AoS Scaly skin rule

[Stega]

Hi guys,

Just wanted some clarification on the scaly skin rule, as I think few people might be thinking the same.

Do mortal wounds count as a separate "damage inflicted" to the main attack? For example, with something like vanguard Raptors who have 2 mortal wounds on a 6, does it become 1 mortal wound as well? Or is it only for the normal attack?

As far as I can see it would reduce the MW as well, just wanted to check as I've got a game coming up against shootcast this weekend and hoping to use the Coalesced to great effect!

 

[Carnikang]

From what I have gathered from the debates, if it is triggered by an attack, yes, the damage is reduced.

So for vanguard raptors triggering it on shots, it is reduced.

Now, if it was triggered by a spell or ability, no it does not.

 

[DaBush]

Short answer is yes, mortal wounds from an attack action are reduced. It does get really sticky and I think it needs to be faq’d to reduce weapon profile damage by 1. To do this accurately and at a competitive level it causes a lot of grief, because an attack could explode, have extra affects on top of damage that all stacks and you need to make sure you’re keeping track correctly (or you can choose to let it go).

but to answer your question as to why the mw are halved you follow order of operations. Each attack is technically done separately. You have your hit, wound, save and damage steps. Inside the mortal wound rules it says to apply any damage from mortal wounds at the same time normal damage is dealt which is at step 4. After step 4 is when the damage is reduced by 1.

 

[Stega]

Okay thanks guys. So for example if he shattered spirit flasks which is D3 mortal wounds and got 2, my unit would suffer both MWs.
However if he shot with his vanguard raptors every damage would be reduced to 1, including the 2 MW's being reduced to 1 MW if he rolls a 6 to hit?

Still think it's so powerful! that's his whole game plan I think haha

 

[DaBush]

Okay thanks guys. So for example if he shattered spirit flasks which is D3 mortal wounds and got 2, my unit would suffer both MWs.
However if he shot with his vanguard raptors every damage would be reduced to 1, including the 2 MW's being reduced to 1 MW if he rolls a 6 to hit?

Still think it's so powerful! that's his whole game plan I think haha

yep, basically is the damage coming from an attack profile on his warscroll, if so reduce the damage of each attack by 1 (to a min of 1)

 

[Chico]

Sorry to rez an older thread, but this rule still confuses me somewhat..
The rule specifies that you can "Substract 1 from the damage inflicted by each successful attack..".

If an attack explodes in 2 MW in addition to it's normal damage, by say a 6 to hit.. those MW and normal attack damage comes from the same attack, and are only reduced by 1 total, right? Do I get to choose whether it's one of the MW I block, or the normal damage?

 

[ILKAIN]

Sorry to rez an older thread, but this rule still confuses me somewhat..
The rule specifies that you can "Substract 1 from the damage inflicted by each successful attack..".

If an attack explodes in 2 MW in addition to it's normal damage, by say a 6 to hit.. those MW and normal attack damage comes from the same attack, and are only reduced by 1 total, right? Do I get to choose whether it's one of the MW I block, or the normal damage?

each instance is different. if the attack does one regular damage and 2 mortals because its a fyreslayer hearthguard berserker and overpowered as all hell, you would reduce the 2 mortals to 1, and you wouldn't reduce the 1 regular to 0 as we don't reduce to less than one

 

[Aginor]

Yep.
If the damage comes from an attack it is reduced by one, to a minimum of one, even mortal wounds.

If it was just meant to reduce the normal weapon damage it would say "reduce the damage characteristic" or something like that.

 

[Grotpunter]

Yep.
If the damage comes from an attack it is reduced by one, to a minimum of one, even mortal wounds.

If it was just meant to reduce the normal weapon damage it would say "reduce the damage characteristic" or something like that.

What if it is a Keeper of Secrets that deal MW on a unmodified wound roll of 6? I would assume the MW damage is reduced by 1 because the source is from an attack - On the other hand it is an ability on the warscroll that causes it.

I guess maybe you need to look at it as: If the damage comes from a spell or an ability ala Deadly Cargo (Terradon guys) = No damage reduction. Is the damage from an attack sequence = It is reduced.

