Sorry, wait - why is heavy weapons movement by model and not by unit MORE consistent?
If I Advance with one model can I then shoot with the other models' non-Assault type shooting weapons later that turn?
How about if one model in a unit is in melee, do the others get to shoot as if they're not?
Or what if one model is in cover and the other isn't - do I get cover on that one model?
Can I Fall Back with just one guy to get out of melee combat, and the rest of the unit shoots like they were stationary?
no? Then isn't it more consistent to have units rather than models determine whether a unit moved when firing a heavy weapon? It's obviously more abstracted, which I will 100% concede, but it is definitely more consistent with the rest of how 8th is generally structured.
Automatically Appended Next Post: When it comes to fall back, I definitely think there needs to be some middle ground where melee just doesn't always prevent shooting.
But, consider this.
1) many infantry units in the game have their shooting halved by being in melee, rather than removed. When you charge a unit of space marines, sisters of battle, kabalites, pretty much any melee focused unit like ork boyz etc, what's going to happen is you'll fight, then they'll fight you on your turn, then you take pistols on their turn, then they fight you on their turn.
2) vehicle and monster models will now be able to continue shooting while engaged in melee. This means an army can still be entirely a shooting army, but unlike now where a disposable line of chaff protects tanks from being tied up by cheap infantry, a tough line of tanks can prevent infantry from being tied up by cheap infantry. A Leman Russ Punisher commander requires an incredible number of ork boyz or genestealers or whatever to significantly damage, and a -1 to hit is not usually that much of a reduction in firepower, particularly in a game where -1 to hit is fairly common coming out of terrain. Additionally we know that Aircraft can not be tied up at all.
It almost seems to me, almost, that you could make fall back a 1cp strat with these changes, and you could still have a perfectly functional shooting-only army with slight adjustments to ensure that you have some monster/vehicle "bouncer" units like one-gun dreadnoughts, riptides, or hellhounds/dakka russes whose job is taking charges and continuing to shoot while not caring.
The problem with making it a strat is that it scales really poorly. I think 1k games, it could be a strat and most times you'd be fine. But in 2k games you'd have infantry focused guard, necron or tau armies in a real tight spot. Marines punch just as good as they shoot now, so I'm not too worried about them, but the armies that just kind of turn off in melee would definitely struggle in big games.
As long as pro-Fall Back abilities were not as uncommon as Anti-Fall Back abilities were in 8th ed, though, I think it'd be OK. Especially if they made FB stronger when you did do it, removing tripoint and allowing units to fall back and still shoot.
the_scotsman wrote: Sorry, wait - why is heavy weapons movement by model and not by unit MORE consistent?
If I Advance with one model can I then shoot with the other models' non-Assault type shooting weapons later that turn?
How about if one model in a unit is in melee, do the others get to shoot as if they're not?
Or what if one model is in cover and the other isn't - do I get cover on that one model?
Can I Fall Back with just one guy to get out of melee combat, and the rest of the unit shoots like they were stationary?
no? Then isn't it more consistent to have units rather than models determine whether a unit moved when firing a heavy weapon? It's obviously more abstracted, which I will 100% concede, but it is definitely more consistent with the rest of how 8th is generally structured.
Automatically Appended Next Post: When it comes to fall back, I definitely think there needs to be some middle ground where melee just doesn't always prevent shooting.
But, consider this.
1) many infantry units in the game have their shooting halved by being in melee, rather than removed. When you charge a unit of space marines, sisters of battle, kabalites, pretty much any melee focused unit like ork boyz etc, what's going to happen is you'll fight, then they'll fight you on your turn, then you take pistols on their turn, then they fight you on their turn.
2) vehicle and monster models will now be able to continue shooting while engaged in melee. This means an army can still be entirely a shooting army, but unlike now where a disposable line of chaff protects tanks from being tied up by cheap infantry, a tough line of tanks can prevent infantry from being tied up by cheap infantry. A Leman Russ Punisher commander requires an incredible number of ork boyz or genestealers or whatever to significantly damage, and a -1 to hit is not usually that much of a reduction in firepower, particularly in a game where -1 to hit is fairly common coming out of terrain. Additionally we know that Aircraft can not be tied up at all.
It almost seems to me, almost, that you could make fall back a 1cp strat with these changes, and you could still have a perfectly functional shooting-only army with slight adjustments to ensure that you have some monster/vehicle "bouncer" units like one-gun dreadnoughts, riptides, or hellhounds/dakka russes whose job is taking charges and continuing to shoot while not caring.
The problem with making it a strat is that it scales really poorly. I think 1k games, it could be a strat and most times you'd be fine. But in 2k games you'd have infantry focused guard, necron or tau armies in a real tight spot. Marines punch just as good as they shoot now, so I'm not too worried about them, but the armies that just kind of turn off in melee would definitely struggle in big games.
As long as pro-Fall Back abilities were not as uncommon as Anti-Fall Back abilities were in 8th ed, though, I think it'd be OK. Especially if they made FB stronger when you did do it, removing tripoint and allowing units to fall back and still shoot.
Whoa a thoughtful and nuanced take on Dakka! It's like finding a shiny Pokemon! We must save this moment for the months of famine ahead of us
This article is all over the place. It starts by talking about how various unspecified changes enhances unspecified lesser used units, the need to take multiple detachments going away because if you don't go-mono legion with no daemons, you're apparently playing chaos wrong.
And something, something spend all your CP on daemonforge, because daemon engines I guess benefit somewhat from various rules changes.
Also the terrain rules are good for chaos because of the semantic difference between 'updated' and 'overhauled' (whatever that is, he doesn't say), and how chaos is a melee army so the terrain changes help them because 8th terrain apparently had legalese loopholes that 'everyone' exploited to magically prevent attacks.
But meanwhile ignore that first comment about 'lesser-used' units and take berserkers and lord discordants, because they're just better.
This article is all over the place. It starts by talking about how various unspecified changes enhances unspecified lesser used units, the need to take multiple detachments going away because if you don't go-mono legion with no daemons, you're apparently playing chaos wrong.
And something, something spend all your CP on daemonforge, because daemon engines I guess benefit somewhat from various rules changes.
Also the terrain rules are good for chaos because of the semantic difference between 'updated' and 'overhauled' (whatever that is), and how chaos is a melee army so the terrain changes help them because 8th terrain apparently had legalese loopholes that 'everyone' exploited to magically prevent attacks.
But meanwhile ignore that first comment about 'lesser-used' units and take berserkers and lord discordants, because they're just better.
You're 1 day late, we got that exciting preview on the rules for the defiler claws that GW made and hasn't changed since the Index yesterday.
I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.
Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.
the_scotsman wrote: Sorry, wait - why is heavy weapons movement by model and not by unit MORE consistent?
If I Advance with one model can I then shoot with the other models' non-Assault type shooting weapons later that turn?
Advancing is a unit action in 8th, so even if the model with the heavy weapon didn't move it still advanced.
yeah, that was my point. Most statuses carried forward from the movement phase were based on what the UNIT did, except for "did they move" which was based on what the MODEL did.
the new rule makes the rules of "what did they do in the movement phase" more consistent, not less, which is what the person I was responded to claimed.
This article is all over the place. It starts by talking about how various unspecified changes enhances unspecified lesser used units, the need to take multiple detachments going away because if you don't go-mono legion with no daemons, you're apparently playing chaos wrong.
And something, something spend all your CP on daemonforge, because daemon engines I guess benefit somewhat from various rules changes.
Also the terrain rules are good for chaos because of the semantic difference between 'updated' and 'overhauled' (whatever that is), and how chaos is a melee army so the terrain changes help them because 8th terrain apparently had legalese loopholes that 'everyone' exploited to magically prevent attacks.
But meanwhile ignore that first comment about 'lesser-used' units and take berserkers and lord discordants, because they're just better.
You're 1 day late, we got that exciting preview on the rules for the defiler claws that GW made and hasn't changed since the Index yesterday.
Huh. I blame haying season. And also the pages of 'discussion' about tri-pointing that swamped the thread.
Man, Games Workshop are really stretching this out aren't they. I don't have the time nor the energy to deal with this level of teasing. I'm giving it until the end of week to see something genuinely enticing, and if not, I'll probably drop until the whole thing is leaked and can read it on my own.
So today’s big reveal - you can pain your own minis in the colours you want. Tomorrow - you can glue the minis together!! Who knew!? Oh well, I guess we have to wait til Monday now to find out something new about 9th.
Jidmah wrote: I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.
Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.
Part of me almost wonders if a system like this would work better, but understands that lethality is already such a problem and it'd just add to it:
You can delcare a Fall Back freely.
If you fall back your opponent gets to immediately fight as if it were the fight phase but with no pile in or consolidation.
you can also fire into melee.
After rolling to hit, roll a die for each successful hit. on a 4+, you allocate the hit to an enemy unit of your choice in the melee. on a 1-3, your opponent allocates the hit to a friendly unit of their choice in the melee.
Suddenly, being in melee is a 4++ that you get in top of your normal save rather than a total deactivation of incoming firepower.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darsath wrote: Man, Games Workshop are really stretching this out aren't they. I don't have the time nor the energy to deal with this level of teasing. I'm giving it until the end of week to see something genuinely enticing, and if not, I'll probably drop until the whole thing is leaked and can read it on my own.
I heard tomorrow Stu is gonna show some leg, so you'll be excited for that.
Aash wrote: So today’s big reveal - you can pain your own minis in the colours you want. Tomorrow - you can glue the minis together!! Who knew!? Oh well, I guess we have to wait til Monday now to find out something new about 9th.
I was curious to see if the new veterans would be officially part of the Deathwing, so that article was quite useful
Aash wrote: So today’s big reveal - you can pain your own minis in the colours you want. Tomorrow - you can glue the minis together!! Who knew!? Oh well, I guess we have to wait til Monday now to find out something new about 9th.
I was curious to see if the new veterans would be officially part of the Deathwing, so that article was quite useful
Whilst the vast majority won't care, this is actually a fairly big development in terms of lore.
Aash wrote: So today’s big reveal - you can pain your own minis in the colours you want. Tomorrow - you can glue the minis together!! Who knew!? Oh well, I guess we have to wait til Monday now to find out something new about 9th.
I was curious to see if the new veterans would be officially part of the Deathwing, so that article was quite useful
Whilst the vast majority won't care, this is actually a fairly big development in terms of lore.
Additionally, it is still bugging me that the veterens all have iron halos... Have we had anything written in any articles or stated on the streams to indicate the way storm shields work has changed? I wonder if they are going back to melee only, or is the iron halo just a design choice (and not actually an iron halo).
Aash wrote: So today’s big reveal - you can pain your own minis in the colours you want. Tomorrow - you can glue the minis together!! Who knew!? Oh well, I guess we have to wait til Monday now to find out something new about 9th.
I was curious to see if the new veterans would be officially part of the Deathwing, so that article was quite useful
Whilst the vast majority won't care, this is actually a fairly big development in terms of lore.
Undercuts their concept entirely imo.
Until there are terminator primaris (and aggressors aren't them) then there needs to be models of some sort for primaris within the deathwing as they are now being accepted within the inner circle in the lore, so unless they all become masters and go back to companies, they need a place to go. I think they look cool in deathwing colours anyway.
Also, dark angels veterens should be in the deathwing.
ClockworkZion wrote: On the flipside tripointing might be gone because we'll ve seeing a change to falling back that makes it less automatic.
This is one of those things I'm eagerly waiting to know more on.
It's kind of make or break for me on this thing.
They've fixed one of the biggest problems with vehicles, they're adding an expandable and adaptable system to terrain (even if their verbiage is a bit confusing at times). The table sizes thing is slowed, but then again they're just doing that to sell the mats they make so it's really not that big a deal (please folks - stop pretending its for any other reason!). Neither is the "move one guy now HW is at -1" thing. That's annoying, and reeks of their inability to be consistent with rules design, but again, not a huge deal. The new missions concept sounds interesting, and like the terrain stuff, is easily adaptable. Army structure changes sound good, and I like any idea that divorces CP generation from army construction. Flyers? Whatever. I've never used one. If I ever do then great. The changes to reserves sound positive (I'd love to be able to walk my Genestealers on from the table edge of my swarm markers get removed on the (now smaller) table).
So it really it comes down to Falling Back, if they've made any changes to how shooting works (ie. S5 vs T8/9 should = NO! & 'see the tip of a spike = everything can fire at you' bull gak) and what, if anything, they've done with morale. They're the main 4 to me.
I'm with H.B.M.C. on this - all of the other changes are sounding pretty good, but how they handle 'Fall Back' and attempting to escape from CC is close to a 'make or break' thing for 40K 9th...
Must be correct if we three are in agreement.
Fall Back itself isn’t a bad idea - but the execution has been.
It has its place, because getting stuck in a one sided combat sucks arse, especially as they’re likely to finish you off in your own turn, and then spend theirs picking a new fight. But doing so without any really tangible downside or restriction is not the way to do it.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Additionally, it is still bugging me that the veterens all have iron halos... Have we had anything written in any articles or stated on the streams to indicate the way storm shields work has changed? I wonder if they are going back to melee only, or is the iron halo just a design choice (and not actually an iron halo).
Aash wrote: So today’s big reveal - you can pain your own minis in the colours you want. Tomorrow - you can glue the minis together!! Who knew!? Oh well, I guess we have to wait til Monday now to find out something new about 9th.
I was curious to see if the new veterans would be officially part of the Deathwing, so that article was quite useful
Whilst the vast majority won't care, this is actually a fairly big development in terms of lore.
Undercuts their concept entirely imo.
Until there are terminator primaris (and aggressors aren't them) then they need to be models of some sort for primaris within the deathwing as they are now being accepted within the inner circle in the lore, so unless they all become masters and go back to companies, they need a place to go. I think they look cool in deathwing colours anyway.
They went years saying that primaris have all-primaris chapters without so much as a hint of first company models, waiting in limbo for their heavy veteran version to come out would have been the status quo.
Next we’ll be seeing Redemptors in deathwing company colours despite their life support system being too faulty to allow for a venerable dread. But that’s fine, actively making no sense and undercutting core lore concepts is “better” than trying to reconcile things.
So do Primaris Marines in general, if we're being honest.
Well yeah, they’ve made very little effort to make sense of the rules, lore and models of primaris from the start. Their execution cheapens themselves as full of cheap gimmickry and regular marines as “inferior”.
This article is all over the place. It starts by talking about how various unspecified changes enhances unspecified lesser used units, the need to take multiple detachments going away because if you don't go-mono legion with no daemons, you're apparently playing chaos wrong.
And something, something spend all your CP on daemonforge, because daemon engines I guess benefit somewhat from various rules changes.
Also the terrain rules are good for chaos because of the semantic difference between 'updated' and 'overhauled' (whatever that is), and how chaos is a melee army so the terrain changes help them because 8th terrain apparently had legalese loopholes that 'everyone' exploited to magically prevent attacks.
But meanwhile ignore that first comment about 'lesser-used' units and take berserkers and lord discordants, because they're just better.
You're 1 day late, we got that exciting preview on the rules for the defiler claws that GW made and hasn't changed since the Index yesterday.
Yes, we already complained about that yesterday.
Today is for complaining about Necron paint schemes.
The death wing concept has evolved over the many years since it was introduced. There are pics in the rogue trader era compendium of a marine in MK7 in death wing colors. Other than the bone armor most of the fluff from the original death wing story is mostly gone. Dark angels stopped being the only chapter able to do full terminator armies a long time ago. Things will evolve. That being said I’d like to see primarisized terminator armor that could actually fit a person shaped person. The new gravis dudes with meltas are getting closer to this aesthetic.
The more I think about it, the more I like the suggestion of making falling back something you do at the end of the shooting phase. That strikes an excellent balance and it makes falling back about the unit saving its own skin, not about exposing the enemy's unit to shooting. It's always felt stupid that the main purpose to falling back was to enable the rest of your army to blast the unit off the table in your shooting phase.
I would add to the rule that when you make a fall-back move, the enemy unit you are falling back from gets to make a consolidate move immediately afterwards, if it hasn't already done so this phase. This would prevent someone from falling back to 1.01 inches away just to avoid the fight phase while still move blocking. You can fall back, but your opponent gets to move his models up a bit as a result, so if you want to get out of combat you have to move back a decent distance, which gives your opponent the chance to move up a decent distance as well. It also would mean that stuff with low movement characteristics couldn't fall back out of combat in some circumstances, which makes sense.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Additionally, it is still bugging me that the veterens all have iron halos... Have we had anything written in any articles or stated on the streams to indicate the way storm shields work has changed? I wonder if they are going back to melee only, or is the iron halo just a design choice (and not actually an iron halo).
This is driving me crazy too. They seem to be just tossing them about like they aren't actual limited relics, I guess Primaris must have gone to an Oprah Winfrey live recording. I don't like the way they look on the Lt and Bladeguard and if they have no rules interaction (and therefore needed for WYSIWYG), I'm lopping them off.
Jidmah wrote: I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.
Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.
Remember when you could catch the enemy and completely destroy them if they fell back in 5th? It makes very little sense that we have no mechanic whatsoever from deterring falling back and the strategem is a half-measure. I agree with others that the health of 9th is largely tied to the outcome of falling back. I just hope they haven't ignored it outside of Cut Them Down, which is my fear.
Jidmah wrote: I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.
Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.
Remember when you could catch the enemy and completely destroy them if they fell back in 5th? It makes very little sense that we have no mechanic whatsoever from deterring falling back and the strategem is a half-measure. I agree with others that the health of 9th is largely tied to the outcome of falling back. I just hope they haven't ignored it outside of Cut Them Down, which is my fear.
I don't because you could not fall back in 5th. Didn't exist as a voluntary action.
Next we’ll be seeing Redemptors in deathwing company colours despite their life support system being too faulty to allow for a venerable dread. But that’s fine, actively making no sense and undercutting core lore concepts is “better” than trying to reconcile things.
I know commenting on imaginary events is a staple for any Dakka discussion, but can we maybe wait until something happens before complaining about it?
Jidmah wrote: I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.
Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.
Remember when you could catch the enemy and completely destroy them if they fell back in 5th? It makes very little sense that we have no mechanic whatsoever from deterring falling back and the strategem is a half-measure. I agree with others that the health of 9th is largely tied to the outcome of falling back. I just hope they haven't ignored it outside of Cut Them Down, which is my fear.
You folk are ridiculous.
You will never be able to justify the complaining that this is somehow less powerful than "Fire Overwatch" or "Fall Back" now that we've got an idea as to what is going on with "Fire Overwatch". "Cut Them Down" is a fricking gamechanger and people have done nothing but complain that it 'isn't enough'.
We now know that "Fire Overwatch" is a stratagem that costs 1CP, can only be used once per phase(meaning once per turn effectively) by one unit, and that certain units might have their own version of it or modifiers for it but that Overwatch isn't exactly available on every unit anymore. Units firing as part of "Fire Overwatch" still have to roll to hit on 6s and still then have to roll to Wound.
"Cut Them Down" is a stratagem that costs 1 CP and lets every model within Engagement Range of the Falling Back enemy unit roll one D6 before any models in that unit are moved. For each 6, the enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound. If you cannot see that such a stratagem will be fairly powerful with the kind of tripointing strategies currently in play? That's on you all. Because it isn't a small thing.
yea this is an interesting one for chars that spam out that 6" aura.
gotta keep a unit within 3" of them or they are getting squashed. Will have the effect of bringing in aura'ed units closer because you cant afford to just have one in 3" to stop ye char getting targetted as your opponent will mince that unit first chance he gets
The changes to both Blast weapons and morale favour armies that field medium-sized units.
So according to this guy, changes to morale are going to penalize large units. I'm sure there's another as-yet-unrevealed reason cultists went up so much, right? Gotta wait and see!
SistersArticle wrote:In the new edition, I’ll be approaching the Sisters of Battle with more use of multiple small units. The changes to both Blast weapons and morale favour armies that field medium-sized units. I previously used larger units, but now with the benefit of playing smaller, more sensibly sized squads, I’ll have some points left to take other units – more Dedicated Transports, maybe even the Mortifiers I always wanted but couldn’t quite fit in.
