BREAKING: New 40K Space Wolves & Dreadnought FAQs!

codex-space-wolves-english

Get in here Warhammer 40k Fans – GW just put out a new FAQ for Space Wolves – and Dreads just got Good!

faq_red

via Warhammer 40,000 (facebook)

This set one has 6 pages of clarifications and rulings.

WOLF-FAQ-1

WOLF-FAQ-2

WOLF-FAQ-3 WOLF-FAQ-4 WOLF-FAQ-5 WOLF-FAQ-6

And here’s the special update for Dreadnoughts:

DREAD-FAQ

You can find all of these and the original 42 page Rulebook FAQ here:

Warhammer 40,000 FAQ (May 2016)

Get in there and tell us what you think.  

They also said the final updated 40K FAQs should be along any time now, and these are up for the community to review and give them initial feedback.

 

  • yorknecromancer

    That Designer’s note is quite a nice response to the discrepancy between Dreadnought types. ‘Yes, we’re going to update it, but the policy is that printed stuff codicies takes priority until we update it… But yeah, be decent and let your opponent’s Dreadnought have those two additional attacks.’

    • Orodruin

      I hope they extend the same/similar rule to Helbrutes when CSM are up to bat.

      • kryczek

        They surely must or at least I will.

      • yoash barak

        And miss a chance to disappoint CSM players yet again? are you crazy?

        • Hannoveraner

          CSM players were so spoiled in 3 editions, they can take some hardship now.

          • Moik

            I think you mean in .5 editions.

          • Shiwan8

            0.5 editions 4 editions ago. Compared to eldar being spoiled 4/7 editions.

            But yeah, lets punish CSM fans for that. 😀

        • Valourousheart

          CSM players are going to be disappointed no matter how their next codex comes out.

          I can hear it now… 8th edition helbrutes now has 8 attacks base….
          CSM Player – Oh man that sucks, it should have 10 at least and they should be D weapons.

          • Shiwan8

            No matter how underpowered it is, true. But if it’s on par with marines, eldar and tau then it might be fine…assuming that it’s done right, meaning none of this present BS.

          • ButtKrak

            No one cares about how many attacks Helbrutes get. Cheaper units and effective formations could be a good start. Maybe some psychic powers that dont suck complete @ss.

            Space marines: here is a psychic power that pretty much guarantees your big death star unit gets a 1st turn charge against anything you want!!!

            CSM: here is a psychic power that gives you 6 rending shots… WITH SOUL BLAZE!!!!111one

            – OMFG SOUL BLAZE??!
            – YEAH SOUL BLAZE!!!!
            – You mean that special rule that is so useless most players ignore it completely just to speed the game turns up??
            – YUP!!!

          • Spacefrisian

            Nah the mark you put on them decides how many attacks they get…Tzeentch Hellbrutes get 9 attacks obviously.

          • markdawg

            Dude you CSM players have it rough don’t be insensitive to their plight. If you think that there is nothing wrong with CSM you need to get your head checked.

      • Shiwan8

        Not going to happen. 😀

      • jonathon

        clearly helbrutes aren’t dreadnoughts (they have different names after all….) so CLEARLY this errata doesn’t apply to them. I mean come on this is GW logic 101 here folks!
        of course this kind of crap is why I quit attending any type of competitive play events a long time ago.

    • They should have shown some real love

    • Shawn

      Glad you think so York. It looks more to me like “Oh the codex is official and if we decide to change it, maybe like when there is a new codex or new edition, we’ll let you know. Until then, talk to your opponent like you’ve always done.

  • kryczek

    Roused to war is now as good as official for me. The fact that it hasn’t been errata’d before now was laughable.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    Jesus, just give the BA, GK and SW Dreads 4 attacks. You are going to do it in the future anyway!

    • Shawn

      That was my thought Red. I guess, since it’s an FAQ and not ERRATA, that they had to throw in the house rule. But they could have fixed it with one simple sentence: “Space Wolf and Blood Angels dreadnoughts all have a base 4 attacks.” Boom! Done!

