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.

How are people getting confused with this? they give an example of how it works with the Electro-priests on the same Warhammer Community page.

 Rolsheen wrote:
How are people getting confused with this? they give an example of how it works with the Electro-priests on the same Warhammer Community page.

That example doesn't deal with a single point raised in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
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.

Just how i read the rules.

Edit: i misread. But yes, that's a fine enough reading, but it doesn't hold if you treat the instancds in a linear fashion. The morale rule doesn't ask if anything is now slain, it asks if the slain keyword was ever triggered, which it was. Or maybe it does hold, if you assume that the slate was wiped clean. And that's my whole point. It's a cruddy rule.

 Purifier wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
How are people getting confused with this? they give an example of how it works with the Electro-priests on the same Warhammer Community page.

That example doesn't deal with a single point raised in this thread.

Yes it does, the point of this thread was Admech are getting screwed again so lets complain about the rules until we can convince enough people to play them differently to what was written

 Rolsheen wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
How are people getting confused with this? they give an example of how it works with the Electro-priests on the same Warhammer Community page.

That example doesn't deal with a single point raised in this thread.

Yes it does, the point of this thread was Admech are getting screwed again so lets complain about the rules until we can convince enough people to play them differently to what was written

No, you're projecting or something. I really can't understand how that is what you get from it. I'm the author of this thread, I play admech, and I'm of the belief that the rule should be read with the more conservative reading. So I'm not trying to get more power out of the rule. I also don't think that Ad Mech is getting screwed. So far I'm loving the stuff we've gotten in-so-far as the intent that the writers have put into it.

The thread is about how sloppily written the rules are. It's a complaint not against them being too good or too bad, but against them being written in a way that begs for rules arguments.
And even if it was about me whining that Ad Mech needs more juice, their example doesn't deal with a single point raised in this thread

You're not contributing anything by angrily stomping in and misunderstanding every single concept proposed.

I agree, that so far the wording of some of the things shown to us is... lacking.

Another thing that is already confusing people is the Graia warlord trait, with people interpreting it (mainly due to the last sentence i think) to say that units can shoot into a combat they are not part of on the other side of the table.

Kdash wrote:
I agree, that so far the wording of some of the things shown to us is... lacking.

Another thing that is already confusing people is the Graia warlord trait, with people interpreting it (mainly due to the last sentence i think) to say that units can shoot into a combat they are not part of on the other side of the table.

I think that mostly comes from a rushed reading, though. I think (although I wouldn't dare to say this with any certainty) that anyone that actually reads it through will agree that the last sentence doesn't even come in to play unless you read the first part that states you have to be within 1" for the rule to have any effect.

It is obviously crystal clear and references very clear concepts from the core rules.

The problem GW has is that they do not recognize the potential lack of reading comprehension most of their customers may have.

In order for any of their rules to make sense for *everyone*, they should provide several examples, and add to these examples when questions come up, as they do in FAQs.

As for my thoughts on the whole dogma issue i can see both sides of the argument.

However, this is a weird version of FNP so cannot be directly compared to previous rulings on how things work in relation to multi damage weapons (i.e spirit stones or disgustingly resilient, as I believe these relate to ignoring the “damage” not the “wound” (unless I’ve missed something somewhere)).

The way i’ve read the rules in the past, is that 1 wound = x damage, as the “wound” is allocated after the to-wound roll is made, while the damage is allocated after the save roll is failed. To me, this means, that if you are “ignoring the wound” that slew the model, it implies you ignore all the damage that wound caused.

For example – if a terminator gets hit, wounded and fails his save vs a thunderhammer, he will take 3 damage from the single wound. That 1 “wound” provides all the “damage” needed to “slay” the model. As this dogma allows you to ignore the “wound” that “slays” the model, the amount of “damage” the “wound” causes is irrelevant, as the damage isn’t what is being negated.

If the intention is for the “wound that slew it” is meant to refer to the “damage point that slew it”, then, all they have to do is change the wording from “wound” to “damage”.

As for things like models being slain, then ignoring it to no longer be slain, counting as being slain or not, I think the intention is that if the model ignores the killing wound it never counted as being “slain” in the first place for the purposes of morale and victory points. This is simply my view with the idea that they want to keep things “simple”. However, yes, it does kinda go against how things sequenced.

If I were to re-write the dogma I would use the following –
“Each time a model loses its last wound or flees, roll a D6. On a 6 that model refuses to yield; either ignoring the damage that took the wound, or does not flee. If a single weapon takes multiple wounds, including the last one, roll a single D6 for each point of damage taken. However, GRAIA units with this dogma cannot Fall Back unless there is a friendly GRAIA CHARACTER on the battlefield.”

A bit lengthy, but, at least it sets out what it means (and is only 20 words more than what they currently have – so it’s not like they couldn’t make it fit with a smaller font or less random fluff at the top).

The biggest problem GW has, is consistency on their definitions.

Kdash wrote:
I agree, that so far the wording of some of the things shown to us is... lacking.

Another thing that is already confusing people is the Graia warlord trait, with people interpreting it (mainly due to the last sentence i think) to say that units can shoot into a combat they are not part of on the other side of the table.

Whoever thinks that missed the part about shooting at the closest enemy unit.

Thank you Kdash! Many people on this thread are complaining about GW using wounds too much and then using the word wound incorrectly.

It is not worded like fnp type abilities which are activated when a wound (characteristic) is lost. It is activated when a model is slain meaning that it took enough damage (you can not take wounds you take damage to lose wounds, or assign/allocate wounds to deal damage) from a wound to lose all of its remaining wounds (characteristic).

So if a model with 2 wounds (characteristic) remaining was targeted in the shooting phase and got hit 4 times, wounded 4 times, failed its saves, it would take 4 sets of lets say 2 damage. 2 damage is dealt, 2 wounds (characteristic) are lost and the unit is slain. The entire wound which would deal 2 damage is retroactively ignored as if it were never allocated to the model in the first place due to the dogma. Now there are 3 wounds of 2 damage still lined up to be allocated to the model which still has the 2W it had before as it "never" took the damage or got slain.

Now there may be a major problem with continuity if the official means of choosing order of operations is based on whose turn it is, things like bodyguards and fnp would never work to the defenders favor which really blows. Slay the warlord might actually trigger when it doesn't have much reason to due to this.

Mortal wounds do work differently though as each mortal wound is a separate wound that deals 1 damage. So if the same 2W model got hit by smite for 3 mortal wounds it would absolutely take the first wound for 1 damage to lose 1W, then ignore the 2nd wound for 1 damage (on a roll of 6) and have 1W left and 1 mortal wound lined up to deal 1 more damage which could also be ignored on a 6.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:


It is not worded like fnp type abilities which are activated when a wound (characteristic) is lost. It is activated when a model is slain meaning that it took enough damage (you can not take wounds you take damage to lose wounds, or assign/allocate wounds to deal damage) from a wound to lose all of its remaining wounds (characteristic).

But being slain is a result of losing wounds, not taking damage. The order is damage -> wounds lost -> slain.


You're right, it's not worded like fnp type abilities but if I were to read a fnp type abillity the way you're reading this rule, I would also be able to deny multiple wounds lost with 1 die roll. Because it says "the damage is ignored" (Venerable Dreadnought in the Imperial Index is my example for this, though I know others say the same thing), meaning as soon as I succeed on the roll for the first wound lost from a 3 damage weapon, the remaining 2 damage is gone because I'm ignoring "the damage." But we all know that isn't how it works.

I'm reading it more like diet Ressurection Protocols. The model dies, the model gets back up.

Jacksmiles wrote:

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:


It is not worded like fnp type abilities which are activated when a wound (characteristic) is lost. It is activated when a model is slain meaning that it took enough damage (you can not take wounds you take damage to lose wounds, or assign/allocate wounds to deal damage) from a wound to lose all of its remaining wounds (characteristic).

But being slain is a result of losing wounds, not taking damage. The order is damage -> wounds lost -> slain.


You're right, it's not worded like fnp type abilities but if I were to read a fnp type abillity the way you're reading this rule, I would also be able to deny multiple wounds lost with 1 die roll. Because it says "the damage is ignored" (Venerable Dreadnought in the Imperial Index is my example for this, though I know others say the same thing), meaning as soon as I succeed on the roll for the first wound lost from a 3 damage weapon, the remaining 2 damage is gone because I'm ignoring "the damage." But we all know that isn't how it works.

I have the impression it was written differently because GW didn't want people to assume that when it says "the wound that slew it is ignored" refers to the last wound (characteristic) that gets lost. Nowhere does it say damage, the wound carrying the damage is ignored meaning all the damage that would cause wounds to be lost from the model cease to exist. Otherwise models are unkilling themselves by denying the existence of their own health pools.
FNP is worded as "the wound is not lost" which makes it clear that it refers to the characteristic which counts down. Which is why fnp is rolled per damage as they resolve one at a time. This trait doesn't say lost, its not triggered on losing the last wound it's triggered on being slain (plasma stuff could possibly make a difference here). Yes wounds don't immediately cause death as damage is in between but its still a direct chain of events. If it was meant to ignore the loss of wounds or even damage it would simply say so. If it left a model with 1W remaining every time it would say so.

If a model with 3W flees on a roll of 6 it doesn't flee and keeps all 3W, which is more similar to ignoring the wound carrying damage when shot at than just being a fnp. Wouldn't it be odd if the ability could negate losing a multiwound model in morale but only negate individual wound losses in other phases?

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:

I have the impression it was written differently because GW didn't want people to assume that when it says "the wound that slew it is ignored" refers to the last wound (characteristic) that gets lost. Nowhere does it say damage, the wound carrying the damage is ignored meaning all the damage that would cause wounds to be lost from the model cease to exist. Otherwise models are unkilling themselves by denying the existence of their own health pools.
FNP is worded as "the wound is not lost" which makes it clear that it refers to the characteristic which counts down. Which is why fnp is rolled per damage as they resolve one at a time. This trait doesn't say lost, its not triggered on losing the last wound it's triggered on being slain (plasma stuff could possibly make a difference here). Yes wounds don't immediately cause death as damage is in between but its still a direct chain of events. If it was meant to ignore the loss of wounds or even damage it would simply say so. If it left a model with 1W remaining every time it would say so.

