Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 05:45:41


Post by: koooaei


I'm confused on how this rules work together.

Brutal but cunning: you can make an additional attack for each one that did not get to the inflict damage stage.
Swuigosaur jaws: each time the bearer fights he can make 3 additional attacks and no more than 3. Every time you roll 6 to wound, you inflict 3 mortal wounds and the attack sequence ends
Killchoppa: if you roll a 6 to wound, you inflict 1 mortal wound in addition to any damage.
Goff: each time you make mellee attack a hit roll of 6 scores 1 additional hit.

So, from the get go, it's a mess of extra attack rules interactions.
Extra attacks from bbk (brutal but kunning) can only be made with a killchoppa as squig jaws state that no more than 3 attacks can be made each time you fight and extra attacks from bbk do not start a new fight sequence.

Evey 6 to hit generates 2 hits, you get to make an extra attack only if none of them reached inflict damage stage, so, if you roll, say two 1-s, two 4-s and two 6-s, you got to devide your dice into 4 pools. First pool are 1-s that generate extra attacks, 2d pool are 4-s that can generate an extra attack if they don't go through the wound and save step. 3-d pool are 2 hits from the first 6, and the 4-th are 2 hits from the second 6. You have to roll them separately cause you need both to fail to deal any damage to generate an extra hit.

Now what I'm not sure about:
Do mortal wounds on a 6 to wound from a killchoppa prevent you from making an extra attack if the regular damage fails to go through to-wound and save?
Same for the mortals for 6 from a squig jaw - but with a different wording of emidiately dealing 3 mw and ending the attack sequence.
Can squig jaws generate extra attacks as they are written to be extra attacks themselves - like a choppa or a chain sword - and there was a faq that prevents extra attacks generating new extra attacks.




Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 10:18:58


Post by: nosferatu1001


A mortal wound occurs at the inflict damage step, so would prevent you from making another attack


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 10:46:18


Post by: koooaei


But they don't it just says to use the entry of this step. They seem to be happening outside if the sequence at all.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 11:44:29


Post by: nosferatu1001


You've rolled a 6 to wound, you gen a mortal wound. That mortal wound gets applied at the inflict damage step. As such that attack HAS inflicted damage. What is the issue here?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 11:45:53


Post by: JakeSiren


In terms of the mortals from the killchoppa they are seperate from the killchoppa attack - the mortal wounds are generated the "wound roll" step and occur in addition to the attack. So if your opponent makes their armour or invuln save against the killchoppa attack you get to make another attack.

In terms of Brutal but cunning and Swuigosaur jaws, it would seem that the jaws can't benefit by the FAQ you alluded to.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 11:47:55


Post by: nosferatu1001


JakeSiren wrote:
In terms of the mortals from the killchoppa they are seperate from the killchoppa attack - the mortal wounds are generated the "wound roll" step and occur in addition to the attack. So if your opponent makes their armour or invuln save against the killchoppa attack you get to make another attack.

In terms of Brutal but cunning and Swuigosaur jaws, it would seem that the jaws can't benefit by the FAQ you alluded to.

I disagree


By definition, having rolled a 6 to wound, you will wound. You go to make saves, and even if the attack is saved, you WILL get through to the Infoict Damage step because you have a mortal wound sitting there.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 12:01:40


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
In terms of the mortals from the killchoppa they are seperate from the killchoppa attack - the mortal wounds are generated the "wound roll" step and occur in addition to the attack. So if your opponent makes their armour or invuln save against the killchoppa attack you get to make another attack.

In terms of Brutal but cunning and Swuigosaur jaws, it would seem that the jaws can't benefit by the FAQ you alluded to.

I disagree


By definition, having rolled a 6 to wound, you will wound. You go to make saves, and even if the attack is saved, you WILL get through to the Infoict Damage step because you have a mortal wound sitting there.

The mortal wound doesn't get to the inflict damage step of the attack sequence since it is something outside of the attack sequence.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 12:37:49


Post by: koooaei


From what I gathered from the rulebook, extra attacks that are written within a weapon profile (like +1 with a chain sword or +3 with a squigosaur) are not affected by the faq as it specifically states - extra attacks during the attack sequence. And those attacka from a weapon add up before the attack sequence.

Now how about extra hits on 6s as a goff. Suppose, you roll a 6, get1 extra hit (which is not am extra attack), but than, say your initial hit doesn't wound and your additional hit wounds and inflicts damage. Do you get to make an extra attack? Or does the extra hit count?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 13:08:07


Post by: nosferatu1001


JakeSiren wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
In terms of the mortals from the killchoppa they are seperate from the killchoppa attack - the mortal wounds are generated the "wound roll" step and occur in addition to the attack. So if your opponent makes their armour or invuln save against the killchoppa attack you get to make another attack.

In terms of Brutal but cunning and Swuigosaur jaws, it would seem that the jaws can't benefit by the FAQ you alluded to.

I disagree


By definition, having rolled a 6 to wound, you will wound. You go to make saves, and even if the attack is saved, you WILL get through to the Infoict Damage step because you have a mortal wound sitting there.

The mortal wound doesn't get to the inflict damage step of the attack sequence since it is something outside of the attack sequence.

Why do you say that? It is by definition part of the attack sequence.
The attack sequence for attack A, rolled singly, WILL get to the inflict damage step. Exactly the same as a sniper rifle rolling a 6 to wound, you go to inflict damage even if the save is made.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 21:49:50


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
In terms of the mortals from the killchoppa they are seperate from the killchoppa attack - the mortal wounds are generated the "wound roll" step and occur in addition to the attack. So if your opponent makes their armour or invuln save against the killchoppa attack you get to make another attack.

In terms of Brutal but cunning and Swuigosaur jaws, it would seem that the jaws can't benefit by the FAQ you alluded to.

I disagree


By definition, having rolled a 6 to wound, you will wound. You go to make saves, and even if the attack is saved, you WILL get through to the Infoict Damage step because you have a mortal wound sitting there.

The mortal wound doesn't get to the inflict damage step of the attack sequence since it is something outside of the attack sequence.

Why do you say that? It is by definition part of the attack sequence.
The attack sequence for attack A, rolled singly, WILL get to the inflict damage step. Exactly the same as a sniper rifle rolling a 6 to wound, you go to inflict damage even if the save is made.

Which part of the attack sequence do you think deals with mortal wounds?

In addition, there is the rare rule "Multiple attacks that inflict mortal wounds". It states that all of the normal damage inflicted by all of the attacking unit’s attacks is resolved before any of the mortal wounds are resolved.

It's clear that generated mortal wounds are outside of the attack sequence.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 22:03:33


Post by: nosferatu1001


That doesn't mean it's outside of the sequence. It just stops you ordering damage and MW damage in a way that benefits player.

Inflict damage step, like the riles for mortal wounds states? It states you INFLICT DAMAGE ...as described above. Above, is the inflict damage step.

Nothing states it is outside of the attack sequence. In the contrary, it is EXPLICITLY PART OF.the attack sequence.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 22:17:12


Post by: yukishiro1


Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that
no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal
wound inflicts 1 point of damage on the target unit, and they are
always applied one at a time. Do not make a wound roll or saving
throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound –
just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage
to a model in the target unit (pg 18).


This makes it very clear IMO that if your attack generates a mortal wound, that counts as inflicting damage from that attack, no matter what happens with the rest of the attack.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 22:29:45


Post by: Eihnlazer


Ok, so I'll go through the whole thing:

5 base attacks, +1 from killchoppa, +1 from WHAAAAAG!, 3 from squig.

so 7 killchoppas and 3 from squig.

Killchoppa rolls 1,2,3,4,5,6,4
Squig rolls 1,4,6

You now have 7 killchoppa hits, and 3 squig hits (because of the exploding 6's).

Roll to wound gets you:
Killchoppa-1,2,3,4,5,6,6
Squig-3,4,5

You have 5 killchoppa saves, and 3 squigbite saves to make, and you will recieve 2 mortals from the choppa after regular wounds are dealt.

Saves on a 4++ will be:
3 saves on the killchoppa, and 2 saves on the bites. You would roll the saves individually of course, and you have saved 1 of the mortal wound killchoppas.

You recieve 4 damage from the killchoppas that got through, 3 from the squigbite, and 2 mortals.

The boss now gets to make 2 additional attacks for the two killchoppa attacks that did not inflict damage (one of the saves inflicted a mortal wound). The squigjaw that got saved cannot attack again because of the only 3 attacks rule.

