New FAQ's out

[TiguriusX]

Aye, Durfast, I grant that BEL is indeed a Special Rule. I decided to get off my hungover ass and get my dex. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it, so I'm no better off. :D

 

I understand where you're coming from, and I thought the same as you did for a fairly long while. I argued out my :P to prove exactly what you're trying to prove now. :P However, there is nothing that explicitly states that BEL is lost when a character joins the unit. It is not marked (as other special rules are) to negate the BEL if joined by a character that doesn't have it, and the likely reason for this is that BEL ONLY operates when the unit is Outflanking. If Wolf Scouts (whether attached with an IC or not) Outflank, there is no choice: They roll on the BEL chart. -IF- the WS are joined by an IC that -doesn't- have Outflank, BEL cannot be used, because BEL hinges on the ability to Outflank. It is a self-regulating rule in that Wolf Scouts+IC can Outflank (and therefore BEL) by simple virtue of having the ability to Outflank.

 

Although I definitely need more coffee or booze to continue talking on this. Back in a few.

 

BRB p.48

 

Special rules

"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the 'stubborn' special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit"

 

The OBEL rule as a modification of another rule is unique. We have no guidance on how they interact with an IC lacking the rule.

 

There is room to interpret this problem either way. That is why I keep bemoaning a FAQ that fails to come out using the keywords SAGA OF THE HUNTER and OBEL

 

If you are a tournament player get this rule clarified before hand. The last 2 FAQs I looked at said the IC could NOT OBEL (INATA and UK 40K Masters FAQs)

[Lord Ragnarok]

Aye, Durfast, I grant that BEL is indeed a Special Rule. I decided to get off my hungover ass and get my dex. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it, so I'm no better off. :P

 

I understand where you're coming from, and I thought the same as you did for a fairly long while. I argued out my :eek to prove exactly what you're trying to prove now. :P However, there is nothing that explicitly states that BEL is lost when a character joins the unit. It is not marked (as other special rules are) to negate the BEL if joined by a character that doesn't have it, and the likely reason for this is that BEL ONLY operates when the unit is Outflanking. If Wolf Scouts (whether attached with an IC or not) Outflank, there is no choice: They roll on the BEL chart. -IF- the WS are joined by an IC that -doesn't- have Outflank, BEL cannot be used, because BEL hinges on the ability to Outflank. It is a self-regulating rule in that Wolf Scouts+IC can Outflank (and therefore BEL) by simple virtue of having the ability to Outflank.

 

Although I definitely need more coffee or booze to continue talking on this. Back in a few.

 

BRB p.48

 

Special rules

"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the 'stubborn' special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit"

 

The OBEL rule as a modification of another rule is unique. We have no guidance on how they interact with an IC lacking the rule.

 

There is room to interpret this problem either way. That is why I keep bemoaning a FAQ that fails to come out using the keywords SAGA OF THE HUNTER and OBEL

 

If you are a tournament player get this rule clarified before hand. The last 2 FAQs I looked at said the IC could NOT OBEL (INATA and UK 40K Masters FAQs)

 

I agree, it's not explicit enough, so needs to be FAQ'd. Unless this was referring only to universal special rules.

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

As i see it, if it doesnt specifically say you CAN, you cant.

 

and the fact that placing ICs with WS can be downright silly.

 

winning a game is one thing, but you and your opponent both having fun is what should be everybody's goal...not rules jacking somebody over the head till they submit.

 

WLK

[JCarter]

It's disappointing that GW did not alter the FAQ rule that Canis doesn't get rending. GW should either publish an erratum stating that the rule is to be removed from Canis' description or alter the FAQ item to give the rule to him. Or are we to assume that the FAQs are just "in-house" rules and that the codex RAW takes precedence?

[Valerian]

Or are we to assume that the FAQs are just "in-house" rules and that the codex RAW takes precedence?

 

You don't have to assume it; GW says exactly that at the bottom to the entry of the Shrine of Knowledge. Only the rulebooks, including codices, and the Errata are hard rules. The FAQs are "soft rules", or in GWs own words, they are GWs on House Rules.

 

V

[Lord Ragnarok]

It's disappointing that GW did not alter the FAQ rule that Canis doesn't get rending. GW should either publish an erratum stating that the rule is to be removed from Canis' description or alter the FAQ item to give the rule to him. Or are we to assume that the FAQs are just "in-house" rules and that the codex RAW takes precedence?

 

Why would they need to address it for canis when it is already addressed for Thunderwolves?

[Vassakov]

It's disappointing that GW did not alter the FAQ rule that Canis doesn't get rending. GW should either publish an erratum stating that the rule is to be removed from Canis' description or alter the FAQ item to give the rule to him. Or are we to assume that the FAQs are just "in-house" rules and that the codex RAW takes precedence?

 

They did (page two, right hand column, top question):

 

Q. Does a Thunderwolf Cavalry model with a special close

combat weapon (eg a thunder hammer) still have rending

attacks? (p34)

A. No. The description of the Thunderwolf mount on page

62 says that it ʻ… has the Rending special rule in close

combat with any attack that does not use a special close

combat weaponʼ. This applies to Thunderwolf Cavalry as

well (and Canis Wolfborn, for that matter).

[wolfpack]

Aye, Durfast, I grant that BEL is indeed a Special Rule. I decided to get off my hungover ass and get my dex. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it, so I'm no better off. :D

 

I understand where you're coming from, and I thought the same as you did for a fairly long while. I argued out my ;) to prove exactly what you're trying to prove now. ;) However, there is nothing that explicitly states that BEL is lost when a character joins the unit. It is not marked (as other special rules are) to negate the BEL if joined by a character that doesn't have it, and the likely reason for this is that BEL ONLY operates when the unit is Outflanking. If Wolf Scouts (whether attached with an IC or not) Outflank, there is no choice: They roll on the BEL chart. -IF- the WS are joined by an IC that -doesn't- have Outflank, BEL cannot be used, because BEL hinges on the ability to Outflank. It is a self-regulating rule in that Wolf Scouts+IC can Outflank (and therefore BEL) by simple virtue of having the ability to Outflank.

 

Although I definitely need more coffee or booze to continue talking on this. Back in a few.

 

BRB p.48

 

Special rules

"Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the 'stubborn' special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit"

 

The OBEL rule as a modification of another rule is unique. We have no guidance on how they interact with an IC lacking the rule.

 

There is room to interpret this problem either way. That is why I keep bemoaning a FAQ that fails to come out using the keywords SAGA OF THE HUNTER and OBEL

 

If you are a tournament player get this rule clarified before hand. The last 2 FAQs I looked at said the IC could NOT OBEL (INATA and UK 40K Masters FAQs)

 

I agree, it's not explicit enough, so needs to be FAQ'd. Unless this was referring only to universal special rules.

I can't find the ruddy link now but there is a tourney FAQ that covered this I believe on one of the upcoming con sites...Adepticon I think it was but not sure...

 

As for being incomplete...we ARE talking about GW here...do you honestly expect them not to disappoint when it comes to the completeness of a release??or a FAQ for that matter??...lets face it...the last time they got it right was 2nd edition and they went and screwed the pooch by releasing third...and we as players have payed the price ever since...extensive, extreme and often over priced if you ask me...

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

Reading is fundamental folks:

 

It's disappointing that GW did not alter the FAQ rule that Canis doesn't get rending. GW should either publish an erratum stating that the rule is to be removed from Canis' description or alter the FAQ item to give the rule to him. Or are we to assume that the FAQs are just "in-house" rules and that the codex RAW takes precedence?

 

See how the first bit is talking about ERRATUM and not a FAQ entry? Yes? So we all can agree there was no erratum on Canis in the latest version. Now see how the second part of the sentence is showing the desire for Canis to have the rule? Now with your powers of deduction, can you see that neither option in JCarter's sentence was met? I don't know how two people commented on the above paragraph and both misread it.

 

If Canis has rending, but can never, ever, ever use it, then there is no point listing rending as an ability in his entry. If GW was full of sensible people, it would be fixed in the Errata part of the FAQ.

[Lord Ragnarok]

I see, yes, there is no errata, but they are providing their professional opinion in the FAQ, why is that not good enough?

[Vassakov]

Reading is fundamental folks:

 

It's disappointing that GW did not alter the FAQ rule that Canis doesn't get rending. GW should either publish an erratum stating that the rule is to be removed from Canis' description or alter the FAQ item to give the rule to him. Or are we to assume that the FAQs are just "in-house" rules and that the codex RAW takes precedence?

 

See how the first bit is talking about ERRATUM and not a FAQ entry? Yes? So we all can agree there was no erratum on Canis in the latest version. Now see how the second part of the sentence is showing the desire for Canis to have the rule? Now with your powers of deduction, can you see that neither option in JCarter's sentence was met? I don't know how two people commented on the above paragraph and both misread it.

 

If Canis has rending, but can never, ever, ever use it, then there is no point listing rending as an ability in his entry. If GW was full of sensible people, it would be fixed in the Errata part of the FAQ.

 

The fact that the rule is pointless is not the issue. Canis has a Thunderwolf, and therefore gains all the appropriate bonuses. He also has Wolf Claws, and as per the description of Thunderwolf Mounts Wolf Claws, as a special Close Combat Weapon overrides the Rending Bonus. I agree, its silly but only really the result of wishful thinking by players.

 

The BRB also seems to back this one up, with Rending Weapons being characterised as a unique special close combat weapon.

[TiguriusX]

Reading is fundamental folks:

 

It's disappointing that GW did not alter the FAQ rule that Canis doesn't get rending. GW should either publish an erratum stating that the rule is to be removed from Canis' description or alter the FAQ item to give the rule to him. Or are we to assume that the FAQs are just "in-house" rules and that the codex RAW takes precedence?

 

See how the first bit is talking about ERRATUM and not a FAQ entry? Yes? So we all can agree there was no erratum on Canis in the latest version. Now see how the second part of the sentence is showing the desire for Canis to have the rule? Now with your powers of deduction, can you see that neither option in JCarter's sentence was met? I don't know how two people commented on the above paragraph and both misread it.

 

If Canis has rending, but can never, ever, ever use it, then there is no point listing rending as an ability in his entry. If GW was full of sensible people, it would be fixed in the Errata part of the FAQ.

 

The fact that the rule is pointless is not the issue. Canis has a Thunderwolf, and therefore gains all the appropriate bonuses. He also has Wolf Claws, and as per the description of Thunderwolf Mounts Wolf Claws, as a special Close Combat Weapon overrides the Rending Bonus. I agree, its silly but only really the result of wishful thinking by players.

 

The BRB also seems to back this one up, with Rending Weapons being characterised as a unique special close combat weapon.

 

Careful with your interpretation of the FAQ

 

IMO rending is NOT a special close combat weapon

"has the Rending special rule in close combat with any attack that does not use a special close combat weapon" (p.2 top right of FAQ)

 

Rending is a bonus given to normal close combat attacks.

 

While the distinction may seem trivial it means you can't swap back and forth between a Wolf Claw for anti-infantry and rending attacks for armor penetration using the multiple special close combat weapon rule.

 

You seem to describe the Canis rule interaction correctly but used "special close combat weapon" at the end. Just making sure we are all on the same page.

[Vassakov]

The fact that the rule is pointless is not the issue. Canis has a Thunderwolf, and therefore gains all the appropriate bonuses. He also has Wolf Claws, and as per the description of Thunderwolf Mounts Wolf Claws, as a special Close Combat Weapon overrides the Rending Bonus. I agree, its silly but only really the result of wishful thinking by players.

 

The BRB also seems to back this one up, with Rending Weapons being characterised as a unique special close combat weapon.

 

Careful with your interpretation of the FAQ

 

IMO rending is NOT a special close combat weapon

"has the Rending special rule in close combat with any attack that does not use a special close combat weapon" (p.2 top right of FAQ)

 

Rending is a bonus given to normal close combat attacks.

 

While the distinction may seem trivial it means you can't swap back and forth between a Wolf Claw for anti-infantry and rending attacks for armor penetration using the multiple special close combat weapon rule.

 

You seem to describe the Canis rule interaction correctly but used "special close combat weapon" at the end. Just making sure we are all on the same page.

 

I agree with your interpretation of the rules, I was merely highlighting that Rending is listed seperately as a Close Combat attack in the BRB. However, as it is the model that has the rule, and the issue is addressed by both C:SW and now the FAQ as he has a Wolf Claws as Wargear.

 

But no, there is no suggestion that you can switch back and forth, nice as it might be.

[Wispy]

there's no such thing as a rending special rule.

 

Utterly infuriating the way it was worded.

[TiguriusX]

there's no such thing as a rending special rule.

 

Utterly infuriating the way it was worded.

 

 

BRB.42 agrees with you but p.62 of our codex disagrees

 

They added language that says rending "special rule" for non special weapons

 

So I guess you can say we introduced a new special rule with our thunder wolf mount wargear

 

So are the ways of GW

[Wispy]

Sure, but while Page 62 of our codex says we have a special rule, it also fails to tell us what it does.

[Fred Johnson the 3rd jr]

I see, yes, there is no errata, but they are providing their professional opinion in the FAQ, why is that not good enough?

 

It is good enough for me, but remember, they explicitly say the errata part is the hard law so to speak, while the rest of the FAQ is "soft" akin to house rules.

 

If Canis can never ever ever use his rending ability, why the hell even list it in his stats? It would make sense (if GW were in the business of making sense) of just errata-ing that rending bit out of his entry. I mean what is next, giving someone "golly LASER BEAMS SHOOTING OUT OF HIS EYES" power in their stat line, but then reminding everyone in a FAQ that oh yeah, he can never do this because of X?

[Lord Ragnarok]

I see, yes, there is no errata, but they are providing their professional opinion in the FAQ, why is that not good enough?

 

It is good enough for me, but remember, they explicitly say the errata part is the hard law so to speak, while the rest of the FAQ is "soft" akin to house rules.

 

If Canis can never ever ever use his rending ability, why the hell even list it in his stats? It would make sense (if GW were in the business of making sense) of just errata-ing that rending bit out of his entry. I mean what is next, giving someone "golly LASER BEAMS SHOOTING OUT OF HIS EYES" power in their stat line, but then reminding everyone in a FAQ that oh yeah, he can never do this because of X?

 

Yes, I agree, and have thought that some time since the first FAQ/erratas were released. I think it would be OK if you could use one or the other but not both in a combat.

[TiguriusX]

I see, yes, there is no errata, but they are providing their professional opinion in the FAQ, why is that not good enough?

 

It is good enough for me, but remember, they explicitly say the errata part is the hard law so to speak, while the rest of the FAQ is "soft" akin to house rules.

 

If Canis can never ever ever use his rending ability, why the hell even list it in his stats? It would make sense (if GW were in the business of making sense) of just errata-ing that rending bit out of his entry. I mean what is next, giving someone "golly LASER BEAMS SHOOTING OUT OF HIS EYES" power in their stat line, but then reminding everyone in a FAQ that oh yeah, he can never do this because of X?

 

Yes, I agree, and have thought that some time since the first FAQ/erratas were released. I think it would be OK if you could use one or the other but not both in a combat.

 

 

I would love a Wolf Claw or rending option for Wolf Lord on TWM but I think it would be too powerful to the point of cheesy.

You could wipe out MEQ using an I5 power weapon or take on armor using an I5 rending weapon and hope for a 6 to penetrate up to AV13 and glance AV14

[Coverfire]

I see, yes, there is no errata, but they are providing their professional opinion in the FAQ, why is that not good enough?

 

It is good enough for me, but remember, they explicitly say the errata part is the hard law so to speak, while the rest of the FAQ is "soft" akin to house rules.

 

If Canis can never ever ever use his rending ability, why the hell even list it in his stats? It would make sense (if GW were in the business of making sense) of just errata-ing that rending bit out of his entry. I mean what is next, giving someone "golly LASER BEAMS SHOOTING OUT OF HIS EYES" power in their stat line, but then reminding everyone in a FAQ that oh yeah, he can never do this because of X?

 

Yes, I agree, and have thought that some time since the first FAQ/erratas were released. I think it would be OK if you could use one or the other but not both in a combat.

 

Is having Special Weapons that Rend all that powerful though? Useful certainly, but I don't by any means believe to be that powerful. And surely they could at least let Canis have it, he is riding a named Thunderwolf (Fangir).

[Quillen]

Q. Can an Independent Character that has

joined a Wolf Scouts pack outflank? What about

if he has the Saga of the Hunter?

A. No he cannot. He can only join an outflanking

unit if he has the ability to outflank because of

the Saga of the Hunter.

 

Look at it close. No loop holes or confussion here.

 

If the IC has Saga of the hunter he can Outflank with the unit. It's right there for all to see. Do you see it?

 

Now wolf scouts outflank differently. They are unlike any other out-flankers in he game. And it tells you how they out-flank.

 

So the IC would indeed outflank with them and they out flank like Wolf scouts. Other wise why even have the thing in the book. Hey I can out flank but I can't cause nothing in the codex outflanks. Think about it. It's common sence. And yes some people will whine. They do that. It's life.

 

So an IC can join wolf scouts and then OBEL. Why is there any confussion here at all?

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

Because it doesn't say that ICs with the Saga of the Hunter have the BEL special rule, which is not the same thing as outflank as given by the scout universal special rule.

 

It can be interpreted that BEL is a variant of outflank or that it is a stand alone special rule. Therein lies the ambiguity.

 

edit. Note that OBEL is no longer the name given in C:SW - it is BEL.

 

Regards,

[wolf363839]

IC's with Saga of the Hunter can Outflank and can join Scouts who use Behind Enemy Lines. Here's the proof:

 

BRB pg 75: "Infiltrate also confers a special outflank move" Therefore Wolf Scouts have outflank.

 

SW Codex pg 27: "Behind Enemy Lines: If a Wolf Scout unit makes use of its ability of outflank, roll a dice ..." Therefore Wolf Scouts using BEL are in fact OUTFLANKing.

 

SW Codex pg 64: "Saga of the Hunter ... The character has the ability to outflank and the Stealth rule" Therefore a Wolf Priest or Battle Leader with Saga of the Hunter that joins a Wolf Scouts unit can outflank.

 

SW FAQ pg 2: "Q. Can an Independent Character that has joined a Wolf Scouts pack outflank? (p27) A. No, unless he has the Saga of the Hunter, or another special rule, which allows him to outflank." Confirms and clarifies what is written in the Codex and BRB.

 

Despite the fact that we must reference 4 different pages in 3 different documents, IC's do in fact have the ability to operate BEL if they have Hunter.

 

GW actually didn't do a horrible job clarifying this issue. We have the BRB, the Codex, and the FAQ, so all three must be consistent and referenced by players. This latest FAQ does that for this particular issue, and should completely lay it to rest.

 

If tourney's want to run their games differently from now on, then they should also acknowledge that they are going against the established rules and "soft rules" from the FAQ.

[Vassakov]

IC's with Saga of the Hunter can Outflank and can join Scouts who use Behind Enemy Lines. Here's the proof:

 

BRB pg 75: "Infiltrate also confers a special outflank move" Therefore Wolf Scouts have outflank.

 

SW Codex pg 27: "Behind Enemy Lines: If a Wolf Scout unit makes use of its ability of outflank, roll a dice ..." Therefore Wolf Scouts using BEL are in fact OUTFLANKing.

 

SW Codex pg 64: "Saga of the Hunter ... The character has the ability to outflank and the Stealth rule" Therefore a Wolf Priest or Battle Leader with Saga of the Hunter that joins a Wolf Scouts unit can outflank.

 

SW FAQ pg 2: "Q. Can an Independent Character that has joined a Wolf Scouts pack outflank? (p27) A. No, unless he has the Saga of the Hunter, or another special rule, which allows him to outflank." Confirms and clarifies what is written in the Codex and BRB.

 

Despite the fact that we must reference 4 different pages in 3 different documents, IC's do in fact have the ability to operate BEL if they have Hunter.

 

GW actually didn't do a horrible job clarifying this issue. We have the BRB, the Codex, and the FAQ, so all three must be consistent and referenced by players. This latest FAQ does that for this particular issue, and should completely lay it to rest.

 

If tourney's want to run their games differently from now on, then they should also acknowledge that they are going against the established rules and "soft rules" from the FAQ.

 

This. Behind Enemy Lines amends an existing special rule, it is not a special rule in and of itself. As it is a variant of Outflank, an IC may use it provided he is stated to be in that unit.

 

As an aside, how many people actually find this a viable tactic? I mean, it nearly doubles the points value of a Scout squad and adds (so far as I can see) limited value. Surely there are far better ways to use an IC and a Saga?

[Schertenleib]

IC's with Saga of the Hunter can Outflank and can join Scouts who use Behind Enemy Lines. Here's the proof:

 

BRB pg 75: "Infiltrate also confers a special outflank move" Therefore Wolf Scouts have outflank.

 

SW Codex pg 27: "Behind Enemy Lines: If a Wolf Scout unit makes use of its ability of outflank, roll a dice ..." Therefore Wolf Scouts using BEL are in fact OUTFLANKing.

 

SW Codex pg 64: "Saga of the Hunter ... The character has the ability to outflank and the Stealth rule" Therefore a Wolf Priest or Battle Leader with Saga of the Hunter that joins a Wolf Scouts unit can outflank.

 

SW FAQ pg 2: "Q. Can an Independent Character that has joined a Wolf Scouts pack outflank? (p27) A. No, unless he has the Saga of the Hunter, or another special rule, which allows him to outflank." Confirms and clarifies what is written in the Codex and BRB.

 

Despite the fact that we must reference 4 different pages in 3 different documents, IC's do in fact have the ability to operate BEL if they have Hunter.

 

GW actually didn't do a horrible job clarifying this issue. We have the BRB, the Codex, and the FAQ, so all three must be consistent and referenced by players. This latest FAQ does that for this particular issue, and should completely lay it to rest.

 

If tourney's want to run their games differently from now on, then they should also acknowledge that they are going against the established rules and "soft rules" from the FAQ.

 

One more reference for you list, Wolf:

 

BRB pg 74, UNIVERSAL SPECIAL RULES, "As this is just a summary, if any of the Codexes include one of these special rules and the rule is different, the one in the Codex takes precedence (representing how the general special rule applies to that specific race)." Space Wolves Outflank, but use the BEL chart instead of the general rule chart.