http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&multiPageMode=true&start=2

Apocalypse and Apocalypse reload both score new ones, looks like some of the others have jan 2012 dates/changes too.....




get readin' folks !


http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=800010-gws

Q: Does Writhing Worldscape cause every model moving
through difficult terrain, moving as if in difficult terrain
and counting as moving through difficult terrain to take
a Dangerous Terrain test? (p41)
A: Yes. For example a unit hit by a tremor stave would
have to take Dangerous Terrain tests if they moved in
the following turn, as would any unit moving in the first
turn of the game if their opponent had Orikan the
Diviner

... err... sure am glad I started taking that then !

Most bizarre ruling IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Q. Does Khârn’s “Blessing of the Blood God” ignore
persistent psychic abilities (like Psychic Scream or Veil of
Tears)? (p48)
A. Yes. The psychic ability still functions, however Khârn
simply ignores any and all effects of the ability.
Q: If a unit containing Khârn is hit by a psychic power that
forces the target to move, can the unit be moved? (p48)
A: No. The unit must move at the speed of its slowest
model, and Khârn is not affected by the psychic power

Q: When working out which targets are visible to a
Chaos Dreadnought suffering from a Fire Frenzy result,
are you limited to those units within the 45 degree line
of sight of its weapons? (p40)
A: Yes

... hmm... seems the world does end in 2012 then as GW have answered these questions.

Q: Is Lash of Submission a Psychic Shooting Attack and
must it roll To Hit? (p88)
A: Yes to both questions. Note that if it misses, it will
have no effect

hmm... not how we'd played it, but I can live with it.

Wow, there are some suprising changes...:

Chaos spacemarines

Q: Is Lash of Submission a Psychic Shooting Attack and
must it roll To Hit? (p88)
A: Yes to both questions. Note that if it misses, it will
have no effect.

Q: Does Warptime allow the psyker to pick and choose
which To Hit and To Wound dice he will re-roll? (p88)
A: No. He can decide after each To Hit or To Wound roll
but he must re-roll all dice or no dice.

grey knights

Q: If a model with a Nemsesis Force halberd has had
his Initiative reduced to a fixed number by an
ability/special rule, do they still get the +2 Initiative
from the Halberd? (p54)
A: Yes.

necrons

Q: If an army contains Imotekh the Stormlord can a
Cryptek with a chronometron use it to re-roll the roll to
see if the Night Fighting special rule stays in effect? (p85)
A: Only if Imotekh is in the same unit as the Cryptek
with the chronometron.

Q: If a single model fails the Leadership test caused by
mindshackle scarabs, will his Attacks be resolved
against himself? (p81)
A: Yes.

love this

Q: Do models from a Royal Court that are attached to a
Deathmark Squad benefit from the Hunters from
Hyperspace special rule? (p90)
A: Yes.

woohoo^^

You know what I like most about the new blog? No obnoxious, unnecessary links all over the thing leading you to product pages. Very nice.

Q: Does Eldritch Storm need to roll To Hit? (p28)
A: Yes, though as it is a blast weapon, Eldritch Storm
will scatter.

An actual answer !

Q: Does Thunderclap scatter? (p37)
A: No.
Q: Do you need to roll To Hit with Jaws of the World
Wolf? (p37)
A: No

I agree the new blog is a lot better looking too.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Q: Can a unit take cover saves from any source other
than the terrain they are in, or touching, against
Wounds caused by an impaler cannon? (p47)
A: No

Couple of rulings from the IG one:

Page 96 – Infantry Platoon, second sentence
Change to “Each Infantry Platoon is deployed in place
of a single unit in missions that limit the number units
that can be deployed. In addition when making a
reserve or outflanking roll, roll once for the whole
Infantry Platoon. Any units in reserve that are
embarked upon a non-dedicated transport are instead
rolled for separately.”

Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be
taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: Yes

Those are.. out of the blue.

FINALLY! Now all those rule lawyers at the shop can promptly stuff it as I try to ever-living my lord on a 4+ with an orb.

Mannfred wrote:
Chaos spacemarines

Q: Is Lash of Submission a Psychic Shooting Attack and
must it roll To Hit? (p88)
A: Yes to both questions. Note that if it misses, it will
have no effect.

Q: Does Warptime allow the psyker to pick and choose
which To Hit and To Wound dice he will re-roll? (p88)
A: No. He can decide after each To Hit or To Wound roll
but he must re-roll all dice or no dice.

Q: Can models embarked upon a vehicle use its fire
points to draw line of sight to a unit to use special
rules or wargear (other than shooting)? (p66)
A: No.

Wow that's huge

Q: Can a unit take cover saves from any source other
than the terrain they are in, or touching, against
Wounds caused by an impaler cannon? (p47)
A: No.

Well that's a buff

Q: If a model with Acid Blood takes an unsaved Wound
from a Walker, does the Walker get to take an
Initiative test, and only if it fails this test do you roll to
see if it suffers a glancing hit? (p84)
A: Yes.

lolwut

Q: Does the Dodge (4+) special rule confer a 4+
invulnerable save against Wounds caused by a vehicle
exploding in close combat? (p27)
A: No.

Why GK get that staff crap

Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming
immobilised from a Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: No. The save from a flickerfield can only be taken
against glancing and penetrating hits.

Why?

The deathmarks being unable to deepstrike with an attached character is a bit odd, if they did not change the Space Wolf FAQ, but I guess having to take a Nightscythe to ds a +2 Poison AP2 flamer is a small price to pay.

Also, still no word on what happens if Deathmarks use a VoD?

Chaos space marines continue their long slow death march to oblivion it would seem with this FAQ

Wow, that's some nice rulings for the Crons.

This is...interesting. Not sure it will have any significance for IG armies, but it could.

Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be
taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: Yes.

The platoons change is huge as well, my current tournament list would be able to deploy 6 chimeras filled with 5 infantry in Dawn of War games

since the lash of submission rolls to hit for being a psychic shooting attack, does that mean JotWW also has to roll to hit for being a psychic shooting attack?

They ruled that it does not.

reds8n wrote:

Q: Does Thunderclap scatter? (p37)
A: No.
Q: Do you need to roll To Hit with Jaws of the World
Wolf? (p37)
A: No

BarBoBot wrote:since the lash of submission rolls to hit for being a psychic shooting attack, does that mean JotWW also has to roll to hit for being a psychic shooting attack?

Apparently not

Q: Does Thunderclap scatter? (p37)
A: No.
Q: Do you need to roll To Hit with Jaws of the World
Wolf? (p37)
A: No

*shrugs*

Irdiumstern wrote:The deathmarks being unable to deepstrike with an attached character is a bit odd, if they did not change the Space Wolf FAQ, but I guess having to take a Nightscythe to ds a +2 Poison AP2 flamer is a small price to pay.

Also, still no word on what happens if Deathmarks use a VoD?

I think you missed it.

Q: Can a veil of darkness be used instead of moving
onto the board when a unit arrives from reserve? (p84)
A: Yes

A VODtek can deepstrike along with his unit of Deathmarks. No answer if they get to place other tokens, though.

Overall, I'm very happy with the FAQ

Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect psykers who are
taking a Psychic test whilst embarked within a
transport vehicle? (p33)
A: Yes.


Q: Did we have our heads up our ass for a couple of years
A: Yes

But thanks for taking care of it....

the necron stuff is exactly as I thought it would end up with the exception of having 2 crypteks in a squad. I totally thought they would FAQ it to 1 per squad.

sn0zcumb3r wrote:Q: Did we have our heads up our ass for a couple of years
A: Yes

They need a general one.

Q. Why are your prices so high?
A. We produce the finest miniatures in the world!

Q. Why don't you fire Matt Ward?
A. He does his job just fine.

Q. Why is my Finecost product so badly cast?
A. As a new process there will be some kinks for a while as it starts up.
If you encounter any miscast products be sure to let your local GW know or call our support and we'll gladly get you a replacement.

Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect psykers who are
taking a Psychic test whilst embarked within a
transport vehicle? (p33)
A: Yes.


Q: Did we have our heads up our ass for a couple of years
A: Yes

But thanks for taking care of it....

Aye just read that. Better late then never.

I'm really surprised at some of the directions they chose to take with Royal Courts! I didn't expect them to let us mix and match Cryptek's within courts as well as letting us put two Cryptek's from different courts into squads.

Wow, an excellent FAQ for the Crons. They even answered the Arc question as far as where the additinal shots count as coming from.

I'll say I'm pleasantly surprised by the double cryptek ruling but I do like it.

I'd like to point this one out too since we were playing that you can't combat squad in reserves....

Blood Angels

Q: When a unit of 10 Space Marines with the Combat
Squad special rule arrives from reserve as two combat
squads, can they move on from, or Deep Strike onto,
two different locations? (p23)
A: Yes.

The Necron FAQ is excellent, it is quite litterly everything I had hoped for!

I'm so happy that I can take Two members from different courts and join them to the same squad as well! I was worried about that one!

BarBoBot wrote:the necron stuff is exactly as I thought it would end up with the exception of having 2 crypteks in a squad. I totally thought they would FAQ it to 1 per squad.

Bylak wrote:I'm really surprised at some of the directions they chose to take with Royal Courts! I didn't expect them to let us mix and match Cryptek's within courts as well as letting us put two Cryptek's from different courts into squads.

Initially, I thought "Wow, that really makes Necrons different than other armies!" And then I realized that just about everyone else can take multiple special weapons in a troops choice. It's not that different (just more expensive). It makes me happy (very happy)

What really surprises me is that Imotehk getting to reroll failed Nightfighting.

Thank God, a ruling on Entropic Strike vs. Vehicle Squadrons. Playing IG later this week and wasn't looking forward to figuring that out...

This is *HUGE*

Page 26 – Runes of Warding
Change the last sentence to “All enemy Psykers must
roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests, suffering
Perils of the Warp on any roll of 12 or above.”

Great to finally have the Necron FAQ.

In general, all the answered questions were as I saw it, or at least resulted in the amendment that I expected (the death ray, for example).

For me the big shock is being able to mix up varieties of Cryptek within courts. The way I read it I was SURE that GW would rule that you have to pick one flavour and stick to it. It's nice to be wrong in this regard =)

Also, something pointed out by Kirby over at 3++, no Tau or BT updates with this batch of FAQs . . . good sign that we have new Codexes for them coming!

Vaktathi wrote:This is *HUGE*

Page 26 – Runes of Warding
Change the last sentence to “All enemy Psykers must
roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests, suffering
Perils of the Warp on any roll of 12 or above.”

There was confusion about it? That's how we've always played it.

Goodbye Chaos!

They took away the DA's always scoing attack bikes

Page 27 – Ravenwing Combat Squads, second paragraph
Change to “Much like Combat squads, the squadron’s
Attack Bike and Land Speeder are purchased together
with the squadron and then deployed at the same time
as the squadron’s bikes, but from then on, they always
operate as completely independent units of one model.”

