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.

So here I am, wondering why Eternal warrior is on a ton of models these days which make Force Weapons useless.

Monstrous creatures are way more survivable than vehicles for no damned reason. A melta might destroy a vehicle and ID a character, but the MC will take 1 wound at most.

How to fix this?

Have certain weapons be able to deal more than 1 wound at a time.

For example:

AP1 weapons do d6 wounds to non-vehicles
Ap2 and Ap3 weapons do d3 wounds to non-vehicles (alternatively, Ap2 weapons could do d6-1 wounds to non-vehicles to a minimum of 1)

How this would work:

Let's say you have a an Imperial Guard heavy weapons team of 3 Lascannons. They fire at a Tyranid Trygon, a fearsome beast to be sure!

2 of the lascannons hit and both wound. So you roll a d3 for each successful wound. For the sake of this example, a 3 and a 1 are rolled. The Trygon takes 4 wounds, leaving it with 2.

-->The ramifications

>Weapons that reliably killed characters, like Lascannons and Battlecannons, may not always kill characters outright. Perhaps if the weapon has double S to the model's T, you get an additional wound against the model? So a Battlecannon would do d3+1 wounds against an Imperial Marine Captain.

>Monstrous Creatures might be too weak, but this may be for the better. If I hit a Leman Russ with a couple Meltas, it's pretty much dead. If I hit a Carnifex with a couple meltas, under my proposed rules it would probably be dead as well!

>Instant death is, well, dead. There's no use for it. Unless we keep instant dead for characters and use the wounds for MC's. But I would prefer that either ID stays or the wounds stay.

>If Instant death goes, Eternal Warrior is worthless. Perhaps change it to, "The first time this model would take multiple wounds and die from it, it does not die and instead has 1 wound." Something like that. Just an idea.
---------------------------

Thoughts? Ideas? Comments? Insults? Throw 'em at me.


Edit: Please read:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

ph34r wrote:Why is everyone replying "omg railgun would kill 6 marines in one hit OP!!!1", I'm pretty sure Vlad intended this to be in the same manner as Warhammer Fantasy, with each model wounded taking d6 wounds on that model specifically. 6 wounds on one marine = 1 dead marine.

This is what I meant, thank you.

I will edit the original post. I didn't mean for things to be so confusing! But yes.

So here's how it goes: Melta Gun fires at an Imperial Space Marine squad. It hits, and wounds a Space Marine. That Space marine will take d6 wounds. Not the squad.

Also, this is AFTER the model fails its saves. So if a Terminator is hit by a Meltagun, and fails its 5+ save, it will then take d6 wounds. Not roll a d6 and then it takes that many 5+ invulnerable saves.

This does NOT mean that if I hit a Marine squad with a Meltagun, it can kill up to 6 Marines. It means that one Marine gets overkilled in the extreme.

Have a nice day and take it easy.

Force weapons bypasses eternal warrior...

Nope. Force weapons cause Instant Death, and Eternal Warrior makes a model immune to Instant Death.

Eternal Warrior started as a way of preserving small characters like Eldar Phoenix Lords from getting easily splatted, and then got given away like candy. Now that it's been taken away from all Tyranids in Synapse, and lord knows the Daemons need it, and various stuff like Warbosses and whatnot are immune to the normal cases of Instant Death but not the special cases, it's fine.

There was a reason that the game abandoned multiple wounds for weapons in the 3rd edition of the game.

The only improvement I can think of might be having Instant Death being generalized as any roll to wound with a threshold of T+3, so if you needed 2+ to wound a model, then you needed 5+ to inflict Instant Death on it.

I think what might be part of the problem in my opinion is huge increase in special close combat weapons/attacks that inflict instant death. I mean sure your character was killed by a lascannon, powerfist or force weapon but they have their own drawbacks and are balanced (and are supposed to kill you). Things like the blessgiver that can make 3 + d6 powerweapon ID attacks at I6 is what I have issues with. ID attacks should only be reserved for special/OTT characters like Abaddon and Mephiston.

I feel like Eternal Warrior really is being doled out too readily at the moment, to be honest. One solution I've thought of would be to modify it so that if a model with Eternal Warrior suffers an unsaved wound that would inflict Instant Death, it actually loses D3 wounds.

Doesn't really affect many monstrous creatures, though, except with Force Weapons and the like.

I've also toyed with the idea of having a 'damage table' of sorts for MC's. If they take a wound, roll a D6: on a 1-2, they just take the wound; on a 3, they take a wound and injure a leg, losing half their movement; on a 4, they take a wound and injure a weapon-wielding limb, losing an attack in combat; on a 5 they lose a wound and injure a sensory organ, losing one point of Initiative (to a minimum of 1); on a 6 they suffer a critical hit and lose two wounds.

Or something.

