Wrath of Mars vs. Saviour Protocols

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.

**DeathReaper**

Xenomancers wrote:
Are you missing the point? The point is you are assuming that a wound that does not roll to wound...wounds. It has been stated before previously in the thread.

Your answer can be OFC it wounds because it is a wound. That argument fails because mortal wounds don't actually wound you. They just cause you to lose a wound.

Your statement is false.

P.7 40k Battle Primer. Mortal Wounds sidebar wrote:. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound...

This shows that a mortal wound is equal to "any other wound" and as such is, in fact, a wound.

**Xenomancers**

DeathReaper wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Are you missing the point? The point is you are assuming that a wound that does not roll to wound...wounds. It has been stated before previously in the thread.

Your answer can be OFC it wounds because it is a wound. That argument fails because mortal wounds don't actually wound you. They just cause you to lose a wound.

Your statement is false.

P.7 40k Battle Primer. Mortal Wounds sidebar wrote:. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound...
This shows that a mortal wound is equal to "any other wound" and as such is, in fact, a wound.

Absolutely brilliant.

**p5freak**

DeathReaper wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Are you missing the point? The point is you are assuming that a wound that does not roll to wound...wounds. It has been stated before previously in the thread.

Your answer can be OFC it wounds because it is a wound. That argument fails because mortal wounds don't actually wound you. They just cause you to lose a wound.

Your statement is false.

P.7 40k Battle Primer. Mortal Wounds sidebar wrote:. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound...
This shows that a mortal wound is equal to "any other wound" and as such is, in fact, a wound.

Just because you allocate it as you would any other wound doesnt make it a wound. A mortal wound isnt the same as a wound. It has a different name, and it has its own rules, which are different from the wound rules. Why arent you making a wound roll, when its just a wound ? Why arent you allowed to take a sv or an inv against MW, when its just a wound ? Why even bother to create MW when they are the same as a wound ? Because its not the same.

**U02dah4**

You are not allowed to make a sv or inv because the mortal wound rules say so. It is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it is a wound.

Yes they are differentiated in that MW come with a section of rules

But RAW their is no reason to consider they are not wounds. all we can say is they are labelled wounds (mortal "wounds") and use the wound allocation roles both of which imply they are.

The only counter anyone has made that excludes them is the suggestion that you need to make a to wound role for it to count as a wound - however this is not defined anywhere (not one person has substantiated it - saying you need it doesnt count) and is therefore irrelevant under RAW. It is at best RAI but atleast half the people here disagree with it so its not very clear even as RAI argument more hiwpi than rai

**Stux**

That's not quite my argument. Even if it is a Wound, it is entirely possible from its usage that the intended defintion of "wounded", with the 'ed' refers specifically and only to succeeding a wound roll, and so wouldn't apply to Mortal Wounds.

However, this is never explicitly defined one way or the other so we don't have a clear answer either way.

**U02dah4**

however the minute you are competing an intended definition that many people don't agree on as a reason to deviate from the RAW you have lost the argument.

You can either substantiate that -ed argument directly under RAW (Which you can't as its RAI) or we are back to the only RAW interpretation being that it occurs after Step 2 and before step 3 is completed and mortal wounds take part in step 3.

And by default RAW trumps RAI precisely because in this sort of a situation different people will disagree as to what the RAI is.

So we have a clear answer is your definition written in the rules - no - then it doesn't apply under RAW so their is no conflict

**p5freak**

U02dah4 wrote:
You are not allowed to make a sv or inv because the mortal wound rules say so. It is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it is a wound.

Yes they are differentiated in that MW come with a section of rules

But RAW their is no reason to consider they are not wounds. all we can say is they are labelled wounds (mortal "wounds") and use the wound allocation roles both of which imply they are.

When two rules differ from each other they cant be the same. Its not irrelevant to the discussion whether MW is a wound, or not. If its a wound that comes from an attack from a weapon it can be intercepted by SP. If its not a wound, it cant be intercepted by SP.

