stone horn halving problem

[bolzo]

hi!

How the stonehron halve the damage?

Before the relase of beastclaw rider in the warscroll they say that it halves the wound, now they say they halves the damage.

So if the stonehorn take damage from weapons damage 1 the stonehorn don t halves anything?

[Gaz Taylor]

That's correct. So they are brilliant against things which cause loads of damage but can die to loads of damage 1 attacks.

[N_Watson]

In combat, all weapons are meant to hit simultaneously, so shouldn't you resolve all attacks, combine the damage and then halve it? 

[Gaz Taylor]

12 minutes ago, N_Watson said:

In combat, all weapons are meant to hit simultaneously, so shouldn't you resolve all attacks, combine the damage and then halve it? 

Ooh yes! I was thinking of shooting as anything in combat with my stonehorn is usually dead! #battlebrew

[N_Watson]

21 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

Ooh yes! I was thinking of shooting as anything in combat with my stonehorn is usually dead! #battlebrew

I like it! 

I'm looking to pick up a stonehorn or two next. See you have mixed yours with Ogres for battle line. Is that for aesthetics or do you feel that the comman bonuses they bring puts them on par with the flavour of the month Savage orruks?!

[Gaz Taylor]

I took Ogors mainly because I had a stash of them lying around and all I had to add was some big monsters to have an army! Also I'm not a big fan of using Savage Orruks with Stonehorns and the like from a background point of view. I can see the synergies but not something that floats my boat.

If I was going to choose something instead of Ogors, I would be tempted with Ironjaw Brutes. In fact quick change to my list you could do the following....

Leaders
Orruk Megaboss 
Frostlord on Stonehorn 
Frostlord on Stonehorn 
Huskard on Thundertusk 

Units
Orruk Brutes x 5 
Orruk Brutes x 5 
Orruk Brutes x 5 

Batallions
Ironfist 

Total: 2000/2000

Personally I would be happier if one of the Brute units was 10 models but this gives you an access to a second Battlebrew which I would put on the other Frostlord (I think you can do this - no book to hand). It's simple but it's fast and hits hard!

[Untimention]

6 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I took Ogors mainly because I had a stash of them lying around and all I had to add was some big monsters to have an army! Also I'm not a big fan of using Savage Orruks with Stonehorns and the like from a background point of view. I can see the synergies but not something that floats my boat.

If I was going to choose something instead of Ogors, I would be tempted with Ironjaw Brutes. In fact quick change to my list you could do the following....

Leaders
Orruk Megaboss 
Frostlord on Stonehorn 
Frostlord on Stonehorn 
Huskard on Thundertusk 

Units
Orruk Brutes x 5 
Orruk Brutes x 5 
Orruk Brutes x 5 

Batallions
Ironfist 

Total: 2000/2000

Personally I would be happier if one of the Brute units was 10 models but this gives you an access to a second Battlebrew which I would put on the other Frostlord (I think you can do this - no book to hand). It's simple but it's fast and hits hard!

I'm afraid it's not a legal list - 0 battleline

[Fastbear]

Wow, one day I will try this army [emoji14] looks so chill to play, objectives can be a hard though.

[Gaz Taylor]

8 minutes ago, Untimention said:

I'm afraid it's not a legal list - 0 battleline

Doh!

Doesn't help the event I'm off too tomorrow isn't using battleline, hence why I didn't think about it!  Also another reason for the Ogors as I was trying to future proof the army a little bit for any other events

[meet.the.doctor]

Doh!
Doesn't help the event I'm off too tomorrow isn't using battleline, hence why I didn't think about it! [emoji6] Also another reason for the Ogors as I was trying to future proof the army a little bit for any other events

And 2 battlebrews are nor possible either;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[N_Watson]

11 minutes ago, meet.the.doctor said:

And 2 battlebrews are nor possible either;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The list he had up there didn't have battle line but it had the ironfist formation so he gets 2 artifacts. Nothing says that you can't take two of the same  

[Gaz Taylor]

1 hour ago, N_Watson said:

The list he had up there didn't have battle line but it had the ironfist formation so he gets 2 artifacts. Nothing says that you can't take two of the same  

Yup. Nothing says I can only have one of each one. I imagine this may change when they next look at the Generals Handbook or how they deliver the points for all the models but at the minute it is amazing, so I suggest you do it!

[Grimnaud]

4 hours ago, bolzo said:

hi!

How the stonehron halve the damage?

Before the relase of beastclaw rider in the warscroll they say that it halves the wound, now they say they halves the damage.

So if the stonehorn take damage from weapons damage 1 the stonehorn don t halves anything?

 

Honestly, who knows? Sometimes I suspect GW are intentionally vague. This is a prime example. There are two ways of interpreting the rules. The first (A) would say that the Stonehorn's Stone Skeleton rule halves the damage of attacks that wound before multiplying the number of successful wounding attacks with the halved damage. That GW intentionally changed the wording from "wounds" to "Damage" is an indication that this is the way it should be interpreted. The second way (B) would say that the Stonehorn's Stone Skeleton rule halves the total sum of damage the Stonehorn has suffered before inflicting wounds. (B) would mean that the Stone Skeleton effects happen after multiplying attacks with damage, and be played in the same way as if the rule said "wounds" instead of "Damage". (A) would mean that the Stone Skeleton effects happens before multiplying the number of wounding attacks with the damage the attacks cause. The differences are certainly significant. 10 wounding attacks at Damage 1 would inflict 10 wounds according to (A), as the Damage of the attack is halved, then rounded back up to 1, then multiplied with 10 attacks. According to (B) the same 10 wounding attacks would only inflict 5 wounds, as the 10 wounding attacks are multiplied with the damage, then the sum of damage is halved. 

Rule as written, I'd say the intentional change from "wounds" in the previous versions to "Damage" seems to indicate, though not definitely state that interpretation (A) is the correct one. If that is what GW intended though, who can tell? We could say that the intention of the rule was to halve the sum of wound, since that was the way it used to be played, or we could think that GW wanted to reflect the fluff, in that a Stone Skeleton would not help you much against flesh wounds, but would help you against more powerful bone shattering attacks, that would be less effective against a skeleton made of stone. Both sides have merit.

Unfortunately the FAQ is also vague, since while it mentions the Stonehorn it does not answer whether the Damage is halved before or  after the number of wounding attacks is multiplied with the damage. The FAQ instead specifically answers that it is the Damage value that is halved rather than the number of wounding attacks. 

 

It does however indicate that interpretation (B) is the correct one. You're supposed to halve the damage inflicted after all the attacks made by the attacking unit has been carried out. There is nothing in the rules forcing you to resolve all your attacks at once. You could resolve 10 attacks from the same unit on the same target separately. That would force the issue between interpretations (A) and (B), since according to (A) Stone Skeleton would affect each separate attack before summing them up, while (B) would say that Stone Skeleton takes effect after all the attacks has been carried out and summed up, but before inflicting them as wounds. Since the FAQ tells you to halve the wounds after all the attacks made by the attacking unit has been carried out, it supports interpretation (B). Wounding attacks with a damage characteristic of 1 is halved, summed up, then rounded up if you have a fraction remaining.

 

And all that interpretation could have been avoided if GW had just added "the sum of" to the Stonehorn rules, or just avoided changing the wording in the first place. Why GW, why?

[Nico]

It's quite clear from the FAQ answer that they mean (B). Finish all the attacks as normal from a unit, then halve the result (rounding up).

[meet.the.doctor]

Yup. Nothing says I can only have one of each one. I imagine this may change when they next look at the Generals Handbook or how they deliver the points for all the models but at the minute it is amazing, so I suggest you do it!

You are right there is nothing that forbids that. I was always thinking it is only one for one hero. Now because of you all my heroes will get battle drunk;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gaz Taylor]

5 minutes ago, meet.the.doctor said:

You are right there is nothing that forbids that. I was always thinking it is only one for one hero. Now because of you all my heroes will get battle drunk;)

I like to know I have made a difference

Seriously though, no idea why this was over looked unless it was quite simply to allow players to have multiples if they rolled it

[Chris Tomlin]

19 minutes ago, meet.the.doctor said:

You are right there is nothing that forbids that. I was always thinking it is only one for one hero. Now because of you all my heroes will get battle drunk;)
 

Not to derail the thread, but I hope you Destruction General's are roleplaying this correctly! Never do my characters benefit from the effects of Battle Brew without me taking a good swig myself!

My understanding of the Stonehorn is that you add up all damage from an attacking unit (shooting, melee, whatever) then half. If you don't go by this method, then you are considering that attacks within a unit resolve individually at separate timings, which isn't right.

 

[Chris Tomlin]

8 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

Seriously though, no idea why this was over looked unless it was quite simply to allow players to have multiples if they rolled it

Why wouldn't it be intentional? They all have quite generic names don't they (ie don't sound like they should be unique)?*

I think people assuming you can just take one of each is a hangover from WFB players. I would be interested if a new player to AoS made this assumption and why.

*I appreciate referencing fluff is a terrible thing to do with rules!!

[MightyQwan]

@Grimnaud I agree with Nico that the FAQ seems quite clear that scenario B is the right interpretation of the rule. to your point about attacking and resolving each attack in a unit separately, it would not a effect the end result. a unit makes all of its all tracks at the same time. the damage done is put in a pool and allocated once all attacks are resolved and saves rolled. The damage is then halved. So if we resolve that scenario B is correct then regardless of how a unit resolves it's attacks the result is the same.

[Grimnaud]

2 minutes ago, MightyQwan said:

@Grimnaud I agree with Nico that the FAQ seems quite clear that scenario B is the right interpretation of the rule. to your point about attacking and resolving each attack in a unit separately, it would not a effect the end result. a unit makes all of its all tracks at the same time. the damage done is put in a pool and allocated once all attacks are resolved and saves rolled. The damage is then halved. So if we resolve that scenario B is correct then regardless of how a unit resolves it's attacks the result is the same.

Hey, listen, I'm not arguing against that point. Interpretation (B) is the one supported but the FAQ. No question there.

I disagree about is being quite clear though. The support for interpretation (B) over (A) comes from the single word "all" in the FAQ. If that had not been included, or if you were forced to resolve all similar attacks at once, rather than having the option of rolling them all together, then the FAQ answer would not weigh in on either interpretation. Nothing in either the rule nor the FAQ explicitly states that the ability affects the Damage characteristic (A) or the damage pool prior to it being inflicted as wounds (B). The support is implicit in the FAQ telling you to carry out all of the attacks from the attacking unit before halving the wounds. That would work differently if you were supposed to halve the Damage characteristic rather than the damage pool, thus the FAQ supports halving the damage pool. GW writing "Halve the sum of damage"  or "Halve any wounds" in the Stonehorn's rules rather than "Halve any Damage" would have made it clear.

[Pompe]

"Halve the damage inflicted after all of the attacks made by the attacking unit have been carried out." 

This does however imply that you do not save the damage for a big pool if you have multiple units attacking the Stonehorne. As in unit "A" does 5 damage-->3 wounds, then unit "B" activates does another 5 damage-->3 wounds for a total of 6 wounds. Instead of adding up 5+5 damage=10-->5 wounds.

If you were supposed to save it for a pool of damage and work out the total at the end, then the wording would have been different and included phrases such as or "combat/shooting phase" or "Battle Round" Or am I way off here?

And yes, one of the guys I am playing with does have a Stonehorne, and yes that does make me a bit biased...

[Chris Tomlin]

If you're having halving problems I feel bad for you son, I've got 99 problems but a Stonehorn ain't one.

[MightyQwan]

4 hours ago, Pompe said:

"Halve the damage inflicted after all of the attacks made by the attacking unit have been carried out." 

This does however imply that you do not save the damage for a big pool if you have multiple units attacking the Stonehorne. As in unit "A" does 5 damage-->3 wounds, then unit "B" activates does another 5 damage-->3 wounds for a total of 6 wounds. Instead of adding up 5+5 damage=10-->5 wounds.

If you were supposed to save it for a pool of damage and work out the total at the end, then the wording would have been different and included phrases such as or "combat/shooting phase" or "Battle Round" Or am I way off here?

And yes, one of the guys I am playing with does have a Stonehorne, and yes that does make me a bit biased...

The rule is not per combat phase and I was not attempting to imply that you resolve the wounds and halve the damage only once all units have made their attack.  Your interpretation is correct, it is at the end of a unit's activation.  So all if a unit's attacks are done simultaneously, that damage is pooled and resolved (and halved in this case) as the last action in a units activation. Then move on and do the same for the next unit.