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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
you score an additional hit roll because of the exploding 6. unless this is a special rule that simply explains things that gives auto hits on 6s rather than hit rolls? i can read it as either

Some rules give extra hits, like the Necron Tesla Carbine which says "Each time an attack is made with this weapon, an unmodified hit roll of 6 scores 2 additional hits."

Which is different than the Goffs rule that gives hit rolls.

Additional hits and additional hit rolls are not the same thing.

yea i know. I just assumed this rule didnt make a difference between giving an extra hit or an extra hit roll. But i guess this rule only works for extra hits and not extra hit rolls.

The full rule reads as follows:
When a model makes an attack, some rules will let that attack
score one or more additional hits on a particular hit roll (e.g.
‘each time an attack is made with this weapon, an unmodified
hit roll of 6 scores 1 additional hit’). If the attacking model is
also benefiting from any other rules that trigger on a particular
hit roll (e.g. ‘each time an attack is made with this weapon,
an unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically wounds the target’),
then only the original attack benefits from those rules. If any
additional hits are scored as the result of a particular hit roll,
those additional hits are not considered to have been made with
any hit roll – they simply hit the target and you must continue
the attack sequence for them (i.e. make a wound roll).

 alextroy wrote:
I'm not going to quote since there are too many posts, but I will summarize some points I think are being interpreted incorrectly:

1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says. It says "In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’." Treated means follow the same rules, not that it is an attack. They even went so far in the next sentence to again reiterate that it is a hit roll, not an attack. Therefore, any rules such as "make X hit rolls per attack" or "can only make 1 attack" do not apply to these Hit Rolls. This is different from a rule such as Death to the False Emperor that grants an additional attack. In such a case, that attack could have multiple Hit Rolls if the weapon said so.

2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll. So assuming it hits on that Hit Roll, you then have two hits from one attack. You then resolve each hit like it was a separate attack, which normally would be rolling to wound, target saving, and damage being inflicted. In this case, "the target suffers d3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain" for each hit. We do have the side issue of the model 'attacking' while dead, but we Hit before we died, so I am heavily inclined to complete the action already in play since the rules don't tell me not to.

3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.

Thank you, that's very accurate and should be clear enough for people that still make confusion about the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I would check the points again, I have a Tankbustas model with Tankhammer clocking in at 17 points, not 27.

That's actually true, I wrongly remembered that tankbustas were 17ppm when in fact they are 7pp with a 10ppm rokkit launcha. Tankhammer is also 10 but replaces the rokkit launcha so the model wielding it is still 17ppm. Doesn't change the fact the option is total garbage. A unit of 5 dudes with one hammer is 85ppm for 5 t-shirt save dudes, a unit of 10 with two hammers is 170 for ten t-shirt save dudes.

In reality you never charge with tankbustas because their too squishy and they'll die before even trying while the biggest part of the squad doesn't even want to charge anyway, but to shoot while in cover or even inside a transport. Tankbustas also have a potentially devastating stratagem that allows each model to throw a melta grenade (12ish hits for a 10 man squad on average), but guess what it's almost never used because it requires the unit to be whithin a range they'll never get. And that's much easier to achieve than a charge, much more powerful than charging with a couple of hammers and doesn't require the unit to mix up their loadout.

Ive come to the conclusion that untill i hear from GW then ill just flip a coin or something. On a heads, ill do the 2D3 MW if i roll a 6, on tails, i dont.


But then again, i will never be in this situation to begin with so i guess it really doesnt matter.

It matters for the bomb squigs though, at least to me (and not only as they are quite a popular option) as I use them pretty often and 6s to hit always got me (and other ork players who fielded them against me) the extra hit roll.

But I've always seen consensus about it so I'll stick with the way I've played so far. Too bad I'm not actually play any game thanks to the pandemic.

 Blackie wrote:
It matters for the bomb squigs though, at least to me (and not only as they are quite a popular option) as I use them pretty often and 6s to hit always got me (and other ork players who fielded them against me) the extra hit roll.

