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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think the resolves attacks section here is relevant.

Except it is because mortal wounds are allocated like any other wound.

Mortal wounds are a special attack that has their own specific instructions on how to resolve them.

Yea, you resolve them like any other wound...

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

Exactly, you need to allocate them like any other wound, and unsuccessful wounds don't get allocated, only successful wounds don't get allocated, therefore mortal wounds do would the target, just like any other wound, so you can make a SP roll for them.

I have emailed GW at their 40k FAQ email, now we have to wait until december, lets hope we get an answer on this.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think the resolves attacks section here is relevant.

Except it is because mortal wounds are allocated like any other wound.

Mortal wounds are a special attack that has their own specific instructions on how to resolve them.

Yea, you resolve them like any other wound...

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

Exactly, you need to allocate them like any other wound, and unsuccessful wounds don't get allocated, only successful wounds don't get allocated, therefore mortal wounds do would the target, just like any other wound, so you can make a SP roll for them.

Being wounded is not explicitly in the definition of what a wound is, so we don't know if it is part of what any other wound does or if it is part of what a wound roll does.

This same line you keeping parroting is totally meaningless to the discussion, stop it.

Until we get more clarification, roll off on it.

 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.

That doesnt show that you need to roll a dice that prooves the opposite.

By rolling a dice you successfully wound that is all

We have already shown mortal wounds sucessfully wound ergo there is no difference between them


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think the resolves attacks section here is relevant.

Except it is because mortal wounds are allocated like any other wound.

Mortal wounds are a special attack that has their own specific instructions on how to resolve them.

Yea, you resolve them like any other wound...

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

Exactly, you need to allocate them like any other wound, and unsuccessful wounds don't get allocated, only successful wounds don't get allocated, therefore mortal wounds do would the target, just like any other wound, so you can make a SP roll for them.

Being wounded is not explicitly in the definition of what a wound is, so we don't know if it is part of what any other wound does or if it is part of what a wound roll does.

This same line you keeping parroting is totally meaningless to the discussion, stop it.

Until we get more clarification, roll off on it.

The wound roll as quoted early only leads to a sucessfull wound which mortal wounds are.

What in the wording would indicate it was different

It does not need to explicitly say "the definition of what a wound is" it is defined in the process, and that is what we go by.

This same line you keeping parroting is totally meaningless to the discussion, stop it.

It really is not meaningless so there is no reason to stop.

because you do not agree but have no citations to counter it is not a reason for me to stop, since I have the rules agreeing with me.

U02dah4 wrote:

That doesnt show that you need to roll a dice that prooves the opposite.

What ?? It literally says you will need to roll another dice to see if it wounds.

U02dah4 wrote:

By rolling a dice you successfully wound that is all

So now you successfully wound just by rolling a dice ? Even if you roll a 1 ?

 p5freak wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

That doesnt show that you need to roll a dice that prooves the opposite.

What ?? It literally says you will need to roll another dice to see if it wounds.

U02dah4 wrote:

By rolling a dice you successfully wound that is all

So now you successfully wound just by rolling a dice ? Even if you roll a 1 ?

It says you need to roll a dice to see if it "sucessfully wounds"

We know mortal wounds "sucessfully wound" through allocation

So we know that end result of the dice rolling ends up at an identical place to where the mortal wounds start

Their is no difference shown between a "successful wound" dice rolling and a "successful wound" allocation/ mortal wounds

Of course rolling a 1 doesn't make you successfull your being deliberately obtuse. You can successfully roll to get a successful wound however you can also be successful by auto wounding eg. Mortal wounds. Thats all that quote shows.

Just because A causes B doesnt mean C can't cause B as well and there is no reason to support a different process in that quote given they both create successful wounds (identical wording) no one is questioning that you can successfully wound by rolling.

 Stux wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I don't think the resolves attacks section here is relevant.

Except it is because mortal wounds are allocated like any other wound.

Mortal wounds are a special attack that has their own specific instructions on how to resolve them.

Yea, you resolve them like any other wound...

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

Exactly, you need to allocate them like any other wound, and unsuccessful wounds don't get allocated, only successful wounds don't get allocated, therefore mortal wounds do would the target, just like any other wound, so you can make a SP roll for them.

Being wounded is not explicitly in the definition of what a wound is, so we don't know if it is part of what any other wound does or if it is part of what a wound roll does.

This same line you keeping parroting is totally meaningless to the discussion, stop it.

Until we get more clarification, roll off on it.

Wounds that have successfully wounded the target are by definiteion allocated in the allocate wounds step, however.

The line he is repeating is not meaningless at all.

We know a wound roll only determines whether a wound is successfull that is all it does under RAW

If a successfull wound is what is required for a model to be wounded then both mw and rolled wounds are successfull.

If its the roll there are two questions which bit of the RAW quote is differentiated and exactly when does the differentiation occur

We know it cant be at the successfull part after seeing the outcome as theirs no reason to differentiate mortal wounds once successfull.

So it has to be before maybe when the dice are in motion if being actually rolled is important. Of course we then wouldnt no the outcome of the dice as they may or not be successfull till we view the result so are we looking at shrodingers roll which by common sense doesn't work. Maybe my opponent should apply SP while the dice are in motion.

Unless one of the advocates can present an alternative

In a sense one definition of wounded is successfull wounds and yields both a clear point it occurs and answer

The other definition is before then during the roll but you cant seperate why this distiction occurs under RAW and when exactly this occurs as at the roll is vague after it your back to the top definition and during you would include fail results

So we are back to one definition being based in the RAW and giving you a functional clear answer with a small asumption

And the other being asserted without a clear raw reason to justify it, with timing that doesnt work/make logical sense when examined.

So we don't roll for it because we are not weighing up equally evidenced and functional options.

Fate caster greatbows ignore the wound step on a 6 to hit, Iirc so do the infiltrator bolters.

I'm fairly certain that the lack of having to roll to wound for an attack with a weapon doesn't change that it was an attack from a weapon that wounded

I'm 100% certain the RAW states to allocate mortal wounds as you would any other wound. If a normal wound can be SPed than a MW which is allocated in the same way can be SPed.


MW from wrath if Mars are generated as a result of the attack sequence for a weapon.

I am certain that MW, in addition to a weapons damage, are not "normal damage". They are separate. MW "are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury." A tiny drone wouldnt be able to intercept MW, and MW in addition are not part of the weapons normal damage.

Of course i have no RAW to back this up, its HIWPI. Just like there is no RAW saying that a MW is a wound. Just because MW are allocated like any other wound is no proof that its a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.

If a <SEPT> INFANTRY or <SEPT> BATTLESUIT unit within 3" of a friendly <SEPT> DRONES unit is wounded by an enemy attack, roll a D6. On a 2+ you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.

 p5freak wrote:
I am certain that MW, in addition to a weapons damage, are not "normal damage". They are separate. MW "are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury." A tiny drone wouldnt be able to intercept MW, and MW in addition are not part of the weapons normal damage.

Of course i have no RAW to back this up, its HIWPI. Just like there is no RAW saying that a MW is a wound.

False, we have proven that "a MW is a wound." Do you have any rules quotes that disprove what we have quoted?

Just because MW are allocated like any other wound is no proof that its a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.

False. as we have shown a MW is a wound as it is allocated like any other wound.

If a <SEPT> INFANTRY or <SEPT> BATTLESUIT unit within 3" of a friendly <SEPT> DRONES unit is wounded by an enemy attack, roll a D6. On a 2+ you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.

I do not understand your point here.

Normal damage for a MW is 1 damage. The SP rule makes them take a MW instead of the normal damage, which in this case is 1 MW/1 damage...

Dude you don't need to question it he admited his argument was incorrect when he said no RAW to back it up.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I am certain that MW, in addition to a weapons damage, are not "normal damage". They are separate. MW "are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury." A tiny drone wouldnt be able to intercept MW, and MW in addition are not part of the weapons normal damage.

Of course i have no RAW to back this up, its HIWPI. Just like there is no RAW saying that a MW is a wound.

