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 a MW is a wound, why cant you roll a sv or inv against it, just like you can against a wound ?

 p5freak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Not incorrect.

A MW wounds automatically, no roll needed.

Incorrect. A MW does 1 point of damage. There is nothing in the MW rule that says it wounds. If it wounds you would have a sv or inv against it. But you dont. Therefore it doesnt wound. And if it doesnt wound, its not a wound.

Where does it say a Wound and Damage is different? Otherwise they can be argue they are the same thing.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Not incorrect.

A MW wounds automatically, no roll needed.

Incorrect. A MW does 1 point of damage. There is nothing in the MW rule that says it wounds. If it wounds you would have a sv or inv against it. But you dont. Therefore it doesnt wound. And if it doesnt wound, its not a wound.

Where does it say a Wound and Damage is different? Otherwise they can be argue they are the same thing.

Lets see. Your character model has 4 wounds. Does that mean it also has 4 damage ?

 p5freak wrote:
If a MW is a wound, why cant you roll a sv or inv against it, just like you can against a wound ?

It's a TYPE of wound, as indicated by them saying "like any OTHER wound"

 doctortom wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
If a MW is a wound, why cant you roll a sv or inv against it, just like you can against a wound ?

It's a TYPE of wound, as indicated by them saying "like any OTHER wound"

No one is arguing it is not a type of wound. Ofc it is. What people are arguing is that it doesn't actually wound (verb) things and therefor does not trigger SP ability.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
If a MW is a wound, why cant you roll a sv or inv against it, just like you can against a wound ?

It's a TYPE of wound, as indicated by them saying "like any OTHER wound"

No one is arguing it is not a type of wound. Ofc it is. What people are arguing is that it doesn't actually wound (verb) things and therefor does not trigger SP ability.

"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit)"

(for mortal wounds) "just allocate it as you would any other wound and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described above"

So, like "any other" wound, you are allocating a type of wound that successfully wounded the target.

allocate as other wound is not in dispute. Allocation is not wounding - it happens after a successful wound roll which mortal wounds skip. That is the argument.

 Xenomancers wrote:
allocate as other wound is not in dispute. Allocation is not wounding - it happens after a successful wound roll which mortal wounds skip. That is the argument.

You're missing the point. It's not allocate "like a wound", it's allocate "like any other[u] wound." That means it's a type of wound, and not just for allocation purposes.

But, even if you want to pretend that they're referring to it being like "any other wound" for allocation purposes, allocation is for allocating wounds that have succeffully wounded a target. Like "any other wound", you are allocating a mortal wound that, by their definition of allocation, has successfully wounded the target and must be allocated.

" by their definition of allocation, has successfully wounded the target and must be allocated."

If that is true you are correct. However, their definition does not define mortal wounds as having successfully wounding their target IMO. How do you get to that definition without making an assumption?

 Xenomancers wrote:
" by their definition of allocation, has successfully wounded the target and must be allocated."

If that is true you are correct. However, their definition does not define mortal wounds as having successfully wounding their target IMO. How do you get to that definition without making an assumption?

They describe allocating wounds as the process to use "if a wound successfully wounds a target". They also say to use allocation for MW "like any other wound". So, you are allocating a mortal wound which, like any other wound, :"successfully wounds a target"

This is the exact text of the rules for mortal wounds and how they work.

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...

The sentence that states "do not make a wound roll" could easily have been written as "mortal woulds automatically have a successful wound roll" Instead they went with the wording "Do not make a wound roll" - they didn't - I have to assume there is a reason for that. Also am I being daft here? Or does allocation actually have nothing to do with being a successful wound roll or not? Allocation has to do with placement - not success of what is being allocated. Correct?

 Xenomancers wrote:
This is the exact text of the rules for mortal wounds and how they work.

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...

The sentence that states "do not make a wound roll" could easily have been written as "mortal woulds automatically have a successful wound roll" Instead they went with the wording "Do not make a wound roll" - they didn't - I have to assume there is a reason for that. Also am I being daft here? Or does allocation actually have nothing to do with being a successful wound roll or not? Allocation has to do with placement - not success of what is being allocated. Correct?

"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
That lends credence to the other poster's opinion that if you are allocating a wound, it has successfully wounded the target. I think the thread should just be closed down unless someone has access to a judge. I think the initial question of Wrath of Mars is a no, because WoM does not change the weapon, it inflicts the MWs on its own. But whether Snipers can be redirected is up to interpretation. It's not a huge stretch to say SR works against MWs from Snipers, but RAW they cannot be redirected because they do not wound, they just inflict damage, anything else is just inferring that they wound because they are allocated like any other wound and any other wound wounds before it is allocated.

