G. A. K. Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I would like to open this thread with as appology to Lord Ragnarok for re-openning a thread you closed for the best of reasons. I would agree that the name calling was unnecessary. But on to my point, I found that thread late and was unable to state the clear ruling on the subject located in my codex SW: Everyone quoted the wargear section om page 14 but didn't finish the paragrah!! Here it is in its entirety: "IMPORTANT: Space Wolves may NOT pick wargear from the Armoury in Codex: Space Marines and must take all of their equipment from the list below. A number of entries are basically the same as their counterpart in the standard Space Marines Armoury and, in this case, we've noted this by writing the entry in italics below. There is a brief description of how these items work on the summary page later in the Codex but you should refer to the wargear section in Codex: Space Marines for a full description." Again I hope I'm not beating a dead horse but the rules do deal with the problem and there is no need to attack a players reading of the rules, simply calmly point out the areas which need to be re-read. G Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPetersson Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I find it hugely helpful to have a small print out of the rules that I most often end up getting into discussions about and the relevant Codices/FAQs/Rulebook section + page number where clarification is located. So for your example above, I would have an entry called 'Wargear' and the page number where what you wrote is written. I naturally always bring C:SW, Printout of C:SW for my opponent, FAQs for SW, My opponents army, 5th ed rules plus the latest summary sheets. But yeah, a rules cross-reference with relevant page numbers is very useful. A perfect example is when I ran into this situation and I got this response. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1849409 Share on other sites More sharing options...
obs0l3te Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I do not agree with how you came to this conclusion. "IMPORTANT: Space Wolves may NOT pick wargear from the Armoury in Codex: Space Marines and must take all of their equipment from the list below. A number of entries are basically the same as their counterpart in the standard Space Marines Armoury and, in this case, we've noted this by writing the entry in italics below. There is a brief description of how these items work on the summary page later in the Codex but you should refer to the wargear section in Codex: Space Marines for a full description." This DOES NOT tell me NOT to use the summary page for things such as Auspex and Bionics. This says I can use it, and if I want more detail to refer to codex space marines. What does tell me to NOT use the summary page is.... The codex that states clearly, under the bold SPACE WOLVES WARGEAR section, "The rules below describe how the specialized equipment used by the Space Wolves works in the game. Any items not listed here function exactly as described in the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook or Codex: Space Marines. This section tells me to refer to C:SM for items not listed. Since Auspex etc aren't in that book, they don't exist now. The last point while on this topic I want to make.... (please do not respond to this part unless you have a codex infront of you. You will need it to understand my point) 1st off, we all know Razorbacks cannot be taken by blood claws because... Transport Vehicle: The entire ssquad may be mounted in a rhino.......NOTE THAT BLOOD CLAWS NEVER RECEIVE RAZORBACKS AS TRANSPORT VEHICLES (THEY ARE RESERVED FOR SENIOR UNITS) Now we have a totally different section titled SPECIAL RULES 3rd paragraph Transport Vehicles: Certain space wolves squads can take a rhino or RAZORBACK as a transport vehicle. Details of these vehicles can be round in Codex: Space Marines. Note that the only unit that may embark....Entire army!) My point is, clearly Bloodclaws cannot take RAZORBACKS so this refers to the entire army. If we use the DETAILS of these vehicles, we use every thing from C:SM for These vehicles. Any ways sorry for the text wall. I just do not see a reason to rehash a closed topic, when the question was answered in that topic. And please back up a rules call with the correct referance. thanks Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1849434 Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPetersson Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I do not agree with how you came to this conclusion. Good points. I may disagree, but it's good valid points IMO for being able to take those items of gear which have rules in the summary. /shrug I'm still not gonna take them though... The last point while on this topic I want to make.... (please do not respond to this part unless you have a codex infront of you. You will need it to understand my point) 1st off, we all know Razorbacks cannot be taken by blood claws because... Transport Vehicle: The entire ssquad may be mounted in a rhino.......NOTE THAT BLOOD CLAWS NEVER RECEIVE RAZORBACKS AS TRANSPORT VEHICLES (THEY ARE RESERVED FOR SENIOR UNITS) Now we have a totally different section titled SPECIAL RULES 3rd paragraph Transport Vehicles: Certain space wolves squads can take a rhino or RAZORBACK as a transport vehicle. Details of these vehicles can be round in Codex: Space Marines. Note that the only unit that may embark....Entire army!) My point is, clearly Bloodclaws cannot take RAZORBACKS so this refers to the entire army. If we use the DETAILS of these vehicles, we use every thing from C:SM for These vehicles. Any ways sorry for the text wall. I just do not see a reason to rehash a closed topic, when the question was answered in that topic. And please back up a rules call with the correct referance. thanks I'm not entirely cartain what you're trying to say on the whole RB thing :blush: It says fairly clearly that BCs can't take them as dedicated transport, and their minimum size is too big for a RazorBack anyway... If you're saying that BC can't take RBs, then ya, it's pretty clear and I don't see how it can be argued against... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1849455 Share on other sites More sharing options...
obs0l3te Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Like I said you need the codex in front of you to understand... and I don't think you read what I wrote..... I said I agree with him, but do not agree with how he came to that conclusion. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1849584 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf89 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 SW.31B.01 – Q: Do Space Wolves use the weaponcharacteristics from the Space Marine codex or from the Space Wolves summary page? A: The Space Marines codex [clarification]. SW.14C.01 – Q: What, if anything, does an Auspexand Bionics do? A: Nothing, as those items are no longer found in the Space Marine codex [RAW]. SW.GEN.02 – Q: The online GW Space Wolves FAQdoes not mention transport vehicles. Is the base points costs for transports used the ones listed in the Space Wolves codex or rather the costs found in the SM codex? A: Use the point costs for transport vehicles from the Space Marine codex [clarification]. These are all quoted from Adepticon tournaments FAQ and is a great guideline for all other tournaments to follow. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1849612 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfLordLars Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I will check that out and add it to our FAQ. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1849731 Share on other sites More sharing options...
dietrich Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 They're supposed to issue a revised FAQ soon, so keep an eye out for that. I don't think it's the best FAQ, but I think it's about the most authoritative. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1849829 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Yeah the first version they released had a few holes, but they were good about opening up for comment. Im not sure I like the idea of them throwing it out there as an "official" FAQ, but like anything else.... another option never hurts. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1850097 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnarchX Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Wow. According to that we can't take Chronus and Blood Claws only get +1 on the CA. Thanks, AnarchX Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1850106 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Yeah, in discussion the +2 counter attack ruling held up. Thank god. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1850312 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf89 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Wow. According to that we can't take Chronus and Blood Claws only get +1 on the CA. Thanks, AnarchX Yea I can see where they say no to Chronus, and the BC thing isn't a HUGE deal, as it says +1 attack instead of just "as if they had charged" so it's a meh thing for me, especially since I rarely use them... the best thing is stormcaller, I'm glad they made it at least work out if they get charged... always nice to be swinging before that damn avatar... (would have won me the game too instead of just tying). Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1850594 Share on other sites More sharing options...
dietrich Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 The problem isn't that Adepticon puts out an FAQ. The problem is that GW doesn't do a good enough job with theirs. I think some of that is because SW are 'soon', so they don't care if the FAQ is the best. If GW did better FAQ support, this wouldn't be an issue. And, some of this is to avert any arguements at the Convention, because there are those types that would pitch a fit if they saw a SW player with a LR Redeemer, even though probably 80-90%+ of people understand that it is a 'variant' of the land raider. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1850885 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ullr Direfang Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 to me, this is starting to get out of hand. there are many confusing points, in the FAQs and in RAW from the codex. but come on. people need to just start accepting things. there are a lot of points to other armies, in both 40k and fantasy, that i find slightly broken/unfair/cheesy but i get over them a deal with them how ever i can. i don't understand how people can get hung up on so many little things. people say i need to use C:SW or C:SW but not both and i tell them C:SW doesn't work without C:SM. people say i need to use my summary sheet and i tell them then let me go find your 3rd ed summary sheet. people around here, need whelps, want to use items that no longer exist and say they are using the summary sheet from the back, but don't use it for weapons. i don't get it. i really don't why are things so hard to understand when they are spelled out. how do you use and item if the are no rules for it where you are supposed to find the rules for it... you don't. people that say i need to use my summary sheet the way it is, i tell them they need to use theirs the way it is, with out updating rules from the new rule book. i talk every thing out with my local group. if we can't agree, then we resort to strictly reading it as it is from the rule book or FAQ. if we agree, we use it how we agree. but if what is agreed upon isn't truly valid because of FAQs, or something else, it isn't valid during tournaments. Transport Vehicles: Certain space wolves squads can take a rhino or RAZORBACK as a transport vehicle. Details of these vehicles can be round in Codex: Space Marines. Note that the only unit that may embark....Entire army!) My point is, clearly Bloodclaws cannot take RAZORBACKS so this refers to the entire army. If we use the DETAILS of these vehicles, we use every thing from C:SM for These vehicles. i know you said not to post unless i have my 'dex in front of me, but is i am kinda of confused by this. i read it as !CERTAIN! space wolf squads can take a rhino OR razorback as a transport vehicle. which means that it need to say in the entry if they can. i am 99.99% sure that in C:SW, bloodclaws can't take a razorback so the "or" part of the statement applies. and yes you use this vehicle upgrades/armory from the book you took the vehicle from, so if you take it from C:SM you use the upgrades from C:SM. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1850930 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfLordLars Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Yeah, in discussion the +2 counter attack ruling held up. Thank god. So, they decided to use the RAW and let BC's have +2 then? This whole mess isnt so much of a mess if people just use their head. I am considering writing a "responses to popular questions for the SW player" add-on to the FAQ, explaining where you can find the info that lets us do the things they think we cant do. Anyone want to help out with that? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1851006 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bran Scalphunter Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Sure, I think I'd be up for that Lars. Just gimme some stuff to write and I'll get cracking. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1851211 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnarchX Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Just an FYI, they have released the updated version of the Adepticon Tournament FAQ. There are some nice changes in there, the most notable (to me anyways) is the +2 for Berserk Charge on the CA for Blood Claws. Thanks, AnarchX Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1851385 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vassakov Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Excellent. I think that's the only real change needed there, though perhaps someone would like to look over the Ven Dread Counter Attack. As for the summary sheet, I think it's fairly clear we ignore it. Our Codex quite clearly tells us to look at C:SM, the summary sheet is nothing more than a handy reference guide. When it's in date. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1851412 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 The other interesting thing is that Stormcaller can be used along with a shooting attack apparently. I also agree with their interpretation on the WTT and Lash of Submission. Ill note they didnt spell out Ragnar+Wolfpelt= +3 attacks. Thats going to try and bite someone in the ass, I just know it. Vass... it doesnt say anything about the vendreads counterattack.... what issue are you talking about? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1851700 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf89 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 The other interesting thing is that Stormcaller can be used along with a shooting attack apparently. I also agree with their interpretation on the WTT and Lash of Submission. Ill note they didnt spell out Ragnar+Wolfpelt= +3 attacks. Thats going to try and bite someone in the ass, I just know it. Vass... it doesnt say anything about the vendreads counterattack.... what issue are you talking about? It will bite someone hard, they clarify Ragnar gets +2 attack on the counter, and a wolf pelt stacks with counter... so yea... muahaha 9 attacks here I come! Master crafted hitting on 3's GUWAAA! +SW.10B.03 – Q: Do Blood Claw that Counter-Attack get a +2 Attack bonus because of ‘Berserk Charge’?A: Yes they do [clarification]. +SW.28C.01 – Q: When Ragnar Counter-Attacks does he get a +2 Attack bonus because of ‘Berserk Charge’?A: Yes he does [clarification]. They just changed these and some other rules (apparently players are complaining about their interpretation and they actually listen to us... :yes: :ermm: This is the new link. -edit- Sorry I didn't see AnarchX's post about the redo, oh well another link for the masses. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/158034-the-summary-sheet/#findComment-1852203 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.