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.

If "automatic" specifically overrules the 1 roll for shooting then it would also overrule the general rule of a stratagem since the stratagem is a general statement dealing with all weapons. If the stratagem addressed flamers specifically then you would be OK to use it with the flamer. As you specific overrides general and the stratagem is a general rule.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think we can all agree that we certainly don't PLAY IT as everyone rolls to-hit for every flamer, then ignores the results and moves on to wound rolls. Because, with the exception of Stormtroopers and Dakka Dakka Dakka, it doesn't matter. But when it does matter, yes, roll.

Agreed.

If my opponent wants to roll his flamers to get bonus hits on a 6, I will also demand that they discard all 1's. Reasoning is that they can't choose to obey only some of the general rules, it has to be all or nothing. If they don't like that they are free to find another opponent.

Except missing on 1's is overriden by automatically OR, if you're in the other camp, the nneed to roll at all is overriden. You're asking you opponent to accept your HYWPI over RAW in either case.

 SinisterSamurai wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The definition of automatically or without input as it were

Yes, without input from the result of the roll. You don't input the act of rolling into a to-hit machine/equation to determine if a result hits, you input the roll result.

Without input from the roll. No roll needed they auto-hit...

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If "automatic" specifically overrules the 1 roll for shooting then it would also overrule the general rule of a stratagem since the stratagem is a general statement dealing with all weapons. If the stratagem addressed flamers specifically then you would be OK to use it with the flamer. As you specific overrides general and the stratagem is a general rule.

Except that doesn't follow. No part of the auto-hit rule of flamer prevents you from gaining ADDITIONAL hits, just that you hit regardless of your roll.

You're free to play it that way, and I would not be surprised if GW FAQed it to work that way, but right now? That's very much NOT RAW.

 SinisterSamurai wrote:

JohnnyHell wrote:Rolling for auto hits all through an edition is... well, a waste of time if nothing else.

The argument being made is that it has always only ever been a waste of time, and so people being smarter than simple robits, have skipped a useless step in pursuit of efiiciency.
Now, however, rolling may not be a waste of time, and people are struggling to recall whether they skipped it because it was efficient, or if they skipped it because the rules explicitly told them to.

Most of your (singular) posts regarding this question, Johnny, has been to suggest that because you have always skipped it, it must therefore have always been the rule to skip it. And you reinforce this by suggesting that even if it weren't the rule to skip it, you would have skipped it because it'd be dumb to have rolled. There's a bit of circular unlogic to that particular sequence, which is why people have been so dismissive of your posts as "subjective" instead of "objective."

DeathReaper wrote:The definition of automatically or without input as it were

Yes, without input from the result of the roll. You don't input the act of rolling into a to-hit machine/equation to determine if a result hits, you input the roll result.

It's not massively uncommon for people to disagree around here, and dismiss posts because they do... doesn't massively worry me. And I'm not using circular logic, you're just jamming various things I've said together in a weird way. Each of my points stands - one element is not proof for the other, nor is each dependent on another though they may support each other.

I'd wager 99.9% of GW gamers have always skipped rolling for auto hit weapons, because it's implicit in the wording and completely logical. If there exist local metas where people have been rolling rolls that can't fail for entire editions I just feel a bit bad for them. But yeah, in all reality outside of the internet most people don't roll and didn't question it as it's screamingly obvious... but then one Stratagem might have the benefit for extra shots and suddenly on the internet "anyone not rolling is HYWPI not RAW", "there's no *permission* to skip rolling", etc. start getting spouted and everyone boards the Crazy Train to RAW Town via Dictionaryville.

Do please write in to GW and should they expand on "hits automatically" to actually mean "hits regardless of the result of the dice roll you must make even though it has no effect on the result in 99% of occasions except for when one of these two Stratagems for two particular armies might be advantageous" then I'll concede I was incorrect. Until then everyone can see the clear meaning and intent behind the wording, and if not I have not problem shaking my head in utter disbelief.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 SinisterSamurai wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The definition of automatically or without input as it were

Yes, without input from the result of the roll. You don't input the act of rolling into a to-hit machine/equation to determine if a result hits, you input the roll result.

