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.
Purifier wrote: 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?
There really isn't an argument that can be made for it that isn't just a repeat of the attempts to have Ratlings as <Regiment>.
Purifier wrote: 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?
There really isn't an argument that can be made for it that isn't just a repeat of the attempts to have Ratlings as <Regiment>.
I'm not sure how that would even happen and it's certainly not the same argument (nor is it the same argument as when people tried to make a <Chapter> into <Legion> or whatever) it's the opposite. In this case, the character as stated in the book, IS ACTUALLY <Forge World>. It says so on his stat sheet in the Codex.
Purifier wrote: 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?
There really isn't an argument that can be made for it that isn't just a repeat of the attempts to have Ratlings as <Regiment>.
I'm not sure how that would even happen and it's certainly not the same argument (nor is it the same argument as when people tried to make a <Chapter> into <Legion> or whatever) it's the opposite. In this case, the character as stated in the book, IS ACTUALLY <Forge World>. It says so on his stat sheet in the Codex.
<Forge World> is replaced by whatever keyword you use--such as Graia.
This isn't hard to figure out why this crap won't work. If you run a Graia Detachment for that benefit alongside of a Mars Detachment--they won't overlap.
Just like Raven Guard can't get Ultramarines benefits, White Scars can't get Iron Hands, etc.
Purifier wrote: 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?
There really isn't an argument that can be made for it that isn't just a repeat of the attempts to have Ratlings as <Regiment>.
I'm not sure how that would even happen and it's certainly not the same argument (nor is it the same argument as when people tried to make a <Chapter> into <Legion> or whatever) it's the opposite. In this case, the character as stated in the book, IS ACTUALLY <Forge World>. It says so on his stat sheet in the Codex.
<Forge World> is replaced by whatever keyword you use--such as Graia.
This isn't hard to figure out why this crap won't work. If you run a Graia Detachment for that benefit alongside of a Mars Detachment--they won't overlap.
Just like Raven Guard can't get Ultramarines benefits, White Scars can't get Iron Hands, etc.
You're arguing the wrong thing. You argue as if I am on the other side. I'm not. My argument is that it's a shoddily written rule that could have EASILY been much clearer. "It's not hard to figure out" you say... no, but it's not in the rule. You have to sort of assume that yourself. And that's a shoddy rule.
If I replace the first <Forge World> in that statement with Graia, and the second one with <Mars>, it doesn't in any way invalidate the statement, and I'm still replacing each.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/12 21:45:04
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?
1.... the model can only be slain once.
Page 181 number 5 last sentence "If a model loses several wounds from a single attack and is destroyed, any excess damage by that attack is lost and has no effect"
The Dogma states it has to be Slain 1st. Then you roll the dice
Hit target do 6 wounds > 3 wound model dies on 3 wound > model is now slain > lose excess damage > b.c Dogma states when it is slain then roll a dice > rolled a 6 > model comes back with 1w
Purifier wrote: 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?
This has even been cleared up from gwfaqs 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."
Why do you care if i stated it? I give giving my 2 cents.
Also Why would they do it again? maybe because they are doing something 17 codex's all within a year and are doing a rush job with most likely a small team.
Its not like its the internet and we have 100's of people reading the rules finding the error for them, they are a small team of people that are writing SO MANY rules honestly they most likely are ina tunnel vision at this point.
Im guessing you never work on large projects before? There is this common thing that happens when working on the same type or the actual same project for to much and to long, you start to forget somethings, mix thing up, dont see the big picture anymore and get tunnel vision. This happens even more so with stress and a tight deadline.
Im guessing you never work on large projects before? There is this common thing that happens when working on the same type or the actual same project for to much and to long, you start to forget somethings, mix thing up, dont see the big picture anymore and get tunnel vision. This happens even more so with stress and a tight deadline.
I'm pretty sure the writers have hit this point.
Literally the biggest miniatures games company in the world, with the most years of experience in the business. An argument of "they're a small group!" just doesn't cut it with GW.
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?
1.... the model can only be slain once.
Page 181 number 5 last sentence "If a model loses several wounds from a single attack and is destroyed, any excess damage by that attack is lost and has no effect"
The Dogma states it has to be Slain 1st. Then you roll the dice
Hit target do 6 wounds > 3 wound model dies on 3 wound > model is now slain > lose excess damage > b.c Dogma states when it is slain then roll a dice > rolled a 6 > model comes back with 1w
The model can only be slain once, but it wasn't slain - per the wording of the rule, you ignore the wound that slays it. There's still 3 more wounds remaining. I would think you'd need to roll 4 of these if you take 6 damage on a 3 wound model. 2 wounds go through, you have a model at 1 wound and 4 wounds remaining to be taken off it.
The model can only be slain once, but it wasn't slain - per the wording of the rule, you ignore the wound that slays it. There's still 3 more wounds remaining. I would think you'd need to roll 4 of these if you take 6 damage on a 3 wound model. 2 wounds go through, you have a model at 1 wound and 4 wounds remaining to be taken off it.
Another completely valid reading, and it sure doesn't clear anything up.
And if we say it is slain and then comes back, in order to make it go the other way, does that then mean that you get something like slay the warlord even if this brings it back/saves it? Or that a demon can be summoned from the kill that didn't happen?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/12 21:55:36
Purifier wrote: 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?
There really isn't an argument that can be made for it that isn't just a repeat of the attempts to have Ratlings as <Regiment>.
I'm not sure how that would even happen and it's certainly not the same argument (nor is it the same argument as when people tried to make a <Chapter> into <Legion> or whatever) it's the opposite. In this case, the character as stated in the book, IS ACTUALLY <Forge World>. It says so on his stat sheet in the Codex.
<Forge World> is replaced by whatever keyword you use--such as Graia.
This isn't hard to figure out why this crap won't work. If you run a Graia Detachment for that benefit alongside of a Mars Detachment--they won't overlap.
Just like Raven Guard can't get Ultramarines benefits, White Scars can't get Iron Hands, etc.
You're arguing the wrong thing. You argue as if I am on the other side. I'm not. My argument is that it's a shoddily written rule that could have EASILY been much clearer. "It's not hard to figure out" you say... no, but it's not in the rule. You have to sort of assume that yourself. And that's a shoddy rule.
If I replace the first <Forge World> in that statement with Graia, and the second one with <Mars>, it doesn't in any way invalidate the statement, and I'm still replacing each.
The point I think he is trying to make, is that the unit *cant* have the <Forge World> keyword if it is using this rule, because you replace <Forge World> with <Graia> when you build you army. You can't be <Mars> and <Forge World>, you can only be one or the other.
You said "any character from the admech codex counts, since even if they're <Mars> this game, they do have the <Forge World> keyword." but they don't, they only have <Mars>, the <Forge World> keyword has been removed. So the rule works fine.
Edit: After re-reading your post, I realise that maybe you mean they qualify for the "falling back" aspect of the trait. Even so, it's clear within the context of how keywords work that all instances of <Forge World> in that rule need to be the same. You can't have the first one be Graia and the second one be Mars. Spelling that out is unecessary, as that's not how the keyword system works. Maybe it's more obvious to me because of my particular background, but from my perspective there's no arguement to be made against it as it's internally consistant. Anyway, I prefer they way they have done it, as it allows people to invent their own forgeworlds and fluff, while still having a choice of traits to use.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/12 22:02:34
You said "any character from the admech codex counts, since even if they're <Mars> this game, they do have the <Forge World> keyword." but they don't, they only have <Mars>, the <Forge World> keyword has been removed. So the rule works fine.
