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.

PenitentJake wrote:


Like it's almost the punchline to a joke: an Ogryn, a Terminator and a Drone walk onto a battlefield, but they all have to roll 2+ on d6 to take a mortal wound for their commander.

Yes. Because thats what 8th edition is about, streamlining, simplifying. All ignore wound rules are the same, across all factions. Inv is the same, across all factions. All shooting is the same, across all factions. All melee is the same, across all factions. All movement is the same, across all factions.

The Deathshroud rule makes the most sense to me. Personally, I'd make its wording the standard and have the transfer roll be the only differentiating factor.

Question: if one were to reintroduce universal special rules, how would one differentiate in cases where you want the behavior to be different for different units?

 Ginjitzu wrote:
The Deathshroud rule makes the most sense to me. Personally, I'd make its wording the standard and have the transfer roll be the only differentiating factor.

Question: if one were to reintroduce universal special rules, how would one differentiate in cases where you want the behavior to be different for different units?

You don't. You either accept streamlining with USR and stick to the USR (c.f. Apoc), or don't bother trying in the first place.

You could bake some differentiation into the USRs - for example have all of the various bodyguard rules become Bodyguard n+, where n is the roll needed for the attack to be intercepted.

That way you can have some bodyguard units be better than others while still only having a single mechanic.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
You could bake some differentiation into the USRs - for example have all of the various bodyguard rules become Bodyguard n+, where n is the roll needed for the attack to be intercepted.

That way you can have some bodyguard units be better than others while still only having a single mechanic.

granularity and USR in one, simple yet effecive....

I like it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
You could bake some differentiation into the USRs - for example have all of the various bodyguard rules become Bodyguard n+, where n is the roll needed for the attack to be intercepted.

That way you can have some bodyguard units be better than others while still only having a single mechanic.

granularity and USR in one, simple yet effecive....

I like it.

Yup. The universal in USR doesn't have to mean identical in every way, just that the actual game mechanical process of the rule is the same (for example "Roll X+, apply effects Y and Z"). This is also how many of the base rules operate, such as saves, rolling to hit etc.

Other examples from previous editions are Poison (different values on which poison triggers but the mechanical effect of poison is the same) and FNP (different values on which wound is saved).

ohh i perfectly know but GW' doesn't want USRs no more it seems.

Except for FLY. Or AIRCRAFT.

 Ginjitzu wrote:
The Deathshroud rule makes the most sense to me. Personally, I'd make its wording the standard and have the transfer roll be the only differentiating factor.

Agreed.

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Question: if one were to reintroduce universal special rules, how would one differentiate in cases where you want the behavior to be different for different units?

Well, it depends how different you want the behaviour to be. Let's take the Bodyguard rule and make it a USR:

Bodyguard X+

A unit with this special rule may attempt to intercept an attack against a friendly character within 3". After a character is successfully hit by an attack, you may attempt to transfer the hit to a model with this special rule that is within 3" of the character. The roll needed to transfer the hit will be listed along with the rule (e.g. Bodyguard 4+). If the roll is unsuccessful the character is hit as normal. If the roll succeeds then the hit and any additional effects of the attack are resolved against the Bodyguard unit instead.

Some units with this special rule may be limited to protecting only certain characters or character-types. e.g. Bodyguard (Archon) 3+ means that the unit can only intercept shots for Archons. Similarly, Bodyguard (INFANTRY) 4+ means that the unit can only intercept shots for Characters with the INFANTRY keyword.

(I'd probably want to tighten this up a bit by adding some additional constraints/clarifications but they're not really relevant to what's being discussed here.)


The idea is that this would give you some in-built flexibility with regard to how this rule is applied. You can freely alter the chance to intercept the shot and/or you can alter which Characters or Character-types the bodyguard unit is able to protect, all without changing the core USR. In essence, we can start by building a degree of flexibility into the USR itself - so that we don't need an entirely different rule when all we really want is to change the value or specify which units can be protected.

But if that's not enough, the next possibility is to add an additional rule to the relevant units that modifies the USR. e.g.