Without input from the roll. No roll needed they auto-hit...

As I noted on pg. 4, that definition for automatically doesn't exist in any traceable form I could find in half a dozen dictionaries. Even if it did, that's not how the sentence reads once you insert it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 SinisterSamurai wrote:

JohnnyHell wrote:Rolling for auto hits all through an edition is... well, a waste of time if nothing else.

The argument being made is that it has always only ever been a waste of time, and so people being smarter than simple robits, have skipped a useless step in pursuit of efiiciency.
Now, however, rolling may not be a waste of time, and people are struggling to recall whether they skipped it because it was efficient, or if they skipped it because the rules explicitly told them to.

Most of your (singular) posts regarding this question, Johnny, has been to suggest that because you have always skipped it, it must therefore have always been the rule to skip it. And you reinforce this by suggesting that even if it weren't the rule to skip it, you would have skipped it because it'd be dumb to have rolled. There's a bit of circular unlogic to that particular sequence, which is why people have been so dismissive of your posts as "subjective" instead of "objective."

DeathReaper wrote:The definition of automatically or without input as it were

Yes, without input from the result of the roll. You don't input the act of rolling into a to-hit machine/equation to determine if a result hits, you input the roll result.

It's not massively uncommon for people to disagree around here, and dismiss posts because they do... doesn't massively worry me. And I'm not using circular logic, you're just jamming various things I've said together in a weird way. Each of my points stands - one element is not proof for the other, nor is each dependent on another though they may support each other.

I'd wager 99.9% of GW gamers have always skipped rolling for auto hit weapons, because it's implicit in the wording and completely logical. If there exist local metas where people have been rolling rolls that can't fail for entire editions I just feel a bit bad for them. But yeah, in all reality outside of the internet most people don't roll and didn't question it as it's screamingly obvious... but then one Stratagem might have the benefit for extra shots and suddenly on the internet "anyone not rolling is HYWPI not RAW", "there's no *permission* to skip rolling", etc. start getting spouted and everyone boards the Crazy Train to RAW Town via Dictionaryville.

Do please write in to GW and should they expand on "hits automatically" to actually mean "hits regardless of the result of the dice roll you must make even though it has no effect on the result in 99% of occasions except for when one of these two Stratagems for two particular armies might be advantageous" then I'll concede I was incorrect. Until then everyone can see the clear meaning and intent behind the wording, and if not I have not problem shaking my head in utter disbelief.

You seem to make massive conclusions about the behavior of people you've never and could not have ever met. I think that alone exposes the problem in your argument position.

Remember, what happens at your local meta is not indicative of the world at large.

Call it making massive assumptions if you like, but it's hardly a stretch to know that most people correctly interpret "automatically hits" as "don't roll" instead of playing dictionary time to try and find an advantage in a couple of edge case scenarios. As I say, it's an internet problem only, thankfully, and doesn't manifest in real games.

Or its an automatic result not an automactic action

First definition that i found on google

(especially of a legal sanction) given or imposed as a necessary and inevitable result of a fixed rule or particular set of circumstances.
"he received an automatic one-match suspension"
synonyms: inevitable, unavoidable, inescapable, unpreventable, necessary, ineluctable; More
certain, definite, undoubted, assured, obvious;
mandatory, compulsory
"he is the automatic choice for the senior team"

Audustum wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 SinisterSamurai wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The definition of automatically or without input as it were

Yes, without input from the result of the roll. You don't input the act of rolling into a to-hit machine/equation to determine if a result hits, you input the roll result.

Without input from the roll. No roll needed they auto-hit...

As I noted on pg. 4, that definition for automatically doesn't exist in any traceable form I could find in half a dozen dictionaries. Even if it did, that's not how the sentence reads once you insert it.

Rolling to hit is a process,

Automatic means working by itself with little or no direct human control. Rolling a die that hits automatically has no direct human control to it (which is the same as saying without input from the roll (number on the die)).

No direct human control = you do not roll the die.

I know this was mentioned, but immobile buildings in 40K are hit automatically, and say to not roll the dice. This sets a precedent, and shows us that things that hit automatically in 40K do not require a hit roll.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I know this was mentioned, but immobile buildings in 40K are hit automatically, and say to not roll the dice. This sets a precedent, and shows us that things that hit automatically in 40K do not require a hit roll.

Actually, this is precisely why it is arguable that "automatically hits" =/= "do not roll dice".

There is a clear precedent where it EXPLICITLY states "do not roll dice" when you are not allowed to roll dice. Flamer auto hit doesn't explicitly state "do not roll dice."

As stated earlier, this is probably not as intended but as far as RAW goes, there's no clause that tells you to not roll dice.

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I know this was mentioned, but immobile buildings in 40K are hit automatically, and say to not roll the dice. This sets a precedent, and shows us that things that hit automatically in 40K do not require a hit roll.

Actually, this is precisely why it is arguable that "automatically hits" =/= "do not roll dice".

There is a clear precedent where it EXPLICITLY states "do not roll dice" when you are not allowed to roll dice. Flamer auto hit doesn't explicitly state "do not roll dice."

As stated earlier, this is probably not as intended but as far as RAW goes, there's no clause that tells you to not roll dice.

Except where it says hits automatically.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I know this was mentioned, but immobile buildings in 40K are hit automatically, and say to not roll the dice. This sets a precedent, and shows us that things that hit automatically in 40K do not require a hit roll.

Actually, this is precisely why it is arguable that "automatically hits" =/= "do not roll dice".

There is a clear precedent where it EXPLICITLY states "do not roll dice" when you are not allowed to roll dice. Flamer auto hit doesn't explicitly state "do not roll dice."

As stated earlier, this is probably not as intended but as far as RAW goes, there's no clause that tells you to not roll dice.

Except where it says hits automatically.

The issue is that your argument relies on an inference (although valid) based on a definition of a word. It is not explicit.

In the rules for Heavy Flamers it does not spell out "do not roll dice". It just says that they hit automatically.

But it says it implicitly by telling us it hits automatically.

Furthermore backed by the rules for some fortifications that are immobile which explicitly say to not roll to hit for things that hit automatically.

 DeathReaper wrote:
In the rules for Heavy Flamers it does not spell out "do not roll dice". It just says that they hit automatically.

But it says it implicitly by telling us it hits automatically.

Furthermore backed by the rules for some fortifications that are immobile which explicitly say to not roll to hit for things that hit automatically.

Being able TO BE hit automatically =/= being able TO hit automatically.

The former states that any attacks made against a unit with such rule hits automatically wihout the need the roll the dice. The latter states any attacks made with a weapon with such rule hits automatically.

As you pointed out, flamers don't have the specific rule that overrides via contradiction the general rule for resolving attacks. "Automatically hits" is not a semantic/logical opposite of "roll the dice".

 skchsan wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
In the rules for Heavy Flamers it does not spell out "do not roll dice". It just says that they hit automatically.

But it says it implicitly by telling us it hits automatically.

Furthermore backed by the rules for some fortifications that are immobile which explicitly say to not roll to hit for things that hit automatically.

Being able TO BE hit automatically =/= being able TO hit automatically.

Incorrect, it is the same thing.

The former states that any attacks made against a unit with such rule hits automatically wihout[sic] the need the roll the dice. The latter states any attacks made with a weapon with such rule hits automatically.

Yes, and that is the same thing.

As you pointed out, flamers don't have the specific rule that overrides via contradiction the general rule for resolving attacks. "Automatically hits" is not a semantic/logical opposite of "roll the dice".

They do have a specific rule that overrides via contradiction the general rule for resolving attacks, it is called this weapon hits automatically.

