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 think mortal wounds are just too powerful as is. Fixed safes should apply to them. That's one of my major issues with the 8e rules.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I think mortal wounds are just too powerful as is. Fixed safes should apply to them. That's one of my major issues with the 8e rules.

Do you mean that models should be able to take armor/invulnerable saves against mortal wounds? I feel that there are situations where that should and should not be true. An exploding vehicle should probably inflict wounds with an AP value of 0 or -1. It makes sense that a terminator could shrug off shrapnel and kinetic force from the explosion better than, say, a guardsman.

On the other hand, some mortal wounds represent psychic attacks, bizarre weaponry, or mundane damage of such a spectacular scale that armor and invulnerable saves don't really apply to them. A wych probably shouldn't be able to dodge someone's attempts at melting her brain. Even terminator armor probably shouldn't hold up against an orbital bombardment.

Some rules, such as mandiblasters, hawk grenade packs, or the various rules that inflict mortal wounds when you roll a 6 on your invuln save represent mechanics that could be represented without mortal wounds, but mortal wounds basically streamline those mechanics. The hawk grenades could be resolved as a special shooting profile that requires a to-hit, to-wound, and save roll, but instead you just do a single roll. Same with my cursed blade succubus's warlord trait when she's doing an Assassin's Creed style counter attack.

From a mechanical perspective, some mortal wound weapons are meant to be good at countering armor or invuln saves. That's the design space they fill. However, there are times where using mortal wounds as a shorthand for what could potentially be a length series of rolls is sometimes disingenous to units like terminators that pay for expensive saves. Did you play in 6th or 7th? Mortal wounds are sometimes a way of shorthanding the various effects that used to boil down to a lot of rolling for minimum effect.

Ive only a problem with spammed mortal wounds. That is, psyker heavy armies that can spam mortal wounds out the wazoo. Its cheesy and lazy. And the fact that it can be done after advancing or against a unit in combat or even while in combat is too much. The psychic phase needs to have limitations like shooting does- ie: cant if advanced, cant target unit in combat, cannot use while in combat.

MW with smite are way to easy to deal. It should be harder to do so, not on a 5, should be 6 or 7. Im ok with additional MWs on rolls of 6s for weapons.

Well once upon a time we had normal saves and "invulnerable" saves, but apparently invulnerable save proliferation lead to the mortal wound which negated invulnerable saves which were then called fixed saves.

Now we have mortal wound proliferation which lead to a new save, which was once called the "feel no pain" rule that let you ignore a wound after it bad been inflicted.

See how that goes?

I dunno, maybe go with the fixed saves being lettered, like 3A, 4B, 5C, like that. An attack that did A damage would ignore normal armor but respect an A fixed save. An attack doing B damage would ignore an A save but respect a B save, etc.

It just seems we get a special save, it proliferates, we get an attack that defeats it but we need a new save to defend against it, it proliferates till we get a new attack.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
MW with smite are way to easy to deal. It should be harder to do so, not on a 5, should be 6 or 7. Im ok with additional MWs on rolls of 6s for weapons.

I think the new psyker rules make smite harder to do each time it's done.

My reaction to 8e leaks: “hmm mortal wounds seem like a bad mechanic.”

My reaction to the game a couple months in: “hmm mortal wounds seem like a bad mechanic.”

My reaction to the game a year in with a ton of codices and game/tournament experience on my part: “hmm mortal wounds seem like a bad mechanic.”

Anyone want to guess what my current take on mortal wounds is?

 Techpriestsupport wrote:


I think the new psyker rules make smite harder to do each time it's done.

It is, but it should be 6 or 7 to start with, not 5. Tsons are exempt from this.

mortal wounds are necessary because nigh invulnerable rerollable 2+ save models were broken. As long as Invul saves are capable of being better than 5+ MW will keep being necessary.

 Lance845 wrote:
mortal wounds are necessary because nigh invulnerable rerollable 2+ save models were broken. As long as Invul saves are capable of being better than 5+ MW will keep being necessary.

Their is a difference between them.being a counter to something that shouldn't exsist that (2++ rerollable was obviously broken).
But the prevalence of mortal wound sources in 8th is excessive and in no way balanced across factions either.
Not to mention that a number of the things doing mortal wounds, really shouldn't.

Especially when we have this new AP system, allowing some of the powers from 6th/7th have an actual use as you're no longer looking for straight AP2.

I think the prevalence of MW needs to be compared to an armies general ability to have AP and at what levels. The less high AP an army has access to the more sources of MW they should have access to.

There may be too much MW going around right now, but they are in no way a blanket bad mechanic and they absolutely should be around.

If you are going to create a mechanic that gives people a save that cannot be negated or even reduced by any means then there needs to be a mechanic that completely counters that.

The WORST thing that happens in these games is tossing dice after dice and have no effect on the table. (remember those 2++ rerollables from 7th and how it felt to accomplish nothing)
A stagnant table is a game going nowhere. The fact that 8th is way more deadly is a good thing.

The new AP system makes MW's obsolete to some extent; but things like 3++ save Knights (grr) make it... necessary. Honestly, only a select few models should have a 3++ (SS Marines, maybe a couple characters in certain situations).

Making explosions AP -2 would make sense, or psychic powers AP -2 or -3, then capping invuns at 4++ (except for certain situations) would help with durability and abuse of powers like smite. Of course, this would then necessitate Invuns being more special, because basically every model in the game has some way to gain one.

4++ isn't even really acceptable. A full 50% chance to completely negate a wound no matter how powerful is dumb. 5++, no special exceptions. Thats the practical limit on invuls if MWs are going to go away. If not, MWs are needed.

 Lance845 wrote:
4++ isn't even really acceptable. A full 50% chance to completely negate a wound no matter how powerful is dumb. 5++, no special exceptions. Thats the practical limit on invuls if MWs are going to go away. If not, MWs are needed.

Why, though? The game is so damn killy as it is with multidamage weapons all over the place. Making everything a blanket 5++ then makes FNP that much more powerful. As well, it makes certain characters where the good save is pivotal to them really expensive for what they do. 4++'s are pretty rare already; Chaos lords and Marine specials, DE Wyches, Genestealers... Not too many more have one. I'm not saying buff everyone to a 4++, what I'm saying is that only a few things should have a 3++; as it stands there are several things that get a 3++ that shouldn't (Knights, Horrors, etc.)

Because a 4++ is a 50% chance to negate. Its a literal coin toss.

Fnps stick to their less than 50% chance.

Think of it like this. In order for ANY change to happen on the table a model has to succeed on not one roll but a series of rolls.

First they have to hit. Yeah, sm get a 3+ to hit but mostly its 4s or worse 5s. Then factor in the -1 to hit auras.

Great. So sm with a -1 only has a 50% chance to get through the FIRST barrier.

Then we have to wound. Infantry shooting infantry should mostly be str 4 vs t 4 but some times is s3 v t4 or s4 v t3. So a range of 2/3rds to 1/3rd chance to make it through THAT barrier with a probable average of another coin toss. In other words if 20 guns shot 5 have wounded so far.

THEN we get the save barrier. Now ap impacts saves which is a great change. But that 3++ or even 4++ means only 2 of 20 shots have managed to do ANYTHING.

Thats a lot of stagnant game.

Wanna know why sm suck and guards are better? The only way to win vs that many barriers to entry is to chuck as many dice at them as possible and let the law of averages carry through. SM dont have the volume of fire to win out. But if the barriers were lower then a lower amount of dice would have a higher chance to actually acomplish something.


The moment ANYTHING gets the most extreme, unreducable, save is the moment they become centerpieces like the 2++ rerollables were. Because being unkillable while also being able to impact the field is invaluable. It all needs to be scaled back and hard lines drawn to prevent the power creep and allow things to have impact and purpose on the table.

So, what about weapons without AP? Should they all be removed, since Terminators exist and have a 2+ against them?

A 50/50 chance of ignoring wounds is not inherently bad. So long as it's costed appropriately, there's no big deal.

No because ap DOES exist. There is no ap against invuls without mws though. So you want less mw? You need less invul.

I run Nurgle Daemons.

Find me AP, please.

 Lance845 wrote:
Because a 4++ is a 50% chance to negate. Its a literal coin toss.

Fnps stick to their less than 50% chance.

Think of it like this. In order for ANY change to happen on the table a model has to succeed on not one roll but a series of rolls.

First they have to hit. Yeah, sm get a 3+ to hit but mostly its 4s or worse 5s. Then factor in the -1 to hit auras.

Great. So sm with a -1 only has a 50% chance to get through the FIRST barrier.

Then we have to wound. Infantry shooting infantry should mostly be str 4 vs t 4 but some times is s3 v t4 or s4 v t3. So a range of 2/3rds to 1/3rd chance to make it through THAT barrier with a probable average of another coin toss. In other words if 20 guns shot 5 have wounded so far.

THEN we get the save barrier. Now ap impacts saves which is a great change. But that 3++ or even 4++ means only 2 of 20 shots have managed to do ANYTHING.

Thats a lot of stagnant game.

Wanna know why sm suck and guards are better? The only way to win vs that many barriers to entry is to chuck as many dice at them as possible and let the law of averages carry through. SM dont have the volume of fire to win out. But if the barriers were lower then a lower amount of dice would have a higher chance to actually acomplish something.


The moment ANYTHING gets the most extreme, unreducable, save is the moment they become centerpieces like the 2++ rerollables were. Because being unkillable while also being able to impact the field is invaluable. It all needs to be scaled back and hard lines drawn to prevent the power creep and allow things to have impact and purpose on the table.

I feel you're maybe being a little disingenous here. Plenty of armies in the game start at BS3+, and several of the ones that don't have plenty of close-combat elements. To-hit penalties are less prevalent in melee. Most of the "common" 4+ or better invuls (as in invuls that aren't on expensive models like captains or storm shield terminators) are on toughness 3 models. I struggle to think of a lot of 4+ invul T4 models that cost less than 20 points. Being T3 means that small arms fire is pretty effective against those platforms, and small arms fire usually isn't relying on AP to do its damage anyway. Sure lascannons and power fists are pretty cost-inefficient against harlequins and wyches, but they die quickly enough to bolters and charging ork boyz.

Invuls are arguably too prevalent on vehicles, and 4+ and 3+ invuls on imperial knights are specifically problematic because of the high-strength and expensive firepower needed to bring them down. But no one is complaining about a 20 point harlequin having the same save against a bolter as a scout marine, are they? I just haven't seen invuls on most things being a problem in 8e. It's a much more lethal game than other recent editions, and there aren't a lot of hyper-durable infantry squads changing that.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I run Nurgle Daemons.

Find me AP, please.

In the form of MW, you have access to 3 psychic powers.

Your psykers.

GUO
Rotigus
Poxbringer

Plague flail ap-3
Hellforged sword ap -2
Balsword ap-3
Rot cannon - 36" Heavy D6, S6 AP-3 D2 and all wound against Infantry are rerolled
Plague hulk 7" range, Pistol D6, S5 AP-2 D1 where all shots auto-hit
Corbax, MWs in CC, 2+on the charge -3 AP gaping maw.


Thats what i found in a quick search.

Great. So that’s a unique model, GUO (that suck, since they can be lascannon sniped) and a three-attack herald. Plus forgeworld stuff.

Troops? No AP.
Fast Attack? No AP.
Elites? No AP.
Heavy Support? No Nurgle specific stuff. And the soul grinder has AP... but sucks.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Because a 4++ is a 50% chance to negate. Its a literal coin toss.

Fnps stick to their less than 50% chance.

Think of it like this. In order for ANY change to happen on the table a model has to succeed on not one roll but a series of rolls.

First they have to hit. Yeah, sm get a 3+ to hit but mostly its 4s or worse 5s. Then factor in the -1 to hit auras.

Great. So sm with a -1 only has a 50% chance to get through the FIRST barrier.

Then we have to wound. Infantry shooting infantry should mostly be str 4 vs t 4 but some times is s3 v t4 or s4 v t3. So a range of 2/3rds to 1/3rd chance to make it through THAT barrier with a probable average of another coin toss. In other words if 20 guns shot 5 have wounded so far.

THEN we get the save barrier. Now ap impacts saves which is a great change. But that 3++ or even 4++ means only 2 of 20 shots have managed to do ANYTHING.

Thats a lot of stagnant game.

Wanna know why sm suck and guards are better? The only way to win vs that many barriers to entry is to chuck as many dice at them as possible and let the law of averages carry through. SM dont have the volume of fire to win out. But if the barriers were lower then a lower amount of dice would have a higher chance to actually acomplish something.


The moment ANYTHING gets the most extreme, unreducable, save is the moment they become centerpieces like the 2++ rerollables were. Because being unkillable while also being able to impact the field is invaluable. It all needs to be scaled back and hard lines drawn to prevent the power creep and allow things to have impact and purpose on the table.

I feel you're maybe being a little disingenous here. Plenty of armies in the game start at BS3+, and several of the ones that don't have plenty of close-combat elements. To-hit penalties are less prevalent in melee. Most of the "common" 4+ or better invuls (as in invuls that aren't on expensive models like captains or storm shield terminators) are on toughness 3 models. I struggle to think of a lot of 4+ invul T4 models that cost less than 20 points. Being T3 means that small arms fire is pretty effective against those platforms, and small arms fire usually isn't relying on AP to do its damage anyway. Sure lascannons and power fists are pretty cost-inefficient against harlequins and wyches, but they die quickly enough to bolters and charging ork boyz.

Invuls are arguably too prevalent on vehicles, and 4+ and 3+ invuls on imperial knights are specifically problematic because of the high-strength and expensive firepower needed to bring them down. But no one is complaining about a 20 point harlequin having the same save against a bolter as a scout marine, are they? I just haven't seen invuls on most things being a problem in 8e. It's a much more lethal game than other recent editions, and there aren't a lot of hyper-durable infantry squads changing that.

Plenty more start at 4+

Tau, Necrons, Tyranids, GSC, IG, and orks famously have their 5+.

Melee has even MORE barriers to get through in the form of charging and overwatch.

I am not trying to make it sound like a bigger issue then it is. I am simply stating the issue as it is. You just can't argue for the reduction or removal of MW when in a lot of cases MWs is how several armies are reliably dealing with the Invuls or high armor that other armies get.

Nids in particular have very few choices with 3 or better AP. In fact it mostly just doesn't exist outside of a COUPLE monstrous weapons and the exocrines bioplasmic canon. On the other hand Sporemines and psychic powers is how we deal with things like knights and stormshields and lychguard. Without those MW generating abilities nids would suffer greatly against those units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Great. So that’s a unique model, GUO (that suck, since they can be lascannon sniped) and a three-attack herald. Plus forgeworld stuff.

Troops? No AP.
Fast Attack? No AP.
Elites? No AP.
Heavy Support? No Nurgle specific stuff. And the soul grinder has AP... but sucks.

Yeah, the entire army also has both a invul save and FNP. And, coupled with faction neutral deamon units, plenty of access to psykers.

You asked where it was. I pointed out what I could find with a cursory search. What of it? You HAVE access to AP. You HAVE access to MW. Use um. Or get the models you can make swarms of and get through with overwhelming numbers like nids do.

You remember Termagants and Hormagaunts right? Know what AP they have access to? What about Gargoyles? Warriors need to pay for their deathspitters and bone swords as do shrikes. Raveners and warriors can pay for rending claws to have a CHANCE for good AP but don't have any by default. It's pretty close to the same boat your in with none of your durability.

 Lance845 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Because a 4++ is a 50% chance to negate. Its a literal coin toss.

Fnps stick to their less than 50% chance.

Think of it like this. In order for ANY change to happen on the table a model has to succeed on not one roll but a series of rolls.

First they have to hit. Yeah, sm get a 3+ to hit but mostly its 4s or worse 5s. Then factor in the -1 to hit auras.

Great. So sm with a -1 only has a 50% chance to get through the FIRST barrier.

Then we have to wound. Infantry shooting infantry should mostly be str 4 vs t 4 but some times is s3 v t4 or s4 v t3. So a range of 2/3rds to 1/3rd chance to make it through THAT barrier with a probable average of another coin toss. In other words if 20 guns shot 5 have wounded so far.

THEN we get the save barrier. Now ap impacts saves which is a great change. But that 3++ or even 4++ means only 2 of 20 shots have managed to do ANYTHING.

Thats a lot of stagnant game.

Wanna know why sm suck and guards are better? The only way to win vs that many barriers to entry is to chuck as many dice at them as possible and let the law of averages carry through. SM dont have the volume of fire to win out. But if the barriers were lower then a lower amount of dice would have a higher chance to actually acomplish something.


The moment ANYTHING gets the most extreme, unreducable, save is the moment they become centerpieces like the 2++ rerollables were. Because being unkillable while also being able to impact the field is invaluable. It all needs to be scaled back and hard lines drawn to prevent the power creep and allow things to have impact and purpose on the table.

I feel you're maybe being a little disingenous here. Plenty of armies in the game start at BS3+, and several of the ones that don't have plenty of close-combat elements. To-hit penalties are less prevalent in melee. Most of the "common" 4+ or better invuls (as in invuls that aren't on expensive models like captains or storm shield terminators) are on toughness 3 models. I struggle to think of a lot of 4+ invul T4 models that cost less than 20 points. Being T3 means that small arms fire is pretty effective against those platforms, and small arms fire usually isn't relying on AP to do its damage anyway. Sure lascannons and power fists are pretty cost-inefficient against harlequins and wyches, but they die quickly enough to bolters and charging ork boyz.

Invuls are arguably too prevalent on vehicles, and 4+ and 3+ invuls on imperial knights are specifically problematic because of the high-strength and expensive firepower needed to bring them down. But no one is complaining about a 20 point harlequin having the same save against a bolter as a scout marine, are they? I just haven't seen invuls on most things being a problem in 8e. It's a much more lethal game than other recent editions, and there aren't a lot of hyper-durable infantry squads changing that.

Plenty more start at 4+

Tau, Necrons, Tyranids, GSC, IG, and orks famously have their 5+.

Melee has even MORE barriers to get through in the form of charging and overwatch.

I am not trying to make it sound like a bigger issue then it is. I am simply stating the issue as it is. You just can't argue for the reduction or removal of MW when in a lot of cases MWs is how several armies are reliably dealing with the Invuls or high armor that other armies get.

Nids in particular have very few choices with 3 or better AP. In fact it mostly just doesn't exist outside of a COUPLE monstrous weapons and the exocrines bioplasmic canon. On the other hand Sporemines and psychic powers is how we deal with things like knights and stormshields and lychguard. Without those MW generating abilities nids would suffer greatly against those units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Great. So that’s a unique model, GUO (that suck, since they can be lascannon sniped) and a three-attack herald. Plus forgeworld stuff.

Troops? No AP.
Fast Attack? No AP.
Elites? No AP.
Heavy Support? No Nurgle specific stuff. And the soul grinder has AP... but sucks.

Yeah, the entire army also has both a invul save and FNP. And, coupled with faction neutral deamon units, plenty of access to psykers.

You asked where it was. I pointed out what I could find with a cursory search. What of it? You HAVE access to AP. You HAVE access to MW. Use um. Or get the models you can make swarms of and get through with overwhelming numbers like nids do.

You remember Termagants and Hormagaunts right? Know what AP they have access to? What about Gargoyles? Warriors need to pay for their deathspitters and bone swords as do shrikes. Raveners and warriors can pay for rending claws to have a CHANCE for good AP but don't have any by default. It's pretty close to the same boat your in with none of your durability.

So your argument is no mortal wounds, and a 5++ invun cap...

Which would make the game even MORE alpha strike, and durability less. How does this make sense?

My point is the way AP works now, you always get a chance at an armor save as long as you have decent armor. Invun saves are too common as it is compared to how they once were (of course, we had cover saves, etc.) Having stuff that bypasses all saves should be a "special" thing reserved for special units; back in the day we had invun saves only on the heartiest of models, and power weapons were common. The new AP system is more forgiving overall, its the multi-damage weaponry that has gotten crazy, and MW's are needed to balance out the stuff with 3++'s that exist that shouldn't.

I'm fine with mortal wounds. I think it's a solid mechanic. The only time I've seen what I would consider as "too many" is stuff like the Harlequin bikers who can throw a TON of mortal wounds on vehicles. Haywire or something? That's a pretty obnoxious use of the mortal wound concept.

@ zid, alpha strikes have nothing to do with mw, invul saves or anything else. The ONLY thing that creates alpha strikes is the turn structure. Dont attribute things to alpha strikes that are not a part of it.

Also no. I think mws are a good mechanic. We dont want to create a situation where you NEED weapons of x strength to have any value in the meta again. MW negate that entirely by offering options that work regardless of target.

My argument is if YOU want MW to become more rare then Invuls need to be capped and toned back too. Because the ONLY counter to invuls is MW. And while a 5++ vs a gun will effect 1 in 3 wounds that get through a 4++ effects every 1 in 2 and thats just too much automatic, unmitigatable, negation.

So which is worse? A model with 12 wounds and a 4+ invulnerable, or one with 24 and only armor?

I've just quit paying for AP weapons for the most part. Bring all the invulns you want. -1 and -2 are plenty. AP died when Drukhari dropped, imo.

12 and a 4++ is worse for the game. How many Lascanons or equivalent would it average take to bring down a 24w model?

Or better, exocrine.

Standing still. 3+ BS 6 (12 since its standing still) str 7 ap-3 d2 shots.

Assuming 3+ save.

8 hits. Good chance for half wounds. 4. ap -3 means 1-2 save. 4-6 damage. but a decent enough chance for the full 8.

That 4+ invul means the ap has lost most of it's meaning. Might as well be a ap 1 guns. 4 is the the flat average damage and getting an actual 8 is incredibly improbable. While there is a fair chance it could just be 2 damage getting through and a improbable chance that 0 gets through.


Again, what makes things actually happen? How many dice need to be thrown to have any impact at all? 12 dice to start to have 3-4ish cause an effect or 12 dice to start to have 2 cause an effect.




When you do that again with Lascanons which have WAY less shots but more AP and higher dmg potential per shot (but also variable dmg potential) you cause more impact more reliably on the armor only 24w model then you do against the Invul save.

"Might as well be a ap 1 guns."

That's why I buy AP -1 guns in the first place.

Of course, this makes IG quite the nightmare.

I don't think the concept is totally wrong, but it does leave some bad tastes. 3mw vs infantry squad is almost a waste, against a dev squad it's outrageous, against a 2+/3++ riptide its warranted.

I think it's part of how primaris design is helpful, but paying for armor or even toughness is still hard to swallow on mw heavy fields.