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.

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

Being a type of wound that is allocated like any other wound means it wounds, as allocating wounds specifies that the process is for attacks that have successfully wounded the target.

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

As wound allocation points out, attacks that successfully wound the target go through wound allocation. Mortal wounds, "like any other wound" go through wound allocation. Therefore, mortal wounds are attacks that have successfully wounded the target unit. A target unit getting wounded is not limited to having a wound roll succeed, any type of wound going throught the wound allocation process is one that wounds the target unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

There are, however, statements in different sections that indicates that a target unit is wounded. Successfully making a to wound roll is one. Allocating wounds is another, as those rules state that the wounds you are allocating are from attacks that have successfully wounded a target unit. Some people seem to be hung up on concentrating on the to wound roll while totally ignoring that allocating wounds states that you are allocating wounds that have successfully wounded the target.

The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.

Unless there's another passage I'm missing?

 Stux wrote:
The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.

Unless there's another passage I'm missing?

From the Resolve Attacks section

"3. Allocate Wound: 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).",

 doctortom wrote:

 Stux wrote:
The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.

Unless there's another passage I'm missing?

From the Resolve Attacks section

"3. Allocate Wound: 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).",

Right. So wounding leads to allocation. But you can't make the reverse inference, that doesn't follow logically.

 Stux wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Stux wrote:
The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.

Unless there's another passage I'm missing?

From the Resolve Attacks section

"3. Allocate Wound: 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).",

Right. So wounding leads to allocation. But you can't make the reverse inference, that doesn't follow logically.

It does when mortal wounds states "just allocate it as you would any other wound"

 alextroy wrote:
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.

To bad there are many rules/stratagems/relics, etc.. that says "If you are wounded, if you dealt any wounds, if any wounds are dealt" meaning that you have done damage, and meaning the word "damage" in those rules are equal to to world "wounds". This is implying Wounds (with an S) is more than 1, like FnP you take a save if you suffer wounds, many stratagems say wounds in place of "for each damage dealt" b.c it is easier. The world WOUND is also a word for DAMAGE.
Example: This weapon has 3 damage, you took 3 wounds, you need to make 3 saves from your FnP vs these 3 wounds. See, damage is used for wounds, he took 3 damage and 3 wounds.

So if the world wound means damage, this will change how some rules can be read.

Can you provide a quote for that useing the word wounded and cause

When i read the core rules or it says is successfull wounds are allocated cause is not mentioned so is irrelevant unless you can provide a citation makeing cause relevant note citation not as you read it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:
The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.

Unless there's another passage I'm missing?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
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.

To bad there are many rules/stratagems/relics, etc.. that says "If you are wounded, if you dealt any wounds, if any wounds are dealt" meaning that you have done damage, and meaning the word "damage" in those rules are equal to to world "wounds". This is implying Wounds (with an S) is more than 1, like FnP you take a save if you suffer wounds, many stratagems say wounds in place of "for each damage dealt" b.c it is easier. The world WOUND is also a word for DAMAGE.
Example: This weapon has 3 damage, you took 3 wounds, you need to make 3 saves from your FnP vs these 3 wounds. See, damage is used for wounds, he took 3 damage and 3 wounds.

So if the world wound means damage, this will change how some rules can be read.

A very good point with respect to the fnp wording and timeing
I hadn't considered that however im not sure it changes timing we know it happens after step 2 is complete we know it happens before 4 we still back to it being roughly step 3 allocation which would make sense in the SP context.

 doctortom wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Stux wrote:
The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.

Unless there's another passage I'm missing?

From the Resolve Attacks section

"3. Allocate Wound: 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).",

Right. So wounding leads to allocation. But you can't make the reverse inference, that doesn't follow logically.

It does when mortal wounds states "just allocate it as you would any other wound"

Yes but you haven't shown that allocation causes wounding, just that wounding causes allocation.

Yes but all you need is wounding there is no citation requireing a cause so he doesn't need to show the inverse all you are admitting is that he is right.