But didn't fix that Ravenwing can't turboboost in their scout move. Well good bye bikers and hello speeders

The only Necron ruling I'm surprised by is Imotekh/Chronometron. I was pretty certain this would be treated as an army special rule, not an ability of Imotekh himself... Now it still seems clear that LotS still works before Imotekh is on the table, but what about after he dies?

Glad to see the double-Cryptek squads are legal too. Gives Necron troops so much more flexibility and character.

A friend of mine is not going to enjoy rolling to hit for Lash...

n0t_u wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:This is *HUGE*

Page 26 – Runes of Warding
Change the last sentence to “All enemy Psykers must
roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests, suffering
Perils of the Warp on any roll of 12 or above.”

There was confusion about it? That's how we've always played it.

EDIT: Apparently I've been misremembering it

The IG one is really interesting..while now being able to deploy a whole platoon as ONE troop for dawn of war is really great and does make sense..

Being able to take a priest or tech priest as your mandatory HQ choice seems a bit out of nowhere...

I don't really see your HQ being a 1W GEQ all that great..its nice to have it as an option.

A Matter of Pride wrote:
I don't really see your HQ being a 1W GEQ all that great..its nice to have it as an option.

Primarily just for being able to min-max more effectively, though CCS's are already really effective units in and of themselves.

Marines call all combat squad in reserve again. I thought it was stupid when they made that ruling last cycle that only units out of a drop pod could combat squad from reserve but they've fixed it now which is nice. Still reading all the rest.

Hulk, I think this indicates that the previous ruling meant that a squad couldn't Combat Squad and half of it be placed in Reserve. Since the previous ruling is still in the FAQ.


Most rulings make sense to me and go the way I figured. That Warptime one is just freakin weird though. Totally goes against the re-roll concept.

Gotta say - all rules worked out for good and to Necron's advantage I am happy as hell

Too bad there was no answer to this -> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/413544.page -> I still say Multiple Gloom Shields would work

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Most rulings make sense to me and go the way I figured. That Warptime one is just freakin weird though. Totally goes against the re-roll concept.

For CSM, I was surprised by the rulings for Warptime and Lash. While Warptime contradicts "re-roll" precedent, Lash doesn't fit any of the criteria previously given for a PSA. I guess I should be glad to see a sort-of-overpowered ability get watered down, but it's in a sort-of-underpowered codex already so...shrug.

Happy to have a bunch of new faqs and even more happy that my nids got some much needed love.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Hulk, I think this indicates that the previous ruling meant that a squad couldn't Combat Squad and half of it be placed in Reserve. Since the previous ruling is still in the FAQ.


Most rulings make sense to me and go the way I figured. That Warptime one is just freakin weird though. Totally goes against the re-roll concept.

Oh I agree and I'm glad for it. The previous ruling though without this ruling was played, everywhere I play, as no combat squading in reserve. I'm just glad for the clarification. And glad of all the Necron rulings.

Agreed.

Holy crap. Weaken resolve can be used to target units in cc. Power blobs are now even scarier.

It's too bad there was no ruling for if a catacomb command barge goes flat out and suffers an immobilized results can the embarked lord spend a wound to ignore it, or of it is upgraded to a wreck....

Wait, so if I want to reroll a failed to hit with Warptime I have to reroll ALL my hits?

I will note that the only 2 FAQ's not to be updated are the Black Templars and Tau. Yet another hint that they are the next two books, and they are coming soon.

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in a Movement
phase in which it has moved flat out, what happens to
any embarked models, as passengers may not
disembark from a vehicle that has moved flat out in
that Movement phase? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties

Is this new or old?

I am blown away by the Warptime nerf. It's already as expensive as 5 GK psychic powers.

Sidstyler wrote:You know what I like most about the new blog? No obnoxious, unnecessary links all over the thing leading you to product pages. Very nice.

+1

This was indeed refreshing, and some useful clarifications in the FAQs to boot.

ofstatic wrote:It's too bad there was no ruling for if a catacomb command barge goes flat out and suffers an immobilized results can the embarked lord spend a wound to ignore it, or of it is upgraded to a wreck....

Yeah, I would have liked to have seen this. Already had this dispute come up in two games... I think I'm still leaning toward "ignore the result" as I don't know how else to read the verb "negate".

CajunMan wrote:Wait, so if I want to reroll a failed to hit with Warptime I have to reroll ALL my hits?

Yep.
* re-roll! *

whigwam wrote:

A friend of mine is not going to enjoy rolling to hit for Lash...

That is punishment for double lash spam...

CajunMan wrote:
Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in a Movement
phase in which it has moved flat out, what happens to
any embarked models, as passengers may not
disembark from a vehicle that has moved flat out in
that Movement phase? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties

Is this new or old?

Way old. New stuff is in red.

CT GAMER wrote:

whigwam wrote:

A friend of mine is not going to enjoy rolling to hit for Lash...

That is punishment for double lash spam...

I'm all for karmic retribution, but then we see Warptime Princes getting an even rougher deal for all their virtue. Why must bad things happen to good Daemon Princes???

Don Mondo wrote:Way old. New stuff is in red.

Actually it is reworded, in pink.

Kharrak wrote:Great to finally have the Necron FAQ.

In general, all the answered questions were as I saw it, or at least resulted in the amendment that I expected (the death ray, for example).

Yarp, the only things that suprised me a bit were being able to use VoD to deep strike from reserves (although, I thought it was kinda silly you couldn't prior), and the change to how grey knights and lash whips/whip coils interact (although it kicks both my armies in the nuts a little, I'd rather have the consistancy, and I guess it's better to kick two armies in the nuts than three).

Aside from that, HUZZAH GW!!! You bring a little redemption to yourselves with the SitW fix...now we just need to talk about those Spore Pods.

ofstatic wrote:It's too bad there was no ruling for if a catacomb command barge goes flat out and suffers an immobilized results can the embarked lord spend a wound to ignore it, or of it is upgraded to a wreck....

I think the codex is fairly clear on that one... the Overlord can take the wound.

Anpu-adom wrote:

ofstatic wrote:It's too bad there was no ruling for if a catacomb command barge goes flat out and suffers an immobilized results can the embarked lord spend a wound to ignore it, or of it is upgraded to a wreck....

I think the codex is fairly clear on that one... the Overlord can take the wound.

Yeah, you'd think so, but some people still insist that he can't.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Anpu-adom wrote:

ofstatic wrote:It's too bad there was no ruling for if a catacomb command barge goes flat out and suffers an immobilized results can the embarked lord spend a wound to ignore it, or of it is upgraded to a wreck....

I think the codex is fairly clear on that one... the Overlord can take the wound.

Yeah, you'd think so, but some people still insist that he can't.

Flat-out skimmers "immediately" upgrade an immobilized result to a wreck, so I think it is an open question. I personally think the immobilized result can immediately be negated via Symbiotic Repair (and thus never upgraded to wreck), but I think there is room for reasonable people to disagree. Exactly why it needed a FAQ unfortunately.

At least we don't need to hear another word about conga-line Scarabs...

Two interesting Necron rulings that change some of the popular interpretations that have been bandied about.

Firstly, you cannot "conga-line" created scarab bases across the field:

Page 46 – Scarab Hive, second paragraph
Change the second sentence to “On a roll of 2-6, add
one base to the Canoptek Scarab unit. This must be
placed within unit coherency of at least one base that
hasn’t been created this turn. It can move and act
normally this turn.”

Secondly, whip coils take affect before Initiative boosting affects are applied:

Q: If a model with whip coils is in base contact with a
model with an Initiative-boosting rule/piece of wargear
(e.g. Furious Charge, an Eldar Banshee Mask etc.), which
order are the Initiatives modified? (p44)
A: The Whip Coils will reduce an enemy model’s
Initiative to 1 before any other modifiers are applied.
So, a model with Furious Charge that assaults a
Canoptek Wraith with Whip Coils will strike at Initiative
2, a Grey Knight with a Nemesis force halberd will strike
at Initiative 3 and an Eldar with a Banshee Mask will
strike at Initiative 10 in the first round of assault.

whigwam wrote:Why must bad things happen to good Daemon Princes???

They don't - there's no such thing as a good Daemon Prince, by definition.

Though I suppose a case could be made for a DP of Malal being "good"...

whigwam wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Anpu-adom wrote:

ofstatic wrote:It's too bad there was no ruling for if a catacomb command barge goes flat out and suffers an immobilized results can the embarked lord spend a wound to ignore it, or of it is upgraded to a wreck....

I think the codex is fairly clear on that one... the Overlord can take the wound.

Yeah, you'd think so, but some people still insist that he can't.

Flat-out skimmers "immediately" upgrade an immobilized result to a wreck, so I think it is an open question. I personally think the immobilized result can immediately be negated via Symbiotic Repair (and thus never upgraded to wreck), but I think there is room for reasonable people to disagree. Exactly why it needed a FAQ unfortunately.

At least we don't need to hear another word about conga-line Scarabs...

Oh I know the argument against it, I just think it's a silly one.

...and +1 to the Scarabs comment.

Q: Is Lash of Submission a Psychic Shooting Attack and
must it roll To Hit? (p88)
A: Yes to both questions. Note that if it misses, it will
have no effect

Well that's years too late to prevent cheese and idiocy.

Maelstrom808 wrote:
Oh I know the argument against it, I just think it's a silly one.

Not that silly, it's a question of priority. It's certainly less silly than many other major rules issues that pop up in this game. I'd be inclined to agree that the Overlord can spend the wound to avoid it, but it's something that most likely would be one of those "dice it off" things at most events.

For the Necron codex I was after them answering just one question.

If an Ark takes a glancing hit from the repair barge special rule does it loose it's quantum shielding?

Maybe I should e-mail them.

ceorron wrote:For the Necron codex I was after them answering just one question.

If an Ark takes a glancing hit from the repair barge special rule does it loose it's quantum shielding?

Maybe I should e-mail them.

You only lose Q-Shielding on a penetrating hit, so that's a big no.

One thing about the IG platoons... I'm assuming the dedicated transports are counted as part of the platoon and so covered under 1 unit choice?

Etharin wrote:One thing about the IG platoons... I'm assuming the dedicated transports are counted as part of the platoon and so covered under 1 unit choice?

Yup. That's potentially 12 tanks and 260+ infantry deployed in Dawn of War

whigwam wrote:

ceorron wrote:For the Necron codex I was after them answering just one question.

If an Ark takes a glancing hit from the repair barge special rule does it loose it's quantum shielding?

Maybe I should e-mail them.

You only lose Q-Shielding on a penetrating hit, so that's a big no.

Ah that makes it much better than I thought, don't know why I got that mixed up, thanks whigwam.

Which is a bit absurd considering the DOW rules themselves say different. Annoying since I just took a huge foot IG list to a tournament the other month!

