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 I target a astra militarum unit of ten men with executioner and get 3 mortal wounds. Does it kill 3 troopers plus another d3 troopers?



If manifested, the nearest enemy unit within 18" of the
psyker suffers D3 mortal wounds. If a model in the
target unit is slain as a result of this, the target units
suffers an additional D3 mortal wounds.

Correct

Ideally it should say 'If at least one model in the target unit is slain...'. I can see how it could be interpreted in other ways but I am pretty sure that the intention is for it to work as your descirbe.

There have been people who attempt to use that kind of logic in the past.

However it is perfectly valid English for instance if you have 3 apples and someone asks "do you have an apple?" to truthfully answer yes. Because you have an apple, and two additional apples too.

Same deal here. They are using "a" to mean at least one.

 Bilge Rat wrote:
Ideally it should say 'If at least one model in the target unit is slain...'. I can see how it could be interpreted in other ways but I am pretty sure that the intention is for it to work as your descirbe.

Agreed. Less room for argument.

Thanks all.

Wasnt quite sure if a Smite/Executioner damage from the d3 roll only went onto 1 model from a unit, so could only effect 1 model.

VAYASEN wrote:
Thanks all.

Wasnt quite sure if a Smite/Executioner damage from the d3 roll only went onto 1 model from a unit, so could only effect 1 model.

Mortal Wounds always roll over from one model to the next.
'Normal' Wounds do not and can overkill.

 Ordana wrote:

VAYASEN wrote:
Thanks all.

Wasnt quite sure if a Smite/Executioner damage from the d3 roll only went onto 1 model from a unit, so could only effect 1 model.

Mortal Wounds always roll over from one model to the next.
'Normal' Wounds do not and can overkill.

thanks, that explains it very well (had overlooked that it was that simple)

It's not so much that they roll over, it's that each mortal wound is a separate 1 damage attack. That's the best way to help understand how mortal wounds work.

Could an argument be made for "each time a model from a unit is slain by this, the unit suffers d3 mortal wounds"?

I don't have a horse in the race but I'd like to know if it could be interpreted that way for my own curiosity.

I suppose it would have to say "When" rather than "If" for that to work?

That's not how GW parse rules.

Essentially it's another case of "a" meaning one or more, when used in this context.

They would likely word it as "For each model slain..." or something along those lines if they wanted that effect.

 Stux wrote:
That's not how GW parse rules.

Essentially it's another case of "a" meaning one or more, when used in this context.

They would likely word it as "For each model slain..." or something along those lines if they wanted that effect.

Yes, I know that's not at all how the rule works because GW doesn't talk that way. But I want to know if it's parsable that way at all, for my own curiosity of English.

Well, English is often a bit elastic. It's a bit of a stretch, but I see what you're saying. If I squint a bit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Stux wrote:
That's not how GW parse rules.

Essentially it's another case of "a" meaning one or more, when used in this context.

They would likely word it as "For each model slain..." or something along those lines if they wanted that effect.

Yes, I know that's not at all how the rule works because GW doesn't talk that way. But I want to know if it's parsable that way at all, for my own curiosity of English.

No. it would have to say something like "for each" to be parseable that way.