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.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's the power of love. Two Daemon Princes, claw in claw, united in unholy matrimony, glow with such happiness that they cannot be targeted with ranged weapons, as long as they remain together.

There's not many other units that can do this is there? Named c'tan, some character dreads?

Bjorn and Murderfang can pull off the same trick as long as they stay hip to metal hip. Or a GSC pair of Patriarchs and/or Maguses each with 2 familiars can create a polygamous bundle of untargetable goodness.

Ahh, chained statements. For those still confused, try this:

A character cannot be targeted with a ranged attack if the following three conditions are all met:

One: The character must have a Wounds characteristic of 9 or less.

Two: There is an enemy unit closer to the attacking unit.

Three: The character is within 3" of at least one vehicle AND/OR at least one monster AND/OROR at least unit of 3+ models.

If all of these conditions are not met, the character may be attacked by ranged attacks.

((It provides no protection from melee attacks))

I hope that cleans it up for those still a bit muddled. Go through the checklist, see if all conditions are met and, if so, you can't shoot 'em. Otherwise, it's fair game.

Wakshaani wrote:
Ahh, chained statements. For those still confused, try this:

A character cannot be targeted with a ranged attack if the following three conditions are all met:

One: The character must have a Wounds characteristic of 9 or less.

Two: There is an enemy unit closer to the attacking unit.

Three: The character is within 3" of at least one vehicle AND/OR at least one monster AND/OROR at least unit of 3+ models.

If all of these conditions are not met, the character may be attacked by ranged attacks.

((It provides no protection from melee attacks))

I hope that cleans it up for those still a bit muddled. Go through the checklist, see if all conditions are met and, if so, you can't shoot 'em. Otherwise, it's fair game.

I think there's something being lost in the translation here, though, for some.

Let's say there is a character with 4 wounds standing out in the open in your opponent's deployment zone and their entire army is inches from your front line, you can still shoot the 4-wound character, provided he is not within 3" of a monster, vehicle or 3+ model unit. That's how its different from the rules now.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Spoiler: Dealing 1-2 MW on a lucky roll is not a hard counter to anything unless you are really struggling against units of single Gretchin. Which you very well might be, given the understanding of Warhammer you have displayed today.

And you've displayed a shocking inability to read or grasp basic concepts. Your army's models get to make a roll against the enemy unit that is falling back.

If you have multiple units in Engagement Range(which should be the case, assuming you're playing a melee army after all!), then that screening unit(because that's what you lot are constantly whining about) won't get to keep dumping back via a Fall Back and being an issue if your melee units somehow weren't up to the task of butchering its way through a lone screening unit(which should have told you something about how your army list is set up to begin with and somehow it's always one lone unit in the ridiculous anecdotes given about why Fall Back is so broken and for whatever reason the charging units never have any kind of shooting support ). If you survive the shooting after that Fall Back and you used Cut Them Down and your list wasn't swinging wet noodles to begin with? Congrats, you're probably going to eke out a win.

Oh, and of course this all assumes that terrain isn't being set up as nothing but a shooting gallery(which it shouldn't be, unless you've somehow given up on having any kind of say for that kind of thing) and that you use it appropriately rather than continually charging in .

But yeah. Keep it up with the ad hominems or implying that someone "doesn't get it".

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's the power of love. Two Daemon Princes, claw in claw, united in unholy matrimony, glow with such happiness that they cannot be targeted with ranged weapons, as long as they remain together.

As long as there's Look Out, Sir we'll always be friends.

Well, I guess Thrakka can now hide the entire council of Da Waaagh! behind his bulk

A finalised version of why this rule is dumb and stupid.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A finalised version of why this rule is dumb and stupid.

Spoiler:

Guardsman 1: "I can't get a clear shot at the red daemon! The blue daemon is in the way! And those cultists are comin' right for us!"
Guardsman 2: "I can't get a clear shot at the blue daemon! The red daemon is in the way! And those cultists are comin' right for us!"

Makes total sense.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A finalised version of why this rule is dumb and stupid.

Spoiler:

Guardsman 1: "I can't get a clear shot at the red daemon! The blue daemon is in the way! And those cultists are comin' right for us!"
Guardsman 2: "I can't get a clear shot at the blue daemon! The red daemon is in the way! And those cultists are comin' right for us!"

Makes total sense.

Officer: Just shoot in their general direction you steaming piles of Grox Manure, 2 targets are bigger than one!

Yeah, as written I don't think the rule is working as intended. They are going to have to rewrite it.
Hopefully someone on facebook noticed it and pointed it out to them. Not that will necessarily do anything.