This may be a silly question, but what gets affected by the BRB FAQ that models embarked in a vehicle can't use fire points for LoS for special rules and wargear? Nothing really comes to mind when I thought about what this affected.

Necron FAQ wrote:Q: If a model with whip coils is in base contact with a
model with an Initiative-boosting rule/piece of wargear
(e.g. Furious Charge, an Eldar Banshee Mask etc.), which
order are the Initiatives modified? (p44)

A: The Whip Coils will reduce an enemy model’s
Initiative to 1 before any other modifiers are applied.
So, a model with Furious Charge that assaults a
Canoptek Wraith with Whip Coils will strike at Initiative
2, a Grey Knight with a Nemesis force halberd will strike
at Initiative 3 and an Eldar with a Banshee Mask will
strike at Initiative 10 in the first round of assault.

My banshees are safe!

" Q: If a Death Ray passes over 3 models out of 10 in a unit, how many hits does that unit take?
A: 3"


Thank God.

I was getting pretty close to kicking people in the nut sack for arguing that the Death Ray hit entire units.

Mannfred wrote:

Q: Do models from a Royal Court that are attached to a
Deathmark Squad benefit from the Hunters from
Hyperspace special rule? (p90)
A: Yes.

woohoo^^

Yeah, but. . .

Necron FAQ wrote:Q: Can a unit of Deathmarks with an attached model
from a Royal Court Deep Strike? (p90)
A: No. Every model in a unit must have the Deep Strike
special rule for it to do so.

Kirasu wrote:Chaos space marines continue their long slow death march to oblivion it would seem with this FAQ

Yeah, really.

New blog is ugly too. Why do websites think it's cool to have all these gakky "LIKE THIS ON FACEBOOK/ TWEET THIS" nonsense? Just makes clutter. Anyone who's actually reading what's new today has the ability to press CTRL+C and CTRL+V in whatever they need to do.

bah

G. Whitenbeard wrote:" Q: If a Death Ray passes over 3 models out of 10 in a unit, how many hits does that unit take?
A: 3"


Thank God.

I was getting pretty close to kicking people in the nut sack for arguing that the Death Ray hit entire units.

Glad that nightmare is over.

Loving the Nid FAQ:

Tyranid FAQ wrote:Q: How many kill points is a unit of Tyrant Guard that
has been joined by a Hive Tyrant (including the
Swarmlord) worth? (p35)
A: One.

Tyranid FAQ wrote:Q: Can a unit take cover saves from any source other
than the terrain they are in, or touching, against
Wounds caused by an impaler cannon? (p47)
A: No.

cept:

Tyranid FAQ wrote:Q: Must every non-vehicle model in a unit that
assaults a Venomthrope brood take a Dangerous
Terrain test? (p45)
A: Yes.

Q: Do enemy models assaulting a Venomthrope brood,
or another frindly Tyranid unit within range of its Spre
Cloud, have their Initiative reduced to 1 for assaulting
through the cloud? (p45)
A: No, as the Spore Cloud is not a piece of terrain.

This means just because you took a DT, doesn't mean your initiative is reduced.


And. . .interesting:

Tyranid FAQ wrote:Q: If an Independent Character has joined a unit of
Termagants that are within 6” of a Tervigon, will they
gain all the benefits of the Brood Progenitor special
rule and, when it is slain, could they suffer damage due
to the Brood Progenitor special rule? (p52)
A: Yes to both questions.

Someone care to explain how this works?

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in a Movement
phase in which it has moved flat out, what happens to
any embarked models, as passengers may not
disembark from a vehicle that has moved flat out in
that Movement phase? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

Does this only happen during the movement phase?

AresX8 wrote:Someone care to explain how this works?

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in a Movement
phase in which it has moved flat out, what happens to
any embarked models, as passengers may not
disembark from a vehicle that has moved flat out in
that Movement phase? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

Does this only happen during the movement phase?

They just reworded their ruling on what happens when you, say, move Flat-Out with a Fast Skimmer into a piece of terrain, FAIL your dangerous terrain test, and suffer an immobilized result, which is immediately upgraded to a wrecked result (Note that all this happens in the controlling player's movement phase). Since you are told to disembark the passengers but are unable, the passengers are destroyed.

It's a fairly rare occurrence. It has no effect on how transports react to enemy actions, except those that might cause vehicles to take dangerous terrain tests.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Don Mondo wrote:Way old. New stuff is in red.

Actually it is reworded, in pink.

You're both wrong it's magenta.

AresX8 wrote:Someone care to explain how this works?

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in a Movement
phase in which it has moved flat out, what happens to
any embarked models, as passengers may not
disembark from a vehicle that has moved flat out in
that Movement phase? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

Does this only happen during the movement phase?

It means if you wreck a transport in your movement phase (death or glory, skimmer going fast and immobilizing due to dangerous terrain being the main ways) then your guys inside die. Its been that way for awhile, they just reworded it to remove refrences to turn (and make it easier for folks who forgot that turn means player turn not game turn).

Puma713... I can't stop staring at your avatar. Sauce please?

Also, I wonder why they're releasing these so soon to 6th? I wonder if they'll be usable in the next edition.

Wow, what a bad ruling on Warptime. My Plague Marines were already teetering on the edge of obscurity, now they're firmly in mothballs.

Yeah, I'm really bitter about this one.

Q: When a unit of 10 Space Marines with the Combat
Squad special rule arrives from reserve as two combat
squads, can they move on from, or Deep Strike onto,
two different locations? (p23)
A: Yes.

Bout time! i can finally run the DOA army i've always wanted

ShumaGorath wrote:

G. Whitenbeard wrote:" Q: If a Death Ray passes over 3 models out of 10 in a unit, how many hits does that unit take?
A: 3"


Thank God.

I was getting pretty close to kicking people in the nut sack for arguing that the Death Ray hit entire units.

Glad that nightmare is over.

That was the house ruling I gave it the first day, because as a Necron player even I thought that would be way too nasty!

Samus_aran115 wrote:Puma713... I can't stop staring at your avatar. Sauce please?

Her name is Vanessa Lake. NSFW

Also, I wonder why they're releasing these so soon to 6th? I wonder if they'll be usable in the next edition.

Kinda makes me wonder if this FAQ release is sort of like damage control. "Don't look at those leaks, look at all these new, pretty FAQs!"

How can Lash be a psychic shooting attack but JOTWW isn't?
Stupid GW

New format - Weird it seems to suggest that there is am error on my screen but it all looks perfectly normal to me?

Q: Can a vehicle with star engines perform a tank
shock or ram in the Shooting phase? (p44)
A: No.

Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming
immobilised from a Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: No. The save from a flickerfield can only be taken
against glancing and penetrating hits

Q: Does the Dodge (4+) special rule confer a 4+
invulnerable save against Wounds caused by a vehicle
exploding in close combat? (p27)
A: No.

Both Eldar and Dark Eldar just got royally

Riddick40k wrote:Q: Can a vehicle with star engines perform a tank
shock or ram in the Shooting phase? (p44)
A: No.

This isn't a new ruling. You never could do this.

Riddick40k wrote:Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming
immobilised from a Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: No. The save from a flickerfield can only be taken
against glancing and penetrating hits.

Similarly, I don't know anyone who has tried to do this.

Riddick40k wrote:Q: Does the Dodge (4+) special rule confer a 4+
invulnerable save against Wounds caused by a vehicle
exploding in close combat? (p27)
A: No.

Because exploding vehicles are treated like shooting attacks, and you're technically not in "close combat" when you're based with a vehicle.

Riddick40k wrote:

Both Eldar and Dark Eldar just got royally

No, not at all.

Quite happy about the necron FAQ except for the whip coils on Wraiths.

Oh well

Cryage wrote:Quite happy about the necron FAQ except for the whip coils on Wraiths.

Oh well

Few folks sour over the fact that you can't Turbo-Boost with Anrakyr and then use MitM, but overall a good FAQ for Necrons.

Am I the only one that noticed that Tau and Black Templar are the only armies without updates? Lends credence to the rumors that they're the next two updates.

Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be
taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: Yes.

OMG, i forsee alot of Ad mech and ministorum priest leaders hitting the field in place of the Lord commissar or CCS. That is really cool that a ruling like that has been done and allows for more flavor to IG

Riddick40k wrote:Both Eldar and Dark Eldar just got royally

I agree with rodgers37 and Puma13 is totally right. I've been playing DE all last year (successfully) and we came to these same conclusions easily enough, for the reasons Puma stated. This doesn't change anything for my wyches.


Non-segue:
Scarab Farms dry up and blow away like an Okie's Homestead in 1933. I can hear swearing worldwide from the guys that gobbled up scarabs and Tomb Spiders from ebay.

puma713 wrote:

Cryage wrote:Quite happy about the necron FAQ except for the whip coils on Wraiths.

Oh well

Few folks sour over the fact that you can't Turbo-Boost with Anrakyr and then use MitM, but overall a good FAQ for Necrons.

You can't? I'm looking over it, but I'm not seeing it.

Swara wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Cryage wrote:Quite happy about the necron FAQ except for the whip coils on Wraiths.

Oh well

Few folks sour over the fact that you can't Turbo-Boost with Anrakyr and then use MitM, but overall a good FAQ for Necrons.

You can't? I'm looking over it, but I'm not seeing it.

40k Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: Can models embarked upon a vehicle use its fire
points to draw line of sight to a unit to use special
rules or wargear (other than shooting)? (p66)
A: No.

Looks like psychic powers still work from fire points however.

Swara wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Cryage wrote:Quite happy about the necron FAQ except for the whip coils on Wraiths.

Oh well

Few folks sour over the fact that you can't Turbo-Boost with Anrakyr and then use MitM, but overall a good FAQ for Necrons.

You can't? I'm looking over it, but I'm not seeing it.

You can't use abilities that need LoS if you must draw it from a vehicle's firepoint. Even though the Command Barge is open-topped, its hull is still considered a "firepoint", otherwise, a model wouldn't be able to fire from it. Hence, he cannot draw LoS from a firepoint for the ability to work.

Oh wow..that slight nerf to anrakyr may just change my list drastically then... If he really cant do it under this new FAQ. Which seems logically correct based on your guys analysis.

Usually GW FAQs answer some of the most simple questions.

But what was the final answer over Trazen's special weapon ability being used in a command barge? He can't?

Also sorry if I misread the ark rules in the codex and FAQ. But if an ark is targetted at a squad of +2 models, do you measure 6' from all the models (since you can't pinpoint one)

whigwam wrote:

Swara wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Cryage wrote:Quite happy about the necron FAQ except for the whip coils on Wraiths.

Oh well

Few folks sour over the fact that you can't Turbo-Boost with Anrakyr and then use MitM, but overall a good FAQ for Necrons.

You can't? I'm looking over it, but I'm not seeing it.

40k Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: Can models embarked upon a vehicle use its fire
points to draw line of sight to a unit to use special
rules or wargear (other than shooting)? (p66)
A: No.