Unless you can provide a citation otherwise basic English would be that if you are wounding a model that model is wounded.



It also still comes down to valid RAW arguments vs invalid non-RAW ones which cannot be disproved because they wern't in the rules to begin with.

Argument mortal wounds are succefull wounds based on the allocation step - valid by citation.

Argument we don't know precisely when wounded occurs due to inconsistant wording but we can plot the bounds of it via citations to be after 2 is complete and before 4 - valid by citations.

Argument you require a wound roll for a modal to be wounded - invalid no citation.

Argument i believe/I interpret/I read it as.... Invalid no citation

 Stux wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Stux wrote:
The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.

Unless there's another passage I'm missing?

From the Resolve Attacks section

"3. Allocate Wound: 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).",

Right. So wounding leads to allocation. But you can't make the reverse inference, that doesn't follow logically.

It does when mortal wounds states "just allocate it as you would any other wound"

Yes but you haven't shown that allocation causes wounding, just that wounding causes allocation.

Given that they state that allocation is allocating the wounds from attacks that have successfully wounded the target, I dispute your statement.

 doctortom wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Stux wrote:
The core rules as I read them say that being wounded causes the wound to be allocated. Not the other way around. So you can't say that allocating causes wounding.

Unless there's another passage I'm missing?

From the Resolve Attacks section

"3. Allocate Wound: 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).",

Right. So wounding leads to allocation. But you can't make the reverse inference, that doesn't follow logically.

It does when mortal wounds states "just allocate it as you would any other wound"

Yes but you haven't shown that allocation causes wounding, just that wounding causes allocation.

Given that they state that allocation is allocating the wounds from attacks that have successfully wounded the target, I dispute your statement.

Well you're free to dispute it, but it still seems very much to be an ambiguous issue that would require a house rule or roll off to resolve in game.

 Stux wrote:

Well you're free to dispute it, but it still seems very much to be an ambiguous issue that would require a house rule or roll off to resolve in game.

I don't see how it's ambiguous when the allocate wounds step flat out tells you that you are allocating wounds that have wounded a target. That means whenever you're using allocate wounds you are allocating wounds that have wounded a target. That doesn't seem ambiguous in the slightest, especially when the allocation of wounds is to allocate it like "any other:" wound - i.e. it's just another type of wound that wounds that target that you are allocating.

theres no ambiguity unless you start from a premise of invented rules.

He invented a rule that the cause of the wound matters and you have to roll (without any rules citation to support it)

your rational reading of the rule does not refute the very specific wording of his imagined rule

so no matter what you say as long as you answer is grounded in the rules he will say its ambiguous.

Everyone else and every TO will put more weight on the rules than on his imaginations unless he can cite them which he can't because they are made up.

 doctortom wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Well you're free to dispute it, but it still seems very much to be an ambiguous issue that would require a house rule or roll off to resolve in game.

I don't see how it's ambiguous when the allocate wounds step flat out tells you that you are allocating wounds that have wounded a target. That means whenever you're using allocate wounds you are allocating wounds that have wounded a target. That doesn't seem ambiguous in the slightest, especially when the allocation of wounds is to allocate it like "any other:" wound - i.e. it's just another type of wound that wounds that target that you are allocating.

It literally does not say they are wounding the target. It literally states you do not roll to wound and you just "allocate" like any other wound. It does not say that they wound like any other wound. You are making assumptions. They might want you to make this assumption but it is an assumption. Assumption is not RAW.
Everyone at my club plays it this way. SP can't be used against mortal wounds. I also vaguely remember when an errata come out there being a big stink about it working like this as well.

But it does say because you allocate successfull wounds what are they if not wounds.

All people have done is cite the rules and draw conclusions based on them. What is better an answer grounded in the rules with a small assumption based on dodgy GW wording vs completely made up rules not based on the wording.

Because really you and stux have only raised three points 1. is a made up rule about having to roll to wound no citation no evidence and so clearly wrong. 2. How you play it/want it to be played which is irrelevant to a rules question. How your local club plays it is clearly wrong under the rules might be fine as house rule you have agreed but its not what the rules say. 3. Ambiguity in the wording. The problem here is that while the language is not precise - at no point it defines a model being wounded. as in the allocation of successfull wounds its not a giant leap to say a model receiving a successful wound is wounded. Its why everyone else is going whats the ambiguity.

We also look for rules based alternative explanations in response to GW wording and their arn't any in this instance. No matter how you read it their is not another interpretation of the RAW that does not involve adding stuff that isnt part of the rules

You and stux have taken up half this thread but you have not come up with any rules citation offering an alternative and untill you do you have lost the argument

We can point to the raw and our interpretation of it you critice our interpretation but offer bo raw alternative so we win

You, and your side, made assumptions and interpretations as well. Just because a word and its variants (wound, wounds, wounded, mortal wound, etc.) is used multiple times in the rules doesnt mean they are all the same. Truth is they are not the same.

Only if you can substantiate that under the raw which you cant

And unless you can provide a raw alternative your complaint about assumptions is irrelevant

Of course I can. A mortal wound is different from a wound because the rules are different. The wound characteristic on a units datasheet is different from a wound caused by a weapon. Read the rules.

1) that is not a citation so is not RAW. So I accept your failure.

please provide a citation stateing a mortal wound is different to other wounds

2) acknowledged that a wound characteristic is different to a wound caused by a weapon i fail to see the relevance - are you saying that a mortal wound is the same as a wound characteristic on a datasheet

3) this is still not a rules citation based explanation of how to manage the situation even if you were right on these points which your not

4) if you want to find a rules citation I would consider reading the rules its a good place to find one.

 p5freak wrote:
Of course I can. A mortal wound is different from a wound because the rules are different. The wound characteristic on a units datasheet is different from a wound caused by a weapon. Read the rules.

Like any other wound, however, you follow the allocation rules, which indicate that this is what you do with attacks that have successfully wounded the target. The statement describing what wound allocationi is, coupled with the "like any other wound" statement for allocating mortal wounds does mot make it an assumption, but is GW pointing out that, like any other attack that wounds the target, you allocate mortal wounds that also wound the target.

 p5freak wrote:
Of course I can. A mortal wound is different from a wound because the rules are different. The wound characteristic on a units datasheet is different from a wound caused by a weapon. Read the rules.

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Of course I can. A mortal wound is different from a wound because the rules are different. The wound characteristic on a units datasheet is different from a wound caused by a weapon. Read the rules.

Like any other wound, however, you follow the allocation rules, which indicate that this is what you do with attacks that have successfully wounded the target. The statement describing what wound allocationi is, coupled with the "like any other wound" statement for allocating mortal wounds does mot make it an assumption, but is GW pointing out that, like any other attack that wounds the target, you allocate mortal wounds that also wound the target.

I think Stux countered this line of thinking quite well. You are making an inverse claim. Allocation in this case does not mean a mortal wound wounds like a regular wound. It just means it is allocated like a normal wound. Which leads us to the question. Why does a mortal wound need a clarification to how it is allocated? It needs a clarification because it does not wound like a regular wound. It does not wound at all. Wound is the trigger for SP.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Of course I can. A mortal wound is different from a wound because the rules are different. The wound characteristic on a units datasheet is different from a wound caused by a weapon. Read the rules.

Like any other wound, however, you follow the allocation rules, which indicate that this is what you do with attacks that have successfully wounded the target. The statement describing what wound allocationi is, coupled with the "like any other wound" statement for allocating mortal wounds does mot make it an assumption, but is GW pointing out that, like any other attack that wounds the target, you allocate mortal wounds that also wound the target.

I think Stux countered this line of thinking quite well. You are making an inverse claim. Allocation in this case does not mean a mortal wound wounds like a regular wound. It just means it is allocated like a normal wound. Which leads us to the question. Why does a mortal wound need a clarification to how it is allocated? It needs a clarification because it does not wound like a regular wound. It does not wound at all. Wound is the trigger for SP.

