Saturday, 20 November 2010

WH40K FAQ Update: Rules I Want Answered!

Thanks to all who commented on the previous post re: sniper rifles and the new GW FAQ rulings. I, and my comrades here at Wednesday Night Gaming very much appreciate everyone's input into the battlereports, as well as any advice/comments given regarding the rules queries that pop up during our battles! (cue: much animated and heated discussions during our games between me, Laur and Dougie when the inevitable rules clash arises).

Recently I've managed to squeeze in 3 games with my IG against Laur and Doug, and I promise battle reports one day! But for the now it looks like this:

Game 1 - IG Vs. 'Nids: A revised 1250pt list where I take a command squad, a 30no. men platoon blob with priest & commisar, 2no. manticores, chimeltas and a Hellhound against the very same list I fought against recently. It was Pitched Battle, Capture & Control with me on the first turn, the result: IG Victory! (thus breaking my losing streak. It was 1no. objective controlled, vs. no objectives for Nids.)

Game 2 - IG Vs. Space Marines: I take the same list as Game 1, but with a Banewolf instead of a Hellhound, against Shrike + Terminators infiltrating, Tac squads, a Jump pack assault squad, Pred & Dread. This was also a Pitched Battle, Capture & Control game, with me on the first turn, the result: Marine Victory! (With 1no. objective controlled by the Marines, and mine own objective successfully contested).

Game 3 - IG Vs. Chaos Space Marines:  I've taken a double-blob platoon list (60no. men in total!), led by a Primaris Psyker, 2no. Banewolves, & 2no. Basilisks, against 3 Chaos Tacs, Dred, Pred, Terminators &  Daemon Prince. It was Dawn of War, Seize Ground, with me on the first turn, the result: Technically a stalemate with both our objectives contested (at time of writing, Doug and Laur agreed to play out the rest of my game on my behalf on subsequent turn 6, 7, etc, so am waiting to hear the true and final outcome).

As with all games, we ended up with rules questions that we hope that the readers of the bloggosphere can come to our rescue! As the new FAQ update has failed to touch upon these many instances, here are the  questions we here at Wednesday Gaming Night have for you all

Dare you try to answer? Read on below:


Q1. Can a walker that has been immobilised pivot to shoot?

I had damaged a dreadnought in my shooting turn, and in the next turn we had a long discussion on whether Laur's dread can pivot to shoot. Ultimately we decided to just let it be, and the dreadnought shot a target in front of it anyway, but we've heard the many arguments such as : a) A walker is a vehicle, as vehicles cannot pivot when immobilised ergo a walker cannot. b) But in combat, an immobilised walker is said to be flailing wildly (akin to pivoting) and thus cannot have it's rear attacked, but minus 1no. Attack profile. c) Like with glued guns & sponsons, if a model has the appearance of being able to pivot (e.g. at waist level like a dread) then it can. But oh, Ork dreads cannot? Etc, etc.


Q2. Can a unit that has deepstruck near a building or vehicle access point also embark on the turn it arrived?

The rulebook states that in Pg 95, once they arrive (via Deepstriking) these units may not move any further, other than to disembark from a deepstriking transport vehicle.

In the last game I played against Dougie, his termies teleported near a building access point and raised the query. We said no, but now I think that actually there is nothing in the rules that says you cannot have a unit that has arrived via deepstriking embark onto a transport/building if they all comply with the access point rule.

Is this correct?

Q3. Can jump troops or deepstriking units 'enter' a building in a non-standard way? E.g. Not embarking a building via an access point, but jumping/deepstriking directly onto the building?

During Game 2 where Laur queried if his jump pack assault troops can jump directly onto a building, we agreed that occupied (friendly or foe) buildings count as impassable, thus jump packing onto an occupied building was a no-no, and deepstriking counts as a mishap. But when the building is unoccupied, the main rulebook helpfully tells us to 'Use Your Imagination!' (Pg. 80), even informing that perhaps jump packers COULD, if house-ruled, get onto occupied parapets to assault.

However Pg 95 says a unit may not deepstrike INTO a transport/building (assumed this means both occupied/unoccupied), which will count as impassable terrain as normal. But what about ONTO (a building), for instance onto the parapet/battlement/rooftop? The rulebook isn't exactly clear.

I stated that by allowing this, this opens up a huge can of worms when it comes to other corrolary effects e.g. If jump troops or deep strikers are then deployed onto rooftops, do they get a 4+ cover save, or do they count as having 'embarked' the building and thus use the buildings AV when shot at, counting as open-topped? Do they, by effect of the Pg. 95 ruling, can only deepstrike straight onto the rooftop, and CANNOT 'enter' the building immediately after deepstriking? This got very complicated, but we stated as a house-rule that jump packers CAN jump onto rooftops, counting as being on the roof, open-topped, using the AV of the building, etc, BUT they had to do a dangerous terrain test first.

Don't get me started on whether a jump pack unit, ON a rooftop, can jump direct from a rooftop thus incurring a further dangerous terrain test, OR they disembark, get an extra 2" and avoid a dangerous terrain test, AND jump their full movement. Urg.

Rules meltdown!


