Designer commentary FAQ update

[Halfpint100]

Was released today, check the last page. Lets us use any missing weapon options from the index, with index rules and points. POWER MAULS ARE BACK

 

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_designers_commentary_en-1.pdf

 

[TheShredder]

Ah, excellent.

 

I'm glad they clarified this.

[duz_]

Me too! Should end my many arguments everywhere! :D

[Feral_80]

GW's ability to awkwardly multiply FAQs, avoid to clarify important issues, and instead introduce unnecessary complications and inconsistencies, never ceases to amaze.

[Chris521]

While helpful for now, it unfortunately still means that the writing is on the wall for non codex things in later editions.

[WarriorFish]

While this is good news, it's a bit messy Going back and forth between books isn't ideal. Good for some units of course but for things like a power weapon there was no good reason for them not to be in the codex.

 

I know we get a lot of mileage on jokes about GW's planning abilities, but I'd rather we didn't have such an open goal

[Quixus]

GW's ability to awkwardly multiply FAQs, avoid to clarify important issues, and instead introduce unnecessary complications and inconsistencies, never ceases to amaze.

Exactly, why can't they put such rules changes into the appropriate place, the errata?

[micahwc]

Yay Power Mauls!

[Guardsman Bob]

I’m a little shocked. The trend after 3rd was a habit of reducing Guard options. Getting the middle finger when the 8th Codex didn’t surprise me at all. This early Christmas gift however is.

[Vel'Cona]

I for one am happy to put some power axes back on my characters.  Since most of this is simplified into army creation tools anyway (such as Battlescribe), it's really a small issue long-term from a reference perspective.  Yes, it shows poor foresight, but hey at least it's not 6th edition  :P

[narcolepticltd]

 

GW's ability to awkwardly multiply FAQs, avoid to clarify important issues, and instead introduce unnecessary complications and inconsistencies, never ceases to amaze.

Exactly, why can't they put such rules changes into the appropriate place, the errata?

 

 

Because they still want to continue selling those indexes even after they've gotten around to all the codexes - That way even people buying in after the 'you'll only need these indexes' sham was up - will still be pressured into buying them. 

[noigrim]

7+ saves     !

 

Bum! death guard nerf! (at leas in my store)

Edited November 16, 2017 by noigrim

[Guardsman Bob]

I’m really expecting a quick release of 9th edition, once all the codices are released and every army is brought into line with 8th.

Games Workshop releases a new edition every couple years reguardless. They are a publishing company that does miniatures to support a monopolistic business model. It’s been that way consistently for most of the 21st century.

 

Considering they were never able to deal with the issues of AP5 verses horde armies in the span of 3rd to 7th edition I don’t think they are really listening. At best the leadership won’t listen to the Nerf-Croud and the more talented Devs will have sway over the Matt Ward wannabes.

[noigrim]

Aaand that's why I don't buy books anymore, miniatures are a far safer inversion

[Withershadow]

I knew I should have given everyone power mauls.

[Akrim]

Just finished putting a Maul on the Commander haha

[CoffeeGrunt]

Wow this thread is surprisingly bitter.

[Aegir_Einarsson]

Wht about re-rolls made before modifiers?

Is that changed? I was sure that re-rolls are after modifiers (-1 to hit due to heavy for ex.). And now is written that re-roll is before modifiers And then with final result you add modifiers...

[Halfpint100]

Wht about re-rolls made before modifiers?

Is that changed? I was sure that re-rolls are after modifiers (-1 to hit due to heavy for ex.). And now is written that re-roll is before modifiers And then with final result you add modifiers...

 

It has always been the case. re-rolls then modifiers.

[Aegir_Einarsson]

Ok, my bad

[Halfpint100]

Ok, my bad

No worries, they like hiding things in obscure places

[patchestheclown]

I have a question about the FAQ (this may have been an older FAQ) when it talks about getting cover saves from indirect fire. From how I read it, GW is saying that if a unit is nearby a piece of terrain that has special rules to give it "aoe" cover then you would get cover saves from indirect fire.

 

1. Does this mean that if a unit is within 1" of sandbags that they would get a cover save from my arty?

2. Does that mean that a tank completely out of LOS behind a giant building does not get a cover save from my arty? 

[TheShredder]

I have a question about the FAQ (this may have been an older FAQ) when it talks about getting cover saves from indirect fire. From how I read it, GW is saying that if a unit is nearby a piece of terrain that has special rules to give it "aoe" cover then you would get cover saves from indirect fire.

 

1. Does this mean that if a unit is within 1" of sandbags that they would get a cover save from my arty?

2. Does that mean that a tank completely out of LOS behind a giant building does not get a cover save from my arty? 

 

I believe it's also referring to vehicles and such that need to not only be in cover but also be at least 50% obscured from the firer.

 

It's saying that, if you cannot see the target *and* the target is in cover (or near cover in the case of Barricades) then it counts as being obscured (and so will benefit from the cover save).

 

To answer your questions:

 

1) Yes. Even if they're in front of the sandbags.

 

2) Correct.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

 

Ok, my bad

No worries, they like hiding things in obscure places

 

 

 

Plus, the rule is pretty counter-intuitive.

[Guardsman Bob]

Wow this thread is surprisingly bitter.

To be perfectly fair GW made their own bed. Jacking up prices astronomically fast, poor game development, lawyers threatening meaningless lawsuits over iffy concepts of intellectual property, persecution of non-GW stores, instead of using the new Primarus rules to adjust the current Marines as a fundemtal fix they spun them off as a new line to make more money.

 

This is a company that took over twenty years to figure out the concepts of 3rd Edition were a bad idea. That’s me being positive since it is entirely possible the changes in 8th were just a rule set change to justify more printing. Now that would be bitter.