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.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Now from a RAI standpoint, I feel that giving IG PE is going against what was intended strongly. So much in fact this will probably be re-faq'd or INAT'd so that it won't work in most tourney/GTs

From an RAI, I don't think anyone will disagree. The intention behind the rule is clear, it's the waters of the RAW below it that are murkier than a Plaguebearer's bath water.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Now from a RAI standpoint, I feel that giving IG PE is going against what was intended strongly. So much in fact this will probably be re-faq'd or INAT'd so that it won't work in most tourney/GTs

From an RAI, I don't think anyone will disagree. The intention behind the rule is clear, it's the waters of the RAW below it that are murkier than a Plaguebearer's bath water.

Took me a while to wrap my head around the only codex part. To me it's implying "thou shall not pass"

I don't think it's the most overpowering thing in the game, however It's quite scary to think about a mass blob squad with a Priest and 3 Rune priests in to potentially make that squad nigh unkillable.

Imagine a 50 man blob with Endurance, stealth, preferred enemy. Endurance is only 1 power on that table so you can try for something else too, Invisibility, forwarning, etc.

A month or so someone had posted that 6th ed was the end of tarpits. I don't think they were looking at Psy Powers, or blobs with Fearless/ATSKNF/FNP/etc

oath of war, in this case function as a benefit and as a limit, as a benenfit it gives PE to the squad he joins but only if is from codex: space wolves, then the limit comes when the wolf priest joins an allie unit (imperial guar for example) then, he has PE thanks to the rule of oath of war, but the IG can´t have it , again, for oath of war
So, oath of war is the real special rule, it helps to give PE to spece wolves but at the same time limit the benefit to others , thats the intetion of the faq and the errata

However that *is not* what the actual *rules* say

The rules allow an *entire* unit to *benefit* from PE if ONE member of the unit *has* the rule

IG models never *have* the rule, they just gain the *benefits* of the rule. The FAQ does not alter that

I agree on intent, however the rules are clear

The wolf priest does not have,

Special Rules:

Preferred Enemy.

He has,

Special Rules:

Oath of War: That gives Preferred Enemy to him and any unit from codex SW he joins.

So while people keep exposing the RAW of Preferred Enemy as the means to extend it to a unit outside of codex SW, there is no RAW that extends Oath of War to a unit outside of codex SW.

Basically, Oath of War is modifying the Preferred Enemy USR to only extending to units from the SW codex. It is trumping the BRB Preferred Enemy rule in regard to if one member of the unit has it, then all members have it.

It doesn't. It gives the model PE. It doesn't say it modifies PE.

Yeah, Oath of War would have to be re-written to give PE only if he was solo or joined with unit from C:SW.

RAI is clear though.

The entire and only purpose of the errata is to limit the benefit to units from Codex: Space Wolves.

This is the same discussion as the one about Logan Grimnar's The High King.

I agree on intent. And the Errata does limit Oath if War to SW models.

Unfortunately the Oath of War bestows PE which isn't limited to Space Wolves.


It's useful to know the difference and what RAW says because someone will bring it up in a match.

Most tournament judges I've encountered tend to go with the interpretation which doesnt render an errata meaningless.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Most tournament judges I've encountered tend to go with the interpretation which doesnt render an errata meaningless.

The errata isn't meaningless. And yes, that's likely. Not everyone plays in a tournament though, and its still useful to be aware of why the person across the table is saying something.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Most tournament judges I've encountered tend to go with the interpretation which doesnt
render an errata meaningless.

Truly, I like to "argue" rules debates with our TO/Shop Owner. At the end of it he usually concedes, than gos "but we'll play it my way" lol which is fine because that's why I started the argument in the first place.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Most tournament judges I've encountered tend to go with the interpretation which doesnt render an errata meaningless.

The errata isn't meaningless.

I don't think it is either, but if you use an interpretation that means the Wolf Priest or Logan Gimnar grant the same benefits to a unit he's joined whether they're from Codex: SW or not, then you're rendering the errata irrelevant and without function.

And yes, that's likely. Not everyone plays in a tournament though, and its still useful to be aware of why the person across the table is saying something.

True.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Most tournament judges I've encountered tend to go with the interpretation which doesnt
render an errata meaningless.

Truly, I like to "argue" rules debates with our TO/Shop Owner. At the end of it he usually concedes, than gos "but we'll play it my way" lol which is fine because that's why I started the argument in the first place.

So basically you troll the TO to make your point, mid game. Productive....

 Bausk wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Most tournament judges I've encountered tend to go with the interpretation which doesnt
render an errata meaningless.

Truly, I like to "argue" rules debates with our TO/Shop Owner. At the end of it he usually concedes, than gos "but we'll play it my way" lol which is fine because that's why I started the argument in the first place.

So basically you troll the TO to make your point, mid game. Productive....

Well not mid game, I make a pot of coffee and typically he'll bring in some Danishes and invites some of the Core players to have a little "arguement" alot of times its just the two of us.

Firstly Dave (the shop owner) is a respected and dear friend of mine, I value his opinion and he likes how overzealous and analytical I am especially with 40k.
We do this wednesday nites as Wednesdays are 40k days. We do this because these questions come up in 40k games and he wants to be able to give a quick/decisive answer. Not one-sided and half assed. Basically a store FAQ

So yes it is quite productive, and no I don't troll him.

Almost all in tournament arguements come to me as Dave has a store to run, phone calls, sales, and stuff.