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.

So the Infiltrator Marksman Bolt Carbine auto-wounds on a to-hit roll of 6. The Imperial Fists and Crimson Fists Chapter Tactics grant an additional hit on a roll of a 6. Would this additional hit auto-wound as well or would I have to roll for a wound?

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
So the Infiltrator Marksman Bolt Carbine auto-wounds on a to-hit roll of 6. The Imperial Fists and Crimson Fists Chapter Tactics grant an additional hit on a roll of a 6. Would this additional hit auto-wound as well or would I have to roll for a wound?

In classic GW fashion, it's impossible to say because both interpretations are valid.

Interpretation 1: The extra hit was caused by a hit roll of 6, therefore it automatically wounds.

Interpretation 2: The extra hit automatically hit, which means as per the FAQ "no hit rolls are made" which means the extra hit doesn't get to automatically wound since the extra hit did not roll a 6 to hit.

I believe interpretation 2 to be correct. It's a hit, but it has no associated hit roll - you didn't roll a 6 for it, it just hit.

In my view yes, the extra hit would auto wound until a FAQ says otherwise.

 Stux wrote:
I believe interpretation 2 to be correct. It's a hit, but it has no associated hit roll - you didn't roll a 6 for it, it just hit.

Agreed. It's not as clear as it could be, but I think we can say the extra hit did not itself roll a 6 to hit so it doesn't get the bonus for doing so.

Slipspace wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I believe interpretation 2 to be correct. It's a hit, but it has no associated hit roll - you didn't roll a 6 for it, it just hit.

Agreed. It's not as clear as it could be, but I think we can say the extra hit did not itself roll a 6 to hit so it doesn't get the bonus for doing so.

This is also the more conservative and less beneficial reading, so I'd stick with this.

It's a good question for the FAQ, though.

IMO the rules says you need to roll a 6 and with this interaction the extra hit did not roll a six thus it does not automatically wound.

For the extra hit to automatically wound, it has to be a roll of 6. If it is a roll of 6, it generates another hit. Do you see the problem here?

 alextroy wrote:
For the extra hit to automatically wound, it has to be a roll of 6. If it is a roll of 6, it generates another hit. Do you see the problem here?

There isn't a problem. The attack that rolls a 6 auto wounds and generates another hit. That extra hit happens automatically so has no associated roll, so does nothing further beyond a normal wound roll and save.

Unfortunately I don't think it is another auto wound. Technically an automatic hit can't roll a 6 to hit.

The additional hit can’t automatically wound, because there was no to hit roll made for that hit.

If you didn’t roll a 6 because no roll was made then effects don’t proc for it, same as flamers that don’t roll to hit/Ork Dakka Dakka Dakka rule etc.

Voss wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
For the extra hit to automatically wound, it has to be a roll of 6. If it is a roll of 6, it generates another hit. Do you see the problem here?

There isn't a problem. The attack that rolls a 6 auto wounds and generates another hit. That extra hit happens automatically so has no associated roll, so does nothing further beyond a normal wound roll and save.

You missed my point. If the Extra Hit generated by rolling a 6, counts as having rolled as 6, it generates another hit that also rolled a 6. Infinite hits on one 6!

 alextroy wrote:

Voss wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
For the extra hit to automatically wound, it has to be a roll of 6. If it is a roll of 6, it generates another hit. Do you see the problem here?

There isn't a problem. The attack that rolls a 6 auto wounds and generates another hit. That extra hit happens automatically so has no associated roll, so does nothing further beyond a normal wound roll and save.

You missed my point. If the Extra Hit generated by rolling a 6, counts as having rolled as 6, it generates another hit that also rolled a 6. Infinite hits on one 6!

That's not how the rules work or ever have worked, GW FAQ'd people trying to abuse dakkadakka on flamers if you automatically hit you don't roll, if you don't roll then no effects are produced.

And auto hit is just a hit, it is not assigned a value of to hit roll, it's the same way it allows people to miss on a 6 but still hit with the bonus, otherwise they would have to auto miss because a roll of 6-3 would be 3 and hence a miss for BS4+.

Ice_can wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Voss wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
For the extra hit to automatically wound, it has to be a roll of 6. If it is a roll of 6, it generates another hit. Do you see the problem here?

There isn't a problem. The attack that rolls a 6 auto wounds and generates another hit. That extra hit happens automatically so has no associated roll, so does nothing further beyond a normal wound roll and save.

You missed my point. If the Extra Hit generated by rolling a 6, counts as having rolled as 6, it generates another hit that also rolled a 6. Infinite hits on one 6!

That's not how the rules work or ever have worked, GW FAQ'd people trying to abuse dakkadakka on flamers if you automatically hit you don't roll, if you don't roll then no effects are produced.

And auto hit is just a hit, it is not assigned a value of to hit roll, it's the same way it allows people to miss on a 6 but still hit with the bonus, otherwise they would have to auto miss because a roll of 6-3 would be 3 and hence a miss for BS4+.

All of you appear to be violently agreeing.

Drager wrote:
All of you appear to be violently agreeing.

So funny!

Alextoy isn't saying it works, they're posing an absurdem argument for it not working.

And Stux has it. The results would be absurd if the rule worked that way. Fortunately, it does not.

The GW Rules team may not be the best technical writers, but they do learn. Anyone notice the the Newly Minted Incindium Cannon's rules tell you "Do not make a Hit Roll, it automatically scores a hit"?