The AP value affecting how many wounds are caused seems very OP. I mean even using your example fluff-wise, if I use that same lascannon on a squad of tacs and roll that d3 for AP2 and get a 3 does it mean that (for example) 3 Space Marines were in a perfect line to get blasted?

Does the melta gun magically become a super flamethrower, hitting entire units (5 man units but... ya know)?

I think you see my point.

Vladsimpaler wrote:So here I am, wondering why Eternal warrior is on a ton of models these days which make Force Weapons useless.

Monstrous creatures are way more survivable than vehicles for no damned reason. A melta might destroy a vehicle and ID a character, but the MC will take 1 wound at most.

How to fix this?

I see reasons why not to fix it, which sucks to say as a IG player. Wrecked on a vehicle means you made it no longer functional and a danger to be in it. You vaporized one major part of it, like the life support systems. Makes it unusable, but that's due to it being a complex machine. You vaporize an arm of the wraithlord, he's still got another arm and a couple legs he's coming at you with.

Vladsimpaler wrote:
Have certain weapons be able to deal more than 1 wound at a time.

For example:

AP1 weapons do d6 wounds to non-vehicles
Ap2 and Ap3 weapons do d3 wounds to non-vehicles (alternatively, Ap2 weapons could do d6-1 wounds to non-vehicles to a minimum of 1)

How this would work:

Let's say you have a an Imperial Guard heavy weapons team of 3 Lascannons. They fire at a Tyranid Trygon, a fearsome beast to be sure!

2 of the lascannons hit and both wound. So you roll a d3 for each successful wound. For the sake of this example, a 3 and a 1 are rolled. The Trygon takes 4 wounds, leaving it with 2.

I think this is not a _terrible_ idea, but it would overcomplicate things and slow them down. I kind of like the idea of having something similar to a vehicle damage chart but for monstrous creatures. Failing that, part of me likes S10 being instant death to anything. Another part of me likes the idea of getting rid of Eternal Warrior.

Thoughts? Ideas? Comments? Insults? Throw 'em at me.

I consider you a villain of the most heinous degree and I hereby accuse you of tomfoolery! Good day, sir!

Vladsimpaler wrote:
For example:

AP1 weapons do d6 wounds to non-vehicles
Ap2 and Ap3 weapons do d3 wounds to non-vehicles (alternatively, Ap2 weapons could do d6-1 wounds to non-vehicles to a minimum of 1)

OP as hell. Now my squad of 3 broadsides can reliable kill an entire 10 man tac squad (Or knock them down incredibly) in one round of shooting. My crisis teams with plasma guns are now even more deadly than they are. I feel ID / EW is fine as it is. EW is not very common (Now that synapse was re-worked)

MC's are rather tough to kill, but who says vehicles aren't? Yea you might get a lucky shot & blow a LR to hell but there's an almost (Ordanace, ap1, extra armor) equal chance that all you'll do is prevent it from shooting next turn & that is IF you manage to hit & penetrate. Typical MC's are now T6 or less. So most AT weapons wound on a 2+ that's like a lascannon firing at an AV of 11 & most MC's have a 3+ save so even Krak missiles go through them. Yes there are exceptions but I'm going with the majority.

I have to say that I disagree with such a big modifier on multi-wounded models. And also I have to say that I think tanks are still a lot tougher than MCs for the most part except of course for against melta. But anything else and I think it is pretty even. That is the price of taking melta over say plasma. I think its just that we are in a game that rewards meching your entire force, so people have countered by using a lot of melta. Melta is not as good at killing MCs. Thats the trade off.

On the other hand I agree that too many models have eternal warrior and i wouldn't be apposed to it being changed to causing 2 wounds if you would otherwise suffer ID or something like that.

this sounds allot like how rules used to function in 2nd ed. While I can understand where you are coming from something like this just adds even more dicerolls to the game.

Hi folks.
If I remember rightly , 2nd ed used strenght and damage on weapon profiles.
The damge value represented the number of wounds caused or additional armour penetration on vehicles (above the standard D6.)

I dont think the old method of rolling for random damage would fit with the new ethos, however.....

If instead of the AP values.We give weapons a damage value of 1 2 or 3.

This is the number of saves a model that is hit by the weapon has to pass to prevent this number of wounds eing inflicted.

Eg Melta Gun Str 8 Damage 3 , assault 1,

A model hit by the melta gun has to pass 3 saves to prevent 3 wounds being inflicted.

ALL saves are always taken.Just some powerful weapon make models take more saves.The damage value could be added to the damage roll for vehicles .

To make anti tank weaponry more effective vs vehicles.

It would not be usable with the current 40k rule set without complete revision of costings etc.

