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.

I got a friend who is running Tesla Carbine Immortals, and we need to know if the carbines trigger on 5s under overwatch if they are under the effect of My Will be Done.

"Each hit roll of 6+ with this weapon causes 3 hits instead of 1."

For me, it clearly should not because overwatch only hits on 6s, so 5s shouldn't be considered hits.

His reasoning for why it should was because plasma kills models on hit rolls of 1, so if the weapon ability works in that case it should work on Tesla Carbines.

I didn't really have a good answer to that.

No, because you can not get 3 hits instead of 1, if you do not even have 1.

cjmate8 wrote:
I got a friend who is running Tesla Carbine Immortals, and we need to know if the carbines trigger on 5s under overwatch if they are under the effect of My Will be Done.

"Each hit roll of 6+ with this weapon causes 3 hits instead of 1."

For me, it clearly should not because overwatch only hits on 6s, so 5s shouldn't be considered hits.

His reasoning for why it should was because plasma kills models on hit rolls of 1, so if the weapon ability works in that case it should work on Tesla Carbines.

I didn't really have a good answer to that.

Oh boy here we go again! This has been debated to death before, I'll leave you the previous two threads on the subject and leave it at that before it goes ploin-shaped again.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/776383.page#10468740
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/785388.page#10714881
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, because you can not get 3 hits instead of 1, if you do not even have 1.

Incorrect, as shown in the two threads I linked. Tesla does work with MWBD on a 5+ in overwatch, for the exact same reason as Plasma explodes on 2's with -1 to hit in overwatch. At least have the intelectual honesty to link the previous discussions about it rather than present your (incorrect) statement as indisputable fact.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

cjmate8 wrote:
I got a friend who is running Tesla Carbine Immortals, and we need to know if the carbines trigger on 5s under overwatch if they are under the effect of My Will be Done.

"Each hit roll of 6+ with this weapon causes 3 hits instead of 1."

For me, it clearly should not because overwatch only hits on 6s, so 5s shouldn't be considered hits.

His reasoning for why it should was because plasma kills models on hit rolls of 1, so if the weapon ability works in that case it should work on Tesla Carbines.

I didn't really have a good answer to that.

Oh boy here we go again! This has been debated to death before, I'll leave you the previous two threads on the subject and leave it at that before it goes ploin-shaped again.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/776383.page#10468740
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/785388.page#10714881
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, because you can not get 3 hits instead of 1, if you do not even have 1.

Incorrect, as shown in the two threads I linked. Tesla does work with MWBD on a 5+ in overwatch, for the exact same reason as Plasma explodes on 2's with -1 to hit in overwatch. At least have the intelectual honesty to link the previous discussions about it rather than present your (incorrect) statement as indisputable fact.

Thanks. Sorry for not looking this up in advance. It was so fringe that I didn't even think someone would have mentioned it before.

cjmate8 wrote:
Thanks. Sorry for not looking this up in advance. It was so fringe that I didn't even think someone would have mentioned it before.

Nah, no worries. It is pretty niche, +1 to hit in Overwatch only really has any effects with Necrons, not much else triggers on 6+ to hit.

Don’t take the posts above as consensus. As previous threads show, not everyone agrees with BCB.

For me, the answer is clearly as the OP posits: you cannot score “3 hits instead of 1” if you don’t hit in the first place. That’s self-evident, and is the literal wording of the rules applied literally. Everything else in these threads is just stapling rules together to try and fudge an advantage.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Don’t take the posts above as consensus. As previous threads show, not everyone agrees with BCB.

It is because what he said is not correct. It is a line of reasoning he has presented and had refuted before. A roll of 5 does not hit in overwatch. Even though GW faqed that impossible replacements are possible, that is only for those impossible replacements in those FAQ's and does not have anything to do with getting 3 hits instead of 1. They are totally different situations

For me, the answer is clearly as the OP posits: you cannot score “3 hits instead of 1” if you don’t hit in the first place. That’s self-evident, and is the literal wording of the rules applied literally. Everything else in these threads is just stapling rules together to try and fudge an advantage.

Correct.


