Also confirmed - need to make it to all declared charge targets.

* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved.

Brilliant changes! Being able to legitimately threaten characters should add a lot more tactical decision making in target priority and positioning. Actually disabling character-auras was VERY difficult in 8th, aside from some specialized cases, so I'm psyched to see it become more of a valid strategy for everyone.
More targetable characters also means less reroll-auras lasting the entire game.

I can see nothing bad about both of these. I'd say look out,Sir now is exactly like I've seen people on dakka hoped for it to be adjusted right from the start of 8th Edition.

I play thousand sons and use lots of characters and even I like this rule. I always though it was crazy/gamey that my daemon prince could be on the other side of the board in clear sight, but because one cultist is closer and on the other side of your, say predator, that you could not shoot my daemon prince. I think this is a perfect compromise to protect characters from getting blown away turn 1, and having them be immune to shooting basically.

Someone on the N&R thread said that basilisks etc. will be good snipers now, which is true if the characters are just behind the lines but not close to units, but that really is more of an issue with how good non-LOS shooting is, which hopefully will also be fixed.

Hate this. It murders any army that relies on relatively fragile buff characters outright, while not doing anything against armies like space marines that are relatively immobile and have beefy characters. It also heavily punishes any army that tries to aggressively move up the table. Staying perfectly still wrapped around your characters is likely going to be even more important now than it was before. SoB especially are dead in the water outside of extremely static gunline builds. Can't run repentia or arcos when their support characters are free real estate.

ERJAK wrote:
Hate this. It murders any army that relies on relatively fragile buff characters outright, while not doing anything against armies like space marines that are relatively immobile and have beefy characters. It also heavily punishes any army that tries to aggressively move up the table. Staying perfectly still wrapped around your characters is likely going to be even more important now than it was before. SoB especially are dead in the water outside of extremely static gunline builds. Can't run repentia or arcos when their support characters are free real estate.

Not sure I understand. If they're near repentia or arcos or even if a penitent is nearby they can't be shot even if they're closer.

I like this change, should help armies without great snipers(or any at all) be able to deal with characters better, just gotta thin down or kill the units around them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Not sure I understand. If they're near repentia or arcos or even if a penitent is nearby they can't be shot even if they're closer.

Characters absolutely can be shot if they're closer. This is 8ths character protection rule, with the caveat that you need an allied unit to be protected.

 xeen wrote:
I play thousand sons and use lots of characters and even I like this rule. I always though it was crazy/gamey that my daemon prince could be on the other side of the board in clear sight, but because one cultist is closer and on the other side of your, say predator, that you could not shoot my daemon prince. I think this is a perfect compromise to protect characters from getting blown away turn 1, and having them be immune to shooting basically.

Someone on the N&R thread said that basilisks etc. will be good snipers now, which is true if the characters are just behind the lines but not close to units, but that really is more of an issue with how good non-LOS shooting is, which hopefully will also be fixed.

Well basilisks can first shoot nearby units. Orks for example have been using 3x10 grots to cover ssag. That is basically dead strategy now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
Hate this. It murders any army that relies on relatively fragile buff characters outright, while not doing anything against armies like space marines that are relatively immobile and have beefy characters. It also heavily punishes any army that tries to aggressively move up the table. Staying perfectly still wrapped around your characters is likely going to be even more important now than it was before. SoB especially are dead in the water outside of extremely static gunline builds. Can't run repentia or arcos when their support characters are free real estate.

You run in rhinos in anyway. And once out and charged it's repentia that is dying leaving support characters jobless. As it is repentia superior isn't needed even. And flagelants don't need support characters that much. Main reason to take them over repentia

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Hate this. It murders any army that relies on relatively fragile buff characters outright, while not doing anything against armies like space marines that are relatively immobile and have beefy characters. It also heavily punishes any army that tries to aggressively move up the table. Staying perfectly still wrapped around your characters is likely going to be even more important now than it was before. SoB especially are dead in the water outside of extremely static gunline builds. Can't run repentia or arcos when their support characters are free real estate.

Not sure I understand. If they're near repentia or arcos or even if a penitent is nearby they can't be shot even if they're closer.

I don't know if you know this, but combat units generally charge the enemy at some point, and buff characters generally don't so they don't get immediately killed/can buff multiple units. With this change the repentia charges and now the repentia superior has to 1.Attempt the charge and either fail, leaving them out in the open or likely die to whatever they're fighting, rely on whatever you can conga-line back to her for protection, or just straight up leave her out in the open.

So at best your characters are 2-3 models away from being easy pickings where before you could have multiple units protecting them from multiple angles. It's a massive nerf to any aggressive army that uses characters for support, while also having a totally negligible effect on gunlines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 xeen wrote:
I play thousand sons and use lots of characters and even I like this rule. I always though it was crazy/gamey that my daemon prince could be on the other side of the board in clear sight, but because one cultist is closer and on the other side of your, say predator, that you could not shoot my daemon prince. I think this is a perfect compromise to protect characters from getting blown away turn 1, and having them be immune to shooting basically.

Someone on the N&R thread said that basilisks etc. will be good snipers now, which is true if the characters are just behind the lines but not close to units, but that really is more of an issue with how good non-LOS shooting is, which hopefully will also be fixed.

Well basilisks can first shoot nearby units. Orks for example have been using 3x10 grots to cover ssag. That is basically dead strategy now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
Hate this. It murders any army that relies on relatively fragile buff characters outright, while not doing anything against armies like space marines that are relatively immobile and have beefy characters. It also heavily punishes any army that tries to aggressively move up the table. Staying perfectly still wrapped around your characters is likely going to be even more important now than it was before. SoB especially are dead in the water outside of extremely static gunline builds. Can't run repentia or arcos when their support characters are free real estate.

You run in rhinos in anyway. And once out and charged it's repentia that is dying leaving support characters jobless. As it is repentia superior isn't needed even. And flagelants don't need support characters that much. Main reason to take them over repentia

Both repentia and arcos are massively worse without support characters, priests are huge for both and repentia basically aren't worth taking without a superiors rerolls. Rhinos suck and have sucked this whole edition and now they don't even protect your characters accidentally anymore because it will be impossible to keep the character within 3 of the rhino AND within 6 of the repentia without wasting attacks congalining.

The bigger point though, is that these lookout sir rules only impact aggressive armies. A static gunline list isn't going to have any problem keeping units with 3 of the character but aggressive CQC or short range shooting lists certainly will.

I think you're over-stating the issue. You've delivered your units and they do their damage. Next turn your opponent is falling back (maybe) and shooting. Are they carving out enough fire for the units in their face and support characters? We'll have to wait and see how it plays out.

There will certainly be some adjustments to be made. Especially for me where a disc riding sorcerer is often not protected. I can only hope that weapons that shoot without LOS get a -1 to hit.

If I'm shooting IG I don't really care about carving out models to get to a CC. Nor do I worry about the captain buffing the primaris I just killed across the table, but as the turns grind on and coverage gets light i'll certainly be looking for opportunities.

You might hate tailing for your stuff, but marines can no longer buff in 6" without reducing the foot print of that blob.

For us TS players, the 3" also means that we are more likely to splash damage buff characters as well. I like that

Edit: Also hopefully characters being more readily targetable will be reflected in their points adjustments.

Court of Archon went from having a purpose to 100% no purpose.

And DJ's now must be near or in something, so sad.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Court of Archon went from having a purpose to 100% no purpose.

And DJ's now must be near or in something, so sad.

Sslyth's are Bodyguards are they not? It isn't like there won't also be exceptions to the rules.

tneva82 wrote:

 xeen wrote:
I play thousand sons and use lots of characters and even I like this rule. I always though it was crazy/gamey that my daemon prince could be on the other side of the board in clear sight, but because one cultist is closer and on the other side of your, say predator, that you could not shoot my daemon prince. I think this is a perfect compromise to protect characters from getting blown away turn 1, and having them be immune to shooting basically.

Someone on the N&R thread said that basilisks etc. will be good snipers now, which is true if the characters are just behind the lines but not close to units, but that really is more of an issue with how good non-LOS shooting is, which hopefully will also be fixed.

Well basilisks can first shoot nearby units. Orks for example have been using 3x10 grots to cover ssag. That is basically dead strategy now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
Hate this. It murders any army that relies on relatively fragile buff characters outright, while not doing anything against armies like space marines that are relatively immobile and have beefy characters. It also heavily punishes any army that tries to aggressively move up the table. Staying perfectly still wrapped around your characters is likely going to be even more important now than it was before. SoB especially are dead in the water outside of extremely static gunline builds. Can't run repentia or arcos when their support characters are free real estate.

You run in rhinos in anyway. And once out and charged it's repentia that is dying leaving support characters jobless. As it is repentia superior isn't needed even. And flagelants don't need support characters that much. Main reason to take them over repentia

Hey man if you want to shoot a basilisk at my grots and then a second basilisk at the SSAG standing behind it you go for it, yass queen.

So just to make sure I'm not mixing things up.

If i have a character in the middle of my army let's say a Cryptek circled by Necron warriors and those Necron Warriors are shot and killed, or moved in such a way, that there is now a 6"+ radius between my Cryptek and the warriors, can the Cryptek be targeted by an enemy unit outside the ring of warriors (assuming there's still more than 3 warriors in the unit)?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Court of Archon went from having a purpose to 100% no purpose.

And DJ's now must be near or in something, so sad.

Sslyth's are Bodyguards are they not? It isn't like there won't also be exceptions to the rules.

Their Bodyguard rule is, Roll a D6 each time a Archon loses a wound, on a 2+ this model takes the wound and suffers a MW.

If the Archon took 3 wounds you roll 3 dice. The problem if they can now be shot at b.c Court units are Single model units.

 Mixzremixzd wrote:
So just to make sure I'm not mixing things up.

If i have a character in the middle of my army let's say a Cryptek circled by Necron warriors and those Necron Warriors are shot and killed, or moved in such a way, that there is now a 6"+ radius between my Cryptek and the warriors, can the Cryptek be targeted by an enemy unit outside the ring of warriors (assuming there's still more than 3 warriors in the unit)?

Yes. Except that it's a 3" radius. If your character is in the middle of a gunline and your opponent blows everything up, leaving him standing in the middle of a crater on a little spike of land like a looney tune, they may then freely shoot that character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Court of Archon went from having a purpose to 100% no purpose.

And DJ's now must be near or in something, so sad.

Sslyth's are Bodyguards are they not? It isn't like there won't also be exceptions to the rules.

Their Bodyguard rule is, Roll a D6 each time a Archon loses a wound, on a 2+ this model takes the wound and suffers a MW.

If the Archon took 3 wounds you roll 3 dice. The problem if they can now be shot at b.c Court units are Single model units.

wait, so why is this bad then? You're saying it's bad because we might actually have to use the Cold Blooded Bodyguard rule?

This is just another buff to gunline armies so I'm not a fan. It's already hard enough trying to screen your heroes from getting blown off the board before they can serve their purpose with some armies.

the_scotsman wrote:

If your character is in the middle of a gunline and your opponent blows everything up, leaving him standing in the middle of a crater on a little spike of land like a looney tune, they may then freely shoot that character.

This got me good. Bravo.

 Mixzremixzd wrote:
So just to make sure I'm not mixing things up.

If i have a character in the middle of my army let's say a Cryptek circled by Necron warriors and those Necron Warriors are shot and killed, or moved in such a way, that there is now a 6"+ radius between my Cryptek and the warriors, can the Cryptek be targeted by an enemy unit outside the ring of warriors (assuming there's still more than 3 warriors in the unit)?

Correct... if your guy is standing in the middle of nowhere with no bros around, he can be freely targeted even if he isn't the closest model to the firer.

Now, in order to get character protections, there needs to be a closer model to the firer AND there needs to be pretty much any friendly unit within 3" of the character.

Funny thing about how it reads is... the unit within 3" doesn't need to be closer to the firer to block, you just need to have any closer unit AND a friendly unit within 3" of your character.

I personally like the 3+ model for non-vehicle or monster units to shield the character. No lone grot blocking off shotting da boss!

Just to make sure if I get the wording right:

Lets say I'm a shooty unit. 10'' to my RIGHT there is a lone character I can see, 9'' to my LEFT there are some conscripts.
8th Edition says I cannot shoot the character, as he is not the closest visible unit.
"Look out sir" says I can, cause the lone character does not have a vehicle, monster or a unit with 3+ models nearby, correct?



And to build on that: same Situation, but this time, a tank stands 1'' BEHIND that character (so 11'' from me).
=> the character now has someone to "look out sir" in range. So I cannot shoot him, because he is not the closest visible model (that are the conscripts on my left). If I remove those conscripts I can shoot him again, because he becomes the closest enemy model, correct?

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Just to make sure if I get the wording right:

Lets say I'm a shooty unit. 10'' to my RIGHT there is a lone character I can see, 9'' to my LEFT there are some conscripts.
8th Edition says I cannot shoot the character, as he is not the closest visible unit.
"Look out sir" says I can, cause the lone character does not have a vehicle, monster or a unit with 3+ models nearby, correct?



And to build on that: same Situation, but this time, a tank stands 1'' BEHIND that character (so 11'' from me).
=> the character now has someone to "look out sir" in range. So I cannot shoot him, because he is not the closest visible model (that are the conscripts on my left). If I remove those conscripts I can shoot him again, because he becomes the closest enemy model, correct?

That's a solid yarp on both counts there cap'n.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
This is just another buff to gunline armies so I'm not a fan. It's already hard enough trying to screen your heroes from getting blown off the board before they can serve their purpose with some armies.

It might lean better for gunlines, but they still have consequences...and just wait until Fallback becomes a strat.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mixzremixzd wrote:
So just to make sure I'm not mixing things up.

If i have a character in the middle of my army let's say a Cryptek circled by Necron warriors and those Necron Warriors are shot and killed, or moved in such a way, that there is now a 6"+ radius between my Cryptek and the warriors, can the Cryptek be targeted by an enemy unit outside the ring of warriors (assuming there's still more than 3 warriors in the unit)?

Yes. Except that it's a 3" radius. If your character is in the middle of a gunline and your opponent blows everything up, leaving him standing in the middle of a crater on a little spike of land like a looney tune, they may then freely shoot that character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Court of Archon went from having a purpose to 100% no purpose.

And DJ's now must be near or in something, so sad.

Sslyth's are Bodyguards are they not? It isn't like there won't also be exceptions to the rules.

Their Bodyguard rule is, Roll a D6 each time a Archon loses a wound, on a 2+ this model takes the wound and suffers a MW.

If the Archon took 3 wounds you roll 3 dice. The problem if they can now be shot at b.c Court units are Single model units.

wait, so why is this bad then? You're saying it's bad because we might actually have to use the Cold Blooded Bodyguard rule?

Its bad b.c they can't get Look out Sir protection, meaning no one is going to take Court still b.c they are 100% terrible and they will just keep the Archon near Ravagers like they do now, b.c Archons are f ing trash this edition, their only purpose is the HQ slot and RR1's aura.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Just to make sure if I get the wording right:

Lets say I'm a shooty unit. 10'' to my RIGHT there is a lone character I can see, 9'' to my LEFT there are some conscripts.
8th Edition says I cannot shoot the character, as he is not the closest visible unit.
"Look out sir" says I can, cause the lone character does not have a vehicle, monster or a unit with 3+ models nearby, correct?



