Switch Theme:

Question on Immortals  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





I got a friend who is running Tesla Carbine Immortals, and we need to know if the carbines trigger on 5s under overwatch if they are under the effect of My Will be Done.

"Each hit roll of 6+ with this weapon causes 3 hits instead of 1."

For me, it clearly should not because overwatch only hits on 6s, so 5s shouldn't be considered hits.

His reasoning for why it should was because plasma kills models on hit rolls of 1, so if the weapon ability works in that case it should work on Tesla Carbines.

I didn't really have a good answer to that.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

No, because you can not get 3 hits instead of 1, if you do not even have 1.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






cjmate8 wrote:
I got a friend who is running Tesla Carbine Immortals, and we need to know if the carbines trigger on 5s under overwatch if they are under the effect of My Will be Done.

"Each hit roll of 6+ with this weapon causes 3 hits instead of 1."

For me, it clearly should not because overwatch only hits on 6s, so 5s shouldn't be considered hits.

His reasoning for why it should was because plasma kills models on hit rolls of 1, so if the weapon ability works in that case it should work on Tesla Carbines.

I didn't really have a good answer to that.
Oh boy here we go again! This has been debated to death before, I'll leave you the previous two threads on the subject and leave it at that before it goes ploin-shaped again.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/776383.page#10468740
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/785388.page#10714881
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DeathReaper wrote:
No, because you can not get 3 hits instead of 1, if you do not even have 1.
Incorrect, as shown in the two threads I linked. Tesla does work with MWBD on a 5+ in overwatch, for the exact same reason as Plasma explodes on 2's with -1 to hit in overwatch. At least have the intelectual honesty to link the previous discussions about it rather than present your (incorrect) statement as indisputable fact.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/05/22 20:27:52


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





 BaconCatBug wrote:
cjmate8 wrote:
I got a friend who is running Tesla Carbine Immortals, and we need to know if the carbines trigger on 5s under overwatch if they are under the effect of My Will be Done.

"Each hit roll of 6+ with this weapon causes 3 hits instead of 1."

For me, it clearly should not because overwatch only hits on 6s, so 5s shouldn't be considered hits.

His reasoning for why it should was because plasma kills models on hit rolls of 1, so if the weapon ability works in that case it should work on Tesla Carbines.

I didn't really have a good answer to that.
Oh boy here we go again! This has been debated to death before, I'll leave you the previous two threads on the subject and leave it at that before it goes ploin-shaped again.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/776383.page#10468740
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/785388.page#10714881
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DeathReaper wrote:
No, because you can not get 3 hits instead of 1, if you do not even have 1.
Incorrect, as shown in the two threads I linked. Tesla does work with MWBD on a 5+ in overwatch, for the exact same reason as Plasma explodes on 2's with -1 to hit in overwatch. At least have the intelectual honesty to link the previous discussions about it rather than present your (incorrect) statement as indisputable fact.


Thanks. Sorry for not looking this up in advance. It was so fringe that I didn't even think someone would have mentioned it before.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






cjmate8 wrote:
Thanks. Sorry for not looking this up in advance. It was so fringe that I didn't even think someone would have mentioned it before.
Nah, no worries. It is pretty niche, +1 to hit in Overwatch only really has any effects with Necrons, not much else triggers on 6+ to hit.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

Don’t take the posts above as consensus. As previous threads show, not everyone agrees with BCB.

For me, the answer is clearly as the OP posits: you cannot score “3 hits instead of 1” if you don’t hit in the first place. That’s self-evident, and is the literal wording of the rules applied literally. Everything else in these threads is just stapling rules together to try and fudge an advantage.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Don’t take the posts above as consensus. As previous threads show, not everyone agrees with BCB.
It is because what he said is not correct. It is a line of reasoning he has presented and had refuted before. A roll of 5 does not hit in overwatch. Even though GW faqed that impossible replacements are possible, that is only for those impossible replacements in those FAQ's and does not have anything to do with getting 3 hits instead of 1. They are totally different situations

For me, the answer is clearly as the OP posits: you cannot score “3 hits instead of 1” if you don’t hit in the first place. That’s self-evident, and is the literal wording of the rules applied literally. Everything else in these threads is just stapling rules together to try and fudge an advantage.
Correct.


Basically:

Based on this Q&A from the Harlequins' FAQ:

"Q: How does the Riddle-smiths Masque Form interact with abilities that generate additional attacks or score additional hits?
A: If a unit has an ability that generates extra attacks on a roll that exactly matches the result of a Riddle-smiths roll, the extra attack is generated. Note that the original attack still misses, and if the hit roll for the extra attack also matches the result of the Riddle-smiths roll, it also misses. Likewise, if a weapon has an ability that scores additional hits on a roll that exactly matches the result of a Riddle-smiths roll, it would score those additional hits, but they’d all miss."

When a +1 modifier is applied to Tesla on Overwatch: A Natural 5 is a miss of the Overwatch Shot. Since the ability still needs to be resolved and that Natural 5 becomes a Modified 6, triggering the "3 hits instead of 1" but since the 1 Hit Missed, the modified 3 hits also miss.

