Counter-attack and Furious Charge

[herosson]

blam-O-

[Bean]

I couldn't help but chuckle. Thanks for the heads up.

[Neonknight]

The new SW FAQ (19.1.2010) notes that Furious Charges doesn't benefit or work together with Counter-Attack anymore.
Maybe GW likes to irritate people and make them mad. :)

[MarshalAdamar]

Boo

[entendre_entendre]

The new SW FAQ (19.1.2010) notes that Furious Charges doesn't benefit or work together with Counter-Attack anymore.
Maybe GW likes to irritate people and make them mad. :)

or maybe they realized how ridiculous this would be (why is that common sense showing? what's happening? :p ). though i find it incredible that they actually fixed it in the time they did, usually they just wait 5 or 6 m- years lol.

[Lerra]

It specifically says in the Blood Claw entry that their +2 attacks only works when they initiate the charge and can't be triggered by counter-attack.

[Legoklods]

does counter-attack still work with berserk charge? otherwise blood claws really are'nt worth it!:confused:

[Duke]

Though I don't like that they are doing it in this manner I like this ruling better.

Duke

[Duke]

Well, it just wouldn't be GW if the rules were simple, straightforwad and didn't contradict themselves.

Duke

[Bean]

Me too, since the other one managed to directly contradict the actual rules while offering no rational justification at all.

[Javin]

Well they cleaned this one up quickly. Now if only they could be so quick with everything else.

[david5th]

Well, it just wouldn't be GW if the rules were simple, straightforwad and didn't contradict themselves.

Duke

That is a perfect summary of 40K. Still love it though.:)

[BuFFo]

Well, it just wouldn't be GW if the rules were simple, straightforwad and didn't contradict themselves.

Duke

Ironically, the original ruling IS straight forward, and it was the House Rule made up by a non GW entity that made GW look stupid in this instance. So the ruling was only contradictory because of a non GW entity, and yet you accuse GW of creating confusing rules (which the majority of the rules are straightforward) because of the FAQ fuq up.

:eek:

[DarkLink]

Ironically, the original ruling IS straight forward, and it was the House Rule made up by a non GW entity that made GW look stupid in this instance. So the ruling was only contradictory because of a non GW entity, and yet you accuse GW of creating confusing rules (which the majority of the rules are straightforward) because of the FAQ fuq up.

:eek:

From what I understand, when GW released the SW FAQ, the English answer was that FC and CA stack, while in German the answer was that they didn't. GW then had to go back and change one of them, ultimately choosing to change the English one.

[BuFFo]

From what I understand, when GW released the SW FAQ, the English answer was that FC and CA stack, while in German the answer was that they didn't. GW then had to go back and change one of them, ultimately choosing to change the English one.

Those Germans and their holier than thou translations.... Curses! :mad:

[Neonknight]

It's just that little word "not" that makes the difference. Even in the German FAQ. :D