113340
Post by: ChargerIIC
The new character targeting rules states that 'Character Models with 10 or less wounds...' as being invalid for targeting when there's another enemy unit closer.
I already had someone claim that since a model was reduced to less than 10 wounds the rule now counted. This meant that once Mortorian went down to 10 wounds he became untargetable.
Opinions on this interpitation?
105443
Post by: doctortom
Sounds dubious, but we'll find out soon enough.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
 ChargerIIC wrote:The new character targeting rules states that 'Character Models with 10 or less wounds...' as being invalid for targeting when there's another enemy unit closer.
I already had someone claim that since a model was reduced to less than 10 wounds the rule now counted. This meant that once Mortorian went down to 10 wounds he became untargetable.
Opinions on this interpitation?
People argued this from the start of 8th even pre- CA, it never held any water or public opinion.
111146
Post by: p5freak
These are the exact words of the new targeting character rule from CA :
"An enemy CHARACTER with less than 10 wounds can only be targeted if it is both visible to the firer and it is the closest enemy model to the firer. This means that if any other enemy model is closer, whether it is visible or not, then the enemy CHARACTER cannot be targeted."
The current rule is :
"A Character can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if they are the closest visible enemy unit to the model that is shooting. This does not apply to Characters with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or more, due to their sheer size."
The wording is different, and it could be interpreted that characters with more than 10 wounds, once they drop below 10, cannot be targeted freely. I dont think thats RAI. Its once again, poor word choice from GW.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
Seems like GW broke the game again. The original rule was clear it meant the original characteristic, now it's also clear that once you lose wounds you become untargetable.
Good work from GW as usual, looking forward to the Errata and FAQ document needed for the Errata and FAQ document.
Honestly this new Character rule is more broken and unintuitive than the one replacing it. Really have to wonder if the people making the rules even bother to look online for the issues people have.
112618
Post by: Arachnofiend
p5freak wrote:These are the exact words of the new targeting character rule from CA :
"An enemy CHARACTER with less than 10 wounds can only be targeted if it is both visible to the firer and it is the closest enemy model to the firer. This means that if any other enemy model is closer, whether it is visible or not, then the enemy CHARACTER cannot be targeted."
The current rule is :
"A Character can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if they are the closest visible enemy unit to the model that is shooting. This does not apply to Characters with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or more, due to their sheer size."
The wording is different, and it could be interpreted that characters with more than 10 wounds, once they drop below 10, cannot be targeted freely. I dont think thats RAI. Its once again, poor word choice from GW.
The RAW is only slightly ambiguous and the RAI is completely obvious so I'm gonna give a skeevy look to anyone who tries to play it the wrong way.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
It's blatantly obvious it still means Wounds characteristic. But be free to try and be TFG. Let me know how many friends/opponents you still have afterwards... :-D
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaconCatBug wrote:Seems like GW broke the game again. The original rule was clear it meant the original characteristic, now it's also clear that once you lose wounds you become untargetable.
Good work from GW as usual, looking forward to the Errata and FAQ document needed for the Errata and FAQ document.
Honestly this new Character rule is more broken and unintuitive than the one replacing it. Really have to wonder if the people making the rules even bother to look online for the issues people have.
That isn't "clear" at all. To use a phrase, your argument has "less than zero relevance" and would be laughed out of Nottingham if raised with the designers. Do feel free to write to GW and report back, of course.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
 JohnnyHell wrote:It's blatantly obvious it still means Wounds characteristic. But be free to try and be TFG. Let me know how many friends/opponents you still have afterwards... :-D
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote:Seems like GW broke the game again. The original rule was clear it meant the original characteristic, now it's also clear that once you lose wounds you become untargetable.
Good work from GW as usual, looking forward to the Errata and FAQ document needed for the Errata and FAQ document.
Honestly this new Character rule is more broken and unintuitive than the one replacing it. Really have to wonder if the people making the rules even bother to look online for the issues people have.
That isn't "clear" at all. To use a phrase, your argument has "less than zero relevance" and would be laughed out of Nottingham if raised with the designers. Do feel free to write to GW and report back, of course.
But that's not admissible in YMDC!
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
It's not admissible even in games IMHO. If you think it's "pedantic" to follow this rule, then I will claim it's "pedantic" for Gulliman only to buff ULTRAMARINES and force you to allow him to buff SPACE WOLVES and CADIANS too.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
Does he not buff space wolves and cadians? They've got the Imperium keyword 
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
Jacksmiles wrote:Does he not buff space wolves and cadians? They've got the Imperium keyword
Only partially, I want his buffs to ULTRAMARINES to apply to SPACE WOLVES too. Obviously if you disagree you're being pedantic and a rules lawyer! 
99971
Post by: Audustum
BaconCatBug wrote:It's not admissible even in games IMHO. If you think it's "pedantic" to follow this rule, then I will claim it's "pedantic" for Gulliman only to buff ULTRAMARINES and force you to allow him to buff SPACE WOLVES and CADIANS too.
Gotta agree here. Rules are rules and there's a fair argument this isn't characteristics anymore. I'd let my opponent play it either way and ask a TO to rule before a tournament.
91362
Post by: DCannon4Life
Suggest applying the, "don't be an a-hole rule" and see what you come up with.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
DCannon4Life wrote:Suggest applying the, "don't be an a-hole rule" and see what you come up with.
GW done goofed. As written, there's a clear argument that, especially since it's been CHANGED, it applies to current wounds and not Characteristic.
91362
Post by: DCannon4Life
 JNAProductions wrote:DCannon4Life wrote:Suggest applying the, "don't be an a-hole rule" and see what you come up with.
GW done goofed. As written, there's a clear argument that, especially since it's been CHANGED, it applies to current wounds and not Characteristic.
Use it, and enjoy your alpha-bag status. It will be, because it has to be (because people like yourself exist), fixed, as it is clearly not what is intended. Cheers.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
DCannon4Life wrote: JNAProductions wrote:DCannon4Life wrote:Suggest applying the, "don't be an a-hole rule" and see what you come up with.
GW done goofed. As written, there's a clear argument that, especially since it's been CHANGED, it applies to current wounds and not Characteristic.
Use it, and enjoy your alpha-bag status. It will be, because it has to be (because people like yourself exist), fixed, as it is clearly not what is intended. Cheers.
Chapter Approved is literally a bug-fix document. If that can't prove "intent", then nothing can.
94850
Post by: nekooni
DCannon4Life wrote:Suggest applying the, "don't be an a-hole rule" and see what you come up with.
That rule also applies to YMDC posts.
There's obviously a change in wording, and the result is that it behaves differently now if you follow the rules. Instead of being a bunch of dicks about people questioning that change or thinking that maybe, in some instances, when GW changes a rule it means to change a rule, you could just not tell people they're TFG or rules-lawyers.
