Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So we've seen like 5 rules so far from the ad mech and the second Dogma we see is already a mess that should have been caught before it was finalised.



So to get into it, it isn't quite a FNP as we know it with different names in 8th. It doesn't remove damage, it simply puts you back again after your model dies. But the important part is their wording coming back to the poor decision of naming around damage/wounds. So graia states that "the wound that slew it is ignored." So is that the last wound off of the profile (what I clearly see as the intended reading) or the last wound that was made against it? Because that wound could have done 3 damage, so then you'd be refunded 3 wounds!

While this thread might look a bit like YMDC, I'm not trying to argue how to read this. Both readings are gonna have proponents. I'm looking at why things like this make it to the codex. i feel like GW should know better.

Go back to the abyss! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your master!

This thread is YMDC. A model dies, roll a d6. With a 6, the model remains alive with 1 wound.

 Purifier wrote:
I'm looking at why things like this make it to the codex. i feel like GW should know better.

cuz gw is trying to move from overcomplicated and detailed as it was in prev rules editions, to casual and easy as it currently wants to be, but they dont know how to do it yet.
as sutch they are begging for a day 1 FAQ for all the codexes they make.

Seems pretty straightforward to me "the wound that slew the model is ignored", not "the damage that slew the model is ignored". Therefore, if you have a multi-wound model at full wounds that suffers enough damage from a single shot to slay it, and you roll a 6, you ignore the wound that inflicted any damage, so you stay at full!

 Yarium wrote:
Seems pretty straightforward to me "the wound that slew the model is ignored", not "the damage that slew the model is ignored". Therefore, if you have a multi-wound model at full wounds that suffers enough damage from a single shot to slay it, and you roll a 6, you ignore the wound that inflicted any damage, so you stay at full!

That makes sense. And as they don't say specifically that the model remains alive with only 1 wound like they do with Necron rules, I suppose thats the actual intend of this Dogma.

 Yarium wrote:
Seems pretty straightforward to me "the wound that slew the model is ignored", not "the damage that slew the model is ignored". Therefore, if you have a multi-wound model at full wounds that suffers enough damage from a single shot to slay it, and you roll a 6, you ignore the wound that inflicted any damage, so you stay at full!

Ignoring which reading you believe is correct, as that was not the intended topic, do you really think the rule is crystal clear and it won't have a lot of contention tied to the reading of it?

I wouldn't worry. Everyone will be using Mars with Cawl anyway so they can feth the other six up as much as they want.

I can see this causing a lot of arguments between Admech players that want to ignore 3+ damage to their vehicles and characters, and players of every other faction that don't want a lucky roll to ignore 3+ damage.

While you can say that it's clear, there's ambiguity because of the English language. That's one of the biggest problems with these rules. The writers may be great at making a game, but they don't seem to have great conventions in place for handling the vagaries of English, despite being British.

I guess I see your point, but as wounds come from damage this edition, regardless of how much damage a single attack deals, it would remain at 1 wound.

To hit - to wound - save - damage - # of wounds

If the # of wounds is 6, the model loses 6 wounds. If it has 6 wounds, it loses 5 and then the dogma would activate on the 6th.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
I wouldn't worry. Everyone will be using Mars with Cawl anyway so they can feth the other six up as much as they want.

From the looks of it, I'm leaning more towards multiple dogma armies.

Jacksmiles wrote:
I guess I see your point, but as wounds come from damage this edition, regardless of how much damage a single attack deals, it would remain at 1 wound.

To hit - to wound - save - damage - # of wounds

If the # of wounds is 6, the model loses 6 wounds. If it has 6 wounds, it loses 5 and then the dogma would activate on the 6th.

Again, not a YMDC thread, but the fact that people are disagreeing is exactly my point. If you want to try and convince eachother though, YMDC is a better place. My point is more, Y GW DO DIS.

 Purifier wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Seems pretty straightforward to me "the wound that slew the model is ignored", not "the damage that slew the model is ignored". Therefore, if you have a multi-wound model at full wounds that suffers enough damage from a single shot to slay it, and you roll a 6, you ignore the wound that inflicted any damage, so you stay at full!

Ignoring which reading you believe is correct, as that was not the intended topic, do you really think the rule is crystal clear and it won't have a lot of contention tied to the reading of it?

