BRB FAQ is on the GW website

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.

**Lord Solar Plexus**

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1330084a_FAQ_WarhammerRulebook_2010_v1.pdf

Hope it hasn't been posted already...

**SagesStone**

That was surprisingly quick for GW. I think they might actually turn around if they continue on this track 0_0

**ShivanAngel**

Hmmmm it appears all the stupid gak people were trying to pull claiming RaW got fixed.... (like trying to stack frenzy or AHW). Using a shield with AHW and the like.

Some of those I know they had to change but you look at it and are like.... really.... that needed clarification....

**Casper**

Wow, didn't expect this till late august. Hopefully this trend will stick around.

**Crazy_Carnifex**

Staff of Sorcery is Back!

**gendoikari87**

check the clarification on the power limit rule.

Thank you that is all. Lizardmen commence magic Pwnage.

**RiTides**

This is already up in News & Rumors, but it is sweet! I'm glad they clarified some of these issues so quickly.

Also, some army PDFs have been updated, and the changes are in magenta. A nice touch

**Nitros14**

Ethereal units crumble again, it was a good few days.

**Minsc**

"Q: Does a magic item or spell that gives a bonus to a characteristic, give the bonus for all rules purposes (e.g. the effect of spells, characteristic tests, etc)? (p4)
A: Yes, unless the description of the item or spell specifically
says otherwise.

Q: Does a weapon that gives a bonus to a characteristic, give the bonus for all rules purposes (e.g. the effect of spells, characteristic tests, etc)? (p4)
A: No. "

I foresee much debate on the interpretation of this, with some people trying to argue that Magic Weapons do not count towards such characteristic tests.

"Q: A war machine is wounded by a hit with the Multiple Wounds special rule. Is the number of Wounds lost limited to 1? (p45)
A: No. "

Well, War Machines got gacked some here. Hard as hell to wound one (barring a cannon), but if you do it = pulped.

**gendoikari87**

Nitros14 wrote:Ethereal units crumble again, it was a good few days.

what do you mean ethereal units crumble again.

**Aduro**

I think the weapon one is mostly talking about Great Weapons and if you get to use that +2 Strength when you take Strength Tests.

**Killjoy00**

From combat res. Some people were arguing that unstable ethereal units didn't take any damage from combat res. The FAQ put an end to that.

**Durzod**

Casper wrote:Wow, didn't expect this till late august. Hopefully this trend will stick around.

What? That they're in such a rush to put out a product that they don't employ proofreaders or playtesters?