Space Wolves Rumor Roundup

[Agramar]

I think the Str 7 vs. Str 8 debate for Murderfang on the Charge has been resolved. Str 8 it is... until a German speaker says otherwise.

[URL="https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10551103_562339633892303_5738393001902728639_n.jpg ?oh=0b856eac9e7e861e93d326c49d7261d3&oe=543BEF17&_ _gda__=1413223838_d8cfe18b128a7c6edc0fc0054822f077 "]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10551103_562339633892303_5738393001902728639_n.jpg ?oh=0b856eac9e7e861e93d326c49d7261d3&oe=543BEF17&_ _gda__=1413223838_d8cfe18b128a7c6edc0fc0054822f077[/URL]

I'am not german speaker but I have a smattering of it and I think you are right

[Erik Setzer]

I think the Str 7 vs. Str 8 debate for Murderfang on the Charge has been resolved. Str 8 it is... until a German speaker says otherwise.

[URL="https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10551103_562339633892303_5738393001902728639_n.jpg ?oh=0b856eac9e7e861e93d326c49d7261d3&oe=543BEF17&_ _gda__=1413223838_d8cfe18b128a7c6edc0fc0054822f077 "]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10551103_562339633892303_5738393001902728639_n.jpg ?oh=0b856eac9e7e861e93d326c49d7261d3&oe=543BEF17&_ _gda__=1413223838_d8cfe18b128a7c6edc0fc0054822f077[/URL]

Oh? So the text in White Dwarf accompanying a model overrides the rules?

Cool, then, my Orkanauts now have twin-linked rokkit launchas, even though neither White Dwarf nor the codex said they did. But hey, the paragraph of notes about it said they were twin-linked, so they're twin-linked. Thanks, guys!

And lest we forget, "Psychic Focus" is really "Battle Focus," because that's what it was called in text in White Dwarf talking about it. Since, you know, White Dwarf's commentary is always 100% accurate, and we should totally ignore the rules in favor of that, even when the rules don't work the way the guys writing those comments think they do.

Or, if you're not wanting to open that can of worms and see the game devolve into some hilarious stupid stuff where guys making comments in WD who don't seem to know the rules end up somehow overriding the rules, then the Murderfang is S7 until they change the claws to S+1, and Orkanauts only have regular rokkit launchas rather than twin-linked.

But hey, let me know if you think the commentary overrides the rules. If if does, I'm going to bookmark this discussion on my phone, pull it up, and show people in White Dwarf where they called my Morkanaut's rokkit launchas twin-linked even though the rules don't ever say they are, and I'll be firing them twin-linked.

[Voracioustigger]

Erik, no need to be dramatic. I was just pointing out the interpretation of someone I assume is a game designer or someone on the inside with access to the people who wrote the rules, and their interpretation was S8. Obviously, the wording is not perfect. I don't think anyone would ever accuse GW of being perfect.

All issues like this should always just be a friendly pre-game discussion with your opponent, and, if it can't be resolved, a roll-off (unless you have some house rules). I would think that anyone I played with would view this as good enough evidence that the bonus was supposed to stack with the weapon, but everyone's gaming group is different. If your gaming group always plays RAW until FAQed, then I'd have no problem saying that he's a flat S7 on the charge. I just personally think that based on what appears to be the intent of the designers, that he should be S8 on the charge.

[daboarder]

Erik, no need to be dramatic. I was just pointing out the interpretation of someone I assume is a game designer or someone on the inside with access to the people who wrote the rules, and their interpretation was S8.

There is a reason Erik has taken his stance. GW designers rarely know their own rules.

[Erik Setzer]

Erik, no need to be dramatic. I was just pointing out the interpretation of someone I assume is a game designer or someone on the inside with access to the people who wrote the rules, and their interpretation was S8. Obviously, the wording is not perfect. I don't think anyone would ever accuse GW of being perfect.

Well, when someone claims the debate is "resolved" just because the text in an article talks about a rule incorrectly, it's kind of annoying. Especially as they've been so wrong in the recent past. You can't just say, "Okay, debate's over, someone at GW said it's this way in a WD article!" No, that just means that in their haste to write the article, they didn't look up how the rules work.

Intent is one thing. And once they errata the model and admit they screwed up, he'll be S8. Until then, he's S7, because if you're going to talk about "intent" and change the rules for one model, it opens up every model to questions of "What is the intent of this?" They need to admit they screwed up and fix it... *if* it's meant to be fixed. After all, they've already released an FAQ/Errata for the Orks codex, and haven't yet changed the Orkanauts to have twin-linked rokkits, despite them being called that in the paragraphs of text accompanying their release in White Dwarf. I saw someone playing them twin-linked because he assumed that's how they work based on the incorrect comment, but it's not how they work until their actual rules state that. (He's since recognized that was just someone saying nonsense in the magazine.)

[bfmusashi]

This isn't the place for this kind of nonsense guys.

[Erik Setzer]

This is so asinine.
You're right about the rule as its strictly interpreted, but there's no value or entertainment playing with a goon who insists on interpreting these things so intensely. If a player is sitting down to play someone to the point they’re refusing the +1 strength when the designers intention is so, so, obvious here (as there is no reason for the rule to exist otherwise)... if you’re that player, you’re a bozo. There will be errata and FAQ on its way pretty quickly and that player will look like a bigger bozo.

No. Because rules often exist that don't serve much of a purpose, so that's an "asinine" argument. As is trying to claim the intent is there based on articles in WD, which have been wrong multiple times. I don't call people "asinine" when they CORRECTLY don't allow me to fire my Morkanaut's rokkit launchas as if they were twin-linked.

You can be insulting about wanting to play the rules as they are, rather than trying to figure out some magical new definition that goes against what the rules say and claiming you know the "intent." But it's more asinine to claim you know the "intent" and that the rules are wrong because the "intent" means the rules should be something else. If you start to claim the rules should not be what they are just because of "intent," then it opens a wonderful slippery slope. Are you "asinine" enough to go down that route?

If an errata changes the weapon, then it can become Strength 8. If the rules in the codex show the weapon with Strength 7, then the rules for the weapon and the rules in the rulebook clearly state he is striking at Strength 7, and Furious Charge will only come into effect when he is charging without weapons.

If you think that's a silly way for a model to work, blame the people writing the rules for it. Don't insult and attack players who don't want to open up a game that's already a bit of a mess to all kinds of arguments about "I know what the rules are, but the INTENT means the rules SHOULD BE this other way." The kind of person who wants to open up those arguments is the biggest bozo around.

But then, people who make an account just to be insulting to others are pretty blatant in being asinine bozos.

[eldannardo]

New Logan

[URL=http://s707.photobucket.com/user/eldannardo/media/imagejpg1.jpg.html][/URL]

[bfmusashi]

Logan's all LOOK AT THIS THING I FOUND!

[eldannardo]

Not to sure about the land boat...

[URL=http://s707.photobucket.com/user/eldannardo/media/1175dc37-3ead-4135-a32c-a4c9b41b17c7.jpg.html][/URL]