leetbeef wrote:

airmang wrote:Straken give all units within 12" FC and CA. This could mean some really nasty counter assaults from Guard.

Huh? You make it sound like someone could use their Furious Charge when being assaulted, which wouldn't make any sense, RAW.

Am I just reading the rules wrong?

Nope, you are 100% correct. The GW FAQ is wrong.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Then I have no issue besides the fact that is that's what the rules actually say it does not belong in an FAQ, else the FAQ should be renamed to FASQ - "Frequently Asked Stupid Questions".

Damn you HBMC, I just snorted Pepsi through my nose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Im glad GW is making rulings based upon RAI.. This FAQ is a huge step forward

Yes, Its Awesome Sause on an Awesome Bun.

Fixed your quote for you GWAR!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leetbeef wrote:
Huh? You make it sound like someone could use their Furious Charge when being assaulted, which wouldn't make any sense, RAW.

Counter-Attack: "... To represend this, when a unit with this rule is assaulted by the enemy it must take a Leadership test. If the test i successful all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, excatly as if[b] they too had assaulted that turn.

Furious Charge: "... In a turn in which they assaulted[b] they add..." blah blah blah you know the rest.

Am I just reading the rules wrong?

GW has a hard time with proper English it seams and appently confused the terms "as if" with "equal to" when they wrote the 5th Ed BRB. This FAQ effectively changes the definition of Counter Attack from being being like an assualt (which is implied by their use of "as if") to being an assault. New legal precidense. However, at the same time Defense Grenades don't work against counter charging units even though countercharges have been redefined as an assault. So funny.

leetbeef wrote:
Huh? You make it sound like someone could use their Furious Charge when being assaulted, which wouldn't make any sense, RAW.


Am I just reading the rules wrong?

I'm afraid this FAQ just set the precidence for exactly this.

Gwar! wrote:Nope, you are 100% correct. The GW FAQ is wrong.

Disagreeing with the FAQ =/= It is wrong. I was surprised that they'd allow it, but they did and we'll just have to play it out.

Gwar! wrote:

insaniak wrote:Something I just noticed... they clarified that Jetbikes are affected by JotWW due to being a subcategory of Bike.

Which means that Jetbikes are affected by a chasm opening underneath them... but Jump Infantry are not.

How odd.

And they say "RaI" makes more sense than RAW (which does not let Jetbikes be affected). Go figure.

This isn't really an RAI issue as RAI is only a valid arguement when RAW is unclear or unattainable. In this case RAW was clear. This is more of a "GW failed to accurately communicate what they meant when first writing the BRB" issue. Yet another rule change that sets legal precidence.

Edit: I stand corrected, Jet Bikes have been a subset (special box) underneath the unit "Bike" all along

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Nope, you are 100% correct. The GW FAQ is wrong.

Disagreeing with the FAQ =/= It is wrong. I was surprised that they'd allow it, but they did and we'll just have to play it out.

Again, it is not wrong because I disagree with the faq, it's wrong because it is notn what the rules say.

wyomingfox wrote: This is more of a "GW failed to accurately communicate what they meant when first writing the BRB" issue.

Edited for clarity:
It's not really a rulebook issue. Jetbikes have always been considered a sub-category of bikes. The Space Wolf Codex muddied the waters by mentioning Beasts and Cavalry separately, but only mentioning Bikes and not Jetbikes.

So the FAQ clarifies that much nicely.

It simply doesn't address why a flying unit is affected by a hole in the ground whilst a unit that moves across the battlefield in short hops is not.

My guess is that they were supposed to be included, but whoever wrote the FAQ either didn't notice that they weren't, or thinks that they're a subcategory of Infantry.

Gwar! wrote:Again, it is not wrong because I disagree with the faq, it's wrong because it is notn what the rules say.

And again, these are the rules. They are not right or wrong, they simply are.

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Again, it is not wrong because I disagree with the faq, it's wrong because it is notn what the rules say.

And again, these are the rules. They are not right or wrong, they simply are.

The FAQs are NOT the rules.

GW states themselves on their site: "The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'."

Hmm now is FAQ RAI or RAW? To me FAQ is Frequently Asked Question. Now if that was Errata that specifically replaces what is written in a book, do the FAQ really overide anything? All it is, is a question that is asked over and over again, but changes nothing, while an errata does change what was bascially written in stone.

