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.

Pakman184 wrote:

Step 3, allocating wounds, is what you do if you have successfully wounded the target. The step itself tells you that. You can make an assumption about whether it assumes you've gone through all the previous steps (and you have gone through it even if it is to ignore the step when instructed to, but that's a different matter), but you are ignoring what the step the Mortal Wounds sidebar tells you to go to is actually saying. If you are on the allocate wounds stage, as per the statement in the section you have successfully wounded the target.

The first line of Allocating Wound reads "If an attack successfully wounds the target.." That is not telling you that the attack has wounded something, it's telling what to do if the attack wounds something. As I've pointed out countless times, a MW cannot wound something because it is told to skip the step where you actual wound things. The reason you can still continue is because the MW rule specifically tells you to continue. It's a prerequisite that you don't fulfil, but is circumvented by a specific rule.

It's telling you what to do if you successfully wound something. You're doing the step, therefore you have successfully wounded something. It really is that simple. You're going to tortuous lengths to deny what is actually said and instead say that a type of wound put on a target is not wounding the target.

You are still incorrect.

There is 1 possible way to wound something. Only 1. Nowhere else in all of the Core Rules does it give you another option.

To Wound something, you need to roll a successful Wound Roll.

Mortal Wounds don't do that.

Allocating doesn't tell you that they did, it just says what to do *If* they did. Mortal Wounds don't meet the prerequisite, but their specific rule gives you another avenue. It's not the complicated.

We will have to agree to disagree. I will stick with what it actually says in the Allocate wounds section, that you do this if you have wounded a target.

Good luck finding people to play that doing a mortal wound to a target doesn't wound a target.

Sometimes... just sometimes... even if you feel you’re technically correct you gotta accept consensus. And consensus is that MW do do damage. I mean, it’s the RAW that they do too, but just in case that’s not enough consensus is that they do. Feel free to keep arguing to the contrary but you won’t find a single opponent who agrees with you, because your interpretation is flat-out wrong.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Sometimes... just sometimes... even if you feel you’re technically correct you gotta accept consensus. And consensus is that MW do do damage. I mean, it’s the RAW that they do too, but just in case that’s not enough consensus is that they do. Feel free to keep arguing to the contrary but you won’t find a single opponent who agrees with you, because your interpretation is flat-out wrong.

How is my interpretation flat out wrong when there isn't a single argument other than "By Allocating a Wound you've confirmed that it wounded the target?"

So far that's the only actual argument that anyone here has made so far. Nobody is contesting that Mortal Wounds do damage. The issue is whether Mortal Wounds actually Wound the target in the first place and I still stand that they don't by the letter of the rules.

It's wrong because English Grammar says it's wrong. You need to use English to parse the game rules. They do wound because the rules for mortal wounds say they do. You keep trying to claim the rules for normal wounds override the more specific rules for Mortal Wounds.

What you're trying to claim is like saying you can shoot after advancing because the rules for shooting say units may be selected to shoot, despite the rules also saying a unit that advanced may not be selected to shoot.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's wrong because English Grammar says it's wrong. You need to use English to parse the game rules. They do wound because the rules for mortal wounds say they do. You keep trying to claim the rules for normal wounds override the more specific rules for Mortal Wounds.

What you're trying to claim is like saying you can shoot after advancing because the rules for shooting say units may be selected to shoot, despite the rules also saying a unit that advanced may not be selected to shoot.

I expected better of you BCB, usually you read to rule as they're written. This is not an English Grammar issue, the words involved have specific meaning when it comes to Warhammer 40k and they're all laid out in the "Resolving Attacks" sequences. The rules for them do not say they wound, all they say is that they're Allocated like other Wounds. There is a very clear distinction between how something is wounded and what Allocating a Wound.

That is not at all what I'm trying to claim, try not to build yourself a Strawman. I am claiming that Mortal Wounds cannot be considered to wound a unit because they do not make a Wound Roll, which is what's required to wound something according to the Core Rules.

"Allocated like other wounds".

That indicates that yes, it is a wound-it works just like the other wounds.

 JNAProductions wrote:
"Allocated like other wounds".

That indicates that yes, it is a wound-it works just like the other wounds.

Actually read what the Core Rules say about it. You Allocate it like other Wounds, allocating is not relevant to something wounding a unit. You can call a Mortal Wound a Wound, but that still doesn't make it actually do any wounding.

You’re just reading them wrong and embarrassing yourself, tbh. Noone else is in doubt that MW cause damage, which causes you to lose a wound, as the MW boxout explains this explicitly. You are wrong, because you are trying to force the text to fit your opinion. It doesn’t say what you think it says. The MW rules are adequate and explain that they do hurt things, sorry.

This thread seems to be going in circles and is thus done.