SW Codex Q and A from BoLS

[Marek Grimfang]

From their site. A list of some questions on RAW/RAI from the SW Codex. Some are very valid with good answers and very useful until a FAQ comes out with more clarity.

 

Space Wolves MAQ: Mkerr Asks Questions

 

As most of you know (especially readers of the Flywire), I've been using the new Space Wolves codex for the last month or so. Whenever you dive into a new codex, you always end up with questions about how the new rules work. As a proud early-adopter, I decided to collect the questions that came up during the games and make an attempt to answer them.

 

These questions aren't easily answered, so most (if not all) will require an official FAQ. But for to limit confusion on our local gaming group, I'm going to take a stab at answering them. I'd love to get your feedback in the comments - in the form of thoughtful discussion.

 

Note: These are not "official" answers. I'm mixing a witch hunter's brew of interpretation, desginer comments, and special mind-reading powers to come up with these answers. Your answers are just as good as mine (perhaps better). But until we get a better answer from GW, this is how I'm interpreting the rules.

 

Q1: Can a character with Saga of the Hunter join a Wolf Scouts pack and deploy using Behind Enemy Lines?

A1: Yes. As long as the IC has the ability to outflank, he can deploy with the Wolf Scouts pack using Behind Enemy Lines.

 

Q2: Can an Independent Character WITHOUT Saga of the Hunter (or Infiltrate or Scout) join a Wolf Scouts pack and deploy using Behind Enemy Lines?

A2: No. If a unit contains an Independent Character that does not have the ability to outflank, then the unit must be deployed normally and cannot use outflank or Behind Enemy Lines.

 

Q3: Can a Wolf Priest nominate a unit type for his Oath of War that is normally not subject to Preferred Enemy (i.e., a vehicle without a Weapon Skill)?

A3: No, he must select from the following unit types: Infantry, Beasts/Cavalry, Monstrous Creatures, Jump Infantry, Bikes/Jetbikes, or Vehicles with a Weapon Skill (e.g., Walkers).

 

Q4: If I have multiple Runic Weapons can I make multiple checks to nullify a psychic power?

A4: No, you may only make a single Runis Weapon attempt to nullify a psychic power.

 

Note: We went back and forth on this one. The RAW doesn't prevent you from using multiple Runic Weapons to negate a power, but the designer is clearly trying to create a Psychic Hood variant. In our test games, we also determined that it was a lot less fun to allow multiple negation attempts (completely shutting down psykers). So our answer to this question takes into account both intention, balance and fun.

 

Q5: Can Njal Stormcaller's Staff of the Stormcaller and a Rune Priest's Runic Weapon both be used to attempt to negate a psychic power? Can I choose to use a Psychic Hood (from an allied Inquisitor or Grey Knight) and a Runic Weapon (or Staff of the Stormcaller) to get multiple attempts to negate a psychic power.

A5: No and no. You can only attempt to negate a psychic power once.

 

Q6: If I take Njal Stormcaller (who has all Space Wolves psychic powers), can I take a second Rune Priest?

A6: Yes. This is supported by Phil Kelly's (the author of the codex) Space Wolves army list in White Dwarf #357, which included Njal and a Rune Priest.

 

Q7: If I have more than one Rune Priest, can I have duplicate psychic powers as long as one psychic power is different?

A7: Yes, as long as the Rune Priests do not have the identical list of selected psychic powers.

 

Q8: If Njal Stormcaller dies (e.g., losing his last wound to Peril of the Warp) before his Lord of Tempests power goes off, does the effect happen?

A8: No, as soon as Njal is removed the Lord of Tempests effect ends instantly. -- corrected Stormcaller typo (thanks BushidoRedPanda)

 

Q9: Does a vehicle count as a "friendly squad" for Storm Caller? Does a single model unit (e.g., a Lone Wolf or Independent Character) count as a "friendly squad"?

A9: Yes and yes. A "squad" doesn't have a distinct definition in the rules. This power works on any friendly unit.

 

Q10: Does a unit that deployed via Deep Strike in a previous turn (but is not a skimmer, jetbike or jump infantry) continue to treat terrain covered by Tempest's Wrath as difficult and dangerous in subsequent turns?

