OK, here we go again.
First, the Legal Junk:

"The Unofficial Codex: Space Wolves FAQ v1.9 by Gwar!" is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales Licence.
Please click and review the licence agreement before downloading "The Unofficial Codex: Space Wolves FAQ v1.9 by Gwar!".
By downloading this document you agree to be bound by the above licence agreement.

I, the user of Dakkadakka.com known by the pseudonym “Gwar!”, have no affiliation with the owners of Dakkadakka.com, Adepticon or anyone on the INAT FAQ Council and this is NOT Part of the INAT FAQ nor am I aware of any approval or endorsement of this FAQ by them.

This FAQ is completely unofficial and in no way endorsed by Games Workshop Limited.

Adeptus Astartes, Blood Angels, Bloodquest, Cadian, Catachan, the Chaos devices, Cityfight, the Chaos logo, Citadel, Citadel Device, Codex, Daemonhunters, Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, 'Eavy Metal, Eldar, Eldar symbol devices, Eye of Terror, Fire Warrior, Forge World, Games Workshop, Games Workshop logo, Genestealer, Golden Demon, Gorkamorka, Great Unclean One, Inquisitor, the Inquisitor logo, the Inquisitor device, Inquisitor:Conspiracies, Keeper of Secrets, Khorne, Kroot, Lord of Change, Necron, Nurgle, Ork, Ork skull devices, Sisters of Battle, Slaanesh, Space Hulk, Space Marine, Space Marine chapters, Space Marine chapter logos, Tau, the Tau caste designations, Tyranid, Tyrannid, Tzeentch, Ultramarines, Warhammer, Warhammer 40k Device, White Dwarf, the White Dwarf logo, and all associated marks, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either ®, TM and/or © Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2009, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.

No challenge to the status of any other Trademarks, Registered Trademarks or copyrights is intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.

Special thanks go to Elessar, kirsanth, Razerous and Wolf for their help with the early versions, Yakface for help tweaking the later versions and everyone else on Dakka who actually sent me questions or pointed out typos


This thread is for feedback regarding the Unofficial Codex: Space Wolves FAQ by Gwar!
The current Version is 1.9, updated 15/Nov/2009.

To download the latest version, please read the disclaimer at the start of this post then click here.
If you are having trouble opening the PDF, please download the latest version of Adobe Reader. If you do not want to use Adobe Products, you can also use Foxit Reader or PDF-XChange Viewer. These three programs I have tested and so know work with the FAQ. If you are a Linux, Mac, Acorn, Amiga, DOS or FreeBSD user, I apologise for not being able to check compatibility. If you are using a program other than those listed here, please ensure they are compatible with Adobe Acrobat 9.0 files.

If you find any typos, or formatting errors, please respond here so that I may correct them in a subsequent release of this FAQ.

Do not post "XYZ Ruling is Incorrect", insults, flames, trolls or anything of that kind, please. If you feel something is incorrect, Please PM me.

A friendly bump or questions are always appreciated.

Any and all constructive Feedback is welcome

Regarding Oath of War, I consider the choice of Unit Type to have to come from the "Unit Types" section of the core rules and thus vehicles are not a valid choice, but I have seen people suggest selecting vehicles for one reason or another, it might be worth mentioning this in the SW.35.01 answer.

SW.62.01: "Models with the “Mark of the Wulfen” use their firsts and teeth"

Drunkspleen wrote:Regarding Oath of War, I consider the choice of Unit Type to have to come from the "Unit Types" section of the core rules and thus vehicles are not a valid choice, but I have seen people suggest selecting vehicles for one reason or another, it might be worth mentioning this in the SW.35.01 answer.

SW.62.01: "Models with the “Mark of the Wulfen” use their firsts and teeth"

Thank you for the feedback.
I had not considered that people might try and select vehicle, as I felt that Unit Type was pretty clear I have not had anyone ask me that nor seen it happen, but I can see where the confusion lies.

Also, woops Typo I'll fix it asap, though it wont trigger a new version

Edit: Typo already fixed and new file Uploaded

Nice edit btw

Please, I even asked nicely, don't turn this into another flame war. If you do not like the FAQ, then don't post. Simple, innit!

Gwar! wrote:Nice edit btw

Please, I even asked nicely, don't turn this into another flame war. If you do not like the FAQ, then don't post. Simple, innit!

Clearly it's not!

I think this FAQ is a good idea. I mean you took the time to write/compile a list of frequently asked questions and put the answers (either your opinion or general consensus, I don't know/care) into one place. I feel that no one has the right to comment negatively until they do the same.

Thus for feedback, all I can say is good job and keep it updated.

anticitizen013 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Nice edit btw

Please, I even asked nicely, don't turn this into another flame war. If you do not like the FAQ, then don't post. Simple, innit!

Clearly it's not!

I think this FAQ is a good idea. I mean you took the time to write/compile a list of frequently asked questions and put the answers (either your opinion or general consensus, I don't know/care) into one place. I feel that no one has the right to comment negatively until they do the same.

Thus for feedback, all I can say is good job and keep it updated.

Glad to be of help!

The majority of the questions are indeed my opinion (or just the R.a.W), but quite a few have been as a result of, lets call it "lively", discussion here on Dakka

Seriously guys, if you don't like the FAQ send him a PM as requested.

If you don't have constructive (either positive or negative) feedback to give, then feel free to ignore this thread.


If you have some sort of personal issue with the creation of the FAQ (Gwar stole your baby to write it, etc) feel free to send me a PM instead of replying here.

Off-topic replies in this thread may likely be deleted.



And Gwar,

I see you already have an existing thread open for the 1.4 version. In the future if you update the FAQ again please go ahead and edit your old thread (and you can add an announcement post at the bottom of the thread to bump it) instead of posting a whole new one.

yakface wrote:If you have some sort of personal issue with the creation of the FAQ (Gwar stole your baby to write it, etc) feel free to send me a PM instead of replying here.

I only stole a few!

And Gwar,

I see you already have an existing thread open for the 1.4 version. In the future if you update the FAQ again please go ahead and edit your old thread (and you can add an announcement post at the bottom of the thread to bump it) instead of posting a whole new one.

