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.

I could’ve sworn DevWounds were changed to not spill over anymore, but I’m not seeing it in any errata.
Anyone able to help?

 JNAProductions wrote:
I could’ve sworn DevWounds were changed to not spill over anymore, but I’m not seeing it in any errata.
Anyone able to help?

They changed it multiple times and AFAIK, it's gone back to being normal mortal wounds again, I assume because they reduced the number of weapons with dev wounds and/or damage they do to reduce the impact.

 Hellebore wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I could’ve sworn DevWounds were changed to not spill over anymore, but I’m not seeing it in any errata.
Anyone able to help?

They changed it multiple times and AFAIK, it's gone back to being normal mortal wounds again, I assume because they reduced the number of weapons with dev wounds and/or damage they do to reduce the impact.

No, I found it.

They (and Hazardous wounds) do NOT spill over.

Edit: It's page 7 of the Core Rules Commentary.

If mortal wounds are being inflicted as a result of the
[HAZARDOUS] ability or by an attack with the [DEVASTATING WOUNDS]
ability (pg 28) that scored a Critical Wound, each time those
mortal wounds are allocated to a model, if that model is
destroyed as a result of those mortal wounds, the remaining
mortal wounds from that attack are lost, just as with a
normal attack.

So they effectively made it worse again? Now you also get FNP against MW in addition to no spillover.

I've lost track of how often they've changed it, so I'm not surprised.

Yeah dev wounds changed twice.

Originally it was just mortal wounds, which made them work kinda weirdly vs infantry squads. A heavy wraithcannon would normally just blast away a couple of models, unless it rolled a 6 in which case the whole squad vanishes (eldar made that happen all the time with their fate dice).

So they tried to fix that by making it not deal mortal wounds, but rather just ignore saves. But this broke all the abilities throughout the game that offered a FNP vs mortal wounds. Suddenly those abilities became kinda bad because the most common source of mortal wounds now bypassed them.

So they changed dev wounds a second time to the current form where it does deal mortal wounds, but those mortal wounds do not spill over onto other members of a squad like normal mortal wounds do. They'll just overkill the model the attack is applied to. This seems to work alright, and it has remained like this for a good while.

Maybe the mortal wounds system (maybe taking ideas from AOS in general) was a bad idea in the first place...

Not really. A Mortal Wound is simply a wound that doesn't need to roll to Wound and cannot be Saved. Not that horrible a concept.

The big falling point is that they have decided that Mortals are always Damage 1. That means if you want to do 3 damage with Mortal Wounds, it has to be 3 Mortal Wounds. By the standard rules for wound resolution means those Mortal Wounds spillover to other models in the unit.

A simple fix to many of the Mortal Wounds issues would be to allow Mortal Wounds to have a Damage greater than 1. That would mean they would interact with all the other rules for both Wound Allocation and Damage normally without the need for additional rules.

For example, Devastating Wounds weapons currently inflict a number of Mortal Wounds equal to the Damage of the attack. There are special callouts that they cannot spread to another model like normal Mortal Wounds and that the Damage Characteristic is affected by rules that reduce damage before being turned into Mortal Wounds. Both of these are unnecessary if the Mortal Wound created by Devastating Wounds Weapons simply had the same Damage Characteristics as the weapon in question.

vict0988 wrote:So they effectively made it worse again? Now you also get FNP against MW in addition to no spillover.

I mean, yes, but making a mechanic less powerful isn't a bad thing if the gameplay is better off for it. As Arson Fire explained, they basically just took a really roundabout approach to making an ignores-saves-including-invulns mechanic.

alextroy wrote:
The big falling point is that they have decided that Mortals are always Damage 1. That means if you want to do 3 damage with Mortal Wounds, it has to be 3 Mortal Wounds. By the standard rules for wound resolution means those Mortal Wounds spillover to other models in the unit.

A simple fix to many of the Mortal Wounds issues would be to allow Mortal Wounds to have a Damage greater than 1. That would mean they would interact with all the other rules for both Wound Allocation and Damage normally without the need for additional rules.

For example, Devastating Wounds weapons currently inflict a number of Mortal Wounds equal to the Damage of the attack. There are special callouts that they cannot spread to another model like normal Mortal Wounds and that the Damage Characteristic is affected by rules that reduce damage before being turned into Mortal Wounds. Both of these are unnecessary if the Mortal Wound created by Devastating Wounds Weapons simply had the same Damage Characteristics as the weapon in question.

