40K Editorial: The Coming Change – Official Errata and FAQs

FRONT

Change is on the way!  NOTE – This is a non tactical article and purely my opinion. I rate it as HAIR ON FIRE… Sure am glad I’m bald…

 

Change is on the way! The new draft FAQs and errata have finally hit the internet this week. First let me say this is a huge blow to the Dakka Dakka YMDC trolls who are so full it not even a black blow fly can stand their stinky stink smell…
This is a really big deal and from what I have read GW wants to finally curb back a lot of the abuse that has been going on since the Wardian era. Supposedly the new CEO loves to play Warhammer 40k and said something along the lines of “Enough is enough !!!
Enough-is-Enough-2015

The game is only going to get better now with the new direction. I am not here to tell you about what are the biggest changes to how the game has been played and how it is going to be played… I am here to say I approve of the new direction and because a lot of rules abuse is getting the axe. Presently the game is very broken and in my area I constantly hear lots of bitching about this ad nauseam which to be completely honest gets very annoying.

7a5619c99e31f9b5c9a74ff0799ee66b

 

House Rules for Major Tournies
Wow this really bad news for any TO whom has their FAQ that is over two pages in length. We can say we want to balance a broken system but all too often certain clarifications or outright changes to the rules reveal true bias for whatever reason. For example look at how the change to the void shield generator is a self imposed nerf… It is what it is for sure. The new errata and FAQ eliminates this need. While a house rule can be disguised as good intent usually there’s a bias one way or the other. Many of the answers are not clarification but instead change fundamental rules at the core level.

Conclusion
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… It’s always best for everyone if they can all play an army of their own choice rather than copying just another net list. This what we all really want and aspire too in the long run. FAQs for codices are up next and sorely needed. Overall there will be less shenanigans.

Are you feeling the game has a brighter road ahead with the new FAQs?

  • Westdraygon

    Yeah bring on the FAQs!!!

    Also my Greater Daemons don’t need to fly when deepstriking. This has made me the happiest bunny alive.

    Mind you… Dark Eldar took a vicious hit from this FAQ, so not everything has been great.

    I also hope that grenades can be used in melee again.

    • ZeeLobby

      Which goes to show that the FAQing has little to do with gameplay.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        FAQing is all about clarifying intent.

        • ZeeLobby

          Exactly. Fixing unclear rules is only a half solution to the problem

    • Happy bunnies are evil bunnies !

    • ILikeToColourRed

      I dont even know how im going to field DE now

      • Alan Doyle

        Counts as Eldar/Corsairs?

        • ILikeToColourRed

          theyll match my suspiciously spikey loyalists

      • The Dark Eldar errata, or the second draft errata may help things. Also, DE are bound to get formations in a campaign book. That could make a huge difference.

  • Jonny

    Actually the grenade thing is in the BRB already, first paragraph of the grenades section, one grenade in shooting and fight sub phase

    • krisbrowne42

      I’ve had enough people question how it was written to be worth the FAQ, clear enough now.

    • SicSemperTyrannis

      It really suprises me how many people got that rule wrong.

      • happy_inquisitor

        I am not so surprised by this one. The wording of “throw” kinda got people going, some of whom came to what we now know to be the wrong conclusion.

        The walking through walls nerd-rage on the other hand has been hilarious. Those rules are conspicuous by their absence from the rulebook so why did everyone insist they still existed? We have been politely reminded that they do not and its not 5th edition any more!

        • JimOnMars

          Yep, specifically Meltabombs which are unwieldy and close combat only. How on earth would one expect a rule that only applies to “thrown” grenades apply to a device that can never be thrown? So many people have complained about this one…I hope they listen.

          • Koonitz

            As an Astartes Tank Commander, I approve whole-heartedly with the grenade change (yes, I did always believe that it was “all models could use grenades in melee”).

          • Djbz

            I can sort of see it both ways.
            With all being able to use grenades most vehicles are doomed, especially from entire units with meltabombs/haywire grenades
            But only one model being able to use one makes walkers (in particular) way too strong. (Especially when the unit only has Krak grenades)

            If there was some middle ground it’d be better.
            Also they should bring back the (non-walker) vehicles getting hit based on how far they moved in their last turn. Rather than vehicles counting as Ws1

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            We do have a fix, it’s called getting rid of the vehicle rules and making everything monstrous/gargantuan creatures.

          • The Basement Gamer

            “makes walkers (in particular) way too strong”

            That is a line I never hear in a world of monstrous creatures.

          • Djbz

            Well where I play monstrous creatures are virtually unplayable due to plasmaguns/lascannons etc. Absolutly no Grav though.
            And considering what grav does I’m honestly surprised that anyone can use monstrous creatures at all where people actually use it.

