# Warhammer 40,000 FAQ DRAFT online for feedback



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

I almost fell out of my chair when I saw this on Facebook. It seems the GW 40k page is looking for feedback in the FAQ document they're working on for the core rules (and based on some comments it seems similar projects will be occuring for other books, one book at a time):



> Hey everyone,
> Our rules guys have the first of the Warhammer 40,000 FAQ drafts for you guys to feed back on.
> We got so many questions for this game, that we’re going to be asking for feedback on the answers one book at a time. We’re starting with the big one: the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.
> Do the answers all make sense? Are they clear?
> ...


Now of course the Facebook thread is here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1610528622601104&id=1575682476085719 but I'm not one to leave you guys hanging. Here are the pages from the FAQ Draft for your perusal:



>


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Smashfucker is no more.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Angel of Blood said:


> Smashfucker is no more.


Which is for the best honestly.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Hah! Arjac Void-Bros is a go. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

I like the battle brothers not being able to use allied transports. Drop pod purifiers can finally fuck off.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

FAQ first draft, otherwise known as 40k Except For Dark Eldar Is Saved

Dark Eldar get a blunderbuss to the face all over again, but everyone else? This is _awesome_. Battle Brothers can't use each other's transports, Psykers can't cast more than their Mastery (fuck you, Librarius!), Characters get the Detachment rules if they join a unit - basically everything I wanted answered is in here answered the way I want (while Dark Eldar are going to take a fairly big hit from not being able to have Power Armour on all their transports all the time, they can still use regular cover, and that rule where you can Jink all the way to the bank and back shooting as you go was a *fucking hack* and I hated it).


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Angel of Blood said:


> I like the battle brothers not being able to use allied transports. Drop pod purifiers can finally fuck off.


Drop Pod Sisters are sad though.

Edit: so yeah, unless the Sororitas codex gets some thing massive later I don't expect much help for them from this.


----------



## Shandathe (May 2, 2010)

I don't see it on the Transports picture, where is the Battle Brothers transports bit?

And while questions are being asked, anyone know if you roll the D6 for Exorcist shots before or after you declare a shooting target?


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Shandathe said:


> I don't see it on the Transports picture, where is the Battle Brothers transports bit?
> 
> And while questions are being asked, anyone know if you roll the D6 for Exorcist shots before or after you declare a shooting target?


Last question of "Allies and Formations" had the BB transport question.

And I've always chosena target and then rolled as without a target you can't resolve the profile.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Q: Do blast weapons, regardless of size or type, now hit all models at all height levels under the template? And if so, is intervening terrain (such as bridges or floors) ignored when determining how many hits are caused?
A: A blast marker or template affects all models underneath it, including those on different levels of a piece of scenery. (Designer’s Note: Earlier versions of this rule restricted the effect of blast markers and templates to models on ‘a single level’ of scenery. This created problems with scenery that didn’t have strictly definable ‘levels’ and we decided on this change for simplicity. In addition, we feel the rules now better reflect the explosions being three-dimensional (i.e. spherical and not circular) as well as better representing the deadliness of weapons such a flamers when used in confined spaces.

....interesting...


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Wait, what? 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Was a surprising find among all the rest.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

scscofield said:


> Was a surprising find among all the rest.


This doesn't apply to all template weapons, does it?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Well explosives and pyromania got more fun.



gen.ahab said:


> This doesn't apply to all template weapons, does it?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


All blast and template weapons.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Well that's getting house ruled.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

gen.ahab said:


> Well that's getting house ruled.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


You're house ruling a simplification? Usually it goes the other way around.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Zion said:


> You're house ruling a simplification? Usually it goes the other way around.


My buddies and I like to add a bit of flavor in here and there. Within reason, of course. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

gen.ahab said:


> My buddies and I like to add a bit of flavor in here and there. Within reason, of course.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


GW did point out there was more flavor in treating explosions as 3d events instead of flat discs.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Zion said:


> GW did point out there was more flavor in treating explosions as 3d events instead of flat discs.


Sphere? Sure. Death cylinder of infinite doom? Maybe not. We'll see how it goes. IDK. Besides that minor silliness, I very much like what I have read.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

A thing was one way, then it wasn't, now it is again. 

All hail the power of the template!

What I'm stoked for is my frag cannon dreadnoughts getting two D3 overwatch hits. Noice.


----------



## Rush Darling (Apr 30, 2015)

Interesting point about jump units NOT going over terrain when making assault moves (but they ignore terrain when they Hit & Run?). Seems to be quite a contentious one if the comments are anything to go by, and as the question is written quite poorly I'll wait out for the final revision on this one.

The highlights for me are the Psychic powers officially being limited by mastery levels, and the grenades in the assault phase being limited to 1 (always felt this last one was badly lawyered and rather silly).

Having said that it's still a draft and things could change xD

The other one of note for me is that Super Heavies / Gargantuans can fire all of their weapons (None of this silly two weapon lawyering crap for GMCs), but must declare the targets of all of their shooting attacks before any attacks are resolved. Having been on the recieving end of the sheer amount of dakka a stompa puts out quite a few times, that last point is very interesting for me.


----------



## Battman (Nov 2, 2012)

Look forward to the newest section of FAQs, been missing some clarification on lots of these rules. It certainly isn't everything that could be wrong, never could be but its a good start.

Also personally keen to stop some of the stupidity such as jinking Imobilized skimmers.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

The grenade one is my favourite.

Was always the most bullshit lawyering i've heard. 'Only one grenade may be thrown per phase'

"Oh but you don't throw them in assault, you place them!"

Fuck off then, now Fuck Off officially too.


----------



## Deus Mortis (Jun 20, 2009)

Aye but I still don't understand why, when faced with a charging Contemptor whose about to smash you apart (or has already) you wouldn't place every fucking melta-bomb you had on it.

Or better yet "Hey sarge, there's this giant mechanical walker about to stomp us to paste. Shall we use all our melta-bombs?"
"Nah, one should do the trick?"
"Really? I mean it's pretty huge and probably won't go down with one bomb..."
"Fuck off mate. I didn't arm every member of this squad with melta-bombs to take down one massive foe."
"Isn't that exactly what you armed us with them for?"


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

The grenade one is confusing as the question was about attacks but the answer referenced shooting.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

What's the confusion. They explicitly state only one grenade, per unit, per phase. 










That's about as clear as they could possibly make it.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Deus Mortis said:


> Aye but I still don't understand why, when faced with a charging Contemptor whose about to smash you apart (or has already) you wouldn't place every fucking melta-bomb you had on it.
> 
> Or better yet "Hey sarge, there's this giant mechanical walker about to stomp us to paste. Shall we use all our melta-bombs?"
> "Nah, one should do the trick?"
> ...


Very little makes sense in 40k when you apply logic like that sadly. To me, if you want to pay 5pts on every man to have melta bombs, then it's just a redundancy, so if I snipe your sergeant with a Vindicare, then the squad can still use a melta bomb on something. As this is exactly the sort of thing I do with my Vindicare. "So that assault squad near by land raider, which of them have melta bombs? Oh just the sergeant? Ok one sec *Snipe* ok, have fun charging that now."


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Angel of Blood said:


> What's the confusion. They explicitly state only one grenade, per unit, per phase.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well if only one can be THROWN per phase guess if I overwatch with a grenade I can't fight with it.

You know, despite the profile having a CCW varient that doesn't required THROWING.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

It's almostt like this should be addressed in a FAQ.......oh wait....

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Zion said:


> Well if only one can be THROWN per phase guess if I overwatch with a grenade I can't fight with it.
> 
> You know, despite the profile having a CCW varient that doesn't required THROWING.


Precisely, you can't. Agree with it or not. It's very clearly stated now, no more of these Tau pathfinders bringing down anything they like with multiple haywire.


