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:

Rated G wrote:I assume Protip is cool internet lingo? They don't have to keep things "within the rules" because they write the rules. You, on the other hand, do not write the rules.

The funny thing is, I do write the rules, considering half that FAQ is poached from mine.

So there.

Can you write a FAQ for the Guard where Stormtroopers don't suck and get GW to poach it?

I'd give you many Internets for it, Gwar.

Kanluwen wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Rated G wrote:I assume Protip is cool internet lingo? They don't have to keep things "within the rules" because they write the rules. You, on the other hand, do not write the rules.

The funny thing is, I do write the rules, considering half that FAQ is poached from mine.

So there.

Can you write a FAQ for the Guard where Stormtroopers don't suck and get GW to poach it?

I'd give you many Internets for it, Gwar.

I could, but the IG Fanbois didn't pay their "Protection" Money this round, so I had to go and make them suck. Sorry. I'll fix them for 6th ed though. Promise!

You better. Or else.

Sidehug Rap will come for you and your loved ones.

Gwar! wrote:

Rated G wrote:I assume Protip is cool internet lingo? They don't have to keep things "within the rules" because they write the rules. You, on the other hand, do not write the rules.

The funny thing is, I do write the rules, considering half that FAQ is poached from mine.

So there.

Wait, am I reading this right, are you taking credit for the GW's SW FAQ? Really?





Really?

theHandofGork wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Rated G wrote:I assume Protip is cool internet lingo? They don't have to keep things "within the rules" because they write the rules. You, on the other hand, do not write the rules.

The funny thing is, I do write the rules, considering half that FAQ is poached from mine.

So there.

Wait, am I reading this right, are you taking credit for the GW's SW FAQ? Really?





Really?

Try reading my FAQ (the first version of which was out 2 weeks before the SW codex was even on general sale) and then the GW FAQ, and note the parts that are pretty much Copypasted.

No offense, GWAR, but I'm too lazy to check out either your FAQ or GWs. Which ones are copy pasted?

Or we could be a little less paranoid, and just accept the fact that GW might have used similar wording to answer similar questions to gwar. But that version is less self-gratifying for gwar...

ph34r wrote:Or we could be a little less paranoid, and just accept the fact that GW might have used similar wording to answer similar questions to gwar. But that version is less self-gratifying for gwar...

How about reading my post and noticing THE EXACT SAME WORDS, highlighted for your viewing pleasure.

malfred wrote:No offense, GWAR, but I'm too lazy to check out either your FAQ or GWs. Which ones are copy pasted?

GW FAQ:
Q. How is the points cost for Lukas the Trickster calculated?
A. Lukas the Trickster costs the number of points in the options list (140) in addition to the base cost of a Blood Claw model (15).

My FAQ:
SW.89.03 – Q: How is the points cost for Lukas the Trickster calculated?
A: Lukas the Trickster costs the number of points in the Options list in addition to the base cost of a Blood Claw Model. [R.a.W]
--------------------------
GW FAQ:
Q. How does the Pelt of the Doppegangrel work?
A. Under normal circumstances, the Pelt of the Doppegangrel will only work if Lukas the Trickster is on his own (i.e. his Blood Claw buddies have all been killed off). Models with an ability to specifically target a certain model (e.g. a Vindicare Assassin) must re-roll all successful to hit rolls if targeting Lukas. The same ruling applies in close combat. Unless the enemy has a specific special rule allowing them to allocate attacks to specific models in close combat, Lukas cannot be targeted separately unless he is on his own. He really is that slippery a customer!

My FAQ:
SW.52.06 – Q: How exactly does the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” work?
A: Under normal circumstances, the “Pelt of the Doppegangrel” will only work if Lukas the Trickster is on his own (i.e. his squad has all been killed off). Models with an ability to specifically target a certain model (e.g. Vindicare Assassin or Eldar Farseer using “Mind War”) must re-roll all successful To Hit rolls if targeting Lukas. The same situation applies in close combat. However, unless the enemy has a specific special rule allowing them to allocate attacks to specific models in close combat, he cannot be targeted separately unless he is on his own. [R.a.W]
--------------------------
GW FAQ:
Q. Can units that Ragnar Blackmane has joined run in the Shooting phase or fire weapons that would prevent them from launching an assault in the following Assault Phase?
A. Yes, they may. Insane Bravado states that they must assault only ‘if possible’. If it is not possible because of the unit's actions in the Shooting phase or some other reason, then they simply do not assault.

