BREAKING: 40K Rulebook Final FAQ Out Now

60040199041_40kstandardedition01

Games Workshop has just released the FAQ for the core rulebook for Warhammer 40,000!

I hope you’re ready for a good read because it’s a long one. Games Workshop just released the final FAQ for the Core Warhammer 40,000 rulebook and it’s quite a read!

via Warhammer-Community

A good few months ago now, we asked you for your questions on the Warhammer 40,000 rules to help our team with the new FAQ. Literally thousands of you responded, sending in your suggestions and rules conundrums. After sorting through them, we posted a draft up on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page, and again asked for your thoughts (before they were ratified as the word of the Emperor), and once more we gathered all your feedback.

Now, we have the finished FAQ and Errata for the core rulebook of the Warhammer 40,000 game. There have been a good few changes since the draft, mostly as a result of your feedback. We’d like to thank all of you who contributed to the process, helping us make the game better for everyone: so if you did, give yourself a well deserved pat on the back.

We’d also like to thank the team at the Las Vegas Open tournament, who helped with some of the detail on this final draft.

But we’re not done yet. This is just the first of the FAQ’s to be finalised. This will be followed soon by official answers for your questions on the game’s codexes and supplements.

Once again, we’d like to say a big thank you for your help.

You can read the FAQ below, or download it here:

Download the FAQ Rules HERE

Here are a couple of choice ones:

faq-1 faq-2 faq-3 faq-4

 

There’s tons more so go check them out and let us know what you think!

 

I know what I’m doing for the rest of the day. There goes my productivity…

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    *Snaps fingers*

    Let’s dig in!

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    Q: Can a Fortification Scout?
    A: No.

    I feel dumber thanks to this question.

    • Dan

      INQUIRING MINDS NEED TO KNOW

    • One may wonder what kind of people actually try to pull off something like that.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        “I want to have my castle race forward to the middle of the battlefield!”

        • DeCold

          “Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword!”

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            “Drive my house closer to the enemy, I want hang out of the window and hit them with my broom stick!”

        • lorieth

          Shush, Howl.

      • SilentPony

        If you’ve ever been to a tournament, you need not ask.

      • ZeeLobby

        I’ve played against it in tournaments actually. Someone justifying that “the scouting army reached key fortifications sooner” etc.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Oh BS.

          I hate people like that.

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. This was the same tournament where an initial ruling was made that terrain moved in the psychic phase did not count as an open topped vehicle for assaulting…

            But these are the kind of loopholes loose rules produce.

          • zeno666

            Oh my…

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. My friend and I go to a lot of events, and see all kinds of shenanigans, but this was the first since that SM book came out, and we literally looked at each-other like WTF…

            That’s the same tournament where my Tau got wiped by turn 3 against a 3-knight formation that could ignore line of sight and over with all of it’s weapons, while also moving terrain I attempted to use as cover towards them to assault…

          • Shawn

            Well, these loopholes wouldn’t normally be a problem, except that 40k has an inordinate amount of people (That Player, WAAC, etc) that ignore common sense to squeeze as much advantage as they possibly can from the written rules.

          • ZeeLobby

            Well, or they just expect games to be designed well and want to compete. Maybe video games have spoiled us. They place all kind of restrictions that make the player have to think and work to achieve victory. GW rules on the other hand are like swiss cheese. And it’s not because they are too simple, that’s for sure.

          • Haighus

            Many games do have exploitable glitches though, so they have issues too.

          • ZeeLobby

            They do, but I’d have to argue that 40K is massively glitch heavy, and they take years to resolve them (if they ever do)

          • Haighus

            Yeah, GW is rather slow on the “patches” for sure…

          • ZeeLobby

            I mean it does take time. Even Blizzard only patches every several months, but we’ve gone years and multiple editions with the same loopholes or unanswered questions. FAQs should solve this, but like I said elsewhere, if they never updated it (like they never did last time) it’s just as bad.

