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.

This is a good example of the FAQs being a draft. This one made things very confusing.

It seems to imply that a single model that prevents a unit from charging wont actually prevent the unit from charging, which would go against the core rules of the game. We all know how sketchy things get when we base games off of implied rules.

It is however, clearly stated that the IC does not get the rule allowing run+charge, which should be enough to work with until the next bundle of FAQs come out.

The only way it could work, is if the run phase was to work like the move phase. Where in the move phase, I can say "my heavy weapon is not moving, but the rest of the unit is, and they maintain coherency." This allows the heavy weapon to shoot at normal BS, even though the unit moved. That might be what GW is implying with the FAQ ,but it isn't very clear, and the BRB is still pretty straightforward that running is a unit by unit, instead of model by model.

It is a poorly written FAQ, I believe the best course of action would be to message the GW facebook and show them how many people are confused by the wording, so they can correct it.

Blaktoof- so the unit cannot actually benefit. As you are denying them the on,y point at which the FAQ question arises.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Blaktoof- so the unit cannot actually benefit. As you are denying them the on,y point at which the FAQ question arises.

The faq never says the unit can benefit from bounding lope. It says the wulfeb in the unit can. It then clearly states the IC cannot benefit. Nothing grants permission to assault with part of an unit I the brb or the faq, so The unit cannot declare an assault if it runs. Which the faq does not address.

The faq question does not address running, however if the unit runs the whole unit count as running as per the brb and the rulebook faq draft. The faq clearly states the ic cannot benefit from this. Therefore the unit cannot declare an assault move because doing so is letting the ic benefit from that part of the rule of the unit runs.

The wulfen when assaulting with an attached ic would get to reroll their assault distance and move the reroll while the ic would move the original value as per this faq answer they must maintain coherency.

The problem is the faq specifies the IC does not benefit, and that the wulfen- not the unit and attached IC get to do something. The faq question does not address running in anyway so we are stuck with units run. And unless they have rules allowing to assault they cannot declare an assault. The attached does not benefit from bounding lope and may not declare an assault. Therefore the unit may not declare an assault.

@ Blaktoof: specifically, I would like you to explain to me why Bounding Lope should be different than For Glory, For Russ!

This is from the FAQ which I posted (I posted the picture for this one specifically because it is exactly like Bounding Lope)

Q: If an independent character joins a unit from a space wolves deathpack formation, can they still benefit from For Glory, For Russ! Special rule (for example, Run and then still be able to charge in the same turn)?
A: The attached character does not benefit, but nor does he prevent the unit he is attached to from doing so, provided that all models in the unit (including the independent character) maintain unit coherency at all times.

Blaktoof - again, the FAQ states the wulfen (the name of the unit ale as well, because GW) benefit

You're stating there is no way for them to benefit.

You're contradicting the FAQ.

The drunken monkeys have ignored the relationships their own game rules provide.

An IC that joins a unit becomes part of that unit for all rules purposes.

Special Rules do not confer between the models of the unit, unless they specifically state so ala Stubborn.

Stubborn, however, does not confer any special rule at all, but grants a benefit to the entity which passes its requirements.

An IC that joins a Wulfen unit or a Deathpack Formation unit is as much a part of that unit when they use For Russ or For Glory or that Wulfen special rule as it would be if Stubborn is being considered.

For some reason, GW has taken to writing a House Rule stating that the IC is NOT part of the unit for Detachment rules when it is part of the unit for everything else. This is what I mean by drunken monkeys.

Not contradict ing the faq. You are inserting words into the question and answer tgatvarw not there.

The wulfen may benefit from the rule but the unit cannot declare an assault of there is an attached IC if it runs due to how the rules for the game work. Some people brought up the different movement modes and incompletely quoted them ignoring that it still states the entire unit counts as running in that faq answer.

The SW faq clearly states the IC cannot benefit, so it doesn't matter if the wulfen do becausebrhe UNiT cannot declare an assault at that point- you can't assault with part of an unit and not the rest.

The faq still allows for a benefit for the wulfen+IC in regards to an assault reroll.