But I've always seen consensus about it so I'll stick with the way I've played so far. Too bad I'm not actually play any game thanks to the pandemic.

well. the Bomb squig does get the dakka dakka extra hit roll, but its also different from the tankhammers. Ive talked to quite a few prominent ork youtube players that all say that Squig Bombs all get dakka dakka. Part of that reason is the different wording, but also because the bomb isnt an ability but it has an actual weapons profile. Theres no difference between a squig bomb and a shoota profile, except the squig bomb dies afterwards.

So its not an ability, thus it can trigger twice. Its also, again, worded a bit differently, so you definitely get the dakka dakka from a squig bomb. thats not much of a debate.


But the whole tankhammer debacle really is a clusterF of rules being thrown together, and its a lot about interpreting which rules take priority and how exactly those rules work.

The bomb squig is a bit less of a clusterF. I just needed to understand the Squig Bomb properly but yes they get Dakka Dakka. But Tankhammers dont necessarily get 2 hit rolls, because its worded differently, and is an ability, and normally abilities cant trigger twice.

The question would then be if it does trigger twice, would it get 2D3 MW or just 3D MW and a regular attack with str. user, -0AP, 1dmg

Absolutely, but there are people who argue that the model dies after firing hence it doesn't get the additional hit roll and they will contest it.

Thankfully no one here ever brought up that argument, but like any other case in which there isn't consensus about a rule tossing a coin flip is always a reasonable way to resolve the issue.

Edit: here where I live, I mean .

 Blackie wrote:
Absolutely, but there are people who argue that the model dies after firing hence it doesn't get the additional hit roll and they will contest it.

Thankfully no one here ever brought up that argument, but like any other case in which there isn't consensus about a rule tossing a coin flip is always a reasonable way to resolve the issue.

well i think someone on page one argued they would die before hitting a second time but. yea. they dont.

Tankhammers however, i have no idea.

And yea, coin tossing or rolling a die or a quick game of rock, paper, scissor is always a decent idea.

My main question was really only about bomb squigs as i will be using these (and i have my answer), i was just curious about tankhammers. That curiocity definitely sparked a bit of an interpretation war and the worst part is, i dont even give a gak because i will never run tankhammers. I was just curious.

You are literally doing the exact opposite of what you should be when playing with these rules. Instead of discussing it before hand you are outright declaring that you will intend to use them how you want to, or "flip a coin" and then have to ask forgiveness, rather than permission.

Everyone here with the exception of a few people who I am convinced are being willfully stubborn, have said talk with the opponent before hand, explain your point. Don't just suddenly declare 5MWs on a tank "Because a prominent ork youtuber said so".

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You are literally doing the exact opposite of what you should be when playing with these rules. Instead of discussing it before hand you are outright declaring that you will intend to use them how you want to, or "flip a coin" and then have to ask forgiveness, rather than permission.

Everyone here with the exception of a few people who I am convinced are being willfully stubborn, have said talk with the opponent before hand, explain your point. Don't just suddenly declare 5MWs on a tank "Because a prominent ork youtuber said so".

That's because you assume your position matches the consensus, and people who disagree know they're wrong and they are intentionally trying to bend the rules in ther favor. I can say mine matches the consensus in my experience, so why would I have to have a pre-game talk about something that I assume everyone would play in the exact same way? Eventually if some conflict shows up during the game, middle of the game wouldn't be the appropriate time for long discussions so the coin toss becomes a reasonable option.

Of course if I know from the beginning that the position of my opponent about one (or more) specific interaction doesn't match mine I'd be absolutely in favor of some pre-game talk.

I'd ask in advance permission to bring OP stuff like Eradicators or units that I know lots of people dislike like LoWs, not for playing in a way I have no reason to believe that is not the correct sequence of steps.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You are literally doing the exact opposite of what you should be when playing with these rules. Instead of discussing it before hand you are outright declaring that you will intend to use them how you want to, or "flip a coin" and then have to ask forgiveness, rather than permission.

Everyone here with the exception of a few people who I am convinced are being willfully stubborn, have said talk with the opponent before hand, explain your point. Don't just suddenly declare 5MWs on a tank "Because a prominent ork youtuber said so".

Stop letting out bollocks of "what im doing" when what you're saying about me is clearly wrong. You dont know how i play my games. I didnt bother making an entire novel for how the process of my games work when there are problems. I didnt expect some dude to start nitpicking everything i just said which was related to how one could move on if no consensus was made.

Any given situation that comes up dicates that we look at the rules and determines what makes most sense. When i said id flip a coin it would be because that would most likely be the outcome of the tankhammer Goff exploding sixes discussion if it ever came up.

Rather than spending 15 minutes trying to find the correct rules and then finding the right rule that takes priority over what, its sometimes easier to just flip a coin and move on. So no, i dont just flip coins, in fact, up to this point i havent flipped a single coin (ive had people wanting to flip coins, but im often adamant about finding the rules. Why the F do you think i started the discussion to begin with if i didnt give a gak?), and i have taken the time to go through the rules with my opponent when ever these fishy situations comes up. But i probably WOULD do it, in this situation, because there isnt a clear answer for what is meant to happen and what isnt.

you might think or someone else might think they know the answer, but im not convinced there IS a clear answer when it comes to the tankhammers.

The last time someone wanted to flip a coin and move on was when my opponent wanted to claim that line of sight was to the base not the model, which is completely incorrect. He mistook it for measuring distance. it took us a while but we got there and i was right. I always do what i can to uphold the rules, i just cant do it with the tankhammer discussion because the entire situation is so messed up i dont see a right and a wrong way here.

So yes, it would be a coin toss. But not before explaining the situation to my opponent. his opinion should also be heard.

So no im not doing the exact opposite of what i should be doing. Im doing exactly what im meant to. You on the other hand need to stop pretending that you know how i play warhammer tabletop. We dont know each other, so it doesnt suit you, dude.

And the bomb squigs do get the extra attack, that much is a fact. You could throw your two cents at tabletop titans if you wanted, they would tell you the same thing. The tankhammers are not in the same boat as the bomb squigs; while tankhammers might not get a secondary hit roll, bomb squigs still do.

You don't get to settle agreements on a random chance. That is inherently unfair, whats worse is that you portray it as a "compromise", the alternative of course being that your opponent just play by your rules. There is a third and a fourth option however.

3: You don't play by your rules, infact you play by your opponent's interpretation. I often disadvantage myself when playing DG, because there is still debate on whether Tanglefoot affects IA. I don't claim to know, so I don't play like it does.

4. You decide before playing, or don't even play at all if it's too unruley.

A 17 point model that has the ability to do 2d3 mortals to anything it touches is inherently broken, and you are willfully ignoring that by petty fogging the issue. The closest model to that is a Astropath, and even that is 35 points, and needs to pass a roll test to get 1d6 smite, or it possibly kills everything near it.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You don't get to settle agreements on a random chance. That is inherently unfair, whats worse is that you portray it as a "compromise", the alternative of course being that your opponent just play by your rules. There is a third and a fourth option however.

3: You don't play by your rules, infact you play by your opponent's interpretation. I often disadvantage myself when playing DG, because there is still debate on whether Tanglefoot affects IA. I don't claim to know, so I don't play like it does.

4. You decide before playing, or don't even play at all if it's too unruley.

A 17 point model that has the ability to do 2d3 mortals to anything it touches is inherently broken, and you are willfully ignoring that by petty fogging the issue. The closest model to that is a Astropath, and even that is 35 points, and needs to pass a roll test to get 1d6 smite, or it possibly kills everything near it.

I dont disagree that settling a rules question over chance is stupid, but what do you want to do, when two people disagree with each other over the rules and find no consensus? They often just flip a coin because the IS no consensus!. How are you going to change that? you can only flip a coin, roll a die, do something else random related if you cant find common ground and move on, its the only way. unless you want to start calling friends and family for help that is.

Would you take a 1 hour discussion? Just look at the tankhammer discussion its over 3 pages long. Imagine if that was an actual game. You would've never been able to finish the discussion, no consensus would be made. you would HAVE to move on somehow otherwise the game ends then and there.


In fact i agree with everything you just said, i wouldnt even BRING tankhammers for goff because if this situation arrives i dont know what to do about it. I would rather, as YOU say, disadvantage myself rather than be in a situation where i accidentially cheat. But if the tankhammer situation ever came up, im just saying, i think that would end up being a coin toss.

or what about the : always wounds on a +2 versus can only take wounds on a +4 rules? I have never been in that situation, so i dont know if there are any special rules related to it about what takes priority. But if there isnt, how does one move on? if no rule explains whats up and down.

I would still use bomb squigs, however as they are a core part of tankbustas, and i would roll an extra hit roll if it made a hit roll of 6.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You don't get to settle agreements on a random chance. That is inherently unfair, whats worse is that you portray it as a "compromise", the alternative of course being that your opponent just play by your rules.

Actually it's following The Most Important Rule if you and your opponent can't agree on how to handle it. Saying beforehand you're willing to dice off for it (how things are handled instead of flipping a coin) is just showing a willingness to follow the procedure established by GW.

exactly, thank you.

If no consensus is made on a rule, especially when it comes to the special rules, then common ground has to be made somehow. A coin flip or a roll off often ends up being the result.

Im not even sure why im writing coin flip, as we're playing with die, it would obviously be a roll off instead.

The most important rule is intended for a quick fix mid game when something unexpected and complicated comes up

Its a stupid fix for a question you preemptively know is a problem before the game begins, because inconsistent application of the rules tends to leave one player feeling cheated

What it should never be is an excuse to pass dodgy rulings 50% of the time

U02dah4 wrote:
The most important rule is intended for a quick fix mid game when something unexpected and complicated comes up

Its a stupid fix for a question you preemptively know is a problem before the game begins, because inconsistent application of the rules tends to leave one player feeling cheated

What it should never be is an excuse to pass dodgy rulings 50% of the time

Exactly. Thank you.

It might be a "stupid fix" but if no consensus can be reached pregame (without taking hours to reach), then it's the only thing you can do other than not play.

It's really not worth the time wasting 30min+ arguing back-and-forth over rules

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It might be a "stupid fix" but if no consensus can be reached pregame (without taking hours to reach), then it's the only thing you can do other than not play.

The problem, as I see it, with TMIR is that it's easy to abuse. One person can say, "This is the rule, see page 63 of the Deathwatch Codex," and the other person can say, "That seems vague to me." Whether the rule is actually vague or not, TMIR is thus invoked, and the player who knows what the rules say now has a 50% chance of getting the short end of the stick.

This is not to say that TMIR doesn't have its place - it does. But if the rules actually say something, that's the correct "interpretation." Not being able to understand the rules shouldn't be an excuse to have a 50/50 chance to get your way.

U02dah4 wrote:
The most important rule is intended for a quick fix mid game when something unexpected and complicated comes up

Its a stupid fix for a question you preemptively know is a problem before the game begins, because inconsistent application of the rules tends to leave one player feeling cheated

What it should never be is an excuse to pass dodgy rulings 50% of the time

exactly. which is why i would never bring tankhammers with a goff army (not only because they suck ass but also because of this). If im uncertain about a rule, i dont purposefully bring a unit to end up in dodgy situations.

But if someone else does? then we'll end up in a roll off unless both him using them, and me being on the receiving end agree on how they work. I once used the stratagem Flying ead'butt which crashes a dedicated flyer where it stands and explodes, on my Chinork which was a dedicated transport. I just assumed it had to be used on a flying unit. So mistakes do happen.

I always make sure i know every little detailed rule of my units before i bring them in to battle. at least i aspire to, and sometimes i make mistakes like anyone else.

as the owner of this thread, thats kind of why i started out asking questions about tankbustas. So that i know how they work. And given i now know theres absolutely no consensus on how the tankhammers work with goff, im positive i would never bring them, and if i do ill be having a small discussion with my opponent and explain how i understand the rule, and he can do the same, before the game starts when i present my army. Then we can find common ground afterwards, and if no ground is made, then ill probably swap them for regular tankbustas before the game starts.


But who am i kidding, the tankhammers suck. I would never use them at all.

 alextroy wrote:
I'm not going to quote since there are too many posts, but I will summarize some points I think are being interpreted incorrectly:

1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says. It says "In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’." Treated means follow the same rules, not that it is an attack. They even went so far in the next sentence to again reiterate that it is a hit roll, not an attack. Therefore, any rules such as "make X hit rolls per attack" or "can only make 1 attack" do not apply to these Hit Rolls. This is different from a rule such as Death to the False Emperor that grants an additional attack. In such a case, that attack could have multiple Hit Rolls if the weapon said so.

2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll. So assuming it hits on that Hit Roll, you then have two hits from one attack. You then resolve each hit like it was a separate attack, which normally would be rolling to wound, target saving, and damage being inflicted. In this case, "the target suffers d3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain" for each hit. We do have the side issue of the model 'attacking' while dead, but we Hit before we died, so I am heavily inclined to complete the action already in play since the rules don't tell me not to.

3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.

Good points. I think it would be better for people to focus on these arguments right now rather than have everything sidetrack into an argument about The Most Important Rule.

 Octopoid wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
It might be a "stupid fix" but if no consensus can be reached pregame (without taking hours to reach), then it's the only thing you can do other than not play.

The problem, as I see it, with TMIR is that it's easy to abuse. One person can say, "This is the rule, see page 63 of the Deathwatch Codex," and the other person can say, "That seems vague to me." Whether the rule is actually vague or not, TMIR is thus invoked, and the player who knows what the rules say now has a 50% chance of getting the short end of the stick.

This is not to say that TMIR doesn't have its place - it does. But if the rules actually say something, that's the correct "interpretation." Not being able to understand the rules shouldn't be an excuse to have a 50/50 chance to get your way.

And if someone is obviously abusing TMIR is such a way, you make note to never play them again.
It's all well and good to say "But if the rules actually say something, that's the correct 'interpretation.' ", but in rules cases that are actually unclear (and this section of the forum is full of examples like that) people are going to disagree on what the rules actually say.

those ARE good points but they are not why i assume the tankhammers wouldnt work for goffs. I dont think they might work because the tankhammer is an ability, and abilities cant trigger twice. If it had a normal damage profile i would be all up for just throwing 2D3 MW but.. its an ability. thats how i see it anyway.

Im all up for dealing 2D3 MW with goff 6s but im not gonna bring it unless someone can explain why this ability should trigger twice, now that its not a normal attack. Because of the Goff rule? I dont know if that supersedes the fact that its an ability.

Beardedragon wrote:
those ARE good points but they are not why i assume the tankhammers wouldnt work for goffs. I dont think they might work because the tankhammer is an ability, and abilities cant trigger twice. If it had a normal damage profile i would be all up for just throwing 2D3 MW but.. its an ability. thats how i see it anyway.

Im all up for dealing 2D3 MW with goff 6s but im not gonna bring it unless someone cna explain why this ability should trigger twice. Because of the Goff rule? I dont know if that supersedes the fact that its an ability.

If you had a stratagem that allowed you to shoot a second time, are you claiming that you can't use Dakka Dakka Dakka because it's an ability and can trigger only once?

 doctortom wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
those ARE good points but they are not why i assume the tankhammers wouldnt work for goffs. I dont think they might work because the tankhammer is an ability, and abilities cant trigger twice. If it had a normal damage profile i would be all up for just throwing 2D3 MW but.. its an ability. thats how i see it anyway.

Im all up for dealing 2D3 MW with goff 6s but im not gonna bring it unless someone cna explain why this ability should trigger twice. Because of the Goff rule? I dont know if that supersedes the fact that its an ability.

If you had a stratagem that allowed you to shoot a second time, are you claiming that you can't use Dakka Dakka Dakka because it's an ability and can trigger only once?

if you use, lets say, showing off for bad moonz, then your unit stops after the first round of firing, and you pay to get a second round of firing. Its an entirely new sequence that you start, thus both rounds get dakka dakka. I might not use the right terminologies here, but thats essentially what happens. This is also why the Gunwagon with Da Boomer gets death skulls reroll per 2D6, which it shoots off twice for a total of 4D6. meaning your total of 4D6 gets 2 rerolls of hit rolls, 2 rerolls of wounds, and 2 rerolls of damage.

if you use Showing off on tankbustas, the Bomb squigs also dont come back to life to bomb its victims once more. It died the first time. Of course you can still dakka dakka a bomb squig, but it will die after. Using Showing off, wont change that its dead either because its a new sequence.

 doctortom wrote:

Spoiler:

 alextroy wrote:
I'm not going to quote since there are too many posts, but I will summarize some points I think are being interpreted incorrectly:

1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says. It says "In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’." Treated means follow the same rules, not that it is an attack. They even went so far in the next sentence to again reiterate that it is a hit roll, not an attack. Therefore, any rules such as "make X hit rolls per attack" or "can only make 1 attack" do not apply to these Hit Rolls. This is different from a rule such as Death to the False Emperor that grants an additional attack. In such a case, that attack could have multiple Hit Rolls if the weapon said so.

2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll. So assuming it hits on that Hit Roll, you then have two hits from one attack. You then resolve each hit like it was a separate attack, which normally would be rolling to wound, target saving, and damage being inflicted. In this case, "the target suffers d3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain" for each hit. We do have the side issue of the model 'attacking' while dead, but we Hit before we died, so I am heavily inclined to complete the action already in play since the rules don't tell me not to.

3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.

Good points. I think it would be better for people to focus on these arguments right now rather than have everything sidetrack into an argument about The Most Important Rule.

Well he is incorrect on all three points, as showcased earlier in the thread, That is why I had not replied to his post, because it had already been proven incorrect earlier.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Spoiler:

 alextroy wrote:
I'm not going to quote since there are too many posts, but I will summarize some points I think are being interpreted incorrectly:

1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says. It says "In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’." Treated means follow the same rules, not that it is an attack. They even went so far in the next sentence to again reiterate that it is a hit roll, not an attack. Therefore, any rules such as "make X hit rolls per attack" or "can only make 1 attack" do not apply to these Hit Rolls. This is different from a rule such as Death to the False Emperor that grants an additional attack. In such a case, that attack could have multiple Hit Rolls if the weapon said so.

2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll. So assuming it hits on that Hit Roll, you then have two hits from one attack. You then resolve each hit like it was a separate attack, which normally would be rolling to wound, target saving, and damage being inflicted. In this case, "the target suffers d3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain" for each hit. We do have the side issue of the model 'attacking' while dead, but we Hit before we died, so I am heavily inclined to complete the action already in play since the rules don't tell me not to.

3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.

Good points. I think it would be better for people to focus on these arguments right now rather than have everything sidetrack into an argument about The Most Important Rule.

Well he is incorrect on all three points, as showcased earlier in the thread, That is why I had not replied to his post, because it had already been proven incorrect earlier.

Actually, many people look at it that these points are correct and discredit what you have argued.

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Spoiler:

 alextroy wrote:
I'm not going to quote since there are too many posts, but I will summarize some points I think are being interpreted incorrectly:

1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says. It says "In these cases, each hit roll is treated as a separate attack that is made against the same target. As such, all normal rules that are triggered by attacks, or that apply to attacks (such as re-rolls or modifiers conferred by other rules) apply to each ‘hit roll’." Treated means follow the same rules, not that it is an attack. They even went so far in the next sentence to again reiterate that it is a hit roll, not an attack. Therefore, any rules such as "make X hit rolls per attack" or "can only make 1 attack" do not apply to these Hit Rolls. This is different from a rule such as Death to the False Emperor that grants an additional attack. In such a case, that attack could have multiple Hit Rolls if the weapon said so.