          • Muninwing

            FAQs could be used to patch the game, instead of just answer (sometimes obvious) questions.

          • Muninwing

            really? they’ve already announced the general time-slot for the new edition before the old edition’s FAQ is finalized, and they’re slow with patches?

            you don’t say…

          • Muninwing

            i remember back in the day, realizing that if i set up properly in Fable, i could beat my spouse for an hour and maximize my physical stats (because chain hits do max damage, but this one area of town had nonlethal fist damage due to a boxing subplot).

            when my roommate realized how boring that would be to hang out with, we changed the input on the tv and watched a movie. it still worked even though the screen was showing something else.

            people who grew up with “nintendo hard” games had to find ways to win. and that was before the internet could help you with secrets.

            gamers tend to be proliferate in their hobbies. we play many different kinds of games. so if we grew up playing video games, or ccgs, or whatnot, the mentalities that these produce blends into our other pastimes. it’s a leisure time application of the old Skinner quote “tell me what you do and i’ll tell you who you are”

          • Nyyppä

            Digital products usually get fixed, though.

          • Shawn

            I’d agree in-so-much as to say that people who are of the normal healthy competitive variety expect the game to be designed well. It’s because they want to win based off their skill at playing and not some over powered rules bending. Those types of players I mentioned earlier don’t care if the game is designed well because they use that poor design to lay out as much cheese as they can and get that over powered game win.

          • ZeeLobby

            I definitely see the difference. I’ve also ran into multiple instances in the game where rules contradict eachother, or just don’t offer a solution. I know that’s where they like to insert their cute “just roll a 4+ to decide” comments, but with their capital, and with competition willing to do so, they should really just fix/update/rewrite/etc.

          • rtheom

            I don’t know that I would call 100+ pages of rules loose…

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            He means the rules are not tight, the way Warmachine is.

          • ZeeLobby

            Looseness has nothing to do with complexity or length. It’s all about holes, and how mechanics interact. With 40K rules it ranges from small cracks to hotdogs down hallways.

        • TenDM

          To be fair you shouldn’t need to justify rules like that, especially in a tournament. Your opponent was exploiting the fact you couldn’t resolve such an usual combination off the top of your head, but ultimately the rules don’t answer to the narrative.
          If the rules say I can Deep Strike a stationary Fortification then I can. It’d be stupid of GW to make the rules say that but if that’s what they say then that’s the rule. I’m not the sort of person who takes advantage of that stuff but in a competitive/tournament setting it’s very important that the rules are applied properly in every situation.

          • ZeeLobby

            Oh no. The judge justified it clear enough when he ruled in their favor. Technically it’s stationary, but scouting doesn’t involve actually movement.

            That was just the player’s justification for not looking like a total jerk…

          • Haighus

            They have done exactly that before. Drop Bastions have been a thing in Planetstrike… 😀

        • kingcobra668

          While I dont like that power, if a power can move a building, why couldnt they do so “before the first turn?”

          • ZeeLobby

            My only defense is that a power moving a building is just silly. When does this ever happen in the fluff besides the most powerful of psykers, not to mention it’s just a horrible mechanic toove terrain around gameplay wise (unless both sides have the ability to do so).

      • georgelabour

        To be fair to some folks previous editions did have situations that let you deep strike buildings onto the table.

      • vlad78

        Kirby himself.

    • J Mad

      But… there are powers that lets you move terrain, so clearing GW minds think this way.

  • SilentPony

    Hurray! Now in 6 months 8th edition will come out and completely rewrite the rules.

    Way to go GW! You reached peak Games Workshop!

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Most of these were available with the unofficial FAQ that came out earlier this year.

      I am 90% sure this is a proof of concept FAQ that proves to the higher ups that the team can maintain a living FAQ for future releases.

      • SilentPony

        Yeah but how long has 7th been with us? A few years? And we’re just now getting a comprehensive FAQ?
        When will the 8th come out? 2018? 19?

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          GW’s corporate policy changed at the beginning of this year once the new CEO took over. They went from being a “model company” back to being a “game company”. This is why we have a point system for Sigmar and a great FAQ for both AoS and 40k now. This is also why we have been getting so many bundle deals lately.

          • Perversor

            indeed all this FAQ draft started midsummer, so not bad at all .

          • ZeeLobby

            I’ll just be happy if we see a version 2 of any of this. GW struggled with FAQs back when it was a “game company” as well.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            This is true.

            We have seen them keep up on the Sigmar FAQ. So hopefully this will be the same 🙂

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, fingers crossed. Some updating and even explanation would go a long way as to revealing the effort their putting into making the game great again.

          • Ross Allan

            Don’t forget that on this one, they’ve asked for the questions, then issued drafts. I didn’t pay enough attention to know if much changed between draft and now, but seems to me that’s the best way to handle an FAQ situation?

          • ZeeLobby

            It’s OK. Just like how they used an outside comp to “fix” AoS, it puts all the impetus on us to find the problems and ask about them. The best FAQs are the ones that also resolve an issue not yet experienced by the community. It shows clear indication that there is some design process going on in the background.

            I mean the snap shot firing from vehicles was a horrible gut punch to Dark Eldar, and they reversed it in the final draft, but the fact that it was even in the initial shows how little they know about where the game is. I also don’t want them to make decisions based on how loud we complain about something. I’d like there to be this internal vetting of changes and decisions first, with justification later. If they thought the way they had vehicle snap shots in draft one was the correct way to play 40K, then they should have stuck to their guns and given a reason why, OR, announce why they made the change (hopefully discussing internal play testing and not just: you guys cried really loud).

            Sorry to ramble, but that’s what I meant.

          • Nyyppä

            The passangers snapping was the right call for the game. It hurt DE and Necrons to a lesser degree, but it was the right call. You can not expect to shoot accurately from a moving vehicle that does it’s best not to get hit by the incoming fire.

            That being said at least the DE should have been compensated with some rule updates…like a new codex…

          • ZeeLobby

            I’m fine with either call. They just need to justify and give an explanation.

    • That’s the meaning for “Final” indeed…

  • Alpharius

    Huzzah! Hurray! No more meltabomb spams!

    • Koszka

      And the 30k world weeps

      • Alpharius

        You mean rejoices?

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Weeps because they have units that can all take meltabombs.

          • SilentPony

            To be fair it does shave some points off squads like DeathShroud and Veterans.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Too true. 🙂

          • Alpharius

            So what? You pay in for redundancy then, and many specialist units get a discount (25 points for whole squad). Far more things in 30K like this change. Daemon princes and murder bots should not be afraid of IG rabble.

        • Koszka

          My Mor Deythan would like to disagree 🙁

          • Alpharius

            They’ll be fine, they should be murdering infantry not going after dreadnought and I’m pretty sure they get a discount rate on bombs if you want that redundancy. One bomb per squad is far more realistic.

    • SilentPony

      But you can still buy a full squad of them.

      • Alpharius

        Just not evaporate any MC or vehicle in the game just by engaging them in combat. Best clarification (not change or ruling or errata, only a clarification) in the FAQ hands down.

        • SilentPony

          And because what infantry would even bring tank busting bombs to a battlefield?
          You just sound kinda’ salty there Alphy.

          • Alpharius

            Erm look at literally any media portrayal (including DOW games) or real military tactics. They will have grenades and bombs, but only one guy will be using it while the rest of the fire team is providing covering fire and/or distraction.

            You sound butthurt, actually, in addition to being flat wrong. They didn’t remove “tank busting bombs” from the battlefield, they just clarified how they are supposed to work.

          • SilentPony

            Saving Private Ryan has a scene towards the end where like 5 or 6 American soldiers rush a tank and all drop grenades into it.
            Your point is completely invalid.

          • Alpharius

            For every guy throwing a grenade there are like 10 guys running and shooting and otherwise keeping it distracted. It’s also a break from actual tactics used by our military. You don’t need to throw 5 grenades into a tank to kill everyone inside. Their NCO (if he wasn’t dead), would have had their nuts for that.

          • SilentPony

            This is a game where dudes with shields and axes are a considerable threat to dudes with heavy machine guns.
            I think we can throw actual tactics out the window.

          • Alpharius

            Why? Why not try to maintain realism where we can, and just use the fantastic as flavor enhancer? Doesn’t that make the game better?

            Anyway, it’s just sour grapes at this point. GW has been quite clear that they meant what they wrote in the rulebook. 1 grenade per phase, regardless of phase. Deal with it or play with house rules.

          • SilentPony

            Then why would the continue to make codexes where individual models could take grenades?
            If that was their intent all along, why have the codexes since 7th came out all have options for “Each model in the squad can take meltabombs at 5pts per man” or “models can be quipeed with meltabombs at 5pts per man” in the case of some.

            How do we designate? What if my meltabombs guys are always the ones left standing? How can you tell?!

          • Alpharius

            Redundancy.

          • SilentPony

            Ah. So in keeping with clever, modern military tactics, if the first grenade misses, I get to throw a second right?
            Because I imagine that’s what would happen in real life, correct? One guy misses, and instantly without waiting for the enemy to respond, a 2nd guy throws?
            So the rules should be 1 grenade at a time, with rerolls until you hit.

          • Koonitz

            Indeed. If the first grenade misses, next turn, another grenade is thrown. As for the enemy shooting, it’s not like they’re sitting with their thumbs up their rears while this is going on. A full round of 40k may take 30-60 minutes for you, but really only constitutes several seconds of time in reality, maybe upwards of a minute if you push it.

            D&D/Pathfinder is a great example. A full round of combat may take an hour with all the general tomfoolery and distractions, but it constitutes a total of 6 seconds of time.

          • Alpharius

            Right, he throws in the next round of combat. Each round is supposed to represent seconds.

          • SilentPony

            I guess I’m struggling with the line of realism here.
            As far as I can tell, the reason my genetically engineered super solider werewolf space vikings can’t throw more than one hand-held mini fusion bomb at the giant daemon possessed dragon robot made from black crystal and orphan puppy tears is because isn’t not realistic enough?

            Also Space Marines are supposed to be faster than normal humans, as are Eldar and warp creatures. Also there a psychic powers that literally make your dudes faster.
            Should there be a power cast in the assault phase were it allows you to throw 1 grenade/bomb per man per turn? To reflect the face the squad it literally moving faster than the laws of physics allows?

          • georgelabour

            You don’t really throw melta bombs…

            You clamp them onto a target and let it burn a hole in things.

            Unless you’re lucky enough to get the bit from the 4th edition blood claws box set. In which case you heave it, and hope it lands facing the right way.

            But that’s the kind of silliness one expects from a blood claw.

          • Alpharius

            So wait, now you’re wanting to throw multiple grenades with the same guy? That is not at all what we’re talking about.

          • Nyyppä

            Try to think of it like this: It’s not just one, it’s many, but the target is moving and getting the thrown thing to hit where intended and not fall down is a lot harder than just hitting the thing with a sword.

            So, let’s say that 10 grenades are thrown and the one roll to hit represents the one that actually sticks/falls in to some vulnerable joint etc. You can throw 10 bunker busters at a car driving past you but only the one that stays on it has a chance to do damage.

            This way the rule makes sense even if you manage to have a unit in which multiple models have grenades in that combat.

          • Davor Mackovic

            Using a movie to explain real life mechanics? I have seen a movie where nerds beat the jock. So now I can say a regular IG/AM can beat a Primarch now. 😛
            Thanks movies.