If you think the faq allows the IC to run and assault with the wulfen, or allows for units to have only part of the models assault please quote where or back it up with some rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
The drunken monkeys have ignored the relationships their own game rules provide.

An IC that joins a unit becomes part of that unit for all rules purposes.

Special Rules do not confer between the models of the unit, unless they specifically state so ala Stubborn.

Stubborn, however, does not confer any special rule at all, but grants a benefit to the entity which passes its requirements.

An IC that joins a Wulfen unit or a Deathpack Formation unit is as much a part of that unit when they use For Russ or For Glory or that Wulfen special rule as it would be if Stubborn is being considered.

For some reason, GW has taken to writing a House Rule stating that the IC is NOT part of the unit for Detachment rules when it is part of the unit for everything else. This is what I mean by drunken monkeys.

I agree, it's really inconsistent. Hopefully in 8th they come up with some other terminology for some of the rules to differentiate things better.

Blaktoof, you still haven't addressed For Glory, For Russ!

Why can a unit with attached IC still charge with For Glory, For Russ! but not with Bounding Lope?

Both units have an attached IC, both rules allow a run and charge, and both FAQs say the unit benefits but the IC does not.

 Charistoph wrote:
The drunken monkeys have ignored the relationships their own game rules provide.

An IC that joins a unit becomes part of that unit for all rules purposes.

Special Rules do not confer between the models of the unit, unless they specifically state so ala Stubborn.

Stubborn, however, does not confer any special rule at all, but grants a benefit to the entity which passes its requirements.

An IC that joins a Wulfen unit or a Deathpack Formation unit is as much a part of that unit when they use For Russ or For Glory or that Wulfen special rule as it would be if Stubborn is being considered.

For some reason, GW has taken to writing a House Rule stating that the IC is NOT part of the unit for Detachment rules when it is part of the unit for everything else. This is what I mean by drunken monkeys.

Sounds like you need to revise a lot of your interpretations of the rules to fall into line with GW reasoning. This isn't because GW is a bunch of drunken monkeys. This is because you have been trying to shoe-horn the rules based on wacky interpretations (such as Stubborn not actually conferring when the rule clearly state that it does). I have shown the flaws in your interpretations across many threads, such as http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/680416.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/680707.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/678568.page

Feel free to keep trying to push your old failed lines of reasoning, but the writings on the wall here . . .

 NightHowler wrote:
Blaktoof, you still haven't addressed For Glory, For Russ!

Why can a unit with attached IC still charge with For Glory, For Russ! but not with Bounding Lope?

Both units have an attached IC, both rules allow a run and charge, and both FAQs say the unit benefits but the IC does not.

The For glory for Russ is cut and paste the same answer. I can't give you a logical explanation. There isn't one.

Just like an IC attached to skyhammer or other units that can run and charge prevents them, it makes no sense to allow it here. However the allowance for one is not an allowance for another. This for example doesn't mean you can attach an IC to skyhammer and charge with the unit. That answer is currently only valid for that question.

Ie one bad answer doesn't change the others, that's just currently the only inconsistent faq allowance.

blaktoof wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Blaktoof, you still haven't addressed For Glory, For Russ!

Why can a unit with attached IC still charge with For Glory, For Russ! but not with Bounding Lope?

Both units have an attached IC, both rules allow a run and charge, and both FAQs say the unit benefits but the IC does not.

The For glory for Russ is cut and paste the same answer. I can't give you a logical explanation. There isn't one.

Just like an IC attached to skyhammer or other units that can run and charge prevents them, it makes no sense to allow it here. However the allowance for one is not an allowance for another. This for example doesn't mean you can attach an IC to skyhammer and charge with the unit. That answer is currently only valid for that question.

Ie one bad answer doesn't change the others, that's just currently the only inconsistent faq allowance.

The Bounding Lope rule gives the permission to charge after running.



The Draft FAQ clarifies that the models comprising the Wulfen unit can run and charge in the same turn while the models comprising any attached ICs cannot. The models move individually and only need to retain coherence per the FAQ.

