because the ones that pay points for it would be overcosted.
From a fluff point of view, models without eternal warrior are not nessecarily vaporized by a lazcannon shot. They are just too crippled or banged up to continue fighting.
Eternal warriors are just the rare few guys who can take said attack and continue on through either insane toughness or willpower.
Peregrine wrote: Hell no, in fact EW should be removed from the game entirely. If you take a direct hit from a railgun you're dead, no matter how heroic you are.
I don't think its so much as receiving the hit as taking measures to minimise or downright avoid its effects at the last second.
That's unless we see it as though we can correlate the wording of "to hit and to wound" with a fluff visualisation, but then if you do that we should consider that cover saves come after the "to wound" rolls, so unless I've missed out a piece of fluff that states walls materialise inside the vital organs of warriors at the last second to save them, the system layout isn't supposed to match the visualisation of the fight.
I personally like it as instant death is kinda of a crap mechanic for a TON of models, let alone characters. Most of "Midzilla" cannot be run because of things that auto-them out.
So maybe it's not EW that's the problem, but instant death that's the problem. Removing models from play seems just lame and a mechanic that's straddling this weird line of making sense in an Epic scale game but doesn't make sense in the "I'm not Epic scale, yet, but still use skirmish mechanics" game that is 40k.
As it stands, I think Eternal Warrior should be given to named characters to represent their significance on the battle field. Those with EW already should gain some sort of bonus to resiliency as I personally feel that larger than life characters is a major part of 40k and a 300 point Chapter Master should be a feared unit. He's ascended to that rank on many battlefields filled with lascannons and rail guns, so what's one more?
It's basically because of a bad game mechanic that's better suited for a much different scale of game that's creeped into 40k. They could make ID weapons do d3 wounds versus removing models, and it'd be better, IMO.
You first. Why should all named characters have Eternal Warrior?
Instant death is a terrible mechanic best used in an Epic style game versus one that has fiction centered around the larger than life, death-defying heroes of the 41st Millenium?
((Or that I long for the day to run Tyranid Warriors and not get them vaporized))
Mr.Omega wrote: I don't think its so much as receiving the hit as taking measures to minimise or downright avoid its effects at the last second.
Except that's not how it works. GW describes EW as representing heroic toughness, not amazing reflexes that let a character dodge a shot.
I don't have my RB on me for the fairly trivial EW description but these things are mostly open to interpretation, and it makes far more sense when you look at who has EW, Calgar is no less likely logic wise to take a railgun shot to the face than your regular joe SM Captain. One would assume that greater wisdom and knack for surviving are the difference.
On interpretations, you can look at how a meltagun can kill a Land Raider far easier than it can kill a Terminator with a Storm Shield, or how a Volcano Cannon is stopped by a SOB's faith invulnerable save. Is the faith giving the SOB a form of physical defence, or just wits/luck? Invulnerable saves are given in some places for purely "dodging" (see Lelith Hesperax) though it would be physically impossible for her to dodge what is represented by a 10'' diameter blast/ Deathstrike impact.
TheKbob wrote: So maybe it's not EW that's the problem, but instant death that's the problem. Removing models from play seems just lame and a mechanic that's straddling this weird line of making sense in an Epic scale game but doesn't make sense in the "I'm not Epic scale, yet, but still use skirmish mechanics" game that is 40k.
No, the problem is that ID is a black and white thing rather than a steady increase in damage. A character shouldn't take only one wound from a shot as long as it's less than double toughness, but suddenly suffer instant death if the weapon gets just a little bit stronger. Instead of ID weapons should inflict multiple wounds as the strength of the shot exceeds toughness. The to-wound chart would work as normal up to a 2+ to wound, then after that point it would remain a 2+ but each added point of strength would inflict an additional wound. So, for example, an autocannon shot against a MEQ model would inflict two wounds for every failed save, a krak missile would inflict three, etc.
As it stands, I think Eternal Warrior should be given to named characters to represent their significance on the battle field. Those with EW already should gain some sort of bonus to resiliency as I personally feel that larger than life characters is a major part of 40k and a 300 point Chapter Master should be a feared unit. He's ascended to that rank on many battlefields filled with lascannons and rail guns, so what's one more?
And this is the attitude I dislike. Why should "heroes" get special protection just for being awesome? A railgun to the head is still going to kill you no matter how heroic you are. If you don't like that then get some cover and do your job as a commander, don't just run mindlessly out into the open and let everyone shoot you. Screaming zealots that think that 40k is a universe of heroic triumphs should be shot to death by some anonymous guardsman/cultist/etc.
Because I'm of the video game generation and love me some epic hero fantasy?
Not *pew*->*dead* style approach to characters when the fluff readily has the "big, named" guys having all the crap thrown at them and they walk it off like they ain't got time to bleed.
Remember, we have "Stallion That Mounts the World" Pattern Chapter Masters (or Smash-fu for the layman) running around out classing every named guy. We have the bearlord reigning over old, fuzz beard, etc. etc. Hell, the oldest living Chapter Master, old Danny-boy, is fricken' lascannon bait when these young upstarts walk it off and ask for more.
The whole fluff thrives on the names and heroes. The game should reflect that. Ravening hordes should stick to Epic scale. Instant death is a dumb mechanic.
From a narrative perspective the characters should not be ID'd. As The Kbob says, 40k is a very hero focused setting where they can and do pull off ridiculous feats.
From a gameplay perspective the characters should not be ID'd. They cost a feth ton of points to lose to at single anti tank shot and imo it's just not as fun as seeing the characters do their thing and die the traditional way, not to mention inconsistent in its application.
I'm happy with some really important characters having it. It basically amounts to plot armor for dudes like Abaddon. It'd be pretty lame if he were to to get splatted by one smash attack.
Eihnlazer wrote:because the ones that pay points for it would be overcosted.
Or worse, they'd have to raise the cost of special characters who didn't, making them too expensive.
