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.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 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.

Not really comparable however. There are a few models that cause "additional mortal wound" when they roll a 6 and its just that, additional.

The Flakk missle strat does not say "an additional D3 mortal wounds". It says make a hit roll with +1 and do d3 mortal wounds. So that's all you do. You don't roll anything else.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 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.

Of course, bringing in that as an argument you seem to be burying the lede as it states you do the mortal wound in addition to any other damage. The krakk missile stratagem only states you do d3 mortal wounds, not mortal wounds in addition. Of course, this is a Forge World rule, so you can't use it to justify the GW Mothership's rule writing, but it is interesting that they were able to make things clearer than their GW Overlords with this rule.

 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.

Every die is rolled by itself during the step of the phase when you roll things. I think it's step 4, and has a bunch of substeps for to-hit, to-wound, allocating wounds, and so on. I don't have my rulebook with me, so I'm going off memory. Counting the number of attacks is literally not even in the same step as all the rolling. I think it's part of the previous step 3 (or whatever the number may be). It would take you further back in the process to add an extra one in than generating a couple of mortal wounds but not allocating them (which is more supported by the rules).

Mind you, I think the out-of-step argument is not really a good one for anything.

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, you have nothing written to back up your claims. Your arguments do not qualify as RAW.

When it says to attack with the weapon it is automatically implied that you resolve the weapons attacks. Otherwise it would not mention the weapon at all. I think what is confusing people here is the "you can only make 1 to hit roll with the weapon" I think this means you can't reroll the attack in any way.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, you have nothing written to back up your claims. Your arguments do not qualify as RAW.

When it says to attack with the weapon it is automatically implied that you resolve the weapons attacks. Otherwise it would not mention the weapon at all. I think what is confusing people here is the "you can only make 1 to hit roll with the weapon" I think this means you can't reroll the attack in any way.

I think it's more that you don't get to take a profile that gives you more than one attack, then make more than one attack with each doing D3 mortal wounds.

 doctortom wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, you have nothing written to back up your claims. Your arguments do not qualify as RAW.

When it says to attack with the weapon it is automatically implied that you resolve the weapons attacks. Otherwise it would not mention the weapon at all. I think what is confusing people here is the "you can only make 1 to hit roll with the weapon" I think this means you can't reroll the attack in any way.

I think it's more that you don't get to take a profile that gives you more than one attack, then make more than one attack with each doing D3 mortal wounds.

That is true - krak or frag. Why don't they just say...fire a krak missile? However - do you think you could reroll the attack with a reroll - or is that broken by the text to.

I see the trickery here - If I am right and the weapon attack resolves as normal in addition to the mortal wound - if you hit - when do you roll for them? Immediately in the middle of you rockets attacks? Seems odd to suspend a roll for another. If you are right though - Why didn't they just say...on the roll of a 2+ a model with a rocket launcher can deal d3 mortal wounds to a flyer instead of it's normal attack within 48 inches?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, you have nothing written to back up your claims. Your arguments do not qualify as RAW.

When it says to attack with the weapon it is automatically implied that you resolve the weapons attacks. Otherwise it would not mention the weapon at all. I think what is confusing people here is the "you can only make 1 to hit roll with the weapon" I think this means you can't reroll the attack in any way.

I think it's more that you don't get to take a profile that gives you more than one attack, then make more than one attack with each doing D3 mortal wounds.

That is true - krak or frag. Why don't they just say...fire a krak missile? However - do you think you could reroll the attack with a reroll - or is that broken by the text to.

I see the trickery here - If I am right and the weapon attack resolves as normal in addition to the mortal wound - if you hit - when do you roll for them? Immediately in the middle of you rockets attacks? Seems odd to suspend a roll for another. If you are right though - Why didn't they just say...on the roll of a 2+ a model with a rocket launcher can deal d3 mortal wounds to a flyer instead of it's normal attack within 48 inches?

You have a good point that it could also be interpreted to mean that you can't reroll the attack. I suspect that wasn't their intention, though, but it would definitely be something to talk about with your opponent and might not be a bad thing for GW to add a note about if they FAQ the Flakk Missile stratagem to clarify if it does only mortal wounds or mortal wounds plus the additional missile damage. Given the argument here it clearly needs a FAQ.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 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.

Not really comparable however. There are a few models that cause "additional mortal wound" when they roll a 6 and its just that, additional.

The Flakk missle strat does not say "an additional D3 mortal wounds". It says make a hit roll with +1 and do d3 mortal wounds. So that's all you do. You don't roll anything else.

True, they don't say "additional". However, this is unnecessary because of how English and basic logic works. GW has a long tradition of including redundant wording in their rulesets.

In a permissive ruleset, you must do what the rules tell you to do. Not what they don't tell you to do.

The rules say that when making a ranged attack with a weapon, you roll to hit. Then wound. Then save. Then multiply wounds as per the weapon.

This Strategem for Flakk missiles says that you make an attack with a weapon, but only roll once to hit regardless of the number of attacks you would normally make with a +1 bonus. If you hit, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds. That's all the strategem says. However, it does NOT explicitly override the basic rules for performing a ranged attack. So you still can, and indeed MUST, continue resolving the attack order. You must roll to wound with the weapon you made the Flakk Strategem attack with, an appropriate save must be made, and then multiply the wounds out as per the attack.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 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.

Not really comparable however. There are a few models that cause "additional mortal wound" when they roll a 6 and its just that, additional.

The Flakk missle strat does not say "an additional D3 mortal wounds". It says make a hit roll with +1 and do d3 mortal wounds. So that's all you do. You don't roll anything else.

True, they don't say "additional". However, this is unnecessary because of how English and basic logic works. GW has a long tradition of including redundant wording in their rulesets

Actually, how English and basic logic works would dictate that you don't roll anything beyond determining the number of mortal wounds. It tells you what you do when you hit (the mortal wounds), and English and basic logic would say that if there's anything additional that it needs to be pointed out..

 Grey Templar wrote:
In a permissive ruleset, you must do what the rules tell you to do. Not what they don't tell you to do.

I'm glad you say that. So you agree that you do what the rules tell you to do - roll for the D3 mortal wounds, and you don't do what they don't tell you to do - roll for any other wounds that aren't mentioned in addition to the D3 mortal wounds.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The rules say that when making a ranged attack with a weapon, you roll to hit. Then wound. Then save. Then multiply wounds as per the weapon.

Actually, the rules say that when dealing with a mortal wound you skip making a to wound roll and also skip making a save. What you need to do it prove that there is a normal wound in addition to the mortal wounds, a normal wound that would require making a to wound roll and possibly a save. With your thinking, you could never have a weapon that does only mortal wounds because you would never get a to wound roll or a save. The rules for mortal wounds have us covered, though. As the rules stand you are perfectly fine not making a to wound roll if all that you have are mortal wounds, so citing that the rules state that you make a to wound roll as justification for there being a normal wound doesn't work.

That only applies if a weapon's Profile says it only causes mortal wounds.

If you're attacking with a weapon that has a profile that causes normal wounds, like this Flakk strategem always does, then you must still roll normally even if it adds mortal wounds onto an effect.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That only applies if a weapon's Profile says it only causes mortal wounds.

If you're attacking with a weapon that has a profile that causes normal wounds, like this Flakk strategem always does, then you must still roll normally even if it adds mortal wounds onto an effect.

You're attacking with a weapon that we are told caused D3 mortal wounds damage thanks to the stratagem, not d3 wounds in addition to its normal damage. With the strategem's statement, you have to be told that it's in addition to the normal damage for the normal damage to still apply. Otherwise, it's a substitution of the damage the stratagem tells you to do instead of the normal damage. Since we're not told it's in addition, it's a substitution, and there is no normal damage that you have to make a to wound roll for.

 doctortom wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That only applies if a weapon's Profile says it only causes mortal wounds.

If you're attacking with a weapon that has a profile that causes normal wounds, like this Flakk strategem always does, then you must still roll normally even if it adds mortal wounds onto an effect.

You're attacking with a weapon that we are told caused D3 mortal wounds damage thanks to the stratagem, not d3 wounds in addition to its normal damage. With the strategem's statement, you have to be told that it's in addition to the normal damage for the normal damage to still apply. Otherwise, it's a substitution of the damage the stratagem tells you to do instead of the normal damage. Since we're not told it's in addition, it's a substitution, and there is no normal damage that you have to make a to wound roll for.

Again. No. The basic attack order of operations is still in effect, because we are not told otherwise.

