ProtoClone Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 This is really frustrating. Several times the request has been made for those with the "2nd printing" to specify the date of their printing and no one has done so. I will repeat it once more, "Specify the date!" and add one more: What and where in the text is the fact of 2nd printing identified. This seems to me to be a simple request. I agree, I would like to know as well. I ordered the codex from GW Canada and they sent me the 2000 codex. Is this the current printing or not? Where does it say the current printing on the codex? It will say 2nd Printing on page 1, above the white box with the addresses to the various locations of GW worldwide. Ok, this is what it says according to the 2nd printing codex from GW Canada. Storm Caller: In the shooting phase of any Space Wolves turn, the Rune Priest can use his psychic powers to call up a blizzard of psychic energy lasting until the end of the following enemy turn, which can be used to hide friendly troops or vehicles from the enemy. He may not shoot on the same turn that he calls up the storm. If he successfully uses the power then he can summon the storm either over himself and the unit he is with or over any friendly unit that has a model within 12" of him. This unit counts as being in cover for rules purpose and so will receive a 5+ cover save and will strike first in the the first round of close combat if they are charged. Units that are protected this way may assault and, if they do so and the enemy is in cover, attacks are resolved simultaneously. This was what was sent to me when I ordered the free codex from GW Canada and so I am going to assume this is what is to be used, as written. Edit: Checking back on the codex that was sent to me, I find that the razorback option for LF is there as well. So wouldn't that make my codex the current one as was pointed out in a post below? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithGatchalian Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 This is really frustrating. Several times the request has been made for those with the "2nd printing" to specify the date of their printing and no one has done so. I will repeat it once more, "Specify the date!" and add one more: What and where in the text is the fact of 2nd printing identified. This seems to me to be a simple request. I agree, I would like to know as well. I ordered the codex from GW Canada and they sent me the 2000 codex. Is this the current printing or not? Where does it say the current printing on the codex? It will say 2nd Printing on page 1, above the white box with the addresses to the various locations of GW worldwide. Ok, this is what it says according to the 2nd printing codex from GW Canada. Storm Caller: In the shooting phase of any Space Wolves turn, the Rune Priest can use his psychic powers to call up a blizzard of psychic energy lasting until the end of the following enemy turn, which can be used to hide friendly troops or vehicles from the enemy. He may not shoot on the same turn that he calls up the storm. If he successfully uses the power then he can summon the storm either over himself and the unit he is with or over any friendly unit that has a model within 12" of him. This unit counts as being in cover for rules purpose and so will receive a 5+ cover save and will strike first in the the first round of close combat if they are charged. Units that are protected this way may assault and, if they do so and the enemy is in cover, attacks are resolved simultaneously. This was what was sent to me when I ordered the free codex from GW Canada and so I am going to assume this is what is to be used, as written. Which still does not allow wolves to go first when assaulting. <shrugs> Apparently there were 2 versions of the Codex printed during the second printing. As far as I know, the book I am using was the later one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarl Kjaran Coldheart Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 why is it that every time i see a post from KeithGatchalian i groan??? wolf lord kieran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithGatchalian Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 why is it that every time i see a post from KeithGatchalian i groan??? wolf lord kieran Because I am right ? <grins> Have an ale...it will make things better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarl Kjaran Coldheart Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 why is it that every time i see a post from KeithGatchalian i groan??? wolf lord kieran Because I am right ? <grins> Have an ale...it will make things better! it probably has something more to do with you being what my brother would call a "mule". "mules" are determinded to be right regardless of the circumstances and any other opinions. to rpove their stance, they brutually tear down the opposing viewpoint while never acknowledging the flaws of their own. to be fair though, i am called a "mule" on more than a few occasions. probably why it stuck with me. wolf lord kieran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithGatchalian Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Well to be honest, no one has refuted my arguements, they simply have stuck to the "Its what the codex says" arguement, without applying the rules to them. Those are the real mules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarl Kjaran Coldheart Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 of course, you are 100% correct... but i have my own firm opinion on this, and another 4 pages arguing over a rule is a waste of time and my very limited patience. i can barely read this thread withouth wishing death upon GW for such a stupid situation. wolf lord kieran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithGatchalian Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 of course, you are 100% correct... but i have my own firm opinion on this, and another 4 pages arguing over a rule is a waste of time and my very limited patience. i can barely read this thread withouth wishing death upon GW for such a stupid situation. wolf lord kieran I don't think its really GW's problem. In 3rd edition they put it in the FAQ, in 4th they covered it in the actual rules, and in 5th it is also covered by the rules. I mean, yes, they could FAQ it for the people who can't connect the dots.