I don't know if this has been discussed already, but I was checking out the Death Knights.

It says "While defending, subtract "Mortal Strike".

Does this mean they subtract one mortal strike or all mortal strike icons whilst defending, from dice, modifier dials or surge abilities? Making them invulnerable to mortal strikes? It doesn't really clarify so I guess its open to interpretation?

Would be grateful to hear others opinions on the matter or if there has been anything I've missed, please point me in the right direction.

Thanks.

It would be each attack. When it is time to apply Mortal Strikes during combat, you pool them together, no matter the sources of the Mortal Strikes. Death Knights then subtract one from that pool. This pool is independent of the damage pool.

27 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

It would be each attack. When it is time to apply Mortal Strikes during combat, you pool them together, no matter the sources of the Mortal Strikes. Death Knights then subtract one from that pool. This pool is independent of the damage pool.

Thanks! Guess I just needed to just go through the combat steps and I would've figured it out, twas a passing thought.

Budgernaut is correct, once per event instance.

Makes their ability really underwhelming when you look at how few Mortal Strikes there are in attacks compared to how many non-attack abilities are dealing wounds.

33 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

Makes their ability really underwhelming when you look at how few Mortal Strikes there are in attacks compared to how many non-attack abilities are dealing wounds.

But also makes them really dangerous and hard to kill face to face, high defense, ignore an MS, that'll make them very resilient.

Just now, Darthain said:

But also makes them really dangerous and hard to kill face to face, high defense, ignore an MS, that'll make them very resilient.

Yeah but, one wound.

Most tactics that have been worked up to deal with Oathsworn will break them just as quickly.

We'll see what people do with them.

5 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

Yeah but, one wound.

Most tactics that have been worked up to deal with Oathsworn will break them just as quickly.

We'll see what people do with them.

It is more not needing to compensate to get that armour, we will see indeed.

Hits and mortal wounds are tallied up into a "pool" for each before they are assigned.
Before they are assigned, the DK's subract 1 from the Mortal Strike pool.

Happens every attack.

It may sound crazy but its kinda meh tbh. Helps against the random white die mortal strike, doesnt help for jack against the guys that can actually dish out mortal strikes reliably (or "suffers a wound" crap). The main ways people bust through oaths is either just complete sheer damage (oaths are rarely NOT 3def by the time they get hit) or slam them with "suffer a wound" effects. I actually dont suffer many mortal strikes on my oaths, sure theres usually 1 or 2 but generally its all "suffer a wound" which is different (and i really do not like that theres a difference)

22 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

Hits and mortal wounds are tallied up into a "pool" for each before they are assigned.
Before they are assigned, the DK's subract 1 from the Mortal Strike pool.

Happens every attack.

It may sound crazy but its kinda meh tbh. Helps against the random white die mortal strike, doesnt help for jack against the guys that can actually dish out mortal strikes reliably (or "suffers a wound" crap). The main ways people bust through oaths is either just complete sheer damage (oaths are rarely NOT 3def by the time they get hit) or slam them with "suffer a wound" effects. I actually dont suffer many mortal strikes on my oaths, sure theres usually 1 or 2 but generally its all "suffer a wound" which is different (and i really do not like that theres a difference)

I feel like Death Knights would be an order of magnitude better if they could always ignore the first wound from any source.

Heck, I might even consider running them in that case.

1 minute ago, Tvayumat said:

I feel like Death Knights would be an order of magnitude better if they could always ignore the first wound from any source.

Heck, I might even consider running them in that case.

Its kinda going down the same route that Warzone Resurrection did and im not very pleased about that.
You paid through the nose for high armor and invulnerable armor, but there were ways for even basic, common every day idiot infantry to ignore it (roll of a 1 on a d20 always wounded, regardless of weapon strength or defender rules).
But on the same token for some stupid reason there were ways to ignore that auto damage. A general rule called "Heal" existed (second layer of defense basically but highly unlikely to work) and the roll of 1 explicitly said you dont get it. But there were occasionally game effects that were literally the same bloody thing that werent called Heal, thus were allowed.

This is why i am really against having multiple ways to cause damage. I am fine with Mortal Strikes because its actually interpreted well and balanced on its own, i am NOT FINE with "Suffers a wound"

Just now, Vineheart01 said:

Its kinda going down the same route that Warzone Resurrection did and im not very pleased about that.
You paid through the nose for high armor and invulnerable armor, but there were ways for even basic, common every day idiot infantry to ignore it (roll of a 1 on a d20 always wounded, regardless of weapon strength or defender rules).
But on the same token for some stupid reason there were ways to ignore that auto damage. A general rule called "Heal" existed (second layer of defense basically but highly unlikely to work) and the roll of 1 explicitly said you dont get it. But there were occasionally game effects that were literally the same bloody thing that werent called Heal, thus were allowed.

This is why i am really against having multiple ways to cause damage. I am fine with Mortal Strikes because its actually interpreted well and balanced on its own, i am NOT FINE with "Suffers a wound"

It's also an issue that later editions of 40k suffered from... several different types of "mortal wounds" that could or couldn't be ignored based largely on semantics rather than sense.

DKs had to have been tested pretty early on in the game's lifecycle... this is one case where I wonder if the final version really reflects what they had in mind.

Maybe if we whine enough, the DK could be errata'd into something useful?

Or, maybe I'm underestimating them.

i'm already hoping if i whine enough Rune Golems will get something
If i whine enough for DKs too...not good for my health