40K: Designers’ Commentary: FAQ-Lite

Games Workshop put out a Warhammer 40,000 8th Designers’ Commentary over the weekend – let’s talk about it’s impact on the game!

In case you missed it, GW put out the core rules and then some online this weekend to celebrate the release of Warhammer 40k 8th Edition. You can find the core rules (aka the Battle Primer) HERE. However, the biggest news was the Designers’ Commentary, which was basically an FAQ without being called one. That you can find HERE.

There are a couple of fundamental rules that have changed or have been completely re-worked in 8th Edition. In fact, if you really want to absorb the rules and understand them quickly forget how everything worked in previous editions. The thought process of “well that’s how it worked before” does not apply here and will only make you confused and frustrated at the rules – this is a new game.

So let’s talk about a couple core concepts that are different.

Re-Rolls and Modifiers

So we covered this last week in detail but some folks out there still didn’t believe us. Well now you can read it for yourself directly from Games Workshop:

It’s even in the core rules and it’s crystal clear:

My hope is that this information will filter out to everyone so that there will be less confusion and arguing about how re-rolls and modifiers work. Like it or not, those are the rules now. If you and your group want to House Rule it, that’s fine. However, if you’re going to a larger Tournament or are going to play with folks who haven’t house ruled it then you might want to re-visit how those rules work.

Coherency, Pile-In and Consolidation

This is another area that I is confusing in 8th and I’m really glad GW spelled all of this out and provided some examples. It all goes back to the Fight Phase and how those rules work. You can read those for yourself at the link above but here are some of the key concepts to grasp:

This is one that is super important due to how the activation and the fight phase work. If a unit gets split up out side of coherency and it’s next move will not cause the unit to end in unit coherency, then the unit cannot move. On top of that, a model that is in Base-to-Base contact is already considered as close to an enemy as possible and it cannot move due to a pile-in or consolidate move. So keep that in mind – especially if you played a lot of AoS and were using that to move around during combat: This is a different game. Things work different.

Just so everyone is clear: When you pile-in or consolidate into a different unit that was not the target of your charge, they do not get to Overwatch your unit, you do not get to attack them, and they can activate to swing at you in the fight phase.

Also, the only units that can activate in the Fight Phase are 1)Units who charged in the previous phase and 2) Units who are within 1″ of an enemy unit. Now, if for some reason a unit successfully charged and is no longer within 1″ of an enemy, it can still activate and it gets it’s pile-in and consolidate moves. Those moves must be toward the closest enemy.

We ran into this case in one of our games. Two units charged a single unit and the single unit was killed after the first unit activated. The second unit then activated and used it’s pile in and consolidate moves to head back towards the enemy across the board.

You can charge units that are not in Line of Sight, as long as they are in range. That unit then checks to see if they have a shot at your unit due to Overwatch. If you can’t see them, they shouldn’t be able to see you and therefore do not get to shoot at you in the Overwatch step.

Also, if a unit is eligible to fight in the fight phase, it has to fight. Just like Fight Club!

What is interesting to me about all of these cases is that all GW did was give examples – the core rules didn’t need to be re-written and errata didn’t need to be applied. I’m still glad they provided these weird situations and examples just because they illustrate how those rules work in more complex situations. I think that 8th is actually a really well done rule set because it looks simple at first glance. Then when you get into more complex interactions the rule set still works, you just have re-read the associated rules once or twice and apply logic.

 

What do you think of the Designers’ Commentary? Does it help clear some things up for you?

  • SilentPony

    I’ll admit, an FAQ on day 3 is both way better, and way worse, than I thought GW was capable.

    • orionburn

      Day 3? The FAQ came out on Saturday. BoLS is just getting around to it.

    • ZeeLobby

      Haha. It was day 0.

      And I’m super for it. I didn’t scoff at PP when they had to FAQ things right away, and I’m glad GW is willing to do the same. Way better than their old “well we know what’s best” mentality. The first day of thousands of games world wide will always do better than 5 years of play-testing at finding issues. Fixing them immediately is the way to go.

