flood

News:

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Disgustingly resilient  (Read 1342 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline magenb

  • Aspect Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1672
  • Country: au
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Disgustingly resilient
« on: February 5, 2018, 05:44:39 PM »
So this came up on the weekend. The codex just says wounds, but "apparently" somewhere it has been clarified as protecting against mortal Wounds as well. Wouldn't have made any real difference, but I'm having trouble finding where this clarification occurred.

Offline Killersquid

  • The Cause of Diabetes -Captain- Necrontyr Immortal - KoN Veteran - Master of All Diplomacy | Wi-Fi Nomad |
  • Staff
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8614
  • Country: ca
  • Armies: Harlequins, Clans Skyre, Space Wolves
Re: Disgustingly resilient
« Reply #1 on: February 5, 2018, 06:09:58 PM »
It should say on the individual unit datasheet.
Harlequin Army Blog

That's not blatant, this is blatant: I'm super happy that I'm playing Austria, the greatest nation in all of Diplomacy!

Azore of Austria

Offline Blazinghand

  • Aspect Warrior | Master of the Ravenwing
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1173
  • Country: us
  • Die for the Emperor or die trying!
  • Armies: Eldar, Orks
Re: Disgustingly resilient
« Reply #2 on: February 5, 2018, 07:42:53 PM »
Though Mortal Wounds have rules allowing them to ignore saves, read the Disgusting Resilient rules carefully and you will realize that it is not actually a save.
Quote from: Howard Zinn
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.

Offline magenb

  • Aspect Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1672
  • Country: au
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: Disgustingly resilient
« Reply #3 on: February 5, 2018, 08:18:21 PM »
The Avatar's version specifically states Wound or Mortal Wound, Spirit stones also says Wound or mortal wound, where as the wording on Disgustingly Resilient doesn't say anything about Mortal wounds at all.

If the word "wounds" covers both normal and mortal then its odd they specifically state both in the CWE codex which was released after the Death Guard codex.

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11188
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Harlequins, Night Lords
Re: Disgustingly resilient
« Reply #4 on: February 5, 2018, 08:38:23 PM »
The Avatar's version specifically states Wound or Mortal Wound, Spirit stones also says Wound or mortal wound, where as the wording on Disgustingly Resilient doesn't say anything about Mortal wounds at all.

If the word "wounds" covers both normal and mortal then its odd they specifically state both in the CWE codex which was released after the Death Guard codex.
Look closely at the wording of the two rules.  One takes effect when the models "suffers a wound" and the other takes effect when the model "loses a wound."  The wording actually makes an important difference in how the rules are applied.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline magenb

  • Aspect Warrior
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1672
  • Country: au
  • I *LOVE* 40k Online!
Re: Disgustingly resilient
« Reply #5 on: February 5, 2018, 09:59:29 PM »
Bols has an interesting article on suffer vs loses, but they couldn't work it out either. They seem to suggest it either:

negates the wound before damage being applied (suffers) and as such potential negating all damage vs loses being a roll for each wound lost.

or

it works exactly the same way rolf.

Did GW ever clarify if they actually intended on making a difference?

Either way its more about if "Wound" means any wound or if mortal wounds is treated as a separate thing.

Turns out, its in the rule book FAQ, page 4 and "wounds" in this sense, is no matter the cause. Which makes the craftworld codex wording redundant.




 


Powered by EzPortal