It does not need to be the opposite. Though the process of auto hitting implies, with backup from how immobile buildings are handled, that there is no die roll when something hits automatically.

Except we can infer that, because they specifically say that against buildings you do NOT need to roll dice, that you roll dice unless otherwise told to.

Flamers do not tell you not to.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except we can infer that, because they specifically say that against buildings you do NOT need to roll dice, that you roll dice unless otherwise told to.

Flamers do not tell you not to.

Actually we can infer the opposite...

We can infer that you do not need to roll dice for a Heavy Flamer, that hits automatically, because of rules for immobile, which is the same situation.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except we can infer that, because they specifically say that against buildings you do NOT need to roll dice, that you roll dice unless otherwise told to.

Flamers do not tell you not to.

Actually we can infer the opposite...

We can infer that you do not need to roll dice for a Heavy Flamer, that hits automatically, because of rules for immobile, which is the same situation.

Then why do they spell out you need not roll against an Immobile unit, and not in the Flamer rules? The rules are different-should they not act differently?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except we can infer that, because they specifically say that against buildings you do NOT need to roll dice, that you roll dice unless otherwise told to.

Flamers do not tell you not to.

Actually we can infer the opposite...

We can infer that you do not need to roll dice for a Heavy Flamer, that hits automatically, because of rules for immobile, which is the same situation.

Then why do they spell out you need not roll against an Immobile unit, and not in the Flamer rules? The rules are different-should they not act differently?

Motorways don't have "No walking" signs does that mean you can;t be arrested or fined when walking up the hard shoulder or middle barrier because there's not a sign that says not to?

Just because you haven't been told not to doesn't mean you can or should.

The fact that this thread has nearly nine pages is seriously concerning for some of the players out there.

It's quite simple auto hit take it you have 5 flamers D6 each and you get 18 with your result and your guys have BS 3 then you automatically roll 18 3's. If the unit has a -1 hit modifier then you auto roll 18 4's.

If you try using this stratagem in an actual game against me to clearly lawer the rules to get an in game advantage then I wouldn't even bother argueing. I would just pack up my stuff and wouldn't game with you again it's that simple. Then it's your choice to keep using it, you can either have games where you accept the common sense of things and you have a really nice time, or spend your games argueing to get advantages and just leave people salty or end up with people packing.

But if someone does disagree and you haven't been a TFG about it then simply . Always remember at the end of the day your are playing toy soldiers.

This thread should now just be stopped and wait for the FAQ I'm sure something in there will clear it up.

I think the defination of automactily is pretty clear ,

What is everybody else saying it means so you can roll for 6+

What does automactly mean in this context ?

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except we can infer that, because they specifically say that against buildings you do NOT need to roll dice, that you roll dice unless otherwise told to.

Flamers do not tell you not to.

Actually we can infer the opposite...

We can infer that you do not need to roll dice for a Heavy Flamer, that hits automatically, because of rules for immobile, which is the same situation.

Then why do they spell out you need not roll against an Immobile unit, and not in the Flamer rules? The rules are different-should they not act differently?

Motorways don't have "No walking" signs does that mean you can;t be arrested or fined when walking up the hard shoulder or middle barrier because there's not a sign that says not to?

Just because you haven't been told not to doesn't mean you can or should.

The fact that this thread has nearly nine pages is seriously concerning for some of the players out there.

It's quite simple auto hit take it you have 5 flamers D6 each and you get 18 with your result and your guys have BS 3 then you automatically roll 18 3's. If the unit has a -1 hit modifier then you auto roll 18 4's.

If you try using this stratagem in an actual game against me to clearly lawer the rules to get an in game advantage then I wouldn't even bother argueing. I would just pack up my stuff and wouldn't game with you again it's that simple. Then it's your choice to keep using it, you can either have games where you accept the common sense of things and you have a really nice time, or spend your games argueing to get advantages and just leave people salty or end up with people packing.

But if someone does disagree and you haven't been a TFG about it then simply . Always remember at the end of the day your are playing toy soldiers.

This thread should now just be stopped and wait for the FAQ I'm sure something in there will clear it up.

So, I have Burna Boyz shooting at Plaguebearers in a squad of 30, with Miasma of Pestilence cast on them. What are their dice rolls treated as then?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except we can infer that, because they specifically say that against buildings you do NOT need to roll dice, that you roll dice unless otherwise told to.

Flamers do not tell you not to.

Actually we can infer the opposite...

We can infer that you do not need to roll dice for a Heavy Flamer, that hits automatically, because of rules for immobile, which is the same situation.

Then why do they spell out you need not roll against an Immobile unit, and not in the Flamer rules? The rules are different-should they not act differently?

Motorways don't have "No walking" signs does that mean you can;t be arrested or fined when walking up the hard shoulder or middle barrier because there's not a sign that says not to?

Just because you haven't been told not to doesn't mean you can or should.

The fact that this thread has nearly nine pages is seriously concerning for some of the players out there.

It's quite simple auto hit take it you have 5 flamers D6 each and you get 18 with your result and your guys have BS 3 then you automatically roll 18 3's. If the unit has a -1 hit modifier then you auto roll 18 4's.

If you try using this stratagem in an actual game against me to clearly lawer the rules to get an in game advantage then I wouldn't even bother argueing. I would just pack up my stuff and wouldn't game with you again it's that simple. Then it's your choice to keep using it, you can either have games where you accept the common sense of things and you have a really nice time, or spend your games argueing to get advantages and just leave people salty or end up with people packing.

But if someone does disagree and you haven't been a TFG about it then simply . Always remember at the end of the day your are playing toy soldiers.

This thread should now just be stopped and wait for the FAQ I'm sure something in there will clear it up.

So, I have Burna Boyz shooting at Plaguebearers in a squad of 30, with Miasma of Pestilence cast on them. What are their dice rolls treated as then?

Whatever the minimum requirement is and if that minimum requirement happens to be 6's then fine talk it through with your opponent. If your opponent disagree's don't argue. But if this was done against me I wouldn;t even argue I would just pack because it's clearly just gaining an advantage and bear in mind there will be people that will share my view.

No, the minimum roll needed there is 7.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If "automatic" specifically overrules the 1 roll for shooting then it would also overrule the general rule of a stratagem since the stratagem is a general statement dealing with all weapons. If the stratagem addressed flamers specifically then you would be OK to use it with the flamer. As you specific overrides general and the stratagem is a general rule.

This makes no sense. "Automatic" overriding the 1 roll for shooting is because it says it automatically hits. It says nothing about automatically ignoring ancillary benefits from a stratagem or whatever when you roll a 6 on the to-hit die if you're rolling.

 JNAProductions wrote:
No, the minimum roll needed there is 7.

Then so be it but the point stands.

I am not going to tell you how to play this is just the way I perceive it. But if you want to try this tactic go for it it your game. But don't be surprised if you end up with games cut short when you come across player alike me who won't argue. Won't throw a wobbly will just simply pack their stuff and find another game with someone else.

So choice is play sensibly or play how you want to play. It's your games of 40k you're playing but don;t be surprised if you have alot more people disagreeing with you at the table then here on the internet.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
No, the minimum roll needed there is 7.

Then so be it but the point stands.

I am not going to tell you how to play this is just the way I perceive it. But if you want to try this tactic go for it it your game. But don't be surprised if you end up with games cut short when you come across player alike me who won't argue. Won't throw a wobbly will just simply pack their stuff and find another game with someone else.

So choice is play sensibly or play how you want to play. It's your games of 40k you're playing but don;t be surprised if you have alot more people disagreeing with you at the table then here on the internet.

I don't play either faction this affects. I'm just talking about the RAW here.