I see what you're saying, but the rule, if you read it, doesn't specify that forge world in this case has to be replaced with Graia. It specifies first that the "units with this dogma..:" well ok, that's fair, only Graia can HAVE that dogma to begin with, so no problem there, unnecessary variable usage, but it can only come out one way anyway, so whatever... but then it says that those units can ignore that rule so long as a <Forge World> character is on the field, and it doesn't in ANY WAY specify WHAT Forge World that character has to be a part of.
If they has simply said "unless there is a friendly GRAIA CHARACTER on the field" instead, this would have been entirely avoided. The fact that they DO make it the variable name instead, COULD be reasoned to be because it was always INTENDED that any Forge World character can rein them in. Or we can assume that they've just written the rule shittily and they meant GRAIA only. Which is my whole argument.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/12 22:05:11
Im guessing you never work on large projects before? There is this common thing that happens when working on the same type or the actual same project for to much and to long, you start to forget somethings, mix thing up, dont see the big picture anymore and get tunnel vision. This happens even more so with stress and a tight deadline.
I'm pretty sure the writers have hit this point.
Literally the biggest miniatures games company in the world, with the most years of experience in the business. An argument of "they're a small group!" just doesn't cut it with GW.
I said the "rules team most likely is a small team" nothing about the company, but do you think they are going to let Joe in IT write rules? or Bob in sales? or Paula from HR? how about Joe the Janitor can he write rules?
You said "any character from the admech codex counts, since even if they're <Mars> this game, they do have the <Forge World> keyword." but they don't, they only have <Mars>, the <Forge World> keyword has been removed. So the rule works fine.
I see what you're saying, but the rule, if you read it, doesn't specify that forge world in this case has to be replaced with Graia. It specifies first that the "units with this dogma..:" well ok, that's fair, only Graia can HAVE that dogma to begin with, so no problem there, unnecessary variable usage, but it can only come out one way anyway, so whatever... but then it says that those units can ignore that rule so long as a <Forge World> character is on the field, and it doesn't in ANY WAY specify WHAT Forge World that character has to be a part of.
Yeh sorry, I added an edit, but basically if you have replaced the first variable of <ForgeWorld> as Graia, then all further variable of <Forge World> would ALSO have to be Graia. The only way they could be different is if it said <Forge World B> or some other unique identifier.
I admit, to someone who doesn't have a maths/science/computing background, this may not be the default way you might look at it lol.
Im guessing you never work on large projects before? There is this common thing that happens when working on the same type or the actual same project for to much and to long, you start to forget somethings, mix thing up, dont see the big picture anymore and get tunnel vision. This happens even more so with stress and a tight deadline.
I'm pretty sure the writers have hit this point.
Literally the biggest miniatures games company in the world, with the most years of experience in the business. An argument of "they're a small group!" just doesn't cut it with GW.
I said the "rules team most likely is a small team" nothing about the company, but do you think they are going to let Joe in IT write rules? or Bob in sales? or Paula from HR? how about Joe the Janitor can he write rules?
... that is the weirdest argument I've heard today and I honestly don't know how to reply to it. You mean to say that no matter how big a company, a rules writing team has to be very small, because... why?
You said "any character from the admech codex counts, since even if they're <Mars> this game, they do have the <Forge World> keyword." but they don't, they only have <Mars>, the <Forge World> keyword has been removed. So the rule works fine.
I see what you're saying, but the rule, if you read it, doesn't specify that forge world in this case has to be replaced with Graia. It specifies first that the "units with this dogma..:" well ok, that's fair, only Graia can HAVE that dogma to begin with, so no problem there, unnecessary variable usage, but it can only come out one way anyway, so whatever... but then it says that those units can ignore that rule so long as a <Forge World> character is on the field, and it doesn't in ANY WAY specify WHAT Forge World that character has to be a part of.
Yeh sorry, I added an edit, but basically if you have replaced the first variable of <ForgeWorld> as Graia, then all further variable of <Forge World> would ALSO have to be Graia. The only way they could be different is if it said <Forge World B> or some other unique identifier.
I admit, to someone who doesn't have a maths/science/computing background, this may not be the default way you might look at it lol.
