Great news gamers: the finalised official FAQs for every one of our Warhammer 40,000 codexes have just been released.
These Frequently Asked Questions cover a huge range of the most common queries or rules ambiguities, and we hope they are a great help in your games.
These FAQs have been approached in a new way that has taken a little longer than some of our previous FAQs, but we’ve tried to keep the process transparent and make sure that you gamers out there were involved every step of the way (which can be a tricky because there are tens of thousands of you!).
Last year, we asked you on our Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page what questions you had about the rules and the game. We got literally thousands of questions, everything from common misconceptions, to some really insightful thoughts about interactions with some of the more complex and obscure rules of the game.
Our rules team worked tirelessly (alongside their day job of making new codexes and games) to answer as many of the questions as they could, before we released draft versions of the FAQs for you guys to give feedback on. We got a big response again, with a load more questions, some more clarification needed, and a few changes to make.
Finally, after the final amends were put in, we worked with the teams from some of the biggest independant Warhammer 40,000 events out there to make sure the answers were good to go – so a big thanks to both the AdeptiCon Tournament team, and the guys from the Las Vegas Open for their contributions.
And now, here we are!
Your questions, answered by our rules team, checked by you, and double checked by the people out there with the most experience of the Warhammer 40,000 tournament scene.
Thanks. I haven't played for a while and remembered seeing a whole bunch of posts and youtube videos about FAQ's months ago in the summer but when I looked half the armies didn't have any in the past 2-3 years.
Ooh, Imperial Agents has a good one, the Imperial Navy Valkyries are suddenly a whole lot more desirable!
Page 46 – Faction and Allies Add the following to the end of the first paragraph: ‘Transports from this Faction can transport Astra Militarum, Militarum Tempestus and Inquisition units as if they were all of the same Faction.’
Q: If a Tervigon is taken as a Troops option (per The Scuttling Swarm rule) and spawns Termagants, do these new models have Objective Secured? Do they have Objective Secured if they were spawned by a Tervigon which is an HQ choice? A: Yes to both questions, as long as the Tervigon is taken as part of a Detachment that confers the Objective Secured Command Benefit (for example, the Combined Arms Detachment).
As a returnee to 40k (well, returning to gaming. Kept buying and building like!) I'd like to thank all those who contributed their questions and nit picking to the FAQ process.
Glad they're listening to the community. 40k is still way too bloated and in desperate need of a streamlined 8th, but the fact that they're making an effort is huge and makes me happy.
Interesting note in the ork faq: Kustom force fields do not protect void shields, which honestly seems fair enough to me.
By extension, does that mean void shields (and ork power fields) also can't benefit from cover saves? I'm not sure if it's covered anywhere, but it would seem logical.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Interesting note in the ork faq: Kustom force fields do not protect void shields, which honestly seems fair enough to me.
By extension, does that mean void shields (and ork power fields) also can't benefit from cover saves? I'm not sure if it's covered anywhere, but it would seem logical.
Cephalobeard wrote: No Shotguns/Bolters for DW, but hey, at least you can use a HTH (Two Handed) and a STORMS SHIELD at the same time and create a 85 point 1w t4 marine!
Deathwatch (IA) can already use Shotguns. They are listed under special weapons on their wargear list. And they start with Boltguns.
Cephalobeard wrote: No Shotguns/Bolters for DW, but hey, at least you can use a HTH (Two Handed) and a STORMS SHIELD at the same time and create a 85 point 1w t4 marine!
Deathwatch (IA) can already use Shotguns. They are listed under special weapons on their wargear list. And they start with Boltguns.
It's a complaint about something people were doing. They argued that they could swap the Boltgun for a Shotgun, then swap the Close Combat Weapon for another Boltgun.
FAQs Q:
Imperial Agents seems to replace existing material but Games Workshop has indicated that players can use either the new or older material. As
Imperial Agents lacks certain things present in older material, such as Servo Skulls, which do we use?
A: If you have bought and own the existing and still currently available digital Codex: Adepta Sororitas and Codex: Inquisition , you can use those over the rules
presented in Imperial Agents if you wish.
Cephalobeard wrote: No Shotguns/Bolters for DW, but hey, at least you can use a HTH (Two Handed) and a STORMS SHIELD at the same time and create a 85 point 1w t4 marine!
Deathwatch (IA) can already use Shotguns. They are listed under special weapons on their wargear list. And they start with Boltguns.
It's a complaint about something people were doing. They argued that they could swap the Boltgun for a Shotgun, then swap the Close Combat Weapon for another Boltgun.
Cephalobeard wrote: No Shotguns/Bolters for DW, but hey, at least you can use a HTH (Two Handed) and a STORMS SHIELD at the same time and create a 85 point 1w t4 marine!
Deathwatch (IA) can already use Shotguns. They are listed under special weapons on their wargear list. And they start with Boltguns.
It's a complaint about something people were doing. They argued that they could swap the Boltgun for a Shotgun, then swap the Close Combat Weapon for another Boltgun.
They argued it because the codex allowed it.
I wonder if frag cannon+ boltgun is still allowed. I already modelled 16 models after this, would hate to bother remodelling.
Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and
an Artefact of the Aeons?
A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic
(or equivalent) of any kind
Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and
an Artefact of the Aeons?
A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic
(or equivalent) of any kind
FAQs Q:
Imperial Agents seems to replace existing material but Games Workshop has indicated that players can use either the new or older material. As
Imperial Agents lacks certain things present in older material, such as Servo Skulls, which do we use?
A: If you have bought and own the existing and still currently available digital Codex: Adepta Sororitas and Codex: Inquisition , you can use those over the rules
presented in Imperial Agents if you wish.
FAQs Q:
Imperial Agents seems to replace existing material but Games Workshop has indicated that players can use either the new or older material. As
Imperial Agents lacks certain things present in older material, such as Servo Skulls, which do we use?
A: If you have bought and own the existing and still currently available digital Codex: Adepta Sororitas and Codex: Inquisition , you can use those over the rules
presented in Imperial Agents if you wish.
Thats that answered
So... Servo Skulls again?
This was clear from Fall of Cadia, which allows you to take multiple versions from different books.
Amusingly enough, you can use the Inquisitorial Representative detachment from C:IA with an inquisitor from C:I.
Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and
an Artefact of the Aeons?
A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic
(or equivalent) of any kind
I assume this also applies to Tau Sig Systems.
Not that I saw, but I might have missed it.
Are they not the equivalent of In game terms of Relics and follow the other rules for Relics?
Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and
an Artefact of the Aeons?
A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic
(or equivalent) of any kind
I assume this also applies to Tau Sig Systems.
Not that I saw, but I might have missed it.
Are they not the equivalent of In game terms of Relics and follow the other rules for Relics?
You would think so, but the closest thing has been them saying that Signature Systems can only be one per army.
So no bolter/shotgun for deathwatch, beacon Angelis has all of its fun and uniqueness removed, and kill teams can't take dedicated transports anymore? Do I have that all right?
So what's the fun in playing Deathwatch anymore...
Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and
an Artefact of the Aeons?
A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic
(or equivalent) of any kind
I assume this also applies to Tau Sig Systems.
Not that I saw, but I might have missed it.
Are they not the equivalent of In game terms of Relics and follow the other rules for Relics?
