Stormcaller gone, as we knew it.

[Silverwolf]

Wolf89 has the right idea brothers. Once someone has received the PDF version, we'll get a quote on what it states and work from that. Keith is also right however that you cannot revert to previous FAQs to get answers, as the FAQs are updated and changed for a reason. Because of this, as I've said already, Wolf89 is correct, and we should wait to see how the most current printing of the rules states it, and work from there.

 

However, that said, for the record I've always treated Stormcaller as;

 

If charging, you have frags, and so under 4th ed, the charging unit struck at I10. If the unit was being charged was in cover, they had I10 as well, and if not, worked from they're base I, and so struck last. Now under 5th ed, having frags in the charging unit means that combat always changes back to I level, which means exactly that, you strike at I, wether charging a unit in cover or not in cover.

 

When being charged, you were treated as being in cover, so automatically had I10. If the enemy had frags, they also struck at I10, if not, we strike first (under 4th ed.). Now under 5th, again, having frags in the charging unit changes things back to I level. So, if we're charged by a unit that does not have frags, we strike first. However if the charging unit is carrying frags, combat is resolved at I level.

 

This is my interpretation of the rules for Stormcaller, from my 2nd Printing copy of the SW 'dex.

 

No where does it say anything about automatically striking first regardless of the situation. The key quotes from it is; "This unit counts as being in cover for rules purposes" (so regarding how combat is resolved if charged) and "may assault and, if they do so and the enemy are also in cover, attacks are resolved simultaneously". Therefore, if the enemy is in cover, and you charge, you strike at the same time as them. No where does it acctually say that combat is resolved as if you had frags (it was just the easiest way to remember it for 4th ed.). So if your using Stormcaller in 5th ed. At best, we strike at the same time... NOT before. The rule says nothing about charging units outside of cover and getting first hit.

 

As to getting first strike when charged... interpretive, as Keith said. Realistically, it was intended to be used as if in cover, which to me means that if the enemy has frags, combat goes back to being resolved as per normal. However unfortunately due to the wording GW used, there are those amongst us would like to say that this means we get first strike regardless when charged. My take on that, is that trying to use the rule like that is cheesey at best, and I know exactly what I'd say to a SW player who tried to pull that on me, although I won't repeat it here :P

[Byrne]

*Slams an emty tankard down on the table* Guys, hold me down, but I just got the craziest ideá ever... I dont know if it is late hour or beer talking, but listen to this...

 

I was thinking about how the old cover rules used to work, you know a unit in cover gets assulted. It will then recive a "strike first or later a I 10 bonus, right? I mean unless someone use those sweet frags ofcourse.

 

A Vehicle would benefit from cover if it was large enough to give hull down. (cover) But they never would recive a bonus to their initiative. (think dreadnought)

 

where was I going with this? oh, yes, The new cover rules, they don´t give you a bonus to initiative anymore, they give the enemy a penelty nowdays, right?

 

So I was thinking, or dreaming... If I cast stormcaller on my dreadnought, and it would get assulted by another dreadnought, could we make use of that, "always strike first" thingy? Somehow I feel it must be read like a seccond effect of SC, and the first being a 5+ cover save. (since cover never let anything "strike first" aka Initiativ 10 anymore.)

 

Someone might see what I try to say, others might see the cool beer... anyways. Could we? if not, why?

[Wolf89]

From what I can gather Byrne (I suggest laying off the alcohol when on forums or not at all so people can understand this jibberish :tu: ) The Dreadnaught assaulting your dreadnaught would strike 2nd since they can't have frags, not like you see many dread on dread combats though :P

[Gunnar Hamundarson]

My purpose for the post was to illustrate that the intent of the power was never to allow Wolves to go first.

 

Interesting that you can say this when the very 1st printing of the current Codex said exactly that!

 

A little bit of history: The original Codex was very clear that it WAS the original intent to allow Space Wolves to go first in those circumstances! Space Wolf players had been attacking 1st on the charge under Stormcaller against enemies in the open for ages (as the Codex clearly and plainly directed). It was only during the crappy Codex FAQ's for 4th ed. stupidity that the myth that "it was never the intent..." was created to justify, after the fact, that they had screwed up and obviously weren't very familiar with what they were supposedly trying to clarify; the hacks in charge of the FAQ's screwed everything up with cursory, ambiguous, and/or contradictory rulings (that, in themselves, required clarification on so many points that immediate calls for FAQ's to the FAQ's were heard all across the net).

 

And what was the end result of all this confusion? GW, in it's magnificent wisdom, responded by effectively refusing to answer anything officially and saddling a buying public (us) with the "Rules As Written" garbage that drove so many of us away from GW gaming for soooo long. It was fortuitous to those of us that expected a modicum of professionalism and, if not pride in, at least responsibility for the rules they were producing (and we were purchasing), that new, independent companies had finally succeeded in establishing excellent rulesets along with quality figures while showing themselves able to not merely survive but to prosper (at a time when GW's business decisions and non-support were driving their stocks into the gutter, BTW). Thus, disgruntled GW gamers had that most effective way to voice their displeasure: denial of the dollar! "Won't listen to us? Can't be bothered to clean up poor rules writing that interferes with the very enjoyment they are supposed to provide? Your answer to declining profits is to continually raise prices? (etcetera, ad nauseum) Fine. I'll be over here playing these other companies' games for a while until you can get management and design cured of their collective craniorectal impaction, thank you very much. " It's not by chance that the design studio seems to finally be listening to us - they had no choice. They finally had to face the corollary to the old computer programming adage (GIGO) - namely, garbage out (poor product poorly supported), garbage in (poor profits); especially now that they finally face successful competition for our gaming $$$.

 

To summarize: "Stormcaller" wasn't changed in a later FAQ to allow something that wasn't originally intended. It was changed to return what HAD been intended, but had been removed by the first FAQ for 4th ed. 40K. The "never intended" myth was disinformation to excuse/rationalize the mistakes made by folks with a minimal familiarity with what they were updating (and obviously had invested minimal effort in doing so.)

 

In conclusion, the purpose of this (rather lengthy and, at times, ranting) post is to try to convince folks to know of what they speak before professing "facts" as Gospel just because Jervis (or anyone else) said something in White Dwarf #7823 (sic). Just because someone said it or you read it doesn't make it true. I've been playing GW games long enough to learn that.

 

With my apologies,

[KeithGatchalian]

My purpose for the post was to illustrate that the intent of the power was never to allow Wolves to go first.

 

Interesting that you can say this when the very 1st printing of the current Codex said exactly that!

 

A little bit of history: The original Codex was very clear that it WAS the original intent to allow Space Wolves to go first in those circumstances! Space Wolf players had been attacking 1st on the charge under Stormcaller against enemies in the open for ages (as the Codex clearly and plainly directed). It was only during the crappy Codex FAQ's for 4th ed. stupidity that the myth that "it was never the intent..." was created to justify, after the fact, that they had screwed up and obviously weren't very familiar with what they were supposedly trying to clarify; the hacks in charge of the FAQ's screwed everything up with cursory, ambiguous, and/or contradictory rulings (that, in themselves, required clarification on so many points that immediate calls for FAQ's to the FAQ's were heard all across the net).

 

And what was the end result of all this confusion? GW, in it's magnificent wisdom, responded by effectively refusing to answer anything officially and saddling a buying public (us) with the "Rules As Written" garbage that drove so many of us away from GW gaming for soooo long. It was fortuitous to those of us that expected a modicum of professionalism and, if not pride in, at least responsibility for the rules they were producing (and we were purchasing), that new, independent companies had finally succeeded in establishing excellent rulesets along with quality figures while showing themselves able to not merely survive but to prosper (at a time when GW's business decisions and non-support were driving their stocks into the gutter, BTW). Thus, disgruntled GW gamers had that most effective way to voice their displeasure: denial of the dollar! "Won't listen to us? Can't be bothered to clean up poor rules writing that interferes with the very enjoyment they are supposed to provide? Your answer to declining profits is to continually raise prices? (etcetera, ad nauseum) Fine. I'll be over here playing these other companies' games for a while until you can get management and design cured of their collective craniorectal impaction, thank you very much. " It's not by chance that the design studio seems to finally be listening to us - they had no choice. They finally had to face the corollary to the old computer programming adage (GIGO) - namely, garbage out (poor product poorly supported), garbage in (poor profits); especially now that they finally face successful competition for our gaming $$$.

 

To summarize: "Stormcaller" wasn't changed in a later FAQ to allow something that wasn't originally intended. It was changed to return what HAD been intended, but had been removed by the first FAQ for 4th ed. 40K. The "never intended" myth was disinformation to excuse/rationalize the mistakes made by folks with a minimal familiarity with what they were updating (and obviously had invested minimal effort in doing so.)

 

In conclusion, the purpose of this (rather lengthy and, at times, ranting) post is to try to convince folks to know of what they speak before professing "facts" as Gospel just because Jervis (or anyone else) said something in White Dwarf #7823 (sic). Just because someone said it or you read it doesn't make it true. I've been playing GW games long enough to learn that.

 

With my apologies,

 

Sorry Gunnar, but you are wrong. I have a first printing SW codex, nowhere does it say you can assault first. I bought it the week it came out, from Drew at the White Marsh Maryland store in April of that year. I also bought a Land Raider army deal.

 

If you can PDF and send me the pages, I'll believe you. But nowhere do I see the words....if you assault you go first.

 

I remember when the FAQ came out that stopped Wolves from going first, and also made us take full points for wargear for Wolf Guard Battle Leaders. Frank Thompson and I were po'd. Frank, if anyone can remember, placed in the top 10 of the 2001 GT with his spectacular Frostwolves ( and he also placed in 2000. This was under 3rd edition.

 

The question was later posed to Pete Haines, who reaffirmed that Wolves do not go first.

 

By the time of the "second" second printing of the book, the rules were put down as I have quoted, and am more then willing to PDF for anyone to view.

 

Your whole posit as to people leaving the game etc is also totally wrong. And frankly, those other gaming companies are not really competition. GW staged its turnaround on a whole different basis.However, I shall not go on a tangent as to why you are wrong.

 

I do know of what I speak of. At this point, I believe the thread is pretty much dead, and I suggest locking it, as well....see, Gunnar plainly called me a liar, and well, I've just called him a liar, so rather then let things get nasty, we'll just have to disagree.

[Gunstar]

Will somebody please contact GW for a definitive answer.

[Gunnar Hamundarson]

Bottom of page 23, under Tactics: "The Psychic ability of a Space Wolves Rune Priest is particularly valuable for assault troops like the Blood Claws as they will count as being in cover even if they move. This gives them a cover save, but in combat it means they strike first, or at worst simultaneously with the enemy"

 

I asked the development boys about that quote when the "never intended" claim was first made and, after a few abortive attempts to avoid it, was told that it was actually changed as part of the 4th ed effort to tone down assaults. 4th ed BBB said troops assaulting from cover moved out of that cover in the act of assaulting, therefore derived no benefit from it. The problem was that Stormcaller counted as cover even if assault troops moved. They decided to change it and, when players cried "foul", the "never intended" claim made its appearance. That's why I said "disinformation" earlier. And, of course, this was all in direct contradiction to their claims that Codex FAQ's only clarified, not changed, significant Codex specific rules (except where indicated in a particular FAQ).

[Lord Ragnarok]

Gunnar a couple of things.

 

1. It is a tactics page(23) and not where the actual rule resides

2. You should be using the rules from the latest printing. The latest printing of the codex clearly states you strike first when assaulted. Canada can send you the pdf I believe for free, so there is no excuse for not utilizing the current 2nd printing rules.

3. Even if you use your obsolete codex, with the obsolete wording, if your opponent also has the pdf or codex with 2nd or later printing you will be forced to use the correct rule.

[Wolf89]

-update-

 

I still have yet to receive any pdf from anyone working at any GW and I've even made phone calls that lead no where (seems the workers at GW are all 1k sons because the slight mention of space wolves scare them off :D ). On a side note I've bought another codex (the seller said it was the latest version) and until it arrives I'm not sure if now I'll have 3 of the same codex or not :P .

 

From what I can gather though is this, Lord Rag. and Keith both have the more recent one with the rules we SHOULD be using. That being said I'd have to tip my hat to them and use their rulings and play storm caller their way.

[Gunnar Hamundarson]

I'm sorry, LR. Perhaps you didn't notice that we were discussing the original intent of Stormcaller. One would hardly look in the latest printing or an FAQ to determine original intent.

 

As for its being in the tactics section vs the rules, it does show what the intent of the rule was. It's analogous to the US Supreme Court referencing The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton or the journals of Thomas Jefferson to try to glean the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. When there is dispute as to the meaning of these documents (or in our case, the stormcaller rule) the contemporary writings of the authors are the benchmark of interpretation. I used the writing of the Codex authors themselves as published in the Codex itself. Can't get much better than that for determining original intent and countering a claim made years later that "it was never intended to allow assault troops to strike first".

 

As for using the current rules, of course I use the current rules! Where on Earth did you infer that I didn't? <restrains self from flaming people that carelessly inferring spurious offenses - classic example of the "straw man argument" fallacy>

 

Also offended that you assume I'm too cheap to purchase new rulesets as they are published (and apparently stupid enough to insist that others abide by outdated rules. "Hey, everyone! I'm playing Space Wolves - this squad is armed with Vortex Grenades!" Riiiiight.) Really, there is a difference between using an outdated Codex to illustrate original intent and ridiculously continuing to use them!

 

Gunnar a couple of things.

 

1. It is a tactics page(23) and not where the actual rule resides

2. You should be using the rules from the latest printing. The latest printing of the codex clearly states you strike first when assaulted. Canada can send you the pdf I believe for free, so there is no excuse for not utilizing the current 2nd printing rules.

3. Even if you use your obsolete codex, with the obsolete wording, if your opponent also has the pdf or codex with 2nd or later printing you will be forced to use the correct rule.

[Lord Ragnarok]

Why do you care about original intent? Current intent is very clear. I never said you were cheap. You made that inference on your own. I was addressing obtaining it in PDF form since I personally think it is ridiculous by GW to make you buy a later printing when they could not get it right in the original.

