So i've seen a lot of excitement and stuff on the net on Tyranid Tervigons regarding the 'awesomeness' of Tervigons and being able to Smash Attack wtih a ton of other bonuses to gain a ton of S10 attacks.

But after finally playing my first game of 6th and using a Tervigon looking over the rule I don't quite get how everyone is arriving at this conclusion that the Tervigon gets a crap load of S10 attacks.

1. Modifiers are applied by multipliers, then addition/substractions first. But the smash attack is a divider or are we calling it a 'negative multiplier'?

2. Smash allows you to halve your attack characteristic. For the tervigon this would mean getting 2 attacks at S10. As I read it, the +1 for assaulting is not to be included into the smash attack as it only accounts for the model's attack characteristic, even if you had crushing claws or warp speed psychic power they would not stack with the Smash attack as the Smash attack seems to be it's own unique attack option set aside from the standard close combat attack you'd normally make.


To conclude it seems to me like the Smash Attack is something different altogether set apart from the standard rules of close combat attacks.

So if someone would be kind enough to point out the relevant counter-argument to this i'd appreciate it.

As it stands it seems rather cheezy to me to stack every + attacks to the smash attack and to grant them all the strength bonus as well when the rules for it seem to indicate that you are giving up on doing your standard attacks in order to do a completely different type of attack that has it's own set rules.

Seems like there is little downside to doing a smash attack otherwise. I mean how many models out there DONT greatly benefit from giving up 1 or 2 of their attacks in order to have double the strength?? If i can guesstimate off the top of my head, there are few models in the game capable of a smash attack that don't benefit either slightly or majorly from smashing every single time. Only the Wraithlords spring to mind as they have ridiculous strength. Anyone done the math hammer on wether to smash or not to smash?

Read the smash rule closely, it tells you to halve your attack characteristic. That last word is key, as that is just what's on your stat line, nothing else, so all other bonuses are applied as normal.

nohman wrote:Read the smash rule closely, it tells you to halve your attack characteristic. That last word is key, as that is just what's on your stat line, nothing else, so all other bonuses are applied as normal.

QFT

3 Attacks drops to 1.5, rounds up to 2.

+1 For charging
+D3 for Warp Speed (if applicable)
+D3 for Crushing Claws (if applicable)

= Tervigons are now as good can openers as carnifexes and trygons.

I know it says that, my argument is that just before you get to that part it says that the Smash attack is done 'instead' of doing your 'close combat attacks'

'when making it's close combat attacks, it can choose to instead make a smash attack"

to me this would imply that you can either do your close combat attacks as normal

OR

you can do a completely different type of attack called a Smash Attack. That follows it's own rules.

Any bonus modifiers you have during the game are part of your 'close combat attacks' they don't count as something else you add later on. Unless you are counting the +1 one for charging which is applied upon the act of charging.

Am I being too literal with the wording?

I see this smash attack as a 'new' type of attack you can make in close combat, much like hammer of wrath following it's own set of rules etc.

Or akin to RUN when it was first introduced in 5th ed it is something new altogether.

tetrisphreak wrote:

nohman wrote:Read the smash rule closely, it tells you to halve your attack characteristic. That last word is key, as that is just what's on your stat line, nothing else, so all other bonuses are applied as normal.

QFT

3 Attacks drops to 1.5, rounds up to 2.

+1 For charging
+D3 for Warp Speed (if applicable)
+D3 for Crushing Claws (if applicable)

= Tervigons are now as good can openers as carnifexes and trygons.

This would be correct.

Meh still seems wrong. IMO smash attacks are a different type of attack from the way it's worded.

I would smash at every single opportunity with a tervigon/daemon prince or any other S5 monstrous creature with 4 or less attacks.

Im saying the smash attack is something else following similar rules (albeit with some changes as mentioned)

So the tervigon would not give up every single attack it has in order to do the smash attack. But only the smash attacks would be S10

So

+1A charging
+ D3 Warp Speed
+ D3 Crushing Claws

would occur at it's base strength not at S10. Only the attacks coming from halving it's characteristic (The smash attacks) will be S10 and get any bonuses given by it.

The smash attack rule is very specific that you do it 'instead' of your standard close combat attacks and then specifically says that to determine how many smash attacks you have, you halve your attack characteristic and they count as strength 10. But notice that it says for THAT attack.

Let me give you guys the quotations to make this a bit easier to follow

1. When making it's close combat attacks, it can choose to instead make a smash attack

2. A smash attack also doubles the model's strength for the purpose of that attack.

So the way I understand this is that the smash attacks are determined from halving your attack characteristic only. And your other attack bonuses would be resolved at their standard strength/rules

So a tervigon would get 2 S10 attacks and then the +1 charge/+D3 CC/+D3 Warp Speed would be resolved at S5 as normal.

Otherwise why was the distinction made that you can choose to smash attack instead of doing your close combat attacks? The word instead would be used for no reason in that sentence if everything stacks together anyway. And furthermore it says that only THAT attack is resolved at S10, why specifically single out the smash attack as being S10 if every attack you do will be S10 ?

You're reading the rules wrong. It's quite simple - a mc can halve its attack stat to double str in cc. Modifiers are applied according to page 2 in the BRB.

Notice page 2 doesn't address division.

Multipliers/Additions/Subrations all mentioned.

even then the argument doesn't have anything to do with that, it's the fact that the smash attack is done 'instead' of close combat attacks and S10 is only for the purpose of 'that' attack.

Akaiyou wrote:Notice page 2 doesn't address division.

Multipliers/Additions/Subrations all mentioned.

even then the argument doesn't have anything to do with that, it's the fact that the smash attack is done 'instead' of close combat attacks and S10 is only for the purpose of 'that' attack.

You are multiplying by 1/2. It is basic math.

Also your are ignoring certain points like "a model making a Smash Attack can re-roll its armor penitration rolls;"

Penetration rolls. How can you have more then 1 penetration roll if it only gives you one attack.

Gloomfang wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:Notice page 2 doesn't address division.

Multipliers/Additions/Subrations all mentioned.

even then the argument doesn't have anything to do with that, it's the fact that the smash attack is done 'instead' of close combat attacks and S10 is only for the purpose of 'that' attack.

You are multiplying by 1/2. It is basic math.

Also your are ignoring certain points like "a model making a Smash Attack can re-roll its armor penitration rolls;"

Penetration rolls. How can you have more then 1 penetration roll if it only gives you one attack.

40k rules never ever ask you to multiply anything by .5
You are specifically asked to divide when you halve something, putting it in a different way doesn't change the fact that this is not what is being said.

I'm not ignoring that point that you bring up I never said 'that attack' was singular. The Smash Attack is a type of attack where the number of attacks done = halve your attack characteristic.Thus whatever halve your attack characteristic is will determine how many of those attacks are actual S10 etc etc.

If you dissect the Smash rule it has several different rules.

1. First states your attacks are AP2 but not HoW attacks.

2. Gives you the option to make a special kind of attack with it's own rules.

Akaiyou wrote:
40k rules never ever ask you to multiply anything by .5

Then how do you know when Rapid Fire weapons get 2 shots?

Akaiyou wrote:
If you dissect the Smash rule it has several different rules.

1. First states your attacks are AP2 but not HoW attacks.

2. Gives you the option to make a special kind of attack with it's own rules.

It's a special kind of close combat attack.
How many close combat attacks does a Tervigon make?

Does a charge add a close combat attack?
Do crushing claws add close combat attacks?
Does warp speed add close combat attacks?

DarknessEternal wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:
40k rules never ever ask you to multiply anything by .5

Then how do you know when Rapid Fire weapons get 2 shots?

Huh? What does that have to do with rapid fire? Rapid fire doesnt ask you to multiply by .5 either

Here is the rule

"If a unit shooting rapid fire weapons is found to be partially within half range of the target, the firing models within half range fire two shots"

The word half is used. It doesn't say multiply by .5 to determine distance. This is division.

rigeld2 wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:
If you dissect the Smash rule it has several different rules.

1. First states your attacks are AP2 but not HoW attacks.

2. Gives you the option to make a special kind of attack with it's own rules.

It's a special kind of close combat attack.
How many close combat attacks does a Tervigon make?

Does a charge add a close combat attack?
Do crushing claws add close combat attacks?
Does warp speed add close combat attacks?

That's exactly my point...it is a 'special' kind of close combat attack that does not include your other close combat attacks in it's benefits.

The Tervigon would still get the extra attacks but not at S10 because from the very first sentence they were excluded from the smash attack, otherwise what exactly are you excluding when you read the first sentence of the smash attack rule?? I think thats the question that needs to be answered...

Akaiyou wrote:
So the tervigon would not give up every single attack it has in order to do the smash attack. But only the smash attacks would be S10

So
+1A charging
+ D3 Warp Speed
+ D3 Crushing Claws

3 attacks, + 1 charge, +D3 +D3.

If you look under the rules for characteristic modifiers, it says that all characteristics are between 0-10, Except for attacks and wounds, they can be modified above 10.
The nature of +1 attack modifies your attack characteristic. The rule doesn't need to say "Charging adds +1 to your attack characteristic which is a modifier" in order for it to be a modifier.
You're halving the characteristic, and all those bonus attacks are modifiers.
A charging warp speed crushing claw Tervigon can have an attack characteristic of 10.
The arguement must be, is Halve attacks mean Multiply by 0.5, which forces it first in order of operations as per modifier, or does it mean something else?

If you look at the close combat process on page 24, you determine number of attacks first.

Then you roll to hit, then wound... blah blah blah.

Smash says: When it makes it's close combat attacks, it can choose to smash instead, but it halves it's attack characteristic.
If you walk through the assault phase, at initiative 1, you'd roll up how many attacks you have, and then, before "making the attacks", decided to smash or not.

This whole process is pretty messy. You're argueing what is and isn't a chracteristic modifier, is half multiplying by 0.5, and what the rules mean by "Making attacks".





As for Half, here's the other mess example.
Night Shield and rapid fire. Night shield says -6" on weapon ranges. Rapid fire is twice at half range.
Does a bolter fire twice at 9", or twice at 6"?
24" range, -6" for night shield is 18, half for rapid fire is 9.
Or
24" range, half for rapid fire is 12", -6 for night shield is 6".
Weapon range isn't a characteristic defined on page 2, so order of operations might not apply.

Warp Speed states +D3 Attacks (Not attacks) so those are added to the Attacks characteristic.

Crushing claws also adds +D3 Attacks (Not attacks) so those are added to the Attacks characteristic.

Charge also states +1 Attack (Not attack) so those are added to the Attacks characteristic.

DeathReaper wrote:Warp Speed states +D3 Attacks (Not attacks) so those are added to the Attacks characteristic.

Crushing claws also adds +D3 Attacks (Not attacks) so those are added to the Attacks characteristic.

Charge also states +1 Attack (Not attack) so those are added to the Attacks characteristic.

That is totaly right. And given the rules on applying modifers you end up with 2+D3+D3+1 attacks with Smash.

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagree with that from your post.

Well Modifiers do not mention division.

So when do we apply the Half attacks?

RAW it does not say, but It seems to mean that you get half of your Attacks characteristic.

Which is Attacks +D3+D3+1 Halved.

It is really not so clear, so maybe wait for an FAQ?

DeathReaper wrote:Warp Speed states +D3 Attacks (Not attacks) so those are added to the Attacks characteristic.

Crushing claws also adds +D3 Attacks (Not attacks) so those are added to the Attacks characteristic.

Charge also states +1 Attack (Not attack) so those are added to the Attacks characteristic.

Order of Modifiers Operations:

Multiply/Divide
Then Add/Subtract
Then Set Value.

SO no matter how you look at it:
Stat 4/2 (or 4*1/2)=2
2+d3+d3+1= 3+2d3.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Order of Modifiers Operations:

Multiply/Divide
Then Add/Subtract
Then Set Value.

Where does it say that?

I only see Multipliers then Then Add/Subtract, Then Set Value.

nothing about Division.

DeathReaper wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Order of Modifiers Operations:

Multiply/Divide
Then Add/Subtract
Then Set Value.

Where does it say that?

I only see Multipliers then Then Add/Subtract, Then Set Value.

nothing about Division.

Math.

Math Says that.

Multiplication and division are the same thing, just from different directions.

To Halve is either to divide by 2 or to multiply by 1/2(or .5).

Smash does not specify that you divide, and the rules do not cover division at all; so we must assume that in order to work within the rules that the Halving of the attacks characteristic, that we are to multiply by 1/2 or by .5(same exact thing).

So taking the definition of division in mathematics(A=BxC, and C=A/B whereB=/=0.) we are left with Division being a Multiplier.

And in either case(division as a multiplier, or Halving required to be Multiplying by one-half to fit in the rules), you follow the order and Smash = A*.5+all other modifiers.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Order of Modifiers Operations:

Multiply/Divide
Then Add/Subtract
Then Set Value.

Where does it say that?

I only see Multipliers then Then Add/Subtract, Then Set Value.

nothing about Division.

Math.

Math Says that.

Multiplication and division are the same thing, just from different directions.

Different directions means that aren't the same thing, now are they?

So a night shielded Dark Eldar vehicle cannot be rapid fired at by warp spiders?
12" range, half for 6, -6 for night shields.

I'm not sold on Halve the attacks is the same as Multiple by 0.5 for characteristic modification.
Mathmatically yes, warhammer... maybe not.

-Matt

DeathReaper wrote:Well Modifiers do not mention division.

So when do we apply the Half attacks?

RAW it does not say, but It seems to mean that you get half of your Attacks characteristic.

Which is Attacks +D3+D3+1 Halved.

It is really not so clear, so maybe wait for an FAQ?

So you would let your opponet with a S3 psyker and a powerfist who casts iron arm do this.

3+D3 and the double it?

The rules are pretty clear on opperations.

The rules say to apply multipliers first.

To half something is to apply a multiplier of 1/2 to it.

I don't really see how this could be made much clearer.

Arson Fire wrote:The rules say to apply multipliers first.

To half something is to apply a multiplier of 1/2 to it.

I don't really see how this could be made much clearer.

This. Page 2, left hand column, under "Multiple Modifiers".

Division is multiplication by a value of less than one. That's what it means. It's not a workaround, it's not a different direction, it's not an alternative - they are equivalent, which, by definition, means that they are the same in all circumstances. So, any division modifiers are applied at the same time as multiplicative ones.

Everything that modifies Attacks modifies the Attacks Characteristic, so the exact wording of Smash does not change things - the halving is applied first because the rules on page 2 say that it's applied first.

Gloomfang wrote:The rules are pretty clear on opperations.

Yes, and they do not mention division at all.

DeathReaper wrote:

Gloomfang wrote:The rules are pretty clear on opperations.

Yes, and they do not mention division at all.

And show me where the word "divide" shows up in the rules for Smash. It states to halve. To halve means to reduce to 50% of its original value. So technically the equation for performing that opperation A(Smash)= A(base) * 50%. So 3*50%= 150%. As we need to have an intiger we must change this from a percentage of the original A(base). So to remove the % you must express it as a ratio of 150%/100%. That will give us A(smash)=1.5.

Fortunatly the rules tell us if we end up with a remainder we should round up to the next whole number. So A(smash)=2.

You then go and apply other modifiers per the rules. Unless you need the mathmatical proof for those as well.

But again the point stands. Smash lacks the word divide that you are hung up on.

(Last math class I had to take was Math 680, but that was 13 years ago when I was working on my first engineering degree. But I doubt the basics have changed that much.)

Gloomfang wrote:And show me where the word "divide" shows up in the rules for Smash. It states to halve. To halve means to reduce to 50% of its original value. So technically the equation for performing that opperation A(Smash)= A(base) * 50%. So 3*50%= 150%. As we need to have an intiger we must change this from a percentage of the original A(base). So to remove the % you must express it as a ratio of 150%/100%. That will give us A(smash)=1.5.

Fortunatly the rules tell us if we end up with a remainder we should round up to the next whole number. So A(smash)=2.

You then go and apply other modifiers per the rules. Unless you need the mathmatical proof for those as well.

But again the point stands. Smash lacks the word divide that you are hung up on.

(Last math class I had to take was Math 680, but that was 13 years ago when I was working on my first engineering degree. But I doubt the basics have changed that much.)

Sure Halve the Attacks characteristic. further solidifying that it does not follow the rules on P.2 at all.

"To halve means to reduce to 50%" (You are correct here.)

"of its original value" So close and yet so far. Why are you halving the original value? Smash makes no mention of original value, just "Attacks characteristic".

Unless your version of the book says Halve the original value.

Modifiers (Pg2)
"Special rules can modify a model's characteristics positivly or negativly"

Characteristic Profiles(pg3)
"has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics."

Refrence Codex:Tyranids (pg413)
Tervigon A3


So Smash is a Special Rule (as it is in the Special Rule section). Smash states to halve the "Attacks characteristic". That requires us to modify the Attack characteristic. The rules to perform the modification (pg2) tells that special rules allow modifications to characteristics. Pg3 informs us that a model's characteristics are defined in its Profile as written in its Codec or in the reffrence section of the BRB. Both define the Tervigon's profile as having an Attack characteristic of 3.

That series of rules defines the original value to be modifed by the Smash attack as the number of Attacks listed in the model's profile. In the case of the Tervigon that is 3 attacks.

(Posted from my phone so ignore typos)

here's a great way to understand multiplication/division:

Remember the division symbol? it's a fraction with a dot above and below the fraction line. Division is literally "First item" / (over) "Second Item"

Think about it.

5 divided by 2 = 5/2 = 5/1 Multiplied by 1/2

Make sense?

While I can see where the arguement is, unless otherwise directed by a TO HIWPI is going to be the total Attacks characticts halved. Making the order of operations (3+1+D3+D3)/2 as IMO that is what the Intention is.

Yonush wrote:While I can see where the arguement is, unless otherwise directed by a TO HIWPI is going to be the total Attacks characticts halved. Making the order of operations (3+1+D3+D3)/2 as IMO that is what the Intention is.

How can you even remotely say that is how it is intended whent the rules are spelled out so clearly.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not a rule. I hate that MSS can be triggered in a challange, but its still a rule.

Gloomfang wrote:How can you even remotely say that is how it is intended whent the rules are spelled out so clearly.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not a rule. I hate that MSS can be triggered in a challange, but its still a rule.

That is just it, Halving a stat IS NOT LISTED anywhere in the modifiers section.

How can you even remotely say the rules are spelled out so clearly?

Just because you want it to be there doesn't mean it is a rule

Ignus wrote:here's a great way to understand multiplication/division:

Remember the division symbol? it's a fraction with a dot above and below the fraction line. Division is literally "First item" / (over) "Second Item"

Think about it.

5 divided by 2 = 5/2 = 5/1 Multiplied by 1/2

Make sense?

Mathematically yes, but RAW does not list halving as a modifier, so we really just do not know when to apply it.

TL DR: The safest, and most sporting, thing to do is to take the least advantageous interpretation.

DeathReaper wrote:That is just it, Halving a stat IS NOT LISTED anywhere in the modifiers section.

Yes it really is.
Page 2 it's covered under "Multipliers"
Halving something IS a multiplier. It's a multiplier of 0.5
A multiplier is the number by which something is multiplied. This can and often does have a negitive impact on a number.

Saying you can't use the rule because it doesn't mention devision is simply wrong. Devision is a more user friendly way of saying the inverse of multiplication. The rules doesn't have to explain how to use basic math in order to be valid.

Devision is covered by Multipliers.

A multiplier is something like a power fist Str X2
They even use Power Fist as an example:

For example if a model with Strength 4 has both +1 Strength and double Strength, its final Strength is 9 (4x2=8, 8+l =9)

See that 4X2 that is a multiplier anything that multiplies your stat.

Smash: "A Smash Attack also doubles the model's Strength" Multiplier there as well.

Halving the attacks is division, which is not covered. (Unless you have a Page number where it says when specifically Halving is applied)

DeathReaper wrote:A multiplier is something like a power fist Str X2
They even use Power Fist as an example:

For example if a model with Strength 4 has both +1 Strength and double Strength, its final Strength is 9 (4x2=8, 8+l =9)

See that 4X2 that is a multiplier anything that multiplies your stat.

Smash: "A Smash Attack also doubles the model's Strength" Multiplier there as well.

Halving the attacks is division, which is not covered. (Unless you have a Page number where it says when specifically Halving is applied)

Saying that division is not listed in order of operations is asinine. Halving a stat is the mechanism and you can half something by multiplying if you must be obtuse about the rules.

A tervigon with crushing claws doing a smash attack will get 4 to 6 attacks on the charge, that's just how it is for a 200+ POINT MODEL.

DeathReaper wrote:A multiplier is something like a power fist Str X2
They even use Power Fist as an example:

For example if a model with Strength 4 has both +1 Strength and double Strength, its final Strength is 9 (4x2=8, 8+l =9)

See that 4X2 that is a multiplier anything that multiplies your stat.

Smash: "A Smash Attack also doubles the model's Strength" Multiplier there as well.

Halving the attacks is division, which is not covered. (Unless you have a Page number where it says when specifically Halving is applied)

Prove, using the rules, that halving the attacks uses division. It's been proven multiple times that i can be done with multiplication.
Since division isn't mentioned it doesn't make sense to use it ever.

If you Halve something you divide by 2, that is the definition of Halving something.

Since the BRB does not define how we Halve something we must fall back on the normal English definition.

rigeld2 wrote:Prove, using the rules, that halving the attacks uses division. It's been proven multiple times that i can be done with multiplication.
Since division isn't mentioned it doesn't make sense to use it ever.

So what are you implying? That because halve is not defined in the rulebook that smash cannot be performed? What is your stance here, I mean, besides arguing against the laws of mathematics?

It makes sense to you to fall back to something not defined in the rules instead of using a process that is defined in the rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

culsandar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Prove, using the rules, that halving the attacks uses division. It's been proven multiple times that i can be done with multiplication.
Since division isn't mentioned it doesn't make sense to use it ever.

So what are you implying? That because halve is not defined in the rulebook that smash cannot be performed? What is your stance here, I mean, besides arguing against the laws of mathematics?

What?

No, I'm arguing that since division isn't defined but multiplication is, arguing that division must be used doesn't make sense.
Also, dividing at the end of the process breaks PEMDAS which doesn't make sense.
Also, saying to use a non-rules defined process to handle a situation that isn't defined in the rules, when there is a rules defined process that can handle it doesn't make sense.

Smash can be used, and we Halve the Attacks characteristic.

It makes sense to me to use the rules which say to Halve the Attacks Characteristic, and since Halving is not defined in the modifiers section it is sporting to take the least advantageous position, and that would be applying it after all modifiers as listed in the BRB.

In all reality it is a difference between having (2+D3 +1(4-6)) and (3+D3+1(3-4)

If my opponent wanted to play it the first way I would not take an issue with it in a game because it is only the difference between 1 attack maybe 2, and it is not likely to be FAQ'd anyway.

DeathReaper wrote:If you Halve something you divide by 2, that is the definition of Halving something.

Since the BRB does not define how we Halve something we must fall back on the normal English definition.

Halving is dividing by two, yes well done. Using a normal English definition:

so we have one divided by two.

1 / 2 = ?

The answer is: 0.5

What is half of ten?

10 / 2 = 5
or
10 x (1/2) = 5
or
10 x 0.5 = 5

There are many ways to half something. Divied by 2 is the simplest but definatly not the only way.
Using a Multiplier to half something is perfectly correct. The BRB does not need to explain simple maths to us.
An English definition of Devision is an Inverse Multiplication.

The book tells us to use some other way that the normal way to Halve then? Did I just miss that page number?

If we are going to invent rules, then I will concede...

DeathReaper wrote:The book tells us to use some other way that the normal way to Halve then? Did I just miss that page number?

If we are going to invent rules, then I will concede...

Invent rules?
I used maths.
And a English definition as you suggested.
The rule says to use Multipliers, so I did.

DeathReaper wrote:If you Halve something you divide by 2, that is the definition of Halving something.

Since the BRB does not define how we Halve something we must fall back on the normal English definition.

I do agree with him here that halving something IS division. By definition.

Otherwise what's the damn point of division being taught ANYWHERE in the world? You guys are arguing that divion = multiplication , well in that case the same case can be made for addition and subtraction no?

5 - 1 = 4
-1 + 5 = 4
9 - 5 = 4
-5 + 9 = 4

Same thing. Yet the BRB mentions BOTH addition and substraction distinctively. So the argument is silly. It's not like everywhere around the world division is not part of the math curriculum i've never seen any school that teaches ONLY multiplication/addition/subtraction i mean according to you guys whats the point of even having the term division int he first place? Who even made up that word? So unnecessary clearly since multiplication is the exact same thing and not just a different way to get the same result, clearly they are identical. See what im getting at?

With that said, CLEARLY GW chooses to include division with the terms HALF/HALVE/D3 and such means.

But I just want to state that the thread was not intended to be a debate on multiplying and divison or whatnot. It was to answer the question as to how the smash rule truly works because the wording I feel was not quite as clear and I myself arrived at a different interpretation than other players.

While I believed that the smash attack did halve the base attack characteristic only for the purposes of accounting how many S10 attacks it would inflict and then the rest of the attacks being done as normal, due to failing to see the reasoning in stating that you use a smash attack 'instead' of normal close combat attacks and that the S10 is only for the purpose of THAT attack, just didn't make sense if everything was included altogether.

I have seen received one reasonable response as to why it would imply that you only have S10 for the purpose of that attack. Being that it could be to prevent it being used against abilities that are determined based off the strength characteristic.And I am happy with that interpretation.

However i do think that there is a certain degree of ambiguity in the smash rule.

grendel083 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The book tells us to use some other way that the normal way to Halve then? Did I just miss that page number?

If we are going to invent rules, then I will concede...

Invent rules?
I used maths.
And a English definition as you suggested.
The rule says to use Multipliers, so I did.

So when do we Halve the attacks Characteristic?

Where is it said where the Halve is applied?

It is not on P.2 as that mentions multipliers and not Halve (Division)

DeathReaper wrote:

grendel083 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The book tells us to use some other way that the normal way to Halve then? Did I just miss that page number?

If we are going to invent rules, then I will concede...

Invent rules?
I used maths.
And a English definition as you suggested.
The rule says to use Multipliers, so I did.

So when do we Halve the attacks Characteristic?

Where is it said where the Halve is applied?

It is not on P.2 as that mentions multipliers and not Halve (Division)

The problem here is that you take 'Multipliers' to mean 'Multiplication' (and only when it applies to numbers above 1).
Halving something is very much a Multiplier.
Page 2 says where you apply Multipliers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If I have an Attack characteristic of 4 and I'm told to half it and apply a +1 modifier I look to the rules on page 2 for "Multiple Modifiers"
First the Multipier:
4 x 0.5 = 2 (also known as Halving)
Then the Addition
2+1
Total: 3

Division is not mentioned as a Multiplier.

Division is a Divisor not a Multiplier.

The two can produce similar results, but they are not the same.

DR - halving something can be achieved EITHER by multiplying by 0.5, or dividing by 2.

Making it a multiplier.

DeathReaper wrote:Division is not mentioned as a Multiplier.

Division is a Divisor not a Multiplier.

The two can produce similar results, but they are not the same.

That is flat out wrong.
They do not produce similar results, they produce exactly the same results. Becasue they are the same.
Devision is defined as "Inverse Multiplication" quite literally the reverse of multiplication.
A half is dividing by 2
1 divided by two is 1/2 which equals 0.5
1 with a multiplier of 0.5 is halving.
This is basic maths.

Prove that halving is not multiplier.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And while you're at it, look up divisor. Divisor is what you divide by.
in the equation
a / b = c
the divisor is b

rigeld2 wrote:No, I'm arguing that since division isn't defined but multiplication is, arguing that division must be used doesn't make sense.
Also, dividing at the end of the process breaks PEMDAS which doesn't make sense.
Also, saying to use a non-rules defined process to handle a situation that isn't defined in the rules, when there is a rules defined process that can handle it doesn't make sense.

You still didn't answer my question. What is it you are arguing for? What is the purpose for all this spew? What is your stance in this thread, other than to argue against mathematics?

If you will not accept that multiplication and division are the same, there's no point in continuing this debate.

It's like not accepting the earth is round.

This discussion could only take place in YDMC of dakka...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/division

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiplication?show=0&t=1343587021


Not identical they are opposites. Just like Addition & Substraction, Positives and Negatives.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiplier

You guys are arguing that divion = multiplication , well in that case the same case can be made for addition and subtraction no?

5 - 1 = 4
-1 + 5 = 4
9 - 5 = 4
-5 + 9 = 4


If you fumble around numbers in any way you desire then you can always get at whatever result you seek. It's not that hard, but just because the end result is the same doesnt mean that the process used is identical or that the terms are identical.

40k is a game of terms. Where words are significant and in most cases absolute in determining rules.

Halving is clearly division. Open a dictionary and look:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/halve

Just want to make that clear. Division =/= Multiplication. Unless you want to also claim Addition = Substraction.

Mathematically division is just multiplication by a number smaller than 1. The rulebook does not reference division in the modifications section, yet expects us to be able to halve a value, per Smash. We can halve that value by using multiplication, which is one of the modifiers referenced on page 2.

If we use multiplication, as we are evidently expected, we have a clear and functional order of operations, and no problems understanding the rule.

I really wonder if some people ever read "dividing to conquer" section where it clearly says that you can divide characteristics...

Mannahnin wrote:Mathematically division is just multiplication by a number smaller than 1. The rulebook does not reference division in the modifications section, yet expects us to be able to halve a value, per Smash. We can halve that value by using multiplication, which is one of the modifiers referenced on page 2.

If we use multiplication, as we are evidently expected, we have a clear and functional order of operations, and no problems understanding the rule.

I'm not stating that this is incorrect however the same exact case can be made for addition and substraction.

Substraction is just addition of a negative number and a positive. So all of a sudden substraction doesn't exist? Just saying

We are all reasonable people with common sense. And as much as we can all agree that multiplying 0.5 will give the same result, we should all also be able to agree that the word HALVE is a division and not a multiplication reference.

Per rules I believe you guys are correct that regardless of the process the result will infact be the same. Lets not make a case for multiplication = division in a game where division is never mentioned directly but is referenced and implented by 'halving' values or using a 'D3' and the like.

There is never mention of 'multiply by 0.5' anywhere on any rulebook/codex. All in all we are arguing something rather pointless in my opinion the result still stands the same.

But i did feel the need to point out that addition and substraction ARE mentioned even though the same exact case that you make for multiplication can be made for either one.

Saying to halve something is NOT saying to divide. You can halve equally well by division or multiplication.

Anyway, even if you treat it as distinct from multiplication, they both happen at the same step of PEMDAS. Or one right after the other, and still before any additions or subtractions.

Death Reaper:

Where in the rules is "Halving" dividing by 2?

Since Division is not in the rules at all...

Then we must look to the alternate operations for Halving; Multiplying by .5 or 1/2(same exact thing).

As Halving is clearly a multiplier(*.5 or *1/2); then it is applied first.

DeathReaper wrote:If you Halve something you divide by 2, that is the definition of Halving something.

Since the BRB does not define how we Halve something we must fall back on the normal English definition.

Can also be defined as "if you Halve something you multiply it by 1/2".

Akaiyou wrote:

Substraction is just addition of a negative number and a positive. So all of a sudden substraction doesn't exist? Just saying

actually, a lot of mathematical operations can be represented with addition, with other operations being essentially "short-hand" for the actual addition problem.

subtraction-addition of negative numbers
multiplication-addition of the same number multiple times
division-counting the number of times the same number can be added
exponents-the same set of the same number added multiple times, added together multiple times (i.e. (3+3+3)+(3+3+3)+(3+3+3)=3x3x3=3^3)

Now, when a word says "halve", the only requirement is that we end up with half of what we ended up halving. The word halve doesn't care if we used multiplication of division to get our result. Therefore, we can either divide, and then have something which we can't work with, or multiply by the divisor's reciprocal and get something we can work with.

SCvodimier wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:Substraction is just addition of a negative number and a positive. So all of a sudden substraction doesn't exist? Just saying

actually, a lot of mathematical operations can be represented with addition, with other operations being essentially "short-hand" for the actual addition problem.

subtraction-addition of negative numbers
multiplication-addition of the same number multiple times
division-counting the number of times the same number can be added
exponents-the same set of the same number added multiple times, added together multiple times (i.e. (3+3+3)+(3+3+3)+(3+3+3)=3x3x3=3^3)

That's actually how a computer processor works. They're incapable of doing anything other than addition.

grendel083 wrote:

SCvodimier wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:Substraction is just addition of a negative number and a positive. So all of a sudden substraction doesn't exist? Just saying

actually, a lot of mathematical operations can be represented with addition, with other operations being essentially "short-hand" for the actual addition problem.

subtraction-addition of negative numbers
multiplication-addition of the same number multiple times
division-counting the number of times the same number can be added
exponents-the same set of the same number added multiple times, added together multiple times (i.e. (3+3+3)+(3+3+3)+(3+3+3)=3x3x3=3^3)

That's actually how a computer processor works. They're incapable of doing anything other than addition.

Only reason I know so much about that perspective of math =P


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, that brings up a fun question. If a computer ended up doing all our calculations, could we not rely on any of its results because it is doing addition instead of multiplication, division, subtraction, etc.?

If the additional attacks were not meant to be included before dividing by two, Smash would read the same as Hammer of Wraith which is "and is resolved at the models unmodified strength".

Guys get on google and type 'Definition of Halve'

Yes i know that you CAN get half through multiplying just like you can do ti through many other means.

But by definition the word HALVE is division. Look it up.

Akaiyou wrote:Guys get on google and type 'Definition of Halve'

Yes i know that you CAN get half through multiplying just like you can do ti through many other means.

But by definition the word HALVE is division. Look it up.

Yes, and we're stating that since it does not specifically state that we have to divide, then when we are stuck with something that we have no clue for (division), we can just treat it as multiplication, and the issue resolves itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, look up the word "divide" in the dictionary and tell me where you have to specifically use division.

SCvodimier wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:Guys get on google and type 'Definition of Halve'

Yes i know that you CAN get half through multiplying just like you can do ti through many other means.

But by definition the word HALVE is division. Look it up.

Yes, and we're stating that since it does not specifically state that we have to divide, then when we are stuck with something that we have no clue for (division), we can just treat it as multiplication, and the issue resolves itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, look up the word "divide" in the dictionary and tell me where you have to specifically use division.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/divide

2. Mathematics To perform the operation of division.

There you go sir, as requested.

Akaiyou wrote:Guys get on google and type 'Definition of Halve'

Yes i know that you CAN get half through multiplying just like you can do ti through many other means.

But by definition the word HALVE is division. Look it up.

So what's stopping us from using 'half' as a multiplier?
The world of mathematics says its fine.
Why do you say no?

The rule book tells us how to handle Modifiers, but if we follow your "there's only one way to halve" logic we now have a broken rule as we have no order to apply modifiers (since the magic 'divide' word isn't used).

A half is a perfectly acceptable multiplier that fits the rules nicely.

except you seem to have missed the part where i agree the process still works out, i think i've stated that 2 or 3 times.

I'm just disputing this claim that halve is not division.

Reason why i think this whole thing is pointless is because the 'modifiers' rule on pg2 is a basic rule of the game.

And it does NOT mention division.

But correct me if i'm wrong within that same rule book we are told that 'advanced' rules supercede basic ones

SMASH special rule is one of these 'advanced' rules

So if it tells you to 'halve' the value then you simply do as the advance rule says regardless of whatever else you were told before. So you end up with the same result without having to 'multiply' when being told to 'divide' the value in the way of halving.

If i find the page reference i'll post it but im pretty sure this is listed there.

Reference:

Pg 5. DIVIDING TO CONQUER - Addresses this whole subject we've been arguing actually. Lol go figure the rulebook DOES in fact support division and even within the same paragraph it is clearly giving examples that when it calls for you to HALVE a value it is infact telling you to DIVIDE not to multiply.

Pg 7.BASIC VERSUS ADVANCED - - This addresses the point I was making earlier where the advanced rule takes precedence. However I think dividing to conquer ir the stronger argument for division and the wording 'halve' which is clearly used as an example of how the game applies division. And the fact that it is NOT called a multiplier.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or does it have have some rules impact?

DarknessEternal wrote:If you will not accept that multiplication and division are the same, there's no point in continuing this debate.

It's like not accepting the earth is round.

The earth isn't round, and it isn't a sphere. It's a commonly accepted phrase, but it is incorrect.

Lacking any other rule, of course you do division before addition.
But I'm wondering if what smash meant is
(A+X+Y+Z)/2
Rather than A/2 + X + Y +Z.

(A is attack, X,Y, and Z would be the additional bonuses for charging and psychic powers/crushing claws)

If half, in context of smash, is not a "modifier" then the first equation would make sense. Before I get swarmed with nerd rage: I HAVE NO RULES TO BACK THIS UP, it is just how the FAQ might rule it, and isn't how it should be played right now.

Really is needs a FAQ, actually, an Errata. A Tervigon shouldn't be a better beat stick than a hive tyrant. Right now, it is.

-Matt

It's not really. Ignoring Warp Speed because they can both get it, you'll average 5 STR10 attacks at I1 and a poor WS.
Compared to a Hive Tyrant that's 5 STR 6 attacks at a significantly higher I, faster into CC (flying), harder to shoot (smaller model, Hard to Hit) much higher WS, Vector Strikes...

You should be comparing it to a Carnifex. Tervigon has more attacks (if it rolls Warp Speed) and is overall more useful.

Mannahnin wrote:Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or does it have have some rules impact?

The rules impact is:

If Halve (Division) is a multiplier (It is a Divisor not a Multiplier) you do that before you add in bonus attacks from crushing claws and the assault bonus.

If Halve (Division) is not a multiplier (It is a Divisor not a Multiplier) you add subtract and apply set values before Halving the Attacks Characteristic.

If it is a multiplier:
a tervigon using smash, for example, It is a difference between 2 +D3 +1 = 4-6 attacks on the charge.

3 attacks base/2 =2. +D3 being crushing claws and +1 being assault bonus.

if it is a Divisor, and not a Multiplier
a tervigon using smash, for example, It is a difference between 3 +D3 +1 = 3-4 attacks on the charge.
3 attacks base +D3 being crushing claws and +1 being assault bonus.

At least a 1 attack difference, at most a 2 attack difference.

Mannahnin wrote:Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or does it have have some rules impact?

At this point?
I'm not arguing i'm stating facts.

Akaiyou wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or does it have have some rules impact?

At this point?
I'm not arguing i'm stating facts.

which is part of arguing....

At this point Mannahnin, I would use your discretion on whether or not to close the thread, but the general argument right now is between whether the rulebook allows us to use multiplication to halve attacks, or whether the hvling is something unique to the smash rules, which causes issues in conjunction with other modifiers.

DeathReaper wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or does it have have some rules impact?

The rules impact is:

If Halve (Division) is a multiplier (It is a Divisor not a Multiplier) you do that before you add in bonus attacks from crushing claws and the assault bonus.

If Halve (Division) is not a multiplier (It is a Divisor not a Multiplier) you add subtract and apply set values before Halving the Attacks Characteristic.

If it is a multiplier:
a tervigon using smash, for example, It is a difference between 2 +D3 +1 = 4-6 attacks on the charge.

3 attacks base/2 =2. +D3 being crushing claws and +1 being assault bonus.

if it is a Divisor, and not a Multiplier
a tervigon using smash, for example, It is a difference between 3 +D3 +1 = 3-4 attacks on the charge.
3 attacks base +D3 being crushing claws and +1 being assault bonus.

At least a 1 attack difference, at most a 2 attack difference.

Why would division come after addition and subtraction, even if we treated division as being different from multiplication? PEMDAS tells us we do them both before adding or subtracting, and the rulebook's section on multiple modifiers matches up with PEMDAS (albeit leaving bits of it out).

Because the book does not tell us when to Divide. The Multiple Modifiers on P. 2 does not cover Divisors. That is a BIG part to just leave out.

It only says "first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."

So Divisors are not any of those three mentioned.

So we either follow the rule and have no idea where Divisors end up (So we apply Divisors last as that is the least advantageous interpretation), or we invent our own rules (Putting Divisors before everything) to make it work.

Or we put Divisors with Multipliers, where they normally go in the standard mathematical order of operations, as summarized PEMDAS and which happens to match up with the order of multipliers GW gives in the rulebook.

Except that is not what the rules tell us to do. As they do not mention Divisors (Or Dividing/Halving) in the Multiple Modifiers section. and they mention Dividing in 'Dividing to Conquer' on P.5 so they clearly know what a Dividing is.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

L0rdF1end wrote:If the additional attacks were not meant to be included before dividing by two, Smash would read the same as Hammer of Wraith which is "and is resolved at the models unmodified strength".

It does not use the term Unmodified so I'm sorry but you are wrong.

Pg 24 Number of attacks: "each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:...".

So each time you attack you calculate the number of attacks which is the characteristic PLUS any bonuses

Smash attacks halves the characteristic which using the "dividing to conquer" passage is a simple division rounded up.

So when a MC with 3 attacks charges using smash it's 3/2 rounded up, plus the bonus for charging.

copper.talos wrote:Pg 24 Number of attacks: "each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:...".

So each time you attack you calculate the number of attacks which is the characteristic PLUS any bonuses

Smash attacks halves the characteristic which using the "dividing to conquer" passage is a simple division rounded up.

So when a MC with 3 attacks charges using smash it's 3/2 rounded up, plus the bonus for charging.

So are you saying it should be 3 base +1 for charge for Smash devided by 2 = 2 + D3 Claws + D3 Warp Speed. Therefore indicating the maximum Smash attacks is 8?

This needs FAQ.

These are the rules until a faq/errata changes them.

And it's base 3 divided by 2 rounded up = 2 +1 for charge + D3 Claws + D3 Warp Speed

Ok cool, so max of 8 attacks with Smash, which is actually better than deviding at the end which would be 5.

DR - halving something else not require division by two, that is just sufficient to get the right answer. As is multiplying by 0.5

I'll go ewith the way that's in the rules

In all fairness and thinking about it more I would imagine it would be FAQ'd to the following.

Smash attacks is base characteristic devided by 2 = 2
Any additional attacks such as Crushing Claws and Warp Speed would need to be normal attacks.

So in affect the tervigon would get:

1 Hammer of Wraith
2 Smash Attacks
D3+D3 normal attacks

For the people who obviously don't understand basic mathematical formulas and rules:
Multiplication and Division are the same exact thing. The only reason that there are two words is for the people who don't understand this basic BASIC concept.
Dividing something by 2 is multiplying it by 1/2.
I wish mathematics would just teach that instead of making it so people are stunted and stifled by the ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Because the book does not tell us when to Divide. The Multiple Modifiers on P. 2 does not cover Divisors. That is a BIG part to just leave out.

It only says "first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."

So Divisors are not any of those three mentioned.

So we either follow the rule and have no idea where Divisors end up (So we apply Divisors last as that is the least advantageous interpretation), or we invent our own rules (Putting Divisors before everything) to make it work.

A multiplier IS a divisor.
Don't know if troll or serious.

I think the real question here instead of defining if a division is a multiplier which it is, is if the attack characteristic at the time of the halving base or does it considers the modifiers.

From first read I saw it pretty simple how many attacks you are about to hit with and then decide if you halve the total for smash attacks. Now before the count-argument of a it mentioning attacks characteristics the smash rules never say the unmodified attack characteristic as it usually does whenever it is that specefic (i.e. HoW str) or even sweeping advances initiative, now you need to take a side here either always count characteristic as the number on your stat line without modifiers, or the one you are actually using at the time.

This goes further that only the smash attacks if you claim the smash attacks are (attacks/2)+charge+etc+etc arguing the characteristic is only the number of the profile for any Initiative, Strength, Toughness test which also use your characteristics you would take them without any modifiers whatsoever pretty much adding the "unmodified" word everywhere that the word characteristic is used on the BRB.

The other choice which imho is the most logical one is that if any rule lacks the word "unmodified" regarding characteristics use the actual stat that is going on at that moment.

The smash attack specifically tells you to decide if you are going to smash when it makes it close combat attacks, so the attack multipliers/additions are already on play, they are part of his attacks characteristics.

Lord Yayula wrote:
The other choice which imho is the most logical one is that if any rule lacks the word "unmodified" regarding characteristics use the actual stat that is going on at that moment.

The smash attack specifically tells you to decide if you are going to smash when it makes it close combat attacks, so the attack multipliers/additions are already on play, they are part of his attacks characteristics.

The problem is you are missing that the BRB defines the term "characeristic" as the value on the units Profile. Read Pg 3.

Also all modifications are made to profile. If a change is made then the modification needs to be recalculated. Otherwise the FAQ on Banshee's Masks making you I10 on the charge having a chance of still working if they they hit a lash whip in thier Pile-in Move. If it worked they way you are talking about then they would become I10 on the charge and then they would have to be I1 when they hit the lash whip as the modifcation was already made and not currently in effect.

If smash attack would halve the number of attacks the model makes, then it would have said just that "number of attacks". Pg 24 makes clear the distinction between number of attacks and attack characteristic.

L0rdF1end wrote:In all fairness and thinking about it more I would imagine it would be FAQ'd to the following.

Smash attacks is base characteristic devided by 2 = 2
Any additional attacks such as Crushing Claws and Warp Speed would need to be normal attacks.

So in affect the tervigon would get:

1 Hammer of Wraith
2 Smash Attacks
D3+D3 normal attacks

If this came up in a game. I would go with this decision. Because I like it the most and doesn't outbalance the model too badly.

I found something interesting that gives credence to what Lord Yayula is saying.


Pg 24. Rolling To Hit
If you take a look at the Rolling to Hit section, if you look just before it we are told how to determine the number of attacks we are allowed. Thus you determine your max number of attacks BEFORE you roll to hit, right after making any pile in moves at the start of your initiative step.

Thus SMASH is applied AFTER the attack characteristic is modified.

Because Smash rule states you halve your attacks during the ROLL TO HIT simultaneously halving the attack just before doing so.

Douglaspocock wrote:

L0rdF1end wrote:In all fairness and thinking about it more I would imagine it would be FAQ'd to the following.

Smash attacks is base characteristic devided by 2 = 2
Any additional attacks such as Crushing Claws and Warp Speed would need to be normal attacks.

So in affect the tervigon would get:

1 Hammer of Wraith
2 Smash Attacks
D3+D3 normal attacks

If this came up in a game. I would go with this decision. Because I like it the most and doesn't outbalance the model too badly.

I also believe that this is how it should be played. But there's decent arguments for both other cases aswell.

Douglaspocock wrote:
If this came up in a game. I would go with this decision. Because I like it the most and doesn't outbalance the model too badly.

How does doing it right unbalance the model? A Tervigon with 3 powers (to have a decent chance of getting the Warpspeed power) and Crushing Claws clocks in at @225pts (depending on if they have TS or not). You have to give up Catalyst (with the new improved FNP and the fact only Runic Weapons and RoW can stop).

With the huge nerf they just got to brood progenitor I think they are priced about right.

It should simply state unmodified to make things clear. It is not clear and that is the problem.

Until it is FAQ'd to say unmodified then the attacks are halfed based on the amount of attacks at the time.

So modifiers are counted and then the attacks are halfed.

Not half the attacks + modifiers.

This thread is ridiculous. People are arguing proven math against specific english definitions.

Also it is NEVER good to decide which way to play a rule based upon your view of balance. That is always going to be biased.

racta wrote:Also it is NEVER good to decide which way to play a rule based upon your view of balance. That is always going to be biased.

It is also NEVER good to assume peoples motives based on Bias.

DeathReaper wrote:Division is not mentioned as a Multiplier.

Division is a Divisor not a Multiplier.

The two can produce similar results, but they are not the same.

You are simply wrong. It is not opinion, it is a fact, please drop this portion of your argument for the love of God.

fleetofclaw wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Division is not mentioned as a Multiplier.

Division is a Divisor not a Multiplier.

The two can produce similar results, but they are not the same.

You are simply wrong. It is not opinion, it is a fact, please drop this portion of your argument for the love of God.

Please Learn the Definition of Multiplier and Divisor.

here check these if you want to know more:

http://bit.ly/ODeLDE

http://bit.ly/ODeQXN

I guess someone didn't pay attention in the math class. A multiplier is a divisor and a divisor is a multiplier.

From your link:
mul·ti·pli·er (mlt-plr)
n.
1. One that multiplies: This old house is a multiplier of expenses.
2. Mathematics The number by which another number is multiplied. In 8 × 32, the multiplier is 8.
3. Physics A device, such as a phototube, used to enhance or increase an effect.

Do you read any restriction on the multiplier being an integer? It's just a number. ANY NUMBER. 1/2 or 0.5 is the multiplier you need to half something.

It doesn't mention division in the "Modifiers" section, so we have two choices:

We can act like we took a math class in our lives and use multiplication by 1/2. This result fits with the rules, and therefor is simple to follow.

Or

We can determine that since division is not listed, it breaks the game when in conjunction with modifiers. We then have to pick our models up because we can't move any further with the combat resolution.

DeathReaper wrote:

fleetofclaw wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Division is not mentioned as a Multiplier.

Division is a Divisor not a Multiplier.

The two can produce similar results, but they are not the same.

You are simply wrong. It is not opinion, it is a fact, please drop this portion of your argument for the love of God.

Please Learn the Definition of Multiplier and Divisor.

here check these if you want to know more:

http://bit.ly/ODeLDE

http://bit.ly/ODeQXN

3 halved = 3 / 2 = 3 * 1/2 = 3 * 0.5 (which 0.5 itself is 1 * 1./2 or 1 * .5 which is....)

Have you ever solved a basic equations? What's the order of operations? You do multiplication and division at the same step because they are mathematically identical. Division is a word invented to help humans grasp multiplying something by less than a whole something, since we tend to analogize everything to help us grasp them.

Shall I go on?

racta wrote:It doesn't mention division in the "Modifiers" section, so we have two choices:

We can act like we took a math class in our lives and use multiplication by 1/2. This result fits with the rules, and therefor is simple to follow.

Or

We can determine that since division is not listed, it breaks the game when in conjunction with modifiers. We then have to pick our models up because we can't move any further with the combat resolution.

Why? When it's easier to make up our own rules, throw out all precedent, and apply 1/2 to the total AFTER additive modifiers, flying totally in the face of GW's direct adherence to the mathematical order of operations? This is the 41st millennium, logic is abhorred, and ignorance is embraced.

It is not about normal order of operations, as the book tells us how to apply multiple modifiers. We have to go by what he book says and not the normal order of operations, unless the order is undefined (Which it is not undefined, it is explicit on how multiple modifiers are applied).

I know that you CAN use Multipliers to get the same result as the Divisor, but the Rules (you know the things that tell us what we can do) do not mention how to Halve something, so we fall back on the normal English definition of such thing which is:

halve
Verb:
Divide into two parts of equal or roughly equal size:

Regardless of where you apply the multiplication and division, it doesnt change the outcome really. If you check pg 24. it states how you determine the number of attacks that a model can make.

In bold on pg 24, top left. "Each engaged model make a number of attacks based on its characteristic profile, plus the following bonus attacks." It then give examples of the bonuses, charge bonus, 2 weapon bonus, and "other bonuses" (from special rules and wargear)

Smash states to halve the attack characteristic. So following that procedure, the Tervigon has 3. It doesnt matter whether you divide it or multiply it, the result will come out as 1.5 which is rounded to 2, by rule. Then you add in the "bonus" attacks. Charge, Crushing claws, warp speed, etc etc.

2, +d3, +d3, +1 for the Tervigon.

IF Smash stated to halve the number of attacks, total attacks, etc.. It would definitely apply differently. But as it stands (until a FAQ) it modifies the Attack Characteristic, which is completely different from the "Bonus Attacks"

The bonus attacks add to the Attacks Characteristic.

Check out P.2 "Attacks and Wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10"

Bonus Attacks add to the Characteristic.

DeathReaper wrote:It is not about normal order of operations, as the book tells us how to apply multiple modifiers. We have to go by what he book says and not the normal order of operations, unless the order is undefined (Which it is not undefined, it is explicit on how multiple modifiers are applied).

I know that you CAN use Multipliers to get the same result as the Divisor, but the Rules (you know the things that tell us what we can do) do not mention how to Halve something, so we fall back on the normal English definition of such thing which is:

halve
Verb:
Divide into two parts of equal or roughly equal size:

Sure, but when we find out that division is not listed amongst multiple modifiers, why can't we use the basic order of operations to figure out that multiplication and division happen at the same time, both before addition/subtraction?

What are you using as a reference to ignore the basic rules of mathematics, since even the modifiers section doesn't go against basic math, I see no precedent.

DeathReaper wrote:It is not about normal order of operations, as the book tells us how to apply multiple modifiers. We have to go by what he book says and not the normal order of operations, unless the order is undefined (Which it is not undefined, it is explicit on how multiple modifiers are applied).

I know that you CAN use Multipliers to get the same result as the Divisor, but the Rules (you know the things that tell us what we can do) do not mention how to Halve something, so we fall back on the normal English definition of such thing which is:

halve
Verb:
Divide into two parts of equal or roughly equal size:

Oh. My. God. GW directly follows mathematical order of operations. It's not me applying it, it was GW.

It's not about doing two different things to get the same result. It IS the same thing. You *think* it's different, you *think* some different rules of math are being applied, but they're not.

Two parts of roughly equal size... lol we're not cutting a cake, these are numbers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Bonus Attacks add to the Characteristic.

Just like any other stat modifier in the game. What's your point? Remember all the old Initiative modifier debates? The point of GW's modifier ruling was to make this simple. Which trust me, they did.

You guys should read the following CAREFULLY

Highlights.

Pg 2. MODIFIERS
We are told how to apply modifiers, MULTIPLIERS, ADDITIONS & SUBSTRACTIONS. But division is not included in this.

- Side A argues that multiplying IS division. Thus a multiplyer for halving would be 0.5 so as to properly follow the rules of the game
- Side B argues that divison is division. Otherwise you could make the same argument for addition being substraction/multiplication/division and still be correct. So the fact that it was excluded can change things.

Pg 5. DIVIDE TO CONQUER
Apparently everyone missed this bit, the rulebook does in fact cover division specifically. And it also directly uses HALVING as an example of division and how it is to be applied. Further supporting argument B

Pg 7. BASIC VERSUS ADVANCED
Here we see that Smash is an advanced rule which we are told take precedence over basic rules normally followed as per the example shown. So we are supposed to ignore the standard way of doing things in favor of whatever the advanced rule asks us to do.

UNMODIFIED CHARACTERISTICS
- Also being brought up as a point that many rules affecting characteristics clearly state that they work against the unmodified characteristic. Where this key word is lacking in the smash rule so that it can be very possible that are you in fact required to halve ALL your attacks as they should already be 'in play' upon entering combat before deciding to use the Smash rule.

Pg 24. Rolling To Hit
If you take a look at the Rolling to Hit section, if you look just before it we are told how to determine the number of attacks we are allowed. Thus you determine your max number of attacks BEFORE you roll to hit, right after making any pile in moves at the start of your initiative step.

Thus SMASH is applied AFTER the attack characteristic is modified.
Because Smash rule states you halve your attacks during the ROLL TO HIT simultaneously halving the attack just before doing so.

-UPDATE-
Apparently someone did infact misquote page 24 as i just had another look. Charge/CC/Warp Speed are categorized as 'bonus' attacks not a + to attack characteristic as someone else had misquoted in the thread.

Which if we follow things in order keeping in mind that we are NOT using a multiplier here, this is divison as per the Smash rule and the rule on pg5 this would work out as follows:

1. Declare you are using smash rule

2. Count up your attacks as normal.

3. Halve the attacks on your profile just before rolling to hit.

4. Add S10 to all attacks.

5. Profit

So in the end you get the same result a Tervigon with 2 attacks from it's profile and his bonus attacks all S10.

Had the bonus attacks been categorized as a + to attack characteristics then things would've ended up quite differently as Smash does not state to only use the unmodified characteristic and furthermore it is halved during the roll to hit portion after attacks have already been added in.

SCvodimier wrote:Sure, but when we find out that division is not listed amongst multiple modifiers, why can't we use the basic order of operations to figure out that multiplication and division happen at the same time, both before addition/subtraction?

What are you using as a reference to ignore the basic rules of mathematics, since even the modifiers section doesn't go against basic math, I see no precedent.

The Permissive ruleset tells us what we can do. we can not just invent a place to Halve the statstic because the rules give no allowance for us to do so.

DeathReaper wrote:

SCvodimier wrote:Sure, but when we find out that division is not listed amongst multiple modifiers, why can't we use the basic order of operations to figure out that multiplication and division happen at the same time, both before addition/subtraction?

What are you using as a reference to ignore the basic rules of mathematics, since even the modifiers section doesn't go against basic math, I see no precedent.

The Permissive ruleset tells us what we can do. we can not just invent a place to Halve the statstic because the rules give no allowance for us to do so.

So any time we see division, the game breaks because by a permissive rules set, we are not allowed to include division since the game didn't allow us to?

Nothing against you, but do you know how stupid that sounds?

DeathReaper wrote:The bonus attacks add to the Attacks Characteristic.

Check out P.2 "Attacks and Wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10"

Bonus Attacks add to the Characteristic.

Edited for a FAQ, but also wasn't trying to sound rude, just saying it seems like you're personally trying to bring down the Tyranid armies on your own I don't really care, but you've made a thread recently that was obviously related to the bone sword thread.

Personally I'm with the 50% or so that will be adding it on after Smash, but a FAQ will hopefully clear it up!


Thanks
Dan

Stormbreed wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The bonus attacks add to the Attacks Characteristic.

Check out P.2 "Attacks and Wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10"

Bonus Attacks add to the Characteristic.

You're obv very good at knowing rules and bending them to be what you want them to be. I think as I did in your other 2 threads where you have a hard on for HATING on Nids, that it is Codex over rules.

Sound weird I know, but stay with me, Crushing Claws says at the beginning of each round of combat.

So if you agree, or more so prove your point by saying "Beginning" in this case means "Before" Smash, you must also concede that the "Immediately" on the very same page means just that "Immediately".

While in a way this is a Hi-Jack for this thread, I just notice you personally fighting a lot of battle (even faking some to prove your point) against Nid armies. Not sure why, but it is what it is.

Thanks
Dan

Hate to burst your bubble, but crushing claws were rewritten to say at the start of the fight sub-phase.

DR - just stop. Halving something IS multiplying by 0.5. It is identical.

You guys should read the following CAREFULLY

Highlights.

Pg 2. MODIFIERS
We are told how to apply modifiers, MULTIPLIERS, ADDITIONS & SUBSTRACTIONS. But division is not included in this.

- Side A argues that multiplying IS division. Thus a multiplyer for halving would be 0.5 so as to properly follow the rules of the game
- Side B argues that divison is division. Otherwise you could make the same argument for addition being substraction/multiplication/division and still be correct. So the fact that it was excluded can change things.

Pg 5. DIVIDE TO CONQUER
Apparently everyone missed this bit, the rulebook does in fact cover division specifically. And it also directly uses HALVING as an example of division and how it is to be applied. Further supporting argument B

Pg 7. BASIC VERSUS ADVANCED
Here we see that Smash is an advanced rule which we are told take precedence over basic rules normally followed as per the example shown. So we are supposed to ignore the standard way of doing things in favor of whatever the advanced rule asks us to do.

UNMODIFIED CHARACTERISTICS
- Also being brought up as a point that many rules affecting characteristics clearly state that they work against the unmodified characteristic. Where this key word is lacking in the smash rule so that it can be very possible that are you in fact required to halve ALL your attacks as they should already be 'in play' upon entering combat before deciding to use the Smash rule.

Pg 24. Rolling To Hit
If you take a look at the Rolling to Hit section, if you look just before it we are told how to determine the number of attacks we are allowed. Thus you determine your max number of attacks BEFORE you roll to hit, right after making any pile in moves at the start of your initiative step.

Thus SMASH is applied AFTER the attack characteristic is modified.
Because Smash rule states you halve your attacks during the ROLL TO HIT simultaneously halving the attack just before doing so.

-UPDATE-
Apparently someone did infact misquote page 24 as i just had another look. Charge/CC/Warp Speed are categorized as 'bonus' attacks not a + to attack characteristic as someone else had misquoted in the thread.

Which if we follow things in order keeping in mind that we are NOT using a multiplier here, this is divison as per the Smash rule and the rule on pg5 this would work out as follows:

1. Declare you are using smash rule

2. Count up your attacks as normal.

3. Halve the attacks on your profile just before rolling to hit.

4. Add S10 to all attacks.

5. Profit

So in the end you get the same result a Tervigon with 2 attacks from it's profile and his bonus attacks all S10.

Had the bonus attacks been categorized as a + to attack characteristics then things would've ended up quite differently as Smash does not state to only use the unmodified characteristic and furthermore it is halved during the roll to hit portion after attacks have already been added in.

SCvodimier wrote:So any time we see division, the game breaks because by a permissive rules set, we are not allowed to include division since the game didn't allow us to?

Nothing against you, but do you know how stupid that sounds?

No, Read P.5 where it talks about dividing (Halving) stats

They specifically mention Division, there so you are allowed to Divide.

Why they did not include it in the Multiple modifiers rule?

1) I do not "bending them to be what you want them to be. I think as I did in your other 2 threads where you have a hard on for HATING on Nids... " Please stop insinuating this, it is just not true.

2) "(even faking some to prove your point)" Please retract this, I fake nothing. it is kind of insulting.

3) Smash is applied after the attack characteristic is modified, as you apply smash "when it makes its close combat attacks" P.42

Even if you Multiply by .5 (And I am not saying this is correct via RAW) you still get the same result as Smash (Advanced) overrides basic order of operations.

The bonus attacks add to the Attacks Characteristic.

P.2 "Attacks and Wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10"

Q: How do you raise a characteristic?
A: add bonuses.

Akaiyou,

Am I allowed to apply any other CC bonuses and rules to my Smash attacks? Ie rerolls from scything talons or preferred enemy? ID from boneswords?

DeathReaper wrote:The bonus attacks add to the Attacks Characteristic.

Check out P.2 "Attacks and Wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10"

Bonus Attacks add to the Characteristic.

And you will still come out with the same result. Either way you read it, the multiplier / addition effects will come up with the same number.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/half

Macmillan defines half as 1/2 or 50% of something. If you want to determine the half value for a number, for instance 3, you simply take that number and multiply it by 1/2 or by 50% and you get the half value of 1.5. This is mathematically correct and irrefutable. That being said, in the absence of any rules that change the normal order, we perform multiplications first, add/subtract second and set value modifiers third. Nothing in the Smash rule changes these rules, so they are still in effect when it is used. Therefore, by RAW, you must take the Attack characteristic of 3, multiply it by 50% (0.50) or multiply by 1/2 (also 0.50) and then apply any additions or subtractions. There is no other way to calculate this.

Agreed with Wolvesoffenris.
And you can see that we can use different definitions of "halve" depending on which dictionary you go to, so instead of going by the word's definition, we can go by the mathematical definition that is always the same in EVERY language.

What do you do to halve attacks? x = attack characteristic, y = smash attacks. (x/2)=y. Which can be called division, so we will put a mathematical equivalent instead, (1/2)*x=y. Still true, and it is now a multiplier so the rules tell us when to add other modifiers to it.

If you want to get super fancy, you can also replace it with x-(x/2)=y. Then we just made it into subtraction, and then other modifiers can be added with the same results.

racta wrote:Agreed with Wolvesoffenris.
And you can see that we can use different definitions of "halve" depending on which dictionary you go to, so instead of going by the word's definition, we can go by the mathematical definition that is always the same in EVERY language.

What do you do to halve attacks? x = attack characteristic, y = smash attacks. (x/2)=y. Which can be called division, so we will put a mathematical equivalent instead, (1/2)*x=y. Still true, and it is now a multiplier so the rules tell us when to add other modifiers to it.

If you want to get super fancy, you can also replace it with x-(x/2)=y. Then we just made it into subtraction, and then other modifiers can be added with the same results.

-(x/2)+x=y Now it is addition.

Well this is one of the most absurd things I've ever seen be argued, here in YMDC or anywhere else for that matter. This isn't even Rules Lawyering, this just a flat out wrong argument. This is worse than arguing grammar, considering mathematics is immutable.

This is, literally, not even Mathematics 101. This is baser than that. To argue that Division isn't discussed in the rules so isn't allowed (and thus breaking the rules) is disingenuous at best.

To be frank, this makes me wonder about other arguments made by Death Reaper since this one is so close to trolling as to be almost indistinguishable. That's just how wrong this argument is!

Please, for your own sake Death Reaper, review the order of operations in mathematics. You'll even find the rules for applying modifiers in W40K obeys it, rules as written. Its as true as the sky being blue or you needing oxygen to live. There isn't any real way to even rebut your argument other than to dismiss it for being wrong on such a basic level.

Fragile wrote:And you will still come out with the same result. Either way you read it, the multiplier / addition effects will come up with the same number.

Nope, Smash is applied last, as per the Smash rule.

"If it does so, roll To Hit as norrnal, but halve its Attacks characteristic." This is long after its Attacks characteristic is determined with buffs.

Smash is the advanced rule, Basic multiple modifiers is the basic rule. Advanced > Basic.

DeathReaper wrote:

fleetofclaw wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Division is not mentioned as a Multiplier.

Division is a Divisor not a Multiplier.

The two can produce similar results, but they are not the same.

You are simply wrong. It is not opinion, it is a fact, please drop this portion of your argument for the love of God.

Please Learn the Definition of Multiplier and Divisor.

here check these if you want to know more:

http://bit.ly/ODeLDE

http://bit.ly/ODeQXN

This is just ridiculous. No where in the book does it say that the "multiplier" has to be an integer. Wait...let's just math hammer this to make sure...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=field+of+rational+numbers

Oh yes indeed! The set of rational numbers, denoted Q, has the algebraic structure of a field. Hence the group of units, denoted Q*, is the collection of all non-zero rational numbers and each one of these has a multiplicative inverse which is ALSO a rational number.

<\sarcasm>

Deathreapers point isn't about Order of Operations. I am positive he knows that it's Multiply/Divide then Addition/Subtraction. Im sure he would also concide that multiplying by .5 is the same as dividing by 2.

The crux of the arguement is the timing of the division.
When do you determine the Attack Charistic?

I think we all can agree that a Tervigon has 3 Base Attacks.

At the begining of the Assult Phase, Warp Time is rolled, the Tervigon gains +D3 attacks (avg 2, Running total 5)

Tervigon Charges +1 (Running Total 6)

At the begning of the Fight Substep Crushing Claws are rolled. +D3 attacks (avg 2 Running Total 8)

Tervigon's Initive of 1, Chooses smash, (Total 8*.5=4)

This follows the rules, Order of Operations and timing. IMO this is how it should be done. So Mathmaticly speaking the formula would be (3+1+D3+D3)/2=y which we all can agree on IS a justifiable formula

DeathReaper wrote:
"If it does so, roll To Hit as norrnal, but halve its Attacks characteristic." This is long after its Attacks characteristic is determined with buffs.

Smash is the advanced rule, Basic multiple modifiers is the basic rule. Advanced > Basic.

When worded that way, you seem have a point. But it does not specifically say when to halve it. It is pointing out two different things, rolling To Hit normally, and halving your attacks. So we know that we will be rolling To Hit normally, but now we have to halve our attacks. To do so, the rulebook tells us how on pg. 2 in Multiple Modifiers. We go through those rules, and now we have successfully halved our attacks and are at (x/2)+bonuses. We now roll To Hit as normal and we have satisfied Smash Attack special rules to the letter.

If it said, "when rolling to hit, halve it's attacks" then I would agree with you.

EDIT: Yonush, that would be correct, except the Smash attack doesn't specifically tell us when to halve the attacks, so we have to abide by the rulebook rules for doing so, which says multipliers first.

That quote is direct from P. 42 Smash Rules.

It is all one sentence, and it does say when to Halve it:

there is more that I left out, but it seems rather relevant now:

"when it makes its close combat attacks, it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack. If it does so, roll To Hit as norrnal, but halve its Attacks characteristic." P.42 Smash Rules.

When it makes its close combat attacks is when you Halve your attacks and roll to hit as normal.

Ok, I see that, but there is this on pg. 24...

"When their Initiative step is reached, models with that Initiative who are still alive must attack"

Which goes right into the bold portion

"Each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:"

And then it lists the bonus attacks. So you add bonus attacks when the model is making his close combat attacks. Which means that it all happens at the same time, and the rules for multiple modifiers applies.

EDIT: for typo's

Ratca, there is still an issue with the timing of the bonus attacks from warp speed and crushing claws going by your process.

Based on your process it would be (3+d3+d3)*.5+1=y

You stil have to halve the bonus attacks from crushing claws and warp speed.

Nope, Smash is applied last, as per the Smash rule.

"If it does so, roll To Hit as norrnal, but halve its Attacks characteristic." This is long after its Attacks characteristic is determined with buffs.

Smash is the advanced rule, Basic multiple modifiers is the basic rule. Advanced > Basic.

The problem here is your trying to make an absolute literal translation of the rules using part of a sentence. Doing so contradicts itself. Your statement that its after the "Roll To Hit" is impossible. Simply as written you have already rolled the dice. You cannot go back after you roll and divide the base attacks and change the outcomes. Taking the whole sentence rather than part of the sentence shows that during the process you will halve your attacks "as normal" while making a Smash attack over a regular set of attacks.

This is in essence the same argument with Enfeeble and Powerfists.

Fragile wrote:[This is in essence the same argument with Enfeeble and Powerfists.

Not at all. The Power Fist is not its own Advanced rule.

Smash is. you Halve your attacks AND roll to hit. as per smash.

Order of when modifiers land means absolutely positively nothing. Seriously. ZERO. Read how multiple modifiers work, if you have multiple modifiers you apply them as shown. Do you seriously think they posted that paragraph thinking that it only applies when all modifiers hit you simultaneously or in a certain order. FFS no.

Continually quoting the line from Smash also means nothing, as it is dubious at best that it is making a clear statement about timing in the first place. In fact, it could be just as easily interpreted that all it does is clarify whether Smash has any affect on your to hit rolls, which it does not. Seriously, I'm deciding to Smash in mid swing? No.

No matter what you say Warp Speed, regardless of when I cast it, is an additive modifier, (unless you're telling me I get to keep that attack characteristic through the rest of the game). Therefore, whenever other modifiers are applied, the formula does not magically change according to your whim. Base stat * multiplier + additive + additive, etc. Again, if you're trying to argue that GW's exceedingly clear ruling on multiple modifiers only applies when modifiers hit you simultaneously (which happens exactly somewhere between 0 and never). If, however, you're telling me Warp Speed is not a modifier, fantastic!

AND, that one dude never answered my question whether I get my other CC bonuses with Smash (bonesword / scything talons / etc). Do you know why? Because if he said no he'd get laughed off the thread. If he said yes, then he'd realize his argument that Smash somehow magically ignores the basic rules of his choosing is ridiculous. The advanced rules take over where there is something being amended or contradicted, you don't just throw everything out unless it is explicitly reintroduced in the Advanced rule. That applies to your argument too Death Reaper. (Though I'm about 90% certain that you two are one and the same person anyway; a smart yet disingenious troll)

Great quote I heard on the 11th Company, rule lawyering is like farts, if you have to push too hard it's probably sh*t.

Someone already mentioned, this is not even a debate in any serious gaming circles. In fact, I count 3 people in this entire thread in the "halve after all other modifiers are applied" camp. As this crock of an argument will have zero impact on my actual gaming life I'm signing out.

fleetofclaw, while I disagree with them I do understand their point. THeir argument is as follows:

Q. How many times does a model get to attack in cc?
A. The number of Attacks on the profile of the model, modified by various factors, i.e. Charging.

Q. When does Smash half your Attacks?
A. When the Attacks are made, which is after everything is already added in.

It is not a mathematical order of operations misunderstanding. It is a timing issue. Basically it is as follows:

Start of phase A=3 (base) + D3 (Warp Time)
Start of Fight sub-phase A=3 + D3 + 1 (charge) + D3 (Crushing Claws)
Initiative 1: A = (3+1+2D3)/2

Sorry, warp time is still an additive modifier and does not magically change spots on ye old multiple modifier calculation just because someone decides they don't want the tervigon a couple of attacks. Timing does not make a difference. Tell me when a multiplier and an additive / subtractive modifier going of simultaneously ever happens in this game? If you're telling me the effect that causes the multiplier has to happen first in order for GW's explicit ruling to take effect then why did they just tell us "calculate modifiers in the order they are applied. In the case of simultaneous effects, follow this formula:"

By the "timing" logic, then, assuming we had a S4 MC (for the sake of argument), he could charge with adrenal glands and come out with a S10 Smash (charge sets off AG, attack sets off Smash, S4 + 1 = S5, S5 * 2 = S10.
To that I say no, you would have a S9 Smash. Multiplier then additive; timing of effects be darned. S4*2 + 1 = S9

Haha I just couldn't stay away could I?

That is correct HJ.

There is a Timing issue because the basic Multiple Modifier rules are superseded by the Advanced Smash rules.

and we all know that Advanced Trumps Basic.

fleetofclaw wrote:...That applies to your argument too Death Reaper. (Though I'm about 90% certain that you two are one and the same person anyway; a smart yet disingenious troll)

Great quote I heard on the 11th Company, rule lawyering is like farts, if you have to push too hard it's probably sh*t...

Maybe Follow the Tenets of the forum?

Name calling has no place in a rules debate (Or any debate really). All it does is serve to show you in a bad light, and we would not want that.

So Please refrain from the name calling. Thanks

P.S. who am I the same person as? I have but one account to give for the Dakka boards... saying otherwise is just rude.

fleetofclaw wrote:Tell me when a multiplier and an additive / subtractive modifier going of simultaneously ever happens in this game?

Furious Charge on a model armed with a Power Fist.

DeathReaper wrote:That is correct HJ.

There is a Timing issue because the basic Multiple Modifier rules are superseded by the Advanced Smash rules.

and we all know that Advanced Trumps Basic.

No it's not because Smash does not tell us modifiers are calculated any differently.

fleetofclaw wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:That is correct HJ.

There is a Timing issue because the basic Multiple Modifier rules are superseded by the Advanced Smash rules.

and we all know that Advanced Trumps Basic.

No it's not because Smash does not tell us modifiers are calculated any differently.

Re-read smash. It sets its own timing on when you divide the attacks.

so the advanced rule supersedes the basic multiple modifiers rule.

It doesn't set any timing. You cannot halve something after you roll, which is the rule your trying to set. The word "BUT" is not a timing word.

"When it makes a close combat attack.." Tells you when you can use Smash.

"Roll to hit as normal.." Tells you how to make a smash attack. The same as a normal set of close combat attacks.

...But halve its Attack Characteristic." Gives you an exception to the normal close combat procedure. There is no magical change in timing of when you determine your attacks. "as normal" says to follow the normal rules for CC, pages 23-26.

Furious Charge on a model armed with a Power Fist.

Nothing about this changes the modifier rule on page 2 Happy.

when it makes its close combat attacks it can choose to instead make a Smash Anack. If it does so...halve its Attacks characteristic.

There is your timing, you Halve the attacks and roll to hit as normal. This is an advanced rule.

fleetofclaw wrote:

AND, that one dude never answered my question whether I get my other CC bonuses with Smash (bonesword / scything talons / etc). Do you know why? Because if he said no he'd get laughed off the thread. If he said yes, then he'd realize his argument that Smash somehow magically ignores the basic rules of his choosing is ridiculous. The advanced rules take over where there is something being amended or contradicted, you don't just throw everything out unless it is explicitly reintroduced in the Advanced rule. That applies to your argument too Death Reaper. (Though I'm about 90% certain that you two are one and the same person anyway; a smart yet disingenious troll)
.

Or maybe that 'one dude' a.k.a Me which whom you are referring to, has a thing called a LIFE which you appear to lack. And was out all day with the fam going out shopping having dinner and you know all that other normal stuff people do in their lives outside of forums.

I apologize that I could not reply to your urgent message instantly.

As for your question, it was a dumb question to begin with because there's nothing in the smash rule that would prevent special rules from whatever you are using to apply aswell. The only thing being modified by the smash attack is the strength value of your attacks along with the attack profile.

That's like asking me 'If you take a difficult terrain test, how far do you fall back?'

The two just don't connect with each other. Now you can laugh yourself off the thread or whatever as per your ignorant comment sir.

Fragile, I was responding to fleetofclaws question of an additive modifier and multiplative modifier going off at the same time.
The issue is more of a "What do they mean by Attack characteristic?" There are two options:
1: The Attack characteristic listed in the profile. If this is what they mean, it does not matter when you halve it as you would still get all your bonus Attacks.
2: The Attack characteristic listed in the profile plus any bonus Attacks. If this is what is meant, then the halving is done after everything else as the formula in this case would be "(X+Y+Z)*0.5".

DR is of the opinion that it is the second interpretation, where as most everyone else feels that it is the first.

Happyjew wrote:Fragile, I was responding to fleetofclaws question of an additive modifier and multiplative modifier going off at the same time.
The issue is more of a "What do they mean by Attack characteristic?" There are two options:
1: The Attack characteristic listed in the profile. If this is what they mean, it does not matter when you halve it as you would still get all your bonus Attacks.
2: The Attack characteristic listed in the profile plus any bonus Attacks. If this is what is meant, then the halving is done after everything else as the formula in this case would be "(X+Y+Z)*0.5".

DR is of the opinion that it is the second interpretation, where as most everyone else feels that it is the first.

And that is mostly because of the modifiers section on P. 2 which says "Attacks and Wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10"

If they are static on the profile you could not ever raise it above 10 since the base stat would not be modified, you would just have bonus attacks.

But since it says it can be modified above 10 tells me that any bonuses are added into the Attacks Characteristic.

Or possiblily that was directed at me, whom was a work all day with little access to a computer... regardless name calling is against the tenants.

As to the statement timeing has nothing to do with it, the rules disagree with you.

When do you add the +d3 attacks from Crushing Claws. Accrording to the rules, you add them at the begining of the Fight Sub-phase. (Tyranid FAQ) Where in the rules does it direct you to add them during your inititive(sp) step?

When do you add the +d3 attacks from Warp Speed. Accroding to the rules, you add them at the begining of the Assualt Phase. (BRB) Where in the rules does it direct you to add them during your inititive(sp) step?

When do you add the +1 from Charging? I'll give you this one, you add this during your inititive(sp) step when you make your To Hit rolls.

As I play Nids as my main army, I would LOVE it, if the Tervigon got 6-8 Smash attacks on the charge, but the rules don't support it.

As to when are there additive and multiplyers going at the same inititive? The most noticeable one is Power Fists and Furious Charge, but there are others and if you want more just ask, im sure they can be found.

Just throwing in my vote that division == multiplication. Just the same as roots == exponentiation.

3/2=1.5
3*0.5=1.5

Sqrt(4) = 2
4^(1/2)=2

Punch it into a calculator, and learn some maths. You can do this to any number imaginable and it will be exactly the same result. Want to know why? They're the same.

As was stated earlier, most processors only do math in addition. That's it, just addition. No subtraction, no multiplication, no division, it's straight up adding.

Rephistorch

My number is three.

Add 2
Now
Add 2
Now
Add 1
Now
Divide by 2 (or multiply by .5)

Whats your total?

It's not 3+2+2+1*.5
Its 3+2=5+2=7+1=8*.5=4 or (3+2+2+1).5=4 as all the bonuses are added at different points in time.

Rephistorch wrote:Just throwing in my vote that division == multiplication. Just the same as roots == exponentiation.

3/2=1.5
3*0.5=1.5

Sqrt(4) = 2
4^(1/2)=2

Punch it into a calculator, and learn some maths. You can do this to any number imaginable and it will be exactly the same result. Want to know why? They're the same.

As was stated earlier, most processors only do math in addition. That's it, just addition. No subtraction, no multiplication, no division, it's straight up adding.

Yonush wrote:Rephistorch

My number is three.

Add 2
Now
Add 2
Now
Add 1
Now
Divide by 2 (or multiply by .5)

Whats your total?

Wrong order. Your number is three. Now multiply by 0.5, add 2, add 2, add 1. Result is 2+2+2+1 = 7.

Rephistorch wrote:Just throwing in my vote that division == multiplication. Just the same as roots == exponentiation.

3/2=1.5
3*0.5=1.5

Sqrt(4) = 2
4^(1/2)=2

Punch it into a calculator, and learn some maths. You can do this to any number imaginable and it will be exactly the same result. Want to know why? They're the same.

As was stated earlier, most processors only do math in addition. That's it, just addition. No subtraction, no multiplication, no division, it's straight up adding.

And we know this, what you guys seem to fail to understand is that the argument is not about solving an equation. It's about properly reading the rules of 40k.

In 40k you do things in a specific way, while you state that a processor uses ONLY addition. This game cannot afford to have every rule based on the concept of addition alone, thus you include multiplication/substraction/division

And it tells you in clear rules on page 2 and page 5 how each of these concepts are applied and gives a clear example on the term HALVE that when used it is under the division category and tells you what to do with it.

Smash rule is one of the few rules in the game that uses this exact term that we have already been told how to apply. But people want to force the page 2 rules on something that is meant to follow page 5 and page 7 rules. Both for division adn for advanced rules that should overwrite whatever was on page 2.

Thus we came to this silly argument from the refusal to accept the nature of the beast

Rephistorch, where are you getting that the bonus for Crushing Claws and Warp Speed ar added during the Inititive steps not when they are rolled for? Please cite a rule.

As I said there are two ways of reading the rule:
3/2+D3+D3+1
(3+D3+D3+1)/2

It all depends on your reading of the rule. Now we can agree to disagree and wait till GW does not FAQ this.

Akaiyou wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:Just throwing in my vote that division == multiplication. Just the same as roots == exponentiation.

3/2=1.5
3*0.5=1.5

Sqrt(4) = 2
4^(1/2)=2

Punch it into a calculator, and learn some maths. You can do this to any number imaginable and it will be exactly the same result. Want to know why? They're the same.

As was stated earlier, most processors only do math in addition. That's it, just addition. No subtraction, no multiplication, no division, it's straight up adding.

And we know this, what you guys seem to fail to understand is that the argument is not about solving an equation. It's about properly reading the rules of 40k.

In 40k you do things in a specific way, while you state that a processor uses ONLY addition. This game cannot afford to have every rule based on the concept of addition alone, thus you include multiplication/substraction/division

And it tells you in clear rules on page 2 and page 5 how each of these concepts are applied and gives a clear example on the term HALVE that when used it is under the division category and tells you what to do with it.

Smash rule is one of the few rules in the game that uses this exact term that we have already been told how to apply. But people want to force the page 2 rules on something that is meant to follow page 5 and page 7 rules. Both for division adn for advanced rules that should overwrite whatever was on page 2.

Thus we came to this silly argument from the refusal to accept the nature of the beast

Alright, mathematical 'proof': 3 * 1/2 = 1.5
3 / 2 = 1.5
3 * 0.5 = 1.5

Prove that's wrong and you can win your argument. If you can't prove that wrong (because i have proven correct in the first place), you lose the argument.

After reviewing the rules in question, I agree that claws and warp speed both add to attacks before you swing. BUT smash doesn't overwrite the Multiple Modifier rules, and therefore do not halve the extra attacks.

I can't see why it would overwrite the multiple modifier rules without specifically saying that it does.

Happy, I'd even go as far as adding the following to the possiblities:

(3+D3+D3).5+1=y

As the Smash and the +1 for charging could be considered to occur at the same time as Smash.

Yeah, right after typing up the two possibilities I remembered you saying that. Oops.

No worries

Guys, at the end of your posts, could you start leaving the number of attacks a Terv gets on the charge (Smashing or not) ? After 6 pages, my eyes glaze over and I can't quite tell if it is 3 or 2d3 + 2 or god knows what.

BTW: I'm a teacher. Myself, and others, are weeping over the bandied arguments from the nincompoops who maintain that multiplication and division aren't the same.

Student: "But, Mr. Garcia, multiplication makes numbers bigger. Division makes 'em smaller. They aren't the same."
Teacher: "Those two things are true, but your conclusion is not. Dividing by a half gets you larger amounts and multiplying by a half gets you a smaller amount, --"
child's brain-gears grind to a halt, with accompanying fan-belt squeal.
" -- - but wait until 7th grade for that."


Don't let your teachers read your posts and just stay away from 4th graders, okay? It's hard enough to stay motivated as is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alright to be helpful, and maybe clarify things, is it:

naked Tev:
3 att natural x.5 (1.5 rounded up), +1 on the charge = 3 Smash attacks?
or 4 on the charge, halves (as per Smash) thus 2 total?


With Crushing Claws:
d3 rolls 3: 6 and then halved = 3 smashes +1 on the charge?
d3 rolls 2: 5 and then halves = 3 smashes +1 on the charge?
d3 rolls 1: 4 and then halved = 2 smashes +1 on the charge?

OR
d3 rolls 3: 6 +1 on the charge and then halved = 4 smashes ?
d3 rolls 2: 5 +1 on the charge and then halves = 3 smashes ?
d3 rolls 1: 4 +1 on the charge and then halved = 3 smashes ?

How would you call it if you were a TO and asked by some pissy looking players? Cyan, orange or yellow?

Brothererekose wrote:Guys, at the end of your posts, could you start leaving the number of attacks a Terv gets on the charge (Smashing or not) ? After 6 pages, my eyes glaze over and I can't quite tell if it is 3 or 2d3 + 2 or god knows what.

BTW: I'm a teacher. Myself, and others, are weeping over the bandied arguments from the nincompoops who maintain that multiplication and division aren't the same.

Student: "But, Mr. Garcia, multiplication makes numbers bigger. Division makes 'em smaller. They aren't the same."
Teacher: "Those two things are true, but your conclusion is not. Dividing by a half gets you larger amounts and multiplying by a half gets you a smaller amount, --"
child's brain-gears grind to a halt, with accompanying fan-belt squeal.
" -- - but wait until 7th grade for that."


Don't let your teachers read your posts and just stay away from 4th graders, okay? It's hard enough to stay motivated as is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alright to be helpful, and maybe clarify things, is it:

naked Tev:
3 att natural x.5 (1.5 rounded up), +1 on the charge = 3 Smash attacks?
or 4 on the charge, halves (as per Smash) thus 2 total?


With Crushing Claws:
d3 rolls 3: 6 and then halved = 3 smashes +1 on the charge?
d3 rolls 2: 5 and then halves = 3 smashes +1 on the charge?
d3 rolls 1: 4 and then halved = 2 smashes +1 on the charge?

OR
d3 rolls 3: 6 +1 on the charge and then halved = 4 smashes ?
d3 rolls 2: 5 +1 on the charge and then halves = 3 smashes ?
d3 rolls 1: 4 +1 on the charge and then halved = 3 smashes ?

How would you call it if you were a TO and asked by some pissy looking players? Cyan, orange or yellow?

I would actually suggest none of the above. I think that it's 3 base, which is halved, then rounded up, and finally addition takes place.

d3 rolls 3: 3 halved (2) + 3 + 1 on the charge. Total: 6 smashes.

Rephistorch wrote:I would actually suggest none of the above. I think that it's 3 base, which is halved, then rounded up, and finally addition takes place.

d3 rolls 3: 3 halved (2) + 3 + 1 on the charge. Total: 6 smashes.

Thanks!

What about a naked Terv's Smash attacks? 3 * .5 = 1.5 rounded up being 2, and then a 1+ for the charge? 3 total?

For those who would question Rephistorch's call, 5 pages have already expressed both sides' syllogisms, reasons and sides ... of the 'argument'. So, at this point, a simple consensus of weigh ins might be better than going around the mulberry bush of argumentation again. Or crushing educator motivation.

Brothererekose, if you're now asking HWIPI, I play it as Base attack + bonuses divided by 2 for Smash, so for a unbuffed Terv charging it's (3+1)/2.

It's obviously 3/2, rounded up to 2, + all bonuses after. Max of 6 attacks with Crushing Claws and the charge.

Thank you for someone pointing out my inability to do basic math. My consensus is that the attack characteristic is halved, and then all modifiers are added afterwards.

All modifiers are resolved as explained under Multiple Modifiers, regardless of when they are applied. There is no conflict between Smash and Multiple Modifiers, therefore Basic vs. Advanced doesn't enter into the discussion.

Tervigon = 2A, halved for Smashing,+ 2 (e.g.) for Crushing Claws, +1 for charging = 4 attacks.

smokeh wrote:It's obviously 3/2, rounded up to 2, + all bonuses after. Max of 5 attacks with cc and the charge.

You mean 6. 3/2 is 2, +3 for cc +1 for charge, max.

Mannahnin wrote:All modifiers are resolved as explained under Multiple Modifiers, regardless of when they are applied. There is no conflict between Smash and Multiple Modifiers, therefore Basic vs. Advanced doesn't enter into the discussion.

Tervigon = 2A, halved for Smashing,+ 2 (e.g.) for Crushing Claws, +1 for charging = 4 attacks.

2+2+1=5

Drum roll please?


Both sides are wrong!
Reason?

BRB wrote:Pg 42
All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2 (unless it's attacking with an AP1 weapon). Additionally, when it makes its close combat attacks, it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack. If it does so, roll To Hit as normal, but halve its Attacks characteristic. A Smash Attack also doubles the model's Strength (to a maximum of 10) for the purposes of that Attack. Furthermore, a model making a Smash Attack can re-roll its armor penetration rolls, but must abide by the second result.

The BRB does not tell us to divide.
The BRB does not tell us to multiply.
It tells us to -half-. This makes it a set modifier trait.


Also reading six pages of mathmatics for this was pretty gritty. I do concur with the multiplier folks that its quite possible to get division done with multiplication; However in this case, the book tells us to do neither. Making it exempt from the standard order of operations of mathmatics. If its outside those rules, then it falls to the set multiplier value category.

There us a caveat to the divide after adding in bonus attacks camp.
That being that enfeebled marines with fists hit at S6, since you see the powerfist x2 happens in CC way after the -1 for enfeeble would have applied.

Xzerios wrote:The BRB does not tell us to divide.
The BRB does not tell us to multiply.
It tells us to -half-. This makes it a set modifier trait.

True enough. But, do you kick in the charge and CrushingClaws before or after the cleaver (halving)?

Xzerios wrote: ... , the book tells us to do neither. Making it exempt from the standard order of operations of mathmatics. If its outside those rules, then it falls to the set multiplier value category.

So, yadda-yadda, how many attacks?

Ill assume that they got 3s for the D3 rolls here;

3 normal + 1 charge + 3 Warp +3 Claws (halved) = 5

Honestly, if something doesnt die within those 5 Str 10 AP2 rerollable pen hits, then by god was it (the Tervigon) destined to die.

Xzerios wrote:The BRB does not tell us to divide.
The BRB does not tell us to multiply.
It tells us to -half-. This makes it a set modifier trait.

It's not a set modifier.

(assume 2 rolled for both D3's)
Otherwise it would be 3(base) + 1(charging) + 2(claws) + 2(warp) SET (attack characteristic halved 3/2)
For a grand total of 2
As the multiplier / additions are effectively ignored with set values
E.G. Shooting snap shots with +1BS
BS 4 + 1 SET(1) = 1 So you shoot at BS1

The rule tells us to modify the Attack Characteristic (by halving it).
If it said something like a number of attacks "equal to half the Attack Characteristic" it might read like a set modifier, but as it stands it really doesn't. Look to the Snap Shot rules as a clear example of a set modifier.

Quick question for the halves first group.

Do the bonus Attacks from charging, Warp Time, Crushing Claws etc. modify the Attack characteristic of the Tervigon (since that is what we are all arguing about)?

In other words when it comes time to hit in cc (assuming it is not using Smash), does it have an Attack characteristic of 3 or does it have an Attack characteristic of 4+2D3?

It has an attacks characteristic of 3 and a bunch of bonus attacks.

I don't understand why this is still a discussion.

HoverBoy wrote:I has an attacks characteristic of 3 and a bunch of bonus attacks.

So a GK with a Halberd has an Initiative of 4 and a bonus initiative?

Happyjew wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:I has an attacks characteristic of 3 and a bunch of bonus attacks.

So a GK with a Halberd has an Initiative of 4 and a bonus initiative?

Yes the wording on the halberd is quite clear, he "strikes at +2 initiative", so he's still I4.

The smash rule does not tell you when to halve it, so it is still governed by the Multiple Modifier rules. Even if the stat is modified at a different point in the turn, you still are governed by the Multiple Modifier rules unless specifically told not to.

A walkthrough:
Warp speed is cast, rolls a d3 and gets 2 extra attacks. The tervigon charges. Beginning of fight sub-phase, cc rolls a d3 and gets 2 extra attacks. He gains +1 for charging. The multiple modifier rule says the tervigon now has 3+5 Attack characteristic.
He declares a Smash Attack. His Attack characteristic is halved. The multiple modifier rule now says the tervigon has 3/2 + 5 attacks. This is to the letter of the rule.

Synopsis: As per rules, 3/2 + 2d3 + 1 = X str10 smash attacks that round.

Ahh, but is it 5+3/2 or (5+3)/2? You claim the first, DR claims the second.

I also say a charging tervigon with warp speed AND crushing claws has

3/2 + 2d3 +1 attacks on the charge.


Gee, i never expected algebra to work it's way into wargaming when i started a couple years ago.

hey if the OP is still checking this thread, how about throwing up a poll to see where the opinions lie?

Douglaspocock wrote:I don't understand why this is still a discussion.

I don't either, it seems fairly clear cut, with only some very flimsy circular arguments as to why it's not presented that way.

I believe the whole problems lies with the tervigon which can unleash many bonus attacks. This makes the smash virtually without disadvantages for it. With most MCs it wouldn't be an issue.

copper.talos wrote:I believe the whole problems lies with the tervigon which can unleash many bonus attacks. This makes the smash virtually without disadvantages for it. With most MCs it wouldn't be an issue.

Precisely.

I mean, the tervigon is still only WS 3, and when they take the crushing claws they don't get scything talon re-rolls on the 1, and they'll be striking at I1 without an invuln save.

The tervi was never a front line MC, and I still doubt if they'll be used to charge the front lines/vehicles, but this gives them a little bit of extra close combat oomph. It's also highly dependent on a lot of randomness. You HAVE to be the one charging, and you have to roll well on your D3 crushing claws (and the way I roll, i would somehow get negative attacks out of it). So realistically, you're going to get only 1 or 2 extra smash attacks.

The possibility of 9 attacks with the other biomancy skill is awesome/terrifying, but doubtful it'll happen every game.

So GW can FAQ it if its a real problem, but its seriously everyone versus three people, and the arguments by those three are just fundamentally flawed. They are so convinced they are right that you will not be able to reason with them. The logic seems so broken to me on such a basic level that their argument is not even wrong.

cowmonaut wrote:So GW can FAQ it if its a real problem, but its seriously everyone versus three people, and the arguments by those three are just fundamentally flawed. They are so convinced they are right that you will not be able to reason with them. The logic seems so broken to me on such a basic level that their argument is not even wrong.

I'm confused. Which side is the minority?

cowmonaut, and you are so convinced you are right you cannot see reason either. As near as I can tell, I'm one of the few people here who honestly understands both sides of the argument. While I agree it needs a FAQ, if I were to run my Tervigon, I would actually play DR's way due to the fact that it is least advantageous. Against someone else, if they want to play your way I will let them. I play to have fun. Which might explain why I constantly lose. That or the fact I never roll higher than a 3...

Xzerios wrote:Drum roll please?


Both sides are wrong!
Reason?

BRB wrote:Pg 42
All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2 (unless it's attacking with an AP1 weapon). Additionally, when it makes its close combat attacks, it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack. If it does so, roll To Hit as normal, but halve its Attacks characteristic. A Smash Attack also doubles the model's Strength (to a maximum of 10) for the purposes of that Attack. Furthermore, a model making a Smash Attack can re-roll its armor penetration rolls, but must abide by the second result.

The BRB does not tell us to divide.
The BRB does not tell us to multiply.
It tells us to -half-. This makes it a set modifier trait.


Also reading six pages of mathmatics for this was pretty gritty. I do concur with the multiplier folks that its quite possible to get division done with multiplication; However in this case, the book tells us to do neither. Making it exempt from the standard order of operations of mathmatics. If its outside those rules, then it falls to the set multiplier value category.

You realize that this is what we've been arguing right? But people are just too stupid or think themselves too 'smart' to realize that we aren't saying that mathematically multiplication and division can't get the same result. We are saying that for the purposes of 40k they are DIFFERENT.

I don't understand why people try to use real world logic into 40k in certain circumstances trying to force it when this is a GAME system there's plenty things in it that don't exactly make sense. Yet we follow the rules as written.

In 6th ed the rules are a bit more clearer than ever before. We are told how to apply certain types of modifiers, we are also told how to apply division specifically, and we are told that when we come to an advance rule to IGNORE any conflicting basic rules for the purpose of that advanced rule.

And as you mentioned we are not told to multiply we are told to HALVE the damn value, so what are we supposed to do? we HALVE the set value, where in the rulebook are we specifically told about how to deal with halving?

It is NOT on page 2....it is on page 5. But fine pretend to be smarter, pretend that we are idiots who can't understand basic math concepts even though we all play a game system full of math. You are the smartest, brightest, players in all of 40k clearly, you are teachers, engineers, rocket scientists even, but from my point of view you are all just as idiotic as you claim us to be because you fail to understand something as simple as "FOLLOW THE GAME RULES AS GAME RULES TELL YOU TO" not as you feel they should be because it works like that in the real world.

It's seriously annoying how many people out there keep claiming superiority over something so simple on a rulebook where things are so clear you guys have quoted NOTHING from actual rules in your argument all you ever argue is 'oh you multiply by 0.5 and you get half' yes even a damn 5 year old can understand basic math congratulations you are a 5 year old. Now let's talk about the rules as they are written and the fact that they SEPARATE divison into it's own area and that we are told to ignore the basic rules when they conflict with an advance rule.

We are clearly arguing modifier rules here...and yet for some reason people don't see the conflict. Or they just wanna blind themselves to the fact that there clearly is a conflict.

SMH

So I cast the first vote towards the thread being closed or for people to stop with the stupid comments already. Nobody is arguing math, we are arguing rulebook literature which does not necessarily have to follow math or real world concepts for that matter.

In the real world not every soldier out there will fire his gun when being assaulted, some will be too scared to shoot...yet there's no mechanic in the game for being so scared that you can't even attack. But we accept it as just being part of the game. So how hard is it to accept FACT = Game has separated division from the rest and implents it differently

GW made a set of rules governing modifiers and such. They also laid out the attack process and how to figure out numbers of attacks. These are "basic rules". They are not going to completely change the way attacks are figured and change the attack process with an "advanced rule" that is only half a sentence in the middle of a Universal rule. If they wanted Smash timing to be different then they would have stated so more obviously than "roll to hit as normal"

The only reason this is even a discussion is because of the Tervigon's potential abuse with psychic powers and crushing claws. He will no doubt get a FAQ nerf real soon.

"" if I were to run my Tervigon, I would actually play DR's way due to the fact that it is least advantageous"" .. Until something official comes out that is probably the best policy for friendly games (or the 4+ rule). At a tournament I would simply check with the TO about his ruling on it and go with that.

Akaiyou wrote:

You realize that this is what we've been arguing right? But people are just too stupid or think themselves too 'smart' to realize that we aren't saying that mathematically multiplication and division can't get the same result. We are saying that for the purposes of 40k they are DIFFERENT.

But where in the rulebook does it state they are different? Where in the rulebook does it state that multiplication and division must be two separate operations that must occur at different times? it doesn't? Well what do we reference to figure this problem out?

It is similar to the problem of "the","and",and words like "halve". The Basic Rulebook assumes that you know certain things, like definitions of words not defined in the rulebook and processes not defined. It would be like me saying "you can't double your Space Marine's strength from his power fist because the rulebook doesn't tell you how to multiply in this game system."

People seem to be hung up on the line in smash "it rolls to hit as normal, but halves its attacks" (paraphrased, real quote is within this thread"). This line still hasn't solved anything because it can be interpreted in two ways:
1) you roll to hit like normal, looking at your attack profile, adding in your bonus attacks, but right before rolling, halve the number of attacks you have.
2) you roll to hit like normal (see above), but you have an additional .5 (or /2) modifier for your attacks.

Both have been given several pages of evidence, and the argument is contingent on one thing; what does division mean for the attacks? is it part of the special rule, therefore (A+D3+D3+1)/2, or is it simply an implicit modifier following the modifier rules, therefore A/2+D3+D3+1.

Also, no one has touched much on the "Dividing to Conquer" rules, does it actually state where division takes place, or just to round up characteristics?

The Poll Is Up as requested. I made it multiple choice for all you multiplication fanatics...this means you may choose more than one option in case you weren't aware what it means in "Poll" terms.

Fragile wrote:GW made a set of rules governing modifiers and such. They also laid out the attack process and how to figure out numbers of attacks. These are "basic rules". They are not going to completely change the way attacks are figured and change the attack process with an "advanced rule" that is only half a sentence in the middle of a Universal rule. If they wanted Smash timing to be different then they would have stated so more obviously than "roll to hit as normal"

The only reason this is even a discussion is because of the Tervigon's potential abuse with psychic powers and crushing claws. He will no doubt get a FAQ nerf real soon.

"" if I were to run my Tervigon, I would actually play DR's way due to the fact that it is least advantageous"" .. Until something official comes out that is probably the best policy for friendly games (or the 4+ rule). At a tournament I would simply check with the TO about his ruling on it and go with that.

-facepalm-

You just agreed that it's a basic rule. [Good]
You agree that smash is an advanced rule. [Great]
Then you state that there's no conflict because the smash rule is only half a sentence? [WTF??? -Starts Breaking Things-]
Lastly you add that, if they wanted smash to be different they would've stated it more obvious? [Gun to temple, pull trigger]

Because telling you to roll to hit, but just before rolling to hit to halve the characteistic is NOT obvious enough? Seriously? It's like you are willfully ignoring key elements, i can only think to myself 'wtf? Whyyyyyyyy???' are you just trying to form your argument by ignoring half the rule? You can't just accept the first two facts and ignore everything else that makes no sense.

Basic < Advanced

There IS a conflict where modifiers are applying but HALVING is covered on page 5 and is taking precedence over the modifiers. In the end it should all give you the same result ultimately assuming that the tervigions 'bonus attacks' are counting just as 'bonus attacks'

Though a good case can be made about warp speed affecting the characteristic earlier..gonna have to review the wording on it.

SCvodimier wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:

You realize that this is what we've been arguing right? But people are just too stupid or think themselves too 'smart' to realize that we aren't saying that mathematically multiplication and division can't get the same result. We are saying that for the purposes of 40k they are DIFFERENT.

But where in the rulebook does it state they are different? Where in the rulebook does it state that multiplication and division must be two separate operations that must occur at different times? it doesn't? Well what do we reference to figure this problem out?

It is similar to the problem of "the","and",and words like "halve". The Basic Rulebook assumes that you know certain things, like definitions of words not defined in the rulebook and processes not defined. It would be like me saying "you can't double your Space Marine's strength from his power fist because the rulebook doesn't tell you how to multiply in this game system."

People seem to be hung up on the line in smash "it rolls to hit as normal, but halves its attacks" (paraphrased, real quote is within this thread"). This line still hasn't solved anything because it can be interpreted in two ways:
1) you roll to hit like normal, looking at your attack profile, adding in your bonus attacks, but right before rolling, halve the number of attacks you have.
2) you roll to hit like normal (see above), but you have an additional .5 (or /2) modifier for your attacks.

Both have been given several pages of evidence, and the argument is contingent on one thing; what does division mean for the attacks? is it part of the special rule, therefore (A+D3+D3+1)/2, or is it simply an implicit modifier following the modifier rules, therefore A/2+D3+D3+1.

Also, no one has touched much on the "Dividing to Conquer" rules, does it actually state where division takes place, or just to round up characteristics?

On Page 5 it states they are different by separating it from the rest. Divide to Conquer explains expressedly how division affects this game system and it tells us to look at page 5 when we see the world HALVE or similar wording show up. Otherwise there would be no need to add the Divide To Conquer bit

Let me ask you guys, in 5th, 4th, 3rd and 2nd edition and so on, did we have the divide to conquer rule?

We all agree that 6th ed has been the best rulebook in terms of streamlining rules and making them clearer to follow, as well as the very neat feature of including highlights of the most important stuff right?

So why again would they add the bit about divide to conquer to specficailly address HALVING values, and then want you to ignore it and focus on modifiers which are clearly being overruled by the Pg 7 advanced vs basic rule.

Akaiyou wrote:And as you mentioned we are not told to multiply we are told to HALVE the damn value, so what are we supposed to do? we HALVE the set value, where in the rulebook are we specifically told about how to deal with halving?

It is NOT on page 2....it is on page 5.

The Divide to Conquor rule tells us how to deal with fractions when we halve characteristics.
It doesn't replace how we handle modifiers, but clarify what happens if rounding is needed. The two rules work together.

We apply the modifiers in order (page 2), and if one of those modifiers involve halving we know what to do with the fractions (page 6)

grendel083 wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:And as you mentioned we are not told to multiply we are told to HALVE the damn value, so what are we supposed to do? we HALVE the set value, where in the rulebook are we specifically told about how to deal with halving?

It is NOT on page 2....it is on page 5.

The Divide to Conquor rule tells us how to deal with fractions when we halve characteristics.
It doesn't replace how we handle modifiers, but clarify what happens if rounding is needed. The two rules work together.

We apply the modifiers in order (page 2), and if one of those modifiers involve halving we know what to do with the fractions (page 6)

It also shows us that the world 'halve' falls into the DIVIDE TO CONQUER bracket of the rules.

Am I wrong on that?

Akaiyou,

There isn't conflict where modifiers apply. The smash rule does not tell you when to apply the halving. You can read that line a hundred times, it does not tell you when to halve the attacks, just that rolling To Hit is normal, and the attacks are halved.
So we go to Divide and Conquer on pg. 5 and see how to halve the statistic. It does not mention when to halve them in conjunction with out modifiers.
Then we go to count our attacks and we use the rules on pg. 2 because no other rule has take precedence. We realize that multipliers include division, because we understand math, and we follow the rules to the letter.

All rules have been properly followed and we arrive at 3/2 + 2d3 + 1 attacks.

EDIT: To respond to your last post: You are not wrong. But it doesn't tell us when, so we have to continue to use the Multiple Modifiers rules in conjunction.

@SCvodimir,
To answer you, no Divide and Conquer does not say anything about when it takes place. It also does not state anything about how to handle additional modifiers, and therefor we MUST follow the Multiple Modifiers rules as well.

Akaiyou wrote:

grendel083 wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:And as you mentioned we are not told to multiply we are told to HALVE the damn value, so what are we supposed to do? we HALVE the set value, where in the rulebook are we specifically told about how to deal with halving?

It is NOT on page 2....it is on page 5.

The Divide to Conquor rule tells us how to deal with fractions when we halve characteristics.
It doesn't replace how we handle modifiers, but clarify what happens if rounding is needed. The two rules work together.

We apply the modifiers in order (page 2), and if one of those modifiers involve halving we know what to do with the fractions (page 6)

It also shows us that the world 'halve' falls into the DIVIDE TO CONQUER bracket of the rules.

Am I wrong on that?

Yes the word 'Halve' is used in that rule.
And if I need to halve a characteristic and apply other bonuses I'll use Divide to Conquer while appliying my Multiple Modifiers.
First I'll halve (as this is still a Multplier), rounding up (as Divide to Conquer tells me to) and then add bonuses.
All rules followed and working together, living in harmony. And there was much rejoicing.

racta wrote:Akaiyou,

There isn't conflict where modifiers apply. The smash rule does not tell you when to apply the halving. You can read that line a hundred times, it does not tell you when to halve the attacks, just that rolling To Hit is normal, and the attacks are halved.
So we go to Divide and Conquer on pg. 5 and see how to halve the statistic. It does not mention when to halve them in conjunction with out modifiers.
Then we go to count our attacks and we use the rules on pg. 2 because no other rule has take precedence. We realize that multipliers include division, because we understand math, and we follow the rules to the letter.

All rules have been properly followed and we arrive at 3/2 + 2d3 + 1 attacks.

EDIT: To respond to your last post: You are not wrong. But it doesn't tell us when, so we have to continue to use the Multiple Modifiers rules in conjunction.

@SCvodimir,
To answer you, no Divide and Conquer does not say anything about when it takes place. It also does not state anything about how to handle additional modifiers, and therefor we MUST follow the Multiple Modifiers rules as well.

It doesn't tell you when to halve? What are you talking about. It tells you exactly when!

Roll To Hit as normal, but [right here]

Go look at the rules on page 24. That's when you roll to hit, at the time that you roll to hit, that's when you halve.

Again how are people not seeing this? It's clear as day right there infront of you.

Which is after you've modified your Attack characteristic by adding in all of your bonus Attacks.

Because it doesn't say that. We've quoted it plenty before, but here it is again...

Under Smash attack:
"If it does so, roll To Hit as norrnal, but halve its Attacks characteristic."

It doesn't say when. It's in the same sentence as rolling To Hit, but that doesn't mean that is when you should havle it.

Ultimately I do believe the process ends in the same thing.

Accept that bonus attacks are not adding to the characteristic because page 24 simply calls them bonus attacks thus not creating a conflict with the "halving' part.

What gets me is that people are blatantly ignoring the process of it.

You say your process follows the rules I think it doesnt.

I think the real process at work here is this

1. Declare attack

2. Declare Smash

3. Multiple Modifier Rules Apply Here [count up your bonus attacks]

4. Roll To Hit
- During this section you HALVE the attack characteristic. Not the bonus attacks

5. Add Strength 10 to everything

6. Profit

From my point of view Halving is separate, diviving to conquer is separate.

It feels to me like you guys are trying to force multiple modifiers where HALVING is the word used. And that's what I disagree with, even if the end result is the same, this is not the order of operation.

Halving is done during the roll to hit step. Multiple Modifiers are done during the Initiative Step right where you count your number of attacks.

How can you disagree with this logic??

racta wrote:Because it doesn't say that. We've quoted it plenty before, but here it is again...

Under Smash attack:
"If it does so, roll To Hit as norrnal, but halve its Attacks characteristic."

It doesn't say when. It's in the same sentence as rolling To Hit, but that doesn't mean that is when you should havle it.

You haven't quoted anything in support without ignoring part of it.

You say it doesnt tell you when...yet you claim that it's in the same sentence as roll to hit. So this is an example of what you are donig from my perspective

I tell you "Dude dive into the pool, but wiggle your toes before you land"

So you are accepting that im telling you to jump into the pool but for some reason you have no fething clue when to wiggle your toes???

That makes no damn sense.

If it says Roll To Hit, but halve your attack characteristic. Then clearly you are being told WHEN to halve it, in the very same sentence. It's basic english.

Since we have SOOOO many math professors here are there any ENGLISH teachers? Dissect that sentence and tell me that it doesnt tell you 'when' to halve.

Akaiyou wrote:
Accept that bonus attacks are not adding to the characteristic because page 24 simply calls them bonus attacks thus not creating a conflict with the "halving' part.

And this is part of the disagreement. If they were "Bonus attacks" or if the rule said to "halve your attacks" or "halve your unmodified Attack characteristic" I think we could all agree. The problem is under Bonus Attacks, you get for example +1 Attack when charging. This is exactly the same as Furious Charge which grants +1 Strength when charging. As such, after reading the relevant rules, I read it as (1+D3+D3+3)/2 instead of 1+D3+D3+3/2.

Because of 2 reasons.
Divide and conquer never says when to apply the division, therefore you must use the Modifier rules.
The multiple modifiers rules must be followed unless specifically told not to. This applies to all modifiers, which halving falls under.

EDIT: To answer your scenario, if you told me that, you never mention when to wiggle my toes. I can wiggle them before I hit the water and I would still be following the letter of your rule.

Akaiyou wrote:Ultimately I do believe the process ends in the same thing.

Accept that bonus attacks are not adding to the characteristic because page 24 simply calls them bonus attacks thus not creating a conflict with the "halving' part.

What gets me is that people are blatantly ignoring the process of it.

You say your process follows the rules I think it doesnt.

I think the real process at work here is this

1. Declare attack

2. Declare Smash

3. Multiple Modifier Rules Apply Here [count up your bonus attacks]

4. Roll To Hit
- During this section you HALVE the attack characteristic. Not the bonus attacks

5. Add Strength 10 to everything

6. Profit

From my point of view Halving is separate, diviving to conquer is separate.

It feels to me like you guys are trying to force multiple modifiers where HALVING is the word used. And that's what I disagree with, even if the end result is the same, this is not the order of operation.

Halving is done during the roll to hit step. Multiple Modifiers are done during the Initiative Step right where you count your number of attacks.

How can you disagree with this logic??

racta wrote:Because it doesn't say that. We've quoted it plenty before, but here it is again...

Under Smash attack:
"If it does so, roll To Hit as norrnal, but halve its Attacks characteristic."

It doesn't say when. It's in the same sentence as rolling To Hit, but that doesn't mean that is when you should havle it.

You haven't quoted anything in support without ignoring part of it.

You say it doesnt tell you when...yet you claim that it's in the same sentence as roll to hit. So this is an example of what you are donig from my perspective

I tell you "Dude dive into the pool, but wiggle your toes before you land"

So you are accepting that im telling you to jump into the pool but for some reason you have no fething clue when to wiggle your toes???

That makes no damn sense.

If it says Roll To Hit, but halve your attack characteristic. Then clearly you are being told WHEN to halve it, in the very same sentence. It's basic english.

Since we have SOOOO many math professors here are there any ENGLISH teachers? Dissect that sentence and tell me that it doesnt tell you 'when' to halve.

With my post above. The line "rolls to hit as normal, but halves it attacks" isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. Part of rolling to hit is calculating how many attacks you have, so do we halve the total number, or do we just have an additional 1/2 modifier?

Oh i see a nob with a PK now is S10 when he charges.
Good to know.

Exactly SCv, you don't know. Luckily there is a specific rule that tells us HOW to apply multiple modifiers. If we follow that rule, everything is simple!

I give up if people can't tell when to halve from reading 'roll to hit, but [halve]' then I just can't argue with that.

And these are the same people arguing that we should mulitply instead of divide when the word halve takes place.

I am happy with my conclusion in terms of how the process is at work here good luck to the rest of you until the FAQ is released.

Divide to Conquor works perfectly well with Multiple modifiers.

But...

The argument I'm seeing is weather Smash Attacks apply a standard attack modifier

Or...

It applies the Halving at a non-standard timing (ie after standard modifiers are applied)

Sound about right?

Don't act all high and mighty if you can't understand an argument.
I do agree we are wasting our time, because you are not even attempting to understand what we are saying.

Yes, grendel. And since it never tells us when to halve them in the Smash Attack rule, we must abide by Multiple Modifiers. It's clear cut.

That is it exactly. BTW that should be whether not weather. But w/e.

Happyjew wrote:That is it exactly. BTW that should be whether not weather. But w/e.

Quite right, must have weather on the brain as its raining hard here.

Happyjew wrote:cowmonaut, and you are so convinced you are right you cannot see reason either

No, I quite understand Death Reaper's argument. Akaiyou and him have made their points, albeit poorly. But aside from one unit being "broken" in some players' eyes, this issue with their argument is rooted in 7th grade math. Given the game is for ages 12 and up that shouldn't be a problem, but some how is.

The perceived majority (by my judging of the poll and posts) thinks it works as so:

[Base Attack Characteristic] / 2 + [Modifiers]

The perceived minority (again by my judging) thinks it works like this:

([Base Attack Characteristic] + [Modifiers]) / 2

The tangent about when modifiers are applied is equally silly. Warp Speed happens at the start of the Movement Phase, Crushing Claws happens at the beginning of the Fight Sub-Phase, and you get the +1 for Charging at the beginning of your Initiative Step (I:1 cause of the Crushing Claws). Then you declare if you are Smashing or not and then Roll To Hit. That's pretty cut and dry in the rules, I'm not sure why that became a sub-debate.

The way it seems most people read it (again by my judging, based on posts here in this thread, the poll, and regular opponents) it seems to be the first option. Arguments that it could be the second option I'll be more than happy to listen to, as soon as they stop talking nonsense about mathematics. They don't need to be making that kind of argument in order to be arguing their point. It does nothing but harm their side of the argument to do so, as their arguments on that matter are deeply flawed.

Heck, that could even be why there is so much opposition to the idea. They're busy arguing that division != multiplication (which just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of basic math) instead of pointing out things like "Smash doesn't specify if its the base unmodified characteristic or not" which would make more sense.

Well said.

cowmonaut wrote:Heck, that could even be why there is so much opposition to the idea. They're busy arguing that division != multiplication (which just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of basic math)

So why teach Division in school at all?

Why teach Subtraction when you can add and get the same results?

Math has dictated that Division and Multiplication are different, they even have different symbols to denote Division and Multiplication, those being / and * (On the keypad anyway, on paper they look different × vs ÷)

If the rules do not tell us to use multiplication, and instead tell us to Halve something as a default we divide, because that is how math is taught.

if you ask someone to write out the equation "Halve 10 which equals five" they will write it out like this 10/2 = 5 (Most if not all would write it this way)
People do not write 10 × 0.5 =5 because we were taught to do it the first way as the default. the results are the same but the equations are different.

cowmonaut wrote: instead of pointing out things like "Smash doesn't specify if its the base unmodified characteristic or not" which would make more sense.

I thought I had said that buy saying that the bonus Attacks are added into the stat since attacks and wounds are the only stats that can be raised above 10.

DeathReaper wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:Heck, that could even be why there is so much opposition to the idea. They're busy arguing that division != multiplication (which just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of basic math)

So why teach Division in school at all?

Why teach Subtraction when you can add and get the same results?

Math has dictated that Division and Multiplication are different, they even have different symbols to denote Division and Multiplication, those being / and * (On the keypad anyway, on paper they look different × vs ÷)

If the rules do not tell us to use multiplication, and instead tell us to Halve something as a default we divide, because that is how math is taught.

if you ask someone to write out the equation "Halve 10 which equals five" they will write it out like this 10/2 = 5 (Most if not all would write it this way)
People do not write 10 × 0.5 =5 because we were taught to do it the first way as the default. the results are the same but the equations are different.

cowmonaut wrote: instead of pointing out things like "Smash doesn't specify if its the base unmodified characteristic or not" which would make more sense.

I thought I had said that buy saying that the bonus Attacks are added into the stat since attacks and wounds are the only stats that can be raised above 10.

Divison and multiplication still aren't.

To answer your question, the reason they teach them is simple; for convenience.

Students might at first be confused to understand the concept of multiplication by fractions. For example, Sets and Numbers, a commonly used math book for teaching multiplcation and division, seeks to teach children the rules of multiplication through the idea of sets of things. It would be hard for the book to describe "adding a half set, which makes you end up with half the number of sets you start with" No, they teach you to "count" the number of sets and create division.

In fact, as stated previously, most of the operations that we have learned are purely short hand for addition. Addition, as well as its counterpart subtraction, are the only non-abstract math operation. If I have one penny and take another and put it next to the first one, I have added 1 penny to the pile, giving me a result of two pennies.

subtraction- This is the addition of negative numbers (which is also an abstract concept).
multiplication-this is the addition of the same number multiple times
division-this is the addition of a number a fractional amount of times
exponents, etc.

The reason we even have an order of operations in the first place is because when we start writing our short-hand operations, the numbers are no longer necessarily numbers, but symbols representing an addition problem that needs to be worked out before we do more addition.

parentheses- these are an abstract symbol we have created to bypass the order of operations
exponents-this is the most complex short-hand we have created (as far as simple operations go), therefore, it needs to be resolved first
multiplication/division-this is the next most complex, therefore is the next to be resolved
addition/subtraction-this is where actual math takes place and the problem can be entirely resolved.

Therefore, division and multiplication are symbolic operations for addition problems that we have been taught as kids in order for us to solve equations more conveniently. it, in no way, undermines the fact that in math, these operations are simply representations of an equation, not a set operation that has its own rules

P.S. doing this just made me realize that the order of operations is entirely from most complex to simplest

DeathReaper wrote:Math has dictated that Division and Multiplication are different, they even have different symbols to denote Division and Multiplication, those being / and * (On the keypad anyway, on paper they look different × vs ÷)

If the rules do not tell us to use multiplication, and instead tell us to Halve something as a default we divide, because that is how math is taught.

And again, you are just showing your ignorance here. Educate yourself. This is truly a very, very basic thing you seem to be misunderstanding. Division and Multiplication are operations that work in opposite directions, similar to addition and subtraction. Multiplication and Division are the same operation in different directions, just like addition and subtraction. This isn't something you can argue about. It just is.

Math is hard. It can be tough to grasp some of the abstract concepts, which is why things are taught separately.

DeathReaper wrote:if you ask someone to write out the equation "Halve 10 which equals five" they will write it out like this 10/2 = 5 (Most if not all would write it this way)
People do not write 10 × 0.5 =5 because we were taught to do it the first way as the default. the results are the same but the equations are different.

And already you are wrong. I generally times things by .5 when I'm halving them cause i can do it faster in my head that way. Math is a complex and abstract subject, but in 5th grade I was taught that I could do it both ways and it counted as the same thing. Apparently numerous others (again, judging by the poll and posts in this thread) were taught similarly.

cowmonaut wrote: instead of pointing out things like "Smash doesn't specify if its the base unmodified characteristic or not" which would make more sense.

I thought I had said that buy saying that the bonus Attacks are added into the stat since attacks and wounds are the only stats that can be raised above 10.

From the strictest part of the way the book is written people, we are told to half the attacks. Not to divide, not to multiply, but half the attacks.


Hell, if ya want lets go through this. Your warp speed is a blessing, done at the start of the movement phase. You now move your model about, Aiming to get him into CC, which with success, you do. Hurray! We move to the fight sub-phase, which now means you have to roll for Crushing Claws (per its errata). Excellent! Moving down the rules for CC, you declare your Smash Attacking with it. Awesome, I would expect nothing less. We start moving through the initiative steps. My poor necron warriors here are at I2, which means they go before your beatstick of awesome. No wounds go out cause my rolls are less then impressive. Initiative one, time for the beatsick to lay the law down. Heres where Im going to divert from my story;

Pulling up the rules for the fight sub-phase from pg 429 Bullet 3 which is where your modifiers are applied:

BRB Pg 429 wrote:

Starting at Initiative step 10, count down through the steps towards 1 until you reach an Initiative value that one or more participants not involved in a challenge have (see page 22).

-All models with this Initiative value now Pile In (see page 23).
-All engaged models (see page 23) with this Initiave now get to make a number of Attacks equal to their Attacks characteristic plus any bonus Attacks they are entitled to (see page 25).

Roll to Hit - Roll one dice

Hold up, wait one second. Let us go back to your Smash Attack rules...

BRB Pg 42 wrote:
All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2 (unless it's attacking with an AP1 weapon). Additionally, when it makes its close combat attacks, it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack. If it does so, roll To Hit as normal, but halve its Attacks characteristic. A Smash Attack also doubles the model's Strength (to a maximum of 10) for the purposes of that Attack. Furthermore, a model making a Smash Attack can re-roll its armor penetration rolls, but must abide by the second result.

Wait a second, when you roll to hit is when you apply your half? That comes after your bonus attacks are added? Preposterous, yet there it is people. The halfing attribute that is applied to your Smash Attacks is a set multiplier value. While it is not called one in the rule, when its applied to your Smash Attacks makes it one.

Xzerios wrote:From the strictest part of the way the book is written people, we are told to half the attacks. Not to divide, not to multiply, but half the attacks.

Please just avoid saying things like this. Halving something is equivalent to dividing/multiplying something. Statements like this are highlighting the wrong part of the rules, in effect creating a red herring.

Xzerios wrote:Moving down the rules for CC, you declare your Smash Attacking with it. Awesome, I would expect nothing less. We start moving through the initiative steps.

Hold up, is this right? Wouldn't you have to wait for your Initiative Step to declare how you are making your attacks? For example, with Logan Grimnar (I:5) wouldn't you declare you are making X Frost Blade and Y Power Fist attacks during Initiative Step 5?

And if that is the case, don't you get your bonus for charging before you can declare what types of attacks you are making?

Xzerios wrote:Let us go back to your Smash Attack rules...

BRB Pg 42 wrote:
All of the close combat attacks, except Hammer of Wrath Attacks, of a model with this special rule are resolved at AP2 (unless it's attacking with an AP1 weapon). Additionally, when it makes its close combat attacks, it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack. If it does so, roll To Hit as normal, but halve its Attacks characteristic. A Smash Attack also doubles the model's Strength (to a maximum of 10) for the purposes of that Attack. Furthermore, a model making a Smash Attack can re-roll its armor penetration rolls, but must abide by the second result.

Wait a second, when you roll to hit is when you apply your half? That comes after your bonus attacks are added? Preposterous, yet there it is people. The halfing attribute that is applied to your Smash Attacks is a set multiplier value. While it is not called one in the rule, when its applied to your Smash Attacks makes it one.

For one, you are contradicting your self (see the first line quoted in this post). You are saying halving is not multiplication which means it can't be a multiplier. See why I'm asking we just drop the math angle?

For two, the page number is wrong. Its not on Page 42. I think that page covers Unit Types. I don't see "set multiplier values" in the index or in the rules in the first part of the book through the Assault Phase. I'm probably just missing it and am going over it again.


Can anyone tell me when you apply modifiers? I know that Warp Speed is cast in the Movement Phase, and that Crushing Claws are rolled for at the Fight Sub-Phase. Do you add the modifiers when they are rolled? Or do you just determine the values of the modifiers and then apply them when appropriate (so at the beginning of the Initiative Step for the Tervigon in the Assault Phase).

To me this seems to be important. If its modified when you roll, then you do sum up everything then cut it in half. If its modified at the Initiative Step, then the rules for Multiple Modifiers applies. If that's the case then you would have to halve the base characteristic.

Let me know if I need to clarify what I'm saying.

Your told when to apply your modifications on page 429. The Smash special rule tells you when to half. Outlined above. :3

Mannahnin wrote:All modifiers are resolved as explained under Multiple Modifiers, regardless of when they are applied. There is no conflict between Smash and Multiple Modifiers, therefore Basic vs. Advanced doesn't enter into the discussion.

Tervigon = 2A, halved for Smashing,+ 2 (e.g.) for Crushing Claws, +1 for charging = 4 attacks.

I believe this is key. No matter when they are applied, they resolve the same way.

Except what your missing is the line "roll to hit as normal, but halve its Attack characteristic" can mean two things.

1)do I go through the process of rolling to hit as normal, halving profile attacks and bonus attacks?
or
2) do I go through rolling to hit as normal, but with an extra 1/2 modifier?

cowmonaut wrote: Multiplication and Division are the same operation in different directions, just like addition and subtraction.

Yet they specifically mention Additions or Subtractions...

I get that division and multiplication are the same in the real world, just like addition and subtraction are the same thing. (So it is not ignorance, It is following the RAW, since they specifically mention addition, subtraction, and multipliers)

However in the actual rules they specifically mention multipliers, addition and subtraction, and they do not mention Halve (Division) Specifically in the Multiple modifiers section.

But the math does not really matter anyway as the Advanced rule of smash Halves your Attacks Characteristic.

The bonus attacks from charging, warp speed, and crushing claws are added to your Attacks characteristic.

and we know from P.5 that Attacks and Wounds are the only Characteristics that can be raised above 10.

How do you raise a Characteristic?

You add bonuses into it (Like charge gives +1 Attack, Warp speed +D3 Attacks, and Crushing claws +D3 Attacks).

Half is a multiplier, and a divisor. By definition.

Stop with that argument, it is pointless. It detracts from the only argument left - timing.

DeathReaper wrote:
How do you raise a Characteristic?

You add bonuses into it (Like charge gives +1 Attack, Warp speed +D3 Attacks, and Crushing claws +D3 Attacks).

Not entirely correct. You add a modifier to it. I could be a bonus or a penalty, but they're both modifiers.

Xzerios wrote:Your told when to apply your modifications on page 429. The Smash special rule tells you when to half. Outlined above. :3

Actually, Page 429 only tells you that you get a number of attacks equal to your characteristic plus bonuses. It doesn't tell you that all modifiers to your Attack Characteristic are applied then. But I won't argue too strongly against that without some supporting evidence. I'll see if I can dig up anything...

DeathReaper wrote:Yet they specifically mention Additions or Subtractions...

I get that division and multiplication are the same in the real world, just like addition and subtraction are the same thing. (So it is not ignorance, It is following the RAW, since they specifically mention addition, subtraction, and multipliers)

However in the actual rules they specifically mention multipliers, addition and subtraction, and they do not mention Halve (Division) Specifically in the Multiple modifiers section.

But the math does not really matter anyway as the Advanced Rule of smash Halves your Attacks Characteristic.

Okay, so if Smash wasn't an Advanced Rule we would follow the Multiple Modifiers rule. Since it is an Advanced Rule you are saying we ignore the basic rule for multiple modifiers. I can accept that line of reasoning.

So when do you declare what type of attack(s) you are making in combat? It would be during your Initiative Step and after you calculate your bonus attacks, right? Don't you declare just prior to rolling to Hit?

If that's the case, then you tally up everything, divide by 2, and round up to get your number of attacks. Which is what you have been trying to state was the case if I am not mistaken?

If I'm right about what you are trying to state, I again don't know why on earth you bothered arguing other facts that don't really even apply to your argument...

DeathReaper wrote:The bonus attacks from charging, warp speed, and crushing claws are added to your Attacks characteristic.

Not being debated or really relevant to the argument at hand...

DeathReaper wrote:and we know from P.5 that Attacks and Wounds are the only Characteristics that can be raised above 10.

Not being debated or really relevant to the argument at hand...

DeathReaper wrote:How do you raise a Characteristic?

You add bonuses into it (Like charge gives +1 Attack, Warp speed +D3 Attacks, and Crushing claws +D3 Attacks).

Not being debated or really relevant to the argument at hand...

cowmonaut wrote:Actually, Page 429 only tells you that you get a number of attacks equal to your characteristic plus bonuses. It doesn't tell you that all modifiers to your Attack Characteristic are applied then. But I won't argue too strongly against that without some supporting evidence. I'll see if I can dig up anything...

Page 2 tells us that.

"Attacks and Wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10."

If Crushing claws does not add to the characteristic then how wound the Attacks characteristic be raised?

cowmonaut wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The bonus attacks from charging, warp speed, and crushing claws are added to your Attacks characteristic.

Not being debated or really relevant to the argument at hand...

DeathReaper wrote:and we know from P.5 that Attacks and Wounds are the only Characteristics that can be raised above 10.

Not being debated or really relevant to the argument at hand...

DeathReaper wrote:How do you raise a Characteristic?

You add bonuses into it (Like charge gives +1 Attack, Warp speed +D3 Attacks, and Crushing claws +D3 Attacks).

Not being debated or really relevant to the argument at hand...

It is actually relevant, as that adds into the Characteristic and Smash tells us to Halve the Characteristic.

DeathReaper wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:Actually, Page 429 only tells you that you get a number of attacks equal to your characteristic plus bonuses. It doesn't tell you that all modifiers to your Attack Characteristic are applied then. But I won't argue too strongly against that without some supporting evidence. I'll see if I can dig up anything...

Page 2 tells us that.

"Attacks and Wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10."

If Crushing claws does not add to the characteristic then how wound the Attacks characteristic be raised?

Wow dude, who is saying that the Attack Characteristic is not being raised? I haven't seen anyone make that argument. I'm seeing plenty of argument about when its raised.

I'm about to flip flop on the not thinking you are trolling thing. Either you are tired or you are deliberately ignoring what words I actually put in that post. Please go back and read it.

So you agree the Attack Characteristic is being raised.

Good, and Smash Specifically applies to Halve the Attacks Characteristic, which would include all bonuses because you Halve the characteristic when you choose to make a smash attack.

Again, you are ignoring my point. Here, since you obviously did not read it the first time and are choosing to continue to ignore it, please answer the following:

cowmonaut wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Yet they specifically mention Additions or Subtractions...

I get that division and multiplication are the same in the real world, just like addition and subtraction are the same thing. (So it is not ignorance, It is following the RAW, since they specifically mention addition, subtraction, and multipliers)

However in the actual rules they specifically mention multipliers, addition and subtraction, and they do not mention Halve (Division) Specifically in the Multiple modifiers section.

But the math does not really matter anyway as the Advanced Rule of smash Halves your Attacks Characteristic.

Okay, so if Smash wasn't an Advanced Rule we would follow the Multiple Modifiers rule. Since it is an Advanced Rule you are saying we ignore the basic rule for multiple modifiers. I can accept that line of reasoning.

So when do you declare what type of attack(s) you are making in combat? It would be during your Initiative Step and after you calculate your bonus attacks, right? Don't you declare just prior to rolling to Hit?

If that's the case, then you tally up everything, divide by 2, and round up to get your number of attacks. Which is what you have been trying to state was the case if I am not mistaken?

If I'm right about what you are trying to state, I again don't know why on earth you bothered arguing other facts that don't really even apply to your argument...

Also, I find it hilarious that I'm actually starting to side with you and you are arguing with me.

cowmonaut wrote:Okay, so if Smash wasn't an Advanced Rule we would follow the Multiple Modifiers rule. Since it is an Advanced Rule you are saying we ignore the basic rule for multiple modifiers. I can accept that line of reasoning.

So when do you declare what type of attack(s) you are making in combat? It would be during your Initiative Step and after you calculate your bonus attacks, right? Don't you declare just prior to rolling to Hit?

If that's the case, then you tally up everything, divide by 2, and round up to get your number of attacks. Which is what you have been trying to state was the case if I am not mistaken?.

Sorry. at a cursory glance i thought you said something else. I should probably not try and work and post on the forums at the same time.

"you tally up everything, divide by 2, and round up to get your number of attacks" Yes this is the conclusion I see the rules come to.

Yea, skimming posts in a debate can lead to bad things

Okay then. So how I see it, if you want to argue against Smash dividing your total attacks by two (versus the base characteristic), you'd have to prove that you apply characteristics after declaring what type of attack you use. As far as I can tell you would apply all the modifiers when they trigger, and in any event they would all get applied before you can choose to use Smash.

If anyone can find otherwise, I'd be interested.

I can't believe how much time was wasted arguing over nonsense... And I'm damned surprised I got swayed to the (perceived) minority position.

Welcome to the side of Chaos. We have cookies.

It's a compelling argument they have, but ultimately wrong. The sentence in Smash Attack special rule never states when to halve the attacks.

Let me say that again. It never states when to halve the attacks.
It tells you roll To Hit normally.
It tells you halve your attacks characteristic.

It happens to say both things in one sentence, but no where does it say when to halve it. So it is another modifier. All modifiers are resolved as explained under Multiple Modifiers, regardless of when they are applied, unless specifically said so in a advanced rule. There is no conflict between Smash and Multiple Modifiers.

racta, answer me this: when do you declare what types of attacks you will be making in close combat?

Before rolling to hit.

EDIT: I understand that, but the sentence still doesn't specifically tell you when to apply the halve. So we must use the Multiple Modifiers rule. All modifiers are resolved as explained under Multiple Modifiers, regardless of when they are applied, unless an overwriting rule tells you otherwise. This is not one of those cases.

I have to ask, if modifiers are applied and then locked in, so to speak, in order; why do marines with PFs and FC hit at strength 9?

Furious Charge gives +1 strength on the charge. So surely it's +1 strength as he charges, then when it's his initiative step, Strength * 2 which would be 10?

Nothing in that sentence states that you halve your attacks at any time other than the normal times. People who are trying to focus on the "to hit" part are simply trying to take something out of context. Taking the sentence as a whole shows you simply follow the normal procedures for doing a CC attack but with halve the attack characteristic. There is no "time" involved in that sentence as you can rearrange it and it means the exact same thing.

"when it makes its close combat attacks, it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack. If it does so, roll To Hit as normal, but halve its Attacks characteristic." P.42

When it makes its CC attacks is when you can choose to use the Smash rules, That is when you Halve the Attacks Characteristic as specified in the Smash rules.

Smash puts the timing in, and this Advanced rule overrides the basic rules about multiple modifiers.

nohman wrote:I have to ask, if modifiers are applied and then locked in, so to speak, in order; why do marines with PFs and FC hit at strength 9?

Furious Charge gives +1 strength on the charge. So surely it's +1 strength as he charges, then when it's his initiative step, Strength * 2 which would be 10?

Number of Attacks is determined in the step immediately before rolling to hit (page 24)
This is after the correct initiative step has been reached, where all these bonuses are finally applied.
The argument of applying the halving just before rolling to hit (therefore halving the total) fails because this is the step where calculating the number of attacks happens anyway.
Applying the halving modifier does indeed happen just before you roll to hit along with every other modifier (you could even call all these modifiers Multiple Modifiers. Oh wait there's a rule for that).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Smash puts the timing in, and this Advanced rule overrides the basic rules about multiple modifiers.

Yes it puts the timing in. Right where it's meant to be. No rules clash.

nohman wrote:I have to ask, if modifiers are applied and then locked in, so to speak, in order; why do marines with PFs and FC hit at strength 9?

Good question. The answer being, Warp Speed and the 'Claws are special circumstances outside the norm. With a Power Fist you are getting all of the bonuses to Strength at the same time (during the Initiative Step).

Warp Speed == Movement Phase
Crushing Claws == Fight Sub-Phase
Bonus for Charging == Initiative Step

That's in the order the bonus numbers are generated. Until I see otherwise, it seems you modify the characteristic when you get the bonus. It doesn't seem to make much sense to wait until the Initiative Step, especially when Crushing Claws were specifically FAQ'd to state you roll for it during the start of Fight Sub-Phase (before the Initiative steps).

So racta, Smash does tell you to halve the attack characteristic. I don't care about the "to hit" part. What I do care about is when you can declare you are using a type of melee attack. Several units in the game have multiple types of combat attacks so this should be in the rules.

Look at Space Wolves:

* Thunderwolf Cavalry armed with Wolf Claws can choose between the Rending attacks and the Wolf Claw attacks
* Logan Grimnar can choose to split his attacks between Frost Blade and Power Fist
* Wolf Guard and other Characters armed with multiple types of melee weapons have to choose which to use

And so on.

So when do you declare what kind of attacks you are making? Because that is when you choose to make a Smash Attack and that is when you divide your attack characteristic by two.

Minimally, it seems to me that Warp Speed gets applied before you Smash. So you at least have the 3+D3. My reading of the rules is that you choose which attack to make during your Initiative Step. That would place it after the beginning of the Fight Sub-Phase, giving you 3+D3+D3 before you divide by two, and arguably after you get the bonus for charging.

So again, please tell me when you declare what type of attack you make in combat. It has to be sometime during the Assault Phase. So when specifically?

My money is on it occurring during the Initiative Step.

I ask that this question only be answered by those arguing that smash is applied after all bonus attacks are added.

At what strength does a space marine with a power fist strike at?

grendel083 wrote:(you could even call all these modifiers Multiple Modifiers. Oh wait there's a rule for that)

It could be argued that Smash is an Advanced Rule and overrides the Basic Rule for Multiple Modifiers, since it has a trigger that may occur after you calculate. Humor me and assume for my previous post that this is true, can you tell me when you declare what types of attacks you are making in combat?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sothas wrote:At what strength does a space marine with a power fist strike at?

This has been answered 2 or 3 times, it still strikes at S9. DeathReaper's assumption is that Smash is an Advanced Rule that overrides the Basic Rule for Multiple Multipliers. His basis for this assumption I can only guess. My basis for the assumption is that declaring what type of attack you are making in combat happens after you calculate modifiers.

Sorry, im on my phone and didn't finish my question.

At what strength does a space marine with a power fist that has been targeted by enfeeble strike at?

cowmonaut wrote:

grendel083 wrote:(you could even call all these modifiers Multiple Modifiers. Oh wait there's a rule for that)

It could be argued that Smash is an Advanced Rule and overrides the Basic Rule for Multiple Modifiers, since it has a trigger that may occur after you calculate. Humor me and assume for my previous post that this is true, can you tell me when you declare what types of attacks you are making in combat?

Ok I'll humour you.
I agree with the Smash wording "When you make a close combat attack". That would put it in the Fight Sub Phase, after pile ins and before determining Number of Attacks.
Reason being at this point you know if the model is eligible to fight, but can't make an attack until you determin how many.

Enfeeble goes off in the Movement Phase. From then on you get -1 Strength and Toughness.

Come the Assault Phase you get to your Initiative Step and apply the additional modifiers from the Power Fist to place you at S6.

At least so it appears to me. Never had Enfeeble come up in game before, but that seems to be how it applies for me.

nohman wrote:I have to ask, if modifiers are applied and then locked in, so to speak, in order; why do marines with PFs and FC hit at strength 9?

Furious Charge gives +1 strength on the charge. So surely it's +1 strength as he charges, then when it's his initiative step, Strength * 2 which would be 10?

Because of multiple modifiers...

cowmonaut wrote:Enfeeble goes off in the Movement Phase. From then on you get -1 Strength and Toughness.

Come the Assault Phase you get to your Initiative Step and apply the additional modifiers from the Power Fist to place you at S6.

At least so it appears to me. Never had Enfeeble come up in game before, but that seems to be how it applies for me.

The problem is its not "additional modifiers" it's just "modifiers". Enfeeble isn't a permanent stat reduction.
So the power fist would be S7 (4x2)-1
Doesn't matter in what order the modifiers are applied in terms of time, just that there are stat modifiers.

grendel083 wrote:Ok I'll humour you.
I agree with the Smash wording "When you make a close combat attack". That would put it in the Fight Sub Phase, after pile ins and before determining Number of Attacks.
Reason being at this point you know if the model is eligible to fight, but can't make an attack until you determin how many.

Thanks for humoring me! So regardless of Smash, you think you declare the types of attacks in the Fight Sub-Phase, before the Initiative Step for the model.

That would indeed change the resulting total a little bit. I would still think that Warp Speed, which happens in the Movement Phase, applies its modifiers in the Movement Phase though.

Given the random nature of BRB powers this doesn't seem game breaking.


Also, I find it interesting that they have all these units that can have multiple types of attacks in this game but don't seem to say when to declare which ones you are using. Can't see anything specific in the Assault Phase rules or under Melee Weapons. For Smash Attacks specifically it seems to be done when you are going to roll the dice however, so I guess I was mistaken previously when I said I don't care about the "To Hit" part...