Are we starting to see "indestructible" units again ?

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.

**Not Online!!!**

Jidmah wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
two answers, firstly it is indeed the lack of general oversight as to what the rules team produces, atleast i expect it to be.
However this is also a buissness in which designers do have a degree of a "name" to themselves, seeing as they are kinda known, granted GW has had a bit of a cult following in regards to their writers...

If a single person is writing the rules for anything unchallenged, that's a major flaw in their business to begin with. The only way these codices won't turn out to be crap is dumb luck.

There were some incidents concerning some writers and tendencies... So yea the process certainly is broken / flawed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
This conversation went to a weird place...

well the blunders of the past and some such.

But to get back OT, no, if anything there's too much deadlyness.
The specifc rules that are pointed out are an attempt of gw imo to fight the symptoms of their overely killy game state.

**BrianDavion**

it's honestly due to some IMHO conflicting demands from players, on one hand the players, essentially want killy guns, but at the same time no one wants a big centerp[iece unit to be shot off the board turn one.

**Nazrak**

Jidmah wrote:
Nazrak wrote:
Honestly, it's understandable that people might not be entirely happy with some rules for the spacemen game; heck, there's plenty of stuff about 9th I'm not super-keen on, but I'm dealing with that by not throwing any more money at GW until the dust settles and I can see what's up with it all. Some of you people need to get a grip.

Honestly, contacting them via mail, facebook or other public channels is better than reducing their millions of yearly income by a few hundred. Tell them what you don't like, if enough people feel the same way, they might change something.

I've written them multiple mails so far, and I'm fairly sure they read them - after all, one of the SotB FAQs is worded exactly as one of questions in my mail.

The most important part is staying polite. No one will ever accept constructive criticism from someone who is being an donkeycave.

Oh yeah, that's a totally fair point. And I have done that on a couple of occasions. Still though, I think one kinda has to accept that you're never going to get everything you want; as you rightly point out, the current state of GW's business clearly means enough people are largely happy with the way they're doing things, at least happy enough to keep firing money at them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's honestly due to some IMHO conflicting demands from players, on one hand the players, essentially want killy guns, but at the same time no one wants a big centerp[iece unit to be shot off the board turn one.

Yeah totally this. I think it's a bit of a no-win situation for GW – if guns aren't consistently putting out huge killing capacity, they're dismissed as pointless, or not worth taking, by some of the most vocal elements of the player base. But if they *are*, then suddenly it's "GW have fethed up by making things too deadly!"

**Ice_can**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
The problem is the disparity between vehicals with DR and normal vehicals is far out of parity with the difference in points etc.
Being able to straight up shrug 1/3 of all damage is even more critical as GW keeps jacking AP, adding plus to wound and invulnerable save ignoring mechanics into the game.

Stack that on top of points changes and weapon changes for imperialists only and 9th as it currently stands is a car crash when it comes to balance.

That's just a head thing though, essentially DR is the same as +50% wounds. As I've shown in another thread, DG vehicles are very similar in durability to other faction's durable vehicles, like defilers, wave serpents, LRBT or greater daemons. A unit of MBH is essentially a 36 wound model with a brutal degradation table and a fraction of the damage you could get for 300 points in other armies.

I'd agree with that. A MBH is roughly as durable as a T7 5++ dreadnought with Relentless Hatred. If gw insists on increasing the damage output of everything in the game without breaking their limit of T8 for anything short of a Mastodon I think we need to see more damage reduction abilities like DR, Relentless Hatred, Smokescreen, and Quantam Shielding. Otherwise everything just dies too quickly.

I like the idea of having a damage resistance ability that stacks as you pour more damage into them, making them hard but not impossible to kill in one turn.

Like a FNP that gets better as a unit drops in brackets? Say a 6+++ above 50% wounds increasing to a 5+++ below 50%? I think something like that would feel better than the current rules for things like Ghaz and Ctan.

The issue isn't that MBH or anything with a DR save is too durable it they keep their durability when other units using Toughness invulnerable saves loose it too often yet dont see a reduction in cost.

Take a unit with a 5+ invulnerable save vrs 5+ FNP

Vrs 6 high AP -4 or such wounds
5++ unit Takes 4 wounds
The 5+ DR unit Takes 4 Wounds

Vrs 6 MW
5++ unit takes 6 wounds
5+DR unit takes 4 wounds

GW havd lost the ability to balance the game because fundamentally the rules are no longer interacting with each other and are now straifht up gotcha rules.

