Striking fear into the hearts of Walkers everywhere

[winternight]

Marmande, RAW are pretty straight forward and don't support your position.

 

1. Grenades can be used in close combat however the user only gets 1 attack regardless of attacks in profile or any other bonus. (BRB pg.63)

2. When using grenades against Walkers, if the Walker is not immobilised, the attacker needs a roll of 6+ on their attack roll. (BRB pg.73)

3. WTN allows the wearer to always hit in close combat on a 3+ vs targets that have a Weapon Skill. (Space Wolves Codex pg.62)

 

The third point overrules the 2nd point because it is in a Codex and we all know that Codex > BRB.

 

So what is your argument?

 

1. Grenades are not attacks that occur in Close Combat?

They quite clearly do, they occur between the user and a vehicle in the assault phase, in place of the users normal attacks, they can make a single attack with a grenade.

 

2. WTN doesn't work with grenades?

The WTN quite clearly says that it allows the wearer to always hit on a 3+ in close combat against something that has a WS. It doesn't include any restrictions on what the wearer can hit with. You will hit with your pistol so long as you can attack with it in close combat.

 

3. The WTN doesn't affect "nonstandard attacks"?

Disregarding that you have now introduced a concept that isn't defined, the WTN does not talk about attacks, it says that the wearer "hits in close combat on a 3+". You hit with anything you are attacking with. You can't just add extra qualifications to the text because you want to.

 

4. BRB rule for grenades vs mobile walker > Codex rules?

That is simply not how it works. The Codex rules are applied after the BRB rules. So you would get a sequence like this for attacking the walker (using a Wolf Lord as an example attacker):

1) Tally total number of attacks [bRB: normal assault rules]: Base 4 + 1 TWM + 1 Charging = 6 total attacks (so currently we have 6 attacks)

2) Add attacks from weapons [bRB: special rule for grenades]: Grenade = 1 attack only (so now we have 1 attack)

3) Determine target number to hit for attack [bRB: normal assault rules - comparing WS]: TN 4+

4) Determine target number to hit mobile walker with grenade [bRB: special rule for assaulting walker with grenade]: TN 6+

5) Determine target number to hit target with a WS in close combat for wearer of WTN [Codex: special rules for WTN]: TN 3+

 

So long as all the criteria for the use of the WTN are met, the rules associated with it apply. So what criteria are there?

1) In close combat? Yes we are.

2) Making an attack? Yes we are.

3) Target has a WS? Yes it does.

 

So the WTN works.

 

Those are the RAW.

 

Please explain how the RAW support your position?

[Wispy]

Unfortunately, there is far more there written to support grenades hitting on 3 there then to detract from it. It's bare bones and all-encompassing statement: People with the WTN hit on a 3+ vs targets with a WS. We don't know if it's talking about general attacks or grenade attacks, therefore we have to assume it is both.

 

I too question if the intent matches what is actually written, but consider this: They changed it from something that didn't support the grenades into something that did. Furthermore, this is an errata change - this change will be in all future re-printings of the codex. If all they wanted to do further clarify the WTN against vehicles and movement - which the original text already suggested wasn't possible - why not a FAQ entry instead? No, instead they errata'd it to this, and I think GW might have wanted to allow this.

 

But who can say? This is why I think it might have been intended. The RAW is clear, but the intent of this change is questionable. I'm sure Marmelade will get his answer from GW, but unless it's from Phil Kelly himself, I don't care.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I don't mean to be rude, but Marmelade is so adamant about this, I wonder if he has a horse in this race.

 

FYI, the 3rd Edition has no mention of placing grenades: It just clarifies the WTN necklace only works against targets with a WS value.

[Grimtooth]

BA player that likes his blood talon dreads to be invincible.

[Requiem of the Wolf]

And to finally respond to Marmande's earlier question about "What does no one else having fleet on their tanks and rhinos and predators should mean that you blood angels dont get it either" Was in direct response to your statement of "No one else gets to hit with melta bombs on a 3+,so you shouldn't either.

 

It was to simply and easily showcase how ridiculous the statement you made was,in a manner that would make sense to you and have personal meaning for your list.

 

If someone only gets to use something,if someone else allready has it,then Both Blood Angels and Space Wolves would lose most of the things that make them unique. If Games Workshop wanted all marines to be created equal,they would have given us just the codex space marines and each of the big foundings would have a chapter of fluff. But they didnt...They made the Poncy space vampires now move alot faster. They Made Space Wolves IC's and certain Upgrade Characters...Smack any creature that stands a chance of smacking them back,on a 3+.....

 

Welcome to being unique just like everyone else. And as long as you are enjoying your fast moving vehicles,I am going to enjoy smacking walkers with Meltabombs on the roll of a 3+.

[Grey Mage]

Does anyone still have access to the old FAQ ever since it was taken down?

Yes, I do, because I dont delete anything but spyware.

 

And it specified that the necklace, wich said you always hit on a 3+ regardless of opponent, did not work on vehicles without a WS value, otherwise it was good to go.

 

My point was: Both of those abilities (OBEL and Bjorn's 5+ save)are heavily cemented in the fluff; using WTN to attach melta bombs more easily is most certainly not. Now, if GW answers my call and says that the enchanted necklace allows the wearer to spot openings in the walker's defense and place the bomb more easily, then fine. But what happened in the last thread smacked of ruleslawyering.

You gain a wolf tooth necklace by being one of the foremost warriors in the chapter, and often with a wolf pelt to show your incredible reaction speed.... as a member of the only chapter to have a hero with a dodge save.

[Shadow Wulfen]

I don't quite understand what the problem is.

 

Core rules say one thing, codex says another. Codex always trumps Core.

 

I mean is the Wolftooth Necklace breaking the game by using the rules set out be the codex? :)

[WolfLord Digby]

Welcome to being unique just like everyone else. And as long as you are enjoying your fast moving vehicles,I am going to enjoy smacking walkers with Meltabombs on the roll of a 3+.

 

AMEN !

[Logan230]

Can this be locked yet? I smell a troll and we have fed it quite enough I think.

[Marmande]

Just called Games Workshop Customer Service (and you may do the same at 1-800-394-4263), and they said you still need a 6, and WTN does not affect attaching grenades. If you get a different answer feel free to let me know.

 

My point earlier with RAW is that if you follow RAW the game can become unplayable and thus shouldn't be the deciding factor, but Blarmb covered that nicely.

 

BA player that likes his blood talon dreads to be invincible.

 

You know what? Screw you, buddy. I had that DC avatar from before the new codex because I thought it was going to be awesome and a step up from the .pdf. In some ways it was. In some ways it wasn't: Dante didn't get Eternal Warrior. Ward copy+pasted Sternguard and Vanguard from his other codex and took out Vanguard Vets entirely. He totally ruined the rules for Red Thirst and made it a completely random effect, so now you have games where your Devestator Squad may be better on the charge than an Assault Squad. A completely new character gives your army a better chance of becoming frenzied instead of the goddamn Chapter Master of the Flesh Tearers. I traded away my marine stuff away in disgust (and it wasn't a small amount, either) to a friend and started Eldar. The fact that I still had that avatar was out of neglect.

 

But best of all, you accuse me of of having bias. That's funny.

[Grimtooth]

Just called Games Workshop Customer Service (and you may do the same at 1-800-394-4263), and they said you still need a 6, and WTN does not affect attaching grenades. If you get a different answer feel free to let me know.

 

My point earlier with RAW is that if you follow RAW the game can become unplayable and thus shouldn't be the deciding factor, but Blarmb covered that nicely.

 

BA player that likes his blood talon dreads to be invincible.

 

You know what? Screw you, buddy. I had that DC avatar from before the new codex because I thought it was going to be awesome and a step up from the .pdf. In some ways it was. In some ways it wasn't: Dante didn't get Eternal Warrior. Ward copy+pasted Sternguard and Vanguard from his other codex and took out Vanguard Vets entirely. He totally ruined the rules for Red Thirst and made it a completely random effect, so now you have games where your Devestator Squad may be better on the charge than an Assault Squad. A completely new character gives your army a better chance of becoming frenzied instead of the goddamn Chapter Master of the Flesh Tearers. I traded away my marine stuff away in disgust (and it wasn't a small amount, either) to a friend and started Eldar. The fact that I still had that avatar was out of neglect.

 

But best of all, you accuse me of of having bias. That's funny.

 

For someone that likes Gwar so much on Dakka, then you know his opinion on calling GW customer service. They are no way rules or development, they are box packers.

[Marmande]

Whatever you want to believe, Ramses, trying to unfairly make your Wolf Lord better at fighting Dreads. :rolleyes:

 

You want to know where my interests lie in this whole argument? Let's start with some pictures:

 

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4058/4629507036_fbe387b593_o.jpg

 

See this? It's a plastic Bloodcrusher that's going to be released in the autumn in the Daemons second wave. You know what I want to do with it? This:

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3361/4631193106_b43de00592_o.jpg

 

I'm going to make Thunderwolf Cavalry counts-as using the new plastics, and use Space Wolf rules for Khorne Renegades. What will one of my HQs be converted from? This:

 

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1296/4663485471_77dcf4e051_o.jpg

 

He'll be a Thunder Wolf Lord with a Frost Weapon and Storm Shield. If GW had told me that WTN does in fact work with Melta Bombs, you can expect to see those modeled on him along with a marine back pack. I have just as much to gain from such as ruling as you do, you dummy.