You would think so, but the closest thing has been them saying that Signature Systems can only be one per army.
Signature systems are the only thing in game equivilant to relics in game. If signature systems are not the equivilant to relics what else in game do you think is an equivilant to relic and thus 1 per character.
I'm just glad 90% of all the rules twisting tau tried have been clarified and removed, no hunter contigent buff sharing, no rearm refuel used to create extra models or immobilize shenanigans, no dual relics, no drone net popping in and out of reserves.
Outside of tau you can't dual spawn cultist now on a 4+ you only get 1 roll.
Cephalobeard wrote: Not to be doom and gloom, but there isn't any. They gutted them.
Welcome to the "gave us a new model line then made sure all the unique/cool stuff got taken out because it was different and scary" club! you can hang out with the Dark Eldar and Necrons!
Q: Can a model be given a relic from the Mephrit Dynasty and
an Artefact of the Aeons?
A: No. A model may only be equipped with a single relic
(or equivalent) of any kind
I assume this also applies to Tau Sig Systems.
Not that I saw, but I might have missed it.
I didn't see anything in the Tau codex file so the Tau entry is still the same. It explicitly states "items" as in plural from the signature system entry on the commander with no inherent limit so in that one case specific trumps general. I can't speak to other codex relic entries as the Tau one is the only one I bothered to keep updated to 8th ed standards so I don't know if it applies to them.
Lord of Deeds wrote: Looks like they dropped the draft ruling on the drop pod doors and made a more sensible ruling.
Indeed:
"Q: Do Space Marine Drop Pod doors count as solid walls that block line of sight? A: No."
"Q: Are Drop Pod doors ignored for game purposes once deployed? A: Yes."
-
It's a huge blessing and nerf. You will have a hard time using drop pods to block line of sight now even if they are up But it's a good change.
Well, the FAQ says they do not block LoS, but they'll still provide cover, so it's fine. And the doors are supposed to be off anyway, so now you can glue them shut without being called out for modeling for advantage. Cuz seriously that kit is a pain.
About Necrons: Did anyone notice that Wraiths & C'tan do not take the Initiative penalty for terrain? Was this a change from the draft? Makes whip coils mandatory now.
Deathwatch... I can't believe they took away the bolter and shotgun combo. So the most elite get to shoot boltguns all day and never really get to the stabbing part of the Xenopurge. Does anyone else think this gets rid of all special weapon/shotgun or special weapon/boltgun combinations?
I thought it was pretty obvious that Bolter+Shotgun wasn't RAI for Deathwatch, you should've expected this. I made sure to model my guys with either one or the other for when the FAQ dropped. About the Dedicated Transports, why would you be able to take Dedicated Transports for the Kill Team Formations?
Beacon Angelia not being able to teleport Drop Pods is silly though, fluff-wise. If it can teleport a Land Raider, why not a Drop Pod?
Cephalobeard wrote: Because they form a unit, which the MAIN portion of the unit retains all its other upgrades, which to many would include their options for Transports.
Kill Teams having to foot slog is one of the silliest decisions I have seen for DW.
Footslog? In pretty sure most deathwatch can deepstrike.
Btw so imperial agents Valkyrie is like everyone can hop on board now. Well inquisition, tempestus and guard at least.
Cephalobeard wrote: Because they form a unit, which the MAIN portion of the unit retains all its other upgrades, which to many would include their options for Transports.
Kill Teams having to foot slog is one of the silliest decisions I have seen for DW.
The silliest decision is forcing Jump and Bikers into the unit.
Cephalobeard wrote: Because they form a unit, which the MAIN portion of the unit retains all its other upgrades, which to many would include their options for Transports.
Kill Teams having to foot slog is one of the silliest decisions I have seen for DW.
Footslog? In pretty sure most deathwatch can deepstrike.
You're not wrong, units that take a BLACK SPEAR can, certainly, deep strike.
Cephalobeard wrote: Because they form a unit, which the MAIN portion of the unit retains all its other upgrades, which to many would include their options for Transports.
Kill Teams having to foot slog is one of the silliest decisions I have seen for DW.
It works in a CAD because you can take Transports separately, but yeah thinking a bit more it's super silly in a Black Spear Strike Force where you can only take Land Raiders and Blackstars, not Rhinos and Drop Pods. They shouldn't have made that ruling.
I wonder if frag cannon+ boltgun is still allowed. I already modelled 16 models after this, would hate to bother remodelling.
I guess until it is faq ed not to work, it does!
Yeah, I've got two Bolter/Shotguns I need to remodel.
I also have 3 Stalker/Boltguns that I'm going to ignore, since the FAQ isn't specifically addressing them.
Frustrating they pot shotted a specific complaint without addressing the system that creates the problem in the first place (aka, you can swap your CCW for a Bolter). There's a lot of things that can still be done that will probably be stomped out one by one from here and largely just frustrate people. Combi weapons being worthless because you can take a Boltgun and the real thing is another obvious example. Also, can you take a Shotgun and Storm Bolter? Probably? Maybe?
Rather bummed about this in general personally as the shotguns really tied the Veterans together in Kill Team and made the elite crew work against swarms. Doesn't render my models worthless, but given that's pretty much my entire 40k collection its a little disheartening, I'm afraid.
Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the
Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran
purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to
an Apothecary)?
A: No.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Interesting note in the ork faq: Kustom force fields do not protect void shields, which honestly seems fair enough to me.
By extension, does that mean void shields (and ork power fields) also can't benefit from cover saves? I'm not sure if it's covered anywhere, but it would seem logical.
a building can never take cover saves.
Can you point out where that is listed? I don't recall seeing that in a FAQ, but I admittedly don't pay much attention to building rules, as they're not often used.
xSoulgrinderx wrote: Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the
Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran
purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to
an Apothecary)?
A: No.
I'm pretty pissed about the DW rulings. I have sixteen customized models that I spent a lot of time working on (plus two Terminators,) so I could go 8x Bolt/Shot, CML, Drop Pod.
None of that is legal now. Yay.
Waaaghpower wrote: I'm pretty pissed about the DW rulings. I have sixteen customized models that I spent a lot of time working on (plus two Terminators,) so I could go 8x Bolt/Shot, CML, Drop Pod.
None of that is legal now. Yay.
As someone who just finished assembling a Deathwatch army, anyone could have told you that Bolter/Shotgun would almost certainly not be allowed come FAQ. They even informally said so over Facebook.
As for the dedicated transport question, I really don't know what they were answering no to. It seems like they read the question as "Can units with no dedicated transport options take transports?". I hope they revisit it soon.
Cephalobeard wrote: I don't think any Kill Team CANT fit into at least one of their Transports, as you don't need to max out things like Terminators etc.
Venator immediately springs to mind for anything shy of a Corvus Blackstar. You need to take a unit of Veterans and a unit of Bikers, which must include at least two Bikers.
That's 2 models with Very Bulky(6 spots in a transport) and 5 taking up normal slots...which immediately puts out Rhino, Drop Pod, and Razorback
Cephalobeard wrote: No Shotguns/Bolters for DW, but hey, at least you can use a HTH (Two Handed) and a STORMS SHIELD at the same time and create a 85 point 1w t4 marine!
Well the bolter shotgun was fairly predictable. Hopefully nobody glude that combo or doesn't mind models with both
Buzzdady wrote:So no bolter/shotgun for deathwatch, beacon Angelis has all of its fun and uniqueness removed, and kill teams can't take dedicated transports anymore? Do I have that all right?
So what's the fun in playing Deathwatch anymore...
How about the fun is because you like Deathwatch and finally field an actual Deathwatch army and have a codex. I guess in 8th edition of 40K, Deathwatch codex should disappear into the 8th edition Space Marine codex just like what happened to Black Templar. Would this be better?
Liking the army for liking it is all well and good, but there is no denying DW got the absolute shaft with this FAQ.
You're welcome to argue people can play with 1st edition space marine rules with cardboard models because they like them, but it doesn't mean people are happy when an army is massively affected by changes, when they were already weak on the power scale.
Cephalobeard wrote: Liking the army for liking it is all well and good, but there is no denying DW got the absolute shaft with this FAQ.
You're welcome to argue people can play with 1st edition space marine rules with cardboard models because they like them, but it doesn't mean people are happy when an army is massively affected by changes, when they were already weak on the power scale.
Maybe its my Tyranid and GsC gamer in me frowning at you, but not being able to game the equipment selection and not having Dedicated transports doesn't seem all that..... Shafty. Especially considering DW has so many options still available.
What bizarre is that the bolter/shotgun combo got ruled out, but that same FAQ states heavy weapon/bolter is fine, and says nothing about other special wepons (so presumably plasmagun/boltgun is fine?)
Cephalobeard wrote: Liking the army for liking it is all well and good, but there is no denying DW got the absolute shaft with this FAQ.
You're welcome to argue people can play with 1st edition space marine rules with cardboard models because they like them, but it doesn't mean people are happy when an army is massively affected by changes, when they were already weak on the power scale.
Apart from dedicated transport(which does suck) and bolter/shotgun(which was predictable and which I pointed out during the release) were there other big effects?
I kept saying don't model bp&shotgun at least until faq verifies it. It was so plain that was not intended. If it was they would have put both as basic wargear in the first place!
If anyone cares, the daemon FAQ kills off pinkies inability to use malefic. It's more up to date and grants their unit type "psykers and brotherhood of psykers" access to the table. Daemon factory is back.
EnTyme wrote: If you build your army and your strategy around an obvious oversight, I have no sympathy for you now that it has been FAQ'd.
It wasn't an obvious oversight; it was a valid choice based on the wargear table. I don't see any reason why it would be banned, but other weirder ones aren't (SS/Heavy, Heavy/Bolter, etc).
Cephalobeard wrote:Liking the army for liking it is all well and good, but there is no denying DW got the absolute shaft with this FAQ.
You're welcome to argue people can play with 1st edition space marine rules with cardboard models because they like them, but it doesn't mean people are happy when an army is massively affected by changes, when they were already weak on the power scale.
I don't know. Maybe being a Tyranid player and being use to getting nerfed in FAQs is nothing new.
As was mentioned already by Carnikang, that is all the options you have? Have you ever been a Tyranid player? Have you ever been a Black Templar player?
EnTyme wrote: If you build your army and your strategy around an obvious oversight, I have no sympathy for you now that it has been FAQ'd.
It wasn't an obvious oversight; it was a valid choice based on the wargear table. I don't see any reason why it would be banned, but other weirder ones aren't (SS/Heavy, Heavy/Bolter, etc).
It didn't make much sense. There was literally no downside to it. If it was intended would have been easier to have them both in basic wargear and not have some players lose game efficiency by not realizing do that. Top of that is there anything in the game with similar combo?
It was pretty suspicious combination so if you do models with that combo before faq clarifies don't complain if it got changed. It was pretty high chance it would be prevented. Not once in a blue moon chance.
timetowaste85 wrote: If anyone cares, the daemon FAQ kills off pinkies inability to use malefic. It's more up to date and grants their unit type "psykers and brotherhood of psykers" access to the table. Daemon factory is back.
Except that FAQ applies to the Pink Horror datasheet in Codex Chaos Daemons. It is replaced by the Pink Horror/Blue Horror/Brimstone Horror datasheets from Wrath of Magnus, which according to it's FAQ does prevent them from using Malefic.
timetowaste85 wrote: If anyone cares, the daemon FAQ kills off pinkies inability to use malefic. It's more up to date and grants their unit type "psykers and brotherhood of psykers" access to the table. Daemon factory is back.
Except that FAQ applies to the Pink Horror datasheet in Codex Chaos Daemons. It is replaced by the Pink Horror/Blue Horror/Brimstone Horror datasheets from Wrath of Magnus, which according to it's FAQ does prevent them from using Malefic.
They put it in the daemon one. But said it applies to all of them; all codexes. "Various psykers"
If they have the psykers or BoP rule, they got it back. As of 1/20/17. Magnus was back in 2016, and becomes invalidated.
tneva82 wrote: Top of that is there anything in the game with similar combo?
Yep. Pretty much any squad with a free on their ranged list can do it. SM Command Squad, for example.
And even then, this has only "fixed" one example of that argument. Bolter/flamer, bolter/meltagun, bolter/plasma gun, even bolter/stalker pattern bolter are still completely legal, and that's without touching the heavy weapons...
tneva82 wrote: Top of that is there anything in the game with similar combo?
Yep. Pretty much any squad with a free on their ranged list can do it. SM Command Squad, for example.
And even then, this has only "fixed" one example of that argument. Bolter/flamer, bolter/meltagun, bolter/plasma gun, even bolter/stalker pattern bolter are still completely legal, and that's without touching the heavy weapons...
Are those combos free though? Or is it +1pts for stalker pattern bolter etc?
Well. People wanted to assemble models before faq which had significant chance to disallow it. Fair enough. Hopefully they were prepared to live with the decision. If not better not model until FAQ comes or at least do it so that it's easy to change.
timetowaste85 wrote: If anyone cares, the daemon FAQ kills off pinkies inability to use malefic. It's more up to date and grants their unit type "psykers and brotherhood of psykers" access to the table. Daemon factory is back.
Except that FAQ applies to the Pink Horror datasheet in Codex Chaos Daemons. It is replaced by the Pink Horror/Blue Horror/Brimstone Horror datasheets from Wrath of Magnus, which according to it's FAQ does prevent them from using Malefic.
They put it in the daemon one. But said it applies to all of them; all codexes. "Various psykers"
They never say that it applies to 'all codexes'. By being in the Codex Chaos Daemons FAQ it only applies to that codex.
They have Traitor Legions but not Wrath of Magnus. So the arguing (pointless arguing) over whether or not you lose formation benefits for having a full cabal will still be debated, if you lose one squad.
timetowaste85 wrote: If anyone cares, the daemon FAQ kills off pinkies inability to use malefic. It's more up to date and grants their unit type "psykers and brotherhood of psykers" access to the table. Daemon factory is back.
Except that FAQ applies to the Pink Horror datasheet in Codex Chaos Daemons. It is replaced by the Pink Horror/Blue Horror/Brimstone Horror datasheets from Wrath of Magnus, which according to it's FAQ does prevent them from using Malefic.
