Updated 9th ed 40k FAQs

The Warhammer-community team updated several 40k FAQs.

Check them out, here!

It’s always an exciting time to get new FAQs, what do you think about these latest offerings?

And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!

secondhandhsop

About Reecius

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

14 Responses to “Updated 9th ed 40k FAQs”

  1. Avatar
    Dakkath August 10, 2020 3:03 pm #

    And they couldn’t be bothered to clarify whether the blast hit minimums apply per die or or weapon. IE does a 2d6 blast weapon make a minimum of 3 attacks or 6.

    • Avatar
      winterman August 10, 2020 3:12 pm #

      They did, just in a weird spot right above the start of the errata in the core update.

      “Designer’s Note: In addition to the errata below, we wanted to
      briefly add an additional example to explain how the Blast rule
      works when shooting a weapon that requires more than one dice
      roll to determine its number of attacks. For example, if a Heavy
      2D3 weapon with the Blast rule targets a unit that has 6 or more
      models, and you roll a double 1 to determine how many attacks are
      made, that result is less than 3 and so that weapon makes 3 attacks
      against that target. If the same weapon targets a unit that has 11 or
      more models, that weapon makes six attacks against that unit.”

  2. Avatar
    Zweischneid August 10, 2020 9:41 pm #

    Space Wolves still army-wide ObSec after explicitly updating Saga of the Beast FAQ, lol

    Guess it’s confirmed now!!!

    • Avatar
      NinetyNineNo August 12, 2020 3:31 pm #

      Removed now.

  3. Avatar
    Staurty August 11, 2020 1:44 am #

    Hi all,

    What was the change to Look Out Sir intended to fix? From some of the comments, people seem to be suggesting that it was because a group of vehicle/monster characters could shield each other. I can’t see how that would be the case because the rule also specified that characters with 9 wounds or less are ignored.

    What am I missing? What was the abuse this was designed to curtail?

    Seems to hit certain armies really hard like harlequins,who don’t really have vehicles with 10+ wounds.

    • Avatar
      abusepuppy August 11, 2020 1:51 am #

      The old version of the rule did not have the clause about less than nine wounds. So two Daemon Princes next to each other (but not within 3″ of any other models) could shield each other, as long as there was another unit closer to the enemy.

    • Avatar
      Zweischneid August 11, 2020 2:17 am #

      Under the old rule, characters of 9 or less wounds were not ignored or even mentioned in the basic look-out-sir 3” rule.

      There was a unique exception where even the 3” rule no longer applies (if the character was the closest). For checking the condition for this exception to the basic 3” look out sir rule only(!), characters of 9 wounds or less were ignored.

      So am errata was indeed needed to stop mutually protecting Daemonprinces of Talonmasters (ideally perhaps adding the same exception noted above to the 3” look out sir rule).

      Instead, they went full bore and made Venoms, Talos, Ridgerunners, Sentinels, Carnifex, etc.. irrelevant for character-protection

  4. Avatar
    abusepuppy August 11, 2020 1:52 am #

    Not a fan of the change to fortifications. They were often a marginal inclusion already and their size, combined with the recommended terrain density, makes it virtually impossible to place a fort in most setups.

    • Lord Paddington
      Lord Paddington August 11, 2020 6:25 am #

      I think this will be a bigger deal going forward given that this will likely be a new frontier for them in 40k as they add faction-specific terrain

      • Avatar
        N.I.B. August 11, 2020 10:26 pm #

        They might add faction-specific terrain, but codex units like the Tyranid Sporocyst took a big hit. Is there any other faction that have fortifications that are also unit entrys in the codex?

        • Avatar
          Dakkath August 12, 2020 1:58 am #

          The various T’au tidewall pieces.

        • Avatar
          Zweischneid August 12, 2020 2:45 am #

          Plenty.

          Nurgle Tree
          Sister Sanctum
          CSM Nocilith Crown
          Ork Mek Workshop
          GSC Tectonic Drill
          Harlequin Webgate
          Imperial Knights Forgeshrine
          Etc..

          And both Marines & Necrons will get some in their new books.

  5. Avatar
    Alec C August 11, 2020 6:54 am #

    This seems like a ham-fisted way of fixing the daemon prince character problem. A lot of squishier armies get screwed by this change without any justification, it doesn’t feel like it was thought through properly. Dark Eldar, Harlequins, and even some Nid builds get punished by this new rule, with very few options for protecting their characters now.

    They just needed to add a second clause to the section about ignoring other character models when determining if a character is the closest target. “Ignore monsters and vehicles with the character keyword and 9 or less wounds when determining if it is within 3″ of friendly vehicle or monster”.

  6. Avatar
    Paul Winters August 11, 2020 8:22 am #

    Was a little bummed out they didn’t fix the Chaos Whip errata from Engine War. They were able to shoot into combat before. It was a super niche event but it was fun to do. The same rules exist in Codex Chaos Daemons and Codex Chaos Space Marines.

Leave a Reply