Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
After a discussion earlier about rending claws on Tyrants, the rules for MC's on page 55 of the BGB were brought to my notice.
Basically the argument is that the rule for MC's is that if they have any thing that augmnents strength or works unusually then the MC loses the extra D6 for armour penetration.
Now the previous FAQ for nids pre new codex stated that Tyranid MC's with rending claws had the extra D6 obtained when rolling a 6 on the 2D6 for armour penetration added to the 2D6 therefore giving them 3D6 for penetration.
Now people are saying this no longer applies, I disagree and so do GW rules advisors.
Now I think the Tyrant should get the extra D6 as the rending is not related to the creatures strength, in fact its totaly unreliant on it, thats why its so good (auto wounds disregardless of opponents tghs), also its not a special weapon its a close combat biomorph,now I know that sounds picky but it really isn,t the entry on page 55 and 46 all specifically relate to close combat weapons not biomorphs, and the entry for CC biomoprphs in the Nid codex mentions that Tyranids can use all CC biomorphs in an assault and not just one like other models which infers a different approach for CC biomoprhs to other armys CC weapons, MC or otherwise.
given the fact that Nid FAQ was in use after the new rulebook came out it is obvious that the special rule for NID MC's with rending claws still overrode the MC rule on page 55, and given the GW shoddy recored for missing this sort of thing in new codexes and relying on FAQS to sort out things like this, I still beleive that the 3D6 applies and was an oversight on GW's part when they removed the FAQ (by the way when is another FAQ coming out I wonder).
I rang GW three times and each time the opinion was that because its a biomorph and is thus classed as an ability and not a weapon or special weapon the MC will get the 3D6, basically a biomorph is not classed as a weapon its a creatures natural innate ability enhancement, even CC biomorphs are a refinement of a creatures natural abilities.
opinions please, by the way I am not interested in a discussion about the benefits (or lack of) for MC's with rending claws, I have my opinion about this and this thread is not about the benefits, its about if they actually get the 3D6 and not how usefull actually having the 3D6 will be.
I am keen to know the opinions on this cos i use rending on my Tyrant and it is really usefull as it stands (the 3D6).
it makes sense to me. I never thought it was reasonable to say that they suddenly lost their strength by getting massive claws. what, would they break if they hit at tank too hard or something? I'm inclined to agree with you
Yeah why would having a set of claws suddenly make them less monstrous, also the claws are not even reliant on strength they are reliant on the hardness and material they are composed from, not techno like a powerfist or fusion weapon etcOriginally Posted by tojo
Seems by the lack of response to this thread that the GW opinion and mine that rending does give 3D6 penetration is the legal.
If anyone does have a good argument against it I would like to hear it because I posted this for a reason, I like to play the game fairly and legaly and i want to know others opinions.
It's not that complicated- just look at the rending rule on p.32 again. Any penatration roll of a 6 adds another D6 (max one extra D6). This doesn't allow a monstrous creature to roll 3d6, it lets you roll 2d6 (for being a monstrous creature) and roll another d6 if one of those is a 6. I'm not trying to call out anyone because of symantics; it's just the clarifying point you need to bring up if someone doesn't want you to get that extra roll.
Or it could be simply that it is Saturday and the thread had only been alive for ten hours. Just because people haven't gotten around to responding, or perhaps they don't feel the need, doesn't necessarily mean you're right. It just means nobody has bothered to argue with you yet. Fallacies aren't grounds for good arguements.Originally Posted by rikimaru
That being said, I haven't responded because I've been thinking about it. I was originally going to disprove you about four different ways, but after I looked more closely, it does seem that you have grounds for a case here. That doesn't mean I think you're right or that you're wrong, just that the matter could be more convoluted than I first gave it credit for.Sounds like a fluff arguement to me. Remember that fluff has no place when debating the intent of rules.Originally Posted by rikimaruAnything written in the previous FAQ no longer applies. It doesn't necessarily mean Monstrous Creatures no longer roll 2d6 if they have Rending Claws, just that you can't use the old FAQ as a reference any longer.Originally Posted by rikimaruThat's fine, just remember that the Rulezboyz are not proper references when using them as a basis for your arguement. For instance, I could simply say that when I called them, they agreed with me that Rending doesn't stack with Monstrous Creatures. Rulezboyz are still human people and (often!) make mistakes.Originally Posted by rikimaru
Really, as far as I can see, it all boils down to if Close Combat Biomorphs count as weapons or not. While you can cite the Rulezboyz, I can cite the Codex and point out that Rending Claws are always found under the 'Weapon-Symbiotes' lists in the Unit Entries.
Take a look at the Broodlord entry. I quote -Hormagaunts also are a good example, as they have only Scything Talons under their Unit Entry heading of Weapon-Symbiotes.Originally Posted by The Codex, page 36
Also, I can point out that the Close Combat Biomorphs are found on page 31 of the Tyranid Codex, under the section heading of 'Tyranid Weapon-Symbiotes' instead of one page later under the section heading of 'Biomorph Enhancements.'
So while the Rulezboyz say one thing, the Codex plainly tries to imply that even the Close Combat Biomorphs are considered Weapons.
if you ask me it boils down to the rule for rending in the rule book:or you can reference to the fluff in the rule book where it says:Against a vehicle, an armor penetration roll of 6 allows a further d6 to be rolledsince rending claws don't augument the strength of the tyrant from a fluff stand point there is no reason. (I know that the rules are meant for balance, not fluff, but referencing a weapon that adds to the strength of a creature is more than just a little fluff, it's an example of the mechanism under which the rule should operate.)some monstrous creatures have weapons that augument their strength ... creatures without such a rule roll an additional d6 for armor penetration
Yes as Caluin said, in the entries for the models it has two sections: BioMorphs and Weapon-Symbiotes. If Scything Talons are not considered weapons why would they fall under the two CCW rule of +1 Attack? Believe me when I say that I would love to have 3d6 on a rend for my monstrous creature, but something that seems to good to be true usually isnt. 2 points for the 1 in 6 possibility of a 3d6 penetration roll is huge. In the rule for monstrous creatures it states two things. The first being if the weapon augmented its strength for which it gives the example of a powerfist. This clearly isnt the case so we will skip that one. The second part states "or works unusually" and the example given was Dark Eldar Talos. The works unusually part is vague enough to cover alot of ground and a player can simply state that rending works unusually and therefore fall under this second section.
To sum up: Rending claws are Weapon-symbiotes which I take to mean they are weapons. These weapons work unusually in the vaguest sense of the term and therefore remove the extra d6 from armor penetration instead replacing it with the possible extra d6 from the rending claws. For 2 points I can really see it working this way because very few people would take it which is why it is so cheap.
If it works either way Im okay with it.
Technically they don't. The wording doesn't imply that Scything Talons are weapons. The wording is such that creatures with Scything Talons count as having two close-combat weapons.Originally Posted by Tragedy316
Why do the survivors remain anonymous -- as if cursed -- while the dead are revered? Why do we cling to what we lose while we ignore what we still hold?
Name none of the fallen, for they stood in our place, and stand there still in each moment of our lives.
--Duiker, "Deadhouse Gates"
Its not a fallacie it was simply a means to get a response, mmmm seemed to have worked doesn't it.Originally Posted by Caluin4 different ways, well take your best shot, I do have a case here on several different grounds, and convoluted often makes for the best discussions. Seems to me like you say you can prove me wrong in so many ways, then say i may be right, but may not be but you declined to carry on and back your points up, if I am wrong prove it dont just hint at it and try to look good by inferring your trying to spare me looking stupid, I am a big boy so go for it cal.Originally Posted by CaluinActually its not fluff its in the rules description for rending claws (quote 'diamond hard spikes or talons, they are uite capable of crushing plasteel and ripping through the thickest armour'), go and read the rules if you have the codex.Originally Posted by CaluinYeah ok if you beleieve that fair enough, now let me put a possibility to you, maybe a few of the rules in the FAQ did not apply anymore, so the FAQ was inaccurate, so to avoid inaccuracies they pulled the FAQ, does that mean that every entry in the FAQ is wrong, no it doesnt, all it means is they pulled the FAQ because some things in it were not relevent to the new codex. but not all of them, same goes for the Tau FAQ, I suppose when thats pulled the entrys in it say the Multi trackers for tau vehicles wont apply any more, if it doesn't that mean the entrys in the new tau codex wont aply either seeing as they are the same.Originally Posted by CaluinAgreed but when 3 agree you have to draw a line somewhere and they are the OFFICIAL source of the rules, I think GW make a mess of a lot of their work and they can be somewhat inaccurate when you ask them for rule clarifications, but when 3 agree what can you do?Originally Posted by CaluinYes the weapons fits for creatures is ref to as Bio-weapons but in some they are also ref to as weapon symbiotes and biomorphs, and the entry on page 31 is titled close combat biomorphs not close combat weapons, this means the official designation for rending claws is a 'close combat biomorph'also the entry for Bio-weapons can also include bio morphs, take a look on the entry for Stealers on page 39 for instance, now scuttlers for instance is that a weapon simply because its listed under Bio-weapons, or feeder tendrils? no dont think so, i think you will find the title says it all BIO-weapons (bio as in bio morphs/weapons) and what are rending claws listed as? yep close combat biomorphs. the simple fact is that the whole description of symbiotes/weapons/bio weapons is messed up as i pointed out the entry for rending claws in the description on page 31 is CC biomorphs and that is the official section of the book that lists Nid equipment, so i think its best to go by that dont you rather than a listing for certain creatures which I have pointed out already can back up my points as well as yours..Originally Posted by CaluinIts irelevent, wether its a weapon means nothing, the Tyrant will still use its natural enhancements to fight whatever its equiped with(a fist is a weapon), rending is not a weapon its an ability for tyranids, its a bio-morph enhancement, its a bi-product of the bio-morphic refinement of its natural claws , rending claws simply refers to the claws bio morphic ability to rend.Originally Posted by Caluin
Yes, but it irritated me. It made you sound arrogant. I probably would've responded eventually had you posted that or not, so don't claim it was your fancy wording that brought me into this.Originally Posted by rikimaruRead what I stated closely - I mentioned that I had a few ways before I read closely to what you wrote, and then realized you may have been on to something. So there was no point in putting them down. Please read what I write carefully before responding.Originally Posted by rikimaruIt is fluff. I don't care what reason you give for how it works, all I'm interested is in how the rules work. The rules state what they state, and anything about how they justify that is fluff.Originally Posted by rikimaru
As for the FAQ thing - Yes, you're catching on now. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong, just that you can't use it as a reference anymore. So while Tau vehicles may make use of the Multi-trackers, you just have to use something other than the old Tau FAQ to use as a reference.You find three more. And then three more. And then you throw everything they said out the window, because they're all idiots. For instance, I can probably take this arguement to them and explain how I think CC Biomorphs are weapons, laying out the facts that support that claim, and they'll probably agree with me. Every time I've heard an arguement involving rulezboyz, it's been because the person with the question biased them towards an answer. Remember that Rulezboyz are paid to answer your question quickly and make sure you don't call back. If they don't know the proper answer, often times they'll simply agree with you to get you off the phone.Originally Posted by rikimaruBut you'll notice that the 'close combat biomorphs' heading is a sub-heading of the much bigger type font of the 'Tyranid Weapon Symbiotes' heading. This suggests that the close combat biomorphs fall under the category of 'Tyranid Weapon Symbiotes.'Originally Posted by rikimaruSorry to keep breaking up your paragraphs, but I want to respond to each thought as it comes.Originally Posted by rikimaru
I've taken your example, and looked further. On page 39, the Genestealer Unit Entry, it states - '...the whole brood may be equipped with weapon-symbiotes or biomorph enhancements chosen from the following list...'
Now, simple question - if Genestealers can't have ranged weapons, why would they bother to mention weapon-symbiotes, unless they considered something in that list a weapon... like Scything Talons perhaps?Aye, I'll agree with you. The description is pretty messed up. But the thing is - people are trying to make it harder than it needs to be.Originally Posted by rikimaru
I've said it many times, and this is another case of it. Half the responsibility rests upon Games Workshop to write clear, concise rules; the other half rests upon the players to make the rules work in a fun, enjoyable manner for both people playing the game. Just because GW may have screwed up their end does not mean you suddenly have the right to go about taking advantage of yours.
However, this is just a simple case of if your opponent disagrees with you, roll a D6 for it. That's what that rule is there for.It's is not irrelevant. That's the core of your entire arguement. Weapons that work unusually don't gain the bonus to armour penetration, plain and simple. And while the word 'unusually' can be stretched pretty thin, I don't think it takes much imagination to consider Rending Claws part of that description.Originally Posted by rikimaru
One more thing.... if we're lumping all Close Combat biomorphs together, why are certain ones not included with the others? Mace/Scythe Tail, Bioplasma...
Or even better, Implant Attack. Implant Attack only modifies the creature's existing attacks, right? Much like how Rending Claws does... but they're found in two different sections of the book, under different headings. The only major difference is one takes up a Weapon Symbiotes slot, and the other does not. Interesting...