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.

So i've seen a lot of excitement and stuff on the net on Tyranid Tervigons regarding the 'awesomeness' of Tervigons and being able to Smash Attack wtih a ton of other bonuses to gain a ton of S10 attacks.

But after finally playing my first game of 6th and using a Tervigon looking over the rule I don't quite get how everyone is arriving at this conclusion that the Tervigon gets a crap load of S10 attacks.

1. Modifiers are applied by multipliers, then addition/substractions first. But the smash attack is a divider or are we calling it a 'negative multiplier'?

2. Smash allows you to halve your attack characteristic. For the tervigon this would mean getting 2 attacks at S10. As I read it, the +1 for assaulting is not to be included into the smash attack as it only accounts for the model's attack characteristic, even if you had crushing claws or warp speed psychic power they would not stack with the Smash attack as the Smash attack seems to be it's own unique attack option set aside from the standard close combat attack you'd normally make.


To conclude it seems to me like the Smash Attack is something different altogether set apart from the standard rules of close combat attacks.

So if someone would be kind enough to point out the relevant counter-argument to this i'd appreciate it.

As it stands it seems rather cheezy to me to stack every + attacks to the smash attack and to grant them all the strength bonus as well when the rules for it seem to indicate that you are giving up on doing your standard attacks in order to do a completely different type of attack that has it's own set rules.

Seems like there is little downside to doing a smash attack otherwise. I mean how many models out there DONT greatly benefit from giving up 1 or 2 of their attacks in order to have double the strength?? If i can guesstimate off the top of my head, there are few models in the game capable of a smash attack that don't benefit either slightly or majorly from smashing every single time. Only the Wraithlords spring to mind as they have ridiculous strength. Anyone done the math hammer on wether to smash or not to smash?

I know it says that, my argument is that just before you get to that part it says that the Smash attack is done 'instead' of doing your 'close combat attacks'

'when making it's close combat attacks, it can choose to instead make a smash attack"

to me this would imply that you can either do your close combat attacks as normal

OR

you can do a completely different type of attack called a Smash Attack. That follows it's own rules.

Any bonus modifiers you have during the game are part of your 'close combat attacks' they don't count as something else you add later on. Unless you are counting the +1 one for charging which is applied upon the act of charging.

Am I being too literal with the wording?

I see this smash attack as a 'new' type of attack you can make in close combat, much like hammer of wrath following it's own set of rules etc.

Or akin to RUN when it was first introduced in 5th ed it is something new altogether.

Meh still seems wrong. IMO smash attacks are a different type of attack from the way it's worded.

I would smash at every single opportunity with a tervigon/daemon prince or any other S5 monstrous creature with 4 or less attacks.

Im saying the smash attack is something else following similar rules (albeit with some changes as mentioned)

So the tervigon would not give up every single attack it has in order to do the smash attack. But only the smash attacks would be S10

So

+1A charging
+ D3 Warp Speed
+ D3 Crushing Claws

would occur at it's base strength not at S10. Only the attacks coming from halving it's characteristic (The smash attacks) will be S10 and get any bonuses given by it.

The smash attack rule is very specific that you do it 'instead' of your standard close combat attacks and then specifically says that to determine how many smash attacks you have, you halve your attack characteristic and they count as strength 10. But notice that it says for THAT attack.

Let me give you guys the quotations to make this a bit easier to follow

1. When making it's close combat attacks, it can choose to instead make a smash attack

2. A smash attack also doubles the model's strength for the purpose of that attack.

So the way I understand this is that the smash attacks are determined from halving your attack characteristic only. And your other attack bonuses would be resolved at their standard strength/rules

So a tervigon would get 2 S10 attacks and then the +1 charge/+D3 CC/+D3 Warp Speed would be resolved at S5 as normal.

Otherwise why was the distinction made that you can choose to smash attack instead of doing your close combat attacks? The word instead would be used for no reason in that sentence if everything stacks together anyway. And furthermore it says that only THAT attack is resolved at S10, why specifically single out the smash attack as being S10 if every attack you do will be S10 ?

Notice page 2 doesn't address division.

