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.

Hey everyone,

played my first 40k session last weekend, quite enjoyable. However we have some issues with targeting a character in the shooting phase using matched play rules:

1.) So the rulebook states that you can target a character if its the closest enemy model .
2.) Of course there is the big FAQ 1 which states that you can only target a character with less than 10 wounds if its both visible and the closest enemy model. This means that if there is a closer, not visible enemy unit which is even not visible, you cannot target the character.
I understand that this was updated to stop sniping characters by deliberatley placing your units in a way that they only see the characters and no other units. But in our game, this lead to quite controversial situations (a lot!) We played a citymap, and my buddy placed a unit inside a ruin which was incidently only accessible (LOS) on one side, and very close to the front line. So he was able to position his characters in the middle of the open street, gunslinger style and visible to basically all my units - but i could not target them because of the hidden unit in the ruin.

Eventually it was ok for me, rules are rules, and we have to adapt to this to use it to our advantage somehow.

However, what gets me confused a little is the new FAQ from september where it summarizes all the matched play rules again:

We are not releasing any new beta matched play rules as part of this update, and all the previously finalised
matched play rules continue to apply as they did before (the one exception being that some errata relating to
certain Space Marine Stratagems have been removed, as the new codex and codex supplements now replace those
rules).

The current finalised matched play rules are reprinted on the following pages for your convenience. :
Here this does not list this targeting character rule anymore, just Bolter Discipline, Prepared positions, Tactical restraint and tactical reservers.


So, what about now? Is the targeting character rule from the BIG FAQ1 still in effect or not?

And how is this handled now ultimatley? Am I missing something?

The targeting character rule has been updated in CA 2018, quoted below. What your friend did is legal. Its stupid, its cheesy, but thats how the rules are. Note that you can attack units which are out of sight.

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 (excluding other Characters with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10) are closer, whether they are visible or not, then the enemy Character cannot be targeted.

 p5freak wrote:
Note that you can attack units which are out of sight.

Ok, I understand that I can hit them with weapons which does not need LOS, e.g. the heavy mortar from the Plague Burst Crawler (PBC), I could probably charge them or If I'm lucky I could teleport strike some terminators in LOS.

Anything I'm missing here?

He means that you can charge and fight through the wall as long he’s within 1” of the wall.
I believe he meant that and that’s legal as per the ruins rule.

I meant that there are guns which dont require LOS to target a unit. And that you can deepstrike where you can see the unit, and you can charge it, even through a wall, because infantry can move through walls of ruins.

Scharkov wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Note that you can attack units which are out of sight.

Ok, I understand that I can hit them with weapons which does not need LOS, e.g. the heavy mortar from the Plague Burst Crawler (PBC), I could probably charge them or If I'm lucky I could teleport strike some terminators in LOS.

Anything I'm missing here?

No,
What it means is you can target it with weapons that do not need LOS if it is also the closest enemy unit.
Not needing LOS just removes the LOS requirement for the characters rule.
Their are also sniper rifles with a rule that allows you to target characters even if they arn't the closest and thus those abilities remove the other half of the character targeting rule.

Also exists are some units with both abilities. I can only think of one off the top of my head but there may be multiple.

 p5freak wrote:
Its stupid, its cheesy, but thats how the rules are.

The point of the rules change was that people abused the "visible" component by placing their units purposely in a way to allow some units to snipe in between e.g. 2 of their OWN rhinos at an enemy character. which was even more cheesy and stupid than the current rules are.

nekooni wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Its stupid, its cheesy, but thats how the rules are.

The point of the rules change was that people abused the "visible" component by placing their units purposely in a way to allow some units to snipe in between e.g. 2 of their OWN rhinos at an enemy character. which was even more cheesy and stupid than the current rules are.

Indeed. You hate the Character Targeting rules? Go thank the numbskulls who developed Rhinoscoping instead of blaming GW.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Its stupid, its cheesy, but thats how the rules are.

The point of the rules change was that people abused the "visible" component by placing their units purposely in a way to allow some units to snipe in between e.g. 2 of their OWN rhinos at an enemy character. which was even more cheesy and stupid than the current rules are.

Indeed. You hate the Character Targeting rules? Go thank the numbskulls who developed Rhinoscoping instead of blaming GW.

No one would have developed rhinoscoping if GW didnt come up with the stupid character protection rule in the first place. I really liked the look out sir rule, it should have stayed that way.

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Its stupid, its cheesy, but thats how the rules are.

The point of the rules change was that people abused the "visible" component by placing their units purposely in a way to allow some units to snipe in between e.g. 2 of their OWN rhinos at an enemy character. which was even more cheesy and stupid than the current rules are.

Indeed. You hate the Character Targeting rules? Go thank the numbskulls who developed Rhinoscoping instead of blaming GW.

No one would have developed rhinoscoping if GW didnt come up with the stupid character protection rule in the first place. I really liked the look out sir rule, it should have stayed that way.

or just changed to having a character within 3" of an infantry unit

The old “the rules allow it so I’m doing it” excuse for playing like a jerk. I remember the good old days where people just played for fun.

Andykp wrote:
The old “the rules allow it so I’m doing it” excuse for playing like a jerk. I remember the good old days where people just played for fun.

It's a bit mean to call this playing like a jerk. Everyone has access to the rule even though it benefits some armies more than others. In competitive play, I doubt we'd find a top army that doesn't use some exploit or form of cheese to their advantage. I do, however, believe that the old system of allowing characters to join units was far more fair, but this edition has changed so much.

That sounds like a discussion for 40K general, rather than resurrecting a 7 month old rules discussion.