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.

Common sense and years of gaming precedent says we are given that permission. It's implicit in 'automatic'. I don't bet, but I'd put actual money down on that being the answer should this be FAQ'd. If you feel it needs to be, or feel 'automatic hit' somehow requires a reundant roll, do email GW. Most folk won't, so if you want them to FAQ the super-obvious you'll need to ask. As others have said, trying to generate extra shots is an extremely specific edge case anyway, and to me patently obvious you don't roll, so make your voice heard to GW if you feel it's otherwise. I think you'll be disappointed, but ask away.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Common sense and years of gaming precedent says we are given that permission. It's implicit in 'automatic'. I don't bet, but I'd put actual money down on that being the answer should this be FAQ'd. If you feel it needs to be, or feel 'automatic hit' somehow requires a reundant roll, do email GW. Most folk won't, so if you want them to FAQ the super-obvious you'll need to ask. As others have said, trying to generate extra shots is an extremely specific edge case anyway, and to me patently obvious you don't roll, so make your voice heard to GW if you feel it's otherwise. I think you'll be disappointed, but ask away.

This is why you and I disagree so much. The subjective =/= the objective and common sense is anything but common.

I only think it needs a FAQ because people, quite obviously, disagree on it. I personally think it's clear based on actual definitions, however.

I would never claim subjective = objective, it's one of my pet hates. Don't tar me with that one! 'Obvious' and 'objective' are not the same thing.

You do you, dude. Fire them an email. I'm not being smug here I just know how it will play out if someone at GW Rules sighs and puts pen to paper to answer it, because it's how it's always been. As ever, always happy to be wrong, but I don't think I am here.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I would never claim subjective = objective, it's one of my pet hates. Don't tar me with that one! 'Obvious' and 'objective' are not the same thing.

You do you, dude. Fire them an email. I'm not being smug here I just know how it will play out if someone at GW Rules sighs and puts pen to paper to answer it, because it's how it's always been. As ever, always happy to be wrong, but I don't think I am here.

I honestly don't think they care about the e-mails. My own suspicion is that FAQ's are determined by how badgered they get about something on Warhammer Community Facebook or if Yakface forwards it over.

We'll disagree on the result though. I think with 7's precedent they'll make you roll. Not urgent though, in my area we read the thread and we roll so I've got no actual situation to deal with.

Not to re-heat the debate, but I found something relevant to this discussion - The Tau Tidewall Shieldline, Droneport, and Gunrigs have a special rule called "Fortification" that says that the models are hit automatically in the fight phase and further clarifies it to say "Do not make hit rolls". I feel like this doesn't actually clear up the argument for other instances because:
- The fact that they included this clarification could lend support to the "things that hit automatically do not roll to hit" side as an indication of GW's intention with these types of rules.
- At the same time it could mean that since this clarification is included in the fortification rule, but not in other rules that the other instances where a weapon automatically hits you DO roll to hit, because there is no text telling you not to.

Fortification wrote:This model cannot move independently (see below), nor can it fight in the Fight phase. Enemy models automatically hit this model in the Fight phase – do not make hit rolls. However, this model can still shoot if there are enemy models within 1" of it, and friendly units can still target enemy units that are within 1" of this model.

Well I would say that taking that rule into acount leaves it pretty clear. If they need to clarify that, its because saying that "something hits automatically" is not enough to prevent the roll, and until we get an errata/faq things that hit automatically should be rolling (and skipping it is only for time saving)
If the rule said something like ("... hits automatically, which means no hit rolls are made") then it would be different, but as it is writen I would say that you can roll for weapons that hit automatically.

Bojazz wrote:
Not to re-heat the debate, but I found something relevant to this discussion - The Tau Tidewall Shieldline, Droneport, and Gunrigs have a special rule called "Fortification" that says that the models are hit automatically in the fight phase and further clarifies it to say "Do not make hit rolls". I feel like this doesn't actually clear up the argument for other instances because:
- The fact that they included this clarification could lend support to the "things that hit automatically do not roll to hit" side as an indication of GW's intention with these types of rules.
- At the same time it could mean that since this clarification is included in the fortification rule, but not in other rules that the other instances where a weapon automatically hits you DO roll to hit, because there is no text telling you not to.

Fortification wrote:This model cannot move independently (see below), nor can it fight in the Fight phase. Enemy models automatically hit this model in the Fight phase – do not make hit rolls. However, this model can still shoot if there are enemy models within 1" of it, and friendly units can still target enemy units that are within 1" of this model.

It simply tells us that special rules don't have consistent wording, which has been the case since the Indexes. You can't infer rules from others, nor from patterns.

Bojazz wrote:
Not to re-heat the debate, but I found something relevant to this discussion - The Tau Tidewall Shieldline, Droneport, and Gunrigs have a special rule called "Fortification" that says that the models are hit automatically in the fight phase and further clarifies it to say "Do not make hit rolls". I feel like this doesn't actually clear up the argument for other instances because:
- The fact that they included this clarification could lend support to the "things that hit automatically do not roll to hit" side as an indication of GW's intention with these types of rules.
- At the same time it could mean that since this clarification is included in the fortification rule, but not in other rules that the other instances where a weapon automatically hits you DO roll to hit, because there is no text telling you not to.

Fortification wrote:This model cannot move independently (see below), nor can it fight in the Fight phase. Enemy models automatically hit this model in the Fight phase – do not make hit rolls. However, this model can still shoot if there are enemy models within 1" of it, and friendly units can still target enemy units that are within 1" of this model.

No, the fortification rule needs to be written so that it overrides ALL other rules that could possibly conceivably exist. If a weapon were to "always miss on 3s" for example, a fortification would still be hit by the maximum number of attacks.

This is a rule that needs to trump all other specific rules that could be present on any melee fighter in any army.

 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.

This is the most RAW as you can get.

Then what does "automatically hits" mean? Is it the same as always hits regardless of modifiers or does it mean that you don't need to roll to hit or does it mean always hits unless you roll then follow normal shooting rules?

There is no game definition for the term so the RAW doesn't really say what to do.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Then what does "automatically hits" mean? Is it the same as always hits regardless of modifiers or does it mean that you don't need to roll to hit or does it mean always hits unless you roll then follow normal shooting rules?

There is no game definition for the term so the RAW doesn't really say what to do.

When RAW does not define a term, you revert to the common English understanding. Hence why RAW doesn't say a D6 is a six-sided die and other simple concepts. We've had a multipage discussion on English definitions now, which I think pretty clearly indicates it's an automatic result not sipping a step. So it is what it is from there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bojazz wrote:
Not to re-heat the debate, but I found something relevant to this discussion - The Tau Tidewall Shieldline, Droneport, and Gunrigs have a special rule called "Fortification" that says that the models are hit automatically in the fight phase and further clarifies it to say "Do not make hit rolls". I feel like this doesn't actually clear up the argument for other instances because:
- The fact that they included this clarification could lend support to the "things that hit automatically do not roll to hit" side as an indication of GW's intention with these types of rules.
- At the same time it could mean that since this clarification is included in the fortification rule, but not in other rules that the other instances where a weapon automatically hits you DO roll to hit, because there is no text telling you not to.

Fortification wrote:This model cannot move independently (see below), nor can it fight in the Fight phase. Enemy models automatically hit this model in the Fight phase – do not make hit rolls. However, this model can still shoot if there are enemy models within 1" of it, and friendly units can still target enemy units that are within 1" of this model.

You basically hit the way both sides could take this on the head.

Even if we go with the definition of "automatic" as being "without action or input" you're not actually told to not make the hit roll, only that your attacks will hit without any action or input. The input, in this case the hit roll, still happens but has no bearing on whether you hit or not. You are never given explicit permission to ignore the to hit step.

 skchsan wrote:

 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.

