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.

New 40K rulebook FAQ.

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear it was angry.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1490286a_FAQ_40Krulebook_version1_1.pdf

Wow quite a few things fixed with this update, although a few are technically ninja rule changes rather than clarifications but they aren't ones I have a problem with (aside from GW actually making them official errata and stopping this house rule FAQ stupidness but thats another issue).
A few notable things:

Checkerboarding is now pointless, only one unit gets cover.
Anything which 'moves as jump infantry' can deep strike (Nid issue I believe).
Template weapons can be fired from closed topped transports.
Units arriving from reserve which can't fully move on to the board are destroyed, which clears up that debate a bit (potentially problematic for the Monolith though).

Q: Does a vehicle upgrade that allows a non-tank vehicle
to perform a tank shock (e.g. a reinforced ram) also allow
that vehicle to perform ramming attacks? (p69)
A: Yes.

Go team Orkz \o/

Powerguy wrote:Units arriving from reserve which can't fully move on to the board are destroyed, which clears up that debate a bit (potentially problematic for the Monolith though).

I don't see where people are having a problem with this. My monolith, built to spec from a normal kit, is about 1/32nd of an inch under 6" from the very front of the hull to the very rear. With a 6" move it should be able to get on the board just fine. Did the mold get sloppy after a few years and newer monos are wider?

Q: If a unit that has gone to ground is then forced to move,
other than to fall back, do they return to normal or still
count as having gone to ground? (p24)
A: They will return to normal.



Death Company running behind other units for cover, going to ground for a 3+...then being 'forced to move' the following movement phase and unpinning?

Huh, one pinning test caused per unit on a target each turn.

Oh, here's something nasty: If a vehicle is immobilized during the same assault phase but before the attacker's Initiative rung attacks, then the vehicle is hit automatically.

"The tank shock will be resolved in the usual manor."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, trukks can ram now. p.4, second last question (right column).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flat-out transport vehicles take their passengers with them when destroyed. Suck it, Blood Angels.

Telion's Scout Squad doesn't need Camoline Cloaks to get Stealth.

Pg 1, Col 2, 1st Par

Page 46 – Morale while falling back.
The paragraph should be changed to:
Units that are falling back automatically fail all Morale
checks.

Pg 4, Col 2, 6th Par

Q: What happens when a vehicle tank shocks a unit that is
already falling back? (p68)
A: The tank shock will be resolved in the usual manor.
Note that passing the Moral check for a tank shock will not
cause the unit to regroup it will just prevent them from
fleeing again.

So which is it?

They seem consistent. Mind you, there's nothing inconsistent about the statement "2+2=4 and walruses are a bicycle".

I thought the "destroyed flat out transports destroying passengers" thing was already a rule until Kirasu pointed out to me during a game that it wasn't. Maybe I was just channeling the month of November.

The 2nd seems to state that a unit that is falling back gets to make a Morale check... whilst the first says they auto-fail.

Nurglitch wrote:They seem consistent. Mind you, there's nothing inconsistent about the statement "2+2=4 and walruses are a bicycle".

They seem entirely inconsistent to me. Tank Shocking a unit forces it to take a Morale check and the rules state that units which are already falling back automatically fail morale checks. Then this new FAQ ruling regarding being tank shocked while Falling Back seems to indicate that a unit which is Falling Back can somehow pass a morale check, which contradicts the rules!

stjohn70:

There's nothing inconsistent about getting to make a morale check as well as automatically failing it. At first I thought it was weird that it recommended what to do in the inconsistent situation that one could pass the morale test, but God of War allows units to automatically pass morale tests, so it's nice to see the writer has that covered.

Nurglitch wrote:
Flat-out transport vehicles take their passengers with them when destroyed.

OHHHH YEEAAAAAAA BOOOYYYYY!!!

Oh thank god. Oh glorious day. Praise be the emperor. All glory to chaos. Ect ect ect.


Huh, it also seems units destroyed while off the table count as kill points.

You can't ram buildings either.

Oh ho ho ho! Counter attack just confers the +1 attack as if the unit charged, they don't count as charging though (Take that! furious charge)

Can't shoot unoccupied builds either.


Of course the faq still doesn't change the fact that RAW you need eyes on the models in order to shoot, lol.

Deathwolf wrote:I thought the "destroyed flat out transports destroying passengers" thing was already a rule until Kirasu pointed out to me during a game that it wasn't. Maybe I was just channeling the month of November.

First off, that's a commonly misinterpreted rule. Passengers in a transport that is destroyed THE SAME TURN it moved flat-out cannot disembark and are therfore destroyed. That means the transport has to be destroyed the same player turn it moves flat-out, which can generally only happen if the vehicle destroys itself while moving or is accidentally hit by friendly fire.

