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.

Ladies (?) and Gentleman, after months of hard work I am finally ready to present to you the first draft of what I'm calling the "yakFAQs", a set of completely 100% unofficial FAQs for the game of Warhammer 40,000 4th edition.

You may be asking yourself, "why the hell do we need another FAQ, especially a fan created one?"

That is a very good question, but the answer is simple: No one has ever made a FAQ for 40k quite like this before (at least to my knowledge). What makes this FAQ so much different from some of the rather complete FAQs that have been put out in the last few months (like the Adepticon FAQ)?

One word: organization.

Previously, FAQs were always divided into general sections such as "movement", "shooting", "psychic powers", etc. And as the questions pile up in the FAQ, it becomes increasingly difficult for players to find the answer to the quesiton they're looking for. Basically, you have to scan through the whole FAQ section trying to find what your'e looking for.

Well no more, I say! The yakFAQ has its questions organized by a numbering system that is based on the corresponding page number of the rulebook or codex. Say you have a question about the "Fleet" universal special rule, so you flip to the rulebook ( the "RB" ) and find the universal special rules on page 74, but your question isn't answered by the RAW. What to do?

Well. . .the next step is to hop into the yak rulebook FAQ, and head into the "RB.74" numbers (rulebook, page 74). You know that you'll be looking at the questions dealing with universal special rules. How easy is that!

Also, questions in the FAQ that impact  other questions have a little "reference number" at the bottom that will help you quickly jump to another section of the FAQ to check out related questions. I've even repeated the same question in different (but appropriate) sections to make it more simple for a player to find the question he or she is looking for with the minimum of fuss.

For example, say you're wondering if pinned psykers can cast psychic powers? Well, you can either look in the pinning section of the rulebook questions (RB.32) or the psychic power section (RB.52) to find the exact same question.

Now, all of this organization comes at a price. Combining the rulebook FAQ and all codex FAQs comes out to about 70 whopping pages! This isn't the kind of FAQ you print up and carry around with you (at least not yet).

This is more meant to be more of a master FAQ you go back and reference after the game. It doesn't tackle quesitons that are clearly answered in the RAW, and it doesn't include the GW FAQ answers. I'm assuming players reading my FAQ have already checked the rulebook and the online FAQs for their answer before checking out the yakFAQ.

This is the kind of complete tournament FAQ that organizers and judges can use to cover their butts. Because this is, by far, (IMO) the most complete set of questions and answers for 40k ever compiled, if a tournament says they're going to use this FAQ you can be pretty confident that all the major areas are covered.

But you may be wondering: where did I get the answers to the quesitons from?

Easy. They're all from me (and perhaps a few Dakka polls). These answers are based solely on my experience and opinion. I have tried to stay with the RAW when possible, but when I felt that the RAW presented an absurd or unfun solution, or went against how the vast majority of players (I've encountered) play the game, I didn't hesitated to rule against the printed word. I tried to make it very easy and clear to indetify where and when I did this:

• Rulings based on the rules as written are noted as [RAW].

• Rulings that clarify an issue that has no conclusive RAW answer are noted as [clarifications].

• Rulings that change the RAW because I feel playing that way is absurd, unfun, or goes against the vast majority of players are noted as [rules change].


• On rare occasions rulings that go against existing GW FAQs are noted as [GW FAQ overrule].

In some cases, I've left the answers colored red, which means I'm not entirely sure the answer is the right one (even from my own perspective). In other areas I've included alternate answers colored green to represent a possible second way to rule. You also may notice a few [DIAGRAM NEEDED!] notes left around indicating places I intend to insert diagrams in order to make the answers more clear.

As a tournament organizer if you don't like my answers, the yakFAQ is also a perfect start for you to erase my answers and write your own!


But this is just the very first draft of this FAQ. And from you all, I need your feedback, input, help, etc. You name it, I need it.

If anyone wants to help me by taking some pics and photoshopping up some diagrams I would be eternally grateful (I'd let you know what the diagram needs to look like).

I could also use someone who wants to clean up the document and make it look a bit more pretty (and turn it into a PDF when we're finished).

To everyone else, I just want to know what answers you think are idiotic, stupid, poorly thought out, don't make sense, ruin the game, etc, etc, etc.

The more feedback the better!

Also, I know that the list of quesitons are still incomplete (even at 70 pages). I don't have any Forgeworld queries, Kroot Merc or Armored Company questions, and I'm sure there are plenty of rulebook and codex questions still out there I missed. Please let me know of any you think I missed.


Finally, anyone who wants to steal this FAQ to use in their tournament or "borrow" just the questions to answer for their own FAQ, please feel free (you don't need to ask permission)! That's the whole point of spending time doing something like this: so that other people who want to use this as a resource can. If this document can help you out, feel free to take it, change it and make it work for you.

Lord knows, I've stolen most of these questions from other FAQs around the net, so its only right they get passed on back around through me.

. . .

Whew! Enough jibber-jabber. 


Attached below are two separate Word documents.

• One is the rulebook FAQ (it also contains Cities of Death and Wargear Book questions too).
  
• The other document is a complete compilation of FAQs for all codices, including questions that pertain to multiple (or all) codices.

Please let me know what you think!

CSM.18.01 ? Q: What classification type is a model with Daemonic Speed?
A: They count as ?Beasts?, which means they are kept in Reserve during Escalation [clarification].
Ref: RB.264.01


That is a Rules Change actually.

And I noticed you didn't include the Greater Daemon/Daemon beast under Alpha Legion.

And another note-You allow Autarachs to fleet, but not Dark Eldar IC's on a skyboard...Shouldn't both work the same way?

(Sorry for the multiple posts. I'm at work so don't want to make a full list then consolidate since I don't have long online )

Make multiple posts, I don't mind.

1) I considered the Daemonic Speed classification a clarification because there is no classificaiton for models with Daemonic Speed listed in the rulebook. I guess you could consider them a "Chaos Space Marine on foot", but all the other movement modes were clearly defined.

2) What is the Greater Daemon/Daemon beast Alpha Legion deal (I'm not familiar with what you're talking about)?

3) Yes they should, as consistency is key in a FAQ. It's easy enough to change and I'm leaning towards disallowing the Fleet in either case. Which way would you rule personally?

On the speed thing-RAW has it being an infantry model that just moves as a beast. I agree, it probably should be classified as a beast for balance reasons, but every semi-official FAQ I've seen (Ones from GW...Forum and UKGT FAQ) has it being able to deploy in escalation.

The Alpha Legion rules strongly imply that the only daemons they can use are Princes, possessed, and packs from cultists. However, no where in the actual rules do they outright state that that's the only daemons they can take. There was a lengthy YMDC thread on it...It got ressurected somewhat recently I think. (Flavius was the last one to post on it if memory serves).

On the jetbike thing...I'm honestly not sure. I'd probably go with the RAW saying they both can fleet unless it's officially FAQ'd. I don't play either army currently.

 

Edit-Greater Daemon discussion:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/postid/66251/view/topic/Default.aspx

Space Wolves section: Wolf Lord Battle Leader shoulfd read Wolf Guard Battle Leader.

I know this isn't the place to debate it, but the entry says that bodyguard members can choose heavy weapons(one in every three IIRC), not the IC that is attatched to the retinue (bodyguard in this case).

Otherwise very cool stuff.

Posted By skyth on 11/30/2006 1:10 PM

On the speed thing-RAW has it being an infantry model that just moves as a beast. I agree, it probably should be classified as a beast for balance reasons, but every semi-official FAQ I've seen (Ones from GW...Forum and UKGT FAQ) has it being able to deploy in escalation.

The Alpha Legion rules strongly imply that the only daemons they can use are Princes, possessed, and packs from cultists. However, no where in the actual rules do they outright state that that's the only daemons they can take. There was a lengthy YMDC thread on it...It got ressurected somewhat recently I think. (Flavius was the last one to post on it if memory serves).

