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.

I've been reading some threads on BolterandChainsword about Space Wolves, and their Stormcaller power. Stormcaller allows wolves to receive a 5+ cover save, and there are lines to the effect that they count as being in cover for assault purposes.

From reading the thread, apparently there was an FAQ that said they do not go first when assaulting, the FAQ was taken down, and there was a later printing of the SW Codex that says they go first when assaulted, but it does not say you go first when assaulting.

Anyway.....

If you know of a later printing of a codex or rulebook, but your copy says something else, how ethical is it for you to use the rule in your copy?

It's not. If your intent is to break the rules, and the new FAQs refute the rules, then using an older FAQ is breaking the rules.

reminds me of this

That cartoon sums it up rather nicely.

Is this a serious question?

If you know of a later printing of a codex or rulebook, but your copy says something else, how ethical is it for you to use the rule in your copy?

What kind of question is this?

I guess it depends on just how much of a Big Fat ing Cheater the guy who does that is.
I mean, if he has no morals, ethics or behavioral standards... Then, I guess it's just right.
If, however, the guy in question has even a modicum of fair play in his blood it wouldn't matter, as he'd never even consider cheating someone (probably a friend, no less) over anything... Especially a trivial little game of toy soldiers.

Hypothetically, of course, as I'm certain that's how you meant the question.

It depends.

This is a problem with constantly evolving FAQ/rules/etc. I'm glad that GW has realized that you can't just change it in later printings and call it good enough, the FAQ needs to say 'change X to M'. Nevermind the mess that Privateer has with revised rules and changing ruling (the Carnivean has to Assault if he charges on a Frenzy - no he doesn't!)

I had a first printing of fourth edition CSM codex with T5 obliterators and Predators with side armor of 12.

I play SW, and I always though the 'if SW launch an assault, they go first' was always - strange.

If you know the 'current' rule, whether it's in an FAQ or a newer version of the codex, that should be what you play by. If the FAQ with a rule clarificaiton/revision has been taken down, it's not clear if that should still be used, or if the FAQ was taken down because it's incorrect.

Just try to play fairly and not be TFG. And I've always liked that cartoon.

Are you asking this question:

"I know the rule, but I have a piece of paper that will allow me to cheat, can I use it"
Yes you can

"Is it cheating?"
Yes it is

I knew I shouldn't have bought the new Chaos Codex so I could still use my basilisk...damn it!!

</sarcasm>

Don't be TFG. It's not nice.

What do you have against Temple Flame Guard?

haha that comics awesome, where is that from.

That is Ctr + Alt + Del a web comic very recently controversial over a pregnancy series. Noteably mocked by Yahtzee in Zero Punctuation as the target of his Web Comics piece.

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php

Hindsight wrote:That is Ctr + Alt + Del a web comic very recently controversial over a pregnancy series.

Why is something that happens to people a lot controversial?

snooggums wrote:

Hindsight wrote:That is Ctr + Alt + Del a web comic very recently controversial over a pregnancy series.

Why is something that happens to people a lot controversial?

I think he used the wrong word. What he meant to say was, "it was pretty lame and boring because he wrote about the same thing for a couple weeks." I've never really found CAD funny because of the verbosity he loves to cram in, the 2-3 static poses he happens to draw (and reuse over and over), that slowed half-open mouth all his characters have, and the fact that he pretty much stole every ~zany~ idea from Penny Arcade including that slowed robot xbox. But one or two were OK.

This "series" was the same old shtick over and over: Hey guys, check out MY GIRLFRIEND who had a MISCARRIAGE (HA-HA! Dead baby jokes, so EDGY!). Yahtzee was pretty much spot on.

Back on topic, there are two issues involved.

1. It's wrong to play with an incorrect version of rules.
2. It's wrong to play without a set of rules that can be referred to.

So you have to consider one wrong against the other.

pulls out 4th ed. "I can rend again!"

that said, if your usin an old set of rules for your army, it should just be a friendly game. but at your local shop, don't be that guy....

Did this thread really need to be dredged up again?