Switch Theme:

Lowering Character Targeting Cutoff  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
What should the cutoff for not being able to target a character be?
10 (leave it as is from the core 8e book)
9
8
7
6
5
Other (including lower than 5, please explain)

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Numberless Necron Warrior




I've seen this suggested in a few threads related to other conversations, but didn't see a thread discussing it on its own merits.

In the core rules we are disallowed from targeting characters in gejeral if there are any other units closer, because the targets "blend in" with the units around them. There is then an exception if the character has a wounds statistic of more than 10.

This cutoff allows truly huge models to still be targeted, such as Magnus. However it leaves a swath of very large, often very powerful, models that can't be targeted even though "blending in" seems to have gone out the window. The one I've seen most frequently discussed is Robert Guilliman, with his huge, gold trimmed armor, but it includes Daemon Princes as well, who sit just below that magical 10 point cutoff but are also large models that begger the explanation of "blending in."

What do you think? Where should that cutoff be?

   
Made in gb
Lethal Lhamean




Birmingham

7 or less would be my preference, it covers all the infantry sized characters but leaves Daemon Princes, Guilliman and the Avatars out in the open.
   
Made in us
Numberless Necron Warrior




 Imateria wrote:
7 or less would be my preference, it covers all the infantry sized characters but leaves Daemon Princes, Guilliman and the Avatars out in the open.


I assume you mean 7 or more can be targeted (that's how the rule is currently written; 10 or more wounds can be targeted)...Generally realizing that I may have left unintended uncertainty in the poll.

   
Made in gb
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant




Wales

I've voted 10 or more.

Seriously, the rules have been out BARELY a month, and you want to impose a massive rule edit WITHOUT considering if newer affected models might need a buff or omission?

While Girly man is certainly powerful - he is slow. Can't transport and is at the mercy of not being able to be targeted. Although I suspect this is yet another "Girly man" hate thread.

374th Mechanized 195pts 
   
Made in us
Numberless Necron Warrior




 Freddy Kruger wrote:
I've voted 10 or more.

Seriously, the rules have been out BARELY a month, and you want to impose a massive rule edit WITHOUT considering if newer affected models might need a buff or omission?

While Girly man is certainly powerful - he is slow. Can't transport and is at the mercy of not being able to be targeted. Although I suspect this is yet another "Girly man" hate thread.


Being out barely a month doesn't mean you can't find issues. Ergo, 2 sets of errata and faq already. So, you think this entire sub forum should be locked for... how long?

As for your hyper-defensiveness; this came home for me when I discovered Daemon Princes are untargetable characters. I mentioned papa smurf only because there is so much commentary on him that mentions falling into that category.

   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

I feel like this is better tied to the model's size. Bobby G. can blend in amongst Centurions (in similar paints, at least) but not ordinary Marines. A Daemon Prince of Nurgle obscured by Plague Drones? Yeah, I can see that being hard to target. But by some Nurglings? Not so much.

Likewise, I also think it should be only obscured if the obscuring models are within 3". If Bobby G. is 12" in front of you and there's some Marines 6" in front of you (or, god forbid, BEHIND YOU) they shouldn't block him.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 JNAProductions wrote:
I feel like this is better tied to the model's size. Bobby G. can blend in amongst Centurions (in similar paints, at least) but not ordinary Marines. A Daemon Prince of Nurgle obscured by Plague Drones? Yeah, I can see that being hard to target. But by some Nurglings? Not so much.

Likewise, I also think it should be only obscured if the obscuring models are within 3". If Bobby G. is 12" in front of you and there's some Marines 6" in front of you (or, god forbid, BEHIND YOU) they shouldn't block him.


I agree with this, I would have liked to see a "height" stat for models, that could then be tied to abstract terrain. So smaller chaff may have trouble obscuring a larger model, but even magnus could be untargetable if he is surrounded by bloodthirsters or knights. I'd then also likely add a rule making flyers not count for obscuring models. If Bobby G is running around on the ground below a bunch of storm ravens he is fair game.
   
Made in us
Numberless Necron Warrior




I think they've already roughly done a "height" stat, or more accurately "size," with their allocation of Wounds.