I only posted a new one so it would be in YMTC, so it would get a bit more Traffic. Feel free to go Michael Bay on the old thread if you wish

Gwar

Awesome work (as always), however one thing that came up when i was looking at the book with my local unfriendly space wolf friend, which i dont know if you would contemplate wanting to put in this would be in reference to Lukas and "Pelt of the Doppegangrel" and its reroll of sucessful hits rule.

The hypothetical situation which arose was Lukas on his own and has the misfortune to be on the receiving end of a TL lascannon or Guided Starcannon etc etc, say the first shot misses the reroll hits, based on the rule book cant reroll a reroll so its a hit. Now it might just have been the players interpretation here could be more common but he was stongly minded that the reroll still takes place as codex overrides rule book (wording is quite specific mind). Personally i would just flame the bugger to death.

Anywho, didnt know if that would be something you would want to clarify or if you think its just this guy being a muppet and ignore.

Keep up the good work either way.

Bodders wrote:Gwar

Awesome work (as always), however one thing that came up when i was looking at the book with my local unfriendly space wolf friend, which i dont know if you would contemplate wanting to put in this would be in reference to Lukas and "Pelt of the Doppegangrel" and its reroll of sucessful hits rule.

The hypothetical situation which arose was Lukas on his own and has the misfortune to be on the receiving end of a TL lascannon or Guided Starcannon etc etc, say the first shot misses the reroll hits, based on the rule book cant reroll a reroll so its a hit. Now it might just have been the players interpretation here could be more common but he was stongly minded that the reroll still takes place as codex overrides rule book (wording is quite specific mind). Personally i would just flame the bugger to death.

Anywho, didnt know if that would be something you would want to clarify or if you think its just this guy being a muppet and ignore.

Keep up the good work either way.

It's a guy being a muppet You cannot re-roll a re-roll. The codex does not say you can re-roll a re-roll, so you cannot

So are you only looking for typo/formatting suggestions at this point?

I finally picked up the codex and I've noticed several potential candidates for questions that I don't see in your FAQ.

If you'd like, I could start posting them here.


As for formatting, one thing I noticed is that the Canis Wolfborn section is after Ragnar Blackmane even though Canis comes first in the codex (page 54 vs. Ragnar's page 55).

yakface wrote:So are you only looking for typo/formatting suggestions at this point?

I finally picked up the codex and I've noticed several potential candidates for questions that I don't see in your FAQ.

If you'd like, I could start posting them here.

I would appreciate any help The questions in the FAQ are for the most part questions that have been asked on the forums, via PM or by Skype, so I might have a few that I missed

As for formatting, one thing I noticed is that the Canis Wolfborn section is after Ragnar Blackmane even though Canis comes first in the codex (page 54 vs. Ragnar's page 55).

This one I know about, and it is because Canis is just 1 Question, and as I am attempting to prevent sections crossing pages where possible, I fiddled about with the order here to make this possible

A question that I felt went unanswered by your faq. With Oath of war, if Monstrous Creature is chosen: When attacking a unit consisting of mixed unit types, such as a Hive Tyrant with Tyrant Guards. Will the wolves benefit from preferred enemy? From the top of my head I'd say "use the majority unit type". But then I'll run into trouble when there is only one guard and one HT in the unit.

Mellon wrote:A question that I felt went unanswered by your faq. With Oath of war, if Monstrous Creature is chosen: When attacking a unit consisting of mixed unit types, such as a Hive Tyrant with Tyrant Guards. Will the wolves benefit from preferred enemy? From the top of my head I'd say "use the majority unit type". But then I'll run into trouble when there is only one guard and one HT in the unit.

Ya know, that's actually a very good Question. From the wording of Preferred Enemy, I am not too sure. I am inclined to actually think that the unit would benefit so long as one of the unit types remains in the unit.

From memory mind you, don't have the BRB to hand atm.

SW.53.05 – Q: Does “Vengeful Tornado” have no AP or an AP of (-)?
A: No AP (so no negative modifier on the Damage Result Table). [R.a.W]

Doesnt - mean no AP? You cant have an AP of 0.

How did you come to this conclusion.

GMMStudios wrote:SW.53.05 – Q: Does “Vengeful Tornado” have no AP or an AP of (-)?
A: No AP (so no negative modifier on the Damage Result Table). [R.a.W]

Doesnt - mean no AP? You cant have an AP of 0.

How did you come to this conclusion.

Nope, but don't worry, it is a common mistake

An Ap of - is a very special AP Case. A Ranged weapon with an AP of - has a -1 modifier on the Vehicle Damage Table (For example, a Lasgun). A Regular Close Combat Weapon, on the other hand, has No AP, which means it always alows armour saves, but does not get a -1 on the Vehicle Damage Table.

I came to my conclusion in a very simple manner.
Does it say it has an AP of - ? No.
Does it mention any sort of AP? No.
Therefore, it has No AP Value.

No close combat weapons have AP. Its a shooting attack only stat IIRC.

So close combat attacks have "no" AP (they dont use that stat)

A shooting attack with no AP is -. It has no specified AP.

To me it is more like this:

Is it a shooting attack or CC attack? If the former keep going.
Does it say it has an AP of - ? No.
Does it mention any sort of AP? No.
Therefore, it has an AP of -

If it is a CC attack it doesnt matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only reason I say this is because IIRC this attack in question is a shooting attack.

If it is a CC attack then nevermind.

But if a shooting attacks AP is not specified it is AP -, although I cant remember an instance of this off the top of my head.

GMMStudios wrote:But if a shooting attacks AP is not specified it is AP -, although I cant remember an instance of this off the top of my head.

Nowhere does it state this.

Compare Vengeful Tornado to Chain Lighting. Vengeful Tornado States "D3 S9 Hits", while Chain Lightning says "D6 S8 hits with an AP of 5".

If Vengeful Tornado was supposed to be AP -, they would have said "D3 S9 Hits with an AP of -".
But it doesn't, so it isn't AP - , so it doesn't have the -1 Modifier, which explicitly asks for an AP of -.