And to build on that: same Situation, but this time, a tank stands 1'' BEHIND that character (so 11'' from me).
=> the character now has someone to "look out sir" in range. So I cannot shoot him, because he is not the closest visible model (that are the conscripts on my left). If I remove those conscripts I can shoot him again, because he becomes the closest enemy model, correct?

That's a solid yarp on both counts there cap'n.

I don't think that's intended, but that is what the rule says. Expect a FAQ for clarification.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mixzremixzd wrote:
So just to make sure I'm not mixing things up.

If i have a character in the middle of my army let's say a Cryptek circled by Necron warriors and those Necron Warriors are shot and killed, or moved in such a way, that there is now a 6"+ radius between my Cryptek and the warriors, can the Cryptek be targeted by an enemy unit outside the ring of warriors (assuming there's still more than 3 warriors in the unit)?

Yes. Except that it's a 3" radius. If your character is in the middle of a gunline and your opponent blows everything up, leaving him standing in the middle of a crater on a little spike of land like a looney tune, they may then freely shoot that character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Court of Archon went from having a purpose to 100% no purpose.

And DJ's now must be near or in something, so sad.

Sslyth's are Bodyguards are they not? It isn't like there won't also be exceptions to the rules.

Their Bodyguard rule is, Roll a D6 each time a Archon loses a wound, on a 2+ this model takes the wound and suffers a MW.

If the Archon took 3 wounds you roll 3 dice. The problem if they can now be shot at b.c Court units are Single model units.

wait, so why is this bad then? You're saying it's bad because we might actually have to use the Cold Blooded Bodyguard rule?

Its bad b.c they can't get Look out Sir protection, meaning no one is going to take Court still b.c they are 100% terrible and they will just keep the Archon near Ravagers like they do now, b.c Archons are f ing trash this edition, their only purpose is the HQ slot and RR1's aura.

So basically, nothing really changed with Courts.

OK.

if I shake my fist at the sky with you, will that make you feel less sad? I will if it helps. us dark eldar players gotta stick together like that, like I get it.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Just to make sure if I get the wording right:

Lets say I'm a shooty unit. 10'' to my RIGHT there is a lone character I can see, 9'' to my LEFT there are some conscripts.
8th Edition says I cannot shoot the character, as he is not the closest visible unit.
"Look out sir" says I can, cause the lone character does not have a vehicle, monster or a unit with 3+ models nearby, correct?



And to build on that: same Situation, but this time, a tank stands 1'' BEHIND that character (so 11'' from me).
=> the character now has someone to "look out sir" in range. So I cannot shoot him, because he is not the closest visible model (that are the conscripts on my left). If I remove those conscripts I can shoot him again, because he becomes the closest enemy model, correct?

I think you could also opt to shoot the tank behind the character, killing it and reverting the scenario to the first one you proposed. A lone character with no models nearby.

 Amishprn86 wrote:


Its bad b.c they can't get Look out Sir protection, meaning no one is going to take Court still b.c they are 100% terrible and they will just keep the Archon near Ravagers like they do now, b.c Archons are f ing trash this edition, their only purpose is the HQ slot and RR1's aura.

If he's giving RR1s then surely something can be slightly closer? He has a 2++ so it isn't trivial to get wounds across. So once you clear the 2++ then you start having to go through the Sslyths and then you get to try and bring him down.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:


Its bad b.c they can't get Look out Sir protection, meaning no one is going to take Court still b.c they are 100% terrible and they will just keep the Archon near Ravagers like they do now, b.c Archons are f ing trash this edition, their only purpose is the HQ slot and RR1's aura.

If he's giving RR1s then surely something can be slightly closer? He has a 2++ so it isn't trivial to get wounds across. So once you clear the 2++ then you start having to go through the Sslyths and then you get to try and bring him down.

Right now he is only there to baby it 3 Ravagers. The problem is he should be able to up front helping the army. I'm upset b.c it pushes him even more into that "baby sit 3 ravagers" role. No one takes Court b.c they are doing nothing on the table, even if you take 1 Sslyth, its not going to protect the Archon, you are paying 27pts for an extra 3 wounds on a T3 5+ hero, woopydoo. And b.c its a single model unit with a 5+ save, they just shoot him first.


My point was, the court are bad, this just makes them even worst.. which is a shocker b.c I didn't know they could get worst.

Now if the Archon was a Melee beast again and the Court was a unit like Tyrant Guard and others, then i wouldn't have said anything.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Just to make sure if I get the wording right:

Lets say I'm a shooty unit. 10'' to my RIGHT there is a lone character I can see, 9'' to my LEFT there are some conscripts.
8th Edition says I cannot shoot the character, as he is not the closest visible unit.
"Look out sir" says I can, cause the lone character does not have a vehicle, monster or a unit with 3+ models nearby, correct?



And to build on that: same Situation, but this time, a tank stands 1'' BEHIND that character (so 11'' from me).
=> the character now has someone to "look out sir" in range. So I cannot shoot him, because he is not the closest visible model (that are the conscripts on my left). If I remove those conscripts I can shoot him again, because he becomes the closest enemy model, correct?

That's a solid yarp on both counts there cap'n.

I'd say no to the second as it says "unless the character is the closest unit". So if that tank is behind the character it still can't protect the character.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Just to make sure if I get the wording right:

Lets say I'm a shooty unit. 10'' to my RIGHT there is a lone character I can see, 9'' to my LEFT there are some conscripts.
8th Edition says I cannot shoot the character, as he is not the closest visible unit.
"Look out sir" says I can, cause the lone character does not have a vehicle, monster or a unit with 3+ models nearby, correct?



And to build on that: same Situation, but this time, a tank stands 1'' BEHIND that character (so 11'' from me).
=> the character now has someone to "look out sir" in range. So I cannot shoot him, because he is not the closest visible model (that are the conscripts on my left). If I remove those conscripts I can shoot him again, because he becomes the closest enemy model, correct?

That's a solid yarp on both counts there cap'n.

I'd say no to the second as it says "unless the character is the closest unit". So if that tank is behind the character it still can't protect the character.

The closest unit would be the conscripts, not the character.

Look out sir rule is really badly worded. As others have pointed out, RAW, you can trigger it even if your character is 3" in front of your shield, as long as there's some OTHER shield closer to the enemy, even if that shield is mile away from the character.

The charge rule is going to be an absolute disaster unless they remove the bit about only being able to fight things you charge. Heroic interventions will be abused hideously otherwise, resulting in situations where a charging unit is going to get hit by a whole unit's worth of attacks that it cannot possibly attack itself because charging that unit would be impossible or virtually impossible.

The character targeting rules are so clunky.

Hopefully they can smooth it over in 10th edition!

yukishiro1 wrote:
Look out sir rule is really badly worded. As others have pointed out, RAW, you can trigger it even if your character is 3" in front of your shield, as long as there's some OTHER shield closer to the enemy, even if that shield is mile away from the character.

The charge rule is going to be an absolute disaster unless they remove the bit about only being able to fight things you charge. Heroic interventions will be abused hideously otherwise, resulting in situations where a charging unit is going to get hit by a whole unit's worth of attacks that it cannot possibly attack itself because charging that unit would be impossible or virtually impossible.

It's similar to the IC rule.

I think it's still a net positive. And if you can just blow up the other unit, it's now targetable. It's still now VERY possible to interact with characters, as opposed to often now needing to wipe out the ENTIRE enemy army before non-snipers could shoot them.

Seems to me that it really ought to be 'a character is only targetable if it is not within 3" of any friendly unit, or is closer to the firing unit than all friendly units within 3" of the character'.

The rule as presented feels like an improvement but still has weird edge cases where you can hide in front of troops, so long as there's something closer to the firing unit than the character, even if it's off in a totally different direction.

 catbarf wrote:
Seems to me that it really ought to be 'a character is only targetable if it is not within 3" of any friendly unit, or is closer to the firing unit than all friendly units within 3" of the character'.

The rule as presented feels like an improvement but still has weird edge cases where you can hide in front of troops, so long as there's something closer to the firing unit than the character, even if it's off in a totally different direction.

Yeah, it produces even stranger results than the old rule. The old rule was at least easy to apply and internally consistent, now you'll have situations where in some cases a character can be protected by a unit 3" behind it as long as halfway across the board you've got something else that's slightly closer than the character...when the whole intent of the rule is not to let that happen.

I think it is easier to sum it up as:

Ways to target a character (work down from top to bottom):

1) Snipers
2) It is the closest to the firer.
3) It has no friends (monsters, vehicles, or units with 3+ models) within 3".


Moral of the story: don't let your Commissar try to do his best John Rambo unless he happens to be Catachan and rolls like that.

I think it is a substantial buff to character targeting, as now models in the COMPLETE opposite direction of the character can no longer shield it from fire.

If your army lacks snipers... at least now you can target the stuff around the character to make it vulnerable and dig it out. That's a HUGE buff over 8th edition's "guys to the right are 1/2 inch closer than the lone character on the left... guess we can't shoot him, sir."

Even if you don't manage to destroy each and every unit around that character, your opponent will have to react accordingly to protect his character now... as opposed to acting like nothing ever happened (which is more-or-less what happens in 8th with "Look over there, sir!").

Hot take:

Bring back Independent Character, and actually follow your own rules for USRs instead of having some work and some not working.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Look out sir rule is really badly worded. As others have pointed out, RAW, you can trigger it even if your character is 3" in front of your shield, as long as there's some OTHER shield closer to the enemy, even if that shield is mile away from the character.

The charge rule is going to be an absolute disaster unless they remove the bit about only being able to fight things you charge. Heroic interventions will be abused hideously otherwise, resulting in situations where a charging unit is going to get hit by a whole unit's worth of attacks that it cannot possibly attack itself because charging that unit would be impossible or virtually impossible.

I'm not reading it that same way as you at all. Am I wrong in my reading?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Look out sir rule is really badly worded. As others have pointed out, RAW, you can trigger it even if your character is 3" in front of your shield, as long as there's some OTHER shield closer to the enemy, even if that shield is mile away from the character.

The charge rule is going to be an absolute disaster unless they remove the bit about only being able to fight things you charge. Heroic interventions will be abused hideously otherwise, resulting in situations where a charging unit is going to get hit by a whole unit's worth of attacks that it cannot possibly attack itself because charging that unit would be impossible or virtually impossible.

I'm not reading it that same way as you at all. Am I wrong in my reading?

Which one, the charging thing or the Look Out Sir thing?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Look out sir rule is really badly worded. As others have pointed out, RAW, you can trigger it even if your character is 3" in front of your shield, as long as there's some OTHER shield closer to the enemy, even if that shield is mile away from the character.

The charge rule is going to be an absolute disaster unless they remove the bit about only being able to fight things you charge. Heroic interventions will be abused hideously otherwise, resulting in situations where a charging unit is going to get hit by a whole unit's worth of attacks that it cannot possibly attack itself because charging that unit would be impossible or virtually impossible.

I'm not reading it that same way as you at all. Am I wrong in my reading?

Which one, the charging thing or the Look Out Sir thing?

Look Out, Sir, sorry. Mentally working through it...

If a Sorcerer is behind Cultists - neener neener, can't shoot me.
If I have a Sorcerer in front of Cultists in my deployment then if there is some other non-character unit closer to a Basilisk then it can't shoot me - makes some sense - I have "guards" and it is difficult to distinguish from those guards.
If my Sorcerer is next to the Basilisk and the Cultists are behind and there are no other units - he sticks out like a sore thumb, blast him!
If my Sorcerer is next to the Basilisk and the Cultists are behind and there is another squad of cultists closer to the Basilisk than the Sorcerer (but not w/i 3" of the Sorcerer then they are the "bigger" threat - neener neener can't shoot me.

I love this new rule. The old 8th edition one was super gamey and stupid.

Regarding Archon I am just going to add that the unit is crap and isn't really doing anyone any favors at this point. They need to redesign them from the ground up.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I love this new rule. The old 8th edition one was super gamey and stupid.

Regarding Archon I am just going to add that the unit is crap and isn't really doing anyone any favors at this point. They need to redesign them from the ground up.

Same. I guess since I play Flayed Skull, my Archons are pretty much always in their boats until some close combat happens.

The new rule parses like this:

Clause 1 is true IFF the character is within 3" of a Vehicle, Monster, or model within 3".

Clause 2 is true IFF the character is not the closest visible enemy unit (excluding other characters).

A character is not targetable IFF Clause 1 AND Clause 2 are both true.

A daemon prince standing within 3" of another daemon prince behind nurglings 30" away is not targetable, for example, if the nurglings are closer to the enemy unit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The new rule parses like this:

Clause 1 is true IFF the character is within 3" of a Vehicle, Monster, or model within 3".

Clause 2 is true IFF the character is not the closest visible enemy unit (excluding other characters).

A character is not targetable IFF Clause 1 AND Clause 2 are both true.

A daemon prince standing within 3" of another daemon prince behind nurglings 30" away is not targetable, for example, if the nurglings are closer to the enemy unit.

If Clause 2 is True then it invalidates Clause 1.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The new rule parses like this:

Clause 1 is true IFF the character is within 3" of a Vehicle, Monster, or unit with more than 3 models within 3".

Clause 2 is true IFF the character is not the closest visible enemy unit (excluding other characters).

A character is not targetable IFF Clause 1 AND Clause 2 are both true.

A daemon prince standing within 3" of another daemon prince behind nurglings 30" away is not targetable, for example, if the nurglings are closer to the enemy unit.

If Clause 2 is True then it invalidates Clause 1.

Why? A unit can simultaneously be within 3" of a unit that is a vehicle, monster, or unit with more than three models while also not being the closest to the enemy unit. They are not mutually exclusive.

EDIT:
Why is "must be within 3" of [stuff]" mutually exclusive with "must not be closest to enemy"?

The character rules for 8th where a disaster. But I think this has gonne to far in the other direction.


I know people is very hyped without realizing the real implications of this. As other people said, unless you are a gunline the moment you end your first movement phase you'll have a ton of characters extremely vulnerable.

This will emphatize to people to blob to protect characters. Thats no bueno if we want a more movile edition.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Also confirmed - need to make it to all declared charge targets.

* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved.

So is it:

Models cannot target a unit that contains any CHARACTER models with a wounds characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon while ( that unit is within 3" of any friendly VEHICLE or MONSTER unit, ) or (while it is within 3" of any friendly units that have 3 or more models, unless that CHARACTER unit is both visible to the firing model and it is the closest enemy unit to the firing model. )

OR:

Models cannot target a unit that contains any CHARACTER models with a wounds characteristic of 9 or less with a ranged weapon while ( that unit is within 3" of any friendly VEHICLE or MONSTER unit, or while it is within 3" of any friendly units that have 3 or more models), ( unless that CHARACTER unit is both visible to the firing model and it is the closest enemy unit to the firing model.)

2 ways to parse it, each works slightly differently. (does the 'unless...' apply to both clauses, or just the second one.)

This rule punishes big infantry models, they become really bad at protecting characters.

Aggressor and Centurion aura blobs will really not like this.

Shurikens whizzed through the air as Creed gently pulled the cigar case out of his breast pocket. It wasn't Cadian mud that caked his boots, but it felt damn fine to be on the field once again.

Bent low beside the remnants of a singed Imperium Forticae wall, private Jenkins winced as he observed the non-chalant commander.

"Sir," Jenkins breathed in-between harrowing blasts of gunfire. "Is it wise to stand out in the open like that?"

Creed fumbled in his varied pockets as another burst of shuriken fire grazed his loose overcoat before he found the small silver canister he was looking for. As he pulled it out and flicked open the top, he finally acknowledged the men to his right and slightly forward of his position.

