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.

 mk2 wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
The only thing they've overlooked that I can see is they didn't define what a "Space Wolf Army" is for purposes of applying "leaders of the pack" to allied FOC's.

They do not need to define it . Leader of the pack allows 2 HQs per single FOC slot , period . No definition for army is needed . Since allies FOC does not say " one unit" it says one FOC slot , 2 SW HQs maybe used , keep in mind that it is mitigated by the point cost . It's not free , it's expensive .
This entire thing is just a made up issue IMHO


Really? Can you show me where it says that ?

I agree with you! LotP applies to all space wolf detachments. But clearly the issue is still in dispute with some people. All I was saying is that none of the FAQ's made an attempt to nail this down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Antivas wrote:
I see what you did there. What I am saying is that I am not sure that an entire army should get 1 type of Force Weapon and cannot deviate from that in exchange for a limited use ability. Doesn't sound very fair to me. It was poorly worded, but it was more of a HIWPI than anything else.

Maybe it's not fair that we can only have staves, But maybe it's not fair that we get a 4+ psychic hood with 24" range.

 Grugknuckle wrote:

 Captain Antivas wrote:
I see what you did there. What I am saying is that I am not sure that an entire army should get 1 type of Force Weapon and cannot deviate from that in exchange for a limited use ability. Doesn't sound very fair to me. It was poorly worded, but it was more of a HIWPI than anything else.

Maybe it's not fair that we can only have staves, But maybe it's not fair that we get a 4+ psychic hood with 24" range.

You don't get staves. You get basic AP3 no bonus Force Weapons. Sure the epic Psychic Hood is nice, so maybe it is a trade off.

TheKbob wrote:

 Adam LongWalker wrote:
Does Njal's power, Vengeful Tornado Affect Flyers now?

Thanks

Separate thread on that topic exists. Still debated.

Can you point me to the thread. For some reason I am not able to find it thanks.

SlyasR wrote:
I know, what i mean is should that be interpreted as that Runic weapons are staffs and not unusual force weapons?

Imho, staff only Njal, the others may choose.

 Darog wrote:

SlyasR wrote:
I know, what i mean is should that be interpreted as that Runic weapons are staffs and not unusual force weapons?

Imho, ыtaff only Njal, the others may choose.

It doesn't matter what regular rune priests have. Sword, axe, lance, if it is an unusual force weapon it is ap3 with no other bonuses.

Even Njal has an unusual force weapon as his Staff is also a Force Weapon with additional rules. There is no clarification in the deffinitation of his weapon that says his weapon counts as a Force Staff.

CanisLupus518 wrote:
Even Njal has an unusual force weapon as his Staff is also a Force Weapon with additional rules. There is no clarification in the deffinitation of his weapon that says his weapon counts as a Force Staff.

The FAQ states outright that it's a Stave, so it's a Stave. The rest would be unusual force weapons on account of having a special rule in close combat, but Njal's is overridden by FAQ Amendment.

 Grugknuckle wrote:
They also made a few changes that limit some SW abuse.
For example, wolf guard models are now only characters when they are pack leaders. I think this is good.

Also, they did away with the "Runic Weapon 4+ and THEN wolf tail 5+ and THEN deny the witch 6+" psychic save shenanigans.

Over all, I'm very pleased with the outcome. The only thing they've overlooked that I can see is they didn't define what a "Space Wolf Army" is for purposes of applying "leaders of the pack" to allied FOC's.

Technically, it is not possible to DTW on 6+ if you have a Runic Weapon, the worst you get is 5+. But I am glad that such cheese has been removed. I feel bad doing that to my opponent despite it being RAW previously.

leohart wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
They also made a few changes that limit some SW abuse.
For example, wolf guard models are now only characters when they are pack leaders. I think this is good.

Also, they did away with the "Runic Weapon 4+ and THEN wolf tail 5+ and THEN deny the witch 6+" psychic save shenanigans.

Over all, I'm very pleased with the outcome. The only thing they've overlooked that I can see is they didn't define what a "Space Wolf Army" is for purposes of applying "leaders of the pack" to allied FOC's.

Technically, it is not possible to DTW on 6+ if you have a Runic Weapon, the worst you get is 5+. But I am glad that such cheese has been removed. I feel bad doing that to my opponent despite it being RAW previously.

You're misreading. Runic Weapon on a 4+ from a model within 24". Wolf Tail in the unit for 5+, DTW for the unit on 6+ due to no psyker in the unit.

Of course this is all moot now, and doesn't matter.

My bad. It was good when it lasted. Granted it was only a month or so .

Pyrian wrote:

CanisLupus518 wrote:
Even Njal has an unusual force weapon as his Staff is also a Force Weapon with additional rules. There is no clarification in the deffinitation of his weapon that says his weapon counts as a Force Staff.

The FAQ states outright that it's a Stave, so it's a Stave. The rest would be unusual force weapons on account of having a special rule in close combat, but Njal's is overridden by FAQ Amendment.

The FAQ says Stave but it does not say Power Stave or Force Stave. Runic Weapon (Stave) has no different meaning than any other Runic Weapon, it is an unusual force weapon.

CanisLupus518 wrote:
The FAQ says Stave but it does not say Power Stave or Force Stave.

It's a force weapon as per the Runic Weapons rule. The combination makes it a force Stave.

CanisLupus518 wrote:
Runic Weapon (Stave) has no different meaning than any other Runic Weapon, it is an unusual force weapon.

I don't see the point in making nonsense assumptions to get around an otherwise clear rule. It's well within RaW to infer that "Stave" is referring to force weapon stave, as a runic weapon IS a force weapon. You could (and did) re-arrange the order of operations to make Stave fall out and be a meaningless term, but then you've got an undefined term you can't account for. Given that there's an entirely valid interpretation available simply by context precedence (which is not, itself, defined, and therefore by RaW open to best interpretation), I don't see any reason to go with your blatantly invalid interpretation.

I could say the same about your interpretation, as the definition of a Runic Weapon is that it is an unusual force weapon (as per FAQ). This gives it a very specific profile, specifiying that one is a Stave doesn't change that fact. I wouldmuch rather lean towards erroneous terms accidentally used in the FAQ than to have to redefine a term that has already been clearly defined.

An example is the Chaplain's Crozius Arcanum... it is listed as Crozius Arcanum (Power Maul) ... it doesn't say "Maul" even though we already know it is a power weapon of some kind.

CanisLupus518 wrote:
...the definition of a Runic Weapon is that it is an unusual force weapon (as per FAQ).

I cannot find this FAQ entry. Regardless, Runic Weapons are unusual Force Weapons because they're Force Weapons with additional rules. That doesn't prevent them from being further modified with additional rules.

CanisLupus518 wrote:
This gives it a very specific profile, specifiying that one is a Stave doesn't change that fact.

It's not all that specific (in fact the defining attribute of an unusual force weapon is that it's not specific), and I don't see any reason why specifying a different profile cannot change that fact.

CanisLupus518 wrote:
I wouldmuch rather lean towards erroneous terms accidentally used in the FAQ than to have to redefine a term that has already been clearly defined.

What? It is the very business of FAQ amendments to override previous definitions, particularly in specific cases.

CanisLupus518 wrote:
An example is the Chaplain's Crozius Arcanum... it is listed as Crozius Arcanum (Power Maul) ... it doesn't say "Maul" even though we already know it is a power weapon of some kind.

Aside from history, we don't know that it's a power weapon of any kind until it says "Power Maul", as the "power weapon" part is replaced by the FAQ amendment. That's quite distinct from Njal's stave, which we already know is a force weapon. so only the subtype needs to be specified. Are you really hanging this entire argument on the fact that they wrote "stave" instead of "force stave"? Would that have changed your mind?