I thought I read somewhere GW dosn't do FAQ's or changes the rules online, so I am not shure if the FAQ can be taken as legal. But I like to play and don't argue this and just shut up and play no matter what.

Per GW, Eratta is official and FAQ are GW House Rules. However, Tournements play by the GW FAQ. As for FAQ being RAI vs RAW, in theory, you should only need a FAQ if the RAW is unclear or unattainable...however, that is not always the case with GW FAQ as some people simply ask a lot of "bad" questions even though the rules are clear to a "reasonable person" standard or because they forget/miss a rule (which is understandable).

Semantics really

Are FAQs the rules? No not according to RAW :p but I havent met a person who refuses to use GW FAQs (and intends to be taken seriously)

Thats why Judicial decisions are cited in courts.. precedence

I laugh at the idea that GW can't even release a FAQ with rules clarifications without allowing themselves the backdoor statement "these are really more of our house rules, they aren't set in stone." Whats the point then? They already tell people to clarify things themselves in grey areas, so why say that their answers, the people who designed and supposedly tested the rules, aren't any more applicable? Silly

I suppose you could justify the Thunderwolves changing the rider's base toughness in the same fashion that Tau Battlesuits do; they are so big and furry that there is no way you can hit the rider without the blast having to go through the beast first.

Railguns wrote:"these are really more of our house rules, they aren't set in stone."

It is paradoxical.

An FAQ that is made of win.

I think this fixes every problem and big argument we SW players have been having since the codex came out

- Termie characters can take a frostblade, good.
- Bjorn's special rule fixed, good.
- clarifying that wolf guard work pretty much how we all expected them to pedants aside, excellent
- scouts with a pack leader may OBEL, very excellent!
- Jaws clarifications, at last the arguments will cease
- Arjac can join other squads means Arjac jumps from fairly useless to an unbelievable bargain that renders the WGBL entry fairly pointless and yells "I am mandatory" for every drop pod SW army out there
- TWolfs are natural S/T 5, I suspected they'd rule this way just to make sense with the actual Tcav entry. Wolf Lords on Wolves are now the consumate badasses of 40K, who needs a daemon prince.
- Saga of the Iron Wolf actually has a purpose now, still crap but not pointless and crap
- statisbomb works against vehicles, and Lukas now becomes the preimere titan killer we all thought he was at first.


The only weird stuff is the Ragnar stuff. The defensive grenade clarification is good. The berserk + Ragnar gives you a min +2 is weird but means that he is actually worth fielding with BC's which is good because that' fluffy. However the fact that FC works on the counter-attack comes completely from out of nowhere. That one isn't a rules clarification its a straight up BRB rules change. If this is precedent then there is some pretty nasty abuse out there. I don't think this is needed and is my only disappointment with this codex.

I think there is errata in here, as well as FAQ - the first page is actually adding/replacing items in the Codex itself - such as with Frost Blades etc.

lords2001 wrote:I think there is errata in here, as well as FAQ - the first page is actually adding/replacing items in the Codex itself - such as with Frost Blades etc.

The first page is also entitled 'Errata'

On the upside, now I get to carry around a FAQ for a completely unrelated army as proof that the termagants my opponent just charged actually have counter attack AND furious charge at the same time.

GW stated that their FAQs are in a way house rules. That is not by any means the same as saying they are indeed house rules. The rules lawyers.... Erhmmmm, RAW advocates just use the statement as another failed attempt at RAW to dq the FAQs. To me that is pretty silly.

G

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Again, it is not wrong because I disagree with the faq, it's wrong because it is notn what the rules say.

And again, these are the rules. They are not right or wrong, they simply are.

LMFAO.

Try reading the GW website, ya know, the part where they freely admit the FAQ means jack gak.

Gwar! wrote:LMFAO.

Try reading the GW website, ya know, the part where they freely admit the FAQ means jack gak.

EDIT: I apologize for that, let me be more concise: Do you understand the difference between de facto and de jure? It's important here.

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:LMFAO.

Try reading the GW website, ya know, the part where they freely admit the FAQ means jack gak.

EDIT: I apologize for that, let me be more concise: Do you understand the difference between de facto and de jure? It's important here.

No, because I am an uneducated twit who knows nothing. </Sarcasm>

insaniak wrote:It's not really a rulebook issue. Jetbikes have always been considered a sub-category of bikes.

