Alternate Title: Burnas and Dakka Dakka Dakka
This popped up on 4chan, recently. The basic set-up is this:

Dakka Dakka Dakka is a stratagem that generates one extra shot from a ranged weapon for each 6+ to hit result you roll. It's a 1CP stratagem that you play before shooting with a unit.
Most flame weapons, including Burnas, hit automatically. Burnas have D3 hits, but you roll a single dice before shooting and apply the result to the entire unit.

The first and primary loop-hole concept is that, RAW, hitting automatically doesn't actually eliminate the to-hit roll. In practice, the roll is simply skipped for time during a gentleman's match.because it makes the result a forgone conclusion.

Therefore, it is believed that when attempting to fire a flame weapon, you can roll to-hit, without risk, and still use the dice results for the purposes of qualifying for other abilities.

The second "shenanigan" involved is that because both the application of the stratagem and the rolling for number of shots take place in the same "before shooting with the unit" subphase, you as the player can determine the order of events. Therefore, you may determine that a unit of 15 burnas each has 3 shots, and then choose to play Dakka Dakka Dakka.

The end goal is to roll to-hit for 45 automatically hitting shots to produce, on average, in 7-8 extra automatically hitting shots.

Among the resistance to this concept I've seen is:
Insistence that a person simply cannot roll to-hit for a weapon that hits automatically. It just can't happen, as the weapon ability eliminates hit rolls in procedure, not just in practice.
Insistence that if a person does roll to-hit for an automatically hitting weapon, then they automatically miss on a result of 1, resulting in as many misses as extra shots.
Insistence that if a person does roll to-hit for an automatically hitting weapon, then they forgo the automatic hitting ability and miss any shots rolling below their BS.

Counter arguments for performing the roll at all have compared the concept to "rolling for moral when a unit cannot fail a moral roll."
The missing on one sub-arguments have described "automatically hitting" as a modifier to insist that 1s automatically miss, while others have said that every example of a modifiers is a numerical adjustment (+1, -1), and that hitting automatically is a flat ability, not a modifier.

None of what you are saying is making any sense. You don't roll to hit...so why would you reroll? There is also no roll to hit, so how do you roll a 6+ to generate hits?

It's common to roll for morale on Bloodletters even in cases where they can't fail, because if they roll a 6, some slain models are returned to the unit.

I can't see why rolling to trigger abilities with autohit weapons would be any different. It's pretty much the same thing.

As far as the 1s missing goes, I'd say the autohit roll overrrides that. You are rolling to see if abilities are triggered, the hit is a foregone conclusion.

 techsoldaten wrote:
It's common to roll for morale on Bloodletters even in cases where they can't fail, because if they roll a 6, some slain models are returned to the unit.

I can't see why rolling to trigger abilities with autohit weapons would be any different. It's pretty much the same thing.

As far as the 1s missing goes, I'd say the autohit roll overrrides that. You are rolling to see if abilities are triggered, the hit is a foregone conclusion.

The thing is, the Morale Phase explicitly states every unit has to take a Morale test, if any model from the unit was slain. You have to take it, even if you can't fail it.
Totally not comparable, because "This weapon hits automatically" isn't defined anywhere, it could mean "skip the Hit roll" (makes the most sense in the context) or "hit rolls can't miss, so you could skip it".

 Hanskrampf wrote:

The thing is, the Morale Phase explicitly states every unit has to take a Morale test, if any model from the unit was slain. You have to take it, even if you can't fail it.

And this is often skipped in gentlemen's games, especially if a unit has an ability that auto-passes morale.

Yes, the BRB states that you take must take morale tests.

It also states that you roll to-hit when you make a shooting attack, and likewise provides no caveats for not doing so. It does not state, "Most of the time," or say, "Usually," or anything of that nature. It does mention that in some cases, you can fast-roll, but otherwise does not provide nor allow alternatives to hit resolution.

I'd probably allow it until they release an faq on it, as I could definitely see a RAW case made for it. In the case of 45 hits you'd add an average of 7.5 hits. Doesn't seem too bad. Now I doubt that this is RAI and RAW on it is unclear as we have no instruction on how to handle it.

If you don't roll to hit you can't get bonus attacks, as you never have a hit roll. Simples.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:
In the case of 45 hits you'd add an average of 7.5 hits. Doesn't seem too bad.

Let's change the stakes, then. Bear in mind that this Ork example is simply one case. I know multiple armies have flame weapons, and I know multiple armies have exploding hits. I can't, off the top of my head, think of any other. Most of the abilities or stratagems I saw referenced extra attacks in the fight phase. One anonymous poster in another thread mentioned creating a custom IG regiment with Scion doctrines, but without Scion doctrine limitations and taking some IG flame weapons, which seems cheaty to me, but also remember that the Tau codex is on the horizon. It's possible that they could receive a similar stratagem or relic ability for ranged attacks. Grumblewartz brought up re-rolls, out of the blue, but it made me think.

Say for a moment that a 3-man triple-flamer crisis team has access to a Dakka Dakka Dakka equivalent and tries to shoot at a target with 5 markerlights. That grants the shooters re-rolling 1s and +1 to hit. Normally both useless for flamers. But that's also 9D6 shots, which I believe averages to 31/32 shots. +1 to hit means that you're generating extra hits on rolls of both 5 and 6, which, on 30 hits is an average of 10 extra shots. And you can re-roll natural 1s to try and score one or two more 6s. The Burna Boyz example above was a maxed out team, and this example is a minimum Crisis team. A maxed out team could take 9 suits or 27 flamers. They may potentially get an additional +1 to-hit from another source.

Do you still feel the same way about it's legality?

This is one of those attempts at rules lawyering for advantage that just falls flat at a very basic level.

Otherwise, I would say that since you auto-hit then you can't roll unless you're willing to accept the results of all of the dice. This is how warmahordes handles the situation.

I think that if you have a +1 your roll of 6 goes to a 7 and so you dont get the extra shot, you would only get it with a 5 (that goes to a 6) then again im not 100% sure.

Regarding the topic there is nowhere that states that hitting automatically skips the hit roll, skipping it is as valid as overwriting the result, so, even though I would not do it (I play orks) I would allow it... if Burnas get d6 shots in the new codex though, I would be very tempted to use this...

The second fail in the OP is that you surely can't decide how many shots you get before you choose who to fire at. You only do that after declaring the unit is shooting and it's target(s). So you can't play a "before shooting" Stratagem if you've begun the shooting sequence.

TL;DR - let this one stay on 4chan, as it doesn't work.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This is one of those attempts at rules lawyering for advantage that just falls flat at a very basic level.

I think is a legitimate question. Just because it's not how you would do it doesn't make it rules lawyering.

Anyway, I think SinisterSamurai has it right. The rulebook here is mandatory, not permissive:

"Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made".

Now let's look at the weapon profile for this kind of stuff: it says "automatically hits" it does NOT say 'do not roll'. So RAW, you roll and regardless of what you roll, it automatically hits. Nowhere are you actually given permission to skip any part of the process.

I feel like we had this discussion back when 8th was first released.

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This is one of those attempts at rules lawyering for advantage that just falls flat at a very basic level.

I think is a legitimate question. Just because it's not how you would do it doesn't make it rules lawyering.

Anyway, I think SinisterSamurai has it right. The rulebook here is mandatory, not permissive:

"Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made".

Now let's look at the weapon profile for this kind of stuff: it says "automatically hits" it does NOT say 'do not roll'. So RAW, you roll and regardless of what you roll, it automatically hits. Nowhere are you actually given permission to skip any part of the process.

I feel like we had this discussion back when 8th was first released.

Eh, you do you. To me it's obvious that "this weapon hits automatically" means there is no to hit roll made. You only make a to hit roll to see if a shot is successful. If it's automatically successful you don't roll. Self-evident. No roll, no result, no rules triggered by a result.

Luckily this is one to file under "only a problem on the internet", as I doubt I'll meet anyone who tries to claim this as legitimate IRL.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This is one of those attempts at rules lawyering for advantage that just falls flat at a very basic level.

I think is a legitimate question. Just because it's not how you would do it doesn't make it rules lawyering.

Anyway, I think SinisterSamurai has it right. The rulebook here is mandatory, not permissive:

"Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made".

Now let's look at the weapon profile for this kind of stuff: it says "automatically hits" it does NOT say 'do not roll'. So RAW, you roll and regardless of what you roll, it automatically hits. Nowhere are you actually given permission to skip any part of the process.

I feel like we had this discussion back when 8th was first released.

Eh, you do you. To me it's obvious that "this weapon hits automatically" means there is no to hit roll made. You only make a to hit roll to see if a shot is successful. If it's automatically successful you don't roll. Self-evident. No roll, no result, no rules triggered by a result.

Luckily this is one to file under "only a problem on the internet", as I doubt I'll meet anyone who tries to claim this as legitimate IRL.

I'd say that technically they're right with RAW but you're right with obvious RAI. It's self evident you don't need to roll, but they don't bother actually saying don't roll. I don't see getting to roll an auto hitting weapon to search for 6's happening for any tournament or even 99% of games. It seems like the type of thing where they would specify that you still roll to see if you get ancillary effects (they used to do that in previous editions for negative effects like Gets Hot but not for any of the positive effects that I recall offhand).

 doctortom wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This is one of those attempts at rules lawyering for advantage that just falls flat at a very basic level.

I think is a legitimate question. Just because it's not how you would do it doesn't make it rules lawyering.

Anyway, I think SinisterSamurai has it right. The rulebook here is mandatory, not permissive:

"Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made".

Now let's look at the weapon profile for this kind of stuff: it says "automatically hits" it does NOT say 'do not roll'. So RAW, you roll and regardless of what you roll, it automatically hits. Nowhere are you actually given permission to skip any part of the process.

I feel like we had this discussion back when 8th was first released.

Eh, you do you. To me it's obvious that "this weapon hits automatically" means there is no to hit roll made. You only make a to hit roll to see if a shot is successful. If it's automatically successful you don't roll. Self-evident. No roll, no result, no rules triggered by a result.

Luckily this is one to file under "only a problem on the internet", as I doubt I'll meet anyone who tries to claim this as legitimate IRL.

I'd say that technically they're right with RAW but you're right with obvious RAI. It's self evident you don't need to roll, but they don't bother actually saying don't roll. I don't see getting to roll an auto hitting weapon to search for 6's happening for any tournament or even 99% of games. It seems like the type of thing where they would specify that you still roll to see if you get ancillary effects (they used to do that in previous editions for negative effects like Gets Hot but not for any of the positive effects that I recall offhand).

To be fair, in 7th I somewhat recall them specifying it in a FAQ and not the actual rules. They should probably just reissue that FAQ ruling.

They might have speechified some of the things, but Gets Hot they said (either in the rule itself or in a FAQ on it) that you still roll a die to see if the weapon Gets Hot if it didn't normally require a roll to hit (plasma blasts in 7th come to mind)

 doctortom wrote:
They might have speechified some of the things, but Gets Hot they said (either in the rule itself or in a FAQ on it) that you still roll a die to see if the weapon Gets Hot if it didn't normally require a roll to hit (plasma blasts in 7th come to mind)

I think that's what I'm thinking of and it was a FAQ. If they redid something like that for 8th I think it would largely resolve the issue.

 SinisterSamurai wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:
In the case of 45 hits you'd add an average of 7.5 hits. Doesn't seem too bad.

Let's change the stakes, then. Bear in mind that this Ork example is simply one case. I know multiple armies have flame weapons, and I know multiple armies have exploding hits. I can't, off the top of my head, think of any other. Most of the abilities or stratagems I saw referenced extra attacks in the fight phase. One anonymous poster in another thread mentioned creating a custom IG regiment with Scion doctrines, but without Scion doctrine limitations and taking some IG flame weapons, which seems cheaty to me, but also remember that the Tau codex is on the horizon. It's possible that they could receive a similar stratagem or relic ability for ranged attacks. Grumblewartz brought up re-rolls, out of the blue, but it made me think.

Say for a moment that a 3-man triple-flamer crisis team has access to a Dakka Dakka Dakka equivalent and tries to shoot at a target with 5 markerlights. That grants the shooters re-rolling 1s and +1 to hit. Normally both useless for flamers. But that's also 9D6 shots, which I believe averages to 31/32 shots. +1 to hit means that you're generating extra hits on rolls of both 5 and 6, which, on 30 hits is an average of 10 extra shots. And you can re-roll natural 1s to try and score one or two more 6s. The Burna Boyz example above was a maxed out team, and this example is a minimum Crisis team. A maxed out team could take 9 suits or 27 flamers. They may potentially get an additional +1 to-hit from another source.

Do you still feel the same way about it's legality?

Well to be honest the ridiculousness of a thing doesn't represent its legality, but lets entertain this idea for a second. the average of a d6 is 3.5. 27 flamers would average to 94.5 shots. If we just got extra attacks on 6s then we'd get an extra 15.75 attacks for a total of 110.25 hits. If we factor in a +1 to hit then suddenly we get 31.5 extra hits instead of 15.75. This would bring us to 126 hits. With rerolled 1s, on average you will roll as many 1s as 6s which would be 15.75. The number of those that would be 6s is 2.625 bringing us up to 112.875 or 113 hits without a +1. The number of rerolls that would be 5 or 6 would be 5.25 bringing our +1 scenario to 131.25 or 131 total hits.

Would I allow this in a game? Probably actually. Against T4 you're gonna get 47.25 wounds before extra attacks, 65.5 after (with the +1 and rerolls). With a 3+ save we're looking at 15.75 or 16 unsaved wounds before extra attacks or 21.83 so 22 after. With a 2+ save you're reducing those to 8 before or 11 after.

Against the likes of something t5-t7 you're gonna get on average 31.5 wounds before the extra attacks and 43.67 after. Now lets assume a 3+ save. That''l net you 10.5 or 11 unsaved wounds before extra attacks, 14.56 or 15 after. With a 2+ again we're looking at 5 before, 7 after.

Against t8 you're gonna get 15.75 wounds before 21.83 after. With a 3+ we're looking at 5 unsaved before 7 unsaved after. With a 2+ save we've got 3 unsaved before and 4 unsaved after.

For completion's sake I'll add against T3. You'll get 63 wounds before 87.33 after. With a 3+ save that's 21 unsaved before, 29.11 or 29 unsaved after. 2+ save will net you 10.5 or 11 unsaved before, 14.56 or 15 after.

So it can make a large difference but at those numbers you're already doing a good bit of work except t8 2+ save.

Edit- Sidenote, I love d6s they're so much easier to math out the d20s for ttrpgs

Double edit- fixed t3 3+ math.

Triple edit- Also currently you're paying 621 points for a unit that has 27 wounds and can only do the above and only then within 8 inches. Also for every model killed (3 wounds) they lose quite a bit. Of course this might change with the codex, but right now that's an awful lot of eggs to put in one basket.

I'd say that "hits automatically" fairly plainly tells you that it hits without rolling to hit, as opposed to something like "hits regardless of the result of the roll to hit".

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I'd say that "hits automatically" fairly plainly tells you that it hits without rolling to hit, as opposed to something like "hits regardless of the result of the roll to hit".

So if I had a Plasma gun that hit automatically, I wouldn't need to roll gets hot?
Just to clarify.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I'd say that "hits automatically" fairly plainly tells you that it hits without rolling to hit, as opposed to something like "hits regardless of the result of the roll to hit".

So if I had a Plasma gun that hit automatically, I wouldn't need to roll gets hot?
Just to clarify.

Presumably. If you look at streams of offical GW events in the UK, they aren't rolling for flamers at all. Just declaring the hits and rolling for wounds. At the very least not rolling is RAI if not RAW.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
So if I had a Plasma gun that hit automatically, I wouldn't need to roll gets hot?
Just to clarify.

Given that both flamer weapons' automatic hitting and plasma weapons' "gets hot" wordings both appear in the "Abilities" column of their weapon profiles, I'd ask you to show me that weapon.

But if you had a stratagem or other rule and were applying it to a model firing its plasma gun, by RAW I'd agree no hit roll was necessary.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I'd say that "hits automatically" fairly plainly tells you that it hits without rolling to hit, as opposed to something like "hits regardless of the result of the roll to hit".

So if I had a Plasma gun that hit automatically, I wouldn't need to roll gets hot?
Just to clarify.

Presumably. If you look at streams of offical GW events in the UK, they aren't rolling for flamers at all. Just declaring the hits and rolling for wounds. At the very least not rolling is RAI if not RAW.

That in itself is zero evidence. There's no point making the roll if it's going to have zero effect on gameplay. However, if you apply a stratagem which means a roll might have an effect on gameplay, it would make sense.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
I'd say that "hits automatically" fairly plainly tells you that it hits without rolling to hit, as opposed to something like "hits regardless of the result of the roll to hit".

So if I had a Plasma gun that hit automatically, I wouldn't need to roll gets hot?
Just to clarify.

Presumably. If you look at streams of offical GW events in the UK, they aren't rolling for flamers at all. Just declaring the hits and rolling for wounds. At the very least not rolling is RAI if not RAW.

That in itself is zero evidence. There's no point making the roll if it's going to have zero effect on gameplay. However, if you apply a stratagem which means a roll might have an effect on gameplay, it would make sense.

This. You often see them skip rolling for morale on a unit that can't fail, but that doesn't mean that's RAI or RAW.

This seems like it works. Neat find!

Saying that something is obvious or that RAI is not how it works doesnt mean anything, this are rules, and they dont care whether they make sense or not, or if they are obvious or not or whatever, and you cant apply "common sense" to them either, rules are rules and only counts RAW.
Having said that, the only point that could be made against this is that "automatically" means that you dont roll because if not it would say "they hit regardless of the result" instead, but even then you cant be sure about that.
So thats why this is simple, a rule says that you have to roll, and the other doesnt state anywhere that you dont have to roll, so RAW and so how it works as long as a faq is not released is that you can use the stratagem to get more hits.

This sounds like a "general vs specific" issue.
General rule is roll to hit.
Specific rule is Flamers always hit.

As I recall, GW has a long standing metric of Specific overrides General in the rules.

 helgrenze wrote:
This sounds like a "general vs specific" issue.
General rule is roll to hit.
Specific rule is Flamers always hit.

As I recall, GW has a long standing metric of Specific overrides General in the rules.

There's no overriding, though. Auto-hit never says do not roll.

 helgrenze wrote:
This sounds like a "general vs specific" issue.
General rule is roll to hit.
Specific rule is Flamers always hit.

