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.

I have a hard time not taking HQs with Eternal Warrior. I don't know why. I know, tactically, it's smarter to take a force multiplier HQ and use him in a safe manner, but there's something about the notion of throwing the two leaders of opposing forces at each other and seeing who comes out on top, or using mine as a beater without fear of running into a force weapon or power fist, that speaks to the reptilian side of my brain. Even Eternal Warriors will eventually die an ignominious death to Fire Warriors, but it's nice to have that added bit of insurance.

Anybody else have this issue?

Nope. Eternal Warrior as a rule bugs me quite a bit actually. No reason why a Demolisher cannon shell shouldn't be able to obliterate your T4 snowflake, no matter how many names he has.

I don't mind EW so much, what bothers me is that not everybody has it.

Either give it to all IC or none.

Rascon wrote:Anybody else have this issue?

Right there with you, Rascon. I always give my Marshal Adamantine Mantle for this very reason when I play Black Templars. Getting doubled out by a power fist or a DCCW is a tough pill to swallow. I lost track of the number of times I had to remove the Emperor's Champion to a Chaos Powerfist when he still had a wound left.

But, there are some great Chapter Masters and Captains that don't have EW (named or standard). You just have to be smart about how you run him.

EW basically negates the prime purpose of ID in the first place, which makes it kinda silly. ID is there to make people have to use their HQ's in an intelligent and safe way, rather than just diving it into anything and expecting it to always be a wrecking ball.

On a few fabled characters or something with a real fluff explanation for it aside from a simple wargear item, that's fine. One might expect say, a daemonically gifted Horus Heresy legionnaire lord to be made of some tougher (and unnatural) stuff, or a legendary Eldar phoenix lord, or the mightiest hero of the Imperium with his own mini-empire.

For every random captain/chapter master and an increasing number of IC's, it's silly.

I'm not a fan of the rule myself. I think Daedalus voiced exactly how I think.

That and everyone who creates a custom space marine character almost without fail gives them eternal warrior. Its just not necessary. Models die. Maybe I play Guard and I know perfectly well that 75% of my models will die a horrible death, but there should really be less characters with eternal warrior than more.

I also find it a bit odd that the only truly eternal warriors don't have eternal warrior.

The Ctan

I've lost count of the times they've been unfluffily dispatched by ID attacks :(

The orks only have one with immunity to ID (Ghaz) and i'm not sure if the DE have any... I'll have to check the dex on that one.

Rascon wrote:I have a hard time not taking HQs with Eternal Warrior.

Try not playing Daemons then...

Vaktathi wrote:EW basically negates the prime purpose of ID in the first place, which makes it kinda silly. ID is there to make people have to use their HQ's in an intelligent and safe way, rather than just diving it into anything and expecting it to always be a wrecking ball.

On a few fabled characters or something with a real fluff explanation for it aside from a simple wargear item, that's fine. One might expect say, a daemonically gifted Horus Heresy legionnaire lord to be made of some tougher (and unnatural) stuff, or a legendary Eldar phoenix lord, or the mightiest hero of the Imperium with his own mini-empire.

For every random captain/chapter master and an increasing number of IC's, it's silly.

This! I think that the should be at most one EW IC in each codex... and they better be someone truly epic and have a proper name (Yarrick, Calgar, Ghaz, Abaddon... etc)

Over in Dark Eldar land we just have Drazhar...who sadly does not have an invul...

EW does not bother me so much...as I find the idea of certain very specific people being able to take a demolisher cannon to the face and keep on trucking is kind of cool (and fitting for the setting)...but I do agree that there is an imbalance, where some codexes have too much of it, others have none of it, and some can buy it as an upgrade.

But then again I think that ID from double T should be scrapped for a multiple wound per degree sysetm....S9 vs t3=3 wounds type deal.......but thats for another thread

Vaktathi wrote:EW basically negates the prime purpose of ID in the first place, which makes it kinda silly. ID is there to make people have to use their HQ's in an intelligent and safe way, rather than just diving it into anything and expecting it to always be a wrecking ball.

On a few fabled characters or something with a real fluff explanation for it aside from a simple wargear item, that's fine. One might expect say, a daemonically gifted Horus Heresy legionnaire lord to be made of some tougher (and unnatural) stuff, or a legendary Eldar phoenix lord, or the mightiest hero of the Imperium with his own mini-empire.

For every random captain/chapter master and an increasing number of IC's, it's silly.

I think the ability Instant Death is going to negate Eternal Warrior, making even less sense. A magic sword can kill me, but a bomb designed to kill tanks can't...

I happen to be in the camp that like move through cover, all IC should have Eternal Warrior

If a unit is a IC there is going to be some fluff attached to the character that would make me thing they should have the situational awareness to be wary of thier surrounding, take the aformentioned demolisher cannon, state the character is more perseptive, in the rules and explain it as the IC got shot at, dodged, or ducked behind somethign to take the blast, but took a wound in the process

That or make all IC toughness 5, I guess I'm ok with str 10 instant killing, but my nob w/ pk a 40 point upgrade imo shouldn't be one shotting IC that cost 4x his cost

Making all ICs T5 would be terrible.

G00fySmiley wrote:I happen to be in the camp that like move through cover, all IC should have Eternal Warrior

If a unit is a IC there is going to be some fluff attached to the character that would make me thing they should have the situational awareness to be wary of thier surrounding, take the aformentioned demolisher cannon, state the character is more perseptive, in the rules and explain it as the IC got shot at, dodged, or ducked behind somethign to take the blast, but took a wound in the process

That or make all IC toughness 5, I guess I'm ok with str 10 instant killing, but my nob w/ pk a 40 point upgrade imo shouldn't be one shotting IC that cost 4x his cost

Except again, the entire point of the ID rule was to make it so that characters would actually have to be used intelligently and can't just wtfpwn any unit they're thrown into willy-nilly without facing some sort of tangible threat even from relatively basic squads, to keep the game from being HeroHammer and IC's from being point-click-forget units.

T5 was off the cuff, I definatly would see large balances, maybe just T5 for purposes of instant death

I do hear you on makiing it easier vaktathi, having the possibility of losing a high points character should be somehting you tactically try to avoid.

but I think many IC witout EW just aren't worth the points, because no matter how awsome it is fielding some hq's for thier abilities... you pay for multiple wounds and since they can be singled out in cc or by some rare shooting abilities does in fact prevent me from using some of the IC's I'd like to use

Vaktathi wrote:Except again, the entire point of the ID rule was to make it so that characters would actually have to be used intelligently and can't just wtfpwn any unit they're thrown into willy-nilly without facing some sort of tangible threat even from relatively basic squads, to keep the game from being HeroHammer and IC's from being point-click-forget units.

I prefer to think the reason behind the ID rule is to make it more dangerous for squads of multi-wound models (Nobz, Paladins, Tyranid Warriors, etc) as well as some of the minor heroes/solo units (Psykers, Chaplains, Lictors).

Eternal Warrior was then added to protect very expensive or critical units that should not die to a single lucky hit. S8+ weapons are commonly available via very cheap means in 5th ed, and are typically brought in significant quantities to counter heavy mech lists. A Phoenix Lord or Chapter master that has fought for thousands of years should not be dropped by a fluke shot from one of the dozen krak missiles or lascannons on the board.

And then they wrote JOTWW, so you could snipe these uber-epic folk with the fething grand canyon and instakill them anyway..

xttz wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:Except again, the entire point of the ID rule was to make it so that characters would actually have to be used intelligently and can't just wtfpwn any unit they're thrown into willy-nilly without facing some sort of tangible threat even from relatively basic squads, to keep the game from being HeroHammer and IC's from being point-click-forget units.

I prefer to think the reason behind the ID rule is to make it more dangerous for squads of multi-wound models (Nobz, Paladins, Tyranid Warriors, etc) as well as some of the minor heroes/solo units (Psykers, Chaplains, Lictors).

Eternal Warrior was then added to protect very expensive or critical units that should not die to a single lucky hit. S8+ weapons are commonly available via very cheap means in 5th ed, and are typically brought in significant quantities to counter heavy mech lists. A Phoenix Lord or Chapter master that has fought for thousands of years should not be dropped by a fluke shot from one of the dozen krak missiles or lascannons on the board.

THIS! losing my nob on a warbike sucks, he had 2 wounds, btu was instant deathed when he failed his cybork save... i get that, its fair. assumign he ahs a powerklaw that is a 75 point model gone... lots for a single model, but such is life..

nw that same weapon knocking out my warboss on a biek with the same options is 135, losing that kind of points in one model makes me a sad panda

Ascalam wrote:And then they wrote JOTWW, so you could snipe these uber-epic folk with the fething grand canyon and instakill them anyway..

JoTWW ... I fear very much there will be alot of things liek this in 6th.. if there are I'm switching to malifeaux

Remove from Game effects ar ebecoming more common, i think, and i hate them. If i'm paying 360 Pts for my HQ i don't want him just blipped from the game, no save by someone that couldn't actually hurt him normally. (heroic sacrifice) or dropped down a hole he can ignore (ignores terrain completely) to his death .. (um...he can fly too..) .

JOTWW is especially annoying, as you can have several of them hitting you in a crossfire, and you WILL fail that test..

Ascalam wrote:And then they wrote JOTWW, so you could snipe these uber-epic folk with the fething grand canyon and instakill them anyway..

...or an entire army of units with force weapons that can be used against armies that rely on MC's. I didn't need that Swarmlord anyway!

Ah the World Wolf. The power that gave the final two fingered salute to the claim that psykers turn to Chaos for power.

This thread has once again made me realise how bad 5th edition rules are. It’s interesting that one of the worst written rules, JOTWW was not written by Matt Ward (compliment or a criticism?).

It will be interesting to see how the different tiers of EW will work in 6th edition. The success of this will probably depend on how well written the 6th edition codex errata are. Hopefully “remove from table” rules like JOTWW, Lukas the Trickster and Brother Captain Stern are rewritten to take into account the new system (probably will ignore low level EW but not high level EW found on characters like Abaddon/Logan Grimnar).

candy.man wrote:This thread has once again made me realise how bad 5th edition rules are. It’s interesting that one of the worst written rules, JOTWW was not written by Matt Ward (compliment or a criticism?).

It will be interesting to see how the different tiers of EW will work in 6th edition. The success of this will probably depend on how well written the 6th edition codex errata are. Hopefully “remove from table” rules like JOTWW, Lukas the Trickster and Brother Captain Stern are rewritten to take into account the new system (probably will ignore low level EW but not high level EW found on characters like Abaddon/Logan Grimnar).

Different tiers of EW is purely a rumor.


As far as current EW goes, I'm in the camp that says all the ICs ought to get it.

candy.man wrote:This thread has once again made me realise how bad 5th edition rules are. It’s interesting that one of the worst written rules, JOTWW was not written by Matt Ward (compliment or a criticism?).

TBH I can't think of a single unbalanced rule that Mat Ward has written in 5th. Sure, he writes the rules really sloppily, but once they're FAQ'd and ironed out they tend to be pretty good.

Blenderdreads?

Just one to throw out there, as there are armies that have practically no chance of dealing with them

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

candy.man wrote:This thread has once again made me realise how bad 5th edition rules are. It’s interesting that one of the worst written rules, JOTWW was not written by Matt Ward (compliment or a criticism?).

TBH I can't think of a single unbalanced rule that Mat Ward has written in 5th. Sure, he writes the rules really sloppily, but once they're FAQ'd and ironed out they tend to be pretty good.

Psych grenades.

Ascalam wrote:Blenderdreads?

Just one to throw out there, as there are armies that have practically no chance of dealing with them

What army can't deal with a close combat dread? Even orks can rolla over him or knock him out from a boarding plank, all others can shoot him apart. Nothing wrong with "blenderdreads" (like the name )

xttz wrote:
I prefer to think the reason behind the ID rule is to make it more dangerous for squads of multi-wound models (Nobz, Paladins, Tyranid Warriors, etc) as well as some of the minor heroes/solo units (Psykers, Chaplains, Lictors).

Eternal Warrior was then added to protect very expensive or critical units that should not die to a single lucky hit. S8+ weapons are commonly available via very cheap means in 5th ed, and are typically brought in significant quantities to counter heavy mech lists. A Phoenix Lord or Chapter master that has fought for thousands of years should not be dropped by a fluke shot from one of the dozen krak missiles or lascannons on the board.

When the ID rule was created, multi-wound models aside from HQ's were relatively sparse and much easier to destroy, and wound allocation gaming gimmicks were non-existent. This was coming right out of 2E where they dropped the "damage" stat on weapons that reflected how many wounds they did (a heavy bolter, if it wounded something, would do between 1 and 4 wounds, a Lascannon 2d6), and needed a mechanic to keep multi-wound models afraid of *something*, most of which ended up being characters of sorts.

Eternal Warrior originally came out of the Eldar codex in 4E for Phoenix Lords since they had no invul, and then the 4E Chaos books for Daemons, then finally the 5E rulebook. Previous to that ID protection was limited to Tyranid Synapse (originally only for double-toughness ID, then expanded to all ID inflicting weapons in a later FAQ) and for SM's only the first ID-inflicting wound taken, meaning the first meltagun would only do 1 wound, but the second would take off the remaining 2 on most Char's, back when powerfists could get the 2nd CC attack for being paired with a pistol.

As far as current EW goes, I'm in the camp that says all the ICs ought to get it.

I would SO throw an eternal warrior farseer at a dreadnought. In fact, I'd quite possibly take 2 farseers standard, and just use them for vehicle hunting. Better yet, Eternal Warrior Eldrad. Now THERE'S something you don't want to deal with.

I rather like Eternal warrior NOT handed out to everyone, even special characters. Limit it to those who have a reason for it.


Oh, and JotWW doesn't work on jump infantry (but it does work on jet bikes....odd that).

Illumini wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Blenderdreads?

Just one to throw out there, as there are armies that have practically no chance of dealing with them

What army can't deal with a close combat dread? Even orks can rolla over him or knock him out from a boarding plank, all others can shoot him apart. Nothing wrong with "blenderdreads" (like the name )

Try it with Nids or Necrons sometime. You can shoot him apart IF you get a chance to shoot him. 3 of them being SR'd right to your tinfoil soldiers and dropped off makes Phase Out happen fast.

My objection isn't hat he's unkillable.. You CAN kill him. My objection is the infinite spawning attacks made at marine I, which means that lower I troops (powerklaws for example) will likely never get so swing, as th whole mob is going down in one turn.

Every other rule that spawns additional attacks that i've run into caps those additional attacks, so that they in turn don't get to spawn more attacks.

Can a Green tide deal with a few of these suckers? not easily.

How about a Nid CC swarm... Nope.

It's not the only example, but it is a valid one of a rule that's disproporitionately ugly for its cost for some army builds. Not everyone runs battlewagon bash orks, for example