New 40k FAQ’s and Hilarity Ensues

Hey there, Phat J here to talk about the latest 40k FAQ’s to be released by Games Workshop, the Astra Militarum and Grey Knights.  Sit back and kick off them socks, we have four pages of thunder to review!

As with most of the recent 40k FAQ’s released by Games Workshop, the latest two are a mix of common sense and occasional rules clarifications. Unlike most of the previous releases the Astra Militarum and Grey Knight FAQ’s seem to be filled with questions asked by people who seem to have not read the codices at all.

Here are some of the stand out questions and answers.

confusion-clipart-opc5b6RTB

Q: Is the Taurox Prime meant to be an assault vehicle?     A: NO

Why would anyone assume the Taurox Prime is an assault vehicle? I’ve read the description of it several times and not in one single place can I find anything that would cause this confusion.

Q: Should the Hydra have the Intercept rule?   A: NO

This one seems like some guy bought the Astra Militarum codex, read the stats on the Hydra, thought ‘this thing kinda stinks, but if it had Interceptor it would be better’ and then worked it out in his head that GW must have certainly meant for the Hydra to have the Interceptor rule despite it not having that rule at all.  I understand it has Skyfire but Skyfire and Interceptor are not the same thing.

Q: Can you add Ministorum Priests, Primaris Psykers, and Enginseers to Formations?   A: NO

This one isn’t as dumb as you might suspect.  I understand that a Formation will tell you exactly what to take but the advisors in the Astra Militarum codex are unique in that you add them to units without them being added to the force organization chart.  I could see how that would be confusing to some people.

Q: Does and Infantry Platoon count as a single unit for the purposes of issuing orders?   A: NO

I can see someone trying this in a game and instantly being labeled TFG for life.  Why anyone would think that an Infantry Platoon would could as a single unit for an order is beyond me. Wish-full thinking.

Q: Can a Grey Knights unit use the Aegis special rule to re-roll ones when making a Deny the Witch role against psychic powers that did not target their unit?   A :   NO

This is one of those questions that came from a 12 year old who hasn’t read the rulebook yet.  Why did this warrant an FAQ?  It’s the Deny the Witch rules, dumb dumb!

Q: Do Grey Knights have access to Space Marine Relics?    A:  NO

Again, this was a question from someone who just KNEW that there had to be a better way to play Grey Knights. He read through the codex several times, painstakingly trying to create a list that could compete in 7th edition 40k.  Then it came to him!  Why not just give the Grey Knight characters Space Marine relics!  Technically they are Space Marines, after all.  Too bad the Grey Knight FAQ added up to a single page with 4 questions, BRUH.

So there you have it.  The whole combined four pages of FAQ’s for these two codices really make me think the guys tasked with writing these went out for a single drink the night before this was due and ended up getting turnt up to the max.  As a former college student I know a hungover rush job when I see one.

What do you think? What are some of the missed opportunities the FAQ team didn’t address from the two codices?

As always, share your thoughts in the comments section! And remember, Frontline Gaming sells Games Workshop product at up to 25% off, every day.

secondhandshop

Tags:

About Jason

Raw Dogger, aka, Phat J Sleaze (formerly of the Booty Boyzzz) is a highly opinionated, questionably skilled 40k enthusiast. When not working at Frontline Gaming, he can be found down on Jabroni Avenue.

20 Responses to “New 40k FAQ’s and Hilarity Ensues”

  1. Michael Corr
    Michael Corr August 11, 2016 12:15 am #

    Yeah, most of the questions were a bit ridiculous.

    The only one that annoyed me was the Commissar Yarrick question. It seemed like an oversight that he was the only Commissar that did not have Stubborn (or he should even have Fearless), but apparently, it was correct in the first place.

  2. Ytook August 11, 2016 2:14 am #

    It’s difficult to believe anyone would ask these questions… until you look through the comments on the post on Facebook.

    Feel sorry for whichever poor soul has to work with all that nonsense.

  3. Blight1 August 11, 2016 2:45 am #

    Well the questions were entirely based off the ones asked on Facebook. It was mostly people fishing for buffs to their codex and from the look of these FAQs GW answered every unique question they saw even if the answer was obvious.
    Ork FAQ was just depressing with the number of questions like this.

    • Jason
      Jason August 11, 2016 5:32 am #

      Yeah, the comments section was pretty depressing on the FAQs. Most were questions that could be answered by looking in the rulebook or the codex.

  4. Craig August 11, 2016 3:10 am #

    hmm, all those dumb questions show us something positive though, it seems like the AM codex has been well written with not many ways how to interpret rules.

    • PrimoFederalist August 11, 2016 8:44 am #

      Well-written to be weak.

      • Variance Hammer August 11, 2016 7:44 pm #

        Well-written and powerful are orthogonal to each other.

  5. Threllen August 11, 2016 5:35 am #

    I’m not sure which type of question is more depressing:
    1) The “I’m taking the time to comment on Facebook to ask about a rules clarification for something I could have found equally as fast just by looking up the rule in the glossary and going to the correct page where the rule is explicitly laid out”
    2) Or the “I know this isn’t how it works but wouldn’t it be cool if I got this rule, too?”

  6. DeviantDuck August 11, 2016 6:55 am #

    Well, it’s worked at least once. The SoB immolater has no hatch, but someone asked in the FAQ how many models can fire out of the hatch, and the answer returned was 1.

    • Threllen August 11, 2016 7:58 am #

      Actually the Immolator has always had a top hatch with a firing point from its inception all the way up until the most current incarnation of the book. Apparently it was a copy+paste error that took GW a while to correct.

  7. fluger August 11, 2016 8:32 am #

    No guys, these rules are super clear, if you’re reading them differently than me, then you’re a WAAC loser that’s ruining the game!

  8. Grizzyzz August 11, 2016 10:30 am #

    This does not directly relate to this FAQ… but where can we post FAQ questions about books that have not yet been looked at?

    I have been meaning to post about Death From the Skies in regards to flyers and skyfire. In the hilarity, GW keeps releasing formations that literally can’t work such as the new deathwatch blackstar formation… oh boy! reroll pens against flyers.. except its an attack profile.. so it doesn’t have skyfire !?!?!?!

    • Tetrisphreak August 11, 2016 7:17 pm #

      One if the black stars weapon swaps is heavy d6 s6 ap4 sky fire. I believe it replaces the 4 storm strike missiles

      • westrider August 11, 2016 7:55 pm #

        Yep. They have an option for a Weapon that has Skyfire itself, even tho the plane as a whole doesn’t. I don’t remember, does the BlackStar have Power of the Machine Spirit?

      • Grizzyzz August 12, 2016 2:33 am #

        Oh interesting, I missed that! I was hoping to use an Imperium formation to help boost the issue, as my Tau “Air superiority Cadre” suffers from that same issue =(

      • tetrisphreak August 12, 2016 5:22 am #

        My group locally has not adopted any death from the skies rules – though i suspect that next year when supposed 8th edition comes out, the main flyer rules are going to change in accordance with DftS and we will have to adapt at that point.

        • westrider August 12, 2016 6:00 am #

          The BlackStar actually supports the option to not use DftS as well. Its profile says that the Agility and Pursuit values and Combat Role are included for the use of Players choosing to use DftS, and I don’t see any way to read that except as saying that choosing not to use it is equally legit.

        • Threllen August 12, 2016 10:04 am #

          We will see. There is some precedence with old supplements (Apoc and Escalation) having some of their rules rolled into a new rulebook. But there’s also precedence there that a lot of the rules will be left in the supplement. So who knows how much of DftS will or will not actually be in 8th edition.

  9. Mike August 14, 2016 4:41 am #

    The Taurus ships with railings that allow you to model the vehicle with a flat bed. I’m guessing that’s why the Assault Vehicle question got asked. It’s not in the vehicle instructions, but it has the bits on the spruce.

    • Mike August 14, 2016 4:42 am #

      Taurox darn autocorrect

Leave a Reply