 

[Killer Angel]

I guess maybe you need to look at it as: If the damage comes from a spell or an ability ala Deadly Cargo (Terradon guys) = No damage reduction. Is the damage from an attack sequence = It is reduced.

that's pretty much it.

 

[Aginor]

Yep.
In the case of the Keeper of Secrets the ability affects the attack and makes it cause mortal wounds, so those are reduced.

 

[Boomer]

Maybe a very simplistic way of looking at is this; How would you explain this to a Skaven player (they need additional consideration right?):

Steps 1 and 2 in the Attack Sequence Page 7, of the Core Rules pamphlet, will subsequently cause either Wounds, or Mortal Wounds, or both. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

Step 3. Allows for attempts for Wounds to be saved. These Wound save attempts can possibly be modified, e.g. Rend -1 to the save roll. Mortal wounds cannot be saved. Period. (A warscroll or spell might change that but let's keep this simple - for now, pretend you never read that). Wounds that failed their save attempt now become Damage. Mortal Wounds automatically become Damage.

Step 4. We are now done with Saves. Forget about any kind of saves at this point. They don't exist. We now translate the Wounds and/or Mortal Wounds into Damage. Period. Yes, just call it Damage. A Wound causes a Damage number equal to the Weapon Damage characteristic that caused the Wound to start with. Most weapons cause a damage of 1 per Wound (some cause more but keep this rat-simple). Each Mortal Wound causes 1 damage as well.
Add these Damage results up.

Pg. 7, Allocating Wounds, "...add up the damage that was inflicted. The player...must allocate a number of wounds to the target unit equal to the damage..."

Pg. 7, Mortal Wounds, "...the damage inflicted on the target is equal to the number of mortal wounds..suffered. Allocate (Damage results from) any mortal wounds...at the same time as any other wounds.

Congrats. You are DONE with the Attack Sequence. Wounds and Mortal Wounds no longer exist. They are gone forever. They are now considered Damage and nothing more.

Now apply (Allocate) the total Damage result to the target unit.

SCALY SKIN - "Subtract 1 from damage inflicted by each successful attack...".

Bottom line. Damage is defined AFTER Wounds and Mortal Wounds are completed. In fact, when Damage is applied Wounds and Mortal Wounds no longer exist as terms.

Damage is damage regardless of where it comes from. Example: You suffer 2 Damage from Wounds and 1 Mortal Wound. Your total damage allocated must be 3. Subtract Scaly Skin of -1 for final Damage allocated being 2 Damage.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. Enjoy Scaly Skin!!!

Boomer

 

[ILKAIN]

Maybe a very simplistic way of looking at is this; How would you explain this to a Skaven player (they need additional consideration right?):

Steps 1 and 2 in the Attack Sequence Page 7, of the Core Rules pamphlet, will subsequently cause either Wounds, or Mortal Wounds, or both. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

Step 3. Allows for attempts for Wounds to be saved. These Wound save attempts can possibly be modified, e.g. Rend -1 to the save roll. Mortal wounds cannot be saved. Period. (A warscroll or spell might change that but let's keep this simple - for now, pretend you never read that). Wounds that failed their save attempt now become Damage. Mortal Wounds automatically become Damage.

Step 4. We are now done with Saves. Forget about any kind of saves at this point. They don't exist. We now translate the Wounds and/or Mortal Wounds into Damage. Period. Yes, just call it Damage. A Wound causes a Damage number equal to the Weapon Damage characteristic that caused the Wound to start with. Most weapons cause a damage of 1 per Wound (some cause more but keep this rat-simple). Each Mortal Wound causes 1 damage as well.
Add these Damage results up.

Pg. 7, Allocating Wounds, "...add up the damage that was inflicted. The player...must allocate a number of wounds to the target unit equal to the damage..."

Pg. 7, Mortal Wounds, "...the damage inflicted on the target is equal to the number of mortal wounds..suffered. Allocate (Damage results from) any mortal wounds...at the same time as any other wounds.

Congrats. You are DONE with the Attack Sequence. Wounds and Mortal Wounds no longer exist. They are gone forever. They are now considered Damage and nothing more.

