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 causes a wound on a 4+. How is that NOT a 'to wound' roll?

"I'm rolling these dice, they cause a wound on a 4+"


Definitly a to-wound roll.

Grey Templar wrote:It causes a wound on a 4+. How is that NOT a 'to wound' roll?

"I'm rolling these dice, they cause a wound on a 4+"


Definitly a to-wound roll.

Not by the definitions in the rulebook.
Like I said, bring it to YMDC if you disagree.
I'll even show you the last thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/436657.page

I do not buy the argument that that To-wound rolls are clearly defined in the main rules.

They are not, so we must use general rules of the language to determine what a to-wound roll is.


I believe it is any roll that results in a wound.

If you can point me to a page that says a to-wound roll is only a roll which compares strength vs toughness then I will agree, however there is no such definition to my knowledge.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/436657.page#4035341

Why do all threads about Crowe end up being about Cleansing Flame and whether he can duct flames down someone's shirt front?

You can stop showing the thread rigeld. In fact if you actually read it you would see that I was there. The argument was not convincing for me. Let the OP decide for himself, end of discussion.

Sad to see another good thread ruined by yet another argument over rules. :(

Yeah... And this is of no great surprise to anyone. that's the bad part about it.

On the plus side, i am looking for things to FAQ at my tournament so this proved useful anyways.

Grey Templar wrote:You can stop showing the thread rigeld. In fact if you actually read it you would see that I was there. The argument was not convincing for me. Let the OP decide for himself, end of discussion.

That's fine. As long as he's aware there *is* a discussion, which is what I was trying to point out.

If you state what you see as a fact, knowing that there isn't a consensus on that statement, it's misleading. I was making sure the OP wasn't misled.