It does kill me that a unit of marines 11" away in one direction is more threatening than a daemon prince, Primarch, or other equivilant 11.1" away in the dead opposite direction. There are all manner of rules to smooth that nonsense. For example, I think units with the Flier type should be ignored for "closer than characters." More comprehensively, use the difference in Wounds stat as a "threat" measure for characters; a character cannot be targeted of there is another unit closer than it but you modify the distance to the character by its relative Threat. So a Daemon Prince would be at actual distance compared to a Bloat Drone while it would be 9" closer than actual measure vs a standard Marine. But all of that adds complexity.

And putting that together I need to re-reread the targeting characters rule, because I may have had a confused opponent and Daemon Princes may be targetable with the current rule after all.


Question; what models (aside from the oft-discussed Guilliman) are characters with 7-9 wounds? (I don't have all the indexes.)

   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




silentone2k wrote:
I think they've already roughly done a "height" stat, or more accurately "size," with their allocation of Wounds.

It does kill me that a unit of marines 11" away in one direction is more threatening than a daemon prince, Primarch, or other equivalent 11.1" away in the dead opposite direction. There are all manner of rules to smooth that nonsense. For example, I think units with the Flier type should be ignored for "closer than characters." More comprehensively, use the difference in Wounds stat as a "threat" measure for characters; a character cannot be targeted of there is another unit closer than it but you modify the distance to the character by its relative Threat. So a Daemon Prince would be at actual distance compared to a Bloat Drone while it would be 9" closer than actual measure vs a standard Marine. But all of that adds complexity.

And putting that together I need to re-reread the targeting characters rule, because I may have had a confused opponent and Daemon Princes may be targetable with the current rule after all.


Question; what models (aside from the oft-discussed Guilliman) are characters with 7-9 wounds? (I don't have all the indexes.)

What if they had something along the lines of:

If the characters' (starting) wounds are more than the (current) amount of wounds in the unit then that character can be targeted even if not the closest target
(In addition to the unit having to be within X inches of the character and in LOS - because the opposite direction thing is nonsense.)

Partially to encourage taking larger units

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/31 19:19:18


 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






silentone2k wrote:
I think they've already roughly done a "height" stat, or more accurately "size," with their allocation of Wounds.

It does kill me that a unit of marines 11" away in one direction is more threatening than a daemon prince, Primarch, or other equivilant 11.1" away in the dead opposite direction. There are all manner of rules to smooth that nonsense. For example, I think units with the Flier type should be ignored for "closer than characters." More comprehensively, use the difference in Wounds stat as a "threat" measure for characters; a character cannot be targeted of there is another unit closer than it but you modify the distance to the character by its relative Threat. So a Daemon Prince would be at actual distance compared to a Bloat Drone while it would be 9" closer than actual measure vs a standard Marine. But all of that adds complexity.

And putting that together I need to re-reread the targeting characters rule, because I may have had a confused opponent and Daemon Princes may be targetable with the current rule after all.


Question; what models (aside from the oft-discussed Guilliman) are characters with 7-9 wounds? (I don't have all the indexes.)


I think the easiest and best fix is just to make it intervening units. You trace a line like you would for beam weapons in 7th. If the line passes through any part of another unit (including the spaces between models in coherency) then you cannot target the character. closest doesn't matter. They could be on the opposite side of the table but if they are exposed they can be shot.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Imateria wrote:
7 or less would be my preference, it covers all the infantry sized characters but leaves Daemon Princes, Guilliman and the Avatars out in the open.


The avatar is actually the reason I'd hate to see a more severe cutoff. This is the first edition since I started playing that I've felt like I can reliably get the big guy across the table to swing his sword, and several recent games with him indicate that he's far from OP when he gets there. I'd rather not see him die to a pair of slightly lucky krak missiles, please. :(

If I'm not mistaken, only CSM daemon princes can be screened this edition. The chaos daemons version has more wounds and thus more innate survivability, but the marine version can hide behind a line of buddies (say, for instance, a couple of chaos rhinos), but he can also be taken out by that same pair of lucky krak missiles mentioned above. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but I recently faced a prince wing manning for a blood thirster. They killed two squads of avengers, then evaporated in a hail of shuriken and fusion gun fire on my turn. I don't feel that princes are overwhelmingly durable this edition.

Bobby G. is, from what I'm told, problematically durable. But that's a problem with a single unit; not something that warrants game-wide changes.

If anything, I think there are a few units, such as the hive tyrant, that ought to be harder to target or lower in cost. I'm sure most 'nid players would love to be able to protect their HQs a bit better without having to sacrifice wings and splurge on tyrant guard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jbz` wrote:
silentone2k wrote:
I think they've already roughly done a "height" stat, or more accurately "size," with their allocation of Wounds.

It does kill me that a unit of marines 11" away in one direction is more threatening than a daemon prince, Primarch, or other equivalent 11.1" away in the dead opposite direction. There are all manner of rules to smooth that nonsense. For example, I think units with the Flier type should be ignored for "closer than characters." More comprehensively, use the difference in Wounds stat as a "threat" measure for characters; a character cannot be targeted of there is another unit closer than it but you modify the distance to the character by its relative Threat. So a Daemon Prince would be at actual distance compared to a Bloat Drone while it would be 9" closer than actual measure vs a standard Marine. But all of that adds complexity.

And putting that together I need to re-reread the targeting characters rule, because I may have had a confused opponent and Daemon Princes may be targetable with the current rule after all.


Question; what models (aside from the oft-discussed Guilliman) are characters with 7-9 wounds? (I don't have all the indexes.)

What if they had something along the lines of:

If the characters' (starting) wounds are more than the (current) amount of wounds in the unit then that character can be targeted even if not the closest target
(In addition to the unit having to be within X inches of the character and in LOS - because the opposite direction thing is nonsense.)

Partially to encourage taking larger units


This is interesting, and I think it has potential. That said, I know this would do horrible things to a lot of Aeldari characters who often want to be taken alongside MSU squads. Harlequins, for a rather extreme example, cost a ton of points for every 1 wound toughness 3 regular trouper they can field. It's easy to kill off one or two of these guys and now target the troupe master behind them. So by shooting a couple of bolter rounds at a unit that you don't mind shooting bolters at anyway, you can reliably open up a PL7 model to being one-shotted by a mildly-lucky d6 damage weapon like a krak missile. So basically, harlequins would no longer be allowed to prevent opponents from killing off their very expensive characters.

Drukhari would maybe be a bit better off as our units are somewhat spammable and can ride around in capacity-10 raiders, but it still won't take a lot of bolters to evaporate some wyches or warriors once they hop out.

Craftworlders are in a similar position to harlequins unless you're talking about guardians. Phoenix lords would get nerfed in a lot of odd little ways. You'd need about 200 points of dark reapers to keep Maugan from being targeted while near his squad. Fuegan wouldn't be able to ride in a falcon with his dragon pals if he wanted to be untargetable. Baharroth and Karandras would become targetable as soon as a single model from their aspect warriors' box sets got killed. That sort of thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:
silentone2k wrote:
I think they've already roughly done a "height" stat, or more accurately "size," with their allocation of Wounds.

It does kill me that a unit of marines 11" away in one direction is more threatening than a daemon prince, Primarch, or other equivilant 11.1" away in the dead opposite direction. There are all manner of rules to smooth that nonsense. For example, I think units with the Flier type should be ignored for "closer than characters." More comprehensively, use the difference in Wounds stat as a "threat" measure for characters; a character cannot be targeted of there is another unit closer than it but you modify the distance to the character by its relative Threat. So a Daemon Prince would be at actual distance compared to a Bloat Drone while it would be 9" closer than actual measure vs a standard Marine. But all of that adds complexity.

And putting that together I need to re-reread the targeting characters rule, because I may have had a confused opponent and Daemon Princes may be targetable with the current rule after all.


Question; what models (aside from the oft-discussed Guilliman) are characters with 7-9 wounds? (I don't have all the indexes.)


I think the easiest and best fix is just to make it intervening units. You trace a line like you would for beam weapons in 7th. If the line passes through any part of another unit (including the spaces between models in coherency) then you cannot target the character. closest doesn't matter. They could be on the opposite side of the table but if they are exposed they can be shot.


I like the "form a protective wall" thing that this would encourage with model positioning. However, there are a few oddities here that you may or may not have considered.

* Do you trace the "beam" on a model-by-model basis, or does having a single guy in your squad capable of tracing a line count?

* MSU armies would, again, suffer pretty severely from this. Currently, my overpriced dire avengers can be a relatively inexpensive way to protect my farseer from deepstrikers and targeting. Under the "beam" system, however, it would be pretty easy to kill one or two avengers huddling around a farseer for maximum protective coverage and then rip apart the toughness 3 farseer with bolter rounds.

*Do you trace this beam two-dimensionally or three-dimensionally? If the latter, you'll basically never be able to stop a tall model from being targeted. Even something only sort-of tall like an Avatar of Khaine. If the former, then my five dire avengers on the ground can keep your guns from targeting my farseer on the roof.


I feel like most of the ideas pitched here would significantly decrease the survivability of a lot of units that don't need to become more fragile than they already are. I don't think I'd be onboard with most of these ideas as presented unless we also, like, doubled the number of wounds on certain units.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/08/01 02:39:35



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





If you change it so that Characters with 7 or more HP can be targeted

I bet on the same day they would change Girlyman to be 6 HP with a 4+ FNP

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/01 03:22:25



6+ = 6/36 | Reroll 1s = 7/36 | Reroll Misses = 11/36 ||||||| 5+ = 12/36 | Reroll 1s 14/36 | Reroll Misses = 20/36 ||||||| 4+ = 18/36 | Reroll 1s 21/36 | Reroll Misses = 27/36
3+ = 24/36 | Reroll 1s 28/36 | Reroll Misses = 32/36 ||||||| 2+ = 30/36 | Reroll 1s 35/36 ||||||| Highest of 2d6 = 4.47
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I chose "other" and I feel the cutoff should be anyone listed as a monster.

The avatar of Khaine, robot girlyman, the c'tan chards, all are huge beings of immense power. The idea that you can't see the avatar or a demon prince because there are some basic infantry in front of them is ludicrous.

   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Wyldhunt wrote:

I think the easiest and best fix is just to make it intervening units. You trace a line like you would for beam weapons in 7th. If the line passes through any part of another unit (including the spaces between models in coherency) then you cannot target the character. closest doesn't matter. They could be on the opposite side of the table but if they are exposed they can be shot.


I like the "form a protective wall" thing that this would encourage with model positioning. However, there are a few oddities here that you may or may not have considered.

* Do you trace the "beam" on a model-by-model basis, or does having a single guy in your squad capable of tracing a line count?


Model by model. You already have to establish line of sight on a model by model basis to be able to shoot. All this does is create a situation where intervening models block LOS.


* MSU armies would, again, suffer pretty severely from this. Currently, my overpriced dire avengers can be a relatively inexpensive way to protect my farseer from deepstrikers and targeting. Under the "beam" system, however, it would be pretty easy to kill one or two avengers huddling around a farseer for maximum protective coverage and then rip apart the toughness 3 farseer with bolter rounds.


MSU has a ton of advantages. It was crazy powerful in 7th to the point that there was no reason to do anything else. Even now in 8th MSU has powerful advantages like minimizing or negating the impact of moral and the advantage of mobility. Giving reasons to want to build up a unit to max size is not a bad thing. There should be reason enough to do both that you have to actually choose what you are going to do instead of one obvious choice.



*Do you trace this beam two-dimensionally or three-dimensionally? If the latter, you'll basically never be able to stop a tall model from being targeted. Even something only sort-of tall like an Avatar of Khaine. If the former, then my five dire avengers on the ground can keep your guns from targeting my farseer on the roof.


Just like 7th. The beam is a 2 dimensional plane with a infinite height. If you want to adjust for height then "Intervening models must be within 3" vertically from the character to block LOS. If the character is 3 or more inches from the intervening models it can be targeted freely."


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






I think current rules are fine. I don't see how daemon princes are an issue. Now Girlyman is underpriced but it's not a reason to throw a functional bandaid mechanic to go out of the window. This unreasonable protection is needed to maintain the hollywood hero image for your characters.
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





I'm pretty sure the problem is that Guilliman/Celestine (well, the latter just needs to be more expensive) have too many defenses in addition to the character rule, not the character rule itself. The character rule works just fine with daemon princes and such because once they're out on their own they're actually killable.
   
Made in us
Numberless Necron Warrior




Wyldhunt wrote:
 Imateria wrote:
7 or less would be my preference, it covers all the infantry sized characters but leaves Daemon Princes, Guilliman and the Avatars out in the open.


The avatar is actually the reason I'd hate to see a more severe cutoff. This is the first edition since I started playing that I've felt like I can reliably get the big guy across the table to swing his sword, and several recent games with him indicate that he's far from OP when he gets there. I'd rather not see him die to a pair of slightly lucky krak missiles, please. :(


It seems like there are other, better, ways of doing this. Add a line to the Molten Body ability; if the source of this wound is a ranged attack with a Damage trait of 1 the wound is negated on a 3+. But not letting the big flaming creature not get targeted because the guys near him are scarier... eh?

Wyldhunt wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, only CSM daemon princes can be screened this edition. The chaos daemons version has more wounds and thus more innate survivability, but the marine version can hide behind a line of buddies (say, for instance, a couple of chaos rhinos), but he can also be taken out by that same pair of lucky krak missiles mentioned above. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but I recently faced a prince wing manning for a blood thirster. They killed two squads of avengers, then evaporated in a hail of shuriken and fusion gun fire on my turn. I don't feel that princes are overwhelmingly durable this edition.


Wait... two essentially identical units (Chaos Daemon Daemon Princes and Chaos Marine Daemon Princes) have not only differing stat lines but different ability to be targeted?


Wyldhunt wrote:
Bobby G. is, from what I'm told, problematically durable. But that's a problem with a single unit; not something that warrants game-wide changes.


I agree that the G-man has its own issues. I think this is contributory, but they go far beyond it. However, there's a reason I did not focus on that one model that everyone points to, but on the others that are similarly sized and still gain targeting immunity.


Wyldhunt wrote:
If anything, I think there are a few units, such as the hive tyrant, that ought to be harder to target or lower in cost. I'm sure most 'nid players would love to be able to protect their HQs a bit better without having to sacrifice wings and splurge on tyrant guard.


Everyone like better protection on their units. I don't know 'nids well enough to talk about their cost/effectiveness balance. However, making hard choices (the Fly keyword vs protection) sounds like the sort of hard decision you should have to make.

Wyldhunt wrote:
II think the easiest and best fix is just to make it intervening units. You trace a line like you would for beam weapons in 7th. If the line passes through any part of another unit (including the spaces between models in coherency) then you cannot target the character. closest doesn't matter. They could be on the opposite side of the table but if they are exposed they can be shot.
...

I feel like most of the ideas pitched here would significantly decrease the survivability of a lot of units that don't need to become more fragile than they already are. I don't think I'd be onboard with most of these ideas as presented unless we also, like, doubled the number of wounds on certain units.


I'm not sure about doing model-by-model blocks. Seems like too close to the 50% cover, which this edition was supposed to get away from. On the other hand, crossing the unit can get weird when you do things like 20 model squads of warriors that can string across half the table. I do think something should be done so that you're not "blocked" by a unit more than 90 degrees off from your desired target, but I'm not sure how to do that elegantly. Checking lines across units might be the answer, but I'm not there yet.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/01 13:45:01


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Wyldhunt wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, only CSM daemon princes can be screened this edition. The chaos daemons version has more wounds and thus more innate survivability, but the marine version can hide behind a line of buddies (say, for instance, a couple of chaos rhinos),

Errata in the FAQ
They have the same wounds now

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/01 14:05:03



6+ = 6/36 | Reroll 1s = 7/36 | Reroll Misses = 11/36 ||||||| 5+ = 12/36 | Reroll 1s 14/36 | Reroll Misses = 20/36 ||||||| 4+ = 18/36 | Reroll 1s 21/36 | Reroll Misses = 27/36
3+ = 24/36 | Reroll 1s 28/36 | Reroll Misses = 32/36 ||||||| 2+ = 30/36 | Reroll 1s 35/36 ||||||| Highest of 2d6 = 4.47
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





@silentone2k

The Avatar:
That would make the avatar better against bolter fire, but what I'm concerned about is missile/lascannon fire. This is the first edition I've played in where I can reliably get the Avatar safely across the table, and I'm encouraged to take arguably less popular foot-slogging units to do it. This results in a unique play style and (imo) a reasonable amount of durability for the avatar.

