Mortal wounds and "explosions"

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.

**Desubot**

Nym wrote:
Desubot wrote:
You should see what a shock wave and or blast pressure can do to a thing

You should see what Terminator armor does against shock waves...

My point is : it's stupid that explosions from rockets and missiles allow an armor save, while the explosion of a vehicle doesn't.

Make it : "On a 6, every unit in a 6" radius suffers 2d6 wounds" and let models take an armor save. This way no-armor models will get blasted and models with a crazy thick armor will get a chance to survive.

Well depends on the rocket or missiles.

termobaric. designed specifically to air burst and create a large shockwave would and should kill just about anything even if its super armored or sealed(?)

kinetic.. maybe. depends on how it hits and what adamantine does. im sure the dude is going to feel for a month.

(edit: Shape charge thanks panzer couldnt remember the name) armor piercing anti tank shells designed to pierce and kill using molten metal. maybe depends on if adamantine works like steel plating.

a vehicle explosion may be strong enough to create one hell of a shock wave depending on how its powered and how it fails. since from what i recall some are fusion powered which if it was the case may not be a shock wave but actually be a plasma explosion if im understanding that technology correctly.
and we all know how powerful plasma is in 40k. mind you its science fantasy.

**Lance845**

Is everyone forgtting how many dice were rolled to little or no effect in 7th ed when a vehicle exploded? It was a complete and utter waste of time.

Now you roll 1 dice and if it triggers it absolutely causes an effect. There are actual consequences and action instead of the complete waste of time that was 7th.

This systems better.

**Panzergraf**

Sim-Life wrote:
Same goes for the controlled, (possibly badly) aimed explosion of a rocket vs an uncontrolled detonation of fuel and ammunition from a vehicle

Except an uncontrolled detonation wouldn't even scratch tank armor, unlike a directed hollow charge anti tank warhead that a Rokkit may be armed with.

**RedCommander**

Mortal Wounds should be more rare. For thematic reasons. It's pretty lame that almost everything is a Mortal Wound.

**Unit1126PLL**

niv-mizzet wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
niv-mizzet wrote:
Yeah I hate he fact that vehicle explosions cause mortal wounds. I've lost a game I was about to win because 2 of his vehicles in a row blew apart ~500 points of my army, and I've won a game I shouldn't have because 2 razorbacks blew and took most of two units and all the characters around with them.
It's another thing like seize the initiative where most of the time it does nothing, and then you have a game completely flipped over because of it.

Sounds more like he had you wounded quite well and that the vehicles didn't actually cause 500 points of damage.

Here's the thing, too - you know the risks from explosions.

Nope. You're dead wrong. I had 3 unhurt 5 man asm squads with 2x plasma pistol each being fodder for 3 unwounded jump libbies. Closer to 600 points. It was bottom of turn 4, and the other 70% of my army had decimated his vehicles from range, and were in my backfield and midfield. I have the jump force get in on a vehicle on his backfield objective. It dies, blows, and takes out 3 asm from each squad and hits each libby for 2 damage. His turn he moves his last working vehicle, a small group of obsec troops, and his token warlord into range to claim the objective. My turn, I kill the obsec troops, then kill the vehicle, it blows, all 3 libbies and all the remaining asm die, his WL lives thanks to being previously unwounded, game ends, he wins by first blood since we both had our own backfield objectives.

We both agreed that he was dead to rights, and only the ludicrously lethal explosions turned his major loss into a minor win. He didn't even have CP left to fish for it, they just happened. And I never got any kind of roll during the entire process. Felt just like when stomps and D weapons would just roll a 6 and that was it. The explosions covered the entire area around the objective as well, so I couldn't hold anyone back anyway. They'd be just as useless over there as they were dead, which is NOT contesting the objective. Literally just lost to a ~3% combined chance occurence happening.

Similar situation when I was on the other side. I was losing ground, and threw razorbacks in front of my objective to slow him down. A few sixes later he was effectively minus an army, and I was free to redirect some survivors into linebreaking and objective grabbing that would've been hunted down after the razors died. This was just as un-fun, because I had zero agency in it. It's like winning because your opponent had a stroke and died at the table.

IOW: "Man, these vehicles are walking/driving nuclear weapons that have a very serious potential to cripple me and my army if they are unfortunate enough to detonate explosively..."

"...ALRIGHT EVERYONE BEAR HUG THE TANK IT'S THE ONLY WAY"

Seriously. The explosion radius is incredibly limited. Like, shorter than the range on an inferno pistol. It's like walking up to a thermobaric warhead and banging on it with a thunderhammer :/

**Desubot**

RedCommander wrote:
Mortal Wounds should be more rare. For thematic reasons. It's pretty lame that almost everything is a Mortal Wound.

A mortal wounds is the equivalent of beating armor saves in 7th

i think its fine.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

IOW: "Man, these vehicles are walking/driving nuclear weapons that have a very serious potential to cripple me and my army if they are unfortunate enough to detonate explosively..."

"...ALRIGHT EVERYONE BEAR HUG THE TANK IT'S THE ONLY WAY"

Seriously. The explosion radius is incredibly limited. Like, shorter than the range on an inferno pistol. It's like walking up to a thermobaric warhead and banging on it with a thunderhammer :/

To be fair some do have a decent or variable range.

IIRC the lord of skulls explode fairly wide.

but to also be even more fair that thing is full of angry soul bees.

**niv-mizzet**

Lance845 wrote:
Is everyone forgtting how many dice were rolled to little or no effect in 7th ed when a vehicle exploded? It was a complete and utter waste of time.

Now you roll 1 dice and if it triggers it absolutely causes an effect. There are actual consequences and action instead of the complete waste of time that was 7th.

This systems better.

And yet we still can have to look up a data sheet whenever a vehicle dies to see if it blows up:
-on just a 6, or 5+ or something else.
-if it has 3", 6", 2d6" or other range
-if it deals d3 or d6 mortal wounds, or some other number.

I could do "everything nearby takes an AP0 auto-wound" in my sleep, way faster than the current system.

Honestly mortal wounds were probably the biggest design mistake of the edition, and they made them waaaay too readily available for what they do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
niv-mizzet wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
niv-mizzet wrote:
Yeah I hate he fact that vehicle explosions cause mortal wounds. I've lost a game I was about to win because 2 of his vehicles in a row blew apart ~500 points of my army, and I've won a game I shouldn't have because 2 razorbacks blew and took most of two units and all the characters around with them.
It's another thing like seize the initiative where most of the time it does nothing, and then you have a game completely flipped over because of it.

Sounds more like he had you wounded quite well and that the vehicles didn't actually cause 500 points of damage.

Here's the thing, too - you know the risks from explosions.

Nope. You're dead wrong. I had 3 unhurt 5 man asm squads with 2x plasma pistol each being fodder for 3 unwounded jump libbies. Closer to 600 points. It was bottom of turn 4, and the other 70% of my army had decimated his vehicles from range, and were in my backfield and midfield. I have the jump force get in on a vehicle on his backfield objective. It dies, blows, and takes out 3 asm from each squad and hits each libby for 2 damage. His turn he moves his last working vehicle, a small group of obsec troops, and his token warlord into range to claim the objective. My turn, I kill the obsec troops, then kill the vehicle, it blows, all 3 libbies and all the remaining asm die, his WL lives thanks to being previously unwounded, game ends, he wins by first blood since we both had our own backfield objectives.

We both agreed that he was dead to rights, and only the ludicrously lethal explosions turned his major loss into a minor win. He didn't even have CP left to fish for it, they just happened. And I never got any kind of roll during the entire process. Felt just like when stomps and D weapons would just roll a 6 and that was it. The explosions covered the entire area around the objective as well, so I couldn't hold anyone back anyway. They'd be just as useless over there as they were dead, which is NOT contesting the objective. Literally just lost to a ~3% combined chance occurence happening.

Similar situation when I was on the other side. I was losing ground, and threw razorbacks in front of my objective to slow him down. A few sixes later he was effectively minus an army, and I was free to redirect some survivors into linebreaking and objective grabbing that would've been hunted down after the razors died. This was just as un-fun, because I had zero agency in it. It's like winning because your opponent had a stroke and died at the table.

