Friday FAQ #14

Man, Alex and I have been dropping the ball on updates this month. Sheesh. At any rate, we still have a Friday FAQ for all of you!

When Grey Knights use a rule that is meant to harm demons, does a Demon Prince count?

Is a Demon Prince a demon? Really? That's the question? Believe it or not, it's a hotly debated dilemma and with good reason. There are units in 40k that have a "Demon" special rule such as the Eldar Avatar and pretty much everything in Codex: Chaos Demons. However some units that you would think would have some sort of solid "Demon" rule (like Demon Princes or Summoned Greater/Lesser Demons) do not. Odd, right? Well don't forget that the Demonhunters codex is old. Back then you would follow what the codex defined as Demons which is not incredibly helpful for us.

However, there is a nice little trinket to chew on in support of the logical "Demon Prince is Demon" theory. Page 8 in Codex Demonhunters underneath the "Demonic Infestation" entry states:

Demon Packs, Nurglings and Demon Beast Packs (but not Greater Demons, Demon Princes or any type of Demon) gained the Sustained Attack scenario....

I truncated the quote as it is inapplicable here anyway. What this little section does is list which demons gain a special rule when fighting against Demonhunters and which do not. Demon Princes are listed under the do not. Therefore Demon Princes are Demons.

Personally I think this whole argument is stupid. If you want to argue that Demon Princes (and Summoned Lesser/Greater Demons at that) are not Demons do to a minor oversight on adding "Demon" in their entry then fine. Expect a team of pirate-zombie-ninjas to be dispatched to your house and slap you across the face with spiky mallet.

Terran Forge Final Opinion: Don't be a power-gamer. A Demon Prince is a demon. Duh.

Ignore the overly aggressive tone, it's just a very annoying argument to hear. 40k has its messed up rules and inconsistencies, but this no where near as bad as some other ones. As always, feel free to email us with rules questions! And please leave comments with your opinions!

Friday FAQ #13

The Friday FAQ is finally back up and Alex and I both apologize for the lack of updates! This week is a question regarding the Codex: Space Marine Librarian Psychic power of "Gate of Infinity":

Can a Librarian and the squad he's with use "Gate of Infinity" to teleport out of close combat?

Let's read what the power states. This can be found on Page 57 of Codex: Space Marines and is the third power down on the right-hand column:

This power is used at the beginning of the Librarian's Movement phase. The Librarian, and any unit he is with, are removed from the tabletop and immediately placed back together anywhere within 24" using the deep strike rules.

Ok, so reading this rule alone it would appear the answer is 'yes' since the power is initiated during the Librarian's movement phase and if he is locked in combat from a previous turn this seems legit. It doesn't say you can't use this power out of assault so it is obvious you can (ignoring the whole idea of a permissive rule-set of course). Here's a situation...

You have a Librarian and a 5-man squad of tactical marines inside a Rhino. The unit he is with is, therefore, the 5-man squad and the Rhino. Going by the letter of the law, I can take the Rhino and deepstrike it anywhere within 24" simply because the power doesn't say I can't do that.

Here's the thing. Warhammer 40,000 has a permissive rules set. If it doesn't say you can't do it, you can't do it. If there are specific rules for an assault, such as page 40, paragraph directly above 'Consolidation':

While a unit is locked in combat it may only make pile-in moves and may not otherwise move or shoot.

The kicker is in bold for ya. Because of that single sentence, a codex rule must specifically override it in order for you to break it. In this case 'Gate of Infinity' does not override this rule and therefore the conclusion is simple.

Terran Forge Final Opinion: You cannot use the 'Gate of Infinity' psychic power to deepstrike out of an assault.

These FAQs are unofficial and in no way supported or endorsed by Games Workshop. If you have a question you'd like answered, feel free to send us an email at terranforge@gmail.com!

Friday FAQ #12

Another Friday, another FAQ...

Here be the question:

If I have a Platoon a guardsmen split over two or more Valkyrie squadrons, which takes precedence for the reserve roll: the Platoon or the Vehicle Squadrons?

For those of you that don't know, Page 96 of the Imperial Guard Codex states

Each Infantry Platoon... is rolled for collectively when rolling for reserves.

Clearly this specific entry overrides the reserve rules on Page 94 of the rulebook (which specify that single units are rolled for). Squadrons are definitely a single unit, but how would this situation work: would everything be rolled for once since the platoon and squadrons are rolled for together or do the squadrons come in, ignoring the platoon reserves rule?

There really aren't any quotes I can find in the rulebook that help shed light on the situation, so I will put forth arguments for both cases, what my opinion is, and then let you guys discuss.