A10: No. Tempest's Wrath only hinders units deployed via Deep Strike on the turn (or turns) they arrive from Deep Strike.

 

Q11: Does a unit that has taken a casualty from Fury of the Wolf Spirits have to take an immediate Morale check? Or is this Morale check taken at the end of the phase (i.e., a test caused by casualties or one caused by tank shock)?

A11: The Morale check caused by Fury of the Wolf Spirits is taken at the end of the phase in the same manner as one caused by normal shooting casualties. If the target unit also took 25% or more casualties, it only takes a single Morale check. -- clarified (thanks kenoh)

 

Q12: Does Murderous Hurricane require the power to hit or wound its target to "affect" them? A12: No, a targeted unit is affected by Murderous Hurricane even if the power fails to hit or wound.

 

Q13: Is the unit affected by Murderous Hurricane for the entirety of their turn or just the following movement phase?

A13: The unit treats terrain as difficult and dangerous for the entirety of the next player turn.

 

Q14: Does Jaws of the World Wolf require line of sight? Does it ignore terrain that blocks line of sight (i.e., impassible terrain)?

A14: Yes. As a psychic shooting power, Jaws of the World Wolf requires line of sight. The Rune Priest must have line of sight to every model affected by the power. But terrain is completely ignored for purposes of determining line of sight for the power (even impassible terrain).

 

Note: This also caused a lot of discussion on our end. The power is a psychic shooting attack, but doesn't seem to follow any of the normal rules for shooting (besides restricting the Rune Priest from using a second shooting attack). In the end, we settled on requiring line of sight for Jaws of the World Wolf minimized potential abuse.

 

Q15: Was the reduction in transport capacity of the Drop Pod and Land Raider intentional?

A15: Yes.

 

Q16: Can Fenrisian Wolves bought as wargear (i.e., using the Loyal Companions rule) ride in a Drop Pod with their owner?

A16: Yes, the Loyal Companion rule allows Fenrisian Wolves bought as wargear to ride in any transport that the character can ride in (as long as there is room for both the character and the Fenrisian Wolves). Remember that Fenrisian Wolves count as two models.

 

Q17: Does Bjorn's Ancient Tactician rule require for both dice to be re-rolled to determine who picks their deployment zone first? Or does the Space Wolves player re-roll his die? Or can the Space Wolves player choose which die is re-rolled?

A17: The rule says "dice", so both dice must be re-rolled.

 

Q18: Arjac Rockfist is an upgrade character (i.e., does not have the Independent Character rule), so does he confer the Stubborn ability to his unit?

A18: Yes, the squad benefits from Arjac's Stubborn rule.

 

Q19: Since Lukas the Trickster is an upgrade character (i.e., does not have the Independent Character rule) enemy attacks cannot be directly allocated against him. How does Pelt of the Doppelgangrel work?

A19: The rule is very explicit that Lukas must be directly targeted. So the Pelt of the Dopplegangrel isn't going to come into play until Lukas can be targeted directly (e.g., the only model left in the squad or he's a single model attached to one or more Independent Characters).

 

Q20: If Lukas the Trickster is in base contact with an embarked transport when he would be removed from play (and wins the roll-off) what happens to the embarked unit when the transport is removed from play?

A20: There's no way to disembark from a model that's been removed from play, so the occupants share the fate of the transport and are removed from play.

 

Q21: Does Ragnar Blackmane's Insane Bravado work if his unit Counter-attacks?

A21: No, Insane Bravo only works when Ragnar assaults.

 

Note: This was another issue that went 'round-and-'round. The final decision was that restricting Insane Bravado to the actual assault was more consistent with rules like Furious Charge and Berserk Charge.

 

Q22: The Axe Morkai can be used as both a one-handed weapon and a two-handed weapon in the same Assault phase. Does that mean that he always gets the extra Frost Blade attack -- even when he only uses The Axe Morkai as a Power Fist?

A22: No, although the Axe of Morkai can be used as a one-handed weapon, Logan Grimnar does not gain the additional attack because he is not armed with a close combat or pistol (Storm Bolter). -- correction (thanks BushidoRedPanda)

 

Q23: Does a model with a Wolftooth Necklace always hit vehicle without a WS on a 3+?

A23: No, the bearer must against a model with a WS benefit from the Wolftooth Necklace.

 

Q24: Can Fenrisian Wolves in an army led by Canis Wolfborn fill both Fast Attack and Troops slots?

A24: Yes. An army led by Canis Wolfborn can take Fenrisian Wolves as either Fast Attack or Troops choices.

 

Q25: Can Fenrisian Wolves in an army led by Canis Wolfborn claim objectives?

A25: No, Fenrisian Wolves can never claim objectives.

 

Note: Canis' The Wolf King rule and the Fenrisian Wolves' Supernumeracy rule cause a bit of a conflict. If you interpret the "counts as Troops" phrase to mean that the units must still be purchased as Fast Attack choices then the Supernumeracy rules invalidates The Wolf King rule. In the end, we felt that allowing them to be taken as both Fast Attack and Troops choices (but restricting them from being scoring units) was most consistent with the intention of the rules.

 

Q26: Can Wolf Guard units in an army led by Logan Grimnar fill both Elite and Troops slots?

A26: Yes. An army led by Logan Grimnar can take Wolf Guard units as either Elite or Troops choices.

 

That's the list of major rules issues we've encountered while playtesting the Space Wolves codex (and solutions that work for us). I'm going to delve a bit more into some of them in future articles, including the much dreaded Jaws of the World Wolf.

 

It's worth repeating that these are NOT official answers. Read them, talk to other players and decide what works for your gaming group.

 

~As you can glean from the article, a few of the solutions we came up with were debated quite vigorously. I'm looking foward to hearing your opinions and views on our answers. Comments are welcome and appreciated!

[Decoy]

I've always been a bit skeptical regarding BoLS stuff... But either way, interesting.

[Ominous Anonymous]

Very reasonable interpretation of the rules, and about where I was 90% of the time. Thanks for posting it here. :lol:

[SamaNagol]

I disagree with about half of those. Notably Arjac's Stubborn, WG still counting as Elites with Logan and JotWW needing direct LoS.

[twistinthunder]

i feel hes wrong on q/a 3 ,q/a 7, q/a 14, q/a 23 and q/a 26

 

since for q/a 3 and q/a 23 he says they dont have a weapon skill but even if it doesnt show a WS value it still must have a WS its just WS - (0).

 

and for q/a 14 im pretty sure the jotww entry say it doesnt require line of site.

 

for q/a 7 he contradict himself as he talk abit thoughout the article about how the rules are intended (or w/e) and then he fails to see that its meant (for what was banging on about) to be interpreted as no duplicates. (q/a 7 also makes me skeptical about the rest of article because he seams to have completely ignored himself so that he get a benifit.i am not calling him a liar)

 

for q/a 26 it say 'counts as' which if i interpret it correctly means they benifit from what troops get but do not get to be 'taken as' troops (emphasis on the count as and taken as)

[Lord Hjamlar]

around 60% :D, 40% more or less right way of thinking.

 

jotww does not require LOS, but has the range of only 24"

the lighting storm does require LOS, but has unlimited range

and that balances those powers.

[twistinthunder]

also as of note to prove that he might be lying:

 

he states that the fenrisian wolves dont count as scoring if you say they can be taken as fast attack or troops (with canis wolfborn) but fails to make a note of the fact that this MUST also extend to logan grimnars' the great wolf ability to take wolf guard as troops and elites(for balance)

[rahl02]

also as of note to prove that he might be lying:

 

he states that the fenrisian wolves dont count as scoring if you say they can be taken as fast attack or troops (with canis wolfborn) but fails to make a note of the fact that this MUST also extend to logan grimnars' the great wolf ability to take wolf guard as troops and elites(for balance)

 

Well the fenrisian wolves have a rule stateing that they can NEVER be scoring at all. The wolf gaurd have no such restriction.

[Lord Ragnarok]

also as of note to prove that he might be lying:

 

he states that the fenrisian wolves dont count as scoring if you say they can be taken as fast attack or troops (with canis wolfborn) but fails to make a note of the fact that this MUST also extend to logan grimnars' the great wolf ability to take wolf guard as troops and elites(for balance)

 

Well the fenrisian wolves have a rule stateing that they can NEVER be scoring at all. The wolf gaurd have no such restriction.

