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.

Eh, the new rule says it's additional. Don't the Core Rules still apply too?

I love Dakka, everyone arguing and insulting over the fact they all agree that this is a RAW mistake.

OLDSCL wrote:
I love Dakka, everyone arguing and insulting over the fact they all agree that this is a RAW mistake.

It's not a RaW mistake. It's a "GW may or may not have realised what they have done because they use beagles for rules editors so let's all get angry at people who want to play by the actual rules" mistake.

All this argument has come down to is people noticing the (subjectively) silly consequence of the rule, other people getting mad about it and other people pointing out that getting mad about it has as much effect (and rules backing) as getting mad over the Conscript points change and insisting that 4 actually means 3.

If GW change it, all the better. I personally think it's a bad direction to go in but they are the ones pulling the strings. If they want to change the rules to make Mortarian, Gulliman and other expensive big models harder to kill, thus more powerful, thus sell more, that's their prerogative.

BCB how would-will you play this rule?

 Primark G wrote:
BCB how would-will you play this rule?

Irrelevant to this discussion, which is the entire point I have been trying to make!

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

Spoiler:

GG GW.

Alright, that image is amazing.

BaconCatBug wrote:It's a "GW may or may not have realised what they have done because they use beagles for rules editors so let's all get angry at people who want to play by the actual rules" mistake.

These rules have clearly been edited by a basset hound.

M.

BCB it is relevant though... How do you think GW will clarify it?

 Primark G wrote:
BCB it is relevant though... How do you think GW will clarify it?

I expect them to errata it back to how it was before. I can't speak for BCB though.

 Primark G wrote:
BCB it is relevant though... How do you think GW will clarify it?

I don't know and I don't care, it's not for me to decide or even have an opinion on.

Of course if I were writing the rules I'd actually come up with a character rule that is 8th grade complex instead of 3rd grade and it wouldn't be a total mess. I'd also close all the silly loopholes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

OLDSCL wrote:
I love Dakka, everyone arguing and insulting over the fact they all agree that this is a RAW mistake.

It's not a RaW mistake. It's a "GW may or may not have realised what they have done because they use beagles for rules editors so let's all get angry at people who want to play by the actual rules" mistake.

All this argument has come down to is people noticing the (subjectively) silly consequence of the rule, other people getting mad about it and other people pointing out that getting mad about it has as much effect (and rules backing) as getting mad over the Conscript points change and insisting that 4 actually means 3.

If GW change it, all the better. I personally think it's a bad direction to go in but they are the ones pulling the strings. If they want to change the rules to make Mortarian, Gulliman and other expensive big models harder to kill, thus more powerful, thus sell more, that's their prerogative.

I'm not mad. Y U mad bro? Don't ascribe emotion to people calmly discussing just because you're mad about them not agreeing with you.

It's interesting you're discussing intent here... I thought it wasn't relevant?

So HYWPI is that Characters shrink and become protected once their Wounds drop? I mean, my Hive Tyrant would thank you, but it's not what the RAW says and it's very much your house rule. "By that logic..." etc.

I think it is meant to be based off the Starting Wounds Characteristic, not the remaining wounds on the model.

How would you explain this. My Hive Tyrant is W12, he has gaunts in front of him. He gets shot by a Dev Squad with 4 lascannons, they take him down to 9. Now another devastator squad can't shoot him at all, because the gaunts are in the way, even though the hive tyrant hasn't moved at all.

Gotta agree with Bacon Cat Bug for 3 reasons:

1- BACON IS THE BEST
2- CAT MEMES
3 - Bugs = Nids

As Barney Stinson would say... LAWYERED!

 Dynas wrote:
I think it is meant to be based off the Starting Wounds Characteristic, not the remaining wounds on the model.

How would you explain this. My Hive Tyrant is W12, he has gaunts in front of him. He gets shot by a Dev Squad with 4 lascannons, they take him down to 9. Now another devastator squad can't shoot him at all, because the gaunts are in the way, even though the hive tyrant hasn't moved at all.

