GW Rulebook FAQ Final Draft!

isolated faq button

Hey, took a minute but here it is! Thanks, GW.

So, just to make it crystal clear as I am sure folks will notice we are credited on the FAQ for helping with it: all we did was give it a proof read to help make sure the questions and answers were as clear as possible (hopefully it worked!) and gave very limited feedback on a few of the topics. We did not write the FAQ nor did GW ask us for our opinions on the direction of the FAQ.

That said, thanks so much GW for being an awesome company and giving your customers what they want! This is very close to the draft FAQ, not much was changed. Let us know in the comments what you think!

Click here to read the full Rulebook FAQ

So, we will begin working on this ASAP to get it integrated into the ITC. As stated, any rules we actually changed will stand unless the community wants them overturned in the next vote which we will get out there quick style. These rules will hold through LVO. We may see the rulebook FAQs out soon, and we will set a limit on when new FAQ material will kick in prior to LVO, most likely 30 days out.

Also, if you could please click through this link and click that you are interested in attending the LVO, we’d really appreciate it!


About Reecius

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

69 Responses to “GW Rulebook FAQ Final Draft!”

  1. brent November 22, 2016 10:48 am #

    As foretold in the ancient Texts(podcasts)!

  2. Fxeni November 22, 2016 10:56 am #

    So what does this mean for the ITC vote ? Will we be ruling in anything in the final? Or what do we expect to see on it ?

    • Reecius November 22, 2016 2:33 pm #

      We’re adopting GW’s FAQ for the most part, but anything we’ve actually voted to change will remain unless the community wants to overturn something.

  3. Nightman November 22, 2016 11:14 am #

    I’m salty about BA Fragcannon dreads loosing 2d3 wall of death, but overall looking good. Dark Eldar can jink again without snapshotting crew and a six on the stomp can’t be los’ed.

    Still dont understand intervening model rules. MC and Garg need to be 25% obsucred, but all other models do not require 25%? So a nurgling in front of a land raider will get it 5+ cover?

    • RabbitMaster November 22, 2016 11:23 am #

      Vehicles always need 25% of their facing to be obscured to claim a cover save, no matter what.

    • loopy November 22, 2016 1:50 pm #

      Intervening models rules are a bit confusing.

      If a model is obscured by intervening models at all, it gets a cover save.

      If a model is not obscured by intervening models, but is actually BETWEEN two models (from the firing model’s perspective), it still gets a cover save.

      If a model is not obscured by intervening models AND is not between two models (IE shooting from a very tall monstrous creature or from the high level of a ruin), it does not get a cover save.

      I need to read it again, but I think vehicles and MCs still don’t need 25% to get the cover save from intervening models, but I’ll check it out.

    • Reecius November 22, 2016 2:34 pm #

      We’re keeping the LoS! on stomps, even on a 6, unless people want to change it (as we voted to make that rule change, already).

    • abusepuppy November 22, 2016 7:17 pm #

      The “no LOS on Stomp” ruling would presumably be negated by ITC’s own specific rules, in the same way that ITC’s changes to Invisibility would override the GW FAQs on the same.

      • Reecius November 23, 2016 9:57 am #


      • Sam November 23, 2016 11:53 am #

        Am I reading something wrong the faq says you can LOS stomps anyway?

        • WestRider November 23, 2016 12:57 pm #

          The ITC lets you LoS 6s, which the GW FAQ does not.

  4. Requizen November 22, 2016 11:16 am #

    Now the arduous task of resolving the ITC FAQ with the GW FAQ 😛

    So excited!

    • Reecius November 22, 2016 2:00 pm #

      Eh, it won’t be so bad. A bit of a slog for sure, but we’ll get it knocked out quickly.

  5. Dakkath November 22, 2016 12:07 pm #

    Things I like:
    Infiltrating ICs joining non-infiltrators is a go, and can even bring them along.
    Gets-hot blast weapons can reroll the gets hot even if they only reroll 1s to hit. But, not the scatter die.
    Jump-pack ICs no longer grant the whole unit a reroll on charge distance, just themselves.
    Units in different detachments with the same faction can use each other’s transports.
    Passengers in jinking transports do not have to fire snap shots.

    Things I don’t like:
    Move Through Cover still doesn’t help assault initiative.
    MCs that are ICs cannot join units anymore. Poor O’vesa.
    MCs and Vehicles still don’t gain area terrain cover saves.
    Burnaz are still not flamer weapons.
    Non-infiltrating ICs cannot be deployed with infiltrators even if the infiltrators aren’t infiltrating.