For the record two Catacomb Command Barges should be able to pull this off too.

 puma713 wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
Ahh, chained statements. For those still confused, try this:

A character cannot be targeted with a ranged attack if the following three conditions are all met:

One: The character must have a Wounds characteristic of 9 or less.

Two: There is an enemy unit closer to the attacking unit.

Three: The character is within 3" of at least one vehicle AND/OR at least one monster AND/OROR at least unit of 3+ models.

If all of these conditions are not met, the character may be attacked by ranged attacks.

((It provides no protection from melee attacks))

I hope that cleans it up for those still a bit muddled. Go through the checklist, see if all conditions are met and, if so, you can't shoot 'em. Otherwise, it's fair game.

I think there's something being lost in the translation here, though, for some.

Let's say there is a character with 4 wounds standing out in the open in your opponent's deployment zone and their entire army is inches from your front line, you can still shoot the 4-wound character, provided he is not within 3" of a monster, vehicle or 3+ model unit. That's how its different from the rules now.

Correct! Said character passed check 1, he has less than 10 wounds on his profile, and #2, that he's not the closest model, but fails #3, not within 3" of a unit, which means that he's targetable.

This is why I figured the checklist would be easier for some people. Fail one, you can shoot.

Wakshaani wrote:
Ahh, chained statements. For those still confused, try this:

A character cannot be targeted with a ranged attack if the following three conditions are all met:

One: The character must have a Wounds characteristic of 9 or less.

Two: There is an enemy unit closer to the attacking unit.

Three: The character is within 3" of at least one vehicle AND/OR at least one monster AND/OROR at least unit of 3+ models.

If all of these conditions are not met, the character may be attacked by ranged attacks.

((It provides no protection from melee attacks))

I hope that cleans it up for those still a bit muddled. Go through the checklist, see if all conditions are met and, if so, you can't shoot 'em. Otherwise, it's fair game.

Why on earth GW can't write rules with simple list of conditions like this ?

By the way, thanks to fellow dakkaites for this entertaining rules hack of daemon princes walking together, granting protection for each other. You made my day.

If GW had a sense of humor they'd do a web comic with a pair of daemon prince superfriends.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Spoiler: Dealing 1-2 MW on a lucky roll is not a hard counter to anything unless you are really struggling against units of single Gretchin. Which you very well might be, given the understanding of Warhammer you have displayed today.

And you've displayed a shocking inability to read or grasp basic concepts. Your army's models get to make a roll against the enemy unit that is falling back.

If you have multiple units in Engagement Range(which should be the case, assuming you're playing a melee army after all!), then that screening unit(because that's what you lot are constantly whining about) won't get to keep dumping back via a Fall Back and being an issue if your melee units somehow weren't up to the task of butchering its way through a lone screening unit(which should have told you something about how your army list is set up to begin with and somehow it's always one lone unit in the ridiculous anecdotes given about why Fall Back is so broken and for whatever reason the charging units never have any kind of shooting support ). If you survive the shooting after that Fall Back and you used Cut Them Down and your list wasn't swinging wet noodles to begin with? Congrats, you're probably going to eke out a win.

Oh, and of course this all assumes that terrain isn't being set up as nothing but a shooting gallery(which it shouldn't be, unless you've somehow given up on having any kind of say for that kind of thing) and that you use it appropriately rather than continually charging in .

But yeah. Keep it up with the ad hominems or implying that someone "doesn't get it".

So yeah, 1-2 Mortal Wounds is bad for a CP, thanks for playing.

I dunno why anyone would seriously argue with someone who thinks Cut Them Down isn't garbage in at least 95% of situations, if they don't get it they're not gonna get it. It's like trying to convince someone that 2+2 isn't 5. If they don't get it right away, they're not going to no matter how much you explain it.

Hoping for the day 1 FAQ to include that DP's stats have improved to 10 wounds, just so you guys can realise how utterly pointless these ongoing arguments are without the context of the full rule changes, and thus, in future you may consider how futile theory hammer is when you haven't got all the ingredients to go into the theory.

hang on a minute! so i was semi right about the DP tag team a few pages back!

ha

(yes i know i wasnt 100% right)

yukishiro1 wrote:
I dunno why anyone would seriously argue with someone who thinks Cut Them Down isn't garbage in at least 95% of situations, if they don't get it they're not gonna get it. It's like trying to convince someone that 2+2 isn't 5. If they don't get it right away, they're not going to no matter how much you explain it.

