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.

"Saviour Protocols: If a <Sept> Drones unit is within 3" of a friendly <Sept> Infantry or <Sept> Battlesuit unit when an enemy attack successfully wounds it, you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage."



My understanding is a mortal wound is still a "wound", one which is effectively 1 damage per, can be rolled over to other models like your leftover minutes on AT&T, and ignore armor and invulnerable saves. This understanding comes from the Battle Primer:

Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these
are so powerful that no armour or force field
can withstand their fury. 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.

The enemy attack, Smite, successfully wounds an XV8 Crisis Team and deals 4 mortal wounds. If there are 4 drones within 3", each of those drones can eat one of the mortal wounds, as I read it. If a Railgun hits the Crisis team with a solid shot, and successfully wounds on a 6, a drone can take the wound, suffering a mortal wound and ridding the XV8 team of up to 6 points of damage on one model. Then, because of the railgun's ability, the XV8 team still suffers D3 Mortal wounds, which are resolved precisely as above in the case of Smite, and can be deflected with Savior Protocols.

I would rule differently. The core rules say you do a wound role to see if the target "successfully wounds a target" you then allocate the "successfull wounds"

The drones rule only triggers when an enemy attack "successfully wounds"

Successfully wounds is therefore a defined term

- mortal wounds don't "successfully wound" you allocate them as you would any other wound but they bypass the step at which you "successfully wound"

Therefore the drones rule never triggers and mortal wounds bypass them

U02dah4 wrote:
I would rule differently. The core rules say you do a wound role to see if the target "successfully wounds a target" you then allocate the "successfull wounds"

That's not what it says. It says (emphasis mine):

'If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit.'

So you can't have it both ways. If a mortal wound is not a 'successful wound' then it cannot be allocated at all and does nothing at all, ever (as it never gets allocated to a model in the unit). And if a mortal wound does get allocated, then then it must be a successful wound against the target, which means Savior Protocols can be used against it. You cannot have it both ways.

Try reading the paragraph before

" 2. Wound roll. If an attack, scores a hit you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack sucessfully wounds"

A successful wound is therefore a successful wound roll.

Its not having it both ways it's saying that the tau rule specifically triggers in response to a successfull wound.

Mortal wounds are never successfull wounds because it specifies that you never make a wound roll.

The allocate wounds rule as you quote does start by saying " if an attack successfully wounds a target the player commanding the targeted unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit" that covers normal wound rolls.

The mortal wounds rule itself says that you "allocate as you would any other wound" giving you permission to follow the structure of the allocate wounds system despite not successfully wounding sInce you never made a wound roll.

So the player commanding the targeted unit allocates the mortal wound etc.....

U02dah4 wrote:
Try reading the paragraph before

" 3. Wound roll. If an attack, scores a hit you will then need to role another dice to see if the attack sucessfully wounds"

A successful wound is therefore a successful wound roll.

Its not having it both ways it's saying that the tau rule specifically triggers in response to a successfull wound.

Mortal wounds are never successfull wounds because it specifies that you never make a wound role.

The allocate wounds rule as you quote does start by saying " if an attack successfully wounds a target the player commanding the targeted unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit" that covers normal wound rolls.

The mortal wounds rule itself says that you "allocate as you would any other wound" giving you permission to follow the structure of the allocate wounds system despite not successfully wounding sInce you never made a wound roll.

So the player commanding the targeted unit allocates the mortal wound etc.....

The thing is, you've made 'successful wound' into a (as you say it) 'defined term', when it isn't in any way a defined term. It can equally be understood as exactly as it is written: when the target is successfully wounded, no matter how the target ends up being successfully wounded, it is still technically correct to say that they are successfully wounded when they have a wound that needs to be allocated to models in the unit.

ESPECIALLY when it comes to the wording of how units/models are wounded/suffered damage, the rules are incredibly inconsistent. Just look at GW's blanket ruling on how 'Feel No Pain' style abilities all function the same way (when a model actually loses a wound) despite the fact that there are nearly a half-dozen different ways those types of abilities are worded.

So whatever distinction you're trying to push, is meaningless because 'successfully wounds' is not anything close to a specifically defined game term, as it can just be interpreted as meaning the unit has received wounds that need to be allocated.