All-or-nothing: The Imperial Guard codex has a specific entry pertaining to platoons and reserves. Likewise, squadrons must stay within unit coherency which includes coming in from reserves. In order to not break either of these rules, everything must be rolled for as one unit in order for the Imperial Guard rule and the Squadron rule to be satisfied.

One Squadron at a time: Despite the specific statement in the Imperial Guard codex, infantry are subject to the rules of a vehicle while embarked. Much like Space Marines being able to deep-strike via a drop pod even though they do not have the rule themselves, Imperial Guard platoons may enter separate from each other because Squadron Coherency takes precedence.

Terran Forge Opinion: Roll for one squadron at a time. This seems less controversial, much more simple and what I believe is intended with the wording.


As I said, this has to be one of the most unclear questions I've ever seen as there is definitely not enough support in the rulebook or codex for either answer. I implore you to discuss this question here and head on over to this thread at Dakka to read some further arguments and see what others think. At the time of writing this post, the "One Squadron at a Time" idea has 22 votes while the "All-or-Nothing" has 19 so it is pretty neck-and-neck.

Don't forget to email us any questions you have, we'll be sure to answer them! Our email is terranforge@gmail.com

Friday FAQ #11

This week we have a question about tanks I found on DakkaDakka asked by user Kitzz:

Can I choose to not fire multiple weapons even if I have access to them? For example, I'd rather just shoot the Demolisher Cannon on my Leman Russ against a squad of MEQ rather than the Cannon and three Heavy Bolters, as the squad being hit could potentially allocate the Bolter hits and Cannon shots to lose less models from the Cannon wounds.

The conflict arises from a quote on page 16 of the rulebook in the right-hand column towards the bottom under the "Which Models Can Fire?" header it reads:

A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers... This must be declared before checking range.

However, since one tank is a model this quote is inapplicable. We must look to the Vehicle Shooting Rules later in the book. On Page 58 the first sentence on the page state:

When a vehicle fires... all its weapons must fire at a single target unit.

Pretty damn clear if you ask me. You can only fire at one unit and you must fire all weapons if possible. This would also include, for example, a Rhino with a storm bolter and Hunter-Killer missile. You want to fire your storm-bolter? Well the Hunter-Killer has to be fired too. Very weird, and perhaps not something that was intended, but RAW is way too clear here to get around.

Terran Forge Final Opinion: You must fire all weapons, Line of Sight permitting, at a single unit. You may not choose what weapons aren't firing.

These FAQs are, as always, totally unofficial. We hope they will help shed light onto situations that may arise when you are out gaming and serve as a second opinion when you and an opponent encounter such a predicament. If you have any weird rules you would like a second opinion on, please email us at terranforge@gmail.com. Even if it's not a tricky situation and you just want a little help, we will respond to your email (unless you're spam. I hate spam)!

Friday FAQ #10

This week we have a question I've been seeing pop up a lot since the release of the Guard codex: Melta-Cannons and half-ranges.

When a Melta-Cannon fires at a vehicle and the hole is within half range when you target it but it scatters outside of half-range do you still get the extra D6 for Armor Penetration? Conversely, if you place the blast template outside of half-range and it scatters within half-range and still hits the vehicle do you get the extra D6 for Armor Penetration?

Let's take a look at the melta gun rules in the rulebook to see what it says first. Page 32 of the BRB on the right-hand column under the title "Melta":

Melta weapons. . . roll an extra D6 when rolling to penetrate a vehicle's Armor Value at half range or less. If the weapon is more than half its maximum range away, a single D6 is rolled as normal.

Now before anything further is said, let's look at the Blast Template rules on page 30, first section in the left-hand column (we're interested in the bit in the sixth paragraph):

Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a scattering shot to land beyond the weapon's range and line of sight. . . in these cases hits are worked out as normal, and can hit units out of range and sight.

So to answer the questions we have to look at how you determine when to measure half-distance, before or after the shot is fired. Looking at the context of the Melta entry, you do not get the extra dice if the shot is more than half distance away from the target and combining it with the blast rules would seem that the range does not matter once a scatter is rolled. It's tough to say definitively since the rules are vague on this issue, but I would say since the Melta-Cannon's range to target (before scatter) is half distance, you would get the extra D6 for Armor Pen. However, in using this interpretation, if your marker was placed outside of the Melta's half-distance, you would not get the extra D6 for armor pen.

Terran Forge Final Opinion: As long as the targeted vehicle is within the Melta gun's half-range, you can claim the extra D6 for Armor Penetration. AMENDED. Changed "template was placed" to "targeted vehicle is".

As always, these FAQs are unofficial and just meant to help speed up game play if you choose to agree with them. Please email any rules questions you have to terranforge@gmail.com and we'll be sure to answer them!