My FAQ:
SW.55.01 – Q: Can units that Ragnar Blackmane has joined Run in the Shooting phase or fire weapons that would prevent them from launching an assault in the following Assault Phase?
A: Yes, they may. “Insane Bravado” states that they must assault only “if possible”. If it is not possible because of the unit's actions in the Shooting phase or some other reason, then they simply do not assault. [R.a.W]
--------------------------
Q. Is the +1 Toughness from a Thunderwolf Mount considered bonus Toughness, i.e. the model becomes Toughness 4(5), or is it a modification to the base characteristic, i.e. the model becomes Toughness 5?
A. Unusually for such bonuses, it is a modification to the base characteristic. [...]

SW.62.08 – Q: Is the +1 Toughness from a Thunderwolf Mount bonus toughness (i.e. The model becomes Toughness 4(5) ) or is it a modification to the base characteristic (i.e. The model becomes Toughness 5)?
A: It is a modification to the base characteristic (so a model with a Thunderwolf Mount is Toughness 5). [Clarification]
--------------------------
GW FAQ:
Q. Can you clarify how The Leaders of the Pack works exactly?
A. The rules for selecting Sagas are detailed on page 64. As for wargear, no two HQ characters, including Special Characters, may have the exact same wargear and Weapons, even if they are different HQ units. Note that Fenrisian Wolves bought as wargear are included in this check, so if you had two otherwise identical Wolf Guard Battle Leaders, save that one has one Fenrisian Wolf and the other has two, then you are technically obeying this rule just fine. For the record, the intent of the rule is that you should field characterful and diverse heroes in your army, not identical clones with but an extra melta bomb to set them apart. Though we cannot really enforce players to embrace this attitude, the Codex does try to encourage it wherever possible.

Q. Can you clarify how The Leaders of the Pack works with regards to psychic powers?
A. No number of Rune Priests may share the exact same two psychic powers. For example, a Rune Priest may choose to take Living Lightning and Thunderclap. A second Rune Priest may then choose to take Living Lighting and Jaws of the World Wolf, as he will not have the same two psychic powers as the first Rune Priest. Note that the restriction on weapons and wargear still applies, so you have to have each Rune Priest with a unique wargear selection. Also note that Njal Stormcaller knows all seven powers rather than just two, so no other Rune Priest can end up having the same powers. Thus it is permitted to take Njal Stormcaller alongside other Rune Priests.

My FAQ:
SW.81.01 – Q: Can you clarify how “The Leaders of the Pack” works exactly?
A: When selecting HQ characters, no two models may share the same Saga. Special Characters do not count as having a Saga for this purpose (So for example, a generic Wolf Lord may take the “Saga of Majesty” even if Logan Grimnar is in the army.)

No two HQ characters, including Special Characters, may have the exact same Wargear and Weapons, even if they are different HQ units. For example, an army that includes Ragnar Blackmane may not have a Wolf Guard Battle Leader that is equipped with a Wolftooth Necklace, Wolf Tail Talisman, Frost Blade, Meltabombs and the “Saga of the Warrior Born” (as well as the standard equipment remaining), as this would result in two characters having the exact same wargear and weapons. If you were to remove the Meltabombs from the Wolf Guard Battle Leader though, it would be a legal selection. Note that Fenrisian Wolves bought as wargear are included in this check, so to take two otherwise identical Wolf Guard Battle Leaders, save that one has one Fenrisian Wolf and the other has two, is a legal selection.

No number of Rune Priests may share the same two Psychic Powers. For example, a Rune Priest may choose to take Living Lightning and Thunderclap. A second Rune Priest may then choose to take Living Lighting and Jaws of the World Wolf, as neither have the same two Psychic powers. A third Rune Priest however may not select Thunderclap and Living Lighting, as the first Rune Priest has those Powers. Note that the restriction on Weapons and Wargear still applies, so you have to have each Rune Priest with a unique wargear selection. Also note that as Njal knows all seven powers rather than just two, no other Rune Priest can end up having the same Powers, thus it is permitted to take Njal Stormcaller with another Rune Priest. [Clarification]
--------------------------

Need any more proof or is this enough?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fugger it, here are some more:

GW FAQ:
Q. Are Wolf Guard Packs genuine Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Elites when fielded in an army with Logan Grimnar? If so, is this optional?
A. Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation Chart Selections. This is not an optional choice, so you can have at most six Wolf Guard Packs in an army with Logan Grimnar.

My FAQ:
SW.82.01 – Q: Are Wolf Guard Packs Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Elites in an army with Logan Grimnar? If so is this Optional?
A: Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation Chart Selections. Furthermore, this is not an optional choice, so you can have at most six Wolf Guard Packs in an army with Logan Grimnar and three in an army without. [R.a.W]
----------------------
GW FAQ:
Q. Similarly, are Fenrisian Wolf Packs Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Fast Attack in an army with Canis Wolfborn? If so is this optional?
A. Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation Chart Selections. Again, this is not an optional choice, so you can have at most six Fenrisian Wolf Packs in an army with Canis Wolfborn. You could in theory have an army primarily composed of wolves, though you’d not be able to claim objectives because of their Supernumerary rule, so you’d better be prepared for a lot of draws…

My FAQ:
SW.83.01 – Q: Are Fenrisian Wolf Packs Troops selections in the Force Organisation chart instead of Fast Attack in an army with Canis Wolfborn? If so is this Optional?
A: Yes, they count as Troops and take up Troops Force Organisation Chart Selections. Furthermore, this is not an optional choice, so you
can have at most six Fenrisian Wolf Packs in an army with Canis Wolfborn and three in an army without. [R.a.W]

We might not agree with the actual rulings and we can discuss the application and/or legality of the FAQs themselves, but one thing is clear IMO.

The last two FAQs (Guard and SW) has been released with lightning speed (by GWs standards) and it is painfully obvious that whoever is in charge of the FAQs has had/is having an eye on the issues raised on the various forums.

I applaud the new, and hopefully continued, standard.
Keep it up, GW!

And to all of us. Lets keep all discussions polite and relevant presenting all viewpoints (extreme RAW as well as "I would like to have the rule say this"), so we also can help GW make timely and helpfull FAQs.

*mini-rant over*

When you talked about them copying your FAQ Gwar, I just assumed they had simply written the same answers to the same questions in a similar fashion and you were going all narcissistic about it, but wow, that's awesome to see the side by side comparisons highlighted like that.

Gwar!: God-Emperors tits! No wonder the GW FAQ felt so familiar... Well, at least we can now take as granted the fact that the Powers That Be actually have ninjas stalking the fan forums.

I like it. T5 lords is kind of interesting, but all in all I'm satisfied, lol. I hope GW keeps it up, the whole good/timely FAQ thing.

GW are kings of copypasta.

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:Or we could be a little less paranoid, and just accept the fact that GW might have used similar wording to answer similar questions to gwar. But that version is less self-gratifying for gwar...

How about reading my post and noticing THE EXACT SAME WORDS, highlighted for your viewing pleasure.

Very colorful! Pretty lazy of GW too.

Have you cosidered issuing a C&D letter?

Overall, I really like the FAQ. It actually cleared up some issues and came out within a very reasonable timefram. I was a bit surprised at the Thunderwolf Cav ruling, but it's clarified.

This FAQ definitely raised my opinion of the Codex as the grey areas within the codex was very disappointing.

Now, if we could get a Deff Rolla ruling....

yeah,
It's good that GW are looking around the net for Frequently Asked Questions, and taking notes of how the community answers them.

Also I thought GWAR was banned got a refund for his DCM monies and said he was never coming back? or was that what was intended but not as written?

Panic...

Panic wrote:
Also I thought GWAR was banned got a refund for his DCM monies and said he was never coming back? or was that what was intended but not as written?

Panic...

Not a clue about the drama, but that's a funny one.

I guess it's sad once we start saying RAW vs. RAI in our everyday lives.

Reporter: Supreme Court Justice, what's your view of the Constitution?

Justice: Well over on this side of the judges, we're Ray-eyes, while those down there tend to be Raw-ers.

Reporter: WTF?

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:Or we could be a little less paranoid, and just accept the fact that GW might have used similar wording to answer similar questions to gwar. But that version is less self-gratifying for gwar...

How about reading my post and noticing THE EXACT SAME WORDS, highlighted for your viewing pleasure.

malfred wrote:No offense, GWAR, but I'm too lazy to check out either your FAQ or GWs. Which ones are copy pasted?

GW FAQ:
Q. How is the points cost for Lukas the Trickster calculated?
A. Lukas the Trickster costs the number of points in the options list (140) in addition to the base cost of a Blood Claw model (15).

My FAQ:
SW.89.03 – Q: How is the points cost for Lukas the Trickster calculated?
A: Lukas the Trickster costs the number of points in the Options list in addition to the base cost of a Blood Claw Model. [R.a.W]
--------------------------

etc....

You should send them a C&D for copyright infringement!

malfred wrote:

Panic wrote:
Also I thought GWAR was banned got a refund for his DCM monies and said he was never coming back? or was that what was intended but not as written?

Panic...

Not a clue about the drama, but that's a funny one.

I guess it's sad once we start saying RAW vs. RAI in our everyday lives.

Reporter: Supreme Court Justice, what's your view of the Constitution?

Justice: Well over on this side of the judges, we're Ray-eyes, while those down there tend to be Raw-ers.

Reporter: WTF?

Good point!

Gwar! does not, in fact, follow RaW, but RaI instead!

STOP THE PRESSES!

And I really do think Gwar! should politely ask GW to credit him on that FAQ! The copypasta is quite obvious indeed!

bhsman wrote:Yes, technically GW does not wish to have the FAQs enforced for the convenience of the player who does not have ready access to a computer, a printer, or just knowledge that an FAQ to exist.

This is a self-solving problem, as such players won't have access to the FAQ to begin with.

Plus I'm curious how many players are in places with resources to acquire models, books, etc.but don't have internet access or at least a library or web cafe...

Ideally, books should be perfect, self-contained, and contain all necessary info. Unfortunately no company is likely to do so, especially if they want to release regularly. So Errata and FAQs are an important thing to maintain.

Balance wrote:Ideally, books should be perfect, self-contained, and contain all necessary info. Unfortunately no company is likely to do so, especially if they want to release regularly. So Errata and FAQs are an important thing to maintain.

QFT

I sent a email to GW (with the deff rolla petion attached) this week complaining about their FAQs, my main point were that the community has provided more rule support than GW itself, and that GW needs to provide better FAQs and update them frequently.

I also mentioned that we know they can update the FAQs quickly when a minor rule question raises it's head, because we saw how quick they updated the SM codex FAQ to include errata to allow the weapon options for the Damned Sergeant with plasma pistol and power axe.

Also I agree that the rules above look like they are copy and paste Gwar! FAQ answers, he should be given credit like yakface was.

Panic...

thats great, now all we ned is a skaven FAQ toot sweet.
and ya Gwar send a C&D, plagerism is a no no....

insaniak wrote:

Scottywan82 wrote:First, why didn't they clarify the LOS stipulations on the the Lord of Tempests abilities. Is it just ONE unit within LOS? All units in LOS?

These all seem fairly clear in the codex already, IMO. It applies to all units within range.

But the Lord of Tempests rule specifically states that LOS must be drawn to a unit to be affected. So how do you reconcile that with everyone in range is affected?

insaniak wrote:

Scottywan82 wrote:And to TWC HQs get the LD reroll for wolves? Or just TWC and Canis?

Going by the FAQ answer, which applies it to Canis despite him not having the Wolfkin rule, I would say that the intention was for all Thunderwolves to have the ability.

Once again, though. That would have taken just a few words to be made NOT ambiguous. But it still is.

Hey, did anyone else notice that the new GW Space Wolf FAQ is like really similar to the one that Gwar! put out?

Wierd!

No, not even GWAR!...

But seriously most of the posts above are about GW copypasting GWAR!

i *accused* gwar of RAI when he first put out the faq but i didn't realize truly how RAIish it was until he himself compared it to the GW one line by line. i guess gwar *can* use RAI but only when it's for his favorite army!

as for the blatant plagarism, i think you should sell tshirts for your website and use the money to set up a C&D legal fund. in all seriousness, they completely livingbloodbowled you and your faq.

Well, I for one commend GW on actually posting a comprehensive Eratta/FAQ rather than the normal gak they posted in the past. I also commend GWAR! on his contribution to the GW FAQ, even though he wasn't personally creditted by GW (only in the general sense).

Q. Picture this: My Grey Hunters unit including Ragnar Blackmane is assaulted and makes a successful Leadership test to Counter-attack. Do they then benefit from his Furious Charge ability (+1 S and +1 I)? Also, can the original assaulter then deploy defensive grenades to rob the Space Wolves of their Counter-attack bonus?

A. The Counter-attack special rule states ‘all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn.’ Therefore Ragnar’s unit does indeed benefit from Furious Charge. Also, we think it is a bit rich for an assaulting unit to get the bonus for attacking and defending, so no, defensive grenades cannot be used to negate the bonus attack from counter-attacking.

This very clearly states how two USRs interact. GW is simply using the SW Codex FAQ to illustrate this. Counter-attack and Furious Charge are never limited, in this answer, to apply solely to the Space Wolves. You can howl all you want to the contrary, but even though this is printed in the SW Codex FAQ, it is specifically addressing/clarifying two USRs that all armies have equal access to.

Split the answer into three parts to get a better understanding of this:

A-The Counter-attack special rule states ‘all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn.’

B-Therefore [Ragnar’s] unit does indeed benefit from Furious Charge.

C-Defensive grenades cannot be used to negate the bonus attack from counter-attacking.

Ragnar's unit can just as easily be substituted for any other unit that has FC and CA. Based on the wording of counter-attack I don't see why this is even an issue. Counter-attack treats the affected unit 'as if' they were assaulting. How do you treat a unit that is assaulting if they have FC? There's nothing there to stop you from stacking the effects, so you get the bonus attacks.

Before this gets out of hand, there's already a few debates going on in YMDC over this, Yad.