          • georgelabour

            I have seen a squad of guardsmen beat a daemon prince of khorn to death in close combat…

            And Ghazghkull…

            And then that time a gaggle of gretchin owned Ragnar BLackmane…

          • SilentPony

            But that happens in real life! Throw enough grenades at an Elephant and it goes down.
            Likewise a toddler with a pistol could, potentially, kill a Navy Seal. All it needs is one good shot.

          • georgelabour

            But in 40k that toddler wouldn’t have a pistol. He’d have a chainsaw-sword. And it wouldn’t be a navy seal it’d be a vast slithering madness from beyond man’s rage come forth to drink in gallons of wrath and excess.

            Also the elephant would have chainsaw tusks, a trunk that shot plasma, and be ridden by….clones of….hrmmm…let’s go with Cyborg Neil Patrick Harris.

            Incidentally yes I do know I’m severaly off topic with that but It seemed a better use of my time.

          • David92

            Counter point, in the Ciphas Cain novels the commisar catches two soldiers crawling over a tank trying to both plant grenades at the same time and he reprimands them for that tactic. 40k fluff trumps irrelevant movie fluff

          • Nyyppä

            If that tank is full of razor sharp claws that wildly flail all over the place that tactic stops working.

    • J Mad

      Its actually clearly written in the rules its 1 nade. Been there from the start.

      it is worded as a “can only use 1 throwing attack per unit” and Im 100% sure everyone knows you dont hold grenades even in melee 🙂

    • Keith Wilson

      thats the only one i disagree with

  • The snapfiring of Ordnance weapons still get’s me they say yes, unless it’s a Blast or template weapon. Wonder how this wont apply to Space Marines Power of the Machine Spirit or if that wont make the final cut. Really hope PotMS is disqualifies. Totally don’t like the Snapfiring of demolishe cannons.

    • Alpharius

      This is the final cut. Demolishers are blast weapons, so they can’t snap fire. Seems pretty clear? Small buff for like Rapier squadrons who can move and still snap fire.

      • I’m looking forward to seeing if they contradict them selves in the Space Marine faq. I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Page 5:

          Q: Can a model with an Ordnance weapon and Power of the Machine Spirit still fire another weapon at full Ballistic Skill?
          A: Yes.

          Never-mind, this doesn’t quite answer your question. This is just for negating the Snap Shot penalty applied to non-ordinance weapons on a vehicle that fires an ordinance weapon.

          • ZeeLobby

            I completely understand what all of this that you typed means, but it’s definitely a good indicator of how complicated the game has become.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Yup. We are in desperate need for a parsing down of the rules.

          • Is that a contradiction?

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            It is an exception. You can shoot any non-Ordinance weapon at full BS with PotMS (normally you are restricted to snap firing only).

          • Ok, I was wondering if you were pointing it out as a contradiction. I’ve read some stuff on the B&C where so space wolves thought they could move their vindicators 12″ up and fire demolisher cannons which was then supported by the draft faq…
            Hope that’s now dead and done.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Sorry, I quickly searched for ordinance and POTMS and posted as soon as I saw it before really digesting what it was saying.

          • No worries.

  • Christopher Rudolph

    Yay they decided not to gut Dark Eldar

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      I saw that and was filled with joy!

    • J Mad

      Nah they gutted DE when the new Codex came out.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        That could be fixed with a new book or a bunch of new formations

        • J Mad

          And a formation saying “DE infantry units dont suffer snap shots while Jinking”

          It still remains the same DE was completely Gutted with this book.

          Units/HQ’s taken away, nerfed, lack of options on many units, over costed upgrades/vehicle upgrades, lower saves across the board compare to ALL other books, army special rules lacking compare to most other armies etc… etc…

        • ZeeLobby

          Then we fall in the same cycle as CSM. We still have to take the same crappy units. Formations are like a moldy bandaid.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Agreed. But it is the best we can get until 8th

  • Drew_Da_Destroya

    Q: Does a unit that is embarked on a Transport that Jinks also
    count as having Jinked?
    A: No.
    Q: Are passengers in Jinking Transports forced to fire
    Snap Shots?
    A: No.

