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.

Jacksmiles wrote:

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

Hear, hear.

Ok sure, thats how you would play it but what if gw actually play tested this and did this on purpose. You cant just assume its an oversite bc it doesn't benefit your army. Maybe the rule needs clarification but if gw never adresses this then they probably meant it RAW

broo wrote:
Ok sure, thats how you would play it but what if gw actually play tested this and did this on purpose. You cant just assume its an oversite bc it doesn't benefit your army. Maybe the rule needs clarification but if gw never adresses this then they probably meant it RAW

Why is the german version different ? Why is it like the old character rule ? The german version clearly says less than 10 wounds in the profile. Does GW want different rules for different countries ? I dont think so. Its just another screwup by GW.

What about other languages ? What does the rule say there ?

broo wrote:Ok sure, thats how you would play it but what if gw actually play tested this and did this on purpose. You cant just assume its an oversite bc it doesn't benefit your army. Maybe the rule needs clarification but if gw never adresses this then they probably meant it RAW

Already addressed:

JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

p5freak wrote:

broo wrote:
Ok sure, thats how you would play it but what if gw actually play tested this and did this on purpose. You cant just assume its an oversite bc it doesn't benefit your army. Maybe the rule needs clarification but if gw never adresses this then they probably meant it RAW

Why is the german version different ? Why is it like the old character rule ? The german version clearly says less than 10 wounds in the profile. Does GW want different rules for different countries ? I dont think so. Its just another screwup by GW.

What about other languages ? What does the rule say there ?

Because GW is incompetent.

broo wrote:
Ok sure, thats how you would play it but what if gw actually play tested this and did this on purpose. You cant just assume its an oversite bc it doesn't benefit your army. Maybe the rule needs clarification but if gw never adresses this then they probably meant it RAW

I agree that this could be a RAW change. I personally think it'd be strange, but I can deal with that. Based on the German version including "on the profile" I think it's enough of a gray area for them to need to clarify. Because right now it could mean that you have different groups of people each playing a different RAW. I'm not a fan of house-ruling unless something clearly doesn't work (assault weapons as an example) and this rule as written in English clearly works, it's just different from the character targeting rules we had to get used to when 8th dropped. But I don't think it's what they meant to do.

I'm good either way, but on this one I'd personally rather play what I think RAI is until they've had a chance to confirm or deny the RAW.

"I suddenly can't see that Leman Russ anymore, sir..."
"That giant Hive Tyrant is suddenly really hard to draw a bead on..."
"Can't get a fix on that Baneblade, my Lord... I swear it was easier to see a moment ago..."

Simply put, this is why it's nonsense!

p5freak wrote:

broo wrote:
Ok sure, thats how you would play it but what if gw actually play tested this and did this on purpose. You cant just assume its an oversite bc it doesn't benefit your army. Maybe the rule needs clarification but if gw never adresses this then they probably meant it RAW

Why is the german version different ? Why is it like the old character rule ? The german version clearly says less than 10 wounds in the profile. Does GW want different rules for different countries ? I dont think so. Its just another screwup by GW.

What about other languages ? What does the rule say there ?

It's not the first time rules have been different in translated versions. It doesn't prove anything either way.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
"I suddenly can't see that Leman Russ anymore, sir..."
"That giant Hive Tyrant is suddenly really hard to draw a bead on..."
"Can't get a fix on that Baneblade, my Lord... I swear it was easier to see a moment ago..."

Simply put, this is why it's nonsense!

Yes. But how is that relevant?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
"I suddenly can't see that Leman Russ anymore, sir..."
"That giant Hive Tyrant is suddenly really hard to draw a bead on..."
"Can't get a fix on that Baneblade, my Lord... I swear it was easier to see a moment ago..."

Simply put, this is why it's nonsense!

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what the rules say.

You could equally justify that tracked and wheeled vehicles shouldn't be able to move sideways, that multiwound infantry should have their combat ability degraded as they take wounds, that it makes no sense for the wounded one in the squad to always take the next wound, that models in squad out of sight should not be selectable as casualties and a whole pile of other things that "are nonsense" but are absolutely what the rules say.

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
"I suddenly can't see that Leman Russ anymore, sir..."
"That giant Hive Tyrant is suddenly really hard to draw a bead on..."
"Can't get a fix on that Baneblade, my Lord... I swear it was easier to see a moment ago..."

Simply put, this is why it's nonsense!

Yes. But how is that relevant?

Sigh... because size was the justification for the original rule, so this is a comment on why it seems unlikely they'd amend that element of it.

And because sometimes you can discuss things that aren't hard RAW RAW RAW and the universe doesn't explode.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
"I suddenly can't see that Leman Russ anymore, sir..."
"That giant Hive Tyrant is suddenly really hard to draw a bead on..."
"Can't get a fix on that Baneblade, my Lord... I swear it was easier to see a moment ago..."

Simply put, this is why it's nonsense!

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what the rules say.

You could equally justify that tracked and wheeled vehicles shouldn't be able to move sideways, that multiwound infantry should have their combat ability degraded as they take wounds, that it makes no sense for the wounded one in the squad to always take the next wound, that models in squad out of sight should not be selectable as casualties and a whole pile of other things that "are nonsense" but are absolutely what the rules say.

Hey, we've already got one guy dishing out logical fallcies, let's not have more.

Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.

You can maintain that all you want but fluff-based justifications have nothing to do with what the rules actually say, especially when there are loads of unambiguous rules that make no sense in terms of fluff.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.

You can maintain that all you want but fluff-based justifications have nothing to do with what the rules actually say, especially when there are loads of unambiguous rules that make no sense in terms of fluff.

Given that it could be read either way now, "unambiguous rules" might not be something to claim here.

 doctortom wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.

You can maintain that all you want but fluff-based justifications have nothing to do with what the rules actually say, especially when there are loads of unambiguous rules that make no sense in terms of fluff.

Given that it could be read either way now, "unambiguous rules" might not be something to claim here.

Except it can't be read either way. It's unambiguously different from the previous rule. If GW issue a special snowflake FAQ or errata, then that's fine, but to claim it could be either way is ridiculous.

If you claim "wounds" means "wounds characteristic", then the line in the rulebook that says " If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0" doesn't actually do anything. You can't have it both ways.

So the RaI crowd is unintentionally arguing that being reduced to zero wounds does nothing. And they call people playing by the rules as written unreasonable?

I'm with JohnnyHell on this one, all day.

 Elbows wrote:
I'm with JohnnyHell on this one, all day.

So you're claiming that models are not slain when reduced to zero wounds, because you claim "wounds" is the same as "wounds characteristic", and damage doesn't modify the "wounds characteristic"?

Or if you claim that "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers" does modify the characteristic, then models that drop under 10 can't be targeted. So which is it?

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

 doctortom wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.

You can maintain that all you want but fluff-based justifications have nothing to do with what the rules actually say, especially when there are loads of unambiguous rules that make no sense in terms of fluff.

Given that it could be read either way now, "unambiguous rules" might not be something to claim here.

Regardless, the point is that a rule being "nonsense" from a fluff perspective when interpreted a particular way does not add to or subtract from that interpretation's validity since there are crystal clear rules that are nonsense from a fluff perspective.

Ugh! The new character targeting rules are so bad. The original rule was fine. They should have left well enough alone.

 BaconCatBug wrote:


So the RaI crowd is unintentionally arguing that being reduced to zero wounds does nothing. And they call people playing by the rules as written unreasonable?

I like this one, it's very blatant misrepresentation of what anyone's said in here. No one is arguing this, even unintentionally. The argument is that *in this rule* they likely meant to say "wound characteristic." Not to go through the rulebook changing every instance of "wound" with "wound characteristic." That would be unreasonable

Also, I'm the one calling your arguments unreasonable, not the "crowd," unless I missed something, which is possible, we all do it. Like you, missing the point

I'm also not even part of the crowd you're rallying against, so good job on that count. I've mostly been saying that HIWPI and RAI are allowed in this forum, and in one single post I brought up my thoughts on this rule, that it's unlikely that they meant it to be remaining wounds but it's possible since they didn't write characteristic - and that until it's clarified for sure, I'd prefer to play the way I'm used to, using characteristics instead of making models targetable and untargetable at different points in the game.

Gasp, shock, the horror, what a monster I have become.

Jacksmiles wrote:
The argument is that *in this rule* they likely meant to say

What "they likely" meant is not even remotely relevant to what they actually wrote. If they want a rule to mean something other than exactly what it says, they have to amend what it says somewhere.

I, like a lot of others, think that the targeting rule was just fine as was. For GW to have gone and changed the wording you have to wonder if they, did in fact, intend that as a character's wounds decreased they become harder to hit. Otherwise why would GW even bother writing a new version of the rule?

Fluffwise maybe the character becomes more conscious of his vulnerability and seeks to "hide" himself a little better or take more advantage of cover.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
The argument is that *in this rule* they likely meant to say

What "they likely" meant is not even remotely relevant to what they actually wrote. If they want a rule to mean something other than exactly what it says, they have to amend what it says somewhere.

In an errata/FAQ, you mean? We haven't had enough time for one yet, but when one comes out, we'll know for sure either way. And if one doesn't, then yes, we have to accept the RAW.

We've had multitudes of examples of them meaning one thing and writing it a bit off to that, then correcting it.

Otherwise there's more than one RAW - which is definitely not intended - due to different wordings in other languages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I, like a lot of others, think that the targeting rule was just fine as was. For GW to have gone and changed the wording you have to wonder if they, did in fact, intend that as a character's wounds decreased they become harder to hit. Otherwise why would GW even bother writing a new version of the rule?

They changed the need for closer units to be visible, now even if you can't see a closer unit you can't target the character - that was an intended change for sure. Maybe they meant both changes, but I think it unlikely.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:


So the RaI crowd is unintentionally arguing that being reduced to zero wounds does nothing. And they call people playing by the rules as written unreasonable?

I like this one, it's very blatant misrepresentation of what anyone's said in here. No one is arguing this, even unintentionally. The argument is that *in this rule* they likely meant to say "wound characteristic." Not to go through the rulebook changing every instance of "wound" with "wound characteristic." That would be unreasonable

Also, I'm the one calling your arguments unreasonable, not the "crowd," unless I missed something, which is possible, we all do it. Like you, missing the point

I'm also not even part of the crowd you're rallying against, so good job on that count. I've mostly been saying that HIWPI and RAI are allowed in this forum, and in one single post I brought up my thoughts on this rule, that it's unlikely that they meant it to be remaining wounds but it's possible since they didn't write characteristic - and that until it's clarified for sure, I'd prefer to play the way I'm used to, using characteristics instead of making models targetable and untargetable at different points in the game.

Gasp, shock, the horror, what a monster I have become.

Good reply. No one was arguing what BCB claims, his constant fallacies are tiring.

Several tourney councils have already stated it won’t affect targeting For characters starting with 10 or more wounds.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.

You can maintain that all you want but fluff-based justifications have nothing to do with what the rules actually say, especially when there are loads of unambiguous rules that make no sense in terms of fluff.

Given that it could be read either way now, "unambiguous rules" might not be something to claim here.

Except it can't be read either way. It's unambiguously different from the previous rule. If GW issue a special snowflake FAQ or errata, then that's fine, but to claim it could be either way is ridiculous.

If you claim "wounds" means "wounds characteristic", then the line in the rulebook that says " If a model’s wounds are reduced to 0" doesn't actually do anything. You can't have it both ways.

So the RaI crowd is unintentionally arguing that being reduced to zero wounds does nothing. And they call people playing by the rules as written unreasonable?

I don't know who this 'crowd' is, but for the record I'm arguing the RAW is not what you say it is. I've laid out my RAW argument before I got onto RAI. I even quote it so it's in two posts. I believe I'm following the RAW and have explained why. Please do read properly and argue in good faith instead of your fallacious misrepresentations and veiled attacks.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.

You can maintain that all you want but fluff-based justifications have nothing to do with what the rules actually say, especially when there are loads of unambiguous rules that make no sense in terms of fluff.

Given that it could be read either way now, "unambiguous rules" might not be something to claim here.

Except it can't be read either way. It's unambiguously different from the previous rule.

So it went from being unambiguously one way to being able to be read two ways.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If GW issue a special snowflake FAQ or errata, then that's fine, but to claim it could be either way is ridiculous.

The German version cares to differ with you. It has an unambigous reading, but it runs counter to what you claim is unabiguous in the English version. Are you saying that GW planned for the rule to be different in different languages? The rule can still be read two ways in English, and the German version indicates that it is still done the same way. Given that evidence, saying that it is unambiguous with current wounds being the only interpretation is what is ridiculous.

No one will play it you can insta-hide Mags or Morty unless they do not have a clue.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Happy to be wrong if GW come out and say it but I maintain the Hard RAW crowd are wrong, and it's based on Wounds characteristic, not Wounds Remaining.

You can maintain that all you want but fluff-based justifications have nothing to do with what the rules actually say, especially when there are loads of unambiguous rules that make no sense in terms of fluff.

It was in the text of the rule itself. Which is why I bring it up. Wasn't a separate fluff section, it was in the rule. Go read it.

You guys also seem to forget that the new character rule does not specify just shooting phase, overwatch anyone?



GG GW.