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.

Don't remind him! Personally, I appreciate the effort that GWAR put into the FAQ he has written.

wyomingfox wrote:Don't remind him! Personally, I appreciate the effort that GWAR put into the FAQ he has written.

Don't worry, if the thread is locked because of trolles I'll reopen it with a "NO TROLLS" sign

Nearly done on the FAQ. Up to Bjorn now

Thread re-opened at user request.

Everyone just take a deep breath and relax.

May those who look out for fools and students protect me for writing this, but wouldn't this topic be better served in the article development section? I've been following the various circuses in here and I was surprised to find out that questions and answers were being added to the first post.

solkan wrote:May those who look out for fools and students protect me for writing this, but wouldn't this topic be better served in the article development section? I've been following the various circuses in here and I was surprised to find out that questions and answers were being added to the first post.

Articles do not allow for Feedback and discussion. Were this originally an article most of the issues found would not have been found at all

Sad to see a MOD succumb to peer pressure.

OK, here is a FAQ: Canis joins a unit of wolves. The unit takes a morale check. You use the model with highest LDR that is in the unit (pg 47), which is Canis. Canis also has a special rule that allows Fenrisian wolf units to reroll thier morale. So can you reroll the LDR of a Fenrisian Wolf unit lead by Canis?

Edit: Sorry, only Thunder Wolf Calvary models have the "Wolfkin" special rule. My bad

Is canis joined with the pack?

BTW, almost done. 7 Pages and counting!

wyomingfox wrote:OK, here is a FAQ: Canis joins a unit of wolves. The unit takes a morale check. You use the model with highest LDR that is in the unit (pg 47), which is Canis. Canis also has a special rule that allows Fenrisian wolf units to reroll thier morale. So can you reroll the LDR of a Fenrisian Wolf unit lead by Canis?

1) Canis grants LD8 to all fenrisian wolves within 12"

2) Canis does not grant re-rolls to fenrisian wolves within 12", only thunderwolf cavalry does.

so if Canis joined a unit of wolves and there was no thunderwolf cavalry nearby, the unit would test at LD8 with no re-rolls, similarly, if Canis was within 12" of the unit with no thunderwolf cavalry nearby, the unit would test at LD8 with no re-rolls.

Le Bump:
Read T3h FAQ and find da bitz wotz Broked!
Help Me help all of you!

BTW, Has an FAQ ever been released before the codex is even out?

Drunkspleen wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
OK, here is a FAQ: Canis joins a unit of wolves. The unit takes a morale check. You use the model with highest LDR that is in the unit (pg 47), which is Canis. Canis also has a special rule that allows Fenrisian wolf units to reroll thier morale. So can you reroll the LDR of a Fenrisian Wolf unit lead by Canis?

1) Canis grants LD8 to all fenrisian wolves within 12"

2) Canis does not grant re-rolls to fenrisian wolves within 12", only thunderwolf cavalry does.

so if Canis joined a unit of wolves and there was no thunderwolf cavalry nearby, the unit would test at LD8 with no re-rolls, similarly, if Canis was within 12" of the unit with no thunderwolf cavalry nearby, the unit would test at LD8 with no re-rolls.

This one.

I just want to make sure I am reading this right. Per the SW dex, units that contain at least one space marine model still get ATSKNF.

It is the last paragraph under ATSKNF near the bottom of page 24 of the new SW dex.

Units which contain Thrall Servitors, Fenrisian Wolves, and Cyber Wolves are still subject to this rule, providing that the unit contains at least one Space Marine.

So if I have 15 Fenrisian Wolves led by Canis then the whole unit benefits from ATSKNF. Right?

wyomingfox wrote:I just want to make sure I am reading this right. Per the SW dex, units that contain at least one space marine model still get ATSKNF.

It is the last paragraph under ATSKNF near the bottom of page 24 of the new SW dex.

Units which contain Thrall Servitors, Fenrisian Wolves, and Cyber Wolves are still subject to this rule, providing that the unit contains at least one Space Marine.

So if I have 15 Fenrisian Wolves led by Canis then the whole unit benefits from ATSKNF. Right?

No, because Canis is a Space Wolf, not a Space Marine. It needs an Errata. I had it covered in my FAQ saying just that ATSKNF says Space Wolf for every instance except that.

Gwar! wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:I just want to make sure I am reading this right. Per the SW dex, units that contain at least one space marine model still get ATSKNF.

It is the last paragraph under ATSKNF near the bottom of page 24 of the new SW dex.

Units which contain Thrall Servitors, Fenrisian Wolves, and Cyber Wolves are still subject to this rule, providing that the unit contains at least one Space Marine.

So if I have 15 Fenrisian Wolves led by Canis then the whole unit benefits from ATSKNF. Right?

No, because Canis is a Space Wolf, not a Space Marine. It needs an Errata. I had it covered in my FAQ saying just that ATSKNF says Space Wolf for every instance except that.

This is one interpretation of RAW. There is no instruction given to say the unwritten assumptions used in this interpretation are any more valid than in another, however.

Another completely valid interpretation is that the term Space Marine in the sentence is a descriptive term rather than a call to another codex, so it applies to Space Wolves since they are a Space Marine chapter. That means by this interpretation, yes, 15 Fenrisian Wolves led by Canis gets ATSKNF for the whole unit.

As to which interpretation holds more weight, I would point you to the rules for Power Armour and Terminator Armour where it says these suits are for Space Marines, not Space Wolves. To maintain consistency with the interpretation Gwar! is citing, only Space Wolf scouts and wearers of Runic Armour get an armour save. The other guys just have a broken rule saying they get something that doesn't work. This follows the logic that by the interpretation cited, Space Wolf Scouts do not have the Scouts USR, because it says Scout rather than Scouts.

Your choice of course which interpretation to use. Assuming that the term Space Marine has only one meaning, which is units in Codex: Space Marines, breaks most of the Space Wolf codex. Recognizing that the context of the usage is what determines if it is a formal army and unit name versus a descriptive term makes the codex work just fine. This unwritten and unvalidated assumption breaks major things in almost every codex. It isn't wrong because GW hasn't said specifically that it is or isn't, but the game makes very little working sense when you apply this standard universally.

Again, your choice completely how you interpret how the rules work. Just providng both sides of the argument to you

Thank you for pointing that out, I shall add that to the FAQ.

Gwar! wrote:Thank you for pointing that out, I shall add that to the FAQ.

Any posting I have made or will make in the future on DakkaDakka is information only intended for the Dakka forum community where I present it. Please do not use any information posted by me in your private FAQ. This includes the previous post as well as all my posts in this thread and any other DakkaDakka thread.

Blatent stealing of information for use outside the forum it is solely intended for is bad enough. Going further and plagarizing my information as you are doing in your 1.3 FAQ version is even worse. Please desist in this activity and rectify all instances of it as soon as possible.

Thank you.


There are lots of places where terms and rules work correctly by the standards all of 40K rules are written to (which is the interpretation I was describing), but they completely break down if you read them from the standpoint of formal language (i.e. a technical manual).

That's why I don't think the interpretation of RAW you are using is correct.

A Space Wolf is a Space Marine. Some will say that is not true for Grey Knights.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:A Space Wolf is a Space Marine. Some will say that is not true for Grey Knights.

It is the same RAW method used to say a Space Wolf is not a Space Marine that says a Grey Knight is not a Space Marine. The fluff on page 6 I believe of the DH codex says Grey Knights are Space Marines, but that is fluff. There is no single declarative sentence that would be considered a true rule that says that either of them are Space Marines.

If you look at the DH codex though, at the armour rules for Power Armour and Terminator Armour, they both say they are for Space Marines only. So you are back to the same logic I posted above, that if you use the RAW method Gwar! cited, Grey Knights and Grey Knight Terminator armour actually would do nothing because the rules say is is for Space Marines.

One method effectively breaks the game, the other makes the majority of the game work just fine. I know which method looks correct to me

Space Marine is strictly a generic term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So you are one of those that would say terminators do not have tactical dreadnaught armor?

* rolls eyes *

Kaaihn wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Thank you for pointing that out, I shall add that to the FAQ.

