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.

This particular rule has just never sat well with me, as it just strikes me as there being something mean-spirited and unfun in not allowing an opponent to even attempt to be able to save a unit under certain circumstances. I don't see it as adding anything meaningful to the game, and it only serves to slap players in the face and generate bad feelings. It's one thing to have a unit whittled down to zero wounds with shooting or combat by failing saves, it's another to see your unit obliterated in a second without being able to do anything whatsoever. It's just a feel-bad rule overall. Anyone else agree?

Personally, as a replacement, I would have, in any circumstances where ID would occur, instead, after all wounds against a target have been resolved, they receive an additional mortal wound that can only be stopped with an invuln save.

You get armour saves against Instant Death, unless the attack's AP is high enough to bypass the save, and you always get your invulnerable save if you have one. The only saves that Instant Death bypasses are FNP.

Some weapons being that strong is a good thing. It makes you think about who to charge, is the combat worth it, etc???

I don't mind it. Makes sense that a Praetor whose Iron Halo fails should get downed by an anti-tank rocket or high-powered laser thing.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
This particular rule has just never sat well with me, as it just strikes me as there being something mean-spirited and unfun in not allowing an opponent to even attempt to be able to save a unit under certain circumstances. I don't see it as adding anything meaningful to the game, and it only serves to slap players in the face and generate bad feelings. It's one thing to have a unit whittled down to zero wounds with shooting or combat by failing saves, it's another to see your unit obliterated in a second without being able to do anything whatsoever. It's just a feel-bad rule overall. Anyone else agree?

Personally, as a replacement, I would have, in any circumstances where ID would occur, instead, after all wounds against a target have been resolved, they receive an additional mortal wound that can only be stopped with an invuln save.

The instant you get hit by a big tank weapon, you are gone. Literally gone. You won´t find an arm or leg. Just a greasy paste in the environment. Instant Death represents this beautifully and has been a thing since 3rd.

I like the rule, I like the flavour of the rule, I wish GW wouldn't then decide to pull their usual trick and make a rule to ignore it, a rule to tone it down etc.

keep it simple, some stuff you just get squished by, and any issues go back to earlier versions and bring in the idea that some weapons do multiple hits - but also like earlier editions don't go bananas with it

Just checking, but you are still taking your saves against instant death? It only ignores your armour save it if has sufficient AP, and you still get invulnerable and cover against it.

Like others have said, its a great mechanic that represents smaller things getting obliterated by big weapons, as they rightly should. I'm all for it and think it's a great rule.

IMHO there were two issues with ID.

The first one one was Force Weapons and any other weapon that had it. ID was mostly fine when it was inflicted by Strenght doubling Toughness, but it was a very feel bad rule when my giant monster got ID by someone poking it with a Force Weapon.

The second issue was how it synergized with large blasts templates. A direct hit from a tank gun disintegrating its target made sense, but disintegrating the rest of the unit while at it was insane.

And I guess a third one was GW recognizing the issue, making a rule against it (Eternal Warrior) but using it inconsistently so pretty much every important Marine character had it but it was very rare outside of it.

I think ID as a "Thing" is fine.

It helps represent those attacks that are so over-powered that you have no chance of surviving (i.e - siege shells, point-blank melta shot, etc), and those esoteric weapons like (as mentioned) force weapons, disintegration weapons, etc that are just too obscene to not automatically kill you.

Weapons with the ID rule (and to a lesser extent the Murderous Strike rule) are rare enough that I don't think they're a problem by themselves given that they are almost wholly limited to characters.
Weapons who's strength is double a units toughness? Well that's just luck of the draw. You have as much chance of having them as your opponent does.

 Tyran wrote:


The first one one was Force Weapons and any other weapon that had it. ID was mostly fine when it was inflicted by Strenght doubling Toughness, but it was a very feel bad rule when my giant monster got ID by someone poking it with a Force Weapon.

Force Weapons were fine considering you could fail the LD test and/or instagib yourself. Especially in the days when you could only cast a single psychic power in a turn so you had to choose between your power or your Force Weapon ability that turn.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Force Weapons were fine considering you could fail the LD test and/or instagib yourself. Especially in the days when you could only cast a single psychic power in a turn so you had to choose between your power or your Force Weapon ability that turn.

A weapon tripling, quadrupling or even sextupling their damage output by ID a monster is insane no matter how you look at it.

I mean, kinda the reason why in HH Instant Death only does D3 wounds to Dreadnoughts.

Personally I'm pretty fine with it, outside of double toughness it's pretty rare. Like, meltabombs have it, a handful of weapons have murderous strike but usually on sixes. They may pop the occasional character in a duel, but those targets will often have invuls so the chances of that lucky strike is not high. But also well represents a duelist jamming a sword into the eye of their opponant.

It also does help encourage having some cheap infantry hanging around. You could take pride of the legion and have nothing but 2 wound models, sure you'll swallow a lot more bolter shots but missile launchers will hurt all the more.

And instant death are one of the better tools for dealing with dreads, but not a sure thing either, do monstrous creatures (Those without automatic deflectors at least) suffer instant death?

Honestly I like instant death. It’s much better for the setting when anyone can die. Sure your warlord has been a veteran of hundreds of battles and a skilled warrior, but you’re no effort would overcome an anti tank system. It also discourages hero hammer up to the point that everyone (marines) is super special and receives ignores instant death.

As for the monster side, I can believe anyone has sympathy for monstrous creatures. They were just vehicles but better save for a handful of edge cases. Plus I think the idea of the force sword is your murdering the mind/soul anyways. All that armor or chitin won’t help when your hit with the mind crush.

also grey knights are fluffed as being partiuclarly good at killing deamons in part BECAUSE of force swords. it's 40k not HH sure but the fact that force weapons are insanely effective vs deamons I see as a "good thing that fits the fluff"

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
This particular rule has just never sat well with me, as it just strikes me as there being something mean-spirited and unfun in not allowing an opponent to even attempt to be able to save a unit under certain circumstances. I don't see it as adding anything meaningful to the game, and it only serves to slap players in the face and generate bad feelings. It's one thing to have a unit whittled down to zero wounds with shooting or combat by failing saves, it's another to see your unit obliterated in a second without being able to do anything whatsoever. It's just a feel-bad rule overall. Anyone else agree?

Personally, as a replacement, I would have, in any circumstances where ID would occur, instead, after all wounds against a target have been resolved, they receive an additional mortal wound that can only be stopped with an invuln save.

Well unless you introduce damage value to weapons ID pretty much has to be there least characters/monsters are unreasonably tough. Random marine tanking multiple lascannon/multi melta hits just isn't something that should happen past saves.

No i actually LOVE it. because it makes sense from an immersive standpoint if i shoot you with an anti-tank weapon i don't care how tough you are as a human sized target, even a space marine isn't going to be anything more than smoking boots. characters with eternal warrior have something that makes them even more durable like Manus Calgars extensive bionics.

Just like 5th ed

 FeindusMaximus wrote:
Just like 5th ed

Which is why our group still plays 5th. did 2 games last weekend