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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
So is switching D3 to D6 not gaining Mortal Wounds?

Not terribly well expressed, but I think that's what he meant, given we're discussing triggers.

I was more trying to show that extrapolating the Mortal Wounds rule based on the power isn't an effective measure due to it being merely a single datapoint. I mean Smite doesn't roll to hit either but no one is claiming Mortal Wounds don't roll to hit normally, so why claim they don't roll to wound?

Let's wait for the actual rules on Mortal Wounds before we assume how they function because we're just getting worked up over something we assume to be true.

How do you get to the Island of Conclusions? Think about it...

Talk about a tough crowd. I get that a lot of folks are passionate about 40k and want the game to be the best it can be, but some folks' expectations may be too high, or too strict.

From my point of view, if the information we've been given so far leads you to conclude that 40k has stopped being a game you want to play, I'd say you should take a look at what 40k was really doing for you in the first place. It may be that you were barking up the wrong tree the whole time: there are so many great games out there that would love your time and money.

 JimOnMars wrote:
So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP.
Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds.
Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.

Do I have this right?

Yeah... I was fearing that this was where it was going when I heard the Mortal Wounds are in.

 Jambles wrote:
How do you get to the Island of Conclusions? Think about it...

It's just a small leap.

 Jambles wrote:
Talk about a tough crowd. I get that a lot of folks are passionate about 40k and want the game to be the best it can be, but some folks' expectations may be too high, or too strict.

From my point of view, if the information we've been given so far leads you to conclude that 40k has stopped being a game you want to play, I'd say you should take a look at what 40k was really doing for you in the first place. It may be that you were barking up the wrong tree the whole time: there are so many great games out there that would love your time and money.

That or take a break from the internet and come back after your mood settles and see what new things have come out since then.

 Crimson wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP.
Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds.
Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.

Do I have this right?

Yeah... I was fearing that this was where it was going when I heard the Mortal Wounds are in.

We don't really know. All we can do is extrapolate.

In AoS, Mortal Wounds don't roll to wound, and grant no save. But, some models (mostly characters) have a save which can be taken against Mortal Wounds.

Looking at that from 40k's angle? Mortal Wounds skip wound and save rolls, but Invulnerable saves can be taken.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP.
Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds.
Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.

Do I have this right?

Yeah... I was fearing that this was where it was going when I heard the Mortal Wounds are in.

We don't really know. All we can do is extrapolate.

In AoS, Mortal Wounds don't roll to wound, and grant no save. But, some models (mostly characters) have a save which can be taken against Mortal Wounds.

Looking at that from 40k's angle? Mortal Wounds skip wound and save rolls, but Invulnerable saves can be taken.

They already told us Mortal Wounds are no saves and no invulnerable saves.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I think it's entirely appropriate for Mandiblasters to do them.

No it isn't, not even remotely. If Mortal Wounds have to exist, they should be reserved to things like distortion weapons, vortex grenades and some psychic attacks.

 lessthanjeff wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Ah well. Pointless trying to arque with GW white knight who thinks GW can do no wrong. GW decides autogun causes mortal wounds. "Absolutely logical! That's how they have always been!"

There's a big difference between people being "white knights" and people who are just withholding judgment until more information is revealed. I keep seeing people claim "you just think GW is perfect so you don't see the flaw" but I just think you guys are getting too worked up about balance when we don't know enough yet. Why whine and complain about things before you've even played a single game let alone know all the rules that will affect army balance in game.

So what, maybe they do get lots of mortal wounds. If they cost a lot of points then they'll be great against armies like Thousand Sons and terrible against armies like Orks.

I see repeatedly how people go "but but but there might be this or that and that" but you know what? Then new info comes out and those but but but's were wrong all the time.

It's not THAT hard to figure out GW's things. There is extremely unlikely to be "mortal wounds against this and that but not against this". GW is looking to simplify game. They aren't likely to add that kind of rules.

You CAN make up quite accurate extrapolation of rules. People have been doing it for years.

