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.

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:Found another fault

“The High King” never states what turn he gets to pick ... now if he can pick at the start of any turn it gets strange

Game Turn 1 player pick an ability
Player turn 1 player pick a second ability .... see the problem?

"The High King" says Turn.

BRB Says Turn = Player Turn, Game Turn = Game Turn.

I fail to see the issue.

fair enough i missed that

Tri wrote:fair enough i missed that

No worries mate, we can't all be perfect like Troll Batman!

So, found any typos or got any suggestions

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:Found another fault

“The High King” never states what turn he gets to pick ... now if he can pick at the start of any turn it gets strange

Game Turn 1 player pick an ability
Player turn 1 player pick a second ability .... see the problem?

"The High King" says Turn.

BRB Says Turn = Player Turn, Game Turn = Game Turn.

I fail to see the issue.

Potentially, the same issue as IG Orders, which say "each turn" yet howls of outrage arose whenever anyone pointed out the BRB quote..............

don_mondo wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:Found another fault

“The High King” never states what turn he gets to pick ... now if he can pick at the start of any turn it gets strange

Game Turn 1 player pick an ability
Player turn 1 player pick a second ability .... see the problem?

"The High King" says Turn.

BRB Says Turn = Player Turn, Game Turn = Game Turn.

I fail to see the issue.

Potentially, the same issue as IG Orders, which say "each turn" yet howls of outrage arose whenever anyone pointed out the BRB quote..............

your units cannot take actions during your opponents turn, but you as a player can.

Demogerg wrote:

your units cannot take actions during your opponents turn, but you as a player can.

Sigh........ Yeah, whatever. Me, my units, in the game they are one and the same, regardless of how the rules are written. And my units take actions during the opponent's turn all the time, to include shooting (Inquisitor with Mystics).

Anyways, the point of my post was that we have a previous example of GW saying that a unit can do something "each turn", which should have, per their rules, meant each player turn, and then rolling it back (along with great player outcry) to player turn only, in spite of the phrasing on page 9 that is currently being used to justify the puppies being able to do something each player turn. Just saying that we shouldn't rely too heavily on that particular phrase, because GW doesn't know what it means. As I phrased it, "potentially a problem".

don_mondo wrote:Just saying that we shouldn't rely too heavily on that particular phrase, because GW doesn't know what it means.

QFT...they also don't have a good handle on the term "within" either.

I'm getting a prompt to enter a password whenever I try and open v1.7 with FoxIt. Anyone else getting this problem?

I've tried with Adobe as well, it just has problems with decrypting the file. I've also re-downloaded the file a couple of times with no luck.

Works fine for me on Foxit and Adobe.

What OS are you running?

Very ice FAQ Gwar. I don't really have a lot of use for it (unless I come into some cash, retire and start making a true scale terminator only army, perhaps even in that order) but I really am impressed at the dilligence and thought that went into this project.
The way I see it, GW ought to put guys like you and Yakface on retainer.

Wehrkind wrote:Very ice FAQ Gwar. I don't really have a lot of use for it (unless I come into some cash, retire and start making a true scale terminator only army, perhaps even in that order) but I really am impressed at the dilligence and thought that went into this project.
The way I see it, GW ought to put guys like you and Yakface on retainer.

... You know both Gwar and Yakface would happily do it for free.

Tri wrote:

Wehrkind wrote:Very ice FAQ Gwar. I don't really have a lot of use for it (unless I come into some cash, retire and start making a true scale terminator only army, perhaps even in that order) but I really am impressed at the dilligence and thought that went into this project.
The way I see it, GW ought to put guys like you and Yakface on retainer.

... You know both Gwar and Yakface would happily do it for free.

We already do

That's the spirit

They do yes, but I was trying to point out what ought to be, not what is GW should be paying them for the rules developement work they do, but GW does not. Really, GW should be a little embarrassed to even put out rule books with these kind of issues. It isn't as though they are a little start up company putting out self published rules in binders anymore :(

Though as a disclaimer, this might be related to how cranky I am that I don't get a check from SAP for all the developement work our team does for them, even though we are the customer!

Gwar! wrote:Works fine for me on Foxit and Adobe.

What OS are you running?

WinXP. Tried deleting what I had and downloaded it again, still nothing.

Presumeably when you say it works for you then it means you already have, but have you checked the download itself? Maybe the file host has corrupted it somehow?

Otherwise, I have no idea what's wrong. I tried 1.6 before you updated and it was working fine...

Have you got the very latest Adobe Reader from their website? I've checked the file download and everything seems fine :(

Gwar!, thank you for taking the time to make this. Since GW won't pay you in cash, I'd be more than happy to pay you in cookies*.

*cookies can be retrieved at any game store, at a pre-arranged and agreed upon time, within the DC/Baltimore area. Not redeemable for brownies, icecream, sports cars or other assorted snacks.

abortedsoul wrote:Gwar!, thank you for taking the time to make this. Since GW won't pay you in cash, I'd be more than happy to pay you in cookies*.

*cookies can be retrieved at any game store, at a pre-arranged and agreed upon time, within the DC/Baltimore area. Not redeemable for brownies, icecream, sports cars or other assorted snacks.

Yay Cookies!

FAQ has been updated to Version 1.8

Hey man, great work with the FAQ.
One little edit: In the answer to SW.32.02 - "How does Headstrong work?" in reference to Skyclaws you say "...for each Skyclaw Assault Pack that does not have a Wolf Guard Pack Leader or Independent Character accompanying it." To me, this implies that Pack Leaders can be assigned to Skyclaw packs, which RaW they can't.

DruidODurham wrote:Hey man, great work with the FAQ.
One little edit: In the answer to SW.32.02 - "How does Headstrong work?" in reference to Skyclaws you say "...for each Skyclaw Assault Pack that does not have a Wolf Guard Pack Leader or Independent Character accompanying it." To me, this implies that Pack Leaders can be assigned to Skyclaw packs, which RaW they can't.

Correct good sir. This is a copypasta error! While technically correct (as If a Wolf Guard Leader somehow magically becomes attached, Headstrong would not apply), I can see why it is confusing

I shall correct this typo in the next version. Many thanks for pointing this out

Gwar! wrote:

DruidODurham wrote:Hey man, great work with the FAQ.
One little edit: In the answer to SW.32.02 - "How does Headstrong work?" in reference to Skyclaws you say "...for each Skyclaw Assault Pack that does not have a Wolf Guard Pack Leader or Independent Character accompanying it." To me, this implies that Pack Leaders can be assigned to Skyclaw packs, which RaW they can't.

Correct good sir. This is a copypasta error! While technically correct (as If a Wolf Guard Leader somehow magically becomes attached, Headstrong would not apply), I can see why it is confusing

I shall correct this typo in the next version. Many thanks for pointing this out

ah just go full hog and errata it that they can join them.

Tri wrote:I shall correct this typo in the next version. Many thanks for pointing this out

ah just go full hog and errata it that they can join them.

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I shall correct this typo in the next version. Many thanks for pointing this out

ah just go full hog and errata it that they can join them.

As much as I wish I could, I feel this to be a step too far. My Intention (yes, I can use that word because I am the Author! ) is to only apply rules changes where absolutely necessary.

Meh 90% certain that GW will include them with SkyClaw. Otherwise they'll never sell the models ....I expect an errata for them 1 week after the release of Skyclaw models.

Tri wrote:Meh 90% certain that GW will include them with SkyClaw. Otherwise they'll never sell the models ....I expect an errata for them 1 week after the release of Skyclaw models.

And once they do, I will be happy to use WG Pack Leaders with them. Until then however, the rules are crystal clear.

Minor clarification I just spotted for Saga of the Hunter:

The pg 85 says that "SotH" can only be taken by models in PA that does not have a JP or SMB.

TW should be included in the list of exclusions due to its entry on pg 65 that says the Saga is for "infantry only" and TW wargear changes the IC unit to Calvary.

[sarcasm]Of course, a SW on a giant wolf would NEVER make a stealthy hunter. [/sarcasm]

I am just going to assume that this was one of Jervis' edits, as combining the two would have actually made the ability somewhat useful.

wyomingfox wrote:Minor clarification I just spotted for Saga of the Hunter:

The pg 85 says that "SotH" can only be taken by models in PA that does not have a JP or SMB.

TW should be included in the list of exclusions due to its entry on pg 65 that says the Saga is for "infantry only" and TW wargear changes the IC unit to Calvary.

[sarcasm]Of course, a SW on a giant wolf would NEVER make a stealthy hunter. [/sarcasm]

I am just going to assume that this was one of Jervis' edits, as combining the two would have actually made the ability somewhat useful.

Awesome, I shall add that. And yes, it does seem kind of funny, especially since everyone is going on about how a TW WL with SotH is t3h hax

Unless I missed something, Wolf Lords don't get SotH.

You didn't. It was just a poor attempt at humour

Ok, after much pestering, I have been compelled to include the following Q&A. Feedback is appreciated. Is the Answer clear enough? How could I word it better etc?

SW.52.xx– Q: How does the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” interact with abilities that allow a failed To Hit dice to be re-rolled, such as Twin-Linked or having a Ballistic Skill higher than 5?
A: An individual die can never be re-rolled more than once. If the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” effect is applicable, the two effects essentially “cancel” each other out, much in the same way as Fortune (re-roll failed invulnerable saves) and Perils of the Warp (re-roll successful invulnerable saves) “cancel” each other out. Technically, you must roll the dice To Hit, and then re-roll it no matter the result, taking the second result as the true result. This is the preferred solution in a competitive environment, as it eliminates potential errors or opponent misunderstandings. Mathematically however, the result is the same as rolling the dice To Hit once and accepting the result without re-rolling. [R.a.W]

On an Unrelated note, this question has the "honour" of being the 180th added to the FAQ.

Huzzah!

Gwar! wrote:Ok, after much pestering, I have been compelled to include the following Q&A. Feedback is appreciated. Is the Answer clear enough? How could I word it better etc?

SW.52.xx– Q: How does the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” interact with abilities that allow a failed To Hit dice to be re-rolled, such as Twin-Linked or having a Ballistic Skill higher than 5?
A: An individual die can never be re-rolled more than once. If the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” effect is applicable, the two effects essentially “cancel” each other out, much in the same way as Fortune (re-roll failed invulnerable saves) and Perils of the Warp (re-roll successful invulnerable saves) “cancel” each other out. Technically, you must roll the dice To Hit, and then re-roll it no matter the result, taking the second result as the true result. This is the preferred solution in a competitive environment, as it eliminates potential errors or opponent misunderstandings. Mathematically however, the result is the same as rolling the dice To Hit once and accepting the result without re-rolling. [R.a.W]

On an Unrelated note, this question has the "honour" of being the 180th added to the FAQ.

Huzzah!

in the case of BS6-10 the model will always roll their second roll since the first is discounted hit or miss (unless they are using a TL-Weapon in which case roll to hit as normal). This may not be rerolled for any reason... B6 hits on a 6; B7 hits on a 5+; B8 hits on a 4+; B9 hits on a 3+; B10 hits on a 2+