AoS Scaly skin rule

[Killer Angel]

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.

sigh.
Attacks inflict mortal wounds. It's stated in the rules.
If you don't think that MWs caused by a successful to hit rolls are inflicted by the attack, please name examples of Attacks that deal mortal wounds, because the rules say that 3 things inflict MWs: attacks, spells and abilities.
(an example of an ability that inflicts a mortal wound without requiring an attack, is the one that can can deal MWs on a successful charge).

 

[Canas]

It is an ability that causes this. Byproduct of attacking with said model.

It is not a byproduct, it is literally the attack itself. All that the "it burns" rule represent is just that your salamander got a critical hit with that particular attack when it scores a hitroll of 6. That doesn't stop it from still just being an attack... The fact that the effect of a critical hit is listed under "abilities" doesn't stop it from still being part of an "attack".

Also, if "it burns" counts as ability damage seperate from an "attack", then what in the world do things like a dracoth's "intolerable damage" or a saurus knight's celestite warspear count as? As those are abilities modifying the damage of an attack...​

 

[ILKAIN]

It is not a byproduct, it is literally the attack itself. All that the "it burns" rule represent is just that your salamander got a critical hit with that particular attack when it scores a hitroll of 6. That doesn't stop it from still just being an attack... The fact that the effect of a critical hit is listed under "abilities" doesn't stop it from still being part of an "attack".

Also, if "it burns" counts as ability damage seperate from an "attack", then what in the world do things like a dracoth's "intolerable damage" or a saurus knight's celestite warspear count as? As those are abilities modifying the damage of an attack...​

Grot has had this same argument like three times and been shown he was wrong on it each time. save your breath

 

[Grotpunter]

It is not a byproduct, it is literally the attack itself. All that the "it burns" rule represent is just that your salamander got a critical hit with that particular attack when it scores a hitroll of 6. That doesn't stop it from still just being an attack... The fact that the effect of a critical hit is listed under "abilities" doesn't stop it from still being part of an "attack".

Also, if "it burns" counts as ability damage seperate from an "attack", then what in the world do things like a dracoth's "intolerable damage" or a saurus knight's celestite warspear count as? As those are abilities modifying the damage of an attack...​

It literally says on the warscroll that "It Burns" is an ability. Sure, those other things are abilities, but they directly modify the attack itself, they dont produce something on the side, like an extra effect such as MW. They directly change the damage characteristic.

So yeah, IMO this extra added damage would totally be modified by Scaly Skin.

Grot has had this same argument like three times and been shown he was wrong on it each time. save your breath

It is OK if you disagree. Remember it is a forum and not an echo chamber, right? Keep in mind Im a lawyer, so everything I write here holds up in court /s

In general you do not have to attack me for having a different opinion on things. I had my doubts about Scaly Skin affecting MWs prior to the FAQ - See my question a couple of pages back in regards to a Keeper of Secrets scoring a 6 on a wound roll. I think the FAQ makes sense from my point of view. I understand you might be bitter about the fact it is significantly worse than you anticipated at first - I did have my doubts too.

 

[Killer Angel]

I had my doubts about Scaly Skin affecting MWs prior to the FAQ - See my question a couple of pages back in regards to a Keeper of Secrets scoring a 6 on a wound roll. I think the FAQ makes sense from my point of view. I understand you might be bitter about the fact it is significantly worse than you anticipated at first - I did have my doubts too.

We had doubts too, but just because it was unclear how wide the reduction granted by scaly skin would have been.
Without mentioning them, the scaly skin rule as written was including MWs generated by attacks roll, as the core rule I've uploaded in the first post of this page explicitly say that some attacks inflict MWs.

With the designer's commentary, GW is basically saying "we wrote the rule wrongly". Which is fine. But we cannot pretend that "damage inflicted by attacks" didn't include also MWs generated by attacks (as per core rules).

 

[Grotpunter]

We had doubts too, but just because it was unclear how wide the reduction granted by scaly skin would have been.
Without mentioning them, the scaly skin rule as written was including MWs generated by attacks roll, as the core rule I've uploaded in the first post of this page explicitly say that some attacks inflict MWs.

With the designer's commentary, GW is basically saying "we wrote the rule wrongly". Which is fine. But we cannot pretend that "damage inflicted by attacks" didn't include also MWs generated by attacks (as per core rules).

The way I interpretated the rules, I dont see how the core rules you linked are relevant. Without repeating myself, Scaly Skin affects the actual weapon attack, as described above, where as abilities causing MWs on the warscroll is not a part of the actual weapon attack.

It is kinda obvious we got a different interpretation of the rules, which is fine, but at the end of the day it is kinda irrelevant since we have a FAQ straight up saying "no".

 

[Killer Angel]

The way I interpretated the rules, I dont see how the core rules you linked are relevant. Without repeating myself, Scaly Skin affects the actual weapon attack, as described above, where as abilities causing MWs on the warscroll is not a part of the actual weapon attack.