So even if you did get 3 hits on a 5, they would all still miss.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/22 22:39:37


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






The FAQ for Masque Form only applies to Masque Form, because additional hits (no longer) match the original roll by default, so they had to FAQ the additional hit to miss because otherwise it would hit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/22 22:58:20


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The FAQ for Masque Form only applies to Masque Form, because additional hits (no longer) match the original roll by default, so they had to FAQ the additional hit to miss because otherwise it would hit.
And other FAQ's apply to the other situations , not to carbines.

There is no FAQ for carbines so since it says 3 hits instead of 1, you need to have 1 hit before you can have 3.

This is just how the english language works.
.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/23 00:24:15


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




Every precedent I've seen indicates that, in 40k, effects that occur "instead of" are not strict replacement effects, but simply mean "do this other thing, and the other thing can't happen".

Effects with "on a hit/wound roll of X+, cause a mortal wound instead of the normal damage" deal the mortal wound even if you don't do damage in the first place. If we were to use the same logic you are using to justify tesla not working, then those effects wouldn't work at all, because you would have to hit, wound, and fail the save roll so damage happens, then replace that damage with a mortal wound, but that's not how it works. Similar effects have been worded like "on a hit/wound roll of X+, the target receives a mortal wound and the attack sequence ends" in recent supplements for clarity, but the way they work is exactly the same. This alone proves that these kind of abilities are not replacement effects.

In the same way, faqs clearly state that you can use smoke "instead of shooting" even if you can't shoot, and that "instead of shooting" means "you can use smoke launchers, but in that case you can't shoot".

Because of that, you don't need to actually hit in the first place to get "3 hits instead", because it's not a replacement effect. Same as before, " causes 3 hits instead of one" means "causes 3 hits, and the normal hit can't happen".
   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

 DeathReaper wrote:

There is no FAQ for carbines so since it says 3 hits instead of 1, you need to have 1 hit before you can have 3.

This is just how the english language works.
.


Agreed.
   
Made in gb
Irked Necron Immortal




I mean, we only just came out of an edition (7th) where snapshooting (e.g. Overwatch) didn’t even get extra hits on a natural 6.
   
Made in gb
Horrific Hive Tyrant





sieGermans wrote:
I mean, we only just came out of an edition (7th) where snapshooting (e.g. Overwatch) didn’t even get extra hits on a natural 6.


Only just? It's been 3 years nearly!
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

Seizeman wrote:
Every precedent I've seen indicates that, in 40k, effects that occur "instead of" are not strict replacement effects, but simply mean "do this other thing, and the other thing can't happen".

Effects with "on a hit/wound roll of X+, cause a mortal wound instead of the normal damage" deal the mortal wound even if you don't do damage in the first place. If we were to use the same logic you are using to justify tesla not working, then those effects wouldn't work at all, because you would have to hit, wound, and fail the save roll so damage happens, then replace that damage with a mortal wound, but that's not how it works. Similar effects have been worded like "on a hit/wound roll of X+, the target receives a mortal wound and the attack sequence ends" in recent supplements for clarity, but the way they work is exactly the same. This alone proves that these kind of abilities are not replacement effects.

In the same way, faqs clearly state that you can use smoke "instead of shooting" even if you can't shoot, and that "instead of shooting" means "you can use smoke launchers, but in that case you can't shoot".

Because of that, you don't need to actually hit in the first place to get "3 hits instead", because it's not a replacement effect. Same as before, " causes 3 hits instead of one" means "causes 3 hits, and the normal hit can't happen".


That’s a gross misapplication of the Smoke Launchers FAQ, it in no way applies. But we’ve been over this in several threads yet people keep twisting it. Not to worry. New edition inbound and new daft arguments to have...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 p5freak wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:

There is no FAQ for carbines so since it says 3 hits instead of 1, you need to have 1 hit before you can have 3.

This is just how the english language works.
.


Agreed.


Yep, agreed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/23 11:49:24


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




That’s a gross misapplication of the Smoke Launchers FAQ, it in no way applies. But we’ve been over this in several threads yet people keep twisting it. Not to worry. New edition inbound and new daft arguments to have...


How about the other example? According to you, weapons that do mortal wounds instead of normal damage have to wound and the save must be failed for them to work, making them useless? I've shown two examples of how "instead" works within the rules, do you have one that supports your interpretation?
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

I mean, one of your arguments goes against the English language, and one is using precedent but not an actual ruling. I don’t think they have the weight you think they have.

How about people don’t overthink and try and twist things for once and apply the rule as written at face value, eh? You cannot score “three hits instead of one” if you don’t have a hit in the first place. That’s a rules argument, has been stated several times, do stop being disingenuous in an attempt to wind people up. Play nice.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




The use of "instead" in english does not require the substituted event to happen in the first place.

So, the next time my opponent uses one of those weapons with "deal a mortal wound instead of the normal damage" I can just tell them that, rules as written, those abilities actually do nothing?
   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

Seizeman wrote:
The use of "instead" in english does not require the substituted event to happen in the first place.

So, the next time my opponent uses one of those weapons with "deal a mortal wound instead of the normal damage" I can just tell them that, rules as written, those abilities actually do nothing?


