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.

This is an automated message added by the articles system.

A new article titled Unofficial Codex: Space Wolves v27092009 has been added to the dakka articles system.

This message thread is for the discussion of content in the article.

If you have anything to add to the article, then just jump in and edit it by going to the actual article page and clicking 'edit' (the link can be found just above the article). If there is no edit link then the article is locked for now, so just add your comments or content to this thread and if they are appropriate then they should eventually get merged in.

If there is something in the article that you wish to debate or comment on, then this is the place to do it. Just hit the reply button and get chatting! You need to be registered and logged in to post in the forums so if you are an anonymous article editor then now would be a great time to register and join in dakka's great forum discussion!

I'd just like to point out that the FAQ is painful to read. Having to highlight each answer seems unnecessary. Also, the text contrast after said highlight is not enough to comfortably read the answer. This is bothersome to me, as I suspect the FAQ is of a high quality. I would appreciate a change.
Thank you.

This will probably be quite messy, hopefully you can make sense of it.




SW.35.04 – Q: If "Oath of War" is declared to be "Jump Infantry", does the unit gain the benefit against models with a "Jet Pack"?

I disagree with your response to this, the Jet Pack rules state "Some jump infantry are equipped with a special type of jump pack" which I think means that Jet Pack infantry will always implicitly be Jump Infantry.

you also seem to support this idea in your wording and response to the following question:

"SW.37.09 – Q: Does Jaws of the World Wolf affect Jetbikes or Jump Infantry (of either Kind)?
A: Jaws of the World Wolf cannot affect Jump Infantry of any kind, nor can it affect Jetbikes. "




SW.35.05 – Q: How does "Oath of War" Interact with units with more than one Unit Type (e.g. Artillery Units or Tyranid Hive Tyrant with the Winged Biomorph)?

I would suggest re-wording the answer for added clarification. "while an "Oath of War" that is declared against EITHER Jump Infantry OR MONSTROUS CREATURES will work against a Hive Tyrant with the Winged Biomorph. [R.a.W]"




SW.54.01 – Q: Does “Fangir" allow a unit of Fenrisian Wolves within 12" to re-roll failed Morale tests?
Yes. [Clarification/Rules Change]

I would understand leaping to this conclusion if the wargear for a Thunderwolf Mount granted this bonus, however it does not. Given the circumstance it appears to me that Canis substitutes his leadership within 12" INSTEAD of allowing re-rolled morale checks. I would not allow a player to use this ruling from your FAQ, despite most of the rest being reasonable, and think it should be altered.




SW.54.02 – Q: Does “Lord of the Wolfkin” combined with "Fangir" mean that unit of Fenrisian Wolves Canis has joined may re-roll Morale tests using his Leadership value of 8?
Yes. [R.a.W/Clarification]

I don't understand why joined is mentioned here? Based on your earlier ruling any unit of Fenrisian Wolves within 12" would already be re-rolling morale checks at LD8.




Space Wolves Army List (Page 81)
SW.81.01 – Q: Can you clarify how “The Leaders of the Pack” works exactly?

I disagree with your ruling regarding the psychic powers here, but that's been discussed ad-nauseum and there's equal support for both arguments IMO, I would consider though that if calling such a ruling a clarification, it would warrant presenting the alternate argument whereby no psychic power can appear on more than one Rune Priest.

Iboshi2 wrote:I'd just like to point out that the FAQ is painful to read. Having to highlight each answer seems unnecessary. Also, the text contrast after said highlight is not enough to comfortably read the answer. This is bothersome to me, as I suspect the FAQ is of a high quality. I would appreciate a change.
Thank you.

The reason for the Highlighting is to ensure the real INAT FAQ remains Impartial. This way, it is impossible for a member of the INAT FAQ council to read my views without explicitly searching for them or reading them after someone else has posted them, thus absolving me of any sort of "responsibility".

Drunkspleen wrote:SW.35.04 – Q: If "Oath of War" is declared to be "Jump Infantry", does the unit gain the benefit against models with a "Jet Pack"?

I disagree with your response to this, the Jet Pack rules state "Some jump infantry are equipped with a special type of jump pack" which I think means that Jet Pack infantry will always implicitly be Jump Infantry.

This response is purely academic, as there are no Units with the Unit Type Jetpack, they are all "Jump Infantry (Jetpack)". However, if a Unit was ever writen with the Unit Type of just "Jetpack" it would not be the same as Jump Infantry, the same way as Jetbikes are not Bikes.

SW.35.05 – Q: How does "Oath of War" Interact with units with more than one Unit Type (e.g. Artillery Units or Tyranid Hive Tyrant with the Winged Biomorph)?

I would suggest re-wording the answer for added clarification. "while an "Oath of War" that is declared against EITHER Jump Infantry OR MONSTROUS CREATURES will work against a Hive Tyrant with the Winged Biomorph. [R.a.W]"

Thanks for the advice, I shall clarify the clarifications

SW.54.01 – Q: Does “Fangir" allow a unit of Fenrisian Wolves within 12" to re-roll failed Morale tests?
Yes. [Clarification/Rules Change]

I would understand leaping to this conclusion if the wargear for a Thunderwolf Mount granted this bonus, however it does not. Given the circumstance it appears to me that Canis substitutes his leadership within 12" INSTEAD of allowing re-rolled morale checks. I would not allow a player to use this ruling from your FAQ, despite most of the rest being reasonable, and think it should be altered.

SW.54.02 – Q: Does “Lord of the Wolfkin” combined with "Fangir" mean that unit of Fenrisian Wolves Canis has joined may re-roll Morale tests using his Leadership value of 8?
Yes. [R.a.W/Clarification]

I don't understand why joined is mentioned here? Based on your earlier ruling any unit of Fenrisian Wolves within 12" would already be re-rolling morale checks at LD8.

Yeah, Seems you are right here. I was kind of tired when writing this bit, and I suppose I made an error I'll fix it

Space Wolves Army List (Page 81)
SW.81.01 – Q: Can you clarify how “The Leaders of the Pack” works exactly?

I disagree with your ruling regarding the psychic powers here, but that's been discussed ad-nauseum and there's equal support for both arguments IMO, I would consider though that if calling such a ruling a clarification, it would warrant presenting the alternate argument whereby no psychic power can appear on more than one Rune Priest.

I shall consider your council and come to a decision later on

Gwar! wrote:

SW.54.01 – Q: Does “Fangir" allow a unit of Fenrisian Wolves within 12" to re-roll failed Morale tests?
Yes. [Clarification/Rules Change]

I would understand leaping to this conclusion if the wargear for a Thunderwolf Mount granted this bonus, however it does not. Given the circumstance it appears to me that Canis substitutes his leadership within 12" INSTEAD of allowing re-rolled morale checks. I would not allow a player to use this ruling from your FAQ, despite most of the rest being reasonable, and think it should be altered.

SW.54.02 – Q: Does “Lord of the Wolfkin” combined with "Fangir" mean that unit of Fenrisian Wolves Canis has joined may re-roll Morale tests using his Leadership value of 8?
Yes. [R.a.W/Clarification]

I don't understand why joined is mentioned here? Based on your earlier ruling any unit of Fenrisian Wolves within 12" would already be re-rolling morale checks at LD8.

Yeah, Seems you are right here. I was kind of tired when writing this bit, and I suppose I made an error I'll fix it

Now Gwar! don't be so hasty. Everyone KNOWS that it's impossible to accidentally put the wrong thing in a publication, you clearly didn't accidentally publish this FAQ.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

SW.54.01 – Q: Does “Fangir" allow a unit of Fenrisian Wolves within 12" to re-roll failed Morale tests?
Yes. [Clarification/Rules Change]

I would understand leaping to this conclusion if the wargear for a Thunderwolf Mount granted this bonus, however it does not. Given the circumstance it appears to me that Canis substitutes his leadership within 12" INSTEAD of allowing re-rolled morale checks. I would not allow a player to use this ruling from your FAQ, despite most of the rest being reasonable, and think it should be altered.

SW.54.02 – Q: Does “Lord of the Wolfkin” combined with "Fangir" mean that unit of Fenrisian Wolves Canis has joined may re-roll Morale tests using his Leadership value of 8?
Yes. [R.a.W/Clarification]

I don't understand why joined is mentioned here? Based on your earlier ruling any unit of Fenrisian Wolves within 12" would already be re-rolling morale checks at LD8.

Yeah, Seems you are right here. I was kind of tired when writing this bit, and I suppose I made an error I'll fix it

Now Gwar! don't be so hasty. Everyone KNOWS that it's impossible to accidentally put the wrong thing in a publication, you clearly didn't accidentally publish this FAQ.

Yes, I intended to make the mistake. I also intended to actually get off my arse and have it fixed within seconds of the error being pointed out (aka IT FORKING FIXED ALREADY )

Ok, just one more quick update. Due to MULTIPLE Requests and complaints about the Spoilered Nature of the Article FAQ, I give for your pleasure an unspoilered PDF download.

Note: By downloading this you accept full responsibility for any subconscious preconceptions about these rules issues.

May I also suggest that for the sake of clarification you put in the "headstrong" explanation:

A: Measure for each Blood Claw unit that does not have a Wolf Guard model or Independent Character accompanying it at the beginning of the Shooting Phase before any units declare shooting. If any model in a Blood Claw unit is within 6" of an enemy, the unit forgoes it shooting phase. [Clarification]

I just added that it is "If any model in a Blood Claw unit is withing 6"..." Rather than simply "...a unit..." It's supposed to clarify, and so I thought it would be wise to minimize ambiguity.



EDIT: I've also pillaged your beautiful FAQ and changed some of the answers I disagree with when I think GW will rule differently. I'll be interested to see how it plays out with the official FAQ. Somehow I doubt it will be this comprehensive.

Also, you cite RAW for the Fenrisian wolves forming a retinue with a Wolf Lord for the purposes of Close Combat. Where is that RAW? I looked all through, and it is certainly implied, but I saw nothing that said Retinue anywhere in the book.

Scottywan82 wrote:May I also suggest that for the sake of clarification you put in the "headstrong" explanation:

A: Measure for each Blood Claw unit that does not have a Wolf Guard model or Independent Character accompanying it at the beginning of the Shooting Phase before any units declare shooting. If any model in a Blood Claw unit is within 6" of an enemy, the unit forgoes it shooting phase. [Clarification]

I just added that it is "If any model in a Blood Claw unit is withing 6"..." Rather than simply "...a unit..." It's supposed to clarify, and so I thought it would be wise to minimize ambiguity.

Good Catch, I'll fix it

EDIT: I've also pillaged your beautiful FAQ and changed some of the answers I disagree with when I think GW will rule differently. I'll be interested to see how it plays out with the official FAQ. Somehow I doubt it will be this comprehensive.

Just please remember the Creative Commons Licence agreement.

Also, you cite RAW for the Fenrisian wolves forming a retinue with a Wolf Lord for the purposes of Close Combat. Where is that RAW? I looked all through, and it is certainly implied, but I saw nothing that said Retinue anywhere in the book.

RaW he is in a unit he cannot leave, which is the definition of a Retinue.

Anyway, I am making some edits and cleaning up my local copy here a little more. I should have a Final Draft ready by tomorrow, so keep looking for Typos and Such my little monkeys