Friday FAQ #9

So Alex and I may or may not have neglected the Friday FAQ for the past two weeks...D'oh! We both have been very busy with family stuff and getting ready to go back to college among other things so we just really didn't find the time to do all that much (Plus, I worked more hours than usual those two weeks so I was pretty burnt out!) Anyways, because of our neglect, we are going to include two questions for the price of one!

QUESTION 1

Can Powerfists turn off allowing me to use my initiative in close-combat and sacrifice the increased strength and benefits of a power weapon?

Quick answer: No. On page 42 of the rule book under the "A normal and a special weapon" header it reads:

These models gain one additional attack. All of their attacks, including the bonus attack, benefit from the special weapon's bonuses.

Now you may be wondering why this is such a big deal. Well let me give you a scenario: a lone powerfist-wielding sergeant assaults 20 grots with two runtherds. If the sergeant's powerfist attacks are used, the grots will strike first dealing out 20 attacks, 10 hits, 1.667 wounds plus the runtherd's 4 attacks, 2 hits, 1 wound. Therefore, because the sarge used the powerfist attacks, the grots have an 89% chance of killing him.

This time, the sarge will use his normal attacks and have the benefit of initiative. He has 2 base attacks, plus 1 for charging. 3 attacks with 2 hits and 1.667 grots are killed. If he only kills one, the grots chance of killing the sarge goes down to 86% and if the sarge kills two it goes down to 83%. Yeah, it's not much, but by choosing whether or not to use the powerfist or normal CCW, the Space Marine player is able to cut the statistical chance that his sergeant will be killed!

Terran Forge Final Opinion: You cannot turn a powerfist, or any special weapon, off. If a model is wielding a special weapon and a normal weapon, all attacks use the special weapon's bonuses.

--------------------------------------

QUESTION 2

Yes, this question is from the same thread but is very interesting and ties into the above (kinda).

Does Marneus Calgar get the bonus attack for having two powerfists even though he also has a powersword?

First thought: WTF? Yes, you rules-lawyer! But think about it for a second, like I did. The Space Marine codex lists his two powerfists as one weapon entry, the Gauntlets of Ultramar (which are a pair of matching powerfists). His wargear entry also lists a powersword. So perhaps Games Workshop specifically wrote these wargear items out like this to tie into page 42 of the rulebook under the "Two different special weapons" header which states:

When it is their turn to attack, these models must choose which weapon to use that turn, but they never get the bonus attacks for using two weapons.

The shear act of choosing a weapon to fight with seems to deny the extra attack for two close-combat weapons. Plus, perhaps GW specifically added Calgar's extra profile attack (he has 4 opposed to every other character in the book who only has 3) to make up for this? I mean he gets to choose either powerfists or powersword. High strength, low initiative or high initiative, medium strength. Both ignoring armor saves. BAD-ASS! Honestly, I think this makes him more of a threat in close-combat despite not having the extra attack.

Still, though, why give him two powerfists if he isn't going to get the bonus? The logic above seems right, but it feels weird saying a model that clearly has two-powerfists does not gain the extra attack. Even using a RAW v. RAI argument is hard because RAW can be taken both ways (though I'd certainly lean more towards no extra CCW) and RAI can be taken both ways since it's hard to determine what is intended. Is Marneus supposed to be able to choose what weapon he uses AND get an extra attack with his powerfists? This is something you certainly have to discuss with an opponent every time you encounter Calgar, but we are still going to give you a ruling.

Terran Forge Final Opinion: Marneus Calgar does not receive the extra attack for having two powerfists. The ability to choose between powersword and powerfists is very powerful, especially since both weapons allow re-roll to wound. One extra attack isn't going to make a huge difference anyways, and it's always better to err on the side of caution. (Marneus calgar does need the attack anyways, his army synergy and relative power is already immense - Alex).

I emailed GW about the Calgar question in hope for a second opinion, but they have not responded yet. As soon as they do (or, well, if they ever do) I will amend the post with their opinion as well. As always, these FAQs are fan-produced and totally unofficial. If you have a question you'd like answered or have seen a very sketchy question floating around the internet, please feel free to email it to us at terranforge@gmail.com!

Friday FAQ #8

As I was cruising through Dakka and Warseer in search of rules queries to answer in our weekly FAQ, I came across a post that blew my mind. And not in a good way:

My Space Marine Librarian in Terminator armor can perform a sweeping advance because in the "Terminator Armor" wargear section on page 102 it says "Terminators cannot perform a sweeping advance" it does not say "models in Terminator armor".

He was promptly flamed for his incredible rules-lawyering. Now RAW he is absolutely correct, but RAI he is absolutely wrong which leads me to the subject of this week's FAQ:

RAW v. RAI

Now many non-frequent gamers may not know the difference so let me break it down so the rest of this post isn't unneccisarly confusing. RAW stands for "Rules As Written", that is reading the rules and applying them to the game exactly as they are written. RAI stands for "Rules As Intended (or Implied)" in that you apply the rules as it is intended to be played and not exactly how it is written.