----------



## Deus Mortis (Jun 20, 2009)

Angel of Blood said:


> Very little makes sense in 40k when you apply logic like that sadly. To me, if you want to pay 5pts on every man to have melta bombs, then it's just a redundancy, so if I snipe your sergeant with a Vindicare, then the squad can still use a melta bomb on something. As this is exactly the sort of thing I do with my Vindicare. "So that assault squad near by land raider, which of them have melta bombs? Oh just the sergeant? Ok one sec *Snipe* ok, have fun charging that now."



Perhaps it's just the 30k mindset I'm in, but if I buy melta-bombs for every person, it's not redundancy. It's because they're a demo team. I'm doing that so they can blow up a Knight's legs or crack open a Spartan and 1 melta-bomb is never going to be enough.

Plus "There's not a whole lot of logic in 40k" isn't a reason for something else to be illogical.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

I put a reply on the 40k page under grenades so the rules team can refine things a bit (hopefully). I don't think panicing about grenades until next week is appropiate anyways since this is just a draft.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

God forbid they make melee walkers viable again! And man, those vehicles that are ruining the game for everyone.

The only reason I can see that the 'one grenade per unit per phase' thing would be bad is that Battle Company is good enough already. Other than that, it's a good change. I can now bring an Imperial Knight and Ironclads and Maulerfiends and not have to fear charging into a squad of Fire Warriors.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Nothing needs refining. It was bullshit lawyering in the first place, now it's official. People need to stop being in denial and accept the rule as it now conclusively is. Watching Imperial Knights being brought down by a squad of pathfinders in melee was the biggest load of shit ever.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Angel of Blood said:


> Nothing needs refining. It was bullshit lawyering in the first place, now it's official. People need to stop being in denial and accept the rule as it now conclusively is. Watching Imperial Knights being brought down by a squad of pathfinders in melee was the biggest load of shit ever.


Shooting attacks and close combat attacks are different things. Only one grenade shooting attack may be made per phase, there is no such restriction on close combat attacks (and the answer only says shooting, which is not in line with the close combat attacks question, furthermore the rulebook says when being used in close combat and not for overwatch grenades are clamped or placed, not thrown further not making it a "shooting" attack, something you can't even do when fighting in assault anyways).

The ruling you say is "so clear" contradicts the way grenades have always been used in close combat before and doesn't even truly line up with what the rules for grenades actually say, hence why it needs to be clarified.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Have a feeling they Wil just delete the sentence saying thrown. The first sentence us very direct 

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Zion said:


> Shooting attacks and close combat attacks are different things. Only one grenade shooting attack may be made per phase, there is no such restriction on close combat attacks (and the answer only says shooting, which is not in line with the close combat attacks question, furthermore the rulebook says when being used in close combat and not for overwatch grenades are clamped or placed, not thrown further not making it a "shooting" attack, something you can't even do when fighting in assault anyways).
> 
> The ruling you say is "so clear" contradicts the way grenades have always been used in close combat before and doesn't even truly line up with what the rules for grenades actually say, hence why it needs to be clarified.


No the answer says in the very first bloody line 'only one model from the unit can attack with a grenade in the assault phase' clear as day, full stop, end of, no confusion. I don't see what you and others are understanding about that line. It's unequivocal. And no it's not against how grenades have always been used. 6th ed very clearly stated one per phase as well.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

I think the grenades thing was clearly done for two reason. They want people to buy the large walking shinies and people won't if they know the things can just be haywired to death in one phase. Plus entire units of haywire grenades was BS to begin with. Limiting to one grenade per phase is to bring balance to the game and their sales.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Multiple grenades wasn't strong until they introduced hull points, then it pretty much nuked the viability of walkers and other things. I think this is addressing that issue.


----------



## Shandathe (May 2, 2010)

Angel of Blood said:


> And no it's not against how grenades have always been used. 6th ed very clearly stated one per phase as well.


Actually, it bloody well didn't. 



6th Edition rulebook said:


> Only one grenade(of any type) can be thrown by *a unit* per Shooting phase.
> 
> Vehicles and Monstrous creatures
> Some grenades can be used against vehicles and/or Monstrous Creatures, but have to be clamped in place for maximum effect.
> ...


