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.

You must remember that the FAQ was re-written with the 5th ed SM codex in mind.

So, GW knew about all the different types of vehicles now with different entries, and they explicitly point out the Ven Dread as not one of those "variants"

GW just gave us the definition of how they use variant by not including this obvious 'other' entry of a standard dread.

This one is crystal clear.

Yes

Im not really involved in this discussion but how can you know what GW knew about and included in their FAQ?

Kallbrand wrote:Im not really involved in this discussion but how can you know what GW knew about and included in their FAQ?

Well that's easy, by going by what I wrote you can see that GW developed the SM codex and GW developed the FAQ. I am sure they 'knew' about the SM codex (as the SW codex FAQ IS a 5th edition FAQ) since it was the first codex out the door and completed before 5th ed hit shelves.

So, GW knew about all the different types of vehicles now with different entries, and they explicitly point out the Ven Dread as not one of those "variants"

Clearly GW 'knew' what they wrote, well...because they wrote it.

silly statement

It was actually still under development when the 5th ed FAQ was released. Unless it was the same guys working on both there is no real reason to assume they know about exactly what was gonna be in there. That you are "sure" they knew about it is a very poor way to add "proof" to your point.

I have just now looked on the GW.uk site for the SW faq.

Here it is: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1180145_Space_Wolves_FAQ_2004-08_5th_Edition.pdf

I downloaded it, did the old right click, properties trick, looked at the date stamp for the pdf and see that it was created on:

10 July 2008, 14:15:07

Interesting methinks.

The date would put it squarely for 5th edition of 40k, but way before the Current SM codex is out.

Just something to be wary of. I believe the faq is not written with any reference to the new edition of the SM codex. An interesting point seeing as the faq has no knowledge of ironclads / redeemers / storms ( based on the time stamp ).

Although crusaders were still available in the last SM codex so the 'variants' issue is still at large.

So, going by the logic of that statement.

You can not trust a single FAQ GW ever wrote, because they obviously had no idea what exists in other codex's that have rules pointing to other codexes?

To trust a FAQ you have to trust the source, no?

So by not trusting the source, you debunk the entire SW FAQ.

They wrote that FAQ to comply with the SM codex, no?

So, I guess when you said "Im not really involved in this discussion" you really meant it.

Also, very first paragraph

Since the publication of Codex: Space Wolves, the
Warhammer 40,000 rulebook and a new
Codex: Space Marines have been released (you
will need both to play a Space Wolves army). This
document explains how to use the Space Wolves
in conjunction with these books

This should answer the above posters question on the time viability

Sorry for the additional edit, Note: that this was re-written for 5th ed. So they ARE talking about the 5th ed WH40k book and notice that the new SM codex is in the same sentence as "have been released", and by them saying the "new Codex: Space Marines" saying in terms as (again) "have been released" seems to indicate they are talking about the new one.

... ok FAQ is deffinately out of date and was writen for the old SM codex ...how can i tell? easy filp to the back of you're BGB and look at the army lists SM don't have iron clads, storms or redeemers ...

... so does that stop the SW from gettng them as variants ? no since the FAQ still stands ...

with a bit of luck we'll get an update of the FAQ (or better a new codex)

middle wrote:The date would put it squarely for 5th edition of 40k, but way before the Current SM codex is out.

Codexes are finished quite some time before the actual release date...

Tri wrote:... ok FAQ is deffinately out of date and was writen for the old SM codex ...how can i tell? easy filp to the back of you're BGB and look at the army lists SM don't have iron clads, storms or redeemers ...

... so does that stop the SW from gettng them as variants ? no since the FAQ still stands ...

with a bit of luck we'll get an update of the FAQ (or better a new codex)

No, flip back there as well and you will see honor guard with 2+ save, librarians, chaplains with BS 4 and a separate stat line for an apothecary. All of these are not in the 4th ed SM codex, but in the 5th ed codex.

My point, the stat lines in the back of the 5th ed wh40k book are just wrong on both fronts of either 4th ed codexs or 5th ed ones, they seem to combine them if anything else.

Also, I already stated this:

Also, very first paragraph

Since the publication of Codex: Space Wolves, the
Warhammer 40,000 rulebook and a new
Codex: Space Marines have been released (you
will need both to play a Space Wolves army). This
document explains how to use the Space Wolves
in conjunction with these books

This is from the FAQ, clearly pointing to the *new* SM codex being released along with the WH40k rulebook (also note this was re-written after 5th ed was released)

Edit ignore, my misstake for looking at the upgrades

Nope, Honor guards had a 3+ save, only the ancient and the chapter champion ever had artificer armor. (edit) and they are better than they were in the last codex because they have all the same equipment as they used too, plus a bolt pistol (new) and the option for a str 6 PW (new) (except for maybe the Chapter champion he used to have a 4++, but now he re-rolls all failed hits and wounds against IC whilst in b2b, so depends on how you look at it).

The point, again, is that the back of the BRB has the SM info completely wrong either from a 4th ed or 5th ed point of view. So, you can not use it as a reference for anything relating to the new SM codex.

padixon wrote:The point, again, is that the back of the BRB has the SM info completely wrong either from a 4th ed or 5th ed point of view. So, you can not use it as a reference for anything relating to the new SM codex.

And this is why it is utterly baffling why GW would bother with these compliations in the first place!

GW always do compilations and we know always to ignore them.

It is one of the few "written in stone-things" about GW. They will always screw up the compilation/summaries.

padixon wrote:Also, very first paragraph

Since the publication of Codex: Space Wolves, the
Warhammer 40,000 rulebook and a new
Codex: Space Marines have been released (you
will need both to play a Space Wolves army). This
document explains how to use the Space Wolves
in conjunction with these books

This should answer the above posters question on the time viability

Thank you for pointing that out.

From looking at that statement in the faq, we can see that since the SW codex came out ( 2000 i think? ) that there has been a new 40k rulebook and a new C: SM.

This statement is entirely correct. There has been a new 40k rulebook, infact there has been 2 ! And indeed there has also been a new C: SM, again there has been 2.

Note that there is no reference in the text about editions of either book. The time stamp and the fact that gw call it a 5th ed faq would sort out that problem. This means the faq is to be used with the 5th ed rulebook for certain.

I mentioned the time stamp on the pdf to show that it raises questions about the edition of C: SM that we should refer to. The old faq was amended to fit in with the 5th ed 40k rulebook but the latest C: SM was not out then, and the faq has not been amended since the newest edition of C: SM came out.

So I am in no way saying this is certain ( merely pointing out a possibility ) but i have doubts that the 'new' C: SM the faq talks about was indeed the last one, and not the current one that we have.

or in other words,

middle wrote:The date would put it squarely for 5th edition of 40k, but way before the Current SM codex is out.

Just something to be wary of. I believe the faq is not written with any reference to the new edition of the SM codex. An interesting point seeing as the faq has no knowledge of ironclads / redeemers / storms ( based on the time stamp ).

The faq mentions following 'the rules for drop pods', but from what i can tell, these can either be the newer rules where drop pods are vehicles or could just as well be the older deep strike version from the last C: SM.

I would love to believe that C: SW is fully compatible with each and every edition of C: SM that comes out, but the truth is, that at the moment it isn't.

middle wrote:The faq mentions following 'the rules for drop pods', but from what i can tell, these can either be the newer rules where drop pods are vehicles or could just as well be the older deep strike version from the last C: SM.

You're thinking of the 3rd edition codex, not the last one.

I would love to believe that C: SW is fully compatible with each and every edition of C: SM that comes out, but the truth is, that at the moment it isn't.

Great post!

but, this part really does not make any difference at all, we both don't FULLY know one way or the other which codex they are referring to when they say "new Codex Space Marines" we both can't prove it, as I said, the text 'leads' me to believe they are referring to the new one. Soooo, As to GW own's admittance, we must follow R.A.W. in every instance.
Whether or not it is up to date with a current codex is totally irrelevant. If it says something in a 'current' FAQ that points to a certain codex still in print with the same name-------------->How are we as players to determine what to follow and what not to follow? The answers is simple, you can't.

So, we *have* to fall back to GW determination on reading rules: RAW

This is a simple as it gets really.

insaniak - yeah, I think you're right there. Doh, I think we can ignore that point about the drop pods then.

padixon - in that last sentence I should really have expanded on what I was thinking. When I said 'fully compatible' I was thinking 'work seemlessly' and I think we can agree that that is wishful thinking. Forward compatible codecies would be ace, but failing that, a new faq when the latest C: SM came out would have sorted a lot of confusion on how to integrate the two codecies and not just how to update the C: SW for 5th ed while still using the 4th ed C: SM.

I can definately agree with you when it says 'current' it means 'current', but for years now the SW codex has had a lot of issues with being outdated by newer books / faqs. So yes by RAW, the latest C: SM is used. I was pointing out that it may not match up seemlessly with C: SW that was faq'd to work with the last edition of C: SM ( 'the 'current' when it was faq'd ).

A faultless transition from C: SW working with the old to the new C: SM would be ideal. But I feel it may be better to just hold on tight and wait and see what the new C: SW brings ( which makes me sad ).



On a side note, (variant or not i won't discus here), if an ironclad could be taken, am i right in thinking it could have 3 hunter killers ? Two from it's own options and one from it picking from the old vehicle options system in C: SW, and still be able to fire them all at once due to being a walker + melta + whatever else you can think of. Just a thought.

Middle, I would say no to the 3 hunter killers, as buying options from Codex: Space Wolves is not an option for the Dreadnought or Ironclad Dreadnought entry. In addition, the FAQ states to use the points costs and rules from C: SM. The rules for C: SM only limit it to 2 HKs for Ironclads.

I honestly dont see what the big issue is with this. It is obvious GW was too lazy to list all the pages and items they wanted to update/replace, so just gave ALL the options. It clearly states this under "Space Wolves Vehicles" in the FAQ. The issue of whether this was used for the previous 4E codex or the V5 SM Codex is moot, as this is the supposed 'authoritative' FAQ for 5th Edition Space Wolves until their new codex eventually comes out.


I believe they would be able to use all the new vehicles including Ironclads and Land Speeder Storms, as it explicitly states that Space Wolves can use "All of the different variants and options available to these units..." The variant is the type of vehicle, ie Land Speeder Storm, Land Raider Crusader, etc...while the 'options' are clearly listed in the new C: SM.

For example, under Predator (Page 143), it even says "OPTIONS:" and lists the valid options to replace the autocannon and/or sponsons, AND under these OPTIONS it gives the ability to take extra armor. Thus it is clear the weapon options are under OPTIONS and the variant is the type of Land Raider, etc.

As others have stated, if someone seriously has an issue with Space Wolves using Crusaders etc, that isnt anyone you want to be playing, anyway.
~~~~


Of a similar note, the Land Speeder Storm Entry on Page 75 says, "The Land Speeder Storm has a transport capacity of five models. It can only carry Scouts." On page 141 it states "Scouts Only" as transport options. Would Wolf Scouts fall into this category?

The Wolf Scouts entry lists them as "Squad: The Scout squad consists of between 4 and 6 Wolf Scouts."

The Scout Squad entry (p.143) lists them as "Unit Composition: 4 Scouts, 1 Scout Sergeant."-note that the Scout Sergeant has a different profile and name, not merely a 'Scout'

Thus, as they are all 'Scouts' wouldnt Space Wolf Scouts be able to ride in the new Land Speeder Storm?

Raon wrote:Of a similar note, the Land Speeder Storm Entry on Page 75 says, "The Land Speeder Storm has a transport capacity of five models. It can only carry Scouts." On page 141 it states "Scouts Only" as transport options. Would Wolf Scouts fall into this category?

The Wolf Scouts entry lists them as "Squad: The Scout squad consists of between 4 and 6 Wolf Scouts."

The Scout Squad entry (p.143) lists them as "Unit Composition: 4 Scouts, 1 Scout Sergeant."-note that the Scout Sergeant has a different profile and name, not merely a 'Scout'

Thus, as they are all 'Scouts' wouldnt Space Wolf Scouts be able to ride in the new Land Speeder Storm?

That depends, does it say "scouts and all of their options and variants?"

I would say yes though, as wolf scouts are scouts.

I agree with the rest of your post though. I think the people arguing here just feel like bucking the norm and playing devil's advocate; it's pretty clear what GW means by 'variants.' It also makes no sense that GW would update an FAQ only, what THREE months before a new codex hits the shelves (when it's likely been 100% finished and sent out to the printer's by then), without specifically keeping this in mind. I know GW has made some pretty questionable decisions, but there's quite frankly no way they would be this unreasonable.

@Pirate: I think you assume a far greater level of competence than GW deserves...

welllll ... any remeber that choas power in the old codex ... you can not shoot me ... you'd didn't try to shoot me you can't assault me? well this is another one of those situations where GW has failed ...

... we have an FAQ that says SW can take X and all of their options and variants ...so SW can take all of the options and variants of X ... Those are the rules, till GW changes them, thats what we play with

Thanks GW for another shoddy FAQ. With about 5 more minutes of work, they could have prevented any second-guesssing.

I think the answer on how to play it is:
Ask your opponent
Ask your tourney organizer
Play APOC

And if you're checking with your opponent or tourney organizer, be completely honest about it. "FAQ says this. People online don't agree with X or Y. What do you think?" I think it's pretty safe to bring a LR variant to a game. I think an Ironclad is a little iffy, and the LS Storm (or arming Wolf Scouts with sniper rifles - since they don't have a boltrifle to swap) is a lot more iffy.

And if you're running a tourney, you might just want to issue a FAQ to cut off any questions.

Poll isn't nearly as overwhelming in favor of the yeahs as I expected, but that's okay. At the least, it's educational.

Honestly the best way to answer this is to dust off those old 3rd edition codexes we have laying around (since this is when the SW codex was written, and an understanding what a "variant" is) If we look at the heavy support options we have we see 2 Different Predators listed, the annihilator and the Destructor. These are the old Predator "variants"

Space Wolves vehicles: Use the point costs and rules from Codex: Space Marines for Dreadnoughts, Land Speeders, Attack Bikes, Whirlwinds, Predators, Land Raiders and Vindicators. All of the different variants and options available to these units in a Space Marine army are also available to the Space Wolves. The exception to this is the Venerable Dreadnoughts, which must be chosen from the Space Wolves army list (as detailed on page 7), and not the Space Marines army list.

Now why would this not apply to LRC/LRR? Since they are LR variants?

Wow, this is one great argument. You guys have done a fairly good job of hashing this out. I have question though that has come up in our lttle community that is pertinent. Which set of points do you use? I have a LandRaider and gets Extra Armor for 5pts in the SW codex but 15 in the new SM codex. It would seem that if you have to use the ponts values for items out of the new codex then to me the intent would be to allow for the use of (and I hate to say the word) "variants" as well. The Razorbacks and Rhinos are cheaper in the SM but I have been using the higher priced versions in the SW. If I have to buy the higher priced extra armor then should I not get to buy the cheaper rhinos and razorbacks? Hope this adds a productive wrinkle to discussion. I

Bikeninja wrote:If I have to buy the higher priced extra armor then should I not get to buy the cheaper rhinos and razorbacks? Hope this adds a productive wrinkle to discussion. I

Maybe you should, but you don't and it's quite clear on that,

"Use the point costs and
rules from Codex: Space Marines for
Dreadnoughts, Land Speeders, Attack Bikes,
Whirlwinds, Predators, Land Raiders and
Vindicators."

On a side note GW cannot even keep the FAQ's strait. The German SW FAQ includes cheap Rhinos and Razorbacks outta the new Marine Dex.

http://www.games-workshop.de/home/errata/errata-40k-de.shtm
translated by google

Vehicles of Space Wolves: Use for Cybots, Land Speeder, Trikes, Rhino, Razorback, Whirlwind, Predator, Land Raider Vindicator and the point cost and rules of the Codex: Space Marines. Alle unterschiedlichen Varianten und Optionen dieser Einheiten aus dem Codex: Space Marines sind auch für Space Wolves erhältlich. Einzige Ausnahme ist der Ehrwürdige Cybot, der aus der Armeeliste der Space Wolves (und nicht der Space Marines) ausgewählt werden muss (siehe Seite 7). All options and variations of these units from the Codex: Space Marines are also available for Space Wolves. The only exception is the Venerable Cybot, from the list of the Army Space Wolves (and not the Space Marines) must be selected (see page 7).

... ok any where it say that you need to use a US/UK FAQ ? other wise i see alot of people are going to be bring in the german one