40k Rules Commentary

[Mandragola]

Here you go: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/KBvH5h3oY5QREpmG.pdf

 

I'm not sure if this is a day 1 FAQ exactly, because I don't know what day this is. But I guess we can start playing now because we have our core rules, indexes and points.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Dr_Ruminahui
Renamed to be more accurate/relevant

[VanDutch]

Page  17, modifying characteristics, states that damage can never be reduced below one (exception being rules that explicitly reduce damage to zero)

[Redcomet]

Wait wait wait. An 18 page document explaining why the rules work how they do? Thats almost as long as my Shatterpoint rules… are they drunk?

[StormLion]

Welp, it looks like I was wrong on the damage modifier to 0 on the Redemptor/Storm Raven/DW Knights/few other things.

[TrawlingCleaner]

1 minute ago, VanDutch said:

Page  17, modifying characteristics, states that damage can never be reduced below one (exception being rules that explicitly reduce damage to zero)

 

*A chorus of gasps* Who'd of guessed?

 

I'm glad we can put that silly one to rest now

[Doobles57]

3 minutes ago, VanDutch said:

Page  17, modifying characteristics, states that damage can never be reduced below one (exception being rules that explicitly reduce damage to zero)

Thank goodness. A stupid argument that should never have been needed. 

 

Not sure these new "simplified" rules should require such extensive commentary tbh.

[phandaal]

Quote

 

OUT-OF-PHASE RULES
Some rules allow a model or unit to move, shoot, charge or fight outside of the normal turn sequence. For example, the Fire Overwatch Stratagem enables a unit to shoot in the opponent’s turn as if it were your Shooting phase. When using out-of-phase rules to perform an action as if it were one of your phases, you cannot use any other rules that are normally triggered in that phase.

 

Example: In your opponent’s Movement phase, you use the Fire Overwatch Stratagem to enable a Whirlwind from your army to shoot as if it were your Shooting phase. The Whirlwind has the Pinning Bombardment ability, which is used ‘In your Shooting phase, after this model has shot’. Because Fire Overwatch is an out-of-phase rule, it only allows the Whirlwind to perform the specified action (in this case, shooting as if it were your Shooting phase) and does not trigger any other rules that would normally be used in your Shooting phase. This means the Whirlwind’s Pinning Bombardment ability has no effect while resolving these attacks, and you could not use any other Stratagems that are used in your Shooting phase to affect those attacks. 

 

 

Yep.

[acrozatarim]

Looks like flying over terrain now works properly, ie measuring the arc over it rather than having to 'climb'.

[Scribe]

lol!

 

I thought this was like a 'how we designed it, why its this way' rules commentary.

 

Why not call a FAQ a FAQ? :D

[Prim]

From the core rules:

Quote

Some weapons and abilities can only be used by Psykers. Such weapons and abilities are tagged with the word ‘Psychic’

From this document:

Quote

Psychic weapons and abilities are used by Psykers, but the absence of the Psyker keyword does not prevent a model from using any Psychic weapons or abilities it has.

Not confusing at all.

 

It's like an errata, but with GW denying that it is anything of the sort.

[Lexington]

This has some real “marketing mandated that the rules be no longer than [x] pages, so here’s some vital things we had to leave out” vibes.

[Captain Idaho]

So 8 days before launch we got an 18pg FAQ rules pack?

 

Oh yeah, no bloat in 10th at all. 

Edited June 16, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[Redcomet]

Nice that my super special Leviathan book is out of date a week before it is out. It really makes the “premium” product feel “premium”

[Medicinal Carrots]

Unit's Toughness Characteristic (aka mixed toughness) is interesting with Ogryn Bodyguards. Having one makes the whole unit effectively T6

[apologist]

33 minutes ago, Doobles88 said:

Thank goodness. A stupid argument that should never have been needed. 

Not sure these new "simplified" rules should require such extensive commentary tbh.

 

Just a sign of the times. The tighter, shorter formula-style rules of later editions (as opposed to the discursive, conversational style of early editions) trade readability and nuance for clarity and simplicity. There's always been rules lawyers, and while a smaller, tighter ruleset reduces the number of potential interpretations, it doesn't become zero.

 

I'm happy to have a separate Designer's Commentary like this because it makes explicit lots of edge-case interactions in a separate document so the core rules aren't clogged up with very minor issues. 

