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.

 argonak wrote:
Eliminating a few specific detachment types would pretty much eliminate this and other similar issues.

It would also eliminate perfectly legitimate armies. Example: Pure Deathwing. The detachment rules are fine.

U02dah4 wrote:
So what the imperium need in answer is cheap units with no bs who can proceed to fire hundreds of Lasgun shots. I shall call this mythic unit the conscript.

Too many models for it to table

And laz guns going from 5+ to 6+ isn't a big reduction

It's a nice meta list to cane elite marines but my guard infantry will eat it all day.

Well, technically, cutting the number of hits you make in half is a big reduction.

But, yeah, things like conscripts or a green tide throwing around a lot of shots before getting into combat might be one thing to try. With the Eldar list that had been brought up earlier, maneuverability (and flyers) would be something to have.

Your hitting 1/6 of the time instead of 2/6 sixth of the time the impact is less than a marine that goes from 4/6 to 1/6.

U02dah4 wrote:
Your hitting 1/6 of the time instead of 2/6 sixth of the time the impact is less than a marine that goes from 4/6 to 1/6.

True, but losing hitting half the time you othewise would without the modifier is still a big reduction, contrary to what you say. That others suffer more doesn't mean that the conscripts also suffer big time from the reduction.

Hm, does a set change of BS count as a modifier?

If not; then the reductiin in BS is not as bad for conscipts if they can get a base-line reroll missed to hits.

If so; then vehicles suffer worse from damage than previously thought(base-line reroll misses cannot be rerolled if the full wounds value would have hit)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Hm, does a set change of BS count as a modifier?

If not; then the reductiin in BS is not as bad for conscipts if they can get a base-line reroll missed to hits.

If so; then vehicles suffer worse from damage than previously thought(base-line reroll misses cannot be rerolled if the full wounds value would have hit)

I would say it is not a modifier, if only because it 'sets' your ballistic skill to a certain value, no differently than erasing the x+ on the sheet and writing in a new number (though I don't recommend doing that as it is usually temporary).

From the BRB FAQ:

Q: If an ability instructs me to resolve an attack with a different characteristic (e.g. a Culexus Assassin’s Etherium ability) does this happen before or after any other modifiers that also apply to that characteristic (e.g. the Drukhari Serpentin Combat Drug)?
A: When resolving such an attack, change the relevant characteristic to the new value before applying any modifiers to that new value.
In the example above, the Weapon Skill of the model attacking a Culexus Assassin is treated as being 6+ because of the Etherium ability, but the Serpentin then boosts it to 5+.


So the question implies it is a modifier (any OTHER modifiers), however, the answer implies it is not (before applying ANY modifiers).

Good catch, happyjew. It looks like they specifically avoided calling Etherium a "modifier".

Azuza001 wrote:
Culexus assassins are simply broken. I am sorry, you can't hit me unless I am closest, and if you can you have to hit me on a 6, and by the way you can't get me with psychic powers at all, and I have an invulnerable 4+ save? Who let this grot turd get through play testing and felt it was balanced? I own one of these guys and won't run it, it's simply broken.

This. Ridiculously under costed and OP. THEN theres the character spam problem. Both need to be addressed IMO.

It's not even that easy a fix. If you added the rule "if the opponent only has charecters on the battlefield then they lose their charecter targeting special rules" then your opponent hides 5 scouts in their backfield the entire game. If you did "if the only units a unit can see are charecters then the player can choose which charecter it wants to shoot at" you get people using rhinos to purposefully block Los so all their Las Cannon devs can see are a few charecters on the field.

Whatever they come up with I hope they think it out and don't knee jerk reaction it.

I really like the idea of adding a clause requiring any Character to be within X (2 - 4) inches of a Non-Character before they gain the 'can-not-target' benefit.
Brings it more in line with the intent: The Shooter is not able to cleanly pick the target out of a nearby group of Enemy, with Snipers having training to do so.

 JinxDragon wrote:
I really like the idea of adding a clause requiring any Character to be within X (2 - 4) inches of a Non-Character before they gain the 'can-not-target' benefit.
Brings it more in line with the intent: The Shooter is not able to cleanly pick the target out of a nearby group of Enemy, with Snipers having training to do so.

Yeah. That would probably work well. I would go and give them 6" myself, but either way it solves the problem.

My buddy and I were talking about this. He does the Tau Commander spam lists with 7-8 Commanders. We believe the character section needs to change. A CHARACTER can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting Phase if they are the "closest visible enemy" to the model that is shooting.

REPLACE "closest visible enemy" TO "closest VIABLE enemy"

This would get rid of shooting the closest enemy unit that would otherwise be unable to be a target. We believe it would solve most problems.

Even swapping it to closest viable is very subjective. The rules should have required characters to be near non-characters to gain protection from the start. Not being able to shoot a guy all by himself standing in an open field just because a single guardsman is 1 inch closer is by far the most idiotic restriction ever created.
How can a small squad of guys nowhere near a character force you to only be able to focus on them just because they are a fraction of an inch closer than a much bigger threat standing out in the open with no one around?

Really characters should be costed so that they are only cost efficient when making use of thier buffs to other units.

Characters who don't buff (like assassins) should either be unique or have serious diminishing returns.

Azuza001 wrote:
It's not even that easy a fix. If you added the rule "if the opponent only has charecters on the battlefield then they lose their charecter targeting special rules" then your opponent hides 5 scouts in their backfield the entire game. If you did "if the only units a unit can see are charecters then the player can choose which charecter it wants to shoot at" you get people using rhinos to purposefully block Los so all their Las Cannon devs can see are a few charecters on the field.

Whatever they come up with I hope they think it out and don't knee jerk reaction it.

You could get around that merely by making a rule change that an enemy character unit can be targeted only if there is not an enemy non-character unit closer to the firing unit. That way any character in an all-character army could be targeted, and in the case you describe the scout unit would have to be hidden up near the enemy in order to prevent characters from being shot at, which would open them up to being quickly charged and disposed of.

This sort of thing strikes me as the price you pay for 40k's variety.

Having superheavy tank companies in the same game as an execution force of hitmen seems...silly.

I'm telling you, the easiest and least-impactful way to fix it is just to remove 'Character' from assassins.

 puma713 wrote:
I'm telling you, the easiest and least-impactful way to fix it is just to remove 'Character' from assassins.

Then you have the same problem but people run 40 librarians instead with Drago and his 2++ up front.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I'm telling you, the easiest and least-impactful way to fix it is just to remove 'Character' from assassins.

Then you have the same problem but people run 40 librarians instead with Drago and his 2++ up front.

That would cost over 4,000 points.

It would be Primaris Psykers, and people already spam them without Draigo, because conscripts are a better shield than Draigo ever will be. Even 5 full strength smites is enough. It's a mortal wound cannon for under 300 points.

To me character spam is a problem, because the targeting rules are wonky.

The best fix would be that you can't target a character if a *non-character* unit is closer.

Additionally, i would tone down smite. 40 point smiters is stupid.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I'm telling you, the easiest and least-impactful way to fix it is just to remove 'Character' from assassins.

Then you have the same problem but people run 40 librarians instead with Drago and his 2++ up front.

That would cost over 4,000 points.

It would be Primaris Psykers, and people already spam them without Draigo, because conscripts are a better shield than Draigo ever will be. Even 5 full strength smites is enough. It's a mortal wound cannon for under 300 points.

To me character spam is a problem, because the targeting rules are wonky.

The best fix would be that you can't target a character if a *non-character* unit is closer.

Additionally, i would tone down smite. 40 point smiters is stupid.

I actually think smite is fine. It's 'closest unit' so your opponent can act to control what it hits; I think that's excellent counterplay (compared to just "do some mortal wounds to anything in 18", THAT would be stupid with no counterplay).

But you're right about the character things. I am not sure how to fix it, really, as character sniping is apparently a big problem in AOS (which lacks a rule to protect them).

The easiest fix is to only permit the character rule if the character is within 4" of a non-character unit.

That way you can use your other dudes to screen your Special Snowflakes, or hide them behind a Baneblade, but if they are out in the open they are SOL.

This isn't really a YMDC thread anymore, and there's a duplicate thread in tactics.

Indeed.