      • SilentPony

        That’s somehow even more impressive. More games were played in 2 days than in the past 5 years. God only knows how many FAQs will come by the 2nd weekend…

      • Richard Mitchell

        I agree, there some people who gave PP…stuff…for FAQ’ing on their release but I see FAQs as the company is still actively invested in the game and it is way better than the alternative. With PP’s Warroom and digital cards and digital rulebook the way we address rules is more fluid, the need for digging through FAQs is becoming unnecessary. The same thing with GW’s warscrolls to update units so you don’t have to dig through FAQ’s to see changes to them. The only thing, is GW should have the full rules and scenarios for free and digital so the digital version gets updated as well. As new player a 160 dollar game without the complete rules with free scenarios is just a huge barrier to play. I have seen Tabletop Minions unboxing and as someone who has never payed 160 dollars from other systems to get an incomplete game, it was awkward. He was really excited and every time he mentioned all stuff I would need in addition to the two player set, my stomach curled.

        • ZeeLobby

          Can’t argue with any of this, I hope we see it from them in the future, though I think they’d have to start slumping again.

    • generalchaos34

      no amount of playtesting will get out all the kinks, and I imagine all of these problems came about from people who were trying to break the game

      • ZeeLobby

        Lol. When did we get to this community where if something is unclear or different we immediately assume that someone who misinterpreted it wrong must be a cheater. Maybe this is why people feel unwelcome playing GW games.

        • orionburn

          Kind of like getting labeled a WAAC player the other day because I enjoy playing games by points rather than power level…lol.

          I know he’s just generalizing and there are people that really used & abused 7th edition rules, but most of these are just clarifying things. With all the freaking articles we’ve had, Facebook feedback from GW, and so forth there’s a lot of things that benefit from clarifying. I’d rather be sure I’m understanding pile in correctly than get into a dispute over a rule and ruin a game.

          • generalchaos34

            exactly that, 7th edition was an edition where if could only win if your army was the chosen few or you could use and abuse the rules. Playing in that environment really damages your sensibilities as a humble casual player. The more clarifications the better. Its alright if someone has a different interpretation of the rule, but if its an interpretation that makes them have some awful ridiculous combo, then im questioning your intent

          • orionburn

            Like the one where somebody seriously thought their command points could be used to make an opponent re-roll a dice? Come on…lol

          • Koonitz

            Funny thing is, I had a discussion about this. The rule says you can reroll a single die.

            Nowhere there does it specify who had to roll it the first time.

            I’m glad this got clarified so someone doesn’t try to argue that on me.

          • ZeeLobby

            Totally agree. I just think it’s funny when people see something in a FAQ and assume that people are dumb or trying to break the game. I don’t think additional clarification is ever a bad thing.

          • rtheom

            Well, just as often, rational thought seems to be ignored for personal advantage. “Drop pods are definitely built to have only half of their doors open when they land.”

    • KingAceNumber1

      To be honest, I don’t even really consider this errata. It’s clearing up a bunch of stuff that I personally see as common sense. Closing loopholes is always welcome.

  • orionburn

    One thing I’m surprised they didn’t have to comment on was in regards to the keyword system. So many guys in one of my FB Dark Angels group keep thinking the keyword means we get access to everything now. They don’t understand the distinction in the wording. Just because Centurions have the Imperium or Astartes doesn’t mean we suddenly get them. They can be taken as an ally of sorts from another chapter, but they won’t benefit from DA character buffs.

    • ZeeLobby

      Yeah, clarification on the faction keywords would be great.

      • Karru

        Where is the issue? What keywords does DA have?

        “Imperial”, “Astartes”, “Dark Angels”

        What keywords does Centurion have?

        “Imperial”, “Astartes”, “”

        As is stated in the DA part of the index, only certain units may have the “Dark Angels” keyword. Centurions are not on that list and as such may not take them. You can, however, take Centurions in you DA army “normally”. Your faction is just Imperium and Astartes.

