Is Eternal Warrior outdated?

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.

**vipoid**

With the game now including Gargantuan Creatures and other units that belong in Apocalypse, does anyone else think marine-sized models having EW is a little silly?

I guess it just seems weird to me that force weapons and other ID weapons can strip up to 3 wounds off a 3-story Wraithknight, but can only ever inflict one wound to the diminutive Asurmen.

**krodarklorr**

Eternal Warrior just doesn't seem to fit in the game correctly in my opinion. As you said, a Wraithknight would lose 1-3 wounds, and only a measly one wound to a tiny dude. It would also completely eat a Carnifex in one go.

But then you have D-weapons being bled from every orifice now. And Eternal Warrior does nothing against D-weapons (not counting the 6 result, which theoretically shouldn't have anything that can block it).

**Nevelon**

40k is a sci-fi high fantasy setting. EW is one of the few things that allows the heroes/villeins of the piece set foot on the battlefield and not just be insta-gibbed by some random AV weapon. It’s plot armor, given rules. Giant 3 story monsters aren’t the named characters, so are subject to the “normal” rules of the setting.

As a related aside, the scale of the game is spiraling out of control. Games with things the scale of GCs, titans, etc, probably shouldn’t have man-sized characters roving around on their own, but part of a block of troops. But that’s a rant for another thread.

**vipoid**

Nevelon wrote:
40k is a sci-fi high fantasy setting. EW is one of the few things that allows the heroes/villeins of the piece set foot on the battlefield and not just be insta-gibbed by some random AV weapon.

But, in that case, why is it only on some characters?

Why is it fine for some characters to be insta-bigged by a high-strength weapon, but not others?

**Formosa**

vipoid wrote:
Nevelon wrote:
40k is a sci-fi high fantasy setting. EW is one of the few things that allows the heroes/villeins of the piece set foot on the battlefield and not just be insta-gibbed by some random AV weapon.

But, in that case, why is it only on some characters?

Why is it fine for some characters to be insta-bigged by a high-strength weapon, but not others?

I know what you mean, I have a long standing dislike of the lysander character having ew for no real reason, where as an actual "eternal warriors" like lucius, typhus and Kharn, don't get it.

As someone else said it's plot armour, so good guys get it in spades, bad guys don't get it much.

**buddha**

I agree with the plot armor explanation so perhaps just all named characters should get it?

**MechaEmperor7000**

The problem is Eternal Warrior (or at least the effect, if not the name of the rule) is an artifact from the days when Warhammer was still a skirmish level game. At those times you could reasonably expect a particularly heroic or stubborn model from dying to, say, a rail gun to the face.

Imo it's Gargantuan Creatures, D Weapons, Superheavies and flyers that don't belong in the game. Especially D Weapons, as they literally go off the scale used by the game system (surpasing Strength 10)

**Nevelon**

vipoid wrote:
Nevelon wrote:
40k is a sci-fi high fantasy setting. EW is one of the few things that allows the heroes/villeins of the piece set foot on the battlefield and not just be insta-gibbed by some random AV weapon.

But, in that case, why is it only on some characters?

Why is it fine for some characters to be insta-gibbed by a high-strength weapon, but not others?

GW is nothing but inconsistent in it’s rules. And a lot of times rules are added on apparently my marketing. We don’t want people removing their super-expensive models to one hit, so we give them protection. Other times it’s legacy issues. A character never had it, so they don’t get it now. And in pervious editions, you didn’t need it. These days with all the overpowered stuff on the table, it’s getting hard to do without.

**the_scotsman**

So if you were watching a sci-fi movie, and the hero of the story went up in a fight against a three story giant robot.

You would put money on the giant robot? Because I wouldn't. Especially if the movie had a sequel.

**locarno24**

The problem is that, as noted, there are now ways around it.

Deathblow hits from destroyer weapons should be....exactly what they say on the tin.

The thing that bugs me more is stomp - because one roll of a 6 removes the entire template, with no chance of survival. That really feels like the sort of thing Look Out Sir! should be allowable against.