Q1. Can a Hive Tyrant that has joined a unit of Tyrant Guard bodyguards be pinned/Go to Ground?

The good old 'Monstrous creature joining a unit of infantry now becomes an ambigiously-sized creature' issue raises it's head again!

Infantry can go to ground of course, but Pg 51 states that Monstrous Creatures cannot. So can this unit of mixed-up monsters can or cannot? After all, the Tyrant benefits from the cover save potential of being in an infantry group, or wound-distribution potential of having bodyguards (as RAI), but can it also then break the game by going to ground to max out it's cover save?



Q1. Does the Order 'Bring it Down!' work when shooting at a Hive Tyrant that has joined a unit of Tyrant Guard?

As the Hive Tyrant does not stop being a Monstrous Creature, we ruled that the order does work, and that the successfully ordered unit gets it's weapons twin-linked (as it would do when shooting against vehicles or other monstrous creatures).

What do you think?

Q2. Does Knight Commander Pask's ability 'Crack Shot' work when shooting a Hive Tyrant that has joined a unit of Tyrant Guard?

As with the previous question, we feel the logic applies here too, therefore Pask's crack shot does work, and any hits that failed to wound may be re-rolled.

Or does it not?

Q3. When does a Ministorum Priest's 'Righteous Fury' re-roll their any failed 'To Hit' rolls in close combat?

Just seeking clarification here. When the rule (IG codex Pg. 35) states '... in close combat on the turn in which they assault', does that mean:

The term 'turn' is specifically the owning player's turn when they initiate the assault! For instance, it is my turn and I charge my Priest + Platoon at an enemy, therefore I get to re-roll my failed to hit rolls. But if it is my opponent's turn, and he charges his enemy unit into my Priest + Platoon, I do not get to use this ability to re-roll  at all!

Also this means if the Priest + Platoon get assaulted, they do not benefit from re-rolls, as they're merely retaliating in close combat, but not 'assaulting'.

Is this right?


Q1. Can Shrike, an Independent Character, having joined a unit of Terminators, Infiltrate with his Terminator retinue?

While seemingly not fluffy, can't find anything that says Terminators cannot infiltrate (they cannot do a Sweeping Advance, yes that's true!) so we played it that way.

Would you?


Q1. Chaos Dreadnought 'Fire Frenzy' - Discuss!

Dougie went with the INAT clarification, which I believe is consistent and fair considering GW has failed to address this over and over.

We've heard it all and the phrase is bandied about on Pg. 40 of the Chaos space marine codex: "At the beginning of the shooting phase it must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit (friend or foe!) and fire all of its weapons against it - twice)."

The query here is what is a walker's visibility? Is it 360 degrees like infantry? Is it only the arc of fire (45 degrees) from the guns? Is the emphasis on the term 'visible' and therefore if there's a target within this arc of fire, I pivot, then shoot at the closest target in the arc of fire?

Of it's the 360 degrees like infantry example, you literally measure which unit is physically and geographically close (e.g. friendly units right behind the dreadnought), therefore the emphasis is on the term 'closest', pivot it round to face it, and fire away?

We agreed that as walkers are included in the vehicle sub-heading, it's guns should fire like a vehicle, and thus we rely upon the gun's visibility arc.

But is this how you would play it?

When playing 40K, my inner rules-lawyer does his best Zoolander face.

Thanks to all who's read, and a future thanks to all for the future comments!


  1. 1. Walkers pivoting - I go with if it should be able to (such as a marine dread) it can, while Ork Kans and Eldar War Walkers can fire with their weapon's pivoting.

    2. Deepstriking and entering a building, I'd say no due to the only exception being to disembark from a deepstriking vehicle (ie the vehicle they came in on). They wouldn't be allowed to DS next to another vehicle and get into it either.

    3. I'd allow it into a building, but have it that any deviation results in a mishap unless they land clear of the building (as in completely oustide it). Depending on the building I'd allow DSing onto it too, and count it as being atop a 'ruin'.
    I like to go through each terrain piece with my opponent before the game so we're both agreed on cover saves, area and things like this.

    4. I'd say no - the Tyrant's too big and the guard should be standing up to suck down shots. But non-fluffily the best solution is the unit 'goes to ground' and the Tyrant gets a cover save if it wouldn't already?

    5. I say yes, the Tyrant's still a valid target, even if bits of his unit aren't. Being screened makes him more of a priority for the order really.

    6. As above

    7.Agree with your assessment of the rule - the priest and co have to be the attackers to get the bonus.

    8. No rules reason he can't

    9. I always think it's a 180 degree arc infront, but then I remember they got rid of field of vision ages ago...
    Go weapon arc and expand outwards until you catch something in its sights and in range - turing around to blast some Berserkers first off seems to be too much of a handicap for the points.

  2. Hi Gotthammer, thanks for taking the time to consider & answer the queries, much appreciated. Most, if not all the above, I would say is the common sense approach that we at Wednesday Night Gaming have adopted (bar the ones we're querying now). Still!

    For q2. agreed with units disembarking from a deepstriking transport (e.g. marines from a drop pod) not being able to re-embark, as rules clearly state a unit that has already disembarked from a moving vehicle (a drop pod landed counts as having moved) will not being able to re-embark.

    But a unit that has deepstruck (e.g. Stormtroopers, Terminators, etc), there doesn't seem to be a clear cut rule disallowing them from embarking to a transport or building if they land squarely in the appropriate access range, which is what makes me raise the question should they be able to do it or not.

    For q3. the rules clearly state (pg 95) they can't deepstrike IN-to a building (in the same way you can't deepstrike IN-to a transports, though I suppose I'd like to see people try to argue a team of Terminators teleporting them into a landraider ala Star Trek style), but I accept that deepstriking ONto a building (On to rooftops)requires a houserule patch, and agreement of your opponent as you have mentioned.

    For Q9. I am in slight agreement there, but I still wonder with the poorly-worded codex ruling (e.g. what is the emphasis on, 'closest', or 'visible'?). I've even heard people argue that given the 45 degree visibility arc for each weapon, if there are no targets in that arc you don't even pivot as you there are clearly no 'visible' targets at all!

    I quite like your suggestion re: Q9, though lets say hypothetically if you enlarge and enlarge the arc and you STILL don't have any 'visible-closest' friend or foe target (e.g. everyone's outwith LOS as they're obscured by very large buildings or mountains), and you keep enlarging this arch until it's pretty much 360 degrees, THEN do you turn around and blast the Beserkers behind? :)

  3. re. walkers:

    p75 notes that walkers' weapons have a 45' traverse, just like hull-mounted weapons, and that you should "pivot the walker on the spot" to point its weapons. On p61 the 'Damaged - Immobilised' entry notes that "An immobilised vehicle may not turn in place".

    We've always interpreted this to mean that an immobilised walker is stuck in place with its 45' arcs for the remainder of the game.

  4. Hi Drax,

    I too have always maintained as a walker is a sub-heading under vehicles, and relies on the vehicle damage chart, therefore it's effects should apply (e.g. no pivoting) according to RAW. The only exception (under walkers) they ever make for this is when it comes to combat (e.g. losing an Attack and not having it's rear armour attacked).

    Trouble is, there is no clear cut wording to say it CAN pivot to shoot, or CANNOT pivot to shoot anywhere. So until GW patches this, I guess it's very much how each player interprets, and agrees to play it.

    On a related note: Does an immobilised Chaos Dreadnought which has rolled a Fire Frenzy! result get to pivot to the nearest closest visible friend/enemy unit?

    Doubleplus Game Error! :)

  5. General:

    1. I'd say depends. For those walkers where the torso is essentially a turret, they could turn the torso and fire. Some able to turn the "turret" more than others.

    2. No. No further movement IMO precludes further movement, including embarking.

    3. I think this comes down to how you define the terrain piece in question. If the top is considered "battlements" etc. then it is part of the building, and no couldn't land there. If you define it as open space, not part of the building, could land there (subject to restriction about landing on enemy occupied buildings), and if have an access point on the top could subsequently enter. If the roof isn't battlements or open, like a mass of spikes or a steeply sloped roof or something call it impassible, no landing. A single terrain piece can have different elements/effects.


    1. Don't have nid book; couldn't say.


    1&2. Don't see why not.

    3. Unless specified, turn references player turn, so yes only when they initiate an assault.

    Space Marines

    1. Yes. He gives the ability to his squad, which he may begin the game with. No restrictions on Termies.

    Chaos Marines

    1. Depends on your resolution to General 1, above. Since I would consider the chaos dread (at least any put out since 1993) to have a torso "turret", it could see all around. So it could see 360, but will then turn to face the target directly and fire (twice). If immob, can still see and shoot, but cannot pivot (so no change in armor facings).

  6. Re embarking after deep strike, sonsoftaurus summed it up nicely - one exception given so everything else is excluded.

    And yes, with the Chaos dread if the only visible target does end up being the beserkers (they're all in an alleyway or somesuch) then he'd turn around to shoot them. Fairly unweildy to write in the rules though.

  7. For a bit of thread necromancy: (Just became a reader)

    Re: IG Q1&2: while GW FAQ does not address, if you use INAT FAQ, they specifically address these. Sadly, if joined my non-MC units, neither ability works.

    "IG.30B.03 – Q: Can the 'Bring it Down!' order be used against a unit that isn't entirely made up of Monstrous Creatures, such as a Tyrant with Tyrant Guard or a Tomb Spyder with Scarabs?
    A: No, the unit must be entirely made up of Monstrous Creatures to qualify [clarification]."

    This reads the same for Pask, btw.
    Ref: IG.58B.01

  8. Hi Wineshark! Thanks for reading, your contributions and comments are most welcome!

    So with the INAT FAQ, the end result is, for the purposes of being 'shot - AT', the MC loses it's status of being an MC (thus benefiting from a 'screening effect' from being within a unit of non-MC), but as it functions it still gets the benefit of 'being an MC' during it's turn (e.g. benefitting from Monstrous creature attacks, etc).

    Talk about having your cake and eating it too! :)

    Thinking about it, that may be indeed be the RAI as the fluff fits (with Tyrant Guard screening), I just wish this function within the 'Nid codex could be better written or clarified.