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.

I was wondering if there was a place that is official that states that a model cannot benefit from a Thunderhammer and the Mark of the Waulfen... the store owner has ruled in his own favor while stating that the "wargear may not be used" is to prevent you from getting a single extra attack with an extra close combat weapon...

His "Official" information comes from a White Dwarf written by Phil Kelly... He reasons that the white dwarf reputation for being wrong is negated as the man who was wrote the codex stated it can be done...

QuietOrkmi wrote:I was wondering if there was a place that is official that states that a model cannot benefit from a Thunderhammer and the Mark of the Waulfen... the store owner has ruled in his own favor while stating that the "wargear may not be used" is to prevent you from getting a single extra attack with an extra close combat weapon...

His "Official" information comes from a White Dwarf written by Phil Kelly... He reasons that the white dwarf reputation for being wrong is negated as the man who was wrote the codex stated it can be done...

Seeing as I'm at work, I don't have my codex in front of me, but I would take "wargear may not be used" to mean that "thunder hammer may not be used". It doesn't specify that it is solely for excluding the extra attack, if I remember correctly.

"these attacks are made using the marked models' claws and teeth, and hence are not affected by wargear, additional hand weapons, and so on, though they may be bolstered by other factors."

RAW: no thunder hammer.

RaW is no Thunderhammer.

White Dwarf is Wrong.

I understand that... however being the Owner of the Shop and a Space Wolves Player he has ruled it in his favor until something Official states it...

IE: Rules Forums (despite being good enough for GW to pull FAQS off of) =/= Official... while WD (being made by GW) + Phill Kelly (Writer of the Codex) = OFFICIAL...

I was also wondering if there was a place to look at WD battle reports online from past issues... Other than getting a subscription...

QuietOrkmi wrote:I understand that... however being the Owner of the Shop and a Space Wolves Player he has ruled it in his favor until something Official states it...

IE: Rules Forums (despite being good enough for GW to pull FAQS off of) =/= Official... while WD (being made by GW) + Phill Kelly (Writer of the Codex) = OFFICIAL...

I was also wondering if there was a place to look at WD battle reports online from past issues... Other than getting a subscription...

Stuff like this is the reason I stopped playing at one of my FLGS: the way that they interpret the rules. It's not that they interpret them a certain way and I just don't agree because it favors me - it's because they pick and choose which ones they'd like to follow. They're not consistent and someone could bring in something controversial and you'd never know until you face it how they will rule, even if there is a ruling. It's frustrating.

Anyway, to answer your last question, I believe all of the past WD are on the GW website for lookup. May not have the battle reports though. Click on the White Dwarf link under the headers and see what you can find.

White Dwarf battle reports aren't official rules, as they're not rules of any sort. The codex is the official ruleset, and it's the codex that says you don't benefit. I don't even see any way to contest that, by RAW.

"These attacks are made using the marked models' claws and teeth" makes his claims of author's intent fail too; thunderhammers are neither claws nor teeth. So both by RAW and RAI the codex doesn't allow it.

White Dwarf battle reports aren't official rules, as they're not rules of any sort. The codex is the official ruleset, and it's the codex that says you don't benefit. I don't even see any way to contest that, by RAW.

Is there a GW sponsored link that states that...

QuietOrkmi wrote:

White Dwarf battle reports aren't official rules, as they're not rules of any sort. The codex is the official ruleset, and it's the codex that says you don't benefit. I don't even see any way to contest that, by RAW.

Is there a GW sponsored link that states that...

Is there a GW Sponsored link that says they are rules?

Honestly, if the owner of the shop is ruling in his own favor because the battle report says one thing and the codex says another, somebody needs to get Phil Kelly to sell that man a bridge.

I would just be like completely offended on every level by this if I were to play at the shop.

I mean I would have THE codex opened to the description of the rule and he would be holding a battered copy of the WD he has pulled out every other time he has been challenged.

Can't cure stupid.

Brother Ramses wrote:Can't cure stupid.

Sure you can... a bolt pistol to the back of the head.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Can't cure stupid.

Sure you can... a bolt pistol to the back of the head.

Always double-tap, only way to be sure

Gwar! wrote:

QuietOrkmi wrote:

White Dwarf battle reports aren't official rules, as they're not rules of any sort. The codex is the official ruleset, and it's the codex that says you don't benefit. I don't even see any way to contest that, by RAW.

Is there a GW sponsored link that states that...

Is there a GW Sponsored link that says they are rules?

Well the argument stems from Phil Kelly being quoted saying how his favorite thing to do is to have a model have both Mark of the Waulfen and a thunderhamer to get 1d6+1 S8 Powerattacks...

Dumb stuff like this is because WD battle reports are written long before the relevant codexes are finalized.

QuietOrkmi wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

QuietOrkmi wrote:

White Dwarf battle reports aren't official rules, as they're not rules of any sort. The codex is the official ruleset, and it's the codex that says you don't benefit. I don't even see any way to contest that, by RAW.

Is there a GW sponsored link that states that...

Is there a GW Sponsored link that says they are rules?

Well the argument stems from Phil Kelly being quoted saying how his favorite thing to do is to have a model have both Mark of the Waulfen and a thunderhamer to get 1d6+1 S8 Powerattacks...

It is a quote from Robin Cruddace actually in White Dwarf 357. Its funny to see even a rules writer get it wrong too. My guess is this white dwarf article (its the Oct issue) was actually written a month or so before the White Dwarf was released, and the 'interview' was probably done well before that. So, it may be that we are seeing Robin using maybe an older version of the rule before it got changed, or at least maybe he wasn't aware Phil changed the rule from its test phase...or he just skimmed over the rules and decided to comment wrongly on the subject.

My guess is this white dwarf article (its the Oct issue) was actually written a month or so before the White Dwarf was released, and the 'interview' was probably done well before that.

Is there any way of proving that without resorting to common sense?

(I think common sense was abandoned when he used white dwarf as the reason why it works.)

Also a link to that page (If you can) would be very helpful...

The rule proves it, as there is no possible way to read that it works any other way. WD is *not* a rules source.

ALso it was probably much, much longer than a month before. Magazine lead times are often 3months.

QuietOrkmi wrote:
Well the argument stems from Phil Kelly being quoted saying how his favorite thing to do is to have a model have both Mark of the Waulfen and a thunderhamer to get 1d6+1 S8 Powerattacks...

Re-He-diculous.

THIS is EXACTLY why space wolves players get a bad rap!

Good to see the Pro's are human too though....

zatchmo wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Can't cure stupid.

Sure you can... a bolt pistol to the back of the head.

Always double-tap, only way to be sure

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Here's the problem: your LGS owner is being a jerk and cheating, but has the power there to do that. The rules clearly prohibit it- no wargear may be used is very simple. He is just trying to weasel around it based on a WD report (which are notorious for screw ups). The normal rules discussion process *should* be that he has to show something that clearly contradicts the rule in the codex prohibiting the Mark of the Wulfen model from using wargear.

NEVER PLAY THE SHOP OWNER AGAIN!

There fixed!

jmurph wrote:Here's the problem: your LGS owner is being a jerk and cheating, but has the power there to do that. The rules clearly prohibit it- no wargear may be used is very simple. He is just trying to weasel around it based on a WD report (which are notorious for screw ups). The normal rules discussion process *should* be that he has to show something that clearly contradicts the rule in the codex prohibiting the Mark of the Wulfen model from using wargear.

Yeah, have to agree. It's the same as a friend letting you use his basement to game, but insisting on using his version of the rules. And will eventually have the same effect, as some people will leave, or simply cease to play him.

He gets to win at 40k, and gets to lose at Retail 101.

I recently talked to the store owner and he agreed it was cheesey to use both on the same model, so he took them out of his list.

However he is not going to reverse his ruling... This means it is fair game for the other 2 SW players to use it (The newer player is definitely using it)...

Realistically, there are typically 12-14 players at the FLGS, 3 are SW... is it sooo... game breaking to allow this that if my opponent used it, it gives him a HUGE advantage?

I figure a realistic approach would be to avoid playing any SW players who used it, and in tournaments, just play around the unit with it...

Treat a unit with one as an Anti-Elite Unit and have a trukk boy squad hit it and keep my Meganobz/Complex Nobz away...

I appreciate the support that WD is not official and I am not wrong in my line of thinking...

How about the fact that the Space Wolves codex (his Army's codex in this case) says that it is wrong? Claws and teeth only thank you! I have the codex here in front of me by the way.

Robdaddy73 wrote:How about the fact that the Space Wolves codex (his Army's codex in this case) says that it is wrong? Claws and teeth only thank you! I have the codex here in front of me by the way.

Read threads much?

I was wondering if there was a place that is official that states that a model cannot benefit from a Thunderhammer and the Mark of the Waulfen... the store owner has ruled in his own favor while stating that the "wargear may not be used" is to prevent you from getting a single extra attack with an extra close combat weapon...

His "Official" information comes from a White Dwarf written by Phil Kelly... He reasons that the white dwarf reputation for being wrong is negated as the man who was wrote the codex stated it can be done...

He is looking for somewhere that says MotW doesn't work with TH.

Try looking at the codex? It doesn't get more "Official" than that (errata being the only thing above it )