I'll wait for the FAQs to clarify if that change was intended (which I don't think it was) and keep playing the pre- CA rule until then. In the meantime stop insulting people, maybe?
111146
Post by: p5freak
The german chapter approved says wounds in the profile, so nothing changed there.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
It isn't a change. Only someone scratching for douchey advantages would claim it is a change or it's somehow proof that they intend Characters to shrink as they lose wounds hence becoming untargettable.
I'll leave it to each of you to figure out if you're that guy.
94850
Post by: nekooni
JohnnyHell wrote:It isn't a change. Only someone scratching for douchey advantages would claim it is a change or it's somehow proof that they intend Characters to shrink as they lose wounds hence becoming untargettable.
I'll leave it to each of you to figure out if you're that guy.
It's literally a change in wording, isn't it? And stop being so insulting.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
nekooni wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:It isn't a change. Only someone scratching for douchey advantages would claim it is a change or it's somehow proof that they intend Characters to shrink as they lose wounds hence becoming untargettable.
I'll leave it to each of you to figure out if you're that guy.
It's literally a change in wording, isn't it? And stop being so insulting.
It's clearly a wording oversight that people are leaping on to try and wring some advantage (hey isn't there something in the Tenets of YMDC about just that? Yup.). It's blatantly not a change in rules. You can be reasonable or try and douche an advantage out of this. Because that's what it is.
And anyway, if you want solid Rules precedent for the douchey interpretation NOT being valid, see degradation tables. They say "Remaining W". So the Character rule would have to say "10 or less Wounds remaining" to mean what people are claiming.
Apologies if you felt my post was strongly-worded, but I named no-one and the word lawyering annoys the hell out of me in cases like this. You can be a reasonable being or try and claim this wording slip is a game-breaking change, a deliberate decision to change it, etc. Those people know who they are!
94850
Post by: nekooni
JohnnyHell wrote:
Apologies if you felt my post was strongly-worded, but I named no-one and the word lawyering annoys the hell out of me in cases like this. You can be a reasonable being or try and claim this wording slip is a game-breaking change, a deliberate decision to change it, etc. Those people know who they are!
You're telling everyone who disagrees with you that they're douchebags, rules-lawyers and TFG. Do you seriously think that's just "strongly-worded"? It's a personal attack on anyone who disagrees with you, completely ignoring - and refusing to accept - that there was a change in wording. Just for pointing out that they changed from "wounds characteristic" to "wounds". And then you basically use the same "lawyering" by saying that "wounds" must clearly be different from "remaining wounds" - how is that different?
And then you call on the Tenets? Dude. How about some more introspection?
Just to clarify: I'm not even arguing anyone SHOULD play it as "once you loose enough wounds you become untargetable", I'm just saying there was a change in wording.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
nekooni wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:
Apologies if you felt my post was strongly-worded, but I named no-one and the word lawyering annoys the hell out of me in cases like this. You can be a reasonable being or try and claim this wording slip is a game-breaking change, a deliberate decision to change it, etc. Those people know who they are!
You're telling everyone who disagrees with you that they're douchebags, rules-lawyers and TFG. Do you seriously think that's just "strongly-worded"? It's a personal attack on anyone who disagrees with you, completely ignoring - and refusing to accept - that there was a change in wording. Just for pointing out that they changed from "wounds characteristic" to "wounds". And then you basically use the same "lawyering" by saying that "wounds" must clearly be different from "remaining wounds" - how is that different?
And then you call on the Tenets? Dude. How about some more introspection?
Just to clarify: I'm not even arguing anyone SHOULD play it as "once you loose enough wounds you become untargetable", I'm just saying there was a change in wording.
Tell you what: I'll eat my hat if it turns out this is a rule change, ok? If GW clarify that yes, Character models actually become less targettable as they lose Wounds, that is what they intended in CA2017. Fair deal? Penance enough for you?
94850
Post by: nekooni
JohnnyHell wrote:
Tell you what: I'll eat my hat if it turns out this is a rule change, ok? If GW clarify that yes, Character models actually become less targettable as they lose Wounds, that is what they intended in CA2017. Fair deal? Penance enough for you?
I really don't care to be honest. What I care about is that you stay polite while discussing rules.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
Report my posts and move on then. Don't bait me further, especially if not actually arguing an on topic point. Apologies again for offending you. Let's move on.
103910
Post by: vladicov
The only conclusive argument ive seen that shows it may not mean reduced to 10 wounds is someone here stating the german translation does still mention wounds profile.
It seems everyone is emotionally attached to mortarion and magnus not getting better, but this change would make playing greater demons really fun.
Other than magnus, mortarion, the greater demons and nids characters who does this even effect?
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
vladicov wrote:The only conclusive argument ive seen that shows it may not mean reduced to 10 wounds is someone here stating the german translation does still mention wounds profile.
It seems everyone is emotionally attached to mortarion and magnus not getting better, but this change would make playing greater demons really fun.
Other than magnus, mortarion, the greater demons and nids characters who does this even effect?
Longstrike.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
JNAProductions wrote:vladicov wrote:The only conclusive argument ive seen that shows it may not mean reduced to 10 wounds is someone here stating the german translation does still mention wounds profile.
It seems everyone is emotionally attached to mortarion and magnus not getting better, but this change would make playing greater demons really fun.
Other than magnus, mortarion, the greater demons and nids characters who does this even effect?
Longstrike.
And all of the other vehicle characters like IG Tank Commanders.
113340
Post by: ChargerIIC
vladicov wrote:The only conclusive argument ive seen that shows it may not mean reduced to 10 wounds is someone here stating the german translation does still mention wounds profile.
It seems everyone is emotionally attached to mortarion and magnus not getting better, but this change would make playing greater demons really fun.
Other than magnus, mortarion, the greater demons and nids characters who does this even effect?
Gulliman. Knight Pask. Every faction has someone with the character rule and over 10 wounds.
99971
Post by: Audustum
Guilles not over 10.
71534
Post by: Bharring
Wraithseers
105443
Post by: doctortom
JohnnyHell wrote:It isn't a change. Only someone scratching for douchey advantages would claim it is a change or it's somehow proof that they intend Characters to shrink as they lose wounds hence becoming untargettable.
I'll leave it to each of you to figure out if you're that guy.
Obviously they're getting smaller as chunks get blown out of them 
46128
Post by: Happyjew
ChargerIIC wrote:vladicov wrote:The only conclusive argument ive seen that shows it may not mean reduced to 10 wounds is someone here stating the german translation does still mention wounds profile.
It seems everyone is emotionally attached to mortarion and magnus not getting better, but this change would make playing greater demons really fun.
Other than magnus, mortarion, the greater demons and nids characters who does this even effect?
Gulliman. Knight Pask. Every faction has someone with the character rule and over 10 wounds.
Harlequins do not.
Drukhari do not.
I don't think Genestelaer Cults do.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
The topic isn't "list everything with 10+ Wounds and CHARACTER, guys!
