PDA

View Full Version : the space wolves codex is completely messed up-Duplicates rules forum discussion



meanmachine
19-10-2009, 16:16
this has got to be the most messed up codex ever released

just go the the rules forum and you'll see

no one can give a actual answer to half of the issues in the codex, the sooner a faq comes out the better

so are you having trouble with the codex too

loveless
19-10-2009, 16:18
...what issues?

I see nothing that a little common sense (that's right, I said it :p) and a little chat with your gaming group can't solve.

Seriously, what issues?

grissom2006
19-10-2009, 16:24
Actually we can give answers the problem is that the Codex is poorly worded and we give the RAW answers it might not be RAI but without a FAQ we have to go by RAW.

Loveless is right a lot of the Codex can be sorted out with common sense.

The Codex works well enough even if i can't do what i'd like to do by the Intent of some rules but hardly a killer to the Codex.

primarch16
19-10-2009, 16:25
Here we go MASSIVE arguement between clear rules and commen sence.

loveless
19-10-2009, 16:30
Here we go MASSIVE arguement between clear rules and commen sence.

Well, it IS Monday. New week, new thread for rules and sense.

Ph4lanx
19-10-2009, 16:30
I love Mondays :)

Lord Malorne
19-10-2009, 16:32
You mean sense ;).

People play differently in different places, in my area we are layed back and common sense is applied to rules when the need arises, we don't spend time leafing through the codex looking for something thats wrong and may or may not come up.

Corrode
19-10-2009, 16:43
It doesn't help that a majority of the threads meanmachine posts consist of him asserting something not actually in the rules, and then arguing against people when they tell him how he's wrong based on things like 'it's useless like that' or 'but that's not how I think it would work because of what the fluff says.'

Space Wolves certainly have some 'interesting' rules questions though; the Thunderwolf Cavalry not actually having Thunderwolves is amusing at least.

Karhedron
19-10-2009, 16:46
The problem is that the GW development team live in a bit of an ivory tower. They know what the meant when they wrote the rules and it never occurs to them that other people would not.

This is where their work could do with some thorough beta testing. It would catch all these ambiguities and hopefully reduce some of the broken combos that seem to sneak out on occasion. GW still seem to be labouring under the impression that their customers are fluffy creatures who will play in the spirit of the game rather than competative people. Some people are tournement players who take it quite seriously and spend a long time refining their lists.

I still remember Andy Chambers' and Jervis Johnson's shock at the Rhino Rush in the early days of 3rd edition. They intended the Rhino to be used for tactical deployment and it never occured to them to use it as an assault skateboard. Things have improved somewhat since then but GW still really needs a wider pool of playtesters. People who deliberately try to break army lists.

After all you can only fix things by finding what is broken first.

Karhedron
19-10-2009, 16:48
Space Wolves certainly have some 'interesting' rules questions though; the Thunderwolf Cavalry not actually having Thunderwolves is amusing at least.

I think we all remember a particular Marine codex where Terminators did not actually have terminator armour. ;)

Tamwulf
19-10-2009, 17:03
GW needs some play testing period. It's not about Beta Testing- that's a term more reserved for Video Games where people are playing the (almost) final version of the game. That would mean the SW Codex was already written and they hand it off to a group of people to play with.

What GW needs is simple play testing. Any kind of play testing! 'Cuz right now, it feels like they haven't play tested the last four Codexii. It's like they have these great ideas and just put them down in the codex, and not even think about the ramifications.

It really, really feels like each edition of Warhammer is a play test for the next edition.

The Orange
19-10-2009, 17:14
Might be wrong but didn't GW stuff most of their play testers when one accidentally gave out tid-bits on the new Tau codex.

sliganian
19-10-2009, 17:22
GW needs some play testing period. It's not about Beta Testing- that's a term more reserved for Video Games where people are playing the (almost) final version of the game. That would mean the SW Codex was already written and they hand it off to a group of people to play with.

