So this is an old argument, and for the longest, time I was on board with the idea that you could roll for Saviour Protocols for each mortal wound inflicted by Wrath of Mars. However, my belief has been challenged recently, and I am wondering if others have caught on. Or perhaps I am mistaken in my thinking?
First, I examined Saviour Protocols:
If a <SEPT> INFANTRY or <SEPT> BATTLESUIT unit within 3" of a friendly <SEPT> DRONES unit is wounded by an enemy attack, roll a D6. On a 2+ you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.
There was an FAQ concerning Saviour Protocols:
Q: For the purposes of the Saviour Protocols ability, what exactly constitutes an attack?
A: In this context, it is an attack made with a ranged or melee weapon.
So basically, whenever a ranged or melee weapon wounds a Tau infantry or battlesuit of a matching Sept, a Drone can try to Saviour it.
Then I examined Wrath of Mars:
Use this Stratagem before a MARS unit from your army attacks in the Shooting phase. Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for that unit, the target suffers a mortal wound in addition to any other damage.
So basically, the stratagem asks you to select a unit. And each time a wound roll of 6+ occurs, the unit suffers a mortal wound.
And therein is the key question: Does the mortal wound caused by Wrath of Mars come from the weapon?
My thinking now is NO.
The argument for allowing the mortal wound to be Savioured has always been that Wrath of Mars grants this property to the weapon, but the writers of the codex did not know how to phrase this properly. But that is false. The AdMech codex is chock full of examples of weapons that cause mortal wounds on a wound roll of 6+. This includes Radium Jezzail, Transuranic Arquebus, Volkite Blaster, and Chordclaw.
Take Arquebus's phrasing:
Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for this weapon, it inflicts a mortal wound in addition to its normal damage.
In this example, it is clear that the weapon is inflicting the mortal wound. This means it can be Savioured because it is an attack from the weapon.
Take another stratagem, Plasma Specialists, which buffs weapons:
Use this Stratagem before a RYZA unit from your army attacks in the Shooting phase. Add 1 to the wound rolls made for all of that unit’s plasma weapons and increase the damage inflicted by any plasma weapon by 1.
Wrath of Mars's mortal wounds cannot be Savioured because it lacks the "weapons" language. This is how it would be phrased if it were coming from the weapon itself:
Use this Stratagem before a MARS unit from your army attacks in the Shooting phase. Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for that unit's weapons, the target suffers a mortal wound in addition to any other damage.
I agree, if you roll a 6 on the wound roll the opponent can still roll saviour protocols to avoid the weapon damage, but they'll still take the mortal wound.
What is causing the mortal wound if not the weapons being fired? Clearly the fluff reason is that the unit's doctrine inspires them to shoot faster or more accurately or whatever. I don't see why a drone wouldn't be able to intercept that just the same.
A MW is not an attack, only attacks by melee and ranged weapons, thats what the FAQ says. Its the same with smite. You cant use saviour protocols against smite. The target unit would suffer the MW, but the wound from the weapon can be allocated to the drone unit. The MW is not tied to the weapon. Its seperated.
p5freak wrote: A MW is not an attack, only attacks by melee and ranged weapons, thats what the FAQ says. Its the same with smite. You cant use saviour protocols against smite. The target unit would suffer the MW, but the wound from the weapon can be allocated to the drone unit. The MW is not tied to the weapon. Its seperated.
In this case the MW is because of an attack from a ranged weapon.
p5freak wrote: A MW is not an attack, only attacks by melee and ranged weapons, thats what the FAQ says. Its the same with smite. You cant use saviour protocols against smite. The target unit would suffer the MW, but the wound from the weapon can be allocated to the drone unit. The MW is not tied to the weapon. Its seperated.
In this case the MW is because of an attack from a ranged weapon.
No matter how you view it, saviour protocols cant be used against MW.
p5freak wrote: A MW is not an attack, only attacks by melee and ranged weapons, thats what the FAQ says. Its the same with smite. You cant use saviour protocols against smite. The target unit would suffer the MW, but the wound from the weapon can be allocated to the drone unit. The MW is not tied to the weapon. Its seperated.
In this case the MW is because of an attack from a ranged weapon.
No matter how you view it, saviour protocols cant be used against MW.
Basically yes.
If a weapon existed that caused a mortal wound from something after the roll to wound then it would be after the attack is reallocated to the drone, and so would go to the drone. But I can't think of any time that could happen in practice, especially as it's converted to a mortal wound anyway.
But I do agree with you. You allocate the wound to the drone, but mortal wounds created created before this will still go on the original target - they are dealt with separately, and it doesn't say to change their allocation, just the allocation of the wound from the weapon.
DeathReaper wrote: " Each time you make a wound roll of 6+... the target suffers a mortal wound in addition to any other damage."
Looks like the weapon, when rolling to wound, does the mortal wound in addition to any other damage.
But there's no textual evidence for this. If the weapon is causing the mortal wound, they would have said so, as is the case in multiple weapon profiles and even another stratagem.
The "in addition to any other damage" component is simplify clarifying that this is not replacing the weapon damage.
Bilge Rat wrote: What is causing the mortal wound if not the weapons being fired? Clearly the fluff reason is that the unit's doctrine inspires them to shoot faster or more accurately or whatever. I don't see why a drone wouldn't be able to intercept that just the same.
This is not really a rules argument. The Tau FAQ clearly states that only wounds from attacks by weapons can be savioured. The wound from Wrath of Mars is triggered by an attack from a weapon, but it is not the attack from the weapon.
p5freak wrote: No matter how you view it, saviour protocols cant be used against MW.
This is interesting. How do you arrive at this conclusion? What about something like mortal wounds from Chordclaw? Are you emphasizing that Saviour Protocols require "normal damage" instead of mortal wounds, therefore cannot apply to mortal wounds?
Stux wrote: If a weapon existed that caused a mortal wound from something after the roll to wound then it would be after the attack is reallocated to the drone, and so would go to the drone. But I can't think of any time that could happen in practice, especially as it's converted to a mortal wound anyway.
But I do agree with you. You allocate the wound to the drone, but mortal wounds created created before this will still go on the original target - they are dealt with separately, and it doesn't say to change their allocation, just the allocation of the wound from the weapon.
So you think it's a timing issue? That the mortal wounds are allocated separately without a successful wound roll? Therefore, Saviour Protocol does not apply? At least not at the same time?
After digging a bit, I think there is merit here. Ironically, they use Tau rail rifles as an example:
Q: If a weapon such as a rail rifle has an ability that can inflict a mortal wound on the target in addition to the normal damage, but the ‘normal damage’ is subsequently saved, does the target still suffer the mortal wound?
A: Yes. Note that if the ‘normal damage’ was not saved, the wound would be allocated on the target unit first (and any resulting damage inflicted) before the mortal wound was inflicted.
So, at the very least, a separate Saviour Protocol roll is needed. Whether or not it triggers at all is up in the air.
p5freak wrote: No matter how you view it, saviour protocols cant be used against MW.
This is interesting. How do you arrive at this conclusion? What about something like mortal wounds from Chordclaw?
You quoted the relevant FAQ.
Q: For the purposes of the Saviour Protocols ability, what exactly constitutes an attack?
A: In this context, it is an attack made with a ranged or melee weapon.
Smite is not an attack, its not made with a ranged or melee weapon. We already discussed weapons which do MW in addition. Chordclaw is special, because its MW instead of normal damage. Saviour protocols would be able to intercept MW from chordclaw, because it comes from an attack, from a weapon. I am not sure how to handle it. Do you roll 2+ for every MW (because every MW is 1 point of damage ?), or is it one roll of 2+ ? GW really needs to answer how to handle weapons that do MW instead of normal damage.
I added to my response. There is an FAQ for additional mortal wounds:
Q: If a weapon such as a rail rifle has an ability that can inflict a mortal wound on the target in addition to the normal damage, but the ‘normal damage’ is subsequently saved, does the target still suffer the mortal wound?
A: Yes. Note that if the ‘normal damage’ was not saved, the wound would be allocated on the target unit first (and any resulting damage inflicted) before the mortal wound was inflicted.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think the timing argument is actually really strong. Saviour Protocols require that the unit be wounded.
According the the Core Rules, in order to be successfully wounded, you must make a wound roll:
2. If an attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target...
But Core Rules also state that mortal wounds skip this step:
... Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above.
This is referring to step 3, so we skip step 2 entirely:
3. Allocate Wound: If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model.
Suzuteo wrote: I added to my response. There is an FAQ for additional mortal wounds:
Q: If a weapon such as a rail rifle has an ability that can inflict a mortal wound on the target in addition to the normal damage, but the ‘normal damage’ is subsequently saved, does the target still suffer the mortal wound?
How does this help our discussion ? If you get to use saviour protocols the normal damage is not saved. Which means the normal damage is allocated to the drones. Then the MW is inflicted on the target unit, or the drone ?
Part of me wants to say that if an attack causes MW then they could be Savioured because that's the most straightforward intention and I'm not a fan of picking rules apart to suit a specific scenario. If the intention of saviour protocols is for any wounds, but not mortal wounds, that were caused by weapons to be allocated to drones then the drone rule should say it excludes MW, not relying on the myriad other ways a MW could be achieved on a target to define what constitutes a saveable wound.
There's also another admech strategm where MW are triggered from an attack, Dataspike, where it does specifically say that you roll for an attack and on a 4+ the target suffers D3 MW, but it's not an attack from a weapon. How do we treat that? That contradicts both the FAQ and the drone rule.
Either way i'd like to see the intention of saviour protocols defined better. In my fluffy head, a MW is so devastatingly efficient, brutal and direct that nothing should be able to get in its way. In that respect if a wound is savable then saviour protocols should apply, if it's not savable then that implies nothing can stop it. And by savable I mean to imply that if you have a 3+ save and get hit by -5 AP it WOULD be savable through modifiers or with strategms giving invulnerable saves or psychic powers giving an invulnerable save etc. Whereas a MW is only savable using a FnP mechanic.
There's also another admech strategm where MW are triggered from an attack, Dataspike, where it does specifically say that you roll for an attack and on a 4+ the target suffers D3 MW, but it's not an attack from a weapon. How do we treat that? That contradicts both the FAQ and the drone rule.
If it doesnt mention a weapon, it cant be intercepted by SP.
p5freak wrote: How does this help our discussion ? If you get to use saviour protocols the normal damage is not saved. Which means the normal damage is allocated to the drones. Then the MW is inflicted on the target unit, or the drone ?
Look here at Saviour Protocols:
If a <SEPT> INFANTRY or <SEPT> BATTLESUIT unit within 3" of a friendly <SEPT> DRONES unit is wounded by an enemy attack, roll a D6. On a 2+ you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.
The first underlined segment occurs when you make a wound roll. The second segment reinforces this. Mortal wounds from Wrath of Mars skip over this step and go straight into allocation, which is after Saviour Protocols can apply.
1. Wound roll of 6+; successful wound
2. Saviour Protocol roll of 2+
3. Wound is allocated to a Drone
4. Wrath of Mar's mortal wound is allocated to Riptide
p5freak wrote: How does this help our discussion ? If you get to use saviour protocols the normal damage is not saved. Which means the normal damage is allocated to the drones. Then the MW is inflicted on the target unit, or the drone ?
Look here at Saviour Protocols:
If a <SEPT> INFANTRY or <SEPT> BATTLESUIT unit within 3" of a friendly <SEPT> DRONES unit is wounded by an enemy attack, roll a D6. On a 2+ you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.
The first underlined segment occurs when you make a wound roll. The second segment reinforces this. Mortal wounds from Wrath of Mars skip over this step and go straight into allocation, which is after Saviour Protocols can apply.
1. Wound roll of 6+; successful wound
2. Saviour Protocol roll of 2+
3. Wound is allocated to a Drone
4. Wrath of Mar's mortal wound is allocated to Riptide
The FAQ literally says "In this context, it is an attack made with a ranged or melee weapon."
Yeah. We don't have a general rule about what constitutes an attack, but in the specific context of Saviour Protocols there is an explicit FAQ stating it must be a ranged or melee weapon.
Im pretty sure you cant savior protocol the mortal wounds period.
You can do it to the regular damage you would get, but the mortal wound itself is by itself and isn't an attack. Its just bonus damage from an ability.
Eihnlazer wrote: Im pretty sure you cant savior protocol the mortal wounds period.
You can do it to the regular damage you would get, but the mortal wound itself is by itself and isn't an attack. Its just bonus damage from an ability.
It's bonus damage to an attack. It would be eligible for Saviour Protocol (it would be another mortal wound to the drones if you make the roll, in addition to the normal wound that was converted to a mortal wound to the drone)
Eihnlazer wrote: Im pretty sure you cant savior protocol the mortal wounds period.
You can do it to the regular damage you would get, but the mortal wound itself is by itself and isn't an attack. Its just bonus damage from an ability.
It's bonus damage to an attack. It would be eligible for Saviour Protocol (it would be another mortal wound to the drones if you make the roll, in addition to the normal wound that was converted to a mortal wound to the drone)
Saviour Protocols doesn't say to reallocate all damage that results from the attack. It simply says to allocate the successful wound to the drone (and to turn it into a Mortal Wound).
There's nothing about the rule that suggests other damage caused by the weapon other than as a result of the allocated wound can be prevented.
Weirdly enough, I believe Grot Shields actually WOULD protect against it.
‘Use this Stratagem after a <Clan> Infantry unit
from your army (excluding units comprised entirely of
Gretchin models) has been hit by a ranged weapon.
Until the end of the phase, you can roll a D6 each time
an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds that unit
if there is a friendly unit comprised entirely of <Clan>
Gretchin Infantry models within 6" of it, and the
Gretchin unit is closer to the attacking model than the
target unit. On a 2+ one model of your choice in that
Gretchin unit is slain and the attack sequence ends.’
Eihnlazer wrote: Im pretty sure you cant savior protocol the mortal wounds period.
You can do it to the regular damage you would get, but the mortal wound itself is by itself and isn't an attack. Its just bonus damage from an ability.
It's bonus damage to an attack. It would be eligible for Saviour Protocol (it would be another mortal wound to the drones if you make the roll, in addition to the normal wound that was converted to a mortal wound to the drone)
Saviour Protocols doesn't say to reallocate all damage that results from the attack. It simply says to allocate the successful wound to the drone (and to turn it into a Mortal Wound).
There's nothing about the rule that suggests other damage caused by the weapon other than as a result of the allocated wound can be prevented.
:Q.If a weapon such as a rail rifle has an ability that can inflict a mortal wound on the target in addition to the normal damage, but the ‘normal damage’ is subsequently saved, does the target still suffer the mortal wound?
A: Yes. Note that if the ‘normal damage’ was not saved, the wound would be allocated on the target unit first (and any resulting damage inflicted) before the mortal wound was inflicted.
They indicate the the mortal wound is also a wound that is inflicted.and is also allocted.
Because of the wording of SP. The target of the attack does not change so the mortal wound is dealt to the original target even if you intercept the original wound. Also the wording of SP does not allow you to intercept a mortal wound because mortal wounds DO NOT ROLL TO WOUND.
doctortom wrote: Q.If a weapon such as a rail rifle has an ability that can inflict a mortal wound on the target in addition to the normal damage, but the ‘normal damage’ is subsequently saved, does the target still suffer the mortal wound?
A: Yes. Note that if the ‘normal damage’ was not saved, the wound would be allocated on the target unit first (and any resulting damage inflicted) before the mortal wound was inflicted.
They indicate the the mortal wound is also a wound that is inflicted.and is also allocted.
Stux wrote: But it's allocated separately, and is not part of what the Saviour Protocols rule allows you to allocate to a different units.
Yes. Saviour Protocols seem to activate on Step 2 of wounding. Mortal wounds skip straight to Step 3.
Basically, you roll to wound. It succeeds. Saviour Protocols then lets you roll to allocate the wound to a Drone instead. Wrath of Mars never rolls to wound and allocates the wound directly onto the original unit.
So there's the "weapon" argument and the timing argument. Both point to Saviour Protocol not being able to re-allocate mortal wounds from stratagems like Wrath of Mars.
doctortom wrote: Q.If a weapon such as a rail rifle has an ability that can inflict a mortal wound on the target in addition to the normal damage, but the ‘normal damage’ is subsequently saved, does the target still suffer the mortal wound?
A: Yes. Note that if the ‘normal damage’ was not saved, the wound would be allocated on the target unit first (and any resulting damage inflicted) before the mortal wound was inflicted.
