Striking fear into the hearts of Walkers everywhere

[Wispy]

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?

This is also an unfortunate problem. I'm afraid an answer from anyone less then Phil Kelly is not a valid one.

[Taeken]

AAAAaaaaannnnd Done!

 

 

Ale for Everyone!

[winternight]

Please lock this thread!

 

It is obvious that Marmande is just being difficult for the sake of it.

 

I wrote out a nice long explanation of RAW and what do I get in response? RAW isn't valid.

 

Oh great, so now we are playing "Marmande 40k", everything has to go past him to decide what the actual rules are. That is just completely stupid.

 

Marmande is wrong and has absolutely nothing with which to back up his fallacy except "RAW is wrong" and "I called a goon that packs boxes for GW and they agreed with me when I asked them.".

 

I looked at the stupid Dakka explanation, apparently when rules are more specific they overrule codex rules. :D! That is just "Dakka 40k".

 

Both Marmande and the goons on Dakka are free to play their own versions of 40k, for the rest of us, there are the rules as they are written and they are perfectly clear on the subject.

 

Lock the thread!

[Marmande]

Welcome to Space Wolf 40k then, feel free to just ask people who play the same army as you and would benefit to make an obviously unbiased judgement here. Until then, all hail the hive mind and shout down and insult dissenters.

 

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?

 

Do you want me to record the phone call or something next time? :rolleyes: Or you could call them yourself since you're so suspicious.

[JaegerAD]

Do you want me to record the phone call or something next time? :huh: Or you could call them yourself since you're so suspicious.

Yes please, and than call again and again .. called 4 times and get 7 anwsers :lol:

 

 

SW 40k ???? :cuss ... since 3rd ed(maybe even 2nd dont remember correctly) you could hit wit melterbombs and wtn on 3+.

and now 2(3?) editions later you came along and cant stop whining... crybaby 40 k :rolleyes:

CRB says : Melterbomb = close combat , Walker have WS

Codices : Walker have WS

SW Codex : WTN hits in close combat , against enemy minis with WS on +3

 

so WtN+Melterbomb + Enemy mini with WS = Hit on 3+!!!

 

RAW so PLEASE stop whining , be a man and stand that you are wrong

 

anyway nice read ^^

[Aeddon]

Why stop there? Why not ask them about every single rule in the codex that looks like it might possibly work in the SW players favor? If you feel the need, go ahead and cripple your army list but don't try and tell me that I'm wrong for following the rules.

 

And cut the "Everyone is a brainless drone except for me" emo bull-$#!t. That kind of crap got old in junior high.

[Marmande]

Yes please, and than call again and again .. called 4 times and get 7 anwsers :rolleyes:

 

All about WTN? What are you saying here?

 

Why stop there? Why not ask them about every single rule in the codex that looks like it might possibly work in the SW players favor? If you feel the need, go ahead and cripple your army list but don't try and tell me that I'm wrong for following the rules.

 

No need, this is one occasion where it's breaking the game rules. Nobody can hit a Dread on better than a 6 unless it's stunned or immobilized at the beginning of combat, and the FAQ doesn't discuss grenades vs. walkers. I've got my phone call and that's good enough for me.

 

And cut the "Everyone is a brainless drone except for me" emo bull-$#!t. That kind of crap got old in junior high.

 

I'd say Blarmb was pretty nice about the whole thing and I can see where he comes from; given the chance I'd rather just debate this with him. I've only seen antagonism spouting from you, which got old in middle school.

 

I guess it doesn't help that I have to argue with 5 people at once. :lol:

[Brother Rathul]

Lysander is my tank/walker killer. Fist of Dorn to the face should do it (master crafted) :rolleyes: and wepaon skill five!

[Marmande]

Lysander is my tank/walker killer. Fist of Dorn to the face should do it (master crafted) :rolleyes:

 

Chainfist and Stormshield Lone Wolf. :lol:

[Godhead]

I bet my WGBL will get to hit with his meltabomb on a 3+ against a dread should the situation come up on June 12th :rolleyes:

[Brother Rathul]

Lysander is my tank/walker killer. Fist of Dorn to the face should do it (master crafted) :rolleyes:

 

Chainfist and Stormshield Lone Wolf. :lol:

Ahh, in that case, not to be ultrasmurfy but Marneus calgar-twin power fists of DOOM!