This would break mortal wounds in a lot of the scenarios they're actually used though. Most of the instances of mortal wounds that you run into are from effects that are basically just looking for a way to do damage to a unit without adding a bunch of extra rolling. So you can have a vehicle explode and hurt the units around it without having to roll to-hit/wound each time. Or you want a stratagem that represents throwing a grenade or ramming a tank into something and don't want to fuss with a weapon profile for resolving those effects.

If you made vehicle explosions a single Damage 3 hit or whatever, then suddenly explosions would be a lot worse at hurting hordes. Tank shocks and grenades would stop being useful against squads of aspect warriors but would remain useful into enemy tanks. And I'm not sure that's really what we want.

Alex's proposal isn't taking anything away though. You can keep all current effects as they are with mortal wound(1) and add mortal wounds with more damage on top for fancy effects like devastating wounds or psychic powers.

The hardest part is probably wording it in a non-confusing way.

 Jidmah wrote:
Alex's proposal isn't taking anything away though. You can keep all current effects as they are with mortal wound(1) and add mortal wounds with more damage on top for fancy effects like devastating wounds or psychic powers.

The hardest part is probably wording it in a non-confusing way.

Idk. I feel like that's pretty much what we have now. If you want an effect that doesn't spill over and does more than one point of damage, you use DW. If you want to do some damage to a unit overall with the capacity to spill over so that said damage is useful against guardsmen, terminators, and tanks alike, you use mortal wounds.

The wording could probably be improved, but it seems like the concept is simple enough. Is the confusion mostly just coming from the fact that they've tweaked it a couple of times and so people are misremembering the current version?

The current problem is that Devastating Wounds creates Mortal Wounds that have a bunch of additional rules around how they are determined and then applied.

For example, a Damage 6 Devastating Wound Weapon rolls a Critical Hit against a multi-Model unit with 2 Wounds per model that reduces the Damage of incoming attacks by half. What happens exactly?

Step 1: It should be 6 MW because you don't modify the Damage of an attack until after you allocate the attack to a unit and fail your Save. So here we apply special Devastating Wounds Mortal Wound rule one to change the damage to 3 Mortal Wounds.

Step 2: You have 3 Mortal Wounds, so what is the result against the unit? Well, we have to apply Devastating Wounds special rule two that says the MW cannot spill over to a second model. So one model dies.

Or, It could have been a single Mortal Wound (Damage 6). You apply that MW6 to the target model, reduce the damage in half, and then remove the model because it ran out of wounds. This is the exact same process (except not rolling to Wound or Save) that you would follow if the attack didn't get turned into a Mortal Wound.

Sorry, Alex. Not trying to be dense, but I'm not seeing the point here. It seems like you're just reinventing what are basically the current version of DW?

As-is, MWs are just sprinkled on units one at a time, and there are a handful of Feel No Pain effects that trigger when MWs are inflicted. DWs are just wounds that you don't get saves against, and Feel No Pains that work on Mortals work on them. I know that the path to getting here has been awkwardly worded, but the end result seems pretty straightforward to me.

DW = here's an attack. You don't get saves against it.

MW = here's a special rule. You take 1 damage X times as a result and don't get saves against it.

And then there's a handful of special rules that go, "If you take a MW or DW, this rule triggers."

Feel No Pain and Invulnerable Saves should be swapped. The flavour of the two is absolutely backwards with each other compared to the game mechanics.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Sorry, Alex. Not trying to be dense, but I'm not seeing the point here. It seems like you're just reinventing what are basically the current version of DW?

As-is, MWs are just sprinkled on units one at a time, and there are a handful of Feel No Pain effects that trigger when MWs are inflicted. DWs are just wounds that you don't get saves against, and Feel No Pains that work on Mortals work on them. I know that the path to getting here has been awkwardly worded, but the end result seems pretty straightforward to me.

DW = here's an attack. You don't get saves against it.

MW = here's a special rule. You take 1 damage X times as a result and don't get saves against it.

And then there's a handful of special rules that go, "If you take a MW or DW, this rule triggers."

That is the point. The text in Red below does not need to exist (for DW) if DW can have a Damage Characteristics greater than 1. Those effects are part of the rules set for Damage greater than 1.

If mortal wounds are being inflicted as a result of the [HAZARDOUS] ability or by an attack with the [DEVASTATING WOUNDS] ability (pg 28) that scored a Critical Wound, each time those mortal wounds are allocated to a model, if that model is destroyed as a result of those mortal wounds, the remaining mortal wounds from that attack are lost, just as with a normal attack.

Modifying a Damage Characteristic and Devastating Wounds
Some rules modify the Damage characteristic of an attack that has the [DEVASTATING WOUNDS] ability.
■ When a rule modifies an attack’s Damage characteristic, if that attacks scores a Critical Wound, the Damage characteristic is modified before the damage is applied as mortal wounds.

