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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Aside: Mortal Wounds were a really crap idea.

They're just a new name for things we've had in the past. GW had a bunch of stuff over the years that ignored armour and invuls, this is just a cleaner way of defining it.

Could you name a few?

I'm not saying that no such things existed but I'm pretty sure any such effects were incredibly rare. I'm not sure they were even common enough to warrant a specific rule.

Also, it's bizarre to me that a Mortal Wound is so devastating as to ignore even the greatest shielding technology... yet a model can just shrug it off with FNP.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Aside: Mortal Wounds were a really crap idea.

Corollary: Mortal wounds are a great idea implemented in a terrible fashion (ie. typical GW).

If you don't mind me asking, how do you think they should have been implemented?

 vipoid wrote:


Could you name a few?

Abilities that worked by failing a characteristic test, of which arguably the most (in)famous was Jaws of the World Wolf (wow that name is more ridiculous than what I remember).

Another example was D strength weapons.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I've been playing on and off since 3rd: having one wound always made Marines feel more fragile than they should be. It didn't balance the game more.

in order to retain your status as a whale consumer, you must consume. If you demand five space marines be worth one guardsmen, well, suddenly that means the space marine piggies can stop gobbling up so many new space marines! the piggies must keep eating or farmer GW will stop feeding, oink oink!

 Tyran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


Could you name a few?

Abilities that worked by failing a characteristic test, of which arguably the most (in)famous was Jaws of the World Wolf (wow that name is more ridiculous than what I remember).

Didn't Jaws of the World Wolf just kill models outright? I didn't think it actually caused wounds at all.

 Tyran wrote:

Another example was D strength weapons.

See, this is the thing - unless I'm mistaken, few (if any) of the D-Weapons got Mortal Wound status. Instead, they're just generically strong weapons. e.g. Wraithcannons are S10 AP-4 Dd6.

 vipoid wrote:

Didn't Jaws of the World Wolf just kill models outright? I didn't think it actually caused wounds at all.

It still ignored saves of any kind. And of course JOTWW was among the most powerful, other abilities were more limited to "only" inflicting wounds.

See, this is the thing - unless I'm mistaken, few (if any) of the D-Weapons got Mortal Wound status. Instead, they're just generically strong weapons. e.g. Wraithcannons are S10 AP-4 Dd6.

Oh I'm not saying the conversion to 8th was perfect, but I'm just giving examples of things that used to ignore saving throws of any type.

'eadbanger still outright kills models

 Tyran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


Could you name a few?

Abilities that worked by failing a characteristic test, of which arguably the most (in)famous was Jaws of the World Wolf (wow that name is more ridiculous than what I remember).

Another example was D strength weapons.

Calexus assassins had a sword, Deathwatch had a sword and Necron Lords had a scythe that ignored armour and invul saves.

There where some psychic powers like Mind War that dealt wounds that ignored armour and invuls, but those weren't used too often since they were based off of rolling dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I've been playing on and off since 3rd: having one wound always made Marines feel more fragile than they should be. It didn't balance the game more.

in order to retain your status as a whale consumer, you must consume. If you demand five space marines be worth one guardsmen, well, suddenly that means the space marine piggies can stop gobbling up so many new space marines! the piggies must keep eating or farmer GW will stop feeding, oink oink!

Yeah, no, I'd rather have Marines feel like the elite, small armies they're supposed to be where they're outnumbered 10:1 by most of their foes.

Plus, outside of building a Sisters army via blister pack, I've never really been a whale consumer.

Everything is destructible in the 9th ed.
The discussion about C'tans and their 4++ saves is a bit pointless. They die quite easily.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Everything is destructible in the 9th ed.
The discussion about C'tans and their 4++ saves is a bit pointless. They die quite easily.

Unless you're tau.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


Could you name a few?

Abilities that worked by failing a characteristic test, of which arguably the most (in)famous was Jaws of the World Wolf (wow that name is more ridiculous than what I remember).

Another example was D strength weapons.

Calexus assassins had a sword, Deathwatch had a sword and Necron Lords had a scythe that ignored armour and invul saves.

There where some psychic powers like Mind War that dealt wounds that ignored armour and invuls, but those weren't used too often since they were based off of rolling dice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I've been playing on and off since 3rd: having one wound always made Marines feel more fragile than they should be. It didn't balance the game more.

in order to retain your status as a whale consumer, you must consume. If you demand five space marines be worth one guardsmen, well, suddenly that means the space marine piggies can stop gobbling up so many new space marines! the piggies must keep eating or farmer GW will stop feeding, oink oink!

Yeah, no, I'd rather have Marines feel like the elite, small armies they're supposed to be where they're outnumbered 10:1 by most of their foes.

Plus, outside of building a Sisters army via blister pack, I've never really been a whale consumer.

The Calllidus assassin still has the blade and it doesn't do mortal wounds it just ignores invulnerable saves. FNP's are still allowed as are 2+&3+ base saves as its only AP-3.

The issue is dumb stuff like inceptors charging doing MW, they damage grots and repulsors the same WTAF?
Basically rather than make strategums actually different most of them are meet condition and trade CP for MW. It's not adding anything of value to the depth of the game.

Outflank, veteran units orbital bombardments make some sence but the 1CP =D3MW is seen as okay whike the 2CP for D3MW is seen as often bad while the 1CP =D3MW per unit within distance is the auto use.

So you pay a bunch of points for Toughness, Save and Invulnerable saves only to see 0 value from any of them.

Atleast you get FNP/DR against these.

Dudeface wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Everything is destructible in the 9th ed.
The discussion about C'tans and their 4++ saves is a bit pointless. They die quite easily.

Unless you're tau.

Does it really matter whether you lose because you couldn't kill a C'Tan or because your army has no tools to defend objectives?

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Everything is destructible in the 9th ed.
The discussion about C'tans and their 4++ saves is a bit pointless. They die quite easily.

Unless you're tau.

Does it really matter whether you lose because you couldn't kill a C'Tan or because your army has no tools to defend objectives?

When your entire army has been pointed by someone who's clearly never even read the codex yeah it's bad.

The issue is it's a sticking plaster for (Marines) damage output being dialed upto 20 so GW invents a solution to the problem they created.

They invent rules to ignore rules hand them out like candy then invent more new rules to ingore the rules that ignore rules.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Everything is destructible in the 9th ed.
The discussion about C'tans and their 4++ saves is a bit pointless. They die quite easily.

Unless you're tau.

Does it really matter whether you lose because you couldn't kill a C'Tan or because your army has no tools to defend objectives?

yes. Because like , my opponent can't afford a ctan or doesn't one to play with one can happen. As long as the army does something durning the game, even losing is managable. If you have an army that plain does not work, then losing becomes a matter of you deploying models and then removing them doing nothing. Huge difference between either of the two.

Karol, tau can kill C'Tan. The whole thing is a joke.

Ah thanks. Once again I show my inability to understand those.

I don't envy the situation the tau players are right now either. I think I know how they feel and it ain't good. Maybe spring/winter they get a new book, who knows.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


Could you name a few?

Abilities that worked by failing a characteristic test, of which arguably the most (in)famous was Jaws of the World Wolf (wow that name is more ridiculous than what I remember).

Another example was D strength weapons.

Calexus assassins had a sword, Deathwatch had a sword and Necron Lords had a scythe that ignored armour and invul saves.

There where some psychic powers like Mind War that dealt wounds that ignored armour and invuls, but those weren't used too often since they were based off of rolling dice.

This goes back to my point, though - of the four examples you mentioned, only one of them was actually made to do Mortal Wounds in 8th - the rest were just made into generic weapons.

Instead, 99% of Mortal Wound sources in 9th are from weapons/abilities that didn't ignore invulnerable saves in prior editions.

Each to their own, I guess. It's just that, to me, Mortal Wounds seem to have been created to solve a problem that never existed in the first place.

My impression was that many of the "does mortal wounds" weapons are those which used to cause instant death.

 Jidmah wrote:
My impression was that many of the "does mortal wounds" weapons are those which used to cause instant death.

Didn't every anti-tank weapon basically cause instant death? Well, against T4 and below and a few weapons were instant death against T5.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
My impression was that many of the "does mortal wounds" weapons are those which used to cause instant death.

Didn't every anti-tank weapon basically cause instant death? Well, against T4 and below and a few weapons were instant death against T5.

being double T, yes. S8+ was generally considered the most effective ID point and most anti tank was S8+.

very few models were T3 with multiple wounds, so S6-7 was generally not considered as ID weapons.


But then we get later into that era of 40k when they started issuing Strength D weapons to everyone and thus EVERYTHING was susceptible to Instant Death. Especially Distort weaponry for the eldar.


The equivalent now would be for the eldar D weapons to just inflict mortal wounds rather than roll to wound...

I personally think we need to tone down the damage on big characters, Looking at you MORTARIAN updates! But CTan is another good one. I think Superheavy HQ's need to not be allowed in Match play. Gman, Demon Primarchs, etc. It's game breaking and forces power creep in weird ways that give us Near unkillable elite armies, or the inverse, Eradicator Lists, designed to kill anything on the table in the first few turns. It's all because of Knights, and T8 18+ wound characters that deal 40 wounds per turn, etc. We need to remove "Knight-like" characters.

Even if you removed knights and similar LOW things from regular 40k, Eradicators would still be a thing because they're too efficient for their points to the point there is no reason to take any other kind of anti-tank/monster for Marines.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Even if you removed knights and similar LOW things from regular 40k, Eradicators would still be a thing because they're too efficient for their points to the point there is no reason to take any other kind of anti-tank/monster for Marines.

Removing LoWs and such from the game wouldn't solve everything all by itself.

It might, however, be the first step towards an actual solution.

As the OP, I want to specify that yes the game is overall too lethal, but some units are waaaay too resistant for some armies to deal with (9 MBH are in no way easy to deal with for most armies).

Not every army has eradicators (which will go up in points for sure soon, we all know it will come at some time) or other highly efficient tool for AT.

The discrepancy is huge, and indeed:
-> the invul + FNP on MBH and other units, or -> ignore ap1&2 on 2+ armour save models, or -> the wound limit per phase (Ghaz + Ctan plot armour) are just horrible bandaids on the problem uber-killyness.

GW wants 9th ed to enable faster games, so perhaps just accepting that some models will die in one turn is the only way to have a little consistency.

In my view the problem is that faster games and having as much models as possible on the table are business needs... that are in direct opposition with the time and effort needed to do the models itself, building and painting them.

GW still don't understand what being either a model or a game company implies. They simply lack the necessary in imagination to improve their business.

I mean, apocalypse gets more models on the table than 40k and plays more quickly, so that can't be the only reason for the lethality, as the Design Team is obviously aware that better game design speeds things up far more than simply CTRL+A, "Del" every shooting phase.

Karol wrote:
Ah thanks. Once again I show my inability to understand those.

I don't envy the situation the tau players are right now either. I think I know how they feel and it ain't good. Maybe spring/winter they get a new book, who knows.

Im assuming this means nobody where you play plays tau against you, because that's how you decide whether an underpowered army deserves improvement or should have to sit in the time-out chair because they made you feel small and weak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, apocalypse gets more models on the table than 40k and plays more quickly, so that can't be the only reason for the lethality, as the Design Team is obviously aware that better game design speeds things up far more than simply CTRL+A, "Del" every shooting phase.

lethality is the rule because players have shown that they HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE durability.

Little Timmy Want Big Thing to Asplode when he point his marines at at!!!

characters and space marines are the only instances where the tyranny of crowds does not push towards lethality and away from durability.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, apocalypse gets more models on the table than 40k and plays more quickly, so that can't be the only reason for the lethality, as the Design Team is obviously aware that better game design speeds things up far more than simply CTRL+A, "Del" every shooting phase.

I still want Apoc's "remove casualties at the end of the turn" approach to casualties to be honest.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, apocalypse gets more models on the table than 40k and plays more quickly, so that can't be the only reason for the lethality, as the Design Team is obviously aware that better game design speeds things up far more than simply CTRL+A, "Del" every shooting phase.

I still want Apoc's "remove casualties at the end of the turn" approach to casualties to be honest.

The only problem with implementing it in 40k is in apoc a wound is a wound, AP does not exist, and multidamage does not exist. So to do it in 40k you'd have to take saves first, which removes the whole tactical aspect of not knowing if you've quite managed to kill something, and not knowing as the person controlling a thing if it's definitely dead.

the_scotsman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean, apocalypse gets more models on the table than 40k and plays more quickly, so that can't be the only reason for the lethality, as the Design Team is obviously aware that better game design speeds things up far more than simply CTRL+A, "Del" every shooting phase.

I still want Apoc's "remove casualties at the end of the turn" approach to casualties to be honest.

The only problem with implementing it in 40k is in apoc a wound is a wound, AP does not exist, and multidamage does not exist. So to do it in 40k you'd have to take saves first, which removes the whole tactical aspect of not knowing if you've quite managed to kill something, and not knowing as the person controlling a thing if it's definitely dead.

Yeah, the current system couldn't do it and it'd need to be changed. I just like that system better since it means things can be VERY lethal but the game still gets played.

I recently played a game where a unit could skip their shooting to either open fire on a unit that got close or return fire when shot at (you had to chose which one).

I really felt like this would be a good addition to 40k as well.