Also, there are a lot of SCs that it doesn't really make sense for. Like everyone except for yarrick and maybe straken in the guard codex, for example, and all those fragile space elves. Plus, there are W1 and W2 SCs that it wouldn't make much sense for either.
Really, EW is only for those uber-expensive ultra beatsticks that it would be super anti-climactic to have them go insta-splat if someone chucked a krak missile towards them. Of course, whether we should have ID at all...
JubbJubbz wrote: I'm happy with some really important characters having it. It basically amounts to plot armor for dudes like Abaddon. It'd be pretty lame if he were to to get splatted by one smash attack.
Not that Abbadon is going to do anything anyways...
It would be a terrible idea since it would just reward bad playing and make player's think that they are entitled to have their special character live through the entire match. It already silly seeing the rule on characters like Lsyander who has a 2+ armor save and a 3+ invulnerable save. If it was possible I would like to see the rule simply removed from the game and have character's point cost adjusted accordingly.
Archon_Zarbyrn wrote: It would be a terrible idea since it would just reward bad playing and make player's think that they are entitled to have their special character live through the entire match.
I disagree, they will still lose a wound to the high powered anti tank stuff so they're still perfectly capable of dying to it - just not in one shot. I'd probably even go for something like the melta rule where there's a chance to do extra damage to the character. But you won't have a 4 wound character that costs 200 points snapped by a single 15 point lascannon. Yes, realistically a lascannon would vaporise you if it hit you. No, I don't think it conducive to good gameplay, and narratively survival stats can be as much about avoidance as mitigation.
It's not something I hugely care about or would even mention, unlike say general balance issues or clunky mechanics. I just think it would be better this way since the topic came up ; )
I think it would be great, as heroes are meant to be the last ones to fall. Having a special character vaporised turn one or two before they get to do anything is really anoying. At least with eternal warrior, your characters could last through the fight for a little while maybe turn four or perhaps five, and show why they actually war heroes. Obviously points would have to be adjusted so they don't outshine the special characters already with it. But I think it would be a cool thing to have.
On the table-top, Abbadon should be easily crippled by a near-miss from a Basilisk that penetrated his armor, even if the Chaos Gods permit him to cling to life (i.e. he should be removed as a casualty).
Because SC's with instant death weapons would be even more useless. Poor Fabius Bile.
On the table-top, Abbadon should be easily crippled by a near-miss from a Basilisk that penetrated his armor, even if the Chaos Gods permit him to cling to life (i.e. he should be removed as a casualty).
The same armor that can be stepped on by a titan without killing the user?
IXLoiero95XI wrote: I think it would be great, as heroes are meant to be the last ones to fall. Having a special character vaporised turn one or two before they get to do anything is really anoying. At least with eternal warrior, your characters could last through the fight for a little while maybe turn four or perhaps five, and show why they actually war heroes. Obviously points would have to be adjusted so they don't outshine the special characters already with it. But I think it would be a cool thing to have.
I disagree, each of the armies I play either have no Eternal Warrior or very few characters have the rule and it forces me to become a better player by not leaving my commander stranded or putting them into situations were they are certainly going to die. Also giving every character the rule completely invalidates wargear like the Huskblade which is otherwise a extremely expensive power sword with AP2. Surely if a character is suppose to be tough giving them good invulnerable saves, FNP etc would be the better choice then using a rule whose sole purpose is to cancel out another rule?
IXLoiero95XI wrote: I think it would be great, as heroes are meant to be the last ones to fall. Having a special character vaporised turn one or two before they get to do anything is really anoying. At least with eternal warrior, your characters could last through the fight for a little while maybe turn four or perhaps five, and show why they actually war heroes. Obviously points would have to be adjusted so they don't outshine the special characters already with it. But I think it would be a cool thing to have.
I disagree, each of the armies I play either have no Eternal Warrior or very few characters have the rule and it forces me to become a better player by not leaving my commander stranded or putting them into situations were they are certainly going to die. Also giving every character the rule completely invalidates wargear like the Huskblade which is otherwise a extremely expensive power sword with AP2. Surely if a character is suppose to be tough giving them good invulnerable saves, FNP etc would be the better choice then using a rule whose sole purpose is to cancel out another rule?
IXLoiero95XI wrote: I think it would be great, as heroes are meant to be the last ones to fall. Having a special character vaporised turn one or two before they get to do anything is really anoying. At least with eternal warrior, your characters could last through the fight for a little while maybe turn four or perhaps five, and show why they actually war heroes. Obviously points would have to be adjusted so they don't outshine the special characters already with it. But I think it would be a cool thing to have.
I disagree, each of the armies I play either have no Eternal Warrior or very few characters have the rule and it forces me to become a better player by not leaving my commander stranded or putting them into situations were they are certainly going to die. Also giving every character the rule completely invalidates wargear like the Huskblade which is otherwise a extremely expensive power sword with AP2. Surely if a character is suppose to be tough giving them good invulnerable saves, FNP etc would be the better choice then using a rule whose sole purpose is to cancel out another rule?
Which armies do you play, by the way?
Currently I play Dark Eldar, Eldar, Necrons and Tyranids. Outside of the Phoenix Lords for the Eldar and Drazhar none of the characters in these armies have Eternal Warrior.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Because SC's with instant death weapons would be even more useless. Poor Fabius Bile.
On the table-top, Abbadon should be easily crippled by a near-miss from a Basilisk that penetrated his armor, even if the Chaos Gods permit him to cling to life (i.e. he should be removed as a casualty).
The same armor that can be stepped on by a titan without killing the user?
Yup. That's what failing an armor-save is - it's a breach in the armor. Are you saying Abbadon shouldn't fail armor saves? Because that's different than having EW.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Because SC's with instant death weapons would be even more useless. Poor Fabius Bile.
On the table-top, Abbadon should be easily crippled by a near-miss from a Basilisk that penetrated his armor, even if the Chaos Gods permit him to cling to life (i.e. he should be removed as a casualty).
The same armor that can be stepped on by a titan without killing the user?
Yup. That's what failing an armor-save is - it's a breach in the armor. Are you saying Abbadon shouldn't fail armor saves? Because that's different than having EW.
I'm saying I miss the 2D6 3+ save Terminator armor used to give, I miss using termies with so many wave serpents and plasma guns
I disagree, each of the armies I play either have no Eternal Warrior or very few characters have the rule and it forces me to become a better player by not leaving my commander stranded or putting them into situations were they are certainly going to die. Also giving every character the rule completely invalidates wargear like the Huskblade which is otherwise a extremely expensive power sword with AP2. Surely if a character is suppose to be tough giving them good invulnerable saves, FNP etc would be the better choice then using a rule whose sole purpose is to cancel out another rule?
Which armies do you play, by the way?
Currently I play Dark Eldar, Eldar, Necrons and Tyranids. Outside of the Phoenix Lords for the Eldar and Drazhar none of the characters in these armies have Eternal Warrior.
Well okay, I was going to give you crap if you played Tau or Guard, as in those armies the HQ are cheap as chips anyway so don't care about instant death. That said, Tyranids and Necrons both have HQ whom's toughness is high enough that they're not worried about getting insta-killed by Str 8 or 9 weapons, which I assume is the main reason for these complaints.
I personally am in favor removing ID via double Str, not for HQs be for units like nobs and warriors, who are never used because they're free points against those anti-tank weapons most armies take anyway.
I disagree, each of the armies I play either have no Eternal Warrior or very few characters have the rule and it forces me to become a better player by not leaving my commander stranded or putting them into situations were they are certainly going to die. Also giving every character the rule completely invalidates wargear like the Huskblade which is otherwise a extremely expensive power sword with AP2. Surely if a character is suppose to be tough giving them good invulnerable saves, FNP etc would be the better choice then using a rule whose sole purpose is to cancel out another rule?
Which armies do you play, by the way?
Currently I play Dark Eldar, Eldar, Necrons and Tyranids. Outside of the Phoenix Lords for the Eldar and Drazhar none of the characters in these armies have Eternal Warrior.
Well okay, I was going to give you crap if you played Tau or Guard, as in those armies the HQ are cheap as chips anyway so don't care about instant death. That said, Tyranids and Necrons both have HQ whom's toughness is high enough that they're not worried about getting insta-killed by Str 8 or 9 weapons, which I assume is the main reason for these complaints.
I personally am in favor removing ID via double Str, not for HQs be for units like nobs and warriors, who are never used because they're free points against those anti-tank weapons most armies take anyway.
Hmm, that might not be a bad idea since units like Tyranid Warriors get completely screwed by instant death yet it make sense that if you shot a group of them with a vindicator cannon there would be nothing left besides fleshy bits. Also if multi-wound units never had to worry about instant death wouldn't they become far to powerful?
I'm renowned for loving Special Characters. I pretty much don't field an army without one unless forced to do so.
That being said, I almost NEVER field someone with EW. It's a comparatively rare rule in the armies I play, and I don't tend to run any of the characters that have it.
While there are a couple I would love to see it on. (Salamanders supplement--let Vulkan find another one of the great artifacts, and have it be a Chariot he can take as an option, and have THAT give him Eternal Warrior.) Urien Rakarth, f'rex. Some it wouldn't make any kind of sense. Like Baron Sathonyx or Telion.
I'm fine with ID and EW as is. I find that it's mainly newer players that get overly attached to their named characters that morn ID on their characters (I did the same when I first had to deal with the ID rules). After a couple dozens games and a year or two of playing, it's seems like most players are fine with these particular rules as written.
Eternal Warrior: Shoot me with a Volcano Cannon! I'll just take d3+1 wounds, which I can invul save! But that's okay, it's not like Volcano Cannons weren't designed to destroy Titans, vaporize entire city blocks, or anything...
Eternal Warrior, IMHO, was meant to represent those rare few people who absolutely WILL NOT STAY DOWN.
Think about the number of names in any given codex. 4E orks (the one about to be invalidated)
they have 4 named HQs, and 3 named unit leaders
Ghazzy, Grotsnik, Zogwart, Wazzdakka.
Snikrot, Zagstrukk, Badruk.
Of these, only 1 has EW, and only 2 others could possibly have it and fit with who they are.
Ghazzy gets EW from his metal head, and it can be argued the Grotsnik or Wazzdakka deserves it.
all the other names just don't fit with it. Even Zaggy, who survived having Both legs removed by a dreadnought.
from a purely game play perspective, giving every name EW means that you are likely to see a lot of armies that cram as many names in as possible, to maximize the bodies immune to instant death.
it is my personal opinion that Eternal Warrior should be given to no more than 2 characters in any given Codex.
Space Marines have, I think, two.
Chaos Marines have one.
Dark Eldar have one.
IG have, I think, two?
Do Eldar have any at all?
Grey Knights have one.
Blood Angels have one.
It's a pretty rare ability. Personally, I think that makes it have more impact.
Archon_Zarbyrn wrote: Hmm, that might not be a bad idea since units like Tyranid Warriors get completely screwed by instant death yet it make sense that if you shot a group of them with a vindicator cannon there would be nothing left besides fleshy bits. Also if multi-wound units never had to worry about instant death wouldn't they become far to powerful?
It also makes sense that the same vindicator cannon could one-shot a Carnifex or a Hive Tyrant. It's largely a balance issue, where a unit is able to take out model or unit twice or even three times it's point cost.
As for if it would make multi-wound units OP, well, that depends on the model. Ogryns can only be ID by str 10 stuff, and weapons with ID (Force weapons and that stuff), and that is also a unit largely untaken. Non-biker Nobs and Nid Warriors were already mentioned, and these are still killable vs anti infantry weapons and autocannons. Even then, I would have no problem if these units take a slight point increase if they do end up powerful, it's just that Anti-tank weapons should not be the "I'm effective against everything that isn't an ork boy" weapon of choice
The only exception would be paladins, and you know what? That's a unit that should not have existed in the first place.
Jimsolo wrote: Space Marines have, I think, two.
Chaos Marines have one.
Dark Eldar have one.
IG have, I think, two?
Do Eldar have any at all?
Grey Knights have one.
Blood Angels have one.
It's a pretty rare ability. Personally, I think that makes it have more impact.
Space Marines have 2 though you can give The Shield Eternal to a HQ of your choice to give them a 3++ save and Eternal Warrior
Eldar have 6 which are all the Phoenix Lords which I think were the first models to ever have Eternal Warrior.
Tau, Tyranids and Necrons don't have any.
Chaos Daemons only have one which is the SkullTaker.
You know, I'm going to throw in a Game of Thrones reference here, just because it's so fitting.
The world doesn't care if you're a king, if you're going to overthrow the king, if you're a peasant, or if you just showed up to the scene. Vala morghulis. All men must die. The Romans had a similar quote they whispered in the ears of victorious generals during their parades of triumph. Memento mori. Remember your mortality.
Bobthehero wrote: Yeah, if you're a guy on foot, AT weapon should kill you dead.
Why would someone fire an anti-tank weapon at infantry?
To kill them?
But then why use anti-tank to do that when there are anti-infantry weapons?
See, if we're going to play the 'realism' card, you can say that a krak missile or a melta gun should kill any infantry out right (and I won't disagree with you, in realism anyway) but the idea of using a krak missile or a melta gun on a Nob or Nid Warrior is itself an idea based on game mechanics, because that's what the numbers tells us is the most effective, rather than what the weapon's use is.
Edit: @Bobthehero: Right, sure, that makes sense, but that's about using a weapon with low AP against a model with a low armor save. I have no problem with that (and in this particular case, most AT weapons don't work on terminators anyway) but not why IG shmoe would fire his melta gun at that slightly bigger ork (nob) and not, i don't know, the hulking tank it just jumped out off
People are still forgetting that EW got hit by a massive nerfhammer, and is next to nothing nowadays. Drop to 1 wound instead of dying outright? That's just nasty.
Besides; Ghazzy's laughing at this nerf in his mob of boyz (not EW, just immune to ID). He seems to be the meanest AND toughest guy around now when the EW rule is a joke.
Bobthehero wrote: Yeah, if you're a guy on foot, AT weapon should kill you dead.
Why would someone fire an anti-tank weapon at infantry?
To kill them?
But then why use anti-tank to do that when there are anti-infantry weapons?
See, if we're going to play the 'realism' card, you can say that a krak missile or a melta gun should kill any infantry out right (and I won't disagree with you, in realism anyway) but the idea of using a krak missile or a melta gun on a Nob or Nid Warrior is itself an idea based on game mechanics, because that's what the numbers tells us is the most effective, rather than what the weapon's use is.
Wait, so if you're armed with a meltagun or a missile launcher and a four meter tall alien monstrosity is bearing down on you, you'd throw rocks at it? Or fumble for your pistol?
Nid warriors are twice the height of a man - I'd fire an RPG-7 at it (if I had one) before I tried to draw my pistol. Nobs, much the same.
Tigramans wrote: People are still forgetting that EW got hit by a massive nerfhammer, and is next to nothing nowadays. Drop to 1 wound instead of dying outright? That's just nasty.
Besides; Ghazzy's laughing at this nerf in his mob of boyz (not EW, just immune to ID). He seems to be the meanest AND toughest guy around now when the EW rule is a joke.
Wait a second, the rule states that the model just loses a single wound instead of being slain outright how was it nerfed?
There's a point where a game mechanic has to cross from the fluff to an abstract. If the game was like it's skirmish roots and the other skirmish games of today, you would have your Warlord HQ be a much bigger role in your army (versus just the Psychers and Beatsticks being any form of real HQ these days) and their loss would mean either the end of the game or a great deficit to your side. Warmahordes is game over. Infinity is the shock to your pool of resources to almost nothing. Malifaux is losing usually the key to your crews strategy. So on, so forth.
Warhammer 40k, however, has gotten so bloated with a battle style type of game that you field more and more powerful guns to handle the bigger and bigger tanks. The volume of anti-tank fire, along with the scale of the game, means that really any special or unique type of "general" is all but pointless.
However, the fluff of Warhammer 40k is almost always about the named guy. It's not about battles or happenings, but usually some snowflake character being cunning, brutal, ruthless, bold, daring, etc. This is then to be transferred to the table top by them encouraging "Forging a Narrative" by squads being lead by their Captain or their Chaplain.
Only to eat a lascannon at the start of the game, failing their "look out, sir" and being vaporized. Instead of the Lascannon going for the tank, it goes for the general. More so, the game has prioritized this for you with "Slay the Warlord". Now you park him in the back or in a tank and it's oh, so cinematic to have your hero lead from the rear. Unless he has T6 or Eternal Warrior.
It doesn't fit the fluff and it makes people see the HQ as a deficit/tax or something they should dial up to 11 to make it work for them (Buffcommanders, Stallion Masters, Draigo, etc.).
Realistically, it's a failing of the games terribly convoluted scale and the instant death mechanic. On one hand, you can fix it by handing out EW like candy again. On the other, you can fix the instant death mechanic which then does better for the overall game. Anything causing "instant death" that wounds a model should do d3 wounds, like Fantasy. They seem to bring over the worst parts of Fantasy (ex. MagicPsychic Phase) instead of bringing over concepts that work, like multi-wound causing elements.
If you then want to really crank up the resiliency of you big names, like Failbaddon, Draigo, Lysander, Yarrick, you make it so Eternal Warrior say "Nay, sir, multi-wound causing wounds only deal me one wound!"
Suddenly you can have the mechanic feel more cinematic of the general being a general. One Thunderfire Cannon shot doesn't squish your PCS because you didn't want to run him in a tank. It gives the characters a "plot armor" but still giving enough leeway in the game mechanics to make you still want to invest in them.
TL;DR: Instant Death is a terrible mechanic that has made many characters and unit types non-starters and Eternal Warrior is a symptom not a panacea. Fix instant death, make eternal warrior a special bonus to increase resiliency, and move on.
I like the idea that the greatest warriors that ever lived can be chumped by some raw recruit that just happened to get lucky with a bigger gun. It adds to the GrimDarkness of the setting in that no matter how powerful you think you are you will die and no one will care.
Wait a second, the rule states that the model just loses a single wound instead of being slain outright how was it nerfed?
7th Edition BRB: a failed save against an ID drops wounds to 1 instead of killing models outright.
If I'm misreading this, please correct me.
Here the exact passage for Eternal Warrior: If a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound from an attack that inflicts Instant Death, it only reduces its Wounds by 1, instead of automatically reducing its Wounds to 0. Note it says only reduces its wounds by 1 not that it reduces the target's wound total to 1.
A general change across all characters based on a criteria (independant character) which has no balance bearing, may unbalance the game further. So probably not all. More? Perhaps.
Heheheh actually I like eternal warrior on lots of things. Means you get some use out of your guy if you don't go 1st and someone instataps them somehow (Since I never seem to go 1st against certain mates). And no matter how well I think I've hid them, they somehow cheese los.
Anyway I also think it helps mitigate the non T4 characters who are just too easily ID'd.
Hell I play chaos so doesn't really matter to me too much. But for armies like DEldar and such, it matters more. Would prefer their bosses to stick around rather than getting vaped by a stray round. Even if it's not logical.
It's frustrating as some things get it that shouldn't have it (wolf lords) and others don't that probably should (vulkan - the mantle should give it, Typhus should deffo have it...)
Here the exact passage for Eternal Warrior: If a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound from an attack that inflicts Instant Death, it only reduces its Wounds by 1, instead of automatically reducing its Wounds to 0. Note it says only reduces its wounds by 1 not that it reduces the target's wound total to 1.
It shouldn't be given to everyone, but for god's sake Dante should have it. He's the oldest living Space Marine, he didn't get to be that without being damn tough!
In all seriousness, though, I think giving it as a blanket rule to Special Characters is a bad idea. It punishes people making their own armies as much as anything else. Why does the Captain of the Imperial Fist first company get EW, when your similarly armed First Captain of your own chapter, maybe with a similar reputation, doesn't? To be honest, I think it should be buyable as an upgrade to represent such characters, through things like Saga of the Bear or The Shield Eternal. Then again, in an ideal world most USRs would be costed so you could create characters that are every bit as useful as their named counterparts without using Counts As.
For Eldar, the Avatar doesn't have EW, and fluffwise, m most ID weaponry would dispatch him that way. Not an IC, but a good example of where ID is fitting.
Phoenix Lords, on the other hand, would have their armor survive a direct Melta hit, or any other ID, while the body inside would fry. I imagine the PL would remain active until at least the end of battle, before needing a replacement wearer. The PL is the armor - the wearer is fulliy consumed. Fluffwise, I feel this is the perfect example of EW, unlike the Avatar.
A lot of the EW/no EW decisions make sense. After all, a Farseer shouldn't survive a krak grenade without an jnvuln/cover.
not every named character is some ultra powerful god of war. Haas has a name, but he's just a veteran sergeant, he shouldn't be able to survive unshaved from guns used to blow up entire cities.
Instant death is a terrible mechanic best used in an Epic style game versus one that has fiction centered around the larger than life, death-defying heroes of the 41st Millenium?
((Or that I long for the day to run Tyranid Warriors and not get them vaporized))
Instant death is a great rule that is a hard counter to all the new oval based MCs we are seeing. Sweet wraithknight, oh hey check out this balesword, shiny isn't it?
I know GW says EW means super toughness, but I think that is a bit of BS, unless we think of it as that one main character trope, where main characters never die. Hit by a railgun? Hah, only grazed my thigh!
Nah, I like 40k for its relative killyness, not the WHFB approach where everyone and his mother seems to have an armor save AND an invulnerable save on top. *shudders*
EW should be only for the absolute toughest baddies, the ones that miraculously survive heavy ordnance being thrown at them and keep coming. Not all named characters are such. On top of that, it'd make the ID rule literally completely pointless against many armies.
Here the exact passage for Eternal Warrior: If a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound from an attack that inflicts Instant Death, it only reduces its Wounds by 1, instead of automatically reducing its Wounds to 0. Note it says only reduces its wounds by 1 not that it reduces the target's wound total to 1.
I stand corrected. Thanks mate.
No problem man happy to help.
TheKbob:
Living a long time does not mean you are immortal though, many much tougher and powerful characters such as Necron and Daemon ones don't have the rule despite literally being all but immortal. Think about it, the necron character are over 65 million years old, made up of some of the toughest material in the 40k universe and still can be instantly killed.
Well... "killed" in the sense that they are required to Phase Out to a resurrection ark and get their software reinstalled into a new body of their type (Warrior, Lord, whatever), and then schlep their happy ass back to where ever the battle is taking place. They're out of the fight as far as this battle is concerned, but they'll be back.
Here the exact passage for Eternal Warrior: If a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound from an attack that inflicts Instant Death, it only reduces its Wounds by 1, instead of automatically reducing its Wounds to 0. Note it says only reduces its wounds by 1 not that it reduces the target's wound total to 1.
I stand corrected. Thanks mate.
No problem man happy to help.
TheKbob:
Living a long time does not mean you are immortal though, many much tougher and powerful characters such as Necron and Daemon ones don't have the rule despite literally being all but immortal. Think about it, the necron character are over 65 million years old, made up of some of the toughest material in the 40k universe and still can be instantly killed.
Quite so, I agree, however this means someone who isn't immortal living that long means he's prime candidate for a moniker of Eternal Warrior. Most Eternal Warriors bearing that mantle are not immortal characters, either. The special rule, to me, doesn't identify units impossible to kill, but those with the large than life presence (read: plot armor) big enough to suggest they are here to fight. Remember, losing your last wound doesn't mean death in 40k, it just means incapacitated in some form. The Eternal Warrior special rule means that it takes a far mightier force to stop the character involved.
And Necrons have one better as they have resurrection capabilities. If their form is ever disabled, it's instantly teleported back to be repaired to the tomb world. Daemons are immortal, but their material bodies are made by a link from the warp to the material plane. These bodies and forms are not indestructible, though. I see the longer living races like Tolkein Elves. Immortal, yes, but they can still die if pumped full of arrows or the liberal application of sword to the forehead (Head - On, apply directly to the...).
This is me, paraphrasing myself from a different thread...
Eternal Warrior exists to balance CC Beatsticks. Without it, any model with a Power Fist will be bringing down 200+ point models like butter. The problem with expensive CC models is that they have to survive long enough to get into CC, and then be able to have an impact there. Without EW, Lysander will die about half the time he gets into a Challenge with an Ork Nob or Space Marine captain. S8 exists in spades for CC, and S10 is pretty common. Anyone not T6 essentially becomes a one wound model, which is utter crap for the price tag.
Waaaghpower wrote: This is me, paraphrasing myself from a different thread...
Eternal Warrior exists to balance CC Beatsticks. Without it, any model with a Power Fist will be bringing down 200+ point models like butter. The problem with expensive CC models is that they have to survive long enough to get into CC, and then be able to have an impact there. Without EW, Lysander will die about half the time he gets into a Challenge with an Ork Nob or Space Marine captain. S8 exists in spades for CC, and S10 is pretty common. Anyone not T6 essentially becomes a one wound model, which is utter crap for the price tag.
It's an issue of balance.
Lysander has a 3+ invulnerable save and when you factor in how most power fist users have 2-3 attacks at most and only hitting half the time I think he would be quite survivable without EW. Compared to a Archon who can get a 2+ invulnerable save, but is always T3 he gets killed by a way more things like marines boosted by Hammerhand. Why do already tough characters like Lysander need EW when others like an Archon or Yriel get by just fine without it? EW just serves to add another unnecessary special rule that ignore basic game mechanics and invalidates many abilities and wargear just like ATSKNF does to morale.
Waaaghpower wrote: This is me, paraphrasing myself from a different thread...
Eternal Warrior exists to balance CC Beatsticks. Without it, any model with a Power Fist will be bringing down 200+ point models like butter. The problem with expensive CC models is that they have to survive long enough to get into CC, and then be able to have an impact there. Without EW, Lysander will die about half the time he gets into a Challenge with an Ork Nob or Space Marine captain. S8 exists in spades for CC, and S10 is pretty common. Anyone not T6 essentially becomes a one wound model, which is utter crap for the price tag.
It's an issue of balance.
Lysander has a 3+ invulnerable save and when you factor in how most power fist users have 2-3 attacks at most and only hitting half the time I think he would be quite survivable without EW. Compared to a Archon who can get a 2+ invulnerable save, but is always T3 he gets killed by a way more things like marines boosted by Hammerhand. Why do already tough characters like Lysander need EW when others like an Archon or Yriel get by just fine without it? EW just serves to add another unnecessary special rule that ignore basic game mechanics and invalidates many abilities and wargear just like ATSKNF does to morale.
Is an Archon with a 2++ 230 points? There's your answer.
Archon, I feel you're a little biased towards Archon. Something gives me that impression.
As for my math: An Ork Nob has 3 attacks. 1.5 hits, about 1.3 wounds, a tiny fraction under half a failed 3+. That's a dead Lysander half the time, as I said. SM captains get 1/3rd chances of killing him. Also an Archon with a 2+ Invuln only costs 90 points, not over 200.
I personally can go anyway. If they made it so that no one has EW then it won't affect me because I never really cared too much for it. If they do away ID that would change my meta though and if each IC had it then I think it would be more awesome than just having your character die to lucky melta. Feels kind of anti climatic when your HQ dies or stays in the back. I get that it happens. Heck it happened to Frederick the first. It would make it more viable to push your named characters to combat. Heck, I'm on vacation hundreds of miles from home but if someone would play a game or two with no ID and with ID but named characters with EW and let us know how it went that'd be swell.
Waaaghpower wrote: This is me, paraphrasing myself from a different thread...
Eternal Warrior exists to balance CC Beatsticks. Without it, any model with a Power Fist will be bringing down 200+ point models like butter. The problem with expensive CC models is that they have to survive long enough to get into CC, and then be able to have an impact there. Without EW, Lysander will die about half the time he gets into a Challenge with an Ork Nob or Space Marine captain. S8 exists in spades for CC, and S10 is pretty common. Anyone not T6 essentially becomes a one wound model, which is utter crap for the price tag.
It's an issue of balance.
Lysander has a 3+ invulnerable save and when you factor in how most power fist users have 2-3 attacks at most and only hitting half the time I think he would be quite survivable without EW. Compared to a Archon who can get a 2+ invulnerable save, but is always T3 he gets killed by a way more things like marines boosted by Hammerhand. Why do already tough characters like Lysander need EW when others like an Archon or Yriel get by just fine without it? EW just serves to add another unnecessary special rule that ignore basic game mechanics and invalidates many abilities and wargear just like ATSKNF does to morale.
Is an Archon with a 2++ 230 points? There's your answer.
There is an Archon who cost close to that, Vect he cost 240 points yet he does not have EW. Also while a standard Archon will not cost 230 points he can easily cost up to 150+ points and is still T3.
Waaaghpower:
An Archon who took just a shadow field does cost 90 points, but he ain't doing crap since he will be stuck at str 3 with no way to ignore armor. Taking IMO the best weapon for him the Huskblade is 35 points for a str 3 AP2 power weapon with Instant Death. One of the issues I have with EW is that it makes any already dangerous character have essentially nothing to fear when attacking a squad. A power fist can indeed kill a SM captain, however the Captain can force a challenge to either single out the wielder or force him to not attack for the round. I don't mind my archon being easily killed, he suppose to be a glass cannon after all, I do have a issue with already very tough characters basically having nothing to fear due to EW.
Bobthehero wrote: AP 2 Instant death, whoa, strikes at initiative or not?
Yep strikes at initiative and the archon has an awesome initiative value of 7 along with weapon skill 7 and 5 attacks base when you factor in the bonus attack for having a pistol and close-combat weapon.
Woah woah woah...
You're saying that a 125 Point Character with low S and T due to being a fragile alien in a codex of well-equipped elite fragile people has a different role than a 230 point character from a race of genetically designed supersoldiers with inferior gear?
You're comparing Apples and Squig Brew here, Archon. Dark Eldar play differently than Space Marines, and Archons have completely different roles and uses than Chapter Masters.
Waaaghpower wrote: Woah woah woah...
You're saying that a 125 Point Character with low S and T due to being a fragile alien in a codex of well-equipped elite fragile people has a different role than a 230 point character from a race of genetically designed supersoldiers with inferior gear?
You're comparing Apples and Squig Brew here, Archon. Dark Eldar play differently than Space Marines, and Archons have completely different roles and uses than Chapter Masters.
Wait how does Lysander have inferior gear? He wears terminator armor, has a storm shield and a strength 10 thunder hammer. This means he can easily destroy most other HQ choices in a single hit before you add in the fact he has EW to protect him. Also both Archons and Chapter Masters excel in a certain field: in close combat though both have their differences a course. Mostly DE rely on killing the target before they strike back while the chapter master can afford to strike at the same time or even last due to how tough he is.The closet equivalent to Lysander in the DE codex would be either Drazhar or Vect. Drazhar has EW but only a 2 armor save and no invulnerable save, while Vect cost 240 points and has 4+ armor save and shadow field.
I was comparing the armies. Space Marines have the best gear available to the Imperium, but their tech just isn't anywhere near as advanced.
And once again, two different roles. Archons exist to pick off slow-moving targets before blows can be struck. They're cheaper, lighter, faster, and can still weather powerful hits until their dice crap out.
Chapter Masters are freight trains, not scalpels. They hit last, and hit hard, but first they're always going to be weathering a ton of damage.
Not to mention, a slow-hitting freight train would stick out like a sore thumb in a DE army, and a fragile speedster would do the same in an Imperial Fists army.
Maybe Vect is overcosted. I don't know his abilities and I don't own the codex to look. But you can't compare two different units with two different roles, playstyles, and armies, and expect them to be the same.
I see nothing inherently wrong with it. Some adjustments may need to be made, but the way I see it, named players have significance to the lore and Eternal Warrior or something along those lines for all of them adds more depth and meaning to them for me.
MarsNZ wrote: They need less EW, not more. I read a guy in the IG codex has EW because he has bionics, as if he's the only guy in the galaxy to have robo-limbs.
Well maybe EW is a little much, but they could have something along those lines. Named units in any game have meaning to the game, otherwise everyone would be named or nobody would be named.
Should they all have the same buff, definitely not, but they should get something fitting their station and their position in the lore.
MarsNZ wrote: They need less EW, not more. I read a guy in the IG codex has EW because he has bionics, as if he's the only guy in the galaxy to have robo-limbs.
As far as I'm aware, the only IG character with EW is Yarrick... Who totally, completely deserves it.
MarsNZ wrote: They need less EW, not more. I read a guy in the IG codex has EW because he has bionics, as if he's the only guy in the galaxy to have robo-limbs.
Yarrick who does deserve it. In fluff, he bests a Warboss hand to hand yanking off the ork's klaw and taking it as his own only collapsing after it. The dude's known for just getting back up after being smacked down. There's a reason why the biggest baddest ork loves this human above all else. He's flippin Yarrick!
Lobomalo wrote: Yeah, but he is a badass so he gets to do it faster
Eh, it's a bit murky with Lucius to be fair. They edited the fluff so that he gets murdered by some low ranking emotionless SM who didn't feel pride. What happens? He just gets revived by mister fix-it Slaanesh Marine. Even if he isn't put back together, Slaanesh would probably revive him really and that's if you don't feel pride. Then again it would be very grimdark and fitting if it was quicker. A one time rule where if you killed him, you would have to take a ld test 2d6. It's not perfect but it would be kind of amusing frankly.
Lobomalo wrote: True, but he is still cool imo. Though at times I wish he died for reals.
Eh, it's the catch of Chaos in general and really makes them some of the most charming characters to field. Chaos Daemons, Necrons, Tyranids, and CSM get one perk in narrative. You aren't stuck to the I was just knocked out/down or I had to retreat. No, you can die but be revived/reborn (even if Nids it doesn't make too much sense). Necromancy, strange and creepy medical experts, magic, the gods, being an immortal daemon, being a machine that gets sent back to return. No matter what, you can explain it in so many ways compared to the awkward and clunky restrictions of the rest.
Lobomalo wrote: I was so tempted to make a Daemons army, but BA swayed me. Me and a friend are doing a corrupted angel army with DA/BA
Renegades?
Anyways, my opinion is mixed. On the one hand, you have things like warriors that just aren't worth being fielded. Then you have problems with units such as Oblits where the extra T is just too vital to not pick making the other options even less appealing than they already were. Characters? It makes 200 point models that provide slay the warlord as well (more often than not) go splat handing away points to the enemy and feeling rather anticlimatic. At the same time, bar few exceptions, it largely makes sense that a meltagun melts you to the point you have to at least wait a bit before fighting onward.
Lobomalo wrote: I was so tempted to make a Daemons army, but BA swayed me. Me and a friend are doing a corrupted angel army with DA/BA
Renegades?
Anyways, my opinion is mixed. On the one hand, you have things like warriors that just aren't worth being fielded. Then you have problems with units such as Oblits where the extra T is just too vital to not pick making the other options even less appealing than they already were. Characters? It makes 200 point models that provide slay the warlord as well (more often than not) go splat handing away points to the enemy and feeling rather anticlimatic. At the same time, bar few exceptions, it largely makes sense that a meltagun melts you to the point you have to at least wait a bit before fighting onward.
Not exactly, some fluff manipulation to have Cypher recruit those Fallen not corrupted by Chaos to a rogue DA group, they stumble on a cure for the Red Thirst, though they don't yet know its a fake, some BA, mostly Death Company decide to leave the army in favor of the cure. We are working on it but this sums it up.
Waaaghpower wrote: I was comparing the armies. Space Marines have the best gear available to the Imperium, but their tech just isn't anywhere near as advanced.
And once again, two different roles. Archons exist to pick off slow-moving targets before blows can be struck. They're cheaper, lighter, faster, and can still weather powerful hits until their dice crap out.
Chapter Masters are freight trains, not scalpels. They hit last, and hit hard, but first they're always going to be weathering a ton of damage.
Not to mention, a slow-hitting freight train would stick out like a sore thumb in a DE army, and a fragile speedster would do the same in an Imperial Fists army.
Maybe Vect is overcosted. I don't know his abilities and I don't own the codex to look. But you can't compare two different units with two different roles, playstyles, and armies, and expect them to be the same.
I not expecting them to be the same sorry if I came across that way, I wanted to say that I felt EW was an unnecessary rule since it removes a important check against powerful characters which having to worry about being instantly killed. Let say like what the OP suggested every named character had EW, now a player can basically throw their character at whatever they want without having to think about the risk versus the rewards of doing so. For example Lysander without EW could still destroy a dreadnought on his own, but the player would have to think is it worth the risk of potentially losing him to kill the dreadnought. However, since he has EW the player can just send him alone against a dreadnought and the worse he will suffer is a wound or so. What even worse about EW is the fact that in order to counter it GW came up with things that just flat out remove the model from the game and D-weapons which were plain silly in 6th. Honestly I wouldn't mind instant death being removed and just replace it with weapons that can inflict multiple wounds and weapons that do things like inflict D3 wounds. It removes the need to have EW and allow for more unit design options like T3 models with multiple wounds actually getting to use said wounds instead of just getting ID by so many weapons.
TheKbob wrote: I still get miffed that the oldest living Space Marine not yet interred in a dreadnaught is not an Eternal Warrior.
You'd think that's the epitome of the term.
Dumb rules are dumb.
You mean the guy who is younger then many of the CSMSC's and who isn't blessed by a literal god?
One of which should be able to possess people when he dies as well.
You mean the handwaving of the warp that is you could have lived 30 days or 30 millenia because time doesn't flow linearly?
*shrug* It still makes sense that someone like that has plot armor. More so, someone like Thawn and the others like him, would also be the true immortals.
It's the rule that's equal to plot armor and to be a stop gap for a poor mechanic of the game. It's literally the thing holding back many different units, like Tyranid Warriors, from being good.
TheKbob wrote: I still get miffed that the oldest living Space Marine not yet interred in a dreadnaught is not an Eternal Warrior.
You'd think that's the epitome of the term.
Dumb rules are dumb.
You mean the guy who is younger then many of the CSMSC's and who isn't blessed by a literal god?
One of which should be able to possess people when he dies as well.
You mean the handwaving of the warp that is you could have lived 30 days or 30 millenia because time doesn't flow linearly?
*shrug* It still makes sense that someone like that has plot armor. More so, someone like Thawn and the others like him, would also be the true immortals.
It's the rule that's equal to plot armor and to be a stop gap for a poor mechanic of the game. It's literally the thing holding back many different units, like Tyranid Warriors, from being good.
Oh I know, it's irritating because oblits need Nurgle marks to keep for it.
TheKbob wrote: I still get miffed that the oldest living Space Marine not yet interred in a dreadnaught is not an Eternal Warrior.
You'd think that's the epitome of the term.
Dumb rules are dumb.
You mean the guy who is younger then many of the CSMSC's and who isn't blessed by a literal god?
One of which should be able to possess people when he dies as well.
You mean the handwaving of the warp that is you could have lived 30 days or 30 millenia because time doesn't flow linearly?
*shrug* It still makes sense that someone like that has plot armor. More so, someone like Thawn and the others like him, would also be the true immortals.
It's the rule that's equal to plot armor and to be a stop gap for a poor mechanic of the game. It's literally the thing holding back many different units, like Tyranid Warriors, from being good.
Hence why I would prefer if ID and EW were simply removed from the game and just have certain weapons be capable of inflicting multiple wounds to represent their deadliness. This lets you have units with multiple never get to use said wounds just cause they happen not to have the perfect combination of toughness, saves and wounds instead of the situation we have right now.
EW should be changed to some sort of test, perhaps a toughness test. Roll less than or equal to your toughness or die. 6 always fails but higher toughness (6+) should get some sort of modified reroll because these are creatures that really could take multiple hits from Uber powerful weapons.
Hence why I would prefer if ID and EW were simply removed from the game and just have certain weapons be capable of inflicting multiple wounds to represent their deadliness. This lets you have units with multiple never get to use said wounds just cause they happen not to have the perfect combination of toughness, saves and wounds instead of the situation we have right now.
Hence why I would prefer if ID and EW were simply removed from the game and just have certain weapons be capable of inflicting multiple wounds to represent their deadliness. This lets you have units with multiple never get to use said wounds just cause they happen not to have the perfect combination of toughness, saves and wounds instead of the situation we have right now.
I agree.
My Crisis Suits agree, also. Goddamn Krak missiles...