U02dah4 wrote:
Try reading the paragraph before

" 3. Wound roll. If an attack, scores a hit you will then need to role another dice to see if the attack sucessfully wounds"

A successful wound is therefore a successful wound roll.

Its not having it both ways it's saying that the tau rule specifically triggers in response to a successfull wound.

Mortal wounds are never successfull wounds because it specifies that you never make a wound role.

The allocate wounds rule as you quote does start by saying " if an attack successfully wounds a target the player commanding the targeted unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit" that covers normal wound rolls.

The mortal wounds rule itself says that you "allocate as you would any other wound" giving you permission to follow the structure of the allocate wounds system despite not successfully wounding sInce you never made a wound roll.

So the player commanding the targeted unit allocates the mortal wound etc.....

Even if we pretend this is correct, the rules for mortal wounds specifically state you dont roll for them. They wound automatically. I.e. they are all successful wounds by nature of being.

Well no because you either accept that RAW its defined as a successfull wound roll. The explicit thing being "roll" in which case no wound role has been made so there is no success as you've bypassed that step.

Or you are use success colloquially which is what your doing which leads to a different outcome. I was successfull because I auto passed.
Thing is in the mortal wounds raw it says "you do not make a wound roll". Not "you wound automatically." Which is why that step is bypassed not autopassed

You can't accept that it's a defined term then ignore that definition

U02dah4 wrote:
Well no because you either accept that RAW its defined as a successfull wound role. The explicit thing being "roll" in which case no wound role has been made so there is no success as you've bypassed that step.

Or you are use success colloquially which is what your doing which leads to a different outcome. I was successfull because I auto passed.
Thing is in the mortal wounds raw it says "you do not make a wound roll". Not "you wound automatically." Which is why that step is bypassed not autopassed

You can't accept that it's a defined term then ignore that definition

The argument you are making is as pointless as the one that says RAW you cannot shoot pistols or assault weapons in the situations where you would be able to shoot them because according to RAW you cannot select their units if they advance or are within 1" of an enemy unit.

Even if what you were saying wasn't basically nonsense, it's nonsense that would make it so Mortal Wounds do nothing. But since that IS nonsense, and also irrelevant to the actual topic, why don't we just shelve it?

U02dah4 wrote:
Well no because you either accept that RAW its defined as a successfull wound role. The explicit thing being "roll" in which case no wound role has been made so there is no success as you've bypassed that step.

Or you are use success colloquially which is what your doing which leads to a different outcome. I was successfull because I auto passed.
Thing is in the mortal wounds raw it says "you do not make a wound roll". Not "you wound automatically." Which is why that step is bypassed not autopassed

You can't accept that it's a defined term then ignore that definition

No it works perfectly fine colloquially. auto-passing something still means you have successfully done it. A unit that has suffered a mortal wound has been successfully wounded, because it is automatically wounded.

There is nothing remotely approaching a defined term when it comes to 'successfully wounds' in the rules. It just means that the attack successfully managed to cause a wound on the target unit. It is entirely unimportant how the unit managed to suffer that wound.

So we disagree on two points

First agreed auto passing means you have successfully done it.

However you do not auto pass a wound roll in a mortal wound you "do not make a wound roll" just as you do not fail a save roll you do not make one. If the mortal wound rule said auto pass or auto wound I would be agreeing with you because you have then made a wound roll so you would have successfully wounded. But it doesn't it explicitly says you don't make a roll.

Secondally how is

" 2. Wound roll. If an attack, scores a hit you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack sucessfully wounds the target"

Not a definition

With the next step saying "if an attack successfully wounds the target"

You have gone from testing to see if you successfully wound to if you successfully wounded

It seems reasonable to infer from those two statements that RAW passing the wound roll corresponds to successfully wounding (a definition)

This is a really petty thing but reading your posts it's driving me up a wall. It's roll. Not role. So far you have used role in place of roll at least once in every post in this thread.

I'm sorry. I know it's inconsequential. But please, stop.

I don't follow this "successful" argument at all, and it stinks of TFG.

