Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Rending:
'....the controlling player MAY choose to resolves these wounds at AP2'

Breaching:
'...the controlling play MUST resolves these wounds at AP2'

Why the difference? Is there ever a situation where you would choose not to rend at AP2, or is it just inconsistent language?

(I've posted this here rather than the rule forum because I understand the rules as presented, I'm more clarifying whether may/must is deliberate and if so, why)

 

Edit - SORRY! I thought I was in the AoD section....please move this and call me a moron!

Edited by Valkyrion
5 hours ago, Warhead01 said:

I recall this question several years ago. If I recall the use of must and may are interchangeable as in no actually optional in both cases you "must". 
I don't know if this has changed. 

That would seem a very torturous interpretation. They can't FAQ the English language!

18 minutes ago, Brother Kraskor said:

That would seem a very torturous interpretation. They can't FAQ the English language!

If I recall it had something to do with the permissive rule set. I don't know. I'm not even sure how to make since of that after so many years. 
I was just hoping this could lead to finding the right answer. 
GW's rules tend to be full of inconsistencies so I hope this is in an faq or addressed somewhere. 

13 hours ago, Warhead01 said:

the permissive rule set

That just means the rules tell you what you can do, as opposed to what you can not. May resolve = optional; must resolve = non-optional. 

14 hours ago, Warhead01 said:

GW's rules tend to be full of inconsistencies so I hope this is in an faq or addressed somewhere. 

Is this really a "frequently" asked question, though?

I don't really get what's up for grabs here... Rending MAY be at AP2, indictating a choice can be made, Breaching MUST be at AP2, indicating no choice can be made. They are, after all, different rules. 

Yeah, don't see the need for faq. As mentioned, may and must have clear definitions in the English tongue, with may implying a choice and must allowing no choice.

They're pretty clear in that usage throughout the rules.

As long as it's answered and everyone's happy with that answer then that's good enough for me. My point in my reply, if it wasn't clear, was just that I recall this being asked back in like 7th and figured someone would remember what the answer was. I can't recall which forum it came up on , here or some where else or for all I know the BoLS comment section. it was several years ago. 


If it's sorted out now, good. 

The second part of the Rending rule, pertaining to Shooting, omits the word may and simply states that it wounds automatically at AP2.

This suggests to me that the wording is intentional (as we've concluded) but has some tactical implications for melee and not shooting, probably the not being stuck out in the open thing after killing a unit. 

I originally assumed using “may” was future-proofing against an AP1 Rending weapon. Doesn’t force the downgrade then. But that makes no sense given the vehicle differences and melee/shooting difference which is then contradicted in the final example. As with much GW wording, I assume it’s just been translated into German and then back again or some such fun.

Because “may” could even be useful in the shooting phase, if you want to make sure someone is left to charge. 

Edited by LameBeard

Optional AP2 Rending would be useful in the very niche situation of using Mor Deythan Fatal Strike with meltaguns to get penetrating hits while out of melta range. 

That way you aren't forced to downgrade the AP of the melta shots. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.