Wrath of Mars vs. Saviour Protocols

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.

**U02dah4**

Allocation happens after you have "successfully wounded" the enemy

Automatically Appended Next Post:

vict0988 wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, "the player commanding the target unit allocates....

so in order to use the allocation step you have successfully wounded

"just allocate it as you would any other wound"

so mortal wounds are successful wounds

as to xenomancers raw is not on your side unless you can actually demonstrate that a to wound role is required to be wounded not just a successfull wound ive evidenced all my statements you have just stated without any proof to back your claim that you require a to wound roll

"Just allocate it as you would any other wound" =/= "a mortal wound wounds the target"

The fact that you allocate mortal wounds like normal wounds does not make them normal wounds and does not make them wound the target. The fact that you allocate them as you would any other wound makes them distinctly separate, if they actually wounded the target then this explanation wouldn't mean anything or be required, it is exactly because they do not wound that it is specified that they are allocated as normal wounds are.

"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."

If an attack wounds the target, then the target is wounded. If an attack inflicts a mortal wound, then that attack did not wound, it inflicted a mortal wound. It has to literally say that it wounded or at least wounds before you can say that it wounds. Using the same distribution mechanic does not help your case.

1) Never said mortal wounds are normal wounds they come with a rules section stating the exact ways they deviate from the normal wounding process nor wounding isn't one of them. So can you provide a rules quote directly stating "they don't wound the target" if not your argument is wrong

2) Can you provide a rules quote directly stating "if an attack inflicts a mortal wound, then that attack did not wound." If not then your argument is wrong.

Mortal wounds follow the step "If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."
so they count as successful wounds
successful wounds = wounded

**DeathReaper**

vict0988 wrote:

"Just allocate it as you would any other wound" =/= "a mortal wound wounds the target"

The fact that you allocate mortal wounds like normal wounds does not make them normal wounds and does not make them wound the target.

This is demonstrably false. They equivalate mortal wounds with any other wound. Does any other wound wound the target? Yes? Then so does a mortal wound.

The fact that you allocate them as you would any other wound makes them distinctly separate, if they actually wounded the target then this explanation wouldn't mean anything or be required, it is exactly because they do not wound that it is specified that they are allocated as normal wounds are.

False.

The "any other wound" wording equivalates them.

"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."

If an attack wounds the target, then the target is wounded. If an attack inflicts a mortal wound, then that attack did not wound, it inflicted a mortal wound. It has to literally say that it wounded or at least wounds before you can say that it wounds. Using the same distribution mechanic does not help your case.

Again, False. The "any other wound" wording equivalates them.

**p5freak**

Everything you have written is false. Logic dictates that two different written rules can't be the same.

**vict0988**

DeathReaper wrote:
vict0988 wrote:

"Just allocate it as you would any other wound" =/= "a mortal wound wounds the target"

The fact that you allocate mortal wounds like normal wounds does not make them normal wounds and does not make them wound the target.
This is demonstrably false. They equivalate mortal wounds with any other wound. Does any other wound wound the target? Yes? Then so does a mortal wound.

Is there anywhere else in the game where this is the case? What wording would you use to exclude mortal wounds, other than the specific language that targets a successful wound roll?

**p5freak**

How about adding "excluding mortal wounds" to SP ? Just these 3 simple words and we wouldn't have this discussion.

**Ice_can**

p5freak wrote:
How about adding "excluding mortal wounds" to SP ? Just these 3 simple words and we wouldn't have this discussion.

Probably because the original intention of the rules team was to allow drones to be able to saviour MW that didn't come from the psychic phase.

Which if they had kept MW as just for psychic powers would have been fine, but they have used them all over the shop to represent massively different things.

So they now what them to be able to saviour MW that didn't come from from the psychic phase but they haven't written the rules well enough to be able to make that possible without rewriting half the books.

**p5freak**

Ice_can wrote:
p5freak wrote:
How about adding "excluding mortal wounds" to SP ? Just these 3 simple words and we wouldn't have this discussion.

Probably because the original intention of the rules team was to allow drones to be able to saviour MW that didn't come from the psychic phase.

Which if they had kept MW as just for psychic powers would have been fine, but they have used them all over the shop to represent massively different things.

Right, it was their intention to make tau unkillable. A drone can intercept a million points of damage and a million MW and turn it into 1 single MW, which it can ignore on a 5+.
I imagine a tau battlesuit with a single drone still drifting in space after the planet it was on has been atomized by a planet killer gun.

<Add a million facepalm smilies here>

**Ice_can**

p5freak wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
p5freak wrote:
How about adding "excluding mortal wounds" to SP ? Just these 3 simple words and we wouldn't have this discussion.

