Stacking Bless Weapons Prayer

[AdamR]

I've seen stacking the Bless Weapons prayer referred to - is this actually a thing?

If so how does it work - each 6+ generates 2 extra attacks?

[heywoah_twitch]

Not each. "Any".

As per the faq, abilities that use the word "any" are synonymous with "one or more" in AoS rules.

and so Bless Weapons reads "for [one or more] hit rolls of 6 or more made for that unit you can immediatly roll another attack." So you can only trigger one extra attack for that unit per combat.  It doesn't care how many 6s you get, it's a yes or no question that produces one extra attack if the answer is 'yes' for a unit of any size. 

If you put Bless Weapons on a unit twice, it would have two checks (resolve one ability and then resolve the other ability as normal) to see if any 6s were rolled and could give you 2 extra attacks total (and no more) if you got at least one 6+. 

Quite a nerf from before the faq, which used to read giving you an extra attack for each 6+, even with only one prayer affecting a unit!

[MayItBe]

You suggest that you need one 6 for whole unit to attack again? Ridiculous!

 

I don't think that your quoted FAQ appeals to Blessed Weapons, as its "any" is used in different context: for any (condition) do (something) as if programming FOR loop.

"Any" can refer to 'one or more' as in FAQ, but this case its illogical, and should be read as 'each'. In FAQ they ask about criteria, and in Blessed Weapons we have condition.

[Richelieu]

11 minutes ago, MayItBe said:

You suggest that you need one 6 for whole unit to attack again? Ridiculous!

 

I don't think that your quoted FAQ appeals to Blessed Weapons, as its "any" is used in different context: for any (condition) do (something) as if programming FOR loop.

"Any" can refer to 'one or more' as in FAQ, but this case its illogical, and should be read as 'each'. In FAQ they ask about criteria, and in Blessed Weapons we have condition.

Agree with this.  There is no way to contort this particular use of "any" to fit the FAQ.

[heywoah_twitch]

1 hour ago, MayItBe said:

You suggest that you need one 6 for whole unit to attack again? Ridiculous!

 

I don't think that your quoted FAQ appeals to Blessed Weapons, as its "any" is used in different context: for any (condition) do (something) as if programming FOR loop.

"Any" can refer to 'one or more' as in FAQ, but this case its illogical, and should be read as 'each'. In FAQ they ask about criteria, and in Blessed Weapons we have condition.

That is explicitly not what i suggest. 

One model in the unit gets one extra attack roll, not each model in the unit, and not an extra attack for each 6 either (otherwise it would say "for each" instead of "any" which means "one or more" criteria). The faq doesn't say "can refer to" it says "is synonymous with" in the AoS rules - as universally applicable as you can get.

[Richelieu]

1 hour ago, heywoah_twitch said:

That is explicitly not what i suggest. 

One model in the unit gets one extra attack roll, not each model in the unit, and not an extra attack for each 6 either (otherwise it would say "for each" instead of "any" which means "one or more" criteria). The faq doesn't say "can refer to" it says "is synonymous with" in the AoS rules - as universally applicable as you can get.

In this case, "for any" cannot be interpreted any other way than "for each" 

"For any" and "if any"  are two different logical tests.  

"For any" means "for each" or "for every" or "for all" 

"If any" means "if one or more"

If you interpret the FAQ absolutely literally as you suggest, then the logical test simply does not function any longer.  It does not become the "if any" test 

I would accept that the rule is simply broken and nothing happens.  I would not accept that the whole phrase is reinterpreted as something that it isn't.

[Richelieu]

2 hours ago, heywoah_twitch said:

That is explicitly not what i suggest. 

One model in the unit gets one extra attack roll, not each model in the unit, and not an extra attack for each 6 either (otherwise it would say "for each" instead of "any" which means "one or more" criteria). The faq doesn't say "can refer to" it says "is synonymous with" in the AoS rules - as universally applicable as you can get.

Your argument falls apart further when you factor in that all attacks are technically atomic.  We choose to roll them together for ease of gameplay, but they are each separate instances of the triggering event rather than one instance with multiple triggers.

[heywoah_twitch]

Why not say "for each" if they mean "for each"?

And why release an FAQ with a real cut and dry find-and-replace across the whole game if it doesn't apply across the whole game? They should be more careful about this kind of thing causing problems when people take them seriously when they say a word is synonymous with another word in all cases of rule text in Warhammer Age of Sigmar.

1 hour ago, Richelieu said:

I would accept that the rule is simply broken and nothing happens.  I would not accept that the whole phrase is reinterpreted as something that it isn't.

FAQs very often cause reinterpretations. Your "for any/if any" logic works perfectly fine for interpreting what they probably intended when they wrote Bless Weapons before the FAQ that changes the meaning of a word in its rules, but now it is either confusing/partially nonsensical or else severely nerfs it.

1 hour ago, Richelieu said:

Your argument falls apart further when you factor in that all attacks are technically atomic.  We choose to roll them together for ease of gameplay, but they are each separate instances of the triggering event rather than one instance with multiple triggers.

I don't think it does. If you roll one attack at a time and the first attack is a 6, then the unit has earned their one extra attack roll criteria, and subsequent 6s for that unit would trigger nothing, as the limit is per unit, not per model or weapon swing. 

[Richelieu]

As an aside, much respect @heywoah_twitch for thinking about the rules at this level.  Please don't take my argumentation for anything more than an attempt to get to the right answer.

[heywoah_twitch]

I don't. I think it's fun to think about rules and language implications!

[BURF1]

If you can get more than 1 bless weapons buff to go off in the same turn you should get to choose how it works.

[EMMachine]

The rule is simply bad written and should be changed via Errata (because it makes no sense, making a rule that gives you only one attack regardless how many attacks have rolled the required value). Also, all other rules that give attacks are all with the for each statement.

Another interesting point is, that in the word 'jeder' is used (I know in translation you get 'each' and 'any' as choice).

In the german translations of GW Rules its normally the case that 'jeder' is used when in the english rule 'each' is used.

If 'any' is used I have often see one of three variants.

1. The object (like musicians or standardbearers) is written in plural number
2. The words 'mindestens einen' (which means 'at least one')  is used
3. The words 'ein oder mehrere' (which means 'one or more') is used.

This would match with the explanation that Richelieu gave here:

On 10.1.2018 at 2:06 AM, Richelieu said:

In this case, "for any" cannot be interpreted any other way than "for each" 

"For any" and "if any"  are two different logical tests.  

"For any" means "for each" or "for every" or "for all" 

"If any" means "if one or more"

If you interpret the FAQ absolutely literally as you suggest, then the logical test simply does not function any longer.  It does not become the "if any" test 

I would accept that the rule is simply broken and nothing happens.  I would not accept that the whole phrase is reinterpreted as something that it isn't.

 

I have read many warscrolls since I started with AoS and some of them are quite awful, with there wording because there is no real consistency for wording of rules (and I have the feeling the stormcast eternals are worse with there wordchoice than others).

[Richelieu]

1 hour ago, EMMachine said:

The rule is simply bad written and should be changed via Errata (because it makes no sense, making a rule that gives you only one attack regardless how many attacks have rolled the required value). Also, all other rules that give attacks are all with the for each statement.

Another interesting point is, that in the word 'jeder' is used (I know in translation you get 'each' and 'any' as choice).

In the german translations of GW Rules its normally the case that 'jeder' is used when in the english rule 'each' is used.

If 'any' is used I have often see one of three variants.

1. The object (like musicians or standardbearers) is written in plural number
2. The words 'mindestens einen' (which means 'at least one')  is used
3. The words 'ein oder mehrere' (which means 'one or more') is used.

This would match with the explanation that Richelieu gave here:

 

I have read many warscrolls since I started with AoS and some of them are quite awful, with there wording because there is no real consistency for wording of rules (and I have the feeling the stormcast eternals are worse with there wordchoice than others).

Thanks for providing the German language rules perspective.  It's been over a decade since I studied the language and I haven't visited in even longer.

[Stevie754]

If you look at the Ripperdactyl warscroll, it says "Each time a model from this unit attacks with it's Beak and scores a hit."

It has been written that the ability will trigger for each model on their own. Going by the FAQ and the wording of any, it does look like if ANY of the models hit, that unit has triggered the ability and that's their 1 extra hit added.

[EMMachine]

32 minutes ago, Stevie754 said:

If you look at the Ripperdactyl warscroll, it says "Each time a model from this unit attacks with it's Beak and scores a hit."

It has been written that the ability will trigger for each model on their own. Going by the FAQ and the wording of any, it does look like if ANY of the models hit, that unit has triggered the ability and that's their 1 extra hit added.

I really think that this would be a point for the Errata. Don't know if this was the way the writer has intened, after all other abilities, which give extra attacks, is an "each" case. This is actually a common theme in the Stormcast Eternals Battletome that abilities where written with the word "any" where others used "each".

On 12.1.2018 at 3:44 PM, Richelieu said:

Thanks for providing the German language rules perspective.  It's been over a decade since I studied the language and I haven't visited in even longer.

I will expand the translation topic after there was the mentioning of the Ripperdactyl Warscroll. (I don't know how many understand german and some times the translation can be wrong, but you can't know, if you didn't see both cases).

So we have the both english cases:

Quote

Page 99, Bless Weapon, Sentence 3

Bless Weapons: ... On a roll of 4 or more the prayer is heard - until your next hero phase, for any hit rolls of 6 or more made for that unit, you can immediatly roll another attack

In case of the ripperdactyl riders we have the following

Quote

Voracious Appetite:

Each time a model from this attacks with its Vicious Beak and scoures a hit, immediatly make another hit roll against the same target.

So we have one rule with each and one with any.

Now I will show the german counterparts

First for Blessed Weapon

Quote

2. Waffen segnen: ... Bis zu deiner Heldenphase darfst du jedes Mal sofort erneut für eine Attacke würfeln, wenn du für die gewählte Einheit bei einem Trefferwurf 6 oder mehr würfelst

And for Voracious Appetite

Quote

Unersättlicher Hunger: Jedes Mal, wenn ein Modell dieser Einheit mit seinen Vicious Beak attackiert und einen Treffer verursacht, fürst du sofort einen zweiten Trefferwurf gegen dasselbe Ziel durch.

In the german translation, both term

One problem with the word 'any' is, that it has so many different translations from and "jedes mal" can mean "any time" as well as "each time", it can be a "one of many" case which could be the same as 'a' or 'an'. If I look as a german spoken person at this case, 'any' is sadly a quite vague term for rules.

 

But there is another point in the rules. The FAQ Point with any normally used for aura bubbles, multiple musicians and/or standardbearers (the cases were its normally "one or more").

In case of attacks we often watch the attacks one at a time, because only this attack gets the bonus (if a attack has more rend, makes more damage, generates mortal wounds etc.)

We have a simular case with the 'Aethereal Strike' with the english case:

Quote

Aethereal Strike: Any rolls to hit of 6 or more with the Gryph-charger's Razor Beak and Claws cause a mortal wound instead of their normal damage

and the german one

Quote

Ätherschlag: Jeder Trefferwurf von 6 oder mehr mit den Gryph-charger's Razor Beak and Claws verursacht eine tödliche Verwundung statt des normalen Schadens.

I can only suggest, that the author used any, because he thought the rule was triggered by the attack itself not by the collection of all attacks.

Or would you say that if a Lord-Aquilor rolles three hits of 6 he would make 1 mortal wound and no further damage or each attack is triggered by it and he would make 3 mortal wounds.