• 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 Scaly Skin FAQ

Lizerd
Skink Priest

Lizerd

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,391
Likes Received
9,476
Trophy Points
113
So as we all know scaly skin got FAQed “
Q: Does the Coalesced battle trait ‘Scaly Skin’ apply to mortal wounds?
A: No”

seems simple enough, but the issue is this contradicts the core rules rules which state “After they have been allocated, a mortal wound is treated in the same manner as any other wound for all rules purposes” emphasis on being treated as any other wound. So how does this FAQ resolve? I honestly have no idea
 
the FAQ always overrides the core rules. that was the basis for my original argument about the basti saves.
 
I have an question,
How does the scaly skin affect an spell, prayers, curses ect..
Is a this seen as a attack?

Not mortal wounds ofcourse, but from normal wounds.
When a spell,prayer, curse does "x" wounds do you subtract 1 from the damage?
 
Last edited:
theodoris said:
I have an question,
How does the scaly skin affect an spell.
Is a spell seen as a attack?

Not mortal wounds ofcourse, but from normal wounds.
When a spell does "x" wounds do you subtract 1 from the damage?
Click to expand...
it does not as spells only do mortal wounds any time a spell says "x" wounds it's assumed that they are mortal as you don't get a save against them and the language has changed so such spells are probably just older writings.
 
theodoris said:
I have an question,
How does the scaly skin affect an spell, prayers, curses ect..
Is a this seen as a attack?

Not mortal wounds ofcourse, but from normal wounds.
When a spell,prayer, curse does "x" wounds do you subtract 1 from the damage?
Click to expand...

Core Rules say that 3 different sources can inflict mortal wounds: attacks, spells and abilities.
So, the same distintion must be applied also to every kind of damage.

Scaly Skin's text is "Subtract 1 from the damage inflicted by each successful attack".

So the answer to your question is no

(I am still of the opinion that the faq contradicts the core rules or at least that scaly skin was written in a very bad way if the intention was to not apply it to mws caused directly by an attack, but that's another topic)
 
Killer Angel said:
(I am still of the opinion that the faq contradicts the core rules or at least that scaly skin was written in a very bad way if the intention was to not apply it to mws caused directly by an attack, but that's another topic)
Click to expand...
I honestly don't get why they didn't just outright state it only works for "normal" wounds in the first place. It'd also have prevented the mess we have now where there's an arbitrary distinction between "attacks" and "not attacks", despite a lot of those represinting the same thing anyway. It'd stil be gamey to limit it just to "normal" wounds, but at least it wouldn't be confusing as to what is and isn't affected.
 
It does have some decent coverage as it can cover melee and shooting, but the fact that it wont cover mortal wounds is fairly annoying. If GW stated that earlier none of this would be a problem
 
Lizerd said:
It does have some decent coverage as it can cover melee and shooting, but the fact that it wont cover mortal wounds is fairly annoying. If GW stated that earlier none of this would be a problem
Click to expand...

I don't know why, but I assumed mortals were never covered.
 
Lizerd said:
It does have some decent coverage as it can cover melee and shooting, but the fact that it wont cover mortal wounds is fairly annoying. If GW stated that earlier none of this would be a problem
Click to expand...
imho covering spells/abilities would've been more unique, and more usefull given that those are pretty much all D3's. In that sense alone I already find it a bit of a lost oppertunity. It's also pretty much exactly what Coalesced needs defensivly.

When I first saw it I was amazed, it looked cool, it looked increadibly usefull, and it even seemed intuitive with little room for rules-lawyers to ruin the fun. And then the rules-lawyers showed up to point out that actually spells & abilities aren't attacks. And then GW showed up to F.A.Q. out even mortal wounds triggered by attacks (e.g. a retributor's blast to ashes). Turning an ability that would've been super usefull against pretty much any opponent into one that's surprsingly niche. It was such a dissapointment.

I mean yeah, it still has its uses, and it's still great against say Ogers or Ironjawz. But it's sad that against those it essentially provides a massive armywide damage reduction, while against a horde of skeletons it basicly doesn't do anything.
 
Fluff wise it makes sense to me Scaly Skin only works against melee attacks or shooting. I see it as the Coalesced dinos having developed thick skin from living in the mortal realms for so long. To me Mortal Wounds is meant to illustrate magic/soul piercing/otherworldly abilities that dont really care about your thick plate mail or whatever, including the thicker and scaly skin.
 
Grotpunter said:
Fluff wise it makes sense to me Scaly Skin only works against melee attacks or shooting. I see it as the Coalesced dinos having developed thick skin from living in the mortal realms for so long. To me Mortal Wounds is meant to illustrate magic/soul piercing/otherworldly abilities that dont really care about your thick plate mail or whatever, including the thicker and scaly skin.
Click to expand...
I'd agree if mortal wounds were actually used exclusivly for that. But sadly that isn't the case, which makes even that argument feel rather weak. Hell in certain cases it's literally the same attack as usual but you rolled a 6 and got a good hit so it gets some bonus damage. Also, on the other end of the spectrum you have "magical" attacks like a ghost ripping you appart with spectral claws doing regular damage.

The fluff that mortal wounds represent magical attacks, or at least something against which armour won't help much like poison, simply isn't really upheld.
 
Canas said:
I'd agree if mortal wounds were actually used exclusivly for that. But sadly that isn't the case, which makes even that argument feel rather weak. Hell in certain cases it's literally the same attack as usual but you rolled a 6 and got a good hit so it gets some bonus damage. Also, on the other end of the spectrum you have "magical" attacks like a ghost ripping you appart with spectral claws doing regular damage.

The fluff that mortal wounds represent magical attacks, or at least something against which armour won't help much like poison, simply isn't really upheld.
Click to expand...
As with everything else in life there are obviously outliners, but it does seem to be the general theme they are going with. If you wanted it somewhat realistic, they would have to use multiple categories which they havent - likely due to trying to make the game system smooth and easy to understand. The Starpriest venom I would assume is poison making contact with the body. With units doing it on hits I would chalk it up as to being some kind of critical hit.
 
Grotpunter said:
As with everything else in life there are obviously outliners, but it does seem to be the general theme they are going with. If you wanted it somewhat realistic, they would have to use multiple categories which they havent - likely due to trying to make the game system smooth and easy to understand. The Starpriest venom I would assume is poison making contact with the body. With units doing it on hits I would chalk it up as to being some kind of critical hit.
Click to expand...
The original intend was definitly for it to be "stuff that armour doesn't help against" but at this point they've been so inconsistent it barely matters. I wish they'd had introduced 2 different types of damage, physical and non-physical, on top of mortal wounds (so damage that bypasses saves). It would have saved some of this mess (as well as potentially solve some other issues)
 
Canas said:
The original intend was definitly for it to be "stuff that armour doesn't help against" but at this point they've been so inconsistent it barely matters. I wish they'd had introduced 2 different types of damage, physical and non-physical, on top of mortal wounds (so damage that bypasses saves). It would have saved some of this mess (as well as potentially solve some other issues)
Click to expand...

They did this in fantasy battles. It solved some problems and caused others.
 
Last edited:
Canas said:
The original intend was definitly for it to be "stuff that armour doesn't help against" but at this point they've been so inconsistent it barely matters. I wish they'd had introduced 2 different types of damage, physical and non-physical, on top of mortal wounds (so damage that bypasses saves). It would have saved some of this mess (as well as potentially solve some other issues)
Click to expand...

Putzfrau said:
They did this in fantasy battles. It solved some problems and caused others.
Click to expand...

so maybe physical damage could be your standard axe to the head, while a non physical could be a sick yo mamma joke?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top