[Gunnar Hamundarson]

Why do you care about original intent? Current intent is very clear. I never said you were cheap. You made that inference on your own. I was addressing obtaining it in PDF form since I personally think it is ridiculous by GW to make you buy a later printing when they could not get it right in the original.

 

The reason was indicated in my original post. If you missed the quote from KeithGatchalian in that post, I'll repeat it here to save you time:

 

My purpose for the post was to illustrate that the intent of the power was never to allow Wolves to go first.

 

He raised the topic of original intent (even claiming in an earlier post that Stormcaller was never an offensive power). I was attempting to set the record straight that it was the original intent and that Stormcaller in the 1st printing was an offensive as well as defensive psychic power. In fact, GW itself began the original intent argument with the propaganda (after the Codex FAQs for 4th ed 40K were released) claiming that the FAQ ruling of no use in assault was the original intent. I don't mind rules changing (when it makes sense and/or adds to the enjoyment of the game) but I object to blatant lies being used to justify a change and to the perpetuation of those lies being handed down as "the truth" to each subsequent group of new fellow gamers. Remember Orwell and "The Big Lie"? A lie told often enough becomes the truth. This was just an (insignificant) example of that adage in action. I've played Wolves since 2nd ed and am a bit put off by GW when they can't admit why something was changed and, instead, rewrite history and use this revisionist history to justify the change. Again, Orwell is brought to mind, e.g. newspeak, where history/definitions/values are revised to suit the needs of the state (or in this case the needs of GW).

 

As for obtaining the PDF, I agree that it is/was ridiculous for GW to expect us to buy a later printing. I did so only to escape the constant sideways looks from tournament players I didn't know, who were always suspect of someone with an older printing and an FAQ printout vs. the new 'dex (and a personal decision that I didn't terribly mind a little additional monetary support thrown to a company whose games had brought me years of pleasure and new friends - that beneficence was slowly eroded as we were subjected to an endless spiral of price-hikes and declining support and concern for the gamers by GW, which drove me from playing WFB, 40K & BFG for quite a while.) If I had not done so, the older dex was still legitimate as long as you kept up with the most recent FAQ (in fact, the current printing has required an additional FAQ itself for quite some time).

 

Lastly, no, you did not say I was cheap. Had you done so, my response would be to quote you. Yes, I did make the inference myself. By definition, an inference is something someone draws from what someone else says/writes. You wrote: "Canada can send you the pdf I believe for free, so there is no excuse for not utilizing the current 2nd printing rules", the inference being that I was using cost issues to excuse not utilizing a current printing. Ergo, I was cheap. We're all responsible for what we write so I try to make sure what I write expresses what I mean. Anyway, I do apologize for the tone of my reply to your comment and can only plead that I've been pulling 12-hour days at work for 9 days straight (and have another 7 to go before I can expect to get some relief) and hope all will understand and forgive.

 

Hope that clears everything up :huh:

[Lord Ragnarok]

My comment on the pdf was not directed to you Gunnar but for folks in general who say they can't get the latest or don't want to buy. :)

[Gunnar Hamundarson]

Sorry, then. That was just not clear from:

 

Gunnar a couple of things.

<snip>

2. You should be using the rules from the latest printing. The latest printing of the codex clearly states you strike first when assaulted. Canada can send you the pdf I believe for free, so there is no excuse for not utilizing the current 2nd printing rules.

<snip>

Perhaps "2. Everyone should..." would have avoided the confusion. Again, apologies.

[CaptInsaneO]

OK so im new to the forum and i've just read this whole thread. Did the searchy thing and I think this is the original topic starter for stormcaller. Not sure if you guys have managed to solve this debate but ill put my two cents in ;)

 

My understanding is pretty simple here. Firstly four things should be done.

 

(1) Throw away all your opinions on what you think is and isnt the case and start fresh.

 

(2) Check the LATEST errata document. For those who don't know where it is http://uk.games-workshop.com/download/down...2008_SW_FAQ.pdf there is the link.

 

(3) Consult the current Codex.

 

(4) Consult the Rulebook.

 

We do this in order and the answer should be plain as day :)

 

Point number (1)

(1) Throw away all your opinions on what you think is and isnt the case and start fresh.

Have you cleared your thoughts yet? :P

 

Point number (2)

(2) Check the LATEST errata document.

Latest Errata document. There is absolutely no mention of StormCaller anywhere. This means there is no alteration or change to the rules in our current codex. Any previous errata/faq/white dwarf article etc is now null and void. It don't mean :P ! So go to point 3 :)

 

Point number (3)

(3) Consult the current Codex.

Rules are as states (ill just type the important parts haha) - This unit counts as being in cover for rules purposes and so will receive a 5+ cover save and will strike first in close combat until the end of the following enemy turn. Units that are protected in this way may assault and, if they do so and the enemy are also in cover, attacks are resolved in order of iniative.

 

So lets analyse this...