Didn't sisters already want MSU spam? That seemed the primary way to play since the codex came out last year (not this year, as the author seems to believe)
---
I'm also very confused by the 'alternate color schemes' article.
None of those are alternate color schemes. Not one. They're official color schemes for other chapters and dynasties. Just, in the case of the necrons, small ones no one cares about. Except Sautekh.
I still think 9 wounds is a little high, I'd have capped it at 6 to just cover human sized things. Or specified that this rule only applied to infantry, and that characters of other types need another of that type (so monster/vehicle/battlesuit) for Look Out Sir to kick in.
Still doesn't seem right that you'd ignore a Daemon prince when there's some cultists (or nurglings!) around it, or not notice the Lord on a Command Barge as being something different from the warriors infront of it.
Plus it'd give a bit more protection to things like Hive Tyrants and Lord Discordants, if they are in the middle of a big pack of monsters.
SistersArticle wrote:In the new edition, I’ll be approaching the Sisters of Battle with more use of multiple small units. The changes to both Blast weapons and morale favour armies that field medium-sized units. I previously used larger units, but now with the benefit of playing smaller, more sensibly sized squads, I’ll have some points left to take other units – more Dedicated Transports, maybe even the Mortifiers I always wanted but couldn’t quite fit in.
Didn't sisters already want MSU spam? That seemed the primary way to play since the codex came out last year (not this year, as the author seems to believe)
Infantry MSU sure. But the author talked about a mixed Mech list which wasn't really a thing for Sisters in 8th.
Jidmah wrote: I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.
Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.
Remember when you could catch the enemy and completely destroy them if they fell back in 5th? It makes very little sense that we have no mechanic whatsoever from deterring falling back and the strategem is a half-measure. I agree with others that the health of 9th is largely tied to the outcome of falling back. I just hope they haven't ignored it outside of Cut Them Down, which is my fear.
You folk are ridiculous.
You will never be able to justify the complaining that this is somehow less powerful than "Fire Overwatch" or "Fall Back" now that we've got an idea as to what is going on with "Fire Overwatch". "Cut Them Down" is a fricking gamechanger and people have done nothing but complain that it 'isn't enough'.
We now know that "Fire Overwatch" is a stratagem that costs 1CP, can only be used once per phase(meaning once per turn effectively) by one unit, and that certain units might have their own version of it or modifiers for it but that Overwatch isn't exactly available on every unit anymore. Units firing as part of "Fire Overwatch" still have to roll to hit on 6s and still then have to roll to Wound.
"Cut Them Down" is a stratagem that costs 1 CP and lets every model within Engagement Range of the Falling Back enemy unit roll one D6 before any models in that unit are moved. For each 6, the enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound. If you cannot see that such a stratagem will be fairly powerful with the kind of tripointing strategies currently in play? That's on you all. Because it isn't a small thing.
This enforces pretty much why I can never take you seriously. Tell me, how useful is that strat going to be for someone running away from a dreadnought, or 5 Deathwing Knights or 10 banshees, etc, etc. You're seriously going to spend 1CP to hope you roll 6's, and maybe kill 1 or 2 guardsmen, etc. The fact that higher number of grots are more dangerous to run away from that a single knight is stupid.
You will never be able to justify the complaining that this is somehow less powerful than "Fire Overwatch" or "Fall Back" now that we've got an idea as to what is going on with "Fire Overwatch". "Cut Them Down" is a fricking gamechanger and people have done nothing but complain that it 'isn't enough'.
We now know that "Fire Overwatch" is a stratagem that costs 1CP, can only be used once per phase(meaning once per turn effectively) by one unit, and that certain units might have their own version of it or modifiers for it but that Overwatch isn't exactly available on every unit anymore. Units firing as part of "Fire Overwatch" still have to roll to hit on 6s and still then have to roll to Wound.
"Cut Them Down" is a stratagem that costs 1 CP and lets every model within Engagement Range of the Falling Back enemy unit roll one D6 before any models in that unit are moved. For each 6, the enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound. If you cannot see that such a stratagem will be fairly powerful with the kind of tripointing strategies currently in play? That's on you all. Because it isn't a small thing.
I would be a game changer if it said "If the unit takes any casualties from Cut Them Down it cannot Fall Back".
Since it doesn't, it just makes you look like someone who thinks 1-2 MW are a big deal, ie. someone not worth listening to.
ClockworkZion wrote: Looks like characters will need to be played a bit smarter in the next edition.
Oh finally, they changed it to something sensible. Should have been like that to begin with.
And any other effort they put into discouraging castles is now completely wasted.
How? The earlier character rule didn't discourage castles either. It just resulted in gamey nonsense where you couldn't shoot a lone character who was out in the open because there was a single infantry model some foot away that happened to be closer to the firing squad and was out of line of sight, so it couldn't be a legal target.
Now you actually need to protect your characters instead of having him go for a walk in the backlines.
ClockworkZion wrote: Looks like characters will need to be played a bit smarter in the next edition.
Oh finally, they changed it to something sensible. Should have been like that to begin with.
And any other effort they put into discouraging castles is now completely wasted.
Not really. The shorter range fixes some more gamey elements (like having a unit out of LoS across the board from, but still physically closer than, a character).
If anything it means people need to be more careful how the remove casualties lest they open a character up to be shot at.
And castling existed without this "justification" so it's not like that changed.
Once more 9E-compatible faction rules start appearing i fully expect to see unit- or weapon-specific traits that affect this stratagem. Much like how some units can still trigger overwatch on 5+, you could easily see specialist units doing the same with Cut Them Down. Lash Whips anyone?
Hmm, the math hammer must surely make sense to have MSU surrounding a character, but surely that actually makes a character easier to snipe than larger units?
Assuming split fire is still a thing, if a character is surrounded by 6x 5 man squads, you need to kill 3 models in each unit, so 18 in total (saying split fire as you will want to split fire at times to maybe whittle down the last model in one unit and dedicate the rest to another squad which would be necessary when killing MSU's in such a situation you would presume).
For if they are surrounded by 3x 10 man squads, you need to kill 24 models to snipe the character. Whilst the larger unit is a bigger problem for morale purposes, the character will survive without being shot that turn, whilst in the first scenario, the character can get sniped.
Unless my reading of the rules and/or maths is off there....
I suppose another tactic will be to have more heavy duty units by characters with high defence that can act as their body guard to absorb the firepower before being whittled down.
Jidmah wrote: I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.
Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.
Remember when you could catch the enemy and completely destroy them if they fell back in 5th? It makes very little sense that we have no mechanic whatsoever from deterring falling back and the strategem is a half-measure. I agree with others that the health of 9th is largely tied to the outcome of falling back. I just hope they haven't ignored it outside of Cut Them Down, which is my fear.
I don't because you could not fall back in 5th. Didn't exist as a voluntary action.
What am I remembering? If you lost combat and then you failed morale, you fled, and then the enemy had a chance to cut them down?
Jidmah wrote: I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.
Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.
Remember when you could catch the enemy and completely destroy them if they fell back in 5th? It makes very little sense that we have no mechanic whatsoever from deterring falling back and the strategem is a half-measure. I agree with others that the health of 9th is largely tied to the outcome of falling back. I just hope they haven't ignored it outside of Cut Them Down, which is my fear.
I don't because you could not fall back in 5th. Didn't exist as a voluntary action.
What am I remembering? If you lost combat and then you failed morale, you fled, and then the enemy had a chance to cut them down?
That was Sweeping Advance. It existed up until 7th ed.
As someone else pointed out in a harlequins group....so a Solitaire really doesn't want to be solitary? Hopefully, he/she gets an exception to that rule...same for assassins.
Are you really going to sit there and pretend that a Dreadnought, 5 Deathwing Knights, or 10 Banshees are probably not going to have killed a 10 Guardsman squad after having shot, successfully charged, and then fought them?
Once again:
Roll one D6 for each model from your army that is within Engagement Range of that enemy unit.
This isn't for "maybe killing 1 or 2 guardsmen" unless you're doing trash like has been mentioned elsewhere of using non-CC weapon attacks to tie an enemy unit up from shooting rather than actually killing them. It's for when an enemy unit that actually matters leaves combat after you surrounded them.
Once more 9E-compatible faction rules start appearing i fully expect to see unit- or weapon-specific traits that affect this stratagem. Much like how some units can still trigger overwatch on 5+, you could easily see specialist units doing the same with Cut Them Down. Lash Whips anyone?
Ayup--or just more unit or weapon specific traits that let you strike when an enemy falls back.
Tyran wrote: Regarding the Cut Them Down. I would have preferred an inverse overwatch.
Basically a free melee activation, but without pile in nor consolidation and that only hits on 6s.
Someone on Reddit did the match and Cut Them Down trumps an inverse Overwatch on anyone who isn't a character with a truckload of attacks since it skips needing to wound and then get past saves.
Jidmah wrote: I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.
Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.
Remember when you could catch the enemy and completely destroy them if they fell back in 5th? It makes very little sense that we have no mechanic whatsoever from deterring falling back and the strategem is a half-measure. I agree with others that the health of 9th is largely tied to the outcome of falling back. I just hope they haven't ignored it outside of Cut Them Down, which is my fear.
You folk are ridiculous.
You will never be able to justify the complaining that this is somehow less powerful than "Fire Overwatch" or "Fall Back" now that we've got an idea as to what is going on with "Fire Overwatch". "Cut Them Down" is a fricking gamechanger and people have done nothing but complain that it 'isn't enough'.
We now know that "Fire Overwatch" is a stratagem that costs 1CP, can only be used once per phase(meaning once per turn effectively) by one unit, and that certain units might have their own version of it or modifiers for it but that Overwatch isn't exactly available on every unit anymore. Units firing as part of "Fire Overwatch" still have to roll to hit on 6s and still then have to roll to Wound.
"Cut Them Down" is a stratagem that costs 1 CP and lets every model within Engagement Range of the Falling Back enemy unit roll one D6 before any models in that unit are moved. For each 6, the enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound. If you cannot see that such a stratagem will be fairly powerful with the kind of tripointing strategies currently in play? That's on you all. Because it isn't a small thing.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think being able to use a single strategem for a 17% chance to cause a mortal wound per model is worth having my unit completely obliterated next turn. That is still the issue. Not only that, but now I have to pay a CP to do it. So, you can still leave combat, I MIGHT cause 1-2 wounds on you when you, then you focus fire my melee unit. What is the incentive for rushing in, chainswords drawn, again?
haha it is quite funny though because as i'm reading it.
If you had say two daemon princes side by side that are an equal distance from the enemy firer, you cant shoot either of them no matter how close you are?!
Man Basilisk and Manticora have become the best snipers of the game!
I understand what they wanted to fix with this rule but I believe they are going too hard on the other extreme, this will make characters extremely vulnerable.
Latro_ wrote: haha it is quite funny though because as i'm reading it.
If you had say two daemon princes side by side that are an equal distance from the enemy firer, you cant shoot either of them no matter how close you are?!
Pretty sure you can? If you select one of the demon princes as a target you just ignore the other one. It says it right there.
ClockworkZion wrote: Looks like characters will need to be played a bit smarter in the next edition.
Biggest concern, for me, is that wording at the start.
As in you can't target units that contain characters? As in characters can join units? As in deathstars? That's what I saw.
Characters are units already. If they weren't they'd be ineligible to be targetted by auras that target units.
I think it is for things like Celestine and her bodyguard. Means Celestine is still untargetable even with them as long as she isn't closest and within 3 of another unit
Latro_ wrote: haha it is quite funny though because as i'm reading it.
If you had say two daemon princes side by side that are an equal distance from the enemy firer, you cant shoot either of them no matter how close you are?!
It clearly says that you ignore characters in the rule. Maybe more reading, less formatting your posts for your "hot takes".
Galas wrote: Man Basilisk and Manticora have become the best snipers of the game!
I understand what they wanted to fix with this rule but I believe they are going too hard on the other extreme, this will make characters extremely vulnerable.
How? I don't think they can ignore the targeting rule.
Anyways, credit where credit is due; the Sisters preview article was good and the sort of thing I would like to see. It touched on some problems being addressed, as well as some new tactical options AND difficulties for players.
ClockworkZion wrote: Looks like characters will need to be played a bit smarter in the next edition.
Biggest concern, for me, is that wording at the start.
As in you can't target units that contain characters? As in characters can join units? As in deathstars? That's what I saw.
Characters are units already. If they weren't they'd be ineligible to be targetted by auras that target units.
I think it is for things like Celestine and her bodyguard. Means Celestine is still untargetable even with them as long as she isn't closest and within 3 of another unit
Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well . So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.
This isn't for "maybe killing 1 or 2 guardsmen" unless you're doing trash like has been mentioned elsewhere of using non-CC weapon attacks to tie an enemy unit up from shooting rather than actually killing them. It's for when an enemy unit that actually matters leaves combat after you surrounded them.
It won't get used unless it has a realistic chance of actually hurting that 'unit that actually matters'. So almost never.
Regarding the Cut Them Down. I would have preferred an inverse overwatch.
Basically a free melee activation, but without pile in nor consolidation and that only hits on 6s.
This would have made vastly more sense. And actually be worth 1cp most of the time.
I’m surprised that rules were revealed in the faction focus rather in a dedicated article.
I like the new restrictions on multi charges. I was happy with the changes to overwatch but was worried about there no longer being a mechanic to discourage Hail Mary multicharges. This has sorted that out for me.
The character targeting rule is a big improvement over 8th, my only concern is that it will further encourage blobbing together both for auras and for character protection. Hopefully some change to aura rules will help this (order style on one unit selected in the command phase, or a unit can only benefit from one aura at a time would both work for me)
I’m a little concerned by the hints about morale. It will punish large units seems off, and apparently it will also punish small units, so mid sized is best. But then it’s compared to the blast rules which they claim also favour mid sized, but I thought that blast favoured MSU, I'm a little confused. Also, I want morale to mean something and have a genuine impact on the game, but the passing remark that “failing a morale check is devastating” is a bit worrying. I was hoping with the hints at an attrition system that morale would do something other than add to the lethality or effectively take a unit out of action entirely. I’m still holding out hope, but it looks like it isn’t going that way.
Doohicky wrote: I think it is for things like Celestine and her bodyguard. Means Celestine is still untargetable even with them as long as she isn't closest and within 3 of another unit
She is only untargetable if she is within range of ANOTHER unit, her bodyguards no longer protect her as they are only a 2 model unit, thus negating the entire reason the unit exists.
Galas wrote: Man Basilisk and Manticora have become the best snipers of the game!
I understand what they wanted to fix with this rule but I believe they are going too hard on the other extreme, this will make characters extremely vulnerable.
How? I don't think they can ignore the targeting rule.
Tell me what character can survive 3 manticores or 3 basilisk firing at everything thats 3" of him and then him (And thats easy on the first turn. The moment you start moving you won't have that much units at 3" of all of your characters) . Or any kind of character that maybe you would use alone with LOS blocking terrain.
Doohicky wrote: I think it is for things like Celestine and her bodyguard. Means Celestine is still untargetable even with them as long as she isn't closest and within 3 of another unit
She is only untargetable if she is within range of ANOTHER unit, her bodyguards no longer protect her as they are only a 2 model unit, thus negating the entire reason the unit exists.
Geminae Superiora became useless the moment they were separated from Celestine, but they have the bodyguard rule, they can still soak wounds for Celestine.
Latro_ wrote: haha it is quite funny though because as i'm reading it.
If you had say two daemon princes side by side that are an equal distance from the enemy firer, you cant shoot either of them no matter how close you are?!
no because the thing says you ignore other character models right at the bottom of the rule why are we doing big text?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well .
So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.
Ok, let's break this down.
Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.
I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.
Kanluwen wrote: Are you really going to sit there and pretend that a Dreadnought, 5 Deathwing Knights, or 10 Banshees are probably not going to have killed a 10 Guardsman squad after having shot, successfully charged, and then fought them?
Once again:
Roll one D6 for each model from your army that is within Engagement Range of that enemy unit.
This isn't for "maybe killing 1 or 2 guardsmen" unless you're doing trash like has been mentioned elsewhere of using non-CC weapon attacks to tie an enemy unit up from shooting rather than actually killing them. It's for when an enemy unit that actually matters leaves combat after you surrounded them.
Once more 9E-compatible faction rules start appearing i fully expect to see unit- or weapon-specific traits that affect this stratagem. Much like how some units can still trigger overwatch on 5+, you could easily see specialist units doing the same with Cut Them Down. Lash Whips anyone?
Ayup--or just more unit or weapon specific traits that let you strike when an enemy falls back.
OK, maybe not DW knights, but banshees and a single dreadnought will do jack to most units, and the chance of actually hurting them further with 1CP is minimal and a waste, but apparently you're the only one that can't see that. So tell me, why are your 20 conscripts better at causing MW on a retreating foe than a single Bloodthirster? I'll wait.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well .
So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.
Ok, let's break this down.
Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.
I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.
The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.
On the morale thing very early on Stu Black mentioned a word 'attrition' when talking about morale.
I'm assuming how that morale tests even being taken has some sort of negative effect on the unit for the rest of the game over loosing models. This would impact bigger units more.
Doohicky wrote: I think it is for things like Celestine and her bodyguard. Means Celestine is still untargetable even with them as long as she isn't closest and within 3 of another unit
She is only untargetable if she is within range of ANOTHER unit, her bodyguards no longer protect her as they are only a 2 model unit, thus negating the entire reason the unit exists.
Yes I know. That's why it ends with the bit in bold. The another unit I refer to is something other than the bodyguards
Latro_ wrote: haha it is quite funny though because as i'm reading it.
If you had say two daemon princes side by side that are an equal distance from the enemy firer, you cant shoot either of them no matter how close you are?!
no because the thing says you ignore other character models right at the bottom of the rule why are we doing big text?
because i'm a massive massive 37 year old hyper idiot when new rules come out and i dont read them fully and i'm working on it
Someone on Reddit did the match and Cut Them Down trumps an inverse Overwatch on anyone who isn't a character with a truckload of attacks since it skips needing to wound and then get past saves.
And you melee dedicated units like Dreadnoughts or Genestealers.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well . So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.
Ok, let's break this down.
Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.
I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.
The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.
They are separate units in the codex. They are even on different pages. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to rules.
I think it is for things like Celestine and her bodyguard. Means Celestine is still untargetable even with them as long as she isn't closest and within 3 of another unit
Celestine 1 unit, bodyguard another and you can bring either as solo
Galas wrote: Man Basilisk and Manticora have become the best snipers of the game!
I understand what they wanted to fix with this rule but I believe they are going too hard on the other extreme, this will make characters extremely vulnerable.
How? I don't think they can ignore the targeting rule.
Tell me what character can survive 3 manticores or 3 basilisk firing at everything thats 3" of him and then him (And thats easy on the first turn. The moment you start moving you won't have that much units at 3" of all of your characters) . Or any kind of character that maybe you would use alone with LOS blocking terrain.
Oh, you don't mean directly attacking him. Well, you still have to get rid of the bodyguard, right? So if the bodyguard is tough enough to survive bombardment then so will the character. I guess terminators or shield lychguard or something.
Artillery probably needs a bit of a nerf, imo. In earlier editions they had to deal with scatter. Now they don't really have a weakness. They should at least have hit penalties if firing indirectly.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Anyways, credit where credit is due; the Sisters preview article was good and the sort of thing I would like to see. It touched on some problems being addressed, as well as some new tactical options AND difficulties for players.
Wish they had touched mortificators more than "oh you lost your special rule". Do they get anything in return or nerf?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well . So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.
Ok, let's break this down.
Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.
I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.
The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.
They are separate units in the codex. They are even on different pages. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to rules.
Huh, well that's weird. Do they have a rule where damage gets redirected from Celestine to them, at least? I think you can still use that. If so, then they are still working as bodyguards.
As I said. I understand what they wanted to remove from the game but this is too hard in making characters vulnerable.
I mean. It is not that big of a deal. The meta will change, and we will adapt to it, and it will probably change in 6 months. But this is a bad change in general. I prefer hard to target characters even if sometimes silly situations happen than characters that need to be literally at 3" from half of his army to hope to survive.
Latro_ wrote: yea its actually a weirdly good sentence as it covers units of 1+ characters and weird units where they have body guards that are not characters.
This. They're just covering their bases. If characters could join units again, there'd be no need for an explicit rule on character targeting.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well .
So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.
Ok, let's break this down.
Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.
I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.
The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.
They are separate units in the codex. They are even on different pages. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to rules.
could you not already do this in 8th? assuming gemini and celestine group were all the closest?
Someone on Reddit did the match and Cut Them Down trumps an inverse Overwatch on anyone who isn't a character with a truckload of attacks since it skips needing to wound and then get past saves.
And you melee dedicated units like Dreadnoughts or Genestealers.
Fair point. I could see a rule that give certain units bonuses to Cut Them Down to compensate though.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well .
So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.
Ok, let's break this down.
Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.
I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.
The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.
Huh, well that's weird.
Do they have a rule where damage gets redirected from Celestine to them, at least? I think you can still use that.
If so, then they are still working as bodyguards.
Yes they do. The trio are 2 units. Celestine 1, 1-2 gemini as other. All characters so all can be protected with this.
Funnily enough best use for gemini i have had is sacrifial lamb in maelstroms. 16/20(depending which you consider real price. Gw being gw unclear) for 2 vp when works isn't that bad
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well .
So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.
Ok, let's break this down.
Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.
I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.
The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.
They are separate units in the codex. They are even on different pages. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to rules.
To be fair, we haven't seen any day 1 fixes that might make bodyguard units always count as being more than 3 models if at least 1 is on the battlefield. That's what I would do, just always allow a bodyguard unit to count as 3 models when within 3" of a character. Who knows?
To be fair, we haven't seen any day 1 fixes that might make bodyguard units always count as being more than 3 models if at least 1 is on the battlefield. That's what I would do, just always allow a bodyguard unit to count as 3 models when within 3" of a character. Who knows?
Bodyguards units transfers wounds from the character to them, they don't need a fix, do they ?
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Hmm, the math hammer must surely make sense to have MSU surrounding a character, but surely that actually makes a character easier to snipe than larger units?
Assuming split fire is still a thing, if a character is surrounded by 6x 5 man squads, you need to kill 3 models in each unit, so 18 in total (saying split fire as you will want to split fire at times to maybe whittle down the last model in one unit and dedicate the rest to another squad which would be necessary when killing MSU's in such a situation you would presume).
For if they are surrounded by 3x 10 man squads, you need to kill 24 models to snipe the character. Whilst the larger unit is a bigger problem for morale purposes, the character will survive without being shot that turn, whilst in the first scenario, the character can get sniped.
Unless my reading of the rules and/or maths is off there....
I suppose another tactic will be to have more heavy duty units by characters with high defence that can act as their body guard to absorb the firepower before being whittled down.
Quoting my own post again as it probably got lost in the discussion, any gurus amongst you can answer whether this interpretation is right or wrong (in theory at least anyway).
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well .
So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.
Ok, let's break this down.
Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.
I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.
The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.
They are separate units in the codex. They are even on different pages. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to rules.
To be fair, we haven't seen any day 1 fixes that might make bodyguard units always count as being more than 3 models if at least 1 is on the battlefield. That's what I would do, just always allow a bodyguard unit to count as 3 models when within 3" of a character. Who knows?
Or use the bodyguard rule to soak damage as before
Quoting my own post again as it probably got lost in the discussion, any gurus amongst you can answer whether this interpretation is right or wrong (in theory at least anyway).
Jidmah wrote: I think the issue is that
1) falling back from a unit that is not a melee expert should be easy, because we don't want a unit of sisters to deactivate a unit of necron warriors by charging them with a few remaining survivors.
2) falling back from a unit that is a melee expert should not be easy, because turning your back to a unit of nobz, banshees, assault terminators or khorne berzerkers and running should end in your death.
Judging from cut them down, I somehow doubt that GW managed to tackle this properly.
Remember when you could catch the enemy and completely destroy them if they fell back in 5th? It makes very little sense that we have no mechanic whatsoever from deterring falling back and the strategem is a half-measure. I agree with others that the health of 9th is largely tied to the outcome of falling back. I just hope they haven't ignored it outside of Cut Them Down, which is my fear.
You folk are ridiculous.
You will never be able to justify the complaining that this is somehow less powerful than "Fire Overwatch" or "Fall Back" now that we've got an idea as to what is going on with "Fire Overwatch". "Cut Them Down" is a fricking gamechanger and people have done nothing but complain that it 'isn't enough'.
We now know that "Fire Overwatch" is a stratagem that costs 1CP, can only be used once per phase(meaning once per turn effectively) by one unit, and that certain units might have their own version of it or modifiers for it but that Overwatch isn't exactly available on every unit anymore. Units firing as part of "Fire Overwatch" still have to roll to hit on 6s and still then have to roll to Wound.
"Cut Them Down" is a stratagem that costs 1 CP and lets every model within Engagement Range of the Falling Back enemy unit roll one D6 before any models in that unit are moved. For each 6, the enemy unit suffers 1 mortal wound. If you cannot see that such a stratagem will be fairly powerful with the kind of tripointing strategies currently in play? That's on you all. Because it isn't a small thing.
LOL imagine thinking that, because Overwatch was effectively removed, it makes this Stratagem ANY better. Spoiler alert: it's still a waste of CP.
Then again you said Fall Back was never an issue to begin with so you're not to be taken seriously.
The biggest thing in the article for me was the multi charge footnote.
I can't quite believe that they slipped this in as a footnote, rather than have it highlighted in its own section within an article.
Character change doesn't really bother me as it makes sense and will add a new dynamic. Certainly think that ignore LoS weapons and fast units will be king this edition.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Additionally, it is still bugging me that the veterens all have iron halos... Have we had anything written in any articles or stated on the streams to indicate the way storm shields work has changed? I wonder if they are going back to melee only, or is the iron halo just a design choice (and not actually an iron halo).
Aash wrote: So today’s big reveal - you can pain your own minis in the colours you want. Tomorrow - you can glue the minis together!! Who knew!? Oh well, I guess we have to wait til Monday now to find out something new about 9th.
I was curious to see if the new veterans would be officially part of the Deathwing, so that article was quite useful
Whilst the vast majority won't care, this is actually a fairly big development in terms of lore.
Undercuts their concept entirely imo.
Until there are terminator primaris (and aggressors aren't them) then they need to be models of some sort for primaris within the deathwing as they are now being accepted within the inner circle in the lore, so unless they all become masters and go back to companies, they need a place to go. I think they look cool in deathwing colours anyway.
They went years saying that primaris have all-primaris chapters without so much as a hint of first company models, waiting in limbo for their heavy veteran version to come out would have been the status quo.
Next we’ll be seeing Redemptors in deathwing company colours despite their life support system being too faulty to allow for a venerable dread. But that’s fine, actively making no sense and undercutting core lore concepts is “better” than trying to reconcile things.
So do Primaris Marines in general, if we're being honest.
Well yeah, they’ve made very little effort to make sense of the rules, lore and models of primaris from the start. Their execution cheapens themselves as full of cheap gimmickry and regular marines as “inferior”.
They already did. If I recall correctly, the issue was less the life support capabilities of the Redemptor, but rather too much heat produced by essentially overclocking the dread while fighting. How much fighting is too hard for super space marine tech?
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think being able to use a single strategem for a 17% chance to cause a mortal wound per model is worth having my unit completely obliterated next turn. That is still the issue. Not only that, but now I have to pay a CP to do it. So, you can still leave combat, I MIGHT cause 1-2 wounds on you when you, then you focus fire my melee unit. What is the incentive for rushing in, chainswords drawn, again?
But it's not "your unit" alone that is attacking when you utilize this stratagem.
It is the MODELS. FROM. YOUR. ARMY. that are within Engagement Range of the enemy unit that was chosen to Fall Back with.
Understand: THIS IS NOT A ONE UNIT STRATAGEM ON YOUR PART. We know Blast weapons cannot be used while an enemy is within Engagement Range. We don't know 100% yet how Fall Back or how Morale works with 9E. We do know that terrain rules have changed.
You weren't "causing a mortal wound" to units that Fell Back before(or if you were--congrats, you're one of the few armies doing so!), so spending 1CP now to finish off a unit that currently just continually gets pulled back and you have to keep chipping away at it is not exactly a downside. And frankly, you never should be able to get 100% immunity from shooting attacks simply by walking up and hitting something.
LOL imagine thinking that, because Overwatch was effectively removed, it makes this Stratagem ANY better. Spoiler alert: it's still a waste of CP.
Then again you said Fall Back was never an issue to begin with so you're not to be taken seriously.
LOL, imagine thinking this stratagem is trash while nonstop whining about Fall Back being such a big deal.
If it's SUCH A BIG ISSUE, then spoiler: This stratagem should be a big deal to you. After all, it's a hard counter to Fall Back--which we know is a fairly big deal to Blast Weapon equipped units since they cannot utilize Blast Weapons on units within Engagement Range of them.
Hrmmmh, what kind of units usually come with Blast Weapons?
endlesswaltz123 wrote: So why are they advocating MSU's in the article to protect characters then?
Because I'm pretty sure they don't.
He says :
"I intend to overcome those by keeping a close eye on what I keep near them – there should be no shortage in my army of both Vehicles and decently sized Infantry units, and the two of those together should give me all the protection I need to keep my linchpins alive."
The part about using more msu is his conclusion regarding the whole article, it isn't linked to his thoughts regarding "look out, sir".
endlesswaltz123 wrote: So why are they advocating MSU's in the article to protect characters then?
Because I'm pretty sure they don't.
He says :
"I intend to overcome those by keeping a close eye on what I keep near them – there should be no shortage in my army of both Vehicles and decently sized Infantry units, and the two of those together should give me all the protection I need to keep my linchpins alive."
The part about using more msu is his conclusion regarding the whole article, it isn't linked to his thoughts regarding "look out, sir".
I took the MSU comment more a reference to the morale rules that haven’t been explained yet. I’m a little worried about that tbh.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think being able to use a single strategem for a 17% chance to cause a mortal wound per model is worth having my unit completely obliterated next turn. That is still the issue. Not only that, but now I have to pay a CP to do it. So, you can still leave combat, I MIGHT cause 1-2 wounds on you when you, then you focus fire my melee unit. What is the incentive for rushing in, chainswords drawn, again?
But it's not "your unit" alone that is attacking when you utilize this stratagem.
It is the MODELS. FROM. YOUR. ARMY. that are within Engagement Range of the enemy unit that was chosen to Fall Back with.
.
You're emphasizing the wrong thing. Your army isn't the important part, Engagement Range is. Even if you somehow have 30 models engaged in combat with the unit that might try to fall back (which is a dubious prospect), that's still only about 5 MWs. Realistically, you might have a dozen or so. Or even less. That's why people aren't impressed.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Additionally, it is still bugging me that the veterens all have iron halos... Have we had anything written in any articles or stated on the streams to indicate the way storm shields work has changed? I wonder if they are going back to melee only, or is the iron halo just a design choice (and not actually an iron halo).
Aash wrote: So today’s big reveal - you can pain your own minis in the colours you want. Tomorrow - you can glue the minis together!! Who knew!? Oh well, I guess we have to wait til Monday now to find out something new about 9th.
I was curious to see if the new veterans would be officially part of the Deathwing, so that article was quite useful
Whilst the vast majority won't care, this is actually a fairly big development in terms of lore.
Undercuts their concept entirely imo.
Until there are terminator primaris (and aggressors aren't them) then they need to be models of some sort for primaris within the deathwing as they are now being accepted within the inner circle in the lore, so unless they all become masters and go back to companies, they need a place to go. I think they look cool in deathwing colours anyway.
They went years saying that primaris have all-primaris chapters without so much as a hint of first company models, waiting in limbo for their heavy veteran version to come out would have been the status quo.
Next we’ll be seeing Redemptors in deathwing company colours despite their life support system being too faulty to allow for a venerable dread. But that’s fine, actively making no sense and undercutting core lore concepts is “better” than trying to reconcile things.
So do Primaris Marines in general, if we're being honest.
Well yeah, they’ve made very little effort to make sense of the rules, lore and models of primaris from the start. Their execution cheapens themselves as full of cheap gimmickry and regular marines as “inferior”.
They already did. If I recall correctly, the issue was less the life support capabilities of the Redemptor, but rather too much heat produced by essentially overclocking the dread while fighting. How much fighting is too hard for super space marine tech?
No, there is lore that Redemptor Dreads cut corners on life support because Cawl sees the pilot as an easily replaced component.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Its even stronger than that. As it refers to the unit containing a character, that means you can have one of her gemini within 3" to get protection as well .
So you have to kill a unit of sisters and then the gemini to be able to damage Celestine.
Ok, let's break this down.
Celetine and the Geminae are on the field, 12" away from any other units.
I can shoot Celestine, because she is not within 3" of a valid unit to protect her.
The Gemini and Celestine are part of the same unit, right? So no, you can't shoot directly at Celestine. You shoot at her unit and the Gemini takes the hits.
They are separate units in the codex. They are even on different pages. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to rules.
To be fair, we haven't seen any day 1 fixes that might make bodyguard units always count as being more than 3 models if at least 1 is on the battlefield. That's what I would do, just always allow a bodyguard unit to count as 3 models when within 3" of a character. Who knows?
Or use the bodyguard rule to soak damage as before
which really isn't a great rule currently. It makes no difference if you're bodyguard is a grot or a 1000yr old veteran with a stormshield. It dies. Not a fan of the current bodyguard rule 9and all the different variations of it), so hopefully it gets changed, along with saviour protocols.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think being able to use a single strategem for a 17% chance to cause a mortal wound per model is worth having my unit completely obliterated next turn. That is still the issue. Not only that, but now I have to pay a CP to do it. So, you can still leave combat, I MIGHT cause 1-2 wounds on you when you, then you focus fire my melee unit. What is the incentive for rushing in, chainswords drawn, again?
But it's not "your unit" alone that is attacking when you utilize this stratagem.
It is the MODELS. FROM. YOUR. ARMY. that are within Engagement Range of the enemy unit that was chosen to Fall Back with.
Understand:
THIS IS NOT A ONE UNIT STRATAGEM ON YOUR PART.
We know Blast weapons cannot be used while an enemy is within Engagement Range. We don't know 100% yet how Fall Back or how Morale works with 9E. We do know that terrain rules have changed.
You weren't "causing a mortal wound" to units that Fell Back before(or if you were--congrats, you're one of the few armies doing so!), so spending 1CP now to finish off a unit that currently just continually gets pulled back and you have to keep chipping away at it is not exactly a downside. And frankly, you never should be able to get 100% immunity from shooting attacks simply by walking up and hitting something.
LOL imagine thinking that, because Overwatch was effectively removed, it makes this Stratagem ANY better. Spoiler alert: it's still a waste of CP.
Then again you said Fall Back was never an issue to begin with so you're not to be taken seriously.
LOL, imagine thinking this stratagem is trash while nonstop whining about Fall Back being such a big deal.
If it's SUCH A BIG ISSUE, then spoiler:
This stratagem should be a big deal to you. After all, it's a hard counter to Fall Back--which we know is a fairly big deal to Blast Weapon equipped units since they cannot utilize Blast Weapons on units within Engagement Range of them.
Hrmmmh, what kind of units usually come with Blast Weapons?
A once-per-turn opportunity to hardly inflict mortal wounds will not stop ANYONE from falling back.
Interesting point - the unit or monster within 3" of the character doesn't need to be closer to the enemy in order for the character to be untargetable. So as long as the character is sticks within 3" of a 3+ unit or a monster/vehicle they gain protection from units that are closer to the enemy but might not be anywhere near the character.
Further other characters are ignored when determining what unit is closer, but there's nothing stopping you from using another character as your bodyguard unit as long as they are within 3" and are a monster/vehicle (or more rarely part of a 3+ model unit).
This means that if your daemon prince keeps another daemon prince accountabili-buddy next to him they can fly around just like before as long as they aren't closer to the enemy than that unit of cultists.
Looks like I was lucky again. Guessed the character targeting rules on the spot right, May 23
EDIT: Looks like GW leaked the charges also. Didn't I say that the charge needs to reach every unit you declare, or you don't move at all?
You went from your source saying it was gone completely-which was 100% wrong, to saying maybe it's a stratagem after being presented with with stuff from Engine War. You can't claim this one is a win, when you are saying 2 out of the possible 3 options.
It's fair play you get to claim the Look out Sir! that was !00% correct.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: Interesting point - the unit or monster within 3" of the character doesn't need to be closer to the enemy in order for the character to be untargetable. So as long as the character is sticks within 3" of a 3+ unit or a monster/vehicle they gain protection from units that are closer to the enemy but might not be anywhere near the character.
Further other characters are ignored when determining what unit is closer, but there's nothing stopping you from using another character as your bodyguard unit as long as they are within 3" and are a monster/vehicle (or more rarely part of a 3+ model unit).
This means that if your daemon prince keeps another daemon prince accountabili-buddy next to him they can fly around just like before as long as they aren't closer to the enemy than that unit of cultists.
There is no "bodyguarding" to be done. If the character is targetable, you can shot it, otherwise you can't. Other characters can't "shield" because they are themselves targetable or not.
Edit : Ok nvm, actually you are right if you meant having a unit close to the first character and another character further away but in 3" of the first character. Both character aren't targetable despite the second one not being close to anything else than a character (as long as it is a monster/unit of 3+/whatever).
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Additionally, it is still bugging me that the veterens all have iron halos... Have we had anything written in any articles or stated on the streams to indicate the way storm shields work has changed? I wonder if they are going back to melee only, or is the iron halo just a design choice (and not actually an iron halo).
Aash wrote: So today’s big reveal - you can pain your own minis in the colours you want. Tomorrow - you can glue the minis together!! Who knew!? Oh well, I guess we have to wait til Monday now to find out something new about 9th.
I was curious to see if the new veterans would be officially part of the Deathwing, so that article was quite useful
Whilst the vast majority won't care, this is actually a fairly big development in terms of lore.
Undercuts their concept entirely imo.
Until there are terminator primaris (and aggressors aren't them) then they need to be models of some sort for primaris within the deathwing as they are now being accepted within the inner circle in the lore, so unless they all become masters and go back to companies, they need a place to go. I think they look cool in deathwing colours anyway.
They went years saying that primaris have all-primaris chapters without so much as a hint of first company models, waiting in limbo for their heavy veteran version to come out would have been the status quo.
Next we’ll be seeing Redemptors in deathwing company colours despite their life support system being too faulty to allow for a venerable dread. But that’s fine, actively making no sense and undercutting core lore concepts is “better” than trying to reconcile things.
So do Primaris Marines in general, if we're being honest.
Well yeah, they’ve made very little effort to make sense of the rules, lore and models of primaris from the start. Their execution cheapens themselves as full of cheap gimmickry and regular marines as “inferior”.
They already did. If I recall correctly, the issue was less the life support capabilities of the Redemptor, but rather too much heat produced by essentially overclocking the dread while fighting. How much fighting is too hard for super space marine tech?
No, there is lore that Redemptor Dreads cut corners on life support because Cawl sees the pilot as an easily replaced component.
Nah. I just read through both Space Marine codices. The tech priests didn’t add any extra systems than normal to protect the interred marine from the machine as a pilot can be replaced. The life support works like a normal dread. It’s just that prolonged and intense fighting from the Redemptor chassis (more powerful than older dreads) will burn out the marine. So, as I said, the actual life support capabilities are fine, it’s just that pushing the machine too hard will burn out the pilot.
Galas wrote: Man Basilisk and Manticora have become the best snipers of the game!
I understand what they wanted to fix with this rule but I believe they are going too hard on the other extreme, this will make characters extremely vulnerable.
How? I don't think they can ignore the targeting rule.
Tell me what character can survive 3 manticores or 3 basilisk firing at everything thats 3" of him and then him (And thats easy on the first turn. The moment you start moving you won't have that much units at 3" of all of your characters) . Or any kind of character that maybe you would use alone with LOS blocking terrain.
Oh, you don't mean directly attacking him. Well, you still have to get rid of the bodyguard, right? So if the bodyguard is tough enough to survive bombardment then so will the character.
I guess terminators or shield lychguard or something.
