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.

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Rules-Errata

New FAQ's are here!

Strangely they're now on GW's site rather than Black Library's.

Bottom of their main page, under "rules errata"

Yaayy they addressed 5% of the issues

At least Hammer of wrath VS Walkers is sorted !

wow GW sucks, almost no updates in their for orks at all.

I had no idea that Deffkoptas were Jetbikes and therefore unable to legally perform bombing runs?

Also the DE shadowfield lost on a successful FNP roll is erm.... counter-intuitive?

 Ghazkuul wrote:
wow GW sucks, almost no updates in their for orks at all.

Apart from Defkoptas, what FAQ's do you think Orks need?

I've got a good list for the BrB though :p

Tbf the Deffstorm Megashoota is now more killy it was S5 AP5 before. Can't remember the last time I faced a Stompa though

As a Tyranid player, I am mighty displeased over SotW still not doing anything

But in any case, thank you for posting this grendel083!

EDIT: Wow, Gargantuans can still only move D6 through cover. Haha.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I've got a good list for the BrB though :p

Ha! You're not alone

But new layout for FAQ's, and they're back on the main site, it could be a sign of more regular updates. We can dream at least...

Only updated are:

-BrB (If you can call that an update - Hammer of wrath and Dreadnoughts must have scarred someone somewhere...)
-Dark eldar
-Orks
-Space Wolves

They sorted skimmers being immobilised and jink, and answered the infiltrating IC issue as well

No more Jinking if the skimmer is immobile

A drop in the sea but at least it's good.

 grendel083 wrote:
No more Jinking if the skimmer is immobile

Good change - I always got the stink eye from new players when I had to explain that immobilized skimmers can still jink.

Was anyone really worried that bigbomms didn't work super-strictly RAW? I didn't notice until the codex had been out for 4 months and even then I didn't care. You can only use them in the movement phase, so no utilizing the superfast turbo-boost jetbikes have, and you can easily hit your own unit (though hilarious and orky!).

How about we finally silence the 'SnP + Gitfinda' people?

 SkrawnyNob wrote:
How about we finally silence the 'SnP + Gitfinda' people?

That would be nice, but that's only the Shokk Attack that it effects (on bike, or with Mega Armour attached).

Most of the time it's people not realising "Assault" isn't listed in the SAP / Relentless rule.

 SkrawnyNob wrote:
How about we finally silence the 'SnP + Gitfinda' people?

We don't need an FAQ for that its very clear by RAW

How about whether or not bikes benefit from the Waaagh since they have Ere we go but they turbo boost so technically they don't run.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
How about whether or not bikes benefit from the Waaagh since they have Ere we go but they turbo boost so technically they don't run.

Again also clear by RAW. They don't run so they don't get to charge after running

Right and I want them to specifically clarify that but I can never get an answer from them. If they can't then that means that Waagh doesn't benefit them at all. so wtf is the point :-p

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Right and I want them to specifically clarify that but I can never get an answer from them. If they can't then that means that Waagh doesn't benefit them at all. so wtf is the point :-p

There is nothing to clarify because it's 100% clear by RAW. Why do bikes have to benefit from Waagh at all?

It sounds like you just want the FAQ to be used to fufil you wishlist

I do in fact want that :-) I also want Matt ward to write the next Ork codex so we can benefit from insanely broken rules

He doesn't work for GW, so that would be tricky.

It doesn't need clarifying. It is absolutely clear. They have the rule because all orks have it. Consistency.

It still allows a single re-roll on charge distance, it's not completly useless on Bikes.

Unfortunately no Blood Angels FAQ yet. Not really got anything I wanted addressed. Just wanted to see if there was one.

 DarthOvious wrote:
Unfortunately no Blood Angels FAQ yet. Not really got anything I wanted addressed. Just wanted to see if there was one.

Vanilla-izing the rules took away a lot of ambiguities - I can't think of anything I would FAQ from the book.

I am glad that they're putting the FAQs on the actual GW site. Just telling someone to go to the GW site and type FAQ into the search box is a big improvement over having to go to a completely separate website. Now if only they would actually link to the FAQs from the Codex product pages.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They sorted skimmers being immobilised and jink, ...

They actually didn't. They tried to... but wrote it badly.

What they said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilised have the Jink special rule."

Which actually gives the Jink rule to immobilised vehicles... If the vehicle is not Heavy, or the vehicle is immobilised, it has the Jink rule.

What it should have said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or immobilised have the Jink special rule."

Wish they gave the Archon his weapons options back. I miss having the more useful power weapons. Power sword at S3 AP3 is like having a chocolate fireguard...

 insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They sorted skimmers being immobilised and jink, ...

They actually didn't. They tried to... but wrote it badly.

What they said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or are immobilised have the Jink special rule."

Which actually gives the Jink rule to immobilised vehicles... If the vehicle is not Heavy, or the vehicle is immobilised, it has the Jink rule.

What it should have said is:
"Skimmers that are not also Heavy vehicles or immobilised have the Jink special rule."

I noticed this also, but didn't mention it. It's been a long day and I didn't want to be immediately attacked for rules lawyering my way into a benefit. This is shockingly poorly worded. Now we need FAQs for the FAQs.

I don't understand why they posted the old FAQs as well. For example, Grey Knights and Necrons have FAQs for codices that are now outdated and OOP...

It's because they didn't take them down.