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.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/02/warhammer-40000-faq-now-available-july2gw-homepage-post-1/

Including erratas, for each Index and book they released.

EDIT: Already posted in General Discussions, lock or delete as you wish, admins

Thanks for the link. I would have missed it.

Ah, so the split rule for Horrors and Curse of the walking Pox for Poxwalkers that add models to the unit, do not cost you points for those models. Only new units cost reinforcement points. (Page 3 - Rulebook FAQ)

It's laughable that the spell to kill a character and turn them into a spawn requires me to have a spawn in reserve. To hell with that.

Sigh...my Blood Angels Assault Squad is still not legal. Give me my Inferno Pistols instead of Flamers!

On the bright side, I might give one of my other ones the really cool Blood Angels Plasmagun now that it is legal again.

Messiah wrote:
Ah, so the split rule for Horrors and Curse of the walking Pox for Poxwalkers that add models to the unit, do not cost you points for those models. Only new units cost reinforcement points. (Page 3 - Rulebook FAQ)

You still have to pay for Horrors as their Split rule explicitly states it (see the Matched Play note).

Nvs wrote:
It's laughable that the spell to kill a character and turn them into a spawn requires me to have a spawn in reserve. To hell with that.

You only need to have sufficient points to pay for it if you actually want to place it. Manifesting the power and killing their dude (aka the important parts imho, unless you really need that one extra model on an objective) do not require any reserved points.

Hope you didn't go all in on Acolytes.

If I'm reading this right the Rhino Primaris still blows itself up on a 1.

Shield drones just got absolutely crushed with the change to Saviour Protocols.

I suppose they are still decent since if the enemy focuses them they are a bit tougher but changing the wound-transfer for Saviour Protocols to a mortal wound all but renders them useless in comparison to Gun Drones.

Not understanding all the teeth gnashing about the Shield Drones. They are brought in line with everything else in the game that lets you transfer wounds. 8 pts for an extra wound on a unit that you want to protect is still a steal. They still get their Invuln when protecting characters, too, as you can't target characters unless they are closest - so you have to target the Drone.

Tyranids pay 12.5 points per wound for Tyrant Guard, who have the same bodyguard function - except restricted to only Hive Tyrants.

Do we know if the digital versions have already been updated with the changes?

This is one of the main reasons I went for digital versions vs paperback.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Do we know if the digital versions have already been updated with the changes?

This is one of the main reasons I went for digital versions vs paperback.

this

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If I'm reading this right the Rhino Primaris still blows itself up on a 1.

can it transport Primaris Marines now?

 JohnU wrote:
Hope you didn't go all in on Acolytes.

Did some people actually think that acolytes were supposed to have 3 wounds and played them that way?

 Dr Mathias wrote:
Did some people actually think that acolytes were supposed to have 3 wounds and played them that way?

Based on the amount of inane bickering that totally eskews logic in favour of bleating on about RAW?

Yes.

But only because thats what the rules explicitly said, for once.

 Dr Mathias wrote:

 JohnU wrote:
Hope you didn't go all in on Acolytes.

Did some people actually think that acolytes were supposed to have 3 wounds and played them that way?

They stripped away almost everything unique & interesting about Inquisitorial retinues to pad out other minifactions, so yeah I'd wager plenty of folk might have thought making the bland bullet-catchers that remained actually good at catching bullets was a little pity-trade so people could keep their often lovingly converted models on the table for a bit longer.

Yeah, but, why do Plasma Guns explode more at night?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, but, why do Plasma Guns explode more at night?

Clearly the numbers on the power dials are hard to see in the dark so they keep setting it to 11 by accident instead of 10.

 rollawaythestone wrote:
Not understanding all the teeth gnashing about the Shield Drones. They are brought in line with everything else in the game that lets you transfer wounds.

I just now realized how much of a strange argument that is. The armies various wargear rely on being different in order to function as equipment for that army otherwise you run the risk of ill-fitting rules.

As another example: Kustom Mega Blastas (and their divergences). despite their differences, they are ork plasma guns, if you could only fire one shot, can't choose to not overcharge it, fired by a BS5+ ork, and has random damage. It's one saving grace is that on a 1 it only does one mortal wound rather than slaying the wielder outright. But lets say it was changed to ""On a 1 the wielder is slain". It would make it all but useless, because the benefit is completely out weighted by the drawback. But now it's "more in line" with other plasma guns.

Ok, so from the FAQ:

Q. Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A. No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).

As I read this, they answer no and then go on to describe excatly the same circumstances as those listed in the question. Very odd...

Also, does this mean that models (like vehicles) obscures and therefore gives cover?

