AoS FAQ is out. Bastiladon is god

[ILKAIN]

Incorrect. The attack does not do any mortal wounds directly, but rather through a special ability tied to the weapon.
It even says "Do not use the attack sequence for an attack made with Sunfire Throwers".

View attachment 68794

Attacks are by definition unable to cause mortal wounds unless there is some kind of associated ability.

that is literally the associated ability lmao

 

[Putzfrau]

Clarity on skink chiefs, having multiple endless spells, realmshaper, and basti.

Nerfs to rippers and scaly skin.

kinda lame, kinda expected. The realmshaper is the lamest to me. Pretty much guarantees that you'll never play it in a competitive game unless you know you can outdrop them and reach it first.

Basti is still only ok IMO, but i do think their armor mechanic is a pretty interesting solve to creating a tough monster without it being busted.

 

[Nart]

Anyway, now it doesn't matter at all. We cannot use it - that's it.

 

[LordBaconBane]

I honestly never thought Scaley applied to MWs anyways, so it isn't a big change to me *shrug*.

 

[Putzfrau]

I honestly never thought Scaley applied to MWs anyways, so it isn't a big change to me *shrug*.

It should hypothetically have applied to MW inflicted by attacks (hearthguard poleaxes, etc)

It makes our trades with Fyreslayers a little more lopsided but oh well.

 

[LizardWizard]

It should hypothetically have applied to MW inflicted by attacks (hearthguard poleaxes, etc)

It makes our trades with Fyreslayers a little more lopsided but oh well.

Yep, RAW it would have applied to MWs generate through weapon profiles. Even artefacts that cause MW's via the attack sequence. Hence GW having to say in a designer comment that it doesn't do so.

I too enjoin your sadness at its loss

 

[PJetski]

Yep, RAW it would have applied to MWs generate through weapon profiles. Even artefacts that cause MW's via the attack sequence. Hence GW having to say in a designer comment that it doesn't do so.

I too enjoin your sadness at its loss

No RAW it wouldn't. Mortal wounds are not caused by attacks.
You misunderstanding the way the rules work isn't the same thing as RAW.

 

[LizardWizard]

No RAW it wouldn't. Mortal wounds are not caused by attacks.
You misunderstanding the way the rules work isn't the same thing as RAW.

Weapons generate attacks. There are rules for weapons who's attack profile deal MW instead of normal wounds. Those attacks are the source of those MWs.

There are MWs that are generated from spells or from non-attack profile abilities. However, Cryptflayer's Scream attack, Hearthguard's Polearms, some Artefacts, ect are MWs generated from an attack.

 

[Putzfrau]

Furthermore, mortal wounds generated during the attack sequence are allocated at the same time as all other wounds from the attack (see core rules). An ability that causes 6 mortal wounds is not 1 packet of 6 wounds, it is 6 packets of 1 wound - since mortal wounds skip the "Save Roll" and "Determine Damage" steps of attacking, it is impossible for mortal wounds to ever be any other way.

That's not true. If you have 6 mortal wounds as 1 packet of 6 wounds that "ignore saves and determine damage" steps it would still be 6 mortal wounds that would need to be allocated. I'm not sure what you are arguing here.

Unlike the 40k rules, age of sigmar rules never state that MW are individual instances of damage.

 

[LizardWizard]

relatively few attacks cause more than 1 MW though, so it’s not a *huge* nerf.

It hurt our match up vs Fyreslayers a lot. That was the biggest end of the nerf. Also made Saurus much more vulnerable to enemy Salamanders

 

[Canas]

View attachment 68792

I seriously don't understand why they didn't just write this down. A 1+ just makes it look like it can ignore the rule about natural 1's always failing, whereas writing it like this leaves no room for arguments.

Even if they are generated during the attack sequence, the attacks do not cause the mortal wounds. In every scenario the abilities cause the mortal wounds. Attacks are not capable of causing mortal wounds directly.

Seperating the abilities that units solely have because they have a certain weapon from the actual attack made with said weapon because at some point some genius saw it necesary to define what an "attack" is, is stupid & game-y.

Though in fairness, literally all of the caveats surounding scaly skin are stupid and game-y. It is overly niche, virtually useless against some armies while almost providing 50% damage reduction against others for no real reason, which as a faction ability is rather absurd. Also the strict seperation of "attack" and "ability" is contrived as hell. Just look at a stegadon, it's crushing stomps are stopped by scaly skin, it's unstoppable stampede ignores scaly skin. Both the attack and the ability represent the exact same thing; namely a stegadon stomping on your face. But due to some arbitrary definitions one is exempt, the other isn't. There's no logical reason for this to be so. But for some reason GW has gone for this confusing scheme.

A rule should not be that confusing...

On a sidenote, why have attacks actually been defined as a seperate thing to begin with?​

​

​

Furthermore, mortal wounds generated during the attack sequence are allocated at the same time as all other wounds from the attack (see core rules). An ability that causes 6 mortal wounds is not 1 packet of 6 wounds, it is 6 packets of 1 wound - since mortal wounds skip the "Save Roll" and "Determine Damage" steps of attacking, it is impossible for mortal wounds to ever be any other way.​

​

That depends, did the ability trigger once doing 6 mortal wounds? Or did it trigger 6 times doing 1 wound each? For clarity, something like flamethrowers hitting once per model in the target unit would trigger multiple times for 1 damage. Something like arcane bolt triggers once for multiple damage.

If it's once for multiple damage than scaly skin should logically protect you.​

 

[Alladin the Paladin]

It hurt our match up vs Fyreslayers a lot. That was the biggest end of the nerf. Also made Saurus much more vulnerable to enemy Salamanders

Yeah, I dont know too many things with multiple MWs. Off the top of my head from things I have seen/faced.

1) Hearthguard
2) Terrorgeists
3) Longstrikes & Jezzails (hurts our heroes as scaly skin provided some potentially strong anti-sniping buffs)

 

[Putzfrau]

It hurt our match up vs Fyreslayers a lot. That was the biggest end of the nerf. Also made Saurus much more vulnerable to enemy Salamanders

Yep, Saurus could actually trade surprisingly well with Fyreslayers before this.

 

[PJetski]

Yep, Saurus could actually trade surprisingly well with Fyreslayers before this.

Only if you were playing the game wrong

 

[LordBaconBane]

I've never faced Fyreslayers. If I encounter any, some little tips when facing them?

 

[LizardWizard]

Only if you were playing the game wrong

Where in the rules does it say that an attack which triggers mortal wounds is non-attack damage? It is generated through an attack profile. Things like Stormcast Lanterns and other weapons which do not have to hit or wound and are not present on the unit's weapon profile are not attacks. But, if it triggers off an attack roll, being either a hit or wound roll, then it is obviously an attack based upon how attacking is defined in the core rules of AoS. I think a broader argument can be made that anything which is listed specially on a warscroll's weapon profile is making an attack.

"MORTAL WOUNDS
Some attacks, spells and abilities inflict mortal wounds. Do not make hit, wound or save rolls for mortal wounds. Instead, the damage inflicted on the target is equal to the number of mortal wounds that were suffered. Allocate any mortal wounds that are caused while a unit is attacking at the same time as any other wounds caused by the unit’s attacks, after all of the unit’s attacks have been completed. Mortal wounds caused at other times are allocated to models in the target unit as soon as they occur, in the same manner as wounds caused by damage from an attack. After they have been allocated, a mortal wound is treated in the same manner as any other wound for all rules purposes."

Clearly states that attacks can deal MWs.

There are plenty of other MW's that are triggered as part of the attack sequence and then skip the other remaining steps or are dealt in addition to the remaining steps of the attack sequence. How are these not damage that is the result of an attack?

 

[LizardWizard]

I've never faced Fyreslayers. If I encounter any, some little tips when facing them?

Don't let Hermdar settle themselves onto an objective. Kill their support heroes ASAP. Don't fight a buffed unit of Hearthguard Berserkers if it can be avoided.

 

[Putzfrau]

Only if you were playing the game wrong

 

[Putzfrau]

Don't let Hermdar settle themselves onto an objective. Kill their support heroes ASAP. Don't fight a buffed unit of Hearthguard Berserkers if it can be avoided.

I'll echo this and also say Purple Sun

I wonder how much scaly skin will effect our DoT matchup. I know they have tons of mortals, but d3 damage on the flamers seems like it'll take a nice hit from scaly skin.

 

[PJetski]

Where in the rules does it say that an attack which triggers mortal wounds is non-attack damage? It is generated through an attack profile. Things like Stormcast Lanterns and other weapons which do not have to hit or wound are not attacks. But, if it triggers off an attack roll, being either a hit or wound roll, then it is obviously an attack based upon how attacking is defined in the core rules of AoS.

"MORTAL WOUNDS
Some attacks, spells and abilities inflict mortal wounds. Do not make hit, wound or save rolls for mortal wounds. Instead, the damage inflicted on the target is equal to the number of mortal wounds that were suffered. Allocate any mortal wounds that are caused while a unit is attacking at the same time as any other wounds caused by the unit’s attacks, after all of the unit’s attacks have been completed. Mortal wounds caused at other times are allocated to models in the target unit as soon as they occur, in the same manner as wounds caused by damage from an attack. After they have been allocated, a mortal wound is treated in the same manner as any other wound for all rules purposes."

Clearly states that attacks can deal MWs.

Attacks are regular weapon rolls that must roll to hit, wound, save, and determine damage.
An ability or spell that deals mortal wounds is not an attack.
An ability that is tied to a weapon (such as sunfire thrower) is not an attack.
An ability that activates during an attack (such as on an unmodified hit roll of 6) is still not an attack.
Mortal Wounds generated during an attack sequence are allocated at the same time as all other damage (eg after the unit has finished making all of its attacks) but they are still not an attack.

As @Jason839 mentioned earlier in this thread GW has been using text like "Do not use the attack sequence" and "the attack sequence ends" to convey this is how the game works. It has always worked this way but they are now adding specific text to help clarify, similar to how Mounts were added as a concept in GHB2017 but were never properly defined until Soul Wars.

This was not an errata because they did not change anything about the game. You were playing the game wrong, and they have clarified the correct way to play.