Ghaz is correct here. Specific always trumps general and here is the breakdown:
-BRB grants all Psykers access to Daemonology
-Daemon FAQ further supports this by stating all Psyker in the Daemon codex have access to Malefic
-Wrath of Magnus Horrors replace the Daemon codex entry
-WoM FAQ specifically says Horrors only have access to Change
i don't have my Magnus book with me. But since the FAQ list is newest, and doesn't include Magnus and Magnus FAQ specifically denied it to horrors last month and the newest daemon FAQ grants it back, I would personally go by the newest ruling.
If Magnus removes them from having psykers or BoP rule, then I rescind my argument.
timetowaste85 wrote: i don't have my Magnus book with me. But since the FAQ list is newest, and doesn't include Magnus and Magnus FAQ specifically denied it to horrors last month and the newest daemon FAQ grants it back, I would personally go by the newest ruling.
If Magnus removes them from having psykers or BoP rule, then I rescind my argument.
Again, you're ignoring the context. It has nothing to do with which is newer, but which book it applies to. The Codex Chaos Daemons FAQ only applies to Codex Chaos Daemons and the Wrath of Magnus FAQ only applies to Wrath of Magnus unless specifically stated otherwise. There is no such specific statement otherwise, which is where your argument fails. Therefore since the specified datasheets from Wrath of Magnus replace those in Codex Chaos Daemons and have been FAQed to not allow Malefic, Pink Horrors, Blue Horrors and Brimstone Horrors do NOT have Malefic.
timetowaste85 wrote: i don't have my Magnus book with me. But since the FAQ list is newest, and doesn't include Magnus and Magnus FAQ specifically denied it to horrors last month and the newest daemon FAQ grants it back, I would personally go by the newest ruling.
If Magnus removes them from having psykers or BoP rule, then I rescind my argument.
The new Daemon FAQ does not invalidate the Magnus FAQ. Both are valid and up to date.
If the Daemon FAQ SPECIFICALLY said Horrors could access Malefic, at best we would have a conflict.
But it doesn't. It gives "blanket" access to all Psyker entries in the Daemon codex. And since there is no longer a valid Pink Horror entry IN THAT CODEX, it doesn't matter. They did not need to specify.
The current valid Horror entries are listed in the Magnus book, which has it's own current FAQ
In the Warhammer Live game going on now I mentioned the drop pod FAQ, so then did a couple more, and they said they would be using it. So glad that switched. Of course not everyone will always be happy and I feel disappointed on some of those FAQ calls but, overall...
The DW shotgun nerf was to be expected, especially as they removed the option in IA version of Deathwatch. However, it is really strange to just address this one specific weapon and not other similar combos. I was expecting an errata to remove the boltgun from the ranged weapon list as was done in IA.
As for the dedicated transports question, I'm not sure what's going on there. The question is really confusingly worded, and I'm not sure I understand it, or that the FAQ team understood it. It seems to be asking two completely unrelated things at the same time.
Furthermore. I do no understand why sergeant's weapon options needed an errata. Any model already has an access to the melee list.
It looks like the dedicated transport question was "Can I take a dedicated transport for a unit that doesn't have one as an option". Judging from the later question about a Kill Team taking a transport that the team can't fit in, I'd say that you can still take transports, just as long as every model in the Kill Team can use it.
Man I get that the ork rules suck, but why do they have to be so smug about it? How can you say "yea we gave you rules that literally do nothing, have fun " with a straight face? I don't get why they treat orks like that.
Don Savik wrote: Man I get that the ork rules suck, but why do they have to be so smug about it? How can you say "yea we gave you rules that literally do nothing, have fun " with a straight face? I don't get why they treat orks like that.
off-topic, but Don Savik, where did you get that baller avatar from? This Ork players wants to know.
Don Savik wrote: Man I get that the ork rules suck, but why do they have to be so smug about it? How can you say "yea we gave you rules that literally do nothing, have fun " with a straight face? I don't get why they treat orks like that.
off-topic, but Don Savik, where did you get that baller avatar from? This Ork players wants to know.
just this pic I found online. My orks are Bad Moons lead by a Big Mek, so it was super fitting. I'll have to make that blue robo-squig though....
Don Savik wrote: Man I get that the ork rules suck, but why do they have to be so smug about it? How can you say "yea we gave you rules that literally do nothing, have fun " with a straight face? I don't get why they treat orks like that.
off-topic, but Don Savik, where did you get that baller avatar from? This Ork players wants to know.
just this pic I found online. My orks are Bad Moons lead by a Big Mek, so it was super fitting. I'll have to make that blue robo-squig though....
Spoiler:
Thanks man, I'm Bad Moons as well and enjoy a Big Mek or two.
Q: Alpha Legion have the ability to bring Cultists back on a 4+ in their Insurgency Force, but the only way to take Cultists is in the Lost and the Damned Formation which already has the rule. How do these interact?
A: These rules do not interact in any stackable way.
What? That means that the Insurgency Force rule does absolutely nothing. Why was it even included if that's what they meant? I'm super happy they made these FAQs, but this just doesn't make much sense.
Q: Alpha Legion have the ability to bring Cultists back on a 4+ in their Insurgency Force, but the only way to take Cultists is in the Lost and the Damned Formation which already has the rule. How do these interact?
A: These rules do not interact in any stackable way.
What? That means that the Insurgency Force rule does absolutely nothing. Why was it even included if that's what they meant? I'm super happy they made these FAQs, but this just doesn't make much sense.
I think they mean you can't bring back two squads for one lost. I interpret it as you can roll again if you fail the first time.
Wraithguard still aren't Troops, even with the Iyanden book. Just be aware of that. Nice Relics in that book though
How come?
It says in the Supplement that if you take a Spiritseer then WG/WBs are troops!
The suplement commens about Spiritseers being allowed to do that based on their 6th edition special rules, wich got removed with 7th. In the updated Codex:Craftworlds Spiritseers no longer make Wraithguard units Troop choice.
Also the section that shows that text it's a brief *tactics for wraith Armies* just before the special rules.
Wraithguard still aren't Troops, even with the Iyanden book. Just be aware of that. Nice Relics in that book though
How come? It says in the Supplement that if you take a Spiritseer then WG/WBs are troops!
The suplement commens about Spiritseers being allowed to do that based on their 6th edition special rules, wich got removed with 7th. In the updated Codex:Craftworlds Spiritseers no longer make Wraithguard units Troop choice.
Also the section that shows that text it's a brief *tactics for wraith Armies* just before the special rules.
Exactly. It mentions a rule that once existed. it doesn't actually have that rule though
I only had time at lunch to look at the FAQs for the armies I actually play, so I'm curious about something: The Necron FAQ now says that the RP/FNP roll is made after effects such as Hellfrost. I know that during the draft stage, they kind of flip-flopped on this. What do the other final FAQs say?
EnTyme wrote: I only had time at lunch to look at the FAQs for the armies I actually play, so I'm curious about something: The Necron FAQ now says that the RP/FNP roll is made after effects such as Hellfrost. I know that during the draft stage, they kind of flip-flopped on this. What do the other final FAQs say?
The new Necron FAQ says that RP/FNP tests are taken before Hellfrost (and other "on taking a wound" effects) in order to avoid suffering the additional effects.
I'm kinda liking the nerfed drop pod rule. Drop pods can no longer be used to block line of sight or screen units that disembarked from shooting LOS. At best all you get is s cover save. You can still use them to screen for assault though.
EnTyme wrote: I only had time at lunch to look at the FAQs for the armies I actually play, so I'm curious about something: The Necron FAQ now says that the RP/FNP roll is made after effects such as Hellfrost. I know that during the draft stage, they kind of flip-flopped on this. What do the other final FAQs say?
The new Necron FAQ says that RP/FNP tests are taken before Hellfrost (and other "on taking a wound" effects) in order to avoid suffering the additional effects.
I guess I read it wrong then. I was in a hurry to eat.
BrookM wrote: Ooh, Imperial Agents has a good one, the Imperial Navy Valkyries are suddenly a whole lot more desirable!
Page 46 – Faction and Allies Add the following to the end of the first paragraph: ‘Transports from this Faction can transport Astra Militarum, Militarum Tempestus and Inquisition units as if they were all of the same Faction.’
They partially fixed the Aeronautica Imperialis Valkyries faction issue....(now available for Astra Militarum, Militarum Tempestus and Inquisition) but why can't the Adepta Sororitas have access the Imperial Navy.... they normally rely on them for transport just like the Astra Militarum since they don't have their own fleet (unlike the Mechanicum and the Astartes)
Kanluwen wrote: It's a complaint about something people were doing. They argued that they could swap the Boltgun for a Shotgun, then swap the Close Combat Weapon for another Boltgun.
And I'm still amazed that anyone thought that was intentional and/or would stand.
FAQs Q:
Imperial Agents seems to replace existing material but Games Workshop has indicated that players can use either the new or older material. As
Imperial Agents lacks certain things present in older material, such as Servo Skulls, which do we use?
A: If you have bought and own the existing and still currently available digital Codex: Adepta Sororitas and Codex: Inquisition , you can use those over the rules
presented in Imperial Agents if you wish.
Thats that answered
Multi-source rules for units (2 sources for Inquisition and Adepta Sororitas units with different entries, rules from 2 valid editions of Whaagh Ghazghkull...) is not helping the game at all...
pretre wrote: So, for example, before a Purgatus kill team (5 Vets, Libby and 1 Terminator) could take a drop pod. Now they can't. :(
This just proves to me that GW don't understand their own rules. That the shotgun/bolter thing made it to print in the first place is hilarious, but then they've gone and made a blanket ruling against units like this that makes zero sense.
Cephalobeard wrote: Kill Teams even specifically mention transports not counting as a model in the 10 man limit. I don't understand where the ruling came from.
It's ok. Neither does GW.
pretre wrote: It wasn't an obvious oversight; it was a valid choice based on the wargear table. I don't see any reason why it would be banned, but other weirder ones aren't (SS/Heavy, Heavy/Bolter, etc).
Yes it was. C'mon pertre, they never intended DW Marines to walk around with Bolters and Shotguns. This is the same sort of mistake like the Chaos Terminator mistake that prevents you from taking HTH and ranged weapon upgrades on the same model.
cinnabar wrote: What? That means that the Insurgency Force rule does absolutely nothing. Why was it even included if that's what they meant?
When one writes rules in a vacuum, one should not be surprised that things like this happen.
The FAQ's just vindicate everything I say about GW's inability to write Codices with any shred of competence.
Everyone notice the gigantic nerf to Imperial Knights gun arms? If you look at that firing arc, you can stand right infront of it and not be able to be shot by the knight.
gungo wrote: I'm kinda liking the nerfed drop pod rule. Drop pods can no longer be used to block line of sight or screen units that disembarked from shooting LOS. At best all you get is s cover save. You can still use them to screen for assault though.
The other interpretation of that rule was insanity, at 1850 with the what the draft FAQ said it is totally possible to paper an entire 6x4 table in drop pods.
Q: Alpha Legion have the ability to bring Cultists back on a 4+ in their Insurgency Force, but the only way to take Cultists is in the Lost and the Damned Formation which already has the rule. How do these interact?
A: These rules do not interact in any stackable way.
What? That means that the Insurgency Force rule does absolutely nothing. Why was it even included if that's what they meant? I'm super happy they made these FAQs, but this just doesn't make much sense.
I think they mean you can't bring back two squads for one lost. I interpret it as you can roll again if you fail the first time.
Really? I read that they stack in no way as it literally is a double bonus that does nothing.
Which is fething stupid, because these benefits read pretty clearly. Each formation gave you a 4+ chance for a copy. Succeed twice, get two copies. I don't know why they had to nerf bat chaos cultists, of all things, when RH zombies, GS cults, and almost every other 3/4 pt troop is better than they are already.
Erratas, supplements, campaign books, dataslates formations, different rulesets for the same units (IA)....
Jesus. I wish we just had one codex per army with all the rules. Total gak show.
I have but one Exalt to give!
But yeah, 40K rules as they exist now are a complete dumpster fire. The endless bloat that plagued the latter half of 3rd Ed has nothing on 7th Ed, and nothing short of a 2nd-to-3rd Ed sweep is going to fix it.
Erratas, supplements, campaign books, dataslates formations, different rulesets for the same units (IA)....
Jesus. I wish we just had one codex per army with all the rules. Total gak show.
I have but one Exalt to give!
But yeah, 40K rules as they exist now are a complete dumpster fire. The endless bloat that plagued the latter half of 3rd Ed has nothing on 7th Ed, and nothing short of a 2nd-to-3rd Ed sweep is going to fix it.
But that won't happen.
Honestly I'd love for 8th to just have Codexes and Campaign Books, with the Campaign Books having new missions (like 6 generic ones and a couple structured, specific campaign ones), battlefield effects (like fighting on a Daemon World or a Jungle-covered Death World or an Imperial Shrine World) and maybe new Tactical Objective decks or alternative deployment maps etc. Maybe the occasional new Special Character too, or Campaign-specific Relics.
Nothing like "Hey you need this book to be able to play with the new Pink, Blue and Brimstone Horros. Also to use Magnus fully you need to buy the previous Campaign Book" where the main focus is less on narrative campaign stuff and more on selling you a new book on top of the 20 others you've already bought to play your army.
That way all you need is your Codex and BRB, and if you want to play a new, different mission or have some alternative Maelstrom cars you can use the appropriate Campaign Book too.
Anyway, OT for the most part the FaQs don't look too bad... but my god there are some stinkers like the Alpha Legion one. I'm sorry GW hates you Alpha Legion players.
Doesn't look like anything drastic changed for my Daemons from the Draft FaQ, which leaves me happy that I don't have to relearn stuff or whatever. It's a shame the Exalted Flamer is still pretty useless with its Heavy Weapons but ah well.
sm3g wrote: Everyone notice the gigantic nerf to Imperial Knights gun arms? If you look at that firing arc, you can stand right infront of it and not be able to be shot by the knight.
The rule that they've made up for Knights is the exact opposite of a nerf, as it gives them a much bigger fire arc than they would otherwise have.
Multi-source rules for units (2 sources for Inquisition and Adepta Sororitas units with different entries, rules from 2 valid editions of Whaagh Ghazghkull...) is not helping the game at all...
Not helping, but in an edition where formations can result in two identical units having different rules depending on which other models you selected at the same time, it's also not really hurting it any worse than the existing chaos was already.
Don Savik wrote: Lol are these demonic possession rules a big joke? You can pay 30 points to give your chaos super heavies -1 BS.
