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.

Can any one explain how Sky-claw Assault packs can use a flamer when they must assault if they can? I'm leaning on the option that wolfguard are meant to be able to join them but its been left out by mistake ... your opinions please.

note they could also take a metaguns (so no half range) or plasma pistol/gun

Easy. Flamers are assault weapons and you may fire them and still assault.............

The writer of the codex is a dyslexic monkey.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

don_mondo wrote:Easy. Flamers are assault weapons and you may fire them and still assault.............

Tri has quoted the rule a bit wrong, if I'm not mistaken. The rule is that if they are within 6" of the enemy in the shooting phase, then they pretty much forego the entire shooting phase, and then must assault in the assault phase.

It means that unless they are accompanied by a wolf guard they have very limited capability of using special weapons.

That's why I think Headstrong is ridiculous. Yep, you need to stick a WG or IC with those bikers, but you'll have to take an HQ with a jumppack to join the assault BCs.

Headstrong isn't like third edition, where they couldn't shot if they wouldn't be able to charge. The way it's written, they lose their Shooting Phase all together if someone is in Assault range. I guess that means you get to premeasure?

don_mondo wrote:Easy. Flamers are assault weapons and you may fire them and still assault.............

sorry they suffer from the rule "Headstrong"
If the Blood claw are within 6" of an enemy model at the beginning of the assault phase they must forgo shooting ....

Ahhhh, well, then, I guess there's not much sense in giving them an 8" range template weapon............

Nope, not much sense at all. Honestly, with Thunderwolf Cavalry and Land Speeders in the same slot... there's not much reason to take either unit at all.

If they could fire some melta guns at a transport then assault the contents, that would be great, but if they can fire their melta gun then they're out of assault range...

Gogo useless units.

Errm, Flamer has an 8" range, Headstrong only applies within 6".

I fail to see any problem.

Because a lot of players can't eye the difference between 6 and 8 easily. Also, the flamers have reduced effectiveness when not allowed to get close. And also one of the strengths of a jump-packing assault squad is the ability to flame something then charge the remnants.

willydstyle wrote:Nope, not much sense at all. Honestly, with Thunderwolf Cavalry and Land Speeders in the same slot... there's not much reason to take either unit at all.

If they could fire some melta guns at a transport then assault the contents, that would be great, but if they can fire their melta gun then they're out of assault range...

Gogo useless units.

I think the BCs on bikes have potential. They do have bp and ccw, so they charge with 4 attacks, have 2 after that, and the T 5 helps offset the WS 3 for return hits. With twin-linked bolters, and a cheap flamer, they'll put the hurt on some horde troops. Plus, I already have BCs on bikes. They're half the points of TWC, the same total number of wounds though, but can move faster and Turboboost. I'm not saying the Shizzle, but I think there's some potential there. Especially with a Wolf Priest on bike with meltabombs. Throwing a WG on bike with a powerfist (and combi-flamer for cheap) may be necessary in the event of a walker charging the unit.

Well, Space Wolves have not had good Jump Pack units for 10 years, so why start now?

Grey Hunters in Pods are far more Effective anyway.

Well if they deep strike close enough to a unit then they can flame it on the first turn as they can't assault it anyway.

Except I believe the rule doesn't take that kind of situation into account Emmkay. If you're within 6" you simply can't fire, regardless of whether or not you'd actually be able to assault.

I'm with Gwar on this one: grey hunters are way better than any kind of "claw."

The rule isn't "if they can assault, they must forgo shooting" it's "if the unit is within 6" of an enemy model, they will forgo shooting" even if they can't charge in the first place.

Hmm

I shall double check that willydstyle must have misread it.

I agree, GH are better than the claws by a long shot in the new book.

... After rereading the rule doesn't cover Sky-claw Assault since none of them are blood claw. Nether do they get berserk charge.

Tri wrote:... After rereading the rule doesn't cover Sky-claw Assault since none of them are blood claw. Nether do they get berserk charge.

That's covered in my FAQ. It needs to be Errata'd.

Tri wrote:... After rereading the rule doesn't cover Sky-claw Assault since none of them are blood claw. Nether do they get berserk charge.

chuckle. Good catch. Ah, the wonderful world of GW rules. Seriously, doesn't the SW codex seem more dodgy and half-arsed than the usual codex? Maybe it's my imagination, seems like IG has all sorts of problems, many of which, GW doesn't seem interested in addressing.

I think they rushed the book out, hoping for another guard-level success.

Tri wrote:... After rereading the rule doesn't cover Sky-claw Assault since none of them are blood claw. Nether do they get berserk charge.

On Page 32 and 90 it say they have Headstrong and Bersek Charge

But the point he's making is that those rules only mention Blood Claws in them, not any unit with that rule. So while they reference that rule, the rule only affects Blood Claws, so it does nothing.

BlackDracoSLC wrote:But the point he's making is that those rules only mention Blood Claws in them, not any unit with that rule. So while they reference that rule, the rule only affects Blood Claws, so it does nothing.

So why did they referance back to the Blood Claws, for both the Scyclaws and Swiftclaws then?

Because they copied and pasted the rule. It's clear that it's intented to apply to BCs on bikes or with jump-jets, but there's RAW that it doesn't. Sigh.

Sort of like how in Apocalypse, the Barbed Hierodule can have probelsm applying the "Agile" rules listed in its own entry.

But, that's APOC, not 'real' 40k.

Seriously, I'll tolerate a lot more vagueness, greyness, and outright conflicts in APOC, PS, CoD, etc. They're 'add-on' packages and aren't meant to be competitive out of the box.

But, to have mistakes like this, to me is inexcusable.

It strikes me that GW wrote some rules, then did their 'playtesting', made modifications on the fly to correct the vague areas (seriously, how does JotWW work - can you snipe, fire into assault, etc.), but never updated the rules as written. They just 'house-ruled' it, and moved on. Or, does a WG attached to a Scouts unit, gain Infiltrate and Scout? I'd guess they had some rules to handle the situation (pretty much, either they did or didn't), but never went to the trouble of including it in the rules.

I can understand things like using Foehammer to reduce Init to use JotWW slipping through (and I'm not saying that you can or cannot use this combo, but just trying to use it as an example). It's a pretty odd event and a unique combo.

Once again, GW shows that they'll do 90% of the work to develop a codex and quit. Thanks guys. Is that the siren's song of another game system calling me?

dietrich wrote:Once again, GW shows that they'll do 90% of the work to develop a codex and quit. Thanks guys. Is that the siren's song of another game system calling me?

take that back. At best they do 60%

Tri wrote:

dietrich wrote:Once again, GW shows that they'll do 90% of the work to develop a codex and quit. Thanks guys. Is that the siren's song of another game system calling me?

take that back. At best they do 60%

HERETIC! 40% at most!

If you consider that:

Pictures ~ 40% of codex (including art and photos of minis)
Fluff ~ 40% of codex
Rules ~ 20% of codex

If they do about half the rules, but all the graphics and fluff, 90% is about right!

dietrich wrote:If they do about half the rules, but all the graphics and fluff, 90% is about right!

But they don't. A lot of the fluff is poorly written and there are tons of models that are not even Legal anymore in the picture sections.

Gwar! wrote:

dietrich wrote:If they do about half the rules, but all the graphics and fluff, 90% is about right!

But they don't. A lot of the fluff is poorly written and there are tons of models that are not even Legal anymore in the picture sections.

Also from the fluff why does rockfists thunder hammer teleport back? I though it was fairly clear that space wolves didn't trust teleporters? It should be attached to a winch or he should have a Rang 6" Str10 AP 1 gun