Any posting I have made or will make in the future on DakkaDakka is information only intended for the Dakka forum community where I present it. Please do not use any information posted by me in your private FAQ. This includes the previous post as well as all my posts in this thread and any other DakkaDakka thread.

Blatent stealing of information for use outside the forum it is solely intended for is bad enough. Going further and plagarizing my information as you are doing in your 1.3 FAQ version is even worse. Please desist in this activity and rectify all instances of it as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Lol. No offence, but that is total bs. It is not your information. It is information and Intellectual property belonging to Games Workshop Plc. All you did was tell me where to look. If you don't like it, tough gak.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Thank you for pointing that out, I shall add that to the FAQ.

Any posting I have made or will make in the future on DakkaDakka is information only intended for the Dakka forum community where I present it. Please do not use any information posted by me in your private FAQ. This includes the previous post as well as all my posts in this thread and any other DakkaDakka thread.

Blatent stealing of information for use outside the forum it is solely intended for is bad enough. Going further and plagarizing my information as you are doing in your 1.3 FAQ version is even worse. Please desist in this activity and rectify all instances of it as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Lol. No offence, but that is total bs. It is not your information. It is information and Intellectual property belonging to Games Workshop Plc. All you did was tell me where to look. If you don't like it, tough gak.

Which is pretty much exactly what I expected from you. Thank you for confirming you have no class and willfully and gleefully enjoy plagiarizing other people's writings. We all know you recognize other peoples contributions, else you wouldnt have the thank you line in your thread and FAQ. The fact that you removed my name not because you aren't using my work but because you threw a fit over my pointing out your hypocrisy to Afrikan Blonde makes you look the fool, not me.

Heah guys, do you think we could knock off the pissing match here. Seriously, if you three have personal problems then relegate them to PMs. The last thing we need is another HBMC/JHDD never ending fued.

Time for...

* MAJOR FACE PALM *

All I see is Kaaihn telling Gwar! that he doesnt want anything he came up with to be used in his "FAQ" cause Gwar! already laid into him about it in a different thread, and Gwar! Telling him to feth off.

"It is not your information. It is information and Intellectual property belonging to Games Workshop Plc. All you did was tell me where to look..."

If thats the case then I should hand out copies of "Your" Faq... cause the same thing applies here.

jp400 wrote:If thats the case then I should hand out copies of "Your" Faq... cause the same thing applies here.

Actually you will find that the document you mention is published under a Creative Commons licence. Under the terms of that licence, you may distribute it as much as you like, but you may not derive from or modify it, nor use it for commercial purposes and you must give proper attribution. So, as long as you say where you got it, you can legally distribute it as much as you want.

Kaaihn did not write a single word of the FAQ. All he did was quote rules on a public forum.

jp400 wrote:All I see is Kaaihn telling Gwar! that he doesnt want anything he came up with to be used in his "FAQ" cause Gwar! already laid into him about it in a different thread, and Gwar! Telling him to feth off.

"It is not your information. It is information and Intellectual property belonging to Games Workshop Plc. All you did was tell me where to look..."

If thats the case then I should hand out copies of "Your" Faq... cause the same thing applies here.

Pretty much. I don't have a feud with Gwar!. I disagree with quite a bit of what he says, but that isn't a feud in any way, just a difference of opinions. Yes, I pointed out he was being an incredible hyocrite in another thread when he discouraged Afrikan Blonde from changing clear RAW in a FAQ after he just released a FAQ doing exactly that. That isn't a feud, just a personal opinion.

I would appreciate him not plagiarizing my contributions here on this forum, but that is his choice to make if he wants to be that kind of person.

Kaaihn wrote:I would appreciate him not plagiarizing my contributions here on this forum, but that is his choice to make if he wants to be that kind of person.

You did not contribute one single thing to this FAQ. I wrote the wrote document myself. Those thanked are my proofreaders.

You sir, are a liar and a charlatan.

Gwar! wrote:Kaaihn did not write a single word of the FAQ. All he did was quote rules on a public forum.

Saying something doesn't make it true, no matter how often you repeat it. The fact that you included my name as an attribute in every thread and version of the FAQ until you got offended by something I said is clear evidence that you recognized I had a specific contribution. You have now removed the proper attribution you just spoke about.