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'm renowned for loving Special Characters. I pretty much don't field an army without one unless forced to do so.

That being said, I almost NEVER field someone with EW. It's a comparatively rare rule in the armies I play, and I don't tend to run any of the characters that have it.

While there are a couple I would love to see it on. (Salamanders supplement--let Vulkan find another one of the great artifacts, and have it be a Chariot he can take as an option, and have THAT give him Eternal Warrior.) Urien Rakarth, f'rex. Some it wouldn't make any kind of sense. Like Baron Sathonyx or Telion.

I'm fine with ID and EW as is. I find that it's mainly newer players that get overly attached to their named characters that morn ID on their characters (I did the same when I first had to deal with the ID rules). After a couple dozens games and a year or two of playing, it's seems like most players are fine with these particular rules as written.

Eternal Warrior: Shoot me with a Volcano Cannon! I'll just take d3+1 wounds, which I can invul save! But that's okay, it's not like Volcano Cannons weren't designed to destroy Titans, vaporize entire city blocks, or anything...

Don't forget that ID doesn't necessarily mean the character or unit in question is outright slain -

- after all, Huron Blackheart was 'ID'd' by a meltagun, and now he's a bionic superman with a flamethrowing pimphand.

Eternal Warrior, IMHO, was meant to represent those rare few people who absolutely WILL NOT STAY DOWN.

Think about the number of names in any given codex. 4E orks (the one about to be invalidated)

they have 4 named HQs, and 3 named unit leaders

Ghazzy, Grotsnik, Zogwart, Wazzdakka.

Snikrot, Zagstrukk, Badruk.

Of these, only 1 has EW, and only 2 others could possibly have it and fit with who they are.

Ghazzy gets EW from his metal head, and it can be argued the Grotsnik or Wazzdakka deserves it.

all the other names just don't fit with it. Even Zaggy, who survived having Both legs removed by a dreadnought.

from a purely game play perspective, giving every name EW means that you are likely to see a lot of armies that cram as many names in as possible, to maximize the bodies immune to instant death.

it is my personal opinion that Eternal Warrior should be given to no more than 2 characters in any given Codex.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget that ID doesn't necessarily mean the character or unit in question is outright slain -

- after all, Huron Blackheart was 'ID'd' by a meltagun, and now he's a bionic superman with a flamethrowing pimphand.

'Tis but a flesh wound!

Space Marines have, I think, two.
Chaos Marines have one.
Dark Eldar have one.
IG have, I think, two?
Do Eldar have any at all?
Grey Knights have one.
Blood Angels have one.

It's a pretty rare ability. Personally, I think that makes it have more impact.

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:
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?

It also makes sense that the same vindicator cannon could one-shot a Carnifex or a Hive Tyrant. It's largely a balance issue, where a unit is able to take out model or unit twice or even three times it's point cost.

As for if it would make multi-wound units OP, well, that depends on the model. Ogryns can only be ID by str 10 stuff, and weapons with ID (Force weapons and that stuff), and that is also a unit largely untaken. Non-biker Nobs and Nid Warriors were already mentioned, and these are still killable vs anti infantry weapons and autocannons. Even then, I would have no problem if these units take a slight point increase if they do end up powerful, it's just that Anti-tank weapons should not be the "I'm effective against everything that isn't an ork boy" weapon of choice

The only exception would be paladins, and you know what? That's a unit that should not have existed in the first place.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Space Marines have, I think, two.
Chaos Marines have one.
Dark Eldar have one.
IG have, I think, two?
Do Eldar have any at all?
Grey Knights have one.
Blood Angels have one.

It's a pretty rare ability. Personally, I think that makes it have more impact.

Space Marines have 2 though you can give The Shield Eternal to a HQ of your choice to give them a 3++ save and Eternal Warrior
Eldar have 6 which are all the Phoenix Lords which I think were the first models to ever have Eternal Warrior.
Tau, Tyranids and Necrons don't have any.
Chaos Daemons only have one which is the SkullTaker.

You know, I'm going to throw in a Game of Thrones reference here, just because it's so fitting.

The world doesn't care if you're a king, if you're going to overthrow the king, if you're a peasant, or if you just showed up to the scene. Vala morghulis. All men must die. The Romans had a similar quote they whispered in the ears of victorious generals during their parades of triumph. Memento mori. Remember your mortality.

You still die. Regardless of who you are.

Yeah, if you're a guy on foot, AT weapon should kill you dead.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Yeah, if you're a guy on foot, AT weapon should kill you dead.

Why would someone fire an anti-tank weapon at infantry?

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Yeah, if you're a guy on foot, AT weapon should kill you dead.

Why would someone fire an anti-tank weapon at infantry?

To kill them?

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Yeah, if you're a guy on foot, AT weapon should kill you dead.

Why would someone fire an anti-tank weapon at infantry?

The reputation that Terminator armor has? Yeah, not taking chances, besides, if there's no vehicles and plenty of ammo left, not going to waste it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Yeah, if you're a guy on foot, AT weapon should kill you dead.

Why would someone fire an anti-tank weapon at infantry?

To kill them?

But then why use anti-tank to do that when there are anti-infantry weapons?

See, if we're going to play the 'realism' card, you can say that a krak missile or a melta gun should kill any infantry out right (and I won't disagree with you, in realism anyway) but the idea of using a krak missile or a melta gun on a Nob or Nid Warrior is itself an idea based on game mechanics, because that's what the numbers tells us is the most effective, rather than what the weapon's use is.

Edit: @Bobthehero: Right, sure, that makes sense, but that's about using a weapon with low AP against a model with a low armor save. I have no problem with that (and in this particular case, most AT weapons don't work on terminators anyway) but not why IG shmoe would fire his melta gun at that slightly bigger ork (nob) and not, i don't know, the hulking tank it just jumped out off

People are still forgetting that EW got hit by a massive nerfhammer, and is next to nothing nowadays. Drop to 1 wound instead of dying outright? That's just nasty.

Besides; Ghazzy's laughing at this nerf in his mob of boyz (not EW, just immune to ID). He seems to be the meanest AND toughest guy around now when the EW rule is a joke.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Yeah, if you're a guy on foot, AT weapon should kill you dead.

Why would someone fire an anti-tank weapon at infantry?

To kill them?

But then why use anti-tank to do that when there are anti-infantry weapons?

See, if we're going to play the 'realism' card, you can say that a krak missile or a melta gun should kill any infantry out right (and I won't disagree with you, in realism anyway) but the idea of using a krak missile or a melta gun on a Nob or Nid Warrior is itself an idea based on game mechanics, because that's what the numbers tells us is the most effective, rather than what the weapon's use is.

Wait, so if you're armed with a meltagun or a missile launcher and a four meter tall alien monstrosity is bearing down on you, you'd throw rocks at it? Or fumble for your pistol?

Nid warriors are twice the height of a man - I'd fire an RPG-7 at it (if I had one) before I tried to draw my pistol. Nobs, much the same.

 Tigramans wrote:
People are still forgetting that EW got hit by a massive nerfhammer, and is next to nothing nowadays. Drop to 1 wound instead of dying outright? That's just nasty.

Besides; Ghazzy's laughing at this nerf in his mob of boyz (not EW, just immune to ID). He seems to be the meanest AND toughest guy around now when the EW rule is a joke.

Wait a second, the rule states that the model just loses a single wound instead of being slain outright how was it nerfed?

There's a point where a game mechanic has to cross from the fluff to an abstract. If the game was like it's skirmish roots and the other skirmish games of today, you would have your Warlord HQ be a much bigger role in your army (versus just the Psychers and Beatsticks being any form of real HQ these days) and their loss would mean either the end of the game or a great deficit to your side. Warmahordes is game over. Infinity is the shock to your pool of resources to almost nothing. Malifaux is losing usually the key to your crews strategy. So on, so forth.

Warhammer 40k, however, has gotten so bloated with a battle style type of game that you field more and more powerful guns to handle the bigger and bigger tanks. The volume of anti-tank fire, along with the scale of the game, means that really any special or unique type of "general" is all but pointless.

However, the fluff of Warhammer 40k is almost always about the named guy. It's not about battles or happenings, but usually some snowflake character being cunning, brutal, ruthless, bold, daring, etc. This is then to be transferred to the table top by them encouraging "Forging a Narrative" by squads being lead by their Captain or their Chaplain.

Only to eat a lascannon at the start of the game, failing their "look out, sir" and being vaporized. Instead of the Lascannon going for the tank, it goes for the general. More so, the game has prioritized this for you with "Slay the Warlord". Now you park him in the back or in a tank and it's oh, so cinematic to have your hero lead from the rear. Unless he has T6 or Eternal Warrior.
It doesn't fit the fluff and it makes people see the HQ as a deficit/tax or something they should dial up to 11 to make it work for them (Buffcommanders, Stallion Masters, Draigo, etc.).

