Tau Drones:Activate on a successful to wound roll. Transfer on a 2+. Converted into a single mortal wound on the bodyguard unit.
Grot Shields: Activate on a successful to hit roll. Transfer on a 2+. Converted into a slain model on the bodyguard unit.
Deathshroud Terminators: Activate on a successful to hit roll. Transfer on a 2+. Converted into a hit on the bodyguard unit.
Ogryn Bodyguard: Activate on each damage inflicted (Roll for each point of damage). Transfer on a 3+. Converted into a single mortal wound on the bodyguard unit.
Tyrant Guard: Activate on each damage inflicted (Roll for each point of damage). Transfer on a 2+. Converted into a single mortal wound on the bodyguard unit.
Space Marines Command Squads (and similar): Activate when the guarded model "would lose any wounds as a result of an attack made against that model" (Roll once per failed save). Transfer on a 2+. Converted into a mortal wounds equal to the amount of damage caused by the failed save.
Unquestioning Loyalty: Activate whenever you fail a save or suffer a mortal wound. Transfer on a 4+. Converted into a slain model on the bodyguard unit.
I am sure I must have missed one or two.
In short, why is there seemingly an active attempt to make bodyguard rules as unstandardised as possible? Yes, I know Hanlon's razor is a thing, but it's not like GW haven't retroactively errata'd books before.
Yup. Personally the deathshroud (which i think function the same as lychguard) is the correct best method. It makes you weigh your options and choose to risk the hit on the character or take it on the protector.
BaconCatBug wrote: In short, why is there seemingly an active attempt to make bodyguard rules as unstandardised as possible?
Because you don't want to accept the answer, which is that the game is running largely as GW has intended it to?
Seriously this same discussion has come up regarding charging bonuses in AoS, shield stats in AoS, summoning rules, ect.
When GW designed AoS and 8e they made a very conscientious choice to remove the standardization (universal special rules) of previous editions/systems in favor of what they have repeatedly called "bespoke rules".
The idea it would seem is to give subtle differences which (in theory) better differentiate various units (or factions) with similar abilities and allow them to gain more distinct flavorful personalities.
This also has the added benefit of cutting down on the player needing to cross-reference rules text out of the BRB or GW having to make new USRs ever time they need to differentiate a rule for the purpose of balancing a single unit.
Whether GW has actually achieved these goals is very debatable (I'd argue they didn't go far enough in a lot of cases), but I'd argue this is absolutely as GW intend based on both consistent design trends in both AoS and 8e.
Lance845 wrote: Yup. Personally the deathshroud (which i think function the same as lychguard) is the correct best method. It makes you weigh your options and choose to risk the hit on the character or take it on the protector.
They should all work that way.
Yeah, and they make the defensive stats you are paying for the bodyguard unit matter and not only how many wounds they have and if they have a FNP.
Yeah, I can't understand any reason why it should work differently across these. The only way I can see it working differently would be if the bodyguard can do some kind of psychic bodyguard action, as intercepting mind bullets *should* work differently.
But otherwise, these are all the same thing. Something bad is going to hit something important, so something else jumps in the way at the last second to stop it. I could see a fluff justification for something not jumping in the way if they think the important thing can take the hit (only two I can really think would make that assessment would be T'au drones due to programming and Tyranid guards due to the Tyranids being more like 1 big organism rather so their reaction might be more akin to moving in a single individual trying to move in such a way as to deflect a hit or not moving because they already feel like they're in the best spot to take/deflect the hit), but that's a pretty big stretch. I'd much rather they all just work the 1 way, or a second way if they can actually stop mental attacks.
Because ones upon a time none of this mattered, as characters could join units, making the need for such rules moot.
Since GW did away with that (even with Guard, which was the entire point difference with their HQs), they don't know to implement it in a consistent and elegant way.
As it is, you got a real rich variety of ways to play it in different armies with different tactical implications. Only problem is one or two are a bit too useful, maybe, and could be trimmed back, like the iron hands when it could protect things that were also a levia-thingy.
***
When (protected unit) is hit, roll a d6; on a 2+, the ((bodyguard unit)) is hit instead. Resolve the shot against the unit hit, then continue to fire.
***
You can group rolls to a point … if there are five models in the bodyguard unit, you could try to move 5 shots at once, resolve them, then continue for example, but it means that you always use an attempt to wound against the right toughness and the wounded unit handles saves as normal.
The reason is because GW, uniquely among games designers, have ditched their old universal special rules in favour of a system that pretty much reproduces the same effect in a much more confusing way, with the added benefit that it's much more difficult to fix any errors in their system. I think the bodyguard rules specifically exacerbate the problem because they are by nature quite wordy and the text is often quite convoluted to convey the required mechanic.
At this point I feel it's about 50/50 whether GW were even aware those various bodyguard rules were different to other ones at the time of writing.
Same as Lance845.
Or maybe two different rules to represent both cheap expendable bodyguards that will just die and soak the wound, and good elite bodyguard that may tank the wound?
Elite bodyguards get the Deathshroud rules, and throwaway bodyguards get the Command Squad body guard rule, to avoid the throwaway bodyguard tanking a 6D hit to the face all by himself.
With all those rules except the Deathshroud, elite bodyguard sucks compared to cheap throwaway bodyguard, but that doesn't feel right...
BaconCatBug wrote: In short, why is there seemingly an active attempt to make bodyguard rules as unstandardised as possible?
Because you don't want to accept the answer, which is that the game is running largely as GW has intended it to?
Seriously this same discussion has come up regarding charging bonuses in AoS, shield stats in AoS, summoning rules, ect.
When GW designed AoS and 8e they made a very conscientious choice to remove the standardization (universal special rules) of previous editions/systems in favor of what they have repeatedly called "bespoke rules".
The idea it would seem is to give subtle differences which (in theory) better differentiate various units (or factions) with similar abilities and allow them to gain more distinct flavorful personalities.
This also has the added benefit of cutting down on the player needing to cross-reference rules text out of the BRB or GW having to make new USRs ever time they need to differentiate a rule for the purpose of balancing a single unit.
Whether GW has actually achieved these goals is very debatable (I'd argue they didn't go far enough in a lot of cases), but I'd argue this is absolutely as GW intend based on both consistent design trends in both AoS and 8e.
I'd say 8th 40k and current AOS are actually par for the course. Most of GW's main gaming systems over the last couple of decades have had a core set of rules (move, shoot, magic/psychic, charge etc..) and then a series of rules that are consistent for weapon types (great weapons +Str in Fantasy, rapid fire, -1 to hit with powerfist equivalents, jink etc...) and then they create army-specific mishmashes of rules and abilities to individualise the different armies.
AOS in particular does the 'sleight-of-hand' trick of creating uniquely named weapons which are functionally the same to other weapons (long pointy spear weapon vs short pokey slash/crump weapon being the usual option for most basic troops types) and then passes them off as different.
Sometimes this is well-written and sometimes (often) it is not. I'm not a GW hater or fanboy, I'll give credit where credit is due (through a degree of personal judgement) and I'll criticise where I think it is due as well (assault weapon rules in 8th ).
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think Celestians are the same as Tyrant Guard IIRC.
I wish! It's same as command squads, aka the terribad version.
Jack Flask wrote: The idea it would seem is to give subtle differences which (in theory) better differentiate various units (or factions) with similar abilities and allow them to gain more distinct flavorful personalities.
Ah, the very flavorful of needing 6 Celestians to die to tank a melta shot when a single grot or drone or genecultist could tank it, and a hive guard could only suffer one (1) hp! So flavorful and nice!
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Same as Lance845.
Or maybe two different rules to represent both cheap expendable bodyguards that will just die and soak the wound, and good elite bodyguard that may tank the wound?
Elite bodyguards get the Deathshroud rules, and throwaway bodyguards get the Command Squad body guard rule, to avoid the throwaway bodyguard tanking a 6D hit to the face all by himself.
With all those rules except the Deathshroud, elite bodyguard sucks compared to cheap throwaway bodyguard, but that doesn't feel right...
Well yet another thread that's boynd to end up with people screaming about this and that rule being OP.
However if you mess with these rules you mess with the interfaction balance and generally not in a good way.
Your suggestions are lets make marines an even more powerful set of codex's. and you guys complain about GW and Balance.
Shields drones do nothing but this its their only reason for being on the table, nerf them they vanish the army tanks in ability to compete and would need even more points drops than they arguably already do for 50+% of their codex.
Grot shields again also critical for orks viability and needs CP placement yada yada.
Deathshroud nerfing a codex that many view as while having berb pretty powerful at release and not really competitive and currently awaiting a PA boost.
While I get you might find it frustrating to not have a USR but with the rules as they are GW have a small balance tool to keep some of the most OP factions bot runnibg away like a freight train.
If the downside is it hurts your head to keep them all in your head 100% of the time suck it up buttercup.
Ice_can wrote: Your suggestions are lets make marines an even more powerful set of codex's. and you guys complain about GW and Balance.
Yes I totally think we should make this change without any other rule or point change, and also it's obvious that the ever so popular command squads would be even more popular if they could actually work at being bodyguards!
Different rules for different units because they want them to work differently.
That way there are many risk/reward profiles and degrees of usefulness.
I'm not going to argue that some units do wound interception poorly, and they might want to change those units, but universalizing the rule won't suddenly eliminate that kind of issue.
As an example, if all units had the saviour protocols wording the Deathshroud would be way worse (can't use their 2+/4++ against the hit anymore and being after the wound roll doesn't help much given who they intercept for), Grots would be way better, since they'd be intercepting after another round of failures.
You're just not going to figure out correct points values for Grots, Drones and Termies using the same rule that makes them all both usable in a bodyguard role and whatever else they're supposed to do. So now it's a bunch of different useless-bodyguard-rule issues to fix created by having a one-size-fits-all rule.
If you do the bodyguard rules for the specific unit you can mitigate that issue. To the extent that they do a good job of course. But GW doing a bad job is always a problem and not specific to this at all.
In the end it's all right there on the datasheet, which you should have when you're using the unit anyway.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because ones upon a time none of this mattered, as characters could join units, making the need for such rules moot.