False, we have proven that "a MW is a wound." Do you have any rules quotes that disprove what we have quoted?

Just because MW are allocated like any other wound is no proof that its a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.

False. as we have shown a MW is a wound as it is allocated like any other wound.

No, you dont. Just because its allocated like any other wound doesnt make it a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.

Every relevant quote is on page one of this thread. Nothing new is being presented here. The RAW do not define when a model is wounded or what that means. Mortal wounds allocate damage as any other wounds, but that has absolutely nothing to do with weather or not they wounded the target. The rules do not say they do and as my logical interpretation is that wounded occurs after a failed wound roll and before an armor save, I would play it as such. If wounded meant a successful wounds that is allocated as damage, you would roll for the targets save before SP even comes into play. You can't have it both ways.

I have a model who is currently at 3 wounds. He started the game at 4. Is he wounded? No, he is damaged. Allocated wounds cause damage. He may have been wounded at some point in the past to get to this stage, however. When did that occur? The rules do not define this. I would say wounded means when a roll to wound is successful, because that is a logical use of the word. Mortal wounds are a completely different thing with their own rules which ignore that step.

Orbei wrote:
Every relevant quote is on page one of this thread. Nothing new is being presented here. The RAW do not define when a model is wounded or what that means. Mortal wounds allocate damage as any other wounds, but that has absolutely nothing to do with weather or not they wounded the target. The rules do not say they do and as my logical interpretation is that wounded occurs after a failed wound roll and before an armor save, I would play it as such. If wounded meant a successful wounds that is allocated as damage, you would roll for the targets save before SP even comes into play. You can't have it both ways.

I have a model who is currently at 3 wounds. He started the game at 4. Is he wounded? No, he is damaged. Allocated wounds cause damage. He was wounded at some point in the past to get to this stage, however. When did that occur? The rules do not define this. I would say wounded means when a roll to wound is successful, because that is a logical use of the word. Mortal wounds are a completely different thing with their own rules which ignore that step.

Problem is between the roll to wound and the saving throw/damage steps as you highlight their is a step its called the allocate wound step. Its here successful wounds are allocated if successful wounds = wounded then both MW and normal wounds count. The definition of wounded not being that a wound is allocated but that a wound is "successful" as only "successful wounds" are allocated in this step. Your making a solid case that it occurs prior to saving throw as damage however that only narrows it down to before step 4 and after step 2 (the wound allocation step)

When you say there is no definition of wounded but then say allocation of successful wounds doesn't matter you are defining wounded as needing a successful wound roll however you have not separated why a "successful wound roll" is needed and not just a "successful wound". Why is a "successful wound roll" any more logical than a "successful wound". Especially given that the wound roll section tells you a wound roll generates "successful wounds" not successful wound rolls. It sounds far less logical in that its not consistent with the wording, just more consistent with your assumption.

Your essentially back to these successful wounds are ok but these successful wounds are not ok - because logic (but I have no RAW to differentiate them so basis on which to use logic) it just makes sense to me. VS Successful wounds = Wounded providing a clear logical answer that makes sense under RAW.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I am certain that MW, in addition to a weapons damage, are not "normal damage". They are separate. MW "are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury." A tiny drone wouldnt be able to intercept MW, and MW in addition are not part of the weapons normal damage.

Of course i have no RAW to back this up, its HIWPI. Just like there is no RAW saying that a MW is a wound.

False, we have proven that "a MW is a wound." Do you have any rules quotes that disprove what we have quoted?

Just because MW are allocated like any other wound is no proof that its a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.

False. as we have shown a MW is a wound as it is allocated like any other wound.

No, you dont. Just because its allocated like any other wound doesnt make it a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.

You allocate it like any other wound, so you are allocating a type of wound that susseffully wounded the target like any other wound, as per the definition given for what you are doing when you allocate wounds, and MW stating you follow the allocate wounds procedure like any other wound (which means you're not just using the mechanic, they are treated as wounding the target just like normal wounds.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I am certain that MW, in addition to a weapons damage, are not "normal damage". They are separate. MW "are so powerful that no armour or force field can withstand their fury." A tiny drone wouldnt be able to intercept MW, and MW in addition are not part of the weapons normal damage.

Of course i have no RAW to back this up, its HIWPI. Just like there is no RAW saying that a MW is a wound.

False, we have proven that "a MW is a wound." Do you have any rules quotes that disprove what we have quoted?

Just because MW are allocated like any other wound is no proof that its a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.

False. as we have shown a MW is a wound as it is allocated like any other wound.

No, you dont. Just because its allocated like any other wound doesnt make it a wound, thats speculation. There is no RAW saying a MW is a wound.

And there is where your argument falls apart.

Something being allocated like any other wound makes it exactly like any other wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:

And there is where your argument falls apart.

Something being allocated like any other wound makes it exactly like any other wound.

No. It cant be the same when it has different rules.

"Peel a lemon as you would any other citrus fruit."

"An lemon isn't a citrus fruit because it looks different than an orange and is sour!"

^ what this argument basically boils down to.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

And there is where your argument falls apart.

Something being allocated like any other wound makes it exactly like any other wound.

No. It cant be the same when it has different rules.

We have addressed this, your argument is not correct, because the rules literally say that mw's are just like any other wound.

It can be still a wound, and wound the target, even if it has different rules on how it causes that wound.

It still is allocated like any other wound and it wounds like any other wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:
We have addressed this, your argument is not correct, because the rules literally say that mw's are just like any other wound.

That is not what the rules are literally saying. Please cite from the MW wound rule where it literally says that MW are just like any other wound. Its quite the opposite. It literally says : "Do not make a wound roll." You cant wound when you dont make a wound roll. A wound roll is required to successfully wound.

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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

It can be still a wound, and wound the target, even if it has different rules on how it causes that wound.

Yes, it can. But it isnt. A wound roll is required to successfully wound. MW dont roll to wound.

 DeathReaper wrote:

It still is allocated like any other wound and it wounds like any other wound.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
We have addressed this, your argument is not correct, because the rules literally say that mw's are just like any other wound.

That is not what the rules are literally saying. Please cite from the MW wound rule where it literally says that MW are just like any other wound. Its quite the opposite. It literally says : "Do not make a wound roll." You cant wound when you dont make a wound roll.

False. We have shown that mw's wound. Mw's do not need to roll to wound, they are any other wound, so they have already wounded the target. You allocate it like any other wound, so you are allocating a type of wound that successfully wounded the target like any other wound.

A wound roll is required to successfully wound.

False, See above.

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.

And MW's say that you do not need to make a wound roll, you just allocate it like any other wound. This implies that it has already successfully wounded in lieu of a to wound roll.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

It can be still a wound, and wound the target, even if it has different rules on how it causes that wound.

Yes, it can. But it isnt. A wound roll is required to successfully wound. MW dont roll to wound.

And they do not need to as they wound automatically.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

It still is allocated like any other wound and it wounds like any other wound.

MWs dont wound. Please cite from the MW rule where it says that it wounds like any other wound. Its quite the opposite. It literally says : "Do not make a wound roll." You cant wound when you dont make a wound roll. A wound roll is required in order to successfully wound.

False, see above.

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
"Peel a lemon as you would any other citrus fruit."

"An lemon isn't a citrus fruit because it looks different than an orange and is sour!"

^ what this argument basically boils down to.

Pretty much but thats the impact of RAW VS RAI one argument is inevitably evidenced and one argument is inevitably based on the beliefs of the individual and so is self evidently wrong but the individual wont accept it because its based on their belief.

You have provided no evidence. I have provided rule citation that a dice roll is required to successfully wound. You havent provided any rule citation that a MW auto wounds. Thats speculation.

Yawn - point made about not accepting evidence based on belief.

You have provided no evidence as to the "required" You have only demonstrated that wounds that are rolled for are successfull which is irrelevant. As This does not in anyway change the clear quotes from others and myself showing that mortal wounds are also successful wounds etc etc.

 p5freak wrote:
You have provided no evidence.

False we have provided evidence, but I will summarize so you can see the rules references all at once.