Yeah, I did some editing too, to extrapolate. But you said this in your edit: " it's clear within the context of how keywords work that all instances of <Forge World> in that rule need to be the same. "
That's the problem. It's not clear. If it's clear, then why didn't they just do it? Why not just say "<Graia>"?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/12 22:08:34
Well when you put words in my mouth im going to correct what was said.
If you would have said i disagree they have a small rules team i would literally have not cared. B.c we dont know how many, im making an educated guess from past experiences.
Anyways, yes they are very sloppy
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/12 22:11:24
You said "any character from the admech codex counts, since even if they're <Mars> this game, they do have the <Forge World> keyword." but they don't, they only have <Mars>, the <Forge World> keyword has been removed. So the rule works fine.
I see what you're saying, but the rule, if you read it, doesn't specify that forge world in this case has to be replaced with Graia. It specifies first that the "units with this dogma..:" well ok, that's fair, only Graia can HAVE that dogma to begin with, so no problem there, unnecessary variable usage, but it can only come out one way anyway, so whatever... but then it says that those units can ignore that rule so long as a <Forge World> character is on the field, and it doesn't in ANY WAY specify WHAT Forge World that character has to be a part of.
If they has simply said "unless there is a friendly GRAIA CHARACTER on the field" instead, this would have been entirely avoided. The fact that they DO make it the variable name instead, COULD be reasoned to be because it was always INTENDED that any Forge World character can rein them in. Or we can assume that they've just written the rule shittily and they meant GRAIA only. Which is my whole argument.
Presumably the idea here is to handle custom forge worlds which are using the Graia rules. Codex: Space Marines has something of a RAW problem here even if the intent is clear. Regardless, at least here the intent appears to still be clear, whereas it's honestly very hard to figure out how they want the actual FNP rule to be applied and there's significant disagreement over what it says RAW.
But yes, it's really surprising that this is the wording that they decided they were happy with, since you'd think this question would come up very quickly as soon as the rules got playtested by someone previously uninvolved in the process.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/12 22:14:59
Jacksmiles wrote: The model can only be slain once, but it wasn't slain - per the wording of the rule, you ignore the wound that slays it. There's still 3 more wounds remaining. I would think you'd need to roll 4 of these if you take 6 damage on a 3 wound model. 2 wounds go through, you have a model at 1 wound and 4 wounds remaining to be taken off it.
Now you're contradicting yourself. How can you activate an ability that says "Roll a D6 each time a model with this dogma is slain or flees" without the model having been slain? The model WAS slain. The extra wounds are negated due to it being slain and the model comes back to life due to the wound that killed it being negated. This doesn't add the negated wounds back to the stack, they are gone already. All it does is counteract the loss of a wound, which counteracts the model's current slain status. This is a common timing problem that many other games have to determine how a stack is resolved and in what order events occur. But according to the rules, the extra wounds are negated before this ability ever occurs.
It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately.
You said "any character from the admech codex counts, since even if they're <Mars> this game, they do have the <Forge World> keyword." but they don't, they only have <Mars>, the <Forge World> keyword has been removed. So the rule works fine.
I see what you're saying, but the rule, if you read it, doesn't specify that forge world in this case has to be replaced with Graia. It specifies first that the "units with this dogma..:" well ok, that's fair, only Graia can HAVE that dogma to begin with, so no problem there, unnecessary variable usage, but it can only come out one way anyway, so whatever... but then it says that those units can ignore that rule so long as a <Forge World> character is on the field, and it doesn't in ANY WAY specify WHAT Forge World that character has to be a part of.
If they has simply said "unless there is a friendly GRAIA CHARACTER on the field" instead, this would have been entirely avoided. The fact that they DO make it the variable name instead, COULD be reasoned to be because it was always INTENDED that any Forge World character can rein them in. Or we can assume that they've just written the rule shittily and they meant GRAIA only. Which is my whole argument.
Presumably the idea here is to handle custom forge worlds which are using the Graia rules. Codex: Space Marines has something of a RAW problem here even if the intent is clear. Regardless, at least here the intent appears to still be clear, whereas it's honestly very hard to figure out how they want the actual FNP rule to be applied and there's significant disagreement over what it says RAW.
Shiii- don't start calling it an FNP rule. We have those too, and they work independantly of this one
Jacksmiles wrote: The model can only be slain once, but it wasn't slain - per the wording of the rule, you ignore the wound that slays it. There's still 3 more wounds remaining. I would think you'd need to roll 4 of these if you take 6 damage on a 3 wound model. 2 wounds go through, you have a model at 1 wound and 4 wounds remaining to be taken off it.
Now you're contradicting yourself. How can you activate an ability that says "Roll a D6 each time a model with this dogma is slain or flees" without the model having been slain? The model WAS slain. The extra wounds are negated due to it being slain and the model comes back to life due to the wound that killed it being negated. This doesn't add the negated wounds back to the stack, they are gone already. All it does is counteract the loss of a wound, which counteracts the model's current slain status. This is a common timing problem that many other games have to determine how a stack is resolved and in what order events occur. But according to the rules, the extra wounds are negated before this ability ever occurs.
But the rule is contradicting itself, is the problem. "when a model is slain, the wound that slew it is ignored." So it has to pass into slain, before it can get ignored and pass back into not-slain. And again, has the warlord now been slain, according to rules if this was your warlord? If we're going by coding logic, he has. He passed into the state that triggered that event.
It's. A. Mess.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/12 22:18:02
You said "any character from the admech codex counts, since even if they're <Mars> this game, they do have the <Forge World> keyword." but they don't, they only have <Mars>, the <Forge World> keyword has been removed. So the rule works fine.
I see what you're saying, but the rule, if you read it, doesn't specify that forge world in this case has to be replaced with Graia. It specifies first that the "units with this dogma..:" well ok, that's fair, only Graia can HAVE that dogma to begin with, so no problem there, unnecessary variable usage, but it can only come out one way anyway, so whatever... but then it says that those units can ignore that rule so long as a <Forge World> character is on the field, and it doesn't in ANY WAY specify WHAT Forge World that character has to be a part of.
Yeh sorry, I added an edit, but basically if you have replaced the first variable of <ForgeWorld> as Graia, then all further variable of <Forge World> would ALSO have to be Graia. The only way they could be different is if it said <Forge World B> or some other unique identifier.
I admit, to someone who doesn't have a maths/science/computing background, this may not be the default way you might look at it lol.
Yeah, I did some editing too, to extrapolate. But you said this in your edit: " it's clear within the context of how keywords work that all instances of <Forge World> in that rule need to be the same. "
That's the problem. It's not clear. If it's clear, then why didn't they just do it? Why not just say "<Graia>"?
Because, if they had limited it to <Graia> only, then people couldn't make their own unique forgeworlds (which I know isn't of interest to a lot of people, but some people like to make their very own successor chapters / forge worlds / craft worlds and write fluff for them).
The reasoning is that, at some point in the future (or right now, in the case of Mars) there might be a character that is specifically <Graia> (like Cawl is now fixed as <Mars>. The way this rule is written, you could make your own forgeworld, and call it <Forge World Purifier>, and have the same Dogma as Graia... but you wouldn't be able to take that special character, because he is fixed as <Graia>.
This is totally unecessary for AdMEch right now due to their lack of characters and models, but it comes up with space marines and IG and Eldar quite often. They all have special characters that can only be taken in a named detachment, and not a custom one of your own making, because fluff.
OR
Maybe they just didnt proofread the document, and they left <Forgeworld> instead of the actual name because they forgot to change it. But I prefer my version of events, because I like fluff.
Jacksmiles wrote: The model can only be slain once, but it wasn't slain - per the wording of the rule, you ignore the wound that slays it. There's still 3 more wounds remaining. I would think you'd need to roll 4 of these if you take 6 damage on a 3 wound model. 2 wounds go through, you have a model at 1 wound and 4 wounds remaining to be taken off it.
Now you're contradicting yourself. How can you activate an ability that says "Roll a D6 each time a model with this dogma is slain or flees" without the model having been slain? The model WAS slain. The extra wounds are negated due to it being slain and the model comes back to life due to the wound that killed it being negated. This doesn't add the negated wounds back to the stack, they are gone already. All it does is counteract the loss of a wound, which counteracts the model's current slain status. This is a common timing problem that many other games have to determine how a stack is resolved and in what order events occur. But according to the rules, the extra wounds are negated before this ability ever occurs.
What do you mean "now"? Like I've had more than one post on this lol.
I'm not contradicting myself - the model was slain, but the wound that slew it got ignored. So it's no longer slain, it's still/again alive, it's still on the board. And there remain 3 more wounds hitting it. That's what I get from reading the rule and understanding that it's taking 6 wounds.
You're right in that it's a timing thing, because it's slain - but then it's not-slain again, and 3 more wounds still need to be accounted for.
Are you not contradicting yourself by saying the roll negates 4 wounds then a few sentences later saying it negates "a" wound? What about the other 3 wounds? Why do you say the rules tells us the extra wounds are negated? I see where one wound gets negated by a roll of a 6 - there are 3 more wounds hitting that model though. The model is taking 6 wounds, 4 of which have the possibility of slaying it.
Edit: Thinking about it, I see more what you mean, and you may be right - but until there's an FAQ, I know people will see it both ways. I understand what you're saying though - it hits slain, and then everything is done, then this rule can pop it back up.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/09/12 22:34:58
Maybe they just didnt proofread the document, and they left <Forgeworld> instead of the actual name because they forgot to change it. But I prefer my version of events, because I like fluff.
So, I get that whole "I want to make my own chapter" but it doesn't belong *in the rules.* You can make your own chapter and its own backstory and its own special characters, but the rules should be as rigid as you can make them, because if you say "My chapter <Niiruans> uses the rules for <Graia>" what exact difference does that make from "I play <Niiruans>" "ok, what rules?" "The Graia rules."
Like, you're still gonna have to explain what rules you're using by the real name, so why is this option even there? If this was all called <Graia> there is literally no difference. Nothing is stopping you from painting them pink as opposed to how the rules are now. Help me understand what exactly they are baking this flaw into the rules for. It's gaining exactly nothing.
Jacksmiles wrote: You could be right, but your reading is just as full of conjecture as mine.
No, it's full of an understanding of how and when timing occurs. Follow the game's instructions in procedural order. If the game tells you to go back and negate something that happened, that does not in turn cause a chain reaction that negates a bunch of other things that happened as a result of what happened. That's called a butterfly effect and does not occur in timing structures. You only negate specifically what is called for, not every rule tied to slain models. The rules are specific as to what occurs when a model receives damage that overkills it. Negating the wound that killed it does not restore the wounds that were lost to the game rules.
It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately.
Jacksmiles wrote: You could be right, but your reading is just as full of conjecture as mine.
No, it's full of an understanding of how and when timing occurs. Follow the game's instructions in procedural order. If the game tells you to go back and negate something that happened, that does not in turn cause a chain reaction that negates a bunch of other things that happened as a result of what happened. That's called a butterfly effect and does not occur in timing structures. You only negate specifically what is called for, not every rule tied to slain models. The rules are specific as to what occurs when a model receives damage that overkills it. Negating the wound that killed it does not restore the wounds that were lost to the game rules.
So basically "yes" to what I edited in at the end.
But if "slain" is negated, then 3 wounds do in fact remain, because the rule that got rid of them theoretically never was invoked. No butterfly effect, nothing keeps reversing everything in slow-motion until deployment needs to be redone. Just wounds that went away but also didn't go away.
