PDA

View Full Version : 8e Max 10 attacks



Mach_5
08-07-2010, 05:04
I read in the 8e BRB that stats are now all capped at 10 (which wasn't the case in 7e). There are probably more than a few instances where this might make a difference, but I was specifically curious about bloodgreed as in 7e it wasn't uncommon for a doombull to get over 10 attacks (especially when he's got the Ramhorn helm).

This brings up a related question, bloodgreed adds an additional attack (potentially limited by the max 10 restriction?) but Ramhorn helm gives a bonus attack (explicitly not a normal attack, can't use weapon bonuses etc) so if bloodgreed maxes out at 10 attacks total, would Ramhorn helm attacks then still be added afterward?

chieftainskritchskritch
08-07-2010, 05:21
Sorry, but I have to ask this: When you have a unit of Minos who have obtained 10 attacks each already, does it REALLY matter if they can get more than that? Really!? Whatever unit they touch will evaporate anyway, regardless of it they have 11, 12, 13, etc attacks each.

Though in saying that, I havent heard anything about attacks capping?

mightyzombie
08-07-2010, 05:48
Characteristics do max out at 10, and the book lists Attacks as a characteristic, so at first glance, I'd assume so. Which is to say I don't see anything that specifically says that attacks are not restricted in value the way other characteristics are, or anything like that. Unless I'm just not seeing it, which is entirely possible, I'd assume that 10 attacks is max until an official source rules otherwise.

Although, to echo chieftanskritchskritch, does it really NEED to go above 10? I think if my poor clanrats got into a fight with some minotaurs, and their player told me they had 10 (or more?!) attacks each, I might just concede out of fear and disgust. That or point a Doomwheel and a couple of warplightning cannons in their direction...

Atrahasis
08-07-2010, 07:53
The restriction is garbage, as any army book ability that lets you break the restriction can do so due to the "army book trumps rulebook" clause.

There's a reason it never existed before, and I have to question why it was included this time - it renders the rulebook powerless to keep army book rules creep in check.

Ultimate Life Form
08-07-2010, 08:29
I still remember a discussion in 7th where the question was what happens when a model's strength rises over 10, and some people came to the conclusion that the game crashes and must be rebooted. RAW I must say they were right. Why? Because the only knownn way to determine the 'to wound' roll was to compare the attacker's S to the victim's T on the to wound table, which only provided data up to S10, and thus RAW S11 or higher could not be resolved. Maybe it's to avoid that type of confusion. Also Ld was technically capped at 10 as no one could get more. But now with that new banner that gives +1 to LD, and who knows what the next army books have in store for us... Imagine Ld11, or maybe even 12 (is there a rule anywhere that states a 12 is always a fail? Probably not, who would have foreseen that...)

NixonAsADaemonPrince
08-07-2010, 09:54
I still remember a discussion in 7th where the question was what happens when a model's strength rises over 10, and some people came to the conclusion that the game crashes and must be rebooted. RAW I must say they were right. Why? Because the only knownn way to determine the 'to wound' roll was to compare the attacker's S to the victim's T on the to wound table, which only provided data up to S10, and thus RAW S11 or higher could not be resolved. Maybe it's to avoid that type of confusion. Also Ld was technically capped at 10 as no one could get more. But now with that new banner that gives +1 to LD, and who knows what the next army books have in store for us... Imagine Ld11, or maybe even 12 (is there a rule anywhere that states a 12 is always a fail? Probably not, who would have foreseen that...)

How exactly was that rebooting enacted? Did it actually involve kicking all the models off the table and then starting again ;).

Nixon

theunwantedbeing
08-07-2010, 10:00
Says stats cant go above 10 or below 0, so if your stat would be increased/reduced to those numbers you stop at those numbers.
Simple.

Attacks seem to be capped at 10, big deal, so few things ever get 10 attacks it doesnt matter too much.

Bloodthirsters? Nobody will care that they can't have 14 attacks now.

I hope they FAQ this to mean that 10 is indeed the maximum number of attacks, just to screw over the tiny portion of models who can actually get more than 10 attacks.

Urgat
08-07-2010, 10:02
The restriction is garbage, as any army book ability that lets you break the restriction can do so due to the "army book trumps rulebook" clause.


The armybook rules would have to specify that it allows more than 10 attacks to "trump" the BRB rule in that case.

Atrahasis
08-07-2010, 10:06
For example, by saying a Bloodthirster has 2d6+2 attacks.

Granting an ability that can break the rule is enough to break the rule.

stainawarjar
08-07-2010, 16:32
For example, by saying a Bloodthirster has 2d6+2 attacks.

Granting an ability that can break the rule is enough to break the rule.

There would still have to be specified that the result of the 2d6+2 isn't capped at 10, which is hopefully in the FAQ.

CaliforniaGamer
08-07-2010, 16:40
Hold it, what about the Chimera in the book with 4D6+1 attacks. The same brb that supposedly has a 10 cap on all stats?

Perhaps the cap not meant to apply to wounds or attacks? (just Str., Toughness and Init??)

Kugruk
08-07-2010, 16:42
Hold it, what about the Chimera in the book with 4D6+1 attacks. The same brb that supposedly has a 10 cap on all stats?

Perhaps the cap not meant to apply to wounds or attacks? (just Str., Toughness and Init??)

Random attacks is a special rule

Atrahasis
08-07-2010, 16:49
There would still have to be specified that the result of the 2d6+2 isn't capped at 10, which is hopefully in the FAQ.

No, there wouldn't. The fact that the rule increases attacks beyond 10 is enough to cause a conflict.

In conflicts, the army book wins.

trapper
08-07-2010, 17:46
Stats are caped at 10. Special attacks such as 4D6+1 are not over 10. You may gain 11 or more attacks from the special rule, but that doesn't mean your attributes have over 10 attacks, just that you gained 11+ attacks for that turn. Thats how I'm seeing it anyway.

4D6+1 > 10 (on the profile anyway), so its legal (in my thinking anyway). It might go above 10, but the actual profile doesn't.

Major_Blackhart
08-07-2010, 19:13
So that means my VC Lord with the sword of leaping gold (+3 attacks) will still be able to deliver more than 10 attacks a round if he gets lucky with the wounding? Nice. That's great news really, because I guess Red Thirst would count as a bonus attack of some sort, maybe not restricted by this rule?

Gromdal
08-07-2010, 19:17
No, there wouldn't. The fact that the rule increases attacks beyond 10 is enough to cause a conflict.

In conflicts, the army book wins.

Yes there would. Your reasoning is complete nonsense. The rule is clear no more than 10 attacks. Simple.

mightyzombie
08-07-2010, 21:57
Random attacks is a special rule

Correct, Random Attacks is a Special Rule. Without errata, I would assume that this is enough to allow the model to exceed the 10 attacks maximum, up to the maximum amount attainable through the random attacks listed on it's profile, i.e. 2d6+1 attacks on profile would indicate that the model has a maximum of 13 attacks. I would think that other things (magic items, spells and such) could increase the models number of attacks, but only to it's normal random maximum, which would in essence simply increase it's MINIMUM number of attacks.

Of course, it could still be argued that because the Random Attacks rule doesn't specifically state so, that it doesn't allow the Attacks attribute to exceed normal maximums, but I think the above is a pretty fair way to houserule it until a better solution (READ: Errata/FAQ) comes along, but I also think that until such official ruling, it's also perfectly acceptable to limit the random number rolled to 10, but you might have some really irritated players by using such a strict RAW interpretation of the rules, when the models profile clearly would allow it to exceed 10.

Atrahasis
09-07-2010, 07:29
Yes there would. Your reasoning is complete nonsense. The rule is clear no more than 10 attacks. Simple.

If an army book says a model has 12 attacks, then that is an obvious conflict with a rule that says attacks can never exceed 10.

Saying a model has 2D6+2 attacks is no different.

Lord Solar Plexus
09-07-2010, 07:51
Yes there would. Your reasoning is complete nonsense. The rule is clear no more than 10 attacks. Simple.

The BRB rules are completely irrelevant in such cases and can say what they like, clear or not. 2d6 + whatever is simple, too.

Any model can have more attacks than 10 through whatever means available because all specific rules for specific models override the BRB. An item gives you specific rules, so a model with 8 attacks in its profile and a sword granting +3 attacks could attack 11 times. Note that in this case the model's statline even adheres to the cap but it works if someone has 10 attacks in its profile, too.

In effect, GW has shot itself in the foot with those clauses about AB overriding BRB and advanced rules overriding basic ones, as it makes all caps in the BRB meaningless.

minionboy
09-07-2010, 07:52
The restriction is garbage, as any army book ability that lets you break the restriction can do so due to the "army book trumps rulebook" clause.

So I can go over the hard 1+ save cap because my army book allows me to? :eyebrows: