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.

Nowehere says that . It is a SW special rule.

Brother Ramses wrote:I see absolutely zero redundancy in the BRB or the SW FAQ. Follow along on a RAW adventure!

The first thing that you have to acknowledge is that Wolf Guard =/= Wolf Guard Pack Leader. Wolf Guard become Wolf Guard Pack Leaders when they split off from their pack and join one of the eligible units as listed. This is reinforced by the SW FAQ in regard to the special rules when they join a unit and become part of that unit to all intents and purposes. He is no longer a Wolf Guard, he is a Wolf Guard Pack Leader.

Now we all know that the Wolf Guard entry in the core rulebook tells us that they are now classed as type, In(ch). However what the core rulebook is specifically missing is an entry for Wolf Guard Pack Leader. As they are two distinctly different entries, we have the following SW FAQ come to the rescue;

Page 86 - Wolf Guard, Pack Leaders
Add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph

"Furthermore, a Wolf Guard Pack Leader's Unit Type becomes 'Character' in addition to its normal type."

To break it down step by step for easier digestion;

Wolf Guard, Infantry Character (per the core rulebook, pg 411) is split off to a Grey Hunter pack and becomes a Wolf Guard Pack Leader, Infantry(per Codex SW, pg 86 and SW FAQ, pg 6). Said aforementioned Wolf Guard Pack Leader then becomes a Wolf Guard Pack Leader, Infantry Character (per SW FAQ, pg 3).

Zero conflicts, zero redundancy, pure RAW.

Because it is also relevant to the next course of discussion this thread is taking.

Both Wolf Guard and Wolf Guard Pack Leaders are 100% type Infantry Character. However as the SW FAQ clarifies, Leaders of the Pack refers specifically to HQ, and even Special Characters. This is in addition to the already established codex entry that specifies via the asterisk noted FOC.

To extend Leaders of the Pack beyond HQ is not supported by the RAW or SW FAQ.

When you look at the SW codex page 81 it has asterisk marks on the HQ slots in the FOC. That would mean that it only pertains to HQ choices. If it had anything to do with wolf guard it would asterisk mark the elites choice to. So I suppose they are just characters when they are pack leaders. Thats just my opinion though.

SwiftLord14 wrote:When you look at the SW codex page 81 it has asterisk marks on the HQ slots in the FOC. That would mean that it only pertains to HQ choices. If it had anything to do with wolf guard it would asterisk mark the elites choice to. So I suppose they are just characters when they are pack leaders. Thats just my opinion though.

Lack of an Asterisk on the Elites does not mean that Elites are not ever Characters; it means that Elites(and Troops, fast attack, or Heavy Support) Characters are not bound to the Leaders of the Pack Weapons, Wargear, Psychic powers, and Saga Restrictions.

You could have a Long Fang Squad leader, Wolf guard member, and Wolf Lord, all with Simple Wargear of Power fist and Plasma Pistol.

If the Asterisk was non-existent, or Applied to Elites and/or Heavy support, than at lteast 1 if not 2 of the above models would be breaking the leaders of the Pack rule.

There is another less RAW; but more Common Sense reason for why the claims of "Leaders of the Pack applies to WG" and "WG are only characters when split off" cannot both be made Simultaneously:

If you purchase a unit of 10 WG(Claimed as not Characters, and Claimed that Leaders of the Pack apply to them), in a Tournament; All with Identical Wargear Options. Now this is a Tournament, so you cannot change your list; but these are Wolfguard Pack leaders rules so they are not decided to be split or remain in unit until just prior to each individual game. Therefore the second you decide to Split 1 off to join your Blood claws and a Second to join your Long fangs, you are breaking a rule that did not apply to them at list creation.

The Saga restriction applies to all characters that are not unique, as this restriction is mentioned on the page detailing the saga rules as well as in the leaders of the pack rule.

So this means that only one Iron Priest can take the iron wolf saga.

ChemicalShift wrote:The Saga restriction applies to all characters that are not unique, as this restriction is mentioned on the page detailing the saga rules as well as in the leaders of the pack rule.

So this means that only one Iron Priest can take the iron wolf saga.

Please read the Sentence before the rule you are referring to.

That sentence establishes the subject of the following sentences.

Iron Priests are Elites, so they are not HQ Characters and not bound to the Saga restrictions on either page 64 nor page 81.

