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.

 helgrenze wrote:
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.

See the bolded part? That's the part you have no RAW for and the RAW for shooting (quoted on page 1) directly contradicts. Shooting attacks must roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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.

Yeah, sure, ask TO's. I am always in favor of FAQ's answering more rather than less too.

So by this logic, a Thunderfire Cannon which can "Target models that are not visible...", Can fire on Units held in reserve.
There is no RAW that denies this so it can be played that way.

 helgrenze wrote:
So by this logic, a Thunderfire Cannon which can "Target models that are not visible...", Can fire on Units held in reserve.
There is no RAW that denies this so it can be played that way.

Are the units within range? Because if not, there's your RAW that denies it.

Not really. TFC is 60" range, and there is no rule saying that a unit has to be on the table to be targetted.
It's just accepted that models not in the field of play cannot be targetted.
Why? because it makes better sense than the alternative.

The idea in the OP and some of the subsequent posts come across as manipulating the rules for an advantage.
Consider this... If a Sisters Army tried to use the same type of logic with all their flame weapons, would you allow it?

And how exactly are you going to keep your reserves out of range of an earth shaker cannon. Keeping reserve's more than 20 ft away from any table is totaly impractical.

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.

For this issue to be "disturbing" to you, well, I worry a little... that's blowing things out of proportion just a little. Hyperbole is rarely helpful in a discussion.

Please contact GW if you believe auto hits require a pointless roll. I can tell you exactly what their answer will be. It won't be that you're correct.

Let's face it, nobody questioned it til some internet dweller decided they been Clever +1000 and found a new 'loophole'. Only they haven't, as it's accepted by 99% of the player base that auto-hit weapons don't roll. If that isn't spelled out to your satisfaction, that's tough I'm afraid. Consensus is that they don't roll. So this 'tactic' is simply not one.

Feel free to keep defending this indefensible position if you like (that ham feline insect chap doesn't seem to be around to do it today, good of you to cover) but you need to accept that weapons that auto hit don't roll to hit, so can't generate anything from the hit roll... because one does not happen.

It's not even accepted by 99% of people in this thread. - Hyperbole appears to be your tool, here.

The roll isn't pointless by the virtue that it might in fact, create extra shots.

No-one questions new ideas until someones had them. Has everyone already forgotten the Ogyrn party bus to name a notorious example? The entire thread about 'End of Phase?'

Your last line just appears to be an attack on a fellow poster. Isn't that against the rules?

This thread is no barometer for consensus. I've never met a player who thinks you need to roll for an auto-hit weapon. The first time I've seen it raised is this thread. It's so obvious it barely merits discussion, yet some are intent on adopting that position regardless. Eh, you do you.

I haven't forgotten the Ogryn Party Bus (I think that's a term I coined haha) - that is also so obviously not intended or allowed, but doesn't stop people trying to weld rules together to make it appear to work. But that's a discussion for that thread.

Anyway, if you find it ambiguous go email GW. In the meantime, I doubt you'll find players who attempt to hit rolls for auto-hit weapons in the wild. If you do, you know who not to play again. Simples.

This the most "that guy" thread I have ever seen. OP would not be winning any personality awards trying to pull this where I play.

I find it really funny because dakka dakka dakka is not the sound a flamer weapon makes and its not like you can fire another bullet of flame.

Let's break it down properly -

A shooting attack as the BRB is a single shot from a weapon.
Weapon profiles detail how many shooting attacks you may make with that weapon.
Flamer weapons, in their weapon profile state Assault D6 (or with ork burnas Assault D3). In their specific rules they normally state "this weapon automatically hits its target".
If you automatically hit your target I would claim it is impossible to roll a 1 or a 6 to hit because you can hit things that would otherwise be impossible to hit (Alaitoc planes for orks as an example). Similarly if you rolled a 1 that always misses according to the rules, you still hit the target so the auto hit rule seems to supercede rolls.

