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:
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.

By RAW, when it tells you what the unit suffers on a hit, that is what the unit suffers on a hit. It doesn't need to say that it replaces or anything like that, because it is obviously implied that it is replacing the original damage. It needs to say that it is additional damage for it to be treated as additional. RAW does involve comprehending the English language. In a case of where something says "if x then y", then if x happens you get y. You don't get y +z +q + fluffy unicorns.

Because it tells you what to do, that is a clear instruction on what to do. Claiming it doesn't say "instead of" or "replaces" is a weak argument. When it tells you what to do, the onus is on people insisting that it does more damage than what it states there to show the proof that the damage is additional; it is not the onus for me to show that it isn't additional. That's the problem here - being told you do d3 mortal wounds when you hit should obviously mean you do d3 mortal wounds. You have to prove that you do more than d3 mortal wounds when you have a rule that states you do 3d mortal wounds without stating anything additional gets to be done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 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?

Irrelevant when the stratagem is played, because the stratagem tells you the damage that is done when you roll a hit - just like it tells you you only make one to hit roll no matter what your weapon profile said for the number of attacks you make. If the profile says you get more than one attack, how to you determine the number of wounds if you are not substituting one attack/ to hit roll for the number of attacks the weapon may normally get? Even if you make only one to hit roll, do you get to apply the result of that to each attack you normally get with the weapon's profile? No - it's making a substitution. Just like it makes a substitution on the number of attacks to only one attack/one to hit roll, it makes a substitution to the wounds that are inflicted - instead of a wound dealing some number of damage, you inflict d3 wounds. So, it really doesn't matter what the damage in the normal profile is - you're going by the Flakk Missile stratagem (instead of a frag or krak profile)

Except it never actually says you're substituting. You're adding words that aren't there.

Again, I'd like to say: I'm pretty sure we agree on RAI and HIWPI. Flakk REPLACES Krak or Frag.

But RAW does not align with that. GW goofed-big surprise.

Waaaghpower wrote:

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.

I am not making up any hit roll, you activate the stratagem before you roll the dice to resolve the attack, not before you check to see IF you can roll the dice, that has already been resolved when you checked of the weapon could fire legally. As for your second point, so tell me where it tells you to resolve the normal shot, as it doesn't tell you to resolve the rest of the sequence of attacking either, so therefore, we must follow what it says on the stratagem by the letter, as it does not tell us to resolve any other results.

Also, how does sniper mortal wounds and other similar effects have no grounds here, they are the greatest support out there for what the Stratagem does by how it is written. The point it tells you that you continue to resolve other damage in addition to the mortal wounds is an entire additional sentence in itself, you can't just choose to say it has no bearing because it does not support your argument when this stratagem specifically does not tell you to resolve the normal damage with an additional sentence.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except it never actually says you're substituting. You're adding words that aren't there.

Again, I'd like to say: I'm pretty sure we agree on RAI and HIWPI. Flakk REPLACES Krak or Frag.

But RAW does not align with that. GW goofed-big surprise.

I respectfully disagree about the RAW. When it says on a successful hit you get x, then that means what you do is x. That's not adding words that aren't there, that's following the instructions they give you. Trying to claim there is additional damage beyond x is what is adding words that are not there.


At lease we do all agree on the RAI and HIWPI, though.

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.

You have failed the first rule of a permissive ruleset. Do what the rules tell you to do, not what they don't tell you.

If it doesn't say you do not resolve the attack(in this case with a krak missile) normally, then you must still continue to resolve it, because the rules for ranged attacks are screaming at you to move on and roll to wound. You have still made an attack with a krak missile, which you modified with this Flakk missile stratagem. The Stratagem doesn't say it replaces the normal attack procedure. Therefore, because this is a permissive ruleset, it is in addition to the normal attack procedure. You must still resolve the Strength 8 D6 wound hit upon the target.

 doctortom wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except it never actually says you're substituting. You're adding words that aren't there.

