40K Breaking: Updated FAQs for 8th Edition Core Book and Indexes

  • Posted by
  • at

Just in time for the new Codex to be out, a list of new FAQ clarifications and errata for all the main books.

Short and sweet folks. There’s a new batch of updates to the current FAQs over at Warhammer Community. There’s some pretty sweeping changes with this second pass at clarifying the rules. Some of the most debated questions get an answer, and the game creeps closer towards being balanced. Here’s a few real quick snippets to whet your appetite for the main event.

There’s something for everyone. Whether you’re playing as one of the Xenos.

Or playing as one of the myriad Imperial factions.

More pressing though–there are some important clarifications to the Core Rules. Questions that needed answering get an answer. There’s one in there about the change to Sudden Death which clarifies that Fortifications and Flyers don’t count as models on the battlefield–so if all you’re left with is a bunch of Storm Ravens, say, your opponent gets a Crushing victory. Here’s a few others:

 

Now this one’s interesting because you can’t just pick and choose dice to reroll. So, if, say on that Charge roll you needed an 8 and got a 6 and a 1, no more just rerolling that 1, it looks like.

But you can make someone super tough. So there’s that, at least. A bone for all the Non Space Marine players out there who are stuck with the generic warlord traits until their Codexes come out sometime on the 32nd of Nevuary. You can find links to everything below.

 Core Rules FAQ

Index Imperium 1 FAQ

Index Imperium 2 FAQ

Index Xenos 1 FAQ

Index Xenos 2 FAQ

Index Chaos FAQ

Like all games these days, 40K is getting a patch. Now it’s in Ver 1.1. So make sure you resign the EULA if you need to.

  • Lee Brown

    Missed probably the biggest change, flyers are no longer counted as being on the table. Their if you are just left with flyers on the table you lose and are effectivity tabled.

    • AWatcherInTheDark

      Confirmed: GW do not approve flyer spam.

      • Drpx

        More like they do not approve of SM meta being Raven spam right when they’re trying to launch Primaris. There’s a distinct lack of NuMarines in that list.

    • Rafał Pytlak

      Can a Heldrake “land” and be counted as on the ground? He’s a demon like engine for Sanguinius sake!

      • Karru

        Nope. Heldrakes are Flyer choices, so they are always counted as Flyers.

      • Koonitz

        As Karru said, they do not count. This is because the FAQ errata says models that count as the Flyer battlefield role. It does not matter what the Helldrake is doing, it still counts as a Flyer for its battlefield role.

    • GoodOleBoy01

      I wholeheartedly approve of the new GW. I will start giving them money again. When they publish a DA dex, that is…..

    • Koonitz

      THey didn’t miss it. They mentioned it, but didn’t highlight it with a snippet like the other rules. It’s in there, though.

    • Xodis

      They didnt miss it, they are saving it for an article all to itself lol

    • Jacob Hickenbottom

      With the flavor text they added to the sudden death rule, shouldn’t you be able bring the stomravem into hover making it apart of the ground fighting. Wouldnt a better fix to spam list would have been to adjusted how detachment work with each other

    • kaptinscuzgob

      *pointing and laughing at stormravens*

  • Karru

    It just makes me smile to see how many oversights 8th edition has and how fast GW is scrambling to try and fix with a bandage. Flyers are no longer counted as “models on the board” to counter the dreaded 5 Stormravens and little else lists. Then there is the super fast “oops, we didn’t read our rules properly so Shield Drones are now useless gotta do something to fix that real quick” fix, which is my favourite. I’m sure there is even more littered across the indexes and the rulebook. It is always good to know that GW tests these things out properly by using great amounts of testers and makes sure to check their texts properly before they release them.

    The re-roll thing is somewhat annoying thanks to the way re-rolls work this edition, but fortunately my group uses the past system for that so it doesn’t really affect us.

    • Gorsameth

      Atleast they are working to fix them now.
      Thats better then it has been in the past.

      • Karru

        Yeah, I was being snarky. It really is good to see GW actually try to fix the massive problems the game shows with FAQs as fast as possible instead of just forcing people to wait for months for a “new” rulebook which would contain those fixes.

        • Randy Randalman

          None of the problems are massive, for one, and they had tournament groups play-testing for months. We tough guys on the internet wouldn’t have built it any better.

          • ZeeLobby

            Lol. Classic Randy.

        • zeno666

          One of the biggest faults is the rulebook itself.
          Its one of the worst books I have ever read. They layout is horrible. And the rules are very vague.

          • AircoolUK

            Try reading 50 Shades of Grey and the 40K rulebook will no longer be the worst book you’ve ever read.

          • zeno666

            I don’t consider 50 Shades of Grey a rulebook that you have to reference every now and then.
            All though some people might very well use it as such 🙂

          • sethmo

            Have you EVER played another game system? This is literally the best core rulebook I have used in twenty years of gaming.
            What mythical game are you playing in your mind that has a perfect core rulebook?

          • zeno666

            Only 20 years in gaming? You still have a long way to go then 😉
            Don’t stumble on your way down from that high horse.

            And yes, I have played quite a lot of other games, Both tabletop, boardgames and RPG’s.
            And this rulebook is horrible. It would be up there with Space Hulk: Death Angel (funny that they use the same setting) if it wasn’t that the 40k 8th edition rulebook smacks Death Angel over the head due to a large portion of fluff, mixed with three ways to play, basic rules (with rules written in the margins of the pages, that should never have passed through the layout phase of the book), missions for the different how to plays, and some advance rules.

          • Malisteen

            At least it’s better than white wolf rulebooks? 😛 Seriously though, I like 8th so far, but the rulebook layout IS bad and unclear. I’m frequently left scratching my head during a game when a rule comes up that I know exists, but have no idea where in the book to actually find it.

        • Malisteen

          Even a game with significant play testing will run into issues when it hits public release. Remember how much hassle the new Warmachine & Hordes went through after their release, despite largely open play tests?

    • silashand

      Yeah, we are not using the “reroll before modifiers” rule as it’s just dumb. The only time that makes any sense is if something requires a discrete number such as rerolling 1’s. Then and only then does rerolling before modifiers make any sense at all.

      • zeno666

        Yeah, it feels like its just stubbornness to enforce this decision from GW.
        A model has an effect that makes things re-roll misses. Then some dice show up that would have hit if it wasn’t for that modifier. I don’t get to re-roll that one.
        That really doesn’t make me re-roll misses does it? 🙂
        Its a big bug in the system IMHO.

        • Heinz Fiction

          yeah t’s not resolvable without breaking one of the rules, though public opinion seems to be that “re-rolls before modifiers” is the more important rule…

      • sethmo

        Yeah you have just confirmed neckbeard status with this post.

        Follow the rules, they are not hard to understand. (My five year old can understand the reroll and you cannot?)

        • silashand

          Whatever. Your insults notwithstanding, I never said they were hard to understand. I said it doesn’t make sense and is counter-intuitive and why we don’t use it.

          Also, presuming you can tell others how to play is arrogant and presumptuous. Play how you like in your own group, but leave others to do as they please. You don’t like it, too bad.

      • Malisteen

        ‘rerolls before modifiers’ is a case of prioritizing rules that are easy to write over rules that are easy to read. What I find annoying about it, is that it would work just fine if they would only replace all instances of “may re-roll missed to hit rolls” or “may re-roll failed to wound rolls” with just “may re-roll hit rolls” and “may re-roll wound rolls” respectively.

        • silashand

          I get their reasoning and it had nothing to do with so-called balance as some people are claiming. It was specifically to prevent people from trying to claim that since my leader let me re-rolls ones, then applying modifiers beforehand potentially allows 2s to be re-rolled as well (or 5s become 6s, etc.).

          IMO if they had just differentiated between ‘natural’ (discrete) numbers and failed results (hit/wound/whatever) they could have made both intuitive and sensible. Instead they chose to fix the first one and make the latter just dumb with a one-size-fits-all rule. As you said it was an easy to write rule, but games aren’t meant for the writers. They are meant for the players.

          • Malisteen

            as far as i can tell, the only case where people get upset about it is rules that let you re-roll failed rolls, where a roll can fail but you can’t re-roll it because it wasn’t a fail until after modifiers, and yeah that’s dumb, but again you don’t even need to change ‘re-rolls before modifiers’ to fix that, you just change anything that lets you re-roll failures to just let you re-roll whatever you like.

    • davepak

      sarcasm is the lowest for of wit

    • AircoolUK

      Unfortunately, some of the balance in the game comes from having to re-roll before modifiers.

      • zeno666

        Hahahha balance. Yeah, good one 😉

        • ZeeLobby

          Lol

      • Karru

        Do you seriously believe that they took the time to actually think that? If you do, then it might help to explain how so many other balance breakers like severely underpriced Guilliman got through or how Marines got loads of artificial buffs while other armies got their own “standard” buffs that were seen in all armies.

        • Charon

          Actually the rule is good, It helps to keep rerolls and +1 boni apart in efficiency while preventing them to become overwhelming when mixed.

        • Rush Darling

          Well, I guess option A is to actually trust the game developers a little bit and hope that they’re actually trying to make something that everyone can play, whilst option B is just to ignore all of their efforts at play testing their system because you want to do your own thing. You’re not exactly giving them a chance to present balanced gaming system if you’re not willing to follow the core rules. Compared to the “balance” of 7th it’s a pretty good attempt so far, so maybe give them a chance to work out the kinks eh?

          • Karru

            You say that, but you seem to not realise that people that have been playing the game for years might have some experience when it comes to changing things to make the game more interesting and/or better for them. That is the beauty of this game, GW doesn’t “enforce” the rules, the rules are a set guidelines on how the game works.

            Again, the game isn’t balanced properly, not by a long shot. It is way more balanced than 7th edition ever was but nowhere near balanced like the start of 5th edition.

            8th edition favours elite armies, especially those with high saves and toughness, aka Space Marines. The Cover System offers more bonuses to Space Marines than it does to others on average due to their low numbers, which leads to easier cover usage, and high save which leads to them getting even better saves.

            Then you have the artificial buffs like the Assault Cannon which got 2 additional shots for no reason as well as the Predator Autocannon which turned from 2 shots to 2D3 shots with 3 Damage. Outside D-weapons, no other weapon “followed” this suite at all as far as I know. They kept the same frame for almost everything, twin-linked getting double shots and AP modifiers for example. Exception to this was, again for no reason, the Guard Exterminator Autocannon which got nerfed to the ground by staying the same but losing twin-linked.

            Then you have the overly unbalanced army compositions and Split Fire. A horde army is forced to go with as many bodies as possible due to the pricing of vehicles and the squishiness of their Infantry and the vehicles. If a horde player goes with a mixture, the elite army player will sing with joy, because now their Heavy Weapons can shoot at the vehicles and/or monsters while the regular weapons and Anti-infantry weapons focus on the Infantry that melts like butter inside a volcano.

            Now, the game is fun, don’t get me wrong, but it is littered with extremely dumb decisions and ideas that causes unbalance. Make changes to those problems in the core rules and lo and behold, game gets even more balanced.

            The problem with GW and their “playtesting” is what they have said it themselves, they don’t have the time or the resources to do proper testing. They do test out their game, but it will be limited and there will be problems. That is why they are now talking to the community more in order to identify problems and then fix them in their own way, which is something I somewhat disagree with. The proper way would be to look at similarities in different proposals people have and then try making it the fix to the problem.

          • Rush Darling

            Phew, that was lengthy. Some excellent points though my friend, of course everyone is entitled to play the way the choose, and tweaking the rules for an under or over powered unit amongst your local gaming group is common practice, or it is amongst my local groups at least.

