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.

Xzerios wrote:Drum roll please?


Both sides are wrong!
Reason?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SMH

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

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

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

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

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

Akaiyou wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-facepalm-

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

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

Basic < Advanced

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

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

SCvodimier wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

grendel083 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Am I wrong on that?

Akaiyou,

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

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

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

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

Akaiyou wrote:

grendel083 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Am I wrong on that?

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

racta wrote:Akaiyou,

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

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

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

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

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

Roll To Hit as normal, but [right here]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the real process at work here is this

1. Declare attack

2. Declare Smash

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

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

5. Add Strength 10 to everything

6. Profit

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

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

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

How can you disagree with this logic??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That makes no damn sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the real process at work here is this

1. Declare attack

2. Declare Smash

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

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

5. Add Strength 10 to everything

6. Profit

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

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

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

How can you disagree with this logic??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That makes no damn sense.

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

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

With my post above. The line "rolls to hit as normal, but halves it attacks" isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. Part of rolling to hit is calculating how many attacks you have, so do we halve the total number, or do we just have an additional 1/2 modifier?

Oh i see a nob with a PK now is S10 when he charges.
Good to know.

Exactly SCv, you don't know. Luckily there is a specific rule that tells us HOW to apply multiple modifiers. If we follow that rule, everything is simple!

I give up if people can't tell when to halve from reading 'roll to hit, but [halve]' then I just can't argue with that.

And these are the same people arguing that we should mulitply instead of divide when the word halve takes place.

I am happy with my conclusion in terms of how the process is at work here good luck to the rest of you until the FAQ is released.

Divide to Conquor works perfectly well with Multiple modifiers.

But...

The argument I'm seeing is weather Smash Attacks apply a standard attack modifier

Or...

It applies the Halving at a non-standard timing (ie after standard modifiers are applied)

Sound about right?

Don't act all high and mighty if you can't understand an argument.
I do agree we are wasting our time, because you are not even attempting to understand what we are saying.

Yes, grendel. And since it never tells us when to halve them in the Smash Attack rule, we must abide by Multiple Modifiers. It's clear cut.

That is it exactly. BTW that should be whether not weather. But w/e.

Happyjew wrote:That is it exactly. BTW that should be whether not weather. But w/e.

Quite right, must have weather on the brain as its raining hard here.

Happyjew wrote:cowmonaut, and you are so convinced you are right you cannot see reason either

No, I quite understand Death Reaper's argument. Akaiyou and him have made their points, albeit poorly. But aside from one unit being "broken" in some players' eyes, this issue with their argument is rooted in 7th grade math. Given the game is for ages 12 and up that shouldn't be a problem, but some how is.

The perceived majority (by my judging of the poll and posts) thinks it works as so:

[Base Attack Characteristic] / 2 + [Modifiers]

The perceived minority (again by my judging) thinks it works like this:

([Base Attack Characteristic] + [Modifiers]) / 2

The tangent about when modifiers are applied is equally silly. Warp Speed happens at the start of the Movement Phase, Crushing Claws happens at the beginning of the Fight Sub-Phase, and you get the +1 for Charging at the beginning of your Initiative Step (I:1 cause of the Crushing Claws). Then you declare if you are Smashing or not and then Roll To Hit. That's pretty cut and dry in the rules, I'm not sure why that became a sub-debate.

The way it seems most people read it (again by my judging, based on posts here in this thread, the poll, and regular opponents) it seems to be the first option. Arguments that it could be the second option I'll be more than happy to listen to, as soon as they stop talking nonsense about mathematics. They don't need to be making that kind of argument in order to be arguing their point. It does nothing but harm their side of the argument to do so, as their arguments on that matter are deeply flawed.

Heck, that could even be why there is so much opposition to the idea. They're busy arguing that division != multiplication (which just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of basic math) instead of pointing out things like "Smash doesn't specify if its the base unmodified characteristic or not" which would make more sense.

Well said.

cowmonaut wrote:Heck, that could even be why there is so much opposition to the idea. They're busy arguing that division != multiplication (which just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of basic math)

So why teach Division in school at all?

Why teach Subtraction when you can add and get the same results?

