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:

 helgrenze wrote:
This sounds like a "general vs specific" issue.
General rule is roll to hit.
Specific rule is Flamers always hit.

As I recall, GW has a long standing metric of Specific overrides General in the rules.

There's no overriding, though. Auto-hit never says do not roll.

"Automatically" literally means without action, decision or intervention. When it says it hits automatically it is telling us not to roll.

Eh... You can interpret it that way, but there's no part of the Automatically definition that says "DO NOT ROLL". I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it's ambiguous. And ambiguity is not good for a ruleset.

This is ambiguous enough to deserve a FAQ.

 meleti wrote:
This is ambiguous enough to deserve a FAQ.

Email GW on the FAQ Hotline then.

To most it's fairly obvious that it's not ambiguous, but if you feel it is then let them know. More chance of being covered if the Q is FA! The same guy who had to answer "Is zero less than five?" and "Can a vehicle that can't get to a second floor be set up there?" will be overjoyed to answer this too.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 meleti wrote:
This is ambiguous enough to deserve a FAQ.

Email GW on the FAQ Hotline then.

To most it's fairly obvious that it's not ambiguous, but if you feel it is then let them know. More chance of being covered if the Q is FA! The same guy who had to answer "Is zero less than five?" and "Can a vehicle that can't get to a second floor be set up there?" will be overjoyed to answer this too.

Ah so that's why GW write so incompetently bad. To please the FAQ team.

That or GW writers are simply so incompetently bad they can't get anything written clearly and unambiguously.

I think it's obvious that you aren't intended to generate additional attacks with Dakka Dakka Dakka and a burna. I just don't think there's an obvious textual basis for that ruling, which means the easiest thing to do is just toss that into a FAQ at some point so it's clear that's the way the rule works.

Does a weapon that "hits its target automatically" skip making a hit roll, or does it hit its target automatically regardless of the outcome of that roll? Just reading the rules I don't see any reason to favor one option over the other. You could say that "a roll of 1 always fails," but in this same thread people have already noted the "general vs specific" point.

For comparison would a model with a 2+ BS with a +1 to hit flyers always hit a fly model without a minus to hit then as the 1's auto miss is a general rule vrs my specific plus one to hit flyers so I can't miss if specific trumps general. Or does the 1 auto fails trump my ability yo modify it to a 2? I get GW not wanting people to be able to build auto hitting combos but this is all from 1 data slate, I'd feel cheesy as hell for doing it but its little diffrent than throwing dice for a stratageum thats to me clearly not intended to be used on auto hit weapons.

Actually, the rules state that a roll of One Always Fails, Irrespective of modifiers.
(Pg 181 under Shooting, part 4: Resolve Attacks, section 1: Hit Roll.)

So your saying general overrides specific so auto hit would still miss on a 1 then?
I realise this sounds like I'm being pedantic, but I can't see any difference between it between modified by +1 or modified to auto hit if your going to throw dice surely the to hit roll rule of 1's miss regardless must apply?
Or you don't throw dice and as no roll is made you can't roll any 1's.
This picking and choosing interpretationa of general vrs specific just seams like taking what little fun is left in the game and setting fire to it with rules lawyering.

Ice_can wrote:
So your saying general overrides specific so auto hit would still miss on a 1 then?
I realise this sounds like I'm being pedantic, but I can't see any difference between it between modified by +1 or modified to auto hit if your going to throw dice surely the to hit roll rule of 1's miss regardless must apply?
Or you don't throw dice and as no roll is made you can't roll any 1's.
This picking and choosing interpretationa of general vrs specific just seams like taking what little fun is left in the game and setting fire to it with rules lawyering.

You're not recalling all of the rule, which is why you're having a problem. In your +1 scenario, the general rule is that a 1 fails irrespective of modifiers. This isn't a case of general overriding specific, the +1 simply does not override the irrespective of modifiers portion of the rule because it doesn't say it does.

"Automatically hits" does because it's much more broad and is not a modifier as GW commonly uses the term.

Given that the "Roll of One" rule includes the word 'Always" and the phrase "Irrespective of any modifiers", your point is moot.
This is a very specific rule.

And yes, on weapons that automatically hit, no roll is made so you cannot roll a One.