        • ZeeLobby

          I mean I understand, but a reiteration + EXAMPLE (more importantly) would be great. I mean FAQs don’t always have to answer something that’s incorrect, but should help to clarify things that are new or difficult to understand.

        • orionburn

          What I’m saying is despite explaining that to them they still think the keyword somehow overrides that master list. Yes, you can take Centurions but they don’t magically get the DA keyword just because Centurions share the Imperium & Astartes keywords.

          • Gorsameth

            Rule 101. Specific rules overwrite generic rules unless stated otherwise.

            The specific rules regarding the use of the keyword replace the generic rules for the keyword.

            Else the Dark Angel section literally does nothing.

          • SilentPony

            I think they’re looking at is from a:
            “Imperial”, “Astartes”, “Dark Angels”

            And Cents have
            “Imperial”, “Astartes”, “”
            Where chapter becomes Dark Angels.

            So Imperial, Astartes, Dark Angel

          • Patrick Boyle

            The Dark Angels section of Imperial Index 1 specifically lists which Space Marine units can have the Dark Angels keyword, and Centurions aren’t on the list.

            You can have Centurions in the same army as Dark Angels as they both have the Astartes keyword, but the Centurions can’t have the Dark Angels keyword and don’t benefit from the buffs that characters with the Dark Angels keyword grant.

    • Karru

      I mean, they are not “wrong” per say, DA can take Centurions and such, but they just don’t get the “Dark Angels” Keyword, instead they have to choose another chapter. Since the only thing you’ll find “lacking” is the fact that you can’t give them buffs from your characters, you might as well.

      All your units within a detachment must share the same faction. This faction can be “Imperium” and/or “Astartes” and/or “Dark Angels”. They only need to have one of those keywords to be considered to be from the same faction.

      • ZeeLobby

        Yeah, I really wish the Indexes had bonus for pure specific faction detachments as well. I know we may eventually get that with codexes, but it would have been nice to see them promote that day 0.

        • Karru

          They try to “promote” it through the usage of the buffing system by making it so that you can only benefit from them if you have the same “” keyword like “Blood Angels” or “Cadians”. Still, they need to bring in the Warlord Traits and Relics that are only accessible if your entire army is purely made up from certain keywords.

          • ZeeLobby

            Right, but some units inclusions clearly outweigh whatever buffs are available. In competitive play, you will still always see things like Dark Angels + Centurion, for example. Like I said, the eventual codexes will probably solidify this promotion, would have just been nice to have more incentive off the bat. (personally i would have preferred detachments to only have one pure faction and multiple detachments be the way to include allies).

          • Karru

            Yeah, I mean, all they really would have needed is to add Warlord Traits or even just Stratagems into the indexes at the start of each section of the army. If your entire army was made up of one faction, you’d get them. Just by making them very powerful would be enough incentive to play pure armies.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, and then allying in another detachment would have that detachments required unit penalty. It’d just make the game more pro/con dependent, and would have made decisions more important out the gate. It also would have made factions with no allies a little more level on the playing field.

        • orionburn

          Business wise it helps push you into buying a codex. I mean really if it were only some fluff and custom stratagems (as Karru mentioned elsewhere as a possibility) that isn’t exactly enough to get me to actually purchase the book *cough* questionable Russian Google Drive sites *cough*.

          We DA players are a bit let down at the loss of the fluffy rules to Deathwing & Ravenwing. I imagine the codex will bring some of those things back. What I don’t want to see is a codex that comes out and invalidates something in the index books. I just spent $75 on books that I’d like to see be useful for more than 3 months.

          • ZeeLobby

            Er…. I wouldn’t hold my breathe. My guess is that these will clearly be overwritten at some point. I mean in the end it’s just unit cards. I don’t think GW will have issue modifying those.

          • Thomson

            Deathwing Terminators basically still have fearless and are the same price as other marine terminators now.

    • Gorsameth

      There is even an explanation on the Dark Angel page complete with a list of Space Marine units that are allowed to use the “Dark Angel” keyword. Units not in that list are not allowed to use the keyword.

      Just another example of not reading the rules…

      • orionburn

        I was close to dropping some f bombs this weekend because people were being so thick in the head…lol.