These 2 additional attacks can roll 6's to hit and explode from goffs trait.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 22:35:37


Post by: nosferatu1001


Why are you getting an extra attack from the MW generating attack?
The rules explicitly state that a MW is inflicted in the inflict damage step. This means you cannot generate an attack, as you DID inflict damage. It doesn't matter that the armour save was passed.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 22:42:45


Post by: Eihnlazer


You arent, as I explained in my post.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/12 22:45:02


Post by: nosferatu1001


"The boss now gets to make 2 additional attacks for the two killchoppa attacks that did not inflict damage (one of the saves inflicted a mortal wound"

This was a really bad way of exploan8ng as I read this as something else

Just deal with it one at a time. No fast rolling!


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 06:31:31


Post by: koooaei


I think I'll just wait for faq and not buy a squigosaur yet.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 11:49:23


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
That doesn't mean it's outside of the sequence. It just stops you ordering damage and MW damage in a way that benefits player.

Inflict damage step, like the riles for mortal wounds states? It states you INFLICT DAMAGE ...as described above. Above, is the inflict damage step.

Nothing states it is outside of the attack sequence. In the contrary, it is EXPLICITLY PART OF.the attack sequence.

The mortal wound generate by the attack isn't the attack inflicting damage.

Looking at it simply from the "Multiple attacks that inflict mortal wounds" rare rules, it tells us that "all the normal damage inflicted by the attacking unit’s attacks are resolved against that target before any of the mortal wounds are inflicted on it"

Let's say we roll some killchopp attacks against a target. We get to the point where we have resolved the attacks (they either inflict damage or fail to), but we haven't yet inflicted the mortal wounds. The rule for brutal but cunning must be resolved before we are allowed to resolve the mortal wounds because otherwise we have attacks that are resolved *after* the mortal wounds are inflicted, which is in direct contradiction of the rare rule.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 11:55:36


Post by: nosferatu1001


Except it is, as covered by the rules for mortal wounds! Second para under mortal wounds. Please read the core rule. Then explain how it is not part of the sequence, when the rule states it is.

The Attack that had a 6 to wound, but was saved, has by the actual rules for moral wounds, stil reached the inflict damage step. Thus is covered by the rules above.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 12:02:41


Post by: JakeSiren


The paragraph that starts with "If an attack inflicts mortal wounds in addition to the normal damage, resolve the normal damage first."?

How does this not demonstrate that the attack and the mortal wound generated by the attack are separate things?

*Edit*
To highlight my point, after you roll a 6 to wound, you still have the attack that your opponent needs to allocate to a model, then roll a saving through, then potentially inflict damage. You also have a mortal wound queued up for after all attacks are resolved, for your opponent to allocate to a model then inflict damage.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 12:07:12


Post by: nosferatu1001


They're part of the same sequence. Prove they're not.
The rules for mortal wounds tell you they inflict damage at the same step, inflict damage

All that tells you is the order. Nothing more.

Prove this is an entire new Attack sequence. Rules para please. So far we're told it inflicts damage in the same step of the same single Attack sequence, as the rules only cover a single attack. Nothing in the rules for mortal wounds make this a new sequence


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 12:11:48


Post by: JakeSiren


Huh? I never said that mortal wounds were an attack sequence. I said they were outside of the attack sequence.

They are demonstrably outside of the normal attack sequence as you resolve all allocated attacks before resolving the mortal wounds generated by them.

Say you slow rolled 7 attacks. The first attack you roll a 6 to wound and generate a mortal wound. You need to resolve the 6 other attack sequences before you can resolve the mortal wound. Ergo, it is outside of the attack sequence.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 12:12:51


Post by: nosferatu1001


Except they're not - they're explicitly part of it, at the "inflict damage " step, as the rules tell you.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 12:16:59


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except they're not - they're explicitly part of it, at the "inflict damage " step, as the rules tell you.

Sorry, which part do you have issue with?

I roll the first dice, get a 6 to wound. Am I allowed to resolve the mortal wound? No, because "all the normal damage inflicted by the attacking unit’s attacks are resolved against that target before any of the mortal wounds are inflicted on it".

The rare rule literally says I'm not allowed to resolve the mortal wound generated in the first attack sequence until after I have resolved all of the other assigned attacks.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 12:56:57


Post by: Eihnlazer


The mortal wounds do happen after regular damage, yes.

The attack that generated the mortal wound, however, has in fact generated damage, so cannot be re-done.


Unless your telling me that the mortal wound is not part of that attacks damage dealt?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 12:59:41


Post by: JakeSiren


 Eihnlazer wrote:
The mortal wounds do happen after regular damage, yes.

The attack that generated the mortal wound, however, has in fact generated damage, so cannot be re-done.


Unless your telling me that the mortal wound is not part of that attacks damage dealt?

That's what I'm saying.

The attack generates a mortal wound which is resolved and considered separately to the attack.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 14:47:56


Post by: Eihnlazer


Thats just it though, it isnt seperate from the attack. It's just allocated after normal damage is allocated.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 14:54:56


Post by: koooaei


 Eihnlazer wrote:
Thats just it though, it isnt seperate from the attack. It's just allocated after normal damage is allocated.


Iirc it says to do like I need the allocate damage step. But it is not an allocate damage step itself, so, it's out of sequence and is not affected by the extra atk faq.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 17:40:17


Post by: nosferatu1001


JakeSiren wrote:
 Eihnlazer wrote:
The mortal wounds do happen after regular damage, yes.

The attack that generated the mortal wound, however, has in fact generated damage, so cannot be re-done.


Unless your telling me that the mortal wound is not part of that attacks damage dealt?

That's what I'm saying.

The attack generates a mortal wound which is resolved and considered separately to the attack.

Except it isn't.
It's not its own attack sequence, it is part of the same attack sequence, and inflicts damage during the same sequence, at the inflict damage step. At that step, normal damage goes first.

Give you can NEVER fast roll damage, any solution you prooose involving fast rolling damage isn't rules based. A singular attack, generating a mortal wound, will complete the inflict damage step. There is no separate attack sequence, because the rule says there isn't.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 18:20:09


Post by: koooaei


The rule doesn't say it's in any sequence at all.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 18:45:21


Post by: doctortom


 koooaei wrote:
The rule doesn't say it's in any sequence at all.


Not true. From the Mortal Wounds roll (p. 19 in the Battle Primer) "Do not make a wound roll or a saving throw (including invulnerable ones) against a mortal wound - just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit (p. 18). "

The p.18 refers you to the Inflict Damage step in the battle primer. It's step 5 in their sequence.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 19:06:38


Post by: koooaei


It just says how you resolve damage (that the opponent substracts this number of wounds, etc). It doesn't put you in an attack sequence as there was no attack.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 20:34:03


Post by: doctortom


 koooaei wrote:
It just says how you resolve damage (that the opponent substracts this number of wounds, etc). It doesn't put you in an attack sequence as there was no attack.


So where did the mortal wound come from, out of the ether? Presumably it was already in the attack sequence to generate the mortal wound in the first place.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/13 21:35:50


Post by: nosferatu1001


 koooaei wrote:
It just says how you resolve damage (that the opponent substracts this number of wounds, etc). It doesn't put you in an attack sequence as there was no attack.

No, it doesn't just do that. It talks explicitly about a weapon dealing normal and MW damage. It places BOTH OF THEM IN THE SAME ATTACK SEQUENCE.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 01:01:49


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
 koooaei wrote:
It just says how you resolve damage (that the opponent substracts this number of wounds, etc). It doesn't put you in an attack sequence as there was no attack.

No, it doesn't just do that. It talks explicitly about a weapon dealing normal and MW damage. It places BOTH OF THEM IN THE SAME ATTACK SEQUENCE.

I don't know where you got that idea from, but it's wrong.

Attack sequence:
1. Roll hit roll
2. Roll wound roll
3. Allocate attack
4. Saving throw
5. Inflict damage

Let's say we have 7 attacks against one target.

First attack, we go through the sequence. On step 2, we roll a 6, this generates a mortal wound. When can we resolve it? After we have resolved all 7 attack sequences as per rare rule "Multiple attacks that inflict mortal wounds". So we queue up the mortal wound. We get to step 5 and check Brutal but Cunning, did the attack make it to inflicting damage? If not, we get to make an additional attack.

We go through the same for attacks 2 to 7.

Once the attack sequence of attack 7 has been resolved, we are then allowed to resolve the mortal wounds. This uses the same rules as the Allocate Attack and Inflict Damage sections in the attack sequence rules.

These mortal wounds can only be resolve after we have resolved the attack sequences for our 7 attacks!! That means they are not a part of an attack sequence, and aren't considered for the trigger conditions for Brutal but Cunning.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 02:11:36


Post by: Eihnlazer


You are actually supposed to resolve each attack one at a time.

