Switch Theme:

Squigboss interactions with Brutal but cunning  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 koooaei wrote:
The rule doesn't say it's in any sequence at all.


Not true. From the Mortal Wounds roll (p. 19 in the Battle Primer) "Do not make a wound roll or a saving throw (including invulnerable ones) against a mortal wound - just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit (p. 18). "

The p.18 refers you to the Inflict Damage step in the battle primer. It's step 5 in their sequence.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/13 18:46:28


 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






It just says how you resolve damage (that the opponent substracts this number of wounds, etc). It doesn't put you in an attack sequence as there was no attack.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 koooaei wrote:
It just says how you resolve damage (that the opponent substracts this number of wounds, etc). It doesn't put you in an attack sequence as there was no attack.


So where did the mortal wound come from, out of the ether? Presumably it was already in the attack sequence to generate the mortal wound in the first place.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 koooaei wrote:
It just says how you resolve damage (that the opponent substracts this number of wounds, etc). It doesn't put you in an attack sequence as there was no attack.

No, it doesn't just do that. It talks explicitly about a weapon dealing normal and MW damage. It places BOTH OF THEM IN THE SAME ATTACK SEQUENCE.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
 koooaei wrote:
It just says how you resolve damage (that the opponent substracts this number of wounds, etc). It doesn't put you in an attack sequence as there was no attack.

No, it doesn't just do that. It talks explicitly about a weapon dealing normal and MW damage. It places BOTH OF THEM IN THE SAME ATTACK SEQUENCE.

I don't know where you got that idea from, but it's wrong.

Attack sequence:
1. Roll hit roll
2. Roll wound roll
3. Allocate attack
4. Saving throw
5. Inflict damage

Let's say we have 7 attacks against one target.

First attack, we go through the sequence. On step 2, we roll a 6, this generates a mortal wound. When can we resolve it? After we have resolved all 7 attack sequences as per rare rule "Multiple attacks that inflict mortal wounds". So we queue up the mortal wound. We get to step 5 and check Brutal but Cunning, did the attack make it to inflicting damage? If not, we get to make an additional attack.

We go through the same for attacks 2 to 7.

Once the attack sequence of attack 7 has been resolved, we are then allowed to resolve the mortal wounds. This uses the same rules as the Allocate Attack and Inflict Damage sections in the attack sequence rules.

These mortal wounds can only be resolve after we have resolved the attack sequences for our 7 attacks!! That means they are not a part of an attack sequence, and aren't considered for the trigger conditions for Brutal but Cunning.
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!






You are actually supposed to resolve each attack one at a time.

So the mortal wound is inflicted before you even go to another attack.

We just fast roll to save time.

The "Multiple attacks that deal mortal wounds" thing is for attacks that only deal mortals, not for ones that do mortals in addition to normal.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 Eihnlazer wrote:
You are actually supposed to resolve each attack one at a time.

So the mortal wound is inflicted before you even go to another attack.

We just fast roll to save time.

The "Multiple attacks that deal mortal wounds" thing is for attacks that only deal mortals, not for ones that do mortals in addition to normal.
Uh, you evidently didn't read the rare rule. First sentence "Some attacks can inflict mortal wounds either instead of, or in addition to, the normal damage."

"If, when a unit is selected to shoot or fight, more than one of its attacks that target an enemy unit have such a rule," which the Choppa does, then "all the normal damage inflicted by the attacking unit’s attacks are resolved against that target before any of the mortal wounds are inflicted on it."

Also the bullet point that summaries the rule, "If a unit can make multiple attacks that inflict mortal wounds, all of the normal damage inflicted by all of the attacking unit’s attacks is resolved before any of the mortal wounds are resolved"
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Which
Still
Doesn't mean the MW sit in their own attack sequence.
As per the basic rule, they're part of their parents attack sequence
The leap you are making is unsupported by any rules whatsoever. The rare ruke does not state what yiu claim.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which
Still
Doesn't mean the MW sit in their own attack sequence.
As per the basic rule, they're part of their parents attack sequence
The leap you are making is unsupported by any rules whatsoever. The rare ruke does not state what yiu claim.
Sorry, who is claiming that "MW sit in their own attack sequence"? And despite your claims, they aren't a part of their parents attack sequence.