Are people really struggling to take down the avatar these days? If not, can't we agree that making a not-broken unit significantly worse would be a bad move?

Daemon Princes:
According to Talamare, princes now have standardized wounds, so I guess that's a moot point on my part.

Bobby G:
So we all recognize that Bobby G *may* need to be rebalanced. Do princes or the avatar really need the same treatment though? Maybe you believe the answer is "yes," but I haven't seen a lot of complaints about either of these units, and I struggle to think of other 9 wound models that are giving people a rough time.

Is it purely a matter of, "That thing is big, so not being able to shoot it feels weird"? I can understand that perspective, but I'd still rather avoid dramatically altering the rules and the balance of reasonably balanced units where we don't have to.

Hive Tyrants:
Having to make trade-offs is, in fact, a great choice to have to make. I'm not sure if tyrants are actually underpowered as they stand. I just know that their price tag is hard to swallow given their overall decrease in lethality and situational decrease in survivability.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:

I think the easiest and best fix is just to make it intervening units. You trace a line like you would for beam weapons in 7th. If the line passes through any part of another unit (including the spaces between models in coherency) then you cannot target the character. closest doesn't matter. They could be on the opposite side of the table but if they are exposed they can be shot.


I like the "form a protective wall" thing that this would encourage with model positioning. However, there are a few oddities here that you may or may not have considered.

* Do you trace the "beam" on a model-by-model basis, or does having a single guy in your squad capable of tracing a line count?


Model by model. You already have to establish line of sight on a model by model basis to be able to shoot. All this does is create a situation where intervening models block LOS.


* MSU armies would, again, suffer pretty severely from this. Currently, my overpriced dire avengers can be a relatively inexpensive way to protect my farseer from deepstrikers and targeting. Under the "beam" system, however, it would be pretty easy to kill one or two avengers huddling around a farseer for maximum protective coverage and then rip apart the toughness 3 farseer with bolter rounds.


MSU has a ton of advantages. It was crazy powerful in 7th to the point that there was no reason to do anything else. Even now in 8th MSU has powerful advantages like minimizing or negating the impact of moral and the advantage of mobility. Giving reasons to want to build up a unit to max size is not a bad thing. There should be reason enough to do both that you have to actually choose what you are going to do instead of one obvious choice.



*Do you trace this beam two-dimensionally or three-dimensionally? If the latter, you'll basically never be able to stop a tall model from being targeted. Even something only sort-of tall like an Avatar of Khaine. If the former, then my five dire avengers on the ground can keep your guns from targeting my farseer on the roof.


Just like 7th. The beam is a 2 dimensional plane with a infinite height. If you want to adjust for height then "Intervening models must be within 3" vertically from the character to block LOS. If the character is 3 or more inches from the intervening models it can be targeted freely."


I don't know if I like the idea of pausing to trace a line for every model in your unit each time you want to shoot. Granted, you can probably keep the game moving at a reasonable pace if everyone is keeping rigid base-to-base formations. But then you have to take the time to move your models *just so* again. Not having to do that (due to templates and blasts going away) is one of the things I really enjoy about the new rules set. And Emperor forbid someone should run their squad in a loose formation where you have to pause and check if there are any gaps for two or three of your models to shoot through.

I see your point about MSU, and I certainly don't want small squads to be completely better than large squads. However, speaking as a primarily aeldari player, these changes would not encourage me to take larger squads of space elves. Most of my squads can't actually be taken in very large groups, and doing so would invite my expensive, fragile aeldari to run away in droves after being sprinkled with bolter fire. So taking large squads would not be an effective method of protecting my characters, and I would, therefore, seek to take as few characters as possible and then proceed to continue taking MSU where I can. Especially now that I can't rely on my farseer to give a relatively cost-effective buff to a large unit. Guide is better on 20 guardins than on 10, after all.