It's esentially become special rules top trumps now.

FEEL no Pain saves
MW
Ignores Invulnerable saves
Invulnerable saves
AP
SAVES

Like the fact that we have layers of rules to ignore rules IMHO says it all.

The second issue is that currently 9th edition is a broken mess of everyones points changed and then some factions got increased damage for no points changes and other factions got nothing.

Right now we have factions playing from 4 massively different balance baselines.

Those with designed for 9th Codex
Those with 8th codex's but updated weapons and points increase
Thise with 8th codex's without weapons updates but no points increase
Those with 8th codex's without weapons updates but points increases.

**Jidmah**

The only difference between a unit with 8 wounds and DR and a unit 12 wounds is how lucky your dice are.

**kurhanik**

Jidmah wrote:
The only difference between a unit with 8 wounds and DR and a unit 12 wounds is how lucky your dice are.

Part of that comes down to perception though. As an attacking player, it is more demoralizing to see "damage nullified, you can do nothing about this" than it is to successfully deal damage to a model with bigger wound count. The later makes the game feel more interactive, even if it is essentially the same.

Heck, keeping this example 8 wound model at 8 and giving it 4 "damage reduction" per turn could even be a more interesting mechanic - the opposing player needs to make sure they bring enough damage to bear to knock down the DR before hurting the actual model.

Then again, I kind of feel invulnerable saves should be extremely rare in the game, and that Toughness, Wounds, and regular Saves should be tinkered with to make things more survivable instead of just saying "you ignore 1/3 of incoming damage now".

**catbarf**

kurhanik wrote:
Heck, keeping this example 8 wound model at 8 and giving it 4 "damage reduction" per turn could even be a more interesting mechanic - the opposing player needs to make sure they bring enough damage to bear to knock down the DR before hurting the actual model.

I think we'd then see something like the old Reanimation Protocols issue where in smaller games it's an extremely oppressive ability, while in larger games you blow it off the board in one turn and that's that.

kurhanik wrote:
Then again, I kind of feel invulnerable saves should be extremely rare in the game, and that Toughness, Wounds, and regular Saves should be tinkered with to make things more survivable instead of just saying "you ignore 1/3 of incoming damage now".

I definitely agree with that. Invulns used to largely only be available to characters, and gave them a little bit of plot armor so they couldn't get Instant Death'd off the board. Now with AP being so prevalent, either you have an invuln or you're dead meat.

With regard to FNPs, I think it's important to point out that FNPs originated in older editions, and was commonly given to units to give them more durability without being as significant as an extra wound. Plague Marines going from W1 to W2 would have been a 100% increase in durability, while DR was a 50% increase- but now that Marines are W2, Plague Marines could just become W3 and call it a day. The incremental step isn't needed, especially when multi-damage weaponry is a thing.

I think some of the issues with game lethality could be addressed by going back to the old SvT table. Vehicles would become significantly harder to kill by incidental fire, while hordes would be less resilient to mid-strength firepower. It seems like these band-aid solutions of invulns and FNP are compensating for the fact that high T and high Sv don't protect you well anymore.

**Jidmah**

kurhanik wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
The only difference between a unit with 8 wounds and DR and a unit 12 wounds is how lucky your dice are.

Part of that comes down to perception though. As an attacking player, it is more demoralizing to see "damage nullified, you can do nothing about this" than it is to successfully deal damage to a model with bigger wound count. The later makes the game feel more interactive, even if it is essentially the same.

Heck, keeping this example 8 wound model at 8 and giving it 4 "damage reduction" per turn could even be a more interesting mechanic - the opposing player needs to make sure they bring enough damage to bear to knock down the DR before hurting the actual model.

Then again, I kind of feel invulnerable saves should be extremely rare in the game, and that Toughness, Wounds, and regular Saves should be tinkered with to make things more survivable instead of just saying "you ignore 1/3 of incoming damage now".

Totally agree, 40k really needs more defense mechanisms that are not "dice make attacks go away" or "your dice are worse".

I responding to a post claiming that DR was an unfair mechanism though, and I can't agree with that at all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

catbarf wrote:
With regard to FNPs, I think it's important to point out that FNPs originated in older editions, and was commonly given to units to give them more durability without being as significant as an extra wound. Plague Marines going from W1 to W2 would have been a 100% increase in durability, while DR was a 50% increase- but now that Marines are W2, Plague Marines could just become W3 and call it a day. The incremental step isn't needed, especially when multi-damage weaponry is a thing.

