40K: Wrath of Magnus FAQ


It looks like GW decided to strike while the iron was hot with the new Wrath of Magnus Pink Horror Issue!


via GW 12-3-2016

Q: Do the units that are created count as Objective Secured if the Pink Horrors that spawned them had that rule? Are they a part of the Detachment that spawns them and therefore subject to all the rules of the Detachment?
A: No to both questions.

Q: Should the player pay points for the extra units formed when Pink or Blue Horrors split?
A: No.

Q: Do the new Pink Horrors get Malefic psychic powers?
A: No, they do not get Daemonology (Malefic) Powers.

Q: Does the entire spawned unit have to be within 6″ or just 1 model in it? Could I string a unit of Blue Horrors or Brimstone Horrors across the table, with just 1 model within 6″ of the Pink Horrors? It is not clear.
A: The entire squad needs to be within 6″.

Q: It seems that the only thing that stops them from Splitting is if they roll a Daemonic Instability test result that causes the entire unit to be taken off of the table. Is this correct?
A: Yes.

Q: What do you do if a unit of Blue Horrors or Brimstone Horrors cannot be placed because there are enemy models that prohibit this? I assume they are destroyed, or those that cannot be placed are destroyed, but it does not say.
A: Any models that cannot be placed are destroyed (the destruction of Blue Horrors in this manner does not create any Brimstone Horrors).

Q: If the entire unit of Pink Horrors is destroyed, do you place the Blue Horrors immediately? The Split special rule indicates that you only immediately place the Blue Horrors if a ‘rule’ causes the entire unit of Pink Horrors to be wiped out (which wounds like it is indicating something like Perils in the Warp, etc.) but what about simple attrition? If I shoot and destroy 10 of 10 Pink Horrors, how do I place a unit of 20 or 40 Blue Horrors within 6″ of the Pink Horrors if they are no longer there? Or, was the Split rule that talks about them being removed all at once due to a rule meant to indicate simply any time they are wiped out? It’s a bit ambiguous.
A: If a unit is wiped out, place the new unit immediately before removing the last model as a casualty.


Magnus commands you Horrors to BEHAVE!

~Have at it!

  • Karru

    Can someone get me the word for word description of the Split rule? How badly is it worded that you would even consider that you can make a conga line with the Blue Horrors?

    • Valeli

      It’s not badly written. It just doesn’t say “wholly” within six inches, and merely says “within six inches.” So, you know, it’s the kind of rule any normal person would interpret as within six inches.

      But yeah. You have to be a pretty sad guy (or gal) to try and daisy chain your resulting horrors 24″ out because “RULZ AS RITTEN!!!,” and then argue it over the next 20 minutes with your opponent.

      I always found people like that incredibly off-putting. But yeah, it exists. Far too much. It’s probably one of the reasons (aside from convenience after the nearest closed) that I stopped going to gaming stores so much.

      • Charon

        Actually the wording is an issue.
        “A unit withing 6″ of the character gains Fearless”
        This does not mean the unit has to be wholly inside of 6″, in every other case this means at least one model of the unit has to be within 6″
        The wording was the same for horrors so people went with the same reasoning.
        Now we have the same wording for 2 different rulings. This could have been solved easily by wording more carefully or different.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          I would errata the Pink Horrors to include the word Wholly, that way it does not cause this discrepancy.

          • Charon

            I would actually write it in the book before I have to put out the errata if I was a paid professional game designer who playtested his stuff.

        • Calgar

          You don’t need the word wholly, because i think its ok for the unit to be placed outside 6″ assuming that as many as possible were placed within 6″. The rest could then be placed as close as possible to the 6″ limit. But chaining them out is just stupid nonsense.

          • Charon

            Then you need a sentence that states it. Either you allow it or you dont. You can not say “swimming is allowed” and then expect people to not swim more than 2m.
            I agree that chaining is nonsense but you either have to word it, allow it or disallow it. Not just allow it RAW and let the players sort it out.
            Also this is the only case where the same wording has a different meaning now.

            Every unit in 6″ around the bearer gains the zealot special rule”
            Is one model enough or wholly?

          • Shawn

            I disagree Charon. A little bit of common sense goes a long way. Any person can see that daisy chaining a unit is crazy. GW shouldnt have to hold everyone’s hand to tell them how to play the game. But, since so many uber-competitive players insist on playing game not designed for tournaments, they try to squeeze every little bit of crazy teensy-weensy advantage out of the rules, even when they don’t exist. (i.e.”the rules don’t say I can’t do it,” or “oh I should be able to upgrade my captain to a chapter master and still run him in a gladiius because he’s just an ‘upgraded captain.’ ” Stuff like this is sheer utter nonsense.

          • Charon

            The rules are there for both players to play the game at the same level.
            They are not there to allow one player to be the judge over what is intended and what not. If I wanted to argue aboubt how the game is played, I would need no rules and just make pew pew noises and claim that every model in fromt of my army was just pew pewed to death. My opponent will disagree but he is probably wrong as this is how the game was obviously intended.

            If you want to make exceptions to written rules in your game, thats fine.
            But if you claim one interpretation I would like to stick to that interpretation for the whole game. Every rule with the same wording sticks to the same interpretation. That is called consistency. I do not want to play a game where a yes turnis sometimes into a maybe and a no could be a yes if my opponent decides this is his interpertation.
            Either something is allowed or it is not. If it is conditional it has to be worded as such.

          • Shawn

            I can understand where you are coming from Charon, but that kind of absolute, is really only needed in a tournament, unless you have casual/just ubercompetitive/waac players in your community. Otherwise, you all can simply agree on a way to play and leave it at that. Just some common sense applied to the structure of the sentence should be enough and you can then determine the intent. Daisy-chaining horrors is just someone trying to squeeze and advantage when none is there.

          • Charon

            I do like reliable rules as I do not like negotiating the same thing over and over again with different opponens and their different interpretations.
            If I have no reliable rules, I need no rules at all as I have to waste my time arguing anyways.
            Also this kind of negotiating can form a pretty bad gaming experience when you do base your army composition on a set of rules interactions and you basically roll a dice from opponent to opponent if you can have a game as your interpretations macht or you can pack up and go home.

          • Shawn

            You make some good points Charon. I understand your take on things as well. Perhaps it’s because I came from rpgs first, where the rules don’t have to be such an absolute, and house rules are more welcome. Having a great solid tight rule set would be awesome and most welcome. However, in the absence of such precision, we all need to use some common sense.

            I believe that there is a competitive way to play without being a douch (waac/way too competitive casual) with healthy dose of common sense read from a rule’s wording. Take the gladius formation, for instance, where it says it requires a captain, and someone wants to upgrade his captain to a chapter master. While the rules don’t specifically say he can’t, it’s pretty clear that the formation requires a captain and not a chapter master. It’s that kind of rule twisting, that the waac player likes to invent for that point-and-click-win army he wants. The same holds true for the horrors. Let’s daisy-chain the horrors like a wall in some cheesy anime cartoon, so we can cheese the rules some more. And I think it’s the tournament scene more than anything else where common sense is thrown out the window. Unless your running around the country, or world for that matter, to play in tournaments, what you and your friend’s decide is all that matters.
            Now, I am also hoping that GW does make a tighter rule set, so that I can enjoy tournments without all this kind of cheese, but I’m not holding my breath.

          • Charon

            I do play RPGs too. But this is different. An RPG is a cooperative game with a supposedly neutral storyteller who controls the antagonists.
            None of these points is true for 40k.

          • Shawn

            Agreed, whole-heartedly.

      • kingcobra668

        The faq was pretty spot on on how I read the rules, but I’m not keen at all with vilifying people that play RAW. How else is one supposed to play but as the Rules Are Written? RAI can be vilified just the same, and imho, more justly. RAI might be logical sometimes, but to me its Rules As Imagined.

        • Valeli

          It’s not even “rules as intended” though.

          The “opposing” argument is that GW /intended/ to leave wholly out. Because the way it’s written, both possibilities are technically the correct outcome.

          So it’s a common sense thing.