Artillery probably needs a bit of a nerf, imo. In earlier editions they had to deal with scatter. Now they don't really have a weakness. They should at least have hit penalties if firing indirectly.
My bet is that Object Terrain will provide a lot of that. They said it provides cover if it is between you and the firing unit. so I'm guessing firing across the board will most likely cross several pieces of object terrain and pick up several penalties.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think being able to use a single strategem for a 17% chance to cause a mortal wound per model is worth having my unit completely obliterated next turn. That is still the issue. Not only that, but now I have to pay a CP to do it. So, you can still leave combat, I MIGHT cause 1-2 wounds on you when you, then you focus fire my melee unit. What is the incentive for rushing in, chainswords drawn, again?
But it's not "your unit" alone that is attacking when you utilize this stratagem.
It is the MODELS. FROM. YOUR. ARMY. that are within Engagement Range of the enemy unit that was chosen to Fall Back with.
Understand:
THIS IS NOT A ONE UNIT STRATAGEM ON YOUR PART.
We know Blast weapons cannot be used while an enemy is within Engagement Range. We don't know 100% yet how Fall Back or how Morale works with 9E. We do know that terrain rules have changed.
You weren't "causing a mortal wound" to units that Fell Back before(or if you were--congrats, you're one of the few armies doing so!), so spending 1CP now to finish off a unit that currently just continually gets pulled back and you have to keep chipping away at it is not exactly a downside. And frankly, you never should be able to get 100% immunity from shooting attacks simply by walking up and hitting something.
LOL imagine thinking that, because Overwatch was effectively removed, it makes this Stratagem ANY better. Spoiler alert: it's still a waste of CP.
Then again you said Fall Back was never an issue to begin with so you're not to be taken seriously.
LOL, imagine thinking this stratagem is trash while nonstop whining about Fall Back being such a big deal.
If it's SUCH A BIG ISSUE, then spoiler:
This stratagem should be a big deal to you. After all, it's a hard counter to Fall Back--which we know is a fairly big deal to Blast Weapon equipped units since they cannot utilize Blast Weapons on units within Engagement Range of them.
Hrmmmh, what kind of units usually come with Blast Weapons?
At least your acknowledging the fact it takes an entire melee army to charge a single shooty unit!
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: Interesting point - the unit or monster within 3" of the character doesn't need to be closer to the enemy in order for the character to be untargetable. So as long as the character is sticks within 3" of a 3+ unit or a monster/vehicle they gain protection from units that are closer to the enemy but might not be anywhere near the character.
Further other characters are ignored when determining what unit is closer, but there's nothing stopping you from using another character as your bodyguard unit as long as they are within 3" and are a monster/vehicle (or more rarely part of a 3+ model unit).
This means that if your daemon prince keeps another daemon prince accountabili-buddy next to him they can fly around just like before as long as they aren't closer to the enemy than that unit of cultists.
There is no "bodyguarding" to be done. If the character is targetable, you can shot it, otherwise you can't. Other characters can't "shield" because they are themselves targetable or not.
Edit : Ok nvm, actually you are right if you meant having a unit close to the first character and another character further away but in 3" of the first character. Both character aren't targetable despite the second one not being close to anything else than a character.
is this second daemon prince somehow not a model with the CHARACTER keyword? Or is there some linguistic shenanigan that causes the last line "Ignore other enemy models with the CHARACTER keyword when determining if the target is the closest enemy" to not apply here?
...or are you saying if they've got a THIRD unit that's like cultists or something closer then the rule applies? I think I get the problem here...you can turn old CHARACTER protection rule on by having a pair of characters with the VEHICLE or MONSTER keyword within 3".
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Additionally, it is still bugging me that the veterens all have iron halos... Have we had anything written in any articles or stated on the streams to indicate the way storm shields work has changed? I wonder if they are going back to melee only, or is the iron halo just a design choice (and not actually an iron halo).
Aash wrote: So today’s big reveal - you can pain your own minis in the colours you want. Tomorrow - you can glue the minis together!! Who knew!? Oh well, I guess we have to wait til Monday now to find out something new about 9th.
I was curious to see if the new veterans would be officially part of the Deathwing, so that article was quite useful
Whilst the vast majority won't care, this is actually a fairly big development in terms of lore.
Undercuts their concept entirely imo.
Until there are terminator primaris (and aggressors aren't them) then they need to be models of some sort for primaris within the deathwing as they are now being accepted within the inner circle in the lore, so unless they all become masters and go back to companies, they need a place to go. I think they look cool in deathwing colours anyway.
They went years saying that primaris have all-primaris chapters without so much as a hint of first company models, waiting in limbo for their heavy veteran version to come out would have been the status quo.
Next we’ll be seeing Redemptors in deathwing company colours despite their life support system being too faulty to allow for a venerable dread. But that’s fine, actively making no sense and undercutting core lore concepts is “better” than trying to reconcile things.
So do Primaris Marines in general, if we're being honest.
Well yeah, they’ve made very little effort to make sense of the rules, lore and models of primaris from the start. Their execution cheapens themselves as full of cheap gimmickry and regular marines as “inferior”.
They already did. If I recall correctly, the issue was less the life support capabilities of the Redemptor, but rather too much heat produced by essentially overclocking the dread while fighting. How much fighting is too hard for super space marine tech?
No, there is lore that Redemptor Dreads cut corners on life support because Cawl sees the pilot as an easily replaced component.
Nah. I just read through both Space Marine codices. The tech priests didn’t add any extra systems than normal to protect the interred marine from the machine as a pilot can be replaced. The life support works like a normal dread. It’s just that prolonged and intense fighting from the Redemptor chassis (more powerful than older dreads) will burn out the marine. So, as I said, the actual life support capabilities are fine, it’s just that pushing the machine too hard will burn out the pilot.
Congratulations, you won on semantics without actually changing the essential facts of the matter or undercutting the point.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: Interesting point - the unit or monster within 3" of the character doesn't need to be closer to the enemy in order for the character to be untargetable. So as long as the character is sticks within 3" of a 3+ unit or a monster/vehicle they gain protection from units that are closer to the enemy but might not be anywhere near the character.
Further other characters are ignored when determining what unit is closer, but there's nothing stopping you from using another character as your bodyguard unit as long as they are within 3" and are a monster/vehicle (or more rarely part of a 3+ model unit).
This means that if your daemon prince keeps another daemon prince accountabili-buddy next to him they can fly around just like before as long as they aren't closer to the enemy than that unit of cultists.
There is no "bodyguarding" to be done. If the character is targetable, you can shot it, otherwise you can't. Other characters can't "shield" because they are themselves targetable or not.
Edit : Ok nvm, actually you are right if you meant having a unit close to the first character and another character further away but in 3" of the first character.
There are 2 requirements for a character with 9 wounds or less not to be targetable:
1) They need to be within 3" of a unit that has 3+ models or is a vehicle/monster. There is nothing preventing the unit within 3" from being another character unit as long as it is 3+ models or is a vehicle/monster.
2) They need to not be the closest unit to the enemy - i.e., there needs to be another unit closer. The closer unit cannot be another character with 9 wounds or less. The closer unit need not be the same unit as in 1).
Now take 2 daemon princes that are within 3" of each other. Both are within 3" of a monster so they satisfy 1). If there is a cultist unit closer to the enemy than either of them then they satisfy 2). Thus both are untargetable. It doesn't matter if the cultist unit is on the other side of the board.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Additionally, it is still bugging me that the veterens all have iron halos... Have we had anything written in any articles or stated on the streams to indicate the way storm shields work has changed? I wonder if they are going back to melee only, or is the iron halo just a design choice (and not actually an iron halo).
Aash wrote: So today’s big reveal - you can pain your own minis in the colours you want. Tomorrow - you can glue the minis together!! Who knew!? Oh well, I guess we have to wait til Monday now to find out something new about 9th.
I was curious to see if the new veterans would be officially part of the Deathwing, so that article was quite useful
Whilst the vast majority won't care, this is actually a fairly big development in terms of lore.
Undercuts their concept entirely imo.
Until there are terminator primaris (and aggressors aren't them) then they need to be models of some sort for primaris within the deathwing as they are now being accepted within the inner circle in the lore, so unless they all become masters and go back to companies, they need a place to go. I think they look cool in deathwing colours anyway.
They went years saying that primaris have all-primaris chapters without so much as a hint of first company models, waiting in limbo for their heavy veteran version to come out would have been the status quo.
Next we’ll be seeing Redemptors in deathwing company colours despite their life support system being too faulty to allow for a venerable dread. But that’s fine, actively making no sense and undercutting core lore concepts is “better” than trying to reconcile things.
So do Primaris Marines in general, if we're being honest.
Well yeah, they’ve made very little effort to make sense of the rules, lore and models of primaris from the start. Their execution cheapens themselves as full of cheap gimmickry and regular marines as “inferior”.
They already did. If I recall correctly, the issue was less the life support capabilities of the Redemptor, but rather too much heat produced by essentially overclocking the dread while fighting. How much fighting is too hard for super space marine tech?
No, there is lore that Redemptor Dreads cut corners on life support because Cawl sees the pilot as an easily replaced component.
Nah. I just read through both Space Marine codices. The tech priests didn’t add any extra systems than normal to protect the interred marine from the machine as a pilot can be replaced. The life support works like a normal dread. It’s just that prolonged and intense fighting from the Redemptor chassis (more powerful than older dreads) will burn out the marine. So, as I said, the actual life support capabilities are fine, it’s just that pushing the machine too hard will burn out the pilot.
Congratulations, you won on semantics without actually changing the essential facts of the matter or undercutting the point.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: Interesting point - the unit or monster within 3" of the character doesn't need to be closer to the enemy in order for the character to be untargetable. So as long as the character is sticks within 3" of a 3+ unit or a monster/vehicle they gain protection from units that are closer to the enemy but might not be anywhere near the character.
Further other characters are ignored when determining what unit is closer, but there's nothing stopping you from using another character as your bodyguard unit as long as they are within 3" and are a monster/vehicle (or more rarely part of a 3+ model unit).
This means that if your daemon prince keeps another daemon prince accountabili-buddy next to him they can fly around just like before as long as they aren't closer to the enemy than that unit of cultists.
There is no "bodyguarding" to be done. If the character is targetable, you can shot it, otherwise you can't. Other characters can't "shield" because they are themselves targetable or not.
Edit : Ok nvm, actually you are right if you meant having a unit close to the first character and another character further away but in 3" of the first character.
There are 2 requirements for a character with 9 wounds or less not to be targetable:
1) They need to be within 3" of a unit that has 3+ models or is a vehicle/monster. There is nothing preventing the unit within 3" from being another character unit as long as it is 3+ models or is a vehicle/monster.
2) They need to not be the closest unit to the enemy - i.e., there needs to be another unit closer. The closer unit cannot be another character with 9 wounds or less. The closer unit need not be the same unit as in 1).
Now take 2 daemon princes that are within 3" of each other. Both are within 3" of a monster so they satisfy 1). If there is a cultist unit closer to the enemy than either of them then they satisfy 2). Thus both are untargetable. It doesn't matter if the cultist unit is on the other side of the board.
If my opponent wants to buy two daemon princes and elect to not use the warptime power with them to keep them within 3" of each other he can have that victory, but only if he promises to sing some kind of shmaltzy broadway musical duet with them as they run around the field.
This is like when it was possible earlier in the edition to get a turn 1 charge with khorne bezerkers by equipping a rhino with a combi-plasma, giving it a -1 to hit and rapid firing it overcharged into the nearest enemy unit to blow it up. Like, sure, you CAN do that, absolutely, power to you.
If they’re going to make moral a bigger part of the game, I really hope (I know they won’t though :C) they drop the current way it works. It was a cool idea in theory, but it just ends up being a big kick in the teeth having to remove more models after suffering a thrashing.
I hope they can make a simplified version of them running towards a table edge or something.
The charge change is more problematic than the look out, sir change, unless they remove the rule that says a unit that charges can only fight units it declares a charge against.
If that rule remains, it becomes trivially easy to set up situations where a charging unit cannot fight against a unit you heroic into it in response to the charge, because doing so would require it to make an impossible or virtually impossible charge roll.
It's going to be a total disaster. Such a disaster that I have to assume they are removing that portion of the rule if they are changing multi-charges that way.
Ironically the combination of the two rules would result in it becoming easier to snipe characters with ranged weapons but vastly harder to fight characters with melee weapons, the complete opposite of anything that makes any sort of sense.
Tiberius501 wrote: If they’re going to make moral a bigger part of the game, I really hope (I know they won’t though :C) they drop the current way it works. It was a cool idea in theory, but it just ends up being a big kick in the teeth having to remove more models after suffering a thrashing.
I hope they can make a simplified version of them running towards a table edge or something.
Or something like a penalty to movement or offense due to suppression.
it'd also be great for the mechanic to causing morale be something other than models in the unit dying, which necessarily reduces the impact of morale due to many times the unit just being 1-2 models at the point that morale matters.
yukishiro1 wrote: The charge change is more problematic than the look out, sir change, unless they remove the rule that says a unit that charges can only fight units it declares a charge against.
If that rule remains, it becomes trivially easy to set up situations where a charging unit cannot fight against a unit you heroic into it in response to the charge, because doing so would require it to make an impossible or virtually impossible charge roll.
It's going to be a total disaster. Such a disaster that I have to assume they are removing that portion of the rule if they are changing multi-charges that way.
Ironically the combination of the two rules would result in it becoming easier to snipe characters with ranged weapons but vastly harder to fight characters with melee weapons, the complete opposite of anything that makes any sort of sense.
I’m hoping they change the rules so that a unit that charges can still fight other units but without any of the advantages it normally gains from charging (+1 attack, heavy cover etc)
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: Interesting point - the unit or monster within 3" of the character doesn't need to be closer to the enemy in order for the character to be untargetable. So as long as the character is sticks within 3" of a 3+ unit or a monster/vehicle they gain protection from units that are closer to the enemy but might not be anywhere near the character.
Further other characters are ignored when determining what unit is closer, but there's nothing stopping you from using another character as your bodyguard unit as long as they are within 3" and are a monster/vehicle (or more rarely part of a 3+ model unit).
This means that if your daemon prince keeps another daemon prince accountabili-buddy next to him they can fly around just like before as long as they aren't closer to the enemy than that unit of cultists.
There is no "bodyguarding" to be done. If the character is targetable, you can shot it, otherwise you can't. Other characters can't "shield" because they are themselves targetable or not.
Edit : Ok nvm, actually you are right if you meant having a unit close to the first character and another character further away but in 3" of the first character.
There are 2 requirements for a character with 9 wounds or less not to be targetable:
1) They need to be within 3" of a unit that has 3+ models or is a vehicle/monster. There is nothing preventing the unit within 3" from being another character unit as long as it is 3+ models or is a vehicle/monster.
2) They need to not be the closest unit to the enemy - i.e., there needs to be another unit closer. The closer unit cannot be another character with 9 wounds or less. The closer unit need not be the same unit as in 1).
Now take 2 daemon princes that are within 3" of each other. Both are within 3" of a monster so they satisfy 1). If there is a cultist unit closer to the enemy than either of them then they satisfy 2). Thus both are untargetable. It doesn't matter if the cultist unit is on the other side of the board.
If my opponent wants to buy two daemon princes and elect to not use the warptime power with them to keep them within 3" of each other he can have that victory, but only if he promises to sing some kind of shmaltzy broadway musical duet with them as they run around the field.
This is like when it was possible earlier in the edition to get a turn 1 charge with khorne bezerkers by equipping a rhino with a combi-plasma, giving it a -1 to hit and rapid firing it overcharged into the nearest enemy unit to blow it up. Like, sure, you CAN do that, absolutely, power to you.
There are quite a few monster characters in the game, it’s not just DPs. C’Tan, for one, and they were actually seeing competitive play in late 8th.
I like the new character rule. If the enemy has a lot of LOS-ignoring weapons, its going to force placing HQs in reserve until those threats have been dealt with.
I still think the cap should have been up to 8 wounds or less however. My Chaplain Dread is still going to be able to hide behind some lowly scouts, boo..
EDIT: Does this btw mean that any HQ that has more than 9 wounds initially, qualifies for this rule after their wounds value has dropped to 9 or below? That would be even sillier..
Kanluwen wrote: Are you really going to sit there and pretend that a Dreadnought, 5 Deathwing Knights, or 10 Banshees are probably not going to have killed a 10 Guardsman squad after having shot, successfully charged, and then fought them?
Once again:
Roll one D6 for each model from your army that is within Engagement Range of that enemy unit.
This isn't for "maybe killing 1 or 2 guardsmen" unless you're doing trash like has been mentioned elsewhere of using non-CC weapon attacks to tie an enemy unit up from shooting rather than actually killing them. It's for when an enemy unit that actually matters leaves combat after you surrounded them.
Once more 9E-compatible faction rules start appearing i fully expect to see unit- or weapon-specific traits that affect this stratagem. Much like how some units can still trigger overwatch on 5+, you could easily see specialist units doing the same with Cut Them Down. Lash Whips anyone?
Ayup--or just more unit or weapon specific traits that let you strike when an enemy falls back.
OK, maybe not DW knights, but banshees and a single dreadnought will do jack to most units, and the chance of actually hurting them further with 1CP is minimal and a waste, but apparently you're the only one that can't see that. So tell me, why are your 20 conscripts better at causing MW on a retreating foe than a single Bloodthirster? I'll wait.
It's the horror movie trope. That lone serial killer chasing you as he waves his cleaver/chainsaw/etc. at you? You can run from him for days. That pack of tyranid gaunts nipping at your heels? Yeah, they're going to drag ONE of you down and then the whole pack is going to nom on the poor victim.
Honestly, though I would have preferred if they gave you an option
- Roll one die per model; for every 6, you cause a Mortal Wound (better for numerous, but weak unit. Reflects catching an enemy target and piling on the unfortunate soul)
- OR each model rolls its full attacks, but only hits on a 6 regardless of Weapon/Melee skill. Wounding and Saves taken normally. (better for melee-focused units, represents catching the opponent with a killing blow as they retreat).
Man, it seems like GW rules-writing is getting more convoluted. Weren't they trying to get away from that in 8th?
So, if I am understanding LoS!, it is the same rule as 8th, but now the characters ALSO have to be within 3" of a monster, vehicle or 3-model unit.
If a character is NOT within 3" of a monster, vehicle or 3-model unit, then they are targetable. Also, if they meet the above criteria, but are also visible and the closest UNIT (not necessarily the unit that they're 3" away from), then they are also targetable.
puma713 wrote: Man, it seems like GW rules-writing is getting more convoluted. Weren't they trying to get away from that in 8th?
So, if I am understanding LoS!, it is the same rule as 8th, but now the characters ALSO have to be within 3" of a monster, vehicle or 3-model unit.
If a character is NOT within 3" of a monster, vehicle or 3-model unit, then they are targetable. Also, if they meet the above criteria, but are also visible and the closest UNIT (not necessarily the unit that they're 3" away from), then they are also targetable.
I think I got it.
Yeah, and everyone constantly bitched and moaned that they weren't using legalistic language with only a single possible interpretation.
The new rules making overwatch a strat that costs a cp and can only be used by one unit a turn really seems to be rewriting the game to an extent, but then again ow fire was never really overwhelming n most cases. I'm not too happy with it as i was thinking the new gauss reapers with s5 and ap2 would make rushing a warrior unit with them a more dangerous but now it loos like they generally won't be able to use it.
puma713 wrote: Man, it seems like GW rules-writing is getting more convoluted. Weren't they trying to get away from that in 8th?
They definitely were. It was a case of "all these rules are getting in the way of us selling models and getting people to focus on what's truly important - buying models from us." I think they resented that the prior rules were too complex for the marketing folk to bother to understand and they were definitely too complex for the Community/White Dwarf article writers to keep straight.
Somewhere along the way I think someone pointed out that they could also sell more books too if they had rules that were worth using. And maybe more models, because they'd actually be bought & used instead of sitting on a store shelf and collecting dust.
They still badly need an editor to make a pass on the way they word rules. And get the descriptive language out of the wordy rules text. "Just the facts man!".
The paint scheme article yesterday still shows that GW thinks that the most important thing to its base is the models. The rules are just there to give folks something to do with their fancy toy soldiers. Rules come and go, the models are forever (and in the case of Eldar aspects, foreeeeeeever)
ClockworkZion wrote: In regards to the Daemon Prince conversation earlier Characters can't protect characters regardless of other keywords.
In his example, the character isn't protecting the character, the closer unit of cultists is. In his example, the two daemon princes satisfy both conditions of being untargetable.
Are they 1.) within 3" of another vehicle or monster? Yes.
and are they 2.) Not the closest visible enemy unit? Yes. It doesn't matter that they're both characters or that one of them is closer than the other, the cultists off to the right are still closest.
Matt Swain wrote: The new rules making overwatch a strat that costs a cp and can only be used by one unit a turn really seems to be rewriting the game to an extent, but then again ow fire was never really overwhelming n most cases. I'm not too happy with it as i was thinking the new gauss reapers with s5 and ap2 would make rushing a warrior unit with them a more dangerous but now it loos like they generally won't be able to use it.
You sir or ma'am must not play Chaos Daemons. I don't mean Daemon soup with rubrics that can soak up OW.
MEQ armies laugh at OW in 8th. 12 orks firing 24 shots with shootas at 10 DC might kill 1 of them, leaving 9 of them hitting with over 40 attacks.
12 Orks firing 24 shots with shootas at 20 Daemonettes or 20 Bloodletters kills 5 on average. That's a huge crippling blow to the assault power of those assault units. Letters are a waste against orks so if we charge 20 Letters against 10 Intercessors the results will be even more skewed because 9 DC charging marines is still going to do a lot more damage than 18 Bloodletters will.
I could see one of them being a Fall Back strategem. I know that we think it isn't because they've referenced Falling Back more than once, but we can hope. I think we've also heard that one of them could be Falling Back through models. Of course, the original 3 are subject to change as well.
I dont know if we can assume the original 3 will still be in play. They just changed overwatch (which is a great idea and a needed thing).
They may change the original 3 as well. I can see reroll 1 dice becoming once per game, same with moral.
THey've explicitly stated the three original generic stratagems are still in 9th Edition. They even named them in a manner pretty close to the quote.
We don't have details on the upcoming Reserve Stratagem, but we know that is in there, so we only don't know about one Stratagem. Is Concealed Positions making the transition to 9th or will they slip in Fall Back (I doubt it) or some other new Stratagem?
So, the Daemon Princes hiding each other thing, that's 100% true. You only ignore other characters for the purposes of the closest rule. Two Daemon Princes 1" from each other, with a unit of cultists 5" away, if the cultists are closer, the Daemon Princes can't be shot.
still a vast, vast reduction in weird gamey situations from the current rule. you're always going to be able to set up some kind of bizarre 'unimmersive' situation - it is a wargame using miniatures on a tabletop and not an actual war, after all - but it's much, MUCH less likely to be wacky than it once was.
the_scotsman wrote: Sorry, wait - why is heavy weapons movement by model and not by unit MORE consistent?
If I Advance with one model can I then shoot with the other models' non-Assault type shooting weapons later that turn?
Advancing is a unit action in 8th, so even if the model with the heavy weapon didn't move it still advanced.
yeah, that was my point. Most statuses carried forward from the movement phase were based on what the UNIT did, except for "did they move" which was based on what the MODEL did.
the new rule makes the rules of "what did they do in the movement phase" more consistent, not less, which is what the person I was responded to claimed.
You missed my point that Advance has different wording than Movement in 8th edition:
Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to.
Advancing is done by units, Movement is done by models.
the_scotsman wrote: Sorry, wait - why is heavy weapons movement by model and not by unit MORE consistent?
If I Advance with one model can I then shoot with the other models' non-Assault type shooting weapons later that turn?
Advancing is a unit action in 8th, so even if the model with the heavy weapon didn't move it still advanced.
yeah, that was my point. Most statuses carried forward from the movement phase were based on what the UNIT did, except for "did they move" which was based on what the MODEL did.
the new rule makes the rules of "what did they do in the movement phase" more consistent, not less, which is what the person I was responded to claimed.
You missed my point that Advance has different wording than Movement in 8th edition:
Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to.
Advancing is done by units, Movement is done by models.
And in 9th, we have seen that this is no longer the case in the wording of several rules. Units make a Normal Move or an Advance Move - see Aircraft, etc. Presumably, a Fall Back move, a Charge Move, a Heroic Intervention, etc will all be types of rules that can then have rules hung on them.
BaconCatBug wrote: It's a lot more confusing. Honestly, just say "Cannot be targeted if within 2" of another friendly unit, other than CHARACTERS."
Here is the Daemon Prince situation explained. Yes, it's stupid. Let's hope this gets patched Day 1 because it's beyond unintuitive.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
I'd like to point out that nothing in the rule requires that the cultists need to be visible for this to work. In fact, if the cultists and daemon princes are the whole army and the cultists are behind obscuring terrain then nobody can be shot. Yay!
Yeah look out sir is fundamentally broken. A lone death jester standing there can be shot even if he's not closest target, but two death jesters standing together can not be, as long as they're within 3" and there's something somewhere on the board closer.
Just means your characters now have to go around holding hands with another character and they're fine.
How did this make it through playtesting? Downright embarrassing.
edit: Oops, done goofed. It's gotta be a pair of vehicle or monster characters holding hands to break the rule.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah look out sir is fundamentally broken. A lone death jester standing there can be shot even if he's not closest target, but two death jesters standing together can not be, as long as they're within 3" and there's something somewhere on the board closer.
Just means your characters now have to go around holding hands with another character and they're fine.
How did this make it through playtesting? Downright embarrassing.
Are death jesters monsters, vehicles or 3 models each? If not, I don't think this works.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah look out sir is fundamentally broken. A lone death jester standing there can be shot even if he's not closest target, but two death jesters standing together can not be, as long as they're within 3" and there's something somewhere on the board closer.
Just means your characters now have to go around holding hands with another character and they're fine.
How did this make it through playtesting? Downright embarrassing.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah look out sir is fundamentally broken. A lone death jester standing there can be shot even if he's not closest target, but two death jesters standing together can not be, as long as they're within 3" and there's something somewhere on the board closer.
Just means your characters now have to go around holding hands with another character and they're fine.
How did this make it through playtesting? Downright embarrassing.
Um...nope?
the reason people are talking about daemon princes is because you're never gonna get an INFANTRY character with a unit that has 3 or more models...
the_scotsman wrote: Sorry, wait - why is heavy weapons movement by model and not by unit MORE consistent?
If I Advance with one model can I then shoot with the other models' non-Assault type shooting weapons later that turn?
Advancing is a unit action in 8th, so even if the model with the heavy weapon didn't move it still advanced.
yeah, that was my point. Most statuses carried forward from the movement phase were based on what the UNIT did, except for "did they move" which was based on what the MODEL did.
the new rule makes the rules of "what did they do in the movement phase" more consistent, not less, which is what the person I was responded to claimed.
You missed my point that Advance has different wording than Movement in 8th edition:
Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to.
Advancing is done by units, Movement is done by models.
And in 9th, we have seen that this is no longer the case in the wording of several rules. Units make a Normal Move or an Advance Move - see Aircraft, etc. Presumably, a Fall Back move, a Charge Move, a Heroic Intervention, etc will all be types of rules that can then have rules hung on them.
Then my first post (where I specifically stated 8th edition) didn't make your 'point'?
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah look out sir is fundamentally broken. A lone death jester standing there can be shot even if he's not closest target, but two death jesters standing together can not be, as long as they're within 3" and there's something somewhere on the board closer.
Just means your characters now have to go around holding hands with another character and they're fine.
How did this make it through playtesting? Downright embarrassing.
Um...nope?
the reason people are talking about daemon princes is because you're never gonna get an INFANTRY character with a unit that has 3 or more models...
Well, not never. The Magus and Patriarch can both take two familiars, for example, which is enough to meet the requirements. But yes, it'll be rare to have the super friends holding hands means you can't target us thing come up.
Leth wrote: I hope tri-pointing is gone just from a gamey perspective. Never felt good doing it.
It resulted in melee twisting itself into ridiculous knots as well. Picture a bunch of orcs charging down a unit of guardmen. Maybe the whole squad could have made it into close combat. But instead, said massive orcs would touch with just one model and fight with that one model, do zero kills, let the guardsmen swing back with all their attacks, and then consolidate, hence tri pointing and preventing said squad from falling back. It was a valid tactic because you didn't want to get shot up in the opponent's turn. But narratively this is literally what happened based on the above.
Big squad of orcs charge down ten guardsmen. Orcs go :" wahhhhhhhh !!!!"
Then, orcs inexplicably make the charge, but halt just outside of melee range. "Wahhhhh!!!!! screeches to a halt, and only one orc swings".
The rest of the orcs, stand there like idiots, buff out their chests and taunt the guardsmen "Just swing at us! give us your best shot!"
Guardsmen pile in, swing their attacks, and take out a few orcs.
Now, the orcs consolidate into battle and tri point the guardsmen. They then kill them in the opponent phase.
I mean, its a good game play... but narratively, it was so stupid? I mean, look at the above. Why would the orcs do something like that in an actual battle field? lol It would make zero sense.... lol
So just to be shure, your interpetation of the battle through an abstract game system is that it is an litteral represrntation as well? So all units stand around and move one at a time, waiting their turn? Sounds rather stiff.
It's trying to make some "real life" sense out of gameplay. Tripointing is so far from what you would expect from a real battle it is no longer abstraction. It's completely detached from the feeling of a sci-fi battle. Chess is a very well designed, fun game. But abstraction is so strong it no longer bears any ressemblance to a real battle. Is that what you want?
If I wanted to play chess I would not play warammer 40K. But chess of a good game. So is Football (or soccer if you are in America.) The lodoistic elements should come over the narative element in a game system, in most cases.
I feel like you guys are missing that fact that you ignore other character models when determining who is closer, the demon princes do not protect each other because you ignore one when targeting another.
Jimbobbyish wrote: I feel like you guys are missing that fact that you ignore other character models when determining who is closer, the demon princes do not protect each other because you ignore one when targeting another.
And you missing the fact that the demon prince is not closer
a different unit is closer, the prince is just there to fullfill the secound request of a unit/monster/vehicle in 3"
Jimbobbyish wrote: I feel like you guys are missing that fact that you ignore other character models when determining who is closer, the demon princes do not protect each other because you ignore one when targeting another.
I think the point being made is the 2 daemon princes satisfy the “within 3” of a Monster” part for each other, so provided that there is a third (not character) unit closer to the firing unit (in any direction, including out of LOS) to satisfy the “closest target” part of the rule, then neither daemon prince can be shot at.
BaconCatBug wrote: It's a lot more confusing. Honestly, just say "Cannot be targeted if within 2" of another friendly unit, other than CHARACTERS."
Here is the Daemon Prince situation explained. Yes, it's stupid. Let's hope this gets patched Day 1 because it's beyond unintuitive.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
the example given ignores the last part of the rule, 2 demon princes can not protect each other because you ignore characters when determining who's closer. and the bit about being unable to target characters when non characters units are closer is not new.
Jimbobbyish wrote: I feel like you guys are missing that fact that you ignore other character models when determining who is closer, the demon princes do not protect each other because you ignore one when targeting another.
I think the point being made is the 2 daemon princes satisfy the “within 3” of a Monster” part for each other, so provided that there is a third (not character) unit closer to the firing unit (in any direction, including out of LOS) to satisfy the “closest target” part of the rule, then neither daemon prince can be shot at.
the monster bit doesn't count if your ignoring the whole character model to begin with.
Automatically Appended Next Post: being unable to target characters when non characters units are closer is not new.
But that's not what it says. It says the opposite, that it does count. Now presumably the INTENT is that it doesn't, but that's not what the rule says.
BaconCatBug wrote: It's a lot more confusing. Honestly, just say "Cannot be targeted if within 2" of another friendly unit, other than CHARACTERS."
Here is the Daemon Prince situation explained. Yes, it's stupid. Let's hope this gets patched Day 1 because it's beyond unintuitive.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
the example given ignores the last part of the rule, 2 demon princes can not protect each other because you ignore characters when determining who's closer. and the bit about being unable to target characters when non characters units are closer is not new.
Jimbobbyish wrote: I feel like you guys are missing that fact that you ignore other character models when determining who is closer, the demon princes do not protect each other because you ignore one when targeting another.
I think the point being made is the 2 daemon princes satisfy the “within 3” of a Monster” part for each other, so provided that there is a third (not character) unit closer to the firing unit (in any direction, including out of LOS) to satisfy the “closest target” part of the rule, then neither daemon prince can be shot at.
the monster bit doesn't count if your ignoring the whole character model to begin with.
Automatically Appended Next Post: being unable to target characters when non characters units are closer is not new.
In the examples given the DPs can’t be targeted because the cultists are closer AND each DP is within 3” of a monster (the other DP in both cases). If the situation was the same with the only difference being that the two DPs were more than 3” apart then they could both be targeted irrespective of the fact that the cultists are closer. So, the DPs are protecting each other.
Edit: It doesn’t say anything about ignoring characters for determining if you are within 3” of a monster, vehicle or unit of 3 models or more. You only ignore characters to determine what the closest target is.
BaconCatBug wrote: It's a lot more confusing. Honestly, just say "Cannot be targeted if within 2" of another friendly unit, other than CHARACTERS."
Here is the Daemon Prince situation explained. Yes, it's stupid. Let's hope this gets patched Day 1 because it's beyond unintuitive.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
the example given ignores the last part of the rule, 2 demon princes can not protect each other because you ignore characters when determining who's closer. and the bit about being unable to target characters when non characters units are closer is not new.
Jimbobbyish wrote: I feel like you guys are missing that fact that you ignore other character models when determining who is closer, the demon princes do not protect each other because you ignore one when targeting another.
I think the point being made is the 2 daemon princes satisfy the “within 3” of a Monster” part for each other, so provided that there is a third (not character) unit closer to the firing unit (in any direction, including out of LOS) to satisfy the “closest target” part of the rule, then neither daemon prince can be shot at.
the monster bit doesn't count if your ignoring the whole character model to begin with.
Automatically Appended Next Post: being unable to target characters when non characters units are closer is not new.
In the examples given the DPs can’t be targeted because the cultists are closer AND each DP is within 3” of a monster (the other DP in both cases). If the situation was the same with the only difference being that the two DPs were more than 3” apart then they could both be targeted irrespective of the fact that the cultists are closer. So, the DPs are protecting each other.
Closer non character units protecting character units is not new, but if 2 DP are equally close to a SM unit, the SM can shoot either one. 2 DP ar both characters and monsters, if a character is close to a monster they cant be targeted unless that monster is also a character because it clearly says you ignore characters when determining who is closer.
BaconCatBug wrote: It's a lot more confusing. Honestly, just say "Cannot be targeted if within 2" of another friendly unit, other than CHARACTERS."
Here is the Daemon Prince situation explained. Yes, it's stupid. Let's hope this gets patched Day 1 because it's beyond unintuitive.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
the example given ignores the last part of the rule, 2 demon princes can not protect each other because you ignore characters when determining who's closer. and the bit about being unable to target characters when non characters units are closer is not new.
Jimbobbyish wrote: I feel like you guys are missing that fact that you ignore other character models when determining who is closer, the demon princes do not protect each other because you ignore one when targeting another.
I think the point being made is the 2 daemon princes satisfy the “within 3” of a Monster” part for each other, so provided that there is a third (not character) unit closer to the firing unit (in any direction, including out of LOS) to satisfy the “closest target” part of the rule, then neither daemon prince can be shot at.
the monster bit doesn't count if your ignoring the whole character model to begin with.
Automatically Appended Next Post: being unable to target characters when non characters units are closer is not new.
In the examples given the DPs can’t be targeted because the cultists are closer AND each DP is within 3” of a monster (the other DP in both cases). If the situation was the same with the only difference being that the two DPs were more than 3” apart then they could both be targeted irrespective of the fact that the cultists are closer. So, the DPs are protecting each other.
Closer non character units protecting character units is not new, but if 2 DP are equally close to a SM unit, the SM can shoot either one. 2 DP ar both characters and monsters, if a character is close to a monster they cant be targeted unless that monster is also a character because it clearly says you ignore characters when determining who is closer.
Yes, but a third unit that isn’t a character, closer to the firing unit satisfies the requirements for not being closest. The other requirement of the rule is to be within 3” of a monster, vehicle or unit of 3 or more models. There is no restriction on the monster, vehicle unit of 3+ requiring that to not be a character. So in the examples given, provided the 3rd not character unit is closer to the firing unit, then the DPs cannot be shot.
If there is no 3rd unit, then yes the DPs can be shot since no unit is satisfying the requirement to be closer and not a character.
I really wish they would have gotten rid of all this closest nonsense. Even without all the bugs it causes, it is just annoying and leads to time consuming micromanaging of positions. Just being within three inches of friendly unit is easy and functional condition for protection.
Well, that's not hard to fix with some minor tweaking of the wording at least, but given how many times we've had to read it and double check, I'd hazard a fair guess that it's slipped through via reader preconditioning to existing character rules and the mind filling in the blanks for it make sense.
Crimson wrote: I really wish they would have gotten rid of all this closest nonsense. Even without all the bugs it causes, it is just annoying and leads to time consuming micromanaging of positions. Just being within three inches of friendly unit is easy and functional condition for protection.
No, they had to do that because of certain interactions, mostly with psychic-immune characters. If you let a Culexus or Cannoness with a Null Rod sit 3" in front of your force and still be untargetable, it makes you completely immune to the vast majority of psychic powers that deal MWs, for example.
LOL, imagine thinking this stratagem is trash while nonstop whining about Fall Back being such a big deal.
If it's SUCH A BIG ISSUE, then spoiler:
This stratagem should be a big deal to you. After all, it's a hard counter to Fall Back--which we know is a fairly big deal to Blast Weapon equipped units since they cannot utilize Blast Weapons on units within Engagement Range of them.
Hrmmmh, what kind of units usually come with Blast Weapons?
Spoiler: Dealing 1-2 MW on a lucky roll is not a hard counter to anything unless you are really struggling against units of single Gretchin. Which you very well might be, given the understanding of Warhammer you have displayed today.
It's the power of love. Two Daemon Princes, claw in claw, united in unholy matrimony, glow with such happiness that they cannot be targeted with ranged weapons, as long as they remain together.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's the power of love. Two Daemon Princes, claw in claw, united in unholy matrimony, glow with such happiness that they cannot be targeted with ranged weapons, as long as they remain together.
There's not many other units that can do this is there? Named c'tan, some character dreads?
Bjorn and Murderfang can pull off the same trick as long as they stay hip to metal hip. Or a GSC pair of Patriarchs and/or Maguses each with 2 familiars can create a polygamous bundle of untargetable goodness.
Ahh, chained statements. For those still confused, try this:
A character cannot be targeted with a ranged attack if the following three conditions are all met:
One: The character must have a Wounds characteristic of 9 or less.
Two: There is an enemy unit closer to the attacking unit.
Three: The character is within 3" of at least one vehicle AND/OR at least one monster AND/OROR at least unit of 3+ models.
If all of these conditions are not met, the character may be attacked by ranged attacks.
((It provides no protection from melee attacks))
I hope that cleans it up for those still a bit muddled. Go through the checklist, see if all conditions are met and, if so, you can't shoot 'em. Otherwise, it's fair game.
Wakshaani wrote: Ahh, chained statements. For those still confused, try this:
A character cannot be targeted with a ranged attack if the following three conditions are all met:
One: The character must have a Wounds characteristic of 9 or less.
Two: There is an enemy unit closer to the attacking unit.
Three: The character is within 3" of at least one vehicle AND/OR at least one monster AND/OROR at least unit of 3+ models.
If all of these conditions are not met, the character may be attacked by ranged attacks.
((It provides no protection from melee attacks))
I hope that cleans it up for those still a bit muddled. Go through the checklist, see if all conditions are met and, if so, you can't shoot 'em. Otherwise, it's fair game.
I think there's something being lost in the translation here, though, for some.