 

But I don't, because the game doesn't work that way.

[Blarmb]

My point earlier with RAW is that if you follow RAW the game can become unplayable and thus shouldn't be the deciding factor, but Blarmb covered that nicely.

 

That RAW has some cases where it breaks down does not it invalidate in general. This statement is equivalent to "Some men are crooks, and thus we should be able to treat any given man as crook" and it's kind of silly sir.

 

RAW is flawed however it should be the default way the game is played. RAW should be the default because it's the game that's written down, the one that people can point to and say "See, I'm not making this up". Effectively RAW makes for a neutral 3rd party, regardless of it's sensible or silly, intuitive or counter intuitive it doesn't take sides and doesn't change from person to person.

 

In other words RAW is what should be used unless you and those you are playing with have come to an agreement to play otherwise. Now in cases where the RAW makes the game unplayable you're making that agreement just by playing. However, in this case where the RAW is clear cut, doesn't break the game and is just matter of being counter intuitive to some people and making one item slightly better there is no such implied agreement. Until all parties involved agree to change it, the RAW should stay in effect.

 

I'll say it once more just to be clear, there is nothing wrong changing the rules. It's not cheating, it's not playing "wrong", it's just making things work for you. It's just important you come to that agreement about how you're going to play it before you actually play, so everyone is on the same page. Just like they would be if they could point to the black and white RAW.

 

No offense sir right now, your position seems a bit like you've run across rock that's been painted red, don't like red rocks and are saying "That rock shouldn't be red therefore that rock isn't red". The rock is red man. If you don't like Red Rocks, that's fine... paint it blue or yellow or brown or whatever. There isn't any need to insist the darn thing is color it isn't.

[Marmande]

RAW is flawed however it should be the default way the game is played. RAW should be the default because it's the game that's written down, the one that people can point to and say "See, I'm not making this up". Effectively RAW makes for a neutral 3rd party, regardless of it's sensible or silly, intuitive or counter intuitive it doesn't take sides and doesn't change from person to person.

 

Yes, it should be the default until something like this comes along where, while you could play it as RAW,

 

No offense sir right now, your position seems a bit like you've run across rock that's been painted red, don't like red rocks and are saying "That rock shouldn't be red therefore that rock isn't red". The rock is red man. If you don't like Red Rocks, that's fine... paint it blue or yellow or brown or whatever. There isn't any need to insist the darn thing is color it isn't.

 

None taken, Blarmb. But I'm not arguing that, I'm saying it's pretty obvious that WTN only works with regular attacks as opposed to using grenades (One can be used against all targets, and the other can only be used against vehicles), and grenades don't factor in.

[Wispy]

You can say that it works with grenades and not regular attacks, and that is just as valid a statement within the wording of the WTN necklace.

 

Because it makes no distinction you cannot say there is a distinction. If you're saying there is actually a distinction there, well, one distinction is just as good as the other.

 

I know what you think might be intended Marmelade, but that intention can't possibly live within the wording of the rules. It needs to be FAQ'd if it is to be changed. Also, as I previously mentioned, even GW's intentions are questionable - why make the change at all unless this is intended?

[Sutr]

None taken, Blarmb. But I'm not arguing that, I'm saying it's pretty obvious that WTN only works with regular attacks as opposed to using grenades (One can be used against all targets, and the other can only be used against vehicles), and grenades don't factor in.

 

care to explain the change of wording on the errata for the WTN then? the way i see it it's there exactly to clear such doubts. it changed from comparative weapon skills (that doesn't take into consideration the use of granades on dreads) to models with weapon skill (that does).

[Blarmb]

None taken, Blarmb. But I'm not arguing that, I'm saying it's pretty obvious that WTN only works with regular attacks as opposed to using grenades (One can be used against all targets, and the other can only be used against vehicles), and grenades don't factor in.

 

Except there isn't any evidence to support this position. This is the rule as it exists as of the errata

 

Against models with a WS value, a model with a

wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on

the roll of a 3+.

 

It doesn't make any stipulations about walkers, grenades or any unit or weapon type of that matter. It doesn't mention "Regular attacks" or "Attacks against non-vehicles". The RAW is not only extremely clear cut "Under these circumstances, this happens" it's also very powerfully worded. The rule is a universal statement about to-hit rolls in close combat and it leaves no room for exceptions. Grenades vs Walkers are to-hit rolls in close combat against a model with a WS. The rule doesn't care about what other circumstances may be at play, that's all it cares about and it says that hit happens on a 3+.

 

Now some people may find that silly, clearly you do. Those people should feel free to change it.

[Aeddon]

Whatever you want to believe, Ramses, trying to unfairly make your Wolf Lord better at fighting Dreads.

 

How is this unfair? Quote me a rule that he is breaking, any rule at all... :rolleyes:

 

None taken, Blarmb. But I'm not arguing that, I'm saying it's pretty obvious that WTN only works with regular attacks as opposed to using grenades (One can be used against all targets, and the other can only be used against vehicles), and grenades don't factor in.

 

Just because your personal interpretation is that WTN does not apply here does not make it "obvious". The sheer number of voices against your opinion should be sufficient evidence of that.

[Marmande]

Whatever you want to believe, Ramses, trying to unfairly make your Wolf Lord better at fighting Dreads.

 

How is this unfair? Quote me a rule that he is breaking, any rule at all... :P

 

I was poking fun at the fact that he's accusing me of bias while posting in the Space Wolf subforum with a Space Wolf avatar and...honestly? Did I have to point that out?

 

None taken, Blarmb. But I'm not arguing that, I'm saying it's pretty obvious that WTN only works with regular attacks as opposed to using grenades (One can be used against all targets, and the other can only be used against vehicles), and grenades don't factor in.

 

Just because your personal interpretation is that WTN does not apply here does not make it "obvious". The sheer number of voices against your opinion should be sufficient evidence of that.

 

And I should listen to your interpretation because you think it applies to grenades?

 

Is it even possible that it's what GW meant? I've at least got a phone call in; I've yet to see any of you respond likewise.

[Blarmb]

And I should listen to your interpretation because you think it applies to grenades?

 

It's a universal statement, there isn't any room for interpretation. The wording is very clear, very powerful and very strict. There is no possible reading reading of the rule that excludes grenades without applying qualifiers that aren't in the text. The only qualifier in the rule and thus the only way the hit wouldn't be 3+ is if the model in question as a weapon skill or not. Please point where in the wording you think the RAW provides an exception for grenades. It's really starting to feel like we're speaking different languages here.

 

What would it take to convince you, a formal proof?

[Taeken]

Fun Read :P

 

After having read all these posts and going back over the Codex, Errata, etc... I have to agree that a WTN allows you to hit on a 3+ with meltabombs/grenades. I can easily see how this could be viewed as overpowered, but its pretty clear in my eyes. Every army has some very cool options. This just happens to be one of the Space Wolves'.

Sadly my circle of opponants/friends don't run walkers so this doesn't affect me in the least lol.

[Spacefrisian]

I 2nd that, it was a fun read and it sudenly went from SW Meltabombs to Khorne models.

[TiguriusX]

I 2nd that, it was a fun read and it sudenly went from SW Meltabombs to Khorne models.

 

 

Such are the ways of Chaos. Steel your mind Brother

[Godhead]

Marmande may have (or may not have) a phone call in to someone who may or may not have stated what he claims, the problem is, how many times have people called that number and asked the same question only to have different answers?

 

The people who claim the 3+ to hit are absolutely justified based on whats printed. It's black and white. Was this GW's intention? I don't know, and I yet again disagree with Marmande, as it is not obvious if the errata change was intend to achieve this result.

 

The sad truth though, is that up until there is a change to the errata, then you will have to accept SW characters with WTNs hitting with meltabombs on 3s. If you don't then you would be fine to change those rules within your club, or gaming group. If you run tournements then I would say you would be free to play the ruling however you want, just make it known before hand so that the players can choice to participate or not.

 

I would also caution you to steel yourself to play against or with the ruling allowing 3+ hits with MBs because there's not much of a grey area at all.

[Spazmonkey]

I third that I also have to go with it hiting on 3+, and just for the Record, my best mate, also a BA player agrees....

[Aeddon]

And I should listen to your interpretation because you think it applies to grenades?

 

Is it even possible that it's what GW meant?

Given the FACT that this is how the current rules are written......YES!!!

 

I've at least got a phone call in; I've yet to see any of you respond likewise.

Why should I? I have yet to see you come up with a single rule that supports your claims so as far as I can see you still have no ground to stand on. Claiming that you called GW and they supported your argument is pointless since it's not written in A: the BRB B: the codex or C: an updated Errata.

 

Seriously dude, read the rules and stop wasting everyone's time with your empty arguments.