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.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Mchagen wrote:
Mortal wounds work the same way as in 9th (page 23 of 10th edition core rules). They happen one at a time, so any 'half damage' rules do not affect them because they're halving each wound separately and they round back to 1. So the avatar takes full damage against mortal wounds.

Thanks - I edited my post. To be precise - Avatar halves on allocation. Allocation happens after the wound roll, which has already made it MW.

Are you sure that's how it works?

The attack has a damage characteristic of 12, which is converted to mortal wounds. But it's still one attack with a damage characteristic, each mw isn't a separate attack.

I'm not seeing any rules that says each mw is separate attack. They are worked out individually, but they are produced by a single damage characteristic.

It reads to me like this:

Assign attack to avatar.
Halve attack's damage characteristic
Apply each mw individually to the avatar

The requirement to apply each mw individually doesn't convert that one attack into 12 attacks with a damage of 1 each.

It comes from the wording of the Avatar's ability and Devastating Wounds.

Avatar: Each time an attack is allocated to this model, halve the damage characteristic of the attack.

However, Devastating wounds aren't allocated like normal attacks. It short circuits the attack sequence and ends it.

Weapons with [DEVASTATING WOUNDS] in their profile are known as Devastating Wounds weapons. Each time an attack is made with such a weapon, a Critical
Wound inflicts a number of mortal wounds on the target equal to the Damage characteristic of that weapon and the attack sequence ends.

In essence, DW interrupts the attack sequence at step 2 (the wound roll), and the whole thing stops. Instead the target simply takes a number of mortal wounds equal to the Damage stat.

Its very nitpicky and will probably be played wrong by many people, but that's how the wording of those two abilities interact with the attack sequence, which is ended by DW before the Avatar's ability kicks in (which would be step 3, allocate attack).
Because attacks aren't allocated (or assigned, as you put it) until after the wound roll, Molten Form can't happen to DW.

-----
The sidebar on MW introduces some additional confusion, but they're pretty clear regardless.

Some attacks inflict mortal wounds.
Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit,
and they are always applied one at a time. Do not make a Wound
roll or saving throw (including invulnerable saving throws) against
a mortal wound – just allocate it as you would any other attack and
inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described on the right.

The italicized bit makes it more confusing then it needs to be, but the underlined part is pretty clear- each MW is treated singly, one at a time. So although it then goes back to be allocated, you're allocating 1 by 1.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
To be fair, I think we are actually playing a card game now, just with some added tokens.

Ahhhhh, Bullyboy. Welcome to the Dark Side. Please, come in. We have cookies. And character customization. And functional vehicle rules, no NMNR idiocy, templates, real Blast Weapons, Initiative, opposed WS, etc etc.......

Tbh, I still haven’t touched by HH starter box, so it’s a strong option.
I’ve been leaning more into Team Yankee recently, and I really should work on my AOS before that changes to a new edition

Huh, so it is. It certainly seems like the intent is the Avatar halves the damage of weapons attacking it, and a quick read of the data sheet seems simple enough. "Oh he attacked me, that means he allocated an attack to me. But the rules specifically have an "Allocate Attack" step which is after rolling to Wound. Thus devastating weapons short circuit it as you mention.

Well I guess that will be the first FAQ fodder

 Hellebore wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Mchagen wrote:
Mortal wounds work the same way as in 9th (page 23 of 10th edition core rules). They happen one at a time, so any 'half damage' rules do not affect them because they're halving each wound separately and they round back to 1. So the avatar takes full damage against mortal wounds.

Thanks - I edited my post. To be precise - Avatar halves on allocation. Allocation happens after the wound roll, which has already made it MW.

Are you sure that's how it works?

The attack has a damage characteristic of 12, which is converted to mortal wounds. But it's still one attack with a damage characteristic, each mw isn't a separate attack.

I'm not seeing any rules that says each mw is separate attack. They are worked out individually, but they are produced by a single damage characteristic.

It reads to me like this:

Assign attack to avatar.
Halve attack's damage characteristic
Apply each mw individually to the avatar



The requirement to apply each mw individually doesn't convert that one attack into 12 attacks with a damage of 1 each.

Yea -- see here:




So when you make your wound roll and it's a critical wound the attack becomes mortal wounds and the attack sequence ends so we never get to the 'Allocate' step, which is when the Avatar triggers.

RAW has been well covered, but this feels like an oversight to me.
Worth getting clarity on from an FAQ, since GW isn't known for their tight writing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Mchagen wrote:
Mortal wounds work the same way as in 9th (page 23 of 10th edition core rules). They happen one at a time, so any 'half damage' rules do not affect them because they're halving each wound separately and they round back to 1. So the avatar takes full damage against mortal wounds.

Thanks - I edited my post. To be precise - Avatar halves on allocation. Allocation happens after the wound roll, which has already made it MW.

Are you sure that's how it works?

The attack has a damage characteristic of 12, which is converted to mortal wounds. But it's still one attack with a damage characteristic, each mw isn't a separate attack.

I'm not seeing any rules that says each mw is separate attack. They are worked out individually, but they are produced by a single damage characteristic.

It reads to me like this:

Assign attack to avatar.
Halve attack's damage characteristic
Apply each mw individually to the avatar



The requirement to apply each mw individually doesn't convert that one attack into 12 attacks with a damage of 1 each.

Yea -- see here:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

So when you make your wound roll and it's a critical wound the attack becomes mortal wounds and the attack sequence ends so we never get to the 'Allocate' step, which is when the Avatar triggers.

It's even simpler than this. Page 23 explains how mortal wounds work, including allocating them. They are, in fact, allocated, but one damage at a time.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
To be fair, I think we are actually playing a card game now, just with some added tokens.

Ahhhhh, Bullyboy. Welcome to the Dark Side. Please, come in. We have cookies. And character customization. And functional vehicle rules, no NMNR idiocy, templates, real Blast Weapons, Initiative, opposed WS, etc etc.......

Tbh, I still haven’t touched by HH starter box, so it’s a strong option.
I’ve been leaning more into Team Yankee recently, and I really should work on my AOS before that changes to a new edition

Everything's a card game if you're reductive enough.

Also, pretending team Yankee isn't ALSO just a 'card game with added tokens'...lol.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
To be fair, I think we are actually playing a card game now, just with some added tokens.

Ahhhhh, Bullyboy. Welcome to the Dark Side. Please, come in. We have cookies. And character customization. And functional vehicle rules, no NMNR idiocy, templates, real Blast Weapons, Initiative, opposed WS, etc etc.......

Tbh, I still haven’t touched by HH starter box, so it’s a strong option.
I’ve been leaning more into Team Yankee recently, and I really should work on my AOS before that changes to a new edition

Hmmm, totally understandable. But, if you're "on the fence"? I know that you're a DA player. You should really check out the 1st's rules in HH. They're quite nice. Super flexible. What kind of army do you want? They can do it.

Edit: Please ignore ERJAK. He's just being himself.

Thanks for providing more detail on this everyone.

The bit that I was unsure of is how a single attack's damage is treated as separate attack allocations for this rule.

As the attack sequence only cares about attack allocations it seemed that it would have no effect on the asking you to make wound allocations, as that's special to MW and not part of the normal attack process.

However, it actually does look like, mechanically, the MW rules DO effectively convert each MW into a separate attack of 1 wound each...

Some attacks inflict mortal wounds. Each mortal wound inflicts one point of damage on the target unit, and they are always applied one at a time.
[...]
just allocate it as you would any other attack and inflict damage to a model in the target unit as described on the right.

It's not explicit as the first sentence talks about inflicting damage rather than attacks, but the last one says 'allocate as you would any other attack', which suggests that it not only follows the normal attack sequence (despite devastating wounds ending it), but that each individual wound retroactively becomes 1 attack, to be assigned as 1 wound, to the target (in order for it to be "allocateable as you would any other attack").

So, from this, it looks like it happens this way:

successfully Roll to wound the avatar.
Attack Sequence ends
12 MWs are then allocated as you would any other attack (therefore they are now ATTACKS, allocated individually), one at a time
Avatar halves damage of 1 back to 1
Avatar receives 12 separate MW attacks/wounds



They should be a bit more explicit about it, given they've only got one attack allocation mechanic you're using, but mechanically it seems MW do in fact get converted into separate attacks for allocation, causing 1 MW each.

cheers.

I think it will very likely get FAQ'd, as they did so in 9th edition.

Imperial Knights codex FAQ:

Q: When using the Calculated Targeting Stratagem, on an unmodified wound roll of 6, can enemy units use abilities that reduce the Damage characteristic of the attack (e.g. Disgustingly Resilient, Wraithbone Form, etc.)?
A: Yes.

Calculated Targeting being a strat to give your guns broadly what the devastating wounds rule is in 10th edition.

But GW does sometimes switch their decisions 180 degrees on these kinds of things.

Catachans

 JNAProductions wrote:
RAW has been well covered, but this feels like an oversight to me.
Worth getting clarity on from an FAQ, since GW isn't known for their tight writing.

Why you think gw meant to change how it works from 9 yet failed needing faq "yes we did mean to change it"?

Wraithguard

Sure hope those Catachan will be cheap because 1 Attack at S3 AP0 (+1S AP-1 on the charge) is very lackluster.

Wraithguard certainly got a glow up, guess we're back to the days of 7th where D-Weapons are stupendous. +1T as well, very curious to see what they'll do with the wraithlord.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Sure hope those Catachan will be cheap because 1 Attack at S3 AP0 (+1S AP-1 on the charge) is very lackluster.

They have scout. Stick them in a chimera with some flamers, you have scout flame tank. Or a taurox, suddenly you can get 21"+d6 range deploy on turn 1. They may not be amazing, but they have some uses.

Flamers? They can probably take one per 10. And people like me who bought a few command squads so they could spread special weapons around their infantry squads can get fethed I guess.

Billicus wrote:
Flamers? They can probably take one per 10. And people like me who bought a few command squads so they could spread special weapons around their infantry squads can get fethed I guess.

Catachans can take 1 flamer per 5 models in 9th. That will probably persist to 10th.

Billicus wrote:
Flamers? They can probably take one per 10. And people like me who bought a few command squads so they could spread special weapons around their infantry squads can get fethed I guess.

The box includes two flamers, so I don't see why they wouldn't be able to take them.

This was a very good write up for the new missions:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/1408fdf/deployment_mission_rules_primary_secondary_and/

I was expecting the secondaries to favour fast TAC armies and so wasn't too surprised to see they do.

Luckily the slow plodding armies like Death Guard have the best army/detachment rules to make up for their inherent mission weaknesses.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Sure hope those Catachan will be cheap because 1 Attack at S3 AP0 (+1S AP-1 on the charge) is very lackluster.

Wraithguard certainly got a glow up, guess we're back to the days of 7th where D-Weapons are stupendous. +1T as well, very curious to see what they'll do with the wraithlord.

I wouldn’t say it was a glow up. One shot wraith cannon at the reduced BS 4 isn’t great (although I suspect that the spiritseer will have some rule to give +1 to hit, Guided Wtaithsight or something)..

 bullyboy wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Sure hope those Catachan will be cheap because 1 Attack at S3 AP0 (+1S AP-1 on the charge) is very lackluster.

Wraithguard certainly got a glow up, guess we're back to the days of 7th where D-Weapons are stupendous. +1T as well, very curious to see what they'll do with the wraithlord.

I wouldn’t say it was a glow up. One shot wraith cannon at the reduced BS 4 isn’t great (although I suspect that the spiritseer will have some rule to give +1 to hit, Guided Wtaithsight or something)..

Being able to fire them in combat is rather nice. Certainly ought to mean bogging down D-Scythes in HTH is close to being off the table.

Wraithguard are definitely going to be a unit you want to engage with overwhelming firepower. It will suck to take a plinking shot a them only to have them return fire for more damage than you did to them.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Sure hope those Catachan will be cheap because 1 Attack at S3 AP0 (+1S AP-1 on the charge) is very lackluster.

Wraithguard certainly got a glow up, guess we're back to the days of 7th where D-Weapons are stupendous. +1T as well, very curious to see what they'll do with the wraithlord.

I wouldn’t say it was a glow up. One shot wraith cannon at the reduced BS 4 isn’t great (although I suspect that the spiritseer will have some rule to give +1 to hit, Guided Wtaithsight or something)..

Being able to fire them in combat is rather nice. Certainly ought to mean bogging down D-Scythes in HTH is close to being off the table.

There's basically no point in taking D-Scythes though without torrent, blast and devasting wounds. Wraithcannon will out damage Scythes vs tougher opponents, and against chaff using SoF to get that devasting wound with D6 damage will achieve the same effect and kill more than Scythe.

You will burn through all your best Fate Dice if you use them to kill Chaff with Wraith Guard via Devastating Wounds. Far better to kill them with D-Scythes while saving your Fate Dice.

I like how Catachan JUNGLE FIGHTERS have gone from best run as an armoured company, to now being best run as mechanised

 alextroy wrote:
You will burn through all your best Fate Dice if you use them to kill Chaff with Wraith Guard via Devastating Wounds. Far better to kill them with D-Scythes while saving your Fate Dice.

But is chaff killing really best use for wraith guard?

They are not monsters, they can't shoot while engaged. They are also short ranged. This means that bogging down a unit of wraithguards in chaff is a very legit tactic. Cannons will hardly help you in that case.

Spoletta wrote:
They are not monsters, they can't shoot while engaged. They are also short ranged. This means that bogging down a unit of wraithguards in chaff is a very legit tactic. Cannons will hardly help you in that case.

Their special ability lets them fire back against anyone who attacks them and makes their guns Pistols while they do so.

If you resolve close combat attacks against them then they immediately get to fire back against you as Pistols can be fired into combat (with no loss of BS).

Spoletta wrote:
They are not monsters, they can't shoot while engaged. They are also short ranged. This means that bogging down a unit of wraithguards in chaff is a very legit tactic. Cannons will hardly help you in that case.

Well yea but if you dilute unit to make it chaff killer rather than aim to kill somnthing big opponent's chaff did its job without even getting to combat,

 bullyboy wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Sure hope those Catachan will be cheap because 1 Attack at S3 AP0 (+1S AP-1 on the charge) is very lackluster.

Wraithguard certainly got a glow up, guess we're back to the days of 7th where D-Weapons are stupendous. +1T as well, very curious to see what they'll do with the wraithlord.

I wouldn’t say it was a glow up. One shot wraith cannon at the reduced BS 4 isn’t great (although I suspect that the spiritseer will have some rule to give +1 to hit, Guided Wtaithsight or something)..

I only run D-Cannons so it's a glow up for me. They were 1 shot at R:18" already in 9th, their Strength went up 4pts, and kept their AP-4 while most other armies lost AP to curb lethality. The old damage is d3+3 plus a mortal and the new damage is d6 + devastating wounds which I'd say is more an upgrade than a sidegrade. +1T is huge IMO.

The D-Scythe is a bit of a wash. Wraithguard kept their fire into melee rules except now in the opponent's phase, since D-Scythe lost blast they can now use that in melee which is good.

BS4+ is how it should be IMO, they are walking dead that are supposed to be led by a Spiritseer. I suspect they will get +1 Hit when a Spirit Seer leader is attached.