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.

~)~

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.

 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

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

 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

 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.

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.