**Yarium**

You guys are all crazy. Eternal Warrior is a very important buff. Sure it's "plot armour", but it's also a strong asset for a model to have, giving them extra resistance versus some very powerful enemies. There are certain units in the game that critically use Eternal Warrior. The Harlequin Solitaire inverses the game's normal modus operandi; the strong you are, the WEAKER you tend to be against the Solitaire! A Solitaire is way more scared of your squad of Bolters than it is of your dual-shot S10 AP1 monstrosity, because it's T3, with a 3+ Inv, 3 Wounds, but has Eternal Warrior.

**vipoid**

Yarium wrote:
You guys are all crazy. Eternal Warrior is a very important buff. Sure it's "plot armour", but it's also a strong asset for a model to have, giving them extra resistance versus some very powerful enemies. There are certain units in the game that critically use Eternal Warrior. The Harlequin Solitaire inverses the game's normal modus operandi; the strong you are, the WEAKER you tend to be against the Solitaire! A Solitaire is way more scared of your squad of Bolters than it is of your dual-shot S10 AP1 monstrosity, because it's T3, with a 3+ Inv, 3 Wounds, but has Eternal Warrior.

But why? Why is the Solitaire able to shrug off attacks that can take half the wounds off a Wraithknight?

**Yarium**

vipoid wrote:
But why? Why is the Solitaire able to shrug off attacks that can take half the wounds off a Wraithknight?

Because it's constantly described as performing the impossible. Running up kilometre-high walls, being in two places at once, and narrowly avoiding attacks that occur at the speed of light. Every hit on the Solitaire is a glancing hit ;-)

EDIT: Same goes for others with Eternal Warrior. Yeah, it's plot armour. "This guy is extra tough, because reasons..." Abbadon can't actually survive a Particle Whip to the face, but the Chaos Gods smile on him, so *something* happens that keeps him from taking the full brunt of the attack.

EDIT EDIT: Look up "Death And Return of Superman Elijah Wood", and watch the video. Now, with that in context... "Because 40k doesn't exist!" you can make up story-reasons for anything with a little hand-waiving. You can design the system first, then the fluff can come afterwards. It happens in D&D all the time "Well THAT god wouldn't do this!?!" "Well I'm the DM, and I say in my world the god would do that."

**Martel732**

"""Well I'm the DM, and I say in my world the god would do that."
"

I don't play with such DMs for long. "Because the DM says so" was acceptable in high school, but no longer.

**vipoid**

Yarium wrote:
"Because 40k doesn't exist!" you can make up story-reasons for anything with a little hand-waiving. You can design the system first, then the fluff can come afterwards.

You know that makes for an awful system, right?

Yarium wrote:
It happens in D&D all the time "Well THAT god wouldn't do this!?!" "Well I'm the DM, and I say in my world the god would do that."

So, the DM is retconning all existing fluff? Not sure this is a point in your favour.

**Martel732**

Some systems, such as HERO, are designed to act as "skins" for whatever you want to model. However, for most systems, the fluff is important.

**Yarium**

vipoid wrote:
Yarium wrote:
"Because 40k doesn't exist!" you can make up story-reasons for anything with a little hand-waiving. You can design the system first, then the fluff can come afterwards.

You know that makes for an awful system, right?

Yarium wrote:
It happens in D&D all the time "Well THAT god wouldn't do this!?!" "Well I'm the DM, and I say in my world the god would do that."

So, the DM is retconning all existing fluff? Not sure this is a point in your favour.

Doesn't make an awful system at all! If anything, this is what you need to do both as a writer and as a game designer that has a strong story element. If you allow your story to hog-tie your game system, you'll also hog-tie your story. Both need to be able to incorporate the other.

For example, in 40k, a Carnifex is Strength 10. Are you telling me that it's the exact same strength as a Knight? Of course not! But a Knight's unmodified Strength is still 10 because that's the maximum in 40k without going to Strength D. Or a Chapter Master of the Grey Knights fighting off an army of Bloodthirsters. Really? How in the game could that happen? It happened because the story-teller said so. The game then said "well, we still want the game to be fun for people going against Grey Knight Chapter Masters, even when they field a Bloodthirster", so they made the Bloodthirster pretty darn good.

The fluff states that Space Marines can spit acid. Where's the ability in the rules? It's not there because, wow, that'd require a big change in the game. They're also practically immune to poisons, can shrug off fatal blows, and their bolters are rapid-fire rocket launchers that destroy tanks. Two Space Marines can fight off a mob of Orks single-handedly. Where are these rules? They're not there, because that wouldn't be fun.

Same goes for other games. Magic: The Gathering makes cards, works with some fluff, but the card comes first. In D&D shooting fire at a creature or player doesn't usually cause them to catch fire (even if it's ongoing fire!) because that's generally unfun. In most strategy games you don't keep upgrades from mission to mission. Why? Because that's usually unfun. There are always exceptions, but they're exceptions when the game and the fluff reinforce each other. Like in the game Homeworld, where upgrades, ships, and resources do carry over! Of course, the game's also super-frustrating, because a mistake you made 3 missions ago means you're screwed in the current mission.

And for D&D, it's a narrative game. I build worlds using the D&D system. In my current game, Pelor isn't just the God of Light, he's the physical embodiment of Light itself. Kill Pelor, and the world would be thrown out of balance. In my system, Vecna's not a Lich, but the God of Darkness, Secrets, and Undead, and is the physical embodiment of Darkness itself. Why is it like this? Because I said so - but it's consistent within the world I've created. Am I playing D&D wrong? Am I only supposed to use printed stories and published campaigns? Is it impossible for Lolth to be a dude just because the book says it's a woman?

For TV's and movies... cars don't actually explode when they get shot, but most shows, movies, and even games use this trope. Why? Because it's more engaging than reality.

Eternal Warrior is a game tool. That's it. You can use it also as a fluff tool. It's best when the two work in tandem (like with Abbadon), but the two can also work independently when needed.

**vipoid**

Yarium wrote:

Doesn't make an awful system at all! If anything, this is what you need to do both as a writer and as a game designer that has a strong story element.

Sorry but that is utter nonsense.

As a writer, you should be using the materials you have - not just making up new crap whenever it's convenient to do so. That's a hallmark of lazy writing and poor plotting.

Yarium wrote:
If you allow your story to hog-tie your game system, you'll also hog-tie your story.

Whereas making up whatever crap you like as you go along - regardless of whether it destroys existing fluff - always leads to amazing stories.

Yarium wrote:

For example, in 40k, a Carnifex is Strength 10. Are you telling me that it's the exact same strength as a Knight? Of course not! But a Knight's unmodified Strength is still 10 because that's the maximum in 40k without going to Strength D.

Know what would solve this problem? Not having Apocalypse models in standard 40k. Then you wouldn't have the problem of models that are so absurdly strong that they literally go off the end of your strength scale.

Yarium wrote:
Or a Chapter Master of the Grey Knights fighting off an army of Bloodthirsters. Really? How in the game could that happen? It happened because the story-teller said so.

I don't even know what point you're making anymore. Frankly, I'm not even sure you know what point you're trying to make.

**Yarium**

Okay, let me give you the tl;dr summation:

Games shouldn't strictly follow the fluff. Leave that to movies, tv shows, and stories.

Games should follow the Rule of Cool. It's cool that Abbadon can tussel with a Wraithknight and win because he doesn't get insta-gibbed.

Eternal Warrior exists because of the Rule of Cool, regardless of fluff-logic. All other writers, from DM's to Joss Whedon, follow the Rule of Cool. Sometimes plot holes are allowed because something is so cool that you can circumvent the plot. I bet you Steven Spielberg knew that it didn't make sense for the truck to apparently fall down a 50' wall, when the T-Rex was shown to be standing in that same spot a scene earlier. He went with it anyways because the emotion of the scene, the cool-factor, was high enough to warrant the plot hole. At the end of the day, that's what is more important.

**Martel732**

The Rule of Cool gets tedious, however. The Rule of Cool has made things progressively worse and worse in cinema and gaming.

**Harley Quinn**

It's getting a bit heated in here.

In my opinion, all named characters should get EW and ID shouldn't do 3 wounds off Gargantuan creatures.

**vipoid**

Yarium wrote:

Games should follow the Rule of Cool. It's cool that Abbadon can tussel with a Wraithknight and win because he doesn't get insta-gibbed.

But, surely the issue is that players will have different ideas of what constitutes "cool" - especially when they're on opposite sides of the table.

I mean, you think it's cool that Abbadon can tussel with a WK and win, but what about the people who thinks it's cooler (or funnier

) if he tries and loses - with the WK kicking him into orbit or somesuch?

Furthermore, that also brings us to the other aspect in that "coolness" is arbitrarily handed out. e.g. what if I think it would be cool if my DE Archon or Necron Overlord could tussle with a WK without being insta-gibbed? They certainly don't get EW, no matter how cool it would be.

If you want that sort of thing in your games, it seems like it would be better to do it as a 'fate point' system - where each player has a certain number of fate points that they can spend each game to reroll a save or attack, or remove ID from a particular wound. Effectively, let the players decide who gets plot armour - rather than just handing it out to a few specific guys.

**Yarium**

Martel732 wrote:
The Rule of Cool gets tedious, however. The Rule of Cool has made things progressively worse and worse in cinema and gaming.

Valid point. It has to be respected as a tool. Like any tool, it can harm you. I'd say a bad use of the Rule of Cool are there being so many D-weapons. A few are fine... too many and you run into problems. I don't think Eternal Warrior has this problem. Call it personal taste.

**vipoid**

Yarium wrote:

Valid point. It has to be respected as a tool. Like any tool, it can harm you. I'd say a bad use of the Rule of Cool are there being so many D-weapons. A few are fine... too many and you run into problems.

Honestly, I think *any* D-weapons outside of Apocalypse are too many.

If you need a gun that's bigger than S10 AP1... stop trying to compensate.

Yarium wrote:
I don't think Eternal Warrior has this problem. Call it personal taste.

In gameplay terms, it was probably less of an issue when characters couldn't just stand in front of a squad and tank all the incoming fire.

That aside, I dislike the uneven and, in many cases, rather arbitrary distribution of EW.

**Runic**

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Imo it's Gargantuan Creatures, D Weapons, Superheavies and flyers that don't belong in the game. Especially D Weapons, as they literally go off the scale used by the game system (surpasing Strength 10)

Yeah, this. Or there should be a separate game mode where they are included in the actual BRB ( just include apo in it and put them back there. )

Sensible or not, I personally think EW being present is a good thing.

**Martel732**

Harley Quinn wrote:
It's getting a bit heated in here.

In my opinion, all named characters should get EW and ID shouldn't do 3 wounds off Gargantuan creatures.

Yeah, it should do all the wounds.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yarium wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
The Rule of Cool gets tedious, however. The Rule of Cool has made things progressively worse and worse in cinema and gaming.

Valid point. It has to be respected as a tool. Like any tool, it can harm you. I'd say a bad use of the Rule of Cool are there being so many D-weapons. A few are fine... too many and you run into problems. I don't think Eternal Warrior has this problem. Call it personal taste.

There's nothing wrong with EW, since most models that have it now pale in comparison to our GMC overlords.

**HoundsofDemos**

The problem is without EW it almost never makes sense to tool up a character, as anyone can get popped by being doubled out. I think this is a complicated issue because it would involve an overhaul of instant death is well.

**Harley Quinn**

Martel732 wrote:
Harley Quinn wrote:
It's getting a bit heated in here.

In my opinion, all named characters should get EW and ID shouldn't do 3 wounds off Gargantuan creatures.

Yeah, it should do all the wounds.

No, I meant it should do only 1 wound to Gargantuan Creatures. If you're paying high points for a single model, and being such a large war machine, ID shouldn't matter.

**Martel732**

Harley Quinn wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Harley Quinn wrote:
It's getting a bit heated in here.

In my opinion, all named characters should get EW and ID shouldn't do 3 wounds off Gargantuan creatures.

Yeah, it should do all the wounds.

No, I meant it should do only 1 wound to Gargantuan Creatures. If you're paying high points for a single model, and being such a large war machine, ID shouldn't matter.

Except the points aren't that high in many cases. So they should fall to ID at the very least. MCs and GMCs need more drawbacks. They currently have very few.

**HoundsofDemos**

GMC don't need more help at this point. Of the strongest units in the game, many of them are GMC whose only weakness is grav.