"like any other wound points out it is a type of wound. It needs "clarification" to point out it is a type of wound, just one you don't roll to wound or a save for. It is still part of the allocation process, which is for allocating wounds that (as the allocating wounds rules state) wound the target. They do damage like regular wounds except for not getting to save. You still wound the target, as per allocation rules.

Yes it is clarified the clarification is that it is a successful wound thats the RAW the fact it needed clarifying is irrelevant the clarification is clear and no alternative explanation has been stated useing a RAW quote.

Wrath of Mars generates mortal wounds from shooting attacks or melee attacks. They aren't generated by any other means using wrath of Mars.

When is a unit "wounded by an enemy attack", which is the condition for savior protocols? This really comes down to what you think "wounded" means, and the rules never actually define this term. So, its fully open to interpretation... hence this long debate!

If the answer is models are wounded when wounds are allocated, that means the target of the successful wound roll gets its armor save as usual and SP would only effect wounds which are allocated for failed saves. This would include mortal wounds, which are allocated as any other wounds.

If the answer is that a model is wounded once a successful wound roll is made, and before saves are rolled, this would not include mortal wounds. Mortal wounds are allocated as any other wound after a failed save, which means they inflict damage. Models could never be considered "wounded" by mortal wounds if "wounded" occurs after a wound roll and before a savings throw.

Again, this is entirely open to interpretation as the term is not defined. To me, it is clear that the more logical interpretation is that mortal wounds could not be saved by savior protocols.

On a side note I wish the sequence was roll to hit, then roll to save, then roll to wound. That seems so much more logical - what is being wounded if the armor stops the shot? The bullet leaves the gun, hits the target, pierces armor and only then should the target's toughness come into play.

except there is nowhere it says a roll is required. Not one player has provided any quote to support that. sure you can argue whether its allocation or a successful wound that is required but mortal wounds have been evidenced as both.

2. Wound Roll: If an attack scores
a hit, you will then need to roll
another dice to see if the attack
successfully wounds the target.

A roll is required to see if the attack successfully wounds the target. And it says wound roll. You must roll to wound. Mortal wounds dont roll to wound. Therefore mortal wounds arent wounds.

 p5freak wrote:

2. Wound Roll: If an attack scores
a hit, you will then need to roll
another dice to see if the attack
successfully wounds the target.

A roll is required to see if the attack successfully wounds the target. And it says wound roll. You must roll to wound. Mortal wounds dont roll to wound. Therefore mortal wounds arent wounds.

From the Resolve Attacks section

"3. Allocate Wound: 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)."

Wounds that are allocated are wounds that have successfully wounded the target. Mortal wounds are like other wounds in the wound allocation process, which is allocating wounds that have wounded the target.

As ridiculous as this conversation is, there's one thing that crossed my mind. Mortal Wounds don't roll to wound. They go straight to allocation. Allocation says "If an attack successfully wounds a target... allocates the wound." So unsuccessful wounds don't get allocated. Seems easy enough. So it seems there are 2 options here.

1. MWs successfully wound. They get allocated. No save because specific rules of MWs.

2. MWs don't actually wound. Because they don't wound, as per the allocation rules we're told to follow, they can't be allocated, and don't do anything in 40k.

The rules are not 110% clear (because GW), but I know which of the above sounds more reasonable to me and my group. Unless I'm off the mark here somewhere? But this back and forth "This is false," "No, this is false," "False," is really, really tiresome. Accept that no one will change their minds until GW puts something out and give it a rest already.


(As for the two options above, I would not actually be surprised if RAW turned out to be option 2. BCB's post history has pointed out how badly written rules are from GW. But even if that is the case, no one actually plays so strictly that Assault weapons have no use, but thems the RAW. )

I don't think the resolves attacks section here is relevant. Mortal wounds are a special attack that has their own specific instructions on how to resolve them.

Do not make a wound roll or a save roll.
Allocate them like you would any other wound.


It's a pretty simple FAQ question to fix. Can SP be used against mortal wounds? You can flip a coin to determine what they will say because they don't even understand their own rules.