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.

Anyway: I think we've firmly established how Savior Protocols work, and now this has become a question of how Smite is defined - which can probably go in its own thread of discussion.

 Overheal wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:

 mmzero252 wrote:
People are fickle and don't want their precious models killed so they will argue every tiny little thing just to keep them alive. Just go look at the thread about not being able to charge a hover tank because you can't get a base within 1" of the hull...

i guess reading is hard? because i was saying you cannot save smite with drones at all.

By arguing (poorly?) that Smite is not an enemy attack.

I think he fails to see the irony. His failure to read and comprehend my statement and then stating that I failed to read his.

 mmzero252 wrote:

 Overheal wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:

 mmzero252 wrote:
People are fickle and don't want their precious models killed so they will argue every tiny little thing just to keep them alive. Just go look at the thread about not being able to charge a hover tank because you can't get a base within 1" of the hull...

i guess reading is hard? because i was saying you cannot save smite with drones at all.

By arguing (poorly?) that Smite is not an enemy attack.

I think he fails to see the irony. His failure to read and comprehend my statement and then stating that I failed to read his.

Your statement that people try really hard to save their models, and i am arguing you cannot save the models v smite, per thread title. So.. no. no irony, you're just being an ass.

Smite is not an attack by any definition of the rule book. In a permissive rule set, it is not until a rule defines it is. You have failed to point out ANYWHERE in the rules that psychic powers are attacks, that it's defined as an attack, or that psykers can attack with their psychic powers. It causes wounds, that's neat, so do other not-attack features of the game. The burden of RAW in permissive rule set is that smite defines itself as an attack, or that psychic powers define themselves as an attack. if it isn't an attack, then it cannot be an attack. Didn't think i would have to write that down for you.

ME: Quick Q: Is Smite an *attack* yea or nay

Warhammer 40,000: Well, it's not a friendly diplomatic gesture?!

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1879869732333657&id=1575682476085719

 Overheal wrote:
ME: Quick Q: Is Smite an *attack* yea or nay

Warhammer 40,000: Well, it's not a friendly diplomatic gesture?!

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1879869732333657&id=1575682476085719

It's a successful manifestation of a psychic power. That's how the rule book defines it. It also defines what was formerly known as blessings and maledictions that way.

Oh gee, is an offensive ability that is directed at you by an enemy an attack? Sorry..I wasn't sure that would need to be pointed out to anybody. Please get off your high horse and make a new thread to argue what an attack is. This thread has been answered repeatedly and is done now.

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Overheal wrote:
ME: Quick Q: Is Smite an *attack* yea or nay

Warhammer 40,000: Well, it's not a friendly diplomatic gesture?!

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1879869732333657&id=1575682476085719

It's a successful manifestation of a psychic power. That's how the rule book defines it. It also defines what was formerly known as blessings and maledictions that way.

If you're bringing 7th into this, Smite was a witchfire power and rolled to hit.

 Overheal wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:

 mmzero252 wrote:
People are fickle and don't want their precious models killed so they will argue every tiny little thing just to keep them alive. Just go look at the thread about not being able to charge a hover tank because you can't get a base within 1" of the hull...

i guess reading is hard? because i was saying you cannot save smite with drones at all.

By arguing (poorly?) that Smite is not an enemy attack.

I mean, I can follow the idea, but I didn't even see it being argued other than "the rules don't explicitly call it out as an attack." The argument seemed to be more about how many attacks are made by a given model with a given weapon, which had nothing to do with either the saviour protocols question or the user's own assertion that Smite isn't an attack (and an argument easily refuted).

Let's also remember that Smite targets the nearest visible enemy unit (uhm, like an attack might) and in competitive situations those drones should regularly be screening.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Your first two lines contradict themselves. Is a single Flamer d6 attacks, or are 5 flamers 5 attacks? Or 5d6 attacks?

And you might as well add up the lascannon damage. Against one of the tanks in my 3-baneblade company, most people roll 4 dice, then 4 dice, then I roll my saves, then they roll 4d6 damage, and my baneblade is hurt (again for brevity I am assuming every roll comes out in the opponent's favor).

4d6 damage is anywhere from 4-24 damage, meaning that it may very well not be enough to kill even an SM captain or a Sororitas canoness, or it could be enough to one-shot a Knight. If they're all firing at the same unit, you might as well roll them together (unless your opponent interrupts your shooting process with Savior Protocols or whathaveyou).

My err was typing too fast

"A Flamer is d6 Attacks, 5 separate Flamers is 5d6 separate Attacks."

but Listen, there are a LOT of minor problems with fast rolling the damage die from multiple damage attacks that I'm not going to get into...
Point is... 4 Lascannons is 4 Different Attacks.
4 Heavy Bolters, is 12 Different Attacks.
5 Flamers is 5d6 Different Attacks

Lance845 wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
Since there does exist weapons that deal 2d6 damage.

Everything you say here is true except that there are weapons that deal 2d6 dmg. Dire Bio Cannons on a Heirophant are an example.

??

pumaman1 wrote:since every model has split fire, and every gun really has split fire, every gun that fires is an attack. That gun that fires can be combined with other guns that fire for multiple attacks from 1 multi-model unit. But the attack is either assault 3 (3 chances to hit) or d6 (d6 chances to hit) its still 1 attack from 1 gun.
4 lascanons from 4 devastators shoot is 4 attacks, 1 centurion shooting 2 las cannons and 2 heavy bolters is 4 attacks. the heavy bolters shooting 3 times each is sitll 1 attack, becusae when the gun attacks it gets 3 chances to "hit", it cannot chose to shoot more or less.

No, Assault 3 isn't 3 chances to Hit
3 Chances to hit implies that it is "Assault 1 with 2 rerolls"

Assault 3 means 3 Attacks.
Heavy 6 means 6 Attacks.

This is even in the book.

My bad. I must have brain farted. I was sure I read it as "there does not exist" or some gak.

 Talamare wrote:
but Listen, there are a LOT of minor problems with fast rolling the damage die from multiple damage attacks that I'm not going to get into...

The rules don't permit fast rolling damage anyway. You're only permitted to fast roll the 'To Hit' and 'To Wound' rolls, and they must have the same Ballistic/Weapon skill, Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. Everything else is done one at a time.

Wounds are wounds. damage is calculated after saves have been taken and failed for each wound.

Normal wounds and mortal wounds are allocated by the owning player. Following the rules for that.

Damage follows the failed save rolls, to a model that has failed the wound save.

I like this 'not an attack' argument, if I wasn't of the mindset that this Edition is the 'dumbed down' version I would even consider running it up the flag pole and saluting it.

Previous editions of this game had complicated rule interactions that could hinge on something as minor as 'is this really an attack,' with a prime example being found in the Psychic Powers at that. We all remember Game Workshop creating a specific Rule informing us that certain psychic powers where 'shooting attacks,' and then would forget to provide us with profiles for certain powers... oh the joy that caused. With that in mind, it is very easy to conclude they might be wanting to avoid the entire problem by simply having Psychic Powers be their own self-contained bundles and not attacks per-say.

The reason I don't buy it:
It requires detail rule knowledge of previous games to come to the 'not an attack' conclusion, all just to make a minor ability not function at all, and the writers want this to be a simpler system....

It seems that the best use of Savior Protocol is to run MSU Drones with as many single Drones as possible, which allows single model Drone units to take entire mortal wound damage pools with no transfer to other units.

We can already do that without Savior Protocol.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It seems that the best use of Savior Protocol is to run MSU Drones with as many single Drones as possible, which allows single model Drone units to take entire mortal wound damage pools with no transfer to other units.

We can already do that without Savior Protocol.

SJ

How would 1 drone take on entire mortal wound damage pools? It can only be allocated 1 wound (whether a mortal wound, or a wound that does 6 damage, etc)

 Overheal wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It seems that the best use of Savior Protocol is to run MSU Drones with as many single Drones as possible, which allows single model Drone units to take entire mortal wound damage pools with no transfer to other units.

We can already do that without Savior Protocol.

SJ

How would 1 drone take on entire mortal wound damage pools? It can only be allocated 1 wound (whether a mortal wound, or a wound that does 6 damage, etc)

If its the closest unit, it's the unit that gets hit. And if there is just one, only one dies regardless of how many mortal wounds it received.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Overheal wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It seems that the best use of Savior Protocol is to run MSU Drones with as many single Drones as possible, which allows single model Drone units to take entire mortal wound damage pools with no transfer to other units.

