BREAKING: New 40K Dark Angels FAQ!

Deathwing Horz

The Angels from Caliban are getting their day in the spotlight – The FAQ for the Dark Angels is HERE!

via Warhammer 40,000(Facebook)

DA FAQ 1 DA FAQ 2 DA FAQ 3 DA FAQ 4 DA FAQ 5 DA FAQ 6 DA FAQ 7

This is a 7-page set of rulings and clarifications to chew on. Page 3’s ruling on Deathwing/Ravenwing auto-losing turn one due to a lack of models makes sense – It’s pretty clear they wanted those style of armies to act in support of another fighting force. Or you could chat with your opponent…Who wants to spend all that time setting up just to put it all back when you’re done after turn 1?

You can find these and all the other FAQ’s released right here:

Warhammer 40,000 FAQ (May 2016)

Have at it folks!

  • Thomson

    Dark Angels as the killers of invisibility death stars. Funny 🙂

    And 4+ cover for the crazy speeder formation of ultimate doom isn’t bad either

  • Andrew Thomas

    The Ravenwing setup ruling is a bit of a groan, but it’s mostly good.

    • Valourousheart

      There are plenty of ways to work around it.

      • Andrew Thomas

        Attack Squad, Support Squad, any of the non-Ravenwing formations.

        • Valourousheart

          Don’t forget you can also take 2 RWSF or the Air Superiority Formation. It is very easy to get a pure RW force on the table with a verity of deployment options, even if you want to include flyers.

          And the RWAS can be as small as 95 points (but I typically run it at 125 points).

          The only thing that could cause problems is when artificial limits are placed on the number of formations. That limitation doesn’t solve the OP issues, it just dictates which builds will show up.

  • Chaosrex

    Soo, once they say ” KDK models arn’t CSM factions for rules”, and now they are…, make your darn mind allready…

  • SilentPony

    Does anyone actually play Dark Angels? I never see them on the table anymore…

    • Vorsun

      5700-ish pts of DA here.

    • Darkjedi

      My DA get on the table several times a year, although I play around with Tyranids and Necrons as well.

    • Thatroubleshootah

      I do whenever I play 40k, which is not a lot

    • benn grimm

      I see them quite a bit. I guess its a local thang…

    • The Suave Lion

      I have myself and another player in my game group. It’s nice as he plays deathwing and I play ravenwing

    • Jibran

      I’ve been rocking the DA battle company since 5th. it’s nice, as my army has slowly only gotten better with the editions.

    • Dennis J. Pechavar

      Ravenwing, Deathwing and Green marines. Love my Dark Angels, just a little bitter not being able to field my DW without opp consent but I’ll live.

    • Valourousheart

      All the time, let me know the next time you are near Denton.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    A lot of of this is “just read the rules and don’t infer extra meaning.”

    Still good.

  • darkconsecrator

    What exactly was addressed? The only change was for Seraphicus, which was hardly anything. ( Him and his unit got to re roll 1’s in close combat, if im not mistaken )

  • LordKrungharr

    Awwww yeeeuh, rerollable daemon invul now can be used instead of 3+ armor based on Precedent set forth here in the DA FAQ ! It’s like Tzeentch planned it or something.

    • Valourousheart

      Yeah but you forget that Chaos has to suck. So they are going to errata all of your saves to a 6+ reroll successes. And this will be the one time were you are forced to not accept the results of the second roll, but instead keep rolling until you fail.

  • BT

    I was kind of taken a-back by the ‘ICs don’t confer SRs on units they are joined to’ on Pg 3. I thought that was the whole point of Super Friends? Or is the point of Super Friends is to find guys that give their unit their SR because those SRs state they can be shared to the unit?

    • babelfisk

      The point of Super Friends was to do just that, but the recent FAQ’s have made made it clear that is not how GW intended it/wants it to work. This has had the result of weakening Super Friends a good bit, although there are still a number of things that can be done using the special rules that do explicitly confer.

      • Larry Gervella

        Point of super friends was to cheat. It has always been stated in the brb the way it is explained here.

        • Valourousheart

          Be nice, they weren’t trying to cheat, it was just a byproduct of WAAC.

          But you are right, it has always been that only rules that state that they confer to the unit or IC confer.

          The problem is that some rules state that they don’t confer, which confuses the issue.

          • Larry Gervella

            No it’s not. It’s purposely causing confusion to gain an advantage. Everything is written in black and white and hierarchy of the books is explained. There is no reason for an adult to not understand the rules of the game.

          • ZeeLobby

            Lol! The rules are HORRIBLY written. None of my group are WAAC players and we easily Google answers on forums 3 times a game after not finding them in the books.

          • Larry Gervella

            The rules are well written, if you can not comprehend them that is on you. Everything is in black and white.

          • ZeeLobby

            Lol. So some IC rules saying they transfer while others dont but in the end they all shouldn’t have isn’t an example of bad rules?! Lol. I’ll leave you here in denial.

          • Larry Gervella

            The brb specifically says rule do not confer to IC or group unless it says so per the rule. The brb also states that the IC and group joined must be the same faction to get the detachment rules. It has always been that way. No amount of argueing is going to Change that.

            What you think should happen is proof you are a Waac group. Just because you want it one way doesn’t mean it is the right way.

          • Larry Gervella

            That is why it says in the brb that rules only confer to the group when specifically told so.