Regardless of how it's accomplished - whether by successfully casting smite, successfully rolling a 6 to wound with a railgun, or successfully pulling off some other means of inflicting a mortal wound, it is still a wound: The target model, whether wounded by a mortal wound (say of 1 damage point), or a mortal wound, it still loses that number of wounds from its profile, until it reaches 0 wounds remaining and is removed from play.

Again, from the rules:

allocate [mortal wounds] as you would
any other wound and inflict damage to a
model in the target unit as described above*

*Allocate Wound: 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 a model in the target
unit has already lost any wounds,
the damage must be allocated to
that model.*

*Savior Protocols

I can't for the life of me imagine how someone could digest all of this and conclude that a mortal wound is somehow an unsuccessful wound, yet can still kill models, but in such a convoluted way such as to negate the function of drone special rules. Unless you're just not a fan of T'au.

 Overheal wrote:
I don't follow this "successful" argument at all, and it stinks of TFG.

Regardless of how it's accomplished - whether by successfully casting smite, successfully rolling a 6 to wound with a railgun, or successfully pulling off some other means of inflicting a mortal wound, it is still a wound: The target model, whether wounded by a mortal wound (say of 1 damage point), or a mortal wound, it still loses that number of wounds from its profile, until it reaches 0 wounds remaining and is removed from play.

Again, from the rules:

allocate [mortal wounds] as you would
any other wound and inflict damage to a
model in the target unit as described above*

*Allocate Wound: 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 a model in the target
unit has already lost any wounds,
the damage must be allocated to
that model.*

*Savior Protocols

So Savior Protocols works per mortal wound, then, rather than absorbing all 3 (if a 3 is rolled on the d3) in one drone. Glad we're in agreement!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


So Savior Protocols works per mortal wound, then, rather than absorbing all 3 (if a 3 is rolled on the d3) in one drone. Glad we're in agreement!

Nowhere in my posts have I declared differently!?

 Overheal wrote:
The enemy attack, Smite, successfully wounds an XV8 Crisis Team and deals 4 mortal wounds. If there are 4 drones within 3", each of those drones can eat one of the mortal wounds, as I read it.

Naturally, if Smite were to cast 6 mortal wounds, 6 drones would be killed via Savior Protocols if they wished to spare the primary target from the attack. If it landed 2 mortal wounds, 2 drones would die. Etcetera.

In the case of a railgun, which deals D6 Damage, and has an Effect rule that states it causes D3 Mortal wounds in addition to damage if you Wound-roll a 6+, you would need at most 4 drones to absorb the blow - 1 drone for the D6 normal wounding damage, and up to 3 for the D3 mortal wounds.

Partially just to re-light a fire:
Saviour Protocols: If a <Sept> Drones unit is within 3" of a friendly <Sept> Infantry or <Sept> Battlesuit unit when an enemy attack successfully wounds it, you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.

The wounds caused by smite, though mortal wounds would be smites normal damage, so that all gets summed up into "a mortal wound"

 pumaman1 wrote:
Partially just to re-light a fire:
Saviour Protocols: If a <Sept> Drones unit is within 3" of a friendly <Sept> Infantry or <Sept> Battlesuit unit when an enemy attack successfully wounds it, you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.

The wounds caused by smite, though mortal wounds would be smites normal damage, so that all gets summed up into "a mortal wound"

No. I don't know where you're getting that from. For all intents and purposes, mortal wounds are wounds worth 1 point of equivalent damage that cannot be blocked my armor saves, cover saves, or invulnerable saves, and can be rolled over to additional models if the first model has no more remaining wounds. Smite is very clearly and plainly written, as I have posted above, and now here:



In no way could Savior Protocols be interpreted as one drone being able to take the entire Psychic Power (up to 6 mortal wounds) and apply it to itself as only 1 mortal wound. That's not how any of this works. Savior Protocols very plainly states you allocate the wounds. You do not allocate the whole psychic power!

 Overheal wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
Partially just to re-light a fire:
Saviour Protocols: If a <Sept> Drones unit is within 3" of a friendly <Sept> Infantry or <Sept> Battlesuit unit when an enemy attack successfully wounds it, you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.

The wounds caused by smite, though mortal wounds would be smites normal damage, so that all gets summed up into "a mortal wound"

In no way could Savior Protocols be interpreted as one drone being able to take the entire Psychic Power (up to 6 mortal wounds) and apply it to itself as only 1 mortal wound. That's not how any of this works.

