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.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 japehlio wrote:
TDA, let me put it another way;


"I am going to attempt to go to the shop, THEN I am going to attempt to do some laundry"

Two "attempt" phrases, separated by a "then". If I dont go to the shop, my sentence still implies that I will be attempting to do some laundry, at no point is the success of one determining the attempt of the second.

Attempt is a conditional. Therefore, the succession applies to both success and failure. If, however, there is no conditional, like in, let's say, the spell in question , succession depends on success.

Incorrect. There is simply a requirement to complete the step. The step is rolling to wound. No requirement to successfully roll to wound. None at all.

You've been given the correct answer many times now.

@thedarkavenger: I follow you on what "then" implies, and how succession works, but where in the quote below do you need to actually cause a wound?

"Target a single enemy model. It suffers a wound on a dice roll equal to or greater than it's unmodified armor save...The owning player must then reveal to the caster all the magic items possessed by the target."

The first step is rolling to wound against the target. Once you pick up your die and drop it on the table, haven't you successfully rolled to wound? That is, you may or may not have successfully wounded, but you were successful in the rolling of the die. And that is what the first step is described as. Right?

The spell requires that you attempt to destroy an item after rolling to wound based on armor save, that sequencing of events is correct. Nowhere does it present any link other than order of completion between the two events.

 HoverBoy wrote:
The spell requires that you attempt to destroy an item after rolling to wound based on armor save, that sequencing of events is correct. Nowhere does it present any link other than order of completion between the two events events.

Exactly. You must roll to wound before going to step 2, not cause a wound

Why didn't anyone notify me of the typo, not cool guys.