Basically:

Based on this Q&A from the Harlequins' FAQ:

"Q: How does the Riddle-smiths Masque Form interact with abilities that generate additional attacks or score additional hits?
A: If a unit has an ability that generates extra attacks on a roll that exactly matches the result of a Riddle-smiths roll, the extra attack is generated. Note that the original attack still misses, and if the hit roll for the extra attack also matches the result of the Riddle-smiths roll, it also misses. Likewise, if a weapon has an ability that scores additional hits on a roll that exactly matches the result of a Riddle-smiths roll, it would score those additional hits, but they’d all miss."

When a +1 modifier is applied to Tesla on Overwatch: A Natural 5 is a miss of the Overwatch Shot. Since the ability still needs to be resolved and that Natural 5 becomes a Modified 6, triggering the "3 hits instead of 1" but since the 1 Hit Missed, the modified 3 hits also miss.

So even if you did get 3 hits on a 5, they would all still miss.

The FAQ for Masque Form only applies to Masque Form, because additional hits (no longer) match the original roll by default, so they had to FAQ the additional hit to miss because otherwise it would hit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The FAQ for Masque Form only applies to Masque Form, because additional hits (no longer) match the original roll by default, so they had to FAQ the additional hit to miss because otherwise it would hit.

And other FAQ's apply to the other situations , not to carbines.

There is no FAQ for carbines so since it says 3 hits instead of 1, you need to have 1 hit before you can have 3.

This is just how the english language works.
.

Every precedent I've seen indicates that, in 40k, effects that occur "instead of" are not strict replacement effects, but simply mean "do this other thing, and the other thing can't happen".

Effects with "on a hit/wound roll of X+, cause a mortal wound instead of the normal damage" deal the mortal wound even if you don't do damage in the first place. If we were to use the same logic you are using to justify tesla not working, then those effects wouldn't work at all, because you would have to hit, wound, and fail the save roll so damage happens, then replace that damage with a mortal wound, but that's not how it works. Similar effects have been worded like "on a hit/wound roll of X+, the target receives a mortal wound and the attack sequence ends" in recent supplements for clarity, but the way they work is exactly the same. This alone proves that these kind of abilities are not replacement effects.

In the same way, faqs clearly state that you can use smoke "instead of shooting" even if you can't shoot, and that "instead of shooting" means "you can use smoke launchers, but in that case you can't shoot".

Because of that, you don't need to actually hit in the first place to get "3 hits instead", because it's not a replacement effect. Same as before, " causes 3 hits instead of one" means "causes 3 hits, and the normal hit can't happen".

 DeathReaper wrote:

There is no FAQ for carbines so since it says 3 hits instead of 1, you need to have 1 hit before you can have 3.

This is just how the english language works.
.

Agreed.

I mean, we only just came out of an edition (7th) where snapshooting (e.g. Overwatch) didn’t even get extra hits on a natural 6.

sieGermans wrote:
I mean, we only just came out of an edition (7th) where snapshooting (e.g. Overwatch) didn’t even get extra hits on a natural 6.

Only just? It's been 3 years nearly!

Seizeman wrote:
Every precedent I've seen indicates that, in 40k, effects that occur "instead of" are not strict replacement effects, but simply mean "do this other thing, and the other thing can't happen".

Effects with "on a hit/wound roll of X+, cause a mortal wound instead of the normal damage" deal the mortal wound even if you don't do damage in the first place. If we were to use the same logic you are using to justify tesla not working, then those effects wouldn't work at all, because you would have to hit, wound, and fail the save roll so damage happens, then replace that damage with a mortal wound, but that's not how it works. Similar effects have been worded like "on a hit/wound roll of X+, the target receives a mortal wound and the attack sequence ends" in recent supplements for clarity, but the way they work is exactly the same. This alone proves that these kind of abilities are not replacement effects.

In the same way, faqs clearly state that you can use smoke "instead of shooting" even if you can't shoot, and that "instead of shooting" means "you can use smoke launchers, but in that case you can't shoot".

Because of that, you don't need to actually hit in the first place to get "3 hits instead", because it's not a replacement effect. Same as before, " causes 3 hits instead of one" means "causes 3 hits, and the normal hit can't happen".

