greatcrusade08 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 ok i had an interesting game the other day against new SW codex army. something that come up was hitting land speeders: if the speeder moves the enemy needs a 4+ to hit, but the wolf tooth necklace states all CC attacks hit on a 3+. which is correct? Gc08 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hfran Morkai Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 An interesting question because it does indeed say in close combat. However another thing that might be of note is that it mentions "Regardless of comparative weapon skills" Whether this means vehicles count having a comparative weapon skill 0 or not I have no idea. I'm tempted to say no like it was in the old codex but I can't remember if that specifically said against targets with WS only, I know it did somewhere but it might have been the FAQ instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 The previous editions WTN was exactly the same, and the FAQ read "only when used against an enemy with weapon skill". I see no reason for that to have changed, GW just hasnt gotten around to releasing our FAQ yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 The previous editions WTN was exactly the same, and the FAQ read "only when used against an enemy with weapon skill". I see no reason for that to have changed, GW just hasnt gotten around to releasing our FAQ yet. ^This is my feeling as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty the Pyro Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 The previous editions WTN was exactly the same, and the FAQ read "only when used against an enemy with weapon skill". I see no reason for that to have changed, GW just hasnt gotten around to releasing our FAQ yet. ^This is my feeling as well. Indeed, it makes me sad that the wolf dex is so sloppy. They are my third favorite offical chapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chapter master 454 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 The previous editions WTN was exactly the same, and the FAQ read "only when used against an enemy with weapon skill". I see no reason for that to have changed, GW just hasnt gotten around to releasing our FAQ yet. ^This is my feeling as well. Indeed, it makes me sad that the wolf dex is so sloppy. They are my third favorite offical chapter. you can tell it's GW when they forget their proof readings or whatever, one would believe they don't even care and not even playtest this stuff. However as me and my brother say: GW like it EXTRA sloppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veldrik Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 don't forget that we are also instructed to use the most recent version of the rules if we are following GW guidelines, so the 3+ from the wolfy codex overwrites the standard land speeder rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ntin Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 With Codex Space Wolves if there is a question on a rule then cut the head off a live chicken and which board edge it dies on settles the rule dispute. The overall problem is our weak human mind and our pathetic English language cannot perceive the subtleties of logic and grammar of the eldritch super being who wrote this codex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 don't forget that we are also instructed to use the most recent version of the rules if we are following GW guidelines, so the 3+ from the wolfy codex overwrites the standard land speeder rules. Yes, and when a codex is somewhat ambigous it is up to us as players to find a precident- in this case it is a simple one, the same problem existed before and was FAQd in a particular way. There is no reason that interpretation is no longer valid, and as it is a reasonable ruling in all respects we should honor it as gamers with fair and honorable intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz1858 Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Yes, and when a codex is somewhat ambigous it is up to us as players to find a precident- in this case it is a simple one, the same problem existed before and was FAQd in a particular way. There is no reason that interpretation is no longer valid, and as it is a reasonable ruling in all respects we should honor it as gamers with fair and honorable intentions. Seconded! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted December 12, 2009 Author Share Posted December 12, 2009 thirded :) If all rules were treated this way , there would be few issues at the gaming tables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 If all rules had such a simple Errata earlier in the same edition more rules would be treated this way :D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.