It's not like we're even reversing to a previous step. It's still the same step 5 "inflict damage"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/12 22:39:33
Jacksmiles wrote: You could be right, but your reading is just as full of conjecture as mine.
No, it's full of an understanding of how and when timing occurs. Follow the game's instructions in procedural order. If the game tells you to go back and negate something that happened, that does not in turn cause a chain reaction that negates a bunch of other things that happened as a result of what happened. That's called a butterfly effect and does not occur in timing structures. You only negate specifically what is called for, not every rule tied to slain models. The rules are specific as to what occurs when a model receives damage that overkills it. Negating the wound that killed it does not restore the wounds that were lost to the game rules.
And by that logic, you now have no choice but to agree that a warlord that is saved by this skill still counts for slay the warlord, and a character that is killed by that sword that makes them a demon or whatever still summons the demon from slaying the still alive character.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/12 22:38:55
Jacksmiles wrote: You could be right, but your reading is just as full of conjecture as mine.
No, it's full of an understanding of how and when timing occurs. Follow the game's instructions in procedural order. If the game tells you to go back and negate something that happened, that does not in turn cause a chain reaction that negates a bunch of other things that happened as a result of what happened. That's called a butterfly effect and does not occur in timing structures. You only negate specifically what is called for, not every rule tied to slain models. The rules are specific as to what occurs when a model receives damage that overkills it. Negating the wound that killed it does not restore the wounds that were lost to the game rules.
So basically "yes" to what I edited in at the end.
But if "slain" is negated, then 3 wounds do in fact remain, because the rule that got rid of them theoretically never was invoked. No butterfly effect, nothing keeps reversing everything in slow-motion until deployment needs to be redone. Just wounds that went away but also didn't go away.
No, because slain is a product of step 5 - Inflict Damage and only occurs after the entire step is completed.
Per the rules, "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers. If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play. If a model loses several wounds from a single attack and is destroyed, any excess damage inflicted by that attack is lost and has no effect."
So the second you hit step 5 to inflict the damage, the entirety of step 5 occurs simultaneously. The model suffers several wounds from an attack, excess beyond the count needed to reduce it to 0 is lost, and the model is considered slain. AFTER step 5 resolves and the model is officially "slain" with the excess wounds already lost, only then does this rule come into effect and negates the single lost wound that was its final downfall. I can't make this any clearer so if you still are unsure then I have done my best to explain it.
Jacksmiles wrote: You could be right, but your reading is just as full of conjecture as mine.
No, it's full of an understanding of how and when timing occurs. Follow the game's instructions in procedural order. If the game tells you to go back and negate something that happened, that does not in turn cause a chain reaction that negates a bunch of other things that happened as a result of what happened. That's called a butterfly effect and does not occur in timing structures. You only negate specifically what is called for, not every rule tied to slain models. The rules are specific as to what occurs when a model receives damage that overkills it. Negating the wound that killed it does not restore the wounds that were lost to the game rules.
And by that logic, you now have no choice but to agree that a warlord that is saved by this skill still counts for slay the warlord, and a character that is killed by that sword that makes them a demon or whatever still summons the demon from slaying the still alive character.
Actually that depends on whose turn it is. When simultaneously triggering effects occur, they determine the order in which they play out. Two conditions have now triggered off a model being slain. The Slay the Warlord benefit and the Graia trait. The player whose turn it is determines which occurs first. If they choose to make the Graia trait occur FIRST then it negates the wound and the model is no longer slain when it comes time to resolve Slay the Warlord. However, if they choose to count the model as slain and then have Graia occur then the model was slain, awarded you warlord kill points, and then resurrected itself.
Also, didn't GW confirm that if you slay Guilliman and turn him into a Chaos Spawn at the same time, BOTH effects happen? Fairly certain I read that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/12 22:49:54
It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately.
Arkaine wrote: I can't make this any clearer so if you still are unsure then I have done my best to explain it.