The faq does not clarify that the unit can run and assault. Which is why you did not and are unable to quote this supposed clarification from the faq.

blaktoof wrote:
The faq does not clarify that the unit can run and assault. Which is why you did not and are unable to quote this supposed clarification from the faq.

You are having trouble reading the FAQ. Allow me to re-point you to it.








The FAQ unequivocally states that the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule which serves no other purpose than to allow them to charge after they run. The Wulfen models are only required to maintain unit coherency.

Your argument that the Wulfen models do not get to use the Bounding Lope rule when an IC is attached directly contradicts the FAQ which states the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule when an IC is attached.

Therefore your argument is invalid and there really isn't anymore to say except read the FAQ. The FAQ provides an unequivocal answer.

Many of the words you choose to use don't mean what you are using them for.

For example you say Bounding Lope is only used for running then charging, yet you quote the rule and clearly there is another benefit of the rule.

The faq does not specify the unit running and then assaulting in question or answer. You are inferring that both parts of bounding lope are addressed when no such statements are made in the faq.

blaktoof wrote:
The faq does not clarify that the unit can run and assault. Which is why you did not and are unable to quote this supposed clarification from the faq.

Blaktoof, I'm afraid we're just going to have to disagree. The FAQ never tells you that there are any limitations on using bounding lope except that the unit must maintain coherency, and like you said, it is basically copy/pasted from the answer to for glory, for Russ! which explicitly gives permission.

I know I'll never convince you. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

blaktoof wrote:
Many of the words you choose to use don't mean what you are using them for.

For example you say Bounding Lope is only used for running then charging, yet you quote the rule and clearly there is another benefit of the rule.

The faq does not specify the unit running and then assaulting in question or answer. You are inferring that both parts of bounding lope are addressed when no such statements are made in the faq.

The FAQ states that the Wulfen models still get to charge after they run and they can re-roll that charge roll. They are only required to maintain coherence with the IC who does not charge.

You are saying that the Wulfen models do not get to use the Bounding Lope rule if they have an IC attached and have run.

You are directly contradicting the FAQ and your argument can be ignored as willfully obtuse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NightHowler wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The faq does not clarify that the unit can run and assault. Which is why you did not and are unable to quote this supposed clarification from the faq.

Blaktoof, I'm afraid we're just going to have to disagree. The FAQ never tells you that there are any limitations on using bounding lope except that the unit must maintain coherency, and like you said, it is basically copy/pasted from the answer to for glory, for Russ! which explicitly gives permission.

I know I'll never convince you. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Blaktoof is clearly in the wrong here. There is no other way of interpeting the FAQ than that it clarifies that the Wulfen models can charge after running and re-roll their charge distance so long as they maintain coherence with the attached IC.

Moreover, Blaktoof is clearly confusing assault with charge. Assault is a phase. Charging is something that is allowed or disallowed. The FAQ clarifies that the Wulfen models can run and still charge.

And it clarifies that the IC cannot benefit

Please state where the faq clearly states a wulfen unit with attached IC may run and then assault .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NightHowler wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The faq does not clarify that the unit can run and assault. Which is why you did not and are unable to quote this supposed clarification from the faq.

Blaktoof, I'm afraid we're just going to have to disagree. The FAQ never tells you that there are any limitations on using bounding lope except that the unit must maintain coherency, and like you said, it is basically copy/pasted from the answer to for glory, for Russ! which explicitly gives permission.

I know I'll never convince you. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I posted on their facebook page for the SW faq asking for clarity if the unit can run then charge with an attached IC.

blaktoof wrote:
And it clarifies that the IC cannot benefit

Please state where the faq clearly states a wulfen unit with attached IC may run and then assault .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NightHowler wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The faq does not clarify that the unit can run and assault. Which is why you did not and are unable to quote this supposed clarification from the faq.

Blaktoof, I'm afraid we're just going to have to disagree. The FAQ never tells you that there are any limitations on using bounding lope except that the unit must maintain coherency, and like you said, it is basically copy/pasted from the answer to for glory, for Russ! which explicitly gives permission.

