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.

A MW cant be a wound, because you have to roll a dice to check if a wound inflicts damage, and your opponent has a sv roll against this. A MW doesnt roll a dice to check if it inflicts damage, and you have no sv against it. Thus, its not a wound. Like i said, the name mortal wound is irritating and badly chosen, because it has the word wound in it. But rules wise, its not a wound.

I'm going to need a citation on that.

Treating it like any OTHER wound is strong evidence it is a wound. Can you find a rule that explicitly contradicts this?

 Stux wrote:
I'm going to need a citation on that.

Treating it like any OTHER wound is strong evidence it is a wound. Can you find a rule that explicitly contradicts this?

I've said it before but I'll say it again because everyone other than p5 wants to use "feels are reals" instead of actually reading the Core Rules.

For a model to be considered wounded, there needs to be a successful wound roll. You can find this under the "Resolving Attacks" part of the Core Rules, right beneath Wound Roll. A Mortal Wound, while we can argue whether or not it's an actual wound, is not capable of wounding an enemy because it does not make a Wound Roll.

The aforementioned quote deals with how to allocate it, which is Step 3 of "Resolving Attacks." Step 2 is the one that deals with models being wounded, and the one that Mortal Wounds ignore.

You don't make the roll, that's what the MW rule says. That doesn't mean it isn't a wound.

And once again, the fact it is allocated just like any OTHER wound means it itself IS a wound. Otherwise it wouldn't refer to non-mortal wounds as OTHER wounds.

 Stux wrote:
You don't make the roll, that's what the MW rule says. That doesn't mean it isn't a wound.

And once again, the fact it is allocated just like any OTHER wound means it itself IS a wound. Otherwise it wouldn't refer to non-mortal wounds as OTHER wounds.

It seems like you didn't even bother to read my post.

If it is or isn't a wound is completely Irrelevant, what's relevant is that it is unable to wound something (notice: the verb, not the noun) because it does not make a Wound Roll as is required according to the Core Rules.

And again, try not to cherry pick that other quote. It says that you allocate it like any other wound. That still does not mean it's capable of wounding in the first place.

It seems like some may be misunderstanding why I'm quoting it. You can't call something OTHER unless both things belong to the category. A lion is one animal. A zebra is one other animal. You may not be having that issue, but I wanted to state that for clarification.

My further contention is that a wound wounds someone. Being allocated a wound is the process of being wounded. Just like if you suffer damage you are damaged.

 Stux wrote:
It seems like some may be misunderstanding why I'm quoting it. You can't call something OTHER unless both things belong to the category. A lion is one animal. A zebra is one other animal. You may not be having that issue, but I wanted to state that for clarification.

My further contention is that a wound wounds someone. Being allocated a wound is the process of being wounded. Just like if you suffer damage you are damaged.

Just to help you out, I will completely concede that a Mortal Wound is a wound. Glad we've gotten that sorted out.

The second part is where you're completely wrong and where I suggest you actually read the Core Rules (as I've been saying this entire time). Under the "Resolving Attacks" portion, there are a number of steps to follow when resolving an attack. Allocating a wound is the 3rd step and is not relevant to whether something has been wounded. What matters is Step 2, which tells you exactly how to check if something is wounded. To successfully wound something, you need to make a Wound Roll, which a Mortal Wound does not.

 Stux wrote:
It seems like some may be misunderstanding why I'm quoting it. You can't call something OTHER unless both things belong to the category. A lion is one animal. A zebra is one other animal. You may not be having that issue, but I wanted to state that for clarification.

So, why is an assault cannon a heavy weapon ? Its called assault, so it must be assault ? No, its not. Same with mortal wounds, they are called wounds, but they arent, rules wise.

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It seems like some may be misunderstanding why I'm quoting it. You can't call something OTHER unless both things belong to the category. A lion is one animal. A zebra is one other animal. You may not be having that issue, but I wanted to state that for clarification.

So, why is an assault cannon a heavy weapon ? Its called assault, so it must be assault ? No, its not. Same with mortal wounds, they are called wounds, but they arent, rules wise.

Except they are wounds...

battle primer page 7 wrote:Do not make a wound roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saves) against a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other wound

(Emphasis mine)

A MW is a wound because you "allocate it as you would any other wound"

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It seems like some may be misunderstanding why I'm quoting it. You can't call something OTHER unless both things belong to the category. A lion is one animal. A zebra is one other animal. You may not be having that issue, but I wanted to state that for clarification.

So, why is an assault cannon a heavy weapon ? Its called assault, so it must be assault ? No, its not. Same with mortal wounds, they are called wounds, but they arent, rules wise.

