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.

Also,t he Smoke launcherr and Turbo Boosting, were faqed.. wait your time and it will probably be faqed as well. .. till then your short a faq... the ohter two arent...

Ignoring the precedent is displaying willful ignorance.

As my little A+B=C example shows, it is perfectly logical to allow Shunting in the Scout phase. To attempt to argue otherwise is just silly.

mpangelu wrote:Also,t he Smoke launcherr and Turbo Boosting, were faqed.. wait your time and it will probably be faqed as well. .. till then your short a faq... the ohter two arent...

This again?

Look, FAQs are used to explain an unclear rule, not to create new rules entirely.
As such, people shouldn't have to "wait on an FAQ" to make things work the way it makes sense for them to work.
The FAQs are guidelines, and based on those guidelines, (and the Smoke Launcher/Turbo Booster example) the Shunt should work.
If anything, it would take an FAQ contrary to this to make it NOT work.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:Check the other thread, I think you are just missing the point entirely. Straw men don't make good arguments, so I quoted the BRB for you.

I would tell you to do the same and check the Movement rules for bikes. Turbo-boost is smack dab listed right there. It tells you to look under the Turbo-boosters USR, but it is listed as the bikes movement rules.

Even if you disregard that the shunt is done instead of moving, turbo-boosting required a FAQ to be allowed in the Scout move. Got a FAQ allowing a shunt during the Scout move? Then I guess you can't shunt during the Scout move till you get one.

I don't need one, because the Codex spells it out pretty clearly. Thanks lucasbuffalo, that was well said.

lucasbuffalo wrote:

mpangelu wrote:Also,t he Smoke launcherr and Turbo Boosting, were faqed.. wait your time and it will probably be faqed as well. .. till then your short a faq... the ohter two arent...

This again?

Look, FAQs are used to explain an unclear rule, not to create new rules entirely.
As such, people shouldn't have to "wait on an FAQ" to make things work the way it makes sense for them to work.
The FAQs are guidelines, and based on those guidelines, (and the Smoke Launcher/Turbo Booster example) the Shunt should work.
If anything, it would take an FAQ contrary to this to make it NOT work.

It is probably time to shut up this mistaken idea of FAQ's

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1620222a_40k_Rulebook_version_1_2.pdf

Go read the FAQ for turbo-boosting. The FAQ asks if bikes can turbo-boost in the Scout move and the answer is, yes, NOW THEY CAN. That means that before the FAQ, they were not able to and that after the FAQ they were able. Enough with the FAQ bashing when you don't even read them and see that FAQ have more then plenty of the time done far more then just clarify what can already be done.

Explain why Canis in the SW dex clearly has Rending in his special rules and then the FAQ singles him out by name to include that he cannot rend with his Wolf Claws. That is a clear outright change of the rules in the codex via a FAQ, not even an errata.

Canis has Rending because that is part of his Thunderwolf. However, because he has a special weapon, that no longer applies. People probably saw it and weren't sure, hence the confusion. Thus, the FAQ cleared that up.

Plenty of folks were Turbo-Boosting before the FAQ was released and that is why it was included - as a rules clarification.

And, from the Shrine of Knowledge itself:

"The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation."

Brother Ramses wrote:

lucasbuffalo wrote:

mpangelu wrote:Also,t he Smoke launcherr and Turbo Boosting, were faqed.. wait your time and it will probably be faqed as well. .. till then your short a faq... the ohter two arent...

This again?

Look, FAQs are used to explain an unclear rule, not to create new rules entirely.
As such, people shouldn't have to "wait on an FAQ" to make things work the way it makes sense for them to work.
The FAQs are guidelines, and based on those guidelines, (and the Smoke Launcher/Turbo Booster example) the Shunt should work.
If anything, it would take an FAQ contrary to this to make it NOT work.

It is probably time to shut up this mistaken idea of FAQ's

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1620222a_40k_Rulebook_version_1_2.pdf

Go read the FAQ for turbo-boosting. The FAQ asks if bikes can turbo-boost in the Scout move and the answer is, yes, NOW THEY CAN. That means that before the FAQ, they were not able to and that after the FAQ they were able. Enough with the FAQ bashing when you don't even read them and see that FAQ have more then plenty of the time done far more then just clarify what can already be done.

Explain why Canis in the SW dex clearly has Rending in his special rules and then the FAQ singles him out by name to include that he cannot rend with his Wolf Claws. That is a clear outright change of the rules in the codex via a FAQ, not even an errata.

The Canis issue has already been addressed. In-game I have seen this treated as a choice... Either use the Claws, or use the Thunderwolves rending ability without them, though this is a house-rule.

"Now they can" does not say "now they can because this FAQ says so" or your argument would be pretty valid.
As is, "now they can" can mean "now they can in 5th edition" "now they can because this is how we always intended it but people were arguing it" "now they can because bikes are cooler in this version of the BRB than ever before" or a large amount of other things. Now they can doesn't imply that it's the FAQ itself that allows it by any means.

Canis does not have TWM, he has a Fangir. The rules for Rending attacks not stacking with special close combat weapons is part of he TWM entry, not the Fangir entry.

So RAW, Canis has Rending Wolf Claws. The FAQ changed that RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lucasbuffalo wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

lucasbuffalo wrote:

mpangelu wrote:Also,t he Smoke launcherr and Turbo Boosting, were faqed.. wait your time and it will probably be faqed as well. .. till then your short a faq... the ohter two arent...

This again?

Look, FAQs are used to explain an unclear rule, not to create new rules entirely.
As such, people shouldn't have to "wait on an FAQ" to make things work the way it makes sense for them to work.
The FAQs are guidelines, and based on those guidelines, (and the Smoke Launcher/Turbo Booster example) the Shunt should work.
If anything, it would take an FAQ contrary to this to make it NOT work.

It is probably time to shut up this mistaken idea of FAQ's

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1620222a_40k_Rulebook_version_1_2.pdf

Go read the FAQ for turbo-boosting. The FAQ asks if bikes can turbo-boost in the Scout move and the answer is, yes, NOW THEY CAN. That means that before the FAQ, they were not able to and that after the FAQ they were able. Enough with the FAQ bashing when you don't even read them and see that FAQ have more then plenty of the time done far more then just clarify what can already be done.

Explain why Canis in the SW dex clearly has Rending in his special rules and then the FAQ singles him out by name to include that he cannot rend with his Wolf Claws. That is a clear outright change of the rules in the codex via a FAQ, not even an errata.

The Canis issue has already been addressed. In-game I have seen this treated as a choice... Either use the Claws, or use the Thunderwolves rending ability without them, though this is a house-rule.

"Now they can" does not say "now they can because this FAQ says so" or your argument would be pretty valid.
As is, "now they can" can mean "now they can in 5th edition" "now they can because this is how we always intended it but people were arguing it" "now they can because bikes are cooler in this version of the BRB than ever before" or a large amount of other things. Now they can doesn't imply that it's the FAQ itself that allows it by any means.

Hahaha, the FAQ flat out says now they can, which blasts holes in the statements that the FAQ do not change the rules, so now you apply your own additions to the FAQ to make your point?

Now they can signifies that before, "now" they couldn't. Nice try though. /picard

Brother Ramses wrote:Canis does not have TWM, he has a Fangir. The rules for Rending attacks not stacking with special close combat weapons is part of he TWM entry, not the Fangir entry.

So RAW, Canis has Rending Wolf Claws. The FAQ changed that RAW.

Q. Does a Thunderwolf Cavalry model with a special close
combat weapon (eg a thunder hammer) still have rending
attacks? (p34)
A. No. The description of the Thunderwolf mount on page
62 says that it ʻ… has the Rending special rule in close
combat with any attack that does not use a special close
combat weaponʼ. This applies to Thunderwolf Cavalry as
well (and Canis Wolfborn, for that matter).

This was a simple clarification that Canis Wolfborn is indeed a Thunderwolf Calvary HQ
Also, his wargear Fangir states:
"Fangir: Fangir is a monstrous Thunderwolf" and goes on to explain that Canis's improved profile is due to this.

Edit: Add "nice try though" sarcasm.

Fluff isn't rules.

Canis is mounted on Fangir, not TWM or TWC.

The FAQ goes on to apply the TWM entry to TWC and Canis for that matter, meaning they added the TWM restriction to TWC, which did not have it and to Fangir, which did not have it. They did not clarify the TWM rule of non-rending special close combat rules, they added it via a FAQ to TWC and Fangir.

So much for the FAQ not adding rules and only clarifying.

"A character with a Thunderwolf Mount has the unit type "calvary", adds +1 Strength, +1 Toughness, and +1 attack to his profile, and has the rending special rule in close combat with any attack that does not use a special close combat weapon. Pg. 62 of the SW codex.

The Thunderwolf cavalry are obviously SW on Thunderwolf Mounts. The FAQ clarifies this fact. It's obvious that a "Thunderwolf Cavalry" is "cavalry" riding "Thunderwolves".
Again, the FAQ is clarifying something that might be unclear to people who don't like to apply blatantly obvious logic to a situation.

Also, how does Fangir saying it is a Thunderwolf make it not a Thunderwolf.
This argument is baffling.

But really, every argument you have is. You nit-pick small points you think are important while blindly ignoring the plethora of examples others provide to the contrary. You're determined that they can't use their teleporters. Awesome. But don't try to prove your point by stating things like the contrary of what the FAQ page itself clearly states it is.

BR - RAW he has NEVER had Rending Wolf Claws. Have a look back at when the SW dex was released - this was one of the areas that was immediately picked up on.

UNlike Shrike he has *never* had permission to have both rending and (special claw ability)

So not only are you wrong on shunting MOVES occurring in the Scout phase but you are wrong on this. 0 for 2.

Lucas, how about you check the wargear entry for TWC and point out the TWM of it and tell me how that works out.

How about this,

TWM can only join TWC and Fenrisian Wolves.

That means RAW, every single multi-thunderlord list joined together to make thunder wolf deathstar units are illegal. Thunderlord joining an Iron Priest on a TWM? Illegal,

It was not a clarification because RAW, when the codex came out, TWM were not TWC and Fangir was neither as well. Canis does not have TWM in his wargear entry and TWC does not have TWM in their wargear entry. GW didn't errata it as they should because it was an error, instead they backdoored a rules change with a FAQ.

And really Nos? You have been wrong on Shunts and on this, 0-2 for you.....duuuuuurrrr! That is like hopping into the thread at the third post, sayong it has been resolved, according to you, and then asking for a lock.

For someone that cannot tell the difference between game movement and the physical mechanic of moving a model you sure try and act witty.

"I am going to make a Scout move with an action that I do instead of moving even though my Scout move requires that I make a normal move!"

Haahahahahahahahahahahaha, classic!

Classy BR. Classy

Since you are unable to reconcile your "it isnt a move!!!!!" argument with the multiple mentions that it IS a move I guess you concede.

RAW, you cannot apply "rending" to a Special CCW unless the rule SPECIFICALLY states you can, like Shrikes. Canis didnt, so he *never* had rending. Nice try at ignoring rules though. Doing well.

Brother Ramses wrote:"I am going to make a Scout move with an action that I do instead of moving even though my Scout move requires that I make a normal move!"

Haahahahahahahahahahahaha, classic!

So, what is a "normal" move as defined explicitly by the BRB? Got a page number I can reference to see the difference between "normal" and other types of movement?

Don't feed the troll.
His entire argument is based on a single word in a rule while he chosese to ignore four other words in the same rule. <removed after mod post> Either way he obviously does not care for actual written WH40k rules, so no point in discussing them with him.

I understand it can get frustrating, but please take a breath/count to 10 and then post. We can do without the flames, hyperbole and personal attacks. Ta.

Just my two pennies,

At the end of the "Personal Teleporters" entry on page 28 of codex Grey Knights it states:

"The unit counts as having moved" so technically, wouldn't a shunt move count as a "Normal" move?

Psy.

PsyberAngel wrote:At the end of the "Personal Teleporters" entry on page 28 of codex Grey Knights it states:

"The unit counts as having moved" so technically, wouldn't a shunt move count as a "Normal" move?

If you can figure out what move normally is, or if it had stated "The unit counts as having moved normally".

Until then it seems that anything that can ever occur in the movement phase is normal, and they had absolutely no need to write that word into the sentence other than deliberately attempting to confuse people.

Until then it seems that anything that can ever occur in the movement phase is normal, and they had absolutely no need to write that word into the sentence other than deliberately attempting to confuse people.

I doubt the word was needed the most likely reason the word is there is to clarify that the scout does not require its own movement rules and that you move as you would normally. That people cling to that word to discount "non-normal" movement (yet no such movement is ever defined or clarified and nothing else following that pattern is denied) syas more about them than GWs rules writing capabilities.

FlingitNow wrote:That people cling to that word to discount "non-normal" movement (yet no such movement is ever defined or clarified and nothing else following that pattern is denied) syas more about them than GWs rules writing capabilities.

That people feel the need to passively insult folks who ask if the words written in the rules affect those rules tells more about them than it does about their ability to debate.

Don't be ridiculous. History has proven time and again that GW rules writing is not up to technical standards and while the intellectual exercise can be interesting, the "pure" RAW rarely follow any sort of common language and leave huge areas of interpretation and loopholes.

sourclams wrote:the "pure" RAW rarely follow any sort of common language and leave huge areas of interpretation and loopholes.

And "pure" RAI leaves you playing Calvin-ball.

Just as an "what were they thinking?!?!"aside, who decided that a 30" free move with no scatter was a sensible thing to include in ANY codex?

That person needs a punch in the face.

Was normal move ever used in 4th edition rulebook?

Or any preceding codex entry? or Rulebook?

Its in the FAQ quite a bit but not as a definite answer, although you could piece one together.


I see the FAQ coming saying you can scout move and shunt but that you still cant assault first turn.
my 2cents

Why would it prevent assaulting first turn?

You do realisae that first turn assaults have been around since 1998, yes?

can anyone point me or tell me if i give a Dreadknight a Jump Pack (making it Jump Infantry) Does it still count as an MC meaning it can't go in a Stromraven?

or can it now due to it being Jump Infantry?

No it cant, it doesnt lose MC status like a Daemon prince with wings---> MC with jump infantry movement.

shank911 wrote:like a Daemon prince with wings

Probably a bad example as a daemon prince with wings is a MC that moves like Jump Infantry.

Daemon princes cannot have jump packs, which is what makes equiped units Jump Infantry.