Call an ambulance I think I might be dying from laughter.....
help
I read it and was like, are you don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n in serious, you can pay 30pts to make your super heavy worse and there reason is for the sake of it, this is even more hilarious than the alpha legion insurgency benefit FAQ where it also does nothing.
Erratas, supplements, campaign books, dataslates formations, different rulesets for the same units (IA)....
Jesus. I wish we just had one codex per army with all the rules. Total gak show.
I have but one Exalt to give!
But yeah, 40K rules as they exist now are a complete dumpster fire. The endless bloat that plagued the latter half of 3rd Ed has nothing on 7th Ed, and nothing short of a 2nd-to-3rd Ed sweep is going to fix it.
But that won't happen.
Seconded. This was my rant the other day during a friendly organised game that involved 4 books for my opponent plus the BRB. I'm not sure I could comfortably walk into a shop for a pick-up game these days without being concerned someone was pulling one over on me given the breadth of rules sources available. There's no way I have been able to keep track of every source that grants a rule.
I'm fully on board a 3rd Ed style res-set, and consolidation of army rules into one book and one book alone.
While we're at it, they should feel free to drop all the extra rubbish like Apocalypse, superheavies, rules driven army purchasable terrain, flyers (what a joke), and allies/detachments/formations/dataslate gumpf from the core BRB and put it into non-mandatory additional source books expansions like it was back in the day.
End rant of a beligerant older gamer looking back with nostalgia and possible rose tinted glasses at lat 90's/early 00's gaming.
Erratas, supplements, campaign books, dataslates formations, different rulesets for the same units (IA)....
Jesus. I wish we just had one codex per army with all the rules. Total gak show.
I have but one Exalt to give!
But yeah, 40K rules as they exist now are a complete dumpster fire. The endless bloat that plagued the latter half of 3rd Ed has nothing on 7th Ed, and nothing short of a 2nd-to-3rd Ed sweep is going to fix it.
But that won't happen.
Seconded. This was my rant the other day during a friendly organised game that involved 4 books for my opponent plus the BRB. I'm not sure I could comfortably walk into a shop for a pick-up game these days without being concerned someone was pulling one over on me given the breadth of rules sources available. There's no way I have been able to keep track of every source that grants a rule.
I'm fully on board a 3rd Ed style res-set, and consolidation of army rules into one book and one book alone.
While we're at it, they should feel free to drop all the extra rubbish like Apocalypse, superheavies, rules driven army purchasable terrain, flyers (what a joke), and allies/detachments/formations/dataslate gumpf from the core BRB and put it into non-mandatory additional source books expansions like it was back in the day.
End rant of a beligerant older gamer looking back with nostalgia and possible rose tinted glasses at lat 90's/early 00's gaming.
I still don't understand the hate for superheavies and flyers. 90% of flyers suck, the problems were 6thed heldrakes and flyrants. Superheavies in general aren't as good as an equivalent amount of points for many armies. Knights are very fairly priced, Baneblades are generally overcosted, the lord of skulls is arse, most of the forgeworld ones are too difficult to take force org wise, even the stormsurge is pretty close to where it should be, if they dropped the invul from 4-5 and made ignores cover a little harder for him it'd be fine. The tau'nar and the wraithknight are bs, but they are an incredibly small minority.
I don't get why they have removed the multiple signature systems, I know someone said "specific beats general etc." but FAQ wins all, the only equivalent to relics is sig systems... I don't think this was intended :/
GW really screwed the pooch on the Deathwatch FAQ. So many things wrong with it. Was it really that over powered to have both the shotgun and the bolter? However, it's just fine to have a heavy weapon and a bolter.....
I'm suprised no one has mention this awesome change
Q: What happens when a Tank Shock is used against an anchored KV128 Stormsurge? Does the Unstoppable rule come into effect? A: No. If the Stormsurge is anchored, it is destroyed.
Thank god, if you filthy xenos can one shot most of my army I should at least have a slim chance of one shotting your super suit if I can miraclously get a tank close enough to tank shock some Xenos scum into fishy pulp
Q: What happens when a Tank Shock is used against an anchored KV128 Stormsurge? Does the Unstoppable rule come into effect? A: No. If the Stormsurge is anchored, it is destroyed.
Thank god, if you filthy xenos can one shot most of my army I should at least have a slim chance of one shotting your super suit if I can miraclously get a tank close enough to tank shock some Xenos scum into fishy pulp
I'd love to see an army of mounted orks try this. If there are 15 or so trucks with rams speeding across the table at least one will make it before being destroyed.
Q: What happens when a Tank Shock is used against an anchored KV128 Stormsurge? Does the Unstoppable rule come into effect? A: No. If the Stormsurge is anchored, it is destroyed.
Probably because it hasn't changed from the draft.
sm3g wrote: Everyone notice the gigantic nerf to Imperial Knights gun arms? If you look at that firing arc, you can stand right infront of it and not be able to be shot by the knight.
The rule that they've made up for Knights is the exact opposite of a nerf, as it gives them a much bigger fire arc than they would otherwise have.
Multi-source rules for units (2 sources for Inquisition and Adepta Sororitas units with different entries, rules from 2 valid editions of Whaagh Ghazghkull...) is not helping the game at all...
Not helping, but in an edition where formations can result in two identical units having different rules depending on which other models you selected at the same time, it's also not really hurting it any worse than the existing chaos was already.
Knights shooting buffed? How so? It looks like they have less shooting arc since they can't cross their chest.
sm3g wrote: Everyone notice the gigantic nerf to Imperial Knights gun arms? If you look at that firing arc, you can stand right infront of it and not be able to be shot by the knight.
The rule that they've made up for Knights is the exact opposite of a nerf, as it gives them a much bigger fire arc than they would otherwise have.
Multi-source rules for units (2 sources for Inquisition and Adepta Sororitas units with different entries, rules from 2 valid editions of Whaagh Ghazghkull...) is not helping the game at all...
Not helping, but in an edition where formations can result in two identical units having different rules depending on which other models you selected at the same time, it's also not really hurting it any worse than the existing chaos was already.
Knights shooting buffed? How so? It looks like they have less shooting arc since they can't cross their chest.
Before they weapons behaved as hull mounted weapons like in walkers and just a 45 degree angle from where they was glued, now they work as 180 degree sponsons on each side of the knight if i'm not mistaken.
It just chnged from needing to shoot forwards to behave like a battleship broadside weapons.
Erratas, supplements, campaign books, dataslates formations, different rulesets for the same units (IA)....
Jesus. I wish we just had one codex per army with all the rules. Total gak show.
I have but one Exalt to give!
But yeah, 40K rules as they exist now are a complete dumpster fire. The endless bloat that plagued the latter half of 3rd Ed has nothing on 7th Ed, and nothing short of a 2nd-to-3rd Ed sweep is going to fix it.
But that won't happen.
Honestly I wouldn't be all that surprised if GW used 8th to scrap all the books and make free to download 'light versions' to tide us over until they publish new books like AoS.
Sure, IK's get a better fire ark if you want to shoot at different targets. Not so, if you run Dakka Knight and want to pour everything into one target. Plus, it's dumb, because as someone said, "you can literally scratch one elbow with another arm, but can't shoot anything at front". And they are limited to 90 degrees, not 180. Just like some silly Russ tank...