This is the most RAW as you can get.

The rules also do not say I can just place the dice down on the 6 side when "rolling" them. The rules don't say a lot of things.

"The rules don't say I can't" is not a valid argument in a permissive rule set and never will be.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 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.

This is the most RAW as you can get.

The rules also do not say I can just place the dice down on the 6 side when "rolling" them. The rules don't say a lot of things.

"The rules don't say I can't" is not a valid argument in a permissive rule set and never will be.

Well in this case, as noted on prior pages, the rules actually command us to roll. Automatically doesn't override that.

Exactly. You do not have permission not to roll.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Exactly. You do not have permission not to roll.

Except where it says hits automatically. That is the over-ride for the roll.

If it weren't we would have 2 rules in play if we rolled for auto hit weapons. One being hits automatically the other being always misses on a 1. ALWAYS... Therefore we cant make to hit rolls because if we roll a 1 they no longer auto hit as 1's ALWAYS miss...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Exactly. You do not have permission not to roll.

Except where it says hits automatically. That is the over-ride for the roll.

If it weren't we would have 2 rules in play if we rolled for auto hit weapons. One being hits automatically the other being always misses on a 1. ALWAYS... Therefore we cant make to hit rolls because if we roll a 1 they no longer auto hit as 1's ALWAYS miss...

On the one hand you say automatically overrides the Shooting Phase command that you MUST roll.

On the other hand, you say that a rule cannot override the shooting phase rule that 1's always miss.

Do you realize how contradictory that position is?

Anyway, please see the previous pages. There is no definition of 'autonatically' that tells you to skip or ignore rolling. It DOES, however, mean the result is predetermined. So 'automatically' is telling to override the 1's always miss rule and not giving permission to skip rolling.

Gonna add it in because op is in correct, you do not roll to hit for weapons that automatically hit, if you do, then any roll of a one is a miss, as rules state a 1 always misses.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Gonna add it in because op is in correct, you do not roll to hit for weapons that automatically hit, if you do, then any roll of a one is a miss, as rules state a 1 always misses.

Except that the weapon's profile of "automatically" overrides the rule of 1's missing, just like Imperial Knight's can fallback and shoot thanks to their datasheet.

Let's see if I understand your position. Automatically overrides the rule that says a "1" is a miss but doesn't override the rule that says that you have to roll the dice.

Is this correct? If so, what is the rule that tells you that automatic overrides one rule but not the other?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Let's see if I understand your position. Automatically overrides the rule that says a "1" is a miss but doesn't override the rule that says that you have to roll the dice.

Right.

Is this correct? If so, what is the rule that tells you that automatic overrides one rule but not the other?

The use of the word "automatically" and every single definition it has in at least 6 dictionaries. That's why we were discussing definitions for several pages. Every definition points to overriding 1's, not to skipping rolling.

What I'm waiting for is someone in this thread to give a definition or rule saying automatically means skip or do not roll.

How about this from dictionary.com - having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently:
The hit is independent of the die rolls ergo the die rolls are not needed.

Or, also from dictionary.com- occurring spontaneously That is to say that the hits just happen with no intermediate event between rolling how many hits you get and the hits being applied to the target.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How about this from dictionary.com - having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently:
The hit is independent of the die rolls ergo the die rolls are not needed.

Or, also from dictionary.com- occurring spontaneously That is to say that the hits just happen with no intermediate event between rolling how many hits you get and the hits being applied to the target.

That means that it hits REGARDLESS of the roll, correct.

It does not mean you don't roll-just that the result of the roll is (usually) irrelevant.

If you're just going to ignore common English, especially with the spontaneous definition, then there is no way to prove anything to you.

Thus ends the discussion.

The fact that this question has 5 pages of debate is a very worrying thing to me. Common sense is the one of the only two things I require my opponent to bring to the table. If they come to play and sincerely want to argue rolling redundant rolls on flamer weapons to get free 6's then I will thank them for wasting my time and I will be packing my models and putting them in the blacklist.

Last edition someone also tried to argue something similar with psychic scream. Before faq, since it was a wytchfire, it required a roll to hit, even if it did not have a weapon profile. So people were really trying to argue that yes, they need to roll to hit, but even if they miss, then they can still go on and resolve the power because hitting with the power was not relevant to the effect of the power. Yeap, really.

Ultimately, common sense is not something that can or should be allowed to be debated against. One should never have to argue or try to prove that a Saturday is indeed a Saturday and not a Monday, no matter how often the other party stubbornly demands a proof. It's upon the doubting party to acquire common sense before they even want to enter an argument.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
The fact that this question has 5 pages of debate is a very worrying thing to me. Common sense is the one of the only two things I require my opponent to bring to the table. If they come to play and sincerely want to argue rolling redundant rolls on flamer weapons to get free 6's then I will thank them for wasting my time and I will be packing my models and putting them in the blacklist.

Last edition someone also tried to argue something similar with psychic scream. Before faq, since it was a wytchfire, it required a roll to hit, even if it did not have a weapon profile. So people were really trying to argue that yes, they need to roll to hit, but even if they miss, then they can still go on and resolve the power because hitting with the power was not relevant to the effect of the power. Yeap, really.

Ultimately, common sense is not something that can or should be allowed to be debated against. One should never have to argue or try to prove that a Saturday is indeed a Saturday and not a Monday, no matter how often the other party stubbornly demands a proof. It's upon the doubting party to acquire common sense before they even want to enter an argument.

Except common sense dictates that, if you're told to roll, you should roll unless something says otherwise. And nothing does.

In addition to that, it literally only affects Burna Boyz using a Stratagem and Stormtroopers with Flamers within 4". I hardly see the game-breaking potential of that.

You know what! Screw it, sure you wanna try using dakka Dakka on your flamers? Go for it, but you now need to roll all your hits, but 1s miss.

 JNAProductions wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
The fact that this question has 5 pages of debate is a very worrying thing to me. Common sense is the one of the only two things I require my opponent to bring to the table. If they come to play and sincerely want to argue rolling redundant rolls on flamer weapons to get free 6's then I will thank them for wasting my time and I will be packing my models and putting them in the blacklist.

Last edition someone also tried to argue something similar with psychic scream. Before faq, since it was a wytchfire, it required a roll to hit, even if it did not have a weapon profile. So people were really trying to argue that yes, they need to roll to hit, but even if they miss, then they can still go on and resolve the power because hitting with the power was not relevant to the effect of the power. Yeap, really.

Ultimately, common sense is not something that can or should be allowed to be debated against. One should never have to argue or try to prove that a Saturday is indeed a Saturday and not a Monday, no matter how often the other party stubbornly demands a proof. It's upon the doubting party to acquire common sense before they even want to enter an argument.

Except common sense dictates that, if you're told to roll, you should roll unless something says otherwise. And nothing does.

In addition to that, it literally only affects Burna Boyz using a Stratagem and Stormtroopers with Flamers within 4". I hardly see the game-breaking potential of that.

Only you are not specifically told to roll in either of those cases. Yes the flamers don't say "Do not roll to hit" but they do not say "roll to hit" either. And being game breaking or not is irrelevant. As I said, I will not be arguing common sense.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
You know what! Screw it, sure you wanna try using dakka Dakka on your flamers? Go for it, but you now need to roll all your hits, but 1s miss.

Why would they miss? They have a specific rule stating that they automatically hit, which would override the general rule of "1s always miss".

Likewise with the IK-general rule, cannot fall back and shoot/charge. IK has a rule that says they can.

Yeah but rules also state that 1s automatically miss what makes your interpretation of the rules any more valid then mine.

Nothing clearly says which is right so there for my interpretation of the rule is valid as well.