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.
2017/05/10 13:10:05
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
JohnnyHell wrote: That drawing is nice and all, but the Guilliman model is bigger than that.
The model is also standing on some significantly tall rocks. That's what I think is throwing people off. It's a nice decorative effect to make him stand out more on the table, but it's not actually part of his height.
And having seen the model in person standing right next to some regular marines, his outstretched leg is close to the same height as a space marine. His chest is about equal size to a space marine laid on its side. His arms are enormous.
I'm celebrating 8 years on Dakka Dakka!
I started an Instagram! Follow me at Deadshot Miniatures! DR:90+S++G+++M+B+IPw40k08#-D+++A+++/cwd363R+++T(Ot)DM+ Check out my Deathwatch story, Aftermath in the fiction section!
Credit to Castiel for banner. Thanks Cas!
2017/05/10 13:11:55
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
JohnnyHell wrote: That drawing is nice and all, but the Guilliman model is bigger than that.
He is, but he is not twice as tall as a normal marine. The model is bigger than I'd like primarchs to be, but still smaller than most people seem to assume. The huge scenic base makes him look bigger than he is. The model is about 5cm tall without a base, so 40-50% taller than a normal marine.
There was an entire edition of 40K in which units had to shoot the nearest unit of a given type. Somehow I think the game will survive some screening mechanics for characters.
JohnnyHell wrote: That drawing is nice and all, but the Guilliman model is bigger than that.
The model is also standing on some significantly tall rocks. That's what I think is throwing people off. It's a nice decorative effect to make him stand out more on the table, but it's not actually part of his height.
And having seen the model in person standing right next to some regular marines, his outstretched leg is close to the same height as a space marine. His chest is about equal size to a space marine laid on its side. His arms are enormous.
Good thing we are getting bigger marines to offset this issue then.
2017/05/10 13:14:10
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
nintura wrote: At no point did I say Terminator captain. And only one model is 4 meters taller than a 4 meter man.
And I'm talking about IC's like chaplains, librarians etc. Why bring 4 meter taller guys into the mix then?
Because your post that I quoted had nothing about those in it.
Ok correction, you did say captain. But RG is also a character, and that lumps them all together.
RG is separate issue. RG isn't you know only character out there...If he doesnt' deserve protection due to the size then he shouldn't be.
But fact is most characters aren't noticably bigger than units they tag along. So if units can target them at will that's rather unrealistic. Models don't have such a god view as player has and soldiers wouldn't be doing exactly what commander wants all the time.
No, I totally 100% agree on the hiding of regular sized characters. I'm 100% in disagreement that Robutt should be able to hide. He's freaking massive and it feels to me that the whole 10-11 wound rule was made with him in mind instead of base size or size of model. This just harkens back to my paranoia of all things Ultramarines getting the special treatment.
Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.
I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.
nintura wrote: How bad is your eyesight? You're telling me you can't pinpoint some guy who's 4 meters taller than the rest of the guys he's surrounded himself with?
Last time I checked terminator captain isn't 4 meters taller than the terminators. Ability to pinpoint him from long distances in all the smoke and cloud is...well optimistic.
Spoiler:
That grey knight librarian isn't exactly towering hulk among terminators...And can you tell are there any characters among squad they are facing off?
At no point did I say Terminator captain. And only one model is 4 meters taller than a 4 meter man.
*EDIT> Sorry, not 4 meters. The average marine is 7-8' tall. Robut is twice as tall as they are. That puts RG at 4 meters.
I think you have a different perception of a primarch's height than other people do. This is what I see when I google the height of primarchs. I think you're being misled by the base Guilliman is standing on.
That would be the FW Guilliman model. The plastic one is much, much bigger. Even off the base, he's almost twice the size. I didnt have much luck however doing a quick google search.
gungo wrote: There was nothing tactical about it. Chucking dice on the table isn't tactical. There was no planning and tactics just list building and luck.
Well not that 8th ed is much better. You just select power and roll a dice. Biggest difference is number of powers cast explodes per psyker. Hopefully spells gets toned down or 8th ed will be known as age of psychic domination.
In fact 8thAoS can be summed up by "chucking dice on the table" as that is all they have. No morale, No pinning, No flanking/facing's, No tactics they basically took out anything that was not a straight dice roll to decide even "Special Rules are likely to be reduced to just +/- modifiers if they follow AoS.
