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.

This came out about an Ork psychic power.

Warhammer Community wrote:If manifested, select an enemy unit within 18" of the psyker. Roll a D6 for each model in that unit. For each roll of 6, that unit suffers 1
mortal wound. Then roll 2D6; on a 10+ roll a D6 once more for each model in that unit. For each roll of 6, that unit suffers 1 mortal wound.

Are the mortal wounds allocated and models removed before you roll the 2D6, or after? Ie. Is your second batch of dice equal to the squad size BEFORE casting, or AFTER the first batch of mortals are rolled?

IMO the mortal wound is dealt and then you roll the 2d6.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
This came out about an Ork psychic power.

Warhammer Community wrote:If manifested, select an enemy unit within 18" of the psyker. Roll a D6 for each model in that unit. For each roll of 6, that unit suffers 1
mortal wound. Then roll 2D6; on a 10+ roll a D6 once more for each model in that unit. For each roll of 6, that unit suffers 1 mortal wound.

Are the mortal wounds allocated and models removed before you roll the 2D6, or after? Ie. Is your second batch of dice equal to the squad size BEFORE casting, or AFTER the first batch of mortals are rolled?

As with all GW writing, it's sloppy. However I would say that you inflict and resolve the mortal wounds before rolling the 2D6.

Also good gravy I thought roll dice to see how many dice you roll was a 7th edition meme!

How is it sloppy wording it is clear

For each roll of 6, that unit suffers 1
mortal wound. Then roll 2D6;

Resolve A then resolve B

U02dah4 wrote:
How is it sloppy wording it is clear

For each roll of 6, that unit suffers 1
mortal wound. Then roll 2D6;

Resolve A then resolve B

Agreed, perfectly clear.

U02dah4 wrote:
How is it sloppy wording it is clear

For each roll of 6, that unit suffers 1
mortal wound. Then roll 2D6;

Resolve A then resolve B

The rule doesnt say to resolve A before you resolve B.

 p5freak wrote:


The rule doesnt say to resolve A before you resolve B.

And there was me thinking that "do this, then do this" implied an order of operations.

"Roll a D6 for each model in that unit. For each roll of 6, that unit suffers 1 mortal wound. Then roll 2D6; on a 10+ roll a D6 once more for each model in that unit. For each roll of 6, that unit suffers 1 mortal wound."

it really is quite clear that they suffer the wounds, then you roll the 2D6, afterwards. Otherwise, if you're going to ignore the order of rules, you might as well select the unit, roll 2D6, and on a 10+ roll 2 dice for each model in the unit, otherwise roll 1 for each model in the unit.

 some bloke wrote:


And there was me thinking that "do this, then do this" implied an order of operations.

It may imply an order of operations. But thats not RAW.

I think it's a little unclear, but I agree with the consensus so far: roll to wound, resolve wounds, roll again. If everybody's in agreement so far, let's avoid turning this into a war about why we all agree with each other.

If you haven't resolved the mortal wound, the unit has not suffered the mortal wound
It's not unclear
It is raw
The wound is resolved THEN you can roll.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you haven't resolved the mortal wound, the unit has not suffered the mortal wound
It's not unclear
It is raw
The wound is resolved THEN you can roll.

This.

it's not unclear at all, I sometimes think people like to try and make GW rules unclear in an effort to reinforce their belief that GW are entirely incapable of writing a single line of rules correctly.

roll to determine how many mortal wounds. resolve mortal wounds. unit has now suffered mortal wounds. THEN roll 2D6, on a 10+, roll to determine mortal wounds. This will have less dice if any models died.

And while it's "suffers" and not "suffered", a) this is because the sentence wouldn't make sense with the past tense, and b) by using "then" it places the "suffers" into the past, relative to the "then" sentence. This requires the unit to have suffered the mortal wound.

Seriously, this isn't unclear, it's raw. GW aren't great, but they're not that bad.

 some bloke wrote:

it's not unclear at all, I sometimes think people like to try and make GW rules unclear in an effort to reinforce their belief that GW are entirely incapable of writing a single line of rules correctly.

This is definitely something that many of us on this forum are guilty of. I think people get so emotionally involved that sometimes they see problems where there are none. I guess you guys are right. In this case the rule does seem pretty clear, even if the same can't always be said for myself.

It would have been nice if they had been clearer stating "each remaining model" for the second roll.

 p5freak wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
How is it sloppy wording it is clear

For each roll of 6, that unit suffers 1
mortal wound. Then roll 2D6;

Resolve A then resolve B

The rule doesnt say to resolve A before you resolve B.

It says they suffer the initial mortal wound, then roll 2D6. They haven't actually suffered the wound until the wound's resolved. So yes, it does say to resolve A then resolve B.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:


And there was me thinking that "do this, then do this" implied an order of operations.

It may imply an order of operations. But thats not RAW.

"Then" isn't an implication of an order, it's a statement of the order the things happen. It's RAW.

Don't the Imperial Guard and Harlequins both have powers that function similarly with "do this, they suffer mortal wounds, then do it again but with this caveat"? I think for Astra Militarum it's mortal wound on increasingly difficult die roll, and with Harlequins it's off a contested Ld roll, no? These things seem to work fine without confusion, and this follows the same basic template, except I think it just misses the "if they are still alive, keep doing this" sort of wording that those other powers posses. Regardless, it seems clear to me that you resolve the mortal wounds, then roll the 2d6 to see if Gork keeps stomping his foot or not.

Wouldn't you have to fully resolve the power before you start emptying the wound pool? The power isn't resolved until the 2D6 has been rolled. Though I do agree based on the wording that the wounds should probably be allocated before the 2D6 is rolled, so my first statement is more food for thought.

Wound pools are a 7th concept.

Resolve first part. Resolve second part on remaining models. Simples.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
It would have been nice if they had been clearer stating "each remaining model" for the second roll.

True, but also tautologous, as if you’ve killed models with part 1 they aren’t there when resolving part 2, so why would you consider them?

Because it clearly indicates how to properly resolve the power. Clarity is always a good thing.

 alextroy wrote:
Because it clearly indicates how to properly resolve the power. Clarity is always a good thing.

I agree.

How it works is obvious, but it could be obvious-er.

Classic overthinking (or perhaps under-thinking, but I'm going to assume best intentions here). Do X (which includes dealing damage to a unit), then roll 2D6 to see if you can do Y.

That is a clear order of how the effect is resolved.

If someone wants to argue that it doesn't specifically state what order you do it in RAW (which it does, but not everyone is skilled in English so that's easily forgivable), I'd like to point out that it doesn't instruct you to pool the Mortal Wounds from one step of the power before moving on to the next. Even if the wording is unclear to you, isn't the logical way to handle it to complete one step fully before moving on to the next?

Stop arguing logic with GW rules, its ridiculous. It would be logical to do re-rolls after modifiers, but thats not the way the rules are. It would be logical that mortarion, magnus, or whatever huge model there is bigger than the ruin, can attack a model on the first floor of a ruin, but they cant. It would be logical that a knight can simply step over a piece of terrain which is both 1" tall and wide. But the rules say that a knight has to move up, move across, and move down the piece of terrain. Which means he can barely move over it, because his longer base diameter is 6,7". His move is 12" and he has to spend 3" to move over this tiny piece of terrain, just like an infantry model, which is about as tall as this piece of terrain. If you need more illogicality of 40k check out the comedy thread : https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750856.page

Well at least with knight and 1" wall he only loses 2" of his movement(1" up, 1" down) with no other effect. It's not like he can't start 9" from wall and move as much forward as he could which would be still with base over wall.

 p5freak wrote:
Stop arguing logic with GW rules, its ridiculous. It would be logical to do re-rolls after modifiers, but thats not the way the rules are. It would be logical that mortarion, magnus, or whatever huge model there is bigger than the ruin, can attack a model on the first floor of a ruin, but they cant. It would be logical that a knight can simply step over a piece of terrain which is both 1" tall and wide. But the rules say that a knight has to move up, move across, and move down the piece of terrain. Which means he can barely move over it, because his longer base diameter is 6,7". His move is 12" and he has to spend 3" to move over this tiny piece of terrain, just like an infantry model, which is about as tall as this piece of terrain. If you need more illogicality of 40k check out the comedy thread : https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750856.page

There is something of a difference between "Logic" and "The English Language".

do A then B.

this sentence means that you resolve A, completely, then resolve B, afterwards, and completely. This is not logic. it's just true.

Arguing that because GW decided to produce a simple ruleset to stop every point being an argument and didn't cover whether the length of a models legs affect it's ability to step over terrain is a cause to overrule the simple meaning of the word "Then" is silly. You're basically arguing that because one rule doesn't make sense, you can just assume that their other, entirely unrelated rules don't use the English language properly and can be interpreted however you like.

Regarding the knights walking over a wall, yes, that's how it works. because this would happen:

1: GW FAQ to allow knights to ignore terrain less than 1" tall when moving
2: Eldar players start whining that their wraithknights should be allowed to do this too
3: Arguments break out over every board with a knight on it whether or not the terrain is 1" tall or 1.0001" tall
4: Knight players will complain that they still have to negotiate the cover when they are charging, falling back etc.
5: GW will release a blanket rule stating that models can ignore anything up to half their legs height, so everyone's included
6: Chaos players will start whining that primaris marines have an unfair advantage because they have longer legs
7: Thousands of arguments over whether a piece of cover is too tall to be ignored, every movement phase
8: All sentinels will be modelled to be on tip-toe to take advantage of the new ruling
9: Players will convert knights with extra long legs, to abuse the rule, as there is no "modelling for advantage" any more.
10: Players will start arguing about whether fliers crash into knights, now they are so tall.
11: Dogs will start mating with cats
12: society will collapse, and we'll have to start life again underground.


So all in all, not an easy fix

If the thread has become a discussion over whether the rules need to tell me to do Sentence 1 before Sentence 2 then I sense Insaniak’s finger hovering over the ‘thread lock’ button...

Indeed.

Asked and answered. Moving on.