What GW needs is simple play testing. Any kind of play testing! 'Cuz right now, it feels like they haven't play tested the last four Codexii. It's like they have these great ideas and just put them down in the codex, and not even think about the ramifications.

It really, really feels like each edition of Warhammer is a play test for the next edition.

There is /was playtesting. There has been for many years.

Just because somone gives GW feedback does not guarantee that GW will listen / do anything with the feedback.

Durath
19-10-2009, 17:25
Here we go MASSIVE arguement between clear rules and commen sence.

QFT.

But while the OP is lacking in grammar or specifics, he's mostly right. There are several seemingly ill-explained rules in this book.

loveless
19-10-2009, 17:27
QFT.

But while the OP is lacking in grammar or specifics, he's mostly right. There are several seemingly ill-explained rules in this book.

Go on...let's have the list of rules then.

IJW
19-10-2009, 17:42
Grimnar Logan and whether his USR choice works when he is off-table.
Canis/TWC and Rending - it's listed as a unit special rule rather than a weapon - does it stack with special weapon rules?
A possible issue with ICs on Thunder Wolves, and characteristic bonuses.
Fenrisian Wolves as wargear, and whether they count as a unit, where wounds can be allocated, majority Toughness & WS, making Fearless characters afraid/subject to Morale checks etc. etc. etc.
'Extra' vehicle movement from Iron Priests and it's effects on shooting and disembarking.

Then there are the bits which are reasonably clear, but could have been worded better, such as Arjac's Thunderhammer when thrown or using JotWW through combats.

There have certainly been a number of questions which didn't need to be asked, though...

loveless
19-10-2009, 17:46
Thanks, IJW - I was getting a bit weary of people mentioning this list of problems and then not producing said list.

Long_Fang
19-10-2009, 18:00
Yeah and what is up with Bjorn costing 270 points??? Or Ragnar 240. No playtesting indeed.

gwarsh41
19-10-2009, 18:12
Yeah and what is up with Bjorn costing 270 points??? Or Ragnar 240. No playtesting indeed.

Blackmane is significantly stronger than he was before. I think he was 170, now 240 for ferocious charge and accumulative attacks as well as all the old goodness he had? he is a serious beast

Bjorn has high bs/ws and an invulnerable save, making him the toughest walker in game... I think. He gives you the ability to reroll for the first turn, fail that and you can still seize the initiative. If he dies, you get fearless (good/bad pending how you look at it) and he is an objective (good/bad pending)

now look at logan grimnar, his point cost diddnt really move, but guess what? he doesnt suck horribly! he is actually well worth it.
Play testing most likely showed that with a lower point cost blackmane and bjorn were taken in smaller games. where they were proven to be too powerful.

For no playtesting to be done it would mean that there is no one at GW who likes SW. If there is someone who likes them, they play them, and would love to play with new rules as much as we do. They play some matches, oh SNAP play testing!

If you have ever played a friendly game where the rules were bent a little, play testing is about the same. The difference is they notice which rules need bent, and make them stay that way.

Corrode
19-10-2009, 18:38
He gives you the ability to reroll for the first turn

By RAW he doesn't. You can add this to 'list of things that need errata'ing'.


'Extra' vehicle movement from Iron Priests and it's effects on shooting and disembarking.

There is no confusion here. The extra movement isn't defined as 'free', therefore it isn't. If it moves you over the combat/cruising line then you're over the line. Once you're at Cruising speed you can't go any higher, so you stay there even if you move more than 12". There's no 'now I'm moving Flat Out' because Flat Out is a special move for Fast vehicles as defined in their section of the rulebook; as far as non-Fast vehicles are concerned Flat Out doesn't exist.

The only reason this question came up in the first place is because the original poster (also OP of this very thread, I believe) had very little grasp of the vehicle rules.

t-tauri
19-10-2009, 19:36
We've already got multiple threads on this in the correct forum. Thread closed.