If a model with 3W flees on a roll of 6 it doesn't flee and keeps all 3W, which is more similar to ignoring the wound carrying damage when shot at than just being a fnp. Wouldn't it be odd if the ability could negate losing a multiwound model in morale but only negate individual wound losses in other phases?

This seems inconsistent with the way they talk about this kind of thing in the FAQs. For example, look at this bit of the Designers' Commentary:

For example, if a model with Disgustingly Resilient fails its saving throw against an attack made by a thunder hammer (Damage 3), you would roll three dice and for each result of 5+ you would ignore a single wound.

They clearly seem to think that damage causes a model to suffer wounds, several of which can be caused by a single multi-damage attack, and that these wounds are things that can be ignored. The Graia rule is written in the same way -- you ignore a wound. It seems like a pretty big stretch to say that "the wound" that slew the model is not one of these.

God it annoys me that GW doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on the idioms of the English language, and then we try to read everything literally.

As we’ve said above, Skitarii Rangers benefit from being able to advance and use their rapid fire weapons. Throw in the Protector Doctrina Imperative and you’ll all but mitigate your reduced accuracy for doing so!

(emphasis mine.)

No, if you get -1 to hit for shooting, and then you get +1 for the Stratagem, then it doesn't all but mitigate it. It completely mitigates it. "All but" means "almost."

 Purifier wrote:
God it annoys me that GW doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on the idioms of the English language, and then we try to read everything literally.

As we’ve said above, Skitarii Rangers benefit from being able to advance and use their rapid fire weapons. Throw in the Protector Doctrina Imperative and you’ll all but mitigate your reduced accuracy for doing so!

(emphasis mine.)

No, if you get -1 to hit for shooting, and then you get +1 for the Stratagem, then it doesn't all but mitigate it. It completely mitigates it. "All but" means "almost."

As they are from Metallica they don't get the penalty to hit anyway. Combining it with the stratagem is a bonus. This with the dodgy maths from earlier int he week leads me to suspect that the person writing these articles isn't bothering to think before typing.

Drager wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
God it annoys me that GW doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on the idioms of the English language, and then we try to read everything literally.

As we’ve said above, Skitarii Rangers benefit from being able to advance and use their rapid fire weapons. Throw in the Protector Doctrina Imperative and you’ll all but mitigate your reduced accuracy for doing so!

(emphasis mine.)

No, if you get -1 to hit for shooting, and then you get +1 for the Stratagem, then it doesn't all but mitigate it. It completely mitigates it. "All but" means "almost."

As they are from Metallica they don't get the penalty to hit anyway. Combining it with the stratagem is a bonus. This with the dodgy maths from earlier int he week leads me to suspect that the person writing these articles isn't bothering to think before typing.

Honestly, it's one I've been thinking of making a YMDC about, but I believe it isn't "counts as assault, therefore is not affected by the advance negative modifier" as I understand you read it (and I did to start) but rather that each kind of weapon gets upgraded one step. Assault weapons get upgraded to super-assault and don't get the modifier, while rapid fire weapons are upgraded to assault and can be fired but will get the assault modifier.

However, I'm very certain that the article when it was released stated that this could be used to get the rangers into their "15 inch sweet spot," implying that they could then double fire from there, but obviously they can't as they now count as assault... and this seems to have been removed from the article since, and replaced with that they can "get to optimal ranges" or something instead.

This is a problem with the weird way the chosen to do wounds/damage. You roll to wound, they save against the wound, then you roll damage to see... how many wounds you deal. That's weird and confusing.

SilverAlien wrote:
This is a problem with the weird way the chosen to do wounds/damage. You roll to wound, they save against the wound, then you roll damage to see... how many wounds you deal. That's weird and confusing.

This.

Though to be fair, the way things like Feel No Pain and Disgustingly Resilient work should provide enough "Common Sense" context. However, because of how heated people can get, and given how both people playing a game would be biased towards their own faction, the ruling should clarify it works like Feel No Pain + Morale, or something like that.

Iirc Ad Mech hasn't actually been printed or released, right? If so, at least that gives them some time to fix it, or add supplementary gak.

Basteala wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
This is a problem with the weird way the chosen to do wounds/damage. You roll to wound, they save against the wound, then you roll damage to see... how many wounds you deal. That's weird and confusing.

This.

Though to be fair, the way things like Feel No Pain and Disgustingly Resilient work should provide enough "Common Sense" context. However, because of how heated people can get, and given how both people playing a game would be biased towards their own faction, the ruling should clarify it works like Feel No Pain + Morale, or something like that.

Iirc Ad Mech hasn't actually been printed or released, right? If so, at least that gives them some time to fix it, or add supplementary gak.

Release is next week, so printing will have been going on for at least a month.

Considering that no one will ever use Graia, this discussion is purely academic.

 Crimson wrote:
Considering that no one will ever use Graia, this discussion is purely academic.

I thought the same thing about Iron Warriors.