New 8th Edition FAQ and Errata

  • Posted by
  • at

Now that 8th Edition’s been out a while, it’s time to get some things straight.

Newly released from Games Workshop–a huge new list of errata and FAQs for the core rules and the indexes. Make sure your game is up to date, check these docs out and learn things like:

  • Only infantry can benefit from cover if in ruins
  • Models within 1″ means any model up to and including exactly 1″ away
  • A unit that fights twice can have their second fight phase interrupted via the counter-offensive stratagem
  • Speaking of stratagems, you can’t reroll a psychic check after an opponent has successfully denied the witch.

And all that’s just a handful of stuff from the core book. There’s loads more from the indexes, so grab those pdfs.

via Warhammer Community

To help you with this, we’ve assembled our first FAQ, working with our game designers and playtesters to answer as many of your questions as possible. We’ve covered a range of queries, from the regular housekeeping (What is 1″, exactly?) to the incredibly specific (Can a Necron Warrior reanimate if it’s already enjoying a new un-life as a Poxwalker?) – you can download it here:

Download the Core Book FAQ

Download the Index Imperium 1 FAQ

Download the Index Imperium 2 FAQ

Download the Index Chaos FAQ

Download the Index Xenos 1 FAQ

Download the Index Xenos 2 FAQ

And of course, there’s bound to be more coming out. If you’ve previously checked or their designer commentary, you can now fin an updated version waiting for you–it’s helpful to put together the inner workings of some of the more complex rules interaction, as well as to see why certain changes were implemented.

Nothing like getting in the head of the designers to get in the head of your opponents.

Until next time, happy gaming, and enjoy your newly corrected rules. 

 

 

  • SilentPony

    Absolutely adorable!

    • Munn

      Judging by your history I’d guess this is supposed to biting. You failed that and managed to hit, ‘oh, him again…snore.’

      • kingcobra668

        His comments are much better viewed as, “This user is blocked.” Definition of a try-hard.

  • Horus84cmd

    As ever 90% of the FAQ’s questions that make me wonder about people’s ability to read and comprehend. I mean seriously WHO needs to ask “what counts as an within 1 inch?”

    The other 10% are questions that just required some application of thought and common sense to understand!

    • TenDM

      You’ve got to admit though, GW are so bad at writing clearly worded rules that they usually need to clarify a bunch of really basic stuff.
      There’s always rules like Cult Ambush where you untangle it and it works one way, then the FAQ comes along and you’re like ‘oh, they must have left out ten words and included another twenty that shouldn’t have been there’.

      • Horus84cmd

        I don’t think they’re any worse or better than other game sets. As I say, a whole lot comes down to people not reading and comprehending things correctly – you know using basic English.

        • TenDM

          I’m struggling to think of anyone even close to GW’s size who play it this loose with the rules. They suck at reserved words, expression structure, sequencing and universal terms.
          I love the game and it’s perfectly playable, but there is so much room for simple improvements.

          • Munn

            GW makes great rulesets for playing with established groups, but their inconsistent and undefined terms will forever frustrate the P.U.G or tournament player.

          • zeno666

            Yeah!
            Simple things like “within”, “you may” and “towards”.

        • zeno666

          I’m sorry, but they are.
          They’re setting the standard of their ruleset when they state that the most important rule is to roll a 4+ if you can’t find the answer to your question in the rulebook…
          That is amazingly crappy game design.

          I’m giving 8th a go actually. But this rulebook and the indexes are even worse then I remember GW to be.
          Perhaps I’m remember it all wrong, or are they actually getting worse?

          • Richard Mitchell

            You mean you hadn’t spent the entire time of 7th edition retired from wargaming, blank posting about how other games suck, and waiting for the 8th Ed. Messiah to come back? How dare you zeno666 question the new and improved GW game design and price structure? That is the real heresy, not Chaos.

            You may not find answer in a single sitting and you may get into a heated argument, but rolling a 4+ and going back to the rulebook later to clarify. Nothing wrong with that, if it happens once every 5-10 years. But if you do it every game, then there is a problem. A player may disagree with a balance issue but rules should be clearly written with the games venacular beging very concise when it is applied.

