Retributers rending, and the quad gun.

[Metic]

does the act of faith that give your sisters rending allow your quad gun to have rending as well? that's my question.

[Warsmith Aznable]

EDIT: I'm probably wrong. Elsewhere I've read that it does.

[Metic]

i figured it would because the Act of faith reads as if the model has the ability regardless of the weapon.

[MrGBH]

One opponent I used to face had a converted bastion with 3 Heavy Bolters on the front. He then (Wo)manned it witha squad of Retributors with 4 Heavy Bolters and the banner thingy that adds +1 to Faith rolls. Because the wording is that the Sisters gain Rending with any weapons they fire, this made 7 Rending Heavy Bolters. It tore Transports apart like nothing else I've ever seen.

[Fibonacci]

I have always played it that the quadgun was Rending.

 

 

Divine Guidance: Guided by the will of the Emperor, the Retributor's shots shatter their enemies' armour with contemptuous ease.

 

This Act of Faith is used in the Shooting phase. If successful, the unit's weapons gain Rending until the end of the phase.

 

It's not exactly cut and dry but I have never played anywhere that ruled it any other way.

[Eddie Orlock]

One opponent I used to face had a converted bastion with 3 Heavy Bolters on the front.

Can you describe the nature of this conversion? Do you have illustrations?

[xFallenx]

I was thinking of putting my sisters repentia in the ADL & manning it with the supirior, but if the Quad gets rending.... could make the steel legion army I'm facing this weekend a little sore... for a round/2 anyway....till my melta's & flamers get there.

[dswanick]

I have always played it that the quadgun was Rending.

 

 

Divine Guidance: Guided by the will of the Emperor, the Retributor's shots shatter their enemies' armour with contemptuous ease.

 

This Act of Faith is used in the Shooting phase. If successful, the unit's weapons gain Rending until the end of the phase.

 

It's not exactly cut and dry but I have never played anywhere that ruled it any other way.

"One model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of his own weapon,", BRB, pg.105

Personally, I think it's kind of shady to claim Rending in this way as the AoF states "the unit's weapons" and the Gun Emplacement rules clearly differentiate it from a unit's weapons.

[Denison512]

I'd agree with dswanick, its pretty clear cut. If it was written that the units gained rending then it would give a quad gun rending.

[Fibonacci]

Personally, I think it's kind of shady to claim Rending in this way as the AoF states "the unit's weapons" and the Gun Emplacement rules clearly differentiate it from a unit's weapons.

Or it clearly states that for that turn it IS the model's weapon instead of the one it is carrying.

 

In any case, I have never seen it ruled otherwise.  Maybe it is just a US thing; I don't know how European tourniments rule it.  You could always email GW and ask.  I know that gets dismissed often in forums but honestly, random GW employee beats random dude on the net as for as a reliable answer goes.

[*Furyou Miko]

In my exprience, people only try to find reasons to deny things like Retributors giving the quad gun rending - which is an established and well known tactic for Sisters - when they've found themselves on the wrong end of it and don't want to change their own tactics.

[dswanick]

In my exprience, people only try to find reasons to deny things like Retributors giving the quad gun rending - which is an established and well known tactic for Sisters - when they've found themselves on the wrong end of it and don't want to change their own tactics.

Odd, since I seem to be one of only two people in this thread arguing against this and I've never had this tactic used against me(partially because I'm the only player in my area with SoBs, I'm sure). So you probably shouldn't blindly imply that arguing against this tactic is some kind of veiled butt-hurt.

[Denison512]

Having never had to fight a SoB army like ever its deffinetly not feelings of butt hurt movtivating how i interpret the rules. It clearly says the UNITS WEAPONS, a Quad gun is part of a fortification, more specifically a piece of battlefield debris (P105 BRB) which says: "one model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of HIS OWN WEAPON, following the normal rules for shooting." the rule quite specifically states you loose the ability to fire your own weapon and get rending but instead get to fire the quad gun. However if the rule stated the UNIT gained rending it would be a different matter as that would give the members of the unit themselves rending as apposed to their weapons. 

[*Furyou Miko]

By that interpretation, Retributors can never use the Quad Gun.

[dswanick]

By that interpretation, Retributors can never use the Quad Gun.

I'm going to respond with a qualified "absolutely not".  Why would you imagine that Retributors can never fire a Quadgun when the Quadguns own rules tell you they can(please post citation or quote of any rule you think is supports your statement)?

[*Furyou Miko]

Having never had to fight a SoB army like ever its deffinetly not feelings of butt hurt movtivating how i interpret the rules. It clearly says the UNITS WEAPONS, a Quad gun is part of a fortification, more specifically a piece of battlefield debris (P105 BRB) which says: "one model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of HIS OWN WEAPON, following the normal rules for shooting." the rule quite specifically states you loose the ability to fire your own weapon and get rending but instead get to fire the quad gun. However if the rule stated the UNIT gained rending it would be a different matter as that would give the members of the unit themselves rending as apposed to their weapons.

Retributors are female, so the sentence "can fire it instead of HIS own weapon" doesn't apply to them, because it would have to be "HER" or "THEIR" own weapon.

[dswanick]

 

Having never had to fight a SoB army like ever its deffinetly not feelings of butt hurt movtivating how i interpret the rules. It clearly says the UNITS WEAPONS, a Quad gun is part of a fortification, more specifically a piece of battlefield debris (P105 BRB) which says: "one model in base contact with the gun emplacement can fire it instead of HIS OWN WEAPON, following the normal rules for shooting." the rule quite specifically states you loose the ability to fire your own weapon and get rending but instead get to fire the quad gun. However if the rule stated the UNIT gained rending it would be a different matter as that would give the members of the unit themselves rending as apposed to their weapons.

Retributors are female, so the sentence "can fire it instead of HIS own weapon" doesn't apply to them, because it would have to be "HER" or "THEIR" own weapon.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Oh, I'm sorry - was that your only serious counter-argument?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[*Furyou Miko]

My point was that the argument is ridiculous. Everyone accepted that Retris could use the quad gun with their AoF, and have done for almost a year now. Why change things now?

[dswanick]

My point was that the argument is ridiculous. Everyone accepted that Retris could use the quad gun with their AoF, and have done for almost a year now. Why change things now?

"Accepted" does not equal "correct", "legal", or "legitimate". And it's clearly not "accepted" by everyone as some of us are pointing it out. The argument is logical, consistent, and correct; not "ridiculous".

If your local group "accepts" it that way, great. But don't claim it's the correct way to play, or promote it to others as "settled RAW".

[Fibonacci]

The Act of Faith gives their weaponS rending.  While manning a quadgun, it is their weapon. It replaces their weapon.  It is the weapon they fire therefore it is their weapon.  If it were not their weapon they could not fire it.  The rule does not say the wopon on the model gets rending.  Any weapon they fire gets rending when they fire it.

 

Arguing does not matter, really.  Once ds forms an opinion you could get Matt and Robin to tell him it does not work that way and he will never change his opinion.

 

\/m

 | |

 

I'll just wait for word from GW and until then continue to play it the way it has already been ruled.

[dswanick]

The Act of Faith gives their weaponS rending.  While manning a quadgun, it is their weapon. It replaces their weapon.  It is the weapon they fire therefore it is their weapon.  If it were not their weapon they could not fire it.  The rule does not say the wopon on the model gets rending.  Any weapon they fire gets rending when they fire it.

 

Arguing does not matter, really.  Once ds forms an opinion you could get Matt and Robin to tell him it does not work that way and he will never change his opinion.

 

\/m

 | |

 

I'll just wait for word from GW and until then continue to play it the way it has already been ruled.

OK, Mr. Smartypants, how can they fire the weapon "instead of" their weapon(s) if it is their weapon? If it said "they fired the Gun "as if it were their own", you would have a case. And on who's "ruling" are you basing your rules-breaking on?

 

P.S. - I have changed my mind in the past, when someone presented me with a valid, logical argument. But since I don't foresee that happening here...

[Fibonacci]

 However if the rule stated the UNIT gained rending it would be a different matter as that would give the members of the unit themselves rending as apposed to their weapons. 

Units do not get Rending; weapons do.  Units can make their weapons Rending. Thus the rule was written. 

 

OK, Mr. Smartypants

and you just joined the jesk in my ignore list.

[dswanick]

 

 

However if the rule stated the UNIT gained rending it would be a different matter as that would give the members of the unit themselves rending as apposed to their weapons.

Units do not get Rending; weapons do.  Units can make their weapons Rending. Thus the rule was written.

 

 

Weapons don't necessarily get rending either, models do. And unless I'm mistaken, a Gun Emplacement is a separate model.

"If a model has the Rending special rule...", BRB, pg.41

Which doesn't really matter, because it's the SoB model which gets Rending and gives to her weapons. The Gun Emplacement is not her weapon, but a seperately modeled weapon which she can fire instead of her weapons.

and you just joined the jesk in my ignore list.

Aww, how cute - you can dish it out but can't take it.

[*Furyou Miko]

Every argument based on a single, arguable point of contention in the RAW is ridiculous if ANY are.<br /><br />Therefore, if you're going to say that the quad gun being fired "instead of his weapon" means that a rule that grants a unit's shooting attacks rending doesn't apply to it, you also have to say that "instead of his weapon" by definition excludes models not described by the male pronoun from firing it. So, all Sisters except priests, and all Tyranids except hive tyrants and genestealers.

[dswanick]

Every argument based on a single, arguable point of contention in the RAW is ridiculous if ANY are. Therefore, if you're going to say that the quad gun being fired "instead of his weapon" means that a rule that grants a unit's shooting attacks rending doesn't apply to it, you also have to say that "instead of his weapon" by definition excludes models not described by the male pronoun from firing it. So, all Sisters except priests, and all Tyranids except hive tyrants and genestealers.

Allow me to reiterate:

Oh, I'm sorry - was that your only serious counter-argument?

And on that note, I'm gonna move on. I've made my point, and backed it up with RAW. I've gotten nothing in return but ad hominem and arguments based on the use of generic pronouns.