Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

so is that a "No, I didn't bother to read the rules"

I read the rules indeed good sir. I even listed corresponding page numbers too.

I'll word bonesword for you.

Wounds inflicted in close combat by a tyranid WITH a bonesword....if a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a tyranid with a bonesword.

This is not saying the tyranid just simply holds it. The tyranid has to use it as a CCW, which on page 83 clearly lists it as a CCW.

So no CCW can be used for HoW.

So if no CCW can be used how can innate abilities be used?

-------------------

I believe and will hold to my guns that HoW is a special ability that auto hits and is just Str (user), AP-. I don't even think that Furious Charge modifies this. I think with Overwatch it was easier just to make it init 10 instead of an initial hit before close combat started. If the rule wanted you to get all your innate abilities and weapons it would just simply say, "1 extra attack at init 10."

At this point for me, I will play it as just a special ability with no extra's until a FAQ is made.

I'm inclined to agree on the bonesword seeing as the section is named CCW, still toxin sacks would work just fine.

coredump wrote:

MJThurston wrote:
The attack is Str (user) AP-. That's it. Nothing extra. If it was just an extra attack at init 10 then I'd be with you all day long.

But it's not just an attack at init 10. It has a Str and an AP. There is no extra modifiers.

Now, if you can provide a rule that supports the parts in bold, you will have a valid assertion.

You are assuming the word 'only' in the rule, and it does not exist.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dozer Blades wrote:Actually he has a good point. Boneswords are listed as CCW on page 83... Doesn't get much simpler than that.

Until you read the rules for it... possession of the bonesword means that all CC attacks by the model has certain abilities... it does not need to use the bonesword. Unlike typical CCWs where you use the weapon to get the effect.

No the Nid codex does not make CCW innate. They are CCW and the description of the bonesword says wound caused by it. Not wounds caused by the model.

MJThurston wrote:I'll word bonesword for you.

Wounds inflicted in close combat by a tyranid WITH a bonesword....if a model suffers one or more unsaved wounds in close combat from a tyranid with a bonesword.

This is not saying the tyranid just simply holds it. The tyranid has to use it as a CCW, which on page 83 clearly lists it as a CCW.

So no CCW can be used for HoW.

So if no CCW can be used how can innate abilities be used?

No coffee will be served to a person with a hat.

You're saying the hat would be used to serve, I'm saying the people with hats would be unhappy. The context of the paragraph agrees with me.

Also, how are you linking CCWs with innate abilities like a Wraiths Rending?

MJ - erm, nope, you#re still wrong

"Wounds inflicted in close combat by a tyranid WITH a bonesword"

I've bolded the bit that is important - you have not parsed tyhe sentence at all correctly, which is why you're not understanding your error

The objet causing the wound is the tyranid, not the bonesword. BY a tyranid with.... is the key part.

You still cannot answer the points which disprove you - which is that it is a defined Attack, making it a close comabt attack. I have permission to use model provided Rending frmo a Wraith, now PROVE I cannot do so, using actual language

Your guns are wrong. Feel free to make it a houserule, but until then its not anywhere close to RAW

LOL.

If you do not understand that the bonesword is the part that is important, then I can't help you.

The description as CCW and it's write up are clear that the bonesword has the power and not the tyranid.

You are fishing for this.

So attack is all your worried about. So tell me what kind of attack is HoW? Is it a CCW attack? Is it a model attack? Is it a HoW attack?

Oh it's a HoW attack. Does HoW in it's write up say that it's a CC attack? No it does not. It simple says it's an extra attack resolved at the sub-phase of init 10. What is this extra attack you ask? Oh it's a Str(user) AP-. So if it's an AP- how can that be changed to AP2 which is a rending attack? Oh it can't be.

Does HoW say it can be modified by innate powers? No.
So tell me how you are twisting this rule to make the AP- change to AP2?

Sigh.

No, the subject object relationship in that rule is clear, you are just incapable of parsing it correctly. It states a wound BY A TYRANID, not "by a bonesword". You are also ignoring the rules on page 33 of the nid book.

Still, you're missing the point of Wraiths

Attack is a defined word, hence the capitalisation - which as Im sure you know means you look up Attack. Which is a close combat "thing". Menaing Attack == close combat attack. They are the same thing.

Does HoW say it is a close comabt Attack? Yes, because Attack, note the capital, refers to Close Combat. You can tell this if you look at the characteristics page - note that "A" refers to your Attacks in close combat?

So, we know it is a CC Attack, and have proven it 100% incontrovertibly to those who can parse the rulebook and the rules of English grammar.

As it is a close combat attack, please find me the rule that denies inate rending, from a Wraith, from working

Note: do not respond more on tyranids, they are irrelevant to this. Stick to the easier to understand case of Wraiths, and that HoW is a defined CC Attack. Please follow the tenets of this forum in your response, by actually using rules this time.