And honestly, who's TFG? The person who's following the rules and gaining a minor benefit for doing so (16.67% increase in hits from using a Stratagem on Burna Boyz or Stormtroopers using flamers within 4") or the person who's threatening to stop gaming with you for following the rules?

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except we can infer that, because they specifically say that against buildings you do NOT need to roll dice, that you roll dice unless otherwise told to.

Flamers do not tell you not to.

Actually we can infer the opposite...

We can infer that you do not need to roll dice for a Heavy Flamer, that hits automatically, because of rules for immobile, which is the same situation.

Then why do they spell out you need not roll against an Immobile unit, and not in the Flamer rules? The rules are different-should they not act differently?

Motorways don't have "No walking" signs does that mean you can;t be arrested or fined when walking up the hard shoulder or middle barrier because there's not a sign that says not to?.

You can't if there isn't a law (rule) to say that you can for doing so. Are you confusing the sign for the law?


There is a rule saying you have to roll to hit. There is a rule saying you can hit automatically, but looking at the definition of automatic it's not clear if it's the process or the result that's automatic. There are still things other than just hitting that can be affected. Historically you had to still roll for Gets Hot! even if you hit automatically. Of course, that was specified, so by precedent I'd expect it to be specified if you still get to roll these other things, but that's HIWPI and really Game As Played historically. Just going by the rules now, they don't specifically state that you don't roll the dice, so if there are other factors besides just the hit itself then they do have a case that by RAW you can roll. I expect it to revert to not rolling if it gets FAQ'd, but until then I would give the benefit of the doubt to an opponent who wanted to do this.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
No, the minimum roll needed there is 7.

Then so be it but the point stands.

I am not going to tell you how to play this is just the way I perceive it. But if you want to try this tactic go for it it your game. But don't be surprised if you end up with games cut short when you come across player alike me who won't argue. Won't throw a wobbly will just simply pack their stuff and find another game with someone else.

So choice is play sensibly or play how you want to play. It's your games of 40k you're playing but don;t be surprised if you have alot more people disagreeing with you at the table then here on the internet.

I don't play either faction this affects. I'm just talking about the RAW here.

And honestly, who's TFG? The person who's following the rules and gaining a minor benefit for doing so (16.67% increase in hits from using a Stratagem on Burna Boyz or Stormtroopers using flamers within 4") or the person who's threatening to stop gaming with you for following the rules?

Definitely you, 100%. And if people wanna refer to someone or me as TFG simply because I calmly pack away and don't play people who pull stunts like this then fine I won't play those people.

I enjoy my games, all of then infact and it's down to one simple rule. I play with people I like and I get on with and people who I can have a fun time with. If people pull that kind of stuff then we just aren't going to get along and I'm not going to have fun. Why waste your time not having fun?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Then why do they spell out you need not roll against an Immobile unit, and not in the Flamer rules? The rules are different-should they not act differently?

Maybe they spell out the Immobile rule because people asked questions about the Heavy Flamers after the index came out, and they decided to clarify what hitting automatically meant with concerns to dice rolls?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except we can infer that, because they specifically say that against buildings you do NOT need to roll dice, that you roll dice unless otherwise told to.

Flamers do not tell you not to.

Actually we can infer the opposite...

We can infer that you do not need to roll dice for a Heavy Flamer, that hits automatically, because of rules for immobile, which is the same situation.

You can't infer the opposite at all. Immobile specifies that you do not roll. Heavy flamers do not specify. Immobile does establish a precedent that they would state you do not roll if you don't need to roll; since Heavy flamers don't then you can still roll for them by RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Then why do they spell out you need not roll against an Immobile unit, and not in the Flamer rules? The rules are different-should they not act differently?

Maybe they spell out the Immobile rule because people asked questions about the Heavy Flamers after the index came out, and they decided to clarify what hitting automatically meant with concerns to dice rolls?

With that logic, they would have updated flamers in Chapter Approved or in FAQs since there had been the hypothetical questions about Heavy Flamers. They didn't updeate them with either a Chapter Approved mention or a FAQ update