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:

alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

P.18 PDF rulebook wrote:When a model makes an attack, make one hit roll for that attack by rolling one D6

Hit rolls and attacks are the same thing.

I’m mystified how you can quote a rule and misinterpret it at the same time.

I am not the one misinterpreting it.

Really, then please reconcile your interpretation that an attack and a hit roll are the same thing with:

1. HIT ROLL
When a model makes an attack, make one hit roll for that attack by rolling one D6. If the result of the hit roll is equal to or greater than the attacking model’s Ballistic Skill (BS) characteristic (if the attack
is being made with a ranged weapon) or its Weapon Skill (WS) characteristic (if the attack is being made with a melee weapon), then that attack scores one hit against the target unit. If not, the attack fails and the attack sequence ends.

And:

2. WOUND ROLL
Each time an attack scores a hit against a target unit, make a wound roll for that attack by rolling one D6 to see if that attack successfully wounds the target. The result required is determined by comparing the attacking weapon’s Strength (S) characteristic with the target’s Toughness (T) characteristic, as shown on the following table:

And

3. ALLOCATE ATTACK
If an attack successfully wounds the target unit, the player commanding the target unit allocates that attack to one model in the target unit (this can be to any model in the unit and does not have to be allocated to a model that is within range of, or visible to, the attacking model). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.

Notice how an attack neither starts nor ends with the 'hit roll'? The two are not the same thing. Therefore your argument that you cannot have multiple hit rolls for an attack if plainly wrong, as GW already told us in Attacks That Make Multiple Hit Rolls.

An attack definitely starts with the 'hit roll'

PDF BRB P. 18 Making attacks section wrote:Attacks are made using ranged or melee weapons. Attacks can be made one at a time, or, in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks
together. The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time:
1. HIT ROLL
When a model makes an attack, make one hit roll for that attack by rolling one D6...

 DeathReaper wrote:
An attack definitely starts with the 'hit roll'

PDF BRB P. 18 Making attacks section wrote:Attacks are made using ranged or melee weapons. Attacks can be made one at a time, or, in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks
together. The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time:
1. HIT ROLL
When a model makes an attack, make one hit roll for that attack by rolling one D6...

Nope. It starts by declaring the target of the attack.

When you select a unit to shoot with, you select targets and resolve attacks with any or all ranged weapons that models in that unit are equipped with (each ranged weapon can only be shot once per phase). The ranged weapons that models in a unit are equipped with are detailed on its datasheet.

MAKE CLOSE COMBAT ATTACKS
When a unit makes its close combat attacks, before resolving those attacks you must first determine which models can fight and how many attacks they will make, then you select the target unit(s) for all of the attacks those models will make and declare what melee weapons those attacks will be made with.

But that is being pedantic. The real point is Attack does not equal Hit Roll.

No, the attack sequence always begins with "1. HIT ROLL" This is proven, as it is the first step when making attacks.

Page 18 tells you everything to know about "MAKING ATTACKS" Heading on P. 18 PDF rules.

This is the section you go to when you make attacks. and the hit roll is the first step in the making attacks process.

If Attack does not equal Hit Roll, then you cant roll to wound anyway, so I guess it does not matter.
.

The first rule of the weapon is you can only make a single attack with this weapon when the bearer fights, if you make a second attack you have not followed that rule.

If an attack roll is the same as a hit roll, wouldn’t “Make three hit rolls per attack” generate infinite attacks? Since each hit is an attack.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, the attack sequence always begins with "1. HIT ROLL" This is proven, as it is the first step when making attacks.

Page 18 tells you everything to know about "MAKING ATTACKS" Heading on P. 18 PDF rules.

This is the section you go to when you make attacks. and the hit roll is the first step in the making attacks process.

If Attack does not equal Hit Roll, then you cant roll to wound anyway, so I guess it does not matter.

An attack is not a Hit Roll. As you just noted above, an attack is a 5-step sequence detailed in the Making Attacks section of the rules. The Hit Roll is only Step 1 of the sequence. A Hit Roll is no more an attack than Wound Roll, Allocate Attack, Saving Throw, or Inflict Damage are an attack.

The rules equate Hit Roll with attack though, as I have noted earlier.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules equate Hit Roll with attack though, as I have noted earlier.

Rules say they are treated as separate attacks, not that they are model's additional attacks. Have a look at the mork/gorkanaut again: for each attack you make 3 hit rolls and when you do it all those hit rolls are treated as separate attacks against the same targets. But the model has only made one attack, regardless of how those hit rolls are considered. So even if in practise you have three separate attacks against the same target, the model just made a single attack.

This is the reason why it's wrong to say that hit rolls equate attacks. Rule simply says that hit rolls must be resolved as separate attacks against the same target, as someone could argue that multiple hit rolls from weapons such as the naut's klaw are part of the same attack so failing one means failing all, while instead each hit roll needs to hit, wound and bypass saves to cause damage. That's just it, it's not like the model makes additional attacks (which it isn't allowed to make since it's either dead or limited to one attack with a specific weapon), to affirm the contrary is flat out wrong.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules equate Hit Roll with attack though, as I have noted earlier.

no.

Hit rolls are a part of a chain sequence called " Resolve attacks". It even has its own little title (1: Hit roll) out of the 5 steps " RESOLVE ATTACKS" has.


Hit rolls are part of attacks, but they ARE not the entire attack sequence.

I have no idea how you get the idea that a link of that 5 step chain, equates the entire chain on its own. Saying all hit rolls are attacks is as wrong as saying all wound rolls are attacks. They are a part, of an attack.

when a gorkanaut uses the smash profile, it doesnt make 18 attacks. It makes 6 attacks worth 18 hit rolls. They get TREATED as attacks for rules and purposes, but "treated as" doesnt mean it "becomes" actual attacks.

I'm sorry but people on the side of 2d3 MWs for 17 point have stated the WILL NEVER use this rule, because the unit is so bad.

I personally play Custodes, if you can load up 150 points into a Trukk and put them in front of my 300 point unit, and kill it in a single turn of combat, you do it. It would overnight change the META. Can I ask then, why has NO ONE else ever played them in this manner? Because literally no one in the top META thinks this is legal. There are several top ork players that never use them, but would in a heart beat if you told them the rules worked like this. But they don't, and yet here we sit, day dreaming about what ifs. for 6 pages.

No one plays them this way, and there is a very good reason why. Find me one top player who has done this at a major and had a judge ok it, and I'll give up on this thread.

Because they’re 1/5 models, they’re incredibly fragile, and they still need to hit. 2d3 mortals happen 1/9 times per Goff Tankhamma model that makes it into combat.

And also they die immediately after so even if they get into combat it's a one-time thing

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm sorry but people on the side of 2d3 MWs for 17 point have stated the WILL NEVER use this rule, because the unit is so bad.

I personally play Custodes, if you can load up 150 points into a Trukk and put them in front of my 300 point unit, and kill it in a single turn of combat, you do it. It would overnight change the META. Can I ask then, why has NO ONE else ever played them in this manner? Because literally no one in the top META thinks this is legal. There are several top ork players that never use them, but would in a heart beat if you told them the rules worked like this. But they don't, and yet here we sit, day dreaming about what ifs. for 6 pages.

No one plays them this way, and there is a very good reason why. Find me one top player who has done this at a major and had a judge ok it, and I'll give up on this thread.

no one has done it because tankhammers are retardedly bad, not because it would be illigal. No one loads up 15 tankbustas and throws them in to CC when only 3 of them can have CC weapons in the form of tankhammers. This wouldnt be half bad if there actually were other tankbusta related CC weapon, but there isnt. You are throwing 12 ranged tankbustas in to the meatgrinder, that cant do anything. You spend 84 or so points so that 12 ranged tankbustas could die in close combat, rather than keeping them at a distance and get value from them, and im not counting the battlewagon you would need, as a trukk can only carry 12 models, not the 15 we have here, nor the remaining 3 tankhammers that kills themselves. You would suicide your entire squad and a battlewagon, just so 3 models can do one hit each. With the battlewagon thats 240 points (260 if you get big shootas), if the battlewagon is COMPLETELY bare bone with no big shootas etc, for a unit that suicides itself and thats not counting the fact that this would never work on turn 1, as the units cant magically jump out after the transport has moved up the field. Your battlewagon would get destroyed by turn one as everyone would focus fire it. it might potentially survive with forktress but then you pay 240 (maybe 260) points + 1CP for this combo. But forktress or not, i wouldnt count on it surviving when the enemy knows there are 3 MW guys sitting inside of it that needs to reach CC.

Why would anyone do that?

The fact that you could "potentially" deal 2D3 MWs per model of the 3, and thats a large, "potentially" as you HAVE to be Goffs (which has no decent lists involving tankbustas currently), HAVE to roll a 6 on the hit roll, and then afterwards you still HAVE to actually hit on a 3+ with your extra hit roll, will not change that nobody would do this.

Sure if it was guaranteed 2D3 MW on all 3 tankhammers then sure i think people wouldnt mind sacrificing their remaining tankbustas to make this a priority. But its not guaranteed at all, its a massive gamble and you shouldnt expect getting more than D3 MW from each tankhammer model, statistically speaking. Nobody is going to do this combo, for the hopes of actually getting 6's on those 3 hits is low.

Its a terrible combo, there are too many factors that needs to allign perfectly for this to be an actual usable combo at a competitive game, and the die gods would have to be on your side.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm sorry but people on the side of 2d3 MWs for 17 point have stated the WILL NEVER use this rule, because the unit is so bad.

I personally play Custodes, if you can load up 150 points into a Trukk and put them in front of my 300 point unit, and kill it in a single turn of combat, you do it. It would overnight change the META. Can I ask then, why has NO ONE else ever played them in this manner? Because literally no one in the top META thinks this is legal. There are several top ork players that never use them, but would in a heart beat if you told them the rules worked like this. But they don't, and yet here we sit, day dreaming about what ifs. for 6 pages.

No one plays them this way, and there is a very good reason why. Find me one top player who has done this at a major and had a judge ok it, and I'll give up on this thread.

Bizarre appeals to authority/non-existent precedent are not helpful in a rules discussion. Whether a unit is popular or not has no bearing on what the rules actually say. Ironically, I suspect the reason there's no FAQ on this is because the tankhammer is bad and therefore rarely taken.

I think the big problem with this rules interaction is, yet again, GW overloading words like "attack" and not properly defining all their terms and using them consistently. That said, from what's been presented here it certainly seems to be the case that you can get a second attack with the Goff Kultur but it's certainly not an obvious interaction.

to be fair there still is one untouched problem left to talk about.

We've talked a lot about whether you should get two hit rolls or not, but we dont really talk so much about the fact, that the tankhammer itself is an ability.

Abilities dont trigger twice, so should the tankhammer be able to trigger twice? I guess arguments could be made that it says, on the goff rule, that you make an additional hit roll with the same weapon, and i guess that weapon is the tankhammer?

But i still dont know about that part fully. I would probably advocate for it being able to make two hit rolls.

The Tankhammer ability can trigger twice because the rule is "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain." Since each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack and there is nothing preventing an ability of a weapon from triggering each time it attacks in general (some are limited by their specific wording), you are golden.

As for nobody using Tankbustas, three Tankhammers attacking will average 4 Mortal Wounds (3 attacks * 2/3 Hits * 2 MW) with 3 11% chances of adding D3 more Mortal Wounds all for the low, low price of 255 points. Or you can purchase a Big Mech with Shock Attack Gun with Grot Oiler for 125 points with it's 8.3% chance of having d6 S11/12 AP -5 Dmg D6 attacks that also do D3 Mortal Wounds per hit with DDD. I wonder why you see one in lists and not the other?

 alextroy wrote:
Since each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack

 alextroy wrote:
The real point is Attack does not equal Hit Roll.

Umm Houston, we have a problem...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Since each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack

 alextroy wrote:
The real point is Attack does not equal Hit Roll.

Umm Houston, we have a problem...

What's the problem? Treating something as a thing doesn't make it that thing. In fact, it points out that it really isn't that thing.

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Since each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack

 alextroy wrote:
The real point is Attack does not equal Hit Roll.

Umm Houston, we have a problem...

What's the problem? Treating something as a thing doesn't make it that thing. In fact, it points out that it really isn't that thing.

The problem is your contradiction.

You said each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack, and also said Attack does not equal Hit Roll and that is counterintuitive.

Treated as = is.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Since each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack

 alextroy wrote:
The real point is Attack does not equal Hit Roll.

Umm Houston, we have a problem...

What's the problem? Treating something as a thing doesn't make it that thing. In fact, it points out that it really isn't that thing.

The problem is your contradiction.

You said each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack, and also said Attack does not equal Hit Roll and that is counterintuitive.

Treated as = is.

what are you even saying?

treating a hit roll as an attack, doesnt make it an attack. You just treat it as such for the sake of rules, but it still is, exactly what it says, a hit roll.

If you treat kids like adults, it doesnt make them adults either.

treated as = treated as. stop reading in to things that arent there.
An attack is a sequence of 5 steps from which "hit roll" is a part of. Being part of it, doesnt make it, it. A hit roll is part of an attack, but it isnt the attack itself. Allocating wounds, is not an attack, wound rolls, are not attacks either, so neither is a hit roll.

A nail is also part of a finger. does that mean nails are fingers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
The Tankhammer ability can trigger twice because the rule is "If the attack hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain." Since each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack and there is nothing preventing an ability of a weapon from triggering each time it attacks in general (some are limited by their specific wording), you are golden.

As for nobody using Tankbustas, three Tankhammers attacking will average 4 Mortal Wounds (3 attacks * 2/3 Hits * 2 MW) with 3 11% chances of adding D3 more Mortal Wounds all for the low, low price of 255 points. Or you can purchase a Big Mech with Shock Attack Gun with Grot Oiler for 125 points with it's 8.3% chance of having d6 S11/12 AP -5 Dmg D6 attacks that also do D3 Mortal Wounds per hit with DDD. I wonder why you see one in lists and not the other?

And i see. The ability ties itself to the attack, and it could only trigger "once" per attack, but if the attack has two hit rolls, it would trigger both times? because, as we established, one attack can have several hit rolls. That does make sense.

I am am saying, as far as the rules are concerned, Treated as = is.

E.G. If somethng is treated as the movement phase it lets the unit move, advance, or fall back.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am am saying, as far as the rules are concerned, Treated as = is.

E.G. If somethng is treated as the movement phase it lets the unit move, advance, or fall back.

Can you think of a single other ability in the game that functions this way? I was thinking the Exploding 6s on MWs from a IF Marksman Bolt Carbine with Mortis Rounds? Didn't that get FAQ'd that states it can't get double procs off it's exploding 6s....

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am am saying, as far as the rules are concerned, Treated as = is.

E.G. If somethng is treated as the movement phase it lets the unit move, advance, or fall back.

Can you think of a single other ability in the game that functions this way? I was thinking the Exploding 6s on MWs from a IF Marksman Bolt Carbine with Mortis Rounds? Didn't that get FAQ'd that states it can't get double procs off it's exploding 6s....

There are a ton of them.

All abilities like:

Codex AM (Imperial Guard) HELLHOUNDS Dataslate wrote:Vehicle Squadron: The first time this unit is set up, all models in this unit must be placed within 6" of each other. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit for all rules purposes.

Basically any unit you buy on a single Dataslate that later are separate units. (Any Tau with Drones on their Dataslate etc...).

Codex Orks MEK GUNZ Dataslate wrote:Grot Krew: Each Mek Gun and its grot krew are treated as a single model for all rules purposes. The krew must remain within 1" of their Mek Gun and cannot be targeted or attacked separately. The range and visibility of all attacks made by a Mek Gun are measured from the Mek Gun, not the krew.

All emphasis mine.

No I meant more, Exploding 6's the generate MWs, sorry for being confusing.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am am saying, as far as the rules are concerned, Treated as = is.

E.G. If somethng is treated as the movement phase it lets the unit move, advance, or fall back.

And here is where you have gone wrong. "Treated as" tells you how to do something, but it doesn't change the nature of the thing. This is why when acting "as if the movement phase" you can move, advance, or fall back and yet you cannot use any stratagems that require it to be the Movement phase. Why? Because while you can act as if it is the Movement Phase, it isn't the Movement phase.

 alextroy wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am am saying, as far as the rules are concerned, Treated as = is.

E.G. If somethng is treated as the movement phase it lets the unit move, advance, or fall back.

And here is where you have gone wrong. "Treated as" tells you how to do something, but it doesn't change the nature of the thing. This is why when acting "as if the movement phase" you can move, advance, or fall back and yet you cannot use any stratagems that require it to be the Movement phase. Why? Because while you can act as if it is the Movement Phase, it isn't the Movement phase.

100% different scenario about strats though. However "Treated as" tells you how to do something, and does change the nature of the thing.

Treated as = is, the Vehicle Squadron rules confirm this.

Codex AM (Imperial Guard) HELLHOUNDS Dataslate wrote:Vehicle Squadron: The first time this unit is set up, all models in this unit must be placed within 6" of each other. From that point onwards, each operates independently and is treated as a separate unit for all rules purposes.

The Hellhounds are treated as a separate unit for all rules purposes. They are for all intents and purposes a separate unit.

As you have pointed out, treated as means different things in different circumstances. Treated as mean one thing when acting "as if another phase", a different thing when "as a separate unit", and something else when "as a separate attack". You should stop trying to conflate different things as the same.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm sorry but people on the side of 2d3 MWs for 17 point have stated the WILL NEVER use this rule, because the unit is so bad.

I personally play Custodes, if you can load up 150 points into a Trukk and put them in front of my 300 point unit, and kill it in a single turn of combat, you do it. It would overnight change the META. Can I ask then, why has NO ONE else ever played them in this manner? Because literally no one in the top META thinks this is legal. There are several top ork players that never use them, but would in a heart beat if you told them the rules worked like this. But they don't, and yet here we sit, day dreaming about what ifs. for 6 pages.

No one plays them this way, and there is a very good reason why. Find me one top player who has done this at a major and had a judge ok it, and I'll give up on this thread.

The chance of getting 2x 2D3 MWs for a couple of models (2 hammers in a 10 man squad for 170 points, not counting the transport) is extremely low. If you run the math 10 tankbustas with 2 hammers (assuming 6s grant extra hits) should kill 0-1 custodes, but then they'll be completely wiped out in response. This assuming that all those 10 models with T4 1W 6+ save manage to charge and fight without losing anyone before.

EVERYONE in the top meta thinks this is legal, they don't use that combo because it's absolute garbage. Like among the worst loadouts in the game. Yes, tankhammers are this bad, even if goffs ones could potentially deal a significant number of MWs.

No one, and I really mean no one, except maybe some youtube guys that must play strictly WYSIWYG with only official models (so no boyz with rokkits that count as tankbustas) would maybe equip their dudes with tankhammers. I actually never seen a single battle report on youtube where tankbustas had tankhammers. Never, since the metal kit was released, so at least 4 editions. Of course I also never seen a single tankhammer in a game I played or witnessed in person, and I'm referring to a hundred but probably more games where tankbustas were involved.

However 10 tankbustas can throw 10D3 S8 AP-2 damageD6 grenades (with exploding 6s and full re-rolls against vehicles) and wipe out a custodes unit. That's way more effective than charging with hammers, it doesn't require dropping rokkit launchas for hammers and doesn't require charging, they just need to be 6'' from the target and use 1CP. If the enemy models are 6+ that's 30 guaranteed shots + exploding 6s. That's also why you never see people using tankhammers. And mind that the grenade trick is already almost impossible to get against a valuable target, so imagine a charge.

I'm sorry, all I can read in your post is that you have ZERO proof that anyone plays it this way. Except you.