Trying to invent some convoluted "but but but but" lines are nearly always wrong.

 Crimson wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP.
Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds.
Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.

Do I have this right?

Yeah... I was fearing that this was where it was going when I heard the Mortal Wounds are in.

Actually it's quite a bit simpler so far...

7th:

What if they gave you a save.
If you duck behind this rock you get a different save if your other save doesn't work.
Cool stuff gets a special save in case you didn't get your regular save. We'll call that invulnerable.
Some models should be tougher than that so we'll give them another save! Let's call that feel no pain.
Although...some guns are suuuuper strong so if strength is double toughness we'll say they don't get feel no pain and dies instantly.
But what about my character? He shouldn't die to those big guns so easily? Ok, ok we'll make a rule that let's them ignore that last part.

Phew.

Or

Regular Save
Invulnerable Save
Mortal Wound Save (aka Eternal Warrior)

At least so far. I imagine we'll have other various save if they let us take multiple saves like AoS.

And one way to ignore mortal wounds with the avatar. So... not really all that much simpler... really.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I was more trying to show that extrapolating the Mortal Wounds rule based on the power isn't an effective measure due to it being merely a single datapoint. I mean Smite doesn't roll to hit either but no one is claiming Mortal Wounds don't roll to hit normally, so why claim they don't roll to wound?

Let's wait for the actual rules on Mortal Wounds before we assume how they function because we're just getting worked up over something we assume to be true.

Is there SINGLE CASE where mortal wounds roll for wound? AOS is very good comparison as 8th ed adopts so much that you can make very accurate predictions from there.

If there's not single case there's no point going for some far off theory there is something when it's MUCH MORE likely there isn't.

 Jambles wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
So we have armor, which is ignorable by enough AP.
Then we have Invul saves, which is ignorable by mortal wounds.
Now we have Avatar saves, which (as far as we know) are not yet ignorable.

Do I have this right?

Yeah... I was fearing that this was where it was going when I heard the Mortal Wounds are in.

We don't really know. All we can do is extrapolate.

In AoS, Mortal Wounds don't roll to wound, and grant no save. But, some models (mostly characters) have a save which can be taken against Mortal Wounds.

Looking at that from 40k's angle? Mortal Wounds skip wound and save rolls, but Invulnerable saves can be taken.

They already told us Mortal Wounds are no saves and no invulnerable saves.

Managed to miss that (as you probably guessed)

Again, my point wasn't that mandiblasters causing mortal wounds is somehow too powerful. I don't think anyone is trying to say that, because we don't know anything about how many they cause or how many points a striking scorpion is or anything like that.

My point is that mandiblasters doing mortal wounds doesn't make any sense with how they are described. The idea that titans might be immune to mortal wounds or the mortal wounds might only work against infantry are completely irrelevant and pointless suppositions.

From the description they should be very likely to hit (as they are fired at point blank range while the target is likely distracted by the guy trying to kill them with a chainsaw), but not that powerful. I could even imagine them working more like grenades, as a way to distract or stun the enemy or make them dive for cover when you charge them, but without needing to use your hands to throw a grenade.

Best way to think about mortal wounds (from AoS).
At the point in the attack the mortal wounds are generated, you skip the rest of the dice rolls needed and go straight to inflicting wounds.
So some don't require any rolls, some require hit rolls, some require hit and wound rolls.

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I was more trying to show that extrapolating the Mortal Wounds rule based on the power isn't an effective measure due to it being merely a single datapoint. I mean Smite doesn't roll to hit either but no one is claiming Mortal Wounds don't roll to hit normally, so why claim they don't roll to wound?

Let's wait for the actual rules on Mortal Wounds before we assume how they function because we're just getting worked up over something we assume to be true.

Is there SINGLE CASE where mortal wounds roll for wound? AOS is very good comparison as 8th ed adopts so much that you can make very accurate predictions from there.

If there's not single case there's no point going for some far off theory there is something when it's MUCH MORE likely there isn't.

