Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Please take the time to read this entire post and at least peruse the attached FAQ documents at the end of this post BEFORE posting any rules questions to this thread.

Posts can and will be deleted from this thread as the questions they contain are added to the FAQ documents. Posts not discussing these FAQs or containing questions that have already been added to these FAQs will also be deleted.

 

Attached below are three documents containing an unofficial master FAQ for Warhammer 40,000 4th edition and all of its supplements. All the questions have been organized and edited by myself but have been contributed by dozens of Dakka posters.

The "Dakka" FAQ is a complete list and discussion of all the current questions unanswered by the current set of official Games Worskhop FAQs. There are no 'answers' (unofficial or otherwise) in the Dakka FAQ; it is ultimately a list that could be given to games designer to answer if the opportunity were to arise.

The "yak" FAQs is a condensed version of the questions (sans the dicusssion) asked in the Dakka FAQ, plus I've actually taken the time to answer the questions myself. Obviously these answers are completely unofficial, and a bit more discussion of how I went about deciding upon these answers is found in the introduction to the documents themselves.

The "yak" FAQs are split into two parts:

A) The "Rulebook" (or RB) FAQ contains Q&As for the rulebook, the Wargear book and the Cities of Death supplements.

B) The "Codex" FAQ contains the Q&As for all available codices, Chapter Approved army lists and Imperial Armor rules.

 

I personally give permission for all three of these documents to be used by anyone in any way they see fit.

 

So what's left to do?

Well, I'm always looking for questions that aren't in the current documents. I'm not looking for nit-picky issues, but real, legitimate questions that I wouldn't be ashamed to ask directly to the face of a games-designer. If you ever spot any issues not covered by these FAQs, please feel free to post that question as a reply into this thread.

Also, I still need someone who is proficient in Photoshop (or another picture editing tool), has a digital camera, and access to a range of miniatures/terrain to help me make some visual diagrams for the yak FAQs. There has to be someone out there who is willing to pitch in a little help on this project, right? If you're that someone, please send me a PM.

 

Thanks for taking the time to check out these documents and I hope you find them useful and informative.

 

11/13/07: These documents can now be found for download in the 'downloads' section of the site here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/downloads.jsp


Please note that a highly updated version of this FAQ will be coming out in the near future. The only reason its been so long since an update is because some very important changes are happening to my FAQ.

 

Well, after many months, the Dakka FAQ has been updated.

I've also added the yakFAQs to the same thread so there is only one place people need to go to find these documents.

So what's the big new changes?

Well, first of all, the Dakka FAQ has been brought fully into line with the yakFAQs, so that all of the numbering and questions match between the two documents.

In essence, the Dakka FAQ is the master list of questions, and the yakFAQ is how I would answer those questions.

 

Unfortunately I got lazy and I didn't highlight the new questions/answers I added to both documents, so it will be a little difficult to spot the changes from the last versions without reading them all the way through. I'm sorry about that and I'll try to make sure to mark any changes in future versions.

A couple of things I know for a fact are new are a few Kroot Mercenary questions and a whole host of Imperial Armor questions. So make sure to check those out and give me feedback, comments or criticisms.

 

Thanks again to anyone who's taken the time to help me out in this little project.

Oh, and as I've asked many times: Is there anyone with photoshop/picture editing skills who wants to help me make diagrams for the yakFAQ? I could really use the assistance.

 

 

Hi Yak,

I have extensive Photoshop and Illustrator experience.  I would be glad to help you with diagrams when you want.

Hi Yak,

As a Space Wolf player, I noticed 2 things that you could consider adding to these FAQs.

"1) According to the WGB, the Fang of Morkai has the effect of a Space Marine Apothecary's Narthecium/Reductor (at a fifth of the cost that a SM Apothecary has to pay!). When you combine this with the Healing Balms & Lotions, it would mean that the Wolf Priest would be able to allow the unit he is with to ignore 1 failed armor save (as per the HP&B), 1 failed save (as per Narthecium) and any friendly casualties within 6" of the Wolf Priest do not count towards the 25% casualties necessary to force a Morale Check (as per Reductor). Is this correct?"

"A: No. The description for the Fang of Morkai in the WGB should remove any reference to "Narthecium". It only functions as a Reductor. [rules change]"

The wording might be tricky because the Reductor doesn't have a separate entry in either the WGB or Codex: SM. Rather, it is part of combined entry called "Narthecium/Reductor". Within that description it does (at least in Codex: SM) describe what each part does. To avoid confusion, the answer may have to include which ability the Reductor confers.

"2) Can Wolf Guard models in Terminator Armour that select a Cyclone Missile Launcher as a Heavy Weapon, select 2 more non-Heavy Weapons (one of which may be a Storm Bolter) to bring them in line with the changes made to Cyclone Missile Launcher-armed Terminators in Codex: Space Marines?"