Yes, the Fenrisian restriction further highlights the fact that the WG count as, don't count as argument is hog wash with extra hog.

[Aeddon]

I have no idea what this guy was thinking...I can hardly find five of these I agree with...

[Rokafort Stonewolf]

Indeed, this guy was quite obviously trying to change the game for some end of his own. Post reported so we don't confuse the newbies - someone really should axe this thread.

[mkerr]

I'll be happy to answer any questions about the article. First of all, let me reiterate that we didn't answer these questions only from a RAW standpoint, besides the actual wording we also considered balance (we need this FAQ for local events), intention (using statements, articles, codices and common sense) and fun (it's a game, right?).

 

I disagree with about half of those. Notably Arjac's Stubborn, WG still counting as Elites with Logan and JotWW needing direct LoS.

 

A. I agree that Arjac isn't an Independept Character (this wouldn't appear on the list if the answer was in the BRB), but he's an upgrade character with a USR. So there's no RAW that covers this -- and no guidance at all from the rules except for the USR rules that tell us if he was an Independent Character leading the unit, then he'd confer Stubborn. If his Stubborn doesn't confer, then it's a useless rule until he's alone in the unit. Those elements combined to push us toward Arjac's Stubborn working for the unit.

 

B. Logan's Wolf Guard was a tough one too. There is no precedent (that I'm aware of) of a unit that goes from Elites (or Fast Attack) to Troops without remaining an option for their original slot. If you look at this mechanic in the Dark Angel, Ork and Space Marine codices you will see that gaining access to a new slot doesn't close off the old one. It was our decision that the intention was to allow the units to be both Elite (or Fast Attack) and Troops, so that's where we went.

 

C. This is something we still go back and forth on. My initial interpretation was the JotWW wouldn't require line of sight, but there are two issues. The first is a wording issue - the mention of passing through terrain seems to indicate that terrain doesn't impede the psychic shooting attack (i.e., doesn't block line of sight). Well, if it CAN pass through terrain then what CAN'T it pass through? The second issue is game balance. Our concern is that if a Rune Priest doesn't need line of sight for JotWW, then a handful of them in a Landraider would be a bit unbalancing (the power wouldn't require a firing port).

 

In the case of JotWW, we've committed to re-thinking our answer (and writing a longer article on JotWW) and playtesting three variations a) no line of sight, B) line of sight to start the power, and c) line of sight to every model affected.

 

 

i feel hes wrong on q/a 3 ,q/a 7, q/a 14, q/a 23 and q/a 26

 

since for q/a 3 and q/a 23 he says they dont have a weapon skill but even if it doesnt show a WS value it still must have a WS its just WS - (0).

 

and for q/a 14 im pretty sure the jotww entry say it doesnt require line of site.

 

for q/a 7 he contradict himself as he talk abit thoughout the article about how the rules are intended (or w/e) and then he fails to see that its meant (for what was banging on about) to be interpreted as no duplicates. (q/a 7 also makes me skeptical about the rest of article because he seams to have completely ignored himself so that he get a benifit.i am not calling him a liar)

 

for q/a 26 it say 'counts as' which if i interpret it correctly means they benifit from what troops get but do not get to be 'taken as' troops (emphasis on the count as and taken as)

 

 

Here are my answers:

 

#3: The Preferred Enemy USR excludes vehicles without a WS. You can't normally use Preferred Enemy against a Rhino for example -- I was just clarifying that you could similarly not use Oath of War against one either.

 

#23: The Wolftooth Necklace rule says that the bearer can always hit in close combat on a 3+, regardless of comparative weapon skill. Since the power brought up WS, we decided that the intention was not to allow Wolftooth Necklace bearers a free ride against vehicles moving fast.

 

#14: See my comment above.