 Daba wrote:
Feel No Pain and Invulnerable Saves should be swapped. The flavour of the two is absolutely backwards with each other compared to the game mechanics.

How so? Invulns are good against weapons that would overkill the target even if you ignored 1/3 of the damage, it protects Terminators against lascannons. Feel No Pains are good against low damage weapons, it protects Plague Marines against boltguns. A lascannon that is blocked by a shield does no damage makes sense, but a lascannon blasting off half your body, doesn't matter how little pain you feel, you're a casualty.

Daba wrote:Feel No Pain and Invulnerable Saves should be swapped. The flavour of the two is absolutely backwards with each other compared to the game mechanics.

Huh? How so? My wyches are good at dodging, so they get an invuln save. It doesn't matter how much that dreadnaught's claw would have hurt if it had hit; I dodged it, so it doesn't hurt at all.
My grotesques have crazy anatomy and pain tolerance that means they shrug off damage that seems like it should have incapacitated them. They're not particularly good at getting out of the way of the dreadnaught's claw, and they'll definitely feel lit when it hits; but Feel No Pain means they might somehow still be swinging afterwards.

alextroy wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Sorry, Alex. Not trying to be dense, but I'm not seeing the point here. It seems like you're just reinventing what are basically the current version of DW?

As-is, MWs are just sprinkled on units one at a time, and there are a handful of Feel No Pain effects that trigger when MWs are inflicted. DWs are just wounds that you don't get saves against, and Feel No Pains that work on Mortals work on them. I know that the path to getting here has been awkwardly worded, but the end result seems pretty straightforward to me.

DW = here's an attack. You don't get saves against it.

MW = here's a special rule. You take 1 damage X times as a result and don't get saves against it.

And then there's a handful of special rules that go, "If you take a MW or DW, this rule triggers."

That is the point. The text in Red below does not need to exist (for DW) if DW can have a Damage Characteristics greater than 1. Those effects are part of the rules set for Damage greater than 1.

If mortal wounds are being inflicted as a result of the [HAZARDOUS] ability or by an attack with the [DEVASTATING WOUNDS] ability (pg 28) that scored a Critical Wound, each time those mortal wounds are allocated to a model, if that model is destroyed as a result of those mortal wounds, the remaining mortal wounds from that attack are lost, just as with a normal attack.

Modifying a Damage Characteristic and Devastating Wounds
Some rules modify the Damage characteristic of an attack that has the [DEVASTATING WOUNDS] ability.
■ When a rule modifies an attack’s Damage characteristic, if that attacks scores a Critical Wound, the Damage characteristic is modified before the damage is applied as mortal wounds.

Ah. So you're basically just pitching cleaning up the wording to be less confusing? Makes sense.

Exactly. Rather than doing something elegant, they tacked a bunch of conditional rules on MW to get the end results they want for Devastating Wounds.

What are the odds, this is cleaned up on 11th?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What are the odds, this is cleaned up on 11th?

Low.

Odds are higher that they further foul it up

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Daba wrote:Feel No Pain and Invulnerable Saves should be swapped. The flavour of the two is absolutely backwards with each other compared to the game mechanics.

Huh? How so? My wyches are good at dodging, so they get an invuln save. It doesn't matter how much that dreadnaught's claw would have hurt if it had hit; I dodged it, so it doesn't hurt at all.
My grotesques have crazy anatomy and pain tolerance that means they shrug off damage that seems like it should have incapacitated them. They're not particularly good at getting out of the way of the dreadnaught's claw, and they'll definitely feel lit when it hits; but Feel No Pain means they might somehow still be swinging afterwards.

You fire a distort cannon at a target with an invunerable save, and another with feel no pain. Despite the target with the invulnerable save having a forcefield, dodging and beind stopped by fate itself so it never hit it in the first place, it still succumbs to it. However the one with feel no pain takes the brunt of it, and despite it sucking them into a warp, or distorting them to pieces, it FEELS NO PAIN so is totally fine after it.

Feel no Pain sounds like something that should be nullified by mortal wounds mechanically, yet it doesn't. Invulnerable saves represent stuff like dodging or even fate saving you, as well as forcefields, but can be bypassed mechanically.

They should really rethink the names and mechanics, then redistribute appropriately.

 Daba wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Daba wrote:Feel No Pain and Invulnerable Saves should be swapped. The flavour of the two is absolutely backwards with each other compared to the game mechanics.

Huh? How so? My wyches are good at dodging, so they get an invuln save. It doesn't matter how much that dreadnaught's claw would have hurt if it had hit; I dodged it, so it doesn't hurt at all.
My grotesques have crazy anatomy and pain tolerance that means they shrug off damage that seems like it should have incapacitated them. They're not particularly good at getting out of the way of the dreadnaught's claw, and they'll definitely feel lit when it hits; but Feel No Pain means they might somehow still be swinging afterwards.

You fire a distort cannon at a target with an invunerable save, and another with feel no pain. Despite the target with the invulnerable save having a forcefield, dodging and beind stopped by fate itself so it never hit it in the first place, it still succumbs to it. However the one with feel no pain takes the brunt of it, and despite it sucking them into a warp, or distorting them to pieces, it FEELS NO PAIN so is totally fine after it.

Feel no Pain sounds like something that should be nullified by mortal wounds mechanically, yet it doesn't. Invulnerable saves represent stuff like dodging or even fate saving you, as well as forcefields, but can be bypassed mechanically.

They should really rethink the names and mechanics, then redistribute appropriately.

Ah. Gotcha. I see where you're coming from. I think this is kind of getting back to the classic weirdness of invulnerable saves representing such a wide variety of effects. If you dodged a d-cannon or if fate conspired to make the gun "jam" or fire wildly off-target or whatever, then you'd think the target would be safe. Something like a forcefield, however, could plausibly be overloaded or even simply not matter if the d-cannon sucks all the space surrounding the bearer into the warp. Similarly, a railgun overloading a forcefield makes sense enough, but it's weird that it somehow hurts a starweaver whose invuln represents you shooting a hologram instead of the vehicle itself.

I guess the question to ask here might be whether or not DWs should defeat invulns in the first place. It's one thing to have a "crit" mechanic that lets you bypass armor. But most non-psychic effects probably shouldn't be able to simultaneously counter dodging, weird daemon physics, forcefields, and fate manipulation simultaneously. Like, what exactly is the underslung weapon on that combi-weapon, you know?

I don't particularly mind FNP working against DWs though. The d-cannon sucked a grotesque's lower half into the warp? The guy will continue dragging his upper half forward with his arms. Railgun took a piece off of him and caused tons of damage to his circulatory system and organs? He's probably going to die shortly, but he'll ignore all that pain and trauma until his anatomy is too damaged to facilitate movement.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What are the odds, this is cleaned up on 11th?

Not guaranteed, but much higher than in any previous edition.

10th's rules teams actually show signs of professional game development, so they are definitely are aware of the problem. Whether they find a good solution in 11th is another topic entirely.

But honestly, even if it's not cleaned up, it's a rather minor problem. Yes, it's ugly and hard to understand, but it works.

Couldn't they just introduce devastating wounds as an additional kind of wounds in the base rules? So, instead of the special rule Devastating Wounds generating a different kind of mortal wounds you'd have "Devastating wounds" as a fixed term of wounds that don’t spill over and use a damage value but ignore saves like mortals.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Couldn't they just introduce devastating wounds as an additional kind of wounds in the base rules? So, instead of the special rule Devastating Wounds generating a different kind of mortal wounds you'd have "Devastating wounds" as a fixed term of wounds that don’t spill over and use a damage value but ignore saves like mortals.

I think the trick is that they want FNP effects that work on Mortals to also work on DW. Which I guess could be addressed by adding the words "and Devastating Wounds" to each such ability.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Couldn't they just introduce devastating wounds as an additional kind of wounds in the base rules? So, instead of the special rule Devastating Wounds generating a different kind of mortal wounds you'd have "Devastating wounds" as a fixed term of wounds that don’t spill over and use a damage value but ignore saves like mortals.

Why add a new type of wounds when you can just adjust the Damage of Mortal Wounds to get the proper effect?

 alextroy wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Couldn't they just introduce devastating wounds as an additional kind of wounds in the base rules? So, instead of the special rule Devastating Wounds generating a different kind of mortal wounds you'd have "Devastating wounds" as a fixed term of wounds that don’t spill over and use a damage value but ignore saves like mortals.

Why add a new type of wounds when you can just adjust the Damage of Mortal Wounds to get the proper effect?

Ask GW Either way I'm pretty sure it's stuff like that they'll clean up in 11th.
And then they'll "clean up" other stuff nobody asked for to produce something to solve in 12th .

From your lips to the Design Team's ears!

Call me skeptical, but sometimes GW is blind to the obvious. They did spend two Editions stacking more and more Stratagems into the game before they had the ephipany that less is more. And we could still use a few less general Stratagems at this point.

Well, heroic intervention is super weird, I've never used go to ground in a useful way and smoke should absolutely go back to being an ability.

Any others you would get rid of?