Emphasis mine. There's a very large difference between one grenade attack / model (Assault phase) and one attack / unit (Shooting phase).


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Shandathe said:


> Actually, it bloody well didn't.
> 
> Emphasis mine. There's a very large difference between one grenade attack / model (Assault phase) and one attack / unit (Shooting phase).


Hmm so it didn't. Never would have noticed as nobody in any gaming group I've played in has tried to use such an op tactic.


----------



## Shandathe (May 2, 2010)

Angel of Blood said:


> Hmm so it didn't. Never would have noticed as nobody in any gaming group I've played in has tried to use such an op tactic.


It really ISN'T overpowered for 'normal' grenades. Krak grenades are only S6, so a full Space Marine squad SHOULD manage to kill it (10 krak grenades -> WS4 vs WS1 for an avg 6.667 hits -> S6+1d6 vs. AV10 needs a 4+ to glance so average of 3.33 HP removed). This is perfectly in line with "Infantry can pose a grave threat to vehicles if they get close enough" in 'Assaulting a Vehicle'.

Note the numbers looks radically different if you try the same on a walker, which can defend itself: SM Dreadnought at WS4 only takes 5 hits that need a roll of 6 to glance (so avg of <1 HP lost). An Imperial Knight with AV13 will (rightfully) LAUGH at this Space Marine squad.

The only problem here is the cheap Haywire grenades mucking things up.


----------



## Shandathe (May 2, 2010)

Looks like the 7th Edition rulebook still uses similar language.



P180 7th Edition BRB said:


> Grenade section,
> Vehicles, gun emplacements and monstrous creatures
> 
> Some grenades can be used against vehicles, gun emplacements and/or Monstrous Creatures<snip>
> ...


So the ruling that *a unit* can only use one during Assault pretty much comes falling from the sky and it effectively nullifies the Krak grenade as a threat to vehicles/MCs. It really WASN'T much of one to Walkers/MCs in the first place, but it could be good when desperate.

*Note: *Krak grenades are paid for. Cost about 1pt/model, as per the Astra Militarum codex. With this ruling, there's very little reason indeed to ever take take them as even a full squad of Guardsmen with Krak grenades can't take down so much as a Taurox. Better to spend the points on a Melta Bomb or Power Fist.

They used to be similarly optional for Sisters of Battle back in C:WH, and if they actually mean this I'm now wishing they were again.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

In any case. 'Dem the rules now.


----------



## The Sturk (Feb 3, 2012)

No 'drop pod scattering' for Monoliths/skimmers....Ah well, it was a fool's hope anyway.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

The Sturk said:


> No 'drop pod scattering' for Monoliths/skimmers....Ah well, it was a fool's hope anyway.


Never even knew that was an issue. So many of these rules are stuff I never knew were issues. Like who actually tried to field a whole army of buildings lol.


----------



## Rush Darling (Apr 30, 2015)

If I had an entire army of buildings, I may well have been that guy.


----------



## R_Squared (Mar 24, 2013)

Angel of Blood said:


> In any case. 'Dem the rules now.


Not necessarily, it's still only the draft. I hope for the sake of my tankbustas that they clarify that meltabombs are demolition charges designed to take down vehicles and building and my Boyz still have a cats chance in hell of actually staying on the battlefield.

I always played that rule, and clarified it many times in many games and at several tournaments too. It seemed fair to me that a specialised unit, like tankbustas would exchange their 2 base attacks, 3 on the charge, for a single attack with a melta bomb, reflecting the time and care taken to affix their charges to their target. Running squads of 5 made them a viable unit, a rare commodity for orks.
If GW insist on pushing this through, then it will be a wholly unfair nerf to an already underpowered codex. However, judging by the tone of comments on the grenades page, and the overwhelming criticism for the ruling, pointing out the rules themselves as evidence for the incorrect interpretation, I am hopeful that the ruling will not make the final draft.