    • Bryan November 22, 2016 12:45 pm #

      @ Dakkath, You sure about joining infiltrating IC’s to non infiltrators and further, conferring it?

      I thought the page 166 amendment to ICs and infiltrating stopped that.

      • Dakkath November 22, 2016 9:05 pm #

        Rats, I think you’re right. I skipped over what little black text there was, and missed that. The pg 167 errata is what got my hopes up. Oh well.

    • Jon November 22, 2016 12:45 pm #

      IC cannot join infiltrators if the don’t have infiltrate and vice versa, it’s on the first page above the new infiltrate clarification.

      • abusepuppy November 22, 2016 7:18 pm #

        It does note that units with Infiltrate can choose not to use it and “deploy normally,” which would presumably let such an IC join with a non-Infiltrate squad as long as they both make a standard deployment.

        • Ibushi November 23, 2016 5:56 pm #

          This indicates to me that actually an IC with infiltrate could in fact just “not-infiltrate” and deploy normally, attached to a normal unit.

          The vice versa part from above makes me think of where one unit is infiltrating and the other is not situation.

  6. PrimoFederalist November 22, 2016 12:34 pm #

    The only thing I really cared about was allowing more than one model in a unit with grenades to use them in assault. Double down on the Stomp Edition at the expense of the Troops who needed the boost.

    • Reecius November 22, 2016 2:35 pm #

      The Stomp rule won’t come over to the ITC unless a majority wants it to (which I HIGHLY doubt will happen). The 6 on stomps is so annoying.

    • Heldericht November 22, 2016 5:49 pm #

      Why? Stomps are not a problem in the game. Deathstars are. If you keep the Look Out Sirs, you are buffing deathstars which can just sacrifice a dog and keep their heavy hitters safe even against the one thing that can reliably kill them.

      Regular troops look out sirring are really not going to matter.

      This is silly, we should adopt the GW FAQ as is and then vote to see if you want things changed from it. Not pick and choose and then expect the community to backtrack and police itself.

      Going against explicit GW clarifications is a dangerous precedent.

      Take the whole FAQ and then put things up for voting that you want to change if anything.

      • Reecius November 22, 2016 5:54 pm #

        All players nitpick what they want in their game and always have, haha. This is nothing different. We’ve ridden this roller coaster a million times, but once again, if you use points, if you don’t use unbound, etc. you are not playing the game as is. If you use ANY type of FAQ, you are changing the game. If you disallow anything, you are nitpicking.

        We’ve said, from day one, that we would leave any community instituted changes alone in the ITC after the FAQ went official (which thankfully it has) and if enough folks want to go with the GW FAQ (essentially overriding previous community votes) then we will. We’re sticking to the game plan.

        As for Stomps, yes, the 6 hurts Stars, I agree. It also hurts every other army in the game. People generally hate the 6 result, which is why we voted to change it in the first place.

        • Heldericht November 23, 2016 12:06 am #

          Reece, I’m not saying nothing should be changed. I am a big advocate of the ITC and the changes you guys have made. I would hate to play unmodified 7th ed 40k. I love the ITC.

          But this is a new GW and they have made a well thought out FAQ as gesture towards the competitive community. We, as the ITC community should welcome this. Isnt part of the reason the ITC exists is to make the game better because the old GW did not? This is unlike those previous times.

          Most of the rulings line up with the ITC anyway. Why not implement them first and play with them? You guys mentioned part of the reason you are not using more complex missions is to keep things simpler for the average player. Well having an FAQ for an FAQ doesnt help that. Not sure why you guys are averse to at least giving it a chance.

          • Reecius November 23, 2016 10:00 am

            Sorry if I got offensives.

            I understand your argument but where we’re coming from is that we have to honor what the community has specifically asked for to this point in time. We can’t just arbitrarily overturn things without due process, so to speak.

          • Heldericht November 23, 2016 5:02 pm

            Fair enough. I understand.

            I hope these concerns are considered though. I’m not the only one who feels this way, as you can see from the comments.

        • LordWynn November 23, 2016 5:48 am #

          Thing is, Stomp 6 is the biggest threat to proper Stars. Yes, it hurts everything else as well but allowing a LOS for stomp 6 means that deathstars don’t have to worry about stomps at all(provided they don’t roll a 1) because they always have little dudes to take the hits for the characters.