I honestly feel like it's clear but obviously it's not because people already are arguing opposite of how I read it lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
I guess I see your point, but as wounds come from damage this edition, regardless of how much damage a single attack deals, it would remain at 1 wound.

To hit - to wound - save - damage - # of wounds

If the # of wounds is 6, the model loses 6 wounds. If it has 6 wounds, it loses 5 and then the dogma would activate on the 6th.

Again, not a YMDC thread, but the fact that people are disagreeing is exactly my point. If you want to try and convince eachother though, YMDC is a better place. My point is more, Y GW DO DIS.

Yeah my bad. But Y GW DO DIS is because it's consistent with how they claim models lose wounds in the rulebook, imo. They will probably need to make it clearer, whatever their intent, after the book drops.

 Purifier wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Seems pretty straightforward to me "the wound that slew the model is ignored", not "the damage that slew the model is ignored". Therefore, if you have a multi-wound model at full wounds that suffers enough damage from a single shot to slay it, and you roll a 6, you ignore the wound that inflicted any damage, so you stay at full!

Ignoring which reading you believe is correct, as that was not the intended topic, do you really think the rule is crystal clear and it won't have a lot of contention tied to the reading of it?

Yes. I do believe it to be crystal clear. It's not like they're using some lingo that has multiple meanings in their own rule set (hence why about 99.999% of everyone played it that every model could throw a grenade in 7th). They're using words that have clear and concise meanings in their own rules. I mean, GW will never be perfect, and until they have a legal document for their rules (like Magic: the gathering has), there will always be people who think that something means something else, so there's limits on how precise a word can be before it starts rambling on.

Can you imagine if they had to spell out everything precisely for a rule like this?

"If a model would be reduced to 0 wounds and removed as a casualty (aka, slain) as the result of suffering any single amount of damage, or would be removed due to its unit failing a morale test and would be removed as a casualty, roll a D6. If the result is exactly a 6, after all rerolls and modifiers, do not remove the model as a casualty. Instead, the model is left in place and suffers no damage, leaving the model at its same position and number of wounds it previously had as if the cause of the damage had dealt no damage. Note, even if no models flee on account of passing these rolls, the morale test still counts as having been failed."

That's a lot of words to put down just to core one sentence of that ability (as it doesn't even get to the other half of the ability preventing Fall Back)! If there was a legal-length document detailing everything, like in Magic, then wording like this might exist in that document, but as it is, the wording given needs to be understood and applied as it stands on its own. I get it that for some things in the game this can lead to some issues at times, but this definitely doesn't seem like one of them.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I'm looking at why things like this make it to the codex. i feel like GW should know better.

cuz gw is trying to move from overcomplicated and detailed as it was in prev rules editions, to casual and easy as it currently wants to be, but they dont know how to do it yet.
as sutch they are begging for a day 1 FAQ for all the codexes they make.

I have to say, I don't mind this so much, as long as they are good with their updating of the FAQ's. That's pretty much was the promise was for 8th edition, that rules would be updated and balanced as time went on. Though obviously it would be *better* if the rules were right in the first place.

Personally I read this particular rule as "if you roll a 6, you stay alive with 1 wound left", but that may be because I'm still not used to the idea of multiple damage "wounds".

I've also wondered what happens if someone shoots you with 10 attacks, and you "die" on the 5th attack, but then roll your 6 and stay alive... do the rest of the attacks then continue doing damage (like it would for FNP and invulnerable saves) or do the attacks then stop because you've been "slain", and the resurrection happens at the end of the phase? Because it doesn't actually say anything about "at the end of the fighting phase roll etc etc" like it does for some other special abilities.

So yeh I agree, this one could definitly use some clearing up, as it's actually really hard to tell what the exact RAI was!

@Yarium - I think the thing is, people on your side are thinking of "the wound" in the way that wounds are allocated in step 3 of shooting. At the point when no damage has been done yet, and no wounds are lost.

I'm seeing "the wound that slew the model" and thinking of when wounds are actually lost, which is in step 5 and determined by how much damage is done by a weapon. At which point, one wound is lost for each point of damage - this is where wounds are lost and models are actually slain.

Like I said, I see where that side is coming from, but it just makes more sense to me that you would apply the rule when wounds are actually lost, not backtrack to allocation and ignore it there. So it really isn't crystal clear, and I think one way is more logically consistent.

Apologies again if this is getting more into YMDC but it's hard to discuss how not-crystal-clear it is without bringing up the above.

And yes, if they meant prevent the damage, they should have said prevent the damage - damage is determined before wounds are lost and so it would have been clearer, regardless of how many words they'd have to use.

I don't think it's sloppy - it ignores the wound that slew it.

So, if you hit a 12 wound dunecrawler with a single hit that causes 12 wounds, it ignores the wound that slew it. Specifically, the last one. So it would be alive with one wound.

If it said it ignores the HIT that slew it, than yes, it would be ambiguous, but I think it works fine as-is.

nvm, whoops

In some ways it's better than feel no pain.

Not only do you ignore dying on a 6 but you can also ignore morale on a 6.

I agree with the above that mentions wounds are dealt one at a time after the model has saved, that's what they are referring to, not the To Wound roll. You have 6 wounds? That means you can take 6 wounds, not your character walks around with 6 broken limbs. You get back the last wound you lost.

But failing morale and running off the board? Roll a 6 for each model you just lost and they come back due to stubborn resolve.

Each point of damage is counted as a separate wound. It is the same for Spirit Stones on Eldar vehicles, if you take 3 wounds from one shot (3 damage) then you roll 3 dice and on a 6 you ignore it.

This same logic applies here so if you roll a 6 your model comes back with 1 wound only.

 Korlandril wrote:
Each point of damage is counted as a separate wound. It is the same for Spirit Stones on Eldar vehicles, if you take 3 wounds from one shot (3 damage) then you roll 3 dice and on a 6 you ignore it.

This same logic applies here so if you roll a 6 your model comes back with 1 wound only.

That seems perfectly clear to me.

The only thing that really makes it ambiguous is that "a wound" can refer to an unsaved hit that has a potential to do multiple damage, or it can refer to one HP.

In this case I'm leaning toward "you get back up with 1HP", but it would be nice if we didn't use the same word for "unsaved hit" and "one HP". It made sense back when a hit could only ever remove 1HP at a time, so they were basically the same thing, but now it doesn't.

ACtually thinking about it, that is a little confusing. Hmm.

 Korlandril wrote:
Each point of damage is counted as a separate wound. It is the same for Spirit Stones on Eldar vehicles, if you take 3 wounds from one shot (3 damage) then you roll 3 dice and on a 6 you ignore it.

This same logic applies here so if you roll a 6 your model comes back with 1 wound only.

Based off how it's written that's how I'd roll for it.
That and the morale buff they aren't too bad, but what's their specific Strategem? That'll help determine how good they are.

Lol, okay, I guess it's confusing to folks. That's probably because they use "wounded by" and a model's number of wounds (in addition to the "wounds" in its profile) interchangeably. A 10 wound character can be wounded and be reduced to 5 wounds, while still being a 10 wound character for future shots . If they said "injured" instead of "wounded" that would probably work better. The shooting process causes a hit to become a wound. A wound deals damage. The model loses 1 wound for each point of damage it suffers. You're not losing 1 wound at a time, you lose a total amount of wounds. So the "wound" that slew it can only refer to the "wound" that dealt damage (result in an equal amount of wounds lost). You ignore the "wound", and you ignore all the damage it caused.

 Yarium wrote:
Lol, okay, I guess it's confusing to folks. That's probably because they use "wounded by" and a model's number of wounds (in addition to the "wounds" in its profile) interchangeably. A 10 wound character can be wounded and be reduced to 5 wounds, while still being a 10 wound character for future shots . If they said "injured" instead of "wounded" that would probably work better. The shooting process causes a hit to become a wound. A wound deals damage. The model loses 1 wound for each point of damage it suffers. You're not losing 1 wound at a time, you lose a total amount of wounds. So the "wound" that slew it can only refer to the "wound" that dealt damage (result in an equal amount of wounds lost). You ignore the "wound", and you ignore all the damage it caused.

This is nonsense. A model is slain when it loses its last wound. This rule specifically only allows a model to ignore the wound that slew it, which is, by definition, the last wound it lost.

This ability sounds a lot like Necron Quantum shielding to me. The wording in that ability is even more sloppy, but the example at the end makes it clear that you can ignore all of the wounds dealt by a multiple damage attack. But if the last attack to slay a character is a lascannon doing 4 damage, and you have 2 wounds left, i don't think it's clear whether this new ability wants you to roll 3 times, or to roll once. Only one of the damage can actually slay the model. If you only roll once, I would say all four damage is prevented, and you stay at 2 wounds remaining.