Never forget "falling back is a boogeyman akin to lasguns killing Baneblades"

I honestly can't wrap my head around what kind of experience leads to that opinion. Nothing but gunlines where they play?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Hoping for the day 1 FAQ to include that DP's stats have improved to 10 wounds, just so you guys can realise how utterly pointless these ongoing arguments are without the context of the full rule changes, and thus, in future you may consider how futile theory hammer is when you haven't got all the ingredients to go into the theory.

Along with all character dreads going up to 10W too, and Patriarchs and Magi not being able to take 2 familiars?

Everything must look awesome with glasses that rose-tinted.

I hope you're right, though, and that 9th edition is the game they always say a new edition will be, but never has been in the past.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I'm surprised there was no info on flamers here, I really really hope they get something in return for basically losing overwatch.

I'd be happy if they where just made stupid cheap

 puma713 wrote:
This. They're just covering their bases. If characters could join units again, there'd be no need for an explicit rule on character targeting.

People are looking at it backwards. As others have said, it's for characters that have little hangers on (familiars, grots, etc.). If it was a precursor to characters being able to join units, then this rule would allow you to make units untargetable by joining characters to them. Obviously that's not right.

 Kanluwen wrote:
LOL, imagine thinking this stratagem is trash while nonstop whining about Fall Back being such a big deal.

Imagine not realising how punishing Fall Back is to assault units.

You're a hoot, Kan.

FWIW, Reece said this over on Frontline Gaming in response to someone bringing up how the multi-charge rule bones the ability to get to a character being screened:

"Well, hang tight, haha, because one of the biggest changes to the game has yet to be revealed and it has a big impact on things like screening. "

I would say this was fall back going the way of the dodo, but that obviously isn't the case because the one thing the total garbage that is Cut Them Down told us is that falling back is still a big part of the game, so big that they came up with a useless universal stratagem to ineffectively try to respond to it.

So I'm not sure what it could be. Maybe it's just removal of the limitation on only being able to fight what you declared a charge against? But that doesn't seem big enough, somehow.

Also said in the same thread:

"Combat is very different in 9th. It’s one of the bigger overall changes."

maybe its charging out of moving transports?!

yea i said it

 Latro_ wrote:
maybe its charging out of moving transports?!

yea i said it

It would make Rhinos more worth it as a transport.

yukishiro1 wrote:
FWIW, Reece said this over on Frontline Gaming in response to someone bringing up how the multi-charge rule bones the ability to get to a character being screened:

"Well, hang tight, haha, because one of the biggest changes to the game has yet to be revealed and it has a big impact on things like screening. "

I would say this was fall back going the way of the dodo, but that obviously isn't the case because the one thing the total garbage that is Cut Them Down told us is that falling back is still a big part of the game, so big that they came up with a useless universal stratagem to ineffectively try to respond to it.

So I'm not sure what it could be. Maybe it's just removal of the limitation on only being able to fight what you declared a charge against? But that doesn't seem big enough, somehow.

Also said in the same thread:

"Combat is very different in 9th. It’s one of the bigger overall changes."

Gonna assume it's that you can now deploy an literal bucket full of hormaguants by tipping it onto the table. Where they land is where they fight.

hmm, somehow, I feel that there needs to be better balance in terms of strategems and CP cost now that we have seen some stuff like overwatch being a strategem.

Like overwatch might maybe kill 1 or 2 models if lucky? (unless you have such a shooty unit, or one with so many flamers in it). Same for cut them down.

But on the other end of the spectrum, you have some strategems that inflict or protect far more wounds than that, and maybe these just cost 2 CP ? (some even cost just 1 cp).

So, unless everyone has CP coming out of their ears, why would people use these situational strategems instead of saving their CP for the truly devastating strategems they will have.

I mean, spending 3 CP to fight a second time for the entire unit will probably result in far more kills as compared to spending 1 CP 3 times on Cut them down !

Eldenfirefly wrote:
I mean, spending 3 CP to fight a second time for the entire unit will probably result in far more kills as compared to spending 1 CP 3 times on Cut them down !

With the changes to charges (that we know of), I'm not sure fighting a second time would even be worth 3 CP anymore.

You can't charge multiple units (unless you make the charge roll to reach all of them), so it's no longer a case of consolidating into a new unit you declared a charge against (but didn't reach) and then popping the 'fight twice' strat. And do you want to fight twice against the unit you just fought? That would mean that you wipe them out... and now you're in the open and about to be blasted off the table. Fall Back is devastating enough as it is without doing it to yourself on purpose.

Unless we can attack units you consolidate into. Especially with characters hugging units for shelter. FLG guys were saying melee is noticeably different so possible.