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 new character targeting rules states that 'Character Models with 10 or less wounds...' as being invalid for targeting when there's another enemy unit closer.

I already had someone claim that since a model was reduced to less than 10 wounds the rule now counted. This meant that once Mortorian went down to 10 wounds he became untargetable.

Opinions on this interpitation?

Sounds dubious, but we'll find out soon enough.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
The new character targeting rules states that 'Character Models with 10 or less wounds...' as being invalid for targeting when there's another enemy unit closer.

I already had someone claim that since a model was reduced to less than 10 wounds the rule now counted. This meant that once Mortorian went down to 10 wounds he became untargetable.

Opinions on this interpitation?

People argued this from the start of 8th even pre-CA, it never held any water or public opinion.

These are the exact words of the new targeting character rule from CA :

"An enemy CHARACTER with less than 10 wounds can only be targeted if it is both visible to the firer and it is the closest enemy model to the firer. This means that if any other enemy model is closer, whether it is visible or not, then the enemy CHARACTER cannot be targeted."

The current rule is :

"A Character can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if they are the closest visible enemy unit to the model that is shooting. This does not apply to Characters with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or more, due to their sheer size."

The wording is different, and it could be interpreted that characters with more than 10 wounds, once they drop below 10, cannot be targeted freely. I dont think thats RAI. Its once again, poor word choice from GW.

Seems like GW broke the game again. The original rule was clear it meant the original characteristic, now it's also clear that once you lose wounds you become untargetable.

Good work from GW as usual, looking forward to the Errata and FAQ document needed for the Errata and FAQ document.

Honestly this new Character rule is more broken and unintuitive than the one replacing it. Really have to wonder if the people making the rules even bother to look online for the issues people have.

p5freak wrote:
These are the exact words of the new targeting character rule from CA :

"An enemy CHARACTER with less than 10 wounds can only be targeted if it is both visible to the firer and it is the closest enemy model to the firer. This means that if any other enemy model is closer, whether it is visible or not, then the enemy CHARACTER cannot be targeted."

The current rule is :

"A Character can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if they are the closest visible enemy unit to the model that is shooting. This does not apply to Characters with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or more, due to their sheer size."

The wording is different, and it could be interpreted that characters with more than 10 wounds, once they drop below 10, cannot be targeted freely. I dont think thats RAI. Its once again, poor word choice from GW.

The RAW is only slightly ambiguous and the RAI is completely obvious so I'm gonna give a skeevy look to anyone who tries to play it the wrong way.

It's blatantly obvious it still means Wounds characteristic. But be free to try and be TFG. Let me know how many friends/opponents you still have afterwards... :-D


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Seems like GW broke the game again. The original rule was clear it meant the original characteristic, now it's also clear that once you lose wounds you become untargetable.

Good work from GW as usual, looking forward to the Errata and FAQ document needed for the Errata and FAQ document.

Honestly this new Character rule is more broken and unintuitive than the one replacing it. Really have to wonder if the people making the rules even bother to look online for the issues people have.

That isn't "clear" at all. To use a phrase, your argument has "less than zero relevance" and would be laughed out of Nottingham if raised with the designers. Do feel free to write to GW and report back, of course.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It's blatantly obvious it still means Wounds characteristic. But be free to try and be TFG. Let me know how many friends/opponents you still have afterwards... :-D


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Seems like GW broke the game again. The original rule was clear it meant the original characteristic, now it's also clear that once you lose wounds you become untargetable.

Good work from GW as usual, looking forward to the Errata and FAQ document needed for the Errata and FAQ document.

Honestly this new Character rule is more broken and unintuitive than the one replacing it. Really have to wonder if the people making the rules even bother to look online for the issues people have.

That isn't "clear" at all. To use a phrase, your argument has "less than zero relevance" and would be laughed out of Nottingham if raised with the designers. Do feel free to write to GW and report back, of course.

But that's not admissible in YMDC!

It's not admissible even in games IMHO. If you think it's "pedantic" to follow this rule, then I will claim it's "pedantic" for Gulliman only to buff ULTRAMARINES and force you to allow him to buff SPACE WOLVES and CADIANS too.

