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.

Alright lads, here's a discussion for you. How do you think the spiffy new Space Wolf FAQ will affect the game at large?

I see a lot of people getting really excited because of the Furious Assault/Counter Charge combo that the interwebs now think ALL armies get. I'm of the opinion that only SW get the ability to do it. You can't really compare a FAQ for one army and then say that the same thing works for all armies. It's like comparing apples and oranges. At least thats my opinion anyway.

How does Dakka feel about it?

If it was a Space Wolf special rule, then no army would get it. However, the FAQ is merely telling you how two Universal Special Rules interact. As such, all armies get it, or they would cease to be universal.

I was of the opinion that one army can't use a rule or ruling from another armies codex.

Aya wrote:I was of the opinion that one army can't use a rule or ruling from another armies codex.

Why would 2 USR's fucntion differently from one army book to another? I thought they were USR's because they fucntion the same no matter what book your playing. In my mind this Ruling would either A. Effect no one or B. Effect Everyone Reguardless if it was in a FAQ for a specfic army.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/273473.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/273000.page

Aya wrote: You can't really compare a FAQ for one army and then say that the same thing works for all armies.

That would be the case if it was referring to a Space Wolf-specific rule. In this case, the FAQ is addressing the interaction of two specific USR's. There is no logical reason for that to work differently for Space Wolves and everybody else.

GW have a long history of putting FAQ answers that apply across the board in the FAQ of the 'current' army, or the one that is affected most by the issue being addressed. Whilst there is certainly a RAW argument behind claiming that this makes those rulings not valid for other armies, it smacks of burying your head in the sand.



On a slightly tangential note, I would remind posters that 'In Before Lock'-style posts are considered spam and are against Dakka's rules, and so will be deleted. Don't waste everybody's time.

Ok, lets do this again:

The SW FAQ is wrong. Plain and Simple.

Gwar! wrote:The SW FAQ is wrong. Plain and Simple.

If you wish to assume so for your own games, that's of course your right.

For the purposes of rules discussions here, though, I would remind everyone of the Tenets of YMDC.

The FAQ is what it is. The issue in question may indeed have been a mistake... but until such time as it's changed (if that happens), it's worthwhile figuring out how it affects the rest of the game, since most players will use it.

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:The SW FAQ is wrong. Plain and Simple.

If you wish to assume so for your own games, that's of course your right.

For the purposes of rules discussions here, though, I would remind everyone of the Tenets of YMDC.

The FAQ is what it is. The issue in question may indeed have been a mistake... but until such time as it's changed (if that happens), it's worthwhile figuring out how it affects the rest of the game, since most players will use it.

I would just like to point out that it is the Space Wolves FAQ. To use it for another army is tantamount to word-that-cannot-be-spoken-but-means-to-intentionally-break-the-rules.

It wouldn't be the first time that GW 'fixed' something in the FAQs that disagreed with the rules. The rules for the Mark of Tzeentch specifically state that they enable the caster to use two powers, as opposed to the same power twice, but the FAQ amends that the two powers if they're psychic shooting attacks, and one of the same if otherwise (which just means that Sorcerers and Aspiring Sorcerers can cast multiple Gifts of Chaos in a single turn).

Sirslamb wrote:

Aya wrote:I was of the opinion that one army can't use a rule or ruling from another armies codex.

Why would 2 USR's fucntion differently from one army book to another? I thought they were USR's because they fucntion the same no matter what book your playing. In my mind this Ruling would either A. Effect no one or B. Effect Everyone Reguardless if it was in a FAQ for a specfic army.

For the most part Aya is right. For example, Tau cannot use the Black Templar's Righteous Zeal rule. It's a codex specific rule that is very detailed it's scope and application. But yes, all armies have access to the USRs. Despite Gwar!'s interesting argument to the contrary, Aduro is correct in stating that the SW FAQ changed how two USRs, CA and FC, work together. The various threads discussing this topic have routinely been shut down, but I'd do some searches to try to find and read through them anyway.

The previous way you handled the two rules (which I wholeheartedly agreed with by the way), was that because CA directed you to treat the unit 'as if' it were assaulting, you would not gain the benefits of FC. The reason being is that there was a difference between being treated as if you had assaulted, and actually Assaulting (i.e., declaring a charge, moving to engage the charged unit, etc), which is what FC requires in order to function. At least, that's how I've always differentiated the two, YMMV.

The SW FAQ has changed this by now allowing a unit to gain the benefits of FC with they CA without having to actually initiate an Assault. Gwar! and others may have a problem with this possibly because, as I see it, the two rules when taken separately, are mutually exclusive and should never be able to interact. Unfortunately this is wrong as the SW FAQ has changed it.

Oh, and saying the FAQ is wrong just tells me that you simply don't like the consequences of the 'ruling', but have no logical way to refute them. I sense another lock coming this way...

