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.

Hi there,

I was at a tournament last week. In one of the games I had the following problem:
My Furioso with Blood Talons charged a Necron Lord + a unit of Destroyers. Since I had the higher Ini (FC) I attacked first and chose to attack the Destroyers with all my attacks. I killed them off, gaining 2 attacks. The plan was to attacks the Necron Lord now, using the (hopefully) remaining attacks. My opponent then argued that, since I didn't attack the Lord in first place, and he being an independent character, the remaining attacks would be lost.
I reread the entry for the Blood Talons, where it says that he will attack until no enemies are left in CC or he runs out of attacks. But I couldn't find anything to support either theory and hence chose to avoid the conflict.
(He killed my Furioso afterwards with his Lord)

What do you guys think? How is it played?

-Dok

This question was posted up on another board and searched here for info on it, but found nothing.

I personally think that because the BA player allocated his attacks against the Destroyers, whatever bonus attacks he has left were for the Destroyers. Since they have been killed and he can cause no further unsaved wounds, they are wasted. Since he didn't split his attacks from the beginning and place any on the Necron Lord, the bonus attacks could not be place on him.

A majority of BA players felt that they carried over to the Necron Lord.

Opinions/Comments?

I don't know that there's a RAW answer to this.

On one hand I'd think you'd have to split your attacks at the start of the combat and you'd have two chains of attacks to follow for generating additional attacks. Additional attacks generated from the attacks on the lord would have to be allocated against the lord. Additional attacks generated from the attacks against the destroyers would have to be allocated against the destroyers.

On the other hand what's to say that he can't decide how to split the additional attacks every time he generates them?

I feel the same about generating bonus attacks per allocated units.

If you look at Multiple Combats, it specifies the beginning of combat you may split your attacks between units. It also says to declare how you are splitting attacks immediately before rolling to hit. However it does not differentiate between initial rolling to hit or bonus attacks roll to hits.

Granted the BRB was written awhile before the new BA dex so would not account for blood talon bonus attacks.

I just don't think that being able to split and allocate attacks long after combat has begun is supported by the rules.

Hopefully it'll get addressed in the eventual FAQ. As it stands, the codex entry says that the dreadnought immediately makes an extra attack without specifying whom the attack is made against.

As far as declaring the attacks before rolling, if the opponent had declared "The dreadnought will take all of its initial attacks against the Necrons and all of its bonus attacks against the Lord" before rolling, that might have satisfied the letter of both rules.

Yea, that annoys me for the BA codex wording. I look at it that since the additional attack was generated by the initial assault of a specific unit, it should then automatically be allocated to that specific unit. There is no RAW that supports that except that without the initial allocation of attacks to that unit, the bonus attacks would never be created.

Some of the BA players are looking to be able to stack bonus attacks on squad after squad in base to base as they wipe them out despite them not being the initial squad assaulted.

The only way I see would have been proper would be to split initial attacks between the Destroyers and Necron Lord. Then the Destroyers generate possible bonus attacks against the rest of the Destroyers until either all dead or no more unsaved wounds and the Necron Lord generates bonus attacks against himself until either dead or he makes an inv save with his Phase Shifter.

The Codex is indeed rather vague. It says its makes an Additional attack, and thats it.

Isn't there something in the line regarding additional attacks about it keeps getting them until it fails to hit/wound or until the unit is destroyed? Second half implying that the attacks are indeed allocated by unit..............

don_mondo wrote:Isn't there something in the line regarding additional attacks about it keeps getting them until it fails to hit/wound or until the unit is destroyed? Second half implying that the attacks are indeed allocated by unit..............

Yes, but Implies just isn't good enough for the game of GWarhammer 40k!

Following up on Mr. Mondo's statement, the text appears to say "These attacks can generate further additional attacks in the same way, until no further unsaved wounds are caused, or all the enemy are slain."

So the implication may actually be the opposite, that the attacks can continue until all the enemy in the combat and not just that particular unit are dead.

From the wording of the blood talons rule it seems pretty clear that he can continue to allocate his wounds however he chooses. It says untill all the enemy are slain, is there enemy still left for him to attack? If not what the hell blew him up?

FlingitNow wrote:From the wording of the blood talons rule it seems pretty clear that he can continue to allocate his wounds however he chooses. It says untill all the enemy are slain, is there enemy still left for him to attack? If not what the hell blew him up?

If it were clear, we wouldn't be discussing it...

If it were clear, we wouldn't be discussing it...

You know that we would.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although this could be one for fun list of RaW. It says until all enemies are slain. So he kills the Necron lord then continues attacking as there are still enemies on the board (as in not slain, though also not in CC with him).

My bad, I thought the word 'enemy' was the word 'unit'. That's what I get for posting from work without the codex at hand.

However, given that attacks have to be allocated at the beginning, I find it hard to believe that the dread can switch targets with the additional attacks. It's already broken as is, it doesn't need additional perks.

Just out of curiosity, anyone count up how many new items/rules in the BA codex require additional new rules to make them work?

since RAW is unclear, OP, can you add a how would you play it poll to the thread? that may be helpful in seeing how the *hopeful* majority of people play it.

since RAW is unclear, OP, can you add a how would you play it poll to the thread? that may be helpful in seeing how the *hopeful* majority of people play it.

I think RaW and RaI in this case are both pretty clear. It is just a lot of non-BA players getting scared at the prospect of facing blood talons (though it should be noted I'm not a BA player).

Comments like "It's already broken as is, it doesn't need additional perks. " illustrate the real reason people think the rules are "unclear". Just like when poeple were trying to argue the Mawloc can't intentionally target units with its DS attack.

In the end I'm sure we'll see far fewer Blood talons in Tournaments than people expect. And they will be far less imposing than people imagined.

FlingitNow wrote:Comments like "It's already broken as is, it doesn't need additional perks. " illustrate the real reason people think the rules are "unclear". Just like when poeple were trying to argue the Mawloc can't intentionally target units with its DS attack.
.

So, a model that can kill 20+ models in a single round of combat isn't over the top. Happened to me not once but twice in the Ard Boyz. Yet, they took a weaker version of the same thing OUT of the Chaos codex once upon a time, because, even tho Chaos had to pay for it instead of getting it as a free upgrade, it was "too powerful".

Yeah, I think it's broken.

Considering that the extra attack rule doesnt work when a blood talon loses one of its talons.

on a roll of 3,4,5,6 on pen a Furioso with talons is pretty much nutered.

on a roll of 2+ with AP1.

Granted that weapon destroyed doesn't make him useless it just makes him way less effective.

Was the dread also in B2B with the IC? If so, just declare you are charging both units. The original attacks and any extra attacks could then be split as you see fit. You can't really declare where extra attacks are going at the start of the assault, as you don't know if you are even getting any.

Homer

So, a model that can kill 20+ models in a single round of combat isn't over the top. Happened to me not once but twice in the Ard Boyz. Yet, they took a weaker version of the same thing OUT of the Chaos codex once upon a time, because, even tho Chaos had to pay for it instead of getting it as a free upgrade, it was "too powerful".

Yeah, I think it's broken.

Yes it is very powerful, yes it can kill 20 guys in a single round of combat. But it doesn't shoot at all or do anything against mech and as Mrdabba pointed out a single penetrating hit is likely to largely neuter it.

How powerful a rule/model is shouldn't have anything to do with how you interpret the rules unless you're just trying to be TFG and gain an unfair advantage.

FlingitNow wrote:

So, a model that can kill 20+ models in a single round of combat isn't over the top. Happened to me not once but twice in the Ard Boyz. Yet, they took a weaker version of the same thing OUT of the Chaos codex once upon a time, because, even tho Chaos had to pay for it instead of getting it as a free upgrade, it was "too powerful".

Yeah, I think it's broken.

Yes it is very powerful, yes it can kill 20 guys in a single round of combat. But it doesn't shoot at all or do anything against mech and as Mrdabba pointed out a single penetrating hit is likely to largely neuter it.

How powerful a rule/model is shouldn't have anything to do with how you interpret the rules unless you're just trying to be TFG and gain an unfair advantage.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight, it can't shoot either the heavy flamer or the meltagun under those blood talons, so sure, it's useless against vehicles. Sorry, disagree. Doesn't mean I won't be using them in MY BA army when it's built, but I can still think it's broken.

Homer S wrote:Was the dread also in B2B with the IC? If so, just declare you are charging both units. The original attacks and any extra attacks could then be split as you see fit. You can't really declare where extra attacks are going at the start of the assault, as you don't know if you are even getting any.

Homer

Except, of course, a unit consisting of a single model cannot assault two different units. The only way the IC bit happens is if the IC has joined the unit the dread is assaulting.

solkan wrote:Following up on Mr. Mondo's statement, the text appears to say "These attacks can generate further additional attacks in the same way, until no further unsaved wounds are caused, or all the enemy are slain."

So the implication may actually be the opposite, that the attacks can continue until all the enemy in the combat and not just that particular unit are dead.

However because the dread declared his attacks against the Destroyers only, technically when they were dead, the dreads enemy were all dead. Think about if this was a regular dread that had declared attacks only on the Destroyers. If he killed them all, the dread would be done in cc and then the Necron Lord would be able to attack.

Homer S wrote:Was the dread also in B2B with the IC? If so, just declare you are charging both units. The original attacks and any extra attacks could then be split as you see fit. You can't really declare where extra attacks are going at the start of the assault, as you don't know if you are even getting any.

Homer

Yes, the dread was also in B2B with the IC however the player did NOT declare any attacks against him, instead choosing to declare all his attacks against the Destroyers.

I think that when you declare your assault and allocate your attacks, that includes all attacks that your model is capable of doing. Whether they exist yet or not, your intention is to attack the unit you declared in your assault and allocated.

What I see as abuse in this case is not the wargear itself, but earning extra attacks against a lower weapon skill/lower toughness unit, and then applying them to a higher ws/toughness target. Sure you still have to roll to hit and roll to wound, for extra attacks again, but you are given more chances to do that by attacking a weaker target first. You should earn your extra attacks against a higher weapon skill/toughness model on your own, not by wiping out a weaker target first.

What I see as abuse in this case is not the wargear itself, but earning extra attacks against a lower weapon skill/lower toughness unit, and then applying them to a higher ws/toughness target. Sure you still have to roll to hit and roll to wound, for extra attacks again, but you are given more chances to do that by attacking a weaker target first. You should earn your extra attacks against a higher weapon skill/toughness model on your own, not by wiping out a weaker target first.

This is though how the rules work. He can't declare where the 2nd (and potential 3rd and 4th) set of attacks are going because he doesn't yet know how many he'll have.

He can't say right first 5 attacks at the destroyers then 3 at the lord and 2 more at the destroyers, then... Because he doesn't know how many attacks he's going to have in total. He could potentially have infinite asttacks so by your method he could just declare infinite attacks at both units and then would just have to assign as he rolled...

The entire point of the unit is to keepgoing until either everything is dead or he's run out of attacks. So yes he can tear through those grots before pilling in the extra attacks on Thraka. It is simply how the rules work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

However because the dread declared his attacks against the Destroyers only, technically when they were dead, the dreads enemy were all dead. Think about if this was a regular dread that had declared attacks only on the Destroyers. If he killed them all, the dread would be done in cc and then the Necron Lord would be able to attack.

But the regular dread wouldn't have another round of attacks. Think of it like a Techmarine wiping out the squad with his power axe and then crumping the lord with his Servo-arms when it is their turn to attack...

The techmarine example is flawed tho, in that the TM attacks at two different Initiative values, so sure, if the squad is all gone by Init 1 and the TM is btb with the Lord, he's good. For the Talons however, we assume taht all the attacks are at Init 4. And nothing allows you to change targets within the same Initiative phase in hth.
Course, it also doesn't tell us how Invuls work into the equation.................

A techmarine would not be able to do that. He would have had to either declare his attacks against the squad, the lord, or split his attacks against both.

Everything was dead. All the Destroyers that the dread had declared assault against and allocated his attacks towards were dead. The dread no longer had a target. Leftover bonus attacks are lost because the dread no longer has a declared target.

It isn't how the rule works. Sure blood talons can wipe out an entire unit, I have no problem with that whatsoever. I don't think they should the be able to wipe out additional units that they never declared they were assaulting in the first place by shifting leftover bonus attacks to the next unit in base to base.

There is nothing in the BA codex that changes the rules for multiple assault or IC & Assaults in the BRB that allows them to switch targets in the middle of CC.

You're right that he can't say "...first 5 attacks at the destroyers then 3 at the lord and 2 more at the destroyers, then...". He can do the following which follows the rules:

1. Allocate Attacks:

two attacks to Destroyers
two attacks to Necron Lord

2. Roll to Hit:

Destroyers take two hits.
Necron Lord takes one hit.

3. Roll to Wound/Roll to Save:

one wound to Destroyers, unsaved wound, dread immediately gets additional attack against unit, hits and wounds, last Destroyer dies. Enemy is slain, no more extra attacks.

two wounds to Necron Lord, Phase Shifter fails to save one wound, dread immediately gets additional attack against unit, hits and wounds unit, Phase Shifter fails again, dread immediately gets additional attack against unit, fails to hit. No more unsaved wounds, no more extra attacks.

Notice how each Roll to Wound and Roll to Save is played out. That is because there are two separate Necron units in CC, the Destroyers and the Necron Lord. Completely legal and per RAW.

don_mondo wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:Comments like "It's already broken as is, it doesn't need additional perks. " illustrate the real reason people think the rules are "unclear". Just like when poeple were trying to argue the Mawloc can't intentionally target units with its DS attack.
.

So, a model that can kill 20+ models in a single round of combat isn't over the top. Happened to me not once but twice in the Ard Boyz. Yet, they took a weaker version of the same thing OUT of the Chaos codex once upon a time, because, even tho Chaos had to pay for it instead of getting it as a free upgrade, it was "too powerful".

Yeah, I think it's broken.

A charging Death Company Dread (best case scenario) will put out 20 or more wounds about 4% of the time. Did this really happen twice at Ard Boyz?

In addition, nothing in the BRB or the BA codex says that the bonus attacks initiate a new round of combat allowing you to reallocate those attacks.

If anything, the BA codex entry for blood talons telling you to immediately take the bonus attack would point that you take it against the unit you are fighting.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:A charging Death Company Dread (best case scenario) will put out 20 or more wounds about 4% of the time. Did this really happen twice at Ard Boyz?

Don't you know anything? If something is a 1 in a million chance it will happen 9 times out of 10!

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:Comments like "It's already broken as is, it doesn't need additional perks. " illustrate the real reason people think the rules are "unclear". Just like when poeple were trying to argue the Mawloc can't intentionally target units with its DS attack.
.

So, a model that can kill 20+ models in a single round of combat isn't over the top. Happened to me not once but twice in the Ard Boyz. Yet, they took a weaker version of the same thing OUT of the Chaos codex once upon a time, because, even tho Chaos had to pay for it instead of getting it as a free upgrade, it was "too powerful".

Yeah, I think it's broken.

A charging Death Company Dread (best case scenario) will put out 20 or more wounds about 4% of the time. Did this really happen twice at Ard Boyz?

Yep, round 3 of the Ard Boyz. I lost two 20-man merged IG platoons in round 2 to two dreads. He never even had to swing with the Death Company squads. Hell, I ran out of models before he ran out of attacks! Three dreads total, three stormravens, he went first, you get the picture? Flat out to right in front of me and sit there. Sure, I shot down ONE Stormraven with the combined shooting of three 20-man lascannon/plasma gun merged squads, a Paskquisher, an Executioner (I was getting desperate) and the Command squad Lascannon. One, and it was to an immobilized result. That dread was the only one that didn't make it into hth in turn 2, as he disembarked it behind the wreck.

Fortunately I kept the two Platoon Commands, Marbo, Callidus, Inquisitor and chimeras in reserves, and everything came on in turn 2. I actually won the game by one KP, as all he had left at the end of turn 6 was a wounded Astorath. Course, middle of turn 6 he was winning by 2, but I managed to finish off his last immobilize/weaponless dread, last tac marine and a Sang priest in my shooting. And Astorath took a lascannon to the face but made his Invul. So I'm not griping because I lost, cause I didn't I just think taht it's waaaaaaaay over the top. Expecially, as I already pointed out, since they once took a way a weaker version of this from Chaos because they thought it was too powerful.......................

Well it is going into the Gwar FAQ circus, LOL, so hopefully they will copy paste and not give him credit again.....LOL!!