 

#7: I'm not sure what contradiction you are referring to, but this was another issue that we were on the fence about. The wording can easily be interpreted to mean "no duplicate psychic power" or "no exact selection of psychic powers". But this month's White Dwarf provided an example of Phil Kelly (the author of the Space Wolves codex) playing an army list with Njal and a Rune Priest. Since Njal has ALL of the Space Wolves psychic powers, then even having a second Rune Priest would be ilegal if the "no duplicates" interpretation was correct.

 

In this case, we decided that Phil Kelly showed us the intention of the rule -- so, if you are keeping score, this is a 100% RaI interpretation.

 

also as of note to prove that he might be lying:

 

he states that the fenrisian wolves dont count as scoring if you say they can be taken as fast attack or troops (with canis wolfborn) but fails to make a note of the fact that this MUST also extend to logan grimnars' the great wolf ability to take wolf guard as troops and elites(for balance)

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "lying" -- this isn't an official FAQ, just a list of questions we've come across playing the game and answers that we're using for our gaming group. I have no idea what the "official" answers are going to be, but we chose not to argue with each other until that comes around. So there's no "lying" here -- I'm sharing how WE are dealing with the rules that need clarification.

 

And as far as your comment goes, Fenrisian Wolves have a restriction that prevents them from ever claiming objectives (Wolf Guard don't have that restriction).

 

Thanks for the comments and if you have any other questions, feel free to leave a comment on the blog!

 

-- mkerr

[Massaen]

Thanks for the feedback Mkerr - i agreed with 99% of your answers and they seem to me to be well thought out, explained and make sense.

 

Indeed, this guy was quite obviously trying to change the game for some end of his own. Post reported so we don't confuse the newbies - someone really should axe this thread.

 

If anything - you should be reported for this comment stonewolf - thats simply flaming...

[mkerr]

I have no idea what this guy was thinking...I can hardly find five of these I agree with...

 

Hey Aeddon, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about the article. I'd also be more than happy to chat about any different interpretations you have for my answers -- who knows, you might have spotted something that I missed!

 

-- mkerr

[kittenofdeath]

well i agree with most points, and the ones i don't i can see the reasoning behind them, but I'd like to offer my opinions/comments on a few

 

 

 

 

Q4: there is nothing saying you cant, it has the same basic effect as a psychic hood but goes about it a completely different way (clearly a runic weapon is better than a psychic hood)

 

Q5: same as before, make as many runic weapon saves as you want, then one psychic hood

 

Q14: its a bit like a template weapon, if you fire a template weapon and cant see everyone under it they still get hit, its the same with jaws

 

Q19: i dont know for sure, but it make work on things like the vindicare assassin, depends on the wording, if its like tellion though it wont, as he chooses where the wounds will be allocated, so its after he shoots

 

Q20: OH GOOD LORD, HE'S RIGHT!

 

Q24: troops only, they 'count as' troops, so they are troops, you cant take troops as FA

 

Q26: like the wolves, they're troops if you do that

 

 

 

that said, just the way i see it, feel free to ignore stuff

[mkerr]

Q4: there is nothing saying you cant, it has the same basic effect as a psychic hood but goes about it a completely different way (clearly a runic weapon is better than a psychic hood)

 

Except that a Runic Weapon used to be a "Rune Staff", which was pretty much identical to a psychic hood. The function of the Runic Weapon is a simplified version of a psychic hood -- except a little better because a 4+ is a bit better than a roll-off.

 

There are two schools of thought on allowing multiple Runic Weapons to attempt to nullify a psychic power: 1) "c'mon it's clearly a mistake, they have the same omission in the Blood Angels codex and have never bothered to fix it -- it's clear they do not intend for you to take multiple attempts" and 2) "really, who cares? how often are you going to have multiple Runic Weapons within 24" of a psyker? it's not going to impact many games."

 

I'm of the former opinion, but several of the BOLS crew are of the latter.

 

Q14: its a bit like a template weapon, if you fire a template weapon and cant see everyone under it they still get hit, its the same with jaws

 

It's really like any other power, but I do agree that there's a strong RAW rationale for not requiring line of sight. I don't disagree with you, but we aren't basing our decision only on the RAW of the text.

 

Q19: i dont know for sure, but it make work on things like the vindicare assassin, depends on the wording, if its like tellion though it wont, as he chooses where the wounds will be allocated, so its after he shoots

 

Interesting point about Telion. I'll have to re-examine the exact wording of Lukas' PotD.