I still don't understand the hate for superheavies and flyers. 90% of flyers suck, the problems were 6thed heldrakes and flyrants. Superheavies in general aren't as good as an equivalent amount of points for many armies. Knights are very fairly priced, Baneblades are generally overcosted, the lord of skulls is arse, most of the forgeworld ones are too difficult to take force org wise, even the stormsurge is pretty close to where it should be, if they dropped the invul from 4-5 and made ignores cover a little harder for him it'd be fine. The tau'nar and the wraithknight are bs, but they are an incredibly small minority.
It's not about the Super heavies per se. It's about the fact that you can spam them and min max in a 1850 easily. These kind of things were reserved for Apoc in the good old days. Where's the old funky 1-2 HQ/2-6 Troops/0-3 rest? Instead you go to play a game and there you have 3 x Stormsurges, or dual WK time after time.
I still don't understand the hate for superheavies and flyers. 90% of flyers suck, the problems were 6thed heldrakes and flyrants. Superheavies in general aren't as good as an equivalent amount of points for many armies. Knights are very fairly priced, Baneblades are generally overcosted, the lord of skulls is arse, most of the forgeworld ones are too difficult to take force org wise, even the stormsurge is pretty close to where it should be, if they dropped the invul from 4-5 and made ignores cover a little harder for him it'd be fine. The tau'nar and the wraithknight are bs, but they are an incredibly small minority.
It's not about the Super heavies per se. It's about the fact that you can spam them and min max in a 1850 easily. These kind of things were reserved for Apoc in the good old days. Where's the old funky 1-2 HQ/2-6 Troops/0-3 rest? Instead you go to play a game and there you have 3 x Stormsurges, or dual WK time after time.
Well too bad best we can hope is no more NEW ones gets released. Old ones ain't going anywhere, aren't going to be optional and generally won't be made harder to play. GW wants to sell the models. Apoc only would go against that idea.
I still don't understand the hate for superheavies and flyers. 90% of flyers suck, the problems were 6thed heldrakes and flyrants. Superheavies in general aren't as good as an equivalent amount of points for many armies. Knights are very fairly priced, Baneblades are generally overcosted, the lord of skulls is arse, most of the forgeworld ones are too difficult to take force org wise, even the stormsurge is pretty close to where it should be, if they dropped the invul from 4-5 and made ignores cover a little harder for him it'd be fine. The tau'nar and the wraithknight are bs, but they are an incredibly small minority.
It's not about the Super heavies per se. It's about the fact that you can spam them and min max in a 1850 easily. These kind of things were reserved for Apoc in the good old days. Where's the old funky 1-2 HQ/2-6 Troops/0-3 rest? Instead you go to play a game and there you have 3 x Stormsurges, or dual WK time after time.
Well too bad best we can hope is no more NEW ones gets released. Old ones ain't going anywhere, aren't going to be optional and generally won't be made harder to play. GW wants to sell the models. Apoc only would go against that idea.
Vision from the eyes doesn't matter for any model in the current edition.
Vehicles trace LOS from their weapon mount, and have done for an awful long time. For most vehicles, the arc is whatever the weapon moves through. For walkers, it's 45 degrees regardless of how the weapon is mounted. For Knights, as of the FAQ, it's 90 degrees directly forward from the weapon mount and to the outside.
So yes, they have a blind spot to their front, as do most vehicles with side-mounted weapons.
I really don't see the tears about the knight change. It's a walker who cares. You move and pivot during the movement phase shoot at whatever the heck you want. If you get charged it can overwatch in any direction and always front facing armor.
So what's the big deal? Did you want to face your knight in one direction and shoot in another direction?
gungo wrote: I really don't see the tears about the knight change. It's a walker who cares. You move and pivot during the movement phase shoot at whatever the heck you want. If you get charged it can overwatch in any direction and always front facing armor.
So what's the big deal? Did you want to face your knight in one direction and shoot in another direction?
If you have a target directly infront of you, only one of your 2 arms will ever be able to shoot it, that is just silly IMO (I dont play knights so doesn't bother me too much). Also I cannot see my 30k mates applying this 40kFAQ ruling to our 30k games.
The idea that a Knight cannot shoot something directly in front of it with two arms is just ludicrous. Seems GW is answering questions not just in a vacuum, but whilst high.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The idea that a Knight cannot shoot something directly in front of it with two arms is just ludicrous. Seems GW is answering questions not just in a vacuum, but whilst high.
I'm sure if you bring it up, they'll tweak it. New age of Rountree and all that...
gungo wrote: I really don't see the tears about the knight change. It's a walker who cares. You move and pivot during the movement phase shoot at whatever the heck you want. If you get charged it can overwatch in any direction and always front facing armor.
So what's the big deal? Did you want to face your knight in one direction and shoot in another direction?
If you have a target directly infront of you, only one of your 2 arms will ever be able to shoot it, that is just silly IMO (I dont play knights so doesn't bother me too much). Also I cannot see my 30k mates applying this 40kFAQ ruling to our 30k games.
Yes but you move (with free pivot) and then shoot so it never matters.
Of great your opponent moved directly in front of you and you can't get a straight line of sight. In your turn you move (pivot) and shoot and he's now in your line of sight.
gungo wrote: Yes but you move (with free pivot) and then shoot so it never matters.
Of great your opponent moved directly in front of you and you can't get a straight line of sight. In your turn you move (pivot) and shoot and he's now in your line of sight.
What people are objecting to is that the 90 degree arc imposed by the FAQ means that unlike other walkers with a ranged weapon on each arm, a knight so equipped will only ever be able to fire both arms at a target that is large enough to span the large blind spot.
For other walkers, that blind spot disappears if the target is far enough away.
Given that most knights have a close combat weapon on the second arm instead of a second ranged weapon it's not, I think, a huge deal... but it is a bit silly.
I have yet to read all of these but I see what looks like some Angels of Death FAQ with no mention of who does and does not get access to the new psychic powers. Am I missing something? It seems like they ought to settle the book vs. psychic cards debate.
The real problem with the Deathwatch thing is that they said no to something that you totally can do by RAW but didn't actually errata the relevant rules. They're posing it as a clarification question but it really should be an errata. Said errata (probably in the form of removing an entry from the upgrade list) would likely also avoid the stuff people are talking about with similar shotgun combos being still legal because they only said no to a specific one.
gungo wrote: Yes but you move (with free pivot) and then shoot so it never matters.
Of great your opponent moved directly in front of you and you can't get a straight line of sight. In your turn you move (pivot) and shoot and he's now in your line of sight.
What people are objecting to is that the 90 degree arc imposed by the FAQ means that unlike other walkers with a ranged weapon on each arm, a knight so equipped will only ever be able to fire both arms at a target that is large enough to span the large blind spot.
For other walkers, that blind spot disappears if the target is far enough away.
Given that most knights have a close combat weapon on the second arm instead of a second ranged weapon it's not, I think, a huge deal... but it is a bit silly.
Other walkers also have a much smaller frontal arc. The knight can shoot to the side with one weapon and still face forward and in the rare instance someone is fielding a knight with two arm weapons that they want to declare to shoot both at the same unit and that unit/model is to small to fit within both field of views is not a huge deal considering most of the time you gain more field of view.
Personally I find the shoulder mounted weapon with its 45 degree arc much more restrictive.
Before the FAQ:
A Knight could fire a 45 degree arc directly ahead of the gun. This arc covered the front of the model, and on the Knight Crusader the fire arcs would converge in front of the Knight in the same way a Predator's sponsons will eventually converge. Thereby allowing both weapons to fire at a target, regardless of size, directly in front of it.
After the FAQ:
The Knight cannot rotate its guns to fire fully perpendicular to its body as the new FAQ shows.
This makes the rule physically nonsensical.
The Knight can rotate its guns to converge in front of its body.
This makes the rule physically nonsensical.
A Knight can now no longer fire directly in front of itself, nor can a Crusader fire both main weapons at the same target most of the time. It's weapon arcs will never converge regardless of distance.
The Knight Crusader costs £95 and a minimum of 425 points. This arbitrary and inexplicable exception to the rules being inflicted on Knight weapons simply isn't acceptable for a model or unit at those price points.
Q: What happens when a Tank Shock is used against an anchored KV128 Stormsurge? Does the Unstoppable rule come into effect? A: No. If the Stormsurge is anchored, it is destroyed.
Thank god, if you filthy xenos can one shot most of my army I should at least have a slim chance of one shotting your super suit if I can miraclously get a tank close enough to tank shock some Xenos scum into fishy pulp
I'd love to see an army of mounted orks try this. If there are 15 or so trucks with rams speeding across the table at least one will make it before being destroyed.
Or ram it with Zhadsnark like I've brought up before to one-shot it with a bike. He even can get scout to make it closer.
A few weeks back, we released loads of FAQs for our Warhammer 40,000 codexes: literally hundreds of questions we’d been sent from you guys about some of the more unusual rules interactions between the hundreds of units, formations and abilities in the game.
The FAQ cleared up quite a lot of stuff (you guys picked the questions after all), but one thing we did get asked a lot following the release was about the Alpha Legion Insurgency Force Detachment in the new(ish) Traitor Legions supplement.
Our rules guys took another look at this one and we’ve updated the answer to make the rule work differently. You can download that updated version in the usual places, but to save you the trouble, here’s the updated bit:
Page 82, Command Benefits, Cult Uprising
Replace the rule for Cult Uprising with the following:
‘Cult Uprising: When a unit of Chaos Cultists from this Detachment is completely destroyed, you may add 1 to the dice roll for the A Tide of Traitors special rule when determining whether or not a new unit is placed into Ongoing Reserves.’
So basically, to represent the Alpha Legion’s methodical and masterful infiltration of an enemy populus ahead of an invasion, they have access to even more cultist reinforcements than most of their Traitor Legion kin. As it should be.
For those of you who fancy trying this out in your games. Chaos Cultists can be found in the Dark Vengeance set, in packs of 5 models, or as part of the Cultist Assault (that also contains a Chaos Champion, who looks great painted up in Alpha Legion colours).
That's very nice and a great resolution to that problem, on the other hand it shows that they really didn't think this through before printing the rule
Anyone else feel that this was kind of a kick in the teeth? Like are cultists really that big of an OP unit that the possibility of getting 2 units back when one died was going to break the game? The precedent that you can have more models than you started with is already in place, daemon summoning lists are still very strong. Lastly as far as a detachment bonus goes this is pretty weak, especially when you compare it to some of the other very strong detachments in the traitors legions book.
The rules for alpha legion weren't ambiguous at all in the case of cultists, two separate rules that do similar things but from two sources, there was no reason they needed a FAQ much less a complete nerf.
On the flipside I am happy that they seem to be at least partially communicating with the player base on this and giving responses in relatively good time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BomBomHotdog wrote: A Tide of Traitors is the special rule from the Cultist formation right?
So basically the AL detachment ability does nothing unless you bring that specific formation right?
Inevitable_Faith wrote: Anyone else feel that this was kind of a kick in the teeth? Like are cultists really that big of an OP unit that the possibility of getting 2 units back when one died was going to break the game? The precedent that you can have more models than you started with is already in place, daemon summoning lists are still very strong. Lastly as far as a detachment bonus goes this is pretty weak, especially when you compare it to some of the other very strong detachments in the traitors legions book.
Summoning is a problem as written, especially summoning heavy lists. As a rule it sells more models, but from a balance perspective, it's a pain to go from a game where each side has 1500 or 2000 points, but one army can end up with twice that by the end of the game. (Free upgrades and vehicles are also stupid for balance)
Cultists are not an individually strong unit, but from a gameplay perspective, there is a problem when a player wants their own unit to die, not because it opens up a strategic or tactical opportunity, but because it means they have a chance of getting twice as many of that same unit back. (See also Horrors new splitting mess)
It was poor writing/ideas from the start in this case, but it is always better to see bad/overpowered ideas removed or nerfed than see the rest of the game have to get into an arms race to match, where multiple armies are going to be left behind badly.
Inevitable_Faith wrote: Anyone else feel that this was kind of a kick in the teeth? Like are cultists really that big of an OP unit that the possibility of getting 2 units back when one died was going to break the game? The precedent that you can have more models than you started with is already in place, daemon summoning lists are still very strong. Lastly as far as a detachment bonus goes this is pretty weak, especially when you compare it to some of the other very strong detachments in the traitors legions book.
Summoning is a problem as written, especially summoning heavy lists. As a rule it sells more models, but from a balance perspective, it's a pain to go from a game where each side has 1500 or 2000 points, but one army can end up with twice that by the end of the game. (Free upgrades and vehicles are also stupid for balance)
Cultists are not an individually strong unit, but from a gameplay perspective, there is a problem when a player wants their own unit to die, not because it opens up a strategic or tactical opportunity, but because it means they have a chance of getting twice as many of that same unit back. (See also Horrors new splitting mess)
It was poor writing/ideas from the start in this case, but it is always better to see bad/overpowered ideas removed or nerfed than see the rest of the game have to get into an arms race to match, where multiple armies are going to be left behind badly.
I actually agree with every point you just made in their own respects however In this case I feel the nerf was not needed. The ability to double down on some cultists every once in a while (remember it's not guaranteed and you're just as likely to get 0 cultists back as you were to get 2 in the last ruling) was a decent rule but now with the FAQ it puts AL well under the power curve compared to many of the other legions rules. Keep in mind too that these AL rules are still attached to the overpriced and underpowered 6th edition chaos codex units. The bonuses from these formations and detachments are the crutch the army needs to stand on to at least be competitive with the newer 7th edition dexes in normal play, not to mention even trying competitive play. It may just be my opinion but I feel that ability to double down on cultists was something that helped AL stand out and be more competitive, now with our 3+ cultist roll we get what... a slightly better version of a rule any other legion that takes the formation can get? I feel it really doesn't make the insurgency force very appealing at all anymore. It just irks me too that this FAQ never needed to happen in the first place, too many people couldn't read the names of the two rules and see they were indeed different rules and that it was legal as it was written. Add to this that in the time up until this FAQ I never heard a single person decry it as OP, I just question why this 180 from GW was necessary at all.
Good, knew there was no way cultists doubling was going to stay in. Now if we can just get rid of summoning in general the game will immediately improve.
The AL one wasn't even that bad, just annoying, and I say this as a guy building alpha legion
How about the fun is because you like Deathwatch and finally field an actual Deathwatch army and have a codex. I guess in 8th edition of 