In return we get a basic level of target prioritization in hand to hand and that is hailed as a revolution and characters that will be red mist by turn 2 unless there designed to loophole the system(9 wound Rowboat on his hands and knees hiding behind his gullimarines"
I watched a couple of battle reports and read more about AoS as I keep seeing people saying it is better now, however it still seems to have a lot of the issues people say are wrong with 40k. It appears to me that a lot of games are won in the list building stage before a dice is thrown. Most tactics and I use the term loosely seem to involve exploiting loopholes and the unit/coherency rules. Oh and rolling buckets of dice.
Warning: Text wall
Spoiler:
I regard it as a blessing that I have been trained by my environment to notice and define patterns in the behavior of others. By others I don't always been a single human being other than myself. Sometimes groups of people or entire organizations fall either knowingly or unknowingly into unfortunate habits. GW here is no different and the patterns I see are trouble to say the least.
But before I get into that I want to establish a common understanding here.
For as long as I can remember, game makers have been chasing the 'balance' leprechaun to the pot of gold at the end of their imaginary rainbow. Everyone wants a game that balanced. And this is true of table top board games, war games, and especially so in videogames. I can't think of any that actually are. What I do know is that the harder people try the less balanced the games actually end up being.
I'll provide a few recent examples:
A few years back I was sold on this huge new upcoming IP called Destiny. It was gonna be big. I mean like... indoor plumbing big. It was a FPS, it was an MMO, hell it would brush your teeth for you and give you BJ in the morning before cooking you breakfast. Pretty much everyone was in. And I'll be the first to admit that game as pretty awesome at first. I played for almost an entire year having fun despite a whole boatload of major mechanic flaws and design choices that stood in the way. But, like all competitive games there were balance issues. So much telemetry data was being collected by the servers that the masterminds behind the game became overwhelmed. Instead of simply noticing that more players used one type of weapon than other (In this case, Assault Rifles were more commonly used than Marksman's Rifles) and thinking - interesting. Players are human beings with diverse interests and preferences - they decided that 'God Balance Wills it' and all things must be equal! Their solution was not to create a more compelling reason to use the other options, but to completely hamstring the most common option and make it so undesirable that the other choices were, by default, better.
This calls into play several important factors.
Firstly, what is balance? What was their end game - why are they making changes at all? And frankly no company has ever defined what they want - just that they want something different. If Bungie (the game developer) had stated from the offset that - to us, balance means that all weapon types are used in equal measure across the game demographic - than their action (while still completely stupid) is at least understandable.
And here I think we have the crux of that - most people don't honestly know what they want from 'balance'. Just ... something better than they have now. In some abstract way. I would wager that somewhere in the back of their minds they had a picture of what it would look like. They would pull up a dashboard for all their collected telemetry and it would show them that 20% of their players used weapon type A, 20% used type B, 20% used type C, and so on until each part of the game has equal share. They would sit back and think "what a balanced game we have made - all the choices you can make are equally compelling and great". But that never happened.
This is the fundamental flaw of that group. What they want is referred to as 'equality of outcome' which is both impossible and useless. They don't want 5 compelling choices that are all worth making - they want an even spreadsheet. In reality, humanity will never allow for true equality of outcome. Even if it were hypothetically possible to create 5 equally compelling options for players, one would always attract more than another. Perhaps players liked the sound of one gun more than other, or the graphical model. Or perhaps they have an internal mechanism that makes them choose the 'road less traveled' and intentionally make choices that others don't. Whatever the reason - and there are many - equality of outcome cannot be achieved. every attempt to do so, undermines the value of the choice.
A better developer would effort towards creating 5 compelling choices, and respecting the fact that human preference is fickle and therefore when once choice is made more frequently than others, it is beyond their control.
But why does all this matter?
Well, because it wasn't just one time. Bungie went on to make several changes in rapid succession that ultimately changed the game. if you played this game when it was first released and then stopped - you'd load the game up now and find it unrecognizable. They have 'balanced' it so much that it no longer resembles the game you were told was so amazing! You purchased A, and now only have the option to play Q.
This pattern repeats itself over and over again as industries all attempt to gain greater mass appeal. The people it hurts are the consumer, who end up being offered 'balance' at gunpoint and having no alterative but to surrender their hobby completely, or play it as it is given to them.
I see this happening here in WH40k with GW.
AoS appeals to a few folks and that's great. I'm glad GW was able to turn the money-sink that was WHFB into something profitable again by reworking it into AoS. However that does not make it a panacea to all their woes. WH40k players had historically enjoyed WH40k - it's IP is not in danger. It's IP is still profitable. It does not need a grand rework and nothing is to be gained by applying medicine that a patient does not need. If I had wanted to play AoS, I would already be playing it - converting WH40k to AoS-Space Edition is not compelling for me.