That’s a gross misapplication of the Smoke Launchers FAQ, it in no way applies. But we’ve been over this in several threads yet people keep twisting it. Not to worry. New edition inbound and new daft arguments to have...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

There is no FAQ for carbines so since it says 3 hits instead of 1, you need to have 1 hit before you can have 3.

This is just how the english language works.
.

Agreed.

Yep, agreed.

That’s a gross misapplication of the Smoke Launchers FAQ, it in no way applies. But we’ve been over this in several threads yet people keep twisting it. Not to worry. New edition inbound and new daft arguments to have...

How about the other example? According to you, weapons that do mortal wounds instead of normal damage have to wound and the save must be failed for them to work, making them useless? I've shown two examples of how "instead" works within the rules, do you have one that supports your interpretation?

I mean, one of your arguments goes against the English language, and one is using precedent but not an actual ruling. I don’t think they have the weight you think they have.

How about people don’t overthink and try and twist things for once and apply the rule as written at face value, eh? You cannot score “three hits instead of one” if you don’t have a hit in the first place. That’s a rules argument, has been stated several times, do stop being disingenuous in an attempt to wind people up. Play nice.

The use of "instead" in english does not require the substituted event to happen in the first place.

So, the next time my opponent uses one of those weapons with "deal a mortal wound instead of the normal damage" I can just tell them that, rules as written, those abilities actually do nothing?

Seizeman wrote:
The use of "instead" in english does not require the substituted event to happen in the first place.

So, the next time my opponent uses one of those weapons with "deal a mortal wound instead of the normal damage" I can just tell them that, rules as written, those abilities actually do nothing?

What are you talking about ? A weapon which deals a MW instead of the normal damage skips the to wound and save roll step and directly inflicts one point of damage. It has nothing to do with tesla and overwatch.

Smoke launchers work in the opponents shooting phase. Doesnt matter if some people like it, or not. Which also has nothing to do with tesla and overwatch.

 p5freak wrote:

Seizeman wrote:
The use of "instead" in english does not require the substituted event to happen in the first place.

So, the next time my opponent uses one of those weapons with "deal a mortal wound instead of the normal damage" I can just tell them that, rules as written, those abilities actually do nothing?

What are you talking about ? A weapon which deals a MW instead of the normal damage skips the to wound and save roll step and directly inflicts one point of damage. It has nothing to do with tesla and overwatch.

Smoke launchers work in the opponents shooting phase. Doesnt matter if some people like it, or not. Which also has nothing to do with tesla and overwatch.

If, to deal "three hits instead of one", you need a hit in the first place, to deal "a mortal wound instead of normal damage", you need normal damage in the first place.

It’s not my job for you to provide a sounding board for you to try and legitimise your take.

I’ve stated my case above and this is descending into silliness. If we have to apply 2 unrelated FAQs that aren’t even precedent to make you take work, vs just reading and applying the plain English of the rules... yeah.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s not my job for you to provide a sounding board for you to try and legitimise your take.

I’ve stated my case above and this is descending into silliness. If we have to apply 2 unrelated FAQs that aren’t even precedent to make you take work, vs just reading and applying the plain English of the rules... yeah.

So doing something instead of some other thing on 6+ to hit and doing something instead of some other thing on 6+ to hit are unrelated? Who's being silly now?

Can you show wich rule in the english language requieres something to actually happen to be replaced by something else?

You resorting to personal attacks shows your lack of arguments.

Seizeman wrote:

If, to deal "three hits instead of one", you need a hit in the first place, to deal "a mortal wound instead of normal damage", you need normal damage in the first place.

Your argument is silly and makes no sense. MW are special, they skip the to wound and to save step, and directly inflict one point of damage. They cant do normal damage, and they dont have to. You are misinterpreting the word instead. This has nothing to do with tesla and overwatch.

There are no personal attacks in my post. Just holes in your argument pointed out. All my points stand.

 p5freak wrote:

Seizeman wrote:

If, to deal "three hits instead of one", you need a hit in the first place, to deal "a mortal wound instead of normal damage", you need normal damage in the first place.

Your argument is silly and makes no sense. MW are special, they skip the to wound and to save step, and directly inflict one point of damage. They cant do normal damage, and they dont have to. You are misinterpreting the word instead. This has nothing to do with tesla and overwatch.

