Sw faq

[MVBrandt]

Up on GW site;

Multiple JOTWW legal
T5 TWolf HQ/Indies
etc.

[Lerra]

Some very interesting choices there . . .

Furious charge is activated on a counter-assault.

Njal's tempest has no effect if the Space Wolves player goes second 0_o.

Logan Grimnar can benefit from his special rule "The High King" even if he is arriving from reserves.

Saga of the Iron Wolf allows a vehicle to move 6+d3 inches and fire as if it moved 6".

[MVBrandt]

Huge impact across the game on furious charge for counter-attack, and no defensive grenades vs. counter-attack.

[rle68]

Guys i hate to ask this but can you post the faq here im at work for the next 12 hours and cannot view gw's website.. damn IT people

if not ill wait till i get home

[rle68]

Some very interesting choices there . . .

Furious charge is activated on a counter-assault.

Njal's tempest has no effect if the Space Wolves player goes second 0_o.

Logan Grimnar can benefit from his special rule "The High King" even if he is arriving from reserves.

Saga of the Iron Wolf allows a vehicle to move 6+d3 inches and fire as if it moved 6".

I am curious as to what they are thinking about njals tempest not workingif he goes second.. a model that cost 240 minimum and it doesnt work if he goes second what is up with that ?

[Madjob]

Huge impact across the game on furious charge for counter-attack, and no defensive grenades vs. counter-attack.

Certainly. It's buffed the already good Tervigons before their codex even came out! I really don't like this ruling though, it doesn't seem very well thought out as I doubt anyone at GW considered this combination when pricing units that could benefit from it.

Defensive grenades negating counter-assault never made sense to me though, so that's good.

[Nabterayl]

I think that answer is really just clarifying that yes, they meant what they wrote. The RAW answer is that neither Driving Gale nor Living Hurricane affect an opponent if the space wolves player goes second. I read the FAQ answer as just saying that the RAW answer is correct.

[Nabterayl]

Certainly. It's buffed the already good Tervigons before their codex even came out! I really don't like this ruling though, it doesn't seem very well thought out as I doubt anyone at GW considered this combination when pricing units that could benefit from it.
Maybe not, but how would we know? Tervigons are clearly something GW is trying to sell, after all; if this is how folks have been playing at the Studio for who knows how long, it isn't that hard to imagine Cruddace saying, "Hmmmm, what else would make people take Tervigons? I know ..."

Either way, I never really liked the logic of the contrary position, which depends on "exactly as if they had assaulted" not being the same thing as assaulting. I see the game balance point, but grammatically, I found that position really hard to swallow.

[Duke]

I don't really like that ruling, but it is what it is.

Duke

[Madjob]

Maybe not, but how would we know? Tervigons are clearly something GW is trying to sell, after all; if this is how folks have been playing at the Studio for who knows how long, it isn't that hard to imagine Cruddace saying, "Hmmmm, what else would make people take Tervigons? I know ..."

Either way, I never really liked the logic of the contrary position, which depends on "exactly as if they had assaulted" not being the same thing as assaulting. I see the game balance point, but grammatically, I found that position really hard to swallow.

That's what happens when you take those few words out of context. The "exactly as if they had assaulted" was quite clear to me in that it simply refers to the previous half of the statement concerning the bonus attacks. The assaulting unit doesn't react as a defender, they don't use their defensive grenades, the counter-assaulters don't strike at I1 if they were the ones who charged through any difficult terrain, so why would they benefit from Furious Charge?

[Nabterayl]

Fair enough. For myself, it seemed clear that the attackers didn't react as defenders because doing so would be to their advantage (i.e., a strung-out assaulting unit would effectively get two assault moves), the attackers would use their defensive grenades, and they would strike at I1 if their counter-assault moved them through Difficult Terrain. Except for the lack of defensive grenades, that's still how I'd play it, personally.

But at any rate, as Duke says, it is what it is.

And as BuFFo hasn't said yet but probably will, we don't have to follow it.
I'm in ur threadz, stealin ur thunder

[bryce963]

I am curious as to what they are thinking about njals tempest not workingif he goes second.. a model that cost 240 minimum and it doesnt work if he goes second what is up with that ?

It only mentions the first two entries, as those work for the entire turn and your opponent has gone by the time it activates at the start of your turn, the other higher entries work during the space wolf turn. That does suck, but it does not negate the power totally if you are going second, it just makes it take longer to take effect.