We can already do that without Savior Protocol.

SJ

How would 1 drone take on entire mortal wound damage pools? It can only be allocated 1 wound (whether a mortal wound, or a wound that does 6 damage, etc)

If its the closest unit, it's the unit that gets hit. And if there is just one, only one dies regardless of how many mortal wounds it received.

SJ

you resolve savior protocol per wound suffered....

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Overheal wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It seems that the best use of Savior Protocol is to run MSU Drones with as many single Drones as possible, which allows single model Drone units to take entire mortal wound damage pools with no transfer to other units.

We can already do that without Savior Protocol.

SJ

How would 1 drone take on entire mortal wound damage pools? It can only be allocated 1 wound (whether a mortal wound, or a wound that does 6 damage, etc)

If its the closest unit, it's the unit that gets hit. And if there is just one, only one dies regardless of how many mortal wounds it received.

SJ

You're saying if drones are the closest unit.

Sure?

That's a legitimate way to play drones but it has nothing to do with SP. Seems like your suggestion belongs in a tactics forum.

 Overheal wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Overheal wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It seems that the best use of Savior Protocol is to run MSU Drones with as many single Drones as possible, which allows single model Drone units to take entire mortal wound damage pools with no transfer to other units.

We can already do that without Savior Protocol.

SJ

How would 1 drone take on entire mortal wound damage pools? It can only be allocated 1 wound (whether a mortal wound, or a wound that does 6 damage, etc)

If its the closest unit, it's the unit that gets hit. And if there is just one, only one dies regardless of how many mortal wounds it received.

SJ

You're saying if drones are the closest unit.

Sure?

That's a legitimate way to play drones but it has nothing to do with SP. Seems like your suggestion belongs in a tactics forum.

It's a reading comprehension issue. I underlined the part two of you have missed.

SJ

Eh?

I know it is off topic already, but how is pointing out that any single Model unit close to the Psyker would tank more Wounds then Savior Protocol relevant?
Even if we where to discuss Tactics over rule-interactions, AKA how poorly Bodyguards function, it is the opponent who positions the Smiting Model and can flank around that single Bodyguard easily....

Again, there seems to be a reading comprehension issue on the thread. As Savior Protocol is worded, a Smite can kill off a unit a of Drones if you Savior with a unit of more than one Drone. However, if you just play competently, you might lose 1-2 Drones instead simply through placement rather than Savior Protocol. Why that is such a difficult concept to grasp is beyond me. Simply take two Drones with your Character, and keep those Drones in front. It's not rocket science.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Again, there seems to be a reading comprehension issue on the thread. As Savior Protocol is worded, a Smite can kill off a unit a of Drones if you Savior with a unit of more than one Drone. However, if you just play competently, you might lose 1-2 Drones instead simply through placement rather than Savior Protocol. Why that is such a difficult concept to grasp is beyond me. Simply take two Drones with your Character, and keep those Drones in front. It's not rocket science.

SJ

because the one with the reading comprehension issue is you

It is going to be my opponent who, ultimately, decides which direction that Model is approaching from and there are many ways that opponent could manipulate positioning too!
So advice saying 'position your Models better' is not only irreverent to discussing the Rules in question, but isn't even accurate advice to give on the Tabletop in this situation....

All I did was point out that the current issue with how Savior Protocol interacts with multiple mortal wounds can be resolved via MSU Drones. That it has taken several posts to clarify is mind boggling.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
All I did was point out that the current issue with how Savior Protocol interacts with multiple mortal wounds can be resolved via MSU Drones. That it has taken several posts to clarify is mind boggling.

SJ

nothing is keeping mortal wounds from going into different drone units. You are the one who is mistaken

These are still tactical discussions, if you want to continue it shouldn't you move to another forum?

3 mortal wounds , will equal 3 dead drones. Period. A d6 wound allocated from say a Riptide to a drone, would converted to a mortal wound and one dead drone. No need for the damage roll since the wound was passed off.

mortal wounds are 1 damage each, no saves allowed. the d3 , d6 part is just to say to the dying player how many wounds you will apply to a unit , 1 at a time till there are none left.

Damage and wounds are separate.



Hit , wound, apply damage on failed save.

I think this topic has been beaten far enough to death!