Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, but it picked up D2. Having 6 shots in 18" w/ D2 would make it far too good.

Good point.

Imagine if the anti-infantry cannon on an NPC faction like Dark Eldar was allowed to kill a whole Marine every time it fired. Madness.

Oh please. It's not because you're an "NPC faction", it's because they've been changing the way these keyworded things function.

To throw an example out?
Onagers with Icarus Arrays went from being effective against skimmers, aircraft, flying monsters, jetbikes, and jump infantry to...just aircraft.

Poison never should have been able to jank up bikers.

You realise I was talking about 9th, right? When this change was implemented.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Unsurprisingly doom reappeared

And Mind War seems like a decent snipe.

so, question here, as i'm checking to see if i understand the literal sequence of an attack as its written:

1)roll to hit
2)roll to wound
3)allocate wound
4)roll to save
5)take damage.

As i understand the LEADER rule as laid out on page 39 of the 10e core rules, you never roll against the character toughness, but his bodyguards, and they are "treated as a single unit for all rules purposes" . The PRECISION rule (pg 26) lets the attacker allocate the wound to the attached character.

so, if the attack isn't against the character until step 3 of the sequence....ANTI CHARACTER wouldn't kick in to grant improved wound ability, would it? the attack is just hitting the unit at step 2, its not an attack against the attached leader until step 3, when the attacker allocates it to the character via PRECISION.

or am i missing something?

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, but it picked up D2. Having 6 shots in 18" w/ D2 would make it far too good.

Good point.

Imagine if the anti-infantry cannon on an NPC faction like Dark Eldar was allowed to kill a whole Marine every time it fired. Madness.

While I can appreciate the sentiment I don't think it makes for a consistent experience for all players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Onagers with Icarus Arrays went from being effective against skimmers, aircraft, flying monsters, jetbikes, and jump infantry to...just aircraft.

Mmmm...I think they will probably have Anti-Fly so I don't think that's quite right.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Unsurprisingly doom reappeared

And Mind War seems like a decent snipe.

so, question here, as i'm checking to see if i understand the literal sequence of an attack as its written:

1)roll to hit
2)roll to wound
3)allocate wound
4)roll to save
5)take damage.

As i understand the LEADER rule as laid out on page 39 of the 10e core rules, you never roll against the character toughness, but his bodyguards, and they are "treated as a single unit for all rules purposes" . The PRECISION rule (pg 26) lets the attacker allocate the wound to the attached character.

so, if the attack isn't against the character until step 3 of the sequence....ANTI CHARACTER wouldn't kick in to grant improved wound ability, would it? the attack is just hitting the unit at step 2, its not an attack against the attached leader until step 3, when the attacker allocates it to the character via PRECISION.

or am i missing something?

The target is the unit, which has a giant collection of all the keywords of the models in the unit, one of which is character.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Unsurprisingly doom reappeared

And Mind War seems like a decent snipe.

so, question here, as i'm checking to see if i understand the literal sequence of an attack as its written:

1)roll to hit
2)roll to wound
3)allocate wound
4)roll to save
5)take damage.

As i understand the LEADER rule as laid out on page 39 of the 10e core rules, you never roll against the character toughness, but his bodyguards, and they are "treated as a single unit for all rules purposes" . The PRECISION rule (pg 26) lets the attacker allocate the wound to the attached character.

so, if the attack isn't against the character until step 3 of the sequence....ANTI CHARACTER wouldn't kick in to grant improved wound ability, would it? the attack is just hitting the unit at step 2, its not an attack against the attached leader until step 3, when the attacker allocates it to the character via PRECISION.

or am i missing something?

Yea, that sounds right. Essentially the part anti-character is for big boys like Bobby. Precision activates on a wound - not a critical wound.

 Trickstick wrote:

The target is the unit, which has a giant collection of all the keywords of the models in the unit, one of which is character.

see, i can follow that train of thought, but then that leads to things like ANTI PSYKER kicking in on any unit with an attached psyker, so your terminators suddenly start getting wounded on 3s by sisters of silence, because the have a Liberian with them. I'm pretty sure that's not what they intended. .


I've re-posted my question in YMDC, as i realise its might de-rail this thread. given that i've just received two different, contradictory answers, it looks like this might be something that they need to clarify in a FAQ

 Trickstick wrote:
The target is the unit, which has a giant collection of all the keywords of the models in the unit, one of which is character.