"will receive a 5+ cover save" - thats pretty straight forward, shoot at me with your ap3 weapon and i wont die if i roll a 5+.

 

"will strike first in close combat until the end of the following turn" - the argument stopper. We strike first in close combat! We can charge, we can be assaulted, whatever, we get to strike first. The only way we don't strike first is if we are assaulted by a unit that has an ability and/or wargear that negates the bonuses of cover in Close combat. So the worst we get is iniative order if we are assaulted.

 

"Units that are protected in this way may assault" - awesome, that clarifies my above analysis, we can assault (had to make sure of that one or this debate was for nothing haha)

 

"If they do so and the enemy are also in cover, attacks are resolved in order of iniative" - all this says is we attack as if we are using frag grenades.

 

This is SIMPLE English. In summary the rules state if a unit has stormcaller cast upon it then it may assault enemy units and strike first unless the enemy unit is in cover whereas combat is resolved in iniative order. (oh and we get a 5+ cover save from shooting - but no one is debating that...or are we??? haha)

 

I hate to say this because i'll probably get abused (haha) but any other interpretation is wrong. There are no other hidden meanings or versions from my above analysis. It is as it is. We get to strike first.

 

 

HOWEVER now we go to point (4)

(4) Consult the Rulebook. ...as in 5th edition.

 

There are two scenarios I can think of here, ill cover them seperately.

 

Scenario 1

Basically the rules in 5th edition maintain that a unit assaults an enemy at a defended obstacle eg wall, hedge etc then the assaulting enemy strike at iniative 1.

So if a unit with stormcaller on it assaults according to the stormcaller rules we strike in order of initiative and no longer strike first.

 

Scenario 2

If the assaulting unit has to roll a difficult terrain test in anyway to reach their intended target then they assault at initative 1.

This is simple aswell - just return to the stormcaller rule that we strike in iniative order as we are both in cover still. The difference here is we may now not be able to reach them as we have to roll how far we move.

 

 

I'm terribly sorry for the long-winded drawn out examples and over-detailed anaylsis. However I felt it was needed after reading all of your posts. Please keep in mind that this goes off my Space Wolf codex release date of 2000. I'm yet to find one that has different wording. If someone has a Spacewolf codex published after 2000 that has wording different please for the love of god type out word for word what it's ruling actually states here in this thread.

 

If indeed my codex is the current version (then shame on you GW for waiting this long for a new one!! haha) then there is no amount of arguing from anyone that can change my opinion. It's simple english people and makes perfect sense to me and all my regular opponents, two of which that work for Games Workshop.

 

Thanks and sorry for the long post!

[Gunstar]

Bravo cap! Thats exactly it, and it totally gets my vote... but then thats what a was saying all along- ITS PLAIN ENGLISH!! lol :P

[Wolf89]

Yes it is a nice post, but you've failed one step, consult codex, there are two versions, both of which have different rules, and the current one (2nd version) is not the one you listed, going strictly by your rules, it's the most current and should be looked at instead of your first version, however others don't have the 2nd version and GW doesn't sell them anymore so we end up using our own dex and that means some of us will be using it differently from others, they'd also be using combi-weapons with true grit. ;)

[KeithGatchalian]

(1) Throw away all your opinions on what you think is and isnt the case and start fresh.

 

[Point number (3)

(3) Consult the current Codex.

Rules are as states (ill just type the important parts haha) - This unit counts as being in cover for rules purposes and so will receive a 5+ cover save and will strike first in close combat until the end of the following enemy turn. Units that are protected in this way may assault and, if they do so and the enemy are also in cover, attacks are resolved in order of iniative.

 

 

 

I'm terribly sorry for the long-winded drawn out examples and over-detailed anaylsis. However I felt it was needed after reading all of your posts. Please keep in mind that this goes off my Space Wolf codex release date of 2000. I'm yet to find one that has different wording. If someone has a Spacewolf codex published after 2000 that has wording different please for the love of god type out word for word what it's ruling actually states here in this thread.

 

If indeed my codex is the current version (then shame on you GW for waiting this long for a new one!! haha) then there is no amount of arguing from anyone that can change my opinion. It's simple english people and makes perfect sense to me and all my regular opponents, two of which that work for Games Workshop.

 

Thanks and sorry for the long post!

 

I chopped out alot of irrelevant stuff from the original post.

 

So....first, in your analysis of the 1st printing of the SW codex you conveniently left out some words. The text you quote is:This unit counts as being in cover for rules purposes and so will receive a 5+ cover save and will strike first in close combat until the end of the following enemy turn. Units that are protected in this way may assault and, if they do so and the enemy are also in cover, attacks are resolved in order of iniative.

 

In your arguement however, you misquote the text. You post:So lets analyse this...

"will receive a 5+ cover save" - thats pretty straight forward, shoot at me with your ap3 weapon and i wont die if i roll a 5+.