So the mortal wound is inflicted before you even go to another attack.

We just fast roll to save time.

The "Multiple attacks that deal mortal wounds" thing is for attacks that only deal mortals, not for ones that do mortals in addition to normal.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 02:22:25


Post by: JakeSiren


 Eihnlazer wrote:
You are actually supposed to resolve each attack one at a time.

So the mortal wound is inflicted before you even go to another attack.

We just fast roll to save time.

The "Multiple attacks that deal mortal wounds" thing is for attacks that only deal mortals, not for ones that do mortals in addition to normal.
Uh, you evidently didn't read the rare rule. First sentence "Some attacks can inflict mortal wounds either instead of, or in addition to, the normal damage."

"If, when a unit is selected to shoot or fight, more than one of its attacks that target an enemy unit have such a rule," which the Choppa does, then "all the normal damage inflicted by the attacking unit’s attacks are resolved against that target before any of the mortal wounds are inflicted on it."

Also the bullet point that summaries the rule, "If a unit can make multiple attacks that inflict mortal wounds, all of the normal damage inflicted by all of the attacking unit’s attacks is resolved before any of the mortal wounds are resolved"


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 10:35:33


Post by: nosferatu1001


Which
Still
Doesn't mean the MW sit in their own attack sequence.
As per the basic rule, they're part of their parents attack sequence
The leap you are making is unsupported by any rules whatsoever. The rare ruke does not state what yiu claim.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 10:51:22


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which
Still
Doesn't mean the MW sit in their own attack sequence.
As per the basic rule, they're part of their parents attack sequence
The leap you are making is unsupported by any rules whatsoever. The rare ruke does not state what yiu claim.
Sorry, who is claiming that "MW sit in their own attack sequence"? And despite your claims, they aren't a part of their parents attack sequence.

Attack sequence:
1. Roll hit roll
2. Roll wound roll
3. Allocate attack
4. Saving throw
5. Inflict damage

Let's say we have 7 attacks against one target.

First attack, we go through the sequence. On step 2, we roll a 6, this generates a mortal wound. When can we resolve it? After we have resolved all 7 attack sequences as per rare rule "Multiple attacks that inflict mortal wounds". So we queue up the mortal wound. We get to step 5 and check Brutal but Cunning, did the attack make it to inflicting damage? If not, we get to make an additional attack.

We go through the same for attacks 2 to 7.

Once the attack sequence of attack 7 has been resolved, we are then allowed to resolve the mortal wounds. This uses the same rules as the Allocate Attack and Inflict Damage sections in the attack sequence rules.

These mortal wounds can only be resolve after we have resolved the attack sequences for our 7 attacks!! That means they are not a part of an attack sequence, and aren't considered for the trigger conditions for Brutal but Cunning.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 11:24:43


Post by: nosferatu1001


When it states, isn the rules for mortal wounds, that they are resolved at the same step inflict damage. As you know, as we keep telling yiu, the rules state explicitly that thehy deal with a single attack. Thus, there is only one attack sequence per attack, regardless of if it also generates a MW or not

Again, as you're claiming multiple attack sequences generated form a single attack, the onus is on you to prove it. And the rare rules section
Does
Not
State
That
You
Get
Multiple
Sequences

As already proven, an attack has A sequence. Prove otherwise fir the base case


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 11:43:54


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
When it states, isn the rules for mortal wounds, that they are resolved at the same step inflict damage. As you know, as we keep telling yiu, the rules state explicitly that thehy deal with a single attack. Thus, there is only one attack sequence per attack, regardless of if it also generates a MW or not

Again, as you're claiming multiple attack sequences generated form a single attack, the onus is on you to prove it. And the rare rules section
Does
Not
State
That
You
Get
Multiple
Sequences

As already proven, an attack has A sequence. Prove otherwise fir the base case

First off, can you please check your spelling and grammar before posting. It took me too many re-reads of this post to attempt to understand you. Your other posts were considerably better composed, so I know that you are capable of it.

"you're claiming multiple attack sequences generated form a single attack" - Where have I claimed that? Please don't strawman me. You've done it multiple times this discussion and I have kindly told you that I am not claiming this.

Onto what I think your actual point is about. Mortal wounds are separate and *outside* of the attack sequence, otherwise things like Smite cease to function, because they aren't attack sequences, and they don't generate an attack sequence. Just because an attack causes a mortal wound, doesn't make the mortal wound magically a part of that attack sequence. A mortal wound allocated to a unit is not an attack. It's not a part of the attack sequence.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 11:49:56


Post by: koooaei


JakeSiren wrote:


Onto what I think your actual point is about. Mortal wounds are separate and *outside* of the attack sequence, otherwise things like Smite cease to function, because they aren't attack sequences, and they don't generate an attack sequence. Just because an attack causes a mortal wound, doesn't make the mortal wound magically a part of that attack sequence. A mortal wound allocated to a unit is not an attack. It's not a part of the attack sequence.


I'm fine with not getting extra hits if all the magic also stops dealing wounds...


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 11:54:40


Post by: nosferatu1001


So when it tells you in the rules for mortal wounds, that they inflict damage at the inflict damage step of
The attack sequence
That means they're not part of thr attack sequence? Despite the box out being part of making attacks? And it ref the attack sequence ? That's your argument ?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 11:56:00


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
So when it tells you in the rules for mortal wounds, that they inflict damage at the inflict damage step of
The attack sequence
That means they're not part of thr attack sequence? Despite the box out being part of making attacks? And it ref the attack sequence ? That's your argument ?
How do you think Smite works then? Your idea around mortal wounds is wrong.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 12:51:24


Post by: nosferatu1001


It inflicts damage at the inflict damage step of the sequence above

My "idea" follows the rules. Yours makes rules up.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 13:05:46


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
It inflicts damage at the inflict damage step of the sequence above

My "idea" follows the rules. Yours makes rules up.

Hardly. The mortal wounds generated by smite isn't a part of an attack sequence. When you smite, you generate D3 mortal wounds (or maybe D6 if you're lucky). The mortal wound rule tells you to just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 14:21:37


Post by: Eihnlazer


Why would smite, which happens in the psychic phase, have anything to do with what happens in the fight phase?


Anyway, i already went over the sequence of events for what happens. So its been clearly shown. Your just arguing for some jank, which is one of those things that happens when trying to abuse the rules system. Just give it up.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 14:41:10


Post by: JakeSiren


 Eihnlazer wrote:
Why would smite, which happens in the psychic phase, have anything to do with what happens in the fight phase?


Anyway, i already went over the sequence of events for what happens. So its been clearly shown. Your just arguing for some jank, which is one of those things that happens when trying to abuse the rules system. Just give it up.

Because for some reason (as far as I can determine) nosferatu1001 thinks that a mortal wound is a part of the attack sequence. Smite is an example where a mortal wound is generated and is super clear that it's not a part of an attack sequence.

Which leads us to the fact that even if mortal wounds are generated during an attack sequence, they are seperate to the attack sequence.

Plus your "sequence of events" is incorrect because you didn't bother reading the rare rule properly (or did you not read my last response to you?) It's disappointing that you would prefer to call something "jank" and tell people to give up rather than respond to genuine debate.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 19:08:22


Post by: nosferatu1001


Jake - apart from in the MW rule, which states it inflicts damage as described above. "Above" is the attack sequence , when you inflict damage during the...ta da... inflict damage step. Of an attack sequence. And covers a weapon generating mortal wounds and normal wounds, and the fact you inflict damage normal then mortal. Which is still part of the attack sequence. Which means you're still. Wrong.

You're done. Trying to claim a saved 6 to wound somehow doesn't reach inflict damage is clearly made up.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/14 22:35:01


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jake - apart from in the MW rule, which states it inflicts damage as described above. "Above" is the attack sequence , when you inflict damage during the...ta da... inflict damage step. Of an attack sequence. And covers a weapon generating mortal wounds and normal wounds, and the fact you inflict damage normal then mortal. Which is still part of the attack sequence. Which means you're still. Wrong.

You're done. Trying to claim a saved 6 to wound somehow doesn't reach inflict damage is clearly made up.