60684
Post by: Drager
Well, the change in the rule is to the line of sight restriction, but it certainly looks as though they included an extra way to hide guys as well, probably by mistake. It's definitely a rules change, but I suspect they wanted only 1 change, not 2.
84782
Post by: broo
I think this is intentional bc GW wants their precious characters on the battlefield more.. It could use more clairity sure but RAW you all know what to do..
56055
Post by: Backspacehacker
I have seen this argued and it's stupid, the quickest way to shoot it down is by pointing out that 'wounds' is a characteristic on the units profile. There for if it has less then 10 wounds would implu you need to look at the profile. If it was to work in the suggested way, once a model is below 10 wounds, the ca rule would need to say, if a model is REDUCED, to less then 10 wounds. Because it does not say reduced it's imolied that it's based of it's original wounds not current wounds.
Anyone who actually played or tried to pull that I would not play against at all.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
 Backspacehacker wrote:I have seen this argued and it's stupid, the quickest way to shoot it down is by pointing out that 'wounds' is a characteristic on the units profile. There for if it has less then 10 wounds would implu you need to look at the profile. If it was to work in the suggested way, once a model is below 10 wounds, the ca rule would need to say, if a model is REDUCED, to less then 10 wounds. Because it does not say reduced it's imolied that it's based of it's original wounds not current wounds.
Anyone who actually played or tried to pull that I would not play against at all.
The problem with that argument is that the original wound DID say characteristic. Therefore the new rule, with different wording, should work differently.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
BaconCatBug wrote: Backspacehacker wrote:I have seen this argued and it's stupid, the quickest way to shoot it down is by pointing out that 'wounds' is a characteristic on the units profile. There for if it has less then 10 wounds would implu you need to look at the profile. If it was to work in the suggested way, once a model is below 10 wounds, the ca rule would need to say, if a model is REDUCED, to less then 10 wounds. Because it does not say reduced it's imolied that it's based of it's original wounds not current wounds.
Anyone who actually played or tried to pull that I would not play against at all.
The problem with that argument is that the original wound DID say characteristic. Therefore the new rule, with different wording, should work differently.
The Rules justification in the Battle Primer/Rulebooks was "due to their sheer size". Are you saying these units now shrink and warriors suddenly can't notice them? Because that's ridiculous.
There's also the "Remaining W" on Datasheets by way of precedent, to see how it would have been written if it was as you claim.
56055
Post by: Backspacehacker
As I said, anyone that genuinely thinks that because Marty goes down to 9 wounds he can hide behind pox walkers is TFG.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
Backspacehacker wrote:As I said, anyone that genuinely thinks that because Marty goes down to 9 wounds he can hide behind pox walkers is TFG.
Totally agree.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
Backspacehacker wrote:As I said, anyone that genuinely thinks that because Marty goes down to 9 wounds he can hide behind pox walkers is TFG.
There's a difference between believing that's how the rule should work and how it's written to work.
110517
Post by: Primark G
IMO only a TFG will play it Morty or Mags gets the benefit... to argue is an exercise is sheer silliness... but this is Dakka.
100848
Post by: tneva82
JohnnyHell wrote: BaconCatBug wrote: Backspacehacker wrote:I have seen this argued and it's stupid, the quickest way to shoot it down is by pointing out that 'wounds' is a characteristic on the units profile. There for if it has less then 10 wounds would implu you need to look at the profile. If it was to work in the suggested way, once a model is below 10 wounds, the ca rule would need to say, if a model is REDUCED, to less then 10 wounds. Because it does not say reduced it's imolied that it's based of it's original wounds not current wounds.
Anyone who actually played or tried to pull that I would not play against at all.
The problem with that argument is that the original wound DID say characteristic. Therefore the new rule, with different wording, should work differently.
The Rules justification in the Battle Primer/Rulebooks was "due to their sheer size". Are you saying these units now shrink and warriors suddenly can't notice them? Because that's ridiculous.
There's also the "Remaining W" on Datasheets by way of precedent, to see how it would have been written if it was as you claim.
Fluff!=rule. If you disagree I claim space marines should be immune to lasguns since they are often described as immune to anything small arms fire.
And if you want fluff justification(as if that mattered) armour etc blown off by damage. There. Done.
94850
Post by: nekooni
If your only arguments are "its not fluffy" and "if you do that you're TFG" , thats a pretty bad sign.
RaI i agree it should be played just like before, but RaW - no.
98135
Post by: Silentz
I think YMDC needs some shorthand to quickly close down inane non-debates like this, perhaps based on the Grinding Advance debacle.
We should be able to just answer something like "Yes, zero is less than five".
You can read into these things whatever you like, but be aware that
- You are wilfuly misinterpreting the rules
- No TO will allow it in competitive play
- Trying it in your local games means you're an <insert epithet here>
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
tneva82 wrote: JohnnyHell wrote: BaconCatBug wrote: Backspacehacker wrote:I have seen this argued and it's stupid, the quickest way to shoot it down is by pointing out that 'wounds' is a characteristic on the units profile. There for if it has less then 10 wounds would implu you need to look at the profile. If it was to work in the suggested way, once a model is below 10 wounds, the ca rule would need to say, if a model is REDUCED, to less then 10 wounds. Because it does not say reduced it's imolied that it's based of it's original wounds not current wounds.
Anyone who actually played or tried to pull that I would not play against at all.
The problem with that argument is that the original wound DID say characteristic. Therefore the new rule, with different wording, should work differently.
The Rules justification in the Battle Primer/Rulebooks was "due to their sheer size". Are you saying these units now shrink and warriors suddenly can't notice them? Because that's ridiculous.
There's also the "Remaining W" on Datasheets by way of precedent, to see how it would have been written if it was as you claim.
Fluff!=rule. If you disagree I claim space marines should be immune to lasguns since they are often described as immune to anything small arms fire.
And if you want fluff justification(as if that mattered) armour etc blown off by damage. There. Done.
Show me where your justification appears in the rule. Because what I wrote appears in the original rule and yours doesn't, with nothing saying it is 'just fluff' and not part of the rule. I was addressing what was written in the Rules.
There. Not 'done'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Silentz wrote:I think YMDC needs some shorthand to quickly close down inane non-debates like this, perhaps based on the Grinding Advance debacle.
We should be able to just answer something like "Yes, zero is less than five".
You can read into these things whatever you like, but be aware that
- You are wilfuly misinterpreting the rules
- No TO will allow it in competitive play
- Trying it in your local games means you're an <insert epithet here>
Agreed. Anyone claiming it's intended Characters shrink and become non-targettable is just trying it on and arguing for argument's sake. I hope they'd be so bold in real life and not just be being the big person safe behind a computer screen. They wouldn't get many repeat games. Lest I be accused of insulting people again, eh, don't behave like this is a substantive change and the shoe won't fit.
94850
Post by: nekooni
Why are you so angry about a rule discussion? Noone is attacking you even though you're being consistently rude in this thread, so please, calm down.
Yes, I am perfectly able to discuss this rule in real life and I have zero issue with telling someone about that rule, because my stance is simply "they changed the wording, which makes it work differently, but we still shouldn't play it like that because they're going to FAQ it anyway, because it's clearly an unintended change - they can't be THAT stupid over in Nottingham".
Fact: The rule changed.
Opinion: It shouldn't have.
Unneccessary: Getting angry about it.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
nekooni wrote:Why are you so angry about a rule discussion? Noone is attacking you even though you're being consistently rude in this thread, so please, calm down.
Yes, I am perfectly able to discuss this rule in real life and I have zero issue with telling someone about that rule, because my stance is simply "they changed the wording, which makes it work differently, but we still shouldn't play it like that because they're going to FAQ it anyway, because it's clearly an unintended change - they can't be THAT stupid over in Nottingham".
Fact: The rule changed.
Opinion: It shouldn't have.
Unneccessary: Getting angry about it.
Who are you addressing and interpreting anger from? I'm not angry. I'm faintly amused people will try and wrangle advantage. YMMV.
84782
Post by: broo
well you can play this game RAW like the big boys or you can start making all your little house rules and play with your 2 friends all the time... Choice is yours
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
broo wrote:well you can play this game RAW like the big boys or you can start making all your little house rules and play with your 2 friends all the time... Choice is yours
What if I want to play this game RAW with my 2 friends all the time? Also, nice shot on implying people house ruling are children, that's gonna keep your credibility high
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
If one house rule is valid, then all are. Now my conscripts have 4000 wounds.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
BaconCatBug wrote:If one house rule is valid, then all are. Now my conscripts have 4000 wounds.
TIL house rules are meant to be used for false equivalencies instead of being ways a group prefers to play a game. I mean, if a group wants to play conscripts as 4000 wounds, that's cool, it's your business. But don't pretend someone saying "Hey I think playing this rule in a way that seems more RAI to me is more fair" is the same as "HAHA I get to play things you'll never kill because I made it up that way!"  Not all house rules are valid in every house, and that's okay.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
It's not a false equivalence. If player A wants to make a house rule modifying a rule, player B gets to do so too. What those rules are are unimportant.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
BaconCatBug wrote:It's not a false equivalence. If player A wants to make a house rule modifying a rule, player B gets to do so too. What those rules are are unimportant.
Not really. In a group using house rules, they're not just taking turns making things up - someone suggests a rule change and the other players agree. Maybe your group just auto-agrees to things like 4000 wound conscripts, but it's not a reasonable assumption to make about reasonable people.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
Jacksmiles wrote: BaconCatBug wrote:It's not a false equivalence. If player A wants to make a house rule modifying a rule, player B gets to do so too. What those rules are are unimportant.
Not really. In a group using house rules, they're not just taking turns making things up - someone suggests a rule change and the other players agree. Maybe your group just auto-agrees to things like 4000 wound conscripts, but it's not a reasonable assumption to make about reasonable people.
Indeed. A reasonable solution agreed upon between two people to make the game work/be fun is not the same as BCB's ridiculous UberConscript fallacies.
94850
Post by: nekooni
JohnnyHell wrote:Jacksmiles wrote: BaconCatBug wrote:It's not a false equivalence. If player A wants to make a house rule modifying a rule, player B gets to do so too. What those rules are are unimportant.
Not really. In a group using house rules, they're not just taking turns making things up - someone suggests a rule change and the other players agree. Maybe your group just auto-agrees to things like 4000 wound conscripts, but it's not a reasonable assumption to make about reasonable people.
Indeed. A reasonable solution agreed upon between two people to make the game work/be fun is not the same as BCB's ridiculous UberConscript fallacies.
I think what you're looking for is here. And yeah, I was refering to you earlier, you came off as pretty aggressive. Glad to know that's just your amused tone.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
nekooni wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:Jacksmiles wrote: BaconCatBug wrote:It's not a false equivalence. If player A wants to make a house rule modifying a rule, player B gets to do so too. What those rules are are unimportant.
Not really. In a group using house rules, they're not just taking turns making things up - someone suggests a rule change and the other players agree. Maybe your group just auto-agrees to things like 4000 wound conscripts, but it's not a reasonable assumption to make about reasonable people.
Indeed. A reasonable solution agreed upon between two people to make the game work/be fun is not the same as BCB's ridiculous UberConscript fallacies.
I think what you're looking for is here. And yeah, I was refering to you earlier, you came off as pretty aggressive. Glad to know that's just your amused tone.
Why would I need the Proposed Rules forum? A tad passive-aggressive, sir. 
My interpretation of the RAW is that Characters do not shrink and the rule still means 'Wounds characteristic'.
That's not inventing rules, or house-ruling; that was a side discussion.
As it doesn't say 'Wounds remaining' you can't "prove me wrong" and we're left with a disagreement in interpretation. I believe nothing has changed, bar the obvious and intended targetting change re: visibility/closest clearly made. You believe in magic shrinking Characters that suddenly are hideable when they lose Wounds. I'm summing up your case a tad flippantly, but that's because I think it's a silly argument.
105443
Post by: doctortom
broo wrote:well you can play this game RAW like the big boys or you can start making all your little house rules and play with your 2 friends all the time... Choice is yours
Are the "big boys" firing assault weapons after advancing? Or fire pistols when within 1" of an enemy? Then they're not playing RAW. Check BCB's sig for other RAW problems.
No need to cop an attitude like that.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
nekooni wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:Jacksmiles wrote: BaconCatBug wrote:It's not a false equivalence. If player A wants to make a house rule modifying a rule, player B gets to do so too. What those rules are are unimportant.
Not really. In a group using house rules, they're not just taking turns making things up - someone suggests a rule change and the other players agree. Maybe your group just auto-agrees to things like 4000 wound conscripts, but it's not a reasonable assumption to make about reasonable people.
Indeed. A reasonable solution agreed upon between two people to make the game work/be fun is not the same as BCB's ridiculous UberConscript fallacies.
I think what you're looking for is here. And yeah, I was refering to you earlier, you came off as pretty aggressive. Glad to know that's just your amused tone.
I'm pretty sure HIWPI and RAI are allowed for discussion in this forum. House rules don't need to be in Proposed Rules as they are HIWPI for the purpose of these discussions.
That's not to say house rules CAN'T go in Proposed Rules, but they don't have to be ONLY there
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
Jacksmiles wrote:nekooni wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:Jacksmiles wrote: BaconCatBug wrote:It's not a false equivalence. If player A wants to make a house rule modifying a rule, player B gets to do so too. What those rules are are unimportant.
