Space Wolves are Cheaters!

[Losman]

Apparently if a space wolf player uses the drop pod assault rules to bring in half their drop pods on the first or uses the profile for storm shields from C:SM they are cheaters. At least that was the claim by a recent tournament player who called back to the store to inform them of this blatant rules violoation. They apparently had it on good authority however as they mentioned their friend told them that these space wolves tactics were not allowed.

 

This from an adult player who by the way had terrible dice etiquette, he would of course pick up his hits along with a few extra instead of picking out his misses. I didn't call him on it cause I was winning but I made a point of always picking out my misses and waiting a good long pause for him to see my succesful rolls. Does this game attract people like this cause I see it a lot and it sucks because it really takes the fun out of the game. I can understand wanting to verify legality of list but check it out in a codex/FAQ before you call a store and state that a player cheated by bringing an illegal list.

[Vassakov]

Ermmm... FAQ much?

 

Show that to him, then see what he has to say.

[WolfBitten]

I had a store staff member basically say that Space Wolves were cheating at the moment because the Codex was so old!

 

To which my answer of course, is that we would be MORE than happy to use a new Codex just as soon as the powers that be pull their thumbs out of their a-.........you get the idea :D

[Losman]

Ermmm... FAQ much?

 

Show that to him, then see what he has to say.

 

 

Yeah I know the rules just would have been nice if the dude looked them up himself. After the tourney I was hanging out at the store and it went down like this, store owner answers the phone and listens for a while then says hold on he's right here you can tell him yourself. Owner then gives me the phone and the guy says, "I just wanted to let you know you cheated. Space wolves cannot enter combat on the first turn because it does not have the rules for drop pods in their codex. My friend also said that you do not get a 3+ invulnreable save for storm shields." Yeah I could have said the space wolves codex is a supplemental codex and still requires the space marine codex for many reasons, the wargear italicised in our codex requires the description from the C:SM be used and the Space Wolf FAQ from Games Workshop clearly says that Space Wolves can use drop pods etc... Instead I said, "Okay thanks." I could go on about our game too but I won't. Oh well I was kind of was amused with myself for response and found it kind of funny.

[Vassakov]

I had a store staff member basically say that Space Wolves were cheating at the moment because the Codex was so old!

 

To which my answer of course, is that we would be MORE than happy to use a new Codex just as soon as the powers that be pull their thumbs out of their a-.........you get the idea ^_^

 

Yeah , I'll accept that. Part of the reason mine are on hold for a bit - I can only win so often before it gets a bit dull!

 

To answer Losmans "friend," I would really point him in the right direction. Saves a lot of effort later.

[Sven Bloodskull]

Yeah I could have said the space wolves codex is a supplemental codex and still requires the space marine codex for many reasons, the wargear italicised in our codex requires the description from the C:SM be used and the Space Wolf FAQ from Games Workshop clearly says that Space Wolves can use drop pods etc... Instead I said, "Okay thanks." I could go on about our game too but I won't. Oh well I was kind of was amused with myself for response and found it kind of funny.

 

I've got to say Brother, i admire your calm aproach to the matter. If this would have happenend to me, i would have shoved the phone up the whiny brat's back side, and torch/looted the shop.

 

Sven Bloodskull

[Spacefrisian]

It might be a good idea to stay calm but what will you do if you see him again a the next tourney. Do you just hand him a copy of the errata?

[kickme829]

using storm shield from C:SM is cheating. Space wolves storm shields are meant to be crap like DA and BA

[Vassakov]

using storm shield from C:SM is cheating. Space wolves storm shields are meant to be crap like DA and BA

 

Ermmm... again, I point you to the FAQ's, and the nice little bit in italics that says "These items function as described in Codex: Space Marines."

[muzzyman1981]

Read ALL of the Codex (especially that part at the top of the Wargear page that says all items in italics use the description from the Space Marine Codex) and then get the FAQ and read that.

 

The Space Wolves codex is a supplemental codex, which uses the Space Marine Codex as it's base...it's as simple as that.

 

Now, people, we are getting into arguing for whatever reason, if we are going to keep this topic alive we need to be reasonable....not accusing people of being cheaters for playing an army.

[Menathorn]

It might be a good idea to stay calm but what will you do if you see him again a the next tourney. Do you just hand him a copy of the errata?

 

Or bang him on the head with it ^_^

 

I haven't gotten this response from any players at the moment, but I'll keep this in mind when the response comes. Good that you didn't start a debate about it, don't think he would have agreed. The player was just a sore loser.

[Yeti]

Yeah I know the rules just would have been nice if the dude looked them up himself.

Actually, it's your responsibility to do the research for your army list. If you had the FAQ on you at the tourny and showed it to him ... then he's just a $%. If he tought something was fishy, it was his responsibility to call you on it during the game.

 

This from an adult player who by the way had terrible dice etiquette, he would of course pick up his hits along with a few extra instead of picking out his misses. I didn't call him on it cause I was winning but ... .

Winning or losing, call him on it, otherwise he'll never learn. If you don't and the game turns around or if he's winning the next game, he'll expect the same treatment.

 

Does this game attract people like this cause I see it a lot and it sucks because it really takes the fun out of the game.

No, we just have our quota of jerks like any other game that's competitve. What's important is to find the good ones and encourage them.

[muzzyman1981]

Well said Yeti

[the jeske]

well the thing with sw is , that any opponent may point you the part about difference in errata and FAQ and FAQs are totally unofficial [what kind of a makes sw unplayable as an army] . So yeah techniclly speaking SW do not have drop pods rules or SS/TH . Of course its much worse then what the BAs have [with them one doesnt know if SS/TH should be used in a DA version , a SM version or not used at all]. the problems with SW was also the reasone why in many places all over the world SW were banned from tournament play.

[Vassakov]

Well, thejeske the FAQ's may well be unoffical but that doesn't get round the bit at the top of the armoury page that says "Use Codex Space Marines for all the rules for these pieces of equipment." Personally, I stuggle to see where this confusion arises. It's the same story with the vehicles. Is "See Codex Space Marines" that difficult.

 

I'm sorry if this comes across as a rant, but frankly the only explanation I can think of is that DA/BA/BT etc don't have the changes... in which case the problem lies with GW for not updating us, not with us for persevering with a forgotten army.

[Didacsoy]

well the thing with sw is , that any opponent may point you the part about difference in errata and FAQ and FAQs are totally unofficial [what kind of a makes sw unplayable as an army] . So yeah techniclly speaking SW do not have drop pods rules or SS/TH . Of course its much worse then what the BAs have [with them one doesnt know if SS/TH should be used in a DA version , a SM version or not used at all]. the problems with SW was also the reasone why in many places all over the world SW were banned from tournament play.

 

You, sir, are mistaken. There IS an official FAQ. It is in GW's site, most conveniently under the Errata & FAQ section found in the Articles/Gaming category. GW sanctiones our codex, thus making Space Wolves effectively legal for tournament play.

[Wolf89]

well the thing with sw is , that any opponent may point you the part about difference in errata and FAQ and FAQs are totally unofficial [what kind of a makes sw unplayable as an army] . So yeah techniclly speaking SW do not have drop pods rules or SS/TH . Of course its much worse then what the BAs have [with them one doesnt know if SS/TH should be used in a DA version , a SM version or not used at all]. the problems with SW was also the reasone why in many places all over the world SW were banned from tournament play.

 

Jeske, you do realize the SS is taken from C:SM not from FAQ but from our codex right?

 

As for the guy that said amazing you were calm and not all pissed off and summoned all from valhalla to crush our foes, I would have raised all hell as well. :P

[Losman]

Yeah well I had the FAQ with me and the Codex at the tournament but the guy I played against called back to the store on his 2 hour drive back home. If he would have brought it up at the tournament I would have shown it to him. I might have to play him again at another tourney but not as regular player because he lives too far away. If I find out he is coming to the next tournament I will make sure and take the same list just to see what happens.

[Scout Sniper]

There is a simple Space Wolf answer to this brothers (draws Frost Blade) FOR RUSS AND THE WOLFTIME DESTROY THE VILE HERETIC!!!! (rushes out of room in search of vile heretic or drink)

[the jeske]

Jeske, you do realize the SS is taken from C:SM not from FAQ but from our codex right?

yes , but in the sw codex they tell you too look up the rules in a non existen sm codex . you know in what sm codex to check to rules only thanks to the FAQ and that is unofficial [what is stupid , but w40k is full of that].

There IS an official FAQ. It is in GW's site, most conveniently under the Errata & FAQ section found in the Articles/Gaming category. GW sanctiones our codex, thus making Space Wolves effectively legal for tournament play.

read the starting part again . they tell you there that errata are official changes to the dexs due to changes/errors in printing etc . Now the FAQs there are called [and it was not like that in the 2/3/4ed] unofficial studio house rules . So yeah thx to that we dont really know how lash works , or what kind of a SS/TH BAs use[it doesnt say in the pdf and post new sm codex we have two different versions of that gear at least] .

 

 

Is "See Codex Space Marines" that difficult.

yes because anyone without FAQ can say that this means the 3ed sm dex[and that one is illegal] making the sw dex an illegal one . Its not the way I like it , but there are many big tournaments all around the world that bann sw from play , just because of that . See orgs and judges dont like to say "we dont know how it works" and its offten easier to say that this or that codex is too outdated to be played [specially as few people own them and sw armies compering to the number of other meq armies] .

[ChainsawDR]

I'm coming back to 40k after a 15 year absence - I'm painting up my old SW army in full and I'm in no hurry to start playing at the moment simply because I'm not looking forward to walking into a GW store, trying to learn the rules again, whilst flicking between C:SW, C:SM & SW FAQS - it just doesn't seem all that appealing. 40k's supposed to be fun, SW's to a new or returnign player just isn't a fun prospect.

 

Hopefully GW will get us a new codex soon and these moans about SW's will end.

[muzzyman1981]

Where in any of the rulebook/codex/errata/FAQ does it specify an edition of codex? It doesn't so you use the current versions. I know it seems stupid, but until there is a fix that is the way it is done, and therefore NOT cheating.

[Didacsoy]

Jeske, you do realize the SS is taken from C:SM not from FAQ but from our codex right?

yes , but in the sw codex they tell you too look up the rules in a non existen sm codex . you know in what sm codex to check to rules only thanks to the FAQ and that is unofficial [what is stupid , but w40k is full of that].

There IS an official FAQ. It is in GW's site, most conveniently under the Errata & FAQ section found in the Articles/Gaming category. GW sanctiones our codex, thus making Space Wolves effectively legal for tournament play.

read the starting part again . they tell you there that errata are official changes to the dexs due to changes/errors in printing etc . Now the FAQs there are called [and it was not like that in the 2/3/4ed] unofficial studio house rules . So yeah thx to that we dont really know how lash works , or what kind of a SS/TH BAs use[it doesnt say in the pdf and post new sm codex we have two different versions of that gear at least] .

 

 

Is "See Codex Space Marines" that difficult.

yes because anyone without FAQ can say that this means the 3ed sm dex[and that one is illegal] making the sw dex an illegal one . Its not the way I like it , but there are many big tournaments all around the world that bann sw from play , just because of that . See orgs and judges dont like to say "we dont know how it works" and its offten easier to say that this or that codex is too outdated to be played [specially as few people own them and sw armies compering to the number of other meq armies] .

 

The new Codex:SM replaces the old one in every aspect, even as consulting material for other codexes. I don't know why it would replace the old codex in some functions and not in others. As I understand it, "See Codex Space Marines" means "see current codex space marines".

 

Regarding the distinction between FAQ and errata, I understand it, but as long as it is published on an official site, it is an official interpretation of the rules for me, regardless its origins. Of course, anyone can house-rule against these documents, but it would be silly to have an official take on a controversial issue and disregard it just because.

[OnlyInDeath]

Regarding the distinction between FAQ and errata, I understand it, but as long as it is published on an official site, it is an official interpretation of the rules for me, regardless its origins. Of course, anyone can house-rule against these documents, but it would be silly to have an official take on a controversial issue and disregard it just because.

 

That's the thing, they would have to take out the FAQ's for anyone in the tournie, which i have never ever heard of that happening in any tournie. in fact, for most tournie rules, you are required to bring the most current version of your FAQ so there's no problems regarding rules discussion. Most codecies dont fit exactly in with the rules, as they have all come out at varied times. That's what FAQ's are there for.

 

As far as referencing a different source for information, you must always go with the most current edition for the item in question. If something references, for example, one of the universal special rules that was in the 4th ed rulebook, but not 5th ed, you no longer have that rule, as the most current edition no longer supports it. This actually HAS affected the SW's for some of our varied items in our rulebook. For example, the various totems (banners) are now worthless, the Fang of Morkai no longer works, etc. So I'm sorry Jeske, you always have to use the most current reference if it says to reference something.

 

And as far as SW's being banned from tournaments, that's news to me. Nightrunner is actually taking his SW's to the english GT final, SW's took home the 40k radio global tournie, and from what I've heard they are competitive across most of the US circuits.

[Vassakov]

Is "See Codex Space Marines" that difficult.

yes because anyone without FAQ can say that this means the 3ed sm dex[and that one is illegal] making the sw dex an illegal one . Its not the way I like it , but there are many big tournaments all around the world that bann sw from play , just because of that . See orgs and judges dont like to say "we dont know how it works" and its offten easier to say that this or that codex is too outdated to be played [specially as few people own them and sw armies compering to the number of other meq armies] .

 

Ok then, by that logic I should be using the 3rd Ed BRB too... Rhino Rushing BC spam anyone?

 

See, this argument holds no water at all. As for the "people don't know how it works," that's utter bollocks. It's in black and white - the problem comes with the fact that the DA/BA/BT got screwed over and so it's easier to ban the Wolves than give them their rules.