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.

Drunkspleen wrote:Can this be the "let's discuss the new Space Wolves FAQ" thread since it seems pointless for me to make another thread about other responses.

Q. Can an Independent Character that has
joined a Wolf Scouts pack outflank? What about
if he has the Saga of the Hunter?
A. No he cannot. He can only join an outflanking
unit if he has the ability to outflank because of
the Saga of the Hunter.

Just seems useless to me, obviously he can't outflank if he isn't entitled to, but they really fail to touch on the big problem with outflanking an IC with Saga of the Hunter alongside Wolf Scouts, which is that a) The scouts should lose their special rules since the IC doesn't have them, and b) The IC isn't entitled to the scouts' special outflank, but it is the only outflank the scouts can do. I try and play by the FAQs where I can but this is just a useless answer because it vaguely hints they can outflank together but doesn't explain how...

Hey, guess what! Yet another case of The GW FAQ is contradicting clear RaW and is thus wrong and thus should be ignored.

Out of curiousity, could someone post a link to a pre-FAQ discussion of how Counter-Attack should interact with Furious Charge?

Gwar! wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Can this be the "let's discuss the new Space Wolves FAQ" thread since it seems pointless for me to make another thread about other responses.

Q. Can an Independent Character that has
joined a Wolf Scouts pack outflank? What about
if he has the Saga of the Hunter?
A. No he cannot. He can only join an outflanking
unit if he has the ability to outflank because of
the Saga of the Hunter.

Just seems useless to me, obviously he can't outflank if he isn't entitled to, but they really fail to touch on the big problem with outflanking an IC with Saga of the Hunter alongside Wolf Scouts, which is that a) The scouts should lose their special rules since the IC doesn't have them, and b) The IC isn't entitled to the scouts' special outflank, but it is the only outflank the scouts can do. I try and play by the FAQs where I can but this is just a useless answer because it vaguely hints they can outflank together but doesn't explain how...

Hey, guess what! Yet another case of The GW FAQ is contradicting clear RaW and is thus wrong and thus should be ignored.

I have come to the conclusion that Gwar! is not an actual Human being. He's one of those pre-programmed "Live help chat" programs that companies use because they're too cheap to hire actual live help operators. They only have so many responses programmed into them, so if you waste enough time with them, you eventually see all of them a hundred times, whether they make sense or not. HE (it) is the one who should be ignored.

warpcrafter wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Can this be the "let's discuss the new Space Wolves FAQ" thread since it seems pointless for me to make another thread about other responses.

Q. Can an Independent Character that has
joined a Wolf Scouts pack outflank? What about
if he has the Saga of the Hunter?
A. No he cannot. He can only join an outflanking
unit if he has the ability to outflank because of
the Saga of the Hunter.

Just seems useless to me, obviously he can't outflank if he isn't entitled to, but they really fail to touch on the big problem with outflanking an IC with Saga of the Hunter alongside Wolf Scouts, which is that a) The scouts should lose their special rules since the IC doesn't have them, and b) The IC isn't entitled to the scouts' special outflank, but it is the only outflank the scouts can do. I try and play by the FAQs where I can but this is just a useless answer because it vaguely hints they can outflank together but doesn't explain how...

Hey, guess what! Yet another case of The GW FAQ is contradicting clear RaW and is thus wrong and thus should be ignored.

I have come to the conclusion that Gwar! is not an actual Human being. He's one of those pre-programmed "Live help chat" programs that companies use because they're too cheap to hire actual live help operators. They only have so many responses programmed into them, so if you waste enough time with them, you eventually see all of them a hundred times, whether they make sense or not. HE (it) is the one who should be ignored.

I don't understand the question. Please rephrase.

@Nurglitch

With my limited searching, I couldn't find anything about CA/FA interaction. What I did find was people debating whether or not Insane Bravado (I think that's what it's called) would trigger.

zatchmo:

Thanks, I'll search for "Insane Bravado" then.

I'll add that being able to search and find previous discussions on these things is made much easier when people use the terms used in the rules rather than defaulting to acronyms or pointless forum jargon...

Know what's kinda annoying? They specify that the +1 Toughness from the Twolf Mount is an increase to the base stat rather than a modifier, but they don't do the same with the strength.

Although the precedent should be pretty clear, now it's open to interpretation whether the S bonus is a base increase (S10 PFists) or if it's just a modifier (S9 Pfists).

sourclams wrote:Know what's kinda annoying? They specify that the +1 Toughness from the Twolf Mount is an increase to the base stat rather than a modifier, but they don't do the same with the strength.

Although the precedent should be pretty clear, now it's open to interpretation whether the S bonus is a base increase (S10 PFists) or if it's just a modifier (S9 Pfists).

Do I really have to say it? :p

In any case, I have maintained from the start its a mod to the base stat, so yay for me!

Gwar! wrote:Hey, guess what! Yet another case of The GW FAQ is contradicting clear RaW and is thus wrong and thus should be ignored.

Argumentum ad nauseums don't work, the FAQ is right, get over it.

Actually I think he has proven that internet forums are a perfect place for Argumentum ad nauseums - look at his following and post count.

Its not a coincidence.

Having read the thread I'd have to comment that, in my opinion, GW merely clarified the combination.

Take the difference between Wings and Jump Packs in Codex: Chaos Space Marines. Models with Jump Packs are Jump Infantry. Models with Wings only move like Jump Infantry. It's this "as if" or "like" or "counts as" relation that comes up a fair bit in the rules and gets used to qualify how much one thing is like another. A model with Wings is only the same as a model with a Jump Pack insofar as movement concerned, for example.

By putting "exactly" in Counter-Charge GW should have made it clear that all the rules referencing assaults apply when a Counter-Assault is activated. I say 'should' because frankly there's reasonably clarity just like there's reasonable doubt and GW's writing in the case of Counter-Attack should have been clear to reasonable people (rather than, say, bug-free code for mechanical application).

This editorial aside, people have mentioned the implications this will have for Tyranids. I think it's an interesting tactical implication because it means that people won't be able to use anti-Ork tactics (get them before they get you) on Tyranids (or at least those that get Counter-Attack and whatever else).

bhsman wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Hey, guess what! Yet another case of The GW FAQ is contradicting clear RaW and is thus wrong and thus should be ignored.

Argumentum ad nauseums don't work, the FAQ is right, get over it.

Except, it isn't? Also, what you wrote there is a horrible, horrible piece of Faux Latin. The term "Argumentum" is singular, while Nauseums is not and never will be a Latin word. The Phrase you were trying to type is "argumenta ad nauseam", which translates as "arguments from repetition".

double post

Gwar! wrote:Except, it isn't? Also, what you wrote there is a horrible, horrible piece of Faux Latin. The term "Argumentum" is singular, while Nauseums is not and never will be a Latin word. The Phrase you were trying to type is "argumenta ad nauseum", which translates as "arguments from repetition".

I am defeated on Latin

But really man, you can't just wish away the FAQ, it is what it is.

Gornall wrote:Defensive grenades

They would still benefit from Defensive Grenades, yes.

bhsman wrote:But really man, you can't just wish away the FAQ, it is what it is.

Perhaps try listening for once instead of relying on argumenta ad nauseam (i.e. Your constant "zomg it's THE FAQ!"). The FAQ is wrong, from a rules standpoint. The FAQs are, according to GW, meaningless. I am not wishing away anything, I am presenting facts and constructing an argument, unlike you.

bhsman wrote:

Gornall wrote:Defensive grenades

They would still benefit from Defensive Grenades, yes.

Yes, they would, because the rules say they do.

Rules or FAQ... we play it that you take the entire FAQ... no picking or choosing.

Gornall wrote:Rules or FAQ... we play it that you take the entire FAQ... no picking or choosing.

So if an FAQ came out and said "Spess Mahrinez alwhayz winlolololol" you would accept it? Or would you play by the rules?

Gwar! wrote:

Gornall wrote:Rules or FAQ... we play it that you take the entire FAQ... no picking or choosing.

So if an FAQ came out and said "Spess Mahrinez alwhayz winlolololol" you would accept it? Or would you play by the rules?

Being called out on Ad Naseums doesn't mean you can move on to a straw man.

Check your PMs

Well, this thread certainly turned silly.

If anyone's prepared to actually discuss the original topic, feel free to start another thread.