**Stux**

U02dah4 wrote:
however the minute you are competing an intended definition that many people don't agree on as a reason to deviate from the RAW you have lost the argument.

You can either substantiate that -ed argument directly under RAW (Which you can't as its RAI) or we are back to the only RAW interpretation being that it occurs after Step 2 and before step 3 is completed and mortal wounds take part in step 3.

And by default RAW trumps RAI precisely because in this sort of a situation different people will disagree as to what the RAI is.

So we have a clear answer is your definition written in the rules - no - then it doesn't apply under RAW so their is no conflict

I'm sorry but none of what you have said here makes any sense.

I'm not saying my interpretation of RAI is overriding RAW, I'm saying the RAW is unclear because they didn't define their terms they are using. That's completely different.

**U02dah4**

p5freak wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
You are not allowed to make a sv or inv because the mortal wound rules say so. It is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it is a wound.

Yes they are differentiated in that MW come with a section of rules

But RAW their is no reason to consider they are not wounds. all we can say is they are labelled wounds (mortal "wounds") and use the wound allocation roles both of which imply they are.

When two rules differ from each other they cant be the same. Its not irrelevant to the discussion whether MW is a wound, or not. If its a wound that comes from an attack from a weapon it can be intercepted by SP. If its not a wound, it cant be intercepted by SP.

Except their is no evidence those two rules do differ from each other. Indeed all the evidence in terms of their name and the fact they both use "wound" allocation would imply they are the same in this instance.

**p5freak**

U02dah4 wrote:
Except their is no evidence those two rules do differ from each other. Indeed all the evidence in terms of their name and the fact they both use "wound" allocation would imply they are the same in this instance.

Except there is evidence in the rules. If two rules are worded differently, and played differently, they cant be the same.

**U02dah4**

Stux wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
however the minute you are competing an intended definition that many people don't agree on as a reason to deviate from the RAW you have lost the argument.

You can either substantiate that -ed argument directly under RAW (Which you can't as its RAI) or we are back to the only RAW interpretation being that it occurs after Step 2 and before step 3 is completed and mortal wounds take part in step 3.

And by default RAW trumps RAI precisely because in this sort of a situation different people will disagree as to what the RAI is.

So we have a clear answer is your definition written in the rules - no - then it doesn't apply under RAW so their is no conflict

I'm sorry but none of what you have said here makes any sense.

I'm not saying my interpretation of RAI is overriding RAW, I'm saying the RAW is unclear because they didn't define their terms they are using. That's completely different.

Yes they didn't define their terms but the RAW is not unclear unless you rigidly define in a RAI way. If you just go with what is written their is no conflict they are the same thing as their is no rule to say otherwise.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

p5freak wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
Except their is no evidence those two rules do differ from each other. Indeed all the evidence in terms of their name and the fact they both use "wound" allocation would imply they are the same in this instance.

Except there is evidence in the rules. If two rules are worded differently, and played differently, they cant be the same.

their not played differently they literally say allocate them using the same rules. They just add in a couple of exceptions to the standard rules all defined in one section.

**Stux**

It absolutely is unclear. If it was clear there wouldn't be multiple people here who disagree with you.

**p5freak**

U02dah4 wrote:

their not played differently they literally say allocate them using the same rules. They just add in a couple of exceptions to the standard rules all defined in one section.

Those exceptions is what makes the difference. They are not the same rules.

**Xenomancers**

Stux wrote:
It absolutely is unclear. If it was clear there wouldn't be multiple people here who disagree with you.

It might be unclear BUT it is clear that a mortal wound does not wound. It skips the wounding process entirely it skips the saving process entirely. If they wanted it to act as a "wound" they would have said it causes an automatic wound that with no saves allowed of any kind. It doesn't act like that though. I don't think they intended it to work this way but it is possible savior protcols was not intended to work on mortal wounds. I don't think it should intercept mortal wounds ether. Taus weakness is supposed to be the psychic phase where the majority of damage is caused by mortal wounds. It just makes sense that tau have no defense to it.

**Stux**

Xenomancers wrote:
Stux wrote:
It absolutely is unclear. If it was clear there wouldn't be multiple people here who disagree with you.

It might be unclear BUT it is clear that a mortal wound does not wound. It skips the wounding process entirely it skips the saving process entirely. If they wanted it to act as a "wound" they would have said it causes an automatic wound that with no saves allowed of any kind. It doesn't act like that though. I don't think they intended it to work this way but it is possible savior protcols was not intended to work on mortal wounds. I don't think it should intercept mortal wounds ether. Taus weakness is supposed to be the psychic phase where the majority of damage is caused by mortal wounds. It just makes sense that tau have no defense to it.

I do agree with you here. Tau probably should be weak to mortal wounds.

The intention is unclear. Are Tau supposed to get this protection from mortal wounds or not?

The wording is unclear. Does having a mortal wound allocated to you cause you to be wounded, or is that step skipped?

**flandarz**

I was under the impression that the argument was whether or not the weapon caused the Mortal Wound or if it came from the Wrath of Mars ability. If the former, then Savior Protocols can apply. If the latter, it cannot.

**Stux**

flandarz wrote:
I was under the impression that the argument was whether or not the weapon caused the Mortal Wound or if it came from the Wrath of Mars ability. If the former, then Savior Protocols can apply. If the latter, it cannot.

No, the argument is whether it is possible for a Mortal Wound to be prevented regardless of the source. The rule only tells you to move the wound, not mortal wounds. But ambiguity in the technical terms used in the rules leaves some uncertainty in this.

**U02dah4**

Xenomancers wrote:
Stux wrote:
It absolutely is unclear. If it was clear there wouldn't be multiple people here who disagree with you.

It might be unclear BUT it is clear that a mortal wound does not wound. It skips the wounding process entirely it skips the saving process entirely. If they wanted it to act as a "wound" they would have said it causes an automatic wound that with no saves allowed of any kind. It doesn't act like that though. I don't think they intended it to work this way but it is possible savior protcols was not intended to work on mortal wounds. I don't think it should intercept mortal wounds ether. Taus weakness is supposed to be the psychic phase where the majority of damage is caused by mortal wounds. It just makes sense that tau have no defense to it.

Where does it say mortal wounds dont wound. - no where - yes they skip the to wound role which is irrelevant and the saving throw which is irrelevant. Because they allocate a wound which is all you need.

Which brings us back to what you think it should do with respect to tau defences perfectly reasonable as a commentry irrelevant to a rules discussion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stux wrote:
flandarz wrote:
I was under the impression that the argument was whether or not the weapon caused the Mortal Wound or if it came from the Wrath of Mars ability. If the former, then Savior Protocols can apply. If the latter, it cannot.

No, the argument is whether it is possible for a Mortal Wound to be prevented regardless of the source. The rule only tells you to move the wound, not mortal wounds. But ambiguity in the technical terms used in the rules leaves some uncertainty in this.

yes but mortal "wounds" have wounds in the name and encase you wern't sure you are told to allocate them like wounds" useing the "wound allocation" step hardly ambiguous.

**Xenomancers**

"no where - yes they skip the to wound role which is irrelevant"

It is totally relevant. How does one "wound" without "wounding" (the act of rolling to wound and generating a wound). If a mortal wond were called - mortal damage instead I think it would be easier to understand. Being called a mortal wound does not mean you wound.

**DeathReaper**

Xenomancers wrote:
"no where - yes they skip the to wound role which is irrelevant"

It is totally relevant. How does one "wound" without "wounding" (the act of rolling to wound and generating a wound).

Because the mortal wound is automatic. No roll needed. So "they skip the to wound role which is irrelevant" becqause it is an automatic wound.

If a mortal wond[sic] were called - mortal damage instead I think it would be easier to understand. Being called a mortal wound does not mean you wound.