Looks like psychic powers still work from fire points however.

Indeed. I guess you could still move 12, get out, then use it.... but it's just not the same .

This changes my list.

Dude, read the rulebook, guys. Nowhere in the rules for Open-Topped Transport Vehicles does it say that the hull is a fire point.

BRB wrote:Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points. Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle...

Doesn't say anything about it being a fire point. So you can still do all your LOS shenanigans from an open-topped transport.

Death By Monkeys wrote:Dude, read the rulebook, guys. Nowhere in the rules for Open-Topped Transport Vehicles does it say that the hull is a fire point.

BRB wrote:Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points. Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle...

Doesn't say anything about it being a fire point. So you can still do all your LOS shenanigans from an open-topped transport.

From the YMDC thread about this (since we don't want to derail the FAQ thread)

puma713 wrote:

time wizard wrote:

Page 66 defines fire points, and page 70 talks about open-topped vehicles.
Even though open-topped vehicles don't have specific fire points, the rule states that when the passengers fire, range and LOS are measured from the hull.
So for an open-topped vehicle, the fire point is anywhere on the hull.

Right. And that's the point. That it is a firepoint. So, Anrakyr cannot use his ability because to do so, he'd have to draw LOS from a firepoint - the hull, in this case.

I want to say upfront that I'm sorry:

Q: How do dice rolls that can trigger an effect from a
special rule (such as rolling a 1 To Hit when shooting a
weapon with the Gets Hot! special rule) interact with
re-rolls? (p2)
A: You only check to see if the effect has been
triggered after the re-rolls have been made.

So then, for Summary Execution, you get a re-roll for failing a Morale check (dice roll that triggers an effect from a special rule), but only after you've failed it. You then kill a Sarge, and make your re-roll. If you pass the reroll, the effect from the special rule never took place, so your Sarge isn't dead after all, and you are your own grandfather, all because of space-time paradox?

Poor poor Chaos. Whats good in our book now? Plague Marines and melta guns, got it. Glad I bought the Blood Angels codex, cause now its proxy time.

The Tyranid bits are oddly satisfying.

Warptime . . . yep. I will just move on.
hehe

I stand corrected - thanks Puma713.

So the impaler cannon bit on ignoring cover saves, given that language, it now ignores KFF saves?

Psyker Battle Squads took a hit, with not being able to cast Weaken Resolve from vehicles. Stupid change, but it's balanced by the fact that you can do it into CC. Sort of insignificant, however, as Guardsmen rarely win CC.

They still haven't given a ruling on how the Manticore works. Is it multiple barrage when firing indirectly? RAW not at all, but some TOs arbitrarily demand that it is played this way.

drorain wrote:So the impaler cannon bit on ignoring cover saves, given that language, it now ignores KFF saves?

Actually the FAQ only says 'Wounds'. So if you want to get RAW, then any vehicle cover saves still apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Psyker Battle Squads took a hit, with not being able to cast Weaken Resolve from vehicles. Stupid change, but it's balanced by the fact that you can do it into CC. Sort of insignificant, however, as Guardsmen rarely win CC.

Psychic powers aren't affected. The FAQ ruling states special rules or wargear. Also:

Games Workshop Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: Can a model use a psychic power that is not a
Psychic Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a transport
vehicle? (p50)
A: Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is still
worked out from the vehicle’s fire points (this will
count as one model shooting through that fire point if
the power is used in the Shooting phase).
If the psychic power does not require line of sight and
has a range or an area of effect that is normally
measured from the model using it, these are measured
from the vehicle’s hull, as explained in the Embarking
section on page 66.

thats bloody brilliant

***EDIT**

See my questionw as already discussed

Cryage wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Cryage wrote:Quite happy about the necron FAQ except for the whip coils on Wraiths.

Oh well

Few folks sour over the fact that you can't Turbo-Boost with Anrakyr and then use MitM, but overall a good FAQ for Necrons.

He can't? Did I miss something? (Sorry only had a chance to glance at the FAQ since im at work and alt tabbing that much is going to give me a seizure lol).

Can you quote where it says it? Not a game breaker , just wanna make reference

Thanks!

Discussion being had here.

so by this, does this mean creed can outflank an entire infantry platoon?

"Hello, I'm Bob. I'm painted green to be a Nurgle DP, with Warp Time. "


"This is my buddy, Fred. Pink for Slaanesh. He's a Lash Prince. Say, 'hi', Fred."
"Hi."
"We've done a lot of work together as Chaos Space Marine HQs."
"Yeah."




"He'd Lash power armor loyalists to me. Space Puppies. I'd eat 'em. It was cool. Me? I'd use Warp Time and it was kinda like a Matrix style thing, not exactly, but I could see where orks, or smurfs, pups or pretty-boys -- "
"Blood Angels."
" - Heh! Sissies. Yeah, where they were gonna swing at me, and then I'd see another path of Fate, and I'd dodge or smack where he thought he was gonna step. Damn. It was fun."
"Good Times."

...

*sigh*
*sigh*




"Sorry guys, but we are handing in our C:CSM employee badges. Ya know, in this economy, if a better job turns up ... "


"What?" "'Thought so." "Who didn't see this coming?"


"We got a new boss, you see."
"Gonna kinda suck, going from management to heavy lifting. Less pay."
"I'm okay with less responsibility. Let someone else deal with NonHuman Resources. I just wanna hit things."
"Bob, do you think we'll look good in red? I mean it's so over done ...."



"Hey! We wanna come along! Codex CSM was circling the drain anyway! The Chaos Daemon codex is gonna be waay more cool! Furious Charge! Hell blades! Yeah! Hawt!"


"See ya! Wouldn't wanna be ya! Losers!" PBPBPBBth!



"Rats deserting a sinking ship." "Quitters. Douches." Yeah, wait 'til our 6e book comes out! Then you'll come crawling back!"

puma713 wrote:
Psychic powers aren't affected. The FAQ ruling states special rules or wargear.

Thanks for the clarification. Can you give me an example of something that requires this?

That should be an article.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Psyker Battle Squads took a hit, with not being able to cast Weaken Resolve from vehicles. Stupid change, but it's balanced by the fact that you can do it into CC. Sort of insignificant, however, as Guardsmen rarely win CC.

They still haven't given a ruling on how the Manticore works. Is it multiple barrage when firing indirectly? RAW not at all, but some TOs arbitrarily demand that it is played this way.

Doesn't it state that the Manticore can only fire indirectly in the codex? Due to being an artillery piece similar to the Griffon etc and having a minimum range, rather than a direct range like the Medusa.

alphaomega wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Psyker Battle Squads took a hit, with not being able to cast Weaken Resolve from vehicles. Stupid change, but it's balanced by the fact that you can do it into CC. Sort of insignificant, however, as Guardsmen rarely win CC.

They still haven't given a ruling on how the Manticore works. Is it multiple barrage when firing indirectly? RAW not at all, but some TOs arbitrarily demand that it is played this way.

Doesn't it state that the Manticore can only fire indirectly in the codex? Due to being an artillery piece similar to the Griffon etc and having a minimum range, rather than a direct range like the Medusa.

Nope.

Some psychic shooting attacks require rolls to hit. Some don't. Some psychic attacks which aren't even psychic shooting attacks require rolls to hit.

It's like they had 3 people writing these things and none of them talked to each other.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Psychic powers aren't affected. The FAQ ruling states special rules or wargear.

Thanks for the clarification. Can you give me an example of something that requires this?

Anrakyr's Mind in the Machine is the big one I can think of. Not sure what other abilities/wargear were effected, but the timing makes it seem like Anrakyr was the main thing they had in mind...

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Psychic powers aren't affected. The FAQ ruling states special rules or wargear.

Thanks for the clarification. Can you give me an example of something that requires this?

A special rule that requires LOS to use. Like. . .Anrakyr's Mind In the Machine.

puma713 wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

puma713 wrote:
Psychic powers aren't affected. The FAQ ruling states special rules or wargear.

Thanks for the clarification. Can you give me an example of something that requires this?

A special rule that requires LOS to use. Like. . .Anrakyr's Mind In the Machine.

Njal Stormcaller's Lord of Tempests.

Whilst the photo story is well done and chucklesome in its own right, it'd be best if we didn't have a string of posts about that in this thread. Kudos to the author involved though, feel free to repost elsewhere. That's welcome to stay where it is for now though.

So basically IG got something no one asked for, Chaos Space Marines got nerfed big time, and Necrons keep almost all of their new tricks?

Bonde wrote:So basically IG got something no one asked for, Chaos Space Marines got nerfed big time, and Necrons keep almost all of their new tricks?

Pretty much. And tyranids got some chitinous, hooved, teeth-gnashing love.

puma713 wrote:

Bonde wrote:So basically IG got something no one asked for, Chaos Space Marines got nerfed big time, and Necrons keep almost all of their new tricks?

Pretty much. And tyranids got some chitinous, hooved, teeth-gnashing love.

GW logic, makes tzeentch look reasonable

Bit of a shame though about special abilities and transports

Great post Brothererekose! LOL!

Lash needing to hit I can live with, if jaws needed to hit as well.

Warptime was always a point of contention, but now its pretty much worthless. Good think I always take chaos lords instead of demon princes.

Every other rule is the way I thought it worked, in your face proponents of the fire frenzy rule!

FAQ wrote:
Blood Angels

Q: When a unit of 10 Space Marines with the Combat
Squad special rule arrives from reserve as two combat
squads, can they move on from, or Deep Strike onto,
two different locations? (p23)
A: Yes.

ya!

optimusprime14 wrote:

FAQ wrote:
Blood Angels

Q: When a unit of 10 Space Marines with the Combat
Squad special rule arrives from reserve as two combat
squads, can they move on from, or Deep Strike onto,
two different locations? (p23)
A: Yes.

ya!

I don't understand all the rejoicing over this. It was never broken anyway. The wording was a bit muddy, but that was it.

@Puma

Without that clarification you couldn't combat squad if you reserved. This allows it since it's codex FAQ over rulebook FAQ (i assume). So it is a bit of a big deal.

DarknessEternal wrote:
It's like they had 3 people writing these things and none of them talked to each other.

How did you find this out, who told you?

Hulksmash wrote:@Puma

Without that clarification you couldn't combat squad if you reserved. This allows it since it's codex FAQ over rulebook FAQ (i assume). So it is a bit of a big deal.

No, it's not. If you read the FAQ to mean that, then you were reading it myopically. You were taking a FAQ ruling about combat squadding and applying it to all reserves. It was obvious to many that that is not what the ruling was meant to do. There are plenty of threads explaining how it correctly works - and now this FAQ release confirms those explanations.

It always meant that you couldn't combat squad one unit and deploy it, while leaving another unit in reserve. It never meant that you couldn't combat squad at all if you came in from reserves.

puma713 wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:@Puma

Without that clarification you couldn't combat squad if you reserved. This allows it since it's codex FAQ over rulebook FAQ (i assume). So it is a bit of a big deal.

