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.

 doctortom wrote:
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.

You can infer that hitting automatically means no dice are rolled. The Auto Hit rule is clarified in the rule for immobile units, and since Heavy Flamers auto hit, we can see that we dont need to roll since the clarification is there for immobile.

Immobile does establish a precedent for not rolling, so RAW you do not rll for auto hit weapons.

 doctortom wrote:


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

Maybe they missed the edit date? Maybe they are saving it for a future FAQ?

What other rules do you ignore because you don't like them?

I follow the rules. If I was to pop Dakka Dakka Dakka against something with a -1 to-hit, I get nothing, because that's how the rules work. Likewise, if I'm attacking a Culexus with a Power Fist, I miss. Them's the rules.

But I can't say the same for you, since you apparently ignore rules if they help your opponent but not you.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
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.

You can infer that hitting automatically means no dice are rolled. The Auto Hit rule is clarified in the rule for immobile units, and since Heavy Flamers auto hit, we can see that we dont need to roll since the clarification is there for immobile.

You can infer all you want, but it's not an explicit statement. You can also infer that it hits no matter what you roll, and if there is something else that can also happen depending upon the result of the roll, you get to roll (in fact are still allowed by the statement that you roll for your attacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Immobile does establish a precedent for not rolling, so RAW you do not rll for auto hit weapons.

I agree that immobile does indeed establish a precedent for not rolling; it's a precedent that you don't roll if the rule specifies that you don't roll. It's not a precedent for saying you don't roll for something that doesn't specify that you don't roll. The mere fact that immobile specifies not rolling and other things don't shows that you are mistaken in saying it's a precedent, since precedents apply to things with similar wording. You don't have that here.

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
[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

Maybe they missed the edit date? Maybe they are saving it for a future FAQ?

And maybe the Purple Space Unicorns chapter of the Space marines accidentally destroyed their files on it with hurricane bolter fire. I give that just about the same probability of what you're suggesting.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
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.

You can infer that hitting automatically means no dice are rolled. The Auto Hit rule is clarified in the rule for immobile units, and since Heavy Flamers auto hit, we can see that we dont need to roll since the clarification is there for immobile.

Immobile does establish a precedent for not rolling, so RAW you do not rll for auto hit weapons.

In the same line of logic, it can be inferred that "hitting automatically" means "no dice rolls are REQUIRED" - the phrase "this weapon automatically hits" can also, just as much as your claim of meaning 'do not roll dice', mean that "this weapon automatically hits (regardless of the outcome of the to-hit roll)." In such case, any to-hit rolls are made redundant, therefore skipped to save time.

Please show us how the English CANNOT be interpreted the way I've written above unless specifically and explicitly stated as for the Immobile rule.

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
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.

You can infer that hitting automatically means no dice are rolled. The Auto Hit rule is clarified in the rule for immobile units, and since Heavy Flamers auto hit, we can see that we dont need to roll since the clarification is there for immobile.

You can infer all you want, but it's not an explicit statement. You can also infer that it hits no matter what you roll, and if there is something else that can also happen depending upon the result of the roll, you get to roll (in fact are still allowed by the statement that you roll for your attacks.

It is implicit though, that there is not a roll, through the use of hits automatically.

If you think you are allowed to roll to hit then you would still miss on a 1. Unless auto hit overrides that, then it would also over ride the rule about rolling a die for each shot rule as well.

You cant have it both ways.

I agree that immobile does indeed establish a precedent for not rolling; it's a precedent that you don't roll if the rule specifies that you don't roll. It's not a precedent for saying you don't roll for something that doesn't specify that you don't roll. The mere fact that immobile specifies not rolling and other things don't shows that you are mistaken in saying it's a precedent, since precedents apply to things with similar wording. You don't have that here.

The part about not rolling is just clarification on the auto hit rules.

So general overrides specific?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So general overrides specific?

No, Specific (Auto hit) over-rides general (Rolls of 1 miss and roll a die for each shot).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So general overrides specific?

No, Specific (Auto hit) over-rides general (Rolls of 1 miss and roll a die for each shot).

Provide an explanation for the bolded bit.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So general overrides specific?

No, Specific (Auto hit) over-rides general (Rolls of 1 miss and roll a die for each shot).

Provide an explanation for the bolded bit.

That is a general rule right? just like 1's always miss?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
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.

You can infer that hitting automatically means no dice are rolled. The Auto Hit rule is clarified in the rule for immobile units, and since Heavy Flamers auto hit, we can see that we dont need to roll since the clarification is there for immobile.