          • JimOnMars

            There is a perfect fix, but would require an ERRATA instead of an FAQ. The rule would be: Any model in base contact with the vehicle may use a grenade. So Tankbustas spread around a baneblade win against it, but might only get 4-6 shots against a walker. At least the walker has a chance, especially if it has an invul.

      • Drpx

        One throw per phase could have meant overwatch or psychic-induced shooting or even interceptor attacks in the enemy movement phase.

        The words are vague enough that either side could potentially be right/wrong and GW could have ruled either way but they ruled in the direction that would buff tanks and cc walkers since vehicles aren’t being bought as much as things with wounds.

  • benn grimm

    I think on balance the fact they’re doing a FAQ at all probably slightly outweighs the FAQ not being very good. But only slightly.

    • Well, it is a first draft. And a lot of it seemed decent to me.

      • ILikeToColourRed

        yeah it was mostly things that i wasnt aware needed clarifying, with some things im glad they did (everyone has different holes i guess)

        • Yeah, some things I was like, “Well, duh.” Other things I was like, “Thank you, that’s how I’ve been reading it and most people disagreed with me.” And still other things left me going, “Wow, did I have that wrong or what?”

  • Paul James Harrison

    I think the game does need a damned good shake up. I’ve not played for quite a while because I’m fed up of certain armies getting all the love while others get practically none.

  • Alpharius

    Yay 40K 7.5, I like everything except infiltrating characters not being able to hop in a pod, but I can live with it. I think also that walkers need to be brought more in line with monstrous creatures (remove to-in for MCs or give it to walkers!), but the grenade clarification helps a lot.

    I hope to see a consolidated 8th edition soon, with cleaned up walker and flyer rules.

  • Ronin

    Thank goodness Kirby’s reign of terror is over.

    • The next step is to fire Jervis and Kelly .

      • Davor Mackovic

        Why? If anything they should have quit because GW made them look stupid. It’s not that Jervis and Kelly are stupid, they just did what their bosses told them.

        Are you going to ever quit and go against what your boss ever tells you?

  • Crablezworth

    Tau totally needed blasts with skyfire hitting planes…

    • Djbz

      Ohh, Nova charged Ion Accelerator….

      Nah I’m kidding it does better just firing normally.

    • happy_inquisitor

      Well they sure are not using flyers for air defence. The formation that gives them +1 vs flying targets is now on flyers that have to snap-shoot at flying targets. Not that their flyers are anything but awful anyway.

      Honestly its an edge case, mostly they have better things to be shooting at flyers than their large blasts. Flak blasts in the sky are so cinematic (or maybe just for us older Brits brought up on war films)

    • ILikeToColourRed

      FAQ for blasts is vs FMC not FLIERS

  • Randy Randalman

    Whatever direction it’s headed, we know the CEO has done mostly good things so far, from games-centered mantras, more ways to get into minis games with bundles and board games, cheaper entry (“Start Collecting”, Renegade, etc), and opening the lines of communication to the fans.

    It’s going to be messy at first, but that’s how omelettes are built.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Pretty much this.

  • Charon

    Interestingly the FAQ also shows how inconsistent the rules team is, how they directly contradict written rules and how the change their opinion every time a question is asked.
    My favorites:
    Does a unit benefit from an effect while only a part of the unit is in the radius?
    Yes.
    Does a unit benefit from the Voidshield if only a part of the unit is in the radius?
    No.
    Can a MC that is also an IC join another unit? (FAQ IC)
    Yes.
    Can a MC that is also an IC join another unit? (FAQ MC)
    No.
    In the current FAQ for DE a successful FNP roll does not save a malfunctioning shadowfield.
    In this draft it does.
    Rules permit explicitly to share vehicles with BB. The FAQ clears it up that the permission actually means: no.
    You can build Kranon the relentless by equipping a Chaos Lord with a plasma Pistol, Blade of the Relentless, Sigil of Corruption, Slaughterers horns and Daemonheart.
    FAQ: One artifact only.

    • J Mad

      This, this is what makes me mad about all of it, completely contradictory and just flat out rules change that just a few month ago in white dwarfs they clearly said was ok.

    • So no FAQs then …

      Of course some things are going to change – get over it .

      • Charon

        MAybe you lear nt difference between FAQ and Errata before talking big?
        But it is nice to see that you are like your “articles” needless agressive and full of hot air.

    • Bran D

      Don’t FAQs actually change nothing? It is just answers to frequently asked questions to clear up discrepancies.

      • Azrell

        They only change things if you are doing it wrong. But all GW FAQs have had FAQ and errata sections.

    • Horus84cmd

      Sorry bub, in the examples you’re giving you’ve paraphrased the full questions. They questions don’t contradict each other when read in full. For example the IC and MC questions. In both question in regards to a MC joining an other IC they say no. They only say yes to a MC join a normal unit thats not a IC. In the FAQ’s they are as follows;

      “IC FAQ
      Q: Can an Independent Character Monstrous Creature join another Independent Character to form a unit?
      A: No.

      MC FAQ
      Q: If a Monstrous Creature is also an Independent Character, can it join other units? Can other Independent Characters then join the unit that the Monstrous Creature is now a part of?
      A: Yes to the first question. No to the second question.”

      Much like most the questions in the FAQ, Perhaps try reading things correctly in the first place..

      As for the issues with DE and the CURRENT FAQ then yes it is at odds. However I’d point out the team dealing with all this have already stated they are going to deal with each publication one by one. You need to give them time to get all their ducks in a row before throwing criticism.

      • Charon

        They still contradict each other. Because the 2nd one only states that an additional IC can not join AFTER the MC joined. It can still join before.

        Maybe you stick to your own advise?

        Also “if they get their ducks in a row” it is already official and way to late to critizise.

        • ICs can never join a unit with an MC or MC IC unless the codex states so. They would all join simo… Take the dakka f00 elsewhere.

        • Matt Craufurd

          Its not already official. It very clearly states that the FAQ they posted on Facebook is a draft, and they were looking for critique before publishing the actual official FAQ.

        • Shiwan8

          So, to make a logical non-ruleslawyering non-WAAC smart and sane conclusion: MC IC and regular IC can not be in a same unit.

    • ILikeToColourRed

      the BB vehicle thing is in the BRB – you can only deploy in ded.trans. – everything else you must embark on during the game

      • Charon

        DEDICATED transports is the magic word.
        So going by the thing you wrote: Fast Attack drop pods have to go empty because they are no dedicated transports?

        • ILikeToColourRed

          whats the wording for drop pods? (i dont play marines, and wasnt aware they could be FA)

          • Charon

            Nearly every Transport vehicle can be purchased as FA choice. That was the source the BB vehicles came from. They did not get dedicated transports, but FA slots.
            It is basically like a heavy support landraider.

          • ILikeToColourRed

            and you cant deploy in a heavy support raider, RAW (if its Ded. then you can ofc)

            its like the all flier list in the faq, you /can/ do it – doesnt meanyou should

          • Christopher Saldaña

            Rules as written you’re allowed to embark in the deployment phase. In fact the dedicated transport rule exists to disallow anybody else from embarking in it except the one unit in deployment and also not take up a force org slot. But fast attack transports and formations of transports are clearly meant to have the option of embarking units during deployment.

        • You put units from their faction in them

        • Shiwan8

          And? When 7th was released before rental cars and thus has nothing in it touching the at the time nonexistent exploit.

    • Azrell

      one artifact of each, as in you can only have one Daemonheart in an army not you can only have one of any artifact on a model.

  • Scott Guise (Shrew8541)

    While I agree with your conclusion, I disagree on your statement of “always” a bias in a house rule.t his is not so,and definitely not in my house 😉

  • Horus84cmd

    Seriously does this 500 word piece add anything to discussion. There is no depth of thought, no attempt to move forward idea or point of general talk here. For once I’d like to see some kind of really poignant writing. Many people criticise WD for its lacking but come on….

  • Kevin Lantz

    There was zero reason to assume a greater demon summoned couldn’t charge the turn it came in.

    • Matt Craufurd

      There was every reason. Summoned units arrive via deepstrike. Units that arrive via deepstrike cannot charge the turn they come in. FMCs arrive from deepstrike always come in swooping, so cannot charge the turn they come in, and then have to change to gliding the next turn, so cannot charge that turn either. Thats why they have included this in the errata section rathe than the FAQ section.

      • Shiwan8

        Deepstrike reserve and it’s conjuration that does this. Kdk can assault straight from the summonin which is not conjuration and does not deepstrike.

        • Matt Craufurd

          I can see why you would think that, since it doesnt explicitly say that they are summoned as per all other summing in the game prior to the release of KDK, but that seems to me like classic WAAC rules-lawyering, and I play KDK as my second army. I suspect that when the KDK FAQ comes out in a couple of weeks this will be cleared up and not with your interpretation. For now I’m going to continue playing it as i think it was intended, much as I would love to play it your way.

          • Shiwan8

            It’s called being accurate but you are right, they might change that.

  • Shiwan8

    “The game is only going to get better now with the new direction.” Not really. It’s a sideways change. Also nothing at all suggests that the game gets better with codex faqs. More likely it does not. I do not even want CSM FAQd anymore because several iterations in a row have just nerfed it. It’s just better in every way if you ignore all the faqs made for it and even then it’s mediocre at best.

    • I don’t think anybody expects a FAQ to make csm better.

      • Shiwan8

        In general. CSM is just an example.

  • C326

    On the off chance GW might read this: Too little, too late. I am NEVER playing 40k again. Y’all ruined DE for me and charge too much.