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.

What order would they apply in?

If I have a Dreadnought near the Ironstone and pop the half damage on a Dreadnought Strat, then take 4 damage from a Lascannon. What happens?

Do I take 2 damage, or 1?

I think the active player decides the order of operations if it is unclear, so you'd probably be forced to take 2 damage

It depends on the wordings of the rules, we dont know for sure until you provide some citations. If both happen at the same time, then nekooni is right. The player whose turn it is would decide the order how to resolve the rules, and you would suffer 2 damage.

Math says divide first,then subtract.

GW says follow math.

The above is for a single equation from simultaneous multiple effects. This is one of those cases.

For sequential effects(+1 S when you charge, x2 S weapon) you add the 1 before you double because it is not 1 equation; you have charged so add 1 S to your models statline, then you are hitting with the weapon so double the modified statline S.

4 damage lascannon does 1 damage. 5 and 6 damage weapons can do 2 damage.

I think the datasheet section of the rules address this.

The Ironstone and Duty Eternal do not include any amendments to the standard order of operations to apply.

The standard order of operations is given in the rules:

pg 175 of rulebook

8. Weapons
The weapons that a unit comes equipped
with are described using a set of
characteristics as follows:
....
Damage (D): The amount of damage
inflicted by a successful hit.

pg. 175 sidebar

You may also encounter abilities and rules that modify a characteristic. All modifiers are cumulative, though you should apply any multiplication or division to the characteristic (rounding fractions up) before applying any addition or subtraction.

As per the Datasheet section Damage is a characteristic, and the sidebar tells us the order of operations to apply.

So 4 Damage is 1st halved (rounding up, to a minimum of 1 damage) to 2 Damage, which is then reduced by 1 to 1 damage (minimum 1 damage)

As Cornishman says, Damage is a Characteristic therefore you multiply or divide first, then add or subtract. Due to the Rounding Up clause, it doesn't matter the order of the multiplication or division (iirc).

So if that were true, then Custodes would be getting 3 damage per swing with the new fists, as you divide the 1, giving you 1. Then you add/subtract, giving you 3. The point is you can't effect the "added" damage on a lot of the new weapons like Aquillon Fists, or Magna Cannons. The order of operations would always give you that flat damage at the end.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So if that were true, then Custodes would be getting 3 damage per swing with the new fists, as you divide the 1, giving you 1. Then you add/subtract, giving you 3. The point is you can't effect the "added" damage on a lot of the new weapons like Aquillon Fists, or Magna Cannons. The order of operations would always give you that flat damage at the end.

Um... What are you talking about?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So if that were true, then Custodes would be getting 3 damage per swing with the new fists, as you divide the 1, giving you 1. Then you add/subtract, giving you 3. The point is you can't effect the "added" damage on a lot of the new weapons like Aquillon Fists, or Magna Cannons. The order of operations would always give you that flat damage at the end.

Um... What are you talking about?

I think he's getting at some of the FW weapons are damge d3+ a number if you must divide before doing the addition as people are saying it goes from damage d3+3 to 1+2 for 3 minimum not 4 halved to 2.

If your going to insist it works 1 way it always works that way not half the tine it works 1 way the other is works differently.

Yeah, but he's talking about a weapon that does 1d3 damage.

Ice_can wrote:

I think he's getting at some of the FW weapons are damge d3+ a number if you must divide before doing the addition as people are saying it goes from damage d3+3 to 1+2 for 3 minimum not 4 halved to 2.

If your going to insist it works 1 way it always works that way not half the tine it works 1 way the other is works differently.

The "d3 + x" is the damage profile. Its not a modifier. Resolve the damage profile before resolving the modifier.

Sterling191 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

I think he's getting at some of the FW weapons are damge d3+ a number if you must divide before doing the addition as people are saying it goes from damage d3+3 to 1+2 for 3 minimum not 4 halved to 2.

If your going to insist it works 1 way it always works that way not half the tine it works 1 way the other is works differently.

The "d3 + x" is the damage profile. Its not a modifier. Resolve the damage profile before resolving the modifier.

This. You don't halve the D3 amount on it's own, you halve the entire damage value. The damage is (D3+1)/2, not D3+1/2

Actually I was saying D3/2+X. There are weapons that give guaranteed damage on top of the roll. So you would get the result of half of the roll, plus the modifier.

I honestly can't recall which melee weapon got this buff, but I thought it was the fist. I was wrong. It was the Storm Cannons. They do X+3. My point was the + modifier is not part of the equation. At least according to PEMDAS.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Actually I was saying D3/2+X. There are weapons that give guaranteed damage on top of the roll.

Which is part of the damage profile itself. It isnt a modifier.

Ok, so then if it's not a modifier, and it's just part of the base damage, then BCB is right.