Switch Theme:

Grimaldus and Master Swordsman  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

You guys keep missing the forest for the trees. Let's review.
Spoiler:
Unmatched Zeal: If you roll a hit roll of 6+ in the Fight phase for a model in a friendly Black Templars unit that is within 6" of Chaplain Grimaldus, that model can immediately make another close combat attack using the same weapon. These bonus attacks do not themselves generate further bonus attacks.
Master Swordsman: Add 1 to your Warlord's Attacks characteristic. In addition, each time you roll an unmodified hit roll of 6 for an attack made by your Warlord in the Fight phase, that attack inflicts 2 hits instead of 1.
WARHAMMER 40,000 CODEX: SPACE MARINES Official Update Version 1.0 wrote:Q. If an ability or rule generates an additional hit, (e.g. the Imperial Siege Masters Chapter Tactic), do these additional hits gain any other benefits that would apply to an attack on a hit roll of 6 (e.g. an In ltrator’s marksman bolt carbine)?
A: Yes, the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value as the dice roll that generated them.

So let's take a simple example of one Attack with No Modifiers.
You roll the die and get a 6.
Master Swordsman (MS) means this unmodified roll of 6 inflicts 2 Hits instead of 1.
The CSM FAQ answer tells you to treat the additional hit generated by MS as having the same value as the dice roll that generated them.
Therefore we have hit rolls of 6 allowing you to roll two additional close combat attacks with the same weapon via Unmatched Zeal (UZ). Note that these two additional close combat attacks do not themselves generate further bonus attacks per UZ.
You roll the two additional attacks and get two 6s (Box Cars!)
Per MS, both of these attacks with unmodified roll of 6 inflicts 2 Hits instead of 1, yielding 4 additional hits.
None of these hits generate additional attacks because they came from an attack generated by UZ, attacks that cannot generate further bonus attacks.
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

In your scenario, you’re having *UZ* check state after *MS* resolves. That is an incorrect interpretation, as both rules check state at the moment the die comes to rest and a “6” is determined to be the result.

Which is why only one additional attack / to-hit roll is created. Both rules can and do resolve without interacting with each other.

To clarify, by checking state simultaneously, you create two orders of operation that net the same result.

First Order: check state - “6”
1: Resolve standard attack as 2 hits instead of 1.
2: Make a bonus attack, check state. “6” Resolve as 2 hits instead of one - do not make an additional attack roll.
-> Net Result: 4 HITs

Second Order: check state - “6”
1: Make a bonus attack, check state. “6” Resolve as 2 Hits instead of 1 - do not make an additional attack roll.
2: Resolve standard attack as 2 hits instead of 1.
-> Net result: 4 Hits.

Your process of checking states after an order is chosen can result in different Net Results, depending on order, because you are checking state at two different times. The process I present also prevents “going infinite” with doubling hits, because the state is only checked one time.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/09/23 22:21:37


 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 BaconCatBug wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
That's nonsense. You get two hits created by Master Swordsman. Unmatched Zeal and the FAQ answer allows each of those Hits to create a new attack that can not generate new attacks. So while those new attacks can generate two Hit via Master Swordsman, both are prevented from creating new attacks per Unmatched Zeal.

If the new Hit from Master Swordsman is somehow "tangental" to Unmatched Zeal, it can not generate additional attacks at all.

Ok, let's be extra clear here, ok?

I take one Apple, and I turn them into two Apples. The law says your new apples cannot generate more apples. I then use the two apples to generate 4 cider.

Do you understand now? Attacks are not the same as Hits.


Its fingers and thumbs. All thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs. All Hits are attacks but not all attacks are hits. Otherwise you have no direction to roll to wound on the hit, as that's part of the attack sequence.

So you have three options:

6 to hit bonus hits are an extra attack, and can't be generated from already bonus attacks.

6 to hit bonus hits are an extra hit from the original attack, and thus can't generate bonus attacks from already bonus attacks.

6 to hit bonus hits are not attacks, and you have no permission or instruction to roll to wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 greatbigtree wrote:
In your scenario, you’re having *UZ* check state after *MS* resolves. That is an incorrect interpretation, as both rules check state at the moment the die comes to rest and a “6” is determined to be the result.

Which is why only one additional attack / to-hit roll is created. Both rules can and do resolve without interacting with each other.

To clarify, by checking state simultaneously, you create two orders of operation that net the same result.

First Order: check state - “6”
1: Resolve standard attack as 2 hits instead of 1.
2: Make a bonus attack, check state. “6” Resolve as 2 hits instead of one - do not make an additional attack roll.
-> Net Result: 4 HITs

Second Order: check state - “6”
1: Make a bonus attack, check state. “6” Resolve as 2 Hits instead of 1 - do not make an additional attack roll.
2: Resolve standard attack as 2 hits instead of 1.
-> Net result: 4 Hits.

Your process of checking states after an order is chosen can result in different Net Results, depending on order, because you are checking state at two different times. The process I present also prevents “going infinite” with doubling hits, because the state is only checked one time.


You can't check simultaneously. Its impossible. You can check independently but you will always do one or the other first. This is when Sequencing comes into play.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/24 04:21:37


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

The FAQ directs you to treat the Hits generated by Master Swordsman as gaining the same benefits of the original roll. Therefore, the idea that you can't check the die roll for Unmatched Zeal against both Hits and apply the benefit for each "roll" is in direct opposition to GWs instructions.
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

There is no reason that the state needs to be checked more than once, but for the giggles...

Scenario 1:

Roll “6”: Check State - Resolve as 2 hits “6’s”. Both attacks, having not generated a Bonus Attack yet, may now roll said bonus attack*S* and both roll “6”. We resolve both bonus attacks as 2 hits each, none of which can generate another bonus attack.

Net 6 HITs - The limitation that bonus attacks can’t generate more bonus attacks does not prevent two bonus attacks. It only prevents those 2 bonus attacks from *themselves* generating additional attacks, NOT that you are limited to a single bonus attack on any given attack.


Scenario 2: Roll die, check state “6”. Resolve Bonus Attack, “6”. Generate 2 Hits as “6”. Bonus attack can’t generate additional attacks. Resolve original attack as 2 Hits, as “6”. Generate 2 Bonus attacks (created by original attack). Both bonus attacks roll “6”. Resolve both as 2 hits, bonus attacks do not generate additional attacks.

Net 6 Hits.


I was mistaken, sequencing the resolution of the separate rules results in the same potential 6 hits regardless of sequence. From a “pure logic” scenario, there’s no reason that you’d need to sequentially check state. Both rules are independent of each other and can resolve logically without referencing the effect of the other. But it’s a game with arbitrary rules, and if players are given directions to sequence the resolution of the two rules that’s the way it is.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

I think you resolved Scenario 2 incorrectly. You do not treat it as one Roll of 6 and then treat the 2 Hits instead of 1 as 2 additional hits of 6. Per the FAQ, you treat the additional Hit as a hit roll of 6, the original hit already having been resolved.
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

Retry Summary of scenario 2:

“6” a - Create and Resolve Bonus Attack A-1 “6” Resolve as 2 hits instead of one. [2 hits]
“6” b - Resolve initial roll of “6” as 2x hit roll of “6” being rolled. [2 hits] Resolve Bonus Attack B1 and B2, both “6”. [2 hits], [2 hits]

Total of 8 Hits?

In truth, attempting to apply “logic” within an illogical framework is an asinine endeavour in the first place. The observation that the result changes depending on which rule is sequenced first (and the associated multiple check states required to do so) should indicate that the process is flawed, but hey-ho it is a game and the designers aren’t logicians.

How I would play it would be my original, consistent cap of 4 hits. That would be my interpretation based on the logic of two separate rules being able to be resolved without referencing each other, thus should be resolved that way.
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 greatbigtree wrote:
Retry Summary of scenario 2:

“6” a - Create and Resolve Bonus Attack A-1 “6” Resolve as 2 hits instead of one. [2 hits]
“6” b - Resolve initial roll of “6” as 2x hit roll of “6” being rolled. [2 hits] Resolve Bonus Attack B1 and B2, both “6”. [2 hits], [2 hits]

Total of 8 Hits?

In truth, attempting to apply “logic” within an illogical framework is an asinine endeavour in the first place. The observation that the result changes depending on which rule is sequenced first (and the associated multiple check states required to do so) should indicate that the process is flawed, but hey-ho it is a game and the designers aren’t logicians.

How I would play it would be my original, consistent cap of 4 hits. That would be my interpretation based on the logic of two separate rules being able to be resolved without referencing each other, thus should be resolved that way.


Sequencing doesn't really matter, but it does matter if the one attack generates 2/additional hits (which apparently are different and a thing - 2 hits vs 1 Additional Hit, there's a FAQ) or if the one attack generates an additional attack on the successfully hit stage.

To avoid an even more complicated level, there's 1 bonus A ability and 1 +1Hit ability -
Bonus A can't generated more A.

IF +1Hit is an added attack at the hit stage, then Bonus A can't generate those. i.e.

6 to hit, adds an attack at the hit stage, (2hits, 2 attacks) and an addtional hit roll (Assuming it rolls a 6) (3 Hits, 2 Attacks) this cannot trigger either BonusA or +1Hit - Capped out at 3 Hits

If +1Hit is an added hit to the single attack
6 to hit, adds an extra hit (2 Hits one attack) it generates another attack, rolls a 6, (3 Hits 2 Attacks) with a +1Hit trigger for (4 Hits, 2 Attacks)

Either of these readings is theoretically valid RAW.

Both of them will open a can of worms later on.

For starters:

on step 2 of Resolving Attacks, each attack only generates one wound roll. "If the attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice..." So if it's 2 Hits, 1 Attack, you get one wound roll to apply to both hits.


In Step 3, you allocate the attack, not the hit. So you can/must allocate 1 attack with multiple hits to one model. Meaning your One Plasma attack with 2 hits that wounded can and must be assigned to the same Tactical Marine and he will take both hits that wound down with him if he fails either.

Bodyguards like Veteran Squads, Shield Drones, etc intercept the attack. So they can roll once to intercept multiple hits, this is limited however, in that at least the Marine bodyguards suffer mortal wounds for each wound intercepted from all attacks. Most rules are predicated on the assumption one attack = one hit, one hit = one attack and attack/hit/wound have been used somewhat interchangeably with a definite preference to the term attack.

RAW can be either, but HIWPI will result in a choice between less effective attacks with much higher chances of discarded excess damage, or capping at 3 hits instead of 4.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/27 06:18:47


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Hey, they fixed it. That was decently fast for GW.

Q: If an ability or rule generates an additional hit (e.g. the Siege Masters Chapter Tactic or Whirlwind of Rage), do these additional hits gain any other benefits that would apply to an attack on a hit roll of 6 (e.g. an Infiltrator’s marksman bolt carbine)? A: No. 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)

Designer’s Note: In the previous iteration of this FAQ , this question was ruled differently. Since that document was published, unintended combinations have come to light (such as some players interpreting that this allowed an infinite hit loop, effectively destroying any unit in the game as soon as a single 6 to hit is rolled – which was obviously never the intent of the rule), as well as that ruling being used as a precedent for similar abilities in other publications. As such, we have changed the answer to this question to ensure a more rewarding experience for all players.


https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/warhammer_40000_space_marines_en.pdf

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: