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.

So with the tenacious survivor warlord trait do you get to shrug off mortal wounds? Or does it count as a saving throw and thus negated by mortal wounds.

Also if the warlord takes d6 damage from a wound do you roll d6 times to shrug off the wounds or do you roll 1 dice?

 Punisher wrote:
So with the tenacious survivor warlord trait do you get to shrug off mortal wounds? Or does it count as a saving throw and thus negated by mortal wounds.

Also if the warlord takes d6 damage from a wound do you roll d6 times to shrug off the wounds or do you roll 1 dice?

You get it, a mortal wound is still a wound and this WL trait roll comes after the wound has been taken

its per wound, so in your example you'd roll as many dice as wounds you took be that from multiple damage or single shots.

The wording of when you make the roll isn't clear.

Models can be allocated wounds, and are wounded on a failed save. Models that are wounded suffer a number of damage equal to the attacks damage. For each point of damage they suffer they lose one wound.

Tenacious survivor tells us to roll when the model suffers a wound. In 7th that was defined as being when a models wounds go down by 1. It's not defined in 8th what suffering a wound is, suffering damage however is defined


RAI it's. Save versus wounds lost to damage suffered, not a save due to suffering a wound you roll damage for.

'Roll a dice each time the warlord looses a wound'

'A model loses a wound for each point of damage it takes'

seems pretty clear to me?

People also argue this one because the Avatar of Khaine's version specifically works on mortal wounds while others don't.

 Latro_ wrote:
'Roll a dice each time the warlord looses a wound'

'A model loses a wound for each point of damage it takes'

seems pretty clear to me?

Your correct for warlord trait, however some similar rules have different wording such as fortune and power from pain.

So there is some substantial difference between that and the warlord trait? I'm not sure I see it, what's the difference, if you don't mind explaining?

The warlord traits uses "loses a wound" for that matter all similar abilities in the imperium, and chaos books use that wording.

In the xenos books, it uses the wording "each time a model suffers a wound".

In previous editions suffering a wound was the result failing an armor save, not the actual list of the wound. Which resulted in arguments over Feel no pain preventing suffering a wound or not for certain effects that triggered off suffering a wound.

In 8th the term "suffer a wound" is not defined like it was in 7th. The only instead ance of suffer is suffering damage from the result if being wounded. Which then results in the lose of wounds.

The inconsistency in the language between similar rules could simply be from two different editors. Or it may have rules significance.

Compare that to the language for Molten Body on the Avatar of Khaine:

"Roll a D6 whenever the Avatar of Khaine suffers a wound or mortal wound. On a 5+, that wound is ignored".

So Power from Pain wants you to "ignore the injury" AND "the wound is not lost" while Avatar just wants you to "ignore the wound". Is ignoring different than losing? Who can say?

Its' nice little discrepancies like these that give us something to talk about as a rules family.

Ignoring may be different from losing in that there may be some effects that trigger off losing a wound; those things would be triggered if it says "the wound is not lost" where it wouldn't with only "ignore the injury".

Or, it could just be GW being sloppy.

Audustum wrote:
Compare that to the language for Molten Body on the Avatar of Khaine:

"Roll a D6 whenever the Avatar of Khaine suffers a wound or mortal wound. On a 5+, that wound is ignored".

So Power from Pain wants you to "ignore the injury" AND "the wound is not lost" while Avatar just wants you to "ignore the wound". Is ignoring different than losing? Who can say?

Its' nice little discrepancies like these that give us something to talk about as a rules family.

Is there a good discussion about this anywhere ?

The FNP equivalents all mention 'Wounds' apart from the Avatar who mentions 'Wounds' and 'Mortal Wounds'. Does the FNP-like ability have to specify Mortal Wounds ?

If only GW was an American speaking company...

Should be:
Hit roll (BS/WS)
Damage Roll (S v T)
Armor Save (Av)
Wounds taken. (a Negative W modifier)

The whole thing of having a D characteristic causing a W modifier and having a resolution stage called Wounding that is based on S v T is simply confounding.

Bartali wrote:
Is there a good discussion about this anywhere ?

The FNP equivalents all mention 'Wounds' apart from the Avatar who mentions 'Wounds' and 'Mortal Wounds'. Does the FNP-like ability have to specify Mortal Wounds ?

There's actually quite a few 'FNP' equivalent abilities that mention 'wound or mortal wound'.

The fact that some do specify wound AND mortal wound sure makes the intent case that the other abilities that don't mention mortal wounds shouldn't get to use them against mortal wounds.

But on the other hand, a mortal wound is still also a 'wound' and therefore RAW all those powers do work against any wound (mortal or otherwise).

In short, GW desperately needs to FAQ this, but for the time being, I'm playing RAW that any of those abilities do work against any wound (mortal or otherwise).

I have different question. When you have tenacious survivor and stuff like power from pain, what happens when you take a wound, mortal or otherwise? They are completely separate effects, they aren't saves either. Do both trigger and you get two chances to save each wound lost? Seems counter intuitive to RAI but as far as I can tell that would be how RAW works.

There was something in Fortune that said units with abilities like the Avatar does not stack with Fortune.

But that is a clearly defined separation. Not sure how the others like FNP would work

Also catalyst the tyranids psychic power mentions wound or mortal wound. I would saw unless it says both then no you do not get the save. I've found the more I take this edition as RAW the more it makes sense to me.

 lobbywatson wrote:
Also catalyst the tyranids psychic power mentions wound or mortal wound. I would saw unless it says both then no you do not get the save. I've found the more I take this edition as RAW the more it makes sense to me.

Yes, but just because some of these abilities specifically mention 'mortal wound' does not change the basic fact that RAW a mortal wound is still a 'wound' and therefore if an ability says you get an attempt to ignore a 'wound' then it means you get to use that ability against a mortal wound as well.

Similarly, the fact that some of these 'ignore wound' abilities say that they can't be used in unison together in no way changes the basic fact that RAW for those abilities which don't have such restrictions, you should be able to utilize them all against a single wound.

In both cases, GW should really needs to declare their intentions via FAQ so everyone is on the same page.

 Roknar wrote:
I have different question. When you have tenacious survivor and stuff like power from pain, what happens when you take a wound, mortal or otherwise? They are completely separate effects, they aren't saves either. Do both trigger and you get two chances to save each wound lost? Seems counter intuitive to RAI but as far as I can tell that would be how RAW works.

I was wondering the same thing: if an Avatar is the warlord can you choose Tenacious Survivor and get two chances to ignore every wound suffered? Does a Warlord Eldrad Ulthuan within 6" of the Yncarne get three different saves against a mortal wound?

 Oaka wrote:
I was wondering the same thing: if an Avatar is the warlord can you choose Tenacious Survivor and get two chances to ignore every wound suffered? Does a Warlord Eldrad Ulthuan within 6" of the Yncarne get three different saves against a mortal wound?

Those abilities aren't saves, so yes, if they don't specify that they can't be used in conjunction with another ability, you can use them all against the same wound until GW FAQs it otherwise.

I'm curious how people will play that. It seems against RAI to be stacking "saves" in that manner, but it crops up often enough that it's equally surprising they wouldn't have considered this.

Yeah I'd feel a bit gamey giving Tenacious Survivor to a warlord that already has one of those rules until it's clarified or general consensus. Using the Avatar, again, as an example, that would be a T6 model with a 3+/5++ save and an additional 5+ and additional 6+ ignore wounds rule.