It's not the MW that deals normal damage, it's that the MW replaces the normal damage. How can it replace normal damage if no normal damage has been dealt? You said that tesla doesn't work because you can't replace something that doesn't happen, and this is just the same.

Rules as written (with your interpretation), the mortal wound only replaces the normal damage. Nowhere is stated that it replaces the whole attack sequence.

For those who are arguing about english language, they should know that the most common use of the word "instead" is not to indicate the substitution of an actuality, but the substitution of a possibility. This is how "instead" is used in the rules. You substitute the possibility of shooting with smoke, you substitute the possibility of doing regular damage with a mortal wound, and you substitute the possibility of causing 1 hit with causing 3 hits.

Seizeman wrote:


It's not the MW that deals normal damage, it's that the MW replaces the normal damage.

Not quite. In that case you get a MW instead of going through the normal damage process. At that point you do not know if you have normal damage or not, but it doesnt matter because of the way that rule is written. In that case the MW is not replacing a point of normal damage. With the Tesla, the 3 hits are very much replacing the normal hit.

How can it replace normal damage if no normal damage has been dealt?

It doesn't as I explained above.

You said that tesla doesn't work because you can't replace something that doesn't happen, and this is just the same.

Tesla doesn't work because you cant replace a hit with three if you do not have a hit.

Rules as written (with your interpretation), the mortal wound only replaces the normal damage. Nowhere is stated that it replaces the whole attack sequence.

Again, as explained above the MW does not replace normal damage, it replaces the normal damage sequence as we do not have normal damage because we had not gotten to that step. So it is just replaching the rest of the attack sequence. Basically that rule is written less than perfectly and should be written something like (the model takes a mortal wound and the attack sequence ends, do not roll to wound etc...).

For those who are arguing about english language, they should know that the most common use of the word "instead" is not to indicate the substitution of an actuality, but the substitution of a possibility. This is how "instead" is used in the rules. You substitute the possibility of shooting with smoke, you substitute the possibility of doing regular damage with a mortal wound, and you substitute the possibility of causing 1 hit with causing 3 hits.

In the case of tesla though it is not "substitution of a possibility" it is the "substitution of an actuality" because it is actually replacing a single hit with three. You do not substitute the possibility of causing 1 hit because you already have a hit.

BCB has already linked to two prior threads arguing this and the two interpretations have already been voiced. How many pages does this need to go on before it gets locked down?

But they're worded the same, Deathreaper. Why do the same words mean different things in the same context?

 JNAProductions wrote:
But they're worded the same, Deathreaper. Why do the same words mean different things in the same context?

I mean, this is 40k 8th edition, it would be more surprising if the same rules worked the same despite the identical working.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But they're worded the same, Deathreaper. Why do the same words mean different things in the same context?

They are not worded the same.

One replaces a single hit with three hits.

The other is about wounds/damage sequence.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But they're worded the same, Deathreaper. Why do the same words mean different things in the same context?

They are not worded the same.

One replaces a single hit with three hits.

The other is about wounds/damage sequence.

They are worded in exactly the same manner: If the condition happens, do X instead of Y. "Each time you make a wound roll of 6+ with this weapon, the target suffers a mortal wound instead of the normal damage." and "Each hit roll of 6+ with this weapon causes 3 hits instead of 1."

In the first case, nothing says "don't go through the normal damage sequence", it just says to replace the normal damage (all of it). If, in that case, the replaced event (the normal damage) doesn't have to actually happen for the replacement to take place, why is the tesla case any different?

At that point you do not know if you have normal damage or not, but it doesnt matter because of the way that rule is written

That's the same with the tesla weapon, since they are written the same way. It doesn't matter if you have a normal hit or not, you still get the 3 hits. If it said "each hit counts as 3 hits" or "successful hits of 6+", that would be different, but that's not the case.

In the case of tesla though it is not "substitution of a possibility" it is the "substitution of an actuality" because it is actually replacing a single hit with three. You do not substitute the possibility of causing 1 hit because you already have a hit.

Using a different interpretation for each case is not coherent. If you have to substitute an actual hit with 3 hits, then you have to substitute actual damage for a MW, not potential damage.