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.

Ugh, you guys are the worst. This is a bad thread, and you should feel bad.

 Elbows wrote:
Ugh, you guys are the worst. This is a bad thread, and you should feel bad.

The people who are saying "You're wrong and should feel bad for daring to read the rules literally, instead of applying what MIGHT BE GW's thought process to it," are kinda annoying, yeah.

No! This is insane. I and most reasonable people would not allow this. There currently are no plasma weapons that don't roll to hit so that argument only applies to previous editions. You automatically hit therefore do not roll to hit. Saying they hit automatically doesn't mean you can roll to hit even though is automatically a success.

mhalko1 wrote:
No! This is insane. I and most reasonable people would not allow this. There currently are no plasma weapons that don't roll to hit so that argument only applies to previous editions. You automatically hit therefore do not roll to hit. Saying they hit automatically doesn't mean you can roll to hit even though is automatically a success.

Why is it insane? You get a whopping 16.67% increase in hits-that's it.

A nice improvement, sure, but compared to some other stratagems (Weapons From The Dark Ages, for instance, doubles damage (non-overcharged) or increases by 50% (overcharge), and Ryza-Charging does MORE than that, since it also has +1 to wound) it's only okay.

mhalko1 wrote:
No! This is insane. I and most reasonable people would not allow this. There currently are no plasma weapons that don't roll to hit so that argument only applies to previous editions. You automatically hit therefore do not roll to hit. Saying they hit automatically doesn't mean you can roll to hit even though is automatically a success.

Wow, pseudo-thread necromancy to say an old talking point. I'll just copy/paste.

Anyway, I think SinisterSamurai has it right. The rulebook here is mandatory, not permissive:

"Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made".

Now let's look at the weapon profile for this kind of stuff: it says "automatically hits" it does NOT say 'do not roll'. So RAW, you roll and regardless of what you roll, it automatically hits. Nowhere are you actually given permission to skip any part of the process.

Audustum wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:
No! This is insane. I and most reasonable people would not allow this. There currently are no plasma weapons that don't roll to hit so that argument only applies to previous editions. You automatically hit therefore do not roll to hit. Saying they hit automatically doesn't mean you can roll to hit even though is automatically a success.

Wow, pseudo-thread necromancy to say an old talking point. I'll just copy/paste.

Anyway, I think SinisterSamurai has it right. The rulebook here is mandatory, not permissive:

"Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made".

Now let's look at the weapon profile for this kind of stuff: it says "automatically hits" it does NOT say 'do not roll'. So RAW, you roll and regardless of what you roll, it automatically hits. Nowhere are you actually given permission to skip any part of the process.

Never doubt the obstinance of those who would argue rules.

Skipping a redundant point in the process of resolving hits does not actually eliminate that point from the process. Let's hope GW chooses to clarify this in a FAQ.

 SinisterSamurai wrote:
Alternate Title: Burnas and Dakka Dakka Dakka
This popped up on 4chan, recently. The basic set-up is this:

Dakka Dakka Dakka is a stratagem that generates one extra shot from a ranged weapon for each 6+ to hit result you roll. It's a 1CP stratagem that you play before shooting with a unit.
Most flame weapons, including Burnas, hit automatically. Burnas have D3 hits, but you roll a single dice before shooting and apply the result to the entire unit.

The first and primary loop-hole concept is that, RAW, hitting automatically doesn't actually eliminate the to-hit roll. In practice, the roll is simply skipped for time during a gentleman's match.because it makes the result a forgone conclusion.

Therefore, it is believed that when attempting to fire a flame weapon, you can roll to-hit, without risk, and still use the dice results for the purposes of qualifying for other abilities.

The second "shenanigan" involved is that because both the application of the stratagem and the rolling for number of shots take place in the same "before shooting with the unit" subphase, you as the player can determine the order of events. Therefore, you may determine that a unit of 15 burnas each has 3 shots, and then choose to play Dakka Dakka Dakka.

The end goal is to roll to-hit for 45 automatically hitting shots to produce, on average, in 7-8 extra automatically hitting shots.

Among the resistance to this concept I've seen is:
Insistence that a person simply cannot roll to-hit for a weapon that hits automatically. It just can't happen, as the weapon ability eliminates hit rolls in procedure, not just in practice.
Insistence that if a person does roll to-hit for an automatically hitting weapon, then they automatically miss on a result of 1, resulting in as many misses as extra shots.
Insistence that if a person does roll to-hit for an automatically hitting weapon, then they forgo the automatic hitting ability and miss any shots rolling below their BS.

Counter arguments for performing the roll at all have compared the concept to "rolling for moral when a unit cannot fail a moral roll."
The missing on one sub-arguments have described "automatically hitting" as a modifier to insist that 1s automatically miss, while others have said that every example of a modifiers is a numerical adjustment (+1, -1), and that hitting automatically is a flat ability, not a modifier.

Easiest way to think about this I find. Auto hit is everything rolls a at your BS level.

So if you have 10 marines with flamers and 23 shots. You auto roll 23 3's, or the minimal amount required to hit the target. So if the target has a -1 modifier you auto roll 23 4's.

This is perhaps I believe the fairest way to interpret the rules.

RAW blinkers can generate some arguments, all right. It's patently obvious that "hits automatically" means "do not roll" as it has forever, but now there's a tiny fractional situational advantage to be had we suddenly "need an FAQ". I despair a little.

Well, a FAQ would let them be able to put in a snarky "it should be obvious" comment as well as an answer that you don't roll if they feel like doing it.

It's only if you misunderstand or ignore what "automatically" means that you would be left believing the roll to hit is still required.

Ya'll do know if you wanna make this argument, you'll break PBC's even harder? If you have a PBC with spitters followed by a Daemon w/ Nurgle Locus.... its disgusting based on this interpretation. Just so ya' know. I agree that auto-hits mean you don't roll to hit, until GW tells me otherwise.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
It's only if you misunderstand or ignore what "automatically" means that you would be left believing the roll to hit is still required.

Really? Cause here's what it means:

as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances.

Nothing in there about rolling or not doing things. Just that the result is fixed.

You seem to be confusing "automatically" with "skip".

Audustum wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
It's only if you misunderstand or ignore what "automatically" means that you would be left believing the roll to hit is still required.

Really? Cause here's what it means:

as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances.

Nothing in there about rolling or not doing things. Just that the result is fixed.

You seem to be confusing "automatically" with "skip".

So you're saying it should be read as, "This weapon hits as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances."

Which fixed rule or particular set of circumstances is the weapon hitting a result of, if this is the case?

I found the perfect example for this earlier.

Leadership tests on deamons.

People still roll leadership tests they _can't Fail_ on units of deamons, because of the possibility of rolling a 1 on the leadership test to gain an extra model. We'd normally not bother rolling a test we'd automatically pass, but in this case we roll the dice we wouldn't ordinarily role because a new rule with a benefit to that side has been introduced.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
I found the perfect example for this earlier.

Leadership tests on deamons.

People still roll leadership tests they _can't Fail_ on units of deamons, because of the possibility of rolling a 1 on the leadership test to gain an extra model. We'd normally not bother rolling a test we'd automatically pass, but in this case we roll the dice we wouldn't ordinarily role because a new rule with a benefit to that side has been introduced.

That's a perfect example to prove you don't roll automatic ones.

"Automatic" is not the same as "Always passes". The rules for morale tell you to roll regardless of pass possibility. Especially since the amount of models will vary even if you'd automatically "fail".

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
It's only if you misunderstand or ignore what "automatically" means that you would be left believing the roll to hit is still required.

Really? Cause here's what it means:

as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances.

Nothing in there about rolling or not doing things. Just that the result is fixed.

You seem to be confusing "automatically" with "skip".

So you're saying it should be read as, "This weapon hits as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances."

Which fixed rule or particular set of circumstances is the weapon hitting a result of, if this is the case?

The weapon's own profile. You have to actually put the definition fully into the sentence.

This weapon hits (as a necessary and inevitable result). Why does it do that? Because of this fixed rule.

This is what automatically means. The better question is where on Earth you're reading to skip a mandatory action of the shooting phase anywhere in there or any definition of automatically.

Audustum wrote:
The weapon's own profile. You have to actually put the definition fully into the sentence.