            In Warmachine and Malifaux, they are very good about using a term and repeating it in the same instance over and over so you pick up on the meaning of it within the context of the game. “Competely within”, means completely within, “within” means within but not necessarily completely within. Models “activate” and the time when the activate and perform their “move” and “action” is during their “activation”. Models that move never “push” towards a target they “move” towards it unless they are being affected by a “push”.

            Nothing is wrong with the exact words that GW has adopted into their rules, as long as the vernacular is consistant, well explained, and applied to the same context. If they are using “within” in one way and then in a different way, it makes the game confusing.

        • Warpman_dim

          Now imagine X-wing is actually a game with no editions and they add things on the run, whie Gee-Dubs manages to face-plate every edition. Again.

        • AircoolUK

          On top of that, X-Wing is pretty basic and has a core mechanic that can prove troublesome when addition to the game are made.

          For example, STAW opened up a large amount of possible builds by simply separating the Captain from the Starship, whereas X-Wing tied pilots to ships. On top of that, STAW provided stats for a basic Starship and named versions.

          X-Wing has tried to retroactively shove that extra level of complexity into the game, but because pilots are still tied to ships, they’ve had to introduce several different cards types and free upgrades.

          I believe Biggs Darklighter is a good example of how a core mechanic can restrict the expansion of the game.

          The Core rules, Keyword and datasheet system is the tightest ruleset that GW has produced. However, unless you include all the rules that produce a null result (ie, for each inclusive rule, you have to detail every situation where the rule cannot be applied – in which case, your rulebook would have infinite pages) then you’re always going to run into ambiguity at some point.

        • kingcobra668

          Add in a bit of “I want it to work a differently to my advantage.”

        • Richard Mitchell

          That is true. If you pull up cards from the Privateer Press card data base, most cards are v1 rather than v2, which means most units did not see a complete or partial overhaul. Most of the core and unit rules were rewordings. Which, in gaming, no matter what system you play, is required. You always have to make your language more precise as some players attempt to break the game.

          I think these type of power players are good for the game though because they are the equivelant of hackers who openly display their hacks. It only helps the developers find loopholes and make the system overall stronger (which tax law was as responsive).

          I remember when hard core, GW loyalist would BRAG about how their game and factions never recieved an FAQ update in years and how Warmachine got one every year. I never understood a negative stance towards product support and I don’t understand it when GW does it.

          For over a decade Privateer Press has always pushed the envelope of the industry, heck they created the American style of miniature wargaming and GW is basically walking in their footsteps. And if that is any indication, prepare for GW products to become even more dynamic. The era of buying a book and playing the exact same way for 5 years or more is over. When codices come out, prepare for those to get FAQ’d too. Constantly fine tuning and giving product support is the name of the game now.

        • Jonnie Mnemonic

          I agree they write rules just fine. Its when people start arguing trying to take advantage of rules with some of the craziest interpretations is when it becomes an issue. The biggest thing i saw people going crazy about were when they were playing with the power point system, people making up what weapons units had and such trying to take advantage of one of the best things about the new edition. As soon as I saw this system it screamed WYSIWYG and is how it should be. Using the models you have the way they are equipped, no proxies. People need to stop trying to twist rules and in the last ten years it has gotten really out of hand

  • Tom Jaffe Hopkins

    Acolytes reduced from 3 to 1 wound…sad

    • Horus84cmd

      It was an unfortunate editing typo for sure. Yet will anyone be surprised?

      • Tom Jaffe Hopkins

        I guess I figured the two extra wounds made up for their now upgradable save. Jokaro also have 3 wounds now and Acolytes are still classed as elites. Say random question, which I can not seem to get answered easily. Can Inquisition models board, say, a land raider? I know Inquisitors and acolytes can take literally any Imperium transport, due to the new Authority of the Inquisition rule. But does that mean the rest of my Inquisitors posse has to run behind? Made up a Inquisitorial Landraider Crusader using forge world doors for the purpose of it being an Inquisitorial party bus.