IOW: "Man, these vehicles are walking/driving nuclear weapons that have a very serious potential to cripple me and my army if they are unfortunate enough to detonate explosively..."

"...ALRIGHT EVERYONE BEAR HUG THE TANK IT'S THE ONLY WAY"

Seriously. The explosion radius is incredibly limited. Like, shorter than the range on an inferno pistol. It's like walking up to a thermobaric warhead and banging on it with a thunderhammer :/

Thanks to objectives and a turn limit, you don't always have the option to stay away from them. His army was almost all vehicles. I killed all but the last two from range, and then was forced into the situation where, to make sure I had the game at the end of 5, I had to risk the ~3% chance of both explosions. I realize that it happening was just crappy luck (which I seem to be the master of) but I'm just saying any old rickety bucket of bolts blowing up shouldn't be bringing down force fielded chapter masters with no defensive rolls whatsoever. A humble rhino blowing up is literally more deadly than an orbital bombardment. That's kind of ridiculous, no?

**RedCommander**

Desubot wrote:
RedCommander wrote:
Mortal Wounds should be more rare. For thematic reasons. It's pretty lame that almost everything is a Mortal Wound.

A mortal wounds is the equivalent of beating armor saves in 7th

i think its fine.

Not really. Beating armor saves is the equivalent of... beating armor saves in 7th. You just do it with AP.

I think they should get rid of most Mortal Wounds and replace spell casting with more interesting spells than Mortal Wound-zappers. Other effects that do horrific damage should... do horrific damage with appropriate Str, AP and Damage values.

Instead, Mortal Wounds should be a very rare thing. Instead of every psyker being able to do them, only the most powerful psykers should have them. Only a select few effects that do horrific damage should have them, stuff like a Super Heavy's core melting down and exploding or an ultra rare weapon that's high tech even among other high tech weapons.

**Nym**

Lance845 wrote:
Is everyone forgtting how many dice were rolled to little or no effect in 7th ed when a vehicle exploded? It was a complete and utter waste of time.

It was a waste of time because you had to WOUND the target first, then it had an armor save. With my system ("all targets in a 6" radius take Xd6 wounds"), you don't roll to wound, it's automatic. You just allow an armor save. It's nearly as fast as current system also.

Btw, real physics has nothing to do here. Especially when Orks vehicles for example run on petroleum (or prometheum as it's called in 40k) and yet inflict as much damage as plasma-run vehicles.

**niv-mizzet**

RedCommander wrote:
Desubot wrote:
RedCommander wrote:
Mortal Wounds should be more rare. For thematic reasons. It's pretty lame that almost everything is a Mortal Wound.

A mortal wounds is the equivalent of beating armor saves in 7th

i think its fine.

Not really. Beating armor saves is the equivalent of... beating armor saves in 7th. You just do it with AP.

I think they should get rid of most Mortal Wounds and replace spell casting with more interesting spells than Mortal Wound-zappers. Other effects that do horrific damage should... do horrific damage with appropriate Str, AP and Damage values.

Instead, Mortal Wounds should be a very rare thing. Instead of every psyker being able to do them, only the most powerful psykers should have them. Only a select few effects that do horrific damage should have them, stuff like a Super Heavy's core melting down and exploding or an ultra rare weapon that's high tech even among other high tech weapons.

Absolutely this. You are instantly a better game designer than the guy that designed and placed mortal wounds sir.

**Kaiyanwang**

Lance845 wrote:
Is everyone forgtting how many dice were rolled to little or no effect in 7th ed when a vehicle exploded? It was a complete and utter waste of time.

Now you roll 1 dice and if it triggers it absolutely causes an effect. There are actual consequences and action instead of the complete waste of time that was 7th.

This systems better.

My biggest issue is the dramatically different impact on hordes and "elite" units.
Is the almost the same problem of grav in 7th. There, you were punished for paying more points for your armour.
Here you are punished for being an elite, costly unit.
Mind it - is not nearly as much stupid as grav. Not even in the same ballpark.

**Daedalus81**

Nym wrote:
Desubot wrote:
You should see what a shock wave and or blast pressure can do to a thing

You should see what Terminator armor does against shock waves...

