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.
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.
Not that it matters. Bad combos aren't played in tournaments all the time. Woo? It's a poor attempt to appeal to authority.
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.
You also have zero proof that anyone plays it in your way. Except you .
Of course it's hard to link lists that make use of this combo, regardless of how it's played as no one uses tankhammer. Ever. And for a good reason.
But I've also provided a solid reason why even accepting exploding 6s on tankhammers it's a really bad combo to use.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/08 11:42:09
I'm surprised this has gone on this long debating whether a goff tankhamma gets a second hit roll.
As far as I can tell, the rules are:
• you make one attack • you make 1 hit roll for the attack, roll a 6, and generate a second hit roll • if that second roll hits as well, you have made one attack which has hit twice • you then ask "did the attack hit". you look, see two hits, and say "yes, it did hit". • It therefore inflicts D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain.
In short - it's irrelevant! the attack "hits" whether one or two hit rolls succeed, and as such you skip to "inflict D3 wounds and the bearer is slain".
The only way I can see this being an issue is if something has an ability to negate hits, such that the initial 6 somehow actually misses, and that second hit roll is needed to determine if the ability activates. Otherwise, whether that second hit roll hits or not, the attack has hit because you rolled a 6.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/08 14:07:05
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
some bloke wrote: I'm surprised this has gone on this long debating whether a goff tankhamma gets a second hit roll.
As far as I can tell, the rules are:
• you make one attack
• you make 1 hit roll for the attack, roll a 6, and generate a second hit roll
• if that second roll hits as well, you have made one attack which has hit twice
• you then ask "did the attack hit". you look, see two hits, and say "yes, it did hit".
• It therefore inflicts D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain.
In short - it's irrelevant! the attack "hits" whether one or two hit rolls succeed, and as such you skip to "inflict D3 wounds and the bearer is slain".
The only way I can see this being an issue is if something has an ability to negate hits, such that the initial 6 somehow actually misses, and that second hit roll is needed to determine if the ability activates. Otherwise, whether that second hit roll hits or not, the attack has hit because you rolled a 6.
Agreed. The rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/08 15:53:47
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Which is impossible as "each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack" and the Tankhammer can only make one attack.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If the first attack procs the ability, the second attack never happens.
Nothing in the ruleset says whether this is how it works or not. We have exactly 0 instruction on what to do when a model dies before an attack is resolved. In fact, most rules skirt around this by killing/damaging models after all of their attacks have been resolved (see, plasma).
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Which is impossible as "each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack" and the Tankhammer can only make one attack.
Until another rule comes along and not only allows, but requires you to make another “attack”. The game is full of such exceptions to rules.
But literally what is making the attack? People are stating as fact that the model is making a second attack, which is impossible if attack sequences exist.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: What do you make a second attack with? There is no model left with a profile with which to base an attack off of.
It's fairly clear that after the first attack sequence is fully resolved, the model is removed from play.
What's not clear is what to do with the second attack we need to resolve. A 6 was scored, we immediately made another attack roll, did d3 mortal wounds to the target, and removed the tankbusta from the game. Now we have a "loose" attack to resolve but the game rules don't tell us how to.
Alternatively, if we rolled a 6 and completely resolved the second attack (a valid interpretation due to ambiguity in rules), we have the first attack as the loose attack to resolve, since the second attack killed the model.
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Which is impossible as "each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack" and the Tankhammer can only make one attack.
Until another rule comes along and not only allows, but requires you to make another “attack”. The game is full of such exceptions to rules.
Yes, but that rule would have to have a specific exception to the can't, which the goffs rule does not have, so the Tankhammer rules trump the goffs rules.
Can't trumps can/must.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: What do you make a second attack with? There is no model left with a profile with which to base an attack off of.
It's fairly clear that after the first attack sequence is fully resolved, the model is removed from play.
What's not clear is what to do with the second attack we need to resolve. A 6 was scored, we immediately made another attack roll, did d3 mortal wounds to the target, and removed the tankbusta from the game. Now we have a "loose" attack to resolve but the game rules don't tell us how to.
Alternatively, if we rolled a 6 and completely resolved the second attack (a valid interpretation due to ambiguity in rules), we have the first attack as the loose attack to resolve, since the second attack killed the model.
we dont have a "loose attack", if you were to use Bomb Squigs with dakka dakka they too would not die before getting off both their attacks. Roll a 6 = you get an additional hit roll. Death is irrelevant as it happens afterwards. It says i get another hit roll so im gonna take my hit roll. It also states i die after my attack, but its common knowledge that one attack can have two or more hit rolls, so its not out of the question.
Lets say you used a gorkanauts smash profile (the attack that gives 3 hit rolls per ONE attack), and making hit rolls of 1 made me take D3 MW, then lets say i then roll a 1 and a 2 and 3, and that one roll of 1 killed my Gorkanaut, then i would still get the remaining 2 hit rolls. This is because that ONE attack was worth 3 hit rolls. you dont die mid sequence of one attack.
Sure you can die between attacks but in a case where one attack was worth several hit rolls, you dont die midway through that one attack that happened to be worth two hit rolls. AKA Goff 6s and Dakka dakka.
You can die between attacks (im fairly sure of that anyway) but you cant die midway through ONE attack thats worth two or three hit rolls, because you are still resolving ONE attack, thats just worth three hit rolls.
Hope, is the first step on the road to disappointment.
BaconCatBug wrote: Agreed. The rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
This is actually wrong. As soon as hit that is scored the dice goes in the pool with all hits from different models using the same weapon and when it happens they are treated as separate attacks. At this point there's no difference between two attacks from the same model and two attacks each one from a different model. Both cases are treated as separate attacks and each one of them can deal their MWs.
some bloke wrote: I'm surprised this has gone on this long debating whether a goff tankhamma gets a second hit roll.
As far as I can tell, the rules are:
• you make one attack
• you make 1 hit roll for the attack, roll a 6, and generate a second hit roll
• if that second roll hits as well, you have made one attack which has hit twice
• you then ask "did the attack hit". you look, see two hits, and say "yes, it did hit".
• It therefore inflicts D3 mortal wounds and the bearer is slain.
In short - it's irrelevant! the attack "hits" whether one or two hit rolls succeed, and as such you skip to "inflict D3 wounds and the bearer is slain".
The only way I can see this being an issue is if something has an ability to negate hits, such that the initial 6 somehow actually misses, and that second hit roll is needed to determine if the ability activates. Otherwise, whether that second hit roll hits or not, the attack has hit because you rolled a 6.
Agreed. The rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
I agree.
I would allow an opponent to play according to her or his interpretation otherwise, but I wouldn’t play this way and I would never play that opponent again, if I could help it, because rules lawyering opportunists do what rules lawyering opportunists will do, which is ruin friendly games trying to get an advantage.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/08 21:33:25
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: What do you make a second attack with? There is no model left with a profile with which to base an attack off of.
It's fairly clear that after the first attack sequence is fully resolved, the model is removed from play.
What's not clear is what to do with the second attack we need to resolve. A 6 was scored, we immediately made another attack roll, did d3 mortal wounds to the target, and removed the tankbusta from the game. Now we have a "loose" attack to resolve but the game rules don't tell us how to.
Alternatively, if we rolled a 6 and completely resolved the second attack (a valid interpretation due to ambiguity in rules), we have the first attack as the loose attack to resolve, since the second attack killed the model.
we dont have a "loose attack", if you were to use Bomb Squigs with dakka dakka they too would not die before getting off both their attacks. Roll a 6 = you get an additional hit roll. Death is irrelevant as it happens afterwards. It says i get another hit roll so im gonna take my hit roll. It also states i die after my attack, but its common knowledge that one attack can have two or more hit rolls, so its not out of the question.
Lets say you used a gorkanauts smash profile (the attack that gives 3 hit rolls per ONE attack), and making hit rolls of 1 made me take D3 MW, then lets say i then roll a 1 and a 2 and 3, and that one roll of 1 killed my Gorkanaut, then i would still get the remaining 2 hit rolls. This is because that ONE attack was worth 3 hit rolls. you dont die mid sequence of one attack.
Sure you can die between attacks but in a case where one attack was worth several hit rolls, you dont die midway through that one attack that happened to be worth two hit rolls. AKA Goff 6s and Dakka dakka.
You can die between attacks (im fairly sure of that anyway) but you cant die midway through ONE attack thats worth two or three hit rolls, because you are still resolving ONE attack, thats just worth three hit rolls.
I am not sure there is anything in the rules to support the bolded parts of your post.
The closest thing I can find
Note that all the attacks you have declared are always resolved against the target unit even if, when you come to resolve an individual attack, no models in the target unit remain in range (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving other attacks made by the attacking model’s unit first).
Only tells us what to do it the target unit we are attacking loses enough models to fall out of range.
The only other situation I can think of where this even matters is if you take a 'split attack' like a Gorkanaut and fight a squad that either has some method of fighting back on death or deals mortal wounds on death (Noise marines or Mortifiers come to mind). You make 1 attack (I believe you're obligated to slowroll in situations like this), but that 1 attack has 3 hit rolls. let's say 2 hit, then you go on to resolve the first hit, which wounds and ultimately kills a model, which then causes mortal wounds enough to destroy the Gorkanaut. The rules give us no way to resolve that second hit. Without errata such as an additional rare rule we have to ask a yes/no version of the question (do we resolve the second 'loose' hit of the attack?) and roll. 1-3 is a no, 4-6 is a yes. According to GW's automated question response, at least, if that's a rules resource.
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Which is impossible as "each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack" and the Tankhammer can only make one attack.
Until another rule comes along and not only allows, but requires you to make another “attack”. The game is full of such exceptions to rules.
Yes, but that rule would have to have a specific exception to the can't, which the goffs rule does not have, so the Tankhammer rules trump the goffs rules.
Can't trumps can/must.
I'm going to need a rules citation on that. There are many circumstances where this isn't true. As for this one, when the model attacks, it can only make one attack with the weapon. As the extra Hit roll is not an attack, it is only treated as another attack, your can't doesn't apply.
Rihgu wrote:The only other situation I can think of where this even matters is if you take a 'split attack' like a Gorkanaut and fight a squad that either has some method of fighting back on death or deals mortal wounds on death (Noise marines or Mortifiers come to mind). You make 1 attack (I believe you're obligated to slowroll in situations like this), but that 1 attack has 3 hit rolls. let's say 2 hit, then you go on to resolve the first hit, which wounds and ultimately kills a model, which then causes mortal wounds enough to destroy the Gorkanaut. The rules give us no way to resolve that second hit. Without errata such as an additional rare rule we have to ask a yes/no version of the question (do we resolve the second 'loose' hit of the attack?) and roll. 1-3 is a no, 4-6 is a yes. According to GW's automated question response, at least, if that's a rules resource.
I've never seen any rules or FAQ quote obligating slow rolling of attacks in any circumstance. If you have one, I'd love to see it.
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Which is impossible as "each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack" and the Tankhammer can only make one attack.
Until another rule comes along and not only allows, but requires you to make another “attack”. The game is full of such exceptions to rules.
Yes, but that rule would have to have a specific exception to the can't, which the goffs rule does not have, so the Tankhammer rules trump the goffs rules.
Can't trumps can/must.
I'm going to need a rules citation on that. There are many circumstances where this isn't true. As for this one, when the model attacks, it can only make one attack with the weapon. As the extra Hit roll is not an attack, it is only treated as another attack, your can't doesn't apply.
You literally said
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Two attacks with the Tankhammer is just not possible.
That is just how rulesets work, you wont find a quote for how a game system works.
I'll refer you to Dakka's "How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate" https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate where it says "The First Principle of an intelligent rules debate is simple: 'Break No Rule.' In every situation, we should strive to follow this principle."
So making two attacks with a Tankhammer would break a rule, so we should not do that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/09 01:37:53
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Which is impossible as "each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack" and the Tankhammer can only make one attack.
Until another rule comes along and not only allows, but requires you to make another “attack”. The game is full of such exceptions to rules.
Yes, but that rule would have to have a specific exception to the can't, which the goffs rule does not have, so the Tankhammer rules trump the goffs rules.
Can't trumps can/must.
I'm going to need a rules citation on that. There are many circumstances where this isn't true. As for this one, when the model attacks, it can only make one attack with the weapon. As the extra Hit roll is not an attack, it is only treated as another attack, your can't doesn't apply.
You literally said
alextroy wrote: However, as noted via the FAQ, each Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack. Therefore you don’t have one attack that hit twice, you have two attacks that both hit.
Two attacks with the Tankhammer is just not possible.
That is just how rulesets work, you wont find a quote for how a game system works.
I'll refer you to Dakka's "How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate" https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate where it says "The First Principle of an intelligent rules debate is simple: 'Break No Rule.' In every situation, we should strive to follow this principle."
So making two attacks with a Tankhammer would break a rule, so we should not do that.
And as I have said many times, you didn't make two attacks with the Tankhammer. You made two Hit Rolls off one attack that are treated as two attacks. It is possible to be treated as something and not be something at the same time. Since you never 'broke' the one attack rule when you make a second 'hit roll' for your one attack it is completely legal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/09 05:20:51
alextroy wrote: And as I have said many times, you didn't make two attacks with the Tankhammer. You made two Hit Rolls off one attack that are treated as two attacks. It is possible to be treated as something and not be something at the same time. Since you never 'broke' the one attack rule when you make a second 'hit roll' for your one attack it is completely legal.
Then in that case the rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
So either way you are only getting D3 mortal wounds.
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
alextroy wrote: And as I have said many times, you didn't make two attacks with the Tankhammer. You made two Hit Rolls off one attack that are treated as two attacks. It is possible to be treated as something and not be something at the same time. Since you never 'broke' the one attack rule when you make a second 'hit roll' for your one attack it is completely legal.
Then in that case the rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
So either way you are only getting D3 mortal wounds.
It states you get an additional hit roll immediately with the same weapon. In this case that weapon is a tankhammer, i paid for that weapon. Hitting twice with this weapon makes no sense if it doesnt do more damage.
So yes, hitting twice with the same weapon indicates that you get 2D3 MW. If you could trigger it twice but not the damage twice then the rule would be broken and do basically nothing and be usless.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: What do you make a second attack with? There is no model left with a profile with which to base an attack off of.
It's fairly clear that after the first attack sequence is fully resolved, the model is removed from play.
What's not clear is what to do with the second attack we need to resolve. A 6 was scored, we immediately made another attack roll, did d3 mortal wounds to the target, and removed the tankbusta from the game. Now we have a "loose" attack to resolve but the game rules don't tell us how to.
Alternatively, if we rolled a 6 and completely resolved the second attack (a valid interpretation due to ambiguity in rules), we have the first attack as the loose attack to resolve, since the second attack killed the model.
we dont have a "loose attack", if you were to use Bomb Squigs with dakka dakka they too would not die before getting off both their attacks. Roll a 6 = you get an additional hit roll. Death is irrelevant as it happens afterwards. It says i get another hit roll so im gonna take my hit roll. It also states i die after my attack, but its common knowledge that one attack can have two or more hit rolls, so its not out of the question.
Lets say you used a gorkanauts smash profile (the attack that gives 3 hit rolls per ONE attack), and making hit rolls of 1 made me take D3 MW, then lets say i then roll a 1 and a 2 and 3, and that one roll of 1 killed my Gorkanaut, then i would still get the remaining 2 hit rolls. This is because that ONE attack was worth 3 hit rolls. you dont die mid sequence of one attack.
Sure you can die between attacks but in a case where one attack was worth several hit rolls, you dont die midway through that one attack that happened to be worth two hit rolls. AKA Goff 6s and Dakka dakka.
You can die between attacks (im fairly sure of that anyway) but you cant die midway through ONE attack thats worth two or three hit rolls, because you are still resolving ONE attack, thats just worth three hit rolls.
I am not sure there is anything in the rules to support the bolded parts of your post. The closest thing I can find
Note that all the attacks you have declared are always resolved against the target unit even if, when you come to resolve an individual attack, no models in the target unit remain in range (this can happen because of models being destroyed and removed from the battlefield as the result of resolving other attacks made by the attacking model’s unit first).
Only tells us what to do it the target unit we are attacking loses enough models to fall out of range.
The only other situation I can think of where this even matters is if you take a 'split attack' like a Gorkanaut and fight a squad that either has some method of fighting back on death or deals mortal wounds on death (Noise marines or Mortifiers come to mind). You make 1 attack (I believe you're obligated to slowroll in situations like this), but that 1 attack has 3 hit rolls. let's say 2 hit, then you go on to resolve the first hit, which wounds and ultimately kills a model, which then causes mortal wounds enough to destroy the Gorkanaut. The rules give us no way to resolve that second hit. Without errata such as an additional rare rule we have to ask a yes/no version of the question (do we resolve the second 'loose' hit of the attack?) and roll. 1-3 is a no, 4-6 is a yes. According to GW's automated question response, at least, if that's a rules resource.
Because hit rolls are part of a 5 step attack chain sequence, they are not attacks on their own.
One attack is worth 3 hit rolls, each hit roll is NOT an attack on their own, they are only treated as attacks.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/03/09 10:55:19
Hope, is the first step on the road to disappointment.
"If the attack hits the target suffers D3 mortal wounds."
It doesn't say if the weapon gets a hit or if the guy gets a hit. Only in that case multiple hits from the same guy would get the same result of a single hit. It says the attack, singular.
RAW each attack that hits can deal MW. Otherwise someone could argue that multiple dudes using thankhammers can only get a single hit in total, but I hope no one is too fool to consider that.
The only other situation I can think of where this even matters is if you take a 'split attack' like a Gorkanaut and fight a squad that either has some method of fighting back on death or deals mortal wounds on death (Noise marines or Mortifiers come to mind). You make 1 attack (I believe you're obligated to slowroll in situations like this), but that 1 attack has 3 hit rolls. let's say 2 hit, then you go on to resolve the first hit, which wounds and ultimately kills a model, which then causes mortal wounds enough to destroy the Gorkanaut. The rules give us no way to resolve that second hit. Without errata such as an additional rare rule we have to ask a yes/no version of the question (do we resolve the second 'loose' hit of the attack?) and roll. 1-3 is a no, 4-6 is a yes. According to GW's automated question response, at least, if that's a rules resource.
Lol, no. Those 3 hit rolls per attack must be resolved simultaneously. They're part of the same attack but treated (resolved) as separate attacks against the same target. Is it really so hard to understand? As a concept I mean.
In a real game a gorkanaut using the smash profile rolls 18 dice at the same time. Then you may resolve them one at a time, and you can always do that, but you still need to roll all of them, no matter what happens to the bearer (the naut) as a consquence for his attacks. Slowroll is pointless in this specific scenario, it typically has a meaning when enemy targets are multiwounds and/or have ways to negate/reduce damage or they have different stats among the same unit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/09 12:18:57
Blackie, technically, if you do slow rolling wouldnt you have to roll 3 hit rolls at a time? because you roll each attack seperately. But each attack was 3 hit rolls.
But that would still mean that your Goff tankhammer would get 2 hit rolls from 1 attack so you roll that one 6 and get an extra hit roll, you then roll the next hit roll, and only then would you move on to the wound roll phase. which doesnt exist as you smash the target with MW.
If you slow roll the gorks smash profile you would roll 3 hit rolls together, then make wound rolls for all 3, and saving throws for all 3.
In the same way that one unit having 3 attacks total with 1 hit roll per attack, then you roll one hit roll, do one wound roll, and do one save throw if we get that far., then move on to attack 2, and rinse and repeat till all 3 are done. But if one attack is worth 3 hit rolls, you would throw all 3 hit rolls down, do all 3 wound rolls, and do all 3 saving throws all at the same time, when one attacks equates to 3 hit rolls.
thats how i understand it.
The important thing is, however, that Dakka Dakkas and Goff 6s gives one extra hit roll in that sequence that needs to be resolved. its not resolved afterwards in their own attack sequence, because they are not attacks, only treated as such for rules purposes i believe.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/03/09 12:58:02
Hope, is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Each attack follows a sequence
1. Make hit roll.
2. Make wound roll.
3. Make save roll.
4. inflict damage.
You resolve attacks one at a time.
Gorkanaut makes 1 attack, rolls 3 to hit rolls. Each is treated as a separate attack according to the rare rule quoted several times in this thread.
So we resolve steps 1-4 for each hit roll.
Re-reading the rules, I think I clarified my own question from up above. If the first of 3 hit rolls made by a Gorkanaut causes a Mortifier to do mortal wounds, destroying the Gorkanaut, we stop resolving any further attacks. There actually aren't any "in the pool" to use my own phrasing in this case as we're resolving each one as separate attacks. I had erroneously interpreted the rules to mean that the Gorkanaut literally makes 3 hit rolls at step 1 for each attack, when the rare rule clarifies that it is resolved as 3 distinct attacks.
Sadly, this doesn't seem to clear up the Tankbusta fiasco.
alextroy wrote: And as I have said many times, you didn't make two attacks with the Tankhammer. You made two Hit Rolls off one attack that are treated as two attacks. It is possible to be treated as something and not be something at the same time. Since you never 'broke' the one attack rule when you make a second 'hit roll' for your one attack it is completely legal.
Then in that case the rule doesn't care if you got 1 hit or 100 hits, it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds.
So either way you are only getting D3 mortal wounds.
All rules are written assuming one attack at a time. Therefore the rule stating if you hit do D3 Mortal Wounds applies to a single attack. Since an additional Hit Roll is treated as a separate attack, it independently hits and does D3 Mortal Wounds.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: No, because the model dies after the first attack. I can't understand how you keep missing that.
He hasn't, and he has addressed that. To quote his post from earlier in the page, "And as I have said many times, you didn't make two attacks with the Tankhammer. You made two Hit Rolls off one attack that are treated as two attacks. It is possible to be treated as something and not be something at the same time. Since you never 'broke' the one attack rule when you make a second 'hit roll' for your one attack it is completely legal."
I can't understand how you keep missing that point from him whenever you bring up the model dies after the first attack.
Because he has directly contradicted himself multiple times in this thread, constantly waffled, and taken multiple sides. It is impossible to pin him down on a single point because he shifts the goal posts.
If it can only make a single attack, then Goffs is not valid and the model does not get a 2d3 MW attack. He seems to be arguing that it does because he claims a hit roll is the same as an attack. Which, if true, invalidates his own argument because the model specifically states it only gets a single attack, and then dies. So either a hit roll is an attack, and the model is dead, of a hit reoll is not an attack, and therefor does not matter, the model is still dead. Which is it?
.