I disagree

Many Space Wolves HQ choices have the option to choose a saga and the oath that goes along with it. page 64

All this sentence tells you is that lots of HQ choices can have sagas.
the next sentence (emphasis mine),

Because the Space Wolves are a divers and proud bunch, no two Characters may bear the same saga

this sentence does not specify that the only characters that must adhere to this are HQ choices, it just says characters, so all characters must adhere to it (except special characters as detailed in the next sentance). This is different then leaders of the pack rule which due to the asterisk (and the FAQ) specifically applies HQ choices .
Therefore Iron priest, being characters, can't have the same saga.

People really should think a bit harder...

If that was true, all my Long Fang sarges now need different wargear, you'd have to bash out 30+ different dudes to make Logan Wings, Lone Wolves would be more difficult take and realize that they ALL count against each other.

No. It's for HQ purposes only.

TheKbob wrote:People really should think a bit harder...

If that was true, all my Long Fang sarges now need different wargear, you'd have to bash out 30+ different dudes to make Logan Wings, Lone Wolves would be more difficult take and realize that they ALL count against each other.

No. It's for HQ purposes only.

So it's wrong because it'd be awkward?
Not that I think it's right, but that's not much of an argument...

rigeld2 wrote:

TheKbob wrote:People really should think a bit harder...

If that was true, all my Long Fang sarges now need different wargear, you'd have to bash out 30+ different dudes to make Logan Wings, Lone Wolves would be more difficult take and realize that they ALL count against each other.

No. It's for HQ purposes only.

So it's wrong because it'd be awkward?
Not that I think it's right, but that's not much of an argument...

Yea, a solid RAW argument has already been made with needing an awkward rules argument.

ChemicalShift wrote:I disagree

Many Space Wolves HQ choices have the option to choose a saga and the oath that goes along with it. page 64

All this sentence tells you is that lots of HQ choices can have sagas.
the next sentence (emphasis mine),

Because the Space Wolves are a divers and proud bunch, no two Characters may bear the same saga

this sentence does not specify that the only characters that must adhere to this are HQ choices, it just says characters, so all characters must adhere to it (except special characters as detailed in the next sentance). This is different then leaders of the pack rule which due to the asterisk (and the FAQ) specifically applies HQ choices .
Therefore Iron priest, being characters, can't have the same saga.

Perhaps you need a Primer on how paragraphs are constructed.

As you can see from that link; the Subject of the topic sentence is the subject of the rest of the paragraph; which is why the first sentence in a paragraph is called the "Topic sentence".

So using proper paragraph construction we have:

Many Space Wolves HQ choices have the option to choose a saga and the oath that goes along with it.

"Many Space wolf HQ Choices" is the topic of the paragraph.
"have the option to choose a saga and the oath that goes along with it." is the controlling Idea.
Then we get into the body text of the paragraph:

Because the Space Wolves are a divers and proud bunch, no two Characters may bear the same saga...

Since we already know the topic of this paragraph is SW HQ Choices; then the characters referred to in this sentence must be HQ Characters.

One cannot rules-lawyer when one does not understand sentence or paragraph construction in the English language.

Leader of the Pack is a SW codex wording and should stay there.

The rule book lists them as (Ch) and this doesn't change when you put them in a squad. Your Seargeant doesn't lose (Ch) when you put them in there.

As for being LABELLED a character, you will find that in the BRB. Your codex will not save you from that classification.

You do know this is a fighting game?

MJThurston wrote:Leader of the Pack is a SW codex wording and should stay there.

The rule book lists them as (Ch) and this doesn't change when you put them in a squad. Your Seargeant doesn't lose (Ch) when you put them in there.

As for being LABELLED a character, you will find that in the BRB. Your codex will not save you from that classification.

You do know this is a fighting game?

Who, or what, are you addressing?

Wolf Guard if you didn't read the post discretion.

MJThurston wrote:Leader of the Pack is a SW codex wording and should stay there.

The rule book lists them as (Ch) and this doesn't change when you put them in a squad. Your Seargeant doesn't lose (Ch) when you put them in there.

As for being LABELLED a character, you will find that in the BRB. Your codex will not save you from that classification.

You do know this is a fighting game?

You do know that your post is a rambling plethora of nonsense right?

Apologies if english is not your first language but if possible please post in a more coherent matter.