How the 40k FAQ chaps my hide

  Okay, so my last post saw me making fun of the internet's nerd-rage over the FAQ released a few days ago.  I find the reactions absolutely entertaining, even more than my own kids' birthdays.  But I do have to admit that there are some things that actually affected me.  Now I'm not going to decry the FAQ as the end of my favorite game or some kind of effort by GW to make me join the exodus to other systems (I wonder how Heroclix is doing these days...), but even I have to show that there's some things that made me exclaim in frustration.  Just like in politics, it's not wise or rational to be so partisan, and I'm here to show that I'm a gamer like anyone else and I hate change.

  The rules changes that I showed in the last post were the 'big ones'.  There were many smaller changes that were dropped into each of the individual forces that are easy to miss.  That is, of course, unless you're playing one of those armies and suddenly those smaller changes become a bit bigger.  I have been working on my Word Bearers of late and there's some things that definitely got me.  I'll get into that in a bit.  But first, I want to talk about a rules clarification or two that affects everyone and actually don't make a lot of sense to me.

  The most impactful one, and the change that has the internet aflame, is the clarification about units charging units on platforms (or in ruins and such).  Here's how the FAQ reads:
"Q: If a unit declares a charge against an enemy unit that is entirely on the upper level of a terrain feature such as a ruin, Sector Mechanicus structure, etc., but it cannot physically end its charge move within 1" of any models from that unit (either because there is not enough room to place the charging unit, or because the charging unit is unable to end its move on the upper levels of that terrain feature because of the expanded terrain rules for it – as with ruins, for example), does that charge fail? A: Yes."

  Remember that completing a charge involves being able to finish with the base (or model in the case of vehicles that hover or fly) within 1" of the enemy.  But if there's not enough room on the ruined floor or platform, then the charge is failed and basically impossible.  I wouldn't normally have a problem with this except for two things- that most people build their ruins with very narrow floors (mostly because that's how GW sells the ruins) that can be stuffed with models, and that monsters and vehicles already cannot get to the upper levels of ruins (previously FAQ'd).  This means that my five-story-tall Wraithknight can't reach the guys on the top of the ruins, staring him right in the face, and it means that large-base models like Terminators can make themselves unreachable simply by taking position and filling up the upper floor(s) of the ruins.  This makes no sense to me...

  Next, in dealing with Reserves (already the biggest contention in the FAQs), we find that effects such as the Auspex for the Space Marines can't be used against transported units.  Here's how it reads: "Q: If the unit arriving as reinforcements has another unit embarked inside it which must disembark after it has been set up (such as units embarked within a Drop Pod, or a Tyrannocyte), can the firing unit shoot at the unit as it disembarks? A: No – though the unit can shoot at the Drop Pod/ Tyrannocyte before the units inside disembark."

  This is contrary to the way it used to be, where the Drop Pod (the specific example that I'm going with here) would spit out the troops and then the shooting unit would obliterate them.  While this doesn't really hurt my feelings, it just feels a bit 'cheezy' and rather defeats the purpose of that rule.  On the plus side, people who complain that Drop Pods are no longer useful have obviously missed this new ruling.  This protects those embarked troops from the one counter in the game and guarantees that they'll be able to spend a turn being safe (and getting into combat).  I know what I'd do if I were on the battlefield and I know what the enemies would do in WWII (anti-tank fire to force the bail-out and then spray the evacuees with machine gun fire).  But 40k moves too fast for that, apparently.


  Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn't toss this oldie out there:

  Yes, I mean that in both reference to the Drop Pod immunity and the general feelings about this FAQ.  Now that it's out of my system, let's continue.

  The single biggest change, and one that has me a bit butt-hurt, is found in both the main rulebook FAQ and the Chaos Space Marines codex FAQ.  It chaps my hide because I literally spent this week working on some new models for my Word Bearers, expecting to take advantage of a specific tactic and a unit that I've never used before.  I had no idea that something that had already been FAQ'd was going to get changed.  I didn't see this one coming at all.

  As you can see, I converted my Terminator Sorcerer back to being a Terminator Sorcerer and I finally built my Warp Talons that have been waiting for their claws for about seven years.  If you can't figure out my plan by now, I was going to deep strike with both units, and then cast Warp Time on them and guarantee my charge.  I wasn't terribly worried about doing it on Turn 1, so the major FAQ affecting that doesn't really apply.  But now it turns out that I can't do this little tactic at all!


  Here's the FAQ change that does this to me: "The rules for reinforcements say that when a unit is set up on the battlefield as reinforcements, it cannot move or Advance further that turn, but can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.). Q: Can such a unit move or Advance for any other reason e.g. because of an ability such as The Swarmlord’s Hive Commander ability, or because of a psychic power such as Warptime from the Dark Hereticus discipline, or because of a Stratagem like Metabolic Overdrive from Codex: Tyranids, etc.? A: No."

  Well dammit!  For once I was planning on doing something that some may consider to be a good tactic and GW stole it from me!  Like, stole it from me AS SOON as I got it!  I feel like a kid who just opened his lollipop around my older brother's friends on Halloween night.  That hurt.  I'm actually considering writing some whiny posts on gaming forums to express my displeasure because I'm so mad.

  Oh, another rule to mention is that the Reserves rule (while I'm on that) has been changed so that only half the POWER LEVEL in units in the army may be held off the table rather than half the COUNT of units.  This affects those Terminator players, which I was also considering.  But I didn't have to hobby on any of those, so I don't feel quite so robbed.  But losing my Warp Time on deep striking Warp Talons?  Really, GW?!?!?  Grrr...

  Okay, I've expressed my displeasure with the FAQs as well.  Nobody can blame me for being a "GW Apologist" or just plain partisanship.  I, too, have my problems.  But overall, I wasn't effected by the FAQs and I don't think they were anywhere near as bad as people are making them out to be.  I love 40k.  I'll keep playing it.  I just won't get to threaten people with my clawed daemonic bat-win crazy guys like I wanted.  Maybe I'll build some bikes...

I like 40k!

  Let me know if there's any tiny changes that you think people are missing and that may have affected you UNIQUELY below.  I don't want to hear about your Blood Angels or Grey Knights, but I do want to hear about those little things that may have slipped through the cracks of the blogosphere.  The gamesmanship involved in this FAQ is almost more interesting than the game itself.  Happy Rules-lawyering!