Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Having a Discussion with some people about Skyhammer and I'm actually looking forward to playing against it. The scariest thing appears to be the 'Suppressing Fusillade', at least to me.

Suppressing Fusillade: A unit targeted by a Skyhammer Annihilation Force's Devastator squad in the shooting phase must take a Morale test at the end of the phase on 3D6, regardless of how many casualties are inflicted. ...

We all assume that this means a minimum of 1 casualty. At least from the stronger point of the debate. We can see someone arguing that 0 is a valid interpretation.

Thoughts? Anyone else see this?

Nope. No casualties are required. You simply need to target a unit for it to work.

Yah, no casualties needed to apply the debuff. If you want to find a justification it is just because they are loyalist marines and they can do whatever they want with the rules.

DA iirc have a similar weapon... a grenade launcher that as long as it hits it applies a -1T debuff, no wounds needed. Also in 6th Flyers would take grounding tests as long as they got hit instead of wounded as it is nowadays. So it is by no way alien to how GW rules some effects

Zero is still an amount of casualties - don't see how this rule could be interpreted as requiring 1 or more.

Besides, in practice, a squad of grav devastators are going to struggle NOT to cause at least one casualty on whatever they're shooting at...

However the other five bolters should make an impact as well

only requires the unit is targetted.

the one odd thing about this is if you use a template or blast, and it scatters on another unit- the other unit was not targetted and it will not affect the other unit as per its own rules.

Interesting.

Since you asked. We treat a Casualty as actually losing a model. There has to be a model removed to even be considered a casualty. Zero Casualties, means there were no losses to even trigger the rule. A valid interpretation would require 2 Conditions.
1) Being Targeted
2) A Casualty

As for other weapons, its tough to use those as comparison since they are usually worded 'A unit Hit by...' which doesn't require a Casualty. This is NOT what the rule says, since they added the bit about Casualties.
To be fair, there are other weapons that state 'A model wounded by XXX must test at the end of the phase' which also isn't what the rule says.

Agreed that it's very unlikely since most of the time something will die. With Interceptor, Deathmarks, etc, its possible that the Big Guns will die and leave the Bolters. Especially if they Combat Squad.

Not trying to change any opinion, just didn't think anyone would actually believe that Zero Casualties would apply rendering that whole line unnecessary. I see now that people think that it is a thing.

Thanks for the input all.

it says "regardless of how many casualties" because it doesn't matter how many you cause, even none.

"How many casualties?"
"None"
"Take the test regardless"

 Akar wrote:
Interesting.

Since you asked. We treat a Casualty as actually losing a model. There has to be a model removed to even be considered a casualty. Zero Casualties, means there were no losses to even trigger the rule. A valid interpretation would require 2 Conditions.
1) Being Targeted
2) A Casualty

As for other weapons, its tough to use those as comparison since they are usually worded 'A unit Hit by...' which doesn't require a Casualty. This is NOT what the rule says, since they added the bit about Casualties.
To be fair, there are other weapons that state 'A model wounded by XXX must test at the end of the phase' which also isn't what the rule says.

Agreed that it's very unlikely since most of the time something will die. With Interceptor, Deathmarks, etc, its possible that the Big Guns will die and leave the Bolters. Especially if they Combat Squad.

Not trying to change any opinion, just didn't think anyone would actually believe that Zero Casualties would apply rendering that whole line unnecessary. I see now that people think that it is a thing.

Thanks for the input all.

If you consider the default rule for a Morale Check requiring 25% casualties to trigger, than the statement regarding casualties does not indicate one or more must be made and instead removes a limit currently present.

Interestingly enough, this rule is useless against Fearless units.

I believe it still stops them firing overwatch

 jokerkd wrote:
I believe it still stops them firing overwatch

It does, being unable to fire overwatch is an extra debuff over going to the ground. Grounded units are normally allowed to fire overwatch.

to poster above,

just FYI look at GTG rules in the rule book, you cannot fire overwatch if you have gone to ground (which happens when pinned)


to the OP:

regardless of the # of casualties you take the test, thats RAW and RAI clearly.

0 is a valid # of casualties to take, and regardless of that #, you take the test.

 easysauce wrote:
to poster above,

just FYI look at GTG rules in the rule book, you cannot fire overwatch if you have gone to ground (which happens when pinned)

You are right, it changed from 6th to 7th.

Well dang. I've screwed that up quite a bit. Good to know.

the test for this is at the end of shooting, if you opt to go to ground when targeted then you did not go to ground because of the test

you still can't fire OW but any assault squads charging you lose their reroll to hit and wound as you did not go to ground from a result of suppressing fusillade.

I'm still not convinced. I'll try to break it down a different way. I'm not hung up on the Zero part. Zero is a number, not going to argue that. It's not RAW/RAI or it would be in there and there would be no confusion.

There are two elements to the rule as stated above.
Was the unit targeted? No issue with this, but I didn't think about the scattered Templates situation posted above, so I'm glad that was brought up.

Did the unit take any Casualties? Suffering casualties IS a part of the rule. I'm having trouble translating that a casualty exists when nothing dies, as people are trying to make it out to be RAW. You don't have a 'casualty' until something actually dies by the very definition of the word. You don't get a number until something dies. Zero Casualties is an oxymoron when applying this rule.

I believe the RAW is intended to replace the 25% casualty rule, but still requires that something dies. The rule would've simply instructed us to have each targeted unit test if that's what they truly wanted. No they gave this bit about casualties that have been interpreted in a way that renders the whole line useless, rather than try and figure out why it's there in the first place.

As I stated above, I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm correct. I've said my piece and if it turns out to be a HIWPI then that's fine. My point here was to see if anyone thought that Zero Casualties forced a test, because I didn't believe that many would. It's something I need to be aware of and clarify pre-game should it come up, which I don't think it will since something will most likely die.

 Akar wrote:
I'm still not convinced. I'll try to break it down a different way. I'm not hung up on the Zero part. Zero is a number, not going to argue that. It's not RAW/RAI or it would be in there and there would be no confusion.

There are two elements to the rule as stated above.
Was the unit targeted? No issue with this, but I didn't think about the scattered Templates situation posted above, so I'm glad that was brought up.

Did the unit take any Casualties? Suffering casualties IS a part of the rule. I'm having trouble translating that a casualty exists when nothing dies, as people are trying to make it out to be RAW. You don't have a 'casualty' until something actually dies by the very definition of the word. You don't get a number until something dies. Zero Casualties is an oxymoron when applying this rule.

I believe the RAW is intended to replace the 25% casualty rule, but still requires that something dies. The rule would've simply instructed us to have each targeted unit test if that's what they truly wanted. No they gave this bit about casualties that have been interpreted in a way that renders the whole line useless, rather than try and figure out why it's there in the first place.

As I stated above, I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm correct. I've said my piece and if it turns out to be a HIWPI then that's fine. My point here was to see if anyone thought that Zero Casualties forced a test, because I didn't believe that many would. It's something I need to be aware of and clarify pre-game should it come up, which I don't think it will since something will most likely die.

"...regardless of how many casualties are inflicted."

The rule operates, literally, without regard to how many casualties are inflicted. It does not care. It doesn't even look at the number of casualties. That clause has no practical effect. These two sentences have the same practical outcome...

1. A unit targeted by a Skyhammer Annihilation Force's Devastator squad in the shooting phase must take a Morale test at the end of the phase on 3D6, regardless of how many casualties are inflicted.
2. A unit targeted by a Skyhammer Annihilation Force's Devastator squad in the shooting phase must take a Morale test at the end of the phase on 3D6.

Also...

3. A unit targeted by a Skyhammer Annihilation Force's Devastator squad in the shooting phase must take a Morale test at the end of the phase on 3D6, regardless of how many Facebook friends the owning player has.

The rule is poorly written in that the clause about the number of casualties doesn't impact the rule and only creates confusion.

The rule has precisely one criteria... that criteria being that a unit is targeted by on of the Dev Squads in the Shooting phase.

This is really a matter of simple English (mis)interpretation rather than any rules issue. As Kriswall has pointed out, the rule has no regard for how many casualties were inflicted, and by extension indeed if any were inflicted at all.

The trigger for the rule is the unit being targeted; number or even existence of any casualties is not.

Then why the reference to 'casualties inflicted' at all? It's as plain English as the mis interpretation that the rule says that you don't need to inflict casualties, to test. Which is basically what I'm being told.

What I feel like I'm being told over, and over:"If nothing dies, you still have Casualties, but that number is zero."
It's a valid interpretation, but it assumes that all units start the turn by suffering a Casualty of Zero. This just goes against the definition of what a casualty is. We don't remove a model as a casualty until it's wounds are reduced to 0. (Or some other special weapon.). It doesn't break the rule, but it does raise the question about that line being there in the first place.

The rule says 'Casualties Inflicted'. This is where the minimum of 1 comes in. Otherwise, where are you getting a casualty from if nothing dies? The clearly does not state that targeted units need to test. Casualties still fit in there somewhere. Where is the thought process to eliminate the need to put that in there in the first place?

All I'm saying: "There isn't a Casualty until something dies. You still need to have a Casualty before you check to see if one was inflicted, creating the need for a test." This is an equally valid interpretation but it also assumes that a casualty doesn't exist until a model has its wounds reduced to 0. Nothing in here breaks the rule either.

It seems that the line they put to stop confusion has actually caused more confusion.

The reason its in there is so you dont see "morale test", look up the rule for morale test, and then try to apply the 25% casualties part to this rule

 Akar wrote:
What I feel like I'm being told over, and over:"If nothing dies, you still have Casualties, but that number is zero."
It's a valid interpretation, but it assumes that all units start the turn by suffering a Casualty of Zero. This just goes against the definition of what a casualty is. We don't remove a model as a casualty until it's wounds are reduced to 0. (Or some other special weapon.). It doesn't break the rule, but it does raise the question about that line being there in the first place.

It's not even this; it's simply that the question of, "How many casualties were inflicted?" is stated to be compeltely and utterly irrelevant.

All I'm saying: "There isn't a Casualty until something dies. You still need to have a Casualty before you check to see if one was inflicted, creating the need for a test." This is an equally valid interpretation but it also assumes that a casualty doesn't exist until a model has its wounds reduced to 0. Nothing in here breaks the rule either.

I think this can be demonstrated as false by the question of, "How many casualties were inflicted?" and the answer of "None." The question needs to be asked probably as jokerkd says to avoid people trying to check the usual morale rules and because, in context, casualties are a normal but not guaranteed effect of a shooting attack. And in that context the answer of none doesn't make the question unnecessary irrelevant.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
It's not even this; it's simply that the question of, "How many casualties were inflicted?" is stated to be compeltely and utterly irrelevant.

"Regardless of how many casualties inflicted" is not the same as "Regardless if any casualties were inflicted".

I'm going to maintain that actually getting a casualty is still a requirement of the rule. It's the only way the rule remains relevant without rendering itself useless.

Again, odds are against me, but it might happen in 1 game, if I build a Cron list to specifically deal with it. I don't normally cater lists unless specifically asked. I'd want to run my normal list against it a few times first. So if, after all that, a SM player wanted me to cater build a list to try and beat it, I'd have a little discussion, probably just dice it off, then play anyways.

Thank you everyone for your input, I've gotten what I needed to know.

Without wanting to come across as rude (this is an honest and genuine question) why come with what seems to be a predetermined conclusion about the rule and ask for opinions only to seem to disregard them?

I know popularity is no measure of whether an interpretation is correct but it feels like you've asked for our opinions, we've given them and you've said, "Nah, I'm pretty happy with my interpretation. Job done."

 Akar wrote:
Then why the reference to 'casualties inflicted' at all? It's as plain English as the mis interpretation that the rule says that you don't need to inflict casualties, to test. Which is basically what I'm being told.

the only mention of casualties is that we are *supposed to ignore them and regardless of the # apply the rules*

precisely because its the exception to do every other time when casualties matter.


every other rule, like pinning, or morale checks requires either one or more casualties (and it explicitly says so) or 25% casualties or more (and again the rule says it must)


this rule says to disregard casualties entirely because and make the check just for being shot at.

 Akar wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
It's not even this; it's simply that the question of, "How many casualties were inflicted?" is stated to be compeltely and utterly irrelevant.

"Regardless of how many casualties inflicted" is not the same as "Regardless if any casualties were inflicted".

I'm going to maintain that actually getting a casualty is still a requirement of the rule. It's the only way the rule remains relevant without rendering itself useless.

Again, odds are against me, but it might happen in 1 game, if I build a Cron list to specifically deal with it. I don't normally cater lists unless specifically asked. I'd want to run my normal list against it a few times first. So if, after all that, a SM player wanted me to cater build a list to try and beat it, I'd have a little discussion, probably just dice it off, then play anyways.

Thank you everyone for your input, I've gotten what I needed to know.

I believe the clause is there to explicitly define how the special rule is different to normal situations.
Under 'normal' shooting, you need to take a pinning test if you take at least 1 casualty, and a morale test if you take 25% casualties.

The logic flow is:

Unit gets shot at.
How many casualties?
A: 0 - No test
B: 1 or more - Pinning Test
C: 25% of more - Pinning and Morale test

The amendment clarifies that it is literally without regard to the number of casualties in this situation. It *could* be dropped, or replaced with 'regardless of how many elephants are in the room', but it is there to clarify that 0 casualties is indeed a valid number of casualties to require a test. Only being targeted matters. Which is one reason why this formation is so powerful - it poops out 4 squads able to shut down overwatch at the same time as 2-4 squads able to deep strike and then charge first turn.

 Akar wrote:
I'm still not convinced. I'll try to break it down a different way. I'm not hung up on the Zero part. Zero is a number, not going to argue that. It's not RAW/RAI or it would be in there and there would be no confusion.

There are two elements to the rule as stated above.
Was the unit targeted? No issue with this, but I didn't think about the scattered Templates situation posted above, so I'm glad that was brought up.

Did the unit take any Casualties? Suffering casualties IS a part of the rule. I'm having trouble translating that a casualty exists when nothing dies, as people are trying to make it out to be RAW. You don't have a 'casualty' until something actually dies by the very definition of the word. You don't get a number until something dies. Zero Casualties is an oxymoron when applying this rule.

I believe the RAW is intended to replace the 25% casualty rule, but still requires that something dies. The rule would've simply instructed us to have each targeted unit test if that's what they truly wanted. No they gave this bit about casualties that have been interpreted in a way that renders the whole line useless, rather than try and figure out why it's there in the first place.

As I stated above, I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm correct. I've said my piece and if it turns out to be a HIWPI then that's fine. My point here was to see if anyone thought that Zero Casualties forced a test, because I didn't believe that many would. It's something I need to be aware of and clarify pre-game should it come up, which I don't think it will since something will most likely die.

For some reason i'm reading it this way too....

Normally you test on 2D6 at 25% loss of models.
Extra:
- You must test on 3D6
- Regardless of how many (though you still need the 1st casualty to proc the test) = even just 1 (below 25%) will trigger the test.

But you still need the 1 to trigger the test. I think it's placing this Rule within the normal Morale Rules, rather than setting it in a vacuum: "must test upon target"
It's more "usual test but must be 3d6 and not over 25%" ("When targeted as usual")

Why else would they say "regardless of how sunny it is outside" ?

 BlackTalos wrote:
For some reason i'm reading it this way too....

Normally you test on 2D6 at 25% loss of models.
Extra:
- You must test on 3D6
- Regardless of how many (though you still need the 1st casualty to proc the test) = even just 1 (below 25%) will trigger the test.

But you still need the 1 to trigger the test. I think it's placing this Rule within the normal Morale Rules, rather than setting it in a vacuum: "must test upon target"
It's more "usual test but must be 3d6 and not over 25%" ("When targeted as usual")

Why else would they say "regardless of how sunny it is outside" ?

So, you would exclude night in those instances? "This light will allow you to see regardless of how sunny it is outside." So, you would assume this light would only work during the daytime?

But, no, no actual Wound is required. This rule is to eliminate the need for any Wounds to have been made in order to trigger the test, instead of the normal requirements for Pinning or Morale Checks from Shooting.

My interpretation of this is that no casualties (or even hits) are required. Normally, the Pinning special rule applies if you inflict an unsaved wound (even if that causes no casualties - say, you wounded a Centurion, which has W2, so it survived). So, in the normal case, the weapons would have Pinning, and specify that the Pinning test is made on 3d6.

The special clauses in Suppressing Fusillade seem to me to mean that you do not even have to hit - just target the unit. Even if everything misses, or if it hits and fails to wound, or wounds but you make your saves, or fail saves but make FNP, or fail saves but survive due to multi-wounds, you still have to take a Pinning test on 3D6. (Unless you're Fearless, because Fearless units cannot Go To Ground or be Pinned, voluntarily or otherwise.)

I agree, though, that the wording is terrible. If my interpretation (HYWPI, though it looks like RAW to me too) is correct, better wording would have been:

Suppressing Fusillade: A unit targeted by a Skyhammer Annihilation Force's Devastator squad in the shooting phase must take a Pinning test at the end of the phase on 3D6, regardless of the results of that shooting attack.

Now this *does* have the perverse effect that, if you have, say, plasma cannons, shoot at one target and scatter such that you miss it, but hit another and kill models in it, the unit you aimed at takes the Pinning test, and the unit you actually damaged does not. That's definitely perverse, but if they really mean "these Devs pin whatever they aim at, hit or not", that's pretty much what you get.

If they meant "Pinning only on a hit", or "Pinning only on an unsaved wound" or "Pinning only if a model is removed as a casualty, even if that's not enough models to trigger a Morale test", they should have said those things more clearly.

jade_angel wrote:
(Unless you're Fearless, because Fearless units cannot Go To Ground or be Pinned, voluntarily or otherwise.)

Also add to the fact that they automatically pass Morale Checks, even on a 3D6.

Are you having regard to the number of casualties caused, when determining if a test is required?

If you answer yes, you gave broken the rule.

Couldn't be more clear that zero casualties still triggers the test.