Multipliers/Additions/Subrations all mentioned.

even then the argument doesn't have anything to do with that, it's the fact that the smash attack is done 'instead' of close combat attacks and S10 is only for the purpose of 'that' attack.

Gloomfang wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:Notice page 2 doesn't address division.

Multipliers/Additions/Subrations all mentioned.

even then the argument doesn't have anything to do with that, it's the fact that the smash attack is done 'instead' of close combat attacks and S10 is only for the purpose of 'that' attack.

You are multiplying by 1/2. It is basic math.

Also your are ignoring certain points like "a model making a Smash Attack can re-roll its armor penitration rolls;"

Penetration rolls. How can you have more then 1 penetration roll if it only gives you one attack.

40k rules never ever ask you to multiply anything by .5
You are specifically asked to divide when you halve something, putting it in a different way doesn't change the fact that this is not what is being said.

I'm not ignoring that point that you bring up I never said 'that attack' was singular. The Smash Attack is a type of attack where the number of attacks done = halve your attack characteristic.Thus whatever halve your attack characteristic is will determine how many of those attacks are actual S10 etc etc.

If you dissect the Smash rule it has several different rules.

1. First states your attacks are AP2 but not HoW attacks.

2. Gives you the option to make a special kind of attack with it's own rules.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:
40k rules never ever ask you to multiply anything by .5

Then how do you know when Rapid Fire weapons get 2 shots?

Huh? What does that have to do with rapid fire? Rapid fire doesnt ask you to multiply by .5 either

Here is the rule

"If a unit shooting rapid fire weapons is found to be partially within half range of the target, the firing models within half range fire two shots"

The word half is used. It doesn't say multiply by .5 to determine distance. This is division.

rigeld2 wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:
If you dissect the Smash rule it has several different rules.

1. First states your attacks are AP2 but not HoW attacks.

2. Gives you the option to make a special kind of attack with it's own rules.

It's a special kind of close combat attack.
How many close combat attacks does a Tervigon make?

Does a charge add a close combat attack?
Do crushing claws add close combat attacks?
Does warp speed add close combat attacks?

That's exactly my point...it is a 'special' kind of close combat attack that does not include your other close combat attacks in it's benefits.

The Tervigon would still get the extra attacks but not at S10 because from the very first sentence they were excluded from the smash attack, otherwise what exactly are you excluding when you read the first sentence of the smash attack rule?? I think thats the question that needs to be answered...

DeathReaper wrote:If you Halve something you divide by 2, that is the definition of Halving something.

Since the BRB does not define how we Halve something we must fall back on the normal English definition.

I do agree with him here that halving something IS division. By definition.

Otherwise what's the damn point of division being taught ANYWHERE in the world? You guys are arguing that divion = multiplication , well in that case the same case can be made for addition and subtraction no?

5 - 1 = 4
-1 + 5 = 4
9 - 5 = 4
-5 + 9 = 4

Same thing. Yet the BRB mentions BOTH addition and substraction distinctively. So the argument is silly. It's not like everywhere around the world division is not part of the math curriculum i've never seen any school that teaches ONLY multiplication/addition/subtraction i mean according to you guys whats the point of even having the term division int he first place? Who even made up that word? So unnecessary clearly since multiplication is the exact same thing and not just a different way to get the same result, clearly they are identical. See what im getting at?

With that said, CLEARLY GW chooses to include division with the terms HALF/HALVE/D3 and such means.

But I just want to state that the thread was not intended to be a debate on multiplying and divison or whatnot. It was to answer the question as to how the smash rule truly works because the wording I feel was not quite as clear and I myself arrived at a different interpretation than other players.

While I believed that the smash attack did halve the base attack characteristic only for the purposes of accounting how many S10 attacks it would inflict and then the rest of the attacks being done as normal, due to failing to see the reasoning in stating that you use a smash attack 'instead' of normal close combat attacks and that the S10 is only for the purpose of THAT attack, just didn't make sense if everything was included altogether.

I have seen received one reasonable response as to why it would imply that you only have S10 for the purpose of that attack. Being that it could be to prevent it being used against abilities that are determined based off the strength characteristic.And I am happy with that interpretation.