The 40k background is the most colourful I know of , yet GW seem intent on writing 'black or white type' rules.(ALL or NOTHING.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

^ If that's how it used to be then great. But a melta gun forcing saves instead of just killing something? Well my terminators will be far less afraid of it (I'd take 3 2+ over 1 5++ any day) but ya know, yell at me if I'm wrong

Hi Crazy Thing .
Nah, 2ne ed was far more detailed, the strenght of the weapon hit modified the saveing throw.
And there were to hit modifiers for every weapon.
And damage dice etc.

But having to keep taking saves means you will fail them eventualy.

Using this method all saves are always taken and the increse in efficiency is even.
Unlike the current AP system when saveing throws get better exponetialy due to weapons ignoring saves or not, and the amount of weapons ignoring the lower AP values is also lower.

However a complete re costing and re compositioning would be needed to balance the elements of the game .

Terminators would NOT need the 5+ inv save would they?As 2+ save would be good enough on its own,under this system.

There were some realy dumb chioces made in the transition from 2nd ed to 3rd ed 40k, leaving the game far more abstract than necissary.

TTFN
lanrak.

Why is everyone replying "omg railgun would kill 6 marines in one hit OP!!!1", I'm pretty sure Vlad intended this to be in the same manner as Warhammer Fantasy, with each model wounded taking d6 wounds on that model specifically. 6 wounds on one marine = 1 dead marine.

One quick way to make characters less vulnerable to ID would be to allow them to take an invulnerable save for each wound, rather than one to see if they die instantly. It always seems strange to have an Iron Halo either deflect a missile completely or do nothing at all. It doesn't do anything for monstrous creatures, of course.

ph34r wrote:Why is everyone replying "omg railgun would kill 6 marines in one hit OP!!!1", I'm pretty sure Vlad intended this to be in the same manner as Warhammer Fantasy, with each model wounded taking d6 wounds on that model specifically. 6 wounds on one marine = 1 dead marine.

This is what I meant, thank you.

I will edit the original post. I didn't mean for things to be so confusing! But yes.

So here's how it goes: Melta Gun fires at an Imperial Space Marine squad. It hits, and wounds a Space Marine. That Space marine will take d6 wounds. Not the squad.

Also, this is AFTER the model fails its saves. So if a Terminator is hit by a Meltagun, and fails its 5+ save, it will then take d6 wounds. Not roll a d6 and then it takes that many 5+ invulnerable saves.

@Daedalus-
Fair enough but that's what Weapon Destroyed and Crew Shaken are supposed to represent. If you hit a Wraithlord in the face with a Multi-Melta, it's going to be as dead as a Land-Raider getting hit with a Multi-Melta. If you catch my drift.

And being a villain of the most heinous degree- I didn't say compliments!

I think a more elegant solution would be to stop giving out Eternal Warrior so readily. I get the point; it's basically plot armour for the tabletop. However, that means that it should only be given to VERY special characters.

This is a bad idea. You know whats killed my trygons most games? Obliterator plasma guns and long fang rocket launchers, both of which a land raider can laugh off. Even lascannons struggle to stop a raider dead. And it gets cover easier. This is what balances out monstrous creatures. If a krak missile hits my trygon, it needs a 2+ to wound. If it hits a rhino it needs a 4+ to penetrate, and a 5 or 6 to kill the thing. So the chances of killing a tank are much less then just wounding an MC.

Finally, as someone who has ran both raider rush marines and mechdar, along with tyranids, I can say that tanks are generally much more survivable.

ph34r wrote:Why is everyone replying "omg railgun would kill 6 marines in one hit OP!!!1", I'm pretty sure Vlad intended this to be in the same manner as Warhammer Fantasy, with each model wounded taking d6 wounds on that model specifically. 6 wounds on one marine = 1 dead marine.

Because of how wounds are allocated in 40k. Hits are taken by the unit as a whole then the wounds will be allocated to individual models with all identical models rolling from the same "pool". (2nd paragraph of "Taking saving throws" Pg 20 & the 1st paragraph of "Taking saving throws" pg. 25)

Now if he is advocating that you should allocate Hits instead of wounds to models than this would work. With the current system and this change if you allocated the melta wound to a standard marine then you would have to roll the extra wounds with the rest of them & remove models accordingly as per the BGB.
That is why people are crying OP, were the game played allocating hits instead of wounds I don't see too much of a problem other than it killing MC fairly quickly making them more vulnerable than vehicles as you can kill most MC's with lasguns (most of them are < T7) if you shoot them enough but a standard lasgun can never damage a vehicle

Owain wrote:I think a more elegant solution would be to stop giving out Eternal Warrior so readily. I get the point; it's basically plot armour for the tabletop. However, that means that it should only be given to VERY special characters.