When you say they learn, do you mean the new UM chapter tactic that still punishes their own FLY units, which suffer -1 to hit when falling back, while other chapters don't get that -1 to hit ?

 p5freak wrote:
When you say they learn, do you mean the new UM chapter tactic that still punishes their own FLY units, which suffer -1 to hit when falling back, while other chapters don't get that -1 to hit ?

That's you taking the most extreme of 2 possible interpretations of the RAW, it's bad on GW part but that's not just on GW it's also on the rules lawyer's for rules lawyering the rules into absurdist situations but carry on.

Ice_can wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
When you say they learn, do you mean the new UM chapter tactic that still punishes their own FLY units, which suffer -1 to hit when falling back, while other chapters don't get that -1 to hit ?

That's you taking the most extreme of 2 possible interpretations of the RAW, it's bad on GW part but that's not just on GW it's also on the rules lawyer's for rules lawyering the rules into absurdist situations but carry on.

There is literally no interpretation going on (there is English Language Parsing, but that's not the same thing). The Rule says you must -1 to hit if you fall back. Nothing about the rules in the BRB regarding FLY negate that. You have two rules telling you "You may fire" and "You may fire at -1 to hit." If you fire without the -1 to hit, you're breaking one of two rules, if you fire at -1 to hit, you're breaking none of two rules, therefore you must have -1 to hit.

There is a lot interpretation in parsing English, so I massively disagree with that general premise.

However in this specific situation it's clear that as written FLY Ultramarines take a -1 to hit when falling back and shooting.

I don't believe for 1 second this is intentional so would never expect an Ultramarines opponent to take the -1 in this circumstance. But it would ultimately be a house rule.

 Stux wrote:
There is a lot interpretation in parsing English, so I massively disagree with that general premise.

However in this specific situation it's clear that as written FLY Ultramarines take a -1 to hit when falling back and shooting.

I don't believe for 1 second this is intentional so would never expect an Ultramarines opponent to take the -1 in this circumstance. But it would ultimately be a house rule.

It's been this way for 2+ years in the old codex, after multiple erratas and Chapter Approved releases, after being informed about it (I personally have emailed them about it among others). Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that it is intentional.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
There is a lot interpretation in parsing English, so I massively disagree with that general premise.

However in this specific situation it's clear that as written FLY Ultramarines take a -1 to hit when falling back and shooting.

I don't believe for 1 second this is intentional so would never expect an Ultramarines opponent to take the -1 in this circumstance. But it would ultimately be a house rule.

It's been this way for 2+ years in the old codex, after multiple erratas and Chapter Approved releases, after being informed about it (I personally have emailed them about it among others). Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that it is intentional.

Disagree. Evidence: Pistols and Assault weapons still don't work RAW.

GW not taking action is no indication of their intention.

Just an update. From the FAQ, the additional hits DO wound as well.

And FLY Ultramarines don't take a -1 to hit when falling back and shooting. Which they didn't fix for 2 years in the old codex, but decided to fix now.

 Stux wrote:
And FLY Ultramarines don't take a -1 to hit when falling back and shooting. Which they didn't fix for 2 years in the old codex, but decided to fix now.

Yup. That was a bizarre oversight.

 p5freak wrote:
When you say they learn, do you mean the new UM chapter tactic that still punishes their own FLY units, which suffer -1 to hit when falling back, while other chapters don't get that -1 to hit ?

This got FAQ'ed too, finally. But in a way that someone can make it worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's been this way for 2+ years in the old codex, after multiple erratas and Chapter Approved releases, after being informed about it (I personally have emailed them about it among others). Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that it is intentional.

They ended up fixing it in the spirit of the way I would have argued it, but not in the way that I would have phrased it.

I've argued Ultramarines that fly can use the fly rule and then don't take the -1 from their Doctrine rule. So they removed FLY'ing Ultramarines from the rule, but did so in such a way someone COULD - if they really wanted to win friends and influence people - argue Ultramarin FLY'ers now can't fall back and shoot at all.

FLY gives you inherent permission to Fall Back and Shoot.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
FLY gives you inherent permission to Fall Back and Shoot.

And Codex trumps General - I'm going to guess FAQ trumps supplement trumps codex trumps BRB.

I'm not saying its right, or even an accurate reading. You've got to twist pretty hard on the wording. I'm just saying SOMEONE is going to make the argument.

Breton wrote:
And Codex trumps General - I'm going to guess FAQ trumps supplement trumps codex trumps BRB.

That's not a thing anymore.

It's just a permissive rule set. Either the unit has permission to fall back and shoot, or it doesn't. It now has FLY and no Ultramarine rule, thus it can fall back and shoot.

 Jidmah wrote:

Breton wrote:
And Codex trumps General - I'm going to guess FAQ trumps supplement trumps codex trumps BRB.

That's not a thing anymore.

It's just a permissive rule set. Either the unit has permission to fall back and shoot, or it doesn't. It now has FLY and no Ultramarine rule, thus it can fall back and shoot.

Its still an Ultramarine. It still has the rule, its just now the rule excludes FLY'ers from itself which can be read by people who want to

You're trying to argue it's a wrong reading, when I'm not even arguing it's the right reading. I'm arguing someone is going to make that reading, so it was a bad wording.