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.

For example, it would cause a mortal wound instead of the normal damage even if you would use Quantum Shielding (+ the stratagem, due to FAQ) to ignore that damage.

Seizeman wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But they're worded the same, Deathreaper. Why do the same words mean different things in the same context?

They are not worded the same.

One replaces a single hit with three hits.

The other is about wounds/damage sequence.

They are worded in exactly the same manner: If the condition happens, do X instead of Y. "Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ with this weapon, the target suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage." and "Each hit roll of 6+ with this weapon causes 3 hits instead of 1."

You can't see how they are worded differently?

One is replacing a hit with 3,

One is replacing the normal damage sequence (since you do not go through saves or FNP rolls etc...)

Clearly they are not worded the same.

In the first case, nothing says "don't go through the normal damage sequence", it just says to replace the normal damage (all of it).

Replacing the normal damage means the same thing as "don't go through the normal damage sequence", you realize that right?

If, in that case, the replaced event (the normal damage) doesn't have to actually happen for the replacement to take place, why is the tesla case any different?

because in trhe first case a hit actually has to happen as you are replacing one hit with 3. The replaced event is not the normal damage. it is the normal wounding sequence.

At that point you do not know if you have normal damage or not, but it doesnt matter because of the way that rule is written

That is true, but this has no bearing on turning 1 hit into 3.

That's the same with the tesla weapon, since they are written the same way. It doesn't matter if you have a normal hit or not, you still get the 3 hits. If it said "each hit counts as 3 hits" or "successful hits of 6+", that would be different, but that's not the case.

False. since they arew not written the same.

In the case of tesla though it is not "substitution of a possibility" it is the "substitution of an actuality" because it is actually replacing a single hit with three. You do not substitute the possibility of causing 1 hit because you already have a hit.

Using a different interpretation for each case is not coherent. If you have to substitute an actual hit with 3 hits, then you have to substitute actual damage for a MW, not potential damage.

False, because at the point of the wound roll you do not have damage at all.

See how the situations are different now?

You can't see how they are worded differently?

One is replacing a hit with 3,

One is replacing the normal damage sequence (since you do not go through saves or FNP rolls etc...)

Clearly they are not worded the same.

Why is the second replacing the normal damage sequence? That's not what it's written in the rule (fnp rolls are not part of the attack sequence, btw). The word "sequence" is nowhere to be found there, you are arbitrarily adding it. If we interpret it the same way as tesla, it does a mortal woud "instead of the normal damage", not instead of the sequence, not instead of the wounding and saving, but instead of the actual damage. The attack sequence is not "normal damage". They are not written differently, you are just choosing to interpret them differently.

False, because at the point of the wound roll you do not have damage at all.

The point at which the ability triggers is not relevant. Weapons that do mortal wounds "in addition to any other damage" trigger when you roll to wound but resolve after the attack sequence has ended. Toxin sacs (extra damage on wound roll of 6+) trigger on a wound roll but that doesn't mean you skip allocation or saves, you still have to go through the entire sequence. In the same way, weapons with "mortal wounds instead of normal damage" don't tell you to ski any phases, so, RAW (with your interpretation of "instead"), you still go through the whole sequence.

Seizeman wrote:
Why is the second replacing the normal damage sequence?

Because the normal damage sequence involves allocating wounds and saves etc...

(fnp rolls are not part of the attack sequence, btw).

It is and it isn't. The Black Rage rules for Blood Angels, that says "roll a D6 each time this unit loses a wound. On a 6 the wound is ignored and has no effect." Anything that ignores wounds is applied before the "If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0" part of Step 5 in the shooting rules.

The word "sequence" is nowhere to be found there, you are arbitrarily adding it.

It doesn't need to be added, we can clearly see that the rules tell us to ignore the rest of the shooting sequence when we have a weapon that inflicts MW's instead of regular ones.

If we interpret it the same way as tesla, it does a mortal woud "instead of the normal damage", not instead of the sequence, not instead of the wounding and saving, but instead of the actual damage. The attack sequence is not "normal damage". They are not written differently, you are just choosing to interpret them differently.

The rules do that for us.

The point at which the ability triggers is not relevant. Weapons that do mortal wounds "in addition to any other damage" trigger when you roll to wound but resolve after the attack sequence has ended. Toxin sacs (extra damage on wound roll of 6+) trigger on a wound roll but that doesn't mean you skip allocation or saves, you still have to go through the entire sequence. In the same way, weapons with "mortal wounds instead of normal damage" don't tell you to ski any phases, so, RAW (with your interpretation of "instead"), you still go through the whole sequence.

That is false for things like Gorefather, CSM Relic, for example it says " on an unmodified wound roll of 6 the target suffers 3 mortal wounds and the attack sequence ends." So you do not get to roll for saves etc... And you clearly do skip things.

But I am not getting your point here. Some weapons that do mortal wounds "in addition to any other damage" are not at all like the Tesla rules. It doesn't apply.

You still don't explain why do you ignore the attack sequence with "mortal wounds instead of normal damage". Mortal wounds skip the attack sequence, but the mortal wound doesn't exist until you do normal damage, because, otherwise, there's no normal damage to replace, and the mortal wound is dealt "instead of normal damage". How can you replace something that doen's exist in the first place?

If you decide to skip the attack sequence, you are not replacing the normal damage, just the possibility of normal damage. If that's the case then, with tesla, you don't replace the normal hit, just the possibility of a normal hit, so it works even if you fail to hit. Either both abilities work, or neither does.

Gorefather is a different weapon with different rules. We are talking about rules that use the word "instead". If smoke, as you claim, is not relevant to this discussion, gorefather is even less relevant.

It doesn't need to be added, we can clearly see that the rules tell us to ignore the rest of the shooting sequence when we have a weapon that inflicts MW's instead of regular ones.

Can you post which rule tells us that? There's nothing like that in the rulebook.

FNP can happen during the attack sequence, but it's not a part of the attack sequence (otherwise, weapons like gorefather would not allow FNP saves). Not relevant to the discussion, anyway.

Seizeman wrote:
You still don't explain why do you ignore the attack sequence with "mortal wounds instead of normal damage".

Because it says "and the attack sequence ends." which means we do not get past the rolling to wound step. So we ignore the rest of the attack sequence because "the attack sequence ends."

Mortal wounds skip the attack sequence, but the mortal wound doesn't exist until you do normal damage,

False, you do not even get to the damage part. Tthe mortal wound doesn't exist until you roll to wound and get a certain score, but this is not damage, just a wound.

otherwise, there's no normal damage to replace, and the mortal wound is dealt "instead of normal damage". How can you replace something that doen's exist in the first place?

I do not know, but we have to, because the rules say "the attack sequence ends." and it ends before we have normal damage. we only have a to wound roll of a certain number, we do not yet have damage.

If you decide to skip the attack sequence, you are not replacing the normal damage, just the possibility of normal damage.

We are not deciding that, the rules literally tell us to skip the attack sequence. Since there is no damage to replace, because we do not have damage in the To Wound roll part, you are not actually replaching the normal damage because the attack sequence ends.

If that's the case then, with tesla, you don't replace the normal hit, just the possibility of a normal hit, so it works even if you fail to hit.

That is not the case, and with tesla you clearly replace the hit with three hits. It literally says "Each hit roll of 6+ with this weapon causes 3 hits instead of 1." It literally "causes 3 hits instead of 1." So you are directly replacing a single hit with three.

Either both abilities work, or neither does.

Demonstrably false, as they are not the same rule. they are not worded the same, so what one rule does has no bearing on the other rule.

It would appear the OP has gotten what they came here for and this discussion is simply going in circles, serving no further purpose.