No, it's not. If you read the FAQ to mean that, then you were reading it myopically.

Unfortunately Myopia is one of the worlds most pervasive diseases. I literally jumped for joy when it was finally spelled out for the idiots.

Vindicare Assassin:

Q: When firing a turbo-penetrator round at a vehicle,
do you add D3 to the total for each 6 rolled on the 4
armour penetration dice? (p53)
A: Yes.

So that would be S3+ 4 D6 and each D6 can rend so that's potentially 3+6+6+6+6+3+3+3+3= a new vehicle penetration classification of being able to shoot through two tanks at once? I get that it's designed to maximise the potential of penetrating armour since even if you roll badly on one or two of the dice you could still get a high score. But I would have preferred GW to clarify whether the Turbo penetrator is definitely S3+4D6 or just 4D6 as that question never did get an answer. And if I ever get round to fielding my Vindicare, I would use him to snipe models out of a squad before going for tanks anyway.

I do like GWs reFAQ of the last FAQ to decide that halberds give the +2 initiative after modifiers.

Lordhat wrote:

Unfortunately Myopia is one of the worlds most pervasive diseases. I literally jumped for joy when it was finally spelled out for the idiots.

I wasn't trying to be rude. Here's a few threads explaining how it works (before the FAQ):

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/422497.page#3777908

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/413160.page#3614361

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/412514.page#3610410 - specifically Kommisar Kel's responses on page 1.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/406338.page#3490440

There are plenty more. . .

Hulksmash wrote:@Puma

Without that clarification you couldn't combat squad if you reserved. This allows it since it's codex FAQ over rulebook FAQ (i assume). So it is a bit of a big deal.

Hulk,

Nothing has changed in the SM FAQs (which is where the erroneous assumption that you couldn't combat squad when deploying from reserves came from). The same ruling is still there in all the SM FAQs:

Q: Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the Drop Pod? (p32)
A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads.

This isn't a contradiction with the 'new' ruling on combat squads, nor is it a new 'change', this is how it has always been (just been misinterpreted by some people).

You cannot combat squad a unit while it is in reserves (which means you can't put one combat squad in a transport and arrive the other one outside of the transport, for example).

What you CAN do, and have always been able to do, is to combat squad when a unit is deployed from reserves...and this new FAQ ruling merely clears up the misconception that arose from that other ruling (I posted above).

But yeah, it is good to have it very clearly spelled out.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Great post Brothererekose! LOL!

Thanks. That was 25 minutes of hard work If anyone wants to talk about it, I reposted it in 40k Gen Discussion,

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/423738.page

... so we can stay on topic n this thread.

--------------------------------
I wonder if it'll push ChaosSM diehards to abandon Lash lists, dual DP lists, and lean into heavy Khorne lists ... or just shelve them until 6e and the new C:CSM book. I rarely see any other HQs ever being used.

Kind of an overall strategy we all make comments about, but more and more it looks like a money making way to do it. Make rules cool for one set of models. Let that play out for a couple years. Release an FAQ that shifts the meta and we nerds head for the store to build lists using the now more favored units.

Conspiracy theorists, rejoice!

Well this is awesome. Thank you games workshop for single handedly ruining CSM. Warptime and Lash of Submission were the 2 best psychic powers we had, and now the former is useless, and the latter got significantly worse. WTF?

There goes my ENTIRE Chaos army...

How dakka threads argue it and how it was applied in actual gaming locations in the US are two totally different things. From Minnesota, down to Texas and out to Virigina. So whether the RAW supported it or not it was played as no combat squading out of reserve.

**Adepticon may have been an exception but I didn't see anyone try it, did FAQ update come out after Adepticon last year?**

Hulksmash wrote:How dakka threads argue it and how it was applied in actual gaming locations in the US are two totally different things. From Minnesota, down to Texas and out to Virigina. So whether the RAW supported it or not it was played as no combat squading out of reserve.

**Adepticon may have been an exception but I didn't see anyone try it, did that FAQ come out after Adepticon last year?**

See Yak's post above.

In all the tournaments I went to this year, combat squadding when coming in from reserve was allowed and there wasn't a second thought about why it was. So, YMMV, I suppose.

th3maninblak wrote:Well this is awesome. Thank you games workshop for single handedly ruining CSM. Warptime and Lash of Submission were the 2 best psychic powers we had, and now the former is useless, and the latter got significantly worse. WTF?

There goes my ENTIRE Chaos army...

Lash had it coming for a very long time, but it's sad to see warptime get hit. It wasn't nearly so cheese tastic and misused as lash. I don't think this is a nail in the coffin for chaos, the dread got marginally better with these changes, but with the hurting GKs put on some of C:SMs core units its looking like a rough half year until sixth for them.

Hulksmash wrote:How dakka threads argue it and how it was applied in actual gaming locations in the US are two totally different things. From Minnesota, down to Texas and out to Virigina. So whether the RAW supported it or not it was played as no combat squading out of reserve.

**Adepticon may have been an exception but I didn't see anyone try it, did FAQ update come out after Adepticon last year?**

Yeah it was ruled the same way at my FLGS also Hulk. No matter what anyone says it was not clear enough until now, in my opinion.

I'm just happy it's clear now. My converted Blood Angels may see the table now

So lash now hits on a 2+ - hardly a real problem

They fixed dreadnoughts at last - yay

However have created a rules fiasco over warptime....

Lucky i have some WIP Blood Angels FTW or I would be crying in my cereal at this point.

It's virtually a dead codex.....So now it's 9 x Obliterators, 14 Plague Marines and 2 Lash Princes as the standard then.

Nurgle princes to be outed on the bay lol

Hulksmash wrote:How dakka threads argue it and how it was applied in actual gaming locations in the US are two totally different things. From Minnesota, down to Texas and out to Virigina. So whether the RAW supported it or not it was played as no combat squading out of reserve.

**Adepticon may have been an exception but I didn't see anyone try it, did FAQ update come out after Adepticon last year?**

Yeah, I'm sure that many people chose to play that way...Adepticon, or anyone using the INAT would not have been one of them because the INAT specifically covered that question and allowed units to combat squad when arriving from reserves.

But I was mainly pointing out that it isn't a change, as the old ruling that some people used as proof that you couldn't combat squad when arriving from reserves is still in the FAQ exactly as it was before.


---


Overall I think this was a great round of FAQ updates. My only real concerns are:


1) Allowing combat squads and IG Platoons to deploy as a single choice, which presumably allows them to only count as a single unit being deployed in Dawn of War. This is utter game changing for IG armies in tournament play, and considering that IG are already a front runner in tournaments this seems like a poor decision. But even more than that, it seems to go against what the Dawn of War deployment rules say, which makes it all the more confusing!


2) I was all for them clarifying those tricky psychic powers (Jaws, Lash, Blood Lance, etc) as to whether they should roll to hit or not. Its good that they did, but it is baffling that they chose to be inconsistent and force a 'to hit' rule against Lash, but not against Jaws or Blood Lance. It just seems like they should pick one angle and stick with it across the board instead of making it seem like Lash is being randomly picked on...I mean, if you're going to pick on one power, shouldn't it be Jaws?


3) Not allowing special rules/wargear that require LOS to be used from a vehicle is fine with me, but again it seems really inconsistent to apply it ONLY to those things and not apply it to non-shooting attack psychic powers. Because it seems like the 'reason' behind that ruling would be the fact that the fire point rules only specify they can be used when shooting, so in that regard it makes sense that anything that requires LOS but isn't a shooting attack wouldn't be allowed to be used from a vehicle. But still allowing non-shooting psychic attacks to be used from a vehicle, but not special rules/wargear just feels so inconsistent and arbitrary (and again, just happens to really benefit IG with their psychic battle squads).


----


One other nugget I don't think has been mentioned: The IG ruling on platoons also mentions that if a unit is embarked on a non-dedicated transport it gets rolled separately for Reserves. This finally answers the question (sort of) regarding Valyries/Vendettas carrying Platoon squads.

Although it still isn't 100% clear what you do if you have a Valk/Vendetta squadron carrying squads from three separate platoons (for example), but I think given this ruling its pretty clear that you'd just roll for the Valk/Vendetta squad and any units inside would be included in that roll.

Q: Can a Royal Court contain Crypteks from different Harbingers?
A: Yes

Thank you SO MUCH for clearing that up for me. IMO, this really changes alot for the Necrons. I need to start writing lists...

Lovepug13 wrote:So lash now hits on a 2+ - hardly a real problem

They fixed dreadnoughts at last - yay

However have created a rules fiasco over warptime....

Lucky i have some WIP Blood Angels FTW or I would be crying in my cereal at this point.

It's virtually a dead codex.....So now it's 9 x Obliterators, 14 Plague Marines and 2 Lash Princes as the standard then.

Nurgle princes to be outed on the bay lol

I've been rocking my local store with Warptime princes, coming in 2nd at the last 2 tournaments and smashing 5th ed codexes left and right. It truly is the last nail in the coffin for the codex. Truly an awesome day...

Looks like I'm selling them.

So nothing for Tau or BT? Trying not to speculate...

Anyway, I like the new look, and all the other updates seem pretty good ('cept maybe for chaos, super ultimate bad guys, haha).

puma713 wrote:

Lordhat wrote:

Unfortunately Myopia is one of the worlds most pervasive diseases. I literally jumped for joy when it was finally spelled out for the idiots.

I wasn't trying to be rude. Here's a few threads explaining how it works (before the FAQ):

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/422497.page#3777908

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/413160.page#3614361

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/412514.page#3610410 - specifically Kommisar Kel's responses on page 1.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/406338.page#3490440

There are plenty more. . .

Yup. Unfortunately, myopia (in this sense) is usually accompanied by a complete lack of reading comprehension. Until stuff is explained explicitly for the 'Herps and Derps', they usually won't budge. Even more unfortunately, my 'play group' has one such person in charge, and the rest usually just do what he says. The other players who have a firm understanding of the rules eventually just leave the group with a sour taste in thier mouths for 'clubs' go their own ways and leave the scene pretty much permanently. But this is WAY off topic. Sorry for the near thread-jack.

th3maninblak wrote:
I've been rocking my local store with Warptime princes, coming in 2nd at the last 2 tournaments and smashing 5th ed codexes left and right. It truly is the last nail in the coffin for the codex. Truly an awesome day...

Looks like I'm selling them.

Not sure if serious...

@CpatTom: Tau and BT may not have needed updates. I think that it is unlikely that they would have skipped FAQ'ing problem areas just because they are next. Keep in mind that the only real update C:SM and CA got were Combat Squads and a Psychic Power update, neither of which BT have. As for Tau, /shrug.

pretre wrote:

th3maninblak wrote:
I've been rocking my local store with Warptime princes, coming in 2nd at the last 2 tournaments and smashing 5th ed codexes left and right. It truly is the last nail in the coffin for the codex. Truly an awesome day...

