TWC & Special weapons

[Spazmonkey]

"Q. Does a Thunderwolf Cavalry model with a special close combat weapon (eg a thunder hammer) still have rending attacks?

 

A. No. The description of the Thunderwolf mount on page 62 says that it ‘… has the Rending special rule in close combat with any attack that does not use a special close combat weapon’. This applies to Thunderwolf Cavalry as well (and Canis Wolfborn, for that matter)."

 

So what is the point of Canis having the rending rule if he can not ever use it?

 

This is why I side with a model having a choice to use either the rending rule or his other special weapon in CC. Otherwise what is the point.

 

 

the scary thing is I dont think this is what GW intended, I think they have just stuffed it up....

[Grey Mage]

"Q. Does a Thunderwolf Cavalry model with a special close combat weapon (eg a thunder hammer) still have rending attacks?

 

A. No. The description of the Thunderwolf mount on page 62 says that it ‘… has the Rending special rule in close combat with any attack that does not use a special close combat weapon’. This applies to Thunderwolf Cavalry as well (and Canis Wolfborn, for that matter)."

 

So what is the point of Canis having the rending rule if he can not ever use it?

 

This is why I side with a model having a choice to use either the rending rule or his other special weapon in CC. Otherwise what is the point.

Like Spazmonkey said, I think they just screwed the pooch on this one.

[Orphus]

Uughh my brain :P

All this confusion over which rule applies over the other is frustrating.

i'm sure what GW had in mind was a very cool model/piece of wargear but sometimes i feel like GW don't even understand their own rules.

Maybe this might get FAQed in the future but for the time being it'll either come down to mutual agreement or players becoming rules lawyers till someone gets what they want.

Not purchasing additional weoponry wargear= Rending

Adding SCCW = no rending. just my 2 cents.

[Dewi Sant]

Seems to me that GW just rush out publications. I'm going to send them an email and link in the thread. I'll keep you posted on what they say.

[Valerian]

Seems to me that GW just rush out publications. I'm going to send them an email and link in the thread. I'll keep you posted on what they say.

 

That would be good. I would be surprised if you get an actual thoughtful answer though. I am quite willing to bet that although Phil Kelly wrote the codex (or at least lead the team that wrote it), he probably had absolutely nothing to do with writing the errata and/or FAQ that was released 3 months later. If GW would just make it a policy that the lead designer for each publication was responsible for "clean up" afterward, I think we would get a much better end result. Afterall, they are the only ones that truly know what they intended, so when they get the feedback and see how the things that they have written get interpreted, and actually turn out on the tabletop, they can take the approprate steps to make it right.

 

 

Valerian

[Snorri Goresson]

hay guys

 

i know what the faq says

 

but could the faq be a miss print, i mean, i was reading the codex and under canis and the TWC. Now when you look at Canis its says he has the rending rule also if you look at the TWC it also says they have the rending rule but under it, it says close coombat attacks only. implying that the TWM rules apply to them not Canis

 

i think they mucked up the faq, would be nice if they looked at this

 

and yeah i would play it that he can choose which attacks he uses, rending or sccw

 

Snorri

[Max_Dammit]

I can live with this ruling, but the Njal ruling is just dumb

[Valerian]

I can live with this ruling, but the Njal ruling is just dumb

 

Sometimes, you just have to pull out the following, directly from the Studio:

 

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

 

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'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

 

- Games Development, November 2008

 

Thanks GW, for posting this. Afterall, sometimes your "Studio House Rules" are frakking moronic.

 

Valerian

[Snorri Goresson]

I can live with this ruling, but the Njal ruling is just dumb

 

whats his ruling, or could you post a link to it so i can read it, as i love Njal

 

cheers

 

Snorri

[Valerian]

I can live with this ruling, but the Njal ruling is just dumb

 

whats his ruling, or could you post a link to it so i can read it, as i love Njal

 

cheers

 

Snorri

 

Q. How do Njal Stormcaller’s Driving Gale and Living Hurricane effects work if the Space Wolves player is the player going second?

 

A. These two abilities have no real effect in games where the Space Wolves player is going second – the tempest is yet to rage.

 

V

[Snorri Goresson]

sorry to derail the thread

 

to me that reads if you go second during the game his affect doesnt work

 

it should say that this only applyes to turn one, because you havent roled for the temeste effect yet

 

Snorri

[Valerian]

sorry to derail the thread

 

to me that reads if you go second during the game his affect doesnt work

 

it should say that this only applyes to turn one, because you havent roled for the temeste effect yet

 

Snorri

 

I'm not sure I understand exactly what your point is, but under Njal's entry, it says under the Lord of Tempests special rule to roll a dice and use the chart to determine the effects that last "until the end of that game turn." Driving Gale and Living Hurricane affect your enemy's Shooting and Movement, so if you are going 2nd, then your enemy will have already fired his weapons and made his movements prior to your rolling for Njal's Tempests effects. This means that Driving Gale or Living Hurricane would only be "active" during your player turn, and would do absolutely nothing to your enemy.

 

By RAW, this is the correct interpretation that the FAQ is confirming. However, the complaints are that it is an absurd outcome that you lose the ability to impact your enemy simply by going 2nd. A better writing would have had it be an effect that "lasts one full game turn", instead of just lasting until the "end of the current game turn." However, the former is not how it is written in the codex, so the latter is what we are stuck with. The FAQ confirms the cock-up.

 

V

[Snorri Goresson]

i get it now

 

miss read it

 

and then messed my self up in my post

 

throught it only affect turn 2 onwards

 

but yes i see your point that sucks

[Grimtooth]

I have posted this argument before and would allow any TWC/TWM/Canis played against me to use the following house rules:

 

All models have a choice between using rending attacks or their SCCW, however per the FAQ and rules, they would never stack bonuses. I say this on the basis that I believe that the only possible way to have rending in the first place is to have rending weapons, which the TWM/TWC would possess in the form of claws and teeth. Since Rending weapons is a special close combat weapon, per the rules for two SCCW, you can choose which to use. Examples:

 

A WC/WC TWC or TWM could choose between re-rolling hit or wounds with bonus attack for two WC that negate saves OR base attacks that are rending.

 

A TH/SS TWC or TWM could choose between str 10 hits that stun OR base number of attacks that are rending.

 

A FB/PP TWC or TWM could choose between str 6 attacks with bonus attack for two ccw that negates saves or base number of attacks that are rending.

 

I think that is what the designers envisioned but then certain types of gamers (TFFG/WAAC) started stacking bonuses despite the ruling in the TWM entry. Hell even the battle report (pretty much always wrong) encouraged it with "7 rending thunderhammer attacks" or whatever they tried to do.

[Spazmonkey]

Yeah the Nijal Ruling is dead stupid, Personally I think it is a deal breaker, why take him knowing several of his abilities are no longer able to be used soley based on if you win first turn.

 

Id rather spend the points on 2 rune priests and some left overs....

hhrrrrmmmmmm left overs.....

[winternight]

I do not believe that any house rules are required to allow a Thunderwolf unit to attack with rending in place of an additional Special Close Combat Weapon.

 

Page 42 of the BRB lists Rending weapons as a type of SCCW. Page 42 also says that when fighting with 2 SCCW you can choose which weapon to use in each combat however you never gain a bonus for having 2 weapons.

 

I think that makes it fairly clear that you can choose to use either the base rending SCCW or the extra SCCW that you may have purchased. The FAQ simply makes it so that you don't have a say a rending Frost Axe that is 6 + 6 + d3 for armour penetration.

[Ullr Direfang]

Once the FAQ came out a lot of the stuff I thought of trying out was shelf-ed. For reason like Canis. Now I guess I also have to say that I haven't played much 40k in the last 6 months so haven't checked up on 40k FAQs.

[Brother Nathan]

if his claws had rending then it would be clearly stated like with shrikes talons. However as you have both options id say before any die are rolled you can choose which you are using. of course it seems a bit of a waste to be attacking aveichle with them as you can be shot at in the opponents turn, regardless f you damage it. but in the majority of cases why would you choose rending over a special weapon? Specials always ignore armour if you wound, wher as a rending only does so on a 6. and the amount ofmodels that have a high enough toughness that thunder wolves dontwound on a 6...?surely a what st5 5 one wounds a wraith lord on a 6 anyway, so youd be better rerolling to wound with claws, no? and thers always the few things that may be tough enough like the ctan, but they arnt very popular at the moment...

[BlackSpike]

Specials always ignore armour if you wound, wher as a rending only does so on a 6.

Well, not strictly true.

Maybe all of the TWC available Special Weapons ignore armour, but being a Special Weapon does not make it ignore armour.

e.g. Ork Big Choppa, (+2S), PAGK NFW (+2S), both Special Weapons, that do not ignore armour.

 

Sorry to chime in, just wanted to make that clarification.

 

Personally, I can't get round the bit where it says "If you use a non-special weapon, you add rending", and then claim that it must be a Special Weapon (as it has Rending), so you can choose ...

If it is Special, it doesn't get Rending added, so it is normal, so it gets Rending, so it is Special, so you don't Rend .... rinse, repeat.

 

IMHO the weapon does not get Rending added to it, and so is not a special Weapon.

The Model gets Rending on his Attacks, when using a non-special weapon.

[Brother Nathan]

yes but i meant the ones wolves have as options. as they dont have access to poisoned or str moding weapons etc...

[Wildfire]

TWC have no weapons which cause rending. The unit itself has rending. As such, it is not a special weapon, and they may not choose to use it over a special weapon. That's RAW, like it or not. House rule it if you like, it's best for situations that make no sense. Just don't try to pull it in a tourney or you may get sorely disappointed.

[Grimtooth]

Interesting point Wildfire. I will ask the same thing the last 100 times that point was brought up, where is the Rending rule you are claiming they have located in the BRB?

[Grey Mage]

Interesting point Wildfire. I will ask the same thing the last 100 times that point was brought up, where is the Rending rule you are claiming they have located in the BRB?

 

Hidden in the shooting section, page 31.

 

Easily found using the index.

 

Now I ask you- show me a single model that is equipped with a 'rending weapons' in its unit entry.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

I love these perpetual motion threads. Round and round we go, when will it stop? Nobody knows, as long as people don't step on other's toes!

 

+++

 

As a general rule, I try to only implement a rule in my favour if it is irrefutable. If it is not, I don't claim it.

 

It is up to the guy wanting the benefit to show it is flawless [for GW stuff :D ] If they can't, they don't get it.

 

It's kind of like claiming on your tax return, things that are not 100% are not worth ruling in your own favour on.

 

That's how I try to use the rules anyway.

[Grimtooth]

Interesting point Wildfire. I will ask the same thing the last 100 times that point was brought up, where is the Rending rule you are claiming they have located in the BRB?

 

Hidden in the shooting section, page 31.

 

Easily found using the index.

 

Now I ask you- show me a single model that is equipped with a 'rending weapons' in its unit entry.

 

Next time you are shooting with close combat attacks, your golden. Ask far as your question, you are told the close combat attacks are rending. Per the BRB, the only time you can ever have your close combat attacks be rending is if you have rending close combat weapons. No exception is given for any close combat attack to be rending unless it is done with a rending close combat weapon.

 

Now crappy writing has led to this because GW asks you to implement a rule that does not exist unless you have a certain type of weapon. As I have pointed out in other threads and maybe even this one,

 

Acknowledging that the ability to rend is the result of them having Rending close combat weapons fits with the current ruleset by the following:

 

1. TWM/TWC rending overrides normal close combat weapons, just like a SCCW.

2. TWM/TWC rending does not stack with other SCCW, just like a SCCW.

3. TWM/TWC rending attacks need to be chosen over an other SCCW, just like a SCCW.

 

Any other way of looking at it leads to breaking the game. GW gave Canis rending, why? Well by your view, for no reason. By my view to represent Fangir tearing into armor at Canis' command.

 

I mean even the FAQ doesn't tell you that you LOSE rending, just that it can't be used with any attack that is made with a SCCW, just like a SCCW. That denies rending frostblades, thunderhammers, power weapons, wolf claws (with maybe an exception to Canis), etc, etc, which I agree with completely. However there is no other way, per the BRB, for them to have rending unless they have rending ccw which leads you to being able to choose to use either the sccw or the rending sccw.