-Yad

I actually think it would only apply to Space Wolves. Straight from the FAQ:

"Therefore Ragnar's unit does indeed benefit from Furious Charge."

This ruling only mentions Ragnar's unit; it says nothing about the rule in general. So even if other Space Wolf units could combine these two abilities, it would not work for them.

No, "therefore" is the conclusion drawn for t he example. Otherwise the entire answer states theat FC does work with CA.

ALL BETTER!

the GW space wolf FAQ is now "fixed" and reverses this particular ruling. counterattack simply grants you a +1 attack. it's a good thing they did they so soon because i was already eying my IG commander with a saw in hand wondering how to add a straken cybernipple and bionic arm...

Clears that up nicely

warboss wrote:ALL BETTER!

the GW space wolf FAQ is now "fixed" and reverses this particular ruling. counterattack simply grants you a +1 attack. it's a good thing they did they so soon because i was already eying my IG commander with a saw in hand wondering how to add a straken cybernipple and bionic arm...

OH SWEET MARY ON A TOASTED BAGEL. THANK YOU GW LORDS!!!!!!!

Gwar! does officially decree that a new Golden Age of Rationality has descended upon the Halls of Games Workshop. All Hail Jervis!!!!!!

What the hell? They don't want to confuse people by putting out constantly updated FAQs, and then they stealth edit an FAQ? Is that the only thing they changed?

I don't know what to say. I am glad for this for sure.

Yay!!! Now we can go back to arguing about sensible rules problems!

So glad this mess is over. As with Gwar All hail the lords of GW-land!

Gwar! wrote:

warboss wrote:ALL BETTER!

the GW space wolf FAQ is now "fixed" and reverses this particular ruling. counterattack simply grants you a +1 attack. it's a good thing they did they so soon because i was already eying my IG commander with a saw in hand wondering how to add a straken cybernipple and bionic arm...

OH SWEET MARY ON A TOASTED BAGEL. THANK YOU GW LORDS!!!!!!!

Gwar! does officially decree that a new Golden Age of Rationality has descended upon the Halls of Games Workshop. All Hail Jervis!!!!!!

No! This GW redaction is Wrong and I refuse to play with it! Furious Charge works with Counter Assault I tell you!

Aduro wrote:Furious Charge and Counter Assault stack I tell you!

What rules do you have to back up your claim?

Gwar! wrote:

Aduro wrote:Furious Charge and Counter Assault stack I tell you!

What rules do you have to back up your claim?

It says it right here in this FAQ I have printed out, right next to my codex with bjorns invulnerable save not working against hits.

Gwar! wrote:

Aduro wrote:Furious Charge and Counter Assault stack I tell you!

What rules do you have to back up your claim?

Aduro wrote:No! This GW redaction is Wrong and I refuse to play with it! Furious Charge works with Counter Assault I tell you!

With tongue firmly planted in cheek I think Aduro would point out this as his 'evidence':

Gwar! wrote:Ok, lets do this again:

The SW FAQ is wrong. Plain and Simple.

Though I suspect you knew this

-Yad

I think the Tyranid players are really banking on it should apply to all armies (really though - how many armies have both counter charge AND furious charge on the same unit). Think about it - Bloodclaws rage into a unit of 30 termigants. Who also happen to be near a Tervigon that has adrenal glands and poison. They pass their LD 10 test (from the Tervigons LD). So - they have 2 attacks a piece, at WS3, Str 4 poison (so reroll failed wounds at 4+), and Init 5. Ouch - mathhammer works out to be around 15-20 armor saves.

Matt - reread the thread or the SW FAQ - they reversed their decision!

Yep, GW reversed the decision. Gwar! was right

There is no 'right' and 'wrong' here.

Yes, FC and CA shouldn't stack, as written in the rulebook.
But so long as the previous FAQ was current, they did. Pointing out that they didn't was not, at that point in time, 'right'...

Keyasa wrote:Yep, GW reversed the decision. Gwar! was right

Until Gwar is the one writing the official FAQs himself, he's just a guy with an opinion like the rest of us.

That aside, I commend GW for changing the rule (especially to the version that I agreed with) so quickly since it obviously confused a lot of people.

bhsman wrote:Until Gwar is the one writing the official FAQs himself, he's just a guy with an opinion like the rest of us.

I would just like to point out before exploding with anger the Irony of this post.

Now for the anger:

I DID WRITE MOST OF THE BLOODY SPACE WOLVES FAQ. GW STOLE MOST OF THE CONTENT FROM MY UNOFFICIAL SPACE WOLF FAQ WHICH HAS BEEN OUT SINCE 2 WEEKS BEFORE THE CODEX WAS EVEN ON GENERAL SALE AND THE LATEST VERSION OF WHICH HAS BEEN AVAILABLE SINCE NOVEMBER!!!!!!

So, in fact, I am writing the "Official" FAQs, and you can now, by your own admission, listen to me over everyone else in YMTC.