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.

For the Blessed Few who happen to have a Copy of their Codex early (I don't care who you had to bribe, just that you have it), Please aid me in Pointing out as many Rules Issues as possible. By Rules issues, I mean Rules that do not technically work or rules that may be ambiguous. Please limit the "discussion" to "I Think Its ABC", "Well I think it's XYZ", "Ok then its ambiguous" and then make a new thread for the flaming arguing discussion.

Please, any issues you can think of!

Unrefined Rules issues:
Wolves as Wargear. Form a Unit or not?
Lord of Tempests: What happens if the Space Wolf Player goes Second?
What does "Counts as Troops" mean exactly (obvious I know but SOME people find it difficult).
Rune Staffs: Do You get multiple rolls if More than 1 Rune Priest is within 24"?
What counts as having the same "psychic powers or wargear combination?" For example do Two Rune Priests, one taking "Power A and Power B" and the other taking "Power B and Power C" have the same Psychic Powers? And can two characters have exactly the same wargear loadout except one has meltabombs and the other doesn't?

Page 25, Blood Claws, Berserk Charge: They receive a bonus +2 attacks when they charge, rather than the normal +1.

We all know what this is supposed to mean, but by strict RAW Berserk Charge does nothing as there is no such rule as Charge in 5th edition.

Page 36, Rune Priests, Choose of the Slain: Should the Rune Priest make a shooting attack at a target that has line of sight to the chooser marker, he may treat his BS as one higher than normal.

An infantry model may only pivot to face his target in his shooting phase. So an enemy infantry (with head modeled straight forward) standing with his back to the chooser marker by RAW does not have LOS to that marker. The Rune Priest would not get a +1 BS for shooting that infantry model.

Frag Assault Launchers, page 45: Any unit charging into close combat...

As there is no such ability or rule as Charge, Frag Assault Launchers do nothing from a pure RAW standpoint, if you subscribe to the RAW method of not recognizing that the contextual definition of charge would be to assault.

Page 49, Bjorn the Fell-Handed, Ancient Tactician: ...can reroll the dice to see who picks deployment zones first

Technically useless. In none of the three missions do you roll a die to see who picks deployment zones first. You roll the die to see who goes first or second. The order in which you choose the deployment zone is a condition of whether you go first or second.

Page 50, Ulrik, Wolf Helm of Russ: Any Space Wolves unit that can trace LOS to Ulrik may reroll any failed Morale tests they are called upon to make.

RAI vs RAW LOS issue again. You can't turn to face Ulrik as he is not your shooting target; you have to draw LOS from the models true position. A model looking forward standing in front of Ulrik, by RAW, would not get to reroll their failed Morale test.

Page 54, Canis Wolfborn, Wrath of the Savage: Charge/Assault terminology break again. It says he gets +1 for charging (should say assaulting), but there is no such thing as charging.

A way to phrase your "Two Rune Priests" question so that it covers more possible questions might be?

What counts as having the same "psychic powers or wargear combination?" For example, is more than one character per army allowed to have Jaws of the World Wolf, and can two characters have exactly the same wargear loadout except one has meltabombs and the other doesn't?

Ok, good point. It's just that Phrased like that it makes it look like no Two HQ's can both have a Bolt Pistol or Both have terminator Armour, which is clearly not what the rule says, but I'll change the Question

Page 25, Blood Claws, Berserk Charge: They receive a bonus +2 attacks when they charge, rather than the normal +1.

We all know what this is supposed to mean, but by strict RAW Berserk Charge does nothing as there is no such rule as Charge in 5th edition. See the discussions around leaping as well.

I would pack my toys and play someone else if an opponent wouldn't allow me to charge based on the word charge versus assault, but it is inconsistent RAW as you requested in this thread.

Note that Headstrong on that same page specifically says that Berserk Charge benefits an assault, but some folks here like to yank individual sentences out and claim RAW answers based on no other context. See the Librarians in terminator armor being able to sweeping advance fallacy for an example of this.

Thanks for that, the more the merrier.

well i'd argue that it means when they countercharge, as it has the word charge in it

Horst wrote:well i'd argue that it means when they countercharge, as it has the word charge in it

But the rest of the rule says it does not work with counter-attack (no such thing as countercharge)

Kaaihn wrote:. See the discussions around leaping as well.

I would pack my toys and play someone else if an opponent wouldn't allow me to charge based on the word charge versus assault, but it is inconsistent RAW as you requested in this thread.

That was (really!) about the what "Fast Charge" means, and the lack of rules for it. The charge/assault thing was a rather silly tangent. /

Sorry.

Page 36, Rune Priests, Choose of the Slain: Should the Rune Priest make a shooting attack at a target that has line of sight to the chooser marker, he may treat his BS as one higher than normal.

This will hopefully get FAQ'ed to clear up some RAI versus RAW around line of sight. An infantry model may only pivot to face his target in his shooting phase. So an enemy infantry (with head modeled straight forward) standing with his back to the chooser marker by RAW does not have LOS to that marker. The Rune Priest would not get a +1 BS for shooting that infantry model.

In my experience, people treat infantry as having 360 degree LOS at all times, and most treat Dreadnoughts that way as well. I can see some arguments coming up over whether the intended target actually has LOS to the marker at the time of the Rune Priests shooting.

Again, this is a RAI versus RAW issue rather than straight up broken RAW. It works fine as is, that just isn't how everyone plays it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:. See the discussions around leaping as well.

I would pack my toys and play someone else if an opponent wouldn't allow me to charge based on the word charge versus assault, but it is inconsistent RAW as you requested in this thread.

That was (really!) about the what "Fast Charge" means, and the lack of rules for it. The charge/assault thing was a rather silly tangent. /

Sorry.

It's all related. If you know that Charge and Assault are used interchangeably, there should be no argument that Fast Charge uses the rule for Fast Assault, the same as Charge uses the rule for Assault.

Space Wolves (all Marine codexes actually) Land Raider Crusaders have the Charge/Assault term inconsistency as well.
Frag Assault Launchers, page 45: Any unit charging into close combat...

As there is no such ability or rule as Charge, Frag Assault Launchers do nothing from a pure RAW standpoint, if you subscribe to the RAW method of not recognizing that the contextual definition of charge would be to assault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 49, Bjorn the Fell-Handed, Ancient Tactician: ...can reroll the dice to see who picks deployment zones first

Technically useless. In none of the three missions do you roll a die to see who picks deployment zones first. You roll the die to see who goes first or second. The order in which you choose the deployment zone is a condition of whether you go first or second.

Of course we know what was intended. Inconsistent RAW though as requested.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 50, Ulrik, Wolf Helm of Russ: Any Space Wolves unit that can trace LOS to Ulrik may reroll any failed Morale tests they are called upon to make.

RAI vs RAW LOS issue again. You can't turn to face Ulrik as he is not your shooting target; you have to draw LOS from the models true position. A model looking forward standing in front of Ulrik, by RAW, would not get to reroll their failed Morale test.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 54, Canis Wolfborn, Wrath of the Savage: Charge/Assault terminology break again. It says he gets +1 for charging (should say assaulting), but there is no such thing as charging.

Excellent work Kaaihn

And the last thing that jumps out at me as potentially ambiguous is on page 64, Sage of the Warrior Born. ...the character gets a bonus to his attacks equal to the number of models he killed during the previous assault phase.

Previous assault phase as in the previous one in my previous player turn, or the previous one as in the one in my opponents turn?

The makes me assume it is referring to the one that just happened in my opponents turn, but I can see how someone could interpret that to mean the one from their own previous player turn.

If it had been "HIS Previous assault phase", there would be confusion. As it is IMO it is clear. Previous Assault Phase = The last assault phase to happen period.

"Fast Charge" =/= charge

"fast charge" and I doubt I would have noticed, let alone brought it up, as I can understand the synonymous interpretation.

As a proper noun though, it should denote a specific rule - a la Furious Charge, unless I miss something again.

Gwar! wrote:If it had been "HIS Previous assault phase", there would be confusion. As it is IMO it is clear. Previous Assault Phase = The last assault phase to happen period.

Actually if it said HIS previous assault phase, it wouldn't help anything. I don't get an assault phase during your turn. I might get to attack back during your assault phase, but I don't get my own phase during your turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:"Fast Charge" =/= charge

"fast charge" and I doubt I would have noticed, let alone brought it up, as I can understand the synonomous interpretation.

As a proper noun though, it should denote a specific rule - a la Furious Charge, unless I miss something again.

There is 'assault', and 'fast assault' in 5th edition. These are used interchangeably with 'charge', and 'fast charge'.

So yes, 'fast charge' is not 'charge'. 'Fast charge' is 'fast assault'. The details of the rule for 'fast assault' are listed in the main rulebook under Beasts & Cavalry. The exact wording is: Beasts and Cavalry are capable of making an especially fast assault to charge their enemies. When assaulting they move up to 12".

While I understand the point of view that if there is no formal ability called Fast Charge you don't want to interpret what it might mean, I think that point of view is counter to the way the rules are written. This is not a body of work written in a formal writing format; the standard you are attempting does not apply here. Interpretation using language and context is part of the format the rules are written in.

Can you guys pick things out of this codex for the good of it instead of having it all as a downer?

kitsunez wrote:Can you guys pick things out of this codex for the good of it instead of having it all as a downer?

Consider us Reviewers by Exclusion. Anything we DON'T mention is perfectly fine (yes I did steal that line).

There's a lot of good things in the Codex. I'm really looking forward to having it in a couple weeks. And I really want to read through the fluff (because GW does handle fluff pretty well). But, there's some rules issues in the codex. Some stuff isn't clear (like the "same powers or wargear") in the rules, because GW has once again, done a 90% job with the rules and called it good enough.

Gwar! wrote:

kitsunez wrote:Can you guys pick things out of this codex for the good of it instead of having it all as a downer?

Consider us Reviewers by Exclusion. Anything we DON'T mention is perfectly fine (yes I did steal that line).

But what have you guys noticed that conflicts with the rules in a good light?

kitsunez wrote:But what have you guys noticed that conflicts with the rules in a good light?

kirsanth wrote:

kitsunez wrote:But what have you guys noticed that conflicts with the rules in a good light?

That's what I thought too. What in Russ' name do you mean?

Gwar! wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

kitsunez wrote:But what have you guys noticed that conflicts with the rules in a good light?

That's what I thought too. What in Russ' name do you mean?

well I mean you found all the exploits for not being able to use wolves have you found any that make the wolves more interesting or fun?

kitsunez wrote:well I mean you found all the exploits for not being able to use wolves have you found any that make the wolves more interesting or fun?

2 Meltaguns for 5 Points is nice in full strength GH and BC packs.

Errm... Logan Grimnar + Long Fangs + Drop Pod = Relentless 5 Multimelta Squad of Death that pops up 2" away from your rear armour and can shoot at 2 different tanks.

That's about it really.

Ah.

Generally, rules conflict is bad.

At best it is simply confusing.

Rules "to use selfishly for one's own ends" are generally not friendly, interesting, or fun.

dietrich wrote:Some stuff isn't clear (like the "same powers or wargear") in the rules, because GW has once again, done a 90% job with the rules and called it good enough.

This one actually is clear. The problem is probably 99% of the English speaking population get this rule of grammar wrong. In a comma delineated list in sentence form, the second to last item should not have a comma. It is incorrect grammar to include it, but damn near everyone puts it in and thinks a sentence is wrong to not have it.

The sentence here is grammatically referring to three distinctly separate entities. They are:

Sagas
Psychic powers
Wargear combinations

This one strikes me as rather funny for a strange reason. My wife is a professional writer, with multiple published works. Before we hired a professional editor for her, I got stuck doing all the editing. It became a running joke that I would put the comma in and she would grumble and remove them all, even going so far as to pull out this giant book of a style guide and show me it was wrong to have the comma there.

