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 love fluffy rules but I think there are so many ways to die gimply in this edition rather than having a 'warriors death'. I think vehicles shouldn't take off mortal wounds, normal wounds would be sufficient, plus the effects pretty much only effects CC units rather than shooting units, which deaths from shooting units aren't as affected, its catastrophic being next to a vehicle blowing up, I'd save the mortal wounds for SH and GC, then there are D3 mortals for psykers blowing up (not that bothered that this instance has mortal wounds, but in a perfect world I'd still have them losing normal wounds) and then there is losing models due to moral, which I think should just lose wounds to the number that the test fails by, rather than lose models. I think GW is doing this to speed up the game, but I'd rather they speed it up some other way. Whats peoples thoughts?

I'd agree that many of the mortal wound situations would be more appropriate as autohits or possibly even autowounds.

An explossion should be S:N. A tank blowing up should be a lot more deadly for a Guardian than a Marine.

But I think each rule would need to be decided individually.

I can kind of understand your annoyance at removing models rather than wounds for Morale, but it is fluffy. It represents warriors fleeing the battlefield or (if in close combat) warriors who lost their nerve and start panicking and are crushed underfoot in the melee as they get knocked over.

A tank exploding should be a strong hit, but not quire MW worthy, but it speeds up play.

Psykers blowing up and dealing represents the pure destructive effect of psykers and the opinion of them being very dangerous, even to allies.

Bharring wrote:
I'd agree that many of the mortal wound situations would be more appropriate as autohits or possibly even autowounds.

An explossion should be S:N. A tank blowing up should be a lot more deadly for a Guardian than a Marine.

But I think each rule would need to be decided individually.

And a normal tank exploding can't be that much more than a frag grenade, a promethium explosion wouldn't be that worse either as it is more of a combustible material. Reactors would cause a serious explosion but not that much more than a plasma gun, fusion reactors however would be so damaging that the whole battlefield would be turned into glass.

Would it be that much harder for Vehicles blowing up to inflict, for a Rhino, say d6 S6 AP-1 autohits?

A little longer, yes, but not that much.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I'd agree that many of the mortal wound situations would be more appropriate as autohits or possibly even autowounds.

An explossion should be S:N. A tank blowing up should be a lot more deadly for a Guardian than a Marine.

But I think each rule would need to be decided individually.

Moral can really hurt when you have 2 - 4 wound models

And a normal tank exploding can't be that much more than a frag grenade, a promethium explosion wouldn't be that worse either as it is more of a combustible material. Reactors would cause a serious explosion but not that much more than a plasma gun, fusion reactors however would be so damaging that the whole battlefield would be turned into glass.