There is also the question of where it ends.
Since the Strategem seems to state that for every to hit roll of a 6+ you get another shot.
Ok... Lets say your opponent allows you this, you roll well and get 24 6s out of the proposed 45. You get another 24 shots. Then you roll another 12 6s....and so on, halving the number of 6s rolled each time, until you have amassed 90 or so hits?
There is nothing in the RAW that prevents this as it is not a reroll.

The term for the above example is usually refered to as "Munchkining" for a reason.

 helgrenze wrote:
There is also the question of where it ends.
Since the Strategem seems to state that for every to hit roll of a 6+ you get another shot.
Ok... Lets say your opponent allows you this, you roll well and get 24 6s out of the proposed 45. You get another 24 shots. Then you roll another 12 6s....and so on, halving the number of 6s rolled each time, until you have amassed 90 or so hits?
There is nothing in the RAW that prevents this as it is not a reroll.

The term for the above example is usually refered to as "Munchkining" for a reason.

To be fair I believe dakka dakka dakka does say that the extra shots can't generate extra shots themselves.

That's ok, I just now spotted the flaw in the OP.

A Burna gets ONE SHOT that auto hits for up to 3 hits.
So, the op would only get 15 SHOTS with a potential of 45 hits not 45 SHOTS. He would be rolling 15 dice, not 45 to try to generate the needed 6s.
Dakkax3 grants extra SHOTS on a roll of 6, which, lets face it, probably means a max of 3 extras... And the hits from those would have to be rolled seperately as they do not occur at the time of the original shots being "additional shots".

Could that mean an extra 15 hits? Maybe. It could also mean an extra 3.

The burna is Assault D3 man, it has D3 shots.

I think the flaw with the OP is more the fact that auto hitting seems to supercede any dice rolling to hit. I believe this to be the case because even if you rolled and you got a 1 you don't miss, despite 1s always missing. If the dice have no effect in terms of hitting when using auto hit weapons, they shouldn't have any effect when used with stratagems with auto hit weapons either.

JohnnyHell wrote:This thread is no barometer for consensus. I've never met a player who thinks you need to roll for an auto-hit weapon. The first time I've seen it raised is this thread. It's so obvious it barely merits discussion, yet some are intent on adopting that position regardless. Eh, you do you.

I think the concept is fairly new, but if you'd like an "in the wild" consensus, try asking other players at your club what they think of it. As you say, Dakka Dakka doesn't exactly have a ton of exposure.

If you do, you know who not to play again. Simples.

Personally, I think I'd rather play with an opponent that realizes it's a game, and is willing to try new things for fun than an opponent who views opinions and interpretations of throughput as bars for entry into some exclusive club, but as you say, You do you.

An Actual Englishman wrote:This the most "that guy" thread I have ever seen. OP would not be winning any personality awards trying to pull this where I play.
I find it really funny because dakka dakka dakka is not the sound a flamer weapon makes and its not like you can fire another bullet of flame.

I appreciate your stunning personality analysis. I will never attempt to "surprise" an opponent with a controversial reading of the rules.
Yes, Dakka Dakka Dakka is the sound of a machine gun, and not a flamer. I mentioned this earlier in the thread. Grenades also do not make a Dakka noise, yet I'm pretty sure you'd be "That Guy," if you used that as an argument to claim that it can't apply to grenade throws without a strong rules basis for it.

Let's break it down properly -

A shooting attack as the BRB is a single shot from a weapon.
Weapon profiles detail how many shooting attacks you may make with that weapon.
Flamer weapons, in their weapon profile state Assault D6 (or with ork burnas Assault D3). In their specific rules they normally state "this weapon automatically hits its target".

I'm with you so far.

If you automatically hit your target I would claim it is impossible to roll a 1 or a 6 to hit because you can hit things that would otherwise be impossible to hit (Alaitoc planes for orks as an example). Similarly if you rolled a 1 that always misses according to the rules, you still hit the target so the auto hit rule seems to supercede rolls.

