Are there any rules of one in the GHB 2018?

[Richelieu]

19 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

Here’s the ability.

"Voracious Appetite: Each time a model from this unit attacks with its Vicious Beak and scores a hit, immediately make another hit roll against the same target. Carry on until a hit roll does not score a hit, then make any wound rolls."

So ... 3 ripperdactyl riders min. 12 Max

For 3 attack’s for a minimum sized unit, and 12 for a maximum.

At 12 attacks you’re hitting 50% and then each attack after will hit 50% of the time.

so 6+3+1.5+.75+.375

So, we’ll round up for numbers over .5 and down for under. So a total of ~12.

So effectively with 12 attacks, you’ll hit ~12 times on average. And wounding 2/3 of the time. So 8 wounds at 1 damage no rend.

3 would be 1.5+.75+.375 so hitting for ~3 at 2 wounds.

Basically the attacks are on average 100% successful hits for whatever your number of units are. And wounding 2/3 of the time.

And that’s just the average. 

You forgot that they reroll all failed hit and wound rolls on their own turn.  Which makes it 75% chance to hit and 88% chance to wound.  And that with a blot toad they make 3 beak attacks each.  A single unit of 3 will actually do:

9(3/4)+9(3/4)^2+9(3/4)^3...

Which comes out to about 23 successful hits * 8/9 wounds = 20 wounds... From a unit of 3... Not including the other weapons they have.  The ability is flat out busted if it's not trumped by the rule of 1.  

[TheOtherJosh]

59 minutes ago, Richelieu said:

You forgot that they reroll all failed hit and wound rolls on their own turn.  Which makes it 75% chance to hit and 88% chance to wound.  And that with a blot toad they make 3 beak attacks each.  A single unit of 3 will actually do:

9(3/4)+9(3/4)^2+9(3/4)^3...

Which comes out to about 23 successful hits * 8/9 wounds = 20 wounds... From a unit of 3... Not including the other weapons they have.  The ability is flat out busted if it's not trumped by the rule of 1.  

So you’re looking at two additional side abilities as well. I didn’t realize we were calculating the others stacking abilities as well as the toad rage... 

Toad-rage multiplies the number of potential hits by 3. And as you said Rerolls give an additional 25% success ... so 

6.75+5+3.79+2.85+2.13+1.6+1.2+.9+.45

Rounding to nearest whole number gives you...

7+5+4+3+2+2+1+1 =25

So at 88% that’s actually 22 wounds ... not including  the rider attacks and slashing claws.

For a unit of 3 ... that’s ... Tzeentchian.

[Richelieu]

@TheOtherJosh yeah I stopped bothering to calculate before you did.  ?

[TheOtherJosh]

17 minutes ago, Richelieu said:

@TheOtherJosh yeah I stopped bothering to calculate before you did.  ?

Yeah ... that was a 140 point unit in the last GHB ... I’m seriously surprised that I didn’t see those more ...

[Richelieu]

Just now, TheOtherJosh said:

Yeah ... that was a 140 point unit in the last GHB ... I’m seriously surprised that I didn’t see those more ...

I watched a unit of six eat a vampire Lord on zombie dragon in one round on Saturday.  The death player was surprised to say the least.  And that was playing with the rules of 1 in place.  

[NurglesFirstChosen]

Can command abilities be stacked on a unit? 

[Nevvermore]

2 hours ago, NurglesFirstChosen said:

Can command abilities be stacked on a unit? 

Yep.

[Aginor]

7 hours ago, Richelieu said:

I watched a unit of six eat a vampire Lord on zombie dragon in one round on Saturday.  The death player was surprised to say the least.  And that was playing with the rules of 1 in place.  

I think that's one of the most important points here: since the current rules (including the rule of One) still allow the biggest number of additional attacks, and only prevent the much lower number (the attacks generated by the additional attacks) they don't do a lot to limit the Rippers' power.

...but then I wonder: why don't use people chaff units to protect against them? The VLoZD (I love that guy) doesn't have to fear the Rippers if he isn't terribly overextended, does he? I mean: six Rippers need a lot of space to place them.

I guess the main reason why we not see them more often is that they have no rend (bad against armies with good saves), and they are very squishy (over at Lustria Online we often call them a suicide unit) so they are not very useful unless you play them in a Shadowstrike Starhost (which is another 170 points).

So yeah, they are a strong unit, but they are terrible glass cannons.

 

Thanks for the math @theotherjosh

[ledha]

3 minutes ago, Aginor said:

I think that's one of the most important points here: since the current rules (including the rule of One) still allow the biggest number of additional attacks, and only prevent the much lower number (the attacks generated by the additional attacks) they don't do a lot to limit the Rippers' power.

...but then I wonder: why don't use people chaff units to protect against them? The VLoZD (I love that guy) doesn't have to fear the Rippers if he isn't terribly overextended, does he? I mean: six Rippers need a lot of space to place them.

I guess the main reason why we not see them more often is that they have no rend (bad against armies with good saves), and they are very squishy (over at Lustria Online we often call them a suicide unit) so they are not very useful unless you play them in a Shadowstrike Starhost (which is another 170 points).

So yeah, they are a strong unit, but they are terrible glass cannons.

 

Thanks for the math @theotherjosh

glass canon who one-shot everything they touch are still better than glass canon who don't (so, better than every other glass canon)

we don't see lot of them because spamming skinks and killing everything with kroaknado is easier to transport and don't take effort. But many seraphon list have some of them

[Aginor]

10 minutes ago, ledha said:

one-shot everything they touch

That's a bit exaggerated isn't it?

If they were that good they would be used more.

Kroaknado not taking effort... yeah, definitely less effort, I agree that it was a very cheesy list. That was one of the reasons I never played it. But even Kroaknado AND Rippers together didn't win any major tournament AFAIK (Darren Watson got a #3 result once, and he is the only one. People copying his list never achieved that), so...probably not _that_ overpowered after all.

EDIT: I also just noticed I may have phrased my post above wrong. With "terrible glass cannons" I didn't mean they are terrible, they aren't. I meant they are the glass cannons among class cannons. They are super easy to kill.

[ledha]

6 minutes ago, Aginor said:

That's a bit exaggerated isn't it?

If they were that good they would be used more.

Kroaknado not taking effort... yeah, definitely less effort, I agree that it was a very cheesy list. That was one of the reasons I never played it. But even Kroaknado AND Rippers together didn't win any major tournament AFAIK (Darren Watson got a #3 result once, and he is the only one. People copying his list never achieved that), so...probably not _that_ overpowered after all.

Not even that much

Being less overpowered than Changehost (which took a more than 600 pts increase with GHB2018) and Vanguard Wing (both won nearly 80% of this year tournaments) or Vulkite spam don't make Kroaknado a fair list to face.

[Aginor]

1 minute ago, ledha said:

Not even that much

Being less overpowered than Changehost, Vanguard Wing (both won nearly 80% of this year tournaments) or Vulkite spam don't make Kroaknado a fair list to face.

Absolutely agree there.

And that's probably why GW changed it. Which is good news I guess, since it wasn't fun to play either.

[Furuzzolo]

I've a game tonight and i need to know if you can spam the same command ability (from the same guy) multiple times!

What's the general consensus on that?

[amysrevenge]

I think the consensus is yes, but make sure to read the ability and be careful.  Lots of them won't stack just because of how they are worded.  Thinking specifically of the Ordinator's "fire twice" ability as an example - it specifically doesn't fire an additional time (which would stack), it fires "twice" which is still just twice no matter how many times you apply it.

[rokapoke]

So I've continued to think about the question regarding Ripperdactyls and their generation of extra attacks.

FACTS:

Current ability on the warscroll (https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-ripperdactylriders-en.pdf?
"Each time a model from this unit attacks with its Vicious Beak and scores a hit, immediately make another hit roll against the same target. Carry on until a hit roll does not score a hit, then make any wound rolls. "

Relevant sections of 2.0 Core Rules (https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Rulesheets/ENG_AoSSW_Rules_booklet_web.pdf?
p14 "Lastly, any extra attacks, hit rolls or wound rolls gained by the use of an ability cannot themselves generate extra attacks, hit rolls or wound rolls. For example, if a hit roll of 6 or more allows you to make 1 extra attack, this extra attack could not generate further attacks should you roll another 6+."
p13 "Abilities take precedence over the core rules. "

MY OPINION (with justification):

It's pretty clear (to me) that there's no consensus on how these things interact. The rules as written (page 13) indicate that the core rules set parameters for how the game is played, but individual warscrolls can defy those limitations -- suggesting that Ripperdactyl Vicious Beak attacks can reproduce ad infinitum.

However, if that is the case, then why does the extra attacks restriction (page 14 of the core rules) even exist? If every warscroll that generates extra attacks gives clear criteria how those extra attacks are generated, then every one of those abilities supersedes the restriction in the core rules. That's like writing in the core rules that no abilities require dice, and then having all the abilities written on warscrolls that require dice to be used.

 

TL;DR: If the "rule of 1" restriction on bonus attacks generating additional bonus attacks exists in the rules, it must actually serve a purpose. Therefore, in my personal opinion, it restricts the bonus attacks generated by the Ripperdactyl's Vicious Beak, which must not be able to generate infinite hit rolls in AoS2.0.

[amysrevenge]

8 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

TL;DR: If the "rule of 1" restriction on bonus attacks generating additional bonus attacks exists in the rules, it must actually serve a purpose. Therefore, in my personal opinion, it restricts the bonus attacks generated by the Ripperdactyl's Vicious Beak, which must not be able to generate infinite hit rolls in AoS2.0.

Yes this seems true - either the restriction applies to Rippers as well as everyone else, or it applies to none of them.  Any interpretation of RAW that allows Rippers to circumvent it would also allow everyone to circumvent it.

[Aginor]

I brought up that question as well in another discussion. The rule is useless if warscrolls override it since there is no other situation in which it would be applied except when warscroll abilities are used.

I agree it is intended that infinite attacks is impossible but they f'ed up with it. It needs to be FAQed.

[Screwface]

This reminds me of the old Predatory Fighter debate in 8th. 

[Scourn1]

so trying to recap, but the casting of a spell is not once a turn anymore (except endless spells) So All my wizards could cast arcane bolt, or something else if I take 2 of the same mage?

[Richelieu]

38 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Yes this seems true - either the restriction applies to Rippers as well as everyone else, or it applies to none of them.  Any interpretation of RAW that allows Rippers to circumvent it would also allow everyone to circumvent it.

This isn't necessarily the case.  The Ripper ability is the only one I'm aware of that explicitly says to continue rolling until you get a failure.  That clause is the basis for the argument since it directly contradicts the rule in the core rules.  

[Aginor]

1 minute ago, Scourn1 said:

so trying to recap, but the casting of a spell is not once a turn anymore (except endless spells) So All my wizards could cast arcane bolt, or something else if I take 2 of the same mage?

Sorry, no.

The rule of one is gone but this is now part of the core rules. Page 8 left side.

[amysrevenge]

2 minutes ago, Richelieu said:

This isn't necessarily the case.  The Ripper ability is the only one I'm aware of that explicitly says to continue rolling until you get a failure.  That clause is the basis for the argument since it directly contradicts the rule in the core rules.  

Yeah I've been thinking more about it and I may have been hasty.  I wish it was that way but maybe isn't.

[Scourn1]

7 minutes ago, Aginor said:

Sorry, no.

The rule of one is gone but this is now part of the core rules. Page 8 left side.

Ok that's what I thought, just got confused near beginning of thread. thanks!

[rokapoke]

10 minutes ago, Richelieu said:

This isn't necessarily the case.  The Ripper ability is the only one I'm aware of that explicitly says to continue rolling until you get a failure.  That clause is the basis for the argument since it directly contradicts the rule in the core rules.  

That's a fair point, I hadn't considered that aspect.

However, let's look at a different example. Bless weapons states "for any hit rolls of 6 or more made for that unit, you can immediately roll another attack." So if I roll a single attack and get a 6, I get to roll another. If I roll another 6, the wording of this warscroll contradicts the "rule of 1" as well (just less explicitly than the Ripperdactyl wording).

I think there are definitely some unforeseen consequences of the "Abilities take precedence over the core rules" clause...

[Richelieu]

42 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

That's a fair point, I hadn't considered that aspect.

However, let's look at a different example. Bless weapons states "for any hit rolls of 6 or more made for that unit, you can immediately roll another attack." So if I roll a single attack and get a 6, I get to roll another. If I roll another 6, the wording of this warscroll contradicts the "rule of 1" as well (just less explicitly than the Ripperdactyl wording).

I think there are definitely some unforeseen consequences of the "Abilities take precedence over the core rules" clause...

For sure.  The issue as I see it is that there are compelling arguments to be made for it functioning either way.  It's the rare situation where I think an errata would be useful rather than just an FAQ.