My point is : it's stupid that explosions from rockets and missiles allow an armor save, while the explosion of a vehicle doesn't.

Make it : "On a 6, every unit in a 6" radius suffers 2d6 wounds" and let models take an armor save. This way no-armor models will get blasted and models with a crazy thick armor will get a chance to survive.

Because a vehicle exploding is many of those shells and/or missiles cooking off all at once while you're right next to it.

**JNAProductions**

Honestly, I do think 7th edition handled it way better. It made a lot more sense. Now, I'd be fine with the hits being high strength and decent AP (it is a big ol' boom, after all) but it should not hurt Terminators many times worse than Conscripts.

Perhaps the Strength of the explosion should equal the Toughness of the vehicle exploding (so a Starweaver doesn't blow up as bad as a Land Raider) with AP-2, to all models within d6"?

Edit: Or perhaps do d6 of these hits to any unit within 3" or whatever.

**Unit1126PLL**

JNAProductions wrote:
Honestly, I do think 7th edition handled it way better. It made a lot more sense. Now, I'd be fine with the hits being high strength and decent AP (it is a big ol' boom, after all) but it should not hurt Terminators many times worse than Conscripts.

Perhaps the Strength of the explosion should equal the Toughness of the vehicle exploding (so a Starweaver doesn't blow up as bad as a Land Raider) with AP-2, to all models within d6"?

It hurts Terminators literally half as much as conscripts.

If some Conscripts are meeting with the Ultramarine terminators near a Rhino that detonates, the Terminators lose 1 for every 2 mortal wounds and the Conscripts lose 1 model per mortal wound. So in the fluff, if we are extrapolating from game mechanics, terminators are literally twice as tough against exploding tanks as a conscript.

**AdmiralHalsey**

With the amount of re-rolls, and high shot weapons floating around this edition, and the mess that is overwatch, I have a difficult time that people are quibbling that a 1 in 6 chance of an explosion is what will slow down the game.

Heaven forbid we roll a handful of armour saves every other game. No excuse me while I go FRFSRF my conscripts...

**Desubot**

Not only does it hurt only half as much to a terminator since multi wound, not all vehicles explode ether.

unlike previous editions when getting a convertible option for the same car would result in it having a better chance at exploding.

**JNAProductions**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Honestly, I do think 7th edition handled it way better. It made a lot more sense. Now, I'd be fine with the hits being high strength and decent AP (it is a big ol' boom, after all) but it should not hurt Terminators many times worse than Conscripts.

Perhaps the Strength of the explosion should equal the Toughness of the vehicle exploding (so a Starweaver doesn't blow up as bad as a Land Raider) with AP-2, to all models within d6"?

It hurts Terminators literally half as much as conscripts.

If some Conscripts are meeting with the Ultramarine terminators near a Rhino that detonates, the Terminators lose 1 for every 2 mortal wounds and the Conscripts lose 1 model per mortal wound. So in the fluff, if we are extrapolating from game mechanics, terminators are literally twice as tough against exploding tanks as a conscript.

Yeah. And if you look at gameplay, I lose around 15 points per mortal wound, and Conscripts lose 3.

**Desubot**

JNAProductions wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Honestly, I do think 7th edition handled it way better. It made a lot more sense. Now, I'd be fine with the hits being high strength and decent AP (it is a big ol' boom, after all) but it should not hurt Terminators many times worse than Conscripts.

Perhaps the Strength of the explosion should equal the Toughness of the vehicle exploding (so a Starweaver doesn't blow up as bad as a Land Raider) with AP-2, to all models within d6"?

It hurts Terminators literally half as much as conscripts.

If some Conscripts are meeting with the Ultramarine terminators near a Rhino that detonates, the Terminators lose 1 for every 2 mortal wounds and the Conscripts lose 1 model per mortal wound. So in the fluff, if we are extrapolating from game mechanics, terminators are literally twice as tough against exploding tanks as a conscript.

Yeah. And if you look at gameplay, I lose around 15 points per mortal wound, and Conscripts lose 3.