And that same thing is happening on a smaller scale within the rules themselves.
My ability to make choices is being sacrificed at the alter of balance. Instead of relying on tactical decisions and becoming a better gamer - putting models in logical places and being careful in my unit selection - I am not reduced to 'put the choppy guys in front, but the HQ right behind them, and build your gunline a few inches back, advance, roll dice, hooray you're so 'tactical'.
In previous editions the tactics I employed made those games! I'd deploy my Striking Scorpions behind my enemy's units and move in from my DZ intelligently with select units (sometimes it was War Walkers, sometimes it was WL - sometimes it was Falcons with DAs etc). I put pressure on my opponent and forced them to choose - do you fire at the big line of people approaching from the front, or do you prioritize the smaller, more local but closer threat right behind you.
In most cases I forced a 3rd choice my outflanking with Jetbikes or Vypers, but the Jetbikes were a more recent addition. In any case - sometimes players made poor choices - they'd panic and I'd capitalize. If they chose poorly, they lost, and if they made intelligent, tactic choices they often stood a chance of victory. But the thing that mattered was their choice. It wasn't made for them.
If GW starts dictating what models you can or cannot target than it reduces player freedom. Player choice. The 'equality of outcome' becomes apparent as their end-game. We want 'all options to be compelling' is not much different than 'all options are equally bland and unappealing'. Since they clearly cannot make compelling melee units, they have to 'force' them into CC by removing your ability to stop them.
I concern is that GW, with this new edition, is actually releasing WH40k: Destiny. they constant attempts to 'balance' the game will ultimately come at the cost of making the game insufferable. And at the end, what is the point of a balanced game if no one wants to play it?
2017/05/10 13:18:50
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
JohnnyHell wrote: That drawing is nice and all, but the Guilliman model is bigger than that.
The model is also standing on some significantly tall rocks. That's what I think is throwing people off. It's a nice decorative effect to make him stand out more on the table, but it's not actually part of his height.
And having seen the model in person standing right next to some regular marines, his outstretched leg is close to the same height as a space marine. His chest is about equal size to a space marine laid on its side. His arms are enormous.
I'm not saying he isn't taller, you'll notice my reply though is to someone saying he's twice as tall as marines and that's why it's unreasonable for him to hide behind others. I'm sure there is some variation in height amongst the primarchs too, but I don't believe Guilliman is modeled as 16 feet tall as is being claimed.
2017/05/10 13:19:44
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
JohnnyHell wrote: That drawing is nice and all, but the Guilliman model is bigger than that.
He is, but he is not twice as tall as a normal marine. The model is bigger than I'd like primarchs to be, but still smaller than most people seem to assume. The huge scenic base makes him look bigger than he is. The model is about 5cm tall without a base, so 40-50% taller than a normal marine.
If you can find a way to show me off his base, or setting a normal marine on his base with him, and he's only 50% taller, then I'll shut up about the whole hiding deal 50% bigger is about where I'd stop believing they can hide safely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.
I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.
My fear? Because of the past, I have a feeling they'll be sent to the wrong side. They'll get 11 wounds and won't be able to hide, because they are not Ultramarines. Again, it's just past paranoia playing on me because of favoritism, but I'm hoping New GW will set this right.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/10 13:21:28
Moreover, I'd really appreciate it if some people here could drop the attitude that if it's in the new 40K rules then it must be perfect. The degradation thing is a perfect example. A few of us have offered ideas that would allow this to be a simple over-arching rule, whereas GW have gone for the, in our opinion, utterly unnecessary (and more prone to error) 'bespoke' method of giving every unit its own unique table. Rather than debating the merits of either side, quite a few people here just scream at us for being 'haters' consider the new rules perfect just because they're not 7th Ed.
And people countered with precisely detailed reasons as to why such a banal rule does not work universally.
2017/05/10 13:23:30
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
No, I totally 100% agree on the hiding of regular sized characters. I'm 100% in disagreement that Robutt should be able to hide. He's freaking massive and it feels to me that the whole 10-11 wound rule was made with him in mind instead of base size or size of model. This just harkens back to my paranoia of all things Ultramarines getting the special treatment.
If they were showing Ultramarine favoritism just to make him as good as possible then why didn't they make him 10 wounds so he could just barely hide? Making him a wound lower than that seems to indicate they weren't designing the cutoff around him.
2017/05/10 13:24:25
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
No, I totally 100% agree on the hiding of regular sized characters. I'm 100% in disagreement that Robutt should be able to hide. He's freaking massive and it feels to me that the whole 10-11 wound rule was made with him in mind instead of base size or size of model. This just harkens back to my paranoia of all things Ultramarines getting the special treatment.
Well, I do agree that he may have been in mind when the wrote the 10-11 wound targeting rule. I would expect all similar size models (namely: Avatar of Khaine, Yncairne, and probably Ctan as well) to all be in that 9-10 Wound range. I know (at least for myself) that having the Avatar of Khaine not instantly die to heavy weapons would be a welcome sign.
When it comes to his size, yes he is several heads taller than most other marines... But on the battlefield, it would be very hard to pick him out of a moving force, especially so if you were on the same level as he is. Unless he was at the spearhead.
2017/05/10 13:24:38
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
JohnnyHell wrote: That drawing is nice and all, but the Guilliman model is bigger than that.
He is, but he is not twice as tall as a normal marine. The model is bigger than I'd like primarchs to be, but still smaller than most people seem to assume. The huge scenic base makes him look bigger than he is. The model is about 5cm tall without a base, so 40-50% taller than a normal marine.
If you can find a way to show me off his base, or setting a normal marine on his base with him, and he's only 50% taller, then I'll shut up about the whole hiding deal 50% bigger is about where I'd stop believing they can hide safely.
What an arbitrary cutoff point. So what happens when it's a model that's "50% bigger" by being a wider bodied model, like Bellisarius Cawl?
Who, by the way, was Infantry. Unlike Guilliman.
Crimson wrote: Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.
I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.
My fear? Because of the past, I have a feeling they'll be sent to the wrong side. They'll get 11 wounds and won't be able to hide, because they are not Ultramarines. Again, it's just past paranoia playing on me because of favoritism, but I'm hoping New GW will set this right.
"Because of the past"? You mean how when he got rules in "Rise of the Primarch" he was a Monstrous Creature? So he couldn't hide, barring a specific formation(Victrix Guard)?
It's amazing how quickly people forget things.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/10 13:26:30
2017/05/10 13:26:53
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
No, I totally 100% agree on the hiding of regular sized characters. I'm 100% in disagreement that Robutt should be able to hide. He's freaking massive and it feels to me that the whole 10-11 wound rule was made with him in mind instead of base size or size of model. This just harkens back to my paranoia of all things Ultramarines getting the special treatment.
Well, I do agree that he may have been in mind when the wrote the 10-11 wound targeting rule. I would expect all similar size models (namely: Avatar of Khaine, Yncairne, and probably Ctan as well) to all be in that 9-10 Wound range. I know (at least for myself) that having the Avatar of Khaine not instantly die to heavy weapons would be a welcome sign.
When it comes to his size, yes he is several heads taller than most other marines... But on the battlefield, it would be very hard to pick him out of a moving force, especially so if you were on the same level as he is. Unless he was at the spearhead.
I'm very interested to see how many wounds models like daemon princes will have now. I'd probably laugh pretty hard if they came in at 10 wounds though because obviously that would mean GW is showing favoritism to chaos again.
2017/05/10 13:27:05
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
Alright, I finally found a photo of him being compared to a regular marine. If you dont include the backpack, they come up to his lower sternum. He's still a giant, but not as big as I first though
Ground princes have 10, winged princes have 11, clearly.
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
2017/05/10 13:29:11
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
If you can find a way to show me off his base, or setting a normal marine on his base with him, and he's only 50% taller, then I'll shut up about the whole hiding deal 50% bigger is about where I'd stop believing they can hide safely.
I don't have such a picture, but look at this:
That's 60mm base, and the base is quite a bit wider than the model is tall (not counting the sword or the halo), meaning the model is about 5cm tall. Normal marines vary quite a bit in size, but they're about 32 -35mm. So Guilliman is no more than about 50% taller. (I estimate that the numarines are about 38mm tall, so that will alleviate the issue even more.)
People seem obsessed with the whole the rules are being made to fit RG - seriously WTF?
If so why has he 9 and not 10 wounds - as has repeatedly been asked. If anyone is going to be pandered to its the Wolves... we simply don't know comparatives at this point.
C'mon GW post those weapon rules so we can scream at each other about something new.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/10 13:31:17
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
nintura wrote: Alright, I finally found a photo of him being compared to a regular marine. If you dont include the backpack, they come up to his lower sternum. He's still a giant, but not as big as I first though
nintura wrote: Alright, I finally found a photo of him being compared to a regular marine. If you dont include the backpack, they come up to his lower sternum. He's still a giant, but not as big as I first though
Yep, fair enough. I'll stop bitching about him hiding. I still dont agree with it because it makes him virtually untouchable. They can just simply walk him to your front line and let him wreck you lol. But then that could change with the meta change that this edition will invariably make
nintura wrote: Alright, I finally found a photo of him being compared to a regular marine. If you dont include the backpack, they come up to his lower sternum. He's still a giant, but not as big as I first though
Mr Morden wrote: People seem obsessed with the whole the rules are being made to fit RG - seriously WTF?
If so why has he 9 and not 10 wounds - as has repeatedly been asked. If anyone is going to be pandered to its the Wolves... we simply don't know comparatives at this point.
C'mon GW post those weapon rules so we can scream at each other about something new.
My personal distaste for the 'hiding' rules has nothing to do with RG himself.
2017/05/10 13:36:33
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
nintura wrote: Alright, I finally found a photo of him being compared to a regular marine. If you dont include the backpack, they come up to his lower sternum. He's still a giant, but not as big as I first though
Yep, fair enough. I'll stop bitching about him hiding. I still dont agree with it because it makes him virtually untouchable. They can just simply walk him to your front line and let him wreck you lol. But then that could change with the meta change that this edition will invariably make
Yeah, I'm actually excited to see snipers get a good role this edition. I already had 3 squads of scout snipers and 2 squads of deathmarks, but I'll probably get more. Also have to hope that chaos will get some sniping love now. I think it'll add a good design to list balance about needing units that can knock out characters.
2017/05/10 13:40:17
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
nintura wrote: Alright, I finally found a photo of him being compared to a regular marine. If you dont include the backpack, they come up to his lower sternum. He's still a giant, but not as big as I first though
Yep, fair enough. I'll stop bitching about him hiding. I still dont agree with it because it makes him virtually untouchable. They can just simply walk him to your front line and let him wreck you lol. But then that could change with the meta change that this edition will invariably make
Yeah, I'm actually excited to see snipers get a good role this edition. I already had 3 squads of scout snipers and 2 squads of deathmarks, but I'll probably get more. Also have to hope that chaos will get some sniping love now. I think it'll add a good design to list balance about needing units that can knock out characters.
But how many snipers will it take to take RG out, though?
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
2017/05/10 13:41:40
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
Yeah, I'm actually excited to see snipers get a good role this edition. I already had 3 squads of scout snipers and 2 squads of deathmarks, but I'll probably get more. Also have to hope that chaos will get some sniping love now. I think it'll add a good design to list balance about needing units that can knock out characters.
I'd expect psychic snipers rather than a new unit for chaos.
Snip. Conversation is about 8e, NOT other posters. --Janthkin
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/10 13:59:35
2017/05/10 13:46:38
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
That's right, it's more an issue with RG and it looks to be a design decision to keep him specifically under 10 wounds so that he can hide.
Warhammer Community wrote:applies to all Characters with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or less, including things that previously might not have benefited from any protection.
Ten or less. It isn't some magic thing that when you hit ten Wounds you suddenly cease getting that protection. 11 is the magic number of when you cease getting protected.
We've been over the whole "Guilliman got 9 Wounds so he can get under the ten wounds for protection!" thing.
Then replace 10 with 11. If they wanted him picked out, they give him 11 wounds.
It's the mechanism they have chosen to decide if a model is able to be picked out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/10 13:56:43
2017/05/10 13:49:19
Subject: Warhammer 40k 8th Edition - Summary (all info in OP) 9th May 17 - Characters/AM Faction Focus
But I have feeling we are talking about different topic. I'm more about that there needs to be SOME sort of protection but are you refering to this situation which can happen with 8th ed? (and which is pretty stupid)
...X....D...............Y
X is enemy unit, D is you, Y is enemy character. You can't shoot at the character because X is closer.
This is what you mean? If yes then yes that IS stupid. Hopefully in practice doesn't play out that often.
Hmm. Good point. I have to agree that this is stupid.
I agree that if your unit is stuck between and you cant move it is stupid. However, wouldn't you simply move your squad from the enemy unit towards the enemy character?
Assuming your unit was not in close combat, but still close enough, you could just move 6". Then you would be anywhere between 8-9" away from the enemy unit. Now assuming you were still closer to that unit, that means the enemy character is still 10+ inches away. It just seems like such a strange scenario, and yes, it would be kind of silly; being that close to an enemy unit would still likely be the bigger (perceived) threat.
I expect that 8th is going to reinvigorate 
50% bigger is about where I'd stop believing they can hide safely.