What are you talking about ? A weapon which deals a MW instead of the normal damage skips the to wound and save roll step and directly inflicts one point of damage. It has nothing to do with tesla and overwatch.

Smoke launchers work in the opponents shooting phase. Doesnt matter if some people like it, or not. Which also has nothing to do with tesla and overwatch.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/23 13:38:06


 
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




 p5freak wrote:
Seizeman wrote:
The use of "instead" in english does not require the substituted event to happen in the first place.

So, the next time my opponent uses one of those weapons with "deal a mortal wound instead of the normal damage" I can just tell them that, rules as written, those abilities actually do nothing?


What are you talking about ? A weapon which deals a MW instead of the normal damage skips the to wound and save roll step and directly inflicts one point of damage. It has nothing to do with tesla and overwatch.

Smoke launchers work in the opponents shooting phase. Doesnt matter if some people like it, or not. Which also has nothing to do with tesla and overwatch.


If, to deal "three hits instead of one", you need a hit in the first place, to deal "a mortal wound instead of normal damage", you need normal damage in the first place.
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

It’s not my job for you to provide a sounding board for you to try and legitimise your take.

I’ve stated my case above and this is descending into silliness. If we have to apply 2 unrelated FAQs that aren’t even precedent to make you take work, vs just reading and applying the plain English of the rules... yeah.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s not my job for you to provide a sounding board for you to try and legitimise your take.

I’ve stated my case above and this is descending into silliness. If we have to apply 2 unrelated FAQs that aren’t even precedent to make you take work, vs just reading and applying the plain English of the rules... yeah.


So doing something instead of some other thing on 6+ to hit and doing something instead of some other thing on 6+ to hit are unrelated? Who's being silly now?

Can you show wich rule in the english language requieres something to actually happen to be replaced by something else?

You resorting to personal attacks shows your lack of arguments.
   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

Seizeman wrote:

If, to deal "three hits instead of one", you need a hit in the first place, to deal "a mortal wound instead of normal damage", you need normal damage in the first place.


Your argument is silly and makes no sense. MW are special, they skip the to wound and to save step, and directly inflict one point of damage. They cant do normal damage, and they dont have to. You are misinterpreting the word instead. This has nothing to do with tesla and overwatch.
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

There are no personal attacks in my post. Just holes in your argument pointed out. All my points stand.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




 p5freak wrote:
Seizeman wrote:

If, to deal "three hits instead of one", you need a hit in the first place, to deal "a mortal wound instead of normal damage", you need normal damage in the first place.


Your argument is silly and makes no sense. MW are special, they skip the to wound and to save step, and directly inflict one point of damage. They cant do normal damage, and they dont have to. You are misinterpreting the word instead. This has nothing to do with tesla and overwatch.


It's not the MW that deals normal damage, it's that the MW replaces the normal damage. How can it replace normal damage if no normal damage has been dealt? You said that tesla doesn't work because you can't replace something that doesn't happen, and this is just the same.

Rules as written (with your interpretation), the mortal wound only replaces the normal damage. Nowhere is stated that it replaces the whole attack sequence.

For those who are arguing about english language, they should know that the most common use of the word "instead" is not to indicate the substitution of an actuality, but the substitution of a possibility. This is how "instead" is used in the rules. You substitute the possibility of shooting with smoke, you substitute the possibility of doing regular damage with a mortal wound, and you substitute the possibility of causing 1 hit with causing 3 hits.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Seizeman wrote:


It's not the MW that deals normal damage, it's that the MW replaces the normal damage.
Not quite. In that case you get a MW instead of going through the normal damage process. 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. In that case the MW is not replacing a point of normal damage. With the Tesla, the 3 hits are very much replacing the normal hit.
How can it replace normal damage if no normal damage has been dealt?
It doesn't as I explained above.

You said that tesla doesn't work because you can't replace something that doesn't happen, and this is just the same.
Tesla doesn't work because you cant replace a hit with three if you do not have a hit.

Rules as written (with your interpretation), the mortal wound only replaces the normal damage. Nowhere is stated that it replaces the whole attack sequence.
Again, as explained above the MW does not replace normal damage, it replaces the normal damage sequence as we do not have normal damage because we had not gotten to that step. So it is just replaching the rest of the attack sequence. Basically that rule is written less than perfectly and should be written something like (the model takes a mortal wound and the attack sequence ends, do not roll to wound etc...).

For those who are arguing about english language, they should know that the most common use of the word "instead" is not to indicate the substitution of an actuality, but the substitution of a possibility. This is how "instead" is used in the rules. You substitute the possibility of shooting with smoke, you substitute the possibility of doing regular damage with a mortal wound, and you substitute the possibility of causing 1 hit with causing 3 hits.
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.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor




Tacoma, WA, USA

BCB has already linked to two prior threads arguing this and the two interpretations have already been voiced. How many pages does this need to go on before it gets locked down?
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle





In My Lab

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


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






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

I mean, this is 40k 8th edition, it would be more surprising if the same rules worked the same despite the identical working.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 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.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




 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."

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). 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?

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'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.

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.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: