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.

All cool and good. But they still have not awsered weather characters can use the scouts behind enemy lines rule yet. :-(

Actually they did answer that. Behind enemy lines is simply outflank that changes the sides that the unit arrives on what rolls. In other words, joining the unit with a character the character is allowed to outflank, because scout transfers to the character. Remember you're not making a "Behind enemy Lines" arrival roll to determine side, you're making an Outflank roll to determine the side, it is just modified.

Seconded.

They also made a few changes that limit some SW abuse.
For example, wolf guard models are now only characters when they are pack leaders. I think this is good.

Also, they did away with the "Runic Weapon 4+ and THEN wolf tail 5+ and THEN deny the witch 6+" psychic save shenanigans.

Over all, I'm very pleased with the outcome. The only thing they've overlooked that I can see is they didn't define what a "Space Wolf Army" is for purposes of applying "leaders of the pack" to allied FOC's.

Is njals staff now a force stave?

I cant believe they didnt fix frost Axes but other than that it looks good

SlyasR wrote:
Is njals staff now a force stave?

I cant believe they didnt fix frost Axes but other than that it looks good

Page 53 – Njal Stormcaller, Staff of the Stormcaller.
Change the entry to read “Njal’s staff acts as a runic weapon
(stave) that nullifies enemy psychic powers on the roll of a 3+
(see page 36).”

Looks like +2 str is because um... frost is stronger then power? lol

I know, what i mean is should that be interpreted as that Runic weapons are staffs and not unusual force weapons?

It makes a point of saying stave, so yeah, it should follow the staff rules.

BlueDagger wrote:Looks like +2 str is because um... frost is stronger then power? lol

SlyasR wrote:Is njals staff now a force stave?

I cant believe they didnt fix frost Axes but other than that it looks good

They didn't need to fix the frost axes, they're perfectly fine the way they are. They get the +1 for being a axe, and the +1 for being frost that's a total of +2. Don't see what needs to be fixed about them

 Grugknuckle wrote:

The only thing they've overlooked that I can see is they didn't define what a "Space Wolf Army" is for purposes of applying "leaders of the pack" to allied FOC's.

I didn't know there was confusion here... LotP does not apply to allied FOC's.

CanisLupus518 wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:

The only thing they've overlooked that I can see is they didn't define what a "Space Wolf Army" is for purposes of applying "leaders of the pack" to allied FOC's.

I didn't know there was confusion here... LotP does not apply to allied FOC's.

Problem is that you have not backing for that statement. The use of army is not clear in the brb or codices.

RAW unclear, as Army is now all schnockered up for its definition.


HIWPI
The Leaders of the pack clearly applies to the detachment they are included within. The 'Army' in 5th ed is synonymous with what 6th ed calls a detachment.

If they are the primary detachment then they can have 4 total HQ choices.

If they are the allied detachment they can have 2 total HQ choices.

 Grugknuckle wrote:
They also made a few changes that limit some SW abuse.
For example, wolf guard models are now only characters when they are pack leaders. I think this is good.

Also, they did away with the "Runic Weapon 4+ and THEN wolf tail 5+ and THEN deny the witch 6+" psychic save shenanigans.

Over all, I'm very pleased with the outcome. The only thing they've overlooked that I can see is they didn't define what a "Space Wolf Army" is for purposes of applying "leaders of the pack" to allied FOC's.

They do not need to define it . Leader of the pack allows 2 HQs per single FOC slot , period . No definition for army is needed . Since allies FOC does not say " one unit" it says one FOC slot , 2 SW HQs maybe used , keep in mind that it is mitigated by the point cost . It's not free , it's expensive .
This entire thing is just a made up issue IMHO


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CanisLupus518 wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:

The only thing they've overlooked that I can see is they didn't define what a "Space Wolf Army" is for purposes of applying "leaders of the pack" to allied FOC's.

I didn't know there was confusion here... LotP does not apply to allied FOC's.

Really? Can you show me where it says that ?

 mk2 wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:
They also made a few changes that limit some SW abuse.
For example, wolf guard models are now only characters when they are pack leaders. I think this is good.

Also, they did away with the "Runic Weapon 4+ and THEN wolf tail 5+ and THEN deny the witch 6+" psychic save shenanigans.

Over all, I'm very pleased with the outcome. The only thing they've overlooked that I can see is they didn't define what a "Space Wolf Army" is for purposes of applying "leaders of the pack" to allied FOC's.

They do not need to define it . Leader of the pack allows 2 HQs per single FOC slot , period . No definition for army is needed . Since allies FOC does not say " one unit" it says one FOC slot , 2 SW HQs maybe used , keep in mind that it is mitigated by the point cost . It's not free , it's expensive .
This entire thing is just a made up issue IMHO


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CanisLupus518 wrote:

 Grugknuckle wrote:

The only thing they've overlooked that I can see is they didn't define what a "Space Wolf Army" is for purposes of applying "leaders of the pack" to allied FOC's.

I didn't know there was confusion here... LotP does not apply to allied FOC's.

Really? Can you show me where it says that ?

I love how worked up you can get and attack one unsubstantiated stance with your own but there is an ambiguity in the rules and atm either one is a viable stance. Quit acting like it's clear cut and just ask the TO before hand.

It is not ambiguous. It is very clear, people are reading too much into it. The rule was written for 5th edition, and we need to take that into consideration when reading it.

Yes but that is RAI by definition. RAW is the only thing we can actually debate.
RAI is subjective in the most open of ways, it cannot be said to be clearly any way as that implies objective knowledge of the writers that nobody here has.

How is it RAI by definition? The rule is clear. You get two for one. Anyone trying to argue that Primary Detachment is the ONLY definition for "Army" are ignoring the written rules.

 Captain Antivas wrote:
How is it RAI by definition? The rule is clear. You get two for one. Anyone trying to argue that Primary Detachment is the ONLY definition for "Army" are ignoring the written rules.

And those that apply army to both detachments are doing the same. Army is used fast and loose, it is used as both your entire list and a detachment without any clear convention.

The problem is the rule is noted for the Primary Detachment FOC HQ slot. Since GW did not come out and say what counts as an army we are left with HYWPI, since RAW are completely ambiguous in this case. IMO (and Insaniak IIRC) LotP only applies to the Primary Detachment FOC, and will do so until GW FAQs otherwise.

 Lone Dragoon wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:Looks like +2 str is because um... frost is stronger then power? lol

SlyasR wrote:Is njals staff now a force stave?

I cant believe they didnt fix frost Axes but other than that it looks good

They didn't need to fix the frost axes, they're perfectly fine the way they are. They get the +1 for being a axe, and the +1 for being frost that's a total of +2. Don't see what needs to be fixed about them

Because frost axe and Powerfist cost the same but Powerfist has more strength so the axe is worthless, if it were cheaper or I2 instead of I1 then it would have been three viable weapons (both frosta and fist)

SlyasR wrote:
[Because frost axe and Powerfist cost the same but Powerfist has more strength so the axe is worthless, if it were cheaper or I2 instead of I1 then it would have been three viable weapons (both frosta and fist)

The axe isn't a Specialist weapon. The fist is.

 insaniak wrote:

SlyasR wrote:
[Because frost axe and Powerfist cost the same but Powerfist has more strength so the axe is worthless, if it were cheaper or I2 instead of I1 then it would have been three viable weapons (both frosta and fist)

The axe isn't a Specialist weapon. The fist is.

Which makes fists better because from 6 th edition on specialist weapons can columbine with other specialist weapons making pf + wc giving you +1A just like axe + pistol gives you +1A

SlyasR wrote:
Which makes fists better because from 6 th edition on specialist weapons can columbine with other specialist weapons making pf + wc giving you +1A just like axe + pistol gives you +1A

That's a very expensive way to get +1 attack (compared to the free bolt pistol). Wouldn't be worth it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
It makes a point of saying stave, so yeah, it should follow the staff rules.

It does say Stave, but the rules for runic weapons make it an unusual force weapon. It defiantly has unique close combat rules. Not sure why they mentioned stave.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
It makes a point of saying stave, so yeah, it should follow the staff rules.

It does say Stave, but the rules for runic weapons make it an unusual force weapon. It defiantly has unique close combat rules. Not sure why they mentioned stave.

Other than a very limited bonus that applies when fighting 1 army, some of a second army, and one model out of a third, what unique close combat rules does it have? I don't think wounding Daemons on a set die roll is not enough to classify it as an unusual weapon so it should get the bonus from being a staff. The staff bonus doesn't matter against Daemons so it is not like you get a double bonus against them or anything. This is HIWPI and plan on discussing it with my group, it just sounds too unfair to place that kind of a limitation on an entire army.

 Captain Antivas wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
It makes a point of saying stave, so yeah, it should follow the staff rules.

It does say Stave, but the rules for runic weapons make it an unusual force weapon. It defiantly has unique close combat rules. Not sure why they mentioned stave.

Other than a very limited bonus that applies when fighting 1 army, some of a second army, and one model out of a third, what unique close combat rules does it have? I don't think wounding Daemons on a set die roll is not enough to classify it as an unusual weapon so it should get the bonus from being a staff. The staff bonus doesn't matter against Daemons so it is not like you get a double bonus against them or anything.

So aside from some unique rules, what unique rules does it have?

What?

 Captain Antivas wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
It makes a point of saying stave, so yeah, it should follow the staff rules.

It does say Stave, but the rules for runic weapons make it an unusual force weapon. It defiantly has unique close combat rules. Not sure why they mentioned stave.

Other than a very limited bonus that applies when fighting 1 army, some of a second army, and one model out of a third, what unique close combat rules does it have? I don't think wounding Daemons on a set die roll is not enough to classify it as an unusual weapon so it should get the bonus from being a staff. The staff bonus doesn't matter against Daemons so it is not like you get a double bonus against them or anything.

It might be a limited rule, but it is a rule.
It doesn't say it needs a 'decent close combat rule' or 'small rules don't count'.

Rune Priests... in Close... Combat?

What?

I see what you did there. What I am saying is that I am not sure that an entire army should get 1 type of Force Weapon and cannot deviate from that in exchange for a limited use ability. Doesn't sound very fair to me. It was poorly worded, but it was more of a HIWPI than anything else.

Does Njal's power, Vengeful Tornado Affect Flyers now?

Thanks

 Adam LongWalker wrote:
Does Njal's power, Vengeful Tornado Affect Flyers now?

Thanks

Separate thread on that topic exists. Still debated.