Since GW did away with that (even with Guard, which was the entire point difference with their HQs), they don't know to implement it in a consistent and elegant way.
rbstr wrote: As an example, if all units had the saviour protocols wording the Deathshroud would be way worse (can't use their 2+/4++ against the hit anymore and being after the wound roll doesn't help much given who they intercept for), Grots would be way better, since they'd be intercepting after another round of failures.
You're just not going to figure out correct points values for Grots, Drones and Termies using the same rule that makes them all both usable in a bodyguard role and whatever else they're supposed to do. So now it's a bunch of different useless-bodyguard-rule issues to fix created by having a one-size-fits-all rule.
If you do the bodyguard rules for the specific unit you can mitigate that issue. To the extent that they do a good job of course. But GW doing a bad job is always a problem and not specific to this at all.
Yeah that's why I wrote about two different rules. You really don't need any more than two though.
Not sure why people think a tiny robot made of hovering metal, a huge, muscular but unarmoured monster, and genetically engineered super-soldier wearing the toughest armour in the Galaxy should all guard their leaders in exactly the same way.
I mean, aside from making it easier for people who a) play multiple armies and confuse slightly similar rules or b) want to know all of the rules for every faction in order to better compete.
Gw already makes all kinds of abstractions to their rules, so clinging to any notion of realism is a fools errand. I'm just surprised there are people who want to play a game whose rules are so simple and streamlined that something that looks like a drone and something that looks like a terminator would follow the same body guard rule. I mean, they are very clearly different, right?
Like it's almost the punchline to a joke: an Ogryn, a Terminator and a Drone walk onto a battlefield, but they all have to roll 2+ on d6 to take a mortal wound for their commander.
I suspect there are differences because the writers don’t talk to each other that much. It might also have to do with the spread out codex releases and shifts of opinion over time.
The tau drone rule is the worst written imo. When 8th dropped, shield drones served no purpose because the mortals wounds ignored their invuln. GW had to errata their rule to grant an additional 5+ FNP just so that the drones would actually do their only job. Apparently no one on the tau codex team thought about going the deathshroud route, which would not have required the 5+ FNP in the first place.
PenitentJake wrote: Not sure why people think a tiny robot made of hovering metal, a huge, muscular but unarmoured monster, and genetically engineered super-soldier wearing the toughest armour in the Galaxy should all guard their leaders in exactly the same way.
I mean, aside from making it easier for people who a) play multiple armies and confuse slightly similar rules or b) want to know all of the rules for every faction in order to better compete.
Gw already makes all kinds of abstractions to their rules, so clinging to any notion of realism is a fools errand. I'm just surprised there are people who want to play a game whose rules are so simple and streamlined that something that looks like a drone and something that looks like a terminator would follow the same body guard rule. I mean, they are very clearly different, right?
Like it's almost the punchline to a joke: an Ogryn, a Terminator and a Drone walk onto a battlefield, but they all have to roll 2+ on d6 to take a mortal wound for their commander.
I think the problem is that some of these iterations just aren't really functional, and some are far too functional, in a game that's typically played at a scale where there's really no good reason to get into that level of detail. That's adding unnecessary complexity for little value in depth, it's making them different for its own sake and as a result the ability of these mechanics to serve their intended purpose is highly variable. Likewise, for a game this scale, trying to squeeze "flavor" out of mechanics like this is a great way to get lots of confusion as people mix up different rules with different armies.
Whoever wrote the Tau savior protocol rules needs to be beaten with a dreadsock. They are absolutely infuriating to play against and there is no skill or counterplay to them. Can't make the drones run, can't kill the drones with high AP or damage weapons, can't use cheap crappy shooting to power through them efficiently, it's just a busted rule the whole way through. Converting the damage to a single mortal wound and getting their FNP is ridiculous. One or the other is understandable, but the two combined is too much. I understand my local Tau player is incredibly lucky (I'm talking 20 wounds on drones only killing one type lucky) but even with average dice they're insanely durable.
The others are annoying only in that they're all different, but I've yet to see another one I had an actual issue with like Tau.
Dandelion wrote: I suspect there are differences because the writers don’t talk to each other that much. It might also have to do with the spread out codex releases and shifts of opinion over time.
The tau drone rule is the worst written imo. When 8th dropped, shield drones served no purpose because the mortals wounds ignored their invuln. GW had to errata their rule to grant an additional 5+ FNP just so that the drones would actually do their only job. Apparently no one on the tau codex team thought about going the deathshroud route, which would not have required the 5+ FNP in the first place.
The Tau index was clearly written by someone who either didn't understand 8th editions rules or set out to punish Tau players for 7th edition Taudar.
The codex atleast became vaguely functional, but it's still a codex while functional with a lot of pointless or downright broken rules in them, the dude leading a team of sniper drones who can't snipe.
Unit buffing drones being single model units and hence nonfunctional as they die when looked at.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrMoustaffa wrote: Whoever wrote the Tau savior protocol rules needs to be beaten with a dreadsock. They are absolutely infuriating to play against and there is no skill or counterplay to them. Can't make the drones run, can't kill the drones with high AP or damage weapons, can't use cheap crappy shooting to power through them efficiently, it's just a busted rule the whole way through. Converting the damage to a single mortal wound and getting their FNP is ridiculous. One or the other is understandable, but the two combined is too much. I understand my local Tau player is incredibly lucky (I'm talking 20 wounds on drones only killing one type lucky) but even with average dice they're insanely durable.
The others are annoying only in that they're all different, but I've yet to see another one I had an actual issue with like Tau.
Play Tau without drones and watch them get tabled in 2 turns.
Most of their units are pointed so ridiculously that they need to survive the 3 turns that saviour protocols allow to be worthwhile putting on the board.
Drones are subject to leadership and always have been, large units are a liability.
Marines tend to have no issue sweeping drones up on mass, Neither do Astramilicheese either, assulat armies tend to have issues but again they are in a rock paper game vrs tau often decided by terrain.
It sounds like your list is just hitting a hard counter matchup.
PenitentJake wrote: Not sure why people think a tiny robot made of hovering metal, a huge, muscular but unarmoured monster, and genetically engineered super-soldier wearing the toughest armour in the Galaxy should all guard their leaders in exactly the same way.
Are the mechanical differences present in the rules any more unit-appropriate? Can you explain to me what they represent?
It seems to be like a lot of people use the 'it's so they can each have faction-specific flavor' excuse, but I can't see any rhyme or reason to how the rules are worded for different factions- why do Tyrant Guard behave differently from Shield Drones, for example, when they're both autonomous and fearless self-sacrificial units by design?
PenitentJake wrote: Not sure why people think a tiny robot made of hovering metal, a huge, muscular but unarmoured monster, and genetically engineered super-soldier wearing the toughest armour in the Galaxy should all guard their leaders in exactly the same way.
We should also have different firing methods for each person in a squad, what they aim at, mechanics for deciding whether someone on a bike dies with their bike and whether they can keep doing things after the crash, rules for hiding in buildings and on and on and on. At a certain point you stop and say "that's enough for a game" and that point is when you have one bodyguarding method. Maybe 2 if you really need a different way of doing it for quality armour people and just chucking the nearest bloke at the incoming fire.
PenitentJake wrote: Not sure why people think a tiny robot made of hovering metal, a huge, muscular but unarmoured monster, and genetically engineered super-soldier wearing the toughest armour in the Galaxy should all guard their leaders in exactly the same way.
Oh yeah, it makes perfect sense! Those difference are brilliantly illustrated by the different rules used! For instance, from a lore point of view....
Ahah just joking there is absolutely no way, no way at all to explain the rule difference from a lore standpoint! I dare you to try.
And seriously, you cannot imagine that someone may want to know the rules of other factions not just because they are over-competitive, just because... well, it's more pleasant to play the game when you know the rules?
Like it's almost the punchline to a joke: an Ogryn, a Terminator and a Drone walk onto a battlefield, but they all have to roll 2+ on d6 to take a mortal wound for their commander.
Yes. Because thats what 8th edition is about, streamlining, simplifying. All ignore wound rules are the same, across all factions. Inv is the same, across all factions. All shooting is the same, across all factions. All melee is the same, across all factions. All movement is the same, across all factions.
The Deathshroud rule makes the most sense to me. Personally, I'd make its wording the standard and have the transfer roll be the only differentiating factor.
Question: if one were to reintroduce universal special rules, how would one differentiate in cases where you want the behavior to be different for different units?
Ginjitzu wrote: The Deathshroud rule makes the most sense to me. Personally, I'd make its wording the standard and have the transfer roll be the only differentiating factor.
Question: if one were to reintroduce universal special rules, how would one differentiate in cases where you want the behavior to be different for different units?
You don't. You either accept streamlining with USR and stick to the USR (c.f. Apoc), or don't bother trying in the first place.
You could bake some differentiation into the USRs - for example have all of the various bodyguard rules become Bodyguard n+, where n is the roll needed for the attack to be intercepted.
That way you can have some bodyguard units be better than others while still only having a single mechanic.
Lord Damocles wrote: You could bake some differentiation into the USRs - for example have all of the various bodyguard rules become Bodyguard n+, where n is the roll needed for the attack to be intercepted.
That way you can have some bodyguard units be better than others while still only having a single mechanic.
granularity and USR in one, simple yet effecive....
Lord Damocles wrote: You could bake some differentiation into the USRs - for example have all of the various bodyguard rules become Bodyguard n+, where n is the roll needed for the attack to be intercepted.
That way you can have some bodyguard units be better than others while still only having a single mechanic.
granularity and USR in one, simple yet effecive....
I like it.
Yup. The universal in USR doesn't have to mean identical in every way, just that the actual game mechanical process of the rule is the same (for example "Roll X+, apply effects Y and Z"). This is also how many of the base rules operate, such as saves, rolling to hit etc.
Other examples from previous editions are Poison (different values on which poison triggers but the mechanical effect of poison is the same) and FNP (different values on which wound is saved).
Ginjitzu wrote: The Deathshroud rule makes the most sense to me. Personally, I'd make its wording the standard and have the transfer roll be the only differentiating factor.
Agreed.
Ginjitzu wrote: Question: if one were to reintroduce universal special rules, how would one differentiate in cases where you want the behavior to be different for different units?
Well, it depends how different you want the behaviour to be. Let's take the Bodyguard rule and make it a USR:
Bodyguard X+
A unit with this special rule may attempt to intercept an attack against a friendly character within 3". After a character is successfully hit by an attack, you may attempt to transfer the hit to a model with this special rule that is within 3" of the character. The roll needed to transfer the hit will be listed along with the rule (e.g. Bodyguard 4+). If the roll is unsuccessful the character is hit as normal. If the roll succeeds then the hit and any additional effects of the attack are resolved against the Bodyguard unit instead.
Some units with this special rule may be limited to protecting only certain characters or character-types. e.g. Bodyguard (Archon) 3+ means that the unit can only intercept shots for Archons. Similarly, Bodyguard (INFANTRY) 4+ means that the unit can only intercept shots for Characters with the INFANTRY keyword.
(I'd probably want to tighten this up a bit by adding some additional constraints/clarifications but they're not really relevant to what's being discussed here.)
The idea is that this would give you some in-built flexibility with regard to how this rule is applied. You can freely alter the chance to intercept the shot and/or you can alter which Characters or Character-types the bodyguard unit is able to protect, all without changing the core USR. In essence, we can start by building a degree of flexibility into the USR itself - so that we don't need an entirely different rule when all we really want is to change the value or specify which units can be protected.
But if that's not enough, the next possibility is to add an additional rule to the relevant units that modifies the USR. e.g.
Reflective Shields Whenever this unit successfully intercepts a hit using its Bodyguard rule, the attacking unit suffers 1 Mortal Wound.
The alternative would be to instead have a single rule (Reflective Bodyguard or something like that), which combines the text of both the above ability and the Bodyguard rule. However, I think splitting it into 2 abilities is the preferable option as it makes it a lot easier to appreciate the actual differences between the abilities. Whereas if you're also copying swathes of text from a USR, the key difference can easily be overlooked.
vipoid wrote: The alternative would be to instead have a single rule (Reflective Bodyguard or something like that), which combines the text of both the above ability and the Bodyguard rule. However, I think splitting it into 2 abilities is the preferable option as it makes it a lot easier to appreciate the actual differences between the abilities. Whereas if you're also copying swathes of text from a USR, the key difference can easily be overlooked.
See also: the previous Fearless/Hatred/Zealot mess.
I agree, USRs that grant USRs should never be a thing (looking at you, Angels of Death).
If you're desperate for two different bodyguard rules, it wouldn't be a bad thing to have two separate bodyguard rules, one that transfers the hit and another that transfers wounds into mortal wounds, but ideally you'd stick with one or the other.
You could make the bodyguard rule not permit saves (even invuls), so it triggers on the guarded unit being hit but you still roll to wound against the bodyguard (and permit FNP). After all, if you're bodyblocking a shot you might not have the chance to properly guard against it, but it still has to hurt you.
If I were to write a USR for bodyguards and it was to be the only version of the rule in the game I’d have it that the character being guarded “counts as” a member of the bodyguard unit for purposes of allocating wounds. Seem the most straightforward way to do it to me without adding much in the way of additional rules.
There would be caveats and conditions etc but essentially just counts as part of the unit. (Maybe only applies in shooting phase, maybe a unit can only bodyguard one target, maybe declare who is being guarded by whom at the start of the phase, after hits are rolled. Not sure. Whether it applies automatically or you need to roll for it could vary. And the range of being able to bodyguard too).
Aash wrote: If I were to write a USR for bodyguards and it was to be the only version of the rule in the game I’d have it that the character being guarded “counts as” a member of the bodyguard unit for purposes of allocating wounds.
What are the current rules for units with different toughness value?
What about the "You must always allocate wound on already wounded" model rules making bodyguard unable to bodyguard an already wounded character?
Aash wrote: If I were to write a USR for bodyguards and it was to be the only version of the rule in the game I’d have it that the character being guarded “counts as” a member of the bodyguard unit for purposes of allocating wounds.
What are the current rules for units with different toughness value?
What about the "You must always allocate wound on already wounded" model rules making bodyguard unable to bodyguard an already wounded character?
Their isn't a blanket one as it's not supposed to be possible, but it's majority or defensing players choice, Deathwatch kill teams.
The wounds issue is a problem also.
Not to mention not everyone wants to use bodyguard or shield units for charictors FFS grots drones well done made them totally unplayably broken with your rules suggestions.
Dandelion wrote: I suspect there are differences because the writers don’t talk to each other that much. It might also have to do with the spread out codex releases and shifts of opinion over time.
The tau drone rule is the worst written imo. When 8th dropped, shield drones served no purpose because the mortals wounds ignored their invuln. GW had to errata their rule to grant an additional 5+ FNP just so that the drones would actually do their only job. Apparently no one on the tau codex team thought about going the deathshroud route, which would not have required the 5+ FNP in the first place.
The Tau index was clearly written by someone who either didn't understand 8th editions rules or set out to punish Tau players for 7th edition Taudar.
The codex atleast became vaguely functional, but it's still a codex while functional with a lot of pointless or downright broken rules in them, the dude leading a team of sniper drones who can't snipe.
Unit buffing drones being single model units and hence nonfunctional as they die when looked at.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrMoustaffa wrote: Whoever wrote the Tau savior protocol rules needs to be beaten with a dreadsock. They are absolutely infuriating to play against and there is no skill or counterplay to them. Can't make the drones run, can't kill the drones with high AP or damage weapons, can't use cheap crappy shooting to power through them efficiently, it's just a busted rule the whole way through. Converting the damage to a single mortal wound and getting their FNP is ridiculous. One or the other is understandable, but the two combined is too much. I understand my local Tau player is incredibly lucky (I'm talking 20 wounds on drones only killing one type lucky) but even with average dice they're insanely durable.
The others are annoying only in that they're all different, but I've yet to see another one I had an actual issue with like Tau.
Play Tau without drones and watch them get tabled in 2 turns.
Most of their units are pointed so ridiculously that they need to survive the 3 turns that saviour protocols allow to be worthwhile putting on the board.
Drones are subject to leadership and always have been, large units are a liability.
Marines tend to have no issue sweeping drones up on mass, Neither do Astramilicheese either, assulat armies tend to have issues but again they are in a rock paper game vrs tau often decided by terrain.
It sounds like your list is just hitting a hard counter matchup.
I don't disagree with drones being able to take wounds mind you. I'm well aware Tau needs them to live. I disagree with a single drone intercepting an entire shadowsword volcano cannon shot, and not even dying on a 5+. The whole converting multiple points of damage into a single MW, and then getting a save on top of that. That's the busted part, I don't care what anyone says. A drone should not be able to do that while only costing a handful of points. Make it where if the volcano cannon does 12 damage it can kill up to 12 drones and I'm happy. I'd even be fine with the 5+ FNP save they get with the intercepting at that point. My only issue is a single flying garbage can lid intercepting a shot that can cripple a knight and living through it to boot. Or do it where some of that kind of damage still bleeds over on a successful block if the weapon does more than a certain amount of damage, I'd be fine with that too. This means the Tau codex would need a bit of a rework in points to put it mildly, but it'd be a lot less BS to fight.
Just play some games against a triptide list spamming drones, you'll see what I mean. It is one of the least fun experiences in 40k right now. Most counters don't work because the drones are easily hidden, so stuff like punisher cannons are easily countered and indirect weapons rarely have the weight of fire to chew through them. Like I said, fix the problem where a single drone eats 12 damage and lives on a single 5+ and I'm happy, that's all I want. Every other bodyguard rule works this way. If my ogryn bodyguard wants to eat 4 wounds for the commander then he is taking 4 wounds, he doesn't get to just take one and the rest disappear, same for any other army.
And the ld is a non issue with ethereals in most situations that I've seen, but that's kind of getting into the weeds. Unless drones can be taken in units of 30 or something ld9 seems to be plenty for them to survive most situations. I'm fine with that honestly, it's just annoying when it's on top of all the other stuff they do. I'm not trying to be rude but in my experience most drone defenders haven't actually played a serious game against drones and seen how frustrating they really are, especially if their dice are rolling decent.
Lord Damocles wrote: You could bake some differentiation into the USRs - for example have all of the various bodyguard rules become Bodyguard n+, where n is the roll needed for the attack to be intercepted.
That way you can have some bodyguard units be better than others while still only having a single mechanic.
^This is great. I am 100% on board with something like this.
Dandelion wrote: I suspect there are differences because the writers don’t talk to each other that much. It might also have to do with the spread out codex releases and shifts of opinion over time.
The tau drone rule is the worst written imo. When 8th dropped, shield drones served no purpose because the mortals wounds ignored their invuln. GW had to errata their rule to grant an additional 5+ FNP just so that the drones would actually do their only job. Apparently no one on the tau codex team thought about going the deathshroud route, which would not have required the 5+ FNP in the first place.
The Tau index was clearly written by someone who either didn't understand 8th editions rules or set out to punish Tau players for 7th edition Taudar.
The codex atleast became vaguely functional, but it's still a codex while functional with a lot of pointless or downright broken rules in them, the dude leading a team of sniper drones who can't snipe.
Unit buffing drones being single model units and hence nonfunctional as they die when looked at.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrMoustaffa wrote: Whoever wrote the Tau savior protocol rules needs to be beaten with a dreadsock. They are absolutely infuriating to play against and there is no skill or counterplay to them. Can't make the drones run, can't kill the drones with high AP or damage weapons, can't use cheap crappy shooting to power through them efficiently, it's just a busted rule the whole way through. Converting the damage to a single mortal wound and getting their FNP is ridiculous. One or the other is understandable, but the two combined is too much. I understand my local Tau player is incredibly lucky (I'm talking 20 wounds on drones only killing one type lucky) but even with average dice they're insanely durable.
The others are annoying only in that they're all different, but I've yet to see another one I had an actual issue with like Tau.