As I recall, GW has a long standing metric of Specific overrides General in the rules.

Yeah, and probably if they faq this then it wont be valid anymore, but the problem is that as long as they dont do it we are stuck with the current rulebook and the current faqs, and with this set of rules, they allow (more than allow, they make you) roll even if the weapon hits automatically

 JNAProductions wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:
This sounds like a "general vs specific" issue.
General rule is roll to hit.
Specific rule is Flamers always hit.

As I recall, GW has a long standing metric of Specific overrides General in the rules.

There's no overriding, though. Auto-hit never says do not roll.

"Automatically" literally means without action, decision or intervention. When it says it hits automatically it is telling us not to roll.

Eh... You can interpret it that way, but there's no part of the Automatically definition that says "DO NOT ROLL". I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it's ambiguous. And ambiguity is not good for a ruleset.

This is ambiguous enough to deserve a FAQ.

 meleti wrote:
This is ambiguous enough to deserve a FAQ.

Email GW on the FAQ Hotline then.

To most it's fairly obvious that it's not ambiguous, but if you feel it is then let them know. More chance of being covered if the Q is FA! The same guy who had to answer "Is zero less than five?" and "Can a vehicle that can't get to a second floor be set up there?" will be overjoyed to answer this too.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 meleti wrote:
This is ambiguous enough to deserve a FAQ.

Email GW on the FAQ Hotline then.

To most it's fairly obvious that it's not ambiguous, but if you feel it is then let them know. More chance of being covered if the Q is FA! The same guy who had to answer "Is zero less than five?" and "Can a vehicle that can't get to a second floor be set up there?" will be overjoyed to answer this too.

Ah so that's why GW write so incompetently bad. To please the FAQ team.

That or GW writers are simply so incompetently bad they can't get anything written clearly and unambiguously.

I think it's obvious that you aren't intended to generate additional attacks with Dakka Dakka Dakka and a burna. I just don't think there's an obvious textual basis for that ruling, which means the easiest thing to do is just toss that into a FAQ at some point so it's clear that's the way the rule works.

Does a weapon that "hits its target automatically" skip making a hit roll, or does it hit its target automatically regardless of the outcome of that roll? Just reading the rules I don't see any reason to favor one option over the other. You could say that "a roll of 1 always fails," but in this same thread people have already noted the "general vs specific" point.

For comparison would a model with a 2+ BS with a +1 to hit flyers always hit a fly model without a minus to hit then as the 1's auto miss is a general rule vrs my specific plus one to hit flyers so I can't miss if specific trumps general. Or does the 1 auto fails trump my ability yo modify it to a 2? I get GW not wanting people to be able to build auto hitting combos but this is all from 1 data slate, I'd feel cheesy as hell for doing it but its little diffrent than throwing dice for a stratageum thats to me clearly not intended to be used on auto hit weapons.

Actually, the rules state that a roll of One Always Fails, Irrespective of modifiers.
(Pg 181 under Shooting, part 4: Resolve Attacks, section 1: Hit Roll.)

So your saying general overrides specific so auto hit would still miss on a 1 then?
I realise this sounds like I'm being pedantic, but I can't see any difference between it between modified by +1 or modified to auto hit if your going to throw dice surely the to hit roll rule of 1's miss regardless must apply?
Or you don't throw dice and as no roll is made you can't roll any 1's.
This picking and choosing interpretationa of general vrs specific just seams like taking what little fun is left in the game and setting fire to it with rules lawyering.

Ice_can wrote:
So your saying general overrides specific so auto hit would still miss on a 1 then?
I realise this sounds like I'm being pedantic, but I can't see any difference between it between modified by +1 or modified to auto hit if your going to throw dice surely the to hit roll rule of 1's miss regardless must apply?
Or you don't throw dice and as no roll is made you can't roll any 1's.
This picking and choosing interpretationa of general vrs specific just seams like taking what little fun is left in the game and setting fire to it with rules lawyering.

You're not recalling all of the rule, which is why you're having a problem. In your +1 scenario, the general rule is that a 1 fails irrespective of modifiers. This isn't a case of general overriding specific, the +1 simply does not override the irrespective of modifiers portion of the rule because it doesn't say it does.

"Automatically hits" does because it's much more broad and is not a modifier as GW commonly uses the term.

Given that the "Roll of One" rule includes the word 'Always" and the phrase "Irrespective of any modifiers", your point is moot.
This is a very specific rule.

And yes, on weapons that automatically hit, no roll is made so you cannot roll a One.

Consider this, in the OP they know they have 45 hits guaranteed, why would you attempt to roll that many To Hit dice with Orks? With a BS of 5+, they would miss more than half to get maybe a few more shots beyond that half.
Better to go with the sure thing.

As written, I'd say yes. Extra hits.

However, I think if GW faq'd it, they'd give you a no. They always default towards the most simplistic option possible - even when the technicality is correct.

I can't see why all you guys are such unfun opponents that you're really that up in arms about an uncompetative Orc unit getting a wopping 7ish extra strength 4 attacks when it's already got around 30, using a stratagem that everyone universally regards as utterly useless due to the fact it's 90% of the time no better than just using the single re-roll out the BRB.

Seriously.

Or are we afraid of Eldar losing their place in the top of the meta to Orks running massive units of DakkaDakka burners?

I've seen what massed Burnas can do to an army, especially if you put them in Trukks.

There are plenty of words for it... pretty ain't one.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I can't see why all you guys are such unfun opponents that you're really that up in arms about an uncompetative Orc unit getting a wopping 7ish extra strength 4 attacks when it's already got around 30, using a stratagem that everyone universally regards as utterly useless due to the fact it's 90% of the time no better than just using the single re-roll out the BRB.

Seriously.

Or are we afraid of Eldar losing their place in the top of the meta to Orks running massive units of DakkaDakka burners?

Because mechanics don't impact one unit or one army. You make the rule now that auto hits roll to hit and trigger effects and it's now a part of the whole game impacting other future potential things. You can't look at these mechanics in a vacuum.

 Lance845 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I can't see why all you guys are such unfun opponents that you're really that up in arms about an uncompetative Orc unit getting a wopping 7ish extra strength 4 attacks when it's already got around 30, using a stratagem that everyone universally regards as utterly useless due to the fact it's 90% of the time no better than just using the single re-roll out the BRB.

Seriously.

Or are we afraid of Eldar losing their place in the top of the meta to Orks running massive units of DakkaDakka burners?

Because mechanics don't impact one unit or one army. You make the rule now that auto hits roll to hit and trigger effects and it's now a part of the whole game impacting other future potential things. You can't look at these mechanics in a vacuum.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to have any rolls to see if secondary effects trigger on weapons that hit automatically, like Gets Hot...

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I can't see why all you guys are such unfun opponents that you're really that up in arms about an uncompetative Orc unit getting a wopping 7ish extra strength 4 attacks when it's already got around 30, using a stratagem that everyone universally regards as utterly useless due to the fact it's 90% of the time no better than just using the single re-roll out the BRB.

Seriously.

Or are we afraid of Eldar losing their place in the top of the meta to Orks running massive units of DakkaDakka burners?

Because mechanics don't impact one unit or one army. You make the rule now that auto hits roll to hit and trigger effects and it's now a part of the whole game impacting other future potential things. You can't look at these mechanics in a vacuum.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to have any rolls to see if secondary effects trigger on weapons that hit automatically, like Gets Hot...

I haven't said at all if i was in support of one side of the argument or the other yet. Ive just been reading it so far. I was simply saying that this argument isn't about orks getting a few extra hits. It has broader implications.

And I was pointing out that for another situation they had done it before. You can look at what broad implications came out from that.

But interpreting the rules one way or another simply based on what implications it would have is (though practical) not correct, rules should be interpreted only based on what is written IMO

So far as what the rules say, it should be entirely unambiguous. As I said earlier, for something to be automatic requires no manual input, action or decision making, so by saying, "This weapon hits automatically" it's telling us there is no roll to hit. It simply would not be automatic if we were to roll the dice, even if we disregard the result. Accordingly the stratagem does not work on such weapons.

However, this is a departure from previous editions where such effects generally would proc from a separate dice roll, and so I understand why losing out on the ability for the stratagem to work feels wrong. I think accordingly it's worth an FAQ from Games Workshop to determine just how far they wish such abilities to be tied only to the roll to hit, or whether indeed a return to the previous way it worked is appropriate for such situations.

 meleti wrote:
This is ambiguous enough to deserve a FAQ.

Why do you say that - I feel the exact opposite.

"However, this is a departure from previous editions where such effects generally would proc from a separate dice roll, and so I understand why losing out on the ability for the stratagem to work feels wrong. I think accordingly it's worth an FAQ from Games Workshop to determine just how far they wish such abilities to be tied only to the roll to hit, or whether indeed a return to the previous way it worked is appropriate for such situations."

No way, let them focus on answering legitimate questions.

It's crystal clear that if you hit automatically you don't roll to hit, therefore there is no hit roll result, and as such no effects/abilities based on the hit roll can be triggered... because there is no hit roll to trigger them!

What is ambiguous about that? Absolutely nothing.

What needs an FAQ about that? Absolutely nothing.

Oh man I sense another '"During" vs "At the end of" the phase' threads coming!

Guys if you auto hit you don't need to roll, c'mon now. Common sense.

If someone rolled to hit me with a weapon that hits automatically I would immediately pack up my models and leave, ensuring I never lost sight of the opposing player at all times, until I was safely away.

100% agree with that. If it's automatic you aren't rolling. The act of rolling means it is not automatic.

If you are allowed to proc extra attacks, wouldn't that means the hits are not actually automatic anymore?

And seriously does this game need MORE dice rolling?

Not rolling is indeed the only possible correct answer here. I just think that those weapon profiles should be changed to "this weapon hits its target automatically without making a hit roll" or something similar.

 Marmatag wrote:

And seriously does this game need MORE dice rolling?

Preach man what is it with 8th and roll 20 or more dice, then reroll, then wound and then reroll, now roll saves then damage then fnp thats 6 rolls for one units shooting, that just takes time no matter how speed player you are.

Noone needs more pointless rolling for some obviously unintended use of a stratageum.

I think its actually a waste of the CP to use the strat on an autohit weapon.
Orks BS of 5+ means that on a Shoota boyz mob 1/3 to 1/2 of your hits are going to trigger the effect, If they Advanced, then All hits will trigger the strat.
In a maxed Mob that's 30 orks with 60 shots, giving Way better odds of overkill. Even if only 1/3 actually hit (20 hits) and half of those trigger the strat , that's +10 shots.
70 shots total at S4 is gonna kill something even if only 25 actually hit anything.
Using it on a flamer type weapon for maybe 7 extra hits just seems like a waste. And given the Orks WS that 7 is being generous.

Just because we don't roll out of a sense of saving time and energy doesn't mean you're not supposed to. Auto doesn't mean skip (consult a dictionary to prove it). The Shooting rule in the BRB is mandatory and that's RAW.

I see a disturbing lack of citations from the 'no rolling' crowd.

Ok, how about this one..."happening or existing through the operation of a preexisting arrangement that is triggered by some event"?
That definition work for you?

Of course my point above about using the CP on a strat that is reliant on a roll for a weapon that does not require same is still valid. It's a waste of the CP.

As for the definition fitting the case at hand....
The 'automatic hits' are triggered by the event of declaring the target of the weapons used. No other action need be made for the hits to occur, only rolling the die to determine how many hits actually occur.

Whew, been gone for a bit, and I come back to.... a lot.

Grotsnik1 wrote:I think that if you have a +1 your roll of 6 goes to a 7 and so you dont get the extra shot, you would only get it with a 5 (that goes to a 6) then again im not 100% sure.

The extra hits don't trigger on a dice roll of 6, but on a hit roll of 6+. boosted hit rolls of 6 and 7 would both qualify for the extra hit. Likewise, shooting at stealth armies make the extra shots impossible to proc, automatic hits or no, and also widens the threat range for a gets hot wound.

JohnnyHell wrote:The second fail in the OP is that you surely can't decide how many shots you get before you choose who to fire at. You only do that after declaring the unit is shooting and it's target(s). So you can't play a "before shooting" Stratagem if you've begun the shooting sequence.

I'll be honest, here. I definitely feel like the order of operations argument is the weakest argument, RAW, for the above strategy. But your particular argument here about target selection I believe to be flawed. While I'm not certain of the following, I was under the impression that a recent FAQ had ruled in a similar situation: when shooting a particular unit with a randomized STR, a player could determine the strength of the shot before determining the target of the shooting, so as to not waste STR 2 on tanks or STR 12 on grots. I don't see why determining an attribute "before shooting," would be allowed in one case, but not another, but you are free to rail against it.

If indeed attribute selection happens before target selection, or similarly before a particular unit shoots, then the weak link in the order of operations is that you use the stratagem you use it before shooting, but I believe selecting a weapon clearly comes after selecting a unit for shooting. The question then, is when exactly determining a weapon's attributes happens, vs when "before an...unit...shoots in your Shooting phase," ends.

JohnnyHell wrote:If you don't roll to hit you can't get bonus attacks, as you never have a hit roll. Simples.

Mr. Shine wrote:I'd say that "hits automatically" fairly plainly tells you that it hits without rolling to hit, as opposed to something like "hits regardless of the result of the roll to hit".

helgrenze wrote:And yes, on weapons that automatically hit, no roll is made so you cannot roll a One.

Marmatag wrote:100% agree with that. If it's automatic you aren't rolling. The act of rolling means it is not automatic.

I'd interpreted it as they hit regardless of rolls. But I can tell from your multiple, passionate responses that the issue is sure to be emotionally divisive, which ultimately, is what I wanted to know. I'm not trying to make enemies at my local scene, but I was curious as to the legality of the stratagem, anyway.

Marmatag wrote:If you are allowed to proc extra attacks, wouldn't that means the hits are not actually automatic anymore?

Seeing as almost all flamers have a random number of attacks to start with, I don't see this argument as particularly having merit.

And seriously does this game need MORE dice rolling?

I don't find your impatience at general rolling as being particularly relevant to the legality of the specific rolling. It sounds like you are arguing about how things SHOULD work as opposed to how they DO work. However, noted.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:I can't see why all you guys are such unfun opponents that you're really that up in arms about an uncompetative Orc unit getting a wopping 7ish extra strength 4 attacks when it's already got around 30, using a stratagem that everyone universally regards as utterly useless due to the fact it's 90% of the time no better than just using the single re-roll out the BRB.
Seriously.
Or are we afraid of Eldar losing their place in the top of the meta to Orks running massive units of DakkaDakka burners?

I provided an example mid-thread about Tau getting a similar stratagem, and applying it to flamers and targets with 5 markerlights (reroll 1s, +1 to hit). I think it's amazing to imagine Orks generating extra shots while shouting DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA because another ork slightly mishears the onomatopoeia and actually believes the extra shot to have been fired. I think it's hilarious to think that a Burna biy is so dumb that HE hears "Dakka," and is so used to associating it with heavier shooting that his flamer gouts more fire, despite sounding like a machinegun instead of a WHOOSH.

But at the end of the day, none of that has any bearing on legality.

An Actual Englishman wrote:Guys if you auto hit you don't need to roll, c'mon now.

Not needing to roll and not being allowed to roll are two very different stances.

helgrenze wrote:I think its actually a waste of the CP to use the strat on an autohit weapon.
Orks BS of 5+ means that on a Shoota boyz mob 1/3 to 1/2 of your hits are going to trigger the effect, If they Advanced, then All hits will trigger the strat.
In a maxed Mob that's 30 orks with 60 shots, giving Way better odds of overkill. Even if only 1/3 actually hit (20 hits) and half of those trigger the strat , that's +10 shots.
70 shots total at S4 is gonna kill something even if only 25 actually hit anything.
Using it on a flamer type weapon for maybe 7 extra hits just seems like a waste. And given the Orks WS that 7 is being generous.

Sure, against an appropriate target, you are simply creating more overkill. However, you and I both know that situations arise where the most efficient target is not always the target available to you. You are correct that 60+10 shots is more than 45+7 shots. But then again, that's 20+4 hits vs 45+7 hits before the dice suffer wounding/save attrition, which can make the difference against some targets of opportunity. Even knocking a heavier tank down one statblock can make a difference on the rest of a game.

Audustum wrote:Just because we don't roll out of a sense of saving time and energy doesn't mean you're not supposed to. Auto doesn't mean skip (consult a dictionary to prove it). The Shooting rule in the BRB is mandatory and that's RAW.

I see a disturbing lack of citations from the 'no rolling' crowd.

Ultimately, I agree with this, but this is clearly divisive enough that I'd have to run the concept by an opponent or TO first. The ones who are more welcoming of shake ups and variety are more likely to accept.

 helgrenze wrote:
Ok, how about this one..."happening or existing through the operation of a preexisting arrangement that is triggered by some event"?
That definition work for you?

Of course my point above about using the CP on a strat that is reliant on a roll for a weapon that does not require same is still valid. It's a waste of the CP.

As for the definition fitting the case at hand....
The 'automatic hits' are triggered by the event of declaring the target of the weapons used. No other action need be made for the hits to occur, only rolling the die to determine how many hits actually occur.

See the bolded part? That's the part you have no RAW for and the RAW for shooting (quoted on page 1) directly contradicts. Shooting attacks must roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SinisterSamurai wrote:
Whew, been gone for a bit, and I come back to.... a lot.

Audustum wrote:Just because we don't roll out of a sense of saving time and energy doesn't mean you're not supposed to. Auto doesn't mean skip (consult a dictionary to prove it). The Shooting rule in the BRB is mandatory and that's RAW.

I see a disturbing lack of citations from the 'no rolling' crowd.

Ultimately, I agree with this, but this is clearly divisive enough that I'd have to run the concept by an opponent or TO first. The ones who are more welcoming of shake ups and variety are more likely to accept.

Yeah, sure, ask TO's. I am always in favor of FAQ's answering more rather than less too.

So by this logic, a Thunderfire Cannon which can "Target models that are not visible...", Can fire on Units held in reserve.
There is no RAW that denies this so it can be played that way.

 helgrenze wrote:
So by this logic, a Thunderfire Cannon which can "Target models that are not visible...", Can fire on Units held in reserve.
There is no RAW that denies this so it can be played that way.

Are the units within range? Because if not, there's your RAW that denies it.

Not really. TFC is 60" range, and there is no rule saying that a unit has to be on the table to be targetted.
It's just accepted that models not in the field of play cannot be targetted.
Why? because it makes better sense than the alternative.

The idea in the OP and some of the subsequent posts come across as manipulating the rules for an advantage.
Consider this... If a Sisters Army tried to use the same type of logic with all their flame weapons, would you allow it?

And how exactly are you going to keep your reserves out of range of an earth shaker cannon. Keeping reserve's more than 20 ft away from any table is totaly impractical.

Audustum wrote:
Just because we don't roll out of a sense of saving time and energy doesn't mean you're not supposed to. Auto doesn't mean skip (consult a dictionary to prove it). The Shooting rule in the BRB is mandatory and that's RAW.

I see a disturbing lack of citations from the 'no rolling' crowd.

For this issue to be "disturbing" to you, well, I worry a little... that's blowing things out of proportion just a little. Hyperbole is rarely helpful in a discussion.

Please contact GW if you believe auto hits require a pointless roll. I can tell you exactly what their answer will be. It won't be that you're correct.

Let's face it, nobody questioned it til some internet dweller decided they been Clever +1000 and found a new 'loophole'. Only they haven't, as it's accepted by 99% of the player base that auto-hit weapons don't roll. If that isn't spelled out to your satisfaction, that's tough I'm afraid. Consensus is that they don't roll. So this 'tactic' is simply not one.

Feel free to keep defending this indefensible position if you like (that ham feline insect chap doesn't seem to be around to do it today, good of you to cover) but you need to accept that weapons that auto hit don't roll to hit, so can't generate anything from the hit roll... because one does not happen.

It's not even accepted by 99% of people in this thread. - Hyperbole appears to be your tool, here.

The roll isn't pointless by the virtue that it might in fact, create extra shots.

No-one questions new ideas until someones had them. Has everyone already forgotten the Ogyrn party bus to name a notorious example? The entire thread about 'End of Phase?'

Your last line just appears to be an attack on a fellow poster. Isn't that against the rules?

This thread is no barometer for consensus. I've never met a player who thinks you need to roll for an auto-hit weapon. The first time I've seen it raised is this thread. It's so obvious it barely merits discussion, yet some are intent on adopting that position regardless. Eh, you do you.

I haven't forgotten the Ogryn Party Bus (I think that's a term I coined haha) - that is also so obviously not intended or allowed, but doesn't stop people trying to weld rules together to make it appear to work. But that's a discussion for that thread.

Anyway, if you find it ambiguous go email GW. In the meantime, I doubt you'll find players who attempt to hit rolls for auto-hit weapons in the wild. If you do, you know who not to play again. Simples.

This the most "that guy" thread I have ever seen. OP would not be winning any personality awards trying to pull this where I play.

I find it really funny because dakka dakka dakka is not the sound a flamer weapon makes and its not like you can fire another bullet of flame.

Let's break it down properly -

A shooting attack as the BRB is a single shot from a weapon.
Weapon profiles detail how many shooting attacks you may make with that weapon.
Flamer weapons, in their weapon profile state Assault D6 (or with ork burnas Assault D3). In their specific rules they normally state "this weapon automatically hits its target".
If you automatically hit your target I would claim it is impossible to roll a 1 or a 6 to hit because you can hit things that would otherwise be impossible to hit (Alaitoc planes for orks as an example). Similarly if you rolled a 1 that always misses according to the rules, you still hit the target so the auto hit rule seems to supercede rolls.

There is also the question of where it ends.
Since the Strategem seems to state that for every to hit roll of a 6+ you get another shot.
Ok... Lets say your opponent allows you this, you roll well and get 24 6s out of the proposed 45. You get another 24 shots. Then you roll another 12 6s....and so on, halving the number of 6s rolled each time, until you have amassed 90 or so hits?
There is nothing in the RAW that prevents this as it is not a reroll.

The term for the above example is usually refered to as "Munchkining" for a reason.

 helgrenze wrote:
There is also the question of where it ends.
Since the Strategem seems to state that for every to hit roll of a 6+ you get another shot.
Ok... Lets say your opponent allows you this, you roll well and get 24 6s out of the proposed 45. You get another 24 shots. Then you roll another 12 6s....and so on, halving the number of 6s rolled each time, until you have amassed 90 or so hits?
There is nothing in the RAW that prevents this as it is not a reroll.

The term for the above example is usually refered to as "Munchkining" for a reason.

To be fair I believe dakka dakka dakka does say that the extra shots can't generate extra shots themselves.

That's ok, I just now spotted the flaw in the OP.

A Burna gets ONE SHOT that auto hits for up to 3 hits.
So, the op would only get 15 SHOTS with a potential of 45 hits not 45 SHOTS. He would be rolling 15 dice, not 45 to try to generate the needed 6s.
Dakkax3 grants extra SHOTS on a roll of 6, which, lets face it, probably means a max of 3 extras... And the hits from those would have to be rolled seperately as they do not occur at the time of the original shots being "additional shots".

Could that mean an extra 15 hits? Maybe. It could also mean an extra 3.

The burna is Assault D3 man, it has D3 shots.

I think the flaw with the OP is more the fact that auto hitting seems to supercede any dice rolling to hit. I believe this to be the case because even if you rolled and you got a 1 you don't miss, despite 1s always missing. If the dice have no effect in terms of hitting when using auto hit weapons, they shouldn't have any effect when used with stratagems with auto hit weapons either.

JohnnyHell wrote:This thread is no barometer for consensus. I've never met a player who thinks you need to roll for an auto-hit weapon. The first time I've seen it raised is this thread. It's so obvious it barely merits discussion, yet some are intent on adopting that position regardless. Eh, you do you.

I think the concept is fairly new, but if you'd like an "in the wild" consensus, try asking other players at your club what they think of it. As you say, Dakka Dakka doesn't exactly have a ton of exposure.

If you do, you know who not to play again. Simples.

Personally, I think I'd rather play with an opponent that realizes it's a game, and is willing to try new things for fun than an opponent who views opinions and interpretations of throughput as bars for entry into some exclusive club, but as you say, You do you.

An Actual Englishman wrote:This the most "that guy" thread I have ever seen. OP would not be winning any personality awards trying to pull this where I play.
I find it really funny because dakka dakka dakka is not the sound a flamer weapon makes and its not like you can fire another bullet of flame.

I appreciate your stunning personality analysis. I will never attempt to "surprise" an opponent with a controversial reading of the rules.
Yes, Dakka Dakka Dakka is the sound of a machine gun, and not a flamer. I mentioned this earlier in the thread. Grenades also do not make a Dakka noise, yet I'm pretty sure you'd be "That Guy," if you used that as an argument to claim that it can't apply to grenade throws without a strong rules basis for it.

Let's break it down properly -

A shooting attack as the BRB is a single shot from a weapon.
Weapon profiles detail how many shooting attacks you may make with that weapon.
Flamer weapons, in their weapon profile state Assault D6 (or with ork burnas Assault D3). In their specific rules they normally state "this weapon automatically hits its target".

I'm with you so far.

If you automatically hit your target I would claim it is impossible to roll a 1 or a 6 to hit because you can hit things that would otherwise be impossible to hit (Alaitoc planes for orks as an example). Similarly if you rolled a 1 that always misses according to the rules, you still hit the target so the auto hit rule seems to supercede rolls.

I personally think you're piling a bunch of extra interpretations onto the four words, "This weapon hits automatically," to get, "This weapon hits automatically and therefore cannot roll to-hit," but perhaps I am personally not loading enough interpretations onto it.

helgrenze wrote:There is also the question of where it ends.
Since the Strategem seems to state that for every to hit roll of a 6+ you get another shot.
Ok... Lets say your opponent allows you this, you roll well and get 24 6s out of the proposed 45. You get another 24 shots.

Yes.

Then you roll another 12 6s....and so on, halving the number of 6s rolled each time, until you have amassed 90 or so hits?
There is nothing in the RAW that prevents this as it is not a reroll.
The term for the above example is usually refered to as "Munchkining" for a reason.

Dakka Dakka Dakka, and most similar stratagems, psychic powers or abilities limit the additional shots to not further propagate additional shots. But if they didn't, then it's very likely yes. Extra shots resulting from 6+s could theoretically generate an infinite number of shots with enough good rolling.

helgrenze wrote:That's ok, I just now spotted the flaw in the OP.

A Burna gets ONE SHOT that auto hits for up to 3 hits.
So, the op would only get 15 SHOTS with a potential of 45 hits not 45 SHOTS. He would be rolling 15 dice, not 45 to try to generate the needed 6s.
Dakkax3 grants extra SHOTS on a roll of 6, which, lets face it, probably means a max of 3 extras... And the hits from those would have to be rolled seperately as they do not occur at the time of the original shots being "additional shots".

Could that mean an extra 15 hits? Maybe. It could also mean an extra 3.

1st of all, now you're just taking the piss. I suppose a rack of missiles is just one shot with a bunch of hits? You gotta be kidding me. The brb is pretty clear about what a shot is, and what's not.
2nd of all, if you are attempting to define a single "shot" as a single weapon firing all of its attacks, then each hit roll of 6+ just means that you'd fire the entire weapon over again since the stratagems generate an extra shots, not extra hits.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This the most "that guy" thread I have ever seen. OP would not be winning any personality awards trying to pull this where I play.

I find it really funny because dakka dakka dakka is not the sound a flamer weapon makes and its not like you can fire another bullet of flame.

So your first sentence is a general all out insult of anyone who disagrees with your interepreation of notoriously badly written rules.
Okay.

Your second sentence implies, and let me get this correct, That if the fluffy name of the rule does not connect with the noise you imagine the guns to make, the rule doesn't apply?

Like what? Missile launchers seriously, Ahem, "Rokit launcha's" don't go 'DakkaDakkaDakka' either. Does the stratagem also not work on them? What about Zzap guns? [I don't know about you, but I always presumed they went Zzzaaap.]

I know we're going to agree to disagree here, but behaving like this does nothing but undermine your case entirely.

I'm going to apologize for my last comment. Lack of sleep/meds can addle the brain some. Wish the insomnia wasn't a side effect...
I misread some info in the BRB and .... That post was wrong.

However, in the days of Templates, these weapons did have one shot with hits being determined by the number of models under the 'plate. These also 'automatically hit'. No roll needed. I could dig out my Rogue Trader books to see if that effect was present then but .. not really worth the effort.

Something that comes to mind though, If a Burna unit Advances and fires, ALL the shots fired could technically be 'counted as' having rolled a 6 to hit. No roll needed since they auto hit and Advancing modifies the to hit roll to a 6+. This would double the number of shots fired, which would also auto hit.
At which point some-one is going to start making accusations.

 SinisterSamurai wrote:
I appreciate your stunning personality analysis. I will never attempt to "surprise" an opponent with a controversial reading of the rules.
Yes, Dakka Dakka Dakka is the sound of a machine gun, and not a flamer. I mentioned this earlier in the thread. Grenades also do not make a Dakka noise, yet I'm pretty sure you'd be "That Guy," if you used that as an argument to claim that it can't apply to grenade throws without a strong rules basis for it.

This entire topic is a pretty controversial reading of the rules with a view to gain an advantage over your opponent and use a stratagem where really shouldn't be played. Sounds pretty "That Guy" to me.
Feel free to stop strawmanning with regards the sound thing, it was an aside.

I personally think you're piling a bunch of extra interpretations onto the four words, "This weapon hits automatically," to get, "This weapon hits automatically and therefore cannot roll to-hit," but perhaps I am personally not loading enough interpretations onto it.

It's not my interpretation though. It's the rules straight out of the BRB and other documents. Rolls of 1 to hit always miss. Currently a target can stack negative to hit modifiers so it can be impossible to hit (7+ on a D6). These all fall within the rules and are extremely clear. If a weapon automatically hits it's target, in order to correctly follow the full rules (1s always miss, auto 7+ is a miss) I would suggest the correct play is not to roll at all. Lets say you roll, despite the auto hit. If you roll a 1 you auto miss. But you automatically hit? So we are in a rule-loop. Which is correct?

The argument for with reference to Daemons and morale is weak because RAW we are supposed to roll even when we will auto pass a morale test. This is not the same thing, it's not even the same phase. If a daemonic unit had the rule "this unit automatically passes morale tests" I would suggest, again, that you do not roll regardless of a potential benefit for doing so.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
So your first sentence is a general all out insult of anyone who disagrees with your interepreation of notoriously badly written rules.
Okay.

No. Do you struggle with general reading comprehension and interpretation? My first sentence is a statement that this topic is something I would consider the epitome of what "That Guy" would do (seek unfair/dubious advantage).

Your second sentence implies, and let me get this correct, That if the fluffy name of the rule does not connect with the noise you imagine the guns to make, the rule doesn't apply?

Again, no. My second sentence is another statement regarding me finding humour in this topic because the sound after which the stratagem is named "Dakka Dakka Dakka" is not something I would apply to a flamer weapon. Perhaps you should do less strawman and focus more on the actual part of my post where I discussed the rules and their implications in detail?

 helgrenze wrote:
So by this logic, a Thunderfire Cannon which can "Target models that are not visible...", Can fire on Units held in reserve.
There is no RAW that denies this so it can be played that way.

Uh, no? You seem like you're having conversations with posts that aren't even in this thread. We're not talking about an Air Bud scenario ("no rule says a dog can't play basketball"). We're talking about a scenario where the rule is explicit: all shooting attacks must roll. It's right there in the main book. You're looking left when we're going right.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Just because we don't roll out of a sense of saving time and energy doesn't mean you're not supposed to. Auto doesn't mean skip (consult a dictionary to prove it). The Shooting rule in the BRB is mandatory and that's RAW.

I see a disturbing lack of citations from the 'no rolling' crowd.

For this issue to be "disturbing" to you, well, I worry a little... that's blowing things out of proportion just a little. Hyperbole is rarely helpful in a discussion.

Please contact GW if you believe auto hits require a pointless roll. I can tell you exactly what their answer will be. It won't be that you're correct.

Yes, we get it. Your local meta is perfectly in sync with you. If you want to play the 'predict' GW's answer game, I can say they've never ruled the opposite of how I'd guess they'd rule in a FAQ ever, but you trying to start a "well GW won't ever say that" is the YMDC equivalent of "na-uh" / "ya-huh" playground banter.

Let's look at the tenants of YMDC for why we're here, yes?

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).

It's pretty clear the OP wants to talk about RAW in this thread, not HYWPI.

Let's face it, nobody questioned it til some internet dweller decided they been Clever +1000 and found a new 'loophole'. Only they haven't, as it's accepted by 99% of the player base that auto-hit weapons don't roll. If that isn't spelled out to your satisfaction, that's tough I'm afraid. Consensus is that they don't roll. So this 'tactic' is simply not one.

Riiiight, cause since you never heard anyone question it before it never came up before. Certainly was never FAQ'd in 7th regarding "Gets Hot" or anything, no. GW certainly didn't say you have to roll to see in that case, absolutely not.

The only consensus in this thread is there isn't one.

Feel free to keep defending this indefensible position if you like (that ham feline insect chap doesn't seem to be around to do it today, good of you to cover) but you need to accept that weapons that auto hit don't roll to hit, so can't generate anything from the hit roll... because one does not happen.

Back to the Tenants it is:

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.

So give me the RAW saying "automatic" means 'no roll', because shooting says explicitly: "Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made"

Which is ridiculous. You do you. I know how people actually play auto-hit weapons. Enjoy the pointless thread. ;-)

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Which is ridiculous. You do you. I know how people actually play auto-hit weapons. Enjoy the pointless thread. ;-)

That's fine. And if you ever care to visit my meta: be prepared to roll.

What happens when you roll your automatic hit and roll a "1"? There is an explicit rule that states that a roll of "1" is always a miss. There is no rule that says which has precedent so the game must stop and end.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What happens when you roll your automatic hit and roll a "1"? There is an explicit rule that states that a roll of "1" is always a miss. There is no rule that says which has precedent so the game must stop and end.

Welcome to hell my friend.

I agree with this and have made the same point above. I've yet to see it addressed.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What happens when you roll your automatic hit and roll a "1"? There is an explicit rule that states that a roll of "1" is always a miss. There is no rule that says which has precedent so the game must stop and end.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What happens when you roll your automatic hit and roll a "1"? There is an explicit rule that states that a roll of "1" is always a miss. There is no rule that says which has precedent so the game must stop and end.

Welcome to hell my friend.

I agree with this and have made the same point above. I've yet to see it addressed.

Specific overrides general. The specific ability of "automatically hits" overrides the general rule of rolling a 1 always missing.

First of all I wont even adress the childish comments that were writen in the post because lets face it, is just how immature people react when they dont have real arguments to support their point of view.
Secondly, im with those whose opinion is in favor of being able to roll.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What happens when you roll your automatic hit and roll a "1"? There is an explicit rule that states that a roll of "1" is always a miss. There is no rule that says which has precedent so the game must stop and end.

Now, I will conceed though that you are right, there would be a weird interaction between these two rules, and there is nowhere in the rulebook (at least that I could find) that says that specific overrides general (though this is nornally how everything is played), yet again the closest answer to this that I found is this:

Q: If a model uses a weapon that always wounds on a
set value, but the roll required to successfully wound
the model is worse than if that model were fighting
using its basic Strength characteristic, what roll to
wound is required?
A: The value described in the weapon’s abilities
takes precedence.
For example, if a Grotesque (with a Strength characteristic of
5) attacked an enemy unit with a Toughness characteristic of
3 using its flesh gauntlet, it would successfully wound that
unit on rolls of 4+, even though its Strength is greater than the
target’s Toughness.

I know is not exactly the same but is pretty simillar, I mean, regardless of having BS of 5+ and that 1s are auto-miss you have to use the weapons "automatical hitting"

The issue really, as I have said already, is determining whether automatic means "dont roll because it hits" or "hits regardless of the roll". And as there is no way of knowing which is the correct one then we only have this ambiguity and a rule that says that every time you shoot you have to make a roll; and so im in favor of using the stratagem with autohiting weapons.

In the end anyways its clear that this will be in the hands of the TO

Yeah, specific over general isn't in the rulebook, it's just something the game requires to work. For instance, weapons that always wound on a roll of X conflict with the wound chart. Why doesn't this break the game? Specific overrides general.

Why can IG super tanks shoot while in close combat? They have an ability that conflicts with the core rules. Specific overrides general.

Why can Imperial Knights walk out of combat and still shoot without Fly? Their ability conflicts with core rules. Specific overrides general.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. It's just something we have to do for the game to work.

All of the rules you site are specific to those weapons and noted to be exceptions to the general rules. Rolling to hit for a weapon that has the automatically hit rule seems to mean either the player is forgoing the automatic hit to pursue some benefit or is breaking the rules for his weapon.

If you want to go with automatic hit does not mean don't roll then you have to use all of the rules for rolling to hit otherwise it doesn't make any sense to say you automatically hit but ignore automatic misses. There is no rule for the weapon that says if you roll ignore automatic misses. The rule says that a roll of "1" always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply. If you roll on an auto hit weapon the "auto hit" becomes a modification to the weapons' attack since it's listed under abilities just like any other modifier.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
All of the rules you site are specific to those weapons and noted to be exceptions to the general rules. Rolling to hit for a weapon that has the automatically hit rule seems to mean either the player is forgoing the automatic hit to pursue some benefit or is breaking the rules for his weapon.

If you want to go with automatic hit does not mean don't roll then you have to use all of the rules for rolling to hit otherwise it doesn't make any sense to say you automatically hit but ignore automatic misses. There is no rule for the weapon that says if you roll ignore automatic misses. The rule says that a roll of "1" always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply. If you roll on an auto hit weapon the "auto hit" becomes a modification to the weapons' attack since it's listed under abilities just like any other modifier.

Agreed you either don't roll and hence the 1's always miss doesn't apply or you roll dice and have to abide by the dice rules of 1's always miss regardless of modifiers.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
All of the rules you site are specific to those weapons and noted to be exceptions to the general rules. Rolling to hit for a weapon that has the automatically hit rule seems to mean either the player is forgoing the automatic hit to pursue some benefit or is breaking the rules for his weapon.

I reject this premise and as proof I offer the actual text of these rules and some others:

Neutron Laser

Treat damage rolls of 1 or 2 made by this weapon as 3 instead.

Notice there is no mention or note here of this being an exception to any general rule. Notice also that the damage characteristic is listed as just D6 like any other D6. Now let's look at the main rulebook on damage:

The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage characteristic of the weapon used in the attack.

RAW for the main rules is that Neutron Laser does a D6 because that is the damage characteristic. This rule is mandatory. It is conflicts with the ability which does not modify the damage characteristic. The weapon ability wins out because specific overrides general.

How about those Imperial Knights now?

Super-heavy Walker

This model can Fall Back in the Movement phase and still shoot and/or charge in the same turn.

No specific mention of anything here either. It just says the model can do it.

Now the main rule:

A unit that Falls Back also cannot shoot later that turn unless it can Fly.

Same thing as before. We have a mandatory rule in the main rulebook that rules out all exceptions save Fly. We have an ability saying he can do it anyway. What wins? The ability because specific overrides general.

I'll spare the Steel Behemoth rule because it's the same kind of thing as the Knights and I only have the Index version anyway.

Point being, none of these rules are noted as being exceptions any more than "automatically hits" is. Your premise and thus analysis and conclusion are therefore faulty.

If you want to go with automatic hit does not mean don't roll then you have to use all of the rules for rolling to hit otherwise it doesn't make any sense to say you automatically hit but ignore automatic misses. There is no rule for the weapon that says if you roll ignore automatic misses. The rule says that a roll of "1" always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply. If you roll on an auto hit weapon the "auto hit" becomes a modification to the weapons' attack since it's listed under abilities just like any other modifier.

No, you don't. The rules never give you any option to disregard them at all. This portion is a HYWPI from whole cloth. The shooting rule is mandatory and requires a roll. The weapon ability is mandatory and requires a hit. You, like others, seem to have brought the assumption into the reading that "automatically" means 'don't', but there's no RAW to support that whatsoever (and while we're not supposed to argue dictionary definitions on YMDC, it's not in there either).

If you want to argue that "automatically hits" is a modifier you're welcome to try, but we'll need some RAW to support it. In all other places of the rules that I can find, 'modifier' is used to refer only to +/- to Hit when it comes to shooting. We'd also need RAW saying that modifiers are incapable, in any circumstance, of overriding the rule of 1's always missing. The rule does not seem unique among the main rules and thus should be as changeable by an ability as any other rule in the book.

Show me in the rules where modifiers are stated to be only +/- to hit. Modifiers simply means that something changes a result it does not have to be a numerical value.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Show me in the rules where modifiers are stated to be only +/- to hit. Modifiers simply means that something changes a result it does not have to be a numerical value.

My argument is not predicated on nor does it require modifiers to only be +/-. My argument is that automatically does not override the rule requiring shooting attacks to roll but does override 1's always miss.

I was just pointing out what you need for your modifier argument to work and opining on its likelihood.

Ugh, you guys are the worst. This is a bad thread, and you should feel bad.

 Elbows wrote:
Ugh, you guys are the worst. This is a bad thread, and you should feel bad.

The people who are saying "You're wrong and should feel bad for daring to read the rules literally, instead of applying what MIGHT BE GW's thought process to it," are kinda annoying, yeah.

No! This is insane. I and most reasonable people would not allow this. There currently are no plasma weapons that don't roll to hit so that argument only applies to previous editions. You automatically hit therefore do not roll to hit. Saying they hit automatically doesn't mean you can roll to hit even though is automatically a success.

mhalko1 wrote:
No! This is insane. I and most reasonable people would not allow this. There currently are no plasma weapons that don't roll to hit so that argument only applies to previous editions. You automatically hit therefore do not roll to hit. Saying they hit automatically doesn't mean you can roll to hit even though is automatically a success.

Why is it insane? You get a whopping 16.67% increase in hits-that's it.

A nice improvement, sure, but compared to some other stratagems (Weapons From The Dark Ages, for instance, doubles damage (non-overcharged) or increases by 50% (overcharge), and Ryza-Charging does MORE than that, since it also has +1 to wound) it's only okay.

mhalko1 wrote:
No! This is insane. I and most reasonable people would not allow this. There currently are no plasma weapons that don't roll to hit so that argument only applies to previous editions. You automatically hit therefore do not roll to hit. Saying they hit automatically doesn't mean you can roll to hit even though is automatically a success.

Wow, pseudo-thread necromancy to say an old talking point. I'll just copy/paste.

Anyway, I think SinisterSamurai has it right. The rulebook here is mandatory, not permissive:

"Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made".

Now let's look at the weapon profile for this kind of stuff: it says "automatically hits" it does NOT say 'do not roll'. So RAW, you roll and regardless of what you roll, it automatically hits. Nowhere are you actually given permission to skip any part of the process.

Audustum wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:
No! This is insane. I and most reasonable people would not allow this. There currently are no plasma weapons that don't roll to hit so that argument only applies to previous editions. You automatically hit therefore do not roll to hit. Saying they hit automatically doesn't mean you can roll to hit even though is automatically a success.

Wow, pseudo-thread necromancy to say an old talking point. I'll just copy/paste.

Anyway, I think SinisterSamurai has it right. The rulebook here is mandatory, not permissive:

"Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made".

Now let's look at the weapon profile for this kind of stuff: it says "automatically hits" it does NOT say 'do not roll'. So RAW, you roll and regardless of what you roll, it automatically hits. Nowhere are you actually given permission to skip any part of the process.

Never doubt the obstinance of those who would argue rules.

Skipping a redundant point in the process of resolving hits does not actually eliminate that point from the process. Let's hope GW chooses to clarify this in a FAQ.

 SinisterSamurai wrote:
Alternate Title: Burnas and Dakka Dakka Dakka
This popped up on 4chan, recently. The basic set-up is this:

Dakka Dakka Dakka is a stratagem that generates one extra shot from a ranged weapon for each 6+ to hit result you roll. It's a 1CP stratagem that you play before shooting with a unit.
Most flame weapons, including Burnas, hit automatically. Burnas have D3 hits, but you roll a single dice before shooting and apply the result to the entire unit.

The first and primary loop-hole concept is that, RAW, hitting automatically doesn't actually eliminate the to-hit roll. In practice, the roll is simply skipped for time during a gentleman's match.because it makes the result a forgone conclusion.

Therefore, it is believed that when attempting to fire a flame weapon, you can roll to-hit, without risk, and still use the dice results for the purposes of qualifying for other abilities.

The second "shenanigan" involved is that because both the application of the stratagem and the rolling for number of shots take place in the same "before shooting with the unit" subphase, you as the player can determine the order of events. Therefore, you may determine that a unit of 15 burnas each has 3 shots, and then choose to play Dakka Dakka Dakka.

The end goal is to roll to-hit for 45 automatically hitting shots to produce, on average, in 7-8 extra automatically hitting shots.

Among the resistance to this concept I've seen is:
Insistence that a person simply cannot roll to-hit for a weapon that hits automatically. It just can't happen, as the weapon ability eliminates hit rolls in procedure, not just in practice.
Insistence that if a person does roll to-hit for an automatically hitting weapon, then they automatically miss on a result of 1, resulting in as many misses as extra shots.
Insistence that if a person does roll to-hit for an automatically hitting weapon, then they forgo the automatic hitting ability and miss any shots rolling below their BS.

Counter arguments for performing the roll at all have compared the concept to "rolling for moral when a unit cannot fail a moral roll."
The missing on one sub-arguments have described "automatically hitting" as a modifier to insist that 1s automatically miss, while others have said that every example of a modifiers is a numerical adjustment (+1, -1), and that hitting automatically is a flat ability, not a modifier.

Easiest way to think about this I find. Auto hit is everything rolls a at your BS level.

So if you have 10 marines with flamers and 23 shots. You auto roll 23 3's, or the minimal amount required to hit the target. So if the target has a -1 modifier you auto roll 23 4's.

This is perhaps I believe the fairest way to interpret the rules.

RAW blinkers can generate some arguments, all right. It's patently obvious that "hits automatically" means "do not roll" as it has forever, but now there's a tiny fractional situational advantage to be had we suddenly "need an FAQ". I despair a little.

Well, a FAQ would let them be able to put in a snarky "it should be obvious" comment as well as an answer that you don't roll if they feel like doing it.

It's only if you misunderstand or ignore what "automatically" means that you would be left believing the roll to hit is still required.

Ya'll do know if you wanna make this argument, you'll break PBC's even harder? If you have a PBC with spitters followed by a Daemon w/ Nurgle Locus.... its disgusting based on this interpretation. Just so ya' know. I agree that auto-hits mean you don't roll to hit, until GW tells me otherwise.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
It's only if you misunderstand or ignore what "automatically" means that you would be left believing the roll to hit is still required.

Really? Cause here's what it means:

as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances.

Nothing in there about rolling or not doing things. Just that the result is fixed.

You seem to be confusing "automatically" with "skip".

Audustum wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
It's only if you misunderstand or ignore what "automatically" means that you would be left believing the roll to hit is still required.

Really? Cause here's what it means:

as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances.

Nothing in there about rolling or not doing things. Just that the result is fixed.

You seem to be confusing "automatically" with "skip".

So you're saying it should be read as, "This weapon hits as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances."

Which fixed rule or particular set of circumstances is the weapon hitting a result of, if this is the case?

I found the perfect example for this earlier.

Leadership tests on deamons.

People still roll leadership tests they _can't Fail_ on units of deamons, because of the possibility of rolling a 1 on the leadership test to gain an extra model. We'd normally not bother rolling a test we'd automatically pass, but in this case we roll the dice we wouldn't ordinarily role because a new rule with a benefit to that side has been introduced.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I found the perfect example for this earlier.

Leadership tests on deamons.

People still roll leadership tests they _can't Fail_ on units of deamons, because of the possibility of rolling a 1 on the leadership test to gain an extra model. We'd normally not bother rolling a test we'd automatically pass, but in this case we roll the dice we wouldn't ordinarily role because a new rule with a benefit to that side has been introduced.

That's a perfect example to prove you don't roll automatic ones.

"Automatic" is not the same as "Always passes". The rules for morale tell you to roll regardless of pass possibility. Especially since the amount of models will vary even if you'd automatically "fail".

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
It's only if you misunderstand or ignore what "automatically" means that you would be left believing the roll to hit is still required.

Really? Cause here's what it means:

as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances.

Nothing in there about rolling or not doing things. Just that the result is fixed.

You seem to be confusing "automatically" with "skip".

So you're saying it should be read as, "This weapon hits as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances."

Which fixed rule or particular set of circumstances is the weapon hitting a result of, if this is the case?

The weapon's own profile. You have to actually put the definition fully into the sentence.

This weapon hits (as a necessary and inevitable result). Why does it do that? Because of this fixed rule.

This is what automatically means. The better question is where on Earth you're reading to skip a mandatory action of the shooting phase anywhere in there or any definition of automatically.

Audustum wrote:
The weapon's own profile. You have to actually put the definition fully into the sentence.

I did:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
So you're saying it should be read as, "This weapon hits as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances."

You however mixed up your own stated definition:

This weapon hits (as a necessary and inevitable result).

Now, if we go by the wording of the definition you've given (as I said earlier, and not as you mixed it up) we require a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances to result in the weapon hitting automatically.

You say that fixed rule or particular set of circumstances is the wording of the rule itself.

So you're saying the wording of the rule is what triggers the automatic hit of the rule. That's circular reasoning.

You chose the wrong definition of "automatically".

The better question is where on Earth you're reading to skip a mandatory action of the shooting phase anywhere in there or any definition of automatically.

As I said earlier, the correct definition in this context is, "without action or input". Action or input in this case is a roll to hit. With that definition the rule can be read correctly, easily and is entirely straightforward, and proves that it's telling us that no roll to hit should be made.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Audustum wrote:
The weapon's own profile. You have to actually put the definition fully into the sentence.

I did:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
So you're saying it should be read as, "This weapon hits as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances."

You however mixed up your own stated definition:

This weapon hits (as a necessary and inevitable result).

There's no mix up here. That's the definition. I used a rhetorical question format to spell it out for you because you seemed to be having trouble.

Now, if we go by the wording of the definition you've given (as I said earlier, and not as you mixed it up) we require a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances to result in the weapon hitting automatically.

You mean the wording of the definition as you had envisioned rather than it actually was? Not sure that's the right way to approach this.

You say that fixed rule or particular set of circumstances is the wording of the rule itself.

So you're saying the wording of the rule is what triggers the automatic hit of the rule. That's circular reasoning.

Of course it's circular. You're trying to look at a sentence and argue the definition shouldn't match the word usage, but of course they'll always match when you read them correctly. You're literally examining a tautology and then acting like it's a problem when it is one. You might as well complain that water is wet.

Take the strength of a flamer, for example. We'll says it's S5. You're asking: By what rule is it S5? Well it's S5 because the profile says it is. Similarly, by what rule does it hit automatically (or as a necessary and inevitable result)? The profile that says it hits automatically.

You chose the wrong definition of "automatically".

Let's take a look but I'm guessing not.

The better question is where on Earth you're reading to skip a mandatory action of the shooting phase anywhere in there or any definition of automatically.

As I said earlier, the correct definition in this context is, "without action or input". Action or input in this case is a roll to hit. With that definition the rule can be read correctly, easily and is entirely straightforward, and proves that it's telling us that no roll to hit should be made.

I see why you're confused.

The definition you're using doesn't exist. "(with reference to a device or process) by itself with little or no direct human control" (according to Google definitions) or "largely or wholly involuntary" (Merriam Webster) or "by a device or process requiring no human intervention" (dictionary.com, which itself is based on Random House). I also consulted the Macmillan Dictionary, the Free Dictionary (which is based on the American heritage Dictionary) and the Cambridge Dictionary, none of which had your exact version.

So the first problem is you're using your own definition and trying to substitute it in for an official one. Of course that'll run into trouble.

Of the actual definitions available, none of these follow the line of argument your making. "by itself with little or no direct human control" fits my argument because, while we roll, the results are predetermined (all hits). "Largely or wholly involuntary" also fits: whatever you roll, they are hits. The process is largely involuntary. "By a device or process requiring no human intervention" fits too as the results are all hits without the player having to do anything.

The key factor here is that none of those, however, give any permission to skip or ignore the mandatory language of the Shooting Phase, which requires a roll.

Now, to humor your argument, let's say there was a definition that was explicitly: "without action or input" your error would still exist because you're applying it to the wrong point. "This weapon hits without action or input" does not say "this weapon does not roll to hit". It's saying the weapon is going to hit regardless of what you do, full stop. The Shooting Phase rules still mandate a roll:

Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made.

This is where every argument being put forth by the "no roll" side fails and collapses. There's nothing about "automatically", even your pseudo definition, which provides language to bypass this rule or give us any reason to disregard the well regarded principle of generalia specialibus non derogant (i.e. we don't adopt a reading that invalidates the language of the Shooting Phase without clear evidence of intent to do so).

Plus, there are literally two people who benefit from this.

Burna Boyz (and they're bad enough, are we really gonna complain they get a buff?) and Stormtrooper Doctrine people with (Heavy) Flamers within 4" (in which case, they didn't take Plasma-be happy).

Who else would this apply to?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plus, there are literally two people who benefit from this.

Burna Boyz (and they're bad enough, are we really gonna complain they get a buff?) and Stormtrooper Doctrine people with (Heavy) Flamers within 4" (in which case, they didn't take Plasma-be happy).

Who else would this apply to?

How do Burna Boyz benefit?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plus, there are literally two people who benefit from this.

Burna Boyz (and they're bad enough, are we really gonna complain they get a buff?) and Stormtrooper Doctrine people with (Heavy) Flamers within 4" (in which case, they didn't take Plasma-be happy).

Who else would this apply to?

How do Burna Boyz benefit?

Dakka Dakka Dakka stratagem. For 1 CP, gain an extra hit roll on a hit of 6+.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Dakka Dakka Dakka stratagem. For 1 CP, gain an extra hit roll on a hit of 6+.

Gotcha. Still, appeals of "They are crap so it doesn't matter" doesn't change the rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Dakka Dakka Dakka stratagem. For 1 CP, gain an extra hit roll on a hit of 6+.

Gotcha. Still, appeals of "They are crap so it doesn't matter" doesn't change the rules.

That is true. But the rules are either that you CAN get extra hits, or ambiguous. And if you do consider them ambiguous, I'd err on the side of buffing weak units than nerfing them.

At what point does the automatic hit occur and how do we determin the result is a hit.

If we agree that we do have to roll to hit

The results mean nothing i automacticly hit modifers have no effect, we dont take into account that a 1 is always a miss

To automaticly hit we have to effectivly ignore the to hit mechanic
or

If you want to roll you would have to force all the results to be a 5 you cannot choose to change 1s into a number that results in a hit and still choose to keep a 6 result.

The automatic here refers to a result rather than an action



Automatically Appended Next Post:
it is impossible to automactly roll a dice so thatt it results in a hit

On the subject of this meaning 1’s miss with automatically hitting weapons.

Rules in data sheets and wargear clearly supersede the rules document. Otherwise things that modify Overwatch to a 5 or 6 would be disallowed by the base rules for Overwatch.
Therefore it follows that even a 1 is a hit for these weapons.

It’s such a niche issue but if it came up I’d let my opponent try and roll for some 6s.

On that bases than the data sheet rule overides the need to roll to hit


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is an automactic result

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plus, there are literally two people who benefit from this.

Burna Boyz (and they're bad enough, are we really gonna complain they get a buff?) and Stormtrooper Doctrine people with (Heavy) Flamers within 4" (in which case, they didn't take Plasma-be happy).

Who else would this apply to?

Death guard with nurgle demon hqs attached, all plaguespitters w/ demon locuses.

 Zid wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plus, there are literally two people who benefit from this.

Burna Boyz (and they're bad enough, are we really gonna complain they get a buff?) and Stormtrooper Doctrine people with (Heavy) Flamers within 4" (in which case, they didn't take Plasma-be happy).

Who else would this apply to?

Death guard with nurgle demon hqs attached, all plaguespitters w/ demon locuses.

They do extra damage on a wound roll of 6+, not extra shots on a hit roll of 6+.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Zid wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plus, there are literally two people who benefit from this.

Burna Boyz (and they're bad enough, are we really gonna complain they get a buff?) and Stormtrooper Doctrine people with (Heavy) Flamers within 4" (in which case, they didn't take Plasma-be happy).

Who else would this apply to?

Death guard with nurgle demon hqs attached, all plaguespitters w/ demon locuses.

They do extra damage on a wound roll of 6+, not extra shots on a hit roll of 6+.

Ignore my post here... I was thinking about Plaguebearers w scrivener

ian wrote:
On that bases than the data sheet rule overides the need to roll to hit


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is an automactic result

This is what we were arguing for 5 pages. Automatic doesn't mean 'skip'. The result is predetermined but the process is mandated by the Shooting Phase rules and we aren't given permission to skip that.

Common sense and years of gaming precedent says we are given that permission. It's implicit in 'automatic'. I don't bet, but I'd put actual money down on that being the answer should this be FAQ'd. If you feel it needs to be, or feel 'automatic hit' somehow requires a reundant roll, do email GW. Most folk won't, so if you want them to FAQ the super-obvious you'll need to ask. As others have said, trying to generate extra shots is an extremely specific edge case anyway, and to me patently obvious you don't roll, so make your voice heard to GW if you feel it's otherwise. I think you'll be disappointed, but ask away.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Common sense and years of gaming precedent says we are given that permission. It's implicit in 'automatic'. I don't bet, but I'd put actual money down on that being the answer should this be FAQ'd. If you feel it needs to be, or feel 'automatic hit' somehow requires a reundant roll, do email GW. Most folk won't, so if you want them to FAQ the super-obvious you'll need to ask. As others have said, trying to generate extra shots is an extremely specific edge case anyway, and to me patently obvious you don't roll, so make your voice heard to GW if you feel it's otherwise. I think you'll be disappointed, but ask away.

This is why you and I disagree so much. The subjective =/= the objective and common sense is anything but common.

I only think it needs a FAQ because people, quite obviously, disagree on it. I personally think it's clear based on actual definitions, however.

I would never claim subjective = objective, it's one of my pet hates. Don't tar me with that one! 'Obvious' and 'objective' are not the same thing.

You do you, dude. Fire them an email. I'm not being smug here I just know how it will play out if someone at GW Rules sighs and puts pen to paper to answer it, because it's how it's always been. As ever, always happy to be wrong, but I don't think I am here.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I would never claim subjective = objective, it's one of my pet hates. Don't tar me with that one! 'Obvious' and 'objective' are not the same thing.

You do you, dude. Fire them an email. I'm not being smug here I just know how it will play out if someone at GW Rules sighs and puts pen to paper to answer it, because it's how it's always been. As ever, always happy to be wrong, but I don't think I am here.

I honestly don't think they care about the e-mails. My own suspicion is that FAQ's are determined by how badgered they get about something on Warhammer Community Facebook or if Yakface forwards it over.

We'll disagree on the result though. I think with 7's precedent they'll make you roll. Not urgent though, in my area we read the thread and we roll so I've got no actual situation to deal with.

Not to re-heat the debate, but I found something relevant to this discussion - The Tau Tidewall Shieldline, Droneport, and Gunrigs have a special rule called "Fortification" that says that the models are hit automatically in the fight phase and further clarifies it to say "Do not make hit rolls". I feel like this doesn't actually clear up the argument for other instances because:
- The fact that they included this clarification could lend support to the "things that hit automatically do not roll to hit" side as an indication of GW's intention with these types of rules.
- At the same time it could mean that since this clarification is included in the fortification rule, but not in other rules that the other instances where a weapon automatically hits you DO roll to hit, because there is no text telling you not to.

Fortification wrote:This model cannot move independently (see below), nor can it fight in the Fight phase. Enemy models automatically hit this model in the Fight phase – do not make hit rolls. However, this model can still shoot if there are enemy models within 1" of it, and friendly units can still target enemy units that are within 1" of this model.

Well I would say that taking that rule into acount leaves it pretty clear. If they need to clarify that, its because saying that "something hits automatically" is not enough to prevent the roll, and until we get an errata/faq things that hit automatically should be rolling (and skipping it is only for time saving)
If the rule said something like ("... hits automatically, which means no hit rolls are made") then it would be different, but as it is writen I would say that you can roll for weapons that hit automatically.

Bojazz wrote:
Not to re-heat the debate, but I found something relevant to this discussion - The Tau Tidewall Shieldline, Droneport, and Gunrigs have a special rule called "Fortification" that says that the models are hit automatically in the fight phase and further clarifies it to say "Do not make hit rolls". I feel like this doesn't actually clear up the argument for other instances because:
- The fact that they included this clarification could lend support to the "things that hit automatically do not roll to hit" side as an indication of GW's intention with these types of rules.
- At the same time it could mean that since this clarification is included in the fortification rule, but not in other rules that the other instances where a weapon automatically hits you DO roll to hit, because there is no text telling you not to.

Fortification wrote:This model cannot move independently (see below), nor can it fight in the Fight phase. Enemy models automatically hit this model in the Fight phase – do not make hit rolls. However, this model can still shoot if there are enemy models within 1" of it, and friendly units can still target enemy units that are within 1" of this model.

It simply tells us that special rules don't have consistent wording, which has been the case since the Indexes. You can't infer rules from others, nor from patterns.

Bojazz wrote:
Not to re-heat the debate, but I found something relevant to this discussion - The Tau Tidewall Shieldline, Droneport, and Gunrigs have a special rule called "Fortification" that says that the models are hit automatically in the fight phase and further clarifies it to say "Do not make hit rolls". I feel like this doesn't actually clear up the argument for other instances because:
- The fact that they included this clarification could lend support to the "things that hit automatically do not roll to hit" side as an indication of GW's intention with these types of rules.
- At the same time it could mean that since this clarification is included in the fortification rule, but not in other rules that the other instances where a weapon automatically hits you DO roll to hit, because there is no text telling you not to.

Fortification wrote:This model cannot move independently (see below), nor can it fight in the Fight phase. Enemy models automatically hit this model in the Fight phase – do not make hit rolls. However, this model can still shoot if there are enemy models within 1" of it, and friendly units can still target enemy units that are within 1" of this model.

No, the fortification rule needs to be written so that it overrides ALL other rules that could possibly conceivably exist. If a weapon were to "always miss on 3s" for example, a fortification would still be hit by the maximum number of attacks.

This is a rule that needs to trump all other specific rules that could be present on any melee fighter in any army.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:
This sounds like a "general vs specific" issue.
General rule is roll to hit.
Specific rule is Flamers always hit.

As I recall, GW has a long standing metric of Specific overrides General in the rules.

There's no overriding, though. Auto-hit never says do not roll.

This is the most RAW as you can get.

Then what does "automatically hits" mean? Is it the same as always hits regardless of modifiers or does it mean that you don't need to roll to hit or does it mean always hits unless you roll then follow normal shooting rules?

There is no game definition for the term so the RAW doesn't really say what to do.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Then what does "automatically hits" mean? Is it the same as always hits regardless of modifiers or does it mean that you don't need to roll to hit or does it mean always hits unless you roll then follow normal shooting rules?

There is no game definition for the term so the RAW doesn't really say what to do.

When RAW does not define a term, you revert to the common English understanding. Hence why RAW doesn't say a D6 is a six-sided die and other simple concepts. We've had a multipage discussion on English definitions now, which I think pretty clearly indicates it's an automatic result not sipping a step. So it is what it is from there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bojazz wrote:
Not to re-heat the debate, but I found something relevant to this discussion - The Tau Tidewall Shieldline, Droneport, and Gunrigs have a special rule called "Fortification" that says that the models are hit automatically in the fight phase and further clarifies it to say "Do not make hit rolls". I feel like this doesn't actually clear up the argument for other instances because:
- The fact that they included this clarification could lend support to the "things that hit automatically do not roll to hit" side as an indication of GW's intention with these types of rules.
- At the same time it could mean that since this clarification is included in the fortification rule, but not in other rules that the other instances where a weapon automatically hits you DO roll to hit, because there is no text telling you not to.

Fortification wrote:This model cannot move independently (see below), nor can it fight in the Fight phase. Enemy models automatically hit this model in the Fight phase – do not make hit rolls. However, this model can still shoot if there are enemy models within 1" of it, and friendly units can still target enemy units that are within 1" of this model.

You basically hit the way both sides could take this on the head.

Even if we go with the definition of "automatic" as being "without action or input" you're not actually told to not make the hit roll, only that your attacks will hit without any action or input. The input, in this case the hit roll, still happens but has no bearing on whether you hit or not. You are never given explicit permission to ignore the to hit step.

 skchsan wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:
This sounds like a "general vs specific" issue.
General rule is roll to hit.
Specific rule is Flamers always hit.

As I recall, GW has a long standing metric of Specific overrides General in the rules.

There's no overriding, though. Auto-hit never says do not roll.

This is the most RAW as you can get.

The rules also do not say I can just place the dice down on the 6 side when "rolling" them. The rules don't say a lot of things.

"The rules don't say I can't" is not a valid argument in a permissive rule set and never will be.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:
This sounds like a "general vs specific" issue.
General rule is roll to hit.
Specific rule is Flamers always hit.

As I recall, GW has a long standing metric of Specific overrides General in the rules.

There's no overriding, though. Auto-hit never says do not roll.

This is the most RAW as you can get.

The rules also do not say I can just place the dice down on the 6 side when "rolling" them. The rules don't say a lot of things.

"The rules don't say I can't" is not a valid argument in a permissive rule set and never will be.

Well in this case, as noted on prior pages, the rules actually command us to roll. Automatically doesn't override that.

Exactly. You do not have permission not to roll.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Exactly. You do not have permission not to roll.

Except where it says hits automatically. That is the over-ride for the roll.

If it weren't we would have 2 rules in play if we rolled for auto hit weapons. One being hits automatically the other being always misses on a 1. ALWAYS... Therefore we cant make to hit rolls because if we roll a 1 they no longer auto hit as 1's ALWAYS miss...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Exactly. You do not have permission not to roll.

Except where it says hits automatically. That is the over-ride for the roll.

If it weren't we would have 2 rules in play if we rolled for auto hit weapons. One being hits automatically the other being always misses on a 1. ALWAYS... Therefore we cant make to hit rolls because if we roll a 1 they no longer auto hit as 1's ALWAYS miss...

On the one hand you say automatically overrides the Shooting Phase command that you MUST roll.

On the other hand, you say that a rule cannot override the shooting phase rule that 1's always miss.

Do you realize how contradictory that position is?

Anyway, please see the previous pages. There is no definition of 'autonatically' that tells you to skip or ignore rolling. It DOES, however, mean the result is predetermined. So 'automatically' is telling to override the 1's always miss rule and not giving permission to skip rolling.

Gonna add it in because op is in correct, you do not roll to hit for weapons that automatically hit, if you do, then any roll of a one is a miss, as rules state a 1 always misses.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Gonna add it in because op is in correct, you do not roll to hit for weapons that automatically hit, if you do, then any roll of a one is a miss, as rules state a 1 always misses.

Except that the weapon's profile of "automatically" overrides the rule of 1's missing, just like Imperial Knight's can fallback and shoot thanks to their datasheet.

Let's see if I understand your position. Automatically overrides the rule that says a "1" is a miss but doesn't override the rule that says that you have to roll the dice.

Is this correct? If so, what is the rule that tells you that automatic overrides one rule but not the other?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Let's see if I understand your position. Automatically overrides the rule that says a "1" is a miss but doesn't override the rule that says that you have to roll the dice.

Right.

Is this correct? If so, what is the rule that tells you that automatic overrides one rule but not the other?

The use of the word "automatically" and every single definition it has in at least 6 dictionaries. That's why we were discussing definitions for several pages. Every definition points to overriding 1's, not to skipping rolling.

What I'm waiting for is someone in this thread to give a definition or rule saying automatically means skip or do not roll.

How about this from dictionary.com - having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently:
The hit is independent of the die rolls ergo the die rolls are not needed.

Or, also from dictionary.com- occurring spontaneously That is to say that the hits just happen with no intermediate event between rolling how many hits you get and the hits being applied to the target.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How about this from dictionary.com - having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently:
The hit is independent of the die rolls ergo the die rolls are not needed.

Or, also from dictionary.com- occurring spontaneously That is to say that the hits just happen with no intermediate event between rolling how many hits you get and the hits being applied to the target.

That means that it hits REGARDLESS of the roll, correct.

It does not mean you don't roll-just that the result of the roll is (usually) irrelevant.

If you're just going to ignore common English, especially with the spontaneous definition, then there is no way to prove anything to you.

Thus ends the discussion.

The fact that this question has 5 pages of debate is a very worrying thing to me. Common sense is the one of the only two things I require my opponent to bring to the table. If they come to play and sincerely want to argue rolling redundant rolls on flamer weapons to get free 6's then I will thank them for wasting my time and I will be packing my models and putting them in the blacklist.

Last edition someone also tried to argue something similar with psychic scream. Before faq, since it was a wytchfire, it required a roll to hit, even if it did not have a weapon profile. So people were really trying to argue that yes, they need to roll to hit, but even if they miss, then they can still go on and resolve the power because hitting with the power was not relevant to the effect of the power. Yeap, really.

Ultimately, common sense is not something that can or should be allowed to be debated against. One should never have to argue or try to prove that a Saturday is indeed a Saturday and not a Monday, no matter how often the other party stubbornly demands a proof. It's upon the doubting party to acquire common sense before they even want to enter an argument.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
The fact that this question has 5 pages of debate is a very worrying thing to me. Common sense is the one of the only two things I require my opponent to bring to the table. If they come to play and sincerely want to argue rolling redundant rolls on flamer weapons to get free 6's then I will thank them for wasting my time and I will be packing my models and putting them in the blacklist.

Last edition someone also tried to argue something similar with psychic scream. Before faq, since it was a wytchfire, it required a roll to hit, even if it did not have a weapon profile. So people were really trying to argue that yes, they need to roll to hit, but even if they miss, then they can still go on and resolve the power because hitting with the power was not relevant to the effect of the power. Yeap, really.

Ultimately, common sense is not something that can or should be allowed to be debated against. One should never have to argue or try to prove that a Saturday is indeed a Saturday and not a Monday, no matter how often the other party stubbornly demands a proof. It's upon the doubting party to acquire common sense before they even want to enter an argument.

Except common sense dictates that, if you're told to roll, you should roll unless something says otherwise. And nothing does.

In addition to that, it literally only affects Burna Boyz using a Stratagem and Stormtroopers with Flamers within 4". I hardly see the game-breaking potential of that.

You know what! Screw it, sure you wanna try using dakka Dakka on your flamers? Go for it, but you now need to roll all your hits, but 1s miss.

 JNAProductions wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
The fact that this question has 5 pages of debate is a very worrying thing to me. Common sense is the one of the only two things I require my opponent to bring to the table. If they come to play and sincerely want to argue rolling redundant rolls on flamer weapons to get free 6's then I will thank them for wasting my time and I will be packing my models and putting them in the blacklist.

Last edition someone also tried to argue something similar with psychic scream. Before faq, since it was a wytchfire, it required a roll to hit, even if it did not have a weapon profile. So people were really trying to argue that yes, they need to roll to hit, but even if they miss, then they can still go on and resolve the power because hitting with the power was not relevant to the effect of the power. Yeap, really.

Ultimately, common sense is not something that can or should be allowed to be debated against. One should never have to argue or try to prove that a Saturday is indeed a Saturday and not a Monday, no matter how often the other party stubbornly demands a proof. It's upon the doubting party to acquire common sense before they even want to enter an argument.

Except common sense dictates that, if you're told to roll, you should roll unless something says otherwise. And nothing does.

In addition to that, it literally only affects Burna Boyz using a Stratagem and Stormtroopers with Flamers within 4". I hardly see the game-breaking potential of that.

Only you are not specifically told to roll in either of those cases. Yes the flamers don't say "Do not roll to hit" but they do not say "roll to hit" either. And being game breaking or not is irrelevant. As I said, I will not be arguing common sense.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
You know what! Screw it, sure you wanna try using dakka Dakka on your flamers? Go for it, but you now need to roll all your hits, but 1s miss.

Why would they miss? They have a specific rule stating that they automatically hit, which would override the general rule of "1s always miss".

Likewise with the IK-general rule, cannot fall back and shoot/charge. IK has a rule that says they can.

Yeah but rules also state that 1s automatically miss what makes your interpretation of the rules any more valid then mine.

Nothing clearly says which is right so there for my interpretation of the rule is valid as well.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
You know what! Screw it, sure you wanna try using dakka Dakka on your flamers? Go for it, but you now need to roll all your hits, but 1s miss.

How so? It states you hit automatically, which means it hits regardless of what you roll. That doesn't mean you get to say "screw it" and still have 1's miss when the rule indicates that they don't.

Personally I go with the long precedent of GW taking "automatically hitting" to mean not rolling, but that's precedent built up over decades of Generally Accepted Practices without an indication that it has changed this edition. Previous editions they had Gets Hot! specifically requiring a roll even for weapons that hit automatically; this seemed to set a precedent for them to want to specify having to roll for other effects when you hit automatically, but they don't have that specification now in this edition so there isn't the specificity to cover how they handle it beyond "well, that's how they always did it". I can understand people wanting to have something official from GW from a RAW standpoint even though GAP had historically been to not roll.

But nothing says data card rules over write BRB rules. Would there for my interpretation is just as valid that BRB rules > specific rules. In order to get your extra attacks you need to roll 6+, but on a roll a 1 always fails.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 181 of the BrB for shooting, "rolls of 1 always fail, regardless of modifiers" if your flamers "hit automatically" I can interprut that as a modification to the normal shooting rules, so even still a 1 fails.

I want to know honestly if all the people supporting this question really were already rolling hit dice for their flamers in all their games in this edition so far.


I can guess the answer.

Then I also want to know if they lift the toilet cover before they pee or if they just go for it.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
But nothing says data card rules over write BRB rules. Would there for my interpretation is just as valid that BRB rules > specific rules. In order to get your extra attacks you need to roll 6+, but on a roll a 1 always fails.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 181 of the BrB for shooting, "rolls of 1 always fail, regardless of modifiers" if your flamers "hit automatically" I can interprut that as a modification to the normal shooting rules, so even still a 1 fails.

I tacked an edit on my previous post while you were typing this.

I disagree that your interpretation is just as valid. There's a rule that indicates you hit regardless of what you roll, or that you don't roll. Either way, 1's do not misss. Your interpretation means you are ignoring "automatically hitting" entirely, which means your interpretation can not be as valid. The options are you either roll or don't roll, with the result being you hit regardless of the result on the roll. Rolling and missing on 1's is not supported at all, that's just you trying to house rule something.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How about this from dictionary.com - having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently:
The hit is independent of the die rolls ergo the die rolls are not needed.

Or, also from dictionary.com- occurring spontaneously That is to say that the hits just happen with no intermediate event between rolling how many hits you get and the hits being applied to the target.

You're inserting those into the wrong part of the sentence.

Original:

This weapon automatically hits its target.

Let's add those definitions:

This weapon (having the capability of independently) hits its target.

You focused on independently so that's what I used here. Notice how the definition doesn't fit quite right in the sentence? That's the first clue it's the wrong one to use. That said, we can tweak it slightly so this reads better:

This weapon (independently) hits its target.

This is what I think you're reading it as, but that's incorrect as you've eliminated the vast majority of the definition to reach this point.

That said, even if you ran with it like this, "independently" means "free from outside influence" (such as 1's causing misses when you roll), "without outside help" (so ignoring modifiers) and "in a way that is not connected to another" (not connected to any other profile stats). So even in this cherry picked version it still doesn't tell you to skip an explicit command for the Shooting Phase.

I'm amazed you're trying to argue "occurs spontaneously" even applies.

This weapon (occurs spontaneously) hits its target.

It just doesn't work. Again if we twist it:

This weapon (spontaneously) hits its target.

That sentence means the weapon doesn't need player input. You don't choose to shoot your flamer, your flamer just shoots on its own! While a hilarious gameplay mechanic, I don't think anyone is arguing a player has to choose to shoot a flamer.

There's nothing about spontaneously, at all, to support an interpretation that it means "no intermediate event (particularly, other mandated steps)" as you're trying to put forth.

Page 181 "regardless of modifiers" the automatically hitting is a modification to the base to hit roll, if you roll to try and get 6" for extra hits, 1s will miss. You can't have cake and eat it too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is absolutely 100% that guy level of rule bull gak. This is the kinda stuff that makes you a That guy.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
The fact that this question has 5 pages of debate is a very worrying thing to me. Common sense is the one of the only two things I require my opponent to bring to the table. If they come to play and sincerely want to argue rolling redundant rolls on flamer weapons to get free 6's then I will thank them for wasting my time and I will be packing my models and putting them in the blacklist.

Last edition someone also tried to argue something similar with psychic scream. Before faq, since it was a wytchfire, it required a roll to hit, even if it did not have a weapon profile. So people were really trying to argue that yes, they need to roll to hit, but even if they miss, then they can still go on and resolve the power because hitting with the power was not relevant to the effect of the power. Yeap, really.

Ultimately, common sense is not something that can or should be allowed to be debated against. One should never have to argue or try to prove that a Saturday is indeed a Saturday and not a Monday, no matter how often the other party stubbornly demands a proof. It's upon the doubting party to acquire common sense before they even want to enter an argument.

Except common sense dictates that, if you're told to roll, you should roll unless something says otherwise. And nothing does.

In addition to that, it literally only affects Burna Boyz using a Stratagem and Stormtroopers with Flamers within 4". I hardly see the game-breaking potential of that.

Only you are not specifically told to roll in either of those cases. Yes the flamers don't say "Do not roll to hit" but they do not say "roll to hit" either. And being game breaking or not is irrelevant. As I said, I will not be arguing common sense.

The Shooting Phase has a mandatory requirement that you roll to hit. See earlier in the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Page 181 "regardless of modifiers" the automatically hitting is a modification to the base to hit roll, if you roll to try and get 6" for extra hits, 1s will miss. You can't have cake and eat it too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is absolutely 100% that guy level of rule bull gak. This is the kinda stuff that makes you a That guy.

Trying to play the game according to the rules as written by GW, who kind of invented and own it, does not make you a TFG.

Audustum wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
The fact that this question has 5 pages of debate is a very worrying thing to me. Common sense is the one of the only two things I require my opponent to bring to the table. If they come to play and sincerely want to argue rolling redundant rolls on flamer weapons to get free 6's then I will thank them for wasting my time and I will be packing my models and putting them in the blacklist.

Last edition someone also tried to argue something similar with psychic scream. Before faq, since it was a wytchfire, it required a roll to hit, even if it did not have a weapon profile. So people were really trying to argue that yes, they need to roll to hit, but even if they miss, then they can still go on and resolve the power because hitting with the power was not relevant to the effect of the power. Yeap, really.

Ultimately, common sense is not something that can or should be allowed to be debated against. One should never have to argue or try to prove that a Saturday is indeed a Saturday and not a Monday, no matter how often the other party stubbornly demands a proof. It's upon the doubting party to acquire common sense before they even want to enter an argument.

Except common sense dictates that, if you're told to roll, you should roll unless something says otherwise. And nothing does.

In addition to that, it literally only affects Burna Boyz using a Stratagem and Stormtroopers with Flamers within 4". I hardly see the game-breaking potential of that.

Only you are not specifically told to roll in either of those cases. Yes the flamers don't say "Do not roll to hit" but they do not say "roll to hit" either. And being game breaking or not is irrelevant. As I said, I will not be arguing common sense.

The Shooting Phase has a mandatory requirement that you roll to hit. See earlier in the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I want you to answer me, honestly, if you, personally, have been rolling to hit rolls on your flamers and subsequently ignoring said rolls in your games before this argument ensued.

Trying to cheese the system by saying I can use my stratagem then roll to hit on a weapon that automatically hits getting extra attacks on 6+ and just ignoreing the 1s is a TFG move and if you can't see that, you really need to evaluate yourself as being a strong candidate for TFG.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Page 181 "regardless of modifiers" the automatically hitting is a modification to the base to hit roll, if you roll to try and get 6" for extra hits, 1s will miss. You can't have cake and eat it too.

This is absolutely 100% that guy level of rule bull gak. This is the kinda stuff that makes you a That guy.

That argument makes no sense at all.

 doctortom wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Page 181 "regardless of modifiers" the automatically hitting is a modification to the base to hit roll, if you roll to try and get 6" for extra hits, 1s will miss. You can't have cake and eat it too.

This is absolutely 100% that guy level of rule bull gak. This is the kinda stuff that makes you a That guy.

That argument makes no sense at all.

No it makes perfect sense, flamers have a modification to the rules that say, "this weapon automatically hits" if you wanna then roll to see if you can get 6+ to get an extra hit, then any rolls of a 1 will be a miss as rules state, any to hit roll of a one is a miss regardless of modification. It makes just as much sense as rolling to hit for 6+ for extra attacks and just conviniently ignoreing rules that don't benefit you.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Audustum wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
The fact that this question has 5 pages of debate is a very worrying thing to me. Common sense is the one of the only two things I require my opponent to bring to the table. If they come to play and sincerely want to argue rolling redundant rolls on flamer weapons to get free 6's then I will thank them for wasting my time and I will be packing my models and putting them in the blacklist.

Last edition someone also tried to argue something similar with psychic scream. Before faq, since it was a wytchfire, it required a roll to hit, even if it did not have a weapon profile. So people were really trying to argue that yes, they need to roll to hit, but even if they miss, then they can still go on and resolve the power because hitting with the power was not relevant to the effect of the power. Yeap, really.

Ultimately, common sense is not something that can or should be allowed to be debated against. One should never have to argue or try to prove that a Saturday is indeed a Saturday and not a Monday, no matter how often the other party stubbornly demands a proof. It's upon the doubting party to acquire common sense before they even want to enter an argument.

Except common sense dictates that, if you're told to roll, you should roll unless something says otherwise. And nothing does.

In addition to that, it literally only affects Burna Boyz using a Stratagem and Stormtroopers with Flamers within 4". I hardly see the game-breaking potential of that.

Only you are not specifically told to roll in either of those cases. Yes the flamers don't say "Do not roll to hit" but they do not say "roll to hit" either. And being game breaking or not is irrelevant. As I said, I will not be arguing common sense.

The Shooting Phase has a mandatory requirement that you roll to hit. See earlier in the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I want you to answer me, honestly, if you, personally, have been rolling to hit rolls on your flamers in your games before this argument ensued.

Wrong person. I only have 3 models in my entire collection that use flamers right now and they see almost no use (Imperial Knights/GMDK). That said, no one in this thread is objecting to fast dice or skipping procedures in the name of saving time (in fact, I think we even reference that in the first 2 or 3 pages), but what we're saying is that's not RAW. EDIT: I forgot Celestine's sword works like a flamer. I absolutely do roll it if something is effecting it or could make a difference, otherwise I skip it in the name of saving time. See below.

An example:

My opponent wants to move a single unit of 20 models. Do I make him measure the move range of every model (required by rules) or do I let him measure the furthest one then move the rest approximately in the same formation behind him to save time? I do the latter, but that's a mutual agreement to modify the rules made by the two players. Alternatively, do we make people roll morale checks they can't fail? The rules say we should, but I know I let me opponent skip it to save time.

Same thing with flamers. Are we supposed to roll? Yes. Do we skip it to save time when it won't change anything? I know I do.

Don't forget in 7th too, automatically hits weapons had to roll to see if they "Gets Hot" still.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Page 181 "regardless of modifiers" the automatically hitting is a modification to the base to hit roll, if you roll to try and get 6" for extra hits, 1s will miss. You can't have cake and eat it too.

This is absolutely 100% that guy level of rule bull gak. This is the kinda stuff that makes you a That guy.

That argument makes no sense at all.

No it makes perfect sense, flamers have a modification to the rules that say, "this weapon automatically hits" if you wanna then roll to see if you can get 6+ to get an extra hit, then any rolls of a 1 will be a miss as rules state, any to hit roll of a one is a miss regardless of modification. It makes just as much sense as rolling to hit for 6+ for extra attacks and just conviniently ignoreing rules that don't benefit you.

As we've pointed out repeatedly (to still no rejoinder except Leo and Shine), automatically does not mean skip. You're confusing words.

I know it does not mean you skip the to hit roll, trust me I am in the boat that flamers work as they have since like ever, they automatically hit nonroll needed. But if your going to try and claim that oh well I'm.going to roll and utilize this rule that said 6+ gives me an extra hit, then you also need to acknowledge that rolls of 1 will always miss. As rules say "regardless of modification" a one will always miss.

You can't ignore rules that don't benefit you but then use the ones that do. That's not how that works.

Audustum wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Audustum wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
The fact that this question has 5 pages of debate is a very worrying thing to me. Common sense is the one of the only two things I require my opponent to bring to the table. If they come to play and sincerely want to argue rolling redundant rolls on flamer weapons to get free 6's then I will thank them for wasting my time and I will be packing my models and putting them in the blacklist.

Last edition someone also tried to argue something similar with psychic scream. Before faq, since it was a wytchfire, it required a roll to hit, even if it did not have a weapon profile. So people were really trying to argue that yes, they need to roll to hit, but even if they miss, then they can still go on and resolve the power because hitting with the power was not relevant to the effect of the power. Yeap, really.

Ultimately, common sense is not something that can or should be allowed to be debated against. One should never have to argue or try to prove that a Saturday is indeed a Saturday and not a Monday, no matter how often the other party stubbornly demands a proof. It's upon the doubting party to acquire common sense before they even want to enter an argument.

Except common sense dictates that, if you're told to roll, you should roll unless something says otherwise. And nothing does.

In addition to that, it literally only affects Burna Boyz using a Stratagem and Stormtroopers with Flamers within 4". I hardly see the game-breaking potential of that.

Only you are not specifically told to roll in either of those cases. Yes the flamers don't say "Do not roll to hit" but they do not say "roll to hit" either. And being game breaking or not is irrelevant. As I said, I will not be arguing common sense.

The Shooting Phase has a mandatory requirement that you roll to hit. See earlier in the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I want you to answer me, honestly, if you, personally, have been rolling to hit rolls on your flamers in your games before this argument ensued.

Wrong person. I only have 3 models in my entire collection that use flamers right now and they see almost no use (Imperial Knights/GMDK). That said, no one in this thread is objecting to fast dice or skipping procedures in the name of saving time (in fact, I think we even reference that in the first 2 or 3 pages), but what we're saying is that's not RAW. EDIT: I forgot Celestine's sword works like a flamer. I absolutely do roll it if something is effecting it or could make a difference, otherwise I skip it in the name of saving time. See below.

An example:

My opponent wants to move a single unit of 20 models. Do I make him measure the move range of every model (required by rules) or do I let him measure the furthest one then move the rest approximately in the same formation behind him to save time? I do the latter, but that's a mutual agreement to modify the rules made by the two players. Alternatively, do we make people roll morale checks they can't fail? The rules say we should, but I know I let me opponent skip it to save time.

Same thing with flamers. Are we supposed to roll? Yes. Do we skip it to save time when it won't change anything? I know I do.

Don't forget in 7th too, automatically hits weapons had to roll to see if they "Gets Hot" still.

You are literally arguing both RAW and intention in the same sentence. You really can't have both. It's either one or the other. What I am discussing is common sense. The one everyone had in this edition when they just auto hit with their flamers, and the same one they suddenly lost when they read about this ridiculous suggestion.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I know it does not mean you skip the to hit roll, trust me I am in the boat that flamers work as they have since like ever, they automatically hit nonroll needed. But if your going to try and claim that oh well I'm.going to roll and utilize this rule that said 6+ gives me an extra hit, then you also need to acknowledge that rolls of 1 will always miss. As rules say "regardless of modification" a one will always miss.

You can't ignore rules that don't benefit you but then use the ones that do. That's not how that works.

We're ignoring nothing. Automatically hits tells us to ignore the 1'st rule. See prior pages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Audustum wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Audustum wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
The fact that this question has 5 pages of debate is a very worrying thing to me. Common sense is the one of the only two things I require my opponent to bring to the table. If they come to play and sincerely want to argue rolling redundant rolls on flamer weapons to get free 6's then I will thank them for wasting my time and I will be packing my models and putting them in the blacklist.

Last edition someone also tried to argue something similar with psychic scream. Before faq, since it was a wytchfire, it required a roll to hit, even if it did not have a weapon profile. So people were really trying to argue that yes, they need to roll to hit, but even if they miss, then they can still go on and resolve the power because hitting with the power was not relevant to the effect of the power. Yeap, really.

Ultimately, common sense is not something that can or should be allowed to be debated against. One should never have to argue or try to prove that a Saturday is indeed a Saturday and not a Monday, no matter how often the other party stubbornly demands a proof. It's upon the doubting party to acquire common sense before they even want to enter an argument.

Except common sense dictates that, if you're told to roll, you should roll unless something says otherwise. And nothing does.

In addition to that, it literally only affects Burna Boyz using a Stratagem and Stormtroopers with Flamers within 4". I hardly see the game-breaking potential of that.

Only you are not specifically told to roll in either of those cases. Yes the flamers don't say "Do not roll to hit" but they do not say "roll to hit" either. And being game breaking or not is irrelevant. As I said, I will not be arguing common sense.

The Shooting Phase has a mandatory requirement that you roll to hit. See earlier in the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I want you to answer me, honestly, if you, personally, have been rolling to hit rolls on your flamers in your games before this argument ensued.

Wrong person. I only have 3 models in my entire collection that use flamers right now and they see almost no use (Imperial Knights/GMDK). That said, no one in this thread is objecting to fast dice or skipping procedures in the name of saving time (in fact, I think we even reference that in the first 2 or 3 pages), but what we're saying is that's not RAW. EDIT: I forgot Celestine's sword works like a flamer. I absolutely do roll it if something is effecting it or could make a difference, otherwise I skip it in the name of saving time. See below.

An example:

My opponent wants to move a single unit of 20 models. Do I make him measure the move range of every model (required by rules) or do I let him measure the furthest one then move the rest approximately in the same formation behind him to save time? I do the latter, but that's a mutual agreement to modify the rules made by the two players. Alternatively, do we make people roll morale checks they can't fail? The rules say we should, but I know I let me opponent skip it to save time.

Same thing with flamers. Are we supposed to roll? Yes. Do we skip it to save time when it won't change anything? I know I do.

Don't forget in 7th too, automatically hits weapons had to roll to see if they "Gets Hot" still.

You are literally arguing both RAW and intention in the same sentence. You really can't have both. It's either one or the other. What I am discussing is common sense. The one everyone had in this edition when they just auto hit with their flamers, and the same one they suddenly lost when they read about this ridiculous suggestion.

Uh, no, I'm not arguing both in the same sentence. I think you're confused. I'm arguing RAW we always must. I'm acknowledging the reality that people skip things that don't matter to save time, but pointing out we technically have no permission to skip them.

My argument is simple: shooting phase commands us to roll (mandatory, not permissive). Automatically overrides 1's always missing due to its definition. Therefore, RAW, you must roll for all automatically hits weapons every time and hit even on a 1.

I'd you decide to ignore that 1s miss then you also have to ignore 6s give extra hits.

Because you can't ignore that the BRB explicitly says, "ignore all modifications" a 1 always, misses.

You can't have cake and eat it too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly at this point I think it would be best if a mod just locked the thread because this is going no where.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I know it does not mean you skip the to hit roll, trust me I am in the boat that flamers work as they have since like ever, they automatically hit nonroll needed. But if your going to try and claim that oh well I'm.going to roll and utilize this rule that said 6+ gives me an extra hit, then you also need to acknowledge that rolls of 1 will always miss. As rules say "regardless of modification" a one will always miss.

You can't ignore rules that don't benefit you but then use the ones that do. That's not how that works.

You mean like telling your opponent that if he rolls 1's miss for automatically hitting because that benefits you when he has a rule that says it always hits?

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I'd you decide to ignore that 1s miss then you also have to ignore 6s give extra hits.

Because you can't ignore that the BRB explicitly says, "ignore all modifications" a 1 always, misses.

You can't have cake and eat it too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly at this point I think it would be best if a mod just locked the thread because this is going no where.

You ignore 1's missing because the datasheet rule tells you. See the example of IK falling back and shooting. Nothing tells us to ignore the Stratagem though. I believe we had the "what is a modifier" discussion back around Pg. 3 already.

No need to lock the thread. It's on-topic and engaging. If it's bothering you though, then stop visiting it. We won't view it as a concession. Your mental sanity is more important than a toy soldier debate. (None of the smilies seem appropriate here but I was gonna post a friendly one).

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I'd you decide to ignore that 1s miss then you also have to ignore 6s give extra hits.

Because you can't ignore that the BRB explicitly says, "ignore all modifications" a 1 always, misses.

You can't have cake and eat it too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly at this point I think it would be best if a mod just locked the thread because this is going no where.

"Automatically hits" overrides "1's miss". It doesn't say "automatically hit unless you roll a 1"

It says the flamer automatically hits its target, automatically doesn't tell you anything about skipping the rule of 1.

You're inferring that 1s hit based on the word "automatically," but that's just one favorable interpretation. Automatically could just as easily mean "regardless of ballistic skill," in which case, 1s would indeed miss.

When you start evaluating dice rolls to determine the number of hits, the roll stops being automatic. Whether that be because 6s generate an extra hit, or because 1s miss. They're two sides to the same coin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

"Automatically hits" overrides "1's miss". It doesn't say "automatically hit unless you roll a 1"

It does not override 1s miss, because automatic hits are not clearly defined. Automatic could just as easily mean "hits regardless of ballistic skill." Because automatic hits are not defined, you can't make this inference.

Of course this is all silly. Automatic hits mean you don't roll to hit.

And this does come off as supreme rules lawyering.

Next, we may as well have a discussion about how the game technically doesn't prohibit you from using a dice with 6s on all sides. Or let's have a chat about what rolling a dice means. Maybe rolling a dice just means nudging them gently while they're already on the table. Or perhaps we should discuss units being able to deploy, and act, while on the bottom side of the table. It's a good place to put your artillery.

 Marmatag wrote:
It says the flamer automatically hits its target, automatically doesn't tell you anything about skipping the rule of 1.

You're inferring that 1s hit based on the word "automatically," but that's just one favorable interpretation. Automatically could just as easily mean "regardless of ballistic skill," in which case, 1s would indeed miss.

When you start evaluating dice rolls to determine the number of hits, the roll stops being automatic. Whether that be because 6s generate an extra hit, or because 1s miss. They're two sides to the same coin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

"Automatically hits" overrides "1's miss". It doesn't say "automatically hit unless you roll a 1"

It does not override 1s miss, because automatic hits are not clearly defined. Automatic could just as easily mean "hits regardless of ballistic skill." Because automatic hits are not defined, you can't make this inference.

Of course this is all silly. Automatic hits mean you don't roll to hit.

And this does come off as supreme rules lawyering.

Next, we may as well have a discussion about how the game technically doesn't prohibit you from using a dice with 6s on all sides. Or let's have a chat about what rolling a dice means. Maybe rolling a dice just means nudging them gently while they're already on the table. Or perhaps we should discuss units being able to deploy, and act, while on the bottom side of the table. It's a good place to put your artillery.

You are still back on page 4 or so. There is NO definition of automatically that allows a skipping of rolling. There are only definitions that make the hits happen. It's not one charitable definition, it's the only one.

Further, the rule doesn't say the rolls are automatic. It says the HITS are. You are equating these as the same thing without a basis to do so.

I like your posts, but that last part is pure hyperbole. We have two rolls here commanding a result, unlike your examples. To shout and plug your ears in the face of that is pure HYWPI, not RAW.

Just to throw this out there as I'm interested to see what people say, but would you say you can generate extra hits on a 6 against -1 to hit units?

Ice_can wrote:
Just to throw this out there as I'm interested to see what people say, but would you say you can generate extra hits on a 6 against -1 to hit units?

Of course not. The hit roll would be 6-1=5. It would then hit, regardless of the number rolled and modifiers present, since that's what the rules tell you to do, but you would NOT generate extra hits.

 Marmatag wrote:
It says the flamer automatically hits its target, automatically doesn't tell you anything about skipping the rule of 1.

You're inferring that 1s hit based on the word "automatically," but that's just one favorable interpretation. Automatically could just as easily mean "regardless of ballistic skill," in which case, 1s would indeed miss.

If you miss when you roll a 1, you're not hitting "automatically" whichever way you want to infer the definition. If you hit "regardless of ballistic skill", you still hit on a one, otherwise you're not hitting automatically.


When you start evaluating dice rolls to determine the number of hits, the roll stops being automatic. Whether that be because 6s generate an extra hit, or because 1s miss. They're two sides to the same coin.

Well this thread was a bit of a slog.

There is an elegant solution to things like this with a simple errata of adding the rule like they have in WMH.

If you're fighting a model that is knocked down in melee you automatically hit; HOWEVER, if you wish to trigger a critical effect (2 or more of the same result on the hit dice) then you may opt to roll to hit, but also run the risk of missing.

GW could easily do the same and say you can roll to hit with weapons that hit automatically if you wish to attempt to get those triggers but you can also miss at the same time.

Or its an automatic result not an automactic action problem solved

Audustum wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Exactly. You do not have permission not to roll.

Except where it says hits automatically. That is the over-ride for the roll.

If it weren't we would have 2 rules in play if we rolled for auto hit weapons. One being hits automatically the other being always misses on a 1. ALWAYS... Therefore we cant make to hit rolls because if we roll a 1 they no longer auto hit as 1's ALWAYS miss...

On the one hand you say automatically overrides the Shooting Phase command that you MUST roll.

On the other hand, you say that a rule cannot override the shooting phase rule that 1's always miss.

Do you realize how contradictory that position is?

Anyway, please see the previous pages. There is no definition of 'autonatically' that tells you to skip or ignore rolling. It DOES, however, mean the result is predetermined. So 'automatically' is telling to override the 1's always miss rule and not giving permission to skip rolling.

It is not contradictory. (Notice the "If it weren't", meaning that if the procedure is not an over-ride for the roll....Meaning it says hit automatically and you do not roll to hit).

Hitting automatically would have to include making zero rolls to hit otherwise the game breaks if you roll any 1's as you would have something saying that this particular roll always misses and another thing saying that it always hits.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Exactly. You do not have permission not to roll.

Except where it says hits automatically. That is the over-ride for the roll.

If it weren't we would have 2 rules in play if we rolled for auto hit weapons. One being hits automatically the other being always misses on a 1. ALWAYS... Therefore we cant make to hit rolls because if we roll a 1 they no longer auto hit as 1's ALWAYS miss...

On the one hand you say automatically overrides the Shooting Phase command that you MUST roll.

On the other hand, you say that a rule cannot override the shooting phase rule that 1's always miss.

Do you realize how contradictory that position is?

Anyway, please see the previous pages. There is no definition of 'autonatically' that tells you to skip or ignore rolling. It DOES, however, mean the result is predetermined. So 'automatically' is telling to override the 1's always miss rule and not giving permission to skip rolling.

It is not contradictory. (Notice the "If it weren't", meaning that if the procedure is not an over-ride for the roll....Meaning it says hit automatically and you do not roll to hit).

Hitting automatically would have to include making zero rolls to hit otherwise the game breaks if you roll any 1's as you would have something saying that this particular roll always misses and another thing saying that it always hits.

Then by that same token doesn't the game break if you use any weapons that hit automatically because the main book says you have to roll dice and the interpretation you're using for automatically hitting says you don't roll the dice?

Doctortom nailed it.

It doesn't break though. the two rules work just fine with each other. Data sheets over ride basic rules.

General overrides specific, perhaps?


Or are you suggesting that ALL Flamers, Always must roll Dice, and always must miss on 1's? Because your point of view appears to be entirely independent of if this stratagem is being used or not.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It doesn't break though. the two rules work just fine with each other. Data sheets over ride basic rules.

Then the datasheet that says it hits automatically could override the rule that you always miss on 1s

How do you figure this? Where in the rules does it say anything about how to handle auto hit vs auto miss? Since we are being super fine in our definitions, where in the rules does it say specific overrides general and then defines specific and general rules?

Hint: it doesn't address either of these issues directly all we can do is try to interpret them via past experience. As such, my past experience has always been that "automatic" means don't roll.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How do you figure this? Where in the rules does it say anything about how to handle auto hit vs auto miss? Since we are being super fine in our definitions, where in the rules does it say specific overrides general and then defines specific and general rules?

Hint: it doesn't address either of these issues directly all we can do is try to interpret them via past experience. As such, my past experience has always been that "automatic" means don't roll.

I was more referring to this comment

 DeathReaper wrote:
It doesn't break though. the two rules work just fine with each other. Data sheets over ride basic rules.

which was a reply to this comment

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Exactly. You do not have permission not to roll.

Except where it says hits automatically. That is the over-ride for the roll.

If it weren't we would have 2 rules in play if we rolled for auto hit weapons. One being hits automatically the other being always misses on a 1. ALWAYS... Therefore we cant make to hit rolls because if we roll a 1 they no longer auto hit as 1's ALWAYS miss...

On the one hand you say automatically overrides the Shooting Phase command that you MUST roll.

On the other hand, you say that a rule cannot override the shooting phase rule that 1's always miss.

Do you realize how contradictory that position is?

Anyway, please see the previous pages. There is no definition of 'autonatically' that tells you to skip or ignore rolling. It DOES, however, mean the result is predetermined. So 'automatically' is telling to override the 1's always miss rule and not giving permission to skip rolling.

It is not contradictory. (Notice the "If it weren't", meaning that if the procedure is not an over-ride for the roll....Meaning it says hit automatically and you do not roll to hit).

Hitting automatically would have to include making zero rolls to hit otherwise the game breaks if you roll any 1's as you would have something saying that this particular roll always misses and another thing saying that it always hits.

Then by that same token doesn't the game break if you use any weapons that hit automatically because the main book says you have to roll dice and the interpretation you're using for automatically hitting says you don't roll the dice?

According to death reaper, the datasheet can override the rules, but he also states that the datasheet cannot override the rules. That is contradictory. He states that if you roll and roll a 1 the game breaks because you have 2 rules telling you different things. However when it was pointed out that if you don't roll the game breaks because there are two different rules in conflict he said that the datasheet overrules the shooting rules. If that's the case then why does the datasheet not overrule the 1s always miss rule? If we don't roll to hit then we are breaking a rule. If we roll and allow 1s to still hit we are breaking a rule. If we roll and 1s miss we are still breaking a rule. I guess the only way to not break the game is to not use auto hit weapons. The datasheet HAS to be able to override basic rules or the game falls apart. The question here is what is overwritten. Does automatic mean skip rolling or hit regardless of the roll. To be honest it could be either and I really don't mind.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How do you figure this? Where in the rules does it say anything about how to handle auto hit vs auto miss? Since we are being super fine in our definitions, where in the rules does it say specific overrides general and then defines specific and general rules?

You've asked two different questions, though you seem to think they're the same.

1. Where in the rules does it say anything about how to handle auto hit vs. auto miss?

It doesn't, explicitly. You just have one rule decreeing auto-miss in a general scenario and one rule declaring auto-hits in a specific scenario.

2. Where is it said specific overrides general?

It doesn't, but it's necessary for the game to work. Go look at the previous pages. If specific doesn't override general, than Melta weapons, Imperial Knights, Baneblades, improved Overwatch abilities and many others are conflict with the general Rulebook and the game completely breaks down.

Hint: it doesn't address either of these issues directly all we can do is try to interpret them via past experience. As such, my past experience has always been that "automatic" means don't roll.

You don't need to resort to past experience (and that's a terrible idea on its own anyway). You just need to follow generalia specialibus non derogant, which is a fancy way of saying the specific overrides the general and has been a common tool of interpretation for hundreds of years.

Relying on past experience is terrible for two reasons:

1. We all have different pasts and different experience. Who wins when our experiences conflict? How do we prioritize conflicting prior experiences (rolling to see if automatic hit weapons "Gets Hot"?). We have no common way to interpret the rules in front of us besides the actual text of the rules themselves.

2. Saying you need to rely on past experience or "wargame conventions" (which is really "40k prior editions" because each wargame has its own conventions and they don't all agree) is effectively telling all new players: "Get wrecked if you didn't play prior editions or be prepared for your 'elder' players to school you with hidden rules, secret understandings and insist you're wrong because". In essence, it is the absolute worst form of "na-na this is our secret club, no new kids allowed". The rules of the game need to be written in the rules of the game. Period.

Except they're not, and you need to deal with that, because concepts like "on the battlefield" and "automatically hits" aren't defined to laserbeam lawyer-tight standards. Or at all. And things like, well, everything in BCB's signature require an element of common sense and colloquial understanding to even function. So just use common sense and we don't end up with a 7-page discussion about whether automatic hits suddenly make a hit roll (which nobody did before, let's be honest) because some guy on the net said there's possibly a minute technical advantage possible with two edge case Stratagems. There was no debate when the roll gave no reward. This is all just about finding unintended advantage and I find it very silly.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Except they're not, and you need to deal with that, because concepts like "on the battlefield" and "automatically hits" aren't defined to laserbeam lawyer-tight standards. Or at all. And things like, well, everything in BCB's signature require an element of common sense and colloquial understanding to even function. So just use common sense and we don't end up with a 7-page discussion about whether automatic hits suddenly make a hit roll (which nobody did before, let's be honest) because some guy on the net said there's possibly a minute technical advantage possible with two edge case Stratagems. There was no debate when the roll gave no reward. This is all just about finding unintended advantage and I find it very silly.

You remind me of a reporter who wrote an article I read that complained, in all seriousness, that the world was better before we invented light switches because his subjective time in that age was more pleasant.

I believe "automatically hits" is fully defined and functional as long as people don't try to pass off their HYWPI as RAW, same for the Battlefield. It's your (plural) very reliance on unwritten 'conventions' that are, in reality, subjective to you (plural) that causes many of these problems.

One thing you will also have to accept is that people were rolling for this previously. They have been since 7th. The events of your FLGS are not the everyday reality of all FLGS everywhere.

Anyway, we're getting a bit off track. Point being, this particular rule is clear and we don't have an issue unless it's manufactured due to players' own sensibilities. I'll step off the soapbpx now.

Anyway, if the larger threads bother you, leave them be. I enjoy reading these and YMDC would be sad without them.

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Except they're not, and you need to deal with that, because concepts like "on the battlefield" and "automatically hits" aren't defined to laserbeam lawyer-tight standards. Or at all. And things like, well, everything in BCB's signature require an element of common sense and colloquial understanding to even function. So just use common sense and we don't end up with a 7-page discussion about whether automatic hits suddenly make a hit roll (which nobody did before, let's be honest) because some guy on the net said there's possibly a minute technical advantage possible with two edge case Stratagems. There was no debate when the roll gave no reward. This is all just about finding unintended advantage and I find it very silly.

You remind me of a reporter who wrote an article I read that complained, in all seriousness, that the world was better before we invented light switches because his subjective time in that age was more pleasant.

I believe "automatically hits" is fully defined and functional as long as people don't try to pass off their HYWPI as RAW, same for the Battlefield. It's your (plural) very reliance on unwritten 'conventions' that are, in reality, subjective to you (plural) that causes many of these problems.

One thing you will also have to accept is that people were rolling for this previously. They have been since 7th. The events of your FLGS are not the everyday reality of all FLGS everywhere.

Anyway, we're getting a bit off track. Point being, this particular rule is clear and we don't have an issue unless it's manufactured due to players' own sensibilities. I'll step off the soapbpx now.

Anyway, if the larger threads bother you, leave them be. I enjoy reading these and YMDC would be sad without them.

I totally agree conventions differ. I disagree it's unclear what it means. Such is life. Rolling for auto hits all through an edition is... well, a waste of time if nothing else. Advocating the required common sense approach to make the rules function is not remotely the same as your Luddite reporter example, but whatever. It's patently obvious an element of that is required or several key rules simply do not function - you must agree with that, surely?

Anyway. Write to GW, wait, in all probability get the answer I'm giving you. They seem willing to answer obvious things in FAQs, as the Leman Russ debacle showed, so you might get your wish for 'clarity' even if you don't like the answer. I'll happily eat multiple hats ad Humble Pie if for some reason they decide you need to make rolls for auto-hit guns.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It doesn't break though. the two rules work just fine with each other. Data sheets over ride basic rules.

Then the datasheet that says it hits automatically could override the rule that you always miss on 1s

You do not roll so that is a moot point.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It doesn't break though. the two rules work just fine with each other. Data sheets over ride basic rules.

Then the datasheet that says it hits automatically could override the rule that you always miss on 1s

You do not roll so that is a moot point.

I've yet to see anyone here specify why automatically, means skip rolling. The rules say you roll to hit. Under step there is a section about number of attacks. It says the following;

Number of Attacks
Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made. The number of attacks a model can make with a weapon,
and therefore the number of dice you can roll, is found on the weapon’s profile, along with the weapon’s type. A weapon’s type can impact the number of attacks it can make (see over leaf)

Emphasis mine of course.

Now this debate really is over whether the term automatically just lets you skip rolling altogether, or any roll is considered a hit. Honestly I see both sides as equally plausible RAW because using definitions and connotations (GW often uses the connotations of words not the dictionary definition of words) of automatically you could conceivably and reasonably come to either conclusion. I do believe GW will faq it to say that you cannot dakkadakkadakka burnas. But as written I believe both interpretation are equally valid.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:


I've yet to see anyone here specify why automatically, means skip rolling...

Well the definition of automatically for one...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:


I've yet to see anyone here specify why automatically, means skip rolling...

Well the definition of automatically for one...

Please see the last 4 pages of English definition discussion.

Audustum wrote:
Please see the last 4 pages of English definition discussion.

Yes, I read it, and Automatically makes it so you do not roll.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Please see the last 4 pages of English definition discussion.

Yes, I read it, and Automatically makes it so you do not roll.

Oh dear.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Please see the last 4 pages of English definition discussion.

Yes, I read it, and Automatically makes it so you do not roll.

Look, it's fine if you wanna have your own opinion (however unsupported by evidence it may be), but we ARE a discussion forum so you're gonna have to pony up something more if you actually want to participate.

Audustum wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Please see the last 4 pages of English definition discussion.

Yes, I read it, and Automatically makes it so you do not roll.

Look, it's fine if you wanna have your own opinion (however unsupported by evidence it may be), but we ARE a discussion forum so you're gonna have to pony up something more if you actually want to participate.

The definition of automatically or without input as it were, supports the no rolling... since you do not have any input and yet you know the shots hit.

if auto hit over-rides the 1 always miss rule, it certainly over-rides the have to roll for each shot rule.

We're not told that the rolls don't happen. It certainly implies that it's the case, but we're never explicitly told not to roll the hits, while we are explicitly told to roll them. We thus follow the explicit command of the rules because there's nothing telling us not to roll. Again, the shots hitting without input ("automatically") doesn't mean that the imput mandated doesn't happen, only that it is meaningless for determining whether the shots hit or not (but not for other fringe cases like the one being discussed in this thread).

The rule telling us that rolls of 1 always miss is less specific than the rule telling use that flamer shots always hit (since flamer shots is a subset of all shots) and the "always hits" thus takes precedence over the "1s never hit" rule.

It's highly unlikely that this is what GW intended, but it's the way the rules work.

The rule telling us that rolls of 1 always miss is less specific than the rule telling use that flamer shots always hit.

Explain that to me, because the wording is like 100% the same.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

The rule telling us that rolls of 1 always miss is less specific than the rule telling use that flamer shots always hit.

Explain that to me, because the wording is like 100% the same.

All shots that roll a to hit roll of 1 miss. All flamer shots always hit. The second rule is more specific because it deals with a subset (i.e. it's more specific, whereas the first is more general) of shots. All flamer shots are shots, but not all shots are flamer shots.

Let me see if I understand you. The reason flamer shots don't pay attention to the general shooting rule is that they are a special case. The reason that you have to roll to hit is that flamer shots are no different from normal shooting. Isn't it a little convenient that they have to follow one general but not the other all due to the word "automatic" (which most people would interpret to mean that you just skip the "to hit" subphase and go to the damage subphase).
Your use of the rules is suspect in this instance.

JohnnyHell wrote:Rolling for auto hits all through an edition is... well, a waste of time if nothing else.

The argument being made is that it has always only ever been a waste of time, and so people being smarter than simple robits, have skipped a useless step in pursuit of efiiciency.
Now, however, rolling may not be a waste of time, and people are struggling to recall whether they skipped it because it was efficient, or if they skipped it because the rules explicitly told them to.

Most of your (singular) posts regarding this question, Johnny, has been to suggest that because you have always skipped it, it must therefore have always been the rule to skip it. And you reinforce this by suggesting that even if it weren't the rule to skip it, you would have skipped it because it'd be dumb to have rolled. There's a bit of circular unlogic to that particular sequence, which is why people have been so dismissive of your posts as "subjective" instead of "objective."

DeathReaper wrote:The definition of automatically or without input as it were

Yes, without input from the result of the roll. You don't input the act of rolling into a to-hit machine/equation to determine if a result hits, you input the roll result.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We're not told that the rolls don't happen. It certainly implies that it's the case, but we're never explicitly told not to roll the hits, while we are explicitly told to roll them. We thus follow the explicit command of the rules because there's nothing telling us not to roll. Again, the shots hitting without input ("automatically") doesn't mean that the imput mandated doesn't happen, only that it is meaningless for determining whether the shots hit or not (but not for other fringe cases like the one being discussed in this thread).

The rule telling us that rolls of 1 always miss is less specific than the rule telling use that flamer shots always hit (since flamer shots is a subset of all shots) and the "always hits" thus takes precedence over the "1s never hit" rule.

It's highly unlikely that this is what GW intended, but it's the way the rules work.

Nailed it.

I can not believe that this has got to 7 pages and you still think automatically doesn't mean without rolling dice.

If GW had ment you to roll they would have said
This weapon hits its target regardless of to hit roll result.
This weapon automatically hits its target. Is different and does indeed imply that no to hit roll should be made.
The reason people are struggling for precedent is that in previous editions their was a bespoke section of rules that delt with template weapons which were not subject to normal shooting rules. You would also stuggle to find precedent for rolling to hit rules for template weapons aswell, in fact is specifically told you not to roll.

Ice_can wrote:
I can nit believ that this has got to 7 pages and you still think automatically doesn't mean without rolling dice.

If GW had ment you to roll they would have said
This weapon hits its target regardless of to hit roll result.
This weapon automatically hits its target. Is different and does indead imply that no to hit roll should be made.
The reason people are struggling for precedent is that in previous editions their was a bespoke section of rules that delt with template weapons which were not subject to normal shooting rules. You would also stuggle to find precedent for rolling to hit rules for template weapons aswell.

Except that language is redundant. The shooting phase already commands you to roll.

The language isn't redundant it's just you don't like the idea that it doesn't support your possition.

Also given you select the unit, select the targets, choose ranged weapon at which point the hits automatically rule would come into effect, therefor rendering the to hit roll section redundent and as such you move the to wound section. Hence the requirement to roll the dice is never triggered.

Ice_can wrote:
The language isn't redundant it's just you don't like the idea that it doesn't support your possition.

What is this? I'm talking about your proposed alternative additional language. That's redundant. We're already commanded to roll and automatically doesn't skip that. No redundancy there.

Also given you select the unit, select the targets, choose ranged weapon at which point the hits automatically rule would come into effect, therefor rendering the to hit roll section redundent and as such you move the to wound section. Hence the requirement to roll the dice is never triggered.

Is a nice idea except there's not a shred of RAW to support it. The rules don't say to skip rolling when a result is predetermined. They instead say, quite clearly, that you roll for all shooting attacks. The result is predetermined but the motions are still required. Saying "it's redundant, skip!" is HYWPI, not RAW.

I think we can all agree that we certainly don't PLAY IT as everyone rolls to-hit for every flamer, then ignores the results and moves on to wound rolls. Because, with the exception of Stormtroopers and Dakka Dakka Dakka, it doesn't matter. But when it does matter, yes, roll.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think we can all agree that we certainly don't PLAY IT as everyone rolls to-hit for every flamer, then ignores the results and moves on to wound rolls. Because, with the exception of Stormtroopers and Dakka Dakka Dakka, it doesn't matter. But when it does matter, yes, roll.

Agreed.

Audustum wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think we can all agree that we certainly don't PLAY IT as everyone rolls to-hit for every flamer, then ignores the results and moves on to wound rolls. Because, with the exception of Stormtroopers and Dakka Dakka Dakka, it doesn't matter. But when it does matter, yes, roll.

Agreed.

If my opponent wants to roll his flamers to get bonus hits on a 6, I will also demand that they discard all 1's. Reasoning is that they can't choose to obey only some of the general rules, it has to be all or nothing. If they don't like that they are free to find another opponent.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think we can all agree that we certainly don't PLAY IT as everyone rolls to-hit for every flamer, then ignores the results and moves on to wound rolls. Because, with the exception of Stormtroopers and Dakka Dakka Dakka, it doesn't matter. But when it does matter, yes, roll.

Agreed.

If my opponent wants to roll his flamers to get bonus hits on a 6, I will also demand that they discard all 1's. Reasoning is that they can't choose to obey only some of the general rules, it has to be all or nothing. If they don't like that they are free to find another opponent.

Um... They are obeying the general rules, except when in conflict with more specific rules.

What GENERAL RULE procs extra hits on a 6?

If "automatic" specifically overrules the 1 roll for shooting then it would also overrule the general rule of a stratagem since the stratagem is a general statement dealing with all weapons. If the stratagem addressed flamers specifically then you would be OK to use it with the flamer. As you specific overrides general and the stratagem is a general rule.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think we can all agree that we certainly don't PLAY IT as everyone rolls to-hit for every flamer, then ignores the results and moves on to wound rolls. Because, with the exception of Stormtroopers and Dakka Dakka Dakka, it doesn't matter. But when it does matter, yes, roll.

Agreed.

If my opponent wants to roll his flamers to get bonus hits on a 6, I will also demand that they discard all 1's. Reasoning is that they can't choose to obey only some of the general rules, it has to be all or nothing. If they don't like that they are free to find another opponent.

Except missing on 1's is overriden by automatically OR, if you're in the other camp, the nneed to roll at all is overriden. You're asking you opponent to accept your HYWPI over RAW in either case.

 SinisterSamurai wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The definition of automatically or without input as it were

Yes, without input from the result of the roll. You don't input the act of rolling into a to-hit machine/equation to determine if a result hits, you input the roll result.

Without input from the roll. No roll needed they auto-hit...

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If "automatic" specifically overrules the 1 roll for shooting then it would also overrule the general rule of a stratagem since the stratagem is a general statement dealing with all weapons. If the stratagem addressed flamers specifically then you would be OK to use it with the flamer. As you specific overrides general and the stratagem is a general rule.

Except that doesn't follow. No part of the auto-hit rule of flamer prevents you from gaining ADDITIONAL hits, just that you hit regardless of your roll.

You're free to play it that way, and I would not be surprised if GW FAQed it to work that way, but right now? That's very much NOT RAW.

 SinisterSamurai wrote:

JohnnyHell wrote:Rolling for auto hits all through an edition is... well, a waste of time if nothing else.

The argument being made is that it has always only ever been a waste of time, and so people being smarter than simple robits, have skipped a useless step in pursuit of efiiciency.
Now, however, rolling may not be a waste of time, and people are struggling to recall whether they skipped it because it was efficient, or if they skipped it because the rules explicitly told them to.

Most of your (singular) posts regarding this question, Johnny, has been to suggest that because you have always skipped it, it must therefore have always been the rule to skip it. And you reinforce this by suggesting that even if it weren't the rule to skip it, you would have skipped it because it'd be dumb to have rolled. There's a bit of circular unlogic to that particular sequence, which is why people have been so dismissive of your posts as "subjective" instead of "objective."

DeathReaper wrote:The definition of automatically or without input as it were

Yes, without input from the result of the roll. You don't input the act of rolling into a to-hit machine/equation to determine if a result hits, you input the roll result.

It's not massively uncommon for people to disagree around here, and dismiss posts because they do... doesn't massively worry me. And I'm not using circular logic, you're just jamming various things I've said together in a weird way. Each of my points stands - one element is not proof for the other, nor is each dependent on another though they may support each other.

I'd wager 99.9% of GW gamers have always skipped rolling for auto hit weapons, because it's implicit in the wording and completely logical. If there exist local metas where people have been rolling rolls that can't fail for entire editions I just feel a bit bad for them. But yeah, in all reality outside of the internet most people don't roll and didn't question it as it's screamingly obvious... but then one Stratagem might have the benefit for extra shots and suddenly on the internet "anyone not rolling is HYWPI not RAW", "there's no *permission* to skip rolling", etc. start getting spouted and everyone boards the Crazy Train to RAW Town via Dictionaryville.

Do please write in to GW and should they expand on "hits automatically" to actually mean "hits regardless of the result of the dice roll you must make even though it has no effect on the result in 99% of occasions except for when one of these two Stratagems for two particular armies might be advantageous" then I'll concede I was incorrect. Until then everyone can see the clear meaning and intent behind the wording, and if not I have not problem shaking my head in utter disbelief.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 SinisterSamurai wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The definition of automatically or without input as it were

Yes, without input from the result of the roll. You don't input the act of rolling into a to-hit machine/equation to determine if a result hits, you input the roll result.

Without input from the roll. No roll needed they auto-hit...

As I noted on pg. 4, that definition for automatically doesn't exist in any traceable form I could find in half a dozen dictionaries. Even if it did, that's not how the sentence reads once you insert it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 SinisterSamurai wrote:

JohnnyHell wrote:Rolling for auto hits all through an edition is... well, a waste of time if nothing else.

The argument being made is that it has always only ever been a waste of time, and so people being smarter than simple robits, have skipped a useless step in pursuit of efiiciency.
Now, however, rolling may not be a waste of time, and people are struggling to recall whether they skipped it because it was efficient, or if they skipped it because the rules explicitly told them to.

Most of your (singular) posts regarding this question, Johnny, has been to suggest that because you have always skipped it, it must therefore have always been the rule to skip it. And you reinforce this by suggesting that even if it weren't the rule to skip it, you would have skipped it because it'd be dumb to have rolled. There's a bit of circular unlogic to that particular sequence, which is why people have been so dismissive of your posts as "subjective" instead of "objective."

DeathReaper wrote:The definition of automatically or without input as it were

Yes, without input from the result of the roll. You don't input the act of rolling into a to-hit machine/equation to determine if a result hits, you input the roll result.

It's not massively uncommon for people to disagree around here, and dismiss posts because they do... doesn't massively worry me. And I'm not using circular logic, you're just jamming various things I've said together in a weird way. Each of my points stands - one element is not proof for the other, nor is each dependent on another though they may support each other.

I'd wager 99.9% of GW gamers have always skipped rolling for auto hit weapons, because it's implicit in the wording and completely logical. If there exist local metas where people have been rolling rolls that can't fail for entire editions I just feel a bit bad for them. But yeah, in all reality outside of the internet most people don't roll and didn't question it as it's screamingly obvious... but then one Stratagem might have the benefit for extra shots and suddenly on the internet "anyone not rolling is HYWPI not RAW", "there's no *permission* to skip rolling", etc. start getting spouted and everyone boards the Crazy Train to RAW Town via Dictionaryville.

Do please write in to GW and should they expand on "hits automatically" to actually mean "hits regardless of the result of the dice roll you must make even though it has no effect on the result in 99% of occasions except for when one of these two Stratagems for two particular armies might be advantageous" then I'll concede I was incorrect. Until then everyone can see the clear meaning and intent behind the wording, and if not I have not problem shaking my head in utter disbelief.

You seem to make massive conclusions about the behavior of people you've never and could not have ever met. I think that alone exposes the problem in your argument position.

Remember, what happens at your local meta is not indicative of the world at large.

Call it making massive assumptions if you like, but it's hardly a stretch to know that most people correctly interpret "automatically hits" as "don't roll" instead of playing dictionary time to try and find an advantage in a couple of edge case scenarios. As I say, it's an internet problem only, thankfully, and doesn't manifest in real games.

Or its an automatic result not an automactic action

First definition that i found on google

(especially of a legal sanction) given or imposed as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances.
"he received an automatic one-match suspension"
synonyms: inevitable, unavoidable, inescapable, unpreventable, necessary, ineluctable; More
certain, definite, undoubted, assured, obvious;
mandatory, compulsory
"he is the automatic choice for the senior team"

Audustum wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 SinisterSamurai wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The definition of automatically or without input as it were

Yes, without input from the result of the roll. You don't input the act of rolling into a to-hit machine/equation to determine if a result hits, you input the roll result.

Without input from the roll. No roll needed they auto-hit...

As I noted on pg. 4, that definition for automatically doesn't exist in any traceable form I could find in half a dozen dictionaries. Even if it did, that's not how the sentence reads once you insert it.

Rolling to hit is a process,

Automatic means working by itself with little or no direct human control. Rolling a die that hits automatically has no direct human control to it (which is the same as saying without input from the roll (number on the die)).

No direct human control = you do not roll the die.

I know this was mentioned, but immobile buildings in 40K are hit automatically, and say to not roll the dice. This sets a precedent, and shows us that things that hit automatically in 40K do not require a hit roll.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I know this was mentioned, but immobile buildings in 40K are hit automatically, and say to not roll the dice. This sets a precedent, and shows us that things that hit automatically in 40K do not require a hit roll.

Actually, this is precisely why it is arguable that "automatically hits" =/= "do not roll dice".

There is a clear precedent where it EXPLICITLY states "do not roll dice" when you are not allowed to roll dice. Flamer auto hit doesn't explicitly state "do not roll dice."

As stated earlier, this is probably not as intended but as far as RAW goes, there's no clause that tells you to not roll dice.

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I know this was mentioned, but immobile buildings in 40K are hit automatically, and say to not roll the dice. This sets a precedent, and shows us that things that hit automatically in 40K do not require a hit roll.

Actually, this is precisely why it is arguable that "automatically hits" =/= "do not roll dice".

There is a clear precedent where it EXPLICITLY states "do not roll dice" when you are not allowed to roll dice. Flamer auto hit doesn't explicitly state "do not roll dice."

As stated earlier, this is probably not as intended but as far as RAW goes, there's no clause that tells you to not roll dice.

Except where it says hits automatically.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I know this was mentioned, but immobile buildings in 40K are hit automatically, and say to not roll the dice. This sets a precedent, and shows us that things that hit automatically in 40K do not require a hit roll.

Actually, this is precisely why it is arguable that "automatically hits" =/= "do not roll dice".

There is a clear precedent where it EXPLICITLY states "do not roll dice" when you are not allowed to roll dice. Flamer auto hit doesn't explicitly state "do not roll dice."

As stated earlier, this is probably not as intended but as far as RAW goes, there's no clause that tells you to not roll dice.

Except where it says hits automatically.

The issue is that your argument relies on an inference (although valid) based on a definition of a word. It is not explicit.