r/WarhammerCompetitive • u/Separate_Football914 • 2d ago
40k Discussion Dev wound and damage reduction
We had a question regarding it and the answer seems… weird.
Per the dev wound rule, it by pass the attack allocation phase and becomes mortals wound. Most if not all of the damage modification ability (c’tan, Avatar of Khaine, Rogal Dorn) needs an attack to be allocated to the model….
So, is dev wound effectively ignore these rules?
26
u/RhapsodiacReader 2d ago
Current 10th ed books with damage reduction abilities were written with the 10th ed rules for the attack sequence and devastating wounds in mind.
The 11th ed version of the attack sequence and devastating wounds break those 10th damage reduction abilities.
That's why GW is rewriting them using new wording:
Attacks that target this unit have -1 D.
In typical GW fashion, this means only the new wording for damage reduction RAW works for devastating wounds.
But given that there's a pretty clear RAI with the new wording in 11th ed books, most events seem to be ruling that the old wording should still work.
1
u/alph4rius 17h ago
If only they'd decided that these rules should work all the same way. Like if it was apparent that there are a large number of special rules that are not specific to just a single army, and probably belong in the core rulebook. The core rulebook could be a definitive version of these rules, and that could update in the new edition, so it would update everywhere. These Rules that are both Special and of Universal Effect would be a really good idea. I wonder if anyone has ever tried anything like that? It'd probably only take up two and a half pages or so, maybe 74-76. It'd really be cutting edge stuff 22 and a bit years ago.
49
u/PracticalMushroom693 2d ago
Rules as written yes, but major events have ruled it both ways. Needs an FAQ
27
u/veryblocky 2d ago
GW told major TOs that it’s supposed to reduce dev wounds, but we’re 3 dataslates in and they still haven’t changed it. I don’t understand why they haven’t addressed it officially yet
14
u/wallycaine42 2d ago
My understanding is that all the major circuits (including GWs own events) rule that damage reduction applies to Dev Wounds. Presumably that is the intent, and an errata to that effect is something they're still working out how to do properly
3
u/Separate_Football914 2d ago
Got some notice of that? RAW it seems to be pretty straightforward so I would like to have some meat to counter it
6
u/wallycaine42 2d ago
WTC FAQs are written down somewhere, I'd probably start by checking those?
2
u/Antisense_Strand 1d ago
Enh, I wouldn't use WTC FAQs for basically any event unless they're advertising they follow WTC guidelines.
1
u/wallycaine42 1d ago
Oh, in general no. But if you're looking for "major tournaments are ruling this way" and even they're doing it the sensible way, it can be a way to show that its pretty widely accepted.
4
2
u/DoomSnail31 1d ago
I never really got this desire to stuck to RAW so hard these days. That was never the direction of 40k back in the day. Hell, courts don't even argue for RAW in contractual disputes as hard as some 40k players do in this game.
If GW employees (judges) rule it works a certain way, then it works that certain way
2
u/Jaedenkaal 1d ago
Sure, courts can interpret the intent behind a law, that’s their job. It’s not the players’ job or responsibility to interpret rules, so in the absence of someone who does have that responsibility, it’s not that unreasonable to expect players to play with the rules as written.
2
u/DoomSnail31 1d ago
No, the level of inflexibility that a significant portion of players approach the written text of 40k these days is absolutely asinine.
When we all know what GW means, especially based on the way in which modern versions of such a rule are written, then sticking to a literal grammatical reading of the rules makes no sense.
You don't need to have a law degree to apply systematic interpretation, or teleological one.
1
u/elementarydrw 19h ago
Especially when the wording was written for a different core rules we are playing.
1
u/alph4rius 17h ago
GW kind of made the community into this. This is the result of Boutique Rules. They doubled down on FAQing that different wordings of a very similar rule work differently several times, so people believed them and took that trend forwards.
1
u/Jaedenkaal 1d ago
I don’t think it’s really that much of a change in the players, it’s just that GW writes, typically, tighter rules recently, so the edge cases to argue are smaller than ever (so anyone arguing them seems more petty than ever) and also we have a lot more real-time access to player communities via the internet, so stories of insane rules-lawyering spread quicker than ever.
1
u/Dan185818 1d ago
I got told the other day that by NOT doing something optional by RAW that was clearly not RAI, I was cheating.
12
u/Twigman 2d ago
RAW yes dev wounds ignore it, however every event I've been to rules that damage reduction works citing GW intent. So you should check with your TO.
20
u/Separate_Football914 2d ago
Issue is… I am the TO so…. Speaking with the mirror will not help
21
6
u/The_Black_Goodbye 2d ago
Well the good news is that the GW rules team which has assisted the larger TOs have told them that damage reduction should work with Dev Wounds despite the actual RAW and as the TO you can do what they did and RAI rule that it does for your events.
5
u/Separate_Football914 2d ago
Kinda stupid that the GW rules it’s that way and that there isn’t an official FAQ on that.
7
u/The_Black_Goodbye 2d ago
Agreed; they’ve told TOs this from the start of edition yet 3 patches later nothing yet - at least the new codexes are working around it but hopefully we don’t have to wait for all codexes in order it’s resolved.
3
u/Benzerkr 2d ago edited 2d ago
At LVO recently the TO/staff ruled that Dev wounds are NOT reduced in damage. It helped my Army out, but I figured that was always an oversite so it was a surprise to me.
Edit: someone below says LVO rules otherwise? But I was corrected by my opponent (playing Death Guard while playing on stream with a TO standing next to him? I don't have a lot of dev wounds, but when it came up I was explained why it does NOT reduce damage.
3
u/AlisheaDesme 1d ago
Then you will have to decide yourself and stick to it. I would suggest to follow u/RhapsodiacReader as otherwise only Custodes -1D would work properly and the rest would be punished for not having a new codex with the real 11th edition wording for rules.
1
u/jacanced 2d ago
If it helps any, look at the 11th edition codices. All 3 of them so far have changed the wording of damage reduction, removing the "allocation" wording, so reduction always works against dev wounds on them.
2
u/SilverBlue4521 2d ago
Not really? The gravis armour captain still uses "allocated" (thought i assume its because he's a character)
-8
u/shaneskery 2d ago
I mean since mortals are allocated 1 wound at a time u can't reduce below 1D. So yes.
3
u/Task_Defiant 2d ago
Dev wounds also don't spill over anymore. So they don't act completely like mortals.
0
u/shaneskery 2d ago
What do u mean don't spill over?
4
u/HumanReputationFalse 2d ago
They dont spill over to other models in a unit. 1 attack means X damage on 1 model
1
-2
u/Alkymedes_ 2d ago
Depends if you have the new rule or the old one.
Why ? Because GW sucks at writing coherent rules. Why ? Because they choose to take 2,5 years of a 3 year edition to release all of its rules. Why ? Because even though they do regular updates, they miss half the shit that is needed every time.
Pick 1, up to three if you need an explanation about why there is the old rule needing allocation and the new wording which changes it before.
-1
u/Foreign-Presence-679 2d ago
Dev wound attacks are still allocated to a model though, no? It just says they turn into mortal wounds, which bypasses the saves but they also don’t roll over so they must be allocated to a model even though it may not say it’s allocated
2
u/Separate_Football914 2d ago
It’s mortal wound at this step, thus a succession of 1 dmg and not the total number.
1
u/DoNn0 1d ago
Dev wounds are still an attack of you so 6 dev on a 3 health model it doesn't carry over its one attacm
1
u/Separate_Football914 1d ago
Dec wound restriction is different tho: you can apply these mortal only on a number of model equally to you crit wound.
92
u/GenX-ican 2d ago
At LVO it was ruled that you reduce damage before it becomes dev wounds and was confirmed by the GW head judge that happened to be onsite. Hopefully they actually put it in the FAQ.