        • Maitre Lord Ironfist

          the Problem is, you pay 8P for a guardsmen and that does not include something.

          Thats just too expensive. Even with a stormbolter thats 10 Points. And there is no option for Plate or power Armor. before, yes that was stupidly good.

          If they stuck at 2 wounds with that stats and points, i would be fine with it. But now they need a pricedrop. to be worthwhile.

          Also the Apes and Deamonhosts, they are frustrating. Look it up, they are no charakters so they will die and hand over a free first blood. Also yes, the Apes and Deamonhosts can not enter any vehicle. So thats even worse. All in all i am realy disapointed by the inquisition now. I likethe Characters but the rest i will not touch, jet againt.

          • Warpman_dim

            17-point dire avengers.

          • zeno666

            Thats just way off. Gonna be using mine as normal Guardians until fixed rules arrive, or army sold 😉

          • AircoolUK

            Points have to be taken in context with the overall army from which the model is taken, as well as all the other armies.

            For example, Necron Warriors are pretty solid at 12 Points, but you really need to take them in units of 10+ and the whole army has to flirt with the enemy at the 13″-24″ range as they lack tactically flexible weapons.

            Tau Fire Warriors are also pretty good for 8 points, but everyone is aware of the weaknesses in that army, especially in this edition where Tau have been hit hard by the normalisation of all armies.

        • Horus84cmd

          Do they have the “Authority of the Inquisition” rule? – No. So, yes they will need to run behind said transport. Where is the confusion?

          • Tom Jaffe Hopkins

            I think the confusion arises from the fact that last edition you could put models considered to be ‘battle brothers’ in the transports of battle brothers. AKA you could have sisters of battle get into a landraider. You just couldn’t deploy them in it. Since you can now put any model with imperium in the same detachment, elements of battle brothers seemed to have carried over. I was hoping that perhaps as long as a model shared a keyword with the transport they could be transported by it.

          • euansmith

            I guess the confusion is that it doesn’t make much sense, narrative wise. Surely the Inquisitor would shout, “In the Emperor’s name I demand transport for myself and my retinue!”

          • Maitre Lord Ironfist

            It is not confusion, it makes then just terrible in play. They get sniped away, since they are no characters, and they footslog, since they can not ride a transport.

          • Warpman_dim

            Like any bodyguard choice, actually. Nothing fancy.

        • Foxdonut

          They can ride in the forgeworld inquisition land raider. Hooray Quary-raider.!!!

        • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

          Acolytes and Inquisitors can ride any Imperium Transport. Jokaro, Daemonhosts, and your specialists, however, have to walk.

  • Navaren

    Nice to see they added Sorcerer on PoN to the Death Guard list. I better be getting nurglized grave warden termies and Death shroud duders along with uncle morty its still absurd that terminators aren’t on the DG list.

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      Without paying a premium by running a Supreme Command Detachment, you mean.

    • Xodis

      Thats my hope. For every “where did this go and why?” situation I hope its just a matter of time until a specialized version of it pops up.

  • pokemastercube .

    blood angel assault marines get their melta guns again ^_^

    • SAndres316

      And thus automatically changes my NOVA list

  • Heinz Fiction

    One of the most important changes: in case of understregth units you only have to pay the points for the models you field not for the minimum size.

    And while you can only have one understrength unit of any kind, this is very nice for some armies (e.g. tyranids fielding single venomtrophes instead of units of 3…)

    • Logan Sama

      This is not for matched play and does not override the matched play rules.

      • gordonshumway

        Since matched play requires battle forged armies it most certainly does apply to matched play. No earthly idea where you got the idea it didn’t.

  • Wampasaurus

    The inconsistency between a Space Marine with 2 Chainswords getting +2 Attacks and a Tyranid getting extra attacks for additional sets of Scything Talons really bothers me. IF the game is to be balanced a rule should not include or exclude a particular faction.