          • Reecius November 23, 2016 9:58 am

            True, but we have to consider how all members of the ITC enjoy the game, not just the most competitive 10% of the field. That’s why we have to let everyone decide how to move forward.

  7. SomeCallMeTim November 22, 2016 12:49 pm #

    “Q: Do Super-heavy Walkers shoot at targets from where their weapon is modeled or from the base?
    A: Ranges are measured from the weapon itself. Unless modelled otherwise, assume all weapons have a 45° facing from the front of the model.

    Q: Are Super-heavy Walkers limited, like normal Walkers, to a 45° arc of fire from the facing of the model’s weapon?
    A: Yes – they follow all the normal rules for Walkers, except when explicitly stated otherwise.”

    I am confused. The first seems to say that, for example, the Imperial Knights carapace weapon or gun arms can swivel as much as the model can, the other does not.

    Am I missing something here?

    • WestRider November 22, 2016 2:00 pm #

      I read it as tho the first one was a case of being “explicitly stated otherwise.” I think it would have made more sense if the two had been combined into a single question, or even just if their order had been reversed.

  8. Vankraken November 22, 2016 12:51 pm #

    I like this version a lot better than the draft. Jinking transports not making the passengers next to useless for shooting is nice. Gets hot on blasts is much more reasonable and it makes PE useful for it. The way it’s worded it makes it seem that BS6 let’s blast reroll gets hot as well but maybe that’s me being dumb.

    What I don’t like are Grenades still being 1 per unit which hurts units like Tankbustas, EMP Fire Warriors, etc which seem like they are meant to spam grenades. I guess the brits love their queues of guardsmen waiting in line to melta bomb the chaos knight.

    The real head scratcher is why focused witchfires, novas, and beams psychic powers can’t be fired out of transports. I see zero different between a psychic beam and a psychic flamer template shooting out of a Battlewagon from a Weirdboy. Just seems like a very odd choice to link them which makes the number of witchfires coming out of transports even smalller.

    • Reecius November 22, 2016 2:36 pm #

      Yeah, we offered feedback on some of the contentious issues and some of it was accepted, some wasn’t. In general, it is a good FAQ, though.

      • Leonix November 22, 2016 7:06 pm #

        I’m cool with the Nade changes, it helps tanks and dreads, if you want to kill knights bring proper tools.

        • Troy Graber November 22, 2016 7:18 pm #

          Yeah! Like Tankbustas…. Oh Wait.

          • Leonix November 22, 2016 7:58 pm

            It’s too bad Tankbustas only have bombs… oh wait.

          • Reecius November 23, 2016 10:00 am

            They certainly got it the worst =(

  9. loopy November 22, 2016 1:45 pm #

    As I said before, I’d really like to re-visit blasts and templates on multiple levels. I think their explanation on why they did it makes sense.

    At any rate, I LOVE the fact that they are forcing players to play 3-dimensionally with jump units having to measure diagonally to their start and end position and shooting diagonally as well. Excellent stuff.

    • loopy November 22, 2016 1:46 pm #

      Not to mention using wobbly model to assault levels that are full of enemy models. Exactly how it should be played.

    • Sanchezsam2 November 22, 2016 2:19 pm #

      I completely agree on multi level blasts. It will also make the ITC nearly identical to the faq after the ITC faq is updated.

      • Reecius November 22, 2016 2:40 pm #

        ITC events can run with that ruling if they want, we honestly cannot as every single table on our tables has multiple, multi-level buildings. It shifts the meta dramatically when playing on LVO tables. It would be bad for our events specifically.

        • Pascalnz November 22, 2016 3:01 pm #

          I’m big on the multiple levels as well, sign me up for a re vote:).

          when a ten inch blast only hits one level, it’s mildly off putting.

          also just checking, but at most the ITc terrain is two floors high?

          you could have anything larger than a 5 inch be all floors and flamers and 5 inches be two floors and small blasts only be one?

          • JasonWolfe November 22, 2016 6:52 pm

            The “blast” should be a sphere. 5 inches would hit 3 inches up and 3 inches down from the level it hits. Small blast would be 1 floor. Template would be one floor. Massive blast is all the floors pretty much.

            The GW rule is that the “blast” is a cylinder, which is very powerful for buildings and easy to play as a rule, but offputting in terms of fluff. I actually like the cylinder idea because it makes things so easy to play.

        • Heldericht November 22, 2016 5:51 pm #

          Please don’t just keep stuff that’s already in. Adopt the GW FAQ as is and re-vote to change things.

          We are just falling further behind the curve when it comes to keeping up with GW changes, while other tournament formats embrace it.

          • Reecius November 22, 2016 5:57 pm

            We are not revoting on things the community already said they want, haha. That is working backwards. If folks want to go with the GW clarification, sure. But it would be disrespectful to those (a majority, mind you) that want the changes.

            And no, we are not falling behind anyone. The ITC format is still by a mile the most prevalent. You may feel that way (which is totally cool) but it comes down to preference. The average player is not living on the cutting edge of the meta like you do, my friend. These things aren’t as big of a deal. Most players prefer consistency. When the time comes to vote (soon) cast your vote with what you want to see as will we all.

          • Sanchezsam2 November 22, 2016 7:04 pm

            You can keep the current multi level blast rule, but at least add the vote to see if people want it changed to be consistent with the faq.

          • Sanchezsam2 November 22, 2016 7:09 pm

            You can keep the current multi level blast rule, but at least add the vote to see if people want it changed to be consistent with the faq.

            There a few ITC rules like this that should be relooked at during the next vote.

          • Heldericht November 23, 2016 12:12 am

            The fundamental problem with this voting system is that you guys dont put up everything for voting. I cant vote for something that isnt even listed.

            Yeah a majority voted for things before but that doesnt mean the majority supports those changes after all this FAQ info is out.

            Like I said, put the old rules that conflict up for vote again. If the majority still supports it as you claim, then nothing will change. But I’m pretty sure people will want to embrace these changes, not cling to old rulings.

          • abusepuppy November 25, 2016 7:56 am

            >The fundamental problem with this voting system is that you guys dont put up everything for voting

            There are literally THOUSANDS of rules changes that people suggest, or FAQs that they think should be ruled “their” way. It is not realistically possible for ITC to put them all up for a vote even once, much less re-vote on them.

            >But I’m pretty sure people will want to embrace these changes, not cling to old rulings.

            I’m not sure why you’re so certain of this. Blasts hitting all levels in a ruin is not something that the FAQ changed- it was already in the rulebook when 7th Edition was released. People voted against it because they didn’t like it as well as for power level reasons (since it makes many of the already-strong artillery pieces even stronger.) The new FAQ reiterates that blasts work the way the book says they work, but we already knew that- and already chose, as a community, to change it.

            Asking for a revote is just a waste of people’s time; nothing significant has changed about the rules regarding blasts that would indicate a need to revisit the issue.

  10. jadedknight November 22, 2016 2:51 pm #

    This one is a real bummer to me. They generalized from first turn reserve manipulation to any reserve manipulation. These are two different things.

    Q: If I’m using a special Detachment, such as the Nemesis
    Strike Force Detachment, and add Independent Characters
    from Battle Brother Factions (e.g. the Librarius Conclave), can
    they all still benefit from the first turn deployment and come
    in together?
    A: No, the rules for Detachments and Formations only
    apply to models/units that are part of the Detachment
    or Formation. If a Formation or Detachment must
    appear on a certain turn, that will preclude Independent
    Characters who do not have the appropriate special rule
    from joining that unit.

  11. Codi November 22, 2016 3:26 pm #

    I am a little frustrated with the ruling that monstrous creatures cannot assault multiple units. What does that mean for units containing monstrous creatures? What does that mean for single model units? I hope I missed something.

    Walkers got better, now that you can’t consolidate after combat…this makes orks sad.

    • Reecius November 22, 2016 4:16 pm #

      I would treat units of MCs as a unit for the purposes of making charges.

    • abusepuppy November 22, 2016 7:21 pm #

      I think it’s pretty easy to assume that only applies to single-model MC units (and would also apply to other single-model units, such as walkers.)

    • adam Fasoldt November 23, 2016 6:09 am #

      Agreed. Pretty sure they meant single model units of MCs.

      • Codi November 23, 2016 9:22 am #

        I don’t disagree with you guys, and I like the FAQ in general. That is just the one frustrating bit.

  12. Hiveminded November 22, 2016 5:27 pm #

    So, I recall a previous ITC vote on the MC/GC toe-in-cover question. Does this mean that the ITC will keep the results of the previous vote: cover bonuses for MC toe-in-cover but not for GC? Or is the ITC going to adopt the FAQ ruling that says neither gets toe-in-cover. It’s unclear to me whether this fits into the rule change category or the FAQ category.