I personally think you're piling a bunch of extra interpretations onto the four words, "This weapon hits automatically," to get, "This weapon hits automatically and therefore cannot roll to-hit," but perhaps I am personally not loading enough interpretations onto it.

helgrenze wrote:There is also the question of where it ends.
Since the Strategem seems to state that for every to hit roll of a 6+ you get another shot.
Ok... Lets say your opponent allows you this, you roll well and get 24 6s out of the proposed 45. You get another 24 shots.

Yes.

Then you roll another 12 6s....and so on, halving the number of 6s rolled each time, until you have amassed 90 or so hits?
There is nothing in the RAW that prevents this as it is not a reroll.
The term for the above example is usually refered to as "Munchkining" for a reason.

Dakka Dakka Dakka, and most similar stratagems, psychic powers or abilities limit the additional shots to not further propagate additional shots. But if they didn't, then it's very likely yes. Extra shots resulting from 6+s could theoretically generate an infinite number of shots with enough good rolling.

helgrenze wrote:That's ok, I just now spotted the flaw in the OP.

A Burna gets ONE SHOT that auto hits for up to 3 hits.
So, the op would only get 15 SHOTS with a potential of 45 hits not 45 SHOTS. He would be rolling 15 dice, not 45 to try to generate the needed 6s.
Dakkax3 grants extra SHOTS on a roll of 6, which, lets face it, probably means a max of 3 extras... And the hits from those would have to be rolled seperately as they do not occur at the time of the original shots being "additional shots".

Could that mean an extra 15 hits? Maybe. It could also mean an extra 3.

1st of all, now you're just taking the piss. I suppose a rack of missiles is just one shot with a bunch of hits? You gotta be kidding me. The brb is pretty clear about what a shot is, and what's not.
2nd of all, if you are attempting to define a single "shot" as a single weapon firing all of its attacks, then each hit roll of 6+ just means that you'd fire the entire weapon over again since the stratagems generate an extra shots, not extra hits.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This the most "that guy" thread I have ever seen. OP would not be winning any personality awards trying to pull this where I play.

I find it really funny because dakka dakka dakka is not the sound a flamer weapon makes and its not like you can fire another bullet of flame.

So your first sentence is a general all out insult of anyone who disagrees with your interepreation of notoriously badly written rules.
Okay.

Your second sentence implies, and let me get this correct, That if the fluffy name of the rule does not connect with the noise you imagine the guns to make, the rule doesn't apply?

Like what? Missile launchers seriously, Ahem, "Rokit launcha's" don't go 'DakkaDakkaDakka' either. Does the stratagem also not work on them? What about Zzap guns? [I don't know about you, but I always presumed they went Zzzaaap.]

I know we're going to agree to disagree here, but behaving like this does nothing but undermine your case entirely.

I'm going to apologize for my last comment. Lack of sleep/meds can addle the brain some. Wish the insomnia wasn't a side effect...
I misread some info in the BRB and .... That post was wrong.

However, in the days of Templates, these weapons did have one shot with hits being determined by the number of models under the 'plate. These also 'automatically hit'. No roll needed. I could dig out my Rogue Trader books to see if that effect was present then but .. not really worth the effort.

Something that comes to mind though, If a Burna unit Advances and fires, ALL the shots fired could technically be 'counted as' having rolled a 6 to hit. No roll needed since they auto hit and Advancing modifies the to hit roll to a 6+. This would double the number of shots fired, which would also auto hit.
At which point some-one is going to start making accusations.

 SinisterSamurai wrote:
I appreciate your stunning personality analysis. I will never attempt to "surprise" an opponent with a controversial reading of the rules.
Yes, Dakka Dakka Dakka is the sound of a machine gun, and not a flamer. I mentioned this earlier in the thread. Grenades also do not make a Dakka noise, yet I'm pretty sure you'd be "That Guy," if you used that as an argument to claim that it can't apply to grenade throws without a strong rules basis for it.

This entire topic is a pretty controversial reading of the rules with a view to gain an advantage over your opponent and use a stratagem where really shouldn't be played. Sounds pretty "That Guy" to me.
Feel free to stop strawmanning with regards the sound thing, it was an aside.

I personally think you're piling a bunch of extra interpretations onto the four words, "This weapon hits automatically," to get, "This weapon hits automatically and therefore cannot roll to-hit," but perhaps I am personally not loading enough interpretations onto it.

It's not my interpretation though. It's the rules straight out of the BRB and other documents. Rolls of 1 to hit always miss. Currently a target can stack negative to hit modifiers so it can be impossible to hit (7+ on a D6). These all fall within the rules and are extremely clear. If a weapon automatically hits it's target, in order to correctly follow the full rules (1s always miss, auto 7+ is a miss) I would suggest the correct play is not to roll at all. Lets say you roll, despite the auto hit. If you roll a 1 you auto miss. But you automatically hit? So we are in a rule-loop. Which is correct?

The argument for with reference to Daemons and morale is weak because RAW we are supposed to roll even when we will auto pass a morale test. This is not the same thing, it's not even the same phase. If a daemonic unit had the rule "this unit automatically passes morale tests" I would suggest, again, that you do not roll regardless of a potential benefit for doing so.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
So your first sentence is a general all out insult of anyone who disagrees with your interepreation of notoriously badly written rules.
Okay.

No. Do you struggle with general reading comprehension and interpretation? My first sentence is a statement that this topic is something I would consider the epitome of what "That Guy" would do (seek unfair/dubious advantage).

Your second sentence implies, and let me get this correct, That if the fluffy name of the rule does not connect with the noise you imagine the guns to make, the rule doesn't apply?

Again, no. My second sentence is another statement regarding me finding humour in this topic because the sound after which the stratagem is named "Dakka Dakka Dakka" is not something I would apply to a flamer weapon. Perhaps you should do less strawman and focus more on the actual part of my post where I discussed the rules and their implications in detail?

 helgrenze wrote:
So by this logic, a Thunderfire Cannon which can "Target models that are not visible...", Can fire on Units held in reserve.
There is no RAW that denies this so it can be played that way.

Uh, no? You seem like you're having conversations with posts that aren't even in this thread. We're not talking about an Air Bud scenario ("no rule says a dog can't play basketball"). We're talking about a scenario where the rule is explicit: all shooting attacks must roll. It's right there in the main book. You're looking left when we're going right.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

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.

For this issue to be "disturbing" to you, well, I worry a little... that's blowing things out of proportion just a little. Hyperbole is rarely helpful in a discussion.

Please contact GW if you believe auto hits require a pointless roll. I can tell you exactly what their answer will be. It won't be that you're correct.

Yes, we get it. Your local meta is perfectly in sync with you. If you want to play the 'predict' GW's answer game, I can say they've never ruled the opposite of how I'd guess they'd rule in a FAQ ever, but you trying to start a "well GW won't ever say that" is the YMDC equivalent of "na-uh" / "ya-huh" playground banter.

Let's look at the tenants of YMDC for why we're here, yes?

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).

It's pretty clear the OP wants to talk about RAW in this thread, not HYWPI.

Let's face it, nobody questioned it til some internet dweller decided they been Clever +1000 and found a new 'loophole'. Only they haven't, as it's accepted by 99% of the player base that auto-hit weapons don't roll. If that isn't spelled out to your satisfaction, that's tough I'm afraid. Consensus is that they don't roll. So this 'tactic' is simply not one.

Riiiight, cause since you never heard anyone question it before it never came up before. Certainly was never FAQ'd in 7th regarding "Gets Hot" or anything, no. GW certainly didn't say you have to roll to see in that case, absolutely not.

The only consensus in this thread is there isn't one.

Feel free to keep defending this indefensible position if you like (that ham feline insect chap doesn't seem to be around to do it today, good of you to cover) but you need to accept that weapons that auto hit don't roll to hit, so can't generate anything from the hit roll... because one does not happen.

Back to the Tenants it is:

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.

So give me the RAW saying "automatic" means 'no roll', because shooting says explicitly: "Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made"

Which is ridiculous. You do you. I know how people actually play auto-hit weapons. Enjoy the pointless thread. ;-)

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Which is ridiculous. You do you. I know how people actually play auto-hit weapons. Enjoy the pointless thread. ;-)

That's fine. And if you ever care to visit my meta: be prepared to roll.

What happens when you roll your automatic hit and roll a "1"? There is an explicit rule that states that a roll of "1" is always a miss. There is no rule that says which has precedent so the game must stop and end.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What happens when you roll your automatic hit and roll a "1"? There is an explicit rule that states that a roll of "1" is always a miss. There is no rule that says which has precedent so the game must stop and end.

Welcome to hell my friend.

I agree with this and have made the same point above. I've yet to see it addressed.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What happens when you roll your automatic hit and roll a "1"? There is an explicit rule that states that a roll of "1" is always a miss. There is no rule that says which has precedent so the game must stop and end.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What happens when you roll your automatic hit and roll a "1"? There is an explicit rule that states that a roll of "1" is always a miss. There is no rule that says which has precedent so the game must stop and end.

Welcome to hell my friend.

I agree with this and have made the same point above. I've yet to see it addressed.

Specific overrides general. The specific ability of "automatically hits" overrides the general rule of rolling a 1 always missing.

First of all I wont even adress the childish comments that were writen in the post because lets face it, is just how immature people react when they dont have real arguments to support their point of view.
Secondly, im with those whose opinion is in favor of being able to roll.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What happens when you roll your automatic hit and roll a "1"? There is an explicit rule that states that a roll of "1" is always a miss. There is no rule that says which has precedent so the game must stop and end.

Now, I will conceed though that you are right, there would be a weird interaction between these two rules, and there is nowhere in the rulebook (at least that I could find) that says that specific overrides general (though this is nornally how everything is played), yet again the closest answer to this that I found is this:

Q: If a model uses a weapon that always wounds on a
set value, but the roll required to successfully wound
the model is worse than if that model were fighting
using its basic Strength characteristic, what roll to
wound is required?
A: The value described in the weapon’s abilities
takes precedence.
For example, if a Grotesque (with a Strength characteristic of
5) attacked an enemy unit with a Toughness characteristic of
3 using its flesh gauntlet, it would successfully wound that
unit on rolls of 4+, even though its Strength is greater than the
target’s Toughness.

I know is not exactly the same but is pretty simillar, I mean, regardless of having BS of 5+ and that 1s are auto-miss you have to use the weapons "automatical hitting"

The issue really, as I have said already, is determining whether automatic means "dont roll because it hits" or "hits regardless of the roll". And as there is no way of knowing which is the correct one then we only have this ambiguity and a rule that says that every time you shoot you have to make a roll; and so im in favor of using the stratagem with autohiting weapons.

In the end anyways its clear that this will be in the hands of the TO

Yeah, specific over general isn't in the rulebook, it's just something the game requires to work. For instance, weapons that always wound on a roll of X conflict with the wound chart. Why doesn't this break the game? Specific overrides general.

Why can IG super tanks shoot while in close combat? They have an ability that conflicts with the core rules. Specific overrides general.

Why can Imperial Knights walk out of combat and still shoot without Fly? Their ability conflicts with core rules. Specific overrides general.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. It's just something we have to do for the game to work.

All of the rules you site are specific to those weapons and noted to be exceptions to the general rules. Rolling to hit for a weapon that has the automatically hit rule seems to mean either the player is forgoing the automatic hit to pursue some benefit or is breaking the rules for his weapon.

If you want to go with automatic hit does not mean don't roll then you have to use all of the rules for rolling to hit otherwise it doesn't make any sense to say you automatically hit but ignore automatic misses. There is no rule for the weapon that says if you roll ignore automatic misses. The rule says that a roll of "1" always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply. If you roll on an auto hit weapon the "auto hit" becomes a modification to the weapons' attack since it's listed under abilities just like any other modifier.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
All of the rules you site are specific to those weapons and noted to be exceptions to the general rules. Rolling to hit for a weapon that has the automatically hit rule seems to mean either the player is forgoing the automatic hit to pursue some benefit or is breaking the rules for his weapon.

If you want to go with automatic hit does not mean don't roll then you have to use all of the rules for rolling to hit otherwise it doesn't make any sense to say you automatically hit but ignore automatic misses. There is no rule for the weapon that says if you roll ignore automatic misses. The rule says that a roll of "1" always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply. If you roll on an auto hit weapon the "auto hit" becomes a modification to the weapons' attack since it's listed under abilities just like any other modifier.

Agreed you either don't roll and hence the 1's always miss doesn't apply or you roll dice and have to abide by the dice rules of 1's always miss regardless of modifiers.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
All of the rules you site are specific to those weapons and noted to be exceptions to the general rules. Rolling to hit for a weapon that has the automatically hit rule seems to mean either the player is forgoing the automatic hit to pursue some benefit or is breaking the rules for his weapon.

I reject this premise and as proof I offer the actual text of these rules and some others:

Neutron Laser

Treat damage rolls of 1 or 2 made by this weapon as 3 instead.

Notice there is no mention or note here of this being an exception to any general rule. Notice also that the damage characteristic is listed as just D6 like any other D6. Now let's look at the main rulebook on damage:

The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage characteristic of the weapon used in the attack.

RAW for the main rules is that Neutron Laser does a D6 because that is the damage characteristic. This rule is mandatory. It is conflicts with the ability which does not modify the damage characteristic. The weapon ability wins out because specific overrides general.

How about those Imperial Knights now?

Super-heavy Walker

This model can Fall Back in the Movement phase and still shoot and/or charge in the same turn.

No specific mention of anything here either. It just says the model can do it.

Now the main rule:

A unit that Falls Back also cannot shoot later that turn unless it can Fly.

Same thing as before. We have a mandatory rule in the main rulebook that rules out all exceptions save Fly. We have an ability saying he can do it anyway. What wins? The ability because specific overrides general.

I'll spare the Steel Behemoth rule because it's the same kind of thing as the Knights and I only have the Index version anyway.

Point being, none of these rules are noted as being exceptions any more than "automatically hits" is. Your premise and thus analysis and conclusion are therefore faulty.

If you want to go with automatic hit does not mean don't roll then you have to use all of the rules for rolling to hit otherwise it doesn't make any sense to say you automatically hit but ignore automatic misses. There is no rule for the weapon that says if you roll ignore automatic misses. The rule says that a roll of "1" always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply. If you roll on an auto hit weapon the "auto hit" becomes a modification to the weapons' attack since it's listed under abilities just like any other modifier.

No, you don't. The rules never give you any option to disregard them at all. This portion is a HYWPI from whole cloth. The shooting rule is mandatory and requires a roll. The weapon ability is mandatory and requires a hit. You, like others, seem to have brought the assumption into the reading that "automatically" means 'don't', but there's no RAW to support that whatsoever (and while we're not supposed to argue dictionary definitions on YMDC, it's not in there either).

If you want to argue that "automatically hits" is a modifier you're welcome to try, but we'll need some RAW to support it. In all other places of the rules that I can find, 'modifier' is used to refer only to +/- to Hit when it comes to shooting. We'd also need RAW saying that modifiers are incapable, in any circumstance, of overriding the rule of 1's always missing. The rule does not seem unique among the main rules and thus should be as changeable by an ability as any other rule in the book.

Show me in the rules where modifiers are stated to be only +/- to hit. Modifiers simply means that something changes a result it does not have to be a numerical value.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Show me in the rules where modifiers are stated to be only +/- to hit. Modifiers simply means that something changes a result it does not have to be a numerical value.

My argument is not predicated on nor does it require modifiers to only be +/-. My argument is that automatically does not override the rule requiring shooting attacks to roll but does override 1's always miss.

I was just pointing out what you need for your modifier argument to work and opining on its likelihood.