Counter-attack Question.

[Commissar Lewis]

Right, so in the new Wolves codex, on Ragnar Blackmane they quoted the counter-attack special rule and said that Ragnar's squad benefits from Furious Charge when counter-attacking.

Now, my question is this. As a Guard player with Straken leading my army, as GW said that counter-attack does indeed benefit from furious charge, would the units receiving FC and CA from Iron Hand get furious charge if counter-attacking?

If so, then my Guard have a slightly better chance of not getting mowed down by berzerkers.

[Caldera02]

I would said that the FAQ for ragnar sets the precedent for that yes.

[Ordo]

yea. your guardsmen should have a better survivability rate with the furious charge and counter attack from straken

[crazyredpraetorian]

I believe there is an IG FAQ regarding Straken and CA/FC and that he doesn't get it, IIRC. If I'm wrong, all I can say is SWEET! But, I think this is a Ragnar only thing.

[weeble1000]

It looks like they made a general ruling on the way Counter-attack interacts with Furious Charge. The answer basically said, "Because of the way Counter-attack is written, a counter-attacking unit with Furious Charge receives that bonus." I'm glad GW has settled that debate.

[DarkLink]

The issue came up as a debate over the meaning of the wording in the Counter Assault rule anyways. This just put GW solidly on one side of the argument.

[Madjob]

It looks like they made a general ruling on the way Counter-attack interacts with Furious Charge. The answer basically said, "Because of the way Counter-attack is written, a counter-attacking unit with Furious Charge receives that bonus." I'm glad GW has settled that debate.

Except at the same time they refuted an argument based on the exact same logic (the way it was written) because they thought it sounded silly (assaulting units using defensive grenades on counter-assaulters).

[Commissar Lewis]

Well, GW was never known for good sense - why it's cheaper to buy from someone else than them still baffles me to this day.

But nonetheless, thanks for the replies. I'm gonna put this point forward to my friend who is a rather tenacious rules lawyer. My point in that GW said in the FAQ that the way CA works gives the furious charge bonus.

Also, there was nothing in the IG FAQ denying that any unit that got CA from Straken didn't get FC. So, I'm going with that those units get FC with CA.

[weeble1000]

@Madjob GW's answer was simply a combination of RAW and RAI. We wrote the rule such that Furious Charge works with Counter-attack, but we realize that you can extend this logic to argue that the assaulting unit is able to use defensive grenades. We never intended for the assaulting unit to get a bonus from Counter-attack, so we're saying right now that they don't.

My impression of this FAQ issue is that GW wants Counter-attack to work with whatever assaulting bonuses the unit has (Righteous Fury, etc.) but not extend into providing a bonus for the unit that initiated the assault.

Without a doubt, GW has gone beyond a strict interpretation of their base rules on this one, but I think that's their prerogative.

[Bean]

GW's answer to the question about Ragnar is specific to Ragnar and Ragnar only. There are two reasons for this.

First, the question and answer only discuss Ragnar. The question is about whether Ragnar and his squad benefit from Furious Assault when Counter-Attacking. The question doesn't mention any other units with that USR combination. In addition, the answer is specific to Ragnar and Ragnar only. It says, "Therefore Ragnar's unit does indeed benefit from Furious Charge." It doesn't say anything about other counter-attacking units benefiting from furious charge.

Second, the answer itself is a clear alteration of the rules in the actual codex. It is, essentially, a specific exception to the normal rules for Ragnar and his unit.

A rule in the Space Wolves codex or Space Wolves FAQ doesn't apply to other armies, and a rule which is specifically about Ragnar Blackmane doesn't apply to models which aren't Ragnar Blackmane. This ruling is both in the Space Wolves FAQ and specific to Ragnar Blackmane. It does not give anyone other than Ragnar Blackmane the ability to use Furious Assault while Counter-Attacking.

[Jwolf]

Ragnar has an ability which gives the Furious Charge USR. The FAQ discusses the interaction of two USRs, using the case of Ragnar. Attempting to say this FAQ only applies the Furious Charge USR to the Counter Attack USRin the case of Ragnar is ignoring the text of the FAQ and at best willfully ignorant - certainly nothing in the FAQ text lends itself to that conclusion.

[Fellend]

I must agree with Bean on this one. It's like Black Templar using the storm shields from Codex Space Marines. What's said about a specific character in SW codex does not affect all others untill GW has specifically said so.
No matter how much that logic sucks

[Jwolf]

I must agree with Bean on this one. It's like Black Templar using the storm shields from Codex Space Marines. What's said about a specific character in SW codex does not affect all others untill GW has specifically said so.
No matter how much that logic sucks

Really? The issue is either people holding this position aren't reading the FAQ or can't read the FAQ. The FAQ does not in any way apply FC to CA solely in Ragnar's case. It says FA works with CA, so Ragnar's rule would allow his squad to use it.

From the FAQ: "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."

Ragnar doesn't have a rule that gives something other than the Furious Charge USR - The FAQ doesn't state that War Howl works with Counter Attack, it says that Counter Attack activates Furious Assault.

[Bean]

Ragnar has an ability which gives the Furious Charge USR. The FAQ discusses the interaction of two USRs, using the case of Ragnar. Attempting to say this FAQ only applies the Furious Charge USR to the Counter Attack USRin the case of Ragnar is ignoring the text of the FAQ and at best willfully ignorant - certainly nothing in the FAQ text lends itself to that conclusion.

Except the fact that the FAQ itself is only relevant to the Space Wolves codex, and the fact the only rules text in that particular entry in the FAQ refers specifically to Ragnar. In fact, the only thing that FAQ actually does for with regards the Furious Assault/Counter Attack is add a one-line rule which says,

"Therefore Ragnar’s unit does indeed benefit from Furious Charge." "When Counter-Attacking" isn't even stated, though I'd generally willing to take it as implied, since the rule is presented in a question-answer format.

I would agree that their justification for the addition of that rule indicates that they feel counter-attacking and furious assaulting should generally work together, but the don't actually say that. It is never stated. No rule is added which says, "a unit with both Furious Assault and Counter Attack will benefit from Furious Assault when Counter-Attacking."

What you're trying to do is take an implication from their justification of a very specific ruling for a single codex and say that it constitutes a broad re-writing of the core rules. It does not. If GW had wanted to re-write the core rules, they could have easily made the change in their core rule FAQ. They did not. I don't know why, but what they chose to do only applies to Ragnar, because nowhere does it actually say it applies to anything else.


Nothing in the FAQ lends itself to the conclusion that the ruling does or was even intended to re-write the rules in any broader sense than they actually do. And all they actually do is provide an exception to the normal rules for Ragnar.

You can accuse me of being willfully ignorant, but I could easily respond to your unwarranted rudeness by saying that anyone who would try to apply this ruling to anything other than Ragnar and his unit would be blatantly power-gaming: putting a very clear-cut rule through an absurd wringer to squeeze every last drop of advantage out of the rules. Neither accusation would constitute a functional argument in favor of either position, so how about you try being polite, instead?

[Jwolf]

You can say whatever you like, Fellend. Doesn't change the fact that the FAQ says that Furious Assault is activated by Counter Assault, and that saying that the FAQ discussing the interaction of USRs applying only to the Codex that the FAQ is for is just making up a restriction.

The FAQ doesn't rewrite any rules; it clarifies an existing question regarding the intent of the people who wrote the rules on the interaction of two USRs. Nothing in the FAQ restricts a discussion of two BRB rules to the Space Wolf Codex.

I do care that I'm being rude - in fact, I'm being rude with intent - because I tire of people who want to make up rules to suit themselves or overcomplicate issues. Would it be preferable for the clarification to be in a revised BRB FAQ? Absolutely. But the fact is that GW doesn't do that and the clarification discusses how two basic USRs interact, not some sort of special rule that only Ragnar has that is like a USR - his rule gives the USR. Limiting this clarification to Ragnar is rewriting the rules.
The argument of "only applies to Space Wolves" is not supported by anything other than the fiction that because the document that the clarification is contained in is titled "Space Wolves FAQ" restricts the contents to questions about Space Wolves and the scope of answers to Space Wolves. This is charmingly naive, at best - you should read some modern laws.

[Bean]

You can say whatever you like, Fellend.