On the jetbike thing...I'm honestly not sure. I'd probably go with the RAW saying they both can fleet unless it's officially FAQ'd. I don't play either army currently.

 

Edit-Greater Daemon discussion:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/postid/66251/view/topic/Default.aspx

Cool, I'll add that Alpha Legion question to the FAQ.

As for the Jetbike w/ fleet, the DE codex specifically disallows fleeting with any Jetbike model and prohibits "hellions" from fleeting. This leaves a Skyboard taken by an IC as a loophole to the rule that I close with the FAQ.

Now, if I'm going to stay consistent then I should clearly rule that Eldar Jetbikes cannot fleet as well.

Asmodai is correct on both counts.

A Wolf Gaurd Battle Leader cannot take the heavy weapons from the Wolf Gaurd entry because they are seperate entries in the codex. He may have Wolf Gaurd in his name, but he does not get to take the cheaper wolf gaurd price for equipment or the heavy weapon choices from their entry. I have seen this answered before by GW and on Dakka.

It should say No [RAW]

(P.S. Fan-freakin-tabulous work!)

Posted By asmodai650 on 11/30/2006 1:22 PM
Space Wolves section: Wolf Lord Battle Leader shoulfd read Wolf Guard Battle Leader.

I know this isn't the place to debate it, but the entry says that bodyguard members can choose heavy weapons(one in every three IIRC), not the IC that is attatched to the retinue (bodyguard in this case).

Otherwise very cool stuff.

Thanks for the heads-up on the name.

The WGBL entry (on page 5) says that they may take weapon options allowed in the WG Bodyguard entry. Since the HWs are the only weapons presented in that entry I don't know what else they could be refering to.

Congrats on putting this together! I definitely plan on encouraging my gaming group to use the answers in this FAQ for our games.

I'll post some feedback when I have more time to go over them.

Posted By SetantaSilvermane on 11/30/2006 1:50 PM

Asmodai is correct on both counts.

A Wolf Gaurd Battle Leader cannot take the heavy weapons from the Wolf Gaurd entry because they are seperate entries in the codex. He may have Wolf Gaurd in his name, but he does not get to take the cheaper wolf gaurd price for equipment or the heavy weapon choices from their entry. I have seen this answered before by GW and on Dakka.

It should say No [RAW]

(P.S. Fan-freakin-tabulous work!)

Not being a SW player, I based much of my decision based upon Insaniak's argument found in this thread:

http://dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/tpage/1/view/Topic/postid/113101/Default.aspx


Even from an intent point of view what could this rule in the WG Battle Leader's entry mean:

"The Wolf Guard Battle Leader may be given any euiqpment allowed from the Space Wolves Armoury and/or the Wolf Guard entry in the army list."

The only equipment allowed in the Wolf Guard entry are heavy weapons, so I really don't understand how this could mean something else, even from an intent point of view.

Probably the right thing to do removing fleet from Eldar IC's on jetbikes too. 

CSM.36.01 ? Does a Chaos Land Raider use the new Machine Spirit rules from the Space Marine codex?
A: No [RAW].

Might want to put in that the Chaos Land Raider is not a scoring unit unlike the Loyalist Land Raider in that case.

ELD.43.01 -- Q: Can?a Fire Prism contribute its Prism Cannon?to another Fire Prism that is more than?60" away?
A: Yes [RAW].

Personally, I'd say change the RAW here. Doesn't make sense to help things out of range. Not that they'd often be out of range of each other


ELD.51.01 -- Q: When Divination is used to move a vehicle with an embarked unit onboard, does this count as having moved two units or just one?
A: Two. Embarked units do count towards the Divination total [GW rulebook FAQ overrule].


I don't think Embarked units should count. On a fluff basis, it would take just as much effort to conceal the presence of a vehicle with passangers as a vehicle without pasengers...


SM.39.02C ? Q: If multiple Castellan Minefields occupy the same space on the table, do enemy models moving over that area test for each minefield, or just once no matter how many Minefields are stacked there?
A: A model rolls once to trigger a mine when moving through an area of the table covered by one or more minefields, no matter how many actual minefields are stacked in the same spot [rules change].


I think with stacked minefields, there should be a higher denisity, thus check for each one


MCO.03A ? Q: Many weapons in codices are not defined as being either single or two-handed. How should those weapons be treated; especially in close combat?
A: Any weapon that isn?t defined as to how many hands it takes to use is considered to be ?single-handed? [rules change].
Ref: RB.40.01

I'd err on the side of caution and say they should be considered two handed. I don't think a Calidus needs another attack


BA.07.01 ? Q: Can Furioso Dreadnoughts be equipped with a Drop Pod?
A: Yes [rules change].

More a clarification than a rules change per se.


CSM.16.02 ? Q: If a character with a Bike upgrades the combi-bolter, do the points spent on the upgrade count against the character?s Wargear points limitation?
A: Yes [RAW].

I'd treat this like buying another weapon...So not count against wargear allowance.


CSM.18.02A ? Can a Daemon Icon summon its bound daemons on the first turn of the game?
A: No, only on the second turn or later [clarification].

I think that's a rules change, and I don't really care for it. Seems to me the intent of the Daemon Icon is first turn summoning.


CSM.55.01A ? Q: Does a model behind cover who is charged by an enemy with Warp Scream fight at Initiative 9 or 10?
A: Initiative 9. Also, against abilities that double (or halve) a model?s Initiative, the -1 Warp Scream penalty is applied after the Initiative is doubled (or halved) [clarification].


I always see the going to I10 as the final thing after all modifiers. I don't think warp scream would overrule that any more than furious charge would.

On to Rulebook FAQ

RB.27.01C ? Q: Regarding removing ?whole? models, when a multi-Wound unit (that contains a previously wounded model) suffers a wounding hit that will cause instant death, is the owning player compelled to put it on an un-wounded (whole) model or can they choose to place it on the previously wounded model?
A: A wounding hit that has the potential to cause instant death to at least one model in the unit must be allocated before any other wounds [rules change]. As clarified in RB.27.01B, wounding hits must be allocated to a previously wounded model. Of course, if the unit also contains single Wound models the player is free to allocate the wound to them instead.

ALT A: A wound that will cause instant death on a multi-wound model must be allocated to an unwounded (whole) model where possible.


I'd go with the non-alternate interpretation. Multiple wound models are more expensive than they're worth.



If the Ordnance marker does not scatter, the defending player may remove casualties from any models in the affected unit that are within range and line of sight of the firing weapon, not just from those beneath the Ordnance marker [rules change].


Isn't that a clarification?


RB.30.01B ? Q: When firing a Blast weapon, if a non-vehicle model is so large that cannot be completely covered by the marker is it possible for the model to be automatically hit?
A: No [RAW].

ALT A: If a non-vehicle model is so large that a blast marker entirely over the model doesn?t completely cover it, then the model suffers an automatic hit; no ?partial? roll is needed [rules change].


I'd go with the auto-hit personally.

RB.30.01C ? Q: If a shooting unit contains multiple Blast or multiple Template weapons, can it utilize the ?torrent of fire? allocation rule (page 26)?
A: When firing multiple Blast or Template weapons, keep a running total of how many wounds the target suffers (even those that are saved). The final Blast or Template weapon is resolved along with the rest of the unit?s ?regular? shooting (if it has any) [clarification].

If the target unit suffers as many total wounds as it had models when the enemy unit?s shooting began, then the ?torrent of fire? rule may be used [RAW]. The defending player may choose to wait until the all the ?to wound? rolls have been completed for the unit before deciding which the selected model will have to save against (although Wounds that have already been fully resolved may not be chosen)[clarification].
Ref: WH.18.03

So fire the plasma cannon in the middle of the other template weapons...Results in an auto casaulty most of the time...

RB.47B.02 ? Q: If a unit suffers 25% casualties in its own shooting phase (for example, by scattering Ordnance, or ?Gets Hot? weapons) does it take a morale check?
A: Yes. Casualties from friendly fire can be equally (if not more) demoralizing [RAW].

That's a rules change I believe. It's only (if memory serves) from enemy shooting/enemy shooting phase.

RB.61.02E ? Q: Can a Skimmer over area terrain disembark passengers?
A: No. To keep things simple, in a non-?Cities of Death? game, a Skimmer model that ends its move over area terrain may not disembark transported models [rules change].

ALT A: Yes, in non-?Cities of Death? games [RAW]. However, disembarking models may not be placed directly beneath the Skimmer model unless the area terrain has floors (like a Ruin); and provided the disembarking models underneath the Skimmer are still within 2? of one of the vehicle?s Access Points (or any part of the vehicle in the case of open-topped vehicles).


I'd go with the Alternate, allowing disembarkation. Assume they have rappels or jump packs or something

RB.69A.02 ? Q: When a Skimmer is attacked during its own movement phase (for example, from a Castellan Minefield or a Death or Glory attack), do you use the Skimmer?s current or previous movement phase to determine if it benefits from the ?Skimmers Moving Fast? rule?
A: If a Skimmer is attacked in its own movement phase, at the point of the attack, if the Skimmer is more than 6 inches from where it started the movement phase, then it uses the ?Skimmers Moving Fast? rule against the attack [rules change].


The rule for this and for moving through difficult terrain should be the same. Either go with what you intend to move or go with what you actually move on both.

Posted By skyth on 11/30/2006 3:37 PM

MCO.03A – Q: Many weapons in codices are not defined as being either single or two-handed. How should those weapons be treated; especially in close combat?
A: Any weapon that isn’t defined as to how many hands it takes to use is considered to be “single-handed” [rules change].
Ref: RB.40.01

I'd err on the side of caution and say they should be considered two handed. I don't think a Calidus needs another attack

I agree, as this also allows a WGBL with a CCW and a Heavy Weapon to use the heavy weapon in close combat...

Yeah...WGBL with a Frost Blade and an assault cannon...Using the assault cannon for a 2nd single handed weapon. Nasty combo.

Having read that more closely, I see how that works. Having never seen anyone do that on a WGBL or any other place where you could give a marine character a heavy weapon, I never considered it as a valid option.

This means that I can have a Wolf Gaurd Battle leader in Termi armor with Assault Cannon accompanied by a 7 man retinue with 3 more assault cannons, and then drive them around in my crusader with its twin linked assault cannons.

Not that I am going to run out and make a new termi leader with cannon cause they will probably take that away in the redo.

I yield to master Yak

Posted By yakface on 11/30/2006 2:35 PM

Not being a SW player, I based much of my decision based upon Insaniak's argument found in this thread:

http://dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/tpage/1/view/Topic/postid/113101/Default.aspx


Even from an intent point of view what could this rule in the WG Battle Leader's entry mean:

"The Wolf Guard Battle Leader may be given any euiqpment allowed from the Space Wolves Armoury and/or the Wolf Guard entry in the army list."

The only equipment allowed in the Wolf Guard entry are heavy weapons, so I really don't understand how this could mean something else, even from an intent point of view.

From the codex:

WOLF GUARD BATTLE LEADER, p.5: "The Wolf Guard Battle Leader may be given any equipment allowed from the Space Wolves Armory and/or the Wolf Guard entry in the army list..." (italics mine)

WOLF GUARD, Wolf Guard bodyguard section, p.8: "Wolf Guard Heavy Weapons: Up to one in three models in the Wolf Guard bodyguard ... may be armed with one of the following heavy weapons each." (italics mine)

I assert that the Wolf Guard Battle Leader is not in the Wolf Guard bodyguard, and therefore cannot take the heavy weapons allocated to them.  The ruling in question appears to duplicate the WGBL's ability to take items from the armory.

Alternately, if you read the WGBL rule as overuling the "one in three models in the Wolf Guard bodyguard" rule, then it appears that WGBL can also buy Storm Bolters and treat them as one-handed weapons.

I have to ask - why make it so Vibrocannons can't hit units out of LOS? Doesn't that completely invalidate them as a choice in an army?

And yeah, I agree on the whole 'Jetbike + Fleet' thing. In this instance I don't care what the RAW says - if you're on a Jetbike or have a WS Jump Generator, you shouldn't be able to fleet, especially when the Dark Eldar equivalents can't Fleet.

BYE

Also, as long as a blanket rule is being created to count unspecified weapons as one-handed, it would make more sense to me to make them two-handed instead; the only weapons that do not have a handedness assigned to me seem to be weapons that would be thought of as two-handed (e.g., Assault Cannons, Lascannons, etc). As well, it's the least beneficial of the two options.

Posted By Lowinor on 11/30/2006 4:36 PM
I assert that the Wolf Guard Battle Leader is not in the Wolf Guard bodyguard, and therefore cannot take the heavy weapons allocated to them.  The ruling in question appears to duplicate the WGBL's ability to take items from the armory.

So what's the point of him being able to select from the Wolf Guard entry, then?

Posted By insaniak on 11/30/2006 4:47 PM

Posted By Lowinor on 11/30/2006 4:36 PM
I assert that the Wolf Guard Battle Leader is not in the Wolf Guard bodyguard, and therefore cannot take the heavy weapons allocated to them.  The ruling in question appears to duplicate the WGBL's ability to take items from the armory.

So what's the point of him being able to select from the Wolf Guard entry, then?

This is GW rules writing we're talking about...

At the least, the text is ambiguous.  One set says they can take any option, but the rule that grants the option, even if given to the WGBL, wouldn't let him use the weapon.  I'd argue that strictly by the rules, the WGBL can't take the heavy weapon, and even with a more open interpretation it's ambiguous and should fall to the less advantageous interpretation.

The point of Yakface's FAQ is to make the GW's rules make sense.

So, given that the Heavy Weapons are the ONLY items available from the Wolf Guard entry that he couldn't get from the Armoury, it would seem to make far more sense to allow him to take them than to assume that his allowance to take items from the WG entry is some sort of error.

At least, that's how I see it. It's less confusing to allow a rule that already exists to work in a sensible manner than it is to pretend that the rule just doesn't exist in the first place.

Wow so much feedback to comment on. This is going to take a little while (Skyth I'm going to get back to your comments last since there's so many of them).


@HMBC: Vibro cannons *CAN* hit targets out of LOS, but I see how you could easily misread that (I think I'll rephrase it).


But as for the topic of a blanket rule that makes undefined weapons single-handed, the reasoning is this:

The vast majority of undefined weapons in the codices belong to Special Characters (at least I think so). In most cases, the weapons are pretty clearly supposed to be single-handed, including the Callidus. . .IMO if you look at the model it is pretty clear that the Nueral Disruptor is a single-handed weapon.

Now, what that ruling DOES mean is that I need to identify possible abuses (such as the WGBL taking heavy weapons) and directly FAQ those weapons as being two-handed.

Although, now that I think about it, the vast majority of basic weapons carried by basic troops in codices are undefined as well meaning that if they also have a pistol they'd be considered to have two single-handed weapons, and that sure doesn't work.

So I guess I'll need to reverse that ruling and then go through all the codices looking for specific situations where a character's weapon needs to be defined as single-handed.

yay, more work!


Anyway, thanks again for the feedback so far.

The IG codex under the doctrine INDEPENDENT COMMISSARS says that they ACT as independent characters meaning they can leave a join separate units and be treated as elite. Does this mean that they ARE independend characters meaning they have to be in B2B to attack and that they can be targeted?

Also under Jungle Fighters it says that they can see 12" THROUGH jungle or forest terrain. So I take it tht unless a forest piece of scenery is more than 12" that they can shoot THROUGH it right?