N18 Last Gasp Coup de Grace

[Thorgor]

So your argument to not allow TGB is because it doesn't say "a Shoot action", yet you want it to be a full Fight action despite the fact that it does not say "a Fight action." That doesn't persuade me.

It's not a Fight action, but it's a close combat attack. And any close combat attack follows all steps described p68-69 of the rulebook, just like any ranged attack follows those described p64-65 of the rulebook.
A ranged attack can happen for a number of reasons, the most common being a fighter performing a Shoot action (but it can also happen on a Fire through ductway action, a Blind fire action, or as a result of this Tactic card, for instance) just like a close combat attack can happen for multiple reasons, the most common being a fighter performing a Fight attack. I'm pretty much paraphrasing the first paragraph from page 64/68 here.
TGB (p67) is a special rule that specifically can only be used when making a Shoot action, not any ranged attack. Determining attack dice, on the other hand, is a regular step of the close combat attack process and not something tied to the Fight action.

And, according to the rules, pulling the trigger of an Unwieldy ranged weapon takes twice as much time as multiple CC strikes. That a mortally wounded fighter can lift their lascannon and shoot that guy at the other end of the battlefield with no penalty whatsoever bothers me just as much as them going all Kenshiro on their killer.

 

[UncleFester]

There are plenty of places in the rulebook where "an attack" is clearly meant to be a single strike. In particular, see skills like Dodge and Step Aside - but it's throughout the books.

If GW is not going to make the distinction about what is "an attack", what is "a strike", and what is "a series of strikes" then we are left to make that distinction by what seems most logical.

By your interpretation, the fighter can - in his Last Gasp of life - pull a trigger, pull a pin, or ... pull a Jackie Chan. That just does not seem logical to me. It makes much more sense that the fighter can only pull off one more swing of his weapon.

There is nothing in any argument I've read so far that is near compelling enough to override the fact that it is unclear, and the fact that it doesn't make sense to me (it is a fact that it doesn't make sense to me) to award a fighter with an entire series of close combat attacks as a last-ditched dying effort.

I'm totally fine if you want to do it your way. It is my opinion it should be one strike, not a full series of attacks.

And for the record, we don't allow Twin Guns Blazing, or Fast Shot to give additional shots. Our interpretation is that the fight gets ONE single act. Be it one trigger pulled, or one grenade pin pulled, or one weapon swung - whatever. It is one single act.

 

[Kairae]

I think the distinction should be between 'actions' and 'attacks'.

A Shoot or Fight action can consist of multiple attacks.

Each Attack in a fight action is an individual attack.

Rain of Blows allows you to perform multiple Fight actions in an activation.

Each shot in a Shoot action using twin guns blazing is an attack.

A single Rapid Fire shot is one attack.

Fast Shot allows you to perform multiple Shoot acrions in a single activation.

 

[Thorgor]

Yeah... the rules really use "close combat attack(s)" and "attack(s)" in a very inconsistent fashion. Most of the time, the plural is used (including in the Fight action description itself), implying that each strike is a separate attack.
Dodge has even more problems since a single ranged attack can potentially result in multiple wounds (thanks to Rapid Fire), so, if you dodge one of those wound, does it nullify all the wounds from the attack?
They should really hire designers who understand that words have meaning...

I agree that it's pretty much impossible to guess what they had in mind when designing this card. However, your interpretation still bothers me since it means that, depending on the fighter's equipment and whether or not an enemy is in b2b contact, you'll get either (the equivalent of) a Simple action (ranged attack), a Double action (ranged attack with an Unwieldy weapon), or a fraction of a Simple action (close combat attack).

 

[Kairae]

I think Dodge (as are Step Aside and Unstoppable Behemoth) is clear in that you avoid the full burst of Rapid Fire: Rapid Fire is clearly a single attack, no matter how you define attack.

Look at a fighter armed with two Plasma Pistols: @UncleFester 's interpretation means that whatever the situation that fighter can only fire a single Plasma Pistol once. I find this more coherent than worrying about whether it's equivalent to a Simple action, a Double action or a fraction of a Simple action.

 

[Thorgor]

Look at a fighter armed with two Plasma Pistols: @UncleFester 's interpretation means that whatever the situation that fighter can only fire a single Plasma Pistol once.

I don't see why that's so important. The two attacks will still be significantly different (one will be based on BS and may benefit from the short range accuracy bonus while the other is based on WS with no bonus).
How many free actions the card gives you is, in my opinion, way more important. And even if you are more of a simulationist than I am, I still don't understand how you can see Last Gasp giving you a full Fight action equivalent as a problem but not care about it letting you fire an Unwieldy weapon (something that is supposed to take twice as long) without any penalty.

I also wonder how the card is supposed to interact with Versatile weapons. If you have a whip and a Pistol, can you choose to whip the guy 2" away or are you forced to shoot him? And if you are the one being whipped to death, does Last gasp let you perform a ranged attack or does being considered Engaged prevent it?
What about a fighter being CdGed in close combat? They are technically not Engaged when they go Out of Action (since they are Seriously Injured) so can they only make ranged attacks? Or should 'Engaged' be considered as a shortcut for 'in base to base contact' in this case? If the former, does it mean a fighter killed in CC gets a completely different attack depending solely on whether they roll a Serious injury or OoA result? If the latter, does it mean the special grenade rule can only be used when an enemy kills you from the [2.5", 1"[ range (or CdG you out of CC)? I have a feeling that it's meant to be usable in CC (that's more often than not what it's used for in movies).

 

[Kairae]

I'm not a simulationist. It's a game, I don't care about the reality of it.

What I want most is clarity, simplicity and balance.

Classing each individual CC 'Attack' in a Fight action as an 'attack', the same as each separate shot in a Shoot action is - to my mind - the simplest and the clearest interpretation. It works for Step Aside, Dodge and Unstoppable Behemoth just as much as it does for Last Gasp.

In terms of balance, overall it slightly favours CC and TGB (Dodge and Unstoppable Behemoth become less effective vs multiple attacks per action), but only very marginally (in part because Last Gasp is the opposite).

I think this is cleaner than strictest RAW (where 1 fight action = 1 attack). Otherwise Step Aside cancels the full Fight action.

 

[Thorgor]

What I want most is clarity, simplicity and balance.

Those are sadly not featured in the rules as written, no matter how you interpret them.
Last Gasp would need to be completely rewritten imo, to give the fighter either a free Shoot action or a free Fight action (excluding Unwieldy ranged weapons). That, I reckon, would tick your three boxes.

Btw, I just remembered what the problem was with Dodge and Rapid fire: a single Rapid fire attack can hit multiple targets. If all of them are wounded and one of them dodges the attack, are the others saved as well? There is an exception for Blast and Template that states the attack is not canceled, but no such exception for Rapid fire so RAW the attack is completely canceled, which makes no sense.

 

[Kairae]

Dodge says the attack has no further effect. Hitting other targets is a preceding effect and so is not affected by Dodge.

And yes, that giving a free Fight or Shoot action is an option. I think the distinction between action and attacks achieves the same (without completely rewrotong Last Gasp).

 

[Thorgor]

I still don't like the asymmetry between getting a full Simple (or even Double) Shoot action equivalent versus getting half (or less) a Fight action equivalent but let's say the intent is vague enough to let this at the arbitrator's discretion.
Or maybe we should just ask Geedubs for an answer, because it's not the first time this whole "attack" vagueness poses problem.

Dodge says the attack has no further effect. Hitting other targets is a preceding effect and so is not affected by Dodge.

Sure, but other targets getting Wound removed/having to roll Injury dice/test for Blaze or Rad-Phage (if the weapon somehow also have these) etc. are still further effects of that attack.
It's even unclear whether Dodge is meant to undo Pinning or not. As written, it doesn't for regular ranged attacks (it already happened) but it's not as clear for Blast and Template attacks (as, instead of cancelling the attack, you check whether the fighter managed to retroactively avoid the hit.

 

[Kairae]

Not really, as they're separated out earlier than the Dodge occurs so no longer have any bearing on each other.

I can see you're logic but it's deliberately trying to find the most problematic way to read it.

And yeah, it's at an ask GWs point. How about we both do it and see if we can get different answera

 

[Thorgor]

Not really, as they're separated out earlier than the Dodge occurs so no longer have any bearing on each other.

I can see you're logic but it's deliberately trying to find the most problematic way to read it.

I genuinely see no other way to read it. It's a single attack, and Dodge tell me to cancel the attack and that it has no further effect.
If you accept that the attack can be partially canceled in this case, then why can't it be partially canceled when all the hits are on the same fighter? This doesn't make sense to me. Either you always cancel the whole attack, or you always cancel only the wound you made the check for (and this the former makes no sense when there are multiple targets, then it must be the latter.)
That or they simply forgot to write that the attack has no further effect on this fighter.

 

[Kairae]

Because allocating the hits away from this fighter (and the consequences of that decision) happened before the Dodge whereas rolling the Saves against the other hits necessarily happens after. Hits allocated against other fighters are no longer on the same branch of the decision tree as Dodge.

Basically I'm reading Dodge as implicitly a skill that can only ever affect that fighter and that it doesn't apply retroactively. Yes this would be better explicit, but it's not necessary if you look at it as a decision tree and never go backwards up the tree.

Implicit to this understanding is that you roll all hits, wounds, saves etc simultaneously per fighter (which also has implications for Injury rolls etc). Rolling them sequentially would mean that they all have their own branches.

Note that I think you only get 1 Dodge roll per attack, regardless of how many hits you take. So if a Dodger got hit by a 3 Autogun hits that all wound they would make only a single Dodge that would apply to them: you make a Dodge per wounding attack not per wounding hit.

Tl;dr we're disagreeing over how to roll dice.

 

[Ben_S]

t's at an ask GWs point. How about we both do it and see if we can get different answera

Tl;dr we're disagreeing over how to roll dice.

What odds that GW's official answer will be 'roll a dice for it'?

 

[enyoss]

At least with dodge there’s a pretty strong RAI. I’ll bet anybody here £100 that they don’t say a successful dodge is supposed to cancel all hits on all other fighters for eg rapid fire.

Coming back to the OP, last gasp, I think I know what they had in mind (an isolated out of sequence A1 close combat attack), but I’m nowhere near as sure about it.

Perhaps dodge should have its own thread, although I think that would focus more on how to firm up the language to match the RAI rather than fathoming how to make it work full stop?

 

[Thorgor]

I'm reading Dodge as implicitly a skill that can only ever affect that fighter and that it doesn't apply retroactively.

But Dodge does apply retroactively, at least to Blast and Template attacks. It's a roll you make after suffering a wound that, if successful, can make it so you were never hit in the first place (meaning you are unpinned, maybe?). Time travel is required for it to work as written in those cases.

In Rapid Fire case, it doesn't have to go back in time since, no matter the number of targets, you should roll for all wounds before you go any further. The attack doesn't become multiple attacks just because it's hitting multiple targets. I don't think there is any reason to handle it differently than, say, hits from multiple CC weapons against the same target. If the attack as a whole is canceled, it should have no further effect on any target (they should stay pinned though).

And yeah, I'm reading it as one roll per wound, not one per attack. But I get how you can read it differently. You read "If this fighter suffers at least one wound from a ranged or close combat attack" while I read "Whenever this fighter suffers a wound from a ranged or close combat attack".

I really don't get why they made so many similar yet different mechanisms (Dodge, Step aside, Omen of fortune and Precognition all work in different ways). Why not a single template "Whenever this fighter suffers a wound from a [quality] attack, make [check]. If successful, ignore this wound and it has no further effect" for dodge effects and let the rest work as invulnerable saves that you can use in place of the regular armour save? I particularly hate the fact that Dodge handles Blast and Template in such a convoluted way while Omen of fortune just hand-waves it (especially since it states the fighter is assumed to have "dodged clear").

Perhaps dodge should have its own thread

Yeah, probably. It was relevant to try and determine what an 'attack' is but it got a bit off tangent, sorry

 

[enyoss]

But Dodge does apply retroactively, at least to Blast and Template attacks. It's a roll you make after suffering a wound that, if successful, can make it so you were never hit in the first place (meaning you are unpinned, maybe?). Time travel is required for it to work as written in those cases.

In Rapid Fire case, it doesn't have to go back in time since, no matter the number of targets, you should roll for all wounds before you go any further. The attack doesn't become multiple attacks just because it's hitting multiple targets. I don't think there is any reason to handle it differently than, say, hits from multiple CC weapons against the same target. If the attack as a whole is canceled, it should have no further effect on any target (they should stay pinned though).

And yeah, I'm reading it as one roll per wound, not one per attack. But I get how you can read it differently. You read "If this fighter suffers at least one wound from a ranged or close combat attack" while I read "Whenever this fighter suffers a wound from a ranged or close combat attack".

I really don't get why they made so many similar yet different mechanisms (Dodge, Step aside, Omen of fortune and Precognition all work in different ways). Why not a single template "Whenever this fighter suffers a wound from a [quality] attack, make [check]. If successful, ignore this wound and it has no further effect" for dodge effects and let the rest work as invulnerable saves that you can use in place of the regular armour save? I particularly hate the fact that Dodge handles Blast and Template in such a convoluted way while Omen of fortune just hand-waves it (especially since it states the fighter is assumed to have "dodged clear").


Yeah, probably. It was relevant to try and determine what an 'attack' is but it got a bit off tangent, sorry

Ha! No need for sorry . I’d spotted the awkward still-pinned impact from dodge but hadn’t thought about rapid fire - it’s a valid tangent for sure .

Luckily, however, it’s a rule with a pretty strong precendent in the ORB/LRB/NCE, which gives us a decent insight into what the designers were thinking. The dodge-template-displacement thing seems taken straight from a 1996 FAQ... that’s progress for you I guess .

 

[Kairae]

Honestly, I'd make them all work the same way (with different restrictions) and stack with armour (I like that effect in Necromunda). I'd make them roll immediately after hits rather than wounds at a 1 roll per hit. I'd make it explicit that the fighter is still pinned.

For templates I'd just hand wave it for everything.

But that's completely reworking it.

It also just sidesteps the issue of "but what is an attack anyway?"

 

[almic85]

“I would disagree with your interpretation as the rules for close combat on p68 of the current rulebook second paragraph state "Whenever a fighter makes a close combat attack....this sequence is followed", which implies that the entire sequence is a singular close combat attack.

Step 3 of that sequence Determine Attack Dice states to work out the number of attack dice to be rolled based on the attack characteristic, but actually avoids calling each one an attack.

Further you don't make attack rolls, rather you make Hit Rolls in step 5, then move on to resolve successful Hits in step 6.

All that said agree it with your gaming group and move on and have fun.”

I disagree with it from an “easiest way to play the rules” POV. But can’t fault the logic.

This was actually me on Facebook.

The issue as others have said is that GW uses attack to mean both the full sequence and individual “to hit rolls” when they could quite easily just use the different words that they define in the rules consistently.

The sequence for both shooting and close combat attacks is generally:
1/ declare attack;
2/ determine target or targets;
3/ determine number of attack dice to be rolled for the to hit roll or rolls.
4/ roll the hit roll or rolls.
5/ resolve successful hits.

The issue I have with the interpretation that each attack dice is an individual attack is that the rulebook states the attack characteristic determines the number of attack dice to be rolled but stop short of saying they are attacks.

There’s a third interpretation that each hit roll made is a separate attack, as the rules explicitly state that each different weapon and/or different target is a separate hit roll (the second sentence of step 5 of the close combat rules “If two weapons are being used, and/or multiple enemies are being targeted, roll separately for each“).

I think this third interpretation actually resolved a number of the problems. In short all the to hit rolls using the same weapon against the same target are considered one attack.

It would mean that last gasp would allow the fighter to attack with one weapon against a single target with the number of attacks dice from his attack characteristic.

It would also mean that for TGB that each weapon would be considered a separate attack, even though it only takes one action.

The only rule that really makes this annoying is rapid fire and the ability to hit fighters that are not the target of the original attack.

The dodge skill seems to be written that each wound is a separate attack, but retrospectively cancels the pinned effect.

Field armour has a similar issue in that it only allows one save per attack, but saves are made on the basis of a successful wound rather than on each attack made.

To make it worse displacer and conversion fields ignore the “hit” completely even though they trigger on a successful wound and you can only make one save per attack.

 

[Lachi]

There is another tactic card "You're coming with me". It can be used when a fighter is taken OOA in close combat. It says: "The chosen fighter may make a single close combat attack against the enemy that took them OOA". This may indicate, that a attack dice is the same as an attack.

On the refrerence sheet from the Gang Leader's Accessory Pack the Fight (Basic) acton is described as follows: "The fighter makes close combat attacks against one or more enemy fighters they are engaged with." --> This may also indicate, that a single attack dice is meant to be an attack.

Also, the fact that an attack, that wounds its target/leads to an injury rolle, allows the target to make a save, may indicate that each 'incident', e.g. the result of an attack dice in melee or each hit from rapid fire, are an attack.

Unfortunately, it is all a bit open to interpretation.