Space Wolf TDA army...

[Ceres]

I really do hope that GW will FAQ this in favor of using a pure terminator army.

 

I've been waiting to get good rules to wield my deathwing, and this might be it.

 

 

We'll see!

[Coverfire]

So let us assume (for a moment) that the Wolf Guard count as scoring and use a troops spot in the force organisation chart.

 

Is a Wolf Guard Terminator Army competitive?

 

We don't teleport, so we are left to slog or pod. Our pods appear to have less capacity so they only carry five Termies.

There is the option to go mechanised but an army to be fully TDA + Land Raiders is going to be tiny and ridiculously outnumbered so that no matter how good they are they will just lose to the battle of attrition.

 

The premise is cool, and I would love to surprise a Deathwing player by dropping down my TDA force, but is it competitive or just a fun thing to do?

[SamaNagol]

It won't get FAQed because it is so utterly obvious. And if you for some reason need a Games Workshop document to spell it out for you, here you go:

 

http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt91/Sa...gol/SWcat07.jpg

[LPetersson]

So let us assume (for a moment) that the Wolf Guard count as scoring and use a troops spot in the force organisation chart.

 

Is a Wolf Guard Terminator Army competitive?

 

We don't teleport, so we are left to slog or pod. Our pods appear to have less capacity so they only carry five Termies.

There is the option to go mechanised but an army to be fully TDA + Land Raiders is going to be tiny and ridiculously outnumbered so that no matter how good they are they will just lose to the battle of attrition.

 

The premise is cool, and I would love to surprise a Deathwing player by dropping down my TDA force, but is it competitive or just a fun thing to do?

 

I have a feeling that each unit will be too small to withstand fire for very long.

the 2+ save doesn't really matter if you have to make 10 of them.

The law of averages will kill you.

Once it gets FAQed that we can, then I'll probably do a couple of games with a full TDA army just for fun, but mostly I'll probably just have them as a hard punch with my GH squads being the backbone of the army.

 

It won't get FAQed because it is so utterly obvious. And if you for some reason need a Games Workshop document to spell it out for you, here you go:

 

http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt91/Sa...gol/SWcat07.jpg

 

Except, that's not a rule book...

 

I agree it will be FAQed so that we can, but at the moment I'd say it's obvious that we can't legally field a TDA army.

[Brother Landrain]

So let us assume (for a moment) that the Wolf Guard count as scoring and use a troops spot in the force organisation chart.

 

Is a Wolf Guard Terminator Army competitive?

 

We don't teleport, so we are left to slog or pod. Our pods appear to have less capacity so they only carry five Termies.

There is the option to go mechanised but an army to be fully TDA + Land Raiders is going to be tiny and ridiculously outnumbered so that no matter how good they are they will just lose to the battle of attrition.

 

From A Deathwing point of view...

 

The DWA is many times a very risky process. As such you normally see two Deathwing Lists..

 

Footslogging Deathwing. All DW squads, limited to 5 man squads.

 

Mech Deathwing. 3 Landraiders and DW squads. also limited to 5 man squads.

 

For footslogging, WW can have >5 man squads, with more varity for wound allocation without giving up Shooty capability, this i see as an advantage.

 

For Mech DW, WW can have 4 landraiders. Which even with minimal squads inside, will freak out many opponents.

(hint) Landraiders can also carry 3 man Wolfguard squads... so for 350 pts have an AV14 moving bunker with the new MoTMS, with BS 4, carring a scoring unit. Seems pretty useful to me.

 

As for Drop pods, yeah limited to 5 man drop pods... but drop pods are inherently much safer than teleport. Logan with combi-flamers and wolfclaws/frostblade/powerweapons, with Counter-Attack should be pretty nice smashing into a line even with only 5 models.

 

But IMO the biggest advantage is Drop Podding Dreadnoughts... First turn drop on enemy lines is vicious.

 

So I can see An army with.. 3/4 Landraiders, 3 podded dreads, logan and then maximized squads. starting all troops embarked in Landraiders... being rather competitive.

[SamaNagol]

It won't get FAQed because it is so utterly obvious. And if you for some reason need a Games Workshop document to spell it out for you, here you go:

 

http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt91/Sa...gol/SWcat07.jpg

 

Except, that's not a rule book...

 

I agree it will be FAQed so that we can, but at the moment I'd say it's obvious that we can't legally field a TDA army.

 

Are you actually serious? The sentence says 'Wolf Guard units count as Troops in any army that includes Logan Grimnar'. A statement which is not too vague in itself. On top of that in the official sales catalogue released by GW it says Logan Grimnar allows you to take armies entirely of Terminators. And still you think it is obvious you can't legally field an all Terminator army?