The HoW attack is classified as AP-.

Dozer Blades wrote:The HoW Attack is classified as AP-.

Attack. Fixed it for you

AP- - And? So are attacks made with a default CCW. So youre saying Rending doesnt set ANY Attack to AP2 now? Or are you not being consistent in how you are making up rules?

LOL,

Really. Just a wound by a tyranid. So why don't all tyranids have this ability? Oh because they don't have boneswords. You are honestly telling me that on page 83 titled CCW's, under the description Bonesword, that it's a tyranid power and not a CCW? I'm not buying it. Try to word screw this all you want. Boneswords are CCW. They do not give Tyranids innate abilities.

No HoW does not state it's a close combat attack. No where in it's wording.

An extra attack resolved at sub-phase 10 init. That's very clear. Resolved at meaning that it has happened. So it's an attack that happened outside the assault phase but resolved at sub-phase init 10.

That is pretty clear that the attack already happened. If the attack already happened, then it clearly was not a Close Combat Attack.

What was it? Wait for it.....HoW. Nothing more and nothing less.

I'll stick to what ever I want.

Wrong. I'm talking subject object here. The object is "a tyranid with a bonesword", it is not "Bonesword"

Stop strawmanning, as this is yet another lotgical fallacy from you.

Read page 33 and the nid FAQ. If a bonesword, rending claws et al were CCW then you would have to choose one.

They give nids inate abilities. Try to avoid and ignore actual rules all you like, which is what you are doing, but it will not alter basic facts of the game.

As you keep missing it:

Attack is defined as a close combat attack. I've underlined the bit you keep ignoring. So HoW IS an Attack, meaning it is a close combat attack. That is what is meant in English when you capitalise words within a sentence - they are proper nouns, i.e. they are the name of something. In 40k that means that "Attack " is a specific "thing", in this case it is specified as a close combat attack

You cannot alter this fact by constantly repeating the same ruleless statements.

I've not said you cant, its just your way is a houserule, unconnected to the actual rules of the game.

They do not give nids innate abilities. They have CCW's that give them abilities.

No you are missing it.

By touching base to base you have auto hit. This auto hit is Str(User), AP-. Also this auto hit is resolved at sub-phase init 10. So the auto hit is an extra attack but it happened outside of the assault phase. So it's not a close combat attack.

LOL on your constant house rule theory.

The attack is S as user AP- and nothing more. Arguing it further would be like me saying that Lelith's grenades ignore Armor Saves, which they do not. Lelith's attacks ignore armor saves in her rules. Her grenade is AP4. There is no logic to in saying she can use it with her grenade, any more than allowing rending in a special rule that does not allow for the use of other special rules in it.

MJThurston wrote:They do not give nids innate abilities. They have CCW's that give them abilities.

No you are missing it.

By touching base to base you have auto hit. This auto hit is Str(User), AP-. Also this auto hit is resolved at sub-phase init 10. So the auto hit is an extra attack but it happened outside of the assault phase. So it's not a close combat attack.

LOL on your constant house rule theory.

Yes, he CCW gives the ability. The ability is not restricted to close combat attacks - you should read the rule again.

And again, you're ignoring (completely, even when asked directly) Wraiths.

megatrons2nd wrote:The attack is S as user AP- and nothing more. Arguing it further would be like me saying that Lelith's grenades ignore Armor Saves, which they do not. Lelith's attacks ignore armor saves in her rules. Her grenade is AP4. There is no logic to in saying she can use it with her grenade, any more than allowing rending in a special rule that does not allow for the use of other special rules in it.

The above is a non-sequitur, since Lelith's grenade's have a separate profile AND cannot benefit from (most) models' special rules.


A close combat attack, however, benefits from all relevant special rules, and HoW has only excluded special rules derived from weapons

MJThurston wrote:They do not give nids innate abilities. They have CCW's that give them abilities.

Page 33. Nid book. Read it. You will remain wrong on this, and you will remain OT on this. Or do you play that nids dont get to use rending claws and boneswords together?

Stop ignoring that this is irrelevant to Wraiths.

MJThurston wrote:No you are missing it.

Sigh. Then stop posting in the rules forum if you are unwilling to make rules based arguments. You are ignoring a very, very basic concept which is critical to understanding this game and English in general

Attack is a defined term within 40k. This means, to bresak this down into simple terms, that you have to look up what "Attack" means within a 40k context. This means you HAVE to look at the rulebook under "Attack" to find out what this means

Attack is defined as close combat attacks.

MJThurston wrote:By touching base to base you have auto hit. This auto hit is Str(User), AP-. Also this auto hit is resolved at sub-phase init 10. So the auto hit is an extra attack but it happened outside of the assault phase. So it's not a close combat attack.

WRONG. It happens during the Fight! sub phase, because it happens AT Init 10. It contributes to the close combat result

You are now, simply, making gak up. You have zero, nada, zilch, zip rules support, and your continued failure to provide ANY means you are constantly breaching the rules of this forum.

If you continue to ignore the defined phrase Attack, and explain why you are revoking permission to use a Wraiths Rending ability, you have automatically conceded the argument.

MJThurston wrote:LOL on your constant house rule theory.

Not theory, fact, as you have aptly demonstrated

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote:The HoW Attack is classified as AP-.

Attack. Fixed it for you

AP- - And? So are attacks made with a default CCW. So youre saying Rending doesnt set ANY Attack to AP2 now? Or are you not being consistent in how you are making up rules?

The rule says AP -. If you want to play by your own house rules that is fine though. I am just following the RAW here.

So, you agree that Rending never sets you to AP2?

Please, apply some consistency - do you agree or disagree with that statement? Bare in mind, as you have been shown, melee weapons are ALSO AP-

(Hint: you arent following the rules, because you are ignoring specific > general, so feel free to houserule HoW if you want, but in terms of real, actual written rules you remain in the wrong]

Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote:The HoW Attack is classified as AP-.

Attack. Fixed it for you

AP- - And? So are attacks made with a default CCW. So youre saying Rending doesnt set ANY Attack to AP2 now? Or are you not being consistent in how you are making up rules?

The rule says AP -. If you want to play by your own house rules that is fine though. I am just following the RAW here.

The default CCW also says AP -. Are you asserting that wraiths can never rend?

rigeld2 wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dozer Blades wrote:The HoW Attack is classified as AP-.

Attack. Fixed it for you

AP- - And? So are attacks made with a default CCW. So youre saying Rending doesnt set ANY Attack to AP2 now? Or are you not being consistent in how you are making up rules?

The rule says AP -. If you want to play by your own house rules that is fine though. I am just following the RAW here.

The default CCW also says AP -. Are you asserting that wraiths can never rend?

I've aksed that question twice now. I'm assuming Dozer will ignore it again. In fact its been asked more than twice this thread, and ignored comprehensvely each time.

The rules say the attacks are AP - so they can't rend during the how attacks.

Dozer Blades wrote:The rules say the attacks are AP - so they can't rend during the how attacks.

Why is your statement limited to HoW attacks?
The default CCW has the exact same profile.

Dozer Blades wrote:The rules say the attacks are AP - so they can't rend during the how attacks.

So, you still wont answer the question?

Please, provide a rules reason as to why the more specific rending rule doesnt override the HoW rule. Anything rulesbased would be good.

Otherwise you ARE stating that Rending NEVER makes an attack AP2.

If you continue to dodge that is what you are agreeing with, and have conceded the point.

Dozer Blades wrote:The rules say the attacks are AP - so they can't rend during the how attacks.

He's ignoring all rules based argument, no point continuing to make the same point he isn't even attempting to counter, he's wrong, it wouldn't suprise me if he knew he was and is now just trollolololing

HoW is more specific. Look - 1000 people here can post you are right but that does not necessarily make it so. Remember all the hoo-haa about falchions conferring +2A? This is your interpretation and nothing more.

Dozer Blades wrote:HoW is more specific. Look - 1000 people here can post you are right but that does not necessarily make it so. Remember all the hoo-haa about falchions conferring +2A? This is your interpretation and nothing more.

HoW is more specific than rending?
So obviously the default CCW is as well, right?

Also, what happened to coded overrides brb?

On the nid issue, the FAQ is what is getting left out. ALL nid CCW special rules are in effect for ALL attacks in assault. This is a 'nid special quirk. So either all nid CCW special rules work with HoW (really really scary) becuase they are granted to all attacks, or none of them do.

It is a separate issue about biomorphs like implant attack, Adrenal glands and Toxin Sacs that grant special rules to the Model. Do they apply or not?

More time with HoW for me on this I think.

I have followed all 7 pages of this post pretty closely.

It is not open to dispute that rending applies to close combat attacks and that HoW is a close combat attack.

It is not open to dispute that a rending weapon is resolved at AP 2, regardless of the weapon's base AP (psycannon, assault cannon, rending claws all have to for rending to work at all).

It is not open to dispute that attacks made in CC by a model with the rending rule (or a weapon with this rule)...rend.

Given these three facts, I cannot see how the HoW close combat attack would not benefit from the rending rule for models with the special rule - Rending (note I am excepting the weapons)

I get that models with weapons that are rending would not benefit, but otherwise you need to undermine one of those three statements for HoW not to work for models with the rending rule.