Because in an Assault Cannon, Assault is a name, not rules text. It's a pretty simple differentiation there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pakman184 wrote:

The second part is where you're completely wrong and where I suggest you actually read the Core Rules (as I've been saying this entire time). Under the "Resolving Attacks" portion, there are a number of steps to follow when resolving an attack. Allocating a wound is the 3rd step and is not relevant to whether something has been wounded. What matters is Step 2, which tells you exactly how to check if something is wounded. To successfully wound something, you need to make a Wound Roll, which a Mortal Wound does not.

A mortal wound still goes through all of that, you simply don't roll. The effect as if you had successfully rolled applies.

Pakman184 wrote:

For a model to be considered wounded, there needs to be a successful wound roll. [...] not capable of wounding an enemy because it does not make a Wound Roll.

Pakman184 wrote:
To successfully wound something, you need to make a Wound Roll

Does that mean any other rule that refers to an automatic type wound not count as a wound for rules purposes?

Also, does this also mean automatic type hits that do not make a roll to hit are also not hits for rules purposes?

Pakman184 wrote:


If it is or isn't a wound is completely Irrelevant, what's relevant is that it is unable to wound something (notice: the verb, not the noun) because it does not make a Wound Roll as is required according to the Core Rules.

Both steps 3 and 4 of the shooting sequence refer to a noun version of "the wound".

BlackSwanDelta, my thoughts exactly.

By that logic, a Flamer never hits its target-there's no Hit-Roll.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

Pakman184 wrote:

For a model to be considered wounded, there needs to be a successful wound roll. [...] not capable of wounding an enemy because it does not make a Wound Roll.

Pakman184 wrote:
To successfully wound something, you need to make a Wound Roll

Does that mean any other rule that refers to an automatic type wound not count as a wound for rules purposes?

Also, does this also mean automatic type hits that do not make a roll to hit are also not hits for rules purposes?

Pakman184 wrote:


If it is or isn't a wound is completely Irrelevant, what's relevant is that it is unable to wound something (notice: the verb, not the noun) because it does not make a Wound Roll as is required according to the Core Rules.

Both steps 3 and 4 of the shooting sequence refer to a noun version of "the wound".

Those are super easy things to answer. Anything that auto-wounds will specifically say they wound the target. We already know that specific rules overrule general ones.

The exact same thing can be said of weapons like flamers, they have a specific rule saying they hit even though they don't roll for it.

Nowhere, anywhere in the rules, is there a line saying that Mortal Wounds are capable of wounding an enemy. When the rules refer to them in Step 3, they're talking about a general situation, one where something was successfully wounded, but Mortal Wounds have an exception to that in saying that they only allocate like other wounds and not that they wound in the first place.

Step 4 doesn't matter because Mortal Wounds also skip that step.

"allocate as you would any OTHER wound" indicates that it is a wound, and is treated as a wound for the process of wounding the target. The exception for it is only that you don't roll a save...and as you say, specific rules override general rules. That only negates the specific part being overriden; it doesn't mean the rest of the general rule doesn't apply.

A mortal wound still goes through all of that, you simply don't roll. The effect as if you had successfully rolled applies.

Now you're making things up. I really did hope you would give up on the "feels are reals" and actually read the Core Rules. No, a Mortal Wound does not still go through all of that when it's specifically told not to make a Wound Roll. There is no rule that says, even though a Wound Roll is required to wound something, that Mortal Wounds are exempt from it.

This whole time I've been quoting actual rules. Next time you try and make something up, can you at least do me the honour of fabricating a page number in the Core Rules as well?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
"allocate as you would any OTHER wound" indicates that it is a wound, and is treated as a wound for the process of wounding the target. The exception for it is only that you don't roll a save...and as you say, specific rules override general rules. That only negates the specific part being overriden; it doesn't mean the rest of the general rule doesn't apply.

No, the exception clearly says that you don't make a Wound Roll for it either. As discussed above, allocating a wound is Step 3 in the Resolving Attacks Sequence and does not deal with how something is wounded in the first place.

A Mortal Wound can be a Wound, but it is not capable of wounding something.

Pakman184 wrote:
"feels are reals"

YAWN

You keep saying this, but reading your arguments I'm very much getting from you an emotional attachment to your position way beyond what any rules might suggest.

Maybe stop spouting that nonsense?

 Stux wrote:

Pakman184 wrote:
"feels are reals"

YAWN

You keep saying this, but reading your arguments I'm very much getting from you an emotional attachment to your position way beyond what any rules might suggest.

Maybe stop spouting that nonsense?

Congrats you've made yet another post calling my position wrong yet refusing to post any actual rules to support that.

Try again.

Pakman184 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
"allocate as you would any OTHER wound" indicates that it is a wound, and is treated as a wound for the process of wounding the target. The exception for it is only that you don't roll a save...and as you say, specific rules override general rules. That only negates the specific part being overriden; it doesn't mean the rest of the general rule doesn't apply.

No, the exception clearly says that you don't make a Wound Roll for it either. As discussed above, allocating a wound is Step 3 in the Resolving Attacks Sequence and does not deal with how something is wounded in the first place.

A Mortal Wound can be a Wound, but it is not capable of wounding something.

Okay, so since a Mortal Wound isn not capable of wounding something, we just get to ignore any damage it does.

Actually, making a wound roll is step 2 in the resolving attacks sequence. but, you ignore the point. ignoring the wound roll and the save are specific exceptions that get overriden, but does not mean the entire sequence is ignored. You still have the process of wounding the target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pakman184 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pakman184 wrote:
"feels are reals"

YAWN

You keep saying this, but reading your arguments I'm very much getting from you an emotional attachment to your position way beyond what any rules might suggest.

Maybe stop spouting that nonsense?

Congrats you've made yet another post calling my position wrong yet refusing to post any actual rules to support that.

Try again.

To be fair, the "feels are reals" stuff you're saying and implying that the people who don't agree with you aren't reading the core rules is pretty offensive.

Okay, so since a Mortal Wound isn not capable of wounding something, we just get to ignore any damage it

That's not true because Mortal Wounds are given specific instructions to inflict damage. Specific Rules overrule general ones, so even though MWs didn't wound something they're given another route to function.

To be fair, the "feels are reals" stuff you're saying and implying that the people who don't agree with you aren't reading the core rules is pretty offensive.

I'm just tired of that same guy either using his feelings on the topic or just outright making up rules that don't exist. If there were something in the rules I missed I would happily concede the point, but he's apparently not interested in putting in any effort.

Pakman184 wrote:

Okay, so since a Mortal Wound isn not capable of wounding something, we just get to ignore any damage it

That's not true because Mortal Wounds are given specific instructions to inflict damage. Specific Rules overrule general ones, so even though MWs didn't wound something they're given another route to function.

.

Going with specific rules overwriting general ones, the specifc rules for not rolling wounds (step 2, not step 3 of the resolve attacks sequence as you had stated) and saving throw (step 4) specifically override the general rules for resolving attacks in that you do not have to roll to determine if you wound the target and you do not roll a save against the wound. This does not mean that you don't wound the target.

Pakman184 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pakman184 wrote:
"feels are reals"

YAWN

You keep saying this, but reading your arguments I'm very much getting from you an emotional attachment to your position way beyond what any rules might suggest.

Maybe stop spouting that nonsense?

Congrats you've made yet another post calling my position wrong yet refusing to post any actual rules to support that.

Try again.

It's arguing in bad faith. At best it's setting up a straw man, at worst it's an attempt to discredit your detractors as emotional based on nothing.

There's plenty against you already, but why should I try again if you're behaving like that?

 doctortom wrote:

Pakman184 wrote:

Okay, so since a Mortal Wound isn not capable of wounding something, we just get to ignore any damage it

That's not true because Mortal Wounds are given specific instructions to inflict damage. Specific Rules overrule general ones, so even though MWs didn't wound something they're given another route to function.

.

Going with specific rules overwriting general ones, the specifc rules for not rolling wounds (step 2, not step 3 of the resolve attacks sequence as you had stated) and saving throw (step 4) specifically override the general rules for resolving attacks in that you do not have to roll to determine if you wound the target and you do not roll a save against the wound. This does not mean that you don't wound the target.

I've always stated that it skipped step 2 and 4.

No, that is entirely conjecture. We don't have any written rules to describe it as such, we're only told not to make Wound Rolls or Saving Throws against them.

This is the issue in having with the other guy. We have a sequence on how to resolve attacks and we have a specific rule that says not to roll to wound something. We cannot make any other assumptions because there is literally nothing to base those assumptions on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

Pakman184 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pakman184 wrote:
"feels are reals"

YAWN

You keep saying this, but reading your arguments I'm very much getting from you an emotional attachment to your position way beyond what any rules might suggest.

Maybe stop spouting that nonsense?

Congrats you've made yet another post calling my position wrong yet refusing to post any actual rules to support that.

Try again.

It's arguing in bad faith. At best it's setting up a straw man, at worst it's an attempt to discredit your detractors as emotional based on nothing.

There's plenty against you already, but why should I try again if you're behaving like that?

Still waiting on you to quote any actual rule to support your position.

Try again.

It tells you not to roll. Not to skip the step. Subtle but important difference.

"Try again" so dismissive and arrogant...

Pakman184 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Pakman184 wrote:

Okay, so since a Mortal Wound isn not capable of wounding something, we just get to ignore any damage it

That's not true because Mortal Wounds are given specific instructions to inflict damage. Specific Rules overrule general ones, so even though MWs didn't wound something they're given another route to function.

.

Going with specific rules overwriting general ones, the specifc rules for not rolling wounds (step 2, not step 3 of the resolve attacks sequence as you had stated) and saving throw (step 4) specifically override the general rules for resolving attacks in that you do not have to roll to determine if you wound the target and you do not roll a save against the wound. This does not mean that you don't wound the target.

I've always stated that it skipped step 2 and 4.

No, that is entirely conjecture. We don't have any written rules to describe it as such, we're only told not to make Wound Rolls or Saving Throws against them.

That's not true, we're told to allocate the mortal wound as you would any other wound, which means you're going through the process like you do with normal wounds. And, the first sentence for Allocate Wounds (step 3) is "If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit"/ So, the step that we are specifically told to go to when a mortal wound is done is the step you do if the attack successfully wounds the target. It seems pretty hard to me to justify any claims that the target isn't wounded when we've got a statement that we're following for when the target is wounded. Perhaps you should take your own advice on reading the core rules?

Each step of Resolving Attacks are their own steps, and there is nothing saying that you cannot blanket skip steps if a specific rule tells you to do so.

Since we're assuming this Mortal Wound came from an attack, like a Sniper Rifle, we've already completed step 1. The Mortal Wound rule says to skip step 2. You then allocate it like any other wound.

The first part of Step 3 (allocating) assumes you've completed all the steps previously. A good parallel is Disembarking with a Valkyrie. The Disembark rule says that a unit may disembark before a transport moves, but the Valkyrie says that a unit may Disembark during its move. The way the Disembark rule is written doesn't change but you can still follow the rest of the rule.

The same applies here. You cannot complete the first part of the rule, having not wounded something, but another specific rule tells you to carry it out the rest of it.

It's not hard to justify when the rules literally say that you need to roll a Wound Roll to wound something, and Mortal Wounds don't do that.

Are you actually arguing Mortal Wounds don’t wound? Seriously? I’m slightly baffled... seems we’ve all been playing it wrong for 18 months and MW are just light tickles and nothing to fear!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Are you actually arguing Mortal Wounds don’t wound? Seriously? I’m slightly baffled... seems we’ve all been playing it wrong for 18 months and MW are just light tickles and nothing to fear!

Those light tickles are the result of GW writing, it wouldn't be the first time they've accidentally butchered something in the Core Rules.

TLDR: To Wound something you need to roll a Wound Roll according to the Core Rules. MWs don't do that, thus they don't wound as per the rules and cannot be saved by Saviour Protocols.

Pakman184 wrote:
Each step of Resolving Attacks are their own steps, and there is nothing saying that you cannot blanket skip steps if a specific rule tells you to do so.

Since we're assuming this Mortal Wound came from an attack, like a Sniper Rifle, we've already completed step 1. The Mortal Wound rule says to skip step 2. You then allocate it like any other wound.

The first part of Step 3 (allocating) assumes you've completed all the steps previously. A good parallel is Disembarking with a Valkyrie. The Disembark rule says that a unit may disembark before a transport moves, but the Valkyrie says that a unit may Disembark during its move. The way the Disembark rule is written doesn't change but you can still follow the rest of the rule.

The same applies here. You cannot complete the first part of the rule, having not wounded something, but another specific rule tells you to carry it out the rest of it.

It's not hard to justify when the rules literally say that you need to roll a Wound Roll to wound something, and Mortal Wounds don't do that.

Step 3, allocating wounds, is what you do if you have successfully wounded the target. The step itself tells you that. You can make an assumption about whether it assumes you've gone through all the previous steps (and you have gone through it even if it is to ignore the step when instructed to, but that's a different matter), but you are ignoring what the step the Mortal Wounds sidebar tells you to go to is actually saying. If you are on the allocate wounds stage, as per the statement in the section you have successfully wounded the target.

You know that things build on top of the core rules, right? That's why models can move after disembarking despite the Reinforcements rule preventing that, because the Transport rules permit it.

Step 3, allocating wounds, is what you do if you have successfully wounded the target. The step itself tells you that. You can make an assumption about whether it assumes you've gone through all the previous steps (and you have gone through it even if it is to ignore the step when instructed to, but that's a different matter), but you are ignoring what the step the Mortal Wounds sidebar tells you to go to is actually saying. If you are on the allocate wounds stage, as per the statement in the section you have successfully wounded the target.

The first line of Allocating Wound reads "If an attack successfully wounds the target.." That is not telling you that the attack has wounded something, it's telling what to do if the attack wounds something. As I've pointed out countless times, a MW cannot wound something because it is told to skip the step where you actual wound things. The reason you can still continue is because the MW rule specifically tells you to continue. It's a prerequisite that you don't fulfil, but is circumvented by a specific rule.