Striking fear into the hearts of Walkers everywhere

[Schertenleib]

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

 

 

Actually I thought Valerian put it quite well.

 

I've been reading along and I have to admit that temper are getting a little high on this topic.

 

It seems that GW does like to write rules that give you a boost in a standard setting (ie a piece of wargear that lets you wound on a 2+ regardless of Toughness). I would believe that the intent was to boost the WS to WS attack not the grenade attack. Having said that.... once again the wording used by GW has left room for interpretation. As such I do think that the Meltabomb / WTN combo would be valid. I don't know that I would personally use it, but I see no error in the viewpoints expressed here.

[Grey Mage]

Actually I thought Valerian put it quite well.

 

I've been reading along and I have to admit that temper are getting a little high on this topic.

 

It seems that GW does like to write rules that give you a boost in a standard setting (ie a piece of wargear that lets you wound on a 2+ regardless of Toughness). I would believe that the intent was to boost the WS to WS attack not the grenade attack. Having said that.... once again the wording used by GW has left room for interpretation. As such I do think that the Meltabomb / WTN combo would be valid. I don't know that I would personally use it, but I see no error in the viewpoints expressed here.

However, the pre-errata version of the rules did that without any potential issues... so why the change? The only situation the new wording changes is in regards to walkers.

[WG Vrox]

Why do you all keep feeding the troll.

 

Didn't you see the "Please Don't Feed the Troll" sign on the way in.

[Schertenleib]

True. Walkers are the only vehicles with a WS.

[Decoy]

Yeah. There's really only one person who thinks the WTN doesn't work, and you'll always find "That :cuss Guy" on the intrawebs. Let's let this thread die a meltabomb-on-a-dread death.

[Grey Mage]

True. Walkers are the only vehicles with a WS.

Yep, and since the change in Defender I believe hitting a walker with a grenade is the only time you dont compare WS in CC against an opponent with one... thus its the only reason to change the errata.

 

Then we bring in the fact that all our HQs are WS 5+, so its only going to come up against Furiosos, Venerables, and if one of our Dreads or iron priests takes one they cant take grenades so theyre kind of a non-issue.

 

So... sentinels.... an uncommon dread or two... and titans?

[Beef]

Yeah. There's really only one person who thinks the WTN doesn't work, and you'll always find "That :cuss Guy" on the intrawebs. Let's let this thread die a meltabomb-on-a-dread death.

 

 

Hey Decoy that :cuss guy might just be me. I dont know rules. Its not my thing as most of the older members know. Fluff is my thing.

I was under the impression WTN did not work on walker with a WS. Thats how I played it in 3rd and 4th. Thats how I would have been playing it in 5th if I did not seen this topic. All the arguing is making my head hurt.

 

So is the general concensus that WTN does indeed work on walkers?

 

Personnaly i think it should not. It might be RAW but i doubt its RAI. Just like the lord on TW was T4/5 RAW but T5 RAI.

I also agree with Valerian. But i am not a gamer so things like rules are not that important to me. For some that difference betwen hitting a walker on a 3+ or a 6+ meens everything.

 

As for feeding the troll, well its an old Fenrision tradition, you keep feeding the troll until he is nice and fat, then you slay him and have a BBQ

[Grey Mage]

Yeah. There's really only one person who thinks the WTN doesn't work, and you'll always find "That :cuss Guy" on the intrawebs. Let's let this thread die a meltabomb-on-a-dread death.

 

 

Hey Decoy that :cuss guy might just be me. I dont know rules. Its not my thing as most of the older members know. Fluff is my thing.

I was under the impression WTN did not work on walker with a WS. Thats how I played it in 3rd and 4th. Thats how I would have been playing it in 5th if I did not se this topic. All the arguing is making my head hurt.

 

So is the general concensu that WTN does indeed work on walkers?

 

Personnaly i thinks it should not. It might be RAW but i doubt its RAI. Just like the lord on TW was T4/5 RAW but T5 RAI.

 

As for feeding the troll, well its an old Fenrision tradition, you keep feeding the troll until he is nice and fat, then you slay him and have a BBQ

Actually... if you believe the GW FAQ, it is T5 for a TWM.

And check the errata, the only thing it changed was the ability to use it on walkers with grenades. In every other case there was no reason to change the wording.