Looks like I'm selling them.

Not sure if serious...

@CpatTom: Tau and BT may not have needed updates. I think that it is unlikely that they would have skipped FAQ'ing problem areas just because they are next. Keep in mind that the only real update C:SM and CA got were Combat Squads and a Psychic Power update, neither of which BT have. As for Tau, /shrug.

Definitely serious about the selling part.

On the other hand, the necron FAQ does look really good, and like GW listened to peoples interpretations of the rules. They don't hate all non-loyalist armies, it seems. I'm actually kinda suprised at the clarification of Entropic Strike. I honestly thought that would get nerfed, but am glad that it didn't.

th3maninblak wrote:

pretre wrote:

th3maninblak wrote:
I've been rocking my local store with Warptime princes, coming in 2nd at the last 2 tournaments and smashing 5th ed codexes left and right. It truly is the last nail in the coffin for the codex. Truly an awesome day...

Looks like I'm selling them.

Not sure if serious...

Definitely serious about the selling part.

So now that you're not big fish in little pond it is time to change? I don't get it. Just shelve them until you want to use them later.

For everyone that argued that you have to roll to hit with JotWW. I think you owe the community an apology. Sorry you lost on that one.

Bikeninja wrote:For everyone that argued that you have to roll to hit with JotWW. I think you owe the community an apology. Sorry you lost on that one.

To be fair, the rulebook FAQ says that you have to roll to hit with PSAs and JotWW is a PSA. Not sure you could interpret that any differently.

Bikeninja wrote:For everyone that argued that you have to roll to hit with JotWW. I think you owe the community an apology. Sorry you lost on that one.

Not that I'd argued that, but given how often GW has flip-flopped and how inconsistent their FAQ's were this round, I'd doubt it. Nobody ever thought about Lash needing to hit, then all of a sudden now it does, stuff like that for instance is why we never have clear answers or consistent footing to argue from.

pretre wrote:

th3maninblak wrote:

pretre wrote:

th3maninblak wrote:
I've been rocking my local store with Warptime princes, coming in 2nd at the last 2 tournaments and smashing 5th ed codexes left and right. It truly is the last nail in the coffin for the codex. Truly an awesome day...

Looks like I'm selling them.

I feel the pain brother....oh well - perhaps the next codex will be cool :-)

Reply by: DarkStarSabre - click to view full reply 

44067

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 21:59:35

Post by: DarkStarSabre

Mannfred wrote:Wow, there are some suprising changes...:

Chaos spacemarines

Q: Is Lash of Submission a Psychic Shooting Attack and
must it roll To Hit? (p88)
A: Yes to both questions. Note that if it misses, it will
have no effect.

Q: Does Warptime allow the psyker to pick and choose
which To Hit and To Wound dice he will re-roll? (p88)
A: No. He can decide after each To Hit or To Wound roll
but he must re-roll all dice or no dice.

So....an already bad codex gets worse by the FAQ killing off things that kept its head above water.

*Golf claps*

Reply by: Zid - click to view full reply 

17376

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:02:09

Post by: Zid

So pretty much everything in the Necron Faq has been being played correctly.... nice!

Reply by: puma713 - click to view full reply 

19754

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:07:14

Post by: puma713

Zid wrote:So pretty much everything in the Necron Faq has been being played correctly.... nice!

Except conga-lining Scarabs. And the debate over whether or not Anrakyr can use Mind in the Machine from his transport.

Reply by: th3maninblak - click to view full reply 

46257

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:08:55

Post by: th3maninblak

pretre wrote:

th3maninblak wrote:

pretre wrote:

th3maninblak wrote:
I've been rocking my local store with Warptime princes, coming in 2nd at the last 2 tournaments and smashing 5th ed codexes left and right. It truly is the last nail in the coffin for the codex. Truly an awesome day...

Looks like I'm selling them.

Not sure if serious...

Definitely serious about the selling part.

So now that you're not big fish in little pond it is time to change? I don't get it. Just shelve them until you want to use them later.

More likely than not, the Legions book will be different enough that many of the models wont trasnfer over, and by the Codex release schedule, it's still about 8-10 months out by my reckoning. So jaws doesn't require a to hit roll, but lash does.

Reply by: puma713 - click to view full reply 

19754

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:11:40

Post by: puma713

th3maninblak wrote:

More likely than not, the Legions book will be different enough that many of the models wont trasnfer over, and by the Codex release schedule, it's still about 8-10 months out by my reckoning. So jaws doesn't require a to hit roll, but lash does.

And anyone that can use it has to hit on a what? 2+?

Reply by: Sephyr - click to view full reply 

26672

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:13:19

Post by: Sephyr

So now Lash of submission needs to hit on a 2+ (no biggie), meaning it is subject to COVER SAVES (yes, a biggie).

Looks like they really want to get people to sell their Chaos stuff and then buy them new when the next codex comes along. I'm starting to like Infinity more and more....

As for Warptime...wow. A price costing more than a GK sargeant becomes entirely awful and pretty much goes against the whole logic of re-rolls in other books.

Reply by: pretre - click to view full reply 

20774

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:13:37

Post by: pretre

th3maninblak wrote:More likely than not, the Legions book will be different enough that many of the models wont trasnfer over,

Welcome to 40k. If you haven't changed your army a million times due to edition or codex changes, you really haven't been paying attention.

Reply by: DarkStarSabre - click to view full reply 

44067

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:13:42

Post by: DarkStarSabre

My god.

They fixed the Tyranid FAQ

Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect Psykers who are taking a psychic test while embarked in a transport vehicle?
A: Yes

I'm flabbergasted!

Reply by: puma713 - click to view full reply 

19754

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:16:16

Post by: puma713

Sephyr wrote:So now Lash of submission needs to hit on a 2+ (no biggie), meaning it is subject to COVER SAVES (yes, a biggie).

You don't get cover saves from something that doesn't cause wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkStarSabre wrote:My god.

They fixed the Tyranid FAQ

Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect Psykers who are taking a psychic test while embarked in a transport vehicle?
A: Yes

I'm flabbergasted!

Nids got some love. What I like (if I'm reading it correctly) is Swarmlord + 2 Tyrant Guard are 1 KP.

Reply by: Kodanshi - click to view full reply 

53303

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:22:32

Post by: Kodanshi

DarkStarSabre wrote:My god.

They fixed the Tyranid FAQ

Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect Psykers who are taking a psychic test while embarked in a transport vehicle?
A: Yes

I'm flabbergasted!

Yes indeedy. It makes sense now!

Reply by: Vaktathi - click to view full reply 

6772

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:26:40

Post by: Vaktathi

Sephyr wrote:So now Lash of submission needs to hit on a 2+ (no biggie), meaning it is subject to COVER SAVES (yes, a biggie).

How? It's not causing any wounds to save.

Reply by: Zid - click to view full reply 

17376

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:28:42

Post by: Zid

puma713 wrote:

Zid wrote:So pretty much everything in the Necron Faq has been being played correctly.... nice!

Except conga-lining Scarabs. And the debate over whether or not Anrakyr can use Mind in the Machine from his transport.

Says in the Faq that the scarabs must be placed within coherancy of scarabs that already existed (not ones being spawns), so that ones fixed.

Reply by: Swara - click to view full reply 

27952

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:29:49

Post by: Swara

That's what he was saying.

Reply by: Ledabot - click to view full reply 

34612

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:42:06

Post by: Ledabot

Finnaly! I might win with my tau vs chaos!

Reply by: Wi1ikers - click to view full reply 

26733

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:53:26

Post by: Wi1ikers

I was wrong

Reply by: SlaveToDorkness - click to view full reply 

5182

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 22:57:18

Post by: SlaveToDorkness

Read it again.

BRB FAQ wrote:Q: Can models embarked upon a vehicle use its fire
points to draw line of sight to a unit to use special
rules or wargear (other than shooting)? (p66)
A: No

They cannot use a firepoint for LOS. Areas of effect are fine.

Reply by: Traceoftoxin - click to view full reply 

40841

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 23:00:17

Post by: Traceoftoxin

italiaplaya wrote:Idk if this rule has been posted already. But this is a pretty big change to the rules. Check he bottom of page 5. Basically stating Models embarked in vehicles attempting to use wargear items or specia rules not being able to anymore.

Whats this means- KFF doesnt work inside vehicles, BA FNP FC bubble doesnt work anymore, no lashing out of a rhino anymore, The list goes on.

KFF and BA FNP FC bubble don't require LOS. They don't need a fire point, they work fine.

Lashing is now a PSA that isn't exactly a PSA, so it still gets to shoot.

Reply by: SecretStamos - click to view full reply 

52423

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 23:09:10

Post by: SecretStamos

Am I the only one who finds it funny that they didn't update the Tau or Black Templars? Looks like that's only further proof that they're next in line for a major codex update.

Reply by: Blackmoor - click to view full reply 

195

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 23:11:02

Post by: Blackmoor

A lot of these seem like they are FAQs to earlier FAQs. Things like splitting into combat squads from reserve and the SitW.

I guess I was using Lash all wrong because I was rolling to hit and treating it as a shooting attack already.

The ruling about Warptime was horrible. Per RAW that is exactly what it says to do. The problem exists because the Chaos Space Marine Codex is a 4th edition codex with 4th edition rules. In the 4th edition rulebook it stated that whenever you have a re-roll, you get to choose the dice you are re-rolling. In 5th edition that rule no longer is in the rulebook. The FAQ is meant to clear up those discrepancys that are cause by edition changes, and instead they made a stupid ruling and made the power idiotic, and you get to pay 25 points for it!

Reply by: Ozymandias - click to view full reply 

4362

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/16 23:58:53

Post by: Ozymandias

Bikeninja wrote:For everyone that argued that you have to roll to hit with JotWW. I think you owe the community an apology. Sorry you lost on that one.

That's a little harsh (and I never thought you needed to roll to hit - though that would have been nice). But when GW has a FAQ that in one PSA (lash) requires a to-hit roll and in another (Jaws) does not, that leaves a lot of us scratching our heads.

Reply by: Dok - click to view full reply 

32388

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 01:39:45

Post by: Dok

If everyone had to apologize every time they got something wrong on the internet, then the internet would be 3/4 full of apologies.

Reply by: madkilla475 - click to view full reply 

51926

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 01:49:24

Post by: madkilla475

Correct me if I'm wrong but I saw how it explained how entropic strike works on vehicles but I didnt notice it explaining how it works on models with fnp? Is that still out for debate?

Reply by: McNinja - click to view full reply 

49408

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 03:34:59

Post by: McNinja

The double Cryptek ruling isn't surprising at all. The wording is actually fairly clear in the Codex, and any TO or otherwise who put raised a stink about someone putting two crypteks, each from a different RC (and possibly with the same wargear), in one squad needs a slap in the noggin.

Reply by: Mr.Church13 - click to view full reply 

27782

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 06:51:46

Post by: Mr.Church13

madkilla475 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but I saw how it explained how entropic strike works on vehicles but I didnt notice it explaining how it works on models with fnp? Is that still out for debate?

If you pass your FNP you never took the wound so no save reduction. Gotta take and unsaved wound to be Entropicted.

Reply by: Brothererekose - click to view full reply 

11564

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 06:55:00

Post by: Brothererekose

Mr.Church13 wrote:

madkilla475 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but I saw how it explained how entropic strike works on vehicles but I didnt notice it explaining how it works on models with fnp? Is that still out for debate?

If you pass your FNP you never took the wound so no save reduction. Gotta take and unsaved wound to be Entropicted.

Yes, madkilla, they skipped ES vs. FNP, so it's open for Nerd Raging.

But, Mr. Church has explained it well enough to go with, doncha think?

Reply by: Vaktathi - click to view full reply 

6772

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 07:02:58

Post by: Vaktathi

Mr.Church13 wrote:

madkilla475 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but I saw how it explained how entropic strike works on vehicles but I didnt notice it explaining how it works on models with fnp? Is that still out for debate?

If you pass your FNP you never took the wound so no save reduction. Gotta take and unsaved wound to be Entropicted.

FNP isn't a save, it's simply an ability that negates the unsaved wound on a 4+, but isn't actually a save (the only things the game considers "saves" are Armor, Cover and Invulnerable saves), and in fact it specifically says that it only works if the model suffers an unsaved wound, ergo, if you are taking that FNP roll, you've taken an unsaved wound and thus entropic strike would apply.

Reply by: N.I.B. - click to view full reply 

25247

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 07:48:39

Post by: N.I.B.

Q: Can a unit take cover saves from any source other
than the terrain they are in, or touching, against
Wounds caused by an impaler cannon? (p47)
A: No.

Missed this the first time. Only wounds (you don't roll to wound against vehicles). In other words an almost pointless update to the anti-mech gun.

Reply by: solkan - click to view full reply 

6846

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 07:55:20

Post by: solkan

I look forward to the future GW FAQ which will say that immobilized dreadnoughts can pivot to shoot. That'd be consistent with the Warp Time ruling.

Although the Lash nerf doesn't seem to be a Lash nerf so much as a Drive By Lashing nerf.

Reply by: yakface - click to view full reply 

60

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 08:19:20

Post by: yakface

N.I.B. wrote:Q: Can a unit take cover saves from any source other
than the terrain they are in, or touching, against
Wounds caused by an impaler cannon? (p47)
A: No.

Missed this the first time. Only wounds (you don't roll to wound against vehicles). In other words an almost pointless update to the anti-mech gun.

Given that this is not a rule, but rather a FAQ, there's absolutely no reason this same train of thought wouldn't apply to vehicles as well. The Impaler Cannon rules were slightly ambiguous as to whether they apply to non-traditional forms of cover save (like KFF, etc) and the fact that the FAQ has cleared up unequivocally that these types of saves cannot be taken against wounds by the Impaler Cannon, there's literally no reason the same precedent wouldn't apply to vehicle cover saves as well.

Reply by: N.I.B. - click to view full reply 

25247

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 08:54:02

Post by: N.I.B.

How does this differ from poison not affecting vehicles, as you don't roll to wound?

Reply by: yakface - click to view full reply 

60

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 09:19:08

Post by: yakface

N.I.B. wrote:How does this differ from poison not affecting vehicles, as you don't roll to wound?

I don't understand the question.

Again, the FAQ ruling is not a rule, it is an answer about a rules question.

The actual RULE in the codex says:

"The target can only count the benefits of cover they are in or touching if it lies between them and the Hive Guard."


So the question being asked of the Impaler Cannon in that FAQ is whether or not special affects that provide cover saves can be used against Impaler Cannon wounds. Yes, the answer is specific only to wounds (which vehicles obviously don't suffer) but the same question still applies to vehicles and special cover saves. Given that the rules themselves don't provide any additional clarification regarding vehicles and cover vs. Impaler Cannons, there is literally no other recourse but to apply the same logic presented in the FAQ ruling regarding wounds.

Reply by: Eldenfirefly - click to view full reply 

51484

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 09:28:01

Post by: Eldenfirefly

th3maninblak wrote:

pretre wrote:

th3maninblak wrote:

pretre wrote:

th3maninblak wrote:
I've been rocking my local store with Warptime princes, coming in 2nd at the last 2 tournaments and smashing 5th ed codexes left and right. It truly is the last nail in the coffin for the codex. Truly an awesome day...

Looks like I'm selling them.

Not sure if serious...

Definitely serious about the selling part.

So now that you're not big fish in little pond it is time to change? I don't get it. Just shelve them until you want to use them later.

More likely than not, the Legions book will be different enough that many of the models wont trasnfer over, and by the Codex release schedule, it's still about 8-10 months out by my reckoning. So jaws doesn't require a to hit roll, but lash does.

But what if the new Chaos Book is really awesome, and many units DO transfer over? Don't sell yet. >_< I am sure there will be stuff like daemon princes, chaos space marines, obliterators, and defilers in the new book! >_<

Reply by: tedurur - click to view full reply 

21399

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 09:36:08

Post by: tedurur

n0t_u wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:This is *HUGE*

Page 26 – Runes of Warding
Change the last sentence to “All enemy Psykers must
roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests, suffering
Perils of the Warp on any roll of 12 or above.”

There was confusion about it? That's how we've always played it.

If so you would have gone against how it was previously ruled. According to the previous rules a Farseer with RoWit would not roll 4d6 if someone had RoWard

Reply by: Mr.Church13 - click to view full reply 

27782

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 20:23:02

Post by: Mr.Church13

Vaktathi wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:

madkilla475 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but I saw how it explained how entropic strike works on vehicles but I didnt notice it explaining how it works on models with fnp? Is that still out for debate?

If you pass your FNP you never took the wound so no save reduction. Gotta take and unsaved wound to be Entropicted.

FNP isn't a save, it's simply an ability that negates the unsaved wound on a 4+, but isn't actually a save (the only things the game considers "saves" are Armor, Cover and Invulnerable saves), and in fact it specifically says that it only works if the model suffers an unsaved wound, ergo, if you are taking that FNP roll, you've taken an unsaved wound and thus entropic strike would apply.

Exactly right! It negates the unsaved wound like you never took it at all. No save reduction.

Reply by: Vaktathi - click to view full reply 

6772

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 20:32:12

Post by: Vaktathi

Mr.Church13 wrote:
Exactly right! It negates the unsaved wound like you never took it at all. No save reduction.

It means you don't lose the wound, but by definition of FNP kicking in at all you've met the condition for Entropic strike also kicking in. The way I read it, the fact that the wound isn't actually lost is irrelevant, you've suffered a wound that was not saved. Failing the save means both FNP and Entropic strike kicks in, FNP keeps the model alive but Entropic strike removes the armor save. Basically, the entropic strike defeats the armor and destroys it, but the models physical toughness keeps it alive even with its armor in tatters.

Reply by: Lightcavalier - click to view full reply 

48156

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 20:35:30

Post by: Lightcavalier

Well the ruling for the Hexrifle falls into a similar category.

Now if you fail your armour save you take the test, and if you fail the test you die, FNP or not. By precedent I see ES working the same way.

Reply by: pretre - click to view full reply 

20774

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 20:40:06

Post by: pretre

Lightcavalier wrote:Well the ruling for the Hexrifle falls into a similar category.

Now if you fail your armour save you take the test, and if you fail the test you die, FNP or not. By precedent I see ES working the same way.

Umm...? What ruling for the Hexrifle? I just checked the DE FAQ and the word 'Hex' doesn't even appear in it.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 20:57:04

Post by: ShumaGorath

th3maninblak wrote:

Lovepug13 wrote:So lash now hits on a 2+ - hardly a real problem

They fixed dreadnoughts at last - yay

However have created a rules fiasco over warptime....

Lucky i have some WIP Blood Angels FTW or I would be crying in my cereal at this point.

It's virtually a dead codex.....So now it's 9 x Obliterators, 14 Plague Marines and 2 Lash Princes as the standard then.

Nurgle princes to be outed on the bay lol

I've been rocking my local store with Warptime princes, coming in 2nd at the last 2 tournaments and smashing 5th ed codexes left and right. It truly is the last nail in the coffin for the codex. Truly an awesome day...

Looks like I'm selling them.

Rumors of an upcoming legion codex are pretty consistent. You might as well keep them. I doubt it'll be a long wait.

Reply by: More Dakka - click to view full reply 

37016

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/17 21:45:07

Post by: More Dakka

I think the biggest change for Lash has less to do with it needing to roll to hit (as many have said the 2+ makes it marginal), and more to do with the fact that it's now clearly a shooting attack.

The reason this is a game changer is that the model using it can't assault a unit other than the one it lashed.

I used to have my Nobz lashed one way to be blasted to goo by Obliterators, and then the prince would assault one of my squishier units to get away form reprisal shooting.

Reply by: SlaveToDorkness - click to view full reply 

5182

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/18 14:46:39

Post by: SlaveToDorkness

More Dakka wrote:I think the biggest change for Lash has less to do with it needing to roll to hit (as many have said the 2+ makes it marginal

Although a 2+ doesn't seem so bad, it actually almost triples the chance of failure for the power.

Ld 10 Psychic test= %91.666 success rate
Ld 10 Psychic test + 2+ roll= %76.385

C'mon Legions codex!!!

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/18 15:35:42

Post by: ShumaGorath

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

More Dakka wrote:I think the biggest change for Lash has less to do with it needing to roll to hit (as many have said the 2+ makes it marginal

Although a 2+ doesn't seem so bad, it actually almost triples the chance of failure for the power.

Ld 10 Psychic test= %91.666 success rate
Ld 10 Psychic test + 2+ roll= %76.385

C'mon Legions codex!!!

That's still a very high success rate. If chaos players didn't treat the lash like the worlds largest crutch it probably wouldn't even be a particularly noticeable 16%.

C'mon Legions codex!!!

I doubt the lashwhip will exist in the legions book. It's reviled.

Reply by: Vaktathi - click to view full reply 

6772

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/18 16:00:15

Post by: Vaktathi

ShumaGorath wrote:

That's still a very high success rate. If chaos players didn't treat the lash like the worlds largest crutch it probably wouldn't even be a particularly noticeable 16%.

It would help if it wasn't near-required for competitive level play Still a high success rate yes, but it doesn't help that they had several inconsistent FAQ's on psychic powers needing to hit or not, and generally the ones from older books got hit and the ones from the newer books did not.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/18 16:12:15

Post by: ShumaGorath

Vaktathi wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

That's still a very high success rate. If chaos players didn't treat the lash like the worlds largest crutch it probably wouldn't even be a particularly noticeable 16%.

It would help if it wasn't near-required for competitive level play Still a high success rate yes, but it doesn't help that they had several inconsistent FAQ's on psychic powers needing to hit or not, and generally the ones from older books got hit and the ones from the newer books did not.

Agreed, it's like they reviewed the tournament field in 2008 and suddenly realized that the lashwhip was a broken pile of crap that everyone hated and that everyone was using differently then was intended. They then booted up the time machine and jumped four years into the future to solve it (though honestly, this wouldn't of solved it if they dropped it before mechspam. This is barely a nerf.).

Reply by: happygolucky - click to view full reply 

45831

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/18 16:25:48

Post by: happygolucky

Pilau Rice wrote:

Mannfred wrote:
Chaos spacemarines

Q: Is Lash of Submission a Psychic Shooting Attack and
must it roll To Hit? (p88)
A: Yes to both questions. Note that if it misses, it will
have no effect.

Q: Does Warptime allow the psyker to pick and choose
which To Hit and To Wound dice he will re-roll? (p88)
A: No. He can decide after each To Hit or To Wound roll
but he must re-roll all dice or no dice.

+1, they have made a already bad dex into a worse one...

Reply by: Steelmage99 - click to view full reply 

2304

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/18 17:25:45

Post by: Steelmage99

ShumaGorath wrote:

I doubt the lashwhip will exist in the legions book. It's reviled.

When?

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/18 17:26:42

Post by: ShumaGorath

Steelmage99 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I doubt the lashwhip will exist in the legions book. It's reviled.

When?

That one word question doesn't make sense.

Reply by: Lordhat - click to view full reply 

1309

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/18 18:48:56

Post by: Lordhat

ShumaGorath wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I doubt the lashwhip will exist in the legions book. It's reviled.

When?

That one word question doesn't make sense.

Sure it does. The answer of course, is "Orange."

Reply by: whitedragon - click to view full reply 

411

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/18 18:49:36

Post by: whitedragon

happygolucky wrote:

Pilau Rice wrote:

Mannfred wrote:
Chaos spacemarines

Q: Is Lash of Submission a Psychic Shooting Attack and
must it roll To Hit? (p88)
A: Yes to both questions. Note that if it misses, it will
have no effect.

Q: Does Warptime allow the psyker to pick and choose
which To Hit and To Wound dice he will re-roll? (p88)
A: No. He can decide after each To Hit or To Wound roll
but he must re-roll all dice or no dice.

+1, they have made a already bad dex into a worse one...

Not even the Pan Fo were this badly nerfed. Otherwise, we'd all be reviled!

Reply by: Lovepug13 - click to view full reply 

36718

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/18 19:01:10

Post by: Lovepug13

I dont think the lash thing is the problem....I am happy with that in exchange for fixed dreads.

However...I am seriously not cool with warptime. I will run MON with wings now and leave warp-time on the shelf :-(

Reply by: Steelmage99 - click to view full reply 

2304

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/18 19:25:57

Post by: Steelmage99

ShumaGorath wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I doubt the lashwhip will exist in the legions book. It's reviled.

When?

That one word question doesn't make sense.

Sorry. A poor attempt at humour gone wrong.

i was referring to the old "Pan Fo will be reviled"-stick.

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/18 22:16:52

Post by: rigeld2

Vaktathi wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:
Exactly right! It negates the unsaved wound like you never took it at all. No save reduction.

It means you don't lose the wound, but by definition of FNP kicking in at all you've met the condition for Entropic strike also kicking in. The way I read it, the fact that the wound isn't actually lost is irrelevant, you've suffered a wound that was not saved. Failing the save means both FNP and Entropic strike kicks in, FNP keeps the model alive but Entropic strike removes the armor save. Basically, the entropic strike defeats the armor and destroys it, but the models physical toughness keeps it alive even with its armor in tatters.

Applying ES means you're not ignoring the wound, which is what FNP requires. This has come up in YMDC multiple times, and fwiw INAT agrees that FNP will ignore ES (TYR.84A.04 says that FNP'ed wounds are not counted for Acid Blood, which has the same trigger as ES, Hexrifle, etc.).

It really should have been FAQed.

Reply by: Vaktathi - click to view full reply 

6772

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/18 23:10:43

Post by: Vaktathi

rigeld2 wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:
Exactly right! It negates the unsaved wound like you never took it at all. No save reduction.

It means you don't lose the wound, but by definition of FNP kicking in at all you've met the condition for Entropic strike also kicking in. The way I read it, the fact that the wound isn't actually lost is irrelevant, you've suffered a wound that was not saved. Failing the save means both FNP and Entropic strike kicks in, FNP keeps the model alive but Entropic strike removes the armor save. Basically, the entropic strike defeats the armor and destroys it, but the models physical toughness keeps it alive even with its armor in tatters.

Applying ES means you're not ignoring the wound, which is what FNP requires. This has come up in YMDC multiple times, and fwiw INAT agrees that FNP will ignore ES (TYR.84A.04 says that FNP'ed wounds are not counted for Acid Blood, which has the same trigger as ES, Hexrifle, etc.).

It really should have been FAQed.

Yup it should have, and I'm surprised it wasn't, but as it stands, it's very arguable.

Reply by: SlaveToDorkness - click to view full reply 

5182

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/19 03:34:05

Post by: SlaveToDorkness

ShumaGorath wrote:

That's still a very high success rate.

Going from an A to a C- isn't so hot though.

If chaos players didn't treat the lash like the worlds largest crutch it probably wouldn't even be a particularly noticeable 16%.

Agreed. I personally have never used it. Ever. Everyone always blinks a couple of times to process that my DP has MoS but no Lash (it's for the I6!!!).

Shumagorath wrote:

C'mon Legions codex!!!

I doubt the lashwhip will exist in the legions book. It's reviled.

Yes, but don't forget that Lash was just the latest Slaanesh psychic power everyone hated. remember The Siren?!

I shudder to think what's next.

As stated before, the Warptime idiocy is my main gripe with this slew of FU...er.....FAQs for CSM.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/19 10:32:45

Post by: nosferatu1001

I just run Khorne DP with wings. Cheap disposable unit. Wouldnt touch slaanesh with a barge pole...

Reply by: Noisy_Marine - click to view full reply 

5610

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/22 05:12:54

Post by: Noisy_Marine

Well I just found out about this. Can't believe they nerfed Warptime like that.

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/22 05:18:07

Post by: H.B.M.C.

Sometimes I wonder if they put any thought into their answers and 'clarifications'. The Warp Time and the Tyranid Spore answers seem to indicate that their answers are very quickly given with no real time to mull it over - answers given only so there is an answer, not because an answer was needed.

Reply by: murdog - click to view full reply 

21737

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/22 07:18:15

Post by: murdog

Brothererekose wrote:good lulz

daedalus wrote:

Q: How do dice rolls that can trigger an effect from a
special rule (such as rolling a 1 To Hit when shooting a
weapon with the Gets Hot! special rule) interact with
re-rolls? (p2)
A: You only check to see if the effect has been
triggered after the re-rolls have been made.

So then, for Summary Execution, you get a re-roll for failing a Morale check (dice roll that triggers an effect from a special rule), but only after you've failed it. You then kill a Sarge, and make your re-roll. If you pass the reroll, the effect from the special rule never took place, so your Sarge isn't dead after all, and you are your own grandfather, all because of space-time paradox?

I think you go with codex rules first, so when that sarge fails, he gets shot, then a reroll.

Bonde wrote:So basically IG got something no one asked for...

I was praying for it nightly. The words in my codex now make sense! Finally my company will have all its 20 heavy weapons opening up first turn. Walking HWS's onto the field was redonculous.

yakface wrote:Overall I think this was a great round of FAQ updates. My only real concerns are:

1) Allowing combat squads and IG Platoons to deploy as a single choice, which presumably allows them to only count as a single unit being deployed in Dawn of War. This is utter game changing for IG armies in tournament play, and considering that IG are already a front runner in tournaments this seems like a poor decision. But even more than that, it seems to go against what the Dawn of War deployment rules say, which makes it all the more confusing!

To me the problem is the muddy wording in the codex. I was playing this way until I bowed to Dakka's YMDC. The codex says: 'Each Infantry Platoon counts as a single Troops choice on the force organization chart when deploying...'. If you go over to the rulebook, it says a unit of Troops gets deployed, so I could see the argument. It was still frustrating though: why would they even mention anything to do with platoons deploying if there was nothing special about them? Why would they say a 'platoon counts as a single Troops... when deploying' if that had no actual effect on the game? But I went with it, and was at a severe disadvantage in DoW, walking many squads on the board, not getting to fire anything (maybe some GL's) and woefully out of position turn 2. (I play for fun and fluff first and have an army of platoons with heavies and HWS's, with vehicle support - I think of it as a Heavy Infantry Company). Now I can put all the infantry down and roll the tanks on to light up the other side for the heavies! Big.

yakface wrote:3) Not allowing special rules/wargear that require LOS to be used from a vehicle is fine with me, but again it seems really inconsistent to apply it ONLY to those things and not apply it to non-shooting attack psychic powers. Because it seems like the 'reason' behind that ruling would be the fact that the fire point rules only specify they can be used when shooting, so in that regard it makes sense that anything that requires LOS but isn't a shooting attack wouldn't be allowed to be used from a vehicle. But still allowing non-shooting psychic attacks to be used from a vehicle, but not special rules/wargear just feels so inconsistent and arbitrary (and again, just happens to really benefit IG with their psychic battle squads).

So this means a guard commander can't direct BiD and FomT from his command chimera? I agree: inconsistent. LOS is LOS, you would think that if a firepoint provides that then a firepoint provides that.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/22 12:34:21

Post by: nosferatu1001

Reread your guard codex; specifically the rule that Command Vehicle lets you draw LOS from the hull

Reply by: murdog - click to view full reply 

21737

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/22 17:58:17

Post by: murdog

Ahh, yes, tx I forgot about that line.

Reply by: Slayer le boucher - click to view full reply 

39502

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/22 18:29:23

Post by: Slayer le boucher

whitedragon wrote:Goodbye Chaos!

Why?..., i play WE and i'm glad i can finaly stop arguing with my EC opponents about if Kharn and his unit are moved or not because that stupid Lash.

Warptime?,ToHit Lash?, i don't give a damn rats ass.

Now i can finnaly say to those EC jerks to go suck it somewhere else and take it where the sun don't shine, when they try to move Kharn and his squad!

Also love the line about the fire angle of Dreads, they are now less likely to turn and shoot at my units as it was for those lasts years!

Reply by: Pyro-Druid - click to view full reply 

31981

40k FAQS amended. Again. Inc. Necrons. GW "what's new today" shiny and new as well.  @ 2012/01/23 02:48:08

Post by: Pyro-Druid

I found this errata quite interesting:

Runes of Warding: Change the last sentence to “All enemy Psykers must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests, suffering Perils of the Warp on any roll of 12 or above.”

In short, 2 Farseers with RoWarding means opponents roll 4d6 for psychic tests. That's a pretty solid defense.