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.

Wraithseers

 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.

Obviously they're getting smaller as chunks get blown out of them

 ChargerIIC 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?

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

Harlequins do not.
Drukhari do not.
I don't think Genestelaer Cults do.

The topic isn't "list everything with 10+ Wounds and CHARACTER, guys!

Well, the change in the rule is to the line of sight restriction, but it certainly looks as though they included an extra way to hide guys as well, probably by mistake. It's definitely a rules change, but I suspect they wanted only 1 change, not 2.

I think this is intentional bc GW wants their precious characters on the battlefield more.. It could use more clairity sure but RAW you all know what to do..

I have seen this argued and it's stupid, the quickest way to shoot it down is by pointing out that 'wounds' is a characteristic on the units profile. There for if it has less then 10 wounds would implu you need to look at the profile. If it was to work in the suggested way, once a model is below 10 wounds, the ca rule would need to say, if a model is REDUCED, to less then 10 wounds. Because it does not say reduced it's imolied that it's based of it's original wounds not current wounds.

Anyone who actually played or tried to pull that I would not play against at all.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I have seen this argued and it's stupid, the quickest way to shoot it down is by pointing out that 'wounds' is a characteristic on the units profile. There for if it has less then 10 wounds would implu you need to look at the profile. If it was to work in the suggested way, once a model is below 10 wounds, the ca rule would need to say, if a model is REDUCED, to less then 10 wounds. Because it does not say reduced it's imolied that it's based of it's original wounds not current wounds.

Anyone who actually played or tried to pull that I would not play against at all.

The problem with that argument is that the original wound DID say characteristic. Therefore the new rule, with different wording, should work differently.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I have seen this argued and it's stupid, the quickest way to shoot it down is by pointing out that 'wounds' is a characteristic on the units profile. There for if it has less then 10 wounds would implu you need to look at the profile. If it was to work in the suggested way, once a model is below 10 wounds, the ca rule would need to say, if a model is REDUCED, to less then 10 wounds. Because it does not say reduced it's imolied that it's based of it's original wounds not current wounds.

Anyone who actually played or tried to pull that I would not play against at all.

The problem with that argument is that the original wound DID say characteristic. Therefore the new rule, with different wording, should work differently.

The Rules justification in the Battle Primer/Rulebooks was "due to their sheer size". Are you saying these units now shrink and warriors suddenly can't notice them? Because that's ridiculous.

There's also the "Remaining W" on Datasheets by way of precedent, to see how it would have been written if it was as you claim.

As I said, anyone that genuinely thinks that because Marty goes down to 9 wounds he can hide behind pox walkers is TFG.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
As I said, anyone that genuinely thinks that because Marty goes down to 9 wounds he can hide behind pox walkers is TFG.

Totally agree.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
As I said, anyone that genuinely thinks that because Marty goes down to 9 wounds he can hide behind pox walkers is TFG.

There's a difference between believing that's how the rule should work and how it's written to work.

IMO only a TFG will play it Morty or Mags gets the benefit... to argue is an exercise is sheer silliness... but this is Dakka.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I have seen this argued and it's stupid, the quickest way to shoot it down is by pointing out that 'wounds' is a characteristic on the units profile. There for if it has less then 10 wounds would implu you need to look at the profile. If it was to work in the suggested way, once a model is below 10 wounds, the ca rule would need to say, if a model is REDUCED, to less then 10 wounds. Because it does not say reduced it's imolied that it's based of it's original wounds not current wounds.

Anyone who actually played or tried to pull that I would not play against at all.

The problem with that argument is that the original wound DID say characteristic. Therefore the new rule, with different wording, should work differently.

The Rules justification in the Battle Primer/Rulebooks was "due to their sheer size". Are you saying these units now shrink and warriors suddenly can't notice them? Because that's ridiculous.

There's also the "Remaining W" on Datasheets by way of precedent, to see how it would have been written if it was as you claim.

Fluff!=rule. If you disagree I claim space marines should be immune to lasguns since they are often described as immune to anything small arms fire.

And if you want fluff justification(as if that mattered) armour etc blown off by damage. There. Done.

If your only arguments are "its not fluffy" and "if you do that you're TFG" , thats a pretty bad sign.