"will strike first in close combat until the end of the following turn" - the argument stopper. We strike first in close combat! We can charge, we can be assaulted, whatever, we get to strike first. The only way we don't strike first is if we are assaulted by a unit that has an ability and/or wargear that negates the bonuses of cover in Close combat. So the worst we get is iniative order if we are assaulted."Units that are protected in this way may assault" - awesome, that clarifies my above analysis, we can assault (had to make sure of that one or this debate was for nothing haha)

 

"If they do so and the enemy are also in cover, attacks are resolved in order of iniative" - all this says is we attack as if we are using frag grenades.

 

 

You left out part of the text. " This unit counts as being in cover for rules purposes and so will receive a 5+ cover save and will strike first in close combat until the end of the following enemy turn".

 

Stormcaller is not a psychic power that A. makes the wolves count in cover and B. gives a 5+ cover save and C. Lets them go first in close combat.

 

It is a psychic power that lets the unit count as being in cover. That is where you get the 5+ cover save from, and that is why you go first in combat. Because they are in cover. And so will receive.....this is the key phrase that shows the abilities of the power derive from being in cover, not from having the power itself granting bonuses.

 

Now....a unit assaulting ( or being assaulted by) a unit in cover only has its initiative lowered to 1 if it has to make a difficult terrain test ( or a dangerous one). Obviously with Stormcaller you do not have to make any tests, therefore, that part of the rules do not apply. You then go to the actual wording of the rules in the codex.

 

Now, CaptInsano you asked for someone to post the rules as written in the second printing, which I have done previously. "This unit counts as being in cover for rules purposes and so will receive a 5+ cover save and will strike first in close combat if they are charged. "

 

I have a pdf scan of that page btw....anyone who wants it can PM me with your email address and I will send it out.

 

I believe that it is unethical to play with an older version of the rules when you have been informed of a later rules change. Just because it says something in your codex and you cannot get the newer version does not make it ok to continue using the older version and justifying it by saying this is what MY codex says.....

[Byrne]

First of all, I would like to say. We need to stop thinking about how the rules "used" to work, it has nothing with 5th ed to do anymore. cover is one thing, Go through cover is another, strike first is something else, New if you would like...

 

You left out part of the text. " This unit counts as being in cover for rules purposes and so will receive a 5+ cover save and will strike first in close combat until the end of the following enemy turn".

 

*you can´t read that together anymore, it is two seperate things now. Cover NEVER let anyone go first, just SC.

 

Stormcaller is not a psychic power that A. makes the wolves count in cover and B. gives a 5+ cover save and C. Lets them go first in close combat.

 

It is a psychic power that lets the unit count as being in cover. That is where you get the 5+ cover save from, and that is why you go first in combat. Because they are in cover. And so will receive.....this is the key phrase that shows the abilities of the power derive from being in cover, not from having the power itself granting bonuses.

 

*Yes all we get is a 5+ coversave, count as assulting with frags, nothing more...

 

Now....a unit assaulting ( or being assaulted by) a unit in cover only has its initiative lowered to 1 if it has to make a difficult terrain test ( or a dangerous one). Obviously with Stormcaller you do not have to make any tests, therefore, that part of the rules do not apply. You then go to the actual wording of the rules in the codex.

 

*To the above part, this is the big deal, it dosen´t aply anymore, we don´t lower anything, nothing. In other words, if you are thinking that the first part of "being in cover" has anything with this, it dont. SC just dont give us a bonus, unless (as already stated, we need to unlearn everything we think we know about cover, and how it used to work. Then the part saying "strike first" get a new meaning.

[CaptInsaneO]

Firstly, i'm going to quote myself...

 

(1) Throw away all your opinions on what you think is and isnt the case and start fresh.

 

Please keep in mind that this goes off my Space Wolf codex release date of 2000. I'm yet to find one that has different wording. If someone has a Spacewolf codex published after 2000 that has wording different please for the love of god type out word for word what it's ruling actually states here in this thread.

 

If indeed my codex is the current version (then shame on you GW for waiting this long for a new one!! haha) then there is no amount of arguing from anyone that can change my opinion. It's simple english people and makes perfect sense to me and all my regular opponents, two of which that work for Games Workshop.

 

I'm presuming Keith your codex has been published at a date past the year 2000...so if so and the correct wording you've supplied (quoted below) i'm curious to know what else it says afterwards. Any chance you could write the whole thing down there??? Because lets have a look at what you wrote...

 

This unit counts as being in cover for rules purposes and so will receive a 5+ cover save and will strike first in close combat if they are charged.

 

Makes perfect sense to me...you charge me I strike first. With no extra text supplied thats the ruling. I don't get it if I charge. However! If it says after this sentence that units that are protected this way may assault and, if they do so and then enemy are also in cover, attacks are resolved in order of initiative. Why?? Because both units are STILL counted as being in cover even though the unit with stormcaller on it charged. This means that if I charge a unit that isnt in cover my unit STILL counts as being in cover and I strike first.

 

In your arguement however, you misquote the text. You post:So lets analyse this...

"will receive a 5+ cover save" - thats pretty straight forward, shoot at me with your ap3 weapon and i wont die if i roll a 5+.

"will strike first in close combat until the end of the following turn" - the argument stopper. We strike first in close combat! We can charge, we can be assaulted, whatever, we get to strike first. The only way we don't strike first is if we are assaulted by a unit that has an ability and/or wargear that negates the bonuses of cover in Close combat. So the worst we get is iniative order if we are assaulted.

"Units that are protected in this way may assault" - awesome, that clarifies my above analysis, we can assault (had to make sure of that one or this debate was for nothing haha)

 

"If they do so and the enemy are also in cover, attacks are resolved in order of iniative" - all this says is we attack as if we are using frag grenades.

 

 

You left out part of the text. " This unit counts as being in cover for rules purposes and so will receive a 5+ cover save and will strike first in close combat until the end of the following enemy turn".

 

Yeah, I left that part out...I can go rehash if you want...but it is pretty straight forward dont you think?? We get to strike first in close combat until the end of the following enemy turn. Awesome...thankyou for supporting my argument :) By those words we get to strike first whether we charge or in turn are charged.

 

You then go on to say...

 

stormcaller is not a psychic power that A. makes the wolves count in cover and B. gives a 5+ cover save and C. Lets them go first in close combat.

 

It is a psychic power that lets the unit count as being in cover. That is where you get the 5+ cover save from, and that is why you go first in combat. Because they are in cover. And so will receive.....this is the key phrase that shows the abilities of the power derive from being in cover, not from having the power itself granting bonuses.

 

Stormcaller IS a pyschic power that makes the unit count in cover. It summons up a blizzard creating cover for the unit which then moves with them. Hence we get a 5+ cover save regardless if we move or not. It's the power that creates the cover. Yes you are right that it is the cover that grants the bonuses. We count as being in cover in regards to shooting and assault.

 

Now....a unit assaulting ( or being assaulted by) a unit in cover only has its initiative lowered to 1 if it has to make a difficult terrain test ( or a dangerous one). Obviously with Stormcaller you do not have to make any tests, therefore, that part of the rules do not apply. You then go to the actual wording of the rules in the codex.

 

Incorrect. Ofcourse you still have to make a difficult terrain test if you have stormcaller on. Why wouldn't you??? Nowhere does it say you get to move through difficult terrain freely. It just says you count as being in cover. Movement rules still count as normal. How did you come to that conclusion?

 

I believe that it is unethical to play with an older version of the rules when you have been informed of a later rules change. Just because it says something in your codex and you cannot get the newer version does not make it ok to continue using the older version and justifying it by saying this is what MY codex says.....

 

As for that comment I did state what year codex I have been using etc. Unethical has got :o all to do with it. Poor choice of words. No sense of justifying here. I have merely presented a simple process of solving this problem. All that needs to be done is find out exactly which codex version is the latest. I've seen the question asked a few times so far so ill ask again. What year was your codex published? Every downloaded version i've managed to secure and other Space Wolf gamers codexes that i have seen are all published in 2000. Could you please verify your date and that will settle the debate :)

[CaptInsaneO]

First of all, I would like to say. We need to stop thinking about how the rules "used" to work, it has nothing with 5th ed to do anymore. cover is one thing, Go through cover is another, strike first is something else, New if you would like...

 

You left out part of the text. " This unit counts as being in cover for rules purposes and so will receive a 5+ cover save and will strike first in close combat until the end of the following enemy turn".

 

*you can´t read that together anymore, it is two seperate things now. Cover NEVER let anyone go first, just SC.

 

Thankyou Byrne :o

 

I actually make mention in my post to this. Point No.1 Throw away all your opinions on what you think is and isnt the case and start fresh. New rules, new erratas (that replace all previous articles completely!).

This is why I attempted to analyse the stormcaller rule bit by bit. It just can't be read together anymore as you say.

Looking forward to reading the other version. I'll send you a pm Keith with my msn for a pdf copy please :) Would be great to get to the bottom of this. Well potentially not great, I could lose the ability the way I see it!

[JCarter]

This is really frustrating. Several times the request has been made for those with the "2nd printing" to specify the date of their printing and no one has done so. I will repeat it once more, "Specify the date!" and add one more: What and where in the text is the fact of 2nd printing identified. This seems to me to be a simple request.

[KeithGatchalian]

Makes perfect sense to me...you charge me I strike first. With no extra text supplied thats the ruling. I don't get it if I charge. However! If it says after this sentence that units that are protected this way may assault and, if they do so and then enemy are also in cover, attacks are resolved in order of initiative. Why?? Because both units are STILL counted as being in cover even though the unit with stormcaller on it charged. This means that if I charge a unit that isnt in cover my unit STILL counts as being in cover and I strike first.

 

That line of text is irrelevant. It no way allows you to assault first. You are inferring this. The rules are very precise...they state you go first if charged.

 

QUOTE

In your arguement however, you misquote the text. You post:So lets analyse this...

"will receive a 5+ cover save" - thats pretty straight forward, shoot at me with your ap3 weapon and i wont die if i roll a 5+.

"will strike first in close combat until the end of the following turn" - the argument stopper. We strike first in close combat! We can charge, we can be assaulted, whatever, we get to strike first. The only way we don't strike first is if we are assaulted by a unit that has an ability and/or wargear that negates the bonuses of cover in Close combat. So the worst we get is iniative order if we are assaulted.

"Units that are protected in this way may assault" - awesome, that clarifies my above analysis, we can assault (had to make sure of that one or this debate was for nothing haha)

 

"If they do so and the enemy are also in cover, attacks are resolved in order of iniative" - all this says is we attack as if we are using frag grenades.

 

 

You left out part of the text. " This unit counts as being in cover for rules purposes and so will receive a 5+ cover save and will strike first in close combat until the end of the following enemy turn".

 

 

Yeah, I left that part out...I can go rehash if you want...but it is pretty straight forward dont you think?? We get to strike first in close combat until the end of the following enemy turn. Awesome...thankyou for supporting my argument By those words we get to strike first whether we charge or in turn are charged.

 

Yes it is straightforward. It supports my arguement, which you have failed to refute.

 

 

You then go on to say...

 

 

QUOTE

stormcaller is not a psychic power that A. makes the wolves count in cover and B. gives a 5+ cover save and C. Lets them go first in close combat.

 

It is a psychic power that lets the unit count as being in cover. That is where you get the 5+ cover save from, and that is why you go first in combat. Because they are in cover. And so will receive.....this is the key phrase that shows the abilities of the power derive from being in cover, not from having the power itself granting bonuses.

 

 

Stormcaller IS a pyschic power that makes the unit count in cover. It summons up a blizzard creating cover for the unit which then moves with them. Hence we get a 5+ cover save regardless if we move or not. It's the power that creates the cover. Yes you are right that it is the cover that grants the bonuses. We count as being in cover in regards to shooting and assault.

 

Right, so you apply the rules for assaulting cover to Space Wolves in cover. Which I have already stated.

 

 

QUOTE

Now....a unit assaulting ( or being assaulted by) a unit in cover only has its initiative lowered to 1 if it has to make a difficult terrain test ( or a dangerous one). Obviously with Stormcaller you do not have to make any tests, therefore, that part of the rules do not apply. You then go to the actual wording of the rules in the codex.

 

 

Incorrect. Ofcourse you still have to make a difficult terrain test if you have stormcaller on. Why wouldn't you??? Nowhere does it say you get to move through difficult terrain freely. It just says you count as being in cover. Movement rules still count as normal. How did you come to that conclusion?

 

Right....Wolves count as being in cover, but you do not have to make DT tests if you are moving, nor do you have to make DT tests to assault Wolves. Refer back to the rules about assaulting in cover.

 

 

As for that comment I did state what year codex I have been using etc. Unethical has got all to do with it. Poor choice of words. No sense of justifying here. I have merely presented a simple process of solving this problem. All that needs to be done is find out exactly which codex version is the latest. I've seen the question asked a few times so far so ill ask again. What year was your codex published? Every downloaded version i've managed to secure and other Space Wolf gamers codexes that i have seen are all published in 2000. Could you please verify your date and that will settle the debate

 

The lines from the latest codex have been printed several times. And I have repeatedly said it is from the second printing.

 

And the ethicalness is important. You are either playing by the rules or you are not. If you are not, then it is unethical.

[ProtoClone]

This is really frustrating. Several times the request has been made for those with the "2nd printing" to specify the date of their printing and no one has done so. I will repeat it once more, "Specify the date!" and add one more: What and where in the text is the fact of 2nd printing identified. This seems to me to be a simple request.

 

 

I agree, I would like to know as well. I ordered the codex from GW Canada and they sent me the 2000 codex. Is this the current printing or not? Where does it say the current printing on the codex?

[KeithGatchalian]

This is really frustrating. Several times the request has been made for those with the "2nd printing" to specify the date of their printing and no one has done so. I will repeat it once more, "Specify the date!" and add one more: What and where in the text is the fact of 2nd printing identified. This seems to me to be a simple request.

 

 

I agree, I would like to know as well. I ordered the codex from GW Canada and they sent me the 2000 codex. Is this the current printing or not? Where does it say the current printing on the codex?

 

It will say 2nd Printing on page 1, above the white box with the addresses to the various locations of GW worldwide.