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.

 alextroy wrote:
Is this silly argument really necessary? We can all see that there is the absurd reading of the FAQ (I'm really sorry I used that as a argument as two why the additional Hits were not considered to be the same roll ) and what GW probably intended (but failed to convey clearly).

Not really. This will get corrected quickly. GW totally doesn't want infinite triggered hits. Somebody is probably already having.had an "Are you stupid?" meeting this morning. And while I applaud the idea behind trying to break the infinite bonus hits combo with the rules we already have, I'd prefer to do it by not intentionally misreading the rule we already have and breaking it too when there are so many instances where GW prints something stupid you could take "advantage" of honestly to prevent the scenario.

Your assuming that GW have even noticed that they made an infinite loop rule, something that should have been obvious if they had checked any precedence in other FAQ's or even you know made sure they had checked the rules for unintended interactions.

There is also how to manage it in the meantime

 flandarz wrote:
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.

Yes, it really is. You're still trying to take an answer to a specific question and apply it to a question that the was never asked and may have a totally different answer.

Q: Does the canteen serve ham and cheese sandwiches Monday through Saturday?

A: Yes, the canteen serves ham and cheese sandwiches.

The question sets the context for the answer only applying Monday through Saturday. The answer would need to say something like "Yes, the canteen serves ham and cheese sandwiches seven days a week" in order for it to apply to a day that the original question does not cover. It is the same here. You're trying to apply an answer to a situation not covered by the context of the original question and the answer does not specifically cover (i.e., it does not say that it applies to 'all benefits' instead of the 'other benefits' that the question specifically covers).

Breton wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:


Taking one clause and ignoreing its context is

You mean like ignoring the fact that several attacks can be less than all? The very first instruction is to take several attacks (that meet the criteria). Not to take all attacks (that meet the criteria). All refers to those several attacks, not the all potential attacks.

You're trying to ignore Several Attacks to make it All Rolls for All Attacks when that's not what it says.

Its not an instruction as clarified earlier. Read the whole paragraph

However its probably time to resolve this in its own thread so as not to clutter this one as its a seperate question

sorry, but anyone who plays this a infinite hits is not worth it to play against. This is clearly not intended, so stop trying to make it work.

@Ghaz: there's plenty of precedent for this type of interaction, but I'll just give you a fictional example.

Q: Can Ultra Missiles cause a vehicle explosion?
A: Yes, all missiles can cause a vehicle explosion.

As you can see, they answered the question, then added additional information with allowed it to apply to other cases.

@Terry: no one is trying to do that. At this point, this is a thought exercise.

Assuming it's not infinite hits (say some rule comes out that an ability cannot stack with itself) do we get one six = 10 wounds with the following combo?

Paired combat blades + knife fighter + whirlwind + gene-might

One 6 -> 3 sixes from PCB+KF+WW -> each of those sixes proc for the other two abilities (KF+WW proc off of PCB 6) so one six ends up as 10 hits? (1+3+2+2+2)? All of them are sixes so gene-might turns them all into auto-wounds.

I'm desperately trying to find a way to make the phobos LT work and this makes him a mediocre fighter. Not sure it's worth the investment (which speaks to his power level) but it could be interesting.

Just wanted to say, the same FAQ makes Crimson Fists and Imperial Fists get unlimited attacks if they roll a 6 with their bolt weapons. Due to the tactics.

 WindstormSCR wrote:
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"

No not really. You can technically resolve the additional hits "per batch" until the unit dies, all the other infinite hits become irrelevant at that point and the game continues. As far as I know there is nothing in the rules that states that the additional attacks all have to be resolved at the same time, I.E having to roll infinite "to wounds" before moving on to armor saves.

U02dah4 wrote:
There is also how to manage it in the meantime

Somebody tries to do it vs me and I hope I have very resilient unit and then force him to actually roll it out. And I will even refuse fast dice rolling(that's conditional on both players agreeing) just for fun of it to have him roll one dice at a time and me one dice a time for save. Game won't finish in time that way.

He wants to play silly, I'll play silly in return He can try to claim "I get infinite hits so unit auto dies". Yes. But technically speaking laws of probabilities means eventually I will roll enough saves(and he fails enough to wounds) that to kill unit will take...oh couple million dice rolls. So time to roll it out!

Fast rolling is not conditional on both players agreeing.
No rule says that both players have to agree. Maybe a house rule but no BRB rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and according to math.... infinite attacks do not mean eventually you will die... its the Schrodinger cat scenario. As long as there is a small probability that your unit can make a save/he will fail a wound your unit is both 100% likely of being wiped and 100 % likely of staying on the field. Not until the dice are rolled does one or the other become true.

Its silly, but technically, according to quantum math, they can't just say it will be wiped... XD ...
GW has presented a problem in their game that requires quantum math .... lol.

 Type40 wrote:

and according to math.... infinite attacks do not mean eventually you will die... its the Schrodinger cat scenario. As long as there is a small probability that your unit can make a save/he will fail a wound your unit is both 100% likely of being wiped and 100 % likely of staying on the field. Not until the dice are rolled does one or the other become true.

Its silly, but technically, according to quantum math, they can't just say it will be wiped... XD ...
GW has presented a problem in their game that requires quantum math .... lol.

Actually you're wrong here. An infinite probability distribution that tends to a probability of 1 as this scenario does adds up to precisely 1. That's not rounding, mathematically speaking it is certain.

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

and according to math.... infinite attacks do not mean eventually you will die... its the Schrodinger cat scenario. As long as there is a small probability that your unit can make a save/he will fail a wound your unit is both 100% likely of being wiped and 100 % likely of staying on the field. Not until the dice are rolled does one or the other become true.

Its silly, but technically, according to quantum math, they can't just say it will be wiped... XD ...
GW has presented a problem in their game that requires quantum math .... lol.

Actually you're wrong here. An infinite probability distribution that tends to a probability of 1 as this scenario does adds up to precisely 1. That's not rounding, mathematically speaking it is certain.

Not in quantum math.
In quantum math any piece of probability is considered both true and false at the same time until it is confirmed.
before you roll a dice, if the possibility of it being a pass or a fail exists, it is then considered to be both a pass and fail until it is confirmed.
If you multiply any probability by infinity it is both 100% likely and 100% false at the same time. Even if that probability is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 %

You are correct ,however, if we approach this from a Newtonian calculus perspective.

Quantum math only applies to quantum level events though surely, not to rolling a die

We're getting off topic though - point is, this doesn't matter because it's clearly not intentional!

 Stux wrote:
Quantum math only applies to quantum level events though surely, not to rolling a die

We're getting off topic though - point is, this doesn't matter because it's clearly not intentional!

we are definitely, and this is definitely an interesting topic that deserves to be talked about on some other forum somewhere XDc XD .

But a quantum physicist would argue that all events are at a quantum level. As we exists in the context of time and space... there isn't such a thing in our physical world that is not a quantum event.

I would agree that there is technically a non-zero chance to successfully Save infinitely, but it's so abysmally low that you'd have a better chance of spontaneously swapping bodies with a snail and enjoying a sunny day on a Saturnian beach while Beethoven grills up some nice uranium burgers.

 flandarz wrote:
I would agree that there is technically a non-zero chance to successfully Save infinitely, but it's so abysmally low that you'd have a better chance of spontaneously swapping bodies with a snail and enjoying a sunny day on a Saturnian beach while Beethoven grills up some nice uranium burgers.

Also quantum viable lol.

But anyways, this entire thread at this point is a non-topic. Its not like anyone would/should play it as though there are infinite attacks. The real question now, is how should we play this until the problem is resolved ? My solution is simply house ruling extra hits can not generate further extra hits no mater what the rule says. Otherwise, fine, the extra hit has a value of what ever the previous roll was.

It is weird to me that GW published a day one fix for the non-codex marines (DA/BA/DW/SW) getting litanies on their FW/Index chaplains but still hasn't addressed an issue that literally breaks the game.

Add a line to the offending strategems/abilities that these hits cannot generate any further hits for this ability and you reign in the exploding forever but still leave sixes are sixes are sixes for the rest of the interactions.

Could be that it is taking them a while to comb through all of their documents to find all of the abilities that do this but that is their own damned fault. Maybe a casually designed rule set full of bloat and conflicting rules spread across the four corners of the multi-webs is a terrible publication model and needs updating/consolidation?

As an imperial player I'm not a fan of the way exploding attacks is handled in the current rule-set anyway (lord discos and morty getting all the extra attacks because they're salty they got their butts kicked on Terra...). Hopefully that could be revisited while they are at it (it won't).

It's actually pretty easy to fix. You remove the line at the end of the answer, leaving as just a "Yes."

 flandarz wrote:
I would agree that there is technically a non-zero chance to successfully Save infinitely, but it's so abysmally low that you'd have a better chance of spontaneously swapping bodies with a snail and enjoying a sunny day on a Saturnian beach while Beethoven grills up some nice uranium burgers.

Technically it's not non-zero, it is certain. You can calculate the probability for infinite series and if it tend to certain then it is certain.

It's similar to how 0.9' is equal to 1. Not really really close, it literally is 1.

Proof for those interested:

x = 0.9'
10x = 9.9'
9x = 9.9' - 0.9' = 9
x = 1

Therefore
0.9' = 1

um
if x = 0.9 then
10x = 9.0
9x = 8.1

x cant change, x is a solid variable...
at least that's how it works when I program it ... Even if I set it to calculate on some infinite looped sequence.
If I ask my software to calculate
varX = 0.9
Loop
VarX = VarrX + VarX
End loop while showing VarX

This will never round up to a whole number until it reaches loop 10. and then that number will be 9 and then again at loop 20 it equals 18 and etc. But the loop count will always exceed VarX and Varx will never = 1.



if 10x = 9.9
then x = 0.99

if 9x = 9.9 - 0.9
then yes X = 1

but why are you subtracting - 0.9 ? just for fun ?

I don't follow your math, explain. 0.9 / = 1 ... 0.9 = 0.9 .

also

either way that's Newtonian algebra, quantum math works differently.
Quantum math is preferable when dealing withing infinite probabilities because infinite suggests the sequence will be higher then a finite number... thus breaking standard probability math.

0 to 100 % or 0 to 1 needs to be used in probability. infinite is greater then 1 ... thus probability can not be calculated using Newtonian algebra.

Pretty ridiculous outcomes when you start applying this ruling elsewhere. Any ranged unit with this ability is functionally immune to charges in LOS now. Any 6 in overwatch explodes into limitless death. Reflection type abilities force both units to suicide too. If GW doesn’t fix this, the first player to absolutely crush a GT with Necrons to prove a point is my hero.

 Type40 wrote:
um
if x = 0.9 then
10x = 9.0
9x = 8.1

x cant change, x is a solid variable...
at least that's how it works when I program it ... Even if I set it to calculate on some infinite looped sequence.
If I ask my software to calculate
varX = 0.9
Loop
VarX = VarrX + VarX
End loop while showing VarX

This will never round up to a whole number until it reaches loop 10. and then that number will be 9 and then again at loop 20 it equals 18 and etc. But the loop count will always exceed VarX and Varx will never = 1.



if 10x = 9.9
then x = 0.99

if 9x = 9.9 - 0.9
then yes X = 1

but why are you subtracting - 0.9 ? just for fun ?

I don't follow your math, explain. 0.9 / = 1 ... 0.9 = 0.9 .

also

either way that's Newtonian algebra, quantum math works differently.
Quantum math is preferable when dealing withing infinite probabilities because infinite suggests the sequence will be higher then a finite number... thus breaking standard probability math.

0 to 100 % or 0 to 1 needs to be used in probability. infinite is greater then 1 ... thus probability can not be calculated using Newtonian algebra.

No, you've misunderstood my notation.

0.9' not 0.9

The ' indicates it's a recurring decimal.

X tends to 0 it might never reach it but even if i just take coin flips

0.5
0.25
0.125
0 0625
0.03125
0.015625
0.0078125
0.00390625
0.001953115
0.0009765625
By the time you get to to 20 flips your at 0.0000009537

Which to any real gaming purposes is 0 because under 1 in 1000000000 might aswell be the fact it could technically happen by luck is not worth considering

U02dah4 wrote:
X tends to 0 it might never reach it but even if i just take coin flips

0.5
0.25
0.125
0 0625
0.03125
0.015625
0.0078125
0.00390625
0.001953115
0.0009765625
By the time you get to to 20 flips your at 0.0000009537

Which to any real gaming purposes is 0 because under 1 in 1000000000 might aswell be the fact it could technically happen by luck is not worth considering

And if you did it infinite times it would literally be zero.

Which sounds weird, but remember it is not possible to do something infinite times, so an unintuitive result should be expected!

Ah, so it is rounding out of convenience (and practicality).

Yes, makes sense, again though, quantum math approaches it differently.
What you are saying is logical. And we live in a world where it is more beneficial to follow Newtonian algebra and Newtonian probability.
But in Quantum math. (specifically when dealing with infinite possibilities) you can not ignore small probability.

i.e. if a monkey sits at a type writer for an infinite amount of time, at some point they will type out the devinci code or they wont.

But again, I am not saying you are wrong. I am just pointing out there are different mathematical approaches to this and generally when talking about infinite probability. We turn to quantum mathematics because it simplifies it.

It is considered both true and false until confirmed. Then calculate based on that.

 Type40 wrote:
Ah, so it is rounding out of convenience (and practicality).

There's no rounding in the proof. It's just notation to represent an infinitely recurring decimal.

That might be what you mean, but I'm just being clear that rounding has no part in the proof.

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Ah, so it is rounding out of convenience (and practicality).

There's no rounding in the proof. It's just notation to represent an infinitely recurring decimal.

That might be what you mean, but I'm just being clear that rounding has no part in the proof.

Except thats only valid as a math proof, as for any actual calculatable value 9X is not 9 it's 8.9'

Ice_can wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Ah, so it is rounding out of convenience (and practicality).

There's no rounding in the proof. It's just notation to represent an infinitely recurring decimal.

That might be what you mean, but I'm just being clear that rounding has no part in the proof.

Except thats only valid as a math proof, as for any actual calculatable value 9X is not 9 it's 8.9'

9 is literally the exact same number as 8.9' and provably so in multiple ways.