The strange part is that even having hired an editor, I still have to do first draft of edits. Because, you know, she doesn't want the editor to see really obvious mistakes... women are strange. As I'm sure all the married men here can understand, some things just aren't worth fighting so I still do first round of edits. I also intentionally put those commas in now and silently chuckle as she gives me dirty looks removing them. Hey, a professional editor knows they don't belong, don't blame me...

But can you also see that "Psychic Powers" is Plural, because Rune Priests always have exactly two (Njarl notwithstanding). Surely you must get from that that a model with JotWW and Living Lighting does not have the same "Psychic Powers" as one with JotWW and Storm Caller?

This whole codex is seeming to be a bad peice of writing

I think I'm siding with gwar on the psychic powers, because they may have one power the same, but like in gwars example, collectivly (plural) they dont have the same. And i'm sure this would apply for wargear as well.

Hmm, Found two more, one is good, one is iffy.

Basically, Logan says "you may choose one of the following special rules at the beginning of each turn: [USR1], [USR2], [USR3], [USR4]. Logan and any unit he is with have that rule for the duration of that Player turn".

Now, the good:
It says "you may choose one of the following special rules at the beginning of each turn", so I can Choose USR1 on my Turn, then I pick USR 2 on your turn, because Turn = Player Turn and it does not say "Space Wolf Player Turn".

Now the bad: It is unclear if he can use this while in reserves or the turn he arrives from reserves. I would say yes, as it says at the beginning of the turn pick one, so you pick one, he arrives from reserves and is partial to that rule.

Gwar! wrote:But can you also see that "Psychic Powers" is Plural, because Rune Priests always have exactly two (Njarl notwithstanding). Surely you must get from that that a model with JotWW and Living Lighting does not have the same "Psychic Powers" as one with JotWW and Storm Caller?

Understand that the comma issue doesn't have any bearing on what you are asking right here. It is relevant strictly towards the belief that the lack of a comma means that the rule is referencing powers and wargear together, meaning that two priests could have JOWW, so long as, for example, one had Terminator Armour and one did not.

That is not correct, psychic powers and wargear are separate entities in that sentence, whether the comma is there or not.

Specific to what you are asking here, can you have duplicate psychic powers as long as you don't have the same combination of psychic powers on multiple priests, I say no. The reason I say no is because they knew they had to add the word combinations after wargear to allow multiple HQ's to have, for example, Terminator Armour. They can, so long as they have some other piece of wargear that diffrentiates them.

If they had not pluralized powers, the sentence would not be correct, since every priest has multiple psychic powers. Your assertion would be correct if they had placed the word combination after powers like they included it after wargear.

And I put forward to you that the day GW put that much thought into the Grammar structure of their sentences is the day the Pope Comes out of the Closet

Gwar! wrote:Hmm, Found two more, one is good, one is iffy.

Basically, Logan says "you may choose one of the following special rules at the beginning of each turn: [USR1], [USR2], [USR3], [USR4]. Logan and any unit he is with have that rule for the duration of that Player turn".

Now, the good:
It says "you may choose one of the following special rules at the beginning of each turn", so I can Choose USR1 on my Turn, then I pick USR 2 on your turn, because Turn = Player Turn and it does not say "Space Wolf Player Turn".

I saw that, but I didn't include it because it's like IG orders. It needs to give an explicit permission to do what you are pondering, such as "beginning of each game turn", or "can be used at the start of opponents turn".

Gwar! wrote:Now the bad: It is unclear if he can use this while in reserves or the turn he arrives from reserves. I would say yes, as it says at the beginning of the turn pick one, so you pick one, he arrives from reserves and is partial to that rule.

I believe it works on the turn he arrives from reserves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:And I put forward to you that the day GW put that much thought into the Grammar structure of their sentences is the day the Pope Comes out of the Closet

The Pope is in the closet? How can anyone not see a man wearing a dress and that hat and not think "fabulous"? Seems pretty out to me!
Insert obligatory "Not that there is anything wrong with that" here.

Seriously though, whether they put the thought into it or not gets into a RAI discussion. As in, did they mean to make it work like it works as written? No idea, I just know that as written you can't duplicate psychic powers, which is different than not being allowed to duplicate psychic power combinations.