new 40k FAQs..

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.

**insaniak**

BladeWalker wrote:
I disagree, my reserve armies engage you and give you something to shoot from Turn 2 onward.

... if anything comes on in turn 2.

Is it more fun and less of a delay for there to be a model of mine hiding on my side of the board during the first turn?

With the current rules, it's generally going to be more than a single model.

**Sephyr**

BladeWalker wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Sure... because spending half the game just shuffling models around the board waiting for something to shoot at is awesome fun for everyone involved

And yes, I realise there's a certain amount of hyperbole in that statement, but the point remains. All reserve armies just delay the actual playing the game part of the game, unless they have some mechanic for getting on the board in turn 1.

I disagree, my reserve armies engage you and give you something to shoot from Turn 2 onward. Is it more fun and less of a delay for there to be a model of mine hiding on my side of the board during the first turn?

It's certainly a bigger risk, since evn a hiding unit can be vulnerable to barrages, drop-pods unloading sternguard, fast vindicators and what have you.

I think full reserve should be allowed but come at a price. Such as, say, a penalty on all subsequent reserve rolls since your forces are still caught in a jam along the way with no ground forces to guide them on-site.

**schadenfreude**

Sephyr wrote:
BladeWalker wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Sure... because spending half the game just shuffling models around the board waiting for something to shoot at is awesome fun for everyone involved

And yes, I realise there's a certain amount of hyperbole in that statement, but the point remains. All reserve armies just delay the actual playing the game part of the game, unless they have some mechanic for getting on the board in turn 1.

I disagree, my reserve armies engage you and give you something to shoot from Turn 2 onward. Is it more fun and less of a delay for there to be a model of mine hiding on my side of the board during the first turn?

It's certainly a bigger risk, since evn a hiding unit can be vulnerable to barrages, drop-pods unloading sternguard, fast vindicators and what have you.

I think full reserve should be allowed but come at a price. Such as, say, a penalty on all subsequent reserve rolls since your forces are still caught in a jam along the way with no ground forces to guide them on-site.

Or worse yet deamons. Flamers will wreck small units counting on a 2+ go to ground to save them for a turn.

**Lord_Mortis**

Jackal wrote:
Kinda of expected, really, since the current model itself shows a sword.
But then again, the old (and superior versions, imo) had an axe.
I'd hate to see the reaction of an old demon player who had the old bloodletters.

Alot of weapons are different from the actual model, rules wise.
Also, the axe really is a trademark of khorne, which is why im kinda pissed the letters have swords :(
May buy some old ones again and use them as swords, but thats simply because the old models were the best ones they have made.

Well, that's not exactly right. The original Bloodletters had swords.

Then there were these guys with swords.

Spoiler:

Then came these guys with axes.

Spoiler:

And then the current ones with swords that are almost throw backs to the original ones.

Spoiler:

So only 1 group of Bloodletters had axes out of 4.

**-Loki-**

Jackal wrote:
Also, the axe really is a trademark of khorne, which is why im kinda pissed the letters have swords :(

The Axe is the trademark of the World Eaters, specifically the Chainaxe.

Khorne likes all of the weapons. All of them. Every one. Because they all do the killing.

Bloodthirsters have always had an axe. Bloodletters have had a sword in all but one edition. Official Khorne models have never had a maul, however.

Also, Khornes trademark would be a sword, due to Khorne himself weilding a sword.

**H.B.M.C.**

All my 'Letters are the axe type. I really like those models.

**TechMarine1**

pretre wrote:
Q: Which missile launchers have access to flakk missiles? (p57/415)
A: Only those that specifically have an option to take them as
an upgrade in their army list.

And yet, they don't say who can take the upgrade or how much it costs. And for that matter, if you take the upgrade, is that the only thing that missile launcher can shoot?

**insaniak**

TechMarine1 wrote:
And yet, they don't say who can take the upgrade or how much it costs.

That's because nobody currently has the option to take it. When someone gets that option, it will be listed in their codex.

And for that matter, if you take the upgrade, is that the only thing that missile launcher can shoot?

Until someone gets the option, we won't know.

**-Loki-**

TechMarine1 wrote:
pretre wrote:
Q: Which missile launchers have access to flakk missiles? (p57/415)
A: Only those that specifically have an option to take them as
an upgrade in their army list.

And yet, they don't say who can take the upgrade or how much it costs. And for that matter, if you take the upgrade, is that the only thing that missile launcher can shoot?