[Requiem of the Wolf]

Yeah. There's really only one person who thinks the WTN doesn't work, and you'll always find "That :cuss Guy" on the intrawebs. Let's let this thread die a meltabomb-on-a-dread death.

 

 

Hey Decoy that :cuss guy might just be me. I dont know rules. Its not my thing as most of the older members know. Fluff is my thing.

I was under the impression WTN did not work on walker with a WS. Thats how I played it in 3rd and 4th. Thats how I would have been playing it in 5th if I did not se this topic. All the arguing is making my head hurt.

 

So is the general concensu that WTN does indeed work on walkers?

 

Personnaly i thinks it should not. It might be RAW but i doubt its RAI. Just like the lord on TW was T4/5 RAW but T5 RAI.

 

As for feeding the troll, well its an old Fenrision tradition, you keep feeding the troll until he is nice and fat, then you slay him and have a BBQ

Actually... if you believe the GW FAQ, it is T5 for a TWM.

And check the errata, the only thing it changed was the ability to use it on walkers with grenades. In every other case there was no reason to change the wording.

And As strange as it sounds guys...the 4(5) is an exception to the general rule,not the normal. If you take a look at statistics,it says they can't be increased over 10,and cant be decreased below zero.And says absolutely nothing about the increases or decreases to statistics having to stay as normally listed for certain tests. Then you look at the descriptions of having a Bike. It says that it increases the toughness of the model by one,however THIS increase doesn't effect Instant Death. So the Arguement about "Oh the strength or the toughness are supposed to be 4(5)" is..flat out silly,because that's not how the rules work. I would really love to know where this idea that an exception somehow became the standard way of dealing with things.

[Grey Mage]

Mostly its the Bikes are the most common form of "mount" and all bikes T increase do not count towards instant death.

 

TWMs are not bikes however, but... much like this grenade thing... some people just dont think it feels right, no matter what the rules say.

[Marmande]

I believe he was referring to the strength bonus.

[Requiem of the Wolf]

I believe he was referring to the strength bonus.

I was referring to the idea that just because the most common instance of a characteristic increase has a specifically stated exception,that somehow everyone is dead set on the exception being the norm for all increases.

 

It is pisspoor logic and I am wondering how it got started and how it managed to stay as long as it did.

[Valerian]

@kittenofdeath:

 

Sorry for lack of clarity - I wasn't trying to math-hammer out the percentages for destroying the Dreadnought there, but rather just showing what a big difference the WTN makes in hitting the Dreadnought with the Melta Bomb (going from a 1 in 6 chance to a 2 in 3 chance). That was all. The WTN doesn't make nearly that much of a difference in most close combats; that's all I was trying to show with that point.

 

 

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.

 

Yes, sorry again, but I was using FAQ as a shorthand for the whole document (which includes both the Errata section and the actual FAQ section). We both agree that the Errata section contains the "hard rules" and is useful in RAW discussions; which is why I come to the conclusion that by pure RAW, using the WTN to help you hit with a Melta-Bomb is "allowable".

 

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.

 

That is true. We really do not have any way of knowing their Intention. I certainly can't "prove" it. Perhaps they really did want folks to get to over-ride the standard rules for hitting Walkers that aren't Stunned or Immobilized. However, I doubt it, which is why, in my mind, it is by RAW allowable, but it isn't the right thing to do.

 

It's no more cheap or underhanded than taking a cover save for being in a forest. It's exactly what the rules say.

 

You, apparently, don't make a distinction between what is a fundamental way in which the game is played (getting cover saves from terrain), and what appears to be (to me at the very least) taking advantage of a loophole for your unintended advantage.

 

Of course, all opinions differ on how to play this game, and that is to be expected.

 

Actually I thought Valerian put it quite well.

 

I've been reading along and I have to admit that temper are getting a little high on this topic.

 

It seems that GW does like to write rules that give you a boost in a standard setting (ie a piece of wargear that lets you wound on a 2+ regardless of Toughness). I would believe that the intent was to boost the WS to WS attack not the grenade attack. Having said that.... once again the wording used by GW has left room for interpretation. As such I do think that the Meltabomb / WTN combo would be valid. I don't know that I would personally use it, but I see no error in the viewpoints expressed here.