It is kinda obvious we got a different interpretation of the rules, which is fine, but at the end of the day it is kinda irrelevant since we have a FAQ straight up saying "no".

Yes, but at this point I'm not debating with you about the FAQ, but on the reasoning on the original rule.
Scaly Skin don't reduce the "weapon attack"; the text is "Subtract 1 from the damage inflicted by each successful attack"
the core rules says that "some attacks inflict mortal wounds".
Core rules also say "the damage inflicted on the target is equal to the number of mortal wounds that were suffered"

It's not an interpretation, it's the reading of the rules. Rules say that 3 different sources can inflict mortal wounds: attacks, spells and abilities.
Your reasoning is that MWs are generated by abilities related to the attack, not by the attack itself, but the rule says that some attacks inflict MWs.
Are you able to name attacks that deal MWs without relying on abilities that interact with the attack? Because attacks that inflict MWs must exist, as they are mentioned in the core rules.

 

[Canas]

It literally says on the warscroll that "It Burns" is an ability. Sure, those other things are abilities, but they directly modify the attack itself, they dont produce something on the side, like an extra effect such as MW. They directly change the damage characteristic.

Are you seriously suggesting GW needs to introduce a seperate tab "weapon effects" or some such to convince you that an "ability" that is used to describe the effects an attack is indeed part of that attack? I mean, it's a fair enough suggestion for the sake of clarity, but o my god are we going deep down into a discussion of semantics & the consequences of GW arbitrarly redefining terms to suit their game this way....

Keep in mind Im a lawyer, so everything I write here holds up in court

In which case you should realize that your line of reasoning goes against the principles behind "the reasonable person" as it's causing needless confusion by arbitrarly seperating an ability describing the (potential) effects of an attack from said attack for no reason other than GW randomly redefining the semantics of certain terms. And thus would at the very least be unclear, if not an outright "bad" rule.

In fairness though, the basic distinction that GW has created between "attacks" and "everything else" already goes against these principles (see for example a stegadon's how scaly skin affects unstoppable stampede v.s. its crushing stomps which will already confuse your average reasonable person...) So not entirely your fault. But still as a lawyer you should know better, unless of course you're willing to argue that the "reasonable AoS player" would follow GW's arbitrary attempts at redefining the english language, though that seems rather a stretch

 

[Grotpunter]

Are you seriously suggesting GW needs to introduce a seperate tab "weapon effects" or some such to convince you that an "ability" that is used to describe the effects an attack is indeed part of that attack? I mean, it's a fair enough suggestion for the sake of clarity, but o my god are we going deep down into a discussion of semantics & the consequences of GW arbitrarly redefining terms to suit their game this way....


In which case you should realize that your line of reasoning goes against the principles behind "the reasonable person" as it's causing needless confusion by arbitrarly seperating an ability describing the (potential) effects of an attack from said attack for no reason other than GW randomly redefining the semantics of certain terms. And thus would at the very least be unclear, if not an outright "bad" rule.

In fairness though, the basic distinction that GW has created between "attacks" and "everything else" already goes against these principles (see for example a stegadon's how scaly skin affects unstoppable stampede v.s. its crushing stomps which will already confuse your average reasonable person...) So not entirely your fault. But still as a lawyer you should know better, unless of course you're willing to argue that the "reasonable AoS player" would follow GW's arbitrary attempts at redefining the english language, though that seems rather a stretch

Im not a lawyer. I have no need to express what profession I do IRL. I dont believe it has any relevance to any discussion at all, hence the /s (sarcasm) at the end. It was meant at @ILKAIN who was taking stab at me. He likes to let people know that he's a lawstudent, as if that somehow makes his intrepretation more relevant and weight more, see his arguementation in the thread where he tries to explain why Bastiladon with a 1+ save ignores the core rules of a natural 1 failing saves.

What is an attack and what is not an attack, is fairly obvious. When you look at a warscroll for a model, it specfically shows what things are considered weapons = Attacks. Unstoppable Stampede is an ability that you get to use after a charge. It is not an attack. It has no attack sequence. Crushing Stomps is a melee weapon, and it has an attack sequence. It is therefore obviously an attack. The warscroll also goes into detail what attacks/weapons the model has. "A Stegadon is a single model armed with Massive Horns, Grinding Jaws and Crushing Stomps".

This is explained in the core rules for attacking, and there is also a reference in the Slaanesh FAQ that there is a distinct difference between abilities on a warscroll and actual attacks.


A spell is most certainly not an attack either as per above.

 

[Killer Angel]

This is explained in the core rules for attacking, and there is also a reference in the Slaanesh FAQ that there is a distinct difference between abilities on a warscroll and actual attacks.
View attachment 69315

sweet…
the FAQ only reinforce our stance on the matter.
"Ritual knife" and "Dark Temptation" are all abilities that deal mortal wounds but have no link to the mechanic of successful attack.
The FAQ deliberately leaves out the "Delicate Precision" ability (from the same model), which is tied to a natural 6+ to hit roll and deals MWs, ending the attack sequence.

EDIT.
to further retaliate this, here's the text of Delicate precision:

"If the unmodified wound roll for an attack made with a melee weapon by this model is 6, that attack inflicts a number of mortal wounds equal to the Damage characteristic of the weapon used for the attack and the attack sequence ends"
the attack inflicts a number of mortal wounds

I really don't know what other evidences you need that attacks can deal mortal wounds, because that's literally what's written in the rules AND in the warcrolls.

 

[ILKAIN]

Im not a lawyer. I have no need to express what profession I do IRL. I dont believe it has any relevance to any discussion at all, hence the /s (sarcasm) at the end. It was meant at @ILKAIN who was taking stab at me. He likes to let people know that he's a lawstudent, as if that somehow makes his intrepretation more relevant and weight more, see his arguementation in the thread where he tries to explain why Bastiladon with a 1+ save ignores the core rules of a natural 1 failing saves.

What is an attack and what is not an attack, is fairly obvious. When you look at a warscroll for a model, it specfically shows what things are considered weapons = Attacks. Unstoppable Stampede is an ability that you get to use after a charge. It is not an attack. It has no attack sequence. Crushing Stomps is a melee weapon, and it has an attack sequence. It is therefore obviously an attack. The warscroll also goes into detail what attacks/weapons the model has. "A Stegadon is a single model armed with Massive Horns, Grinding Jaws and Crushing Stomps".

This is explained in the core rules for attacking, and there is also a reference in the Slaanesh FAQ that there is a distinct difference between abilities on a warscroll and actual attacks.
View attachment 69315

A spell is most certainly not an attack either as per above.

no see... you completely missed the point of when I said that.

I was admitting that I interpret things literally, and that my interpretation might not be RAI.

if you are going to quote me, don't do it selectively to make you look better.

I also see where you left out where I said grot was a fellow hard headed fellow, and I could respect someone that holds to their stances.

the difference is, when presented with obvious, irrefutable evidence contrary to my beliefs, ill update and adapt. you double down and argue against multiple people SHOWING you, not just telling you, you are wrong.

I haven't taken any stabs at you either... I stated they should save their breath because you are immoveable in your stubborn wrongness.

 

[ILKAIN]

also that FAQ question asks specifically about abilities, not attacks... you are a gold medalist in mental gymnastics.

 

[Grotpunter]

no see... you completely missed the point of when I said that.

I was admitting that I interpret things literally, and that my interpretation might not be RAI.

if you are going to quote me, don't do it selectively to make you look better.

I also see where you left out where I said grot was a fellow hard headed fellow, and I could respect someone that holds to their stances.

the difference is, when presented with obvious, irrefutable evidence contrary to my beliefs, ill update and adapt. you double down and argue against multiple people SHOWING you, not just telling you, you are wrong.

I haven't taken any stabs at you either... I stated they should save their breath because you are immoveable in your stubborn wrongness.

I think you are mistaking me for someone else. This is not the thread you think it is.

 

[Grotpunter]

also that FAQ question asks specifically about abilities, not attacks... you are a gold medalist in mental gymnastics.

The FAQ confirms there is a difference between attacks and abilities. That is all.

 

[ILKAIN]

no longer relevant due to a removed post

 

[Killer Angel]

Guys, please remain civil.

 

[Killer Angel]

The FAQ confirms there is a difference between attacks and abilities. That is all.

Stop mixing abilities that are clearly unrelated to Attacks, with abilities triggered during the attack sequence which interact with the damage dealt by the attack.

I'm going to quote what i wrote before:
the keeper of Secrets FAQ only reinforces our stance on the matter.
"Ritual knife" and "Dark Temptation" are all abilities that deal mortal wounds but have no link to the mechanic of successful attack. Rightfully, the FAQ tells that those abilities are not an attack.
BUT the FAQ deliberately leaves out the "Delicate Precision" ability (from the same model), which is tied to a natural 6+ to hit roll and deals MWs, ending the attack sequence. Geez, i wonder why?!?

to further retaliate this, here's the text of Delicate precision:

"If the unmodified wound roll for an attack made with a melee weapon by this model is 6, that attack inflicts a number of mortal wounds equal to the Damage characteristic of the weapon used for the attack and the attack sequence ends"
let that sink into you: the attack inflicts a number of mortal wounds

I really don't know what other evidences you need that attacks can deal mortal wounds, because that's literally what's written in the rules AND in the warcrolls.

 

[Grotpunter]

oh I haven't confused you for any one. and now I've taken a stab at you.

I would hate for you to be a liar on top of stubborn and wrong

Yes you are refering to this thread http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/faq-is-out-bastiladon-is-god.24544/page-8

 

[ILKAIN]

Yes you are refering to this thread http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/faq-is-out-bastiladon-is-god.24544/page-8

no, im referencing YOU not the thread lmao

 

[Grotpunter]

no, im referencing YOU not the thread lmao

So where did you ever type that Im a "fellow hard headed fellow, and I could respect someone that holds to their stances"