You can infer all you want, but it's not an explicit statement. You can also infer that it hits no matter what you roll, and if there is something else that can also happen depending upon the result of the roll, you get to roll (in fact are still allowed by the statement that you roll for your attacks.

It is implicit though, that there is not a roll, through the use of hits automatically.

Please address skschsan's comments about how it can be interpreted as a dice roll is not required as opposed to your insistance that you do not roll.

If it overrides the general rule of 1's missing then it overrides the stratagem (general rule) that 6's generate extra benefits. The stratagem is for any weapon and therefore a general rule. That it is an optional rule is not germane to general vs specific.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If it overrides the general rule of 1's missing then it overrides the stratagem (general rule) that 6's generate extra benefits. The stratagem is for any weapon and therefore a general rule. That it is an optional rule is not germane to general vs specific.

Does it override the rule that pistols can shoot at enemies within 1", or that you make to wound rolls with weapons that have hit? Those are generals rule too, and are about as relevant to automatic hit as the stratagem.

 doctortom wrote:


Not at all. If it means that a dice roll is not required, then you always hit regardless of the roll. Other effects, however, are dependent upon the result of the roll.

This. The only thing that is independent of the hit roll is whether you hit or not, the hit is still relevant for other effects.

You are already rolling a dice for each shot - it's to determine the number of hits.

Assault D6 = you roll 1 dice for the shot. This dictates your hits. Rolling again would be rolling to hit twice.

 Marmatag wrote:
You are already rolling a dice for each shot - it's to determine the number of hits.

Assault D6 = you roll 1 dice for the shot. This dictates your hits. Rolling again would be rolling to hit twice.

That's not a to hit roll. It's a roll to determine the number of shots that the weapon gets this time. Otherwise eg Battle cannons wouldn't need a separate to hit roll for each shot.

nekooni wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
You are already rolling a dice for each shot - it's to determine the number of hits.

Assault D6 = you roll 1 dice for the shot. This dictates your hits. Rolling again would be rolling to hit twice.

That's not a to hit roll. It's a roll to determine the number of shots that the weapon gets this time. Otherwise eg Battle cannons wouldn't need a separate to hit roll for each shot.

In this case it does because the hits happen automatically

 Marmatag wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
You are already rolling a dice for each shot - it's to determine the number of hits.

Assault D6 = you roll 1 dice for the shot. This dictates your hits. Rolling again would be rolling to hit twice.

That's not a to hit roll. It's a roll to determine the number of shots that the weapon gets this time. Otherwise eg Battle cannons wouldn't need a separate to hit roll for each shot.

In this case it does because the hits happen automatically

Sure. And if the weapon that auto hits is Assault 3 we'll just call the last roll we did the tohit roll? Its not a to hit roll, period.

You fire a flamer and hit automatically, you fire a bolter and hit - however this strategem and others add degrees of how well you hit (or missed in some case).

Clearly a '1' is not always a failure as you can reroll it or modify it, in which case it wasn't that bad as a '1'. So a failure isn't always as bad a fail as the first dice result says.

So if a '1' that always fails, can be changed to not trigger penalties that happen on a '1' via modifiers or rerolls - surely bonuses are treated the same. Roll the dice - it's a "2", but if I had a reroll I could reroll it try for a "6". I end up getting a "1" - flamer rules kick in and say that it hits anyway, just not the same as if I had a "6".

I definitely err on the save time but technically you should roll for flamers like you do(n't) do squads in individual order. Nothing says don't roll, and things will effect the roll - some things then add additional effects to the final role (turn 1 into hits, make 6's explode), then continue.

Well whaddya know:

BRB FAQ 1.2

Q: Some abilities and Stratagems confer extra bonuses each time a hit roll of, for example, 6+ is rolled. If a weapon has an ability that says ‘this weapon automatically hits its target’, do I still roll the hit rolls for those attacks in the hope of gaining such a bonus?

A: No, no hit rolls are made when resolving attacks with such weapons (and so they will never benefit from such
a bonus).

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Well whaddya know:

BRB FAQ 1.2

Q: Some abilities and Stratagems confer extra bonuses each time a hit roll of, for example, 6+ is rolled. If a weapon has an ability that says ‘this weapon automatically hits its target’, do I still roll the hit rolls for those attacks in the hope of gaining such a bonus?

A: No, no hit rolls are made when resolving attacks with such weapons (and so they will never benefit from such
a bonus).

Lol I was thinking exactly the same thing. You seen the "end of phase/during phase" thing?

Feels good, man.