So to be clear, your claim in the situation where we have 7 attacks is:
Resolve Attack sequence for attack 1
Resolve Attack sequence for attack 2
Resolve Attack sequence for attack 3
Resolve Attack sequence for attack 4
Resolve Attack sequence for attack 5
Resolve Attack sequence for attack 6
Resolve Attack sequence for attack 7
Resolve any mortal wounds generated during attack sequences 1-7

Somehow the mortal wounds are still a part of the attack sequence that generated them. Did I understand you correctly?
At what point do you resolve Brutal but Cunning so that you don't violate the rare rule?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 04:55:38


Post by: koooaei


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jake - apart from in the MW rule, which states it inflicts damage as described above. "Above" is the attack sequence , when you inflict damage during the...ta da... inflict damage step. Of an attack sequence. And covers a weapon generating mortal wounds and normal wounds, and the fact you inflict damage normal then mortal. Which is still part of the attack sequence. Which means you're still. Wrong.

You're done. Trying to claim a saved 6 to wound somehow doesn't reach inflict damage is clearly made up.


But "as described above" means you just do the same thing - doesn't make a mortal wound part of the attack sequence. Mw are taken out of the sequence cause most mw do not happen from attacks


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 09:15:56


Post by: nosferatu1001


It describes *and names* the attack sequence step
If yiu say it isn't part of the attack sequence, when everything) in the Written rules states it IS, then you need to provide written rules stating as such. If you don't use the "inflict damage" step, of the attack sequence, please show how you actually apply damage

Jake - you have an attack sequence that has, at step 7 fir EVERY attack, an entry in the set of form {normal damage, mortal damage}
If both are zero or null then you have not reached step 7 for that attack.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 09:30:09


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
It describes *and names* the attack sequence step
If yiu say it isn't part of the attack sequence, when everything) in the Written rules states it IS, then you need to provide written rules stating as such. If you don't use the "inflict damage" step, of the attack sequence, please show how you actually apply damage

Jake - you have an attack sequence that has, at step 7 fir EVERY attack, an entry in the set of form {normal damage, mortal damage}
If both are zero or null then you have not reached step 7 for that attack.

I want to make sure I understand you before I respond. You're saying that for the attack sequence for attack 1, that you do normal damage followed by mortal damage (if it exists). Then you go onto the next attack sequence for attack 2, etc.

Have I understood you correctly?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 09:36:48


Post by: nosferatu1001


I never ever stated that.
Remember the rare rules section directly contradicts the rules for fast rolling.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 09:42:22


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
I never ever stated that.
Remember the rare rules section directly contradicts the rules for fast rolling.

Ok, so I haven't understood you.

Can you lay it out then as I have tried in a number of my previous posts. Show me in detail how you would resolve this when rolling dice one at a time, and when each special rule would be considered. Maybe this will help me understand where you are coming from.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 09:49:47


Post by: nosferatu1001


Do you get my point about the rare rules directly contradicting the rules allowing you to fast roll? It would help if you did , first.

And, similarly, given you insist on stating the MW are not part of the attack sequence, please lay out exactly how you come to that conclusion, using the quotes from the core rules.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 10:02:56


Post by: JakeSiren


No, I don't understand your point about the rare rules contradicting the rules allowing you to fast roll. I am happy to only consider the slow rolling option at this stage so we don't have this contradiction.

My reasoning for the MW not being a part of the attack sequence is the same as the one presented by koooaei. Things like smite generating mortal wounds doesn't include an attack sequence, things like a flier dropping a bomb doesn't include an attack sequence. The mortal wound is generated by a game mechanism, and is resolved by using the "allocate attack" and "inflict damage" rules located under the "Making attacks" header. In my analysis, that doesn't make a mortal wound an attack sequence or part of an attack sequence though.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 10:23:27


Post by: koooaei


We clearly need a faq here.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 10:34:22


Post by: nosferatu1001


JakeSiren wrote:
No, I don't understand your point about the rare rules contradicting the rules allowing you to fast roll. I am happy to only consider the slow rolling option at this stage so we don't have this contradiction.

My reasoning for the MW not being a part of the attack sequence is the same as the one presented by koooaei. Things like smite generating mortal wounds doesn't include an attack sequence, things like a flier dropping a bomb doesn't include an attack sequence. The mortal wound is generated by a game mechanism, and is resolved by using the "allocate attack" and "inflict damage" rules located under the "Making attacks" header. In my analysis, that doesn't make a mortal wound an attack sequence or part of an attack sequence though.


You don't understand the contradiction that yiu can never fast roll saves or damage, yet the only way to follow the rare rule is to do exactly that?

So when it directs you to step 5 of the attack sequence, under the only rule for MW, you don't think it's part of the attack sequence? Despite it telling you precisely how to resolve normal and mortal wound damage from a single weapon, which is in order at the same stage - inflict damage?

So a mortal wound generated during an attack is magically outside of the attack sequence? That's really your stance?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 10:34:56


Post by: JakeSiren


 koooaei wrote:
We clearly need a faq here.
I'm still interested in nosferatu1001's breakdown.

But the best way to get a FAQ is to hit up the rules team email address - 40kfaq@gwplc.com


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
No, I don't understand your point about the rare rules contradicting the rules allowing you to fast roll. I am happy to only consider the slow rolling option at this stage so we don't have this contradiction.

My reasoning for the MW not being a part of the attack sequence is the same as the one presented by koooaei. Things like smite generating mortal wounds doesn't include an attack sequence, things like a flier dropping a bomb doesn't include an attack sequence. The mortal wound is generated by a game mechanism, and is resolved by using the "allocate attack" and "inflict damage" rules located under the "Making attacks" header. In my analysis, that doesn't make a mortal wound an attack sequence or part of an attack sequence though.


You don't understand the contradiction that yiu can never fast roll saves or damage, yet the only way to follow the rare rule is to do exactly that?

So when it directs you to step 5 of the attack sequence, under the only rule for MW, you don't think it's part of the attack sequence? Despite it telling you precisely how to resolve normal and mortal wound damage from a single weapon, which is in order at the same stage - inflict damage?

So a mortal wound generated during an attack is magically outside of the attack sequence? That's really your stance?

When I inflict a mortal wound with smite, which attack sequence is that under? A mortal wound is a mortal wound. They get generated then resolved at the appropriate time.

There is also a number of times that fast-rolling is inappropriate. For example, where the damage may change on a wound roll of 6 (hey Nurgle daemons) - (NB: For some reason I'm struggling to find in the primer where it covers fast rolling, other than the line "Attacks can be made one at a time, or, in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks together." under making attacks). It's not entirely unreasonable to say this might be one of the times. Slow rolling should always give us the correct results.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 10:55:05


Post by: nosferatu1001


We're not discussing smite. And, again, why do you not just follow step 5 of the attack sequence as directed?

You're currently on a "feeling" here. Not written rules. Yet the written rules dictate you use the attack sequence.


So the rule break down is: you have one attack. You roll a 6 to wound, but the save is made. At step 5 yiu have the following damage waiting, as explicitly stated by the rules for mortal wounds: {0, 1} , and so you inflict damage - first the 0 damage (for normal damage) and then the mortal,wound damage, as explicitly stated in the rules for mortal wounds

Thus you reached the inflict damage step, and no additional attack is generated.

Now, if you allow the rare rule to break the fast rolling rule, which that saves and damage CANNOT be fast rolled, then you still have the ability to determine if you reached the inflict damage step. The multiple sets I pointed out above.
thus doesn't require a rule breaking "not part of attack sequence" made up rule to function.

I faq would indeed be good, but simply following the MW rule is sufficient here.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 11:08:47


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
We're not discussing smite. And, again, why do you not just follow step 5 of the attack sequence as directed?

You're currently on a "feeling" here. Not written rules. Yet the written rules dictate you use the attack sequence.
Fundamentally I think we disagree how Mortal Wounds function. Smite is my example of a Mortal Wound being generated that isn't attached to an attack sequence, and underlines my point that Mortal Wound's aren't attached to an attack sequence.

Let's put the whole discussion about how mortal wounds function aside for a moment, I'm trying to understand you.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
So the rule break down is: you have one attack. You roll a 6 to wound, but the save is made. At step 5 yiu have the following damage waiting, as explicitly stated by the rules for mortal wounds: {0, 1} , and so you inflict damage - first the 0 damage (for normal damage) and then the mortal,wound damage, as explicitly stated in the rules for mortal wounds

Thus you reached the inflict damage step, and no additional attack is generated.

Now, if you allow the rare rule to break the fast rolling rule, which that saves and damage CANNOT be fast rolled, then you still have the ability to determine if you reached the inflict damage step. The multiple sets I pointed out above.
thus doesn't require a rule breaking "not part of attack sequence" made up rule to function.

I faq would indeed be good, but simply following the MW rule is sufficient here.

Ok, this is the meat of the post. So we have 7 attacks that we are slow rolling - let's not fast roll them because you say it breaks things, so let's not do things that break the game!

You've only described how you resolve a single attack, how do you resolve all 7? I'm having trouble understanding this from your example.

Specifically, let's look at this case. We are slow rolling dice 1 at a time. We have allocated 7 attacks to an enemy unit. And the first two attacks roll a 6 to wound and generate a mortal wound each. The 5 remainder of the attacks either get to the inflict damage step or fail to and get another attack (it's not important which). How do you resolve this?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 11:36:08


Post by: nosferatu1001


What do you mean "how do you resolve this"?

If we're slow rolling, you never know you have 7 attacks and the results of them. You only know one attack and one attack only.

But if you're rule breaking by not completing the attack sequence for each attack before starting to roll the next. Or at least rolling to hit and wound, then yiu allocate the two mortal wounds after inflicting normal damage. Nothing states you have to com0eetly empty each tuple before moving on (and in fact, the rare rule requires you to somehow know all the normal damage and apply it first)


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 11:47:20


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
What do you mean "how do you resolve this"?

If we're slow rolling, you never know you have 7 attacks and the results of them. You only know one attack and one attack only.

But if you're rule breaking by not completing the attack sequence for each attack before starting to roll the next. Or at least rolling to hit and wound, then yiu allocate the two mortal wounds after inflicting normal damage. Nothing states you have to com0eetly empty each tuple before moving on (and in fact, the rare rule requires you to somehow know all the normal damage and apply it first)

I mean literally, how do you resolve it? Show me your steps that you go through.

As you point out, we don't want to break the rules by by not completing the attack sequence for each attack before starting to roll the next attack.

So we perform the attack sequence for the first attack. Do we complete it? What happens to the mortal wound?
We perform the attack sequence for the second attack. Do we complete it? What happens to the mortal wound?
And so on until attack 7.

Also, I didn't see the word or concept of tuples in the rules. Could you help me by pointing out what I might have overlooked?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 12:20:01


Post by: nosferatu1001


The rules literally describe a tuple - you have normal damage and mortal,damage, both exist at the inflict damage step. I'm using a standard term here, to describe a common bit of notation to simplify things.

Without the rare rules (which is, raw, wrong) yiu resolve inflict damage for attack one, then move onto attack 2, and so on. Rare rules doesn't allow you to do so, so you can resolve inflict damage (normal damage) for all attacks, then move on to the mortal wounds.
You can easily determine inflict damage yes or no? For each attack. I struggle to see your struggle with this, that leads you to creating a concept that is not only NOT supported in the rules, but explicitly denied by the rules.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 12:21:36


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rules literally describe a tuple
Literally, where?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 12:25:53


Post by: nosferatu1001


What part of "describe a tuple" do you think means the word "tuple" needs to be included? Literally?

Second para stating "if..." DESCRIBES A TUPLE. Do you know what that means?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 12:41:18


Post by: JakeSiren


You mean a finite ordered list of elements?

Here's the thing, your "raw, wrong" only occurs if you consider the mortal wound as a part of the attack sequence that inflicted it.

The killachoppa inflicts a mortal wound on a 6 to wound
Smite inflicts d3 mortal wounds on a successful cast (or d6 if you're lucky)

How do you resolve an inflicted mortal wound? By using the "Allocate attack" and "Inflict Damage" sections from making attacks. If you want to consider an inflicted mortal wound it's own special attack sequence, fine, but it's 100% not a part of a previous attack sequence or psychic casting, or whatever game mechanic caused the mortal wound to be inflicted in the first place.


Your are literally choosing an interpretation of mortal wounds that (by your own admission) breaks RAW when there is a perfectly valid one sitting there that doesn't!

And you know what, when you acknowledge that a mortal wound is separate from the thing that generated it, you can fast roll the attacks without breaking any rules! (Fancy that, the rules work when you use the right definitions!)


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 12:44:19


Post by: nosferatu1001


Ah, so you're ignoring the rules again?
You've made up a new attack sequence, despite the rules not stating this happens, and in fact telling you that you inflict damage at the same step, which you know, wouldn't work if it was its own attack sequence because, you know, that's not how the rules work...

Raw, you've made gak up. I've explained how you've made gak up, and you continue to make more gak up to justify it. Done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - not the first time the core rules have had issues. Assault weapons in 8th.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 12:55:53


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so you're ignoring the rules again?
You've made up a new attack sequence, despite the rules not stating this happens, and in fact telling you that you inflict damage at the same step, which you know, wouldn't work if it was its own attack sequence because, you know, that's not how the rules work...

Raw, you've made gak up. I've explained how you've made gak up, and you continue to make more gak up to justify it. Done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - not the first time the core rules have had issues. Assault weapons in 8th.

Fine, I'll concede if you can adequately answer these two questions:
With no existing attack sequence, how do you inflict a mortal wound from Smite?
How does this differ from a weapon that inflicts a mortal wound on a 6 to wound?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:05:06


Post by: nosferatu1001


You init an attack sequence. At step 5. Like it tells you to do...

For the second - follow the rules, which tells you it's part of the same inflict damage step as the "normal" damage. Why are you making up a new process, while ignoring the rules? You do realise you keep doing this, The rules for mortal wounds reference the attack sequence. Why you think this isn't an attack sequence is baffling.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:06:14


Post by: koooaei


If mortal wounds are indeed in a sequence - like nosferaru says, means that they are in their own sequence, so, if they somehow do not manage to inflict wounds, they generate an additional attack?

Anyway, in both cases with mw being in their own attack sequence and being outside of the sequence at all they don't affect the result of the initial attack seuqence, thus the extra attack is given regardless of mw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks guyz, it was difficult.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:09:31


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
You init an attack sequence. At step 5. Like it tells you to do...

For the second - follow the rules, which tells you it's part of the same inflict damage step as the "normal" damage. Why are you making up a new process, while ignoring the rules? You do realise you keep doing this, The rules for mortal wounds reference the attack sequence. Why you think this isn't an attack sequence is baffling.

So when I inflict a mortal wound from smite I initiate an attack sequence.

Also, the rules don't say "it's part of the same inflict damage step as the "normal" damage".
Seriously, Paragraph 1 tells you how to resolve a mortal wound. Paragraph 2 says resolve normal damage first, then resolve the mortal wound as per Paragraph 1

Which brings me to the question, why wouldn't I initiate an attack sequence when I inflict a mortal wound on a 6 to wound?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:09:52


Post by: nosferatu1001


I didn't say it was it's own attack sequence. I said precisely the opposite.
When you have a weapon which generates normal AND mortal wounds, then you do get to inflict damage in a SINGLE sequence, because the rules for MW don't state that a weapon giving both types creates a new attack sequence, it in fact tells you the opposite.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:12:08


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
When you have a weapon which generates normal AND mortal wounds, then you do get to inflict damage in a SINGLE sequence, because the rules for MW don't state that a weapon giving both types creates a new attack sequence, it in fact tells you the opposite.

Uh, the rules don't say that.
Seriously, Paragraph 1 tells you how to resolve a mortal wound. Paragraph 2 says resolve normal damage first, then resolve the mortal wound as per Paragraph 1 (you know, like how you would for a MW generated by Smite)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
I didn't say it was it's own attack sequence. I said precisely the opposite.
When you have a weapon which generates normal AND mortal wounds, then you do get to inflict damage in a SINGLE sequence, because the rules for MW don't state that a weapon giving both types creates a new attack sequence, it in fact tells you the opposite.

Further to my comment before. Let's pretend you're right for a moment.

Your attack sequence then looks like this,
1 Roll to hit, 2 Wound Roll (and generate a MW), 3 Allocate, 4 Save, 5 Inflict Damage (for normal wound). Then the mortal wound jumps back to 3 Allocate, then 5 Inflict Damage. And this is one "sequence".
I don't know about you, but that doesn't look like a sequence to me.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:21:51


Post by: nosferatu1001


Incorrect
You follow para 1 - inflict damage at the INFLICT DAMAGE step of the attack sequence
When you have both normal and MW damage from a single weapon, you're just told the order yiu resolve the damage at the step. Which is the same step. Because you're not told to make up a ne step

You should have conceded by now, because the rules explicitly reference the attack sequence, they never state you create a new attack sequence just because you now have a weapon inflicting normal then mortal,etc.

You're creating rules *out of thin air*. You've provided zero rules to support the idea that MW are outside of the attack sequence, and yiure , you know, completely ignoring that the rules explicitly, without ambiguity, makes them part of it...


