Blaze of light VS Autohit

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.

**Thepatriarch**

If you use a autohit weapon such as acid spray vs Harlequin's with blaze of light (unmodified hit rolls of 1-3 fail, irrespective of weapon abilities of the attacking model), would you have to make rolls for all your attacks to see if they hit or not?

**alextroy**

No. You automatically hit, which means you don’t roll to hit.

**Thepatriarch**

Isn't the autohit a weapon ability that gets ignored by blaze of light?

**JNAProductions**

Thepatriarch wrote:
Isn't the autohit a weapon ability that gets ignored by blaze of light?

No-it doesn’t modify the hit roll, it removes it entirely.

**Thepatriarch**

Automatically hit definition actually states "the hit roll is automatically succesful" so in theory you should still roll, noone does it because usually there is no reason. Pre-drukhari liquifier nerf I think they should have rolled to see if they rolled 1's because then there was a reason to roll.

The way I read it blazing light removes the automatic hit/automatically succesful ability of the weapon.

**JohnnyHell**

Auto-hit weapons never roll a dice, so how could they be affected by a “result on the dice” rule?

@Thepatriarch - “so in theory you should still roll” - no no nooooo. Core Rules, my friend…

“If an attack is made with a weapon that has an ability that says it ‘automatically hits the target’, no hit roll is made – that attack simply scores one hit on the target unit.”

No roll is made, so the rule in OP has no effect.

**p5freak**

No hit roll is made, but the hit roll is automatically successful. GW ruling at its finest

**JohnnyHell**

p5freak wrote:
No hit roll is made, but the hit roll is automatically successful. GW ruling at its finest

Come on, just because there’s nowt to be contrarian about in this thread it doesn’t mean you have to try and pick apart a simple, clearly-written, unambiguous rule.

It’s an unambiguous rule telling you how to deal with auto-hit weapons. If it wasn’t written thus you’d facepalm at something else. Just step away from the comment Submit button!

**FunkAztec**

I think it does have to be written down though because of other rules like a 6 to hit auto wounds. With no roll to hit there are no 6s so no auto wounds. Theres also a FAQ that answered this because people wanted to abuse flamers and such.
Think if a guardsman can get their free special weapon be a flamer and if they could count their d6 auto hits as 6s to auto wound with hammer of the emperor. That would be pretty messed up.

**JohnnyHell**

Luckily that’s all hypothetical and the thread question has been answered with no wriggle room.