I did:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
So you're saying it should be read as, "This weapon hits as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances."

You however mixed up your own stated definition:

This weapon hits (as a necessary and inevitable result).

Now, if we go by the wording of the definition you've given (as I said earlier, and not as you mixed it up) we require a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances to result in the weapon hitting automatically.

You say that fixed rule or particular set of circumstances is the wording of the rule itself.

So you're saying the wording of the rule is what triggers the automatic hit of the rule. That's circular reasoning.

You chose the wrong definition of "automatically".

The better question is where on Earth you're reading to skip a mandatory action of the shooting phase anywhere in there or any definition of automatically.

As I said earlier, the correct definition in this context is, "without action or input". Action or input in this case is a roll to hit. With that definition the rule can be read correctly, easily and is entirely straightforward, and proves that it's telling us that no roll to hit should be made.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Audustum wrote:
The weapon's own profile. You have to actually put the definition fully into the sentence.

I did:

 Mr. Shine wrote:
So you're saying it should be read as, "This weapon hits as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances."

You however mixed up your own stated definition:

This weapon hits (as a necessary and inevitable result).

There's no mix up here. That's the definition. I used a rhetorical question format to spell it out for you because you seemed to be having trouble.

Now, if we go by the wording of the definition you've given (as I said earlier, and not as you mixed it up) we require a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances to result in the weapon hitting automatically.

You mean the wording of the definition as you had envisioned rather than it actually was? Not sure that's the right way to approach this.

You say that fixed rule or particular set of circumstances is the wording of the rule itself.

So you're saying the wording of the rule is what triggers the automatic hit of the rule. That's circular reasoning.

Of course it's circular. You're trying to look at a sentence and argue the definition shouldn't match the word usage, but of course they'll always match when you read them correctly. You're literally examining a tautology and then acting like it's a problem when it is one. You might as well complain that water is wet.

Take the strength of a flamer, for example. We'll says it's S5. You're asking: By what rule is it S5? Well it's S5 because the profile says it is. Similarly, by what rule does it hit automatically (or as a necessary and inevitable result)? The profile that says it hits automatically.

You chose the wrong definition of "automatically".

Let's take a look but I'm guessing not.

The better question is where on Earth you're reading to skip a mandatory action of the shooting phase anywhere in there or any definition of automatically.

As I said earlier, the correct definition in this context is, "without action or input". Action or input in this case is a roll to hit. With that definition the rule can be read correctly, easily and is entirely straightforward, and proves that it's telling us that no roll to hit should be made.

I see why you're confused.

The definition you're using doesn't exist. "(with reference to a device or process) by itself with little or no direct human control" (according to Google definitions) or "largely or wholly involuntary" (Merriam Webster) or "by a device or process requiring no human intervention" (dictionary.com, which itself is based on Random House). I also consulted the Macmillan Dictionary, the Free Dictionary (which is based on the American heritage Dictionary) and the Cambridge Dictionary, none of which had your exact version.

So the first problem is you're using your own definition and trying to substitute it in for an official one. Of course that'll run into trouble.

Of the actual definitions available, none of these follow the line of argument your making. "by itself with little or no direct human control" fits my argument because, while we roll, the results are predetermined (all hits). "Largely or wholly involuntary" also fits: whatever you roll, they are hits. The process is largely involuntary. "By a device or process requiring no human intervention" fits too as the results are all hits without the player having to do anything.

The key factor here is that none of those, however, give any permission to skip or ignore the mandatory language of the Shooting Phase, which requires a roll.

Now, to humor your argument, let's say there was a definition that was explicitly: "without action or input" your error would still exist because you're applying it to the wrong point. "This weapon hits without action or input" does not say "this weapon does not roll to hit". It's saying the weapon is going to hit regardless of what you do, full stop. The Shooting Phase rules still mandate a roll:

Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made.

This is where every argument being put forth by the "no roll" side fails and collapses. There's nothing about "automatically", even your pseudo definition, which provides language to bypass this rule or give us any reason to disregard the well regarded principle of generalia specialibus non derogant (i.e. we don't adopt a reading that invalidates the language of the Shooting Phase without clear evidence of intent to do so).

Plus, there are literally two people who benefit from this.

Burna Boyz (and they're bad enough, are we really gonna complain they get a buff?) and Stormtrooper Doctrine people with (Heavy) Flamers within 4" (in which case, they didn't take Plasma-be happy).

Who else would this apply to?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plus, there are literally two people who benefit from this.

Burna Boyz (and they're bad enough, are we really gonna complain they get a buff?) and Stormtrooper Doctrine people with (Heavy) Flamers within 4" (in which case, they didn't take Plasma-be happy).

Who else would this apply to?

How do Burna Boyz benefit?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plus, there are literally two people who benefit from this.

Burna Boyz (and they're bad enough, are we really gonna complain they get a buff?) and Stormtrooper Doctrine people with (Heavy) Flamers within 4" (in which case, they didn't take Plasma-be happy).

Who else would this apply to?

How do Burna Boyz benefit?

Dakka Dakka Dakka stratagem. For 1 CP, gain an extra hit roll on a hit of 6+.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Dakka Dakka Dakka stratagem. For 1 CP, gain an extra hit roll on a hit of 6+.

Gotcha. Still, appeals of "They are crap so it doesn't matter" doesn't change the rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Dakka Dakka Dakka stratagem. For 1 CP, gain an extra hit roll on a hit of 6+.

Gotcha. Still, appeals of "They are crap so it doesn't matter" doesn't change the rules.

That is true. But the rules are either that you CAN get extra hits, or ambiguous. And if you do consider them ambiguous, I'd err on the side of buffing weak units than nerfing them.

At what point does the automatic hit occur and how do we determin the result is a hit.

If we agree that we do have to roll to hit

The results mean nothing i automacticly hit modifers have no effect, we dont take into account that a 1 is always a miss

To automaticly hit we have to effectivly ignore the to hit mechanic
or

If you want to roll you would have to force all the results to be a 5 you cannot choose to change 1s into a number that results in a hit and still choose to keep a 6 result.

The automatic here refers to a result rather than an action



Automatically Appended Next Post:
it is impossible to automactly roll a dice so thatt it results in a hit

On the subject of this meaning 1’s miss with automatically hitting weapons.

Rules in data sheets and wargear clearly supersede the rules document. Otherwise things that modify Overwatch to a 5 or 6 would be disallowed by the base rules for Overwatch.
Therefore it follows that even a 1 is a hit for these weapons.

It’s such a niche issue but if it came up I’d let my opponent try and roll for some 6s.

On that bases than the data sheet rule overides the need to roll to hit


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is an automactic result

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plus, there are literally two people who benefit from this.

Burna Boyz (and they're bad enough, are we really gonna complain they get a buff?) and Stormtrooper Doctrine people with (Heavy) Flamers within 4" (in which case, they didn't take Plasma-be happy).

Who else would this apply to?

Death guard with nurgle demon hqs attached, all plaguespitters w/ demon locuses.

 Zid wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plus, there are literally two people who benefit from this.

Burna Boyz (and they're bad enough, are we really gonna complain they get a buff?) and Stormtrooper Doctrine people with (Heavy) Flamers within 4" (in which case, they didn't take Plasma-be happy).

Who else would this apply to?

Death guard with nurgle demon hqs attached, all plaguespitters w/ demon locuses.

They do extra damage on a wound roll of 6+, not extra shots on a hit roll of 6+.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Zid wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plus, there are literally two people who benefit from this.

Burna Boyz (and they're bad enough, are we really gonna complain they get a buff?) and Stormtrooper Doctrine people with (Heavy) Flamers within 4" (in which case, they didn't take Plasma-be happy).

Who else would this apply to?

Death guard with nurgle demon hqs attached, all plaguespitters w/ demon locuses.

They do extra damage on a wound roll of 6+, not extra shots on a hit roll of 6+.

Ignore my post here... I was thinking about Plaguebearers w scrivener

ian wrote:
On that bases than the data sheet rule overides the need to roll to hit


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is an automactic result

This is what we were arguing for 5 pages. Automatic doesn't mean 'skip'. The result is predetermined but the process is mandated by the Shooting Phase rules and we aren't given permission to skip that.