40K: Rules You Might of Missed: Core Rules Edition

It’s a new 40k ruleset that is simpler than before but that doesn’t mean there aren’t some things that are tripping folks up.

Hey BoLS Readers, we’re starting a new series about rules that you might of missed. Now, I realize that the rules aren’t out yet but I’ve been watching games and I’ve seen some common questions pop-up. And seeing as how we have a physical copy of the books, I’m able to double check things. And after today’s Terrain Article, I figured it’s the perfect time to talk about the little things folks are glossing over.

In today’s edition, we’re taking a look at some of the Core Rules that folks have questions about. Some of these are no brainers – but some of these I’ve seen folks getting wrong just due to not having a copy of the rules. Hopefully this will help clear somethings up:

Movement Phase

“No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than [it’s movement characteristic].” I wanted to point this out because for several editions my gaming crew has referred to the “Tokyo Drifting” Laid Raider. Basically, folks used to be able to move a Land Raider (or other transport) the max distance, then pivot the Land Raider for an extra few inches of deployment. You can’t do that in 8th (and they cleared this up in previous editions, too – but it’s worth repeating.)

While we are on the subject of transports, Disembarking says, “When a unit disembarks, set it up on the battlefield so that all of is models are withing 3″ of the transport and not within 1″ of any enemy models.” Now, if a transport has any other restrictions for disembarking, those will be on the datasheet. But other than that – access ports/ramps/doors on the model don’t really matter any more. In fact facing doesn’t really matter either. Again – any additional restrictions will be listed in the datasheet. Just keep that in mind.

Also, disembarking happens BEFORE the transport moves. The unit may then act normally – “move, shoot, charge, fight, etc.” Now, if a unit is deploying using an alternate deployment method from a transport (read: Drop Pod), that transport typically deploys at the END of the phase. Because this happens at the END of the phase, the unit cannot move or advance after the deployment and they count as having moved. Check you datasheet for specifics!

Psychic Phase

As far as we can tell, after much reading in the BRB and the 8-pages of rules, if you roll a pair of 6’s on a psychic test this causes a Perils of the Warp. However, unless this kills the Pskyer, it does not stop the power from triggering. On top of that, the Psyker can keep slinging powers (if they can cast more than one per their turn – check their datasheet). The phase doesn’t end, you don’t lose dice, there are no other negative effects…

A Psyker cannot manifest the same power more than once (unless stated on the datasheet) and only 1 attempt to DENY a power regardless of how many psykers you have within range.

Shooting Phase

Units can shoot 360ยฐ – that includes vehicles. I’m almost positive folks are going to get into arguments about LoS with turrets or sponson. All I’m asking is that they show me in the rules where the old concepts of arcs, facings, fire points, etc. are – because I have the book and they aren’t there. And they aren’t on the datasheets, either. So keep that in mind for your next (or first) game!

You can split fire within a unit. That is a thing everyone can do! And you can fire all your guns that are equipped, the only exception is Pistols. You can either fire your pistol(s) or your other weapons. So don’t let your tanks fire their pistols or they can’t fire their cannons! (that’s a joke, tanks don’t have pistols. Then again, orks…)


Wounding is weird. Let me lay out the steps really quick:

  • Roll to Hit
  • Roll to Wound
  • Allocate Wounds
  • Roll Saves
  • Inflict Damage

In most cases folks are going to be able to fast roll the dice. If all target unit is the same, then you can just roll that bucket of dice and you’re good. But, if you have special rules (like shield drones for the T’au) then you have to do the allocate wounds 1 at a time. This part can be time consuming but mixed units aren’t a thing any more so it’s needed. Also note that a failed saving throw is not a wound – a model loses a wound for each point of damage it suffers. This will be important for things like Hive Tyrants and Tyrant Guard shield wall. Again, your datasheet will have more info!

Charge Phase

You can charge something you didn’t shoot at! So not only can you split fire you can charge a completely different unit – as long as you’re within 12″ you can declare a charge, but you do have to be within 12″ to declare said charge. Characters can basically counter-charge if they want to. They just have to be within 3″ of an enemy model. If they are within 3″ then they can move up to 3″ closer to the nearest enemy model.

Fight Phase

Every unit gets at least a 3″ pile-in when they are chosen to activate in the fight phase. This can be used to pull in other units and it can be used to move models closer to get more attacks. Only models that are within 1″ of the target enemy unit can attack. You can also split your attacks among your CC weapons – and everyone has a default Close Combat weapon. It’s just a generic melee attack with a strength equal to the user and a single damage, and you get a number of attacks with it equal to your attack characteristic.

Consolidating is ANOTHER 3″ move at the end of that unit’s fight activation. That can also be used to pull in another enemy unit(s). Keep in mind, if they weren’t in combat before, they are now and there can be activated to swing at your unit with no repercussions!

Now, there are a ton of other little things, but I feel like this is a pretty good list of minor mistakes I’ve seen folks ask questions about or get confused. And once again, there are exceptions to these rules – CHECK YOUR DATASHEETS! We’re all learning so before you start a huge argument just remember that the other player might have missed something or found something you didn’t know. Ask to see the rule, then read the core rule and the corresponding rule. If it’s still unclear read it again. Discuss it with your opponent and see if you can come to a conclusion. If you still can’t, dice off and keep playing. …Or throw a fit, pack up your stuff, go home and complain about it on the internet. I’m not actually suggesting that – but you know who you are…


We’ll be back with more Rules you might have missed all next week!

  • benvoliothefirst

    So… “Might’ve” is a contraction of the words “Might” and “have”… “might of” is not English. Just FYI. ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Red_Five_Standing_By
      • Dr.Clock

        What? All those sources directly agree with the OP… ‘might of’ has no standing as proppa English. It’s a pretty clear confusion people say ‘might’ve’ and it’s heard as ‘mite-uv’ and erroneously written ‘might of’, whereas might HAVE is the correct usage. The might in this case is modifying the ‘have’… saying “rules you of missed” is nonsensical…

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          It is a contraction of might and have, chiefly British in origin. It is 100% English.

          Like all contractions, they are not “proper” english but they are still english words.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            Proper English has rules, but they’re less like inviolable laws, and more like basic instructions on how to make a sandwich.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Francophones have comities that decide what is and is not “proper French.” Anglophones prefer a more democratic approach. If a word consistently gets used, then it becomes a real word.

          • euansmith

            I think it is okay to say “might of”, but I think that typing it is a bit slack. If one allows “might of”, how can one stop the horrible, “I could care less”?

          • SWISSchris

            Sounds like might of, but written might’ve

          • kloosterboer


            That’s all.

          • euansmith

            Yawl? A two-masted fore-and-aft-rigged sailing boat with the mizzenmast stepped far aft so that the mizzen boom overhangs the stern. A perfectly cromulent word. ๐Ÿ˜‰

        • Jamie Richard Micheal Seddon

          AHAhaha lol that might of been a mistake posting those links lol

      • ZeeLobby

        Yeah, I think you guys are two boats in the night, lol.

        • Darkjedi

          They’re not alone. Seeing that title hit me like nails on a chalkboard. ๐Ÿ™‚

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. I meant cause Red is starting an argument with Ben by linking articles they both agree on.

    • Thank you, I just wanted to post the same.

    • raul

      The might of Khorne disagrees with you.

      • ZeeLobby

        Lol. Nice twist.

    • Jayce Corza

      Thank you. Saved me from having to post it.

    • Carey_Mahoney

      The might of rules you have missed: They can make you lose a game.

    • J Mad

      Does it really matter? Did you fully understand him?

      • benvoliothefirst

        I didn’t, initially. Had to go back and re-read it a couple times before I realized the meaning the author was intending to convey. Which defeats the purpose of a headline.

        (Ir)regardless, I like this site and want it to get better, which is why we share constructive criticism! ๐Ÿ™‚

        • J Mad

          Might have and might of, you understood what that meant……

        • Nwttp

          Lol. If you really had to re-read it a COUPLE of times, i think you might be the one struggling with english.

    • Gunther Clone C

      Sweet monkey Christ thank you so much. I read the tile and skipped straight to the comments to see if someone else said it already. T^T It hurts me terribly.

  • AnomanderRake

    The bit that’s confusing people around here is that “[X] detachment” doesn’t actually mean anything. You can totally take Plague Marines with the Death Guard Legion rule (making them Troops) and Noise Marines with the Emperor’s Children Legion rule (making them Troops) in the same detachment, since they share at least one faction keyword, they just won’t benefit from the same character’s command ability bubble thing.

    • YorkshireNinja

      It’s so that you can still use allied armies but they need to be fluffy to a faction level. As far as I’m aware, all units in an army must share at least one keyword, so you could have [nurgle] and [tzeentch] daemons in the same army, as they’re both [chaos], and they will both benefit from powers that affect only [chaos daemons] (if there are any), but they won’t benefit from each other’s god-specific [nurgle] and [tzeentch] powers. Another example would be that you can’t have ‘taudar’ anymore, as [xenos] is not a keyword, so the broadest faction they could both get would be [aeldari] and [t’au empire] which aren’t compatible. I personally quite like the keyword system.

      • AnomanderRake

        Personally I’m expecting there to be “formations”/special detachments that require all models in them to have specific keywords when full Codexes come out (so you could use Plague Marines and Noise Marines as Troops in the same detachment, but then you couldn’t have the awesome epic disgusting-resilience-buff-whatever super-Nurgle detachment that says “this detachment must be composed of models with the Death Guard Legion”).

        • euansmith

          “By the Emperor’s Dusty Doodads, these monsters are disgustingly resilient!”

          “Just keep shoot, soldier!”

    • ZeeLobby

      Yeah, I imagine that’ll be FAQed. I mean there’s the matched play section which clearly states they must share a faction tag to be in the same army, and then there’s the detachment section which says they must be from the same faction. I’m assuming they meant that to say “they must have all of the same faction tags”. That’s how we’ll play it at least.

      • Finn Beattie

        Seems deliberate?
        A detachment comprised of nurgle marines and slaanesh marines will share bonuses, but their own character bubbles will be limited to within those subfactions of the table.
        I certainly don’t think someone who builds an undivided list should be denied cult units.
        Results in the choice between flexible armies, or more constrained with the bonus of highly synergistic units. Remains to be seen what the comparative strength of non specific detachment bonuses will be compared to more specific ones such as .

        Seems fine to me, and not a reason to need a FAQ at this point.

        EDIT – not sure why disqus is wrecking my faction tags there

        • euansmith

          Anything surrounded by a less-than and greater-than character is treated as a formatting command. So less-than b greater than, starts a Bold tag, and less-than /b greater than ends it.

          • lorieth

            This datasheet is “w40c approved”.

          • Finn

            Ah thanks for that. I’ve only just started using disqus, so I guess I’ll need to familiarise myself with some of that.

        • ZeeLobby

          Probably because it’s a website and it’s trying to run them as html tags.

          That said, doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of detachments? I thought the whole point was for them to be restrictive but reward you with command points. If you can pretty much take anything in them, they kind of just failed at that purpose. I mean missing out on bubbles is something that would happen with or without the detachment system. In the end if a unit is powerful enough to take without the buff you’ll do it anyway.

          It also seems odd for the matched play rules to mention single tag, and then have Detachments mention it again as you are implying. Why write the same thing twice, but with one clear wording and one vague one.

          I could possibly see your interpretation as right if the detachment penalty was the actual slots available, but let’s be honest, there are Detachments that let you take pretty much anything. They seem like a really dumb addition to the game if they just hand out CPs with no penalty.

          • Thierry Boxmeer

            Matched play rule differs in that it states that all Detachments in a matched play list need to share at least one faction keyword. If it isn’t matched play you only need to share a keyword per Detachment. So for instance in matched play you can only field Aeldari Detachments, but outside of matched play you could have one Aeldari and one T’au Detachment in your list.

          • ZeeLobby

            Understood. But they still specifiy the sharing of a single keyword. It’s dumb for them not to use the same wording if that is what is intended internally within a single detachment.

          • Thierry Boxmeer

            Well, they explain that at the start of the Battleforged Army chapter, right at the bottom where it says ‘Factions’ (pg 240) ๐Ÿ˜‰

          • ZeeLobby

            So shouldn’t it really say and/or instead of just or where it says Imperium OR Space Marines faction? That seems to imply that it can’t be both, but that makes no sense either. They could clarify the wording to say the least. As the or seems to implicate that if it’s a space Marines detachment, all models must be of the space Marines faction.

