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.

Thanks, I do try

BtW, is multilasers supposed to be plot? It's just a guess.

Multilasers are better than a plot, because you can't kill hundreds or orks with a plot while riding on the roof of your Land Raider.

A quick aside, I know the answers to most of these, it just seems likely that someone would have questions regarding these issues. That said:

What happens when Arjac attempts to hit a unit consisting of a Tomb Spyder and and >1 scarab?
Arjac says "if possible". If it is not Possible because of a Retinue, the rule does not work. Also a Tomb Spyder is not an IC so it doesn't matter.

But it says he does so against monstrous creatures. And again, this could be very confusing.

Does a model with Mark of the Wulfen and two close combat weapopns, one of which is a special weapon, get a bonus attack, and if so, does he get the special weapon's bonus on that attack? If he chooses a thunder hammer, does he attack at I1 or does he only have one attack that goes at I1?Models with the MotW do not get the +1 for bonus weapons, nor may they use any Wargear or special weapons (as directed by the "and so on". This is a Specific Rule of MotW overriding the General BRB rules.

Not quite, Gwar. "These attacks are not affected..." Emphasis mine, hence the confusion.

This codex may be in the running for the most faq pages yet by the sound of things. They missed charging/assaulting? I guess I will need to read it just to prepare myself for when I have to play against Wolf players as it won't be as absurd to stretch the codex rules to fit thier needs maybe.

Kitzz wrote:But it says he does so against monstrous creatures. And again, this could be very confusing.

But he cannot target the MC individualy as it is part of a unit. MC's do not have the same profision as IC's in CC, so it doesn't matter anyway. Same as if he was involved with Tyrant and Guard. He just gets to assign to the squad as normal.

Does a model with Mark of the Wulfen and two close combat weapopns, one of which is a special weapon, get a bonus attack, and if so, does he get the special weapon's bonus on that attack? If he chooses a thunder hammer, does he attack at I1 or does he only have one attack that goes at I1?

Models with the MotW do not get the +1 for bonus weapons, nor may they use any Wargear or special weapons (as directed by the "and so on". This is a Specific Rule of MotW overriding the General BRB rules.

Not quite, Gwar. "These attacks are not affected..." Emphasis mine, hence the confusion.

Gwar! wrote:

Kitzz wrote:But it says he does so against monstrous creatures. And again, this could be very confusing.

But he cannot target the MC individualy as it is part of a unit. MC's do not have the same profision as IC's in CC, so it doesn't matter anyway. Same as if he was involved with Tyrant and Guard. He just gets to assign to the squad as normal.

Does a model with Mark of the Wulfen and two close combat weapopns, one of which is a special weapon, get a bonus attack, and if so, does he get the special weapon's bonus on that attack? If he chooses a thunder hammer, does he attack at I1 or does he only have one attack that goes at I1?

Models with the MotW do not get the +1 for bonus weapons, nor may they use any Wargear or special weapons (as directed by the "and so on". This is a Specific Rule of MotW overriding the General BRB rules.

Not quite, Gwar. "These attacks are not affected..." Emphasis mine, hence the confusion.

Sorry, but you have the rule wrong. The Sentence "These attacks are not affected" is nowhere in the rule.

The rule says "These attacks are made using the marked models' claws and teeth, and hence are not affected by wargear, additional hand weapons and so on, though they may be bolstered by other factors (the bonus for charging, Logan Grimnar's Living Legend ability, etc)."

Also Lol, Charging

I understand the issue with the first question, I was just clarifying what you said, as you seemed to think that ICs were the only ones affected by the ability. As for question number two, let me rephrase.

"These attacks...are not affected..."

Now might you have an answer?

Yes, those attacks are not affected by wargear or additional hand Weapons. A thunder hammer is an Additional hand weapon to their Teeth and Claws isn't it?

In other words, the MotW gives you D6+1 Attacks at your own strength but with rending. You cannot get D6+1 S8 Ignore Armour Saves with Rending attacks with a PF/TH. In OTHER words, MotW + Special Weapon = Waste of Points.

Yes, I am Pedantic. Remember your Ellipsis first time!

No, that is not what I'm saying. You get d6+1 attacks that replace your normal cc attacks. They can't benefit from special weapons. Done. Fin.

Now, you go to your wargear and you pick up 2 ccws, one of which is a power sword, let's say. You now have an additional attack. Is it a power weapon attack? Now grab 2 PF/TH. Do you strike at I1 with that extra attack?

Kitzz wrote:Now, you go to your wargear and you pick up 2 ccws, one of which is a power sword, let's say. You now have an additional attack. Is it a power weapon attack? Now grab 2 PF/TH. Do you strike at I1 with that extra attack?

You do not get the additional attack at all.
These attacks are made using the marked models' claws and teeth, and hence are not affected by wargear, additional hand weapons, and so on.

A Model with MotW and BP and CCW still only gets D6+1.

Right, the attack from the two close combat weapons is completely separate. So does it get the bonus or not?

A quick aside:
Does Mark of the Wulfen combined with a Thunderwolf Mount grant d6+1 attacks or d6+2?

Kitzz wrote:Right, the attack from the two close combat weapons is completely separate. So does it get the bonus or not?

A quick aside:
Does Mark of the Wulfen combined with a Thunderwolf Mount grant d6+1 attacks or d6+2?

D6+1. The Entire attacks stat is replaced by D6+1. So yes, MotW is crap on Thunderwolf Cav, as they have rending anyway and 4A base, so more than likely you are LOSING attacks.

And no, it does not get the bonus for 2 weapons, the bonus for what weapons he is carrying, or whatever other weapon or wargear based bonuses he has.

Why not? I'm not arguing the other attacks receive the benefit, I'm arguing that the extra one for two ccws does.

Kitzz wrote:Why not? I'm not arguing the other attacks receive the benefit, I'm arguing that the extra one for two ccws does.

But you do not get the extra one for CCWs...

Again, why?

Because you are not given permission to use additional CCW at all - you may only make one set of attacks unless you have a special rule, such as Techmarines servo harness.

All attacks must be with the same weapon, see BRB.

Kitzz wrote:Again, why?

Because the rule says you cannot...

To represent this, no two characters may bear the same saga, nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combination.

Gwar! wrote:But can you also see that "Psychic Powers" is Plural, because Rune Priests always have exactly two (Njarl notwithstanding). Surely you must get from that that a model with JotWW and Living Lighting does not have the same "Psychic Powers" as one with JotWW and Storm Caller?

Even if they used the singular "Psychic Power", I think we would still be having this discussion, for it would then read "nor may they bear the same psychic power or wargear combination". In the english language this phrase can mean "nor may they bear the same psychic power combination or wargear combination". This is because it is a common english mechanic to remove the redundancy in a list and state the term only once at the end.

For example: "You may select a red pen or a black pen." It is equally correct and much more common to write it this way: "You may select a red or black pen."

Another example: "No two classmates may select the same pencil, nor may they select the same pen combination or notebook combination." You could also write it this way: ""No two classmates may select the same pencil, nor may they select the same pen or notebook combination."

Right now, I interpret the language to mean that you may not have the same psychic powers (as in set) or psychic power combination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Gwar read my sig.

Au contraire, I am going to. Just as soon as I find my Speedos...

Agggh! That mental picture has blinded my mind!

wyomingfox wrote:
Even if they used the singular "Psychic Power", I think we would still be having this discussion, for it would then read "nor may they bear the same psychic power or wargear combination". In the english language this phrase can mean "nor may they bear the same psychic power combination or wargear combination". This is because it is a common english mechanic to remove the redundancy in a list and state the term only once at the end.

Yeah, this would be the case where we'd have to argue over whether the comma was omitted as an editorial thing, or on purpose to communicate a particular meaning because

"same psychic power or wargear combination" can mean "same psychic power combination" or single duplicate power while

"same psychic power, or wargear combination" is the only clear formulation that says no two characters can share even a single power.

So, who wants to volunteer to format each issue in an INAT friendly format for me? I would do it, but I am far too busy... being delicious.

Lemartes wrote:This codex may be in the running for the most faq pages yet by the sound of things. They missed charging/assaulting? I guess I will need to read it just to prepare myself for when I have to play against Wolf players as it won't be as absurd to stretch the codex rules to fit thier needs maybe.

It would be if GW answered the scores of real questions. Instead, it will be forced to fit in the 3-page template that already have. Then, they will have to find someone that can actually summon enough caring to actually answer 3 pages of questions. At best, a page and a half of answered questions with a blank third page will be the result.

The INAT FAQ may prove to have a large Space Wolf FAQ page count.

Lol, I know you guys love your RaW. I would remind people though, that the game designers deliberately do not write their rules for RaW, and instead prefer RaI and "the most important rule" and what not as their way of writing rules.

Otherwise, for instance, a blood angel's rhino has no access points or fire points, so with the door welded shut, RaW models starting inside could not disembark or shoot out of the rhino.

Anyways, here's another one. The wolf item that hits on a 3+, does it work on a grenade vs a dreadnought?

If a wolfguard joins a greyhunter's squad, does the wolfguard count as scoring?

For jaws of the world wolf, is jump infantry a subset of infantry? What about jetbikes? What about jet infantry? The rule says it works on infantry, bikes, and monstrous creatures.

Edit: Another one: Characteristics are supposed to cap at 10. What happens when mark of the wulfen or what not takes you past 10 attacks?

The saga that gives you attacks gives you an attack for every single model slain. What about necrons near a res orb? Do they count as "slain" if they die and then get back up?

Lol, I know you guys love your RaW. I would remind people though, that the game designers deliberately do not write their rules for RaW, and instead prefer RaI and "the most important rule" and what not as their way of writing rules.

And you know this how?

Otherwise, for instance, a blood angel's rhino has no access points or fire points, so with the door welded shut, RaW models starting inside could not disembark or shoot out of the rhino.

Yes. Your point?

Anyways, here's another one. The wolf item that hits on a 3+, does it work on a grenade vs a dreadnought?