  • SilentPony

    Another one of those FAQs that answer what should have been obvious.
    The Armor of StormWrack is literally called a suit of Terminator armor in the book.

  • am1t

    Wolf Claw Strike Force + Drop Pods + Counter charge
    LOL! Ooooowwwwwwwwwwww! (That’s my Wolf Howl of joy)

  • ZeeLobby

    Lol. My poor poor BA dreads…

    • Severius_Tolluck

      lol i can see so many tourney and waac cost players going, nope, gotta stick to your 2 buddy!

      • ZeeLobby

        Yeah. I just consider it mind blowing that GW won’t just officially errata the entries. I mean they could just fix it by saying, all dreads have 4 attacks base.

        • Shawn

          LOL, I just mentioned that above in a different post. The only thing I can think of Zee, is that this is only an FAQ and not Errata, so can only offer up a House Rule which, by the way, is only as effective as your opponent willing to say “yes”.

          • Nameless

            but they included errata for during the space wolf FAQ, and several of the others…

          • Eric Buchanan

            My guess is the errata is for fixing things that were intended one way, but either through an editing mistake or a printing mistake were printed improperly.

            This issue with the dreadnought attacks isn’t errata, the intention on publication was for them to have 2 attacks. During publication of later codexs they changed this profile.

            The faq is for clarifying things that have already been written. So once again inappropriate for changing something that was intended.

            In either case (faq or errata) its not about changing what was printed, but instead making sure it matches the original intent.

            There is most likely some strict policies from the design team on these posts to not wholesale change the game, but instead just clarify.

            I dont necessarily agree with it, but I can see their perspective.

          • Nameless

            but it looks unprofessional to say that they have 2 attacks, but we think you should talk to your opponent before hand to introduce a special rule you give them 4.

            firstly that’s not a special rule, and secondly the implication seems to be that the design team think dreadnaughts should have 4 attacks.

            now if it was an out of date codex in question, then perhaps I could see that waiting for it to be updated would make sense, but the three codexs in question are all current edition.

          • Eric Buchanan

            Unprofessional doesn’t mean “inconvenient to you”.

            The rule presented is a special rule by every definition. And most likely a stop gap measure until they decide to start publishing changes to profiles directly.

            As I said, looking at the nature of the FAQs and Errata, their only intention here is to better communicate the intent at the time of publication of the codex.(and correct printing errors or poorly worded sections) And it seems they have been consistent in doing that.

            The fact is at the time the GK, BA, and SW codexs were published the design team did intend for them to only have 2 attacks.

            While I might not like their decision, I have to respect their consistent and dedication to their process, which is a big part of professionalism.

          • Nameless

            no, to be honest it doesn’t really effect me either way, I don’t remember the last time I saw a dreadnaught on a table top.

            it looks unprofessional because it says the rule is this. but this is why we think you should play it a different way to how our rules are written.

            and no a stat change is typically not given though special rules. space marine bikes don’t have a special rule to give them +1T over the base space marine, Sternguard don’t have a special rule to give them +1A over the base space marine.

  • ghettohamburglar

    this game is so complicated these days… Cannot wait till it gets the AOS treatment ;)!

    • ZeeLobby

      I’d probably still avoid playing it, but I’d be curious to see what they did.

      • Shawn

        It’s simple Zee. Reserve Check – Move – Shoot – Throw Psychic Crap – Charge. Count the Dead.

        • ZeeLobby

          I don’t have issues with the rules being too complicated or complex. There are just too many unique circumstances and unique war gear that GW doesn’t even take into consideration. Streamlining the rules would be a great thing.

  • JP

    And here I am like an idiot playing my Ironclads with only 2 attacks base this whole time. I feel STUPID. Well at least I know now they hit harder.

    • LeroyJenkinss

      Lol you still used dreadnaughts 🙂

      • JP

        Hey now. My Double Heavy Flamer Ironclads in Drop Pods quite often wipe their own weight in points the turn they come down. They’re the workhorses of my Salamanders. They get sh!t done.