Oops, checked the BRB and you are right, jet bikes are not a separate unit entry but a sub box located underneath the actual unit entry Bike. I stand corrected

Yes, technically GW does not wish to have the FAQs enforced for the convenience of the player who does not have ready access to a computer, a printer, or just knowledge that an FAQ to exist.

However, such coddling is nonexistant when it comes to GW-sponsored or independent tournaments where FAQs are, effectively, de facto, the law.

So yea, the FAQs technically don't mean squat. Only technically.

You're excused, Gwar. We know trolls can't read!

All sillyness aside:
Interesting. Very interesting. It makes me very intrigued and tempted by my idea of a Wolf Guard heavy army led by Blackmane/Njal.

WOLFWING, GOOOOO

Gwar! wrote:Try reading the GW website, ya know, the part where they freely admit the FAQ means jack gak.

Fortunately or unfortunately, tournies and the majority of 40K players have ruled that GW FAQs are case law, therefore official and that GW is an idiot for stating otherwise. Democracy in action and all that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:No, because I am an uneducated twit who knows nothing. </Sarcasm>

So, when did you start being sarcastic

Demrocracy in action? I don't think so. If it was what we all voted on, we wouldn't be paying taxes now eh?

I, too, could do without paid policemen and public roads.

Great FAQ, all of my issues were resolved.

Gwar! wrote:

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Again, it is not wrong because I disagree with the faq, it's wrong because it is notn what the rules say.

And again, these are the rules. They are not right or wrong, they simply are.

LMFAO.

Try reading the GW website, ya know, the part where they freely admit the FAQ means jack gak.

And yet, you would waste your time making your own and advertise it like people should really give a rat's? Quit being silly. There is not a single rule in the rulebook that is not, essentially, a studio house rule. In the comfort of your own cave, you can choose to play and ignore whatever rules you want, be they in the rulebook or in the FAQ. But in tournaments, there has to be a common denominator. GW rules and FAQs happen to be that denominator.

Your argument about what the rules actually say will be useless in the vast majority of tournaments, because those tournaments use GW FAQs (when they are available), and those FAQs are the rules.

Rated G wrote:And yet, you would waste your time making your own and advertise it like people should really give a rat's?

Protip: Do I look like I give two gaks? No. Use my FAQ or Don't. At least I try and Keep things within the rules, and clearly label them and provide the Rules as Written Answer when they are Rules Changes.

I'm happy I can officially replace my Wolf Scouts' CCWs with Power Weapons, and not have to exchange their bolt pistols. Just seemed like an oversight when I first read it.

One thing that I'm less certain about than before is can a WGBL with Saga of the Hunter outflank with Wolf Scouts? I thought the answer was no, but the FAQ reads, "He can only join an outflanking unit if he has the ability to outflank because of the Saga of the Hunter." But if he joins the unit, doesn't that unit lose infiltrate and scouts, and therefore the ability to outflank? Gives me a headache just thinking about.

Note to self... things to look out for:
1. Crossing the streams
2. Shoe Event Horizon
3. Outflank Paradox

There's a similar argument for it going on at B&C, actually.

Gut instinct would say no, because the IC doesn't have the BEL rules. If the squad was joined by a SotH WGBL or Lord, they could only perform a regular Outflank move.

I assume Protip is cool internet lingo? They don't have to keep things "within the rules" because they write the rules. You, on the other hand, do not write the rules.

FAQS are as official as two people playing a game together or a TO makes them. This argument is so done to death it is ridiculous and to argue anything else is assinine.

TO?

bhsman wrote:TO?

Terrifying Ostriches?
Taciturn Otters?

Hmm, Tournament Organizers fits the bill better I think.

Ah, I see. Appreciate it.

Rated G wrote:I assume Protip is cool internet lingo? They don't have to keep things "within the rules" because they write the rules. You, on the other hand, do not write the rules.

The funny thing is, I do write the rules, considering half that FAQ is poached from mine.

So there.

Gwar! wrote:

Rated G wrote:I assume Protip is cool internet lingo? They don't have to keep things "within the rules" because they write the rules. You, on the other hand, do not write the rules.

The funny thing is, I do write the rules, considering half that FAQ is poached from mine.

So there.

Can you write a FAQ for the Guard where Stormtroopers don't suck and get GW to poach it?

