NEW (First Draft FAQs!

Count Adhemar wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:

Speaking of, did I misread, or can WWP no longer cover DS to a unit?

I've not seen that anywhere!

I haven't seen that either. I could be mistaken, but I think you're mistaken.

Some things that directly benefit us:

Quote :

Q: Which has precedence between a Lance weapon and quantum shielding? Both rules modify what Armour ‘counts as’.
A: The effects cancel out and the normal Armour Values are used.

Q: Do weapon special rules that say ‘a model equipped with this weapon’ or ‘this weapon’s bearer’ take effect even when not used as the attacking weapon?
A: Yes.

Q: Does a Hammer of Wrath attack always hit the front armour of a Walker?
A: No, it hits the armour the attacker is facing.

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: Yes.

Q: Does a wound negated by Feel No Pain count as saved or unsaved for the purposes of wargear that has an effect if a unit suffers an unsaved wound?
A: It counts as saved.

Some things that nerf Marines, Invisibility shenanigans, Superfriends shenanigans, Librarius shenanigans, etc:

Quote :

Q: If a unit includes multiple Independent Character Psykers, can they cast the same power (e.g. Psychic Shriek) multiple times, once for each Independent Character?
A: No.

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.

Q: If a unit has a flamer and they are charged by a model using the Invisibility psychic power, can they use the Wall of Death rule?
A: Yes.

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.

Q: How many Relics/Artefacts can a single model be equipped with?
A: A model can only be given a single Relic/Artefact of any kind unless specifically noted otherwise.

Q: If I have two different Independent Character Psykers in the same unit, can both of them attempt to cast the same power in the same Psychic phase?
A: No.

Q: Do rules applying to ‘the unit’, such as those from Formation command benefits (e.g. the Skyhammer Annihilation Force), or unit-wide special rules such as Dunestrider from Codex: Skitarii apply to any attached Independent Characters?
A: No.

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’.

Some things that nerf flying monstrous creatures:

Quote :

Q: Do Flyers, Super-heavy vehicles, Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures and Gargantuan Creatures gain cover while standing on the ‘base’ of a terrain piece, e.g. ruins or dense thickets, or do they need to be at least 25% obscured by the scenery for cover to apply?
A: The 25% rule applies in all types of terrain if the target is a Flyer, Super-heavy Vehicle, Flying Monstrous Creature or Gargantuan Creature. All other targets count as being in cover if they are in or on the terrain’s base, even if not 25% obsured.

Q: Does Jinking prevents a Flying Monstrous Creature from Vector Striking?
A: Yes.

Q: Can a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature or Zooming Flyer be targeted by a Blast or Template weapon with the Skyfire special rule?
A: Yes.

Also, this is noteworthy:

Quote :

Q: Models obscured by intervening models get a 5+ cover save just like the cover rules of terrain. Does this mean that I only get the cover save if the models are obscured by more than 25%?
A: No – the target only needs to be partially obscured. If, on the other hand, the target is completely visible to the firer, but the firer shoots through a gap between models in the intervening unit, then the target still receives a 5+ cover save.

This is my favorite quote right now from Bolter & Chainsword:

Somebody on Bolter & Chainsword wrote:

shame since we are losing options and Xenos are losing very little or even nothing in the case of Orks, Tau and Necrons.

Can we compare how many options you had (and still have) versus how many options those other armies have?

Q: Can a single model make a disordered charge against two or more enemy units?
A: Yes.



I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the faq doesn't elaborate on quite how a single model would pull that off.


Also, the faq regarding Gets Hot weapons and rerolls directly contradicts the rulebook. Awsome.

The Shredder wrote:

Q: Can a single model make a disordered charge against two or more enemy units?
A: Yes.



I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the faq doesn't elaborate on quite how a single model would pull that off.


Also, the faq regarding Gets Hot weapons and rerolls directly contradicts the rulebook. Awsome.

I imagine that it would be a scenario such as this: You have a monstrous creature within charge range of two units that are close together and side-by-side (like, say, two tactical squads), and your monstrous creature is front and center, so that when you charge, the closest model in unit 1 is touching the left half of your creature's base, and the closet model in unit 2 is touching the right half.

Calyptra wrote:

This is my favorite quote right now from Bolter & Chainsword:

Somebody on Bolter & Chainsword wrote:

shame since we are losing options and Xenos are losing very little or even nothing in the case of Orks, Tau and Necrons.

Can we compare how many options you had (and still have) versus how many options those other armies have?

Yeah. I love it that they're complaining about being forced to "pay" for krak grenades when they can only use one in a phase.

krayd wrote:

I imagine that it would be a scenario such as this: You have a monstrous creature within charge range of two units that are close together and side-by-side (like, say, two tactical squads), and your monstrous creature is front and center, so that when you charge, the closest model in unit 1 is touching the left half of your creature's base, and the closet model in unit 2 is touching the right half.

Still won't work.

Assault Phase:
"Move the initial charger into contact with the nearest enemy model in the unit being charged, using the shortest possible route."

(Hence, you can't scoot round a model to touch the base of a secondary model as well.)

Multiple Combats:
Once Overwatch is resolved, find the initial charger for the primary assault (the model in
the charging unit closest to the primary target) and attempt to move it into base contact
with the primary target, just as you would against a single target."

"If the initial charger successfully moves into base contact with the primary target,
remaining models can charge models belonging to either the primary or secondary target
units, as long as they follow the rules for moving charging models. That said, a charging
model is not permitted to move into base contact with a model in a secondary
target, unless it cannot move into base contact with an unengaged model in
the primary target. Remember that the charging unit is not allowed to break its unit
coherency, and this will obviously limit the potential for this kind of charge.

Note that the primary charger is not allowed to charge a secondary target - only the primary one. Moreover, even secondary chargers can't charge a secondary unit unless they're unable to charge an unengaged model in the primary unit.

With these rules, it is *impossible* for a single model to ever charge multiple units.

I guess you could still declare it though, if you feel like taking two overwatches instead of one.

I agree before the FAQ, Shredder, but the last sentence you underlined is clearly changed by the FAQ ruling. That's the only way it works. (At least, only way I see.)

That being said, I've literally seen a situation where this could occur happen once ever in 10+ years of playing.

So with the new grenade thing, if I have a (vagulely unlikely) unit including say, Wyches with Hek, Autarch, Corsair Prince and a Succubus all armed with Haywire, can they only throw one?


And I know our assault units (with a few obvious exceptions) are average-bad, but with posion shooting from vehicles taking a hit, do people think we'll move toeards more assault based armies?

flakmonkey wrote:

So with the new grenade thing, if I have a (vagulely unlikely) unit including say, Wyches with Hek, Autarch, Corsair Prince and a Succubus all armed with Haywire, can they only throw one?

Not only they can only throw 1 grenade. They can only use 1 in CC.

Unless they split into 4 separate units....

Jimsolo wrote:

I agree before the FAQ, Shredder, but the last sentence you underlined is clearly changed by the FAQ ruling. That's the only way it works. (At least, only way I see.)

The thing is, an faq isn't an errata. It doesn't (or isn't supposed to) give you permission to break rules. And, this one in particular requires breaking a lot of rules.

Even if you ignore the last sentence I underlined, it's still illegal - since the initial charger only has permission to charge the primary unit. And, even if you ignore that, he still has to move into contact by the most direct route possible.

flakmonkey wrote:

And I know our assault units (with a few obvious exceptions) are average-bad, but with posion shooting from vehicles taking a hit, do people think we'll move toeards more assault based armies?

Honestly, I think you'll just see even more Venoms.

My Corsairs are sad though. I think. It's hard to tell when they're all up on the top shelf.

In theory, you're correct. In reality, GW FAQs have frequently been as much errata as FAQ.  

The FAQ is, supposedly, what the original rule was intended to be. (Even if it isn't actually what they wrote.) I think they only call it errata when they meant it to function one way and have changed their mind (or changed the rule in the face of new rules).

Why shelve the Corsairs though? They've gotten a little better.

@calyptra

I dont know what list you play but more than half the stuff you listed as "it affects marines and superfriends", affects my DE/CWE/Harly armies.  

I am glad some of you were not as affected as the rest of us with you DE army, but acting like it didnt affect us is ridiculous.

Oh marines cant double cast from a conclave...  Oh wait the hq gets the best chance to pick what you want and can detatch from the unit. At best I get a 50% chance on my farseer and my shadowseer cant leave the unit.

Invisability: the only reason my army usually made it to turn 5, looks like my harlies will be crispy.


The next one....

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.

So @jimsolo can we not give our bubbles to joined units now?  Looks like grotesquerie got nerfed.


Then swoooping hawkes are now useless as well.

calyptra the only thing in that list that affects just marines is how many relics they get.

I get it, venom spam was hit the least, but not everyone plays venom spam.  I dont see how any of this is positive for my army.  Going to have trouble with the same elements, only those elements will do better against me (tanks and air).

If it walks I can kill it, except walkers I usually immobalize and then just stay away lmao. I have had walkers live through 3 turns of ravager fire on more or less the regular.

Jimsolo wrote:

In theory, you're correct. In reality, GW FAQs have frequently been as much errata as FAQ.  

The FAQ is, supposedly, what the original rule was intended to be. (Even if it isn't actually what they wrote.) I think they only call it errata when they meant it to function one way and have changed their mind (or changed the rule in the face of new rules).

The trouble is, there's no detail given. Which rules, precisely, are we allowed to break? Do we just keep breaking any and all rules that get in our way? Seems like a lot of power for a one-word answer.

Jimsolo wrote:

Why shelve the Corsairs though?

Because I'm not playing 40k at all at the moment. My group's interest in it just dried up.

If we ever play again, I'll probably be using Corsairs. But, as it stands, they're on the shelf with the others.

Jimsolo wrote:

They've gotten a little better.

How so? All I'm seeing is my favourite build (involving 5 Reaver Bands with 2x Fusion Gun each in Corsair Venoms), being nerfed to hell by changes to Jink.

If you think you will never play that game again, please leave this discussion and /or forum.

Not trying to be insulting but this forum is for 40k players and you just admitted you don't play that anymore. I understand where this is coming from but I'm afraid you'll scare away the kids.
/blunt off
Seriously though: there is something wrong with the sportsmanship in your gaming circle if this makes you consider to quit it because we aren't competitive. I'm afraid your friends weren't the ones that games workshop was talking about when they said they designed the game for fun.

Your friends seem to try to break it as much as possible. I'd quit playing those egoistic basterds too. Someone only caring about his own fun is not fun playing against.

@WhysoSully

I'm not unsympathetic if the way your army works has changed for the worse, but none of those issues effect Dark Eldar units. If you play a combined Dark Eldar/Craftworld army, then yes, the Craftworlders being been nerfed would certainly impact you.

Actually, I'm pretty unsympathetic about invisibility. Friends don't let friends cast invisibility.

But yes, you're right, psychic shenanigans have been toned down, and that effects Craftworld Eldar. Their codex is still brutal, so I'm pretty sure they'll be fine.

@calyptra

So my grotesquerie not being able too give a bubble to other units, doesnt affect dark eldar.  gotcha.

So my wwp cant bring friends in my raider.  Doesnt affect dark eldar.  Gotcha.

jinking Raider spam kabalites now count as snapfiring, doesnt affect dark eldar.  Gotcha

Its ok though.  it doesnt affect dark eldar units.


Just because you use dark eldar units differently than me, doesnt mean it didnt change the way I have to use them and therefore affects the unit.

Where do you see that the grotesquerie can't give the bubble to other units?

CptMetal wrote:

Where do you see that the grotesquerie can't give the bubble to other units?

Before you could add the heamonculus to another unit so that you could have another bubble.   It is a formation bonus and now does not apply to units not from the formation.

I hope I am wrong but thats what it looks like.

edit: Checked the covens book and it says models so there is a chance I could be wrong and I hope so. Now with the air release looking dim I am just tired of the nerfs.

@WhysoSully

None of those, except for the non-Dark Eldar friends, were in the list of things that I said effected Marines and not Dark Eldar.

I've never even implied that none of the changes effect Dark Eldar. I even listed some that do, including those snap-firing Kabalites. I've also never said or implied that the units and tactics that you use haven't changed.

My point has been that the nerfs directed at Dark Eldar hurt but aren't the end of the world, that we got some buffs too, and that other factions like Marines and Craftworld Eldar arguably got hit a lot harder than the Dark Eldar did. With some of the more egregious things in the game getting toned down, it's possible that this FAQ is actually a net gain for Dark Eldar.

When I started playing Dark Eldar we couldn't jink at all, let alone bring units from other factions' codices (and we had to walk uphill through the poison snow both ways (because our Raiders got shot down)). I can certainly live with this, and while I don't know it for certain, I'm hoping that the game will be better overall for it.

The Shredder wrote:

The only hope I can offer is that this is just a draft faq, so the Jink thing might change before it becomes official.

I think they're pretty set on their rulings. This draft is merely to see if all their rulings can be interpreted easily by players ie not whether you agree with the ruling or want it changed.

I doubt anything is going to change, except to make some of the new FAQ rulings even clearer and remove any lingering uncertainty.

There's still people looking to exploit the wording for grenades against vehicles, and some arguments that if a skimmer jinks and THEN gets immobilised, it no longer has to snap shoot as it can no longer jink etc. In my mind these are all clearer catered to in the FAQ but GW will have to literally spell it out for some cheesers.

I think, on the balance, the new FAQs do DE exclusively more harm than good.

And as a side note, one grenade per squad is the worst ruling ever. Period.

"Marines! Rally! Brother Snodgrass, plant your precious grenade upon the unholy tank's treads! No, not the rest of you! Hit it with your fists instead!"

The Shredder wrote:

Assault Phase:
Note that the primary charger is not allowed to charge a secondary target - only the primary one. Moreover, even secondary chargers can't charge a secondary unit unless they're unable to charge an unengaged model in the primary unit.

With these rules, it is *impossible* for a single model to ever charge multiple units.

I guess you could still declare it though, if you feel like taking two overwatches instead of one.

The rules don't quite say the first bit, at least to my reading. The bracketed section about multiple charges describes an exception to not charging other units, and there is not reason for that to not apply to the initial charger.

Easiest way to explain where this could be allowed is with a picture. Looking at the multiple combats picture on p55 imagine there is a single Marine at position F. The Marine declares the primary target is the Fire Dragons, with a multiple combat charge against the Guardians. The shortest route for the initial charger to the Fire Dragons would take it to position C, which engages both the Guardians and the Fire Dragons.

Essentially, I think it would be legal to multi-charge with a single model if you would otherwise need to scoot around another unit to make a single charge, and both units are really close together.

CptMetal wrote:

If you think you will never play that game again, please leave this discussion and /or forum.

Sod off.

CptMetal wrote:

Not trying to be insulting but this forum is for 40k players and you just admitted you don't play that anymore.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that I had to have played a minimum number of games per week before I was allowed to express an opinion.

CptMetal wrote:

Seriously though: there is something wrong with the sportsmanship in your gaming circle if this makes you consider to quit it because we aren't competitive.

Firstly, my apologies for actually wanting to win the occasional game, and for not wanting the odds to be stacked ever more against me with each new codex and faq.

Second, please read what I actually wrote before lambasting me for it. I didn't say that these rules made me consider quitting. What I said was that my group's interest in 40k dwindled to nothing about 3 months ago (and we haven't played since).

Since then, I've been out of touch with 40k stuff, but yesterday I thought I'd see if there was anything happening that would rekindle my (or my group's) interest. Nope.

CptMetal wrote:

Your friends seem to try to break it as much as possible. I'd quit playing those egoistic basterds too. Someone only caring about his own fun is not fun playing against.

...

You read where we hadn't played in ~3 months, right?

Regardless, when I played these people it was because I enjoyed hanging out with them (well, alright, there was one exception). And, given the choice between friends or 40k, I'll pick the former any day.

Kantalla wrote:

The rules don't quite say the first bit, at least to my reading.

The rules only give the primary charger permission to move to the primary target. There is no allowance for him to touch a secondary target as well.

The FAQ gives a very simple answer that yes, a single model can multicharge. The most reasonable way to apply that would seem to be to make the fewest changes to your interpretation of the rules in order to make that possible.

Jimsolo wrote:

I think, on the balance, the new FAQs do DE exclusively more harm than good.  

And as a side note, one grenade per squad is the worst ruling ever.  Period.

"Marines!  Rally!  Brother Snodgrass, plant your precious grenade upon the unholy tank's treads!  No, not the rest of you!  Hit it with your fists instead!"

I disagree, the only thing that really hurt us is the change to jink and embarked units but even then I think the only units that will be really hurt by that is Trueborn and even then I prefer running squads of Scourges with Heat Lances anyway. Splinter Racks certainly go some way to mitigate the loss of accuracy on Kabalites in a Raider at least.

I can see that it might make a Freakshow list a bit more complicated to run if you were relying on Harleys or Craftworlders in Raiders but I don't think it's going to be that big of a problem to get around.

What it's really hurt is Craftworlders using DE as a Taxi service for Fire Dragons and Wraithguard, but even then we still have WWP, admitedly more of a suicide squad but will still delete a super heavy or deathstar in a single turn.