Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well I love that the GSC relic that adds +2 to wound is defended that it caps at +1 with well if you ever run into anything that gives a -1, you still get it. But we can't think of an example of such a unit interaction but it is there if you need it.

But the Space Marine +2 to hit for executioner rounds has the same explanation but is immediately followed by an example.

What -1 to wounds exist as a normal ability besides from Quins?

Anyone see anything anywhere about not being able to spam Smite?

mightymconeshot wrote:
Well I love that the GSC relic that adds +2 to wound is defended that it caps at +1 with well if you ever run into anything that gives a -1, you still get it. But we can't think of an example of such a unit interaction but it is there if you need it.

But the Space Marine +2 to hit for executioner rounds has the same explanation but is immediately followed by an example.

What -1 to wounds exist as a normal ability besides from Quins?

The named Keeper of Secrets has a -1 to be wounded, though I'm not sure if that's ranged, melee, or both.

Voss wrote:
Oh. All the FAQs are up.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/#warhammer-40000

including designers commentary (a couple paragraphs of nothing) and edge of silence (the stormshield issue):

The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. In addition, add 1 to armour saving throws made for the bearer.’

Funnily enough GW fixed it same way as meganobz. Specifically these units. Ergo it\s possible GW will do same thing THIRD time since they didn't fix core issue causing it I'm going to have good laugh if(or rather when...) 1+ unit appears on 40k again.

Chaos Knights and Knights move over anything that isn't a Monster of Vehicle when they make any move now, not just Fall Back.

Also they can't shoot when they Fall Back. Melee Knights a go!

RIP 2++ storm shields: 2020 - 2020.

tneva82 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Oh. All the FAQs are up.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/#warhammer-40000

including designers commentary (a couple paragraphs of nothing) and edge of silence (the stormshield issue):

The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. In addition, add 1 to armour saving throws made for the bearer.’

Funnily enough GW fixed it same way as meganobz. Specifically these units. Ergo it\s possible GW will do same thing THIRD time since they didn't fix core issue causing it I'm going to have good laugh if(or rather when...) 1+ unit appears on 40k again.

It still does though, explicitly even, in Crusade .
Watch them day 1 FAQ that example out of existance, and instead cap it as 2+ (or change the benefit to +1 to save throws like with the shields).

White Scars...
not just for bikes anymore
I guess it sucks for attack bikes (no more ignoring the penalty for heavy weapons)

But this is the 'Advance, shoot assault weapons at no penalty and charge' army now. Works for everything.

*Page 175 – White Scars: Lightning Assault
Change the second sentence of this Chapter Tactic to read:
‘Models with this tactic do not suffer the penalty for Advancing
and firing Assault weapons.’

'I know we added primaris bikes, but there are a lot of primaris with assault weapons....'

they even FAQed it twice.

 XT-1984 wrote:
Chaos Knights and Knights move over anything that isn't a Monster of Vehicle when they make any move now, not just Fall Back.

Also they can't shoot when they Fall Back. Melee Knights a go!

The core rules allow a TITANIC model to shoot when it Falls Back, so they removed the text from Super-Heavy walker.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

*Page 79 – Triumph of Saint Katherine, Solemn Procession
Add the following sentence to this ability: ‘In addition, for the purposes of any terrain traits (e.g. Dense Cover, Obscuring), this model is considered to have a Wounds characteristic of 9, not 18.’

Whoops! We didn't think that one through. Uhh... they count as having 9, I guess!

But the fact that it's covered in the FAQ before the game launch means... they did think it through?

They fixed it after the fact.

Looking at the URLs of the FAQs, the Adepta Sororitas FAQ was done in January while most of the rest of them were done last September.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Oh. All the FAQs are up.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/#warhammer-40000

including designers commentary (a couple paragraphs of nothing) and edge of silence (the stormshield issue):

The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. In addition, add 1 to armour saving throws made for the bearer.’

Funnily enough GW fixed it same way as meganobz. Specifically these units. Ergo it\s possible GW will do same thing THIRD time since they didn't fix core issue causing it I'm going to have good laugh if(or rather when...) 1+ unit appears on 40k again.

It still does though, explicitly even, in Crusade .
Watch them day 1 FAQ that example out of existance, and instead cap it as 2+ (or change the benefit to +1 to save throws like with the shields).

Example is trumped by actual rules. New ss now gives modifer. No 1+ save.

mightymconeshot wrote:
Well I love that the GSC relic that adds +2 to wound is defended that it caps at +1 with well if you ever run into anything that gives a -1, you still get it. But we can't think of an example of such a unit interaction but it is there if you need it.

But the Space Marine +2 to hit for executioner rounds has the same explanation but is immediately followed by an example.

What -1 to wounds exist as a normal ability besides from Quins?

Inquisitors have a relic that gives them -1 to wounds.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Oh. All the FAQs are up.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/#warhammer-40000

including designers commentary (a couple paragraphs of nothing) and edge of silence (the stormshield issue):

The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. In addition, add 1 to armour saving throws made for the bearer.’

Funnily enough GW fixed it same way as meganobz. Specifically these units. Ergo it\s possible GW will do same thing THIRD time since they didn't fix core issue causing it I'm going to have good laugh if(or rather when...) 1+ unit appears on 40k again.

It still does though, explicitly even, in Crusade .
Watch them day 1 FAQ that example out of existance, and instead cap it as 2+ (or change the benefit to +1 to save throws like with the shields).

These _are_ the day 1 FAQs.
This is it. For everyone who was claiming 'wait to see what changes in the FAQs'-- here you are. Wait over. Rules, points, FAQs, done.

IanVanCheese wrote:
RIP 2++ storm shields: 2020 - 2020.

Never actually existed (people assumed the box set stormshields rules would be applied to other storm shields, despite datasheets not working that way- see the Demolisher cannon, which has to be FAQed for every entry individually). The real problem was and is the crusade rule, and other things that allow a 1+. None of that has changed.

Voss wrote:
Never actually existed. The real problem was and is the crusade rule, and other things that allow a 1+. None of that has changed.

It did exist, because you could give them the Artificer Armour relic. They even call that out in the Designers Commentary.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Voss wrote:
Never actually existed. The real problem was and is the crusade rule, and other things that allow a 1+. None of that has changed.

It did exist, because you could give them the Artificer Armour relic. They even call that out in the Designers Commentary.

Hence the second sentence and third sentence- 'The real problem was and is the crusade rule and other things that allow a 1+' and 'None of that has changed'

Voss wrote:

These _are_ the day 1 FAQs.
This is it. For everyone who was claiming 'wait to see what changes in the FAQs'-- here you are. Wait over. Rules, points, FAQs, done.

If so they have certainly missed stuff.

For instance Myphetic Blight Hauler gives all units wholly with 7" the benefit of cover.
No idea what that means for 9th, Light cover? heavy cover? Obscured?

I am sure that's not the only 8th ed rule that has not been covered

tneva82 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Oh. All the FAQs are up.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/#warhammer-40000

including designers commentary (a couple paragraphs of nothing) and edge of silence (the stormshield issue):

The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. In addition, add 1 to armour saving throws made for the bearer.’

Funnily enough GW fixed it same way as meganobz. Specifically these units. Ergo it\s possible GW will do same thing THIRD time since they didn't fix core issue causing it I'm going to have good laugh if(or rather when...) 1+ unit appears on 40k again.

It still does though, explicitly even, in Crusade .
Watch them day 1 FAQ that example out of existance, and instead cap it as 2+ (or change the benefit to +1 to save throws like with the shields).

Example is trumped by actual rules. New ss now gives modifer. No 1+ save.

The Crusade relic paired with a model with a 2+ save (like a Terminator) would still give a 1+, as it hasn't actually been FAQd like the shields (...yet) and thus still improves the save characteristic by 1.

Honestly I'm not sure what whould be more funny: GW ignoring it and letting 1+=2++ live in limbo, or them changing the relic to remove it granting a 1+ save despite it expicitly stating a 1+ save is possible in its example.

Doohicky wrote:

Voss wrote:

These _are_ the day 1 FAQs.
This is it. For everyone who was claiming 'wait to see what changes in the FAQs'-- here you are. Wait over. Rules, points, FAQs, done.

If so they have certainly missed stuff.

For instance Myphetic Blight Hauler gives all units wholly with 7" the benefit of cover.
No idea what that means for 9th, Light cover? heavy cover? Obscured?

I am sure that's not the only 8th ed rule that has not been covered

Sure. There are errors that are going to need to be fixed. But anyone expecting massive changes and datasheets and whatever? Not happening. Never was going to happen- that was obvious when they decided to transition with the 8th edition codexes.

Doohicky wrote:

Voss wrote:

These _are_ the day 1 FAQs.
This is it. For everyone who was claiming 'wait to see what changes in the FAQs'-- here you are. Wait over. Rules, points, FAQs, done.