    You can tell from my handle which way I’d vote 😉 .

    • Reecius November 22, 2016 6:00 pm #

      Haha, yes, the next week will be us working to integrate everything including questions like that.

  13. AngryPanda November 22, 2016 6:18 pm #

    Its probably a little thing for most people but I love them for that base rule. I’m this tired of my Wraiths and Tomb Blades always falling over and they’re going on 55mm or whatever the big ones are now.

    • abusepuppy November 22, 2016 7:21 pm #

      It’s nice that they gave some actual guidelines, yeah.

  14. Iron Handed November 22, 2016 7:16 pm #

    Just to make sure I understand correctly this means unless at a later date it’s voted to be changed we’ll be playing with the single grenade during assault rule?

  15. Drachnyen November 22, 2016 7:31 pm #

    Good work guys! Glad you were part of this!

    I would recommend we use the FAQ as starting point and vote to change it instead of keeping possible out-dated decisions of the past. We must move on!

  16. Toranaga November 22, 2016 7:33 pm #

    I vote to use the GW faq – multiple level blasts, no LOS-stomps, and only one grenade per phase – as is!

    Or at least I vote to be able to vote on it! Who’s with me?

    • Truesight November 22, 2016 8:05 pm #

      Yeah! Screw the overpowered foot guard and orks! /s

    • Heldericht November 23, 2016 12:16 am #

      Yeah, we should at least have the choice…

  17. Jeff Poole November 22, 2016 9:00 pm #

    Can we vote on Death From The Sky’s again since Forgeworld has now come out with rules for their flyers?

    • adam Fasoldt November 23, 2016 6:13 am #

      You mean my $50 door stop? LOL. I’d love to vote on this a la carte rather than ban the whole thing. That was my problem with the original vote. We don’t have to throw the baby out with the bath water on Death From the Skies.

    • Vankraken November 23, 2016 11:24 am #

      The more I play with DftS the more I’ve grown to dislike it. At first glance it’s an interesting concept but GW really created a turd of a rule set. Majority of flyers don’t fit the role they pigeonholed them into, most armies lack the number of flyers needed to fill each role, a good deal of flyers are too expensive in points to bring enough to form a flyer wing (which you need if you want to offset the nerfs flyer roles give), and it takes away skyfire for a lot of flyers. The dog fight phase is hot garbage and the only armies that I think really benefit from it are guard spamming Vultures, Eldar, and maybe Chaos Helturkeys. I honestly don’t see how to make it work without gutting it entirely and rewriting everything to not be terrible.

      To top it all off the games aren’t even more fun. Dog fights are stupid Rock Paper Scissors, the reserve roll manipulation is just dumb and can easily be exploited, and it heavily skews it in favor of the armies that have good flyers while hurting armies that struggle with bad flyers or lack skyfire options. Even games where my 3 Dakkajets obliterated a bunch of eldar flyers wasn’t a fun game because the flyer wing rules are just badly designed. Whoever gets their flyers out 2nd wins the air war as they basically auto come on with their enhanced reserve rolls and can go into ignore cover flyer formation to almost guarantee delete every flyer.

      I wanted to like it and being a big fan of Dakkajets it seemed like it might be a good thing but in the end it’s probably one of the worst rule sets ever put together and such a hack job that it screams of a lack of play testing and is very much a shitty patch job that breaks more things than it fixes/enhances.

      • Skallagoose November 24, 2016 6:00 am #

        Its an easy thing to integrate. Have the formations from DftS and bonuses of those formations; remove the dog-fight phase. It encourages people to bring fliers, which you dont see very often now-a-days. Leave it up to a vote whether to incorporate the Flier Role or not.

        That said- I’m mildly happy with the FAQ. I would like to see an incorporation of the blasts hitting multiple levels, but i understand the arguments on both sides. I just hate when my Apoc Blast hits the top of a ruin and kills 2 guys while there are more/other units on the bottom of the ruin (stating bias), but i can understand the fluff perspective that ML and flamers wont go up a 10 story building either. Personally, i want to see blasts kinda go away in the next edition, instead rolling for how many hits (similar to AoS) rather than blasts… it just slows the game down significantly and can cause arguments about what the blast is touching/not touching.

Leave a Reply