I'd give you many Internets for it, Gwar.

Kanluwen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Rated G wrote:I assume Protip is cool internet lingo? They don't have to keep things "within the rules" because they write the rules. You, on the other hand, do not write the rules.

The funny thing is, I do write the rules, considering half that FAQ is poached from mine.

So there.

Can you write a FAQ for the Guard where Stormtroopers don't suck and get GW to poach it?

I'd give you many Internets for it, Gwar.

I could, but the IG Fanbois didn't pay their "Protection" Money this round, so I had to go and make them suck. Sorry. I'll fix them for 6th ed though. Promise!

You better. Or else.

Sidehug Rap will come for you and your loved ones.

Gwar! wrote:

Rated G wrote:I assume Protip is cool internet lingo? They don't have to keep things "within the rules" because they write the rules. You, on the other hand, do not write the rules.

The funny thing is, I do write the rules, considering half that FAQ is poached from mine.

So there.

Wait, am I reading this right, are you taking credit for the GW's SW FAQ? Really?





Really?

theHandofGork wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Rated G wrote:I assume Protip is cool internet lingo? They don't have to keep things "within the rules" because they write the rules. You, on the other hand, do not write the rules.

The funny thing is, I do write the rules, considering half that FAQ is poached from mine.

So there.

Wait, am I reading this right, are you taking credit for the GW's SW FAQ? Really?





Really?

Try reading my FAQ (the first version of which was out 2 weeks before the SW codex was even on general sale) and then the GW FAQ, and note the parts that are pretty much Copypasted.

No offense, GWAR, but I'm too lazy to check out either your FAQ or GWs. Which ones are copy pasted?

Or we could be a little less paranoid, and just accept the fact that GW might have used similar wording to answer similar questions to gwar. But that version is less self-gratifying for gwar...

ph34r wrote:Or we could be a little less paranoid, and just accept the fact that GW might have used similar wording to answer similar questions to gwar. But that version is less self-gratifying for gwar...

How about reading my post and noticing THE EXACT SAME WORDS, highlighted for your viewing pleasure.

malfred wrote:No offense, GWAR, but I'm too lazy to check out either your FAQ or GWs. Which ones are copy pasted?

GW FAQ:
Q. How is the points cost for Lukas the Trickster calculated?
A. Lukas the Trickster costs the number of points in the options list (140) in addition to the base cost of a Blood Claw model (15).

My FAQ:
SW.89.03 – Q: How is the points cost for Lukas the Trickster calculated?
A: Lukas the Trickster costs the number of points in the Options list in addition to the base cost of a Blood Claw Model. [R.a.W]
--------------------------
GW FAQ:
Q. How does the Pelt of the Doppegangrel work?
A. Under normal circumstances, the Pelt of the Doppegangrel will only work if Lukas the Trickster is on his own (i.e. his Blood Claw buddies have all been killed off). Models with an ability to specifically target a certain model (e.g. a Vindicare Assassin) must re-roll all successful to hit rolls if targeting Lukas. The same ruling applies in close combat. Unless the enemy has a specific special rule allowing them to allocate attacks to specific models in close combat, Lukas cannot be targeted separately unless he is on his own. He really is that slippery a customer!

My FAQ:
SW.52.06 – Q: How exactly does the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” work?
A: Under normal circumstances, the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” will only work if Lukas the Trickster is on his own (i.e. his squad has all been killed off). Models with an ability to specifically target a certain model (e.g. Vindicare Assassin or Eldar Farseer using “Mind War”) must re-roll all successful To Hit rolls if targeting Lukas. The same situation applies in close combat. However, unless the enemy has a specific special rule allowing them to allocate attacks to specific models in close combat, he cannot be targeted separately unless he is on his own. [R.a.W]
--------------------------
GW FAQ:
Q. Can units that Ragnar Blackmane has joined run in the Shooting phase or fire weapons that would prevent them from launching an assault in the following Assault Phase?
A. Yes, they may. Insane Bravado states that they must assault only ‘if possible’. If it is not possible because of the unit's actions in the Shooting phase or some other reason, then they simply do not assault.