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:25:28


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect
You follow para 1 - inflict damage at the INFLICT DAMAGE step of the attack sequence
When you have both normal and MW damage from a single weapon, you're just told the order yiu resolve the damage at the step. Which is the same step. Because you're not told to make up a ne step

You should have conceded by now, because the rules explicitly reference the attack sequence, they never state you create a new attack sequence just because you now have a weapon inflicting normal then mortal,etc.

You're creating rules *out of thin air*. You've provided zero rules to support the idea that MW are outside of the attack sequence, and yiure , you know, completely ignoring that the rules explicitly, without ambiguity, makes them part of it...

Sorry, say that again. Both normal and MW damage are resolved at the same damage step? So once my opponent Allocates the attack, they are allocating both the normal and MW damage to one model in the unit...

...yeah, let's just let that sink in for a moment...

Ok, then we get to the inflict damage and the one model we allocated both the normal damage and MW to suffers the damage... so if the model died from the normal damage, we can't go back to allocating the mortal wound. So what happens to it?

Yes yes, I'm the one making up rules</sarcasm>


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what, how about this. How about I quote this from P1: "allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit"

Ok, and let's call it not the same attack, but the "other attack". Does that make it easier for you?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:28:45


Post by: nosferatu1001


They're resolved in order. It's entirely possible that the normal,damage resolution will result in the model dying. Again, you're struggling because you're making gak up - I never said simultaneously. I said at the same step. I even ref the sequence. Because, unlike you, I keep posting rules..

Sorry you don't seem to be able to understand how making rules up - such as creating a "non attack sequence" rule - isn't that convincing.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:32:20


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
They're resolved in order. It's entirely possible that the normal,damage resolution will result in the model dying. Again, you're struggling because you're making gak up - I never said simultaneously. I said at the same step. I even ref the sequence. Because, unlike you, I keep posting rules..

Sorry you don't seem to be able to understand how making rules up - such as creating a "non attack sequence" rule - isn't that convincing.

Do you understand what a sequence is? We have steps 1 to 5 that we have to resolve in order.

We allocate at step 3. We inflict damage at step 5. So our allocations are already made when we go to inflict damage. You are saying that we are inflicting both normal damage and mortal wound damage at step 5 - after our allocation has been made.

Asking what happens to the mortal wound that is allocated to a dead model is a valid question. If we go back to step 3 from step 5 we are no longer in a sequence.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:37:13


Post by: nosferatu1001


That damage isn't lost....as the rules for mortal wounds tells you.

And, again, not the first time core rules have had some issues.

Again, please give proof, using a written rule, that when it states you inflict damage at step 5 of the attack sequence, you're NOT inflicting damage at step 5 of the attack sequence but at some other point in time

Rules would be helpful. You've failed to cite any so far, that actually back up your point


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:43:08


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
That damage isn't lost....as the rules for mortal wounds tells you.

And, again, not the first time core rules have had some issues.

Again, please give proof, using a written rule, that when it states you inflict damage at step 5 of the attack sequence, you're NOT inflicting damage at step 5 of the attack sequence but at some other point in time

Rules would be helpful. You've failed to cite any so far, that actually back up your point

It was your claim that we inflict mortal wound damage at step 5 of the attack sequence...
nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rules for mortal wounds tell you they inflict damage at the same step, inflict damage


Regardless, we complete the attack sequence before inflicting damage from the mortal wound, Brutal but Cunning only cares if we inflict damage during the attack sequence, so it triggers regardless of if we inflicted mortal wounds.

I'm not sure why that was so hard for you to get to


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:48:35


Post by: nosferatu1001


Yes, because that's what the rules say! It says yiu inflict at step 5. So please, find a rule saying you don't use the attack sequence at all. Page and graph.

Straw man again eh? Or just making more stuff up because following rules is too tricky for you?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:50:35


Post by: koooaei


Does the "in sequence that is separate from the initial attack sequence" Or "out of sequence" Even matter here? In both cases MW does not affect the bbk additional attack from the initial normal attack sequence.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:51:57


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because that's what the rules say! It says yiu inflict at step 5. So please, find a rule saying you don't use the attack sequence at all. Page and graph.

Straw man again eh? Or just making more stuff up because following rules is too tricky for you?

No, we both agree "you're NOT inflicting damage at step 5 of the attack sequence but at some other point in time"

The point is that you complete the attack sequence before resolving the mortal wound. The mortal wound by definition can't be a part of that attack sequence because the sequence is already completed!

Hence, Brutal but Cunning can trigger because the attack (the one that we completed the sequence for before resolving the mortal wound) may not have actually got to the inflict damage step.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:52:21


Post by: nosferatu1001


Why are you creating a new sequence, when the rules don't tell you to do so?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:53:58


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why are you creating a new sequence, when the rules don't tell you to do so?
Why do you want to do something additional with an already completed sequence?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:54:48


Post by: koooaei


So we don't create an attack sequence at all than. Even better.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:55:37


Post by: nosferatu1001


JakeSiren wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because that's what the rules say! It says yiu inflict at step 5. So please, find a rule saying you don't use the attack sequence at all. Page and graph.

Straw man again eh? Or just making more stuff up because following rules is too tricky for you?

No, we both agree "you're NOT inflicting damage at step 5 of the attack sequence but at some other point in time"

The point is that you complete the attack sequence before resolving the mortal wound. The mortal wound by definition can't be a part of that attack sequence because the sequence is already completed!

Hence, Brutal but Cunning can trigger because the attack (the one that we completed the sequence for before resolving the mortal wound) may not have actually got to the inflict damage step.

Ah, you wilfully misunderstood, again.

Page and graph. It's been three pages. About time you used an actual rule. Page and graph that states you complete "the" attack sequence, despite thr rule telling you to inflict at the same step, in sequence...


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:55:55


Post by: JakeSiren


 koooaei wrote:
So we don't create an attack sequence at all than. Even better.
This is when I wish Dakka had facebook reacts so I could put a laughing face here


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:57:41


Post by: nosferatu1001


By the way, as you managed to bold only part of a sentence, you missed that the first part is me challenging you to find the latter. Not me stating the latter is true

"Again, please give proof, using a written rule, that when it states you inflict damage at step 5 of the attack sequence, you're NOT inflicting damage at step 5 of the attack sequence but at some other point in time "

There you go, bolted the bit where I'm telling you to find proof of the part you're making up out of whole cloth....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
JakeSiren wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why are you creating a new sequence, when the rules don't tell you to do so?
Why do you want to do something additional with an already completed sequence?

When is it complete? After you inflict damage with the mortal wound.
According to actual rules

Sorry you're struggling to read whole sentences. Maybe get some sleep?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 13:58:53


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because that's what the rules say! It says yiu inflict at step 5. So please, find a rule saying you don't use the attack sequence at all. Page and graph.

Straw man again eh? Or just making more stuff up because following rules is too tricky for you?

No, we both agree "you're NOT inflicting damage at step 5 of the attack sequence but at some other point in time"

The point is that you complete the attack sequence before resolving the mortal wound. The mortal wound by definition can't be a part of that attack sequence because the sequence is already completed!

Hence, Brutal but Cunning can trigger because the attack (the one that we completed the sequence for before resolving the mortal wound) may not have actually got to the inflict damage step.

Ah, you wilfully misunderstood, again.

Page and graph. It's been three pages. About time you used an actual rule. Page and graph that states you complete "the" attack sequence, despite thr rule telling you to inflict at the same step, in sequence...

Page 18, battle primer, header "MAKING ATTACKS": "The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time."
If I start a second sequence before completing the first one I am no longer making attacks one at a time and no longer following the rules. (Fast rolling allows a specific exemption, but we aren't talking about that)


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:01:26


Post by: nosferatu1001


So why are you creating a new sequence? The rules for mortal woiuds, second para, don't tell you to do so.

Bearing in mind the actual rules don't say you Create a second sequence - that was part of your made up gak at one point. Now I think we're back to you making up that you inflict mortal wound damage somewhere, but you're so confused it's hard to tell


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops, you still don't wan t to follow the rule stating you inflict damage from a MW at step 5. You do this after the normal damage.

And we're back t9 the start. Useless


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:03:50


Post by: koooaei


If you're not creating a new attack sequence and not doing it in the same attack sequence (which you can't do by the rules), means mw either work out of sequence or do not work at all.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:09:24


Post by: nosferatu1001


Why can't you do it as part of the same sequence?

You are

NEVER

Told to create a new sequence. You are told to resolve at step 5, normal then mortal,and step 5 is part of the attack sequence

If you're claiming it is either a new sequence, or exists outside of the sequence (despite the rules stating the exact opposite, that MW are dealt with in the Attack sequence step 5) then
Please
Give
Written
Rules


YOU are both making the extraordinary claim. YOU are required to prove it, because all I can show is that nowhere in the rules are you told to create a new sequence, nor are yiu told MW exist outside of the sequence (which would be really odd, because they explicitly tell you they are part of the attack sequence)


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:11:17


Post by: koooaei


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why can't you do it as part of the same sequence?


Cause it says you resolve mw after the attack.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:11:36


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
By the way, as you managed to bold only part of a sentence, you missed that the first part is me challenging you to find the latter. Not me stating the latter is true

"Again, please give proof, using a written rule, that when it states you inflict damage at step 5 of the attack sequence, you're NOT inflicting damage at step 5 of the attack sequence but at some other point in time "

There you go, bolted the bit where I'm telling you to find proof of the part you're making up out of whole cloth....

You want me to prove that the mortal wound is resolved after the normal wound? Sure, paragraph 2, "If an attack inflicts mortal wounds in addition to the normal damage, resolve the normal damage first"

Normal Attack has steps 1 to 5 in the attack sequence.
A mortal wound is resolved by "just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit", or the rules identified by steps 3 and 5 in the attack sequence.

You resolve your attack sequence 1 to 5. Then at a later point you use the rules found under steps 3 and 5 for the mortal wound (and by the rare rules this occurs after all attacks have been resolved). It's as if the mortal wound doesn't follow the attack sequence and isn't considered an attack.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:13:24


Post by: nosferatu1001


Sigh

Stop it. I thought you argued in good faith. Seems I was wrong.

I was very explicit in what I required, yiu answered something else. For the what, third time?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, it's hilarious - frankly mind boggling that you're writing this in all seriousness, which is why I'm assuming you're not - that yiu follow the attack sequence, but then say it isn't the attack sequence...


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:15:58


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh

Stop it. I thought you argued in good faith. Seems I was wrong.

I was very explicit in what I required, yiu answered something else. For the what, third time?


Sorry, did you want me to show that the normal attack inflicts damage at step 5 of the attack sequence?

Or did you want me to show that the mortal wound inflicts damage at step 5 of the attack sequence? (It doesn't, and I never claimed that)

Or that the mortal wound *doesn't* inflict damage at step 5 of the attack sequence, because that is what I demonstrated.

I don't think you were as clear as you thought you were.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:17:37


Post by: nosferatu1001


Yes, you need to demonstrate that when it states you inflict MW damage at step 5 of the attack sequence, that somehow It doesn't mean that at all.
I was really explicit that I was talking about MW. Cos context.

That's what happens when you fail to read all of a post Jake.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:19:54


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, you need to demonstrate that when it states you inflict MW damage at step 5 of the attack sequence, that somehow It doesn't mean that at all.
I was really explicit that I was talking about MW. Cos context.

That's what happens when you fail to read all of a post Jake.

But it doesn't say that?

Literally, "If an attack inflicts mortal wounds in addition to the normal damage, resolve the normal damage first".

After we resolve the normal damage, we resolve the mortal wound by using the rules identified by steps 3 and steps 5. A sequence doesn't go from step 5 to step 3 back to step 5.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:21:02


Post by: nosferatu1001


" ....just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above "

1) turns out when you say MW aren't an attack, you're flat out wrong. I can't believe you've not read this para, as you've been directed at it enough. Further indication of bad faith.

2) Inflict damage is step 5 of the attack sequence, and is above the box out.



Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:22:57


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
" ....just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above "

1) turns out when you say MW aren't an attack, you're flat out wrong. I can't believe you've not read this para, as you've been directed at it enough. Further indication of bad faith.

2) Inflict damage is step 5 of the attack sequence, and is above the box out.


So are you asserting that your attack sequence goes from step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to step 3 then back to step 5?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:22:57


Post by: nosferatu1001


JakeSiren wrote:

It's as if the mortal wound doesn't follow the attack sequence and isn't considered an attack.


Made up rule is made up. MW are "any other attack", they are definitively an attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
JakeSiren wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
" ....just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above "

1) turns out when you say MW aren't an attack, you're flat out wrong. I can't believe you've not read this para, as you've been directed at it enough. Further indication of bad faith.

2) Inflict damage is step 5 of the attack sequence, and is above the box out.


So are you asserting that your attack sequence goes from step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to step 3 then back to step 5?

Any chance you can admit you were wrong , and that despite claiming raw you made up an idea that a MW isn't an Attack? Just before we carry on. Cos you know, you really should be apologising for making stuff up


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:27:45


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:

It's as if the mortal wound doesn't follow the attack sequence and isn't considered an attack.


Made up rule is made up. MW are "any other attack", they are definitively an attack.

Ok, I concede. A mortal wound is an attack. Which means since we generate an attack (MW) on a 6 to wound, that attack gets it's own attack sequence. You're not allowed to resolve two attacks in a single sequence. (Keeping in mind that the attack sequence says "The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time"). So Brutal but Cunning can trigger on the initial attack sequence, but not on the new generated one.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:30:57


Post by: nosferatu1001


So you won't apologise for making up, out of whole cloth, that MW aren't an attack? Despite being pointed at the rule repeatedly?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:38:21


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you won't apologise for making up, out of whole cloth, that MW aren't an attack? Despite being pointed at the rule repeatedly?
Eh, internalisation of rules have their way. That's why we have vigorous rule debates to improve our understanding.

In any event, I'm glad that we can both agree that Brutal but Cunning can trigger regardless of if the original attack sequence generates a mortal wound.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:44:16


Post by: nosferatu1001


Or you were caught making rules up...for three pages....and I couldn't believe you weren't reading the rules you were directed to time and time again

You do appear to have decided I said something I'm not sure I have, but whatever. You've shown your true colours.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 14:48:14


Post by: koooaei


Ok, now what happens when you're goff and roll a 6 to hit and generate 2 hits from 1 attack.

Only the initial hit counts for bbl, or you need to fail both hits?


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 15:07:10


Post by: JakeSiren


 koooaei wrote:
Ok, now what happens when you're goff and roll a 6 to hit and generate 2 hits from 1 attack.

Only the initial hit counts for bbl, or you need to fail both hits?

When you generate a second hit, it gets considered in its own attack sequence (I'll see if I can find the rare rule that clarifies this later), so only the initial hit counts for BbL.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 19:07:14


Post by: alextroy


Yeesh people. How about we look at the two relevant rules in their entirety.
40K Core Rules PDF wrote:MORTAL WOUNDS
Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts 1 point of damage on the target unit, and they are always applied one at a time. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit (pg 18). Unlike damage inflicted by normal attacks, excess damage from 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.

If an attack inflicts mortal wounds in addition to the normal damage, resolve the normal damage first. If an attack inflicts mortal wounds in addition to the normal damage, but the normal damage is subsequently saved, the target unit still suffers the mortal wounds, as described opposite. If an ability modifies the damage inflicted by a weapon, and that weapon can inflict mortal wounds in addition to the normal damage, the modifier does not apply to any mortal wounds that are inflicted (unless the rule specifically states otherwise).

Core Rules Errata wrote:*Page 363 – Rare Rules
Add the following:
Multiple attacks that inflict mortal wounds
Some attacks can inflict mortal wounds either instead of, or in addition to, the normal damage. If, when a unit is selected to shoot or fight, more than one of its attacks that target an enemy unit have such a rule, all the normal damage inflicted by the attacking unit’s attacks are resolved against that target before any of the mortal wounds are inflicted on it.
As you can see from these two rules, mortal wounds inflicted as part of an attack are a separate thing from the actual attack itself (see the red text). If you have multiple attacks from a unit directed at a unit that can (potentially, not definitely) inflict mortal wounds, you must resolve all those attacks through the inflict damage stage before you can inflict any of the mortal wounds.

Thus, an attack sequence generating a mortal wound at any state of resolution has no impact on whether that unit reached or resolved the Inflict Damage step of that attack.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 20:09:03


Post by: Eihnlazer


That has been jakes argument all along, and you could certainly interpret it that way.

However it is not the correct interpretation.


The mortal wounds are allocated after the normal damage, and in fact happen after all the normal damage from all the attacks thanks to the rare rule.

This does not change the fact in any way, that the attack that generated the mortal wound, did inflict damage. The mortal wound is not magically treated like it didnt come from said attack just because it is allocated at the end of the cycle.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 20:49:50


Post by: nosferatu1001


Not quite Jake's argument. He said MW weren't an attack, for a long while.



Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 21:20:47


Post by: JakeSiren


JakeSiren wrote:
 koooaei wrote:
Ok, now what happens when you're goff and roll a 6 to hit and generate 2 hits from 1 attack.

Only the initial hit counts for bbl, or you need to fail both hits?

When you generate a second hit, it gets considered in its own attack sequence (I'll see if I can find the rare rule that clarifies this later), so only the initial hit counts for BbL.

Ok, so the Rare Rule is called "Attacks that make multiple hit rolls". It on page 91 of the GT2021 book.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 21:25:40


Post by: alextroy


Mortal wounds are an attack, as noted in the rules for mortal wound. This means when an attack generates a Mortal Wound due to a special rule, it generates a different attack (aka a Mortal Wound) from itself. Thus, if the attack itself (not the MW, but the attack) does not inflict damage, the attack did not inflict damage regardless of the existence of the Mortal Wound it created.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 23:12:24


Post by: Eihnlazer


No, nip that in the bud please.

Mortal wounds, when dealt in a vacuum, are an attack unto themselves.

Mortals created FROM AN ATTACK, are just part of that attack, allocated later during the attack sequence than normal damage.


Is it confusing? Yes apparently and demonstratably so.



Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 23:23:46


Post by: JakeSiren


 Eihnlazer wrote:
No, nip that in the bud please.

Mortal wounds, when dealt in a vacuum, are an attack unto themselves.

Mortals created FROM AN ATTACK, are just part of that attack, allocated later during the attack sequence than normal damage.


Is it confusing? Yes apparently and demonstratably so.


If you are jumping around in a sequence, it's no longer a sequence.

We all agree that mortal wounds are an attack yeah?
An attack sequence allows you to resolve one attack, not two. It follows that the mortal wound isn't a part of the initial attack sequence that created it. Exactly in the same way that rolling a 6 scores a second hit, that second hit is evaluated in a second attack sequence, not the initial sequence that generated it.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/15 23:52:21


Post by: alextroy


Jake has it exactly correct. A Mortal Wound generated by an attack must be allocated and then inflicts damage separate to the attack that generated it. It can do damage to entirely different model than the attack that generated it, which damage from an attack cannot do.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/16 18:35:57


Post by: Eihnlazer


Nothing you have shown or proved has anything to do with the fact that the attack that generated the mortal wound DID in fact inflict damage, whether that damage was done later in the phase or sequence.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/16 18:46:36


Post by: doctortom


 Eihnlazer wrote:
Nothing you have shown or proved has anything to do with the fact that the attack that generated the mortal wound DID in fact inflict damage, whether that damage was done later in the phase or sequence.


If you think that I suggest you go back and reread his post where he quoted the rules for Mortal Wounds and the Rare Rules dealing with Mortal Wounds. The Mortal sidebar does tell you when and how much damage a mortal wound does.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/16 19:04:26


Post by: alextroy


 Eihnlazer wrote:
Nothing you have shown or proved has anything to do with the fact that the attack that generated the mortal wound DID in fact inflict damage, whether that damage was done later in the phase or sequence.
Really? I have conclusively shown that when an attack generates a Mortal Wound that that attack sequence ends with the Mortal Wound unresolved. Therefore if that attack sequence failed to inflict damage, the attack failed to inflict damage. The Mortal Wound will eventually inflict damage, but a Mortal Wound is its own attack that allocates and inflicts damage independent of the source that generated it.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/16 21:29:02


Post by: Eihnlazer


~)~

It's not hard man.

Did your attack generate a mortal wound?

Did the mortal wound eventually inflict damage to my model?

The attack has inflicted damage.

Full stop, nothing else to see here.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/16 21:44:27


Post by: JakeSiren


 Eihnlazer wrote:
~)~

It's not hard man.

Did your attack generate a mortal wound?

Did the mortal wound eventually inflict damage to my model?

The attack has inflicted damage.

Full stop, nothing else to see here.
That's not what the rules say. The mortal wound is an attack with it's own sequence. Why would the outcome of a distinct and separate attack sequence affect the sequence of the original attack? To use a phrase that you like, it sounds janky


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/16 21:47:05


Post by: nosferatu1001


But, also, that attack DID generate a mortal wound. We know it did. It didn't appear from nowhere.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/16 21:47:29


Post by: alextroy


 Eihnlazer wrote:
~)~

It's not hard man.

Did your attack generate a mortal wound?
Yes.
Did the mortal wound eventually inflict damage to my model?
No. We haven't resolved it yet. You don't get to resolve any Mortal Wounds until after all attacks from the unit are resolved.
The attack has inflicted damage.

Full stop, nothing else to see here.
Nope. The Mortal Wound doesn't inflict damage until it is resolved. That doesn't happen until later in the unit's attack resolution. As of the end of the attack's resolution, if the target didn't fail it's Save the attack did not inflict damage.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/16 21:53:40


Post by: JakeSiren


nosferatu1001 wrote:
But, also, that attack DID generate a mortal wound. We know it did. It didn't appear from nowhere.
And? The mortal wound is it's own attack with it's own sequence, distinct from the original attack sequence.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/16 22:20:06


Post by: alextroy


I'm sure they are now going to tell us than when a Goff hits with a natural six, that if the second hit they get from No Muckin' About inflicts damage that the first one did too even if it failed to wound


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/16 22:45:52


Post by: Eihnlazer


Well im done.

I went through all my arguments and they dont hold up for you.


I've been wrong here, and i've been right.

I've also been both wrong and right about the same thing. This is because I was correct about the intent but not able to show the RAW. There was a following FAQ that proved i was right though.

Thats likely the case here.



Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/16 23:18:09


Post by: alextroy


You are certainly right that one of us is right or wrong and that an FAQ will set it straight, assuming GW decides this issue is worth an FAQ answer.

They definitely need to think about the interaction for Squigosaurs bite putting out Mortal Wounds and ending the attack sequence on an unmodified 6. As I see it, that means if they have Brutal But Cunnin' they get another attack while also getting the Mortal Wounds.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/16 23:27:20


Post by: nosferatu1001


Indeed, they are unlikely to rule saying sure, you got damage from that attack (as that attack gen an attack that did damage, there is some commutative property theree for sure) but have another attack

It's like anytime doing two things one way breaks a limit one rule imparts, such as a limit on aura distance or inv save


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/16 23:28:14


Post by: gungo


If Gw decides to count mortal wounds and/or extra hits on 6 as part of the original attack sequence this will be a miserable and game slowing attack tracking as it delays most of your attacks into individual rolls.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/08/17 04:43:32


Post by: JakeSiren


gungo wrote:
If Gw decides to count mortal wounds and/or extra hits on 6 as part of the original attack sequence this will be a miserable and game slowing attack tracking as it delays most of your attacks into individual rolls.
GW has already written heaps of rules that require slow rolling to resolve properly. For example, if you use any weapon that changes AP or damage on a certain dice roll (Dark Elder get additional AP in combat on 6 to wound, Nurgle Daemons increase damage on a 6 to wound). Sometimes you can get away with fast rolling these, but not always - for example the order of resolving extra AP matters when your opponent doesn't have the same save characteristic for all models in a squad.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/09/15 08:31:10


Post by: koooaei


So, GW faq-ed it.

Q: When a Goff model with the Brutal but Kunnin Warlord Trait attacks, are any additional hits generated by the No Mukkin’ About clan kulture that don’t reach the Inflict Damage step counted when determining how many additional attacks can be made? A: Yes. Note though, that when making additional attacks as a result of this Warlord Trait, no additional hits can then be generated due to the No Mukkin’ About kultur.

Your extra hits now generate extra attacks that can not generate further extra hits. That's contradicting brb but, oh well.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/09/15 10:26:35


Post by: JohnnyHell


It’s done to avoid a never-ending hit machine. Can’t keep on hitting or it gets silly.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/09/15 14:50:49


Post by: koooaei


 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s done to avoid a never-ending hit machine. Can’t keep on hitting or it gets silly.


Not exactly. You couldn't get them eternally. In fact, you're probably getting more hits with their faq ruling rather than when you play by the brb.
Brb you got extra attacks from the initial attack hits not dealing damage but extra hits on 6s did not generate extra attacks if they didn't deal damage. However, you could get the extra hit from an extra attack if it rolls a 6.
Now you get extra attacks from the extra hits on 6s but those extra attacks can not generate extra hits on 6s any more.

All in all, if you count stuff up, it's rather complex, but it seems to be around 1/3 more effective after the faq rather than if you play via brb.


Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning @ 2021/09/20 08:01:49


Post by: Jidmah


I think the ruling is decent because it just allows you to roll all dice together and shove the failed ones to the side to roll again later.