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.

Have a question, I did a quick search but couldn’t find the answer.

Do you roll to see if models embarked in a transport are destroyed EVERY time a transport is destroyed, or only when that transport “explodes”

Relevant rule wording:
If there are any units embarked within the destroyed TRANSPORT model, these must now immediately disembark before the model itself is removed from the battlefield; these units are not affected by the destroyed model’s Explodes ability (or equivalent) – instead you must roll one D6 for each model you just set up on the battlefield. For each roll of 1, a model that disembarked (your choice) is destroyed.

It sounds like it could go either way, and the bullets below it certainly imply it’s done every time.

Side note: where the heck is the rule book FAQ? I see an errata, but there were no FAQs in the document.

Every time.

Yea, the more I read it, the more I’m thinking because it says the embarked unit isn’t effected by the transport’s “explodes” ability, it’s replaced by this action that takes place every time.

Agreed, it reads as every time to me too, though I see the need to ask.

rbacus wrote:
Side note: where the heck is the rule book FAQ? I see an errata, but there were no FAQs in the document.

There isn't one yet - the errata is all we have - but, people will still refer to that as the FAQ as a shorthand term.

 Super Ready wrote:
Agreed, it reads as every time to me too, though I see the need to ask.

rbacus wrote:
Side note: where the heck is the rule book FAQ? I see an errata, but there were no FAQs in the document.

There isn't one yet - the errata is all we have - but, people will still refer to that as the FAQ as a shorthand term.

The Warhammer 40,000 Core Book Errata v1.1 came out barely a month after the release of 9th edition. With the current state of things there really wasn't enough time for many 'Frequently Asked Questions' to be asked for the biannual 40k FAQ update in September. Barring any major problems that need an immediate change, we won't see an update to the Core Rules Errata until April (note they are behind schedule with the Codex Necron and Space Marine FAQs):

Sadly GW backpedaled on the 2 week thing, it's now 4 weeks. It should have been released today, and I would be genuinely surprised if it released on Monday.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/10/10/pre-order-now-mega-gargants-necrons-and-more/

A note about FAQs: We’ll be publishing the first FAQ for new battletomes and codexes four weeks after the book arrives, instead of two, moving forward. This gives the Studio team a little more time to collect feedback and make sure they’re not missing anything. This includes the new Space Marines and Necrons codexes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Sadly GW backpedaled on the 2 week thing, it's now 4 weeks. It should have been released today, and I would be genuinely surprised if it released on Monday.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/10/10/pre-order-now-mega-gargants-necrons-and-more/

A note about FAQs: We’ll be publishing the first FAQ for new battletomes and codexes four weeks after the book arrives, instead of two, moving forward. This gives the Studio team a little more time to collect feedback and make sure they’re not missing anything. This includes the new Space Marines and Necrons codexes.

Missed that bit in the article about the change in codex FAQ releases. If they keep to releasing two codices a month, every month then it's a reasonable change.