The Unofficial Codex: Space Wolves FAQ v1.9 by Gwar!: Feedback Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Gwar!**

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

**Drunkspleen**

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"

**Gwar!**

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

**Gwar!**

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!

**anticitizen013**

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.

**Gwar!**

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

**yakface**

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.

**Gwar!**

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

**Bodders**

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.

**Gwar!**

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

**yakface**

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).

**Gwar!**

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

**Mellon**

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.

**Gwar!**

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.

**GMMStudios**

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.

**Gwar!**

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.

**GMMStudios**

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.

**Gwar!**

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 -.

**GMMStudios**

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

**Gwar!**

**Gwar!**

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.

**Dracos**

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

**Gwar!**

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.

**Dracos**

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.

**kirsanth**

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

**Frazzled**

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?

**Dracos**

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*

**Frazzled**

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.

**Gwar!**

Dracos wrote:I don't really care

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

**Dracos**

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.