            That said, I do feel there is an important distinction between unit rules and core rules. Taking a few rules off of Guilliman for your local games is probably an excellent idea, however not abiding by the frequently FAQed re-rolls before modifiers element of the core rules applies a blanket change to dozens if not hundreds of units that are currently in the game. It’s worth mentioning that the alternate take on re-rolls that you’re advocating actually makes re-rolls (and by extension – Guilliman) more powerful.

            As I currently play two armies – Space Marines (surprise!) and Tyranids (Yay for being valid again), I would be conflicted about anything that makes re-rolls more or less powerful, as whilst Marines have re-rolls coming out of their eyeballs via auras from HQ characters, Tyranids more commonly have flat bonuses ala +1 to charge distance, or the re-rolls are more limited in their scope.

            On the other hand, I think you’d struggle to find an army that doesn’t have re-rolls of some description, so it may well pan out, but I just feel it’s worth following the game makers design intent until everything has settled down a bit. (Here I was talking about lengthy posts)

            I’m currently still fanboying over GDubs nipping flyer spam in the bud, so I’ll admit to not having the most objective opinions at the moment.

      • silashand

        That is highly doubtful.

    • SacTownBrian

      Plenty of other games to play…

  • Gorsameth

    The re-roll is worded pretty specifically. If you get to re-roll a result of multiple dice you must re-roll all.

    So a ‘re-roll charge distance’ would need to re-roll both dice. But a CP re-roll does not re-roll the result but a single dice. The wording still allows that.

    • Koonitz

      Indeed, it was pretty clear. If anyone tried to argue that “rerolling charge roll” allowed rerolling a single die if preferred, I’d call them an idiot. A charge roll is 2d6. A reroll of the charge roll is a reroll of the 2d6.

      It’s good that a clarification came, it’s sad that a clarification was necessary.

    • silashand

      Yeah, that was a BoLS reading fail. Unless they change how the CP rule works you can still roll just one of the dice if you so choose. Which IMO is fair since it costs you a CP to attempt anyway.

    • AircoolUK

      It was pretty clear to begin with whether you could re-roll all or just one of the dice, but clarification is always good.

  • DrLove42

    Razorwing flock spam just got twice as expensive and limited to a maximum unit of 12 as well…

    • Joel Fowler

      Actually changed from 1-12 to 3-12 and cost has indeed doubled.

  • Gorsameth

    Understrength units are only allowed in an Auxiliary support detachment (in Matched Play). so every one of them would cost you -1 cp.

    Teleporting units count as moving (expected)

    • Koonitz

      I must confess myself very curious as to why the Understrength errata was necessary. Isn’t taking an understrength unit, in any way, shape, or form, a detriment to you, already? I mean, you’re already paying points for models that aren’t there, and reducing your ability to claim objectives and provide cover against deep strikers.

      Why the additional penalty? Or is this just a “BUY OUR MODELS” thing?

      • Gorsameth

        In points games you only pay the points for the models you actually field.

        So it allowed you to run some really small, specialized units. Like a single terminator to DS on an objective.

        • Koonitz

          Quoted straight from the rulebook:

          “If you are using points, you must still pay the points cost as if you had a minimum-sized unit, even though it contains fewer models.”

          They did not say power points. They did not say matched play points. They said points. Which means either, or both.

          You wanted a single Terminator, that’s great. You paid for 5, with basic wargear, and got 1 model, paying for any upgraded wargear you wished to give that model.

          What were people trying to pull on you, again?

          • Gorsameth

            Page 198 of Imperium 1 index says you only pay for the models you take in matched play.
            (same in all indexes at the Battle-forge armies section).

          • Heinz Fiction

            Rulebook was FAQ’ed previously in the way that you only had to pay the points for the models you field (probably without being aware of the insane amount of cheese this allowed)

          • Koonitz

            So it did….

        • AircoolUK

          Not quite. You can run a Space Marine Tactical Squad with just one or two Marines, but you have to pay for a squad of 5, including weapons and equipment.

