New FAQ/Errata is live

Zenotaph wrote:

AzraeI wrote:

I'd argue that it's cumulative
You change the damage characteristic on a 6+ to wound, and add 1 with DT

Well, the german Kodex says, when rolling a 6, the damage is 2. Not the damage characteristic is changed.

RAI I'd say its Damage 3

Does the german codex have the reavers listed with 20pts?

krayd wrote:

AzraeI wrote:

Didn't they say that if you have any fight first an fight last, those cancel each other out?

Yes.

Frankly, I think that the notes on how to resolve fights first/fights last in the WC article (with the 3 steps) are more confusing to me than the actual wording in the FAQ.

What I would give for a characteristic that determines the order in which melee attacks are to be resolved, that would be an awesome, new, and awesome addition to the game.

You know, like in those nerdy dungeon games, where you roll to see who acts first. Maybe just steal acquire the idea and call it Initiative idk


Oh well, maybe in 10th ed

Vailex wrote:

sekac wrote:

Huh. Dark Technomancers is really bad now, I was hoping they'd come up with something to correct it, not just destroy it. Is it worth taking on anything other than Reapers?

Try DT hex rifles

I mean, I might try 1 if I have leftover points. I can't imagine taking any more than 5 wracks in any competitive list. Either as a tax for unlocking Realspace Raiders or as a tax to get a patrol with 2 DT Reapers and Drazhar.

But outside of very specific purposes, this faq makes coven units destined for casual play only.

AzraeI wrote:

What I would give for a characteristic that determines the order in which melee attacks are to be resolved, that would be an awesome, new, and awesome addition to the game.

You know, like in those nerdy dungeon games, where you roll to see who acts first. Maybe just steal acquire the idea and call it Initiative idk


Oh well, maybe in 10th ed

Been there, done that. We had Initiative until 8th edition.

Tantalus finally got PfP! Yay for T1 charges from across the map!

Zenotaph wrote:

AzraeI wrote:

What I would give for a characteristic that determines the order in which melee attacks are to be resolved, that would be an awesome, new, and awesome addition to the game.

You know, like in those nerdy dungeon games, where you roll to see who acts first. Maybe just steal acquire the idea and call it Initiative idk


Oh well, maybe in 10th ed

Been there, done that. We had Initiative until 8th edition.

So many older rules were so much better, i miss a lot of those rules (though many were also really bad lol).

Well guys we have got +10 points for Draz and Raider. But those changes are in FAQ to the codex.
It will be overrided by the Munitorum field manual anyway, where all the prices are old. Am I right?

amishprn86 wrote:

Zenotaph wrote:

AzraeI wrote:

What I would give for a characteristic that determines the order in which melee attacks are to be resolved, that would be an awesome, new, and awesome addition to the game.

You know, like in those nerdy dungeon games, where you roll to see who acts first. Maybe just steal acquire the idea and call it Initiative idk


Oh well, maybe in 10th ed

Been there, done that. We had Initiative until 8th edition.

So many older rules were so much better, i miss a lot of those rules (though many were also really bad lol).

I'm pretty OT here, but recently I found this:

https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/grimdark-future/


That's amazing how even an indie game that propose a light way to play 40k tought that alternate activations are good.
GW only belive that A-B-A-B turn is nice ..in 2021.

Anyway take a look on this game, the rulebooks seems amazing (yep I'm getting old for the actual 40k, too many unnecessary rules!)

SERAFF wrote:

Well guys we have got +10 points for Draz and Raider. But those changes are in FAQ to the codex.
It will be overrided by the Munitorum field manual anyway, where all the prices are old. Am I right?

Heh. I wonder if they'll put out a Day 1 FAQ for the field manual.

Cerve wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Zenotaph wrote:

AzraeI wrote:

What I would give for a characteristic that determines the order in which melee attacks are to be resolved, that would be an awesome, new, and awesome addition to the game.

You know, like in those nerdy dungeon games, where you roll to see who acts first. Maybe just steal acquire the idea and call it Initiative idk


Oh well, maybe in 10th ed

Been there, done that. We had Initiative until 8th edition.

So many older rules were so much better, i miss a lot of those rules (though many were also really bad lol).

I'm pretty OT here, but recently I found this:

https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/grimdark-future/


That's amazing how even an indie game that propose a light way to play 40k tought that alternate activations are good.
GW only belive that A-B-A-B turn is nice ..in 2021.

Anyway take a look on this game, the rulebooks seems amazing (yep I'm getting old for the actual 40k, too many unnecessary rules!)

Problem with 1 page rules (and we see that problem also in 8th and 9th) is now each unit needs loads of special rules to do be able to change how they play, there are also a lot less tactics outside of pure stats and movement, and the list goes on.

Some of the old rules created diverse strategies and tactics you'll never be able to get with 1 page rules unless you add insane special rules to units, here are a few example.

Pinning and Going to ground - You can choose or forced to (Basically duck and cover) this limits your movement, who you can shoot, your charges, but makes you harder to hit and gives you a better save. You can choose for some units to Go to Ground to keep them alive easier but at the cost of basically not doing anything next turn. Moral also could force a unit to get Pinned, shooting them with certain guns can help cause them to be Pinned and moral modifiers also helps this.

Vehicle, Monster, Size, Unit type Keywords - Making sure get unit has a type, you can give ltos of nuance as to how they behave on the table, Bikes not being able to go up floors, Monsters being able to crush through walls, Vehicles able to run over infantry, Size of units giving them importance over smaller units, you can apply rules to let them hit units in buildings, in the air, Swarms to be able to slow down and stop infantry. Weapons can not have keywords associated with them to be more or less effective against certain keyworded units without having to make it a rule on every gun the list goes on and on. The list goes on and one, I can literally write a 10 page essay on just this alone.

More numbers also means more granularity, having WS/BS going from 0-10 and comparing to a chart can heavily influence and add granularity to a D6 system without having to relay on special additive rules on datasheets.

Etc.. etc...

1 Page rules just makes it so you need MORE rules on ALL units as appose to just adding in 10 more pages of rules that effects every unit. 1 page rules makes the game in the end have more rules you have to remember and always wondering "what can that unit do? what 4-10 rules does that unit i've never seen before have?". Don't mistake GW writing rules to mean you need them to be complicated, no the opposite GW makes them complicated for some unknown reason.


Having played 1 page rules systems, and 100 page ones. I can tell you there are home made games out there 1000x better than GW and most rule sets you have ever seen. Some are 30-40 pages but are so simple, clear, black and out, and are just common sense stuff that having all the rules has greatly added value to the gaming experience, giving you options for tactics with simple unit sheets. When it is beneficial to advance units, dive in cover, set up smoke, and many of things instead of just shooting, or a special rule to move, advance, shoot, re-rolls, etc.. the game becomes way more in-depth. Sadly 1 page rules systems (or limited rules) doesn't offer a lot of those options.

seriously for my part, i find that all that GW would need to do to clarify their rules is to add a little bit more pictures, or some images to show what actually happens, show some diagrams or i don't know what, but something more visual than a bunch of words tackled together.

I know they are not perfect, but goonhammer did a good job to clarify some complicated rules like the line of sight, how the area terrains work, etc...(i know they leave room to some homemade interpretation, but in the end its entirely the fault of GW to not have crystal clear rules)
I know this won't solve everything, but this could be a good start.

amishprn86 wrote:

Problem with 1 page rules (and we see that problem also in 8th and 9th) is now each unit needs loads of special rules to do be able to change how they play, there are also a lot less tactics outside of pure stats and movement, and the list goes on.

Some of the old rules created diverse strategies and tactics you'll never be able to get with 1 page rules unless you add insane special rules to units, here are a few example.

Pinning and Going to ground - You can choose or forced to (Basically duck and cover) this limits your movement, who you can shoot, your charges, but makes you harder to hit and gives you a better save. You can choose for some units to Go to Ground to keep them alive easier but at the cost of basically not doing anything next turn. Moral also could force a unit to get Pinned, shooting them with certain guns can help cause them to be Pinned and moral modifiers also helps this.

Vehicle, Monster, Size, Unit type Keywords - Making sure get unit has a type, you can give ltos of nuance as to how they behave on the table, Bikes not being able to go up floors, Monsters being able to crush through walls, Vehicles able to run over infantry, Size of units giving them importance over smaller units, you can apply rules to let them hit units in buildings, in the air, Swarms to be able to slow down and stop infantry. Weapons can not have keywords associated with them to be more or less effective against certain keyworded units without having to make it a rule on every gun the list goes on and on. The list goes on and one, I can literally write a 10 page essay on just this alone.

More numbers also means more granularity, having WS/BS going from 0-10 and comparing to a chart can heavily influence and add granularity to a D6 system without having to relay on special additive rules on datasheets.

Etc.. etc...

1 Page rules just makes it so you need MORE rules on ALL units as appose to just adding in 10 more pages of rules that effects every unit. 1 page rules makes the game in the end have more rules you have to remember and always wondering "what can that unit do? what 4-10 rules does that unit i've never seen before have?". Don't mistake GW writing rules to mean you need them to be complicated, no the opposite GW makes them complicated for some unknown reason.


Having played 1 page rules systems, and 100 page ones. I can tell you there are home made games out there 1000x better than GW and most rule sets you have ever seen. Some are 30-40 pages but are so simple, clear, black and out, and are just common sense stuff that having all the rules has greatly added value to the gaming experience, giving you options for tactics with simple unit sheets. When it is beneficial to advance units, dive in cover, set up smoke, and many of things instead of just shooting, or a special rule to move, advance, shoot, re-rolls, etc.. the game becomes way more in-depth. Sadly 1 page rules systems (or limited rules) doesn't offer a lot of those options.

Exactly this.

Honestly, I think people also need to be clear about what (if any) problem they're actually attempting to solve.

For example, the older 40k rulebooks were certainly weighty, but that was at least in part because there was about 200 pages of (mostly SM) fluff in them in addition to the rules. What's more, most of the issues weren't a result of too many rules but rather the terrible manner in which the rules were laid out. "This is the vehicle section. It tells you everything you need to know about vehicles, unless they're Open-Topped or Transports - those have their own, completely separate sections. No we won't give you a page number!" or the always fun "USR that does nothing but give the unit one or more other USRs."

And let's be honest, this hasn't really changed. Point costs for units and equipment, for example, remain entirely separate from the actual units and equipment. And then you have key list-building information that seems almost purpose-built to be missed (e.g. unit restrictions that aren't printed in the unit entry or even in the main army-building section).

Hell, I can give you an example from this FAQ - with Reavers, they reprinted the costs of two pieces of wargear that were unchanged but not Heat Lances. Are we to take it that Heat Lances are now free or did they not change (yet somehow in a different way to the other wargear that also didn't change)?

Now, that's not to say that old rulesets had no fat that could be trimmed. The entire Challenge mechanic was awful, you had pointless rules like Fear and Soulfire, the psychic system was literally just all the worst parts of the horrible 8th edition WHFB magic system etc.. However, I think GW very much threw the baby out with the bathwater. As amishprn86 said, we lost genuinely impactful rules like Pinned/Gone to Ground. The psychic system just took inspiration from another awful system (just one that was awful in a different way), and any fat that was trimmed seems to have been added back in the form of Stratagems or other such.

Kalmah wrote:

seriously for my part, i find that all that GW would need to do to clarify their rules is to add a little bit more pictures, or some images to show what actually happens, show some diagrams or i don't know what, but something more visual than a bunch of words tackled together.

I know they are not perfect, but goonhammer did a good job to clarify some complicated rules like the line of sight, how the area terrains work, etc...(i know they leave room to some homemade interpretation, but in the end its entirely the fault of GW to not have crystal clear rules)
I know this won't solve everything, but this could be a good start.

They need to just make the rules stupid simple and clear instead of being way overly detailed. Here is an example that just came up.

Remain stationary just got a FAQ, it is 8 bullet points of rules

The faq to see the mess it is:

But when instead they could has worded it like this (Maybe slightly better than me, but you get the idea)

All instances of remaining stationary, having not moved, count as not moving, etc... are treated the same. For the purpose of all types of movement (Move, Advance, Fallback, charge) units do not count as having moved. This rule is ignored for units that came in by Reinforcements, are embarking or disembarking from transports, and Actions if the unit Advanced or Fellback

Reading all this made me really nostalgic for 5th edition or 7th edition without soul blaze lol

One thing I do like though is that I don't have to close my book and struggle through 5 pages of USRs to find the wording of this one obscure special rule.

Having all rules one the datasheet is great. Having them in order of import is greater.

I also miss the time when unit specific special rules or upgrades were actual upgrades and not stratagems.

"No Bob, you can't use your smoke grenade, Sergeant Billy has already done so"