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.

How does Grimaldus' "Unmatched Zeal" interact with the Vigilus warlord trait "Master Swordsman"?

For reference:



Question 1:
If I roll a 6, do I get to make two more attacks, because my bonus hit counts as having been a 6+ too? I'm assuming yes, as per the FAQ?

Question 2:
If I roll a 6 for one of my additional attacks, does it still generate 2 hits as opposed to 1? My thinking is that it does, since you're only banned from generating further bonus attacks, not bonus hits.

Question 3, cheese-fiesta deluxe
If I roll a 6 for a bonus attack from Unmatched Zeal, can I continue to generate bonus attacks off of the bonus hits from Master Swordsman (which, as per the FAQ, count as being 6+ to hit) since they're not the bonus attacks being generated by Unmatched Zeal, potentially getting an infinite number of attacks? Note that I'm not interested in whether anyone would play it this way, because I sure as heck wouldn't.

1) Yes, because of GW's dumb FAQ the 2nd hit from Master Swordsman triggers the bonus attack from Unmatched Zeal.

2) Yes, if that the bonus attack rolls a 6 to hit it will cause 2 hits, and the 2nd hit will trigger Unmatched Zeal again, etc.

3) Yes, but at least it's not automatically infinite hits like the successor trait causes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
1) Yes, because of GW's dumb FAQ the 2nd hit from Master Swordsman triggers the bonus attack from Unmatched Zeal.

2) Yes, if that the bonus attack rolls a 6 to hit it will cause 2 hits, and the 2nd hit will trigger Unmatched Zeal again, etc.

3) Yes, but at least it's not automatically infinite hits like the successor trait causes.

Not necessarily. These Bonus hits do not... If the bonus hit carries over the rolled a 6 to hit, it could also carry over the bonus hit cannot generate characteristic.



In fact it's likely - The Unmatched Zeal ability is generating the bonus attacks. Even though Master Swordsman makes the attack two hits, they're both still generated by Unmatched Zeal, which prohibits generating more bonus attacks.

Breton wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
1) Yes, because of GW's dumb FAQ the 2nd hit from Master Swordsman triggers the bonus attack from Unmatched Zeal.

2) Yes, if that the bonus attack rolls a 6 to hit it will cause 2 hits, and the 2nd hit will trigger Unmatched Zeal again, etc.

3) Yes, but at least it's not automatically infinite hits like the successor trait causes.

Not necessarily. These Bonus hits do not... If the bonus hit carries over the rolled a 6 to hit, it could also carry over the bonus hit cannot generate characteristic.



In fact it's likely - The Unmatched Zeal ability is generating the bonus attacks. Even though Master Swordsman makes the attack two hits, they're both still generated by Unmatched Zeal, which prohibits generating more bonus attacks.

No, they are not. The 2nd hit is caused by Master Swordsman. The fact the initial attack was a bonus Unmatched Zeal attack is irrelevant, because Master Swordsman does not generate a "bonus attack", it generates a second hit.

And even if that were not the case, we're not told that the "cannog generate extra attacks" is carried over while we are told that the roll of 6+ is. We thus have permission to count the roll as a six, but not to carry Unmatched Zeal's limitation over.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Breton wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:




In fact it's likely - The Unmatched Zeal ability is generating the bonus attacks. Even though Master Swordsman makes the attack two hits, they're both still generated by Unmatched Zeal, which prohibits generating more bonus attacks.

No, they are not. The 2nd hit is caused by Master Swordsman. The fact the initial attack was a bonus Unmatched Zeal attack is irrelevant, because Master Swordsman does not generate a "bonus attack", it generates a second hit.

How can a hit that is not an attack have an attack roll?

Furthermore, These bonus attacks do not themselves generate further bonus attacks - assuming that's a word for word quote (which is the usual wording or close enough for these abilities) it is NOT limited to Unmatched Zeal bonus attacks. Ergo, the bonus attacks from Unmatched Zeal cannot even generate the Master Swordsman bonus hit/attack. The initial attacks can generate both. Bonus Attacks from Unmatched Zeal cannot create bonus hits/attacks from Master Swordsman - Or Unmatched Zeal. Or any other ability that generates bonus attacks/hits.

Edit to Add: This may be something we missed in the successor chapter discussion as well. I just checked and Exortation of Rage also has the total ban on extra attacks generating (ANY) extra attack.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

And upon further review/thought...
UZ=Unmatched Zeal
WW=Whirlwind of Rage
2Hit= 2 Hits per 6 ability
MS = Master Swordsman
CF= Catachism of Fire
BonusA= 1 Bonus Attack per 6 Ability
Went with 2H and BA vs naming the abilities because I'm getting lost juggling them individually as new as they are - and they're really just different iterations of the same basic principle/mechanic

If the second hit is a new attack generated by 2Hits - and just contains the 6+ to hit property from the original attack - then bonus attacks from BonusA can't trigger 2Hit (or BonusA obviously) and the chain breaks
If the second hit is the same attack generated by BonusA and it's just one attack that generates two hits (as deviation from the norm) - then bonus attacks from BonusA can trigger 2Hit but not BonusA (Because 2 hits from one BonusA attack can't trigger BonusA again) and the chain still breaks.

You're not generating attacks though, you're generating hits. Not attacks that hit automatically, hits. The two are not synonymous.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're not generating attacks though, you're generating hits. Not attacks that hit automatically, hits. The two are not synonymous.

OK.. then outside of the attack sequence, because they're not attacks, there is no next step to wound, or roll saves, or apply damage? You just get to generate hits that do nothing because they're not attacks?

The two are indeed not synonymous. One is the whole at any/every step, and one is at a specific step. An Attack may or may not be a hit, may or may not be a wound, may or may not damage. A hit is just an attack that has already successfully... hit. Without the attack sequence for rules on what to do with that hit that isn't an attack... stop.

Hit rolls are not necessary to generate “to-wound” rolls. See flamers, for example.

To hit rolls generate to-wound rolls.
To-wound rolls generate saving throws.
(Failed) saving throws generate damage (appropriate to weapon)
Damage triggers FNP equivalent rolls, if applicable.
Damage that isn’t prevented caused loss of wounds.
Loss of wounds can cause deteriorating stat lines.
Loss of all wounds removes a model from the table.

Soooo... additional hits start at step 2, and proceed from there.

Additional attack rolls start again at step one, potentially generating more attack rolls unless limited some way.

That would be my interpretation of the process, though I don’t know if I could piece a RAW argument together. I don’t care to pursue the research.

To be strictly correct:

Attacks generate To-Hit Rolls.
To hit rolls generate Hits.
Hits generate To-wound roll
To-wound rolls generate saving throws.
(Failed) saving throws generate damage (appropriate to weapon)
Damage triggers FNP equivalent rolls, if applicable.
Damage that isn’t prevented caused loss of wounds.
Loss of wounds can cause deteriorating stat lines.
Loss of all wounds removes a model from the table.

As for this whole Master Swordsman and Unmatched Zeal thing, it is very simple:

Each Attack that rolls a unmodified 6 generates 2 Hits.
If those unmodified 6 Hits are are a modified Roll of 6+, they generate an additional attack that cannot generate an additional attack
Each of those additional Attacks that roll a unmodified 6 generates 2 Hits that cannot generate an additional attack
End of sequence

Technically correct. The best kind of correct.

Where are people getting permission to carry the "no extra attacks" over to the hits from?

What makes you think it doesn’t?

 alextroy wrote:
What makes you think it doesn’t?

"It doesn't say I can't" isn't an argument. The rules are permissive.

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.

alextroy wrote:As for this whole Master Swordsman and Unmatched Zeal thing, it is very simple:

Each Attack that rolls a unmodified 6 generates 2 Hits.
If those unmodified 6 Hits are are a modified Roll of 6+, they generate an additional attack that cannot generate an additional attack
Each of those additional Attacks that roll a unmodified 6 generates 2 Hits that cannot generate an additional attack
End of sequence

I invite you to show me the error in my thinking. It is all there in easy to read text.

You keep treating attacks and hits as synonymous when they aren't.

If we assume that the bonus attacks always roll 6+ to hit for argument's sake it goes like this:

I disagree with your analysis. There is no "bonus" hit. There are two Hits caused by one Attack Roll. The rule literally states "attack inflicts 2 hits instead of 1". Therefore both Hits are subject to the same rules. If either of theses Hits generates an additional attack, that attack is subject to the rule that it cannot generate an additional hit.

Besides, you are arguing that an attack that specifically the rule states cannot generate additional attacks can somehow generate additional attacks because it generates more than one Hit is simply not following the rule. You are trying to force a loophole into existence in the face of a rule that says no.

There you go again, conflating attacks and hits. They're not the same. You're not barred from generating additional hits, only additional attacks. There is no rule stopping you from generating additional hits.

I miss your point. The Hits from your initial attack generate additional attacks. The Hits from your additional attacks that were granted by Unmatched Zeal cannot generate additional Attacks, per the rules of Unmatched Zeal.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There you go again, conflating attacks and hits. They're not the same. You're not barred from generating additional hits, only additional attacks. There is no rule stopping you from generating additional hits.

One way or antoher, the hit(s) is(are) associated with an attack - etiher the original that now generates two hits, or the extra hit has generated a split off bonus attack, irregardless you end with a broken chain because the bonus attack cannot generate an additional bonus attack - if one attack generates two hits, neither hit can generate another bonus attack. If the second hit is a seperate bonus attack, the bonus attacks cannot even generate this second hit.

Yeah, if you look at it this way...

All attacks are rolled one at a time, RAW. Speed rolling is often allowed, but it can be simpler to think of the dice rolling one at a time.

For example, I have a rule that says if I roll a 6 to-hit, I score 2 hits instead of one. I also have a rule that if I roll a 6 to-hit, I may make one additional to-hit roll, though that to-hit roll may not generate more to-hit rolls.

So in the event of a 6, I score two hits, and I then make an additional to-hit roll. In general, on a result of 2-5, I will score a third hit, and on another 6, I would score two more hits. I cannot make a further to-hit roll, though, as the rule allowing additional attacks / to hit rolls specifies this can not happen.

We would then roll the next attack (assuming the character is allowed to do so) and the process starts over again, with a 6 creating 2 Hits, and generating an additional to-hit roll that can itself generate 0,1, or 2 hits.

With a good bit of luck (1/36 per attack) you can generate 4 hits from one attack, but no more.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Yeah, if you look at it this way...

All attacks are rolled one at a time, RAW. Speed rolling is often allowed, but it can be simpler to think of the dice rolling one at a time.

For example, I have a rule that says if I roll a 6 to-hit, I score 2 hits instead of one. I also have a rule that if I roll a 6 to-hit, I may make one additional to-hit roll, though that to-hit roll may not generate more to-hit rolls.

So in the event of a 6, I score two hits, and I then make an additional to-hit roll. In general, on a result of 2-5, I will score a third hit, and on another 6, I would score two more hits. I cannot make a further to-hit roll, though, as the rule allowing additional attacks / to hit rolls specifies this can not happen.

We would then roll the next attack (assuming the character is allowed to do so) and the process starts over again, with a 6 creating 2 Hits, and generating an additional to-hit roll that can itself generate 0,1, or 2 hits.

With a good bit of luck (1/36 per attack) you can generate 4 hits from one attack, but no more.

Not quite.. You have a rule that says if you roll a 6, you score two hits. You also have a rule that says if you roll a 6, you get an additional attack which cannot generate additional attacks. By RAW, that attack would then be queued behind the current group (or not-group) you're currently rolling. Most of us will easily and happy toss in with the current group - but by RAW, you're past the point where you could do that.

Next, it depends. There are two equally valid - in the face of GW ambiguity - ways to interpret the interaction. If one attack generates two hits then yes you could get 4 hits from one attack, if the extra hit turns is instead an extra cloned/mitosis split attack then you're capped at 3.

There is no way we're going to get a right answer on this one without GW coming out with that answer.

Generally speaking 1 attack generates 1 hit, generates 1 wound, generates X damage. Even shooting weapons that have multiple to hit rolls - i.e. a Heavy 3 - make 3 attacks not one attack with 3 hit rolls. This means there's plenty of evidence suggesting one attack is limited to one hit. On the other hand, the ability says scores one additional hit, leaving 1 attack 2 hits, or 2 attacks 2 hits nebulous.

 greatbigtree wrote:
So in the event of a 6, I score two hits, and I then make an additional to-hit roll. In general, on a result of 2-5, I will score a third hit, and on another 6, I would score two more hits. I cannot make a further to-hit roll, though, as the rule allowing additional attacks / to hit rolls specifies this can not happen.

But the extra hit from Master Swordsman is only indirectly related to Unmatched Zeal. You're not allowed to generate further attacks off of attacks generated by Unmatched Zeal, but the hits generated by Master Swordsman are not generated by Unmatched Zeal, and so are not bound by the limitations of that rule.

Yes, the extra hit in a larger sense only exists because of Unmatched Zeal, but Unmatched Zeal is not the rule creating the hit. Master Swordsman, which does not have the "no attacks" limiter, is.

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.

It's not generating new attacks, it's generating new hits. How many times do I have to ask you to stop treating them as interchangable?

 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.

I think you'd have to add in a rule saying "everytime you generate cider, you get an apple" for that analogy to work, no? Your apples cannot generate more apples, but your cider can.

Using the rules presented in the OP, you have two rules that “trigger” when a STANDARD ATTACK creates a TO-HIT roll of “6”.

STANDARD ATTACK A creates a TO-HIT roll of “6”.

Normally, this would generate 1 HIT but instead, it creates 2 HITs. * Master Swordsman *

We also have a rule that says on a roll of 6, we create another BONUS ATTACK. *Unmatched Zeal* So we now create BONUS ATTACK A-2, that generates a TO-HIT roll, that again rolls “6”.

This in turn creates 2 more HITs *Master Swordsman* but does NOT generate another BONUS ATTACK per the limitation of *Unmatched Zeal* only allowing a STANDARD ATTACK to potentially generate BONUS ATTACKs.

I’ve used the term “Standard Attack” to mean an attack from the model’s Attack characteristic, and “Bonus Attack” to mean the additional attacks from *Unmatched Zeal”.

The FAQ does not interact with this process.

Consider: Roll “6” TO-HIT. Create 2 HITs. *IF* we apply the idea that we then “recheck” the TO-HIT value, resolve as “6”, we would then double those 2 HITs to 4, then 8, then 16 and create an Infinite Loop and “hung” game state.

Consider: BONUS ATTACK generates a TO-HIT value of “6”. *Master Swordsman* has no caveats differentiating between results from a STANDARD ATTACK and a BONUS ATTACK.”, therefore will generate 2 HITs as well.

Once STANDARD ATTACK A and BONUS ATTACK A-2 are resolved, we now move onto STANDARD ATTACK B and potentially BONUS ATTACK B-2 and so on. Any TO-HIT values of “6” will resolve as 2 HITs instead.

Once the total number of HITs are determined, we would generate a number of TO-WOUND rolls, and so on through the process.

That's actually a point. You don't even need Grimaldus, Master Swordsman will go infinite with itself just like the Successor Trait as soon as you roll a 6+ to hit.

I would argue that, functionally, you only “check state” once. Determine that a TO-HIT “6” result has been made, and then resolve an additional HIT as though that HIT was generated by a “6”.

As an imaginary example, we can pretend that a rule called *Ignores Armour* exists. On a roll of “6” TO-HIT, that attack resolves with -10 AP. So in that case, combined with *Master Swordsman* we check state after the roll, and determine that we will produce two hits. Both hits will resolve with the *Ignores Armour* property, per the FAQ. (Awkwardly, Ignores Armour checks state at the roll saves step, and both are 6’s).

As an ad lib, I expect that the reason “Rending” effects now trigger on to-wound rolls has to do with that awkward referral to older game states.

In other words You only resolve *Master Swordsman* one time, checking state at the completion of the die’s toss. In the event of a “6”, *Master Swordsman* triggers, creating a second hit (as a “6”). However! We have already passed the point in the process where the check state = “6” has resolved, and we have no reason or direction to return to the check state event.

So we do NOT create an infinite loop. Thanks to *Unmatched Zeal” we have the opportunity to create another TO-HIT roll, that can result in “6” being generated, and a second time to check state for the 6 creating another HIT.