I know I'll never convince you. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I posted on their facebook page for the SW faq asking for clarity if the unit can run then charge with an attached IC.

I think an answer from them will, unfortunately, be the only way to get a real answer. Thanks for asking.

blaktoof wrote:
And it clarifies that the IC cannot benefit

Please state where the faq clearly states a wulfen unit with attached IC may run and then assault .

You are confused. There is no rule which prevents a unit from running and then assaulting in the same turn.

There is a rule which prevents a unit from running and charging in the same turn.

The Bounding Lope gives the Wulfen unit the ability to run and charge in the same turn.

The FAQ clarifies that if there is an IC attached to the Wulfen unit that the Wulfen models may still use Bounding Lope and run and charge in the same turn so long as the models maintain coherency with the attached IC.


In other words, you are confusing assault (which is a phase) with charging (which is the actual mechanic that is affected by whether or not a unit has run that turn).

Considering this is the fourth time now you have failed to quote where it "clarifies the unit can run and charge I the same turn" I think it's best to stop replying to you about this issue.

blaktoof wrote:
Considering this is the fourth time now you have failed to quote where it "clarifies the unit can run and charge I the same turn" I think it's best to stop replying to you about this issue.

You are the one being willfully obtuse.

The FAQ makes it clear that the Wulfen models can still use the Bounding Lope rule which allows them to Run and charge in the same turn and re-roll failed charges as long as they maintain coherency with the attached IC.






If the Wulfen models get to use the Bounding Lope rule then they get to Run and charge in the same turn.

If the Wulfen models do not get to use the Bounding Lope rule then they do not get to Run and charge in the same turn.

The FAQ makes it clear that the Wulfen models do indeed get to Run and charge in the same turn.

blaktoof wrote:
Considering this is the fourth time now you have failed to quote where it "clarifies the unit can run and charge I the same turn" I think it's best to stop replying to you about this issue.

The FAQ states the Wulfen may stil use the Bounding Leap rule
The Bounding Leap rule allows the unit to run and charge in the same turn.

Youre done here.

As stated above
The issue here is that GW made an FAQ that does not match the already written rules in the 7th edition rulebook, and this is because they didnt playtest it enough. So according to the rulebook the unit runs as a Whole and not each model separately (which can happen in the movement phase where you can move some models and not move others, but with running even if you not move you count as having run).

I say GW got lost in the details and you cant charge if you ran with wulfen and IC attached, unless they release an errata that changes how run works in the first place. They surely thought that run works like the movement in movement phase thats why they gave that answer. They didnt do their homework

PS : Those words come from a guy that plays only pure wolves and nothing else

col_impact wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Considering this is the fourth time now you have failed to quote where it "clarifies the unit can run and charge I the same turn" I think it's best to stop replying to you about this issue.

You are the one being willfully obtuse.

The FAQ makes it clear that the Wulfen models can still use the Bounding Lope rule which allows them to Run and charge in the same turn and re-roll failed charges as long as they maintain coherency with the attached IC.

Spoiler:

Bounding Lope: This unit can Run and charge in the same turn, and can re-roll failed charge rolls.

Spoiler:

Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit of Wulfen, do the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule?

A: Yes, but the Independent Character does not benefit, and all the models in the unit must maintain unit coherency

If the Wulfen models get to use the Bounding Lope rule then they get to Run and charge in the same turn.

If the Wulfen models do not get to use the Bounding Lope rule then they do not get to Run and charge in the same turn.

The FAQ makes it clear that the Wulfen models do indeed get to Run and charge in the same turn.

and if you declare an assault with the unit that has an IC attached that does not having bounding lope, the faq specifically states the IC does not benefit. If you declare a charge with the unit, you are also declaring a charge with the attached IC which the faq specifies you cannot.

Until they state if the unit can run and charge or that parts of units can declare a charge or run instead of the whole unit, which they have not despite what you have said, the unit may not charge after running due to the attached IC.

The answer toi the faq does not bring clarity to the question.

Wulfen can still use boudning lope. Is not the same as saying the unit can still run and then charge.
Units run, as shown by the BRB and the faq answer on different movement modes.
Units charge.
There are no rules for running with only part of an unit, or charging with only part of an unit.
The faq explicity states the IC does not benefit, so the IC cannot run and charge.

The faq does not explicitly state the unit can run then charge with only the wulfen, that is something people are inferring. it may be true- but it goes against the rules of the game in the BRB, and is inconsistent with all the other faq rules on ICs attached to units that have an ability that lets some of the models run and charge. Without specifically stating they can run and charge it is a fools errand to assume they can. The assumption that they can violates the faq answer itself in resolution with units run, and units charge in that the IC cannot benefit and is part of the unit running and then charging.

You may infer that the unit can run and charge because part of bounding lope rule is running and charging, but the faq answer specifically calls out the IC cannot run and charge. The faq answer does not give any special allowance to run with part of an unit or charge with part of an unit so resolution of this answer with the BRB and the movement section of the rulebook Faq draft results in the unit still not being able to charge if it runs and there is an IC attached.

The unit can run and charge, as per the bounding leap,rule. Which specifies the unit may run and charge. So the unit, minus the IC, may run and charge.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The unit can run and charge, as per the bounding leap,rule. Which specifies the unit may run and charge. So the unit, minus the IC, may run and charge.

And that has a problem. You cannot declare a charge with part of an unit. You also cannot declare run with part of an unit. Nothing in the BRB allows it or the FAQs, in fact it is specifically stated the whole unit counts as running if you declare to run with the unit under the whole bikes/jumppacks/infantry movement question of the faq. This faq additionally doesn't explicitly state that it can be done now, or that this specific unit can do it.

So no, the unit cannot run and charge and the answer on Wulfen+IC in the faq even specifies the IC cannot benefit(run and charge) so saying the unit can do something when not all of the models are allowed to is not true.

If an unit with 2 heavy weapons fires their heavy weapons, can the other models declare charge? nope.

If I run with part of an unit, then charge with the rest to limit how many models are in B2B, or a certain distance to enemy models before my pile in, is that allowed? Nope because you cannot run with parts of units, and you cannot charge with parts of units.

This faq answer does not address that or grant an allowance, it further does not explicitly state the Wulfen+IC can run and charge. It actually does not address the question directly at all.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The unit can run and charge, as per the bounding leap,rule. Which specifies the unit may run and charge. So the unit, minus the IC, may run and charge.

And that has a problem. You cannot declare a charge with part of an unit. You also cannot declare run with part of an unit. Nothing in the BRB allows it or the FAQs, in fact it is specifically stated the whole unit counts as running if you declare to run with the unit under the whole bikes/jumppacks/infantry movement question of the faq. This faq additionally doesn't explicitly state that it can be done now, or that this specific unit can do it.

Incorrect. The Space Wolves FAQ has made it abundantly clear that you can indeed run and declare a charge with the unit minus the attached ICs.

Obviously this answer to a specific other rule means skyhammer can declare charges with attached ICs.

This rules answer for a different question still has the rules problem that it is not explicitly addressing units run or charge. Not models from until, and again they call out the IC cannot benefit so the whole unit is not comprised of models that can run and charge.

I'm not a rocket surgeon but I think the horse is dead that you all are beating here.

blaktoof wrote:
Obviously this answer to a specific other rule means skyhammer can declare charges with attached ICs.

This rules answer for a different question still has the rules problem that it is not explicitly addressing units run or charge. Not models from until, and again they call out the IC cannot benefit so the whole unit is not comprised of models that can run and charge.

Skyhammer is a different case involving Deep Strike and first turn deployment from Deep Strike reserves so its only loosely comparable to the rules situation being presently discussed.

The FAQ answer to For Glory, For Russ! is a direct answer to whether or not the unit minus the IC will be able to run and charge. The question is directly answered. Whether or not you accept it logically, the FAQ asserts that a unit minus the ICs can run and charge.

You are simply being willfully obtuse and refusing to do what the FAQ directs you to do.