You're going in circles. They've said you will know a missile launcher can take it when the option is in the army list. If no army lists have the option, then flakk missiles simply cannot be taken. it's a very clear answer.

They will let you know who can take them by putting the option in the army lists in new codices.

**Kevin949**

I'm sorry if this has been brought up already but I just thought of something earlier...so, with the new change to mixed save units and units that contain a character count as mixed saves now, doesn't that mean that LoS! is *always* going to be decided before rolling for saves now, negating the entire section of the rulebook talking about using LoS! after saves?

**Mannahnin**

Yup, pretty much.

**Kevin949**

Mannahnin wrote:
Yup, pretty much.

Huh....just making sure I understood the changes correctly.

**Micky**

Yeah, faq clearly states that LoS! rolls have to be performed before saves are attempted, so big wound pools can be shenaniganed even less now than before.

**daedalus-templarius**

Sounds like rolling 1 wound at a time for groups with characters is going to be how its played from now on.

Micky wrote:
Yeah, faq clearly states that LoS! rolls have to be performed before saves are attempted, so big wound pools can be shenaniganed even less now than before.

Until you roll them 1 by 1 until your leading character loses enough wounds to start wanting to LOS them.

**Kaldor**

Stoffer wrote:
Are you people really complaining about them frequently updating the ruleset to make the game better? Talk about bitter vets. GW are doing exactly what digital companies are doing (and should be doing), they're "patching" their game to fix flaws. The fact that they're doing it so often shows you that it's a company going in the right direction.

The problem is that 40K isn't a digital product that'll just update itself without you ever noticing. In the case of printed media, a yearly update with re-released books is the best option, and this should include free book exchanges like Spartan Games did with Dystopian Wars when they updated their rules to version 1.1.

A print game should never be updated like a video game. They are obviously quite different and I shouldn't really need to point out why those differences are important.

Stoffer wrote:
The paladins are a great example; They made all of them characters and a lot of people picked up on it to an extent where GW felt they had to regulate it.

The Paladins are a great example, because they were something that wasn't broken, that very few people were complaining about, and something that worked well and easily under the existing rules. Compared to the abuses that Purifiers and Inquisitorial Henchmen were capable of, they were an insignificant problem. Yet GW nerfed the hell out of them, and did nothing to address the actual problems with the codex.

Micky wrote:
Yeah, faq clearly states that LoS! rolls have to be performed before saves are attempted, so big wound pools can be shenaniganed even less now than before.

And on the plus side we get resolve every wound one at a time.

That's a plus, right?

**Flachzange**

Page 76 - Vehicles, Leadership and Morale
Change the section in bold to "Therefore, vehicles never take Morale checks or Leadership tests for any reasons".

Huh? What about the Changelings special ability though?! It specifically lists vehicles as being treated with morale 10 in those instances?!?
So it doesnt work on vehicles anymore?! Thats a bummer ....

Also, sorry if this has been mentioned already ... didnt have the time to read through the entire thread yet ...

**Fafnir**

Kaldor wrote:

Stoffer wrote:
The paladins are a great example; They made all of them characters and a lot of people picked up on it to an extent where GW felt they had to regulate it.

The Paladins are a great example, because they were something that wasn't broken, that very few people were complaining about, and something that worked well and easily under the existing rules. Compared to the abuses that Purifiers and Inquisitorial Henchmen were capable of, they were an insignificant problem. Yet GW nerfed the hell out of them, and did nothing to address the actual problems with the codex.

The fact that we actually agree whole-heartedly on this issue makes me feel kind of dirty.

**Kaldor**

Fafnir wrote:
Kaldor wrote:

Stoffer wrote:
The paladins are a great example; They made all of them characters and a lot of people picked up on it to an extent where GW felt they had to regulate it.

The Paladins are a great example, because they were something that wasn't broken, that very few people were complaining about, and something that worked well and easily under the existing rules. Compared to the abuses that Purifiers and Inquisitorial Henchmen were capable of, they were an insignificant problem. Yet GW nerfed the hell out of them, and did nothing to address the actual problems with the codex.

The fact that we actually agree whole-heartedly on this issue makes me feel kind of dirty.

**reds8n**

.. the rulebook FAQ is now " v1a." with the latest change being listed as happening in September .

can anyone see what they chnaged ?

Only thing that seems different is

Q: If a Flyer suffers Locked Velocity and was moving at Cruising
Speed (18"-36"), what speed is its velocity actually locked at? (p81)
A: 36".

which I think is different from t'other day..

**rigeld2**

Flachzange wrote:
Page 76 - Vehicles, Leadership and Morale
Change the section in bold to "Therefore, vehicles never take Morale checks or Leadership tests for any reasons".

Huh? What about the Changelings special ability though?! It specifically lists vehicles as being treated with morale 10 in those instances?!?
So it doesnt work on vehicles anymore?! Thats a bummer ....

Also, sorry if this has been mentioned already ... didnt have the time to read through the entire thread yet ...

In general vehicles don't ever test. Specifically the changeling makes them test.

**warboss**

Kaldor wrote:

The Paladins are a great example, because they were something that wasn't broken, that very few people were complaining about, and something that worked well and easily under the existing rules. Compared to the abuses that Purifiers and Inquisitorial Henchmen were capable of, they were an insignificant problem. Yet GW nerfed the hell out of them, and did nothing to address the actual problems with the codex.

People didn't complain about paladins?? That's news to me and not even really the case even in THIS thread amongst people who don't play GK (like yourself) but instead have to face this most recent fan fav net list. I don't have much experience against them so don't have a strong opinion about them personally but saying that people haven't been complaining about this unit with its wound shennanigans crossing over two editions is simply wrong. Multiwound character unit wound sharing is not generally a popular mechanic amongst those who don't actually use the tiny handful of units that get to (ab)use the poorly thought out rule in both its 5th and 6th edition incarnations. The FAQ addresses that.

**god.ra**

Dunno if peoples noticed:

Version 1a FAQ for Rulebook is out.

**Flachzange**

rigeld2 wrote:
Flachzange wrote:
Page 76 - Vehicles, Leadership and Morale
Change the section in bold to "Therefore, vehicles never take Morale checks or Leadership tests for any reason".

Huh? What about the Changelings special ability though?! It specifically lists vehicles as being treated with morale 10 in those instances?!?
So it doesnt work on vehicles anymore?! Thats a bummer ....

Also, sorry if this has been mentioned already ... didnt have the time to read through the entire thread yet ...

In general vehicles don't ever test. Specifically the changeling makes them test.

Thats what I was hoping for. I suppose the "never ... for any reason." threw me off though.

**pretre**

WHAT CHANGED?
They added a bullet for FMC Swooping.

Page 49 – Flying Monstrous Creatures, Swooping.
Add the following bullet point:
‘• Models that physically fit under a Swooping Flying
Monstrous Creature can move beneath it. Likewise, a Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creature can end its move over such models.
However, when moving this way, enemy models must still
remain 1" away from the base of the Swooping Flying
Monstrous Creature, and the Swooping Flying Monstrous
Creature cannot end its move with its base within 1" of other
enemy models.’

and this

This is changed from Infantry (Jump)

Page 413 - Reference, Profile, Codex: Tau Empire, Crisis Shas’vre
Change unit type to Infantry (Jetpack).

Page 413 – Reference, Profiles, Codex: Tyranids..
Add the following profiles to the Tyranids section:
Model WS BS S T W I A Ld SvType
Trygon Prime 5 3 6 6 6 4 6 10 3+Mc(ch)
Tyranid Prime 6 4 5 5 3 5 4 10 3+ In(ch)

Tyranid Prime is new/

They fixed the typo here:
Emphasis mine

Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with
Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use
blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or
otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes
weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the
Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic
powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and
novas.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Removed in new FAQ:

Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers? (p69)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Removed?

Q: Are models free to move underneath Zooming Flyers? (p80)
A: Yes, though enemy models must finish their move at least
1" away from the Flyer’s base.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Updated

Q: If a Flyer suffers Locked Velocity and was moving at Cruising
Speed (18"-36"), what speed is its velocity actually locked at? (p81)
A: 36".

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looks like that is it.

**Pyriel-**

I don't understand why full reserve armies are not allowed. What is the point in giving full reserve armies an auto lose at the end of turn 1? It should be at the end of Turn 2 or after that you lose if you are tabled so you can use Flyers, Deep Strikers, and other dynamic parts of the game properly. It sucks the flavor out of my armies if I have to hide a unit or two on the board during deployment just so I can run the rest of my army the way I want. It's not like full reserve armies were top tier anyway, I just played it that way for fun... now I just lose at the end of Turn 1.

I agree. That idiotic rule removes most of the fun for me as my favorite play style is to DS everything without having to stuff the whole army into pods.

I don't see how complainin about the venerable is a defense of the non venerable dread. Other than double autocanons no dread variant is particularly useful or viable anymore (and even that ones losing its usefulness). They pay too much for a close combat statline that is borderline useless.

Because vens are overpriced to the point of uselessness relative to how few hps they have and how easy it is to remove them compared to normal dreads.

People who don't understand that patches/updates are a good thing remind me that people don't understand games or game companies at all.

That's like thanking a car company for paying for your mechanic when you have to go there two weeks after buying the car. And then two weeks after that. Sure, eventually you expected to have to use the service, things change and you wan't updates to make it all run smoothly.

Not really. The rulebook cost 60 bucks while the car costs 30 000 bucks. "Slight" difference in expectation and service after buying.

This is just not true. In many cases, it was the guy playing a balanced/fluffy list that got stomped. The player running a 27+lance list for DE is still sitting pretty. The poor folks who bought 30+ finecast wracks for their nifty, original Cult of skin army are hosed.

Precisely. Minmax spam shouldnt be encouraged but varied "fun" army builds should,,,no matter army.

Fear the mighty monolith weapons - mass bolters! Run, they got bolters! LOTS OF 'EM. Furthermore, can you Land Raider move more than 6'' per turn? Monolith can't. Neither do we have smoke launchers. No melta weapons. One blast weapon, that's all.

Can the land raider deepstrike across the table or teleport infantry?

**warboss**

Pyriel- wrote:
Can the land raider deepstrike across the table or teleport infantry?

In fairness, my Sons of Sanguinius can deepstriek their landraiders... but its a monumentally stupid idea to do so without the "your butt is so big.." rule.

Either way, I'm glad they're treating the monolith differently as its a different vehicle with completely different fluff behind it as a huge teleporting skimmer compared with a large tracked vehicle.

**ShumaGorath**

Not really. The rulebook cost 60 bucks while the car costs 30 000 bucks. "Slight" difference in expectation and service after buying.

And an online app is usually free and ad supported. It's also an electronic app where a car is a car and a rulebook is a rulebook. These are all different things. I was drawing an alternative wacky comparison. Either way, they should have edited the book to not self conflict so laughably often. FAQs are nice, but voluminous and self conflicting FAQs are indicative of an exceptionally poorly controlled system of editing, balancing, and general design. It indicates an incrediby lax design culture at GW and that's bad.

Because vens are overpriced to the point of uselessness relative to how few hps they have and how easy it is to remove them compared to normal dreads.

Which, again, is not a defense of the regular dread. Just an indictment of the venerable. The way you got up in my grill and called my post worthless after you "explicitly explained why regular dreads aren't bad" I would have thought you would have touched on it at some point and actually explained why.

Turns out you just wanted to yell.

**Arschbombe**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just realized:

Page 22 – "Drop Pod Assault...

Immobile: A Drop Pod cannot move once it has entered the
battle, and counts in all respects as a vehicle that has suffered
an Immobilised damage result that cannot be repaired in any
way.
....”

Is this the same text as in the other marine codices? Doesn't this mean that pods start the game on the table minus one hull point?

**kronk**

I just read that as immobilized, not as missing a hull point.

**Backfire**

Nagashek wrote:

And yet PP just comes out with new casters, new units, and new models without doing so at the expense of everything that came before. Builds change and shift based on meta, and the balance of power does shift within lists, but the factions are still balanced against each other. "Dumb Companies" break things for fun and force change. "Smart companies" entice you with new fun and invite change. Forced change loses players who become fed up with getting jerked around. Invited change keeps players excited. For those who continue to play, both make money, but one has a diminishing player base, the other an increasing one. "WotC" is a smart company. They made Magic: the Gathering. That stuff never goes obsolete, and with two tournament types and super low cost, it likely never will. (Yes, I know that some cards aren't allowed in tournament play anymore, but those are primarily first editions. Most other first edition cards are still in play and with the same rules. How many Rogue Trader units can say the same?)

I have dozens of Magic cards which are totally obsolete - either they can't be played at all under current rules (all the Ante cards), they are banned (Channel etc), core rules have changed so that the cards are almost totally useless (Plague Rats), they have non-functioning rules (Banding) or WotC have released new, better versions of the card making the old cards useless (lots of cards, particularly creatures).

"Super low cost"? Ok...whatever...

On the other hand, you claim that nerf to assault makes assault units "obsolete" (ie. unplayable). Your definition of "obsolete" seems to be pretty flexible.