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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 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.

Good lord people... go read the Tenets and stop arguing your RAW! RAW! against my HIWPI. Thanks.

Xeno, I think we agree on RAW. We just disagree on RAI-which is the issue with this.

So, I am going to prepare my butt here...
But, I have been seeing something in these arguments that might be confusing.
The Strategem doesn't tell you to make an attack.
It tells you to make a hit roll.
It states that the strategem is used BEFORE the attack.
So...no, you don't make an attack. You make a hit roll. If you have rules that say 're roll hit rolls of 1' they apply

Sequence goes:
1) Pick unit with missle launcher.
2) Declare target for attack that can fly.
2.5) C-c-C-Combo- Breaker, use strategem.
-> make hit roll +1.
-> success grants you d3 mortal wounds
-> Continue attack
3) Missle launcher says 'choose a profile to make an attack' Frag/Krak
4) Cannot make hit rolls with either profile due to strategem.

Strategem does not state that you continue with the attack, but sure. Why not, is also neglects to say you don't. So fine, keep your Krak or Frag missle.
Strategem says you make only 1 hit roll with the weapon, which was used for the potential d3 mortal wounds.
Strategem does not say the weapon automatically hits.

So, not being able to make hit rolls, and not automatically hitting means that you have successfully made 0 hits with your frag and 0 hits with your krak.

Strategem does not force the Shooting phase to push forward or backwards steps. It creates an 'out of normal' sequence of events.

That's actually a very good point. With that I am leaning towards saying that you don't get the actual missile, but it should be either rewritten to be clearer or get an official FAQ. GW are being better than usual with those so we might get one before the decade is out.

Korbee11 wrote:
So, I am going to prepare my butt here...
But, I have been seeing something in these arguments that might be confusing.
The Strategem doesn't tell you to make an attack.
It tells you to make a hit roll.
It states that the strategem is used BEFORE the attack.
So...no, you don't make an attack. You make a hit roll. If you have rules that say 're roll hit rolls of 1' they apply

Sequence goes:
1) Pick unit with missle launcher.
2) Declare target for attack that can fly.
2.5) C-c-C-Combo- Breaker, use strategem.
-> make hit roll +1.
-> success grants you d3 mortal wounds
-> Continue attack
3) Missle launcher says 'choose a profile to make an attack' Frag/Krak
4) Cannot make hit rolls with either profile due to strategem.

Strategem does not state that you continue with the attack, but sure. Why not, is also neglects to say you don't. So fine, keep your Krak or Frag missle.
Strategem says you make only 1 hit roll with the weapon, which was used for the potential d3 mortal wounds.
Strategem does not say the weapon automatically hits.

So, not being able to make hit rolls, and not automatically hitting means that you have successfully made 0 hits with your frag and 0 hits with your krak.

Strategem does not force the Shooting phase to push forward or backwards steps. It creates an 'out of normal' sequence of events.

There's a problem with your argument.
First, consider the exact wording of the stratagem: (I emphasized the most relevant part below.)
"You may only make a single hit roll with the weapon this phase..."
You're not just making a random hit roll that isn't tied to a weapon, you're making a hit roll with the Missile Launcher, and you can't make a hit roll with the Missile Launcher without attacking with it.
If we look at the Shooting rules, here's what you do:

Pick a target (In this case, something that can Fly.)
Pick a weapon (The Missile Launcher)
Determine Number of Attacks
Resolve attacks

The first step of Resolving Attacks is the hit roll.

There is no way to make a hit roll with a weapon without attacking with that weapon. In the case of the strategem, you would activate it before making the attack, but that doesn't mean that the attack doesn't happen. After all:
You can't make a hit roll unless you're making an attack, and you can't make an attack without picking what profile to use - And we know we're supposed to use the Missile Launcher's profile, because the strategem specifically tells us to make a hit roll "with the weapon", "weapon" here meaning "Missile Launcher". If you don't have a profile, you can't make the attack, and therefore you can't make a hit roll.

Right, the post above is why I gave up. I had the same reasoning "The stratagem doesn't tell you to stop the attack"

BUT

The stratagem prevents any attack from happening, fairly clearly. You use it before you make an attack, so you haven't made one. Then you make a hit roll (per the stratagem) and it if hits you do d3 mortal wounds (per the stratagem).

But now you get to attack, right? After all, you haven't yet, you just did something before you attacked! Sadly, however, you cannot: the stratagem specifically says you make "one to-hit roll this phase" and you've already done that. You don't get to attack. Sadface.

Essentially, the missile launcher doesn't ever get to 'attack' in the phase you used this stratagem. It makes a to-hit roll and does mortal wounds, but never attacks.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, the post above is why I gave up. I had the same reasoning "The stratagem doesn't tell you to stop the attack"

BUT

The stratagem prevents any attack from happening, fairly clearly. You use it before you make an attack, so you haven't made one. Then you make a hit roll (per the stratagem) and it if hits you do d3 mortal wounds (per the stratagem).

But now you get to attack, right? After all, you haven't yet, you just did something before you attacked! Sadly, however, you cannot: the stratagem specifically says you make "one to-hit roll this phase" and you've already done that. You don't get to attack. Sadface.

Essentially, the missile launcher doesn't ever get to 'attack' in the phase you used this stratagem. It makes a to-hit roll and does mortal wounds, but never attacks.

Actually, I'm not sure. You use it before you attack. We both agree there. It's not TELLING you to actually MAKE the to-hit roll though:

"You only make a single hit roll with the weapon this phase"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frankly, at this point, I am genuinely convinced I have no idea what exactly it's saying, and I'm kind of skeptical of anyone else who says they do.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Xeno, I think we agree on RAW. We just disagree on RAI-which is the issue with this.

RAI - I am not sure. Did they intend for this stratgem to never get used? Or be really good? That is what I am scratching my head about. Consider this. You can always just reroll a dice with a command point. So technically we are at about the same chance to hit with a reroll and this stratagem. This stratgem averages 2 wounds if it's just the mortals. Which is about what a krak missle will do with a reroll to hit against a 3+ save. It just seems pretty worthless to me unless you really need to kill a 1 or 2 wound flyer - which is hardly ever really a necessity because a flyer with 2 wounds is degraded AF.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, the post above is why I gave up. I had the same reasoning "The stratagem doesn't tell you to stop the attack"

BUT

The stratagem prevents any attack from happening, fairly clearly. You use it before you make an attack, so you haven't made one. Then you make a hit roll (per the stratagem) and it if hits you do d3 mortal wounds (per the stratagem).

But now you get to attack, right? After all, you haven't yet, you just did something before you attacked! Sadly, however, you cannot: the stratagem specifically says you make "one to-hit roll this phase" and you've already done that. You don't get to attack. Sadface.

Essentially, the missile launcher doesn't ever get to 'attack' in the phase you used this stratagem. It makes a to-hit roll and does mortal wounds, but never attacks.

Where does the strategem stop the attack from happening? Please point out that part in the rules. You activate the strategem before you make the attack, yes, but that doesn't mean that you don't get to make the attack - The reason you have to use the strategem before making the attack is because after the attack happens, the strategem wouldn't do anything. (Or if it WOULD do anything, then it's timed so that players can't posthumously decide to activate it after they roll a '2' to hit and realize that the +1 would come in handy. (Or other shenanigans that start to happen if you get to use Strategems after their effects would have taken place. Either way, the strategem breaks if you use it after the attack.)

Also, please explain to me how you can make a to-hit roll with the Missile Launcher without making an attack with the missile launcher. You're saying that you're supposed to make an attack without making an attack, and fire the weapon without firing the weapon?

The hit roll isn't separate from the attack. You claim it is, but it isn't, and nowhere does anything tell you that the hit roll is separate. You're trying to explain your point by using rules that don't exist.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Where does the strategem stop the attack from happening? Please point out that part in the rules.

Going by the theory above, getting to make only one attack roll and using it for the stratagem is what prevents the attack from happening. Or, if you prefer, the attack isn't prevented from happening, you make one to hit roll for the attack, and if you hit then as per the stratagem you do 1d3 mortal wounds (without a mention of this being in additiion to normal damage).

 doctortom wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Where does the strategem stop the attack from happening? Please point out that part in the rules.

Going by the theory above, getting to make only one attack roll and using it for the stratagem is what prevents the attack from happening. Or, if you prefer, the attack isn't prevented from happening, you make one to hit roll for the attack, and if you hit then as per the stratagem you do 1d3 mortal wounds (without a mention of this being in additiion to normal damage).

But you can't make a hit roll without making an attack, is my point. And you aren't told to ignore parts of the attack, either.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Where does the strategem stop the attack from happening? Please point out that part in the rules.

Going by the theory above, getting to make only one attack roll and using it for the stratagem is what prevents the attack from happening. Or, if you prefer, the attack isn't prevented from happening, you make one to hit roll for the attack, and if you hit then as per the stratagem you do 1d3 mortal wounds (without a mention of this being in additiion to normal damage).

But you can't make a hit roll without making an attack, is my point. And you aren't told to ignore parts of the attack, either.

Actually you more or less are, if you are treating the normal damage as part of the attack. It's not really ignoring parts of the attack though, it's just dealing with a modification to the attack. You're told what to do when you hit - d3 mortal wounds - without any mention of it being in addition to normal damage. By RAW, since they tell you that's the damage, that would be all the damage - d3 mortal wounds. It's a substitution for the normal damage.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Where does the strategem stop the attack from happening? Please point out that part in the rules.

Going by the theory above, getting to make only one attack roll and using it for the stratagem is what prevents the attack from happening. Or, if you prefer, the attack isn't prevented from happening, you make one to hit roll for the attack, and if you hit then as per the stratagem you do 1d3 mortal wounds (without a mention of this being in additiion to normal damage).

But you can't make a hit roll without making an attack, is my point. And you aren't told to ignore parts of the attack, either.

Actually, you can make a to-hit roll without an attack - the Stratagem specifically tells you to to do this (and it's before you attack). Then, you can make no further to-hit rolls this phase.

Essentially, the stratagem gives you permission to make a to-hit roll without making an attack for that phase, and it also forbids you from rolling any other to-hit rolls that phase (and therefore forbids you from making an attack).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Actually, you can make a to-hit roll without an attack - the Stratagem specifically tells you to to do this (and it's before you attack). Then, you can make no further to-hit rolls this phase.

Essentially, the stratagem gives you permission to make a to-hit roll without making an attack for that phase, and it also forbids you from rolling any other to-hit rolls that phase (and therefore forbids you from making an attack).

No, no, it tells you that "you only make a single to hit roll this phas". It never actually tell you to take the to hit.

 daedalus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Actually, you can make a to-hit roll without an attack - the Stratagem specifically tells you to to do this (and it's before you attack). Then, you can make no further to-hit rolls this phase.

Essentially, the stratagem gives you permission to make a to-hit roll without making an attack for that phase, and it also forbids you from rolling any other to-hit rolls that phase (and therefore forbids you from making an attack).

No, no, it tells you that "you only make a single to hit roll this phas". It never actually tell you to take the to hit.

Oh, that's true! It doesn't actually give you permission to roll.

Well, I'm back on the side of "yes, it does force you to make an attack, then you have to pick a profile, then you go through with the attack after the stratagem resolves itself"

HELLO AGAIN BROTHER DAEDALUS. I HAVE ABSOLUTE CONVICTION IN THE CAUSE AND NEVER CHANGED MY MIND ONCE

 doctortom wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Where does the strategem stop the attack from happening? Please point out that part in the rules.

Going by the theory above, getting to make only one attack roll and using it for the stratagem is what prevents the attack from happening. Or, if you prefer, the attack isn't prevented from happening, you make one to hit roll for the attack, and if you hit then as per the stratagem you do 1d3 mortal wounds (without a mention of this being in additiion to normal damage).

But you can't make a hit roll without making an attack, is my point. And you aren't told to ignore parts of the attack, either.

Actually you more or less are, if you are treating the normal damage as part of the attack. It's not really ignoring parts of the attack though, it's just dealing with a modification to the attack. You're told what to do when you hit - d3 mortal wounds - without any mention of it being in addition to normal damage. By RAW, since they tell you that's the damage, that would be all the damage - d3 mortal wounds. It's a substitution for the normal damage.

Here's the thing, though: You've got it backwards. Rolling to wound, taking saves, and inflicting d6 damage damage isn't "in addition to normal damage", that IS the normal damage. The Mortal Wounds are the addition. The mortal wounds are added to the attack, because without the attack going through as normal, there's no permission given or legal method to actually get those Mortal Wounds onto your opponent. (The rule says 'You may only make a single hit roll', but you still need a way to make that hit roll, and you can't do that without firing a missile.)
The book does not, as you say, "Tell you that's the damage, that would be the damage - d3 mortal wounds." The book does not say that it is a substitution for the damage. The words 'Substitute', 'Replace', 'Instead of', 'Exchange', or any other synonym do not appear in the strategem.
The book says that D3 mortal wounds are inflicted on a succesful hit, which is completely different.

I think d3 mortal wounds is really good... especially with a scout in a sniper team. With a bit of luck you can remove a nasty character.

Wait. "It tells you that you only make one hit roll but doesn't actually give you permission to make a hit roll."

What? Come ON people. How is that in any way a cogent argument??? That's patently ridiculous.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Wait. "It tells you that you only make one hit roll but doesn't actually give you permission to make a hit roll."

What? Come ON people. How is that in any way a cogent argument??? That's patently ridiculous.

Okay. So, if your mother tells you that you can only have one cookie tonight, does it mean that you HAVE to have that cookie immediately?

I mean, in all reality, it kinda seems like it does. But in the case of the rules, that it's telling you how few attacks you can make, rather than that you should make one, rather powerfully suggests that's it's not a replacement for the attack.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Where does the strategem stop the attack from happening? Please point out that part in the rules.

Going by the theory above, getting to make only one attack roll and using it for the stratagem is what prevents the attack from happening. Or, if you prefer, the attack isn't prevented from happening, you make one to hit roll for the attack, and if you hit then as per the stratagem you do 1d3 mortal wounds (without a mention of this being in additiion to normal damage).

But you can't make a hit roll without making an attack, is my point. And you aren't told to ignore parts of the attack, either.

Actually you more or less are, if you are treating the normal damage as part of the attack. It's not really ignoring parts of the attack though, it's just dealing with a modification to the attack. You're told what to do when you hit - d3 mortal wounds - without any mention of it being in addition to normal damage. By RAW, since they tell you that's the damage, that would be all the damage - d3 mortal wounds. It's a substitution for the normal damage.

Here's the thing, though: You've got it backwards. Rolling to wound, taking saves, and inflicting d6 damage damage isn't "in addition to normal damage", that IS the normal damage. The Mortal Wounds are the addition. The mortal wounds are added to the attack, because without the attack going through as normal, there's no permission given or legal method to actually get those Mortal Wounds onto your opponent. (The rule says 'You may only make a single hit roll', but you still need a way to make that hit roll, and you can't do that without firing a missile.)
The book does not, as you say, "Tell you that's the damage, that would be the damage - d3 mortal wounds." The book does not say that it is a substitution for the damage. The words 'Substitute', 'Replace', 'Instead of', 'Exchange', or any other synonym do not appear in the strategem.
The book says that D3 mortal wounds are inflicted on a succesful hit, which is completely different.

No, I don't have it backwards at all. If you look at other weapons and things that add a mortal wound effect, if it's in addition to normal damage they specifically state that it is "in addition to normal damage". That isn't what we have here.

When the book tells you what damage to do - d3 wounds in this case - and says nothing about normal damage in addition or making any comment about adding the weapon's normal damage, then it has to be a substitution. It modifies what damage is inflicted after hitting. You have no instructions to inflict normal damage as well, so there is no support in the rules to treat it as additional damage, you have to treat it as the only damage. Common usage of the English language dictates this. Between that and precedent set with other weapons where they say the mortal wound damage "in addition to normal damage" when you get both, shows that you are incorrect with your assertion that you get the normal damage as well.

 doctortom wrote:

No, I don't have it backwards at all. If you look at other weapons and things that add a mortal wound effect, if it's in addition to normal damage they specifically state that it is "in addition to normal damage". That isn't what we have here.

Can you give us some examples of these?

 doctortom wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Where does the strategem stop the attack from happening? Please point out that part in the rules.

Going by the theory above, getting to make only one attack roll and using it for the stratagem is what prevents the attack from happening. Or, if you prefer, the attack isn't prevented from happening, you make one to hit roll for the attack, and if you hit then as per the stratagem you do 1d3 mortal wounds (without a mention of this being in additiion to normal damage).

But you can't make a hit roll without making an attack, is my point. And you aren't told to ignore parts of the attack, either.

Actually you more or less are, if you are treating the normal damage as part of the attack. It's not really ignoring parts of the attack though, it's just dealing with a modification to the attack. You're told what to do when you hit - d3 mortal wounds - without any mention of it being in addition to normal damage. By RAW, since they tell you that's the damage, that would be all the damage - d3 mortal wounds. It's a substitution for the normal damage.

Here's the thing, though: You've got it backwards. Rolling to wound, taking saves, and inflicting d6 damage damage isn't "in addition to normal damage", that IS the normal damage. The Mortal Wounds are the addition. The mortal wounds are added to the attack, because without the attack going through as normal, there's no permission given or legal method to actually get those Mortal Wounds onto your opponent. (The rule says 'You may only make a single hit roll', but you still need a way to make that hit roll, and you can't do that without firing a missile.)
The book does not, as you say, "Tell you that's the damage, that would be the damage - d3 mortal wounds." The book does not say that it is a substitution for the damage. The words 'Substitute', 'Replace', 'Instead of', 'Exchange', or any other synonym do not appear in the strategem.
The book says that D3 mortal wounds are inflicted on a succesful hit, which is completely different.

No, I don't have it backwards at all. If you look at other weapons and things that add a mortal wound effect, if it's in addition to normal damage they specifically state that it is "in addition to normal damage". That isn't what we have here.

When the book tells you what damage to do - d3 wounds in this case - and says nothing about normal damage in addition or making any comment about adding the weapon's normal damage, then it has to be a substitution. It modifies what damage is inflicted after hitting. You have no instructions to inflict normal damage as well, so there is no support in the rules to treat it as additional damage, you have to treat it as the only damage. Common usage of the English language dictates this. Between that and precedent set with other weapons where they say the mortal wound damage "in addition to normal damage" when you get both, shows that you are incorrect with your assertion that you get the normal damage as well.

That establishes a RAI precedent, but not a RAW rule.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

Where does the strategem stop the attack from happening? Please point out that part in the rules.

Going by the theory above, getting to make only one attack roll and using it for the stratagem is what prevents the attack from happening. Or, if you prefer, the attack isn't prevented from happening, you make one to hit roll for the attack, and if you hit then as per the stratagem you do 1d3 mortal wounds (without a mention of this being in additiion to normal damage).

But you can't make a hit roll without making an attack, is my point. And you aren't told to ignore parts of the attack, either.

Actually you more or less are, if you are treating the normal damage as part of the attack. It's not really ignoring parts of the attack though, it's just dealing with a modification to the attack. You're told what to do when you hit - d3 mortal wounds - without any mention of it being in addition to normal damage. By RAW, since they tell you that's the damage, that would be all the damage - d3 mortal wounds. It's a substitution for the normal damage.

Here's the thing, though: You've got it backwards. Rolling to wound, taking saves, and inflicting d6 damage damage isn't "in addition to normal damage", that IS the normal damage. The Mortal Wounds are the addition. The mortal wounds are added to the attack, because without the attack going through as normal, there's no permission given or legal method to actually get those Mortal Wounds onto your opponent. (The rule says 'You may only make a single hit roll', but you still need a way to make that hit roll, and you can't do that without firing a missile.)
The book does not, as you say, "Tell you that's the damage, that would be the damage - d3 mortal wounds." The book does not say that it is a substitution for the damage. The words 'Substitute', 'Replace', 'Instead of', 'Exchange', or any other synonym do not appear in the strategem.
The book says that D3 mortal wounds are inflicted on a succesful hit, which is completely different.

No, I don't have it backwards at all. If you look at other weapons and things that add a mortal wound effect, if it's in addition to normal damage they specifically state that it is "in addition to normal damage". That isn't what we have here.

When the book tells you what damage to do - d3 wounds in this case - and says nothing about normal damage in addition or making any comment about adding the weapon's normal damage, then it has to be a substitution. It modifies what damage is inflicted after hitting. You have no instructions to inflict normal damage as well, so there is no support in the rules to treat it as additional damage, you have to treat it as the only damage. Common usage of the English language dictates this. Between that and precedent set with other weapons where they say the mortal wound damage "in addition to normal damage" when you get both, shows that you are incorrect with your assertion that you get the normal damage as well.

That establishes a RAI precedent, but not a RAW rule.

Actually there's a RAW argument. "Thrall Bodyguard

Gallery Votes: 0
Posts: 2619

Joined: 2013/03/13 20:04:34
Offline
Filter Thread
Direct Link This Post


The Flakk Missile stratagem reads:
"You may only make a single hit roll with the weapon this phase, however, add 1 to the hit roll and, if it hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds"

Does it tell you what to do for damage when it hits? yes
Does it say suffer D3 mortal wounds in addition to normal damage? No
What does the model suffer on a hit? D3 mortal wounds.

Therefore, the RAW is that it suffers D3 mortal wounds. By RAW the target only suffers the damage that the stratagem tells you it suffers, since the stratagem specifies exactly what the target suffers. By RAW there is no additional damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

No, I don't have it backwards at all. If you look at other weapons and things that add a mortal wound effect, if it's in addition to normal damage they specifically state that it is "in addition to normal damage". That isn't what we have here.

Can you give us some examples of these?

The rifle that Craftworlds Rangers use, for one (I still want to call it the Ranger Long Rifle though they've changed the name of it for the new edition)

By RAW, it never tells you that it is instead of, replaces, or any other wording to that effect.

I do agree that the RAI is that you get d3 mortal wounds and nothing else-there's precedent for that. But that's not RAW.

 JNAProductions wrote:
That establishes a RAI precedent, but not a RAW rule.

Rule as Written, it Omits to tell you to resolve normal damage, so you do not resolve it.

The breakdown is like this for resolution of this stratagem:

When declaring what model is shooting at what, you decide on a profile to use (Frag or Krak) and check ranges and if it can legally fire.

BEFORE you move on to resolving that shot (Rolling to hit, wound, Ect.) you declare the Flakk Missile Stratagem and check for relevant key words.

The Stratagem now tells you that when you resolve a to hit roll, you add 1 to the result and if it hits, you inflict D3 mortal wounds.

The stratagem wording there is that you have resolved the attack you are allowed to make with the missile launcher. you don't need to know a range for the flakk missile attack because it has bypassed that section by being eligible to fire as when you had chosen a profile, it was a legal target, and there is no follow-up for any other profile as they are bypassed by the flakk missile stratagem.

 doctortom wrote:


The rifle that Craftworlds Rangers use, for one (I still want to call it the Ranger Long Rifle though they've changed the name of it for the new edition)

The wording is something along the lines of "Each time you roll a wound roll of 6+ it inflicts a mortal wound in addition to any other damage"?

Tristanleo wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
That establishes a RAI precedent, but not a RAW rule.

Rule as Written, it Omits to tell you to resolve normal damage, so you do not resolve it.

The breakdown is like this for resolution of this stratagem:

When declaring what model is shooting at what, you decide on a profile to use (Frag or Krak) and check ranges and if it can legally fire.

BEFORE you move on to resolving that shot (Rolling to hit, wound, Ect.) you declare the Flakk Missile Stratagem and check for relevant key words.

The Stratagem now tells you that when you resolve a to hit roll, you add 1 to the result and if it hits, you inflict D3 mortal wounds.

The stratagem wording there is that you have resolved the attack you are allowed to make with the missile launcher. you don't need to know a range for the flakk missile attack because it has bypassed that section by being eligible to fire as when you had chosen a profile, it was a legal target, and there is no follow-up for any other profile as they are bypassed by the flakk missile stratagem.

So if a Stratagem does not tell you to follow the normal rules, you don't follow them?

I have a GK Warlord with Tenacious Survivor, and I pop the Stratagem to give him +1 Invuln. The Stratagem never says to make a Tenacious Survivor roll-do I still make it?

 daedalus wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


The rifle that Craftworlds Rangers use, for one (I still want to call it the Ranger Long Rifle though they've changed the name of it for the new edition)

The wording is something along the lines of "Each time you roll a wound roll of 6+ it inflicts a mortal wound in addition to any other damage"?

Most snipers have that verbage, yes.

Tristanleo wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
That establishes a RAI precedent, but not a RAW rule.

Rule as Written, it Omits to tell you to resolve normal damage, so you do not resolve it.

The breakdown is like this for resolution of this stratagem:

When declaring what model is shooting at what, you decide on a profile to use (Frag or Krak) and check ranges and if it can legally fire.

BEFORE you move on to resolving that shot (Rolling to hit, wound, Ect.) you declare the Flakk Missile Stratagem and check for relevant key words.

The Stratagem now tells you that when you resolve a to hit roll, you add 1 to the result and if it hits, you inflict D3 mortal wounds.

The stratagem wording there is that you have resolved the attack you are allowed to make with the missile launcher. you don't need to know a range for the flakk missile attack because it has bypassed that section by being eligible to fire as when you had chosen a profile, it was a legal target, and there is no follow-up for any other profile as they are bypassed by the flakk missile stratagem.

I'm not sure if you're missing my point or ignoring it, so I'll restate. (There's two parts.)

Firstly: You cannot make a to hit roll without firing the weapon using its profile. There is no explicit permission to make a to-hit roll within the strategem, ergo, the only way to make a to-hit roll is to attack with the weapon.
Because of this, your order of operations does not work, because you're inventing a Hit Roll that you'e not given permission to make.
('You may only make a single to-hit roll' is a limiter, not permission to make a random Hit roll not tied to a profile.)
Additionally, to get support from RAI: If we accept your interpretation as correct, then you could move and fire without taking the penalty for shooting with a Heavy Weapon, because there is no profile. This is clearly not intended.

Secondly: The strategem gives no instruction to replace the profile of the missile launcher. It gives instructions for resolving an on-hit effect, but does not say to then ignore everything that comes after the hit roll.
(As am aside: In instances where Mortal Wounds replace normal damage, this is explicitly written out, same as when it's not replaced, so claiming RAI by pointing to Sniper Rifles or what-have-you does not hold water.)


If you disagree with these points as I have written them, please explain how in a specific response - don't talk past me and just repeat yourself. Explain where my logic is faulty, and why you think that the strategem gives permission to make a 'free' attack roll when no permission is written out in such a way.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


The rifle that Craftworlds Rangers use, for one (I still want to call it the Ranger Long Rifle though they've changed the name of it for the new edition)

The wording is something along the lines of "Each time you roll a wound roll of 6+ it inflicts a mortal wound in addition to any other damage"?

Most snipers have that verbage, yes.

Okay, so on a roll of 6+ to-wound, the weapon would do 1 damage normally, right?

How much damage does missile launcher in any profile do normally to-hit?

 daedalus wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Wait. "It tells you that you only make one hit roll but doesn't actually give you permission to make a hit roll."

What? Come ON people. How is that in any way a cogent argument??? That's patently ridiculous.

Okay. So, if your mother tells you that you can only have one cookie tonight, does it mean that you HAVE to have that cookie immediately?

I mean, in all reality, it kinda seems like it does. But in the case of the rules, that it's telling you how few attacks you can make, rather than that you should make one, rather powerfully suggests that's it's not a replacement for the attack.

I don't live at home and we have biscuits in the UK, so this argument is irrelevant

That is a different example and doesn't shed any light on what's being discussed. Not to mention that it goes against one of the Tenets of YMDC, namely that GW is known for weird and wonderful verbiage and taking it that super literally *very very very probably* isn't the right thing to do... I mean, feel free to tell your next opponent there's no permission to eat a cookie in the Stratagem. Let me know how that goes...