          • Valourousheart

            I was agreeing with you. I just disagree that there is malicious intent across the majority of players.

            Now I am sure that there are some players that a purposefully trying to confuse the issue to gain an advantage. And I believe that a great number of those people have blogs and vlogs, some of them might even publish on this very website.

            Now the typical player that reads this website is looking for new ideas on how to win at this game. And that typical player is not malicious… the only flaw that can be attributed to them is not being more discerning when it comes to stuff on the internet that they believe.

          • Larry Gervella

            But the leaders are. Those are people like Reclusiarch Darius and gentlemanlooser on the Bolter and chainsword forums, which banned me because I told them that they were wrong.

            I learned a lesson there, don’t tell or report a mod they will ban you. Dakka is the only good forum pout there.

          • Valourousheart

            I wouldn’t describe those vlogers as leaders. They typically haven’t even read the rules when they start recording their opinion.

            As for B&C, well I have pointed out that plenty of people on there, mods included, had been giving poor advice to new players that really showed their prejudices. And I haven’t been banned or even warned.

            I guess it is all in your delivery.

            Not judging, but are you sure that was all that happened?

          • Larry Gervella

            I was banned for reporting Darius, for making personal attacks. Which is supposed to be against forum rules, but he was a mod and I believe the owner of the forum at one time.

          • Valourousheart

            Well there are only 4 members that use Darius as part of their handle and none of them are Mods. And none of them have been active since last summer. Maybe it is time that you give B&C another chance. The culture is probably a lot different now since you were last there.

          • ZeeLobby

            That’s the real issue. There is no consistency across the books. It’s be nice if they updated all rules all at once across the range.

          • Larry Gervella

            The reason that some rules are not uniform across the books is to fit the army.

            That is why there is a hierarchy in which book overrides another

          • ZeeLobby

            Tzeentch daemons, +1 to leadership rolls for psychic abilities, months after rolling LD was no longer a thing. And that’s one of many. So no, it’s not all just to “fit the army”. Some of it is just bad rules consistency.

          • Larry Gervella

            Their codex has not been updated to 7th Ed. You choose to find excuses to fit your WAAC.

          • Valourousheart

            We did get a full update of the rules… I believe we all call it the 7th edition rule book.

            I know lots of people on here have been playing this game for like forever… at least since 6th edition. But there are some of us who have been playing this game a bit longer than that. And we remember when GW did just what you were asking for. And the general consensus was we didn’t like it.

            This was 3rd edition, and they released these tiny codexes without any story bits, with several units entries that would never get models. Sure Chaos loved it back then, but that was because in the mix of bland… they had 4 themes they could go with. Chaos hasn’t lost anything since 3rd edition, it is just that all of the other codexes gained flavor since then.

            Well I guess that isn’t 100% accurate. DE lost that Blue Oyster Club flavor.

          • ZeeLobby

            Army rules. For the longest time tzeentch daemons had the ability to add 1 to their leadership rolls for psychic tests… even though that stopped being the method months before.

        • babelfisk

          Not to defend a build that I feel hurts the game as a whole, but the rules are not all that well written and the various super friends builds have always been within reasonable interpretations of the existing rules.

          • Larry Gervella

            No it is not. That’s why it specifically says you must be a certain faction to get the detachment perks. This is all in the brb if you actually take the time to read it from cover to cover

          • Larry Gervella

            The rule se rotten just fine you choose to ignore them for an advantage

      • BT

        Thank you for the clarification! I keep up on the game, I own the books, but I just haven’t played in forever. So my understanding of the current meta can be sketchy at times.

        When I go to Adepticon, it just enforces my desire to not play. Maybe when 7.5 comes out I will get a couple of games in, like I did with 7th to try things out.

  • Majere613

    As an old-school Dark Angels player, I still find it infuriating that I can’t play pure Deathwing without using Unbound, whereas Ultramarines (etc) can make an all-terminator force just fine.

    • The Suave Lion

      Yeah, considering terminators were kinda our thing. Guess DA rides bikes now

      • Valourousheart

        I guess you started playing in one of the more recent editions. Back in 2nd edition all 4 of the main chapters (UM, SW, BA and DA) could field all TDA armies.

        And the unique unit DA had back then was Veteran Bike Squads.
        BA had the vet assault squads.
        UM had the vet tactical squads.
        And SW had the vet Devastator Squads.

        Terminator squads were all the same across the 4 chapters, except for a couple of weapon options.

        • MPSwift

          Wolves still can do a TDA force with the Champions of Fenris supplement 😀

          • Valourousheart

            I understand… but to claim that DA were always the TDA army, and are now just bikes shows gross ignorance to the facts. Bikes have always been what DA have been known for… TDA armies has a very short run in the DA history.

    • Kami

      In the errata cant you have Land Raiders on the table?
      its says all units that CAN be placed in deep strike reserves must. But since Land Raiders cant… there ya go

      • Majere613

        Unfortunately not. The Deathwing Strike Force specifies that all units in the Detachment must begin the game in Deep Strike reserve, so you can’t take the Land Raiders. The errata basically makes it clear that there’s no way to run the DSF as your only Detachment without auto-losing unless you house-rule it, which is why people are so annoyed.

        • Kami

          That would need further clarification. But as written due to the errata. You can bring a single land raider and run just a dwsf but as the faq states you probably shouldnt.

  • Boondox

    Are the Dark Angels black again? No, sorry for some reason that’s 30K…