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.

Dracos wrote:Wow I must have been really offensive to receive this level of modquisition. Frankly, I'm surprised you guys are getting your panties in a bunch over the fact that I suggested it to be moved to a more appropriate forum.

And as an aside, I think that the FAQ is fine.

Its not you specific Dracos-my apology there. Your question was valid. If proposed rules become involved and not just interpretations of rules then you're right on the moeny and should be moved. While I have not read in detail, I don't think that has occurred at this point.

Now everyone lets move along now, before Frazzled gets cranky.

Ok, here are some issues I spotted that don't seem to be included:


Lone Wolves (Page 29): There is no clarification in this section about how Beastslayer interacts against units that only partially contain Monstrous Creatures and/or models with a T5+ (as you do in other spots).

Fenrisian Wolves (Page 31): Wolves must remain within 2" of their master, but how does this interact against rules which command models to move in a certain way (like assault moves and pile-in moves, for example)?

Thunderclap Psychic Power (Page 37): Does the Thunderclap blast scatter as it is a psychic shooting attack and they follow the rules for shooting unless specified otherwise? Also FYI, your ruling says that the Rune Priest is hit, while the codex clearly specifies that only ENEMY models touching the blast are hit.

Jaws of the World Wolf Psychic Power (Page 37): This power is specified as a psychic shooting attack and therefore should follow all the rules for shooting unless specified otherwise. I personally think there should be some sort of question covering the need (or lack thereof) to choose an enemy unit as the target of the power (even if it does shoot right through them) and the need (or lack thereof) for line of sight to this target enemy unit.

Servo-Arm (Page 38): You probably should include our standard question regarding Servo-Arms. Since it is a special close combat attack are you able to use the Servo-Arm attack in the same round as the Thunder Hammer?

Bjorn's Invulnerable Save (Page 49): If you're wanting to be really anal, you should cover what it exactly means for a vehicle to have an invulnerable save (since by the rules saves only stop "wounds").

Ulrik the Slayer (Page 50): There is no clarification in this section about how Slayer's Oath interacts against units that only partially contain Monstrous Creatures and/or models with a T5+ (as you do in other spots). Also, you have a question number still labeled as '29' in this section, when it should be '50'.

Njal's Nightwing (Page 53): Which owning player chooses the target of Nightwing's attacks (it isn't very clear to me at least)?

Njal's Howling Cyclone (Page 53): Do units embarked in vehicles have to take this test and if so, and they fail, do they fall back out of the vehicle?

Njal's Vengeful Tornado (Page 53): Is this a shooting attack? Can it be used to target a specific model in a unit? Are saves of any kind allowed against this attack and if so, how are cover saves determined? Can casualties caused by this attack cause a unit to take a morale check (as it also happens at the 'end' of the phase like the check)?

Njal's Chain Lightning (Page 53): Is this a shooting attack? Or can it be used to target a specific models in a unit? Are saves of any kind allowed against this attack and if so, how are cover saves determined? Can casualties caused by this attack cause a unit to take a morale check (as it also happens at the 'end' of the phase like the check)?

Logan's High King (Page 56): Can this ability be used if Logan has gone to ground? If his unit is falling back and at the start of the turn he makes them Fearless, what happens (as the rules for a unit suddenly gaining Fearless makes it seem like they won't regroup until the start of their NEXT turn).

Wolf Claws (Page 60): What the heck is the 'close combat phase'? Also, does the bearer really have to decide which re-roll he wants BEFORE assaulting and what happens if he forgets to specify at the start of the assault phase (as most everyone will)?

Fenrisian Wolf/Cyberwolf (Page 62): If a character takes some Wolves as wargear does his 'unit type' become 'beasts'?

Wolf Tail Talisman (Page 62): The standard INAT questions with stuff like this: What exactly is meant by 'affected' with this item and can it nullify persistent psychic powers (like Psychic Scream, etc), and if so how exactly does that work (when do these powers come 'back on')?

Saga of the Wolfkin (Page 64): Is the bonus gained by this Saga lost to the army if the character dies?

Saga of the Beastslayer (Page 64): There is no clarification in this section about how this saga interacts against units that only partially contain Monstrous Creatures and/or models with a T5+ (as you do in other spots).

Awesome! Thank you Yakface.