          • Koonitz

            Per Heinz Fiction in response to my comment, the FAQ states you only do so for Power Points, not matched play points.

  • Nyyppä

    Well, at least they let CSM keep usin Warptime.

    • Malisteen

      I mean, warptime would still be a good power even if you couldn’t use it on reserves, but yeah, I’m glad they were explicit that you can.

  • Keaton

    Holy ion rifles. Sun shark bomber went from good to great imo. Drones point costs are wargear included.

  • Barrywise

    I’m just surprised that they still haven’t made Kill points equal to Power Points. It just makes a lot more sense than 1vp per unit killed.

    • EvilCheesypoof

      ITC made a good version of that already, you can just use that with kill points missions if your opponent agrees, I think most people would agree it’s a way more fair scoring system.

      • eMtoN

        We do this. Makes the kp games far more strategic.

  • Xodis

    Wow that was fast, we need more tournament results so we can get the book fool proof in less than a year lol

    • Brian Griffith

      Yeah, pretty sure that’s why they’re releasing Chapter Approved in December. Hits after all the major tournaments.

  • Keaton

    Ugh, still nothing on the Kau’yon Master of war. It doesn’t read like any of the other “aura” abilities.

  • AircoolUK

    Great to see the updates coming thick and fast. I wonder if now is a good time to look for a Stormraven on ebay?

    • eMtoN

      I’d say give it a few days for all those people to figure out there’s no way around this. Then, yeah buyers market.

    • Charon

      Why? The raven has not lost its insane firepower or received a point adjustment. Most raven lists did include some ground troops too.
      As long as you stick a clulexus or girlyman in the list you are good to go. You are still forced to target the flyers over the character. So there is not a lot that changed, you will still get tabled turn 2 or 3.

  • AircoolUK

    Heh… split fire with Markerlights so the Markerlight unit can make use of the bonus. That’s cool as it helps those Rail Rifles and more importantly, you can overcharge the Ion Rifles and re-roll one’s with just one Markerlight hit.

  • Coltcabunny

    Chaos unit champions still can’t take combi weapons and a melee weapon, despite GW selling such a model and Imperials being able to do so.

    Whether Poxwalkers can go over max unit size over the course of a game still has not been answered.

    • AircoolUK

      I’ve never really thought of the Poxwalkers rule in that respect. My presumption was to just keep adding them as once the unit has been costed and is on the table, the size restriction does not matter.

      • Coltcabunny

        I believe that is the case too, but it would be nice to actually get an answer, especially now that reinforcement points are a thing.

        • Charon

          RAW they can go over max size. Every other unit with similar mechanics has a worded restriction that prevents it.

  • Tanfew

    Really glad about the stormraven change from both a balance and fluff perspective. They hit the nail on the head with that one. And fotifications. Preemptiing that one was smart. I coud imagine all the stormcucks rushing to get bastions with 5 scouts in them if this hadnt happened

    • EvilCheesypoof

      I don’t understand your second point, the flyer lists CAN get a fortification with 5 scouts inside and be “safe”. Fortifications count as being on the battlefield for sudden death purposes if they are garrisoned. It’s still not the best strategy of course because they could focus fire the fortification and table you that way.

      • Tanfew

        Derp. Meant to say something different. Was typing on the way out the house. Will edit it haha

  • mgdavey

    They changed the price of Purestrain Genestealer again? Am I supposed to see that as an example of them “trying to get it right” or just “not able to get it right”?

    • EvilCheesypoof

      Yes, yes, and yes.

  • Spacefrisian

    But what about characters hiding behind combats and so not being a target option when there is no other target in range or sight?

    • EvilCheesypoof

      That’s by design, they don’t want your guys to ever shoot at characters unless they are the closest unit regardless if you have any other legal targets.

      From the designers commentary:

      Q: If a model cannot shoot at the closest visible enemy
      unit for some reason (e.g. it is within 1″ of one of
      your units) but the next closest visible enemy unit is a
      Character
      , can that model then target the character?
      A: No.

  • Dragon2928

    So… wait. I have to keep track of which models were killed and which “fled” in any given turn to use the apothecary??

    • EvilCheesypoof

      It appears so, it makes sense but I figured they were gonna streamline things a bit more than that. You can just put them into separate piles I suppose.

      • Nameless

        typically I would try to keep squads together as they are removed, as it makes it easier to put away. Might be the guard player in me though, not expecting the remainder of the squad to be too far behind their first casualties.

      • Dragon2928

        I guess so… sigh. Kind of messes with my personal narrative, as I was abstracting that space marines which “fled” were actually killed by the enemy surging forward, taking advantage of thier success in combat, or some such. It bothers me to a great degree that space marines would flee from combat, leaving the rest of their squad, under ANY circumstance.

        • Simon Bates

          One quite appealing explanation is that they’re helping get their fallen comrades out of harm’s way. It doesn’t entirely add up, but it does explain to some extent why unharmed marines would start disappearing from a squad that takes heavy casualties.

          • Rabid Wombat

            Except that Apothecarys are on the field in all but the smallest engagements to do one of three things: get you on your feet and fight, size you up for a dreadnought sarcophagus, or last and most likely – take the Chapter’s due and give you the Emperor’s Peace.

        • Rabid Wombat

          Indeed, it appears that now SMs know fear, fluff be damned.

      • zeno666

        Its just GW as usual. Streamlined rules = Clunky rules placed elsewhere in the game, that they’ll keep patching for a while before even they give up (ie, the monkey in the basement faints).

  • badmojo1966

    Waiting to see the : Selling 6 Razorspam flyers. Willing to trade for ground troops to actually play the game as intended.

  • Rabid Wombat

    Yep, the best playtested 40k edition EVAR. Maybe it is, then it really wasn’t saying much. If GW wanted to do it right, they should have done what WotC did with 5e. It only took a year or so and listening to the *whole* community, tweaking rulesets as they went and finding out the most egregious ruleslawyer loopholes *before* the books went to print.

    Right now, everyone’s spanking new books have a whole lot of correction fluid on them. This is before the rest of the Codices have dropped, much less the yearly Chapter Approved, which we all get to pay for annually instead of a yearly free pdf with point/power changes and FAQ. But hey, less rules are better man, and get rid of the USRs, because datasheets and reasons – (USRs *should* be on datasheets, so everyone knows what you mean by “Interceptor”, not “can I see all your datasheets before we play so I have some idea how your army works?”).

    People thought 7th bloat was bad. Get back to me in two years, less if your favorite faction keeps on getting it in the neck or is stuck in Index limbo.

    • zeno666

      Indeed!!
      We’re all fools though. We should have known better than GW getting their rules straight.
      This one still feels like beta.
      And perhaps it is, only GW wants us to shell out money for something that should be free (a beta rulebook that is).
      I’m returning my rulebook later this week. I want my money back.

      • Rabid Wombat

        I have a personal UCT about the whole thing. A part of it is this mess of a rollout is to get everyone onboard for strictly digital releases (and auto fixes/updates/errata going there), killing the dead tree side of the house and keeping personal data on everyone (because you are going to have it out there if you need the newest updates).

        The end game is to get everyone involved in a digital subscription service they can control down to the unit upgrades allowed. I’m sure that GW has seen the writing on the walls and is terrified about what the combination of the bitz market, recasters, and the ever improving 3d printing community can come up with. They can’t stop it, but they surely would prefer to get a percentage out of the transfer

        I used to work for a FLGS that was a front for one of the largest ebay bitz sellers a few years ago, so I have been working on this for a while.

  • MechBattler

    You can stack “I ain’t got time to bleed!” rolls? NICE.
    http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/110/1103667/predators-20100702025702704.jpg

  • Patriarch

    And Genestealer Cult Purestrains are up in price again, this time to 15 points. Talons are free, in case you ever decided not to use rending claws.