Ok I see what you are saying. Logic would figure my arguement the case, but you are right, it doesnt say that anywhere!

Just a quick update, Tomorrow I'll be putting up v1.6, containing questions related to the Iron Priest and a Few Bjorn Questions. If anyone has any other questions they would like considered for v1.6, shoot me a PM.

I'm a little confused as to the purpose of this FAQ. Is this something that you intend to use with your local group?

Dracos wrote:I'm a little confused as to the purpose of this FAQ. Is this something that you intend to use with your local group?

No, it is intended as a comprehensive FAQ for the Space Wolf Codex, to be used by whoever wants to use it.

While it is not part of the INAT FAQ, I feel it is a perfect complement for it.

It mainly started out as a little bit of a Joke, to show how useless GW are at rules, with the first version being released BEFORE the codex. However, it has since grown into something I feel is worth maintaining and Updating as people pick apart the new rules.

And Unlike GW, I clearly mark out where the rules have been changed to get the "intended" effect and Unlike GW, I actually try and get things done quickly.

Would the proposed rules section not be more appropriate for this? This is not official, and really not open to debate.

Since it is rulings you are making in no official capacity, neither on this site nor in general, it seems YMTC is the wrong forum for this.

Everything with Gwar! is open to debate - a moot point, as it were.

Its a grey zone, but proposed are for actual proposed rules related to units et al. This falls under the heading of what would Gwar and others consider good answers to potential questions no? I don't think he's trying to make new rules here.

Am I wrong or is this not just a compilation of whatever INSERTNAMEHERE's answers would be to YMDC questions on these topics? If its not relevant to you then don't freeking post. As has already been said this "Since it is rulings you are making in no official capacity, neither on this site nor in general." If Gwar et all want to make a compendium of what their answers would be, then let them do it. Whats the skin off your nose?

I don't really care, I just figured proposed rules section would be appropriate for his proposed rules.

YMTC implies some degree of debate on the rulings, which certainly is not what this thread is for.

*shrug*

Modquisition on:
*During the period these compilations are permitted by Yakface or the Modquisition:

-Trying to be polite here. If you don't like the concept then don't post. These have no impact upon you, me, Dakka, etc. etc. They represent some nice philosophizing.

-They will not be viewed as having some sort of force on Dakka, or GW, or wherever.

-If you want to participate, great. If you don't then don't. No skin off your back, my back, Gwar's back, anyone's back. This is a participate or get off the thread moment.

-If they swing into the realm of new rules then it will be shifted there, when appropriate.

-gak grow up a little people.


-I don’t have a dog in this hunt, and frankly don’t care. However, the number of reports is annoying. If you would like to take it up privately that’s great but fair warning I’m way less polite there and in full OT Zone Frazzled mode in private.

Dracos wrote:I don't really care

So why are you posting? If you don't like my FAQ, don't download it.

Wow I must have been really offensive to receive this level of modquisition. Frankly, I'm surprised you guys are getting your panties in a bunch over the fact that I suggested it to be moved to a more appropriate forum.

And as an aside, I think that the FAQ is fine.

Dracos wrote:Wow I must have been really offensive to receive this level of modquisition. Frankly, I'm surprised you guys are getting your panties in a bunch over the fact that I suggested it to be moved to a more appropriate forum.

And as an aside, I think that the FAQ is fine.

Its not you specific Dracos-my apology there. Your question was valid. If proposed rules become involved and not just interpretations of rules then you're right on the moeny and should be moved. While I have not read in detail, I don't think that has occurred at this point.

Now everyone lets move along now, before Frazzled gets cranky.

Ok, here are some issues I spotted that don't seem to be included:


Lone Wolves (Page 29): There is no clarification in this section about how Beastslayer interacts against units that only partially contain Monstrous Creatures and/or models with a T5+ (as you do in other spots).

Fenrisian Wolves (Page 31): Wolves must remain within 2" of their master, but how does this interact against rules which command models to move in a certain way (like assault moves and pile-in moves, for example)?

Thunderclap Psychic Power (Page 37): Does the Thunderclap blast scatter as it is a psychic shooting attack and they follow the rules for shooting unless specified otherwise? Also FYI, your ruling says that the Rune Priest is hit, while the codex clearly specifies that only ENEMY models touching the blast are hit.

Jaws of the World Wolf Psychic Power (Page 37): This power is specified as a psychic shooting attack and therefore should follow all the rules for shooting unless specified otherwise. I personally think there should be some sort of question covering the need (or lack thereof) to choose an enemy unit as the target of the power (even if it does shoot right through them) and the need (or lack thereof) for line of sight to this target enemy unit.

Servo-Arm (Page 38): You probably should include our standard question regarding Servo-Arms. Since it is a special close combat attack are you able to use the Servo-Arm attack in the same round as the Thunder Hammer?

Bjorn's Invulnerable Save (Page 49): If you're wanting to be really anal, you should cover what it exactly means for a vehicle to have an invulnerable save (since by the rules saves only stop "wounds").

Ulrik the Slayer (Page 50): There is no clarification in this section about how Slayer's Oath interacts against units that only partially contain Monstrous Creatures and/or models with a T5+ (as you do in other spots). Also, you have a question number still labeled as '29' in this section, when it should be '50'.

Njal's Nightwing (Page 53): Which owning player chooses the target of Nightwing's attacks (it isn't very clear to me at least)?

Njal's Howling Cyclone (Page 53): Do units embarked in vehicles have to take this test and if so, and they fail, do they fall back out of the vehicle?

Njal's Vengeful Tornado (Page 53): Is this a shooting attack? Can it be used to target a specific model in a unit? Are saves of any kind allowed against this attack and if so, how are cover saves determined? Can casualties caused by this attack cause a unit to take a morale check (as it also happens at the 'end' of the phase like the check)?

Njal's Chain Lightning (Page 53): Is this a shooting attack? Or can it be used to target a specific models in a unit? Are saves of any kind allowed against this attack and if so, how are cover saves determined? Can casualties caused by this attack cause a unit to take a morale check (as it also happens at the 'end' of the phase like the check)?