If mobile, No. Wolf Tooth Necklaces state they hit on a 3+ instead of comparative weapon Skills. Grenades against walkers do not use weapon skill, they hit on a specific number. However, if the Walker is Immobilised, grenades use comparative weapon skill, so you would hit on a 3+

If a wolfguard joins a greyhunter's squad, does the wolfguard count as scoring?

No, unless Logan is in the Army.

For jaws of the world wolf, is jump infantry a subset of infantry? What about jetbikes? What about jet infantry? The rule says it works on infantry, bikes, and monstrous creatures.

No, No and No. Jump Infantry, Jet Infantry and Jetbikes are all immune.

Edit: Another one: Characteristics are supposed to cap at 10. What happens when mark of the wulfen or what not takes you past 10 attacks?

The MotW can bring you up to a maximum of 7 (D6+1). Bonus attacks (such as from assalting) can cause your attacks to go above 10.

The saga that gives you attacks gives you an attack for every single model slain. What about necrons near a res orb? Do they count as "slain" if they die and then get back up?

Yes.

Attacks are the only characteristic that can go above 10.
It was clarified for the Khorne Daemon Weapon that adds 2D6 Attacks.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:Attacks are the only characteristic that can go above 10.
It was clarified for the Khorne Daemon Weapon that adds 2D6 Attacks.

Not quite right. Bonus Attacks can allow the Attacks Characteristic to Temporarily go above 10. Base attacks are still capped at 10

Gwar! wrote:

Lol, I know you guys love your RaW. I would remind people though, that the game designers deliberately do not write their rules for RaW, and instead prefer RaI and "the most important rule" and what not as their way of writing rules.

And you know this how?

The same way the rest of us know. Intentional ignorance is your right, but it's also obvious

Kaaihn wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Lol, I know you guys love your RaW. I would remind people though, that the game designers deliberately do not write their rules for RaW, and instead prefer RaI and "the most important rule" and what not as their way of writing rules.

And you know this how?

The same way the rest of us know. Intentional ignorance is your right, but it's also obvious

I am just saying, unless you ARE one of those writers, you know their "Intent" no more than I know the current style of Queen Elizabeth II's Baby Cannon Hair.

Bah! Their intent is obviously to create the kind of confusion needed to start an epic nerd war on a global level that would pit RAW vs RAI and casual fluff bunny vs tournament nazi.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Lol, I know you guys love your RaW. I would remind people though, that the game designers deliberately do not write their rules for RaW, and instead prefer RaI and "the most important rule" and what not as their way of writing rules.

And you know this how?

The same way the rest of us know. Intentional ignorance is your right, but it's also obvious

I am just saying, unless you ARE one of those writers, you know their "Intent" no more than I know the current style of Queen Elizabeth II's Baby Cannon Hair.

I understand your point about not knowing the RAI so you just go with RAW. I think you are intentionally ignoring quite a bit though in your goal of sticking to pure RAW. Most of the RAI is very clear.

What you seem to object to is having to discuss and come to an agreement with an opponent a ruling where the RAI does not match the RAW. You seem to want to use the RAW no matter how wrong it is written to be able to avoid the discussion and have a written standard. Again, that's your right, but it misses part of the point of the design of the game. That part being the social interaction the game forces on us by requiring some discussion on how we agree to play some things in our game.

Personally, I would rather have a tightly written game that makes sense and and socialize with my opponent about anything I want as we play, rather than the current model, but it is what it is. I don't think the game is worth playing if you stick to pure RAW, as to much is just pointless nonsense that was never meant to be played that way.

Infantry blind spots are a great example of this.

No, I agree 100% with you, it's just that you have to recognise that RaI is a very flimsy argument. I have no problem hammering out "RaI" solutions where needed, but I do not take kindly to people saying "THIS IS RAI BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!"

I know you are not, but I am just being pedantic

Gwar! wrote:No, I agree 100% with you, it's just that you have to recognise that RaI is a very flimsy argument. I have no problem hammering out "RaI" solutions where needed, but I do not take kindly to people saying "THIS IS RAI BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!"

I know you are not, but I am just being pedantic

RAI isn't inherently a flimsy argument though. It's only flimsy when people are trying to argue for something that has no guidance in the book.

Like Infantry facing doesn't matter? RAI, it says right on the page "facing doesn't matter". Not flimsy at all.
Those Eldar masks I am to lazy to look up the name for right now, that let you attack into cover and go first? Mechanic broken by 5th, but the RAI is clear right in the book they are meant to keep the poncy space elf hitting first.
Same for target priority, etc. Most RAI is clear what it is meant to do, the given mechanic just got broken. Easy and obvious solutions are generally right there if people are willing to talk about things.

It's places where the printed material is not giving any direction at all and someone claims it works differently because of RAI that it becomes flimsy. To be honest, with the exception of one guy who is a known rules cheater, out of the large number of central Florida gamers I have been around, I've never heard of anyone trying to claim RAI with no clear standing as to why they are claiming it from a book. Not that it doesn't happen, it just doesn't in my experience in person. It seems to be more a forum fear than a real happening. Again, that's my experience, your mileage may vary

I know it's easier said than done sometimes, but if your gaming mates are pulling stuff out of thin air and claiming it as RAI, it might be time for new gaming mates!