The use of either of these is generally clear. I have 6/10 guys behind a building, I therefore get a 4+ cover save reading the rules as written (RAW) in the rulebook. Using the example at the beginning of this post, Terminator armor is bulky and therefore Terminators cannot sweeping advance IMPLIES (RAI) that any model in Terminator cannot perform a sweeping advance, despite what the rules as written are. Same with the 4th edition Space Marine codex where Terminators didn't have Terminator Armor in their entry. A clear case of RAI over RAW (except for rules-lawyering idiots).

Now where might I be going with this? Well I want to help out everyone (including myself) by figuring out when the best time to use RAW or RAI is. A lot of times it is depending on my mood or the situation (which is never good as I am rarely using logic in those cases). When you are playing for fun, RAI should ALWAYS take precedence and when you're playing in a tournament-style RAW should likewise take precedence. However, there are times when using one or the other can be confusing or tricky.

USING RAW
Many times RAW comes off as rules-lawyering or looking either too deeply or not enough into the rules. Some nice cases are our rulings for Pinning Weapons and the Deffrolla. Both of those issues teeter on the line between RAW and RAI but Alex and I decided on RAW for both. Why? Well because when it is hard to tell what is implied in a rule (did they really want you to be able to Ram with a Deffrolla or have each sniper gun able to cause a pinning check?) I feel going with RAW is the safest route until an official FAQ is released. I realize many people disagree and that's perfectly OK. If you are planning on playing fun games I suggest making some fun house rules that use RAW but twist them a bit to make it more of a compromise. For example, if I thought each weapon causing a pinning check is over-powered, I would say on a 4+ at the beginning of the squad's shooting phase, each weapon has the potential to cause a pinning check because they are not shooting to kill, but shooting to make sure the enemy doesn't advance (or something like that). It makes the game for interesting with it still being a fair compromise. The important thing to remember with RAW is that it absolutely cannot be used in all cases, but is the safety net if you can't come upon a decision. You then can use what's written and manipulate it into a house rule since, after all, 40k is meant for fun, not to beat the crap out of eachother!

USING RAI
I like using RAI a lot because it helps me think about how the developers come up with rules so I can create fun little scenarios as I play. However, when answering rules questions I tend to only use it when what is written is absolutely not clear and can logically be drawn to more than one conclusion. That's where it begins to get tricky because everyone is right with their opinion on what the developers intended (since most of us just play the game and don't write the rules!) so it's why we come to our conclusion that matters, not how. A good example of this in our Friday FAQ segments is the Drop Pod ordeal. Alex and I didn't feel the rules were clear and there were two different conclusions that people could logically come to so we decided to look at what was intended. The beautiful thing about RAI is that it really helps to get people in the spirit of the game. Too often gamers get enthralled by competitive play that they forget GW has always intended the 40k rulebook to be a guideline on how to play and not a definitive rules-set. Bottom-line is that 40k is meant to be fun, not competive. In the end, RAI is perfect for creating house-rules because that's what they are: a certain group's interpretation of what is intended in a rule.

DON'T BE A POWERGAMER
Anyone who has played in a tournament has faced cheesy lists, unit abuse and down-right game-breaking crap. However, that's not being a powergamer IMO. Even though i am under the firm belief that fun lists can win tournies too (I've seen it happen!), I belief powergaming lies mainly in rules manipulation. This is usually where a player will be using RAW where RAI is needed (rarely do they use RAI because the game actually becomes fun and the powergamer just can't have that). Another way to be a powergaming dick is by making a ruling up that gives them a clear advantage and acting like it is 100% true to try and play off their opponant's ignorance or frustration, furthering their chances to win. When you need to rely on a rules-anomaly to win a game and not tactical superiority, I have the urge to punch you right in the face.

A beautiful example was in Alex and my last game in our doubles tourney. We played an Eldar guy and Chaos guy (Eldar dude was a great sport even though we tabled his army by turn 3 whereas the Chaos guy was basically what I just outlined above). Alex decides to fire his melta vets out of the top hatch in the Chimera. "But wait!" says the Chaos powergamer, "you can't fire them out of the top hatch because the turret blocks line of sight!" Blank stares of disbelief turn his way. Alex readied his bolt pistol for summary execution as i began to dial Jervis Johnson to fly to Western New York to slap this kid across the head. "Are you kidding me?" asks Alex, the powergamer's Eldar teammate staring at him wondering why he joined teams with him. "Yeah, I mean if you used the laser pointer to draw line of sight from the top hatch it would hit the turret and you can't fire them, sorry man!" At this point, a part of me died as I lost some faith in humanity. The Eldar teammate turns to the wickedly cool Valhallan player (side note: the kid had ALL metal Valhallans. My faith in humanity returned :p) and asked him if this was the case. He turns to the Chaos player and eloquently says "What the hell are you taking about? Of course he can fire out of the top hatch, don't be a douche!" Alex lowered his bolt pistol for another time (probably for the guy that side-swipped his car at the 'Ard Boyz tourney a few weeks later).