/ Fredrik

Crazy_swede wrote:
As I read this, they answer no and then go on to describe excatly the same circumstances as those listed in the question. Very odd...

They dont. The question and example are different, but only just.

Question is do the non-infantry units benefit from cover if they are at least 50% obscured but not on or within the terrain.

Example states that they do, but they must be on or within the terrain, namely that they are not obscured if the terrain is just between the shooter and the target.

So, a tank must have driven entirely into a copse or crater to be obscured, it cant have part of it sticking out.

Crazy_swede wrote:
Ok, so from the FAQ:

Q. Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A. No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).

As I read this, they answer no and then go on to describe excatly the same circumstances as those listed in the question. Very odd...

Also, does this mean that models (like vehicles) obscures and therefore gives cover?

/ Fredrik

They do this a couple of times in both this FAQ and in prior FAQs.

"Simple Question?"

"No, however lengthy pedantry boiling down to yes."

changemod wrote:

Crazy_swede wrote:
Ok, so from the FAQ:

Q. Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A. No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).

As I read this, they answer no and then go on to describe excatly the same circumstances as those listed in the question. Very odd...

Also, does this mean that models (like vehicles) obscures and therefore gives cover?

/ Fredrik

They do this a couple of times in both this FAQ and in prior FAQs.

"Simple Question?"

"No, however lengthy pedantry boiling down to yes."

No, they say the unit has to be on/in the terrain AND obscured 50% by it to get cover.

The question was asking if a unit not in terrain could still benefit from that cover if obscured by it, and that answer is no.

 yakface wrote:

changemod wrote:

Crazy_swede wrote:
Ok, so from the FAQ:

Q. Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A. No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).

As I read this, they answer no and then go on to describe excatly the same circumstances as those listed in the question. Very odd...

Also, does this mean that models (like vehicles) obscures and therefore gives cover?

/ Fredrik

They do this a couple of times in both this FAQ and in prior FAQs.

"Simple Question?"

"No, however lengthy pedantry boiling down to yes."

No, they say the unit has to be on/in the terrain AND obscured 50% by it to get cover.

The question was asking if a unit not in terrain could still benefit from that cover if obscured by it, and that answer is no.

Exactly. No, but if you split hairs yes.

Simpler if you want to do that: Reword the question to spell out the correct interpretation, saves space and sounds less pedantic. It's not an interview, the FAQ writer decides the final wording of the question.

Has anyone noticed the huge changes for Genestealer Cult?

Purestrain Genestealers got a massive buff!!! They are 8pts cheaper base and get free Purestrain talons that were 3pts each. The talons are almost useless (in my opinion), but still a slight buff.

Heavy Rock Cutter got -1 to hit. I find this interesting because the other heavy rock weapons didn't receive this.

Cult Icon that was previously free because points were listed in the index now cost 20pts.

changemod wrote:

 yakface wrote:

Spoiler:

changemod wrote:

Crazy_swede wrote:
Ok, so from the FAQ:

Q. Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?
A. No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:
• All of its models must be either on or within the terrain.
• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from the point
of view of the firer (note that it doesn’t matter what is
obscuring the target, only that it is obscured).

As I read this, they answer no and then go on to describe excatly the same circumstances as those listed in the question. Very odd...

Also, does this mean that models (like vehicles) obscures and therefore gives cover?

/ Fredrik

They do this a couple of times in both this FAQ and in prior FAQs.

"Simple Question?"

"No, however lengthy pedantry boiling down to yes."

No, they say the unit has to be on/in the terrain AND obscured 50% by it to get cover.

The question was asking if a unit not in terrain could still benefit from that cover if obscured by it, and that answer is no.

Exactly. No, but if you split hairs yes.

Simpler if you want to do that: Reword the question to spell out the correct interpretation, saves space and sounds less pedantic. It's not an interview, the FAQ writer decides the final wording of the question.

No, their response was "No. <Explanation of why it's no>."
They aren't splitting hairs at all, they are explaining why the answer is no, so people can understand WHY it's no (likely because many people who've played previous editions assume that being obscured = in cover, so they are making it clear why it's no and not just some nebulous 'because we say no, go find the rules reason why yourself').


Unless of course you somehow think it's possible for a model to both be standing on/within terrain while also completely not being on/within terrain.

So just being behind the terrain isn't enough?

Going back to my big rock example from the LOS debacle, is this Baneblade in cover?

By the rules & by the FaQ, it is not.

Not saying I don't find it stupid myself, mind you - but dem the rules.

It can shoot with everything, it can be shot by everything.

Simple stuff really.