So at that point, the proposed rule would actually make large squads less desirable, and it would severely weaken... just about every aeldari character out there. Granted, this is speaking mostly from an aeldari perspective.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/03 00:30:29



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Wyldhunt wrote:


I don't know if I like the idea of pausing to trace a line for every model in your unit each time you want to shoot. Granted, you can probably keep the game moving at a reasonable pace if everyone is keeping rigid base-to-base formations. But then you have to take the time to move your models *just so* again. Not having to do that (due to templates and blasts going away) is one of the things I really enjoy about the new rules set. And Emperor forbid someone should run their squad in a loose formation where you have to pause and check if there are any gaps for two or three of your models to shoot through.


Again, You already have to trace LOS for every model. It will take no extra time. And as for spaces in the unit. My original proposition (which has not changed) is the the spaces between the models that are in coherency also block LOS. You have to shoot around the unit, not the models. If the UNIT is in between you and the character then you cannot trace los and target it.

I see your point about MSU, and I certainly don't want small squads to be completely better than large squads. However, speaking as a primarily aeldari player, these changes would not encourage me to take larger squads of space elves. Most of my squads can't actually be taken in very large groups, and doing so would invite my expensive, fragile aeldari to run away in droves after being sprinkled with bolter fire. So taking large squads would not be an effective method of protecting my characters, and I would, therefore, seek to take as few characters as possible and then proceed to continue taking MSU where I can. Especially now that I can't rely on my farseer to give a relatively cost-effective buff to a large unit. Guide is better on 20 guardins than on 10, after all.

So at that point, the proposed rule would actually make large squads less desirable, and it would severely weaken... just about every aeldari character out there. Granted, this is speaking mostly from an aeldari perspective.
I don't know enough about the eldar (of any variety) to comment on specific units or what not. Just not my wheel house and I have very little to no experience playing against them.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Lance845 wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:


I don't know if I like the idea of pausing to trace a line for every model in your unit each time you want to shoot. Granted, you can probably keep the game moving at a reasonable pace if everyone is keeping rigid base-to-base formations. But then you have to take the time to move your models *just so* again. Not having to do that (due to templates and blasts going away) is one of the things I really enjoy about the new rules set. And Emperor forbid someone should run their squad in a loose formation where you have to pause and check if there are any gaps for two or three of your models to shoot through.


Again, You already have to trace LOS for every model. It will take no extra time. And as for spaces in the unit. My original proposition (which has not changed) is the the spaces between the models that are in coherency also block LOS. You have to shoot around the unit, not the models. If the UNIT is in between you and the character then you cannot trace los and target it.

I see your point about MSU, and I certainly don't want small squads to be completely better than large squads. However, speaking as a primarily aeldari player, these changes would not encourage me to take larger squads of space elves. Most of my squads can't actually be taken in very large groups, and doing so would invite my expensive, fragile aeldari to run away in droves after being sprinkled with bolter fire. So taking large squads would not be an effective method of protecting my characters, and I would, therefore, seek to take as few characters as possible and then proceed to continue taking MSU where I can. Especially now that I can't rely on my farseer to give a relatively cost-effective buff to a large unit. Guide is better on 20 guardins than on 10, after all.

So at that point, the proposed rule would actually make large squads less desirable, and it would severely weaken... just about every aeldari character out there. Granted, this is speaking mostly from an aeldari perspective.
I don't know enough about the eldar (of any variety) to comment on specific units or what not. Just not my wheel house and I have very little to no experience playing against them.


Ah. So you have a "wall" between different models in a unit. Yeah. That works more smoothly. I'd be pretty okay with something like that. That way, you can just kill off your models in the middle of a squad and use the wall between your two models on the ends to keep your squishy character from being wiped out.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in gb
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator






I agree with others who've said 7, but really the problem is that GW didn't introduce more in the way of size keywords; all we have is Titanic and not-Titanic, which isn't exactly granular.

Personally it seems odd to me to have a Primaris character "blend in" with Imperial Guard, let alone a Primarch "blending in" with marines. There should really be a scale of keywords representing size, with characters only protected if they have the same or "smaller" keyword than a unit.