        • davepak

          people of weak character will always try to subvert information to bolster their own insecurities.

          Avoid them if you can.

  • Horus84cmd

    Just goes to show, no matter how clearly and simple, a set of rules are written there are people who seek to misinterpret them – either because they can’t read in the first place or are trying to abuse the system. Personally, whilst the clarifications are nice they weren’t needed either.

    • ZeeLobby

      lol. Cause no one ever accidentally misinterprets rules am-i-right?

      • KingAceNumber1

        I mean, that’s pretty much my experience with humans in general.

        • ZeeLobby

          lol. That’s sad. Most gamers I meet are pretty intelligent, and still get rules wrong occasionally. I guess in that sense I’m just glass half full

    • Thomson

      The rules contradict themselves quite obviously. Best example is that you are not allowed to activate a unit which has assaulted to fire its assault weapons.

      A clear wording would have been: Assault weapons allow you to activate a unit to shoot, even if it has assaulted this turn, but the activated unit may only fire assault weapons.

      But they did not think about it. They are cool guys, and the new rules are better by an order of magnitude compared to 7th, but they still have no one like WotC of FFG who can really write rules clearly.

      • Horus84cmd

        what are you on about? Do mean units that have “advanced”? Because it dose not matter what type of weapons have fire you can still assault. The rules for assault weapons state:

        “A model with an Assault weapon can fire
        it even if it Advanced earlier that turn. If
        it does so, you must subtract 1 from any
        hit rolls made when firing that weapon
        this turn.”

        pretty clear

        • Thomson

          But by the book you are not allowed to activate a unit during the shooting phase after it advanced. So it’s cool that you would be allowed to fire your weapons, but you can’t because you need to activate the unit to shoot which you’re not allowed to do.

          This is an example where RAI is crystal clear, but RAW just does not work.

          • Horus84cmd

            Again how shooting works is clearly stated in the rules. Indeed the fundamental rule states you can not shoot with a unit that has advance. However the rules for Assault weapons override this.

            These rules are clear and concisely presented RAW or RAI. There is not grey area here. I get the impression you are being intentionally obtuse.

          • Thomson

            Ok, I used the wrong wording. Citing from RAW Shooting Phase: “First, you may pick one of your units… You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell back this turn…”

            Assault weapons by the book don’t grant me the permission to pick a unit for shooting that Advanced. So I can’t pick my unit containing Assault weapons. If I would allow to pick that unit, I would be allowed by RAW to fire ALL of its weapons, since all other weapons do not state that you can’t fire them if you advanced. You just can’t fire them because you are not allowed to pick a unit to shoot…

            Again, it is crystal clear how they meant this to work, but they wrote down something different.

          • kloosterboer

            You’re joking.

          • eMtoN

            He has to be a troll. There’s no other explanation.

          • Thomson

            Nope I just read what they wrote. Maybe my problem is that I am too picky about these things. Maybe this comes from trying to explain a stupid machine what I want it to do almost every day.

          • Odras

            “Assault weapons by the book don’t grant me the permission to pick a unit for shooting that Advanced.”

            Ahh… yes they do. Isn’t that exactly what their special rule does?

            Sometimes GW does have rules that are unclear, but I think you have chosen a particularly poor example. This is simply a case of general rule is this, but there is this specific rule that applies in some cases.

          • Horus84cmd
      • Patrick Boyle

        FFG writing rules clearly? That’s a laugh. They’re good about getting things addressed in FAQ, eventually, but their templating for their card games like Netrunner and in some cases in X-wing is all over the place.

        • Thomson

          Hm… seems I wasn’t fair to GW this time, I have to admit. I never played the earliest editions of Netrunner (and I did not start X-Wing because I am pretty sure I would be broke right now if I did).

          Since they basically did everything from the ground up it is not fair to compare it to later FAQ’ed editions of other games.

    • Vachones

      I don’t think the confusion is because people are dumb or trying to break the game. I really do believe its because some of these run counter to how 40k has always been. The re-rolls before modifiers, for example, is clearly spelled out, but is very different from what people are used to.

      The exception are people who wanted to abuse the keyword system by using “Celestial Lions” as a Chapter, Sept, Dynasty, Craftworld, etc. That’s just ridiculous and people who suggested that should re-think their life choices.

      • Horus84cmd

        Oh for sure. I was making a generalisation about rules writing. Heck, loads of people play very simple games like Monopoly wrong because they don’t read the rules fully – I’ve many a person who has never read the rules and are surprised to learn about the auction rules for buying property, which speeds up the game considerably!

        Indeed, changes from edition to edition are always going to be a potential cause for assumption and/or mistakes. But, and this is big but, there is a whole swath of basic mis-interpretation because people don’t read a rule correctly and/or place a rule within context of the game as a whole.

  • Heinz Fiction

    It’s a bit funny that the FAQ describes in every detail how modifieres and re-rolls of fixed numbers interact, which was crystal clear anyways and doens’t comment on how re-rolls of failed hit/wound rolls and modifiers are supposed to work, which is the case where the rules contradict each other.

    To give a quick recap: the problem in this case is that I need to apply modifieres in order to determine if I get a re-roll, which I’m supposed to do before I apply modifiers. This still leads to a temporal paradox that might destroy the whole space-time-continuum. Play at your own risk ­čśë

    • Walter Vining

      well since re-rerolls happen BEFORE modifiers, you don’t get to reroll a modified hit. staples.

      • Heinz Fiction

        So according to your own logic you wouldn’t get any re-rolls of failed hit/wound rolls AT ALL if modifieres are in play. Doesn’t sound like a satisfying solution to me.

        • Walter Vining

          roll to hit. check for hits and misses. reroll misses. check for hits and misses. apply modifiers.
          NOPE! you get rerolls in there….

          • Heinz Fiction

            You can’t ceck if a roll hits or misses before you apply modifiers. You can only check if it would hit under other circumstances (no modifiers), but thats not a condition that grants you re-rolls and therefore of pure academic interest.

          • Walter Vining

            you cant look at your dice and see if based on the unit profile you rolled the number you needed or better?

          • Heinz Fiction

            Sure, or I could check if it’s larger or less than Pi. Doesn’t help me decide if it’s a hit or not. I still have to modifiy it.

          • Walter Vining

            I mean I guess theres a chance that some intern came in and slipped that nifty portion in about rerolls before mods. and if you could prove that then you could make an argument. or you could just take it at face value (which you should) and stop being willfully obtuse. but then again youre name is after a brand of sauce I put on French fries and im sure you don’t understand that salt is bad for you

          • Heinz Fiction

            I think there is a realistic probability that rules like “you can re-roll missed hit rolls” were written before the passage about re-rolls and modifieres was added or without understanding the implications on their interaction.

            I think it’s likely (> 80%) that this will get clarified they way you suggest but GW came up with quite some surprises in FAQs before…

      • JPMcMillen

        The issue is more of not getting to re-roll a die that will become a miss AFTER the modifiers are applied.

        Ex. Heavy Bolter Space Marine moves and fires (-1 to hit). Rolls 2,3,5. If allowed to re-roll misses, the player can’t re-roll the 3 as it is a hit without modifiers, and will become a miss after the modifiers are applied.

        • Walter Vining

          and? command point rerolls are a thing…..

        • eMtoN

          So what you’re saying is that the issue is not with how the rules work but rather with how you want the rules to work. gotcha.

          • Thomson

            This time its not about who wants the rules to work how. Nobody gains or looses anything because every faction basically has the same problem. It is about clarity. If they would have a 3 as the original roll in the FAQ everything would be clear. But GW missed the mark here by one freaking number, that’s all.

        • Heinz Fiction

          I don’t really see that as an issue IF it is meant that way. It’s a little unintuitive but i can live with it. The problem is, that at this points it’s just an interpretation of how things are meant to work as the rules themselves still contradict each other.

