sigh.. and that distinction is arbitrary and quite confusing as it's GW redefining what an "attack" is for the sake of their game, as opposed to just using the dictionairy definition... There was never a need to define "attack", they could already be put under the catagory of "attacks following the attack sequence", which albeit less catchy is a whole lot less confusing.
I really dont understand what your agenda is. Considering your title is "staff member", I find your behaviour extremely questionable. It feels like having a different stance/opinion/intrepretation is frowned upon, which is just sad. Edit: I wrote a couple of posts back that you do not have to attack me just because I see things differently.
right there lol. if you notice I didn't put my reference to my own words in quotes the way you did. that's called paraphrasing. the intent of the words is the same, even if the layout isn't exactly the same. edited by @Killer Angel we don't want excessive sarcasm, right? Things tend to excalate quikly.
you don't have a different opinion.... you are ignoring fact. that's the sad part of all this. opinion Green is better than red fact attacks can generate mortal wounds I think this still falls under elementary English teacher so I don't think I get to cross another "I never thought" off my list. darn.
well you see that's a rule for pjetski, but don't worry it also applies to grotpunter ill release an FAQ later so there is less confusion.
I also find slightly offensive that you use this tactic to defend yourself. Even more because i already have deleted a post that was offensive toward you. But you are certainly entitled to report my behavior. Back on point. I was saying "until proven to the contrary", because i wrote TWICE presenting you evidences, quotes of core rules and warscrolls texts, which all explicitly say that attacks can deal mortal wounds, but it seems that you are willingfully avoid to answer. I AM providing you proofs with real quotes, and the only FAQ you quoted doesn't support you, but basically says the opposite. let me try again: the keeper of Secrets FAQ tells that "Ritual knife" and "Dark Temptation" are all abilities that deal mortal wounds but are not attacks. Of course they are not, as they 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. Now, take a look at 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 core rules AND in the warcrolls. now, THIS is what I'm talking about when I'm saying "until proven to the contrary". As Mod I am ready to defend you when you express an opinion, and as reasonable person I am ready to accept your reasoning on things that i was imagining differently from you (i did just yesterday on another thread), but here we are reading the rules as written and they're pretty clear.