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 wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Perfect, then. Mine is mounted on a magnet and can swivel pretty far.

Well, I will be bringing a protractor, just to make sure you don't exceed 45 degrees!

You don't need a protractor. The weapon's arc is represented quite nicely by the slide rail on which it is mounted.

You either have no sense of humor... or your humor is so dry, I didn't even get it.

Or you were being legitimately helpful... on the INTERNET. Which seems impossible.

Shut up and take my money!!!

Where do I get my limited edition, official GW 40K compass & protracter set?

Wow...I'm stunned by just the grenade ruling alone and cannot even delve into what other surreal ajudications lies inside those Facebook FAQ Follies.....

So as I read it, only one model in a squad can attack at initiative when assaulting into cover.
Only one model can remove an assault players bonus attack from charging.
A single haywire grenade is nearly worthless (though admitted a squad full of them is downright mean).

(please correct me if I have misunderstood the FAQ that this ruling does not affect ALL Grenades ALL forms as ALL Grenades are thrown to take effect (except for Meltabombs, which I'm fairly sure still fallls under this ruling) I have not been able to scour all 27 pages of this thread, so I am uncertain if people have figured this out.


It makes the whole concept of grenade upgrades to a squad as a "per model" cost ridiculous. Why not charge a "per model" cost on special/heavy weapon upgrades (meaning each member of the squad pay the weapon price, though only 1 model may fire the weapon per turn?


I hope that doesn't stick. I'll never buy a squad a grenade upgrade of any type ever again.

I dont think you have to necessarily use a grenade to avoid the cover penalty. IIRC it just states you need to have them.

Yeah, the FAQ doesn't change Initiative bonuses. It just clarifies that the ' only 1 model can throw ' part applies both to shooting and to using it as a weapon in close combat.

 Desubot wrote:
I dont think you have to necessarily use a grenade to avoid the cover penalty. IIRC it just states you need to have them.

Thanks for the answer. I believe from a RAW standpoint, that is the ground you have to take IF you want the FAQ ruling to stand. I beleive that is where people will ty to draw the line to prevent this from affecting ALL grenades of ALL types. the wording in the rulebook for making this kind of exception for grenades whose effects to not inflict actual damage is very loose on what defines WHAT causes the grenade effect. the most common forms of grenade verbage are:Owning grenades,Using grenades and sometimes references to grenades being throwngrenades.

In MY 40k universe, when you thorw the grenade andit goes boom, THAT's what keeps the enemy with his head down.

I do not fault you for answering as such and I mean no offense to you in the following hyperbole I'm about to embark.(seriously, you are probbly very cool since you were at least nice enough to answer liek us all, you are just the unwitting victom of poor rules governance on the part of an evil wargaming enetertainment conglomerate's overtasked games development team.

Offense can be inferrer to the authors of the FAQ, as it is truly as blasphemous and heretical to good rules modelingas anything I have ever seen in my 95 years in the gaming hobby (I first started playng in the pre-RT days when it was still Warhammer:9,861!!!)

the rules for grenades exist to repreesent the act of throwing grenades in combat to have their intended effect....The idea that a grenade is not actuallly thrown or used to benefit from an effect is a terribly poor abstraction of a modeled rulebase ever imagined.

from now on, I have to imagine that instead of space marines throwing grenades into trenches as they move into assault, they now instead just point threateningly to the dangling greandes that adorn their belt . the terified enemy(in their entreched defensive fortification) quiver at the MERE CONCEPT of the marines OWNING grenades that they freeze like a deer in the headlights to be slaughterd.... and never a grenade is thrown again in the entire universe.

In the grim darkness of the 41st millennia, there is only war, or at least the preemptive owning of war-like items preempting the need of actually having to use them and cause unpleasantries like things blowing up and stuff....

You don't need to change your thinking at all, because the initiative boat from charging with grenades was never the result of a physical attack. You don't resolve a shooting attack on the charge... It's all resolved on the abstract plane.

So whether one guy in the unit is actually hurling a grenade or they all are, the end result is the same.

 insaniak wrote:
You don't need to change your thinking at all, because the initiative boat from charging with grenades was never the result of a physical attack. You don't resolve a shooting attack on the charge... It's all resolved on the abstract plane.

So whether one guy in the unit is actually hurling a grenade or they all are, the end result is the same.

Yep. Its also supported by the FAQ as well:

Q: Do weapon special rules that say ‘a model equipped with this weapon’ or ‘this weapon’s bearer’ take effect even when not used as the attacking weapon?
A: Yes.

The same should apply to grenades as well, as Assault, Plasma and Defensive Grenades give their extra benefits simply by being equipped with them.

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, the FAQ doesn't change Initiative bonuses. It just clarifies that the ' only 1 model can throw ' part applies both to shooting and to using it as a weapon in close combat.

I mean this sincerely.(you are a long stnding member on here Dakka^2 ) and Ive come to respect your opinion...

But why doesn't it change intitiative or other bonuses?


the rulebook phrase akin to "only one model per unit can throw a grenade of any type" is now reinforced by this FAQ ruling.

It really feels like splitting hairs by saying that the effect of the modeled rule/object (grenade) is caused by owning it (shiny!!) and not by it being used/thrown (KABOOM!!!).


This gets all very much into a "what is the defintion of the word 'IS' is?" kinda thing.and opens up more questions than it answers to me. Do you just have to own the grenade or actaully "use" it? is "using" a grenade the act of throwing it? is throwing a grenade the same as attaking with it? I can have a whole phonebook(anachronism) of new questions based on that one answer from GW by tomrrow morning.

What if an abilty is given to a unit/model and it "Counts as having type X grenade." but ithe effect does not come from throwing a small pineapple-shaped object somewhere.(perferably close to the enemy and away fro me). For example, if I have a loud eletric based guitar that makes me "count as being equipped with offensive and defensive grenades" do I have to throw my electric guitar in order to gain the effect? since ithe effect is generate from my JAMMING OUT(i'm teribly hip and current wit hte latest phrases) Do I get the benefit of offensive and defensive grenades. That first paragraph in the grenades section really has an impact I never noticed until now.

a meltabomb is NEVER thrown by it's description and it's rules for the non-use in the shooting phase, it only mentions that it "used". Since it does not give the method by which it is "used", but it is known NOT to be thrown, are they exempt from this ruling?

it feels like we're all trying really hard to let this abysmally constructed ruling NOT effect the value of anything unlucky enough to be governed by the grenades section of the 40k main rulebook.

(I know I'm using hyperbole in my argument, but again please know this is not a sign of disrespect towards you or your answer, jst of a very poorly concievd GW answer)

 derling wrote:
It really feels like splitting hairs by saying that the effect of the modeled rule/object (grenade) is caused by owning it (shiny!!) and not by it being used/thrown (KABOOM)

And yet its totally supported by the FAQ I quoted.

 derling wrote:

But why doesn't it change intitiative or other bonuses?


the rulebook phrase akin to "only one model per unit can throw a grenade of any type" is now reinforced by this FAQ ruling.

What it reinforces is that 'throwing' is synonymous with ' making an attack with'.


The initiative bonus comes from (fluffwise) chucking grenades as the model charges, but rules-wise this isn't reflected by an actual attack... It's just a passive effect that is in play if you have the requisite equipment.

 Ghaz wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
You don't need to change your thinking at all, because the initiative boat from charging with grenades was never the result of a physical attack. You don't resolve a shooting attack on the charge... It's all resolved on the abstract plane.

So whether one guy in the unit is actually hurling a grenade or they all are, the end result is the same.

Yep. Its also supported by the FAQ as well:

Q: Do weapon special rules that say ‘a model equipped with this weapon’ or ‘this weapon’s bearer’ take effect even when not used as the attacking weapon?
A: Yes.

The same should apply to grenades as well, as Assault, Plasma and Defensive Grenades give their extra benefits simply by being equipped with them.

Whie preparing a response to this post (which had eve MORE TERRIFYING REVELATIONS!!), I was able to slow down and comprehend Ghaz's (and all preious others) answers as to why this poor ruling doesn't break ALL grenades of ALL types.

I still hate the GW ruling on thie matter and corrupts the universal modelling of all objects (grenade), but it does not dos not destroy all thins( grenade).

thanks all!

Just wanted to point out this error on the recent Space Marine FAQ that may or may not have been noticed by people or posted already in the thread. It's posted in the comments on the facebook page:

Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
For the last question on this page, the answer should be 'No'.

Please refrain from cutting all the arms off your Apothecaries, they need them for their nartheciums.

Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: No.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Just wanted to point out this error on the recent Space Marine FAQ that may or may not have been noticed by people or posted already in the thread. It's posted in the comments on the facebook page:

Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
For the last question on this page, the answer should be 'No'.

Please refrain from cutting all the arms off your Apothecaries, they need them for their nartheciums.

Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: No.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750/689814.page#8705513

 Red Marine wrote:
Shut up and take my money!!!

Where do I get my limited edition, official GW 40K compass & protracter set?

Here you go.



EDIT: huge photo

Funny enough, Privateer Press actually came up with it first

'First' is a stretch. PP are a long, long way from being the first company to make gauges like that.

Regardless of who else has offered similar products though, the GW one is remarkable for being the first to require you to mortgage a kidney in order to afford it...

 insaniak wrote:
'First' is a stretch. PP are a long, long way from being the first company to make gauges like that.

Regardless of who else has offered similar products though, the GW one is remarkable for being the first to require you to mortgage a kidney in order to afford it...

C'mon now, don't exaggerate. You don't have to sell a kidney, some blood will do

 Ghaz wrote:

Q: Do weapon special rules that say ‘a model equipped with this weapon’ or ‘this weapon’s bearer’ take effect even when not used as the attacking weapon?
A: Yes.

The same should apply to grenades as well, as Assault, Plasma and Defensive Grenades give their extra benefits simply by being equipped with them.

Well, it does. Plasma grenades, say, "Models equipped with plasma grenades don't suffer the penalty to their Initiative for charging enemies through difficult terrain, but fight at their normal initiative step in the ensuing combat." So that means that models (bearing) plasma grenades get that bonus whether or not they're using a plasma grenade that turn.

It's actually a good question, and a good answer, IMO, because prior to the FAQ, it would be reasonable to argue -- "why would a model get the plasma grenade bonus for charging through difficult terrain if the grenade is on their belt and they're holding a pistol in one hand and knife in the other?" The answer now, is, "because it's a game and the game rules say so and the FAQ says that the rules work the way they're written, whether it passes the common sense reality test or not."

 Talys wrote:

It's actually a good question, and a good answer, IMO, because prior to the FAQ, it would be reasonable to argue -- "why would a model get the plasma grenade bonus for charging through difficult terrain if the grenade is on their belt and they're holding a pistol in one hand and knife in the other?" The answer now, is, "because it's a game and the game rules say so and the FAQ says that the rules work the way they're written, whether it passes the common sense reality test or not."

Put knife away/down, throw grenade with free hand then grab the knife again. How exactly do you think actual soldiers use grenades in combat? It's not like you're able to properly use something like a G36 one-handed - your rifle becomes "inoperable" while throwing a grenade.

Yeah, grenades are still allowed to be used for initiaitive, calm down.

The guy who posted the giant Warmachine templates and ruined the page format needs to burn, though.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Yeah, grenades are still allowed to be used for initiaitive, calm down.

The guy who posted the giant Warmachine templates and ruined the page format needs to burn, though.

There are nicer ways to get results. Besides, the guy before me ruined the format first, then stealth changed his pic

 insaniak wrote:
'First' is a stretch. PP are a long, long way from being the first company to make gauges like that.

Regardless of who else has offered similar products though, the GW one is remarkable for being the first to require you to mortgage a kidney in order to afford it...

Well to be fair we don't know everything that every companies make. Of course PP is not the first one to make them, but I see what the poster was saying as the first of the major companies to put one out for sale. In other words, GW copied PP.

Davor wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
'First' is a stretch. PP are a long, long way from being the first company to make gauges like that.

Regardless of who else has offered similar products though, the GW one is remarkable for being the first to require you to mortgage a kidney in order to afford it...

Well to be fair we don't know everything that every companies make. Of course PP is not the first one to make them, but I see what the poster was saying as the first of the major companies to put one out for sale. In other words, GW copied PP.

To be fair I'm pretty sure GW has been in business making games longer than any other company (name one thats been in business longer) and almost all other game companies have taken at least inspiration from GW and a lot more.

Also, I've always felt that GW thinks they live on a floating cloud above the rest of us mortals gifting us with their commandments (rules) as they see fit and are too self absorbed to notice the passing lives of us mortals (i.e. acknowledge the existence of PP never mind copy their ideas). Latest facebook FAQ stuff being the very first time they acknowledged our puny existence.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Latest facebook FAQ stuff being the very first time they acknowledged our puny existence.

See what happens when we vote with our wallet?

 Ghaz wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Just wanted to point out this error on the recent Space Marine FAQ that may or may not have been noticed by people or posted already in the thread. It's posted in the comments on the facebook page:

Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
For the last question on this page, the answer should be 'No'.

Please refrain from cutting all the arms off your Apothecaries, they need them for their nartheciums.

Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: No.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750/689814.page#8705513

I saw that and I had no choice but to do a Picard facepalm. Seriously, after the drop pod ruling it is the Apothecary they are worried about? I mean, apothecaries with upgrades is hardly game breaking or unreasonable, and it in fact adds some usability to the apothecary. Where as the drop pod thing creates nothing but problems. Just when I think GW is making a step in the right direction, they do something to show all they have done is tripped, fell, and smashed their face into the ground.

ROFL thats hilarious.

glad i played that one right.

 NorseSig wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Just wanted to point out this error on the recent Space Marine FAQ that may or may not have been noticed by people or posted already in the thread. It's posted in the comments on the facebook page:

Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
For the last question on this page, the answer should be 'No'.

Please refrain from cutting all the arms off your Apothecaries, they need them for their nartheciums.

Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: No.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750/689814.page#8705513

I saw that and I had no choice but to do a Picard facepalm. Seriously, after the drop pod ruling it is the Apothecary they are worried about? I mean, apothecaries with upgrades is hardly game breaking or unreasonable, and it in fact adds some usability to the apothecary. Where as the drop pod thing creates nothing but problems. Just when I think GW is making a step in the right direction, they do something to show all they have done is tripped, fell, and smashed their face into the ground.

Yup, so much this ^^. So a Apothecary with a special weapon is 'broken' but the gak-storm they opened up ( get it? its funny because I say its funny[said in my best Alucard voice]) with the drop-pods is just arm chair quarterbackrific. Thanks for delivering again bob the temp @ GW

 FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Just wanted to point out this error on the recent Space Marine FAQ that may or may not have been noticed by people or posted already in the thread. It's posted in the comments on the facebook page:

Hey Folks,
Whoops, we got one wrong there.
For the last question on this page, the answer should be 'No'.

Please refrain from cutting all the arms off your Apothecaries, they need them for their nartheciums.

Q: Is it possible for an Apothecary to carry items from the Special Weapons and/or Melee Weapons lists (e.g. by a Veteran purchasing upgrades, and being subsequently upgraded to an Apothecary)?
A: No.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750/689814.page#8705513

I saw that and I had no choice but to do a Picard facepalm. Seriously, after the drop pod ruling it is the Apothecary they are worried about? I mean, apothecaries with upgrades is hardly game breaking or unreasonable, and it in fact adds some usability to the apothecary. Where as the drop pod thing creates nothing but problems. Just when I think GW is making a step in the right direction, they do something to show all they have done is tripped, fell, and smashed their face into the ground.

Yup, so much this ^^. So a Apothecary with a special weapon is 'broken' but the gak-storm they opened up ( get it? its funny because I say its funny[said in my best Alucard voice]) with the drop-pods is just arm chair quarterbackrific. Thanks for delivering again bob the temp @ GW

No. The guy in the graphics department put up the wrong answer to the Apothecary question (or something to that effect). It was changed to what it was supposed to be even before it was posted incorrectly, not due to feedback on the Facebook page.

 Ghaz wrote:

No. The guy in the graphics department put up the wrong answer to the Apothecary question (or something to that effect). It was changed to what it was supposed to be even before it was posted incorrectly, not due to feedback on the Facebook page.

I know that. What I am saying is, so the apoth with a special weapon or a close combat weapon ( ie a powersword, power fist etc) isn't what GW wants but somehow the vague wording on the drop pods FAQ is ok and good to go?

So a Apothecary with a variant load out is 'bad' and a no go, but somehow drop pod shenanigans are A-OK? Or are we suppose to "Forge the Narrative" with drop pods also?

Thanks again bob the temp in the graphics dept for your clear and concise FAQ ruling on drop pods