 

However, the pre-errata version of the rules did that without any potential issues... so why the change? The only situation the new wording changes is in regards to walkers.

 

Well let's quickly examine what the original codex said regarding the Wolftooth Necklace, then look at the Errata and try to determine (purely by speculation, of course) why they made the "hard rules" change:

 

From codex in original form:

 

"In close combat, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits on the roll of a 3+ regardless of comparative Weapon Skills."

 

From 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 is possible, that the designers in this case were trying to close one loophole, and merely opened another. In the original version, it could be argued that one could use their WTN to hit vehicles (IG Leman Russ, for example) on a roll of a 3+, regardless of how fast it moved. There would certainly be someone out there claiming that they could hit a Fast Moving skimmer on a 3+ with their Wolf Lord's Thunderhammer, because he happened to have a WTN. This, however, not at all being the intent for that piece of wargear, the errata was produced, ensuring the WTN could not be used against standard vehicles, thereby closing the loophole. "What about Dreadnoughts?" one of the designers asks. "Not to worry," another responds, "they fight in close combat by comparing Weapon Skills, so the wolftooth necklace works as intended." "Ah yes, you are correct, of course. Let's go have tea and biscuits." And the two designers sign off on the errata, fix one loophole, but open up the other which was never even considered, "what about when you try to use a grenade against a Walker in close combat, there is a separate "special" system for how to resolve that; so what do we do with that system when we now throw in a character with the wolftooth necklace?" New loophole, never resolved.....the internet forums are ablaze.

 

 

V

[Grey Mage]

Valerian, if were going to the point of guessing... one could just as easily guess that the reason they took so long to get the FAQ out is because they sat down and actually reconsidered all the rules applications, saw this, and said "ok, its no big deal".

 

As for the idea of hitting anything on a 3+, it doesnt seem to allow the hitting of tanks or skimmers on a 3+, but perhaps Im just not reading it the way you are.

[KeithGatchalian]

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?

 

 

All the time.

[KeithGatchalian]

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?

 

 

All the time.

[Grimtooth]

Such a non-issue. As much as some want this to be a grey area to create doubt, the errata is clear and concise.

 

Of the actual naysayers, none have actually denied the errata, instead concentrating on the dreadnoughts and assault rule of the BRB to try and create doubt.

 

Now once we start examining the morality of the rule, that becomes nothing more then opinions being posted which really have no bearing on the rule discussion.

 

That would be akin to me not liking the BA fast vehicles rule and say while allowable, I wouldn't play it that way.

 

To say that it is comparable to other loophole rules is rubbish. At no point in the reading of the rule do you look to circumvent the rules for close combat. You simply check the model profile to see if a WS value is present as the rule clearly tells you to.

 

I would even go as far as to say that naysayers are looking for the loophole to prevent the WTN from working as intended. Examples in this thread being:

 

Grenade attacks is not normal CC.

 

Not supported by fluff.

 

Points value to effectiveness ratio.

 

While these could be good points of interest in a editorial review of the WTN, they are not a basis for any rules debate.

[Beef]

I would even go as far as to say that naysayers are looking for the loophole to prevent the WTN from working as intended. Examples in this thread being:

 

Grenade attacks is not normal CC.

 

Not supported by fluff.

 

Points value to effectiveness ratio.

 

While these could be good points of interest in a editorial review of the WTN, they are not a basis for any rules debate.

 

 

Brother I would agree with you except that the nay sayers are SW players themselves. Why would they try to find a loophole that is detrimental to themselves. If a non SW player said it I would understand

[Grimtooth]

Differing opinions I guess Beef.

 

The one thing is that when you say things like fluff or cost to effectiveness ratio, they really don't stack up very well against just the rule as written. Fluff and the ratio can vary greatly based perspective of the individual. When the rule just asks if the target has a WS value, it is only a matter of fact. I mean a alot of of the conversation can be broken down as such:

 

"Does the dreadnought have a WS value?"

 

"Well melta bombs are not a regular cc attack."

 

'Does the dreadnought have a WS value?"

 

"The fluff does not support WTN hitting dreadnoughts so easily."

 

"Does a dreadnought have a WS value?"

 

"The cost of a WTN does not take into account the damage it can do to walkers."

 

"Does a dreadnought have a WS value?"

 

"The WTN rule does not say it works with grenades."

 

"Does a dreadnought have a WS value?"

 

Do you see what I mean? The actual qualifier for the effect of a WTN has never even been debunked. The closest I have seen in another thread was someone proposing that the WS value of a dread actually disappears when trying to attach a grenade which is completely not supported by the codex or BRB, but was something just made up on the spot by the individual.

[Grey Mage]

It could be noted, as a guideline, that if the local playgroup objects to this greatly that the previous FAQ had a similar issue- the old eldar version of the Defender Exarch Power for Dire Avengers.

 

Their rule siad they were only hit on a 6+, WTN said they were hit on a 3+, so it was a dice off each turn to see wich took effect.

 

Not that I think its nessecairy, but if your play group has a serious issue its a decent compromise.

[TiguriusX]

There is a lot of argument regarding RAI

 

How exactly are you implementing RAI?

-Are you applying what you think makes sense?

-Are you adding things to the rule based on extrinsic evidence?

 

 

There is hard proof that the WTN rule was changed (see errata section of SW FAQ).

There is hard proof that the old version of the WTN was narrower in scope ("comparative WS")

There is hard proof that the new version of the WTN is broader in scope ("model with WS")

 

There is a damn strong argument based on the facts of record that the official rules makers (i.e., GW) "intended" to expand the scope of the WTN rule when they released the errata

[Gentlemanloser]

In the original version, it could be argued that one could use their WTN to hit vehicles (IG Leman Russ, for example) on a roll of a 3+, regardless of how fast it moved.

 

V, from the way I read the original rule (and I'm assuming here others shared this interpretation), was the WTN *only* applied to WS to WS comparison outcomes, so wouldn't ever have effected Vehicles without a WS anyway.

 

From that intrepretation, the only reaosn for achange would be to divorce the use of the WTN from the WS/WS comparison, and the only this (to my knowledge) ever comes into play when facing a target with a WS is when you try to use Grenades as an attack in CC.

[kittenofdeath]

@kittenofdeath:

 

Sorry for lack of clarity - I wasn't trying to math-hammer out the percentages for destroying the Dreadnought there, but rather just showing what a big difference the WTN makes in hitting the Dreadnought with the Melta Bomb (going from a 1 in 6 chance to a 2 in 3 chance). That was all. The WTN doesn't make nearly that much of a difference in most close combats; that's all I was trying to show with that point.

 

I knew that, but just as you had to point out how much it changed the to hit roll, I had to point out how little it improves the chances over all.

 

Also, how did 'the fluff doesnt support it' become an arguement? Walkers are extreemly hard to hit with grenades, wolf tooth necklaces are given to those who are badasses amoung even the most badass chapter in the imperium or out of it, their badassery comes from decades of experience at doing things extreemly hard, just like meltabombing dreadnaughts and other walkers.

[Valerian]

In the original version, it could be argued that one could use their WTN to hit vehicles (IG Leman Russ, for example) on a roll of a 3+, regardless of how fast it moved.

 

V, from the way I read the original rule (and I'm assuming here others shared this interpretation), was the WTN *only* applied to WS to WS comparison outcomes, so wouldn't ever have effected Vehicles without a WS anyway.

 

I would have read it the same way, of course. However, anyone who wanted to could easily argue that the "regardless of comparative Weapon Skills" phrase does not require that there be comparative Weapon Skills in the first place. "Regardless of" simply equates to "don't consider this," or "don't worry about this". Which means someone who wanted to play underhanded could have used the old/original language of the rule to get 3+ Hits in close combat any time/every time, regardless of the specific scenario. The old rule wording never required comparative Weapon Skills to come into play. On the contrary, it told you specifically that comparative Weapon Skills are not a factor.

 

Whereas some think the the errata changed the wolftooth necklace from a narrower scope to a broader scope; I believe (no way of proving this, of course) they actually intended to go from broad (works all of the time, regardless of....) to the narrow (only works against models with a Weapon Skill).

 

V

[Spacefrisian]

If someone tries to pull this leg of me not allowing to use grenades in combo with tooth i will ask not to make his attacks as his walker lost his Ws value. No Ws is no attacks in return.

 

See how stupid the counter argument of nay sayers is.