Ulrik or Wolf Guard Battle Leader?

[Skallagoose]

Good luck friend, your wolf brothers are behind you!

Thats CatSmasher- will be looking forward to posting how my army does. Going to be a lot of stiff competition, but looking forward to it.

Ah okay, in that case Ulrik gets it. Sorry, thought the wording was different

Haha, no biggie, I'm just a bit of a rules lawyer and i have read all these rules over and over trying to come to the strongest army list. I didnt mean to sound hostile, if i did, but you threw a monkey wrench into the cog and i had a minor panic attack.

I value everyone's opinions on these forums and i take them into consideration every time someone posts a thought or an idea- and i just want to thank everyone who posted about this thread :)

P.S.

Looked up the rules for the Krakenbone sword- no where does it say it replaces a weapon on the character; while the claws does specifically say it replaces both close combat and ranged weapons. While I'm not saying this is right (as i personally think it was just to make the sword's stats fit on the left column of the page), rules as written suggests it doesn't replace a close combat weapon or ranged weapon.

[rgr_maddog]

 

P.S.

Looked up the rules for the Krakenbone sword- no where does it say it replaces a weapon on the character; while the claws does specifically say it replaces both close combat and ranged weapons. While I'm not saying this is right (as i personally think it was just to make the sword's stats fit on the left column of the page), rules as written suggests it doesn't replace a close combat weapon or ranged weapon.

Interesting, indeed p.48 and p. 49 of the supplement have rules restricting the purchase of relics, but neither mention replacing existing weapons like p. 47 of the codex does for relics of the Fang.

[Stoic Raptor]

Indeed - none of the weapons in the supplement specifically say so "in the rules".  I suppose it's RAI vs RAW.  I don't have the books in front of me at work, but I know there's also no wargear list for them like in the main Codex.  I'd hope no one would try to pile on more wepons than a character could conceivably carry and use this way.  As I said, there's just the two hands (see my sig).

[marvmoogy]

I don't see a problem with a shield AS WELL AS either 2 close combat weapons or 1 CC and 1 ranged.

 

Look at the space marine company champion model....shield, pistol and sword.  Look at TWC....storm shields that can be wrist mounted....that's my precedent and I'm sticking to it ;-) 

[rgr_maddog]

I don't see a problem with a shield AS WELL AS either 2 close combat weapons or 1 CC and 1 ranged.

 

Look at the space marine company champion model....shield, pistol and sword. Look at TWC....storm shields that can be wrist mounted....that's my precedent and I'm sticking to it ;-)

 

Remember though, a model with a storm shield "...can never claim the +1 bonus Attack for being armed with two Melee weapons in an assault.(p. 98 SW Codex)" Now, being the rules lawyer you are, there is no mention of +1 attack for two melee weapons during a counter-attack ;p

[marvmoogy]

 

I don't see a problem with a shield AS WELL AS either 2 close combat weapons or 1 CC and 1 ranged.

 

Look at the space marine company champion model....shield, pistol and sword. Look at TWC....storm shields that can be wrist mounted....that's my precedent and I'm sticking to it ;-)

Remember though, a model with a storm shield "...can never claim the +1 bonus Attack for being armed with two Melee weapons in an assault.(p. 98 SW Codex)" Now, being the rules lawyer you are, there is no mention of +1 attack for two melee weapons during a counter-attack ;p

 

Oh, certainly not a rules lawyer....just want to get it right a la fluff ;-) 

[Stoic Raptor]

To be fair, if I recal correctly, I don't think there's anything in CoF that says anyone can take any of these relics at all!  I know it explicitly says "only one of each per army" but I don't recall that supplement specifying anyone that's eligible to use them.  If that's the case, it's clear that we must go with RAI over RAW.

[rgr_maddog]

"Any character that is part of a Detachment of Formation presented in this book that can select Relics of the Fang cannot select from those listed in Codex: Space Wolves, but can instead select from Relics of the Great wolf...(p. 48, CoF)."

[Stoic Raptor]

OK, thanks for the clarification.  I still wonder why there's no wargear list along the lines of the ones seen in the main Codex, or at the very least, some clarification as to what replaces an existing weapon or is mutually exclusive.  It's surprising how a simple notation can remove a lot of exploits or abuse of the rules as written.

[rgr_maddog]

I would tend to agree that it's RAI that you swap, but RAW you do not. I'd play against either, I don't think keeping a weapon is going to be game-breaking. In addition to a combi, it would make the Frostfury Storm bolter a ranged add on I'd consider to give an assault oriented lord options, however.

[Stoic Raptor]

Well-said.  It doesn't bother me if someone does it, providing they pay for the points and model it convincingly.  I just caution people because I know that some competitive players can be very persnickety about these things, and it's better for the issues not to arise in the first place.  My policy tends to be a sensible approach that also withstands not only the intent, but the literal expression of the rulebook.

[tylerw]

Indeed - none of the weapons in the supplement specifically say so "in the rules".  I suppose it's RAI vs RAW.  I don't have the books in front of me at work, but I know there's also no wargear list for them like in the main Codex.  I'd hope no one would try to pile on more wepons than a character could conceivably carry and use this way.  As I said, there's just the two hands (see my sig).

 

You mean like when Grey Hunters can buy a CCW that they can't possibly use along with their Bolter and Bolt Pistol?

[Stoic Raptor]

Let's not confuse an explicit rule with an implicit one.  There must obviously be a reason why the relic weapons in the main Codex replace the default weapons - is it not reasonable to conclude that the relic weapons in the supplement should do the same?

 

Here is my thinking on why you must replace a weapon: None of the relics themselves say you must replace a weapon when buying them.  The Relics of the Fang list does.  That is to say, the item doesn't have a rule, the rule is part of the wargear list itself.  The new Relics don't replace the wargear list, just its contents.

 

To elaborate - the replacement rule itself is universal, the exceptions are item specific.  No individual item, even the old ones, says you have to replace - but unless an item explicitly states you don't, then you must.

 

The obvious problem is that items like the armor, the pelt and the necklace don't state that exception, either.  So until GW releases a FAQ that either says "none of these replace a weapon" or "these particular items do/don't", we have to apply common sense.

[Skallagoose]

 

 

Here is my thinking on why you must replace a weapon: None of the relics themselves say you must replace a weapon when buying them.  The Relics of the Fang list does.  That is to say, the item doesn't have a rule, the rule is part of the wargear list itself.  The new Relics don't replace the wargear list, just its contents.

 

 

But the claws do specifically say that you replace weapons for. I don't have a problem saying that there is a RAI and RAW problem here, i gave that opinion already; however, one set of weapons does say it replaces, while the krakenbone does not give a description as to how to equip. 

[Stoic Raptor]

I think that is because they replace all weapons.  Not just the default, but it also means you cannot take another Relic weapon, too.

[Skallagoose]

I think that is because they replace all weapons.  Not just the default, but it also means you cannot take another Relic weapon, too.

Agreed- i just find it weird they specify in one description but not another. Again, my theory is simply they needed to fit it on the column. I bet somewhere on a GW computer is a publisher document with "…" at the bottom of the column (meaning something got cut off).