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.

So I was just reading the new FAQ's released this month by GW and I wanted to post something positive somewhere about how GW actually closed some rather contentious gaps in their rules system.

I won't go into them all but;

General
-Flyers choose hover before troops disembark
-Allies of convenience do not contest your own objectives (not that anyone realistically believed it but it is official now )
-The blast/ID debate about swarms is over as the wounds are not multiplied
-Immobilised, etc. do not remove hull points only glance and penetrate results do
-Imotekh’s ‘Lord of the Storm’ hurts allies of convenience...I will have to remember that when I see Necron/Chaos Marine combos
-Fortifications are not models on the board when seeing if I tabled you

DA
-PFG in DA doesn't radiate from a vehicle when the unit is embarked
-DWA counts toward reserves

This was a very good month for 40K rules and I would like to give Kudos to GW. This is despite the fact that the only CWE FAQ is another nerf... who is updating that FAQ? Were they abused by CWE when they started 40K? Inquiring minds want to know!

So are there any other big ones you folks saw?

Is there any specific reason for the large number of big issue/important updates?

and are any of you somewhat impressed or is my opinion normally so low that this seems impressive?

 ansacs wrote:
and are any of you somewhat impressed or is my opinion normally so low that this seems impressive?

Somewhat impressed that they are actually updating the FAQs... less impressed that it is necessary for there to be so many updates in the first place. So many of these are issues that should have been seen during development, not after the book has been released.

It is good to see Abaddon can't be turned into a prince or spawn anymore. The more reason to take him

 AL-PiXeL01 wrote:
It is good to see Abaddon can't be turned into a prince or spawn anymore. The more reason to take him

Forgot to list that one but yeah that was a good add to the rules. Though Abaddon going to spawn was the funniest "boon" in the game.

Initiative cannot go below 1, so that solves arguments about being able to attack if your initiative is reduced to 0

The Beats of War guys mocked GW hard about allies of conveinence in a video so that probably is why it was clarified.

My favourite one was the change to the Gun Emplacement, so that only Non-vehicle models can shoot it, no more claiming your Rhino can fire a Quad--gun

Howling banshees have power swords now on their entry as opposed to power weapon. No more axe banshees

JWhex wrote:
Initiative cannot go below 1, so that solves arguments about being able to attack if your initiative is reduced to 0

The Beats of War guys mocked GW hard about allies of conveinence in a video so that probably is why it was clarified.

People care about what they say? Half the time they can't even get the rules that don't need correcting wrong.

Vehicles cannot use the ADL gun now either.

Kinda funny that people tried to weasel that in but i can see where theyre getting at with it.

The immobilized not causing a hull point loss is the only one that applies to my meta really, none of us tried to weasel the rest of that stuff.

mrmega wrote:
Howling banshees have power swords now on their entry as opposed to power weapon. No more axe banshees

I think that 3 FAQs ago, sometime last year.
It's nice to have swords all-round, but the Exarch is the only member of the unit to have anything else.

Tau suits are clarified as being able to take 3 single weapons, which I assume also lets them take 2 single weapons, so that's cleared up.

Pretty bummed about DWA counting towards reserves.
It's not like DW was that competitive, they were just a lot of fun.
I guess it encourages taking Ravenwing to drop them on.

I'm pretty excited that the PFG only extends to the unit inside the transport -- in the last tournament I had to deal with a Land Raider with a Tech Marine inside with a PFG and the Land Raider kept making its armor saves. This also makes me think that banners inside vehicles may be reduced, as well, in later FAQs.

Storm lord lightning power being able to hit flyers now opens a big can of worms in the rules, too. Let the rules lawyering commence. Plus its not like Crons were short on ways to attack flyers.

I'm glad they updated the rules, but I'm annoyed that they broke the precedent set by other armies for the DA power field, and that they made is so Deathwing Sergeants can't change their weapons.

 insaniak wrote:
Somewhat impressed that they are actually updating the FAQs... less impressed that it is necessary for there to be so many updates in the first place. So many of these are issues that should have been seen during development, not after the book has been released.

I'd have to disagree.
In games with rulebooks stuff like this is inevitable, there will always be 'flaws' in the rules.
Especially in a game like Warhammer which isn't really supported in a competitive scene.

If anything they should FAQ more frequent and more individually.
Spot a mistake? Fix it as soon as possible, don't wait for 10 codexes with multiple changes.
Or at least have a monthly update.

Kangodo wrote:
In games with rulebooks stuff like this is inevitable, there will always be 'flaws' in the rules.

Unintended loopholes due to an unexpected interaction between rules are inevitable.

Not noticing, for example, that you inadvertently removed the rule that forbids friendly models from moving through each other when you re-write the terrain rules, or that your poor choice of wording allows rhinos to man anti-aircraft guns is not.

Kangodo wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Somewhat impressed that they are actually updating the FAQs... less impressed that it is necessary for there to be so many updates in the first place. So many of these are issues that should have been seen during development, not after the book has been released.

I'd have to disagree.
In games with rulebooks stuff like this is inevitable, there will always be 'flaws' in the rules.
Especially in a game like Warhammer which isn't really supported in a competitive scene.

If anything they should FAQ more frequent and more individually.
Spot a mistake? Fix it as soon as possible, don't wait for 10 codexes with multiple changes.
Or at least have a monthly update.

While this is true, the core rulebook is $75 in the US. Most of that isn't even rules. And majority of the rules haven't changed in a massive way for an edition or two. A lot of the things they FAQ should have been fixed before they released the book. Especially for a relativity big company like GW.

I have payed $20 for rulebooks that have had better writing in the actual rules than I have in most of my GW rulebooks.

I like the fact they are fixing things, but some of it really shouldn't have been an issue from the start

I'm glad they cleared up the issue with being removed from play and being removed as a casualty.

Can someone help me make sense of the new vehicle hull point rules? How does a vehicle not suffer a lost hull point if it lost a weapon or got immobilized? I thought vehicles automatically lost a hull point once it gets penetrated. Someone please help

 earlofburger wrote:
Can someone help me make sense of the new vehicle hull point rules? How does a vehicle not suffer a lost hull point if it lost a weapon or got immobilized? I thought vehicles automatically lost a hull point once it gets penetrated. Someone please help

They still do, the FAQ specifically says that glances and pens still knock off a hull point. This covers when results from the damage table happen in the absence of a penetrating hit, like being hit with a thunder hammer and taking a shaken result in addition to whatever else it does. So it clarifies that even though you take a result from the table (crew shaken) you don't lose another hull point for it.

I am just happy they ruled on the blast weapon wound allocation debate in regards to LOS. That arguement was getting old.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

 earlofburger wrote:
Can someone help me make sense of the new vehicle hull point rules? How does a vehicle not suffer a lost hull point if it lost a weapon or got immobilized? I thought vehicles automatically lost a hull point once it gets penetrated. Someone please help

They still do, the FAQ specifically says that glances and pens still knock off a hull point. This covers when results from the damage table happen in the absence of a penetrating hit, like being hit with a thunder hammer and taking a shaken result in addition to whatever else it does. So it clarifies that even though you take a result from the table (crew shaken) you don't lose another hull point for it.

The big thing was immobilization due to terrain.

The IG and Ork faqs were pointless, but it sounds like the rulebook faq's helped a bit.

Literally, the IG codex got a "fix" that said "hell if we know, roll a die every game and see what happens."

 ansacs wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

 earlofburger wrote:
Can someone help me make sense of the new vehicle hull point rules? How does a vehicle not suffer a lost hull point if it lost a weapon or got immobilized? I thought vehicles automatically lost a hull point once it gets penetrated. Someone please help

They still do, the FAQ specifically says that glances and pens still knock off a hull point. This covers when results from the damage table happen in the absence of a penetrating hit, like being hit with a thunder hammer and taking a shaken result in addition to whatever else it does. So it clarifies that even though you take a result from the table (crew shaken) you don't lose another hull point for it.

The big thing was immobilization due to terrain.

Right, but I couldn't remember if they had made a separate ruling on that, so I decided to hedge my bets and pick a different example .