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.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer-40000-Rules

The download is the non-highlighted name of the language you want

very basic as expected

FAQ up as well.

https://17890-presscdn-0-51-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Warhammer_40000_Designers_Commentary-ENG.pdf

bit depressing to see them need to post these two FAQs quite so soon but I guess 'that guy' is always going to be 'that guy'

Q: If I can choose a keyword for a unit, such as
<Regiment> for Astra Militarum, could I choose
that keyword to be, for example ‘Blood Angels’ or
‘Death Guard’?

A: No.
In the example above, ‘Blood Angels’ is a Chapter of the Adeptus
Astartes and ‘Death Guard’ is a Legion of the Heretic Astartes
– neither of which are Regiments of the Astra Militarum.


Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?

A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

Yeah, I read that and immediately thought "Dear person, can't you just for once, you know, not be an obnixious feth?"

Let's avoid making this a "TFG bashing thread", please, and stick to discussing the posting of the rules and FAQ (in the OP and second post). Thanks all

I have to be honest: I cannot understand why they ruled dice modifiers this way.

It makes very little sense to me, in order to speed up the game, to apply the modifiers AFTER re-rolling the dice. Confused.

Can't remember where I asked now in the other thread, but is this really a FAQ? To me it's Designer's Notes and not an "Official" FAQ. I don't think we should really be calling this a FAQ. Not saying that what was mentioned shouldn't be followed, but to call it a FAQ for some reason doesn't seem correct.

The way I see it we get a better understanding on how the Designers were thinking so more of a RAI than an official FAQ.

Aenar wrote:
I have to be honest: I cannot understand why they ruled dice modifiers this way.

It makes very little sense to me, in order to speed up the game, to apply the modifiers AFTER re-rolling the dice. Confused.

To make modifiers more valuable and re-rolls less valuable (and abusable).

Aenar wrote:
I have to be honest: I cannot understand why they ruled dice modifiers this way.

It makes very little sense to me, in order to speed up the game, to apply the modifiers AFTER re-rolling the dice. Confused.

There are lots of abilities that reroll ones. If you're BS4+ with reroll 1s, you're hitting 50% and rerolling 1/6th. If you then shoot a unit that gives a -1 to hit and you do modifiers first, you then either reroll 1s and 2s or have to deal with handling rolls of 0. It's easier to deal with the actual roll, then deal with the results afterwards.

It'll make rerolls awkward, as a Space Marine with a Heavy Bolter that moved and is within range of a Chapter Master could roll a 1,2,3. The shots that rolled a one and two can be rerolled but not the three.

Aenar wrote:
I have to be honest: I cannot understand why they ruled dice modifiers this way.

It makes very little sense to me, in order to speed up the game, to apply the modifiers AFTER re-rolling the dice. Confused.

It's about rules interactions. Some negative modifiers could be turn into a positive if you applied modifiers before the reroll. It feels a bit clunky at first but it makes sense for the rules.

Based on the FAQ I see the same people that ruined 7th are already intent on ruining 8th too. God I hate those people.

The modifier ruling hurts my head, but have to see how it plays out...

Davor wrote:
Can't remember where I asked now in the other thread, but is this really a FAQ? To me it's Designer's Notes and not an "Official" FAQ. I don't think we should really be calling this a FAQ. Not saying that what was mentioned shouldn't be followed, but to call it a FAQ for some reason doesn't seem correct.

The way I see it we get a better understanding on how the Designers were thinking so more of a RAI than an official FAQ.

Is a dam FAQ. There are questions and the official GW designers are answering them. How can something be more official than that?!

About the modifiers and rerolls interactions, has people have said, are to make rerolls less powerfull (2++ invulnerable tzeentch bs) and modifiers much more important (So the -1 for heavy weapons for moving that some people claimed was useless has an actual impact even if you buff those units)

 CT GAMER wrote:
The modifier ruling hurts my head, but have to see how it plays out...

Age of Sigmar has had the 're-rolls before modifiers' rule from the start. Its nothing new from GW's point of view.

 Ghaz wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:
The modifier ruling hurts my head, but have to see how it plays out...

Age of Sigmar has had the 're-rolls before modifiers' rule from the start. Its nothing new from GW's point of view.

I don't play AOS so it's new to me, but I'm willing to see how it plays, it just seems odd when you first read it.

Davor wrote:
Can't remember where I asked now in the other thread, but is this really a FAQ? To me it's Designer's Notes and not an "Official" FAQ. I don't think we should really be calling this a FAQ. Not saying that what was mentioned shouldn't be followed, but to call it a FAQ for some reason doesn't seem correct.

The way I see it we get a better understanding on how the Designers were thinking so more of a RAI than an official FAQ.

You're probably just used to the old yes/no binary answers we used to. Get with no explanation. The ones where they often raised even more questions instead of answering them.

I like this way better!

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
It'll make rerolls awkward, as a Space Marine with a Heavy Bolter that moved and is within range of a Chapter Master could roll a 1,2,3. The shots that rolled a one and two can be rerolled but not the three.

Stranger thing is if you have a +1 & a re-roll, the re-roll could potentially be a negative: if you hit on 3+ with a +1 and roll a 2, that would hit post modifier. If you re-roll that and get a 1, you miss what would have been a hit...Whether that crops up anywhere, I don't know.

Ail-Shan wrote:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
It'll make rerolls awkward, as a Space Marine with a Heavy Bolter that moved and is within range of a Chapter Master could roll a 1,2,3. The shots that rolled a one and two can be rerolled but not the three.

Stranger thing is if you have a +1 & a re-roll, the re-roll could potentially be a negative: if you hit on 3+ with a +1 and roll a 2, that would hit post modifier. If you re-roll that and get a 1, you miss what would have been a hit...Whether that crops up anywhere, I don't know.

Most rules I see say you "can" re-roll, not must. So just don't reroll anything that will later be boosed to a hit.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
bit depressing to see them need to post these two FAQs quite so soon but I guess 'that guy' is always going to be 'that guy'

Q: If I can choose a keyword for a unit, such as
<Regiment> for Astra Militarum, could I choose
that keyword to be, for example ‘Blood Angels’ or
‘Death Guard’?

A: No.
In the example above, ‘Blood Angels’ is a Chapter of the Adeptus
Astartes and ‘Death Guard’ is a Legion of the Heretic Astartes
– neither of which are Regiments of the Astra Militarum.


Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?

A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

TBH I never thought of this, and love the fact GW made it clear how it's meant to work. So happy I don't have to worry about explaining to someone why it doesn't work like that lol

Cant move models that are already base to base, thats good.

Davor wrote:
Can't remember where I asked now in the other thread, but is this really a FAQ? To me it's Designer's Notes and not an "Official" FAQ. I don't think we should really be calling this a FAQ. Not saying that what was mentioned shouldn't be followed, but to call it a FAQ for some reason doesn't seem correct.

The way I see it we get a better understanding on how the Designers were thinking so more of a RAI than an official FAQ.

Whatever GW has previously been calling a FAQ was basically a pile of FAQ, Errata, Rule Changes and new Rules.

This is what an actual FAQ looks like. Question about how rules work, with official answers.

I'm still reasonably positive about the new edition and my first game reaffirmed this, but honestly that's mostly in direct comparison to 7th ed. To put it politely, I find some of the designers' ideas counter-intuitive.

Good job on conveying designers' intentions again, though. Better to have those than have to guess what they were thinking.

 Lockark wrote:

Spoiler:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
bit depressing to see them need to post these two FAQs quite so soon but I guess 'that guy' is always going to be 'that guy'

Q: If I can choose a keyword for a unit, such as
<Regiment> for Astra Militarum, could I choose
that keyword to be, for example ‘Blood Angels’ or
‘Death Guard’?

A: No.
In the example above, ‘Blood Angels’ is a Chapter of the Adeptus
Astartes and ‘Death Guard’ is a Legion of the Heretic Astartes
– neither of which are Regiments of the Astra Militarum.


Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?

A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.

TBH I never thought of this, and love the fact GW made it clear how it's meant to work. So happy I don't have to worry about explaining to someone why it doesn't work like that lol

It works like that. It's just not meant to work like that.

It's a good and needed clarification, but let's not pretend an unrestricted pick your own keyword system was ever a good idea.

It's a lot easier to think about the reroll changes if you imagine all rerolls to cover only "natural" fails.
So if you pass on a 3, then a natural roll of a 1 or a 2 is a fail.

This is a useful one to have FAQ'd, I probably would've carried on rolling the D6 like it was the vehicle damage chart

Q: Which player rolls the D6 to see if a vehicle
explodes, or if a monster has death throes, etc. when it
is destroyed?
A: The player whose model has been destroyed rolls
the D6.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geifer wrote:

It works like that. It's just not meant to work like that.
It's a good and needed clarification, but let's not pretend an unrestricted pick your own keyword system was ever a good idea.

I'm wondering if this is a cultural or linguistic thing at this point, because the idea that someone would think "I can call my guard regiment AND my space marine chapter the Fists of Bull0 and then they can share their rules!" is just ridiculous to me.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
It'll make rerolls awkward, as a Space Marine with a Heavy Bolter that moved and is within range of a Chapter Master could roll a 1,2,3. The shots that rolled a one and two can be rerolled but not the three.

Actually, looking further, the next couple of questions are about things that trigger on certain results applying only after modifiers. As such I reckon the Chapter Master's ability, which doesn't reference a specific roll value IIRC, "waits" and only triggers after determining if you actually hit or not.
Which makes Chapter Masters special, legendary leaders rather than Captain +1 again.

Also it turns out that Castellans do in fact reflect shots on fives in their default mode. Good to know.

 Bull0 wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

It works like that. It's just not meant to work like that.
It's a good and needed clarification, but let's not pretend an unrestricted pick your own keyword system was ever a good idea.

I'm wondering if this is a cultural or linguistic thing at this point, because the idea that someone would think "I can call my guard regiment AND my space marine chapter the Fists of Bull0 and then they can share their rules!" is just ridiculous to me.

I think it has more to do with how you look at the background and the rules. I would never do such a thing specifically because I recognize that it's a silly thing to do if you value the background. But solely as a rule, it was immediately obvious to me there was nothing to stop anyone from choosing the same keyword for deliberately discrete factions. It was literally my interest in the background that stopped me from even considering using this loophole.

But for someone who's into the game aspect of 40k with little to no regard for the background? It's a rule that's asking to be abused.

Considering GW had very similar problems with special characters and chapter tactics before, I am tempted to say there is zero excuse for the way keywords are handled (by RAW anyway).

It should be added that it's not as clear cut as your example implies, though. Iron Lords, for instance, are a lesser known chapter. But that could easily be a house name for Imperial Knights. Or a name for forces of a forge world, both Mechanicus and Guard. And while Marines are a pretty separate entity, consider the latter. Guard and Skitarii raised on the same world with the same cultural values, similar equipment and military doctrine but different command structure could easily be justified in the background as being two sides of the same coin. But using the same keyword on Mechanicus and Guard units would clearly (straight from the horse's mouth) be against the spirit in which the rules are written.

No, I'm not even talking about the background - just as a logical thing, I can't imagine looking at a section of a book that says "astra militarum - you can do X" and another section of a book that says "adeptus mechanicus - you can do X" and thinking "so since that army list says I can do X, and that army list also says I can do X, I must be able to do X to the first and have their rules apply to the second!". Like, any rational person would realise that's not permitted.

As you just noted, they're both X. Not X, Y and Z. Just X.

All within the same framework, keywords, and the same subsection of the framework, faction keywords.

In purely logical terms, they are the same thing.

Edit: To expand on this:

All Imperial Factions share the Imperium keyword. Logically, the ability to share a faction keyword is allowed even if there are other, different keywords.

The respective keywords are discrete. <Regiment> does not refer in any way to Astra Militarum. Keywords are ordered, but discrete.

The rule guiding the insertion of faction keywords is not regulated. Literally the same keyword can be chosen,

Logically, there is nothing to stop Marines and Guard from having the same keyword. Logically, if you were to apply the same keyword, there would be no way around treating Guard and Marine units differently based on this keyword.

If you want a format which disallows this, you would need something that refers to the respective faction, say:

Regiment: Fists of Bull0
Chapter: Fists of Bull0
Maniple: Fists of Bull0

That's X,Y and Z as used above.

Fists of Bull0 by itself is always X.

Only thing my group are thinking about house ruling is targeting characters.

It came up during a game yesterday, where a SoB tank was engaged with an enemy unit, leaving Celestine and her body guard the closest viable target.

But, as the rules say 'unless they're the closest visible target', the Deathwatch couldn't shoot at Celestine.

Minor quibble, and simply part of the new edition learning curve, but one that stands out as a little odd.

The DIY keywords seem to be <Chapter> and <Regiment> and so on, so no, I don't think they're X and X, because whatever name you pick should inherit the properties of the parent keyword.

<Chapter> Twinkies is not the same as <Regiment> Twinkies, just like <Regiment> Blood Angels is not the same as Blood Angels.