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.

Actually eternal warrior isnt that common. Demon have it accross the board, but other than them its just a handful of special characters, for which you usually pay for through the nose. Its not so much of an issue that multi-wounding should be introduced without a massive overhaul of MCs.

You have to remember that while a meltagun can kill a tank in 1 hit, they can take all of the light arms fire in the world and not sufffer any damage. MCs on the otherhand (with the exception of wraithlords and c'tan) are still vulnerable to it. It is possible to do enough wounds with other weapons to make up for your melta only causing 1.

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

Just Monstrous Creatures. But then again, they need to be rebalanced and re-written anyway. Just saying.

@Regwon-Eternal Warrior is fairly common on Special Characters which a lot of people are using these days. And I'm sorry, but it's just not realistic. I would rather have models with Eternal Warrior get +1 Toughness or something.

Multi-wounds make sense because if a melta can destroy a Leman Russ (which is much, MUCH tougher than even a Wraithlord!) it should be able to annihilate Monstrous Creatures. I mean, I could even see reducing the multi-wounds against MC's or something. Like for AP2 and 3, instead of getting d3, you get a d2 (1-3 is a 1, 4-6 is a 2) and for AP1 you get a d3. Just a thought.

Hi all.
I think the basic problem with 40k rule set is that its not a simulation of anything tangable.But just a collection of random cool ideas poorly implemented in a very abstract way.

This may not sound much of a problem untill you you realise speperate exceptions have to be learned independantly , as there ae no hard and fast rules .

Special rules sound 'kewl' and inspire people to buy the latest releases,(according to GW corperate.)

+1 toughness uses the basic game mechanics, 'Eternal Warrior' breaks the basic rules but sounds kewl.


The 40k rule set is a specific marketing strategy.

A rule set developed for maximum game play and minimum written rules , probably would have far more straight forward rules .

EG.Movement.
Rather than;-
Everything moves 6" or D6 inches in difficult terrain , APART FROM
Beasts ,
Cavalry,
Monstrous creatures,
Jump Infantry,
Bikes
Jet bikes .
Fast vehilces,
Tanks,
Skimmers,
Models with the following USRs
Fleet,
Hit and run,
Move through cover
Slow and pupousfull,
Turbo boost.

Everything moves up to its movement rate across the playing surface ,modified if applicable ,by the terrain it is crossing compared to movement type, and any special abilities .
NO EXCEPTIONS!


TTFN
Lanrak.

How about a static solution that doesn't automatically imbalance the situation?

When a multi-wound model is wounded by a weapon with Strength higher than its Toughness, it takes additional wounds.

If a model fails a save, it takes 1 wound plus an additional number of wounds calculated as below;
For every 3 points of strength higher than the target's toughness, an additional wound is taken to the same model. (you're not wounding multiple models, just dealing massive damage to a single model)

So a Plasma gun at S7 against a basic human (T3) would deal 2 wounds to the model for every failed save.
Likewise, that same plasma gun would still deal 2 wounds to an Ork nob.
Against an Ork warboss, it would only deal 1 wound as his toughness is only 2 less.
Against a Gretchin, the plasmagun would deal 2 wounds to a single model... but grots only have 1 wound anyways, so who cares?


Now take larger weapons- Meltas and Missiles at S8 would deal 3 wounds a gretchin, 2 wounds to up to an Ork Warboss, and only 1 wound to anything with T6.

Railguns at S10 would deal 2 wounds to models with T5 through T7, 1 wound to anything with T7+. Railguns would deal 3 wounds to anything T4 or less, but that's because when a railgun hits you- it turns you into mist.

Removes the need for "eternal warrior" and "instant death" spam, but allows room for a new USR allowing certain characters to resist/reduce the additional wounds.

Also removes the need to distinguish these "T4(5)" instances... it gives some more granularity to the wounding and casualty work- while actually being slightly easier to understand. I've seen a lot of people get confused about why a model has split toughness values.

What if Eternal warrior didn't make ID wounds only cause 1, but caused 2 wounds instead.

would make EW on 2 wound models pointless, but a model that only has 2 wounds probably shouldn't have EW in the first place.

makes FWs useful against EW models, but still keep them from splatting.



I play Grey Knights so i ignore EW anyway

In_Theory wrote:How about a static solution that doesn't automatically imbalance the situation?

When a multi-wound model is wounded by a weapon with Strength higher than its Toughness, it takes additional wounds.

If a model fails a save, it takes 1 wound plus an additional number of wounds calculated as below;
For every 3 points of strength higher than the target's toughness, an additional wound is taken to the same model. (you're not wounding multiple models, just dealing massive damage to a single model)

So a Plasma gun at S7 against a basic human (T3) would deal 2 wounds to the model for every failed save.
Likewise, that same plasma gun would still deal 2 wounds to an Ork nob.
Against an Ork warboss, it would only deal 1 wound as his toughness is only 2 less.
Against a Gretchin, the plasmagun would deal 2 wounds to a single model... but grots only have 1 wound anyways, so who cares?


Now take larger weapons- Meltas and Missiles at S8 would deal 3 wounds a gretchin, 2 wounds to up to an Ork Warboss, and only 1 wound to anything with T6.

Railguns at S10 would deal 2 wounds to models with T5 through T7, 1 wound to anything with T7+. Railguns would deal 3 wounds to anything T4 or less, but that's because when a railgun hits you- it turns you into mist.

Removes the need for "eternal warrior" and "instant death" spam, but allows room for a new USR allowing certain characters to resist/reduce the additional wounds.

Also removes the need to distinguish these "T4(5)" instances... it gives some more granularity to the wounding and casualty work- while actually being slightly easier to understand. I've seen a lot of people get confused about why a model has split toughness values.

I like this. I like this a lot. Good job,sir!