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

"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 Infiltrator’s marksman bolt carbine)?
A: Yes, the additional hits are treated as having rolled
the same value as the dice roll that generated them. "

Does this not mean that the siege masters chapter tactic also triggers... as the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value ?
and what about any other ability that generates more hits.... like the wording on the marksman bolt carbine has the same syntax as siege masters ....

I am just saying,,,, a ton of stuff seems to just have gotten infinite attacks.... at least RAW.

Am I reading this wrong ?

 Type40 wrote:
so

"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 Infiltrator’s marksman bolt carbine)?
A: Yes, the additional hits are treated as having rolled
the same value as the dice roll that generated them. "

Does this not mean that the siege masters chapter tactic also triggers... as the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value ?
and what about any other ability that generates more hits.... like the wording on the marksman bolt carbine has the same syntax as siege masters ....

I am just saying,,,, a ton of stuff seems to just have gotten infinite attacks.... at least RAW.

Am I reading this wrong ?

Yes, you get infinite hits. GW at its finest!

I read it the same. As long as the ability does not have the "these additional hits cannot create additional hits" tagline. Whirlwind of Death is the most obvious that doesn't for me.
(This has also been debated in the New Space Marine FAQ thread)

I think this totally deserves its own thread... like this is really, really , completely game breaking,,,, like,,,, there are so many things with this type of ability....

How do you miss this when you are referencing an ability that goes infinite from a clarification like this right in its very FAQ ....

Potentially the detail is not in the answer but the question. The question says ‘…do these additional hits gain any other benefits’…. The critical bit being other. The additional hit is already a benefit, so to qualify as 'any other benefit' the affect would need to be different….

Cornishman wrote:
Potentially the detail is not in the answer but the question. The question says ‘…do these additional hits gain any other benefits’…. The critical bit being other. The additional hit is already a benefit, so to qualify as 'any other benefit' the affect would need to be different….

1. the explanation does not restrict...
Thats like, if you asked me. "can I eat ice cream after dinner" and I said "yes, because after dinner is desert time"

That means yes, after dinner is desert time,,, but it also doesn't mean you can't have a different kind of desert then ice cream. I explained the rule and why I said yes in the answer. Your question does not provide restriction to the answer. This isn't the first time we treated the FAQ this way and based on logical syntax we shouldn't here.

2. The game can still break from any army that can simply gain a second ability that generates hits.

This is clearly a very poor error on GWs part no mater what. It is clearly not the intention to give infinite attacks... the question is,,,, how do we play the game now,,,, just figure out some house rules or what ? its unclear if we should just ignore gaining extra hits or if we should ignore all abilities that trigger on sixes .

Necrons were hoping for a boost, I guess here it is. /s

Infinite hits from Tesla, which can proc on a hit roll of 4+ with the right setup.

Harlies with somber sentinals will have it proc on 2+ for 1 cp...

 Type40 wrote:

Cornishman wrote:
Potentially the detail is not in the answer but the question. The question says ‘…do these additional hits gain any other benefits’…. The critical bit being other. The additional hit is already a benefit, so to qualify as 'any other benefit' the affect would need to be different….

1. the explanation does not restrict...
Thats like, if you asked me. "can I eat ice cream after dinner" and I said "yes, because after dinner is desert time"

That means yes, after dinner is desert time,,, but it also doesn't mean you can't have a different kind of desert then ice cream. I explained the rule and why I said yes in the answer. Your question does not provide restriction to the answer. This isn't the first time we treated the FAQ this way and based on logical syntax we shouldn't here.

2. The game can still break from any army that can simply gain a second ability that generates hits.

This is clearly a very poor error on GWs part no mater what. It is clearly not the intention to give infinite attacks... the question is,,,, how do we play the game now,,,, just figure out some house rules or what ? its unclear if we should just ignore gaining extra hits or if we should ignore all abilities that trigger on sixes .

Lets see...

You roll a 6. You have an abilities that grant bonuses for to hit rolls of a 6:
You get <various bonuses> (e.g. -1AP, Autowound etc...) to be applied to the hit (generated above) and you gain an additional (i.e. bonus) hit.
Here's the question

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 Infiltrator’s marksman bolt carbine)?

To be an 'other benefit' (as opposed to 'does it gain any/all benefits that would apply...) it must be distinct and different a benefit that already exists. The benefit here is having the additional hit to which other bonuses may be applied.
As the additional hits is the existing benefit then a further additional hits can't be generated on off of this existing additional attack as that is not an different benefit, however autowounding, improving AP by -1 etc... are different so do apply.

Cornishman wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Cornishman wrote:
Potentially the detail is not in the answer but the question. The question says ‘…do these additional hits gain any other benefits’…. The critical bit being other. The additional hit is already a benefit, so to qualify as 'any other benefit' the affect would need to be different….

1. the explanation does not restrict...
Thats like, if you asked me. "can I eat ice cream after dinner" and I said "yes, because after dinner is desert time"

That means yes, after dinner is desert time,,, but it also doesn't mean you can't have a different kind of desert then ice cream. I explained the rule and why I said yes in the answer. Your question does not provide restriction to the answer. This isn't the first time we treated the FAQ this way and based on logical syntax we shouldn't here.

2. The game can still break from any army that can simply gain a second ability that generates hits.

This is clearly a very poor error on GWs part no mater what. It is clearly not the intention to give infinite attacks... the question is,,,, how do we play the game now,,,, just figure out some house rules or what ? its unclear if we should just ignore gaining extra hits or if we should ignore all abilities that trigger on sixes .

Lets see...

You roll a 6. You have an abilities that grant bonuses for to hit rolls of a 6:
You get <various bonuses> (e.g. -1AP, Autowound etc...) to be applied to the hit (generated above) and you gain an additional (i.e. bonus) hit.
Here's the question

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 Infiltrator’s marksman bolt carbine)?

To be an 'other benefit' (as opposed to 'does it gain any/all benefits that would apply...) it must be distinct and different a benefit that already exists. The benefit here is having the additional hit to which other bonuses may be applied.
As the additional hits is the existing benefit then a further additional hits can't be generated on off of this existing additional attack as that is not an different benefit, however autowounding, improving AP by -1 etc... are different so do apply.

The trick is, the answer does not follow the same wording. It says: "Yes, the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value as the dice roll that generated them." It does not mention the "other effects" it just says that the dice value of these extra hits is equal to the one the player generated.

When a Tesla weapon rolls a 6+, it causes 3 hits. Based on the answer, those additional hits are treated as having rolled a 6+ as well which would then trigger Tesla. Now, we know this is not something they intended (I would hope) and is one of the cases where the "Rules as Intended" might make more sense.

I just hope they revisit this and come up with a FAQ that actually matches what they wanted to happen.

Cornishman wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Cornishman wrote:
Potentially the detail is not in the answer but the question. The question says ‘…do these additional hits gain any other benefits’…. The critical bit being other. The additional hit is already a benefit, so to qualify as 'any other benefit' the affect would need to be different….

1. the explanation does not restrict...
Thats like, if you asked me. "can I eat ice cream after dinner" and I said "yes, because after dinner is desert time"

That means yes, after dinner is desert time,,, but it also doesn't mean you can't have a different kind of desert then ice cream. I explained the rule and why I said yes in the answer. Your question does not provide restriction to the answer. This isn't the first time we treated the FAQ this way and based on logical syntax we shouldn't here.

2. The game can still break from any army that can simply gain a second ability that generates hits.

This is clearly a very poor error on GWs part no mater what. It is clearly not the intention to give infinite attacks... the question is,,,, how do we play the game now,,,, just figure out some house rules or what ? its unclear if we should just ignore gaining extra hits or if we should ignore all abilities that trigger on sixes .

Lets see...

You roll a 6. You have an abilities that grant bonuses for to hit rolls of a 6:
You get <various bonuses> (e.g. -1AP, Autowound etc...) to be applied to the hit (generated above) and you gain an additional (i.e. bonus) hit.
Here's the question

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 Infiltrator’s marksman bolt carbine)?

To be an 'other benefit' (as opposed to 'does it gain any/all benefits that would apply...) it must be distinct and different a benefit that already exists. The benefit here is having the additional hit to which other bonuses may be applied.
As the additional hits is the existing benefit then a further additional hits can't be generated on off of this existing additional attack as that is not an different benefit, however autowounding, improving AP by -1 etc... are different so do apply.

Again,

see my post above.

The answer does not exclude outside the specifics of the question.

example
You ask me "can we go to the park?"
I say "yes, because we are going for a walk a 6pm"

That does not mean we can ONLY walk to the park. The explanation clarifies why the specific question is answered as a yes.
The answer does not say "Other abilities treat the generated hit rolls as a the same value as the dice roll that generated them"
The answer does say ", the additional hits are treated as having rolled
the same value as the dice roll that generated them. "
thus the answer says, yes other abilities do because ALL dice rolls are treated as rolling the same value as the dice roll that generated them.
Answering a specific question with a wider explanation... this isn't weird for english or even the FAQs we have seen this with many other FAQs as well.

hence, broken game.

Q. If an ability or rule generates an additional hit, (e.g. the Imperial Siege Masters Chapter Tactic), do these additional hits gain any further benefits that would apply to an attack on a hit roll of 6 (e.g. an Infiltrator’s marksman bolt carbine)?

A: Yes, the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value as the dice roll that generated them.

Change that one little word and it makes their intention much clearer, IMHO.

 Ghaz 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 further benefits that would apply to an attack on a hit roll of 6 (e.g. an Infiltrator’s marksman bolt carbine)?

A: Yes, the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value as the dice roll that generated them.

Change that one little word and it makes their intention much clearer, IMHO.

Agreed,

However, my question is, was the intent to actually allow every other ability to treat generated hits as the original value rolled OR is this just someone not knowing the intention of a previous rules designer...

Are there any examples in the game where a unit can generate more hits from multiple abilities? because if so even with the wording of this answer being changed to "other abilities treat ...etc... " there could still be some infinite loops because of this.
can anyone think of any ? because if there aren't I will just house rule it as other abilities for now.

This might be the only time where BCB will agree that the RAW isn't RAI. Or, he might think a 1 in 6 (or better) chance to destroy literally any unit a single model shoots is intended, but I think even he has his limits.

Most rules that confer additional hits have a limitation of "additional hits do not generate a loop."

Relevant FAQ



However the blanket statement of "having rolled the same value" and "other benefits"
Creates FUN TIMES. Simply put: BEST FAQ EVER.

It does say 'other benefits' yet too many are reading it as 'the same benefit' that created the extra hits in the first place.

I think most folks are looking at the answer itself.

"Yes, the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value as the dice roll that generated them."

The answer was written in a way that, if you rolled a 6 and got an extra hit, that extra hit would be a 6 and also get an extra hit. Ad infinitum.

 flandarz wrote:
I think most folks are looking at the answer itself.

"Yes, the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value as the dice roll that generated them."

The answer was written in a way that, if you rolled a 6 and got an extra hit, that extra hit would be a 6 and also get an extra hit. Ad infinitum.

Except that wasn't what the question was asking. The question was does the if you score an additional hit on a 6, is that additional hit considered as rolling a 6 for other (i.e., additional) benefits.

 Ghaz wrote:
It does say 'other benefits' yet too many are reading it as 'the same benefit' that created the extra hits in the first place.

Other Benefits and Same Benefit.
-I have no words for this confusion.

Step 1: I roll 4 attacks 1 of the is a 6.
Step 2: Whirlwind of Rage makes an additional attack
Step 3: Special Snowflake FAQ makes that additional attack have a value of 6
Step 4: Now Whirlwind of Rage makes another additional attack what will end up having an value of 6 "to infinity and beyond."

Side Note: your statement doesn't even follow the main rules anyway.
Attacks are resolved singularly even if you statement was valid you are not gaining the benefit of a rule multiple times.
Each attack gains the benefit of "Whirlwind of Rage" in an instance of 1.

Attack 1: Miss
Attack 2: Hit (<6)
Attack 3: Hit (<6)
Attack 4: Hit (A unmodified 6) WoR triggers

Additional Attack 1: FAQ makes this a 6, WoR Triggers.
Additional attack 2 to Infinity: See above.

For
Unlimited Hits
Unlimited Wounds
Unlimited Damage
Unlimited Failed Saves
Unlimited Failed FNP Clones..
Ergo "You are all ready dead!"

And that's fine. Unfortunately, the answer itself was still worded in a way that infinite attacks are possible. They could have left it with a simple "Yes" and it would have been fine. But the addition of "the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value as the dice roll that generated them" just throws a huge wrench into things.

 flandarz wrote:
And that's fine. Unfortunately, the answer itself was still worded in a way that infinite attacks are possible. They could have left it with a simple "Yes" and it would have been fine. But the addition of "the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value as the dice roll that generated them" just throws a huge wrench into things.