Like the fact that only the Sanguinor has it in the new BA book? Dante's like...a billion years old and doesn't get it, and Mephiston lived through the Rage and doesn't even have an invuln fer cryin' out loud.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:

ph34r wrote:Why is everyone replying "omg railgun would kill 6 marines in one hit OP!!!1", I'm pretty sure Vlad intended this to be in the same manner as Warhammer Fantasy, with each model wounded taking d6 wounds on that model specifically. 6 wounds on one marine = 1 dead marine.

Because of how wounds are allocated in 40k. Hits are taken by the unit as a whole then the wounds will be allocated to individual models with all identical models rolling from the same "pool". (2nd paragraph of "Taking saving throws" Pg 20 & the 1st paragraph of "Taking saving throws" pg. 25)

Now if he is advocating that you should allocate Hits instead of wounds to models than this would work. With the current system and this change if you allocated the melta wound to a standard marine then you would have to roll the extra wounds with the rest of them & remove models accordingly as per the BGB.
That is why people are crying OP, were the game played allocating hits instead of wounds I don't see too much of a problem other than it killing MC fairly quickly making them more vulnerable than vehicles as you can kill most MC's with lasguns (most of them are < T7) if you shoot them enough but a standard lasgun can never damage a vehicle

Wound allocation needs to be fixed too but that's another story entirely.

Eh, carnifexes are my only problem with monstrous creatures. Other than that, MCs are okay. Daemon princes are the only Mc's I use, and sometimes I forget he is one (How could I forget he moves through cover??)

Nemesis Force weapons on the other hand are very specific in not causing instant death however they are good at slaying the enemy outright and removing them from the table.

Truthfully I would like some small form of this kind of thing in 40k. Coming from a fantasy background, it irks me that my S10 railgun shot can destroy a land raider but only cause 1 wound to a monster, whilst a pulse rifle can cause the same 1 wound on the monster but not be able to scratch the tank. D3/D6 wounds on particular high S weapons against particular targets sounds good to me.

Hi again.
Rather than add even more dice rolling, why not simply let weapons cause 1 ,2 or 3 wounds per hit on target model , depending on how much damage the weapon is percieved to do?

Eg normal weapon 1 wound per hit, Auto cannon, Krak, Plasma etc 2 wounds per hit, melta ,fusion rail guns etc 3 wounds per hit .

Just a thought.


TTFN
Lanrak.

^ Wouldn't that let you in essence choose what to kill in a unit? Correct me if I'm wrong (no rulebook handy so I wouldn't be surprised if I am) but don't you target The Unit (unless it's an MC which this is obviously intended for)? Also this:

Shas'O Dorian wrote:

ph34r wrote:Why is everyone replying "omg railgun would kill 6 marines in one hit OP!!!1", I'm pretty sure Vlad intended this to be in the same manner as Warhammer Fantasy, with each model wounded taking d6 wounds on that model specifically. 6 wounds on one marine = 1 dead marine.

Because of how wounds are allocated in 40k. Hits are taken by the unit as a whole then the wounds will be allocated to individual models with all identical models rolling from the same "pool". (2nd paragraph of "Taking saving throws" Pg 20 & the 1st paragraph of "Taking saving throws" pg. 25)

Now if he is advocating that you should allocate Hits instead of wounds to models than this would work. With the current system and this change if you allocated the melta wound to a standard marine then you would have to roll the extra wounds with the rest of them & remove models accordingly as per the BGB.
That is why people are crying OP, were the game played allocating hits instead of wounds I don't see too much of a problem other than it killing MC fairly quickly making them more vulnerable than vehicles as you can kill most MC's with lasguns (most of them are < T7) if you shoot them enough but a standard lasgun can never damage a vehicle

Hi Crazy Thang.
Sorry I forgot about the current slowed targeting rules in 40k.

Each weapon with damage of 2 or 3 allows this number of multiple hits on one target in a unit, IF the target unit has a model with multiple wounds,(target unit players chioce), or if it is a vehicle model.

Why not just add up all the wounds caused and take them from the models closest to the attacking unit, removing models as they have thier wounds allotment reduced to zero.first, and leaving ONLY one model with partial wound amount if required?


Trying to make sense out of the current 40k rules hurt my head too much.Its much quicker to start from scratch, and write a new rule set....(I think it is anyway.)

TTFN
Lanrak.

This would require a massive repointing of monstrous creatures.

If the goal is a simple solution to the perceived Eternal Warrior vs Instant Death 'issue', I recomend a much simpler solutuion:

Remove Eternal Warrior entirely. Then remove targeting in close combat, treat each side as one giant unit and the owner assigns wounds as normal.

That removes 90% of the complaints I hear that require Eternal Warrior to resolve, without requiring any new rules or additional dice rolls.

Jack

I think thats realy unfair to nid players.It is already hard enough for your beasties to survive.Doing d6 wounds?No.I would refuse to play like this and would wait for next edition.

This multi wounding thing is a terrible idea. Almost everything would have to be rewritten and rebalanced.