----------



## tu_shan82 (Mar 7, 2008)

Well for me the grenade thing is a double edged sword, on the one hand my vehicles are safe from haywire/melta bomb spam, on the other hand I cant spam melta bombs to take out my opponents vehicles. 
One thing H would like cleared up is whether units in my army that are joined by lone independant charactes that are not from the same codex but are still battle brothers can deploy in their transports or not. I would ask my self, but dont have a fb account and was wondering whether someone could ask on my behalf.


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

tu_shan82 said:


> Well for me the grenade thing is a double edged sword, on the one hand my vehicles are safe from haywire/melta bomb spam, on the other hand I cant spam melta bombs to take out my opponents vehicles.
> One thing H would like cleared up is whether units in my army that are joined by lone independant charactes that are not from the same codex but are still battle brothers can deploy in their transports or not. I would ask my self, but dont have a fb account and was wondering whether someone could ask on my behalf.


 It's already been asked  (Not by me though)

'Can an independent character that has joined a battle brother unit embark in a transport with them in deployment' 

I'm awaiting the same clarification.


----------



## DaisyDuke (Aug 18, 2011)

Surely they already answered that. That's why the imperials are all bitching about loosing access to battle brother drop pods.


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

My question is 'If I attach an Archon to a Seer council, does the unit count as Craftworld Eldar or CW and DE?' 
I'd like to start the game embarked in a wave serpent.

I don't think this is allowed as it stands but it'd be nice to have an official statement addressing this specifically 

Atm, it feels like the baby has gone with the bathwater


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

The way it reads no you can not stArt deployed. Hence all the butthurt

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Scouting happening after Seize the initiative makes White Scar army's a bit scarier


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

scscofield said:


> The way it reads no you can not stArt deployed. Hence all the butthurt
> 
> Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk


I'd just like something along the lines of

GW - BB can't go in allied transports
Bloke - Even Independent characters joining allied squads?
GW - Yarp. (or in my wildest dreams) - Narp*

So hopefully, there will be something along those lines in the official faq when it's released.

Speaking as someone who literally last week bought 4 raiders, 2 squads of kabalites and an archon to do a combined CE/DE/Harlequin force...talk about timing :laugh:

*My wildest dreams are pretty tame.


----------



## DaisyDuke (Aug 18, 2011)

That sucks for you, but they can still go in the units you want just not during deployment.

O how the small violin is wailing for BB transport shenanigans


----------



## DaisyDuke (Aug 18, 2011)

Personally I think I will invest in a bloodthirster now the fmc thing has been clarified.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Make sure you post your questions under the image the rules you're asking about are in so they don't get missed.


----------



## Gret79 (May 11, 2012)

DaisyDuke said:


> That sucks for you, but they can still go in the units you want just not during deployment.


 That's why I'm not crying over this - cause I'm going to do the army anyway :so_happy:


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Do Bloodthirsters have the Independent Character rule? I thought most big Daemons were just Characters.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

I don't have the book handy but I'm pretty sure the big guys are all Characters at best and not ICs.


----------



## Rush Darling (Apr 30, 2015)

ntaw said:


> Do Bloodthirsters have the Independent Character rule? I thought most big Daemons were just Characters.


I think he's referring to the second question on the Errata page. I.e. summoned FMCs can now declare if they're swooping or gliding when they arrive, whereas previously I believe they were forced to swoop.

I keep hearing about IC MCs though, does anyone have an example of one?


----------



## tu_shan82 (Mar 7, 2008)

I think tau get a riptide special character that is an independant character in farsight enclaves. Thats the only one that comes to mind.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Found online:


----------



## Rush Darling (Apr 30, 2015)

Also found online. Made me chuckle.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

The 'nade rage is strong on the interwebz.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Rush Darling said:


> Also found online. Made me chuckle.


Love it.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

ntaw said:


> The 'nade rage is strong on the interwebz.


Indeed. The butt hurt is real. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## R_Squared (Mar 24, 2013)

...and rightly so, tankbustas were one of the only vaguely solid units for orks, and now they're gone too.
Can't have any filthy xenos possibly harm any of little timmy's special space mawines.


----------

