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.

If a dred. with Bloodtalons is in base contact with a squad as well as an independent charachter can the dred choose (when new attacks are generated) to target a different unit? Could the independant charachter be killed, but with the new attacks generated, could the dred. go after whats left of the squad?

You declare the target of attacks before rolling to hit.
Blender hands may then generate new attacks.
You declare the target of attacks before rolling to hit.
Blender hands may then generate new attacks.
Repeat as necessary.

Blood Talon rules don't specify that the attacks are made against the same unit, so it would appear that you can allocate as normal before rolling to hit with said extra attacks.

Nasty!

Mannahnin wrote:Nasty!

I object.

It's not nasty. It's nearly statistically equivalent to dividing the attacks up in the first place.

Calling it nasty is like calling Bloodfeeder nasty because you can get 12 bonus attacks and wipe a squad out on the day you win the lottery.

Of course, it doesn't say you MAY switch targets either. Usually, if you may have more than one target, the ability will spell it out. Like targetting more than one unit in the shooting phase...can you do it? No, unless the abililty (such as Power of the Machine Spirit or We Are Legion) specifically states you can. So since it doesn't say that the new attacks may be switched to another target, you can't.

Shenra; Page 41 of the BRB says you can, so the Blood talons may freely allocate.

solkan wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Nasty!

I object.

It's not nasty. It's nearly statistically equivalent to dividing the attacks up in the first place.

Calling it nasty is like calling Bloodfeeder nasty because you can get 12 bonus attacks and wipe a squad out on the day you win the lottery.

You object to adding some flava to a straight rules post? I'm sorry.

It's not about the math, as much as about the capacity to get a second round of allocation from a single unit after seeing how the first did, which is a pretty unique and powerful capability. I'm impressed with it, not upset about it.

Bloodfeeder isn't really a good comparison, as it's just terrible.

ok i can see that

not to self... stay away from blood talons!!!!

Also, if your opponent wants to argue about it, just tareget all attacks against the squad. it is a DCCW, so it ignores armour saves and unless its an Ork horde or gaunt swarm, you can probably make up enough attacks eventually to force him to take some on the IC, and if you chose the combat, im pretty sure they dont have much, if anything that can hurt you hidden in the unit!!

Galador, you know that no matter how many close combat attacks are allocated to a squad, none of them can ever roll over to an attached IC, right?

That's part of what makes the BC nasty. If you're in base contact with the character, you could allocate against the squad for cheap easy CR, then if you manage to kill a good number and rack up some bonus attacks, allocate some of those bonus attacks against the IC.

Ouch, that means we have been doing it wrong around here, as we have been either allocating against the IC specifically, or been letting the IC take some of the wounds for the squad if we want..... hmmm, don't know if thats better or worse lol

Remember though, if you kill all the other guys who were in combat, and you're not BTB with the surviving IC you can't attack him.

Yeah; ICs act like a separate unit in CC for purposes of allocating and resolving attacks. Which normally means that at each Initiative step, you have to decide which models are attacking exactly where, before rolling any dice. And attacks allocated against one unit can never affect a different unit.

As a follow up, does this mean that the IC and dread stay locked in combat? Or do they consolodate away from each other?

They would stay locked in combat if they are B2B, other than that, they would consolidate INTO combat as per the Assault rules at the end of combat seeing as they started in the same combat. pg 40 BRB

liam0404 wrote:As a follow up, does this mean that the IC and dread stay locked in combat? Or do they consolodate away from each other?[/quotes]

Well, if the IC makes his ld or all his fearless saves, you'd stay locked. The IC counts as part of that squad

Galador wrote:They would stay locked in combat if they are B2B, other than that, they would consolidate INTO combat as per the Assault rules at the end of combat seeing as they started in the same combat. pg 40 BRB

No, they do not "consolidate INTO combat." You only consolidate "at the end of combat, if a units opponents are all either destroyed or falling back." P.40 under consolidation.

The do have to make "Pile-in moves towards enemies that fought in that combat." P.41 under assault results.

Yeah, people often confuse/use interchangeably the terms "Consolidate" and "Pile in".

At any rate, as noted, page 41 tells you that in a multiple combat, if one of the units is eliminated but the assault as a whole is still ongoing, models which were fighting that unit will try to pile in and engage other enemy models which are part of that combat. If, after BOTH sides have Piled In up to their max 6", a given unit which WAS part of the combat still isn't in base contact with any enemy models, it is considered to break off and no longer be involved.

DeathReaper wrote:

Galador wrote:They would stay locked in combat if they are B2B, other than that, they would consolidate INTO combat as per the Assault rules at the end of combat seeing as they started in the same combat. pg 40 BRB

No, they do not "consolidate INTO combat." You only consolidate "at the end of combat, if a units opponents are all either destroyed or falling back." P.40 under consolidation.

The do have to make "Pile-in moves towards enemies that fought in that combat." P.41 under assault results.

Meant to say Pile-In, not consolidate, just didn't look up the page number till after I had posted, hence the edit, so should have edited consolidate also. Thanks for the correction DeathReaper.

Galador wrote:it is a DCCW, so it ignores armour saves and

Blood Talons aren't dreadnaught close combat weapons. They're lightning claws. S6, extra attack generating lightning claws, but still only lightning claws.

forkbanger wrote:

Galador wrote:it is a DCCW, so it ignores armour saves and

Blood Talons aren't dreadnaught close combat weapons. They're lightning claws. S6, extra attack generating lightning claws, but still only lightning claws.

gonna stop commenting on Blood Angels and go back and reread their codex again before I say anymore. Once more I stand corrected, but at least I was right about the ignore armour saves . Thanks once again forkbanger!

Mannahnin wrote:

solkan wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Nasty!

I object.

It's not nasty. It's nearly statistically equivalent to dividing the attacks up in the first place.

Calling it nasty is like calling Bloodfeeder nasty because you can get 12 bonus attacks and wipe a squad out on the day you win the lottery.

You object to adding some flava to a straight rules post? I'm sorry.

It's not about the math, as much as about the capacity to get a second round of allocation from a single unit after seeing how the first did, which is a pretty unique and powerful capability. I'm impressed with it, not upset about it.

Bloodfeeder isn't really a good comparison, as it's just terrible.

I probably left an Orkmoticon off of my original post, I should probably clarify. Granted, the orkmoticon I need probably would have been the 'Grumpy ork making overly dramatic, half-serious objection to tangential point' orkmoticon, which is probably why I couldn't find it. So I'll try putting it this way:

Math Hammer scoffs at the importance of choice while rolling dice. And since this whole thread was about whether there was choice in allocating the bonus attacks, I object because the choice isn't what makes the ability impressive.

Or, my objection is about the math. The fact that the attacks have a probability distribution based on the sum of an infinite geometric series is what makes the ability powerful and surprising. Allocating the bonus attacks does have a meaningful result, but that meaningful result of the choice is to prevent bonus attacks from being wasted if you're lucky enough to wipe out one unit while still having another available to attack.

Just because the slot machine, or the dice, let you choose where to put the next pull doesn't change how the probability works.

Now that I'm done with my tangent, I'm going to take my grumpy MathHammer and chase kids off of the snow on my lawn.

Hadn't thought about this question, all the more fun to put more blood talons out there

solkan wrote:Just because the slot machine, or the dice, let you choose where to put the next pull doesn't change how the probability works.

Well, of course. No one was saying otherwise, were they?

solkan wrote: Math Hammer scoffs at the importance of choice while rolling dice. And since this whole thread was about whether there was choice in allocating the bonus attacks, I object because the choice isn't what makes the ability impressive.

Or, my objection is about the math. The fact that the attacks have a probability distribution based on the sum of an infinite geometric series is what makes the ability powerful and surprising. Allocating the bonus attacks does have a meaningful result, but that meaningful result of the choice is to prevent bonus attacks from being wasted if you're lucky enough to wipe out one unit while still having another available to attack.

Well, the choice gives you more options than just switching targets once you've done enough wounds to completely kill the first unit. You could switch targets earlier; such as once you had racked up enough CR that you felt confident that you were going to win the combat, or win it by a large enough number to be confident of breaking the enemy, and you decided to devote some attacks to the secondary target for a better chance of a "bonus" kill. It's an ability which gives you more control/flexibility, in a situation where no other unit that I can think of has such control. Which is of unique and notable utility.

Hence the "Nasty!"

Just to add to the mention of a geometric series:

For the curious, if you want to calculate the expected (average) number of unsaved wounds from a round of Blood Talon attacks, the formula is pretty simple. First, calculate the probability of a hit, the probability of a wound, and the probability of failing an invul save. Multiply them all together. This is the probability of an unsaved wound. Then, subtract this value from 1. This is the probability of not getting an unsaved wound. Then, divide 1 by this number. This is the expected number of unsaved wounds a single attack will generate. Then, multiplty by the number of attacks and you have your answer.

So, as an example: Death Company Dreadnought with Talons against a squad of regular Marines: Hits on 3's, Wounds on 2's with a reroll, no invul save. The probability of an unsaved wound is: 2/3 * (1-1/6*1/6) = 2/3 * 35/36 = 2/3, for all practical purposes. So, one attack will generate 1/(1/3) = 3 wounds on average, for an average of 15 unsaved wounds on the charge. This will be the same for a squad of Guardsmen, anything with WS < 5, T < 5 and no invul save.

Example 2: Tervigon (Which I believe has WS 4 or less)
Hits on 3's, Wounds on 4's with a reroll, no invul save. P = 2/3 * (1 - 1/2*1/2) = 2/3 * 3/4 = 1/2, for an average of 10 wounds on the charge. So even a Furioso that gets charged is going to do better here with BTs instead of Blood Fists.

This does assume a limitless pool of models to wound, but the probabilities should fall off quickly enough to limit the inaccuracy from this source.

I assume the existance of Blood Talons is why Furioso Librarians have no options. With the ability to re-roll hits from Unleash Rage, they would average 36 wounds on the charge against MEQ.

MrEconomics, you have your math just slightly wrong there.

You're assuming that your geometric sequence is starting with your number of attacks, but it should be starting with your first number of unsaved wounds.
Edit: You actually calculated the average number of attacks (before hits or wounds).

First, find the average number of unsaved wounds [AUW] (everything you did before 1/(1-AUW). After finding that number you can plug it into the following equation to graph the line that describes the geometric sequence: (AUW*numAttacks(1-AUW^X))/(1-AUW)

That line will approach the number of average wounds you will do in close combat.

For example: VS. guardsmen, your total average wounds would be 10. Vs. a Tervigon it would be 5.

Edit: also, the result of this geometric sequence (the number the graph approaches) can be calculated with the following: (AUW*Attacks)/(1-AUW)

Sir, you are absolutely correct. Thank you for correcting me. To be clear, you can get the correct result by taking my result and multiplying by the probability of converting an attack into a wound.

Rephistorch wrote:MrEconomics, you have your math just slightly wrong there.

You're assuming that your geometric sequence is starting with your number of attacks, but it should be starting with your first number of unsaved wounds.
Edit: You actually calculated the average number of attacks (before hits or wounds).

First, find the average number of unsaved wounds [AUW] (everything you did before 1/(1-AUW). After finding that number you can plug it into the following equation to graph the line that describes the geometric sequence: (AUW*numAttacks(1-AUW^X))/(1-AUW)

That line will approach the number of average wounds you will do in close combat.

For example: VS. guardsmen, your total average wounds would be 10. Vs. a Tervigon it would be 5.

Edit: also, the result of this geometric sequence (the number the graph approaches) can be calculated with the following: (AUW*Attacks)/(1-AUW)