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.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
You know you get the headshot ability off even if they make their armor save right?

I didn't know that - it must be a real neat trick to have someone make their armor save but still "suffer damage" from the attack.

Usually if someone makes their armor save they don't take any damage.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
You know you get the headshot ability off even if they make their armor save right?

Headshot activates "if a model suffered damage from that attack but has not been slain". If you make your armor save, you didn't suffer any damage.

fresus wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
You know you get the headshot ability off even if they make their armor save right?

Headshot activates "if a model suffered damage from that attack but has not been slain". If you make your armor save, you didn't suffer any damage.

Bingo. Vindicare assassin suffers from the "rapier laser destroyer problem" where a super high average damage makes him seem like he's going to be doing damage a lot more reliably than he actually is. Not quite as extreme, because the RLD has an average damage of like 6.5 but only like a 50% chance of actually scoring a wound, but he still whiffs a lot more than you think he will, even feeding him CPs.

My 3 assassins cost me a total of 4 of my 9 total CPs, and the only one who paid for for themself was the eversor, who got something like a 1.66x points return by turn 3. The tempo loss though was evidenced by the fact that those intercessors and aggressors he ended up killing also mostly paid for themselves grinding away at one of my veteran squads, downing about 120 points of vets and termies in the 3 turns it took eversor to show up and kill them.

If you make your save (no such thing as armour saves in 40k 8th edition), you don't take damage.

However, if you fail your save and then pass an Ignore Wounds effect, you still took the damage, you just ignored it, so Head Shot will trigger. I expect GW to once again need to errata this just like the last two or three times they have had to.

ahh ok, sorry I thought he just had to successfully wound to get headshot off.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you make your save (no such thing as armour saves in 40k 8th edition), you don't take damage..

No armour saves? Maybe if you're playing Orks.

Kall3m0n wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you make your save (no such thing as armour saves in 40k 8th edition), you don't take damage..

No armour saves? Maybe if you're playing Orks.

No, I mean that literally the term armour save does not exist in 40k. You have either Saves (which are based off your save characteristic) or Invulnerable Saves. Yes, the "Save" characteristic represents the armour of the model, but the rules term is just Save, not Armour Save.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you make your save (no such thing as armour saves in 40k 8th edition), you don't take damage.

However, if you fail your save and then pass an Ignore Wounds effect, you still took the damage, you just ignored it, so Head Shot will trigger. I expect GW to once again need to errata this just like the last two or three times they have had to.

...Is there a strict definition of "suffered damage" outlined in the rules? Because I think in most cases I would equate it to "losing one or more wound" and most damage-ignoring abilities are worded "Roll a D6 when this model loses a wound, on an X+ the wound is not lost"

Wouldn't that mean if the wound is not lost, the model did not actually suffer damage? Where does it say Headshot resolves before Damage Ignoring Ability?

ATM I think it's ambiguous, not RAW one way or another. So I'd 4+ it.

the_scotsman wrote:
...Is there a strict definition of "suffered damage" outlined in the rules? Because I think in most cases I would equate it to "losing one or more wound" and most damage-ignoring abilities are worded "Roll a D6 when this model loses a wound, on an X+ the wound is not lost"

Wouldn't that mean if the wound is not lost, the model did not actually suffer damage? Where does it say Headshot resolves before Damage Ignoring Ability?

ATM I think it's ambiguous, not RAW one way or another. So I'd 4+ it.

There are only 8 pages, it's not hard to find. It's in the shooting phase rules, step 4.5

BRB wrote:5. Inflict Damage: The damage inflicted is equal to the Damage characteristic of the weapon used in the attack. A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers.

If you fail your save, you suffer damage, period. Whether you actually end up with less wounds than you started with is irrelevant as far as the Head Shot rule is concerned.

By your logic I can declare its ambiguous as to whether my Ultramarines have a 0+ Ignore Wounds, we should TMIR it.

the_scotsman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you make your save (no such thing as armour saves in 40k 8th edition), you don't take damage.

However, if you fail your save and then pass an Ignore Wounds effect, you still took the damage, you just ignored it, so Head Shot will trigger. I expect GW to once again need to errata this just like the last two or three times they have had to.

...Is there a strict definition of "suffered damage" outlined in the rules? Because I think in most cases I would equate it to "losing one or more wound" and most damage-ignoring abilities are worded "Roll a D6 when this model loses a wound, on an X+ the wound is not lost"

Wouldn't that mean if the wound is not lost, the model did not actually suffer damage? Where does it say Headshot resolves before Damage Ignoring Ability?

ATM I think it's ambiguous, not RAW one way or another. So I'd 4+ it.

A model that takes damage but ignores it via FNP still counts as have taken a wound. From the big FAQ:
"Related Errata
Warhammer 40,000 rulebook Page 181 – Ignoring Wounds
Add the following as a boxout on this page:
‘Ignoring Wounds
Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound (e.g. Disgustingly
Resilient, The Flesh is Weak and Tenacious Survivor). If a model has more than one such ability, you can only use
one of those abilities each time the model loses a wound.’"

Kall3m0n wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you make your save (no such thing as armour saves in 40k 8th edition), you don't take damage.

However, if you fail your save and then pass an Ignore Wounds effect, you still took the damage, you just ignored it, so Head Shot will trigger. I expect GW to once again need to errata this just like the last two or three times they have had to.

...Is there a strict definition of "suffered damage" outlined in the rules? Because I think in most cases I would equate it to "losing one or more wound" and most damage-ignoring abilities are worded "Roll a D6 when this model loses a wound, on an X+ the wound is not lost"

Wouldn't that mean if the wound is not lost, the model did not actually suffer damage? Where does it say Headshot resolves before Damage Ignoring Ability?

ATM I think it's ambiguous, not RAW one way or another. So I'd 4+ it.

A model that takes damage but ignores it via FNP still counts as have taken a wound. From the big FAQ:
"Related Errata
Warhammer 40,000 rulebook Page 181 – Ignoring Wounds
Add the following as a boxout on this page:
‘Ignoring Wounds
Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound (e.g. Disgustingly
Resilient, The Flesh is Weak and Tenacious Survivor). If a model has more than one such ability, you can only use
one of those abilities each time the model loses a wound.’"

Aha, that's what I was looking for.

So, RAW right now, headshot triggers if the model ignores the damage from the shot but not if they made their save.

Thanks for backing up your assertion with a FAQ answer rather than just reasserting what you said initially but being a snarky jerk about it!

the_scotsman wrote:

Kall3m0n wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you make your save (no such thing as armour saves in 40k 8th edition), you don't take damage.

However, if you fail your save and then pass an Ignore Wounds effect, you still took the damage, you just ignored it, so Head Shot will trigger. I expect GW to once again need to errata this just like the last two or three times they have had to.

...Is there a strict definition of "suffered damage" outlined in the rules? Because I think in most cases I would equate it to "losing one or more wound" and most damage-ignoring abilities are worded "Roll a D6 when this model loses a wound, on an X+ the wound is not lost"

Wouldn't that mean if the wound is not lost, the model did not actually suffer damage? Where does it say Headshot resolves before Damage Ignoring Ability?

ATM I think it's ambiguous, not RAW one way or another. So I'd 4+ it.

A model that takes damage but ignores it via FNP still counts as have taken a wound. From the big FAQ:
"Related Errata
Warhammer 40,000 rulebook Page 181 – Ignoring Wounds
Add the following as a boxout on this page:
‘Ignoring Wounds
Some units have abilities that allow them to ignore the damage suffered each time it loses a wound (e.g. Disgustingly
Resilient, The Flesh is Weak and Tenacious Survivor). If a model has more than one such ability, you can only use
one of those abilities each time the model loses a wound.’"

Aha, that's what I was looking for.

So, RAW right now, headshot triggers if the model ignores the damage from the shot but not if they made their save.

Thanks for backing up your assertion with a FAQ answer rather than just reasserting what you said initially but being a snarky jerk about it!

Correct.

Haha! I try my best sometimes. ^^

the_scotsman wrote:
Thanks for backing up your assertion with a FAQ answer rather than just reasserting what you said initially but being a snarky jerk about it!

I backed up my assertion with actual rules, and was in no way "snarky" or a "jerk" about it. In fact the errata provided has literally nothing to do with the question at hand and the answer would be the same regardless.

I'm really looking forward to reading the index in full when the March WD comes out. I could take an assassin instead of a heavy support or fast attack unit and still keep a battalion detachment if I wanted. The only thing I don't like is the price - £19 each!

You are playing warhammer and complaining about the cost?

I am pretty sure GW is going to start charging a cover fee to enter their stores next, so just be warned.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You are playing warhammer and complaining about the cost?

I've spent over £400 in the last 8 months so no, not really, but £19 for a single monopose miniature on a 32mm base is taking the

 Brother Castor wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You are playing warhammer and complaining about the cost?

I've spent over £400 in the last 8 months so no, not really, but £19 for a single monopose miniature on a 32mm base is taking the

Just don't look at any new marine characters I guess...

the_scotsman wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You are playing warhammer and complaining about the cost?

I've spent over £400 in the last 8 months so no, not really, but £19 for a single monopose miniature on a 32mm base is taking the

Just don't look at any new marine characters I guess...

Yep - £22.50 for a single blister sprue is also a joke.

Ok, so I will grant you that Special Characters is the piss, but look at the global picture.

GW has made 8th into Nancy Sue and her Bands of chaff. It's basically a table top version of DoW3. You get a couple hero units and a bunch of chaff. So naturally, the hero models are going to cost more.

Now I play proxy, so I don't need to buy a Watch Master at $35. But if you want the pretty princess armies to take to LVO, you need to pay.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, so I will grant you that Special Characters is the piss, but look at the global picture.

GW has made 8th into Nancy Sue and her Bands of chaff. It's basically a table top version of DoW3. You get a couple hero units and a bunch of chaff. So naturally, the hero models are going to cost more.

Now I play proxy, so I don't need to buy a Watch Master at $35. But if you want the pretty princess armies to take to LVO, you need to pay.

You can just make your own Watch Master...

So, just confirming with Assassins here, but I cannot deploy them until turn 2, so no turn 1 charge with them, right?

You can deploy all of them on your back field on turn 1, and technically, the Callidus is "on the board" on turn 1 in your opponent's back field, but it can't appear until turn 2? Is that wrong?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You can deploy all of them on your back field on turn 1, and technically, the Callidus is "on the board" on turn 1 in your opponent's back field, but it can't appear until turn 2? Is that wrong?

Yea, you can deploy them in your backfield turn 1, but having them pop up and kill things in the enemy's backline turn 1 would be awesome. Gotta wait till turn 2 for that though I guess.

Unless you're a Vinicare. having an Eversor in my Guard army is gonna be pretty handy vs Orks though, as he can remove an entire squad of boyz from play in a single turn, he'll be a great unit to hold in reserve for counter charge.

Deploy the Vindicare on the field. Deploy the others via Deepstrike. Unless you think you might need the Culuxus turn 1 maybe deploy it.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
You can deploy all of them on your back field on turn 1, and technically, the Callidus is "on the board" on turn 1 in your opponent's back field, but it can't appear until turn 2? Is that wrong?

The callidus follows the same rules as any deepstrike, its not on the battlefield until it activates its polymorphine ability to come in as reinforcement (fluff wise, she is on the battlefield). Her ability to tax CP usage is worded so that its active if she is in your army, meaning that she only needs to be in your list.

EDIT:

Question answered in the above post....oops.

Just starting Deathwatch, and wondering if the four assassins would be a good/effective addition as an ally now.

SPE825 wrote:
Just starting Deathwatch, and wondering if the four assassins would be a good/effective addition as an ally now.

IMHO the 4 assassins eating a detachment slot is a killer for any sort of competitive list. If you're going single detachment deathwatch then go for it, it can't hurt.

SPE825 wrote:
Just starting Deathwatch, and wondering if the four assassins would be a good/effective addition as an ally now.

They're fine for deathwatch. They kind of conflict a little because deathwatch has a lot of stuff that wants to deep strike, so ideally you want your allies to be stuff that starts on the table and is tough to remove. I use the -1 to hit trait adeptus mechanicus guys. I guess Culexus and Vindicare assassins fit the bill there.

Couldn’t work out best place to put this so thought here seems good.

I can pick up a copy of Assassinorum: Execution Force for slightly less than retail price.

I’m collecting Primaris through conquest and obviously can make use of the chaos side with death guard

Is the box Worth it?

Thanks in advance