So if I go through the FAQs and I find an answer that I like I can then apply it to any question I want regardless? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You can't ignore the context that the question provides for the answer.

This reminds me of the "overwatch counts as the shooting phase FAQ"

See how I broke down the game operations above.

Attacks gain benefits of rules, the game resolves these attacks in a very specific order.

The way English works doesn't change this process.

Ergo "You are All Ready Dead" If I roll a 6 in a RAW game (until the intern in GW office wakes up).

That's fair, but you also can't ignore the parts of an answer that you don't like. That being, it explicitly states to treat the additional hits as though they have the same dice value and doesn't specify that it doesn't apply to generating more hits.

I doubt anyone will disagree that this isn't RAI, but it was certainly written poorly enough that there IS a case for infinite attacks being RAW.

Exactly, its not the "yes" that's the problem. Its the wider connotation coming from the explanation of why it happens.

"the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value as the dice roll that generated them."

That explanation simply says why "other benefits" trigger. The explanation statement has a wider connotation though. The explanation statement is NOT limited to "other benefits." Please see the examples I wrote above.

We do in fact treat many other FAQs this way. Also, this is how we treat questions in general in English. No way around it. The question is specific the answer is broad. The answer does answer the question and states soooo much more...

 flandarz wrote:
That's fair, but you also can't ignore the parts of an answer that you don't like. That being, it explicitly states to treat the additional hits as though they have the same dice value and doesn't specify that it doesn't apply to generating more hits.

I doubt anyone will disagree that this isn't RAI, but it was certainly written poorly enough that there IS a case for infinite attacks being RAW.

I'm not ignoring anything, which is why you can't make the answer read that it allows infinite hits. It is not an 'other benefit'. You're trying to apply the 'same benefit' again.

If you have a rule that states "a dice value of 6 generates an additional hit" and you have an answer that states "the extra hits generated have the same value as the dice that created them" then you have to be ignoring one or the other. As stated, the answer doesn't state that it doesn't apply to abilities that generate additional hits.

 flandarz wrote:
If you have a rule that states "a dice value of 6 generates an additional hit" and you have an answer that states "the extra hits generated have the same value as the dice that created them" then you have to be ignoring one or the other. As stated, the answer doesn't state that it doesn't apply to abilities that generate additional hits.

And yet again, you've ignored the context of the question in regards to 'other benefits' (i.e., benefits which are not the one that generated the extra hits). Your position is the old 'It doesn't say that I can't, so I can' argument that never works.

 Ghaz wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
If you have a rule that states "a dice value of 6 generates an additional hit" and you have an answer that states "the extra hits generated have the same value as the dice that created them" then you have to be ignoring one or the other. As stated, the answer doesn't state that it doesn't apply to abilities that generate additional hits.

And yet again, you've ignored the context of the question in regards to 'other benefits' (i.e., benefits which are not the one that generated the extra hits). Your position is the old 'It doesn't say that I can't, so I can' argument that never works.

Except your premiss completely ignores how the game works.

Go read the step by step for the fight phase and come back.

Your entire argument same isn't other is

Attacks are resolved one at a time (181/183 BRB) with fast rolling as an option.

The Whirlwind of Rage applies these rules on an dice roll basis.
Each is a separate entity ergo you are not benefiting foe WoR multiple times.
Each attack may benefit from it ONCE.
Because generated attacks = a value of 6 you get infinite instances of the above line.

The issue is that the statement "the additional hits are treated as having rolled the same value as the dice roll that generated them" isn't exclusive to just that question. It just states the dice value of those additional hits, without any disclaimer that it only applies to "other effects". As I stated before, if the answer had simply been "yes", then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The additional explanation is what causes issues.

The problem is that abilities exist without the "These attacks cannot themselves generate additional hits" line

if all such abilities had that line, it wouldn't be an issue

Example:
Siege Masters: Roll 6 to hit, generates another hit that is treated as also being a 6, but is a distinctly separate hit that cannot itself generate additional attacks.

Whirlwind of Rage has no such exclusion, and so continues to loop on itself, which means the attack never resolves, and both sides draw or one side concedes because the game never ends.


so really, it's not an "I kill anything" it's "The game enters a state where only a concession by either player ends the game"