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.

 doctortom wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


However, the stratagem has nowhere overridden going through the rest of the shooting steps for the normal weapon profile as well - which is mandatory. So you have to show why or how the stratagem stops the normal weapon resolution steps from continuing once it's already done it's d3 mortal wounds.

The stratagem isn't overriding the rest of the shooting steps - the normal steps for when all you have is mortal damage is to not make a to wound roll. All the stratagem does here is override the normal damage with what it tells you to to if you hit - inflict d3 mortal wounds. You follow the normal shooting steps for inflicting d3 mortal wounds. You have to show how when you are told to inflict d3 mortal wounds that it mystically becomes d3 mortal wounds + 1 normal wound when that normal wound is in not mentioned as something to be resolved after hitting.

You contradicted yourself - is the stratagem overriding the shooting process, or not?

Because you say it's not, at first, and then you say it overrides the normal damage - but doing normal damage is part of the shooting process.

.

It overrides the damage done by the weapon. That's not overriding the shooting process. The normal shooting process does not involve making a to wound roll for any mortal wounds. No contradiction.


The citation is the stratagem itself. Read the stratagem. It tells you you only make one to hit roll. It tells you what you do if you hit. If you do more than what it instructs you to do when you hit, then you aren't following the rules as instructed by the stratagem.

Yes it is, because the normal shooting process involves figuring out how much damage a weapon did. It's possible to do mortal wounds while simultaneously doing the normal shooting process, you know.

I did read the stratagem - the To-Hit roll clearly conflicts, and therefore overrides. So if it hits, I follow the directions in the stratagem and do d3 mortal wounds.

What do I do with the instruction from the BRB to continue to resolve the weapon's damage?

Presumably you can see that "resolving the BRB" and "resolving the stratagem" are not in conflict and can (and in fact must) be done at the same time?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:
Further to this, It is when you declare you are firing with the missile launcher, before you have declared it's profile.

Yes, but you still get to to reference a profile.

In fact, you HAVE TO, otherwise you have no idea the missile launcher's range.

The number of shots on the profile is overridden by the stratagem, which tells you to make one to hit roll. Likewise, the damage on the profile is overridden by the stratagem, which tells you do do D3 mortal wounds if you hit.

Where does it actually say this? Or are you asserting it with no citations?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tristanleo wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:
Further to this, It is when you declare you are firing with the missile launcher, before you have declared it's profile.

Yes, but you still get to to reference a profile.

In fact, you HAVE TO, otherwise you have no idea the missile launcher's range.

No you don't.

Missile launcher rules tell you to declare a profile when you attack, Flakk missile stratagem states it has to be used before you attack. therefore, RAW, Flakk missiles ignore range.

If they're used before you attack, then surely the missile launcher is eligible to make an attack later in the turn, as every shooting weapon has permission to make an attack in the shooting phase, and nowhere does the stratagem say it is an attack.

Stratagem says you only make 1 hit roll for the weapon this phase, so no, you can't make another attack as you have already made the roll that the stratagem allows by rolling for the flakk missile.

https://img.fireden.net/tg/image/1503/27/1503275954353.jpg

Tristanleo wrote:

Stratagem says you only make 1 hit roll for the weapon this phase, so no, you can't make another attack as you have already made the roll that the stratagem allows by rolling for the flakk missile.

https://img.fireden.net/tg/image/1503/27/1503275954353.jpg

That looks like an effect to me. Not a weapon profile.

Tristanleo wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:
Further to this, It is when you declare you are firing with the missile launcher, before you have declared it's profile.

Yes, but you still get to to reference a profile.

In fact, you HAVE TO, otherwise you have no idea the missile launcher's range.

The number of shots on the profile is overridden by the stratagem, which tells you to make one to hit roll. Likewise, the damage on the profile is overridden by the stratagem, which tells you do do D3 mortal wounds if you hit.

Where does it actually say this? Or are you asserting it with no citations?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tristanleo wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:
Further to this, It is when you declare you are firing with the missile launcher, before you have declared it's profile.

Yes, but you still get to to reference a profile.

In fact, you HAVE TO, otherwise you have no idea the missile launcher's range.

No you don't.

Missile launcher rules tell you to declare a profile when you attack, Flakk missile stratagem states it has to be used before you attack. therefore, RAW, Flakk missiles ignore range.

If they're used before you attack, then surely the missile launcher is eligible to make an attack later in the turn, as every shooting weapon has permission to make an attack in the shooting phase, and nowhere does the stratagem say it is an attack.