Let's say there is a character with 4 wounds standing out in the open in your opponent's deployment zone and their entire army is inches from your front line, you can still shoot the 4-wound character, provided he is not within 3" of a monster, vehicle or 3+ model unit. That's how its different from the rules now.
Spoiler: Dealing 1-2 MW on a lucky roll is not a hard counter to anything unless you are really struggling against units of single Gretchin. Which you very well might be, given the understanding of Warhammer you have displayed today.
And you've displayed a shocking inability to read or grasp basic concepts. Your army's models get to make a roll against the enemy unit that is falling back.
If you have multiple units in Engagement Range(which should be the case, assuming you're playing a melee army after all!), then that screening unit(because that's what you lot are constantly whining about) won't get to keep dumping back via a Fall Back and being an issue if your melee units somehow weren't up to the task of butchering its way through a lone screening unit(which should have told you something about how your army list is set up to begin with and somehow it's always one lone unit in the ridiculous anecdotes given about why Fall Back is so broken and for whatever reason the charging units never have any kind of shooting support ). If you survive the shooting after that Fall Back and you used Cut Them Down and your list wasn't swinging wet noodles to begin with? Congrats, you're probably going to eke out a win.
Oh, and of course this all assumes that terrain isn't being set up as nothing but a shooting gallery(which it shouldn't be, unless you've somehow given up on having any kind of say for that kind of thing) and that you use it appropriately rather than continually charging in .
But yeah. Keep it up with the ad hominems or implying that someone "doesn't get it".
yukishiro1 wrote: It's the power of love. Two Daemon Princes, claw in claw, united in unholy matrimony, glow with such happiness that they cannot be targeted with ranged weapons, as long as they remain together.
As long as there's Look Out, Sir we'll always be friends.
BaconCatBug wrote: A finalised version of why this rule is dumb and stupid.
Spoiler:
Guardsman 1: "I can't get a clear shot at the red daemon! The blue daemon is in the way! And those cultists are comin' right for us!"
Guardsman 2: "I can't get a clear shot at the blue daemon! The red daemon is in the way! And those cultists are comin' right for us!"
BaconCatBug wrote: A finalised version of why this rule is dumb and stupid.
Spoiler:
Guardsman 1: "I can't get a clear shot at the red daemon! The blue daemon is in the way! And those cultists are comin' right for us!"
Guardsman 2: "I can't get a clear shot at the blue daemon! The red daemon is in the way! And those cultists are comin' right for us!"
Makes total sense.
Officer: Just shoot in their general direction you steaming piles of Grox Manure, 2 targets are bigger than one!
Yeah, as written I don't think the rule is working as intended. They are going to have to rewrite it.
Hopefully someone on facebook noticed it and pointed it out to them. Not that will necessarily do anything.
Wakshaani wrote: Ahh, chained statements. For those still confused, try this:
A character cannot be targeted with a ranged attack if the following three conditions are all met:
One: The character must have a Wounds characteristic of 9 or less.
Two: There is an enemy unit closer to the attacking unit.
Three: The character is within 3" of at least one vehicle AND/OR at least one monster AND/OROR at least unit of 3+ models.
If all of these conditions are not met, the character may be attacked by ranged attacks.
((It provides no protection from melee attacks))
I hope that cleans it up for those still a bit muddled. Go through the checklist, see if all conditions are met and, if so, you can't shoot 'em. Otherwise, it's fair game.
I think there's something being lost in the translation here, though, for some.
Let's say there is a character with 4 wounds standing out in the open in your opponent's deployment zone and their entire army is inches from your front line, you can still shoot the 4-wound character, provided he is not within 3" of a monster, vehicle or 3+ model unit. That's how its different from the rules now.
Correct! Said character passed check 1, he has less than 10 wounds on his profile, and #2, that he's not the closest model, but fails #3, not within 3" of a unit, which means that he's targetable.
This is why I figured the checklist would be easier for some people. Fail one, you can shoot.
Wakshaani wrote: Ahh, chained statements. For those still confused, try this:
A character cannot be targeted with a ranged attack if the following three conditions are all met:
One: The character must have a Wounds characteristic of 9 or less.
Two: There is an enemy unit closer to the attacking unit.
Three: The character is within 3" of at least one vehicle AND/OR at least one monster AND/OROR at least unit of 3+ models.
If all of these conditions are not met, the character may be attacked by ranged attacks.
((It provides no protection from melee attacks))
I hope that cleans it up for those still a bit muddled. Go through the checklist, see if all conditions are met and, if so, you can't shoot 'em. Otherwise, it's fair game.
Why on earth GW can't write rules with simple list of conditions like this ?
By the way, thanks to fellow dakkaites for this entertaining rules hack of daemon princes walking together, granting protection for each other. You made my day.
Spoiler: Dealing 1-2 MW on a lucky roll is not a hard counter to anything unless you are really struggling against units of single Gretchin. Which you very well might be, given the understanding of Warhammer you have displayed today.
And you've displayed a shocking inability to read or grasp basic concepts. Your army's models get to make a roll against the enemy unit that is falling back.
If you have multiple units in Engagement Range(which should be the case, assuming you're playing a melee army after all!), then that screening unit(because that's what you lot are constantly whining about) won't get to keep dumping back via a Fall Back and being an issue if your melee units somehow weren't up to the task of butchering its way through a lone screening unit(which should have told you something about how your army list is set up to begin with and somehow it's always one lone unit in the ridiculous anecdotes given about why Fall Back is so broken and for whatever reason the charging units never have any kind of shooting support ). If you survive the shooting after that Fall Back and you used Cut Them Down and your list wasn't swinging wet noodles to begin with? Congrats, you're probably going to eke out a win.
Oh, and of course this all assumes that terrain isn't being set up as nothing but a shooting gallery(which it shouldn't be, unless you've somehow given up on having any kind of say for that kind of thing) and that you use it appropriately rather than continually charging in .
But yeah. Keep it up with the ad hominems or implying that someone "doesn't get it".
So yeah, 1-2 Mortal Wounds is bad for a CP, thanks for playing.
I dunno why anyone would seriously argue with someone who thinks Cut Them Down isn't garbage in at least 95% of situations, if they don't get it they're not gonna get it. It's like trying to convince someone that 2+2 isn't 5. If they don't get it right away, they're not going to no matter how much you explain it.
Hoping for the day 1 FAQ to include that DP's stats have improved to 10 wounds, just so you guys can realise how utterly pointless these ongoing arguments are without the context of the full rule changes, and thus, in future you may consider how futile theory hammer is when you haven't got all the ingredients to go into the theory.
yukishiro1 wrote: I dunno why anyone would seriously argue with someone who thinks Cut Them Down isn't garbage in at least 95% of situations, if they don't get it they're not gonna get it. It's like trying to convince someone that 2+2 isn't 5. If they don't get it right away, they're not going to no matter how much you explain it.
Never forget "falling back is a boogeyman akin to lasguns killing Baneblades"
I honestly can't wrap my head around what kind of experience leads to that opinion. Nothing but gunlines where they play?
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Hoping for the day 1 FAQ to include that DP's stats have improved to 10 wounds, just so you guys can realise how utterly pointless these ongoing arguments are without the context of the full rule changes, and thus, in future you may consider how futile theory hammer is when you haven't got all the ingredients to go into the theory.
Along with all character dreads going up to 10W too, and Patriarchs and Magi not being able to take 2 familiars?
Everything must look awesome with glasses that rose-tinted.
I hope you're right, though, and that 9th edition is the game they always say a new edition will be, but never has been in the past.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I'm surprised there was no info on flamers here, I really really hope they get something in return for basically losing overwatch.
puma713 wrote: This. They're just covering their bases. If characters could join units again, there'd be no need for an explicit rule on character targeting.
People are looking at it backwards. As others have said, it's for characters that have little hangers on (familiars, grots, etc.). If it was a precursor to characters being able to join units, then this rule would allow you to make units untargetable by joining characters to them. Obviously that's not right.
Kanluwen wrote: LOL, imagine thinking this stratagem is trash while nonstop whining about Fall Back being such a big deal.
Imagine not realising how punishing Fall Back is to assault units.
FWIW, Reece said this over on Frontline Gaming in response to someone bringing up how the multi-charge rule bones the ability to get to a character being screened:
"Well, hang tight, haha, because one of the biggest changes to the game has yet to be revealed and it has a big impact on things like screening. "
I would say this was fall back going the way of the dodo, but that obviously isn't the case because the one thing the total garbage that is Cut Them Down told us is that falling back is still a big part of the game, so big that they came up with a useless universal stratagem to ineffectively try to respond to it.
So I'm not sure what it could be. Maybe it's just removal of the limitation on only being able to fight what you declared a charge against? But that doesn't seem big enough, somehow.
Also said in the same thread:
"Combat is very different in 9th. It’s one of the bigger overall changes."
yukishiro1 wrote: FWIW, Reece said this over on Frontline Gaming in response to someone bringing up how the multi-charge rule bones the ability to get to a character being screened:
"Well, hang tight, haha, because one of the biggest changes to the game has yet to be revealed and it has a big impact on things like screening. "
I would say this was fall back going the way of the dodo, but that obviously isn't the case because the one thing the total garbage that is Cut Them Down told us is that falling back is still a big part of the game, so big that they came up with a useless universal stratagem to ineffectively try to respond to it.
So I'm not sure what it could be. Maybe it's just removal of the limitation on only being able to fight what you declared a charge against? But that doesn't seem big enough, somehow.
Also said in the same thread:
"Combat is very different in 9th. It’s one of the bigger overall changes."
Gonna assume it's that you can now deploy an literal bucket full of hormaguants by tipping it onto the table. Where they land is where they fight.
hmm, somehow, I feel that there needs to be better balance in terms of strategems and CP cost now that we have seen some stuff like overwatch being a strategem.
Like overwatch might maybe kill 1 or 2 models if lucky? (unless you have such a shooty unit, or one with so many flamers in it). Same for cut them down.
But on the other end of the spectrum, you have some strategems that inflict or protect far more wounds than that, and maybe these just cost 2 CP ? (some even cost just 1 cp).
So, unless everyone has CP coming out of their ears, why would people use these situational strategems instead of saving their CP for the truly devastating strategems they will have.
I mean, spending 3 CP to fight a second time for the entire unit will probably result in far more kills as compared to spending 1 CP 3 times on Cut them down !
Eldenfirefly wrote: I mean, spending 3 CP to fight a second time for the entire unit will probably result in far more kills as compared to spending 1 CP 3 times on Cut them down !
With the changes to charges (that we know of), I'm not sure fighting a second time would even be worth 3 CP anymore.
You can't charge multiple units (unless you make the charge roll to reach all of them), so it's no longer a case of consolidating into a new unit you declared a charge against (but didn't reach) and then popping the 'fight twice' strat. And do you want to fight twice against the unit you just fought? That would mean that you wipe them out... and now you're in the open and about to be blasted off the table. Fall Back is devastating enough as it is without doing it to yourself on purpose.
Unless we can attack units you consolidate into. Especially with characters hugging units for shelter. FLG guys were saying melee is noticeably different so possible.
yukishiro1 wrote: FWIW, Reece said this over on Frontline Gaming in response to someone bringing up how the multi-charge rule bones the ability to get to a character being screened:
"Well, hang tight, haha, because one of the biggest changes to the game has yet to be revealed and it has a big impact on things like screening. "
I would say this was fall back going the way of the dodo, but that obviously isn't the case because the one thing the total garbage that is Cut Them Down told us is that falling back is still a big part of the game, so big that they came up with a useless universal stratagem to ineffectively try to respond to it.
So I'm not sure what it could be. Maybe it's just removal of the limitation on only being able to fight what you declared a charge against? But that doesn't seem big enough, somehow.
Also said in the same thread:
"Combat is very different in 9th. It’s one of the bigger overall changes."
If I recall, there was a rumor floating around that you could pass through other models in this edition, a la Harlequins. But, I don't remember if it was someone just wishlisting or what, so take it with a whole saltlick.
Eldenfirefly wrote: I mean, spending 3 CP to fight a second time for the entire unit will probably result in far more kills as compared to spending 1 CP 3 times on Cut them down !
With the changes to charges (that we know of), I'm not sure fighting a second time would even be worth 3 CP anymore.
You can't charge multiple units (unless you make the charge roll to reach all of them), so it's no longer a case of consolidating into a new unit you declared a charge against (but didn't reach) and then popping the 'fight twice' strat. And do you want to fight twice against the unit you just fought? That would mean that you wipe them out... and now you're in the open and about to be blasted off the table. Fall Back is devastating enough as it is without doing it to yourself on purpose.
Fighting twice stratagem is very useful when there is something you want dead, specially if it is a case of melee vs melee.
yukishiro1 wrote: FWIW, Reece said this over on Frontline Gaming in response to someone bringing up how the multi-charge rule bones the ability to get to a character being screened:
"Well, hang tight, haha, because one of the biggest changes to the game has yet to be revealed and it has a big impact on things like screening. "
I would say this was fall back going the way of the dodo, but that obviously isn't the case because the one thing the total garbage that is Cut Them Down told us is that falling back is still a big part of the game, so big that they came up with a useless universal stratagem to ineffectively try to respond to it.
So I'm not sure what it could be. Maybe it's just removal of the limitation on only being able to fight what you declared a charge against? But that doesn't seem big enough, somehow.
Also said in the same thread:
"Combat is very different in 9th. It’s one of the bigger overall changes."
If I recall, there was a rumor floating around that you could pass through other models in this edition, a la Harlequins. But, I don't remember if it was someone just wishlisting or what, so take it with a whole saltlick.
They said falling back would allow movement through enemies (death of tripoint) and units that fall back can't shoot unless they have a special rule allowing it (Fly not being one of them)
It was posted by the same person who said Overwatch was possibly gone or a strat, multi charge required reaching all targets and the new elements to character targeting so I'm inclined to expect it. It's the rest of how melee/fallback works I'm most interested in now.
Can someone with better comprehension of the written word clarify whether a character within 3" of a vehicle or monster can be targeted if it is the closest unit? I keep reading it in my head as the part that starts with 'unless...' only applying to the units of infantry with 3 or more models. If the rule said 'while that unit is within 3" of any other friendly Vehicle, Monster, or unit containing 3 or more models' then I get it, but the way it is written makes me think the vehicle/monster part is entirely separate from the 3+ model part.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Hoping for the day 1 FAQ to include that DP's stats have improved to 10 wounds, just so you guys can realise how utterly pointless these ongoing arguments are without the context of the full rule changes, and thus, in future you may consider how futile theory hammer is when you haven't got all the ingredients to go into the theory.
If Daemon Princes go to 10, Guilliman better go to 10, too.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Hoping for the day 1 FAQ to include that DP's stats have improved to 10 wounds, just so you guys can realise how utterly pointless these ongoing arguments are without the context of the full rule changes, and thus, in future you may consider how futile theory hammer is when you haven't got all the ingredients to go into the theory.
If Daemon Princes go to 10, Guilliman better go to 10, too.
GW has already said that the main rulebook will have an appendix at the back that will cover uncommon rules interactions so that the main rules aren't cluttered with lists of exceptions.
That's exactly where I'd expect stuff like "What if two Daemon Princes are next to each other?" to go. Until we can check that appendix, there's no point getting too worked up about seemingly missing clarifications to address unusual situations.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Hoping for the day 1 FAQ to include that DP's stats have improved to 10 wounds, just so you guys can realise how utterly pointless these ongoing arguments are without the context of the full rule changes, and thus, in future you may consider how futile theory hammer is when you haven't got all the ingredients to go into the theory.
If Daemon Princes go to 10, Guilliman better go to 10, too.
GW has already said that the main rulebook will have an appendix at the back that will cover uncommon rules interactions so that the main rules aren't cluttered with lists of exceptions.
That's exactly where I'd expect stuff like "What if two Daemon Princes are next to each other?" to go. Until we can check that appendix, there's no point getting too worked up about seemingly missing clarifications to address unusual situations.
They also may have it in diagram form since they said most of the rules will be accompanied by pictures to make understanding them easier.
Arguably the twin Daemonprince claim works with Bjorn and Murderfang since they are Characters and Vehicles.
Can someone with better comprehension of the written word clarify whether a character within 3" of a vehicle or monster can be targeted if it is the closest unit? I keep reading it in my head as the part that starts with 'unless...' only applying to the units of infantry with 3 or more models. If the rule said 'while that unit is within 3" of any other friendly Vehicle, Monster, or unit containing 3 or more models' then I get it, but the way it is written makes me think the vehicle/monster part is entirely separate from the 3+ model part.
Scroll back over the past two pages. There's lots of explanations and even a few visual representations.
Can someone with better comprehension of the written word clarify whether a character within 3" of a vehicle or monster can be targeted if it is the closest unit? I keep reading it in my head as the part that starts with 'unless...' only applying to the units of infantry with 3 or more models. If the rule said 'while that unit is within 3" of any other friendly Vehicle, Monster, or unit containing 3 or more models' then I get it, but the way it is written makes me think the vehicle/monster part is entirely separate from the 3+ model part.
Read this, and it becomes clear.
Wakshaani wrote: Ahh, chained statements. For those still confused, try this:
A character cannot be targeted with a ranged attack if the following three conditions are all met:
One: The character must have a Wounds characteristic of 9 or less.
Two: There is an enemy unit closer to the attacking unit.
Three: The character is within 3" of at least one vehicle AND/OR at least one monster AND/OROR at least unit of 3+ models.
If all of these conditions are not met, the character may be attacked by ranged attacks.
((It provides no protection from melee attacks))
I hope that cleans it up for those still a bit muddled. Go through the checklist, see if all conditions are met and, if so, you can't shoot 'em. Otherwise, it's fair game.
Argive wrote: It does not bode well for the warlock...
The normal Warlock'll be fine... they just have to stick near a unit, like of Guardians, or a vehicle, like a Vaul Support Battery, and they'll be fine.
Same for the Farseer and, say, Dark Reapers, or a Bonesinger and a Wraithlord.
The only ones at risk are Warlock … shoot, Covenents? I blank on the word for thCONCLAVE! Warlock Conclaves. I don't think that they'll get Look Out Sir but they *might*. There can be arguments made either way but they're one of the very few units made up of only, and several, characters. That interaction gets weird.
Oh, as for handholding demons? They might find a backdoor way around that... namely, the older rumor that we're getting a faction-wide reduction of 1 "Commander" … so a single Marine Captain, a single Tau Commander, and a single Demon Prince might all be in the future. Too early to know for sure, but, it'd fit in with the older discussions and GW not at ALL liking the three Smash Captain look.
If killing 10 guardians is all it takes to target a warlock, that warlock is toast. Wave serpents and wraithlords are far better picks for protecting our psykers.
The bigger issue about the "Look out sir" rule is that it, as written, only applies to characters with ranged weapons. Melee characters can just get shot willy nilly.
Models cannot target a unit that contains any (Character models with a W characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon) while that unit is within...
Mmmpi wrote: The bigger issue about the "Look out sir" rule is that it, as written, only applies to characters with ranged weapons. Melee characters can just get shot willy nilly.
Models cannot target a unit that contains any (Character models with a W characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon) while that unit is within...
Can you put those parences where you like and claim it's the right position?
Argive wrote: It does not bode well for the warlock...
The normal Warlock'll be fine... they just have to stick near a unit, like of Guardians, or a vehicle, like a Vaul Support Battery, and they'll be fine.
Same for the Farseer and, say, Dark Reapers, or a Bonesinger and a Wraithlord.
The only ones at risk are Warlock … shoot, Covenents? I blank on the word for thCONCLAVE! Warlock Conclaves. I don't think that they'll get Look Out Sir but they *might*. There can be arguments made either way but they're one of the very few units made up of only, and several, characters. That interaction gets weird.
Oh, as for handholding demons? They might find a backdoor way around that... namely, the older rumor that we're getting a faction-wide reduction of 1 "Commander" … so a single Marine Captain, a single Tau Commander, and a single Demon Prince might all be in the future. Too early to know for sure, but, it'd fit in with the older discussions and GW not at ALL liking the three Smash Captain look.