But yeah, it is a rule in the rulebook so I'm not sure what Kirasu pointed out to you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:stjohn70:

There's nothing inconsistent about getting to make a morale check as well as automatically failing it. At first I thought it was weird that it recommended what to do in the inconsistent situation that one could pass the morale test, but God of War allows units to automatically pass morale tests, so it's nice to see the writer has that covered.

Even if that ruling was written secretly nodding to the one or two units that can choose to automatically pass or fail morale checks (which I highly doubt, IMHO, and I even disagree that this ruling properly clarifies *that* situation, but let's not get into that here), it is not written pointing out that fact and will seem to 95% of the people reading it to contradict the existing rules and will therefore end up being much more confusing that helpful.

I think there is a very high probability that the writer made a mistake and wasn't aware that units which are falling back automatically fail morale tests.

I honestly rather like these quite a bit. Ninja rule changes and FAQ vs. Errata debates aside, it looks like a good number of things got tidied up without spilling piping hot coffee on myself.

Oh, and I think I'm contracturally obligated ( ) to say that it looks like they just went through the INAT FAQ and pulled these questions (and in many cases, the answers as well), which makes me very gratified, since one of the main points for even bothering with the INAT FAQ is to get a source of questions that need to be answered out to GW, so hurray! And I now have a whole bunch of stuff I can remove from the INAT...

Its alround a pretty good update. Clears up a lot of stuff that SHOULD be the case between any 2 reasonable humans playing a game of armymenz, and will go some way to eliminate tedious ruleslawyering for advantage.

I am going to Ram some trukks into stuff to celebrate.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Q: If a unit that has gone to ground is then forced to move,
other than to fall back, do they return to normal or still
count as having gone to ground? (p24)
A: They will return to normal.



Death Company running behind other units for cover, going to ground for a 3+...then being 'forced to move' the following movement phase and unpinning?

I agree that the answer leaves a *LOT* to be desired for clarity, but I believe the point of this ruling is to address when the unit is actually FORCED to be moved by an outside source, such as being moved by Lash of Submission, for example. It would not apply in the case of 'rage' because a unit that has gone to ground does not have the option to move on its own. But again, I agree as written the ruling does create some murky situations.

Um, is it just me, or did the Blood Angels FAQ and Space Wolves FAQ disappear?

/agree on the other points. I'm glad GW has some sense. Still nothing on the >2 special weapons bit though.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Q: If a unit that has gone to ground is then forced to move,
other than to fall back, do they return to normal or still
count as having gone to ground? (p24)
A: They will return to normal.



Death Company running behind other units for cover, going to ground for a 3+...then being 'forced to move' the following movement phase and unpinning?

So does this work for BT Righteous Zeal? Cause it if does, wow.

avantgarde wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Q: If a unit that has gone to ground is then forced to move,
other than to fall back, do they return to normal or still
count as having gone to ground? (p24)
A: They will return to normal.



Death Company running behind other units for cover, going to ground for a 3+...then being 'forced to move' the following movement phase and unpinning?

So does this work for BT Righteous Zeal? Cause it if does, wow.

Again, the answer is no. You have to go back to what the rule for going to ground actually says:

"Whilst it has gone to ground the unit may do nothing of its own volition, but will react normally if affected by enemy actions (for example, it will take Morale tests as normal)."


So this FAQ question and ruling is in regard to that...if the unit is forced to move (which only happens when affected by enemy actions) the clarification is now that the unit immediately returns to normal.

But thins like Rage, or the Black Templar's Righteous Zeal would not fall into this category as the enemy is not affecting the unit...and therefore the unit is not allowed to move under its own volition.

[First off, that's a commonly misinterpreted rule. Passengers in a transport that is destroyed THE SAME TURN it moved flat-out cannot disembark and are therfore destroyed. That means the transport has to be destroyed the same player turn it moves flat-out, which can generally only happen if the vehicle destroys itself while moving or is accidentally hit by friendly fire.
]

Well Yakface it would depend on if they mean Game Turn or Player turn..... Page 9 of the rule book says there are player turns and game turns. So if it in fact is Game Turn then yes they would be destroyed however if it were player turn then you would be correct. I guess they should have clarified it more. In my opinion they probably meant game turn....

Raven Guard 085 wrote:
Well Yakface it would depend on if they mean Game Turn or Player turn..... Page 9 of the rule book says there are player turns and game turns. So if it in fact is Game Turn then yes they would be destroyed however if it were player turn then you would be correct. I guess they should have clarified it more. In my opinion they probably meant game turn....