Play Tau without drones and watch them get tabled in 2 turns.
Most of their units are pointed so ridiculously that they need to survive the 3 turns that saviour protocols allow to be worthwhile putting on the board.
Drones are subject to leadership and always have been, large units are a liability.
Marines tend to have no issue sweeping drones up on mass, Neither do Astramilicheese either, assulat armies tend to have issues but again they are in a rock paper game vrs tau often decided by terrain.
It sounds like your list is just hitting a hard counter matchup.
I don't disagree with drones being able to take wounds mind you. I'm well aware Tau needs them to live. I disagree with a single drone intercepting an entire shadowsword volcano cannon shot, and not even dying on a 5+. The whole converting multiple points of damage into a single MW, and then getting a save on top of that. That's the busted part, I don't care what anyone says. A drone should not be able to do that while only costing a handful of points. Make it where if the volcano cannon does 12 damage it can kill up to 12 drones and I'm happy. I'd even be fine with the 5+ FNP save they get with the intercepting at that point. My only issue is a single flying garbage can lid intercepting a shot that can cripple a knight and living through it to boot. Or do it where some of that kind of damage still bleeds over on a successful block if the weapon does more than a certain amount of damage, I'd be fine with that too. This means the Tau codex would need a bit of a rework in points to put it mildly, but it'd be a lot less BS to fight.
Just play some games against a triptide list spamming drones, you'll see what I mean. It is one of the least fun experiences in 40k right now. Most counters don't work because the drones are easily hidden, so stuff like punisher cannons are easily countered and indirect weapons rarely have the weight of fire to chew through them. Like I said, fix the problem where a single drone eats 12 damage and lives on a single 5+ and I'm happy, that's all I want. Every other bodyguard rule works this way. If my ogryn bodyguard wants to eat 4 wounds for the commander then he is taking 4 wounds, he doesn't get to just take one and the rest disappear, same for any other army.
And the ld is a non issue with ethereals in most situations that I've seen, but that's kind of getting into the weeds. Unless drones can be taken in units of 30 or something ld9 seems to be plenty for them to survive most situations. I'm fine with that honestly, it's just annoying when it's on top of all the other stuff they do. I'm not trying to be rude but in my experience most drone defenders haven't actually played a serious game against drones and seen how frustrating they really are, especially if their dice are rolling decent.
You compairing a specificly deaigned flying Stormshield, against an ogyrn.
I have played both sides of that game
Also a Shadowsword minimums out at 3 avarage of 6 shots so no it's not tanking an entire volcano cannon on 1 2+, it's avarage of 4 hits, doing 2D6 each.
Simply put a wyvern makes them vanish fairly quickly as catachan add in detachments and they go of the table fast enough.
ITC's first floor rule does make them much more survivable but without it they vanish very quickly as guard you should have atleast enough NLOS shooting to lift 1 of the 3 units in a turn and LD9 is only in an aura and if your keeping them in a bubble you win the game in board control, admittedly that's something that goes against the way most guard lists play.
Heck I've won that game with a pure knights list, on objective score, admittedly.
The Tau codex without drones would need a ground up rewrite and then some Riptides with drones as they are are the only thing keeping the codex competitive.
But by the time points have been cut enough a 2k list would have 3 riptides and triple Ghostkeels and crisis bomb.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, any army *that* reliant on an optional upgrade model is in dire need of a rewrite anyway.
Aye.
Especially in case when the only playstyle reliant on one Option is just Next Level annoying.
Speaking as a long term Tau player, yes.
I think removing the Shield Drone stand-alone unit could be a good first step and stripping saviour protocols off of gun and marker drones.
So shield drones can only be bought as extra models for a unit (max of 2 per non-drone model in the unit). They do not form a separate unit, have the toughness of the model which bought them (to avoid mixed toughness issues), follow the normal rules for wound allocation etc. Saviour protocols becomes "wounds may be allocated to drones even if another model in the unit is wounded and drones removed as casualties do not count for the purposes of calculating morale", or whatever the wording should be. Once a units drones are used up, they are used up, no sharing another units drones. If there are no non-drone models left in the unit at the end of any phase, then the drones are removed from the table (they shut down in the absence of their principal).
This still allows for ablative wounds but they are more limited (cannot be using multiple units of drones, you only have as many as you bought for a specific unit).
Then recost stuff, fix the damn markerlights (bring back spending tokens for effects!) and make mechanised Tau work again so we're not reduced to the big stompy robot faction any longer!
I miss playing my Mech Tau, Fire Warriors and Pathfinders in Devilfish supported by Hammerheads and some Crisis Suits...good times...ten years ago. Alas, if I wanted to play big stompy robots, I'd play Knights
Bespoke rules
Because an ork grot being used as a body shield is not the same as a tau shield drone.
And it makes every army unique and plays differently which is a good thing.
gungo wrote: Bespoke rules
Because an ork grot being used as a body shield is not the same as a tau shield drone.
And it makes every army unique and plays differently which is a good thing.
Except, as noted, it ends up in some example working way too well, some not functioning appropriately at all, and there's no real good reason why these mechanics need to be different between armies, adding complexity for its own sake isn't depth, it's noise.
A grot being used as a body shield is about as similar to a tau shield drone for these purposes as it needs to be for a 40k game mechanic
gungo wrote: Bespoke rules
Because an ork grot being used as a body shield is not the same as a tau shield drone.
And it makes every army unique and plays differently which is a good thing.
How does it feel different in gameplay?
And, if the rule was pretty much "After a CHARACTER is hit within 3", on an X+, this model may intercept the hit," wouldn't THAT have differences too? At that point, a Deathshroud Terminator can tank it on their T5 2+/4++, while a Grot is stuck with their wimpy little T2 6+ ass.
gungo wrote: Because an ork grot being used as a body shield is not the same as a tau shield drone.
Yes ok great now explain why and how the difference in the lore are related to the difference in the rules.
Oh you can't? So surprised much surprise!
gungo wrote: And it makes every army unique and plays differently which is a good thing.
Yeah, having some bodyguard rules being very inefficient or very efficient, without any relation to the lore, that is what makes armies play different .
BaconCatBug wrote: In short, why is there seemingly an active attempt to make bodyguard rules as unstandardised as possible?
.
This also has the added benefit of cutting down on the player needing to cross-reference rules text out of the BRB or GW having to make new USRs ever time they need to differentiate a rule for the purpose of balancing a single unit.
No instead it made cross-referencing worst, b.c now instead of a USR that everyone knows i need to know 20 versions of the same rule and needs to borrow or have multi armies books to know what rules i'm playing against.
Everyone knows the basica 10-15 USR rules after a handful of games. No one knows all these stupid specialist versions of the rules unless they play many games and study the game.
BaconCatBug wrote: In short, why is there seemingly an active attempt to make bodyguard rules as unstandardised as possible?
.
This also has the added benefit of cutting down on the player needing to cross-reference rules text out of the BRB or GW having to make new USRs ever time they need to differentiate a rule for the purpose of balancing a single unit.
No instead it made cross-referencing worst, b.c now instead of a USR that everyone knows i need to know 20 versions of the same rule and needs to borrow or have multi armies books to know what rules i'm playing against.
Everyone knows the basica 10-15 USR rules after a handful of games. No one knows all these stupid specialist versions of the rules unless they play many games and study the game.
You only need to know... 3? Grot shields, Shield Drones and Inqusitorial Acolytes rules
BaconCatBug wrote: In short, why is there seemingly an active attempt to make bodyguard rules as unstandardised as possible?
.
This also has the added benefit of cutting down on the player needing to cross-reference rules text out of the BRB or GW having to make new USRs ever time they need to differentiate a rule for the purpose of balancing a single unit.
No instead it made cross-referencing worst, b.c now instead of a USR that everyone knows i need to know 20 versions of the same rule and needs to borrow or have multi armies books to know what rules i'm playing against.
Everyone knows the basica 10-15 USR rules after a handful of games. No one knows all these stupid specialist versions of the rules unless they play many games and study the game.
You only need to know... 3? Grot shields, Shield Drones and Inqusitorial Acolytes rules
Why only 3? What about Death Shroud Terminators? Necron Lychguard? Drukhari Sslyth have a bodyguard rule as well, I think. BTW, I have no idea if these bodyguard rules are the same as the ones above or different...and that's the point. In many cases it's not even immediately obvious a unit has a specific type of rule because they all have unique, bespoke names which makes understanding units so much more difficult than it needs to be.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, any army *that* reliant on an optional upgrade model is in dire need of a rewrite anyway.
Aye.
Especially in case when the only playstyle reliant on one Option is just Next Level annoying.
Speaking as a long term Tau player, yes.
I think removing the Shield Drone stand-alone unit could be a good first step and stripping saviour protocols off of gun and marker drones.
So shield drones can only be bought as extra models for a unit (max of 2 per non-drone model in the unit). They do not form a separate unit, have the toughness of the model which bought them (to avoid mixed toughness issues), follow the normal rules for wound allocation etc. Saviour protocols becomes "drones removed as casualties do not count for the purposes of calculating morale", or whatever the wording should be. Once a units drones are used up, they are used up, no sharing another units drones. If there are no non-drone models left in the unit at the end of any phase, then the drones are removed from the table (they shut down in the absence of their principal).
This still allows for ablative wounds but they are more limited (cannot be using multiple units of drones, you only have as many as you bought for a specific unit).
Then recost stuff, fix the damn markerlights (bring back spending tokens for effects!) and make mechanised Tau work again so we're not reduced to the big stompy robot faction any longer!
I am not confident enough to answer that, since i don't play Tau, only rarely against them but i guess that could work.
I don't mind the robots that much, however i 'd like to see more mech and auxilia based playstyles as an option, an army only having one "viable"* build is annoying as hell.
* with viable i mean on a normal casual level, where more builds are there but in such an environment the rather overpriced nature of tau shows up and fwiw when you see 2 infantry lists slug it out and one is marines and it beats the tau at their own game then i feel like something's gone wrong.
BaconCatBug wrote: In short, why is there seemingly an active attempt to make bodyguard rules as unstandardised as possible?
.
This also has the added benefit of cutting down on the player needing to cross-reference rules text out of the BRB or GW having to make new USRs ever time they need to differentiate a rule for the purpose of balancing a single unit.
No instead it made cross-referencing worst, b.c now instead of a USR that everyone knows i need to know 20 versions of the same rule and needs to borrow or have multi armies books to know what rules i'm playing against.
Everyone knows the basica 10-15 USR rules after a handful of games. No one knows all these stupid specialist versions of the rules unless they play many games and study the game.
You only need to know... 3? Grot shields, Shield Drones and Inqusitorial Acolytes rules
Why only 3? What about Death Shroud Terminators? Necron Lychguard? Drukhari Sslyth have a bodyguard rule as well, I think. BTW, I have no idea if these bodyguard rules are the same as the ones above or different...and that's the point. In many cases it's not even immediately obvious a unit has a specific type of rule because they all have unique, bespoke names which makes understanding units so much more difficult than it needs to be.
Because nobody is taking them. For their bodyguard rule. Those three have the 'gotcha' rules that you need to properly consider when you shoot. The others, not so much.
Lammia wrote: Because nobody is taking them. For their bodyguard rule. Those three have the 'gotcha' rules that you need to properly consider when you shoot. The others, not so much.
To put it simply, not all bodyguards act in the same way.
Some are more effective than others.
I’d say they could split it into 3 USRs to use.
1: basic level bodyguard, worst odds of actually doing their job.
This would be for things like grots and basic drones.
2: mid level, designed for units that are actually trained to do so.
3: high tier.
This is for the units specialised to be bodyguards.
They would offer the best possible odds of saving a character.
I honestly think that making it universal from 1 rule would make some units too good and literally make others useless.
There has to me some room in there for a difference.
As for “joining units was far more simple” it really wasn’t.
There would be several topics a day on here discussing how varying rules work with this and conferring abilities.
It also helps to lower the deathstar units.
If a character can’t confer stacks of special rules (or multiple characters even) then it’s going to run a lot more smooth.
Tons of tournament lists relied on a single unit being fed abilities by joined character to either make them unkillable or an extreme blender.
I like the fact that this has been toned down a good bit, same with AoS.
Sure, characters can give abilities to units now, but it’s far from what it was before.
Lammia wrote: Because nobody is taking them. For their bodyguard rule. Those three have the 'gotcha' rules that you need to properly consider when you shoot. The others, not so much.
Victrix Honor Guard tanking for Chronos, Gulliman or Tigurius is fairly common in my area, Tyrant Guard is used to protect swarmlords. And now we're up to 5 rules you need to know.
Jackal90 wrote: Tons of tournament lists relied on a single unit being fed abilities by joined character to either make them unkillable or an extreme blender.
That wasn't a problem with characters being able to join units* - it was usually a problem with Look Out Sir!** and janky wound allocation rules***.
* and deathstars pumped full of abilities by characters and command points totally don't exist in the current edition, right...)
** which should never have existed
*** go back to 5th edition's system, but add an extra line saying that wounds have to allocated in batches according to the AP so that it becomes far more difficult to stack all the most damaging hits on one dude
Jackal90 wrote: To put it simply, not all bodyguards act in the same way.
Some are more effective than others.
From a background perspective I agree. But the real question is does this really matter in a game at the scale of 40k? Surely we could even write a bodyguard rule in such a way that it took the guarding unit's stats into account. In this way heavy bodyguards like Deathshroud could use the same basic rules as a Grot but get extra benefits thanks to their Toughness and saves. Seems to me that talking about 3 different levels of bodyguard training is like trying to differentiate the level of special forces training between the SAS and the SBS. It just doesn't matter at the scale we're talking about.
Jackal90 wrote: 1: basic level bodyguard, worst odds of actually doing their job.
This would be for things like grots and basic drones.
2: mid level, designed for units that are actually trained to do so.
3: high tier.
This is for the units specialised to be bodyguards.
They would offer the best possible odds of saving a character.
That's a fairly arbitrary classification.
Grot shield aren't actually gretchin protecting their ork masters, but an ork grabbing a nearby grot and using it as shield/chucking it at an Incoming projectile/herding some gretchin into firing lanes.
I'd also very much say that shield drones are specialized body guards.
I honestly think that making it universal from 1 rule would make some units too good and literally make others useless.
There has to me some room in there for a difference.
From a game perspective there basically two kinds of bodyguards:
- Bodyguards: High cost, good defenses
- Meath shields: Low cost, bad defenses
The first serve to replace the defensive profile of some high value target with their own. Deathshrouds, Ogryns and Tyrant Guard are examples of this.
The later just add additional wounds to a high value target that tends to have a better defensive profile. Gretchin or Drones would fall in this category.
If you'd change all rules to read the same as the one for deathshrouds, you'd resolve the entire shot (if deflected) against the body guard unit as if you had shot them in the first place. Meat shields die faster that way and expensive bodyguards can actually do their jobs.
As for the drone blocking a shadow-sword shot due to the 5++ - it works that way when directly shooting a drone, why shouldn't it work when the drone intercepts the shot?
In any case, tau should be designed around how the body guard rule works, not the other way around.
Lammia wrote: Because nobody is taking them. For their bodyguard rule. Those three have the 'gotcha' rules that you need to properly consider when you shoot. The others, not so much.
Victrix Honor Guard tanking for Chronos, Gulliman or Tigurius is fairly common in my area, Tyrant Guard is used to protect swarmlords. And now we're up to 5 rules you need to know.
I guess Tyrant Guard is important enough to know. I feel that any unit with that says it's an Honour Guard in it's name should trigger the question of what does it guard and how does it work at the start of the game, so it's not important for everyone to know how it works.
As for the drone blocking a shadow-sword shot due to the 5++ - it works that way when directly shooting a drone, why shouldn't it work when the drone intercepts the shot?
Actually the drone works better tanking the shot directly at 4++ vs the 5+++ FNP.
My personal opinion is that all bodyguard abilities should work on hits rather than wounds. People complain about the Tau MW conversion yet say very little about the layers that certain other armies get with their armour saves, damage reduction, FNP, transfer wounds, additional FNP that tie the game up into a series of rolls and rerolls.
Lammia wrote: Because nobody is taking them. For their bodyguard rule. Those three have the 'gotcha' rules that you need to properly consider when you shoot. The others, not so much.
Victrix Honor Guard tanking for Chronos, Gulliman or Tigurius is fairly common in my area, Tyrant Guard is used to protect swarmlords. And now we're up to 5 rules you need to know.
I guess Tyrant Guard is important enough to know. I feel that any unit with that says it's an Honour Guard in it's name should trigger the question of what does it guard and how does it work at the start of the game, so it's not important for everyone to know how it works.
To summarize your argument:
Having to ask
- for the detailed sequence on when an attack is intercepted
- on what roll
- whose toughness and save is used
- can it be used against mortal wounds
- whether FNP can be used by the original target, the intercepting model or both
- whether it outright kills the intercepting model or does it deal mortal wounds
- if it does deal mortal wounds, does it deal just one or one for each point of damage taken
is superior to having to ask
- whether the unit is a bodyguard
To summarize your argument:
Having to ask
- for the detailed sequence on when an attack is intercepted
- on what roll
- whose toughness and save is used
- can it be used against mortal wounds
- whether FNP can be used by the original target, the intercepting model or both
- whether it outright kills the intercepting model or does it deal mortal wounds
- if it does deal mortal wounds, does it deal just one or one for each point of damage taken
is superior to having to ask
- whether the unit is a bodyguard
Well of course when you put it like that then having clear, easily understood rules seems like the better option
Lammia wrote: Because nobody is taking them. For their bodyguard rule. Those three have the 'gotcha' rules that you need to properly consider when you shoot. The others, not so much.
Victrix Honor Guard tanking for Chronos, Gulliman or Tigurius is fairly common in my area, Tyrant Guard is used to protect swarmlords. And now we're up to 5 rules you need to know.
I guess Tyrant Guard is important enough to know. I feel that any unit with that says it's an Honour Guard in it's name should trigger the question of what does it guard and how does it work at the start of the game, so it's not important for everyone to know how it works.
To summarize your argument:
Having to ask
- for the detailed sequence on when an attack is intercepted
- on what roll
- whose toughness and save is used
- can it be used against mortal wounds
- whether FNP can be used by the original target, the intercepting model or both
- whether it outright kills the intercepting model or does it deal mortal wounds
- if it does deal mortal wounds, does it deal just one or one for each point of damage taken
is superior to having to ask
- whether the unit is a bodyguard
Ano... no. I wasn't aware I had made an argument other than some Bodyguarding abilities are good and others aren't.
But since you've asked, it takes two questions. What can this unit do? And how exactly does it work? It's answering that should take longer, but we should know *our* army's rules well enough to explain it throughly if we actually intend on ever using it.
If only (4th) there was an edition (4th) with independent characters (4th) that worked (4th). Would allocation made sense (in 4th), and shooting seemed pretty balanced (4th) with melee outside of some obvious but singularly alterable issues.
Change the levels system to make it slightly more granular (but don't go to TLOS OH GOD 5TH WHY). Remove piling in from combat to combat (or make that pile in d3" instead of d6") and you've got yourself a pretty good edition of Warhammer 40k.
gungo wrote: Because an ork grot being used as a body shield is not the same as a tau shield drone.
Yes ok great now explain why and how the difference in the lore are related to the difference in the rules.
Oh you can't? So surprised much surprise!
gungo wrote: And it makes every army unique and plays differently which is a good thing.
Yeah, having some bodyguard rules being very inefficient or very efficient, without any relation to the lore, that is what makes armies play different .
1] Look dude, one is made of metal, one is made of flesh. Ain't No Thing to \|Explain the Difference! Metal, in case you didn't know it, doesn't behave like flesh. There. Are you surprised?
2] Then fix the one specific rule that you think is broken instead of getting on the "one method of bodyguarding is inferior, so lets make everything the same" train. Everybody gets the best rule, even though one of the models is 50 points and one of the models is 4 points. Ridiculous.
USRs Sucked. |'m happy that I don't have to cross reference from codex to BRB like we used to.Cripes, people complain about having to use campaign books in addition to codices, which is easy enough [CWE? Banshee and Jain Zar in PA everything else in dex], yet all y'all seem ready and willing to go back to a system where the codex tells you what rules every unit in your army has, but if you want to know what the rules actually are, you have to look them up in a different book.
Thing about this system? You Could play with your dex and the rules download and FAQ which means buying one book and getting 2 free things.
Thing about USRs is that your codex is actually incomplete without the BRB, which means buying two books.
Now obviously, I don't care how many books I buy, because I'm a collector and generally like having the books. But everyone else here seems to whine about needing so many books. This is why it confuses me when they turn around and advocate a system where one book is literally incomplete without another.
We may have some units that appear in campaign books instead of dexes in this edition, but every unit has the explanations for all of its rules in whichever book it comes from, meanining each book is complete, even if it doesn't have every unit in it.
You don't have to worry about how someone else's bodyguard rule is different than yours, because your opponent will know their rule while you know yours. It doesn't put you at any more of a disadvantage to not know your opponent's rule, because your opponent is in the exact same boat as you are.
And if it fills you with anxiety, ask in game: "So I think these guys want to shoot that guy; is this a body guard unit? Okay, how does their rule work? Oh, okay, I don't think I'll be able to get through that, I'll shoot these guys instead." Easy peasy.
Dysartes wrote: Has anyone actually suggested that the wording for a USR shouldn't appear in the datasheet, space permitting?
Fair point, no one in this thread has.
But that's how they worked when we had them, and it was supposedly the point of creating them in the first place.
But you're right, maybe I should tone down my self righteousness and moral indignation a little, because no, so far that hasn't been explicitly suggested in this thread.
Dysartes wrote: Has anyone actually suggested that the wording for a USR shouldn't appear in the datasheet, space permitting?
It would be nice tho if there would be a summary of all usrs at the End of the supposed dex that are used.
It was annoying as hell when we had to dig up the brb and then Search there.
I don't get why so many people have fond memories of the independent character rules. It was such a PITA:
- mixed defensive profiles provided a new head-ache in every edition
- characters without that rule were just trash
- joining and leaving units could create all sort of weird effects when it came to effects like buffs, debuffs, running, going to grounds, etc
- conferring special rules and related argument
IMO, the only bad thing about characters right now is how a lone warboss in the middle of a road 22" in front of you gets protected from getting shot by a kopta in a building 16" behind you that you can't even see. But that is easier resolved than the clustfeth that IC were.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lammia wrote: More seriously, ever rule is unique and players should explain them in detail if asked. Especially if they intend on using them.
The whole point of is this thread is that they are unique for no reason whatsoever.
Unit1126PLL wrote: If only (4th) there was an edition (4th) with independent characters (4th) that worked (4th). Would allocation made sense (in 4th), and shooting seemed pretty balanced (4th) with melee outside of some obvious but singularly alterable issues.
Lets not get too ahead of ourselves. 4th's Torrent of Fire/Blows was a garbage wound allocation system which may as well not have existed.
Similarly Kill Zones were a fine idea, but could lead to some really janky interactions - I remember units of death Comapany and Incubi with attached characters sitting shooting at each other because whichever unit charged would likely get screwed out of most of their attacks...
Unit1126PLL wrote: If only (4th) there was an edition (4th) with independent characters (4th) that worked (4th). Would allocation made sense (in 4th), and shooting seemed pretty balanced (4th) with melee outside of some obvious but singularly alterable issues.
Lets not get too ahead of ourselves. 4th's Torrent of Fire/Blows was a garbage wound allocation system which may as well not have existed. Similarly Kill Zones were a fine idea, but could lead to some really janky interactions - I remember units of death Comapany and Incubi with attached characters sitting shooting at each other because whichever unit charged would likely get screwed out of most of their attacks...
I liked torrent of fire, it made a lot of sense to me.
Kill Zones are one of the rules I would adjust but... that said, I think it's actually a pretty cool interaction for two combat units to come up short, each alarmed of the other's prowess, and shirk into a shooting war. I can definitely see units like Orks and Ogryns (for example) going "Oi, bugger, those lads is big, let's not get stuck in!" about each other.
For units like Death Company and Khorne Berzerkers that don't have that sense of self preservation - well, the Rage USR used to require you to charge, IIRC. Or at least, units like that should be required to charge, given that they're uncontrollable psychopaths and no amount of the Force Comamnder/Chaos Lord going "WAIT STOP INCUBI ARE DANGEROUS" would actually change their behavior.
As for the Independent Character rules, the reason those didn't work were on GW. Here's my independent character rules: The character loses any buff (or debuff) that says unit, and becomes a model in the unit for all rules purposes. Any buff/debuff that specifies "model" continues to work.
You want your Character to get his Stealth cover bonus? Then don't put him in a unit of bright-pink clowns. You want a unit of bright pink clowns to catch bullets for him? Sorry, he won't be stealthy.
Lammia wrote: More seriously, ever rule is unique and players should explain them in detail if asked. Especially if they intend on using them.
The whole point of is this thread is that they are unique for no reason whatsoever.
Well, there is a reason. Some units exist and have the added 'benefit' of a bodyguard rule (Celestian/Lychguard/Tyrant Guard/Ect.) while others are only taken for their Bodyguarding ability (Shield Drone/Inquisitorial Acolyte).
With all their differences, it's a benefit to have tailored rules for each unit.
PenitentJake wrote: 1] Look dude, one is made of metal, one is made of flesh. Ain't No Thing to \|Explain the Difference! Metal, in case you didn't know it, doesn't behave like flesh. There. Are you surprised?
That's extra-dumb because :
- you didn't explain the difference, and how it's better represented by the different rules
- in 40k, metal and flesh works the exact same, and especially so with 8thlol.
There are no rule difference between models made of metal (drones, necrons, dreadnoughts,...) models made of flesh surrounded by metal (space marines, sisters of battle, ...) and models made of flesh (orks, various tyranids, ...). Each model has it rules, but there are no common rules that come with belonging to one of those category.
When you don't have a case, just be snarky and hope it'll work, right, PenitentJake?
PenitentJake wrote: Everybody gets the best rule, even though one of the models is 50 points and one of the models is 4 points. Ridiculous.
That's how it works for the rules for wounding. They are the same regardless of whether your model is 500+ points or just 4 points. You look at the same table and roll the same dice.
Duh.
But yeah, I explicitly mentioned why it would be better to have two different rules, one for elite bodyguard and another for meatshield. That's 2 rules, AND that explicitly relates to lore. One of those is about things that sacrifice/get sacrificed to stop the shot, the other is about trained people trying to prevent the shot from doing damage.
PenitentJake wrote: |'m happy that I don't have to cross reference from codex to BRB like we used to.
Yeah yeah whatever. I don't care about your inabilities, because as Dysartes already mentioned, you can just rewrite the same rule on every datasheet and say "Hey it's not a USR it's just a bunch of bespoke rules that just happens to be the same". Then you won't have to cross-reference. And it is not even a new thing, all the various FNP-like abilities work, and are worded, the same way, and we even got a FAQ making them not stack.
If those being the same despite representing stuff that's different in the lore, why can't you accept the bodyguard rules working the same is beyond me.
PenitentJake wrote: You don't have to worry about how someone else's bodyguard rule is different than yours, because your opponent will know their rule while you know yours. It doesn't put you at any more of a disadvantage to not know your opponent's rule, because your opponent is in the exact same boat as you are.
And if it fills you with anxiety, ask in game: "So I think these guys want to shoot that guy; is this a body guard unit? Okay, how does their rule work? Oh, okay, I don't think I'll be able to get through that, I'll shoot these guys instead." Easy peasy.
I love spending 20 minutes telling my opponents my rules, and learning theirs, at the beginning of every game. Not.
I mean, I should know, I played Warmachine.
That sucks. And playing without knowing the rules sucks too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lammia wrote: Well, there is a reason. Some units exist and have the added 'benefit' of a bodyguard rule (Celestian/Lychguard/Tyrant Guard/Ect.) while others are only taken for their Bodyguarding ability (Shield Drone/Inquisitorial Acolyte).
So, that's two type of units. Let's get two types of rules then!
Lammia wrote: Well, there is a reason. Some units exist and have the added 'benefit' of a bodyguard rule (Celestian/Lychguard/Tyrant Guard/Ect.) while others are only taken for their Bodyguarding ability (Shield Drone/Inquisitorial Acolyte).
So, that's two type of units. Let's get two types of rules then!
At the risk of making a point you've already argued against, 3 Celestians =/= 1 Hive Guard.
PenitentJake wrote: Everybody gets the best rule, even though one of the models is 50 points and one of the models is 4 points. Ridiculous.
That's how it works for the rules for wounding. They are the same regardless of whether your model is 500+ points or just 4 points. You look at the same table and roll the same dice.
Duh.
But yeah, I explicitly mentioned why it would be better to have two different rules, one for elite bodyguard and another for meatshield. That's 2 rules, AND that explicitly relates to lore. One of those is about things that sacrifice/get sacrificed to stop the shot, the other is about trained people trying to prevent the shot from doing damage.
So, that's two type of units. Let's get two types of rules then!
Also, if all these shot intercepting units intercepted hits rather than wounds and didn't convert them into mortal wounds then the more expensive bodyguard unit would actually function better relative to the cheap option as they actually get to use their better defensive stats which I assume an expensive bodyguard unit has.
So the warboss who has his grots intercept 20 bolter shots ends up with a handful of dead grots.
The Space Marine captain who has his terminator guard equipped with FNP drug injectors ends up with like a single wounded terminator from those 20 shots.
Well in this only two versions of the Bodyguard scenario, Celestians ans Tyrant Guard have exactly the same rule, but it affects them differently because of the difference between their stat lines, so you'll need to balance the effect between 2 units that aren't supposed to be balanced against each other.
Well in this only two versions of the Bodyguard scenario, Celestians ans Tyrant Guard have exactly the same rule, but it affects them differently because of the difference between their stat lines, so you'll need to balance the effect between 2 units that aren't supposed to be balanced against each other.
How is that different from, say, having to balance the profile of a weapon against both the statline of a hive guard and the statline of a celestian? The weapon affects each unit differently because of their different profile. It is to be expect, that is the whole reason why they have different statlines.
Well in this only two versions of the Bodyguard scenario, Celestians ans Tyrant Guard have exactly the same rule, but it affects them differently because of the difference between their stat lines, so you'll need to balance the effect between 2 units that aren't supposed to be balanced against each other.
How is that different from, say, having to balance the profile of a weapon against both the statline of a hive guard and the statline of a celestian? The weapon affects each unit differently because of their different profile. It is to be expect, that is the whole reason why they have different statlines.
There are several key differences but the easiest one is:different weapons are supposed to have different strengths and weaknesses. If you shoot a Lascannon at a Guardsmen instead of a LRBT, that's a waste. But the 'cost' of Bodyguarding is the same, regardless of which one of probably a dozen different units across a wide variety of armies.
Well in this only two versions of the Bodyguard scenario, Celestians ans Tyrant Guard have exactly the same rule, but it affects them differently because of the difference between their stat lines, so you'll need to balance the effect between 2 units that aren't supposed to be balanced against each other.
How is that different from, say, having to balance the profile of a weapon against both the statline of a hive guard and the statline of a celestian? The weapon affects each unit differently because of their different profile. It is to be expect, that is the whole reason why they have different statlines.
There are several key differences but the easiest one is:different weapons are supposed to have different strengths and weaknesses. If you shoot a Lascannon at a Guardsmen instead of a LRBT, that's a waste. But the 'cost' of Bodyguarding is the same, regardless of which one of probably a dozen different units across a wide variety of armies.
How do you know that the cost of Bodyguarding is the same? Why would you even think that?
Lammia wrote: Because they would have exactly the same rule
So? You can point the same rule differently based on interactions with the model itself.
Ignore AP-1 is a lot more valuable on a Sister of Battle than on an Ork Boy. If you could pay 1 PPM to give that to Ork Boys, you'd never see it taken-it ain't worth it. But if you could pay 1 PPM on a Sister to get that in addition to another Sacred Order trait, you'd be seeing a lot of 10 point sisters, since that's a lot more valuable.
Likewise, a 5+ Invuln on a Daemon is a lot more valuable than a 5+ Invuln on a Terminator. The Terminator doesn't get to use it till they're dealing with an AP-4 weapon, AP-5 in cover. A Daemon ALWAYS uses it, outside Nurgle Daemons near a Gnarlmaw.
The same rule does not need the same points cost on different units, and in fact SHOULD have differing values, based on how much use the unit gets.
Lammia wrote: Because they would have exactly the same rule
So?
That doesn't mean that the units are paying the same price in points for the rule.
Every unit in the game has the same rule for shooting their guns, doesn't mean they are paying the same cost to be able to shoot.
Yay?
You can put a cost on shooting, it's a basic action that units do. Bodyguard Special rules have no tangible value on their own. No one was paing a point for a Celestian with +1ws,+1 attack, +1 Ld and Bodyguard over a regular Battle Sister before they got the Sworn Protectors special rule in the new Codex.
Lammia wrote: Because they would have exactly the same rule
So?
That doesn't mean that the units are paying the same price in points for the rule.
Every unit in the game has the same rule for shooting their guns, doesn't mean they are paying the same cost to be able to shoot.
Yay?
You can put a cost on shooting, it's a basic action that units do. Bodyguard Special rules have no tangible value on their own. No one was paing a point for a Celestian with +1ws,+1 attack, +1 Ld and Bodyguard over a regular Battle Sister before they got the Sworn Protectors special rule in the new Codex.
What on earth does that have to do with your initial statement?
"[UNIT] is overcosted without the Bodyguard rule, but now that it has it, [UNIT] is fine."
How does that equal "All Bodyguard rules must be pointed exactly the same, if they're the same rule."?
Lammia wrote: Because they would have exactly the same rule
So?
That doesn't mean that the units are paying the same price in points for the rule.
Every unit in the game has the same rule for shooting their guns, doesn't mean they are paying the same cost to be able to shoot.
Yay?
You can put a cost on shooting, it's a basic action that units do. Bodyguard Special rules have no tangible value on their own. No one was paing a point for a Celestian with +1ws,+1 attack, +1 Ld and Bodyguard over a regular Battle Sister before they got the Sworn Protectors special rule in the new Codex.
What on earth does that have to do with your initial statement?
"[UNIT] is overcosted without the Bodyguard rule, but now that it has it, [UNIT] is fine."
How does that equal "All Bodyguard rules must be pointed exactly the same, if they're the same rule."?
That's not my point. Celestians always had Bodyguard, but it was fundamentally worthless. And they needed another special rule (reroll 1s aura become reroll misses) to justify the cost. Bodyguard's value isn't tangible in - dare I say - most cases.
Lammia wrote: Because they would have exactly the same rule
So?
That doesn't mean that the units are paying the same price in points for the rule.
Every unit in the game has the same rule for shooting their guns, doesn't mean they are paying the same cost to be able to shoot.
Yay?
You can put a cost on shooting, it's a basic action that units do. Bodyguard Special rules have no tangible value on their own. No one was paing a point for a Celestian with +1ws,+1 attack, +1 Ld and Bodyguard over a regular Battle Sister before they got the Sworn Protectors special rule in the new Codex.
What on earth does that have to do with your initial statement?
"[UNIT] is overcosted without the Bodyguard rule, but now that it has it, [UNIT] is fine."
How does that equal "All Bodyguard rules must be pointed exactly the same, if they're the same rule."?
That's not my point. Celestians always had Bodyguard, but it was fundamentally worthless. And they needed another special rule (reroll 1s aura become reroll misses) to justify the cost. Bodyguard's value isn't tangible in - dare I say - most cases.
So "Bodyguard rules are hard to cost properly" now means "All Bodyguard rules must cost the same if they're written the same"?
Again-a 5++ Daemon gets way more mileage out of their Invuln than a 5++ Terminator. You wouldn't charge a Terminator any real significant cost for their Invuln, but you WOULD charge a Daemon. Because, due to stats and model interactions, one has it as a nice little extra, but another has it as their main defense.
Edit: Let's try a hypothetical rule.
Crushing Blows Whenever this model successfully hits in close combat, it may immediately make another attack with the same weapon.
How many points would that be, approximately, on...
Well in this only two versions of the Bodyguard scenario, Celestians ans Tyrant Guard have exactly the same rule, but it affects them differently because of the difference between their stat lines, so you'll need to balance the effect between 2 units that aren't supposed to be balanced against each other.
How is that different from, say, having to balance the profile of a weapon against both the statline of a hive guard and the statline of a celestian? The weapon affects each unit differently because of their different profile. It is to be expect, that is the whole reason why they have different statlines.
There are several key differences but the easiest one is:different weapons are supposed to have different strengths and weaknesses. If you shoot a Lascannon at a Guardsmen instead of a LRBT, that's a waste. But the 'cost' of Bodyguarding is the same, regardless of which one of probably a dozen different units across a wide variety of armies.
How do you know that the cost of Bodyguarding is the same? Why would you even think that?
Lammia wrote:Because they would have exactly the same rule
Rewriting history doesn't work super well when it's on the same flipping page.
Well in this only two versions of the Bodyguard scenario, Celestians ans Tyrant Guard have exactly the same rule, but it affects them differently because of the difference between their stat lines, so you'll need to balance the effect between 2 units that aren't supposed to be balanced against each other.
How is that different from, say, having to balance the profile of a weapon against both the statline of a hive guard and the statline of a celestian? The weapon affects each unit differently because of their different profile. It is to be expect, that is the whole reason why they have different statlines.
There are several key differences but the easiest one is:different weapons are supposed to have different strengths and weaknesses. If you shoot a Lascannon at a Guardsmen instead of a LRBT, that's a waste. But the 'cost' of Bodyguarding is the same, regardless of which one of probably a dozen different units across a wide variety of armies.
How do you know that the cost of Bodyguarding is the same? Why would you even think that?
Lammia wrote:Because they would have exactly the same rule
Rewriting history doesn't work super well when it's on the same flipping page.
I see now. 'Cost' in the context of how what I was trying to say is 'and this unit suffers a mortal wound' or similar. Not point cost.
Did you also not see where people are advocating for intercepting a HIT, not a wound or damage?
Meaning that a T5 2+/4++/5+++ 2W Deathshroud can tank literally ten times better than a Grot can. (36 times better, if the attack doesn't do mortals and is S4 AP0 D1.)
Lammia wrote: Ok, perhaps I'm tired and not articulating my point well. I never said they would have the same cost. Only that the value would be highly variable.
If anything, I'm arguing it should no cost for any unit.
I think maybe you've misunderstood the intent- the idea people have floated is having bodyguards take hits instead of the model they're protecting, which IMO seems the most straightforward and makes the most sense.
So the value of a bodyguard would be primarily related to how tough the bodyguard is, especially relative to its cost and what it's protecting, which I think makes sense. Deathshroud Terminators, Grots, and Shield Drones could all have the same bodyguard and still represent very different units (elite that can bodyguard as a secondary role, cheap meatshield screens, and tough bodyblockers that do nothing else).
Lammia wrote: Ok, perhaps I'm tired and not articulating my point well. I never said they would have the same cost. Only that the value would be highly variable.
If anything, I'm arguing it should no cost for any unit.
I think maybe you've misunderstood the intent- the idea people have floated is having bodyguards take hits instead of the model they're protecting, which IMO seems the most straightforward and makes the most sense.
So the value of a bodyguard would be primarily related to how tough the bodyguard is, especially relative to its cost and what it's protecting, which I think makes sense. Deathshroud Terminators, Grots, and Shield Drones could all have the same bodyguard and still represent very different units (elite that can bodyguard as a secondary role, cheap meatshield screens, and tough bodyblockers that do nothing else).
The 'cost' being that they take the hit instead.
I was actually having a slightly different conversation, but the point is actually still quite valid for this instances, given the Elite nature of most bodyguards and the range amongst them.
Dysartes wrote: Has anyone actually suggested that the wording for a USR shouldn't appear in the datasheet, space permitting?
No but if theybare universal it's going to be a PITA checking every FAQ document for the correct wording and I'm certaib that we wont end up with the USR beibg nerfed and then having units that solo values is that USR remain overcosted and leaving their codex unplayable for 9 months.
Jackal90 wrote: To put it simply, not all bodyguards act in the same way.
Some are more effective than others.
I’d say they could split it into 3 USRs to use.
1: basic level bodyguard, worst odds of actually doing their job.
This would be for things like grots and basic drones.
2: mid level, designed for units that are actually trained to do so.
3: high tier.
This is for the units specialised to be bodyguards.
They would offer the best possible odds of saving a character.
Also your seriously suggesting compairing a small creature that has no armour or real mass is as effective at intercepting shots as a flying storm shield. (Like atleast try and hide your bias against Tau and git good)
Lammia wrote: More seriously, ever rule is unique and players should explain them in detail if asked. Especially if they intend on using them.
The whole point of is this thread is that they are unique for no reason whatsoever.
Well, there is a reason. Some units exist and have the added 'benefit' of a bodyguard rule (Celestian/Lychguard/Tyrant Guard/Ect.) while others are only taken for their Bodyguarding ability (Shield Drone/Inquisitorial Acolyte).
With all their differences, it's a benefit to have tailored rules for each unit.
Lammia wrote: More seriously, ever rule is unique and players should explain them in detail if asked. Especially if they intend on using them.
The whole point of is this thread is that they are unique for no reason whatsoever.
Well, there is a reason. Some units exist and have the added 'benefit' of a bodyguard rule (Celestian/Lychguard/Tyrant Guard/Ect.) while others are only taken for their Bodyguarding ability (Shield Drone/Inquisitorial Acolyte).
With all their differences, it's a benefit to have tailored rules for each unit.
Can you go into more detail? What benefit?
The ability to fix a rule for one unit without breaking the rule for another.
BaconCatBug wrote:There is this magical system called "Points" that can be used to balance.
How do you properly point an ability on a unit that has such a wildly different value depending on what else is around? Do you undercost it? So it's always a consideration. Do you overcost it so the unit sees little play out of the most abusive combination? Some where in the middle and hope it all works out?
Lord Damocles wrote:I like how apparently being a bodyguard is only an 'added benefit' of the Tyranid genus which is specifically engineered to act as a living shield...
I mean, give it WS 5+, Strength 4, 2 Attacks and recost it and it's purpose will go back to being a meat shield...
Just like if you gave a Shield Drone BS 3+, a Strength 5 ranged attack and recost it and Savior Protocols go to being an added benefit.
Lammia wrote: The ability to fix a rule for one unit without breaking the rule for another.
Except GW currently doesn't fix abilities anyways, assuming that there is a need to fix something in the first place. Which means there is no actual benefit.
How do you properly point an ability on a unit that has such a wildly different value depending on what else is around? Do you undercost it? So it's always a consideration. Do you overcost it so the unit sees little play out of the most abusive combination? Some where in the middle and hope it all works out?
Good thing this problem only applies to every single other unit in the game. The only way to find a proper unit cost for any given unit is through iteration. After sufficient iteration cycles you either end up with a proper point cost or the knowledge that a unit is inherently broken and needs a rework.
Lord Damocles wrote:I like how apparently being a bodyguard is only an 'added benefit' of the Tyranid genus which is specifically engineered to act as a living shield...
I mean, give it WS 5+, Strength 4, 2 Attacks and recost it and it's purpose will go back to being a meat shield...
Just like if you gave a Shield Drone BS 3+, a Strength 5 ranged attack and recost it and Savior Protocols go to being an added benefit.
You seem to be under the impression that tyrant guard serve any other role than being a meat shield.
Lammia wrote: The ability to fix a rule for one unit without breaking the rule for another.
Except GW currently doesn't fix abilities anyways, assuming that there is a need to fix something in the first place.
Which means there is no actual benefit.
How do you properly point an ability on a unit that has such a wildly different value depending on what else is around? Do you undercost it? So it's always a consideration. Do you overcost it so the unit sees little play out of the most abusive combination? Some where in the middle and hope it all works out?
Good thing this problem only applies to every single other unit in the game.
The only way to find a proper unit cost for any given unit is through iteration. After sufficient iteration cycles you either end up with a proper point cost or the knowledge that a unit is inherently broken and needs a rework.
Lord Damocles wrote:I like how apparently being a bodyguard is only an 'added benefit' of the Tyranid genus which is specifically engineered to act as a living shield...
I mean, give it WS 5+, Strength 4, 2 Attacks and recost it and it's purpose will go back to being a meat shield...
Just like if you gave a Shield Drone BS 3+, a Strength 5 ranged attack and recost it and Savior Protocols go to being an added benefit.
You seem to be under the impression that tyrant guard serve any other role than being a meat shield.
I don't want to fracture my post too much, so I'll number my responses.
1. They do, they did with Commissars. And all it takes to see how a new universal rule can effect an army is to see how Doctrines interact with Deathwatch and SIA.
2. With every other unit in the game, balancing cost is only about what that unit can do. Bodyguard interacts with a wide range of units within an army with a wide range of cost and abilities.
3. I'm Hopeful that they do something else. Because while having my Exocist's attacks go through a 4++ only to wound a 111 point squad instead of a 250 is mildly frustrating, it's not exactly impressive.
Lammia wrote: 3. I'm Hopeful that they do something else. Because while having my Exocist's attacks go through a 4++ only to wound a 111 point squad instead of a 250 is mildly frustrating, it's not exactly impressive.
The obvious solution is to simply shoot the squad first with weapons that actually hurt the squad. It's not like Sororitas are hurting for gun on their infantry. Hose them down (maybe with 2 damage -2 Storm Bolters for example), then exorcist their charge in the face.
Lammia wrote: 3. I'm Hopeful that they do something else. Because while having my Exocist's attacks go through a 4++ only to wound a 111 point squad instead of a 250 is mildly frustrating, it's not exactly impressive.
The obvious solution is to simply shoot the squad first with weapons that actually hurt the squad. It's not like Sororitas are hurting for gun on their infantry. Hose them down (maybe with 2 damage -2 Storm Bolters for example), then exorcist their charge in the face.
wouldn't the tactic be to hide the unit that does the bodyguarding, so that it is very hard to impossible to shot at them, so they only get hurt when they activate their bodyguard rule to intercept shots targeting the unit protected?
I'm pretty sure Lammia is a troll at this point, or is so out of touch with the game he doesn't know the game. Which at this point i'm not reading anything else he types lol.
Lammia wrote: 3. I'm Hopeful that they do something else. Because while having my Exocist's attacks go through a 4++ only to wound a 111 point squad instead of a 250 is mildly frustrating, it's not exactly impressive.
The obvious solution is to simply shoot the squad first with weapons that actually hurt the squad. It's not like Sororitas are hurting for gun on their infantry. Hose them down (maybe with 2 damage -2 Storm Bolters for example), then exorcist their charge in the face.
Optimally speaking, sure. But even stumbling onto their bodyguarding ability, it's not going to ruin my game in a 'if I'd known this, I'd have won' kind of way.
Lammia wrote: 3. I'm Hopeful that they do something else. Because while having my Exocist's attacks go through a 4++ only to wound a 111 point squad instead of a 250 is mildly frustrating, it's not exactly impressive.
The obvious solution is to simply shoot the squad first with weapons that actually hurt the squad. It's not like Sororitas are hurting for gun on their infantry. Hose them down (maybe with 2 damage -2 Storm Bolters for example), then exorcist their charge in the face.
wouldn't the tactic be to hide the unit that does the bodyguarding, so that it is very hard to impossible to shot at them, so they only get hurt when they activate their bodyguard rule to intercept shots targeting the unit protected?
Typically the bodyguarding unit has to be with 3" of the bodyguarded model. If you want to tether a Hive Tyrant or a Swarmlord to within 3" of only one side of a piece of LOS blocking terrain, be my guest. It's much worse with riptides and drones.
out of LoS units being closer then characters and similar stuff seems to be standard here. Only time I could imagine for this not to work, if there was little, if any LoS blocking terrain. And even then the SoB bodyguards can just kneel behind an exorcist . Or do people play it that they can draw LoS through vehicles?
Lammia wrote: The ability to fix a rule for one unit without breaking the rule for another.
You mean like how they fixed only the specific deep-striking units that were causing issues?
Oh wait, no, they just nerfed every single unit with deep-strike.
Phew, glad the same ability has 400 different names. That really came in handy.
That's definitely an example of something we'd like to avoid. I'd could be argued that deep striking had a macro level problem, but your point is valid.
Karol wrote: out of LoS units being closer then characters and similar stuff seems to be standard here. Only time I could imagine for this not to work, if there was little, if any LoS blocking terrain. And even then the SoB bodyguards can just kneel behind an exorcist . Or do people play it that they can draw LoS through vehicles?
The provided example was a Hive Tyrant, not a sisters model. The Tyrant Guard are considerably larger than SOB bodyguards and I'm not certain 3 of them could fit behind a Rhino.
Karol wrote: out of LoS units being closer then characters and similar stuff seems to be standard here. Only time I could imagine for this not to work, if there was little, if any LoS blocking terrain. And even then the SoB bodyguards can just kneel behind an exorcist . Or do people play it that they can draw LoS through vehicles?
It's the Tyranid that have the bodyguard. Getting attacked by Sisters.
The real issue is character targeting rules and body gaurd rules being allowed to be used when they are OLOS to the shooting unit. I don't see much issue with the rules themselves. It actually seems reasonable that some units would be better at sacrifice than others.
This game is about 90% target priority and selection. Rules like this that that away. It creates situations where you literally can't win the game because there is no possible way in a 6 turn game you'll ever be able to select the targets you need to. Not sure why anyone would want to play that stupid game anyways.
).
and you guys complain about 
