Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning

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.

**JakeSiren**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because that's what the rules say! It says yiu inflict at step 5. So please, find a rule saying you don't use the attack sequence at all. Page and graph.

Straw man again eh? Or just making more stuff up because following rules is too tricky for you?

No, we both agree "you're NOT inflicting damage at step 5 of the attack sequence but at some other point in time"

The point is that you complete the attack sequence before resolving the mortal wound. The mortal wound by definition can't be a part of that attack sequence because the sequence is already completed!

Hence, Brutal but Cunning can trigger because the attack (the one that we completed the sequence for before resolving the mortal wound) may not have actually got to the inflict damage step.

Ah, you wilfully misunderstood, again.

Page and graph. It's been three pages. About time you used an actual rule. Page and graph that states you complete "the" attack sequence, despite thr rule telling you to inflict at the same step, in sequence...

Page 18, battle primer, header "MAKING ATTACKS": "The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time."
If I start a second sequence before completing the first one I am no longer making attacks one at a time and no longer following the rules. (Fast rolling allows a specific exemption, but we aren't talking about that)

**nosferatu1001**

So why are you creating a new sequence? The rules for mortal woiuds, second para, don't tell you to do so.

Bearing in mind the actual rules don't say you Create a second sequence - that was part of your made up gak at one point. Now I think we're back to you making up that you inflict mortal wound damage somewhere, but you're so confused it's hard to tell

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops, you still don't wan t to follow the rule stating you inflict damage from a MW at step 5. You do this after the normal damage.

And we're back t9 the start. Useless

**koooaei**

If you're not creating a new attack sequence and not doing it in the same attack sequence (which you can't do by the rules), means mw either work out of sequence or do not work at all.

**nosferatu1001**

Why can't you do it as part of the same sequence?

You are

NEVER

Told to create a new sequence. You are told to resolve at step 5, normal then mortal,and step 5 is part of the attack sequence

If you're claiming it is either a new sequence, or exists outside of the sequence (despite the rules stating the exact opposite, that MW are dealt with in the Attack sequence step 5) then
Please
Give
Written
Rules

YOU are both making the extraordinary claim. YOU are required to prove it, because all I can show is that nowhere in the rules are you told to create a new sequence, nor are yiu told MW exist outside of the sequence (which would be really odd, because they explicitly tell you they are part of the attack sequence)

**koooaei**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why can't you do it as part of the same sequence?

Cause it says you resolve mw after the attack.

**JakeSiren**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
By the way, as you managed to bold only part of a sentence, you missed that the first part is me challenging you to find the latter. Not me stating the latter is true

"Again, please give proof, using a written rule, that when it states you inflict damage at step 5 of the attack sequence, you're NOT inflicting damage at step 5 of the attack sequence but at some other point in time "

There you go, bolted the bit where I'm telling you to find proof of the part you're making up out of whole cloth....

You want me to prove that the mortal wound is resolved after the normal wound? Sure, paragraph 2, "If an attack inflicts mortal wounds in addition to the normal damage, resolve the normal damage first"

Normal Attack has steps 1 to 5 in the attack sequence.
A mortal wound is resolved by "just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit", or the rules identified by steps 3 and 5 in the attack sequence.

You resolve your attack sequence 1 to 5. Then at a later point you use the rules found under steps 3 and 5 for the mortal wound (and by the rare rules this occurs after all attacks have been resolved). It's as if the mortal wound doesn't follow the attack sequence and isn't considered an attack.

**nosferatu1001**

Sigh

Stop it. I thought you argued in good faith. Seems I was wrong.

I was very explicit in what I required, yiu answered something else. For the what, third time?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, it's hilarious - frankly mind boggling that you're writing this in all seriousness, which is why I'm assuming you're not - that yiu follow the attack sequence, but then say it isn't the attack sequence...

**JakeSiren**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigh

Stop it. I thought you argued in good faith. Seems I was wrong.

I was very explicit in what I required, yiu answered something else. For the what, third time?

Sorry, did you want me to show that the normal attack inflicts damage at step 5 of the attack sequence?

Or did you want me to show that the mortal wound inflicts damage at step 5 of the attack sequence? (It doesn't, and I never claimed that)

Or that the mortal wound *doesn't* inflict damage at step 5 of the attack sequence, because that is what I demonstrated.

I don't think you were as clear as you thought you were.

**nosferatu1001**

Yes, you need to demonstrate that when it states you inflict MW damage at step 5 of the attack sequence, that somehow It doesn't mean that at all.
I was really explicit that I was talking about MW. Cos context.