Attack sequence:
1. Roll hit roll
2. Roll wound roll
3. Allocate attack
4. Saving throw
5. Inflict damage

Let's say we have 7 attacks against one target.

First attack, we go through the sequence. On step 2, we roll a 6, this generates a mortal wound. When can we resolve it? After we have resolved all 7 attack sequences as per rare rule "Multiple attacks that inflict mortal wounds". So we queue up the mortal wound. We get to step 5 and check Brutal but Cunning, did the attack make it to inflicting damage? If not, we get to make an additional attack.

We go through the same for attacks 2 to 7.

Once the attack sequence of attack 7 has been resolved, we are then allowed to resolve the mortal wounds. This uses the same rules as the Allocate Attack and Inflict Damage sections in the attack sequence rules.

These mortal wounds can only be resolve after we have resolved the attack sequences for our 7 attacks!! That means they are not a part of an attack sequence, and aren't considered for the trigger conditions for Brutal but Cunning.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




When it states, isn the rules for mortal wounds, that they are resolved at the same step inflict damage. As you know, as we keep telling yiu, the rules state explicitly that thehy deal with a single attack. Thus, there is only one attack sequence per attack, regardless of if it also generates a MW or not

Again, as you're claiming multiple attack sequences generated form a single attack, the onus is on you to prove it. And the rare rules section
Does
Not
State
That
You
Get
Multiple
Sequences

As already proven, an attack has A sequence. Prove otherwise fir the base case
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
When it states, isn the rules for mortal wounds, that they are resolved at the same step inflict damage. As you know, as we keep telling yiu, the rules state explicitly that thehy deal with a single attack. Thus, there is only one attack sequence per attack, regardless of if it also generates a MW or not

Again, as you're claiming multiple attack sequences generated form a single attack, the onus is on you to prove it. And the rare rules section
Does
Not
State
That
You
Get
Multiple
Sequences

As already proven, an attack has A sequence. Prove otherwise fir the base case

First off, can you please check your spelling and grammar before posting. It took me too many re-reads of this post to attempt to understand you. Your other posts were considerably better composed, so I know that you are capable of it.

"you're claiming multiple attack sequences generated form a single attack" - Where have I claimed that? Please don't strawman me. You've done it multiple times this discussion and I have kindly told you that I am not claiming this.

Onto what I think your actual point is about. Mortal wounds are separate and *outside* of the attack sequence, otherwise things like Smite cease to function, because they aren't attack sequences, and they don't generate an attack sequence. Just because an attack causes a mortal wound, doesn't make the mortal wound magically a part of that attack sequence. A mortal wound allocated to a unit is not an attack. It's not a part of the attack sequence.
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






JakeSiren wrote:


Onto what I think your actual point is about. Mortal wounds are separate and *outside* of the attack sequence, otherwise things like Smite cease to function, because they aren't attack sequences, and they don't generate an attack sequence. Just because an attack causes a mortal wound, doesn't make the mortal wound magically a part of that attack sequence. A mortal wound allocated to a unit is not an attack. It's not a part of the attack sequence.


I'm fine with not getting extra hits if all the magic also stops dealing wounds...
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




So when it tells you in the rules for mortal wounds, that they inflict damage at the inflict damage step of
The attack sequence
That means they're not part of thr attack sequence? Despite the box out being part of making attacks? And it ref the attack sequence ? That's your argument ?
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
So when it tells you in the rules for mortal wounds, that they inflict damage at the inflict damage step of
The attack sequence
That means they're not part of thr attack sequence? Despite the box out being part of making attacks? And it ref the attack sequence ? That's your argument ?
How do you think Smite works then? Your idea around mortal wounds is wrong.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




It inflicts damage at the inflict damage step of the sequence above

My "idea" follows the rules. Yours makes rules up.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
It inflicts damage at the inflict damage step of the sequence above

My "idea" follows the rules. Yours makes rules up.

Hardly. The mortal wounds generated by smite isn't a part of an attack sequence. When you smite, you generate D3 mortal wounds (or maybe D6 if you're lucky). The mortal wound rule tells you to just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit.
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!






