penetration, page 69.

        • Jason
          Jason May 5, 2016 2:32 pm #

          Oh there’s DP in there?

          • abusepuppy May 5, 2016 4:02 pm
            #

            Daemon Princes are listed in the codices, not in the base rulebook.

    • DeeJay May 4, 2016 5:23 pm #

      But I want to field an army of bastions! It would be so cool…..

      Wait? There is a game involved?

      • abusepuppy May 5, 2016 7:15 am #

        An army of fortifications is what is know as a “city” and it’s what you fight _over_, not fight _with_.

  13. Frozocrone May 4, 2016 1:06 pm #

    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…

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 1:09 pm #

      Yeah, a lot of the rules “changes” we made in the ITC are actually reflected in the GW FAQ, which is cool.

      • ryan bridges May 4, 2016 1:12 pm #

        From what i hear (could be rumor mongers) but that is no coincidence.

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 1:14 pm #

          Hey, that would be rad! We’d be stoked to hear that we helped the overall community in some way.

  14. Charlie May 4, 2016 1:09 pm #

    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

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 1:16 pm #

      Yeah, GMCs and FMCs lost “Toe in Cover”. I actually agree with that ruling and the GMC ruling we already have in the ITC.

      • Charlie May 4, 2016 1:20 pm #

        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.

      • Nathan Fluger May 4, 2016 1:48 pm #

        Interesting that MCs lost it too.

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 1:57 pm #

          Did they? They seemed to only specify FMCs.

          • fluger May 4, 2016 2:24 pm
            #

            Oh, you’re right.

          • DeeJay May 4, 2016 5:25 pm
            #

            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…

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 5:54 pm
            #

            I know, right? The language indicates that FMCs never get toe in cover saves.

          • Yeeman May 4, 2016 7:31 pm
            #

            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.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 7:50 pm
            #

            Right, I was saying I agree I could see it being better if it only worked when they were flying.

          • fleetofclaw May 4, 2016 11:48 pm
            #

            Really? FMCs lose area cover, regardless of flight mode is no problem? RIP Nids.

      • Nightman May 4, 2016 5:47 pm #

        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.

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 5:53 pm #

          Yeah, I could see it while Swooping only, true.

          • Ytook May 5, 2016 5:23 am
            #

            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.

        • Nurglitch May 5, 2016 8:43 am #

          While in Gliding mode it’s technically a Jump Monstrous Creature, so MC rules apply.

    • Axis of Entropy May 4, 2016 2:40 pm #

      Vehicles aren’t on that list. Does that mean vehicles standing in terrain now get cover saves?

      • tag8833 May 4, 2016 2:51 pm #

        Looks like that to me. Toe in for Rhinos!

      • Reecius
        Reecius May 4, 2016 2:52 pm #

        No, they already did not get that benefit.

        • ClutterEater May 4, 2016 3:45 pm #

          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.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 4:21 pm
            #

            True, but vehicles have their own cover rules which I would argue are the more specific rules.

          • Adam
            Adam (TheDiceAbide.com) May 5, 2016 4:40 pm
            #

            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.

          • winterman May 6, 2016 10:41 am
            #

            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

    • nathan May 4, 2016 7:39 pm #

      goodbye, tyranids!

  15. AngryPanda May 4, 2016 1:41 pm #

    Quantum Shielding just got hit so hard. It gets ignored completly by lance weapons. Which is way worse than “just” being reduced to 12.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 2:03 pm #

      Yeah, that was a weird one.

    • White925 May 4, 2016 4:08 pm #

      Yeah but not a ton of lance weapons out there anymore.

      • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 5:15 pm #

        Nor very many Quantum units these days.

        • AngryPanda May 5, 2016 5:29 am #

          Well this ain’t gonna help with that 😉

      • Nurglitch May 5, 2016 8:44 am #

        I think we’ll see more as a result of the loss of massed grenadiers.