It is not just damage though, it is a wound, and a mortal one at that so saves will not help you against that kind of wound.

**p5freak**

Stux wrote:
flandarz wrote:
I was under the impression that the argument was whether or not the weapon caused the Mortal Wound or if it came from the Wrath of Mars ability. If the former, then Savior Protocols can apply. If the latter, it cannot.

No, the argument is whether it is possible for a Mortal Wound to be prevented regardless of the source. The rule only tells you to move the wound, not mortal wounds. But ambiguity in the technical terms used in the rules leaves some uncertainty in this.

No, the argument is if SP can intercept a MW which is in addition to a weapons damage. SP cant intercept MW from any other source.

Q: For the purposes of the Saviour Protocols ability, what exactly constitutes an attack?
A: In this context, it is an attack made with a ranged or melee weapon.

A psychic power causing MW is not an attack made with a ranged or melee weapon. A stratagem inflicting MW is not an attack made with a ranged or melee weapon (It would depend on the wording of the stratagem). An ability from a unit causing MW is not an attack made with a ranged or melee weapon.

**Suzuteo**

So... I think the original point stands. Some stratagems modify weapon profiles in AdMech codex. Wrath of Mars is not one of those stratagems.

**Stux**

Suzuteo wrote:
So... I think the original point stands. Some stratagems modify weapon profiles in AdMech codex. Wrath of Mars is not one of those stratagems.

But even if a weapon profile causes a Mortal Wound, it is at best ambiguous whether Saviour Protocols can prevent the mortal wound, due to the wording of Saviour Protocols and how Mortal Wounds work.

If it does work, you would still need to take a second Saviour Protocol roll for the Mortal Wound - and that's only if we assume that being allocated a Mortal Wound counts as the unit being "wounded", which is unclear.

**U02dah4**

Suzuteo wrote:
So... I think the original point stands. Some stratagems modify weapon profiles in AdMech codex. Wrath of Mars is not one of those stratagems.

NO the reason this is a debate at all is because it does effect the weapon profile. If it dealt the damage directly savior protocols wouldn't trigger.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:
"no where - yes they skip the to wound role which is irrelevant" The only differences to any other wound are those specifically named in the mortal wound section.

It is totally relevant. How does one "wound" without "wounding" (the act of rolling to wound and generating a wound). If a mortal wound were called - mortal damage instead I think it would be easier to understand. Being called a mortal wound does not mean you wound.

Exactly all wounds mortal or not mortal are wounding. you just don't do a to wound roll. Like flamers hit but don't do a to hit roll. If it is not specifically mentioned in the mortal wound section their is no difference between a mortal wound and a normal wound.

If a mortal wound where called mortal damage and you weren't told to allocate it like "any other wound" then yes it would be clear but you would be changing what it does. Presently it is a wound its in the name its easy to understand. It uses the wound allocation step also easy to understand and your specifically told to "allocate it as you would any other wound" also easy to understand. The problem is not difficulty understanding.

The problem is it doesn't do what you want it to do and therefore you say its unclear rather than admit your interpretation is wrong based on RAW. You don't like what it actually does and want it to be something else because you think TAU are to powerful and shouldn't be able to save MW. Which doesn't make the RAW unclear. It is a valid argument about the power level of TAU but has no bearing on a rules discussion

**vict0988**

U02dah4 wrote:
No the reason this is a debate at all is because it does effect the weapon profile. If it dealt the damage directly savior protocols wouldn't trigger.

"Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for that unit, the target suffers a mortal wound in addition to any other damage."

No mention is ever made that anything other than the Stratagem causes this damage.

Exactly all wounds mortal or not mortal are wounding. you just don't do a to wound roll. Like flamers hit but don't do a to hit roll. If it is not specifically mentioned in the mortal wound section their is no difference between a mortal wound and a normal wound.

Where does it say that mortal wounds wound?

Saviour Protocols doesn't mention "wounds" it mentions wounded, which is never mentioned in the core rules but it can either mean damaged or something that "wounds". Here is the definition of what "wounds" means.

"If an attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target. The roll required is determined by comparing the attacking weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic, as shown on the table to the right"

And later we refer back to what wounds means.

"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."

Wounds when it refers to the verb rather than the noun is only ever mentioned in the context of a wound roll, never a Mortal Wound.

"Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above. Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed."

**Xenomancers**

U02dah4 wrote:
Suzuteo wrote:
So... I think the original point stands. Some stratagems modify weapon profiles in AdMech codex. Wrath of Mars is not one of those stratagems.

NO the reason this is a debate at all is because it does effect the weapon profile. If it dealt the damage directly savior protocols wouldn't trigger.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:
"no where - yes they skip the to wound role which is irrelevant" The only differences to any other wound are those specifically named in the mortal wound section.

It is totally relevant. How does one "wound" without "wounding" (the act of rolling to wound and generating a wound). If a mortal wound were called - mortal damage instead I think it would be easier to understand. Being called a mortal wound does not mean you wound.

Exactly all wounds mortal or not mortal are wounding. you just don't do a to wound roll. Like flamers hit but don't do a to hit roll. If it is not specifically mentioned in the mortal wound section their is no difference between a mortal wound and a normal wound.

If a mortal wound where called mortal damage and you weren't told to allocate it like "any other wound" then yes it would be clear but you would be changing what it does. Presently it is a wound its in the name its easy to understand. It uses the wound allocation step also easy to understand and your specifically told to "allocate it as you would any other wound" also easy to understand. The problem is not difficulty understanding.

The problem is it doesn't do what you want it to do and therefore you say its unclear rather than admit your interpretation is wrong based on RAW. You don't like what it actually does and want it to be something else because you think TAU are to powerful and shouldn't be able to save MW. Which doesn't make the RAW unclear. It is a valid argument about the power level of TAU but has no bearing on a rules discussion

It speaks to intent that an army that has no psychic ability also has one of the strongest psychic defenses. Yeah shield drones are one of the stupidest things in the game but that has no bearing on this. RAW is on my side here. Mortal wounds don't wound (as in the to wound roll) which is what the SP wording refers to. You are the one making assumptions that - allocated wounds are the same as wounds you roll for even though in the rules we have an order of opperations which mortals specifically skip. Mortal skip the wound and save process and they are allocated. A normal attack wounds then allocates as you can see in the above post.

Really a simple clarification is all that is needed in an FAQ. Send it in.

**U02dah4**

vict0988 wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
No the reason this is a debate at all is because it does effect the weapon profile. If it dealt the damage directly savior protocols wouldn't trigger.

"Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for that unit, the target suffers a mortal wound in addition to any other damage."

No mention is ever made that anything other than the Stratagem causes this damage.

Exactly all wounds mortal or not mortal are wounding. you just don't do a to wound roll. Like flamers hit but don't do a to hit roll. If it is not specifically mentioned in the mortal wound section their is no difference between a mortal wound and a normal wound.

Where does it say that mortal wounds wound?

Saviour Protocols doesn't mention "wounds" it mentions wounded, which is never mentioned in the core rules but it can either mean damaged or something that "wounds". Here is the definition of what "wounds" means.

"If an attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target. The roll required is determined by comparing the attacking weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic, as shown on the table to the right"

And later we refer back to what wounds means.

"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."

Wounds when it refers to the verb rather than the noun is only ever mentioned in the context of a wound roll, never a Mortal Wound.

"Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above. Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed."

no wounded in the context of saviour protocols cannot mean damaged if it meant damaged it would occur after FNP long after allocation so it means something that wounds

"If an attack successfully wounds the target, "the player commanding the target unit allocates....

so in order to use the allocation step you have successfully wounded

"just allocate it as you would any other wound"

so mortal wounds are successful wounds

as to xenomancers raw is not on your side unless you can actually demonstrate that a to wound role is required to be wounded not just a successfull wound ive evidenced all my statements you have just stated without any proof to back your claim that you require a to wound roll

**Ice_can**

Xenomancers wrote:
Stux wrote:
It absolutely is unclear. If it was clear there wouldn't be multiple people here who disagree with you.

It might be unclear BUT it is clear that a mortal wound does not wound. It skips the wounding process entirely it skips the saving process entirely. If they wanted it to act as a "wound" they would have said it causes an automatic wound that with no saves allowed of any kind. It doesn't act like that though. I don't think they intended it to work this way but it is possible savior protcols was not intended to work on mortal wounds. I don't think it should intercept mortal wounds ether. Taus weakness is supposed to be the psychic phase where the majority of damage is caused by mortal wounds. It just makes sense that tau have no defense to it.

I would also like to point out that while that used to be true GW has started handing out MW left and right, they have weapons, strategums, aura's, wargear all dishing out MW at this point the definition of they shouldn't be droneable because they are psychic powers has left the building traveled around the world and died of old age.

Really GW need to actually start working on 9th edition with technical writer's to make sure the rules they right are actually functional instead of needing FAQ and errata for days to patchwork something vaguely workable out of it.

**vict0988**

U02dah4 wrote:
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, "the player commanding the target unit allocates....

so in order to use the allocation step you have successfully wounded

"just allocate it as you would any other wound"

so mortal wounds are successful wounds

as to xenomancers raw is not on your side unless you can actually demonstrate that a to wound role is required to be wounded not just a successfull wound ive evidenced all my statements you have just stated without any proof to back your claim that you require a to wound roll

"Just allocate it as you would any other wound" =/= "a mortal wound wounds the target"

The fact that you allocate mortal wounds like normal wounds does not make them normal wounds and does not make them wound the target. The fact that you allocate them as you would any other wound makes them distinctly separate, if they actually wounded the target then this explanation wouldn't mean anything or be required, it is exactly because they do not wound that it is specified that they are allocated as normal wounds are.

"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."

If an attack wounds the target, then the target is wounded. If an attack inflicts a mortal wound, then that attack did not wound, it inflicted a mortal wound. It has to literally say that it wounded or at least wounds before you can say that it wounds. Using the same distribution mechanic does not help your case.

**Xenomancers**

U02dah4 wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
No the reason this is a debate at all is because it does effect the weapon profile. If it dealt the damage directly savior protocols wouldn't trigger.

"Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ for that unit, the target suffers a mortal wound in addition to any other damage."

No mention is ever made that anything other than the Stratagem causes this damage.

Exactly all wounds mortal or not mortal are wounding. you just don't do a to wound roll. Like flamers hit but don't do a to hit roll. If it is not specifically mentioned in the mortal wound section their is no difference between a mortal wound and a normal wound.

Where does it say that mortal wounds wound?

Saviour Protocols doesn't mention "wounds" it mentions wounded, which is never mentioned in the core rules but it can either mean damaged or something that "wounds". Here is the definition of what "wounds" means.

"If an attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target. The roll required is determined by comparing the attacking weapon’s Strength characteristic with the target’s Toughness characteristic, as shown on the table to the right"

And later we refer back to what wounds means.

"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."

Wounds when it refers to the verb rather than the noun is only ever mentioned in the context of a wound roll, never a Mortal Wound.

"Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above. Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed."

no wounded in the context of saviour protocols cannot mean damaged if it meant damaged it would occur after FNP long after allocation so it means something that wounds

"If an attack successfully wounds the target, "the player commanding the target unit allocates....

so in order to use the allocation step you have successfully wounded

"just allocate it as you would any other wound"

so mortal wounds are successful wounds

as to xenomancers raw is not on your side unless you can actually demonstrate that a to wound role is required to be wounded not just a successfull wound ive evidenced all my statements you have just stated without any proof to back your claim that you require a to wound roll

Allocation happens after you wound. Do you dispute this?