Games Workshop Releases 8th ed Warhammer 40,000 FAQs!

Games Workshop, thank you for releasing a FAQ so quickly that answers so many of our questions about 8th ed 40k and looks at some balance issues, too. We appreciate it!

Read the FAQ, here.

What do you all think? Changes you like and don’t like? Did your questions get answered?


About Reecius

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

74 Responses to “Games Workshop Releases 8th ed Warhammer 40,000 FAQs!”

  1. Panzer1944 July 2, 2017 9:30 am #

    Can someone clarify now the Ruins rule. Are my thunderwolves now once again stuck on the ground floor or is this just in the movement phase and not in the assault phase they can get up ruins. I remember the dark days when all my opponent had to do was spread out units on the second floor to deny my wolves from getting to base to base to prevent my guys from charging and I really don’t want melee focus units to once again get the short end of the stick.

    • Reecius July 2, 2017 9:47 am #

      The FAQ is quite clear on that one as is the rule book. You cannot go up levels in ruins unless are infantry or can fly.

      So, not only T-Wolves, but Dreads, MCs, etc. are all stuck on the ground per the GW definition of ruins.

      • TrexPushups July 3, 2017 7:30 am #

        Change the rst paragraph of rules text to read: ‘Unless they can Fly, Vehicles, Monsters, Cavalry and Bikers can only be set up or end their move on the ground floor of ruins.’

        Just to be clear. It does not seem that beasts are prohibited as they are not listed.

        So infantry, beasts and things that have fly can go up there. If there is another category I am not thinking of they can do it too.

  2. Gigasnail July 2, 2017 10:00 am #

    So being up off the ground in a ruin completely isolates an infantry unit from assault from anything other than infantry?


    • Reecius July 2, 2017 10:06 am #

      That is what the rules say, yes. They are immune apart from other infantry or units that can fly.

      That means even on the ground floor they cannot be assaulted through the walls by units that cannot go over or through the walls which again, is going to be other infantry units or units that can fly in most cases.

      Bear in mind, the BRB also tells you it is OK to make up your own rules for terrain which I think may TOs will opt to do (And we are considering doing for certain pieces of ITC terrain).

      • Gigasnail July 2, 2017 10:21 am #

        It’s not just MC’s though. A unit of just 5 infantry is utterly immune to assault just for chilling out on a ledge on most pieces of terrain. Not really a fan of unassailable shooting units sitting and pouring out firepower with little counter.

        • Gigasnail July 2, 2017 10:25 am #

          We had this exact situation before and you guys FAQ’d it to not be allowed. What’s changed to make it not a concern now?

          You guys have a lot of experience with the new edition, but this seems like a glaring oversight

          • pascalnz July 2, 2017 1:34 pm

            they aren’t quite immune from vehicles. if you have a talk vehicle without a base, you measure from the hull.
            If an infantry model is standing on the second floor right on the edge of a ruin, you could drive a land raider next to the ruin and engage the infantry unit as they’d be within 1 inch of the hull.

            which is weird as hell, it’s easier for a land raider to assault infantry on the second floor than an imperial knight

          • Adam (RUMBL) July 2, 2017 2:27 pm

            Yeah I’m really hoping there is an ITC FAQ about this, the RAW terrain rules seem pretty incomplete and lead to a lot of bad situations like this.

          • Beau July 2, 2017 3:23 pm

            Well, if you have a sniper in a bell tower you aren’t going to send a horse mounted officer up after him. Get off your fat lazy butt and walk up there.

            I can see the tank assault working, it’s as if the tank just starting driving the the building collapsing walls on occupants.

          • Nogle July 2, 2017 4:34 pm

            Since a knight has a base does that mean they can’t attack an infantry squad 3″ up a level even though the chainsword is at the model’s height? But a Lord of skulls could attack the same model because he does not have a base? I could understand no happy feet attacks

          • David July 2, 2017 6:42 pm

            Are you restricted from taking units that are capable of assaulting a ruin?

          • Troy Graber July 2, 2017 8:27 pm

            My proposed solution is that while you can’t end your movement on top of upper levels, if you make a sufficient charge move, you can assault.

            For instance if there is a ruins with 2 levels, and each is 3″ apart. Then a dreadnought on the ground floor directly next to it, can successfully assault a unit on the uppermost level if they roll a charge of 6″ or greater.

          • Michael Corr July 3, 2017 12:59 am

            What annoys me more is that Bikers can get up on the levels of the ruins. I know it makes sense, but it seriously limits some of my armies.

            I like to run all Bike armies (Ravenwing and White Scars). Now all an opponent has to do is place their objectives high enough on ruins and it will be next to impossible for me to score them.

          • cephalobeard July 3, 2017 5:11 am

            The bike issue is likely why ITC has set objective placing in their Draft, so that can’t do exactly that.

          • Adam (RUMBL) July 3, 2017 7:30 am

            Yeah this really needs to be measure from the base or model. Measuring from the hull only helps vehicles and leaves the Heirodules and Trygon attacking the ground floor. Hell it even means if you decide you want to put a base on a model that doesn’t always have one (like a Warhound) it affects your melee range…

  3. Zweistein July 2, 2017 10:04 am #

    Is the ynnari Nerf a big Deal Or is it ok??

    • Reecius July 2, 2017 10:07 am #

      What nerf?

      • Zweistein July 2, 2017 10:25 am #

        I mean that Word of the phoenix now only Works on bikes and infantry

        • DirtyDeeds July 2, 2017 12:55 pm #

          Well, that’s how the strength from death rule works anyways. It’s how it should have been played from the beginning.

          • Reecius July 2, 2017 3:26 pm

            Yeah, exactly. That is what the rule always meant.

  4. July 2, 2017 10:14 am #

    No more tempestus command squad spam?

    • Reecius July 2, 2017 3:27 pm #

      Nope, and that is much, much better for the game, IMO.

  5. Gigasnail July 2, 2017 10:33 am #

    How are you going to deal with understrength units? A lot of troops get stupid cost effective when you’re just having to purchase say, one cultist and dumping the rest of the points into tougher or killier units.

    • GreenInk July 2, 2017 11:15 am #

      I really like the FAQ overall, but the understrength units thing is a bit odd. I can see people potentially abusing it and going super MSU to get extra command points, etc. Also, taking a 13 point devastator marine to allow me a relic heavy support choice? Don’t mind if I do!

      • Sanchezsam2 July 2, 2017 11:58 am #

        I have no idea what gw is thinking with matched play undercoat unit ruling.

        • Hiveminded July 2, 2017 1:25 pm #

          Well, RAW, it’s not that big of a deal. If you’re bringing a lot of undersized units, you’re increasing your drops, more likely to be guaranteed of going 2nd, and more prone to give up first blood due to all the undersized units.

          In ITC….well, we’re seeing the rule of unintended consequences in action. ITC (in my opinion…prematurely) did away with the RAW go-first mechanic and now this undersized unit thing is abusable.

          Because of their first rule change, ITC will now need to change another rule to address undersized units.

          • Sanchezsam2 July 2, 2017 6:06 pm

            If you are playing msu you really stopped caring about drops and first turn a long time ago in list building. 1 squad per type that can be understaffed is hardly going to go overboard. However it will be gamed to hell and back with abusing the command point detachment system and certain units that give special weapons or unique weapons at 1 per squad.

            This change has NOthing to do with the itc first turn change whatssoever

    • Reecius July 2, 2017 3:28 pm #

      That rule is meant for folks that may lost a model or something like that, not for intentionally bringing smaller units. T.O.’s may simply say no under-strength units for their events.

      • Subclavian Steel July 2, 2017 9:18 pm #

        Are you saying this for BAO?

      • Blight July 2, 2017 9:29 pm #

        I actually think the rule itself only allows one understrength unit anyway. Still allows tau to throw out a single suit but shouldn’t allow you to take a whole army of them.
        I think you can take multiple types of understrength units though. So only a single one for suits but could also have a unit of warriors.

      • Sanchezsam2 July 3, 2017 1:00 am #

        That’s great for casual friendly games however power points the more friendly system is more restrictive than matched play the more gamey competitive system where players will take units of 1 model that open up access to special rules or weapons they only get with certain units or to game the detachment system to get more command points. It’s honestly just a misplaced rule that had no issue since you already had the option to take understaffed units if you paid the full unit cost. I don’t think it’s going to be game breakingly broken but it will be abused.

      • cephalobeard July 3, 2017 5:12 am #

        That may be what it’s MEANT for, however RAW, anyone can simply DO it. I think it will need a blanket ruling on.

      • TrexPushups July 3, 2017 7:34 am #

        I would implore TOs to allow one understrength unit.

        It allows players without landraider crusader access to put a unit of terminators in the same vehicle as a chaos lord etc.

        It avoid the silly ness of 20 single marine units etc. as well.

    • Venkarel July 3, 2017 3:47 pm #

      Under strength units are a problem and there are many many ways to game it. This rule needs to be banned from ITC match play.

  6. Hiveminded July 2, 2017 11:14 am #

    Glad to see they fixed the issue with GSC purestrains being overcosted relative to tyranid genestealers. GSC is really struggling in this edition and that change will help.

    • Troy Graber July 2, 2017 8:33 pm #

      They might be just a tad too cheap at 10ppm. I have no idea why anyone would ever take metamorphs now.

      • CWDub July 5, 2017 7:19 pm #

        … or Genestealer Cult Acolytes @ 11 PPM… :-/

  7. Ujayim July 2, 2017 11:38 am #

    Are understrength units going to be allowed? RAW one is allowed in matched play, no?

    • highwind July 2, 2017 12:37 pm #

      Looks like they are and with the FAQ it became even more ridicolous than before… technically you could now legally take 12 “units” of understrenght Orkboys, each consisting of only the Boss Nob, which costs 6 points despite having stats of a Nob would be 17 points per model.
      They can all drive in the same Trukk, they make 12 charge rolls and the enemy has to allocate the attacks against them before they are made resulting in totally f*cked up wound allocation for your enemy.

      • Ujayim July 2, 2017 12:55 pm #

        Matched play rules indicate only one understrength unit, I believe.

        • highwind July 2, 2017 1:37 pm #

          I just checked and didnt find anything that limits understrenght units… you got a page number?

          • Ujayim July 2, 2017 1:42 pm


  8. Davis Centis July 2, 2017 12:41 pm #

    Mostly good. Some things are a little odd. I find it really weird that a vehicle that’s completely through a forest and 50% obscured gets no benefit from cover, but a vehicle that’s on the base of a forest and is 50% obscured gains the benefit of cover.

    Like, if you can see 2 infantry models in a Forest, and the rest are out of the Forest but you can’t even see them (completely obscured), you still don’t get the benefit of cover. Which, to me, is really weird.

    Going to echo the understrength unit thing; if you only pay the points for the models you use, then what’s to stop me from taking 1 Termagant, 1 Hormagant, and 1 Genestealer in my Tyranid list for all my require troops choices? I think matched play should echo the Power Ratings; you pay the points for the minimum number of models in the squad, regardless of whether you actually have the models to represent them or not.

    Would also rather have had the number of attacks from Scything Talons be an errata rather an FAQ. If you have 3 pairs of a weapon, and each air of weapons has that profile, then you get 3 bonus attacks, not 1. If you had 3 Heavy Bolters, and the weapon profile was “Heavy Bolter”, then you’d assume you get 3 times that many shots, but for some reason this doesn’t work the same. Not to say they’re not right for reducing the Trygon’s number of attacks like this, but they should’ve errated it to be something like; “Massive Scything Talons: A model with more than one pair of Massive Scything Talons may make an extra attack with one and only one pair of Massive Scything Talons when it fights.”

    That would make it clear that 2 of these gives you 1 extra attack, not 2 extra attacks.

  9. highwind July 2, 2017 12:47 pm #

    Do units deployed in transports count as being “on the battlefield” in terms for how many units you can keep in reserves?

    I play two Captains in Terminator armor, 2 Tactical Squads and 2 Rhinos. I would like both Captains arrive from “Tactical Reserves” via teleport.
    Now the “Tactical Reserves” rule says atleast half of my units must be deployed on the table… does that mean atleast on Tactical Squad has to start outside of the Rhino?

    • Hiveminded July 2, 2017 12:56 pm #

      Sure, why wouldn’t they? They’re on the battlefield.

      • highwind July 2, 2017 1:35 pm #

        Well, because they are in the transport, not physically touching the battlefield at all and they cannot not affected by anything happening on the battlefield either, so one could argue they are not on the battlefield…

        the problem is within the “Tactical Reserves” rules… it would have been all clear and easy if the rule just said that a maximum of 50% may be deployed from tactical reserves – but for some stupid reason they decided to word it they other way round which leaves stuff completely unclear

        • Hiveminded July 2, 2017 2:16 pm #

          It would seem the idea behind limiting reserves is to avoid scenarios in which one player has no targets. Clearly, if a unit is deployed and in a transport, its location is known and its a target. Kill the vehicle….kill the guys inside.

          I think we need to be careful not to read something into the rule that isn’t there. In my opinion, it appears pretty straightforward.

          • highwind July 2, 2017 5:10 pm

            Well, the problem is neither my nor your reading is actually written in the rules… there is no statement at all if a model embarked in a transport counts as “being on the table” or not and there are RAI and/or logical arguments supporting either view.

            Your reading of the rule is that its intention is to avoid the opponent having no target at all – what if I argue that with the 50% explicitly mentioned the rules intention is to give the opponent atleast 50% of the units as targets (which wouldnt be the case if units could hide in a transport)?

            They really need to clear this up…

          • Kleos July 2, 2017 6:06 pm

            If someone seriously tries to argue that if a unit is in a transport it doesn’t qualify as being deployed on the battlefield because “the base is not touching the game table” then it sounds like that is one less person who you should choose to play against. Besides, the rule is pretty obvious. The first sentence is talking about two things: units that are set up on the battlefield and units that arrive mid-game as reinforcements. If it is not one then it is the other. Highwind… you are being “that guy”. Don’t be “that guy”

          • Kleos July 2, 2017 6:14 pm

            Also, the final sentence states that all units not on the battlefield following turn 3 are destroyed. Following your logic any unit still in a transport after turn 3 is destroyed. That is absurd.

          • FredOf40k July 3, 2017 4:55 am

            The way everyone as far as I understand is playing it and list designing, especially for ATC, is that units embarked do not count towards your total number of “drops.” I actually specifically asked GW this on their FB page and their confirmed that to be true.

          • Kleos July 3, 2017 5:26 am

            Yes, Fred, that means you can place both the transport and unit at the same time in the deployment phase if the unit is embarked. It counts as one “drop” for purposes of “I go, you go” deployment. That does not mean the embarked unit does not count as being on the battlefield.

  10. Vega July 2, 2017 1:21 pm #

    Thoughts on Sisters of Battle’s ability to use Acts of Faith while embarked on a transport? Specifically: AoFs for an additional shooting phase for a Dominion squad embarked within a FW repressor? The fire point special rule for Repressors says: “up to 6 models being transported by a Repressor can shoot in their shooting phase” and the AoF specifies that you may immediately shoot as if you were in your shooting phase…but so far, the rules for embarked units, even in open-topped vehicles, state that “embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way whilst embarked”, which was made more explicit for psykers and aura effects in the FAQ…is it different for acts of faith?

  11. DavidDavis July 2, 2017 1:49 pm #

    The FAQ drastically reduces Tau defensive drone use, and boarder-line invalidates Shield Drones as a unit or as a viable option in the game.

    Change this rule to read:
    ‘Saviour Protocols: If a Drones unit is within 3″ of a friendly Infantry or Battlesuit unit when an enemy attack successfully wounds it, you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.’

    • Matt July 2, 2017 5:41 pm #

      The Tau drone rules in general are stupid and clunky, and there’s really no excuse for it. The whole mess could have been avoided by allowing multi-toughness units to be a thing and simply keeping drones as part of the unit they were bought for.

      “If a unit consists of models with different toughness values, use the majority toughness when targeting the unit” <- There, one line in the rulebook fixes everything.

      No need for the savior protocols or drone support rules. You don't give away stupidly easy killpoints, shield drones are worthwhile, utility drones can't be easily picked out so they remain useful, and you can't abuse drones by using them to keep one battlesuit unit alive indefinitely.

      It was just such a dumb change and further proof that the guy who wrote the Tau index shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near it.

    • Loofa4 July 2, 2017 7:02 pm #

      This is so stupid. Shield drones can’t use their shield generators? WTF?

    • Damian July 2, 2017 8:40 pm #

      This brings the tau mechanic inline with other lookout-sir mechanics, the tau version is still the arguably the most efficient, just that the invul save is not worth as much anymore.

      Now that shield drone cannot use their invul save against re-allocated wounds they are just not worth 8 pts, maybe 4pts, even then it’s probably still better to bring marker or gun drones.

      • Loofa4 July 3, 2017 4:00 am #

        Other look-out-sir mechanics allow at least the character to attempt a saving throw. Correct me if I’m wrong, but savior protocols does not as far as I can read.

  12. Matt July 2, 2017 4:15 pm #

    Reecius. If I have a big’n tall model say Magnus or a big Dread or a LOC next to ruins and thus easily within an inch of the 2nd and 3rd floors measuring from the model. If my opponent is by the edge of any of the floors of a ruin within 1 inch of a model like that’s can I attack?

  13. Matt July 2, 2017 4:15 pm #

    Reecius. If I have a big’n tall model say Magnus or a big Dread or a LOC next to ruins and thus easily within an inch of the 2nd and 3rd floors measuring from the model. If my opponent is by the edge of any of the floors of a ruin within 1 inch of a model like that’s can I attack it

    • Sigmar July 13, 2017 2:19 pm #

      no you are a model that have a base. only models without base. I.E. soul grinders

  14. Danden July 2, 2017 5:36 pm #

    Hoping they were gonna FAQ but I guess not.

    What is your guys take on GSC’s mind control?

    Does it allow you to shoot all the models weapons or shoot with one weapon or just a single shot from any weapon?

    Right now, it seems like it can shoot all weapons even though your other option is to make a single combat attack which is extremely confusing.

    If thats the case, welcome to one of the most OP psychic powers in the game, especially in Apoc games with Titans.

    70 pt model gaining control of a 1800 pt model very easily and just having a good ol’ time 😉

  15. Lord Toranaga July 2, 2017 6:13 pm #

    Fateweaver has been redeemed!

    Chaos Daemon Princes too. Domo arigato!

    • rvd1ofakind July 2, 2017 8:40 pm #

      Yea, he’s no longer an objectively worse LoC, who is bad to begin with. Now he’s just a subjectively worse LoC, who is bad to begin with.

      Why not take Magnus for 15 more pts who can solo half of the enemy’s army instead?

      • Lord Toranaga July 3, 2017 10:01 am #

        In the games I’ve played so far LoC’s have been brutal. In what way would you say they’re bad?
        Fateweaver can cast more spells, smite at longer range, and has a better weapon, and his extra command points are pretty clutch. How is that worse?

        I do take Magnus, but you can only take one of him 😉

  16. Umbo Mangoman July 2, 2017 6:30 pm #

    sad they didnt address so clear abusive units, but oh well, still doing great work. The tournament scene is a bit spammy for my liking tho, these spammy lists have been winning too, the balanced lists are struggling at the GTs

    • Loofa4 July 3, 2017 4:04 am #

      Here here! The new detachments make spamming far too easy. Armies of 10 identical units are boring and not fun

  17. Luke July 2, 2017 7:51 pm #

    I’m still trying to figure out line of sight and range. Is it like brotherhood of psykers was in 7th where everything is just checked from one model, even special weapons? Like if my plasma pistol dude is 15″ away but the closest guy in my squad is 8″ away, can the closest guy “fire” the plasma pistol as long as he has line of sight?

    I feel like GW means for weapons to still be used on a model-by-model basis, but it reads unclearly to me. Would be interested to know what the ITC is thinking about doing for this.

    • bonesaww666 July 4, 2017 7:14 am #

      They actually state that shots and wounds are to be worked out on a model to model basis but you can roll multiple dice to speed up play.

  18. Sedat July 3, 2017 1:03 am #

    Understrength units rule faq is just plain stupid. What were they thinking when they wrote this rule, one wonders…

    • AngryPanda July 3, 2017 6:47 am #

      I usually imagine a thousand yellow Minions trying to line-dance and bump into each other all over the place inside the dev’s heads.

    • Ytook July 3, 2017 7:10 am #

      You can only have one under strength unit in matched play, it’s to allow people with incomplete collections to use their stuff, it’s a nice quality of life rule.

      • TrexPushups July 3, 2017 7:36 am #

        It is a nice rule for people who want to have a terminator character and a terminator unit in the same land raider as well.

Leave a Reply