Huh, I never thought about that. That's actually a very good point. There are issues with various arbitrary wound caps (10 wounds for LoS, secondaries and degradation, 18 wounds for terrain), but I think in general this wouldn't be a bad idea.

**Not Online!!!**

Jidmah wrote:
kurhanik wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
The only difference between a unit with 8 wounds and DR and a unit 12 wounds is how lucky your dice are.

Part of that comes down to perception though. As an attacking player, it is more demoralizing to see "damage nullified, you can do nothing about this" than it is to successfully deal damage to a model with bigger wound count. The later makes the game feel more interactive, even if it is essentially the same.

Heck, keeping this example 8 wound model at 8 and giving it 4 "damage reduction" per turn could even be a more interesting mechanic - the opposing player needs to make sure they bring enough damage to bear to knock down the DR before hurting the actual model.

Then again, I kind of feel invulnerable saves should be extremely rare in the game, and that Toughness, Wounds, and regular Saves should be tinkered with to make things more survivable instead of just saying "you ignore 1/3 of incoming damage now".

Totally agree, 40k really needs more defense mechanisms that are not "dice make attacks go away" or "your dice are worse".

I responding to a post claiming that DR was an unfair mechanism though, and I can't agree with that at all.

DR in the past, whilest easier to bypass, Was alot more unfair even.

as for the defense mechanisms, well GW has basically beyond killing implemented nigh 0 interaction options for players torwards opponents models.
Stuff like, surpression, etc just flat don't really exist.
As for the coversystem.... the old one had issues, namely frag grenades and initiative 1. but it still was a factor in lowering the killyness, especially for light infantry.

**some bloke**

kurhanik wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
The only difference between a unit with 8 wounds and DR and a unit 12 wounds is how lucky your dice are.

Part of that comes down to perception though. As an attacking player, it is more demoralizing to see "damage nullified, you can do nothing about this" than it is to successfully deal damage to a model with bigger wound count. The later makes the game feel more interactive, even if it is essentially the same.

Heck, keeping this example 8 wound model at 8 and giving it 4 "damage reduction" per turn could even be a more interesting mechanic - the opposing player needs to make sure they bring enough damage to bear to knock down the DR before hurting the actual model.

Then again, I kind of feel invulnerable saves should be extremely rare in the game, and that Toughness, Wounds, and regular Saves should be tinkered with to make things more survivable instead of just saying "you ignore 1/3 of incoming damage now".

I agree with this, invulns are far too common and really we need to look at whether they can implement durability representations which are easier to find solutions to.

EG:

X++ as a dodge save = make it harder to hit
X++ as a shield type invuln = make it harder to wound
X+++ as an feel-no-pain = give it more wounds

To make this work properly, things need their own statistic which denotes how easily they can be hit - a "Target" statistic, perhaps?

That way you can make dodging units hard to hit, and make invulnerable units higher toughness, and make feel no pain units have lots of wounds, and job done.

What effect would it give the game if stormshields gave +2 toughness? anti-tank wounds on 3's not 2's, lasguns wound on 6's, and volcano cannons and stuff still blow them apart.

**vipoid**

catbarf wrote:

With regard to FNPs, I think it's important to point out that FNPs originated in older editions, and was commonly given to units to give them more durability without being as significant as an extra wound. Plague Marines going from W1 to W2 would have been a 100% increase in durability, while DR was a 50% increase- but now that Marines are W2, Plague Marines could just become W3 and call it a day. The incremental step isn't needed, especially when multi-damage weaponry is a thing.

The other aspect is that FNP didn't used to protect you against everything.

IIRC, you didn't get FNP saves against any weapon that caused Instant Death (whether as a result of having that rule or because it was twice the model's toughness), or against any melee weapons that ignored armour saves.

I think the latter was removed in 6th but the restriction on ID weapons continued. It was only in 8th when FNP suddenly became an everything-proof shield.

**Ice_can**

Jidmah wrote:

I responding to a post claiming that DR was an unfair mechanism though, and I can't agree with that at all.

That wasn't at all the point of the post and you keep projecting something that's not there and responding to points with irrelevant information.

But to counter your example
8W with a 5++ takes 12W & 8MW to kill
8W with 5+ DR takes 12W &12MW to kill
12W takes 12 wounds & takes 12MW to kill
8W with -1D takes 8 1D shots, 8 2D shots, 4 3D shots, 3 4D shots and 8 MW

The only one you can kill with 8MW is the one with the invulnerable save and the -1D model

As the prevalence of MW goes up Invulnerable saves become worth less point's.

GW has kept adding more and more sources of MW into the game but hasn't correspondingly reduce the points of models qith invulnerable saves.

**catbarf**

vipoid wrote:
catbarf wrote:

With regard to FNPs, I think it's important to point out that FNPs originated in older editions, and was commonly given to units to give them more durability without being as significant as an extra wound. Plague Marines going from W1 to W2 would have been a 100% increase in durability, while DR was a 50% increase- but now that Marines are W2, Plague Marines could just become W3 and call it a day. The incremental step isn't needed, especially when multi-damage weaponry is a thing.

The other aspect is that FNP didn't used to protect you against everything.

IIRC, you didn't get FNP saves against any weapon that caused Instant Death (whether as a result of having that rule or because it was twice the model's toughness), or against any melee weapons that ignored armour saves.

I think the latter was removed in 6th but the restriction on ID weapons continued. It was only in 8th when FNP suddenly became an everything-proof shield.

That caveat is analogous to Damage. Taking Plague Marines as an example, it meant that they still died in one shot to lascannons. In 8th/9th, a W1 Plague Marine that takes 3-4 damage is extremely unlikely to pass all its FNP rolls and dies anyways.

The addition of the Damage stat might not translate perfectly, but I think it still fulfills that function pretty well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
GW has kept adding more and more sources of MW into the game but hasn't correspondingly reduce the points of models qith invulnerable saves.

Enemies have armor? Bonus AP across the board.
Armor is now worthless? Uh oh, give invulns across the board.
Invulns now make AP worthless? Mortal wounds!
Mortal wounds kill expensive things trivially? Saves against mortal wounds!

I can't wait to get mortal wounds that ignore saves against mortal wounds.

**Sasori**

Vilehydra wrote:
greyknight12 wrote:
Don't all the C'Tan have Fly? Meaning that you can't really tie him down.

Fallback still disallows actions, advancing, shooting, and charging. I don't know how it interacts with C'Tan special abilities though - however some of them are forced to target the closest enemy model.
If the C'Tan does fall back - I can still charge it with that same chaff (or other chaff elements of my army)

The big thing is you can charge it with some chaff (IE guardsmen, nurglings, or even Transhumaned Primaris) and it just can't cut through them effectively. It only has 5 or 6 attacks IIRC, and it's an expensive model so it has to do something besides kill a couple points of chaff a turn.

if it falls back, it can't use it's powers.

That being Said, Gaze can target any unit within 9' and you can use a stratagem to switch the powers you are using to adjust if you are getting tarpitted, to something like Cosmic Fire. These go off at the end of the movement phase, so it's quite possible to kill the unit it's in CC with and then charge something. It can also use the double attacks swing for dealing with stuff like gaunts. Tarpitting it is the best way to deal with it, but in many cases it's not an optimal choice for some armies.

**Jidmah**

Ice_can wrote:
Jidmah wrote:

I responding to a post claiming that DR was an unfair mechanism though, and I can't agree with that at all.

That wasn't at all the point of the post and you keep projecting something that's not there and responding to points with irrelevant information.

But to counter your example
8W with a 5++ takes 12W & 8MW to kill
8W with 5+ DR takes 12W &12MW to kill
12W takes 12 wounds & takes 12MW to kill
8W with -1D takes 8 1D shots, 8 2D shots, 4 3D shots, 3 4D shots and 8 MW

The only one you can kill with 8MW is the one with the invulnerable save and the -1D model

As the prevalence of MW goes up Invulnerable saves become worth less point's.

GW has kept adding more and more sources of MW into the game but hasn't correspondingly reduce the points of models qith invulnerable saves.

What exactly was your point about MBH then?

**vipoid**

catbarf wrote:
vipoid wrote:
catbarf wrote:

With regard to FNPs, I think it's important to point out that FNPs originated in older editions, and was commonly given to units to give them more durability without being as significant as an extra wound. Plague Marines going from W1 to W2 would have been a 100% increase in durability, while DR was a 50% increase- but now that Marines are W2, Plague Marines could just become W3 and call it a day. The incremental step isn't needed, especially when multi-damage weaponry is a thing.

The other aspect is that FNP didn't used to protect you against everything.

IIRC, you didn't get FNP saves against any weapon that caused Instant Death (whether as a result of having that rule or because it was twice the model's toughness), or against any melee weapons that ignored armour saves.

I think the latter was removed in 6th but the restriction on ID weapons continued. It was only in 8th when FNP suddenly became an everything-proof shield.

That caveat is analogous to Damage. Taking Plague Marines as an example, it meant that they still died in one shot to lascannons. In 8th/9th, a W1 Plague Marine that takes 3-4 damage is extremely unlikely to pass all its FNP rolls and dies anyways.

The addition of the Damage stat might not translate perfectly, but I think it still fulfills that function pretty well.

Except that this logic only works for single-wound models.

**AngryAngel80**

TLDR, which units are indestructible ? As for as much as I can see Guard have very few of these long lived problems. Having even my mammoth super heavies seem to have no issue in being VaPooRized with all going on with the game. I've got little effective table top knowledge in this year but the rules haven't seemed to move to make anything tougher that I have, aside from maybe the Death guard.

**SemperMortis**

Honestly I can't think of any units that are particularly hard to kill for any faction. Ghaz is a bit hard if you suck at inflicting dmg in any other phase except shooting and maybe CC, but even than its a 2-3 turn problem.

**Smotejob**

Eh, I dont think so. If anything I think the game is too flimsy. Tend to see very one sided games with a tabling happening on turn 4-5.

While I don't want to see deathstars, a return to more durability would be nice.

**ERJAK**

the_scotsman wrote:
In my ideal world, a typical game of warhammer would end on turn 5 with approximately 1/4 of the starting combat force for either side remaining on the board.

A force being completely tabled on turn 5 would be rare, and on turn 4 would be exceedingly rare. A turn 2 or turn 3 tabling would be unheard of, a turn 1 tabling would be essentially impossible.

That is not where we are at in the current state of the game. Turn 3-4 tablings are common, and an army being tabled by the end of turn 5 is much more common than both players having something, anything on the board by the end of the game. Turn 2 tablings are not even particularly rare depending on the army involved, but more commonly what you see with heavy alpha strike armies is turn 2 an opponent is reduced to basically nothing but a few stragglers, empty transports, and units still sitting in reserves who basically have no way to impact the outcome of the game.

This is pretty much the biggest fundamental issue the game has currently in my eyes. The sheer amount of terrain required to make "one side is almost completely removed from the board by the bottom of turn 3" not the default state is staggering and represents an undue burden on organizers to try and put a table together, and even then, most armies we're seeing hit competitive play don't particularly care about that thanks to easy reliable deep strike, high speed melee units, and universal outflank of almost anything for 1cp.

So, no, basically I totally disagree with your premise on all counts, both that hyper-durability exists in 9th (I would argue that it doesn't, anywhere) or that hyper-durability is somehow a problem in 9th.

If your experience is such that anything in that second paragraph is true, the problem is a mismatch of players, not something endemic to 9th edition. Tabling at that rate is incredibly rare if you've got 2 people who are even in the same ballpark of skill (both in game and in list building). What you're saying is staggeringly hyperbolic to apply to the game as a whole.

Now if you had said the game is DECIDED way too early, I could potentially agree with that. Some games can be put out of reach very early on especially with the new mission system (which I LIKE but is still flawed in places) I've had games where I functionally won top of 1 where I didn't fully table my opponent in 5 rounds, even playing aggressive glass cannon armies.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Jidmah wrote:

I responding to a post claiming that DR was an unfair mechanism though, and I can't agree with that at all.

That wasn't at all the point of the post and you keep projecting something that's not there and responding to points with irrelevant information.

But to counter your example
8W with a 5++ takes 12W & 8MW to kill
8W with 5+ DR takes 12W &12MW to kill
12W takes 12 wounds & takes 12MW to kill
8W with -1D takes 8 1D shots, 8 2D shots, 4 3D shots, 3 4D shots and 8 MW

The only one you can kill with 8MW is the one with the invulnerable save and the -1D model

As the prevalence of MW goes up Invulnerable saves become worth less point's.

GW has kept adding more and more sources of MW into the game but hasn't correspondingly reduce the points of models qith invulnerable saves.

As someone who plays sigmar also, it's always funny to me to see 40k players talk about Mortal Wounds like the boogey man when there basically aren't any outside of psyker spam armies.

Compared to Sigmar, most FACTIONS in 40k don't have the same mortal wound output as certain UNITS do in AoS. I know they're very different games with very different math behind them but it's still kinda funny.

40k player: 'THIS UNIT IS SO OP, IT CAN DO 10 GUARANTEED MORTAL WOUNDS PER TURN at 24" RANGE IGNORING LOOK OUT SIR!!!

AoS Player: "Cool, if it's less than 100pts I'll give it a shot."

**vipoid**

Aside: Mortal Wounds were a really crap idea.

**ClockworkZion**

vipoid wrote:
Aside: Mortal Wounds were a really crap idea.

They're just a new name for things we've had in the past. GW had a bunch of stuff over the years that ignored armour and invuls, this is just a cleaner way of defining it.

**Tyran**

The problem is that they are overused.

Every ability that deals damage but is not a weapon does it with mortal wounds.

**ClockworkZion**

Jidmah wrote:
Holding GW accountable and telling them a piece your mind on the work they, as a company, are doing is perfectly fine and part of a customer relationship.

However, it's not your job to tell a specific writer that he is doing a bad job, it's that writer's superior's job. And if that superior is not doing his job properly, that guy's superior is supposed to make sure that he does.
Targeting people in specific or asking for them to be fired is bullying at best. You didn't buy the codex from Robin Cruddance or any other rules writer, you bought it from GW.

GW is fully capable of finding out who fethed up a codex and has the abilities hold them accountable for it. At the same time, they are protecting their employees from a community that can be extremely toxic if rubbed the wrong way, and that is a very good thing.

To add to this a bit late: the name on the book is merely the lead writer on the book. GW has made it very clear that all books have always been team efforts and the things people blame a given writer for may not actually be their fault.

GW has also had a desperate need for technical writers and editors to help tighten up language and other errors.

**Jidmah**

Mortal wounds are a much better idea that 2d6 S2 AP5 large blast, rending hits or similar nonsense that previous edition's abilities did to waste everybody's time.

**AnomanderRake**

ClockworkZion wrote:
vipoid wrote:
Aside: Mortal Wounds were a really crap idea.

They're just a new name for things we've had in the past. GW had a bunch of stuff over the years that ignored armour and invuls, this is just a cleaner way of defining it.

Mortal Wounds as a replacement for all psychic attack powers, though, while also deflating wound counts for vehicles?

**Tyran**

AnomanderRake wrote:

Mortal Wounds as a replacement for all psychic attack powers, though, while also deflating wound counts for vehicles?

The first part is bad, I agree, but please explain the second.

**Gadzilla666**

ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

Jidmah wrote:
Holding GW accountable and telling them a piece your mind on the work they, as a company, are doing is perfectly fine and part of a customer relationship.

However, it's not your job to tell a specific writer that he is doing a bad job, it's that writer's superior's job. And if that superior is not doing his job properly, that guy's superior is supposed to make sure that he does.
Targeting people in specific or asking for them to be fired is bullying at best. You didn't buy the codex from Robin Cruddance or any other rules writer, you bought it from GW.

GW is fully capable of finding out who fethed up a codex and has the abilities hold them accountable for it. At the same time, they are protecting their employees from a community that can be extremely toxic if rubbed the wrong way, and that is a very good thing.

To add to this a bit late: the name on the book is merely the lead writer on the book. GW has made it very clear that all books have always been team efforts and the things people blame a given writer for may not actually be their fault.

GW has also had a desperate need for technical writers and editors to help tighten up language and other errors.

Then they should hire some. They gave Chaos Fellblades the Spartan's transport capacity for crying out loud. How does something like that slip through?

**Saturmorn Carvilli**

ERJAK wrote:
As someone who plays sigmar also, it's always funny to me to see 40k players talk about Mortal Wounds like the boogey man when there basically aren't any outside of psyker spam armies.

Compared to Sigmar, most FACTIONS in 40k don't have the same mortal wound output as certain UNITS do in AoS. I know they're very different games with very different math behind them but it's still kinda funny.

40k player: 'THIS UNIT IS SO OP, IT CAN DO 10 GUARANTEED MORTAL WOUNDS PER TURN at 24" RANGE IGNORING LOOK OUT SIR!!!

AoS Player: "Cool, if it's less than 100pts I'll give it a shot."

As someone that also plays Age of Sigmar, I can relate. I had a game against Disciples of Tzeentch where I completely frustrated my opponent with my Slaves to Darkness army. Just about everything of mine had Runic Shields/Armor (+5 Sv to MW). There was one spell the DoT was casting that generated MW on a 5+, and I commented that it was a difficult to cause as it was to prevent. Combine that with me wielding some of the most unsuccessful Chaos Sorcerers at casting magic and my army seemed to shut his down in some strange way.

That said, I often marvel how AoS doesn't go off the rails more often as most games feel like two wizards/superheroes blasting energy beams directly at each other and if one of them slip up the angle they'll be utterly disintegrated. Not sure how accurate that is, but it is a strange feeling of having a lot of power but a single blunder can wipe you out.

That said, I would prefer 40k's lethality to be dialed back while increasing morale type effects. the-scotsman had some pretty good suggestions here:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:
I don't think that would alter things much tbh. What I'd really love to see is a split Suppressed/Pinned/Broken mechanic whereby failing a morale test is easier, but if you fail only by a little bit you are merely suppressed and suffer a lethality penalty (but otherwise act normally), if you are pinned you are basically 'stunned' for a turn and must go to ground, and if you are Broken you actually fall back and have to rally in subsequent turns (if you are merely pinned or suppressed you recover automatically)

The reason I say morale fails in 9th is because the function of morale in a wargame is to give a player ways to impede enemy units without simply destroying them. That's the point: to allow the models to stay on the table to maybe be useful later, but to have them be ineffective temporarily, which allows reducing lethality without making it frustrating as all hell to just fling fire into something and not kill it.

A split mechanic like that would allow morale to apply to everything in the game (including heavy units - we DESPERATELY need a system whereby heavy units can be impeded but not destroyed by lighter firepower) and it would allow more mechanical levers for design than simple morale immunity. For example, ATSKNF could be immunity to Broken state, but not immunity to Suppression or Pinnning. Various "Bezerk" units could go on an uncontrolled rampage when Broken, attacking the closest unit friend or foe, rather than running away. Necron Self-Preservation Protocols could grant immunity to suppression, but still allow Pinning and Broken to occur in extreme circumstances when the unit must preserve itself as best it can in preparation for phase-out (which could occur in the case of a failed Rally test when the unit is broken). Just a few examples.

The other thing that morale could 100% use is an easier to track trigger point than the current 'track how many casualties have been removed from every unit on the board this turn'.

I would much rather have suppressed, pinned, shaken or otherwise knocked out units that might rally but aren't likely to hold ground very well over straight removing them from the table. Of course, I mostly play for the spectacle so playing games where more models stay on the table longer is always something I like to see.

**ClockworkZion**

AnomanderRake wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
vipoid wrote:
Aside: Mortal Wounds were a really crap idea.

They're just a new name for things we've had in the past. GW had a bunch of stuff over the years that ignored armour and invuls, this is just a cleaner way of defining it.

Mortal Wounds as a replacement for all psychic attack powers, though, while also deflating wound counts for vehicles?

Some psychic powers skipped armour and invuls, but I agree, there should be more effects than just mortals from psykers.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

Jidmah wrote:
Holding GW accountable and telling them a piece your mind on the work they, as a company, are doing is perfectly fine and part of a customer relationship.

However, it's not your job to tell a specific writer that he is doing a bad job, it's that writer's superior's job. And if that superior is not doing his job properly, that guy's superior is supposed to make sure that he does.
Targeting people in specific or asking for them to be fired is bullying at best. You didn't buy the codex from Robin Cruddance or any other rules writer, you bought it from GW.

GW is fully capable of finding out who fethed up a codex and has the abilities hold them accountable for it. At the same time, they are protecting their employees from a community that can be extremely toxic if rubbed the wrong way, and that is a very good thing.

To add to this a bit late: the name on the book is merely the lead writer on the book. GW has made it very clear that all books have always been team efforts and the things people blame a given writer for may not actually be their fault.

GW has also had a desperate need for technical writers and editors to help tighten up language and other errors.

Then they should hire some. They gave Chaos Fellblades the Spartan's transport capacity for crying out loud. How does something like that slip through?

I agree, they should. And probably a copy/paste error.