My FAQ:
SW.55.01 – Q: Can units that Ragnar Blackmane has joined Run in the Shooting phase or fire weapons that would prevent them from launching an assault in the following Assault Phase?
A: Yes, they may. “Insane Bravado” states that they must assault only “if possible”. If it is not possible because of the unit's actions in the Shooting phase or some other reason, then they simply do not assault. [R.a.W]
--------------------------
Q. Is the +1 Toughness from a Thunderwolf Mount considered bonus Toughness, i.e. the model becomes Toughness 4(5), or is it a modification to the base characteristic, i.e. the model becomes Toughness 5?
A. Unusually for such bonuses, it is a modification to the base characteristic. [...]

SW.62.08 – Q: Is the +1 Toughness from a Thunderwolf Mount bonus toughness (i.e. The model becomes Toughness 4(5) ) or is it a modification to the base characteristic (i.e. The model becomes Toughness 5)?
A: It is a modification to the base characteristic (so a model with a Thunderwolf Mount is Toughness 5). [Clarification]
--------------------------
GW FAQ:
Q. Can you clarify how The Leaders of the Pack works exactly?
A. The rules for selecting Sagas are detailed on page 64. As for wargear, no two HQ characters, including Special Characters, may have the exact same wargear and Weapons, even if they are different HQ units. Note that Fenrisian Wolves bought as wargear are included in this check, so if you had two otherwise identical Wolf Guard Battle Leaders, save that one has one Fenrisian Wolf and the other has two, then you are technically obeying this rule just fine. For the record, the intent of the rule is that you should field characterful and diverse heroes in your army, not identical clones with but an extra melta bomb to set them apart. Though we cannot really enforce players to embrace this attitude, the Codex does try to encourage it wherever possible.

Q. Can you clarify how The Leaders of the Pack works with regards to psychic powers?
A. No number of Rune Priests may share the exact same two psychic powers. For example, a Rune Priest may choose to take Living Lightning and Thunderclap. A second Rune Priest may then choose to take Living Lighting and Jaws of the World Wolf, as he will not have the same two psychic powers as the first Rune Priest. Note that the restriction on weapons and wargear still applies, so you have to have each Rune Priest with a unique wargear selection. Also note that Njal Stormcaller knows all seven powers rather than just two, so no other Rune Priest can end up having the same powers. Thus it is permitted to take Njal Stormcaller alongside other Rune Priests.

My FAQ:
SW.81.01 – Q: Can you clarify how “The Leaders of the Pack” works exactly?
A: When selecting HQ characters, no two models may share the same Saga. Special Characters do not count as having a Saga for this purpose (So for example, a generic Wolf Lord may take the “Saga of Majesty” even if Logan Grimnar is in the army.)

No two HQ characters, including Special Characters, may have the exact same Wargear and Weapons, even if they are different HQ units. For example, an army that includes Ragnar Blackmane may not have a Wolf Guard Battle Leader that is equipped with a Wolftooth Necklace, Wolf Tail Talisman, Frost Blade, Meltabombs and the “Saga of the Warrior Born” (as well as the standard equipment remaining), as this would result in two characters having the exact same wargear and weapons. If you were to remove the Meltabombs from the Wolf Guard Battle Leader though, it would be a legal selection. Note that Fenrisian Wolves bought as wargear are included in this check, so to take two otherwise identical Wolf Guard Battle Leaders, save that one has one Fenrisian Wolf and the other has two, is a legal selection.

No number of Rune Priests may share the same two Psychic Powers. For example, a Rune Priest may choose to take Living Lightning and Thunderclap. A second Rune Priest may then choose to take Living Lighting and Jaws of the World Wolf, as neither have the same two Psychic powers. A third Rune Priest however may not select Thunderclap and Living Lighting, as the first Rune Priest has those Powers. Note that the restriction on Weapons and Wargear still applies, so you have to have each Rune Priest with a unique wargear selection. Also note that as Njal knows all seven powers rather than just two, no other Rune Priest can end up having the same Powers, thus it is permitted to take Njal Stormcaller with another Rune Priest. [Clarification]
--------------------------

Need any more proof or is this enough?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fugger it, here are some more:

GW FAQ:
Q. Are Wolf Guard Packs genuine Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Elites when fielded in an army with Logan Grimnar? If so, is this optional?
A. Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation Chart Selections. This is not an optional choice, so you can have at most six Wolf Guard Packs in an army with Logan Grimnar.

My FAQ:
SW.82.01 – Q: Are Wolf Guard Packs Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Elites in an army with Logan Grimnar? If so is this Optional?
A: Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation Chart Selections. Furthermore, this is not an optional choice, so you can have at most six Wolf Guard Packs in an army with Logan Grimnar and three in an army without. [R.a.W]
----------------------
GW FAQ:
Q. Similarly, are Fenrisian Wolf Packs Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Fast Attack in an army with Canis Wolfborn? If so is this optional?
A. Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation Chart Selections. Again, this is not an optional choice, so you can have at most six Fenrisian Wolf Packs in an army with Canis Wolfborn. You could in theory have an army primarily composed of wolves, though you’d not be able to claim objectives because of their Supernumerary rule, so you’d better be prepared for a lot of draws…

My FAQ:
SW.83.01 – Q: Are Fenrisian Wolf Packs Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Fast Attack in an army with Canis Wolfborn? If so is this Optional?
A: Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation Chart Selections. Furthermore, this is not an optional choice, so you
can have at most six Fenrisian Wolf Packs in an army with Canis Wolfborn and three in an army without. [R.a.W]

We might not agree with the actual rulings and we can discuss the application and/or legality of the FAQs themselves, but one thing is clear IMO.

The last two FAQs (Guard and SW) has been released with lightning speed (by GWs standards) and it is painfully obvious that whoever is in charge of the FAQs has had/is having an eye on the issues raised on the various forums.

I applaud the new, and hopefully continued, standard.
Keep it up, GW!

And to all of us. Lets keep all discussions polite and relevant presenting all viewpoints (extreme RAW as well as "I would like to have the rule say this"), so we also can help GW make timely and helpfull FAQs.

*mini-rant over*

When you talked about them copying your FAQ Gwar, I just assumed they had simply written the same answers to the same questions in a similar fashion and you were going all narcissistic about it, but wow, that's awesome to see the side by side comparisons highlighted like that.

Gwar!: God-Emperors tits! No wonder the GW FAQ felt so familiar... Well, at least we can now take as granted the fact that the Powers That Be actually have ninjas stalking the fan forums.

I like it. T5 lords is kind of interesting, but all in all I'm satisfied, lol. I hope GW keeps it up, the whole good/timely FAQ thing.

GW are kings of copypasta.

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:Or we could be a little less paranoid, and just accept the fact that GW might have used similar wording to answer similar questions to gwar. But that version is less self-gratifying for gwar...

How about reading my post and noticing THE EXACT SAME WORDS, highlighted for your viewing pleasure.

Very colorful! Pretty lazy of GW too.

Have you cosidered issuing a C&D letter?

Overall, I really like the FAQ. It actually cleared up some issues and came out within a very reasonable timefram. I was a bit surprised at the Thunderwolf Cav ruling, but it's clarified.

This FAQ definitely raised my opinion of the Codex as the grey areas within the codex was very disappointing.

Now, if we could get a Deff Rolla ruling....

yeah,
It's good that GW are looking around the net for Frequently Asked Questions, and taking notes of how the community answers them.

Also I thought GWAR was banned got a refund for his DCM monies and said he was never coming back? or was that what was intended but not as written?

Panic...

Panic wrote:
Also I thought GWAR was banned got a refund for his DCM monies and said he was never coming back? or was that what was intended but not as written?

Panic...

Not a clue about the drama, but that's a funny one.

I guess it's sad once we start saying RAW vs. RAI in our everyday lives.

Reporter: Supreme Court Justice, what's your view of the Constitution?

Justice: Well over on this side of the judges, we're Ray-eyes, while those down there tend to be Raw-ers.

Reporter: WTF?

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:Or we could be a little less paranoid, and just accept the fact that GW might have used similar wording to answer similar questions to gwar. But that version is less self-gratifying for gwar...

How about reading my post and noticing THE EXACT SAME WORDS, highlighted for your viewing pleasure.

malfred wrote:No offense, GWAR, but I'm too lazy to check out either your FAQ or GWs. Which ones are copy pasted?

GW FAQ:
Q. How is the points cost for Lukas the Trickster calculated?
A. Lukas the Trickster costs the number of points in the options list (140) in addition to the base cost of a Blood Claw model (15).

My FAQ:
SW.89.03 – Q: How is the points cost for Lukas the Trickster calculated?
A: Lukas the Trickster costs the number of points in the Options list in addition to the base cost of a Blood Claw Model. [R.a.W]
--------------------------

etc....

