PDA

View Full Version : Grab and Smash and Focus



Justicator
06-13-2010, 12:13 PM
Hi all-

Can someone explain why the power attack as part of Grab and Smash doesn't require focus?

There is no rules mention of Chain Attacks in the rule book. The only rule I can find is in multiple attacks - which state you resolve the multiple attacks according to their rules. The rules of power attacks say "you must spend a focus"

The ability Grab & Smash doesn't say you get the move for free, just says you may make one. There is nothing in the rules I can see that says I should read this as "you may make one for free"

So, if someone can give me the breakdown, I'd appreciate it.

Vertebrae
06-13-2010, 12:40 PM
Because it is combo attack.

KujakuDM
06-13-2010, 12:42 PM
the basic thought is that if something grants an abilitiy to do something as a result of said abiliity it can be done without its usual cost. this includes drives that cause charges or slams.

bouncymischa
06-13-2010, 02:15 PM
the basic thought is that if something grants an abilitiy to do something as a result of said abiliity it can be done without its usual cost.

Agreed. There are many abilities that permit a model to take a specified action, and I'm certain none are required to pay the requisite costs for said actions.

Take Haley1's feat, for example. Blitz permits models in the area of effect to make an additional attack. Does a warjack under the effect of Blitz have to pay a focus to make this extra attack? No, it doesn't. Can an infantryman, like a Storm Blade or Trencher, who has no means to purchase an additional attack, make an extra attack under Blitz? Of course they can.

I can't see any reason why an ability that permits you to make a power attack would require you to pay the focus/fury cost for making a power attack, unless it was explicitly stated as being required.

Justicator
06-13-2010, 07:02 PM
haley's feat - The ability granted the extra attack, therefore no focus needs to be spent to do it. Spending focus can also grant an extra attack. Just because I spend a focus to get access to an extra attack, I don't have to take it "It can make one additional attack for each focus point it spends." - same language access to an additional attack has been granted.

With grab & smash it give the ability to perform a Power Attack outside where you normally can, which is in-and-of-itself very powerful. It does not however state that this power attack is granted for free. Power attack says "A warjack must spend 1 focus point to make a power attack." - this is also noted in the focus section: "Remember that a warjack must spend focus to run, charge, or make a power attack"

Using your attack action as a combat action & not using the model's normal movement for charge grants access to a power attack - not the act of spending focus. Spending focus is a necessary part of the power attack. So grab & smash takes the place of "A model that did not use its normal movement to charge can make one power attack allowed by its special rules."

Further differences: Chain Attack Smite - grants the extra attack by nature of which slams the opponent, it doesn't give you access to a slam attack (which would being a power attack may require focus), it automatically performs it.

There is a difference between performance and granting access.

So ... not trying to be an arse here, but can someone point to me a rule that says all Chain Attack abilities are granted at no focus cost?

If it is the case that I'm wrong here, then I'm very confused about their point formula looking at the 2 open fist jacks -> Castigator weighs in at 8 points with no grab&smash ... but the Freebooter weighs in at 6 points with it - not to mention the Kodiak (which is pound for pound better than castigator) also weighs in at 8 and Seether only weighs in at 9 (getting a free focus and free charges and free power attacks).

The other thing that I am curious about is the language on abilities like Vent Steam and Combustion with state: "This model can make additional melee attacks after making this special attack." ... according to popular interpretation of Chain Attack - would these attacks also be free of charge? How many additional melee attacks would be granted by this? Or does this ability (similar to grab & smash) only grant me access to be able to do something when I normally wouldn't be able to and therefore have to spend focus.

This all seems very unbalanced.

Kommissar Golovko
06-13-2010, 07:27 PM
"Chain Attack: Grab & Smash - If this model hits the same model with both its initial attacks with this weapon, after resolving the
attacks it can immediately make a double-hand throw, head-butt, head/weapon/arm lock, push, or throw power attack against
that target."

That's all the rule you need. Nothing in there about using focus but rather it allows the model to make those power attacks at once as long as the requisite condition has been made, in this case needing to hit the same target twice. Hardly unbalancing since you need 2 swings to hit. That's the built in balance.

Vent Steam and Combustion are different because they are both *Attacks which eat up all your initial attacks. As both of those attacks are not attached to melee weapons, normally, they would not be able to do additional attacks since by the rules, any additional attacks must be of the same type initially used. So melee initial attacks will allow you to make further melee attacks by spending focus and ranged initial attacks will allow you to make further ranged attacks by spending focus. This is what the clause for Vent Steam and Combustion are for. It allows the model to make further attacks which are melee and these must be purchased by spending focus.

Cost of individual jacks are dependent on their role and the synergy within its faction. So you can't compare the Open Fist-ed jacks of Menite, Khadoran, Merc, Cygnarian or Cryxian factions with another faction easily.

TheUnknownMercenary
06-13-2010, 07:30 PM
"Chain Attack: Grab & Smash - If this model hits the same model with both its initial attacks with this weapon, after resolving the
attacks it can immediately make a double-hand throw, head-butt, head/weapon/arm lock, push, or throw power attack against
that target."

That's all the rule you need. Nothing in there about using focus but rather it allows the model to make those power attacks at once as long as the requisite condition has been made, in this case needing to hit the same target twice. Hardly unbalancing since you need 2 swings to hit. That's the built in balance.
And all the attacks are against the same model, so unless the target model is a warbeast or warjack, this ability hardly ever goes off.

Kommissar Golovko
06-13-2010, 07:35 PM
Yup, must be the same model.

TheUnknownMercenary
06-13-2010, 07:38 PM
The other thing that I am curious about is the language on abilities like Vent Steam and Combustion with state: "This model can make additional melee attacks after making this special attack." ... according to popular interpretation of Chain Attack - would these attacks also be free of charge? How many additional melee attacks would be granted by this? Or does this ability (similar to grab & smash) only grant me access to be able to do something when I normally wouldn't be able to and therefore have to spend focus.

This all seems very unbalanced.

The reason Vent Steam and Combustion state that the model can make additional attacks after making this special attack is because those two special attacks are listed under the model and not under a weapon. If it didn't tell you that you could make additional attacks then you would not be able to make additional attacks after a model used Vent Steam or Combustion.

Justicator
06-13-2010, 07:51 PM
I don't see how the word immediately makes any difference. The lack of focus expenditure is all based on inference at best.

... grumble ... sometimes I miss the precision of certain other products I used to judge for ...

All of this is simply resolved with the phrase "without spending focus" to the end of it.
OR a rule in the rulebook saying "chain attacks don't require focus unless stated otherwise"

Basically this boils down to popular interpretation and/or your opponent saying "trust me"

The same thing happens with magical attacks never being defined ... only inferred.

Lokust
06-13-2010, 08:37 PM
I don't know I'm a relatively new player and I felt it was quite clear. I've found this, and other PP rules to be far more clear than the GW games I've recently left behind.

KujakuDM
06-13-2010, 10:13 PM
once again, when something is granted via another ability, you get to do it without spending focus/bieng forced. You wanting it to be the other way dosen't change it. It is clear to most everyone else, and basically you can either petition to get an infernal to prove you wrong, or you can just accept what has been stated.

Ratel
06-13-2010, 11:07 PM
There are abilities that you can get after completing the requirement for it that say you have to spend focus/fury to get it. Example would be Goad.

Goad - When a warbeast in this modelʼs battlegroup destroys one or more enemy models with a melee attack during its combat
action, immediately after the attack is resolved this model can force the warbeast to advance up to 2˝.

Since Chain attack has a requirement you need to fill but does not specify that you are required to spend a focus you dont have to.
Chain Attack: Grab & Smash - If this model hits the same model with both its initial attacks with this weapon, after resolving the
attacks it can immediately make a double-hand throw, head-butt, headlock/weapon lock, push, or throw power attack against that
target.

A common thing you will find is if they require you to spend something to get it they will always tell you.

kc7sbp
06-13-2010, 11:29 PM
Just to point out the word immediately does mean without delay or instantly. Which would mean bypassing any "phase" or "step" in between, including the spending of focus. The way you're looking for it to be would likely include a step or clause that required the expenditure of focus, something like: "....it can immediately spend 1 focus to make a..."

Chad
06-14-2010, 12:12 AM
I don't see how the word immediately makes any difference. The lack of focus expenditure is all based on inference at best.You're overthinking it. Whatever you expect, it is not the way it is played. It does what it says it does.

Abilities that cost focus to use, say so. Those that do not, don't. Fixating on wanting every specific thing to specify when it does or doesn't is simply silly. Doing power attacks is covered specifically in the rules. When doing a special attack, you spend a focus and sacrifice all your initial attacks. Why? Because it says so.

If your warbeast, warjack makes a chain attack, it gains the bonuses conveyed on the card. Not all chain attacks are power attacks. Bloodbath isn't. Does it cost a focus to get the benefit of bloodbath? No, you just get as a benefit of the chain attack ability.

Want more evidence? How is Bokur or Seneshcal supposed to slam since it doesn't have focus? It can because it says it can. Just like Chain attacks (which the seneschal has).

... grumble ... sometimes I miss the precision of certain other products I used to judge for ... All of this is simply resolved with the phrase "without spending focus" to the end of it.This is an excessive expectation since it seems fairly clear. 'without spending focus' is not necessary, since the precedent is set to include the phrase "May spend a focus point" on all other instances, which are generally more rare than abilities that don't cost focus.

OR a rule in the rulebook saying "chain attacks don't require focus unless stated otherwise"There are no chain attacks that require spending focus as far as I know so it is really not necessary.

Basically this boils down to popular interpretation and/or your opponent saying "trust me"Nope, since that's the way it works, there doesn't have to be any trust involved at all. The card tells you what to do, it's when you decide that that's not good enough for you that creates this problem in the first place.

The same thing happens with magical attacks never being defined ... only inferred.If the source is magic, and you are making an attack the inference is sufficient for the rule to be evident and for it to be perfectly playable.

dhow tocor
06-14-2010, 02:32 AM
Infernal Confirmation here (http://old.privateerpressforums.com/index.php?showtopic=187917)

Justicator
06-14-2010, 02:34 AM
You're overthinking it. Whatever you expect, it is not the way it is played. It does what it says it does.

Abilities that cost focus to use, say so. Those that do not, don't. Fixating on wanting every specific thing to specify when it does or doesn't is simply silly. Doing power attacks is covered specifically in the rules. When doing a special attack, you spend a focus and sacrifice all your initial attacks. Why? Because it says so.
But it doesn't say so. It is inferred and people have interpretted it that way. I read the rules and my interpretation was different and I daresay more sound. As I outlined in Post #5 of the thread.


If your warbeast, warjack makes a chain attack, it gains the bonuses conveyed on the card. Not all chain attacks are power attacks. Bloodbath isn't. Does it cost a focus to get the benefit of bloodbath? No, you just get as a benefit of the chain attack ability.

Want more evidence? How is Bokur or Seneshcal supposed to slam since it doesn't have focus? It can because it says it can. Just like Chain attacks (which the seneschal has).
I already talked about the Seneschal example. See post #5


This is an excessive expectation since it seems fairly clear. 'without spending focus' is not necessary, since the precedent is set to include the phrase "May spend a focus point" on all other instances, which are generally more rare than abilities that don't cost focus.
There are no chain attacks that require spending focus as far as I know so it is really not necessary.
Unless my interpretation is correct. Then Grab & Smash does indeed require focus. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean you can rely on a pattern. Especially if that pattern provides a possibly incorrect interpretation.


Nope, since that's the way it works, there doesn't have to be any trust involved at all. The card tells you what to do, it's when you decide that that's not good enough for you that creates this problem in the first place.
If the source is magic, and you are making an attack the inference is sufficient for the rule to be evident and for it to be perfectly playable.
If I went by what the card said, Vilmon would be immune to everything since it says "magical ranged and magical melee attacks" ... these things are never defined. It is inferred however (and ruled by a Rules Forum moderator) that a magical attack is made by a magical weapon. This is never defined in the rules or on the card. It's these kinds of imprecision that cause questions like this in the first place.

It is also the imprecision in the language the brings to mind the conflict of interpretation and inference in regards to similarly worded things like Combustion, which if I follow the popular interpretation of Grab and Smash - it makes absolutely no sense that one pays focus for the attacks from Combustion since they use similar language. Whereas my case built on my interpretation of Grab & Smash allows for it and makes sense.

At this point I don't care if I win the debate - popular interpretation seems to win out [primarily because it's popular]. I've just grown annoyed at the lack of precision in the rules of the game. Which is shown by the simple fact that everyone who has counter-argued my position has argued inference and interpretation rather than pointing me to a page in the rulebook that backs up that interpretation - whereas I was able to build a compelling case to the contrary from the rule book.

I'm also annoyed that there isn't an official document of errata and clarifications that I can easily reference when these kinds of things come up.

I shall accept the popular interpretation and move on with my life... I'm sure I'll be back with another case of imprecision soon enough though.

Hjelmen0
06-14-2010, 02:34 AM
dhow, your link needs fixing.

dhow tocor
06-14-2010, 02:36 AM
dhow, your link needs fixing.

It has been fixed.

Kommissar Golovko
06-14-2010, 03:21 AM
I don't see how the word immediately makes any difference. The lack of focus expenditure is all based on inference at best.


It's not the word "immediately" but rather "makes" which is more important here. "Immediately" is just a requirement for the timing. The fact that it can make the power attacks when it should not be able to should already be enough proof for you.

If you go by the rules, normally a model making use of it's initial attacks means it cannot make a Power Attack anymore even if it wanted to. This is because the rules define what kind of attack one can make with a jack or beast. If you use the model's initial attacks, then it cannot make power attacks anymore. If the model makes a power attack which means spending focus, then the initial attacks are used up.

This means that Grab & Smash already bypasses the normal power attack rules which include using focus to make one. Successfully hitting the same target with initial attacks thereby activating Grab & Smash now allows the model "to make (let's remove the word "immediately" for now) a double-hand throw, head-butt, head/weapon/arm lock, push, or throw power attack against that target." Hence, do not be surprised that the benefit is free. It doesn't need focus. It just "makes" any of the aforementioned power attacks, period.

Chad
06-14-2010, 07:32 AM
haley's feat - The ability granted the extra attack, therefore no focus needs to be spent to do it. Spending focus can also grant an extra attack. Just because I spend a focus to get access to an extra attack, I don't have to take it "It can make one additional attack for each focus point it spends." - same language access to an additional attack has been granted.By your logic they should have to spend a focus point. The feat conveys the additional attack because it says it does, otherwise it would be largely worthless as a feat.

But it doesn't say so. It is inferred and people have interpretted it that way. I read the rules and my interpretation was different and I daresay more sound. As I outlined in Post #5 of the thread.You can say more it's sound but asserting it doesn't make it true. There are several different types of chain attacks - Brutality, Grab and Smash, Bloodbath, Death Chill and Smite. None of them require focus to use, but you're hung up on Grab and Smash because it uses a referential term. It lists those that are allowed because it d disallows slams. The 'power attack' is granted as a result of satisfying the requirement stated.

Then Grab & Smash does indeed require focus. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean you can rely on a pattern. Especially if that pattern provides a possibly incorrect interpretation.Honestly I have no idea what this is supposed to say. The patterns are only being used as further evidence to support what is already known. Chain attacks grant what they say they grant.

It is also the imprecision in the language the brings to mind the conflict of interpretation and inference in regards to similarly worded things like Combustion, which if I follow the popular interpretation of Grab and Smash - it makes absolutely no sense that one pays focus for the attacks from Combustion since they use similar language. Whereas my case built on my interpretation of Grab & Smash allows for it and makes sense.No, combustion isn't a chain attack that has a prerequisite to fulfill a granted ability. The combustion language is necessary because the *attack that generates it doesn't exist on a weapon. Without that language, a player wouldn't be allowed to make additional attacks since all additional attacks must be made with the same weapon(s) that were used in the initial attack. Since Combustion has no weapon in it's initial attack it necessitates the addition of a phrase that allows for it.

Your questions about how many attacks, etc. is irrelevant. It is unspecified because the purchase of additional attacks is something that jacks are normally permitted to do. It isn't left intentionally vague because it's imprecise as the clarification is necessary on that particular ability, unlike combo smite, thresher, or armor piercing special attacks which occur on a weapon. All those that don't occur on a weapon have that language, those that do, don't.

At this point I don't care if I win the debate - popular interpretation seems to win out [primarily because it's popular].Perhaps it's popular because virtually everyone else understands and accepts it without trying to find specific flaws in how it's presented. When every other chain attack works without spending focus, including those on models that can't have focus, it is sensible to reason that this one would not. Your Haley example is perfect because it essentially provides an additional case where the language does not explicitly state that it doesn't have to buy the additional attack, it is granted as a result of the feat. Grab and Smash functions the same way in that it is granted as a result of the ability. Neither require focus expenditure.

I shall accept the popular interpretation and move on with my life... I'm sure I'll be back with another case of imprecision soon enough though.There you go. That's looking on the bright side. It seems to me you want it to be perfect, not done well enough to play, or good enough for the vast majority of players to accept, but to your particular needs. In that light, your last statement seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

David_ks
07-10-2010, 02:53 AM
I've tried to find some additional information regarding kodiak's smash and grab but can someone confirm if I have got the right idea:

1) You can throw a stationary model i.e. one affected by PSorcha's feat/ ESorscha's Warjack bond/frostfang crit. I was thinking that I can charge in, auto hit with the 2 initial attacks, which gives a free 2H-throw. My additional query is then, can you dodge getting thrown if you are stationary.

Edit (dodge as in, 2d6 vs 1d6 throw rules) - Do i get a free throw?

dhow tocor
07-10-2010, 03:21 AM
I've tried to find some additional information regarding kodiak's smash and grab but can someone confirm if I have got the right idea:

1) You can throw a stationary model i.e. one affected by PSorcha's feat/ ESorscha's Warjack bond/frostfang crit. I was thinking that I can charge in, auto hit with the 2 initial attacks, which gives a free 2H-throw. My additional query is then, can you dodge getting thrown if you are stationary.

Edit (dodge as in, 2d6 vs 1d6 throw rules) - Do i get a free throw?

The defender still gets to make a strength check. Common sense says otherwise, but making a strength check is not one of the things a stationary model is prevented from doing.

sepher32
07-10-2010, 03:23 AM
BLARGHLBLBLBL

Read card. Do what it says. Make attack, don't pay for it.

FerrusManus
07-10-2010, 03:48 AM
There was link to infernal answering this question 9 posts ago, why this thread is still here.

http://old.privateerpressforums.com/index.php?showtopic=187917 <-- to the people that missed it.