Not really. In a group using house rules, they're not just taking turns making things up - someone suggests a rule change and the other players agree. Maybe your group just auto-agrees to things like 4000 wound conscripts, but it's not a reasonable assumption to make about reasonable people.
Indeed. A reasonable solution agreed upon between two people to make the game work/be fun is not the same as BCB's ridiculous UberConscript fallacies.
I think what you're looking for is here. And yeah, I was refering to you earlier, you came off as pretty aggressive. Glad to know that's just your amused tone.
I'm pretty sure HIWPI and RAI are allowed for discussion in this forum. House rules don't need to be in Proposed Rules as they are HIWPI for the purpose of these discussions.
That's not to say house rules CAN'T go in Proposed Rules, but they don't have to be ONLY there
Hear, hear.
84782
Post by: broo
Ok sure, thats how you would play it but what if gw actually play tested this and did this on purpose. You cant just assume its an oversite bc it doesn't benefit your army. Maybe the rule needs clarification but if gw never adresses this then they probably meant it RAW
111146
Post by: p5freak
broo wrote:Ok sure, thats how you would play it but what if gw actually play tested this and did this on purpose. You cant just assume its an oversite bc it doesn't benefit your army. Maybe the rule needs clarification but if gw never adresses this then they probably meant it RAW
Why is the german version different ? Why is it like the old character rule ? The german version clearly says less than 10 wounds in the profile. Does GW want different rules for different countries ? I dont think so. Its just another screwup by GW.
What about other languages ? What does the rule say there ?
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
broo wrote:Ok sure, thats how you would play it but what if gw actually play tested this and did this on purpose. You cant just assume its an oversite bc it doesn't benefit your army. Maybe the rule needs clarification but if gw never adresses this then they probably meant it RAW
Already addressed:
JohnnyHell wrote:
My interpretation of the RAW is that Characters do not shrink and the rule still means 'Wounds characteristic'.
That's not inventing rules, or house-ruling; that was a side discussion.
As it doesn't say 'Wounds remaining' you can't "prove me wrong" and we're left with a disagreement in interpretation. I believe nothing has changed, bar the obvious and intended targetting change re: visibility/closest clearly made. You believe in magic shrinking Characters that suddenly are hideable when they lose Wounds. I'm summing up your case a tad flippantly, but that's because I think it's a silly argument.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
p5freak wrote:broo wrote:Ok sure, thats how you would play it but what if gw actually play tested this and did this on purpose. You cant just assume its an oversite bc it doesn't benefit your army. Maybe the rule needs clarification but if gw never adresses this then they probably meant it RAW
Why is the german version different ? Why is it like the old character rule ? The german version clearly says less than 10 wounds in the profile. Does GW want different rules for different countries ? I dont think so. Its just another screwup by GW.
What about other languages ? What does the rule say there ?
Because GW is incompetent.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
broo wrote:Ok sure, thats how you would play it but what if gw actually play tested this and did this on purpose. You cant just assume its an oversite bc it doesn't benefit your army. Maybe the rule needs clarification but if gw never adresses this then they probably meant it RAW
I agree that this could be a RAW change. I personally think it'd be strange, but I can deal with that. Based on the German version including "on the profile" I think it's enough of a gray area for them to need to clarify. Because right now it could mean that you have different groups of people each playing a different RAW. I'm not a fan of house-ruling unless something clearly doesn't work (assault weapons as an example) and this rule as written in English clearly works, it's just different from the character targeting rules we had to get used to when 8th dropped. But I don't think it's what they meant to do.
I'm good either way, but on this one I'd personally rather play what I think RAI is until they've had a chance to confirm or deny the RAW.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
"I suddenly can't see that Leman Russ anymore, sir..."
"That giant Hive Tyrant is suddenly really hard to draw a bead on..."
"Can't get a fix on that Baneblade, my Lord... I swear it was easier to see a moment ago..."
Simply put, this is why it's nonsense!
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
p5freak wrote:broo wrote:Ok sure, thats how you would play it but what if gw actually play tested this and did this on purpose. You cant just assume its an oversite bc it doesn't benefit your army. Maybe the rule needs clarification but if gw never adresses this then they probably meant it RAW
Why is the german version different ? Why is it like the old character rule ? The german version clearly says less than 10 wounds in the profile. Does GW want different rules for different countries ? I dont think so. Its just another screwup by GW.
What about other languages ? What does the rule say there ?
It's not the first time rules have been different in translated versions. It doesn't prove anything either way.
94850
Post by: nekooni
JohnnyHell wrote:"I suddenly can't see that Leman Russ anymore, sir..."
"That giant Hive Tyrant is suddenly really hard to draw a bead on..."
"Can't get a fix on that Baneblade, my Lord... I swear it was easier to see a moment ago..."
Simply put, this is why it's nonsense!
Yes. But how is that relevant?
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
JohnnyHell wrote:"I suddenly can't see that Leman Russ anymore, sir..."
"That giant Hive Tyrant is suddenly really hard to draw a bead on..."
"Can't get a fix on that Baneblade, my Lord... I swear it was easier to see a moment ago..."
Simply put, this is why it's nonsense!
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what the rules say.
You could equally justify that tracked and wheeled vehicles shouldn't be able to move sideways, that multiwound infantry should have their combat ability degraded as they take wounds, that it makes no sense for the wounded one in the squad to always take the next wound, that models in squad out of sight should not be selectable as casualties and a whole pile of other things that "are nonsense" but are absolutely what the rules say.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
nekooni wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:"I suddenly can't see that Leman Russ anymore, sir..."
"That giant Hive Tyrant is suddenly really hard to draw a bead on..."
"Can't get a fix on that Baneblade, my Lord... I swear it was easier to see a moment ago..."
Simply put, this is why it's nonsense!
Yes. But how is that relevant?
Sigh... because size was the justification for the original rule, so this is a comment on why it seems unlikely they'd amend that element of it.
And because sometimes you can discuss things that aren't hard RAW RAW RAW and the universe doesn't explode.  Automatically Appended Next Post:  Scott-S6 wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:"I suddenly can't see that Leman Russ anymore, sir..."
"That giant Hive Tyrant is suddenly really hard to draw a bead on..."
"Can't get a fix on that Baneblade, my Lord... I swear it was easier to see a moment ago..."
Simply put, this is why it's nonsense!
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what the rules say.
You could equally justify that tracked and wheeled vehicles shouldn't be able to move sideways, that multiwound infantry should have their combat ability degraded as they take wounds, that it makes no sense for the wounded one in the squad to always take the next wound, that models in squad out of sight should not be selectable as casualties and a whole pile of other things that "are nonsense" but are absolutely what the rules say.
Hey, we've already got one guy dishing out logical fallcies, let's not have more.
Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
JohnnyHell wrote:
Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.
You can maintain that all you want but fluff-based justifications have nothing to do with what the rules actually say, especially when there are loads of unambiguous rules that make no sense in terms of fluff.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Scott-S6 wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:
Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.