 

Q24: troops only, they 'count as' troops, so they are troops, you cant take troops as FA

 

I understand your interpretation and don't find any fault in it (besides that pesky "counts as" instead of "are"). If you look a post or two back, you'll see mine.

 

Thanks for the questions/comments!

 

-- mkerr

[lokeiSHP]

On Q23, mkerrs interpretation is almost certainly correct and if I recall this is how WTN has been FAQ'ed previously. I haven't read the wording in the new codex but I imagine it works exactly the same way.

 

 

In regards to Q20, he's right and I'm wondering if it will be FAQ'ed to not work on vehicles. I can just see Lukas pulling Death or Glory on a packed LR to statis bomb it out of play.

[Roland Durendal]

Eh some decent input, but Stekel made some excellent counter points over on his blog to this, and I must say, he makes a convincing argument.

 

Myself, never been a fan of BoLS, nor of anyone/ any group for that matter who thinks they've got the ear of the company and know how the game should be played. Basically, pretentious individuals who think they're the be-all, end-all of how to play the game. More often than not, those people/groups/what have you end up making interpretations/mistakes/rulings that either make no sense or are out of context with the rules/game. Not saying BoLS does this, b/c I don't follow 'em and have only read a few of their articles, but there are groups/people out there that do it so the community as a whole should just be wary and take everything that is said about the hobby outside of official GW line with a huge grain of salt. And vinegar. On french fries.

 

Here's the link to Stelek's commentary if anyone's interested.

 

http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2009/09/co...ace-wolves.html

[Lord Ragnarok]

OK, let's keep this at the debate level and do not make it personal and watch trolling and inflammatory commentary.

[SamaNagol]

As RAW, you need a fire point to use a psychic shooting power. It would be the same as if you wanted to fire an IG mortar out of a Chimera. You need a fire point to fire out of it, but you don't need LoS to the target. In 'fluff' sense, why would you need a line of sight to send out a gaping rend in the earth in front of you? It just flies out forwards sending infantry tumbling into the abyss. And anyone who tries to get me to take an I test for my Rune priest when I cast it, I will be rolling to wound for their model every time they fire a Flamer. -_-

 

Logan and WG as Troops is the biggest non issue in the codex. Everyone knows exactly what was meant. And as the rule states they change their status to count as troops, they would no longer count as Elites and could not be taken in that slot. Although I doubt I will ever come across someone wanting to take 9 squads of WG.

 

WTN doesn't work against models without a Weapon Skill. Same as the old codex.

[Hrathnar Flintfang]

First of all, GW needs to hire some decent English Majors to go over their work and check it for clarity, period. I have yet to find a GW book that did not have Ambiguous wording, open ended rules or seemingly half-finished concepts. Maybe this was ok in the 80s when most of the Game Devs were starting out of their garage or Dorm rooms and had to do all of the work themselves, but with a much wider and more stable fanbase than most of the 80s and early 90s games saw I think it is unacceptable to keep putting out such unprofessional products. They devote so much time to writing up fluff for the books (without even going on the wiki to fact-check mind you, let alone having their own internal 'fluff bible' to check) that you would think they could spend a bit more time making sure that the rules were 'idiot proof' and the interpretations clear. Even I can do that and I'm writing up stuff to try and publish out of my basement while finishing up a degree! They really have no excuse.

 

That being said, I think the majority of these answers make sense to me, and those that do not I won't judge until I have the codex in my hands.

 

I am especially confused by the 'couts as' debate considering the simple fact that the wolves have a specific rule that says they 'cannot count as scoring units'. That clearly means that the Wolf guard could, and it makes sense considering the fact that one group is composed of the best and brightest warriors a great company can offer while the other is comprised of relatively intelligent animals who still have to use their teeth to scratch their ass.

 

I must say though that I am quite disappointed that they did not address the whole 'Wolf Lord in Termie Armor with Frost Axe' debacle. Granted anything that they or anyone else says at this point is simply guessing and it is probably little more than a Typo anyways since it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

Still until I get official word I think I am going to agree with most of these rulings since they seem to be based on Common sense. Its not like I can't change my mind later should I find something that does not seem to work, and considering the unprofessional (though high quality for GW) level at which this codex was produced I would almost bet money that there will be an FAQ before the month is out. We still have six days before the thing hits shelves and already we have over 27 questions that apparently need answering.