Gotta agree with Bacon Cat Bug for 3 reasons:

1- BACON IS THE BEST
2- CAT MEMES
3 - Bugs = Nids

As Barney Stinson would say... LAWYERED!

Hahaha except he's arguing the opposite...

 Dynas wrote:
I think it is meant to be based off the Starting Wounds Characteristic, not the remaining wounds on the model.

How would you explain this. My Hive Tyrant is W12, he has gaunts in front of him. He gets shot by a Dev Squad with 4 lascannons, they take him down to 9. Now another devastator squad can't shoot him at all, because the gaunts are in the way, even though the hive tyrant hasn't moved at all.

Gotta agree with Bacon Cat Bug for 3 reasons:

1- BACON IS THE BEST
2- CAT MEMES
3 - Bugs = Nids

As Barney Stinson would say... LAWYERED!

I'm not arguing for or against just giving you a "fluff" explanation. How about he "crouches" so he won't be as big of a target? The Hive Tyrant hasn't moved, in terms of horizontal directions, nor have his gaunts but by lowering his profile by hitting the dirt or some such he's become harder to hit.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 Dynas wrote:
I think it is meant to be based off the Starting Wounds Characteristic, not the remaining wounds on the model.

How would you explain this. My Hive Tyrant is W12, he has gaunts in front of him. He gets shot by a Dev Squad with 4 lascannons, they take him down to 9. Now another devastator squad can't shoot him at all, because the gaunts are in the way, even though the hive tyrant hasn't moved at all.

Gotta agree with Bacon Cat Bug for 3 reasons:

1- BACON IS THE BEST
2- CAT MEMES
3 - Bugs = Nids

As Barney Stinson would say... LAWYERED!

I'm not arguing for or against just giving you a "fluff" explanation. How about he "crouches" so he won't be as big of a target? The Hive Tyrant hasn't moved, in terms of horizontal directions, nor have his gaunts but by lowering his profile by hitting the dirt or some such he's become harder to hit.

But he's not becoming harder to hit, he's becoming nigh-unto impossible to hit.

All Orks are crouching SO hard their trousers might split, but you can still shoot them! :-D

I think it is okay to tell HYWPI since it helps other posters as a reference.

 Primark G wrote:
I think it is okay to tell HYWPI since it helps other posters as a reference.

Absolutely, as long as you clearly state that it is HYWPI.

RAW says "wounds", which is "current HP" basically. Otherwise, other rules will break as BCB demonstrated. "wound characteristic" is what was asked for before the rule change, and that clearly meant the stat on the datasheet, not the "current HP".

Probably noone will play it like that and GW will probably change it back to "wounds characteristics" in the next FAQ.

"Probably noone will play it like that and GW will probably change it back to "wounds characteristics" in the next FAQ."

Defnitely! :-)

I'd hate to say it, but I think we need a mod to lock this thread. We have RAW and RAI interpretations and nothing new has been said in the past three pages - and there's only 4 pages in the thread.

I'm really sorry I brought this up.

Wait! I need to collect all these janky rules interpretations so I can be a counter-TFG to whatever obnoxious boi I get stuck playing!



M.

edited by moderator

Ruin wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

OLDSCL wrote:
I love Dakka, everyone arguing and insulting over the fact they all agree that this is a RAW mistake.

It's not a RaW mistake. It's a "GW may or may not have realised what they have done because they use beagles for rules editors so let's all get angry at people who want to play by the actual rules" mistake.

All this argument has come down to is people noticing the (subjectively) silly consequence of the rule, other people getting mad about it and other people pointing out that getting mad about it has as much effect (and rules backing) as getting mad over the Conscript points change and insisting that 4 actually means 3.

If GW change it, all the better. I personally think it's a bad direction to go in but they are the ones pulling the strings. If they want to change the rules to make Mortarian, Gulliman and other expensive big models harder to kill, thus more powerful, thus sell more, that's their prerogative.

I'm not mad. Y U mad bro? Don't ascribe emotion to people calmly discussing just because you're mad about them not agreeing with you.

It's interesting you're discussing intent here... I thought it wasn't relevant?

So HYWPI is that Characters shrink and become protected once their Wounds drop? I mean, my Hive Tyrant would thank you, but it's not what the RAW says and it's very much your house rule. "By that logic..." etc.

Speak for yourself mate, you're the one that being an abrasive arse ITT (and many others).

He was speaking for himself. Are you popping in for any reason other than to insult him and break forum rules while doing do?


RAW can be read two ways - it can still be read the way it was, or read the way BCB is reading it. Given the German version still having it based on the Wounds characteristic, that would suggest that the interpretation that it still applies to the wound characteristic is what is still intended.

 doctortom wrote:

Ruin wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

OLDSCL wrote:
I love Dakka, everyone arguing and insulting over the fact they all agree that this is a RAW mistake.

It's not a RaW mistake. It's a "GW may or may not have realised what they have done because they use beagles for rules editors so let's all get angry at people who want to play by the actual rules" mistake.

All this argument has come down to is people noticing the (subjectively) silly consequence of the rule, other people getting mad about it and other people pointing out that getting mad about it has as much effect (and rules backing) as getting mad over the Conscript points change and insisting that 4 actually means 3.

If GW change it, all the better. I personally think it's a bad direction to go in but they are the ones pulling the strings. If they want to change the rules to make Mortarian, Gulliman and other expensive big models harder to kill, thus more powerful, thus sell more, that's their prerogative.

I'm not mad. Y U mad bro? Don't ascribe emotion to people calmly discussing just because you're mad about them not agreeing with you.

It's interesting you're discussing intent here... I thought it wasn't relevant?

So HYWPI is that Characters shrink and become protected once their Wounds drop? I mean, my Hive Tyrant would thank you, but it's not what the RAW says and it's very much your house rule. "By that logic..." etc.

Speak for yourself mate, you're the one that being an abrasive arse ITT (and many others).

He was speaking for himself. Are you popping in for any reason other than to insult him and break forum rules while doing do?


RAW can be read two ways - it can still be read the way it was, or read the way BCB is reading it. Given the German version still having it based on the Wounds characteristic, that would suggest that the interpretation that it still applies to the wound characteristic is what is still intended.

Given that GW have historically defaulted to the English version being correct in multiple language issues then we're probably back to square one with this.

I think anyone playing it now that a character that starts off with 10 or more wounds can't be targeted when its wounds drop below 10 will be in for a rude surprise when it is officially clarified.

I have a modicum of hope that GW will reverse course entirely and just go back to the original rule.

It doesn't matter whether you interpret the new rule as wounds remaining or wounds characteristic, the new CA rule is complete and utter bs.

I think we all just need to ignore its existence.

 Primark G wrote:
I think anyone playing it now that a character that starts off with 10 or more wounds can't be targeted when its wounds drop below 10 will be in for a rude surprise when it is officially clarified.

Few are going to care one way or the other if this eventually gets changed. Don't pair emotional attachment to rules interpretations.

While some people in this thread are trying to incite others, most people just care what the rule actually says.

 Primark G wrote:
I think anyone playing it now that a character that starts off with 10 or more wounds can't be targeted when its wounds drop below 10 will be in for a rude surprise when it is officially clarified.

Indeed. Roll on that 2-week FAQ...

Good old GW...

Just to be sure, the rule that you can't shoot a character if there is a closer unit, but it is in melee is still valid right?

Malachon wrote:
Just to be sure, the rule that you can't shoot a character if there is a closer unit, but it is in melee is still valid right?

Yes. Also if the unit is closer and not visible to the firer.