Now apply (Allocate) the total Damage result to the target unit.

SCALY SKIN - "Subtract 1 from damage inflicted by each successful attack...".

Bottom line. Damage is defined AFTER Wounds and Mortal Wounds are completed. In fact, when Damage is applied Wounds and Mortal Wounds no longer exist as terms.

Damage is damage regardless of where it comes from. Example: You suffer 2 Damage from Wounds and 1 Mortal Wound. Your total damage allocated must be 3. Subtract Scaly Skin of -1 for final Damage allocated being 2 Damage.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. Enjoy Scaly Skin!!!

Boomer

this is no longer an issue, scaley skin does not affect mortal wounds per the FAQ

 

[Killer Angel]

this is no longer an issue, scaley skin does not affect mortal wounds per the FAQ

...because apparently it was too much difficult to write it directly in the rule. Stupid GW.

years pass... decades pass... but GW in writing the rules is always:
a) lazy
b) unclear
c) self-contradictory

 

[Canas]

...because apparently it was too much difficult to write it directly in the rule. Stupid GW.

years pass... decades pass... but GW in writing the rules is always:
a) lazy
b) unclear
c) self-contradictory

Don't forget:
d) Relying on semantics & redefining terms so you need a dictionairy of "warhammer definitions to english" to understand what they're actually saying.

 

[Nart]

I think, GW should consider hiring a professional philosopher.

 

[Grotpunter]

To be fair the rule seems rather clear-cut, I guess many of us were just a bit too eager. There is no actual attack that deals mortal wounds - They are all triggered by secondaries like an ability on the warscroll. MWs from attacks through abilities are byproducts of an attack, not the attack itself, so I can see their logic that it doesnt reduce damage.

Could it have been written in a more clear way? Certainly, but so could many of their rules tbh.

 

[Killer Angel]

To be fair the rule seems rather clear-cut, I guess many of us were just a bit too eager. There is no actual attack that deals mortal wounds - They are all triggered by secondaries like an ability on the warscroll.

...at the risk of repeating myself… no.
As pointed by @Boomer in this very thread, there are MWs that are generated during the attack sequence (and they even end it). That kind of MWs in the core rules is treated as normal wounds at the end of the attack sequence and they both are listed as damage. And scaly skin reduces damage.

If the intention of GW was to not apply scaly skin to MWs at all (and of course it was), then the rule of scaly skin was not poorly written: it was just wrong.

Now the designer's commentary has specified how the rule is intended to be played, but i refuse to pass for the seraphon player that was trying to twist a rule in his favour.

 

[Canas]

Also, the distinction between "attacks" and everything else is arbitrary at best when it makes some kind of sense (e.g. spells v.s. attacks, or seperating our starpriest's venom from the triggering attack), and just kinda stupid when it concerns "abilities" like a retributor's "blast to ashes". It isn't a seperate thing, they didn't coat it with poison to make their weapons extra deadly, they're literally just wacking you over the head with their hammers really hard. Getting in a good hit with your attack doesn't magically change it into "not an attack"...

also, out of curiousity, has there actually been a use-case for the AoS definition of an "attack" before? Cuz up until scaly skin I don't think I've ever seen a rule that needed a defintion what exactly an "attack" is.

 

[Grotpunter]

...at the risk of repeating myself… no.
As pointed by @Boomer in this very thread, there are MWs that are generated during the attack sequence (and they even end it). That kind of MWs in the core rules is treated as normal wounds at the end of the attack sequence and they both are listed as damage. And scaly skin reduces damage.

If the intention of GW was to not apply scaly skin to MWs at all (and of course it was), then the rule of scaly skin was not poorly written: it was just wrong.

Now the designer's commentary has specified how the rule is intended to be played, but i refuse to pass for the seraphon player that was trying to twist a rule in his favour.

Disagree. The only time an attack can ever cause mortal wounds is due to an ability, from the warscroll/alligiance ability etc. etc. The attack itself does not deal MW.

It is the same with Salamanders. Their attacks dont deal MW on modified 6s to hit = It is an ability that causes this. Byproduct of attacking with said model.