That's what happens when you fail to read all of a post Jake.

**JakeSiren**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, you need to demonstrate that when it states you inflict MW damage at step 5 of the attack sequence, that somehow It doesn't mean that at all.
I was really explicit that I was talking about MW. Cos context.

That's what happens when you fail to read all of a post Jake.

But it doesn't say that?

Literally, "If an attack inflicts mortal wounds in addition to the normal damage, resolve the normal damage first".

After we resolve the normal damage, we resolve the mortal wound by using the rules identified by steps 3 and steps 5. A sequence doesn't go from step 5 to step 3 back to step 5.

**nosferatu1001**

" ....just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above "

1) turns out when you say MW aren't an attack, you're flat out wrong. I can't believe you've not read this para, as you've been directed at it enough. Further indication of bad faith.

2) Inflict damage is step 5 of the attack sequence, and is above the box out.

**JakeSiren**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
" ....just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above "

1) turns out when you say MW aren't an attack, you're flat out wrong. I can't believe you've not read this para, as you've been directed at it enough. Further indication of bad faith.

2) Inflict damage is step 5 of the attack sequence, and is above the box out.

So are you asserting that your attack sequence goes from step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to step 3 then back to step 5?

**nosferatu1001**

JakeSiren wrote:

It's as if the mortal wound doesn't follow the attack sequence and isn't considered an attack.

Made up rule is made up. MW are "any other attack", they are definitively an attack.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JakeSiren wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
" ....just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above "

1) turns out when you say MW aren't an attack, you're flat out wrong. I can't believe you've not read this para, as you've been directed at it enough. Further indication of bad faith.

2) Inflict damage is step 5 of the attack sequence, and is above the box out.

So are you asserting that your attack sequence goes from step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to step 3 then back to step 5?

Any chance you can admit you were wrong , and that despite claiming raw you made up an idea that a MW isn't an Attack? Just before we carry on. Cos you know, you really should be apologising for making stuff up

**JakeSiren**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:

It's as if the mortal wound doesn't follow the attack sequence and isn't considered an attack.

Made up rule is made up. MW are "any other attack", they are definitively an attack.

Ok, I concede. A mortal wound is an attack. Which means since we generate an attack (MW) on a 6 to wound, that attack gets it's own attack sequence. You're not allowed to resolve two attacks in a single sequence. (Keeping in mind that the attack sequence says "The following sequence is used to make attacks one at a time"). So Brutal but Cunning can trigger on the initial attack sequence, but not on the new generated one.

**nosferatu1001**

So you won't apologise for making up, out of whole cloth, that MW aren't an attack? Despite being pointed at the rule repeatedly?

**JakeSiren**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you won't apologise for making up, out of whole cloth, that MW aren't an attack? Despite being pointed at the rule repeatedly?

Eh, internalisation of rules have their way. That's why we have vigorous rule debates to improve our understanding.

In any event, I'm glad that we can both agree that Brutal but Cunning can trigger regardless of if the original attack sequence generates a mortal wound.

**nosferatu1001**

Or you were caught making rules up...for three pages....and I couldn't believe you weren't reading the rules you were directed to time and time again

You do appear to have decided I said something I'm not sure I have, but whatever. You've shown your true colours.

**koooaei**

Ok, now what happens when you're goff and roll a 6 to hit and generate 2 hits from 1 attack.

Only the initial hit counts for bbl, or you need to fail both hits?

**JakeSiren**

koooaei wrote:
Ok, now what happens when you're goff and roll a 6 to hit and generate 2 hits from 1 attack.

Only the initial hit counts for bbl, or you need to fail both hits?

When you generate a second hit, it gets considered in its own attack sequence (I'll see if I can find the rare rule that clarifies this later), so only the initial hit counts for BbL.

**alextroy**

Yeesh people. How about we look at the two relevant rules in their entirety.

40K Core Rules PDF wrote:MORTAL WOUNDS
Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts 1 point of damage on the target unit, and they are always applied one at a time. Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit (pg 18). Unlike damage inflicted by normal attacks, excess damage from 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.

If an attack inflicts mortal wounds in addition to the normal damage, resolve the normal damage first. If an attack inflicts mortal wounds in addition to the normal damage, but the normal damage is subsequently saved, the target unit still suffers the mortal wounds, as described opposite. If an ability modifies the damage inflicted by a weapon, and that weapon can inflict mortal wounds in addition to the normal damage, the modifier does not apply to any mortal wounds that are inflicted (unless the rule specifically states otherwise).

Core Rules Errata wrote:*Page 363 – Rare Rules
Add the following:
Multiple attacks that inflict mortal wounds
Some attacks can inflict mortal wounds either instead of, or in addition to, the normal damage. If, when a unit is selected to shoot or fight, more than one of its attacks that target an enemy unit have such a rule, all the normal damage inflicted by the attacking unit’s attacks are resolved against that target before any of the mortal wounds are inflicted on it.

As you can see from these two rules, mortal wounds inflicted as part of an attack are a separate thing from the actual attack itself (see the red text). If you have multiple attacks from a unit directed at a unit that can (potentially, not definitely) inflict mortal wounds, you must resolve all those attacks through the inflict damage stage before you can inflict any of the mortal wounds.

Thus, an attack sequence generating a mortal wound at any state of resolution has no impact on whether that unit reached or resolved the Inflict Damage step of that attack.

**Eihnlazer**

That has been jakes argument all along, and you could certainly interpret it that way.

However it is not the correct interpretation.

The mortal wounds are allocated after the normal damage, and in fact happen after all the normal damage from all the attacks thanks to the rare rule.

This does not change the fact in any way, that the attack that generated the mortal wound, did inflict damage. The mortal wound is not magically treated like it didnt come from said attack just because it is allocated at the end of the cycle.

**nosferatu1001**

Not quite Jake's argument. He said MW weren't an attack, for a long while.

**JakeSiren**

JakeSiren wrote:
koooaei wrote:
Ok, now what happens when you're goff and roll a 6 to hit and generate 2 hits from 1 attack.

Only the initial hit counts for bbl, or you need to fail both hits?

When you generate a second hit, it gets considered in its own attack sequence (I'll see if I can find the rare rule that clarifies this later), so only the initial hit counts for BbL.

Ok, so the Rare Rule is called "Attacks that make multiple hit rolls". It on page 91 of the GT2021 book.

**alextroy**

Mortal wounds are an attack, as noted in the rules for mortal wound. This means when an attack generates a Mortal Wound due to a special rule, it generates a different attack (aka a Mortal Wound) from itself. Thus, if the attack itself (not the MW, but the attack) does not inflict damage, the attack did not inflict damage regardless of the existence of the Mortal Wound it created.

**Eihnlazer**

No, nip that in the bud please.

Mortal wounds, when dealt in a vacuum, are an attack unto themselves.

Mortals created FROM AN ATTACK, are just part of that attack, allocated later during the attack sequence than normal damage.

Is it confusing? Yes apparently and demonstratably so.

**JakeSiren**

Eihnlazer wrote:
No, nip that in the bud please.

Mortal wounds, when dealt in a vacuum, are an attack unto themselves.

Mortals created FROM AN ATTACK, are just part of that attack, allocated later during the attack sequence than normal damage.

Is it confusing? Yes apparently and demonstratably so.

If you are jumping around in a sequence, it's no longer a sequence.

We all agree that mortal wounds are an attack yeah?
An attack sequence allows you to resolve one attack, not two. It follows that the mortal wound isn't a part of the initial attack sequence that created it. Exactly in the same way that rolling a 6 scores a second hit, that second hit is evaluated in a second attack sequence, not the initial sequence that generated it.

**alextroy**

Jake has it exactly correct. A Mortal Wound generated by an attack must be allocated and then inflicts damage separate to the attack that generated it. It can do damage to entirely different model than the attack that generated it, which damage from an attack cannot do.

**Eihnlazer**

Nothing you have shown or proved has anything to do with the fact that the attack that generated the mortal wound DID in fact inflict damage, whether that damage was done later in the phase or sequence.

**doctortom**

Eihnlazer wrote:
Nothing you have shown or proved has anything to do with the fact that the attack that generated the mortal wound DID in fact inflict damage, whether that damage was done later in the phase or sequence.

If you think that I suggest you go back and reread his post where he quoted the rules for Mortal Wounds and the Rare Rules dealing with Mortal Wounds. The Mortal sidebar does tell you when and how much damage a mortal wound does.

**alextroy**

Eihnlazer wrote:
Nothing you have shown or proved has anything to do with the fact that the attack that generated the mortal wound DID in fact inflict damage, whether that damage was done later in the phase or sequence.

Really? I have conclusively shown that when an attack generates a Mortal Wound that that attack sequence ends with the Mortal Wound unresolved. Therefore if that attack sequence failed to inflict damage, the attack failed to inflict damage. The Mortal Wound will eventually inflict damage, but a Mortal Wound is its own attack that allocates and inflicts damage independent of the source that generated it.