Stratagem says you only make 1 hit roll for the weapon this phase, so no, you can't make another attack as you have already made the roll that the stratagem allows by rolling for the flakk missile.

https://img.fireden.net/tg/image/1503/27/1503275954353.jpg

So then we're back to assuming the one to-hit rule includes the attack and the stratagem all neatly bundled into a single To-Hit roll, which is where we started - because the stratagem mandates that an attack takes place, and nowhere says that it replaces said attack.

 daedalus wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:

Stratagem says you only make 1 hit roll for the weapon this phase, so no, you can't make another attack as you have already made the roll that the stratagem allows by rolling for the flakk missile.

https://img.fireden.net/tg/image/1503/27/1503275954353.jpg

That looks like an effect to me. Not a weapon profile.

It's about as good as a weapon profile as it needs to be. You declare it before you select your weapon profile and it only allows you to make 1 Hit roll in the phase. Therefore, you follow what it says in the stratagem and nothing else, as it hasn't allowed you to press on to selecting the profile you want to use and the Stratagem prevents you from making an attack with the weapon (as stated in Unit1126Pll post) as you are only allowed to make 1 hit roll and to use a profile you would be required to make a second hit roll.

Tristanleo wrote:
It's about as good as a weapon profile as it needs to be. You declare it before you select your weapon profile and it only allows you to make 1 Hit roll in the phase. Therefore, you follow what it says in the stratagem and nothing else, as it hasn't allowed you to press on to selecting the profile you want to use and the Stratagem prevents you from making an attack with the weapon (as stated in unit's post) as you are only allowed to make 1 hit roll and to use a profile you would be required to make a second hit roll.

Then it's a terrible weapon and we're back to page 1 because you can't use it because it has no range.

Tristanleo wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:

Stratagem says you only make 1 hit roll for the weapon this phase, so no, you can't make another attack as you have already made the roll that the stratagem allows by rolling for the flakk missile.

https://img.fireden.net/tg/image/1503/27/1503275954353.jpg

That looks like an effect to me. Not a weapon profile.

It's about as good as a weapon profile as it needs to be. You declare it before you select your weapon profile and it only allows you to make 1 Hit roll in the phase. Therefore, you follow what it says in the stratagem and nothing else, as it hasn't allowed you to press on to selecting the profile you want to use and the Stratagem prevents you from making an attack with the weapon (as stated in Unit1126Pll post) as you are only allowed to make 1 hit roll and to use a profile you would be required to make a second hit roll.

Indeed, it does not allow the missile launcher to attack.

daedalus wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:
It's about as good as a weapon profile as it needs to be. You declare it before you select your weapon profile and it only allows you to make 1 Hit roll in the phase. Therefore, you follow what it says in the stratagem and nothing else, as it hasn't allowed you to press on to selecting the profile you want to use and the Stratagem prevents you from making an attack with the weapon (as stated in unit's post) as you are only allowed to make 1 hit roll and to use a profile you would be required to make a second hit roll.

Then it's a terrible weapon and we're back to page 1 because you can't use it because it has no range.

It has infinite range, presumably, though you're right, in this case, it has no range and "infinite" is just as much a presumption as anything else.

 daedalus wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:
It's about as good as a weapon profile as it needs to be. You declare it before you select your weapon profile and it only allows you to make 1 Hit roll in the phase. Therefore, you follow what it says in the stratagem and nothing else, as it hasn't allowed you to press on to selecting the profile you want to use and the Stratagem prevents you from making an attack with the weapon (as stated in unit's post) as you are only allowed to make 1 hit roll and to use a profile you would be required to make a second hit roll.

Then it's a terrible weapon and we're back to page 1 because you can't use it because it has no range.

Because it bypasses the requirement for range, Read it as thus:

Say we are firing at a model 50" away, We can still declare them as a target, but we cannot progress any further from when we declare a profile as we are not permitted to progress on to the "To hit" stage as we do not meet the requirements for range.

Say now that I declare this stratagem after declaring a target and before selecting a profile, The stratagem permits me to resolve the hit roll without checking the range.

Tristanleo wrote:
Because it bypasses the requirement for range, Read it as thus:

Say we are firing at a model 50" away, We can still declare them as a target, but we cannot progress any further from when we declare a profile as we are not permitted to progress on to the "To hit" stage as we do not meet the requirements for range.

Say now that I declare this stratagem after declaring a target and before selecting a profile, The stratagem permits me to resolve the hit roll without checking the range.

Sorry but that is incorrect.

"In order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit must be within the Range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model."

So you still need to be in range to use the stratagem with the Missile Launcher.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


However, the stratagem has nowhere overridden going through the rest of the shooting steps for the normal weapon profile as well - which is mandatory. So you have to show why or how the stratagem stops the normal weapon resolution steps from continuing once it's already done it's d3 mortal wounds.

The stratagem isn't overriding the rest of the shooting steps - the normal steps for when all you have is mortal damage is to not make a to wound roll. All the stratagem does here is override the normal damage with what it tells you to to if you hit - inflict d3 mortal wounds. You follow the normal shooting steps for inflicting d3 mortal wounds. You have to show how when you are told to inflict d3 mortal wounds that it mystically becomes d3 mortal wounds + 1 normal wound when that normal wound is in not mentioned as something to be resolved after hitting.

You contradicted yourself - is the stratagem overriding the shooting process, or not?

Because you say it's not, at first, and then you say it overrides the normal damage - but doing normal damage is part of the shooting process.

.

It overrides the damage done by the weapon. That's not overriding the shooting process. The normal shooting process does not involve making a to wound roll for any mortal wounds. No contradiction.


The citation is the stratagem itself. Read the stratagem. It tells you you only make one to hit roll. It tells you what you do if you hit. If you do more than what it instructs you to do when you hit, then you aren't following the rules as instructed by the stratagem.

Yes it is, because the normal shooting process involves figuring out how much damage a weapon did. It's possible to do mortal wounds while simultaneously doing the normal shooting process, you know.

You are still figuing how much damage a weapon does, it's just that the stratagem overrides the weapon to say that it does d3 mortal wounds, so as part of your normal shooting process you figure out that it does D3 mortal wounds.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I did read the stratagem - the To-Hit roll clearly conflicts, and therefore overrides. So if it hits, I follow the directions in the stratagem and do d3 mortal wounds.

What do I do with the instruction from the BRB to continue to resolve the weapon's damage?

There are no instructions to continue to resolve the damage. You have been told that the damage is d3 mortal wounds. There is no statement that there are any normal wounds to roll for in addition to the D3 mortal wounds. Therefore, the normal shooting process is to follow the process for the mortal wounds - skipping the rolling to wound and making saves steps, going to inflict damage for each mortal wound (remembering that excess mortal wounds carry over to other models once the first model's dead), then move on to other units or other weapons firing because you're now done with the missile that's been launched.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Presumably you can see that "resolving the BRB" and "resolving the stratagem" are not in conflict and can (and in fact must) be done at the same time?

You keep ignoring that the stratagem overrides the normal damage since it tells you what damge you do (D3 mortal wounds) when you hit. "Resolving the BRB" means resolving the mortal wounds. Trying to resolve anything other than that is actually not following the BRB because you don't get to manufacture to wound rolls out of thin air for damage that the weapon no longer does (since it is doing only mortal wounds).

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Tristanleo wrote:
Because it bypasses the requirement for range, Read it as thus:

Say we are firing at a model 50" away, We can still declare them as a target, but we cannot progress any further from when we declare a profile as we are not permitted to progress on to the "To hit" stage as we do not meet the requirements for range.

Say now that I declare this stratagem after declaring a target and before selecting a profile, The stratagem permits me to resolve the hit roll without checking the range.

Sorry but that is incorrect.

"In order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit must be within the Range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model."

So you still need to be in range to use the stratagem with the Missile Launcher.

Ok, I stand corrected, but the argument largely remains true, the only difference is that you would have to be in range of A profile, you wouldn't have to declare use of that profile yet, only be within that profile.

 doctortom wrote:

There are no instructions to continue to resolve the damage. You have been told that the damage is d3 mortal wounds.

There are no instructions to continue to resolve damage on the Volley Fire or Bolter Drill stratagems, or the Iron Hands warlord trait, or the Storm Troopers rule.

Do the effects on those negate the shooting or not? Why?

So I concede the point - not for the reasons provided by doctorum as I still don't see where the stratagem overrides anything (despite strident claims to the contrary!) but rather due to Tristanleo's argument.

The stratagem is used before any attack is made at all. However, the missile launcher may make no further (useful) attacks that turn, as it may no longer roll any to hit-rolls, and cannot have attacked before the stratagem was used, because the stratagem requires the missile launcher to be able to attack a flyer.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I concede the point - not for the reasons provided by doctorum as I still don't see where the stratagem overrides anything (despite strident claims to the contrary!) but rather due to Tristanleo's argument.