I'm on neither side of this argument, but I want to point out that it kinda of IS how Saviour Protocol works.

It takes an entire damage value and converts it into 1 Mortal Wound.

If a weapon said it deals 400000000000000000d100 damage, it will convert that to 1 Mortal Wound.

His argument is
Smite deals d3 damage, Saviour Protocol transfers the d3 which it then converts into 1 Mortal Wound

The otherside basic argument is that
d3 is determined first, then Saviour Protocol transfers each damage individually


The idea behind his argument is that the d3 for Smite is determined on Step 5 of the attack resolution step.
Saviour Protocol happens at Step 3 of the attack resolution step

 Overheal wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
Partially just to re-light a fire:
Saviour Protocols: If a <Sept> Drones unit is within 3" of a friendly <Sept> Infantry or <Sept> Battlesuit unit when an enemy attack successfully wounds it, you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.

The wounds caused by smite, though mortal wounds would be smites normal damage, so that all gets summed up into "a mortal wound"

No. I don't know where you're getting that from. For all intents and purposes, mortal wounds are wounds worth 1 point of equivalent damage that cannot be blocked my armor saves, cover saves, or invulnerable saves, and can be rolled over to additional models if the first model has no more remaining wounds. Smite is very clearly and plainly written, as I have posted above, and now here:



In no way could Savior Protocols be interpreted as one drone being able to take the entire Psychic Power (up to 6 mortal wounds) and apply it to itself as only 1 mortal wound. That's not how any of this works. Savior Protocols very plainly states you allocate the wounds. You do not allocate the whole psychic power!

LOL so serious
But it is "normal" that smite causes d3 mortal wounds, so d3 mortal wounds are its normal damage. You could much more easily make the case that to wound rolls of 6 causing mortal wounds, or smite roll of 10+ causing d6 are abnormal damage states, that those would get around it, but thanks to "normal damage" and smite having a "normal" d3 mortal wounds, the drone may still soak up d3 mortal wounds for 1 mortal wound.

I am not TFG, I am okay with my opponent damaging my units, I am there to have fun, but your arguments ignore the "normal" damage. Any amount of damage that is "normal" could be summed into 1 mortal wound on the drone.

Are you arguing that mortal wounds =/= "normal,"

You guys are having an equivocation fallacy.

When GW wrote 'damage' for Savior Protocols, they meant the 'damage' stat of the attack in question.

They didn't mean 'damage' as in 'every possible outcome of the singe attack.' Since mortal wounds have no damage stat (or, arguably, a damage stat of 1, depending on your interpretation of what a damage stat is), then ... well you get the idea. The drone absorbs 1 mortal wound's worth of damage, which happens to be 1. It does not absorb all of the damage from one attack.

Again, as my example above (which no one addressed):

A single Devastator Squad firing 4 Lascannons at a target is a singe 'attack'. Each lascannon can get an unsaved wound: 4. Each lascannon also does d6 damage, giving a potential 4d6 damage. However, a nearby drone can take one of the wounds and turns all of its damage into 1 mortal wound, killing the drone and leaving only 3d6 damage on whatever the drone savior'd.

The second reply to this thread gave the correct answer.

From 'Mortal Wounds', pg. 181

Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit.

So no, the 'Mortal Wounds' is not the damage. The one point of damage inflicted by a Mortal Wound is the damage.

 Ghaz wrote:
From 'Mortal Wounds', pg. 181

Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit.

So no, the 'Mortal Wounds' is not the damage. The one point of damage inflicted by a Mortal Wound is the damage.

Exactly. They're confusing 'damage' the stat value with 'damage' the colloquial term for harm.

Smite can 'damage' (colloquial) a target even if a drone has intercepted the 'damage' (stat) of one of the mortal wounds that Smite deals.

 Talamare wrote:

 Overheal wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
Partially just to re-light a fire:
Saviour Protocols: If a <Sept> Drones unit is within 3" of a friendly <Sept> Infantry or <Sept> Battlesuit unit when an enemy attack successfully wounds it, you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.

