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.

Please say why.

Very few things should survive the hellish weapons in 40k easily.

because the ones that pay points for it would be overcosted.

From a fluff point of view, models without eternal warrior are not nessecarily vaporized by a lazcannon shot. They are just too crippled or banged up to continue fighting.

Eternal warriors are just the rare few guys who can take said attack and continue on through either insane toughness or willpower.

Hell no, in fact EW should be removed from the game entirely. If you take a direct hit from a railgun you're dead, no matter how heroic you are.

 Peregrine wrote:
Hell no, in fact EW should be removed from the game entirely. If you take a direct hit from a railgun you're dead, no matter how heroic you are.

I don't think its so much as receiving the hit as taking measures to minimise or downright avoid its effects at the last second.

That's unless we see it as though we can correlate the wording of "to hit and to wound" with a fluff visualisation, but then if you do that we should consider that cover saves come after the "to wound" rolls, so unless I've missed out a piece of fluff that states walls materialise inside the vital organs of warriors at the last second to save them, the system layout isn't supposed to match the visualisation of the fight.

I personally like it as instant death is kinda of a crap mechanic for a TON of models, let alone characters. Most of "Midzilla" cannot be run because of things that auto-them out.

So maybe it's not EW that's the problem, but instant death that's the problem. Removing models from play seems just lame and a mechanic that's straddling this weird line of making sense in an Epic scale game but doesn't make sense in the "I'm not Epic scale, yet, but still use skirmish mechanics" game that is 40k.

As it stands, I think Eternal Warrior should be given to named characters to represent their significance on the battle field. Those with EW already should gain some sort of bonus to resiliency as I personally feel that larger than life characters is a major part of 40k and a 300 point Chapter Master should be a feared unit. He's ascended to that rank on many battlefields filled with lascannons and rail guns, so what's one more?

It's basically because of a bad game mechanic that's better suited for a much different scale of game that's creeped into 40k. They could make ID weapons do d3 wounds versus removing models, and it'd be better, IMO.

 Inkubas wrote:
Please say why.

You first. Why should all named characters have Eternal Warrior?

 Mr.Omega wrote:
I don't think its so much as receiving the hit as taking measures to minimise or downright avoid its effects at the last second.

Except that's not how it works. GW describes EW as representing heroic toughness, not amazing reflexes that let a character dodge a shot.

 insaniak wrote:

 Inkubas wrote:
Please say why.

You first. Why should all named characters have Eternal Warrior?

Instant death is a terrible mechanic best used in an Epic style game versus one that has fiction centered around the larger than life, death-defying heroes of the 41st Millenium?

((Or that I long for the day to run Tyranid Warriors and not get them vaporized))

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:
I don't think its so much as receiving the hit as taking measures to minimise or downright avoid its effects at the last second.

Except that's not how it works. GW describes EW as representing heroic toughness, not amazing reflexes that let a character dodge a shot.

I don't have my RB on me for the fairly trivial EW description but these things are mostly open to interpretation, and it makes far more sense when you look at who has EW, Calgar is no less likely logic wise to take a railgun shot to the face than your regular joe SM Captain. One would assume that greater wisdom and knack for surviving are the difference.

On interpretations, you can look at how a meltagun can kill a Land Raider far easier than it can kill a Terminator with a Storm Shield, or how a Volcano Cannon is stopped by a SOB's faith invulnerable save. Is the faith giving the SOB a form of physical defence, or just wits/luck? Invulnerable saves are given in some places for purely "dodging" (see Lelith Hesperax) though it would be physically impossible for her to dodge what is represented by a 10'' diameter blast/ Deathstrike impact.

 TheKbob wrote:
So maybe it's not EW that's the problem, but instant death that's the problem. Removing models from play seems just lame and a mechanic that's straddling this weird line of making sense in an Epic scale game but doesn't make sense in the "I'm not Epic scale, yet, but still use skirmish mechanics" game that is 40k.

No, the problem is that ID is a black and white thing rather than a steady increase in damage. A character shouldn't take only one wound from a shot as long as it's less than double toughness, but suddenly suffer instant death if the weapon gets just a little bit stronger. Instead of ID weapons should inflict multiple wounds as the strength of the shot exceeds toughness. The to-wound chart would work as normal up to a 2+ to wound, then after that point it would remain a 2+ but each added point of strength would inflict an additional wound. So, for example, an autocannon shot against a MEQ model would inflict two wounds for every failed save, a krak missile would inflict three, etc.

As it stands, I think Eternal Warrior should be given to named characters to represent their significance on the battle field. Those with EW already should gain some sort of bonus to resiliency as I personally feel that larger than life characters is a major part of 40k and a 300 point Chapter Master should be a feared unit. He's ascended to that rank on many battlefields filled with lascannons and rail guns, so what's one more?

And this is the attitude I dislike. Why should "heroes" get special protection just for being awesome? A railgun to the head is still going to kill you no matter how heroic you are. If you don't like that then get some cover and do your job as a commander, don't just run mindlessly out into the open and let everyone shoot you. Screaming zealots that think that 40k is a universe of heroic triumphs should be shot to death by some anonymous guardsman/cultist/etc.

Because I'm of the video game generation and love me some epic hero fantasy?

Not *pew*->*dead* style approach to characters when the fluff readily has the "big, named" guys having all the crap thrown at them and they walk it off like they ain't got time to bleed.

Remember, we have "Stallion That Mounts the World" Pattern Chapter Masters (or Smash-fu for the layman) running around out classing every named guy. We have the bearlord reigning over old, fuzz beard, etc. etc. Hell, the oldest living Chapter Master, old Danny-boy, is fricken' lascannon bait when these young upstarts walk it off and ask for more.

The whole fluff thrives on the names and heroes. The game should reflect that. Ravening hordes should stick to Epic scale. Instant death is a dumb mechanic.

From a narrative perspective the characters should not be ID'd. As The Kbob says, 40k is a very hero focused setting where they can and do pull off ridiculous feats.
From a gameplay perspective the characters should not be ID'd. They cost a feth ton of points to lose to at single anti tank shot and imo it's just not as fun as seeing the characters do their thing and die the traditional way, not to mention inconsistent in its application.

I'm happy with some really important characters having it. It basically amounts to plot armor for dudes like Abaddon. It'd be pretty lame if he were to to get splatted by one smash attack.

Eihnlazer wrote:because the ones that pay points for it would be overcosted.

Or worse, they'd have to raise the cost of special characters who didn't, making them too expensive.

Also, there are a lot of SCs that it doesn't really make sense for. Like everyone except for yarrick and maybe straken in the guard codex, for example, and all those fragile space elves. Plus, there are W1 and W2 SCs that it wouldn't make much sense for either.

Really, EW is only for those uber-expensive ultra beatsticks that it would be super anti-climactic to have them go insta-splat if someone chucked a krak missile towards them. Of course, whether we should have ID at all...

JubbJubbz wrote:
I'm happy with some really important characters having it. It basically amounts to plot armor for dudes like Abaddon. It'd be pretty lame if he were to to get splatted by one smash attack.

Not that Abbadon is going to do anything anyways...

pffft! Armless...

No, I rather like slagging SC with my Earthshakers,

It would be a terrible idea since it would just reward bad playing and make player's think that they are entitled to have their special character live through the entire match. It already silly seeing the rule on characters like Lsyander who has a 2+ armor save and a 3+ invulnerable save. If it was possible I would like to see the rule simply removed from the game and have character's point cost adjusted accordingly.

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
It would be a terrible idea since it would just reward bad playing and make player's think that they are entitled to have their special character live through the entire match.

I disagree, they will still lose a wound to the high powered anti tank stuff so they're still perfectly capable of dying to it - just not in one shot. I'd probably even go for something like the melta rule where there's a chance to do extra damage to the character. But you won't have a 4 wound character that costs 200 points snapped by a single 15 point lascannon. Yes, realistically a lascannon would vaporise you if it hit you. No, I don't think it conducive to good gameplay, and narratively survival stats can be as much about avoidance as mitigation.

It's not something I hugely care about or would even mention, unlike say general balance issues or clunky mechanics. I just think it would be better this way since the topic came up ; )

I think it would be great, as heroes are meant to be the last ones to fall. Having a special character vaporised turn one or two before they get to do anything is really anoying. At least with eternal warrior, your characters could last through the fight for a little while maybe turn four or perhaps five, and show why they actually war heroes. Obviously points would have to be adjusted so they don't outshine the special characters already with it. But I think it would be a cool thing to have.

If you think about it they all kinda of have it anyways...

How else do the same "heroes" keep showing up in thousands of different battles, living or dieing only to fight again the next day?


But to be serious, No, not everyone should have it. That would cause more problems then you can imagine.

Plot armor should only apply to books, imo.

On the table-top, Abbadon should be easily crippled by a near-miss from a Basilisk that penetrated his armor, even if the Chaos Gods permit him to cling to life (i.e. he should be removed as a casualty).

Because SC's with instant death weapons would be even more useless. Poor Fabius Bile.

On the table-top, Abbadon should be easily crippled by a near-miss from a Basilisk that penetrated his armor, even if the Chaos Gods permit him to cling to life (i.e. he should be removed as a casualty).

The same armor that can be stepped on by a titan without killing the user?

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
I think it would be great, as heroes are meant to be the last ones to fall. Having a special character vaporised turn one or two before they get to do anything is really anoying. At least with eternal warrior, your characters could last through the fight for a little while maybe turn four or perhaps five, and show why they actually war heroes. Obviously points would have to be adjusted so they don't outshine the special characters already with it. But I think it would be a cool thing to have.

I disagree, each of the armies I play either have no Eternal Warrior or very few characters have the rule and it forces me to become a better player by not leaving my commander stranded or putting them into situations were they are certainly going to die. Also giving every character the rule completely invalidates wargear like the Huskblade which is otherwise a extremely expensive power sword with AP2. Surely if a character is suppose to be tough giving them good invulnerable saves, FNP etc would be the better choice then using a rule whose sole purpose is to cancel out another rule?

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
I think it would be great, as heroes are meant to be the last ones to fall. Having a special character vaporised turn one or two before they get to do anything is really anoying. At least with eternal warrior, your characters could last through the fight for a little while maybe turn four or perhaps five, and show why they actually war heroes. Obviously points would have to be adjusted so they don't outshine the special characters already with it. But I think it would be a cool thing to have.

I disagree, each of the armies I play either have no Eternal Warrior or very few characters have the rule and it forces me to become a better player by not leaving my commander stranded or putting them into situations were they are certainly going to die. Also giving every character the rule completely invalidates wargear like the Huskblade which is otherwise a extremely expensive power sword with AP2. Surely if a character is suppose to be tough giving them good invulnerable saves, FNP etc would be the better choice then using a rule whose sole purpose is to cancel out another rule?

Which armies do you play, by the way?

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
I think it would be great, as heroes are meant to be the last ones to fall. Having a special character vaporised turn one or two before they get to do anything is really anoying. At least with eternal warrior, your characters could last through the fight for a little while maybe turn four or perhaps five, and show why they actually war heroes. Obviously points would have to be adjusted so they don't outshine the special characters already with it. But I think it would be a cool thing to have.

I disagree, each of the armies I play either have no Eternal Warrior or very few characters have the rule and it forces me to become a better player by not leaving my commander stranded or putting them into situations were they are certainly going to die. Also giving every character the rule completely invalidates wargear like the Huskblade which is otherwise a extremely expensive power sword with AP2. Surely if a character is suppose to be tough giving them good invulnerable saves, FNP etc would be the better choice then using a rule whose sole purpose is to cancel out another rule?

Which armies do you play, by the way?

Currently I play Dark Eldar, Eldar, Necrons and Tyranids. Outside of the Phoenix Lords for the Eldar and Drazhar none of the characters in these armies have Eternal Warrior.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because SC's with instant death weapons would be even more useless. Poor Fabius Bile.

On the table-top, Abbadon should be easily crippled by a near-miss from a Basilisk that penetrated his armor, even if the Chaos Gods permit him to cling to life (i.e. he should be removed as a casualty).

The same armor that can be stepped on by a titan without killing the user?

Yup. That's what failing an armor-save is - it's a breach in the armor. Are you saying Abbadon shouldn't fail armor saves? Because that's different than having EW.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Because SC's with instant death weapons would be even more useless. Poor Fabius Bile.

On the table-top, Abbadon should be easily crippled by a near-miss from a Basilisk that penetrated his armor, even if the Chaos Gods permit him to cling to life (i.e. he should be removed as a casualty).

The same armor that can be stepped on by a titan without killing the user?

Yup. That's what failing an armor-save is - it's a breach in the armor. Are you saying Abbadon shouldn't fail armor saves? Because that's different than having EW.

I'm saying I miss the 2D6 3+ save Terminator armor used to give, I miss using termies with so many wave serpents and plasma guns

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

I disagree, each of the armies I play either have no Eternal Warrior or very few characters have the rule and it forces me to become a better player by not leaving my commander stranded or putting them into situations were they are certainly going to die. Also giving every character the rule completely invalidates wargear like the Huskblade which is otherwise a extremely expensive power sword with AP2. Surely if a character is suppose to be tough giving them good invulnerable saves, FNP etc would be the better choice then using a rule whose sole purpose is to cancel out another rule?

Which armies do you play, by the way?

Currently I play Dark Eldar, Eldar, Necrons and Tyranids. Outside of the Phoenix Lords for the Eldar and Drazhar none of the characters in these armies have Eternal Warrior.

Well okay, I was going to give you crap if you played Tau or Guard, as in those armies the HQ are cheap as chips anyway so don't care about instant death. That said, Tyranids and Necrons both have HQ whom's toughness is high enough that they're not worried about getting insta-killed by Str 8 or 9 weapons, which I assume is the main reason for these complaints.

I personally am in favor removing ID via double Str, not for HQs be for units like nobs and warriors, who are never used because they're free points against those anti-tank weapons most armies take anyway.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

I disagree, each of the armies I play either have no Eternal Warrior or very few characters have the rule and it forces me to become a better player by not leaving my commander stranded or putting them into situations were they are certainly going to die. Also giving every character the rule completely invalidates wargear like the Huskblade which is otherwise a extremely expensive power sword with AP2. Surely if a character is suppose to be tough giving them good invulnerable saves, FNP etc would be the better choice then using a rule whose sole purpose is to cancel out another rule?

Which armies do you play, by the way?

Currently I play Dark Eldar, Eldar, Necrons and Tyranids. Outside of the Phoenix Lords for the Eldar and Drazhar none of the characters in these armies have Eternal Warrior.

Well okay, I was going to give you crap if you played Tau or Guard, as in those armies the HQ are cheap as chips anyway so don't care about instant death. That said, Tyranids and Necrons both have HQ whom's toughness is high enough that they're not worried about getting insta-killed by Str 8 or 9 weapons, which I assume is the main reason for these complaints.

I personally am in favor removing ID via double Str, not for HQs be for units like nobs and warriors, who are never used because they're free points against those anti-tank weapons most armies take anyway.

Hmm, that might not be a bad idea since units like Tyranid Warriors get completely screwed by instant death yet it make sense that if you shot a group of them with a vindicator cannon there would be nothing left besides fleshy bits. Also if multi-wound units never had to worry about instant death wouldn't they become far to powerful?