Hellfire round question

[Trollbeard]

Hey guys, like the title says, I have a question regarding the Hellfire rounds.

 

The wording says “This weapon ALWAYS wounds on a 2+” I have put the word always in caps because I’m wondering if of this ignores “to wound” modifiers?

 

I think Harlequins have a character with an aura that reduces the wound rolls of attacks against other harlequin units by -1, would the hellfire rounds ignore this?

 

Thanks in advance

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I am thinking HF rounds get around the -1 to wound.

[Sloeberjong]

Well, they always wound on a 2+, so... Yeah. I'd say they're exempt from wound modifiers.

[Finkmilkana]

I would actually say the modifiers still have to be accounted for, at least if they modify the roll, not the threshold.

Yes, you wound on a roll of 2+, but modifiers usually do not modify the threshold you compare your result to, but the result of the roll itself.

So if you roll to wound against someone with -1 to wound and the dice shows a 2, the modified die roll is one, which does not wound.

Note that units like always wound/hit on a fixed value independently of modifiers specifically say so (I.e. dark reapers).

 

But this is certainly FAQ worthy (depending on what the harlequin characters sheet actually says).

[Moostick]

The word always makes it sound like modifiers don't matter, but your point about Dark Reaper is a good catch.

 

The only issue I have with that is that it's only useful if the author is reliably consistent, which GW's writers and editors don't have the best reputation for.

[Deathwalker]

I would actually say the modifiers still have to be accounted for, at least if they modify the roll, not the threshold.

Yes, you wound on a roll of 2+, but modifiers usually do not modify the threshold you compare your result to, but the result of the roll itself.

So if you roll to wound against someone with -1 to wound and the dice shows a 2, the modified die roll is one, which does not wound.

Note that units like always wound/hit on a fixed value independently of modifiers specifically say so (I.e. dark reapers).

 

But this is certainly FAQ worthy (depending on what the harlequin characters sheet actually says).

Errrr……………..

Hellfire has the same wording template as Dark reapers "always on X"

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Yep.

[leth]

Sadly it does not, dark reapers say they ignore modifiers to hit. Hellfire makes no such distinction. So if something gives -1 to wound then it affects the roll and they would wound on a 3+. I don’t think there are many -1 to wound abilities however.

[MadEdric]

Sadly it does not, dark reapers say they ignore modifiers to hit. Hellfire makes no such distinction. So if something gives -1 to wound then it affects the roll and they would wound on a 3+. I don’t think there are many -1 to wound abilities however.

Agreed. The Dark Reaper text is rather specific in that it clearly states that the 3+ ignores modifiers. HF rounds just set the wound to 2+, but could be modified.

[Deathwalker]

It says "This weapon ALWAYS wounds on 2+, EXCEPT against vehicles and titanic units"

Always tends to mean always. If a modifier affected it, it would no longer be always. I think the DR is just more explicit simply because it is an older codex, and hit modifiers are fairly common.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Yeah it is cut and dry.

[leth]

Sure, and if you know the order of operations you know that the 2+ is AFTER modifiers. So yes, you always wound on a 2+, shame that -1 turns that 2 in a 1.

 

It would have to say unmodified or natural roll of a 2+ to work.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I will disagree with you. If anyone has a better argument I'd like to hear it.

[Moostick]

I think we can agree this could have been written with more clarity. Either remove the word "always", or include the clarification in the end like DR.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

It just seems like one of those things a tool would argue.

[Deathwalker]

SNORT!!! LOL!!

[SnakeChisler]

Always means always, theres a bit more text round the Reaper always but the word is pretty unambiguous.

 

Always 2+ it's not a roll that has any leeway in its application.

 

There are other scenarios which crop up you always wound on a 6 even after modifiers and you always hit on a 6 in overwatch.

[mjrwaud]

Always means always, theres a bit more text round the Reaper always but the word is pretty unambiguous.

 

Always 2+ it's not a roll that has any leeway in its application.

 

There are other scenarios which crop up you always wound on a 6 even after modifiers and you always hit on a 6 in overwatch.

 

Completely agree, always means always no exceptions... unless an "unstoppable force vs. immovable object" type exception happens, and then it's house rules until there's an FAQ. 

 

Luckily, this isn't one of those. 2+ to wound, always.

 

 

(On a side note, some of the replies before Snakechislers' were heading in a nasty direction... sure we can be passionate about this stuff, but hopefully we can keep the discussion in a civil tone and not devolve to rudeness?)

[Moostick]

I get what the "no" side is saying though. Since modifiers officially occur after the roll, a roll of 2+ does wound, but it gets negated afterwards by a modifier of -1. I feel the word "always" is the problem here, and as mentioned GW does not have a good reputation of consistency. Don't forget there are THREE different rules for Infernum Halo-Launcher, so sometimes directly transferring codex from codex text is not accurate.

 

- Reroll saves of 1

- Reroll saves of 1 if you're in Supersonic

- -1 To hit from <Fly> enemies

 

I'd say overall there's at least some room for discussion. This is better than the days when some people were extremely adamant <Deathwatch> keyword gave SIA when nothing even hints at that. Dark days.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Glad we could reach a consensus.

[Finkmilkana]

Well, the consensus is just that the rule is not well defined. So not really a consensus. But I think everything that can be said is said, now it’s in GWs hand to clarify whether the „always“ is implicitly meant to be followed only by a „independent of toughness“ or also by „independent of modifiers“. Until then TOs will have to decide/friendly games should check with the opponent.

[Prot]

‘Always’ means always to me. Like someone said, Reapers have the same mechanism and I’ve yet to see a situation where their always, isn’t ‘always’.

 

As usual we’ll have some debate about this until GW clarifies ‘always’.

[Deathwalker]

I hold Black Oranges view to be true, it's not WORTH the argument, and if you are making it, you should really look at WHY you are making it.

Always means always, it's not Always*, it's just always. C:Eldar basically just said "when we say always, we mean always, don't bother, discussion over" 

[Prot]

=][= I hate to do it but this has become a circular argument. Take it to the rules forum or better yet GW. =][=