  • PrimoFederalist

    So Murderfang now has 6 base attacks? Well alrighty then…

  • Enlightened Sons

    Man was i wrong about the TWC + Powerfist ruling. I was soo sure….

    • Shawn

      I think GW ruled that wrong. Adding wargear should, in no shape or form, add to the base profile. Their smoking something. If you look at every space marine codex, the base characteristic for strength is a 4. Adding wargear doesn’t suddenly make it jump to a 5. And,if you read the Thunderwolf entry in the codex, it specifically says it adds +1 to the profile which is already figured into the profile. Now, did they just ignore whatever they wrote in their own game book or are they smokin’ crack?

      • eldannardo

        It says increase. The description in the FAQs lines up with the wording in the codex

      • Skathrex

        I wondered about that ruling myself. I think it has to do with an IC with a Bike having T5 and for the purpose of Instant death needing ST10 hits.
        If we would tread T and S diffrently it would become a mess, so it became a base modifier. I know in the past this was done diffrently.

  • I think GW did a good job with this one.

  • georgelabour

    Hrmm an entire battleforged army composed of naught but iron priests on thunderwolves.

    I shall call it Ironwolf Thundersmash stormtime! Wolf.

    • Skathrex

      I think you misjudge the ruling. You can take Either, not both. So either HQ, or Elite.

      • MPSwift

        Literally verbatim from the FAQ above: “you should feel free to use either or both”…

        • Skathrex

          Well, than I misread it…that is a bit ridicioulus

          • MPSwift

            Making an army of Iron Priests is but giving the option of two different levels of seniority in the priesthood with access to different wargear and stats is quite cool in my opinion. See the above can vs should comment haha.

      • georgelabour

        I read it again just to make sure I hadn’t gotten it wrong. It does in fact say either OR both.

    • MPSwift

      Can vs Should my friend, can vs should xD

      • georgelabour

        B,but robot doggies ridden by robot vikings!

        • MPSwift

          Is exactly what is wrong with the current Space Wolf codex 😛 nah, to each their own but I prefer my Great Company a more traditional kind! Lots of angry fenrisians in metal boxes or drop pods shouting and charging at the enemy!

  • jazeroth

    so i have to ask to have 4 attacks? what opponent will agree to that? BA’s dread still rubbish

    • MPSwift

      I can’t see any of my regular opponents having an issue with it.

      • Shiwan8

        Always assume a PUG and worst rules lawyer muchkin powergamer as the opponent. This way the results will more likely be accurate.

        • MPSwift

          I only tend to play a pretty small group of people so I’m good… thanks for the healthy dose of cynicism though! 😛

          • Shiwan8

            Good for you!

            You call it cynicism. The ones playing PUGs call it realism.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            I tell those people to eff off and I never play them again.

          • Shiwan8

            Ok. Here it is the one that tells them that that will not play again.

          • Eric Buchanan

            You choose who you play. You could just decide not to play the PUGs or whatever reductivist acronym you use to avoid having conversations about sportsmanship.

          • Shiwan8

            And not play at all? I’m not willing to have a conference each time I want to have a game and as long as the other player is not cheating the list and playing by the rules really do not result to poor sportsmanship.

          • Eric Buchanan

            Conference? You mean a conversation?

            Guy1: I’d like to play with this house rule
            Guy2; ok

            Or Alternatively
            Guy1: I’d like to play with this house rule
            Guy2: No

            Either way after about 30 seconds you can continue on to your game no worries. But please use hyperbole to continue push your agenda.

            The point of the designers note isnt that its a writ you can stick down your opponents throat to force them to give you 4 attacks on a dread.

            Its a talking point that helps show the design teams new direction for dreadnoughts and if two reasonable minded people are playing they can use it.

            This is a social game, you have to communicate and collaborate with your opponent to play the game. So discussing terms before the match starts doesnt seem like a undue burden from my perspective.

          • Shiwan8

            Yeah. Then you go through all the other things like that, debate on power levels and so on. Conference is about right.