Certain factions could still pull it off though. Necrons with their C'tan Shards & Command Barges; Chaos Daemons with their Slaanesh & Khorne Heralds on Chariot/Hellflayer/Throne, Daemon Prines and Be'lakor; Space Wolves with Murderfang/Bjorn; and likely others.
Mmmpi wrote: The bigger issue about the "Look out sir" rule is that it, as written, only applies to characters with ranged weapons. Melee characters can just get shot willy nilly.
Models cannot target a unit that contains any (Character models with a W characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon) while that unit is within...
Can you put those parences where you like and claim it's the right position?
The parentheses were only there to mark the section I was specifying. I could have just done bold instead.
Edit: to be perfectly clear, I don't think this was the intended way, just one possible way to interpret it.
To be fair, that makes the character targeting rule worse, not better. Since you can hide “closer infantry” in LOS blocking terrain.
Overall this rule re-write is marginally better than 8th (8th didn’t carve out any exceptions previously—as long as anything was closer, then you couldn’t target the <9W character), but it’s still not a great solution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Danit wrote: I think alot of the complaints about the new look out sir dont take into account the new terrain rules. Full Los blocking is far more common now.
BaconCatBug wrote: A finalised version of why this rule is dumb and stupid.
Spoiler:
Sorry if I got this wrong, but you wrote "within 3" of an enemy MONSTER" for DP1? Is that just a minor error?
And maybe my reading comprehension is incredibly poor, but which keyword takes primacy, MONSTER or CHARACTER? If it is CHARACTER, then the fact that DPs are MONSTERS means nothing, if the other way then it's the scenario you and others have explained (although it essentially boils down to DP2 being the longest to survive the targeting roulette as once the screen is gone DP 1 is also up for grabs).
The simple solution seems to be putting the sentence "..and those friendly models are also not characters themselves" after the part about a friendly vehicle/monster. Maybe with a further caveat of needing to be less than 9 wounds also, since a Character like Magnus would take priority over a lesser Daemon prince, but that's it's own work can.
It is rumored that these will take a pretty high point increase, so I am only worried for those sneaky indirect fire units which will have made it through the point increase net.
I main orks, so I know my characters are going to die like flies. But I still really like this change, and I think some here should really try to look on the bright side: you will be able to shoot down those pesky annoying enemy characters too. I think this new rule will help the player going second, always a good thing in my book
do wish GW would learn to use a bulleted list for things like this, should make what I assume they intend a lot clearer, avoid the need for an FAQ or appendix entry and generally be a lot easier to read - makes exceptions to specific points easier as well (indent then under the point they apply to)
GW would do well to actually bring a technical writer on staff with responsibility for reading and reformatting the actual rules in a consistent way (simple stuff like spotting how the word "may" and "can" are used for example to make clear whats optional and what isn't, and if its optional which player gets to decide etc)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incidentally I actually think that LoS is a pretty good change, removing protection from lone characters just because someone 180 degrees around the firing unit is 0.1" closer
I do hope there is an accuracy penalty for firing without line of sight though
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incidentally there is a nice solution GW could easily add for the superfriends holding hands" bit
you must split fire equally between both, odd shots at the firing players choice - so if you stick a single say laser cannon in you can pick who it goes to, stick two and both get one
leopard wrote: do wish GW would learn to use a bulleted list for things like this, should make what I assume they intend a lot clearer, avoid the need for an FAQ or appendix entry and generally be a lot easier to read - makes exceptions to specific points easier as well (indent then under the point they apply to)
GW would do well to actually bring a technical writer on staff with responsibility for reading and reformatting the actual rules in a consistent way (simple stuff like spotting how the word "may" and "can" are used for example to make clear whats optional and what isn't, and if its optional which player gets to decide etc)
I suspect the problem is that understanding any issue with the rules also requires knowledge of the game and it's myriad interactions to understand how those all work together to create a problem. A technical writer looking at word usage and sentence structure, would also need to have very in-depth knowledge of how the game itself functions and knowledge of all the units and different factions.
That's a big ask, even for a team of people. You would need those dedicated to playing the game too, because being able to spot these problems from the outside comes out of us, generally, being in a semi-relaxed environment with people we are friendly with (I would hope) and a consequence of shared interest. Working at an actual, paid job, induces a different focus and has other pressures/stressors that influence someone's ability to spot these problems.
In theory playtesters are meant to circumvent this, but the environment of their shared interest is a manufactured one, it is artificial for the needs of a company providing an entertaining product to those with the sincere interest. Although individual differences (e.g. stress management and tolerance) between people will vary.
It also doesn't help that, while this is a small company in other areas, it is a large one (the largest?) in it's own particular pond. That brings a whole host of other issues as well as a change in priorities, and not always for the better.
And, so I'm clear, none of this is meant as an excuse to the poor rules being written by GW, past, present and future. It's just my intuitive assumption based on experience and observation of people.
There will probably be an erata that says something along the lines that characters that are monsters or vehicles do not benefit from the Look out Sir rule when placed side by side each other.
Or something like to benefit from look out sir rule, the vehicle or monster within 3 inches of the character cannot be a character as well.
leopard wrote: do wish GW would learn to use a bulleted list for things like this, should make what I assume they intend a lot clearer, avoid the need for an FAQ or appendix entry and generally be a lot easier to read - makes exceptions to specific points easier as well (indent then under the point they apply to)
GW would do well to actually bring a technical writer on staff with responsibility for reading and reformatting the actual rules in a consistent way (simple stuff like spotting how the word "may" and "can" are used for example to make clear whats optional and what isn't, and if its optional which player gets to decide etc)
I suspect the problem is that understanding any issue with the rules also requires knowledge of the game and it's myriad interactions to understand how those all work together to create a problem. A technical writer looking at word usage and sentence structure, would also need to have very in-depth knowledge of how the game itself functions and knowledge of all the units and different factions.
That's a big ask, even for a team of people. You would need those dedicated to playing the game too, because being able to spot these problems from the outside comes out of us, generally, being in a semi-relaxed environment with people we are friendly with (I would hope) and a consequence of shared interest. Working at an actual, paid job, induces a different focus and has other pressures/stressors that influence someone's ability to spot these problems.
In theory playtesters are meant to circumvent this, but the environment of their shared interest is a manufactured one, it is artificial for the needs of a company providing an entertaining product to those with the sincere interest. Although individual differences (e.g. stress management and tolerance) between people will vary.
It also doesn't help that, while this is a small company in other areas, it is a large one (the largest?) in it's own particular pond. That brings a whole host of other issues as well as a change in priorities, and not always for the better.
And, so I'm clear, none of this is meant as an excuse to the poor rules being written by GW, past, present and future. It's just my intuitive assumption based on experience and observation of people.
oh you would certainly have issues meaning they need to go back and check, without a doubt, but it would make things better.
the problems with play testing seem to be when GW do it they play the way they intend the game to be played so the edge cases simply never come up or are just dismissed outright.
you don't want rules that read like a legal document (largely because they aren't readable either) but for chained lists bullet points are much easier to read even if there are meant to be a few and/or conditions.
my personal wish is for a rulebook where the actual rule is clearly distinguished from any descriptive text or notes - GW have gotten a lot better at this which avoids arguments based on the more fluffy bits, or more so than in the past.
in truth this sort of writing is hard (I have written proposals documents for a living, the devil is in the editing, especially of technical submissions) and GW have always seen the rules as a method to shift models, not something to focus on specifically as a thing in their own right
a tech writer would help them though, even just from a consistency perspective between the different rules writers to upskill the team generally. Tech writers in isolation as you note would need basically to be mind readers to know what the intention was, but a tech writer who works with the rules creators, to the point of taking probably reasonably basic concepts of whats intended and then framing it for verification can work well.
anyway, back to wish listing...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldenfirefly wrote: There will probably be an erata that says something along the lines that characters that are monsters or vehicles do not benefit from the Look out Sir rule when placed side by side each other.
Or something like to benefit from look out sir rule, the vehicle or monster within 3 inches of the character cannot be a character as well.
easy way is something to note you ignore the <CHARACTER> keyword on models other than the target, I agree its likely to be corrected or clarified at some point not that long after release, its reasonably obvious what they are trying to do, but as is often the case they have managed to write something thats somewhat different
Mmmpi wrote: The bigger issue about the "Look out sir" rule is that it, as written, only applies to characters with ranged weapons. Melee characters can just get shot willy nilly.
Models cannot target a unit that contains any (Character models with a W characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon) while that unit is within...
Can you put those parences where you like and claim it's the right position?
The parentheses were only there to mark the section I was specifying. I could have just done bold instead.
Edit: to be perfectly clear, I don't think this was the intended way, just one possible way to interpret it.
Yeah, the specific technique with which you identified sections of the sentence was not the point of my post.
"Ignore other enemy Character models with a Wounds characteristic of 9 or less when determining if the target is the closest enemy unit to the firing model"
As a sentence that meant Characters couldn't protect each other, as do most of my gaming circle, because we assume it's the same as 8th that Characters don't protect each other. That rule could've been worded way better though. Especially when they showed earlier that they wrote some rules with bullet points.
It's funny I just read in a recent White Dwarf an article from I think Jervis Johnson explaining how long they take to refine the wording of a rule based on experience in game and reunions with staff members. Guess some of those are still being worked on
Mmmpi wrote: The bigger issue about the "Look out sir" rule is that it, as written, only applies to characters with ranged weapons. Melee characters can just get shot willy nilly.
Models cannot target a unit that contains any (Character models with a W characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon) while that unit is within...
Any person that tries to petition that during a game as the actual rule deserves to be thrown out of the Warhammer Community at large.
yukishiro1 wrote: FWIW, Reece said this over on Frontline Gaming in response to someone bringing up how the multi-charge rule bones the ability to get to a character being screened:
"Well, hang tight, haha, because one of the biggest changes to the game has yet to be revealed and it has a big impact on things like screening. "
I would say this was fall back going the way of the dodo, but that obviously isn't the case because the one thing the total garbage that is Cut Them Down told us is that falling back is still a big part of the game, so big that they came up with a useless universal stratagem to ineffectively try to respond to it.
So I'm not sure what it could be. Maybe it's just removal of the limitation on only being able to fight what you declared a charge against? But that doesn't seem big enough, somehow.
Also said in the same thread:
"Combat is very different in 9th. It’s one of the bigger overall changes."
Maybe... Maybe... This is pure speculation, maybe you no longer NEED to declare a charge to move in to Engagement Range of your opponent? As in, if you can get in to Engagement Range in the Movement Phase, you are allowed to do so. That would be a pretty massive change, and a controversial one.
Either that or a less randomised charge? d6+Movement?
yukishiro1 wrote: FWIW, Reece said this over on Frontline Gaming in response to someone bringing up how the multi-charge rule bones the ability to get to a character being screened:
"Well, hang tight, haha, because one of the biggest changes to the game has yet to be revealed and it has a big impact on things like screening. "
I would say this was fall back going the way of the dodo, but that obviously isn't the case because the one thing the total garbage that is Cut Them Down told us is that falling back is still a big part of the game, so big that they came up with a useless universal stratagem to ineffectively try to respond to it.
So I'm not sure what it could be. Maybe it's just removal of the limitation on only being able to fight what you declared a charge against? But that doesn't seem big enough, somehow.
Also said in the same thread:
"Combat is very different in 9th. It’s one of the bigger overall changes."
Maybe... Maybe... This is pure speculation, maybe you no longer NEED to declare a charge to move in to Engagement Range of your opponent? As in, if you can get in to Engagement Range in the Movement Phase, you are allowed to do so. That would be a pretty massive change, and a controversial one.
Either that or a less randomised charge? d6+Movement?
d6 + movement seems unlikely to mesh well with the smaller 44x60 boards, a pity because i d love that myself !
yukishiro1 wrote: FWIW, Reece said this over on Frontline Gaming in response to someone bringing up how the multi-charge rule bones the ability to get to a character being screened:
"Well, hang tight, haha, because one of the biggest changes to the game has yet to be revealed and it has a big impact on things like screening. "
I would say this was fall back going the way of the dodo, but that obviously isn't the case because the one thing the total garbage that is Cut Them Down told us is that falling back is still a big part of the game, so big that they came up with a useless universal stratagem to ineffectively try to respond to it.
So I'm not sure what it could be. Maybe it's just removal of the limitation on only being able to fight what you declared a charge against? But that doesn't seem big enough, somehow.
Also said in the same thread:
"Combat is very different in 9th. It’s one of the bigger overall changes."
Maybe... Maybe... This is pure speculation, maybe you no longer NEED to declare a charge to move in to Engagement Range of your opponent? As in, if you can get in to Engagement Range in the Movement Phase, you are allowed to do so. That would be a pretty massive change, and a controversial one.
Either that or a less randomised charge? d6+Movement?
Well.. we do know for sure that you need to roll high enough to reach all the targets you declare against to have a successfull charge, so there's that
torblind wrote: Well.. we do know for sure that you need to roll high enough to reach all the targets you declare against to have a successfull charge, so there's that
We also know you can deploy reserves straight into cc/base contact with enemy units in your deployment zone.
So at least one new way to get into the fight without charge exists.
Mmmpi wrote: The bigger issue about the "Look out sir" rule is that it, as written, only applies to characters with ranged weapons. Melee characters can just get shot willy nilly.
Models cannot target a unit that contains any (Character models with a W characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon) while that unit is within...
Can you put those parences where you like and claim it's the right position?
The parentheses were only there to mark the section I was specifying. I could have just done bold instead.
Edit: to be perfectly clear, I don't think this was the intended way, just one possible way to interpret it.
No, that's just one way to get kicked in the nuts.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah look out sir is fundamentally broken. A lone death jester standing there can be shot even if he's not closest target, but two death jesters standing together can not be, as long as they're within 3" and there's something somewhere on the board closer.
Just means your characters now have to go around holding hands with another character and they're fine.
How did this make it through playtesting? Downright embarrassing.
Um...nope?
the reason people are talking about daemon princes is because you're never gonna get an INFANTRY character with a unit that has 3 or more models...
Mmmpi wrote: The bigger issue about the "Look out sir" rule is that it, as written, only applies to characters with ranged weapons. Melee characters can just get shot willy nilly.
Models cannot target a unit that contains any (Character models with a W characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon) while that unit is within...
Can you put those parences where you like and claim it's the right position?
The parentheses were only there to mark the section I was specifying. I could have just done bold instead.
Edit: to be perfectly clear, I don't think this was the intended way, just one possible way to interpret it.
No, that's just one way to get kicked in the nuts.
Compared to saying "My monster character is next to another monster character so you can't shoot them"? Because that's just as stupid.
They should create a hierarchy of key words to be honest.
For instance in the case of a clash of key words, causing conflicting effects, they should state which keywords take precedence.
For example, character is a top tier key word, so always takes precedence over monsters which could be a tiers 2 in the case of disputes that cause weird interactions.
At which point, most or all weird keyword clashes that cause weird outcomes are solved.
Danit wrote: I think alot of the complaints about the new look out sir dont take into account the new terrain rules. Full Los blocking is far more common now.
Not really. At least here 1st floor blocks los has been used from start and 9th ed rule makes it easier to get los so it's step back.
For instance in the case of a clash of key words, causing conflicting effects, they should state which keywords take precedence.
For example, character is a top tier key word, so always takes precedence over monsters which could be a tiers 2 in the case of disputes that cause weird interactions.
At which point, most or all weird keyword clashes that cause weird outcomes are solved.
As someone who has playing Magic: The Gathering for 24 years or so, it always strikes me as wild just how "loose" the language GW writes it's rules in actually is in practice.
I mean, I am not some formal logic authoritarian, but there is utility to be found in the approach. For all the problems MTG has as a game, the Rules are so seldomly one of them. Another instance where it seems hard to believe even just some dedicated fan-rules couldn't do better.
Perhaps the new rule will allow you to attack anyone within engagement range, not just who you charged. This means any character that heroically intervenes can still be a target of an attack. Would remove the multi-charge issue.
Can someone who is familiar with chaos tell me what the point increase was? I looked thru the last few pages and nothing mentioned it. Seems like very interesting information.
For instance in the case of a clash of key words, causing conflicting effects, they should state which keywords take precedence.
For example, character is a top tier key word, so always takes precedence over monsters which could be a tiers 2 in the case of disputes that cause weird interactions.
At which point, most or all weird keyword clashes that cause weird outcomes are solved.
As someone who has playing Magic: The Gathering for 24 years or so, it always strikes me as wild just how "loose" the language GW writes it's rules in actually is in practice.
I mean, I am not some formal logic authoritarian, but there is utility to be found in the approach. For all the problems MTG has as a game, the Rules are so seldomly one of them. Another instance where it seems hard to believe even just some dedicated fan-rules couldn't do better.
Whilst all will agree, the application of the english language to rules is not the best at times, I also have sympathy for GW, namely if you consider how many units there are in the game, then the special rules, and the keywords, then the special rules that interact with specific keywords, there are going to be a huge amount of unintended interactions, even if rules are written well in the first place.
I think it needs to be accepted to have a much tighter rule set, a hell of a lot of variability needs to be removed from the game, and that probably then includes certain factions in total as well. I doubt many other than the most extreme haters want that, so maybe just some additional rule steps like my suggestion above (and there is probably and even more elegant way to try and fail safe against the issue than my suggestion) is one way tidy things up from the start.
Christ, loopholes happen in the criminal justice system in countries, with laws providing quirky unintended loopholes also, so if that happens at the absolute highest level of 'rule writing' we have in society, then I think GW needs a little break as well.
The wording genuinely is not the best again, but then, do they want to be writing 4x sides of A4 just for one rule?
Well GW is holding tight to the pricing information about the box set,
My online independant supplier has been asked how many he wants, has been told it's a LE and will sell out fast...… but GW won't tell him what the price is so he's got to order blind
which does make me wonder if he £120 we're expecting this to cost based on the value of the prize draw GW is running might be wrong
Could it be that the £120 is for a later 'unlimited' run and the initial release will be more?
So today is likely going to be the combat changes. If the leaks are true, then they'll mention that you can move through engaging models when falling back, and that models that fall back cannot shoot even if they have fly. Exception for Ultramarines won't be mentioned right away but later on when they discus the new Space Marine codex for the new edition in a couple weeks.
My online independant supplier has been asked how many he wants, has been told it's a LE and will sell out fast...… but GW won't tell him what the price is so he's got to order blind
which does make me wonder if he £120 we're expecting this to cost based on the value of the prize draw GW is running might be wrong
Could it be that the £120 is for a later 'unlimited' run and the initial release will be more?
My FLGS is predicting $250-300USD based on GW pricing schemes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Or maybe they'll tell us how Fall Back works, and put to bed over a week of arguments.
Unlikely. Instead we'll learn how Orks tie their shoes with shoelace squigs.
My online independant supplier has been asked how many he wants, has been told it's a LE and will sell out fast...… but GW won't tell him what the price is so he's got to order blind
which does make me wonder if he £120 we're expecting this to cost based on the value of the prize draw GW is running might be wrong
Could it be that the £120 is for a later 'unlimited' run and the initial release will be more?
Is that even legal? Seems like some kind of scam:
GW: Tell us how much product you want
FLGS: Dunno, how much does it cost?
GW: We can't say but it'll be a great deal!
FLGS: Yeah, but cashflow's an issue right now
GW: Well, would you want to miss out on this great opportunity?
FLGS: Sure, whatever, I'll take 5.
GW: Excellent...(a month later) that'll be £5,000
I wonder if there is an internet issue at Stu's house or something.
It feels like both Monday and Today were filler. The streams started late and I think Stu was unable to make it in time and thus we had the painting backups.
I wonder if there is an internet issue at Stu's house or something.
It feels like both Monday and Today were filler. The streams started late and I think Stu was unable to make it in time and thus we had the painting backups.
Considering how famously crap internet connectivity is in the UK (and the number of times Stu loses connection) I could see it being technical issues.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Whilst all will agree, the application of the english language to rules is not the best at times, I also have sympathy for GW, namely if you consider how many units there are in the game, then the special rules, and the keywords, then the special rules that interact with specific keywords, there are going to be a huge amount of unintended interactions, even if rules are written well in the first place.
I think it needs to be accepted to have a much tighter rule set, a hell of a lot of variability needs to be removed from the game, and that probably then includes certain factions in total as well. I doubt many other than the most extreme haters want that, so maybe just some additional rule steps like my suggestion above (and there is probably and even more elegant way to try and fail safe against the issue than my suggestion) is one way tidy things up from the start.
Christ, loopholes happen in the criminal justice system in countries, with laws providing quirky unintended loopholes also, so if that happens at the absolute highest level of 'rule writing' we have in society, then I think GW needs a little break as well.
The wording genuinely is not the best again, but then, do they want to be writing 4x sides of A4 just for one rule?
Well, I don't know about that. MTG has something near 20,000 cards. Sure, many/most have little to no rules baggage, but many explicitly allow or tell you to do things outside the "base rules." And no doubt, there are cases where weird and unintended things come up that must be addressed, of course.
However, to me, the key difference is how there are actually two "different" sets of rules for MTG. There are the "plain language" rules that almost everyone learns/is taught from, and then there are the Comprehensive (formal) rules. Most players never even look at the Comprehensive Rules, but they exist as an arbiter, not as casual reading. That means that almost all rules arbitration can be figured out from that document; very, very rarely does one need to figure out a RAI case (although it does happen in strange cases).
I think the problem here is that GW wants easy to read, common sense, plain language rules and formal, technical rules to be the exact same thing. But that just doesn't work, I don't think. Another part of it though, I think, is that every edition attempts (to some degree) to reinvent the wheel. So, where MTG's rules are fairly static (for the most part) each new edition of 40K reframes many things all over again. This means you can't have an itteratively honed rules set as a bedrock, that then can have things grafted onto/into.
I don't think it has to be like that though, but it just is, seemingly. Again, it is, to me, a loosey-goosey approach to rules though that I wish was handled different. Because strong formal rules don't just make competative gaming better, in my opinion, it helps casual players too (because it can be made clear what the rules say in almost every case).
For a show called the #New40k show by Games workshop's own marketing team, there was a severe lack of anything new. These streams really are disappointing. I'm only giving it until Sunday to see a reason to stick with it.
FWIW the New40K email that just went out had an Orks Faction Focus banner, so maybe something did go wrong today because it looks like they were prepared to have Ork material up.
Darsath wrote: For a show called the #New40k show by Games workshop's own marketing team, there was a severe lack of anything new. These streams really are disappointing. I'm only giving it until Sunday to see a reason to stick with it.
On the little designers video for Indomitus that’s now on the community page it says at the end “coming July” so we know it’s at least another two week wait!
ClockworkZion wrote: I've seen a lot of UK podcasters have regular connectivity issues. It might just be their provider though.
Heck, even Stu Black has been plagued by connectivity drops since they started doing this. He's averaged one an episode at least.
I think BT have struggled in the last few months with the big ramp up of data demand due to people who were previously "what is the internet" discovering Zoom etc and deciding its the best thing since sliced bread.
Or at least thats the case if they are anything like the company I work for.
Wouldn't say its that crap all the time, although it probably depends where you live.
puma713 wrote: FWIW the New40K email that just went out had an Orks Faction Focus banner, so maybe something did go wrong today because it looks like they were prepared to have Ork material up.
They tweeted about it too:
They've since deleted the tweet and offered no explanation.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Whilst all will agree, the application of the english language to rules is not the best at times, I also have sympathy for GW, namely if you consider how many units there are in the game, then the special rules, and the keywords, then the special rules that interact with specific keywords, there are going to be a huge amount of unintended interactions, even if rules are written well in the first place.
I think it needs to be accepted to have a much tighter rule set, a hell of a lot of variability needs to be removed from the game, and that probably then includes certain factions in total as well. I doubt many other than the most extreme haters want that, so maybe just some additional rule steps like my suggestion above (and there is probably and even more elegant way to try and fail safe against the issue than my suggestion) is one way tidy things up from the start.
Christ, loopholes happen in the criminal justice system in countries, with laws providing quirky unintended loopholes also, so if that happens at the absolute highest level of 'rule writing' we have in society, then I think GW needs a little break as well.
The wording genuinely is not the best again, but then, do they want to be writing 4x sides of A4 just for one rule?
Well, I don't know about that. MTG has something near 20,000 cards. Sure, many/most have little to no rules baggage, but many explicitly allow or tell you to do things outside the "base rules." And no doubt, there are cases where weird and unintended things come up that must be addressed, of course.
However, to me, the key difference is how there are actually two "different" sets of rules for MTG. There are the "plain language" rules that almost everyone learns/is taught from, and then there are the Comprehensive (formal) rules. Most players never even look at the Comprehensive Rules, but they exist as an arbiter, not as casual reading. That means that almost all rules arbitration can be figured out from that document; very, very rarely does one need to figure out a RAI case (although it does happen in strange cases).
I think the problem here is that GW wants easy to read, common sense, plain language rules and formal, technical rules to be the exact same thing. But that just doesn't work, I don't think. Another part of it though, I think, is that every edition attempts (to some degree) to reinvent the wheel. So, where MTG's rules are fairly static (for the most part) each new edition of 40K reframes many things all over again. This means you can't have an itteratively honed rules set as a bedrock, that then can have things grafted onto/into.
I don't think it has to be like that though, but it just is, seemingly. Again, it is, to me, a loosey-goosey approach to rules though that I wish was handled different. Because strong formal rules don't just make competative gaming better, in my opinion, it helps casual players too (because it can be made clear what the rules say in almost every case).
Okay, this is basic maths and not accurate at all...
Roughly 30 factions in the game (including major sub factions, such as specific marine chapters, ynnari etc).
Now let's just say each faction has 3x HQ, Elite, Troops, Fast Attack, Heavy Support.
Now let's say each chapter (major sub factions included) have at least 6x sub faction rule variations (raven guard successor chapter with tweaked special rules etc, or radian regiment, or speed freaks).
That is 43740 unique combinations of units (If you field 3 of each, even more if you take 1 HQ, or 3 of the same Troop, again, super basic mathematics here). Now here's the kicker, let's say only a third of all those combinations have some sort of special rule that interacts with a key word (probably much more).
We now have 637,722,823 different combinations, over 500 million.
And that's not even taking into account weapons.
You want to pay someone to write a comprehensive rule set that takes into account all of the above for competitive play?
And I've been very very very conservative with the amount of units or special rules etc and like I said, I haven't included weapon options on those units.
Basically, it's impossible to balance.
Disclaimer - I've done the maths extremely quickly, it may be wrong, correct if it is please.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Whilst all will agree, the application of the english language to rules is not the best at times, I also have sympathy for GW, namely if you consider how many units there are in the game, then the special rules, and the keywords, then the special rules that interact with specific keywords, there are going to be a huge amount of unintended interactions, even if rules are written well in the first place.
I think it needs to be accepted to have a much tighter rule set, a hell of a lot of variability needs to be removed from the game, and that probably then includes certain factions in total as well. I doubt many other than the most extreme haters want that, so maybe just some additional rule steps like my suggestion above (and there is probably and even more elegant way to try and fail safe against the issue than my suggestion) is one way tidy things up from the start.
Christ, loopholes happen in the criminal justice system in countries, with laws providing quirky unintended loopholes also, so if that happens at the absolute highest level of 'rule writing' we have in society, then I think GW needs a little break as well.
The wording genuinely is not the best again, but then, do they want to be writing 4x sides of A4 just for one rule?
Well, I don't know about that. MTG has something near 20,000 cards. Sure, many/most have little to no rules baggage, but many explicitly allow or tell you to do things outside the "base rules." And no doubt, there are cases where weird and unintended things come up that must be addressed, of course.
However, to me, the key difference is how there are actually two "different" sets of rules for MTG. There are the "plain language" rules that almost everyone learns/is taught from, and then there are the Comprehensive (formal) rules. Most players never even look at the Comprehensive Rules, but they exist as an arbiter, not as casual reading. That means that almost all rules arbitration can be figured out from that document; very, very rarely does one need to figure out a RAI case (although it does happen in strange cases).
I think the problem here is that GW wants easy to read, common sense, plain language rules and formal, technical rules to be the exact same thing. But that just doesn't work, I don't think. Another part of it though, I think, is that every edition attempts (to some degree) to reinvent the wheel. So, where MTG's rules are fairly static (for the most part) each new edition of 40K reframes many things all over again. This means you can't have an itteratively honed rules set as a bedrock, that then can have things grafted onto/into.
I don't think it has to be like that though, but it just is, seemingly. Again, it is, to me, a loosey-goosey approach to rules though that I wish was handled different. Because strong formal rules don't just make competative gaming better, in my opinion, it helps casual players too (because it can be made clear what the rules say in almost every case).
Okay, this is basic maths and not accurate at all...
Roughly 30 factions in the game (including major sub factions, such as specific marine chapters, ynnari etc).
Now let's just say each faction has 3x HQ, Elite, Troops, Fast Attack, Heavy Support.
Now let's say each chapter (major sub factions included) have at least 6x sub faction rule variations (raven guard successor chapter with tweaked special rules etc, or radian regiment, or speed freaks).
That is 43740 unique combinations of units (I think). Now here's the kicker, let's say only a third of all those combinations have some sort of special rule that interacts with a key word (probably much more).
We now have 637,722,823 different combinations, over 500 million.
And that's not even taking into account weapons.
You want to pay someone to write a comprehensive rule set that takes into account all of the above for competitive play?
And I've been very very very conservative with the amount of units or special rules etc and like I said, I haven't included weapon options on those units.
Basically, it's impossible to balance.
Disclaimer - I've done the maths extremely quickly, it may be wrong, correct if it is please.
Competent technical rules writing should not be beyond a company of GW's size.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Whilst all will agree, the application of the english language to rules is not the best at times, I also have sympathy for GW, namely if you consider how many units there are in the game, then the special rules, and the keywords, then the special rules that interact with specific keywords, there are going to be a huge amount of unintended interactions, even if rules are written well in the first place.
I think it needs to be accepted to have a much tighter rule set, a hell of a lot of variability needs to be removed from the game, and that probably then includes certain factions in total as well. I doubt many other than the most extreme haters want that, so maybe just some additional rule steps like my suggestion above (and there is probably and even more elegant way to try and fail safe against the issue than my suggestion) is one way tidy things up from the start.
Christ, loopholes happen in the criminal justice system in countries, with laws providing quirky unintended loopholes also, so if that happens at the absolute highest level of 'rule writing' we have in society, then I think GW needs a little break as well.
The wording genuinely is not the best again, but then, do they want to be writing 4x sides of A4 just for one rule?
Well, I don't know about that. MTG has something near 20,000 cards. Sure, many/most have little to no rules baggage, but many explicitly allow or tell you to do things outside the "base rules." And no doubt, there are cases where weird and unintended things come up that must be addressed, of course.
However, to me, the key difference is how there are actually two "different" sets of rules for MTG. There are the "plain language" rules that almost everyone learns/is taught from, and then there are the Comprehensive (formal) rules. Most players never even look at the Comprehensive Rules, but they exist as an arbiter, not as casual reading. That means that almost all rules arbitration can be figured out from that document; very, very rarely does one need to figure out a RAI case (although it does happen in strange cases).
I think the problem here is that GW wants easy to read, common sense, plain language rules and formal, technical rules to be the exact same thing. But that just doesn't work, I don't think. Another part of it though, I think, is that every edition attempts (to some degree) to reinvent the wheel. So, where MTG's rules are fairly static (for the most part) each new edition of 40K reframes many things all over again. This means you can't have an itteratively honed rules set as a bedrock, that then can have things grafted onto/into.
I don't think it has to be like that though, but it just is, seemingly. Again, it is, to me, a loosey-goosey approach to rules though that I wish was handled different. Because strong formal rules don't just make competative gaming better, in my opinion, it helps casual players too (because it can be made clear what the rules say in almost every case).
Okay, this is basic maths and not accurate at all...
Roughly 30 factions in the game (including major sub factions, such as specific marine chapters, ynnari etc).
Now let's just say each faction has 3x HQ, Elite, Troops, Fast Attack, Heavy Support.
Now let's say each chapter (major sub factions included) have at least 6x sub faction rule variations (raven guard successor chapter with tweaked special rules etc, or radian regiment, or speed freaks).
That is 43740 unique combinations of units (I think). Now here's the kicker, let's say only a third of all those combinations have some sort of special rule that interacts with a key word (probably much more).
We now have 637,722,823 different combinations, over 500 million.
And that's not even taking into account weapons.
You want to pay someone to write a comprehensive rule set that takes into account all of the above for competitive play?
And I've been very very very conservative with the amount of units or special rules etc and like I said, I haven't included weapon options on those units.
Basically, it's impossible to balance.
Disclaimer - I've done the maths extremely quickly, it may be wrong, correct if it is please.
Competent technical rules writing should not be beyond a company of GW's size.
I'm with you on that, the english wording is poor, all I'm suggesting is, unintended interactions are bound to happen, due to the variety.
No excuse for how the Look Out Sir is worded to be honest, it should be split into bullet points, but the weird interaction with DP's whilst fairly obvious is a quirk within the keywords, which is almost impossible to avoid unless you are prepared to write pages and pages just to completely and accurately divulge that one rule.
Players aren't lawyers (well some may be), they don't want to have to learn 500 pages of rules (or more probably).
JNAProductions wrote: Competent technical rules writing should not be beyond a company of GW's size.
Technical writing is a skill, and for the game to work better for it, they'd need to redesign it from the ground up to better support a more technically written ruleset.
Said ruleset might turn people away from the game by being too dense though.
9th seems like it's trying to strike a balance between dense and technical, and easy to read but loose rules writing.
JNAProductions wrote: Competent technical rules writing should not be beyond a company of GW's size.
Technical writing is a skill, and for the game to work better for it, they'd need to redesign it from the ground up to better support a more technically written ruleset.
Said ruleset might turn people away from the game by being too dense though.
9th seems like it's trying to strike a balance between dense and technical, and easy to read but loose rules writing.
Good rules writing is a skill, and a pretty rare skill at that. I will concede that it is very, very hard to find someone who can write rules that are functional, clear and intuitive all at the same time. The lucky few who CAN do all of this, as well as be able to re-write someone else's rules in them same manner, deserve more recognition than they receive by both the community and the companies they typically work for (PS this isn't just about Games workshop at this point).
JNAProductions wrote: Competent technical rules writing should not be beyond a company of GW's size.
Technical writing is a skill, and for the game to work better for it, they'd need to redesign it from the ground up to better support a more technically written ruleset.
Said ruleset might turn people away from the game by being too dense though.
9th seems like it's trying to strike a balance between dense and technical, and easy to read but loose rules writing.
Good rules writing is a skill, and a pretty rare skill at that. I will concede that it is very, very hard to find someone who can write rules that are functional, clear and intuitive all at the same time. The lucky few who CAN do all of this, as well as be able to re-write someone else's rules in them same manner, deserve more recognition than they receive by both the community and the companies they typically work for (PS this isn't just about Games workshop at this point).
Heck the guy who wrote the Underworlds ruleset did his best to write a dense, technical ruleset that could work as a competitive format and he admits he still couldn't nail it down perfectly and he had the advantage of starting from scratch.
Disclaimer - I've done the maths extremely quickly, it may be wrong, correct if it is please.
What part of my post mentioned balance? Please point it out, so I may correct it. I was not discussing balance at all. I was talking about how the rules function, not how balanced they are or not.
I am not going to bother to enumerate how many possible permutations and combinations there are, because it is totally outside the point. If the formal rules foundation is set, it really doesn't matter how many combinations you have, because the foundation is set to work and any almost all interactions need only rely on that foundation to arbitrate what happens. I think it is a little absurd to imagine that every permutation would require a rules instance to arbitrate it would be my point. Interestingly enough, that is how "math" works. You don't need rules instance for every number, or combination there-of. Nor do you need instances for every possible permutation of operations. You have formal orders of operations, preformed in a formal manner. That is just how it works. Can and will unique corner cases need further clarifications? Sure, but the more sound your formal structure is, the less common such cases would be.
For example, a formal rule of "applying pluses before minuses." You don't need an instance for every plus, or every minus, or every possibly permutation or combination there-of, you have a formal rule to address the category of interaction.
However, it seems you were out to straw-man my position though, so I hardly see any point in discussing it further if that is your aim. I can do math, thanks, but the rules being either formal or not, using technical formal language or not, has nothing really to do the "basic math" or your seeming insinuation that I either can't, or won't, grasp that it does. If I was not clear, then I apologize, however, it seems to me that you either deliberately misconstrued my point, or are out to "prove" something outside of what I was even attempting to address by adding in some notion of "balance" (which, again, I had no intent of addressing, or mention of).
And no one is saying that they shouldn't do better, but we should also recognize when they are doing better than before as well as admit that there are limits to how good any ruleset with so many moving parts can be.
I don't play magic the gathering, and I was talking about balance as that is usually the main issue with GW in regards to rule writing, where they skew the balance. Which was what I was referring to in terms of skewed rules in my original comment about tiers of keywords. The double DP would quite literally skew balance, that is the problem. Poor rules writing it one thing, the impact of it is the real problem though.
There is also far more interaction with the unit, it isn't just drawn form a deck and played. How many interacting rules does each card actually have? Because how many combinations of rules is absolutely important, because that influences rule writing, if you take into account stat lines as well with units, it must be pushing billions of different potential interactions in the game when using all rules, and all weapons etc. And this isn't even taking into account how a different table can change the game also.
Talking of straw manning arguments, how about not bringing in a game that is actually nowhere near as complex, and has nowhere near as many variables of situations and interactions with other units in the game to make your point that rule writing should be more concise, because concise rule writing to take into account all possible variations is something we won't have until AI is competent enough to write the rules.
It's chalk and cheese as a comparison to prove your point.
Rule writing should be better, perfection is almost impossible though, so a having a separate concise rule set is a moot point, because it wouldn't be worth reading, let alone remembering.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I don't play magic the gathering, and I was talking about balance as that is usually the main issue with GW in regards to rule writing, where they skew the balance. Which was what I was referring to in terms of skewed rules in my original approach.
There is also far more interaction with the unit, it isn't just drawn form a deck and played. How many interacting rules does each card actually have? Because how many combinations of rules is absolutely important, because that influences rule writing.
Talking of straw manning arguments, how about not bringing in a game that is actually nowhere near as complex, and has nowhere near as many variables of situations and interactions with other units in the game to make your point that rule writing should be more concise.
It's chalk and cheese as a comparison.
Have you played Magic? It's a pretty flipping complex game. I know you don't CURRENTLY, but with 20,000+ cards, even if they only interact with each other ONCE, that's 400,000,000 combinations.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I don't play magic the gathering, and I was talking about balance as that is usually the main issue with GW in regards to rule writing, where they skew the balance. Which was what I was referring to in terms of skewed rules in my original approach.
There is also far more interaction with the unit, it isn't just drawn form a deck and played. How many interacting rules does each card actually have? Because how many combinations of rules is absolutely important, because that influences rule writing.
Talking of straw manning arguments, how about not bringing in a game that is actually nowhere near as complex, and has nowhere near as many variables of situations and interactions with other units in the game to make your point that rule writing should be more concise.
It's chalk and cheese as a comparison.
Have you played Magic? It's a pretty flipping complex game. I know you don't CURRENTLY, but with 20,000+ cards, even if they only interact with each other ONCE, that's 400,000,000 combinations.
And there's a lot more interaction than that.
I understand it is complex, and has many variables, it doesn't in comparison to 40k though.
It's like comparing the possible combinations in a 2D world, to a 3D world, quite literally actually.
The new terrain rules will also be appreciated by all Orks players. With terrain having clearly defined features, you don’t have to worry about your opponent seeing through a crack in the wall to shoot your entire Boyz squad. You can even give your squads a -1 modifier to be shot! This is a big advantage to Orks (and any army that likes to get stuck in) as it means you can seriously limit your opponent’s ability to stop your advance with their shooting.
Without stacking modifiers, that kind of helps, but at the same time it doesn't really.
* As it’s a Blast weapon, the rokkit kannon can’t be fired at Engagement range, but your other weapons can.
). If you survive the shooting after that Fall Back and you used Cut Them Down and your list wasn't swinging wet noodles to begin with? Congrats, you're probably going to eke out a win.