You should send them a C&D for copyright infringement!

malfred wrote:

Panic wrote:
Also I thought GWAR was banned got a refund for his DCM monies and said he was never coming back? or was that what was intended but not as written?

Panic...

Not a clue about the drama, but that's a funny one.

I guess it's sad once we start saying RAW vs. RAI in our everyday lives.

Reporter: Supreme Court Justice, what's your view of the Constitution?

Justice: Well over on this side of the judges, we're Ray-eyes, while those down there tend to be Raw-ers.

Reporter: WTF?

Good point!

Gwar! does not, in fact, follow RaW, but RaI instead!

STOP THE PRESSES!

And I really do think Gwar! should politely ask GW to credit him on that FAQ! The copypasta is quite obvious indeed!

bhsman wrote:Yes, technically GW does not wish to have the FAQs enforced for the convenience of the player who does not have ready access to a computer, a printer, or just knowledge that an FAQ to exist.

This is a self-solving problem, as such players won't have access to the FAQ to begin with.

Plus I'm curious how many players are in places with resources to acquire models, books, etc.but don't have internet access or at least a library or web cafe...

Ideally, books should be perfect, self-contained, and contain all necessary info. Unfortunately no company is likely to do so, especially if they want to release regularly. So Errata and FAQs are an important thing to maintain.

Balance wrote:Ideally, books should be perfect, self-contained, and contain all necessary info. Unfortunately no company is likely to do so, especially if they want to release regularly. So Errata and FAQs are an important thing to maintain.

QFT

I sent a email to GW (with the deff rolla petion attached) this week complaining about their FAQs, my main point were that the community has provided more rule support than GW itself, and that GW needs to provide better FAQs and update them frequently.

I also mentioned that we know they can update the FAQs quickly when a minor rule question raises it's head, because we saw how quick they updated the SM codex FAQ to include errata to allow the weapon options for the Damned Sergeant with plasma pistol and power axe.

Also I agree that the rules above look like they are copy and paste Gwar! FAQ answers, he should be given credit like yakface was.

Panic...

thats great, now all we ned is a skaven FAQ toot sweet.
and ya Gwar send a C&D, plagerism is a no no....

insaniak wrote:

Scottywan82 wrote:First, why didn't they clarify the LOS stipulations on the the Lord of Tempests abilities. Is it just ONE unit within LOS? All units in LOS?

These all seem fairly clear in the codex already, IMO. It applies to all units within range.

But the Lord of Tempests rule specifically states that LOS must be drawn to a unit to be affected. So how do you reconcile that with everyone in range is affected?

insaniak wrote:

Scottywan82 wrote:And to TWC HQs get the LD reroll for wolves? Or just TWC and Canis?

Going by the FAQ answer, which applies it to Canis despite him not having the Wolfkin rule, I would say that the intention was for all Thunderwolves to have the ability.

Once again, though. That would have taken just a few words to be made NOT ambiguous. But it still is.

Hey, did anyone else notice that the new GW Space Wolf FAQ is like really similar to the one that Gwar! put out?

Wierd!

No, not even GWAR!...

But seriously most of the posts above are about GW copypasting GWAR!

i *accused* gwar of RAI when he first put out the faq but i didn't realize truly how RAIish it was until he himself compared it to the GW one line by line. i guess gwar *can* use RAI but only when it's for his favorite army!

as for the blatant plagarism, i think you should sell tshirts for your website and use the money to set up a C&D legal fund. in all seriousness, they completely livingbloodbowled you and your faq.

Well, I for one commend GW on actually posting a comprehensive Eratta/FAQ rather than the normal gak they posted in the past. I also commend GWAR! on his contribution to the GW FAQ, even though he wasn't personally creditted by GW (only in the general sense).

Q. Picture this: My Grey Hunters unit including Ragnar Blackmane is assaulted and makes a successful Leadership test to Counter-attack. Do they then benefit from his Furious Charge ability (+1 S and +1 I)? Also, can the original assaulter then deploy defensive grenades to rob the Space Wolves of their Counter-attack bonus?

A. The Counter-attack special rule states ‘all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn.’ Therefore Ragnar’s unit does indeed benefit from Furious Charge. Also, we think it is a bit rich for an assaulting unit to get the bonus for attacking and defending, so no, defensive grenades cannot be used to negate the bonus attack from counter-attacking.