Page 9 also specifies that if the term 'turn' is used that means 'player turn'. So there is absolutely zero confusion here. Passengers on a vehicle that moves flat-out and is destroyed are ONLY killed if that happens in the same player turn the vehicle moves. Once the opponent's turn rolls around the passengers will be able to disembark with no problems if the vehicle gets destroyed.

yakface wrote:

Raven Guard 085 wrote:
Well Yakface it would depend on if they mean Game Turn or Player turn..... Page 9 of the rule book says there are player turns and game turns. So if it in fact is Game Turn then yes they would be destroyed however if it were player turn then you would be correct. I guess they should have clarified it more. In my opinion they probably meant game turn....

Page 9 also specifies that if the term 'turn' is used that means 'player turn'. So there is absolutely zero confusion here. Passengers on a vehicle that moves flat-out and is destroyed are ONLY killed if that happens in the same player turn the vehicle moves. Once the opponent's turn rolls around the passengers will be able to disembark with no problems if the vehicle gets destroyed.

It's amazing what can be accomplished by actually reading the rules thoroughly and not just skimming.

Raven Guard 085 wrote:Well Yakface it would depend on if they mean Game Turn or Player turn..... Page 9 of the rule book says there are player turns and game turns. So if it in fact is Game Turn then yes they would be destroyed however if it were player turn then you would be correct. I guess they should have clarified it more. In my opinion they probably meant game turn....

First paragraph in the second column on page 9 of the rulebook provides all the clarification you need.

solkan wrote:New 40K rulebook FAQ.

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear it was angry.

Judging by some of the blitheringly idiotic things they cleared up that I've seen espoused on this very forum, they should be angry.

Well played GW. And you too, Yakface! Why don't they just pay you to do this?

Hey, I just noticed you're actually able to copy text from this PDF! That's a big improvement from their traditional FAQs (IMHO).

Anyway, the ruling that really jumps out at me is:

Q: What weapons count as single-handed weapons for the
purposes of gaining additional attacks in close combat? (p37)
A: All pistols, close combat weapons and any weapons
that are specifically stated as single-handed weapons in
their rules.

That has really gigantic implications since a lot of unique characters have specialty weapons that look very single-handed on the model but aren't classified as a pistol, close combat weapon or identified as being single-handed (Eldrad's staff is a big example). There are going to be quite a few +1A bonuses lost!

I've been noticing an unusual amount of typos in the FAQ:

GW wrote:The tank shock will be resolved in the usual manor.

GW wrote:Note that passing the Moral check for a tank shock

GW wrote:after arriving by deep strike and as such will not be able to shot that turn.

GW wrote:A walker can still fire all of its weapons as if it was a stationery vehicle.

Maybe I'm just being pedantic.

Also, thought this was interesting:

GW wrote:Q: Does the Furious Charge special rule give +1 Strength
to attacks made with a close combat weapon that strikes
at a specific Strength value? For example are hits from
Gabriel Seth’s Blood Reaver resolved at Strength 8 or 9
when he has Furious Charge? (p75)
A: No. Hits from Gabriel Seth’s Blood Reaver would still be
resolved at Strength 8.

To some that may seem like common sense, but I hadn't really thought about it.

puma713 wrote:
Also, thought this was interesting:

GW wrote:Q: Does the Furious Charge special rule give +1 Strength
to attacks made with a close combat weapon that strikes
at a specific Strength value? For example are hits from
Gabriel Seth’s Blood Reaver resolved at Strength 8 or 9
when he has Furious Charge? (p75)
A: No. Hits from Gabriel Seth’s Blood Reaver would still be
resolved at Strength 8.

To some that may seem like common sense, but I hadn't really thought about it.

I actually don't care for that ruling. That's because the way the rules for close combat are written, the model's strength is used to determine the roll to wound, and the rulebook specifies that some special weapons may modify this strength.

The specialty weapons in the rulebook are written in this fashion, in that Powerfists/Thunderhammers double the model's Strength and WitchBlade's makes the model count as having a Strength of 9.

However, some of the codexes have since started implementing weapons that say that they hit with a certain Strength value...the problem with this is again, per the close combat rules for rolling to wound, there is no rule allowing the Strength of a weapon to be used in close combat. So I've always assumed that this stated Strength was a defacto change to the model's Strength for the purposes of resolving close combat attacks, because that's the only way all the rules work nice and tidy.

So IMHO, this ruling doesn't properly function with the RAW, which is fine, but I don't think that the author took all the facts into consideration. For example, Mogul Kamir (the Rough Rider special character) has a special rule that gives him and nearby units 'Furious Charge' but now that bonus no longer benefits him when he uses his hunting lance (as that hits on a flat S5). I think the author of the IG codex clearly believed that Furious Charge would work with a Hunting Lance...but oh well!

At least there's a GW ruling on the books on the matter!

Should this debate be moved to the correct forum?