          • Walter Vining

            they ARE meant that way

          • Heinz Fiction

            Thats a mere assumption until clarified by official sources

          • Walter Vining

            sure thing kid

          • Evil_Adam

            you mean… like the above FAQ from the Warhammer Community that says that’s how it is meant?

          • Heinz Fiction

            As I said in my initial post the FAQ in fact didn’t comment on it.

        • silashand

          This is the most counterintuitive nonsense I think I have read. I get how it works, but man this is just dumb.

    • Horus84cmd

      As Walter Vining points out – re-rolls always made before modifiers are applied. No if no buts. No grey areas All very clearly expressed in the rules and not hard to understand.

      • Thomson

        No the example just tells us that GW didn’t think about it. Otherwise they would have provided an example that illustrate the edge case, not something which was crystal clear from the beginning.

        • Heinz Fiction

          Yes. Re-rolls of 1 (2,3…) were never a problem as the procedure re-roll first, than apply modifiers is perfectly doable.

          However if you have to check the success of a roll to determine if you get a re-roll, then it doens’t work anymore.

          And before someone says: “but you could check if that roll would’ve hit to determine if you get a re-roll.” -Thats not what the rules say. They allow me to re-roll failed hits and not hits that would have failed in a parallel universe without modifiers

          • SWISSchris

            Exactly, this is my problem with it too. I can see what they’ve written, and it is clear, but completely illogical to me.

            e.g needing 3+ with a -1 modifier just means needing 4+ to me. So natual rolls of 3 are a “failed roll” to anyone who can think 1 step ahead. So to me would be covered by a “re-roll failed rolls” rule, as, ultimately, the roll failed.

          • silashand

            Yeah, if I run events I will be house ruling this one. It’s just dumb all around IMO.

    • eMtoN

      ? you don’t apply modifiers to determine if you get a re-roll.

      For example, if your BS is 3+ and you roll a 3 then no matter what modifiers are applied you can’t reroll it. If you roll a 2 then you can reroll it. Simple.

      • Heinz Fiction

        Sorry, you’re wrong. Why? Read my post above, I’m not repeating myself

        • Evil_Adam

          …. sorry, you’re wrong… why? read the rule and FAQ above, instead of repeating yourself.

          I’m really not sure how they could be clearer. Re-rolls happen before modifiers, it says it pretty clearly both in the Rule itself and FAQ. Ergo you don’t apply modifiers to determine if you get a re-Roll.

          • Heinz Fiction

            The FAQ also clearly stats, that abilities that trigger on certain hit rolls trigger AFTER modifiers are applied, with the exeption of abilities that specifically refer to unmodified rolls.

            The abilities in question (re-roll misses) don’t specifically refer to unmodified rolls. This reconfirms the wording which leads to the contradiction

          • Evil_Adam

            Except if re-rolls always occur before modifiers are applied (which it is quite clear is the case in multiple places) then you cannot re-roll after modifiers are applied. The “ability” you seem to be referring to is 8th editions version of “gets hot” which applies after you’ve applied everything (re-rolls and modifiers)… which makes perfect sense, you don’t get killed/damaged/etc unless you still have a one after re-rolls and modifiers. Nothing you’ve said actually disputes that it just sounds like you don’t like the answer you’ve received.

    • arkhanist

      It’s same rule, applied the same way. You determine if a roll passes or fails as it describes it in the appropriate section without modifiers. i.e. a straight BS or WS check for hit rolls because re-rolls ALWAYS happen before modifiers. It even says ‘the attack fails’ if you roll under your BS for example. So a marine devastator heavy bolter that moved (BS 3+), firing inside the aura of a chapter master can only re-roll 1’s and 2’s. If it didn’t move, it can still re-roll 1’s and 2’s. You don’t get to re-roll 3’s regardless. After you apply net modifiers, the moving HB misses on 3’s or less, the static one on 2’s or less.

      It’s not that hard, just different to how you’re used to.

  • Fergie0044

    Good to see something like this so early in 8th. Dare we hope that ‘new GW’ will provide constant support to their game now?

    • Horus84cmd

      GW have made it pretty clear, through WH-Com that is exactly what they are going to be doing.

      • davepak

        Do they have a faq submission area yet?

        • Horus84cmd

          Not yet. When GW announced that they said it would launch sometime after the release of 8th. So I would hazard that could be a few weeks to a few months

          • davepak

            Thank you for the info.

  • Randy Randalman

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the ruling for re-rolls. It not only cuts down on shenanigans, but is so explicit that the order of operations can literally never be questioned. I’d rather a perfectly clear rule that changes how some people play than a vague one that people can bend.

    • davepak

      I would rather have it be more simple by saying “on a roll of a natural 1…” or “on a modified roll of 1” etc.

      I agree it should be explicit – but that does not always mean complicated.

      • silashand

        This. There was a much better way to do this, yet they opted for the totally counter-intuitive version that literally everyone will likely get wrong until it’s pointed out otherwise. Any rule that has that effect is just outright stupid no matter how you look at it.

  • Defenestratus

    So wait

    If you can assault units that you cannot see, but can’t get overwatched, are we going to see the return of the rhino wall shield?

    • Horus84cmd

      Of sorts. Don’t forget if a unit hides behind a Rhino yes that unit can charge a target it can’t see, but said unit can’t simple charge through the Rhino. They would have to move around it, adding a chuck of extra distance to traverse. Making the chance of completing the charge slim.

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        The rhino really should be charging first anyways. ^_^

      • arkhanist

        Unless the assault troops hiding behind a rhino wall have jump packs, in which case they can Fly right over it during the charge ­čÖé

        • Horus84cmd

          Ha – indeed!

  • Jon

    I think the reroll dice thing is pretty clear. Its just so counter intuitive. If they meant the rule to work that way, I don’t see what would be the reason to design the rules that way.

    • Horus84cmd

      I would hazard it was mode of operation in regards to speed. You remove a layer of calculating modifiers per round of rolling.

      So under the rules we have:
      Roll Dice>Re-roll failed rolls>apply mods

      as opposed to:
      Roll Dice>apply mods>Re-roll failed rolls>apply mods

      Granted, it a small difference and perhaps in the grand scheme of things doesn’t save a lot of time, but, nevertheless, its one less step to make.

      • SWISSchris

        To me, it might save the tiniest fraction of a second, but make a ton less sense. Subtracting 1 or 2 from a D6 roll is not exactly rocket science, you just adjust the target; you don’t need to look at each dice and get a calculator out…

        • Horus84cmd

          Ha – yeah I know. Time saving probably varies from person to person.

          I’ve grew up playing from 2nd Ed 40K and 4th Ed WFB so I am well versed in handling it and being quick at it. I suppose, for new players, this way maybe more straight forward in terms of a step by step operation.

          The order of operation will effect the statistical outcomes so, perhaps, that played a part in the design choice.

          Heck, it maybe there is some future design function it will accommodate down the line e.g. a psychic ability that allows you to re-roll after modifiers.

          • SWISSchris

            True enough. Simpler step by step for younger players (though I was 10 or so when I started 2nd ed…) and it sure does affect statistical outcomes.

            Just can’t get my head around the process of naturally achieving your “target”, them modifying it to a miss. Just adjust the target to start with makes a million times more sense to be but I guess GW disagree.

          • Crom

            I think it was 100% based on the statistics of it. Doing re-rolls before modifiers make negative and positive modifiers FAR more potent at influencing outcomes

          • highwind

            it only makes negative modifiers more potent…

            if I got a BS of 4+ and get +1 to hit, there is no reason to ever reroll that natural 3 my dice shows

          • highwind

            the fact that it needed a day 1 FAQ which still doesnt answer all problems associated with this “rule” pretty much shows that it as far of from being “straight forward” as it could potentionally be…

          • Horus84cmd

            I’d respectable disagree here – the rule itself is clear. The confusion comes because it is completely the opposite to how GW have broadly handled the application of modifiers historically.