Probably because the original intention of the rules team was to allow drones to be able to saviour MW that didn't come from the psychic phase.

Which if they had kept MW as just for psychic powers would have been fine, but they have used them all over the shop to represent massively different things.

Right, it was their intention to make tau unkillable. A drone can intercept a million points of damage and a million MW and turn it into 1 single MW, which it can ignore on a 5+.
I imagine a tau battlesuit with a single drone still drifting in space after the planet it was on has been atomized by a planet killer gun.

<Add a million facepalm smilies here>

Because a weapon of the scale your describing isn't in 8th edition.
Also you misunderstood my point, it's not that drones should work against everything it's that half the MW should NOT be MW.

Idon't think half of the things that deal Mortal wounds should be dishing out MW at all it should be something like an auto wound.

The issue is GW started making things that shouldn't be MW do MW because they were being lazy/ it fitted 8th edition dumb it down principles.

If they had kept MW for what they should be for then it would have been easy to say saviour protocols works on everything but MW.

The reason that doesn't work is because drones should work against a number of things that now deal MW (IMHO this lack of discipline from the design team is the issue). So we have the mess where they want SP to work on some MW and not others but with no clear way to distinguish between them.

If your in tactical dreadnaught armour or are bouncing around like the Harliquins why shoukd you not get a save from being runover by something.

**p5freak**

The MW rule is fine, except for SP.

**Stux**

p5freak wrote:
The MW rule is fine, except for SP.

Agreed. The timing on SP is different to other comparable rules, and this is what causes issues.

**Xenomancers**

DeathReaper wrote:
vict0988 wrote:

"Just allocate it as you would any other wound" =/= "a mortal wound wounds the target"

The fact that you allocate mortal wounds like normal wounds does not make them normal wounds and does not make them wound the target.
This is demonstrably false. They equivalate mortal wounds with any other wound. Does any other wound wound the target? Yes? Then so does a mortal wound.

The fact that you allocate them as you would any other wound makes them distinctly separate, if they actually wounded the target then this explanation wouldn't mean anything or be required, it is exactly because they do not wound that it is specified that they are allocated as normal wounds are.
False.

The "any other wound" wording equivalates them.

"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit)."

If an attack wounds the target, then the target is wounded. If an attack inflicts a mortal wound, then that attack did not wound, it inflicted a mortal wound. It has to literally say that it wounded or at least wounds before you can say that it wounds. Using the same distribution mechanic does not help your case.
Again, False. The "any other wound" wording equivalates them.

How do you allocate a mortal wound? Like any other wound. Where does it say that a mortal wound successfully wounds a target? The rules don't state this.

**Suzuteo**

Clearly, this issue is contentious. Every other person has a different take just about. Perhaps we should all just all email <40kfaq@gwplc.com> and get GW to decide this for us.

**DeathReaper**

Xenomancers wrote:
How do you allocate a mortal wound? Like any other wound. Where does it say that a mortal wound successfully wounds a target? The rules don't state this.

They do not need to explicitly state that mortal wounds would the target.

Any other wound wounds the target so MW's do as well, since they are equivilated in the 40k Rules.

**U02dah4**

DeathReaper wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
How do you allocate a mortal wound? Like any other wound. Where does it say that a mortal wound successfully wounds a target? The rules don't state this.
They do not need to explicitly state that mortal wounds would the target.

Any other wound wounds the target so MW's do as well, since they are equivilated in the 40k Rules.

Exactly

**Stux**

Simply disagree. Mortal wounds skip the step that determines if a unit is wounded. They don't need to say, because they skip the step so it doesn't happen.

**DeathReaper**

Stux wrote:
Simply disagree. Mortal wounds skip the step that determines if a unit is wounded. They don't need to say, because they skip the step so it doesn't happen.

This is demonstrably false.

Does a wound, wound the target?

If so, then since MW's are equated to wounds, the MW's also wound the target.

**U02dah4**

What matters is if a unit is wounded not how you determine whether their wounded

Automatic or roll is the resultant wound that matters

**p5freak**

U02dah4 wrote:
What matters is if a unit is wounded not how you determine whether their wounded

Automatic or roll is the resultant wound that matters

I would like to see a rule citation where it says that a MW actually wounds.

**U02dah4**

Mortal "wounds"
"Allocate it as you would any other wound"
"3. Allocate wound: if an attack successfully wounds..."

Theres three

WOUND is litterally in the name.

You allocate it as you would any other wound showing it is a wound

it uses the allocate wound step if it is not a wound what are you allocateing
Also the allocate wound step only applys to successfull wounds were you not a successful wound it does nothing

so yes they are clearlyWounds

**p5freak**

That is not a citation that says that a MW actually wounds. Treating it like a wound doesnt make it a wound. It uses the same mechanic of allocating it as a wound does, but thats it. No more, no less.

**U02dah4**

If you wish to contest the middle quote you stil havnt answered the other two.

They are clearly sucessfull wounds according to the allocate wounds step. That mechanic which you are told to follow. If they are not sucessfull wounds you cannot allocate them. Because the mechanic tells you to allocate sucessfull wounds"You are not told to alter the wording of the allocation step in any way to incorporate non successful wounds you are just told to follow it.

They also litterally have wound in the name. Although i suppose if your being deliberatly obstinent you could imply infer it as a title rather than an adjective description of a type of wound.

**Stux**

DeathReaper wrote:
Stux wrote:
Simply disagree. Mortal wounds skip the step that determines if a unit is wounded. They don't need to say, because they skip the step so it doesn't happen.
This is demonstrably false.

Does a wound, wound the target?

If so, then since MW's are equated to wounds, the MW's also wound the target.

Incorrect logic.

A successful wound roll wounds a target. MW skip that step.

**U02dah4**

A successfull wound roll sucessfully wounds a target. That does not prohibit targets being sucessfully wounded in other ways eg. automaticaly by mortal wounds.

His logic is correct.

Step 2 results in successfull wound go to step 3 allocate sucessfull wound

Does not stop mw go direct to step 3 allocate successfull wound

Either way there is a successfull wound.

A=b does not prevent c=b

**Xenomancers**

U02dah4 wrote:
Mortal "wounds"
"Allocate it as you would any other wound"
"3. Allocate wound: if an attack successfully wounds..."

Theres three

WOUND is litterally in the name.

You allocate it as you would any other wound showing it is a wound

it uses the allocate wound step if it is not a wound what are you allocateing
Also the allocate wound step only applys to successfull wounds were you not a successful wound it does nothing

so yes they are clearlyWounds

Yes - wound is in the name and I think that is is complicating things here. That actually doesn't matter because a things name changes when it is attached to another. Mortal wound does not equal wound. They are different. It is only more complicated when the name of the step that is required to active SP is also called wounding. So there are 3 different kinds of "wounds here. We have Mortal wounds / wounds / wound(ing). All three are distinctly different things. You can't empart one onto the other.

**DeathReaper**

Stux wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Stux wrote:
Simply disagree. Mortal wounds skip the step that determines if a unit is wounded. They don't need to say, because they skip the step so it doesn't happen.
This is demonstrably false.

Does a wound, wound the target?

If so, then since MW's are equated to wounds, the MW's also wound the target.

Incorrect logic.

A successful wound roll wounds a target. MW skip that step.

Not incorrect.

A MW wounds automatically, no roll needed.

Xenomancers wrote:
Mortal wound does not equal wound.

But they are, as shown by the "any other wound" wording it equivalates would with MW.

So far no one has shown rules to refute this, so until you get some actual rules that refute this, this discussion should be over.

**vict0988**

DeathReaper wrote:
A MW wounds automatically, no roll needed.

That's not what it says. It says "Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above. Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed." The term wounds or wounded is never used.

So far no one has shown rules to refute this, so until you get some actual rules that refute this, this discussion should be over.

**DeathReaper**

vict0988 wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
A MW wounds automatically, no roll needed.

That's not what it says. It says "Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above. Unlike normal attacks, excess damage from attacks that inflict mortal wounds is not lost. Instead keep allocating damage to another model in the target unit until either all the damage has been allocated or the target unit is destroyed." The term wounds or wounded is never used.

Except it does, you quoted it. The term wound is used.

Here it is, in case you missed it: "Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound"

"Do not make a wound roll" and to "just allocate it as you would any other wound", this is saying that MW's wounds automatically, since you do not make a wound roll, and we know to allocate it as you would any other wound. So if it is allocated "as you would any other wound" then it has wounded just like any other wound.

Do you have any quotes to refute this? Because I have not seen any posted, and I checked the rules several times and have not found anything to refute this.

**U02dah4**

Thats because there are no rules refuting

not to mention when allocateing it the wound allocation step only refers to successfull wounds

**p5freak**

DeathReaper wrote:Not incorrect.

A MW wounds automatically, no roll needed.

Incorrect. A MW does 1 point of damage. There is nothing in the MW rule that says it wounds. If it wounds you would have a sv or inv against it. But you dont. Therefore it doesnt wound. And if it doesnt wound, its not a wound.

**doctortom**

When they say allocate it "like any other wound" that's an indication that it is a type of wound. Not "allocate it like a wound", but "allocate it like any other wound" . That wording means its a type of wound, and not just for allocation purposes. Unsurprisingly, wounds wound models.