Realistically, it's a failing of the games terribly convoluted scale and the instant death mechanic. On one hand, you can fix it by handing out EW like candy again. On the other, you can fix the instant death mechanic which then does better for the overall game. Anything causing "instant death" that wounds a model should do d3 wounds, like Fantasy. They seem to bring over the worst parts of Fantasy (ex. MagicPsychic Phase) instead of bringing over concepts that work, like multi-wound causing elements.

If you then want to really crank up the resiliency of you big names, like Failbaddon, Draigo, Lysander, Yarrick, you make it so Eternal Warrior say "Nay, sir, multi-wound causing wounds only deal me one wound!"

Suddenly you can have the mechanic feel more cinematic of the general being a general. One Thunderfire Cannon shot doesn't squish your PCS because you didn't want to run him in a tank. It gives the characters a "plot armor" but still giving enough leeway in the game mechanics to make you still want to invest in them.

TL;DR: Instant Death is a terrible mechanic that has made many characters and unit types non-starters and Eternal Warrior is a symptom not a panacea. Fix instant death, make eternal warrior a special bonus to increase resiliency, and move on.

I like the idea that the greatest warriors that ever lived can be chumped by some raw recruit that just happened to get lucky with a bigger gun. It adds to the GrimDarkness of the setting in that no matter how powerful you think you are you will die and no one will care.


So, no, I don't want EW for everyone.

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

Wait a second, the rule states that the model just loses a single wound instead of being slain outright how was it nerfed?

7th Edition BRB: a failed save against an ID drops wounds to 1 instead of killing models outright.
If I'm misreading this, please correct me.

 Tigramans wrote:

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

Wait a second, the rule states that the model just loses a single wound instead of being slain outright how was it nerfed?

7th Edition BRB: a failed save against an ID drops wounds to 1 instead of killing models outright.
If I'm misreading this, please correct me.

Here the exact passage for Eternal Warrior: If a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound from an attack that inflicts Instant Death, it only reduces its Wounds by 1, instead of automatically reducing its Wounds to 0. Note it says only reduces its wounds by 1 not that it reduces the target's wound total to 1.

A general change across all characters based on a criteria (independant character) which has no balance bearing, may unbalance the game further. So probably not all. More? Perhaps.

Edited my poor comprehension.

 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.

forge a narrative

Heheheh actually I like eternal warrior on lots of things. Means you get some use out of your guy if you don't go 1st and someone instataps them somehow (Since I never seem to go 1st against certain mates). And no matter how well I think I've hid them, they somehow cheese los.

Anyway I also think it helps mitigate the non T4 characters who are just too easily ID'd.

Hell I play chaos so doesn't really matter to me too much. But for armies like DEldar and such, it matters more. Would prefer their bosses to stick around rather than getting vaped by a stray round. Even if it's not logical.

It's frustrating as some things get it that shouldn't have it (wolf lords) and others don't that probably should (vulkan - the mantle should give it, Typhus should deffo have it...)

 Archon_Zarbyrn wrote:

Here the exact passage for Eternal Warrior: If a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound from an attack that inflicts Instant Death, it only reduces its Wounds by 1, instead of automatically reducing its Wounds to 0. Note it says only reduces its wounds by 1 not that it reduces the target's wound total to 1.

I stand corrected. Thanks mate.

You know what, you can have all ICS getting EW, if Nids can have 4th ed Synapse back.

No more stupid IB tables, and everyone in Synapse range gets EW.

It shouldn't be given to everyone, but for god's sake Dante should have it. He's the oldest living Space Marine, he didn't get to be that without being damn tough!

In all seriousness, though, I think giving it as a blanket rule to Special Characters is a bad idea. It punishes people making their own armies as much as anything else. Why does the Captain of the Imperial Fist first company get EW, when your similarly armed First Captain of your own chapter, maybe with a similar reputation, doesn't? To be honest, I think it should be buyable as an upgrade to represent such characters, through things like Saga of the Bear or The Shield Eternal. Then again, in an ideal world most USRs would be costed so you could create characters that are every bit as useful as their named counterparts without using Counts As.

For Eldar, the Avatar doesn't have EW, and fluffwise, m most ID weaponry would dispatch him that way. Not an IC, but a good example of where ID is fitting.

Phoenix Lords, on the other hand, would have their armor survive a direct Melta hit, or any other ID, while the body inside would fry. I imagine the PL would remain active until at least the end of battle, before needing a replacement wearer. The PL is the armor - the wearer is fulliy consumed. Fluffwise, I feel this is the perfect example of EW, unlike the Avatar.

A lot of the EW/no EW decisions make sense. After all, a Farseer shouldn't survive a krak grenade without an jnvuln/cover.