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.

Hello all,

Endless fury reads "Each unmodified hit roll of 6 made with this weapon scores 2 hits instead of one"

Simple and fairly solid.

Saturation Bombardment Strat for House Vulker reads "Each unmodified hit roll of 6 for that model's shooting attacks scores 2 hits instead of one."

Again, pretty simple and solid. But what happens when both are used at the same time? Do they apply one after the other, where each hit roll of 6 on Endless fury is actually 3 hits? Or, does that specific wording exclude them from working together?

Thanks!

As it specifically states 2 hits, not an additional hit, I would say that clearly limits it to 2 hits and they wouldn't stack.

I'm also sure this is intentionally as the two bonuses triggering together would have some odd interactions of do 3 6's with both bonus result in 6 hits, 9 hits or 12 hits?

How I believe this works is that 1 natural 6 procs both rules once, meaning each roll of a 6, assuming you have the relic in play, and the strategem, would be 4 hits total

 iGuy91 wrote:
How I believe this works is that 1 natural 6 procs both rules once, meaning each roll of a 6, assuming you have the relic in play, and the strategem, would be 4 hits total

This.

 iGuy91 wrote:
How I believe this works is that 1 natural 6 procs both rules once, meaning each roll of a 6, assuming you have the relic in play, and the strategem, would be 4 hits total

This is correct, but expect the RaI crowd to disagree, because you can do something "instead" of something that didn't happen, despite FAQs to the contrary.

 iGuy91 wrote:
How I believe this works is that 1 natural 6 procs both rules once, meaning each roll of a 6, assuming you have the relic in play, and the strategem, would be 4 hits total

I disagree with this interpretation.

The way I see it is that they both do exactly the same thing, so don't stack. If it doubled the hits rather than counting them as two I would agree with you.

If there is precedent for your interpretation I would like to see it.

 EagleArk wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
How I believe this works is that 1 natural 6 procs both rules once, meaning each roll of a 6, assuming you have the relic in play, and the strategem, would be 4 hits total

I disagree with this interpretation.

The way I see it is that they both do exactly the same thing, so don't stack. If it doubled the hits rather than counting them as two I would agree with you.

If there is precedent for your interpretation I would like to see it.

I agree. Both say two hits instead of one. They aren’t worded in such a way that you could stack them, RAW.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 EagleArk wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
How I believe this works is that 1 natural 6 procs both rules once, meaning each roll of a 6, assuming you have the relic in play, and the strategem, would be 4 hits total

I disagree with this interpretation.

The way I see it is that they both do exactly the same thing, so don't stack. If it doubled the hits rather than counting them as two I would agree with you.

If there is precedent for your interpretation I would like to see it.

I agree. Both say two hits instead of one. They aren’t worded in such a way that you could stack them, RAW.

If you were right (and I don't think you are), then you couldn't stack more than one -1 to Hit, or +1 to Invul save etc. You patently can, as long as the source is differently named.

IMO this is exactly the same. So 4 Hits from me.

I’d be on the side of it being 4 hits as well.

Generally, the only rules that don’t stack currently are ones with the same name or FNP style rules – as they’ve been specifically stated otherwise.

Until this specific interaction is faq’d, you’d be well in your rights to take the 4 hits for each roll of a 6, just as you can stack -1 to hits from various different sources, or even +1 to hits etc.

MarkM wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 EagleArk wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
How I believe this works is that 1 natural 6 procs both rules once, meaning each roll of a 6, assuming you have the relic in play, and the strategem, would be 4 hits total

I disagree with this interpretation.

The way I see it is that they both do exactly the same thing, so don't stack. If it doubled the hits rather than counting them as two I would agree with you.

If there is precedent for your interpretation I would like to see it.

I agree. Both say two hits instead of one. They aren’t worded in such a way that you could stack them, RAW.

If you were right (and I don't think you are), then you couldn't stack more than one -1 to Hit, or +1 to Invul save etc. You patently can, as long as the source is differently named.

IMO this is exactly the same. So 4 Hits from me.

But logically two +1 to hits make +2, I agree. However counting one hits as two has not obvious mathematical stacking like that.

Games Workshop Battle Primer pg2 wrote: All modifiers
are cumulative. If a rule
requires a dice roll of, for
example, 3 or more, this is
often abbreviated to 3+.

I dont see two instances of counting 1 hit as 2 is cumulative to 1 hit counting as 4.

 EagleArk wrote:

Games Workshop Battle Primer pg2 wrote: All modifiers
are cumulative. If a rule
requires a dice roll of, for
example, 3 or more, this is
often abbreviated to 3+.

This is no longer true.

 EagleArk wrote:

I dont see two instances of counting 1 hit as 2 is cumulative to 1 hit counting as 4.

Its not cumulative, its two seperate rules.

I'm not arguing that 1 hit counts as four.
I'm stating that one hit counts as two, twice.
So. Endless Fury and the Strat both proc. Pick one to resolve first.
Endless Fury Procs first, that six is counted as 2 hits, so you add dice to your pool of hits.
The stratagem procs second, the original six has not gone anywhere, you add more dice to the pool of hits.
End up with 4 dice for the price of 1 six.

 iGuy91 wrote:
I'm not arguing that 1 hit counts as four.
I'm stating that one hit counts as two, twice.
So. Endless Fury and the Strat both proc. Pick one to resolve first.
Endless Fury Procs first, that six is counted as 2 hits, so you add dice to your pool of hits.
The stratagem procs second, the original six has not gone anywhere, you add more dice to the pool of hits.
End up with 4 dice for the price of 1 six.

This is how I see it.

Not sure how I'd play it. I'd probably talk to my opponent and argue for 3 hits on a 6 as each ability individually adds only 1 additional hit. That would match up with each ability occurring independent of each other, but in the same shooting attack.

1 hit to two hits is an addition hit.

Rolling a 6 would cause 3 hits.

This is similar to the damage multiplier multiplier for hive tyrants with a certain warlord trait and relic.

Two syncronous effects the player whose turn it is chooses the order they resolve

First 1 resolves turns all hit rolls of 6 into 2 hits

There are now no hit rolls of 6

second effect resolves no impact.

blaktoof wrote:1 hit to two hits is an addition hit.

Rolling a 6 would cause 3 hits.

That is not what the rules are saying. Its not +1 additional hits, its 2 hits instead of one.

U02dah4 wrote:Two syncronous effects the player whose turn it is chooses the order they resolve

First 1 resolves turns all hit rolls of 6 into 2 hits

There are now no hit rolls of 6

second effect resolves no impact.

No. The natural 6s are not lost if you use sequencing. First endless fury gives me 2 hits instead of one, then second saturation bombardment gives me 2 hits instead of one.

I would play it as three hits. That's not even close to RAW, but seems fair.

The best precedence we have comes from the Harlequin FAQ

Q: How does the Riddle-smiths Masque Form interact with abilities that generate additional attacks or score additional hits?

A: If a unit has an ability that generates extra attacks on a roll that exactly matches the result of a Riddle-smiths roll, the extra attack is generated. Note that the original attack still misses, and if the hit roll for the extra attack also matches the result of the Riddle-smiths roll, it also misses. Likewise, if a weapon has an ability that scores additional hits on a roll that exactly matches the result of a Riddle-smiths roll, it would score those additional hits, but they’d all miss.

This seems to indicate that when you resolve the first of the two effects (Endless Fury or Saturation Bombardment) that you end up with 2 Hits that are Rolls of 6. These are then both changed into 2 Hits by the other effect, resulting in 4 Hits.

If you don't agree with this line of reasoning, you only get 2 Hits because you can't turn the same 1 Hit into 2 Hits twice.

The above doesn't indicate that at all. The additional hits are at the same to hit roll as the number that fails which is why they fails, it doesn't say something that gives you two hits and aomethj f that gives you 2 hits add together in any way.

blaktoof wrote:
The above doesn't indicate that at all. The additional hits are at the same to hit roll as the number that fails which is why they fails, it doesn't say something that gives you two hits and aomethj f that gives you 2 hits add together in any way.

This is correct.

Riddle-smiths Masque form does not do the same thing as the relic and strategem.

That said; if you roll an unmodified 6 for any hits with Endless Fury and saturation bombardment both trigger and both effects are applied: you receive2 hits instead of 1. End result: you only score 2 hits.

Even with the sequencing rules, once you have applied 2 hits instead of one from one source, you no longer have the 1 hit to "instead of".

Oops, I want to retract my “4 hits” statement and change it to 3 hits – as I didn’t do math properly.

1 6 would count as 2 hits for Saturation, giving you 2 hits.
Endless fury will then give you 1 additional hit, because, the original 6 counts as 2 hits again. (essentially each interaction gives you +1 hit)
The bonus hit from the first doubling would not cause additional exploding hits, as it is not classed as another hit of 6, rather just an automatic hit.

3 is right out.

It can only be 2 or 4.

You score 2 hits i stead of 1 twice. That would either be applied simultaneously negating the one for 2 hits and 2 hits= 4 hits on a nat6.

Or you sequence the simultaneous rules negatimg the 1 hit on either for 2 hits and then not having the original 1 to instead of for the second rule.

I can see what you are trying to say with sequence-negating the one for 2, then sequence-negating one of those for 2 more; but the rules just do not work that way and never have.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
3 is right out.

It can only be 2 or 4.

You score 2 hits i stead of 1 twice. That would either be applied simultaneously negating the one for 2 hits and 2 hits= 4 hits on a nat6.

Or you sequence the simultaneous rules negatimg the 1 hit on either for 2 hits and then not having the original 1 to instead of for the second rule.

I can see what you are trying to say with sequence-negating the one for 2, then sequence-negating one of those for 2 more; but the rules just do not work that way and never have.

1 base hit doesn't turn into 2 base hits though.

So the base hit would count as 2 hits from the relic
Then
The original base hit, would count as 2 hits from the stratagem. (the original base hit is the same one used by the relic, not separate)

You wouldn’t gain an additional “base” hit, so, the original 1 becomes 3 by counting as 2 twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If I give you 1 die and said it counted as 2 dice, you would have 2 dice. If I then said the original die counted as 2 dice a second time, you would add a 3rd die to the pile, not an additional 2.

Rules can often be thought of as instructions. Sometimes when trying to understand rules I put myself in the mind of a really dense computer who knows only what you input.

IF ‘Roll to Hit’ >= ‘WS’ THEN ‘1 Hit’
IF ‘Roll to Hit’ ALSO = ‘6’ THEN REPLACE ‘1 Hit’ WITH ‘2 Hits’

Does running that second line again yield any additional hits? I’d say no. Because it uses the language “2 Hits Instead”” it is replacing something with something else and even though it’s trying to do it twice it’s being replaced with the same thing and that’s what you get... 2 Hits.

I like the computer metaphor but as a dumb computer i read it as 1 is replaced by 2. The original 1 has now been replaced so when 1 tries to be replaced again it cannot as theres nothing original to replace.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
3 is right out.

It can only be 2 or 4.

You score 2 hits i stead of 1 twice. That would either be applied simultaneously negating the one for 2 hits and 2 hits= 4 hits on a nat6.

Or you sequence the simultaneous rules negatimg the 1 hit on either for 2 hits and then not having the original 1 to instead of for the second rule.

I can see what you are trying to say with sequence-negating the one for 2, then sequence-negating one of those for 2 more; but the rules just do not work that way and never have.

That math doesn't check out. You have a single "6", which adds a single additional hit each time.

1 6+ = 2 additional hits
2 6+ = 4 additional hits
etc...

Edit - I do agree that it's possibly only one procs, but we don't have anything definitive on that. Assuming they do, it's not going to be 1 = 4.

 Larks wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
3 is right out.

It can only be 2 or 4.

You score 2 hits i stead of 1 twice. That would either be applied simultaneously negating the one for 2 hits and 2 hits= 4 hits on a nat6.

Or you sequence the simultaneous rules negatimg the 1 hit on either for 2 hits and then not having the original 1 to instead of for the second rule.

I can see what you are trying to say with sequence-negating the one for 2, then sequence-negating one of those for 2 more; but the rules just do not work that way and never have.

That math doesn't check out. You have a single "6", which adds a single additional hit each time.

1 6+ = 2 additional hits
2 6+ = 4 additional hits
etc...

But is that first additional hit an unmodified hit roll of 6?
I would say not, it might be a hit roll of 6 but its a modified roll.
Both effect need an unmodified 6.

Ice_can wrote:

 Larks wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
3 is right out.

It can only be 2 or 4.

You score 2 hits i stead of 1 twice. That would either be applied simultaneously negating the one for 2 hits and 2 hits= 4 hits on a nat6.

Or you sequence the simultaneous rules negatimg the 1 hit on either for 2 hits and then not having the original 1 to instead of for the second rule.

I can see what you are trying to say with sequence-negating the one for 2, then sequence-negating one of those for 2 more; but the rules just do not work that way and never have.

That math doesn't check out. You have a single "6", which adds a single additional hit each time.

1 6+ = 2 additional hits
2 6+ = 4 additional hits
etc...

But is that first additional hit an unmodified hit roll of 6?
I would say not, it might be a hit roll of 6 but its a modified roll.
Both effect need an unmodified 6.

I don't know what you're refuting. This whole thread assumes the IK player has rolled one or more "unmodified 6's" - that's the debate? The additional hits aren't 6's, nor did I state they would be.

 Larks wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
3 is right out.

It can only be 2 or 4.

You score 2 hits i stead of 1 twice. That would either be applied simultaneously negating the one for 2 hits and 2 hits= 4 hits on a nat6.

Or you sequence the simultaneous rules negatimg the 1 hit on either for 2 hits and then not having the original 1 to instead of for the second rule.

I can see what you are trying to say with sequence-negating the one for 2, then sequence-negating one of those for 2 more; but the rules just do not work that way and never have.

That math doesn't check out. You have a single "6", which adds a single additional hit each time.

1 6+ = 2 additional hits
2 6+ = 4 additional hits
etc...

Edit - I do agree that it's possibly only one procs, but we don't have anything definitive on that. Assuming they do, it's not going to be 1 = 4.

If an unmodified 6 scored an "additional hit" on either rule it would be fine and would be 3 hits.

But neither do that. Both score "2 hits instead of 1". once you have satisfied the rule once, you no longer have the 1 hit for the "Instead of" portion.

The "If; Then" programing comparison is the best comparison, and how it should be read.

What Ice_can is saying is the same as myself: once you satisfy one of the rules, you no longer have a hit scored by an unmodified to hit roll of 6; you have 2 hits that are produced from one of the 2 special rules.

Basically any way that you look at it; you are only going to be producing a total of 2 hits from each unmodified to hit roll of 6.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Larks wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
3 is right out.

It can only be 2 or 4.

You score 2 hits i stead of 1 twice. That would either be applied simultaneously negating the one for 2 hits and 2 hits= 4 hits on a nat6.

Or you sequence the simultaneous rules negatimg the 1 hit on either for 2 hits and then not having the original 1 to instead of for the second rule.

I can see what you are trying to say with sequence-negating the one for 2, then sequence-negating one of those for 2 more; but the rules just do not work that way and never have.

That math doesn't check out. You have a single "6", which adds a single additional hit each time.

1 6+ = 2 additional hits
2 6+ = 4 additional hits
etc...

Edit - I do agree that it's possibly only one procs, but we don't have anything definitive on that. Assuming they do, it's not going to be 1 = 4.

If an unmodified 6 scored an "additional hit" on either rule it would be fine and would be 3 hits.

But neither do that. Both score "2 hits instead of 1". once you have satisfied the rule once, you no longer have the 1 hit for the "Instead of" portion.

The "If; Then" programing comparison is the best comparison, and how it should be read.

What Ice_can is saying is the same as myself: once you satisfy one of the rules, you no longer have a hit scored by an unmodified to hit roll of 6; you have 2 hits that are produced from one of the 2 special rules.

Basically any way that you look at it; you are only going to be producing a total of 2 hits from each unmodified to hit roll of 6.

That's a fair assessment, though I don't think it's by any means definitive. Programming syntax, fun though it is - isn't really a rules argument. Even if it was, the unmodified 6 isn't replaced, but scores two hits instead of one. So there's still an unmodified 6, thus I can see how it can be argued that both would proc.

The wording of the rules actually uses the term "scores two hits instead of one" - which still doesn't mean the 6 has disappeared or is replaced.