[Aeddon]

I bet my WGBL will get to hit with his meltabomb on a 3+ against a dread should the situation come up on June 12th :)

*GASP* But Godhead, he's got a phone-call! Now all our rules mean nothing!

[Grey Mage]

Welcome to Space Wolf 40k then, feel free to just ask people who play the same army as you and would benefit to make an obviously unbiased judgement here. Until then, all hail the hive mind and shout down and insult dissenters.

 

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?

 

Do you want me to record the phone call or something next time? :) Or you could call them yourself since you're so suspicious.

No, frankly the phone call holds no weight anywhere- because you can call the old hotline 6 times and get 7 answers from 5 different people.

 

That, and GW themselves has said not to call the line about that, nothing they say is official, and that if you want your questions answered send'em an email.

 

Besides, your argument hinges on the idea that BRB>Codex, when this is not the case, so its hard to take what your saying to heart.

 

@General public- and guys, back off a bit. Its not the first time someones been an idiot in the fang, ok? So please lets not get what could be a good thread closed for no good reason.

[Brother Rathul]

HOLY ORB OF ANTIOCH!

[Marmande]

Ahh, in that case, not to be ultrasmurfy but Marneus calgar-twin power fists of DOOM!

 

Too expensive for the job that needs doing. :)

 

No, frankly the phone call holds no weight anywhere- because you can call the old hotline 6 times and get 7 answers from 5 different people.

 

That, and GW themselves has said not to call the line about that, nothing they say is official, and that if you want your questions answered send'em an email.

 

Besides, your argument hinges on the idea that BRB>Codex, when this is not the case, so its hard to take what your saying to heart.

 

They're about as unofficial as GW's own FAQs if you want to play it that way. And I argue that this is a situation where BRB doesn't have to be overruled by the codex because the WTN doesn't apply to grenade attacks. "Always" = when comparing weapon skills.

 

@General public- and guys, back off a bit. Its not the first time someones been an idiot in the fang, ok? So please lets not get what could be a good thread closed for no good reason.

 

Not the first time there's been an impenetrable echo chamber in an internet subforum you call the "Fang", either. BROTHERS.

[KeithGatchalian]

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.

 

I used to work GW customer service. We were not box packers. Gwar is an internet tough guy with no life. And he is not correct all of the time, despite his claims...

 

Were we perfect? No. Is anyone? No.

 

I know we did research into the rules. We tried to get things right. Alot of the times, when given a question out of context, we would make a decision based on the exact wording of the question, which often could be twisted or changed. We often had people call up with 20 leading questions that led to the answer they wanted.

 

I know one time I got a call and the person asked....if an imperial guardsmen with a plasma pistol overheats and the model fails it save, does it die instantly? I answered yes. The caller then went online and said we were dumbasses because we thought plasma pistol wounds could cause "Instant Death".

[Shadow Wulfen]

Marmande if this is your stance on Wolftooth Necklaces I don't see any point in really trying to convince you otherwise of that fact, it is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

 

However I personally think you are wrong.

 

If you could show evidence in the FAQ, Codex or Core Rules that proves that a Codex specific piece of wargear cannot do this I will gladly say that I was mistaken but so far you have done nothing of the sort.

[Aeddon]

Not the first time there's been an impenetrable echo chamber in an internet subforum you call the "Fang", either. BROTHERS.

Yeah well you're not the first troll we've had here.

 

And on that note, I'm done feeding you.

[Marmande]

Marmande if this is your stance on Wolftooth Necklaces I don't see any point in really trying to convince you otherwise of that fact, it is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

 

However I personally think you are wrong.

 

If you could show evidence in the FAQ, Codex or Core Rules that proves that a Codex specific piece of wargear cannot do this I will gladly say that I was mistaken but so far you have done nothing of the sort.

 

And, admittedly, you guys have the stronger argument. If you guys were to all call GW and they said WTN works with Melta Bombs against Walkers and I'm the only one saying otherwise, then I'd relent. However, we were all in the same position when it came to arguing that Thunderwolves made a Lord T5 not T4(5), and we know how that turned out. I'm honestly not joking when I say to call them and let me know what they say.

 

At the very least, everyone reading this thread should do their dreadnought-fielding friends the service of bringing this topic up and setting up a house rule, rather than in the middle of a game.

 

Not the first time there's been an impenetrable echo chamber in an internet subforum you call the "Fang", either. BROTHERS.

Yeah well you're not the first troll we've had here.

 

And on that note, I'm done feeding you.

 

No offense man but you must be pretty green to the internet if you thought I was a troll. If anything your relentless push to antagonize me would be deemed trolling on other boards, but that's me.

 

EDIT:

I used to work GW customer service. We were not box packers. Gwar is an internet tough guy with no life. And he is not correct all of the time, despite his claims...

 

Were we perfect? No. Is anyone? No.

 

I know we did research into the rules. We tried to get things right. Alot of the times, when given a question out of context, we would make a decision based on the exact wording of the question, which often could be twisted or changed. We often had people call up with 20 leading questions that led to the answer they wanted.

 

I know one time I got a call and the person asked....if an imperial guardsmen with a plasma pistol overheats and the model fails it save, does it die instantly? I answered yes. The caller then went online and said we were dumbasses because we thought plasma pistol wounds could cause "Instant Death".

 

Woah, the last person I expected to hear from. I won't try to drag you into the argument, but have you ever had callers try to argue rules with you over the phone?

[Blarmb]

They're about as unofficial as GW's own FAQs if you want to play it that way. And I argue that this is a situation where BRB doesn't have to be overruled by the codex because the WTN doesn't apply to grenade attacks. "Always" = when comparing weapon skills.

 

Here is the problem with your argument: That is not what "Always" means.

 

Always has a very clear definition of "In every case" or "For all cases". The rule as currently written makes no qualification for weapon skill comparison. It doesn't say "When comparing weapon skills against another model" or "If comparing weapon skill with a model that posses one". The rule is very clear that it triggers when the model has weapon skill it says nothing about what you're doing with it. Similarly it could say "You always hit a model with a ballistic skill in close combat on a roll of 3+" and it would have the same effect, even though ballistic skill has no bearing on close combat. The reason being that the rule sees that the model has a BS and triggers the 3+ hit clause, it doesn't care that BS normally has nothing to do with CC attacks. Similarly the WTN rule, as written doesn't care that 6+ to hit walkers with grenades in close combat has nothing to do with weapon skill.

 

In order for always to have another definition we'd have to be given that definition somewhere, or be given some kind of qualifier that provides a context in which the scope of "Always" was limited. As we aren't "Always" is all encompassing as it always in such cases.

 

 

EDIT:

 

I used to work GW customer service. We were not box packers. Gwar is an internet tough guy with no life. And he is not correct all of the time, despite his claims...

 

These questions might be a bit too personal, but:

 

-Are you still on good terms with anyone currently working at GW?

-If so, would it be considered "Kosher" for you to forward issues to them directly.

-If so, would you terribly mind giving them a couple questions to forward to whatever sort of development/errata team exists there?

 

I realize it's a big request coming from some random doof on the internet, but there are honestly some things that seem strange to me.

[Valerian]

Jumping in on this at the very end. Well, hopefully near the end, anyway. Marmande, I definitely see your point, and appreciate your persective on this.

 

Based on the FAQ, if you agree to accept the "official" GW produced FAQs in your games, I would say that you simply just have to relent and agree that a character with a Wolf Tooth Necklace may use it to get to hit a not-yet-stunned or not-yet-immobilized Dreadnought on a to-hit roll of a 3+. The RAW in the Space Wolves FAQ says "any model with a Weapon Skill", and a Dreadnought has a Weapon Skill, so it applies. Unfortunately, the FAQ doesn't use the language for "normal comparison of Weapon Skill", nor does it take into account the fact that there is a special rule to account for trying to hit a Walker with a grenade in close combat requires a to-hit roll of a 6. Their bad for not taking into account this specific circumstance.

 

Now here is the thing - a normal comparison of Weapon Skill almost always results in one of two requirements - you need to roll a 4+ if your Weapon Skill is the same, or lower, than your opponents'; you need a 3+ if your Weapon Skill is higher. The Wolf Tooth Necklace gives you a 3+ all of the time, which isn't a huge benefit, and is balanced pretty well at 10 points for the piece of wargear. Trying to hit a mobile Walker with a grenade in close combat is supposed to be extremely difficult, which is why it requires a roll of a 6. Applying the WTN to this situation provides a significant change to the likelihood of success (from 17% up to 66%), and is not in balance for the points cost, especially as it gives you a very good chance of destroying a 100-200 point investment that you otherwise would not be likely to do.

 

I've come to the simple conclusion that although it might be "allowable", that doesn't make it "right". I'm not going to try it, because I don't appreciate it when folks try to take advantage of cheap opportunities on me. I've found that when you approach the game with repect toward your opponent, then he/she'll offer you that same level of respect - this usually leads to a much more enjoyable game for both parties than you'd otherwise have if the whole game becomes one of "underhandedness".

 

Stepping off of the soap-box now. Sorry for any offense, but this issue just pushed some of my buttons.

 

Best regards,

 

Valerian

[kittenofdeath]

Jumping in on this at the very end. Well, hopefully near the end, anyway. Marmande, I definitely see your point, and appreciate your persective on this.

 

Based on the FAQ, if you agree to accept the "official" GW produced FAQs in your games, I would say that you simply just have to relent and agree that a character with a Wolf Tooth Necklace may use it to get to hit a not-yet-stunned or not-yet-immobilized Dreadnought on a to-hit roll of a 3+. The RAW in the Space Wolves FAQ says "any model with a Weapon Skill", and a Dreadnought has a Weapon Skill, so it applies. Unfortunately, the FAQ doesn't use the language for "normal comparison of Weapon Skill", nor does it take into account the fact that there is a special rule to account for trying to hit a Walker with a grenade in close combat requires a to-hit roll of a 6. Their bad for not taking into account this specific circumstance.

 

Now here is the thing - a normal comparison of Weapon Skill almost always results in one of two requirements - you need to roll a 4+ if your Weapon Skill is the same, or lower, than your opponents'; you need a 3+ if your Weapon Skill is higher. The Wolf Tooth Necklace gives you a 3+ all of the time, which isn't a huge benefit, and is balanced pretty well at 10 points for the piece of wargear. Trying to hit a mobile Walker with a grenade in close combat is supposed to be extremely difficult, which is why it requires a roll of a 6. Applying the WTN to this situation provides a significant change to the likelihood of success (from 17% up to 66%), and is not in balance for the points cost, especially as it gives you a very good chance of destroying a 100-200 point investment that you otherwise would not be likely to do.

 

I've come to the simple conclusion that although it might be "allowable", that doesn't make it "right". I'm not going to try it, because I don't appreciate it when folks try to take advantage of cheap opportunities on me. I've found that when you approach the game with repect toward your opponent, then he/she'll offer you that same level of respect - this usually leads to a much more enjoyable game for both parties than you'd otherwise have if the whole game becomes one of "underhandedness".

 

Stepping off of the soap-box now. Sorry for any offense, but this issue just pushed some of my buttons.

 

Best regards,

 

Valerian

 

I disagree with you on that last point, to memory, the only things that can pull this off are our HQs, which tend to range from 100-200 point investments, quite posibly more than that, and the 66% is just to hit, not kill, we still need to penetrate, and then roll a 5 or 6 to kill outright, meaning its not really an instant win, if you run the numbers I doubt that the probability would come out as even 50/50. On the flip side, only one of those standard HQ choices has the option (the pricey option) to be immune to instant death, and we are talking about fighting something that causes it with every hit if it has a DCCW, so In my mind its not that unbalancing that 10 points is unreasonable, I could understand if they did up the price by about 5 points, but I doubt that would ever happen.

 

EDIT:

I did run the numbers, 66.6% to hit, 48.48% chance to penetrate AV12, 16.16% to kill outright (All outcomes factor in the probibility of the previous result)

[Blarmb]

Based on the FAQ, if you agree to accept the "official" GW produced FAQs in your games, I would say that you simply just have to relent and agree that a character with a Wolf Tooth Necklace may use it to get to hit a not-yet-stunned or not-yet-immobilized Dreadnought on a to-hit roll of a 3+.

 

It's the Errata, not the FAQ. The FAQ is "Soft Content" that GW intends to be optional. The Errata is not and intended to be treated just as the codex unless players agree to do otherwise.

 

The RAW in the Space Wolves FAQ says "any model with a Weapon Skill", and a Dreadnought has a Weapon Skill, so it applies.

 

True. Glad we agree.

 

Unfortunately, the FAQ doesn't use the language for "normal comparison of Weapon Skill", nor does it take into account the fact that there is a special rule to account for trying to hit a Walker with a grenade in close combat requires a to-hit roll of a 6. Their bad for not taking into account this specific circumstance.

 

This statement implies they didn't intended for this functionality. That is not information that can be known.

 

Applying the WTN to this situation provides a significant change to the likelihood of success (from 17% up to 66%), and is not in balance for the points cost, especially as it gives you a very good chance of destroying a 100-200 point investment that you otherwise would not be likely to do.

 

It gives you a very good chance of hitting. You need to roll 5 or higher to pen, and then a 5 or 6 to destroy. Your chances are still way up (which are abysmally low to begin with) but still below 20% even for an AV 12 walker. Hardly reliable. I certainly wouldn't bank my 200+ point wolf lord on it. Then again I'm not head over heels in love with Frost Blades like most people around here seem to be.... :ermm: .....

 

I've come to the simple conclusion that although it might be "allowable", that doesn't make it "right".

 

It's not "Allowable" it's what the rules are. If you're playing it differently you've either A: Houseruling it so the rules are different (This is fine) or B: Breaking the rules by playing it that way without an announced house rule in play (not OK).

 

 

I'm not going to try it, because I don't appreciate it when folks try to take advantage of cheap opportunities on me. I've found that when you approach the game with repect toward your opponent, then he/she'll offer you that same level of respect - this usually leads to a much more enjoyable game for both parties than you'd otherwise have if the whole game becomes one of "underhandedness".

 

Stepping off of the soap-box now. Sorry for any offense, but this issue just pushed some of my buttons.

 

Best regards,

 

Valerian

 

It's no more cheap or underhanded than taking a cover save for being in a forest. It's exactly what the rules say. Recognizing that a rule does something you don't like and changing it is hardly a bad thing. My group didn't like kill points and thought they were quite silly and arbitrary. We now use victory points for most games, we're honest about houseruling this. We don't try to claim we're doing things the "Proper" way and we don't claim that saying 35 point drop pod has the same value as 250 point land raider is "Underhanded" or "Disrespectful". We recognize those are the rules in the book accept that fact, then play it differently and acknowledge we're playing it differently because that what works for us.

 

There isn't any moral high ground to be had pointing at a rule with very clear and straightforward results and calling it "Underhanded".

[Godhead]

Technically it becomes 15 points for this situation to apply, as you also must buy the meltabomb. It also requires an IC and for your opponent to have walkers. Some armies don't even have walkers (tyranids) so this situation only affects a very small portion of the game. I don't think when you take these facts into consideration that 15 points isn't terribly under priced, or over priced.

[Grey Mage]

No, frankly the phone call holds no weight anywhere- because you can call the old hotline 6 times and get 7 answers from 5 different people.

 

That, and GW themselves has said not to call the line about that, nothing they say is official, and that if you want your questions answered send'em an email.

 

Besides, your argument hinges on the idea that BRB>Codex, when this is not the case, so its hard to take what your saying to heart.

 

They're about as unofficial as GW's own FAQs if you want to play it that way. And I argue that this is a situation where BRB doesn't have to be overruled by the codex because the WTN doesn't apply to grenade attacks. "Always" = when comparing weapon skills.

 

No, that was the previous version. Remember, this wasnt a FAQ issue, it was Errata- wich actually is official. Comparing weapon skills is out the window- the mere possession of one by the opponent is all we need.