Tankhammers: Each time the bearer fights, it can only make a single attack with this weapon. If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain..its a close combat weapon. What if i use Goffs and get a 6? Goff has exploding 6's in close combat and would thus give me a second hit. But according to this weapon profile you only get one hit. Which rule take priority?
Same for Bomb Squigs:This weapon cannot target units that can FLY. After making an attack with this weapon, the bearer is slain. its a ranged weapon. What if i roll a 6 and get dakka dakka which is an automatic hit and an extra hit roll? which rule takes priority?
in both cases you get only one hit according to the weapons profile, but clan culture and clan rule wise, i get an extra hit by rolling a 6 when i hit.
I've always played the bomb squigs considering clan rules to have priority, so 6s generate extra shots. This because the rule doesn't say that the model shoots twice (being slain it couldn't), but simply that an extra shot is generated. The same shot has the effect of two ranged attacks.
Same with tankhammers, they make a single attack but a 6 makes that attack counts as they were two.
It's not like the models shoot/fight twice or make more than a single attack with the specific weapon, those ranged/melee attacks simply get an additional dice to roll. Basically the player gets an additional dice to the pool, that's how I've always interpretated the rule.
Blackie wrote: I've always played the bomb squigs considering clan rules to have priority, so 6s generate extra shots. This because the rule doesn't say that the model shoots twice (being slain it couldn't), but simply that an extra shot is generated. The same shot has the effect of two ranged attacks.
Same with tankhammers, they make a single attack but a 6 makes that attack counts as they were two.
It's not like the models shoot/fight twice or make more than a single attack with the specific weapon, those ranged/melee attacks simply get an additional dice to roll. Basically the player gets an additional dice to the pool, that's how I've always interpretated the rule.
this is how i would play it aswell, but i was uncertain if thats how it actually were.
Is there a rule somewhere that explains which rule take priority? Because it feels like its one of those: according to me" rules so i dont have anything i can direct my opponent asking to in the rules books.
the only thing i could say is, what you're telling me, that ones faction rules takes predence over the models rule, and its just an extra die roll not necessarily the model itself shooting twice.
Kinda like when you roll D6 for the grenade amount, i doubt its because you actually look in to your grenade bag and only find 4 grenades by rolling a 4 in the amount roll. and next time you find 6 grenades or only 2.
You cant make a second for tankhammers, because you can only make a single attack. As for the bomb squigs, you cant make a second attack, because the bearer is slain. there is no general priority for one rule over another, there are some cases in the FAQ, and rare rules section, like morale priority, manifesting priority, attacks priority. But none of these apply here.
p5freak wrote: You cant make a second for tankhammers, because you can only make a single attack. As for the bomb squigs, you cant make a second attack, because the bearer is slain. there is no general priority for one rule over another, there are some cases in the FAQ, and rare rules section, like morale priority, manifesting priority, attacks priority. But none of these apply here.
yes but dakka dakka and exploding 6s for Goffs is an extra hit, not an extra attack.
A single attack can have several hits like a gorkanauts smash ability giving 3 hits per attack.
So i would assume that the extra hit i gain from dakka dakka still gives me that extra hit from a single attack the bomb squig makes, and the same for tank hammers.
kirotheavenger wrote: But as I pointed out earlier, you don't get damage for every hit you cause.
You get damage if the attack hits.
Imagine a skeet shooting contest, you get a point if you hit the pigeon. Doesn't matter if you hit it with one pellet or two or six.
but this isnt real life.
my dakka dakka says i get a guaranteed hit and an extra hit roll, and the bomb squig says it dies after its "attack" not its hit. and given one attack can have several hits it all checks up.
Which if i had realized before i wouldnt need this thread.
huh. nice.
So dakka dakka gives extra hits for the bomb squig, and the exploding 6 hits for Goffs gives extra hits to tankhammers.
I won't lie this seems really bad way to play. You get extra attacks on a literal suicide weapon? I am certain if grots had the ability to do 2d3 MWs to a target, they wouldn't be the price point they currently are. That would be silly.
You have one attack, but attacks can generate several hits (like the Goff smash profile). Otherwise i could say that exploding Goff 6s for gorkanauts shouldnt generate 1 extra attack when using the Smash version, that grants 3 hits per attack. But you dont get that because goff dont generate attacks, it generates hits.
I could turn it around and say it cant possibly be correct, that dakka dakka, a rule all orks have to generate extra hits (theres literally not a single ork unit that dont get dakka dakka) in the shooting phase, somehow doesnt work for bomb squigs.Yes they die, but they just make a bigger explosion then.
And goff exploding 6s somehow shouldnt work because they use a tank hammer. Why should these weapons be excempted from receiving the rule?
They die after make an attack, they dont die after making their hit. And the extra hit on a 6, is tied to the attack.
Like if you use a kustom mega kannon (the Mek Gunz one) and have 3 wounds left and get 4 hit rolls, then i roll 3x 1s (which causes mortal wounds to me) and a 6. I essentially die since i take 3 mortal wounds, but i still rolled a 6 which generates an extra hit which still gets fired.
Its not entirely the same, but its a little bit in the same alley.
They are also not chaff units, they are elite units. They are tankbustas, not Boyz. unless my understanding of chaff is different from others, which it might be. i consider chaff infantry troop choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I won't lie this seems really bad way to play. You get extra attacks on a literal suicide weapon? I am certain if grots had the ability to do 2d3 MWs to a target, they wouldn't be the price point they currently are. That would be silly.
?? its not a grot though, its a 10 point suicide squig bomb tied to a tankbusta unit that you can have 2 of per 5 tankbustas.
Goffs
Each time you roll an unmodified hit roll of 6 for an attack with a melee weapon made by a model with this kultur, immediately make an additional hit roll against the same target using the same weapon. These additional hit rolls cannot themselves generate any further hit rolls.
Tankhammer
Make a single hit roll when attacking with this weapon. If it hits, inflict D3 mortal wounds on the target, then remove the bearer.
You cant make an additional hit roll when the bearer is removed.
Goffs
Each time you roll an unmodified hit roll of 6 for an attack with a melee weapon made by a model with this kultur, immediately make an additional hit roll against the same target using the same weapon. These additional hit rolls cannot themselves generate any further hit rolls.
Tankhammer
Make a single hit roll when attacking with this weapon. If it hits, inflict D3 mortal wounds on the target, then remove the bearer.
You cant make an additional hit roll when the bearer is removed.
that is incorrect. it says attack not hit roll.
Each time the bearer fights, it can only make a single attack with this weapon. If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain. your data is incorrect.
Did you take it from Battlescribe? Battlescribe still says a gargantuan squiggoth makes D6 mortal wounds on a +2 to ALL units in engagement range with it on a charge, when it should only do D6MW to a single unit. battlescribe is not a reliable source.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I also went and checked the codex it self, and it states, you make a single attack as well, not a single hit.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Semantics. the point is you are taking a cheap chaff unit, and giving it the ABILITY to do 2d3 mortal wounds. That cannot be working as intended.
This is clearly intended IMHO as tankbustas are supposed to be a typical glass cannon unit, and the chaff unit isn't cheap at all. A tankbusta is 17ppm for a T4 1W 6+ model with BS5+. A tankhammer is 10 points. So 27ppm model with the stats of an ork boy is definitely the opposite of cheap chaff, it's actually very expensive.
And the ability to generate extra attack is goffs only, triggered on a 6 on that single attack, although re-rollable against vehicles if it doesn't it. Small odds in favor to get that extra attack and only if that utterly expensive but extremely squishy unit manages to reach combat, typically very unlikely.
I really don't see any issue here, in fact I think the whole combination should be (much) cheaper.
You cant make an additional hit roll when the bearer is removed.
"Each time you roll an unmodified hit roll of 6 for an attack with
a melee weapon made by a model with this kultur, immediately
make an additional hit roll against the same target using the
same weapon. These additional hit rolls cannot themselves
generate any further hit rolls."
It says immediately, so it's definitely before removing the bearer.
well. I asked Stevo-Six and he also said the same as we do Blackie.
Id say its pretty much a fact that this is intentional and we are understanding it entirely as its meant to be understood, and FezzikDaBullgryn and p5freak dont.
in fact its clever word play that it states that they die after the attack, not the hit. All of it is intentional to make sure we get the extra hit.
The words literally say, "you make a single attack with this weapon..." not sure how you can alter that. Can anyone provide proof of a weapon ability being superseded by a clan rule?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The words literally say, "you make a single attack with this weapon..." not sure how you can alter that. Can anyone provide proof of a weapon ability being superseded by a clan rule?
because an attack can have several hits and the dakka dakka hit is just an extra hit. That one attack, on a 6, grants two hits, one hit from the attack itself, and one hit from the dakka dakka. Whether the unit dies after having fired all its hits belonging to that attack, is irrelevant. The unit still gets two hits if it makes a dakka dakka, as a dakka is an extra hit belonging to that one attack profile.
If you have 2 attacks and make 2 dakka dakkas, all of which hits the enemy, then you have 4 successful hits, not 4 successful attacks. 2 attacks thus made 4 hits.
The weapon is not superseded by the clan rule, as the unit dies after that one single attack, not the single hit, and an attack can have several hits, because thats what dakka dakka does, it gives extra hits. In this case, Dakka dakka gives that one attack, two hits. Thats what it does. They work hand in hand. Same as Goff exploding sixes for tankhammers.
making a single attack means its attack profile is only 1 attack, on its attack profile, but that attack can still have two hits.
People need to understand that "attack" and "hit" is not the same and treating them as the same is incorrect.
Edited a lot of times because i accidentially write attacks when im meant to write hits and vice versa.
Goffs
Each time you roll an unmodified hit roll of 6 for an attack with a melee weapon made by a model with this kultur, immediately make an additional hit roll against the same target using the same weapon. These additional hit rolls cannot themselves generate any further hit rolls.
Tankhammer
Make a single hit roll when attacking with this weapon. If it hits, inflict D3 mortal wounds on the target, then remove the bearer.
You cant make an additional hit roll when the bearer is removed.
The Goff ability says "Immediately" make an additional roll. You don't have an "immediately" for tankhammer. You're still resolving the initial attack, which has generated an additional hit roll.
Tankhammers: Each time the bearer fights, it can only make a single attack with this weapon. If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain..its a close combat weapon. What if i use Goffs and get a 6? Goff has exploding 6's in close combat and would thus give me a second hit. But according to this weapon profile you only get one hit. Which rule take priority?
Same for Bomb Squigs:This weapon cannot target units that can FLY. After making an attack with this weapon, the bearer is slain. its a ranged weapon. What if i roll a 6 and get dakka dakka which is an automatic hit and an extra hit roll? which rule takes priority?
in both cases you get only one hit according to the weapons profile, but clan culture and clan rule wise, i get an extra hit by rolling a 6 when i hit.
I'm fairly certain that DakkaDakkaDakka is worded as "if you roll a 6 to hit, make another attack with the weapon." in which case, the squig would already be dead, and it could not make another attack. As soon as you make the attack (i.e. start the Attack sequence) the squig is slain.
If Goffs is worded as "make another attack" then it would work identically. If it's "natural 6s to hit cause 2 hits" then you could hit 2 times on a 6 with a tankhammer.
Tankhammers: Each time the bearer fights, it can only make a single attack with this weapon. If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain..its a close combat weapon. What if i use Goffs and get a 6? Goff has exploding 6's in close combat and would thus give me a second hit. But according to this weapon profile you only get one hit. Which rule take priority?
Same for Bomb Squigs:This weapon cannot target units that can FLY. After making an attack with this weapon, the bearer is slain. its a ranged weapon. What if i roll a 6 and get dakka dakka which is an automatic hit and an extra hit roll? which rule takes priority?
in both cases you get only one hit according to the weapons profile, but clan culture and clan rule wise, i get an extra hit by rolling a 6 when i hit.
I'm fairly certain that DakkaDakkaDakka is worded as "if you roll a 6 to hit, make another attack with the weapon." in which case, the squig would already be dead, and it could not make another attack. As soon as you make the attack (i.e. start the Attack sequence) the squig is slain.
If Goffs is worded as "make another attack" then it would work identically. If it's "natural 6s to hit cause 2 hits" then you could hit 2 times on a 6 with a tankhammer.
nah. dakkadakka still grants another hit.
it dies after its attack, but an attack can have several hits. It also says it grants its hit immediately, so it still gets dakkadakka.
Both Goff and Dakka Dakka are worded more or less the same, in that they grant an extra hit IMMEDIATELY.
I understand that the way you nearly always make attacks with DakkaDakkaDakka is:
-Roll your initial hit roll
-Count the number of sixes
-add that number of extra dice to the hit roll pool
but technically, that's not actually how the rule is worded. The rule is worded such that you cause an additional attack to be generated by that weapon, immediately. You make your to-hit roll, then you make another attack. The sequencing of the rules for both bomb squigs and tankhammers kill the bearers the second they make the initial hit roll. They're not on the board to make another attack with the weapon "immediately."
Automatically Appended Next Post: I guess I personally wouldn't use these instances, but it does seem like enough of a gray area where if my opponent rolled a 6 for a bomb squig I'd let them make another roll. The wording of "immediately" and what "making an attack" is isn't perfectly clear.
the_scotsman wrote: I understand that the way you nearly always make attacks with DakkaDakkaDakka is:
-Roll your initial hit roll
-Count the number of sixes
-add that number of extra dice to the hit roll pool
but technically, that's not actually how the rule is worded. The rule is worded such that you cause an additional attack to be generated by that weapon, immediately. You make your to-hit roll, then you make another attack. The sequencing of the rules for both bomb squigs and tankhammers kill the bearers the second they make the initial hit roll. They're not on the board to make another attack with the weapon "immediately."
you confuse "attack" with "hits", they are not the same.
the tankhammer and squig bombs die after their attack, but an attack can have several hits. Like the gorkanauts smash profile that gives 3 hits per attack.
The wording is correct and both tankhammer and squig bomb benefit from their exploding 6s.
If dakka dakka and Goffs gave another attack there would be a problem, because both the bomb squigs and tankhammers have only a SINGLE attack after which they die. But dakka dakka and goffs dont give extra attacks, but extra hits, and that hit makes their 1 single attack grant two hits.
The tank hammer is worded "Make a single hit roll when attacking with this weapon. It it hits, inflict D3 mortal wounds on the target, then remove the bearer".
The tank hammer is worded "Make a single hit roll when attacking with this weapon. It it hits, inflict D3 mortal wounds on the target, then remove the bearer".
Those d3 mortal wounds will only trigger once.
no it doesnt it says it makes a single attack.
Each time the bearer fights, it can only make a single attack with this weapon. If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain.
Edit:
but i have noticed that there might be a problem with the tankhammers as you say. It DOES say the target dies after making the attack hits". However, that attack can be split in to two hits given Goff exploding sixes hits immidiately.
I can see now that that might be a messy situation that can be understood either way.
I guess the tankhammers might be debatable after all.
But the bomb squig at least isnt referenced that way and thats not debatable.
Whoops, obviously it changed since the index.
Really, that just makes it even MORE clear. Rolling an additional hit roll doesn't trigger it multiple times - back to that skeet shooting.
If the shot hits the pigeon, you get a point. You have a special rule to hit with two pellets instead. Doesn't mean you get double points.
kirotheavenger wrote: Whoops, obviously it changed since the index.
Really, that just makes it even MORE clear. Rolling an additional hit roll doesn't trigger it multiple times - back to that skeet shooting.
If the shot hits the pigeon, you get a point. You have a special rule to hit with two pellets instead. Doesn't mean you get double points.
i dont know what skeet shooting is.
I agree that tankhammers might actually be debatable but the bomb squigs are not.
This weapon cannot target units that can FLY. After making an attack with this weapon, the bearer is slain. it clearly states that the bomb squig dies after its attack, it doesnt die just because it hits. Thus i can still finish the attack with the second hit that.
It is a fact that an attack can have several hits, and thats what dakka dakkas are, hits, not attacks. It is a fact, that a dakka dakka hits immediately after the first attack hits, and it hits before the next attack is resolved.
Thus i would say it is factual, that you get another hit from your bomb squig, because it only dies after that one attack characteristic it has, is used, and its used after both hits have been made (if it made a 6 on its hit roll). In fact since starting the thread i asked a few ork youtubers who all agree, it seemingly is only non ork players that agree with how dakka dakka works.
If a unit has 2 attacks and makes 1x 6, you would also get 3 hits with dakka dakka. Its 2 attacks, 3 hits.Not 3 attacks because a dakka isnt an attack, its a hit that binds itself to the attack that caused it.
Bomb squigs are the same as any other ranged weapon, its simply dead after it has resolved that one attack.
I am, however, no longer sure about the tankhammers as they are worded differently. Because that thing doesnt die after the attack is resolved, it dies after the attack hits. If this means the 1 attack that makes its first hit, or it means both hits from an exploding 6 that are tied to that ONE attack (because again, one attack can have more than 1 hit) i do not know.
One important point is that all weapons are fired immediately at the same time on a unit, its not fired in turns. When a unit has two shots, its not two bullets fired off its just a specific amount. A big shoota is also not 3 bullets, its a hail of bullets represented by having 3 attacks. So when talking bomb squigs, its not that it explodes, survives and explodes again. thats not how it works. its just a more powerful explosion.
The intention of the goffs trait and dakkadakkadakka isn't to let a model fire/shoot twice, is to add an extra attack to the pool. It's not like the model shoots/fights again, it's just an extra attack with the same profile against the same target that the ork player has to resolve. The extra attacks from from DDD or the goffs trait belong to the same batch of regular attacks that were rolled a moment before.
It's just an abstraction, to represent a lucky shot that has the potential to cause additional damage.
You generate d3 MW if the attack hits. Strictly speaking, that means it doesn't matter if you hit once, twice or 100 times - the attack will always do d3 MW.
the intent of the weapon is that it does 1d3 MWs and then dies. It's clear as day.
Actually, let me argue against myself here. If a hell blaster shoots four shots,, and rolls a 1 on the first roll, they still gets to fire the other shots, even though it says they are destroyed after rolling the first one.
I still dont know what to make of the tankhammer. I feel like its worded so it both could and could not get the extra hit from a 6.
But whether it deals 3 mortal wounds or not should not matter?
Why shouldnt 2 hits, equal 2D3 mortal wounds? In the same way that a powerklaw hitting twice would also deal 2D3 non mortal wounds? the mortal wounds is just its damage value like any other damage value.
Im unsure about what you guys mean when you say it deals D3 mortal wounds and that somehow means it can only attack once. If it turns out that the tankhammer rightfully should get 2 hits with a roll of 6, i dont see why the second hit should not also deal D3 MW
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: the intent of the weapon is that it does 1d3 MWs and then dies. It's clear as day.
EDIT: Gender neutral
I think you are right as the tankbustas are probably from a time where Goff as clan culture didnt give exploding 6's on CC attacks, depending on how you understand these things. I think. im not sure at all as i only started playing in 8th and both Goffs and tankhammer tankbustas were a thing there.
But that doesnt change that we're right now in a situation where tankhammers potentially can deal 2D3 MW if you DO use tankbustas as Goff which also uses tankhammers (which is frankly no one). Although nobody uses tankhammers because its slowed and you can only have like 3 in a grp of 15 ranged tank bustas so you would literally never run in to this issue.
The mortal wounds aren't the damage though, it's the special ability.
If the special ability was replicated and applied again, would that mean choppas gave two bonus attacks for a 6?
First the bonus attack for the Goffs, plus that attack triggering another bonus attack for the special rule.
Of course not, because that's silly.
Just like the Choppa only triggers once, so too does a tankhammer only trigger once.
I do agree this is somewhat a non-issue though as no one ever uses them anyways.
Unfortunately tankhammers potentially can not deal 2D3 MW, They only deal D3 MW's.
The Tankhammer rules say that "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain."
So after you roll your attack and score a hit (Even if it is a 6 and you get multiple hits) it deals D3 MW's because the attack hits. It doesn't matter how many attacks or hits you have as there is no provision for having multiple hits and it does not let you do more than D3 mortal wounds.
Spoiler:
If it said [For each attack that hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds] then it would work like you say and deal 2D3 MW's, but that is not the case here.
I think everyone should read this FAQ Item and reconsider if their position is correct:
*Page 363 – Rare Rules
Add the following:
Attacks That Make Multiple Hit Rolls
Some rules, typically weapon abilities, tell you to roll more than one hit roll for each attack made , e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, make 2 hit rolls instead of 1’. In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’. Note that these additional attacks do not themselves result in more hit rolls being made.
This seems to dovetail nicely with rules telling you on an attack roll of X, make another hit roll.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So then that would literally break the weapons rule, which states the bearer makes one attack, and is then slain.
Sure, but it doesn't matter because the Tankhammer rules say If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain. So there can't be a second attack.
So going by what has been said, we have the following three rules to take into account:
Tankhammer: Each time the bearer fights, it can only make a single attack with this weapon. If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain.
Goff Kultur: Each time you roll an unmodified hit roll of 6 for an attack with a melee weapon made by a model with this kultur, immediately make an additional hit roll against the same target using the same weapon. These additional hit rolls cannot themselves generate any further hit rolls."
*Page 363 – Rare Rules
Add the following:
Attacks That Make Multiple Hit Rolls
Some rules, typically weapon abilities, tell you to roll more than one hit roll for each attack made , e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, make 2 hit rolls instead of 1’. In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’. Note that these additional attacks do not themselves result in more hit rolls being made.
So going by these, the Goff Tankbusta can make one attack with the Tankhammer (and the rest of his attacks with his close combat weapon if the does them before he dies). It makes a hit roll for the Tankhammer attack and if it is an unmodified hit roll of 6, it immediately makes another hit roll against the same target with the Tankhammer. Per the Rare Rules, that hit roll is treated as a separate attack. If he hits again, he has successfully hit the target with the Tankhammer twice. The target takes d3 Mortal Wounds for each hit (2d3 Mortal Wounds) and the Tankbusta is killed, twice for good measure.
the tankhammers definitely needs a GW overview to even out the odds and ends and and explain what works and what doesnt, even though its a completely odd scenario one would never be in.
DeathReaper wrote: No, The target takes D3 Mortal Wounds, that is all and the Tankbusta is killed.
Remember it says "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds"
If he hits twice, has he hit?
If yes then the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and that is all the target suffers.
It says the attacks instead of each attack because typically you can only have one attack with that weapon. I don't see the confusion here, a Goffs triggered additional attack that hits should definitely deal additional D3 mortal wounds.
We have "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds", and then another "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds". They are considered two different attacks. So the target does suffer 2D3 mortal wounds.
It doesn't say "if the model hits" or "if the model's attacks hit", it says "if the attack hits", which means the D3 mortal wounds are a consequence of a single attack. If you have two, the consequence is applied twice. There's no difference between a single tankhammer hitting twice thanks to the Goffs trait and 2 tankhammers from 2 different tankbustas hitting once.
It also doens't matter if the tankbusta (or the bomb squig) is killed, the additional hit roll is a consquence of the previous hit roll, when the model was alive and well. It just represents the chance of a lucky shot to do more damage than usual, it's not like a slain model has the chance to play again. It's the possibility of getting double hits with a single shot and for the purpose of resolving that additional attack the FAQ said the player must resolve it as a separate attack against the same target. Separate attack means that a line such as "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds" must be repeated.
DeathReaper wrote: Except the attack sequence ends before you get that second attack, since the model has died.
Why you say so? The second attack is a consequence of the first one, it's not a second round of attacks. Yes, it's resolved as a separate attack but it's generated by the first attack and part of the same sequence, it doesn't require the model to remain alive, just like the original attack. It's generated from the first hit roll and after that the additional attack is added to the pool, regardless of the model being alive or slain. Once it's genereated why should it be canceled? The state of the model becomes irrelevant for resolving it.
The point, which many seems to have trouble to understand, is that those ork rules don't make a model fight again, which he couldn't do if he's slain, they simply enhance already rolled hit rolls by generating additional attacks that are resolved as they were separate attacks. But they are still part of the original batch of rolls, it's not a second round of shooting/fighting. Those abilities represent the fact that lucky 6s on hit rolls can cause more damage, that's all.
DeathReaper wrote: Except the attack sequence ends before you get that second attack, since the model has died.
Why you say so?
I don't say so, the rules do. (It is not a part of the same sequence as attacks are made one at a time, it is a separate attack sequence).
Normally you roll to hit, then to wound, then the opponent allocates the wound, rolls for save, and then applies damage.
With the Tankhammer, you roll to hit, and "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain." So at the instant the attack hits, it has its effect and the bearer is slain. Here is where the attack sequence ends. And since we don't have a Dataslate to reference, any additional hits do nothing.
To me it's clear that the rules confirm what I'm saying.
You say "normally", but these aren't normal rules, these are special rules. 6s grant an extra attack to roll, that's the rule. Pretty simple to me. Attack sequence ends when there are no more rolls to make. There are stratagems that allow models to fight/shoot again after they die, also orks have one of those, and these specific cases aren't any different: special rules always have priority over general rules.
Blackie wrote: To me it's clear that the rules confirm what I'm saying.
You say "normally", but these aren't normal rules, these are special rules. 6s grant an extra attack to roll, that's the rule. Pretty simple to me. Attack sequence ends when there are no more rolls to make. There are stratagems that allow models to fight/shoot again after they die, also orks have one of those, and these specific cases aren't any different: special rules always have priority over general rules.
Except the rules contradict what you are saying. Making attacks is on Page 18 of the free rules PDF.
It states "The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time:
1. HIT ROLL
2. WOUND ROLL
3. ALLOCATE ATTACK
4. SAVING THROW
5. INFLICT DAMAGE"
With the Tankhammer, you get to the "1. HIT ROLL" and if it hits, that is it, since the model is slain.
Even with the "GOFFS: NO MUKKIN’ ABOUT" rules, the moment you roll that 6, the Tankhammer text comes into play and the Ork dies, and once that happens, there is no Dataslate to reference for any other attacks for that model, as the model no longer exists in the game.
There are stratagems that allow models to fight/shoot again after they die, but they are specifically noted as such. Neither the Tankhammer or the Goffs rules do any such thing.
P.S. Since we try to break no rules, we can not get extra attacks with the Tankhammer anyway, as it specifically states that "Each time the bearer fights, it can only make a single attack with this weapon." and since "6s grant an extra attack to roll" (specifically the Goffs rules say "make an additional hit roll against the same target using the same weapon.") that can not happen since "it can only make a single attack with this weapon."
You do not get multiple attacks with the Tankhammer. Each hit roll is the start of the attack sequence and as such is a separate attack. (If you really want to break it down and say it is the same attack, then nothing happens as you have already hit with that attack and hitting twice on a single attack does nothing. If it is two separate hit rolls, it has to be two separate attacks, and as such can not happen with the Tankhammer).
I think the Tankhammer gets the exploding 6 additional hit to generate 2d3 mortal wounds.
The way I see it, this comes down to sequencing. A successful hit roll means d3 mortal wounds are inflicted. If that hit roll is a 6 then you make an additional hit roll. If the initial hit roll is successful the model is slain.
The d3 mortal wounds, the additional hit from the exploding 6, and the model being slain all have the same trigger - the initial hit roll. The sequencing rule would come into play and the player whose turn it is chooses the order to resolve these actions, so the Ork player could choose to kill the model before any mortal wounds are inflicted (but why would you?). More likely, the player chooses to resolve the initial d3 MWs, and the exploding 6 roll (for another d3 MWs if successful) before the model is slain.
Aash wrote: I think the Tankhammer gets the exploding 6 additional hit to generate 2d3 mortal wounds.
The way I see it, this comes down to sequencing. A successful hit roll means d3 mortal wounds are inflicted. If that hit roll is a 6 then you make an additional hit roll. If the initial hit roll is successful the model is slain.
The d3 mortal wounds, the additional hit from the exploding 6, and the model being slain all have the same trigger - the initial hit roll. The sequencing rule would come into play and the player whose turn it is chooses the order to resolve these actions, so the Ork player could choose to kill the model before any mortal wounds are inflicted (but why would you?). More likely, the player chooses to resolve the initial d3 MWs, and the exploding 6 roll (for another d3 MWs if successful) before the model is slain.
You are missing the part that says A model with a Tankhammer "can only make a single attack with this weapon."
Blackie wrote: To me it's clear that the rules confirm what I'm saying.
You say "normally", but these aren't normal rules, these are special rules. 6s grant an extra attack to roll, that's the rule. Pretty simple to me. Attack sequence ends when there are no more rolls to make. There are stratagems that allow models to fight/shoot again after they die, also orks have one of those, and these specific cases aren't any different: special rules always have priority over general rules.
Except the rules contradict what you are saying. Making attacks is on Page 18 of the free rules PDF.
It states "The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time:
1. HIT ROLL
2. WOUND ROLL
3. ALLOCATE ATTACK
4. SAVING THROW
5. INFLICT DAMAGE"
With the Tankhammer, you get to the "1. HIT ROLL" and if it hits, that is it, since the model is slain.
Even with the "GOFFS: NO MUKKIN’ ABOUT" rules, the moment you roll that 6, the Tankhammer text comes into play and the Ork dies, and once that happens, there is no Dataslate to reference for any other attacks for that model, as the model no longer exists in the game.
There are stratagems that allow models to fight/shoot again after they die, but they are specifically noted as such. Neither the Tankhammer or the Goffs rules do any such thing.
P.S. Since we try to break no rules, we can not get extra attacks with the Tankhammer anyway, as it specifically states that "Each time the bearer fights, it can only make a single attack with this weapon." and since "6s grant an extra attack to roll" (specifically the Goffs rules say "make an additional hit roll against the same target using the same weapon.") that can not happen since "it can only make a single attack with this weapon."
You do not get multiple attacks with the Tankhammer. Each hit roll is the start of the attack sequence and as such is a separate attack. (If you really want to break it down and say it is the same attack, then nothing happens as you have already hit with that attack and hitting twice on a single attack does nothing. If it is two separate hit rolls, it has to be two separate attacks, and as such can not happen with the Tankhammer).
technically it says you get one attack with the tankhammer, not one hit roll, and when the attack hits, the model dies. But again, an attack can have several hits, which is pretty important in this context, as Goffs exploding 6s is a hit, not an attack.
Each time the bearer fights, it can only make a single attack with this weapon. An attack, not a hit.
Im at a place right now, where i can see the rule of goff getting 2D3 MW being correct, but at the same time, depending on how you read it, it could clearly also mean you DONT get it. Its a bit like the whole: This unit can only be wounded on a +4, against a weapon that always wounds on a +2. There are some contradictions here yet i feel like both of you are correct.
Both blackie and you, are correct as i see it (as it depends on what, in the text, you pay heed to) but there has to be a right and a wrong way for this to play out. I cant see the right answer atm.
The way i see it:
Why it should NOT work:
the whole MW attack is a special ability, like choppas ability to hit twice, as someone explained earlier. an ability cant proc twice. The Tankhammer itself doesnt have a weapons profile, unlike the bomb squig that DOES have a weapons profile that simply lets it die after finishing its attack.
Why it SHOULD work:
A unit DOES NOT die before its own attack sequence ends, and one attack CAN have two or even more hits. Im actually uncertain if a unit has 5 attacks and kills itself after the first attack, that he still gets the rest? but in this case, it doesnt matter, because exploding 6s for goffs is an extra hit, not an attack. The hit ties to the attack. And a model cant die midway through an attacks sequence. In this case the unit cant possibly die before it makes its 2 hits related to that ONE attack. it doesnt just die midway through as ONE attack in this case is TWO hits. Goffs provide hits, not attacks, and the text does say, that the unit dies after its attack hits, in this case, that "hit" is two hits from a roll of 6.
It could be argued that this weapons damage is simply the D3 MW and was made in a time where exploding 6s in CC were not a thing. So rather than giving it an actual profile, it became an ability. but one can consider the D3 MW its damage profile now because otherwise GOFF exploding 6s makes no sense.
And i point out, again, that a unit cannot die before ending its hits related to that attack attack sequence ends.
Personally i dont know what i lean the most towards. I want to lean towards Goffs getting that extra hit because its in their ability to immediately get another hit roll when getting a 6, its their thing, obviously it should gain another D3 MW hit, however, thats my opinion. Rules wise, i dont know what is the right call here. I can see it either way, as both can be argued for.
Aash wrote: I think the Tankhammer gets the exploding 6 additional hit to generate 2d3 mortal wounds.
The way I see it, this comes down to sequencing. A successful hit roll means d3 mortal wounds are inflicted. If that hit roll is a 6 then you make an additional hit roll. If the initial hit roll is successful the model is slain.
The d3 mortal wounds, the additional hit from the exploding 6, and the model being slain all have the same trigger - the initial hit roll. The sequencing rule would come into play and the player whose turn it is chooses the order to resolve these actions, so the Ork player could choose to kill the model before any mortal wounds are inflicted (but why would you?). More likely, the player chooses to resolve the initial d3 MWs, and the exploding 6 roll (for another d3 MWs if successful) before the model is slain.
You are missing the part that says A model with a Tankhammer "can only make a single attack with this weapon."
Why are you breaking that rule?
The Goff faction rule says:
Each time you roll an unmodified hit roll of 6 for an attack with a melee weapon made by a model with this kultur, immediately make an additional hit roll against the same target using the same weapon. These additional hit rolls cannot themselves generate any further hit rolls.
Additional hits rolls are generated, not additional attacks. I don't see any rules being broken.
As previously shown by Alextroy, additional hit rolls ARE additional attacks.
As I see it, you can't have it both ways.
If it were two hit rolls for one attack, it's only d3 mortal wounds because the rule triggers if the attack hits. Not for each time the attack hits.
If, as it is, hit rolls are additional attacks, it's only d3 mortal wounds because you can only make a single attack. It seems very specific about being a single attack. Not to mention the guy's now dead.
I'm pretty sure all rules that allow models to attack post-mortem are quite specific in that they're played after the model is slain but before removing the model, the tankhammer doesn't have this timing.
kirotheavenger wrote: As previously shown by Alextroy, additional hit rolls ARE additional attacks.
As I see it, you can't have it both ways.
If it were two hit rolls for one attack, it's only d3 mortal wounds because the rule triggers if the attack hits. Not for each time the attack hits.
If, as it is, hit rolls are additional attacks, it's only d3 mortal wounds because you can only make a single attack. It seems very specific about being a single attack. Not to mention the guy's now dead.
I'm pretty sure all rules that allow models to attack post-mortem are quite specific in that they're played after the model is slain but before removing the model, the tankhammer doesn't have this timing.
additional hit rolls are the same as additional hits, just in a worse category. Sequence wise however, they are the same. Hit rolls are not attacks. All attacks are made up by hit rolls, Hit rolls are not made up by attacks.
If an additional hit roll is an attack, then Goffs should get 3 extra "attacks" per exploding 6 from the SMASH profile of Gorkanauts and Morkanauts, as each attack counts as 3 hits with that profile.
Smash: Make 3 hit rolls for each attack made with this weapon. Said rule would also apply to Goffs exploding 6 then.
And that would be borderline OP and incorrect.
An attack can have several hits, therefore, attacks are not hits and hits are not attacks.
If one attack makes 3 hit rolls (smash profile = gorkanauts) then you dont roll one die at time and finish the entire sequence with that die with wounds, saves etc. You throw all 3 die because thats the hit roll. Your attack was worth 3 hit rolls
Beardedragon wrote: technically it says you get one attack with the tankhammer, not one hit roll, and when the attack hits, the model dies. But again, an attack can have several hits, which is pretty important in this context, as Goffs exploding 6s is a hit, not an attack.
Incorrect, the Goffs exploding 6s is not a hit, it is a hit roll. Slight but huge difference.
Spoiler:
An attack can have several hits (looking at you Necron Tesla carbine), but that is not what is happening here. You do not generate extra hits, you get an extra hit roll (which is an attack). The Goffs rules say "make an additional hit roll against the same target using the same weapon." Extra hit rolls = another attack, as that is the start of the attack sequence, it is not an extra hit on the same attack.
Each time the bearer fights, it can only make a single attack with this weapon. An attack, not a hit.
Right, but the second to hit roll is basically shorthand for another attack, as the hit roll starts the attack sequence. And as we know the Tankhammer rules specify only one attack. So you can not get that second hit roll.
And i point out, again, that a unit cannot die before ending its hits related to that attack attack sequence ends.
Beardedragon wrote: technically it says you get one attack with the tankhammer, not one hit roll, and when the attack hits, the model dies. But again, an attack can have several hits, which is pretty important in this context, as Goffs exploding 6s is a hit, not an attack.
An attack can have several hits (looking at you Necron Tesla carbine), but that is not what is happening here. You do not generate extra hits, you get an extra hit roll (which is an attack). The Goffs rules say "make an additional hit roll against the same target using the same weapon." Extra hit rolls = another attack, as that is the start of the attack sequence, it is not an extra hit on the same attack.
Each time the bearer fights, it can only make a single attack with this weapon. An attack, not a hit.
Right, but the second to hit roll is basically shorthand for another attack, as the hit roll starts the attack sequence. And as we know the Tankhammer rules specify only one attack. So you can not get that second hit roll.
And i point out, again, that a unit cannot die before ending its hits related to that attack attack sequence ends.
Sure, but each attack is a separate hit roll.
theres no difference between a hit and a hit roll, one is just required to be rolled where as the other auto hits. Sequence wise its exactly the same. If the exploding Goff 6s gave a hit rather than a hit roll, it wouldnt make any difference.
its like a flamethrower versus a heavy bolter. Theres no difference except one auto hits and the other dont. Sequence wise you're at the same place.
The extra hit does NOT start another attack sequence.
One attack with two hits, is not two attack sequences. this is very incorrect
kirotheavenger wrote: As previously shown by Alextroy, additional hit rolls ARE additional attacks.
As I see it, you can't have it both ways.
If it were two hit rolls for one attack, it's only d3 mortal wounds because the rule triggers if the attack hits. Not for each time the attack hits.
If, as it is, hit rolls are additional attacks, it's only d3 mortal wounds because you can only make a single attack. It seems very specific about being a single attack. Not to mention the guy's now dead.
I'm pretty sure all rules that allow models to attack post-mortem are quite specific in that they're played after the model is slain but before removing the model, the tankhammer doesn't have this timing.
I see where you are coming from. I had missed the quote provided from the Rare Rules.
To address each of your points in turn:
"If it were two hit rolls for one attack, it's only d3 mortal wounds because the rule triggers if the attack hits. Not for each time the attack hits."
The rules are phrased on the assumption that one roll is made at a time, and it has been demonstrated throughout the rules and FAQs that the use of singular for "attack", "hit roll" etc. is based on this assumption, and that it is valid to read this for each individual instance, without "each time" being used, so I disgree on this issue.
"If, as it is, hit rolls are additional attacks, it's only d3 mortal wounds because you can only make a single attack. It seems very specific about being a single attack. Not to mention the guy's now dead."
As you say, the Rare Rules does indeed say that additional hit rolls are treated as a separate attack.
I dispute the model being dead though. The rule is very clear:
If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain
not "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds then the bearer is slain"
These events are simultaneous, so sequencing applies. The exploding 6 applies at the same time, so again sequencing applies. The player whose turn it is can resolve these in the order of their choosing.
As for the Rare Rules establishing that
each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target
Then yes, I agree that there is now a direct conflict as we have two rules that cannot both be applied. Exploding 6s and the weapon's own rule that it may only make a "single attack".
I don't see a way to resolve this without breaking one of the two rules. Unfortunately, it seems to be a case where a roll-off is required until (if?) a FAQ is issued. :(
theres no difference between a hit and a hit roll, one is just required to be rolled where as the other auto hits.
What ???? I suggest you read the core rules, before engaging in rules discussions. A hit is a successful hit roll, after you rolled a dice, and a hit roll is when you roll the dice. Hit rolls arent auto hits. As a matter of fact, there are no hit rolls for auto hits, because they hit automatically, hence the name.
1. HIT ROLLS
If an attack is made with a weapon that has an ability that says it
‘automatically hits the target’, no hit roll is made – that attack simply
scores one hit on the target unit.
theres no difference between a hit and a hit roll, one is just required to be rolled where as the other auto hits.
What ???? I suggest you read the core rules, before engaging in rules discussions. A hit is a successful hit roll, after you rolled a dice, and a hit roll is when you roll the dice. Hit rolls arent auto hits. As a matter of fact, there are no hit rolls for auto hits, because they hit automatically, hence the name.
regardless that has nothing to do with whether the tankhammer should get one or two hits.
IF theres a comment to be made on why it shouldnt, it should be that its an ability and abilities dont trigger twice.
the tankhammer doesnt have a D3 MW damage value profile.
that reason alone i could accept, but as someone else said, it still conflicts with how Goff is meant to work.
One of the two rules will have to be broken for the game to move on.
I wonder if i wrote to GW and asked them, they would reply an answer?
Beardedragon wrote: theres no difference between a hit and a hit roll, one is just required to be rolled where as the other auto hits. Sequence wise its exactly the same. If the exploding Goff 6s gave a hit rather than a hit roll, it wouldnt make any difference.
This is 100% false. A hit automatically goes to the WOUND ROLL step. A hit roll does not.
The extra hit does NOT start another attack sequence.
Again this is false, because you "make one hit roll for that attack" if it is not a separate attack sequence, you you can not actually roll the additional hit roll.
P. 18 PDF rulebook wrote:When a model makes an attack, make one hit roll for that attack
theres no difference between a hit and a hit roll, one is just required to be rolled where as the other auto hits.
What ???? I suggest you read the core rules, before engaging in rules discussions. A hit is a successful hit roll, after you rolled a dice, and a hit roll is when you roll the dice. Hit rolls arent auto hits. As a matter of fact, there are no hit rolls for auto hits, because they hit automatically, hence the name.
regardless that has nothing to do with whether the tankhammer should get one or two hits.
IF theres a comment to be made on why it shouldnt, it should be that its an ability and abilities dont trigger twice.
the tankhammer doesnt have a D3 MW damage value profile.
Again, not true. If i shoot you with a gun which has multiple shots, and does 1MW in addition to normal damage, you suffer multiple MWs. The reason why tankhammer doesnt do 2D3 MW is because the bearer is slain after the first attack.
Beardedragon wrote: theres no difference between a hit and a hit roll, one is just required to be rolled where as the other auto hits. Sequence wise its exactly the same. If the exploding Goff 6s gave a hit rather than a hit roll, it wouldnt make any difference.
This is 100% false. A hit automatically goes to the WOUND ROLL step. A hit roll does not.
The extra hit does NOT start another attack sequence.
Again this is false, because you "make one hit roll for that attack" if it is not a separate attack sequence, you you can not actually roll the additional hit roll.
P. 18 PDF rulebook wrote:When a model makes an attack, make one hit roll for that attack
okay i like what you're saying because that makes a morkanaut/gorkanaut borderline OP.
Each attack with the smash profile nets 3 hits, so if one exploding 6 from goff is one more attack, that means EACH exploding 6 gives 3 hits.
Imagine making just 2 exploding 6s thats a total of 6 extra hit rolls as each exploding 6 starts another attack sequence.
Thats god damn insane.
Smash = Make 3 hit rolls for each attack made with this weapon
Gorkanaut has 6 attacks x3 per the hits, thats 18 normally. thats how it works normally, and people use exploding 6s to add 1 more hit, not one more attack to this pool of a total of 3 for each.
But you're now saying all the extra 6s adds 3 more hits. thats mental
I don't see a way to resolve this without breaking one of the two rules. Unfortunately, it seems to be a case where a roll-off is required until (if?) a FAQ is issued. :(
I think I agree with you on this, although I believe the Tankhammer takes precedence in the meantime. It's rule is specific to itself, so it takes priority over the more general rule for Goffs.
I think it's useful if we go back to first principles of resolving attacks. I've numbered them just to relate them to my later explanation.
1.1; Each attack is one hit-roll. If a gun has multiple shots or an axe has multiple swings, they're making multiple attacks.
1.2; According to Rare Rules, additional hit rolls are additional attacks.
* Gorkanaught's Smash says for each attack they make multiple hit rolls. However, Goffs head that off by entering directly at the hit roll stage.
2.1; Attacks are [normally] resolved sequentially, one at a time. You can only 'fast roll' if sequencing doesn't matter.
2.2; Models make attacks
2.3; We know that changes mid-attack take effect mid-attack. For example if exposed units are killed the remaining units will gain the benefit of cover.
* abilities like plasma specifically state the user is slain after all attacks are resolved, the exception proving the rule.
Enter; the Tankhammer.
1. Each hit roll is an attack, the Tankhammer is only allowed to make one.
2. As soon as your first attack hits and is resolved, the user is slain. There's no longer a model left to make and/or resolve the bonus attack.
3. The Tankhammer can only make a single attack, it's not allowed to use the bonus.
Beardedragon wrote: okay i like what you're saying because that makes a morkanaut/gorkanaut borderline OP.
Each attack with the smash profile nets 3 hits,
Again you are not using the correct terminology, it does not net 3 hits. You do get to "Make 3 hit rolls for each attack made with this weapon." so there is that.
so if one exploding 6 from goff is one more attack, that means EACH exploding 6 gives 3 hits.
Imagine making just 2 exploding 6s thats a total of 6 extra hits.
Thats god damn insane.
Smash = Make 3 hit rolls for each attack made with this weapon
Again, 2 exploding 6s is not a total of 6 extra hits. It is a total of 6 extra attack rolls. which, depending on the wounds of the vehicle may or may not have a good chance of hitting anything. So not all that OP especially for the points of that thing.
40K rulebook, Rare rules section, Attacks that make multiple hit rolls sub-section wrote:Some rules, typically weapon abilities, tell you to roll more than one hit roll for each attack made , e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, make 2 hit rolls instead of 1’. In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target.
So now can we all agree that the Goffs rules allow for an additional attack, by virtue of giving you another hit roll, and there would have been two separate attacks which is not allowed by the Tankhammer?
Id like to point out that all the times i wrote "hit" in my post above i meant a hit roll obviously when talking the gorkanauts and goffs.
Goffs dont get extra hits, they get hit rolls. its just a typo.
But i absolutely refuse to believe that gorkanauts and morkanauts are intentionally meant to have 3 extra hit rolls per each exploding 6. the attack profile states you get 3 hit rolls per 1 attack, and goff immediately gives 1 extra hit roll. How can that 1 hit roll suddenly be an actual attack that starts a new attack sequence that instead gives me 3 attacks? doesnt make any sense. Extra hit rolls dont suddenly add 1 to the attack characteristic so surely it should still only get 1 hit roll, not 3.
What if instead of a hit roll with the tankbusta, it just generated a generic S:U attack, as it no longer has a weapon to attack with? Nothing in Goff or the other rules mandate the second attack must be made with the same weapon the first attack is made with? I am likely wrong on this, but cannot support it, and just wanted to see if it was a possible solution to a broken rule.
And yes, a 30 point spammable unit doing 2d3 MWs is broken. A full squad of these guys could drop Morty and thats saying something.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: What if instead of a hit roll with the tankbusta, it just generated a generic S:U attack, as it no longer has a weapon to attack with? Nothing in Goff or the other rules mandate the second attack must be made with the same weapon the first attack is made with? I am likely wrong on this, but cannot support it, and just wanted to see if it was a possible solution to a broken rule.
And yes, a 30 point spammable unit doing 2d3 MWs is broken. A full squad of these guys could drop Morty and thats saying something.
This.
I actually thought about exactly that, as an ability cant trigger twice so technically it should maybe get a normal attack?
However they are not spammable. you can have 1 tankhammer in a group of 5 normal tankbustas.
So 15 tankbustas only have 3 hammers. and they still would only get exploding 6s on .. well a 6 if thats how it works. Its not a suicide squad, although that could be amazing.
kirotheavenger wrote: But as I pointed out earlier, you don't get damage for every hit you cause.
You get damage if the attack hits.
Imagine a skeet shooting contest, you get a point if you hit the pigeon. Doesn't matter if you hit it with one pellet or two or six.
but this isnt real life.
my dakka dakka says i get a guaranteed hit and an extra hit roll, and the bomb squig says it dies after its "attack" not its hit. and given one attack can have several hits it all checks up.
Which if i had realized before i wouldnt need this thread.
huh. nice.
So dakka dakka gives extra hits for the bomb squig, and the exploding 6 hits for Goffs gives extra hits to tankhammers.
Ah but the hammer isn't for every hit you get d3 mw. If your(1) attack hits you get d3 mw. If you get 2 hits it sure is your attack has hit. So you get d3mw.
2nd hit isn't relevant. It's "did you hit or not". Not "for each hit you get d3 mw"
I don't see a way to resolve this without breaking one of the two rules. Unfortunately, it seems to be a case where a roll-off is required until (if?) a FAQ is issued. :(
I think I agree with you on this, although I believe the Tankhammer takes precedence in the meantime. It's rule is specific to itself, so it takes priority over the more general rule for Goffs.
I think it's useful if we go back to first principles of resolving attacks. I've numbered them just to relate them to my later explanation.
1.1; Each attack is one hit-roll. If a gun has multiple shots or an axe has multiple swings, they're making multiple attacks. 1.2; According to Rare Rules, additional hit rolls are additional attacks. * Gorkanaught's Smash says for each attack they make multiple hit rolls. However, Goffs head that off by entering directly at the hit roll stage. 2.1; Attacks are [normally] resolved sequentially, one at a time. You can only 'fast roll' if sequencing doesn't matter. 2.2; Models make attacks 2.3; We know that changes mid-attack take effect mid-attack. For example if exposed units are killed the remaining units will gain the benefit of cover. * abilities like plasma specifically state the user is slain after all attacks are resolved, the exception proving the rule.
Enter; the Tankhammer. 1. Each hit roll is an attack, the Tankhammer is only allowed to make one. 2. As soon as your first attack hits and is resolved, the user is slain. There's no longer a model left to make and/or resolve the bonus attack. 3. The Tankhammer can only make a single attack, it's not allowed to use the bonus.
I would be willing to play it this way. I think this is a decent argument for RAI, but not definitive enough to be RAW. (with the caveat that i still disagree over the model being slain so is unable to make a bonus attack, due to sequencing, as I previously mentioned, so I'd remove point 2 from your sequence, but the final outcome of only making one attack is not unreasonable.)
kirotheavenger wrote: As previously shown by Alextroy, additional hit rolls ARE additional attacks.
As I see it, you can't have it both ways.
If it were two hit rolls for one attack, it's only d3 mortal wounds because the rule triggers if the attack hits. Not for each time the attack hits.
If, as it is, hit rolls are additional attacks, it's only d3 mortal wounds because you can only make a single attack. It seems very specific about being a single attack. Not to mention the guy's now dead.
I'm pretty sure all rules that allow models to attack post-mortem are quite specific in that they're played after the model is slain but before removing the model, the tankhammer doesn't have this timing.
I believe you're wrong because the model makes an attack, and can only make one, but that attack can generate an extra hit, which is considered an extra attack. Not part of the original attack, an indepented one that the first attack makes, not the weapon's bearer. So both (assuming the second attacks hits) can actually deal MWs, as they are independent after they are generated. Like two single blows delivered by two different models with a tankhammer. The point is the model is not dead when the player rolls for the second hit and he even haven't made more than one attack. It's the original attack that generates a second one, and after that they are separate attacks that go against the same target, not a single attack represented by two dice. The bearer only makes one attack and dies after that, and even if it doesn't he could only make one, but it's not the bearer that makes the second attack. That's why there's a chance of getting two hits from one attack and both can deal mortal wounds. RAW it's how the things are.
In the same way in the case of the bomb squig and dakkadakkadakka the lucky 6 to hit definitely grants an additional hit roll. The model isn't firing, dying and then firing again. The model is firing and then dying, but the shot he fires can generate an extra hit roll/attack.
The model firing with DDD or fighting under the goffs trait is not doing an action that allows him to do something more after that. This is something people struggle to understand and that's where all the confusion come from.
And no, 27ppm thankhammer dudes are absolute garbage, the opposite of a broken combo. We're talking about extremely expensive units that are wiped out by the firepower of a regular enemy troop unit, sometimes even a dedicated transport can wipe out the tankbustas. And MW are only achieved in melee, with extremely small chances (less than 18%) to get 2D3 MW. In fact despite Goffs being extremely popular and tankbustas a solid option for that klan no one plays with tankhunters. Not even the guys who actually own the models, they just proxy them as regular rokkit launchas.
Beardedragon wrote: but it IS correct though that the tankhammer ability to deal MW is.. well an ability, and abilities cant be used twice, no?
The Tankhammer can't be used twice because it specifically says you only get 1 attack/hit roll with it, and of course the bearer is dead.
Blackie wrote: I believe you're wrong because the model makes an attack, and can only make one, but that attack can generate an extra hit, which is considered an extra attack.
This is not correct. That attack can not generate an extra hit. The Goffs rules allow for an additional attack, by virtue of giving you another hit roll. So the attack can generate another attack.
A hit roll = an attack. as per the rare rules section I quoted earlier "each hit roll is treated as a separate attack..."
Not part of the original attack,
Yes, a second attack is not a part of the original attack. The Tankhammer disallows multiple attacks with the weapon though.
So both (assuming the second attacks hits) can actually deal MWs, as they are independent after they are generated
Incorrect, as the Tankhammer can't make multiple attacks.
The point is the model is not dead when the player rolls for the second hit and he even haven't made more than one attack.
Again this is incorrect, the model is dead as soon as he hits with the first attack, and the Goffs rule absolutely lets you make a second attack if you roll a nat 6. Remember each hit roll is treated as a separate attack.
It's the original attack that generates a second one, and after that they are separate attacks that go against the same target, not a single attack represented by two dice.
This first part is correct though. It is a separate attack and "not a single attack represented by two dice." (Whatever that is, because that doesn't exist).
but it's not the bearer that makes the second attack. That's why there's a chance of getting two hits from one attack and both can deal mortal wounds. RAW it's how the things are.
This is not at all what the RAW says. Only models make attacks. There is no chance of getting two hits from one attack for the Tankhammer. and the Goffs rule allows for a second attack. (The goffs do not give you two hits from one attack at all).
And no, 27ppm thankhammer dudes are absolute garbage, the opposite of a broken combo.
I would check the points again, I have a Tankbustas model with Tankhammer clocking in at 17 points, not 27.
Beardedragon wrote: the tankhammers definitely needs a GW overview to even out the odds and ends and and explain what works and what doesnt, even though its a completely odd scenario one would never be in.
Yeah I feel like this scenario is most likely caused by the fact that no one, not one person, nobody, zero people have ever since the new ork codex fielded a tankhammer. It's just never come up!
Beardedragon wrote: but it IS correct though that the tankhammer ability to deal MW is.. well an ability, and abilities cant be used twice, no?
The Tankhammer can't be used twice because it specifically says you only get 1 attack/hit roll with it, and of course the bearer is dead.
Blackie wrote: I believe you're wrong because the model makes an attack, and can only make one, but that attack can generate an extra hit, which is considered an extra attack.
This is not correct. That attack can not generate an extra hit. The Goffs rules allow for an additional attack, by virtue of giving you another hit roll. So the attack can generate another attack.
A hit roll = an attack. as per the rare rules section I quoted earlier "each hit roll is treated as a separate attack..."
Not part of the original attack,
Yes, a second attack is not a part of the original attack. The Tankhammer disallows multiple attacks with the weapon though.
So both (assuming the second attacks hits) can actually deal MWs, as they are independent after they are generated
Incorrect, as the Tankhammer can't make multiple attacks.
The point is the model is not dead when the player rolls for the second hit and he even haven't made more than one attack.
Again this is incorrect, the model is dead as soon as he hits with the first attack, and the Goffs rule absolutely lets you make a second attack if you roll a nat 6. Remember each hit roll is treated as a separate attack.
It's the original attack that generates a second one, and after that they are separate attacks that go against the same target, not a single attack represented by two dice.
This first part is correct though. It is a separate attack and "not a single attack represented by two dice." (Whatever that is, because that doesn't exist).
but it's not the bearer that makes the second attack. That's why there's a chance of getting two hits from one attack and both can deal mortal wounds. RAW it's how the things are.
This is not at all what the RAW says. Only models make attacks. There is no chance of getting two hits from one attack for the Tankhammer. and the Goffs rule allows for a second attack. (The goffs do not give you two hits from one attack at all).
And no, 27ppm thankhammer dudes are absolute garbage, the opposite of a broken combo.
I would check the points again, I have a Tankbustas model with Tankhammer clocking in at 17 points, not 27.
You sure are very "factual" on a subject thats completely messed up on GWs side and can clearly be understood either way. there are arguments for and against why you should or should not have two attacks with the tankhammer. You have your opinion that i completely disagree with, i have mine.
I only see 1 reason why the tankhammer shouldnt hit twice and thats because its an ability. Granted, that is a very large reason so i would be fine with that. But thats literally it, nothing to do with the attack, because goff hit rolls tie to that attack, they dont magically add 1 to the attack characteristic. It specifically says it adds a hit roll immediately, thats how i read it, thats how i understand it.
Beardedragon wrote: the tankhammers definitely needs a GW overview to even out the odds and ends and and explain what works and what doesnt, even though its a completely odd scenario one would never be in.
Yeah I feel like this scenario is most likely caused by the fact that no one, not one person, nobody, zero people have ever since the new ork codex fielded a tankhammer. It's just never come up!
for sure. As you say nobody even uses tankhammers. I would if i could just field all of my tankbustas as them, but since we cant they're just dead meat anyway. the entire discussion is somewhat pointless because of that reason, but even so, id still like an answer. I only started the discussion because i got my hands on 10 tankbustas, and when i get new units i havent had before, i look in to all their rules so i know what works and doesnt, thats why i thought about tankhammers and goffs, because i often play Goff.
In fact i wrote to GW earlier for a clarification even though i will never use them. Will i get an answer? we'll see. If i get one, ill post it in the discussion.
Beardedragon wrote: but it IS correct though that the tankhammer ability to deal MW is.. well an ability, and abilities cant be used twice, no?
The Tankhammer can't be used twice because it specifically says you only get 1 attack/hit roll with it, and of course the bearer is dead.
Blackie wrote: I believe you're wrong because the model makes an attack, and can only make one, but that attack can generate an extra hit, which is considered an extra attack.
This is not correct. That attack can not generate an extra hit. The Goffs rules allow for an additional attack, by virtue of giving you another hit roll. So the attack can generate another attack.
A hit roll = an attack. as per the rare rules section I quoted earlier "each hit roll is treated as a separate attack..."
Not part of the original attack,
Yes, a second attack is not a part of the original attack. The Tankhammer disallows multiple attacks with the weapon though.
So both (assuming the second attacks hits) can actually deal MWs, as they are independent after they are generated
Incorrect, as the Tankhammer can't make multiple attacks.
The point is the model is not dead when the player rolls for the second hit and he even haven't made more than one attack.
Again this is incorrect, the model is dead as soon as he hits with the first attack, and the Goffs rule absolutely lets you make a second attack if you roll a nat 6. Remember each hit roll is treated as a separate attack.
It's the original attack that generates a second one, and after that they are separate attacks that go against the same target, not a single attack represented by two dice.
This first part is correct though. It is a separate attack and "not a single attack represented by two dice." (Whatever that is, because that doesn't exist).
but it's not the bearer that makes the second attack. That's why there's a chance of getting two hits from one attack and both can deal mortal wounds. RAW it's how the things are.
This is not at all what the RAW says. Only models make attacks. There is no chance of getting two hits from one attack for the Tankhammer. and the Goffs rule allows for a second attack. (The goffs do not give you two hits from one attack at all).
And no, 27ppm thankhammer dudes are absolute garbage, the opposite of a broken combo.
I would check the points again, I have a Tankbustas model with Tankhammer clocking in at 17 points, not 27.
You sure are very "factual" on a subject thats completely messed up on GWs side and can clearly be understood either way.
It can not be understood either way, it can be understood one way, and misunderstood the other way that gives them two attacks with a weapon that says to "only make a single attack".
there are arguments for and against why you should or should not have two attacks with the tankhammer. You have your opinion that i completely disagree with, i have mine.
You disagreeing does not change what the rules say. There are not any valid arguments for having two attacks with the tankhammer. The Tankhammer itself limits it to a single attack. The Tankhammer rules state to "only make a single attack " two attacks is not "a single attack"
I only see 1 reason why the tankhammer shouldnt hit twice and thats because its an ability. Granted, that is a very large reason so i would be fine with that. But thats literally it, nothing to do with the attack, because goff hit rolls tie to that attack, they dont magically add 1 to the attack characteristic. It specifically says it adds a hit roll immediately, thats all.
No one said it added 1 to the attack characteristic. It says " make an additional hit roll against the same target using the same weapon." (Goffs No Mukkin' About rules).
As I have shown, a hit roll = an attack, so you follow the attack sequence for the rule if able. With the Tankhammer you are not able to do so.
Beardedragon wrote: but it IS correct though that the tankhammer ability to deal MW is.. well an ability, and abilities cant be used twice, no?
The Tankhammer can't be used twice because it specifically says you only get 1 attack/hit roll with it, and of course the bearer is dead.
Blackie wrote: I believe you're wrong because the model makes an attack, and can only make one, but that attack can generate an extra hit, which is considered an extra attack.
This is not correct. That attack can not generate an extra hit. The Goffs rules allow for an additional attack, by virtue of giving you another hit roll. So the attack can generate another attack.
A hit roll = an attack. as per the rare rules section I quoted earlier "each hit roll is treated as a separate attack..."
Not part of the original attack,
Yes, a second attack is not a part of the original attack. The Tankhammer disallows multiple attacks with the weapon though.
So both (assuming the second attacks hits) can actually deal MWs, as they are independent after they are generated
Incorrect, as the Tankhammer can't make multiple attacks.
The point is the model is not dead when the player rolls for the second hit and he even haven't made more than one attack.
Again this is incorrect, the model is dead as soon as he hits with the first attack, and the Goffs rule absolutely lets you make a second attack if you roll a nat 6. Remember each hit roll is treated as a separate attack.
It's the original attack that generates a second one, and after that they are separate attacks that go against the same target, not a single attack represented by two dice.
This first part is correct though. It is a separate attack and "not a single attack represented by two dice." (Whatever that is, because that doesn't exist).
but it's not the bearer that makes the second attack. That's why there's a chance of getting two hits from one attack and both can deal mortal wounds. RAW it's how the things are.
This is not at all what the RAW says. Only models make attacks. There is no chance of getting two hits from one attack for the Tankhammer. and the Goffs rule allows for a second attack. (The goffs do not give you two hits from one attack at all).
And no, 27ppm thankhammer dudes are absolute garbage, the opposite of a broken combo.
I would check the points again, I have a Tankbustas model with Tankhammer clocking in at 17 points, not 27.
You sure are very "factual" on a subject thats completely messed up on GWs side and can clearly be understood either way.
It can not be understood either way, it can be understood one way, and misunderstood the other way that gives them two attacks with a weapon that says to "only make a single attack".
there are arguments for and against why you should or should not have two attacks with the tankhammer. You have your opinion that i completely disagree with, i have mine.
You disagreeing does not change what the rules say. There are not any valid arguments for having two attacks with the tankhammer. The Tankhammer itself limits it to a single attack. The Tankhammer rules state to "only make a single attack " two attacks is not "a single attack"
I only see 1 reason why the tankhammer shouldnt hit twice and thats because its an ability. Granted, that is a very large reason so i would be fine with that. But thats literally it, nothing to do with the attack, because goff hit rolls tie to that attack, they dont magically add 1 to the attack characteristic. It specifically says it adds a hit roll immediately, thats all.
No one said it added 1 to the attack characteristic. It says " make an additional hit roll against the same target using the same weapon." (Goffs No Mukkin' About rules).
As I have shown, a hit roll = an attack, so you follow the attack sequence for the rule if able. With the Tankhammer you are not able to do so.
there in lies where im disagreeing with you, because its a fact, that an attack can have two hits.
Like smash profiles from Gorkanauts, it makes 3 hits per attack.
Meaning, its not out of the realm of possibilities of a tankhammer, based on THAT point at least, that it could make two hit rolls. hence why i always point towards it being an ability, and that might be the reason it shouldnt be able to have two hits. But the fact it states it can only make a single attack, does not contradict the goff rule on itself, as one attack can have several hits.
Goff makes additional hit rolls, not additional attacks, it says so on the rule.
If you make two dakka dakkas with 2 shots, for a total of 4 hit rolls, you still only made 2 attacks, but 4 hit rolls.
A gorkanaut with the smash profile also doesnt make 3 attacks, it makes 3 hit rolls that counts as its one attack. and then it proceeds to do that 5 more times for a total of 18 hit rolls. Each goff 6 would not add 3 more hit rolls because they are not attacks, they are hit rolls.If thats how it worked then you start with 18 hit rolls but end up on probably well over 40 CC hit rolls if each 6, out of those 18 hit rolls, were to add 3 more hit rolls.
You do NOT get 3 hit rolls per goff 6 when using a gorkanaut/morkanaut, you get 1 because they are hit rolls, not attacks.
Gorkanaughts don't make 3 hits per attack.
You make 3 hit rolls per attack it makes.
Each of those hit rolls is then treated as a separate attack.
The Rare Rules FAQ and Gorkanaught datasheet are fairly unambiguous on this.
kirotheavenger wrote: Gorkanaughts don't make 3 hits per attack.
You make 3 hit rolls per attack it makes.
Each of those hit rolls is treated as a separate attack.
thats what im saying. it makes 3 hit rolls per attack
but if the guy above is meant to be correct, then each goff exploding 6 is an attack, and that one attack would add 3 more hit rolls per 6.
Do the math and tell me thats intentional then. 18 starting hit rolls, each 6 you roll adds 3 more hit rolls because he claims each hit roll is an attack.
and attacks add 3 hit rolls.
Thats not how it works. just look at the math thats out of this world.
But that's still making multiple attacks, which isn't allowed with a tank hammer. I don't see what point you think you're supporting with that example.
kirotheavenger wrote: But that's still making multiple attacks, which isn't allowed with a tank hammer. I don't see what point you think you're supporting with that example.
my point is, goffs make extra hit rolls not attacks. Because if they made extra attacks, Goffs Gorkanauts and Morkanauts would be insane. it clearly states on the goff ability it adds a hit roll, not an attack. so each 6, is exactly that, a hit roll not an attack.
So either you are right, and the Tankhammer dont get additional attacks because each goff 6 is an attack rather than a hit roll and the tankhammer can only make a single attack or the Gorkanauts/morkanauts used by Goffs have an insane close combat buff that would net you close to 40 CC hits with strength 8 if you are lucky.
If you are right, Gorks/morks are OP, if im right, the tankhammer gets 2 hits (at least based on that part, again, if its an ability it still wouldnt) and the gorks/morks arent op anymore
If each hit roll is an attack, then this sentence: Make 3 hit rolls for each attack made with this weapon. makes the gorks/morks in to the craziest CC machine ive ever seen
kirotheavenger wrote: But the point is extra hit rolls count as extra attacks.
There are no hits that aren't part of an attack. 1 roll = 1 attack and vice versa.
It's not a me or you situation, the wording of both the FAQ and Gorkanaught is quite clear that you are wrong on both accounts.
so a gorkanaut gets 3 hit rolls per exploding 6? even though it clearly states, that each attack is 3 hit rolls, and the goff exploding 6 also clearly states that rolling a 6, adds a hit roll not an attack?
Because we trace it back to the rules that states that somehow, all hit rolls are attacks?
the wording seem quite clear on whats meant to happen (based on the ork codex and rules, you're clearly only meant to get 1 extra hit roll per 6), but the rules kind of over rules everything and turns the gork/morkanauts in to death machines
I think it's useful if we go back to first principles of resolving attacks. I've numbered them just to relate them to my later explanation.
1.1; Each attack is one hit-roll. If a gun has multiple shots or an axe has multiple swings, they're making multiple attacks.
1.2; According to Rare Rules, additional hit rolls are additional attacks.
* Gorkanaught's Smash says for each attack they make multiple hit rolls. However, Goffs head that off by entering directly at the hit roll stage.
Enter; the Tankhammer.
1. Each hit roll is an attack, the Tankhammer is only allowed to make one.
3. The Tankhammer can only make a single attack, it's not allowed to use the bonus.
I think it's useful if we go back to first principles of resolving attacks. I've numbered them just to relate them to my later explanation.
1.1; Each attack is one hit-roll. If a gun has multiple shots or an axe has multiple swings, they're making multiple attacks.
1.2; According to Rare Rules, additional hit rolls are additional attacks.
* Gorkanaught's Smash says for each attack they make multiple hit rolls. However, Goffs head that off by entering directly at the hit roll stage.
Enter; the Tankhammer.
1. Each hit roll is an attack, the Tankhammer is only allowed to make one.
3. The Tankhammer can only make a single attack, it's not allowed to use the bonus.
i dont understand by that, if you agree or disagree.
But someone wrote the following: *Page 363 – Rare Rules
Add the following:
Attacks That Make Multiple Hit Rolls
Some rules, typically weapon abilities, tell you to roll more than one hit roll for each attack made , e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, make 2 hit rolls instead of 1’. In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’. Note that these additional attacks do not themselves result in more hit rolls being made.
By that standard, each hit roll of exploding 6 becomes an actual attack. And an actual attack gives 3 hit rolls for the smash profile. Gorkanauts/morkanauts have suddenly become OP in CC.
if i understand it correctly that is. however, i have NO idea where that rule is written, i cant find it anywhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is also written in an FAQ:
If any
additional hits are scored as the result of a particular hit roll,
those additional hits are not considered to have been made with
any hit roll – they simply hit the target and you must continue
the attack sequence for them (i.e. make a wound roll).
What do you make of this when it comes to the tankhammers? As i see it, that exploding 6 that gives another hit roll, actually means you're supposed to pretend you didnt have to roll for it and it just tags along with the sequence. According to that, the Tankhammers CAN make two hits with their hammer as it says you must continue the attack sequence and the hit roll, simply hits.
This tie up exactly as i envisioned dakkadakka and goff 6's, being tied to the attack that triggered it.
I'm not going to quote since there are too many posts, but I will summarize some points I think are being interpreted incorrectly:
1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says. It says "In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’." Treated means follow the same rules, not that it is an attack. They even went so far in the next sentence to again reiterate that it is a hit roll, not an attack. Therefore, any rules such as "make X hit rolls per attack" or "can only make 1 attack" do not apply to these Hit Rolls. This is different from a rule such as Death to the False Emperor that grants an additional attack. In such a case, that attack could have multiple Hit Rolls if the weapon said so.
2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll. So assuming it hits on that Hit Roll, you then have two hits from one attack. You then resolve each hit like it was a separate attack, which normally would be rolling to wound, target saving, and damage being inflicted. In this case, "the target suffers d3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain" for each hit. We do have the side issue of the model 'attacking' while dead, but we Hit before we died, so I am heavily inclined to complete the action already in play since the rules don't tell me not to.
3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.
Beardedragon wrote: there in lies where im disagreeing with you, because its a fact, that an attack can have two hits.
This is not the situation with the Tankhammer though, and as such is irrelevant.
Goff makes additional hit rolls, not additional attacks, it says so on the rule.
Hit rolls are equivalent to attacks, so it saying you get additional hit rolls is the same as saying you get additional attacks. This is proven because of the Rare rules that I cited earlier, I will cite them again.
40K rulebook, Rare rules section, Attacks that make multiple hit rolls sub-section wrote:Some rules, typically weapon abilities, tell you to roll more than one hit roll for each attack made , e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, make 2 hit rolls instead of 1’. In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target.
It literally says "each hit roll is treated as a separate attack" so an extra hit roll = an extra attack.
Beardedragon wrote: If you make two dakka dakkas with 2 shots, for a total of 4 hit rolls, you still only made 2 attacks, but 4 hit rolls.
Incorrect, as noted in the rare rules above. Hit rolls = Attacks. so 4 hit rolls is 4 attacks.
A gorkanaut with the smash profile also doesnt make 3 attacks, it makes 3 hit rolls that counts as its one attack. and then it proceeds to do that 5 more times for a total of 18 hit rolls. Each goff 6 would not add 3 more hit rolls because they are not attacks, they are hit rolls.If thats how it worked then you start with 18 hit rolls but end up on probably well over 40 CC hit rolls if each 6, out of those 18 hit rolls, were to add 3 more hit rolls.
You do NOT get 3 hit rolls per goff 6 when using a gorkanaut/morkanaut, you get 1 because they are hit rolls, not attacks.
Incorrect, as noted in the rare rules above. Hit rolls = Attacks.
kirotheavenger wrote: Gorkanaughts don't make 3 hits per attack.
You make 3 hit rolls per attack it makes.
Each of those hit rolls is then treated as a separate attack.
The Rare Rules FAQ and Gorkanaught datasheet are fairly unambiguous on this.
100% this. I would add that the dataslate is 100% unambiguous on this.
If the GORKANAUT has 6 attacks, and you use the Smash profile it says "Make 3 hit rolls for each attack made with this weapon." 3 hit rolls = 3 attacks, so if you use Smash for all 6 attacks, the GORKANAUT has 18 attacks that you need to resolve that fight phase.
According to this:
*Page 363 – Rare Rules
Add the following:
Attacks That Make Multiple Hit Rolls
Some rules, typically weapon abilities, tell you to roll more than one hit roll for each attack made , e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, make 2 hit rolls instead of 1’. In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’. Note that these additional attacks do not themselves result in more hit rolls being made.
The gorkanaut exploding 6s hit rolls, adds a hit roll which is an attack as each hit roll is treated as a seperate attack. each attack adds 3 hit rolls as per the profile.
As per the tankhammer:
This is also written in an FAQ:
If any
additional hits are scored as the result of a particular hit roll,
those additional hits are not considered to have been made with
any hit roll – they simply hit the target and you must continue
the attack sequence for them (i.e. make a wound roll).
This special rule which adds to the same multiple hits rule, states that you actually DO, get the secondary hit. As it says those additional hit rolls are NOT considered to have been made with any hit rolls. So even if you technically roll twice, one for its first 6 which generates an additional hit rolll, and then afterwards for that roll, you've really only rolled once. The rule states that the additional hit roll simply hits (in case you hit with your roll). If we go by this rule the tankhammer gets 2 hit rolls if you get an exploding 6 with Goff.
It literally states here that you MUST continue the attack sequence and that extra hit roll ties to the attack, because you are meant to count it as if you didnt roll the hit roll at all. It just hits, in case your hit roll actually did hit.
Beardedragon wrote: According to this:
*Page 363 – Rare Rules
Add the following:
Attacks That Make Multiple Hit Rolls
Some rules, typically weapon abilities, tell you to roll more than one hit roll for each attack made , e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, make 2 hit rolls instead of 1’. In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’. Note that these additional attacks do not themselves result in more hit rolls being made.
The gorkanaut exploding 6s hit rolls, adds a hit roll which is an attack as each hit roll is treated as a seperate attack. each attack adds 3 hit rolls as per the profile.
Seems that way since each hit roll is treated as a separate attack.
Spoiler:
Beardedragon wrote: As per the tankhammer:
This is also written in an FAQ:
If any
additional hits are scored as the result of a particular hit roll,
those additional hits are not considered to have been made with
any hit roll – they simply hit the target and you must continue
the attack sequence for them (i.e. make a wound roll).
This special rule which adds to the same multiple hits rule, states that you actually DO, get the secondary hit. As it says those additional hit rolls are NOT considered to have been made with any hit rolls. So even if you technically roll twice, one for its first 6 which generates an additional hit rolll, and then afterwards for that roll, you've really only rolled once. The rule states that the additional hit roll simply hits (in case you hit with your roll). If we go by this rule the tankhammer gets 2 hit rolls if you get an exploding 6 with Goff.
It literally states here that you MUST continue the attack sequence and that extra hit roll ties to the attack, because you are meant to count it as if you didnt roll the hit roll at all. It just hits, in case your hit roll actually did hit.
Let me make this clear for you.
The Tankhammer does not score additional hits as the result of a particular hit roll. It gives you another hit roll, not another hit. There is a huge difference. The "you must continue the attack sequence for them" does not apply as you do not have additional hits scored as the result of a particular hit roll.
Beardedragon wrote: According to this:
*Page 363 – Rare Rules
Add the following:
Attacks That Make Multiple Hit Rolls
Some rules, typically weapon abilities, tell you to roll more than one hit roll for each attack made , e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, make 2 hit rolls instead of 1’. In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’. Note that these additional attacks do not themselves result in more hit rolls being made.
The gorkanaut exploding 6s hit rolls, adds a hit roll which is an attack as each hit roll is treated as a seperate attack. each attack adds 3 hit rolls as per the profile.
Seems that way since each hit roll is treated as a separate attack.
Spoiler:
Beardedragon wrote: As per the tankhammer:
This is also written in an FAQ:
If any
additional hits are scored as the result of a particular hit roll,
those additional hits are not considered to have been made with
any hit roll – they simply hit the target and you must continue
the attack sequence for them (i.e. make a wound roll).
This special rule which adds to the same multiple hits rule, states that you actually DO, get the secondary hit. As it says those additional hit rolls are NOT considered to have been made with any hit rolls. So even if you technically roll twice, one for its first 6 which generates an additional hit rolll, and then afterwards for that roll, you've really only rolled once. The rule states that the additional hit roll simply hits (in case you hit with your roll). If we go by this rule the tankhammer gets 2 hit rolls if you get an exploding 6 with Goff.
It literally states here that you MUST continue the attack sequence and that extra hit roll ties to the attack, because you are meant to count it as if you didnt roll the hit roll at all. It just hits, in case your hit roll actually did hit.
Let me make this clear for you.
The Tankhammer does not score additional hits as the result of a particular hit roll. It gives you another hit roll, not another hit. There is a huge difference. The "you must continue the attack sequence for them" does not apply as you do not have additional hits scored as the result of a particular hit roll.
you score an additional hit roll because of the exploding 6. unless this is a special rule that simply explains things that gives auto hits on 6s rather than hit rolls? i can read it as either
Beardedragon wrote: you score an additional hit roll because of the exploding 6. unless this is a special rule that simply explains things that gives auto hits on 6s rather than hit rolls? i can read it as either
Some rules give extra hits, like the Necron Tesla Carbine which says "Each time an attack is made with this weapon, an unmodified hit roll of 6 scores 2 additional hits."
Which is different than the Goffs rule that gives hit rolls.
Additional hits and additional hit rolls are not the same thing.
Beardedragon wrote: you score an additional hit roll because of the exploding 6. unless this is a special rule that simply explains things that gives auto hits on 6s rather than hit rolls? i can read it as either
Some rules give extra hits, like the Necron Tesla Carbine which says "Each time an attack is made with this weapon, an unmodified hit roll of 6 scores 2 additional hits."
Which is different than the Goffs rule that gives hit rolls.
Additional hits and additional hit rolls are not the same thing.
yea i know. I just assumed this rule didnt make a difference between giving an extra hit or an extra hit roll. But i guess this rule only works for extra hits and not extra hit rolls.
The full rule reads as follows:
When a model makes an attack, some rules will let that attack
score one or more additional hits on a particular hit roll (e.g.
‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, an unmodified
hit roll of 6 scores 1 additional hit’). If the attacking model is
also benefiting from any other rules that trigger on a particular
hit roll (e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon,
an unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically wounds the target’),
then only the original attack benefits from those rules. If any
additional hits are scored as the result of a particular hit roll,
those additional hits are not considered to have been made with
any hit roll – they simply hit the target and you must continue
the attack sequence for them (i.e. make a wound roll).
alextroy wrote: I'm not going to quote since there are too many posts, but I will summarize some points I think are being interpreted incorrectly:
1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says. It says "In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’." Treated means follow the same rules, not that it is an attack. They even went so far in the next sentence to again reiterate that it is a hit roll, not an attack. Therefore, any rules such as "make X hit rolls per attack" or "can only make 1 attack" do not apply to these Hit Rolls. This is different from a rule such as Death to the False Emperor that grants an additional attack. In such a case, that attack could have multiple Hit Rolls if the weapon said so.
2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll. So assuming it hits on that Hit Roll, you then have two hits from one attack. You then resolve each hit like it was a separate attack, which normally would be rolling to wound, target saving, and damage being inflicted. In this case, "the target suffers d3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain" for each hit. We do have the side issue of the model 'attacking' while dead, but we Hit before we died, so I am heavily inclined to complete the action already in play since the rules don't tell me not to.
3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.
Thank you, that's very accurate and should be clear enough for people that still make confusion about the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper wrote: I would check the points again, I have a Tankbustas model with Tankhammer clocking in at 17 points, not 27.
That's actually true, I wrongly remembered that tankbustas were 17ppm when in fact they are 7pp with a 10ppm rokkit launcha. Tankhammer is also 10 but replaces the rokkit launcha so the model wielding it is still 17ppm. Doesn't change the fact the option is total garbage. A unit of 5 dudes with one hammer is 85ppm for 5 t-shirt save dudes, a unit of 10 with two hammers is 170 for ten t-shirt save dudes.
In reality you never charge with tankbustas because their too squishy and they'll die before even trying while the biggest part of the squad doesn't even want to charge anyway, but to shoot while in cover or even inside a transport. Tankbustas also have a potentially devastating stratagem that allows each model to throw a melta grenade (12ish hits for a 10 man squad on average), but guess what it's almost never used because it requires the unit to be whithin a range they'll never get. And that's much easier to achieve than a charge, much more powerful than charging with a couple of hammers and doesn't require the unit to mix up their loadout.
Ive come to the conclusion that untill i hear from GW then ill just flip a coin or something. On a heads, ill do the 2D3 MW if i roll a 6, on tails, i dont.
But then again, i will never be in this situation to begin with so i guess it really doesnt matter.
It matters for the bomb squigs though, at least to me (and not only as they are quite a popular option) as I use them pretty often and 6s to hit always got me (and other ork players who fielded them against me) the extra hit roll.
But I've always seen consensus about it so I'll stick with the way I've played so far. Too bad I'm not actually play any game thanks to the pandemic.
Blackie wrote: It matters for the bomb squigs though, at least to me (and not only as they are quite a popular option) as I use them pretty often and 6s to hit always got me (and other ork players who fielded them against me) the extra hit roll.
But I've always seen consensus about it so I'll stick with the way I've played so far. Too bad I'm not actually play any game thanks to the pandemic.
well. the Bomb squig does get the dakka dakka extra hit roll, but its also different from the tankhammers. Ive talked to quite a few prominent ork youtube players that all say that Squig Bombs all get dakka dakka. Part of that reason is the different wording, but also because the bomb isnt an ability but it has an actual weapons profile. Theres no difference between a squig bomb and a shoota profile, except the squig bomb dies afterwards.
So its not an ability, thus it can trigger twice. Its also, again, worded a bit differently, so you definitely get the dakka dakka from a squig bomb. thats not much of a debate.
But the whole tankhammer debacle really is a clusterF of rules being thrown together, and its a lot about interpreting which rules take priority and how exactly those rules work.
The bomb squig is a bit less of a clusterF. I just needed to understand the Squig Bomb properly but yes they get Dakka Dakka. But Tankhammers dont necessarily get 2 hit rolls, because its worded differently, and is an ability, and normally abilities cant trigger twice.
The question would then be if it does trigger twice, would it get 2D3 MW or just 3D MW and a regular attack with str. user, -0AP, 1dmg
Absolutely, but there are people who argue that the model dies after firing hence it doesn't get the additional hit roll and they will contest it.
Thankfully no one here ever brought up that argument, but like any other case in which there isn't consensus about a rule tossing a coin flip is always a reasonable way to resolve the issue.
Blackie wrote: Absolutely, but there are people who argue that the model dies after firing hence it doesn't get the additional hit roll and they will contest it.
Thankfully no one here ever brought up that argument, but like any other case in which there isn't consensus about a rule tossing a coin flip is always a reasonable way to resolve the issue.
well i think someone on page one argued they would die before hitting a second time but. yea. they dont.
Tankhammers however, i have no idea.
And yea, coin tossing or rolling a die or a quick game of rock, paper, scissor is always a decent idea.
My main question was really only about bomb squigs as i will be using these (and i have my answer), i was just curious about tankhammers. That curiocity definitely sparked a bit of an interpretation war and the worst part is, i dont even give a gak because i will never run tankhammers. I was just curious.
You are literally doing the exact opposite of what you should be when playing with these rules. Instead of discussing it before hand you are outright declaring that you will intend to use them how you want to, or "flip a coin" and then have to ask forgiveness, rather than permission.
Everyone here with the exception of a few people who I am convinced are being willfully stubborn, have said talk with the opponent before hand, explain your point. Don't just suddenly declare 5MWs on a tank "Because a prominent ork youtuber said so".
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You are literally doing the exact opposite of what you should be when playing with these rules. Instead of discussing it before hand you are outright declaring that you will intend to use them how you want to, or "flip a coin" and then have to ask forgiveness, rather than permission.
Everyone here with the exception of a few people who I am convinced are being willfully stubborn, have said talk with the opponent before hand, explain your point. Don't just suddenly declare 5MWs on a tank "Because a prominent ork youtuber said so".
That's because you assume your position matches the consensus, and people who disagree know they're wrong and they are intentionally trying to bend the rules in ther favor. I can say mine matches the consensus in my experience, so why would I have to have a pre-game talk about something that I assume everyone would play in the exact same way? Eventually if some conflict shows up during the game, middle of the game wouldn't be the appropriate time for long discussions so the coin toss becomes a reasonable option.
Of course if I know from the beginning that the position of my opponent about one (or more) specific interaction doesn't match mine I'd be absolutely in favor of some pre-game talk.
I'd ask in advance permission to bring OP stuff like Eradicators or units that I know lots of people dislike like LoWs, not for playing in a way I have no reason to believe that is not the correct sequence of steps.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You are literally doing the exact opposite of what you should be when playing with these rules. Instead of discussing it before hand you are outright declaring that you will intend to use them how you want to, or "flip a coin" and then have to ask forgiveness, rather than permission.
Everyone here with the exception of a few people who I am convinced are being willfully stubborn, have said talk with the opponent before hand, explain your point. Don't just suddenly declare 5MWs on a tank "Because a prominent ork youtuber said so".
Stop letting out bollocks of "what im doing" when what you're saying about me is clearly wrong. You dont know how i play my games. I didnt bother making an entire novel for how the process of my games work when there are problems. I didnt expect some dude to start nitpicking everything i just said which was related to how one could move on if no consensus was made.
Any given situation that comes up dicates that we look at the rules and determines what makes most sense. When i said id flip a coin it would be because that would most likely be the outcome of the tankhammer Goff exploding sixes discussion if it ever came up.
Rather than spending 15 minutes trying to find the correct rules and then finding the right rule that takes priority over what, its sometimes easier to just flip a coin and move on. So no, i dont just flip coins, in fact, up to this point i havent flipped a single coin (ive had people wanting to flip coins, but im often adamant about finding the rules. Why the F do you think i started the discussion to begin with if i didnt give a gak?), and i have taken the time to go through the rules with my opponent when ever these fishy situations comes up. But i probably WOULD do it, in this situation, because there isnt a clear answer for what is meant to happen and what isnt.
you might think or someone else might think they know the answer, but im not convinced there IS a clear answer when it comes to the tankhammers.
The last time someone wanted to flip a coin and move on was when my opponent wanted to claim that line of sight was to the base not the model, which is completely incorrect. He mistook it for measuring distance. it took us a while but we got there and i was right. I always do what i can to uphold the rules, i just cant do it with the tankhammer discussion because the entire situation is so messed up i dont see a right and a wrong way here.
So yes, it would be a coin toss. But not before explaining the situation to my opponent. his opinion should also be heard.
So no im not doing the exact opposite of what i should be doing. Im doing exactly what im meant to. You on the other hand need to stop pretending that you know how i play warhammer tabletop. We dont know each other, so it doesnt suit you, dude.
And the bomb squigs do get the extra attack, that much is a fact. You could throw your two cents at tabletop titans if you wanted, they would tell you the same thing. The tankhammers are not in the same boat as the bomb squigs; while tankhammers might not get a secondary hit roll, bomb squigs still do.
You don't get to settle agreements on a random chance. That is inherently unfair, whats worse is that you portray it as a "compromise", the alternative of course being that your opponent just play by your rules. There is a third and a fourth option however.
3: You don't play by your rules, infact you play by your opponent's interpretation. I often disadvantage myself when playing DG, because there is still debate on whether Tanglefoot affects IA. I don't claim to know, so I don't play like it does.
4. You decide before playing, or don't even play at all if it's too unruley.
A 17 point model that has the ability to do 2d3 mortals to anything it touches is inherently broken, and you are willfully ignoring that by petty fogging the issue. The closest model to that is a Astropath, and even that is 35 points, and needs to pass a roll test to get 1d6 smite, or it possibly kills everything near it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You don't get to settle agreements on a random chance. That is inherently unfair, whats worse is that you portray it as a "compromise", the alternative of course being that your opponent just play by your rules. There is a third and a fourth option however.
3: You don't play by your rules, infact you play by your opponent's interpretation. I often disadvantage myself when playing DG, because there is still debate on whether Tanglefoot affects IA. I don't claim to know, so I don't play like it does.
4. You decide before playing, or don't even play at all if it's too unruley.
A 17 point model that has the ability to do 2d3 mortals to anything it touches is inherently broken, and you are willfully ignoring that by petty fogging the issue. The closest model to that is a Astropath, and even that is 35 points, and needs to pass a roll test to get 1d6 smite, or it possibly kills everything near it.
I dont disagree that settling a rules question over chance is stupid, but what do you want to do, when two people disagree with each other over the rules and find no consensus? They often just flip a coin because the IS no consensus!. How are you going to change that? you can only flip a coin, roll a die, do something else random related if you cant find common ground and move on, its the only way. unless you want to start calling friends and family for help that is.
Would you take a 1 hour discussion? Just look at the tankhammer discussion its over 3 pages long. Imagine if that was an actual game. You would've never been able to finish the discussion, no consensus would be made. you would HAVE to move on somehow otherwise the game ends then and there.
In fact i agree with everything you just said, i wouldnt even BRING tankhammers for goff because if this situation arrives i dont know what to do about it. I would rather, as YOU say, disadvantage myself rather than be in a situation where i accidentially cheat. But if the tankhammer situation ever came up, im just saying, i think that would end up being a coin toss.
or what about the : always wounds on a +2 versus can only take wounds on a +4 rules? I have never been in that situation, so i dont know if there are any special rules related to it about what takes priority. But if there isnt, how does one move on? if no rule explains whats up and down.
I would still use bomb squigs, however as they are a core part of tankbustas, and i would roll an extra hit roll if it made a hit roll of 6.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You don't get to settle agreements on a random chance. That is inherently unfair, whats worse is that you portray it as a "compromise", the alternative of course being that your opponent just play by your rules.
Actually it's following The Most Important Rule if you and your opponent can't agree on how to handle it. Saying beforehand you're willing to dice off for it (how things are handled instead of flipping a coin) is just showing a willingness to follow the procedure established by GW.
If no consensus is made on a rule, especially when it comes to the special rules, then common ground has to be made somehow. A coin flip or a roll off often ends up being the result.
Im not even sure why im writing coin flip, as we're playing with die, it would obviously be a roll off instead.
The most important rule is intended for a quick fix mid game when something unexpected and complicated comes up
Its a stupid fix for a question you preemptively know is a problem before the game begins, because inconsistent application of the rules tends to leave one player feeling cheated
What it should never be is an excuse to pass dodgy rulings 50% of the time
U02dah4 wrote: The most important rule is intended for a quick fix mid game when something unexpected and complicated comes up
Its a stupid fix for a question you preemptively know is a problem before the game begins, because inconsistent application of the rules tends to leave one player feeling cheated
What it should never be is an excuse to pass dodgy rulings 50% of the time
It might be a "stupid fix" but if no consensus can be reached pregame (without taking hours to reach), then it's the only thing you can do other than not play.
It's really not worth the time wasting 30min+ arguing back-and-forth over rules
Matt.Kingsley wrote: It might be a "stupid fix" but if no consensus can be reached pregame (without taking hours to reach), then it's the only thing you can do other than not play.
The problem, as I see it, with TMIR is that it's easy to abuse. One person can say, "This is the rule, see page 63 of the Deathwatch Codex," and the other person can say, "That seems vague to me." Whether the rule is actually vague or not, TMIR is thus invoked, and the player who knows what the rules say now has a 50% chance of getting the short end of the stick.
This is not to say that TMIR doesn't have its place - it does. But if the rules actually say something, that's the correct "interpretation." Not being able to understand the rules shouldn't be an excuse to have a 50/50 chance to get your way.
U02dah4 wrote: The most important rule is intended for a quick fix mid game when something unexpected and complicated comes up
Its a stupid fix for a question you preemptively know is a problem before the game begins, because inconsistent application of the rules tends to leave one player feeling cheated
What it should never be is an excuse to pass dodgy rulings 50% of the time
exactly. which is why i would never bring tankhammers with a goff army (not only because they suck ass but also because of this). If im uncertain about a rule, i dont purposefully bring a unit to end up in dodgy situations.
But if someone else does? then we'll end up in a roll off unless both him using them, and me being on the receiving end agree on how they work. I once used the stratagem Flying ead'butt which crashes a dedicated flyer where it stands and explodes, on my Chinork which was a dedicated transport. I just assumed it had to be used on a flying unit. So mistakes do happen.
I always make sure i know every little detailed rule of my units before i bring them in to battle. at least i aspire to, and sometimes i make mistakes like anyone else.
as the owner of this thread, thats kind of why i started out asking questions about tankbustas. So that i know how they work. And given i now know theres absolutely no consensus on how the tankhammers work with goff, im positive i would never bring them, and if i do ill be having a small discussion with my opponent and explain how i understand the rule, and he can do the same, before the game starts when i present my army. Then we can find common ground afterwards, and if no ground is made, then ill probably swap them for regular tankbustas before the game starts.
But who am i kidding, the tankhammers suck. I would never use them at all.
alextroy wrote: I'm not going to quote since there are too many posts, but I will summarize some points I think are being interpreted incorrectly:
1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says. It says "In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’." Treated means follow the same rules, not that it is an attack. They even went so far in the next sentence to again reiterate that it is a hit roll, not an attack. Therefore, any rules such as "make X hit rolls per attack" or "can only make 1 attack" do not apply to these Hit Rolls. This is different from a rule such as Death to the False Emperor that grants an additional attack. In such a case, that attack could have multiple Hit Rolls if the weapon said so.
2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll. So assuming it hits on that Hit Roll, you then have two hits from one attack. You then resolve each hit like it was a separate attack, which normally would be rolling to wound, target saving, and damage being inflicted. In this case, "the target suffers d3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain" for each hit. We do have the side issue of the model 'attacking' while dead, but we Hit before we died, so I am heavily inclined to complete the action already in play since the rules don't tell me not to.
3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.
Good points. I think it would be better for people to focus on these arguments right now rather than have everything sidetrack into an argument about The Most Important Rule.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: It might be a "stupid fix" but if no consensus can be reached pregame (without taking hours to reach), then it's the only thing you can do other than not play.
The problem, as I see it, with TMIR is that it's easy to abuse. One person can say, "This is the rule, see page 63 of the Deathwatch Codex," and the other person can say, "That seems vague to me." Whether the rule is actually vague or not, TMIR is thus invoked, and the player who knows what the rules say now has a 50% chance of getting the short end of the stick.
This is not to say that TMIR doesn't have its place - it does. But if the rules actually say something, that's the correct "interpretation." Not being able to understand the rules shouldn't be an excuse to have a 50/50 chance to get your way.
And if someone is obviously abusing TMIR is such a way, you make note to never play them again.
It's all well and good to say "But if the rules actually say something, that's the correct 'interpretation.' ", but in rules cases that are actually unclear (and this section of the forum is full of examples like that) people are going to disagree on what the rules actually say.
those ARE good points but they are not why i assume the tankhammers wouldnt work for goffs. I dont think they might work because the tankhammer is an ability, and abilities cant trigger twice. If it had a normal damage profile i would be all up for just throwing 2D3 MW but.. its an ability. thats how i see it anyway.
Im all up for dealing 2D3 MW with goff 6s but im not gonna bring it unless someone can explain why this ability should trigger twice, now that its not a normal attack. Because of the Goff rule? I dont know if that supersedes the fact that its an ability.
Beardedragon wrote: those ARE good points but they are not why i assume the tankhammers wouldnt work for goffs. I dont think they might work because the tankhammer is an ability, and abilities cant trigger twice. If it had a normal damage profile i would be all up for just throwing 2D3 MW but.. its an ability. thats how i see it anyway.
Im all up for dealing 2D3 MW with goff 6s but im not gonna bring it unless someone cna explain why this ability should trigger twice. Because of the Goff rule? I dont know if that supersedes the fact that its an ability.
If you had a stratagem that allowed you to shoot a second time, are you claiming that you can't use Dakka Dakka Dakka because it's an ability and can trigger only once?
Beardedragon wrote: those ARE good points but they are not why i assume the tankhammers wouldnt work for goffs. I dont think they might work because the tankhammer is an ability, and abilities cant trigger twice. If it had a normal damage profile i would be all up for just throwing 2D3 MW but.. its an ability. thats how i see it anyway.
Im all up for dealing 2D3 MW with goff 6s but im not gonna bring it unless someone cna explain why this ability should trigger twice. Because of the Goff rule? I dont know if that supersedes the fact that its an ability.
If you had a stratagem that allowed you to shoot a second time, are you claiming that you can't use Dakka Dakka Dakka because it's an ability and can trigger only once?
if you use, lets say, showing off for bad moonz, then your unit stops after the first round of firing, and you pay to get a second round of firing. Its an entirely new sequence that you start, thus both rounds get dakka dakka. I might not use the right terminologies here, but thats essentially what happens. This is also why the Gunwagon with Da Boomer gets death skulls reroll per 2D6, which it shoots off twice for a total of 4D6. meaning your total of 4D6 gets 2 rerolls of hit rolls, 2 rerolls of wounds, and 2 rerolls of damage.
if you use Showing off on tankbustas, the Bomb squigs also dont come back to life to bomb its victims once more. It died the first time. Of course you can still dakka dakka a bomb squig, but it will die after. Using Showing off, wont change that its dead either because its a new sequence.
alextroy wrote: I'm not going to quote since there are too many posts, but I will summarize some points I think are being interpreted incorrectly:
1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says. It says "In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’." Treated means follow the same rules, not that it is an attack. They even went so far in the next sentence to again reiterate that it is a hit roll, not an attack. Therefore, any rules such as "make X hit rolls per attack" or "can only make 1 attack" do not apply to these Hit Rolls. This is different from a rule such as Death to the False Emperor that grants an additional attack. In such a case, that attack could have multiple Hit Rolls if the weapon said so.
2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll. So assuming it hits on that Hit Roll, you then have two hits from one attack. You then resolve each hit like it was a separate attack, which normally would be rolling to wound, target saving, and damage being inflicted. In this case, "the target suffers d3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain" for each hit. We do have the side issue of the model 'attacking' while dead, but we Hit before we died, so I am heavily inclined to complete the action already in play since the rules don't tell me not to.
3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.
Good points. I think it would be better for people to focus on these arguments right now rather than have everything sidetrack into an argument about The Most Important Rule.
Well he is incorrect on all three points, as showcased earlier in the thread, That is why I had not replied to his post, because it had already been proven incorrect earlier.
alextroy wrote: I'm not going to quote since there are too many posts, but I will summarize some points I think are being interpreted incorrectly:
1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says. It says "In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’." Treated means follow the same rules, not that it is an attack. They even went so far in the next sentence to again reiterate that it is a hit roll, not an attack. Therefore, any rules such as "make X hit rolls per attack" or "can only make 1 attack" do not apply to these Hit Rolls. This is different from a rule such as Death to the False Emperor that grants an additional attack. In such a case, that attack could have multiple Hit Rolls if the weapon said so.
2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll. So assuming it hits on that Hit Roll, you then have two hits from one attack. You then resolve each hit like it was a separate attack, which normally would be rolling to wound, target saving, and damage being inflicted. In this case, "the target suffers d3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain" for each hit. We do have the side issue of the model 'attacking' while dead, but we Hit before we died, so I am heavily inclined to complete the action already in play since the rules don't tell me not to.
3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.
Good points. I think it would be better for people to focus on these arguments right now rather than have everything sidetrack into an argument about The Most Important Rule.
Well he is incorrect on all three points, as showcased earlier in the thread, That is why I had not replied to his post, because it had already been proven incorrect earlier.
Actually, many people look at it that these points are correct and discredit what you have argued.
alextroy wrote: I'm not going to quote since there are too many posts, but I will summarize some points I think are being interpreted incorrectly:
1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says. It says "In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’." Treated means follow the same rules, not that it is an attack. They even went so far in the next sentence to again reiterate that it is a hit roll, not an attack. Therefore, any rules such as "make X hit rolls per attack" or "can only make 1 attack" do not apply to these Hit Rolls. This is different from a rule such as Death to the False Emperor that grants an additional attack. In such a case, that attack could have multiple Hit Rolls if the weapon said so.
2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll. So assuming it hits on that Hit Roll, you then have two hits from one attack. You then resolve each hit like it was a separate attack, which normally would be rolling to wound, target saving, and damage being inflicted. In this case, "the target suffers d3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain" for each hit. We do have the side issue of the model 'attacking' while dead, but we Hit before we died, so I am heavily inclined to complete the action already in play since the rules don't tell me not to.
3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.
Good points. I think it would be better for people to focus on these arguments right now rather than have everything sidetrack into an argument about The Most Important Rule.
Well he is incorrect on all three points, as showcased earlier in the thread, That is why I had not replied to his post, because it had already been proven incorrect earlier.
Actually, many people look at it that these points are correct and discredit what you have argued.
While we have disagreed on points in the past, Reaper is generally well thought out and he is correct here.
doctortom wrote: Actually, many people look at it that these points are correct and discredit what you have argued.
I have been over it, but ill summarize:
alextroy wrote: 1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says.
Except the FAQ equates hit rolls to attacks. So he is blatantly incorrect here. His incorrect premise makes the rest of that argument moot.
2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll.
Except they are dead at the moment you roll that 1st 6 and apply the D3 MW's and no longer have a Dataslate to reference for any further attacks. The first hit roll is never resolved as it has no roll to wound step.
3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.
Except Only one attack is basically saying Can not make more than one attack with this weapon. If we have another rule that states that you can make more than one attack, well Can't Trumps Can/Must (Unless specifically noted, but the Goffs do not specifically call out Tankhammers so they don't over-ride the Tankhammer restriction).
doctortom wrote: Actually, many people look at it that these points are correct and discredit what you have argued.
I have been over it, but ill summarize:
alextroy wrote: 1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says.
Except the FAQ equates hit rolls to attacks. So he is blatantly incorrect here. His incorrect premise makes the rest of that argument moot.
2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll.
Except they are dead at the moment you roll that 1st 6 and apply the D3 MW's and no longer have a Dataslate to reference for any further attacks. The first hit roll is never resolved as it has no roll to wound step.
3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.
Except Only one attack is basically saying Can not make more than one attack with this weapon. If we have another rule that states that you can make more than one attack, well Can't Trumps Can/Must (Unless specifically noted, but the Goffs do not specifically call out Tankhammers so they don't over-ride the Tankhammer restriction).
On point 2 - you still have the fact of rolling the 6 to hit giving you an "immediately" for the Goff ability, whereas you aren't told to "immediately" remove the model. Therefore, you still have a dictate to roll a second attack that counts as having started before removal of the model.
Point 3. Your point doesn't refute his argument. It says to make one attack, but if some special abilities come in to modify that, they would apply just as they would to a normal attack. If you have some special ability that modifies it, like the exploding 6's allowing more hits, then they would apply two. It doesn't say that special abilities are negated for the attack.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's not an attack, it's an ability of the weapon being used to attack. The Exploding 6s refers strictly to attacks, not abilities.
That's not even close to right.
It's an attack with a weapon, and the weapon limits you to making one attack with it. Similar to a Servo Arm on a Techmarine.
In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll.
Is part of a larger rule, and this rule applies to attacks that makes additional hit rolls by standard, not attacks that generate additional attacks (like dakka dakkas) so i dont think it can be used here at all.
The full rule is: Attacks That Make Multiple Hit RollsSome rules, typically weapon abilities, tell you to roll more than one hit roll for each attack made , e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, make 2 hit rolls instead of 1’. In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’. Note that these additional attacks do not themselves result in more hit rolls being made.
Like Gorkanaut Smash Profiles, and Mortarions reaping scythe profile. im pretty sure it doesnt talk about abilities that can simply generate an additional hit rolls, so im unsure about why this should be related to Goffs exploding sixes.
That said, if, for a moment we said the Tankhammer was not an ability and had an actual damage profile, then i would say exploding sixes still grants it an additional hit roll, as it states that it makes an additional hit roll immediately against the same target with the same weapon. The only problem i see is that the "weapon" is an ability in it self. Which is why i think it doesnt work, abilities dont trigger twice. The fact that the model dies is irrelevant i believe, as the goff hit roll is granted immediately, dead or not.
The difference between the wording of the bomb squig and tankhammer is, that the bomb squig dies after "an attack" and the tankhammer dies after making a "single" attack. Is there really a difference though? An is another word for one anyway, same as single is. The bomb squig gets a dakka dakka, but the tankhammer dont get a goff extra hit roll, despite both of them essentially states that they only get an attack/a single attack.
But maybe the difference lie in the tankhammer trying to point out, adamantly, that its a SINGLE attack, rather than the bomb squig that just states it gets an attack, under which dakka dakka still applies maybe.
Its because of the wording that seem really similar to the two, that my own conclusion is that both would get dakka dakka/extra hit rolls from goff, IF the tankhammers werent an ability but just had a regular damage profile. but it doesnt have that. and abilities dont trigger twice.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's not an attack, it's an ability of the weapon being used to attack. The Exploding 6s refers strictly to attacks, not abilities.
That's not even close to right.
It's an attack with a weapon, and the weapon limits you to making one attack with it. Similar to a Servo Arm on a Techmarine.
What does the box on the far right of the weapon profile have written at the top? Is it "Abilites" or am I misusing terms. Because I always thought thats what we meant when talking about "Abilities". Abilities on a UNIT are different, and listed in another area. If the weapon has text in the box labeled "Abilities" I would profer to the court that such is an "ability". The attack can be done, but not with the Tank Hammer, as the unit is dead, from the first attack's ability which procced.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's not an attack, it's an ability of the weapon being used to attack. The Exploding 6s refers strictly to attacks, not abilities.
That's not even close to right.
It's an attack with a weapon, and the weapon limits you to making one attack with it. Similar to a Servo Arm on a Techmarine.
What does the box on the far right of the weapon profile have written at the top? Is it "Abilites" or am I misusing terms. Because I always thought thats what we meant when talking about "Abilities". Abilities on a UNIT are different, and listed in another area. If the weapon has text in the box labeled "Abilities" I would profer to the court that such is an "ability". The attack can be done, but not with the Tank Hammer, as the unit is dead, from the first attack's ability which procced.
whats up with the snarky way of writing?
theres too much sarcasm here when people get annoyed from others disagreeing on rules.
The Tankhammer has two Abilities. The first limits the model to making one attack with the Tankhammer. The second states if that attack hits, the target suffers D3 Mortal Wounds and the attacker dies. There is no issue with the ability "triggering more than once" because each of the Hit Rolls with the Tankhammer is "treated as a separate attack". Each hit roll triggers the special rule seperately when it hits.
If they are treated as separate attacks, then the model is dead after the first attack sequence ends. Stop, Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. So:
1. The attacks are done with a weapon that has abilities.
2. The ability causes the attacking model to be removed after the attack ends.
3. Extra attacks are separate cannot be made because they are separate and therefor don't factor, as the model is no longer alive.
There is nothing that I'm aware of that tells us how to resolve a situation where there are attacks in the "pool" but yet to be resolved when the attacker dies.
Because the rules do not cover this situation (as far as I am aware), it cannot be resolved. When a rule cannot be resolved, we defer to
5. Roll a Dice. If the rule still remains unclear, roll a dice to resolve your question for the time being (1-3 = yes, 4-6 = no). However, you should also keep an eye on the official design commentaries and errata mentioned above - if you questions is one that comes up frequently and can only be resolved with a dice roll, it should be dealt with in our next update.
And that's the official way to do Tankbusta tankhammers as Goffs who roll 6s.
edit: Honestly surprised that BCB hasn't stepped into this thread at all. Very rarely do they get to cite the all important "Roll a Dice" rule.
doctortom wrote: On point 2 - you still have the fact of rolling the 6 to hit giving you an "immediately" for the Goff ability, whereas you aren't told to "immediately" remove the model. Therefore, you still have a dictate to roll a second attack that counts as having started before removal of the model.
You are told to immediately remove the model though.
The Tankhammer rules say "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain."
So you roll to hit, and if it hits, 2 things happen at that moment:
1) The target suffers D3 mortal wounds.
2) The bearer is slain.
So the instant you have a hit, you do both of those things immediately. By saying
Point 3. Your point doesn't refute his argument. It says to make one attack, but if some special abilities come in to modify that, they would apply just as they would to a normal attack. If you have some special ability that modifies it, like the exploding 6's allowing more hits, then they would apply two. It doesn't say that special abilities are negated for the attack.
It does not say "to make one attack" It says " it can only make a single attack with this weapon."
doctortom wrote: On point 2 - you still have the fact of rolling the 6 to hit giving you an "immediately" for the Goff ability, whereas you aren't told to "immediately" remove the model. Therefore, you still have a dictate to roll a second attack that counts as having started before removal of the model.
You are told to immediately remove the model though.
The Tankhammer rules say "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain."
So you roll to hit, and if it hits, 2 things happen at that moment:
1) The target suffers D3 mortal wounds.
2) The bearer is slain.
So the instant you have a hit, you do both of those things immediately. By saying
Point 3. Your point doesn't refute his argument. It says to make one attack, but if some special abilities come in to modify that, they would apply just as they would to a normal attack. If you have some special ability that modifies it, like the exploding 6's allowing more hits, then they would apply two. It doesn't say that special abilities are negated for the attack.
It does not say "to make one attack" It says " it can only make a single attack with this weapon."
Two attacks are not "Only a single attack."
what? it doesnt say the model is immediately slain, it just says its slain. where as you do immediately get the extra hit roll. Id say the Goff rule takes priority here.
Beardedragon wrote: what? it doesnt say the model is immediately slain, it just says its slain. where as you do immediately get the extra hit roll. Id say the Goff rule takes priority here.
One attack can be two hit rolls.
Yes it does, though it does not specifically use the word immediately.
By virtue of it saying "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain." that means immediately.
Because If the attack hit, at that specific instant you have to do two things:
1) The target suffers D3 mortal wounds.
2) The bearer is slain.
You do not wait to do those things. they happen at the moment the attack hits. The Goffs rules absolutely do not take priority.
One attack can not be two hit rolls.
A weapon can generate multiple hits off one hit roll, but that is not the same thing.
Well thats how i interpret it. That the Goff rule says immediately, and thus you gain an extra hit roll immediately, before you die.
Otherwise, why even bother writing immediately? Why not just write: on a hit roll of 6, gain an extra hit roll. Why write immediately, if you dont get it immediately?
DeathReaper wrote: It does not say "to make one attack" It says " it can only make a single attack with this weapon."
Two attacks are not "Only a single attack."
And the goffs trait doesn't say that the bearer can make an additional attack, it says that the player has to roll an additional hit roll, which a FAQ says it must be considered as an attack. But it never said the model makes an additional attack, so who's generating that attack? What's the source of it? From what I read I'd say it's the attack that generates the additional attack, not the model. That's why the player can get and resolve the additional hit roll.
RAW I don't see how the tankhammer dude can make two attacks, he makes one that can possibly grant two hits. It's an attack that can generate an additional attack, it's not the same thing of saying that the model makes two attacks. The possible additional hit roll is considered an attack but nowhere it's said that it's an attack made by the model, it's simply added to the pool and resolved as a separate attack; that FAQ was released to clarify how to resolve the following steps once those hits rolls are generated.
RAI it's clear to me that both DDD and goffs trait are meant to enhance already rolled attacks, not to let models do something at a second time. The difference between "you get an additional hit roll" and "you score two hits" is very small: there's basically one addtional roll to make and that's probably because GW thought that a flat guaranteed two hits in those cases could have been too powerful, and that's it. But the concept is the exact very same, they're rules that are meant to glorify lucky shots.
Beardedragon wrote: Well thats how i interpret it. That the Goff rule says immediately, and thus you gain an extra hit roll immediately, before you die.
Otherwise, why even bother writing immediately? Why not just write: on a hit roll of 6, gain an extra hit roll. Why write immediately, if you dont get it immediately?
"why even bother writing immediately?" Because there are some things that happen on the wound roll and later, the Goffs rule would come before that. That is why they wrote immediately. You would get it immediately, before anything else that goes after it.
However, before you even get to immediately, If the attack hit, at that specific instant you do two things:
1) The target suffers D3 mortal wounds. 2) The bearer is slain.
If he weren't slain, then the Goffs rule would kick in.
Blackie wrote: And the goffs trait doesn't say that the bearer can make an additional attack, it says that the player has to roll an additional hit roll, which a FAQ says it must be considered as an attack.
The extra hit roll is another attack sequence. Therefore it is another attack.
The rules equate a hit roll with an attack.
Blackie wrote: RAW I don't see how the tankhammer dude can make two attacks, he makes one that can possibly grant two hits.
But the Tankhammer does not make one attack that can possibly grant two hits, it would have to be worded like the Tesla Carbine for that to happen, but it does not, so what you said here is 100% false.
Blackie wrote: The difference between "you get an additional hit roll" and "you score two hits" is very small
Except it isn't small, there is a huge difference between "you score two hits" (Which give you an automatic second hit) and "you get an additional hit roll" (which means you get another attack (and not an automatic hit at all)).
when an additional hit roll is made from a goff 6, and its treated as a seperate attack, its only for rules and purposes i believe.
I dont think extra hit rolls are meant to be considered anything but extra hit rolls. I think people are reading too much in to the rules and over complicate it. What other word can you use for hit rolls other than attack? they ARE attacks because starting to add other terminologies like adding another "assault" and such would complicate things even further. but i dont think they are attacks because what else can you call them, they are still just additional hit rolls.
the Goff rule states you get an extra hit roll immediately, dying is irrelevant. As long as a unit can make several hit rolls with one attack (smash profile, gorkanauts), then Goff units, on a 6, simply make 2 hit rolls with 1 attack. Smash profile gives 3 hit rolls per one attack, a Goff 6 would then give you two hit rolls for one attack.
Similar how to Dakka dakka grants 2 hit rolls from one attack.
I trust that GW clearly wanted all CC hit rolls made to grant an additional hit roll on a 6 for Goffs as it says immediately and hit roll. If they wanted goffs to be granted another attack with the same weapon, they would write exactly that, an attack with the same weapon. But they didnt, they wrote Hit roll.
To me, it seems like this was the clear choice they wanted to go with and people just want to over complicate things.
I also decided to look through some older posts here and there and people all seemingly claim that Goffs do get an extra hit roll. I know that different random people on the internet who has asked the same question arent any proof, but at least im not the only one thinking this way.
Beardedragon wrote: when an additional hit roll is made from a goff 6, and its treated as a seperate attack, its only for rules and purposes i believe.
That is not what the rules say though, unless there is a rules citation for what you claim.
Beardedragon wrote: the Goff rule states you get an extra hit roll immediately, dying is irrelevant.
It really is not irrelevant. If you dont have a Dataslate to reference, then the extra hit roll is meaningless since you don't have a BS for a dead model.
Beardedragon wrote: when an additional hit roll is made from a goff 6, and its treated as a seperate attack, its only for rules and purposes i believe.
That is not what the rules say though, unless there is a rules citation for what you claim.
regardless. If GW wanted the Goffs to make an additional attack with the same weapon they would have written that.
But they didnt. They wrote that you get an additional hit roll. If they did write additional attack, Gorks would get 3 hit rolls per Roll of 6 in the CC phase with goffs, but thats not what they wanted and thats not what happens, because you only get 1 additional hit roll per 6 as goff, even though you say that "hit roll" is an "attack". its called an attack because what else can you call it?
so when people start throwing 5 books around 300 pages long to find one phrase that can be used to dismiss this rule i think its overcomplicating things.
Goffs get an additional hit roll with the same weapon, not an additional attack with the same weapon.
Some profiles gives several hit rolls for each attack, in case of smash profile for gorks, you get 3 hit rolls per one attack:
If thats possible, then each additional roll of 6 for a dakka dakka or Goffs, makes one attack grant two hit rolls.
Beardedragon wrote: Goffs get an additional hit roll with the same weapon, not an additional attack with the same weapon.
By the rules posted, an additional hit roll is equivalent to an additional attack.
By the RAW they are the same thing.
then Gorkanauts get 3 additional hit rolls per 1 roll of a 6 for a Goff gorkanaut in CC if they use the smash profile, as i see it.
if each additional hit roll, that is a goff 6, is the equivilent of an attack. Clearly, thats not what GW meant when they said Goff 6s grants an additional hit roll.
Attacks and generated extra hits are not the same thing. Extra hit rolls are treated as attacks, it's a difference. The mork/gorkanaut melee is a perfect example of that: the datasheet says make three hit rolls for each attack, but the goffs trait grant a single additional hit roll on a 6, not an additional attack that is resolved by making three hit rolls. Goffs trait doesn't generate extra attacks, it generates extra hit rolls that are treated as separate attacks against the same target.
FAQ about extra hit rolls generated by goffs trait for a naut are pretty clear about that.
English is not my native tongue but to me is 100% clear that when GW says that extra hits are treated as separate attacks they're saying that those hits are NOT the same thing as attacks. Proof is the naut example: they clearly say that 6s grant extra hit rolls not extra sets of 3 hit rolls (which are the model's attacks).
Blackie wrote: Attacks and generated extra hits are not the same thing. Extra hit rolls are treated as attacks, it's a difference. The mork/gorkanaut melee is a perfect example of that: the datasheet says make three hit rolls for each attack, but the goffs trait grant a single additional hit roll on a 6, not an additional attack that is resolved by making three hit rolls. Goffs trait doesn't generate extra attacks, it generates extra hit rolls that are treated as separate attacks against the same target.
FAQ about extra hit rolls generated by goffs trait for a naut are pretty clear about that.
English is not my native tongue but to me is 100% clear that when GW says that extra hits are treated as separate attacks they're saying that those hits are NOT the same thing as attacks. Proof is the naut example: they clearly say that 6s grant extra hit rolls not extra sets of 3 hit rolls (which are the model's attacks).
exactly and thats my point. It also clearly states that goffs gives extra hit rolls, not extra attacks.
If goff was meant to give extra attacks, the ability would say this.
Goffs dont get 3 extra hit rolls, and the tankhammer, based on that goff ability, should get an extra hit roll
Beardedragon wrote: Goffs get an additional hit roll with the same weapon, not an additional attack with the same weapon.
By the rules posted, an additional hit roll is equivalent to an additional attack.
By the RAW they are the same thing.
No, it isn't to quote for the Xtheen time:
Add the following:
Attacks That Make Multiple Hit Rolls
Some rules, typically weapon abilities, tell you to roll more than one hit roll for each attack made , e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, make 2 hit rolls instead of 1’. In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’. Note that these additional attacks do not themselves result in more hit rolls being made.
Treated means you follow the rules of an attack, but it is not a separate attack.
Beardedragon wrote: what? it doesnt say the model is immediately slain, it just says its slain. where as you do immediately get the extra hit roll. Id say the Goff rule takes priority here.
One attack can be two hit rolls.
Yes it does, though it does not specifically use the word immediately.
By virtue of it saying "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain." that means immediately.
Ah "it says immediately, but it doesn't specifically use the word immediately." That means it doesn't say immediately. "Immediately" printed on the page overrides an assumed "immediately" that isn't actually printed on the page.
Beardedragon wrote: what? it doesnt say the model is immediately slain, it just says its slain. where as you do immediately get the extra hit roll. Id say the Goff rule takes priority here.
One attack can be two hit rolls.
Yes it does, though it does not specifically use the word immediately.
By virtue of it saying "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain." that means immediately.
Ah "it says immediately, but it doesn't specifically use the word immediately." That means it doesn't say immediately. "Immediately" printed on the page overrides an assumed "immediately" that isn't actually printed on the page.
Good thing it doesn't need to say Immediately because of the built in timing.
Good thing it doesn't need to say Immediately because of the built in timing.
Compared to an "immediately" when you with the Goff ability? "Immediately there indicates the 2nd hit is there before the model has been removed from the table.
doctortom wrote: Compared to an "immediately" when you with the Goff ability? "Immediately there indicates the 2nd hit is there before the model has been removed from the table.
Except it does not.
When you roll a hit, you have to do two things in that instant. The Tankhammer rules are an If/Then statement. If this happens/Then these two things happen at that moment in time.
So you roll to hit, and if it hits, 2 things happen at that moment in time: 1) The target suffers D3 mortal wounds. 2) The bearer is slain.
doctortom wrote: Compared to an "immediately" when you with the Goff ability? "Immediately there indicates the 2nd hit is there before the model has been removed from the table.
Except it does not.
When you roll a hit, you have to do two things in that instant. The Tankhammer rules are an If/Then statement. If this happens/Then these two things happen at that moment in time.
So you roll to hit, and if it hits, 2 things happen at that moment in time:
1) The target suffers D3 mortal wounds.
2) The bearer is slain.
doctortom wrote: Compared to an "immediately" when you with the Goff ability? "Immediately there indicates the 2nd hit is there before the model has been removed from the table.
Except it does not.
When you roll a hit, you have to do two things in that instant. The Tankhammer rules are an If/Then statement. If this happens/Then these two things happen at that moment in time.
So you roll to hit, and if it hits, 2 things happen at that moment in time:
1) The target suffers D3 mortal wounds.
2) The bearer is slain.
Then immediately you get the Goffs rules.
That's not "immediately".
Except it is, It is as immediately as possible. Because of the wording of The Tankhammer rules, they automatically go before anything else.
doctortom wrote: The same way he spots a non-existent "immediately" in a sentence?
I never did this, I didn't spot "a non-existent 'immediately' in a sentence" I said "it does not specifically use the word immediately. That is opposite to what you have claimed.
P.18 PDF rulebook wrote:When a model makes an attack, make one hit roll for that attack by rolling one D6
Hit rolls and attacks are the same thing.
I’m mystified how you can quote a rule and misinterpret it at the same time.
I am not the one misinterpreting it.
Really, then please reconcile your interpretation that an attack and a hit roll are the same thing with:
1. HIT ROLL
When a model makes an attack, make one hit roll for that attack by rolling one D6. If the result of the hit roll is equal to or greater than the attacking model’s Ballistic Skill (BS) characteristic (if the attack
is being made with a ranged weapon) or its Weapon Skill (WS) characteristic (if the attack is being made with a melee weapon), then that attack scores one hit against the target unit. If not, the attack fails and the attack sequence ends.
And:
2. WOUND ROLL
Each time an attack scores a hit against a target unit, make a wound roll for that attack by rolling one D6 to see if that attack successfully wounds the target. The result required is determined by comparing the attacking weapon’s Strength (S) characteristic with the target’s Toughness (T) characteristic, as shown on the following table:
And
3. ALLOCATE ATTACK
If an attack successfully wounds the target unit, the player commanding the target unit allocates that attack to one model in the target unit (this can be to any model in the unit and does not have to be allocated to a model that is within range of, or visible to, the attacking model). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.
Notice how an attack neither starts nor ends with the 'hit roll'? The two are not the same thing. Therefore your argument that you cannot have multiple hit rolls for an attack if plainly wrong, as GW already told us in Attacks That Make Multiple Hit Rolls.
PDF BRB P. 18 Making attacks section wrote:Attacks are made using ranged or melee weapons. Attacks can be made one at a time, or, in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks
together. The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time:
1. HIT ROLL
When a model makes an attack, make one hit roll for that attack by rolling one D6...
PDF BRB P. 18 Making attacks section wrote:Attacks are made using ranged or melee weapons. Attacks can be made one at a time, or, in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks
together. The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time:
1. HIT ROLL
When a model makes an attack, make one hit roll for that attack by rolling one D6...
Nope. It starts by declaring the target of the attack.
When you select a unit to shoot with, you select targets and resolve attacks with any or all ranged weapons that models in that unit are equipped with (each ranged weapon can only be shot once per phase). The ranged weapons that models in a unit are equipped with are detailed on its datasheet.
MAKE CLOSE COMBAT ATTACKS
When a unit makes its close combat attacks, before resolving those attacks you must first determine which models can fight and how many attacks they will make, then you select the target unit(s) for all of the attacks those models will make and declare what melee weapons those attacks will be made with.
But that is being pedantic. The real point is Attack does not equal Hit Roll.
The first rule of the weapon is you can only make a single attack with this weapon when the bearer fights, if you make a second attack you have not followed that rule.
DeathReaper wrote: No, the attack sequence always begins with "1. HIT ROLL" This is proven, as it is the first step when making attacks.
Page 18 tells you everything to know about "MAKING ATTACKS" Heading on P. 18 PDF rules.
This is the section you go to when you make attacks. and the hit roll is the first step in the making attacks process.
If Attack does not equal Hit Roll, then you cant roll to wound anyway, so I guess it does not matter.
An attack is not a Hit Roll. As you just noted above, an attack is a 5-step sequence detailed in the Making Attacks section of the rules. The Hit Roll is only Step 1 of the sequence. A Hit Roll is no more an attack than Wound Roll, Allocate Attack, Saving Throw, or Inflict Damage are an attack.
DeathReaper wrote: The rules equate Hit Roll with attack though, as I have noted earlier.
Rules say they are treated as separate attacks, not that they are model's additional attacks. Have a look at the mork/gorkanaut again: for each attack you make 3 hit rolls and when you do it all those hit rolls are treated as separate attacks against the same targets. But the model has only made one attack, regardless of how those hit rolls are considered. So even if in practise you have three separate attacks against the same target, the model just made a single attack.
This is the reason why it's wrong to say that hit rolls equate attacks. Rule simply says that hit rolls must be resolved as separate attacks against the same target, as someone could argue that multiple hit rolls from weapons such as the naut's klaw are part of the same attack so failing one means failing all, while instead each hit roll needs to hit, wound and bypass saves to cause damage. That's just it, it's not like the model makes additional attacks (which it isn't allowed to make since it's either dead or limited to one attack with a specific weapon), to affirm the contrary is flat out wrong.
DeathReaper wrote: The rules equate Hit Roll with attack though, as I have noted earlier.
no.
Hit rolls are a part of a chain sequence called " Resolve attacks". It even has its own little title (1: Hit roll) out of the 5 steps " RESOLVE ATTACKS" has.
Hit rolls are part of attacks, but they ARE not the entire attack sequence.
I have no idea how you get the idea that a link of that 5 step chain, equates the entire chain on its own. Saying all hit rolls are attacks is as wrong as saying all wound rolls are attacks. They are a part, of an attack.
when a gorkanaut uses the smash profile, it doesnt make 18 attacks. It makes 6 attacks worth 18 hit rolls. They get TREATED as attacks for rules and purposes, but "treated as" doesnt mean it "becomes" actual attacks.
I'm sorry but people on the side of 2d3 MWs for 17 point have stated the WILL NEVER use this rule, because the unit is so bad.
I personally play Custodes, if you can load up 150 points into a Trukk and put them in front of my 300 point unit, and kill it in a single turn of combat, you do it. It would overnight change the META. Can I ask then, why has NO ONE else ever played them in this manner? Because literally no one in the top META thinks this is legal. There are several top ork players that never use them, but would in a heart beat if you told them the rules worked like this. But they don't, and yet here we sit, day dreaming about what ifs. for 6 pages.
No one plays them this way, and there is a very good reason why. Find me one top player who has done this at a major and had a judge ok it, and I'll give up on this thread.
Because they’re 1/5 models, they’re incredibly fragile, and they still need to hit. 2d3 mortals happen 1/9 times per Goff Tankhamma model that makes it into combat.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm sorry but people on the side of 2d3 MWs for 17 point have stated the WILL NEVER use this rule, because the unit is so bad.
I personally play Custodes, if you can load up 150 points into a Trukk and put them in front of my 300 point unit, and kill it in a single turn of combat, you do it. It would overnight change the META. Can I ask then, why has NO ONE else ever played them in this manner? Because literally no one in the top META thinks this is legal. There are several top ork players that never use them, but would in a heart beat if you told them the rules worked like this. But they don't, and yet here we sit, day dreaming about what ifs. for 6 pages.
No one plays them this way, and there is a very good reason why. Find me one top player who has done this at a major and had a judge ok it, and I'll give up on this thread.
no one has done it because tankhammers are retardedly bad, not because it would be illigal. No one loads up 15 tankbustas and throws them in to CC when only 3 of them can have CC weapons in the form of tankhammers. This wouldnt be half bad if there actually were other tankbusta related CC weapon, but there isnt. You are throwing 12 ranged tankbustas in to the meatgrinder, that cant do anything. You spend 84 or so points so that 12 ranged tankbustas could die in close combat, rather than keeping them at a distance and get value from them, and im not counting the battlewagon you would need, as a trukk can only carry 12 models, not the 15 we have here, nor the remaining 3 tankhammers that kills themselves. You would suicide your entire squad and a battlewagon, just so 3 models can do one hit each. With the battlewagon thats 240 points (260 if you get big shootas), if the battlewagon is COMPLETELY bare bone with no big shootas etc, for a unit that suicides itself and thats not counting the fact that this would never work on turn 1, as the units cant magically jump out after the transport has moved up the field. Your battlewagon would get destroyed by turn one as everyone would focus fire it. it might potentially survive with forktress but then you pay 240 (maybe 260) points + 1CP for this combo. But forktress or not, i wouldnt count on it surviving when the enemy knows there are 3 MW guys sitting inside of it that needs to reach CC.
Why would anyone do that?
The fact that you could "potentially" deal 2D3 MWs per model of the 3, and thats a large, "potentially" as you HAVE to be Goffs (which has no decent lists involving tankbustas currently), HAVE to roll a 6 on the hit roll, and then afterwards you still HAVE to actually hit on a 3+ with your extra hit roll, will not change that nobody would do this.
Sure if it was guaranteed 2D3 MW on all 3 tankhammers then sure i think people wouldnt mind sacrificing their remaining tankbustas to make this a priority. But its not guaranteed at all, its a massive gamble and you shouldnt expect getting more than D3 MW from each tankhammer model, statistically speaking. Nobody is going to do this combo, for the hopes of actually getting 6's on those 3 hits is low.
Its a terrible combo, there are too many factors that needs to allign perfectly for this to be an actual usable combo at a competitive game, and the die gods would have to be on your side.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm sorry but people on the side of 2d3 MWs for 17 point have stated the WILL NEVER use this rule, because the unit is so bad.
I personally play Custodes, if you can load up 150 points into a Trukk and put them in front of my 300 point unit, and kill it in a single turn of combat, you do it. It would overnight change the META. Can I ask then, why has NO ONE else ever played them in this manner? Because literally no one in the top META thinks this is legal. There are several top ork players that never use them, but would in a heart beat if you told them the rules worked like this. But they don't, and yet here we sit, day dreaming about what ifs. for 6 pages.
No one plays them this way, and there is a very good reason why. Find me one top player who has done this at a major and had a judge ok it, and I'll give up on this thread.
Bizarre appeals to authority/non-existent precedent are not helpful in a rules discussion. Whether a unit is popular or not has no bearing on what the rules actually say. Ironically, I suspect the reason there's no FAQ on this is because the tankhammer is bad and therefore rarely taken.
I think the big problem with this rules interaction is, yet again, GW overloading words like "attack" and not properly defining all their terms and using them consistently. That said, from what's been presented here it certainly seems to be the case that you can get a second attack with the Goff Kultur but it's certainly not an obvious interaction.
to be fair there still is one untouched problem left to talk about.
We've talked a lot about whether you should get two hit rolls or not, but we dont really talk so much about the fact, that the tankhammer itself is an ability.
Abilities dont trigger twice, so should the tankhammer be able to trigger twice? I guess arguments could be made that it says, on the goff rule, that you make an additional hit roll with the same weapon, and i guess that weapon is the tankhammer?
But i still dont know about that part fully. I would probably advocate for it being able to make two hit rolls.
The Tankhammer ability can trigger twice because the rule is "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain." Since each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack and there is nothing preventing an ability of a weapon from triggering each time it attacks in general (some are limited by their specific wording), you are golden.
As for nobody using Tankbustas, three Tankhammers attacking will average 4 Mortal Wounds (3 attacks * 2/3 Hits * 2 MW) with 3 11% chances of adding D3 more Mortal Wounds all for the low, low price of 255 points. Or you can purchase a Big Mech with Shock Attack Gun with Grot Oiler for 125 points with it's 8.3% chance of having d6 S11/12 AP -5 DmgD6 attacks that also do D3 Mortal Wounds per hit with DDD. I wonder why you see one in lists and not the other?
alextroy wrote: Since each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack
alextroy wrote: The real point is Attack does not equal Hit Roll.
Umm Houston, we have a problem...
What's the problem? Treating something as a thing doesn't make it that thing. In fact, it points out that it really isn't that thing.
The problem is your contradiction.
You said each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack, and also said Attack does not equal Hit Roll and that is counterintuitive.
Treated as = is.
what are you even saying?
treating a hit roll as an attack, doesnt make it an attack. You just treat it as such for the sake of rules, but it still is, exactly what it says, a hit roll.
If you treat kids like adults, it doesnt make them adults either.
treated as = treated as. stop reading in to things that arent there. An attack is a sequence of 5 steps from which "hit roll" is a part of. Being part of it, doesnt make it, it. A hit roll is part of an attack, but it isnt the attack itself. Allocating wounds, is not an attack, wound rolls, are not attacks either, so neither is a hit roll.
A nail is also part of a finger. does that mean nails are fingers?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: The Tankhammer ability can trigger twice because the rule is "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain." Since each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack and there is nothing preventing an ability of a weapon from triggering each time it attacks in general (some are limited by their specific wording), you are golden.
As for nobody using Tankbustas, three Tankhammers attacking will average 4 Mortal Wounds (3 attacks * 2/3 Hits * 2 MW) with 3 11% chances of adding D3 more Mortal Wounds all for the low, low price of 255 points. Or you can purchase a Big Mech with Shock Attack Gun with Grot Oiler for 125 points with it's 8.3% chance of having d6 S11/12 AP -5 DmgD6 attacks that also do D3 Mortal Wounds per hit with DDD. I wonder why you see one in lists and not the other?
And i see. The ability ties itself to the attack, and it could only trigger "once" per attack, but if the attack has two hit rolls, it would trigger both times? because, as we established, one attack can have several hit rolls. That does make sense.
DeathReaper wrote: I am am saying, as far as the rules are concerned, Treated as = is.
E.G. If somethng is treated as the movement phase it lets the unit move, advance, or fall back.
Can you think of a single other ability in the game that functions this way? I was thinking the Exploding 6s on MWs from a IF Marksman Bolt Carbine with Mortis Rounds? Didn't that get FAQ'd that states it can't get double procs off it's exploding 6s....
DeathReaper wrote: I am am saying, as far as the rules are concerned, Treated as = is.
E.G. If somethng is treated as the movement phase it lets the unit move, advance, or fall back.
Can you think of a single other ability in the game that functions this way? I was thinking the Exploding 6s on MWs from a IF Marksman Bolt Carbine with Mortis Rounds? Didn't that get FAQ'd that states it can't get double procs off it's exploding 6s....
There are a ton of them.
All abilities like:
Codex AM (Imperial Guard) HELLHOUNDS Dataslate wrote:Vehicle Squadron: The first time this unit is set up, all models in this unit must be placed within 6" of each other. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit for all rules purposes.
Basically any unit you buy on a single Dataslate that later are separate units. (Any Tau with Drones on their Dataslate etc...).
Codex Orks MEK GUNZ Dataslate wrote:Grot Krew: Each Mek Gun and its grot krew are treated as a single model for all rules purposes. The krew must remain within 1" of their Mek Gun and cannot be targeted or attacked separately. The range and visibility of all attacks made by a Mek Gun are measured from the Mek Gun, not the krew.
DeathReaper wrote: I am am saying, as far as the rules are concerned, Treated as = is.
E.G. If somethng is treated as the movement phase it lets the unit move, advance, or fall back.
And here is where you have gone wrong. "Treated as" tells you how to do something, but it doesn't change the nature of the thing. This is why when acting "as if the movement phase" you can move, advance, or fall back and yet you cannot use any stratagems that require it to be the Movement phase. Why? Because while you can act as if it is the Movement Phase, it isn't the Movement phase.
DeathReaper wrote: I am am saying, as far as the rules are concerned, Treated as = is.
E.G. If somethng is treated as the movement phase it lets the unit move, advance, or fall back.
And here is where you have gone wrong. "Treated as" tells you how to do something, but it doesn't change the nature of the thing. This is why when acting "as if the movement phase" you can move, advance, or fall back and yet you cannot use any stratagems that require it to be the Movement phase. Why? Because while you can act as if it is the Movement Phase, it isn't the Movement phase.
100% different scenario about strats though. However "Treated as" tells you how to do something, and does change the nature of the thing.
Treated as = is, the Vehicle Squadron rules confirm this.
Codex AM (Imperial Guard) HELLHOUNDS Dataslate wrote:Vehicle Squadron: The first time this unit is set up, all models in this unit must be placed within 6" of each other. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit for all rules purposes.
The Hellhounds are treated as a separate unit for all rules purposes. They are for all intents and purposes a separate unit.
As you have pointed out, treated as means different things in different circumstances. Treated as mean one thing when acting "as if another phase", a different thing when "as a separate unit", and something else when "as a separate attack". You should stop trying to conflate different things as the same.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm sorry but people on the side of 2d3 MWs for 17 point have stated the WILL NEVER use this rule, because the unit is so bad.
I personally play Custodes, if you can load up 150 points into a Trukk and put them in front of my 300 point unit, and kill it in a single turn of combat, you do it. It would overnight change the META. Can I ask then, why has NO ONE else ever played them in this manner? Because literally no one in the top META thinks this is legal. There are several top ork players that never use them, but would in a heart beat if you told them the rules worked like this. But they don't, and yet here we sit, day dreaming about what ifs. for 6 pages.
No one plays them this way, and there is a very good reason why. Find me one top player who has done this at a major and had a judge ok it, and I'll give up on this thread.
The chance of getting 2x 2D3 MWs for a couple of models (2 hammers in a 10 man squad for 170 points, not counting the transport) is extremely low. If you run the math 10 tankbustas with 2 hammers (assuming 6s grant extra hits) should kill 0-1 custodes, but then they'll be completely wiped out in response. This assuming that all those 10 models with T4 1W 6+ save manage to charge and fight without losing anyone before.
EVERYONE in the top meta thinks this is legal, they don't use that combo because it's absolute garbage. Like among the worst loadouts in the game. Yes, tankhammers are this bad, even if goffs ones could potentially deal a significant number of MWs.
No one, and I really mean no one, except maybe some youtube guys that must play strictly WYSIWYG with only official models (so no boyz with rokkits that count as tankbustas) would maybe equip their dudes with tankhammers. I actually never seen a single battle report on youtube where tankbustas had tankhammers. Never, since the metal kit was released, so at least 4 editions. Of course I also never seen a single tankhammer in a game I played or witnessed in person, and I'm referring to a hundred but probably more games where tankbustas were involved.
However 10 tankbustas can throw 10D3 S8 AP-2 damageD6 grenades (with exploding 6s and full re-rolls against vehicles) and wipe out a custodes unit. That's way more effective than charging with hammers, it doesn't require dropping rokkit launchas for hammers and doesn't require charging, they just need to be 6'' from the target and use 1CP. If the enemy models are 6+ that's 30 guaranteed shots + exploding 6s. That's also why you never see people using tankhammers. And mind that the grenade trick is already almost impossible to get against a valuable target, so imagine a charge.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm sorry but people on the side of 2d3 MWs for 17 point have stated the WILL NEVER use this rule, because the unit is so bad.
I personally play Custodes, if you can load up 150 points into a Trukk and put them in front of my 300 point unit, and kill it in a single turn of combat, you do it. It would overnight change the META. Can I ask then, why has NO ONE else ever played them in this manner? Because literally no one in the top META thinks this is legal. There are several top ork players that never use them, but would in a heart beat if you told them the rules worked like this. But they don't, and yet here we sit, day dreaming about what ifs. for 6 pages.
No one plays them this way, and there is a very good reason why. Find me one top player who has done this at a major and had a judge ok it, and I'll give up on this thread.
The chance of getting 2x 2D3 MWs for a couple of models (2 hammers in a 10 man squad for 170 points, not counting the transport) is extremely low. If you run the math 10 tankbustas with 2 hammers (assuming 6s grant extra hits) should kill 0-1 custodes, but then they'll be completely wiped out in response. This assuming that all those 10 models with T4 1W 6+ save manage to charge and fight without losing anyone before.
EVERYONE in the top meta thinks this is legal, they don't use that combo because it's absolute garbage. Like among the worst loadouts in the game. Yes, tankhammers are this bad, even if goffs ones could potentially deal a significant number of MWs.
No one, and I really mean no one, except maybe some youtube guys that must play strictly WYSIWYG with only official models (so no boyz with rokkits that count as tankbustas) would maybe equip their dudes with tankhammers. I actually never seen a single battle report on youtube where tankbustas had tankhammers. Never, since the metal kit was released, so at least 4 editions. Of course I also never seen a single tankhammer in a game I played or witnessed in person, and I'm referring to a hundred but probably more games where tankbustas were involved.
However 10 tankbustas can throw 10D3 S8 AP-2 damageD6 grenades (with exploding 6s and full re-rolls against vehicles) and wipe out a custodes unit. That's way more effective than charging with hammers, it doesn't require dropping rokkit launchas for hammers and doesn't require charging, they just need to be 6'' from the target and use 1CP. If the enemy models are 6+ that's 30 guaranteed shots + exploding 6s. That's also why you never see people using tankhammers. And mind that the grenade trick is already almost impossible to get against a valuable target, so imagine a charge.
I'm sorry, all I can read in your post is that you have ZERO proof that anyone plays it this way. Except you.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm sorry but people on the side of 2d3 MWs for 17 point have stated the WILL NEVER use this rule, because the unit is so bad.
I personally play Custodes, if you can load up 150 points into a Trukk and put them in front of my 300 point unit, and kill it in a single turn of combat, you do it. It would overnight change the META. Can I ask then, why has NO ONE else ever played them in this manner? Because literally no one in the top META thinks this is legal. There are several top ork players that never use them, but would in a heart beat if you told them the rules worked like this. But they don't, and yet here we sit, day dreaming about what ifs. for 6 pages.
No one plays them this way, and there is a very good reason why. Find me one top player who has done this at a major and had a judge ok it, and I'll give up on this thread.
The chance of getting 2x 2D3 MWs for a couple of models (2 hammers in a 10 man squad for 170 points, not counting the transport) is extremely low. If you run the math 10 tankbustas with 2 hammers (assuming 6s grant extra hits) should kill 0-1 custodes, but then they'll be completely wiped out in response. This assuming that all those 10 models with T4 1W 6+ save manage to charge and fight without losing anyone before.
EVERYONE in the top meta thinks this is legal, they don't use that combo because it's absolute garbage. Like among the worst loadouts in the game. Yes, tankhammers are this bad, even if goffs ones could potentially deal a significant number of MWs.
No one, and I really mean no one, except maybe some youtube guys that must play strictly WYSIWYG with only official models (so no boyz with rokkits that count as tankbustas) would maybe equip their dudes with tankhammers. I actually never seen a single battle report on youtube where tankbustas had tankhammers. Never, since the metal kit was released, so at least 4 editions. Of course I also never seen a single tankhammer in a game I played or witnessed in person, and I'm referring to a hundred but probably more games where tankbustas were involved.
However 10 tankbustas can throw 10D3 S8 AP-2 damageD6 grenades (with exploding 6s and full re-rolls against vehicles) and wipe out a custodes unit. That's way more effective than charging with hammers, it doesn't require dropping rokkit launchas for hammers and doesn't require charging, they just need to be 6'' from the target and use 1CP. If the enemy models are 6+ that's 30 guaranteed shots + exploding 6s. That's also why you never see people using tankhammers. And mind that the grenade trick is already almost impossible to get against a valuable target, so imagine a charge.
I'm sorry, all I can read in your post is that you have ZERO proof that anyone plays it this way. Except you.
Not that it matters. Bad combos aren't played in tournaments all the time. Woo? It's a poor attempt to appeal to authority.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm sorry but people on the side of 2d3 MWs for 17 point have stated the WILL NEVER use this rule, because the unit is so bad.
I personally play Custodes, if you can load up 150 points into a Trukk and put them in front of my 300 point unit, and kill it in a single turn of combat, you do it. It would overnight change the META. Can I ask then, why has NO ONE else ever played them in this manner? Because literally no one in the top META thinks this is legal. There are several top ork players that never use them, but would in a heart beat if you told them the rules worked like this. But they don't, and yet here we sit, day dreaming about what ifs. for 6 pages.
No one plays them this way, and there is a very good reason why. Find me one top player who has done this at a major and had a judge ok it, and I'll give up on this thread.
The chance of getting 2x 2D3 MWs for a couple of models (2 hammers in a 10 man squad for 170 points, not counting the transport) is extremely low. If you run the math 10 tankbustas with 2 hammers (assuming 6s grant extra hits) should kill 0-1 custodes, but then they'll be completely wiped out in response. This assuming that all those 10 models with T4 1W 6+ save manage to charge and fight without losing anyone before.
EVERYONE in the top meta thinks this is legal, they don't use that combo because it's absolute garbage. Like among the worst loadouts in the game. Yes, tankhammers are this bad, even if goffs ones could potentially deal a significant number of MWs.
No one, and I really mean no one, except maybe some youtube guys that must play strictly WYSIWYG with only official models (so no boyz with rokkits that count as tankbustas) would maybe equip their dudes with tankhammers. I actually never seen a single battle report on youtube where tankbustas had tankhammers. Never, since the metal kit was released, so at least 4 editions. Of course I also never seen a single tankhammer in a game I played or witnessed in person, and I'm referring to a hundred but probably more games where tankbustas were involved.
However 10 tankbustas can throw 10D3 S8 AP-2 damageD6 grenades (with exploding 6s and full re-rolls against vehicles) and wipe out a custodes unit. That's way more effective than charging with hammers, it doesn't require dropping rokkit launchas for hammers and doesn't require charging, they just need to be 6'' from the target and use 1CP. If the enemy models are 6+ that's 30 guaranteed shots + exploding 6s. That's also why you never see people using tankhammers. And mind that the grenade trick is already almost impossible to get against a valuable target, so imagine a charge.
I'm sorry, all I can read in your post is that you have ZERO proof that anyone plays it this way. Except you.
You also have zero proof that anyone plays it in your way. Except you .
Of course it's hard to link lists that make use of this combo, regardless of how it's played as no one uses tankhammer. Ever. And for a good reason.
But I've also provided a solid reason why even accepting exploding 6s on tankhammers it's a really bad combo to use.
I'm surprised this has gone on this long debating whether a goff tankhamma gets a second hit roll.
As far as I can tell, the rules are:
• you make one attack • you make 1 hit roll for the attack, roll a 6, and generate a second hit roll • if that second roll hits as well, you have made one attack which has hit twice • you then ask "did the attack hit". you look, see two hits, and say "yes, it did hit". • It therefore inflicts D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain.
In short - it's irrelevant! the attack "hits" whether one or two hit rolls succeed, and as such you skip to "inflict D3 wounds and the bearer is slain".
The only way I can see this being an issue is if something has an ability to negate hits, such that the initial 6 somehow actually misses, and that second hit roll is needed to determine if the ability activates. Otherwise, whether that second hit roll hits or not, the attack has hit because you rolled a 6.
some bloke wrote: I'm surprised this has gone on this long debating whether a goff tankhamma gets a second hit roll.
As far as I can tell, the rules are:
• you make one attack
• you make 1 hit roll for the attack, roll a 6, and generate a second hit roll
• if that second roll hits as well, you have made one attack which has hit twice
• you then ask "did the attack hit". you look, see two hits, and say "yes, it did hit".
• It therefore inflicts D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain.
In short - it's irrelevant! the attack "hits" whether one or two hit rolls succeed, and as such you skip to "inflict D3 wounds and the bearer is slain".
The only way I can see this being an issue is if something has an ability to negate hits, such that the initial 6 somehow actually misses, and that second hit roll is needed to determine if the ability activates. Otherwise, whether that second hit roll hits or not, the attack has hit because you rolled a 6.
Agreed. The rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Which is impossible as "each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack" and the Tankhammer can only make one attack.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If the first attack procs the ability, the second attack never happens.
Nothing in the ruleset says whether this is how it works or not. We have exactly 0 instruction on what to do when a model dies before an attack is resolved. In fact, most rules skirt around this by killing/damaging models after all of their attacks have been resolved (see, plasma).
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Which is impossible as "each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack" and the Tankhammer can only make one attack.
Until another rule comes along and not only allows, but requires you to make another “attack”. The game is full of such exceptions to rules.
But literally what is making the attack? People are stating as fact that the model is making a second attack, which is impossible if attack sequences exist.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: What do you make a second attack with? There is no model left with a profile with which to base an attack off of.
It's fairly clear that after the first attack sequence is fully resolved, the model is removed from play.
What's not clear is what to do with the second attack we need to resolve. A 6 was scored, we immediately made another attack roll, did d3 mortal wounds to the target, and removed the tankbusta from the game. Now we have a "loose" attack to resolve but the game rules don't tell us how to.
Alternatively, if we rolled a 6 and completely resolved the second attack (a valid interpretation due to ambiguity in rules), we have the first attack as the loose attack to resolve, since the second attack killed the model.
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Which is impossible as "each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack" and the Tankhammer can only make one attack.
Until another rule comes along and not only allows, but requires you to make another “attack”. The game is full of such exceptions to rules.
Yes, but that rule would have to have a specific exception to the can't, which the goffs rule does not have, so the Tankhammer rules trump the goffs rules.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: What do you make a second attack with? There is no model left with a profile with which to base an attack off of.
It's fairly clear that after the first attack sequence is fully resolved, the model is removed from play.
What's not clear is what to do with the second attack we need to resolve. A 6 was scored, we immediately made another attack roll, did d3 mortal wounds to the target, and removed the tankbusta from the game. Now we have a "loose" attack to resolve but the game rules don't tell us how to.
Alternatively, if we rolled a 6 and completely resolved the second attack (a valid interpretation due to ambiguity in rules), we have the first attack as the loose attack to resolve, since the second attack killed the model.
we dont have a "loose attack", if you were to use Bomb Squigs with dakka dakka they too would not die before getting off both their attacks. Roll a 6 = you get an additional hit roll. Death is irrelevant as it happens afterwards. It says i get another hit roll so im gonna take my hit roll. It also states i die after my attack, but its common knowledge that one attack can have two or more hit rolls, so its not out of the question.
Lets say you used a gorkanauts smash profile (the attack that gives 3 hit rolls per ONE attack), and making hit rolls of 1 made me take D3 MW, then lets say i then roll a 1 and a 2 and 3, and that one roll of 1 killed my Gorkanaut, then i would still get the remaining 2 hit rolls. This is because that ONE attack was worth 3 hit rolls. you dont die mid sequence of one attack.
Sure you can die between attacks but in a case where one attack was worth several hit rolls, you dont die midway through that one attack that happened to be worth two hit rolls. AKA Goff 6s and Dakka dakka.
You can die between attacks (im fairly sure of that anyway) but you cant die midway through ONE attack thats worth two or three hit rolls, because you are still resolving ONE attack, thats just worth three hit rolls.
BaconCatBug wrote: Agreed. The rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
This is actually wrong. As soon as hit that is scored the dice goes in the pool with all hits from different models using the same weapon and when it happens they are treated as separate attacks. At this point there's no difference between two attacks from the same model and two attacks each one from a different model. Both cases are treated as separate attacks and each one of them can deal their MWs.
some bloke wrote: I'm surprised this has gone on this long debating whether a goff tankhamma gets a second hit roll.
As far as I can tell, the rules are:
• you make one attack
• you make 1 hit roll for the attack, roll a 6, and generate a second hit roll
• if that second roll hits as well, you have made one attack which has hit twice
• you then ask "did the attack hit". you look, see two hits, and say "yes, it did hit".
• It therefore inflicts D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain.
In short - it's irrelevant! the attack "hits" whether one or two hit rolls succeed, and as such you skip to "inflict D3 wounds and the bearer is slain".
The only way I can see this being an issue is if something has an ability to negate hits, such that the initial 6 somehow actually misses, and that second hit roll is needed to determine if the ability activates. Otherwise, whether that second hit roll hits or not, the attack has hit because you rolled a 6.
Agreed. The rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
I agree.
I would allow an opponent to play according to her or his interpretation otherwise, but I wouldn’t play this way and I would never play that opponent again, if I could help it, because rules lawyering opportunists do what rules lawyering opportunists will do, which is ruin friendly games trying to get an advantage.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: What do you make a second attack with? There is no model left with a profile with which to base an attack off of.
It's fairly clear that after the first attack sequence is fully resolved, the model is removed from play.
What's not clear is what to do with the second attack we need to resolve. A 6 was scored, we immediately made another attack roll, did d3 mortal wounds to the target, and removed the tankbusta from the game. Now we have a "loose" attack to resolve but the game rules don't tell us how to.
Alternatively, if we rolled a 6 and completely resolved the second attack (a valid interpretation due to ambiguity in rules), we have the first attack as the loose attack to resolve, since the second attack killed the model.
we dont have a "loose attack", if you were to use Bomb Squigs with dakka dakka they too would not die before getting off both their attacks. Roll a 6 = you get an additional hit roll. Death is irrelevant as it happens afterwards. It says i get another hit roll so im gonna take my hit roll. It also states i die after my attack, but its common knowledge that one attack can have two or more hit rolls, so its not out of the question.
Lets say you used a gorkanauts smash profile (the attack that gives 3 hit rolls per ONE attack), and making hit rolls of 1 made me take D3 MW, then lets say i then roll a 1 and a 2 and 3, and that one roll of 1 killed my Gorkanaut, then i would still get the remaining 2 hit rolls. This is because that ONE attack was worth 3 hit rolls. you dont die mid sequence of one attack.
Sure you can die between attacks but in a case where one attack was worth several hit rolls, you dont die midway through that one attack that happened to be worth two hit rolls. AKA Goff 6s and Dakka dakka.
You can die between attacks (im fairly sure of that anyway) but you cant die midway through ONE attack thats worth two or three hit rolls, because you are still resolving ONE attack, thats just worth three hit rolls.
I am not sure there is anything in the rules to support the bolded parts of your post.
The closest thing I can find
Note that all the attacks you have declared are always resolved against the target unit even if, when you come to resolve an individual attack, no models in the target unit remain in range (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving other attacks made by the attacking model’s unit first).
Only tells us what to do it the target unit we are attacking loses enough models to fall out of range.
The only other situation I can think of where this even matters is if you take a 'split attack' like a Gorkanaut and fight a squad that either has some method of fighting back on death or deals mortal wounds on death (Noise marines or Mortifiers come to mind). You make 1 attack (I believe you're obligated to slowroll in situations like this), but that 1 attack has 3 hit rolls. let's say 2 hit, then you go on to resolve the first hit, which wounds and ultimately kills a model, which then causes mortal wounds enough to destroy the Gorkanaut. The rules give us no way to resolve that second hit. Without errata such as an additional rare rule we have to ask a yes/no version of the question (do we resolve the second 'loose' hit of the attack?) and roll. 1-3 is a no, 4-6 is a yes. According to GW's automated question response, at least, if that's a rules resource.
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Which is impossible as "each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack" and the Tankhammer can only make one attack.
Until another rule comes along and not only allows, but requires you to make another “attack”. The game is full of such exceptions to rules.
Yes, but that rule would have to have a specific exception to the can't, which the goffs rule does not have, so the Tankhammer rules trump the goffs rules.
Can't trumps can/must.
I'm going to need a rules citation on that. There are many circumstances where this isn't true. As for this one, when the model attacks, it can only make one attack with the weapon. As the extra Hit roll is not an attack, it is only treated as another attack, your can't doesn't apply.
Rihgu wrote:The only other situation I can think of where this even matters is if you take a 'split attack' like a Gorkanaut and fight a squad that either has some method of fighting back on death or deals mortal wounds on death (Noise marines or Mortifiers come to mind). You make 1 attack (I believe you're obligated to slowroll in situations like this), but that 1 attack has 3 hit rolls. let's say 2 hit, then you go on to resolve the first hit, which wounds and ultimately kills a model, which then causes mortal wounds enough to destroy the Gorkanaut. The rules give us no way to resolve that second hit. Without errata such as an additional rare rule we have to ask a yes/no version of the question (do we resolve the second 'loose' hit of the attack?) and roll. 1-3 is a no, 4-6 is a yes. According to GW's automated question response, at least, if that's a rules resource.
I've never seen any rules or FAQ quote obligating slow rolling of attacks in any circumstance. If you have one, I'd love to see it.
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Which is impossible as "each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack" and the Tankhammer can only make one attack.
Until another rule comes along and not only allows, but requires you to make another “attack”. The game is full of such exceptions to rules.
Yes, but that rule would have to have a specific exception to the can't, which the goffs rule does not have, so the Tankhammer rules trump the goffs rules.
Can't trumps can/must.
I'm going to need a rules citation on that. There are many circumstances where this isn't true. As for this one, when the model attacks, it can only make one attack with the weapon. As the extra Hit roll is not an attack, it is only treated as another attack, your can't doesn't apply.
You literally said
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Two attacks with the Tankhammer is just not possible.
That is just how rulesets work, you wont find a quote for how a game system works.
I'll refer you to Dakka's "How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate" https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate where it says "The First Principle of an intelligent rules debate is simple: 'Break No Rule.' In every situation, we should strive to follow this principle."
So making two attacks with a Tankhammer would break a rule, so we should not do that.
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Which is impossible as "each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack" and the Tankhammer can only make one attack.
Until another rule comes along and not only allows, but requires you to make another “attack”. The game is full of such exceptions to rules.
Yes, but that rule would have to have a specific exception to the can't, which the goffs rule does not have, so the Tankhammer rules trump the goffs rules.
Can't trumps can/must.
I'm going to need a rules citation on that. There are many circumstances where this isn't true. As for this one, when the model attacks, it can only make one attack with the weapon. As the extra Hit roll is not an attack, it is only treated as another attack, your can't doesn't apply.
You literally said
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Two attacks with the Tankhammer is just not possible.
That is just how rulesets work, you wont find a quote for how a game system works.
I'll refer you to Dakka's "How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate" https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate where it says "The First Principle of an intelligent rules debate is simple: 'Break No Rule.' In every situation, we should strive to follow this principle."
So making two attacks with a Tankhammer would break a rule, so we should not do that.
And as I have said many times, you didn't make two attacks with the Tankhammer. You made two Hit Rolls off one attack that are treated as two attacks. It is possible to be treated as something and not be something at the same time. Since you never 'broke' the one attack rule when you make a second 'hit roll' for your one attack it is completely legal.
alextroy wrote: And as I have said many times, you didn't make two attacks with the Tankhammer. You made two Hit Rolls off one attack that are treated as two attacks. It is possible to be treated as something and not be something at the same time. Since you never 'broke' the one attack rule when you make a second 'hit roll' for your one attack it is completely legal.
Then in that case the rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
So either way you are only getting D3 mortal wounds.
alextroy wrote: And as I have said many times, you didn't make two attacks with the Tankhammer. You made two Hit Rolls off one attack that are treated as two attacks. It is possible to be treated as something and not be something at the same time. Since you never 'broke' the one attack rule when you make a second 'hit roll' for your one attack it is completely legal.
Then in that case the rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
So either way you are only getting D3 mortal wounds.
It states you get an additional hit roll immediately with the same weapon. In this case that weapon is a tankhammer, i paid for that weapon. Hitting twice with this weapon makes no sense if it doesnt do more damage.
So yes, hitting twice with the same weapon indicates that you get 2D3 MW. If you could trigger it twice but not the damage twice then the rule would be broken and do basically nothing and be usless.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: What do you make a second attack with? There is no model left with a profile with which to base an attack off of.
It's fairly clear that after the first attack sequence is fully resolved, the model is removed from play.
What's not clear is what to do with the second attack we need to resolve. A 6 was scored, we immediately made another attack roll, did d3 mortal wounds to the target, and removed the tankbusta from the game. Now we have a "loose" attack to resolve but the game rules don't tell us how to.
Alternatively, if we rolled a 6 and completely resolved the second attack (a valid interpretation due to ambiguity in rules), we have the first attack as the loose attack to resolve, since the second attack killed the model.
we dont have a "loose attack", if you were to use Bomb Squigs with dakka dakka they too would not die before getting off both their attacks. Roll a 6 = you get an additional hit roll. Death is irrelevant as it happens afterwards. It says i get another hit roll so im gonna take my hit roll. It also states i die after my attack, but its common knowledge that one attack can have two or more hit rolls, so its not out of the question.
Lets say you used a gorkanauts smash profile (the attack that gives 3 hit rolls per ONE attack), and making hit rolls of 1 made me take D3 MW, then lets say i then roll a 1 and a 2 and 3, and that one roll of 1 killed my Gorkanaut, then i would still get the remaining 2 hit rolls. This is because that ONE attack was worth 3 hit rolls. you dont die mid sequence of one attack.
Sure you can die between attacks but in a case where one attack was worth several hit rolls, you dont die midway through that one attack that happened to be worth two hit rolls. AKA Goff 6s and Dakka dakka.
You can die between attacks (im fairly sure of that anyway) but you cant die midway through ONE attack thats worth two or three hit rolls, because you are still resolving ONE attack, thats just worth three hit rolls.
I am not sure there is anything in the rules to support the bolded parts of your post. The closest thing I can find
Note that all the attacks you have declared are always resolved against the target unit even if, when you come to resolve an individual attack, no models in the target unit remain in range (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving other attacks made by the attacking model’s unit first).
Only tells us what to do it the target unit we are attacking loses enough models to fall out of range.
The only other situation I can think of where this even matters is if you take a 'split attack' like a Gorkanaut and fight a squad that either has some method of fighting back on death or deals mortal wounds on death (Noise marines or Mortifiers come to mind). You make 1 attack (I believe you're obligated to slowroll in situations like this), but that 1 attack has 3 hit rolls. let's say 2 hit, then you go on to resolve the first hit, which wounds and ultimately kills a model, which then causes mortal wounds enough to destroy the Gorkanaut. The rules give us no way to resolve that second hit. Without errata such as an additional rare rule we have to ask a yes/no version of the question (do we resolve the second 'loose' hit of the attack?) and roll. 1-3 is a no, 4-6 is a yes. According to GW's automated question response, at least, if that's a rules resource.
Because hit rolls are part of a 5 step attack chain sequence, they are not attacks on their own.
One attack is worth 3 hit rolls, each hit roll is NOT an attack on their own, they are only treated as attacks.
"If the attack hits the target suffers D3 mortal wounds."
It doesn't say if the weapon gets a hit or if the guy gets a hit. Only in that case multiple hits from the same guy would get the same result of a single hit. It says the attack, singular.
RAW each attack that hits can deal MW. Otherwise someone could argue that multiple dudes using thankhammers can only get a single hit in total, but I hope no one is too fool to consider that.
The only other situation I can think of where this even matters is if you take a 'split attack' like a Gorkanaut and fight a squad that either has some method of fighting back on death or deals mortal wounds on death (Noise marines or Mortifiers come to mind). You make 1 attack (I believe you're obligated to slowroll in situations like this), but that 1 attack has 3 hit rolls. let's say 2 hit, then you go on to resolve the first hit, which wounds and ultimately kills a model, which then causes mortal wounds enough to destroy the Gorkanaut. The rules give us no way to resolve that second hit. Without errata such as an additional rare rule we have to ask a yes/no version of the question (do we resolve the second 'loose' hit of the attack?) and roll. 1-3 is a no, 4-6 is a yes. According to GW's automated question response, at least, if that's a rules resource.
Lol, no. Those 3 hit rolls per attack must be resolved simultaneously. They're part of the same attack but treated (resolved) as separate attacks against the same target. Is it really so hard to understand? As a concept I mean.
In a real game a gorkanaut using the smash profile rolls 18 dice at the same time. Then you may resolve them one at a time, and you can always do that, but you still need to roll all of them, no matter what happens to the bearer (the naut) as a consquence for his attacks. Slowroll is pointless in this specific scenario, it typically has a meaning when enemy targets are multiwounds and/or have ways to negate/reduce damage or they have different stats among the same unit.
Blackie, technically, if you do slow rolling wouldnt you have to roll 3 hit rolls at a time? because you roll each attack seperately. But each attack was 3 hit rolls.
But that would still mean that your Goff tankhammer would get 2 hit rolls from 1 attack so you roll that one 6 and get an extra hit roll, you then roll the next hit roll, and only then would you move on to the wound roll phase. which doesnt exist as you smash the target with MW.
If you slow roll the gorks smash profile you would roll 3 hit rolls together, then make wound rolls for all 3, and saving throws for all 3.
In the same way that one unit having 3 attacks total with 1 hit roll per attack, then you roll one hit roll, do one wound roll, and do one save throw if we get that far., then move on to attack 2, and rinse and repeat till all 3 are done. But if one attack is worth 3 hit rolls, you would throw all 3 hit rolls down, do all 3 wound rolls, and do all 3 saving throws all at the same time, when one attacks equates to 3 hit rolls.
thats how i understand it.
The important thing is, however, that Dakka Dakkas and Goff 6s gives one extra hit roll in that sequence that needs to be resolved. its not resolved afterwards in their own attack sequence, because they are not attacks, only treated as such for rules purposes i believe.
Each attack follows a sequence
1. Make hit roll.
2. Make wound roll.
3. Make save roll.
4. inflict damage.
You resolve attacks one at a time.
Gorkanaut makes 1 attack, rolls 3 to hit rolls. Each is treated as a separate attack according to the rare rule quoted several times in this thread.
So we resolve steps 1-4 for each hit roll.
Re-reading the rules, I think I clarified my own question from up above. If the first of 3 hit rolls made by a Gorkanaut causes a Mortifier to do mortal wounds, destroying the Gorkanaut, we stop resolving any further attacks. There actually aren't any "in the pool" to use my own phrasing in this case as we're resolving each one as separate attacks. I had erroneously interpreted the rules to mean that the Gorkanaut literally makes 3 hit rolls at step 1 for each attack, when the rare rule clarifies that it is resolved as 3 distinct attacks.
Sadly, this doesn't seem to clear up the Tankbusta fiasco.
alextroy wrote: And as I have said many times, you didn't make two attacks with the Tankhammer. You made two Hit Rolls off one attack that are treated as two attacks. It is possible to be treated as something and not be something at the same time. Since you never 'broke' the one attack rule when you make a second 'hit roll' for your one attack it is completely legal.
Then in that case the rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
So either way you are only getting D3 mortal wounds.
All rules are written assuming one attack at a time. Therefore the rule stating if you hit do D3 Mortal Wounds applies to a single attack. Since an additional Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack, it independently hits and does D3 Mortal Wounds.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: No, because the model dies after the first attack. I can't understand how you keep missing that.
He hasn't, and he has addressed that. To quote his post from earlier in the page, "And as I have said many times, you didn't make two attacks with the Tankhammer. You made two Hit Rolls off one attack that are treated as two attacks. It is possible to be treated as something and not be something at the same time. Since you never 'broke' the one attack rule when you make a second 'hit roll' for your one attack it is completely legal."
I can't understand how you keep missing that point from him whenever you bring up the model dies after the first attack.
Because he has directly contradicted himself multiple times in this thread, constantly waffled, and taken multiple sides. It is impossible to pin him down on a single point because he shifts the goal posts.
If it can only make a single attack, then Goffs is not valid and the model does not get a 2d3 MW attack. He seems to be arguing that it does because he claims a hit roll is the same as an attack. Which, if true, invalidates his own argument because the model specifically states it only gets a single attack, and then dies. So either a hit roll is an attack, and the model is dead, of a hit reoll is not an attack, and therefor does not matter, the model is still dead. Which is it?
Because you make 1 attack with the hammer, and trigger an ability which allows you to make a second hit roll, which is treated as a separate attack (because that informs us how to resolve it, by following the steps for an attack) and yet is not actually a separate attack (hence the "treated as" rather than "is" language) so it does not violate the rule that a model can only make a single attack with that weapon.
alextroy wrote: And as I have said many times, you didn't make two attacks with the Tankhammer. You made two Hit Rolls off one attack that are treated as two attacks. It is possible to be treated as something and not be something at the same time. Since you never 'broke' the one attack rule when you make a second 'hit roll' for your one attack it is completely legal.
Then in that case the rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
So either way you are only getting D3 mortal wounds.
All rules are written assuming one attack at a time. Therefore the rule stating if you hit do D3 Mortal Wounds applies to a single attack. Since an additional Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack, it independently hits and does D3 Mortal Wounds.
But you were saying it was two hit rolls for one attack, is that not the case then?
If two hit rolls for one attack is not correct, and they are two different attacks, then the Tankhammer rules that say you can only make one attack trump the other rules and you can not make two attacks. Therefore you only do D3 MW's
If two hit rolls for one attack is correct, then if one of the two hit rolls for that attack hits, you have hit with that one attack. Therefore you only do D3 MW's
alextroy wrote: And as I have said many times, you didn't make two attacks with the Tankhammer. You made two Hit Rolls off one attack that are treated as two attacks. It is possible to be treated as something and not be something at the same time. Since you never 'broke' the one attack rule when you make a second 'hit roll' for your one attack it is completely legal.
Then in that case the rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
So either way you are only getting D3 mortal wounds.
All rules are written assuming one attack at a time. Therefore the rule stating if you hit do D3 Mortal Wounds applies to a single attack. Since an additional Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack, it independently hits and does D3 Mortal Wounds.
But you were saying it was two hit rolls for one attack, is that not the case then?
If two hit rolls for one attack is not correct, and they are two different attacks, then the Tankhammer rules that say you can only make one attack trump the other rules and you can not make two attacks. Therefore you only do D3 MW's
If two hit rolls for one attack is correct, then if one of the two hit rolls for that attack hits, you have hit with that one attack. Therefore you only do D3 MW's
Either way you only do D3 MW's.
Citatation please where it says the tankhammer gets only one attack (not one attack, only one attack), that prevents special abilities from working. It is treated as 2 separate attack, but it isn't two separate attacks. Since it's treated as two separate attacks it can do 2D3 MW's. Since it's an ability that triggered from the roll, and says "immediately" make a to hit roll, before the model is removed, then it can make the second to hit roll and have the potential to do the 2nd d3 mortal wounds.
doctortom wrote: Citatation please where it says the tankhammer gets only one attack (not one attack, only one attack), that prevents special abilities from working. It is treated as 2 separate attack, but it isn't two separate attacks. Since it's treated as two separate attacks it can do 2D3 MW's. Since it's an ability that triggered from the roll, and says "immediately" make a to hit roll, before the model is removed, then it can make the second to hit roll and have the potential to do the 2nd d3 mortal wounds.
I have, but sure here it is again:
Tankbustas Dataslate, Tankhammer entry wrote:Each time the bearer fights, it can only make a single attack with this weapon...
With the Tankhammer you can "only make a single attack with this weapon" Only a single attack. not two attacks.
So if the Goffs ability gives you two hit rolls for one attack, then if one of the two hit rolls for that attack hits, you have hit with that one attack. Therefore you only do D3 MW's
If the Goffs ability gives you two different attacks, then the Tankhammer rules that say you can only make one attack trump the other rules and you can not make two attacks. Therefore you only do D3 MW's
doctortom wrote: Citatation please where it says the tankhammer gets only one attack (not one attack, only one attack), that prevents special abilities from working. It is treated as 2 separate attack, but it isn't two separate attacks. Since it's treated as two separate attacks it can do 2D3 MW's. Since it's an ability that triggered from the roll, and says "immediately" make a to hit roll, before the model is removed, then it can make the second to hit roll and have the potential to do the 2nd d3 mortal wounds.
I have, but sure here it is again:
Tankbustas Dataslate, Tankhammer entry wrote:Each time the bearer fights, it can only make a single attack with this weapon...
With the Tankhammer you can "only make a single attack with this weapon" Only a single attack. not two attacks.
So if the Goffs ability gives you two hit rolls for one attack, then if one of the two hit rolls for that attack hits, you have hit with that one attack. Therefore you only do D3 MW's
If the Goffs ability gives you two different attacks, then the Tankhammer rules that say you can only make one attack trump the other rules and you can not make two attacks. Therefore you only do D3 MW's
Either way you only do D3 MW's.
Except that the second hit is treated as a second attack - not that it is a second attack, but is treated as one. If you go by the rules treating it as a second attack, then it could potentially do another d3 wounds.
doctortom wrote: Except that the second hit is treated as a second attack - not that it is a second attack, but is treated as one. If you go by the rules treating it as a second attack, then it could potentially do another d3 wounds.
doctortom wrote: Except that the second hit is treated as a second attack - not that it is a second attack, but is treated as one. If you go by the rules treating it as a second attack, then it could potentially do another d3 wounds.
No, you can not, because Treated as = is.
It's not.
If "treated as" is exactly the same as "is" then the While We Stand, We Fight objective wouldn't work on squadrons of Ork Buggies or Leman Russes. But it does.
It would also mean a Naut gets unlimited attacks with their sweeping mode, since each attack makes three hit rolls. If hit rolls being treated as attacks make them attacks, then each of the three hit rolls generates another three hit rolls, and so on and so forth.
doctortom wrote: Except that the second hit is treated as a second attack - not that it is a second attack, but is treated as one. If you go by the rules treating it as a second attack, then it could potentially do another d3 wounds.
No, you can not, because Treated as = is.
It's not.
If "treated as" is exactly the same as "is" then the While We Stand, We Fight objective wouldn't work on squadrons of Ork Buggies or Leman Russes. But it does.
It would also mean a Naut gets unlimited attacks with their sweeping mode, since each attack makes three hit rolls. If hit rolls being treated as attacks make them attacks, then each of the three hit rolls generates another three hit rolls, and so on and so forth.
Mostly correct, except:
ATTACKS THAT MAKE MULTIPLE HIT ROLLS
Some rules, typically weapon abilities, tell you to roll more than one hit roll for each attack made , e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, make 2 hit rolls instead of 1’. In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’. Note that these additional attacks do not themselves result in more hit rolls being made.
doctortom wrote: Except that the second hit is treated as a second attack - not that it is a second attack, but is treated as one. If you go by the rules treating it as a second attack, then it could potentially do another d3 wounds.
No, you can not, because Treated as = is.
It's not.
If "treated as" is exactly the same as "is" then the While We Stand, We Fight objective wouldn't work on squadrons of Ork Buggies or Leman Russes. But it does.
It would also mean a Naut gets unlimited attacks with their sweeping mode, since each attack makes three hit rolls. If hit rolls being treated as attacks make them attacks, then each of the three hit rolls generates another three hit rolls, and so on and so forth.
Mostly correct, except:
ATTACKS THAT MAKE MULTIPLE HIT ROLLS
Some rules, typically weapon abilities, tell you to roll more than one hit roll for each attack made , e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, make 2 hit rolls instead of 1’. In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’. Note that these additional attacks do not themselves result in more hit rolls being made.
Emphasis mine.
Fair.
Is that an errata, though? Or just an explanation?
The attacks that make multiple hit rolls still calls out the separate hit rolls as separate attacks.
"In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target"
The rule for tankhammer calls out you can only make a single attack, if you make a separate attack roll than the first one you have no longer made a single attack.
blaktoof wrote: The attacks that make multiple hit rolls still calls out the separate hit rolls as separate attacks.
"In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target"
The rule for tankhammer calls out you can only make a single attack, if you make a separate attack roll than the first one you have no longer made a single attack.
But it's not making multiple attacks. The verbiage in those rules is still indicating 1 attack makes X hit rolls, or X additional hit rolls, which are treated as attacks. One attack is made, but multiple are resolved. The tankhammer rule of not making multiple attacks is not broken.
Rihgu wrote: But it's not making multiple attacks. The verbiage in those rules is still indicating 1 attack makes X hit rolls, or X additional hit rolls, which are treated as attacks. One attack is made, but multiple are resolved. The tankhammer rule of not making multiple attacks is not broken.
And if it is only making one attack, and you two hit rolls for one attack, then if one of the two hit rolls for that attack hits, you have hit with that one attack. Therefore you only do D3 MW's.
And then (maybe?, since there are no rules for 'loose attacks') you go to resolve the second hit, which does a further d3 Mortal Wounds. Without ever making a second attack.
Rihgu wrote: And then (maybe?, since there are no rules for 'loose attacks') you go to resolve the second hit, which does a further d3 Mortal Wounds. Without ever making a second attack.
No, because the rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
Rihgu wrote: And then (maybe?, since there are no rules for 'loose attacks') you go to resolve the second hit, which does a further d3 Mortal Wounds. Without ever making a second attack.
No, because the rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
If it's treated as a separate attack, which the Rare Rules section indicates happens, then it does get a further d3 Mortal Wounds.
And to cut you off before you say it, DeathReaper, no, that doesn't mean a second attack was made. The tankhammer still made a single attack, even if two must be resolved.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Because he has directly contradicted himself multiple times in this thread, constantly waffled, and taken multiple sides. It is impossible to pin him down on a single point because he shifts the goal posts.
If it can only make a single attack, then Goffs is not valid and the model does not get a 2d3 MW attack. He seems to be arguing that it does because he claims a hit roll is the same as an attack. Which, if true, invalidates his own argument because the model specifically states it only gets a single attack, and then dies. So either a hit roll is an attack, and the model is dead, of a hit reoll is not an attack, and therefor does not matter, the model is still dead. Which is it?
My wording at times may have been less than precise, but my position has not changed since page 2 of this thread https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/796598.page#11069685. I've only argued against what I see as others faulty analysis (such as treated as is not the same as is).
Per the interaction of the rules, the Goff model can only assign one of his attacks to use the Tankhammer. If that attack hits with a unmodified 6, it immediately makes another 'Hit Roll' with the Tankhammer. That additional 'Hit Roll' is treated like a separate attack, but is in fact a second 'Hit Roll' of the one attack. Like any other multiple 'hit roll' attack, if there are multiple hits then each resolves the results of the Hit like separate attacks. In the case of the Tankhammer, a hit inflicts D3 Mortal Wounds and kills the bearer. This happens twice if both attacks hit, resulting in 2D3 Mortal Wounds.
While there is a case for the but he's dead after the first hit is resolved so no second D3 Mortal Wound argument, there is an equal case for the hit happened so the damage is done regardless of the model being dead argument. GW hasn't spoken on the issue, so we don't know which is the proper interpretation. If we are lucky, they will write the rule better in the next version of Codex Orks.
While there is a case for the but he's dead after the first hit is resolved so no second D3 Mortal Wound argument, there is an equal case for the hit happened so the damage is done regardless of the model being dead argument. GW hasn't spoken on the issue, so we don't know which is the proper interpretation. If we are lucky, they will write the rule better in the next version of Codex Orks.
Also, I don't know if anybody else in this thread has, but email 40kfaq@gwplc.com and they might publish an FAQ/errata/new rare rule prior to the next version of Codex: Orks.
Rihgu wrote: And then (maybe?, since there are no rules for 'loose attacks') you go to resolve the second hit, which does a further d3 Mortal Wounds. Without ever making a second attack.
No, because the rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
If it's treated as a separate attack, which the Rare Rules section indicates happens, then it does get a further d3 Mortal Wounds.
Which is impossible given the Tankhammers rules about only getting one attack.
The rules are:
• you make one attack
• you make 1 hit roll for the attack, roll a 6, and generate a second hit roll
• if that second roll hits as well, you have made one attack which has hit twice
• you then ask "did the attack hit". you look, see two hits, and say "yes, it did hit".
• It therefore inflicts D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain.
In short - it's irrelevant! the attack "hits" whether one or two hit rolls succeed, and as such you skip to "inflict D3 wounds and the bearer is slain".
The rules are:
• you make one attack
• you make 1 hit roll for the attack, roll a 6, and generate a second hit roll
• if that second roll hits as well, you have made one attack which has hit twice
• you treat each hit roll as a separate attack
• you then ask "did the first hit roll (treated as a separate attack) hit". "yes, it did hit".
• It therefore inflicts D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain.
• you then ask "did the second hit roll (treated as a separate attack) hit". "yes, it did hit".
• It therefore inflicts D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain.
The rules are:
• you make one attack
• you make 1 hit roll for the attack, roll a 6, and generate a second hit roll
• if that second roll hits as well, you have made one attack which has hit twice
• you treat each hit roll as a separate attack
• you then ask "did the first hit roll (treated as a separate attack) hit". "yes, it did hit".
• It therefore inflicts D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain.
• you then ask "did the second hit roll (treated as a separate attack) hit". "yes, it did hit".
• It therefore inflicts D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain.
Except that does not follow the actual rules.
If it is one attack, you can only do D3 MW's
If it is two attacks, the Tankhammer rules come into play and there can not be a second attack.
Take your pick, but either way you only do D3 MW's.
Except you are wrong. It is one attack with two Hit Rolls that are treated as separate attacks. It works exactly as I detailed. Or are you saying when a any attack has multiple hit rolls that it can only do damage once?
alextroy wrote: Except you are wrong. It is one attack with two Hit Rolls that are treated as separate attacks. It works exactly as I detailed.
No, I am not wrong. If it is one attack with two hit rolls, then you ask yourself did the attack hit. You need to show some proof as to why it does work like you have said. Lack of any proof/citations is what you have up until this point.
alextroy wrote: Or are you saying when a any attack has multiple hit rolls that it can only do damage once?
Regular damage is not what the Tankhammer does though, it has special rules, and a completely different situation.
Basically, is it one attack or two? It seems like you are saying that it is one attack with two hit rolls.
If it is one attack with two hit rolls, and one of those rolls hit, then the attack (because you said we only have one attack) hits and does D3 MW's.
While there is a case for the but he's dead after the first hit is resolved so no second D3 Mortal Wound argument, there is an equal case for the hit happened so the damage is done regardless of the model being dead argument. GW hasn't spoken on the issue, so we don't know which is the proper interpretation. If we are lucky, they will write the rule better in the next version of Codex Orks.
Also, I don't know if anybody else in this thread has, but email 40kfaq@gwplc.com and they might publish an FAQ/errata/new rare rule prior to the next version of Codex: Orks.
way ahead of you (OP here).. i did so many pages ago.
Because while one side might say its clear they should have a secondary hit roll and all that, the other side says the direct opposite.
If anything is clear, then it is, that nothing is clear and needs to be MADE clear.
.
Is there something to be said for the fact that one of the basic rules has always been (and pardon me if I am mis-interpreting it) Specific trumps General?
Specific (Tank hammer ability) trumps General (Goffs ALL hit rolls of 6 generate and extra attack), or have I misread that?
alextroy wrote: Except you are wrong. It is one attack with two Hit Rolls that are treated as separate attacks. It works exactly as I detailed.
No, I am not wrong. If it is one attack with two hit rolls, then you ask yourself did the attack hit. You need to show some proof as to why it does work like you have said. Lack of any proof/citations is what you have up until this point.
alextroy wrote: Or are you saying when a any attack has multiple hit rolls that it can only do damage once?
Regular damage is not what the Tankhammer does though, it has special rules, and a completely different situation.
Basically, is it one attack or two? It seems like you are saying that it is one attack with two hit rolls.
If it is one attack with two hit rolls, and one of those rolls hit, then the attack (because you said we only have one attack) hits and does D3 MW's.
So, by your reading of the rules, when a Gorkanaut makes a Smash attack with its Klaw of Gork (Or possibly Mork) the sequence to making an attack is:
1. Roll 3 to hit rolls. All 3 are 5s and hit.
2. Roll 1 to wound roll. As 1 attack has hit with any of its 3 to hit rolls.
3. Roll 1 save for target unit.
4. Allocate damage from 1 wounding attack to the target.
Or, when a Goff Boy makes an attack...
1. Roll a to hit roll. The result is 6.
2. Immediately roll another to hit roll. The result is 5 and hits.
3. Roll 1 wound roll, because at least 1 of the 2 hit roll attacks was successful.
4. Roll 1 save for target unit.
4. Allocate damage from 1 wounding attack to the target.
alextroy wrote: Except you are wrong. It is one attack with two Hit Rolls that are treated as separate attacks. It works exactly as I detailed.
No, I am not wrong. If it is one attack with two hit rolls, then you ask yourself did the attack hit. You need to show some proof as to why it does work like you have said. Lack of any proof/citations is what you have up until this point.
alextroy wrote: Or are you saying when a any attack has multiple hit rolls that it can only do damage once?
Regular damage is not what the Tankhammer does though, it has special rules, and a completely different situation.
Basically, is it one attack or two? It seems like you are saying that it is one attack with two hit rolls.
If it is one attack with two hit rolls, and one of those rolls hit, then the attack (because you said we only have one attack) hits and does D3 MW's.
So, by your reading of the rules, when a Gorkanaut makes a Smash attack with its Klaw of Gork (Or possibly Mork) the sequence to making an attack is:
1. Roll 3 to hit rolls. All 3 are 5s and hit.
2. Roll 1 to wound roll. As 1 attack has hit with any of its 3 to hit rolls.
3. Roll 1 save for target unit.
4. Allocate damage from 1 wounding attack to the target.
Or, when a Goff Boy makes an attack...
1. Roll a to hit roll. The result is 6.
2. Immediately roll another to hit roll. The result is 5 and hits.
3. Roll 1 wound roll, because at least 1 of the 2 hit roll attacks was successful.
4. Roll 1 save for target unit.
4. Allocate damage from 1 wounding attack to the target.
Is this correct? And if it is not, why is it not?
That's poisoning the well I think? Stating the Premise of the argument as fact without establishment, and forcing the other side to adhere to that strict definition.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Since there's no exceptions to the rules in these cases, if one interprets them one way then it applies consistently across all cases where it would be applied. Since people in this thread consistently have not understood the difference between "making an attack" and "treating as an attack" it seems like a demonstrative model is important (maybe removing tankbustas from the conversation will make it more clear).
Basically, is it one attack or two? It seems like you are saying that it is one attack with two hit rolls.
I had missed this part before. To once again clarify the point: It's one attack made by the Tankbusta. Note once again that to Tankhammer rule prohibits a model from making more than one attack. And then it's an additional to hit roll that is treated as an attack, which informs us how to resolve it (following the attack sequence).
DeathReaper wrote: Basically, is it one attack or two? It seems like you are saying that it is one attack with two hit rolls..
It is effectively both. It is one attack made by the model that is resolved as two attacks because each of the two hit rolls of the one attack are treated as separate attacks. I know this seems to be a strange concept to you, but the rules are very clear on this point until you get hung up on the Tankhammer Abilities.
DeathReaper wrote: Basically, is it one attack or two? It seems like you are saying that it is one attack with two hit rolls..
It is effectively both. It is one attack made by the model that is resolved as two attacks because each of the two hit rolls of the one attack are treated as separate attacks. I know this seems to be a strange concept to you, but the rules are very clear on this point until you get hung up on the Tankhammer Abilities.
And you can only resolve one attack with the Tankhammer, because that is what the Tankhammer rules say.
If you make an attack you need to resolve that attack, so making an attack = resolving an attack. Edit: I forgot the citation here it is. (Quote from the glossary, Resolving an Attack)
So, by your reading of the rules, when a Gorkanaut makes a Smash attack with its Klaw of Gork (Or possibly Mork) the sequence to making an attack is: 1. Roll 3 to hit rolls. All 3 are 5s and hit. 2. Roll 1 to wound roll. As 1 attack has hit with any of its 3 to hit rolls. 3. Roll 1 save for target unit. 4. Allocate damage from 1 wounding attack to the target.
Or, when a Goff Boy makes an attack... 1. Roll a to hit roll. The result is 6. 2. Immediately roll another to hit roll. The result is 5 and hits. 3. Roll 1 wound roll, because at least 1 of the 2 hit roll attacks was successful. 4. Roll 1 save for target unit. 4. Allocate damage from 1 wounding attack to the target.
Is this correct? And if it is not, why is it not?
No. One attack with multiple hit rolls are different attacks, and are resolved as such. (This is why the Tankhammer stops the second attack from going through).
When a Gorkanaut makes a Smash attack with its Klaw of Gork (Or possibly Mork) the sequence to making an attack is: 1. Roll 1 to hit roll for one of the three attacks. It is a 5 and hits. 2. Roll 1 to wound roll. As this attack hit. 3. Roll 1 save for target unit. 4. Allocate damage from 1 wounding attack to the target. 5. Then repeat for the other 2 attacks that it gets to make from that one attack because of the Smash rules.
JNAProductions wrote: It says you can only MAKE one attack with the Tankhammer, not that you can only RESOLVE one attack with the weapon.
I'm unclear on exactly how you can resolve an attack you didn't make...
Yes, I get that the Goffs rule says you can make an additional hit roll, but the weapon rule says only one can be made. I think, at this point, arguing over the minutiae of semantics is getting everyone nowhere.
JNAProductions wrote: It says you can only MAKE one attack with the Tankhammer, not that you can only RESOLVE one attack with the weapon.
I'm unclear on exactly how you can resolve an attack you didn't make...
Yes, I get that the Goffs rule says you can make an additional hit roll, but the weapon rule says only one can be made. I think, at this point, arguing over the minutiae of semantics is getting everyone nowhere.
Because you're not allocating another attack to it, you're just getting another hit roll.
I do agree that it's ambiguous-I'd err on the side of "You can get 2d3 mortals" both because that seems to be the best reading, and it's not gonna break the game or anything.
the weapon does not have a profile, so you cannot get another "Attack with it" It simply grants a benefit if a hit is made with it. It would be literally incapable of wounding, because it has null damage, strength, and AP. It would just count as null. Not to mention the model holding is is dead per sequencing.
You can't, a lot of the posts on this have become rules lawyering statements which are ignoring that making multiple hit rolls is making multiple attacks and the tankhammer specifically allows the model to make a single attack per each time it fights.
Getting to make another hit roll is RAW making another attack from the rare rule people keep quoting and ignoring the sentence in it that calls out making more hit rolls are treated as separate attacks, which is more than a singular attack.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: New side tangent. The model does not die, it specifically states "Remove the bearer" does that mean from the game or from the table?
I think it means to hand carry it to home depot to find the board stretchers for when wood gets cut too short.
Not really relevant. The rules already allow you to make more attacks than initially allowed. Let's walk through it.
Shooting Phase wrote:NUMBER OF ATTACKS
When a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You make one hit roll for each attack being made (see Making Attacks, page 18).
The number of attacks that a model makes with a ranged weapon is equal to the number written on that weapon’s profile after its type. For example, a model shooting an ‘Assault 1’ weapon can make one attack with that weapon; a model firing a ‘Heavy 3’ weapon can make three attacks, and so on.
Fight Phase wrote:Number of Attacks
When a model fights, it will make a number of attacks. You make one hit roll for each attack being made (see Making Attacks, page 18).
The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks.
Note that both of these rules dictate the number of attacks a model may make.
Tankhammer wrote:Each time the bearer fights, it can only make a single attack with this weapon. If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain.
Chainsword wrote:When the bearer fights, it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon.
Spoiler:
Core Rules FAQ wrote:Add the following:
Attacks That Make Multiple Hit Rolls
Some rules, typically weapon abilities, tell you to roll more than one hit roll for each attack made , e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, make 2 hit rolls instead of 1’. In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’. Note that these additional attacks do not themselves result in more hit rolls being made.
Now note that all four of these rules change, in one way or another, the number of attacks a model may make based on the rules for both the Shooting and Fight phases. They all alter the rules, but none state they exclude the others from applying.
Tankhammer only allows 1 attack with it out of those allowed by your Attacks characteristic when you fight. No Muckin' About adds to what the Tankhammer allows, requiring you to make an additional Hit Roll on an unmodified Hit Roll of 6. There is no contradiction here. No breaking of rules. Just applying the rules as written. Tankhammer does not have a regardless of any other rules statement that prevents more Hit Rolls or attacks so you get to make them when a rule allows or requires them.
Or are we saying that since the rules for the Fight Phase say you get a number of attacks a model gets equal to its Attack Characteristic that No Muckin About doesn't work at all for any weapon? Or that making an additional attack with a Chainsword is illegal because that is more than the rules for the Fight Phase allow?
alextroy wrote: Tankhammer pushes you down from your Attack characteristic to 1 attack with that weapon when you fight.
Citation needed, because the Tankhammer rules say nothing about moving your "Attack characteristic to 1"
Let me clarify. Normally you attack your close combat weapon a number of attacks equal to your Attacks characteristic. Tankhammer only allows one of those attacks to be made with it. The rest must be made with a different close combat weapon. That is what I meant by pushes you down (since Tankbustas have A 2) to 1 with the Tankhammer.
And "Resolving an attack is the same as making an attack" so if you get 2 to hit rolls from a Tankhammer, you are breaking the rules.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: New side tangent. The model does not die, it specifically states "Remove the bearer" does that mean from the game or from the table?
Hmm what I have seen the Tankhammer says "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain."
to be fair, does the sentence: The bearer is removed" pop up in any codex atm at all?
The bearer is removed" sounds kind of annoying to deal with rules wise if its meant to be used on models that "die". like, as someone said, if it didnt die but was removed, do you still count morale? Do they count towards thin their ranks?
sorry, I was just google searching Tankbusta rulessheets. And the first datasheet I say said "removed". I would have gone to BS, but I know how much that source is "beloved" by this sub.
.