The only one I had done was the Bjorns Save one (Yes, I am that Anal ), I'll get to work like a good little trolle

Also a Bit of a Brainfart with the Thunderclap thing, I remember changing it, but I guess I forgot to save >.<

Dun Dun Duuuuun!

V1.6 is t3h Uploaded!

When the Errata comes out for this Codex it'll either sink you or give you some credibility, depending on it agree's with many/any of your "rulings".

If they don't agree with you much, I recommend lemon flavoured humble pie; Bitter-sweet

If they do; Keep the the good aggregating work!

Razerous wrote:When the Errata comes out for this Codex it'll either sink you or give you some credibility, depending on it agree's with many/any of your "rulings".

If they don't agree with you much, I recommend lemon flavoured humble pie; Bitter-sweet

If they do; Keep the the good aggregating work!

There is no way in hell that a GWproduced errata will touch even a third of the issues Gwar has discussed.
There is no way in hell that a GWproduced errata will contain even a quarter of the work that has gone into this one.
There is no way in hell that a GWproduced errata will be published within five times the time it took to publish this one.

GWs only claim to "legality" is that they have the copyright to the system and the world, they aren't even interested in creating a set of interesting balanced competitive rules. Gwars is patching up GWs sloppy droppings into near clarity. He doesn't try to guess how GW "actually" ment the rules to be played. He just tries to help people make sense of the rules as they are written, in all their fallacy. What GW eventually and arbitrarily decides to change with an "errata" or "faq" will have no impact what so ever on the value of Gwars work or his credibility as a competent ruleswrangler. There is no reason what so ever that GWs random musings will "sink" Gwar. If anything, the trust in GW will sink considerably if their errata diverts much from this one. Because that means they have written so horribly worded rules with such lousy explanations in the SW codex that even the best of efforts could not untangle them to find the things that theywere _really_ ment to say. Or possibly GW will just change how things work as an afterthought, that would be more allright, but still wouldn't have anything to say about Gwars job.

The only reason a GWpublished "errata" will have a value to me is because I can assume about 80% of my random opponents will at least have heard of it, and it migh make the printed book a little bit less annoying.

Sorry about the rant, I just can't stand the idea that GWs rules should be magically "right". They are merely easily accessable for players.

Now now play nice children

To be honest, I expect quite a bit to be changed. I think GW are going to Errata it so that the Land Raider has 12 Capacity and also say that ICs with Wolves cannot Join other units, just because they hate Old Players who have the models (and thus are not worth money to them).

But until then, what I have is the best you got, so enjoy it

Also, I've added a note about needing the latest PDF reader programs, as this uses Adobe 9.0 Technologiez

First off, thanks for putting all this together, Gwar.

A minor issue i noticed is in the question:
"If an Iron Priest is accompanied by Three Thrall-servitors and has the “Saga of the Iron Wolf”, does this mean
he always rolls “a result of 5 or more” when attempting to repair a vehicle with his “Battlesmith” special rule?"

To be fully correct it should specify "Thrall-servitors with servo-arms", as those who have replaced them with other wargear do not aid this roll.

Not a big thing, but if you update this again sometime, you can grab it.

Like the FAQ Gwar! Couple of things I'd like to put forward:

Q: Can you give Saga of the Hunter to a model in runic armour? The entry for runic armour describes it as ancient power armour.

Q: The lack of option to take a Frostblade for a Wolf Lord or WGBL in TDA (oversight?)

Q:Bjorns fear of flying (no pod option) and extra armour (oversight?)

Q:A wolf standard affects any models joined to the hunters? (WG pack leader & ICs)

Q:Wolf scouts cant take shotguns?

Q:The TDA description doesn't explicitly prohibit deep striking, simply the tendencey for wolves to (rightly so) distrust such tech. Is this binding or simply advice on being wolfy?

Q:Thunderwolf Cav have rending even if they have special equipment (Wolf claws and such)?

Q: Ragnar's Insane Bravado, works with counter attack?

Keep up the good work

Stygian Mole wrote:Q:Bjorns fear of flying (no pod option) and extra armour (oversight?)

Q:The TDA description doesn't explicitly prohibit deep striking, simply the tendencey for wolves to (rightly so) distrust such tech. Is this binding or simply advice on being wolfy?