The problem isn't with your logic, but with your assumption that this is the logic that GW applies. See my previous comment to you regarding why they don't seem to consistently follow this.
Arkaine wrote: I can't make this any clearer so if you still are unsure then I have done my best to explain it.
The problem isn't with your logic, but with your assumption that this is the logic that GW applies. See my previous comment to you regarding why they don't seem to consistently follow this.
You're literally arguing that after a step is completed you somehow go back and undo that step. This is not logic at all.
See my previous comment that contains my statement regarding your own comment against my comment.
It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately.
Actually that depends on whose turn it is. When simultaneously triggering effects occur, they determine the order in which they play out. Two conditions have now triggered off a model being slain. The Slay the Warlord benefit and the Graia trait. The player whose turn it is determines which occurs first. If they choose to make the Graia trait occur FIRST then it negates the wound and the model is no longer slain when it comes time to resolve Slay the Warlord. However, if they choose to count the model as slain and then have Graia occur then the model was slain, awarded you warlord kill points, and then resurrected itself.
No, because the rule doesn't say he has to be dead at the end, it says "if the enemy warlord has been slain during the battle, you score 1 point." which is has. You don't get the point when he dies, you get it after the battle.
Also, didn't GW confirm that if you slay Guilliman and turn him into a Chaos Spawn at the same time, BOTH effects happen? Fairly certain I read that.
I don't know. If they did, then it's stupid but at least consistent. It does open up for many more things going stupid though if they just do this instead of fixing the wording.
You're literally arguing that after a step is completed you somehow go back and undo that step. This is not logic at all.
Honestly, I like linear logic best too, but your failure to think anything but linear logic can be valid is your problem.
I actually found an even better one. Morale tests are made on the amount of models slain, so anyone that survives through using this skill, using code logic, will still count as slain for the morale phase. This rule (the GRAIA one) is poorly thought out and crashes with a lot of other stuff in clearly unintended ways. Wording is "players must take Morale tests for units from their army that have had models slain during their turn." The fact that the model is no longer slain doesn't prevent the unit from having had a model slain.
What I'm literally arguing, though, is that GW hasn't thought it out as well as you or I have in a dumb internet conversation. They do this for a living, full time. And we're two guys picking it apart. Not "hundreds of people online." Just two amateurs.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/09/12 23:20:47
Per the rules, "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers. If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play. If a model loses several wounds from a single attack and is destroyed, any excess damage inflicted by that attack is lost and has no effect."
So the second you hit step 5 to inflict the damage, the entirety of step 5 occurs simultaneously. The model suffers several wounds from an attack, excess beyond the count needed to reduce it to 0 is lost, and the model is considered slain. AFTER step 5 resolves and the model is officially "slain" with the excess wounds already lost, only then does this rule come into effect and negates the single lost wound that was its final downfall. I can't make this any clearer so if you still are unsure then I have done my best to explain it.
I'm seeing "slain or destroyed" as part of step 5, not after. It's part of "the entirety of step 5."
I accept that you have done your best to explain this in a way that means the rule works the way you read it.
If I'm reading it this way, others will too, and that's a problem for the community at large. This isn't the YMDC thread on this issue, so whether we get the rule right here isn't crazy important. What's important is recognizing that there are more than one valid ways of looking at it, and since part of step 5 includes models becoming slain and you even said all of step 5 happens simultaneously, my interpretation is valid enough for me
I agree that it comes back with 1 wound, i also dont agree moral works with it, b.c the dogma says ignore it
Models take to many wounds > model dies > extra wounds are gone > dogma roll > dogma says ignore what just happened > didnt die and is at 1 wound left.
So that "slain" result is ignored after step 5 but before moral phase.
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.
Because gw management allocates salary to marketing and legal and to sales pitch proficient casual hobbyists rather than serious minded game developers with deep background in supporting literature, e.g.Moorcock and Heinlein and so on.
So, we end up with a comic book designed for eighth graders written by people with comic book literacy.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