The stratagem is used before any attack is made at all. However, the missile launcher may make no further (useful) attacks that turn, as it may no longer roll any to hit-rolls, and cannot have attacked before the stratagem was used, because the stratagem requires the missile launcher to be able to attack a flyer.

No, no, we both got it wrong. It can be used by any adeptus astartes infantry model, but the unit that the model is attacking has to be able to fly with a missile launcher!

 daedalus wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

There are no instructions to continue to resolve the damage. You have been told that the damage is d3 mortal wounds.

There are no instructions to continue to resolve damage on the Volley Fire or Bolter Drill stratagems, or the Iron Hands warlord trait, or the Storm Troopers rule.

Do the effects on those negate the shooting or not? Why?

I don't have access to those stratagems now to be able to comment upon them.

 doctortom wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

There are no instructions to continue to resolve the damage. You have been told that the damage is d3 mortal wounds.

There are no instructions to continue to resolve damage on the Volley Fire or Bolter Drill stratagems, or the Iron Hands warlord trait, or the Storm Troopers rule.

Do the effects on those negate the shooting or not? Why?

I don't have access to those stratagems now to be able to comment upon them.

I don't want to spam a bunch of rules to the board, but here's a couple examples:





They're all more or less variations of a theme. I think death to the false emperor is something similar. On a hit of 6+, they can immediately take another attack. It does not tell you to resolve the rest of the attack. I cannot accept your interpretation that a successful roll to hit with the flakk missile does not continue its normal attack without also needing to accept that these cases of rolls of 6+ would also not continue their normal attack.

These say take another attack. They don't say anything like Flakk missiles for a substitution. Take "another" attack does mean you continue the first attack. With Flakk missiles the quote tells you what the damage is - D3 mortal wounds. That's a substitution, that's not an addition (which the other stratagems you are mentioning here specifically state are additional attacks). These stratagems don't legitimize trying to claim you still do normal damage in addition to the instructions to do d3 mortal wounds (and no instructions to do any more than the d3 mortal wounds).

Thanks for coming back with the rules quotes though, it does make it easier to comment on them!

 doctortom wrote:
These say take another attack. They don't say anything like Flakk missiles for a substitution. Take "another" attack does mean you continue the first attack. With Flakk missiles the quote tells you what the damage is - D3 mortal wounds. That's a substitution, that's not an addition (which the other stratagems you are mentioning here specifically state are additional attacks). These stratagems don't legitimize trying to claim you still do normal damage in addition to the instructions to do d3 mortal wounds (and no instructions to do any more than the d3 mortal wounds).

Maybe for the second one, because it said you can make another hit roll, but in the case of the first one, attack != hit. I roll two dice to-hit for my two attacks, and I rolled a six for one of them, granting me a third attack via the stratagem. Applying your flakk reasoning, then I need to roll the new attack and nothing happens with that first 6+ hit. We know this because it explicitly defines this to happen on a hit roll of 6, and still does not say or imply what I should do with THIS hit.

And again, flakk missiles don't say anything for a substitution. You're seeing damage mentioned there and immediately assuming something that isn't there. Situations that modify profiles will explicitly state them, as in the case of relics and stuff like this GK stratagem:



There's an explicit replacement that happens there.

Crap you guys. I had actual work to do at work today and this whole thing spun off into all of this?

Can I get a quick break-down of what all is still unresolved? I am still at work for another 2 hours and don't quite have the time to read through an figure out what is still in question here.

Quick notes: an attack can be resolved without going into the to-wound step: see markerlights on tau, or simply failing the to-hit(you have resolved tge shooting when you fail tohit, you do not then have to roll none to wounds assign none wounds and save none damage)

Edit: scratch last paragraph, should have doublechecked strategem before writing.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Crap you guys. I had actual work to do at work today and this whole thing spun off into all of this?

Can I get a quick break-down of what all is still unresolved? I am still at work for another 2 hours and don't quite have the time to read through an figure out what is still in question here.

Quick notes: an attack can be resolved without going into the to-wound step: see markerlights on tau, or simply failing the to-hit(you have resolved tge shooting when you fail tohit, you do not then have to roll none to wounds assign none wounds and save none damage)

Edit: scratch last paragraph, should have doublechecked strategem before writing.

It basically mostly boils down to whether or not the flakk missile is actually a replacement profile. If it's a replacement profile, how does it actually work since it lacks, among other things, most importantly the range.

If it is a profile, it seems incompatible with the rules as a standalone profile.
If it overrides the normal rules for the weapon such that the weapon isn't fired with the normal profile, what makes it do that in such a way that all of the "on a 6+ to hit, $effect happens" stratagems don't also prevent firing in the same way.

Those are my hangups.

Use some common sense please. We all know GW rule writing is pathetic. Its not a profile. It misses everything a profile has, except the damage. It says to make an attack with a missile launcher. You can only make an attack with a weapon if the target is in range, the model can see the target, if the target is not within 1" of friendly models, and any other restrictions (character rule, etc.) dont apply. HIWPI, its only one attack, if it hits, the target suffers d3 mortal wounds. Thats it.

p5freak wrote:
Use some common sense please. We all know GW rule writing is pathetic. Its not a profile. It misses everything a profile has, except the damage. It says to make an attack with a missile launcher. You can only make an attack with a weapon if the target is in range, the model can see the target, if the target is not within 1" of friendly models, and any other restrictions (character rule, etc.) dont apply. HIWPI, its only one attack, if it hits, the target suffers d3 mortal wounds. Thats it.

This. Common sense often finds the answer and avoids the thread boarding the Crazy Train like so many seem to these days... destination Argumentville.

These threads amaze me.

I guess I'm more curious how many people who argue this nonsense on here actually push for their interpretation during a game. My bs meter is very simple:

1) Are you basing your argument on obtuse language, a missing comma or some other vague grammatical error? You're wrong...or you're a douche.

2) If you need to justify a position by sneakily and awkwardly combining abstract sentences etc...to "get around" what is overwhelmingly obvious as the intent of the rule...you're also wrong or a douche.

Everybody knows damn well what is intended by 99% of the rules put out there, regardless of poor writing. It's the same little giggle you get when you stumble upon some awfully planned out spam army or some trick unit - if there's a second where you go "Oh, damn...that's filthy, it probably shouldn't work that way..." then don't.

It's a friggin' game of toy soldiers.

I love the comment that it has no range - that made my day.

 Elbows wrote:
These threads amaze me.

I guess I'm more curious how many people who argue this nonsense on here actually push for their interpretation during a game. My bs meter is very simple:

1) Are you basing your argument on obtuse language, a missing comma or some other vague grammatical error? You're wrong...or you're a douche.

2) If you need to justify a position by sneakily and awkwardly combining abstract sentences etc...to "get around" what is overwhelmingly obvious as the intent of the rule...you're also wrong or a douche.

Everybody knows damn well what is intended by 99% of the rules put out there, regardless of poor writing. It's the same little giggle you get when you stumble upon some awfully planned out spam army or some trick unit - if there's a second where you go "Oh, damn...that's filthy, it probably shouldn't work that way..." then don't.

It's a friggin' game of toy soldiers.

In other circumstances I'd be inclined to agree with you. This is not one of those cases, because the intent of the rule is not obvious, but leans towards inflicting both the missile hit and the mortal wounds.

As I pointed out when making this thread, in cases where the gun does not fire normally (Such as the Linebreaker Bombardment,) they specify that the normal shot doesn't get to fire.

Additionally, when weapons have an effect that can deal Mortal Wounds on a certain to-wound roll, they specify whether or not that attack also causes normal damage - Sniper Rifles, for example, cause both a Mortal Wound and a regular one, while Captain Sicarus causes D3 Moral wounds INSTEAD of D3 damage. Therefore, both types of attacks can clearly happen.

Thirdly, and most notably, the way that the rule is worded, "You may only make a single hit roll with the weapon this phase," mirrors other abilities such as Titanic Feet, which read, "Make X hit rolls for each attack made with this weapon, instead of 1." This implies that you are still making a regular attack, and that the rule is worded this way to avoid you abusing Frag Missiles to get d6 shots that could all inflict Mortal Wounds. If they didn't want you to fire the Krak Missile, it would have been much simpler to write, "Instead of attacking normally, make a single to-hit roll, adding one to the result" or some such similar wording. They didn't do this, however, and instead chose to use wording that only makes sense if it's restricting the weapons profile, which only makes sense if the weapon has a profile.

Intent, as such, is not totally clear, but in my opinion, based on the three points I present above, the intent appears to be that both the normal damage and the mortal wounds are inflicted.
The arguments for RAI wanting players to only inflict d3 mortal wounds are as follows:
'That would be too powerful, it's just fine',
and, (More substantially,)
'No permission is given to hit with the missile'.

The first of these is completely insubstantial. How effective the weapon is shouldn't come into a discussion of what the intent is - After all, GW will gladly publish characters like Guilliman or pre-nerf Commissars, and the Flak Missile isn't overtly powerful if it only inflicts D3 mortal wounds anyways.
The second is better, but this only shows that the intent is unclear, not what the intent actually is. Furthermore, as I bring up in a moment, 40k is a ruleset where you don't need to be reminded of what's allowed in order to do it. If you are supposed to avoid following the rules as presented in the rulebook, that is *supposed* to be explicitly mentioned in any exception. This doesn't always happen, but that's at least how it is supposed to happen, and that exception is never listed or even hinted at.


If we want to approach this as a RAW discussion, meanwhile, we reach the same result: Not entirely clear, but leaning heavily towards the normal damage being inflicted. This is because no restriction exists to prevent the damage from being inflicted, and the way 40k rules are written, if no restrictions or modifiers are put forth, they do not exist. The d3 damage is not listed as replacing the normal damage, no part of the rule restricts any other damage, and it never says that you do not roll to wound. The profile of the Missile Launcher does not change, and is not somehow upended by there being a special effect that happens on a succesful hit.


In summary, Elbows, you are pretending that there is no ambiguity and that the people you disagree with are just being obtuse and 'are a douche', when in fact there is a lot of ambiguity, and what few details we have to work with lean against your position.

 Primark G wrote:
I love the comment that it has no range - that made my day.

You should have seen the good old days. Nothing like Gwar straight-faced arguing that you can't legally play a 5th ed game 33% of the time except on a seize the initiative or whatever the obscure exception was because one of the mission types didn't actually tell you to start playing the game. He would have called it a "house rule" or "cheating".

God, I really miss that guy. YDMC has been at best a kid's league sport ever since he got banned.

For what it’s worth I just play it inflicts mortal wound(s).

Honestly, I kinda agree with that interpretation of what was meant. Problem was that the more I thought about the other way, the more the rules I read supported it.

On a personal level, if anyone asked me about it, I'd be like, "dude, I'm playing IG. Take the krak missile hit too, I get it" and get over it.

All things considered, I'm really not trying to make the d3 + to-wound in bad faith. I really do think that's what the rules suggest, even if it's not intended.

 daedalus wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

There are no instructions to continue to resolve the damage. You have been told that the damage is d3 mortal wounds.

There are no instructions to continue to resolve damage on the Volley Fire or Bolter Drill stratagems, or the Iron Hands warlord trait, or the Storm Troopers rule.

Do the effects on those negate the shooting or not? Why?

I don't have access to those stratagems now to be able to comment upon them.

I don't want to spam a bunch of rules to the board, but here's a couple examples:





They're all more or less variations of a theme. I think death to the false emperor is something similar. On a hit of 6+, they can immediately take another attack. It does not tell you to resolve the rest of the attack. I cannot accept your interpretation that a successful roll to hit with the flakk missile does not continue its normal attack without also needing to accept that these cases of rolls of 6+ would also not continue their normal attack.

One thing I think people are overlooking since it is just a tiny blurb on the side of a page, and still doesn't cause these Strategems to actually go back a step is that the rules were written as if every dice was rolled by itself (one at a time). So, rules as written, every attack should be rolled one at a time, not causing you to go back a step.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

One thing I think people are overlooking since it is just a tiny blurb on the side of a page, and still doesn't cause these Strategems to actually go back a step is that the rules were written as if every dice was rolled by itself (one at a time). So, rules as written, every attack should be rolled one at a time, not causing you to go back a step.

In that case, let's talk about precedent: Zhadsnark Da Rippa.
Zhadsnark Da Rippa is a Forge World model with a weapon called 'Da Pain Klaw', which is kind of like a souped up Power Klaw. It has AP-4 instead of AP-3, doesn't have a to-hit penalty, and most notably, has the following rule:
'If the target of a hit roll of 6 made for this weapon is an enemy INFANTRY or MONSTER model, it suffers a mortal wound in addition to any other damage.'

Because of this, we can demonstrably prove that it is possible to inflict Mortal Wounds with a to-hit roll, and that this doesn't force us to 'Go back a step'. By your logic, Da Pain Klaw shouldn't be able to exist because you would have to somehow do things out of order, but this proves that it's not an issue.
(And before it gets brought up: Yes, a lot of the Forge World rules were kind of a mess upon release, but this was not FAQd, and nobody has any problem with it.)

With all of this, I can confidently say that your argument about order of operations does not hold water, because there is a precedent for what you are describing as impossible.