It's Bean. Fellend agreed with me, which I appreciate, but you're pretty clearly responding to me.


Doesn't change the fact that the FAQ says that Furious Assault is activated by Counter Assault,

Where? It doesn't say that anywhere. Provide a quote where it actually says this.



and that saying that the FAQ discussing the interaction of USRs applying only to the Codex that the FAQ is for is just making up a restriction.


An FAQ or Errata essentially provides changes to or clarifications of a particular document. In the case of a Errata or FAQ for a codex, the changes and clarifications are to and of that codex.

If I had a rule in my codex which said, "Because Chosen have the Infiltrator USR, they can come in off the back of an opponent's board edge," would you say, "that means that all Infiltrators can come in off the back of an opponent's board edge?"

I would hope not. For one thing, it'd be a rule in my codex--it doesn't apply to other codices. For another, it'd be a rule which applies specifically to one unit in my codex--it doesn't apply to other units, whether in my Codex or otherwise. The fact that it's written so as to imply that the justification comes from the core rules doesn't really change anything. The actual substance of the rule would be that Chosen can come on from the back edge--and that doesn't say anything about anyone else.

Rules in one codex don't apply to stuff in other codices. Rules for one unit don't apply to other units. Since erratas and FAQs are changes to or clarifications of the rules in a codex, they also do not apply to other codices, and specific entries which are specific to specific units don't apply to other units. That's not a made-up restriction--it's the way the rules work. There is no justification for claiming otherwise in this instance.





The FAQ doesn't rewrite any rules; it clarifies an existing question regarding the intent of the people who wrote the rules on the interaction of two USRs. Nothing in the FAQ restricts a discussion of two BRB rules to the Space Wolf Codex.


Except the fact that an FAQ for the Space Wolves Codex is a clarification of stuff in the Space Wovles Codex. It's not a clarification of stuff outside the space wolves codex. That's simply the nature of a document-specific FAQ.



I do care that I'm being rude - in fact, I'm being rude with intent - because I tire of people who want to make up rules to suit themselves or overcomplicate issues. Would it be preferable for the clarification to be in a revised BRB FAQ? Absolutely. But the fact is that GW doesn't do that and the clarification discusses how two basic USRs interact, not some sort of special rule that only Ragnar has that is like a USR - his rule gives the USR. Limiting this clarification to Ragnar is rewriting the rules.

Since we're agreeing to be rude, instead of polite (and don't think that your absurd rule-twisting is any more noble or deserving of civility) where does it say that units with Furious Assault benefit from it when Counter Attacking? Quote me a quote where it actually says that, or admit that, at this point, you're just lying.



The argument of "only applies to Space Wolves" is not supported by anything other than the fiction that because the document that the clarification is contained in is titled "Space Wolves FAQ" restricts the contents to questions about Space Wolves and the scope of answers to Space Wolves. This is charmingly naive, at best - you should read some modern laws.

How about the argument where I point out that the actual text of the entry says, specifically, "Therefore Ragnar’s unit does indeed benefit from Furious Charge." and fails to say anything about any other unit? I may be "charmingly naive" but your blatant misrepresentation of the facts can really be construed in no way other than malicious.

Also, I have read modern laws. It was a substantial part of my last job. Have you? If you had, you'd know that laws and rules are not analogous. The main difference is that laws are written with the knowledge that they will be interpreted and applied by a capable and neutral third party (i.e. a judge). Rules for a game don't have that luxury, and can't be written in the same way--nor should they be interpreted as though they had been written in that way.

Frankly, the fact that you feel modern law to be relevant to this situation at all only shows how little you understand what you're talking about.

The text of the entry is quite specific. It talks about Ragnar. It doesn't talk about anyone else. It gives Ragnar and his unit specific license to benefit from FA when CA-ing. It doesn't give that license to anyone else.

The closest thing you've got to support for your position is, as I said before, a non-specific implication in the justification of the ruling. Not only is that not a rule, it doesn't have enough content to function as a rule even if it were meant to be. Some equivalent of "units with FA and CA benefit from FA when using CA," would be required for your position to have any real support at all, and there is no equivalent of that in the actual text. Your assertion that there is is nothing more than a lie, and I tire of people who make things up to support their warped "interpretations" of the rules.

[pgarfunkle]

I'd have to side with the "applies to units other than units" side of the argument due to the wording "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". The author applies this to the example concerning Ragnar but as this is an example situation I don't see how it only applies to the Space Wolves. Further it is listed in the FAQ section of the document which GW refer to as their house rules as opposed to the errata which are corrections for a codex. This would suggest to me that it can apply to any army in which this situation arises.

[Bean]

On the other hand, by putting it in the FAQ section of the document, GW has explicitly stated that it is not be taken as an official rule, and merely a suggested house rule--which means that anyone insisting on its use would be cheating regardless of the implications they might attribute to it.

[Lord Azaghul]

After reading the Faq I fail to see how any other point of view other then jwolfs is correct.

Gw has done us a favor and clarifed a question we had with the IG.

The wording used in the FAQ is a quotation from the main rule book, not a SW specific rule.

The rules have not been changed at all, just a question answered.

[lobster-overlord]

On the other hand, by putting it in the FAQ section of the document, GW has explicitly stated that it is not be taken as an official rule, and merely a suggested house rule-

How are Errata and FAQ's not official? They are official clarifications and corrections that occur after printing from the publishers. Ignoring a FAQ is actually ignoring the interpretations of the rules as applied by GW, which is not "house" rules, but game creator rules.

[Bean]

How are Errata and FAQ's not official? They are official clarifications and corrections that occur after printing from the publishers. Ignoring a FAQ is actually ignoring the interpretations of the rules as applied by GW, which is not "house" rules, but game creator rules.

Because GW has explicitly said so themselves.



The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'

You can find it on their website, here:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat410004&categoryId=1000018&section=&aId=3400019

The errata portions of Errata and FAQ documents are actual, official changes to the rules. The FAQ portions are, in their their own words, no more than their own house rules--distinguished from the actual changes to the rules in a clear and intentional manner.

[Bean]

After reading the Faq I fail to see how any other point of view other then jwolfs is correct.

Gw has done us a favor and clarifed a question we had with the IG.

The wording used in the FAQ is a quotation from the main rule book, not a SW specific rule.

The rules have not been changed at all, just a question answered.

So, where in the answer does it say, "all units with Furious Assault benefit from it when using Counter Attack," or anything equivalent to it? Provide the quote, if it really says that.


edit:
Or, to look at it another way, if GW was trying to answer the broad question about FA and CA, why would they do it in the SW errata and FAQ document? Why wouldn't they just say, "FA and CA work together" or something like that? Why would they only mention Ragnar and his unit when writing it?

Honestly, the only reason I can think of that they might have done it the way they did, aside from presuming that they are all actually idiots, is that they wanted to be able to answer the question on a case-by-case basis. Why else present the answer within the context of a case-specific ruling instead of a general one? They have the authority, resources and ability to issue overarching changes to the core rules any time they want to, yet they didn't.

Jwolf's argument is no more and no less than this: that the wording of the answer indicates an intent for the answer to be broadly applied to all units with both FA and CA, yet this is contrary to the actual wording of the rule portion of the answer and it is clearly contradicted by the manner in which the answer is presented.

In fact, to presume that their intent was to issue an overarching errata for the main rulebook, one must also presume that the persons at GW responsible for that intent are utterly incompetent, since they could have fulfilled such an intent in a manner that actually worked, instead of doing it by obliquely hinting at their intent in a case-specific answer.

No, the only rational conclusion, here, is that this was a case-specific ruling;and that it was most likely done that way intentionally to allow for them to handle similar questions on a case by case basis in the future.

Jwolf's position fails from every possible perspective.

First, the ruling he uses to support his position was presented only as a suggested house rule.

Second, even if it were an errata, by RAW it says nothing about units other than Ragnar and his unit.

Third, even if it were an errata, it was clearly not their intent for it to be a broadly applicable errata, as evidenced by the fact a broadly applicable errata could easily have been presented in a more sensible setting and written to express that goal explicitly.

So, he fails in general. Even if we get over his general failing, his arguments fail from both a RAW and RAI perspective. His position is nothing more than wishful thinking, backed up by smoke and mirrors.

[Jwolf]

@Bean - You've got a long way to go to being rude (except for the calling names and "lying" stuff - that's almost too declasse to be properly rude, though), which probably says more good things about you than bad. I've had the misfortune to have been required to develop rude as a professional skill (one that is hard to list on the resume, and even stranger to read from a job description), so I'm quite good at it. :o

The phrase in question that says exactly what I say it does:
"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."

So, what we have here is the description of how the Counter-attack and Furious Charge USRs interact, using Ragnar's unit as an example of a unit with both rules gaining the benefit. There isn't really another valid reading, no matter the title of the document. I'm sorry if you can't make proper sense of the pair of sentences, but this is really not ambiguous and it does not even slightly imply that the USRs interact in this fashion only for Ragnar - to do so would require something along the lines of "Ragnar's War Howl allows Space Wolves affected by it to benefit from Counter-attack and Furious Charge." Nothing like that is included in the clarification of how the USRs interact.

To answer some of your points (regardless of their general lack of merit, I'm doing a complex bit of work that needs breaks, so I'm enjoying myself)

1) Text provided for CA activating FA above.
2) If Chosen have the Infiltrators USR and Chosen can enter from any board edge, this means nothing about Infitrators being able to enter from any board edge. A+B <> A. If there was an FAQ that said "Infiltrators may outflank. Because they are Elite slot Infiltrators, Chosen may Outflank onto any board edge on the roll of a 5-6" this would mean that Elite slot Infiltrators (Chosen included) would be able to Outflank onto any board edge on a roll of 5-6, and constitute a rules change that applied to all Elite slot infiltrators, regardless of Codex, even if the FAQ item was in a Chaos Space Marine FAQ.
3) Your point about rules from one Codex not applying to rules in other codices is entirely incorrect as USRs are concerned. USR are, as their name implies, Universal. Ragnar's War Howl specifically grants a USR, Space Wolves specifically have a USR, and those two USR interact according to the clarification given in the Space Wolf FAQ. If Space Wolves had their own Special Rule for either, say "Furriness Assault" instead of "Furious Assault," you would have grounds to differentiate; but with USRs, you do not.
4) The USRs are not defined in the Space Wolf Codex to be clarified in this FAQ - the Space Wolf Codex requires the BRB USRs to have any meaning whatsoever. Clearly it is impossible to limit the scope of this document to only Codex: Space Wolves and have this clarification mean anything at all.
5) My point about modern law was that titles of documents do not limit the scope of the document. Sorry I didn't make that clearf enough for you. The implication that laws and rules differ because laws are to be read by competent individuals and rules by persons other than competent is at best insulting to all involved in this discussion, though possibly relevant in your case. There isn't a lot of text in the rule, but somehow you can't glean wherein the interaction of the two USRs is described, which is a rather damning indictment of your reading skills.

And your last point: "Some equivalent of "units with FA and CA benefit from FA when using CA," would be required for your position to have any real support at all, and there is no equivalent of that in the actual text." - That is precisely what is in the actual text; Ragnar is used as an example of a unit that benefits from the combination of these two USRs.

[Jwolf]

So, where in the answer does it say, "all units with Furious Assault benefit from it when using Counter Attack," or anything equivalent to it? Provide the quote, if it really says that.

"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." (Space Wolves FAQ, P.4)

The general case is given and applied to Ragnar's unit. Ragnar provides nothing other than USRs to generate his unit being affected by Furious Charge when Counter Attacking.

[Jwolf]

So, where in the answer does it say, "all units with Furious Assault benefit from it when using Counter Attack," or anything equivalent to it? Provide the quote, if it really says that.


edit:
Or, to look at it another way, if GW was trying to answer the broad question about FA and CA, why would they do it in the SW errata and FAQ document? Why wouldn't they just say, "FA and CA work together" or something like that? Why would they only mention Ragnar and his unit when writing it?

Honestly, the only reason I can think of that they might have done it the way they did, aside from presuming that they are all actually idiots, is that they wanted to be able to answer the question on a case-by-case basis. Why else present the answer within the context of a case-specific ruling instead of a general one? They have the authority, resources and ability to issue overarching changes to the core rules any time they want to, yet they didn't.

Jwolf's argument is no more and no less than this: that the wording of the answer indicates an intent for the answer to be broadly applied to all units with both FA and CA, yet this is contrary to the actual wording of the rule portion of the answer and it is clearly contradicted by the manner in which the answer is presented.

In fact, to presume that their intent was to issue an overarching errata for the main rulebook, one must also presume that the persons at GW responsible for that intent are utterly incompetent, since they could have fulfilled such an intent in a manner that actually worked, instead of doing it by obliquely hinting at their intent in a case-specific answer.

No, the only rational conclusion, here, is that this was a case-specific ruling;and that it was most likely done that way intentionally to allow for them to handle similar questions on a case by case basis in the future.

Jwolf's position fails from every possible perspective.

First, the ruling he uses to support his position was presented only as a suggested house rule.

Second, even if it were an errata, by RAW it says nothing about units other than Ragnar and his unit.

Third, even if it were an errata, it was clearly not their intent for it to be a broadly applicable errata, as evidenced by the fact a broadly applicable errata could easily have been presented in a more sensible setting and written to express that goal explicitly.

So, he fails in general. Even if we get over his general failing, his arguments fail from both a RAW and RAI perspective. His position is nothing more than wishful thinking, backed up by smoke and mirrors.

I laughed, thank you. Their isn't anything case specific ruled on; a specific case is used to demonstrate the general case, which is rules on.

First, yes GW FAQs are written with the disclaimer that they are their own house rules. I don't know of any tournament that treats them as other than canon, though. Trying to dodge the validity of the GW FAQ isn't buying you much wiggle room.

Second, it discusses two USRs, not a special rule that Ragnar and his unit have. Two USRs. I don't see how discussion of ANY unit is required under those circumstances.

Thirdly, you're saying that GW would have to errata their BRB in order for this clarification to be valid. Clearly GW disagrees with you.

My argument is in fact based strictly on the text of the FAQ and rules, so RAW and RAI valid. Your counter seems to consist of " First, GW FAQs are just house rules; second, clarifications have to mention every unit that the rules clarified apply to to be valid; third, any clarification has to be an errata to be valid." Notice than none of your points actually counter anything about the argument, but are all very poorly written attempts to discredit the document's validity.

I make no implication of intent, I just report the words as written.

Thanks for the entertainment, Bean!

[BuFFo]

First, yes GW FAQs are written with the disclaimer that they are their own house rules. I don't know of any tournament that treats them as other than canon, though. Trying to dodge the validity of the GW FAQ isn't buying you much wiggle room.

This doesn't prove anything.

Organizers CHOOSE to use GW FAQs, but, that in no way makes them any more cannon than a rule anyone could make up. I have been to Tourneys where GW FAQs were not used. All rulings made by judges.

Simply put, FAQs are House Rules. He has as much wiggle room as he wants.

[Bean]

@Bean - You've got a long way to go to being rude (except for the calling names and "lying" stuff - that's almost too declasse to be properly rude, though), which probably says more good things about you than bad. I've had the misfortune to have been required to develop rude as a professional skill (one that is hard to list on the resume, and even stranger to read from a job description), so I'm quite good at it. :o

That made me chuckle. Fair enough.



The phrase in question that says exactly what I say it does:
"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."

Your literacy leaves more than a little to be desired.

"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,"

does not equal,

"Units with Furious Assault benefit from it when using Counter Attack,"

Which is something any reasonably competent third grader could have told you. Did you just sleep through your English classes in school?



So, what we have here is the description of how the Counter-attack and Furious Charge USRs interact, using Ragnar's unit as an example of a unit with both rules gaining the benefit. There isn't really another valid reading, no matter the title of the document.


Except the reading where it is talking about how the rules interact with regard to Ragnar specifically, which is oddly fortuitous since they do, are, in fact, talking specifically about Ragnar, in response to a question specifically about Ragnar, and both question and answer fail to mention any other unit, any broad application of the principle, or anything else that supports your 'reading' at all.

So, I guess you're wrong again.



