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.

One of my opponents made a sketchy rules claim, citing White dwarf as the source of his rule...

How legitimate of a gaming authority is White Dwarf...

Is there Word law when it comes to battle reports, are they more often than not when it comes to rules or are they making up rules to write a cooler report?

One of the rulings in question is Jaws of the White Wolf against walkers and the Mark of the Wolfen (the one that gives you D6 extra attacks) for someone with a special weapon like a Thunder hammer...

1) Walkers are not infantry, they are vehicles. WD is wrong

2) MotW does NOT work with special weapons. Clearly stated in the codex

In short - get them to show it to you in the rulebook, not a bat rep.

WD battle reports are written with the same care and attention to detail that the rulebooks are.

But seriously, they are most definitely not a source of rules in any way shape or form. Their rules rulings follow the following flowchart.

Is it cool? >>>>> [no] >>>>> [you can't do it]
V
V
V
V
[yes] >>>>>> [DO IT!]

White Dwarf has very sketchy grasp on the rules. In a game for the release of Eldar there was a match up. The elder came in at 2003pts (if I recall correctly) and the Black Templars at 1995pts. So clearly the eldar players getting an advantage to begin with.

Then we get to the army lists the BT army is a joke ... There are bikes a single Dred (ven) and lots of walking BT. The eldar have a wraithlord, 3 warwalkers, banshee and 10 dire avengers in a wave serpent . (both have more then that but for simplicity's sake)

Reading the actual battle you can see glaring mistakes that could have won the game for the black templars. For a start he let the wraithlord get into Close combat ... he didn't shoot the banshee to bits....

Orkestra wrote:WD battle reports are written with the same care and attention to detail that the rulebooks are.

QFT.

Using a WD as rules is like using the Bible to explain Quantum Theory.

Anyway, release BR are always fixed anyway. In fact all the BR are, to promote whoever they want to sell that month.

Gwar! wrote:

Orkestra wrote:WD battle reports are written with the same care and attention to detail that the rulebooks are.

QFT.

Using a WD as rules is like using the Bible to explain Quantum Theory.

but that's easy, "god did it".

As mentioned, WD is not a reliable source of rules, and it's entirely too common for them to play one way in a battle report which the rules don't follow and then not errata or even FAQ it when it comes time to release the FAQ for the new codex.

The biggest problem with the games played in WD is the variablity. Some of the games are played by the guy who wrote the codex and another experienced player. Other games are played by some new hire who has seems to have never used that particular army before. Or else one of the ancients who mainly plays fantasy fields a 40k army...and may still be thinking of 3rd edition for the rules qustions.

WD battles can give us some valuable information occasionally about how GW people play murky areas of the rules IF the two players are competent and cutting edge, and if they have a hand in helping write the article. Remember that whoever is writing the article may well be a LOTRs player and be quite unfamiliar with these things called bolters.

If there is even the tiniest bit of conflict between the BRB, the codex or a FAQ and some article in the WD....you have to go against the WD. If there is absolutely no other source of info then the WD can possibly be helpful, always taking into account the quality of the players involved.


Sliggoth

JotWW was used against a walker in this issue of WD?

While the armies going into battle reports are prepared in such a way as to be close/epic for greater interest, the gameplay itself isn't fixed at dice roll level.

Ridcully wrote:, the gameplay itself isn't fixed at dice roll level.

But they will reset and replay it................................

"As an aside, people often ask if we re-fight a battle reports game until we have a result we're happy with. The truth is that the sheer amount of work involved in recording a single battle means the idea of re-fighting a report is met with some horror by the participants. Trust me, after you've already spent upwards of eight hours recording every detail of a battle, the last thing you want is to do it all over again the next day!"

The example that follows is of an 'exciting new tank model' being destroyed by a lucky shot on turn one.

Edit: typo

Ridcully wrote:"You think we actually do work here? Hahahahahaha!"

The example that follows is of a 'please buy this shiny thing' being destroyed by a lucky shot on turn one.

Fix'd

Going completely off topic, but i think the worst part about battle reports is that they use the studio army... which for fantasy armies and 40k xenos means the 'one of each unit' army. which is horrible. and also the reason i liked the most recent fantasy battlerep so much.

Had a chance to think about it and now I have to ask.... what battle report in WD is your opponent talking about?

In WD 357 there is a SW battle report, but JotWW isnt used against a walker in that report; it is used against a MC tho, which is perfectly correct. Unless a different printing has another report added perhaps? Because none of the SW in this report seem to have mark of the wolfen at all either.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Had a chance to think about it and now I have to ask.... what battle report in WD is your opponent talking about?

In WD 357 there is a SW battle report, but JotWW isnt used against a walker in that report; it is used against a MC tho, which is perfectly correct. Unless a different printing has another report added perhaps? Because none of the SW in this report seem to have mark of the wolfen at all either.



Sliggoth

My thoughts also. I recalled JotWW being used, but chaos only had one walker and the attack certainly wasn't used against it.

To quote an old GW store manager on his last game fo the company:
"This game will be like a WD battle report. I'm the new army."

Ridcully wrote:The example that follows is of an 'exciting new tank model' being destroyed by a lucky shot on turn one.

Yes, but that's just what happens. Any newly-finished model will always be killed on the first turn. Usually in the most humiliating way possible.

...or is it just me?

unistoo wrote:

Ridcully wrote:The example that follows is of an 'exciting new tank model' being destroyed by a lucky shot on turn one.

Yes, but that's just what happens. Any newly-finished model will always be killed on the first turn. Usually in the most humiliating way possible.

...or is it just me?

Super ultra Cool Wraith Lord ... takes 3 las-cannon shots to the face and dies ... next game he lasts till turn 2 before the same dam predator kills him.