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.

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:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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


Either way you only do D3 MW's.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

No, you can not, because Treated as = is.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.

Rihgu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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?

Not sure. I guess an errata since it's an additional "rare rule" that was added after the rules were released.

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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

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.

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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".

Let me correct that for you.

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.

 alextroy wrote:
Let me correct that for you.

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 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.

Rihgu wrote:

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?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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?

Rihgu wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 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.