[SamaNagol]

Just reading some of Stelek's answers too:

 

He says Ragnar and 2 wolves can not go in a Drop Pod. You can always buy a Drop Pod for a unit regardless of size. So Ragnar, 2 Wolves and a 5 man Grey Hunter/Blood Claws/PA Wolf Guard squad could ride in a Drop Pod. That's the 10 capacity.

 

He also says that models embarked in a vehicle removed by Lukas' Stasis Bomb can get out. They cannot. He references damage results on the vehicle damage chart. That chart is as irrelevant to the situation as the Eternal Warrior rule is to infantry models being removed from play. Any model in b2b simply disappears from the tabletop. There is no emergency disembark because there is no damage done to the vehicle.

 

And he also makes the same mistake re: Logan and WG as Troops.

[kittenofdeath]

Good points Mkerr

 

Q4: I agree that its likely they meant for it to be that way, but making that call is errata, not FAQ, that’s G’dubs territory

 

Q14: you’re right, it isn’t like any other power, there isn’t even a target unit, you can make a psychic test and draw a 24 inch line that touches nothing until you perils your way to an early grave, LOS not required

 

Q24: yeah, that wording is rather annoying isn’t it?

 

To address Steleks arguments

 

Q1: behind enemy lines is an improvement to outflank, not a separate type of move, it says ‘if a wolf scout makes use of its ability to outflank’ the IC doesn’t loose infiltrate (and outflank) because the scouts have it

 

Q8: I agree if we’re talking about the stormcaller psychic power, I assumed it was njals special thing, which isn’t a psychic power and would not come in to effect if he is dead or removed from play in any way

 

Q11: that one I agree with

 

Q16: An IC with wolves doesn’t count as a unit, it can still join units and ride in their drop pods if there is room

 

Q17: Dice is plural, could be an oversight of the writers, which is why I avoided this one

 

Q18: lets say he doesn’t, he is still Ld 9 with stubborn, so they use his leadership (which wont be modified, even if his units is) still leadership nine anyway

 

Q20: removed from play, not explodes, its broken as hell I know, just don’t tank shock lucas

[Hrathnar Flintfang]

Just reading some of Stelek's answers too:

 

He says Ragnar and 2 wolves can not go in a Drop Pod. You can always buy a Drop Pod for a unit regardless of size. So Ragnar, 2 Wolves and a 5 man Grey Hunter/Blood Claws/PA Wolf Guard squad could ride in a Drop Pod. That's the 10 capacity.

 

He also says that models embarked in a vehicle removed by Lukas' Stasis Bomb can get out. They cannot. He references damage results on the vehicle damage chart. That chart is as irrelevant to the situation as the Eternal Warrior rule is to infantry models being removed from play. Any model in b2b simply disappears from the tabletop. There is no emergency disembark because there is no damage done to the vehicle.

 

And he also makes the same mistake re: Logan and WG as Troops.

 

I still don't get why people disagree with this rather forward ruling about Logan and troops. It does not say that they count as troops INSTEAD of anything, they simply can be taken in troop slots. Its just like in the last codex when we could take a Ven Dred as HQ or Elite. Taking one as an HQ didn't stop you from taking one as an Elite did it?

 

The WG thing seems very simple to me really. They count as troops, therefore Wolf guard taken from troop slots can score as troops and are taken from troop slots. Other Wolf gaurd packs that are not taken as such do NOT count as troops and do not score. Could this lead to a bit of confusion in the game proper? yes. Would it be the first time with GW? no. If the FAQ ends up saying otherwise then that is one thing but honestly it seems like you can take them as either and I have yet to see something contradict them.

[SamaNagol]

There is a very distinct difference between 'may be taken as HQ' and 'Wolf Guard units count as troops in any army that includes Logan Grimnar'

 

Sorry, but if you take Logan then Wolf Guard are Troops and only Troops. Not that that is a terrible thing.