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.

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...