  16. Chancy May 4, 2016 1:43 pm #

    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.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 2:10 pm #

      Yeah, we have to see if it works on flying models.

      • drice May 4, 2016 3:03 pm #

        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.

        • drice May 4, 2016 3:07 pm #

          Seems from both of these since it hits automatically, PS can’t be used against FMC/GMC period.

          • Nurglitch May 5, 2016 9:21 am
            #

            Novas automatically hit, and they hit both zooming flyers and swooping FMCs.

          • abusepuppy May 5, 2016 4:03 pm
            #

            Novas explicitly say that they work on those unit types. There are always exceptions to any rule.

        • Elwrath May 5, 2016 11:23 pm #

          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.

    • DeeJay May 4, 2016 5:27 pm #

      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.

      • lessthanjeff May 4, 2016 6:02 pm #

        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.

        • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 6:26 pm #

          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.

          • Nurglitch May 5, 2016 8:46 am
            #

            Do they still count as shooting attacks if they don’t have a profile?

          • westrider May 5, 2016 1:12 pm
            #

            Yep. The Witchfire section is pretty clear about that. All Witchfires are Shooting Attacks.

    • HammerheadGames
      Dayone916 May 4, 2016 9:53 pm #

      Zooming flyers can’t be hit my psychic shriek now. Only in hover mode.

    • donthemagnificent May 5, 2016 7:42 am #

      the Hard to hit rule still states that any attack that automatically hits can not hit a swooping monstrous creature or zooming flyer

      • Elwrath May 5, 2016 11:32 pm #

        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.

  17. Thomas May 4, 2016 1:44 pm #

    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.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 2:03 pm #

      Yeah, those were nice clarifications.

    • TheSuaveLion May 5, 2016 12:28 am #

      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!

      • Blight1 May 5, 2016 8:52 am #

        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.

      • Thomas May 5, 2016 9:23 am #

        I haven’t check out Death from the Skies, what happened to the Heldrake?

        • westrider May 5, 2016 10:12 pm #

          It’s now an Attack Flyer. Only Interceptors get to use Skyfire anymore.

  18. Nathan Fluger May 4, 2016 1:50 pm #

    I’m also glad they clarified how you have to declare all your targets for all your shots first on Gargantuans and Super Heavies.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 2:02 pm #

      Yeah, that one was super ambiguous.

  19. AngryPanda May 4, 2016 1:50 pm #

    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.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 2:02 pm #

      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.

      • AngryPanda May 4, 2016 2:53 pm #

        That makes way too much sense and took only one sentence to explain. They’ll never write that.

      • Ytook May 4, 2016 3:40 pm #

        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.

      • EvilCheesypoof May 5, 2016 1:10 am #

        lol I was trying to think how I could possibly keep track of this and that makes perfect sense.

  20. Lockinfinity May 4, 2016 1:55 pm #

    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.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 1:58 pm #

      Yeah, that is a big one.

    • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 5:17 pm #

      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.

      • Reecius
        Reecius May 4, 2016 5:54 pm #

        Yeah, it is very hard to do unless the models are positioned just right.

        • Vercingatorix May 5, 2016 6:38 am #

          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!

          • abusepuppy May 5, 2016 7:17 am
            #

            Is there anything prohibiting you from rotating your base? I’m not aware of anything specific that would.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 5, 2016 9:52 am
            #

            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.

          • Trasvi May 5, 2016 5:23 pm
            #

            Rotating your base would be extra movement. You’re required to take the shortest path.

          • Trasvi May 5, 2016 5:28 pm
            #

            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.

          • abusepuppy May 5, 2016 6:48 pm
            #

            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.

          • Trasvi May 5, 2016 11:31 pm
            #

            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.

          • abusepuppy May 6, 2016 1:15 am
            #

            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.

    • Joshua Taylor May 5, 2016 9:58 am #

      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

      • westrider May 5, 2016 1:16 pm #

        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.

        • abusepuppy May 5, 2016 6:49 pm #

          Yes, well, that’s no surprise- GW’s “FAQs” are rules changes as often as not.

