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 special rule which attaches itself to the attack of a weapon is still part of that attack

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Because of the wording of SP. The target of the attack does not change so the mortal wound is dealt to the original target even if you intercept the original wound. Also the wording of SP does not allow you to intercept a mortal wound because mortal wounds DO NOT ROLL TO WOUND.

Irrelevant. Mortal Wounds do wound the target, they just don't need to roll to do so. Just like a Flamer hits it's target even though it doesn't roll to do so. Since the target is wounded by the Mortal Wound, Savor Protocol can be used.

To Quote the Mortal Wounds rules:

Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. 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 and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above...

Except it can't because it's not being caused by the attack of a weapon, it's being caused by a special rule of a weapon.

Which is the same thing.

A weapon's special rules is where the damage is coming from...

So if not for that weapon there wound be no damage and as such the damage is coming from that weapon.

And all of this is irrelevant to the topic. Whether we consider the mortal wound to come from the weapon or not, it is still separate to the wound that Saviour Protocols tells you to allocate to the drones - the mortal wound stays on the original target.

 Stux wrote:
And all of this is irrelevant to the topic. Whether we consider the mortal wound to come from the weapon or not, it is still separate to the wound that Saviour Protocols tells you to allocate to the drones - the mortal wound stays on the original target.

Not if it comes from the weapon, as that is an attack and can be shuffled to the drones.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
And all of this is irrelevant to the topic. Whether we consider the mortal wound to come from the weapon or not, it is still separate to the wound that Saviour Protocols tells you to allocate to the drones - the mortal wound stays on the original target.

Not if it comes from the weapon, as that is an attack and can be shuffled to the drones.

No. Two reasons. First, not if the MW comes from a weapon ability. Thats separated from the weapons damage. Second, MW dont wound, they inflict 1 point of damage. SP only works against attacks that wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
And all of this is irrelevant to the topic. Whether we consider the mortal wound to come from the weapon or not, it is still separate to the wound that Saviour Protocols tells you to allocate to the drones - the mortal wound stays on the original target.

Not if it comes from the weapon, as that is an attack and can be shuffled to the drones.

Saviour protocols doesn't shuffle an attack, it shuffles a wound. That is entirely separate to any mortal wounds caused.

 Stux wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
And all of this is irrelevant to the topic. Whether we consider the mortal wound to come from the weapon or not, it is still separate to the wound that Saviour Protocols tells you to allocate to the drones - the mortal wound stays on the original target.

Not if it comes from the weapon, as that is an attack and can be shuffled to the drones.

Saviour protocols doesn't shuffle an attack, it shuffles a wound. That is entirely separate to any mortal wounds caused.

The mortal wound would need to be shuffled with its own 2+ roll. Because it came from an attack with a weapon.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
And all of this is irrelevant to the topic. Whether we consider the mortal wound to come from the weapon or not, it is still separate to the wound that Saviour Protocols tells you to allocate to the drones - the mortal wound stays on the original target.

Not if it comes from the weapon, as that is an attack and can be shuffled to the drones.

Saviour protocols doesn't shuffle an attack, it shuffles a wound. That is entirely separate to any mortal wounds caused.

The mortal wound would need to be shuffled with its own 2+ roll. Because it came from an attack with a weapon.

I think the issue here is defining what it means to be wounded. Most of us seem to be taking it mean when a wound roll succeeds. As such by that definition, you are never wounded by a mortal wound and so you cannot roll Saviour Protocols.

Except

The mortal wounds rules litterally say

"just allocate it as you would any other wound"

So mortal wounds are wounds and that definition is wrong.


The only salient question is does the mortal wound come from an enemy attack and in this case it does via a special rule and so saviour protocols trigger.

The key factor is the strategem effecting an attack rather than the strategem directly doing the damage

U02dah4 wrote:
Except

The mortal wounds rules litterally say

"just allocate it as you would any other wound"

So mortal wounds are wounds and that definition is wrong.


The only salient question is does the mortal wound come from an enemy attack and in this case it does via a special rule and so saviour protocols trigger.

The key factor is the strategem effecting an attack rather than the strategem directly doing the damage

Ah but does allocating a wound mean they are wounded?

Being wounded must happen before allocating a wound, as it is in that gap that the Saviour Protocols roll is made.

Therefore it seems like the subject of a mortal wound has not been wounded.

It really doesn't help how overloaded the term "wound" is in this game though!

Yes allocating a model a wound means it is wounded

Yes it as the point that wounds are allocated that there a gap in which saviour protocols operate (even with non MW weapon you are at this point) Saviour protocols overide allocation (step3) if successfull

Therefore it seems the subject of a mortal wound is wounded and triggers saviour protocols

Yes it is poor writting

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes allocating a model a wound means it is wounded

Yes it as the point that wounds are allocated that there a gap in which saviour protocols operate (even with non MW weapon you are at this point) Saviour protocols overide allocation (step3) if successfull

Therefore it seems the subject of a mortal wound is wounded and triggers saviour protocols

Yes it is poor writting

That still seems very much to just be an opinion and not something backed up in the rules.

Well rule wise their is no clear definition of wounded

However

We know the point of wounded must occur after the to wound role which happens at step 2

So step 2 is completed when a model is wounded

We know saviour protocols allocates the wound to a drone so step 3 must not be completed

We know mortal wounds are "allocated as you would any other wound" so do take part in step 3

So.. wounding happens after step 2 finishes and before the end of step 3 and both mw and normal wounds take part in step 3.

It therefore doesnt matter whether we invent a magic point between the end of 2 and start of 3 or say saviour protocols occur at step 3 their is no reason to exclude mw.

As backed by the rules

U02dah4 wrote:
Except

The mortal wounds rules litterally say

"just allocate it as you would any other wound"

So mortal wounds are wounds and that definition is wrong.

Except that MW dont wound. They skip the wound roll and do 1 point of damage. Just because its allocated like any other wound doesnt make it a wound.

"According to the rules quote from the mortal wounds section of the core rules "allocated as you would any other wound"

They not only are a wound but do not skip straight to damage they go through step 3 allocate wounds.

Skipping the wound role is irrelevant to whether a model wounds. We know as above wounding occurs after step2 and before step3 is concluded mw take part in step 3

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Because of the wording of SP. The target of the attack does not change so the mortal wound is dealt to the original target even if you intercept the original wound. Also the wording of SP does not allow you to intercept a mortal wound because mortal wounds DO NOT ROLL TO WOUND.

Irrelevant. Mortal Wounds do wound the target, they just don't need to roll to do so. Just like a Flamer hits it's target even though it doesn't roll to do so. Since the target is wounded by the Mortal Wound, Savor Protocol can be used.

To Quote the Mortal Wounds rules:

Some attacks inflict mortal wounds – these are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit. 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 and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above...

Except it can't because it's not being caused by the attack of a weapon, it's being caused by a special rule of a weapon.

The special rule comes about as part of the attack.

Yes the special rule applies to the attack its not a seperate source.

 Stux wrote:
...you are never wounded by a mortal wound ...

Uhh yea, that is not how that works mate.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Stux wrote:
...you are never wounded by a mortal wound ...

Uhh yea, that is not how that works mate.

It is if wounded means a wound roll succeeded against the unit. It's not my fault they overloaded the term!

And it is defined as that where exactly?

 alextroy wrote:
And it is defined as that where exactly?

It is not defined like that, not sure where he got that from.

Yes its not defined as that at all. All we can say for sure is it occurs after the to wound role and before allocation of wounds has been completed.

It is debateable that the mortal wound could also be intercepted in a RAI discussion. However, RAW mortal wounds don't actually roll to wound and therefor do not meet the criteria to wound to intercept. That is my interpretation.

The problem you have is your RAW argument isnt RAW. It doesnt say you require a successful wound roll thats a made up rule unles you can provide a quote - so the fact mortal wounds dont meet that standard from a raw perspective is irrelevant

The issue is and I believe it's already been stated. What basis do you have to infer that a unit "is wounded" by a wound that has been "allocated". When you roll to wound you don't allocate a wound - you are just "wounded" - which I'd argue is not the same thing.

You can argue it, but not call it RAW because you can’t support the assertion via a rules quote.

Regardless, it assumes that GW writes their rules in a tight, legalistic manner that we all know they do not do.

What basis do you have to infer that a unit "is wounded" by a wound that has been "allocated"?

You have to answer this question to rebuke me.

 Xenomancers wrote:
What basis do you have to infer that a unit "is wounded" by a wound that has been "allocated"?
it is your interpretation...
You have to answer this question to rebuke me.

You actually need to provide a rule that backs up your position. Because you literally said "That is my interpretation." with no real rules backing.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is debateable that the mortal wound could also be intercepted in a RAI discussion. However, RAW mortal wounds don't actually roll to wound and therefor do not meet the criteria to wound to intercept. That is my interpretation.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The issue is and I believe it's already been stated. What basis do you have to infer that a unit "is wounded" by a wound that has been "allocated". When you roll to wound you don't allocate a wound - you are just "wounded" - which I'd argue is not the same thing.

As demonstrated earlier we know wounding happens at some point after step 2 is complete (although RAW it is not stated when) no one is arguing models are wounded before the to wound role.

We know wounding happens before step 3 wound allocation is complete as saviour protocols alter wound allocation.

We know mortal wounds take part in step3 as their own rules state they do.

So RAW step 2 is complete and step3 is not complete offering a potential timeframe of wounding at step3 or between 2 and 3 but either way given mortal wounds take part in step 3 their is no RAW reason to exclude them

Are you missing the point? The point is you are assuming that a wound that does not roll to wound...wounds. It has been stated before previously in the thread.

Your answer can be OFC it wounds because it is a wound. That argument fails because mortal wounds don't actually wound you. They just cause you to lose a wound.