 

+++

 

To take reduction of damage to 0 as an example, I suspect a large proportion of players simply wouldn't have noticed the possibility; the greater proportion of players who did spot the issue would have taken 'to a minimum of 1' as implied; and of the remainder, I don't think it would have been game-breaking in practise – just the same sort of conversation that comes up in every game: 'Is that model meant to be in cover?' 'I'd like to move this model here; do you agree that it can reach?', 'How does this interaction work again?'.

 

The social contract of the game – being willing to talk things through so you both have fun – is still alive and well, and how GW suggests you deal with such edge cases is noted on the very fist page of the core rules:

 

 

Having said that, for those to whom precision is really key – and I can see tensions riding high over such an edge case at a competitive or tournament game – it certainly doesn't hurt to have what amounts to an appendix of 'Rules as Intended'.

 

Should these simple rules require extensive commentary? Probably not for the vast majority of the audience. Does it hurt that it's there for those for whom it does matter? Not at all. :)

[Kallas]

56 minutes ago, phandaal said:

OUT OF PHASE RULES

Yep.

Man, sure makes sense that Whirlwind barrages are less disorienting when you get shot *checks notes* at a slightly different time. Makes total sense 

 

58 minutes ago, Doobles88 said:

Thank goodness. A stupid argument that should never have been needed. 

It's good it's clarified, and the only reason the argument existed is because GW made two stupid mistakes:

1. Not putting rules detailing characteristics into the core rules (ie, can't be modified below 1 when explaining what the characteristics are), and
2. Having inconsistent rules, eg, Bullgryn having a rule stating "to a minimum of 1" whereas a Redemptor did not have that clause - especially confusing when the Bullgryn don't need that clause!

[phandaal]

Just now, Kallas said:

Man, sure makes sense that Whirlwind barrages are less disorienting when you get shot *checks notes* at a slightly different time. Makes total sense 

 

It is more to prevent people from chaining all kinds of abilities and strategems intended for use in a specific phase, then rules lawyering that "technically, akchually, it is the Shooting Phase for the instant that I am firing Overwatch."

[ZeroWolf]

I'm beginning to wonder if this 10th edition isn't the 10th edition that started development 3 years or so ago (probably as an answer to 8th editions woes.) It looks more and more to me that something hardened that completely shifted it. This could explain why certain rumours said nothing was changing to what we have here. It would account for the rushed feel as most other companies would just delay the product but with share holders expecting results that wasn't going to happen.

[Ahzek451]

So am I reading the commentary right? Characters and the unit they join share keywords? So if ahriman on a disk joins rubrics, his fly keyword now allows rubrics to fly?

[Arkhanist]

4 minutes ago, Ahzek451 said:

So am I reading the commentary right? Characters and the unit they join share keywords? So if ahriman on a disk joins rubrics, his fly keyword now allows rubrics to fly?

 

Damned if I know.

 

"Some units can contain models that have different keywords. While this is the case, such a unit is considered to have all of the keywords of all of its models, and so is affected by any rule that applies to units with any of those keywords. Remember that attacks are made against units, not models"

 

And the very next FAQ!

 

"If a rule only applies to models with a specific keyword, then it instead only applies to models in such a unit that have the correct keyword"

 

So units share keywords with their leader and are affected by any rule that applies to that keyword, AND AT THE SAME TIME, rules only apply to the models in a unit that have that specific keyword on their datasheet.

 

[Kastor Krieg]

Means that rubrics have FLY, but it doesn't apply to them... as long as FLY says it applies only to certain models.

[Scribe]

8 minutes ago, Kastor Krieg said:

Means that rubrics have FLY, but it doesn't apply to them... as long as FLY says it applies only to certain models.

 

...

[Kallas]

Hunters are really good at shooting down the Rubrics that jump in front of Ahriman 

[Arkhanist]

16 minutes ago, Kastor Krieg said:

Means that rubrics have FLY, but it doesn't apply to them... as long as FLY says it applies only to certain models.

 

Gotcha. So since the rules for making FLY moves specifically apply to models with FLY, but not units with FLY, a unit of Rubrics with FLY applied via disc Ahriman can't actually do a FLY move (e.g. move over other units etc) but have to walk like peasants. But an attack that targets flyers e.g. the Stalker gun with [anti-fly 2+] WILL affect the unit when shot at because it does have the FLY keyword e.g. cause critical wounds on a 2+

 

Jesus, that's not going to cause any confusion at all.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Arkhanist

[The Unseen]

Sweet Holy Emperor, an 18 page day 1 FaQ. What a disaster this roll-out has been