2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll. So assuming it hits on that Hit Roll, you then have two hits from one attack. You then resolve each hit like it was a separate attack, which normally would be rolling to wound, target saving, and damage being inflicted. In this case, "the target suffers d3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain" for each hit. We do have the side issue of the model 'attacking' while dead, but we Hit before we died, so I am heavily inclined to complete the action already in play since the rules don't tell me not to.

3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.

Good points. I think it would be better for people to focus on these arguments right now rather than have everything sidetrack into an argument about The Most Important Rule.

Well he is incorrect on all three points, as showcased earlier in the thread, That is why I had not replied to his post, because it had already been proven incorrect earlier.

Actually, many people look at it that these points are correct and discredit what you have argued.

While we have disagreed on points in the past, Reaper is generally well thought out and he is correct here.

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, many people look at it that these points are correct and discredit what you have argued.

I have been over it, but ill summarize:

 alextroy wrote:
1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says.

Except the FAQ equates hit rolls to attacks. So he is blatantly incorrect here. His incorrect premise makes the rest of that argument moot.

2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll.

Except they are dead at the moment you roll that 1st 6 and apply the D3 MW's and no longer have a Dataslate to reference for any further attacks. The first hit roll is never resolved as it has no roll to wound step.

3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.

Except Only one attack is basically saying Can not make more than one attack with this weapon. If we have another rule that states that you can make more than one attack, well Can't Trumps Can/Must (Unless specifically noted, but the Goffs do not specifically call out Tankhammers so they don't over-ride the Tankhammer restriction).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Actually, many people look at it that these points are correct and discredit what you have argued.

I have been over it, but ill summarize:

 alextroy wrote:
1. "Extra Hit Rolls are extra attacks": That is not what the FAQ says.

Except the FAQ equates hit rolls to attacks. So he is blatantly incorrect here. His incorrect premise makes the rest of that argument moot.

2. "The Tankbusta is dead, so can't make the attack": Actually, they are required to make an another Hit Roll immediately upon the unmodified Hit Roll of 6. That is before you resolve the result of the Hit Roll.

Except they are dead at the moment you roll that 1st 6 and apply the D3 MW's and no longer have a Dataslate to reference for any further attacks. The first hit roll is never resolved as it has no roll to wound step.

3. "The Tankhammer says I can only make one Attack...": This applies to when the model is making its attacks but not to special rules that specifically tell you to make another attack. After all, the rules also tell you "The number of attacks a model makes is determined by its Attacks (A) characteristic, which can be found on its datasheet. For example, if a model has an A of 2, it can make two attacks." Yet I don't hear anyone saying you can't gain additional attacks above your Attacks characteristic via a special rule. This is no different.

Except Only one attack is basically saying Can not make more than one attack with this weapon. If we have another rule that states that you can make more than one attack, well Can't Trumps Can/Must (Unless specifically noted, but the Goffs do not specifically call out Tankhammers so they don't over-ride the Tankhammer restriction).

On point 2 - you still have the fact of rolling the 6 to hit giving you an "immediately" for the Goff ability, whereas you aren't told to "immediately" remove the model. Therefore, you still have a dictate to roll a second attack that counts as having started before removal of the model.

Point 3. Your point doesn't refute his argument. It says to make one attack, but if some special abilities come in to modify that, they would apply just as they would to a normal attack. If you have some special ability that modifies it, like the exploding 6's allowing more hits, then they would apply two. It doesn't say that special abilities are negated for the attack.

It's not an attack, it's an ability of the weapon being used to attack. The Exploding 6s refers strictly to attacks, not abilities.