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.

We're not discussing smite. And, again, why do you not just follow step 5 of the attack sequence as directed?

You're currently on a "feeling" here. Not written rules. Yet the written rules dictate you use the attack sequence.


So the rule break down is: you have one attack. You roll a 6 to wound, but the save is made. At step 5 yiu have the following damage waiting, as explicitly stated by the rules for mortal wounds: {0, 1} , and so you inflict damage - first the 0 damage (for normal damage) and then the mortal,wound damage, as explicitly stated in the rules for mortal wounds

Thus you reached the inflict damage step, and no additional attack is generated.

Now, if you allow the rare rule to break the fast rolling rule, which that saves and damage CANNOT be fast rolled, then you still have the ability to determine if you reached the inflict damage step. The multiple sets I pointed out above.
thus doesn't require a rule breaking "not part of attack sequence" made up rule to function.

I faq would indeed be good, but simply following the MW rule is sufficient here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
We're not discussing smite. And, again, why do you not just follow step 5 of the attack sequence as directed?

You're currently on a "feeling" here. Not written rules. Yet the written rules dictate you use the attack sequence.

Fundamentally I think we disagree how Mortal Wounds function. Smite is my example of a Mortal Wound being generated that isn't attached to an attack sequence, and underlines my point that Mortal Wound's aren't attached to an attack sequence.

Let's put the whole discussion about how mortal wounds function aside for a moment, I'm trying to understand you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So the rule break down is: you have one attack. You roll a 6 to wound, but the save is made. At step 5 yiu have the following damage waiting, as explicitly stated by the rules for mortal wounds: {0, 1} , and so you inflict damage - first the 0 damage (for normal damage) and then the mortal,wound damage, as explicitly stated in the rules for mortal wounds

Thus you reached the inflict damage step, and no additional attack is generated.

Now, if you allow the rare rule to break the fast rolling rule, which that saves and damage CANNOT be fast rolled, then you still have the ability to determine if you reached the inflict damage step. The multiple sets I pointed out above.
thus doesn't require a rule breaking "not part of attack sequence" made up rule to function.

I faq would indeed be good, but simply following the MW rule is sufficient here.

Ok, this is the meat of the post. So we have 7 attacks that we are slow rolling - let's not fast roll them because you say it breaks things, so let's not do things that break the game!

You've only described how you resolve a single attack, how do you resolve all 7? I'm having trouble understanding this from your example.

Specifically, let's look at this case. We are slow rolling dice 1 at a time. We have allocated 7 attacks to an enemy unit. And the first two attacks roll a 6 to wound and generate a mortal wound each. The 5 remainder of the attacks either get to the inflict damage step or fail to and get another attack (it's not important which). How do you resolve this?

What do you mean "how do you resolve this"?

If we're slow rolling, you never know you have 7 attacks and the results of them. You only know one attack and one attack only.

But if you're rule breaking by not completing the attack sequence for each attack before starting to roll the next. Or at least rolling to hit and wound, then yiu allocate the two mortal wounds after inflicting normal damage. Nothing states you have to com0eetly empty each tuple before moving on (and in fact, the rare rule requires you to somehow know all the normal damage and apply it first)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
What do you mean "how do you resolve this"?

If we're slow rolling, you never know you have 7 attacks and the results of them. You only know one attack and one attack only.

But if you're rule breaking by not completing the attack sequence for each attack before starting to roll the next. Or at least rolling to hit and wound, then yiu allocate the two mortal wounds after inflicting normal damage. Nothing states you have to com0eetly empty each tuple before moving on (and in fact, the rare rule requires you to somehow know all the normal damage and apply it first)

I mean literally, how do you resolve it? Show me your steps that you go through.

As you point out, we don't want to break the rules by by not completing the attack sequence for each attack before starting to roll the next attack.

So we perform the attack sequence for the first attack. Do we complete it? What happens to the mortal wound?
We perform the attack sequence for the second attack. Do we complete it? What happens to the mortal wound?
And so on until attack 7.

Also, I didn't see the word or concept of tuples in the rules. Could you help me by pointing out what I might have overlooked?

The rules literally describe a tuple - you have normal damage and mortal,damage, both exist at the inflict damage step. I'm using a standard term here, to describe a common bit of notation to simplify things.

Without the rare rules (which is, raw, wrong) yiu resolve inflict damage for attack one, then move onto attack 2, and so on. Rare rules doesn't allow you to do so, so you can resolve inflict damage (normal damage) for all attacks, then move on to the mortal wounds.
You can easily determine inflict damage yes or no? For each attack. I struggle to see your struggle with this, that leads you to creating a concept that is not only NOT supported in the rules, but explicitly denied by the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rules literally describe a tuple

Literally, where?

What part of "describe a tuple" do you think means the word "tuple" needs to be included? Literally?

Second para stating "if..." DESCRIBES A TUPLE. Do you know what that means?

You mean a finite ordered list of elements?

Here's the thing, your "raw, wrong" only occurs if you consider the mortal wound as a part of the attack sequence that inflicted it.

The killachoppa inflicts a mortal wound on a 6 to wound
Smite inflicts d3 mortal wounds on a successful cast (or d6 if you're lucky)

How do you resolve an inflicted mortal wound? By using the "Allocate attack" and "Inflict Damage" sections from making attacks. If you want to consider an inflicted mortal wound it's own special attack sequence, fine, but it's 100% not a part of a previous attack sequence or psychic casting, or whatever game mechanic caused the mortal wound to be inflicted in the first place.


Your are literally choosing an interpretation of mortal wounds that (by your own admission) breaks RAW when there is a perfectly valid one sitting there that doesn't!

And you know what, when you acknowledge that a mortal wound is separate from the thing that generated it, you can fast roll the attacks without breaking any rules! (Fancy that, the rules work when you use the right definitions!)

Ah, so you're ignoring the rules again?
You've made up a new attack sequence, despite the rules not stating this happens, and in fact telling you that you inflict damage at the same step, which you know, wouldn't work if it was its own attack sequence because, you know, that's not how the rules work...

Raw, you've made gak up. I've explained how you've made gak up, and you continue to make more gak up to justify it. Done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - not the first time the core rules have had issues. Assault weapons in 8th.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so you're ignoring the rules again?
You've made up a new attack sequence, despite the rules not stating this happens, and in fact telling you that you inflict damage at the same step, which you know, wouldn't work if it was its own attack sequence because, you know, that's not how the rules work...

Raw, you've made gak up. I've explained how you've made gak up, and you continue to make more gak up to justify it. Done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - not the first time the core rules have had issues. Assault weapons in 8th.

Fine, I'll concede if you can adequately answer these two questions:
With no existing attack sequence, how do you inflict a mortal wound from Smite?
How does this differ from a weapon that inflicts a mortal wound on a 6 to wound?

You init an attack sequence. At step 5. Like it tells you to do...

For the second - follow the rules, which tells you it's part of the same inflict damage step as the "normal" damage. Why are you making up a new process, while ignoring the rules? You do realise you keep doing this, The rules for mortal wounds reference the attack sequence. Why you think this isn't an attack sequence is baffling.

If mortal wounds are indeed in a sequence - like nosferaru says, means that they are in their own sequence, so, if they somehow do not manage to inflict wounds, they generate an additional attack?

Anyway, in both cases with mw being in their own attack sequence and being outside of the sequence at all they don't affect the result of the initial attack seuqence, thus the extra attack is given regardless of mw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks guyz, it was difficult.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You init an attack sequence. At step 5. Like it tells you to do...

For the second - follow the rules, which tells you it's part of the same inflict damage step as the "normal" damage. Why are you making up a new process, while ignoring the rules? You do realise you keep doing this, The rules for mortal wounds reference the attack sequence. Why you think this isn't an attack sequence is baffling.

So when I inflict a mortal wound from smite I initiate an attack sequence.

Also, the rules don't say "it's part of the same inflict damage step as the "normal" damage".
Seriously, Paragraph 1 tells you how to resolve a mortal wound. Paragraph 2 says resolve normal damage first, then resolve the mortal wound as per Paragraph 1

Which brings me to the question, why wouldn't I initiate an attack sequence when I inflict a mortal wound on a 6 to wound?

I didn't say it was it's own attack sequence. I said precisely the opposite.
When you have a weapon which generates normal AND mortal wounds, then you do get to inflict damage in a SINGLE sequence, because the rules for MW don't state that a weapon giving both types creates a new attack sequence, it in fact tells you the opposite.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
When you have a weapon which generates normal AND mortal wounds, then you do get to inflict damage in a SINGLE sequence, because the rules for MW don't state that a weapon giving both types creates a new attack sequence, it in fact tells you the opposite.

Uh, the rules don't say that.
Seriously, Paragraph 1 tells you how to resolve a mortal wound. Paragraph 2 says resolve normal damage first, then resolve the mortal wound as per Paragraph 1 (you know, like how you would for a MW generated by Smite)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I didn't say it was it's own attack sequence. I said precisely the opposite.
When you have a weapon which generates normal AND mortal wounds, then you do get to inflict damage in a SINGLE sequence, because the rules for MW don't state that a weapon giving both types creates a new attack sequence, it in fact tells you the opposite.

Further to my comment before. Let's pretend you're right for a moment.

Your attack sequence then looks like this,
1 Roll to hit, 2 Wound Roll (and generate a MW), 3 Allocate, 4 Save, 5 Inflict Damage (for normal wound). Then the mortal wound jumps back to 3 Allocate, then 5 Inflict Damage. And this is one "sequence".
I don't know about you, but that doesn't look like a sequence to me.

Incorrect
You follow para 1 - inflict damage at the INFLICT DAMAGE step of the attack sequence
When you have both normal and MW damage from a single weapon, you're just told the order yiu resolve the damage at the step. Which is the same step. Because you're not told to make up a ne step

You should have conceded by now, because the rules explicitly reference the attack sequence, they never state you create a new attack sequence just because you now have a weapon inflicting normal then mortal,etc.

You're creating rules *out of thin air*. You've provided zero rules to support the idea that MW are outside of the attack sequence, and yiure , you know, completely ignoring that the rules explicitly, without ambiguity, makes them part of it...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect
You follow para 1 - inflict damage at the INFLICT DAMAGE step of the attack sequence
When you have both normal and MW damage from a single weapon, you're just told the order yiu resolve the damage at the step. Which is the same step. Because you're not told to make up a ne step

You should have conceded by now, because the rules explicitly reference the attack sequence, they never state you create a new attack sequence just because you now have a weapon inflicting normal then mortal,etc.

You're creating rules *out of thin air*. You've provided zero rules to support the idea that MW are outside of the attack sequence, and yiure , you know, completely ignoring that the rules explicitly, without ambiguity, makes them part of it...

Sorry, say that again. Both normal and MW damage are resolved at the same damage step? So once my opponent Allocates the attack, they are allocating both the normal and MW damage to one model in the unit...

...yeah, let's just let that sink in for a moment...

Ok, then we get to the inflict damage and the one model we allocated both the normal damage and MW to suffers the damage... so if the model died from the normal damage, we can't go back to allocating the mortal wound. So what happens to it?

Yes yes, I'm the one making up rules</sarcasm>


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what, how about this. How about I quote this from P1: "allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit"

Ok, and let's call it not the same attack, but the "other attack". Does that make it easier for you?

They're resolved in order. It's entirely possible that the normal,damage resolution will result in the model dying. Again, you're struggling because you're making gak up - I never said simultaneously. I said at the same step. I even ref the sequence. Because, unlike you, I keep posting rules..

Sorry you don't seem to be able to understand how making rules up - such as creating a "non attack sequence" rule - isn't that convincing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They're resolved in order. It's entirely possible that the normal,damage resolution will result in the model dying. Again, you're struggling because you're making gak up - I never said simultaneously. I said at the same step. I even ref the sequence. Because, unlike you, I keep posting rules..

Sorry you don't seem to be able to understand how making rules up - such as creating a "non attack sequence" rule - isn't that convincing.

Do you understand what a sequence is? We have steps 1 to 5 that we have to resolve in order.

We allocate at step 3. We inflict damage at step 5. So our allocations are already made when we go to inflict damage. You are saying that we are inflicting both normal damage and mortal wound damage at step 5 - after our allocation has been made.

Asking what happens to the mortal wound that is allocated to a dead model is a valid question. If we go back to step 3 from step 5 we are no longer in a sequence.

That damage isn't lost....as the rules for mortal wounds tells you.

And, again, not the first time core rules have had some issues.

Again, please give proof, using a written rule, that when it states you inflict damage at step 5 of the attack sequence, you're NOT inflicting damage at step 5 of the attack sequence but at some other point in time

Rules would be helpful. You've failed to cite any so far, that actually back up your point

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That damage isn't lost....as the rules for mortal wounds tells you.

And, again, not the first time core rules have had some issues.

Again, please give proof, using a written rule, that when it states you inflict damage at step 5 of the attack sequence, you're NOT inflicting damage at step 5 of the attack sequence but at some other point in time

Rules would be helpful. You've failed to cite any so far, that actually back up your point

It was your claim that we inflict mortal wound damage at step 5 of the attack sequence...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rules for mortal wounds tell you they inflict damage at the same step, inflict damage

Regardless, we complete the attack sequence before inflicting damage from the mortal wound, Brutal but Cunning only cares if we inflict damage during the attack sequence, so it triggers regardless of if we inflicted mortal wounds.

I'm not sure why that was so hard for you to get to

Yes, because that's what the rules say! It says yiu inflict at step 5. So please, find a rule saying you don't use the attack sequence at all. Page and graph.

Straw man again eh? Or just making more stuff up because following rules is too tricky for you?

Does the "in sequence that is separate from the initial attack sequence" Or "out of sequence" Even matter here? In both cases MW does not affect the bbk additional attack from the initial normal attack sequence.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because that's what the rules say! It says yiu inflict at step 5. So please, find a rule saying you don't use the attack sequence at all. Page and graph.

Straw man again eh? Or just making more stuff up because following rules is too tricky for you?

No, we both agree "you're NOT inflicting damage at step 5 of the attack sequence but at some other point in time"

The point is that you complete the attack sequence before resolving the mortal wound. The mortal wound by definition can't be a part of that attack sequence because the sequence is already completed!

Hence, Brutal but Cunning can trigger because the attack (the one that we completed the sequence for before resolving the mortal wound) may not have actually got to the inflict damage step.

Why are you creating a new sequence, when the rules don't tell you to do so?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why are you creating a new sequence, when the rules don't tell you to do so?

Why do you want to do something additional with an already completed sequence?

So we don't create an attack sequence at all than. Even better.

JakeSiren wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, because that's what the rules say! It says yiu inflict at step 5. So please, find a rule saying you don't use the attack sequence at all. Page and graph.

Straw man again eh? Or just making more stuff up because following rules is too tricky for you?

No, we both agree "you're NOT inflicting damage at step 5 of the attack sequence but at some other point in time"

The point is that you complete the attack sequence before resolving the mortal wound. The mortal wound by definition can't be a part of that attack sequence because the sequence is already completed!

Hence, Brutal but Cunning can trigger because the attack (the one that we completed the sequence for before resolving the mortal wound) may not have actually got to the inflict damage step.

Ah, you wilfully misunderstood, again.

Page and graph. It's been three pages. About time you used an actual rule. Page and graph that states you complete "the" attack sequence, despite thr rule telling you to inflict at the same step, in sequence...

 koooaei wrote:
So we don't create an attack sequence at all than. Even better.

This is when I wish Dakka had facebook reacts so I could put a laughing face here

By the way, as you managed to bold only part of a sentence, you missed that the first part is me challenging you to find the latter. Not me stating the latter is true

"Again, please give proof, using a written rule, that when it states you inflict damage at step 5 of the attack sequence, you're NOT inflicting damage at step 5 of the attack sequence but at some other point in time "

There you go, bolted the bit where I'm telling you to find proof of the part you're making up out of whole cloth....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JakeSiren wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Why are you creating a new sequence, when the rules don't tell you to do so?

Why do you want to do something additional with an already completed sequence?

When is it complete? After you inflict damage with the mortal wound.
According to actual rules

Sorry you're struggling to read whole sentences. Maybe get some sleep?