 

I'll publish the email I get back from the UK GT organisers in response to my query about fielding my Logan Grimnar, Njal, Arjac, 3 x WGT squads + bare bones Melta Dread in Drop Pods list and its legality.

[LPetersson]

Are you actually serious? The sentence says 'Wolf Guard units count as Troops in any army that includes Logan Grimnar'. A statement which is not too vague in itself. On top of that in the official sales catalogue released by GW it says Logan Grimnar allows you to take armies entirely of Terminators. And still you think it is obvious you can't legally field an all Terminator army?

 

I'll publish the email I get back from the UK GT organisers in response to my query about fielding my Logan Grimnar, Njal, Arjac, 3 x WGT squads + bare bones Melta Dread in Drop Pods list and its legality.

 

Yes, I am completely serious. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted this topic.

In C:SM Characters that allow you to take elites/fast attack/other units as troops specifically says take where as the ones that only allows elite/fast/whatever to count as say count as.

I don't think they'd change the wording if their rules so soon.

Incidentally, C:DA, C:E and C:T all very clearly state that you can take or choose Elite\Fast\Heavy as troops. And this is very different from taking an elite unit that then counts as troops during the game.

 

This may be FAQed, but until then a TDA army just isn't legal (Unless you play them with Deathwing rules)...

[SamaNagol]

It doesn't say it counts as troops during games. It says counts a troops. Period. Count as troops before the game. Count as troops at the end of the game. Counts as troops when scoring my army on composition at a tournament. Count as troops when deciding if my force organisation chart is legal. Count as troops. Always and forever.

[Decoy]

Count as troops when determining their place in the Force Organization slot. Count as Troops when determining scoring units. Count as Troops in either sense once they're selected in the army. Count as troops when I'm laughing at your army for fielding so many damned expensive Terminators. Count as Troops when I'm working out why my enemy has nine squads of Wolf Guard. Count As Troops.

 

Ambiguous as ever.

[SamaNagol]

You'd only ever be able to have 6. Seeing as they count as troops.

[Decoy]

That's the question. If they "Count as"troops, in what capacity? Force Org selection? Scoring? Juggling? (Eh?)

 

That's what everyone's asking. "In what capacity?" Can they also be taken as Elites thereafter? Are there only three slots, but they're treated as troops for scoring?

 

There's a lot of combos that could be, and are, misleading. I do agree with you, personally, but the wording is ambiguous enough to deserve an FAQ, or at least an "Official" statement, from GW, in a wide-scale release, preferably an FAQ. Rulzboyz just ain't gonna cut it here. I've already heard three different answers from them.

[SamaNagol]

In all capacities. There is no limitation specified in the rules. Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly.... they are Troops in every sense.

 

When Logan Grimnar is in your army Wolf Guard count as troops. That's all you need to know. There are no restrictions.

[Decoy]

And where does it say that they count as troops "In all capacities"?

 

There's where the ambiguity comes in. Without it being expressed clearly, it will be ambiguous. That's why we're being careful of it at the moment.

[SamaNagol]

In the 3 words "count as troops".

 

If you signed a contract that said you would give me '20% of all of your income', you'd have to give me 20% of every bit of money you received. I wouldn't need to specify which revenue streams that income came from.

 

It's not ambiguous, it is all inclusive.

[Decoy]

Actually, speaking as a part-time lawyer, "20% of income" must be specified by type of income, type of asset, multiple definitions of "Income", multiple definitions of "20%", and indeed, the word "All" itself would have to be defined as well.

 

Why?

 

To prevent people from abusing potential loopholes. That's why this needs to be FAQed.

[Corpse.]

I would say its an entire FoC change for the Wolf Guard. They dont count as elites and troops, just troops. When a new option clearly replaces the previous option, it has to list the previous option in order for both to apply. Unless those magical words "May" or "Can" makes it an option.

[Gentlemanloser]

If WG don't 'count as troops' in all aspects, then nor do Wolf Claws 'count as' Lightning claws in all apsects. Or *any* of the other instances that 'counts as' is used in 40K.

 

I'm in 100% agreement with Sama here. There's no need or this to be FAQed as it's not only obvious how it works, but how it's intended to work.

[NovaScotius]

Actually, speaking as a part-time lawyer, "20% of income" must be specified by type of income, type of asset, multiple definitions of "Income", multiple definitions of "20%", and indeed, the word "All" itself would have to be defined as well.

 

Why?

 

To prevent people from abusing potential loopholes. That's why this needs to be FAQed.

 

Whilst I understand that this level of precision is required in a legally binding contract, is it not a bit much for a set of rules for a game, the point of which is to have fun?

 

I personally would like to field an all Terminator wolf army, and if someone did not want to play me due to the ambiguous wording of this rule, I'd be happy they'd tell me up front. I don't think I'd enjoy playing a person who's going to jump up and down and scream until they're blue in the face, all because I'm not complying with their strict and literal interpretation of the wording used in the rules.

 

Yes, the rule could be interpreted either way due to the ambiguous wording, the issue is that Games Workshop obviously had the intention to allow a full TDA army, as shown from their pre-release. It's not a rule book or a FAQ document, but it at least gives the suggestion that Games Workshop had the intention to allow it.

 

Without wishing to make this sound personal (Because I really don't want to!), but in English law at the very least, there are more ways to interpret legislation; other than the literal rule, there's also the golden and mischief rules, for example. As I say though, I don't want that to sound like a personal attack, for all I know, you might be using a completely different legal system, in which case, my point is moot.

 

All I'm trying to say is that the rule is ambiguous at best, people will be playing it both ways as they will interpret it differently, people will disagree, and we really need Games workshop to pull their fingers out of their bum and sort this mess out.

[Toasterfree]

for a Counts as to make a change, and allow something to happen you have to replace something else. so what are we replacing to get an all WG army, we are replacing the ELITES portion of their entry to make it say TROOPS. hence WG are...wait for it....wait.....almost here

 

TROOPS!!

 

its not that hard people. they COUNT as troops, which makes a FoC change even before deployment. they become scoring units, and they be come basic choices 2-6. they are no loner elites, so you cant take 9 units.

[SamaNagol]

I'm actually more interested in the 'if the squad numbers 10 models, a second Grey Hunter may replace his bolter with....' wording in the Troops entry. Because that is ambiguous when it comes to taking 9GH+1WGPL. As you assign the WGPL to the squad before the game starts and they are not ICs....

[Toasterfree]

That is under discussion here

Read about that here

[Decoy]

Actually, speaking as a part-time lawyer, "20% of income" must be specified by type of income, type of asset, multiple definitions of "Income", multiple definitions of "20%", and indeed, the word "All" itself would have to be defined as well.

 

Why?

 

To prevent people from abusing potential loopholes. That's why this needs to be FAQed.

 

Whilst I understand that this level of precision is required in a legally binding contract, is it not a bit much for a set of rules for a game, the point of which is to have fun?

 

I personally would like to field an all Terminator wolf army, and if someone did not want to play me due to the ambiguous wording of this rule, I'd be happy they'd tell me up front. I don't think I'd enjoy playing a person who's going to jump up and down and scream until they're blue in the face, all because I'm not complying with their strict and literal interpretation of the wording used in the rules.

 

Yes, the rule could be interpreted either way due to the ambiguous wording, the issue is that Games Workshop obviously had the intention to allow a full TDA army, as shown from their pre-release. It's not a rule book or a FAQ document, but it at least gives the suggestion that Games Workshop had the intention to allow it.

 

Without wishing to make this sound personal (Because I really don't want to!), but in English law at the very least, there are more ways to interpret legislation; other than the literal rule, there's also the golden and mischief rules, for example. As I say though, I don't want that to sound like a personal attack, for all I know, you might be using a completely different legal system, in which case, my point is moot.

 

All I'm trying to say is that the rule is ambiguous at best, people will be playing it both ways as they will interpret it differently, people will disagree, and we really need Games workshop to pull their fingers out of their bum and sort this mess out.

 

 

I agree with ya, mate. And yeah, we use the ass-backwards American legal system. Generally a bucket of :cuss.

 

Yeah, when it creates this sort of a hubub, one would think they'd be moving ASAP to clear up any confusion. Then again, to be fair, the codex isn't even OUT yet. Heh.

[Toasterfree]

see my above post. its not that hard

[Decoy]

Toaster, you've not said anything that hasn't been said already, and that doesn't change the argument. Read through the thread, please.

[Toasterfree]

Toaster, you've not said anything that hasn't been said already, and that doesn't change the argument. Read through the thread, please.

i have read through the thread. and your right, im not saying anything new, which means that the people that have said it are correct. if yo count as something, such as in the case of two people wanting to play a logan, one has to be named something else, you are replacing what you originally were. that is the case and shouldnt be an agruement about it.