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.

The 40K rules feedback email inbox is for the players to give GW feedback on the rules. They don't answer rules directly via email, but use the emails to determine what needs to be added to the FAQ.

 Ghaz wrote:
The 40K rules feedback email inbox is for the players to give GW feedback on the rules. They don't answer rules directly via email, but use the emails to determine what needs to be added to the FAQ.

I would be genuinely shocked if GW actually reads those emails. Considering the multitude of issues that have been known since DAY ZERO and have not been fixed, I am going to continue to work on the assumption that GW neither reads the emails, nor actually cares about rules issues.

Yeah BCB... I was just showing that "hey! I emailed them! Hope we can just move on from this...", not an "I'm expecting a response and will share it when it comes through.

 Yarium wrote:
Yeah BCB... I was just showing that "hey! I emailed them! Hope we can just move on from this...", not an "I'm expecting a response and will share it when it comes through.

Unless you faked sending them an email and went to the trouble of actually composing the "fake" email that you didn't send, despite it being about the same amount of work to just send the email in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised to see things devolve to the level of accusations like that, given that we're already having people talk about faking answers from GW.

Hopefully your email prompts them to add an answer in the FAQ (though I suspect that for the first version of the FAQ it might be only things that were caught by playtesters and people in the company after the book was printed but before the book hit the streets, but then again, those people might have noticed the same thing. It certainly doesn't hurt to send it in; enough people asking should elevate it to a "frequently" asked question.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Emails from GW are not permitted in YMDC.

This is not at all true.

While not considered 'official' rules resources for the purposes of discussion, it's perfectly fine for people to share responses they get from GW regarding rules issues, as others may find these useful.

 insaniak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Emails from GW are not permitted in YMDC.

This is not at all true.

While not considered 'official' rules resources for the purposes of discussion, it's perfectly fine for people to share responses they get from GW regarding rules issues, as others may find these useful.

THANK YOU. Tempted to sig this to save looking it up when next needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The 40K rules feedback email inbox is for the players to give GW feedback on the rules. They don't answer rules directly via email, but use the emails to determine what needs to be added to the FAQ.

I would be genuinely shocked if GW actually reads those emails. Considering the multitude of issues that have been known since DAY ZERO and have not been fixed, I am going to continue to work on the assumption that GW neither reads the emails, nor actually cares about rules issues.

Then be shocked, because you’re entirely wrong.

Did GW update Grinding Advance because people mailed in or just because they suddenly felt like it? It’s the former, obviously. They were inundated with comms about this non-issue, the Designers sighed and rolled their eyes when told (source: Nick Bayton, WH Live stream) and they then patched it. It was clear enough to me from the off. Now it satisfies even you and means the same to both of us. Result. Exactly what FAQ/Earrata should do! “This is great news” etc.

That they haven’t addressed some of the pedantry in your sig doesn’t mean they don’t care and don’t read feedback. They just have a workload, competing priorities, and there’s also the fact that most folk don’t consider some of the things you think are game-breaking to even be a problem... Pistols work fine, Howling Banshees work fine... I could go on.

It's clearly implied that freki and geki cannot be used for his "normal" close combat attacks. Otherwise, the phrase "after making his close combat attacks" has no meaning or purpose."

It's a malicious and willful misinterpretation of the RAW.

No, you don't get infinite attacks.

The phrase "his close combat attacks" refer to his normally allotted A characteristic. You make A+6 attacks with this psychic power.

 skchsan wrote:
It's clearly implied that freki and geki cannot be used for his "normal" close combat attacks. Otherwise, the phrase "after making his close combat attacks" has no meaning or purpose."

It's a malicious and willful misinterpretation of the RAW.

that's a bit ... extreme, isn't it? I don't see anything that'd prevent the priest from using F&G for his regular attacks as he's clearly equipped with that weapon.
The WEAPON, not the psychic power, gives the ability to make another 6 attacks afterwards, using F&Gs profile. That's a one-time thing, sure.
The psychic power gives the priest the actual weapon, why wouldn't he be allowed to use it for his normal attacks?

I'd rather expect something like:

"If manifested, after the Rune Priest made his close combat attacks, you can attack with Freki and Geri. Make 6 additional attacks, using this weapon profile." instead of giving him the weapon.

nekooni wrote:

that's a bit ... extreme, isn't it? I don't see anything that'd prevent the priest from using F&G for his regular attacks as he's clearly equipped with that weapon.

The words "after making his close combat attacks" clearly prevent him from using F&G for his regular attacks.

 p5freak wrote:

nekooni wrote:

that's a bit ... extreme, isn't it? I don't see anything that'd prevent the priest from using F&G for his regular attacks as he's clearly equipped with that weapon.

The words "after making his close combat attacks" clearly prevent him from using F&G for his regular attacks.

That text is from an ability of the weapon that triggers once the RP made his close combat attacks. How does that prevent the weapon "Freki and Geri" from being used as a normal melee weapon? The power literally says "gains the following weapon". Not "gains the ability to make 6 attacks with the following profile after he made his close combat attacks".

And more importantly: how does it do that "clearly" and any other reading is "malicious"? That's just arguing in bad faith to me.

You have no permission to use F&G until after the Priest makes his own attacks, per the power

The rule explicitly tell you he gains F&G as a weapon. There is no prohibition from using F&G with the Priest own attacks, which the normal rules for the Fight Phase allows him to do.

A reading of the rule as a whole seems to imply that it was GW's intent that he not use F&G as a weapon, but didn't do a very good job of stating that clearly.

Yeah, he can clearly use the wolves as a weapon for his normal attacks. Just like you can use a Chainsword for your normal attacks, and still get the bonus.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, he can clearly use the wolves as a weapon for his normal attacks. Just like you can use a Chainsword for your normal attacks, and still get the bonus.

It literally says "after the Rune Priest makes his close combat attacks" in the weapons special rules.

And what do Chainswords say?

 JNAProductions wrote:
And what do Chainswords say?

The difference is that this a "mount" style weapon that only attacks after all your normal attacks are done.

Can it be argued that it generates infinite attacks? Sure, but you're wilfully ignoring the English Language to do so. This isn't a case of RaW being bad, this is a case of people deliberately ignoring what English is.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And what do Chainswords say?

The difference is that this a "mount" style weapon that only attacks after all your normal attacks are done.

Can it be argued that it generates infinite attacks? Sure, but you're wilfully ignoring the English Language to do so.

But... I'm not saying this gives infinite attacks. I'm just saying you can use it for the main attacks AND the extra six.

It literally says he is equipped with the weapon.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And what do Chainswords say?

Something totally different...

Each time the bearer fights, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon.

"Each time the bearer fights, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon."

If GW has used some variation of the many rules that they had already wrote (like that for the various Tyriand Tail weapons) there would be no confusion if their intent was the profile for F&G be only used as additional attacks.

Even better would be if they used the format of rules for the new GSC Abominate and his buddy.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And what do Chainswords say?

The difference is that this a "mount" style weapon that only attacks after all your normal attacks are done.

Can it be argued that it generates infinite attacks? Sure, but you're wilfully ignoring the English Language to do so.

But... I'm not saying this gives infinite attacks. I'm just saying you can use it for the main attacks AND the extra six.

It literally says he is equipped with the weapon.

Oh, my mistake. Old and Senile and Whatnot. Then yeah, RaW you can argue he can make his base attacks with F&G, but it also means ALL mount weapons work like that. IIRC there is a FAQ somewhere about mount weapons, busy atm so I can't check. Maybe the Designers Commentary?

Here, GW, I'll do your work for you. New Weapon Type "Mount".

Fragile wrote:
You have no permission to use F&G until after the Priest makes his own attacks, per the power

The priest explicitly gains F&G as a weapon,so I clearly have permission to use it as a weapon.

Mounts should just add a rule to the model saying "you do 6 extra attacks with the following weapon profile" without handing the weapon itself to the model.

Its ability does not care what weapon was used for ne normal attacks, nor does it have any impact on what weapon you can use for those attacks. And it cannot start an infinite loop on itself since the 6 extra attacks aren't the priests normal attacks, therefore it doesn't trigger the ability again.
If the priest gets another set of normal attacks by eg. Being activated a second time, it will trigger the ability again though.

 p5freak wrote:
Its discussed because it has become a sport to take every word of a GW rule literally.

And...that's supposed to be a bad thing how? The single purpose of a rulebook and rules in generals is to be taken literally. You don't play chess and say : "The queen can move in any direction, but only if it feels appropriate to the game. Discuss with your opponent for when you feel something should prevent the queen from moving in diagonal in a certain turn."

VoidSempai wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Its discussed because it has become a sport to take every word of a GW rule literally.

And...that's supposed to be a bad thing how? The single purpose of a rulebook and rules in generals is to be taken literally. You don't play chess and say : "The queen can move in any direction, but only if it feels appropriate to the game. Discuss with your opponent for when you feel something should prevent the queen from moving in diagonal in a certain turn."

Yes, its a bad thing. There are discussions almost every time because GW rules writing is ridiculous. Its almost impossible to play a game without discussing some rules first. The purpose of playing 40k is to have fun. Its not fun if you have discussions before, during and after the game.

 p5freak wrote:

VoidSempai wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Its discussed because it has become a sport to take every word of a GW rule literally.

And...that's supposed to be a bad thing how? The single purpose of a rulebook and rules in generals is to be taken literally. You don't play chess and say : "The queen can move in any direction, but only if it feels appropriate to the game. Discuss with your opponent for when you feel something should prevent the queen from moving in diagonal in a certain turn."

Yes, its a bad thing. There are discussions almost every time because GW rules writing is ridiculous. Its almost impossible to play a game without discussing some rules first. The purpose of playing 40k is to have fun. Its not fun if you have discussions before, during and after the game.

And if GW wrote their rules properly, that wouldn't happen.

 p5freak wrote:

VoidSempai wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Its discussed because it has become a sport to take every word of a GW rule literally.

And...that's supposed to be a bad thing how? The single purpose of a rulebook and rules in generals is to be taken literally. You don't play chess and say : "The queen can move in any direction, but only if it feels appropriate to the game. Discuss with your opponent for when you feel something should prevent the queen from moving in diagonal in a certain turn."

Yes, its a bad thing. There are discussions almost every time because GW rules writing is ridiculous. Its almost impossible to play a game without discussing some rules first. The purpose of playing 40k is to have fun. Its not fun if you have discussions before, during and after the game.

As usual there's more than just black and white.

Arguing that you can loop this to infinity and beyond is clearly not a sane approach.
Arguing that "this thing is given to a model as a weapon, literally" does or does not allow the model to use it for regular attacks is a somewhat valid discussion, although I'm still waiting for a proper argument as to why it shouldn't be usable as such.

Your closest comparison is probably crushing teeth and claws. After a model makes its close combat attacks, make 3 additional attacks with this profile...

Thing is, the rune priest is generating two ghost wolves to aid in his attacks. There was something very similar in 7th, that worked in the same way. The RP attacks with his axe, then he gets bonus attacks from his 2 buddies.

He isnt generating the pair of them and swinging them Around by the tail like some sort of furry fanged mace. Its a psychic projection, perhaps not real and causing the enemy unit to cause damage to itself in fear... trippy.