Bjorn has a 5+ invul, isn't that enough?!?

Compare and contrast SW page 61 and SM page 102. Since these are the descriptions of TDA for each chapter, while the note in SW is "fluff" the lack of granting Deep Strike as a rule is not.

Homer

Well adding to whats been said i feel the following amendments are required

Flamers (rules as in codex +) Models with "head strong" may still fire them even if they are not accompany by a WG or IC (Aiming is not a requirement of flamers).

Wolf Guard, Pack leader should include skyclaw.

Q.Does a unit of BC with Lukas suffer from Head strong.
A.No, reason he doesn't include the rule. Fluff He's of WG stands if only he would follow orders.

CodGod wrote:First off, thanks for putting all this together, Gwar.

A minor issue i noticed is in the question:
"If an Iron Priest is accompanied by Three Thrall-servitors and has the “Saga of the Iron Wolf”, does this mean
he always rolls “a result of 5 or more” when attempting to repair a vehicle with his “Battlesmith” special rule?"

To be fully correct it should specify "Thrall-servitors with servo-arms", as those who have replaced them with other wargear do not aid this roll.

Not a big thing, but if you update this again sometime, you can grab it.

Good Catch, I'll rectify it ASAP

Stygian Mole wrote:Q:The TDA description doesn't explicitly prohibit deep striking, simply the tendencey for wolves to (rightly so) distrust such tech. Is this binding or simply advice on being wolfy?

Sorry, but I cannot even consider this a question. It does not say they can Deep Strike, so they cannot. A lot of your questions are like that, Sorry :( However, the Runic Armour + Saga one is a good one. And I am sure I already covered the Thunderwolf Cav with Special weapons...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tri wrote:Well adding to whats been said i feel the following amendments are required

Flamers (rules as in codex +) Models with "head strong" may still fire them even if they are not accompany by a WG or IC (Aiming is not a requirement of flamers).

Wolf Guard, Pack leader should include skyclaw.

Q.Does a unit of BC with Lukas suffer from Head strong.
A.No, reason he doesn't include the rule. Fluff He's of WG stands if only he would follow orders.

As much as I would love too, this is not the goal of the FAQ. The goal is to rectify where rules do not work or to clarify unclear rules.

As such, it is pretty clear RaW how Headstrong and Flamers work, as is Lukas and Headstrong, as is Wolf Guard and Skyclaw.

However, You do raise a good point, and I shall be including them in the next version of the FAQ, but as "This is the RaW, sorry"

Again, thank you all for your help. While I may be incredibly awesome, I am just a simple Trolle, and your skills as Question Askers and Proofreaders are much appreciated

Well being fair gwar ...

... Flames don't work, arguing that 2" of flame are fine for a free weapon is silly.

... Sky Claw need leading more then any other type of Head strong unit (there's very little point in taking any of the weapons if they've got a min range of +6")

... And Raw is confusing at best with Lukas. He does not have headstrong but since the pack can't shoot unless joined by an IC or WG model he rarely will be able to shoot his plasma pistol.

Still your FAQ your call. I personally feel these are glaring oversights by GW.

Tri wrote:Well being fair gwar ...

... Flames don't work, arguing that 2" of flame are fine for a free weapon is silly.

... Sky Claw need leading more then any other type of Head strong unit (there's very little point in taking any of the weapons if they've got a min range of +6")

... And Raw is confusing at best with Lukas. He does not have headstrong but since the pack can't shoot unless joined by an IC or WG model he rarely will be able to shoot his plasma pistol.

Still your FAQ your call. I personally feel these are glaring oversights by GW.

Not a chance. This is GW. They will pretend no-one has noticed them.

Homer S wrote:
Bjorn has a 5+ invul, isn't that enough?!?

NO WAY DUDE!

I hate being unable to charge because of a piddly lascannon or 5!

Gwar! wrote:

Bodders wrote:Gwar

Awesome work (as always), however one thing that came up when i was looking at the book with my local unfriendly space wolf friend, which i dont know if you would contemplate wanting to put in this would be in reference to Lukas and "Pelt of the Doppegangrel" and its reroll of sucessful hits rule.