Reflective Shields
Whenever this unit successfully intercepts a hit using its Bodyguard rule, the attacking unit suffers 1 Mortal Wound.

The alternative would be to instead have a single rule (Reflective Bodyguard or something like that), which combines the text of both the above ability and the Bodyguard rule. However, I think splitting it into 2 abilities is the preferable option as it makes it a lot easier to appreciate the actual differences between the abilities. Whereas if you're also copying swathes of text from a USR, the key difference can easily be overlooked.

 vipoid wrote:
The alternative would be to instead have a single rule (Reflective Bodyguard or something like that), which combines the text of both the above ability and the Bodyguard rule. However, I think splitting it into 2 abilities is the preferable option as it makes it a lot easier to appreciate the actual differences between the abilities. Whereas if you're also copying swathes of text from a USR, the key difference can easily be overlooked.

See also: the previous Fearless/Hatred/Zealot mess.

I agree, USRs that grant USRs should never be a thing (looking at you, Angels of Death).

If you're desperate for two different bodyguard rules, it wouldn't be a bad thing to have two separate bodyguard rules, one that transfers the hit and another that transfers wounds into mortal wounds, but ideally you'd stick with one or the other.

You could make the bodyguard rule not permit saves (even invuls), so it triggers on the guarded unit being hit but you still roll to wound against the bodyguard (and permit FNP). After all, if you're bodyblocking a shot you might not have the chance to properly guard against it, but it still has to hurt you.

If I were to write a USR for bodyguards and it was to be the only version of the rule in the game I’d have it that the character being guarded “counts as” a member of the bodyguard unit for purposes of allocating wounds. Seem the most straightforward way to do it to me without adding much in the way of additional rules.

There would be caveats and conditions etc but essentially just counts as part of the unit. (Maybe only applies in shooting phase, maybe a unit can only bodyguard one target, maybe declare who is being guarded by whom at the start of the phase, after hits are rolled. Not sure. Whether it applies automatically or you need to roll for it could vary. And the range of being able to bodyguard too).

Aash wrote:
If I were to write a USR for bodyguards and it was to be the only version of the rule in the game I’d have it that the character being guarded “counts as” a member of the bodyguard unit for purposes of allocating wounds.

What are the current rules for units with different toughness value?
What about the "You must always allocate wound on already wounded" model rules making bodyguard unable to bodyguard an already wounded character?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Aash wrote:
If I were to write a USR for bodyguards and it was to be the only version of the rule in the game I’d have it that the character being guarded “counts as” a member of the bodyguard unit for purposes of allocating wounds.

What are the current rules for units with different toughness value?
What about the "You must always allocate wound on already wounded" model rules making bodyguard unable to bodyguard an already wounded character?

Their isn't a blanket one as it's not supposed to be possible, but it's majority or defensing players choice, Deathwatch kill teams.

The wounds issue is a problem also.

Not to mention not everyone wants to use bodyguard or shield units for charictors FFS grots drones well done made them totally unplayably broken with your rules suggestions.

Ice_can wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I suspect there are differences because the writers don’t talk to each other that much. It might also have to do with the spread out codex releases and shifts of opinion over time.

The tau drone rule is the worst written imo. When 8th dropped, shield drones served no purpose because the mortals wounds ignored their invuln. GW had to errata their rule to grant an additional 5+ FNP just so that the drones would actually do their only job. Apparently no one on the tau codex team thought about going the deathshroud route, which would not have required the 5+ FNP in the first place.

The Tau index was clearly written by someone who either didn't understand 8th editions rules or set out to punish Tau players for 7th edition Taudar.
The codex atleast became vaguely functional, but it's still a codex while functional with a lot of pointless or downright broken rules in them, the dude leading a team of sniper drones who can't snipe.
Unit buffing drones being single model units and hence nonfunctional as they die when looked at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Whoever wrote the Tau savior protocol rules needs to be beaten with a dreadsock. They are absolutely infuriating to play against and there is no skill or counterplay to them. Can't make the drones run, can't kill the drones with high AP or damage weapons, can't use cheap crappy shooting to power through them efficiently, it's just a busted rule the whole way through. Converting the damage to a single mortal wound and getting their FNP is ridiculous. One or the other is understandable, but the two combined is too much. I understand my local Tau player is incredibly lucky (I'm talking 20 wounds on drones only killing one type lucky) but even with average dice they're insanely durable.