Math has dictated that Division and Multiplication are different, they even have different symbols to denote Division and Multiplication, those being / and * (On the keypad anyway, on paper they look different × vs ÷)

If the rules do not tell us to use multiplication, and instead tell us to Halve something as a default we divide, because that is how math is taught.

if you ask someone to write out the equation "Halve 10 which equals five" they will write it out like this 10/2 = 5 (Most if not all would write it this way)
People do not write 10 × 0.5 =5 because we were taught to do it the first way as the default. the results are the same but the equations are different.

cowmonaut wrote: instead of pointing out things like "Smash doesn't specify if its the base unmodified characteristic or not" which would make more sense.

I thought I had said that buy saying that the bonus Attacks are added into the stat since attacks and wounds are the only stats that can be raised above 10.

DeathReaper wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:Heck, that could even be why there is so much opposition to the idea. They're busy arguing that division != multiplication (which just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of basic math)

So why teach Division in school at all?

Why teach Subtraction when you can add and get the same results?

Math has dictated that Division and Multiplication are different, they even have different symbols to denote Division and Multiplication, those being / and * (On the keypad anyway, on paper they look different × vs ÷)

If the rules do not tell us to use multiplication, and instead tell us to Halve something as a default we divide, because that is how math is taught.

if you ask someone to write out the equation "Halve 10 which equals five" they will write it out like this 10/2 = 5 (Most if not all would write it this way)
People do not write 10 × 0.5 =5 because we were taught to do it the first way as the default. the results are the same but the equations are different.

cowmonaut wrote: instead of pointing out things like "Smash doesn't specify if its the base unmodified characteristic or not" which would make more sense.

I thought I had said that buy saying that the bonus Attacks are added into the stat since attacks and wounds are the only stats that can be raised above 10.

Divison and multiplication still aren't.

To answer your question, the reason they teach them is simple; for convenience.

Students might at first be confused to understand the concept of multiplication by fractions. For example, Sets and Numbers, a commonly used math book for teaching multiplcation and division, seeks to teach children the rules of multiplication through the idea of sets of things. It would be hard for the book to describe "adding a half set, which makes you end up with half the number of sets you start with" No, they teach you to "count" the number of sets and create division.

In fact, as stated previously, most of the operations that we have learned are purely short hand for addition. Addition, as well as its counterpart subtraction, are the only non-abstract math operation. If I have one penny and take another and put it next to the first one, I have added 1 penny to the pile, giving me a result of two pennies.

subtraction- This is the addition of negative numbers (which is also an abstract concept).
multiplication-this is the addition of the same number multiple times
division-this is the addition of a number a fractional amount of times
exponents, etc.

The reason we even have an order of operations in the first place is because when we start writing our short-hand operations, the numbers are no longer necessarily numbers, but symbols representing an addition problem that needs to be worked out before we do more addition.

parentheses- these are an abstract symbol we have created to bypass the order of operations
exponents-this is the most complex short-hand we have created (as far as simple operations go), therefore, it needs to be resolved first
multiplication/division-this is the next most complex, therefore is the next to be resolved
addition/subtraction-this is where actual math takes place and the problem can be entirely resolved.

Therefore, division and multiplication are symbolic operations for addition problems that we have been taught as kids in order for us to solve equations more conveniently. it, in no way, undermines the fact that in math, these operations are simply representations of an equation, not a set operation that has its own rules

P.S. doing this just made me realize that the order of operations is entirely from most complex to simplest

DeathReaper wrote:Math has dictated that Division and Multiplication are different, they even have different symbols to denote Division and Multiplication, those being / and * (On the keypad anyway, on paper they look different × vs ÷)

If the rules do not tell us to use multiplication, and instead tell us to Halve something as a default we divide, because that is how math is taught.

And again, you are just showing your ignorance here. Educate yourself. This is truly a very, very basic thing you seem to be misunderstanding. Division and Multiplication are operations that work in opposite directions, similar to addition and subtraction. Multiplication and Division are the same operation in different directions, just like addition and subtraction. This isn't something you can argue about. It just is.

Math is hard. It can be tough to grasp some of the abstract concepts, which is why things are taught separately.

DeathReaper wrote:if you ask someone to write out the equation "Halve 10 which equals five" they will write it out like this 10/2 = 5 (Most if not all would write it this way)
People do not write 10 × 0.5 =5 because we were taught to do it the first way as the default. the results are the same but the equations are different.

And already you are wrong. I generally times things by .5 when I'm halving them cause i can do it faster in my head that way. Math is a complex and abstract subject, but in 5th grade I was taught that I could do it both ways and it counted as the same thing. Apparently numerous others (again, judging by the poll and posts in this thread) were taught similarly.

cowmonaut wrote: instead of pointing out things like "Smash doesn't specify if its the base unmodified characteristic or not" which would make more sense.

I thought I had said that buy saying that the bonus Attacks are added into the stat since attacks and wounds are the only stats that can be raised above 10.

From the strictest part of the way the book is written people, we are told to half the attacks. Not to divide, not to multiply, but half the attacks.


Hell, if ya want lets go through this. Your warp speed is a blessing, done at the start of the movement phase. You now move your model about, Aiming to get him into CC, which with success, you do. Hurray! We move to the fight sub-phase, which now means you have to roll for Crushing Claws (per its errata). Excellent! Moving down the rules for CC, you declare your Smash Attacking with it. Awesome, I would expect nothing less. We start moving through the initiative steps. My poor necron warriors here are at I2, which means they go before your beatstick of awesome. No wounds go out cause my rolls are less then impressive. Initiative one, time for the beatsick to lay the law down. Heres where Im going to divert from my story;

Pulling up the rules for the fight sub-phase from pg 429 Bullet 3 which is where your modifiers are applied:

BRB Pg 429 wrote:

Starting at Initiative step 10, count down through the steps towards 1 until you reach an Initiative value that one or more participants not involved in a challenge have (see page 22).

-All models with this Initiative value now Pile In (see page 23).
-All engaged models (see page 23) with this Initiave now get to make a number of Attacks equal to their Attacks characteristic plus any bonus Attacks they are entitled to (see page 25).

Roll to Hit - Roll one dice

Hold up, wait one second. Let us go back to your Smash Attack rules...

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

Wait a second, when you roll to hit is when you apply your half? That comes after your bonus attacks are added? Preposterous, yet there it is people. The halfing attribute that is applied to your Smash Attacks is a set multiplier value. While it is not called one in the rule, when its applied to your Smash Attacks makes it one.

Xzerios wrote:From the strictest part of the way the book is written people, we are told to half the attacks. Not to divide, not to multiply, but half the attacks.

Please just avoid saying things like this. Halving something is equivalent to dividing/multiplying something. Statements like this are highlighting the wrong part of the rules, in effect creating a red herring.

Xzerios wrote:Moving down the rules for CC, you declare your Smash Attacking with it. Awesome, I would expect nothing less. We start moving through the initiative steps.

Hold up, is this right? Wouldn't you have to wait for your Initiative Step to declare how you are making your attacks? For example, with Logan Grimnar (I:5) wouldn't you declare you are making X Frost Blade and Y Power Fist attacks during Initiative Step 5?

And if that is the case, don't you get your bonus for charging before you can declare what types of attacks you are making?

Xzerios wrote:Let us go back to your Smash Attack rules...

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

Wait a second, when you roll to hit is when you apply your half? That comes after your bonus attacks are added? Preposterous, yet there it is people. The halfing attribute that is applied to your Smash Attacks is a set multiplier value. While it is not called one in the rule, when its applied to your Smash Attacks makes it one.

For one, you are contradicting your self (see the first line quoted in this post). You are saying halving is not multiplication which means it can't be a multiplier. See why I'm asking we just drop the math angle?

For two, the page number is wrong. Its not on Page 42. I think that page covers Unit Types. I don't see "set multiplier values" in the index or in the rules in the first part of the book through the Assault Phase. I'm probably just missing it and am going over it again.


Can anyone tell me when you apply modifiers? I know that Warp Speed is cast in the Movement Phase, and that Crushing Claws are rolled for at the Fight Sub-Phase. Do you add the modifiers when they are rolled? Or do you just determine the values of the modifiers and then apply them when appropriate (so at the beginning of the Initiative Step for the Tervigon in the Assault Phase).

To me this seems to be important. If its modified when you roll, then you do sum up everything then cut it in half. If its modified at the Initiative Step, then the rules for Multiple Modifiers applies. If that's the case then you would have to halve the base characteristic.

Let me know if I need to clarify what I'm saying.

Your told when to apply your modifications on page 429. The Smash special rule tells you when to half. Outlined above. :3