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.

Do Rending Claws ignore the Feel No Pain rule?

Read the rules for Rending weapons and then you tell us.

Thanks for the NO help.

Anyone else?

Only attacks that actually Rend ignore FNP.

Thank you...much appreciated.

J0kerr wrote:Thanks for the NO help.

Anyone else?

I was trying to help more than you realize. Give a man a fish he eats for a day. Teach a man to read the rules and he won't post simple questions in a dakka forum.

Sig'd

J0kerr wrote:Thanks for the NO help.

Anyone else?

As he said there is more help in his statement than you realize. The answer to your question could have been gained just as easily by you opening up the rulebook and looking at the FNP and Rending rules side by side. And in answer to your question and to wound rolls of 6 with a rending weapon count as AP2, which in turn ignores FNP

I hate to see someone flogging a dead horse...

Perhaps the OP was at work and/or didn't have access to his rulebook? Perhaps he's new to the game, doesn't have a rulebook, and was trying to decide upon his first army and was wondering how certain things work? And then he's sat upon by the self-righteous... tsk tsk

Perhaps he's just lazy. But how would we know, since no one asked?

Phanatik wrote:I hate to see someone flogging a dead horse...

Perhaps the OP was at work and/or didn't have access to his rulebook? Perhaps he's new to the game, doesn't have a rulebook, and was trying to decide upon his first army and was wondering how certain things work? And then he's sat upon by the self-righteous... tsk tsk

Perhaps he's just lazy. But how would we know, since no one asked?

All of the responses after the one I quoted were perfectly warranted as the OP chose to be somewhat rude in the way he responded to the first answer (which while being roundabout gives the OP the answer). If he had said hey sorry I would if I had my rule book with me or something similar the answers probably would have flowed more freely. Also not posting in the YMDC makes it harder to get straight forward answers on rules questions.

I grant the 'wrong forum' issue, ToI, but I don't think he was rude. I think that tetrisphreak threw the first 'manners rock' pretty soundly. I understand paging past a question you think is stupid and refusing to answer. But actually taking the time to reply to them and TELL them you're refusing to answer? That's pretty snooty. There are far more legitimate reasons that the OP could have asked the question then there are illegitimate ones, and I think it behooves us to give the poster the benefit of the doubt. People seem to think that stupid questions bring Dakka down, but I think that snarky replies to stupid questions just bring the forum down further. Instead, if we were to reply to questions we find simple or ignorant with some mercy and class, we would be able to give our forum a better image than we would by attacking the posters.

I myself clicked on this thread because I didn't know the anwer off the top of my head. I've posted similar questions because I either couldn't find the answer in the book, had found the rule in the book but found the wording a little confusing, or I had found a rule that seemed contradictory.

Jimsolo wrote:I grant the 'wrong forum' issue, ToI, but I don't think he was rude. I think that tetrisphreak threw the first 'manners rock' pretty soundly. I understand paging past a question you think is stupid and refusing to answer. But actually taking the time to reply to them and TELL them you're refusing to answer? That's pretty snooty. There are far more legitimate reasons that the OP could have asked the question then there are illegitimate ones, and I think it behooves us to give the poster the benefit of the doubt. People seem to think that stupid questions bring Dakka down, but I think that snarky replies to stupid questions just bring the forum down further. Instead, if we were to reply to questions we find simple or ignorant with some mercy and class, we would be able to give our forum a better image than we would by attacking the posters.

I myself clicked on this thread because I didn't know the anwer off the top of my head. I've posted similar questions because I either couldn't find the answer in the book, had found the rule in the book but found the wording a little confusing, or I had found a rule that seemed contradictory.

I'll agree that the Manners rock was thrown first by tetrisphreak, but I still think his rebuttal could have been better phrased. Also explaining why you are asking a question (don't understand the rule, not sure where the rule is in the rulebook, etc) helps us as a community answer the question in a way that the asker will understand. All told it was bad begotten by bad...either way the question was answered. I do think questions should be answered mercifully instead of thrown back at the poster, but there is still some burden on the OP to make an effort either to be civil when someone else is not, ore to come up with the answer first if possible. Just saying.

@ OP - hope you have the information you need now

tetrisphreak wrote:

J0kerr wrote:Thanks for the NO help.

Anyone else?

I was trying to help more than you realize. Give a man a fish he eats for a day. Teach a man to read the rules and he won't post simple questions in a dakka forum.

Cutting this post out, framing it, hanging it on my wall.

Phanatik wrote:
Perhaps the OP was at work and/or didn't have access to his rulebook?

Then he could wait til he got home. I doubt terrorists were taking over his office and would only leave once they understood the rending USR.

To make it clear, I was not posting a reply with malice. I simply directed the op to the rules section that would provide him the solution to his query.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/280663.page

Moving.

Brother SRM wrote:I doubt terrorists were taking over his office and would only leave once they understood the rending USR.

Sig'ed!

As for the OP, we love to help with rules that are not clear. Rending is not one of those rules though.

We are discouraged from giving out rules ad nauseam, as the forum is not a substitute for the rule book.

If we copy/paste the rule book the GW Inquisitors will come after us, and no one wants that.

Heck for even mentioning the words GW rule book and copy/paste in the same sent

:Ordo hereticus inquisitor Tyrin requests your presence Deathreaper, we have some "Questions" to ask you...:

I hate this. Man asks a simple question. It's not like he's asking you to read off a statline or anything, he's just asking about the interaction of two rules.

The rule interaction happens to be obvious. To you. Maybe he's new. Maybe he just doesn't understand how the rule interaction works. Maybe he's lazy, and since you have the knowledge at the top of your brain, and you're trolling this forum anyway, is that really so bad?

Often, a rule is clearly stated, but it's not clear where it's clearly stated.

And you show up, and say "read the rule book!" You took time out, wrote a post, specifically to be non-helpful. That's being a jerk.

Ask yourself this: You're showing some guy how to play, it's his first, second, maybe third game. He's got his rule book with him, he's got his codex, he's probably been studying that stuff like the bible. He asks you how a rule works. Are you gonna tell him, "read the rules!".

If that is your answer to a question, you suck.

Honestly, I don't see the issue in asking someone to do this:

1 - Read the rules for 'Rending Claws' and notice that they bestow 'Rending' in Close Combat.
2 - Look in your rulebook's index for 'Rending' and notice that the rule is explained on both page 31 and 42.
3 - Notice that page 31 deals with ranged weapons, and find the correct answer on page 42, noting that wounds from close combat rending count as having being dealt by a power weapon.
4 - Look for Feel No Pain in the rulebook's index and find the rule on page 75, noting that power weapons ignore it.

Question answered in 4 easy steps that should take you less than 1 minute, and required only a weapon name (which he had) and 2 rule names (1 which he had, and another which he gained by reading the profile of the weapon).

The question here took 8 minutes to be answered, 9 minutes for that answer to be dismissed, and almost 20 minutes to be plainly stated in a form that wouldn't require the OP to make any sort of effort to read his rulebook.

In that time, he could've spent 1 minute finding his answer, and 19 minutes doing something else. As it stands, 20 minutes was worth waiting if it meant that no effort on his own part had to be made.

Yes, tetris could've worded his reply better, maybe advising to look in the index or quoting the relevant pages, but as an answer, it's not trolling, he's not being a jerk, he's advocating a more pro-active approach to the game.

How easy, or not, it would be to answer is entirely not the point.

Man asked a question.

Somebody, took time out, not to answer the question, but to be a bitch about it.

Don't do that. If you think it's beneath your dignity to answer the question, then don't.

tetrisphreak wrote:To make it clear, I was not posting a reply with malice. I simply directed the op to the rules section that would provide him the solution to his query.

Next time add the page numbers. And try being a little nicer, that would of helped out a bit more

KingCracker wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:To make it clear, I was not posting a reply with malice. I simply directed the op to the rules section that would provide him the solution to his query.

Next time add the page numbers. And try being a little nicer, that would of helped out a bit more

Point taken.

That being said, I'd like to point out that while I may have replied in a snarky tone, I didn't call anyone 'bitchy' or a 'jerk' (and i'm not directing that line at you, KCracker). A little humor and self-indulgence should be taken here, it's just the internet after all.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:How easy, or not, it would be to answer is entirely not the point.

Man asked a question.

Somebody, took time out, not to answer the question, but to be a bitch about it.

Don't do that. If you think it's beneath your dignity to answer the question, then don't.

He did answer the question, the effort it required, however, was deemed too taxing and it was dismissed. Reading the rules for rending, as suggested, would have solved the issue, but it wasn't handed out on a silver platter and actually required opening the rulebook which was, ultimately, its downfall.

He answered the question, not amazingly, as he has admitted, but answered nonetheless; if you think it's beneath you to read the rulebook, then don't play.

Preemptive clarification on 'you' as used after that semi-colon, it was meant generally, not aimed at you personally.