Space Wolf FAQ Jan 19th

Spack · by **Spack** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:29 pm

GW just posted up a new Space Wolf FAQ revision. Furious Charge and Counter Assault no longer stack. Not noticed any other changes yet.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Cus ... es_Jan2010

Here's the single change:

Dec 2009

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 states ‘all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn.’ Therefore Ragnar’s unit does indeed 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 counter-attacking.

Jan 2010

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.

I've bolded and italicised the relevant changes.

Baragash · by **Baragash** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:42 pm

GW need to review their security measures, someone snuck some common sense into the building!

EDIT: old link for anyone that wants to compare the two
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Cus ... olves_2009

ruffian4 · by **ruffian4** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:31 pm

Hee hee!

qwekougipetg I'm making sense too now.

timewizard · by **timewizard** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:50 pm

ruffian4 wrote:Hee hee!

qwekougipetg I'm making sense too now.

GW rules dept. still making those clear as mud decisions!

*[j jqi8ht w3hw3 599 h92

TheColonel · by **TheColonel** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:57 pm

What was even worse was considering that Straken gives every guardsman within 12 both counter attack and furious charge. 50 guardsmen getting up to that sort of antic when you charge them would put off the most hardened bunch of marines!

LordMalekTheRedKnight · by **LordMalekTheRedKnight** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:57 am

Well if they feel they made a mistake in the original version then I applaud GW for having the guts to correct it, rather than hide behind the wall of "if its in the FAQ it must be right! (and if its not, well, dont blame us - we say the FAQs arent RaW anyway!)".

They could make changes like this every day if they liked - it is surely better than leaving dodgy answers in the official FAQs for years on end.

~ Tim

Spack · by **Spack** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:15 am

Maybe they'll update the Rulebook FAQ and remove the entry about IG HQ being worth 2 KPs because it's an IC + retinue. That's confused at least 1 person on Warseer in the past 24 hours ...

Now GW, repeat after me: Army specific answers should not be in the Rulebook FAQ, army specific ...