I could go on an on, but bottom line is: if you are relying on weird rule wording or your opponants ignorance to win, you are acting in a powergaming manner. So now you know, and knowing's half the battle.

GI-JOE!!

Friday FAQ #7

This week we have a question from ctreleheb of The Miniature Side of Me. His question is:

My question came up in a game during a couple 'Ard Boyz games when I played Orks. One of the Ork players was using his Deffrolla on his Battlewagon to inflict D6 strength 10 hits on vehicles, not infantry. Is this legal or can you only use the Deffrolla against infantry?

First, let's take a look at the Ork codex to see what a Deffrolla actually does. On page 55 under the Deffrolla entry in the Ork Codex it states:

Any Tank Shock made by a Battlewagon with a Deffrolls causes D6 Strength 10 hits on the victim unit. If the unit elects to make a Death or Glory attack, it takes a further D6 Strength 10 hits in addition to the usual effects.

Well you obviously cannot Tank Shock a vehicle, so let's look at the rule book to see what Ramming is, shall we? On page 69 in the right column, the first sentence says:

Ramming is a special type of tank shock move and is executed the same way, except that the tank must always move at the highest speed it is capable of.

So if ramming is a special type of tank shock move, RAW would make it seem like Deffrollas do, in fact, cause D6 Strength 10 hits against a vehicle. The fact that it says "Any Tank Shock" and Ramming is a subset of Tank Shock certainly implies that this is legal. Wow, that was much faster than I thought it would be! It is a bit broken seeing as how it costs less points than a powerfist but has the capability to do more damage, but the only argument I can find against this ruling is "OMG but it wrecks mah Land Raider!". Pretty shaky.

Terran Forge Final Opinion: By the letter of the law it is 100% legal. For a house rule that makes everyone happy, I suggest making is D3 Strength 10 hits against vehicles. You'll do something, and it is far more balanced than D6 Strength 10. Of course, that is just a suggestion!

Even looking at fluff, this ruling makes sense. The problem, I think, lies in how it gets D6 Strength 10 hits and it's cheaper than a powerfist or powerklaw. It just isn't balanced for tournament play but is incredibly fun at least! As always, email us your rules queries to terranforge@gmail.com and feel free to discuss our rulings in the comments! And don't forget, all our FAQs are totally unofficial and just serve as a "second opinion" to tricky situations that may come up in future games!

Friday FAQ #6

Another Friday, another FAQ. This week we'll be discussing Valkyries and the Scout special rule...

In Codex: Imperial Guard, the Valkyrie has the scout special rule. Does this mean the passengers inside also receive the Scout special rule?

Right off the bat, we say no. But you know us, we like to dig into the rules to find out for sure!
The Scout USR, like others, have a little asterisk that says (page 74 of the BRB):

The special rules marked with an asterisk (*) are automatically lost by an independent character joining a unit that does not have the same special rule. These rules are also lost by a unit that is joined by an independent character that does not have the same special rule.

Why do we bring this up? Well let's look past RAW for a second and take a plunge into RAI. What GW seems to be intending with this rule is that the Scout USR (and others with the asterisk) are rules specifically meant for a single unit and it cannot be conferred to another unit. The rulebook, of course, uses specific terms such as "independent charachter" so this intended interpretation may not be good enough for many of you. Now let's take a look at other transport vehicles that scout or deepstrike...

Honestly, only two come to mind: Space Marine Land Speeder Storms (which can only carry scouts so it's useless for this argument) and Drop Pods! Yes, Drop Pods! They have the Deepstrike rule and somehow confer it onto the squad, awesomeness! The Drop Pod has the "Drop Pod Assault" rule which allows the pod to deep strike. This allows for the deep striking of units that do not have the "deep strike" rule in their profile. With the Drop pod being a transport units can start the game inside of it and deploy in it. The same applies for the Valkyrie; being a transport vehicle it can have units deployed in it, with it. Using the same logic as the space marine Drop Pod where units that do not have the Deep Strike rule can deepstrike inside the transport (drop pod), then the Valkyrie can scout (outflank) with units embarked in it that do not have "scout" or "infiltrate" in their profile .

To outline the logic in steps:
1. Units can be deployed in transports.
2. Drop Pods are Transports which allow embarked units to deep strike with the Drop pod even though these units do no necessarily have the Deep Strike rule.
3. The Valkyrie is a transport much like the Drop Pod is a transport.
4. The Valkyrie can outflank or scout with a unit inside it that does not necessarily have scout or infiltrate because a Drop Pod can do the same for its passengers.
5. The linking ingredient to this logic train is the fact that Drop Pods and Valkyries are transports.

Terran Forge Final Opinion: Valkyries and Vendettas can scout with an embarked squad.


As always, these FAQs are unofficial but serve a purpose to shed light onto tricky situations that may come up in games. If you have a rules question you'd like answered, email us at terranforge@gmail.com!

Friday FAQ #5

Normally we'd have an odd rules query here but instead, since 'Ard Boyz is tomorrow for us in America, we decided to list a few rules (with page numbers) on questions that may arise during the tournament, including the Guard Codex which many people may still be unfamiliar with heading into the tournament.

Rule Book

- Morale checks are taken at the end of EACH phase (page 44 under "Taking Morale Checks", point A)

- If a falling back unit comes in CONTACT with a table edge, the entire unit is removed from the game (page 45, last paragraph under "Fall Back!")

- Both Barrage and Ordnance Barrage weapons may choose to fire either directly or indirectly. Why would you want to fire indirectly if a unit is in LoS? To deny cover saves or to cause a pinning check of course! (Page 58, second paragraph under "Ordnance Barrage weapons"). If within line of sight and firing "Barrage" one can still deduct the Ballistic skill of the firer from the scatter roll (ninja edit by Dictator).

- If vehicles are in squadrons, "Immobilised" results count as "Wrecked" and "Stunned" results count as "Shaken" (Page 64, second paragraph under "Damage Results Against Squadrons")

- If a unit is in contact with an enemy's vehicle at the start of the enemy's Assault phase, said unit may perform their attacks as normal (page 63 under "Successive turns")

- If a unit performs a Death or Glory attack and fails, the model that performed the attack is removed (regardless of wounds or saves) and no morale checks need to be taken (Page 69, third paragraph under "Death or Glory!")

- The "Stealth" special rule does not confer a bonus cover save in the open since the rule states it only improves your cover saves by +1. Since you don't typically have a cover save in the open, it cannot be improved by +1 (Page 76 under "Stealth")


Codex: Imperial Guard

Orders (Page 29):
- Must be issued at the start of the shooting phase (third paragraph).
- Must be issued Company Command first, Platoon Command second (third paragraph).

- The orders "First Rank, Fire! Second Rank, Fire!", "Fire on My Target!" and "Bring it Down!" cause the ordered squad to follow the order IMMEDIATELY after passing (Page 30 and 36 under the respective headings).

- Infantry Squads have the option of joining together using the "Combined Squads" special rule found on page 37.

- If a Leman Russ wishes to move at cruising speed, it must roll an additional D6 for movement as per the "Lumbering Behemoth" rules on page 48.


Any rules questions you guys have (in the rulebook or the various codices)? Send 'em in! If we don't post it on an FAQ, we'll still answer it so there's nothing to lose! Just send your queries to us at terranforge@gmail.com. Have a great weekend guys and good luck to those participating in the 'Ard Boyz tournament!

Friday FAQ #4

It's Friday again meaning, you guessed it, another Friday FAQ!
This week we'll be touching on a VERY hot issue right now, the question about pinning weapons. Haven't heard it yet? Well here it is:

In 4th edition, any amount of wounds inflicted by a squad with pinning weapons required a single pinning test (4th ed RB pg 32). In 5th ed (pg 31) the wording of the rule has changed substantially. One camp suggests that the changed wording means that if a unit with pinning weapon successfully wounds a unit then that unit must take a single pinning test no matter how many wounds they suffered. The other camp says that the new wording clearly indicates that each weapon that successfully wounds the enemy unit at least once requires a pinning test.

To summarize:

Side A - Multiple pinning wounds from 1 enemy unit = 1 test regardless of the number of pinning weapons

Side B - Multiple pinning wounds from 1 weapon = 1 test; multiple wounds from multiple pinning weapons = 1 test per wounding weapon.

Who is right?

(question courtesy of Deathboon from Astronomican)
Ok, here's what page 31 says:

If a unit other than a vehicle suffers any unsaved wounds from a pinning weapon, it must immediately take a Pinning test.

Well the ambiguity lies with the word "weapon". What the hell does that mean? Weapon type or a single weapon? If I have a squad of three mortars which cause a wound, do they EACH cause a pinning test (assuming they all cause unsaved wounds) or one pinning test since it's one weapon type in a squad? Very confusing and there are excellent arguments on both sides of this. Let's dig a little more through the rule book though, shall we? The term "weapon" is never clearly defined in the rulebook. It is described as a type of weapon in some sections and as a single weapon in others. Thanks for being clear GW!

Well a paragraph down it mentions the effects of pinning and going to ground. Originally Alex and I skipped past it but came back (because there is NOTHING helpful in this rulebook) and noticed something very particular:

. . . going to ground does not protect it against the fire of the pinning weapon that caused the test (or indeed of any other weapon fired by the same unit that phase). . .

Notice something? The term "pinning weapon" is singular, not plural. It references ONE weapon causing ONE test.

Terran Forge final opinion: Never does it specify multiple pinning weapons in a squad, therefore by RAW Alex and I both believe that the wording absolutely, 100% implies that each pinning weapon that causes an unsaved wound in a squad causes a pinning test. That means one squad can cause multiple pinning test. However, that said, we do not believe GW intended it to be this way, but it is what it is (sadly). And as a clarification, that's still one pinning test per weapon, not per unsaved wound!

Disappointing. Alex and I have always believed it to be the opposite of what we have discovered. However, GW did write this book and for tournaments I highly suggest asking the tournament organizer what their official ruling is. Please feel free to send us more questions at terranforge@gmail.com!

Friday FAQ #3

Well it's that time again- another Friday FAQ!

This week we have a question from CyborgTrucker (check out his blog here!). His question:

Can Lesser Demons hold objectives since in the back of the CSM Codex it says:

"Units of Summoned Lesser Demons do not use up any force organization chart selection, but are otherwise treated as a Troops unit."

I don't know or recall where I heard that they can't. For all I know I've been following an urban legend on a ruling that never really occurred or existed. If there is a definitive place that answers this, where is it? I did check the GW CSM FAQ just to be sure I didn't miss an obvious place for an answer.

This is an interesting question. Reading the rules for scoring units in the 5th Edition Rule Book on page 90 it states:

An army's scoring units are all the units that come from its Troops allowance.

As CyborgTrucker mentioned in his question, the entry for Summoned Lesser Demons on page 102 of the Chaos Space Marine codex says:

"Units of Summoned Lesser Demons do not use up any force organization chart selection, but are otherwise treated as a Troops unit."

Looking at both of these entries it would seem the logical answer is no, Summoned Lesser Demons do not count as scoring units since they are not from the Troops allowance because they don't take up a Force Organizational slot. However, this thread on DakkaDakka offers a different and, in our opinion, correct intrepretation. I am quoting user Lord_Mortis here:

[The Scoring Units entry on page 90 of the rulebook] goes on to further state that "other units may deny an objective....but only Troops can control it." The Chaos Codex states that lesser demons "...do not use up any force organisation chart selection, but are otherwise treated as a Troops unit." It uses the big T for troops.

As they don't take up any slots on the FOC, then I may take any number of lesser demons as a Troops choice, and since they are not limited to just 6 slots, then my Troops allowance for them is unlimited, other than being limited by the points of the game being played.

Lesser Demons have therefore satisfied both requirements, being a Troops choice and coming from the Troops allowance (which for them is unlimited), and therefore count as a scoring unit.

Terran Forge Final Opinion: A unit of Summoned Lesser Demons are a Troops Choice for a Chaos Space Marine army but they take up zero out of the six available slots instead of one like a typical Troops Choice. Therefore they count as scoring units and can hold objectives, but do not take up a Force Organizational slot.


This was an interesting question to research, but after finding that thread on Dakka, we feel this is the best and most logical answer. Although it isn't clearly outlined, we definitely feel this is what was intended when written. If you are still unsure just read that thread on Dakka we linked too and form your own opinion and post it here, we'd love to see what you guys think! Thanks to CyborgTrucker for sending this question in and if you have one please send it to us at terranforge@gmail.com!

Friday FAQ #2

Hey guys, time for another installment of Friday FAQ! This week we have a very good question from RC of Pick a Damn Army. His question is:

the new imperial guard codex and it says the priest's eviscerator counts as a powerfist that rolls an extra die for armor penetration. Does this mean he get's +1 attack from having it and his laspistol?

Terran Forge Opinion: On page 35 of the Imperial Guard codex under the Eviscerator entry it states:

An eviscerator is a massive two-handed chainsword . . . [and] counts as a power fist, but rolls an additional D6 for armor penetration.

Now, first thoughts are "No. It clearly states the weapon is a two-handed weapon and therefore you can't get the extra attack for 2CCWs." However, sometimes I forget that "two-handed weapons" are no longer in the rules. Curses. Now the next phrase "counts as a powerfist" seems a bit misleading (and is why the question has been raised). On page 42 of the 40k rulebook it states under the Power Fists entry:

A power fist (or 'power claw') is an armored gauntlet surrounded by a disruptive energy field. A power fist is a power weapon, and also doubles the user's Strength. Power Fists, however, are difficult and cumbersome to use, so attacks with a power fist are always delivered at iniative 1.

