• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

AoS FAQ is out. Bastiladon is god

Putzfrau said:
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.
Click to expand...
Very much yes to the Purple Sun. Not only does it outright slay, but a lot of Fyreslayer armies won't be able to unbind or dispel it once it is on the table.

Agreed. DoT is the main draw to play Coalesced for me at the moment.
 
PJetski said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
It is clearly stated that attacks can deal MWs in the Mortal Mound Subsection or the Core Rules. You are arguing over a semantic interpretation of the attack sequence rules. Not all attacks have to filter through part or any of the full sequence. Weapon profiles which have a rule amendment to change the normal attack sequence are still weapons. The rules for attacking with missile and melee weapons makes this clear:

"When a unit shoots or fights, it makes attacks with the weapons it is armed with. A unit attacks with all the weapons it is armed with, including any used by its mount. The weapon options a model has are listed on its warscroll. Missile weapons can only be used in the shooting phase, and melee weapons can only be used in the combat phase."

This lays out that attacks are found on a warscroll's weapon profile. Some weapons ignore the standard sequence of attacking, but are none the less attacks. Having a dashed phase which says see "x" doesn't change it from being a weapon which interacts with the the game via a declared attack. If you have to declare you are attacking and it is on the warscroll's weapon profile then it is obviously an attack.
 
All of those weapons say "Do not use the attack sequence". They are obviously not an attack.

If you have an ability that activates on a hit6 then the ability deals the mortal wounds and not the attack.The attack did not cause the mortal wounds, the associated ability caused them.

It's obviously not semantics because the developers just told you in their commentary that there is a distinction!
 
LizardWizard said:
It is clearly stated that attacks can deal MWs in the Mortal Mound Subsection or the Core Rules. You are arguing over a semantic interpretation of the attack sequence rules. Not all attacks have to filter through part or any of the full sequence. Weapon profiles which have a rule amendment to change the normal attack sequence are still weapons. The rules for attacking with missile and melee weapons makes this clear:

"When a unit shoots or fights, it makes attacks with the weapons it is armed with. A unit attacks with all the weapons it is armed with, including any used by its mount. The weapon options a model has are listed on its warscroll. Missile weapons can only be used in the shooting phase, and melee weapons can only be used in the combat phase."

This lays out that attacks are found on a warscroll's weapon profile. Some weapons ignore the standard sequence of attacking, but are none the less attacks. Having a dashed phase which says see "x" doesn't change it from being a weapon which interacts with the the game via a declared attack. If you have to declare you are attacking and it is on the warscroll's weapon profile then it is obviously an attack.
Click to expand...

This could all be fixed by adding the wording “This rule does not apply to damage caused by Mortal Wounds.”
 
PJetski said:
It's obviously not semantics because the developers just told you in their commentary that there is a distinction!
Click to expand...
The developers did not say there was a distinction, they simply stated that mortal wounds don't count period.

And regardless of where the developers stand on the definition of an "attack" it remains a discussion in which one side is basing their arguments on semantics and the definition of an "attack" whereas the other side would like to see it being grounded in some sort of logic based on what the various abilities & weapons are supposed to represent....

Don't get me wrong, going by semantics and the arbitrary defintion the game makes about what is and isn't an attack is fine and all, but confusing messes like this is part of the reason why WFB died off.

Seriously, just for fun, show the rule for scaly skin to some random people and then show various abilities and attacks and ask if they can say if it's applicable or not. The majority will probably naturally assume it applies to the various abilities, spells, attacks exploding into mortal wounds etc. because the distinction between what is and isn't an "attack" is wholly arbitrary and purely a question of semantics within the game.

The connecting scaly skin to "attacks" was a mistake, and I hope they realize this before they start to introduce more rules that rely as heavily on semantics for "correct" execution.
 
PJetski said:
All of those weapons say "Do not use the attack sequence". They are obviously not an attack.

If you have an ability that activates on a hit6 then the ability deals the mortal wounds and not the attack.The attack did not cause the mortal wounds, the associated ability caused them.

It's obviously not semantics because the developers just told you in their commentary that there is a distinction!
Click to expand...
Not using the attack sequence doesn't mean it isn't an attack. You still have to declare that you are attacking with those weapons. At which point the weapon profile allows it to skip the standard sequence.
 
LizardWizard said:
"When a unit shoots or fights, it makes attacks with the weapons it is armed with. A unit attacks with all the weapons it is armed with, including any used by its mount. The weapon options a model has are listed on its warscroll. Missile weapons can only be used in the shooting phase, and melee weapons can only be used in the combat phase."