The wounds caused by smite, though mortal wounds would be smites normal damage, so that all gets summed up into "a mortal wound"

In no way could Savior Protocols be interpreted as one drone being able to take the entire Psychic Power (up to 6 mortal wounds) and apply it to itself as only 1 mortal wound. That's not how any of this works.

I'm on neither side of this argument, but I want to point out that it kinda of IS how Saviour Protocol works.

It takes an entire damage value and converts it into 1 Mortal Wound.

If a weapon said it deals 400000000000000000d100 damage, it will convert that to 1 Mortal Wound.

His argument is
Smite deals d3 damage , Saviour Protocol transfers the d3 which it then converts into 1 Mortal Wound

The otherside basic argument is that
d3 is determined first, then Saviour Protocol transfers each damage individually


The idea behind his argument is that the d3 for Smite is determined on Step 5 of the attack resolution step.
Saviour Protocol happens at Step 3 of the attack resolution step

 pumaman1 wrote:


LOL so serious
But it is "normal" that smite causes d3 mortal wounds, so d3 mortal wounds are its normal damage. You could much more easily make the case that to wound rolls of 6 causing mortal wounds, or smite roll of 10+ causing d6 are abnormal damage states, that those would get around it, but thanks to "normal damage" and smite having a "normal" d3 mortal wounds, the drone may still soak up d3 mortal wounds for 1 mortal wound.

I am not TFG, I am okay with my opponent damaging my units, I am there to have fun, but your arguments ignore the "normal" damage. Any amount of damage that is "normal" could be summed into 1 mortal wound on the drone.

Are you arguing that mortal wounds =/= "normal,"

Except that Smite in no way states it deals D3 damage, it deals D3 Mortal Wounds. As Ghaz already highlighted, "each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit." Whether the power deals D3 MW, or D6 MW, is irrelevant to that interpretation. Same with the railgun: if the railgun had 2 shots, 2 drones would take MWs to absorb the hits. If one of those shots wounded on a 6, D3 additional drones would absorb MWs with SP.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have some T'au Cheese but I can't see any RAW or RAI that a drone should be able to soak the entire Smite ability as one mortal wound.

Unit1126PLL's example with the lascannons appears to be a correct interpretation of the RAW.

 Talamare wrote:

 Overheal wrote:

 pumaman1 wrote:
Partially just to re-light a fire:
Saviour Protocols: If a <Sept> Drones unit is within 3" of a friendly <Sept> Infantry or <Sept> Battlesuit unit when an enemy attack successfully wounds it, you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.

The wounds caused by smite, though mortal wounds would be smites normal damage, so that all gets summed up into "a mortal wound"

In no way could Savior Protocols be interpreted as one drone being able to take the entire Psychic Power (up to 6 mortal wounds) and apply it to itself as only 1 mortal wound. That's not how any of this works.

I'm on neither side of this argument, but I want to point out that it kinda of IS how Saviour Protocol works.

It takes an entire damage value and converts it into 1 Mortal Wound.

If a weapon said it deals 400000000000000000d100 damage, it will convert that to 1 Mortal Wound.

His argument is
Smite deals d3 damage, Saviour Protocol transfers the d3 which it then converts into 1 Mortal Wound

The otherside basic argument is that
d3 is determined first, then Saviour Protocol transfers each damage individually


The idea behind his argument is that the d3 for Smite is determined on Step 5 of the attack resolution step.
Saviour Protocol happens at Step 3 of the attack resolution step

Except by step it's to late it triggers at the end of 2. Which mortal wounds skip

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A single Devastator Squad firing 4 Lascannons at a target is a singe 'attack'. Each lascannon can get an unsaved wound: 4. Each lascannon also does d6 damage, giving a potential 4d6 damage. However, a nearby drone can take one of the wounds and turns all of its damage into 1 mortal wound, killing the drone and leaving only 3d6 damage on whatever the drone savior'd.

I want to say "No" to so much of this.

4 Lascannons is not a single Attack, it's 4 Attacks.
A Flamer is d6 Attacks, 5 separate Flamers is 5d6 separate Attacks.

Each Lascannon deals d6 damage, giving each Lascannon a potential of d6 damage.
You do NOT add up each separate Lascannon damage. Since there does exist weapons that deal 2d6 damage.
This is important so that you can understand that each d6 damage can at most kill only a single model.

 Talamare wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A single Devastator Squad firing 4 Lascannons at a target is a singe 'attack'. Each lascannon can get an unsaved wound: 4. Each lascannon also does d6 damage, giving a potential 4d6 damage. However, a nearby drone can take one of the wounds and turns all of its damage into 1 mortal wound, killing the drone and leaving only 3d6 damage on whatever the drone savior'd.

I want to say "No" to so much of this.

4 Lascannons is not a single Attack, it's 4 Attacks.
A Flamer is d6 Attacks, 5 separate Flamers is 5 separate Attacks.

Each Lascannon deals d6 damage, giving each Lascannon a potential of d6 damage.
You do NOT add up each separate Lascannon damage. Since there does exist weapons that deal 2d6 damage.
This is important so that you can understand that each d6 damage can at most kill only a single model.

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

Hmm....Saviour Protocols: If a <Sept> Drones unit is within 3" of a friendly <Sept> Infantry or <Sept> Battlesuit unit when an enemy attack successfully wounds it, you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.

I don't have the rules with me today, but does it say anywhere that smite/psychic powers are an attack? permissive rule sets, things aren't/can't until they specifically can. The manifest powers, pass tests results happen, but I can't recall if psyker abilities are called out as attacks. Maybe we cannot savior protocol any from psychic attacks?

That said really, Tau could use something to do/some basic defense in the psychic phase. We don't even have a talisman of atras molach for 50 points anymore.

 Talamare wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A single Devastator Squad firing 4 Lascannons at a target is a singe 'attack'. Each lascannon can get an unsaved wound: 4. Each lascannon also does d6 damage, giving a potential 4d6 damage. However, a nearby drone can take one of the wounds and turns all of its damage into 1 mortal wound, killing the drone and leaving only 3d6 damage on whatever the drone savior'd.

I want to say "No" to so much of this.

4 Lascannons is not a single Attack, it's 4 Attacks.
A Flamer is d6 Attacks, 5 separate Flamers is 5 separate Attacks.

Each Lascannon deals d6 damage, giving each Lascannon a potential of d6 damage.
You do NOT add up each separate Lascannon damage. Since there does exist weapons that deal 2d6 damage.
This is important so that you can understand that each d6 damage can at most kill only a single model.

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).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A single Devastator Squad firing 4 Lascannons at a target is a singe 'attack'. Each lascannon can get an unsaved wound: 4. Each lascannon also does d6 damage, giving a potential 4d6 damage. However, a nearby drone can take one of the wounds and turns all of its damage into 1 mortal wound, killing the drone and leaving only 3d6 damage on whatever the drone savior'd.

I want to say "No" to so much of this.

4 Lascannons is not a single Attack, it's 4 Attacks.
A Flamer is d6 Attacks, 5 separate Flamers is 5 separate Attacks.

Each Lascannon deals d6 damage, giving each Lascannon a potential of d6 damage.
You do NOT add up each separate Lascannon damage. Since there does exist weapons that deal 2d6 damage.
This is important so that you can understand that each d6 damage can at most kill only a single model.

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).

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.

 pumaman1 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A single Devastator Squad firing 4 Lascannons at a target is a singe 'attack'. Each lascannon can get an unsaved wound: 4. Each lascannon also does d6 damage, giving a potential 4d6 damage. However, a nearby drone can take one of the wounds and turns all of its damage into 1 mortal wound, killing the drone and leaving only 3d6 damage on whatever the drone savior'd.

I want to say "No" to so much of this.

4 Lascannons is not a single Attack, it's 4 Attacks.
A Flamer is d6 Attacks, 5 separate Flamers is 5 separate Attacks.

Each Lascannon deals d6 damage, giving each Lascannon a potential of d6 damage.
You do NOT add up each separate Lascannon damage. Since there does exist weapons that deal 2d6 damage.
This is important so that you can understand that each d6 damage can at most kill only a single model.

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).

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.

So attacks are done by models, not units?

Because 4 lascannons is one 'unit's' attack, but 4 'model's' attacks.

I recognize that a single unit's attack can be split. That doesn't make it more than one attack, in my opinion.

(see the rabbit hole we're going down when you apply colloquial definitions to the rules?)