New Core Rulebook FAQ/Errata

Errata/FAQ for the Core rulebook dropped today.

There are some significant things in there.

Revision of Look Out, Sir - Vehicles/Monsters have to have 10W or more in order to screen characters (unless they're a unit of 3+). So, 1-2 Talos' can't screen haemonculi anymore.

They errata'd smite to work as it did in 8th ed, so that units can't machine gun the power in a single phase.

Units that charge into heavy cover no longer benefit from heavy cover.

Limitation on CP refunds do not apply to refunds provided by strategems.

Clarification on how blast works.

And here goes my motivation for 9th

It sucks of course but the character targeting rules are now more akin as to what they were in 7th

Great...
Moving on to other news marines got even more buffs with terminators getting 3 wounds...
God is in his heaven, all is right with the world...

I think they had to make that change because of the "invulnerable 2 daemon princes" where you couldn't target either of them because they were within 3" of the other.

It does suck for us not being able to hide behind the Talos. Don't think that was the intention, but it also means that a marine captain can't hide beside some dreadnaughts.

So overall, good...ish.

Just requires some tweaks to playstyle and army composition.

Grotesques are the primary haemy shields in my current list anyway.

And thunderfires no longer protect the gunner? Sweet.
I think THAT little loophole will be closed soon.

Where or what is the clarification on Blast? I didn't see it

The right change to fit the problem and not nerf Xenos would have been the obivous "Characters with less than 10 wounds can not protect characters with less than 10 wounds"

But GW just wants to hate on all Xenos players.

Not that change a lot for us. I mean, it is a little pain for any Coven Venom archetype that relies on Haemi surrounded by Venoms (for the +1 T.
But for Talos, they still 3 models and usually you run 6+ of them so.not really an issue for that.
Boats still cover our Characters.

All in all, I can appreciate that.

It's a big deal for Talos protecting characters. If you had a single unit of 3, previously the enemy would have to chew through all of them to get to your HQs; now they just need to kill one. With two units they need to kill two instead of six!

This is definitely changing my list building, with the assumption that it's not an oversight that gets reverted quickly. Large units of Grotesques become more valuable again.

A person on the DE facebook site said it best in my opinion:

Quote :

Well done GW. Thanks for making venoms and talos unable to screen the characters that are needed to support them and in the case of venoms, unable to ride in them with a unit due to transport capacity. Bravo.

I'm little angry at GW for this bad joke since V7 codex and the emergence of minimum size unit of 5.
I don't understant why Venom and raider transport capacities haven't already been updated to 6 and 12, like starweaver and waveserpent.
Perhaps the rule is that other aeldari must have the same but better.

Today we must have a squad of 3 Talos, 1 Heammoculus and 5 wraks to protect him.

Whats really stupid, you can have 6 units of 2 Talos/Cronos around a hero and he can be shot, but 1 unit of 3 and BOOM its magic! 12 is less than 3 to GW guys.

Silverglade wrote:

I think they had to make that change because of the "invulnerable 2 daemon princes" where you couldn't target either of them because they were within 3" of the other.

I hope that's not why they changed it, because that never worked. It explicitly told you to ignore character models when making the determination. A demon prince couldn't screen anything. Nor could Bjorn or Ashmantle or anyone like that.

And even if demon princes could have screened, that tactic still doesn't work because 1 of them would be fractionally closer. So you can just shoot that one.

Whoever was trying "the untargetable demon prince" was not playing by any version of 9th ed rules.

A change was maybe "needed" because it's silly that a regular dreadnought can screen but a character one can't.

sekac wrote:

Silverglade wrote:

I think they had to make that change because of the "invulnerable 2 daemon princes" where you couldn't target either of them because they were within 3" of the other.

I hope that's not why they changed it, because that never worked. It explicitly told you to ignore character models when making the determination. A demon prince couldn't screen anything. Nor could Bjorn or Ashmantle or anyone like that.

And even if demon princes could have screened, that tactic still doesn't work because 1 of them would be fractionally closer. So you can just shoot that one.

Whoever was trying "the untargetable demon prince" was not playing by any version of 9th ed rules.

A change was maybe "needed" because it's silly that a regular dreadnought can screen but a character one can't.

This is the edge case:



In the old version of the rule, if there was a closer enemy unit two Daemon Princes next to each other would them untargetable.

Does this mean that thunderfire cannons can no longer screen the techmarine that comes with it?

Edit: Woops. Already noted earlier in the thread.

SCP Yeeman wrote:

Where or what is the clarification on Blast? I didn't see it

There is a designer's note at the beginning on blast.

I just logged a "query" on this change re: the look out sir to the 40kFAQ@gwplc.com email.

Not that I actually expect a change as a result, but suggest that a number of us do the same to raise the profile of the issue.

Silverglade wrote:

I just logged a "query" on this change re: the look out sir to the 40kFAQ@gwplc.com email.

Not that I actually expect a change as a result, but suggest that a number of us do the same to raise the profile of the issue.

What's the query about? The change to look out sir by small vehicles or monsters?

I think it hits pretty hard our characters, but IMO, under my little experience, I've felt that the problem relies in our auras not working inside Venoms (and the capacity of those) more than the look out sir rule.

I've just started playing some months ago, but even at the end of 8th, I never wanted to add characters in my lists, even in casual play... they feel... not made for the faction. Haemonculous feel better, but Archons and Succubus running behind a Raider... not only feels off play-wise, but even lore-wise, not fluffy.

I couldn't care less about look out sir if our Archons could fit inside Venoms and could shriek their battlecries (auras) from there.

Even though, I would like to help the community if an email could do something, so I'm in.

Burnage wrote:

sekac wrote:

Silverglade wrote:

I think they had to make that change because of the "invulnerable 2 daemon princes" where you couldn't target either of them because they were within 3" of the other.

I hope that's not why they changed it, because that never worked. It explicitly told you to ignore character models when making the determination. A demon prince couldn't screen anything. Nor could Bjorn or Ashmantle or anyone like that.

And even if demon princes could have screened, that tactic still doesn't work because 1 of them would be fractionally closer. So you can just shoot that one.

Whoever was trying "the untargetable demon prince" was not playing by any version of 9th ed rules.

A change was maybe "needed" because it's silly that a regular dreadnought can screen but a character one can't.

This is the edge case:



In the old version of the rule, if there was a closer enemy unit two Daemon Princes next to each other would them untargetable.

I still don't see how since you ignore the demon princes as they are characters.

Is there a non-character monster, or unit of 3+ models within 3"? Nope, he's free to shoot at. To me, the 2nd image is exactly the same scenario as the same picture with a single demon prince.

Their little explanation box indicates that they had no idea character monsters don't count.

Skulnbonz wrote:

And thunderfires no longer protect the gunner? Sweet.
I think THAT little loophole will be closed soon.

It will just encourage people to take multiples and group up. One Techmarine Gunner can run all 3. Multiple TFCs. Ewww.

sekac wrote:

Burnage wrote:

sekac wrote:

Silverglade wrote:

I think they had to make that change because of the "invulnerable 2 daemon princes" where you couldn't target either of them because they were within 3" of the other.

I hope that's not why they changed it, because that never worked. It explicitly told you to ignore character models when making the determination. A demon prince couldn't screen anything. Nor could Bjorn or Ashmantle or anyone like that.

And even if demon princes could have screened, that tactic still doesn't work because 1 of them would be fractionally closer. So you can just shoot that one.

Whoever was trying "the untargetable demon prince" was not playing by any version of 9th ed rules.

A change was maybe "needed" because it's silly that a regular dreadnought can screen but a character one can't.

This is the edge case:



In the old version of the rule, if there was a closer enemy unit two Daemon Princes next to each other would them untargetable.

I still don't see how since you ignore the demon princes as they are characters.

Is there a non-character monster, or unit of 3+ models within 3"? Nope, he's free to shoot at. To me, the 2nd image is exactly the same scenario as the same picture with a single demon prince.

Their little explanation box indicates that they had no idea character monsters don't count.

Because, in the original version of the rule, "Ignore other enemy character models with a wounds characteristic of 9 or less" only applied when you were determining if the target is the closest enemy unit to the firing model.

So you had to check two conditions to see if a character was protected by Look Out, Sir!:
Is there a closer enemy unit (that isn't a character with W<=9)?
Is there a vehicle or monster, or any unit with 3>= models, within 3" of that character?

The bottom example in that image satisfies both conditions, so neither Daemon Prince could be shot.

Burnage wrote:

Because, in the original version of the rule, "Ignore other enemy character models with a wounds characteristic of 9 or less" only applied when you were determining if the target is the closest enemy unit to the firing model.

So you had to check two conditions to see if a character was protected by Look Out, Sir!:
Is there a closer enemy unit (that isn't a character with W<=9)?
Is there a vehicle or monster, or any unit with 3>= models, within 3" of that character?

The bottom example in that image satisfies both conditions, so neither Daemon Prince could be shot.

Ah gotcha. So because they accidentally did a bad job of writing the rule in the first place, they decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater and create a whole new system for Look Out Sir.

They could have just clarified that you ignore chsracter models when determining if you're within 3" of another unit. Same system but without a loop hole.

Designing a whole new system to stop one esoteric loop hole is silly.

sekac wrote:

Burnage wrote:

Because, in the original version of the rule, "Ignore other enemy character models with a wounds characteristic of 9 or less" only applied when you were determining if the target is the closest enemy unit to the firing model.

So you had to check two conditions to see if a character was protected by Look Out, Sir!:
Is there a closer enemy unit (that isn't a character with W<=9)?
Is there a vehicle or monster, or any unit with 3>= models, within 3" of that character?

The bottom example in that image satisfies both conditions, so neither Daemon Prince could be shot.

Ah gotcha. So because they accidentally did a bad job of writing the rule in the first place, they decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater and create a whole new system for Look Out Sir.

They could have just clarified that you ignore chsracter models when determining if you're within 3" of another unit. Same system but without a loop hole.

Designing a whole new system to stop one esoteric loop hole is silly.

Yep, when the full community saw the best fix and GW didn't there is a problem. I think its a knee jerk reaction at the last minute and hope it gets fixed.