Hmm. I haven't seen anything that distributes keywords like that.

xerxeskingofking wrote:
see, i can follow that train of thought, but then that leads to things like ANTI PSYKER kicking in on any unit with an attached psyker...

Yes, yes it does...

*Side glances at Inquisitor Greyfax*

Oh, also, did you know Greyfax adds the anit-psyker to the weapons, and that firing deck transfers the weapon to the vehicle? 27 model antipsyker units inside stormlords sound hilarious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Hmm. I haven't seen anything that distributes keywords like that.

Anti rule:

"Each time an attack is made with such a weapon against a target with the keyword after the word 'Anti-"

The target is the unit. The unit has the keyword in it. If units don't contain the keywords of the members, thing start to break. Like you couldn't order a unit with an inquisitor, or you can't use grenades if one model doesn't have grenades. Or adding solar leontus to a unit stops them being infantry.

(did not fully check examples, may be bad)

It seems weird to me that eldrad has no key word limitation like space marine characters do, so he can be taken by any colour of Eldar.

Surely they should follow the same restrictions?

 Hellebore wrote:
It seems weird to me that eldrad has no key word limitation like space marine characters do, so he can be taken by any colour of Eldar.

Surely they should follow the same restrictions?

Why? There are no colours of Eldar any more.

One new thing Eldrad exposes - abilities that are granted by another unit on the table.

The regular Farseer says this, which means Eldrad can use that ability as long as another Farseer is on the table.

Tyel wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
It seems weird to me that eldrad has no key word limitation like space marine characters do, so he can be taken by any colour of Eldar.

Surely they should follow the same restrictions?

Why? There are no colours of Eldar any more.

Because the colours of space marine are only mentioned in units that are actually unique to them. Hounds of morkai, death company etc.

That's the only way they were designating separate colours.

So it seems weird that they didn't do the same for eldrad

Those are separate books.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Those are separate books.

Sure but the mechanic itself takes up no space:

Units can only be taken with matching faction key words. ulthwe with ulthwe etc.


Which is what the marines do.

It just seems weird that they haven't done that and now you can mix different craftworld characters together. Seth and Ragnar can't appear in the same army, so why should eldrad and illic?

Because Seth and Ragnar aren't from the same army book.

You're giving a book more power than it has.

A book isn't a mechanic. There is no book rule, only faction rule.

To put it simply, GW isn't worried about people taking multiple characters between the different Craftworlds, Septs, or what not. They are concerned about people taking multiple units across the length and depth of the Space Marine Codices. So the didn't bother to give non-Adeptus Astartes Epic Heroes a second Faction keyword. They did so so for those units unique to Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angeles, Deathwatch, and Space Wolves.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh please. It's not because you're an "NPC faction", it's because they've been changing the way these keyworded things function.

To throw an example out?
Onagers with Icarus Arrays went from being effective against skimmers, aircraft, flying monsters, jetbikes, and jump infantry to...just aircraft.

Poison never should have been able to jank up bikers.

Why shouldn't poison that kills marines do the same when that same body is on a bike? The marine hasn't changed in any way.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Why shouldn't poison that kills marines do the same when that same body is on a bike? The marine hasn't changed in any way.

The odds that the shot impacts the bike. Surely the additional toughness of the model isn't because the rider drank their ovaltine.

They gave Eldrad T4, but t3 on phoenix lords?


Maybe if the PLs had feel no pain, or a damage reduction rule it would be ok. They are basically a wraithguard powered by the most powerful souls in eldar history, with a withered corpse of a sacrifice inside...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
One new thing Eldrad exposes - abilities that are granted by another unit on the table.

The regular Farseer says this, which means Eldrad can use that ability as long as another Farseer is on the table.

Well, no. If I'm reading that right, its still the Farseer's use of the ability, it can just be measured from Eldrad.
It doesn't actually give Eldrad the ability, or allow it to happen more than once per turn.

In fact, I'm not sure that you get to use it more than once, even if you have more than one Farseer with that ability.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Those are separate books.

Sure but the mechanic itself takes up no space:

Units can only be taken with matching faction key words. ulthwe with ulthwe etc.


Which is what the marines do.

It just seems weird that they haven't done that and now you can mix different craftworld characters together. Seth and Ragnar can't appear in the same army, so why should eldrad and illic?

It’s the quid pro quo of loyalist marines having 5 extra detachments to choose from - the downside is having sub-faction locked units and characters restricted when no one else does.

Voss wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
One new thing Eldrad exposes - abilities that are granted by another unit on the table.

The regular Farseer says this, which means Eldrad can use that ability as long as another Farseer is on the table.

Well, no. If I'm reading that right, its still the Farseer's use of the ability, it can just be measured from Eldrad.
It doesn't actually give Eldrad the ability, or allow it to happen more than once per turn.

In fact, I'm not sure that you get to use it more than once, even if you have more than one Farseer with that ability.

Hmm, ok. Yea you're right. I read it sideways for some reason.

 alextroy wrote:
To put it simply, GW isn't worried about people taking multiple characters between the different Craftworlds, Septs, or what not. They are concerned about people taking multiple units across the length and depth of the Space Marine Codices. So the didn't bother to give non-Adeptus Astartes Epic Heroes a second Faction keyword. They did so so for those units unique to Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Angeles, Deathwatch, and Space Wolves.

I can see some very specific restrictions in some factions, Farsight and Shadowsun maybe? Farsight definitely won't work with any ethereals though.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yea, but it picked up D2. Having 6 shots in 18" w/ D2 would make it far too good.

Good point.

Imagine if the anti-infantry cannon on an NPC faction like Dark Eldar was allowed to kill a whole Marine every time it fired. Madness.

Oh please. It's not because you're an "NPC faction", it's because they've been changing the way these keyworded things function.

To throw an example out?
Onagers with Icarus Arrays went from being effective against skimmers, aircraft, flying monsters, jetbikes, and jump infantry to...just aircraft.

Poison never should have been able to jank up bikers.

You realise I was talking about 9th, right? When this change was implemented.

He said like Drukhari didn't have almost a year of near total dominance very recently.

ERJAK wrote:
He said like Drukhari didn't have almost a year of near total dominance very recently.

Ah yes, and Splinter Cannons were mainstays in those tournament lists.

I guess DE Beasts must also be OP and in need of a nerf, right? Because DE won some tournaments. Doesn't actually matter that tournament players wouldn't touch Khymerae or Clawed Beasts with a barge pole, the fact that some units in the army are strong automatically makes every single unit and weapon equally strong by the powers of osmosis.

/s

 vipoid wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
He said like Drukhari didn't have almost a year of near total dominance very recently.

Ah yes, and Splinter Cannons were mainstays in those tournament lists.

I guess DE Beasts must also be OP and in need of a nerf, right? Because DE won some tournaments. Doesn't actually matter that tournament players wouldn't touch Khymerae or Clawed Beasts with a barge pole, the fact that some units in the army are strong automatically makes every single unit and weapon equally strong by the powers of osmosis.

/s

Honestly, its going to be a revelation if Khymerae or Beasts even get datasheets, given that they are currently 'on hiatus.'

Since they're doing Tyranids first, I hope that they're smart enough to finish moving the range to plastic, but after that the xenos army that needs more love than anything else in the entire catalog is dark eldar. I'm hoping the kill team snippets point to mandrakes, but there's still so much ground to regain since the Great Revamp and subsequent slide back into oblivion.

 Hellebore wrote:
It seems weird to me that eldrad has no key word limitation like space marine characters do, so he can be taken by any colour of Eldar.

Surely they should follow the same restrictions?

The restrictions were added to non-marine armies with 8th, they are merely going back to they way it was before.

Chapter/Legions have always been a marine thing, so having unique, powerful units and characters for different subfactions is simply part of their faction identity, where it is not for eldar or orks.

Lastly, Eldrad is (was?) kind of a supreme commander type character for the eldar anyways, and he was recently banished from Uthwe anyways.

I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

 Nevelon wrote:
I liked it back in 5th when they encouraged you to file the names off the special characters and use them in whatever home-grown chapter you wanted.

You wanted to use Lysander’s rules for cpt. Agemmon of the Ultramarine 1st company? Go for it. Sgt. Cronos counts-as leading an Iron Hands armored column? Roll out.

Especially for armies that don’t have a huge number of special characters, sub-faction locking them seems rough.

I liked it when you were encouraged to build your own characters. Back when codices had wargear sections.

Thank goodness NMNR arrived to save us from all that customisation and fun.