Why would smite, which happens in the psychic phase, have anything to do with what happens in the fight phase?


Anyway, i already went over the sequence of events for what happens. So its been clearly shown. Your just arguing for some jank, which is one of those things that happens when trying to abuse the rules system. Just give it up.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/14 14:22:48


JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 Eihnlazer wrote:
Why would smite, which happens in the psychic phase, have anything to do with what happens in the fight phase?


Anyway, i already went over the sequence of events for what happens. So its been clearly shown. Your just arguing for some jank, which is one of those things that happens when trying to abuse the rules system. Just give it up.

Because for some reason (as far as I can determine) nosferatu1001 thinks that a mortal wound is a part of the attack sequence. Smite is an example where a mortal wound is generated and is super clear that it's not a part of an attack sequence.

Which leads us to the fact that even if mortal wounds are generated during an attack sequence, they are seperate to the attack sequence.

Plus your "sequence of events" is incorrect because you didn't bother reading the rare rule properly (or did you not read my last response to you?) It's disappointing that you would prefer to call something "jank" and tell people to give up rather than respond to genuine debate.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Jake - apart from in the MW rule, which states it inflicts damage as described above. "Above" is the attack sequence , when you inflict damage during the...ta da... inflict damage step. Of an attack sequence. And covers a weapon generating mortal wounds and normal wounds, and the fact you inflict damage normal then mortal. Which is still part of the attack sequence. Which means you're still. Wrong.

You're done. Trying to claim a saved 6 to wound somehow doesn't reach inflict damage is clearly made up.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jake - apart from in the MW rule, which states it inflicts damage as described above. "Above" is the attack sequence , when you inflict damage during the...ta da... inflict damage step. Of an attack sequence. And covers a weapon generating mortal wounds and normal wounds, and the fact you inflict damage normal then mortal. Which is still part of the attack sequence. Which means you're still. Wrong.

You're done. Trying to claim a saved 6 to wound somehow doesn't reach inflict damage is clearly made up.

So to be clear, your claim in the situation where we have 7 attacks is:
Resolve Attack sequence for attack 1
Resolve Attack sequence for attack 2
Resolve Attack sequence for attack 3
Resolve Attack sequence for attack 4
Resolve Attack sequence for attack 5
Resolve Attack sequence for attack 6
Resolve Attack sequence for attack 7
Resolve any mortal wounds generated during attack sequences 1-7

Somehow the mortal wounds are still a part of the attack sequence that generated them. Did I understand you correctly?
At what point do you resolve Brutal but Cunning so that you don't violate the rare rule?
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jake - apart from in the MW rule, which states it inflicts damage as described above. "Above" is the attack sequence , when you inflict damage during the...ta da... inflict damage step. Of an attack sequence. And covers a weapon generating mortal wounds and normal wounds, and the fact you inflict damage normal then mortal. Which is still part of the attack sequence. Which means you're still. Wrong.

You're done. Trying to claim a saved 6 to wound somehow doesn't reach inflict damage is clearly made up.


But "as described above" means you just do the same thing - doesn't make a mortal wound part of the attack sequence. Mw are taken out of the sequence cause most mw do not happen from attacks
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




It describes *and names* the attack sequence step
If yiu say it isn't part of the attack sequence, when everything) in the Written rules states it IS, then you need to provide written rules stating as such. If you don't use the "inflict damage" step, of the attack sequence, please show how you actually apply damage

Jake - you have an attack sequence that has, at step 7 fir EVERY attack, an entry in the set of form {normal damage, mortal damage}
If both are zero or null then you have not reached step 7 for that attack.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
It describes *and names* the attack sequence step
If yiu say it isn't part of the attack sequence, when everything) in the Written rules states it IS, then you need to provide written rules stating as such. If you don't use the "inflict damage" step, of the attack sequence, please show how you actually apply damage

Jake - you have an attack sequence that has, at step 7 fir EVERY attack, an entry in the set of form {normal damage, mortal damage}
If both are zero or null then you have not reached step 7 for that attack.

I want to make sure I understand you before I respond. You're saying that for the attack sequence for attack 1, that you do normal damage followed by mortal damage (if it exists). Then you go onto the next attack sequence for attack 2, etc.

