Topic: Two Hurricanums +2 to hit

[Tayrod]

Title says it all ^^ Has anyone tried it? Do you see it as a viable tactic?

[rufus sparkfire]

Sorry, you only get +1 to hit. They don't stack, as stated in the army book.

[pippin_nl]

Sorry, you only get +1 to hit. They don't stack, as stated in the army book.

Wasn't that the PD?

[rufus sparkfire]

Oh, that's right.

Maybe it does stack then.

[Fandir Nightshade]

Auto hit if you would hit on 3+ then?

[pippin_nl]

Auto hit if you would hit on 3+ then?

Quite sure you always need a 2 and you always hit with a 6. Different from to wound, where a 1 can be enough and a 6 not enough.

[Fandir Nightshade]

Not if you have +1 there was this discussion on wounding with the flaming sword on cannons.

[Darknight]

If I had a letter of Kate Beckinsale's address for every implied request for GW to write clear rules, stalking her would be much easier.

[Furball]

To Hit a natural 1 is always a fail. If they do stack, it will be a 2+ roll.

Edit: Page Reference; BRB pg. 50, Paragraph starts with "If you roll too low..."

[Finlay]

I thought 6 was always enough to wound now?

[Fandir Nightshade]

In any case it is a huge investment and overkill.

I think even a 1 will turn to a 2 if you have +1.

[Darknight]

I think even a 1 will turn to a 2 if you have +1.

In the words of Humpty Dumpty to Alice; "I should like to see that written out."

[hochi]

Hmmm i doubt this is viable... i have thought of this too, but then i have thought of other effects like two MR or two ward saves not stacking... but on the other hand armor save stack... any other inputs? if thats the case i will try it with a horde of buffed halberds or knights...
Im always playing opponents who have high weapon skill or at least equal mine so i pretty much never hit 3+ so for me +2 would be 2+ anyways...

[Furball]

Page Reference; BRB pg. 50, Paragraph starts with "If you roll too low..."

Personally, I don't think they do stack, however there is no rule I can see that says otherwise.

[pippin_nl]

I thought 6 was always enough to wound now?

No some monsters like the bale taurus and the k'daai destroyer (T6) have a -1 to wound them. Very nasty!

[rufus sparkfire]

I thought 6 was always enough to wound now?

No some monsters like the bale taurus and the k'daai destroyer (T6) have a -1 to wound them. Very nasty!

What on earth are those? I've never heard of them.

[pippin_nl]

Not if you have +1 there was this discussion on wounding with the flaming sword on cannons.

"Quite sure you always need a 2 and you always hit with a 6. Different from to wound, where a 1 can be enough and a 6 not enough."

Like I said

[Ratarsed]

I thought 6 was always enough to wound now?

No some monsters like the bale taurus and the k'daai destroyer (T6) have a -1 to wound them. Very nasty!

What on earth are those? I've never heard of them.

They are in the Tumarkan and Monster book from forge world. Chaos Dwarf creatures.

[rufus sparkfire]

They are in the Tumarkan and Monster book from forge world. Chaos Dwarf creatures.

Oh. I think I'm very unlikely to encounter those!

[pippin_nl]

They are in the Tumarkan and Monster book from forge world. Chaos Dwarf creatures.

Oh. I think I'm very unlikely to encounter those!

We have 2 Chaos Dwarf players

[Tayrod]

Just for the record; by RAW, it stacks. (I dont know if it auto-hits though). I think this might work great. Two of those big critters are pretty cheap, and they will have greatswords hitting on 2s and wounding on 2s against standard infantry (with re-roll from warrior priests) *drool*

[Rommel44]

Just for the record; by RAW, it stacks. (I dont know if it auto-hits though). I think this might work great. Two of those big critters are pretty cheap, and they will have greatswords hitting on 2s and wounding on 2s against standard infantry (with re-roll from warrior priests) *drool*

Sounds awesome! Better try it out while I can before GW F.A.Q.'s it and says it doesnt stack then .

[Furball]

Just for the record; by RAW, it stacks. (I dont know if it auto-hits though). I think this might work great. Two of those big critters are pretty cheap, and they will have greatswords hitting on 2s and wounding on 2s against standard infantry (with re-roll from warrior priests) *drool*

I will repeat this, it will not auto-hit. BRB pg. 50, Paragraph starts with "If you roll too low...", the paragraph goes onto say (following is not word for word) 'a natural roll of 1 will always fail'. Stacking at the moment is okay, although I wouldn't expect every opponent to be 100% happy with this, but auto-hits are out.

As for tactics, personally I think a better use for two would be a wider range of +1's instead of a short range of +2's.

[Athiuen]

The difference between 'to-hit' and 'to-wound' when it comes to minimums is that, as furball has pointed out 3 times, it is written that a 1 always fails when rolling 'to hit'.  This rule is not present for 'to-wound' rolls.