 Xenomancers wrote:
This is the exact text of the rules for mortal wounds and how they work.

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...

The sentence that states "do not make a wound roll" could easily have been written as "mortal woulds automatically have a successful wound roll" Instead they went with the wording "Do not make a wound roll" - they didn't - I have to assume there is a reason for that. Also am I being daft here? Or does allocation actually have nothing to do with being a successful wound roll or not? Allocation has to do with placement - not success of what is being allocated. Correct?

As they state in the allocation rules, "if an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit" Mottal wounds tell you to "allocate it like "any other wound", not "allocate as if it were a wound". That means, that like any other wound, a mortal wound is a successful attack that woujnds the target. Allocation has something to do with a successful wound roll - for a normal wound. You still use the allocation process for mortal wounds "like any other wound". The purpose of the allocation process is, as they indicate, to allocate attacks that have successfully wonded the target. That does not mean that it is only for being a successful wound roll, mortal wounds by saying to follow the allocation rules like any OTHER wound (which means ia MW is a type of wound), from their statements about wound allocation you are allocating an attack that has successfully wounded the target unit,.

 p5freak wrote:
If a MW is a wound, why cant you roll a sv or inv against it, just like you can against a wound ?

Because the rules specify that you do not get saves vs MW's.

 p5freak wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Not incorrect.

A MW wounds automatically, no roll needed.

Incorrect. A MW does 1 point of damage. There is nothing in the MW rule that says it wounds. If it wounds you would have a sv or inv against it. But you dont. Therefore it doesnt wound. And if it doesnt wound, its not a wound.

It is also allocated like "any other wound" and for any other wound, you allocate after "an attack successfully wounds the target" So the MW also "successfully wounds the target"

 Xenomancers wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
If a MW is a wound, why cant you roll a sv or inv against it, just like you can against a wound ?

It's a TYPE of wound, as indicated by them saying "like any OTHER wound"

No one is arguing it is not a type of wound. Ofc it is. What people are arguing is that it doesn't actually wound (verb) things and therefor does not trigger SP ability.

The minute you start arguing its a type of wound that doesn't wound you have clearly stretched your own argument to absurdity and your admiting how bad it is.

 Xenomancers wrote:
This is the exact text of the rules for mortal wounds and how they work.

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...

The sentence that states "do not make a wound roll" could easily have been written as "mortal woulds automatically have a successful wound roll" Instead they went with the wording "Do not make a wound roll" - they didn't - I have to assume there is a reason for that. Also am I being daft here? Or does allocation actually have nothing to do with being a successful wound roll or not? Allocation has to do with placement - not success of what is being allocated. Correct?

Nope. GW is famous for writing their rules colloquially rather than technically. Assuming there is a technical reason they write a rule a specific way is the route to madness. Just read their many FAQs for evidence that I am correct.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
If a MW is a wound, why cant you roll a sv or inv against it, just like you can against a wound ?

Because the rules specify that you do not get saves vs MW's.

You dont get a save against a MW because its not a wound. A MW inflicts 1 point of damage. Thats different from a wound, where you get a save.

 DeathReaper wrote:

It is also allocated like "any other wound" and for any other wound, you allocate after "an attack successfully wounds the target" So the MW also "successfully wounds the target"

Just because a rule uses an existing game mechanic doesnt make it the same as another rule.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
If a MW is a wound, why cant you roll a sv or inv against it, just like you can against a wound ?

Because the rules specify that you do not get saves vs MW's.

You dont get a save against a MW because its not a wound.

This is of course false. You do not get a save against a mortal wound because the rules say you do not get a save. no other reason.

We know a mortal wound is a wound because it is allocated like any other wound.

A MW inflicts 1 point of damage.

This is correct, so 1 for 2 so far.

Thats different from a wound, where you get a save.

Because the rules specify no save explicitly. No other reason.

 DeathReaper wrote:

It is also allocated like "any other wound" and for any other wound, you allocate after "an attack successfully wounds the target" So the MW also "successfully wounds the target"

Just because a rule uses an existing game mechanic doesnt make it the same as another rule.

I do not understand your point with this.

They are two different rules. They are both wounds though as mortal wound are allocated "like any other wound".

So we have wounds (ones where you can fail to wound and take saves against) and other wounds (mortal wounds), they are all explicitly wounds as mentioned in the rules.

There is literally no refuting this as it is literally written in the rulebook.

 doctortom wrote:
When they say allocate it "like any other wound" that's an indication that it is a type of wound... "allocate it like any other wound" . That wording means its a type of wound, and not just for allocation purposes. Unsurprisingly, wounds wound models.

This is correct.

But just because it's a type of wound does not mean it wounds.

Being wounded is the process of having a wound roll against you succeed, it's very specific. Mortal Wounds do not do this.

