40k Rulebook Final FAQ- An analysis

_35

To draft or not to draft? That WAS the question. Michael here to take a look at the brand new Rulebook final FAQ. For more reviews, analyses and battle reports, check out the Tactics Corner.

The recent draft FAQ’s were greeted with great enthusiasm by the 40k community. After years and years of not directly interacting with players, the recent direction that GW have taken has been nothing short of astounding. However, the various rulings in the draft FAQ were not without controversy, with many issues being hotly debated online and in gaming clubs around the world. In fact, the ITC had put off implementing the draft FAQs until the final versions had been released, but the long delay had led many players to call for their use at tournaments.

The debate is now over, and the final FAQs have just been published. In this article, I plan to look at some of the more debated changes between the draft and final FAQ and give my thoughts on what I think this means for the game.

I will not be covering every aspect of the final FAQ, but if there is a hot-button issue you think that I have missed, let me know in the comments below and get the conversation started. As usual, these are my own thoughts and opinions and do not represent those of the ITC or Frontline Gaming.

JINKING

  • Q: Are passengers in Jinking Transports forced to fire Snap Shots?
    A: No.

Dark Eldar players the world over rejoice! The previous draft FAQ had ruled that passengers would also need to fire snap shots if their transport vehicle jinked. I personally liked the idea of this and it made sense to me. I was sick of Wraithguard emerging from their Jinking, practically indestructible Wave Serpent and firing their D-weapons at my army. However, had the draft FAQ ruling held, it would have rendered Dark Eldar armies practically unplayable. I think this change is probably for the better, no matter how annoying it may be.

dark_eldar_ravager

  • Q: If a blast template scatters onto a Skimmer, can that Skimmer still Jink even though it was not actually targeted by the shot?
    A: No.

The draft FAQ had stated that skimmers were still able to Jink in this instance. I don’t like the new ruling and think they should still be able to Jink if the blast hits them. To me, this seems to simply be a way to get around the inherent Jink save of a skimmer, allowing players to target one unit and clip a skimmer with the Blast, potentially doubling the damage caused. Any mechanic that takes decisions or control out of a player’s hands is not great (just ask how many people like the Stomp rule).

PSYCHIC PHASE

  • Q: Is the maximum number of powers a Psyker can use in their turn equal to their Mastery Level, or the number of powers they have (due to Psychic Focus they often have one more power than their Mastery Level)?
    A: Unless explicitly permitted to do so, Psykers may not attempt to manifest more psychic powers than the number of their Mastery Level within a single Psychic phase.

unlimitedpower_by_joazzz2-d7w8fp7

This will have some effect on the Librarius Conclave, limiting them to casting only 2 or 3 powers per turn. This could serve to limit the utility of this formation, stopping them from unleashing all their powers on the enemy army.

  • Q: Can you take a ‘Look Out, Sir’ roll against successful focussed witchfire powers, especially ones that don’t have a normal shooting profile?
    A: Yes.

This one confuses me. What is the point of a focused power if it can be negated by Look Out, Sir? Will still make them useful for taking out heavy weapons or special weapons in the squad.

SAVES

  • Q: Warhammer 40,000: The Rules states that a model gets ‘the advantage of always using the best available save’. Does that mean we have to use the numerically lowest save, or do we have the option of using any save we have?
    A: The controlling player can use their discretion as to which of their model’s saves is ‘the best’.

This one always confused me. I always assumed that the owning player would choose which was their best save.

WEAPONS

  • Q: Do plasma cannons and other Gets Hot Blast weapons benefit from rules that allow them to re-roll To Hit rolls of 1? For example, a Clan Raukaan character wearing the Tempered Helm nominates a unit of friendly Devastators to re-roll To Hit rolls of 1 in this Shooting phase. These Devastators are all equipped with plasma cannons. Do they get to re-roll the Gets Hot roll if it comes up as 1?
    A: Yes.
  • Q: Does the Preferred Enemy special rule allow you to re-roll Gets Hot rolls of 1 for blast weapons (e.g. a plasma cannon)?
    A: Yes.

dow2r_sm_plasma_dev_ultra

The draft FAQ previously stated that such re-rolls could not be used for Gets Hot rolls. I think the change in the final FAQ is for the best, as this made more sense in allowing the re-roll. This should help Tank Commander Pask’s unit when armed with Plasma Cannons.

FLYERS

  • Q: Flyers can fire 4 weapons at full Ballistic Skill, can they also fire any additional weapons as Snap Shots like other vehicles?
    A: Yes.

This was a new one for me. I assumed that flyers were limited to firing only 4 weapons a turn. I’m not sure how many flyers this will affect, but it should be a nice benefit for some heavily-armed flyers.

da_nephilim

TERRAIN

  • Q: Do Gauss, Melta, Haywire, and Graviton special rules affect void shields?
    A: Yes – Gauss, Melta and Haywire special rules work as normal. Graviton hits cause a void shield to collapse on a roll of 6, but cannot affect void shields on buildings.

Does this mean that the Void Shield Generator is now immune to Grav? If so, this again makes them even more valuable for protecting against Grav alpha strikes.

void_shield_generator1

  • Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
    A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins.

Yes! No more cover saves for “toe-dipping” Wraithknights, Riptides and Stormsurges.

DETACHMENTS AND FORMATIONS

  • Q: Can I have an Unbound army comprising nothing but buildings?
    A: No.

Seriously?!? Who even asks this?

  • Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
    A: No.

This one caused a lot of debate in the draft FAQ. The ruling has remained in the final FAQ and will eliminate many army builds, such as the Drop Pod Mechanicus army.

BLAST MARKERS AND TEMPLATES

  • Q: In the case of a template weapon that fires two or more times (such as the Blood Angels’ frag cannon), do they still only inflict D3 hits when firing Overwatch, or D3 hits per number of shots in the weapon profile?
    A: Always D3 regardless of the weapon’s profile.

I would have ruled the other way, myself, but I don’t write the FAQ’s! This will obviously reduce the number of hits from such units, my Deathwatch Frag Cannons are sad now.

dw-6

  • Q: Regarding Barrage weapons and vehicles – how do you determine which side is hit?
    A: Assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker and hits the nearest side.

This one came out of nowhere for me, I don’t remember this being in the draft FAQ. Previously, such weapons always hit the side armour, now it can hit any facing if it scatters there. This will be a big boost for units such as Wyverns or Thunderfire Cannons if they can target the vulnerable rear armour with their shots.

INFILTRATE AND SCOUT

  • Q: Do Scout redeployments take place before or after the player going second is given the chance to Seize the Initiative?
    A: Before.

In the draft FAQ, Scout moves occurred after the Seize the Initiative roll. Before the draft FAQ, I didn’t know anyone who played it this way, so this was a big surprise. This provides a massive boost for any units or armies with Scout, allowing them to use the Scout move with little risk of getting seized upon, or using it to move into a more favourable position if your opponent did seize the initiative.

hunt_for_voldorius-artwork

As much as my Ravenwing and White Scars armies will miss this, I think this change is probably for the best. It made an already powerful special rule and made it even better. It also now introduces some risk with Scout, allowing your opponent the chance to seize and punish your army.

GRENADES

  • Q: Using grenades in the Assault phase. Can every model replace their close combat attacks with a single grenade attack or just one model in the unit? Like in the Shooting phase e.g. a unit of 5 Tau Pathfinders charge a Knight. Do 5 Pathfinders make close combat haywire grenade attacks?
    A: Only one model from the unit can attack with a grenade in the Assault phase. Per Warhammer 40,000: The Rules, ‘Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per phase’.

This is one of the rulings from the draft FAQ that I (and many players) hoped would be be reversed in the final FAQ, but this is not the case. This makes Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures much more durable against many units and combat and neuters some units such as Ork Tankbustas or Astra Militarum Veterans with Meltabombs. This will also serve to make powerful units such as Imperial Knights even harder to kill in the assault phase.

Overall

It is interesting that many of the more contentious rulings from the draft FAQ have been revised in the final FAQ. Whether this was due to community outcry or a change in philosophy at GW is up for debate, but it does appear that they have continued to listen to and engage with the community, which is amazing and great news for all 40k gamers.

What were your thoughts on the final FAQ? Any ruling changes that you like or any shocks in there? Comment below and let me know!

And as always, Frontline Gaming sells Games Workshop product at up to 25% off of retail, every day!

Frontline Gaming will buy your used models for cash or store credit!

secondhandhsop

 

Tags:

About Michael Corr

An avid 40k player and blogger from Scotland. I started in 3rd edition and have been playing ever since. I detail my adventures in my own blog "St Andrews Wargaming", highlighting my mediocre painting skills, regular battle reports and my occasional random ramblings.

57 Responses to “40k Rulebook Final FAQ- An analysis”

  1. Dakkath November 23, 2016 12:16 am
    #

    “Does this mean that the Void Shield Generator is now immune to Grav? If so, this again makes them even more valuable for protecting against Grav alpha strikes.”
    The projected void shields created by the generator collapse on a 6 when hit by grav, but void shield purchased as building upgrades are immune.

    Preferred enemy and similar now allow you to reroll the gets hot on blast weapons, but not the scatter die. Which is for the best, I think. Before, rerolling 1s basically made all blasts twinlinked.

    • Michael Corr
      Michael Corr November 23, 2016 12:32 am
      #

      Ah, thanks for the clarification on the void shields. I don’t have the stronghold book, so was unsure which void shields it was referring to.

    • Luke November 23, 2016 8:18 am
      #

      I read the Void Shield one differently. Certain super heavies also have void shields, and there’s one flyer that can project them like a VSG. So to me it means that any void shield (projected or building upgrade) coming from a building is immune to grav, while any void shield coming from a non-building will go down on a 6.

      • abusepuppy November 23, 2016 9:25 am
        #

        That is how most people I know read it as well.

      • Donthemagnificent November 23, 2016 12:35 pm
        #

        I read it as, it still collapses, but does not suffer an immobilized result.

  2. Vankraken November 23, 2016 4:04 am
    #

    Focused Witchfires, Novas, and Beams not being able to shoot out of transports seems really random. A Weirdboy can use his power vomit template witchfires out of a trukk but he can’t shot his killbolt beam. It wasn’t in the original FAQ but for some reason they felt it was vital to restrict those (poor Purifiers, took away your Drop Pods and now they don’t want you using cleansing flames out of Rhinos).

    • Michael Corr
      Michael Corr November 23, 2016 6:54 am
      #

      That one didn’t seem right to me. Why can all Witchfires be used out of transports, rather than only certain ones?

    • Donthemagnificent November 23, 2016 12:43 pm
      #

      With how they are separating out these classifications makes one wonder if you can cast a Nova while locked in close combat.

      • Michael Corr
        Michael Corr November 23, 2016 1:12 pm
        #

        I would saw no, as it is still a sort of shooting attack.

  3. Ytook November 23, 2016 4:11 am
    #

    The Jink ruling is stating that you can’t Jink from a scattered blast, if when placing the blast it clips a skimmer then it’s one of the original targets and could Jink, but if the blast scatters onto the skimmer it can’t. Fishing for a correct scatter doesn’t seem a terribly useful way to avoid Jink 😛

    • Threllen November 23, 2016 6:50 am
      #

      Just because a blast ‘clips’ a unit doesn’t mean that unit was the target. If I declare a squad of guardians as my target and place a large blast over top of them that happens to also clip a Wave Serpent – that Wave Serpent was never ‘targeted’ by my attack. It was just collateral damage. You can only target one unit with a shooting attack. Anything else is just gravy.

    • Michael Corr
      Michael Corr November 23, 2016 6:55 am
      #

      I’m sure people will argue that since the Skimmer is not the primary target of the attack, that it is only being clipped, then they still do not get to Jink.

      • Ytook November 23, 2016 7:34 am
        #

        If the question was ambiguous maybe, but it is specifically referring to blasts scattering not allowing jink saves. Extrapolating from that, that skimmers can’t jink from blasts placed on other units such that they hit the skimmer pre-scatter is kind of silly. The player is choosing to place the blast marker to try and hit the skimmer, they are targeting them. Jink has to be chosen before to hit rolls (or scatter in this case) so any skimmers effected by the scatter can’t then jink after as the chance to do so has past.

        • Troy Graber November 23, 2016 9:08 am
          #

          Except GW is incredibly clear that they consider the primary target of a blast or template weapon to not include every unit covered by the blast or template weapon.

          see Invisibility for an example. Or Jinking against Beams.

          I guess Beams no longer have to have any target which is somewhat weird.

          • Ytook November 23, 2016 9:29 am
            #

            So the question about scattered blast markers means all blast markers and the scattered part was added for flavour?

            I don’t see how you could say a shot that is being placed to hit something isn’t targeting it based on the rules as written let alone intended.

            But then stuff like this is why I’m mainly waiting for 8th at this point, so feel free to ignore me 😛

          • abusepuppy November 23, 2016 5:57 pm
            #

            Blasts target the unit you place the central hole over, not all targets affected by the blast. You can’t (normally) target multiple units with a single unit’s shooting- you would not be able to split your other weapons shots between the two “targets” of a blast or charge whichever of them you please in the assault phase.

            You pick the target of your shooting attack first, before any weapons are fired as part of the normal shooting process. “Target” does not just mean anything affected by your attack.

  4. zyekian November 23, 2016 4:37 am
    #

    This one seems to have led to a lot of confusion:

    —————-
    Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
    A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins.

    Yes! No more cover saves for “toe-dipping” Wraithknights, Riptides and Stormsurges.
    —————–

    The way I was reading this, they’re only referring to being obscured and not in area terrain cover, meaning toe in cover is still a thing. But I can see how other people are reading it as well. It kind of seems like the A doesn’t match the Q very well.

    Thoughts?

    • adam Fasoldt November 23, 2016 6:17 am
      #

      Woods provides cover no matter what because of the way Woods are always modeled. As for Ruins, they provide cover as long as you are “IN” them, I.E., you are standing on the base. The FAQ would seem to indicate that this does not work for MCs and Vehicles.

      • zyekian November 23, 2016 6:33 am
        #

        Might as well retire the Tyrannid codex then.

        • Threllen November 23, 2016 6:54 am
          #

          Tyranids needed a lot more help than abusing toe cover anyway. If this helps curb the power of Riptides, Wraithknights, Greater Daemons, and the like – I’m all for the change. ‘Nids just need a whole new codex in order to be competitive…

          • zyekian November 23, 2016 10:45 am
            #

            It’s not just toe in cover we’re talking about here. It’s 100% in cover as well. Losing that is a serious problem for Tyrannid players.

            It’s also a problem for Dark Eldar players, as Talos and Cronos MCs were one of their few good units in their codex. Now they’re just grav/las/melta bait.

    • Michael Corr
      Michael Corr November 23, 2016 6:58 am
      #

      I would argue that they need to be 25% obscured by the terrain (the physical trees or ruins) and simply not be on the base to benefit from the cover save.
      I know that most people probably play if you are on the base you get the save (I do). This is fine for infantry, but I think vehicles and larger creatures shouldn’t benefit from this, but have to go by being obscured as normal. I’ve had situations where an opponent gets a 4+ cover save from ruins for his Wraithknight by having the bottom half of one of its legs covered by the ruins, but it was still on the base. I think the ruling is to prevent this sort of thing, not disallow cover saves entirely.

    • wintertalon November 23, 2016 1:02 pm
      #

      Q: Some pieces of terrain (woods, ruins, craters, etc.) provide a cover save to a models even if they are not 25% obscured. Does this really include large models like Monstrous Creatures?
      A: No. Just like Vehicles, Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures are not obscured simply for being inside terrain such as woods or ruins.
      Yes! No more cover saves for “toe-dipping” Wraithknights, Riptides and Stormsurges.

      This kills all ground tyranid army builds and they had few before this. All you will see is Flyrants from now one. MC just can’t handle the amount of fire power that is out there now. It is sad really. one ruling kills a whole army;(

      • WestRider November 23, 2016 9:14 pm
        #

        This one Ruling isn’t killing them. It’s just the latest in a long string of hits that have collectively done them in.

      • ryan November 24, 2016 8:21 am
        #

        Foot nid armies are a flat out joke in todays tournament meta. This dosnt invalidate a army playstyle, it never was good to begin with (in tournaments)

        • abusepuppy November 25, 2016 7:49 am
          #

          Yeah, foot Tyranids haven’t been even mildly good since… early 5th, if you are counting Tervigons. Mid 4th if you aren’t. A _long_ time, in either case.

  5. Dennis November 23, 2016 5:05 am
    #

    Q: Regarding Barrage weapons and vehicles – how do you determine which side is hit?
    A: Assume the shot is coming from the center of the blast marker and hits the nearest side.

    I thought this was referring to the knights ion shield facing for invul saves. The rules expressly state that barrage weapons hit the side armor only.

  6. Iago November 23, 2016 5:08 am
    #

    sooo…Psychic shriek against FMCs…no hit?
    There still seems to be a lot of confusion regarding auto hitting psychic abillities and Flying Monstrous Creatures/Flyers.

    • Threllen November 23, 2016 6:52 am
      #

      If I remember correctly they had a ruling in the draft FAQ that said abilities like Psychic Shriek could hit FMCs because they hit automatically. Which directly contradicts the rulebook which says anything that hits automatically cannot be fired as a snap shot and, therefore, can’t hit flyers. It seems that FAQ did not make the final draft…

    • 1PlusArmour November 23, 2016 7:33 am
      #

      Yep – can’t snap fire shooting attacks that do not roll to hit, so no Shriek against swooping FMCs, (RAW) Invisibility, or after jinking, etc…

      • abusepuppy November 23, 2016 9:27 am
        #

        That is only true for flyers, not FMCs.

        It’s not unreasonable to interpret it that way, but the FMC rules don’t say that anywhere (and the FAQ doesn’t either.)

        • WestRider November 23, 2016 1:24 pm
          #

          The Snap Shot Rules themselves say that if it doesn’t use BS, it can’t be fired as a Snap Shot. Pg.33

        • Drachnyen November 23, 2016 2:53 pm
          #

          Swooping FMC have the Hard to hit rule. Which makes them the same as regular flyers for targetting purposes.

  7. Davis Centis November 23, 2016 8:34 am
    #

    For the Artillery one, you still resolve it against the Side Armour value, but the vehicle is “hit” on the facing that is closest to the blast marker. This is important for a Knight’s Ion Field, and lots of people were asking how to resolve it. So, if a Knight declares the shield is on its left side, and the artillery blast comes from the right side, the Knight won’t get to use its Invul save.

    ———————–

    I like most of the changes. Even the grenade one. It plays a lot better in most situations than the previous method of play did.

  8. Leonix November 23, 2016 8:52 am
    #

    I love the Nade change, it was too easy for many units to be able to pop tanks and walkers… Yes this makes knights stronger kinda, but I’d rather bring back the steel legions than punish them more.

    • Troy Graber November 23, 2016 9:10 am
      #

      The biggest winner is probably WraithKnights. They now have alot less to fear in assault.

      • leonix November 23, 2016 9:56 am
        #

        Yes and no, it will be interesting to see what happens when people start bringing out more Powerfists, Klaws, Ect… Also Nades are still good on small units and ICs.

        • abusepuppy November 23, 2016 11:26 am
          #

          The thing is, they won’t bring more of those weapons because they still aren’t efficient ways to deal with vehicles. Grenades were mostly useful as a way for “basic” squads to take on some of the tougher targets (MCs, vehicles, bad walkers) at short ranges- no one is suddenly going to find 25pts each for the six or ten units in their army to replace them.

          Even Meltabombs on a sergeant is something of an iffy proposition now, since it means the rest of the unit will be sitting there like idiots while their character desperately tries to roll a 3+.

      • abusepuppy November 23, 2016 11:30 am
        #

        Uh, Wraithknights don’t give a shit about most grenades. Haywire doesn’t affect them. Krak wounds on 6s, followed by a 3+ armor save and 5+ FNP. Meltabombs technically exist, but still need 4s to hit and 4s to wound (followed by the usual FNP) and very rarely occur with more than one in a unit.

      • Sam November 23, 2016 1:22 pm
        #

        Since when was wraith knights afraid of str6 ap4 krak grenades?

        Meltabombs were ok against them but hardly a widespread item.

    • abusepuppy November 23, 2016 9:28 am
      #

      Because Battle Company needed to be tougher to kill, amirite?

      • leonix November 23, 2016 9:54 am
        #

        Thats throwing the baby out with the bathwater, Knights are a problem of their own, no need to screw every other tank in the game… Besides Nades are not the only tool in the box to bring them down.

        • abusepuppy November 23, 2016 11:29 am
          #

          Knights are almost wholly unaffected by grenades. Only two units in the game (Tankbustas, Swooping Hawks) were realistically using grenades against Knights.

          There are other ways to kill tanks, obviously, but when the meta is strongly in favor of an army that takes advantage of large numbers of vehicles, anything that makes vehicles harder to kill is going to be a significant point in its favor. The fact that it theoretically makes everyone’s garbage Dreadnoughts “better” is irrelevant, because they will still die in a heartbeat to all the weapons people brought to kill a Battle Company’s 10+ transports.

          • Leonix November 23, 2016 12:52 pm
            #

            If that’s the case then this is a non issue, you still hit rear armour in cc, as long as you have S4 options you are fine.

          • Leonix November 23, 2016 12:54 pm
            #

            Again punishment to all armor because of 1 or 2 Formations is a problem with the formation not gremades.

          • Kidlingur November 23, 2016 4:33 pm
            #

            Well it sure does make it a lot harder for orks to deal with knights and wraithknights.

          • abusepuppy November 23, 2016 6:03 pm
            #

            >If that’s the case then this is a non issue, you still hit rear armour in cc, as long as you have S4 options you are fine.

            One or two S4 attacks is _way_ worse than using Krak Grenades- for one, you can’t get penetrating hits on the vehicle, not to mention the raw numerical deficiencies.

            >Again punishment to all armor because of 1 or 2 Formations is a problem with the formation not gremades.

            Like it or not, the realistic effect of the change is more likely to be making Battle Company stronger than it will anything else- most other vehicles are seen only occasionally in the meta. Even in casual play, the overall effect is a weakening of melee as a strategy, something the game hardly needed more of.

          • Leonix November 23, 2016 7:00 pm
            #

            And yet we are seeing more and more assault formations with each new release, so I’m not worried.

          • AbusePuppy November 24, 2016 3:08 am
            #

            And yet most of them are still really bad.

  9. Grizzyzz November 23, 2016 9:02 am
    #

    “””
    Q: Regarding Barrage weapons and vehicles – how do you determine which side is hit?
    A: Assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker and hits the nearest side.
    “””
    My interpretation was different from your analysis. the answer does not state “nearest facing” it specifically says “nearest side”. Barrage has always only hit side armor. This is clarifying which side is actually impacted. Even if the nearest facing is the rear.. you will choose the closest “side” facing. Does this make sense?

    • grizzyzz November 23, 2016 9:05 am
      #

      Quick example of where this would matter. A knight chooses its left side armor to be shielded. The barrage comes in and is closest to the right side armor.. it is now not debatable, the barrage hits the unshielded right side.

      • Jason Wolfe November 23, 2016 10:06 am
        #

        I feel like this exact question was asked in the Knights Codex FAQ. I expect them to put this in the final Knights Codex FAQ.

        • grizzyzz November 23, 2016 10:10 am
          #

          If what I remember is correct, the draft FAQ had a question about how to resolve the direction of shooting attacks (for example from the optimized stealth cadre), which are from one direction, but hit a specific facing. In the draft FAQ they stated for these purposes the shield facing the direction of the attacking models would protect the knight.

          However, barrage I think would get around this as it specifically overrides the direction of fire, with “assume the shots are from the center of the blast”.

          As you stated, they will probably repeat this again in the Knight FAQ to make it clearer.

          Cheers!

  10. zyekian November 23, 2016 10:47 am
    #

    MCs losing cover is a serious problem for Tyrannid players.

    It’s also a problem for Dark Eldar players, as Talos and Cronos MCs were one of their few good units in their codex. Now they’re just grav/las/melta bait.

    The problematic gap between good and bad codexes just got bigger.

  11. Wolfsark November 23, 2016 1:54 pm
    #

    Regarding flyers: I use Razorwing Jetfighters in my dark eldar army. They have 4 one use only missiles, 2 dark lances and 1 twin linked splinter rifle. Sometimes I would shoot 2 missiles and both dark lances at full BS then shoot the twin linked splinter rifle as snapshots. Then when the Death from the Skies book came out it said that flyers may only fire 4 weapons in the shooting phase. Now they say you can fire 4 at full BS and then the rest as snap shots. So pissed I wasted money on that stupid Death from the Skies book.

  12. Bryan November 24, 2016 7:18 am
    #

    The grenade clarification/change really sucks IMO, can I get a one point discount on my marines now since they all carry a useless grenade? One lucky dude gets to throw the krak/Melta name.

  13. C-Stock November 24, 2016 9:53 am
    #

    Corsairs pay 25 points per unit for one haywire grenade now….. WTF?