Except you dont lose anything 1/3 times or better put you will outside of having one wound already never lose more than 1 terminator

**JNAProductions**

Desubot wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Honestly, I do think 7th edition handled it way better. It made a lot more sense. Now, I'd be fine with the hits being high strength and decent AP (it is a big ol' boom, after all) but it should not hurt Terminators many times worse than Conscripts.

Perhaps the Strength of the explosion should equal the Toughness of the vehicle exploding (so a Starweaver doesn't blow up as bad as a Land Raider) with AP-2, to all models within d6"?

It hurts Terminators literally half as much as conscripts.

If some Conscripts are meeting with the Ultramarine terminators near a Rhino that detonates, the Terminators lose 1 for every 2 mortal wounds and the Conscripts lose 1 model per mortal wound. So in the fluff, if we are extrapolating from game mechanics, terminators are literally twice as tough against exploding tanks as a conscript.

Yeah. And if you look at gameplay, I lose around 15 points per mortal wound, and Conscripts lose 3.

Except you dont lose anything 1/3 times or better put you will outside of having one wound already never lose more than 1 terminator

And if you lose just ONE terminator, which you will, on average, you lose more than any three explosions hurting Conscripts.

**Desubot**

You end up losing more points sure. in a situation that only comes up 1 out of 6 times.

i think id take that over the previous open top going to a 1/3rd chance.

**Unit1126PLL**

If only there were a way to play that was more engaged with the fluff...

...some sort of narrative mode...

...where abstract, purely mechanical things like points disappeared...

...perhaps we'll call it...

...Narrative Play...

nah that's stupid, Matched Play is the One True God and clearly terminators are weaker than conscripts in the fluff because things in the fluff cost points or something.

**AdmiralHalsey**

Of course!

If I play Narrative play, this discussion we're having becomes utterly pointless, because instead of losing points worth of models, I'm losing Power Points worth of models!

Well, gee. That makes complete sense. Now I understand why explosions do mortal wounds.

**Slashy McTalons**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
amanita wrote:
Why not say it automatically wounds but models still get their armor/invulnerable saves? Is that really so hard?

Because it hurts orcs more than it hurts terminators. Are you reading the thread?

Why would that hurt orcs more than it hurts terminators?

**Earth127**

sometimes I get that feeling.

Mathced play base style is everything, nothing else matters

**Peregrine**

Earth127 wrote:
sometimes I get that feeling.

Mathced play base style is everything, nothing else matters

This has nothing to do with matched play vs. ~~unbalanced~~ open play. Pretending that you don't know the point costs of the models you just lost doesn't change the fact that the explosion hurts expensive/elite models too much compared to cannon fodder hordes.

**Infantryman**

Lance845 wrote:Is everyone forgtting how many dice were rolled to little or no effect in 7th ed when a vehicle exploded? It was a complete and utter waste of time.

Now you roll 1 dice and if it triggers it absolutely causes an effect. There are actual consequences and action instead of the complete waste of time that was 7th.

This systems better.

I'll remember that next time I field a unit with anything less than BS1+ with a ST20 AP-5 weapon.

M.

**amanita**

Slashy McTalons wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
amanita wrote:
Why not say it automatically wounds but models still get their armor/invulnerable saves? Is that really so hard?

Because it hurts orcs more than it hurts terminators. Are you reading the thread?

Why would that hurt orcs more than it hurts terminators?

Gosh, cheap troops with less armor are killed more often this way than heavily armored soldiers. What a concept.

**Peregrine**

Infantryman wrote:
I'll remember that next time I field a unit with anything less than BS1+ with a ST20 AP-5 weapon.

There's a middle ground, you know. Objecting to rolling a bunch of dice for an explosion to kill 0-1 models does not mean that everything must be an auto-kill for each shot.

**FrozenDwarf**

Kaiyanwang wrote:

These mortal wounds are deadly for elite armies IMHO.

this edition is not ment for elite armies, as there is allmoust more multidmg weps then there are single dmg weps in all armys nowadays.

**Eihnlazer**

Honestly it shouldn't be auto MW.

Should be every model within range takes a MW on a 4+

People do accidentally dodge flying shrapnel and more guys in range should be more susceptible. explosions are too strong against characters atm.