    • TenDM

      I think making rules like that and +1 Attacks on the charge consistent across every unit hurts assault units overall. The gap between my Wraithblades and any old unit with melee weapons is much larger thanks to the Wraithblades with Ghostswords having these rules.
      Consistency there would only serve to buff non-assault units. Plus with it being linked to the weapon rather than the model it means they can modify the Attacks characteristic with wargear.
      It’s hard to get used to but I think it really does make things better.

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      Chainsword isn’t worded the same way as Scything Talons, as you only need 1.

      • It’s not about needing only 1, but about being able to get 2 and the bonus of both… or not.

        • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

          The FAQ says 2 for 2, which, imo, lines up with the RAW. What the FAQ says about Scything Talons also lines up with the RAW to me, because the wording is like that of Lightning Claws, where not only are the number of bonus attacks expressed as a hard number, but the model getting bonus attacks must have multiples of the weapon in order to receive them.

      • Wampasaurus

        That’s true, they do not have the same wording. However, bear with me and consider my argument.
        1) Page 183 of the basic rules book says in the second paragraph under Choose Melee Weapon “If a model has more than one melee weapons and can make several close combat attacks, it can split its attacks between these weapons however you wish – declare how you will divide the attacks before any dice are rolled.”
        2) Massive Scything Talons say “You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 when attacking with this weapons. If the bearer has more than one pair of monstrous/ massive scything talons, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapons each time it fights.”
        3) So a Trygon with 3 sets of Massive Scything Talons in the Fight Phase with its 6 Attacks chooses to attack 2 times with each pair of massive scything talons. The ability on each pair should trigger each time the Trygon uses that pair of Scything Talons.
        -Massive Scything Talons set 1 : Attacks twice – Does model have more than 1 pair of Monstrous/Massive Scything Talons? Yes. +1 Attack for a total of 3
        -Massive Scything Talons set 2 : Attacks twice – Does model have more than 1 pair of Monstrous/Massive Scything Talons? Yes. +1 Attack for a total of 3
        -Massive Scything Talons set 3 : Attacks twice – Does model have more than 1 pair of Monstrous/Massive Scything Talons? Yes. +1 Attack for a total of 3 Grand Total # of Attacks : 9

        • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

          They already ruled, deal with it.

        • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

          “Each time it fights,” not, “each time it attacks with this/these weapon(s).”

  • Crablezworth

    “The most playtested edition ever” Sigh…

    • Heinz Fiction

      Thats not really a feat if it’s the ONLY playtestet edition so far… 😉

      • zeno666

        I want to upvote your post x100 😉

    • Munn

      15/16ths of the issues were printing errors, ambiguous wordings, or players being dumb. All things that have very little to do with playtesting.(p.s. regurgitating other people’s memes makes you seem like you don’t actually know anything.)

      • Nameless

        but a lot to do with proof reading…

    • NNextremNN

      It still is the others were never tested at all XD

    • Lebowski1111111111

      dont play than if you dont like it. And its pretty easy to be the most tested ever when the previous editions look like they were play tested in only a dozen games. This edition has revitalized my club, guys we havnt seen in years are out at club day again. A pool of 30+ guys is better than a pool of 10+ at my store.

      • GnomesForge

        I got a better idea, he can play whatever he wants and complain whenever and wherever he wants. Don’t like it? Rough rocks. That cuts both ways, don’t like hearing it, don’t read it.

        • zeno666

          So very true

  • neshta

    Oh poo. I was expecting the Trygon to lose all those attacks. I personally think it’s silly that a six armed creature is only attacking with one pair? But hey, I didn’t write the rules!

  • Iceman

    As a Tau player, I am concerned about the Saviour Protocols update for drones. Now, if you assign a wound to a nearby drone, it is a mortal wound. Since no save can be taken against a mortal wound, what is the value of shield drones? Before it made sense to take a few in the hopes of absorbing some wounds. Now, you might as well take gun drones. Did I miss something?

    • Kayreios

      My understanding is that you take a save before assigning the wound and doesn’t the shield drone upgrade the unit’s save? I only skimmed the tau rules, might be wrong…

      • Iceman

        No, there is a support system that can be taken on battle suits that upgrade the save. You do assign the wound to the model first and if it fails, you can then assign that wound to the shield drone which automatically dies since it becomes a mortal wound. Before, you could assign wounds to the shield drone.

    • NNextremNN

      Nope that is correct gun drones are now just as good at saving stuff as shield drones.

      • Iceman

        This is a dumb change. I hope it gets faq’ed back in some way.

    • Antoine Henry

      Shield drones can be put in a squad of drones to take the damage instead of the markers etc.

      • Iceman

        I know. It just seems like a pretty big nerf. Shield drones have been useful for absorbing wounds for characters through all previous editions. This makes Shadowsun’s MV52 shield drones’ 3++ shields basically useless. I realize they can still protect the command link drone but I’m pretty confident that wasn’t the original intent.

        • Antoine Henry

          Yes thats a pretty big nerf but i think they were concerned about the amount of frone being fielded now. I suppose they should have upgraded point costs instead of nerfing the rule…

  • Loki Nahat

    So melta guns on assault squads? Well done

  • blackbloodshaman

    Holy cow. Do I read this right? According to the reinforcement rule clarification you don’t have to pay for blue horrors

    • Warpman_dim

      buy_more_miniatures!

    • Horus84cmd

      No – you’re reading it wrong. The questions says:

      Q. If a rule creates a new unit during the battle in a Matched
      Play game and adds them to my army, must I pay for the unit
      with my reinforcement points?
      A. Yes (unless the rule itself says otherwise). If you don’t
      have enough reinforcement points, you cannot add that
      unit to your army

      The key statement there is “unless the rule itself says otherwise”. The Horrors datasheet states explicitly that for Match play game you must pay for all Blue and Brimstone Horrors you’re going to use. As for Power Points play that another question mwahahah…

  • …Aw man. They changed the Sisters of Battle Hand flamers. I thought that getting d6 shots was actually super fluffy and in character for them. :/

    • Warpman_dim

      No worries, the eldar ‘masters of plasma weapons’ were handed their asses with starcannon too (it’s like the Imperial one but worse)

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    Well, the only thing that has me a bit miffed is the price hike on Exalted Sorcerers, everything else is understandable. The ruling on Ruins was a little odd though, as Tzeentch Daemons, Nurgle Daemons, Tyranids, and Tau just got better than most at breaking sieges. Eldar too.

  • So they didn’t fix the issue with the Eldar Spiritseer’s wording and Phantasm Grenade Launchers being useless if you go 2nd.

    • Woodwyrm

      What’s the issue with Spiritseer wording? The leadership penalty from the Phantasm Grenade Launcher and Visarch are mostly of use on your turn anyway so not really an issue (just trying to get more from Strength from Death actions?).

      • The Spiritseer’s rule is worded so that it could either mean it needs to be within 6″ of the enemy or within 6″ of the Wraiths. Both could make sense, but only one is intended. Fluff-wise being close to Wraiths makes sense, but gameplay-wise you might not want to give buffs to a combat which may be 12″+ away due to it being a Character.

        For the leadership-rule I’m mostly thinking of CC here and in general a rule is bad if it behaves differently depending on you go first or 2nd. Either it should say until end of this player’s or the opposing player’s turn.

        • TenDM

          I didn’t even realise that. I’ve been playing it as the Wraiths when rules as written it’s the unit they’re attacking. Did they FAQ it last edition when it was 18″? With such a small bubble and such a wide range of non-combat units being buffed it radically changes the use of the Spiritseer.

      • Horus84cmd

        I’m seeing the a wording issue on the Spiritseer or Visarch either. Nor with the Sunrifle or Phantasm Grenade Launcher for that matter

    • Heinz Fiction

      There is no issue with the Phantasm Grenade Launcher, the Sunrifle and the Visarch’s Weapon (other than being a little underwhelming).
      The effects last until the end of the turn, meaning YOUR turn. Doesn’t matter if you go 1st or 2nd. This would only matter if they lasted till the end of the battle round.

      • It still makes a difference if you go 1st or 2nd. And that’s bad rule design.

    • zeno666

      Nope. Eldar was good in 7th edition, so they can’t be good in this one 😉
      Until they get a codex of course.

      • It’s not about being good, but about being plausible and especially not arguable.

  • badmojo1966

    I’m loving the new edition. Loving having to get my head around the new rules. The models keep getting more detailed. Sure some of the rules can make you scratch your head, but you are playing an abstract game with plastic models. You can always house rule an inconsistency. Your other option – other than moaning about a company that’s main business is making models and not rules, is go out in the sunshine. Nobody is forcing you to play.

    • zeno666

      Why do you fanboys keep defending GW?
      They’re pissing down your backs and you’re only asking for more.

      They are making rules. Perhaps its not their “main buisness”.
      Its still they who are producing them. And they are at their 8th edition.
      Things should be a lot better than this by now.

      • GnomesForge

        They defend GW because it makes them feel superior and elite. The complainers are just not advanced or enlightened enough to see what they see. Everyone is a troll who won’t give this honest company a chance to make a fair buck :(.

        • zeno666

          Superior and elite? Thats a farce.
          They are playing the broken kids game here 😉

          I wished they did get out and tried other games a bit more.

  • Antoine Henry

    Well so much for the greatest GW lie : 2 and 1/2 years play testing”. If they had tested the game they would have a lot less “questions” or could have provided a FAQ at the same time of the release. Also, the understrength rules just killed their “detachment and command points” as you can field 6 conscripts to have 6 troops (if someone does this he will be banned from every table in the country but they could just have put that “understrength” unit makes it impossible to have Command Point from the detachment). This will also kill the possibilities to have some kind of structure and “stucturing” the armies is not possible anymore (alas, no balance but anyway there won’t be anything balanced anyway). This game is already going the 7th edition way 🙂

    • Fergie0044

      Oh give over. The edition isn’t even a month old yet. Plus seeing two FAQs in that amount of time gives me nothing but hope for the future. Sure the game might not be balanced now (and never truly will be) but more FAQs and attention can only improve it.

      • GnomesForge

        The game may not be perfectly balanced ever, war is not. It could however be stable allowing long term traditional strategies to emerge instead of introducing a 1 year community learning curve every 2-4 years.

    • GravesDisease

      People will always ask questions, doubly so with the amount of rules lawyers in this community. Them answering FAQs is a positive thing as clearly they have their finger on the pulse.

      What i find impressive though is how you’ve manage to interpret such a positive action so negatively!

      • Antoine Henry

        I do not find “understrength” unit to be positive personnally. I still prefer persons using proxies. I suppose I have no faith in humanity that I always see the dark side of those rule exploiters ^^

    • Defenestratus

      I agree.

      An 8 page (lol) rulebook that needs 4 pages of faqs is not a strong piece of work.

      • Heinz Fiction

        and a lot of this confusion could have been avoided with an additional sentence here and there or even *cough* an example. It’s not like there isn’t any white space left on those 8 pages…

    • Heinz Fiction

      6 conscripts for 6 troops doesn’t work, as you can only field one(1) understrength unit of any type (Rulebook page 242)

      • Antoine Henry

        True but still making their detachment rules worseless. It will permits you have to field each role for almost no point cost. Fortunately for tournament players they will always include kill points. Bad rule mechanic but finally less than expected and thank you for pointing that out

    • zeno666

      Yepp. I foresee a new editon next year.

    • mgdavey

      C’mon man. First most of the issues covered in the FAQ are inconsequential and/or obvious. Second, complaining because the rules writers are being excessively communicative regarding rules issues is the kind of thing that gives gamers a bad reputation. Accurate, but bad.

      • Nameless

        actually two of the FAQs in the imp vol.2 seemed like good questions. there is little guide lines to what a regiment can be, and only being able to issue orders to the same regiment is bound to raise questions. As you can’t use the same act of faith twice in a turn, if you had to declare before you roll could make a big difference.

    • GnomesForge

      8th will soon be more bloated than 7th edition.

      • Pete Croucher

        ‘Course it will, champ.

  • Moke

    They FAQ’s the Warp Talon’s lightning claw rule to put it in line with the other lightning claw rules… but didn’t bother clarifying if:

    1 lightning claw means +1 attack and 2 lightning claws means +2 attacks

    Or

    1 lightning claw means +0 attacks and 2 lightning claws means +1 attack

    Come on, GW, it really shouldn’t be this difficult to write unambiguously…

    • Lyca Atteneder

      Well, I think its pretty clear imho. If a model has two lightning claws and attacks it gets +1 A.
      1 Claw lets you reroll failed wound rolls

      2 Claws give you a bonus Attack in addition to that

      • Horus84cmd

        Spot on. No confusion really. Just people not reading things correctly or hoping to gain that extra attack.

  • Heinz Fiction

    It seems 2 of the 3 Questions concerning overwatch have been solved and both in a different way:

    I cannot fire overwatch an a target that attacks form out of LoS, following the normal shooting rules
    I CAN however fire overwatch on an attacking character even if another enemy unit is closer to me, overwriting the normal shooting rules.

    Makes me wonder how the third question will be solved:
    Can I fire overwatch if the attacker is out of weapon range? (relevant flamers and some short range pistols)

    • Horus84cmd

      Not really. At the point a Character charges the shoot restriction for them not being the closest target go out the window as they are a separate unit. The rules for charges clear state you can overwatch at multiple units:

      “Each time a charge is declared against a unit, the target unit
      can immediately fire Overwatch at the would-be attacker.
      A target unit can potentially fire Overwatch several
      times a turn, though it cannot fire if there are any enemy
      models within 1″ of it. ”

      As for Flamer and pistols, again no issue. Is the weapon in range when the charges declare their charge yes or no. If a weapons not in range then it can fire during overwatch.

      • Heinz Fiction

        Your first paragraph makes no sense to me. Characters are always a seperate unit, not only when they charge something.

        So apparently some target selection restrictions apply (LoS) and others don’t (targeting characters) without any internal logic. Makes it impossible to predict, if weapon range falls in the former or latter category.

        • Horus84cmd

          Overwatch AUTOMATICALLY targets the “charging unit”. The fact that said unit is a character is neither here nor there. There is really not anything here that is hard to grasp. If you want to avoid a character being targeted then you’d need to complete their charge after another unit has charged. That unit then is within 1″ and thus the charged unit can’t overwatch the character.

          • Heinz Fiction

            This makes still no sense, however they DID in fact answer my question, i just didn’t notice it. The answer is: “yes, weapon range applies”. So 2 restrictions apply, one doesn’t for reasons unknown.

          • Horus84cmd

            How does AUTOMATICALLY target charging unit when assaulted with overwatch not make sense? There is no ambiguity – you’re being intensely obtuse.

  • Warpman_dim

    So they nerfed the poor Starcannon making eldar weapon choices ABSOLUTELY INFERIOR
    But failed to see the 17-point Dire avengers?
    What a freaking joke.

    • Heinz Fiction

      They are probably still trying to figure out how on earth they came up with 17 points and who to blame for it 😉

      • Warpman_dim

        We know one man who’s always responsible for BS!
        MAAATTTHEEEEEW!

    • zeno666

      What? lol

      • Warpman_dim

        That’s the precise reaction every eldar has when we see dire avengers aclocking at 17 pointsmodel o_O

  • zeno666

    Necron destroyer returning with full wounds.
    LoL, I guess they wasn’t selling good enough.

  • Nyyppä

    Why on earth are they so persistent on making warp talons useless?!?

  • William Tinnel Jr

    Saviour Protocols why the nerf to mortal wounds? Now the Shield Drones are absolutely pointless (Not that a 4+ invul save was worth 8 points anyway). Am I missing something? Gun Drones forever it is.