Have I understood you correctly?
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




I never ever stated that.
Remember the rare rules section directly contradicts the rules for fast rolling.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
I never ever stated that.
Remember the rare rules section directly contradicts the rules for fast rolling.

Ok, so I haven't understood you.

Can you lay it out then as I have tried in a number of my previous posts. Show me in detail how you would resolve this when rolling dice one at a time, and when each special rule would be considered. Maybe this will help me understand where you are coming from.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Do you get my point about the rare rules directly contradicting the rules allowing you to fast roll? It would help if you did , first.

And, similarly, given you insist on stating the MW are not part of the attack sequence, please lay out exactly how you come to that conclusion, using the quotes from the core rules.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




No, I don't understand your point about the rare rules contradicting the rules allowing you to fast roll. I am happy to only consider the slow rolling option at this stage so we don't have this contradiction.

My reasoning for the MW not being a part of the attack sequence is the same as the one presented by koooaei. Things like smite generating mortal wounds doesn't include an attack sequence, things like a flier dropping a bomb doesn't include an attack sequence. The mortal wound is generated by a game mechanism, and is resolved by using the "allocate attack" and "inflict damage" rules located under the "Making attacks" header. In my analysis, that doesn't make a mortal wound an attack sequence or part of an attack sequence though.
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






We clearly need a faq here.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




JakeSiren wrote:
No, I don't understand your point about the rare rules contradicting the rules allowing you to fast roll. I am happy to only consider the slow rolling option at this stage so we don't have this contradiction.

My reasoning for the MW not being a part of the attack sequence is the same as the one presented by koooaei. Things like smite generating mortal wounds doesn't include an attack sequence, things like a flier dropping a bomb doesn't include an attack sequence. The mortal wound is generated by a game mechanism, and is resolved by using the "allocate attack" and "inflict damage" rules located under the "Making attacks" header. In my analysis, that doesn't make a mortal wound an attack sequence or part of an attack sequence though.


You don't understand the contradiction that yiu can never fast roll saves or damage, yet the only way to follow the rare rule is to do exactly that?

So when it directs you to step 5 of the attack sequence, under the only rule for MW, you don't think it's part of the attack sequence? Despite it telling you precisely how to resolve normal and mortal wound damage from a single weapon, which is in order at the same stage - inflict damage?

So a mortal wound generated during an attack is magically outside of the attack sequence? That's really your stance?
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 koooaei wrote:
We clearly need a faq here.
I'm still interested in nosferatu1001's breakdown.

But the best way to get a FAQ is to hit up the rules team email address - 40kfaq@gwplc.com


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
No, I don't understand your point about the rare rules contradicting the rules allowing you to fast roll. I am happy to only consider the slow rolling option at this stage so we don't have this contradiction.

My reasoning for the MW not being a part of the attack sequence is the same as the one presented by koooaei. Things like smite generating mortal wounds doesn't include an attack sequence, things like a flier dropping a bomb doesn't include an attack sequence. The mortal wound is generated by a game mechanism, and is resolved by using the "allocate attack" and "inflict damage" rules located under the "Making attacks" header. In my analysis, that doesn't make a mortal wound an attack sequence or part of an attack sequence though.


You don't understand the contradiction that yiu can never fast roll saves or damage, yet the only way to follow the rare rule is to do exactly that?

So when it directs you to step 5 of the attack sequence, under the only rule for MW, you don't think it's part of the attack sequence? Despite it telling you precisely how to resolve normal and mortal wound damage from a single weapon, which is in order at the same stage - inflict damage?

So a mortal wound generated during an attack is magically outside of the attack sequence? That's really your stance?

When I inflict a mortal wound with smite, which attack sequence is that under? A mortal wound is a mortal wound. They get generated then resolved at the appropriate time.

There is also a number of times that fast-rolling is inappropriate. For example, where the damage may change on a wound roll of 6 (hey Nurgle daemons) - (NB: For some reason I'm struggling to find in the primer where it covers fast rolling, other than the line "Attacks can be made one at a time, or, in some cases, you can roll for multiple attacks together." under making attacks). It's not entirely unreasonable to say this might be one of the times. Slow rolling should always give us the correct results.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/15 10:44:24


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: