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.

Haven't done anything 40K in a few months, came back, read the FAQ from a couple months ago.

Just wanted to confirm my interpretation.

Characters don't block shooting from other characters, correct?

General Hobbs wrote:


Haven't done anything 40K in a few months, came back, read the FAQ from a couple months ago.

Just wanted to confirm my interpretation.

Characters don't block shooting from other characters, correct?

Partially Correct, as per the Matched Play rule changes in "The Big FAQ". Only Characters with a Wounds Characteristic of less than 10 are ignored.

TARGETING CHARACTERS
An enemy Character with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if it is both visible to the firing model and it is the closest enemy unit to the firing model. Ignore other enemy Characters with a Wounds characteristics of less than 10 when determining if the target is the closest enemy unit to the firing model.

This means that if any other enemy units (other than other Characters with a Wounds characteristics of less than 10) are closer, whether they are visible or not, then the enemy Character cannot be targeted.

To provide an example for BCB's wording.

A daemon prince (W8) cant cover another daemon prince. However a Bloodthirster (W16) can cover the daemon prince just fine

Even if the Bloodthirster (or drone) is out of LOS.

Thanks!

I don't get why people aren't more agitated by this rule; specifically the part that let's non-visible units prohibit shooting visible characters.

On the tabletop, this can look really silly when you've got a squad of Fire Warriors who refuse to shoot a Space Marine Lieutenant who's 8" away in the open because there are 2 Space Marine Scouts 7" away in the opposite direction, whom also cannot be shot because they are behind a wall.

 Ginjitzu wrote:
I don't get why people aren't more agitated by this rule; specifically the part that let's non-visible units prohibit shooting visible characters.

On the tabletop, this can look really silly when you've got a squad of Fire Warriors who refuse to shoot a Space Marine Lieutenant who's 8" away in the open because there are 2 Space Marine Scouts 7" away in the opposite direction, whom also cannot be shot because they are behind a wall.

Here's my personal justification for it:

First off, the game is an abstraction. The position the models are in at any given time is at best a snapshot in time or what would be happening on a chaotic, moving battlefield.

That as a given, I think it's totally reasonable that enemy activity nearby would distract a lot, to the point that individual characters (under a certain size) would go unnoticed in the fog of war.

It doesn't matter that you can't see the nearer units sometimes, but the fact you know they are there and you're having to keep an eye for when they break cover means you aren't noticing that one guy on his own who's probably trying not to draw attention to himself a little further away.

Yeah, it's not perfect. There are situations where it still doesn't make sense. But as I say, it's an abstraction and that will always be the case - that there will be gameplay states that don't quite lineup with the reality even within the setting.

On balance I think it's enough for me to let it go though, especially given the gameplay benefit of not having characters shot off the board too easily.

 Ginjitzu wrote:
I don't get why people aren't more agitated by this rule; specifically the part that let's non-visible units prohibit shooting visible characters.

On the tabletop, this can look really silly when you've got a squad of Fire Warriors who refuse to shoot a Space Marine Lieutenant who's 8" away in the open because there are 2 Space Marine Scouts 7" away in the opposite direction, whom also cannot be shot because they are behind a wall.

Because without it you would get highly undesirable situations on the table where I use 2 rhino's to provide a narrow corridor of LoS for my lascannon to your character and snipe him despite plenty other units being closer and 'in the open'.

 Ordana wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
I don't get why people aren't more agitated by this rule; specifically the part that let's non-visible units prohibit shooting visible characters.

On the tabletop, this can look really silly when you've got a squad of Fire Warriors who refuse to shoot a Space Marine Lieutenant who's 8" away in the open because there are 2 Space Marine Scouts 7" away in the opposite direction, whom also cannot be shot because they are behind a wall.

Because without it you would get highly undesirable situations on the table where I use 2 rhino's to provide a narrow corridor of LoS for my lascannon to your character and snipe him despite plenty other units being closer and 'in the open'.

Exactly this. The designers have stated their wish to prevent “Rhino-scoping”. It’s a less weird abstraction when you realise the cheese it can prevent.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
I don't get why people aren't more agitated by this rule; specifically the part that let's non-visible units prohibit shooting visible characters.

On the tabletop, this can look really silly when you've got a squad of Fire Warriors who refuse to shoot a Space Marine Lieutenant who's 8" away in the open because there are 2 Space Marine Scouts 7" away in the opposite direction, whom also cannot be shot because they are behind a wall.

Because without it you would get highly undesirable situations on the table where I use 2 rhino's to provide a narrow corridor of LoS for my lascannon to your character and snipe him despite plenty other units being closer and 'in the open'.

Exactly this. The designers have stated their wish to prevent “Rhino-scoping”. It’s a less weird abstraction when you realise the cheese it can prevent.

It's really not. Artificial abstractions to prevent lone characters being targeted only make sense if they apply to all similarly-sized single-model units. The current character targeting rules are even more absurd than the 4th edition version, which at least had the exemption when the closer unit wasn't visible.

The fix for characters being vulnerable when on their own is to allow them to join units. Characters should be more vulnerable when they're on their own.

The current character rules were typical GW pendulum-style rules correction. People complained about units with multiple joined characters being too powerful, so rather than addressing thet, they just removed the ability to join units.

Character rule is still crap.

Needs these added additional rules :
Only eligible targets can screen characters (meaning units in CC can not and units out of LOS can not)
and
your own units do not count in determining eligibility of characters as targets (meaning you can't rhino scope)

Hard to believe anyone would support a situation in which you have no eligible targets to shoot because a single model you can't see is closer OR all the targets preventing you from shooting a character are not eligible targets. It's a joke. Also I am of the opinion that character eligibility should be removed inside of 8".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
I don't get why people aren't more agitated by this rule; specifically the part that let's non-visible units prohibit shooting visible characters.

On the tabletop, this can look really silly when you've got a squad of Fire Warriors who refuse to shoot a Space Marine Lieutenant who's 8" away in the open because there are 2 Space Marine Scouts 7" away in the opposite direction, whom also cannot be shot because they are behind a wall.

Because without it you would get highly undesirable situations on the table where I use 2 rhino's to provide a narrow corridor of LoS for my lascannon to your character and snipe him despite plenty other units being closer and 'in the open'.

Exactly this. The designers have stated their wish to prevent “Rhino-scoping”. It’s a less weird abstraction when you realise the cheese it can prevent.

It's really not. Artificial abstractions to prevent lone characters being targeted only make sense if they apply to all similarly-sized single-model units. The current character targeting rules are even more absurd than the 4th edition version, which at least had the exemption when the closer unit wasn't visible.

The fix for characters being vulnerable when on their own is to allow them to join units. Characters should be more vulnerable when they're on their own.

The current character rules were typical GW pendulum-style rules correction. People complained about units with multiple joined characters being too powerful, so rather than addressing thet, they just removed the ability to join units.

That was more of an issue for characters tanking for glass cannon units. Really dumb. I'd be much happier with characters being able to join units but the unit they are joining with MUST take the hits.

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
I don't get why people aren't more agitated by this rule; specifically the part that let's non-visible units prohibit shooting visible characters.

On the tabletop, this can look really silly when you've got a squad of Fire Warriors who refuse to shoot a Space Marine Lieutenant who's 8" away in the open because there are 2 Space Marine Scouts 7" away in the opposite direction, whom also cannot be shot because they are behind a wall.

Because without it you would get highly undesirable situations on the table where I use 2 rhino's to provide a narrow corridor of LoS for my lascannon to your character and snipe him despite plenty other units being closer and 'in the open'.

Exactly this. The designers have stated their wish to prevent “Rhino-scoping”. It’s a less weird abstraction when you realise the cheese it can prevent.

It's really not. Artificial abstractions to prevent lone characters being targeted only make sense if they apply to all similarly-sized single-model units. The current character targeting rules are even more absurd than the 4th edition version, which at least had the exemption when the closer unit wasn't visible.

The fix for characters being vulnerable when on their own is to allow them to join units. Characters should be more vulnerable when they're on their own.

The current character rules were typical GW pendulum-style rules correction. People complained about units with multiple joined characters being too powerful, so rather than addressing thet, they just removed the ability to join units.

They haven't really fixed that anyway, due to overlapping auras.

Wasn't saying I endorse the rule, btw, just the prevention of "Rhino-scoping" as a tactic. As that is pure gamey nonsense.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

Character rule is still crap.

Needs these added additional rules :
Only eligible targets can screen characters (meaning units in CC can not and units out of LOS can not)
and
your own units do not count in determining eligibility of characters as targets (meaning you can't rhino scope)

Hard to believe anyone would support a situation in which you have no eligible targets to shoot because a single model you can't see is closer OR all the targets preventing you from shooting a character are not eligible targets. It's a joke. Also I am of the opinion that character eligibility should be removed inside of 8".

All of this seems more than reasonable to me.

 Stux wrote:


First off, the game is an abstraction. The position the models are in at any given time is at best a snapshot in time or what would be happening on a chaotic, moving battlefiel

Except 40k clearly doesnt' abstract game. For GW warfare goes EXACTLY as it is shown. Warriors don't move dynamically but advance in static pose all the time and troops don't act simultaneously but IGOUGO. It's so obvious from the rules there's zero abstraction that to claim it's abstraction is LOL.

It's this way because GW is either too lazy or too incompetent to write better rules.

tneva82 wrote:

 Stux wrote:


First off, the game is an abstraction. The position the models are in at any given time is at best a snapshot in time or what would be happening on a chaotic, moving battlefiel

Except 40k clearly doesnt' abstract game. For GW warfare goes EXACTLY as it is shown. Warriors don't move dynamically but advance in static pose all the time and troops don't act simultaneously but IGOUGO. It's so obvious from the rules there's zero abstraction that to claim it's abstraction is LOL.

It's this way because GW is either too lazy or too incompetent to write better rules.

The whole ruleset *is* a collection of abstractions. Not sure why you find that comical. None of it is a simulation as you suggest.

tneva82 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Spoiler:

First off, the game is an abstraction. The position the models are in at any given time is at best a snapshot in time or what would be happening on a chaotic, moving battlefiel

Except 40k clearly doesnt' abstract game. For GW warfare goes EXACTLY as it is shown. Warriors don't move dynamically but advance in static pose all the time and troops don't act simultaneously but IGOUGO. It's so obvious from the rules there's zero abstraction that to claim it's abstraction is LOL.

It's this way because GW is either too lazy or too incompetent to write better rules.

While I'm not quite as salty as this, I agree about the limits to which abstraction can be used as an justification, in a game that just as often throws abstraction out the window; take "true line of sight" as another example.

The TLOS that 40K uses is still an abstraction. Unless you’re saying it’s realistic that a tank can shoot its guns from its comms antenna at someone’s flag?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The TLOS that 40K uses is still an abstraction. Unless you’re saying it’s realistic that a tank can shoot its guns from its comms antenna at someone’s flag?

I'm not saying that it's realistic, nor am I even suggesting that it should be. Heck, more often than not, realism is the nemesis of fun, and I'd rather have fun every time, but what I am saying is that 40k is a mix of realism and abstraction (unlike say, chess, for example) and that's totally fine; I love it! I get that GW have to make a judgement call and fall somewhere on either side of that line, and sure, they're never going to please everyone. I'll even say that 8th is easily their best attempt yet, and I think they deserve an abundance of credit for that. But for me, sometimes the character targeting rule falls on the wrong side of fun, and I think Xenomancers solution deals with it elegantly.

tneva82 wrote:

 Stux wrote:


First off, the game is an abstraction. The position the models are in at any given time is at best a snapshot in time or what would be happening on a chaotic, moving battlefiel

Except 40k clearly doesnt' abstract game. For GW warfare goes EXACTLY as it is shown. Warriors don't move dynamically but advance in static pose all the time and troops don't act simultaneously but IGOUGO. It's so obvious from the rules there's zero abstraction that to claim it's abstraction is LOL.

It's this way because GW is either too lazy or too incompetent to write better rules.

What does any of that mean? It is an abstraction, of course GW don't think war is really like that. Are you just being sarcastic and actually agreeing with me..?

The character rule gives characters a lot of protection, which I see as a good thing and it makes it more fun to run characters. I also think it's generally a much better solution than joining units with the massive issues that caused.

Character protection is pretty stupid when I'm blasting your back line with rocket commanders and you have to shoot back at my fire warriors in cover with shield drones to get to him.

I am willing to deal with that though. What I am not willing to deal with is losing a shooting phase with 4 characters in range of my huge gunline but I can't shoot any of them because there is there is a close combat going on in he middle of my lines? And I can't shoot into that ether? Incredibly dumb.

It is however a situation you can plan for and predict. So don't let that happen

 Xenomancers wrote:
Character protection is pretty stupid when I'm blasting your back line with rocket commanders and you have to shoot back at my fire warriors in cover with shield drones to get to him.

I am willing to deal with that though. What I am not willing to deal with is losing a shooting phase with 4 characters in range of my huge gunline but I can't shoot any of them because there is there is a close combat going on in he middle of my lines? And I can't shoot into that ether? Incredibly dumb.

I could accept an argument that 10 wounds is too high a threshold. Maybe 6 would be better.

Because my view is if there's a squad of guys close to you, even if they're currently obscured, you're likely not going to notice that officer a bit further away, amongst the chaos of battle (noises everywhere, plumes of smoke and dirt and dust kicking up everywhere) who is also probably hugging the ground etc.

You probably WOULD notice (and keep a very keen eye on!) a Daemon Prince or Crisis Commander.

 Stux wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Character protection is pretty stupid when I'm blasting your back line with rocket commanders and you have to shoot back at my fire warriors in cover with shield drones to get to him.

I am willing to deal with that though. What I am not willing to deal with is losing a shooting phase with 4 characters in range of my huge gunline but I can't shoot any of them because there is there is a close combat going on in he middle of my lines? And I can't shoot into that ether? Incredibly dumb.

I could accept an argument that 10 wounds is too high a threshold. Maybe 6 would be better.

Because my view is if there's a squad of guys close to you, even if they're currently obscured, you're likely not going to notice that officer a bit further away, amongst the chaos of battle (noises everywhere, plumes of smoke and dirt and dust kicking up everywhere) who is also probably hugging the ground etc.

You probably WOULD notice (and keep a very keen eye on!) a Daemon Prince or Crisis Commander.

The problem with making it as low as 6 wounds is that something like a single lascannon suddenly becomes worth trying to 1 shot that Charictor or evern worse D2 or D3 weapons would eat non hiding charictors for breakfast really quick.

It would be so much easier to just say "CHARACTERS that are within 2" of another friendly unit (other than other CHARACTERS) may not be selected as a target in the Shooting Phase, unless they are the closest unit to the firing model."

Yes, silly things like Dreadnought Characters would still be hidden, but it would be a lot more intuitive than what we have now.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It would be so much easier to just say "CHARACTERS that are within 2" of another friendly unit (other than other CHARACTERS) may not be selected as a target in the Shooting Phase, unless they are the closest unit to the firing model."

Yes, silly things like Dreadnought Characters would still be hidden, but it would be a lot more intuitive than what we have now.

I would be down with that. I'd maybe put an INFANTRY limitation on it too.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Character protection is pretty stupid when I'm blasting your back line with rocket commanders and you have to shoot back at my fire warriors in cover with shield drones to get to him.

I am willing to deal with that though. What I am not willing to deal with is losing a shooting phase with 4 characters in range of my huge gunline but I can't shoot any of them because there is there is a close combat going on in he middle of my lines? And I can't shoot into that ether? Incredibly dumb.

If melee didn’t block characters, all combat-support style characters (chaplains etc) would be instantly worthless. They commonly get left out of charges or end up out of combat by a couple enemy casualties being removed while the unit is still locked with the rest, and they would be assassinated immediately 100% of the time, despite being literally right next to a squad of their dudes fighting your dudes.

If you want to shoot the unit, there’s a really really really powerful mechanic called fall back that you should look into.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Character protection is pretty stupid when I'm blasting your back line with rocket commanders and you have to shoot back at my fire warriors in cover with shield drones to get to him.

I am willing to deal with that though. What I am not willing to deal with is losing a shooting phase with 4 characters in range of my huge gunline but I can't shoot any of them because there is there is a close combat going on in he middle of my lines? And I can't shoot into that ether? Incredibly dumb.

If melee didn’t block characters, all combat-support style characters (chaplains etc) would be instantly worthless. They commonly get left out of charges or end up out of combat by a couple enemy casualties being removed while the unit is still locked with the rest, and they would be assassinated immediately 100% of the time, despite being literally right next to a squad of their dudes fighting your dudes.

If you want to shoot the unit, there’s a really really really powerful mechanic called fall back that you should look into.

How would they be instantly worthless? First off all Chaplains belong in CC. Second. Other units not in combat could still block for the characters. Plus their are body gaurd units that can protect you.

I've suggested a size stat, and you can only block for friendly characters that are, at most, one size larger.

So a Size 6 Guilliman can be blocked by Size 8 Dreadnoughts, or Size 5 Terminators, but not Size 4 Marines.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I've suggested a size stat, and you can only block for friendly characters that are, at most, one size larger.

So a Size 6 Guilliman can be blocked by Size 8 Dreadnoughts, or Size 5 Terminators, but not Size 4 Marines.

40k used to have size stats for LoS. There is a reason why we no longer have size stats, it "over-complicated" the game. I don't agree with the reasoning since I personally feel that all datasheets should indeed have a Size and Base stat, but it is what it is.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I've suggested a size stat, and you can only block for friendly characters that are, at most, one size larger.

So a Size 6 Guilliman can be blocked by Size 8 Dreadnoughts, or Size 5 Terminators, but not Size 4 Marines.

40k used to have size stats for LoS. There is a reason why we no longer have size stats, it "over-complicated" the game. I don't agree with the reasoning since I personally feel that all datasheets should indeed have a Size and Base stat, but it is what it is.

The problem with size stats wasn't that it was too complicated, it was that it was poorly implemented and as a result made no sense. The tried to lump everything into only three size categories, and then to add to the fun only actually made them relevant when area terrain or close combats were involved, and stuck with true LOS the rest of the time.


All of which is rather off the original topic, though... As the original question appears to have been answered, I think we'll go ahead and lock this one, and take any further discussion of how best character targeting should be handled to Discussions or Proposed Rules.