    Do you hear that? It’s the sound of dozens of Dark Eldar players wondering how they avoided getting kicked again!

    • Adrien Fowl

      So they changed it! Glad they did, because that makes DE (a bit) playable again.

      • Drew_Da_Destroya

        Yeah. I figure they realized it had an outsized impact on basically one army, and a pretty underpowered army at that. Glad they fixed it!

        • J Mad

          It hurt Necrons too, you cant hurt DE anymore than they are now anyways, it was just them hitting a crippling blind man down on his luck, you know for good measure.

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha, exactly. I’m pretty sure playing DE will still be a struggle. This was just one extra kick while they were down.

          • Haighus

            It will be, but one more playstyle at least is now a struggle rather than suicide. So that makes two? (Grot and Wrack spam, and splinter Kabalite spam?).

          • ZeeLobby

            I guess. Haha. Both end up in flames against tip tier.

          • J Mad

            yeah I was playing one of them open top vehicles last week.

            A DS unit with 3 flamers landed… something like 13 wounds no saves, didnt matter if I jink or not vehicle was fine, dudes all died.

            There are other BRB rules that hurts DE and the DE codex is just so bad it doesnt even matter……….

  • Patriarch

    So a couple of things jumped out at me.

    Psykers can only cast a number of powers equal to their mastery level, not the number of powers they know. Grey Knights have to choose between Hammerhand and activating their force weapons, which makes them weaker against Greater Daemons and other monsters. Force and primaris powers are no longer as good as they were.

    Finally clarified the flyer firing arc, they can shoot 45° up and 45° down.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      That was always the case.

      • Patriarch

        Which one?

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          The Psyker powers.

          • J Mad

            I thought so too, but I cant remember if it was in a faq or the BRB Im looking at the BRB now and cant find where it stats “you cant use more powers than Master levels” Could you give me the page?

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            “Mastery Levels
            The number of psychic powers a Psyker can use each turn depends on his Mastery Level. Even a Psyker with a Mastery Level of 1 is a fearsome foe. Psykers with a Mastery Level of 4 or higher are incredibly rare, and it is better for the galaxy that this is so – they are almost unbelievably powerful, and rarely submit to any authority other than their own.”

            It is right near the beginning of the Psychic Phase Chapter. 🙂

          • J Mad

            HAHA I literally jump over that 1 paragraph. I assumed it was the definition of mastery levels.

          • Patriarch

            In context, it’s a pretty weak way to word the rule. The thrust of the rules around the page is that psykers only know one power per mastery level, so there is no need for a distinction. The same bit then goes on to talk about how psykers can know extra powers if they have a primaris power or a force weapon.

            Ultimately the number of powers a psyker knows also more or less depends on his mastery level, so until now it has been a reasonable interpretation that a psyker can try to use all the powers he knows, as long as he has the warp dice to fuel them.

            It’s good that the FAQ clears it up, I don’t think it is on quite the same level of stupid as scouting buildings.

          • J Mad

            “The number of psychic powers a Psyker can use each turn depends on his Mastery Level.”

            “Use”

            These rules are before “Number of Psychic Powers” which that rules says you can have as many powers as masteries levels.

          • Patriarch

            Yeah but… as a silly example, you could also say “the number of dice rolled in combat depends on model’s A characteristic on his profile”. It does indirectly, but it also depends on other things too. So the wording they used was a little more vague than it could have been IMO.

            What they meant was something along the lines of “A psyker may not attempt to use more powers than his mastery level each turn, regardless of the number of powers he knows”. Which they now have with the FAQ, so case closed.

          • J Mad

            But mastery levels dont change like attack characteristics…. you know that right? That mastery levels never change in a game…..

          • Patriarch

            The attacks characteristic on a model’s profile doesn’t change either. The number of attack dice you roll is dependant on it, but it is not true that A = no of attacks.

          • J Mad

            Your arguing 2 completely different rule sets.

            It is completely black and white, master levels = number of powers you may use. (unless stated in a special rule with that character)

          • Kazzigum

            It’s the first line.

  • J Mad

    A large thing tho is that Infiltrate confers to vehicles now.

    Infiltrate and still charge, so a Open top Vehicle infiltrating 12″ away out of LoS can turn 1 charge.

    • I don’t think that’s the case.
      Out of curiosity, what would make you think that was so?

      • J Mad

        “Replace the third paragraph of rules text with
        the following:
        ‘If a unit with Infiltrate deploys inside a Dedicated
        Transport, the same rules apply when setting up
        their Transport.”

        • How does that let that unit assault after infiltration on turn one?

          • J Mad

            You are correct, I re read the FAQ’s I was 100% sure I just read they said you can Charge after Infiltrate but I dont see it now, I must has read something else.

            Im looking over it again just to make sure tho.

            Edit: It is 16 pages 🙂 one can easily forget a rule on 1st read.

      • J Mad

        I was wrong, I’ll remove this.

  • Bhazakhain

    So with the Eldar Guardian Battlehost, do the various benefits units get against enemies within 12″ of the Guardians not work if the Guardians are in Wave Serpents?

    • Haighus

      Unless the rule specifically states otherwise, that is unfortunately true unless they disembark. Area of Effect bubbles got somewhat neutered.

  • Eisai

    Oh, you can probably ‘Look out Sir!’ eldar psychic power Mind War!

    Sergeant, you are duelling your willpower with a xenos psyker, let me, poor guardsman, try that for you.

    Focussed Wichfire can be Look Out Sired. But, in the characters section, states that ‘use common sense’ when thinkin when you can and can’t do that. Hmmm

  • stonehorse

    With the changes to cover saves for Monstrous Creatures and this change. I think Tyranids have been kicked in the face again.

    RIP Tyrant Guard.

    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: No, to both question.

    Codex Tyranids Page 47. Shieldwall. A Single Hive Tyrant (or the Swarmlord) may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it were an Independent Character.

    All Shieldwall grants is permission to join like an Independent Character, which following the rules the Hive Tyrant can’t now due to the FAQ.

    I think it is one that they didn’t encounter when writing the FAQ, and will hopefully be addressed in a Tyranid FAQ. I wish it wan’t so, I really do. I imagine that this is one that is going to be brought up by players who adhere to RAW.

    Thanks GW, thanks!

    • Duncan Parker Newton-Gaines

      This doesn’t nerf anything. The rules is that any special rule ina codex overrides a rule in the BRB. This is the FAQ for the BRB, so these are all BRB rulings. The rules in the Tyranid Codex take precedence.

      • Nyyppä

        This.

      • stonehorse

        The rule in the Codex just allows the Hive Tyrant or Swarmlord to be treated exactly like an Independent Character.

        Which is fine, it is still a Monstrous Creature, one that for this purpose has the Independent Character special rule and is treated as such. Which means following all the restrictions. Including those of the FAQ. It is an oversight on GW’s behalf, one that I am sure will be addressed.

        I imagine that GW have made this ruling yo stop some other rules abuse going on, without looking at how this will effect Tyranids.

  • Bhazakhain

    He would thus affect the Intercept rule for Swooping Hawks? It still says ‘a model’ and so it looks like they all still make a haywire hit on a 4+ in the movement phase. Nothing is mentioned about throwing a grenade or even the haywire grenades themselves, and this rule seems to have its own profile…

  • Grand_Master_Raziel

    I see they kept the stupid ruling on krak grenades, in spite of overwhelming feedback against it.