So this is what an Eviscerator counts as, eh? It doesn't specifically say anything about extra attacks so it looks like the Eviscerator gets that 1 extra attack! If you think we're wrong, you're absolutely right. Take a look immediately to the right of the Power Fist entry under "A normal and a special weapon":

These models gain one additional attack. All of their attacks, including the bonus attack, benefit from the special weapon's bonuses.

Power Fists, Thunder Hammers and Lightning Claws are an exception to this. Only a second Power Fist, Thunder Hammer or Lightning Claw can confer a bonus attack to a model equipped with one of these weapons.

Now, it may not saw Eviscerator in that entry, but if you noticed the blurb at the top of the page:

In terms of rules, [close combat weapons] are al grouped into either of the following two categories

Those categories are normal close combat weapons and Special Close Combat Weapons. The later has 8 different entries titled: "Power Weapons, Lightning Claws, Force Weapons, Poisoned Weapons, Power Fists, Thunder Hammers, Rending Weapons and Witchblades. Go back to that quote under "A normal and a special weapon". Do you see something? All three weapons mentioned are categories of special weapons. Therefore when the category "power fist" is called on saying that no additional attacks are gained for having 2CCWs, anything that falls into that category is included. This means Power Klaws, and Eviscerators as well. (As a side note, the Power Klaw entry in the Ork codex also mentions that is "counts as" a power fist).


Terran Forge final opinion: Models with an Eviscerator do not gain an extra attack for having two close combat weapons.


This was a very interesting question as I've never really looked up those rules and have always just taken them for granted. Again, thanks to RC from Pick a Damn Army for submitting this question and if you have a rules query you'd like answered by one of these weekly segments, just email us at terranforge@gmail.com!

Friday FAQ

This is going to be a new weekly series where Alex and I scour the web for questions or queries about misleading or unclear rules in 40k and answer them (with both our opinions and the popular answer). Obviously it is a totally unofficial answer, but gives you a bearing on how other people view the question and acts as a second opinion. Hopefully you guys will enjoy this weekly installment!

Now, onto the question (actually, two in one)! I found this posted by Deathboon on Astronomican (the question is not a direct quote, but abridged for clarity):

A drop pod, when the doors are opened, is quite large. When measuring for either explosion or disembarking, do you measure from the extended doors or the base of the drop pod itself?

To make it a bit more clear, here are some pictures. In red we have the doors, in blue the actual base of the drop pod.

Now the problem is whether or not disembarking and any explosions are measured from the red doors or the blue base. The overwhelming opinion in the thread on Astro was that the disembarking is measured from the doors since the marines inside would run down the ramp to disembark but any explosion is measured from the hull (blue) because that's where the center of explosion would come from.

Terran Forge opinion- On page 56 of the rulebook under the header "Vehicles and Measuring Distances" it states

For distances involving a vehicle, measure to or from their hull (ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements).

Ok, so all measurements are measured from a hull and since the doors are not part of the hull (think in realistic terms here: are the doors on a humvee considered the hull of the vehicle? No. The term "hull" refers to the main chassis of the vehicle, for the most part) that means the explosions are measured from the hull. However, if we look to the Disembarking rules on page 67, it refers to access points rather than the hull. Well what the hell are access points? On page 66 is states (under the heading "Access Points"):

. . . access points . . . are the doors, ramps and hatches that passengers use to get in and out of the vehicle.

That would imply that the giant-ass doors that fall down from the drop pod are indeed where you measure the disembarking move from. However, there is a kicker. On page 69 of the Space Marine Codex, it says:

Once the Drop Pod has landed, the hatches are blown and all passengers must immediately disembark . . . Ince deployed the Drop Pod is no longer a sealed environment . . .

So the hatches are blown meaning, as we see it at least, the so-called ramps actually don't exist on the field anymore and what are falling off the hull are merely decorative items. Not to mention that the Access Points defined in the rulebook clearly state hatches are access points and, since they are blown, the hull is the only thing left to deploy from. Now that is the RAW interpretation of the rules. But I also think it is the intended version as well. Why would GW allow a Dreadnought to effectively deploy 6" (assuming the doors are 4" long) away from where the pod originally dropped? That's absolutely ridiculous if you ask us!

Terran Forge final opinion: Disembarking and explosions are both measured from the hull of the Drop Pod


Obviously, our opinion isn't the end all be all, but I hope you understand why we think this is the best answer and understand how our sources tie in together. As I said earlier, these weekly posts are meant for you to have a second opinion on rare situations that might come up. If you have a question you'd like answered or a weird question with an answer you came up with, just send us an email at terranforge@gmail.com!