"You boys just stay right where you are," he nodded to the trio of concealed guardsmen. "I need a clear view of the battlefield to construct my strategy."

Jenkins was about to affirm the commander's order when the wall where the three men crouched alit like a brilliant sunrise. In a moment, wall and guardsmen were reduced to ash, without even a cry of alarm.

"Dammit," Creed mouthed as he pressed the lit end of the silver canister to his cigar and puckered until thick, fragrant smoke began to puff from his mouth.

He straightened, and with the curl of his fingers motioned to the nearby Leman Russ firing volleys into the distant xeno ranks. As the tank turned and rumbled in his direction, he sighed, glancing into enemy's distant but advancing ranks. "Probably should have had that next to me in the first place."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Why? A unit can simultaneously be within 3" of a unit that is a vehicle, monster, or unit with more than three models while also not being the closest to the enemy unit. They are not mutually exclusive.

EDIT:
Why is "must be within 3" of [stuff]" mutually exclusive with "must not be closest to enemy"?

Sorry not sure if I'm being clear or if we're talking past each other. I guess I don't understand the issues people are talking about. If the character is the closest visible unit then you can shoot it and the rest of the rule does not apply (i.e. clause 2 cancels clause 1 even if clause 1 is true).

It's closest to a NAND gate, I think?

IF A = 1, B = 1 THEN FALSE // Character is closest even though bodyguards are nearby
IF A = 1, B = 0 THEN TRUE // Character is not closest and has bodyguards
IF A = 0, B = 1 THEN TRUE // Character does not have bodyguards
IF A = 0, B = 0 THEN TRUE // Character is not closest, but also does not have bodyguards

edit: Derp! Rule is only fundamentally broken if the characters are vehicles and/or monsters.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Rule is a complete disaster. Now characters just have to hold hands with another buddy character and you're back to the 8th edition rule.

ONE character standing out in the open can be shot, TWO cannot be as long as somewhere on the board there's a closer unit.

GG GW, you really nailed this one!

Wow, you went to two different threads to be wrong in the same way.

I know, right! Mark it down on your calendar.

This is a cool rule and can open up some interesting choices for players.

Also, no more sitting on objectives with a lone Maugan Ra or something, as a Thunderfire will be free to pick him off.

Yeah, but it also encourages people to castle up even more, like almost all of the rules revealed so far.

The way to nerf herohammer wasn't to force everybody to play castlehammer instead.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, but it also encourages people to castle up even more, like almost all of the rules revealed so far.

The way to nerf herohammer wasn't to force everybody to play castlehammer instead.

That's gonna work only with highly mobile castles...of which I can think of maybe one.

Standard gunlines "Let's hug the Cap' while we stand here all game and shoot" cannot work with the new map dimensions and terrain rules.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, but it also encourages people to castle up even more, like almost all of the rules revealed so far.

The way to nerf herohammer wasn't to force everybody to play castlehammer instead.

If the missions are more about board control you're going to have to split your forces more than before though, as you can't just send an invulnerable character on its own to go hold something.

They forgot to remove the 9 wounds limit...

Why removing that? Do you really want a Titan warlord to be screened by a sentinel?

This promotes good positioning to protect characters as well as target priority to clear out intervening units so you can target your opponent's characters. I like it.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, but it also encourages people to castle up even more, like almost all of the rules revealed so far.

The way to nerf herohammer wasn't to force everybody to play castlehammer instead.

Let them castle up. The Eighth Legion loves it when our enemies gather in a large group. Makes for better charnel houses. It's not like we're going to let that chapter master do anything anyway.

Spoletta wrote:
Why removing that? Do you really want a Titan warlord to be screened by a sentinel?

Do they have the CHARACTER keyword ?

Knights can. I don't want a Knight being screened by a couple guardsmen.

 Stormonu wrote:
Shurikens whizzed through the air as Creed gently pulled the cigar case out of his breast pocket. It wasn't Cadian mud that caked his boots, but it felt damn fine to be on the field once again.

Bent low beside the remnants of a singed Imperium Forticae wall, private Jenkins winced as he observed the non-chalant commander.

"Sir," Jenkins breathed in-between harrowing blasts of gunfire. "Is it wise to stand out in the open like that?"

Creed fumbled in his varied pockets as another burst of shuriken fire grazed his loose overcoat before he found the small silver canister he was looking for. As he pulled it out and flicked open the top, he finally acknowledged the men to his right and slightly forward of his position.

"You boys just stay right where you are," he nodded to the trio of concealed guardsmen. "I need a clear view of the battlefield to construct my strategy."

Jenkins was about to affirm the commander's order when the wall where the three men crouched alit like a brilliant sunrise. In a moment, wall and guardsmen were reduced to ash, without even a cry of alarm.

"Dammit," Creed mouthed as he pressed the lit end of the silver canister to his cigar and puckered until thick, fragrant smoke began to puff from his mouth.

He straightened, and with the curl of his fingers motioned to the nearby Leman Russ firing volleys into the distant xeno ranks. As the tank turned and rumbled in his direction, he sighed, glancing into enemy's distant but advancing ranks. "Probably should have had that next to me in the first place."

To be fair this happened in 8th as well.

Or, as the narrative goes.

The Daemon Prince smiled at this cunning as he stood in the open plains viewing the enemy rolling in across the hill. He felt invincible. He looked at a lone shed in the hill close to the battleline, and could not help but laugh at his genius. With the ultra hearing blessed to him by Slaanesh themselves he could hear a lone cultist breathing erratically in the shed. All the guns of the Imperium aimed wildly through the air, but none could target the daemon. The daemon could hear the Imperium's dogs curse and his laughter became a hideous scream of joy..

Seems like a good change to me.

Probably a slight favour for shooting gunlines etc - but the situation where you couldn't shoot say a Smash Captain/Daemon Prince whatever on one side of the table, because there was a rhino or something half an inch closer (but still miles away) *on the other side of the table*, was a bit daft.

With that said I can see the argument that that a Basilisk (or Hive Guard etc) will be able to nuke a character from space if ever not within 3" of something. In practice... you'll just need to keep them in 3" of something. Might be a bit of a cultural change but I'm not sure its that ruinous. If my 3 ravagers are dead, do I really care if you want to shoot my Archon?

It is going to come up a lot with indirect fire. It's just yet another change in 9th edition that makes indirect fire even more ridiculously overpowered than it was in 8th edition.

Glad the rule is in place, but Jesus christ, it’s written in such an inelegant manner. Did none of the developers just stop and think ‘this should be broken up into bullet points, rather than one big fat verbose paragraph’?

At least they remembered to put periods in it this time.

nemesis464 wrote:
Glad the rule is in place, but Jesus christ, it’s written in such an inelegant manner. Did none of the developers just stop and think ‘this should be broken up into bullet points, rather than one big fat verbose paragraph’?

My generous assumption is that they did and then they got thwacked by an editor for "wasting page space". Happens more than you'd think. >.>

 Arachnofiend wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:
Glad the rule is in place, but Jesus christ, it’s written in such an inelegant manner. Did none of the developers just stop and think ‘this should be broken up into bullet points, rather than one big fat verbose paragraph’?

My generous assumption is that they did and then they got thwacked by an editor for "wasting page space". Happens more than you'd think. >.>

Then why not to write simple and understandable rules instead of tortured sentences :/
Sometimes those rules explanation have the same feel as lore telling

If I'm reading this right then you can avoid ever having your character shot by making a ring out of a unit and putting it inside right? It would never be the closest target.

 Hellebore wrote:
If I'm reading this right then you can avoid ever having your character shot by making a ring out of a unit and putting it inside right? It would never be the closest target.

That is how it works now anyway. Good luck moving though unless you can FLY with the Character.

Also, this image sums up the stupidity of this new rule.

Through the power of FRIENDSHIP and DISGUSTING HAND HOLDING, my pair of Slaanesh Daemon Princes become immortal, while my poor Khorne Daemon Prince gets shot to oblivion.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:
Glad the rule is in place, but Jesus christ, it’s written in such an inelegant manner. Did none of the developers just stop and think ‘this should be broken up into bullet points, rather than one big fat verbose paragraph’?

My generous assumption is that they did and then they got thwacked by an editor for "wasting page space". Happens more than you'd think. >.>

Actually they have been doing that and just didn't for this one for some reason.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
If I'm reading this right then you can avoid ever having your character shot by making a ring out of a unit and putting it inside right? It would never be the closest target.

That is how it works now anyway. Good luck moving though unless you can FLY with the Character.

Also, this image sums up the stupidity of this new rule.

Through the power of FRIENDSHIP and DISGUSTING HAND HOLDING, my pair of Slaanesh Daemon Princes become immortal, while my poor Khorne Daemon Prince gets shot to oblivion.

Spoiler:

Uh, if DP1 is closest it can be targeted. DP3 can also be targeted. DP2 can also be targeted, because you ignore other W9 characters for determining who is closest.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Uh, if DP1 is closest it can be targeted. DP3 can also be targeted. DP2 can also be targeted, because you ignore other W9 characters for determining who is closest.

DP1 is within 3" of a MONSTER, so it can't be targeted unless it is the closest. The Infantry are closer. Thus, it cannot be targeted.

DP3 can be targeted, even if it isn't the closest, because it's not within 3" of a MONSTER, VEHICLE, or 3+ size unit.

Read the final line of Look Out, Sir! carefully, it only applies to the "closest" clause. If the CHARACTER is within 3" of a blocking unit, and NOT the closest unit, you can't be shot at.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Uh, if DP1 is closest it can be targeted. DP3 can also be targeted. DP2 can also be targeted, because you ignore other W9 characters for determining who is closest.

DP1 is within 3" of a MONSTER, so it can't be targeted unless it is the closest. The Infantry are closer.

DP3 can be targeted, even if it isn't the closest, because it's not within 3" of a MONSTER, VEHICLE, or 3+ size unit.

Read the final line of Look Out, Sir! carefully, it only applies to the "closest" clause. If the CHARACTER is within 3" of a blocking unit, and NOT the closest unit, you can't be shot at.

Oh I see - I thought the infantry were shooting the DPs. I see no problem with this. This scenario is not very different than current rules. Now you just have to kill three of those models and you get access to all the DPs (instead of just #3).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Uh, if DP1 is closest it can be targeted. DP3 can also be targeted. DP2 can also be targeted, because you ignore other W9 characters for determining who is closest.

DP1 is within 3" of a MONSTER, so it can't be targeted unless it is the closest. The Infantry are closer.

DP3 can be targeted, even if it isn't the closest, because it's not within 3" of a MONSTER, VEHICLE, or 3+ size unit.

Read the final line of Look Out, Sir! carefully, it only applies to the "closest" clause. If the CHARACTER is within 3" of a blocking unit, and NOT the closest unit, you can't be shot at.

Oh I see - I thought the infantry were shooting the DPs. I see no problem with this. This scenario is not very different than current rules. Now you just have to kill three of those models and you get access to all the DPs (instead of just #3).

No, you don't, you need to kill all 4 of the intervening infantry, because otherwise DP1 and DP2 are not the closest units. If you kill all 4 of the Green Infantry, then yes, DP1 and DP2 can be shot because the "unless it is closest" clause kicks in and overrides the 3" bubble of protection.

But it makes no sense that by holding hands the DP become unable to be shot at but a DP on it's own can be shot.

Would there be any issues with just ignoring other characters for targeting rules entirely? I assume the point of contention here is that the daemon princes are protecting each other, and if one of them was a helbrute instead nobody would mind the rules working like that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, you don't, you need to kill all 4 of the intervening infantry, because otherwise DP1 and DP2 are not the closest units. If you kill all 4 of the Green Infantry, then yes, DP1 and DP2 can be shot because the "unless it is closest" clause kicks in and overrides the 3" bubble of protection.

Gotcha. Yea, still not particularly concerned. I'm not sure i'll ever get the chance to see the wonder-twin DPs in action.

Siegfriedfr wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Why removing that? Do you really want a Titan warlord to be screened by a sentinel?

Do they have the CHARACTER keyword ?

Leman Russ Tank Commanders do.
Do you want to deal with an untargetable Leman Russ? The character dreadnought is bad enough because there's few ways to engage a character and even fewer that can wound a vehicle profile.

If anything, the wound threshold should be lowered. Do you mean to tell me that it should be hard to pick out Guilliman or St. Celestine from among the army, when they're either the size of a small vehicle or a flying angel?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

If anything, the wound threshold should be lowered. Do you mean to tell me that it should be hard to pick out Guilliman or St. Celestine from among the army, when they're either the size of a small vehicle or a flying angel?

With all the bullets flying, smoke, explosions, and intervening enemies...maybe?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, you don't, you need to kill all 4 of the intervening infantry, because otherwise DP1 and DP2 are not the closest units. If you kill all 4 of the Green Infantry, then yes, DP1 and DP2 can be shot because the "unless it is closest" clause kicks in and overrides the 3" bubble of protection.

Gotcha. Yea, still not particularly concerned. I'm not sure i'll ever get the chance to see the wonder-twin DPs in action.

Maybe not, but wonder-twin or even triplet Chaplain Dreads will likely be a thing.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Why removing that? Do you really want a Titan warlord to be screened by a sentinel?

Do they have the CHARACTER keyword ?

Leman Russ Tank Commanders do.
Do you want to deal with an untargetable Leman Russ? The character dreadnought is bad enough because there's few ways to engage a character and even fewer that can wound a vehicle profile.

If anything, the wound threshold should be lowered. Do you mean to tell me that it should be hard to pick out Guilliman or St. Celestine from among the army, when they're either the size of a small vehicle or a flying angel?

Yeah, it's silly. Dreadnoughts especially. A Bjorn can somehow be screened by Scouts but a Venerable Dreadnought can't?

dode74 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, you don't, you need to kill all 4 of the intervening infantry, because otherwise DP1 and DP2 are not the closest units. If you kill all 4 of the Green Infantry, then yes, DP1 and DP2 can be shot because the "unless it is closest" clause kicks in and overrides the 3" bubble of protection.

Gotcha. Yea, still not particularly concerned. I'm not sure i'll ever get the chance to see the wonder-twin DPs in action.

Maybe not, but wonder-twin or even triplet Chaplain Dreads will likely be a thing.

I doubt the new CP setup will support 3 Chappies. Nor do I imagine their points or rules will go untouched.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

dode74 wrote:
Maybe not, but wonder-twin or even triplet Chaplain Dreads will likely be a thing.

I doubt the new CP setup will support 3 Chappies. Nor do I imagine their points or rules will go untouched.

Maybe not. But there is a potential loophole there which will be exploited if it's not closed in some manner.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Why removing that? Do you really want a Titan warlord to be screened by a sentinel?

Do they have the CHARACTER keyword ?

Leman Russ Tank Commanders do.
Do you want to deal with an untargetable Leman Russ? The character dreadnought is bad enough because there's few ways to engage a character and even fewer that can wound a vehicle profile.

If anything, the wound threshold should be lowered. Do you mean to tell me that it should be hard to pick out Guilliman or St. Celestine from among the army, when they're either the size of a small vehicle or a flying angel?

Yeah, it's silly. Dreadnoughts especially. A Bjorn can somehow be screened by Scouts but a Venerable Dreadnought can't?

Depends... how many wounds does Bjorn have?

dode74 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

dode74 wrote:
Maybe not, but wonder-twin or even triplet Chaplain Dreads will likely be a thing.

I doubt the new CP setup will support 3 Chappies. Nor do I imagine their points or rules will go untouched.

Maybe not. But there is a potential loophole there which will be exploited if it's not closed in some manner.

Yea, if it becomes a problem it'll be fixed with the Fall FAQ or w/e schedule they keep for that. Just have to keep our eyes open for it.

hmmm, Its almost as if they should have just brought back Independent Character rules and had characters join units. No, that would have solved too many issues. What was I thinking?...

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
hmmm, Its almost as if they should have just brought back Independent Character rules and had characters join units. No, that would have solved too many issues. What was I thinking?...

No thanks. That was the rule that created death stars.

Wakshaani wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Why removing that? Do you really want a Titan warlord to be screened by a sentinel?

Do they have the CHARACTER keyword ?

Leman Russ Tank Commanders do.
Do you want to deal with an untargetable Leman Russ? The character dreadnought is bad enough because there's few ways to engage a character and even fewer that can wound a vehicle profile.

If anything, the wound threshold should be lowered. Do you mean to tell me that it should be hard to pick out Guilliman or St. Celestine from among the army, when they're either the size of a small vehicle or a flying angel?

Yeah, it's silly. Dreadnoughts especially. A Bjorn can somehow be screened by Scouts but a Venerable Dreadnought can't?

Depends... how many wounds does Bjorn have?

The same as a Venerable Dreadnought, 8.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
hmmm, Its almost as if they should have just brought back Independent Character rules and had characters join units. No, that would have solved too many issues. What was I thinking?...

No thanks. That was the rule that created death stars.

Only to be replaced with blobstars and conga lines.

Pancakey wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
hmmm, Its almost as if they should have just brought back Independent Character rules and had characters join units. No, that would have solved too many issues. What was I thinking?...

No thanks. That was the rule that created death stars.

Only to be replaced with blobstars and conga lines.

Which has been far more reasonable than the days of 7th.

Hmm...

So a Vindicare Assassin sitting alone, perched high on a tower, can be targeted by anyone?

Seems legit.

No thanks. That was the rule that created death stars.

Are you joking? Now you have ENTIRE ARMIES worth of rerolls instead of a unit. It's insane how you can make that point and not realize how much worse this last edition has been about buffing units.

Which has been far more reasonable than the days of 7th.

In absolutely no world is it better.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hmm...

So a Vindicare Assassin sitting along, perched high on a tower, can be targeted by anyone?

Seems legit.

Yeah, it's incredibly stupid when applied to lone characters like death jesters, solitaires, assassins, etc.

So stupid it again makes you hope that they are smart enough no to apply it to those characters. You could have a keyword that restores the old "can't be shot unless you are the closest" for a small number of characters that merit it because their whole schtick is being loners.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hmm...

So a Vindicare Assassin sitting along, perched high on a tower, can be targeted by anyone?

Seems legit.

Maybe he should? Or he gets a special rule. It's almost like hunting for these little exceptions is a hobby to some people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

No thanks. That was the rule that created death stars.

Are you joking? Now you have ENTIRE ARMIES worth of rerolls instead of a unit. It's insane how you can make that point and not realize how much worse this last edition has been about buffing units.

Which has been far more reasonable than the days of 7th.

In absolutely no world is it better.

I think you've got some nice rose colored glasses, but feel free to make a poll and we can see how many people would want to go back to 7th.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's almost like hunting for these little exceptions is a hobby to some people.

For some of us it's been an actual paying job. My brain is wired to find issues like this.

but feel free to make a poll and we can see how many people would want to go back to 7th

Doesn't matter how many people want to go back to that system. They threw out the baby with the bathwater. You can't just point to 7th and say it was all bad when it wasn't. 8th is just as bad, just in the opposite direction. There were plenty of good things about 7th. USR's, Independent Character rules and Morale are all examples of better rules than 8th has.

You would rather have completely needless and immersion breaking targeting restrictions than to just let characters join units? You know Invisibility doesn't exist anymore like it did. And it's not like entire eldar armies this edition didn't have functionally the same ability, just you know, on an army wide scale.

Furthermore, characters joining units doesn't equal death stars. GW not understanding how their special rules interact with each other including stacking bonuses leads to deathstars.

"It's almost like hunting for these little exceptions is a hobby to some people."

That is 40K in a nutshell. There is almost no system easier to rules lawyer.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's almost like hunting for these little exceptions is a hobby to some people.

For some of us it's been an actual paying job. My brain is wired to find issues like this.

I audit medical records ATM. I find issues no matter what I do. Comes with that territory I suppose.

Also there's tons more exceptions. I mean, ANY of the Assassins, Solitaires and Death Jesters, etc.

The forgeworld Avatar of Khaine expertly hiding behind a unit of scouts...

He can already do that in 8th.

Though in 9th, he can pull off the daemon prince superfriends thing with the Yncarne, if you take them in different detachments. Khaine and Ynnead sitting in a tree...

Oh I know, it's just slightly incongruous that a statue of living magma roughly twenty feet tall is somehow hard to get a clean shot on!

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

but feel free to make a poll and we can see how many people would want to go back to 7th

Doesn't matter how many people want to go back to that system. They threw out the baby with the bathwater. You can't just point to 7th and say it was all bad when it wasn't. 8th is just as bad, just in the opposite direction. There were plenty of good things about 7th. USR's, Independent Character rules and Morale are all examples of better rules than 8th has.

You would rather have completely needless and immersion breaking targeting restrictions than to just let characters join units? You know Invisibility doesn't exist anymore like it did. And it's not like entire eldar armies this edition didn't have functionally the same ability, just you know, on an army wide scale.

Furthermore, characters joining units doesn't equal death stars. GW not understanding how their special rules interact with each other including stacking bonuses leads to deathstars.

Your assessments, I find, are revisionist both ways. I will never miss the USRs of 7th, either.

I dont find it immersion breaking at all unless you think edge cases rule the roost?

Just claiming that characters joining units would be fine without actually assessing such interactions? Not sure on that, but I guess Abaddon, Syll’Esske, and whatever else all simultaneously catching warp time, prescience, cloud of flies, and so on while hanging amongst 30 man blobs of fearless cultists would have no consequences at all...

Your assessments, I find, are revisionist both ways. I will never miss the USRs of 7th, either.

I dont find it immersion breaking at all unless you think edge cases rule the roost?

Just claiming that characters joining units would be fine without actually assessing such interactions? Not sure on that, but I guess Abaddon, Syll’Esske, and whatever else all simultaneously catching warp time, prescience, cloud of flies, and so on while hanging amongst 30 man blobs of fearless cultists would have no consequences at all...

Well that doesn't make sense. USR's are the only reasonable and responsible way to organize a game.

It definitely would have consequences. Which is why the game should be rewritten completely from the ground up because 8th was a terribly written game. Auras need to go. They are absolutely garbage.

Sure seems like 9th is adding in a lot of special rules that some might call... universal.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
USR's are the only reasonable and responsible way to organize a game.

Whereas on the contrary, I vastly prefer having all a unit's abilities written explicitly on it's own unique datasheet. It's why in casual games, I often don't play with subfaction rules or army-wide abilities, because they're not on the core datasheets.

8th was a terribly written game.

And I disagree. Core 8th was fine by me. I wasn't so keen on all the subfaction abilities, unique faction rules, and other such minutia, but the actual core 8th rules I enjoy.

Auras need to go. They are absolutely garbage.

Whereas I like auras. I like my Captains to be more than just a glorified duellist. I want them to have a direct effect on the men under their command.

Sure seems like 9th is adding in a lot of special rules that some might call... universal.

I mean, maybe?

The whole thing needs to be codified. not just snippets.

Whereas on the contrary, I vastly prefer having all a unit's abilities written explicitly on it's own unique datasheet. It's why in casual games, I often don't play with subfaction rules or army-wide abilities, because they're not on the core datasheets.

Again, this is not an argument against USR's. They can be written on a datasheet as well. There are no downsides to having USRs.

Whereas I like auras. I like my Captains to be more than just a glorified duellist. I want them to have a direct effect on the men under their command.

And thats fine. They should be able to affect a single unit within a specified range. Not a 3rd of an army.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
USR's are the only reasonable and responsible way to organize a game.

Whereas on the contrary, I vastly prefer having all a unit's abilities written explicitly on it's own unique datasheet. It's why in casual games, I often don't play with subfaction rules or army-wide abilities, because they're not on the core datasheets.

These things are not mutually exclusive.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Auras need to go. They are absolutely garbage.

Whereas I like auras. I like my Captains to be more than just a glorified duellist. I want them to have a direct effect on the men under their command.

Auras are a very obnoxious way to represent that. Imo the better way to do captains is the old table-wide Rites of Battle that just pumped everyones Ld, back when Ld meant more. Something more like that where it's not encouraging the bubblehuddle. Or just give Captain models the ability to generate CPs or something, limiting it so that captain spam doesn't generate more than 1CP or whatever. The dudes-shoot-better-near-me thing is wierd.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Whereas on the contrary, I vastly prefer having all a unit's abilities written explicitly on it's own unique datasheet. It's why in casual games, I often don't play with subfaction rules or army-wide abilities, because they're not on the core datasheets.

Again, this is not an argument against USR's. They can be written on a datasheet as well. There are no downsides to having USRs.

No, I mean writing the entire rule on it, not needing to cross-reference. Plus, I quite like more bespoke rules that are written only to function for that unit.

Whereas I like auras. I like my Captains to be more than just a glorified duellist. I want them to have a direct effect on the men under their command.

And thats fine. They should be able to affect a single unit within a specified range. Not a 3rd of an army.

A 6" aura doesn't affect a third of your army unless you position a third of your army around one place. At that point, they've committed to positioning their army in that place - I think that's worth getting an aura effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Auras need to go. They are absolutely garbage.

Whereas I like auras. I like my Captains to be more than just a glorified duellist. I want them to have a direct effect on the men under their command.

Auras are a very obnoxious way to represent that. Imo the better way to do captains is the old table-wide Rites of Battle that just pumped everyones Ld, back when Ld meant more.

I can't really ever remember a time where I ever cared about Leadership stats.

Something more like that where it's not encouraging the bubblehuddle. Or just give Captain models the ability to generate CPs or something, limiting it so that captain spam doesn't generate more than 1CP or whatever. The dudes-shoot-better-near-me thing is wierd.

Now, generating extra CPs, I can get behind, but I'd also very much want that "direct command" experience too.

In my personal opinion, Kill Team does it well - the Kill Team's leader always generates a Command Point while alive, and more advanced Leaders can also pick up aura effects. Basically, I don't agree with "all auras are bad and terrible game design".

No, I mean writing the entire rule on it, not needing to cross-reference. Plus, I quite like more bespoke rules that are written only to function for that unit.

But we now need to cross reference things more than ever because everything interacts differently with each other. Whereas USR's will always interact in the same manor because they are all codified properly. So you cross reference once, maybe a couple times if you forget and now you've learned the rule. You need to check constantly with the bespoke rules because everything is different, it takes far more time to memorize and makes it far more difficult to build off of an existing structure of rules without running into inconsistencies with another rule.

It's like constructing a building. Would you want all of your workers using different scaled measuring tapes or would you want the using the same consistent measurement? It's the same thing that applies here. Keep everything consistent.

A 6" aura doesn't affect a third of your army unless you position a third of your army around one place. At that point, they've committed to positioning their army in that place - I think that's worth getting an aura effect.

disagree, it incentivizes gunlines (the worst) and slows the game down with it's re-rolls.

like, why are we re-rolling absolutely everything? Is this a game of chance or not? That combined with IGOUGO and bespoke rules that need to be checked literally every 2 min to see what a special snowflake rule does, were looking at a good 20 min downtimes where I can mentally check out while my friend rolls some dice at me. Cool. Good Game I guess?

I don't think they're all bad, but the emphasis of them for Space Marine play feels very wrong. Elite troops ought to be able to perform reasonably on their own.

The Ld thing is for editions past, where morale meant more and was harder to ignore, and for freely being able to choose what units could shoot at, which required an Ld test.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Your assessments, I find, are revisionist both ways. I will never miss the USRs of 7th, either.

I dont find it immersion breaking at all unless you think edge cases rule the roost?

Just claiming that characters joining units would be fine without actually assessing such interactions? Not sure on that, but I guess Abaddon, Syll’Esske, and whatever else all simultaneously catching warp time, prescience, cloud of flies, and so on while hanging amongst 30 man blobs of fearless cultists would have no consequences at all...

Well that doesn't make sense. USR's are the only reasonable and responsible way to organize a game.

It definitely would have consequences. Which is why the game should be rewritten completely from the ground up because 8th was a terribly written game. Auras need to go. They are absolutely garbage.

That's just kind of rank hyperbole.

Let's go check out the Heldrake of 7th edition.

Here it is!


But wait that isn't the full profile - ah, more on page 52!


But what are Daemon, Daemonforge, and It Will Not Die? Those are on another page. Ok, well what does the Hades Autocannon do?

Ahh. Pinning! Wait I forgot what that does. Scratch that. Let'ts take the Baleflamer. Effin'...Torrent and Soulblaze?! Well, surely I can reference the page numbers...nope...those are in a different rule book.

It isn't USRs that solve problems. And GW uses USRs, still. It's well written and organized rules. I get that you guys don't like the variety that Warhammer has, but that is part of the draw of the system for a lot of people. Your Deepstrike might have a different name, but we all instinctively know what that means and have access to the rule immediately - pretending otherwise is just being disingenuous.

And even if you wanted to "rebuild the whole thing" - Warptime is not an aura. Prescience is not an aura. None of the deathstar effects of 7th were auras, either. You just have a scape goat that you like to use for why you don't like 8th to keep you from needing to look any deeper at the issues.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

like, why are we re-rolling absolutely everything? Is this a game of chance or not? That combined with IGOUGO and bespoke rules that need to be checked literally every 2 min to see what a special snowflake rule does, were looking at a good 20 min downtimes where I can mentally check out while my friend rolls some dice at me. Cool. Good Game I guess?

100% this, one of the reasons I stopped playing 8th and moved onto other systems for now.

When my 10 man unit of Death Company can roll roughly 50 dice to attack, reroll to hit, roll to wound, reroll 1's to wound... And than have the survivors do it again at the end of the fight phase, it is just silly to end up rolling/rerolling 100+ dice for ANYTHING in 40k.

I am tired of rolling that many dice in a game. So many other games can achieve just as much with their combat systems (often more) with fewer dice.

That's just kind of rank hyperbole.

Let's go check out the Heldrake of 7th edition.

Here it is!
Spoiler:


But wait that isn't the full profile - ah, more on page 52!
Spoiler:


But what are Daemon, Daemonforge, and It Will Not Die? Those are on another page. Ok, well what does the Hades Autocannon do?
Spoiler:

Ahh. Pinning! Wait I forgot what that does. Scratch that. Let'ts take the Baleflamer. Effin'...Torrent and Soulblaze?! Well, surely I can reference the page numbers...nope...those are in a different rule book.

It isn't USRs that solve problems. And GW uses USRs, still. It's well written and organized rules. I get that you guys don't like the variety that Warhammer has, but that is part of the draw of the system for a lot of people. Your Deepstrike might have a different name, but we all instinctively know what that means and have access to the rule immediately - pretending otherwise is just being disingenuous.

And even if you wanted to "rebuild the whole thing" - Warptime is not an aura. Prescience is not an aura. None of the deathstar effects of 7th were auras, either. You just have a scape goat that you like to use for why you don't like 8th to keep you from needing to look any deeper at the issues.

