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

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

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

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

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

No worries

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

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

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


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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2+2+1=5

Drum roll please?


Both sides are wrong!
Reason?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

So, yadda-yadda, how many attacks?

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

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

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

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

It's not a set modifier.

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

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

Quick question for the halves first group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happyjew wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Precisely.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm confused. Which side is the minority?

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