Does he not buff space wolves and cadians? They've got the Imperium keyword

Jacksmiles wrote:
Does he not buff space wolves and cadians? They've got the Imperium keyword

Only partially, I want his buffs to ULTRAMARINES to apply to SPACE WOLVES too. Obviously if you disagree you're being pedantic and a rules lawyer!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not admissible even in games IMHO. If you think it's "pedantic" to follow this rule, then I will claim it's "pedantic" for Gulliman only to buff ULTRAMARINES and force you to allow him to buff SPACE WOLVES and CADIANS too.

Gotta agree here. Rules are rules and there's a fair argument this isn't characteristics anymore. I'd let my opponent play it either way and ask a TO to rule before a tournament.

Suggest applying the, "don't be an a-hole rule" and see what you come up with.

DCannon4Life wrote:
Suggest applying the, "don't be an a-hole rule" and see what you come up with.

GW done goofed. As written, there's a clear argument that, especially since it's been CHANGED, it applies to current wounds and not Characteristic.

 JNAProductions wrote:

DCannon4Life wrote:
Suggest applying the, "don't be an a-hole rule" and see what you come up with.

GW done goofed. As written, there's a clear argument that, especially since it's been CHANGED, it applies to current wounds and not Characteristic.

Use it, and enjoy your alpha-bag status. It will be, because it has to be (because people like yourself exist), fixed, as it is clearly not what is intended. Cheers.

DCannon4Life wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

DCannon4Life wrote:
Suggest applying the, "don't be an a-hole rule" and see what you come up with.

GW done goofed. As written, there's a clear argument that, especially since it's been CHANGED, it applies to current wounds and not Characteristic.

Use it, and enjoy your alpha-bag status. It will be, because it has to be (because people like yourself exist), fixed, as it is clearly not what is intended. Cheers.

Chapter Approved is literally a bug-fix document. If that can't prove "intent", then nothing can.

DCannon4Life wrote:
Suggest applying the, "don't be an a-hole rule" and see what you come up with.

That rule also applies to YMDC posts.

There's obviously a change in wording, and the result is that it behaves differently now if you follow the rules. Instead of being a bunch of dicks about people questioning that change or thinking that maybe, in some instances, when GW changes a rule it means to change a rule, you could just not tell people they're TFG or rules-lawyers.

I'll wait for the FAQs to clarify if that change was intended (which I don't think it was) and keep playing the pre-CA rule until then. In the meantime stop insulting people, maybe?

The german chapter approved says wounds in the profile, so nothing changed there.

It isn't a change. Only someone scratching for douchey advantages would claim it is a change or it's somehow proof that they intend Characters to shrink as they lose wounds hence becoming untargettable.

I'll leave it to each of you to figure out if you're that guy.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It isn't a change. Only someone scratching for douchey advantages would claim it is a change or it's somehow proof that they intend Characters to shrink as they lose wounds hence becoming untargettable.

I'll leave it to each of you to figure out if you're that guy.

It's literally a change in wording, isn't it? And stop being so insulting.

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It isn't a change. Only someone scratching for douchey advantages would claim it is a change or it's somehow proof that they intend Characters to shrink as they lose wounds hence becoming untargettable.

I'll leave it to each of you to figure out if you're that guy.

It's literally a change in wording, isn't it? And stop being so insulting.

It's clearly a wording oversight that people are leaping on to try and wring some advantage (hey isn't there something in the Tenets of YMDC about just that? Yup.). It's blatantly not a change in rules. You can be reasonable or try and douche an advantage out of this. Because that's what it is.


And anyway, if you want solid Rules precedent for the douchey interpretation NOT being valid, see degradation tables. They say "Remaining W". So the Character rule would have to say "10 or less Wounds remaining" to mean what people are claiming.

Apologies if you felt my post was strongly-worded, but I named no-one and the word lawyering annoys the hell out of me in cases like this. You can be a reasonable being or try and claim this wording slip is a game-breaking change, a deliberate decision to change it, etc. Those people know who they are!

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Apologies if you felt my post was strongly-worded, but I named no-one and the word lawyering annoys the hell out of me in cases like this. You can be a reasonable being or try and claim this wording slip is a game-breaking change, a deliberate decision to change it, etc. Those people know who they are!

You're telling everyone who disagrees with you that they're douchebags, rules-lawyers and TFG. Do you seriously think that's just "strongly-worded"? It's a personal attack on anyone who disagrees with you, completely ignoring - and refusing to accept - that there was a change in wording. Just for pointing out that they changed from "wounds characteristic" to "wounds". And then you basically use the same "lawyering" by saying that "wounds" must clearly be different from "remaining wounds" - how is that different?

And then you call on the Tenets? Dude. How about some more introspection?


Just to clarify: I'm not even arguing anyone SHOULD play it as "once you loose enough wounds you become untargetable", I'm just saying there was a change in wording.

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Apologies if you felt my post was strongly-worded, but I named no-one and the word lawyering annoys the hell out of me in cases like this. You can be a reasonable being or try and claim this wording slip is a game-breaking change, a deliberate decision to change it, etc. Those people know who they are!

You're telling everyone who disagrees with you that they're douchebags, rules-lawyers and TFG. Do you seriously think that's just "strongly-worded"? It's a personal attack on anyone who disagrees with you, completely ignoring - and refusing to accept - that there was a change in wording. Just for pointing out that they changed from "wounds characteristic" to "wounds". And then you basically use the same "lawyering" by saying that "wounds" must clearly be different from "remaining wounds" - how is that different?

And then you call on the Tenets? Dude. How about some more introspection?


Just to clarify: I'm not even arguing anyone SHOULD play it as "once you loose enough wounds you become untargetable", I'm just saying there was a change in wording.

Tell you what: I'll eat my hat if it turns out this is a rule change, ok? If GW clarify that yes, Character models actually become less targettable as they lose Wounds, that is what they intended in CA2017. Fair deal? Penance enough for you?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Tell you what: I'll eat my hat if it turns out this is a rule change, ok? If GW clarify that yes, Character models actually become less targettable as they lose Wounds, that is what they intended in CA2017. Fair deal? Penance enough for you?

I really don't care to be honest. What I care about is that you stay polite while discussing rules.

Report my posts and move on then. Don't bait me further, especially if not actually arguing an on topic point. Apologies again for offending you. Let's move on.

The only conclusive argument ive seen that shows it may not mean reduced to 10 wounds is someone here stating the german translation does still mention wounds profile.

It seems everyone is emotionally attached to mortarion and magnus not getting better, but this change would make playing greater demons really fun.

Other than magnus, mortarion, the greater demons and nids characters who does this even effect?

vladicov wrote:
The only conclusive argument ive seen that shows it may not mean reduced to 10 wounds is someone here stating the german translation does still mention wounds profile.

It seems everyone is emotionally attached to mortarion and magnus not getting better, but this change would make playing greater demons really fun.

Other than magnus, mortarion, the greater demons and nids characters who does this even effect?

Longstrike.

 JNAProductions wrote:

vladicov wrote:
The only conclusive argument ive seen that shows it may not mean reduced to 10 wounds is someone here stating the german translation does still mention wounds profile.

It seems everyone is emotionally attached to mortarion and magnus not getting better, but this change would make playing greater demons really fun.

Other than magnus, mortarion, the greater demons and nids characters who does this even effect?

Longstrike.

And all of the other vehicle characters like IG Tank Commanders.

vladicov wrote:
The only conclusive argument ive seen that shows it may not mean reduced to 10 wounds is someone here stating the german translation does still mention wounds profile.

It seems everyone is emotionally attached to mortarion and magnus not getting better, but this change would make playing greater demons really fun.

Other than magnus, mortarion, the greater demons and nids characters who does this even effect?

Gulliman. Knight Pask. Every faction has someone with the character rule and over 10 wounds.

Guilles not over 10.