"A: Currently, no. Wolf Guard models may only select up to 2 weapons, subject to normal handed-related restrictions. Any Heavy Weapons chosen count as a 2-handed weapon (Codex: SW), though Wolf Guard may select a Storm Bolter if also armed with a Cyclone Missile Launcher (Codex: SW FAQ) [RAW]. This means they may not also have a single-handed weapon (e.g. Power Fist)."

Rather than that answer, however, I'm suggesting a [rules change] that a Cyclone Missile Launcher no longer counts as a 2-Handed Weapon for Wolf Guard models in Terminator Armour (for intents and purposes treat it like a Storm Shield; a single-handed weapon that does not help towards +1 attack from 2 single-handed weapons) and a model with a Cyclone Missile Launcher may still select up to 2 other weapons, only one of which may be 2-handed, with the caveat that neither of those 2 weapons may be another Heavy Weapon.

Assuming you agree with either or both of these, please feel free to re-word them to your liking.

Thanks,

StormWolf

Well, you weren't too specific about whether or not discussion/debate of your FAQs was O.K. here, but here goes:

I've recently begun playing my Demonhunters, specifically Grey Knights, again. Repeatedly, the question of whether or not Psycannons ignore cover saves has come up. My questions are as follows:

1) Why do you think the "cover saves allowed" rule change regarding Psycannons is so pervasive? Did GW make a statement far back in the mists of time and obscurity that has since been forgotten via a form of mass amnesia?

2) Why did you make this change in YakFaq? It seems like the intent of your documents isn't to fly in the face of clearly stated, essentially unarguable rules, so why do so seemingly arbitrarily?

The reasons for my question are as follows:

- Grey Knights have the storm bolter and nemesis force weapon (the source of their S6) included in their base cost.

- Grey Knights must give up both of these weapons to carry a Psycannon (RAW in the codex).

- Psycannons cost a hefty 25 points, which seems expensive enough to be disregarding the loss of the two original weapons, which are traditionally heavily weighted in the history of point-values in 40k. (developer's oversight?)

- Psycannons have a dual profile and ignore invulnerable saves, two abilities that generally (now even moreso) are highly conditional.

- The Conclusion: Psycannons can only be costed the way they are because, by RAW, they make life miserable for 4+ save or less models. Why further punish an already overpriced/specialized weapon?

- Why would you make a Rule Change that strongly compromises such an incredibly expensive, seldom-used weapon and unit choice?

I've tried to be unbiased here, and am merely interested in your reasoning and the lack of a "note of intent" in the FAQ document. I've personally played games both ways, and haven't witnessed the RAW interpretation being an unbalancing factor in any of them (including non-MEQ opponents). Loading up on psycannons has its own inherent weaknesses, and so I believe the rule as is in the codex and official FAQ is legitimate by all counts with the unexplained exception of most private venues...

Anytime there is a [rules change] in my FAQ that denotes some sort of personal opinion on my part which generally either refers to a belief about the author's intent and/or how the majority of people naturally play the issue regardless of what the RAW say.


I have met zero people in person who have honestly believed that the authors intended for Psycannons to ignore cover saves. The way they worded the rule:

"Only armor saves may be taken against a Psycannon, invulnerable saves may not be taken."


Seems pretty clearly to be lazy writing where the authors didn't notice at the time they were also technically exempting cover saves from being allowed. This is reinforced by the summary in the codex which very clearly says that Psycannons only ignore invulnerable saves while the Incenerator, for example, clearly states that both types of saves (invulnerable and cover) are ignored.

Plus, it doesn't fit with the fluff of the weapon that it is meant to bypass field/aura saves that suddenly it also ignore cover saves.

Now, all this is my personal opinion, but again in my experiences I've also found this to be (by far) the majority opinion as well.

I've never done a poll on the subject and if you think that there are a sizable amount of people who play opposite of what I think then I would be happy to make such a poll.


As for game balance, the FAQ ruling was not made with the balance of the army in mind (nor should it be, IMHO).

Yak, got a question for you. Why the rules change on rending bio plasma? I looked for a discussion thread on it, but couldn't find one. It seems per RAW that bio-plasma would rend, so did you do it just because it didn't "seem right" ?

Toreador wrote:Yak, got a question for you. Why the rules change on rending bio plasma? I looked for a discussion thread on it, but couldn't find one. It seems per RAW that bio-plasma would rend, so did you do it just because it didn't "seem right" ?

Yep. It doesn't make sense that having rending claws would have any effect on bio-plasma attacks or tail attacks.

Like I said above, any [rules change] notes an area where I've made a change against the RAW either because I think playing with the RAW in that case is absurd, unfun or goes against the way most of the people I've encountered play the situation.

It doesn't really make sense that a Marine with Power Weapon and Bolters gets "X" close combat attacks that ignore armour saves, while a Marine with Power Weapon and Bolt Pistol gets "X+1" attacks, all of which ignore armour saves either. Power Bolt Pistol?

What I'm saying is; a Power Weapon gives all of a Marine's CC attacks "ignore armour saves"

In exactly the same way, Rending Claws gives all of a Tyranid's CC attacks Rending.

Viperion

Viperion wrote:It doesn't really make sense that a Marine with Power Weapon and Bolters gets "X" close combat attacks that ignore armour saves, while a Marine with Power Weapon and Bolt Pistol gets "X+1" attacks, all of which ignore armour saves either. Power Bolt Pistol?

What I'm saying is; a Power Weapon gives all of a Marine's CC attacks "ignore armour saves"

In exactly the same way, Rending Claws gives all of a Tyranid's CC attacks Rending.

Viperion

You are indeed correct. However there is a precedent throughout the game of attacks that are separate from a users basic attacks (usually done at a different Initiative step) being resolved 'outside' of the rest of the model's special attacks.

examples include things like a Techmarine's Servo arm, Nurgling Infestation on Tyhpus, etc.

If you start trying to say that all of a users attacks are completely the same, even when they have a clear 'bonus' style attack then you start running into a situation where all of a Servitors attacks become Powerfist attacks (just because he has the one Servo-arm attack) and Typhus's Nurgling attacks ignore armor saves.

In fact, a good argument could be made that both Rending Attacks and Bio-Plasma attacks are "special close combat attacks" and therefore only one or the other can be used.

So, IMHO when a model has a clear set of separate bonus attacks then those attacks are resolved without any of the models normal special close combat abilities and in turn those bonus attacks get to use whatever special close combat attack rules are associated with them.

yakface wrote:If you start trying to say that all of a users attacks are completely the same, even when they have a clear 'bonus' style attack

Like a Bolt Pistol giving you an extra CC attack? Seems like a clear "bonus" style attack to me. It's very clear where the extra attack comes from.

I do see your point, but it could equally be argued (and of course GW has never FAQ'd this point) that Rending Claws aren't just big sod-off claws which go through armour but actually modify the 'Nids biochemical structure such that he has acid blood, or spiky bits, or whatever.

Viperion

Viperion wrote:
Like a Bolt Pistol giving you an extra CC attack? Seems like a clear "bonus" style attack to me. It's very clear where the extra attack comes from.

Except that the pistol doesn't have any properties on its own. It just adds an extra attack to the rest of the user's attacks.

Bio-Plasma, Tail Attacks, Nurgling Infestation, Servo-Arms all have specific rules for their attacks telling you what exactly they do. And again, it really comes down to consistency, something that GW doesn't always do a good job of across their codices (but is something I can address in a FAQ). If Typhus's Nurgling attacks aren't going to ignore armor saves and all of a Techmarine's attacks aren't going to be powerfist attacks because of his Servo arm then the same type of consistency needs to be applied across the board.

I do see your point, but it could equally be argued (and of course GW has never FAQ'd this point) that Rending Claws aren't just big sod-off claws which go through armour but actually modify the 'Nids biochemical structure such that he has acid blood, or spiky bits, or whatever.

Actually, Rending claws are specifically just big claws that tear through armor in the codex.

Viperion wrote:
Like a Bolt Pistol giving you an extra CC attack? Seems like a clear "bonus" style attack to me. It's very clear where the extra attack comes from.

Except that the pistol doesn't have any properties on its own. It just adds an extra attack to the rest of the user's attacks.

Bio-Plasma, Tail Attacks, Nurgling Infestation, Servo-Arms all have specific rules for their attacks telling you what exactly they do. And again, it really comes down to consistency, something that GW doesn't always do a good job of across their codices (but is something I can address in a FAQ). If Typhus's Nurgling attacks aren't going to ignore armor saves and all of a Techmarine's attacks aren't going to be powerfist attacks because of his Servo arm then the same type of consistency needs to be applied across the board.

I do see your point, but it could equally be argued (and of course GW has never FAQ'd this point) that Rending Claws aren't just big sod-off claws which go through armour but actually modify the 'Nids biochemical structure such that he has acid blood, or spiky bits, or whatever.

Actually, Rending claws are specifically defined as just big claws that tear through armor in the codex.

Another to consider--

Can a monstrous creature with more than half of its base, or if the portion of its base/body that you trace LOS to, being outside of area terrain, does the model still receive a cover save?

This question comes from the BGB, p.25, "Units Partially in Cover." This rule references a unit of multiple models; units of single models are not mentioned.

Possible need for a clarification...

I would say;
51%+ of base outside = model outside
49%- of base outside = model inside.
50% exactly in and out, roll D6 4+ in, 3- out.