        • Crom

          The issue I think GW solved with their order of operations is that if you have the ability to re-roll misses and you have a heavy weapon with a -1 to hit penalty for moving… you actually become MORE accurate if you move with the re-roll determined after modifiers than if its determined before modifiers. There would be little to no penalty at all for moving and firing heavy weapons if you have a re-roll. With the way they have it now, it is much less likely to hit for moving and firing. I believe the intention of this rule is to keep negative modifiers far more relevant.

          • SWISSchris

            Thst does make sense. I’ll have to play with an excel sheet for myself and see the effect. Does seem to take some drama out of your dice roll though.

  • Thalandor

    It must be a hassle while playing a game and rolling 30 dice, then you need to figure out what score yields a “1” after modifiers to know if your special rules kicks in or not. Would have been easier to just say “natural 1” all the time.

  • highwind

    So if a Space Marine fires his Plasma Cannon in supercharged mode after moving and rolls a 1 he doesnt die because, you know, its not a 1, its a 0 and Plasma only kills on 1s…

    Stupid rules are stupid…

    • Xodis

      In that Scenario he still dies on a 2 so same chance of blowing up.

      • highwind

        Its not about the % of a chance, its about completely counter-intuitive rules writing without the slightest of any benefit

        noone would have ever asked any question about the whole topic if the rule was simply “apply modifiers to rolls first before doing anything else” but instead we got this stupid mess which leaves dozens of questions even after a FAQ of a size which is half the base rules…

        SM Chapter Masters allow rerolls on misses… to know if you actually miss you need to apply the modifiers but the reroll has to be done before the modifier?!… it doesnt get more ret*rded than this

        • Xodis

          Not really true IMO. Keeps bonuses from stacking TOO much I believe. Having a modifier and a reroll on miss should mean you just dont miss. The ruling as it is allows a greater chance of failure…not matter how slim it may be.
          To fix your scenario all they need to state is “no roll may be modified to less than 1” and its done.

          • Mr.Gold

            which is also in the FAQ

          • highwind

            please quote it then…

          • Fergie0044

            “A miss is relative result” except its not. What is and isn’t a miss for the purposes of re-rolls is based entirely on your natural roll.
            So lets say a heavy weapon guys (3+ to hit) moves and shoots near a chapter master. So he gets to re-roll all misses and has a -1 modifier;
            you roll 1,2,3,4,5,6
            1 and 2 are misses so re-roll them. (say you get a 1 and 3)
            You now have 1,3,3,4,5,6
            Apply your -1 modifier
            1,2,2,3,4,5
            you have 3 hits.

          • highwind

            so making a completely counter-intuitive rule for dimishing another rule?
            why just not make the other rule weaker in first place?!

            and why do neither the base rules nor the FAQ state “no roll may be modified to less than 1” if it is so easy to fix?

          • KingAceNumber1

            I really don’t see the problem. You clearly understand the rule, it’s not really counter-intuitive. Why does it upset you? Because they used the word “misses?”

            A miss in this case is any dice below your BS before modifiers are added. It’s pretty simple.

    • arkhanist

      Rolls can’t go below 1 from modifiers – it’s confirmed in the commentary (but can go above 6). So in your case, the moving overcharged plasma cannon with BS3+; re-rolls always apply before modifiers, so you can re-roll natural 1’s with the captain aura. Then you apply modifiers to the die results. In the end any die with a 4+ hits, 3 or less misses. Any 1’s or 2’s also kill the cannon bearer.

      Which means overcharging moving plasma cannons is a BAD idea, unless you’re desperate. As intended.

      • highwind

        a nice… so GW rather gives another extra explaintion instead of changing an utterly stupid rule to something simple and logic

        • silashand

          That sounds about right. Instead of something that makes sense they resort to justifying their dumb*** “solution”.

      • KingAceNumber1

        I also like that if you move with plasma, overcharge, and shoot at a flyer with Hard to Hit you die on a 1,2, or 3. Watch your heads, boys, that plasma’s falling back down.

  • Holger Wurst

    Can anybody enlighten me which of the points/powerlevels for primaris marines are the ones to be used? The ones in Dark Imperium or in the index?