You are blatantly ignoring the basic rules of the game. Addition to is the basic way the rules work, Substitution only occurs if you are explicitly told so.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
That only applies if a weapon's Profile says it only causes mortal wounds.

If you're attacking with a weapon that has a profile that causes normal wounds, like this Flakk strategem always does, then you must still roll normally even if it adds mortal wounds onto an effect.

You're attacking with a weapon that we are told caused D3 mortal wounds damage thanks to the stratagem, not d3 wounds in addition to its normal damage. With the strategem's statement, you have to be told that it's in addition to the normal damage for the normal damage to still apply. Otherwise, it's a substitution of the damage the stratagem tells you to do instead of the normal damage. Since we're not told it's in addition, it's a substitution, and there is no normal damage that you have to make a to wound roll for.

Again. No. The basic attack order of operations is still in effect, because we are not told otherwise.

You are blatantly ignoring the basic rules of the game. Addition to is the basic way the rules work, Substitution only occurs if you are explicitly told so.

No, I am not blatantly ignoring the basic rules of the game. The rules work by when they say x happens you do y, and you follow that procedure. With the stratagem you are told when you hit you do D3 Mortal Wounds of damage. You are not told that there is any other damage. You do not get to assume that you get to use the normal damage from the weapon profile when you are told to do something else when it comes time for the wounds. I follow the basic rules of the game by applying what is said in the mortal wounds box.

The way basic English language works is tha twhen they tell you if x occurs, then y happens, you apply y. You are not applying y in this case, you are adding y to something else, something you are not told to do. Basic rules indicate that you have to be told to do something in order to do it. When you are told you do D3 mortal wounds damage, you do not look for any damage other than the d3 wounds since you are not told to do so. You are the one blatantly ignoriing both the rules of the game and the rules of the English language.

Since you say addition to is the basic way the rules work, provide the rules citation to indicate that this is how they work. Otherwise, you only do what you are told to do, which in the case of flakk missiles is to do (only)D3 mortal wounds.

 doctortom wrote:
Since you say addition to is the basic way the rules work, provide the rules citation to indicate that this is how they work. Otherwise, you only do what you are told to do, which in the case of flakk missiles is to do (only)D3 mortal wounds.

I'm not sure where substitution is in the basic rules either.

Have you read the section detailing how exactly stratagems work in the BRB?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, you have nothing written to back up your claims. Your arguments do not qualify as RAW.

When it says to attack with the weapon it is automatically implied that you resolve the weapons attacks. Otherwise it would not mention the weapon at all. I think what is confusing people here is the "you can only make 1 to hit roll with the weapon" I think this means you can't reroll the attack in any way.

I think it's more that you don't get to take a profile that gives you more than one attack, then make more than one attack with each doing D3 mortal wounds.

That is true - krak or frag. Why don't they just say...fire a krak missile? However - do you think you could reroll the attack with a reroll - or is that broken by the text to.

I see the trickery here - If I am right and the weapon attack resolves as normal in addition to the mortal wound - if you hit - when do you roll for them? Immediately in the middle of you rockets attacks? Seems odd to suspend a roll for another. If you are right though - Why didn't they just say...on the roll of a 2+ a model with a rocket launcher can deal d3 mortal wounds to a flyer instead of it's normal attack within 48 inches?

To be fair the Stratagem is called Stawhawk missile.

On theory you are resolving the Starhawk missile fire mode, wich is different to frag and krak.

 doctortom wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

In that case, let's talk about precedent: Zhadsnark Da Rippa.
[SNIP]
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.

Of course, bringing in that as an argument you seem to be burying the lede as it states you do the mortal wound in addition to any other damage. The krakk missile stratagem only states you do d3 mortal wounds, not mortal wounds in addition. Of course, this is a Forge World rule, so you can't use it to justify the GW Mothership's rule writing, but it is interesting that they were able to make things clearer than their GW Overlords with this rule.

Just gonna clarify, I was responding to one very specific argument. The idea was proposed that 'You can't go back a step once you've moved on, and thus once you start resolving damage from the Mortal Wounds caused by the to-hit roll, you aren't allowed to go back to the to-wound roll'. (I'm paraphrasing for simplicity rather than including a quote, but you get the point.)

I was specifically bringing up a case that I could remember off the top of my head where Mortal Wounds were inflicted by a to-hit roll but other damage was still inflicted, to prove that it was possible to 'Go back a step', or at least that it was possible to deal Mortal Wounds with the to-hit roll without it breaking the order of operations.

I agree with you that the you can't go back a step argument isn't valid as it doesn't handle a mix of mortal and normal wounds, which isn't that uncommon in this game to have to deal with.

Any argument is going to deal with how the damage being inflicted is defined (are mortal wounds a replacement since it doesn't say "in addition", or is it in addition to normal damage). I just think that given that GW has used the phrase "in addition to normal damage" elsewhere, that when they don't use it in a case like this one, it's not additional damage but a substitution.

 doctortom wrote:
I agree with you that the you can't go back a step argument isn't valid as it doesn't handle a mix of mortal and normal wounds, which isn't that uncommon in this game to have to deal with.

Any argument is going to deal with how the damage being inflicted is defined (are mortal wounds a replacement since it doesn't say "in addition", or is it in addition to normal damage). I just think that given that GW has used the phrase "in addition to normal damage" elsewhere, that when they don't use it in a case like this one, it's not additional damage but a substitution.

Also, the precedent used actually *does* say "in addition to," which is instructions to resolve both, unlike what we have in the flakk missile stratagem.

I think the tyranid dimachaeron has something similar, but I could be remembering wrong. Thanks FW.

Any examples of mortal wounds on 6s to hit from GW proper? I think they just stuck with the mortal wounds bonus effects happening on wound rolls, but again, could be wrong - just can't think of any.

I think the "can't go back a step" argument is valid enough because the precedent of zhadsnark *adds* to the process. It says "in addition to" and so you continue on as normal, while applying a mortal wound in addition to any other damage at the end.

The RAI seems clear-you get Flakk only.

Unfortunately, RAW also seems clear, which is that you get Flakk and the one shot from the regular shot.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The RAI seems clear-you get Flakk only.

Unfortunately, RAW also seems clear, which is that you get Flakk and the one shot from the regular shot.

I don't interpret the RAW that way, so whilst clear to you it's clear to me the other way.

The blurred steps 3 and 4 of the shooting phase deal with the range issue: you have already targeted the unit with fly with either a frag or krak missile profile, so you have the issue of being in range for targeting taken care of: same as for resolving pistol shot at a unit that was within 12" at targeting but casualties have removed all models within 12" and/or los from the target unit.

You then declare the stratagem when the time comes to actually fire the missile(make the attack); the strategem then replaces the chosen profile with the success=effect and bonus to hit modifier.

The strategem is also missing a key set of instructions that occurs on things like sniper rifles: "in addition the normal damage". It does not matter if you are firing frag or krak, you are now firing a Flakk missile, you are only making a single to hit roll this phase(which also means if you would have had some ability to fire a second shot; like an Aeldari version and gaining strength form death via ynarri; you cannot attack with that missile launcher again), which has a replaced effect of 3 mortal wounds instead of the normal s, ap, and d of the missile you had chosen to fire in the blurred steps 2&3.

No, you do not get the normal missile as well as the 3 mortal wounds(although that would be better in many cases). This also prevents targeting a unit of jump infantry(you know what I am meaning) with a krak, killing 1 with the krak and then 3 more with the flak mortal wounds.

Even simple logic "I'm using a Stratagem to fire a special missile instead of my usual one" tells you you don't get two attacks/effects with the same model.

Except that's the rub-it never actually says it replaces your regular shot. There's no "instead of" or "replaces" in the strategem.

Edit: Once again, I'm pretty dang sure RAI is that you get it IN PLACE OF-but the RAW does not follow that.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except that's the rub-it never actually says it replaces your regular shot. There's no "instead of" or "replaces" in the strategem.

Edit: Once again, I'm pretty dang sure RAI is that you get it IN PLACE OF-but the RAW does not follow that.

I'm well aware it doesn't say exactly what I wrote but it's the whole point of it. Your missile launcher did not suddenly grow a second tube.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except that's the rub-it never actually says it replaces your regular shot. There's no "instead of" or "replaces" in the strategem.

Edit: Once again, I'm pretty dang sure RAI is that you get it IN PLACE OF-but the RAW does not follow that.

I'm well aware it doesn't say exactly what I wrote but it's the whole point of it. Your missile launcher did not suddenly grow a second tube.

Fluff=/=crunch.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except that's the rub-it never actually says it replaces your regular shot. There's no "instead of" or "replaces" in the strategem.

Edit: Once again, I'm pretty dang sure RAI is that you get it IN PLACE OF-but the RAW does not follow that.

There is no statement in the stratagem that the mortal wounds are in addition to normal damage, unlike we have seen with other weapons and the like when the mortal wounds are in addition. We do have a statement of the effect of hitting - since it says this is what you do and it doesn't say it's in addition, it actually does replace your regular shot by virtue of its stating what the effect is. There does not need to be an "instead of" or "replaces" when it states what the effect it, they figure most people will understand that it's a replacement just like the rolling only 1 to hit is a replacement for however many to hit rolls you would normally get.

I'd agree that precedence establishes RAI-which is that you get Flakk instead of Krak.

But Rules As Written, it's borked. GW done goofed. Send them an email letting them know.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The blurred steps 3 and 4 of the shooting phase deal with the range issue: you have already targeted the unit with fly with either a frag or krak missile profile, so you have the issue of being in range for targeting taken care of: same as for resolving pistol shot at a unit that was within 12" at targeting but casualties have removed all models within 12" and/or los from the target unit.

You then declare the stratagem when the time comes to actually fire the missile(make the attack); the strategem then replaces the chosen profile with the success=effect and bonus to hit modifier.

The strategem is also missing a key set of instructions that occurs on things like sniper rifles: "in addition the normal damage". It does not matter if you are firing frag or krak, you are now firing a Flakk missile, you are only making a single to hit roll this phase(which also means if you would have had some ability to fire a second shot; like an Aeldari version and gaining strength form death via ynarri; you cannot attack with that missile launcher again), which has a replaced effect of 3 mortal wounds instead of the normal s, ap, and d of the missile you had chosen to fire in the blurred steps 2&3.

No, you do not get the normal missile as well as the 3 mortal wounds(although that would be better in many cases). This also prevents targeting a unit of jump infantry(you know what I am meaning) with a krak, killing 1 with the krak and then 3 more with the flak mortal wounds.

What of the language used differentiates it from an ability like the Mordian Volley Fire, which is generally accepted that the 6+ to hit also causes the generation of a to-wound roll, and that the portion of the "normal effect" in that one isn't also getting replaced by being allowed to fire again if you meet the criteria? It doesn't say anything along the lines of "in addition to the normal damage".

 daedalus wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The blurred steps 3 and 4 of the shooting phase deal with the range issue: you have already targeted the unit with fly with either a frag or krak missile profile, so you have the issue of being in range for targeting taken care of: same as for resolving pistol shot at a unit that was within 12" at targeting but casualties have removed all models within 12" and/or los from the target unit.

You then declare the stratagem when the time comes to actually fire the missile(make the attack); the strategem then replaces the chosen profile with the success=effect and bonus to hit modifier.

The strategem is also missing a key set of instructions that occurs on things like sniper rifles: "in addition the normal damage". It does not matter if you are firing frag or krak, you are now firing a Flakk missile, you are only making a single to hit roll this phase(which also means if you would have had some ability to fire a second shot; like an Aeldari version and gaining strength form death via ynarri; you cannot attack with that missile launcher again), which has a replaced effect of 3 mortal wounds instead of the normal s, ap, and d of the missile you had chosen to fire in the blurred steps 2&3.

No, you do not get the normal missile as well as the 3 mortal wounds(although that would be better in many cases). This also prevents targeting a unit of jump infantry(you know what I am meaning) with a krak, killing 1 with the krak and then 3 more with the flak mortal wounds.

What of the language used differentiates it from an ability like the Mordian Volley Fire, which is generally accepted that the 6+ to hit also causes the generation of a to-wound roll, and that the portion of the "normal effect" in that one isn't also getting replaced by being allowed to fire again if you meet the criteria? It doesn't say anything along the lines of "in addition to the normal damage".

What's the wording on that ability?

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd agree that precedence establishes RAI-which is that you get Flakk instead of Krak.

But Rules As Written, it's borked. GW done goofed. Send them an email letting them know.

I disagree - I think RAW - it's going to be pretty hard to dismiss the argument that you don't also get a missile attack because it says to attack with the weapon. It's not as clear as it should be. But how do you dismiss the argument about attacking with the weapon...which is a missile launcher that has a str 8 d6 damage attack?