http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2030054_40k_Rulebook_Oct_2008.pdf

GW has published a new faq for the main rule book.

Hmm,

Well spotted.

Cheers for the link! Clears up a few points!

well, now that i have the fixes, guess i need the actual book to add them to >.<

Some of the corrections are really ... stupid.

Dedicated transports must remain unit-specific for the entries that say that in the codex? Are you serious?

I always thought it was the case that NEW overrides OLD - so in this case the NEW rulebook should override the OLD codex (Black templars, for instance), therefore making black templar dedicated transports use the newer version of the rules. Obviously not.

By the same token it seems that Black Templars can use a bolt pistol along with their thunder hammer to gain an extra attack - Thunder Hammer has an entry in the Black Templar codex, so you use those rules and it makes no mention of needing two thunderhammers to gain the +1A.
Strangely they couldn't do the same with a bolt pistol and power fist, as a power fist doesn't have an armoury entry, so they have to use the rule book rules.

Yeah I have to agree that the ruling on the dedicated transports is very backwards and doesn’t really make any sense, by the logic that has always been used (newest overrides older).

Wow, so you can turbo-boost for a scout move. Great!

Unfortunately, Codex rules always take precedence so Ravenwing still cannot turbo boost for their Scout move.

I hate you GW.

I always thought it was only new codices that override rule books? i.e only the SM codex so far, as they contain the most recent rules. Once 5th edition came out I assumed all new rules, such as those regarding power fists, thunder hammers and the like took precedence over the codex.

If it is the other way round then every single army in the 40k world with access to power fists and thunder hammers, other than Space Marines, can take a bolt pistol to get an extra attack, no? It doesn't say you can't in the codex. If GW are making guard and templars suffer the cons of their codex then they must benefit from the pros it offers too, otherwise they are simply picking which rules apply. There must/should be a standard.

Powerfists must be purchased from wargear section, you cannot just give them to codexes who don't have them.

Guard Codex has no rules for Powerfists, so you must look at rule book.

Black Templars learn to psyche people out with their bolt pistols, like "omg I'm gonna shoot you with this thing point blank!" Then, when their opponent is cringing, they hit them in the face again with the Thunder Hammer.

I know you cannot just give them to codices that don't have them, I didn't say you could.

Fair enough about the power fist in guard codex, but the thunderhammer in the black templar still applies. It just seems odd to me that in this instance they have chosen to go with the rules of an outdated codex over the new rulebook. That isn't what usually happens.

I thought it may e worth pointing out that there are no changes to the rules structure here.

It has always been the case that rules are interpreted in the following order of precedence.

- House Rules
- FAQ, Errata
- Codices
- Rulebook.

Wherever and whenever there is a difference between two rules in different sources you simply consult the table above. The rule from the source closest to the top is the one which applies.

So a codex trumps the rulebook.

An example:

If your codex specifically states that Powerfists grant a +1 Attack bonus for your army then this rule would defeat the main rule in the rulebook. If a short while later an Errata is produced stating that it should actually say strike at x initiative then that rules takes precedence. If you later play in a tourney and the House Rules state that the codex is correct and the Errata does not apply then you get you Uber-Fist back again for the duration of that Tournament.

I can see why people would be upset about the whole dedicated transport thing but I don't see that this can be held out as a change of policy. Errata has always been top of the precedence list.

Thanks for that, thats what I was asking in my first post. I thought it was new trumps old, but thanks for the clarification.

Does anyone know what it was that made them FAQ it this way? I assume they must of been thinking of some specific transport(s) in old Codex(es) that they didn't want to be none dedicated.
I doubt they would of made the decision this way without a reason because it seems very odd on the face of it.

Yeah I have to agree that the ruling on the dedicated transports is very backwards and doesn’t really make any sense, by the logic that has always been used (newest overrides older).

Yes this is a weird ruling. So everyone can use a transport...well no they can't.
Page 135 of the new marine codex calls rhinos, razorbacks and drop pods "dedicated transports." So marines cannot share a vehicle.

Then again can anybody?

Sure Templars/Grey Knights grabbing a landraider as a transport, sure stick with the squad that bought it. Ok I can almost get that. Yet to say 5th edition everyone can share their army transport, only to now say well no you can't. Is weird.
Who doesn't have dedicated transports? Wouldn't any transport bought for a squad be "theirs?" Thus making it dedicated to them?

I really hate this stuff.

Well, Falcons and Land Raiders are two examples of transports that don't have to be dedicated. Any transport which doesn't have to be purchased with a squad is not dedicated.

You can't field a rhino, razorback or dreadnought for example without having first bought a unit to ride in it. The new rules then stated that any unit can ride in that transport, not just the unit it was bought for.

I admit to being confused.

Well, Falcons and Land Raiders are two examples of transports that don't have to be dedicated. Any transport which doesn't have to be purchased with a squad is not dedicated.

You can't field a rhino, razorback or dreadnought for example without having first bought a unit to ride in it. The new rules then stated that any unit can ride in that transport, not just the unit it was bought for.

I admit to being confused.

Dreadnoguht? Did you mean drop pod?

But yeah falcons, and land raiders (except a few circumstances) still were usable by anyone/unit. Yet, everyone was excited about transports being mulit-purposed/multi-squad in 5th.
Now it seems otherwise. Oh well.

Yeah, I meant drop pod, sorry.

Every army can still use the new rules regarding transports except Imperial Guard and Black Templars - it says in their codices words to the effects of 'may only transport the unit which it was bought for'.
All other army codices say something like 'may transport a unit of upto X models'

There is a difference. A subtle one, but it's there.

Yeah, I meant drop pod, sorry.

Every army can still use the new rules regarding transports except Imperial Guard and Black Templars - it says in their codices words to the effects of 'may only transport the unit which it was bought for'.
All other army codices say something like 'may transport a unit of upto X models'

There is a difference. A subtle one, but it's there.

Yet, page 135 of the marine codex list everything as dedicated transports.
So are they or aren't they?
If you look at the codex entries it says in big ole type face DEDICATED TRANSPORTS on the top of the page.

So rhinos,razors and drop pods are dedicated transports. So they can carry their squad and nobody else before/after that right? If that is what the FAQ is saying, but not saying.

See my confusion.

So they are dedicated, but not as dedicated as templar and guard. They are dedicated if they say it in one entry, but not on the page classifing them.
The new rules don't go over the codex, but they do?

Maybe, I'm reading too much into this, but I'm just preparing for the worst from the small gaming group we have. It is gonna come up there, as it might other places.

If im not mistaken all vehicles that can transport troops are usually called dedicated transports. Meaning the vehicles were designed to transport troops nothing to do with being deciated to a unit.

So what the rulebooks faq has said is all dedicated transports which are specifically listed as not being able to transport troops other than the ones in the squad that purchased it.

So if it says dedicated transport on its own dont worry it can take any unit that is elligble to go inside. Unless it says its tied to the unit directly it may transport different units in a game not just the first people who used it

If im not mistaken all vehicles that can transport troops are usually called dedicated transports. Meaning the vehicles were designed to transport troops nothing to do with being deciated to a unit.

So what the rulebooks faq has said is all dedicated transports which are specifically listed as not being able to transport troops other than the ones in the squad that purchased it.

So if it says dedicated transport on its own dont worry it can take any unit that is elligble to go inside

Is correct.

The IG and BT codices both state that the transport can only carry the unit for which it was purchased. Every other codex (AFAIK) says it can transport X amount of minis.

There is no confusion. Dedicated transports can be used for any unit under the new rules. But in some older codices, it is explicitly stated that no other unit than the one the dedicated transport was bought for can ride it.
Dedicated transports can be used by anybody.
Dedicated transports that are explicitly restricted to the unit it was bought for in the army codex can only be used for that unit.
So unless an old codex says somewhere that "Dedicated transports are restricted to the unit it was bought for" or words to that effect, they can be used for anybody. But some, like BT and IG, do, and that's what's being ruled about.

TBH, it makes no sense. It is explicitly stated in the DE codex that "jetbikes that have moved flat-out get a 4+ invulnerable save", but that's superceded by FAQ. Does this new FAQ supercede the DE FAQ that supercedes the codex that supercedes the rule book?


"if a Codex clearly says" - what is so hard about that phrase?