They indicate the the mortal wound is also a wound that is inflicted.and is also allocted.
Stux wrote: But it's allocated separately, and is not part of what the Saviour Protocols rule allows you to allocate to a different units.
Yes. Saviour Protocols seem to activate on Step 2 of wounding. Mortal wounds skip straight to Step 3.
Basically, you roll to wound. It succeeds. Saviour Protocols then lets you roll to allocate the wound to a Drone instead. Wrath of Mars never rolls to wound and allocates the wound directly onto the original unit.
So there's the "weapon" argument and the timing argument. Both point to Saviour Protocol not being able to re-allocate mortal wounds from stratagems like Wrath of Mars.
it would make sense that with the wound changing the target would change. SP doesn't do that though. It just transfers the wound which has nothing to do with there the mortal wound goes - the mortal wound always hits the target of the attack.
Right. That is a good point as well. Wrath of Mars clearly allocates the wound to the target of my unit. This occurs after the point where Saviour Protocol activates.
Xenomancers wrote: Because of the wording of SP. The target of the attack does not change so the mortal wound is dealt to the original target even if you intercept the original wound. Also the wording of SP does not allow you to intercept a mortal wound because mortal wounds DO NOT ROLL TO WOUND.
Irrelevant. Mortal Wounds do wound the target, they just don't need to roll to do so. Just like a Flamer hits it's target even though it doesn't roll to do so. Since the target is wounded by the Mortal Wound, Savor Protocol can be used.
To Quote the Mortal Wounds rules:
Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above...
Xenomancers wrote: Because of the wording of SP. The target of the attack does not change so the mortal wound is dealt to the original target even if you intercept the original wound. Also the wording of SP does not allow you to intercept a mortal wound because mortal wounds DO NOT ROLL TO WOUND.
Irrelevant. Mortal Wounds do wound the target, they just don't need to roll to do so. Just like a Flamer hits it's target even though it doesn't roll to do so. Since the target is wounded by the Mortal Wound, Savor Protocol can be used.
To Quote the Mortal Wounds rules:
Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above...
Except it can't because it's not being caused by the attack of a weapon, it's being caused by a special rule of a weapon.
Xenomancers wrote: Because of the wording of SP. The target of the attack does not change so the mortal wound is dealt to the original target even if you intercept the original wound. Also the wording of SP does not allow you to intercept a mortal wound because mortal wounds DO NOT ROLL TO WOUND.
Irrelevant. Mortal Wounds do wound the target, they just don't need to roll to do so. Just like a Flamer hits it's target even though it doesn't roll to do so. Since the target is wounded by the Mortal Wound, Savor Protocol can be used.
To Quote the Mortal Wounds rules:
Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above...
Except it can't because it's not being caused by the attack of a weapon, it's being caused by a special rule of a weapon.
Which is the same thing.
A weapon's special rules is where the damage is coming from...
So if not for that weapon there wound be no damage and as such the damage is coming from that weapon.
And all of this is irrelevant to the topic. Whether we consider the mortal wound to come from the weapon or not, it is still separate to the wound that Saviour Protocols tells you to allocate to the drones - the mortal wound stays on the original target.
Stux wrote: And all of this is irrelevant to the topic. Whether we consider the mortal wound to come from the weapon or not, it is still separate to the wound that Saviour Protocols tells you to allocate to the drones - the mortal wound stays on the original target.
Not if it comes from the weapon, as that is an attack and can be shuffled to the drones.
Stux wrote: And all of this is irrelevant to the topic. Whether we consider the mortal wound to come from the weapon or not, it is still separate to the wound that Saviour Protocols tells you to allocate to the drones - the mortal wound stays on the original target.
Not if it comes from the weapon, as that is an attack and can be shuffled to the drones.
No. Two reasons. First, not if the MW comes from a weapon ability. Thats separated from the weapons damage. Second, MW dont wound, they inflict 1 point of damage. SP only works against attacks that wound.
Stux wrote: And all of this is irrelevant to the topic. Whether we consider the mortal wound to come from the weapon or not, it is still separate to the wound that Saviour Protocols tells you to allocate to the drones - the mortal wound stays on the original target.
Not if it comes from the weapon, as that is an attack and can be shuffled to the drones.
Saviour protocols doesn't shuffle an attack, it shuffles a wound. That is entirely separate to any mortal wounds caused.
Stux wrote: And all of this is irrelevant to the topic. Whether we consider the mortal wound to come from the weapon or not, it is still separate to the wound that Saviour Protocols tells you to allocate to the drones - the mortal wound stays on the original target.
Not if it comes from the weapon, as that is an attack and can be shuffled to the drones.
Saviour protocols doesn't shuffle an attack, it shuffles a wound. That is entirely separate to any mortal wounds caused.
The mortal wound would need to be shuffled with its own 2+ roll. Because it came from an attack with a weapon.
Stux wrote: And all of this is irrelevant to the topic. Whether we consider the mortal wound to come from the weapon or not, it is still separate to the wound that Saviour Protocols tells you to allocate to the drones - the mortal wound stays on the original target.
Not if it comes from the weapon, as that is an attack and can be shuffled to the drones.
Saviour protocols doesn't shuffle an attack, it shuffles a wound. That is entirely separate to any mortal wounds caused.
The mortal wound would need to be shuffled with its own 2+ roll. Because it came from an attack with a weapon.
I think the issue here is defining what it means to be wounded. Most of us seem to be taking it mean when a wound roll succeeds. As such by that definition, you are never wounded by a mortal wound and so you cannot roll Saviour Protocols.
So mortal wounds are wounds and that definition is wrong.
The only salient question is does the mortal wound come from an enemy attack and in this case it does via a special rule and so saviour protocols trigger.
The key factor is the strategem effecting an attack rather than the strategem directly doing the damage
So mortal wounds are wounds and that definition is wrong.
The only salient question is does the mortal wound come from an enemy attack and in this case it does via a special rule and so saviour protocols trigger.
The key factor is the strategem effecting an attack rather than the strategem directly doing the damage
Ah but does allocating a wound mean they are wounded?
Being wounded must happen before allocating a wound, as it is in that gap that the Saviour Protocols roll is made.
Therefore it seems like the subject of a mortal wound has not been wounded.
It really doesn't help how overloaded the term "wound" is in this game though!
Yes allocating a model a wound means it is wounded
Yes it as the point that wounds are allocated that there a gap in which saviour protocols operate (even with non MW weapon you are at this point) Saviour protocols overide allocation (step3) if successfull
Therefore it seems the subject of a mortal wound is wounded and triggers saviour protocols
U02dah4 wrote: Yes allocating a model a wound means it is wounded
Yes it as the point that wounds are allocated that there a gap in which saviour protocols operate (even with non MW weapon you are at this point) Saviour protocols overide allocation (step3) if successfull
Therefore it seems the subject of a mortal wound is wounded and triggers saviour protocols
Yes it is poor writting
That still seems very much to just be an opinion and not something backed up in the rules.
Well rule wise their is no clear definition of wounded
However
We know the point of wounded must occur after the to wound role which happens at step 2
So step 2 is completed when a model is wounded
We know saviour protocols allocates the wound to a drone so step 3 must not be completed
We know mortal wounds are "allocated as you would any other wound" so do take part in step 3
So.. wounding happens after step 2 finishes and before the end of step 3 and both mw and normal wounds take part in step 3.
It therefore doesnt matter whether we invent a magic point between the end of 2 and start of 3 or say saviour protocols occur at step 3 their is no reason to exclude mw.
"According to the rules quote from the mortal wounds section of the core rules "allocated as you would any other wound"
They not only are a wound but do not skip straight to damage they go through step 3 allocate wounds.
Skipping the wound role is irrelevant to whether a model wounds. We know as above wounding occurs after step2 and before step3 is concluded mw take part in step 3
Xenomancers wrote: Because of the wording of SP. The target of the attack does not change so the mortal wound is dealt to the original target even if you intercept the original wound. Also the wording of SP does not allow you to intercept a mortal wound because mortal wounds DO NOT ROLL TO WOUND.
Irrelevant. Mortal Wounds do wound the target, they just don't need to roll to do so. Just like a Flamer hits it's target even though it doesn't roll to do so. Since the target is wounded by the Mortal Wound, Savor Protocol can be used.
To Quote the Mortal Wounds rules:
Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above...
Except it can't because it's not being caused by the attack of a weapon, it's being caused by a special rule of a weapon.
The special rule comes about as part of the attack.
It is debateable that the mortal wound could also be intercepted in a RAI discussion. However, RAW mortal wounds don't actually roll to wound and therefor do not meet the criteria to wound to intercept. That is my interpretation.
The problem you have is your RAW argument isnt RAW. It doesnt say you require a successful wound roll thats a made up rule unles you can provide a quote - so the fact mortal wounds dont meet that standard from a raw perspective is irrelevant
The issue is and I believe it's already been stated. What basis do you have to infer that a unit "is wounded" by a wound that has been "allocated". When you roll to wound you don't allocate a wound - you are just "wounded" - which I'd argue is not the same thing.
Xenomancers wrote: What basis do you have to infer that a unit "is wounded" by a wound that has been "allocated"? it is your interpretation... You have to answer this question to rebuke me.
You actually need to provide a rule that backs up your position. Because you literally said "That is my interpretation." with no real rules backing.
Xenomancers wrote: It is debateable that the mortal wound could also be intercepted in a RAI discussion. However, RAW mortal wounds don't actually roll to wound and therefor do not meet the criteria to wound to intercept. That is my interpretation.
Xenomancers wrote: The issue is and I believe it's already been stated. What basis do you have to infer that a unit "is wounded" by a wound that has been "allocated". When you roll to wound you don't allocate a wound - you are just "wounded" - which I'd argue is not the same thing.
As demonstrated earlier we know wounding happens at some point after step 2 is complete (although RAW it is not stated when) no one is arguing models are wounded before the to wound role.
We know wounding happens before step 3 wound allocation is complete as saviour protocols alter wound allocation.
We know mortal wounds take part in step3 as their own rules state they do.
So RAW step 2 is complete and step3 is not complete offering a potential timeframe of wounding at step3 or between 2 and 3 but either way given mortal wounds take part in step 3 their is no RAW reason to exclude them
Are you missing the point? The point is you are assuming that a wound that does not roll to wound...wounds. It has been stated before previously in the thread.
Your answer can be OFC it wounds because it is a wound. That argument fails because mortal wounds don't actually wound you. They just cause you to lose a wound.
Xenomancers wrote: Are you missing the point? The point is you are assuming that a wound that does not roll to wound...wounds. It has been stated before previously in the thread.
Your answer can be OFC it wounds because it is a wound. That argument fails because mortal wounds don't actually wound you. They just cause you to lose a wound.
Your statement is false.
P.7 40k Battle Primer. Mortal Wounds sidebar wrote:. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound...
This shows that a mortal wound is equal to "any other wound" and as such is, in fact, a wound.
Xenomancers wrote: Are you missing the point? The point is you are assuming that a wound that does not roll to wound...wounds. It has been stated before previously in the thread.
Your answer can be OFC it wounds because it is a wound. That argument fails because mortal wounds don't actually wound you. They just cause you to lose a wound.
Your statement is false.
P.7 40k Battle Primer. Mortal Wounds sidebar wrote:. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound...
This shows that a mortal wound is equal to "any other wound" and as such is, in fact, a wound.
Xenomancers wrote: Are you missing the point? The point is you are assuming that a wound that does not roll to wound...wounds. It has been stated before previously in the thread.
Your answer can be OFC it wounds because it is a wound. That argument fails because mortal wounds don't actually wound you. They just cause you to lose a wound.
Your statement is false.
P.7 40k Battle Primer. Mortal Wounds sidebar wrote:. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound...
This shows that a mortal wound is equal to "any other wound" and as such is, in fact, a wound.
Just because you allocate it as you would any other wound doesnt make it a wound. A mortal wound isnt the same as a wound. It has a different name, and it has its own rules, which are different from the wound rules. Why arent you making a wound roll, when its just a wound ? Why arent you allowed to take a sv or an inv against MW, when its just a wound ? Why even bother to create MW when they are the same as a wound ? Because its not the same.
You are not allowed to make a sv or inv because the mortal wound rules say so. It is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it is a wound.
Yes they are differentiated in that MW come with a section of rules
But RAW their is no reason to consider they are not wounds. all we can say is they are labelled wounds (mortal "wounds") and use the wound allocation roles both of which imply they are.
The only counter anyone has made that excludes them is the suggestion that you need to make a to wound role for it to count as a wound - however this is not defined anywhere (not one person has substantiated it - saying you need it doesnt count) and is therefore irrelevant under RAW. It is at best RAI but atleast half the people here disagree with it so its not very clear even as RAI argument more hiwpi than rai
That's not quite my argument. Even if it is a Wound, it is entirely possible from its usage that the intended defintion of "wounded", with the 'ed' refers specifically and only to succeeding a wound roll, and so wouldn't apply to Mortal Wounds.
However, this is never explicitly defined one way or the other so we don't have a clear answer either way.
however the minute you are competing an intended definition that many people don't agree on as a reason to deviate from the RAW you have lost the argument.
You can either substantiate that -ed argument directly under RAW (Which you can't as its RAI) or we are back to the only RAW interpretation being that it occurs after Step 2 and before step 3 is completed and mortal wounds take part in step 3.
And by default RAW trumps RAI precisely because in this sort of a situation different people will disagree as to what the RAI is.
So we have a clear answer is your definition written in the rules - no - then it doesn't apply under RAW so their is no conflict
U02dah4 wrote: You are not allowed to make a sv or inv because the mortal wound rules say so. It is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it is a wound.
Yes they are differentiated in that MW come with a section of rules
But RAW their is no reason to consider they are not wounds. all we can say is they are labelled wounds (mortal "wounds") and use the wound allocation roles both of which imply they are.
When two rules differ from each other they cant be the same. Its not irrelevant to the discussion whether MW is a wound, or not. If its a wound that comes from an attack from a weapon it can be intercepted by SP. If its not a wound, it cant be intercepted by SP.
U02dah4 wrote: however the minute you are competing an intended definition that many people don't agree on as a reason to deviate from the RAW you have lost the argument.
You can either substantiate that -ed argument directly under RAW (Which you can't as its RAI) or we are back to the only RAW interpretation being that it occurs after Step 2 and before step 3 is completed and mortal wounds take part in step 3.
And by default RAW trumps RAI precisely because in this sort of a situation different people will disagree as to what the RAI is.
So we have a clear answer is your definition written in the rules - no - then it doesn't apply under RAW so their is no conflict
I'm sorry but none of what you have said here makes any sense.
I'm not saying my interpretation of RAI is overriding RAW, I'm saying the RAW is unclear because they didn't define their terms they are using. That's completely different.
U02dah4 wrote: You are not allowed to make a sv or inv because the mortal wound rules say so. It is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it is a wound.
Yes they are differentiated in that MW come with a section of rules
But RAW their is no reason to consider they are not wounds. all we can say is they are labelled wounds (mortal "wounds") and use the wound allocation roles both of which imply they are.
When two rules differ from each other they cant be the same. Its not irrelevant to the discussion whether MW is a wound, or not. If its a wound that comes from an attack from a weapon it can be intercepted by SP. If its not a wound, it cant be intercepted by SP.
Except their is no evidence those two rules do differ from each other. Indeed all the evidence in terms of their name and the fact they both use "wound" allocation would imply they are the same in this instance.
U02dah4 wrote: Except their is no evidence those two rules do differ from each other. Indeed all the evidence in terms of their name and the fact they both use "wound" allocation would imply they are the same in this instance.
Except there is evidence in the rules. If two rules are worded differently, and played differently, they cant be the same.
U02dah4 wrote: however the minute you are competing an intended definition that many people don't agree on as a reason to deviate from the RAW you have lost the argument.
You can either substantiate that -ed argument directly under RAW (Which you can't as its RAI) or we are back to the only RAW interpretation being that it occurs after Step 2 and before step 3 is completed and mortal wounds take part in step 3.
And by default RAW trumps RAI precisely because in this sort of a situation different people will disagree as to what the RAI is.
So we have a clear answer is your definition written in the rules - no - then it doesn't apply under RAW so their is no conflict
I'm sorry but none of what you have said here makes any sense.
I'm not saying my interpretation of RAI is overriding RAW, I'm saying the RAW is unclear because they didn't define their terms they are using. That's completely different.
Yes they didn't define their terms but the RAW is not unclear unless you rigidly define in a RAI way. If you just go with what is written their is no conflict they are the same thing as their is no rule to say otherwise.
U02dah4 wrote: Except their is no evidence those two rules do differ from each other. Indeed all the evidence in terms of their name and the fact they both use "wound" allocation would imply they are the same in this instance.
Except there is evidence in the rules. If two rules are worded differently, and played differently, they cant be the same.
their not played differently they literally say allocate them using the same rules. They just add in a couple of exceptions to the standard rules all defined in one section.
their not played differently they literally say allocate them using the same rules. They just add in a couple of exceptions to the standard rules all defined in one section.
Those exceptions is what makes the difference. They are not the same rules.
Stux wrote: It absolutely is unclear. If it was clear there wouldn't be multiple people here who disagree with you.
It might be unclear BUT it is clear that a mortal wound does not wound. It skips the wounding process entirely it skips the saving process entirely. If they wanted it to act as a "wound" they would have said it causes an automatic wound that with no saves allowed of any kind. It doesn't act like that though. I don't think they intended it to work this way but it is possible savior protcols was not intended to work on mortal wounds. I don't think it should intercept mortal wounds ether. Taus weakness is supposed to be the psychic phase where the majority of damage is caused by mortal wounds. It just makes sense that tau have no defense to it.
Stux wrote: It absolutely is unclear. If it was clear there wouldn't be multiple people here who disagree with you.
It might be unclear BUT it is clear that a mortal wound does not wound. It skips the wounding process entirely it skips the saving process entirely. If they wanted it to act as a "wound" they would have said it causes an automatic wound that with no saves allowed of any kind. It doesn't act like that though. I don't think they intended it to work this way but it is possible savior protcols was not intended to work on mortal wounds. I don't think it should intercept mortal wounds ether. Taus weakness is supposed to be the psychic phase where the majority of damage is caused by mortal wounds. It just makes sense that tau have no defense to it.
I do agree with you here. Tau probably should be weak to mortal wounds.
The intention is unclear. Are Tau supposed to get this protection from mortal wounds or not?
The wording is unclear. Does having a mortal wound allocated to you cause you to be wounded, or is that step skipped?
I was under the impression that the argument was whether or not the weapon caused the Mortal Wound or if it came from the Wrath of Mars ability. If the former, then Savior Protocols can apply. If the latter, it cannot.
flandarz wrote: I was under the impression that the argument was whether or not the weapon caused the Mortal Wound or if it came from the Wrath of Mars ability. If the former, then Savior Protocols can apply. If the latter, it cannot.
No, the argument is whether it is possible for a Mortal Wound to be prevented regardless of the source. The rule only tells you to move the wound, not mortal wounds. But ambiguity in the technical terms used in the rules leaves some uncertainty in this.
Stux wrote: It absolutely is unclear. If it was clear there wouldn't be multiple people here who disagree with you.
It might be unclear BUT it is clear that a mortal wound does not wound. It skips the wounding process entirely it skips the saving process entirely. If they wanted it to act as a "wound" they would have said it causes an automatic wound that with no saves allowed of any kind. It doesn't act like that though. I don't think they intended it to work this way but it is possible savior protcols was not intended to work on mortal wounds. I don't think it should intercept mortal wounds ether. Taus weakness is supposed to be the psychic phase where the majority of damage is caused by mortal wounds. It just makes sense that tau have no defense to it.
Where does it say mortal wounds dont wound. - no where - yes they skip the to wound role which is irrelevant and the saving throw which is irrelevant. Because they allocate a wound which is all you need.
Which brings us back to what you think it should do with respect to tau defences perfectly reasonable as a commentry irrelevant to a rules discussion.
flandarz wrote: I was under the impression that the argument was whether or not the weapon caused the Mortal Wound or if it came from the Wrath of Mars ability. If the former, then Savior Protocols can apply. If the latter, it cannot.
No, the argument is whether it is possible for a Mortal Wound to be prevented regardless of the source. The rule only tells you to move the wound, not mortal wounds. But ambiguity in the technical terms used in the rules leaves some uncertainty in this.
yes but mortal "wounds" have wounds in the name and encase you wern't sure you are told to allocate them like wounds" useing the "wound allocation" step hardly ambiguous.
"no where - yes they skip the to wound role which is irrelevant"
It is totally relevant. How does one "wound" without "wounding" (the act of rolling to wound and generating a wound). If a mortal wond were called - mortal damage instead I think it would be easier to understand. Being called a mortal wound does not mean you wound.
Xenomancers wrote: "no where - yes they skip the to wound role which is irrelevant"
It is totally relevant. How does one "wound" without "wounding" (the act of rolling to wound and generating a wound).
Because the mortal wound is automatic. No roll needed. So "they skip the to wound role which is irrelevant" becqause it is an automatic wound.
If a mortal wond[sic] were called - mortal damage instead I think it would be easier to understand. Being called a mortal wound does not mean you wound.
It is not just damage though, it is a wound, and a mortal one at that so saves will not help you against that kind of wound.
flandarz wrote: I was under the impression that the argument was whether or not the weapon caused the Mortal Wound or if it came from the Wrath of Mars ability. If the former, then Savior Protocols can apply. If the latter, it cannot.
No, the argument is whether it is possible for a Mortal Wound to be prevented regardless of the source. The rule only tells you to move the wound, not mortal wounds. But ambiguity in the technical terms used in the rules leaves some uncertainty in this.
No, the argument is if SP can intercept a MW which is in addition to a weapons damage. SP cant intercept MW from any other source.
Q: For the purposes of the Saviour Protocols ability, what exactly constitutes an attack?
A: In this context, it is an attack made with a ranged or melee weapon.
A psychic power causing MW is not an attack made with a ranged or melee weapon. A stratagem inflicting MW is not an attack made with a ranged or melee weapon (It would depend on the wording of the stratagem). An ability from a unit causing MW is not an attack made with a ranged or melee weapon.
Suzuteo wrote: So... I think the original point stands. Some stratagems modify weapon profiles in AdMech codex. Wrath of Mars is not one of those stratagems.
But even if a weapon profile causes a Mortal Wound, it is at best ambiguous whether Saviour Protocols can prevent the mortal wound, due to the wording of Saviour Protocols and how Mortal Wounds work.
If it does work, you would still need to take a second Saviour Protocol roll for the Mortal Wound - and that's only if we assume that being allocated a Mortal Wound counts as the unit being "wounded", which is unclear.
Suzuteo wrote: So... I think the original point stands. Some stratagems modify weapon profiles in AdMech codex. Wrath of Mars is not one of those stratagems.
NO the reason this is a debate at all is because it does effect the weapon profile. If it dealt the damage directly savior protocols wouldn't trigger.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: "no where - yes they skip the to wound role which is irrelevant" The only differences to any other wound are those specifically named in the mortal wound section.
It is totally relevant. How does one "wound" without "wounding" (the act of rolling to wound and generating a wound). If a mortal wound were called - mortal damage instead I think it would be easier to understand. Being called a mortal wound does not mean you wound.
Exactly all wounds mortal or not mortal are wounding. you just don't do a to wound roll. Like flamers hit but don't do a to hit roll. If it is not specifically mentioned in the mortal wound section their is no difference between a mortal wound and a normal wound.
If a mortal wound where called mortal damage and you weren't told to allocate it like "any other wound" then yes it would be clear but you would be changing what it does. Presently it is a wound its in the name its easy to understand. It uses the wound allocation step also easy to understand and your specifically told to "allocate it as you would any other wound" also easy to understand. The problem is not difficulty understanding.
The problem is it doesn't do what you want it to do and therefore you say its unclear rather than admit your interpretation is wrong based on RAW. You don't like what it actually does and want it to be something else because you think TAU are to powerful and shouldn't be able to save MW. Which doesn't make the RAW unclear. It is a valid argument about the power level of TAU but has no bearing on a rules discussion
U02dah4 wrote: No the reason this is a debate at all is because it does effect the weapon profile. If it dealt the damage directly savior protocols wouldn't trigger.
"Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for that unit, the target suffers a mortal wound in addition to any other damage."
No mention is ever made that anything other than the Stratagem causes this damage.
Exactly all wounds mortal or not mortal are wounding. you just don't do a to wound roll. Like flamers hit but don't do a to hit roll. If it is not specifically mentioned in the mortal wound section their is no difference between a mortal wound and a normal wound.
Where does it say that mortal wounds wound?
Saviour Protocols doesn't mention "wounds" it mentions wounded, which is never mentioned in the core rules but it can either mean damaged or something that "wounds". Here is the definition of what "wounds" means.
"If an attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target. The roll required is determined by comparing the attacking weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic, as shown on the table to the right"
And later we refer back to what wounds means.
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."
Wounds when it refers to the verb rather than the noun is only ever mentioned in the context of a wound roll, never a Mortal Wound.
"Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above. Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed."
Suzuteo wrote: So... I think the original point stands. Some stratagems modify weapon profiles in AdMech codex. Wrath of Mars is not one of those stratagems.
NO the reason this is a debate at all is because it does effect the weapon profile. If it dealt the damage directly savior protocols wouldn't trigger.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: "no where - yes they skip the to wound role which is irrelevant" The only differences to any other wound are those specifically named in the mortal wound section.
It is totally relevant. How does one "wound" without "wounding" (the act of rolling to wound and generating a wound). If a mortal wound were called - mortal damage instead I think it would be easier to understand. Being called a mortal wound does not mean you wound.
Exactly all wounds mortal or not mortal are wounding. you just don't do a to wound roll. Like flamers hit but don't do a to hit roll. If it is not specifically mentioned in the mortal wound section their is no difference between a mortal wound and a normal wound.
If a mortal wound where called mortal damage and you weren't told to allocate it like "any other wound" then yes it would be clear but you would be changing what it does. Presently it is a wound its in the name its easy to understand. It uses the wound allocation step also easy to understand and your specifically told to "allocate it as you would any other wound" also easy to understand. The problem is not difficulty understanding.
The problem is it doesn't do what you want it to do and therefore you say its unclear rather than admit your interpretation is wrong based on RAW. You don't like what it actually does and want it to be something else because you think TAU are to powerful and shouldn't be able to save MW. Which doesn't make the RAW unclear. It is a valid argument about the power level of TAU but has no bearing on a rules discussion
It speaks to intent that an army that has no psychic ability also has one of the strongest psychic defenses. Yeah shield drones are one of the stupidest things in the game but that has no bearing on this. RAW is on my side here. Mortal wounds don't wound (as in the to wound roll) which is what the SP wording refers to. You are the one making assumptions that - allocated wounds are the same as wounds you roll for even though in the rules we have an order of opperations which mortals specifically skip. Mortal skip the wound and save process and they are allocated. A normal attack wounds then allocates as you can see in the above post.
Really a simple clarification is all that is needed in an FAQ. Send it in.
U02dah4 wrote: No the reason this is a debate at all is because it does effect the weapon profile. If it dealt the damage directly savior protocols wouldn't trigger.
"Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for that unit, the target suffers a mortal wound in addition to any other damage."
No mention is ever made that anything other than the Stratagem causes this damage.
Exactly all wounds mortal or not mortal are wounding. you just don't do a to wound roll. Like flamers hit but don't do a to hit roll. If it is not specifically mentioned in the mortal wound section their is no difference between a mortal wound and a normal wound.
Where does it say that mortal wounds wound?
Saviour Protocols doesn't mention "wounds" it mentions wounded, which is never mentioned in the core rules but it can either mean damaged or something that "wounds". Here is the definition of what "wounds" means.
"If an attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target. The roll required is determined by comparing the attacking weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic, as shown on the table to the right"
And later we refer back to what wounds means.
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."
Wounds when it refers to the verb rather than the noun is only ever mentioned in the context of a wound roll, never a Mortal Wound.
"Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above. Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed."
no wounded in the context of saviour protocols cannot mean damaged if it meant damaged it would occur after FNP long after allocation so it means something that wounds
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, "the player commanding the target unit allocates....
so in order to use the allocation step you have successfully wounded
"just allocate it as you would any other wound"
so mortal wounds are successful wounds
as to xenomancers raw is not on your side unless you can actually demonstrate that a to wound role is required to be wounded not just a successfull wound ive evidenced all my statements you have just stated without any proof to back your claim that you require a to wound roll
Stux wrote: It absolutely is unclear. If it was clear there wouldn't be multiple people here who disagree with you.
It might be unclear BUT it is clear that a mortal wound does not wound. It skips the wounding process entirely it skips the saving process entirely. If they wanted it to act as a "wound" they would have said it causes an automatic wound that with no saves allowed of any kind. It doesn't act like that though. I don't think they intended it to work this way but it is possible savior protcols was not intended to work on mortal wounds. I don't think it should intercept mortal wounds ether. Taus weakness is supposed to be the psychic phase where the majority of damage is caused by mortal wounds. It just makes sense that tau have no defense to it.
I would also like to point out that while that used to be true GW has started handing out MW left and right, they have weapons, strategums, aura's, wargear all dishing out MW at this point the definition of they shouldn't be droneable because they are psychic powers has left the building traveled around the world and died of old age.
Really GW need to actually start working on 9th edition with technical writer's to make sure the rules they right are actually functional instead of needing FAQ and errata for days to patchwork something vaguely workable out of it.
U02dah4 wrote: "If an attack successfully wounds the target, "the player commanding the target unit allocates....
so in order to use the allocation step you have successfully wounded
"just allocate it as you would any other wound"
so mortal wounds are successful wounds
as to xenomancers raw is not on your side unless you can actually demonstrate that a to wound role is required to be wounded not just a successfull wound ive evidenced all my statements you have just stated without any proof to back your claim that you require a to wound roll
"Just allocate it as you would any other wound" =/= "a mortal wound wounds the target"
The fact that you allocate mortal wounds like normal wounds does not make them normal wounds and does not make them wound the target. The fact that you allocate them as you would any other wound makes them distinctly separate, if they actually wounded the target then this explanation wouldn't mean anything or be required, it is exactly because they do not wound that it is specified that they are allocated as normal wounds are.
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."
If an attack wounds the target, then the target is wounded. If an attack inflicts a mortal wound, then that attack did not wound, it inflicted a mortal wound. It has to literally say that it wounded or at least wounds before you can say that it wounds. Using the same distribution mechanic does not help your case.
U02dah4 wrote: No the reason this is a debate at all is because it does effect the weapon profile. If it dealt the damage directly savior protocols wouldn't trigger.
"Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for that unit, the target suffers a mortal wound in addition to any other damage."
No mention is ever made that anything other than the Stratagem causes this damage.
Exactly all wounds mortal or not mortal are wounding. you just don't do a to wound roll. Like flamers hit but don't do a to hit roll. If it is not specifically mentioned in the mortal wound section their is no difference between a mortal wound and a normal wound.
Where does it say that mortal wounds wound?
Saviour Protocols doesn't mention "wounds" it mentions wounded, which is never mentioned in the core rules but it can either mean damaged or something that "wounds". Here is the definition of what "wounds" means.
"If an attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target. The roll required is determined by comparing the attacking weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic, as shown on the table to the right"
And later we refer back to what wounds means.
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."
Wounds when it refers to the verb rather than the noun is only ever mentioned in the context of a wound roll, never a Mortal Wound.
"Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above. Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed."
no wounded in the context of saviour protocols cannot mean damaged if it meant damaged it would occur after FNP long after allocation so it means something that wounds
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, "the player commanding the target unit allocates....
so in order to use the allocation step you have successfully wounded
"just allocate it as you would any other wound"
so mortal wounds are successful wounds
as to xenomancers raw is not on your side unless you can actually demonstrate that a to wound role is required to be wounded not just a successfull wound ive evidenced all my statements you have just stated without any proof to back your claim that you require a to wound roll
Allocation happens after you wound. Do you dispute this?
U02dah4 wrote: "If an attack successfully wounds the target, "the player commanding the target unit allocates....
so in order to use the allocation step you have successfully wounded
"just allocate it as you would any other wound"
so mortal wounds are successful wounds
as to xenomancers raw is not on your side unless you can actually demonstrate that a to wound role is required to be wounded not just a successfull wound ive evidenced all my statements you have just stated without any proof to back your claim that you require a to wound roll
"Just allocate it as you would any other wound" =/= "a mortal wound wounds the target"
The fact that you allocate mortal wounds like normal wounds does not make them normal wounds and does not make them wound the target. The fact that you allocate them as you would any other wound makes them distinctly separate, if they actually wounded the target then this explanation wouldn't mean anything or be required, it is exactly because they do not wound that it is specified that they are allocated as normal wounds are.
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."
If an attack wounds the target, then the target is wounded. If an attack inflicts a mortal wound, then that attack did not wound, it inflicted a mortal wound. It has to literally say that it wounded or at least wounds before you can say that it wounds. Using the same distribution mechanic does not help your case.
1) Never said mortal wounds are normal wounds they come with a rules section stating the exact ways they deviate from the normal wounding process nor wounding isn't one of them. So can you provide a rules quote directly stating "they don't wound the target" if not your argument is wrong
2) Can you provide a rules quote directly stating "if an attack inflicts a mortal wound, then that attack did not wound." If not then your argument is wrong.
Mortal wounds follow the step "If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."
so they count as successful wounds
successful wounds = wounded
"Just allocate it as you would any other wound" =/= "a mortal wound wounds the target"
The fact that you allocate mortal wounds like normal wounds does not make them normal wounds and does not make them wound the target.
This is demonstrably false. They equivalate mortal wounds with any other wound. Does any other wound wound the target? Yes? Then so does a mortal wound.
The fact that you allocate them as you would any other wound makes them distinctly separate, if they actually wounded the target then this explanation wouldn't mean anything or be required, it is exactly because they do not wound that it is specified that they are allocated as normal wounds are.
False.
The "any other wound" wording equivalates them.
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."
If an attack wounds the target, then the target is wounded. If an attack inflicts a mortal wound, then that attack did not wound, it inflicted a mortal wound. It has to literally say that it wounded or at least wounds before you can say that it wounds. Using the same distribution mechanic does not help your case.
Again, False. The "any other wound" wording equivalates them.
"Just allocate it as you would any other wound" =/= "a mortal wound wounds the target"
The fact that you allocate mortal wounds like normal wounds does not make them normal wounds and does not make them wound the target.
This is demonstrably false. They equivalate mortal wounds with any other wound. Does any other wound wound the target? Yes? Then so does a mortal wound.
Is there anywhere else in the game where this is the case? What wording would you use to exclude mortal wounds, other than the specific language that targets a successful wound roll?
p5freak wrote: How about adding "excluding mortal wounds" to SP ? Just these 3 simple words and we wouldn't have this discussion.
Probably because the original intention of the rules team was to allow drones to be able to saviour MW that didn't come from the psychic phase.
Which if they had kept MW as just for psychic powers would have been fine, but they have used them all over the shop to represent massively different things.
So they now what them to be able to saviour MW that didn't come from from the psychic phase but they haven't written the rules well enough to be able to make that possible without rewriting half the books.
p5freak wrote: How about adding "excluding mortal wounds" to SP ? Just these 3 simple words and we wouldn't have this discussion.
Probably because the original intention of the rules team was to allow drones to be able to saviour MW that didn't come from the psychic phase.
Which if they had kept MW as just for psychic powers would have been fine, but they have used them all over the shop to represent massively different things.
Right, it was their intention to make tau unkillable. A drone can intercept a million points of damage and a million MW and turn it into 1 single MW, which it can ignore on a 5+.
I imagine a tau battlesuit with a single drone still drifting in space after the planet it was on has been atomized by a planet killer gun.
p5freak wrote: How about adding "excluding mortal wounds" to SP ? Just these 3 simple words and we wouldn't have this discussion.
Probably because the original intention of the rules team was to allow drones to be able to saviour MW that didn't come from the psychic phase.
Which if they had kept MW as just for psychic powers would have been fine, but they have used them all over the shop to represent massively different things.
Right, it was their intention to make tau unkillable. A drone can intercept a million points of damage and a million MW and turn it into 1 single MW, which it can ignore on a 5+.
I imagine a tau battlesuit with a single drone still drifting in space after the planet it was on has been atomized by a planet killer gun.
<Add a million facepalm smilies here>
Because a weapon of the scale your describing isn't in 8th edition.
Also you misunderstood my point, it's not that drones should work against everything it's that half the MW should NOT be MW.
Idon't think half of the things that deal Mortal wounds should be dishing out MW at all it should be something like an auto wound.
The issue is GW started making things that shouldn't be MW do MW because they were being lazy/ it fitted 8th edition dumb it down principles.
If they had kept MW for what they should be for then it would have been easy to say saviour protocols works on everything but MW.
The reason that doesn't work is because drones should work against a number of things that now deal MW (IMHO this lack of discipline from the design team is the issue). So we have the mess where they want SP to work on some MW and not others but with no clear way to distinguish between them.
If your in tactical dreadnaught armour or are bouncing around like the Harliquins why shoukd you not get a save from being runover by something.
"Just allocate it as you would any other wound" =/= "a mortal wound wounds the target"
The fact that you allocate mortal wounds like normal wounds does not make them normal wounds and does not make them wound the target.
This is demonstrably false. They equivalate mortal wounds with any other wound. Does any other wound wound the target? Yes? Then so does a mortal wound.
The fact that you allocate them as you would any other wound makes them distinctly separate, if they actually wounded the target then this explanation wouldn't mean anything or be required, it is exactly because they do not wound that it is specified that they are allocated as normal wounds are.
False.
The "any other wound" wording equivalates them.
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."
If an attack wounds the target, then the target is wounded. If an attack inflicts a mortal wound, then that attack did not wound, it inflicted a mortal wound. It has to literally say that it wounded or at least wounds before you can say that it wounds. Using the same distribution mechanic does not help your case.
Again, False. The "any other wound" wording equivalates them.
How do you allocate a mortal wound? Like any other wound. Where does it say that a mortal wound successfully wounds a target? The rules don't state this.
Clearly, this issue is contentious. Every other person has a different take just about. Perhaps we should all just all email <40kfaq@gwplc.com> and get GW to decide this for us.
Xenomancers wrote: How do you allocate a mortal wound? Like any other wound. Where does it say that a mortal wound successfully wounds a target? The rules don't state this.
They do not need to explicitly state that mortal wounds would the target.
Any other wound wounds the target so MW's do as well, since they are equivilated in the 40k Rules.
Xenomancers wrote: How do you allocate a mortal wound? Like any other wound. Where does it say that a mortal wound successfully wounds a target? The rules don't state this.
They do not need to explicitly state that mortal wounds would the target.
Any other wound wounds the target so MW's do as well, since they are equivilated in the 40k Rules.
Simply disagree. Mortal wounds skip the step that determines if a unit is wounded. They don't need to say, because they skip the step so it doesn't happen.
Stux wrote: Simply disagree. Mortal wounds skip the step that determines if a unit is wounded. They don't need to say, because they skip the step so it doesn't happen.
This is demonstrably false.
Does a wound, wound the target?
If so, then since MW's are equated to wounds, the MW's also wound the target.
Mortal "wounds"
"Allocate it as you would any other wound"
"3. Allocate wound: if an attack successfully wounds..."
Theres three
WOUND is litterally in the name.
You allocate it as you would any other wound showing it is a wound
it uses the allocate wound step if it is not a wound what are you allocateing
Also the allocate wound step only applys to successfull wounds were you not a successful wound it does nothing
That is not a citation that says that a MW actually wounds. Treating it like a wound doesnt make it a wound. It uses the same mechanic of allocating it as a wound does, but thats it. No more, no less.
If you wish to contest the middle quote you stil havnt answered the other two.
They are clearly sucessfull wounds according to the allocate wounds step. That mechanic which you are told to follow. If they are not sucessfull wounds you cannot allocate them. Because the mechanic tells you to allocate sucessfull wounds"You are not told to alter the wording of the allocation step in any way to incorporate non successful wounds you are just told to follow it.
They also litterally have wound in the name. Although i suppose if your being deliberatly obstinent you could imply infer it as a title rather than an adjective description of a type of wound.
Stux wrote: Simply disagree. Mortal wounds skip the step that determines if a unit is wounded. They don't need to say, because they skip the step so it doesn't happen.
This is demonstrably false.
Does a wound, wound the target?
If so, then since MW's are equated to wounds, the MW's also wound the target.
Incorrect logic.
A successful wound roll wounds a target. MW skip that step.
A successfull wound roll sucessfully wounds a target. That does not prohibit targets being sucessfully wounded in other ways eg. automaticaly by mortal wounds.
His logic is correct.
Step 2 results in successfull wound go to step 3 allocate sucessfull wound
Does not stop mw go direct to step 3 allocate successfull wound
U02dah4 wrote: Mortal "wounds"
"Allocate it as you would any other wound"
"3. Allocate wound: if an attack successfully wounds..."
Theres three
WOUND is litterally in the name.
You allocate it as you would any other wound showing it is a wound
it uses the allocate wound step if it is not a wound what are you allocateing
Also the allocate wound step only applys to successfull wounds were you not a successful wound it does nothing
so yes they are clearlyWounds
Yes - wound is in the name and I think that is is complicating things here. That actually doesn't matter because a things name changes when it is attached to another. Mortal wound does not equal wound. They are different. It is only more complicated when the name of the step that is required to active SP is also called wounding. So there are 3 different kinds of "wounds here. We have Mortal wounds / wounds / wound(ing). All three are distinctly different things. You can't empart one onto the other.
Stux wrote: Simply disagree. Mortal wounds skip the step that determines if a unit is wounded. They don't need to say, because they skip the step so it doesn't happen.
This is demonstrably false.
Does a wound, wound the target?
If so, then since MW's are equated to wounds, the MW's also wound the target.
Incorrect logic.
A successful wound roll wounds a target. MW skip that step.
That's not what it says. It says "Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above. Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed." The term wounds or wounded is never used.
So far no one has shown rules to refute this, so until you get some actual rules that refute this, this discussion should be over.
That's not what it says. It says "Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above. Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed." The term wounds or wounded is never used.
Except it does, you quoted it. The term wound is used.
Here it is, in case you missed it: "Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound"
"Do not make a wound roll" and to "just allocate it as you would any other wound", this is saying that MW's wounds automatically, since you do not make a wound roll, and we know to allocate it as you would any other wound. So if it is allocated "as you would any other wound" then it has wounded just like any other wound.
Do you have any quotes to refute this? Because I have not seen any posted, and I checked the rules several times and have not found anything to refute this.
Incorrect. A MW does 1 point of damage. There is nothing in the MW rule that says it wounds. If it wounds you would have a sv or inv against it. But you dont. Therefore it doesnt wound. And if it doesnt wound, its not a wound.
When they say allocate it "like any other wound" that's an indication that it is a type of wound. Not "allocate it like a wound", but "allocate it like any other wound" . That wording means its a type of wound, and not just for allocation purposes. Unsurprisingly, wounds wound models.
Incorrect. A MW does 1 point of damage. There is nothing in the MW rule that says it wounds. If it wounds you would have a sv or inv against it. But you dont. Therefore it doesnt wound. And if it doesnt wound, its not a wound.
Where does it say a Wound and Damage is different? Otherwise they can be argue they are the same thing.
Incorrect. A MW does 1 point of damage. There is nothing in the MW rule that says it wounds. If it wounds you would have a sv or inv against it. But you dont. Therefore it doesnt wound. And if it doesnt wound, its not a wound.
Where does it say a Wound and Damage is different? Otherwise they can be argue they are the same thing.
Lets see. Your character model has 4 wounds. Does that mean it also has 4 damage ?
p5freak wrote: If a MW is a wound, why cant you roll a sv or inv against it, just like you can against a wound ?
It's a TYPE of wound, as indicated by them saying "like any OTHER wound"
No one is arguing it is not a type of wound. Ofc it is. What people are arguing is that it doesn't actually wound (verb) things and therefor does not trigger SP ability.
p5freak wrote: If a MW is a wound, why cant you roll a sv or inv against it, just like you can against a wound ?
It's a TYPE of wound, as indicated by them saying "like any OTHER wound"
No one is arguing it is not a type of wound. Ofc it is. What people are arguing is that it doesn't actually wound (verb) things and therefor does not trigger SP ability.
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit)"
(for mortal wounds) "just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above"
So, like "any other" wound, you are allocating a type of wound that successfully wounded the target.
allocate as other wound is not in dispute. Allocation is not wounding - it happens after a successful wound roll which mortal wounds skip. That is the argument.
Xenomancers wrote: allocate as other wound is not in dispute. Allocation is not wounding - it happens after a successful wound roll which mortal wounds skip. That is the argument.
You're missing the point. It's not allocate "like a wound", it's allocate "like any other[u] wound." That means it's a type of wound, and not just for allocation purposes.
But, even if you want to pretend that they're referring to it being like "any other wound" for allocation purposes, allocation is for allocating wounds that have succeffully wounded a target. Like "any other wound", you are allocating a mortal wound that, by their definition of allocation, has successfully wounded the target and must be allocated.
" by their definition of allocation, has successfully wounded the target and must be allocated."
If that is true you are correct. However, their definition does not define mortal wounds as having successfully wounding their target IMO. How do you get to that definition without making an assumption?
Xenomancers wrote: " by their definition of allocation, has successfully wounded the target and must be allocated."
If that is true you are correct. However, their definition does not define mortal wounds as having successfully wounding their target IMO. How do you get to that definition without making an assumption?
They describe allocating wounds as the process to use "if a wound successfully wounds a target". They also say to use allocation for MW "like any other wound". So, you are allocating a mortal wound which, like any other wound, :"successfully wounds a target"
This is the exact text of the rules for mortal wounds and how they work.
Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above...
The sentence that states "do not make a wound roll" could easily have been written as "mortal woulds automatically have a successful wound roll" Instead they went with the wording "Do not make a wound roll" - they didn't - I have to assume there is a reason for that. Also am I being daft here? Or does allocation actually have nothing to do with being a successful wound roll or not? Allocation has to do with placement - not success of what is being allocated. Correct?
Xenomancers wrote: This is the exact text of the rules for mortal wounds and how they work.
Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above...
The sentence that states "do not make a wound roll" could easily have been written as "mortal woulds automatically have a successful wound roll" Instead they went with the wording "Do not make a wound roll" - they didn't - I have to assume there is a reason for that. Also am I being daft here? Or does allocation actually have nothing to do with being a successful wound roll or not? Allocation has to do with placement - not success of what is being allocated. Correct?
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
That lends credence to the other poster's opinion that if you are allocating a wound, it has successfully wounded the target. I think the thread should just be closed down unless someone has access to a judge. I think the initial question of Wrath of Mars is a no, because WoM does not change the weapon, it inflicts the MWs on its own. But whether Snipers can be redirected is up to interpretation. It's not a huge stretch to say SR works against MWs from Snipers, but RAW they cannot be redirected because they do not wound, they just inflict damage, anything else is just inferring that they wound because they are allocated like any other wound and any other wound wounds before it is allocated.
Xenomancers wrote: This is the exact text of the rules for mortal wounds and how they work.
Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above...
The sentence that states "do not make a wound roll" could easily have been written as "mortal woulds automatically have a successful wound roll" Instead they went with the wording "Do not make a wound roll" - they didn't - I have to assume there is a reason for that. Also am I being daft here? Or does allocation actually have nothing to do with being a successful wound roll or not? Allocation has to do with placement - not success of what is being allocated. Correct?
As they state in the allocation rules, "if an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit" Mottal wounds tell you to "allocate it like "any other wound", not "allocate as if it were a wound". That means, that like any other wound, a mortal wound is a successful attack that woujnds the target. Allocation has something to do with a successful wound roll - for a normal wound. You still use the allocation process for mortal wounds "like any other wound". The purpose of the allocation process is, as they indicate, to allocate attacks that have successfully wonded the target. That does not mean that it is only for being a successful wound roll, mortal wounds by saying to follow the allocation rules like any OTHER wound (which means ia MW is a type of wound), from their statements about wound allocation you are allocating an attack that has successfully wounded the target unit,.
Incorrect. A MW does 1 point of damage. There is nothing in the MW rule that says it wounds. If it wounds you would have a sv or inv against it. But you dont. Therefore it doesnt wound. And if it doesnt wound, its not a wound.
It is also allocated like "any other wound" and for any other wound, you allocate after "an attack successfully wounds the target" So the MW also "successfully wounds the target"
p5freak wrote: If a MW is a wound, why cant you roll a sv or inv against it, just like you can against a wound ?
It's a TYPE of wound, as indicated by them saying "like any OTHER wound"
No one is arguing it is not a type of wound. Ofc it is. What people are arguing is that it doesn't actually wound (verb) things and therefor does not trigger SP ability.
The minute you start arguing its a type of wound that doesn't wound you have clearly stretched your own argument to absurdity and your admiting how bad it is.
Xenomancers wrote: This is the exact text of the rules for mortal wounds and how they work.
Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above...
The sentence that states "do not make a wound roll" could easily have been written as "mortal woulds automatically have a successful wound roll" Instead they went with the wording "Do not make a wound roll" - they didn't - I have to assume there is a reason for that. Also am I being daft here? Or does allocation actually have nothing to do with being a successful wound roll or not? Allocation has to do with placement - not success of what is being allocated. Correct?
Nope. GW is famous for writing their rules colloquially rather than technically. Assuming there is a technical reason they write a rule a specific way is the route to madness. Just read their many FAQs for evidence that I am correct.
It is also allocated like "any other wound" and for any other wound, you allocate after "an attack successfully wounds the target" So the MW also "successfully wounds the target"
Just because a rule uses an existing game mechanic doesnt make it the same as another rule.
It is also allocated like "any other wound" and for any other wound, you allocate after "an attack successfully wounds the target" So the MW also "successfully wounds the target"
Just because a rule uses an existing game mechanic doesnt make it the same as another rule.
I do not understand your point with this.
They are two different rules. They are both wounds though as mortal wound are allocated "like any other wound".
So we have wounds (ones where you can fail to wound and take saves against) and other wounds (mortal wounds), they are all explicitly wounds as mentioned in the rules.
There is literally no refuting this as it is literally written in the rulebook.
doctortom wrote: When they say allocate it "like any other wound" that's an indication that it is a type of wound... "allocate it like any other wound" . That wording means its a type of wound, and not just for allocation purposes. Unsurprisingly, wounds wound models.
Stux wrote: But just because it's a type of wound does not mean it wounds.
Being wounded is the process of having a wound roll against you succeed, it's very specific. Mortal Wounds do not do this.
Good now you can prove your own argument false.
If being wounded is a specific process of having a wound roll succeed then it is easy for you to win the argument - please provide the specific rules quote stateing that process
If you cannot/choose not to we will accept the proof that your argument is false
Concludeing that being wounded is not a specific process and so any wound will do and you have already concluded mortal wounds are a type of wound.
DeathReaper wrote: This is of course false. You do not get a save against a mortal wound because the rules say you do not get a save. no other reason.
The reason is MW are not wounds. They have separate rules, therefore they cant be the same.
Not true
Jump pack assault, teleport strike are the same rule with different names - they are even grouped together in faq ruleings
While master of the machines is a rule with the same name on different units with different wording.
You have to consider each case on its own merits due to GW writting.
The key question is what evidence do you have that they are not the same - differences should be obtain via rules citation only if you cannot cite a difference in a rules quote the assumption is it is the same. This is called RAW.
My position throughout this is that it is ambiguous. The game never defines what it means to be wounded, so if you are sure that Mortal Wounds aren't excluded as a result of their definition you need to prove that.
Your position is unambiguous - it is prooved false by others citations and further evidenced by your failiure to provide the requested citation to support your argument.
If your argument is correct it should be easy to provide it if not we will continue to accept your admission of being wrong.
Your argument is basically you saying the emperor can kill any model on the board instantly your hive tyrant is dead - us saying can you provide a rules quote saying thats how it works -and you responding the powers of the emperor are ambiguous because they are not defined so you have to proove it can't do that or it can.
You do things the standard way by default unless you are told to deviate for a reason. you have provided no citation to a reason to deviate so we conclude you do things the standard way. You have admitted they wound you now have to proove a model receiving a wound is not synominous with it being wounded please provide a quote if you cannot the default is it counts.
I can only assume you are continuing to misunderstand my position.
What I am saying is that Mortal Wounds don't allow you to make a wound roll. The definition of 'wounded' MIGHT be that a wound roll has been successful, or it MIGHT be that it is to have a wound (of which as you point at MW are a type) assigned to the unit.
I am asserting it is ambiguous. If you are asserting the latter you need a citation to prove it.
If it is the former, Saviour Protocols can't be used. If it is the latter they can. If it's ambiguous it requires player mutual consent or a roll off.
U02dah4 wrote: the emperor can kill any model on the board instantly.
How does this work against units like shield drones or canoptek scarabs that aren't actually alive? Does an Avatar of Khaine count as being alive? What about fortifications? This rule needs an FAQ!
As for the original question, five pages or arguing prove that there is no definitive RAW answer. Roll off and see who wins.
U02dah4 wrote: the emperor can kill any model on the board instantly.
How does this work against units like shield drones or canoptek scarabs that aren't actually alive? Does an Avatar of Khaine count as being alive? What about fortifications? This rule needs an FAQ!
As for the original question, five pages or arguing prove that there is no definitive RAW answer. Roll off and see who wins.
Agreed.
Honestly, if we can't convince each other in 5 pages then it's no happening, at least without new evidence/FAQs
Stux wrote: I can only assume you are continuing to misunderstand my position.
What I am saying is that Mortal Wounds don't allow you to make a wound roll. The definition of 'wounded' MIGHT be that a wound roll has been successful, or it MIGHT be that it is to have a wound (of which as you point at MW are a type) assigned to the unit.
I am asserting it is ambiguous. If you are asserting the latter you need a citation to prove it.
If it is the former, Saviour Protocols can't be used. If it is the latter they can. If it's ambiguous it requires player mutual consent or a roll off.
No im not misunderstanding your position. However your position is irrelevant. There either is a definition of wounded requireing a wound roll in which case cite it. Or their isn't! There is no might.
There is not a citation saying that a wound roll os required therefore it is irrelevant as saying the emperor kills your unit. The default is that for a model to be wounded a wound is required.
We cannot disprove your assertion using the rules quotes because it is not grounded in the RAW. Just as you cannot disprove my assertion that thst the power of the emperor allows me to instant kill your unit useing a rules quote because it is not based in the rules.
That's not correct. A Wound (meaning 1) is the result of an attack that must be allocated to a model during the Allocate Wound step of an attack resolution (Hit Roll, Wound Roll, Allocate Wound, Saving Throw, Inflict Damage). Each Wound has a Damage characteristic, that is the number of Wounds (meaning 2) a model loses during the Inflict Damage stage of an attack resolution. They never use them interchangeably.
Stux wrote: But just because it's a type of wound does not mean it wounds.
Being a type of wound that is allocated like any other wound means it wounds, as allocating wounds specifies that the process is for attacks that have successfully wounded the target.
Stux wrote: Being wounded is the process of having a wound roll against you succeed, it's very specific. Mortal Wounds do not do this.
As wound allocation points out, attacks that successfully wound the target go through wound allocation. Mortal wounds, "like any other wound" go through wound allocation. Therefore, mortal wounds are attacks that have successfully wounded the target unit. A target unit getting wounded is not limited to having a wound roll succeed, any type of wound going throught the wound allocation process is one that wounds the target unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stux wrote: There is no definition of what exactly it means to be wounded though.
There are, however, statements in different sections that indicates that a target unit is wounded. Successfully making a to wound roll is one. Allocating wounds is another, as those rules state that the wounds you are allocating are from attacks that have successfully wounded a target unit. Some people seem to be hung up on concentrating on the to wound roll while totally ignoring that allocating wounds states that you are allocating wounds that have successfully wounded the target.
The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.
Stux wrote: The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.
Unless there's another passage I'm missing?
From the Resolve Attacks section
"3. Allocate Wound:If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit).",
Stux wrote: The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.
Unless there's another passage I'm missing?
From the Resolve Attacks section
"3. Allocate Wound:If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit).",
Right. So wounding leads to allocation. But you can't make the reverse inference, that doesn't follow logically.
Stux wrote: The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.
Unless there's another passage I'm missing?
From the Resolve Attacks section
"3. Allocate Wound:If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit).",
Right. So wounding leads to allocation. But you can't make the reverse inference, that doesn't follow logically.
It does when mortal wounds states "just allocate it as you would any other wound"
alextroy wrote: That's not correct. A Wound (meaning 1) is the result of an attack that must be allocated to a model during the Allocate Wound step of an attack resolution (Hit Roll, Wound Roll, Allocate Wound, Saving Throw, Inflict Damage). Each Wound has a Damage characteristic, that is the number of Wounds (meaning 2) a model loses during the Inflict Damage stage of an attack resolution. They never use them interchangeably.
To bad there are many rules/stratagems/relics, etc.. that says "If you are wounded, if you dealt any wounds, if any wounds are dealt" meaning that you have done damage, and meaning the word "damage" in those rules are equal to to world "wounds". This is implying Wounds (with an S) is more than 1, like FnP you take a save if you suffer wounds, many stratagems say wounds in place of "for each damage dealt" b.c it is easier. The world WOUND is also a word for DAMAGE.
Example: This weapon has 3 damage, you took 3 wounds, you need to make 3 saves from your FnP vs these 3 wounds. See, damage is used for wounds, he took 3 damage and 3 wounds.
So if the world wound means damage, this will change how some rules can be read.
Can you provide a quote for that useing the word wounded and cause
When i read the core rules or it says is successfull wounds are allocated cause is not mentioned so is irrelevant unless you can provide a citation makeing cause relevant note citation not as you read it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stux wrote: The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.
alextroy wrote: That's not correct. A Wound (meaning 1) is the result of an attack that must be allocated to a model during the Allocate Wound step of an attack resolution (Hit Roll, Wound Roll, Allocate Wound, Saving Throw, Inflict Damage). Each Wound has a Damage characteristic, that is the number of Wounds (meaning 2) a model loses during the Inflict Damage stage of an attack resolution. They never use them interchangeably.
To bad there are many rules/stratagems/relics, etc.. that says "If you are wounded, if you dealt any wounds, if any wounds are dealt" meaning that you have done damage, and meaning the word "damage" in those rules are equal to to world "wounds". This is implying Wounds (with an S) is more than 1, like FnP you take a save if you suffer wounds, many stratagems say wounds in place of "for each damage dealt" b.c it is easier. The world WOUND is also a word for DAMAGE.
Example: This weapon has 3 damage, you took 3 wounds, you need to make 3 saves from your FnP vs these 3 wounds. See, damage is used for wounds, he took 3 damage and 3 wounds.
So if the world wound means damage, this will change how some rules can be read.
A very good point with respect to the fnp wording and timeing
I hadn't considered that however im not sure it changes timing we know it happens after step 2 is complete we know it happens before 4 we still back to it being roughly step 3 allocation which would make sense in the SP context.
Stux wrote: The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.
Unless there's another passage I'm missing?
From the Resolve Attacks section
"3. Allocate Wound:If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit).",
Right. So wounding leads to allocation. But you can't make the reverse inference, that doesn't follow logically.
It does when mortal wounds states "just allocate it as you would any other wound"
Yes but you haven't shown that allocation causes wounding, just that wounding causes allocation.
Yes but all you need is wounding there is no citation requireing a cause so he doesn't need to show the inverse all you are admitting is that he is right.
Unless you can provide a citation otherwise basic English would be that if you are wounding a model that model is wounded.
It also still comes down to valid RAW arguments vs invalid non-RAW ones which cannot be disproved because they wern't in the rules to begin with.
Argument mortal wounds are succefull wounds based on the allocation step - valid by citation.
Argument we don't know precisely when wounded occurs due to inconsistant wording but we can plot the bounds of it via citations to be after 2 is complete and before 4 - valid by citations.
Argument you require a wound roll for a modal to be wounded - invalid no citation.
Argument i believe/I interpret/I read it as.... Invalid no citation
Stux wrote: The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.
Unless there's another passage I'm missing?
From the Resolve Attacks section
"3. Allocate Wound:If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit).",
Right. So wounding leads to allocation. But you can't make the reverse inference, that doesn't follow logically.
It does when mortal wounds states "just allocate it as you would any other wound"
Yes but you haven't shown that allocation causes wounding, just that wounding causes allocation.
Given that they state that allocation is allocating the wounds from attacks that have successfully wounded the target, I dispute your statement.
Stux wrote: The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.
Unless there's another passage I'm missing?
From the Resolve Attacks section
"3. Allocate Wound:If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit).",
Right. So wounding leads to allocation. But you can't make the reverse inference, that doesn't follow logically.
It does when mortal wounds states "just allocate it as you would any other wound"
Yes but you haven't shown that allocation causes wounding, just that wounding causes allocation.
Given that they state that allocation is allocating the wounds from attacks that have successfully wounded the target, I dispute your statement.
Well you're free to dispute it, but it still seems very much to be an ambiguous issue that would require a house rule or roll off to resolve in game.
Well you're free to dispute it, but it still seems very much to be an ambiguous issue that would require a house rule or roll off to resolve in game.
I don't see how it's ambiguous when the allocate wounds step flat out tells you that you are allocating wounds that have wounded a target. That means whenever you're using allocate wounds you are allocating wounds that have wounded a target. That doesn't seem ambiguous in the slightest, especially when the allocation of wounds is to allocate it like "any other:" wound - i.e. it's just another type of wound that wounds that target that you are allocating.
Well you're free to dispute it, but it still seems very much to be an ambiguous issue that would require a house rule or roll off to resolve in game.
I don't see how it's ambiguous when the allocate wounds step flat out tells you that you are allocating wounds that have wounded a target. That means whenever you're using allocate wounds you are allocating wounds that have wounded a target. That doesn't seem ambiguous in the slightest, especially when the allocation of wounds is to allocate it like "any other:" wound - i.e. it's just another type of wound that wounds that target that you are allocating.
It literally does not say they are wounding the target. It literally states you do not roll to wound and you just "allocate" like any other wound. It does not say that they wound like any other wound. You are making assumptions. They might want you to make this assumption but it is an assumption. Assumption is not RAW.
Everyone at my club plays it this way. SP can't be used against mortal wounds. I also vaguely remember when an errata come out there being a big stink about it working like this as well.
But it does say because you allocate successfull wounds what are they if not wounds.
All people have done is cite the rules and draw conclusions based on them. What is better an answer grounded in the rules with a small assumption based on dodgy GW wording vs completely made up rules not based on the wording.
Because really you and stux have only raised three points 1. is a made up rule about having to roll to wound no citation no evidence and so clearly wrong. 2. How you play it/want it to be played which is irrelevant to a rules question. How your local club plays it is clearly wrong under the rules might be fine as house rule you have agreed but its not what the rules say. 3. Ambiguity in the wording. The problem here is that while the language is not precise - at no point it defines a model being wounded. as in the allocation of successfull wounds its not a giant leap to say a model receiving a successful wound is wounded. Its why everyone else is going whats the ambiguity.
We also look for rules based alternative explanations in response to GW wording and their arn't any in this instance. No matter how you read it their is not another interpretation of the RAW that does not involve adding stuff that isnt part of the rules
You and stux have taken up half this thread but you have not come up with any rules citation offering an alternative and untill you do you have lost the argument
We can point to the raw and our interpretation of it you critice our interpretation but offer bo raw alternative so we win
You, and your side, made assumptions and interpretations as well. Just because a word and its variants (wound, wounds, wounded, mortal wound, etc.) is used multiple times in the rules doesnt mean they are all the same. Truth is they are not the same.
Of course I can. A mortal wound is different from a wound because the rules are different. The wound characteristic on a units datasheet is different from a wound caused by a weapon. Read the rules.
1) that is not a citation so is not RAW. So I accept your failure.
please provide a citation stateing a mortal wound is different to other wounds
2) acknowledged that a wound characteristic is different to a wound caused by a weapon i fail to see the relevance - are you saying that a mortal wound is the same as a wound characteristic on a datasheet
3) this is still not a rules citation based explanation of how to manage the situation even if you were right on these points which your not
4) if you want to find a rules citation I would consider reading the rules its a good place to find one.
p5freak wrote: Of course I can. A mortal wound is different from a wound because the rules are different. The wound characteristic on a units datasheet is different from a wound caused by a weapon. Read the rules.
Like any other wound, however, you follow the allocation rules, which indicate that this is what you do with attacks that have successfully wounded the target. The statement describing what wound allocationi is, coupled with the "like any other wound" statement for allocating mortal wounds does mot make it an assumption, but is GW pointing out that, like any other attack that wounds the target, you allocate mortal wounds that also wound the target.
p5freak wrote: Of course I can. A mortal wound is different from a wound because the rules are different. The wound characteristic on a units datasheet is different from a wound caused by a weapon. Read the rules.
p5freak wrote: Of course I can. A mortal wound is different from a wound because the rules are different. The wound characteristic on a units datasheet is different from a wound caused by a weapon. Read the rules.
Like any other wound, however, you follow the allocation rules, which indicate that this is what you do with attacks that have successfully wounded the target. The statement describing what wound allocationi is, coupled with the "like any other wound" statement for allocating mortal wounds does mot make it an assumption, but is GW pointing out that, like any other attack that wounds the target, you allocate mortal wounds that also wound the target.
I think Stux countered this line of thinking quite well. You are making an inverse claim. Allocation in this case does not mean a mortal wound wounds like a regular wound. It just means it is allocated like a normal wound. Which leads us to the question. Why does a mortal wound need a clarification to how it is allocated? It needs a clarification because it does not wound like a regular wound. It does not wound at all. Wound is the trigger for SP.
p5freak wrote: Of course I can. A mortal wound is different from a wound because the rules are different. The wound characteristic on a units datasheet is different from a wound caused by a weapon. Read the rules.
Like any other wound, however, you follow the allocation rules, which indicate that this is what you do with attacks that have successfully wounded the target. The statement describing what wound allocationi is, coupled with the "like any other wound" statement for allocating mortal wounds does mot make it an assumption, but is GW pointing out that, like any other attack that wounds the target, you allocate mortal wounds that also wound the target.
I think Stux countered this line of thinking quite well. You are making an inverse claim. Allocation in this case does not mean a mortal wound wounds like a regular wound. It just means it is allocated like a normal wound. Which leads us to the question. Why does a mortal wound need a clarification to how it is allocated? It needs a clarification because it does not wound like a regular wound. It does not wound at all. Wound is the trigger for SP.
"like any other wound points out it is a type of wound. It needs "clarification" to point out it is a type of wound, just one you don't roll to wound or a save for. It is still part of the allocation process, which is for allocating wounds that (as the allocating wounds rules state) wound the target. They do damage like regular wounds except for not getting to save. You still wound the target, as per allocation rules.
Yes it is clarified the clarification is that it is a successful wound thats the RAW the fact it needed clarifying is irrelevant the clarification is clear and no alternative explanation has been stated useing a RAW quote.
When is a unit "wounded by an enemy attack", which is the condition for savior protocols? This really comes down to what you think "wounded" means, and the rules never actually define this term. So, its fully open to interpretation... hence this long debate!
If the answer is models are wounded when wounds are allocated, that means the target of the successful wound roll gets its armor save as usual and SP would only effect wounds which are allocated for failed saves. This would include mortal wounds, which are allocated as any other wounds.
If the answer is that a model is wounded once a successful wound roll is made, and before saves are rolled, this would not include mortal wounds. Mortal wounds are allocated as any other wound after a failed save, which means they inflict damage. Models could never be considered "wounded" by mortal wounds if "wounded" occurs after a wound roll and before a savings throw.
Again, this is entirely open to interpretation as the term is not defined. To me, it is clear that the more logical interpretation is that mortal wounds could not be saved by savior protocols.
On a side note I wish the sequence was roll to hit, then roll to save, then roll to wound. That seems so much more logical - what is being wounded if the armor stops the shot? The bullet leaves the gun, hits the target, pierces armor and only then should the target's toughness come into play.
except there is nowhere it says a roll is required. Not one player has provided any quote to support that. sure you can argue whether its allocation or a successful wound that is required but mortal wounds have been evidenced as both.
2. Wound Roll: If an attack scores
a hit, you will then need to roll
another dice to see if the attack
successfully wounds the target.
A roll is required to see if the attack successfully wounds the target. And it says wound roll. You must roll to wound. Mortal wounds dont roll to wound. Therefore mortal wounds arent wounds.
2. Wound Roll: If an attack scores
a hit, you will then need to roll
another dice to see if the attack
successfully wounds the target.
A roll is required to see if the attack successfully wounds the target. And it says wound roll. You must roll to wound. Mortal wounds dont roll to wound. Therefore mortal wounds arent wounds.
From the Resolve Attacks section
"3. Allocate Wound: If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."
Wounds that are allocated are wounds that have successfully wounded the target. Mortal wounds are like other wounds in the wound allocation process, which is allocating wounds that have wounded the target.
As ridiculous as this conversation is, there's one thing that crossed my mind. Mortal Wounds don't roll to wound. They go straight to allocation. Allocation says "If an attack successfully wounds a target... allocates the wound." So unsuccessful wounds don't get allocated. Seems easy enough. So it seems there are 2 options here.
1. MWs successfully wound. They get allocated. No save because specific rules of MWs.
2. MWs don't actually wound. Because they don't wound, as per the allocation rules we're told to follow, they can't be allocated, and don't do anything in 40k.
The rules are not 110% clear (because GW), but I know which of the above sounds more reasonable to me and my group. Unless I'm off the mark here somewhere? But this back and forth "This is false," "No, this is false," "False," is really, really tiresome. Accept that no one will change their minds until GW puts something out and give it a rest already.
(As for the two options above, I would not actually be surprised if RAW turned out to be option 2. BCB's post history has pointed out how badly written rules are from GW. But even if that is the case, no one actually plays so strictly that Assault weapons have no use, but thems the RAW. )
I don't think the resolves attacks section here is relevant. Mortal wounds are a special attack that has their own specific instructions on how to resolve them.
Do not make a wound roll or a save roll.
Allocate them like you would any other wound.
It's a pretty simple FAQ question to fix. Can SP be used against mortal wounds? You can flip a coin to determine what they will say because they don't even understand their own rules.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think the resolves attacks section here is relevant.
Except it is because mortal wounds are allocated like any other wound.
Mortal wounds are a special attack that has their own specific instructions on how to resolve them.
Yea, you resolve them like any other wound...
Do not make a wound roll or a save roll.
Allocate them like you would any other wound.
Exactly, you need to allocate them like any other wound, and unsuccessful wounds don't get allocated, only successful wounds don't get allocated, therefore mortal wounds do would the target, just like any other wound, so you can make a SP roll for them.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think the resolves attacks section here is relevant.
Except it is because mortal wounds are allocated like any other wound.
Mortal wounds are a special attack that has their own specific instructions on how to resolve them.
Yea, you resolve them like any other wound...
Do not make a wound roll or a save roll.
Allocate them like you would any other wound.
Exactly, you need to allocate them like any other wound, and unsuccessful wounds don't get allocated, only successful wounds don't get allocated, therefore mortal wounds do would the target, just like any other wound, so you can make a SP roll for them.
Being wounded is not explicitly in the definition of what a wound is, so we don't know if it is part of what any other wound does or if it is part of what a wound roll does.
This same line you keeping parroting is totally meaningless to the discussion, stop it.
2. Wound Roll: If an attack scores
a hit, you will then need to roll
another dice to see if the attack
successfully wounds the target.
A roll is required to see if the attack successfully wounds the target. And it says wound roll. You must roll to wound. Mortal wounds dont roll to wound. Therefore mortal wounds arent wounds.
That doesnt show that you need to roll a dice that prooves the opposite.
By rolling a dice you successfully wound that is all
We have already shown mortal wounds sucessfully wound ergo there is no difference between them
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think the resolves attacks section here is relevant.
Except it is because mortal wounds are allocated like any other wound.
Mortal wounds are a special attack that has their own specific instructions on how to resolve them.
Yea, you resolve them like any other wound...
Do not make a wound roll or a save roll.
Allocate them like you would any other wound.
Exactly, you need to allocate them like any other wound, and unsuccessful wounds don't get allocated, only successful wounds don't get allocated, therefore mortal wounds do would the target, just like any other wound, so you can make a SP roll for them.
Being wounded is not explicitly in the definition of what a wound is, so we don't know if it is part of what any other wound does or if it is part of what a wound roll does.
This same line you keeping parroting is totally meaningless to the discussion, stop it.
Until we get more clarification, roll off on it.
The wound roll as quoted early only leads to a sucessfull wound which mortal wounds are.
What in the wording would indicate it was different
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think the resolves attacks section here is relevant.
Except it is because mortal wounds are allocated like any other wound.
Mortal wounds are a special attack that has their own specific instructions on how to resolve them.
Yea, you resolve them like any other wound...
Do not make a wound roll or a save roll.
Allocate them like you would any other wound.
Exactly, you need to allocate them like any other wound, and unsuccessful wounds don't get allocated, only successful wounds don't get allocated, therefore mortal wounds do would the target, just like any other wound, so you can make a SP roll for them.
Being wounded is not explicitly in the definition of what a wound is, so we don't know if it is part of what any other wound does or if it is part of what a wound roll does.
It does not need to explicitly say "the definition of what a wound is" it is defined in the process, and that is what we go by.
This same line you keeping parroting is totally meaningless to the discussion, stop it.
It really is not meaningless so there is no reason to stop.
because you do not agree but have no citations to counter it is not a reason for me to stop, since I have the rules agreeing with me.
By rolling a dice you successfully wound that is all
So now you successfully wound just by rolling a dice ? Even if you roll a 1 ?
It says you need to roll a dice to see if it "sucessfully wounds"
We know mortal wounds "sucessfully wound" through allocation
So we know that end result of the dice rolling ends up at an identical place to where the mortal wounds start
Their is no difference shown between a "successful wound" dice rolling and a "successful wound" allocation/ mortal wounds
Of course rolling a 1 doesn't make you successfull your being deliberately obtuse. You can successfully roll to get a successful wound however you can also be successful by auto wounding eg. Mortal wounds. Thats all that quote shows.
Just because A causes B doesnt mean C can't cause B as well and there is no reason to support a different process in that quote given they both create successful wounds (identical wording) no one is questioning that you can successfully wound by rolling.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't think the resolves attacks section here is relevant.
Except it is because mortal wounds are allocated like any other wound.
Mortal wounds are a special attack that has their own specific instructions on how to resolve them.
Yea, you resolve them like any other wound...
Do not make a wound roll or a save roll.
Allocate them like you would any other wound.
Exactly, you need to allocate them like any other wound, and unsuccessful wounds don't get allocated, only successful wounds don't get allocated, therefore mortal wounds do would the target, just like any other wound, so you can make a SP roll for them.
Being wounded is not explicitly in the definition of what a wound is, so we don't know if it is part of what any other wound does or if it is part of what a wound roll does.
This same line you keeping parroting is totally meaningless to the discussion, stop it.
Until we get more clarification, roll off on it.
Wounds that have successfully wounded the target are by definiteion allocated in the allocate wounds step, however.
The line he is repeating is not meaningless at all.
We know a wound roll only determines whether a wound is successfull that is all it does under RAW
If a successfull wound is what is required for a model to be wounded then both mw and rolled wounds are successfull.
If its the roll there are two questions which bit of the RAW quote is differentiated and exactly when does the differentiation occur
We know it cant be at the successfull part after seeing the outcome as theirs no reason to differentiate mortal wounds once successfull.
So it has to be before maybe when the dice are in motion if being actually rolled is important. Of course we then wouldnt no the outcome of the dice as they may or not be successfull till we view the result so are we looking at shrodingers roll which by common sense doesn't work. Maybe my opponent should apply SP while the dice are in motion.
Unless one of the advocates can present an alternative
In a sense one definition of wounded is successfull wounds and yields both a clear point it occurs and answer
The other definition is before then during the roll but you cant seperate why this distiction occurs under RAW and when exactly this occurs as at the roll is vague after it your back to the top definition and during you would include fail results
So we are back to one definition being based in the RAW and giving you a functional clear answer with a small asumption
And the other being asserted without a clear raw reason to justify it, with timing that doesnt work/make logical sense when examined.
So we don't roll for it because we are not weighing up equally evidenced and functional options.
Fate caster greatbows ignore the wound step on a 6 to hit, Iirc so do the infiltrator bolters.
I'm fairly certain that the lack of having to roll to wound for an attack with a weapon doesn't change that it was an attack from a weapon that wounded
I'm 100% certain the RAW states to allocate mortal wounds as you would any other wound. If a normal wound can be SPed than a MW which is allocated in the same way can be SPed.
MW from wrath if Mars are generated as a result of the attack sequence for a weapon.
I am certain that MW, in addition to a weapons damage, are not "normal damage". They are separate. MW "are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury." A tiny drone wouldnt be able to intercept MW, and MW in addition are not part of the weapons normal damage.
Of course i have no RAW to back this up, its HIWPI. Just like there is no RAW saying that a MW is a wound. Just because MW are allocated like any other wound is no proof that its a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.
If a <SEPT> INFANTRY or <SEPT> BATTLESUIT unit within 3" of a friendly <SEPT> DRONES unit is wounded by an enemy attack, roll a D6. On a 2+ you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.
p5freak wrote: I am certain that MW, in addition to a weapons damage, are not "normal damage". They are separate. MW "are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury." A tiny drone wouldnt be able to intercept MW, and MW in addition are not part of the weapons normal damage.
Of course i have no RAW to back this up, its HIWPI. Just like there is no RAW saying that a MW is a wound.
False, we have proven that "a MW is a wound." Do you have any rules quotes that disprove what we have quoted?
Just because MW are allocated like any other wound is no proof that its a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.
False. as we have shown a MW is a wound as it is allocated like any other wound.
If a <SEPT> INFANTRY or <SEPT> BATTLESUIT unit within 3" of a friendly <SEPT> DRONES unit is wounded by an enemy attack, roll a D6. On a 2+ you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.
I do not understand your point here.
Normal damage for a MW is 1 damage. The SP rule makes them take a MW instead of the normal damage, which in this case is 1 MW/1 damage...
p5freak wrote: I am certain that MW, in addition to a weapons damage, are not "normal damage". They are separate. MW "are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury." A tiny drone wouldnt be able to intercept MW, and MW in addition are not part of the weapons normal damage.
Of course i have no RAW to back this up, its HIWPI. Just like there is no RAW saying that a MW is a wound.
False, we have proven that "a MW is a wound." Do you have any rules quotes that disprove what we have quoted?
Just because MW are allocated like any other wound is no proof that its a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.
False. as we have shown a MW is a wound as it is allocated like any other wound.
No, you dont. Just because its allocated like any other wound doesnt make it a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.
Every relevant quote is on page one of this thread. Nothing new is being presented here. The RAW do not define when a model is wounded or what that means. Mortal wounds allocate damage as any other wounds, but that has absolutely nothing to do with weather or not they wounded the target. The rules do not say they do and as my logical interpretation is that wounded occurs after a failed wound roll and before an armor save, I would play it as such. If wounded meant a successful wounds that is allocated as damage, you would roll for the targets save before SP even comes into play. You can't have it both ways.
I have a model who is currently at 3 wounds. He started the game at 4. Is he wounded? No, he is damaged. Allocated wounds cause damage. He may have been wounded at some point in the past to get to this stage, however. When did that occur? The rules do not define this. I would say wounded means when a roll to wound is successful, because that is a logical use of the word. Mortal wounds are a completely different thing with their own rules which ignore that step.
Orbei wrote: Every relevant quote is on page one of this thread. Nothing new is being presented here. The RAW do not define when a model is wounded or what that means. Mortal wounds allocate damage as any other wounds, but that has absolutely nothing to do with weather or not they wounded the target. The rules do not say they do and as my logical interpretation is that wounded occurs after a failed wound roll and before an armor save, I would play it as such. If wounded meant a successful wounds that is allocated as damage, you would roll for the targets save before SP even comes into play. You can't have it both ways.
I have a model who is currently at 3 wounds. He started the game at 4. Is he wounded? No, he is damaged. Allocated wounds cause damage. He was wounded at some point in the past to get to this stage, however. When did that occur? The rules do not define this. I would say wounded means when a roll to wound is successful, because that is a logical use of the word. Mortal wounds are a completely different thing with their own rules which ignore that step.
Problem is between the roll to wound and the saving throw/damage steps as you highlight their is a step its called the allocate wound step. Its here successful wounds are allocated if successful wounds = wounded then both MW and normal wounds count. The definition of wounded not being that a wound is allocated but that a wound is "successful" as only "successful wounds" are allocated in this step. Your making a solid case that it occurs prior to saving throw as damage however that only narrows it down to before step 4 and after step 2 (the wound allocation step)
When you say there is no definition of wounded but then say allocation of successful wounds doesn't matter you are defining wounded as needing a successful wound roll however you have not separated why a "successful wound roll" is needed and not just a "successful wound". Why is a "successful wound roll" any more logical than a "successful wound". Especially given that the wound roll section tells you a wound roll generates "successful wounds" not successful wound rolls. It sounds far less logical in that its not consistent with the wording, just more consistent with your assumption.
Your essentially back to these successful wounds are ok but these successful wounds are not ok - because logic (but I have no RAW to differentiate them so basis on which to use logic) it just makes sense to me. VS Successful wounds = Wounded providing a clear logical answer that makes sense under RAW.
p5freak wrote: I am certain that MW, in addition to a weapons damage, are not "normal damage". They are separate. MW "are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury." A tiny drone wouldnt be able to intercept MW, and MW in addition are not part of the weapons normal damage.
Of course i have no RAW to back this up, its HIWPI. Just like there is no RAW saying that a MW is a wound.
False, we have proven that "a MW is a wound." Do you have any rules quotes that disprove what we have quoted?
Just because MW are allocated like any other wound is no proof that its a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.
False. as we have shown a MW is a wound as it is allocated like any other wound.
No, you dont. Just because its allocated like any other wound doesnt make it a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.
You allocate it like any other wound, so you are allocating a type of wound that susseffully wounded the target like any other wound, as per the definition given for what you are doing when you allocate wounds, and MW stating you follow the allocate wounds procedure like any other wound (which means you're not just using the mechanic, they are treated as wounding the target just like normal wounds.
p5freak wrote: I am certain that MW, in addition to a weapons damage, are not "normal damage". They are separate. MW "are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury." A tiny drone wouldnt be able to intercept MW, and MW in addition are not part of the weapons normal damage.
Of course i have no RAW to back this up, its HIWPI. Just like there is no RAW saying that a MW is a wound.
False, we have proven that "a MW is a wound." Do you have any rules quotes that disprove what we have quoted?
Just because MW are allocated like any other wound is no proof that its a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.
False. as we have shown a MW is a wound as it is allocated like any other wound.
No, you dont. Just because its allocated like any other wound doesnt make it a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.
And there is where your argument falls apart.
Something being allocated like any other wound makes it exactly like any other wound.
DeathReaper wrote: We have addressed this, your argument is not correct, because the rules literally say that mw's are just like any other wound.
That is not what the rules are literally saying. Please cite from the MW wound rule where it literally says that MW are just like any other wound. Its quite the opposite. It literally says : "Do not make a wound roll." You cant wound when you dont make a wound roll. A wound roll is required to successfully wound.
2. Wound Roll: If an attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target.
It still is allocated like any other wound and it wounds like any other wound.
MWs dont wound. Please cite from the MW rule where it says that it wounds like any other wound. Its quite the opposite. It literally says : "Do not make a wound roll." You cant wound when you dont make a wound roll. A wound roll is required in order to successfully wound.
2. Wound Roll: If an attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target.
DeathReaper wrote: We have addressed this, your argument is not correct, because the rules literally say that mw's are just like any other wound.
That is not what the rules are literally saying. Please cite from the MW wound rule where it literally says that MW are just like any other wound. Its quite the opposite. It literally says : "Do not make a wound roll." You cant wound when you dont make a wound roll.
False. We have shown that mw's wound. Mw's do not need to roll to wound, they are any other wound, so they have already wounded the target. You allocate it like any other wound, so you are allocating a type of wound that successfully wounded the target like any other wound.
A wound roll is required to successfully wound.
False, See above.
2. Wound Roll: If an attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target.
And MW's say that you do not need to make a wound roll, you just allocate it like any other wound. This implies that it has already successfully wounded in lieu of a to wound roll.
It still is allocated like any other wound and it wounds like any other wound.
MWs dont wound. Please cite from the MW rule where it says that it wounds like any other wound. Its quite the opposite. It literally says : "Do not make a wound roll." You cant wound when you dont make a wound roll. A wound roll is required in order to successfully wound.
False, see above.
2. Wound Roll: If an attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target.
flandarz wrote: "Peel a lemon as you would any other citrus fruit."
"An lemon isn't a citrus fruit because it looks different than an orange and is sour!"
^ what this argument basically boils down to.
Pretty much but thats the impact of RAW VS RAI one argument is inevitably evidenced and one argument is inevitably based on the beliefs of the individual and so is self evidently wrong but the individual wont accept it because its based on their belief.
You have provided no evidence. I have provided rule citation that a dice roll is required to successfully wound. You havent provided any rule citation that a MW auto wounds. Thats speculation.
Yawn - point made about not accepting evidence based on belief.
You have provided no evidence as to the "required" You have only demonstrated that wounds that are rolled for are successfull which is irrelevant. As This does not in anyway change the clear quotes from others and myself showing that mortal wounds are also successful wounds etc etc.
False we have provided evidence, but I will summarize so you can see the rules references all at once.
All of the following quotes are from the 40K Battle Primer and are in cyan
Premise 1) Attacks that score a hit need to roll to wound. "If an attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target." (P.7 Wound Roll section).
So we know after you hit, you need to roll to wound to successfully wound the target.
Premise 2) If the roll to successfully wound the target fails then you do not do anything else. "If the roll is less than the required number, the attack fails and the attack sequence ends." (P.7 Wound Roll section).
So we know that only attacks that successfully wound the target move on to the next step. There is a chart on that page that shows you what you need to roll be successful.
Premise 3) All attacks that successfully wound are allocated. "If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit..." (P.7 Allocate Wound section).
So now we know that we allocate all successful wounds.
Premise 4) Mortal wounds are allocated like any other wound. "...just allocate it as you would any other wound..." (P.7 Mortal Wounds section).
So we know that, like any other wound, a mortal wound is allocated and as such must have wounded the target because a mortal wound is like any other wound at the allocation step.
Clear rules that shows your argument is not correct.
I have provided rule citation that a dice roll is required to successfully wound..
And mortal wounds specify that you skip the roll to wound.
You havent provided any rule citation that a MW auto wounds. Thats speculation.
It is not speculation, it is actual rules. A mortal wound is allocated just like any other wound, and must have been a successful wound, as failed wounds do not get allocated and there are only failed and successful wounds.
p5freak wrote: You have provided no evidence. I have provided rule citation that a dice roll is required to successfully wound. You havent provided any rule citation that a MW auto wounds. Thats speculation.
We have provided wules citations that show mortal wounds are allocated like any other wound and that allocation is the allocation of wounds that have wounded the target. DeathReaper has provided the quotations again for the umpteenth time in this thread. You seem hidebound in insisting that it must say in the mortal wound sidebar that it wounds targets...which is does, in a way, by saying they are allocated like any OTHER wound. You do not want to accept this, however, and then argue in bad faith by stating that we have provided no evidence.
Flandarz has your argument nailed down perfectly.
flandarz wrote: "Peel a lemon as you would any other citrus fruit."
"An lemon isn't a citrus fruit because it looks different than an orange and is sour!"
I suppose it comes down to what you're focusing on. If you're focused on mortal wounds being allocated like any other wound, and you consider that to mean the model is wounded, then SP would come into effect. If you're focused on a model being wounded after a successful wound roll, and mortal wounds specifically say to skip that step, a model is never in the 'wounded' stage when SP takes place (after wound roll and before armor saves).
We know that SP takes place after the savings throw stage of resolving attacks - you don't get to roll the save and then pass on to a drone. But mortal wounds skip that step entirely, they go right to damaging whatever they were allocated to.
So, when exactly is a model wounded? The term is never defined and I have yet to see anyone give a clear answer. Its all interpretation. I can see why people would think a mortal wound counts, but the other side's arguments as presented way back on page 1 read as correct to me when looking at the resolve attacks sequence. Targets are successfully wounded after a wound roll, which mortal wounds do not do. They go straight to allocation.
Orbei wrote: So, when exactly is a model wounded? The term is never defined and I have yet to see anyone give a clear answer. Its all interpretation. I can see why people would think a mortal wound counts, but the other side's arguments as presented way back on page 1 read as correct to me when looking at the resolve attacks sequence. Targets are successfully wounded after a wound roll, which mortal wounds do not do. They go straight to allocation.
Which does not matter because...
Saviour Protocols says:
If a <SEPT> INFANTRY or <SEPT> BATTLESUIT unit within 3" of a friendly <SEPT> DRONES unit is wounded by an enemy attack, roll a D6. On a 2+ you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.
This literally says to "roll a D6. On a 2+ you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target."
This deals with using the ability instead of allocating the wound to the unit with Saviour Protocols. You allocate to the Drone unit instead if you roll a 2+.
Orbei wrote: I have read that quote already, thanks!
But that quote indicates that you can allocate the wound to a drone instead of the target on a roll, which means Savior Protocols works during wound allocation. As we have shown, wound allocation is allocating attacks that have successfully wounded the target, so at that stage they would qualify as wounding the target. What you said about wounds that made a successful to wound roll is true, but it's not the complete story. Any wound of any type that goes through Wound Allocation and is indicated to be similar to other wounds for Wound Allocation would be wounds that have successfully wounded the target. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, this wouldn't cover just mortal wounds but any weapon that you don't have to make a to wound roll for.
It seems dubious at best for people to argue that mortal wounds don't wound the target especially when we have the Wound Allocation rule stating that wounds are attacks that have successfully wounded the target, and you aren't treating a mortal wound like any other wound if you're saying it hasn't wounded the target when allocating it. The entire purpose of Wound Allocation is to allocate wounds that have successfully wounded the target.
Page 114 – Saviour Protocols
Change this ability to read:
‘When resolving an attack made against a <Sept>
Infantry or <Sept> Battlesuit unit whilst that unit is
within 3" of a friendly <Sept> Drones unit, if the wound
roll is successful, you can roll one D6; on a 2+ that Drones
unit suffers 1 mortal wound and the attack sequence ends.’
MW dont make a wound roll, therefore they cant be intercepted by saviour protocols. I told you so.
Q: Some attacks deal mortal wounds in addition to their normal
damage. When are these mortal wounds allocated?
A: Any mortal wounds inflicted by an attack in addition to
normal damage should be allocated after that attack has
been resolved (note that this may prevent fast dice rolling
when resolving attacks with this ability).
MW are after the attack has been resolved. No interception from saviour protocols possible. I told you so.
True. However, if the MW is tied to an attack, Savior Protocols can now intercept it as they now "end the attack sequence". Meaning they never go to the Damage step.
flandarz wrote: True. However, if the MW is tied to an attack, Savior Protocols can now intercept it as they now "end the attack sequence". Meaning they never go to the Damage step.
Mortal wounds are a seperate attack so - doesn't matter for the mortals. They are generated after successful wounds in most cases.
Well, look at the SAG. It's weapon has the ability to "deal a D3 MWs with a successful hit, in addition to any other damage". To me, that ties the MWs directly to the weapon attack, and ability like SP and Grot Shields should be able to "soak" them, simply because they "end the attack sequence". If the attack sequence has ended, that should mean that any "kickers" to that attack become null, yes?
flandarz wrote: Well, look at the SAG. It's weapon has the ability to "deal a D3 MWs with a successful hit, in addition to any other damage". To me, that ties the MWs directly to the weapon attack, and ability like SP and Grot Shields should be able to "soak" them, simply because they "end the attack sequence". If the attack sequence has ended, that should mean that any "kickers" to that attack become null, yes?
Q: Some attacks deal mortal wounds in addition to their normal
damage. When are these mortal wounds allocated?
A: Any mortal wounds inflicted by an attack in addition to
normal damage should be allocated after that attack has
been resolved (note that this may prevent fast dice rolling
when resolving attacks with this ability).
flandarz wrote: Well, look at the SAG. It's weapon has the ability to "deal a D3 MWs with a successful hit, in addition to any other damage". To me, that ties the MWs directly to the weapon attack, and ability like SP and Grot Shields should be able to "soak" them, simply because they "end the attack sequence". If the attack sequence has ended, that should mean that any "kickers" to that attack become null, yes?
I would say yes if they were triggered during the damage step but in the case of wraith of mars and SAG those are triggered before the savior protocols intercepts the wound. I udnerstand your line of thinking here but we are not instructed anywhere to tie mortal wounds to the attacks that generate them. We are instructed to treat them as single attacks that deal 1 mortal wound. Regardless of the attack sequence ending...you still have an additional 1 damage mortal wound. I believe the FAQ is just telling us when to apply that wound.
Well, the FAQ suggests that MWs generated by an attack are only applied after the attack is resolved. An attack that is "ended" prematurely never reaches "resolution", as attacks are only resolved after the Damage step.
flandarz wrote: Well, the FAQ suggests that MWs generated by an attack are only applied after the attack is resolved. An attack that is "ended" prematurely never reaches "resolution", as attacks are only resolved after the Damage step.
To me this only determines order. If they really wanted to nullify the mortal wound...why dont they just say it? It's kind of important. Though I almost want to agree with what you are saying here...It's just kind of baffling to me in 5 seconds of reviewing this FAQ we already have questions..... Why didn't they just site an example of how to play it!?!?!?
Mortal wounds disappear if the savior protocol is successful, answered in Tau FAQ here:
Q: If an attack inflicts mortal wounds on the target, and the
attack is subsequently allocated to a Drones unit as a result
of the Saviour Protocols ability, what happens to those mortal
wounds inflicted?
A: They are cancelled. All damage and mortal wounds
inflicted as the result of that attack is reduced to the
mortal wound inflicted by the Saviour Protocols ability on
that Drones unit.
Jackal444 wrote: Mortal wounds disappear if the savior protocol is successful, answered in Tau FAQ here:
Q: If an attack inflicts mortal wounds on the target, and the
attack is subsequently allocated to a Drones unit as a result
of the Saviour Protocols ability, what happens to those mortal
wounds inflicted?
A: They are cancelled. All damage and mortal wounds
inflicted as the result of that attack is reduced to the
mortal wound inflicted by the Saviour Protocols ability on
that Drones unit.
This is so gross Converting an attack that can (and should) do multiple wounds if successful to one mortal wound is so OP (sucks that Tau need it to be competitive but that doesn't make it any less un-fun to play against). I hate that they are doubling down on this stupid mechanic (I would love it to convert wounds instead of hits but here we are). Multi-damage weapons already suffer this edition (invluns and variance) this just makes them even worse.
I kinda agree. Riptides are gonna be SO much harder to take down now. They should have taken a page from Grot Shields and did "remove a model" instead of "deal 1 MW". Maybe give the Drones a price drop to reflect their "durability" loss.
Jackal444 wrote: Mortal wounds disappear if the savior protocol is successful, answered in Tau FAQ here:
Q: If an attack inflicts mortal wounds on the target, and the
attack is subsequently allocated to a Drones unit as a result
of the Saviour Protocols ability, what happens to those mortal
wounds inflicted?
A: They are cancelled. All damage and mortal wounds
inflicted as the result of that attack is reduced to the
mortal wound inflicted by the Saviour Protocols ability on
that Drones unit.
This is so gross Converting an attack that can (and should) do multiple wounds if successful to one mortal wound is so OP (sucks that Tau need it to be competitive but that doesn't make it any less un-fun to play against). I hate that they are doubling down on this stupid mechanic (I would love it to convert wounds instead of hits but here we are). Multi-damage weapons already suffer this edition (invluns and variance) this just makes them even worse.
Yep - most stupid mechanic ever. Its so easy to fix it too. Drones should have to be in LOS to intercept.
Three take-aways from the Tau FAQ:
1) SP now seems to block Wrath of Mars for sure. This is because a successful SP roll redirects the effects of any rules interaction onto the Drone. See the Tau FAQ about Tremor Shells.
2) AdMech now has to slow roll Wrath to prevent Tau from cherry picking 6's to SP.
3) Tau cannot make FNP rolls on Shield Drones anymore because the attack sequence ends immediately. And yes, FNP is in the attack sequence because P181 says the sequence's last step is to remove models from the board that have 0 wounds. So unless you are going to argue that FNP cannot be done on models with 1 wound left...
I actually think this recent Tau FAQ is a huge stealth nerf to Shield Drones.
I missed that TAU FAQ, that's idiotic. But, keep in mind that Stratagems like flakk missile and hellfire shells can't be intercepted by SP, because it can only happen when the wound roll is successful. Those Stratagems don't make wound rolls.
flandarz wrote: Right. I assume anything that isn't an attack, or tied to one, is immune to SP.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And, of course, any source of damage that isn't tied to a Wound roll.
Unless the mortal wounds are in addition to.
It seems that it blocks all the mortal wounds that are in addition from a successful wound roll. But it can't block additional ones from an unsuccessful wound roll.
flandarz wrote: Well, you can use FnPs against MWs generated outside of the attack sequence as well. I think it still applies.
Right, but this is a case of a mortal wound generated during the attack sequence. When an attack sequence ends, I can only assume that the current rules resolve and no further rules can be applied for this attack sequence, regardless of their source; you can't magically squeeze in FNP before that attack sequence ending. If you're arguing that FNP occurs after the attack sequence ends, well, wouldn't the Drone have been removed from the board by then?
flandarz wrote: Right. I assume anything that isn't an attack, or tied to one, is immune to SP.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And, of course, any source of damage that isn't tied to a Wound roll.
Unless the mortal wounds are in addition to.
It seems that it blocks all the mortal wounds that are in addition from a successful wound roll. But it can't block additional ones from an unsuccessful wound roll.
Correct. SP does not work on additional mortal wounds resulting from unsuccessful wound rolls. Haha.
flandarz wrote: Huh. I guess you're right. That's awkward. How many weapons can deal MWs without successfully Wounding?
Haywiire weapons, and any weapons that say "on a roll of X+ this weapon does X additional mortal wounds in addition to it's normal damage"
So if my harlie haywire cannon rolls a 4 against a tough 7, Then the wound roll fails but the mortal wound goes through.
i.e. so rolling a 4 means no drone is stopping it but a 5 or a 6 gets droned XD.
This interpretation is supported via a combination the 3 new drone FAQs and this old FAQ from the BRB
Q: If a weapon such as a rail rifle has an ability that can inflict
a mortal wound on the target in addition to the normal damage,
but the ‘normal damage’ is subsequently saved, does the target
still suffer the mortal wound?
A: Yes. Note that if the ‘normal damage’ was not saved,
the wound would be allocated on the target unit first (and
any resulting damage inflicted) before the mortal wound
was inflicted.
Right. My thinking concerning FNP not working also is based on the other FAQ:
Q: If an attack inflicts a rules effect on a target unit (e.g. Tremor Shells in Codex Space Marines), and that attack is subsequently allocated to a Drones unit as a result of the Saviour Protocols ability, which unit is the rules effect applied to?
A: The Drones unit.
This FAQ implies continuity in the sequence. The attack is not expunged and a separate mortal wound applied to the Drone. The entire attack is moved over to the Drone, but reduced to one mortal wound per this FAQ:
Q: If an attack inflicts mortal wounds on the target, and the attack is subsequently allocated to a Drones unit as a result of the Saviour Protocols ability, what happens to those mortal wounds inflicted?
A: They are cancelled. All damage and mortal wounds inflicted as the result of that attack is reduced to the mortal wound inflicted by the Saviour Protocols ability on that Drones unit.
well, ya if they get a FNP they get a FNP I don't see why they wouldn't.
but the model that was "supposed" to take the wound can't get an FNP, if that's the argument. It's quite clear the damage is never resolved on that model.
FNPs activate when ever you resolve wounds no ? not when you resolve wound rolls.
if it didnt work that way, then the custodes could never activate there psychic phase only FNP.
Unless there is a syntax difference I am missing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I looked it up. The syntax on the drones FNP is triggered when ever the drone loses a wound , like everything else. doesn't mater what causes a wound to be lost,,, combat,,, shooting,,,, mortal wounds,,,, savior protocols,,,, explosions,,,, perrils and etc...
FNP gets triggered.
So yes, drones with a FNP get it if they use savior protocols FNP is not a part of the attack sequence.
My issue was that GW seems to be clear that they don't want stuff occurring between the wound-to-SP timing. If you allow FNP, you have to allow all the other rules that trigger off wounds and damage, right?
Because remember, only the wounds and mortal wounds from the attack seem to be going away. The bit that cancels out further rules from triggering is that "attack sequence ends" bit.
What does it mean to end an attack sequence like that?
What abilities that are normally a part of the attack sequence can trigger after the wound roll?
For example, take C-Beams. We clearly have to roll those one by one now. Thank goodness there's only one attack per weapon. But are we going to trigger them on the Drone unit after every failed FNP roll now?
--Break in train of thought here--
Based on numerous discussions that I have had to resolve this rules conundrum, I actually would argue no to things like C-Beams working on the basis of the FAQs. I think one resolution to the problem is that SP cancels out the wounds and mortal wounds of the weapon attack and allocates a new mortal wound, but the rules associated with the attack continue onto the Drone. This allows for FNP.
BUT THEN WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE WRATH OF MARS? It's still not a part of the weapon attack. Does the Drone now just have to save two mortals? One from the SP and one from the Wrath of Mars rule, which now is targeting the Drone a la the Tremor Shells example?
It bears note that, under your interpretation, the Shield Drones wouldn't even take the MW from SP, because "the attack phase ended". However, since GW specifically mentions that the Drones take a MW and THEN the attack sequence ends, any abilities that trigger upon taking a Wound (like FnP), are allowable.
As for WoM, the Stratagem specifically ties the MWs to the attack, as it ends with "in addition to any other damage". So, as per the new FAQ, SP can "eat" those MWs as well, reducing them down to 1 MW per attack.
Edit: in other words: you might be overthinking this one a tad, buddy.
I roll 12 wound rolls rolling 2 of each number i need 4+ to wound
6 dice wound 2 are 6's generateing mortals in addition
The TAU player now has the choice to try and saviour protocol the 6 attacks The 2 mortal wounds are put to one side
The tau players resolves their saviour protocols ending the 6 attacks on the target unit and generateing 6 mortal wounds on the drones and resolving FNP's (unless they run out of drones)
Now the Tau player can try and saviour the mortals if they have drones left ending the mortals on the target unit and generateing new mortals on the drones followed by FNP's
The MWs don't get put to the side, as per the FAQ. MWs generated by attacks (I have to assume this includes MWs that are generated because of a Stratagem, as long as they rely on making an attack), are combined with the attack and reduced to 1 MW when the attack is Protocol'd.
flandarz wrote: The MWs don't get put to the side, as per the FAQ. MWs generated by attacks (I have to assume this includes MWs that are generated because of a Stratagem, as long as they rely on making an attack), are combined with the attack and reduced to 1 MW when the attack is Protocol'd.
Except the insane thing is, they are, per the BRBFAQ:
Q: Some attacks deal mortal wounds in addition to their normal damage. When are these mortal wounds allocated?
A: Any mortal wounds inflicted by an attack in addition to normal damage should be allocated after that attack has been resolved (note that this may prevent fast dice rolling when resolving attacks with this ability).
At this point, someone just shoot me. Because there seem to be three valid ways to resolve this rules problem.
If mortal wounds dealt in ADDITION fall outside of the attack sequence, then they cannot be SPed AT ALL (because they lack their own wound roll). Very tempting for anyone with this sort of rule on their weapons or stratagems though.
flandarz wrote: The MWs don't get put to the side, as per the FAQ. MWs generated by attacks (I have to assume this includes MWs that are generated because of a Stratagem, as long as they rely on making an attack), are combined with the attack and reduced to 1 MW when the attack is Protocol'd.
Except the insane thing is, they are, per the BRBFAQ:
Q: Some attacks deal mortal wounds in addition to their normal damage. When are these mortal wounds allocated?
A: Any mortal wounds inflicted by an attack in addition to normal damage should be allocated after that attack has been resolved (note that this may prevent fast dice rolling when resolving attacks with this ability).
At this point, someone just shoot me. Because there seem to be three valid ways to resolve this rules problem.
If mortal wounds dealt in ADDITION fall outside of the attack sequence, then they cannot be SPed AT ALL (because they lack their own wound roll). Very tempting for anyone with this sort of rule on their weapons or stratagems though.
That is forgetting the concept that general rules ie BRB are over ruled by specific rules ie Saviour Protocols.
The BRBFAQ applys generally, but the Saviour Protocols being a specific rule and it's FAQ takes precedence over the general.
Ie the BRBFAQ applies to not saviour protocoled attacks.
I don’t like it as my opponent’s Drones will be even tankier, but dems da roolz, bois...
Maybe because we now have three FAQs about this ? And they contradict each other ? This is now worse than before <insert quad facepalm genestealer emoticon>
Page 114 – Saviour Protocols
Change this ability to read:
‘When resolving an attack made against a <Sept>
Infantry or <Sept> Battlesuit unit whilst that unit is
within 3" of a friendly <Sept> Drones unit, if the wound
roll is successful, you can roll one D6; on a 2+ that Drones
unit suffers 1 mortal wound and the attack sequence ends.’
Q: Some attacks deal mortal wounds in addition to their normal
damage. When are these mortal wounds allocated?
A: Any mortal wounds inflicted by an attack in addition to
normal damage should be allocated after that attack has
been resolved (note that this may prevent fast dice rolling
when resolving attacks with this ability).
Q: If an attack inflicts mortal wounds on the target, and the
attack is subsequently allocated to a Drones unit as a result
of the Saviour Protocols ability, what happens to those mortal
wounds inflicted?
A: They are cancelled. All damage and mortal wounds
inflicted as the result of that attack is reduced to the
mortal wound inflicted by the Saviour Protocols ability on
that Drones unit.
I don’t like it as my opponent’s Drones will be even tankier, but dems da roolz, bois...
Well, personally, I am motivated by the fact that if we go with the simplest understanding (which seems to be the majority opinion), SP will reduce all damage, "mortal wounds instead," and "mortal wounds in addition" to 1 mortal wound which can be FNPed. In which case, we can no longer speed roll the mortal wounds. We have to do the entire thing one by one, lest the Tau player cherry pick the 6s first.
The minority theory seems to be that SP only saves damage and "mortal wounds instead," and you add the "mortal wounds in addition" after the attack is resolved, per the BRBFAQ.
I don’t like it as my opponent’s Drones will be even tankier, but dems da roolz, bois...
Maybe because we now have three FAQs about this ? And they contradict each other ? This is now worse than before <insert quad facepalm genestealer emoticon>
Page 114 – Saviour Protocols
Change this ability to read:
‘When resolving an attack made against a <Sept>
Infantry or <Sept> Battlesuit unit whilst that unit is
within 3" of a friendly <Sept> Drones unit, if the wound
roll is successful, you can roll one D6; on a 2+ that Drones
unit suffers 1 mortal wound and the attack sequence ends.’
Q: Some attacks deal mortal wounds in addition to their normal
damage. When are these mortal wounds allocated?
A: Any mortal wounds inflicted by an attack in addition to
normal damage should be allocated after that attack has
been resolved (note that this may prevent fast dice rolling
when resolving attacks with this ability).
Q: If an attack inflicts mortal wounds on the target, and the
attack is subsequently allocated to a Drones unit as a result
of the Saviour Protocols ability, what happens to those mortal
wounds inflicted?
A: They are cancelled. All damage and mortal wounds
inflicted as the result of that attack is reduced to the
mortal wound inflicted by the Saviour Protocols ability on
that Drones unit.
Yep. That is a clear contradiction. Plus any ruling that makes tau drones stronger really makes me scratch my head a bit. They should have just changed it to the drones are slain if they are going to be able to nullify an additional mortal being generated. That is just silly to "nullify" any attack. Is there any other example of an attack being nullified in the entirety of the game?
Is there any other example of an attack being nullified in the entirety of the game?
Grot Shields.
Did they rewrite grot shields like savior protocols too? Where it says the attack sequence ends? I'm pretty sure grot shields just states they are destroyed.
So the way that the ATT forum has ruled this (last time I checked) is that if the mortal wound triggers on an attack roll, then it goes to the original target and can't be intercepted. but if it triggers off the wound roll, then it gets nullified with savior protocols.
balmong7 wrote: So the way that the ATT forum has ruled this (last time I checked) is that if the mortal wound triggers on an attack roll, then it goes to the original target and can't be intercepted. but if it triggers off the wound roll, then it gets nullified with savior protocols.
That’s not how it works and it’s even in the new FAQ Q&A under tau. It all goes to the drone who does get fnp. 0 questions asked. Sorry
balmong7 wrote: So the way that the ATT forum has ruled this (last time I checked) is that if the mortal wound triggers on an attack roll, then it goes to the original target and can't be intercepted. but if it triggers off the wound roll, then it gets nullified with savior protocols.
That’s not how it works and it’s even in the new FAQ Q&A under tau. It all goes to the drone who does get fnp. 0 questions asked. Sorry
So this is where they are pulling that interpretation from
Q: If an attack inflicts mortal wounds on a unit as a result of a
hit roll, and the attack sequence ends before it successfully wounds
the target (e.g. the Hellfire Shells Stratagem or an attack made
with a shokk attack gun with a Strength characteristic of 11+ that
fails to wound the target), can I allocate the mortal wounds to a
Drones unit with the Saviour Protocols ability?
A: No. As the attack sequence has ended before the target
has been wounded, there is no wound to allocate to the
Drones unit. Therefore the target suffers the mortal
wounds as normal.
If I am reading what you said correctly, then the Shokk attack gun is now a better weapon against tau as long as they fail their wound rolls?
If a a target is wounded by a successful roll it can be allocated to the drones and any mortals cancelled. If the target isn't wounded by a wound roll you cannot allocate any wounds to it.
If a a target is wounded by a successful roll it can be allocated to the drones and any mortals cancelled. If the target isn't wounded by a wound roll you cannot allocate any wounds to it.
Seems pretty clear.
Hellfire shells never makes a wound roll. Therefore it cant be allocated to the drones unit.
If a unit attacks a riptide with a gun that does MW in addition, and the wound roll fails, the MW in addition still hit the riptide. Forgot this FAQ ?
Q: Some attacks deal mortal wounds in addition to their normal
damage. When are these mortal wounds allocated?
A: Any mortal wounds inflicted by an attack in addition to
normal damage should be allocated after that attack has
been resolved (note that this may prevent fast dice rolling
when resolving attacks with this ability).
If a a target is wounded by a successful roll it can be allocated to the drones and any mortals cancelled. If the target isn't wounded by a wound roll you cannot allocate any wounds to it.
Seems pretty clear.
Hellfire shells never makes a wound roll. Therefore it cant be allocated to the drones unit.
If a unit attacks a riptide with a gun that does MW in addition, and the wound roll fails, the MW in addition still hit the riptide. Forgot this FAQ ?
Q: Some attacks deal mortal wounds in addition to their normal
damage. When are these mortal wounds allocated?
A: Any mortal wounds inflicted by an attack in addition to
normal damage should be allocated after that attack has
been resolved (note that this may prevent fast dice rolling
when resolving attacks with this ability).
I agree with you?
Maybe I wasn't clear. If a unit isn't wounded by a wound roll you cannot allocate the MW to the drones. In order to allocate the wound to a drone there must be a successful wound roll.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: However if a mortal wound is hit by the to hit roll, and the wound roll is also successful, then all wounds for that phase would go to the drone
Basically to hits that trigger mortals, the player better hope for a failed wound roll. We all know that’s not very likely, however. Not to a massive degree anyway. Still very happy protocols didn’t get touched.
Marin wrote: Well at least now it`s clear that you can`t intercept wound rolls from pshychers.
Just curious where it is stated a wound roll from a psychic power can’t be savior protocol? Not questioning you per day just wondering
I have no idea what Marin is talking about. If he means smite, then there is no wound roll for it.
Q: For the purposes of the Saviour Protocols ability, what exactly constitutes an attack?
A: In this context, it is an attack made with a ranged or melee weapon.
Please excuse my ignorance, I’ve read through the thread but it still isn’t quite clear to me how Savior Protocols interacts with Wrath of Mars. Would anyone be kind enough to dispel my stupidity and summarise?
xlDuke wrote: Please excuse my ignorance, I’ve read through the thread but it still isn’t quite clear to me how Savior Protocols interacts with Wrath of Mars. Would anyone be kind enough to dispel my stupidity and summarise?
So according to the new FAQ anytime there is a successful wound roll it goes to savior protocols and all damage sent the drone in the form of 1 mortal wound. This includes any mortal wounds generated from wound rolls.
The wrath of mars mortal wound is now included in that.
xlDuke wrote: Please excuse my ignorance, I’ve read through the thread but it still isn’t quite clear to me how Savior Protocols interacts with Wrath of Mars. Would anyone be kind enough to dispel my stupidity and summarise?
So according to the new FAQ anytime there is a successful wound roll it goes to savior protocols and all damage sent the drone in the form of 1 mortal wound. This includes any mortal wounds generated from wound rolls.
The wrath of mars mortal wound is now included in that.
Well rule wise their is no clear definition of wounded
