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, I like the Multiple Wounds USR from fantasy and would like to try it out in 40k. I was wondering how to implement it, though. My first thought was to go by type, and that seems to be the best approach.

Every instance of the Instant Death USR, or any other time it becomes relevant would be changed to Multiple Wounds. The actual number of wounds caused would be based on the type of unit causing it. Eternal Warrior modifies the Instant death rule by d3-1.

So, infantry and all the variants thereof (Jump, bike, etc) get Multiple wounds (d3)

MC/ Walkers get Multiple Wounds (d3+1)

I can't think of anything else that would be different for fluffy reasons. I am hesitant to make MCs an exception to the rule (again) as it were, but it feels right that they be a little stronger. Is there anything wrong with this system? The ID/EW paradigm in 40k is really flat and boring IMO.

The other idea I had was one where the roll to determine the number of wounds caused scaled by S or WS, but I have no idea how to work that out.

 Powerfisting wrote:
So, I like the Multiple Wounds USR from fantasy and would like to try it out in 40k. I was wondering how to implement it, though. My first thought was to go by type, and that seems to be the best approach.

Every instance of the Instant Death USR, or any other time it becomes relevant would be changed to Multiple Wounds. The actual number of wounds caused would be based on the type of unit causing it. Eternal Warrior modifies the Instant death rule by d3-1.

So, infantry and all the variants thereof (Jump, bike, etc) get Multiple wounds (d3)

MC/ Walkers get Multiple Wounds (d3+1)

I can't think of anything else that would be different for fluffy reasons. I am hesitant to make MCs an exception to the rule (again) as it were, but it feels right that they be a little stronger. Is there anything wrong with this system? The ID/EW paradigm in 40k is really flat and boring IMO.

The other idea I had was one where the roll to determine the number of wounds caused scaled by S or WS, but I have no idea how to work that out.

I like the general idea, but I am a little confused as to what the numbers are signifying. Are you saying that MC/Walkers would take more wounds from a multiple wounds weapon than an Eternal Warrior or basic infantry model? That doesn't seem apropos.

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:
So, I like the Multiple Wounds USR from fantasy and would like to try it out in 40k. I was wondering how to implement it, though. My first thought was to go by type, and that seems to be the best approach.

Every instance of the Instant Death USR, or any other time it becomes relevant would be changed to Multiple Wounds. The actual number of wounds caused would be based on the type of unit causing it. Eternal Warrior modifies the Instant death rule by d3-1.

So, infantry and all the variants thereof (Jump, bike, etc) get Multiple wounds (d3)

MC/ Walkers get Multiple Wounds (d3+1)

I can't think of anything else that would be different for fluffy reasons. I am hesitant to make MCs an exception to the rule (again) as it were, but it feels right that they be a little stronger. Is there anything wrong with this system? The ID/EW paradigm in 40k is really flat and boring IMO.

The other idea I had was one where the roll to determine the number of wounds caused scaled by S or WS, but I have no idea how to work that out.

I like the general idea, but I am a little confused as to what the numbers are signifying. Are you saying that MC/Walkers would take more wounds from a multiple wounds weapon than an Eternal Warrior or basic infantry model? That doesn't seem apropos.

No, I guess not. It was an idea I had, but doing that would ruin the point of incorporating Multiple Wounds into 40k. I think I will nix that part.

Oh, the way I read that was: MC's infixt d3+1 if they cause instant death, infantry inflict d3, and if you are an eternal warrior you cancels out d3-1 wounds when something tries to instakill you.

siege2142 wrote:
Oh, the way I read that was: MC's infixt d3+1 if they cause instant death, infantry inflict d3, and if you are an eternal warrior you cancels out d3-1 wounds when something tries to instakill you.

No, you are right. The way I had imagined it was to make MCs a little tougher by giving them one more wound, so infantry causing Multiple Wounds would cause d3 wounds, but an MC would cause d3+1. Then, if you have Eternal Warrior, you roll d3-1 and cancel out that many wounds. After mulling it over for a day, it seems silly and I probably won't bother with that part about MCs causing an extra wound.

So, say I have a S6 weapon like a power maul or something and I whack your T3 guard commander with it. Now unsaved/ unsalable wounds now cause d3 wounds to be taken, as an example.

ID is a somewhat ballancing mechanics to vehicle damage table. And even so, MC and multi-wound characters are currently much more durable than vehicles.

 Powerfisting wrote:

siege2142 wrote:
Oh, the way I read that was: MC's infixt d3+1 if they cause instant death, infantry inflict d3, and if you are an eternal warrior you cancels out d3-1 wounds when something tries to instakill you.

No, you are right. The way I had imagined it was to make MCs a little tougher by giving them one more wound, so infantry causing Multiple Wounds would cause d3 wounds, but an MC would cause d3+1. Then, if you have Eternal Warrior, you roll d3-1 and cancel out that many wounds. After mulling it over for a day, it seems silly and I probably won't bother with that part about MCs causing an extra wound.

So, say I have a S6 weapon like a power maul or something and I whack your T3 guard commander with it. Now unsaved/ unsalable wounds now cause d3 wounds to be taken, as an example.

I don't necessarily thing it is a bad idea to have Eternal Warriors take fewer wounds in a system that converts ID to multiple wounds, but wouldn't it be simpler just to say that Eternal Warrior means you don't take multiple wounds, or applies a penalty to the roll to determine how many wounds you take, instead of adding a second roll?

AnFéasógMór wrote:

 Powerfisting wrote:

siege2142 wrote:
Oh, the way I read that was: MC's infixt d3+1 if they cause instant death, infantry inflict d3, and if you are an eternal warrior you cancels out d3-1 wounds when something tries to instakill you.

No, you are right. The way I had imagined it was to make MCs a little tougher by giving them one more wound, so infantry causing Multiple Wounds would cause d3 wounds, but an MC would cause d3+1. Then, if you have Eternal Warrior, you roll d3-1 and cancel out that many wounds. After mulling it over for a day, it seems silly and I probably won't bother with that part about MCs causing an extra wound.

So, say I have a S6 weapon like a power maul or something and I whack your T3 guard commander with it. Now unsaved/ unsalable wounds now cause d3 wounds to be taken, as an example.

I don't necessarily thing it is a bad idea to have Eternal Warriors take fewer wounds in a system that converts ID to multiple wounds, but wouldn't it be simpler just to say that Eternal Warrior means you don't take multiple wounds, or applies a penalty to the roll to determine how many wounds you take, instead of adding a second roll?

I played a game with a friend using my system, and I agree with you. We made a point to take EW characters, lots of powerfists etc and that extra die roll made it really confusing and surprisingly time consuming.

I might get to play a game with the same person today, so I will try this:

"Replace the Instant Death USR and all instances where is becomes relevant with Multiple Wounds (d3). If a model has the Eternal Warrior USR, modify the d3 result my -1."

Might want to add ''To a minimum of 1'' or else ID wounds might not even hurt EW characters.

Oh hell yes I want to remove instant death!!!!!!! Especially on multi-wound units!!!!!!!!!!

Because Marines should be Grav, maybe vets, or GTFO?

ID seems rather important. I could see making it +d3 or +d6 wounds, but just removing it would go too far...

I wouldn't be opposed to making ID = 3 wounds (the game doesn't need more d3s and rolling). But force still needs to do something substantial.

How about we get rid of ID and EW.
And instead for every 2 pips rolled higher than the score required to wound, the weapon causes an extra wound.

EG
If you need 4+ to hit and you roll 6, you cause 2 wounds.
If you need 2+ to wound, and you roll 6, you cause 3 wounds.

So the chance of causing more wounds is directly proportional to the strength vs toughness of the target.

Just a thought...

Lanrak wrote:
How about we get rid of ID and EW.
And instead for every 2 pips rolled higher than the score required to wound, the weapon causes an extra wound.

EG
If you need 4+ to hit and you roll 6, you cause 2 wounds.
If you need 2+ to wound, and you roll 6, you cause 3 wounds.

So the chance of causing more wounds is directly proportional to the strength vs toughness of the target.

Just a thought...

Dam, son. Who would have thought incorporating weight into dice rolls would sound so good. I need to find a game to test this now.

Someone called powerfisting is against instant death? Oh the irony!

Anyway, I think it's fine for weapons to have the instant death special rule. If you are against the strength being 2x the toughness, maybe it should be something like this:

S=Tx2- D3 Wounds
S=Tx2+1- D3+1 Wounds

And so on

So, ID also represents fluff.

The Dark eldar Huskblade turns people cut by it to withered husks instantly killing them. Thus it has the ID rule. If this sword hits an ork warboss and wounds him, he's turned into a withered husk. Dead. To make ID D3 wounds would render lots of fluff about ID weapons pointless. Like, many weapons that cause ID on a 6, it's to represent a decapitating or other wise similar wounds.

natpri771 wrote:
Someone called powerfisting is against instant death? Oh the irony!

This made me laugh. Thank you for that.

I can't say that either ID or EW should go.

While EW has its issues, it justifies taking some of the 200+ point models that without it would be a waste.

As for ID: as a rule on its own, it always has some explanation of why the person is going to die. Withering away, being pulled into the warp, etc. If we get rid of ID, what happens to all of these weapons? Is a force sword just a piece of metal now?

As for doubling someone's toughness, it only makes sense that the model dies outright. When we're looking at something like a strength 9 lascannon shot hitting a commissar, it's just silly to imagine him surviving. On a to wound roll of a 1, the lascannon just grazes an arm or something. If it's a 2+, that's meant to signify that it's either taking off a limb and a large chunk of torso, or shearing him in half, or taking off his head.

To say "roll a d3, on a 1 he survives losing his entire abdomen" is just plain silly. Whether it be a punch from a dreadnought, a demolisher cannon, etc. there's just no surviving it.

A kroot shaper would even have the chance to survive being hit by a las canon at that point!

This proposed rule is NOT valid, in order to achieve some balance incorporating the proposed rule, there are other rules that would need modification.

Think of Mephiston or any other a-hole tank with a 2+ FNP equivalent, without ID these guys would be unstoppable.

 Big Mac wrote:
This proposed rule is NOT valid, in order to achieve some balance incorporating the proposed rule, there are other rules that would need modification.

Think of Mephiston or any other a-hole tank with a 2+ FNP equivalent, without ID these guys would be unstoppable.

With that said, think about how it affects how you build units and characters.
Especially in a CSM army. You're punished for not using Nurgle on your multiwound units because of Instant Death.