I've shown you several instances where, while they do not "roll for wound", Mortal Wounds are triggered by a specific roll value to Hit.

Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for instance, have their "Headshot" rule on the Longstrike Crossbows and Retributors have the "Blast to Ashes" special rule.

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I was more trying to show that extrapolating the Mortal Wounds rule based on the power isn't an effective measure due to it being merely a single datapoint. I mean Smite doesn't roll to hit either but no one is claiming Mortal Wounds don't roll to hit normally, so why claim they don't roll to wound?

Let's wait for the actual rules on Mortal Wounds before we assume how they function because we're just getting worked up over something we assume to be true.

Is there SINGLE CASE where mortal wounds roll for wound? AOS is very good comparison as 8th ed adopts so much that you can make very accurate predictions from there.

If there's not single case there's no point going for some far off theory there is something when it's MUCH MORE likely there isn't.

There is only a SINGLE CASE of ANY Mortal Wounds being shown in detail. Not enough to start the panic wagon rolling yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gamgee wrote:
And one way to ignore mortal wounds with the avatar. So... not really all that much simpler... really.

The Avatar can ignore "some" mortal wounds. So either a rule that lets him get saves as normal, or a rule that negates up to X wounds a turn.

Daedalus81 wrote:

7th:

What if they gave you a save.
If you duck behind this rock you get a different save if your other save doesn't work.
Cool stuff gets a special save in case you didn't get your regular save. We'll call that invulnerable.
Some models should be tougher than that so we'll give them another save! Let's call that feel no pain.
Although...some guns are suuuuper strong so if strength is double toughness we'll say they don't get feel no pain and dies instantly.
But what about my character? He shouldn't die to those big guns so easily? Ok, ok we'll make a rule that let's them ignore that last part.

Yeah, sure, that was not great either. FNP should have never worked like it did in this only-one-save system.

tneva82 wrote:

 lessthanjeff wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Ah well. Pointless trying to arque with GW white knight who thinks GW can do no wrong. GW decides autogun causes mortal wounds. "Absolutely logical! That's how they have always been!"

There's a big difference between people being "white knights" and people who are just withholding judgment until more information is revealed. I keep seeing people claim "you just think GW is perfect so you don't see the flaw" but I just think you guys are getting too worked up about balance when we don't know enough yet. Why whine and complain about things before you've even played a single game let alone know all the rules that will affect army balance in game.

So what, maybe they do get lots of mortal wounds. If they cost a lot of points then they'll be great against armies like Thousand Sons and terrible against armies like Orks.

I see repeatedly how people go "but but but there might be this or that and that" but you know what? Then new info comes out and those but but but's were wrong all the time.

It's not THAT hard to figure out GW's things. There is extremely unlikely to be "mortal wounds against this and that but not against this". GW is looking to simplify game. They aren't likely to add that kind of rules.

You CAN make up quite accurate extrapolation of rules. People have been doing it for years.

Trying to invent some convoluted "but but but but" lines are nearly always wrong.

I feel like most of the early pages of people claiming "this game is ruined and now my faction sucks" have actually been getting disproven as time has gone on.

My point isn't that there may be more rules to stop the mortal wounds though, I'm saying why are you complaining about balance when all you know is there is a faction that probably has more ways to pierce armor and invul saves? That's what I want in the game. Some faction specializing in weight of numbers to get through armor, so elite armies that consistently do lots of damage but have far less models on the table, and everything in between.

Without a point cost, what's the point in saying that it's too good? It's too good for what? Take any unit in the game right now and adjust its cost. If you divide it by 5, it's going to be too good for its cost. If you multiply it by 5, I don't care how good it is it won't make an overpowered army even if the model itself is still very powerful.

If you want a game where everyone has access to the exact same mechanics, pick up chess or checkers. I want variety in the armies and its the points I'll look to for determining balance.

 Kanluwen wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I was more trying to show that extrapolating the Mortal Wounds rule based on the power isn't an effective measure due to it being merely a single datapoint. I mean Smite doesn't roll to hit either but no one is claiming Mortal Wounds don't roll to hit normally, so why claim they don't roll to wound?

Let's wait for the actual rules on Mortal Wounds before we assume how they function because we're just getting worked up over something we assume to be true.

Is there SINGLE CASE where mortal wounds roll for wound? AOS is very good comparison as 8th ed adopts so much that you can make very accurate predictions from there.

If there's not single case there's no point going for some far off theory there is something when it's MUCH MORE likely there isn't.

I've shown you several instances where, while they do not "roll for wound", Mortal Wounds are triggered by a specific roll value to Hit.

Vanguard-Raptors for Stormcast Eternals, for instance, have their "Headshot" rule on the Longstrike Crossbows and Retributors have the "Blast to Ashes" special rule.

AoS is not a perfect example since we know there is plenty that didn't make a direct translation. It's fine to look at as an example of how something MIGHT work, but to assume it's how something WILL work is a step too far in my book.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Avatar can ignore "some" mortal wounds. So either a rule that lets him get saves as normal, or a rule that negates up to X wounds a turn.

Hmm... The latter would be actually pretty cool way to handle it.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
The idea that titans might be immune to mortal wounds or the mortal wounds might only work against infantry are completely irrelevant and pointless suppositions.

Apart from zero evidence that's the case that would also be extremely illogical.

What's the most logical source of mortal wounds? Well guess what...Weapons that are titan killing scale. Stuff like volcano cannon that's so powerful unshielded warlord doesn't generally want to hit by one...That's the kind of weapon that appropriately doesn't particularly care about your toughness or save.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I was more trying to show that extrapolating the Mortal Wounds rule based on the power isn't an effective measure due to it being merely a single datapoint. I mean Smite doesn't roll to hit either but no one is claiming Mortal Wounds don't roll to hit normally, so why claim they don't roll to wound?

Let's wait for the actual rules on Mortal Wounds before we assume how they function because we're just getting worked up over something we assume to be true.

Is there SINGLE CASE where mortal wounds roll for wound? AOS is very good comparison as 8th ed adopts so much that you can make very accurate predictions from there.

If there's not single case there's no point going for some far off theory there is something when it's MUCH MORE likely there isn't.

There is only a SINGLE CASE of ANY Mortal Wounds being shown in detail. Not enough to start the panic wagon rolling yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gamgee wrote:
And one way to ignore mortal wounds with the avatar. So... not really all that much simpler... really.

The Avatar can ignore "some" mortal wounds. So either a rule that lets him get saves as normal, or a rule that negates up to X wounds a turn.

Oh then another faction can ignore "some" on other units in other ways. I think 8th has simplified, but nowhere near as much as the sales pitch makes it seem. Every faction is going to have tons of unique rules just like before ignoring or changing the way the core rules work. I'm down with 8th don't get me wrong, but some of the hype is a little too intense. It's looking like a fairly complicated game compared to AoS.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I've shown you several instances where, while they do not "roll for wound", Mortal Wounds are triggered by a specific roll value to Hit.

Ahahahaha! That's what I have been talking about. Don't just reply without reading what I write. That's TO HIT. I'm talking about WOUNDING. To hit obviously doesn't care about opponents toughness. It punches right through.

You are making my point for me. Thanks!

Mortal wounds don't roll to wound. You keep claiming they could. I ask you to show one example. You show where they roll to hit. Gee. I have never claimed mortal wounds auto hit. I'm saying they auto wound.

Again. Read what I say if you want to reply. Otherwise we are going to be going this in circles.

"Mortal wounds if hit automatically wound"
"No they don't. Look. Here's them rolling to hit"
"Yes. That's right. You have to see if mortal wound hits. But that's not wounding. They don't care about how tough you are. They just wound you"
"But hey! They need to HIT!"
"Yes. That's what I mean. IF you hit you wound target automatically."
"But they need to hit! Therefore they don't auto-wound!"

Repeat this like decade if you want. I'm bored of it. You want to believe to hit and to wound are same thing feel free.

d3 ordinary wounds vs 1 mortal wound -- that's fair, especially if you're up against SMs in their fancy, schmancy power armor...

tneva82 wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
The idea that titans might be immune to mortal wounds or the mortal wounds might only work against infantry are completely irrelevant and pointless suppositions.

Apart from zero evidence that's the case that would also be extremely illogical.

How in the world is that "extremely illogical"?

The whole reason this stupid argument started is people started throwing outlandish claims of Mandiblasters killing Titans and other such nonsense.

All we know is they cause Mortal Wounds. That's it.

What's the most logical source of mortal wounds? Well guess what...Weapons that are titan killing scale. Stuff like volcano cannon that's so powerful unshielded warlord doesn't generally want to hit by one...That's the kind of weapon that appropriately doesn't particularly care about your toughness or save.

Sniper rifles inflicting a headshot, handheld weapons that are inflicting enough damage to disintegrate an enemy, etc all can fit under this umbrella of causing mortal wounds.

A Mortal Wound is simply a wound that you cannot save against for some reason.

tneva82 wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
The idea that titans might be immune to mortal wounds or the mortal wounds might only work against infantry are completely irrelevant and pointless suppositions.

Apart from zero evidence that's the case that would also be extremely illogical.

What's the most logical source of mortal wounds? Well guess what...Weapons that are titan killing scale. Stuff like volcano cannon that's so powerful unshielded warlord doesn't generally want to hit by one...That's the kind of weapon that appropriately doesn't particularly care about your toughness or save.

Or weapons adept at striking between armour joins, such as Mandiblasters. Or those crystal pistols Harlequins carry that fry your brain, bypassing armour as there's no physical assault. Mindwar, another example of a brain-baking attack. 'Eadbursta, that attack that makes your head asplode. Spectacularly accurate Snipers (such as the Vindicare, possibly Eldar Rangers on a 6 to hit.)

Or many of the myriad extremely nasty and very unusual ways of being forcibly shuffled off this mortal coil we see in 40k.

tneva82 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I've shown you several instances where, while they do not "roll for wound", Mortal Wounds are triggered by a specific roll value to Hit.

Ahahahaha! That's what I have been talking about. Don't just reply without reading what I write. That's TO HIT. I'm talking about WOUNDING. To hit obviously doesn't care about opponents toughness. It punches right through.

You are making my point for me. Thanks!

Mortal wounds don't roll to wound. You keep claiming they could. I ask you to show one example. You show where they roll to hit. Gee. I have never claimed mortal wounds auto hit. I'm saying they auto wound.

I "keep claiming" that Mortal Wounds aren't a thing that just happen in most cases. Many of the instances of Mortal Wounds in Age of Sigmar are triggered by specific events. They're not a thing that just happen willynilly.

There's very few things that just say "Apply a number of Mortal Wounds to a target".

Again. Read what I say if you want to reply.

I would advise the same thing. You're so hellbent on this idea of someone needing to produce an example of "Mortal Wounds needing to be rolled for" that you're missing the forest for the trees.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
d3 ordinary wounds vs 1 mortal wound -- that's fair, especially if you're up against SMs in their fancy, schmancy power armor...

what is the d3 ordinary wounds coming from?

 nintura wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
d3 ordinary wounds vs 1 mortal wound -- that's fair, especially if you're up against SMs in their fancy, schmancy power armor...

what is the d3 ordinary wounds coming from?

I would assume that he's y'know, making a theoretical example.

Like Titans killed by Mandiblasters.

 Kanluwen wrote:

...
A Mortal Wound is simply a wound that you cannot save against for some reason.

Correction, that you cannot save against AND that doesn't care how high your toughness is.

Like a wraithcannon or vortex grenade. What reason would there be for a hot piece of metal to cause mortal wounds?

And a titan was just an example of something that would have a really high toughness and really good armor save and possibly an invulnerable save. Substitute any other such thing, like a land raider, if that is what is making this difficult for you.