This is actually better to 1W models than a 6+FNP because you only need to roll one dice if they hit you with multiple damage weapons.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Lol, okay, I guess it's confusing to folks. That's probably because they use "wounded by" and a model's number of wounds (in addition to the "wounds" in its profile) interchangeably. A 10 wound character can be wounded and be reduced to 5 wounds, while still being a 10 wound character for future shots . If they said "injured" instead of "wounded" that would probably work better. The shooting process causes a hit to become a wound. A wound deals damage. The model loses 1 wound for each point of damage it suffers. You're not losing 1 wound at a time, you lose a total amount of wounds. So the "wound" that slew it can only refer to the "wound" that dealt damage (result in an equal amount of wounds lost). You ignore the "wound", and you ignore all the damage it caused.

This is nonsense. A model is slain when it loses its last wound. This rule specifically only allows a model to ignore the wound that slew it, which is, by definition, the last wound it lost.

Or the last wound it took. Which can do more damage.

And Yarium, you wrote a bloated text that is way beyond what is actually needed. First of all, if they hadn't used the terminology "wound" for two separate ideas (inflicting a wound that can then do X damage, and the wounds on your stat profile that are removed according to the amount of damage you've taken) then this problem would have never arisen.

They could also have simply said that "...the wound that slew it is ignored, leaving the model at one wound remaining." That clarification would make the argument that can be made for either side (no matter how adamantly each side thinks their side is crystal clear and proving the opposite in the process) completely pointless as no matter who is right, the caveat that it only comes back with one wound would make each of the situations effectively the same. So one small sentence is all that's needed.

 Galas wrote:
This is actually better to 1W models than a 6+FNP because you only need to roll one dice if they hit you with multiple damage weapons.

If you're a 1 wound model, absolutely. If you're an 18 wound model that just lost 12 wounds, it does nothing, while 6+FNP would have been much better.

No... its clear to be that 1 damage = 1 wound

This has even been cleared up from gw faqs for the FnP's etc.. some of the pseudo FnP's like Ynnari is worded with "wounds" and not damage, but GW has stated again that wounds = damage.

So when a 6wound guy dies from a single Shot inflicting 6 damage, it is taking 6 separate wounds, when it dies and you roll that 6, it only ignore that last 1 dmage or 1 wound that was dealt to it, bringing it back to 1 wound.

I honestly see this rule better for 1w models

And to make it even worse, why do they use "a <Forge World> unit with this Dogma cannot fall back unless there is a friendly <Forge World> character on the board" Instead of saying "a <Graia> unit with this Dogma.... unless there is a <Graia> character on the board"

As it is, there is a (admittedly stupidly cheesy) argument to be made for saying that any character from the admech codex counts, since even if they're <Mars> this game, they do have the <Forge World> keyword. Why not just nip that in the bud?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
No... its clear to be that 1 damage = 1 wound

This has even been cleared up from gw faqs for the FnP's etc.. some of the pseudo FnP's like Ynnari is worded with "wounds" and not damage, but GW has stated again that wounds = damage.

So when a 6wound guy dies from a single Shot inflicting 6 damage, it is taking 6 separate wounds, when it dies and you roll that 6, it only ignore that last 1 dmage or 1 wound that was dealt to it, bringing it back to 1 wound.

I honestly see this rule better for 1w models

Yes, of course it's better for 1 wound models. Jesus, how many people feel the need to state the obvious. Even if it worked the other way, it'd still be better for 1 wound models in the majority of cases.

And your post only proves my point. If they know that things sort of like this has been an issue before, why would they make this mistake AGAIN?

This isn't like the FNP, so while we can devine intent, it isn't in any way a clear cut finished issue. And that's my problem with it.
Not to mention that the explanation just further muddies the dumb terminology where they use the word "wounds" for two separate things, and then throws "damage" in between. It's dumb that you can "cause 1 wound which does 3 damage so you cause 3 wounds."

So when a 6wound guy dies from a single Shot inflicting 6 damage, it is taking 6 separate wounds, when it dies and you roll that 6, it only ignore that last 1 dmage or 1 wound that was dealt to it, bringing it back to 1 wound.

When a 3 wound model dies from a single shot inflicting 6 damage, how many times do you roll to try for a 6? Would that answer change if the damage were 6 mortal wounds from smite?