What does any of that have to do with proper USR organization? GW couldn't organize a 2 car parade. Sure, reference pages and showing the rule on the datasheet are all well and good. GW didn't do USR's correctly in 7th edition either, leading to people like you to falsely believe that USRs are bad. They aren't. They are literally the only proper way to organize a game.

8th is not well written or organized in any way shape or form. Have you seen the main rulebook? Deepstrike, is Deepstrike, is Deepstrike. Why have a different name and different rule. You say you all instinctively know what the rule means. then why have different rules for it?

I don't at all dislike variety. But I love organization and consistency. Both of which GW is severely lacking.

You know full well that Death Stars just expanded to literally the whole army with the implementation of Auras. And yet you condemn Death Stars because they were relegated to a single unit? That's disingenuous. So you are completely fine with entire armies re-rolling literally everthing, but casting prescience on a unit that contains a character is your hill to die on?

Common man, think about what you are saying. None of this makes sense.

Because you're way overstating auras. Warptime on multiple daemon prince level characters is STRONG not to mention all the other force multipliers available.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[That's just kind of rank hyperbole.

Let's go check out the Heldrake of 7th edition.

Here it is!

Spoiler:

But wait that isn't the full profile - ah, more on page 52!

Spoiler:

But what are Daemon, Daemonforge, and It Will Not Die? Those are on another page. Ok, well what does the Hades Autocannon do?

Spoiler:

Ahh. Pinning! Wait I forgot what that does. Scratch that. Let'ts take the Baleflamer. Effin'...Torrent and Soulblaze?! Well, surely I can reference the page numbers...nope...those are in a different rule book.

It isn't USRs that solve problems. And GW uses USRs, still. It's well written and organized rules. I get that you guys don't like the variety that Warhammer has, but that is part of the draw of the system for a lot of people. Your Deepstrike might have a different name, but we all instinctively know what that means and have access to the rule immediately - pretending otherwise is just being disingenuous.

And even if you wanted to "rebuild the whole thing" - Warptime is not an aura. Prescience is not an aura. None of the deathstar effects of 7th were auras, either. You just have a scape goat that you like to use for why you don't like 8th to keep you from needing to look any deeper at the issues.

Part of that layout was made to stop any idiot with a camera leafing through a codex and taking pictures of the rules for the units they were planning to buy. Also, once you know what Daemonforged, Daemon, and IWND do you never need to look at that page again, you'll see it on a unit's entry.

I can't even imagine how Magic the Gathering would look if we ditched keywords like Trample, Fly, Hexproof, and went back to the old days when having a single basic effect took up half a card's text box... We'd end up with YGO cards where you get a small novel's worth of 4-point text to explain a very simple interaction.

Brutus_Apex wrote:But we now need to cross reference things more than ever because everything interacts differently with each other.

I don't have to cross reference anything for what's right there on the datasheet. Regarding chapter tactics and such? Yeah, that takes cross-referencing (which I'm not over keen on, and would be happy to play without any kind of faction traits), but I don't need to cross reference for things like Disgustingly Resilient. I apply it on a case-by-case basis as and when I see it, without needing to flip back and see what that rule means.

Whereas USR's will always interact in the same manor because they are all codified properly.

And? What's so hard about reading the datasheet of the unit you're already using, and most likely referencing?

So you cross reference once, maybe a couple times if you forget and now you've learned the rule.

You read the rule in your army, and remember it for the future. If you don't, you only have to pull up the datasheet of the unit you're already fielding, so should have on hand anyway.

You need to check constantly with the bespoke rules because everything is different, it takes far more time to memorize and makes it far more difficult to build off of an existing structure of rules without running into inconsistencies with another rule.

But you *should* be checking with datasheets, so that you know you're being correct. It's not hard to have the datasheet for the unit you're already attacking with on hand. And memorisation will also come into effect.

It's like constructing a building. Would you want all of your workers using different scaled measuring tapes or would you want the using the same consistent measurement? It's the same thing that applies here. Keep everything consistent.

By that same logic, do I want all my workers using exactly the same tool for every job, because having bespoke, tailored equipment is too hard to learn, and they might not be able to remember the difference between a coping saw and a hack saw?

disagree, it incentivizes gunlines (the worst) and slows the game down with it's re-rolls.

I didn't say auras had to be rerolls. I'm talking about the concept of auras overall - they could be anything from +1 Ld, +1 BS, always striking first, gaining a certain keyword, etc etc.

like, why are we re-rolling absolutely everything? Is this a game of chance or not? That combined with IGOUGO and bespoke rules that need to be checked literally every 2 min to see what a special snowflake rule does, were looking at a good 20 min downtimes where I can mentally check out while my friend rolls some dice at me. Cool. Good Game I guess?

Well, I enjoy that mental checkout. We chat, we drink, we plan ahead. I don't *need* constant back and forth. I have Kill Team for that.

Yeah, that's just my own opinion and preferences, but they're as valid as yours.

Brutus_Apex wrote:They are literally the only proper way to organize a game.

I mean, patently untrue, as Kill Team doesn't use USRs, and it's a perfectly fine game in my opinion.

Again - stop it with this "the only proper way to play" BS. That's your opinion. It's not objective, it's not fact.

Deepstrike, is Deepstrike, is Deepstrike. Why have a different name and different rule. You say you all instinctively know what the rule means. then why have different rules for it?

If it's so easy to know what it is, why not keep it as is? Let players make their own connections. They'll quickly understand similar effects - but if those effects involve extra nuances, they can be applied in a bespoke manner.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Because you're way overstating auras. Warptime on multiple daemon prince level characters is STRONG not to mention all the other force multipliers available.

It's a good thing that DPs usually ended up as monstrous creatures and unable to join units with the IC rule then, isn't it?

Also, why are you only looking at 7th edition when it comes to the rules layout and USRs? Look at older editions of the game like 3rd or 5th edition and you'll see a very different less bloated game that had fewer stacking buffs and other proper absurdities. That said, there were a few particularly nasty lists that did need nerfs.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Also, once you know what Daemonforged, Daemon, and IWND do you never need to look at that page again, you'll see it on a unit's entry.

But you're still looking on the unit entry - which is where *all* the rules for various effects are in 8th (except the faction specific ones, which I've already said I mostly just ignore) - which makes things a lot easier for beginners, and in the case of disputes as to what the rule means/says/does. All in one place, right where it's relevant at the moment of play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Look at older editions of the game like 3rd or 5th edition and you'll see a very different less bloated game that had fewer stacking buffs and other proper absurdities. That said, there were a few particularly nasty lists that did need nerfs.

Must say, I'd love a return to 5th, with a good deal of 8th's ruleset, keyword systems, and datasheets. Also a fan of modern force organisation charts, the one in 5th wasn't fun.

Basically, a less *lethal* feeling game. I want to have models on the table by Turn 3.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Because you're way overstating auras. Warptime on multiple daemon prince level characters is STRONG not to mention all the other force multipliers available.

It's a good thing that DPs usually ended up as monstrous creatures and unable to join units with the IC rule then, isn't it?

Also, why are you only looking at 7th edition when it comes to the rules layout and USRs? Look at older editions of the game like 3rd or 5th edition and you'll see a very different less bloated game that had fewer stacking buffs and other proper absurdities. That said, there were a few particularly nasty lists that did need nerfs.

You can still pack a whole bunch of greater possessed, MoEs, abaddon, apostles, and lords.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Also, once you know what Daemonforged, Daemon, and IWND do you never need to look at that page again, you'll see it on a unit's entry.

But you're still looking on the unit entry - which is where *all* the rules for various effects are in 8th (except the faction specific ones, which I've already said I mostly just ignore) - which makes things a lot easier for beginners, and in the case of disputes as to what the rule means/says/does. All in one place, right where it's relevant at the moment of play.

There's nothing stopping GW to writing USRs into a unit's entry as they do now with keywords. They just somehow got away from putting all the rules on one page as the years went by. Having or not having rules on a single page has feth all to do with USRs and everything to do with good page layouts and a half-decent copy editor.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can still pack a whole bunch of greater possessed, MoEs, abaddon, apostles, and lords.

Clear Chain of Command: At the start of each game turn, select one attached IC to be that unit's leader. The unit benefits only from that character's special rules and abilities. Other ICs attached to that unit do not receive any benefit from the unit's leader but do retain their own special rules.

Fixed it for you.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Also, once you know what Daemonforged, Daemon, and IWND do you never need to look at that page again, you'll see it on a unit's entry.

But you're still looking on the unit entry - which is where *all* the rules for various effects are in 8th (except the faction specific ones, which I've already said I mostly just ignore) - which makes things a lot easier for beginners, and in the case of disputes as to what the rule means/says/does. All in one place, right where it's relevant at the moment of play.

There's nothing stopping GW to writing USRs into a unit's entry as they do now with keywords. They just somehow got away from putting all the rules on one page as the years went by. Having or not having rules on a single page has feth all to do with USRs and everything to do with good page layouts and a half-decent copy editor.

Which lends itself to the point - USRs don't make the game better. Good organization and fun rules do.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Which lends itself to the point - USRs don't make the game better. Good organization and fun rules do.

They make understanding a game and an opponent's units at a glance easier. If the game has two dozen USRs most players will quickly learn the one's their army uses and the ones that they commonly face. So if a new unit comes out or they play an army for the first time they can ask what units do and when the player says, "A lot of my units have Fleet, and these two can Deepstrike." That player has a good idea of what that army can do.

It also makes for easier balancing as two units with a similar role and the same USRs will only have stats, faction abilities, and one or two bespoke rules to differentiate them. If you give them a similar, but not exactly the same ability such as 'reroll hit rolls' versus 'reroll failed hit rolls' you've added another point to balance around.

Yea, we're well past that level of rules though. Love it or hate it the stratagems are the most difficult rules contention. A problem I've been aiming to fix, but I need to wait for the PA and 8.5/9 edition to shake out.

This totally screws Death Jesters. What's the point of them now? They're made to sit back on objectives and provide support fire since the rest of the harlequin army rockets forward at full speed. That is their sole purpose.

Shadowseers are also probably screwed by this. After catapulting a nearby unit with their spell, they'll usually be sitting out alone.

Solitaires less so, but still often on their own in no mans land waiting for the opportune time to strike.

This. Huge multi charging nerf. Getting shot in melee. Cap on modifiers. It all seems like hit after hit to harlequins.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
... (except the faction specific ones, which I've already said I mostly just ignore)...

Why are you ignoring them?

did people think the current character rules needed changing?

All needed to be said is that the screening unit also had to be visible and be the closest. Untargetable characters because theres a unit hiding behind a building was dumb but apart from that it made sense and felt quite intuitive.

Maybe its just me.

It was ruled that way after a few chapter-approveds because people were "rhino sniping" characters by moving their own units (rhinos, for example) to block out the closest units from visibility of the shooting unit.
But then they changed it so a single grot hiding in a basement could block targeting because it was "closest"

It was really a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of rule. So yeah... it needed changing.

 Argive wrote:
did people think the current character rules needed changing?

Changing? No. Muddying? Certainly. What we need these rules to do is achieve a largely similar effect, but with far more words. The net result is largely the same, but now it takes longer to figure out.

 Argive wrote:
All needed to be said is that the screening unit also had to be visible and be the closest.

That's exactly what the core rule already is. It was changed early on for Matched Play because people were "LoS sniping" with their vehicles.

The rule for 9th is mostly fine and it makes more sense thematically. A Daemon Prince is no longer going to be rendered invisible because there was a Cultist behind, but closer to, the shooter. People are worried about it encouraging castling, but I would argue that players who are going to castle up their characters were going to do it anyway to maximise their auras.

The problem I have with this rule as written is how MONSTER/VEHICLE CHARACTERS with <=9 wounds can prevent each other from being shot at all, so long as there is another unit that is closer to the shooter. I hope this gets fixed.

I understand the worry for characters like Death Jesters, but let's not freak out until we know the full extent of the rules.

Yes, it needs changing. Friendly units within 3" should be able to intercept wounds for the character, just like bodyguards. For each wound the character would lose the intercepting unit rolls a dice, on 2+ it suffers 1 MW, which cant be ignored.

ThePorcupine wrote:
This totally screws Death Jesters. What's the point of them now? They're made to sit back on objectives and provide support fire since the rest of the harlequin army rockets forward at full speed. That is their sole purpose.

Shadowseers are also probably screwed by this. After catapulting a nearby unit with their spell, they'll usually be sitting out alone.

Solitaires less so, but still often on their own in no mans land waiting for the opportune time to strike.

This. Huge multi charging nerf. Getting shot in melee. Cap on modifiers. It all seems like hit after hit to harlequins.

I'm not sure, that I share your opinion.
Shadowseers and Troupemasters are taken because of the support they give to the Harlequine Troupes, I can't see the problem here.
The Solitaire might be in trouble, he likes to take a stroll on his own and will be vulnerable (but he's also a beast when it comes to close combat - there has to be a downside). Seems like positioning is getting really important.
The Dj is a very mobile Sharpshooter - and yes, he was used to sit back there and caress your objectives. But looking at the new relics that he got, he wants to get some offensive action. Get some naked clowns to hold keep your backyard clean and if you position the Dj a bit carefully (again, yes) he won't be the nearest modell to anyone who could shoot at him, or let him be accompanied by a voidweaver.

The new rules seem to increase the difficulty, I give you that, but "screwed"? I think that's a bit too dramatic...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
Yes, it needs changing. Friendly units within 3" should be able to intercept wounds for the character, just like bodyguards. For each wound the character would lose the intercepting unit rolls a dice, on 2+ it suffers 1 MW, which cant be ignored.

so, strip the T'au from all of their special traits?
Just being sarcastic...

 p5freak wrote:
Yes, it needs changing. Friendly units within 3" should be able to intercept wounds for the character, just like bodyguards. For each wound the character would lose the intercepting unit rolls a dice, on 2+ it suffers 1 MW, which cant be ignored.

Okay, so what do bodyguard units do then?

 Argive wrote:
did people think the current character rules needed changing?

All needed to be said is that the screening unit also had to be visible and be the closest. Untargetable characters because theres a unit hiding behind a building was dumb but apart from that it made sense and felt quite intuitive.

Maybe its just me.

My playgroup, including me, is very happy with this change. Especially with orks you often run into situation where a lone warboss, big mek or weird boy is sitting alone out in the open, with no models or terrain anywhere nearby because the units around it have been blown to smithereens. They still couldn't be shot by anyone because there was an ork plane flying overhead.
Situations like this made the game feel really weird, as the whole idea of character protections is that they can't be picked out from other troops, not to be immune to shooting when they are heroically posing on top of a hill.

I also think this kind of change is necessary when you look at the new mission design - you really don't want people to spam cheap characters to have invincible units sitting on objectives and perform VP-generating actions.

The only thing I'm not sure about is whether 3" is enough to work in practice. Both my DG and orks regularly leave their characters behind when they charge, but the character can't/fails to do so.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Yes, it needs changing. Friendly units within 3" should be able to intercept wounds for the character, just like bodyguards. For each wound the character would lose the intercepting unit rolls a dice, on 2+ it suffers 1 MW, which cant be ignored.

Okay, so what do bodyguard units do then?

Their ruling gets removed. No more confusing variations of it. One bodyguard rule for all.

The rule refers to characters in units, does that mean that we're going back to older editions when characters had to join units if they wanted to avoid the enemy firepower or is it just referring to some units who have the possibility to take a character (or must have a character) directly from their sheet?

Tell me we're not going back to deathstars please.

 Blackie wrote:
The rule refers to characters in units, does that mean that we're going back to older editions when characters had to join units if they wanted to avoid the enemy firepower or is it just referring to some units who have the possibility to take a character (or must have a character) directly from their sheet?

Tell me we're not going back to deathstars please.

I don't think so. If characters were attached to units they wouldn't need a character protection rule. I think it is for things like Fabius Bile with his helper which are a unit, and Grot oilers attached to Meks (I think). I'm sure there are other examples.

 Blackie wrote:
The rule refers to characters in units, does that mean that we're going back to older editions when characters had to join units if they wanted to avoid the enemy firepower or is it just referring to some units who have the possibility to take a character (or must have a character) directly from their sheet?

Tell me we're not going back to deathstars please.

It means that there are units which are more than just one character. Big mek with grot oiler, celestine with geminae, fabius bile with surgeon acolyte, etc.

 p5freak wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
The rule refers to characters in units, does that mean that we're going back to older editions when characters had to join units if they wanted to avoid the enemy firepower or is it just referring to some units who have the possibility to take a character (or must have a character) directly from their sheet?

Tell me we're not going back to deathstars please.

It means that there are units which are more than just one character. Big mek with grot oiler, celestine with geminae, fabius bile with surgeon acolyte, etc.

Ah, ok I get it. I've always assumed that grot oilers for big meks could soak a shot anyway, withouth any special rule and even with their presence the unit still counted as Character. There are basically no snipers here so I have 0 experience in fielding those kind of cheap escorts to characters, my SAG big mek never had a grot oiler as I never had the feeling that it was something needed for his protection even if I saw it in many tournament lists.

As someone who plays Dark Eldar, I don't even see the point of getting my characters out of the box with this rule.

 Argive wrote:
did people think the current character rules needed changing?

Yes. I thought that being able to hide something the size of a Daemon Prince behind Cultists was stupid.

Guess which part of the rule stayed the same.

 vipoid wrote:
As someone who plays Dark Eldar, I don't even see the point of getting my characters out of the box with this rule.

Preach it. That said, even now mine don't tend to get out till their Venom is in flames.

 vipoid wrote:
As someone who plays Dark Eldar, I don't even see the point of getting my characters out of the box with this rule.

 Argive wrote:
did people think the current character rules needed changing?

Yes. I thought that being able to hide something the size of a Daemon Prince behind Cultists was stupid.

Guess which part of the rule stayed the same.

Chaplain Dreads stay annoying in 9th too - assuming they don't get Legended in the start of the edition purge.

Nibbler wrote:
I'm not sure, that I share your opinion.
Shadowseers and Troupemasters are taken because of the support they give to the Harlequine Troupes, I can't see the problem here.
The Solitaire might be in trouble, he likes to take a stroll on his own and will be vulnerable (but he's also a beast when it comes to close combat - there has to be a downside). Seems like positioning is getting really important.
The Dj is a very mobile Sharpshooter - and yes, he was used to sit back there and caress your objectives. But looking at the new relics that he got, he wants to get some offensive action. Get some naked clowns to hold keep your backyard clean and if you position the Dj a bit carefully (again, yes) he won't be the nearest modell to anyone who could shoot at him, or let him be accompanied by a voidweaver.

The new rules seem to increase the difficulty, I give you that, but "screwed"? I think that's a bit too dramatic...

Shadowseers are taken for twilight pathways to get an extra movement phase on a group of bikes and occasionally throw out some mortal wounds with smites or whatever. That's it. Harlequins are a mechanized force and the shadowseer can't keep up with it.

There must be a downside to the solitaire? There is. There always has been. He has no ranged weapons, all his weapons are low strength low AP, he's T3, and you can only bring 1 of him. New relics that he got? What new relics? He's taking the rose, like he's always been. He's not stupid powerful. He never was.

The death jester wants to "get some offensive action" with the new relics that he got? His new relic gives him 36" range, the longest range weapon in the army (12" more than what he used to have). What part of that screams "run up to the enemy"?
Get some naked clowns to babysit him not accomplishing anything on their own? Or a voidweaver? Ask any harlequin player, they'll avoid voidweavers like the plague. And now a troop tax is required for each death jester, more than doubling their price? What the hell.

You're damn right it increases the difficulty. On an army that was already seen as incredibly difficult to play.

 Asmodai wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
As someone who plays Dark Eldar, I don't even see the point of getting my characters out of the box with this rule.

 Argive wrote:
did people think the current character rules needed changing?

Yes. I thought that being able to hide something the size of a Daemon Prince behind Cultists was stupid.

Guess which part of the rule stayed the same.

Chaplain Dreads stay annoying in 9th too - assuming they don't get Legended in the start of the edition purge.

Much less annoying. Now they need to always stay close to another target to be protected, which isn't exactly the way you use an untargettable lascannon. And you can always choose to destroy that other something and then kill the chaplain.

(Obviously assuming that the dumb rule that makes it so that two chaplains can screen each other, gets FAQed away at lightning speed)

ThePorcupine wrote:

Nibbler wrote:
I'm not sure, that I share your opinion.
Shadowseers and Troupemasters are taken because of the support they give to the Harlequine Troupes, I can't see the problem here.
The Solitaire might be in trouble, he likes to take a stroll on his own and will be vulnerable (but he's also a beast when it comes to close combat - there has to be a downside). Seems like positioning is getting really important.
The Dj is a very mobile Sharpshooter - and yes, he was used to sit back there and caress your objectives. But looking at the new relics that he got, he wants to get some offensive action. Get some naked clowns to hold keep your backyard clean and if you position the Dj a bit carefully (again, yes) he won't be the nearest modell to anyone who could shoot at him, or let him be accompanied by a voidweaver.

The new rules seem to increase the difficulty, I give you that, but "screwed"? I think that's a bit too dramatic...

Shadowseers are taken for twilight pathways to get an extra movement phase on a group of bikes and occasionally throw out some mortal wounds with smites or whatever. That's it. Harlequins are a mechanized force and the shadowseer can't keep up with it.

There must be a downside to the solitaire? There is. There always has been. He has no ranged weapons, all his weapons are low strength low AP, he's T3, and you can only bring 1 of him. New relics that he got? What new relics? He's taking the rose, like he's always been. He's not stupid powerful. He never was.

The death jester wants to "get some offensive action" with the new relics that he got? His new relic gives him 36" range, the longest range weapon in the army (12" more than what he used to have). What part of that screams "run up to the enemy"?
Get some naked clowns to babysit him not accomplishing anything on their own? Or a voidweaver? Ask any harlequin player, they'll avoid voidweavers like the plague. And now a troop tax is required for each death jester, more than doubling their price? What the hell.

You're damn right it increases the difficulty. On an army that was already seen as incredibly difficult to play.

Yep all of this, not many play quins and people who dont like Nibbler don't understand how the army actually works and how a lot of these new rules are very harsh to them. Yes no OW is nice but they already had ways to stop it, really the only big help right now is Obscured terrain. So far list went from a nice diverse list of 6-7 characters, 6 troupes, 4-5 starweavers, and 12 bikes to 4 characters, 15 bikes and 3 troupes. Its more boring now and harder to play. ALso I will never take the Yncarne unless i see some amazing changed with it. The Yncarne with new LoS! is 100% worst in every way.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
did people think the current character rules needed changing?

Changing? No. Muddying? Certainly. What we need these rules to do is achieve a largely similar effect, but with far more words. The net result is largely the same, but now it takes longer to figure out.

It's about the same number of words and visually way easier to discern rather than having to run a tap measure to the other ends of the board to check distances all the time.

I'm sure it will get more wordy in the future to deal with super-friends.

By the way, we just need to learn that characters are supposed to get killed like any other unit. If you opponent really wants it dead, it will die.

The character keyword has been wildly OP until now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
did people think the current character rules needed changing?

Changing? No. Muddying? Certainly. What we need these rules to do is achieve a largely similar effect, but with far more words. The net result is largely the same, but now it takes longer to figure out.

It's about the same number of words and visually way easier to discern rather than having to run a tap measure to the other ends of the board to check distances all the time.

I'm sure it will get more wordy in the future to deal with super-friends.

That isn't right though. If a Character isn't within 3" of a MONSTER, VEHICLE, or 3+ Size unit, it can be shot regardless of whether it is closest or not.

I was about to say that too.

Spoletta wrote:
By the way, we just need to learn that characters are supposed to get killed like any other unit. If you opponent really wants it dead, it will die.

The character keyword has been wildly OP until now.

Pretty much this. People don't seem to have a problem with a unit of, say, Harlequin Troupes being really squishy but for some reason a character who costs less and still has more innate protection should be much more difficult to kill. The character protection offered in 8th was too good and this rule seems to largely fix that, though it's absurdly wordy and does have some weird edge cases that may need to be looked at. One other thing to remember is the terrain rules may make it easier to hide characters out of LoS to keep them safe.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I don't think this chart is right though.
If a character is not within 3" of a monster/vehicle/unit with 3 models - you can always shoot at them. It doesn't have to be the nearest model.

As I see it you have a pretty clear one way line.

Nothing in 3"? You can shoot it.
Is the thing in 3" not a vehicle/monster or has 3 models? You can shoot it.
Is the character still the closest model to the shooter even though its within 3" of a vehicle/monster/unit? You can shoot it.

Essentially if the character is within 3" of a suitable unit, and not the closest model, it can't be shot. Characters don't count for closest model so if two characters were running coming towards a unit, it could shoot either.

So your two DPs could still be shot by any units which are nearer to either of them than any other model - but a Basilisk on the other side of the board couldn't target either if a Rhino was slightly closer despite being miles away from the DPs themselves - basically like 8th edition.

The last bit seems a bit strange, maybe will generate a FAQ, but it seems pretty clear cut to me.

Yes I guess its bad you can't stick a Vindicare on his own in your deployment zone and effectively he's impossible to shoot unless you drive onto him/kill everything else - but character immunity has been very powerful.
If you want to give him that immunity back, he can get some new rules. Otherwise he'll want to hang out with some friends.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
That isn't right though. If a Character isn't within 3" of a MONSTER, VEHICLE, or 3+ Size unit, it can be shot regardless of whether it is closest or not.

Whoops. Hang on.

Simpler now, I think?

Yep, that looks correct to me.

One I made.

Alternate Ork Edition, thanks to Dode for the Improvements:

BCB, I'd drop the (And my weapon doesn't ignore LOS) bit for the sake of clarity. Even if your weapon does ignore LOS, you still need LOS to target the character if they're near a screening unit.

The character keyword protection in 8th was stupid for lots of armies. Agreed. For those cases this rule is much better and more realistic. But not every army's like this. Not every character is a T4 badass in terminator armor. Just point some heavy bolters at any harlequins, characters or otherwise, and watch them disappear.

People don't have a problem with harlequin troupes being squishy? I assure you, they do. That's why transports are pretty much mandatory for them. And why people say playing harlequins is extremely unforgiving and they're not a competitive army. That's why when you see harlequins it's an outrider detachment of bikes and nothing else because you can give em 3++ and -2 to hit and hope they live. A single T3 model with 4++ is not hard to remove. I assure you. It's a free kill point. It's why the servitor from Combat Arena was laughed at and never used. Because even though his stats were ok for such a cheap character, he didn't have the character keyword. So everyone correctly concluded he's a guaranteed first blood.

 catbarf wrote:
BCB, I'd drop the (And my weapon doesn't ignore LOS) bit for the sake of clarity. Even if your weapon does ignore LOS, you still need LOS to target the character if they're near a screening unit.

I disagree, the "Ignore LOS for this one weapon" rule is more specific than the General Character rule.

ThePorcupine wrote:
The character keyword protection in 8th was stupid for lots of armies. Agreed. For those cases this rule is much better and more realistic. But not every army's like this. Not every character is a T4 badass in terminator armor. Just point some heavy bolters at any harlequins, characters or otherwise, and watch them disappear.

People don't have a problem with harlequin troupes being squishy? I assure you, they do. That's why transports are pretty much mandatory for them. And why people say playing harlequins is extremely unforgiving and they're not a competitive army. That's why when you see harlequins it's an outrider detachment of bikes and nothing else because you can give em 3++ and -2 to hit and hope they live. A single T3 model with 4++ is not hard to remove. I assure you. It's a free kill point. It's why the servitor from Combat Arena was laughed at and never used. Because even though his stats were ok for such a cheap character, he didn't have the character keyword. So everyone correctly concluded he's a guaranteed first blood.

The new missions may very well take precedent if they live up to the hype and kill points will be passe. It isn't hard to hide and guard a "snipable" character to avoid first blood. Harlies may find value in upcoming changes as well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
did people think the current character rules needed changing?

Changing? No. Muddying? Certainly. What we need these rules to do is achieve a largely similar effect, but with far more words. The net result is largely the same, but now it takes longer to figure out.

This the Nu-Design.

Add layer upon layer of complexity.

Remove all depth.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm sure it will get more wordy in the future to deal with super-friends.

That isn't right though. If a Character isn't within 3" of a MONSTER, VEHICLE, or 3+ Size unit, it can be shot regardless of whether it is closest or not.

Hence, muddying.

Vindication has never come so swiftly.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Simpler

I guess that's now a relative term.

"CHARACTERS with 9 or fewer wounds cannot be targeted during the Shooting Phase unless they are the closest model/unit to the shooting unit."

What is so hard about that?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
BCB, I'd drop the (And my weapon doesn't ignore LOS) bit for the sake of clarity. Even if your weapon does ignore LOS, you still need LOS to target the character if they're near a screening unit.

I disagree, the "Ignore LOS for this one weapon" rule is more specific than the General Character rule.

I expect they'll need to FAQ this. My take is that if the intent were for non-LOS weapons to not have the requirement, they wouldn't have specified that you need LOS to be able to target the character, for the same reason that they don't specify that you need to be in range to target the character- that's just normal targeting rules.

Pancakey wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
did people think the current character rules needed changing?

Changing? No. Muddying? Certainly. What we need these rules to do is achieve a largely similar effect, but with far more words. The net result is largely the same, but now it takes longer to figure out.

This the Nu-Design.

Add layer upon layer of complexity.

Remove all depth.

To be honest, I think part of the problem is that the game has become so deadly, with so many weapons able to fire at full-effect or near full-effect at exceptional ranges, that characters bascically only exist in 2 states:
1) Immune to shooting due to LoS.
2) Exposed and dead.

ThePorcupine wrote:
The character keyword protection in 8th was stupid for lots of armies. Agreed. For those cases this rule is much better and more realistic. But not every army's like this. Not every character is a T4 badass in terminator armor. Just point some heavy bolters at any harlequins, characters or otherwise, and watch them disappear.

People don't have a problem with harlequin troupes being squishy? I assure you, they do. That's why transports are pretty much mandatory for them. And why people say playing harlequins is extremely unforgiving and they're not a competitive army. That's why when you see harlequins it's an outrider detachment of bikes and nothing else because you can give em 3++ and -2 to hit and hope they live. A single T3 model with 4++ is not hard to remove. I assure you. It's a free kill point. It's why the servitor from Combat Arena was laughed at and never used. Because even though his stats were ok for such a cheap character, he didn't have the character keyword. So everyone correctly concluded he's a guaranteed first blood.

Kill points and first blood are no longer there, so that problem is gone. (Yes there is a kill char secondary, but the you need to have at least 4 chars the opponenet even starts thinking about selecting that objective).


You only have to ask yourself if that character cost will be justified by the time he gets removed.

Characters are half of the whole harlequin codex. They take 4 characters at a minimum, and realistically more like 6.

And yes, while first blood appears to be gone (in the missions that were previewed), kill points are a secondary you can take, along with killing characters specifically. Presumably able to double dip.

Will a lone death jester make his cost back by the time he gets removed? (1 turn)… probably not.

Spoletta wrote:
You only have to ask yourself if that character cost will be justified by the time he gets removed.

Not all armies have vast numbers of HQs to choose from in this regard.

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You only have to ask yourself if that character cost will be justified by the time he gets removed.

Not all armies have vast numbers of HQs to choose from in this regard.

I know, I play sisters, we have 1 HQ limited to one per detachment, a generic one and then all the other ones are locked in a subfaction.

And yet if i make my math with my characters, I see that a Canoness is a 45 point model plus weapons. The model itself with that aura and those defensive stats is worth 45 points, before char protection. Yeah, she will die. I've lost 45 points.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Characters are half of the whole harlequin codex. They take 4 characters at a minimum, and realistically more like 6.

And yes, while first blood appears to be gone (in the missions that were previewed), kill points are a secondary you can take, along with killing characters specifically. Presumably able to double dip.

Will a lone death jester make his cost back by the time he gets removed? (1 turn)… probably not.

I doubt it’s possible to double dip and get character kill points and general kill points since they said you can only choose one secondary from each category. I would expect all the kill point style objectives to be grouped in one category.

The Canoness is one of the best characters in the game. It makes he HATE my DE characters. I played SOB for a long time and i always loved her. She is just as easy to kill as many 80+pt characters but yet she is doing more than those do a lot of the time too. She is way worth more than 45pt base (tho i take her with the blessed blade). Look at a Succubus as an example. 50pts base, aura only works in melee (not both like Canoness) main weapon is -1 to hit even tho its worst in every way to the Canoness weapon, no army save so no 2+ in cover. She is 4pts cheaper over all. The biggest difference is she can take a Drug.

But after playing 2-3 Canoness and 2-3 Succubi, my Succubi has never done anything near a Canoness.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
The Canoness is one of the best characters in the game. It makes he HATE my DE characters. I played SOB for a long time and i always loved her. She is just as easy to kill as many 80+pt characters but yet she is doing more than those do a lot of the time too. She is way worth more than 45pt base (tho i take her with the blessed blade). Look at a Succubus as an example. 50pts base, aura only works in melee (not both like Canoness) main weapon is -1 to hit even tho its worst in every way to the Canoness weapon, no army save so no 2+ in cover. She is 4pts cheaper over all. The biggest difference is she can take a Drug.

But after playing 2-3 Canoness and 2-3 Succubi, my Succubi has never done anything near a Canoness.

whoever wrote the DE codex did a terrible job and they should be ashamed of themselves, same with whoever wrote the PA book with the most insulting "options" iv ever seen. iv pretty much shelved my DE all of 8th edition.

But yes the Canonness is one of the best characters in the game, but its a shame our new codex basically got nothing new, characters removed, new characters added. the 2 new units are just varients of other units, no flyer to replace the loss of avenger strike fighter, death cult assassins reduced to 6 model units for reasons along with crusaders. i dont think i even got to use my cannoness veryidian by the time i bought her and 8th rolled around and removed her from existance. Hell they renamed it to codex adeptus soriritas and half the units in the book arent battle sisters or dont have the order tag.

hopefully we see DE get an early 9E codex with an entire rework to give them some options... how about room for the character to sit in a raider with a unit instead of having to buy a transport just for themselves... or a late edition codex so it doesnt get power creeped as bad.

Why are we talking about the canoness. Isn't she a reroll aura buff character, which means she'll be smack dab in the middle of a bunch of units and thus have character protection? Or maybe I'm not understanding how sisters work. Please correct me if I'm wrong. She's seems quite safe.

Yeah, and celestians can protect her too with 2+ bodyguard redirection.

It's factions like harlequins that are utterly boned by this stuff - like they are getting boned by pretty much every single change in 9th edition.

Every edition has winners and losers. This one is no different.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Why are we talking about the canoness. Isn't she a reroll aura buff character, which means she'll be smack dab in the middle of a bunch of units and thus have character protection? Or maybe I'm not understanding how sisters work. Please correct me if I'm wrong. She's seems quite safe.

B.c she is very punchy too and will tend to run up turn 3 or so and solo units of Primaris at times.

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You only have to ask yourself if that character cost will be justified by the time he gets removed.

Not all armies have vast numbers of HQs to choose from in this regard.

See also T'au - commanders are limited to 1 per detachment (and taking multiple detachments bones your CP), ethereals are auras/priest-style buffs with virtually no survivability and fireblades are again an aura with a BS2+ markerlight attached.

The other HQ's are sept-locked, bar Shadowsun (who is still sub-optimal in non-T'au sept detachments).

sanguine40k wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You only have to ask yourself if that character cost will be justified by the time he gets removed.

Not all armies have vast numbers of HQs to choose from in this regard.

See also T'au - commanders are limited to 1 per detachment (and taking multiple detachments bones your CP), ethereals are auras/priest-style buffs with virtually no survivability and fireblades are again an aura with a BS2+ markerlight attached.

The other HQ's are sept-locked, bar Shadowsun (who is still sub-optimal in non-T'au sept detachments).

Given that commanders will stick out like a sore thumb now when they cross the table I can envision that restriction going away.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
This is just another buff to gunline armies so I'm not a fan. It's already hard enough trying to screen your heroes from getting blown off the board before they can serve their purpose with some armies.

It might lean better for gunlines, but they still have consequences...and just wait until Fallback becomes a strat.

I play Tyranids, SW, BA, WE, Khorne Demons...and...and...what you said... I cried when I read it. I wasn't sure anything could be so beautiful, so wanted, so needed, so adored. I want this in my life...I NEED this in my life...

Please, great GW, I beseech thee, make this so...

Seabass wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
This is just another buff to gunline armies so I'm not a fan. It's already hard enough trying to screen your heroes from getting blown off the board before they can serve their purpose with some armies.

It might lean better for gunlines, but they still have consequences...and just wait until Fallback becomes a strat.

I play Tyranids, SW, BA, WE, Khorne Demons...and...and...what you said... I cried when I read it. I wasn't sure anything could be so beautiful, so wanted, so needed, so adored. I want this in my life...I NEED this in my life...

Please, great GW, I beseech thee, make this so...

I apologize in advance for getting your hopes up.

Though with the changes made so far it seems quite possible.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Why are we talking about the canoness. Isn't she a reroll aura buff character, which means she'll be smack dab in the middle of a bunch of units and thus have character protection? Or maybe I'm not understanding how sisters work. Please correct me if I'm wrong. She's seems quite safe.

B.c she is very punchy too and will tend to run up turn 3 or so and solo units of Primaris at times.

Sisters are also a very aggressive army in general, so it's not impossible to expose her with these rules as they move up or jump from a transport.

But more interestingly to sisters, How does Junith's 7 wound, Character, Vehicle work with these rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevermind. Reread stuff

Put together some visual examples of the rule since I have to explain to lots of people and I thought it may be useful to someone else:

Second to last image is wrong.

 Blndmage wrote:
Second to last image is wrong.

Yeah, was very confused by that.

Yeah sorry I realized after submitting I had placed the old file, I've updated it :+1:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I quite like the rule, it's abstract enough that it keeps all the benefits of the original intent but it opens up a lot of tactical options.

I'll reserve judgment on the balance implications once we have the rest of the picture, but it does set a nice base for 9th that I am liking.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I apologize in advance for getting your hopes up.

Though with the changes made so far it seems quite possible.

It's ok, you have given me hope. and while I know that might yet backfire on me like giving an ork a new gun, With it, I will carry the hopes of melee armies everywhere.

arhurt wrote:
I quite like the rule, it's abstract enough that it keeps all the benefits of the original intent but it opens up a lot of tactical options.

I'll reserve judgment on the balance implications once we have the rest of the picture, but it does set a nice base for 9th that I am liking.

I think it makes sense - but as your examples show, I think it may take people a bit of time to get the hang of it. Mainly due to unlearning 8th's rules.

arhurt wrote:
Yeah sorry I realized after submitting I had placed the old file, I've updated it :+1:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I quite like the rule, it's abstract enough that it keeps all the benefits of the original intent but it opens up a lot of tactical options.

I'll reserve judgment on the balance implications once we have the rest of the picture, but it does set a nice base for 9th that I am liking.

The Flowchart you have on the images makes no sense. Why do you have two "No" coming from "Closest?" You can't have three answers to a yes or no question. Your flowchart suggests that a Character that is not closest and not within 3" of a blocking unit is both able to be shot and unable to be shot at.

May I Suggest formatting the flowchart as such: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/189811663770353665/723539673548455946/unknown.png

I just like the concepts that it opens up, as creating new roles for units to be valid, like counter-charge units that stick behind the main assault to provide cover for characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The Flowchart you have on the images makes no sense. Why do you have two "No" coming from "Closest?" You can't have three answers to a yes or no question.

Reson: because did a dumbass rush job, thanks for pointing out the mistake, it's fixed in the OP.

Also added a nice case for multiple 2-man units near a character.

Not a GW rule if it doesn't require a flowchart to explain . . .

arhurt wrote:
I just like the concepts that it opens up, as creating new roles for units to be valid, like counter-charge units that stick behind the main assault to provide cover for characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The Flowchart you have on the images makes no sense. Why do you have two "No" coming from "Closest?" You can't have three answers to a yes or no question.

Reson: because did a dumbass rush job, thanks for pointing out the mistake, it's fixed in the OP.

Also added a nice case for multiple 2-man units near a character.

Me Likey. Good work! You should add another scenario: Same as the last one but with two 3-man units, because now magically the Sorcerer can't be shot.

 vipoid wrote:
Not a GW rule if it doesn't require a flowchart to explain . . .

Some people are just visual.

That last flowchart is completely idiotic.

If only characters could just attach to units...

Attaching characters to units wasn't the greatest though.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If only characters could just attach to units...

I want my renegades command squad back....
That atleast was simple...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Attaching characters to units wasn't the greatest though.

Depended alot in the charachter , IG command squad and similiar ones rarely were an issue unlike the independent deathstar enablers...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Given that commanders will stick out like a sore thumb now when they cross the table I can envision that restriction going away.

AIUI, info from people who have spoken to playtesters is that rule is *not* going away.

I think all the flowcharts I've seen complicate a pretty simple procedure:

1. Is the character within 3" of a friendly Vehicle, Monster, or unit of 3+ models?
-No: You can shoot it.
-Yes: Proceed to #2.

2. Is the character the closest visible enemy?
-Yes: You can shoot it.
-No: You can't shoot it.

That's all there is to it. If they're not near friendlies, they're a valid target. If they are near friendlies, assess whether they're the closest visible just like you did in 8th.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Brutus_Apex wrote:But we now need to cross reference things more than ever because everything interacts differently with each other.

I don't have to cross reference anything for what's right there on the datasheet. Regarding chapter tactics and such? Yeah, that takes cross-referencing (which I'm not over keen on, and would be happy to play without any kind of faction traits), but I don't need to cross reference for things like Disgustingly Resilient. I apply it on a case-by-case basis as and when I see it, without needing to flip back and see what that rule means.

Whereas USR's will always interact in the same manor because they are all codified properly.

And? What's so hard about reading the datasheet of the unit you're already using, and most likely referencing?

So you cross reference once, maybe a couple times if you forget and now you've learned the rule.

You read the rule in your army, and remember it for the future. If you don't, you only have to pull up the datasheet of the unit you're already fielding, so should have on hand anyway.

You need to check constantly with the bespoke rules because everything is different, it takes far more time to memorize and makes it far more difficult to build off of an existing structure of rules without running into inconsistencies with another rule.

But you *should* be checking with datasheets, so that you know you're being correct. It's not hard to have the datasheet for the unit you're already attacking with on hand. And memorisation will also come into effect.

It's like constructing a building. Would you want all of your workers using different scaled measuring tapes or would you want the using the same consistent measurement? It's the same thing that applies here. Keep everything consistent.

By that same logic, do I want all my workers using exactly the same tool for every job, because having bespoke, tailored equipment is too hard to learn, and they might not be able to remember the difference between a coping saw and a hack saw?

disagree, it incentivizes gunlines (the worst) and slows the game down with it's re-rolls.

I didn't say auras had to be rerolls. I'm talking about the concept of auras overall - they could be anything from +1 Ld, +1 BS, always striking first, gaining a certain keyword, etc etc.

like, why are we re-rolling absolutely everything? Is this a game of chance or not? That combined with IGOUGO and bespoke rules that need to be checked literally every 2 min to see what a special snowflake rule does, were looking at a good 20 min downtimes where I can mentally check out while my friend rolls some dice at me. Cool. Good Game I guess?

Well, I enjoy that mental checkout. We chat, we drink, we plan ahead. I don't *need* constant back and forth. I have Kill Team for that.

Yeah, that's just my own opinion and preferences, but they're as valid as yours.

Brutus_Apex wrote:They are literally the only proper way to organize a game.

I mean, patently untrue, as Kill Team doesn't use USRs, and it's a perfectly fine game in my opinion.

Again - stop it with this "the only proper way to play" BS. That's your opinion. It's not objective, it's not fact.

Deepstrike, is Deepstrike, is Deepstrike. Why have a different name and different rule. You say you all instinctively know what the rule means. then why have different rules for it?

If it's so easy to know what it is, why not keep it as is? Let players make their own connections. They'll quickly understand similar effects - but if those effects involve extra nuances, they can be applied in a bespoke manner.

Your tool comment isn't the same thing. Measuring tapes all serve the same purpose and therefore should be the same. All hacksaws serve the same purpose so they should all function the same, drills, screw drivers etc. These are different tools to construct much like different USR's are tools to construct a game. You create one rule to apply in a specific situation and apply that equally where it is required.

And I will say to you, please stop defending the indefensible. USR's are objectively and definitively the only proper way to organize a game. We have proven it to you before on other threads and this one. Can you build a game without USR's? yes. But it will always be inferior to one that is built upon a strong organized foundation of USR's. Every time.

The only reason you're defending bespoke rules is because GW did it anyway. Would you be defending USR's if GW had created 8th/9th using that format? Probably.

The fact that we're making flow-charts at all proves what a mess this is becoming...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The fact that we're making flow-charts at all proves what a mess this is becoming...

No. It isn't. Again, some people are visual learners. We understand the rule just fine.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The fact that we're making flow-charts at all proves what a mess this is becoming...

No. It isn't. Again, some people are visual learners. We understand the rule just fine.

And they demonstrate why the rule is terribly written

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The fact that we're making flow-charts at all proves what a mess this is becoming...

No. It isn't. Again, some people are visual learners. We understand the rule just fine.

And they demonstrate why the rule is terribly written

Do they? Or do people just make mistakes from time to time when they try to demonstrate all the scenarios?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The fact that we're making flow-charts at all proves what a mess this is becoming...

No. It isn't. Again, some people are visual learners. We understand the rule just fine.

And they demonstrate why the rule is terribly written

Do they? Or do people just make mistakes from time to time when they try to demonstrate all the scenarios?

What about the 3 squads of 2 Cultists was wrong?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

What about the 3 squads of 2 Cultists was wrong?

What is the issue with that? There has to be a line drawn somewhere for the untold possible combinations. Just because people conjure up edge cases that seem silly doesn't mean we're dealing with those edge cases all the time and it is really quite easy to apply the rule.

Subjectively not liking something isn't always the same as being objectively bad.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
No. It isn't. Again, some people are visual learners. We understand the rule just fine.

The fact that we're getting so many questions necessitating the need for diagrams and flow-charts is proof that we're not understanding the rule "just fine".

And I already presented the one sentence alternative that would already make all these issues go away so, I ask again, what was so hard about that? Why did one rule need to become 7? What have we gained with GW's increasingly non-technical complicated verbiage?

 catbarf wrote:
I think all the flowcharts I've seen complicate a pretty simple procedure:

1. Is the character within 3" of a friendly Vehicle, Monster, or unit of 3+ models?
-No: You can shoot it.
-Yes: Proceed to #2.

2. Is the character the closest visible enemy?
-Yes: You can shoot it.
-No: You can't shoot it.

That's all there is to it. If they're not near friendlies, they're a valid target. If they are near friendlies, assess whether they're the closest visible just like you did in 8th.

That is not all there is to it.

3. Has the character 9 or less wounds ?
-Yes: You cant shoot it.
-No: You can shoot it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

What about the 3 squads of 2 Cultists was wrong?

What is the issue with that? There has to be a line drawn somewhere for the untold possible combinations. Just because people conjure up edge cases that seem silly doesn't mean we're dealing with those edge cases all the time and it is really quite easy to apply the rule.

Subjectively not liking something isn't always the same as being objectively bad.

How in the world is that an edge case?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

What about the 3 squads of 2 Cultists was wrong?

What is the issue with that? There has to be a line drawn somewhere for the untold possible combinations. Just because people conjure up edge cases that seem silly doesn't mean we're dealing with those edge cases all the time and it is really quite easy to apply the rule.

Subjectively not liking something isn't always the same as being objectively bad.

How in the world is that an edge case?

Daed, not to be Rude but that is indeed not an edge case for some armies.

What's wrong with the 3x2 cultist case? The char can be shoot, seems obvious.

Can someone tell me which absurd semantic loop brings you to think that the sorcerer can't be shoot?

The enemy sorcerer is visible, is not the closest target and has no vehicle or monster or big unit near him. He is toast.

Spoletta wrote:
What's wrong with the 3x2 cultist case? The char can be shoot, seems obvious.

Can someone tell me which absurd semantic loop brings you to think that the sorcerer can't be shoot?

The enemy sorcerer is visible, is not the closest target and has no vehicle or monster or big unit near him. He is toast.

I'm not sure anyone is saying you can't shoot him. I think people are saying it's odd that one sorc with 6 people around him can be shot while another cannot based solely on how those 6 people are organisationally grouped.

I find it interesting to think about how this new rule will affect MSU old Marine armies.

Removing 3 one wound Marines from 5 man squads is a pretty trivial task with how lethal the game is.

dode74 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
What's wrong with the 3x2 cultist case? The char can be shoot, seems obvious.

Can someone tell me which absurd semantic loop brings you to think that the sorcerer can't be shoot?

The enemy sorcerer is visible, is not the closest target and has no vehicle or monster or big unit near him. He is toast.

I'm not sure anyone is saying you can't shoot him. I think people are saying it's odd that one sorc with 6 people around him can be shot while another cannot based solely on how those 6 people are organisationally grouped.

The fact that the same amount of models react differently with rules based on the organization is true for a huge amount of rules, this isn't surely the first case.

This whole rule has been made because it makes things LESS weird compared to what we have now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I find it interesting to think about how this new rule will affect MSU old Marine armies.

Removing 3 one wound Marines from 5 man squads is a pretty trivial task with how lethal the game is.

It is actually a nerf to primaris armies more than old marines armies. The "point tax" you have to pay in a unit to let the other models in it to be able to screen is higher the higher the cost of the single model. This is especially bad for aggressors. Out of a 111 points unit, 74 are there just to allow the third guy to screen the character. And that's with old costs. Cultist even under the new cost only pay 12 points in tax before becoming a screen.

This is a rule that favors hordes and cheap models in general.

This fits in with blasts punishing big squads, morale punishing small squads (probably) and detachment slots being more limited.

Makes it so that MSU isn't always the correct answer during list design. I like it.

dode74 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
What's wrong with the 3x2 cultist case? The char can be shoot, seems obvious.

Can someone tell me which absurd semantic loop brings you to think that the sorcerer can't be shoot?

The enemy sorcerer is visible, is not the closest target and has no vehicle or monster or big unit near him. He is toast.

I'm not sure anyone is saying you can't shoot him. I think people are saying it's odd that one sorc with 6 people around him can be shot while another cannot based solely on how those 6 people are organisationally grouped.

Because people love nitpicking semantics to make themselves feel superior. I'm no exception, but I consider my selectiveness way less capricious.

They could have easily said 3 models instead of a unit, but then we have to consider the abuses and balance issues THAT opens up.

It isnt simple and pretending as such is wrong.

dode74 wrote:
I think people are saying it's odd that one sorc with 6 people around him can be shot while another cannot based solely on how those 6 people are organisationally grouped.

Yeah, and it's odd too that they are affected by moral differently, and affected by rules that gives wounds on each unit in a zone differently, and affected by charge differently, and affected by blast weapons differently, and...
It's just how 40k work. Have always been. We have the exact same thing where one unit of 6 models is behaving completely differently from 3 units of 2 models. Not sure why this one is a big deal.

Except this isn't that. This is about cover and "the maelstrom of battle [making] it difficult to pick out such individuals". Personally I'm not particularly fussed about it, but if they write the reasons then they should be in line with the rule. I do agree that "3 models" opens up other opportunities for "abuse" and I know it's not simple, but surely you can see the dissonance caused by the wording and the effect? *That* is the issue.

I'm more fussed about character monster/vehicles covering for each other, tbh.

A psyker can buff a unit of 20, but can't apply the same buff to two units of five standing next to eachother....

 harlokin wrote:
A psyker can buff a unit of 20, but can't apply the same buff to two units of five standing next to eachother....

yep, even if both 5 came from the same squad that just split in to two 5 mans, and are standing in the same formation as they did before the split. But that is w40k being a game and not a battlefield simulator.

Karol wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
A psyker can buff a unit of 20, but can't apply the same buff to two units of five standing next to eachother....

yep, even if both 5 came from the same squad that just split in to two 5 mans, and are standing in the same formation as they did before the split. But that is w40k being a game and not a battlefield simulator.

I dont think I've ever agreed with you more.

Units are a thing in 40k. Effects are very often applied based on unit. This should not come as anything new or surprising to anyone here.

Sure it's not the most realistic, but it helps manage what is happening whom a lot more easily in most circumstances. That's generally going to be worth a few immersion issues. Because, as Karol says, this is a game first and foremost. Not a simulation.

dode74 wrote:
Except this isn't that. This is about cover and "the maelstrom of battle [making] it difficult to pick out such individuals". Personally I'm not particularly fussed about it, but if they write the reasons then they should be in line with the rule. I do agree that "3 models" opens up other opportunities for "abuse" and I know it's not simple, but surely you can see the dissonance caused by the wording and the effect? *That* is the issue.

I'm more fussed about character monster/vehicles covering for each other, tbh.

They don't. Best you get is a character chaining of the closest character's protective body

dode74 wrote:
Except this isn't that.

What?

dode74 wrote:
but surely you can see the dissonance caused by the wording and the effect? *That* is the issue.

Same as all the other dissonance I listed.
Why is that vehicle exploding killing 3 times as many people if they are in three different squads?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
... (except the faction specific ones, which I've already said I mostly just ignore)...

Why are you ignoring them?

Simplicity, really. Saves having to add in extra abilities, ones that I can't immediately see on the datasheet, and so on. As a Marine player, I miss out the most on that (as Marines have the most subfaction effects and abilities and doctrines and whatnot), so it's hardly like I'm doing it to gain an advantage.

I like simpler 40k, so I play with simpler rules.

Brutus_Apex wrote:Your tool comment isn't the same thing. Measuring tapes all serve the same purpose and therefore should be the same. All hacksaws serve the same purpose so they should all function the same, drills, screw drivers etc. These are different tools to construct much like different USR's are tools to construct a game. You create one rule to apply in a specific situation and apply that equally where it is required.

But not all saws are the same - so should I only carry hacksaws, and no coping saws? Should I remove all my bandsaws too? They're all there for cutting things, but doing so in slightly different ways.

And I will say to you, please stop defending the indefensible.

How is it indefensible? Just because you don't like it doesn't make it indefensible.

USR's are objectively and definitively the only proper way to organize a game.

No, they're not. Such an utterly reductive and ignorant point deserves no further explanation other than simply "no".
There's plenty of ways to organise a game without USRs, which blows the whole "objectively and definitely" part out of the water. Look, you have your preferences, but they're not facts.

We have proven it to you before on other threads and this one.

You've done nothing of the sort. You've just doubled down on "muh objectivity".

Can you build a game without USR's? yes. But it will always be inferior to one that is built upon a strong organized foundation of USR's. Every time.

What's your measure for "inferior" here? Do you have ANY objective units of measurement? No? I thought not.

Stop using "objective" to describe things - you clearly don't know what it means.

The only reason you're defending bespoke rules is because GW did it anyway. Would you be defending USR's if GW had created 8th/9th using that format? Probably.

Did you see me calling for USRs when 8th came out because 7th had used them? No.

For what it's worth, I don't actually hate USRs. But this "they're objectively better" stuff is abject BS. You're allowed to say "I think this is the best system" without needing to make up that it's "objectively the best", and by doing so, you're just putting me off your viewpoint.

Having standardized rules across 500+ units is far better than having non-standardized rules. At the very least for purposes of communication. We all still say Deep Strike even though the actual rule is named different things from unit to unit. It's just easier.

You probably could measure that.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

For what it's worth, I don't actually hate USRs. But this "they're objectively better" stuff is abject BS. You're allowed to say "I think this is the best system" without needing to make up that it's "objectively the best", and by doing so, you're just putting me off your viewpoint.

it's objectively better if everyone plays by the same rules, and not if different writers randomly decide that their favorite army they are writing the codex for should have better rules than other army because "reasons" (ie marine codex 2.0). Which is exactly what USR prevented in a way.

Insectum7 wrote:Having standardized rules across 500+ units is far better than having non-standardized rules. At the very least for purposes of communication. We all still say Deep Strike even though the actual rule is named different things from unit to unit. It's just easier.

For the purposes of communication, sure - but then what about all the weapons that have S:User AP:0 D:1, and grant an extra attack in melee - do we call them all chainswords for simplicity and communication? Or S4 AP0 D1 12" pistols - even though that could be sluggas or bolt pistols?

People will create their own methods of identifying things together for the purposes of communcation. After all, MEQ, GEQ and TEQ aren't official groupings, but used anyway amongst players. They don't need to be standardised to do that.

Siegfriedfr wrote:it's objectively better if everyone plays by the same rules, and not if different writers randomly decide that their favorite army they are writing the codex for should have better rules than other army because "reasons" (ie marine codex 2.0). Which is exactly what USR prevented in a way.

If writers being biased is a concern, what's to stop those writers just slapping more USRs onto those units?

This debate just goes round and round.

USR's make a better game.
Yeah but 7th had USRs and sucked.
That's cos GW screwed it up.
Who do you think is designing 40k now?
Yeah... but USRs are the best tho we need all the USRs.

Then you have a long rambling conversation and it melts down to "I don't like the fact deepstrike is called something different on the datasheets."

I mean its really hard for me to see why say adding "Rending (1), Rending (3) and Rending (4)" to say Galvanic Rifles, Shuriken weapons and Daemonette Claws is going to dramatically improve the game. Let alone make it "objectively" better.

Especially when going by precedent you would just have "Rending (X)" on the datasheet and then be told to look through a 400+ page rule book to find the specific section covering that rule if you happen to have forgotten what it does.
Based on 7th there is no evidence USRs made for a better game. It wasn't easier to learn, it wasn't quicker to find out what units did.

Tyel wrote:
This debate just goes round and round.

USR's make a better game.
Yeah but 7th had USRs and sucked.
That's cos GW screwed it up.
Who do you think is designing 40k now?
Yeah... but USRs are the best tho we need all the USRs.

Then you have a long rambling conversation and it melts down to "I don't like the fact deepstrike is called something different on the datasheets."

I mean its really hard for me to see why say adding "Rending (1), Rending (3) and Rending (4)" to say Galvanic Rifles, Shuriken weapons and Daemonette Claws is going to dramatically improve the game. Let alone make it "objectively" better.

Especially when going by precedent you would just have "Rending (X)" on the datasheet and then be told to look through a 400+ page rule book to find the specific section covering that rule if you happen to have forgotten what it does.
Based on 7th there is no evidence USRs made for a better game. It wasn't easier to learn, it wasn't quicker to find out what units did.

What made 7th bad werent USR.

Again, USR are better, because everyone plays by the same rules. It's so easy to understand that wasting typing time trying to answer to the contrary is exhausting

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Having standardized rules across 500+ units is far better than having non-standardized rules. At the very least for purposes of communication. We all still say Deep Strike even though the actual rule is named different things from unit to unit. It's just easier.

For the purposes of communication, sure - but then what about all the weapons that have S:User AP:0 D:1, and grant an extra attack in melee - do we call them all chainswords for simplicity and communication? Or S4 AP0 D1 12" pistols - even though that could be sluggas or bolt pistols?

People will create their own methods of identifying things together for the purposes of communcation. After all, MEQ, GEQ and TEQ aren't official groupings, but used anyway amongst players. They don't need to be standardised to do that.

The debate isn't whether or not they're necessay, only whether or not they are better than individually named, similar (or even exactly thw same) abilities. Which, if it facilitates communication, ease of reference and clarity, it is actually better.

That doesn't mean everything needs to be a USR, and that they are better in every case. I think 7th went too far with them, and it became overbearing and clumsy. But 8th turned the dial too far in the other direction. Deep Strike and the 'bodyguard' units are prime examples of unnessecary 'bespoking'.

Tyel wrote:
This debate just goes round and round.

USR's make a better game.
Yeah but 7th had USRs and sucked.
That's cos GW screwed it up.
Who do you think is designing 40k now?
Yeah... but USRs are the best tho we need all the USRs.

Then you have a long rambling conversation and it melts down to "I don't like the fact deepstrike is called something different on the datasheets."

I mean its really hard for me to see why say adding "Rending (1), Rending (3) and Rending (4)" to say Galvanic Rifles, Shuriken weapons and Daemonette Claws is going to dramatically improve the game. Let alone make it "objectively" better.

Especially when going by precedent you would just have "Rending (X)" on the datasheet and then be told to look through a 400+ page rule book to find the specific section covering that rule if you happen to have forgotten what it does.
Based on 7th there is no evidence USRs made for a better game. It wasn't easier to learn, it wasn't quicker to find out what units did.

Based on the most hated edition ever? Sounds like confirmation bias. What about 6th, 5th, 4th....... or every other game that uses USRs?

Blastaar wrote:
Based on the most hated edition ever? Sounds like confirmation bias. What about 6th, 5th, 4th....... or every other game that uses USRs?

If you want to go play 6th, 5th, 4th etc go ahead.

But 7th is where GW and USRs eventually got to.
When a rules system using them is apparently "the most hated edition ever" its hard to see how they are "objectively better".