  21. gvcolor May 4, 2016 2:00 pm #

    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

    • nathan May 4, 2016 7:43 pm #

      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.

      • gvcolor May 5, 2016 7:21 am #

        Ah i get it… It is nice to see GW take ownership of their rules!

  22. Karaghul May 4, 2016 2:01 pm #

    I have to say I am quite (positively) surprised by how many of GW’s rulings lined up with ITC rulings.
    Good stuff!

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 2:06 pm #

      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.

      • tag8833 May 4, 2016 9:14 pm #

        Some of them line up too much it would be odd if the hadn’t read your FAQ.

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 9:26 pm #

          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.

  23. Ibushi May 4, 2016 2:03 pm #

    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.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 2:07 pm #

      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.

      • Ryantsg May 4, 2016 2:14 pm #

        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

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 2:28 pm #

          Really? Not just in shooting but in assault, too? Wow if so, lol.

          • Ryantsg May 4, 2016 3:13 pm
            #

            “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.

          • gvcolor May 4, 2016 3:50 pm
            #

            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

        • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 5:19 pm #

          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.

        • tag8833 May 4, 2016 9:16 pm #

          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.

    • ryan bridges May 4, 2016 2:08 pm #

      Does this mean warp spiders are auto hit by pshriek and can’t jump away?

      • Reecius
        Reecius May 4, 2016 2:18 pm #

        Good question. Are they being targeted, now? Will have to investigate further.

      • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 6:27 pm #

        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.

    • AngryPanda May 4, 2016 2:19 pm #

      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.

      • Reecius
        Reecius May 4, 2016 2:25 pm #

        lol

        • AngryPanda May 4, 2016 2:39 pm #

          You know it’s true. I fully expect to find something about using Psychic Shriek to force your opponent to iron your laundry next.

          • AngryPanda May 4, 2016 2:39 pm
            #

            The answer being “yes of course it can do that!” obviously.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 2:52 pm
            #

            That would actually be pretty useful! haha

          • westrider May 5, 2016 1:17 pm
            #

            “…Instead of inflicting damage, on a successful Manifestation of Psychic Shriek, you may force your Opponent to go get you a beer.”

          • ryan bridges May 5, 2016 8:45 pm
            #

            Ahriman? 3 pshrieks per turn?!

    • EvilCheesypoof May 5, 2016 1:19 am #

      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.

  24. Mike May 4, 2016 2:53 pm #

    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.

    • AngryPanda May 4, 2016 3:05 pm #

      This will be such a clusterfuck.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 4:23 pm #

      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.

      • Horton May 4, 2016 5:01 pm #

        Daemons won’t mind.

        • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 5:20 pm #

          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.

          • punchymango May 4, 2016 10:21 pm
            #

            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.

      • Mythic May 4, 2016 5:18 pm #

        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.

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 4, 2016 5:51 pm #

          Yeah….ugh.

        • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 6:29 pm #

          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.

          • Mythic May 5, 2016 7:10 am
            #

            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.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 5, 2016 9:51 am
            #

            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.

  25. AngryPanda May 4, 2016 2:55 pm #

    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.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 4:24 pm #

      Yeah, that had my dying, lol, a single Jump Pack speeds up the entire unit. Follow my, boys, awaaaaaay!! haha

      • Elwrath May 5, 2016 11:41 pm #

        no more battle bros in the ITC 😛 ??

  26. Donthemagnificent May 4, 2016 3:25 pm #

    so, all stormsurges just made room for the velocity tracker, since skyfire template weapons can hit flyers now. Right?!

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 4:22 pm #

      Lolololol

    • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 5:22 pm #

      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.

  27. Ytook May 4, 2016 3:38 pm #

    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.

    • ehegner May 5, 2016 9:15 am #

      I wonder when that will be

  28. Donthemagnificent May 4, 2016 3:48 pm #

    another side note, the dark talon “space church” just became quite frightening for other flyers.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 4:16 pm #

      True! A lot of flyers got a lot better.

    • Boski51 May 4, 2016 5:53 pm #

      Why do you say that? What did I miss?

      • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 6:30 pm #

        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.

    • Karaghul May 5, 2016 12:57 am #

      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.

      • Karaghul May 5, 2016 12:58 am #

        might*

    • Blightstar May 5, 2016 8:53 am #

      Except that Skies of Death made Dark Talon Attack Craft and only Fighters can have Skyfire now.

  29. omega May 4, 2016 4:48 pm #

    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…

    • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 5:23 pm #

      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.

      • Reecius
        Reecius May 4, 2016 5:52 pm #

        Purifiers in Drop Pods, a great list, is gone, now =(

        • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 6:30 pm #

          Yeah, that part is sad, but most GK units didn’t need the Pods. The fact that Purifiers did was kinda silly.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 6:40 pm
            #

            Yeah, troof. Wtf do Purifiers not deep strike, lol?

          • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 6:52 pm
            #

            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.

          • Reecius
            Reecius May 4, 2016 7:49 pm
            #

            Lol

          • Kartr_Kana May 4, 2016 11:59 pm
            #

            They’re are the most pure of spirit thus they would spontaneously combust if exposed to the warp via teleporting 😛

          • omega May 5, 2016 1:31 am
            #

            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?

          • abusepuppy May 5, 2016 7:19 am
            #

            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.

        • HammerheadGames
          Dayone916 May 4, 2016 10:03 pm #

          Sad to see purifiers in pods gone but worth it to see admech lose their taxis imo

        • xthexclincherx May 5, 2016 12:15 pm #

          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!

  30. Dakkath May 4, 2016 4:49 pm #

    Glad for the clarification on O’vessa. No, he can’t join up with any other ICs.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 5:02 pm #

      Yeah, that was good.

      • Pascalnz May 5, 2016 4:32 am #

        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

    • donthemagnificent May 5, 2016 8:04 am #

      curious if that means that the flying hive tyrant can join and leave tyrant guard throughout the game now.

      • Dakkath May 6, 2016 6:35 am #

        Join yes, but he can’t leave due to the tyrant guard’s rules

  31. Dakkath May 4, 2016 5:15 pm #

    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?

    • Elwrath May 5, 2016 11:47 pm #

      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.

      • Lex May 6, 2016 6:20 am #

        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.

        • Elwrath May 6, 2016 2:10 pm #

          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.

  32. Hiveminded May 4, 2016 5:16 pm #

    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.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 4, 2016 5:54 pm #

      lol, love the optimism!

    • fleetofclaw May 4, 2016 11:53 pm #

      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.

  33. Razerous May 4, 2016 5:21 pm #

    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 🙂

  34. Nightman May 4, 2016 6:03 pm #

    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!

    • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 6:31 pm #

      I thought that was the opposite of what it said- both in the rulebook and in the FAQ?

      • Nightman May 4, 2016 6:36 pm #

        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?

        • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 6:51 pm #

          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.

          • Pascalnz May 5, 2016 4:35 am
            #

            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

  35. Hiveminded May 4, 2016 7:33 pm #

    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.”

    • westrider May 4, 2016 8:02 pm #

      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.

    • Axis of Entropy May 4, 2016 8:04 pm #

      I think people read “thrown” literally as a shooting attack. And I hear all models could use grenades in CC in 6th edition? Inertia.

    • Turok117 May 4, 2016 9:23 pm #

      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.

  36. C-Stock May 4, 2016 8:02 pm #

    So Stormsurges can target flyers with blasts? The Skies book nonsense and then this?

    The summer of never again seeing flyers.

  37. C-Stock May 4, 2016 8:05 pm #

    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.

    • HammerheadGames
      Dayone916 May 4, 2016 10:09 pm #

      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.

      • westrider May 4, 2016 10:26 pm #

        Does anyone besides DE and Crons even have access to Open Topped Transports (or even Transports with Fire Points) that can Jink?

        • abusepuppy May 4, 2016 10:47 pm #

          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.

          • AngryPanda May 4, 2016 11:20 pm
            #

            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.

          • westrider May 5, 2016 1:38 am
            #

            Ooh, yeah, forgot that it could persist after they disembarked.

        • zyekian May 5, 2016 9:10 am #

          Harlequins do as well. But they usually only shoot a few pistols out of them now and then so they only sort of count.

      • zyekian May 5, 2016 9:09 am #

        I’d just throw out the whole ruling for any army that has open topped skimmers.

    • NafNaf May 4, 2016 11:15 pm #

      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.

  38. Nerd Dad May 4, 2016 11:09 pm #

    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”?

  39. Dan K May 4, 2016 11:35 pm #

    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.

    • Ytook May 5, 2016 12:26 am #

      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.

  40. fleetofclaw May 4, 2016 11:54 pm #

    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?

    • tag8833 May 5, 2016 6:43 am #

      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.

  41. TheSuaveLion May 5, 2016 1:01 am #

    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

    • fleetofclaw May 5, 2016 12:42 pm #

      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.

      • westrider May 5, 2016 1:23 pm #

        Fifth ed? Nids never really even made it into 5th 🙁

  42. malc May 5, 2016 1:39 am #

    So buffmander is dead?

    • notredameguy10 May 15, 2016 8:40 pm #

      no… It clearly states “relics”, not “signature systems” completely different. Plus Tau codex specifically states they can take more than 1

  43. Darreb May 5, 2016 1:43 am #

    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?

  44. Frozocrone May 5, 2016 1:57 am #

    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

    • Sanchezsam2 May 5, 2016 6:58 am #

      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.

      • abusepuppy May 5, 2016 7:23 am #

        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.

        • donthemagnificent May 5, 2016 8:17 am #

          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.

          • Sanchezsam2 May 5, 2016 10:08 am
            #

            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.

          • abusepuppy May 5, 2016 4:06 pm
            #

            So you believe that the intention of the ruling was to disallow all models from beginning the game embarked on a transport, then?

  45. Ishagu May 5, 2016 2:06 am #

    BB can still use transports…. Just not deploy in them.

  46. greggles May 5, 2016 2:57 am #

    Take that tactical marines! No longer throwing 10 krak grenades at my poor killa kans!

  47. t.nid May 5, 2016 4:06 am #

    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.

    • AngryPanda May 5, 2016 5:30 am #

      How is this a change from how they treated them for the last five years?

    • Sanchezsam2 May 5, 2016 6:48 am #

      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

      • Truesight May 5, 2016 7:01 am #

        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.

        • Sanchezsam2 May 5, 2016 7:08 am #

          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.

          • Truesight May 5, 2016 7:25 am
            #

            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.

        • Reecius
          Reecius May 5, 2016 9:52 am #

          Not all FMCs, really just Flyrants. Daemon FMCs will be fine, IMO.

      • Sanchezsam2 May 5, 2016 7:02 am #

        Fmc lose toe in cover but not mc.
        Yet they deep strike now and still have 25% obscure rule.
        Nids will be fine.

        • fleetofclaw May 5, 2016 12:58 pm #

          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.

        • fleetofclaw May 5, 2016 12:59 pm #

          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.

        • Nightman May 5, 2016 2:04 pm #

          Shriek will autohit fmc

      • abusepuppy May 5, 2016 7:24 am #

        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.

        • t.nid May 5, 2016 8:38 am #

          Bel Akor is small, a flyrant correctly modeled aint 😉

          • MidnightSun May 5, 2016 9:56 am
            #

            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.

          • westrider May 5, 2016 4:11 pm
            #

            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.

      • t.nid May 5, 2016 9:14 am #

        Nova do hit fmc, it specifically said so. How do they get buffed by psychic shriek?

        • Sanchezsam2 May 5, 2016 10:02 am #

          You can use it now without a profile. Maleceptor and genecult thanks you

          • fleetofclaw May 5, 2016 12:47 pm
            #

            Sorry but the change to profile-less whitchfire powers does not make the Maleceptor usable.

        • Nurglitch May 5, 2016 10:28 am #

          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.

        • drice May 5, 2016 11:33 am #

          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.

      • ryan May 6, 2016 7:48 am #

        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.

  48. zyekian May 5, 2016 9:03 am #

    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.

    • Reecius
      Reecius May 5, 2016 9:46 am #

      Well, we can take a good look at the final draft and decide how to work with it.

      • zyekian May 5, 2016 10:10 am #

        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.

        • Nurglitch May 5, 2016 10:19 am #

          A Knight with spring-legs would be awesome though.

      • ryan May 6, 2016 7:49 am #

        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)

    • fleetofclaw May 5, 2016 1:00 pm #

      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.

  49. zyekian May 5, 2016 10:19 am #

    All of the good Harlequin psychic powers no longer need to roll to hit with a BS4 Shadowseer, that’s good stuff.

  50. Gman May 5, 2016 12:47 pm #

    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.

  51. donthemagnificent May 5, 2016 1:04 pm #

    Let’s not forget about how buffed that the White Scars Battle Company is going to be from this update. Scout happens AFTER seize the initiative. How is that fair in the slightest. It gives then a 24″ slide zone for their entire army. They gain the ability to move 12″ towards the opponent for alpha strike, or 12″ away for beta strike. All of this is AFTER they know who is going first.

    • Nightman May 5, 2016 2:00 pm #

      They count as moving now though with scout, so if they scout grav will only shoot 3 shots at range 12.

      • donthemagnificent May 5, 2016 2:17 pm #

        not true, the example they gave was stating that is was not in its original spot. This is like the 10th company “if they don’t move from where they are deployed they get +1 cover” bit. But they still will not have moved in their movement phase and can, thus, fire their salvo weapons at full bore.

        • donthemagnificent May 5, 2016 2:21 pm #

          they are referring to the hidden observers rule, where all pathfinders have infiltrate/shrouded that loses shrouded if they move from their starting location for any reason (scout)

          • Elwrath May 5, 2016 11:58 pm
            #

            not sure GW even worded it correctly even at that. Scout (move) is a redeploy not a ‘move’ so you can argue that they did not ‘move’ from there original place.

      • westrider May 5, 2016 4:13 pm #

        The big issue with that is that now you have to move around things that are in the way, instead of just being able to Redeploy on the other side. I used to regularly line up everything but my Flesh Hounds on the start line, put the Flesh Hounds behind them, and then Scout them out in front. Now that’s a lot harder to manage.

        • abusepuppy May 5, 2016 6:55 pm #

          See the thing is, Scout still isn’t a movement. Despite their ruling with regards to Pathfinders, it’s still a redeployment and thus isn’t affected by terrain or intervening units unless ITC rules otherwise. The ruling really only applies to two formations (10th Company, Ranged Support Cadre) and neither of them actually care all that much because Infiltrate means that Scout is largely irrelevant.

          • westrider May 5, 2016 10:05 pm
            #

            OK, I misread that. I would have sworn that they said that Scout was now a Move again.

            I can’t wait until they get this done up properly, with better formatting and organization. I’m getting headaches trying to find things that I’m sure I saw just a minute ago. If I ever actually want that feeling, I’ll just go do some painting, and try to figure out where I put that pot of Leadbelcher I had it right here just a fucking second ago 😉

          • abusepuppy May 6, 2016 1:17 am
            #

            It was inside your heart all along, westy.

          • westrider May 6, 2016 11:56 am
            #

            Well, that explains the pain in my chest I’ve been having. A pot of Leadbelcher is a hell of a blockage in there 😉

  52. Brian May 5, 2016 3:56 pm #

    I personally, love the FAQ, I think the impenetrable walls will help jump pack units immensely, which are usually much less viable than their biker or beast counterparts, the grenade rule hurts many units, but others were only ever allowed to take grenades on one model anyway and dreadnoughts and close combat MCs are much stronger because of it.

    • AngryPanda May 5, 2016 5:18 pm #

      True enough. Bikes already bring enough advantages. Being actualy blocked by terrain they obviously shouldn’t be able to traverse would put at least some dent into that.

      • EvilCheesypoof May 5, 2016 7:37 pm #

        Yeah I honestly hope the ITC doesn’t just automatically ignore this ruling or at least puts it to a vote, I love the idea of walls being actual obstacles.

    • abusepuppy May 5, 2016 6:53 pm #

      Jet pack and jump units (as well as Jetbikes) are already doing quite well in the game- Warp Spiders, Wraithknights, Riptides, Crisis Suits, Windriders, Tomb Blades, and more all fall under that classification.

      Realistically, Dreadnoughts and combat MCs are still garbage even with this ruling- not dying to Krak is a small upside, but their real problem is a disproportionate price for their survivability against many of the common weapons around and a general inability to get into combat because of speed/deployment issues.

  53. Nihility May 5, 2016 5:51 pm #

    Q: Do weapon special rules that say ‘a model equipped with this weapon’ or ‘this weapon’s bearer’ take effect even when not used as the attacking weapon?
    A: Yes.

    Does this mean, for example Skitarii ruststalkers that take two transonic blades get +2 str total?

    • westrider May 6, 2016 11:54 am #

      Nope. Effects in the Weapon’s profile only take effect if actually striking with that weapon. But there are a handful of Weapons (The Harlequin’s Kiss and the KDK Relic Gorethirster come to mind) that have additional effects that apply as long as you have that Weapon, even if you’re using another Weapon to attack with.

  54. ryan bridges May 5, 2016 8:47 pm #

    This also helps the Genestealer cult as the patriarch can no pshriek!

    • Elwrath May 6, 2016 12:04 am #

      is that the guy with BS 0? Can he even shoot? I thought models with BS 0 couldn’t shoot.

      “unless it has a Ballistic Skill of 0 (in which case it may not shoot).”

      Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Warhammer 40,000.” iBooks. this is from snap shooting, and is kinda indirect in a way, but that’s what it says.

      • DirtyDeeds May 6, 2016 5:10 am #

        The FAQ states that you don’t need to roll to hit for witchfires without a profile, i.e. psychic shriek.

        • winterman May 6, 2016 10:57 am #

          Right but BS0 means you can’t even shoot — even if it doesn’t roll to hit. At least that is the argument one can make.

    • Hiveminded May 6, 2016 1:55 pm #

      Yeah, that one is a boost to tyranids. Some of the other FAQs…not so much.

  55. Ishagu May 5, 2016 11:13 pm #

    I love everything about the FAQ.

    The clarifications all make sense, and it shows that most players have been abusing the less clearly worded rules for competitive advantages.

  56. xthexclincherx May 6, 2016 5:46 am #

    So for the “Battle Brothers” thing in this FAQ… how does that cover factions? Like, can you take a Space Marines detachment (Imperial Fists) and an Allied Space Marines detachment (Salamanders) and put the Salamanders in drop pods from the Imperial Fists detachment?

    • abusepuppy May 6, 2016 1:21 pm #

      I would presume not, because different chapters of Space Marines treat each other as Battle Brothers, as per their own codex’s rules.

      • EvilCheesypoof May 6, 2016 7:43 pm #

        But the Chapter Tactics within Codex Space Marines don’t change the fact that they’re all Faction Space Marines. They only get some sort of different faction exception for the allied detachment. It’s not clear whether or not this new ruling affects the same faction.

  57. sadface May 7, 2016 9:37 am #

    Transport change hurts my increasingly worsening sisters and grey kngihts :'(

Leave a Reply