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 Mortifiers get 15 attacks, not 13. That extra attack gets the "make 3 attack" rule from the flails, meaning their 4x3 attacks actually becomes 5x3.

Did not see that coming.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So Mortifiers get 15 attacks, not 13. That extra attack gets the "make 3 attack" rule from the flails, meaning their 4x3 attacks actually becomes 5x3.

Did not see that coming.

It's how it works with Mortarion's scythe sweeps and with the Knight Seneschal warlord trait and stomps. All "Make 2/3 attacks for each attack" abilities work the same way in that regard.

 alextroy wrote:
The FAQ is up https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/b3e1e77d.pdf

No surprises here, just the expected change to the Canoness and a slightly unexpected reduction on Mortifier unit size (1-4 is correct).

I would count original codex loadout(bolter, power sword, rod of office) becoming illegal slight surprise. Hopefully nobody kitbashed that. Also slight nerf to the rod

Just noticed the doors on the rhino seem to have changed from the initial pic we saw, but everything else seems to be the same from what I can see.
I wonder why that was? I much prefer the first ones...


Vs

The doors could be double-sided and the fancier side is just facing down in those pictures.

 Krinsath wrote:
The doors could be double-sided and the fancier side is just facing down in those pictures.

Maybe, but I don’t think two lip bits sticking out on the top of the ones in the sprue shot would fit into a rhino door hole if that was the inside of the door, but I might be wrong

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So Mortifiers get 15 attacks, not 13. That extra attack gets the "make 3 attack" rule from the flails, meaning their 4x3 attacks actually becomes 5x3.

Did not see that coming.

Why? It's the plain reading of the rules.

Mortifiers have an Attack stat of 4. Having two penitent flails adds +1 Attack for a total of five. Five Attacks, each making three to-hit rolls, means 15 to-hit rolls.

I'm baffled by the fact that there was a need for this to be clarified at all.

Order of operations.

You multiply before adding. That's why it needs clarification, as this goes against standard order of operations.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Order of operations.

You multiply before adding. That's why it needs clarification, as this goes against standard order of operations.

Except flail doesn"t multiply your attacks. It gives 3 hit rolls per attack. Different things and there are multiple examples of this before. Have you just started playing 8th ed by chance?

tneva82 wrote:
Except flail doesn"t multiply your attacks. It gives 3 hit rolls per attack. Different things and there are multiple examples of this before. Have you just started playing 8th ed by chance?

A rose by any other name...

Look, I'm not disputing the ruling. If that's how they want to work it out then that's perfectly fine. The query was why that need clarification at all, and the reason is just that: Such a thing goes against standard orders of operation with mathematics. Doesn't mean GW can't ignore that if they want - they certainly can and obviously have - but it's a valid query in an FAQ.

So if you multiply damage(say overchaged plasma) do you first multiply your attacks as well before rolling to hit? after all multiply first.

Oh; so the Canoness wargear was a mistake, despite what many people desperately tried to argue. Imagine my surprise.

tneva82 wrote:
So if you multiply damage(say overchaged plasma) do you first multiply your attacks as well before rolling to hit? after all multiply first.

That doesn't even make sense, and you know it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Order of operations.

You multiply before adding. That's why it needs clarification, as this goes against standard order of operations.

This is indeed how GW have done it since I can recall.

Earliest example I can think of? Frenzy in WHFB up to around 6th Ed. Frenzy doubled your attacks. And most units with Frenzy as a standard rule had two hand weapons, which grant an extra attack. The order was double your profile attacks, then add one for two hand weapons.

Either way, it’s the definition of a Frequently Asked Question, because it’s a question, and frequently asked. Having a definitive answer is a good thing,

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Order of operations.

Where does it say that the +1 attack is unaffected by the "each attack rolls 3 to-hit rolls", HBMC?

I mean, aside from absolutely nowhere.

The weapons give three to-hit rolls per attack. Thus, adding one attack gives +3 to-hit rolls.

This is patently obvious.

tl;dr: Each Attack made with the Penitent Flails is 3 to-hit rolls. It doesn't say "multiply the number of attacks by three", but rather, every attack gives 3 to-hit rolls. Whether or not it's four attacks or five, each attack is 3 to-hit rolls. Thus, with one flail it's 12, and with two flails granting +1 attack, it's 15. Because that extra attack is also made with a pentitent flail.

This is simple and straightforward, and you're really stretching it hard to try to argue otherwise.

See, the funny thing is, normally, if I read "each attack rolls 3 to-hit rolls", my question would be "Ok. And then which one do I choose to see if I hit with that attack?"

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Order of operations.

You multiply before adding. That's why it needs clarification, as this goes against standard order of operations.

This is indeed how GW have done it since I can recall.

Earliest example I can think of? Frenzy in WHFB up to around 6th Ed. Frenzy doubled your attacks. And most units with Frenzy as a standard rule had two hand weapons, which grant an extra attack. The order was double your profile attacks, then add one for two hand weapons.

Either way, it’s the definition of a Frequently Asked Question, because it’s a question, and frequently asked. Having a definitive answer is a good thing,

Thing is there\s never multiplication of attacks here. And there's multiple examples in 40k of this very mechanism. So if you have been living under rock and have assumption that you double everything(even different things) before additions...Well guess if you are shooting with overcharged plasma you roll 2 hit rolls and wound rolls then. After all. Multiplications first. Even if you are multiplying and adding different things.

Wow half a page of people attacking HBMC for saying something perfectly reasonable. It must be Friday.

How 40k fans got labelled as sad losers with no lifves I'll never know. Everyone here is so mature and mentally well-balanced.

For what it's worth, I think there are instances where GW has been inconsistent with order of operations. Compare the application of aura buffs in AoS (multiply first then add) to the strength of say, a Catachan power fist.

That said, the flails are a different beast, and follow the same (fairly clear) paradigm that arco flagellants have followed for many editions: a total 'attacks' profile that gets its buffs applied, then multiplied by whatever the x factor of the weapon is to determine number of hit dice. I know every time I saw them on the tabletop the player who had never encountered them before was confused.

 Albertorius wrote:
See, the funny thing is, normally, if I read "each attack rolls 3 to-hit rolls", my question would be "Ok. And then which one do I choose to see if I hit with that attack?"

Yeah, that was my first thought, too!

The fact that it makes three rolls per attack was obvious, but then I was like "wait, so three to-hit rolls, does it mean three chances to hit with the same attack, or each hit can thus wound?" that gave me pause. Cause that's not normally how one thinks of attacks, like how the d# attacks still says that number of attacks, not that number of to-hit rolls. But it's definitely meant to give them a... very large number of attacks.

..i think we can probably call an end to the unexpected maths lesson here now TBH.

.. I mean we all know it's grammar and spelling mistakes where the real issues lay with GW right ?

 Casbyness wrote:
Wow half a page of people attacking HBMC for saying something perfectly reasonable. It must be Friday.

Removed - Rule #1

They didn't FAQ to tell us if the “Moment of Grace” stratagem allow us to roll up to a 9 on a d6! Very rarely useful but if you want to save a mini with no invul against a high AP attack, could be useful.
I mean, saving an exorcist against an AP4 attack by saying “Yeah ok I use an act of faith to roll a 6, then I use 1CP and a bad miracle dice, try again!” could be a pretty fun gotcha moment!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Casbyness wrote:
Wow half a page of people attacking HBMC for saying something perfectly reasonable. It must be Friday.

Removed - Rule #1

They didn't FAQ to tell us if the “Moment of Grace” stratagem allow us to roll up to a 9 on a d6! Very rarely useful but if you want to save a mini with no invul against a high AP attack, could be useful.
I mean, saving an exorcist against an AP4 attack by saying “Yeah ok I use an act of faith to roll a 6, then I use 1CP and a bad miracle dice, try again!” could be a pretty fun gotcha moment!

This is only possible on attacks that ignore invuls though. Literally nothing with AoF doesn't have SoF.

In other news, placing Junith on a 25mm base allows her to still (just about) be placed on her battle pulpit, whilst also letting you use her as a Canoness in other battles if needed.

Also it's possible to cut the hood off the Hospitaller model, if you want something more unique or have multiple copies and want them to look different.

Still nothing new for sisters.

Maybe they plan to wait another twenty years before releasing the rest of the models?

This is really super infuriating and I really cannot understand why they're doing this. I am sure plenty of people wanted to start a new sister army and get playing and now they can't.

Yep. As it is I'm praying Fanatic 2020 tournament registeration doesn't start any time soon if it's like other bigger tournaments "pay first, won't get paid back in case you cancel". Likely gets filled quickly and as is I don't dare to register now because starts to look I can't even count on sisters being playable start of april...Would suck to pay register fee and then have to cancel with no return because sisters still missing core releases.

This is a masterclass in how to completely kill the hype for a product that you carefully built up for almost two full years.

I feel like when the preorders for the rest of the range finally go up we should just ignore them for at least a month, in revenge for this pointless wait.

 Crimson wrote:
Maybe they plan to wait another twenty years before releasing the rest of the models?

This is really super infuriating and I really cannot understand why they're doing this. I am sure plenty of people wanted to start a new sister army and get playing and now they can't.

I am somewhat surprised but I think I can see a possible logic - if GW assumes that people have a certain hobby budget per month, they might think that spreading the releases out means that people will buy more than if they all drop at once. They may also think that they didn't want too many weeks of sisters in a row, pushing other stuff out on the release schedule and annoying people who aren't interested in sisters (wouldn't have stopped them releasing the whole range in two weeks though...). Or they might have just taken longer to get these particular models ready for release. It sucks, but there's possible reasons for it.

 Bellerophon wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Maybe they plan to wait another twenty years before releasing the rest of the models?

This is really super infuriating and I really cannot understand why they're doing this. I am sure plenty of people wanted to start a new sister army and get playing and now they can't.

I am somewhat surprised but I think I can see a possible logic - if GW assumes that people have a certain hobby budget per month, they might think that spreading the releases out means that people will buy more than if they all drop at once. They may also think that they didn't want too many weeks of sisters in a row, pushing other stuff out on the release schedule and annoying people who aren't interested in sisters (wouldn't have stopped them releasing the whole range in two weeks though...). Or they might have just taken longer to get these particular models ready for release. It sucks, but there's possible reasons for it.

Yet ossirich got full range(10) out week after big box was released...They had more after 2 weeks than sisters in 5.

Plus it's starting to look like 7.3 is earliest for next preorder, almost 2 months after first.next week something, then likely 2 week for aos. Then back to 40k. Looking rather likely.