   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 Haravikk wrote:
I agree with others who've said 7, but really the problem is that GW didn't introduce more in the way of size keywords; all we have is Titanic and not-Titanic, which isn't exactly granular.

Personally it seems odd to me to have a Primaris character "blend in" with Imperial Guard, let alone a Primarch "blending in" with marines. There should really be a scale of keywords representing size, with characters only protected if they have the same or "smaller" keyword than a unit.

Could be (mostly) done with the Infantry/Bike etc. keywords where a character could be targeted if there isn't any unit with the same keyword nearby.

They could even have Light/Heavy infantry to differentiate between the likes of Guardsmen and Centurions...
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






If the problem is Gulliman, just remove the character keyword from Gulliman
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Jbz` wrote:
 Haravikk wrote:
I agree with others who've said 7, but really the problem is that GW didn't introduce more in the way of size keywords; all we have is Titanic and not-Titanic, which isn't exactly granular.

Personally it seems odd to me to have a Primaris character "blend in" with Imperial Guard, let alone a Primarch "blending in" with marines. There should really be a scale of keywords representing size, with characters only protected if they have the same or "smaller" keyword than a unit.

Could be (mostly) done with the Infantry/Bike etc. keywords where a character could be targeted if there isn't any unit with the same keyword nearby.

They could even have Light/Heavy infantry to differentiate between the likes of Guardsmen and Centurions...


I think a "size stat" would be a workable solution, but I'm not sure I'm a fan of making Guilliman constantly targetable. It seems like primarchs would have had a tough time surviving the crusade if every heavy weapon on the field could turn on them every second of a given fight.

The infantry/bike keyword thing is interesting, but I'm not sure that works as smoothly. Necron wraiths are beasts, unless they changed that, yet they should probably be able to block for a necron lord. A swirling unit of marine bikers should probably be able to block for a captain on foot standing right behind them. A succubus should probably be able to hide behind a bunch of clawed fiends (which are like, twice or thrice her size) that are standing near her.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
If the problem is Gulliman, just remove the character keyword from Gulliman


I see the appeal to that solution, but does it not seem odd that every lascannon and battle cannon on the field could turn and only hit/harm a single (admittedly rather tall) guy? Like, I know that if denizens of the 41st millenium had our gamer's eye view of their world, that would probably be really tempting, but it would get a bit goofy when 9 out of 10 games begin with your primarch being knocked out by a hail of heavy artillery while the space marine a meter to his left watches, unscathed, in confused amazement.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/07 03:33:27



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Simple solution. If the character is larger than the squad near them then you can target them. So a terminator librarian can't hide behind guys in power armor. Or a demon prince can't hide among terminators. It's a relative size thing
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

warpedpig wrote:
Simple solution. If the character is larger than the squad near them then you can target them. So a terminator librarian can't hide behind guys in power armor. Or a demon prince can't hide among terminators. It's a relative size thing


Size stat. I brewed one up.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Better solution, re-implement true line of site rules. If you can see more then 50% of the model you can shoot it.

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut




There is nothing wrong with the character rules as is. Guilliman, Celestine and some other characters are just a bit undercosted making them auto-includes. This problem is best adressed with a points-increase or a nerf. It is not a reason to throw a big load of complexity into the game.
   
Made in nz
Longtime Dakkanaut





Auckland, NZ

Since it first showed up in GWs 8th ed articles, I've never liked character targetability being based on wound count. It just seems to me like a rather hamfisted way of approaching the problem.
It leaves you in this unintuitive situation where a character with a smaller characteristic value can be vastly better than one with a higher characteristic value.

You end up with the rules writers trying to game their own system by designing characters just a little below the cutoff point, then throwing on some other defensive rules in order to make them tougher than their statline.


They implemented this nice new keyword system. Why didn't they take advantage of it?
'Character (large)' - Can be targetted normally.
'Character (small)' - Follows current character targetting rules.

Now you can ditch stuff like Calgar halving all the damage he takes, and just give him 14 wounds from the start. Simple.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/20 05:58:08


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: