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.

Here's the battalion:



I do not read that as meaning it is an additional mortal wound but a replacement.

Question: What does this mean for attacks that do more than 1 damage?

On first read I lean to it causing an additional mortal wound. It would neuter the Plagueclaw if not. Should have had another sentence to clarify that though.

Ooh, bummer.
If you're inflicting mortal wounds on a wound roll that would be a success, not making a save goes without saying.
But then...
Yeah, this is about the third time I've typed this out trying to reason around the semantics and inferences.

RAW, it looks like you just get the single mortal wound.

To me, it's pretty clear the intent is that your attack does mortal 'damage' on a 6+ wound roll, and I'd happily let you play that.

I believe RAW it does not replace the normal damage of the weapon. Note it only says "the target immediately suffers a mortal wound" and not anything about said wound replacing the normal damage. See the basic rules which state:

"If the roll equals or beats the attacking weapon's To Wound characteristic, then it causes damage and the opposing player must make a save roll."

The wound roll being a six and dealing a mortal wound does not replace this. However, the tricky part is the sentence "do not make a save roll for the attack" which implies that the mortal wound is supposed to replace the normal damage. However, without anything stating that it means RAW that an attack which rolls a 6 or more to wound will deal and extra mortal wound and no save roll can be made for the regular damage. Which is of course ridiculous.

I am very sure that RAI it works exactly like the locus effect on Plague Drones of Nurgle, especially because it doesn't make sense otherwise.

From the Blast to Ashes rule for Retributors:
If the hit roll for a model attacking....is 6 or more that...inflicts 2 mortal wounds instead of its normal damage. Do not make a wound or save roll for the attack.

Using that as another rule example, the mention of not making a save is not unusual. But in this instance it is for a single unit that only ever does one wound.

The Plague Drones rule is:
If the result of a wound roll made for this unit is 6 or more...inflicting a moral wound on the target in addition to any other damage.

The word "addition" here provides absolute clarity. The way this rule is written is common across multiple warscrolls.

There are two core issues with the rule (general poor writing aside):
1) What is lacking from the Virulent rule is the word "additional" or "instead".
2) The final sentence "Do not make a save roll for the attack".

This is such a convoluted writing of a rule that already exists multiple times elsewhere. What they appear to have done is copy and pasted two separate, but somewhat similar, rules together and not read it back. Instead of just using one of the above examples as appropriate.

I'll email GW but last time it led to nothing.

 ShaneTB wrote:
From the Blast to Ashes rule for Retributors:
If the hit roll for a model attacking....is 6 or more that...inflicts 2 mortal wounds instead of its normal damage. Do not make a wound or save roll for the attack.

Using that as another rule example, the mention of not making a save is not unusual. But in this instance it is for a single unit that only ever does one wound.

The Plague Drones rule is:
If the result of a wound roll made for this unit is 6 or more...inflicting a moral wound on the target in addition to any other damage.

The word "addition" here provides absolute clarity. The way this rule is written is common across multiple warscrolls.

There are two core issues with the rule (general poor writing aside):
1) What is lacking from the Virulent rule is the word "additional" or "instead".
2) The final sentence "Do not make a save roll for the attack".

This is such a convoluted writing of a rule that already exists multiple times elsewhere. What they appear to have done is copy and pasted two separate, but somewhat similar, rules together and not read it back. Instead of just using one of the above examples as appropriate.

I'll email GW but last time it led to nothing.

I agree, but I still think in absense of a GW ruling it would be best to use it like plague drones, simply because that application makes sense whereas the other does not (plagueclaw getting a rend -2, 2d6 damage wound replaced with one mortal being a particularly egregious example).