Warchanter stacking attacks

[Mayple]

Theorycrafting.

What happens if five (Ironjawz) Warchanters stack their +1 to hit on a single warchanter (+5 to hit) in connection to his "on a hit roll of 6, he generates another attack"

Does he generate new attacks from the new attacks, failing only when rolling ones, or does he only generare them once?

Throwing a blade of judgement on top of that would, if the former is the case, surely be.. Highly destructive, no?

Thanks!

[King Taloren]

Alright I haven’t found it but with so many of the new battletomes having 6 and 6+ in the same book and not saying unmodified 6s. (Deepkin my prime example of this) I’m pretty sure they changed it since so many of the old 6 are now unmodified 6s I’m updated scrolls. 

 

Onto this sword of judgement thing. 1s CANNOT be modified for any reason they are an automatic failure and cannot be changed into anything but a 1. 

[BaldoBeardo]

3 hours ago, Isotop said:

I think it is a bit biased to state there is no backup for (2) while saying "it´s got to be (1)" without any backup for it either.  Just to be clear, I do not want to offend you in any way - it is just hard for me to follow the argument you presented.

In fact, I think there is someting indicating (2) could be true in deed - and it is found in the wording of Sword of Judgement itself:

"[...] and the attack sequence ends (do not make a wound or save roll)." (from Google pictures - have no better source at hand)

It appears to me that the part in the brackets is the definition or at least explanation for "end of attack sequence". It does not state that you stop the whole procedure immediately, but instructs you to not proceed with the steps after the hit roll phase. It sounds pretty much like (2) to me.

There are other abilities with that same parenthesis statement. But that's not what the core rules say regarding attacking.

Triggers resolve in timing order. Your proposed sequence is this;

.......

Roll dice.

Unmodified 1 -> auto fail ->Attack sequence ends.

Apply modifiers to dice

Total of 6 -> attack causes D6 MW

Attack sequence ends.

.......

You're arguing that a *failed* attack can inflict mortal wounds because the sequence doesn't end when it ends.

I can't state it any more plainly than that.

[Isotop]

1 minute ago, BaldoBeardo said:

There are other abilities with that same parenthesis statement. But that's not what the core rules say regarding attacking.

Triggers resolve in timing order. Your proposed sequence is this;

.......

Roll dice.

Unmodified 1 -> auto fail ->Attack sequence ends.

Apply modifiers to dice

Total of 6 -> attack causes D6 MW

Attack sequence ends.

.......

You're arguing that a *failed* attack can inflict mortal wounds because the sequence doesn't end when it ends.

I can't state it any more plainly than that.

I am not really getting where you get the phrase "failed attack" from - it indicates more than it really should. I presented, in my mind, a reasonable argument that the end of the attack sequence is not incompatible with getting boni to the hit roll and inflicting mortal wounds as a result of it (in case of the Sword of Judgement). I see no positive arguments presented in the rules telling me that the attack sequence would end before the hit roll phase is finished. 

[Isotop]

9 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

[...] because the sequence doesn't end when it ends.

 

The core rules do not tell us what the definition of "the attack sequence ends" is. I tried to come up with a reasonable option based on the wording of the Sword of Judgement. I would like you to present how you get your understanding of the term "the attack sequence ends".

[BaldoBeardo]

8 hours ago, Isotop said:

I am not really getting where you get the phrase "failed attack" from - it indicates more than it really should. I presented, in my mind, a reasonable argument that the end of the attack sequence is not incompatible with getting boni to the hit roll and inflicting mortal wounds as a result of it (in case of the Sword of Judgement). I see no positive arguments presented in the rules telling me that the attack sequence would end before the hit roll phase is finished. 

 

8 hours ago, Isotop said:

The core rules do not tell us what the definition of "the attack sequence ends" is. I tried to come up with a reasonable option based on the wording of the Sword of Judgement. I would like you to present how you get your understanding of the term "the attack sequence ends".

An unmodified hit roll of 1 causes the attack to fail, and the attack sequence ends. That's the core rules. No caveats, nuance or further explanation. It ends.

Unmodified results occur *before* modifiers are applied - core rules, page 1, "re-rolls".

So the attack fails before modifiers are taken in to account.

You're asserting 1 or more of the following;

1) working out modified hit rolls is somehow not part of the attack sequence.

2) an attack that has failed by the core rules wording can still be successful in causing wounds.

3) "attack sequence ends" is not - prima facie - an immediate/absolute effect/statement, and you still resolve the sequence step you are currently undertaking.

[Isotop]

2 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said:

 

An unmodified hit roll of 1 causes the attack to fail, and the attack sequence ends. That's the core rules. No caveats, nuance or further explanation. It ends.

Unmodified results occur *before* modifiers are applied - core rules, page 1, "re-rolls".

So the attack fails before modifiers are taken in to account.

You're asserting 1 or more of the following;

1) working out modified hit rolls is somehow not part of the attack sequence.

2) an attack that has failed by the core rules wording can still be successful in causing wounds.

3) "attack sequence ends" is not - prima facie - an immediate/absolute effect/statement, and you still resolve the sequence step you are currently undertaking.

1) I fully accept that modifiers are part of the attack sequence

2) Exactly my point, I do not see how a "fail to hit the target" would exclude the SoJ mortal wounds to happen 

3) Asserting this one as well - I, too, have a strong intuition what "the attack sequence ends" means, but I find the description of the SoJ telling me that it simply means "do not continue with the other steps of the attack sequence". This, in my view, does not stop you from finishing the hit roll phase.

 

I get the feeling that 2) is the more problematic point (at least for me). Assuming you kind of made up the term "failed attack" was wrong and I apologize - I overread "the attack fails" in the hit roll phase before I made my comment. I get the strong feeling, though, that it simply stands for "the attack misses" as these two things are mixed up in the next sentence ("fails to hit") as well. Even if we give "the attack fails" a independent status, it is kind of vague in my opinion.

1) and 3) are working in conjunction for my argument. Yes, modifiers are sure embedded in the attack sequence, but, in my view, the attack sequence will not stop before they are applied.

The questions I still have to ask you is: How do you refute 3)? Is the wording of SoJ unclear to you? Where do you get your understanding from "the attack sequence ends" from? I was searching for a valid explanation somewhere else than my intuition about it and found the wording of SoJ. What is your argument to challenge the wording of SoJ?

And again, to be absolutely clear: I am not arguing for the sake of "defeating" your position - I value your type of argumentation a lot and I am happy to have the chance to have an argument like this with you. I simply think it is important to dismantle the problems GW has with the rules they are writing. 

[Kevlar1972]

54 minutes ago, Isotop said:

1) I fully accept that modifiers are part of the attack sequence

2) Exactly my point, I do not see how a "fail to hit the target" would exclude the SoJ mortal wounds to happen 

3) Asserting this one as well - I, too, have a strong intuition what "the attack sequence ends" means, but I find the description of the SoJ telling me that it simply means "do not continue with the other steps of the attack sequence". This, in my view, does not stop you from finishing the hit roll phase.

 

I get the feeling that 2) is the more problematic point (at least for me). Assuming you kind of made up the term "failed attack" was wrong and I apologize - I overread "the attack fails" in the hit roll phase before I made my comment. I get the strong feeling, though, that it simply stands for "the attack misses" as these two things are mixed up in the next sentence ("fails to hit") as well. Even if we give "the attack fails" a independent status, it is kind of vague in my opinion.

1) and 3) are working in conjunction for my argument. Yes, modifiers are sure embedded in the attack sequence, but, in my view, the attack sequence will not stop before they are applied.

The questions I still have to ask you is: How do you refute 3)? Is the wording of SoJ unclear to you? Where do you get your understanding from "the attack sequence ends" from? I was searching for a valid explanation somewhere else than my intuition about it and found the wording of SoJ. What is your argument to challenge the wording of SoJ?

And again, to be absolutely clear: I am not arguing for the sake of "defeating" your position - I value your type of argumentation a lot and I am happy to have the chance to have an argument like this with you. I simply think it is important to dismantle the problems GW has with the rules they are writing. 

Are you really trying to rules lawyer a natural 1 being a hit?  Shirley you can't be serious.

[Isotop]

36 minutes ago, Kevlar1972 said:

Are you really trying to rules lawyer a natural 1 being a hit?  Shirley you can't be serious.

I never said that. What I am claming is that you do not actually have to hit with the Sword of Judgement in order to cause the mortal wounds. All you need is a hit roll showing a 6 (or more). The argument between me and @BaldoBeardo is about wether the hit roll will be modified (to show the required result) or not before the attack sequence ends (due to a natural 1). The problem we are dealing with is, amongst other things, finding  and/or agreeing on a clear definition what "the attack sequence ends" means. 

[Kevlar1972]

4 minutes ago, Isotop said:

I never said that. What I am claming is that you do not actually have to hit with the Sword of Judgement in order to cause the mortal wounds. All you need is a hit roll showing a 6 (or more). The argument between me and @BaldoBeardo is about wether the hit roll will be modified (to show the required result) or not before the attack sequence ends (due to a natural 1). The problem we are dealing with is, amongst other things, finding  and/or agreeing on a clear definition what "the attack sequence ends" means. 

It sounds an awful lot like you are trying to say the sword hits without hitting.  That doesn't pass the logic gate.

[BaldoBeardo]

1 hour ago, Isotop said:

1) I fully accept that modifiers are part of the attack sequence

2) Exactly my point, I do not see how a "fail to hit the target" would exclude the SoJ mortal wounds to happen 

3) Asserting this one as well - I, too, have a strong intuition what "the attack sequence ends" means, but I find the description of the SoJ telling me that it simply means "do not continue with the other steps of the attack sequence". This, in my view, does not stop you from finishing the hit roll phase.

 

I get the feeling that 2) is the more problematic point (at least for me). Assuming you kind of made up the term "failed attack" was wrong and I apologize - I overread "the attack fails" in the hit roll phase before I made my comment. I get the strong feeling, though, that it simply stands for "the attack misses" as these two things are mixed up in the next sentence ("fails to hit") as well. Even if we give "the attack fails" a independent status, it is kind of vague in my opinion.

1) and 3) are working in conjunction for my argument. Yes, modifiers are sure embedded in the attack sequence, but, in my view, the attack sequence will not stop before they are applied.

The questions I still have to ask you is: How do you refute 3)? Is the wording of SoJ unclear to you? Where do you get your understanding from "the attack sequence ends" from? I was searching for a valid explanation somewhere else than my intuition about it and found the wording of SoJ. What is your argument to challenge the wording of SoJ?

And again, to be absolutely clear: I am not arguing for the sake of "defeating" your position - I value your type of argumentation a lot and I am happy to have the chance to have an argument like this with you. I simply think it is important to dismantle the problems GW has with the rules they are writing. 

Okay, one last time and I'm done because you're trying to attribute meaning and intent that the wordings just don't support.

The attacking section of the rules define the attack sequence.

The attack sequence starts with the hit roll, and ends after determining damage.

So anything between those two points (and inclusive of them) is part of the attack sequence.

Page 1 of the core rules establishes that unmodified results process "before" modified results.

Sequentially, abilities/effects are fully resolved in the order they are triggered.

You make your hit roll.

You roll a one.

As established, unmodified results occur before modified results.

The effect of an unmodified roll of one for a hit roll is that the attack fails.

In the previous sentence, a failed attack is defined as "the attack sequence ends".

Nothing about steps, or stages, or anything else.

The attack sequence ends.

If the attack sequence has ended, you do not proceed with resolving the attack sequence.

As you do not check modified dice results until after unmodified ones, we have been instructed to end the attack sequence before we look at final dice scores as the next part of the sequence.

So the SoJ never gets 'fed' the 6+ hit roll to trigger the effect.

 

[Isotop]

20 minutes ago, Kevlar1972 said:

It sounds an awful lot like you are trying to say the sword hits without hitting.  That doesn't pass the logic gate.

Again, I never said it hits. It would be helpful to elaborate a bit more detailed why "it sounds" to you that way.

20 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Okay, one last time and I'm done because you're trying to attribute meaning and intent that the wordings just don't support.

The attacking section of the rules define the attack sequence.

The attack sequence starts with the hit roll, and ends after determining damage.

So anything between those two points (and inclusive of them) is part of the attack sequence.

Page 1 of the core rules establishes that unmodified results process "before" modified results.

Sequentially, abilities/effects are fully resolved in the order they are triggered.

You make your hit roll.

You roll a one.

As established, unmodified results occur before modified results.

The effect of an unmodified roll of one for a hit roll is that the attack fails.

In the previous sentence, a failed attack is defined as "the attack sequence ends".

Nothing about steps, or stages, or anything else.

The attack sequence ends.

If the attack sequence has ended, you do not proceed with resolving the attack sequence.

As you do not check modified dice results until after unmodified ones, we have been instructed to end the attack sequence before we look at final dice scores as the next part of the sequence.

So the SoJ never gets 'fed' the 6+ hit roll to trigger the effect.

 

Okay I guess I have to agree that we do not agree at this point. I feel like we are starting to talk at cross purposes regarding the "attack sequence ends" definition. Thank you for the discussion, though.

[Mayple]

Well, I for one will play 1s as failure to do mortal wounds, regardless of how many + modifiers involved. Else I'd be telling my opponent how my blade of judgement missed them, and yet somehow landed the blow regardless = No chance of fail. If I fail, I don't --> Goes against all reason, and I agree with the conclusion brought by

@BaldoBeardo

[Isotop]

Well, let´s say I am happy the situation will probably never arise. Unless someone brings 5 Warchanters to the table and a sixth hero with SoJ and manages to deliver this hero to an enemy hero or monster.

[FlatTooth]

I think that if you read “1. Hit Roll..” under the making attacks call out on page 7 of the rules it’s evident that an hit roll of a 1 is an auto fail and after a fail the attack sequence automatically ends. If the attack sequence ends then no more effects take effect. 

[Isotop]

29 minutes ago, King Taloren said:

1s CANNOT be modified for any reason 

As you probably have seen, we allready ended our discussion. However, I find it kind of toxic to post something like this without any rules backup. This kind of behaviour is the reason I try to provide reference for my claims in almost every case.

[King Taloren]

20 minutes ago, Isotop said:

As you probably have seen, we allready ended our discussion. However, I find it kind of toxic to post something like this without any rules backup. This kind of behaviour is the reason I try to provide reference for my claims in almost every case.

The rules were already posted. A    Roll of 1 is an automatic fail and the attack sequence ends immediately. Right  there at the roll of the 1. Do not modify do not use any other abilities so not pass go and collect 200$. The only thing you can do with that 1 is reroll it if you have an ability that allows you too.

Though if we want to posit some comparisons to this discussion I point out bloodletters and the many unmodified 6rolls that end the attack sequence at the same point. 

[Mayple]

@Isotop Don't think toxic is the word that should be used there. Being used to League of Legends toxicity (the suffering, the pain), I think that not following up with an immediate source is hardly a qualifier.

Otherwise I agree with you on having sources at hand is practical for everyone involved

Edit: That sneaky ninja.

[Isotop]

1 minute ago, King Taloren said:

The rules were already posted. A    Roll of 1 is an automatic fail and the attack sequence ends immediately. Right  there at the roll of the 1. Do not modify do not use any other abilities so not pass go and collect 200$. The only thing you can do with that 1 is reroll it if you have an ability that allows you too.

 

It is quite telling that you do not even react to the point I criticized.

[King Taloren]

4 minutes ago, Isotop said:

It is quite telling that you do not even react to the point I criticized.

So then bring up another instance of attack sequence ends that can support your claim. There are a bunch out there. Point out where you then go on to modifiers with those rules of unmodified 6s

[Isotop]

1 minute ago, King Taloren said:

So then bring up another instance of attack sequence ends that can support your claim. There are a bunch out there. Point out where you then go on to modifiers with those rules of unmodified 6s

The only thing I criticized is your claim a 1 can not be modified. There is nothing in the rules supporting this claim. And no, to reject your claim has nothing to do with the discussion that was conducted in this thread.

[Isotop]

And yes, a 1 will still miss - even if it was modified. I just realized what might have been the disconnect between the two of us,

[Kevlar1972]

I am a bit curious how a setup like this would work vs a grot warboss with his tricksy ability.   Would all the attacks turn into 1s and all auto miss?

[Skreech Verminking]

2 minutes ago, Kevlar1972 said:

I am a bit curious how a setup like this would work vs a grot warboss with his tricksy ability.   Would all the attacks turn into 1s and all auto miss?

No only the role which shows a 6.

if you give a warlord plus1 to the hit role, 

roles of 5would be treated as 1s.

this is at least how I understand it.

[Mayple]

Pretty sure the Grot warboss is tricksy on a natural 6. Hold on.

Edit: Doesn't specify. Huh.

[King Taloren]

FAQ as of today states that a 1 is a failure and failures do not proc any ability that trigger what a modified roll could.