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.

Question for the community. Vanguard have a special abillity "radium" that when they charge a model they reduce the toughness of a model by -1T. It specifically states that they stack to a minimum of 1T. To throw some spice in the mix, Inquisition has a fancy piece of wargear called a "rad grenade", to which, if they assault or are assaulted enemy units locked in combat receive -1T that phase.

To follow are a few scenarios that a question of stacking order comes into play: Is the bold the correct outcome?

3 vanguard units and a separate unit with an inquisitor charge a T4 unit. The vanguard charge first applying -3T to the unit down to 1T. The inquisitor unit charges applying another -1T. Because the vanguard charged first, the inquisitor gets applied last setting the unit at 0T and therefore they are removed from play.

3 vanguard units and a seperate unit with an inquisitor charge a T4 unit. Inquisitor unit charges first applying -1T to the unit down to 3T. The 3 vanguard then charge applying another -3T. Because the vanguard charged last, they are restricted to reducing the toughness to 1T only.

3 vanguard units including an inquisitor charge a T4 unit. The Vanguard apply -3T and the Inquisitor would apply -1T. Because these hit the stack at the same time, it is the current player's turn choice of stack order and therefore the unit can be reduced to 0T and removed from play.

So there you have it. I think those three examples cover every situation you would have... pretty interesting.

You may be thinking.. how would this ever come into play.. you would have to charge so many units. But there are possible scenarios. Plenty of T3 out there, given scenario #3 you only need 2 units. Or say your facing a fearless space dog horde or the green tide! How hilarious would it be to charge 4 units at 100 models and remove the entire tide from play because it was reduced to T0. *obviously not hilarious for your opponent..

I really wish there was a more clear order of operations to effects, like the Layer system for Magic. As far as I can tell, what you have described is entirely correct, but it really feels like the order that you charge in shouldn't matter. Because "you die, no recourse" really really sucks, I'd suggest layering it so that "to a minimum of 1" applies, so even an inquisitor charging last won't reduce a model to 0T. Said 1T models should be pretty easy to slay.

 Yarium wrote:
I really wish there was a more clear order of operations to effects, like the Layer system for Magic. As far as I can tell, what you have described is entirely correct, but it really feels like the order that you charge in shouldn't matter. Because "you die, no recourse" really really sucks, I'd suggest layering it so that "to a minimum of 1" applies, so even an inquisitor charging last won't reduce a model to 0T. Said 1T models should be pretty easy to slay.

Absolutely so many areas that need a system like that. For me personally, i will never be doing this, as I don't play Skittari, or inquisition haha! But it did come up in conversation stemming from running lysander or Mephiston with an inquisitors Rad grenades to jump in and start ID'ng riptides and Stormsurges with normal attacks. It then followed my other friend bringing up vanguard.. and typical grimdark 40k discussion about wiping hordes from existence with nuking them essentially.

Stacking order doesn't matter because you can't reduce a models toughness below 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will grab my dex in a few hours but I'm 90% sure the radium rule does not stack

SittingInACorner wrote:
Stacking order doesn't matter because you can't reduce a models toughness below 1.

Actually you can. On page 8 under "zero-level characteristics", it specifically states that if a models toughness, strength or wounds are reduced to 0 it is removed from play as a casualty.

It all fails to work if one of these items has the can't reduce below 1 rule.

 oldzoggy wrote:
It all fails to work if one of these items has the can't reduce below 1 rule.

Well, unfortunately, without a "layer" system, the process described CAN bring it down to 0, even with that rule in place.

Unit 1 w/Radium reduces the target from 3T to 2T. This is not below 1T.
Unit 2 w/Radium reduces the target from 2T to 1T. This is not below 1T.
Unit 3 w/Radium reduces the target from 1T to 0T. This IS below 1T, so it stays at 1T instead.
Inquisitor w/Rad Grenades reduces the target's current 1T to 0T, slaying the target.

The rules don't rewind and replay once new info happens, and the rules don't know what's going to happen next. Each step of this carries from the current situation at the time it happens. If the Inquisitor charged first, followed by the 3 units, the Radium special rule would try to reduce their toughness from 1 to 0, but then would fail to do so. It only works if the Inquisitor charges while the target is already at 1T. If he does, at no point did the Radium special rule reduce the target to less than 1T, so it was perfectly legal.

As stated, it doesn't feel right like this. A layer system would fix that. For example, an earlier layer could state to increase or reduce stats where this is no cap, and then a later layer could increase or reduce stats where there is a cap. That would make it so that even if the Inquisitor charged last, the current toughness of the target would be recalculated with his modifier applying first, and the "can't reduce below 1T" modifiers applying later, preventing the target form dying from 0T. But this is not what the current system is.

 oldzoggy wrote:
It all fails to work if one of these items has the can't reduce below 1 rule.

Actually, it depends on order, timing and the exact wording of the rules.

Without having seen the rules in question, I'm inclined to agree with the original poster. If the T reduction is applied upon a successful charge, the Skitarii would reduce T to 1 and then the Inquisitor would reduce to 0, killing the unit. If the T reductions both happen at the same time, the active player can pick which to resolve first... again reducing to 1 and then 0. Same result either way.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
Vanguard have a special abillity.. .. It specifically states that they stack to a minimum of 1T. .

Am I missing something. Since they don't seem to stack with themselves at all.


Here are the rules

7th inquisition codex wrote:Rad grenades: During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches anassault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end
of the phase ...

skitarii codex wrote:Rad-saturation: While a unit is locked in combat with one or more models with this special rule all models in that unit subtract 1 from their Toughness (to a minimum of 1)

So it would never work on marines or anything else T4. You might kill a Grot but I am not even sure about that.

I think it would only go to a minimum of one.

Rad Grenades: During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is
assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the
phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).


Rad Saturation: While a unit is locked in combat with one or more models with this
special rule all models in that unit subtract 1 from their Toughness (to a minimum of 1).

To me, I read it as Rad-Grenades triggering at the charge step whereas Rad Saturation triggers when locked in combat.

Of course, their is room to er on the side for caution, since Rad Grenades doesn't specifically say charge, but the above is my interpretation.

Buy how would you ever get from T4 to T1 when you only do a -1 for being into combat with one or more models with Rad Saturation and an additional -1 for the grenades ?

Thanks for the quote zoggy!

It certainly appears that they do not stack with themselves, and that they don't trigger from charging, but rather are an effect based on being locked in combat. This makes the end result much less likely.

That said, say they charged first, before 3 Inquisitors with Rad Grenades charged, that would still bring the target down from T4 to T0. The Rad Saturation would reduce them from T4 to T3, since you become locked at the end of a successful charge, before other charges are declared. If they became locked while the target was at T1, they would not reduce them below T1, but they reduced it from T4 to T3. Getting then charged by 3 such Inquisitors, their Rad Grenades would bring them down to T0.

If there is no recalculation, then we take it in the order that the events happened, and the target goes to T0.

But, let's say that the rules do mean you have to recalculate their current toughness, starting with their profile, and then going through every effect that's on them. In this case, the person whose turn it is can then choose to order the "Rad Saturation" effect first, and then apply all the Rad Grenades effects, and the result is still having the target go to T0.

The only case where this wouldn't be true is if we were told both to recalculate from profile through all effects, and we were told which order the effects had to be applied.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Buy how would you ever get from T4 to T1 when you only do a -1 for being into combat with one or more models with Rad Saturation and an additional -1 for the grenades ?

Because reasons?

I missed that and as a result, was wrong in my post. I can see why Rad Saturation wouldn't stack between units.

 Frozocrone wrote:

 oldzoggy wrote:
Buy how would you ever get from T4 to T1 when you only do a -1 for being into combat with one or more models with Rad Saturation and an additional -1 for the grenades ?

Because reasons?

I missed that and as a result, was wrong in my post. I can see why Rad Saturation wouldn't stack between units.

I also misread. My apologies.. But As was stated by Yarium, you can still get the result because rad grenades can stack as written. I am pretty sure on that one

Omg I have an image of a Taunar battlesuit getting killed by a 9-inquisitor unit with rad grenades.

Wouldn't that just be D3 wounds?

Hmm, good question - and if so, how do we resolve the rest of the combat against a T0 model? It isn't on the to-wound chart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I imagine not, as the wording from Toughness being reduced to 0 is the same as Wounds being reduced to zero.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Hmm, good question - and if so, how do we resolve the rest of the combat against a T0 model? It isn't on the to-wound chart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I imagine not, as the wording from Toughness being reduced to 0 is the same as Wounds being reduced to zero.

Yeah that is a very interesting question... Under GMCs...



Noting the bold... since this is not an attack.. then it would not inflict d3 wounds.. it would be removed.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I also misread. My apologies.. But As was stated by Yarium, you can still get the result because rad grenades can stack as written. I am pretty sure on that one

Only if OldZoggy misquoted can they stack. Checking a copy, he did not. They cannot stack with themselves. They can stack between the Inquisitor Grendade and the Vanguard special rule, but not in and of themselves.

Even if the language was not "with one or more", Special Rules have to explicitly state they stack in order to stack, otherwise, multiple applications of a Special Rule have zero effect.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
[

But As was stated by Yarium, you can still get the result because rad grenades can stack as written. I am pretty sure on that one

Multiple inquisitors with rad grenades has been discussed recently. Here

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/682312.page#8517253

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
[

But As was stated by Yarium, you can still get the result because rad grenades can stack as written. I am pretty sure on that one

Multiple inquisitors with rad grenades has been discussed recently. Here

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/682312.page#8517253

Cool.

I am glad this can't really work out to abuse like I thought it would. No fun in that.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Wouldn't that just be D3 wounds?

What about when it reaches 0 wounds? Does it also just take d3 more wounds?

nareik wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
Wouldn't that just be D3 wounds?

What about when it reaches 0 wounds? Does it also just take d3 more wounds?

Is this a troll? lol Pretty obviously by the same line I posted up earlier, it would be removed ...

 Grizzyzz wrote:

nareik wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
Wouldn't that just be D3 wounds?

What about when it reaches 0 wounds? Does it also just take d3 more wounds?

Is this a troll? lol Pretty obviously by the same line I posted up earlier, it would be removed ...

Rhetoric question. The rule that 0 wounds removes a model is the same as 0 toughness removes a model. Ergo arguing 0T removes wounds, not the model is the same as arguing 0W removes wounds, not the model.

The GMC is protected against 'remove model' attacks/special rules. The 0S/T/W is a core rule that doesn't fit under this protection, especially as reducing a GMC to 0 wounds wouldn't remove it from the table if it was protected!.

I got a little confused. I thought it would be an attack that would cause it to be removed from play, not as a game state action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, any one that tried to argue that reducing a GC to 0 wounds just causes it to take D3 wounds as opposed to being removed, is someone who you shouldn't play. Ever.