Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Played a GT this weekend and a rules query came up on the sequencing of modifiers.

I shot a [Melta 4] weapon at a unit that halves damage and rolled a 2 for my D6 damage roll. Following the designers rules commentary (division before addition) I thought the 2 damage would be halved to 1, and then the +4 from [Melta 4] added on for a total of 5.

But the judge ruled that the +4 was added first, to make 6 damage, which was then halved for 3 damage.

Which is right?

The damage is 6, which is halved to 3.

You are correct because of the defined order of operations division comes before addition so the judge was wrong (2/2)+4 =5



Additionally if it is a WTC event the following had been FAQ by the WTC

"Rules that add a certain value to the damage characteristic of a weapon, for example a Dark lance has a damage characteristic of D6+2, are determinded before any modifiers are applied, therefore the +2 on the dark lance is not modifier. The same applies to rules such as Blade of Saint Ellynor. When reducing the damage of an attack to 0 the +x in these situations is also reduced to 0. However, if wounded by a weapon that has a rule such as melta, the additional damage is treated as a modifier and therefore comes after the set to 0"

This makes it clear damage reduction first then mwlta added on

U02dah4 wrote:
You are correct because of the defined order of operations division comes before addition so the judge was wrong (2/2)+4 =5



Additionally if it is a WTC event the following had been FAQ by the WTC

"Rules that add a certain value to the damage characteristic of a weapon, for example a Dark lance has a damage characteristic of D6+2, are determinded before any modifiers are applied, therefore the +2 on the dark lance is not modifier. The same applies to rules such as Blade of Saint Ellynor. When reducing the damage of an attack to 0 the +x in these situations is also reduced to 0. However, if wounded by a weapon that has a rule such as melta, the additional damage is treated as a modifier and therefore comes after the set to 0"

This makes it clear damage reduction first then mwlta added on

Solid reference from a recognised circuit mate, much appreciated!

This seems correct based on the order of operations for modifiers, but it feels so WRONG...

Edited wrong Text was here

U02dah4 wrote:
You are correct because of the defined order of operations division comes before addition so the judge was wrong (2/2)+4 =5



Additionally if it is a WTC event the following had been FAQ by the WTC

"Rules that add a certain value to the damage characteristic of a weapon, for example a Dark lance has a damage characteristic of D6+2, are determinded before any modifiers are applied, therefore the +2 on the dark lance is not modifier. The same applies to rules such as Blade of Saint Ellynor. When reducing the damage of an attack to 0 the +x in these situations is also reduced to 0. However, if wounded by a weapon that has a rule such as melta, the additional damage is treated as a modifier and therefore comes after the set to 0"

This makes it clear damage reduction first then mwlta added on

What a bizarrely contradictory ruling

Why are you halving a damage value you haven't finished calculating yet?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why are you halving a damage value you haven't finished calculating yet?

A random Damage characteristic is determined by the result of a dice roll. So you're halving the result of the roll before adding the +4 as per the specified order of operations for modifiers in the rules commentary. The final result is then the Damage characteristic of that attack.

The Damage of the attack is d6 plus 4.

It isn't d6, and plus 4.

I disagree and would be shocked if it is faq any other way.

Yes, d6 plus 4. The plus 4 is a modifier to the damage characteristic as it changes the result of the dice roll to another numerical value. A rule that says to halve the damage characteristic of an attack is also a modifier as it changes one numerical value to another. The rules commentary tells us to apply division modifiers before addition modifiers, so the result of the dice roll is halved, then the 4 is added.

The problem is that the wording on Melta does seem to indicate that it would count as a modifier, which in the order of operations would occur last.

It's also dumb - an FAQ should specify that melta should just be part of the damage characteristic and NOT be a modifier.

I think the RAW is clear on this one and the WTC have ruled it this way in their FAQ. But I'd really like an official GW FAQ, one way or the other.

I see zero chance that melts bypasses halving damage in this way.

The Damage is D6+4. The +4 is not a Modifier.

Unintuitive perhaps but by RAW melta is a modifier and does therefore bypass damage halving

A damager modifier is anything that alters the damage characteristic of a weapon

On a d6+2 weapon the +2 by contrast is not a modifier because the d6+2 is the Damage characteristic not a modifier to it

The damage characteristic is indeed D6. And The +4 is a modifier. I change my Answer to 5.