Consider this, in the OP they know they have 45 hits guaranteed, why would you attempt to roll that many To Hit dice with Orks? With a BS of 5+, they would miss more than half to get maybe a few more shots beyond that half.
Better to go with the sure thing.

As written, I'd say yes. Extra hits.

However, I think if GW faq'd it, they'd give you a no. They always default towards the most simplistic option possible - even when the technicality is correct.

I can't see why all you guys are such unfun opponents that you're really that up in arms about an uncompetative Orc unit getting a wopping 7ish extra strength 4 attacks when it's already got around 30, using a stratagem that everyone universally regards as utterly useless due to the fact it's 90% of the time no better than just using the single re-roll out the BRB.

Seriously.

Or are we afraid of Eldar losing their place in the top of the meta to Orks running massive units of DakkaDakka burners?

I've seen what massed Burnas can do to an army, especially if you put them in Trukks.

There are plenty of words for it... pretty ain't one.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I can't see why all you guys are such unfun opponents that you're really that up in arms about an uncompetative Orc unit getting a wopping 7ish extra strength 4 attacks when it's already got around 30, using a stratagem that everyone universally regards as utterly useless due to the fact it's 90% of the time no better than just using the single re-roll out the BRB.

Seriously.

Or are we afraid of Eldar losing their place in the top of the meta to Orks running massive units of DakkaDakka burners?

Because mechanics don't impact one unit or one army. You make the rule now that auto hits roll to hit and trigger effects and it's now a part of the whole game impacting other future potential things. You can't look at these mechanics in a vacuum.

 Lance845 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I can't see why all you guys are such unfun opponents that you're really that up in arms about an uncompetative Orc unit getting a wopping 7ish extra strength 4 attacks when it's already got around 30, using a stratagem that everyone universally regards as utterly useless due to the fact it's 90% of the time no better than just using the single re-roll out the BRB.

Seriously.

Or are we afraid of Eldar losing their place in the top of the meta to Orks running massive units of DakkaDakka burners?

Because mechanics don't impact one unit or one army. You make the rule now that auto hits roll to hit and trigger effects and it's now a part of the whole game impacting other future potential things. You can't look at these mechanics in a vacuum.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to have any rolls to see if secondary effects trigger on weapons that hit automatically, like Gets Hot...

 doctortom wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I can't see why all you guys are such unfun opponents that you're really that up in arms about an uncompetative Orc unit getting a wopping 7ish extra strength 4 attacks when it's already got around 30, using a stratagem that everyone universally regards as utterly useless due to the fact it's 90% of the time no better than just using the single re-roll out the BRB.

Seriously.

Or are we afraid of Eldar losing their place in the top of the meta to Orks running massive units of DakkaDakka burners?

Because mechanics don't impact one unit or one army. You make the rule now that auto hits roll to hit and trigger effects and it's now a part of the whole game impacting other future potential things. You can't look at these mechanics in a vacuum.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to have any rolls to see if secondary effects trigger on weapons that hit automatically, like Gets Hot...

I haven't said at all if i was in support of one side of the argument or the other yet. Ive just been reading it so far. I was simply saying that this argument isn't about orks getting a few extra hits. It has broader implications.

And I was pointing out that for another situation they had done it before. You can look at what broad implications came out from that.

But interpreting the rules one way or another simply based on what implications it would have is (though practical) not correct, rules should be interpreted only based on what is written IMO

So far as what the rules say, it should be entirely unambiguous. As I said earlier, for something to be automatic requires no manual input, action or decision making, so by saying, "This weapon hits automatically" it's telling us there is no roll to hit. It simply would not be automatic if we were to roll the dice, even if we disregard the result. Accordingly the stratagem does not work on such weapons.

However, this is a departure from previous editions where such effects generally would proc from a separate dice roll, and so I understand why losing out on the ability for the stratagem to work feels wrong. I think accordingly it's worth an FAQ from Games Workshop to determine just how far they wish such abilities to be tied only to the roll to hit, or whether indeed a return to the previous way it worked is appropriate for such situations.

 meleti wrote:
This is ambiguous enough to deserve a FAQ.

Why do you say that - I feel the exact opposite.

"However, this is a departure from previous editions where such effects generally would proc from a separate dice roll, and so I understand why losing out on the ability for the stratagem to work feels wrong. I think accordingly it's worth an FAQ from Games Workshop to determine just how far they wish such abilities to be tied only to the roll to hit, or whether indeed a return to the previous way it worked is appropriate for such situations."

No way, let them focus on answering legitimate questions.

It's crystal clear that if you hit automatically you don't roll to hit, therefore there is no hit roll result, and as such no effects/abilities based on the hit roll can be triggered... because there is no hit roll to trigger them!

What is ambiguous about that? Absolutely nothing.

What needs an FAQ about that? Absolutely nothing.

Oh man I sense another '"During" vs "At the end of" the phase' threads coming!

Guys if you auto hit you don't need to roll, c'mon now. Common sense.

If someone rolled to hit me with a weapon that hits automatically I would immediately pack up my models and leave, ensuring I never lost sight of the opposing player at all times, until I was safely away.

100% agree with that. If it's automatic you aren't rolling. The act of rolling means it is not automatic.

If you are allowed to proc extra attacks, wouldn't that means the hits are not actually automatic anymore?

And seriously does this game need MORE dice rolling?

Not rolling is indeed the only possible correct answer here. I just think that those weapon profiles should be changed to "this weapon hits its target automatically without making a hit roll" or something similar.

 Marmatag wrote:

And seriously does this game need MORE dice rolling?

Preach man what is it with 8th and roll 20 or more dice, then reroll, then wound and then reroll, now roll saves then damage then fnp thats 6 rolls for one units shooting, that just takes time no matter how speed player you are.

Noone needs more pointless rolling for some obviously unintended use of a stratageum.

I think its actually a waste of the CP to use the strat on an autohit weapon.
Orks BS of 5+ means that on a Shoota boyz mob 1/3 to 1/2 of your hits are going to trigger the effect, If they Advanced, then All hits will trigger the strat.
In a maxed Mob that's 30 orks with 60 shots, giving Way better odds of overkill. Even if only 1/3 actually hit (20 hits) and half of those trigger the strat , that's +10 shots.
70 shots total at S4 is gonna kill something even if only 25 actually hit anything.
Using it on a flamer type weapon for maybe 7 extra hits just seems like a waste. And given the Orks WS that 7 is being generous.

Just because we don't roll out of a sense of saving time and energy doesn't mean you're not supposed to. Auto doesn't mean skip (consult a dictionary to prove it). The Shooting rule in the BRB is mandatory and that's RAW.

I see a disturbing lack of citations from the 'no rolling' crowd.

Ok, how about this one..."happening or existing through the operation of a preexisting arrangement that is triggered by some event"?
That definition work for you?

Of course my point above about using the CP on a strat that is reliant on a roll for a weapon that does not require same is still valid. It's a waste of the CP.

As for the definition fitting the case at hand....
The 'automatic hits' are triggered by the event of declaring the target of the weapons used. No other action need be made for the hits to occur, only rolling the die to determine how many hits actually occur.

Whew, been gone for a bit, and I come back to.... a lot.

Grotsnik1 wrote:I think that if you have a +1 your roll of 6 goes to a 7 and so you dont get the extra shot, you would only get it with a 5 (that goes to a 6) then again im not 100% sure.

The extra hits don't trigger on a dice roll of 6, but on a hit roll of 6+. boosted hit rolls of 6 and 7 would both qualify for the extra hit. Likewise, shooting at stealth armies make the extra shots impossible to proc, automatic hits or no, and also widens the threat range for a gets hot wound.

JohnnyHell wrote:The second fail in the OP is that you surely can't decide how many shots you get before you choose who to fire at. You only do that after declaring the unit is shooting and it's target(s). So you can't play a "before shooting" Stratagem if you've begun the shooting sequence.

I'll be honest, here. I definitely feel like the order of operations argument is the weakest argument, RAW, for the above strategy. But your particular argument here about target selection I believe to be flawed. While I'm not certain of the following, I was under the impression that a recent FAQ had ruled in a similar situation: when shooting a particular unit with a randomized STR, a player could determine the strength of the shot before determining the target of the shooting, so as to not waste STR 2 on tanks or STR 12 on grots. I don't see why determining an attribute "before shooting," would be allowed in one case, but not another, but you are free to rail against it.

If indeed attribute selection happens before target selection, or similarly before a particular unit shoots, then the weak link in the order of operations is that you use the stratagem you use it before shooting, but I believe selecting a weapon clearly comes after selecting a unit for shooting. The question then, is when exactly determining a weapon's attributes happens, vs when "before an...unit...shoots in your Shooting phase," ends.

JohnnyHell wrote:If you don't roll to hit you can't get bonus attacks, as you never have a hit roll. Simples.

Mr. Shine wrote:I'd say that "hits automatically" fairly plainly tells you that it hits without rolling to hit, as opposed to something like "hits regardless of the result of the roll to hit".

helgrenze wrote:And yes, on weapons that automatically hit, no roll is made so you cannot roll a One.

Marmatag wrote:100% agree with that. If it's automatic you aren't rolling. The act of rolling means it is not automatic.

I'd interpreted it as they hit regardless of rolls. But I can tell from your multiple, passionate responses that the issue is sure to be emotionally divisive, which ultimately, is what I wanted to know. I'm not trying to make enemies at my local scene, but I was curious as to the legality of the stratagem, anyway.

Marmatag wrote:If you are allowed to proc extra attacks, wouldn't that means the hits are not actually automatic anymore?

Seeing as almost all flamers have a random number of attacks to start with, I don't see this argument as particularly having merit.

And seriously does this game need MORE dice rolling?

I don't find your impatience at general rolling as being particularly relevant to the legality of the specific rolling. It sounds like you are arguing about how things SHOULD work as opposed to how they DO work. However, noted.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:I can't see why all you guys are such unfun opponents that you're really that up in arms about an uncompetative Orc unit getting a wopping 7ish extra strength 4 attacks when it's already got around 30, using a stratagem that everyone universally regards as utterly useless due to the fact it's 90% of the time no better than just using the single re-roll out the BRB.
Seriously.
Or are we afraid of Eldar losing their place in the top of the meta to Orks running massive units of DakkaDakka burners?

I provided an example mid-thread about Tau getting a similar stratagem, and applying it to flamers and targets with 5 markerlights (reroll 1s, +1 to hit). I think it's amazing to imagine Orks generating extra shots while shouting DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA because another ork slightly mishears the onomatopoeia and actually believes the extra shot to have been fired. I think it's hilarious to think that a Burna biy is so dumb that HE hears "Dakka," and is so used to associating it with heavier shooting that his flamer gouts more fire, despite sounding like a machinegun instead of a WHOOSH.

But at the end of the day, none of that has any bearing on legality.

An Actual Englishman wrote:Guys if you auto hit you don't need to roll, c'mon now.

Not needing to roll and not being allowed to roll are two very different stances.

helgrenze wrote:I think its actually a waste of the CP to use the strat on an autohit weapon.
Orks BS of 5+ means that on a Shoota boyz mob 1/3 to 1/2 of your hits are going to trigger the effect, If they Advanced, then All hits will trigger the strat.
In a maxed Mob that's 30 orks with 60 shots, giving Way better odds of overkill. Even if only 1/3 actually hit (20 hits) and half of those trigger the strat , that's +10 shots.
70 shots total at S4 is gonna kill something even if only 25 actually hit anything.
Using it on a flamer type weapon for maybe 7 extra hits just seems like a waste. And given the Orks WS that 7 is being generous.

Sure, against an appropriate target, you are simply creating more overkill. However, you and I both know that situations arise where the most efficient target is not always the target available to you. You are correct that 60+10 shots is more than 45+7 shots. But then again, that's 20+4 hits vs 45+7 hits before the dice suffer wounding/save attrition, which can make the difference against some targets of opportunity. Even knocking a heavier tank down one statblock can make a difference on the rest of a game.

Audustum wrote:Just because we don't roll out of a sense of saving time and energy doesn't mean you're not supposed to. Auto doesn't mean skip (consult a dictionary to prove it). The Shooting rule in the BRB is mandatory and that's RAW.

I see a disturbing lack of citations from the 'no rolling' crowd.

Ultimately, I agree with this, but this is clearly divisive enough that I'd have to run the concept by an opponent or TO first. The ones who are more welcoming of shake ups and variety are more likely to accept.