I'm sorry if you can't make proper sense of the pair of sentences, but this is really not ambiguous and it does not even slightly imply that the USRs interact in this fashion only for Ragnar - to do so would require something along the lines of "Ragnar's War Howl allows Space Wolves affected by it to benefit from Counter-attack and Furious Charge." Nothing like that is included in the clarification of how the USRs interact.


Given the grasp of English you've demonstrated so far, any critique of another's reading comprehension, coming from you, is little more than laughable.

The only portion of that ruling in the FAQ which is, in any way, an answer to the portion of the question which regards the interaction of Furious Assault and Counter Attack is this:

"Therefore Ragnar’s unit does indeed benefit from Furious Charge."

This doesn't say anything about anyone other than Ragnar and his unit. The fact that you feel that it does shows nothing more than that you are not competent at reading. The subject of the sentence is "Ragnar's Unit." Not "all units with Furious Charge." Ragnar's unit does not equal all units with furious charge. If you honestly believe that it does, then you are an idiot, plain and simple.



To answer some of your points (regardless of their general lack of merit, I'm doing a complex bit of work that needs breaks, so I'm enjoying myself)


Your ability to judge the merit of a point is (at this point demonstrably) virtually non-extant, but, since I too am enjoying your feeble squawking, let's see what you've got.



1) Text provided for CA activating FA above.


Thanks, but I've already realized that you are, apparently, mostly illiterate. It doesn't need to be reinforced.



2) If Chosen have the Infiltrators USR and Chosen can enter from any board edge, this means nothing about Infitrators being able to enter from any board edge. A+B <> A. If there was an FAQ that said "Infiltrators may outflank. Because they are Elite slot Infiltrators, Chosen may Outflank onto any board edge on the roll of a 5-6" this would mean that Elite slot Infiltrators (Chosen included) would be able to Outflank onto any board edge on a roll of 5-6, and constitute a rules change that applied to all Elite slot infiltrators, regardless of Codex, even if the FAQ item was in a Chaos Space Marine FAQ.


An errata in an codex-specific FAQ and Errata document is functionally identical to a rule in the codex itself. Thus, a rule in the codex stating, "Because Chosen are X, Chosen can do X" and an errata saying, "because Chosen are X, Chosen can do X." If it isn't a change to the game at-large if it shows up in the codex, it isn't a change to the game at-large if it shows up in the codex's FAQ and Errata document. You can't have it both ways.





3) Your point about rules from one Codex not applying to rules in other codices is entirely incorrect as USRs are concerned. USR are, as their name implies, Universal. Ragnar's War Howl specifically grants a USR, Space Wolves specifically have a USR, and those two USR interact according to the clarification given in the Space Wolf FAQ. If Space Wolves had their own Special Rule for either, say "Furriness Assault" instead of "Furious Assault," you would have grounds to differentiate; but with USRs, you do not.


Again, this is entirely asinine.

Whether discussing a USR or not, a ruling only applies as far as it says it does. If the rule said "units in the Space Wolves codex benefit from FA when using CA," it would apply to units in the Space Wolves codex. Nothing more, and nothing less. In this case, the ruling is even more specific--talking only about Ragnar and his unit. It only applies to him because that's the only unit to which it actually says it applies.

No matter what else the ruling says, you can't pretend that it says something it doesn't in order to apply it more broadly than it says it applies. That would be cheating.

Consider this: Ragnar's rule specifically extends his USR, Furious Assault, to his unit. That's unusual, since, in the BRB, it states that Independent Characters don't extend their own USRs to units they attach.

Despite that, we don't look at Ragnar's entry and say, "Oh, look! I guess all ICs extend their USRs to their units!" We don't do that because we know that Ragnar's rule is a specific exception, and it only works for Ragnar and that one USR. It doesn't have to state that it's a specific exception, we simply know that it's a specific exception because, for it to be anything else, it would have to say so specifically.

The same is true in the case of this FAQ entry. It specifically applies to Ragnar. It doesn't apply to other units, because it doesn't say it does. This means that it is, functionally, an specific exception to the normal rules which applies to Ragnar exclusively. It doesn't have to spell that out, because this is the only thing it can be without adding more rules.

What you're trying to do is pretend that they've stated more in the ruling than they actually have. While it's a good thing to have an active imagination, you'll run into problems if you routinely allow yourself to believe that the things you've imagined are real, as you have in this thread.



4) The USRs are not defined in the Space Wolf Codex to be clarified in this FAQ - the Space Wolf Codex requires the BRB USRs to have any meaning whatsoever. Clearly it is impossible to limit the scope of this document to only Codex: Space Wolves and have this clarification mean anything at all.




5) My point about modern law was that titles of documents do not limit the scope of the document. Sorry I didn't make that clearf enough for you.

Fair. This is yet another way in which 40k differs from modern law. In 40k, the title of a document does very clearly limit the scope of the application of that document. I can't play Genestealers in my Chaos army. Why? Not because of any written rule, but because Codices are self-contained sets of rules for creating armies which fail to overlap except where explicitly stated.



The implication that laws and rules differ because laws are to be read by competent individuals and rules by persons other than competent is at best insulting to all involved in this discussion, though possibly relevant in your case. There isn't a lot of text in the rule, but somehow you can't glean wherein the interaction of the two USRs is described, which is a rather damning indictment of your reading skills.


Again, you demonstrate your inability to read. I didn't say that laws are meant to be read and interpreted by competent individuals. I said "that laws are written with the knowledge that they will be interpreted and applied by a capable and neutral third party."

In your haste to launch more baseless insults and fill the screen with more irrational garbage, you apparently skipped over the word "neutral."

Laws are intended to be interpreted and applied by competent impartial judges. This heavily informs the manner in which they are written, and allows them to be written in a manner which is not entirely concrete.

Rules are intended to be interpreted and applied by players during the course of the game. These players are, by definition, neither neutral nor impartial. This means that the rules should not be written in a manner which is not entirely concrete (and generally fail to be functional if they are). They should not be read in the same way as laws, because they should not be written in the same way as laws, and this is because they are intended to be interpreted and implied under very different sorts of circumstances.

Again, your indictment of my reading skills is little more than laughable in the face of the repeated and demonstrable failure of your own.



And your last point: "Some equivalent of "units with FA and CA benefit from FA when using CA," would be required for your position to have any real support at all, and there is no equivalent of that in the actual text." - That is precisely what is in the actual text; Ragnar is used as an example of a unit that benefits from the combination of these two USRs.

Again, Ragnar is not an "example." This is a gross and obvious misreading of the rules. Ragnar is the focus of the question and the focus of the answer. At no time is it even suggested that the ruling is intended to have broader implications, that Ragnar is an example, or that the ruling is about anything other than Ragnar at all. The notion that Ragnar is an example for a broader class of things is, again, entirely unsupported by the text. It is little more than a product of your imagination.

[Bean]

I laughed, thank you. Their isn't anything case specific ruled on; a specific case is used to demonstrate the general case, which is rules on.

Did you actually read it? The question refers solely to one specific case. The answer refers solely to one specific case. The entire entry is nothing more than one specific case. Further, there is no assertion, suggestion, or even implication that the specific case is to be taken as an example for a more general set of cases.



First, yes GW FAQs are written with the disclaimer that they are their own house rules. I don't know of any tournament that treats them as other than canon, though. Trying to dodge the validity of the GW FAQ isn't buying you much wiggle room.


Someone else brought up the distinction between the FAQ and Errata portion of the document. I don't know about the preferences of your tournament organizers, and I don't really care. As Buffo pointed out, the fact that several tournament organizers have chosen to implement those house rules isn't really relevant.

The point is that if anyone is going to bring up the the fact that it's an FAQ instead of an errata to support their position, they'd better be ready to accept the fact that GW has explicitly stated that the FAQ portions are to be considered non-binding suggestions.

I don't need much wiggle room, since my position has all the support and yours has none. I was merely shooting down a potential objection from another quarter.




Second, it discusses two USRs, not a special rule that Ragnar and his unit have. Two USRs. I don't see how discussion of ANY unit is required under those circumstances.


Which is irrelevant, since it discusses them entirely and solely within the context of their application to Ragnar and his unit.



Thirdly, you're saying that GW would have to errata their BRB in order for this clarification to be valid. Clearly GW disagrees with you.


I don't see any evidence at all that GW disagrees with me. All the evidence I see, again, suggests that GW didn't intend this to be an overarching errata at all, but rather a case specific one. Again, if it were intended to be over-arching, why write it as case-specific, regardless of where you decide to publish it? Why not just say, "Units with FA benefit from it when using CA?" The only good reason to do it the way they did is to leave the ruling case-specific. There's no other rational explanation.



My argument is in fact based strictly on the text of the FAQ and rules, so RAW and RAI valid. Your counter seems to consist of " First, GW FAQs are just house rules; second, clarifications have to mention every unit that the rules clarified apply to to be valid; third, any clarification has to be an errata to be valid." Notice than none of your points actually counter anything about the argument, but are all very poorly written attempts to discredit the document's validity.


You haven't actually presented an argument, and I haven't attempted to discredit the document's validity at all. Again, this is just you demonstrating your inability to read carefully.

These are my points. Try actually reading them, this time, instead of responding to thing you've only imagined that I wrote.

First, the ruling is an FAQ, which is just a GW house rule. This is unarguably true. It is not an attempt to discredit the document's validity, because the document never claimed that the ruling is anything more than a GW house rule. I'm not saying, "the document is invalid," I'm saying, "the document is exactly what GW has said it is: a suggested house rule."

Second, the ruling does have to state that it applies to a unit in order to apply to that unit. It doesn't necessarily have to mention every unit by name (nor have I ever suggested that it does) but it does have to include a unit within its scope [i]somehow in order to apply to that unit. This ruling includes only Ragnar within its scope. Thus it applies only to Ragnar.

It could easily have been written to include every possibly relevant unit within its scope by simply saying, "units with Furious Assault benefit from Furious Assault when using Counter Attack." But, it didn't. For some reason, the writers chose not to include these other units in its scope. Perhaps this is because they didn't want those units to be included.

Third, I stated that it didn't make sense for them to write the rule as they did if their intent were to have it be broadly applicable. Since this doesn't actually bear any resemblance at all to the manner in which you represented it, I'll let you have another go at it.

So, no. None of my points counter anything in your actual argument, because you haven't put forth an argument. On the other hand, none of my points were poorly written, and none of them attempted to discredit the document's validity.

Those were some pretty straw-men, Jwolf, but your attacks against them appear little more than pathetic to anyone with sense. You failed to understand, correctly represent, relevantly respond to, or actually contradict even a single one of my points. You have, once again, failed across the board.




I make no implication of intent, I just report the words as written.


And yet the words as written don't support your position at all. Huh.



Thanks for the entertainment, Bean!

No problem, and likewise!

[Culven]

"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,"

does not equal,

"Units with Furious Assault benefit from it when using Counter Attack,"
Why not? Do you disagree with the following:

Question: Does Ragnar's unit benefit from Furious Charge when using Counter-Attack?

Given: The unit has Counter-Attack.
Given: The unit has Furious Charge.
Given: 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,"

.'. It would seem that the conclusion is "Because the unit has Counter-Attack and Furious Charge, it benefits from from Furious Charge when assaulting.

True, the question and answer refer to Ragnar's unit, but I see nothing that would limit the application of the conclusion to only that unit. The implication is that it is the combination of the USRs that permits them to both be used, not the specific unit. So, what support is there to claim that having Counter-Attack and Furious Charge will allow Ragnar's unit to make use of both, but no other unit with both USRs may make use of them? Except for the assumption that the FAQ only refers to Ragnar's unit since it is used as an example and is the topic of the question, despite the fact that the answer clearly refers to the USRs when explaining why Ragnar's unit may benefit.


Except the reading where it is talking about how the rules interact with regard to Ragnar specifically, which is oddly fortuitous since they do, are, in fact, talking specifically about Ragnar, in response to a question specifically about Ragnar, and both question and answer fail to mention any other unit, any broad application of the principle, or anything else that supports your 'reading' at all.
So, you deny that the FAQ is explaining how the USRs work as support for why Ragnar's unit would benefit? There is nothing stating that only Ragnar's unit may use the USRs, and the explaination strongly implies that it is the USRs, and not the character that grant the Furious Charge bonuses.


Given the grasp of English you've demonstrated so far, any critique of another's reading comprehension, coming from you, is little more than laughable.
Could we please leave the ad hominem comment out on the playground? They really add nothing to the rules discussion.


The only portion of that ruling in the FAQ which is, in any way, an answer to the portion of the question which regards the interaction of Furious Assault and Counter Attack is this:
"Therefore Ragnar’s unit does indeed benefit from Furious Charge."
This doesn't say anything about anyone other than Ragnar and his unit.
The FAQ basically states "Yes, Ragnar's unit gains Furious Charge when using Counter-Attack because it has both USRs". Why would that not apply if one were to ask "Does Straken's unit gain Furious Charge when using Counter-Attack?". The logic would still hold. Straken's unit has Counter-Attack and Furious Charge.


The subject of the sentence is "Ragnar's Unit." Not "all units with Furious Charge." Ragnar's unit does not equal all units with furious charge.
The question may be in regards to Ragnar's unit, but the logic of the answer refers to the USRs and from there extrapolates that Ragnar's unit gains the bonus because it meets the criteria. This means that any other unit that meets the criteria will also benefit. If there was something explicitly stating that only Ragnar's unit may combine Furious Charge with Counter-Attack, then it would only apply to his unit. There is no such restriction, thus it will apply to any unit with both USRs.


If you honestly believe that it does, then you are an idiot, plain and simple.
Do you really believe that insulting others helps prove your point? :mad:


An errata in an codex-specific FAQ and Errata document is functionally identical to a rule in the codex itself.
Only if it refers to something only found in that codex. Are Counter-Attack and Furious Charge Space Wolves only?

Thus, a rule in the codex stating, "Because Chosen are X, Chosen can do X" and an errata saying, "because Chosen are X, Chosen can do X." If it isn't a change to the game at-large if it shows up in the codex, it isn't a change to the game at-large if it shows up in the codex's FAQ and Errata document.
It will depend upon how it is written. If it is something stating "Unit X may do Y because it has USR Z", then it will apply to any unit with USR Z. If it states "Unit X may do Y", then it will be a specific ruling. In this case, the ruling is "Unit R may use F in situation D because it has USR C and USR F". Thus Unit X may use F in situation D bescause it also has USR C and USR F.


. . . a ruling only applies as far as it says it does.
I agree, but I think you may be missing what the ruling is saying. It is saying, "Of course Ragnar's unit can use Furious Charge because it has Furious Charge and Counter-Attack". It isn't saying that only Ragnar's unit can use them together, making it a braod ruling.


If the rule said "units in the Space Wolves codex benefit from FA when using CA," it would apply to units in the Space Wolves codex.
Exactly, but it doesn't.

In this case, the ruling is even more specific--talking only about Ragnar and his unit. It only applies to him because that's the only unit to which it actually says it applies.
No it doesn't. Nothing states it only applies to that particular unit. It only refers to Ragnar's unit because that was the topic of the question. It is actually irrelevant. The reasoning for why the unit in question benefits only involved USRs. Because of this, it will apply to any unit with those USRs, including Ragnar's.


No matter what else the ruling says, you can't pretend that it says something it doesn't . . .
True.


Consider this: Ragnar's rule specifically extends his USR, Furious Assault, to his unit. That's unusual, since, in the BRB, it states that Independent Characters don't extend their own USRs to units they attach.
Despite that, we don't look at Ragnar's entry and say, "Oh, look! I guess all ICs extend their USRs to their units!" We don't do that because we know that Ragnar's rule is a specific exception, and it only works for Ragnar and that one USR.
Actaully, players who understand the game will know that USRs are never granted to the rest of the unit unless there is a specific rule that says a USR is granted. Even then, it isn't the USR that is granting the ability. It would be a model-specific special rule. Thus, this has nothing to do with the issue to hand.


The same is true in the case of this FAQ entry. It specifically applies to Ragnar.
Where? Nothing in the FAQ states "this only applies to Ragnar's unit" or anything to a similar effect.


It doesn't apply to other units, because it doesn't say it does.
It applies to other units because the rules cited are USRs which other units can and do have. Nothing limits the FAQ answer to a specific unit.


What you're trying to do is pretend that they've stated more in the ruling than they actually have.
I believe this applies to your interpretation rather than Jwolf's. You are infering a restriction to Ragnar's unit where none has been stated.

[Jwolf]

So, they say the USR Counter-Attack means that the USR Furious Charge works for Ragnar's unit. How on Earth is that not a discussion of the USRs applied to a single unit?

We both agree that the question asks about a specific unit, and that the answer contains a reference to the same specific unit. Where we differ so radically is that you maintain that because the question is asked about a specific unit and answered, that the fact that the answer references two USRs is meaningless or somehow inapplicable to the question of interaction between the two USRs. I can't fathom how you get there - in no portion of the answer is any indication given that there is something peculiar to Ragnar that makes these two USR interact one way for him and differently in every other case.

Can we at least agree that the answer describes the interaction of two USRs, or is there some barrier to that understanding? If you can agree that we are discussing the interaction of two USRs but want to maintain that this interaction applies only to the case of Ragnar, I will be clear we have reached the end of any possibly fruitful discussion, as you are clearly obdurate (whereas I am merely correct). :)

[BuFFo]

I did not bother to read the dictionaries beforehand, but, as far as I am concerned, if you are going to use FAQs, they are only used for the army the FAQ is for.

Personally, and its only MY OPINION, so don't take me out of context like everyone seems to do around here, the SW Errata and FAQ is ONLY for the Space Wolves, and no one else.

[Jwolf]

The issue, BuFFo, is that the interaction of 2 USRs that have been the subject of numerous questions since the start of 5e is addressed in the Space Wolves FAQ. The actual subject of the question (how does Counter-attack interact with Furious Charge in the case of Ragnar's ability) is meaningless unless it addresses issues from the BRB - which makes it the answer to a much larger than Space Wolves question.

[Caldera02]

This FAQ entry is almost identical to the Chaos FAQ in reference to Ahriman. When the question asks about a situation involving Ahriman's abilities, the answer refers to general rules to answer them. Stating that he alone can cast more than one psyhic shooting attack in one round where others cannot, but then also goes on to say he can cast multiple other non-shooting spells, even multiple times. Therefore setting a precdent for other psykers to do the same thing.

It's a case of answering the question so that it pertains to all the rules, not just the specfic unit questioned.

[BuFFo]

The real issue is that you guys treat a FAQ as its canon.

Officially, nothing has changed for Counter Attack or any other USR due to the SW FAQs.

An Errata is NEEDED, not a house rule.

[Bean]

So, they say the USR Counter-Attack means that the USR Furious Charge works for Ragnar's unit. How on Earth is that not a discussion of the USRs applied to a single unit?


It is a discussion of the USRs as applied to a single, specific unit. That basically just supports my position.



We both agree that the question asks about a specific unit, and that the answer contains a reference to the same specific unit. Where we differ so radically is that you maintain that because the question is asked about a specific unit and answered, that the fact that the answer references two USRs is meaningless or somehow inapplicable to the question of interaction between the two USRs.

Seems about right, yes.



I can't fathom how you get there - in no portion of the answer is any indication given that there is something peculiar to Ragnar that makes these two USR interact one way for him and differently in every other case.

I get there by noting that the only portion of the FAQs answer which actually constitutes a revelation is the sentence which says, "Therefore Ragnar’s unit does indeed benefit from Furious Charge." As a suggested house rule and answer to the question, this sentence has only enough content to allow Ragnar's unit to benefit from Furious Charge when counter-attacking. It simply doesn't say anything about any other units, and so it doesn't affect any other units. Rules only do exactly what they say they do. They don't do anything else. All this rule actually says it does is allow Ragnar's unit to benefit from Furious Charge (while counter-attacking, thanks to the context of the question). It doesn't say it does anything else. Therefor, it doesn't.

I don't know why they would choose to have Ragnar's unit treat those two USRs differently from how every other unit treats them. I don't care. The fact is that they do, but they have not said nearly enough to suggest that they feel other units should treat those two USRs in the same way. Even if they had suggested that, the rule they actually wrote fails to accomplish it.




Can we at least agree that the answer describes the interaction of two USRs, or is there some barrier to that understanding?

Yes. The answer does describe the interaction of two USRs. It just only discusses that interaction as it is brought about by one particular unit. Though it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that the USRs should interact differently when triggered by one unit than they do when triggered by another, it is certainly well within Games Workshop's jurisdiction to say that they do, and that is exactly what they have done, here.



If you can agree that we are discussing the interaction of two USRs but want to maintain that this interaction applies only to the case of Ragnar, I will be clear we have reached the end of any possibly fruitful discussion, as you are clearly obdurate (whereas I am merely correct). :)

Yes, I think we probably have. It was entertaining, but trying to help the stubbornly irrational (such as yourself) gets boring after a while. It should be clear to everyone with sense that your position lacks any sort of legitimate support, and that's all I was really trying to accomplish.

Cheers,
-Bean

[Bean]

Why not? Do you disagree with the following:

Question: Does Ragnar's unit benefit from Furious Charge when using Counter-Attack?

Given: The unit has Counter-Attack.
Given: The unit has Furious Charge.
Given: 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,"

.'. It would seem that the conclusion is "Because the unit has Counter-Attack and Furious Charge, it benefits from from Furious Charge when assaulting.


It does seem that way. Unfortunately, the fact that they've managed to misread their own rule and come to an erroneous conclusion doesn't really matter, since they have the authority to write whatever rules they want. Fortunately, the only new rule they actually wrote, here, is that Ragnar's unit gets to benefit from Furious Assault when Counter Attacking. It's odd that Ragnar's unit works differently from all other FA/CA units, but, again, it's certainly GW's prerogative to make such a thing so.

If they'd wanted to make all FA/CA units work that way, that's the rule they'd have written. They didn't write that rule, and the only rational conclusion to which one can come is that they didn't want to.



True, the question and answer refer to Ragnar's unit, but I see nothing that would limit the application of the conclusion to only that unit.

Do you see anything which extends the application of the ruling beyond Ragnar's unit? Something that says, "and other units can benefit from FA when CA-ing, too? No. There is nothing of that sort there. The rules are written such that they don't tell you what you can't do--they tell you what you can do, and by implication prohibit you from doing anything else. This rule tells you that Ragnar's unit can benefit from FA when counter-attacking. It doesn't tell you that anyone else can. In fact, no rules tell you that anyone else can. Thus, no-one else can. It's really quite simple.



The implication is that it is the combination of the USRs that permits them to both be used, not the specific unit.


That is the implication, but that implication is wrong. Nothing in the actual rules, including the rule they quoted, allows Ragnar's unit to benefit from FA when counter-attacking--and it doesn't matter. They could have said, "Purple turtles fly on luminescent wings of cotton candy, therefore Ragnar's unit benefits from Furious Assault." and it would have made exactly as much sense and had exactly the same effect on the rules.

The justification for a ruling is just that--the justification. The ruling itself is separate, and the justification isn't a ruling. The justification doesn't affect what the ruling does or how it works, regardless of what it is.



So, what support is there to claim that having Counter-Attack and Furious Charge will allow Ragnar's unit to make use of both, but no other unit with both USRs may make use of them? Except for the assumption that the FAQ only refers to Ragnar's unit since it is used as an example and is the topic of the question, despite the fact that the answer clearly refers to the USRs when explaining why Ragnar's unit may benefit.


The fact that no rule, errata, or FAQ says that any unit other than Ragnar's unit can benefit from FA when counter-attacking. It is not an assumption that this FAQ only refers to Ragnar's unit, it is a cold, hard fact. Read it yourself. Where does it refer to any units other than Ragnars? It does not. Ragnar's unit is not being used as an example by which another question is illustrated. It is the sole focus of both the question and the answer.

What support is there for the claim that the rule applies to anything other than Ragnar's unit? Where is any other unit mentioned? Where does it say that Ragnar's unit is being used as an example to illustrate a different question than the one that was asked? Where is that question written? Where is the answer to it written.

Your position requires that all of those things, the other question, the other answer, the assertion that Ragnar's unit is just an example, and reference to other units (or at least a broader category of units) in order to be rational. However, not one of those things actually shows up in the FAQ. Not one.

Where is your support? It is nowhere, because it does not exist. You have imagined it, and asserted it as fact.



So, you deny that the FAQ is explaining how the USRs work as support for why Ragnar's unit would benefit? There is nothing stating that only Ragnar's unit may use the USRs, and the explaination strongly implies that it is the USRs, and not the character that grant the Furious Charge bonuses.


Yes, I deny that the FAQ is explaining how the USRs work. Whether it's implied or not (and, as I've said, I don't think it actually is) it is never stated or asserted that the answer is meant as an explanation of how the USRs work. In every part, the question and the answer both address Ragnar's unit specifically and exclusively.

There is nothing stating that only Ragnar's unit may use the USRs in combination; that much is true. However, it is stated that they can, and nothing anywhere states that anyone else can. That combination is sufficient to make it so that no one else can.




Could we please leave the ad hominem comment out on the playground? They really add nothing to the rules discussion.


If you'd read my earlier posts, you'd note that I specifically asked Jwolf if he wanted to do this politely, and he specifically responded by saying that he did not. He began the discussion by insulting me. He continued to insult me, and I responded by insulting him. In no case did either of us make an ad-hominem argument (perhaps you should look it up, since you clearly do not know what it means) and I feel that our behavior was, on the whole, fairly amicable. Certainly, our rancor was by agreement.



The FAQ basically states "Yes, Ragnar's unit gains Furious Charge when using Counter-Attack because it has both USRs". Why would that not apply if one were to ask "Does Straken's unit gain Furious Charge when using Counter-Attack?".


No it would not, because the rule does not say that it does.



The logic would still hold. Straken's unit has Counter-Attack and Furious Charge.


If there were any logic supporting the ruling at all...well, you still wouldn't have a point. The rationale behind a rule doesn't change what the rule actually does. The rule does what it says it does. No more and no less. No matter what justification they give for it.

In this particular case, of course, there is no actual logic behind the ruling, or, at least, the logic is not what they alleged it to be, so that point is pretty much moot.




Again, no, it doesn't mean that any other unit that meets the criteria will also benefit. I've said this several times now, but I'll say it again and keep saying it as long as it takes: a rule only does exactly what it says it does: nothing more and nothing less. This rule does not say that any other unit meeting a certain set of criteria benefits, thus it does not have that effect.

You can't just pretend that a rule does something other than what it says it does. I might as well pretend that the rule which tells me that models may shoot during the shooting phase also means that I win the game every time. That rule doesn't say that I win every time, just as the ruling in the SW Errata and FAQ doesn't say that anyone other than Ragnar's unit can benefit from FA when counter-attacking.

[quote]
If there was something explicitly stating that only Ragnar's unit may combine Furious Charge with Counter-Attack, then it would only apply to his unit. There is no such restriction, thus it will apply to any unit with both USRs.


There is no rule explicitly stating that I don't win automatically. Guess that means I win automatically! Woohoo!

Your reasoning is almost absurdly flawed. You can only do what the rules tell you you can do, not whatever the rules fail to expressly forbid. There is no rule which allows other units to benefit from FA when counter-attacking, thus they do not. Neither a rule which expressly forbids them from doing so, nor a rule which explicitly states that this ruling does not apply to them is actually required.



Do you really believe that insulting others helps prove your point? :mad:


Nope, and I never suggested that I did. I insulted Jwolf because he insulted me and made it clear that he didn't want to conduct our discussion with civility. It has nothing to do with the strength of my argument. It just helped to make this discussion more entertaining for me.

Of course, I note that you don't jump on his argument for including insults. Then again, this sort of double standard, from the same person as the "arguments" you've posted above, isn't really surprising.




Only if it refers to something only found in that codex. Are Counter-Attack and Furious Charge Space Wolves only?


I disagree with the premise. I maintain that an errata for a specific document is a change to that document and that document only.




I agree, but I think you may be missing what the ruling is saying. It is saying, "Of course Ragnar's unit can use Furious Charge because it has Furious Charge and Counter-Attack". It isn't saying that only Ragnar's unit can use them together, making it a braod ruling.


It does, however, say that Ragnar's unit can use them together, and it doesn't say that anyone else can. Again, the justification for the rule isn't a rule itself, and this rule is very clear, very specific, and only applicable to one unit--Ragnar's unit. The justification doesn't change what the rule actually says.



Exactly, but it doesn't.


You are correct. It is even more specific and says that Ragnar's unit benefits. What's your point?



No it doesn't. Nothing states it only applies to that particular unit. It only refers to Ragnar's unit because that was the topic of the question. It is actually irrelevant. The reasoning for why the unit in question benefits only involved USRs. Because of this, it will apply to any unit with those USRs, including Ragnar's.


Again, the fact that it doesn't state that it applies to anything else means that it does not. That's just the way the rules work. The justification is irrelevant, because it does not change what the rule actually says.



Actaully, players who understand the game will know that USRs are never granted to the rest of the unit unless there is a specific rule that says a USR is granted. Even then, it isn't the USR that is granting the ability. It would be a model-specific special rule. Thus, this has nothing to do with the issue to hand.


And players who understand the game will know that units which Counter Charge don't benefit from Furious Assault when doing so unless there is a specific rule saying otherwise. In this case, such a specific rule exists for Ragnar's unit, but does not exist for anyone else.



Where? Nothing in the FAQ states "this only applies to Ragnar's unit" or anything to a similar effect.


It doesn't have to. Ragnar's unit is the only unit mentioned in the rule. No other unit or category of units is mentioned. Thus, the rule doesn't apply to any other units or category of units.

Where does it say that it does apply to other units? Nowhere. Thus, again, your position is just wrong.



It applies to other units because the rules cited are USRs which other units can and do have.

This isn't sufficient. I can't imagine why anyone would think that it is.



Nothing limits the FAQ answer to a specific unit.


Nothing except the fact that the FAQ only talks about one specific unit--and that is perfectly sufficient to limit the FAQ's scope to that one unit.




I believe this applies to your interpretation rather than Jwolf's. You are infering a restriction to Ragnar's unit where none has been stated.

No, I'm not 'inferring' any restriction. I'm simply pointing out that the rule only talks about Ragnar's unit. It doesn't talk about anyone else. Thus, it doesn't apply to anyone else. It's not restricted from applying to them, it just doesn't because it doesn't say that it does.

What you and Jwolf are doing is pretending that something in the FAQ says that the ruling applies to other stuff. However, no part of the FAQ actually does say that. So, again, you can't pretend that the rule says something that it doesn't say. My argument does not rely on doing so and yours clearly does. Thus, yours is flawed, and your position erroneous.

There's really no other rational conclusion.


edit:

Also, Buffo is right on a level that supersedes our squabbling: to actually effect a change on the rules, an errata would be required. What we got was nothing more than a suggested house rule. You're free to play with whatever house rules you want, as long as you can get your opponent to agree to them, but as far as the actual rules of the game are concerned, combining FA and CA is still illegal for everyone, Rangar's unit included.

There's really no way to argue against that.

[Caldera02]

Seeing as how the people who MADE the game wrote these so called "house rules", decided to clear up certain things in a FAQ for everyone to play with. Yea that just about sums up what they intended to happen with their rules. Yea that equals canon to me. So you can lawyer your position however you like but I think there is a pretty darn good reason why the majority of tournaments support the FAQ's. Just because you fellows want to disregard them because you don't like it doesn't invalidate them.

[Nabterayl]

Bean, the question is about Ragnar's unit. The answer is a general statement about the interaction between Furious Charge and Counter-Attack, followed by an explanation of how that general statement applies to Ragnar's unit.

As for whether you find the answer to a FAQ to be authoritative, that's up to you and your opponent, of course. But your insistence that this is anything other than a specific question that prompts a general answer and an application to to the specific question baffles me.

[rle68]

i simply love how people who want to have a rule apply to their army falls in the camp this affects me

Bean is absolutely correct and jwolf you can be an arrogant *** all you want i dont care if you are a moderator or not politeness counts you want respect you better give it

ok if i take your logic any faq written then applies to all armies

do you know how stupid you sound right now?

[Culven]

It does seem that way. Unfortunately, the fact that they've managed to misread their own rule and come to an erroneous conclusion doesn't really matter, since they have the authority to write whatever rules they want.
I interpret the intent of the FAQ differently. Yes, by RaW, Furious Charge is not triggered by Counter-Attack, and the FAQ doesn't actually change RaW. However, it seems to indicate RaI, leaving us to ignore RaW. Thus, the implication is that Counter-Attack does trigger Furious Charge, which is why Ragnar's unit benefits from it. This also means that any other unit with Counter-Attack and Furious Charge would gain the benefit for the same reason.


Fortunately, the only new rule they actually wrote, here, is that Ragnar's unit gets to benefit from Furious Assault when Counter Attacking.
I disagree that that is even a rule. It appears to be a clarification using nothing more than a citation of existing USRs as support for it.


Do you see anything which extends the application of the ruling beyond Ragnar's unit?
Just that fact that the FAQ cites the Counter-Attack rule as justification for why the unit's Furous Charge USR applies. Both are USRs which other units can and do have.


The rules are written such that they don't tell you what you can't do--they tell you what you can do, and by implication prohibit you from doing anything else.
I am quite aware that games use permissive rules, listing what is permitted,but I still hold that the Ragnar question is a clarification, not new rules. It is used to explain the writers' intent for the interaction between Counter-Attack and Furious Charge. It doesn't introduce any new rules or change the wording of existing rules (though I wish it did if GW truely intends to contradict their own RaW).


They could have said, "Purple turtles fly on luminescent wings of cotton candy, therefore Ragnar's unit benefits from Furious Assault." and it would have made exactly as much sense and had exactly the same effect on the rules.
I can understand what you are trying to say here, but the fact remains that GW chose to use an actual USR as the justification for why the unit benefits instead of some random comment or even a fluffy reason such as "Ragnar's unit is da bestest". By using that USR, the implication is made that it is sufficient to trigger Furious Charge.


You have imagined it, and asserted it as fact.
Actually, I have inferred the intent, since GW chose to write an FAQ that puts forth an apparent intent that contradicts RaW and does nothing to change RaW so that the rules match the intent.


Yes, I deny that the FAQ is explaining how the USRs work. Whether it's implied or not (and, as I've said, I don't think it actually is) it is never stated or asserted . . .
May I remind you that we are discussion GW rules here? Without infering intent, the game wouldn't work because of the lack of stated rules and the contradictions of some which are stated. If we can't infer the intent of the FAQ, then there is the potential of games coming to a standstill as the players argue. However, as BuFFo stated, the FAQ doesn't officially change the rules, and it is only a "house rule" that GW has put out. Then again, that seems to be their entire mindset now when writing rules. :(


If you'd read my earlier posts, you'd note that I specifically asked Jwolf if he wanted to do this politely, and he specifically responded by saying that he did not. He began the discussion by insulting me.[/qutoe]
As I read the posts, Jwolf made a general comment which you took to be directed at you and you were the first to directly insult another poster by calling him a liar. Frankly, you two may be chums and it may be all good humoured fun, but that doesn't come across on a forum. It looks like you are just attacking him as a person (i.e. making ad hominem comments, and yes, I do know what it means), which just makes you seem like a jerk who feels the need to be right, even if it requires forcing others to abandon the discussioin because of the hostile atmosphere. I'm not saying that you are, as I do not know you, but that is how it seems to me.

[QUOTE=Bean;47687]Certainly, our rancor was by agreement.
You two may have agreed to it, but I still feel it is inappropriate for an open forum. Save the "smack talk" for game night, some civility is called for on a forum which anyone can access.


It does, however, say that Ragnar's unit can use them together, . . .
I still believe that this interpretation requires a logical leap that I cannot make. The FAQ essentially states "Since the unit has Counter-Attack, it can use Furious Charge." It does not state "Ragnar's unit can use Counter-Attack and Furious Charge together". Even by your own logic, your claim is untrue since the FAQ doesn't actually state as such. It is your inference that this is the case, whereas I am infering that it is the combination of the two USRs and not the specific unit that defines whether a unit would benefit.

Seeing as you will obviously not abandon your position, nor I mine, and adding that I grow weary of your ad hominem comments against myself (who did not agree to be uncivil), I bid you good day.

[rle68]

I interpret the intent of the FAQ differently. Yes, by RaW, Furious Charge is not triggered by Counter-Attack, and the FAQ doesn't actually change RaW. However, it seems to indicate RaI, leaving us to ignore RaW. Thus, the implication is that Counter-Attack does trigger Furious Charge, which is why Ragnar's unit benefits from it. This also means that any other unit with Counter-Attack and Furious Charge would gain the benefit for the same reason.


I disagree that that is even a rule. It appears to be a clarification using nothing more than a citation of existing USRs as support for it.


Just that fact that the FAQ cites the Counter-Attack rule as justification for why the unit's Furous Charge USR applies. Both are USRs which other units can and do have.


I am quite aware that games use permissive rules, listing what is permitted,but I still hold that the Ragnar question is a clarification, not new rules. It is used to explain the writers' intent for the interaction between Counter-Attack and Furious Charge. It doesn't introduce any new rules or change the wording of existing rules (though I wish it did if GW truely intends to contradict their own RaW).


I can understand what you are trying to say here, but the fact remains that GW chose to use an actual USR as the justification for why the unit benefits instead of some random comment or even a fluffy reason such as "Ragnar's unit is da bestest". By using that USR, the implication is made that it is sufficient to trigger Furious Charge.


Actually, I have inferred the intent, since GW chose to write an FAQ that puts forth an apparent intent that contradicts RaW and does nothing to change RaW so that the rules match the intent.


May I remind you that we are discussion GW rules here? Without infering intent, the game wouldn't work because of the lack of stated rules and the contradictions of some which are stated. If we can't infer the intent of the FAQ, then there is the potential of games coming to a standstill as the players argue. However, as BuFFo stated, the FAQ doesn't officially change the rules, and it is only a "house rule" that GW has put out. Then again, that seems to be their entire mindset now when writing rules. :(

[QUOTE=Bean;47687]If you'd read my earlier posts, you'd note that I specifically asked Jwolf if he wanted to do this politely, and he specifically responded by saying that he did not. He began the discussion by insulting me.[/qutoe]
As I read the posts, Jwolf made a general comment which you took to be directed at you and you were the first to directly insult another poster by calling him a liar. Frankly, you two may be chums and it may be all good humoured fun, but that doesn't come across on a forum. It looks like you are just attacking him as a person (i.e. making ad hominem comments, and yes, I do know what it means), which just makes you seem like a jerk who feels the need to be right, even if it requires forcing others to abandon the discussioin because of the hostile atmosphere. I'm not saying that you are, as I do not know you, but that is how it seems to me.


You two may have agreed to it, but I still feel it is inappropriate for an open forum. Save the "smack talk" for game night, some civility is called for on a forum which anyone can access.


I still believe that this interpretation requires a logical leap that I cannot make. The FAQ essentially states "Since the unit has Counter-Attack, it can use Furious Charge." It does not state "Ragnar's unit can use Counter-Attack and Furious Charge together". Even by your own logic, your claim is untrue since the FAQ doesn't actually state as such. It is your inference that this is the case, whereas I am infering that it is the combination of the two USRs and not the specific unit that defines whether a unit would benefit.

Seeing as you will obviously not abandon your position, nor I mine, and adding that I grow weary of your ad hominem comments against myself (who did not agree to be uncivil), I bid you good day.

actually it does mention ragnars unit in the FAQ "therefore ragnars unit does benefit from furious charge" end quote just to be precise.. it doesnt say ragnar and any other units with furious charge and counterattack benefit it only says his

[Jwolf]

If you actually have nothing to say, please refrain from grabbing masive quote blocks and pasting them over your nothing to say - I'm looking at you, rle68.

I don't see any way to bridge the logical and reading comprehension gap here. My side, which is technically accurate, understands that says "Ragnar has Counter Attack, Ragnar has Furious Charge, therefore Ragnar has Furious Charge during Counter Attacks" does not require nor restrict itself to a particular subject, as there is nothing whatsoever special (implicitly or explicitly) about Ragnar to make his use of CA and FA different from any other model with two USRs. The other side seems to be stuck on "But it says Ragnar, not everyone" or even less sensible arguments, which I are presented either due to ignorance or love of a good fight (and I become progressively more certain that Bean is in the second category, as he clearly appears to be literate outside of this single phrase).

So let's wrap this one up.