RaI i agree it should be played just like before, but RaW - no.

I think YMDC needs some shorthand to quickly close down inane non-debates like this, perhaps based on the Grinding Advance debacle.

We should be able to just answer something like "Yes, zero is less than five".

You can read into these things whatever you like, but be aware that
- You are wilfuly misinterpreting the rules
- No TO will allow it in competitive play
- Trying it in your local games means you're an <insert epithet here>

tneva82 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I have seen this argued and it's stupid, the quickest way to shoot it down is by pointing out that 'wounds' is a characteristic on the units profile. There for if it has less then 10 wounds would implu you need to look at the profile. If it was to work in the suggested way, once a model is below 10 wounds, the ca rule would need to say, if a model is REDUCED, to less then 10 wounds. Because it does not say reduced it's imolied that it's based of it's original wounds not current wounds.

Anyone who actually played or tried to pull that I would not play against at all.

The problem with that argument is that the original wound DID say characteristic. Therefore the new rule, with different wording, should work differently.

The Rules justification in the Battle Primer/Rulebooks was "due to their sheer size". Are you saying these units now shrink and warriors suddenly can't notice them? Because that's ridiculous.

There's also the "Remaining W" on Datasheets by way of precedent, to see how it would have been written if it was as you claim.

Fluff!=rule. If you disagree I claim space marines should be immune to lasguns since they are often described as immune to anything small arms fire.

And if you want fluff justification(as if that mattered) armour etc blown off by damage. There. Done.

Show me where your justification appears in the rule. Because what I wrote appears in the original rule and yours doesn't, with nothing saying it is 'just fluff' and not part of the rule. I was addressing what was written in the Rules.

There. Not 'done'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silentz wrote:
I think YMDC needs some shorthand to quickly close down inane non-debates like this, perhaps based on the Grinding Advance debacle.

We should be able to just answer something like "Yes, zero is less than five".

You can read into these things whatever you like, but be aware that
- You are wilfuly misinterpreting the rules
- No TO will allow it in competitive play
- Trying it in your local games means you're an <insert epithet here>

Agreed. Anyone claiming it's intended Characters shrink and become non-targettable is just trying it on and arguing for argument's sake. I hope they'd be so bold in real life and not just be being the big person safe behind a computer screen. They wouldn't get many repeat games. Lest I be accused of insulting people again, eh, don't behave like this is a substantive change and the shoe won't fit.

Why are you so angry about a rule discussion? Noone is attacking you even though you're being consistently rude in this thread, so please, calm down.

Yes, I am perfectly able to discuss this rule in real life and I have zero issue with telling someone about that rule, because my stance is simply "they changed the wording, which makes it work differently, but we still shouldn't play it like that because they're going to FAQ it anyway, because it's clearly an unintended change - they can't be THAT stupid over in Nottingham".

Fact: The rule changed.
Opinion: It shouldn't have.
Unneccessary: Getting angry about it.

nekooni wrote:
Why are you so angry about a rule discussion? Noone is attacking you even though you're being consistently rude in this thread, so please, calm down.

Yes, I am perfectly able to discuss this rule in real life and I have zero issue with telling someone about that rule, because my stance is simply "they changed the wording, which makes it work differently, but we still shouldn't play it like that because they're going to FAQ it anyway, because it's clearly an unintended change - they can't be THAT stupid over in Nottingham".

Fact: The rule changed.
Opinion: It shouldn't have.
Unneccessary: Getting angry about it.

Who are you addressing and interpreting anger from? I'm not angry. I'm faintly amused people will try and wrangle advantage. YMMV.

well you can play this game RAW like the big boys or you can start making all your little house rules and play with your 2 friends all the time... Choice is yours

broo wrote:
well you can play this game RAW like the big boys or you can start making all your little house rules and play with your 2 friends all the time... Choice is yours

What if I want to play this game RAW with my 2 friends all the time?

Also, nice shot on implying people house ruling are children, that's gonna keep your credibility high

If one house rule is valid, then all are. Now my conscripts have 4000 wounds.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If one house rule is valid, then all are. Now my conscripts have 4000 wounds.

TIL house rules are meant to be used for false equivalencies instead of being ways a group prefers to play a game. I mean, if a group wants to play conscripts as 4000 wounds, that's cool, it's your business. But don't pretend someone saying "Hey I think playing this rule in a way that seems more RAI to me is more fair" is the same as "HAHA I get to play things you'll never kill because I made it up that way!"

Not all house rules are valid in every house, and that's okay.

It's not a false equivalence. If player A wants to make a house rule modifying a rule, player B gets to do so too. What those rules are are unimportant.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not a false equivalence. If player A wants to make a house rule modifying a rule, player B gets to do so too. What those rules are are unimportant.

Not really. In a group using house rules, they're not just taking turns making things up - someone suggests a rule change and the other players agree. Maybe your group just auto-agrees to things like 4000 wound conscripts, but it's not a reasonable assumption to make about reasonable people.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not a false equivalence. If player A wants to make a house rule modifying a rule, player B gets to do so too. What those rules are are unimportant.

Not really. In a group using house rules, they're not just taking turns making things up - someone suggests a rule change and the other players agree. Maybe your group just auto-agrees to things like 4000 wound conscripts, but it's not a reasonable assumption to make about reasonable people.

Indeed. A reasonable solution agreed upon between two people to make the game work/be fun is not the same as BCB's ridiculous UberConscript fallacies.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not a false equivalence. If player A wants to make a house rule modifying a rule, player B gets to do so too. What those rules are are unimportant.

Not really. In a group using house rules, they're not just taking turns making things up - someone suggests a rule change and the other players agree. Maybe your group just auto-agrees to things like 4000 wound conscripts, but it's not a reasonable assumption to make about reasonable people.

Indeed. A reasonable solution agreed upon between two people to make the game work/be fun is not the same as BCB's ridiculous UberConscript fallacies.

I think what you're looking for is here. And yeah, I was refering to you earlier, you came off as pretty aggressive. Glad to know that's just your amused tone.

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not a false equivalence. If player A wants to make a house rule modifying a rule, player B gets to do so too. What those rules are are unimportant.

Not really. In a group using house rules, they're not just taking turns making things up - someone suggests a rule change and the other players agree. Maybe your group just auto-agrees to things like 4000 wound conscripts, but it's not a reasonable assumption to make about reasonable people.

Indeed. A reasonable solution agreed upon between two people to make the game work/be fun is not the same as BCB's ridiculous UberConscript fallacies.

I think what you're looking for is here. And yeah, I was refering to you earlier, you came off as pretty aggressive. Glad to know that's just your amused tone.

Why would I need the Proposed Rules forum? A tad passive-aggressive, sir.

My interpretation of the RAW is that Characters do not shrink and the rule still means 'Wounds characteristic'.
That's not inventing rules, or house-ruling; that was a side discussion.
As it doesn't say 'Wounds remaining' you can't "prove me wrong" and we're left with a disagreement in interpretation. I believe nothing has changed, bar the obvious and intended targetting change re: visibility/closest clearly made. You believe in magic shrinking Characters that suddenly are hideable when they lose Wounds. I'm summing up your case a tad flippantly, but that's because I think it's a silly argument.

broo wrote:
well you can play this game RAW like the big boys or you can start making all your little house rules and play with your 2 friends all the time... Choice is yours

Are the "big boys" firing assault weapons after advancing? Or fire pistols when within 1" of an enemy? Then they're not playing RAW. Check BCB's sig for other RAW problems.

No need to cop an attitude like that.

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's not a false equivalence. If player A wants to make a house rule modifying a rule, player B gets to do so too. What those rules are are unimportant.

Not really. In a group using house rules, they're not just taking turns making things up - someone suggests a rule change and the other players agree. Maybe your group just auto-agrees to things like 4000 wound conscripts, but it's not a reasonable assumption to make about reasonable people.

Indeed. A reasonable solution agreed upon between two people to make the game work/be fun is not the same as BCB's ridiculous UberConscript fallacies.

I think what you're looking for is here. And yeah, I was refering to you earlier, you came off as pretty aggressive. Glad to know that's just your amused tone.

I'm pretty sure HIWPI and RAI are allowed for discussion in this forum. House rules don't need to be in Proposed Rules as they are HIWPI for the purpose of these discussions.

That's not to say house rules CAN'T go in Proposed Rules, but they don't have to be ONLY there