Author Topic: Natural Attack vs Impenetrability  (Read 2666 times)

Offline Pollo

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Karma: +7/-0
Natural Attack vs Impenetrability
« on: June 11, 2012, 03:09:25 AM »
bonuses to Damage do not affect the model's Natural Attack rating.

 :o

Suddenly, all the dogs, Karnophages and Last Ritesmen got very sad...

EDIT: does it include the +4 DAM for Critical Rolls?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 04:32:51 AM by Pollo »

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Natural Attack vs Impenetrability
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2012, 04:43:28 PM »
EDIT: does it include the +4 DAM for Critical Rolls?

See previous answer.   That is akin to old-style deviation where one would roll and pray that the template deviated further than its range would normally allow.  No bonuses allow a model to raise their base rating for the purposes of whether it may cause dameage to a model that possesses Impenetrability.

Would you not find it ridiculous that if one dog couldn't bite through the Impenetrability, four of them could do so?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2012, 04:45:59 PM by dmcgee1 »
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline Pollo

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Karma: +7/-0
Natural Attack vs Impenetrability
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2012, 04:12:13 PM »
Would you not find it ridiculous that if one dog couldn't bite through the Impenetrability, four of them could do so?

In real life, they could not. But we are not talking abut real life: we are talking about the rules of a game. A game where a puny Child of Ilian with DAM 6 has a 10% possibility to wound an Impenetrable model with AR 24 like an EDD or a Pretorian Behemoth. That's why I asked for a clarification! ;)

Besides, let's make a comparison between a Child of Ilian and a Karnophage:
Child of Ilian: http://toshirovo.com/warzone/index.php?warzone=unit&unit_id=641
Karnophage: http://toshirovo.com/warzone/index.php?warzone=unit&unit_id=297
If we subtract Predator Senses: 5 from the Karnophage (and P.S.: 5 should theorically cost 6,25 PC, since the equipment Enhanced Sensor Array that gives P.S.: 4 costs 5 PC), we have two models with Swarm Assault and quite similar stats. In CC, DAM for a Karnophage is 10, when DAM for a Child of Ilian is 6. Yet the Karnophage cannot benefit from the bonus to DAM of Swarm Assault, while the Child can. We should expect that Swarm Assault for a Karnophage would cost less than Swarm Assault for a Child of Ilian, but it does not seem to be so. And I find it weird.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 04:15:21 PM by Pollo »

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Natural Attack vs Impenetrability
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2012, 07:24:04 AM »
Would you not find it ridiculous that if one dog couldn't bite through the Impenetrability, four of them could do so?

In real life, they could not. But we are not talking abut real life: we are talking about the rules of a game.

We should expect that Swarm Assault for a Karnophage would cost less than Swarm Assault for a Child of Ilian, but it does not seem to be so. And I find it weird.

We should only expect Swarm to work better for Karnophages against models without Impenetrability.  The Children of Ilian's attacks are not Natural Attacks; Karnohages attacks are.  Therein lies the difference.  Is it weird and/or a bit implausible?  Maybe.  However, your comparison fails to take in the intent of the game designer.  As I view it, the designer intended the Children to have the ability to be able to hurt Impenetrable models (whether by crawling onto them and smashing critical and essential parts with their Rattles, clamboring over and into the Impenetrable models or simply being devious enough to know how to use their weapons in such a way as to wreak as much havoc as possible to models with Impenetrability), while Karnophages were, apparently, designed not to be as effective against these types of models.

It is what it is.  I cannot explain it better, nor can I officially advise that you play it any other way.
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline Pollo

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Karma: +7/-0
Natural Attack vs Impenetrability
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2012, 10:25:36 AM »
As I view it, the designer intended the Children to have the ability to be able to hurt Impenetrable models [...], while Karnophages were, apparently, designed not to be as effective against these types of models.

The problem is that the Children are more able to hurt anything, than Karnophages. It is not just a matter of Impenetrability. From what you wrote above, even in CC with a simple trooper, a 4th Child will have +4 CC and +4 DAM, while a 4th Karnophage (or whoever has Natural Attack instead of a weapon) will only have a +4 CC. That is the incoherence, since the ability seems to have the same cost for both models.

Were the Natural Attack rating not modifiable only when attacking models with Impenetrability, that would be more justifiable.

Offline aoi cobalt

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 161
  • Karma: +8/-0
Natural Attack vs Impenetrability
« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2012, 01:36:47 PM »
I don't understand your post above, Pollo.
What are you talking about there?
A Child of Illian has swarm attack, size 1, and a CC weapon which gives it Dam 6.
A Karnophage has swarm attack, size 2 and a natural attack of Dam 10.

That means it takes 3 Children of Illian to swarm a trooper size 2, and the 4th+ gets +4 to CC and Dam.
It takes 2 Karnophages to swarm a trooper size 2, and the 3rd+ gets +4 to CC and Dam.

The only major difference is that a Karnophage can not hurt something with Inpenetrability, but the Karnophage does more base damage against things that don't have Inpenetrability.
So the cost on swarm attack doesn't change, but a cost on Inpenetrability is levied against the posseser of that special.

Understand? It isn't that swarm attack should be cheaper for some units, it is having Inpenetrability (and a very limited defense it is) is a cost on the model that has it.
"Bring your best dice or bring a good brick." - Thom

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Natural Attack vs Impenetrability
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2012, 03:57:59 PM »
As I view it, the designer intended the Children to have the ability to be able to hurt Impenetrable models [...], while Karnophages were, apparently, designed not to be as effective against these types of models.

The problem is that the Children are more able to hurt anything, than Karnophages. It is not just a matter of Impenetrability. From what you wrote above, even in CC with a simple trooper, a 4th Child will have +4 CC and +4 DAM, while a 4th Karnophage (or whoever has Natural Attack instead of a weapon) will only have a +4 CC. That is the incoherence, since the ability seems to have the same cost for both models.

Were the Natural Attack rating not modifiable only when attacking models with Impenetrability, that would be more justifiable.

If I correctly understand you, your example is faulty.

Why would the Karnophages not get a DAM bonus?  Their DAM bonus would, still, apply.  Their bonus does not apply versus models with Impenetrability because they are unable to hurt the Impenetrable model - no matter their bonus.  It is not hat they do not get their bonus; rather, it is that their bonus does not apply to the Special Ability: Impenetrability.

*************This topic has been split form the FAQ Entry of the same Subject.*****************

As this discussion is, now, breaking down into a discussion of the rule, rather than a clarification, I am going to split it to the appropriate section.  I do not believe that this continuing discussion belongs in the FAQ (any longer) as it has been declared and clarified.  Please, feel free to continue he discussion in the Warzone thread.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 04:09:59 PM by dmcgee1 »
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline Pollo

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Karma: +7/-0
Re: Natural Attack vs Impenetrability
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2012, 11:18:11 AM »
If I correctly understand you, your example is faulty.

Why would the Karnophages not get a DAM bonus?

Sorry. When you wrote:

Quote from: dmcgee1
No; bonuses to Damage do not affect the model's Natural Attack rating.

I thought you were saying it in general terms (and it referred to Impenetrability only as a consequence). That's why I thought there was an incoherence. Now I understand it refers only to when attacking a model with Impenetrability.

Dmcgee, please add the bold phrase in your reply post of the FAQ thread:
No; bonuses to Damage do not affect the model's Natural Attack rating when attacking models with Impenetrability.
This should avoid any ambiguity! Thanks!

EDIT: you could even delete the quoted sentence. Your reply could simply start this way:
No; no matter whether the model Charges, [etc...]
The rest of your message clarifies everything else.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2012, 04:46:18 PM by Pollo »

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Natural Attack vs Impenetrability
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2012, 01:53:07 AM »
If I correctly understand you, your example is faulty.

Why would the Karnophages not get a DAM bonus?

Sorry. When you wrote:

Quote from: dmcgee1
No; bonuses to Damage do not affect the model's Natural Attack rating.

I thought you were saying it in general terms (and it referred to Impenetrability only as a consequence). That's why I thought there was an incoherence. Now I understand it refers only to when attacking a model with Impenetrability.

Dmcgee, please add the bold phrase in your reply post of the FAQ thread:
No; bonuses to Damage do not affect the model's Natural Attack rating when attacking models with Impenetrability.
This should avoid any ambiguity! Thanks!

EDIT: you could even delete the quoted sentence. Your reply could simply start this way:
No; no matter whether the model Charges, [etc...]
The rest of your message clarifies everything else.

I am glad we got that cleared up.  ;D
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!

Offline dmcgee1

  • Board Member
  • Administrator
  • Member Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Karma: +147/-7
  • Ask away!
Re: Natural Attack vs Impenetrability
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2012, 03:53:17 PM »
EDIT: you could even delete the quoted sentence. Your reply could simply start this way:
No; no matter whether the model Charges, [etc...]
The rest of your message clarifies everything else.

Fixed!  Thanks for the suggestion; it was a good one.
If sing, sang, and sung, sink, sank, and sunk, and drink, drank, and drunk, how is it that it isn't bring, brang, and brung, think, thank and thunk, and ding, dang, and dung?

Don't even get me started about bad, badder and baddest.  Run, ran AND run...again?  C'mon!