[rle68]

thanks for that info.. sorry if my comment seemed lame im still at work and havent been able to read the entire faq as of yet sure ill be up late when i do get home

[entendre_entendre]

I find it interesting that the Arjac thunderhammer/JotWW issue wasn't raised at all. Oh well, you can't always have every instance covered. At least we now know that JotWW needs LoS to the first guy :)

[rle68]

I find it interesting that the Arjac thunderhammer/JotWW issue wasn't raised at all. Oh well, you can't always have every instance covered. At least we now know that JotWW needs LoS to the first guy :)


and i find that absolutely ludicris in its concept what part of it ignores terrain do they not understand? idiots running the asylum

and what about arjac and jaws? i dont get it

[BS FADE]

and i find that absolutely ludicris in its concept what part of it ignores terrain do they not understand? idiots running the asylum

and what about arjac and jaws? i dont get it


He can throw his Hammer as a shooting attack and people really want it clarified whether or not this drops a person initiative to 1 to then be eaten by JOTWW.

[twistinthunder]

Up on GW site;


T5 TWolf HQ/Indies
etc.


your suprised?

come on a unit thats bigger (base/model size wise) that bloodcrushers needs/deserves => T

[rle68]

He can throw his Hammer as a shooting attack and people really want it clarified whether or not this drops a person initiative to 1 to then be eaten by JOTWW.

hahahah well slap me silly i had not even thought of it since i think arjac is a huge waste of points

but lol thats an interesting question.... hmmmmm if i play it by rules as written for thunder hammers in the rule book, id have to say it would work.. wow hmmm now arjac doesnt seem like such a waste.. interesting

[MVBrandt]

your suprised?

come on a unit thats bigger (base/model size wise) that bloodcrushers needs/deserves => T

No, I'm not surprised, but I figured I'd mention that one and a couple others since they were common questions. K?

[Xas]

I'm wondering why GW is keeping up with the T4(5) (and the like) stuff when they are introducing ways to circumvent it.

it wouldnt be harder to say that a hero on an armored bike can survive a blast from a krak missile (s8 vs t5) because the bike is made for resilence than to say a combined model of a space marine on a giant mount can act as if unwounded even though either the marine on top or his mound is dead (each has one wound, so loosing one would represent one of them killed).


would eldar bike heroes surviving s6 be game breaking? if plague marine FNP vs battle canons would be too much it could still be made a special rule or them be priced accordingly.


I do however like the result the FC thingy has on my nids :)
"impossible charge" has gotten a new meaning: 30 termigaunts in front of a tervigon, venomtropes and a tyrant with ancient adversary.

I dare you to show me a unit that can hope to win that fight by melee alone.

[DarkLink]

I'm wondering why GW is keeping up with the T4(5) (and the like) stuff when they are introducing ways to circumvent it.

it wouldnt be harder to say that a hero on an armored bike can survive a blast from a krak missile (s8 vs t5) because the bike is made for resilence than to say a combined model of a space marine on a giant mount can act as if unwounded even though either the marine on top or his mound is dead (each has one wound, so loosing one would represent one of them killed).

I think it's strange that GW thinks that a flesh and blood TWolf is tougher than a heavily armored bike \shrug\.



would eldar bike heroes surviving s6 be game breaking? if plague marine FNP vs battle canons would be too much it could still be made a special rule or them be priced accordingly.

Plague Marines are already kinda cheap for what you get. Another point or two onto their base cost and people'd still take them all the time.



I do however like the result the FC thingy has on my nids :)
"impossible charge" has gotten a new meaning: 30 termigaunts in front of a tervigon, venomtropes and a tyrant with ancient adversary.

I dare you to show me a unit that can hope to win that fight by melee alone.

Unit(s) of genestealers that total up to equal the cost of all those different units required to get all those stacking bonuses on the gaunts.

[BuFFo]

I don't really like that ruling, but it is what it is.

Duke

Its a FAQ, not an Errata.... If you don't like it, then don't play by it.

[rle68]

Its a FAQ, not an Errata.... If you don't like it, then don't play by it.

in pick up games you can say that ....try that tactic in a tournement and youll be sent home real quick

[rle68]

[QUOTE.


I do however like the result the FC thingy has on my nids :)
"impossible charge" has gotten a new meaning: 30 termigaunts in front of a tervigon, venomtropes and a tyrant with ancient adversary.

I dare you to show me a unit that can hope to win that fight by melee alone.[/QUOTE]

Ill take that bet.. 10 grey hunters 1 wolf guard with frost blade ragnar and njal on the charge 40-50-60 attacks ragnar 6-8 attacks njal 5-7 attacks cyber raven 4-6 attacks alot of str 6 str 7 power weapons at init 6 ill take that any day even if you dont have to take a ld check make all those saves ... bye bye especially with ragnar hitting on 3 against anything and najal as well cya

but i wont have to face that amount in a charge situation as they wont be that strong once they get hit by all the shooting before hand.... talking smack only works as long as you have the stuff to back it up in this case you dont sorry

[BuFFo]

in pick up games you can say that ....try that tactic in a tournement and youll be sent home real quick

In a Tournament, I use the rules which the Organizers set forth, some of which do not use GW FAQs, since they make their own.

Anyway, you missed 1) my point and 2) the context of my post. To help you out, let me refer you to HERE (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat410004&categoryId=1000018&section=&aId=3400019), so you can learn a thing or two about the difference between an Errata and a FAQ.

[Liberame]

[QUOTE.


I do however like the result the FC thingy has on my nids :)
"impossible charge" has gotten a new meaning: 30 termigaunts in front of a tervigon, venomtropes and a tyrant with ancient adversary.

I dare you to show me a unit that can hope to win that fight by melee alone.

Ill take that bet.. 10 grey hunters 1 wolf guard with frost blade ragnar and njal on the charge 40-50-60 attacks ragnar 6-8 attacks njal 5-7 attacks cyber raven 4-6 attacks alot of str 6 str 7 power weapons at init 6 ill take that any day even if you dont have to take a ld check make all those saves ... bye bye especially with ragnar hitting on 3 against anything and najal as well cya

but i wont have to face that amount in a charge situation as they wont be that strong once they get hit by all the shooting before hand.... talking smack only works as long as you have the stuff to back it up in this case you dont sorry[/QUOTE]

You are aware of what the listed tyranid units allow right? Your 10 grey hunters, 1 wolfgaurd, ragnar, and njal all have to take a dangerous terrain test to even enter combat. They'll all have defensive grenades to negate the bonus attack for charging. Ragnar will strike at init 6, everyone else will be init 5. Going at the same time as the termagaunts who are init 5 str5, with preferred enemy, poisoned weapons. So they hit on a 4 with rerolls, and would on a 4 with rerolls. The tervigon will be spewing out termagaunts each round so its easy to believe their will be 30 or more termagaunts on the board when you charge them, and it can spew out more even in combat. I'm sure the tyrant will choose to hang back and be a counter assault unit in theory. But this whole thing is just mathhammering who would win in such a situation, and I don't want to think of the numbers. I don't know who will win but it will be a nice fight to see. I really don't see how he didnt back himself up for "talking smack"

[Lerra]

I would expect in 6th ed that all of the T4(5) will be consolidated to simply T5. Modified toughness is an unnecessary complication that doesn't add much to the game.

[rle68]

In a Tournament, I use the rules which the Organizers set forth, some of which do not use GW FAQs, since they make their own.

Anyway, you missed 1) my point and 2) the context of my post. To help you out, let me refer you to HERE (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat410004&categoryId=1000018&section=&aId=3400019), so you can learn a thing or two about the difference between an Errata and a FAQ.

my point is and it remains so even despite your attempt to change the subject 99% of all tournements use the faq's as an additonal rule set .. no where in 5 states where i play do they not use it

so my comment of play in a tournement is just as valid as yours

you would be wise to not hand out advice advocating people ignore established rule clairifications from gw . you would be better off saying consult your opponents on wether he wants to play it or not

[BuFFo]

my point is and it remains so even despite your attempt to change the subject 99% of all tournements use the faq's as an additonal rule set .. no where in 5 states where i play do they not use it

so my comment of play in a tournement is just as valid as yours

you would be wise to not hand out advice advocating people ignore established rule clairifications from gw . you would be better off saying consult your opponents on wether he wants to play it or not

99% really?

Can you provide me a list of ALL tourneys worldwide, and show me that 99% of them use the GW FAQs? No, you can't, so quit inventing statistics to prove your hollow point.

Wait a second, I give you a DIRECT LINK to GW BLUNTLY stating that FAQS ARE NOT OFFICIAL, and yet you say I am making it up?

Dude, lol at best. Try this forum bait-argument with someone else.

If you don't want to use GWs house rules, then no one can force you unless you agree.

[rle68]

99% really?

Can you provide me a list of ALL tourneys worldwide, and show me that 99% of them use the GW FAQs? No, you can't, so quit inventing statistics to prove your hollow point.

Wait a second, I give you a DIRECT LINK to GW BLUNTLY stating that FAQS ARE NOT OFFICIAL, and yet you say I am making it up?

Dude, lol at best. Try this forum bait-argument with someone else.

If you don't want to use GWs house rules, then no one can force you unless you agree.

omg would you get over yourself you forum troll..i have played in more tournements official GW and local then you probably have heard of and yes 99% of them use the faq as a answer to rules questions..wether they say they are unofficial or not doersnt change the fact they use them as a guideline.. if you dont like it dont use them but i still say you need to stop telling people not to use them.. pick up games is a choice tournements more often then not they are not and out of the last 30 or so tournies i have played only 1 didnt use the faq you want to quibble over the percentage be my quest but as of right now i wont

cya

[S0ULDU5T]

99% really?

Can you provide me a list of ALL tourneys worldwide, and show me that 99% of them use the GW FAQs? No, you can't, so quit inventing statistics to prove your hollow point.

Wait a second, I give you a DIRECT LINK to GW BLUNTLY stating that FAQS ARE NOT OFFICIAL, and yet you say I am making it up?

Dude, lol at best. Try this forum bait-argument with someone else.

If you don't want to use GWs house rules, then no one can force you unless you agree.

"They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player)....We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy."

The interpretations of the GW staff are used at tournies so that people generally know what to expect when they walk through the door, thus, valid at tournies unless explcititly stated otherwise which would mean you bear the burden of proof in that 99% of all tournies do not enforce the faqs in disputes.

Moreoever, the game is created to be fun for two players, so when you want to be stubborn and your opponent wants to lean towards the intentions of the games desginers it would be folly to think only your way is correct thus the faq, representing the third party, would be a suitable/social means of comprimise.

We understand your dissatisfaction with the FAQ but it does have it's purposes regardless and some of those purposes exist in a legal capacity.

[Duke]

I would say that GW FAQ's are generally accepted as rules. And you don't need to take 100% of the tournaments to derive that. Anyone who understands statistics knows that you can derive the disposition of a population from a sample. I know that of all the tournaments in my area all of them accept GW FAQ's as rules. Now is that enough to project onto the population? Probably not, but it isn't a bad sample either.

Duke

[rle68]

Ill take that bet.. 10 grey hunters 1 wolf guard with frost blade ragnar and njal on the charge 40-50-60 attacks ragnar 6-8 attacks njal 5-7 attacks cyber raven 4-6 attacks alot of str 6 str 7 power weapons at init 6 ill take that any day even if you dont have to take a ld check make all those saves ... bye bye especially with ragnar hitting on 3 against anything and najal as well cya

but i wont have to face that amount in a charge situation as they wont be that strong once they get hit by all the shooting before hand.... talking smack only works as long as you have the stuff to back it up in this case you dont sorry

You are aware of what the listed tyranid units allow right? Your 10 grey hunters, 1 wolfgaurd, ragnar, and njal all have to take a dangerous terrain test to even enter combat. They'll all have defensive grenades to negate the bonus attack for charging. Ragnar will strike at init 6, everyone else will be init 5. Going at the same time as the termagaunts who are init 5 str5, with preferred enemy, poisoned weapons. So they hit on a 4 with rerolls, and would on a 4 with rerolls. The tervigon will be spewing out termagaunts each round so its easy to believe their will be 30 or more termagaunts on the board when you charge them, and it can spew out more even in combat. I'm sure the tyrant will choose to hang back and be a counter assault unit in theory. But this whole thing is just mathhammering who would win in such a situation, and I don't want to think of the numbers. I don't know who will win but it will be a nice fight to see. I really don't see how he didnt back himself up for "talking smack"[/QUOTE]


oh im sorry did i forget to mention that ill be assaulting with storm call on and youll be striking at init 1 as defensive grenades (frag euivalent) dont work when your being assaulted with cover?? no.. ooops still want to have that fight ?

[BuFFo]

Moreoever, the game is created to be fun for two players, so when you want to be stubborn and your opponent wants to lean towards the intentions of the games desginers it would be folly to think only your way is correct thus the faq, representing the third party, would be a suitable/social means of comprimise.

BOOM, there you go. You are assuming the one thing most players do.

FAQs are NOT written by the game designers.

Back in 2006/2007, if you played Fantasy Chaos Dwarves in any US GT, you are playing by MY rules.

Chaos Dwarf FAQ (http://www.zharr-naggrund.poderna.com/zn/obj/pdf/chaosdwarf_gt_faq.pdf)

That FAQ was created between me, and the head judge at Adepticon because there was no FAQ at the event for my army. After the event, the guys at Adepticon took the questions and answers the judge and I came up with, and gave them to GW to put up on their site.

And on the site it was up. For a few years.

I basically helped write the FAQ, am I a 40k game designer? Nope.

Now here's the thing... Would I EVER force another Chaos Dwarf player to play by MY OPINIONS? No, hells no, and double no! If another Chaos Dwarf player wanted to play their Bull Centaurs different than how I suggested they be played, by all means, do so and lets have fun!

As a matter of fact, NONE of the newer FAQs (2006+) are written by the game designers. They are all written by gamers like you and me. Just regular people that do not design 40k armies in anyway.

At most, as with it was with the Empire FAQ, a group of gamers will talk with the Author, and he has the final say, but from what I saw, anything that the gamers answered was thrown up just to satisfy people hungry for a FAQ.

FAQs are not created with any internal balancing whatsoever. They are just opinions by regula joe losers like you and me.


We understand your dissatisfaction with the FAQ but it does have it's purposes regardless and some of those purposes exist in a legal capacity.

My dissastifaction is the lack of education and reading comprehension in my hobby by fellow gamers.

Just like how I want my fellow Magic The Gathering buddies to shower and not smell like crap, I want my fellow 40k hobbyists to have a basic reading level in a game that requires such a thing.

FACT: FAQs are suggestions, opinion and house rules. No amount of gnashing of teeth on anyones part will change this fact. :)

As for your point about a compromise, I am all for it, but when someone falsely states "FAQs are official", they are either lying or ignorant.

[BuFFo]

....Ignorance....

Education ----> FAQs and Erratas (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019)

You are welcome :)

[DarkLink]

I would say that GW FAQ's are generally accepted as rules. And you don't need to take 100% of the tournaments to derive that. Anyone who understands statistics knows that you can derive the disposition of a population from a sample. I know that of all the tournaments in my area all of them accept GW FAQ's as rules. Now is that enough to project onto the population? Probably not, but it isn't a bad sample either.

Duke

I've never seen people not using them. In fact, aside from Buffo and the blurb on their website, I've never even heard anyone discuss GW FAQ's not being ironclad.

[rle68]

They are official in their capacity as answers to FAQ'S as asked by us to them


and no amount of your denial will change that fact ... next

now you want to debate how many events use them as official thats your own cross to bear.. and not one im about to rehash with you

He is correct that they are not to be used as official ends all debates type of documents, but he is too stubborn to accept that most events use them as offical errata

[rle68]

Troll Ignore Me

you are welcome :)

Thanks

[Madness]

You ARE aware that in most (decent) game design company there is a game designer and a game developer, two separate figures.

The designer adds the chaos and creativity, the developer shapes it like a producer would do for music/movies material.

So the fact that the FAQ is not authored by the same guy who authored the codex doesn't make it any less worthwile. I personally would expect any tournament to follow GW's FAQs first and foremost, for the sake of not having to learn a new set of rules in every place I go.

[Necrosis]

Space wolf FAQ just got updated. Counter attack no longer gives you furious charge.

[HsojVvad]

Space wolf FAQ just got updated. Counter attack no longer gives you furious charge.

Where does this say this. I have been looking at both FAQ's, and can't see it in either. Can you please point it out to me?

[Necrosis]

Where does this say this. I have been looking at both FAQ's, and can't see it in either. Can you please point it out to me?
Page 4

Q. Picture this: My Grey Hunters unit including
Ragnar Blackmane is assaulted and makes a
successful Leadership test to Counter-attack. Do
they then benefit from his Furious Charge ability
(+1 S and +1 I)? Also, can the original assaulter
then deploy defensive grenades to rob the Space
Wolves of their Counter-attack bonus?
A. The Counter-attack special rule only confers
the +1 assault bonus and no other advantages
normally associated with assaulting. Therefore
Ragnar’s unit does not benefit from Furious
Charge. Also, we think it is a bit rich for an
assaulting unit to get the bonus for attacking and
defending, so no, defensive grenades cannot be
used to negate the bonus attack from counterattacking.