Smash Attacks Discussion

[Akaiyou]

The smash attack rule is very specific that you do it 'instead' of your standard close combat attacks and then specifically says that to determine how many smash attacks you have, you halve your attack characteristic and they count as strength 10. But notice that it says for THAT attack.

Let me give you guys the quotations to make this a bit easier to follow

1. When making it's close combat attacks, it can choose to instead make a smash attack

2. A smash attack also doubles the model's strength for the purpose of that attack.

So the way I understand this is that the smash attacks are determined from halving your attack characteristic only. And your other attack bonuses would be resolved at their standard strength/rules

So a tervigon would get 2 S10 attacks and then the +1 charge/+D3 CC/+D3 Warp Speed would be resolved at S5 as normal.

Otherwise why was the distinction made that you can choose to smash attack instead of doing your close combat attacks? The word instead would be used for no reason in that sentence if everything stacks together anyway. And furthermore it says that only THAT attack is resolved at S10, why specifically single out the smash attack as being S10 if every attack you do will be S10 ?

[memnarch_129]

m pretty sure that thats correct. If you read the section where you apply modifiers you first Multipy/Divide then Add/Subtract and last but not least apply Specifics numbers. This should mean a MC with 4 Attacks and two CCW should get 2 S10 hits and 2 hits at normal strength when charging. The phrasing in Smash is a little awkward so it is possible that all the attacks are resolved at S10 (GW and their unusual use of words).

Edit: after rereading Smash only the two attacks would be at S10

[Wildeybeast]

I don't think it's awkward, the wording seems perfectly clear. You halve your attacks characteristic (rather than all you attacks) in return for a smash attack. 'That' attack refers to the smash attack only. The OP is entirely correct.

[Tynskel]

I actually don't have the book in front of me, but I think the entry does not state 'only base' attacks. It just says that you halve your base attacks, but you are str 10.

Tyranid Monsterous creatures do not benefit from 2 CC weapons. In fact, most Monsterous Creatures do not have 2 CC weapons. The only one I am aware of that actually has 2 CC weapons is the Dreadknight.

You would get S10 for every attack made. The Tervigon would gain Str10 on all those bonuses.
Good sell for Crushing Claws.

[Wildeybeast]

Not sure if you saw my post Tynskel before you made yours, but the book explicitly states "when it makes its close combat attacks it can instead choose to make a Smash Attack. If it does so, roll to hit as normal but halve your attacks characteristic. A smash attack also doubles the model's strength...for the purposes of that attack." So on that basis you would only halve the attacks listed on your profile, then add on any for weapon bonuses, charging, etc. Though on reflection, that wording would suggest all your CC attacks are exchanged for the Smash attack, which would mean half CC on profile + bonus attacks all become Smash attacks which mean they are all double strength. That's actually not that clear.

[Akaiyou]

Just saying what was the point of differentiating between the normal close combat attacks and the smash attack if the benefit is applied to all your attacks anyway? Could've been worded differently to state this.

But it makes reference to only that attack being S10, which infers that not all your attacks are getting S10. Only the smash attack

[Tynskel]

There's nothing in that sentence that states that the rest of your attacks are not str 10. Nor does it say that you exchange all your attacks, it just states halve attacks characteristics. Additions are not part of the attacks characteristics.

There's not too many Monsterous Creatures that can add d3 attacks, and then add another d3 attacks. The Tervigon would be the only creature to really benefit in this way– it is a creature that already has few attacks.

I still stand by the Carnifex in this respect. You can either have 5 attacks str10 re-rolling to hit attacks on the charge, or you can a gun (or reroll ones) and 5+d3 str 10 attacks on the charge, or if you are raging hard on, 6+d3 Str 10 attacks on the charge.

[Akaiyou]

Fair enough

Someone posted the following:

I think the use of "for the purposes of that Attack" is to make it clear that the doubling doesn't apply to any characteristic tests weapons that scale off strength, and will apply to any additional attacks made in the same fight sub-phase.

That seems to me like an acceptable logical answer to my question. Prior to this it just didn't make sense to me for them to differentiate smash attack from regular attacks if the bonus will apply to every attack anyway.

[Tynskel]

yeah, Smash attack would be equivalent to an 'instant' For that 'instant' you are Str 10. As opposed to 'Unwieldy' which makes you I1 throughout the entire combat.

[Abominable Plague Marine]

haha, what are you guys doing???


The smash attack rule is very specific that you do it 'instead' of your standard close combat attacks and then specifically says that to determine how many smash attacks you have, you halve your attack characteristic and they count as strength 10. But notice that it says for THAT attack.

Let me give you guys the quotations to make this a bit easier to follow

1. When making it's close combat attacks, it can choose to INSTEAD make a smash attack

2. A smash attack also doubles the model's strength for the purpose of that attack.

So the way I understand this is that the smash attacks are determined from halving your attack characteristic only. And your other attack bonuses would be resolved at their standard strength/rules

So a tervigon would get 2 S10 attacks and then the +1 charge/+D3 CC/+D3 Warp Speed would be resolved at S5 as normal.

Otherwise why was the distinction made that you can choose to smash attack instead of doing your close combat attacks? The word instead would be used for no reason in that sentence if everything stacks together anyway. And furthermore it says that only THAT attack is resolved at S10, why specifically single out the smash attack as being S10 if every attack you do will be S10 ?

You missed a very important word in your own post, I've made it easy for you to find.

Also, there is no reference anywhere in the BRB about "base attacks". There are attacks, that's it.
A model has a characteristic called Attacks (pg 2), charging, multiple weapons etc simply ADD to the characteristic.

So a Monsterous Creature may during it's Fight Sub Phase........

Hammer of Wrath (if it charged)
....then either....
Smash, halving (round up) it's Attack characteristic including bonuses for charging etc
....or....
Attack with the full number of attacks including any bonuses.

Tell me I'm wrong?

[Akaiyou]

What are you getting at? You lost me, what was your point?

[Tynskel]

he's wrong, you can't halve additions. the Rulebook is quite clear:

1) Multiply (in this case multiply by 0.5 rounding up)
2) add (if we are talking about SUPER Tervigon, add +1 for charging, +d3 for Crushing Claws, +d3 For Psychic Power)
3) Set Bonus. (there is no set bonus in this instance)

Clap your hands. Tervigon Wins.
So, with this combo, the Tervigon will get 5-9 attacks at Str 10.
I still think a Carnifex is better in this circumstance. You can get 5-6 re-rolling to hit attacks, or 6-9 with either a gun or re-roll ones with crushing claws at str 10.

The carnifex is a shock assaulter, the tervigon is an objective hunter. There's a chance of turning the Tervigon into a shock assaulter, but the Carnifex is always a shock assaulter. Not to mention... you can get them in 3s. :)


And if you ran into 3 of them, you'd want a Dual Wielding Infernus pistol 10 man Vanguard Squad to toast it real quick.

[Akaiyou]

-UPDATE-

Well this topic has become a huge topic of contention at dakka. With new ideas coming in and questioning how the Smash rule works.

Highlights.

Pg 2. MODIFIERS
We are told how to apply modifiers, MULTIPLIERS, ADDITIONS & SUBSTRACTIONS. But division is not included in this.

- Side A argues that multiplying IS division. Thus a multiplyer for halving would be 0.5 so as to properly follow the rules of the game
- Side B argues that divison is division. Otherwise you could make the same argument for addition being substraction/multiplication/division and still be correct. So the fact that it was excluded can change things.

Pg 5. DIVIDE TO CONQUER
Apparently everyone missed this bit, the rulebook does in fact cover division specifically. And it also directly uses HALVING as an example of division and how it is to be applied. Further supporting argument B

Pg 7. BASIC VERSUS ADVANCED
Here we see that Smash is an advanced rule which we are told take precedence over basic rules normally followed as per the example shown. So we are supposed to ignore the standard way of doing things in favor of whatever the advanced rule asks us to do.

UNMODIFIED CHARACTERISTICS
- Also being brought up as a point that many rules affecting characteristics clearly state that they work against the unmodified characteristic. Where this key word is lacking in the smash rule so that it can be very possible that are you in fact required to halve ALL your attacks as they should already be 'in play' upon entering combat before deciding to use the Smash rule.

Pg 24. Rolling To Hit
If you take a look at the Rolling to Hit section, if you look just before it we are told how to determine the number of attacks we are allowed. Thus you determine your max number of attacks BEFORE you roll to hit, right after making any pile in moves at the start of your initiative step.

Thus SMASH is applied AFTER the attack characteristic is modified.
Because Smash rule states you halve your attacks during the ROLL TO HIT simultaneously halving the attack just before doing so.

[Tynskel]

uhhhh... you need to take a maths class. I mean, seriously. Take a math class.
here let me show you:
http://tinyurl.com/cxo39t4

It says halve the CHARACTERISTIC not the modified characteristic.
No. The rulebook is explicit: Multiply, then add, then set.

Since smash is NOT a set bonus, it falls in the order of operations.
You multiply by 0.5 (round up) then add your bonuses. Then you would apply the set bonus (of which there are none in this circumstance).

[Nachodragon]

Really, the question is, When does a modifier stop being a modifier?

At the time of Smash, all bonuses have been applied and they become the attack characteristic. Smash does not refer to Unmodified attack characteristic, it doesn't say Modified either. It just says attack characteristic.

[Tynskel]

no these are not permanent additions to the characteristics, they are always calculated instantaneously, unless otherwise noted.

example would be Dante's Death Mask. That's a permanent change to a characteristic. Another would be the Deathleaper's Leadership modifier.

[Akaiyou]

-UPDATE-
Apparently someone did infact misquote page 24 as i just had another look. Charge/CC/Warp Speed are categorized as 'bonus' attacks not a + to attack characteristic as someone else had misquoted in the thread.

Which if we follow things in order keeping in mind that we are NOT using a multiplier here, this is divison as per the Smash rule and the rule on pg5 this would work out as follows:

1. Declare you are using smash rule

2. Count up your attacks as normal.

3. Halve the attacks on your profile just before rolling to hit.

4. Add S10 to all attacks.

5. Profit

So in the end you get the same result a Tervigon with 2 attacks from it's profile and his bonus attacks all S10.

Had the bonus attacks been categorized as a + to attack characteristics then things would've ended up quite differently as Smash does not state to only use the unmodified characteristic and furthermore it is halved during the roll to hit portion after attacks have already been added in.


uhhhh... you need to take a maths class. I mean, seriously. Take a math class.
here let me show you:
http://tinyurl.com/cxo39t4

It says halve the CHARACTERISTIC not the modified characteristic.
No. The rulebook is explicit: Multiply, then add, then set.

Since smash is NOT a set bonus, it falls in the order of operations.
You multiply by 0.5 (round up) then add your bonuses. Then you would apply the set bonus (of which there are none in this circumstance).

Don't shoot the messenger. I was highlighting the points brought up by other people.

But since you wanna be rude about it, how about you take an english class?

The word HALVE is a reference to division. This was well proven in the thread by using...a DICTIONARY.

Furthermore sir, put your reading glasses on and look on page 5...the rulebook itself tells you that it is refering to DIVISION whenever it uses the word HALVE.

Then on page 7 it tells you that advanced rules trumph basic rules. Applying modifiers and what not is a basic rule, Smash is an advance rule so you do whatever Smash says overwritting whatever else you may think happens.

With the last update however you can see that by following all the above you still end with the same result.

But overall the message is 'don't be in a rush to be a jerk'

However was was mentioned by the poster below you. IF the bonus attacks had been labeled as a +attack characteristic instead, then your argument would fall on it's face.

Because no rule has ever stated that you use the 'modified' characteristic, in fact whenever they DONT want u to uset he modified characteristic they specifically state 'unmodified'. Modified is the default in the game of 40k so you sir have no damn argument in that respect, perhaps you should again take an english class and re-read the rulebook it's clear you are missing a thing or two.

Anyway i think the last update pretty much addresses everything and follows everything in proper order.

[Tynskel]

i'll repeat:


http://tinyurl.com/cxo39t4


division IS multiplication!!!!

[Nachodragon]

So, if you guys are going by Charge/CC/Warp Speed are bonus attacks then I don't think any of them would be strength 10.

Smash has you halve you attacks characteristics. Since you guys don't believe Charge/CC/Warp Speed are part of the attack characteristic, then it would not get included in the Smash attack and could not be strength 10. So, unless I misunderstood your meaning... The Tervigon would have 2 Smash attacks at Strength 10 and 7 attacks at Strength 5.

[DarkLink]

SMASH

Additonally, when it makes its close combat attacks, it can choose to instead make a Smash Anack. If it does so, roll To Hit as normal, but halve its Attacks characteristic. A Smash Attack also doubles the model's Strength (to a maximum of 10) for the purposes of that Attack.

You chose to make a Smash Attack, instead of attacking regularly. Thus, the 'That Attack' refers to the smash attack.

So you may only make a Smash Attack, and only the Smash Attack is Str 10. You cannot make other attacks.

When making a Smash Attack, you take your Attack characteristic and divide by two, rounding up.

The only question is if bonus attacks (and Akaiyou, there is no difference between a 'bonus attack' and '+1' attack) counts as part of your attack characteristic. And I have to agree with Tynskel. Halving is a modifier, and multiplication modifiers go first, and nothing in the Smash rule specifically changes the order in which modifiers are applied.



Pg 2. MODIFIERS
We are told how to apply modifiers, MULTIPLIERS, ADDITIONS & SUBSTRACTIONS. But division is not included in this.


*Facepalm*

I take back anything I've said in the past. Our education system is failing us.

[dreadnaughtguy]

Since they specify addition and subtraction and multiplication, assuming that devision is multiplication is not valid. They are specifing order of operations. subtraction is just adding a negative value mathamaticly, however it is its own seperate function in the game and has a specific order of operation.

mathamatic order of operaions has no berring on the game as you multiply devide then add subtract from left to right. That in no way affects the rules of the game and how they choose to apply the numbers and functions.

It seems that given the wording of smash attack that you loose all bonuses and only halve your base attack characteristic and only make those attacks as the special smash attack. You forefit your greater number of standard attacks for this devistating damage.

Since this is a rule that "Pg 7. BASIC VERSUS ADVANCED
Here we see that Smash is an advanced rule which we are told take precedence over basic rules normally followed as per the example shown. So we are supposed to ignore the standard way of doing things in favor of whatever the advanced rule asks us to do." ignores normal order of operations you only do what it says in smash. It never says to add any additional attacks, it in fact specificly states that you loose half round up and those attacks are made at strength 10.

Yes this is a nerf to nid big bugs. It does mean that once again nid's take a shot that nerfs one of the things that you thought would help them. It once again makes it hard for nids to take out tanks. This has been the standard case since 4th when nids were severly OP.

[Akaiyou]

Since they specify addition and subtraction and multiplication, assuming that devision is multiplication is not valid. They are specifing order of operations. subtraction is just adding a negative value mathamaticly, however it is its own seperate function in the game and has a specific order of operation.

mathamatic order of operaions has no berring on the game as you multiply devide then add subtract from left to right. That in no way affects the rules of the game and how they choose to apply the numbers and functions.

It seems that given the wording of smash attack that you loose all bonuses and only halve your base attack characteristic and only make those attacks as the special smash attack. You forefit your greater number of standard attacks for this devistating damage.

Since this is a rule that "Pg 7. BASIC VERSUS ADVANCED
Here we see that Smash is an advanced rule which we are told take precedence over basic rules normally followed as per the example shown. So we are supposed to ignore the standard way of doing things in favor of whatever the advanced rule asks us to do." ignores normal order of operations you only do what it says in smash. It never says to add any additional attacks, it in fact specificly states that you loose half round up and those attacks are made at strength 10.

Yes this is a nerf to nid big bugs. It does mean that once again nid's take a shot that nerfs one of the things that you thought would help them. It once again makes it hard for nids to take out tanks. This has been the standard case since 4th when nids were severly OP.

And this is why Dark Link & Tynskel need to go back to school so that they can understand these basic concepts.

Adidition = Substraction
Addition = Multiplication
Addition = Division

Everything can be done through addition. Yet the game specifies 3 of the concepts and then has a SEPARATE section that covers division specifically on page 5. They seem to ignore this through lack of reading comprehension or something so they cannot understand the point im making.

Thus with everything i've quoted from the RULEBOOK and the discussions being held I more than showed using actual rules in the book how the argument is being presented but the ignorance of not wanting to look outside the box and sticking to what you are used to instead of what the wording on the actual rule is, seems to be too much for them to understand as to why the argument on division is being made.

The game specifically tells you about division in the game and how it's handled. It tells you about advanced rules and how they supercede basic rules.

And the only way to make sense of this to arrive at the same conclusion is to accept that on page 24 the +1 charge and every other + attack is a BONUS attack. It modifies the characteristic but it is not defined as such they are defined as bonus attacks.

Otherwise if they were characteristic modifiers, then the tervigon would halve ALL of them because in the sequence on page 23 and 24 of how assaults work attacks are added BEFORE rolling to hit.

Smash rule says 'roll to hit as normal' first and then tells u what else to do 'but halve the attack characteristic' which should already have been determined just prior to the roll to hit.

But oh noes lets not actually read the rules as they are, our eyes might burn! Down with the education system!

[DarkLink]

Since they specify addition and subtraction and multiplication, assuming that devision is multiplication is not valid. They are specifing order of operations. subtraction is just adding a negative value mathamaticly, however it is its own seperate function in the game and has a specific order of operation.

mathamatic order of operaions has no berring on the game as you multiply devide then add subtract from left to right. That in no way affects the rules of the game and how they choose to apply the numbers and functions.

I am going to slap the next math teacher I see. Multiplication and division are literally two names for the exact same thing.

By the way, 'devide' is spelled 'divide'. 'Mathamatically' is actually 'mathematically'.


Adidition = Substraction
Addition = Multiplication
Addition = Division

Everything can be done through addition. Yet the game specifies 3 of the concepts and then has a SEPARATE section that covers division specifically on page 5. They seem to ignore this through lack of reading comprehension or something so they cannot understand the point im making.


...I'm speechless.

[Tynskel]

yeah, I agree Darklink.
I have had some interesting rules arguments in the past on BoLS, however, I am gunna say have to say it.

That post was chock full of FAIL.


Hah, if I am gunna say that, better get the phrase right.

[Bean]

I get what you're saying, Darklink, but, of course, he's actually right: division, subtraction, and multiplication can all be conceptualized (accurately) as addition.

This came up recently for me: I volunteer at an adult learning facility, and I was trying to help some girl learn division--and fractions--and, you know, when you're working at that level, it's helpful to be able to say, "look: multiplication is just adding this number to itself this other number of times" or "Look, division is just subtracting this number from this number until you don't have enough of that second number left to do it anymore, and the counting the number of times you did it," or, "look, adding a negative number is the same as subtracting that number."

All of these are, of course, entirely true--and useful as concepts.

The order of operations is just formalism--it's important for there to exist that sort of consensus, but it's devoid of any sort of underlying concept.

Anyway, I think you should generally stick to the standard order of operations, even though the book doesn't spell it out in its entirety. The parts that the book does spell out are entirely consistent with it, and, when the occasional division crops up, you have to be able to sequence it somehow.

[Tynskel]

yes, if you were to break it down that way. However, addition and multiplication are specific mathematical tools and shortcuts.

The real point is their scales of operation.

However, in this circumstance, the book is explicit: First you multiply, THEN you add. Finally, apply set bonus (trump card).


anyone stating 'divide ≠ multiply' needs to take a math course. DO you know how computers 'divide'--- by multiplying by the inverse!

1/2 = 0.5. 2/2 = 2*0.5

[Bean]

yes, if you were to break it down that way. However, addition and multiplication are specific mathematical tools and shortcuts.

The real point is their scales of operation.

However, in this circumstance, the book is explicit: First you multiply, THEN you add. Finally, apply set bonus (trump card).


anyone stating 'divide ≠ multiply' needs to take a math course. DO you know how computers 'divide'--- by multiplying by the inverse!

1/2 = 0.5. 2/2 = 2*0.5

Yeah, right. Well, and with that I certainly agree.

[DarkLink]

Right, the point is multiplication means a specific, clearly defined thing, and addition another. Regardless of being able to simulate one as the other, we know exactly what each function means, and exactly what order the rulebook tells us to apply them in.

I can't see anything in the Smash rule that does anything to change the order of operations.

[Rapture]

Mathematical theory here is really a waste. This isn't a textbook - it is a GW publication.

Context is key. Think back to when your teacher would assign homework by saying, "Do all of the multiplication problems from page 50 to page 60." Even as 3th grade students, no one was dumb enough to also do problems like "56 / 8" as a piece of this assignment.

That said, I don't know the answer and can't currently be bothered to figure it out. So please reach a rules backed consensus and share the answer :)

[Nachodragon]

Regardless of mathematical theory, Division is not outlined in the modifiers section.

I would say this is done outside of modifying and if your Tervigon has 10 attacks (being relatively lucky with the dice) and chooses to Hulk Smash, they would then have 5 Hulk Smash attacks.

[Kyban]

Regardless of mathematical theory, Division is not outlined in the modifiers section.

That's the crux of the discussion, division IS multiplication and so would be outlined in the modifiers and be the first modifier applied.

[Nachodragon]

That's the crux of the discussion, division IS multiplication and so would be outlined in the modifiers and be the first modifier applied.

Yes, and like I said, regardless of what it actually is, GW chose to address it in another section. It is outside of the modifiers section completely and is therefore, not governed by those rules.

If this was a math class then there would be some discussion that could happen about where this fits in. This is a game. There are rules. The rules don't always fall in line with real life... like most of it.

The division of characteristics or items is addressed in a section outside of where they talk of the order of operations for modifiers to characteristics. The division rule is not only for characteristics, it is for dice rolls and other values. The modifiers (Multiply then add/subtract then set) are ONLY for characteristics.

[Kyban]

Yes, and like I said, regardless of what it actually is, GW chose to address it in another section. It is outside of the modifiers section completely and is therefore, not governed by those rules.

If this was a math class then there would be some discussion that could happen about where this fits in. This is a game. There are rules. The rules don't always fall in line with real life... like most of it.

The division of characteristics or items is addressed in a section outside of where they talk of the order of operations for modifiers to characteristics. The division rule is not only for characteristics, it is for dice rolls and other values. The modifiers (Multiply then add/subtract then set) are ONLY for characteristics.

You are multiplying the attacks characteristic by 0.5

[Nachodragon]

You are multiplying the attacks characteristic by 0.5

Well, the rules don't state that, so, no you are not.

I don't care what real life does, because this is a rule in the game.

Also, this is outside of the modifiers section and doesn't count for that either.

[Kyban]

Well, the rules don't state that, so, no you are not.

I don't care what real life does, because this is a rule in the game.

Also, this is outside of the modifiers section and doesn't count for that either.

Wait...are you serious or just trolling? :confused:

[Nachodragon]

Serious.

Dividing can be done however you want, but it is different then multiplying in this game.

Sure, if I halve something I will probably multiply by .5 but the in game concept of dividing is different.

Though, if I have 10 and it says halve, well, I already know what half of 10 is :P

[Tynskel]

I want some of the crack that you are smoking so I can at least attempt to understand where you are coming from.


Next thing you are going to tell me is that subtraction is not addition of a negative number...

[Nachodragon]

This is not mathematical theory.

The concepts of Addition, Subtraction and Multiplication are all separate concepts for this game.

Division is also a separate concept and is also outlined in a different section, outside of the other modifier rules..

I really don't give a flying F**k what Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication and Division are in real life. In the game, they are separate entities. I don't care if they can be converted to a different way of using math. BECAUSE, that is not how the rules outline these concepts.

Here is an example. Powerfists is Strength X2, well that is just adding Strength twice. So, I will add my +1 for Furious charge and now my strength is 5 and adding the powerfist multiplier, strength is now 10, yay! Cheating!

No, Multiplying is a different concept then adding. Same as Dividing is a different concept.

[Tynskel]

that's completely dumb.

The book does NOT define what multiplication, addition, subtraction, or division are.
Therefore, you default to their basic uses.

What the book DOES state is the order of operations.

[Nachodragon]

Order of operations does not mention Division, and if there was no other mention of dividing in the game, I would agree dividing could be considered. It is, however, mentioned in a different section, and is defined for Characteristics, dice rolls, and other values. This makes it fall outside of the Modifiers section which is only for the 9 characteristics.

[Tynskel]

uuuuuuuuuh...


division, like multiplication, only applies to root CHARACTERISTICS.


As stated before. Division and subtraction are implicit in their meaning.

[Bean]

I'm actually really confused, at this point, about what this argument is actually about. Is it a question of whether you divide your attacks stat before or after adding in two-weapon and charging bonuses?

[Tynskel]

yeah, you divide your attack characteristic first, because that's the order of operations.

multiply/divide, add/subtract, set bonus.

[Nachodragon]

Division does not apply to only characteristics. Dividing is on page 5 "Dividing to Conquer' which is under the section of "General Principles".

"On occasion, you'll be called upon to divide the result of a dice roll, a characteristic or some other value. Where this happens, any fraction should always be rounded up. So a D6 roll of 3 halved, would be a result of 2 (1.5 rounded up). Similarly, 10% of a unit of twenty-one models, rounded up, would be 3 models."

Page 2 has the modifiers for characteristics. It states:
"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), Multiplying it (x2, x3, etc) or even setting setting its value (1, 8, etc)."

There is no talk of division in the multiplying section, there is talk of positive and negative in the adding portion. And when it talks about how to apply those modifiers it does say adding or subtracting. But it does not say anything about halving, dividing, multiplying by .5 or .285749036725.

When GW talks of Multipliers they are talking about more not less. When they talk about less they have a different section for is and they do not call it a multiplier.

[Tynskel]

The smash attack is explicit: Modify the Characteristic. That falls under page 2.

[Nachodragon]

The smash attack is explicit: Modify the Characteristic. That falls under page 2.

Look up the word explicit, cause it does not say "Modify the Characteristic", and the meaning of smash is far from explicit, this conversation would not be happening if it were explicit. You would actually want to say it implicitly states the characteristic is modified. I will grant that it does say "halve the attacks characteristic". But the modifiers section does not cover halving, that is done 3 pages later and covers characteristics, dice rolls and other values.

I have already stated that one understanding of this rule would be 2 Strength 10 attacks and 7 Strength 5 attacks. If you are trying to get more then 2 smash attacks you are trying to cheat by your definition. What happens when you get to attack 3? You have already halved the attacks characteristic and made those smash attacks.

Either the bonus attacks modify the attacks characteristic and you would have 5 Smash attacks or the bonus attacks don't modify the attacks characteristic and you have the 2 and 7 attacks situation.

[Tynskel]

Look up the word explicit, cause it does not say "Modify the Characteristic", and the meaning of smash is far from explicit, this conversation would not be happening if it were explicit. You would actually want to say it implicitly states the characteristic is modified. I will grant that it does say "halve the attacks characteristic". But the modifiers section does not cover halving, that is done 3 pages later and covers characteristics, dice rolls and other values.

I have already stated that one understanding of this rule would be 2 Strength 10 attacks and 7 Strength 5 attacks. If you are trying to get more then 2 smash attacks you are trying to cheat by your definition. What happens when you get to attack 3? You have already halved the attacks characteristic and made those smash attacks.

Either the bonus attacks modify the attacks characteristic and you would have 5 Smash attacks or the bonus attacks don't modify the attacks characteristic and you have the 2 and 7 attacks situation.

the modifiers section DOES cover halving: it is called multiplication. If you understand anything about mathematics, what GW has done with the remainder is created a modulus. So, this is a multiplications with a modulus for numbers less than 1.

This is not cheating, this is FOLLOWING THE RULES.

[Nachodragon]

the modifiers section DOES cover halving: it is called multiplication.

It does not and is not. If they wanted to cover halving/dividing in that section they could have put it their. BUT, they put it in a section that covers more than characteristics. They did not explicitly state how halving affects the order in which it is applied.

Also, my statement still stands about only getting 2 Smash attacks, regardless of how you apply the halving. You can only halve the attacks characteristic twice, and Smash does not state that you get all of those attacks as smash attacks.

In fact, the more I read it, I think you are only getting 1 Smash attack total. "Addiotnally, when making close combat attacks, it can choose to instead make a Smash Attack. If it does so, roll To Hit as normal, but halve its attacks characteristic. A Smash also doubles the model's Strength (to a maximum of 10) for the purposes of that attack. Furthermore, a model making a Smash Attack can re-roll its armor penetration rolls, but must abide by the second result."

So, unless for every Smash attack you make you halve your attacks characteristic it would seem you only get one.

[Tynskel]

that's a load of crock. The justifications that you are coming up with go in the face of everything we know about writing.
The rulebook does not redefine how to read.

Dividing = Multiplication.
The only reason they had to clarify it is due to fractions. If there were no fractions, then they would have never written this at all.

You are halving the characteristic. Apply your maths and order of operations.

Multiply, then add, then set bonus.

Since Divide = Multiply and Subtract = Add, then it simply turns into:

(using the Super Tervigon example)

A*0.5 (Mod +1)
+d3
+d3
+1
and you are done.

[Nachodragon]

I have pointed out this rule can be interpreted a number of different ways.

We all know that GW sucks at writing clearly defined rules. If anyone wants to debate that, look at the section this thread is under.

I don't care to debate this anymore. What will matter is what the FAQ will say, if it is addressed at all. I have more important things I need to do and really don't care to follow this as it is going no where.

[daboarder]

Don't be gits, Tynskel is right in any interpretation of the rules. Just because some people have a terrible education does not change the rules, you multiply, add/subtract then use set modifiers.

its is literally the most crystal clear rules ever written by GW.

[Nachodragon]

No need to call anyone names. And only part of this is crystal clear. The rest is all conjecture based on what someone thinks that GW means. Even my assertions are based on what I think GW means, and guess what, I don't know. Neither does Tynskel. NO ONE DOES. The FAQ will help. And now I will go away again as I don't like being called a git and being told I have a terrible education.

[evilamericorp]

its is literally the most crystal clear rules ever written by GW.

Literally. As clear as this crystal right here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/QuartzUSGOV.jpg

[Nachodragon]

When will they implement the upvote/downvote system in the comments here???


+1!

[Tynskel]

If they did that, I would win with most Troll Votes ever.

[SeattleDV8]

That is known as losing, Tynskel.

[Tynskel]

nope.
Sorry, you cannot out troll me. I have 3749 trolls to back that up.