7 coaches online • Server time: 05:29
* * * Did you know? The most casualties in a single match is 21.
Recent Forum Topics  Gnome Roster - how a... | Problem to organize ... | Updated star player ... |
2021-01-15 13:32:07
15 votes, rating 2.4
15 votes, rating 2.4
Claw in BB2020
My forum thread was locked as the boss thought I was trolling the forum. I was not. I simply disagree with what others have said about the interpretation of the claw rule. As such I place my comments here with my argument laid out in full. I will not respond to any comments on this blog rather I will let the argument stand for itself and the powers that be will do what they will.
Exhibit 1 - Skills - Page 74 of rulebook.
"All bonuses and/or modifiers from Skills or Traits can be combined."
Exhibit 2 - Claws - Page 78 of rulebook.
"A roll of 8+ before applying modifiers will break armor." Notice it does not say it cannot be further modified only that an 8 is enough to break armor.
Exhibit 3 - Mighty Blow - Page 80 of rulebook.
"You may modify either the armour roll or injury roll by the amount shown in brackets. This modifier may be applied after the roll has been made." Failure to allow this goes squarely against exhibit 1.
Taking these three rules together, the plain reading of the text is that if a player has both Mighty Blow and Claw, a roll of a 7 breaks armour. Exhibit 1 is the trump as it governs all rules unless a specific exception is made. In this case, no exception is made. In fact, it seems to me that they work very well together.
The order of operations is to roll the dice. If it is an 8+, armour is broken. If it is a 7 mighty blow can be used to turn it into an 8. If the natural roll was already an 8+ then mighty blow can be used on the injury roll.
Play should be governed by the rules as they are written and not by a historical interpretation based on a previous set of rules.
Exhibit 1 - Skills - Page 74 of rulebook.
"All bonuses and/or modifiers from Skills or Traits can be combined."
Exhibit 2 - Claws - Page 78 of rulebook.
"A roll of 8+ before applying modifiers will break armor." Notice it does not say it cannot be further modified only that an 8 is enough to break armor.
Exhibit 3 - Mighty Blow - Page 80 of rulebook.
"You may modify either the armour roll or injury roll by the amount shown in brackets. This modifier may be applied after the roll has been made." Failure to allow this goes squarely against exhibit 1.
Taking these three rules together, the plain reading of the text is that if a player has both Mighty Blow and Claw, a roll of a 7 breaks armour. Exhibit 1 is the trump as it governs all rules unless a specific exception is made. In this case, no exception is made. In fact, it seems to me that they work very well together.
The order of operations is to roll the dice. If it is an 8+, armour is broken. If it is a 7 mighty blow can be used to turn it into an 8. If the natural roll was already an 8+ then mighty blow can be used on the injury roll.
Play should be governed by the rules as they are written and not by a historical interpretation based on a previous set of rules.
Comments
Posted by ben_awesome on 2021-01-15 14:09:42
No.
an 8+ before modifiers breaks armour, if you add the modifier, the 8+ is no longer before modifiers and simply is a standard armour roll at that point.
e.g. I roll 8+ on Av9 without a modifier, I break armour
I roll a 7 and add 1 to get 8, I now no longer break AV9 on an 8+ as its after modifier
an 8+ before modifiers breaks armour, if you add the modifier, the 8+ is no longer before modifiers and simply is a standard armour roll at that point.
e.g. I roll 8+ on Av9 without a modifier, I break armour
I roll a 7 and add 1 to get 8, I now no longer break AV9 on an 8+ as its after modifier
Posted by awambawamb on 2021-01-15 14:27:51
IMHO Claw and MB now breaks armor on the following rolls:
1+6 =7, +1: 8
2+5 =7, +1: 8
3+4 =7, +1: 8
4+3 =7, +1: 8
5+2 =7, +1: 8
6+1 =7, +1: 8
I've understood that the new rules talk about "before mods" for claw, then
1+6 =7, not sufficient.
2+5 =7, not sufficient.
3+4 =7, not sufficient.
4+3 =7, not sufficient.
5+2 =7, not sufficient.
6+1 =7, not sufficient.
2+6 =8, breaks.
3+5 =8, breaks.
4+4 =8, breaks.
5+3 =8, breaks.
6+2 =8, breaks.
they chopped away 6 succesful results from the claw situation by claearly stating that the roll must be a natural 8, but forgetting this when sepaking of mighty blow. I'd say, typical of GW.
if you disagree, please post the rolls that would break armor. let's debate on countable things
1+6 =7, +1: 8
2+5 =7, +1: 8
3+4 =7, +1: 8
4+3 =7, +1: 8
5+2 =7, +1: 8
6+1 =7, +1: 8
I've understood that the new rules talk about "before mods" for claw, then
1+6 =7, not sufficient.
2+5 =7, not sufficient.
3+4 =7, not sufficient.
4+3 =7, not sufficient.
5+2 =7, not sufficient.
6+1 =7, not sufficient.
2+6 =8, breaks.
3+5 =8, breaks.
4+4 =8, breaks.
5+3 =8, breaks.
6+2 =8, breaks.
they chopped away 6 succesful results from the claw situation by claearly stating that the roll must be a natural 8, but forgetting this when sepaking of mighty blow. I'd say, typical of GW.
if you disagree, please post the rolls that would break armor. let's debate on countable things
Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2021-01-15 14:59:41
"Play should be governed by the rules as they are written and not by a historical interpretation based on a previous set of rules."
Exactly the argument of everyone else - there is absolutely no reason to think the new rules let you stack claw+mb on armour, unless you know you were allowed to do it before. None. Nada.
"A roll of 8+ before applying modifiers" is a complete statement, it isn't "a roll of 8+, before applying modifiers".
This change was already made in 2016 then errata'd back to "after modifiers" btw. SO really, there is no reason for anyone to think you are doing anything but trolling or being deliberately stupid on this.
Exactly the argument of everyone else - there is absolutely no reason to think the new rules let you stack claw+mb on armour, unless you know you were allowed to do it before. None. Nada.
"A roll of 8+ before applying modifiers" is a complete statement, it isn't "a roll of 8+, before applying modifiers".
This change was already made in 2016 then errata'd back to "after modifiers" btw. SO really, there is no reason for anyone to think you are doing anything but trolling or being deliberately stupid on this.
Posted by Kondor on 2021-01-15 16:01:16
I am trying so very hard to hold true to my statement that I would not argue further in this thread despite again being called a Troll. My argument is clearly laid out in the original blog post and I stand by it.
Posted by PurpleChest on 2021-01-15 21:55:48
You are wrong.
It is totally forgivable as it IS easy to read the rules as written the way you have chosen to, and also easy to read them the way that has been explained to you.
Classic GW.
Ea=nglish as second language players don't seem to see any issues at all in my experience so far, so maybe its just that in England and America we use the English language in so many complex and inference affected ways, but i asked some contacts that are playtesters, and they ALL said it is the 'nerfed Claw' interpretation that is correct.
I had expected the eratta to state it more clearly, because deep down I'm an optimist, but of course... no.
So i have a ton of sympathy, but please believe me, you are wrong.
It is totally forgivable as it IS easy to read the rules as written the way you have chosen to, and also easy to read them the way that has been explained to you.
Classic GW.
Ea=nglish as second language players don't seem to see any issues at all in my experience so far, so maybe its just that in England and America we use the English language in so many complex and inference affected ways, but i asked some contacts that are playtesters, and they ALL said it is the 'nerfed Claw' interpretation that is correct.
I had expected the eratta to state it more clearly, because deep down I'm an optimist, but of course... no.
So i have a ton of sympathy, but please believe me, you are wrong.
Posted by PurpleChest on 2021-01-15 21:57:11
If you have claw and MB, the claw will work on the armour and the MB only the cas roll.
Posted by Scugnizzo on 2021-01-16 01:23:33
It seems quite clear, as you have stated, that claw blocks only break armour on an 8+ sans modifiers. The wording 'before modifiers'implies that only in the instance in which a natural 8 is rolled that armour will break.
What is good however is that you'll be able to use MB on the following injury roll.
You can put your argument wherever but be prepared to understand that you'll probably be the only one 'interpreting' the rules in this way.
What is good however is that you'll be able to use MB on the following injury roll.
You can put your argument wherever but be prepared to understand that you'll probably be the only one 'interpreting' the rules in this way.
Posted by erased000024 on 2021-01-16 08:39:51
As I hate to agree.... its pretty clear that you need to roll an 8+ before you add any modifiers... not sure how you read it differently