This lays out that attacks are found on a warscroll's weapon profile. .
Click to expand...

Exactly. The core rulebook clearly outlines what functions as an attack.

Ignoring the attack sequence or not doesn't ignore the definition of attack as laid out by the core rule book.
 
so for those wondering, I was only half joking. our mobility out shines the FS by FAR. use it. mobility and shooting and sheer volume of ranged attacks will drop them.
 
Putzfrau said:
Exactly. The core rulebook clearly outlines what functions as an attack.

Ignoring the attack sequence or not doesn't ignore the definition of attack as laid out by the core rule book.
Click to expand...

I hate to point out the obvious, but does any of this even really matter? We are talking about hypotheticals and the now distant past. The reality is how the FAQ states it.

Even if the core rules said “MWs from attacks are attacks. Therefore, if we one day release a battletome that reduces damage from attacks, these MWs will also be reduced. We promise!!!”

Then, a tome is released and the prophecy is fulfilled.

Then, they FAQ it to negate their promise. FAQ wins. Scaly Skin loses. Sorry guys. I’m bummed too.
 
Putzfrau said:
Exactly. The core rulebook clearly outlines what functions as an attack.

Ignoring the attack sequence or not doesn't ignore the definition of attack as laid out by the core rule book.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. The attack sequence is not what defines something as an attack. It is only how we resolve a declared attack. MWs can augment the sequence in part of in whole. However, the definition of an attack is not tied to the sequence for resolving said attack.
 
If they were attacks that caused damage then Scaly Skin would reduce them. According to the people who write the rules it doesn't reduce them, so they're not attacks.

It was a clarification, not an errata; nothing has been changed, you were just playing the game wrong.

We can spend all day arguing about this, but until the developers say otherwise there's nothing else to say on the matter.
 
PJetski said:
If they were attacks that caused damage then Scaly Skin would reduce them. According to the people who write the rules it doesn't reduce them, so they're not attacks.

It was a clarification, not an errata; nothing has been changed, you were just playing the game wrong.

We can spend all day arguing about this, but until the developers say otherwise there's nothing else to say on the matter.
Click to expand...
That is an assumption of intent, not an actuality of how the rules are written. Agreed, that is does not matter in terms of how scaly skin currently interacts or how it was intended to interact. However, attacks can deal MWs as stated by the GW published rules.
 
Alladin the Paladin said:
I hate to point out the obvious, but does any of this even really matter? We are talking about hypotheticals and the now distant past. The reality is how the FAQ states it.

Even if the core rules said “MWs from attacks are attacks. Therefore, if we one day release a battletome that reduces damage from attacks, these MWs will also be reduced. We promise!!!”

Then, a tome is released and the prophecy is fulfilled.

Then, they FAQ it to negate their promise. FAQ wins. Scaly Skin loses. Sorry guys. I’m bummed too.
Click to expand...
its a good conversation to have for future rules distinctions. plus Pjetski is just horribly wrong and im enjoying people correcting him and seeing him stand his ground.

I can respect a fellow stubborn ass lol
 
ILKAIN said:
its a good conversation to have for future rules distinctions. plus Pjetski is just horribly wrong and im enjoying people correcting him and seeing him stand his ground.

I can respect a fellow stubborn ass lol
Click to expand...

Haha... I am normally one to gravitate toward endlessly cyclical philosophical arguments, but the last few days have seen me adopt a more pragmatic and straightforward approach. Maybe it’s due to the weather we’ve been having....... hmm.
 
ILKAIN said:
its a good conversation to have for future rules distinctions. plus Pjetski is just horribly wrong and im enjoying people correcting him and seeing him stand his ground.

I can respect a fellow stubborn ass lol
Click to expand...
My argument is entirely based on the FAQ released today.

Feel free to contribute something to the discussion, though
 
People are making a big deal over mortal wounds not counting for scaly skin...

It's really not a big deal, and coalesced Seraphon is still looking to be a top tier army. Saurus still compare favorably with basically any comparable units in the game. Salamanders are still fantastic, and most abilities/spells that caused multiple mortal wounds didn't come from attacks, or caused many instances of single mortal wounds (like warpfire throwers) anyway.

This really only matters against other Seraphon running multiple units salamanders, FS running pikes on hearthguard, when most run axes anyway, Terrorgheists ( guess. 6-5 mortal wounds wasn't a huge deal anyway), Jezzails, and SCE paladins (specifically retributors); also a few hero models, but attacks that cause multiple mortal wounds really aren't that common, and are almost always only triggered on a hit or wound roll of 6; so the majority of damage from such units will still be affected by Scaly skin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top