          /AS WRITTEN/, you have two options. Both could (technically) be correct, but one must be chosen. One choice is patently ludicrous, and results in a weird daisy chain that I don’t know how anyone can think /isn’t/ gamey. The other option makes perfect sense, and fits into the game’s existing mechanics perfectly reasonably.

          Why would you ever argue for the gamey option?

          I don’t know. But that’s as far as my counterargument is going to go today because, as implied, I find this all a very distasteful and unpleasant argument to be having in the first place.

          Warhammer is not, and should not, be akin to constitutional law. Ever. If both players simply run with common sense, things usually work out well. I’m not sure why, at times, that can be surprisingly hard for some people.

          • kingcobra668

            “I know what the developers intended” is always entirely arrogant. We, as gamers, know nothing but RAW. None of us have psychic communion with the developers. Its just bully tactics.
            I already said my reading of the rules were already in line with this faq so any arguement is imagined.
            All I AM saying is your “RULZ AS RITTEN!!!” shaming or whatever is just toxic/distasteful/whatever one choose to label it. Bullying to “win.” What you seem to be talking about is not RAW, but rather rule bending under the guise of RAW, which, of course, is not the same thing.

          • euansmith

            Yeah, I’m fairly certain the majority of us haven’t been playing 40k as the designers intended since Rogue Trader.

          • Nilok

            There is a decent difference between saying that you know what the developers intended and saying that something makes sense in context.

            And to be fair, playing exclusively RAW is also assuming that it is exactly what the developer intended. They are people, and it may not work correctly or perfectly. Hell, the MTG tome is a testament to what you need to do if you want something that has a solid RAW.

          • Charon

            On the other hand is it reasonable to write a rule that forces you to place 18 models in a space that is so confinded you will never be able to fully place them anyways?
            Both choices are weird.
            One choice allows you to wander off, the other disallows you to use the rule to its full extent. You could have argued either way with “common sense”.

          • Valeli

            I imagine one might let the player finish placing the models as closely as possible to the original zone, in the event that sufficient pink/blue horrors have died to absolutely necessitate the use of additional space.

            In this event, one would strive to keep the additional space used to the minimum amount.

            I think there’s a rather significant difference between “I’m expanding the radius one inch (or heck, maybe two), because it’s the only way this will work” and “I’m daisy chaining this out 24”, because I want to get to your side of the table and block the path here.

            If you don’t think there’s a difference… ok.

          • Charon

            According to the FAQ ther is no difference. You are not allowed to do either.

          • Valeli

            Ok. Well, with things clearly stated, then sure. Go with the rules as clearly stated.

            No objection whatsoever.

            The point is that when things are ambiguous, it makes sense to do the interventions necessitating the smallest changes before those necessitating the largest ones.

            That’s a generally reasonable concept, I feel.

            Increasing the diameter an inch or two is a small deviation from the norm. Daisy chaining out 24″ is a large one. So when choosing, go small.

          • Charon

            And there you run into problems.
            You have a rule with 2 possible interpretations. You pick one, call it RAI and still deviate from it because it still does not feel right.

          • Valeli

            Not at all.

            If the FAQ says you can’t do it, then you don’t do it. I don’t like D Weapon spam either, but it’s a thing that’s clearly allowed and I deal with it.

            Choosing between the two options only applied before the FAQ. In which case, again, the smallest deviation is almost always better than the largest.

            That’s not a matter of RAI at all. It’s a matter of simply choosing the smallest deviation that makes things work, when in need of a way to make things work.

            If GW has since come back and explicitly spelled out that you don’t need to be able to deploy all your models to make things work (if you can’t fit it in the space), then that’s how it is and deviation is no longer needed.

            At no point whatsoever is a 24″ daisy chain needed though. None.

          • Charon

            NOW we have an FAQ. Bevore we had not. You argued the rule was clear before. I argued it was not.
            You went on with the “clear” interpretation and bent it to make it less wonky.
            I do not argue the FAQ. I argue the notion that “So, you know, it’s the kind of rule any normal person would interpret as within six inches.”

          • Valeli


            So before the FAQ, if you need to make stuff fit, I would have had no problem letting you fit it.

            I would have had a problem if you tried to expand your deployment radius by ~12″ to daisy chain it out 24″ in your attempt to fit it.

            I wouldn’t have had a problem if you had increased the radius by the least amount possible. One or 2″, whatever the smallest necessary increase was.

            If that’s what you mean when you’re arguing about 6″ – that someone should be able to use 7″ or 8″ before the FAQ (when necessary) then sure. That makes sense. It’s a small deviation that lets you fit your stuff in, and without and FAQ saying you don’t get to fit your stuff in, I have no objection.

            If you’re arguing that because you can’t fit it in 6″ you should be able to use 24″ …. that’s crazy though. Don’t start at 24″ when 7″ or 8″ will work fine.

          • Shawn

            You would argue for the gamey option becuase your are A. A waac player, B. Just uber competitive in general., or C. Can’t utilize common sense.

      • Shawn

        I think it’s the uber competitive (read: waac) players that would pull crazy shenanigans like that. Isit any wonder that GW didn’t want to have anything to do with its customers for so long?

        • Valeli

          Yeah. I think you’re probably right.

          And I sort of hesitate to say that, because I take my 40k (reasonably) seriously, and used to take it even more seriously a few years back.

          That’s the difference between “WAAC” and “Competitive”, I guess. It’s a line that gets blurred a bit too often, unfortunately, and I think “competitive” players often end up unfairly tarred because of those other guys.

          But yeah.

          There’s a difference between playing to win and being obnoxious about it.

  • I cannot believe they didn’t increase the cost of pink horrors to coincide with this, as a Tz player this is nutty, the only check on it is model availability

    • Charon

      Dont like it either. It is a wallet check. You want to use your special rule? Give me money.
      You dont want to spend 100$ on a single unit? Well your special rule is null and void.
      Next time you see a wraithknight you should ask him to pay up 2 $ per D shot, because obviously using special rules has to cost money nowadays.

      • CMAngelos

        I know! How dare I have to own or buy models to use the rules that cover those models! It’s ridiculous that I actually have to buy my space marine to use them. D:

        • Charon

          There is a difference between buying a model to field them or buying a model to use the special rule of another model.
          This is more “If your space marines are forced to fall back, remove them and place another squad with a different colour consisting of the smae number and euipment as the original models where the first squad was. They rally immedeatly. If you dont have the models count them as destroyed.”

          You do not “own or buy models to use the rules that cover those models”, you “own or buy models to use rules an entirely other model has”

          • CMAngelos

            Remember the old IG rule for send in the next wave, that is almost exactly what you described just now lol. If you wanna use the rule buy/convert/proxy the models. If you don’t wanna have the models the Special rule obviously isn’t that important to you.

            At this point it really seems like you’re searching for things to be unhappy about.

          • Charon

            No, as the unit had to be removed to send it in again. Next try.

          • CMAngelos

            See the word -almost- there? As in “close but not exactly” guess ya didn’t but excellent job trying to ignore my other point.

          • Charon

            No it is not close. You remove your 20 models and reuse the same 20 models. No additionals in here. This not not “almost”.
            I give you 10 $ and you give me 50 $ back is not “almost the same” as you giving me 10 $ and I give you your 10 $ back.

            I ignored your other point because it was… well…. stupid. If you wanna use special rule you paid for, pay more money. Good concept. Good design. Pay to win here we go. Good seeing you supporting that.

          • CMAngelos

            That’s how the entire game works mate. Want to use X? You gotta buy Y.

            Wanna use Free Transports? Gotta own the Transports
            Wanna use Tyranid Spawn abilities? Gotta have the gaunts.
            Wanna use Scarab Spawning Spyders? Gotta have Scarabs.
            Wanna summon farm? Gotta own the demons
            Wanna use Split? Gotta have the models.
            Wanna Pirhiana/Drone farm? Gotta have the drones.

            Stop acting like Horrors/chaos are the only ones with similar rules that require extra models to work fully as if it’s some sort of Anti-Chaos conspiracy.

            Use the free models rule, or don’t, but the silly outrage over it is, pure sillyness.

          • Charon

            Because all of the things you mentioned here are good game design and utterly loved by the community. The Gladius was never ever deemed stupid because of the free transports or Summon spam was such a good and wanted addition to the game that all people love it.
            Defending these rules and wanting to add even more is pure sillyness.

          • CMAngelos

            Galdius makes people angry, and Summon farm gets laughed a alot however I can not say I’ve heard near any of the rage you seem to have for any of the others. It goes right back to what I said before.

            If you don’t like it don’t use it. It really is that simple.

          • David Leimbach

            It’s fluffy and if you want have the models of the right color and want to use as tokens then use them. Otherwise *points at unit of pink horrors* – these guys are all now blue horrors. You can play with a coke can for a drop pod if you want. Some of us like modelling all the details we can though.

      • Andreas Noche

        Same could be said about the “free” transports…

        • Charon

          Which was said multiple times? Free stuff is a stupid design no matter who gets it.

          • Andreas Noche

            Depends. In the way it is enacted now: Yes. However, if free stuff is bad, then same goes for weapons? If yes, an additional ccw would be terrible?

            What I´m aiming at: GW should rethink their unit composition. If they push for ever bigger games, then IG squads should be bought in 5 with 10 man each (that would also enable them to have a model with a X.5 value) and marines should already have a transport included. The current summoning as well as the formation tax is just poor

          • Charon

            Free stuff:
            War Convocation

            Additional CCWs do cost points in most cases.

          • Andreas Noche

            No Tervigon?

          • euansmith

            I think he is only referencing effective units.

          • Charon

            You could make a case for it but most of the time you will also just recycle units that already have been spent.
            This is a bit different from bringing 50 models for each 10 man unit of pink horrors (or 130 models if you buy the Locus)

          • Andreas Noche

            A point could be made to say, that a unit of horrors does NOT consist of just pink but also the other variants. With this point of view, you simply don´t get to use all options of said unit unless you provide the models. However, this is also true for pretty much every option (which you could easily identify as a rule quite unique to this unit) in the game. You want to use split? Buy the models. You want 6 Melter Chosen? Buy the Models.

          • Valeli

            I could be wrong here…

            But I feel they’re not strictly going for bigger games so much as going for getting people to buy bigger (and/or extra) models.

            They don’t seem to care that much if people play 2k or 4k games as the norm, but they do seem to care an awful lot about making Baneblades and other (previously) apocalypse models acceptable in “the norm”.

            I guess rules like this one here and free transports do directly make for bigger games (point wise)…. but I think they just want to sell more/new models, and could care less about the actual point value.

            GW’s doing a lot well/better lately, I freely admit. But this remains a sore point with me.

            (I remember they went crazy with new/big models in 8th ed Fantasy at one point…. and we all know the end to that story… so I feel pretty confident arguing that selling new models in and of itself isn’t an easy/quick fix to anything).

          • Valeli

            Mmm. I do take issue with all of these formations that bring free units/transports/whatever.

            I remember the splitting horror rule from back when though…. so I think of it more as a return than a brand new money grab or anything.

            But yeah. GW’s formations etc have definitely included several money grabs, of which this is (arguably) one, and I don’t really like to see stuff going in that direction.

          • Charon

            I think it is different this time.
            The old split rule was
            1) once
            2) they formed a single unit
            3) they lost their caster abilities

            Basically you bought 20 blue horror models and were done with it as they kept dying anyways and you just recycled.

            Now you can not recyle as they spawn at the end of the phase. So you do not pop a few pinks, place a few blues and pop the blues after that preserving the pinks.

            You wait till all shooting/melee/psi is done and create a new unit withing 6″

          • Valeli

            We disagreed plenty up above. But I’m with you 100% on this here.

  • Old zogwort

    Whoo, Go gw immediately fixing stuff 😀

    • Geraldinehallen

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj138d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://www.career6.Com ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj138d:….,….
      Go to the site and Click Home Tab for More Info And Details……

  • sethmo

    The comments in here are disgusting.

    Chill out warhammer bros.