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf89 Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Now this has turned into a bashing between players, not the topic, we understand that both of you have passion for the subject and try your best to explain your view on the topic, but don't name call... it's breaking our family apart. :wallbash: I have received the latest printing and it agrees fully with Keith, this will be how I use the power and how I will explain to others how to use the power. GW provides these rules, it's free, and it takes little effort, if anything just some time; so no excuse about using the correct rules. :sweat: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithGatchalian Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Now this has turned into a bashing between players, not the topic, we understand that both of you have passion for the subject and try your best to explain your view on the topic, but don't name call... it's breaking our family apart. :wallbash: I have received the latest printing and it agrees fully with Keith, this will be how I use the power and how I will explain to others how to use the power. GW provides these rules, it's free, and it takes little effort, if anything just some time; so no excuse about using the correct rules. :sweat: If I did insult anyone, it was not my intention and I do apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptInsaneO Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Thanks for sending the pdf to me Keith. Appreciate it :lol: This certainly clears it up a bit. Both our codexes were published in the same year, but as yours has the Razorback option for Long Fangs instead of mine then we should definately be going off your version. Clearly yours is more up to date then mine. Now we just apply it to those steps I supplied before. However can I just say you really need to clear your line of thinking a little bit aswell. I don't think its really GW's problem. In 3rd edition they put it in the FAQ, in 4th they covered it in the actual rules, and in 5th it is also covered by the rules. I mean, yes, they could FAQ it for the people who can't connect the dots.... You need to forget every single FAQ and previous rulebook. Everyone of them. They do not matter anymore. All that matters is the following: (1) The Current 5th Edition Rules (2) The most recent codex version (which we have now established as yours) (3) The 5th edition errata for Space Wolfs - this we can just ignore now as they do not mention Stormcaller anywhere. As for this version of the rule I still see it differently (hahaha Doh!) I've split the part of the rule straight down the middle that we are debating over. I've done this because they shouldn't be read together. Look at each rule seperately by itself as if they are two seperate abilities. "This unit counts as being in cover for rules purposes and so will receive a 5+cover save and will strike first in the first round of close combat if they are charged" Pretty straight forward. The unit counts as being in cover for assault purposes. The unit will get to strike first if assaulted. "Units that are protected in this way may assault and, if they do so and the enemy are also in cover, attacks are resolved simultaneously." I'm still maintaining my pov on this part of the rule here. If Stormcaller did indeed not work if charging then this sentence would become null and void and GW would have stated in the rule "Units do not get to strike first if charging with stormcaller on them, instead they negate cover and combat is struck in iniative order." So that second sentence firstly tells us, yes the unit can still assault and doesnt lose the stormcaller ability. The unit will benefit from its being in cover rule for assault purposes. If it didnt the unit with stormcaller would not be able to strike simultaneously against an enemy also in cover. So if they assault an enemy unit NOT in cover then for intensive purposes according to the second sentence the space wolf unit is striking first. Now before I get shot down i will just state that I basically just follow what the rules and errata says. SO yes there was a time when my units with stormcaller couldn't assault and strike first (as if in cover) on mine and my opponents gaming tables :blush: But now, from what i am reading, the rules have changed and we can do it again. Celebrations all around (until I get prove wrong haha). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastrus Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 I'll add my voice to the previous chorus here...and honestly, I think you are making this FAR more complicated than it needs to be. We have a new rules edition (5th) and a new FAQ. Everything before is irrelevant, FAQs included. So how does it affect Stormcaller? "This unit counts as being in cover for rules purposes." That's it. You have cover. Fantastic out-in-the-open moving cover. I believe everyone here is able enough to go to the rulebook and find out how cover works in 5th. Now for the other arguments, the text continued as: "...and so will receive a 5+cover save and will strike first in the first round of close combat if they are charged." I draw your attention to the words "AND SO", which stands as a transition in the sentence, for an explanation of what cover granted your unit in a previous edition, which as has been mentioned before - is no longer valid. Ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf89 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 If I did insult anyone, it was not my intention and I do apologize. Wasn't really saying YOU exactly were, but Wolf Lord Kieran wasn't necessarily making buddy buddy with you either. Just wanted you guys to stick to the topic and get mad at the rules and not eachother. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarl Kjaran Coldheart Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Well, we are Wolves. we play a bit rough, and have tough enough skin to brush off most nonsense. if offense was taken, tough. its the Net. if you cant take a crack at you, your in the wrong place. oh well. wolf lord kieran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverwolf Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Mastrus makes a good point. Although GW certainly does not use the most skilled of writers for our codexes (With some rather apalling use of grammer at times), that sentence is seperated into two components. One being the effect granted by stormcaller, and the other being an explanation of what that effect acctually gives to our unit. Now, under 5th, the results of being in cover are slightly different, so do we then go by the 5th ed. explanation of what cover does for a unit, or do we continue to use the 4th ed. variation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf89 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Well I understand, it's fine to argue and sure, feelings get hurt on the net, no big deal. But in an argument you don't just call someone a dick and not back up your reasoning, contribute to the topic or don't even bother voicing your opinion. Also the moderators always frown on this and promptly intervene when they see fit, I was just stopping before it carried on. On topic, I'm not going to bother using a rune priest until our next codex most likely, I've been using straight up WGBL's with heavy weapons and fenrisian wolves to a much greater effect than a rune priest would bring me, and it's cheaper too. Hopefully in the next dex we'll have Njal or at least the rune priest will have Ld 10 and better (or more straight forward) psychic abilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptInsaneO Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Now, under 5th, the results of being in cover are slightly different, so do we then go by the 5th ed. explanation of what cover does for a unit, or do we continue to use the 4th ed. variation? 4th is no longer valid. For all intensive purposes it doesn't exist anymore. We go by the 5th edition rules and then apply the 5th edition erratas to our codexes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverwolf Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 well considering the new SM Librarian has an entire page of psychic powers to choose from, hopefully we'll get access to at least some of that, or perhaps simply a greater range of abilities. And yeh, I don't even use R.Priests in my forces :D, always prefered putting those extra points into troops, while using a Ven.Dread supported by however many WGBL are needed to bulk out the other HQ spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarl Kjaran Coldheart Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 my problem is the amount of my opponents that use psychic powers. i need the rune priest for defense (rune staff), so i want the best i can get outta him. i currently dont run him though. i am tried to having my marines turned into spawn. wolf lord kieran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf89 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 my problem is the amount of my opponents that use psychic powers. i need the rune priest for defense (rune staff), so i want the best i can get outta him. i currently dont run him though. i am tried to having my marines turned into spawn. wolf lord kieran Chooser is also a big thing now in 5th with outflanking, it's always nice to see the face of a nid player who spent all those points giving genestealers scuttle when they can't even use it. :D I find that the 13th company Rune priest is the better psycher, and comes in handy a lot more, I field him every game. The gate is the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptInsaneO Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Chooser is also a big thing now in 5th with outflanking, it's always nice to see the face of a nid player who spent all those points giving genestealers scuttle when they can't even use it. :D haha amen to that :) I think a Librarian is worth it now just for that ability and having a runestaff to nullify opponents pyschic abilities. Chooser of the Slain just became a cheap item :) Wouldn't be surprised if its points value increased in the next codex or if it was made invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProtoClone Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried getting an official ruling on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptInsaneO Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried getting an official ruling on this? Hahaha, yeah. Response I got was..."use as written" I'm starting to think THEY (gw) don't even know haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.