If so they have certainly missed stuff.

For instance Myphetic Blight Hauler gives all units wholly with 7" the benefit of cover.
No idea what that means for 9th, Light cover? heavy cover? Obscured?

I am sure that's not the only 8th ed rule that has not been covered

So we need an FAQ for the FAQ?

Doohicky wrote:

Voss wrote:

These _are_ the day 1 FAQs.
This is it. For everyone who was claiming 'wait to see what changes in the FAQs'-- here you are. Wait over. Rules, points, FAQs, done.

If so they have certainly missed stuff.

For instance Myphetic Blight Hauler gives all units wholly with 7" the benefit of cover.
No idea what that means for 9th, Light cover? heavy cover? Obscured?

I am sure that's not the only 8th ed rule that has not been covered

That's supposedly been covered in the 'Rare Rules' section of the Core Rulebook:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789932.page#10863093

Voss wrote:
These _are_ the day 1 FAQs.
This is it. For everyone who was claiming 'wait to see what changes in the FAQs'-- here you are. Wait over. Rules, points, FAQs, done.

Possibly, but there's no main rulebook FAQ, and I wouldn't put it past GW to have one of those.
Especially when they said they're going to fix the Character rule, among other things.

 puma713 wrote:
Anyone see anything anywhere about not being able to spam Smite?

This actually a thing you’ve heard? Or are you just asking because you want it to be a thing? I would also like this.

 puma713 wrote:
Anyone see anything anywhere about not being able to spam Smite?

No BRB FAQ. Not yet anyway.

 Ghaz wrote:

Doohicky wrote:

Voss wrote:

These _are_ the day 1 FAQs.
This is it. For everyone who was claiming 'wait to see what changes in the FAQs'-- here you are. Wait over. Rules, points, FAQs, done.

If so they have certainly missed stuff.

For instance Myphetic Blight Hauler gives all units wholly with 7" the benefit of cover.
No idea what that means for 9th, Light cover? heavy cover? Obscured?

I am sure that's not the only 8th ed rule that has not been covered

That's supposedly been covered in the 'Rare Rules' section of the Core Rulebook:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789932.page#10863093

Cheers!

 Ghaz wrote:

Looking at the URLs of the FAQs, the Adepta Sororitas FAQ was done in January while most of the rest of them were done last September.

I think maybe they just overwrote the old files from that FAQs at that time.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Looking at the URLs of the FAQs, the Adepta Sororitas FAQ was done in January while most of the rest of them were done last September.

I think maybe they just overwrote the old files from that FAQs at that time.

I've just changed the links for each and every updated FAQ in the Warhammer 40,000 FAQs sticky post in YMDC. I can assure you that GW did not (and never has) just reused the URLs of the old FAQs.

 XT-1984 wrote:
Chaos Knights and Knights move over anything that isn't a Monster of Vehicle when they make any move now, not just Fall Back.

Also they can't shoot when they Fall Back. Melee Knights a go!

All Superheavies can now shoot (and manifest psychic powers) when they fall back.

It's part of the generic superheavy keyword now (see rules for falling back).

 Ghaz wrote:

Doohicky wrote:

Voss wrote:

These _are_ the day 1 FAQs.
This is it. For everyone who was claiming 'wait to see what changes in the FAQs'-- here you are. Wait over. Rules, points, FAQs, done.

If so they have certainly missed stuff.

For instance Myphetic Blight Hauler gives all units wholly with 7" the benefit of cover.
No idea what that means for 9th, Light cover? heavy cover? Obscured?

I am sure that's not the only 8th ed rule that has not been covered

That's supposedly been covered in the 'Rare Rules' section of the Core Rulebook:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789932.page#10863093

I would run RAI light cover for now, as that is functionally the same as "cover" in 8th, unless thats buried somewhere under rare rules that Im not seeing.

Judging by all the FAQs, GW kinda forgot to update Phoenix Rising.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 XT-1984 wrote:
Chaos Knights and Knights move over anything that isn't a Monster of Vehicle when they make any move now, not just Fall Back.

Also they can't shoot when they Fall Back. Melee Knights a go!

All Superheavies can now shoot (and manifest psychic powers) when they fall back.

It's part of the generic superheavy keyword now (see rules for falling back).

Its actually Titanic units, not Superheavy. So your Armigers don't get to do it too, unfortunately.