This very clearly states how two USRs interact. GW is simply using the SW Codex FAQ to illustrate this. Counter-attack and Furious Charge are never limited, in this answer, to apply solely to the Space Wolves. You can howl all you want to the contrary, but even though this is printed in the SW Codex FAQ, it is specifically addressing/clarifying two USRs that all armies have equal access to.

Split the answer into three parts to get a better understanding of this:

A-The Counter-attack special rule states ‘all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn.’

B-Therefore [Ragnar’s] unit does indeed benefit from Furious Charge.

C-Defensive grenades cannot be used to negate the bonus attack from counter-attacking.

Ragnar's unit can just as easily be substituted for any other unit that has FC and CA. Based on the wording of counter-attack I don't see why this is even an issue. Counter-attack treats the affected unit 'as if' they were assaulting. How do you treat a unit that is assaulting if they have FC? There's nothing there to stop you from stacking the effects, so you get the bonus attacks.

Before this gets out of hand, there's already a few debates going on in YMDC over this, Yad.

bhsman wrote:Before this gets out of hand, there's already a few debates going on in YMDC over this, Yad.

Just took a look and saw the two threads. Unfortunately they've both been locked.

Yad wrote:

bhsman wrote:Before this gets out of hand, there's already a few debates going on in YMDC over this, Yad.

Just took a look and saw the two threads. Unfortunately they've both been locked.

For good reason

Karma is a bitch Gwar!, get over it.

Well, if it's true that the Powers that Be at GW read this, can we pretty pretty please get a Daemon FAQ?

BrookM wrote:Karma is a bitch Gwar!, get over it.

I find that an odd thing to say, Gwar! tends to be neutral in his rule clarifications, even if blunt in his delivery of said clarifications.

most of the time, if you examine threads closely, its people with poor reading comprehension that start the flame-war with Gwar!

Did anyone point out that with that ruling I can take Arjac join him to a unit of Wolf scouts and use behind enemy lines.

Models wearing TDA can't join Wolf Scout squads

DAMNIT!!! Also same bhsman as sa and eow

Actually, if you want to be picky, only WOLF GUARD in TDA cannot join them. Arjac is a Arjac, not a WOLF GUARD.

The faq says he can lead squads and you can attach him to squads. Also, every time you do the strict RAW god sets a puppy on fire the puppy lives but is horribly disfigured all of its life unwanted and unloved it grows into mean and vicious dog that eventually goes insane in a city park and attacks a baby the baby lives but is horribly disfigured for the rest of its life and grows into a mean and spiteful man who's past time he spends planting kittens heads up in the yard and then running them over with a lawnmower.


Thats what RAW gets you.

RAW's raw, man. ;(

Also, same Hollismason as SA and EoW?

Q. Are models with an ability to return to play
(e.g. Necrons, St. Celestine, etc) able to use their
special rule even after being removed from play
by The Last Laugh?
A. Yes they can. It sounds odd but their special
ability works just fine.

I might need to check the wording on lukas ability but it sounds like necrons that are "removed from play" get WBB still....go go sweeping advance WBB rolls?

blaktoof wrote:

Q. Are models with an ability to return to play
(e.g. Necrons, St. Celestine, etc) able to use their
special rule even after being removed from play
by The Last Laugh?
A. Yes they can. It sounds odd but their special
ability works just fine.

I might need to check the wording on lukas ability but it sounds like necrons that are "removed from play" get WBB still....go go sweeping advance WBB rolls?

/facepalm

Firstly, SA prevents Special Rules working, Last Laugh Doesnt.

Secondly, Last Laugh Removes them as Casualties, SA just removes them.

like I said "I NEED TO CHECK THE WORDING" thanks for checking gwar

Scottywan82 wrote:But the Lord of Tempests rule specifically states that LOS must be drawn to a unit to be affected. So how do you reconcile that with everyone in range is affected?

If the unit is in range, and in LOS, it is affected by the power. If they're in range, but not in LOS, they're not.

Demogerg wrote:



most of the time, if you examine threads closely, its people with poor reading comprehension that start the flame-war with Gwar!

I think you got it backwards, which is a shame, really.

Yah it is.

Its funny to read Gwar crying.

G

Everyone know the FAQ is out ? Good. Thread closed.