Again, I'd like to say: I'm pretty sure we agree on RAI and HIWPI. Flakk REPLACES Krak or Frag.

But RAW does not align with that. GW goofed-big surprise.

I respectfully disagree about the RAW. When it says on a successful hit you get x, then that means what you do is x. That's not adding words that aren't there, that's following the instructions they give you. Trying to claim there is additional damage beyond x is what is adding words that are not there.


At lease we do all agree on the RAI and HIWPI, though.

It never tells you to ignore the regular shooting process. It never says "In place of" or "replaces the regular wound". Barring any words to that effect, you would follow the basic rules, which tell you to roll to-wound with your Krak or Frag single shot.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

You have failed the first rule of a permissive ruleset. Do what the rules tell you to do, not what they don't tell you.

If it doesn't say you do not resolve the attack(in this case with a krak missile) normally, then you must still continue to resolve it. You have still made an attack with a krak missile, which you modified with this Flakk missile stratagem. The Stratagem doesn't say it replaces the normal attack procedure. Therefore, because this is a permissive ruleset, it is in addition to the normal attack procedure. You must still resolve the Strength 8 D6 wound hit upon the target.

Permissive ruleset works both ways, it is telling you to resolve D3 damage if you hit. it is not telling you to resolve any additional effects from the original planned attack. so you are not rolling to resolve a Krak missile, as you never fire a krak missile in the first place as you resolve the Flakk missile stratagem before you roll to hit with the krak missile.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

You have failed the first rule of a permissive ruleset. Do what the rules tell you to do, not what they don't tell you.

If it doesn't say you do not resolve the attack(in this case with a krak missile) normally, then you must still continue to resolve it, because the rules for ranged attacks are screaming at you to move on and roll to wound. You have still made an attack with a krak missile, which you modified with this Flakk missile stratagem. The Stratagem doesn't say it replaces the normal attack procedure. Therefore, because this is a permissive ruleset, it is in addition to the normal attack procedure. You must still resolve the Strength 8 D6 wound hit upon the target.

It tells you what to do when you hit. when you resolve the attack you follow the instructions given in the stratagem - you do d3 mortal wounds. You don't roll to wound because the instructions from the stratagem that tell you what happens when you hit (overriding the normal damage since it's not stated in the stratagem that the mortal wounds are in addition to normal damage), and the Battle Primer tells you that when you have mortal wounds you do not make to wound rolls or saves, so the rules are actually screaming in this case you do not make any to wound rolls or saves when you are following the instructions.

 doctortom wrote:

Irrelevant when the stratagem is played, because the stratagem tells you the damage that is done when you roll a hit - just like it tells you you only make one to hit roll no matter what your weapon profile said for the number of attacks you make.

Well, I mean, it was your argument, but okay.

If the profile says you get more than one attack, how to you determine the number of wounds if you are not substituting one attack/ to hit roll for the number of attacks the weapon may normally get?

It says I can only make a single hit roll with the weapon this phase. I can have 1 attack, a million attacks, or a d6 attacks. I can only make a single hit roll. No matter the number of attacks, I can only make a single hit roll. Hit rolls don't determine damage normally, so I don't determine any damage at the point of the hit roll unless I use the stratagem and hit.

Even if you make only one to hit roll, do you get to apply the result of that to each attack you normally get with the weapon's profile?

"Shooting Phase", a short story by daedalus:
1. Choose Unit to Shoot With
- I choose this tactical squad with a missile launcher

2. Choose Target
- Stormraven, I choo-choo-choose you!
- Test range and visibility, just to be sure.

3. Choose ranged weapon
- I pick my missile launcher. I'll put it in frag mode, because this is an illustrative example.
Number of attacks
- I get a d6 number of attacks. I should technically roll those, but we'll say I get a 4, and it won't matter anyway.

4. Resolve att - PSYCH! Go go gadget stratagem!
- Activate Flakk Missile and continue
4. Resolve Attacks
4.1 Hit roll
- I have 4 attacks, but the Flakk missile say I can only make 1. Oh well.
- I roll a.. I dunno, a 5, scoring a hit!
- Flakk missile says I get d3 mortal wounds! We'll wait to allocate those for now, because you do that "just like any other wound."
4.2 Wound roll
- If an attack scores a hit, then I will need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target.
- I roll a 6. I am truly on fire with these rolls.
4.3 Allocate Wound:
- The other player allocates his wounds. I guess he puts them all on the Stromraven.
4.4 Saving Throw
- He gets none against the mortal wounds. Against the other he rolls a 1. So it goes.
4.5 Inflict Damage
- Damage happens. 1 for the frag and whatever the d3 was for the mortal.

5. Life goes on.

I mean, it seems like the way to break the least amount of rules to me.

No - it's making a substitution. Just like it makes a substitution on the number of attacks to only one attack/one to hit roll, it makes a substitution to the wounds that are inflicted - instead of a wound dealing some number of damage, you inflict d3 wounds. So, it really doesn't matter what the damage in the normal profile is - you're going by the Flakk Missile stratagem (instead of a frag or krak profile)

The phrase "you can only make a single to hit roll" is clearly limiting, as opposed to, hypothetically, "make a to-hit roll" which isn't limiting, it's granting. After all, you can't normally make ANY hit rolls with the missile launcher if you don't use the missile launcher, right?

The phrase "if it hits, the target suffers d3 mortal wounds" is not limiting. It's saying that something happens. Just as no stratagem tells you to continue your turn or finish the game after the stratagem is done, this stratagem does not tell you to continue resolving the hit. It shouldn't be needed.

 daedalus wrote:

The phrase "you can only make a single to hit roll" is clearly limiting, as opposed to, hypothetically, "make a to-hit roll" which isn't limiting, it's granting. After all, you can't normally make ANY hit rolls with the missile launcher if you don't use the missile launcher, right?

The phrase "if it hits, the target suffers d3 mortal wounds" is not limiting. It's saying that something happens. Just as no stratagem tells you to continue your turn or finish the game after the stratagem is done, this stratagem does not tell you to continue resolving the hit. It shouldn't be needed.

Actually you're incorrect. "if it hits, the target suffers d3 mortal wounds is limiting. It says you do d3 mortal wounds. It doesn't say d3 mortal wounds in addition to normal damage. That's what you do. And, again, you are resolving the hit. The resolution however is the D3 mortal wounds (and only d3 mortal wounds). They tell you what to do for further resolution, so you should follow that. Pretending that the d3 wounds is not resolving things quite frankly I find as either being grossly mistaken or dishonest.[b]

 doctortom wrote:


Actually you're incorrect. "if it hits, the target suffers d3 mortal wounds is limiting. It says you do d3 mortal wounds. It doesn't say d3 mortal wounds in addition to normal damage. That's what you do. And, again, you are resolving the hit. The resolution however is the D3 mortal wounds (and only d3 mortal wounds). They tell you what to do for further resolution, so you should follow that. Pretending that the d3 wounds is not resolving things quite frankly I find as either being grossly mistaken or dishonest.[b]

Hrm.. Oh, I'm still not sure. What do you do after your resolution? Can you break it out step by step like I did above?

I mean, anyone who can't quite frankly I find as either being a probable communist or a puppy kicker.

 daedalus wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Actually you're incorrect. "if it hits, the target suffers d3 mortal wounds is limiting. It says you do d3 mortal wounds. It doesn't say d3 mortal wounds in addition to normal damage. That's what you do. And, again, you are resolving the hit. The resolution however is the D3 mortal wounds (and only d3 mortal wounds). They tell you what to do for further resolution, so you should follow that. Pretending that the d3 wounds is not resolving things quite frankly I find as either being grossly mistaken or dishonest.[b]

Hrm.. Oh, I'm still not sure. What do you do after your resolution? Can you break it out step by step like I did above?

I mean, anyone who can't quite frankly I find as either being a probable communist or a puppy kicker.

Okay,

The stratagem is used.

You roll only one die to hit, as per the stratagem.

If you hit, you go on to resolve the damage. You get to the Wound Roll Step.

However, at this point, you look and you are told that your damage is D3 mortal wounds. You roll a D3 to determine the number of wounds.

You also consult the Battle Primer (or the BRB if you prefer), and check the sidebar on Mortal wounds which states "Do not make a wound roll or a saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound - just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above".

You see that the damage you are told the unit suffers is only D3 mortal wounds - you are not told of any additional damage. As the only damage to be inflicted are mortal wounds, then as per the Battle Primer/BRB rules, you skip making wound rolls or saving thows.

You go to the Inflict Damage stage. You allocate the mortal wounds. As per the Battle Primer, if the model dies and there are unallocated mortal wounds you move on to the next model.

You move on to the next weapon in the unit if there is one, because you've now finished up with firing the missile launcher.

Where in the Stratagem does it say "This attack only does d3 mortal wounds"?

You continually add words where there are none.

My mind is blown how this went 7 pages...

Daedalus let me explain.

Example - I have a tac marine with a ML within range of an enemy Daemon Prince. The model did not move on my movement phase, and it is now my shooting phase.


1 - ML unit is selected. Daemon Prince is selected as my target.
1a - verify DP is a valid target. It is.
2 - Before rolling my hit roll I will play the Flakk Missile stratagem.
2a - verify all requirements for stratagem are met. They are.
3 - Make a single hit roll as instructed by the stratagem.
3a - add a +1 modifier to the hit roll.
3b - assuming to-hit works for sake of example
4 - Roll D3 mortal wound as instructed by stratagem.
4a - Any response such as opponent stratagems or FNP style rolls would apply.
4b - Apply mortal wounds to target.
5 - Attack Resolved. Move to next model to shoot, or move to next phase if player has no further models who can take a shooting action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@JNAProductions
"You only make a single hit roll with the weapon this phase"

One hit roll for the ML in this shooting phase. The unit will not be able to fire it's ML again until next turn.

"however, add 1 to the hit roll, and if it hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds"

If your attack hits, the damage is listed. This is no different than if my power fist attack hits, that attack will deal D3 wounds. There are no additional wounds that occur from that attack. Where in the stratagem does it say that it will deal additional damage outside of the D3 mortal wounds? If you say that it does, aren't YOU adding additional language that is not there?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Where in the Stratagem does it say "This attack only does d3 mortal wounds"?

You continually add words where there are none.

Don't be obtuse. It states "This attack does d3 mortal wounds"

Where does it say it does any more than d3 mortal wounds?

You continually can't follow basic instructions - you do d3 mortal wounds. Not d3 mortal wounds plus something else. As per the stratagem and the basic rules. It really is that simple.

You're completely ignoring the basic rules. The basic rules tell you to make a wound roll after a hit roll, and then saves, then damage.

Nowhere in the Stratagem does it overwrite that.

Edit: And it does NOT say "This attack does d3 mortal wounds". It says "if it hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds'".

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're completely ignoring the basic rules. The basic rules tell you to make a wound roll after a hit roll, and then saves, then damage.

Nowhere in the Stratagem does it overwrite that.

Edit: And it does NOT say "This attack does d3 mortal wounds". It says "if it hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds'".

JNA.... seriously....

One hit. One attack. If you hit, you are dealing only D3 mortal damage. This isn't rocket science my friend.

 Karthicus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're completely ignoring the basic rules. The basic rules tell you to make a wound roll after a hit roll, and then saves, then damage.

Nowhere in the Stratagem does it overwrite that.

Edit: And it does NOT say "This attack does d3 mortal wounds". It says "if it hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds'".

JNA.... seriously....

One hit. One attack. If you hit, you are dealing only D3 mortal damage. This isn't rocket science my friend.

I agree on RAI. I agree on HIWPI.

But GW done borked the RAW. I don't see why that should be so shocking.

 Karthicus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're completely ignoring the basic rules. The basic rules tell you to make a wound roll after a hit roll, and then saves, then damage.

Nowhere in the Stratagem does it overwrite that.

Edit: And it does NOT say "This attack does d3 mortal wounds". It says "if it hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds'".

JNA.... seriously....

One hit. One attack. If you hit, you are dealing only D3 mortal damage. This isn't rocket science my friend.

No, its not rocket science. Yet you aren't getting it.

The basic rules of the game say that you go through the normal attack sequence with ranged weapons. You are still making a ranged attack with your krak missile profile(or frag if you chose that for some reason) with the stipulation you can only make one attack. If the attack hits, you gain D3 mortal wounds. However, since you are still making a normal ranged attack you must continue with the normal procedure unless you are told otherwise. The bolded part is key. You are NOT told otherwise by the Flakk Missile stratagem. Do what the rules tell you to do, not what they don't tell you to do.

The Rules are telling you to roll to wound with your attack, be it a krak or frag missile. The Flakk Missile stratagem doesn't change this, so you still have to roll to wound as normal and get your single hit with the Krak/Frag missile profile on top of the D3 mortal wounds.

Which frankly makes a ton of sense. This stratagem is pretty useless if you only get D3 mortal wounds out of it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're completely ignoring the basic rules. The basic rules tell you to make a wound roll after a hit roll, and then saves, then damage.

Nowhere in the Stratagem does it overwrite that.

Edit: And it does NOT say "This attack does d3 mortal wounds". It says "if it hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds'".

Look at my procedure again. I'm not completely ignoring the basic rules. I'm told there are D3 mortal wounds damage. The basic rules state you do not make a to wound roll for mortal wounds. The basic rules state you do not make a saving throw for mortal wounds. They tell you to allocate the mortal wounds (one damage per), but the possibility of other models in the unit getting affected by the mortal wounds if the first model dies with mortal wounds left to remain. Therefore, the procedure is still being followed. The stratagem tells you there are mortal wounds for damage, without anything else, and it's the basic rules themselves that tell you how to resolve them. It's not being ignored - you're ignoring the rules for mortal wounds and how those rules overwrite the basic rules for making wound rolls and saving throws.

 Grey Templar wrote:
This stratagem is pretty useless if you only get D3 mortal wounds out of it.

EDIT: Off topic response to a pointless statement. It's usefulness is not under debate here.

 Grey Templar wrote:

The basic rules of the game say that you go through the normal attack sequence with ranged weapons. You are still making a ranged attack with your krak missile profile(or frag if you chose that for some reason) with the stipulation you can only make one attack. If the attack hits, you gain D3 mortal wounds. However, since you are still making a normal ranged attack you must continue with the normal procedure unless you are told otherwise.

The statagem stating that if you hit the target unit suffers D3 mortal wounds without saying it suffers D3 mortal wounds in addition to normal damage is telling you otherwise.

 doctortom wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

The basic rules of the game say that you go through the normal attack sequence with ranged weapons. You are still making a ranged attack with your krak missile profile(or frag if you chose that for some reason) with the stipulation you can only make one attack. If the attack hits, you gain D3 mortal wounds. However, since you are still making a normal ranged attack you must continue with the normal procedure unless you are told otherwise.

The statagem stating that if you hit the target unit suffers D3 mortal wounds without saying it suffers D3 mortal wounds in addition to normal damage is telling you otherwise.

No. It does not explicitly override the normal attack sequence. Therefore, it does not. You're totally ignoring the basic principles of how the rules work. Unless something explicitly says NOT to do something in the basic rules, you must still do it.

The Flakk Stratagem does NOT explicitly override the normal attack sequence. Therefore, you still roll to wound with the krak missile attack on top of the D3 mortal wounds. That is the RAW. There is no disputing this.

You can argue maybe it's not how it is intended to work, but RAI is a very grey area and not within the scope of our discussions here.

I have a GK Warlord with Tenacious Survivor. I pop the Stratagem to give him +1 to his invuln save. Nowhere in the Stratagem does it tell me to roll Tenacious Survivor, so by your guys logic, I don't roll it, right?

Karthicus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You're completely ignoring the basic rules. The basic rules tell you to make a wound roll after a hit roll, and then saves, then damage.

Nowhere in the Stratagem does it overwrite that.

Edit: And it does NOT say "This attack does d3 mortal wounds". It says "if it hits, the target suffers D3 mortal wounds'".

JNA.... seriously....

One hit. One attack. If you hit, you are dealing only D3 mortal damage. This isn't rocket science my friend.

Missile launcher and rocket launcher are synonymous, it IS rocket science.
If the weapon had a special rule that said if this weapon hits it inflicts d3 mortal wounds you wouldn't argue that it didn't get to use its profile too, why is this different?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

The basic rules of the game say that you go through the normal attack sequence with ranged weapons. You are still making a ranged attack with your krak missile profile(or frag if you chose that for some reason) with the stipulation you can only make one attack. If the attack hits, you gain D3 mortal wounds. However, since you are still making a normal ranged attack you must continue with the normal procedure unless you are told otherwise.

The statagem stating that if you hit the target unit suffers D3 mortal wounds without saying it suffers D3 mortal wounds in addition to normal damage is telling you otherwise.

No. It does not explicitly override the normal attack sequence. Therefore, it does not. You're totally ignoring the basic principles of how the rules work. Unless something explicitly says NOT to do something in the basic rules, you must still do it.

The Flakk Stratagem does NOT explicitly override the normal attack sequence. Therefore, you still roll to wound with the krak missile attack on top of the D3 mortal wounds. That is the RAW. There is no disputing this.

You can argue maybe it's not how it is intended to work, but RAI is a very grey area and not within the scope of our discussions here.

You just don't get it. IT DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE ATTACK SEQUENCE. It DOES override the damage that the missile does by stating what the effect of hitting is. If all that is inflicted is mortal wounds, then you follow the rules for mortal wounds. The mortal wounds rule tells you how to handle the sequence, but YOU ARE NOT OVERRIDING THE ATTACK SEQUENCE BY FOLLOWING THE RULES FOR MORTAL WOUNDS.

When you are told you do x damage (whether moral wounds, regular wounds or a combination) if you hit, you get to do that, NOT that and something else. The rules from the stratagem tell you that you do D3 mortal wounds. That DOES override the normal damage of the missile. The missile does D3 mortal wounds damage. You follow normal procedures for resolving D3 mortal wounds damage. That is the RAW. There is no disputing this. You can argue maybe it's not how it is intended to work.

By the way, your statement that RAI is not within the scope of our discussions here is a complete crock. It's perfectly within the purview of YMDC for it to be discussed, and has been brought up. We are talking about RAW, but you should not dismiss RAI as something not discussed here.

Agreed. HIWPI is very much within the scope of this forum.

Yeah this argument is long over, intent is clear and RAW is clear to most people so its done.


If someone wants to continue to argue about his own vague interpretation of how the rules work that's on him and has nothing to do with the rest of us.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Yeah this argument is long over, intent is clear and RAW is clear to most people so its done.


If someone wants to continue to argue about his own vague interpretation of how the rules work that's on him and has nothing to do with the rest of us.

I know, right? Certain people should not continue with their poorly conceived house rules when it's totally clear, after 7 pages, what the correct answer is!

Finally someone else who gets it!




Okay, seriously though: You guys believe whatever you want. Work has interfered and I'm gonna bow out of this one for at least 24 hours, 48 if I'm lucky, though roughly 13 if things go dreadfully wrong and I'm the one left holding the bag, cause then I'll have all kinds of spare time on my hands. If this epic and vital struggle persists still even then, maybe I yet may continue to be graced with the dulcet tones of how I imagine all of your angry protestations obviously would sound if you were to say them aloud.

Also, GT is entirely spot on!

So it's just gonna descend into "haha I got the last gloaty post in!" until inevitable thread lock?

Oh wait I exacerbated it... damn.