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.

Hello and greetings from Greece.
I've got a question.
It's about the new (2020) FW chaos Decimator and the weapon Soulburner petard.
It says ...
" each time and attack is made with this weapon , an UNMODIFIED wound roll of 2+ inflicts a mortal wound on the target
and the attack sequence ends"

Does the transhuman stratagem affect the weapon?????
It says "on an UNMODIFIED 2+"

Your wisdom please.
Thank you.

While the wound roll would technically fail, it still does a mortal wound. The mortal wound is not contingent on the wound roll succeeding, just on rolling a 2+.

Agreed. Transhuman takes effect on the normal attack sequence wound, which the petard ends on that 2+ anyway. The mortal wound is indeed separate to this - that's why it has to be specified that the attack sequence ends, otherwise you could do the mortal wound and carry on inflicting the normal damage.

Yeah, Transhuman wouldn't affect that. Similar to Haywire-it doesn't matter whether the wound roll succeeds or fails (though in this case, it doesn't even have a Strength value, right?) so long as you roll the indicated number or higher, you get the MW.

If anyone wants an actual rule to support this; see the attacker priority rule in the rare rules section of the BRB.
Basically, if you have a conflict between two always wounds on X+ rules, the rule belonging to the attacker wins.
The unmodified bit is there to stop someone trying to use a +1 to wound rolls effect to try and claim auto-wounds. Also as a side effect kills defensive -1 to wound rules.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
If anyone wants an actual rule to support this; see the attacker priority rule in the rare rules section of the BRB.
Basically, if you have a conflict between two always wounds on X+ rules, the rule belonging to the attacker wins.
The unmodified bit is there to stop someone trying to use a +1 to wound rolls effect to try and claim auto-wounds. Also as a side effect kills defensive -1 to wound rules.

A good rule to remember, but not strictly relevant to this question. They arent conflicting, the mortal wound roll simply doesn't require that the roll succeed to do damage.

 Stux wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
If anyone wants an actual rule to support this; see the attacker priority rule in the rare rules section of the BRB.
Basically, if you have a conflict between two always wounds on X+ rules, the rule belonging to the attacker wins.
The unmodified bit is there to stop someone trying to use a +1 to wound rolls effect to try and claim auto-wounds. Also as a side effect kills defensive -1 to wound rules.

A good rule to remember, but not strictly relevant to this question. They arent conflicting, the mortal wound roll simply doesn't require that the roll succeed to do damage.

Technically true but then anyone who would notice should be amenable to the correct explanation.