Logan's High King (Page 56): Can this ability be used if Logan has gone to ground? If his unit is falling back and at the start of the turn he makes them Fearless, what happens (as the rules for a unit suddenly gaining Fearless makes it seem like they won't regroup until the start of their NEXT turn).

Wolf Claws (Page 60): What the heck is the 'close combat phase'? Also, does the bearer really have to decide which re-roll he wants BEFORE assaulting and what happens if he forgets to specify at the start of the assault phase (as most everyone will)?

Fenrisian Wolf/Cyberwolf (Page 62): If a character takes some Wolves as wargear does his 'unit type' become 'beasts'?

Wolf Tail Talisman (Page 62): The standard INAT questions with stuff like this: What exactly is meant by 'affected' with this item and can it nullify persistent psychic powers (like Psychic Scream, etc), and if so how exactly does that work (when do these powers come 'back on')?

Saga of the Wolfkin (Page 64): Is the bonus gained by this Saga lost to the army if the character dies?

Saga of the Beastslayer (Page 64): There is no clarification in this section about how this saga interacts against units that only partially contain Monstrous Creatures and/or models with a T5+ (as you do in other spots).

Awesome! Thank you Yakface.

The only one I had done was the Bjorns Save one (Yes, I am that Anal ), I'll get to work like a good little trolle

Also a Bit of a Brainfart with the Thunderclap thing, I remember changing it, but I guess I forgot to save >.<

Dun Dun Duuuuun!

V1.6 is t3h Uploaded!

When the Errata comes out for this Codex it'll either sink you or give you some credibility, depending on it agree's with many/any of your "rulings".

If they don't agree with you much, I recommend lemon flavoured humble pie; Bitter-sweet

If they do; Keep the the good aggregating work!

Razerous wrote:When the Errata comes out for this Codex it'll either sink you or give you some credibility, depending on it agree's with many/any of your "rulings".

If they don't agree with you much, I recommend lemon flavoured humble pie; Bitter-sweet

If they do; Keep the the good aggregating work!

There is no way in hell that a GWproduced errata will touch even a third of the issues Gwar has discussed.
There is no way in hell that a GWproduced errata will contain even a quarter of the work that has gone into this one.
There is no way in hell that a GWproduced errata will be published within five times the time it took to publish this one.

GWs only claim to "legality" is that they have the copyright to the system and the world, they aren't even interested in creating a set of interesting balanced competitive rules. Gwars is patching up GWs sloppy droppings into near clarity. He doesn't try to guess how GW "actually" ment the rules to be played. He just tries to help people make sense of the rules as they are written, in all their fallacy. What GW eventually and arbitrarily decides to change with an "errata" or "faq" will have no impact what so ever on the value of Gwars work or his credibility as a competent ruleswrangler. There is no reason what so ever that GWs random musings will "sink" Gwar. If anything, the trust in GW will sink considerably if their errata diverts much from this one. Because that means they have written so horribly worded rules with such lousy explanations in the SW codex that even the best of efforts could not untangle them to find the things that theywere _really_ ment to say. Or possibly GW will just change how things work as an afterthought, that would be more allright, but still wouldn't have anything to say about Gwars job.

The only reason a GWpublished "errata" will have a value to me is because I can assume about 80% of my random opponents will at least have heard of it, and it migh make the printed book a little bit less annoying.

Sorry about the rant, I just can't stand the idea that GWs rules should be magically "right". They are merely easily accessable for players.

Now now play nice children

To be honest, I expect quite a bit to be changed. I think GW are going to Errata it so that the Land Raider has 12 Capacity and also say that ICs with Wolves cannot Join other units, just because they hate Old Players who have the models (and thus are not worth money to them).

But until then, what I have is the best you got, so enjoy it

Also, I've added a note about needing the latest PDF reader programs, as this uses Adobe 9.0 Technologiez

First off, thanks for putting all this together, Gwar.

A minor issue i noticed is in the question:
"If an Iron Priest is accompanied by Three Thrall-servitors and has the “Saga of the Iron Wolf”, does this mean
he always rolls “a result of 5 or more” when attempting to repair a vehicle with his “Battlesmith” special rule?"

To be fully correct it should specify "Thrall-servitors with servo-arms", as those who have replaced them with other wargear do not aid this roll.

Not a big thing, but if you update this again sometime, you can grab it.

Like the FAQ Gwar! Couple of things I'd like to put forward:

Q: Can you give Saga of the Hunter to a model in runic armour? The entry for runic armour describes it as ancient power armour.

Q: The lack of option to take a Frostblade for a Wolf Lord or WGBL in TDA (oversight?)

Q:Bjorns fear of flying (no pod option) and extra armour (oversight?)

Q:A wolf standard affects any models joined to the hunters? (WG pack leader & ICs)

Q:Wolf scouts cant take shotguns?

Q:The TDA description doesn't explicitly prohibit deep striking, simply the tendencey for wolves to (rightly so) distrust such tech. Is this binding or simply advice on being wolfy?

Q:Thunderwolf Cav have rending even if they have special equipment (Wolf claws and such)?

Q: Ragnar's Insane Bravado, works with counter attack?

Keep up the good work

Stygian Mole wrote:Q:Bjorns fear of flying (no pod option) and extra armour (oversight?)

Q:The TDA description doesn't explicitly prohibit deep striking, simply the tendencey for wolves to (rightly so) distrust such tech. Is this binding or simply advice on being wolfy?

Bjorn has a 5+ invul, isn't that enough?!?

Compare and contrast SW page 61 and SM page 102. Since these are the descriptions of TDA for each chapter, while the note in SW is "fluff" the lack of granting Deep Strike as a rule is not.

Homer

Well adding to whats been said i feel the following amendments are required

Flamers (rules as in codex +) Models with "head strong" may still fire them even if they are not accompany by a WG or IC (Aiming is not a requirement of flamers).

Wolf Guard, Pack leader should include skyclaw.

Q.Does a unit of BC with Lukas suffer from Head strong.
A.No, reason he doesn't include the rule. Fluff He's of WG stands if only he would follow orders.

CodGod wrote:First off, thanks for putting all this together, Gwar.

A minor issue i noticed is in the question:
"If an Iron Priest is accompanied by Three Thrall-servitors and has the “Saga of the Iron Wolf”, does this mean
he always rolls “a result of 5 or more” when attempting to repair a vehicle with his “Battlesmith” special rule?"

To be fully correct it should specify "Thrall-servitors with servo-arms", as those who have replaced them with other wargear do not aid this roll.

Not a big thing, but if you update this again sometime, you can grab it.

Good Catch, I'll rectify it ASAP

Stygian Mole wrote:Q:The TDA description doesn't explicitly prohibit deep striking, simply the tendencey for wolves to (rightly so) distrust such tech. Is this binding or simply advice on being wolfy?

Sorry, but I cannot even consider this a question. It does not say they can Deep Strike, so they cannot. A lot of your questions are like that, Sorry :( However, the Runic Armour + Saga one is a good one. And I am sure I already covered the Thunderwolf Cav with Special weapons...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tri wrote:Well adding to whats been said i feel the following amendments are required

Flamers (rules as in codex +) Models with "head strong" may still fire them even if they are not accompany by a WG or IC (Aiming is not a requirement of flamers).

Wolf Guard, Pack leader should include skyclaw.

Q.Does a unit of BC with Lukas suffer from Head strong.
A.No, reason he doesn't include the rule. Fluff He's of WG stands if only he would follow orders.

As much as I would love too, this is not the goal of the FAQ. The goal is to rectify where rules do not work or to clarify unclear rules.

As such, it is pretty clear RaW how Headstrong and Flamers work, as is Lukas and Headstrong, as is Wolf Guard and Skyclaw.

However, You do raise a good point, and I shall be including them in the next version of the FAQ, but as "This is the RaW, sorry"

Again, thank you all for your help. While I may be incredibly awesome, I am just a simple Trolle, and your skills as Question Askers and Proofreaders are much appreciated

Well being fair gwar ...

... Flames don't work, arguing that 2" of flame are fine for a free weapon is silly.

... Sky Claw need leading more then any other type of Head strong unit (there's very little point in taking any of the weapons if they've got a min range of +6")

... And Raw is confusing at best with Lukas. He does not have headstrong but since the pack can't shoot unless joined by an IC or WG model he rarely will be able to shoot his plasma pistol.

Still your FAQ your call. I personally feel these are glaring oversights by GW.

Tri wrote:Well being fair gwar ...

... Flames don't work, arguing that 2" of flame are fine for a free weapon is silly.

... Sky Claw need leading more then any other type of Head strong unit (there's very little point in taking any of the weapons if they've got a min range of +6")

... And Raw is confusing at best with Lukas. He does not have headstrong but since the pack can't shoot unless joined by an IC or WG model he rarely will be able to shoot his plasma pistol.

Still your FAQ your call. I personally feel these are glaring oversights by GW.

Not a chance. This is GW. They will pretend no-one has noticed them.

Homer S wrote:
Bjorn has a 5+ invul, isn't that enough?!?

NO WAY DUDE!

I hate being unable to charge because of a piddly lascannon or 5!

Gwar! wrote:

Bodders wrote:Gwar

Awesome work (as always), however one thing that came up when i was looking at the book with my local unfriendly space wolf friend, which i dont know if you would contemplate wanting to put in this would be in reference to Lukas and "Pelt of the Doppegangrel" and its reroll of sucessful hits rule.

The hypothetical situation which arose was Lukas on his own and has the misfortune to be on the receiving end of a TL lascannon or Guided Starcannon etc etc, say the first shot misses the reroll hits, based on the rule book cant reroll a reroll so its a hit. Now it might just have been the players interpretation here could be more common but he was stongly minded that the reroll still takes place as codex overrides rule book (wording is quite specific mind). Personally i would just flame the bugger to death.

Anywho, didnt know if that would be something you would want to clarify or if you think its just this guy being a muppet and ignore.

Keep up the good work either way.

It's a guy being a muppet You cannot re-roll a re-roll. The codex does not say you can re-roll a re-roll, so you cannot

To expound:

I think it is a matter of timing. 1) Your opponent rolls to hit with a TL LC. He fails. The Doppleganger forces your opponent to reroll sucessful hits. Well he failed so this rule is satisfied. The TL rule lets your opponent re-roll a failed result to hit. Well, he failed, so he can re-roll to hit. This rule is now satisfied. On his re-roll he scores a hit. No further action can be taken as you can't re-roll re-rolls.

Just a quick question:
How are you guys liking the format of the FAQ? Would you prefer to go to a two column style like the INAT FAQ?
Do you want me to separate out each entry onto a separate page?

Any other feedback on the format at all?

Can you do it in crayon................??

Seriously, just fine as is to me.

Seems fine to me.

Just a comment on your ruling of infiltrators being able to deploy 18" away from the CotS. In the BRB, I know of at least one refernce to GW use of "within" where the diagram that graphically showed the rule defined it as "up to". This is the case of units disembarking from a transport. The rule states that models must disembark "within" 2 inches of an access point. However, the diagram shows a model's closest base edge to be exactly 2" away from the access point. In this case "within 2 inches" actually meant "up to 2 inches". If I remember correctly, this crops up several more times in the BRB and seamed to be a constant interpretation on "within".

I would counter that the diagram shows the base to be 1.999999999999999999" away from the access point

I don't have my books on me ATM, but if someone who does can tell me where else this comes up, I'll change the ruling.

Assuming that CotS says Infiltrators may not deploy within 18", then I'd have to agree that this one needs to be changed to a No. Page 3, Measuring Distances is the best reference.

Gwar! wrote:I would counter that the diagram shows the base to be 1.999999999999999999" away from the access point

I don't have my books on me ATM, but if someone who does can tell me where else this comes up, I'll change the ruling.

Page 15 Shooting Sequence: 2. Check Range: "At least one target model must be within range of the weaponry of your firing models." Page 17 Diagram: "Four orcs are found to have a target within 12" range of their pistols." However, Page 28 says "If a model using a rapid fire weapon remains stationary it can fire two shots up to 12, but only one shot up to th weapon's maximum range." and "An assault weapon can always shoot...up to its maximum range."

On page 82. Ruins: Unit coherancy: "The models in the unit maintain unit coherancy as long as any part of the body of a model on the lower level is within 2" of the base of a model that is higher up." The diagram on the left shows the top of the SM head to be 2" away from the bottom of the model's base above.

Perfect. That's all I needed. Seems silly of GW to piss all over English like that, but I am not surprised.

I'll work on getting 1.7 out by Monday at the latest (^_^)

Gwar! wrote:Seems typical of GW to piss all over English like that....

There we go, much better

v1.7 is complete and uploaded. Enjoy and remember to spread the word/take the FAQ to your clubs

Gwar! wrote:v1.7 is complete and uploaded. Enjoy and remember to spread the word/take the FAQ to your clubs

May just be me but its not downloading.

Can't get it to work either, but could just be mediafire that has a temporary problem...

Ok, Looks like mediafire cocked up.

I've re-uploaded it to sendspace for the time being. Please tell me if you have any more issues

Found another fault

“The High King” never states what turn he gets to pick ... now if he can pick at the start of any turn it gets strange

Game Turn 1 player pick an ability
Player turn 1 player pick a second ability .... see the problem?

Tri wrote:Found another fault

“The High King” never states what turn he gets to pick ... now if he can pick at the start of any turn it gets strange

Game Turn 1 player pick an ability
Player turn 1 player pick a second ability .... see the problem?

"The High King" says Turn.

BRB Says Turn = Player Turn, Game Turn = Game Turn.

I fail to see the issue.

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:Found another fault

“The High King” never states what turn he gets to pick ... now if he can pick at the start of any turn it gets strange

Game Turn 1 player pick an ability
Player turn 1 player pick a second ability .... see the problem?

"The High King" says Turn.

BRB Says Turn = Player Turn, Game Turn = Game Turn.

I fail to see the issue.

fair enough i missed that

Tri wrote:fair enough i missed that

No worries mate, we can't all be perfect like Troll Batman!

So, found any typos or got any suggestions

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:Found another fault

“The High King” never states what turn he gets to pick ... now if he can pick at the start of any turn it gets strange

Game Turn 1 player pick an ability
Player turn 1 player pick a second ability .... see the problem?

"The High King" says Turn.

BRB Says Turn = Player Turn, Game Turn = Game Turn.

I fail to see the issue.

Potentially, the same issue as IG Orders, which say "each turn" yet howls of outrage arose whenever anyone pointed out the BRB quote..............

don_mondo wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:Found another fault

“The High King” never states what turn he gets to pick ... now if he can pick at the start of any turn it gets strange

Game Turn 1 player pick an ability
Player turn 1 player pick a second ability .... see the problem?

"The High King" says Turn.

BRB Says Turn = Player Turn, Game Turn = Game Turn.

I fail to see the issue.

Potentially, the same issue as IG Orders, which say "each turn" yet howls of outrage arose whenever anyone pointed out the BRB quote..............

your units cannot take actions during your opponents turn, but you as a player can.

Demogerg wrote:

your units cannot take actions during your opponents turn, but you as a player can.

Sigh........ Yeah, whatever. Me, my units, in the game they are one and the same, regardless of how the rules are written. And my units take actions during the opponent's turn all the time, to include shooting (Inquisitor with Mystics).

Anyways, the point of my post was that we have a previous example of GW saying that a unit can do something "each turn", which should have, per their rules, meant each player turn, and then rolling it back (along with great player outcry) to player turn only, in spite of the phrasing on page 9 that is currently being used to justify the puppies being able to do something each player turn. Just saying that we shouldn't rely too heavily on that particular phrase, because GW doesn't know what it means. As I phrased it, "potentially a problem".

don_mondo wrote:Just saying that we shouldn't rely too heavily on that particular phrase, because GW doesn't know what it means.

QFT...they also don't have a good handle on the term "within" either.

I'm getting a prompt to enter a password whenever I try and open v1.7 with FoxIt. Anyone else getting this problem?

I've tried with Adobe as well, it just has problems with decrypting the file. I've also re-downloaded the file a couple of times with no luck.

Works fine for me on Foxit and Adobe.

What OS are you running?

Very ice FAQ Gwar. I don't really have a lot of use for it (unless I come into some cash, retire and start making a true scale terminator only army, perhaps even in that order) but I really am impressed at the dilligence and thought that went into this project.
The way I see it, GW ought to put guys like you and Yakface on retainer.

Wehrkind wrote:Very ice FAQ Gwar. I don't really have a lot of use for it (unless I come into some cash, retire and start making a true scale terminator only army, perhaps even in that order) but I really am impressed at the dilligence and thought that went into this project.
The way I see it, GW ought to put guys like you and Yakface on retainer.

... You know both Gwar and Yakface would happily do it for free.

Tri wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:Very ice FAQ Gwar. I don't really have a lot of use for it (unless I come into some cash, retire and start making a true scale terminator only army, perhaps even in that order) but I really am impressed at the dilligence and thought that went into this project.
The way I see it, GW ought to put guys like you and Yakface on retainer.

... You know both Gwar and Yakface would happily do it for free.

We already do

That's the spirit

They do yes, but I was trying to point out what ought to be, not what is GW should be paying them for the rules developement work they do, but GW does not. Really, GW should be a little embarrassed to even put out rule books with these kind of issues. It isn't as though they are a little start up company putting out self published rules in binders anymore :(

Though as a disclaimer, this might be related to how cranky I am that I don't get a check from SAP for all the developement work our team does for them, even though we are the customer!

Gwar! wrote:Works fine for me on Foxit and Adobe.

What OS are you running?

WinXP. Tried deleting what I had and downloaded it again, still nothing.

Presumeably when you say it works for you then it means you already have, but have you checked the download itself? Maybe the file host has corrupted it somehow?

Otherwise, I have no idea what's wrong. I tried 1.6 before you updated and it was working fine...

Have you got the very latest Adobe Reader from their website? I've checked the file download and everything seems fine :(

Gwar!, thank you for taking the time to make this. Since GW won't pay you in cash, I'd be more than happy to pay you in cookies*.

*cookies can be retrieved at any game store, at a pre-arranged and agreed upon time, within the DC/Baltimore area. Not redeemable for brownies, icecream, sports cars or other assorted snacks.

abortedsoul wrote:Gwar!, thank you for taking the time to make this. Since GW won't pay you in cash, I'd be more than happy to pay you in cookies*.

*cookies can be retrieved at any game store, at a pre-arranged and agreed upon time, within the DC/Baltimore area. Not redeemable for brownies, icecream, sports cars or other assorted snacks.

Yay Cookies!

FAQ has been updated to Version 1.8

Hey man, great work with the FAQ.
One little edit: In the answer to SW.32.02 - "How does Headstrong work?" in reference to Skyclaws you say "...for each Skyclaw Assault Pack that does not have a Wolf Guard Pack Leader or Independent Character accompanying it." To me, this implies that Pack Leaders can be assigned to Skyclaw packs, which RaW they can't.

DruidODurham wrote:Hey man, great work with the FAQ.
One little edit: In the answer to SW.32.02 - "How does Headstrong work?" in reference to Skyclaws you say "...for each Skyclaw Assault Pack that does not have a Wolf Guard Pack Leader or Independent Character accompanying it." To me, this implies that Pack Leaders can be assigned to Skyclaw packs, which RaW they can't.

Correct good sir. This is a copypasta error! While technically correct (as If a Wolf Guard Leader somehow magically becomes attached, Headstrong would not apply), I can see why it is confusing

I shall correct this typo in the next version. Many thanks for pointing this out

Gwar! wrote:

DruidODurham wrote:Hey man, great work with the FAQ.
One little edit: In the answer to SW.32.02 - "How does Headstrong work?" in reference to Skyclaws you say "...for each Skyclaw Assault Pack that does not have a Wolf Guard Pack Leader or Independent Character accompanying it." To me, this implies that Pack Leaders can be assigned to Skyclaw packs, which RaW they can't.

Correct good sir. This is a copypasta error! While technically correct (as If a Wolf Guard Leader somehow magically becomes attached, Headstrong would not apply), I can see why it is confusing

I shall correct this typo in the next version. Many thanks for pointing this out

ah just go full hog and errata it that they can join them.

Tri wrote:I shall correct this typo in the next version. Many thanks for pointing this out

ah just go full hog and errata it that they can join them.

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I shall correct this typo in the next version. Many thanks for pointing this out

ah just go full hog and errata it that they can join them.

As much as I wish I could, I feel this to be a step too far. My Intention (yes, I can use that word because I am the Author! ) is to only apply rules changes where absolutely necessary.

Meh 90% certain that GW will include them with SkyClaw. Otherwise they'll never sell the models ....I expect an errata for them 1 week after the release of Skyclaw models.

Tri wrote:Meh 90% certain that GW will include them with SkyClaw. Otherwise they'll never sell the models ....I expect an errata for them 1 week after the release of Skyclaw models.

And once they do, I will be happy to use WG Pack Leaders with them. Until then however, the rules are crystal clear.

Minor clarification I just spotted for Saga of the Hunter:

The pg 85 says that "SotH" can only be taken by models in PA that does not have a JP or SMB.

TW should be included in the list of exclusions due to its entry on pg 65 that says the Saga is for "infantry only" and TW wargear changes the IC unit to Calvary.

[sarcasm]Of course, a SW on a giant wolf would NEVER make a stealthy hunter. [/sarcasm]

I am just going to assume that this was one of Jervis' edits, as combining the two would have actually made the ability somewhat useful.

wyomingfox wrote:Minor clarification I just spotted for Saga of the Hunter:

The pg 85 says that "SotH" can only be taken by models in PA that does not have a JP or SMB.

TW should be included in the list of exclusions due to its entry on pg 65 that says the Saga is for "infantry only" and TW wargear changes the IC unit to Calvary.

[sarcasm]Of course, a SW on a giant wolf would NEVER make a stealthy hunter. [/sarcasm]

I am just going to assume that this was one of Jervis' edits, as combining the two would have actually made the ability somewhat useful.

Awesome, I shall add that. And yes, it does seem kind of funny, especially since everyone is going on about how a TW WL with SotH is t3h hax

Unless I missed something, Wolf Lords don't get SotH.

You didn't. It was just a poor attempt at humour

Ok, after much pestering, I have been compelled to include the following Q&A. Feedback is appreciated. Is the Answer clear enough? How could I word it better etc?

SW.52.xx– Q: How does the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” interact with abilities that allow a failed To Hit dice to be re-rolled, such as Twin-Linked or having a Ballistic Skill higher than 5?
A: An individual die can never be re-rolled more than once. If the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” effect is applicable, the two effects essentially “cancel” each other out, much in the same way as Fortune (re-roll failed invulnerable saves) and Perils of the Warp (re-roll successful invulnerable saves) “cancel” each other out. Technically, you must roll the dice To Hit, and then re-roll it no matter the result, taking the second result as the true result. This is the preferred solution in a competitive environment, as it eliminates potential errors or opponent misunderstandings. Mathematically however, the result is the same as rolling the dice To Hit once and accepting the result without re-rolling. [R.a.W]

On an Unrelated note, this question has the "honour" of being the 180th added to the FAQ.

Huzzah!

Gwar! wrote:Ok, after much pestering, I have been compelled to include the following Q&A. Feedback is appreciated. Is the Answer clear enough? How could I word it better etc?

SW.52.xx– Q: How does the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” interact with abilities that allow a failed To Hit dice to be re-rolled, such as Twin-Linked or having a Ballistic Skill higher than 5?
A: An individual die can never be re-rolled more than once. If the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” effect is applicable, the two effects essentially “cancel” each other out, much in the same way as Fortune (re-roll failed invulnerable saves) and Perils of the Warp (re-roll successful invulnerable saves) “cancel” each other out. Technically, you must roll the dice To Hit, and then re-roll it no matter the result, taking the second result as the true result. This is the preferred solution in a competitive environment, as it eliminates potential errors or opponent misunderstandings. Mathematically however, the result is the same as rolling the dice To Hit once and accepting the result without re-rolling. [R.a.W]

On an Unrelated note, this question has the "honour" of being the 180th added to the FAQ.

Huzzah!

in the case of BS6-10 the model will always roll their second roll since the first is discounted hit or miss (unless they are using a TL-Weapon in which case roll to hit as normal). This may not be rerolled for any reason... B6 hits on a 6; B7 hits on a 5+; B8 hits on a 4+; B9 hits on a 3+; B10 hits on a 2+

Tri wrote: in the case of BS6-10 the model will always roll their second roll since the first is discounted hit or miss (unless they are using a TL-Weapon in which case roll to hit as normal). This may not be rerolled for any reason... B6 hits on a 6; B7 hits on a 5+; B8 hits on a 4+; B9 hits on a 3+; B10 hits on a 2+

Yeah, good point, had a bit of a brain fart there lol.

So anyway, I'll remove the part about BS6-10 and start working on it. v1.9 out tonight or tomorrow

180 question ...I remember mentioning something about a critical mass in another thread. Now where did I put my radiation suit?

Keep up the good work Gwar! .

A-P wrote:Keep up the good work Gwar! .

Don't worry I will

Also, the FAQ has been updated to Version One Point Nine, with a whopping one hundred and eighty questions!

Enjoy!

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote: in the case of BS6-10 the model will always roll their second roll since the first is discounted hit or miss (unless they are using a TL-Weapon in which case roll to hit as normal). This may not be rerolled for any reason... B6 hits on a 6; B7 hits on a 5+; B8 hits on a 4+; B9 hits on a 3+; B10 hits on a 2+

Yeah, good point, had a bit of a brain fart there lol.

So anyway, I'll remove the part about BS6-10 and start working on it. v1.9 out tonight or tomorrow

A BS6-10 model would still re-roll to hit on a 2+ against the cloak on a hit. Only on a miss is it at the different values.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:A BS6-10 model would still re-roll to hit on a 2+ against the cloak on a hit. Only on a miss is it at the different values.

Aye, so the part about BS6-10 was misplaced. In any case, I have cleared it up and just made it nice and generic

The file isn't showing anything in Preview on Mac OSX, just small icons in the middle of the pages saying "pdf".

Shrubs wrote:The file isn't showing anything in Preview on Mac OSX, just small icons in the middle of the pages saying "pdf".

Have you updated to the latest version? Does it work with another MacOS viewer?

Sorry for asking ya to check, but I don't have a Mac

Gwar! wrote:Have you updated to the latest version?

Yes, and I've tried it on both my machines. So it's not a machine specific problem either

Gwar! wrote: Does it work with another MacOS viewer?

Hm, that defeats the purpose of having a Mac... To explain: it has pdf built into the OS. Anyway, I tried it with another app and got the message "The document “Unofficial Codex Space Wolves FAQ v1.9.pdf” could not be opened. Cannot find cross-reference table.".

I downloaded Acrobat and that is able to show it. However, mac users will usually not use Reader so before officially publicing the faq you might want to think about creating it with another application :(

Shrubs wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Have you updated to the latest version?

Yes, and I've tried it on both my machines. So it's not a machine specific problem either

Gwar! wrote: Does it work with another MacOS viewer?

Hm, that defeats the purpose of having a Mac... To explain: it has pdf built into the OS. Anyway, I tried it with another app and got the message "The document “Unofficial Codex Space Wolves FAQ v1.9.pdf” could not be opened. Cannot find cross-reference table.".

I downloaded Acrobat and that is able to show it. However, mac users will usually not use Reader so before officially publicing the faq you might want to think about creating it with another application :(

Hmm, thanks for the info. I'll look into it, but it wont be rapid, as I do not use Mac (and only occasionally use Ubuntu). Apologies for the inconvenience :(

Gwar! wrote:Hmm, thanks for the info. I'll look into it, but it wont be rapid, as I do not use Mac (and only occasionally use Ubuntu). Apologies for the inconvenience :(

Sorry for the bad news. If you want me to test something, just PM.

I read through it; very thorough work, thanks for the effort.

I tried viewing the FAQ's PDF on my Mac earlier and ran into problems, but I just figured that it was due to some weird Acrobat 9 feature which Preview didn't support. It's really obnoxious that Acrobat 9.2 disables the print-to-PDF option to get rid of whatever that feature might be.

Gwar!, your FAQ is an impressive bit of work. It's enough to make one start betting beers over whether GW's eventual FAQ document breaks the half page mark for admitted errata.

solkan wrote:I tried viewing the FAQ's PDF on my Mac earlier and ran into problems, but I just figured that it was due to some weird Acrobat 9 feature which Preview didn't support. It's really obnoxious that Acrobat 9.2 disables the print-to-PDF option to get rid of whatever that feature might be.

Gwar!, your FAQ is an impressive bit of work. It's enough to make one start betting beers over whether GW's eventual FAQ document breaks the half page mark for admitted errata.

I just hope GW's legal team contact me before a GW faq that has content suspiciously identical to mine pops up

Also, Start using a proper OS

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:I tried viewing the FAQ's PDF on my Mac earlier and ran into problems, but I just figured that it was due to some weird Acrobat 9 feature which Preview didn't support. It's really obnoxious that Acrobat 9.2 disables the print-to-PDF option to get rid of whatever that feature might be.

Gwar!, your FAQ is an impressive bit of work. It's enough to make one start betting beers over whether GW's eventual FAQ document breaks the half page mark for admitted errata.

I just hope GW's legal team contact me before a GW faq that has content suspiciously identical to mine pops up

Also, Start using a proper OS

GW legal team " WAIT you can't write any of that it already been published"
Box packer "So what do i do?"
GW legal team " Well pick the opposite response that way its different"
Box packer " but it'll be the wrong"
GW legal team "How can it be wrong if we say its so?"
Box packer "... fine just so long as my name isn't on it"