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.

Wow, that is quite possibly the worst thread title I have ever seen on dakka. Also, bravo on actually finding a way to complain about Tau in a book where we were barely updated at all. That takes a true dedication to hating plastic army men you don't like.

Truly, a model post that all other trolls on dakka should seek to emulate.

Can anyone give me a rundown of the changes to targetting OP is referring to? I can't find the leak.

Or is that against Dakka rules?

wow... how could we have missed this?!
this buff is freaking insane.sounds like tau are the army to beat now...

insane...!

I thought GW itself put out this information.

Specifically, the rule that says you can't target Characters when Shooting, unless they are the closest legal target, no longer has the 'legal target' caveat.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Alternatively, just use the 8th Edition character rules but say "a character cannot be targeted unless there are no friendly units with at least three of the same keywords within 12" and also keep the 10 wound thingy where they can be targeted over 10 wounds.

This prevents things like Guilliman, who I think shares one keyword with them, from being screened by Conscripts.

It also prevents things like "oh, that character is on the opposite side of the battlefield from this unit, but because this unit is 49" away instead of 50" like the character, even if it's in completely the opposite direction, I can't shoot the character."

Tau Fly <Sept>. Chaos <Mark> <Legion>.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Alternatively, just use the 8th Edition character rules but say "a character cannot be targeted unless there are no friendly units with at least three of the same keywords within 12" and also keep the 10 wound thingy where they can be targeted over 10 wounds.

This prevents things like Guilliman, who I think shares one keyword with them, from being screened by Conscripts.

It also prevents things like "oh, that character is on the opposite side of the battlefield from this unit, but because this unit is 49" away instead of 50" like the character, even if it's in completely the opposite direction, I can't shoot the character."

Tau Fly <Sept>. Chaos <Mark> <Legion>.

Yes, those are good examples of things that Tau and Chaos characters should be able to hide behind.

Three is a little overkill. Two is enough.

Why shouldn't a Dark Angel marine screen a Ultramarine character?
But the problem is things like Tau that don't have three faction keywords.

 Galas wrote:
Three is a little overkill. Two is enough.

Why shouldn't a Dark Angel marine screen a Ultramarine character?
But the problem is things like Tau that don't have three faction keywords.

I didn't say faction Keywords, just 3 Keywords.

So a Dark Angel has "Adeptus Astartes, Infantry, Imperium" and so could cover an Ultramarine character, but could not cover, say, an Imperial Guard commander (Imperium, Infantry, Astra Militarum, <Regiment>, Company Commander, Officer are his keywords I think).

You shouldn't mix Keywords with Faction Keywords.

Just say that a unit with the Infantry Keyword can only cover other Infantry characters.

 Galas wrote:
You shouldn't mix Keywords with Faction Keywords.

Just say that a unit with the Infantry Keyword can only cover other Infantry characters.

I dislike this because I think it should be possible for a Leman Russ to cover a Commissar, and I don't think it should be possible for a Gravis-Armor Captain to hide behind ratlings.

Then say that Infantry Keyword units can only cover Infantry Characters, but don't put that limitation to vehicles.

And the second example is fixed with limitations in faction keywords.

 Galas wrote:
Then say that Infantry Keyword units can only cover Infantry Characters, but don't put that limitation to vehicles.

And the second example is fixed with limitations in faction keywords.

Oh, so you're saying faction keywords should affect who can hide? That's what I'm saying too. I'm saying you shouldn't ignore faction keywords when determining who can hide behind units.

As for your other point - so what you're saying is Infantry can only cover Infantry characters, but cannot cover other characters without the Infantry keyword?

I don't like that from a future-proof perspective. I think it's easier to do 3 keywords the same - otherwise, you might end up with a Tau commander in an infantry-sized battlesuit at some point that can't be covered by Kroot because his keyword is battlesuit, lol.

Wait, is that seriously a change in chapter approved?

=====================Player A: character
|
Player A: a model
--------------LOS Blocking Wall----
|
|
|
|
========Player B: Shooting unit

Player B's shooting unit has line of sight to Player A's character. Player A's character is further from Player B's shooting unit than Player A's "a model."

So player B's shooting unit cannot target player A's character, because Player A's "a model" is closer?

This is patently absurd.

 Marmatag wrote:
Wait, is that seriously a change in chapter approved?

=====================Player A: character
|
Player A: a model
---------------wall------------------
|
|
|
|
========Player B: Shooting unit

Player B's shooting unit has line of sight to Player A's character. Player A's character is further from Player B's shooting unit than Player A's "a model."

So player B's shooting unit cannot target player A's character, because Player A's "a model" is closer?

This is patently absurd.

Did you play in 5th? One of the things with 5th was you could only remove models that were in Line of Sight. So players would want to kill the enemy sergeant/plasmagun/whatever, of course - which led to people parking 2 Rhinos back-to-back in front of a lascannon with a tiny sliver in between them. the only thing the Lascannon could see was like, the sergeant's right arm - so blat goes the sergeant.

People were doing the same thing with characters. Consider the following.

Player B's unit
---------------------------------------------- Player B's Rhino

Player A's unit
================ Player A's character.

So far, Player B cannot shoot the character. BUT, just with one simple move:

Player B's unit
Player B's Rhino <----------------------

Player A's unit
================ Player A's character.

Now suddenly the character is a valid target choice. GW did not desire this interaction, so they changed it in Chapter Approved.

Yeah but, the problem here, is that you absolutely need LOS blocking terrain to have a snowballs chance in hell in 8th edition, because of how dominant shooting and psychic are.

I played 5th briefly. Was too poor for models and was doing a lot of moving around, so i never really got into it. I actually gave my Orks away when i moved. I don't count myself as having really played 5th edition.

I understand the principle behind this.

But it should really be units on the board, not terrain, that determine this. Otherwise you're punishing people who play with terrain and effectively making some characters invincible.

IMO what they should do is trash the character targeting rule and replace it, which is what Galas and I were discussing.

I am not sure what the best solution is, but it's pretty crap right now.

I do like the idea of a character being shielded based on his proximity to units, like 6", but I also think that terrain should not factor into this determination, otherwise it's pretty wonky.

Reading the subject line and clicking the link, I had to do a double take to make sure I was still on Dakka and wasn't somehow redirected to BOLS

Those wound allocation rules were 6th edition, not 5th. 5th actually had the opposite problem where if all you could see of a unit was his arm poking out from behind wall you could shoot and kill the ENTIRE unit. Only wounding models you could see came in 6th, along with the weird directed fire thing which allowed you to shoot at models out of cover even if the rest of their unit was in cover.

That's how it should be, though - you should be able to shoot at whatever is visible, and wounds/hits/whatever should only be applicable to the exposed models.

M.

Whatever was wrong with

'Characters may not be the target of a shooting attack with they are within 3 inches of a friendly unit' ?

I know it's not perfect, but...

Actually, what the heck is wrong with the Independent Character keyword, and letting characters join units? I thought it was mixed armour values that were somehow an issue, but a quick flick through the Eldar Codex will tell you this is not the case.