All of the following quotes are from the 40K Battle Primer and are in cyan

Premise 1) Attacks that score a hit need to roll to wound. "If an attack scores a hit, you will then need to roll another dice to see if the attack successfully wounds the target." (P.7 Wound Roll section).

So we know after you hit, you need to roll to wound to successfully wound the target.

Premise 2) If the roll to successfully wound the target fails then you do not do anything else. "If the roll is less than the required number, the attack fails and the attack sequence ends." (P.7 Wound Roll section).

So we know that only attacks that successfully wound the target move on to the next step. There is a chart on that page that shows you what you need to roll be successful.

Premise 3) All attacks that successfully wound are allocated. "If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit..." (P.7 Allocate Wound section).

So now we know that we allocate all successful wounds.

Premise 4) Mortal wounds are allocated like any other wound. "...just allocate it as you would any other wound..." (P.7 Mortal Wounds section).

So we know that, like any other wound, a mortal wound is allocated and as such must have wounded the target because a mortal wound is like any other wound at the allocation step.

Clear rules that shows your argument is not correct.

I have provided rule citation that a dice roll is required to successfully wound..

And mortal wounds specify that you skip the roll to wound.

You havent provided any rule citation that a MW auto wounds. Thats speculation.

It is not speculation, it is actual rules. A mortal wound is allocated just like any other wound, and must have been a successful wound, as failed wounds do not get allocated and there are only failed and successful wounds.

 p5freak wrote:
You have provided no evidence. I have provided rule citation that a dice roll is required to successfully wound. You havent provided any rule citation that a MW auto wounds. Thats speculation.

We have provided wules citations that show mortal wounds are allocated like any other wound and that allocation is the allocation of wounds that have wounded the target. DeathReaper has provided the quotations again for the umpteenth time in this thread. You seem hidebound in insisting that it must say in the mortal wound sidebar that it wounds targets...which is does, in a way, by saying they are allocated like any OTHER wound. You do not want to accept this, however, and then argue in bad faith by stating that we have provided no evidence.


Flandarz has your argument nailed down perfectly.

 flandarz wrote:
"Peel a lemon as you would any other citrus fruit."

"An lemon isn't a citrus fruit because it looks different than an orange and is sour!"

^ what this argument basically boils down to.

This.

I suppose it comes down to what you're focusing on. If you're focused on mortal wounds being allocated like any other wound, and you consider that to mean the model is wounded, then SP would come into effect. If you're focused on a model being wounded after a successful wound roll, and mortal wounds specifically say to skip that step, a model is never in the 'wounded' stage when SP takes place (after wound roll and before armor saves).

We know that SP takes place after the savings throw stage of resolving attacks - you don't get to roll the save and then pass on to a drone. But mortal wounds skip that step entirely, they go right to damaging whatever they were allocated to.

So, when exactly is a model wounded? The term is never defined and I have yet to see anyone give a clear answer. Its all interpretation. I can see why people would think a mortal wound counts, but the other side's arguments as presented way back on page 1 read as correct to me when looking at the resolve attacks sequence. Targets are successfully wounded after a wound roll, which mortal wounds do not do. They go straight to allocation.

Orbei wrote:
So, when exactly is a model wounded? The term is never defined and I have yet to see anyone give a clear answer. Its all interpretation. I can see why people would think a mortal wound counts, but the other side's arguments as presented way back on page 1 read as correct to me when looking at the resolve attacks sequence. Targets are successfully wounded after a wound roll, which mortal wounds do not do. They go straight to allocation.

Which does not matter because...

Saviour Protocols says:

If a <SEPT> INFANTRY or <SEPT> BATTLESUIT unit within 3" of a friendly <SEPT> DRONES unit is wounded by an enemy attack, roll a D6. On a 2+ you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target. If you do, that Drones unit suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage.

This literally says to "roll a D6. On a 2+ you can allocate that wound to the Drones unit instead of the target."

This deals with using the ability instead of allocating the wound to the unit with Saviour Protocols. You allocate to the Drone unit instead if you roll a 2+.