You can maintain that all you want but fluff-based justifications have nothing to do with what the rules actually say, especially when there are loads of unambiguous rules that make no sense in terms of fluff.
Given that it could be read either way now, "unambiguous rules" might not be something to claim here.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
 doctortom wrote: Scott-S6 wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.
You can maintain that all you want but fluff-based justifications have nothing to do with what the rules actually say, especially when there are loads of unambiguous rules that make no sense in terms of fluff.
Given that it could be read either way now, "unambiguous rules" might not be something to claim here.
Except it can't be read either way. It's unambiguously different from the previous rule. If GW issue a special snowflake FAQ or errata, then that's fine, but to claim it could be either way is ridiculous. If you claim "wounds" means "wounds characteristic", then the line in the rulebook that says " If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0" doesn't actually do anything. You can't have it both ways. So the RaI crowd is unintentionally arguing that being reduced to zero wounds does nothing. And they call people playing by the rules as written unreasonable?
29836
Post by: Elbows
I'm with JohnnyHell on this one, all day.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
So you're claiming that models are not slain when reduced to zero wounds, because you claim "wounds" is the same as "wounds characteristic", and damage doesn't modify the "wounds characteristic"? Or if you claim that "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers" does modify the characteristic, then models that drop under 10 can't be targeted. So which is it?
29836
Post by: Elbows
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
doctortom wrote: Scott-S6 wrote: JohnnyHell wrote: Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.
You can maintain that all you want but fluff-based justifications have nothing to do with what the rules actually say, especially when there are loads of unambiguous rules that make no sense in terms of fluff.
Given that it could be read either way now, "unambiguous rules" might not be something to claim here.
Regardless, the point is that a rule being "nonsense" from a fluff perspective when interpreted a particular way does not add to or subtract from that interpretation's validity since there are crystal clear rules that are nonsense from a fluff perspective.
7680
Post by: oni
Ugh! The new character targeting rules are so bad. The original rule was fine. They should have left well enough alone.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
BaconCatBug wrote: So the RaI crowd is unintentionally arguing that being reduced to zero wounds does nothing. And they call people playing by the rules as written unreasonable?
I like this one, it's very blatant misrepresentation of what anyone's said in here. No one is arguing this, even unintentionally. The argument is that *in this rule* they likely meant to say "wound characteristic." Not to go through the rulebook changing every instance of "wound" with "wound characteristic." That would be unreasonable Also, I'm the one calling your arguments unreasonable, not the "crowd," unless I missed something, which is possible, we all do it. Like you, missing the point I'm also not even part of the crowd you're rallying against, so good job on that count. I've mostly been saying that HIWPI and RAI are allowed in this forum, and in one single post I brought up my thoughts on this rule, that it's unlikely that they meant it to be remaining wounds but it's possible since they didn't write characteristic - and that until it's clarified for sure, I'd prefer to play the way I'm used to, using characteristics instead of making models targetable and untargetable at different points in the game. Gasp, shock, the horror, what a monster I have become.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
What "they likely" meant is not even remotely relevant to what they actually wrote. If they want a rule to mean something other than exactly what it says, they have to amend what it says somewhere.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
I, like a lot of others, think that the targeting rule was just fine as was. For GW to have gone and changed the wording you have to wonder if they, did in fact, intend that as a character's wounds decreased they become harder to hit. Otherwise why would GW even bother writing a new version of the rule?
Fluffwise maybe the character becomes more conscious of his vulnerability and seeks to "hide" himself a little better or take more advantage of cover.
100326
Post by: Jacksmiles
 DarknessEternal wrote: What "they likely" meant is not even remotely relevant to what they actually wrote. If they want a rule to mean something other than exactly what it says, they have to amend what it says somewhere.
In an errata/ FAQ, you mean? We haven't had enough time for one yet, but when one comes out, we'll know for sure either way. And if one doesn't, then yes, we have to accept the RAW. We've had multitudes of examples of them meaning one thing and writing it a bit off to that, then correcting it. Otherwise there's more than one RAW - which is definitely not intended - due to different wordings in other languages. Automatically Appended Next Post: Leo_the_Rat wrote:I, like a lot of others, think that the targeting rule was just fine as was. For GW to have gone and changed the wording you have to wonder if they, did in fact, intend that as a character's wounds decreased they become harder to hit. Otherwise why would GW even bother writing a new version of the rule?
They changed the need for closer units to be visible, now even if you can't see a closer unit you can't target the character - that was an intended change for sure. Maybe they meant both changes, but I think it unlikely.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
Jacksmiles wrote: BaconCatBug wrote:
So the RaI crowd is unintentionally arguing that being reduced to zero wounds does nothing. And they call people playing by the rules as written unreasonable?
I like this one, it's very blatant misrepresentation of what anyone's said in here. No one is arguing this, even unintentionally. The argument is that *in this rule* they likely meant to say "wound characteristic." Not to go through the rulebook changing every instance of "wound" with "wound characteristic." That would be unreasonable
Also, I'm the one calling your arguments unreasonable, not the "crowd," unless I missed something, which is possible, we all do it. Like you, missing the point
I'm also not even part of the crowd you're rallying against, so good job on that count. I've mostly been saying that HIWPI and RAI are allowed in this forum, and in one single post I brought up my thoughts on this rule, that it's unlikely that they meant it to be remaining wounds but it's possible since they didn't write characteristic - and that until it's clarified for sure, I'd prefer to play the way I'm used to, using characteristics instead of making models targetable and untargetable at different points in the game.
Gasp, shock, the horror, what a monster I have become.
Good reply. No one was arguing what BCB claims, his constant fallacies are tiring.
110517
Post by: Primark G
Several tourney councils have already stated it won’t affect targeting For characters starting with 10 or more wounds.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
BaconCatBug wrote: doctortom wrote: Scott-S6 wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.
You can maintain that all you want but fluff-based justifications have nothing to do with what the rules actually say, especially when there are loads of unambiguous rules that make no sense in terms of fluff.
Given that it could be read either way now, "unambiguous rules" might not be something to claim here.
Except it can't be read either way. It's unambiguously different from the previous rule. If GW issue a special snowflake FAQ or errata, then that's fine, but to claim it could be either way is ridiculous.
If you claim "wounds" means "wounds characteristic", then the line in the rulebook that says " If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0" doesn't actually do anything. You can't have it both ways.
So the RaI crowd is unintentionally arguing that being reduced to zero wounds does nothing. And they call people playing by the rules as written unreasonable?
I don't know who this 'crowd' is, but for the record I'm arguing the RAW is not what you say it is. I've laid out my RAW argument before I got onto RAI. I even quote it so it's in two posts. I believe I'm following the RAW and have explained why. Please do read properly and argue in good faith instead of your fallacious misrepresentations and veiled attacks.
105443
Post by: doctortom
BaconCatBug wrote: doctortom wrote: Scott-S6 wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.
You can maintain that all you want but fluff-based justifications have nothing to do with what the rules actually say, especially when there are loads of unambiguous rules that make no sense in terms of fluff.
Given that it could be read either way now, "unambiguous rules" might not be something to claim here.
Except it can't be read either way. It's unambiguously different from the previous rule.
So it went from being unambiguously one way to being able to be read two ways.
BaconCatBug wrote: If GW issue a special snowflake FAQ or errata, then that's fine, but to claim it could be either way is ridiculous.
The German version cares to differ with you. It has an unambigous reading, but it runs counter to what you claim is unabiguous in the English version. Are you saying that GW planned for the rule to be different in different languages? The rule can still be read two ways in English, and the German version indicates that it is still done the same way. Given that evidence, saying that it is unambiguous with current wounds being the only interpretation is what is ridiculous.
110517
Post by: Primark G
No one will play it you can insta-hide Mags or Morty unless they do not have a clue.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
Scott-S6 wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:
Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.
You can maintain that all you want but fluff-based justifications have nothing to do with what the rules actually say, especially when there are loads of unambiguous rules that make no sense in terms of fluff.
It was in the text of the rule itself. Which is why I bring it up. Wasn't a separate fluff section, it was in the rule. Go read it.
115087
Post by: Nogil
You guys also seem to forget that the new character rule does not specify just shooting phase, overwatch anyone?
GG GW.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
Eh, the new rule says it's additional. Don't the Core Rules still apply too?
115226
Post by: OLDSCL
I love Dakka, everyone arguing and insulting over the fact they all agree that this is a RAW mistake.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
OLDSCL wrote:I love Dakka, everyone arguing and insulting over the fact they all agree that this is a RAW mistake.
It's not a RaW mistake. It's a " GW may or may not have realised what they have done because they use beagles for rules editors so let's all get angry at people who want to play by the actual rules" mistake. All this argument has come down to is people noticing the (subjectively) silly consequence of the rule, other people getting mad about it and other people pointing out that getting mad about it has as much effect (and rules backing) as getting mad over the Conscript points change and insisting that 4 actually means 3. If GW change it, all the better. I personally think it's a bad direction to go in but they are the ones pulling the strings. If they want to change the rules to make Mortarian, Gulliman and other expensive big models harder to kill, thus more powerful, thus sell more, that's their prerogative.
110517
Post by: Primark G
BCB how would-will you play this rule?
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
Irrelevant to this discussion, which is the entire point I have been trying to make!
2771
Post by: Infantryman
Nogil wrote:You guys also seem to forget that the new character rule does not specify just shooting phase, overwatch anyone?
GG GW.
Alright, that image is amazing.
BaconCatBug wrote:It's a "GW may or may not have realised what they have done because they use beagles for rules editors so let's all get angry at people who want to play by the actual rules" mistake.
These rules have clearly been edited by a basset hound.
M.
110517
Post by: Primark G
BCB it is relevant though... How do you think GW will clarify it?
94850
Post by: nekooni
 Primark G wrote:BCB it is relevant though... How do you think GW will clarify it?
I expect them to errata it back to how it was before. I can't speak for BCB though.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
Primark G wrote:BCB it is relevant though... How do you think GW will clarify it?
I don't know and I don't care, it's not for me to decide or even have an opinion on.
Of course if I were writing the rules I'd actually come up with a character rule that is 8th grade complex instead of 3rd grade and it wouldn't be a total mess. I'd also close all the silly loopholes.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
BaconCatBug wrote:OLDSCL wrote:I love Dakka, everyone arguing and insulting over the fact they all agree that this is a RAW mistake.
It's not a RaW mistake. It's a " GW may or may not have realised what they have done because they use beagles for rules editors so let's all get angry at people who want to play by the actual rules" mistake.
All this argument has come down to is people noticing the (subjectively) silly consequence of the rule, other people getting mad about it and other people pointing out that getting mad about it has as much effect (and rules backing) as getting mad over the Conscript points change and insisting that 4 actually means 3.
If GW change it, all the better. I personally think it's a bad direction to go in but they are the ones pulling the strings. If they want to change the rules to make Mortarian, Gulliman and other expensive big models harder to kill, thus more powerful, thus sell more, that's their prerogative.
I'm not mad. Y U mad bro? Don't ascribe emotion to people calmly discussing just because you're mad about them not agreeing with you.
It's interesting you're discussing intent here... I thought it wasn't relevant?
So HYWPI is that Characters shrink and become protected once their Wounds drop? I mean, my Hive Tyrant would thank you, but it's not what the RAW says and it's very much your house rule. "By that logic..." etc.
116025
Post by: Dynas
I think it is meant to be based off the Starting Wounds Characteristic, not the remaining wounds on the model.
How would you explain this. My Hive Tyrant is W12, he has gaunts in front of him. He gets shot by a Dev Squad with 4 lascannons, they take him down to 9. Now another devastator squad can't shoot him at all, because the gaunts are in the way, even though the hive tyrant hasn't moved at all.
Gotta agree with Bacon Cat Bug for 3 reasons:
1- BACON IS THE BEST
2- CAT MEMES
3 - Bugs = Nids
As Barney Stinson would say... LAWYERED!
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
 Dynas wrote:I think it is meant to be based off the Starting Wounds Characteristic, not the remaining wounds on the model.
How would you explain this. My Hive Tyrant is W12, he has gaunts in front of him. He gets shot by a Dev Squad with 4 lascannons, they take him down to 9. Now another devastator squad can't shoot him at all, because the gaunts are in the way, even though the hive tyrant hasn't moved at all.
Gotta agree with Bacon Cat Bug for 3 reasons:
1- BACON IS THE BEST
2- CAT MEMES
3 - Bugs = Nids
As Barney Stinson would say... LAWYERED!
Hahaha except he's arguing the opposite...
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
Dynas wrote:I think it is meant to be based off the Starting Wounds Characteristic, not the remaining wounds on the model.
How would you explain this. My Hive Tyrant is W12, he has gaunts in front of him. He gets shot by a Dev Squad with 4 lascannons, they take him down to 9. Now another devastator squad can't shoot him at all, because the gaunts are in the way, even though the hive tyrant hasn't moved at all.
Gotta agree with Bacon Cat Bug for 3 reasons:
1- BACON IS THE BEST
2- CAT MEMES
3 - Bugs = Nids
As Barney Stinson would say... LAWYERED!
I'm not arguing for or against just giving you a "fluff" explanation. How about he "crouches" so he won't be as big of a target? The Hive Tyrant hasn't moved, in terms of horizontal directions, nor have his gaunts but by lowering his profile by hitting the dirt or some such he's become harder to hit.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Leo_the_Rat wrote: Dynas wrote:I think it is meant to be based off the Starting Wounds Characteristic, not the remaining wounds on the model.
How would you explain this. My Hive Tyrant is W12, he has gaunts in front of him. He gets shot by a Dev Squad with 4 lascannons, they take him down to 9. Now another devastator squad can't shoot him at all, because the gaunts are in the way, even though the hive tyrant hasn't moved at all.
Gotta agree with Bacon Cat Bug for 3 reasons:
1- BACON IS THE BEST
2- CAT MEMES
3 - Bugs = Nids
As Barney Stinson would say... LAWYERED!
I'm not arguing for or against just giving you a "fluff" explanation. How about he "crouches" so he won't be as big of a target? The Hive Tyrant hasn't moved, in terms of horizontal directions, nor have his gaunts but by lowering his profile by hitting the dirt or some such he's become harder to hit.
But he's not becoming harder to hit, he's becoming nigh-unto impossible to hit.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
All Orks are crouching SO hard their trousers might split, but you can still shoot them! :-D
110517
Post by: Primark G
I think it is okay to tell HYWPI since it helps other posters as a reference.
94850
Post by: nekooni
Primark G wrote:I think it is okay to tell HYWPI since it helps other posters as a reference.
Absolutely, as long as you clearly state that it is HYWPI.
RAW says "wounds", which is "current HP" basically. Otherwise, other rules will break as BCB demonstrated. "wound characteristic" is what was asked for before the rule change, and that clearly meant the stat on the datasheet, not the "current HP".
Probably noone will play it like that and GW will probably change it back to "wounds characteristics" in the next FAQ.
110517
Post by: Primark G
"Probably noone will play it like that and GW will probably change it back to "wounds characteristics" in the next FAQ."
Defnitely! :-)
113340
Post by: ChargerIIC
I'd hate to say it, but I think we need a mod to lock this thread. We have RAW and RAI interpretations and nothing new has been said in the past three pages - and there's only 4 pages in the thread.
I'm really sorry I brought this up.
2771
Post by: Infantryman
Wait! I need to collect all these janky rules interpretations so I can be a counter- TFG to whatever obnoxious boi I get stuck playing!
M.
99166
Post by: Ruin
edited by moderator
105443
Post by: doctortom
Ruin wrote: JohnnyHell wrote: BaconCatBug wrote:OLDSCL wrote:I love Dakka, everyone arguing and insulting over the fact they all agree that this is a RAW mistake.
It's not a RaW mistake. It's a " GW may or may not have realised what they have done because they use beagles for rules editors so let's all get angry at people who want to play by the actual rules" mistake.
All this argument has come down to is people noticing the (subjectively) silly consequence of the rule, other people getting mad about it and other people pointing out that getting mad about it has as much effect (and rules backing) as getting mad over the Conscript points change and insisting that 4 actually means 3.
If GW change it, all the better. I personally think it's a bad direction to go in but they are the ones pulling the strings. If they want to change the rules to make Mortarian, Gulliman and other expensive big models harder to kill, thus more powerful, thus sell more, that's their prerogative.
I'm not mad. Y U mad bro? Don't ascribe emotion to people calmly discussing just because you're mad about them not agreeing with you.
It's interesting you're discussing intent here... I thought it wasn't relevant?
So HYWPI is that Characters shrink and become protected once their Wounds drop? I mean, my Hive Tyrant would thank you, but it's not what the RAW says and it's very much your house rule. "By that logic..." etc.
Speak for yourself mate, you're the one that being an abrasive arse ITT (and many others).
He was speaking for himself. Are you popping in for any reason other than to insult him and break forum rules while doing do?
RAW can be read two ways - it can still be read the way it was, or read the way BCB is reading it. Given the German version still having it based on the Wounds characteristic, that would suggest that the interpretation that it still applies to the wound characteristic is what is still intended.
99166
Post by: Ruin
doctortom wrote:Ruin wrote: JohnnyHell wrote: BaconCatBug wrote:OLDSCL wrote:I love Dakka, everyone arguing and insulting over the fact they all agree that this is a RAW mistake.
It's not a RaW mistake. It's a " GW may or may not have realised what they have done because they use beagles for rules editors so let's all get angry at people who want to play by the actual rules" mistake.
All this argument has come down to is people noticing the (subjectively) silly consequence of the rule, other people getting mad about it and other people pointing out that getting mad about it has as much effect (and rules backing) as getting mad over the Conscript points change and insisting that 4 actually means 3.
If GW change it, all the better. I personally think it's a bad direction to go in but they are the ones pulling the strings. If they want to change the rules to make Mortarian, Gulliman and other expensive big models harder to kill, thus more powerful, thus sell more, that's their prerogative.
I'm not mad. Y U mad bro? Don't ascribe emotion to people calmly discussing just because you're mad about them not agreeing with you.
It's interesting you're discussing intent here... I thought it wasn't relevant?
So HYWPI is that Characters shrink and become protected once their Wounds drop? I mean, my Hive Tyrant would thank you, but it's not what the RAW says and it's very much your house rule. "By that logic..." etc.
Speak for yourself mate, you're the one that being an abrasive arse ITT (and many others).
He was speaking for himself. Are you popping in for any reason other than to insult him and break forum rules while doing do?
RAW can be read two ways - it can still be read the way it was, or read the way BCB is reading it. Given the German version still having it based on the Wounds characteristic, that would suggest that the interpretation that it still applies to the wound characteristic is what is still intended.
Given that GW have historically defaulted to the English version being correct in multiple language issues then we're probably back to square one with this.
110517
Post by: Primark G
I think anyone playing it now that a character that starts off with 10 or more wounds can't be targeted when its wounds drop below 10 will be in for a rude surprise when it is officially clarified.
7680
Post by: oni
I have a modicum of hope that GW will reverse course entirely and just go back to the original rule.
It doesn't matter whether you interpret the new rule as wounds remaining or wounds characteristic, the new CA rule is complete and utter bs.
I think we all just need to ignore its existence.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
Primark G wrote:I think anyone playing it now that a character that starts off with 10 or more wounds can't be targeted when its wounds drop below 10 will be in for a rude surprise when it is officially clarified.
Few are going to care one way or the other if this eventually gets changed. Don't pair emotional attachment to rules interpretations.
While some people in this thread are trying to incite others, most people just care what the rule actually says.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
Primark G wrote:I think anyone playing it now that a character that starts off with 10 or more wounds can't be targeted when its wounds drop below 10 will be in for a rude surprise when it is officially clarified.
Indeed. Roll on that 2-week FAQ...
110517
Post by: Primark G
Good old GW...
114386
Post by: Malachon
Just to be sure, the rule that you can't shoot a character if there is a closer unit, but it is in melee is still valid right?
111146
Post by: p5freak
Malachon wrote:Just to be sure, the rule that you can't shoot a character if there is a closer unit, but it is in melee is still valid right?
Yes. Also if the unit is closer and not visible to the firer.
|
|