The hypothetical situation which arose was Lukas on his own and has the misfortune to be on the receiving end of a TL lascannon or Guided Starcannon etc etc, say the first shot misses the reroll hits, based on the rule book cant reroll a reroll so its a hit. Now it might just have been the players interpretation here could be more common but he was stongly minded that the reroll still takes place as codex overrides rule book (wording is quite specific mind). Personally i would just flame the bugger to death.

Anywho, didnt know if that would be something you would want to clarify or if you think its just this guy being a muppet and ignore.

Keep up the good work either way.

It's a guy being a muppet You cannot re-roll a re-roll. The codex does not say you can re-roll a re-roll, so you cannot

To expound:

I think it is a matter of timing. 1) Your opponent rolls to hit with a TL LC. He fails. The Doppleganger forces your opponent to reroll sucessful hits. Well he failed so this rule is satisfied. The TL rule lets your opponent re-roll a failed result to hit. Well, he failed, so he can re-roll to hit. This rule is now satisfied. On his re-roll he scores a hit. No further action can be taken as you can't re-roll re-rolls.

Just a quick question:
How are you guys liking the format of the FAQ? Would you prefer to go to a two column style like the INAT FAQ?
Do you want me to separate out each entry onto a separate page?

Any other feedback on the format at all?

Can you do it in crayon................??

Seriously, just fine as is to me.

Seems fine to me.

Just a comment on your ruling of infiltrators being able to deploy 18" away from the CotS. In the BRB, I know of at least one refernce to GW use of "within" where the diagram that graphically showed the rule defined it as "up to". This is the case of units disembarking from a transport. The rule states that models must disembark "within" 2 inches of an access point. However, the diagram shows a model's closest base edge to be exactly 2" away from the access point. In this case "within 2 inches" actually meant "up to 2 inches". If I remember correctly, this crops up several more times in the BRB and seamed to be a constant interpretation on "within".

I would counter that the diagram shows the base to be 1.999999999999999999" away from the access point

I don't have my books on me ATM, but if someone who does can tell me where else this comes up, I'll change the ruling.

Assuming that CotS says Infiltrators may not deploy within 18", then I'd have to agree that this one needs to be changed to a No. Page 3, Measuring Distances is the best reference.

Gwar! wrote:I would counter that the diagram shows the base to be 1.999999999999999999" away from the access point

I don't have my books on me ATM, but if someone who does can tell me where else this comes up, I'll change the ruling.

Page 15 Shooting Sequence: 2. Check Range: "At least one target model must be within range of the weaponry of your firing models." Page 17 Diagram: "Four orcs are found to have a target within 12" range of their pistols." However, Page 28 says "If a model using a rapid fire weapon remains stationary it can fire two shots up to 12, but only one shot up to th weapon's maximum range." and "An assault weapon can always shoot...up to its maximum range."

On page 82. Ruins: Unit coherancy: "The models in the unit maintain unit coherancy as long as any part of the body of a model on the lower level is within 2" of the base of a model that is higher up." The diagram on the left shows the top of the SM head to be 2" away from the bottom of the model's base above.

Perfect. That's all I needed. Seems silly of GW to piss all over English like that, but I am not surprised.

I'll work on getting 1.7 out by Monday at the latest (^_^)

Gwar! wrote:Seems typical of GW to piss all over English like that....

There we go, much better

v1.7 is complete and uploaded. Enjoy and remember to spread the word/take the FAQ to your clubs

Gwar! wrote:v1.7 is complete and uploaded. Enjoy and remember to spread the word/take the FAQ to your clubs

May just be me but its not downloading.

Can't get it to work either, but could just be mediafire that has a temporary problem...

Ok, Looks like mediafire cocked up.

I've re-uploaded it to sendspace for the time being. Please tell me if you have any more issues

Found another fault

“The High King” never states what turn he gets to pick ... now if he can pick at the start of any turn it gets strange

Game Turn 1 player pick an ability
Player turn 1 player pick a second ability .... see the problem?

Tri wrote:Found another fault

“The High King” never states what turn he gets to pick ... now if he can pick at the start of any turn it gets strange

Game Turn 1 player pick an ability
Player turn 1 player pick a second ability .... see the problem?

"The High King" says Turn.

BRB Says Turn = Player Turn, Game Turn = Game Turn.

I fail to see the issue.