New 40k FAQ

[BuFFo]

That having been said, I have never met another player who looked me in the eyes and said "I disagree with the GW FAQ and I would rather there be no clarity on that rule than to defer to the FAQ."

I mean, yeah. You can do it. But why would you?

Because my opponent was trying to claim the bonus for Counter Assault while denying me the bonus for Defensive Grenades because the SW FAQ says so. As in my battle report, we threw the FAQ out the window, as my local gaming group does for 99% of rules issues. We just roll a die and move on.

So yeah, not everyone uses these FAQs.

[Mr.Pickelz]

My biggest beef with the new FAQs is the argument's im goin to see over Ork trukk ramming/suicide.
although i hate how they added the wording in Wolftooth necklace "Against a model with a WS..."
so no more chain/power-fist/thunder hammer hitting on 3's against fast moving eldar skimmer

[MasterSlowPoke]

That line about the Wolftooth Necklace has been there for almost a year, Pickelz.

Because my opponent was trying to claim the bonus for Counter Assault while denying me the bonus for Defensive Grenades because the SW FAQ says so. As in my battle report, we threw the FAQ out the window, as my local gaming group does for 99% of rules issues. We just roll a die and move on.

So yeah, not everyone uses these FAQs.

Heh, hey again. You said you'd rather discuss this on a rules forum and whoa, I found you! Small world.

Even if you're not playing by the FAQs, Defensive Grenades do not counter Counter-Attack.

The rules for Counter-Attack:

If the test is successful all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn.

Basically models that pass this test get an extra attack in the same manner as ones that are assaulting. They do not count as assaulting.

The rules for Defensive Grenades:

Models assaulting against units equipped with defensive grenades gain no Assault Bonus attacks.

Defensive grenades only activate against assaulting models. When you are assaulting a unit, the enemy's unit does not also count as assaulting, even if they have the Counter Attack special rule, as we have seen.


Regarding the new status of FAQs being binding, which holds more weight: a webpage from two years ago, or a recent Official Rules Update? The FAQ is "hard" rules.

[SeattleDV8]

My biggest beef with the new FAQs is the argument's im goin to see over Ork trukk ramming/suicide.

Why? Ramshackle doesn't over rule this.
Kaboom: vehicle is destroyed, passengers disembark
Kareem: the same
Karrunch: truck is wrecked, passengers disembark.
In all three cases the passengers must disembark, because they moved flat out they cannot disembark.
Any model that cannot disembark is destroyed.
All this FAQ did was stop the explode loophole.

[N.I.B.]

Another FAQ, another few shots at Tyranids - no interlining cover saves for the closest unit in intertwined formations (a tactic sometimes used by Tyranid players in matches with too little terrain to balance up against mech). Never used it myself though, sounded a bit silly.

Casualties caused by exploding vehicles in multi-combats counts to combat resolution. This is potentially bad, yes it counts both ways but chances are great squishy Tyranids will hurt more than most opponents.

And the (potentially) big, bad, game destroying one:

Q: If a unit is in reserve, and it has an ability that occurs at
the start of a turn can they use that ability on the turn they
arrive? (p94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.

One guy at the club sprung this on me last night, with a gleeful smile. 'No more reserve armies for Tyranids now, HEHEH!' Of course implying that Hive Commander is fcuked.

Seriously, is there something I've missed? Because it would be the last straw for the already nerfed and struggling nid reserve lists. "Here's my Winged Tyrant with Hive Commander, I have to deploy him on the table for the bonus to apply, 2 turns of target practice for your whole army. Enjoy f*cking me up the *ss".

[Old_Paladin]

As for the genades issue:
I cannot believe that people can put those to sentances back to back and then be ignorant about their implacations.
Grenades stop the assault bonus; Charge grants a bonus exactly as if they had assaulted that turn. "exactly as if" is a very clear statement.


As for the FAQ: they still aren't binding rules.
All one section says is that they are answers to questions, with a precurser that states that said answers are to be taken lightly. They are possible answers, but not the only possible answers. It might be different if they said "FAQ are the answers we give, and expect you to play by," but they didn't.


Some of the answers are in fact simply stupid; namely the Stealth rule one. Good to know that a single Commissar Lord with camo-cloak will give an entire blobsquad stealth for nearly no cost (since it's clear that that's how it should work!)

[MasterSlowPoke]

Counter-Attacking models do not count as assaulting, and defensive grenades only activate against assaulting models. The bonus attacks for Counter-Attack are granted "exactly as if they too had assaulted", meaning they follow all the rules for the assaulting bonus attack, which, incidentally, do not mention Defensive Grenades.

If the assaulting attack bonus said that it is not granted when attacking a unit with Defensive Grenades, then Counter-Attacking models would not get the bonus.

[Nungunz]

Another FAQ, another few shots at Tyranids - no interlining cover saves for the closest unit in intertwined formations (a tactic sometimes used by Tyranid players in matches with too little terrain to balance up against mech). Never used it myself though, sounded a bit silly.

Casualties caused by exploding vehicles in multi-combats counts to combat resolution. This is potentially bad, yes it counts both ways but chances are great squishy Tyranids will hurt more than most opponents.

It's RAW. My group and most tournys I've played in have used this ruling.

One guy at the club sprung this on me last night, with a gleeful smile. 'No more reserve armies for Tyranids now, HEHEH!' Of course implying that Hive Commander is fcuked.

Seriously, is there something I've missed? Because it would be the last straw for the already nerfed and struggling nid reserve lists. "Here's my Winged Tyrant with Hive Commander, I have to deploy him on the table for the bonus to apply, 2 turns of target practice for your whole army. Enjoy f*cking me up the *ss".

Where does it say that Hive Commander happens at the start of the turn? Nowhere, so this doesn't apply to Hive Commander.

[Old_Paladin]

Counter-Attacking models do not count as assaulting. The bonus attacks for Counter-Attack are granted "exactly as if they too had assaulted", meaning they follow all the rules for the assaulting bonus attack.

Wow.
I'm shocked that you can even type that as a serious statement.
They don't count as assaulting, they 'count' as assaulting (thereby giving only bonuses and no penalties).


Counts as means just that, it IS the thing it refers to.
Your example would be like playing a game where my soda-can 'counts as' a killa-kan; but when you roll a weapon destroyed and try to remove the klaw, I say "Oh, you can't remove any of the weapons. It only 'counts as a Kan' so I can attack like one but you cannot effect it's weapons!"

[MasterSlowPoke]

They do not count as assaulting, they merely get the bonus attack as if they were. There is a difference - when dealing with rules, nuance is paramount. Nothing that relies on assaulting models works - Defensive Grenades and Furious Charge are the two obvious ones. As a Catachan player I sure with I could have S4 Counter-Attacking Guardsmen.

If you don't believe me, I have two GW FAQs backing me up. And the INAT too, for what it's worth.