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is of course false. You do not get a save against a mortal wound because the rules say you do not get a save. no other reason.

 Stux wrote:
But just because it's a type of wound does not mean it wounds.

Being wounded is the process of having a wound roll against you succeed, it's very specific. Mortal Wounds do not do this.

Good now you can prove your own argument false.

If being wounded is a specific process of having a wound roll succeed then it is easy for you to win the argument - please provide the specific rules quote stateing that process

If you cannot/choose not to we will accept the proof that your argument is false

Concludeing that being wounded is not a specific process and so any wound will do and you have already concluded mortal wounds are a type of wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is of course false. You do not get a save against a mortal wound because the rules say you do not get a save. no other reason.

The reason is MW are not wounds. They have separate rules, therefore they cant be the same.

Incorrect logic.

My position throughout this is that it is ambiguous. The game never defines what it means to be wounded, so if you are sure that Mortal Wounds aren't excluded as a result of their definition you need to prove that.

Your position is unambiguous - it is prooved false by others citations and further evidenced by your failiure to provide the requested citation to support your argument.

If your argument is correct it should be easy to provide it if not we will continue to accept your admission of being wrong.

Your argument is basically you saying the emperor can kill any model on the board instantly your hive tyrant is dead - us saying can you provide a rules quote saying thats how it works -and you responding the powers of the emperor are ambiguous because they are not defined so you have to proove it can't do that or it can.

You do things the standard way by default unless you are told to deviate for a reason. you have provided no citation to a reason to deviate so we conclude you do things the standard way. You have admitted they wound you now have to proove a model receiving a wound is not synominous with it being wounded please provide a quote if you cannot the default is it counts.

I can only assume you are continuing to misunderstand my position.

What I am saying is that Mortal Wounds don't allow you to make a wound roll. The definition of 'wounded' MIGHT be that a wound roll has been successful, or it MIGHT be that it is to have a wound (of which as you point at MW are a type) assigned to the unit.

I am asserting it is ambiguous. If you are asserting the latter you need a citation to prove it.

If it is the former, Saviour Protocols can't be used. If it is the latter they can. If it's ambiguous it requires player mutual consent or a roll off.

U02dah4 wrote:
the emperor can kill any model on the board instantly.

How does this work against units like shield drones or canoptek scarabs that aren't actually alive? Does an Avatar of Khaine count as being alive? What about fortifications? This rule needs an FAQ!

As for the original question, five pages or arguing prove that there is no definitive RAW answer. Roll off and see who wins.

 Bilge Rat wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
the emperor can kill any model on the board instantly.

How does this work against units like shield drones or canoptek scarabs that aren't actually alive? Does an Avatar of Khaine count as being alive? What about fortifications? This rule needs an FAQ!

As for the original question, five pages or arguing prove that there is no definitive RAW answer. Roll off and see who wins.

Agreed.

Honestly, if we can't convince each other in 5 pages then it's no happening, at least without new evidence/FAQs

 Stux wrote:
I can only assume you are continuing to misunderstand my position.

What I am saying is that Mortal Wounds don't allow you to make a wound roll. The definition of 'wounded' MIGHT be that a wound roll has been successful, or it MIGHT be that it is to have a wound (of which as you point at MW are a type) assigned to the unit.

I am asserting it is ambiguous. If you are asserting the latter you need a citation to prove it.

If it is the former, Saviour Protocols can't be used. If it is the latter they can. If it's ambiguous it requires player mutual consent or a roll off.

No im not misunderstanding your position. However your position is irrelevant. There either is a definition of wounded requireing a wound roll in which case cite it. Or their isn't! There is no might.

There is not a citation saying that a wound roll os required therefore it is irrelevant as saying the emperor kills your unit. The default is that for a model to be wounded a wound is required.

We cannot disprove your assertion using the rules quotes because it is not grounded in the RAW. Just as you cannot disprove my assertion that thst the power of the emperor allows me to instant kill your unit useing a rules quote because it is not based in the rules.

There is no definition of what exactly it means to be wounded though.

Show me it. If you can, then you have your default you keep talking about.

 Stux wrote:
There is no definition of what exactly it means to be wounded though.

Show me it. If you can, then you have your default you keep talking about.

That is kinda what i said, there is no difference in damage and wound, there is no clear rules. Each are used in place of each other all the time.

That's not correct. A Wound (meaning 1) is the result of an attack that must be allocated to a model during the Allocate Wound step of an attack resolution (Hit Roll, Wound Roll, Allocate Wound, Saving Throw, Inflict Damage). Each Wound has a Damage characteristic, that is the number of Wounds (meaning 2) a model loses during the Inflict Damage stage of an attack resolution. They never use them interchangeably.