What does 'Attack Sequence Ends' mean?

[Valkyrion]

I've seen this a few times now (Vortex Bolts in SM, Gauntlet of the Conflagrator in Necron) and I can't find where in the rule book such a phrase exists.

 

[TrawlingCleaner]

The Rules for making attacks are something to the effect of: "Attacks are resolved one at a time using the following attack sequence" An attack sequence is: Roll to hit, Roll to wound, Roll to save, Deal damage, you then move on and do the next attack.

Of course no one would do that for multiple shots/attacks that would take absolutely ages(there are cases where you have to slow roll), so everyone plays with what is essentially a sped up version which is very much supported and recommended by the rulebook.

 

In cases like this (I assume they deal mortal wounds on the roll of 6 to wound) the attack sequence ending essentially means that that one attack can deal no futher damage. There are weapons and abilites that allow you to deal mortal wounds ON TOP of the damage of the weapon, these are not one of those

 

An example is the Gorefather relic for Chaos Space marines "on the wound roll of 6 it deals 3 mortal wounds and the attack sequence ends"

Lets say you roll 4 attacks:

4 Hit

4 Wound, 1 of these is a 6. The attack that wounded on a 6 deals 3 mortal wounds, the attack sequence ends for that attack

3 Armour saves are attempted

Any Failed armour saves then deal damage

 

Hope that makes sense!

[Valkyrion]

Thanks, it does make sense but it seems a bit redundant?

The wording for the Gauntlet of the Conflagrator says 'each time an attack is made with this weapon that attack automatically hits the target. Instead of making a wound roll, roll one D6 for each model in the target unit, that unit suffers 1 mortal wound for each result of a 6 and the attack sequence ends.'

 

The gauntlet is a Pistol 1 with with S, AP and D of '-'

 

If you omit the words 'and the attack sequence ends' how does the effect change?

[TrawlingCleaner]

That is very odd, I'm sure there would be players that argue that if the attack sequences ends bit wasn't there then the opponent would still have to make an armour save, though it has 0 damage so wouldn't actually deal damage.

I think this is GWs new way of wording weapons that deal mortal wounds, it stops the argument that you have potential for damage on top of that.

[Panzer]

Thanks, it does make sense but it seems a bit redundant?

The wording for the Gauntlet of the Conflagrator says 'each time an attack is made with this weapon that attack automatically hits the target. Instead of making a wound roll, roll one D6 for each model in the target unit, that unit suffers 1 mortal wound for each result of a 6 and the attack sequence ends.'

 

The gauntlet is a Pistol 1 with with S, AP and D of '-'

 

If you omit the words 'and the attack sequence ends' how does the effect change?

 

It's to make sure people don't poke holes into the rules. Like laws, there tend to be redundant wordings to make things as waterproof as possible.

Like, if they didn't include that passage there would potentially be people who struggle with understanding rules or those who look to abuse them sloppy wordings, arguing that since the attack sequence didn't explicitly end you still get to roll to wound and potentially deal damage. It's a bit more redundant in this case where the weapon doesn't have a full profile, however there are weapons that can automatically wound and deal damage despite having a regular profile.

 

Baiscally redundancy for waterproof and to avoid confusion for people who aren't really feeling at home with the rules yet.

[BluejayJunior]

Those gauntlets are kind of a weird one. But they use that language frequently and use it do differentiate between things like the Gorefather example above, where the damage is essentially converted into mortal wounds, and things like sniper rifles, where the mortal wound on a 6 is in addition to the regular damage the attack does. 

[Valkyrion]

If the attack sequence ends after the wound has been dealt, then does that mean things like Disgustingly Resilient, or Black Templars Righteous Zeal don't apply? 

[Kyoujin]

If the attack sequence ends after the wound has been dealt, then does that mean things like Disgustingly Resilient, or Black Templars Righteous Zeal don't apply? 

Those are not saves and are not otherwise a part of the attack sequence.

[Valkyrion]

I see. This was clearer to me before they added the legalese!

[Seahawk]

I recommend reading the BRB! ;)

 

 

As listed:

 

1. Hit Roll

2. Wound Roll

3. Allocate Attack

4. Saving Throw

5. Inflict Damage

 

You'll notice that explanations for both mortal wounds and ignoring wounds exists outside the attack sequence. This was done on purpose, so that when you read a sentence like the one in question, you realize that when it happens during the Hit Roll (step 1), you then ignore steps 2-5 and go straight to inflicting mortal wounds, at which point you can then ignore them with Feel No Pain or whatever.

[Brother Ramael]

I recommend reading the BRB!

 

 

As listed:

 

1. Hit Roll

2. Wound Roll

3. Allocate Attack

4. Saving Throw

5. Inflict Damage

 

You'll notice that explanations for both mortal wounds and ignoring wounds exists outside the attack sequence. This was done on purpose, so that when you read a sentence like the one in question, you realize that when it happens during the Hit Roll (step 1), you then ignore steps 2-5 and go straight to inflicting mortal wounds, at which point you can then ignore them with Feel No Pain or whatever.

Allright, I am looking for example at the Blade of Burden: on a 6 to wound, score 2 MW and the attack sequence ends.

So, I roll 6, the target gets 2 MW, no armor or invulnerability ( ofc), then it uses its FNP etc....  except that if we stick by the rules, if the "attack sequence" ends, we skip the "allocate target" and "inflict damage" steps as well, which is absurd.

 

 

Edit: to be clear, I am on board with the " you skip saves except FNP or special abilities" explanation, I am saying the "bulletproof" explanation seems to mess things up a bit in practice.

Edited October 25, 2020 by Brother Ramael

[BluejayJunior]

It's not absurd at all. The attack sequence ends and you skip the allocate and inflict damage steps. You then use the rules for mortal wounds which tell you how to allocate them. FNP does not exist within the attack sequence. It is strictly when a wound is lost.

[Quixus]

FNP and other damage reduction abilities are not saves or otherwise part of the attack sequence, so they are not affected when the attack sequence ends. Technically they always happen when the attack sequence has already ended, since they modify damage taken.

Edited October 25, 2020 by Quixus

[Seahawk]

 

snip

snip

 

Remember, Mortal Wounds are dealt outside the attack sequence, so it all functions appropriately. Same with abilities that ignore wounds. It's all outside the attacks sequence.