However i do think that there is a certain degree of ambiguity in the smash rule.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/division

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiplication?show=0&t=1343587021


Not identical they are opposites. Just like Addition & Substraction, Positives and Negatives.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiplier

You guys are arguing that divion = multiplication , well in that case the same case can be made for addition and subtraction no?

5 - 1 = 4
-1 + 5 = 4
9 - 5 = 4
-5 + 9 = 4


If you fumble around numbers in any way you desire then you can always get at whatever result you seek. It's not that hard, but just because the end result is the same doesnt mean that the process used is identical or that the terms are identical.

40k is a game of terms. Where words are significant and in most cases absolute in determining rules.

Halving is clearly division. Open a dictionary and look:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/halve

Just want to make that clear. Division =/= Multiplication. Unless you want to also claim Addition = Substraction.

Mannahnin wrote:Mathematically division is just multiplication by a number smaller than 1. The rulebook does not reference division in the modifications section, yet expects us to be able to halve a value, per Smash. We can halve that value by using multiplication, which is one of the modifiers referenced on page 2.

If we use multiplication, as we are evidently expected, we have a clear and functional order of operations, and no problems understanding the rule.

I'm not stating that this is incorrect however the same exact case can be made for addition and substraction.

Substraction is just addition of a negative number and a positive. So all of a sudden substraction doesn't exist? Just saying

We are all reasonable people with common sense. And as much as we can all agree that multiplying 0.5 will give the same result, we should all also be able to agree that the word HALVE is a division and not a multiplication reference.

Per rules I believe you guys are correct that regardless of the process the result will infact be the same. Lets not make a case for multiplication = division in a game where division is never mentioned directly but is referenced and implented by 'halving' values or using a 'D3' and the like.

There is never mention of 'multiply by 0.5' anywhere on any rulebook/codex. All in all we are arguing something rather pointless in my opinion the result still stands the same.

But i did feel the need to point out that addition and substraction ARE mentioned even though the same exact case that you make for multiplication can be made for either one.

Guys get on google and type 'Definition of Halve'

Yes i know that you CAN get half through multiplying just like you can do ti through many other means.

But by definition the word HALVE is division. Look it up.

SCvodimier wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:Guys get on google and type 'Definition of Halve'

Yes i know that you CAN get half through multiplying just like you can do ti through many other means.

But by definition the word HALVE is division. Look it up.

Yes, and we're stating that since it does not specifically state that we have to divide, then when we are stuck with something that we have no clue for (division), we can just treat it as multiplication, and the issue resolves itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, look up the word "divide" in the dictionary and tell me where you have to specifically use division.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/divide

2. Mathematics To perform the operation of division.

There you go sir, as requested.

except you seem to have missed the part where i agree the process still works out, i think i've stated that 2 or 3 times.

I'm just disputing this claim that halve is not division.

Reason why i think this whole thing is pointless is because the 'modifiers' rule on pg2 is a basic rule of the game.

And it does NOT mention division.

But correct me if i'm wrong within that same rule book we are told that 'advanced' rules supercede basic ones

SMASH special rule is one of these 'advanced' rules

So if it tells you to 'halve' the value then you simply do as the advance rule says regardless of whatever else you were told before. So you end up with the same result without having to 'multiply' when being told to 'divide' the value in the way of halving.

If i find the page reference i'll post it but im pretty sure this is listed there.

Reference:

Pg 5. DIVIDING TO CONQUER - Addresses this whole subject we've been arguing actually. Lol go figure the rulebook DOES in fact support division and even within the same paragraph it is clearly giving examples that when it calls for you to HALVE a value it is infact telling you to DIVIDE not to multiply.

Pg 7.BASIC VERSUS ADVANCED - - This addresses the point I was making earlier where the advanced rule takes precedence. However I think dividing to conquer ir the stronger argument for division and the wording 'halve' which is clearly used as an example of how the game applies division. And the fact that it is NOT called a multiplier.

Mannahnin wrote:Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or does it have have some rules impact?

At this point?
I'm not arguing i'm stating facts.

I found something interesting that gives credence to what Lord Yayula is saying.


Pg 24. Rolling To Hit
If you take a look at the Rolling to Hit section, if you look just before it we are told how to determine the number of attacks we are allowed. Thus you determine your max number of attacks BEFORE you roll to hit, right after making any pile in moves at the start of your initiative step.

Thus SMASH is applied AFTER the attack characteristic is modified.

Because Smash rule states you halve your attacks during the ROLL TO HIT simultaneously halving the attack just before doing so.

Douglaspocock wrote:

L0rdF1end wrote:In all fairness and thinking about it more I would imagine it would be FAQ'd to the following.

Smash attacks is base characteristic devided by 2 = 2
Any additional attacks such as Crushing Claws and Warp Speed would need to be normal attacks.

So in affect the tervigon would get:

1 Hammer of Wraith
2 Smash Attacks
D3+D3 normal attacks

If this came up in a game. I would go with this decision. Because I like it the most and doesn't outbalance the model too badly.

I also believe that this is how it should be played. But there's decent arguments for both other cases aswell.

You guys should read the following CAREFULLY

Highlights.

Pg 2. MODIFIERS
We are told how to apply modifiers, MULTIPLIERS, ADDITIONS & SUBSTRACTIONS. But division is not included in this.

- Side A argues that multiplying IS division. Thus a multiplyer for halving would be 0.5 so as to properly follow the rules of the game
- Side B argues that divison is division. Otherwise you could make the same argument for addition being substraction/multiplication/division and still be correct. So the fact that it was excluded can change things.

Pg 5. DIVIDE TO CONQUER
Apparently everyone missed this bit, the rulebook does in fact cover division specifically. And it also directly uses HALVING as an example of division and how it is to be applied. Further supporting argument B

Pg 7. BASIC VERSUS ADVANCED
Here we see that Smash is an advanced rule which we are told take precedence over basic rules normally followed as per the example shown. So we are supposed to ignore the standard way of doing things in favor of whatever the advanced rule asks us to do.

UNMODIFIED CHARACTERISTICS
- Also being brought up as a point that many rules affecting characteristics clearly state that they work against the unmodified characteristic. Where this key word is lacking in the smash rule so that it can be very possible that are you in fact required to halve ALL your attacks as they should already be 'in play' upon entering combat before deciding to use the Smash rule.

Pg 24. Rolling To Hit
If you take a look at the Rolling to Hit section, if you look just before it we are told how to determine the number of attacks we are allowed. Thus you determine your max number of attacks BEFORE you roll to hit, right after making any pile in moves at the start of your initiative step.

Thus SMASH is applied AFTER the attack characteristic is modified.
Because Smash rule states you halve your attacks during the ROLL TO HIT simultaneously halving the attack just before doing so.

-UPDATE-
Apparently someone did infact misquote page 24 as i just had another look. Charge/CC/Warp Speed are categorized as 'bonus' attacks not a + to attack characteristic as someone else had misquoted in the thread.

Which if we follow things in order keeping in mind that we are NOT using a multiplier here, this is divison as per the Smash rule and the rule on pg5 this would work out as follows:

1. Declare you are using smash rule

2. Count up your attacks as normal.

3. Halve the attacks on your profile just before rolling to hit.

4. Add S10 to all attacks.

5. Profit

So in the end you get the same result a Tervigon with 2 attacks from it's profile and his bonus attacks all S10.

Had the bonus attacks been categorized as a + to attack characteristics then things would've ended up quite differently as Smash does not state to only use the unmodified characteristic and furthermore it is halved during the roll to hit portion after attacks have already been added in.

You guys should read the following CAREFULLY

Highlights.

Pg 2. MODIFIERS
We are told how to apply modifiers, MULTIPLIERS, ADDITIONS & SUBSTRACTIONS. But division is not included in this.

- Side A argues that multiplying IS division. Thus a multiplyer for halving would be 0.5 so as to properly follow the rules of the game
- Side B argues that divison is division. Otherwise you could make the same argument for addition being substraction/multiplication/division and still be correct. So the fact that it was excluded can change things.

Pg 5. DIVIDE TO CONQUER
Apparently everyone missed this bit, the rulebook does in fact cover division specifically. And it also directly uses HALVING as an example of division and how it is to be applied. Further supporting argument B

Pg 7. BASIC VERSUS ADVANCED
Here we see that Smash is an advanced rule which we are told take precedence over basic rules normally followed as per the example shown. So we are supposed to ignore the standard way of doing things in favor of whatever the advanced rule asks us to do.

UNMODIFIED CHARACTERISTICS
- Also being brought up as a point that many rules affecting characteristics clearly state that they work against the unmodified characteristic. Where this key word is lacking in the smash rule so that it can be very possible that are you in fact required to halve ALL your attacks as they should already be 'in play' upon entering combat before deciding to use the Smash rule.

Pg 24. Rolling To Hit
If you take a look at the Rolling to Hit section, if you look just before it we are told how to determine the number of attacks we are allowed. Thus you determine your max number of attacks BEFORE you roll to hit, right after making any pile in moves at the start of your initiative step.

Thus SMASH is applied AFTER the attack characteristic is modified.
Because Smash rule states you halve your attacks during the ROLL TO HIT simultaneously halving the attack just before doing so.

-UPDATE-
Apparently someone did infact misquote page 24 as i just had another look. Charge/CC/Warp Speed are categorized as 'bonus' attacks not a + to attack characteristic as someone else had misquoted in the thread.

Which if we follow things in order keeping in mind that we are NOT using a multiplier here, this is divison as per the Smash rule and the rule on pg5 this would work out as follows:

1. Declare you are using smash rule

2. Count up your attacks as normal.

3. Halve the attacks on your profile just before rolling to hit.

4. Add S10 to all attacks.

5. Profit

So in the end you get the same result a Tervigon with 2 attacks from it's profile and his bonus attacks all S10.

Had the bonus attacks been categorized as a + to attack characteristics then things would've ended up quite differently as Smash does not state to only use the unmodified characteristic and furthermore it is halved during the roll to hit portion after attacks have already been added in.

fleetofclaw wrote:

AND, that one dude never answered my question whether I get my other CC bonuses with Smash (bonesword / scything talons / etc). Do you know why? Because if he said no he'd get laughed off the thread. If he said yes, then he'd realize his argument that Smash somehow magically ignores the basic rules of his choosing is ridiculous. The advanced rules take over where there is something being amended or contradicted, you don't just throw everything out unless it is explicitly reintroduced in the Advanced rule. That applies to your argument too Death Reaper. (Though I'm about 90% certain that you two are one and the same person anyway; a smart yet disingenious troll)
.

Or maybe that 'one dude' a.k.a Me which whom you are referring to, has a thing called a LIFE which you appear to lack. And was out all day with the fam going out shopping having dinner and you know all that other normal stuff people do in their lives outside of forums.

I apologize that I could not reply to your urgent message instantly.

As for your question, it was a dumb question to begin with because there's nothing in the smash rule that would prevent special rules from whatever you are using to apply aswell. The only thing being modified by the smash attack is the strength value of your attacks along with the attack profile.

That's like asking me 'If you take a difficult terrain test, how far do you fall back?'

The two just don't connect with each other. Now you can laugh yourself off the thread or whatever as per your ignorant comment sir.

Rephistorch wrote:Just throwing in my vote that division == multiplication. Just the same as roots == exponentiation.

3/2=1.5
3*0.5=1.5

Sqrt(4) = 2
4^(1/2)=2

Punch it into a calculator, and learn some maths. You can do this to any number imaginable and it will be exactly the same result. Want to know why? They're the same.

As was stated earlier, most processors only do math in addition. That's it, just addition. No subtraction, no multiplication, no division, it's straight up adding.

And we know this, what you guys seem to fail to understand is that the argument is not about solving an equation. It's about properly reading the rules of 40k.

In 40k you do things in a specific way, while you state that a processor uses ONLY addition. This game cannot afford to have every rule based on the concept of addition alone, thus you include multiplication/substraction/division

And it tells you in clear rules on page 2 and page 5 how each of these concepts are applied and gives a clear example on the term HALVE that when used it is under the division category and tells you what to do with it.

Smash rule is one of the few rules in the game that uses this exact term that we have already been told how to apply. But people want to force the page 2 rules on something that is meant to follow page 5 and page 7 rules. Both for division adn for advanced rules that should overwrite whatever was on page 2.

Thus we came to this silly argument from the refusal to accept the nature of the beast

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.