          • Thierry Boxmeer

            It can be both, but that isn’t part of the defining factor which is that at the minimum a single faction keyword must be shared. That’s why there is no ‘and’ where you suggest it, it’s superfluous. If you share two or more faction keywords, you by default share one keyword.
            I mean, good luck putting a Space Marine Captain in your detachment and then finding units with only the Adeptus Astartes keyword but not the Imperium one.
            Sur they could’ve used more words to explain this, but is it really necessary?

          • ZeeLobby

            That’s my whole point! Why even have it in the first place then? Why even go through all that detail if you can take whatever you want inside the major factions anyway. My whole point was Detachments give no brainer benefits with minimal effort. Was just hoping they’d have more of a point…

          • Thierry Boxmeer

            Keep in mind these indices are just meant to tie you over until the codices hit the shelf. Once those start appearing you’re going to see chapter-specific detachments with benefits tied to keywords like Space Wolves or Blood Angels. What you’re seeing now is just the bare minimum of what can be done with those keywords.

          • Finn

            I do actually feel like the number detachments and their CP values don’t punish cheesey force orgs very much, and I don’t like that. And in matched play it seems cross faction armies such as Taudar cannot exist anyway, so the CP system seems weak.

            But the keywords and character bubbles feel very well done to me. Synergy is the name of this game from what I’ve seen, and limiting synergy in exchange feels like a very big trade off that a good will punish you for on the table since you restrict your positioning and potential responses to threats.

            I’d rather see a system that restricts triple wraith Knights (or equivalent 8th ed cheese) than a system that restricts playing a small wing of space marines leading imperial guard infantry.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. I pretty much agree with all of this. I guess I thought detachments had much stricter restrictions because then they’d be relevant in matched play. As is, I just see little reason to not cherry pick strong units.

            And yeah, I like the character bubbles and tags. Nothing wrong with that mechanic imo.

            And the reason why we’ll never see those restrictions is because we went through an era where GW told people to buy 3 wraith knights. They’ll never want to invalidate those purchases when they’re asking people to pay $100+ for a single model. Sadly once they showed up, ways to play them were here to stay. I do wish they’d at least have limited them in matched play in some way…

          • euansmith

            But those people have already bought those models and won’t be buying three more ๐Ÿ˜‰ Surely now is the time to encourage said customers to make a new purchase?

            “Those Wraith Knights not taking care of business anymore? How about getting a new Primaris Dreadnought Drop Pod Wing?”

      • orionburn

        I’m still fuzzy on the keyword system. For example and . With the new rules you can’t signle out a character unless closest/snipers, but what about when it shares the charater keyword with something else like monster or vehicle? Does that mean in theory a Tervigon or somebody like Murderfang (character dreadnought) couldn’t be singled out? Or does one keyword supercede/negate another rule?

        • Thierry Boxmeer

          I don’t see any contradiction. Keyword Character only allows the model to be targeted by enemy fire when it’s the closest unit, but it needs to have less than 10 Wounds on its statline otherwise it doesn’t benefit from that rule. Nothing about the Monster or Vehicle keyword changes that in any way.

          • orionburn

            Oh, it was the 10 wounds or less thing I was forgetting about. So a character dread with 8 wounds couldn’t be singled out, but somebody like a Swarmlord can. That’s what I was missing.

      • AnomanderRake

        You may need one or two tweaks to that plan. You’d be randomly charging people command points to use a bunch of things that they should just be able to take (Assassins, the Inquisition, Phoenix Lords…), making Guard players take an endlessly increasing spiral of extra detachments if they want to use support characters (under the “all the same faction keywords” approach you’d be making an army that wanted a Commissar, a Priest, a Techpriest, a Psyker, Scions, Ogryn, Valkyries, and Creed take eight separate detachments since all of those have a faction keyword that the others don’t), you can’t actually use Custodes, Sisters of Silence, or Assassins without the one-unit auxiliary detachment…

        “Must share two faction keywords” might be a more sensible approach than “must share all faction keywords”, you’d curtail the sillier soup-detachment excesses, the Guard wouldn’t be sliced into ribbons, and Phoenix Lords would be allowed in the same detachment as their Aspects. Though for fluff reasons Harlequins and the Inquisition could use a “can be in any detachment” rule, and the Custodes/Sisters of Silence might need HQs. And their Forge World weapons/tanks, but that’s another story.

        • ZeeLobby

          I mean even that’s better. My whole point is just that at the moment detachment are no brainer and do little to promote fluffy pure armies. I’d still just cherry pick the best units out of each Imperium faction and get the free CPs.

          • Finn

            I think that’s because only the most basic detachments are out. Perhaps a blood angels only detachment will give more CP as well as more synergistic buffs.
            I think what they are looking at doing is instead of having detachment buffs like they had with formations, new faction specific detachments provide more CP and new stratagems to use that CP with.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. I mean I guess they serve to introduce new players to the detachment system prior to them becoming more important. Or at least that’s what I hope. I think they could have got away with like 3 though. There’s very few times I’ll branch out past some of the obvious ones.

  • Volcifar

    Several weapons have abilities that trigger on a “6+” to hit or wound. If I have a plus one to hit from say something such as a character buff and roll a five on the dice, does this trigger the special effect? I am curious because most of these abilities used to trigger on a natural 6 only.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      No. It has to be the roll of a 6. Otherwise things would get ridiculous with buff stacking.

      • Although tbf if you roll a 6 with a +1 it’s a 7 and therefore the ability wouldn’t trigger if modifiers counted

        • TKIY

          Rerolls happen on unmodified dice results so that doesn’t happen.

          • Anne Employee

            There are correct posts down below, but this thread is all wrong. Yes, a 5 with a plus 1 does trigger. Or, a 6 with a plus 1 as it says on a 6+ so a 7 hit. AdamHarry covers it perfectly.

      • EnTyme

        That’s not how it works. That only applies on abilities that specifically state “on a roll of X” like Reality Blinks in AoS. Abilities like Tesla weapons “rolls of 6+ count as three hits” would trigger on a roll of 5 if the firing unit was receiving a +1 to hit.

        • AircoolUK

          Yep. The modifier is applied after the dice roll.

          I, and no doubt many others, usually modify the minimum roll (eg, I have a BS of 4+ and I get a +1 bonus to hit, so I need to roll a 3+) as it’s easier than adding the +1 onto the results of the dice roll (especially when throwing 20+ dice). It’s a bad habit that I need to break.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Yes, sorry. 6+ is different than “a roll of 6”, which is what I was thinking of.

        • shmabadu


    • Heinz Fiction

      Thats a good question. From reading I got the impression that the “roll” is the result of the number shown on your dice plus all modifiers. This would also mean that the rather common -1 to hit modifier would completely negate those weapons special rules. I’m not sure on this though and would like to have confirmation.

      • Ironheaded Painting

        There is The Roll (what the dice reads), then that is modified. If it’s 6+ in print, then modifying is a Go. If it’s “Roll a 6” , then it’s the natural, unmodified 6 .

    • MelonNeko

      Pretty sure buffs will apply, at least they do in AoS. So if you need a 6+ and roll a 5, but have a +1 to hit, the 6+ ability should trigger

    • adamharry

      Short answer – yes.

      If you have a +1 to hit from an aura, and you roll a 5, then the results is a 6 or higher (6+). (5+1=6)

      Conversely, if you roll a 6, but have a -1 to hit, then your dice is a 5 and the effect does not trigger. (6-1=5)

      Things are SUPPOSED to get ridiculous with buff stacking. Welcome to 8th.

      The only exception in the core rules is that to-hit and to-wound roles of 1 always fail, regardless of modifiers.

      Hope this helps!

      • Jay Burchell


        +1/-1 to hit have absolutley nothing to do with physical dice rolls. They only affect the roll requirement, for example: you hit on 3+, -1 to hit makes it a 4+ and so on, +1 to hit makes it a 2+, which is as good as it gets, so neither of these affect your actual dice roll, therefore a 5 is a 5 and a 6 is a 6.

        • Heinz Fiction

          Not true. The rules specifically state that it is not the required result that gets modified but the roll itself. This is beyond any doubt.

          The ability descriptions however are a bit vague on the question if they refer to a natural roll or a modified roll. Logic assumes that they refer to a modified roll, as you can’t have a natural roll higher than 6 and the description reads 6+. That being said, GW hasn’t been known for logical rules in the past…

          • AircoolUK

            Yep. Modify the number rolled to get the result. Most of us tend to apply the modifier before the roll to change the minimum roll needed because our brains prefer the quick and dirty way of doing it. But as the rules say, it’s the number rolled on the dice that’s then modified to get the final result.

          • Jay Burchell

            Haven’t got access to the book yet, however that simply makes no bloody sense!?!

            I do however have the Necromunda & Gorkamorka rulebooks, which state as I originally stated, which for me the only way that such modifiers make sense from a balanced perspective.

            How you explain it makes the possibility of extremely ridiculous op buffs a reality, which goes against the whole basis of this edition.

            I’m just gonna sit back now and wait for my set to turn up so I can read the book for myself, should you in fact be correct ~I will freely admit it, whilst thinking that the rule is totally stupid.

          • Heinz Fiction

            Yeah it probably would have been easier to modify the WS and BS attribute instead of the dice roll but maybe we’ll get that in 9th edition…

        • Spacefrisian

          It would be a to logical thing to say 1 plus 5 equals 6.

  • BK Ripper

    Something to keep in mind with multi-wound models and weapons that cause random multiple wounds, is that order matters.

    If I have a missile pod (1d3 wounds) shooting at Primaris Space Marines (2 wounds), and fail three saving throws, damage rolled of 1,1,2 is different from damage rolled of 1,2,1. In the first case two Primaris marines are killed. In the second only one is killed, and a second has a single wound. Since excess wounds don’t carry over, the extra damage on the second roll is lost.

    • adamharry

      YES – this is very important! Good call out.
      Multi-damage attacks and Multi-wound models will slow things down and order matters.

    • Zlatan

      You’re right! But I hope that gets FAQed because it’s rediculous and will slow the game down needlessly. I think the intention is that you can’t kill more than one model with a single shot, so you should roll for damage and remove one model per 2 wounds called to a total of 3 models. Excess wounds then wasted…

      • Heinz Fiction

        This can’t really be FAQed without changing the whole math behind damage resolution and I doubt it will. The rules are very clear that attacks are resolved one after the other and fast dice rolling is only allowed if the results are identical.

    • AircoolUK

      I’m sure you’ve messed up somewhere. If something causes 1D3 wounds, it’s only applied to one model.

      One shot can’t affect more than one model.

      • orionburn

        I’m thinking he meant 3D3 wounds rather than a single D3.

        This is something I hadn’t thought of so that’s important to note. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it designed now that you have to allocate the first would to an already wonded model? Example of a unit of modesl that may have 3 wounds each. Instead of the other player being able to spread wounds out to keep them alive you must allocate all wounds to a single model first, then (if applicable) carry wounds over to the next model.

        • Thierry Boxmeer

          Correct, if a model in a unit is already wounded you have to apply every new wound to that unit to the wounded model until it is removed from play.

  • Astmeister

    Overwatch is also weird. All the restrictions for normal shooting apply. This means you cannot Overwatch with a flame thrower against an enemy charging from more than 8 inch. This makes them absolutely useless against reserves coming in 9 inch away and charging immediately.

    • Heinz Fiction

      Good catch! On the other hand flamers are pretty good against enemys charging from 8 inch or less which is probably the preferred charge distance for most units.

      • Astmeister

        Yes. But deep striking chargers will be very regular and flamers are just useless against them.

        • Thierry Boxmeer

          So? Flamers good against regular charges, not against charges from units arriving from deepstrike. I don’t see the problem, everything has pros and cons. If I turn it around I could say that a regular charge isn’t going to be very effective against flamers, but a deepstriking unit that charges could be very effective against them! Pros and cons.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      I noticed that the other day. Seems silly.

      • Astmeister

        I agree. It should be different.

  • Astmeister

    Btw flame thrower like weapons are perfect against flyers, because they auto hit and thus negate the hard to hit rule.

    • el_tigre


    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      At least Stormboyz can do what they’ve been fluffed to do.

    • Fergie0044

      Really? Man that’s sloppy GW!

  • Brendan Kirk

    Needs to be a lot more discussion on Pile In and Consolidation because a lot of people are really excited about drawing in additional units, and they are missing that both moves must be towards the closest enemy model, and may not voluntarily leave coherency. That means in many cases you won’t be able to engage additional units because you don’t choose which model you move towards unless they are equidistant.

    • Heinz Fiction

      You might even get in a situation where every model in your unit has a valid target to pile in but none is actually allowed to because it would break coherency. For example if you are in combat with one enemy unit on the left side and another one on the right side. One half of your unit has to go left and the other half right, but this would open a gap in the mid.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        It is worded the same as AoS, so the rule really means, “Consolidate to the nearest enemy model that you can attack”, which will allow you to engulf a unit and the ability to draw in other units while moving around your other men.

        • Heinz Fiction

          I don’t see the rules supporting your argument but feel free to explain…

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Sorry, I explained it poorly because I am on my phone.

            Check out this video.


          • euansmith

            Thanks for that. This sort of thing is going to make learning the designers intent so much easier. Can this be the end of pointless RAW vs RAI arguments? Of course not ๐Ÿ˜€

          • Heinz Fiction

            Yeah, now i get what you mean. Thought it had something to do with what I said but it’s a totally unrelated thing.

    • Viper666.Qc

      When you charge, only the first model must end its move within 1inch, this means that your can place your other models (create chains of models keeping coherency) just above 1 inch of models from another enemy unit (so they are the closest model) and when you pile in, they can engage those units.
      Also ALWAYS stay 1inch away from model when charging, this way, when you pile in, you can make you 3 inch to go around the enemy model and an finish closer to that enemy model (touching base).

  • Jeff Guillote

    Even more important: Modifiers happen AFTER re-rolls. Do if you’re shooting at something that has an ability that gives you -1 to hit it, and you get a re-roll, you will re-roll your failed hits according to your BS, but the modifier will be applied AFTER that. (Re-Rolls sidebar on the left side of the Psychic Phase page)

    • Heinz Fiction

      I bet 90% of the people will play that wrong ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Nyyppรค

      Where in the rules is this stated?

      Edit, nwm….

    • Heinz Fiction

      On a second thought though this might get clarified in a different way. Cause as of now the procedure would not really been resolvable in a strictly logical order.
      Before you reroll failled hits, you have to check which rolls failed, but to do that you have to apply modifiers which you can’t do before re-rolls, therefore your programm crashes to desktop.

  • petrow84

    Another thing: It is not specified, which part you draw LOS from, neither what counts as part of the model. So yeah, welcome to the Deadzone, where your hair-do and banner are just as valid targets as your chest and head.

    • Heinz Fiction

      You could assume that you draw LOS from the eyes of the model as it can only fire on targets it “sees”.
      But yes, every wing, antenna or even modeled spell effect (flames and such) would be a valid target.

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      Alternatively, you could just assume that the models can jump ever so slightly to let them hit heads instead of hairdos… or shoot through cover at the space beneath the big backpack banner on the assumption there’s a dude down there.

      Still, you could just not. If your opponent is really making a big deal of it, just lay your model on its side and say “he’s hiding.”

      Or snap the banners off.

      Or blind your opponent with a handful of sand.

      Really, it depends on how seriously you’re taking the game.

      • GreyPanthers
      • petrow84

        I have no problem at all with that, it works just fine in Deadzone. I know however, that some players tend to lose their heads over such serious issues in such a serious game ๐Ÿ™‚

  • AircoolUK

    Ah, the old trick of deploying a Raider angled 90 degrees away from the opposite side of the table so you could gain a few inches…

    As for firing arcs, not a problem. I never really like them anyway as you could easily imagine a vehicle angling a weapon so it can fire on a target whilst it moves before switching direction.

  • sjap98

    Prima are also on a double 1.

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    I came for screenshots of rules governing summoned reinforcements and left utterly disappointed.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      It works like AoS. ๐Ÿ™‚

      • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

        I really would like that in a screenshot of the rules material. Ah well, 8 more days.

        • euansmith

          8 days? Time for some Khornate RAAAAAGE!!!

        • orionburn

          Belong to any army specific FB groups? All the ones I belong to had a link to a Drive folder with all the leaks. Not going to post it here but isn’t difficult to find by asking around.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            No, but I found a link to the Community article where they explained how it works. Just wish that there were more factions that could use those rules than just Chaos. There are several fluffy ways they could do it (webway portals, ambushes, coordinating reinforcements via vox, etc.), but it seems like it’s a rare tac.

  • Darge

    can anyone figure out if you can make rolls from rules like disgustingly resilient against mortal wounds. Mortal eounds say you dint roll to hit or wound, nor. Do you roll saves. But rules like disgustingly resilient just say if you suffer a wound, roll dice and if you roll high enough you instead do not take a wound.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Yes. It is basically like how FNP worked last edition.

      You can ignore a normal or mortal wound.

    • thereturnofsuppuppers

      Yes. DR works when a model loses a wound so, if they lose a wound to mortal wounds, then they get a 5+ ‘save’ against that.

      Interestingly, when working out damage the save is slightly different.

      If a model suffers 2 wounds, but each wound did 3 damage you would get your DR save for each 6 damage that goes through.

      You would still work out armour saves normally.

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      Works. Does not differentiate between Mortal or mundane wounds, nor, with the exception of Nurglings, does it care about Damage ratings. Just test each mortal wound individually until you fail or run out of Mortal wounds. Makes Nurgle a hard counter to heavy Psyker lists.

  • uatu13

    Keep in mind consolidation is towards the closest enemy model, so you can only pull other units in if you happened to charge closes to units you didn’t charge.

  • Ravingbantha

    I’ve heard conflicting reports about the psychic phase. I’ve heard that once a power is manifested no on else in the army can manifest that same power with the exception of smite. Is this the case, or can multiple psykers manifest the same power?

    • Viper666.Qc

      in matched play only

  • Lucas Massa

    “You can split fire within a unit. That is a thing everyone can do! And you can fire all your guns that are equipped, the only exception is Pistols.”
    Wrong: you can’t fire other weapons if you use a grenade. (GRENADE, page 180).

    “Only models that are within 1โ€ณ of the target enemy unit can attack.”
    Wrong: To target an enemy unit, the attacking model must either be within 1″ of that unit, or within 1″ of another model from its own unit that is itself within 1″ of that enemy unit. (3. Choose Targets, page 182).

    • Nyyppรค

      “The rulebook I may have missed.” ๐Ÿ˜€

    • euansmith

      The second point appears to be different to what was said in the Warhammer TV video for pile-in in AoS (@Red_Five_Standing_By:disqus posted it higher up the thread). In that example, guys in the second rank cannot attack as their buddies are in the way. So is 8th Ed different to AoS in this respect?

      • Fergie0044

        In AoS melee attacks have range, even if it’s mostly 1″ or 2″. I’ve only seen vague details of 8th, but I think they’re different.

  • kobalt60

    You are absolutely right. It’s 2017 and I have the god given right to sound as ignorant and illiterate as I want, and nobody should be allowed to correct me because feels

  • WolfStar

    People who write articles for a living should probably be literate.

    • euansmith

      Have you looked at any tabloid newspapers recently ๐Ÿ˜‰

      • orionburn

        Is Daily Mail considered a tabloid, cause dayum them love them some typos…lol

        • euansmith

          Those aren’t typos; those are coded messages to the remaining Nazi 5th Columnists left over from WW2.

          • orionburn

            “The chair is against the wall. The chair is against the wall.
            John has a long mustache. John has a long mustache.”


  • Hrudian

    English class you might HAVE missed? Damn..

    • Gunther Clone C


    • Thalandor

      Was about to comment something like that. I’m used to that sort of english from Goatboy, but I expect better from Adam.

  • Bodhizafa

    Assault phase. Actually any model that has charged or is 1″ away can fight in the fight phase. Charging units could be greater than 3″ away and still pile in and fight, but may only fight against units they declared a charge against. For the most part It’s a rare case, but i use Kharn with berzerkers and it’s came up in my first game. Kharn wiped out the first unit and put the berzerkers more than 1″ away from the 2nd unit. But they could pile in 3 inches and get withib 1″ of the 2nd unit they charged, and attacked it.

  • Malisteen

    keep in mind that pile in & consolidation moves have to be towards the nearest enemy model, not the nearest enemy model that the unit is engaged with, and must maintain unit coherency. This can result in situations where large portions of a strung-out unit can’t pile in or consolidate at all, as the furthest models is closest to some other, unengaged enemy unit, but can’t move towards it without breaking coherency, and the rest of their squad can’t pile into the unit they’re actually fighting without breaking coherency with them. It’s an awkward and kind of annoying problem inherited from the AoS rules.

  • Nightwalker

    Another one people keep missing is that flyers now start on the board!

    Also all of the weapons for the Valkyrie are heavy…. thus taking a -1 (so hitting on 5’s) if they move…

  • Al Ace

    One thing you need to edit in article : Eligible units that can fight have to be within an inch of the enemy unit BUT also models that are within an inch of the model fighting are also eligible to fight.