The others are annoying only in that they're all different, but I've yet to see another one I had an actual issue with like Tau.

Play Tau without drones and watch them get tabled in 2 turns.
Most of their units are pointed so ridiculously that they need to survive the 3 turns that saviour protocols allow to be worthwhile putting on the board.

Drones are subject to leadership and always have been, large units are a liability.

Marines tend to have no issue sweeping drones up on mass, Neither do Astramilicheese either, assulat armies tend to have issues but again they are in a rock paper game vrs tau often decided by terrain.
It sounds like your list is just hitting a hard counter matchup.

I don't disagree with drones being able to take wounds mind you. I'm well aware Tau needs them to live. I disagree with a single drone intercepting an entire shadowsword volcano cannon shot, and not even dying on a 5+. The whole converting multiple points of damage into a single MW, and then getting a save on top of that. That's the busted part, I don't care what anyone says. A drone should not be able to do that while only costing a handful of points. Make it where if the volcano cannon does 12 damage it can kill up to 12 drones and I'm happy. I'd even be fine with the 5+ FNP save they get with the intercepting at that point. My only issue is a single flying garbage can lid intercepting a shot that can cripple a knight and living through it to boot. Or do it where some of that kind of damage still bleeds over on a successful block if the weapon does more than a certain amount of damage, I'd be fine with that too. This means the Tau codex would need a bit of a rework in points to put it mildly, but it'd be a lot less BS to fight.

Just play some games against a triptide list spamming drones, you'll see what I mean. It is one of the least fun experiences in 40k right now. Most counters don't work because the drones are easily hidden, so stuff like punisher cannons are easily countered and indirect weapons rarely have the weight of fire to chew through them. Like I said, fix the problem where a single drone eats 12 damage and lives on a single 5+ and I'm happy, that's all I want. Every other bodyguard rule works this way. If my ogryn bodyguard wants to eat 4 wounds for the commander then he is taking 4 wounds, he doesn't get to just take one and the rest disappear, same for any other army.

And the ld is a non issue with ethereals in most situations that I've seen, but that's kind of getting into the weeds. Unless drones can be taken in units of 30 or something ld9 seems to be plenty for them to survive most situations. I'm fine with that honestly, it's just annoying when it's on top of all the other stuff they do. I'm not trying to be rude but in my experience most drone defenders haven't actually played a serious game against drones and seen how frustrating they really are, especially if their dice are rolling decent.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
You could bake some differentiation into the USRs - for example have all of the various bodyguard rules become Bodyguard n+, where n is the roll needed for the attack to be intercepted.

That way you can have some bodyguard units be better than others while still only having a single mechanic.

^This is great. I am 100% on board with something like this.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I suspect there are differences because the writers don’t talk to each other that much. It might also have to do with the spread out codex releases and shifts of opinion over time.

The tau drone rule is the worst written imo. When 8th dropped, shield drones served no purpose because the mortals wounds ignored their invuln. GW had to errata their rule to grant an additional 5+ FNP just so that the drones would actually do their only job. Apparently no one on the tau codex team thought about going the deathshroud route, which would not have required the 5+ FNP in the first place.

The Tau index was clearly written by someone who either didn't understand 8th editions rules or set out to punish Tau players for 7th edition Taudar.
The codex atleast became vaguely functional, but it's still a codex while functional with a lot of pointless or downright broken rules in them, the dude leading a team of sniper drones who can't snipe.
Unit buffing drones being single model units and hence nonfunctional as they die when looked at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Whoever wrote the Tau savior protocol rules needs to be beaten with a dreadsock. They are absolutely infuriating to play against and there is no skill or counterplay to them. Can't make the drones run, can't kill the drones with high AP or damage weapons, can't use cheap crappy shooting to power through them efficiently, it's just a busted rule the whole way through. Converting the damage to a single mortal wound and getting their FNP is ridiculous. One or the other is understandable, but the two combined is too much. I understand my local Tau player is incredibly lucky (I'm talking 20 wounds on drones only killing one type lucky) but even with average dice they're insanely durable.

The others are annoying only in that they're all different, but I've yet to see another one I had an actual issue with like Tau.

Play Tau without drones and watch them get tabled in 2 turns.
Most of their units are pointed so ridiculously that they need to survive the 3 turns that saviour protocols allow to be worthwhile putting on the board.

Drones are subject to leadership and always have been, large units are a liability.

Marines tend to have no issue sweeping drones up on mass, Neither do Astramilicheese either, assulat armies tend to have issues but again they are in a rock paper game vrs tau often decided by terrain.
It sounds like your list is just hitting a hard counter matchup.

I don't disagree with drones being able to take wounds mind you. I'm well aware Tau needs them to live. I disagree with a single drone intercepting an entire shadowsword volcano cannon shot, and not even dying on a 5+. The whole converting multiple points of damage into a single MW, and then getting a save on top of that. That's the busted part, I don't care what anyone says. A drone should not be able to do that while only costing a handful of points. Make it where if the volcano cannon does 12 damage it can kill up to 12 drones and I'm happy. I'd even be fine with the 5+ FNP save they get with the intercepting at that point. My only issue is a single flying garbage can lid intercepting a shot that can cripple a knight and living through it to boot. Or do it where some of that kind of damage still bleeds over on a successful block if the weapon does more than a certain amount of damage, I'd be fine with that too. This means the Tau codex would need a bit of a rework in points to put it mildly, but it'd be a lot less BS to fight.

Just play some games against a triptide list spamming drones, you'll see what I mean. It is one of the least fun experiences in 40k right now. Most counters don't work because the drones are easily hidden, so stuff like punisher cannons are easily countered and indirect weapons rarely have the weight of fire to chew through them. Like I said, fix the problem where a single drone eats 12 damage and lives on a single 5+ and I'm happy, that's all I want. Every other bodyguard rule works this way. If my ogryn bodyguard wants to eat 4 wounds for the commander then he is taking 4 wounds, he doesn't get to just take one and the rest disappear, same for any other army.

And the ld is a non issue with ethereals in most situations that I've seen, but that's kind of getting into the weeds. Unless drones can be taken in units of 30 or something ld9 seems to be plenty for them to survive most situations. I'm fine with that honestly, it's just annoying when it's on top of all the other stuff they do. I'm not trying to be rude but in my experience most drone defenders haven't actually played a serious game against drones and seen how frustrating they really are, especially if their dice are rolling decent.

You compairing a specificly deaigned flying Stormshield, against an ogyrn.

I have played both sides of that game
Also a Shadowsword minimums out at 3 avarage of 6 shots so no it's not tanking an entire volcano cannon on 1 2+, it's avarage of 4 hits, doing 2D6 each.

Simply put a wyvern makes them vanish fairly quickly as catachan add in detachments and they go of the table fast enough.

ITC's first floor rule does make them much more survivable but without it they vanish very quickly as guard you should have atleast enough NLOS shooting to lift 1 of the 3 units in a turn and LD9 is only in an aura and if your keeping them in a bubble you win the game in board control, admittedly that's something that goes against the way most guard lists play.

Heck I've won that game with a pure knights list, on objective score, admittedly.

The Tau codex without drones would need a ground up rewrite and then some Riptides with drones as they are are the only thing keeping the codex competitive.

But by the time points have been cut enough a 2k list would have 3 riptides and triple Ghostkeels and crisis bomb.

To be fair, any army *that* reliant on an optional upgrade model is in dire need of a rewrite anyway.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, any army *that* reliant on an optional upgrade model is in dire need of a rewrite anyway.

Aye.

Especially in case when the only playstyle reliant on one Option is just Next Level annoying.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, any army *that* reliant on an optional upgrade model is in dire need of a rewrite anyway.

Aye.

Especially in case when the only playstyle reliant on one Option is just Next Level annoying.

Speaking as a long term Tau player, yes.

I think removing the Shield Drone stand-alone unit could be a good first step and stripping saviour protocols off of gun and marker drones.

So shield drones can only be bought as extra models for a unit (max of 2 per non-drone model in the unit). They do not form a separate unit, have the toughness of the model which bought them (to avoid mixed toughness issues), follow the normal rules for wound allocation etc. Saviour protocols becomes "wounds may be allocated to drones even if another model in the unit is wounded and drones removed as casualties do not count for the purposes of calculating morale", or whatever the wording should be. Once a units drones are used up, they are used up, no sharing another units drones. If there are no non-drone models left in the unit at the end of any phase, then the drones are removed from the table (they shut down in the absence of their principal).

This still allows for ablative wounds but they are more limited (cannot be using multiple units of drones, you only have as many as you bought for a specific unit).

Then recost stuff, fix the damn markerlights (bring back spending tokens for effects!) and make mechanised Tau work again so we're not reduced to the big stompy robot faction any longer!

I miss playing my Mech Tau, Fire Warriors and Pathfinders in Devilfish supported by Hammerheads and some Crisis Suits...good times...ten years ago. Alas, if I wanted to play big stompy robots, I'd play Knights

Bespoke rules
Because an ork grot being used as a body shield is not the same as a tau shield drone.
And it makes every army unique and plays differently which is a good thing.

gungo wrote:
Bespoke rules
Because an ork grot being used as a body shield is not the same as a tau shield drone.
And it makes every army unique and plays differently which is a good thing.

Except, as noted, it ends up in some example working way too well, some not functioning appropriately at all, and there's no real good reason why these mechanics need to be different between armies, adding complexity for its own sake isn't depth, it's noise.

A grot being used as a body shield is about as similar to a tau shield drone for these purposes as it needs to be for a 40k game mechanic

gungo wrote:
Bespoke rules
Because an ork grot being used as a body shield is not the same as a tau shield drone.
And it makes every army unique and plays differently which is a good thing.

How does it feel different in gameplay?

And, if the rule was pretty much "After a CHARACTER is hit within 3", on an X+, this model may intercept the hit," wouldn't THAT have differences too? At that point, a Deathshroud Terminator can tank it on their T5 2+/4++, while a Grot is stuck with their wimpy little T2 6+ ass.

gungo wrote:
Because an ork grot being used as a body shield is not the same as a tau shield drone.

Yes ok great now explain why and how the difference in the lore are related to the difference in the rules.
Oh you can't? So surprised much surprise!

gungo wrote:
And it makes every army unique and plays differently which is a good thing.

Yeah, having some bodyguard rules being very inefficient or very efficient, without any relation to the lore, that is what makes armies play different .

Seeing a few games out there with 60+ shield drones supporting three Riptides and Commanders.

The drones are in units of 2, so never have morale issues and there are 30+ units of them, so you can't easily swat them to get to the meat.

That … man. I understand if you want to win a tourney at any cost, but that's just unconscionable.

Jack Flask wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In short, why is there seemingly an active attempt to make bodyguard rules as unstandardised as possible?

.
This also has the added benefit of cutting down on the player needing to cross-reference rules text out of the BRB or GW having to make new USRs ever time they need to differentiate a rule for the purpose of balancing a single unit.

No instead it made cross-referencing worst, b.c now instead of a USR that everyone knows i need to know 20 versions of the same rule and needs to borrow or have multi armies books to know what rules i'm playing against.

Everyone knows the basica 10-15 USR rules after a handful of games. No one knows all these stupid specialist versions of the rules unless they play many games and study the game.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In short, why is there seemingly an active attempt to make bodyguard rules as unstandardised as possible?

.
This also has the added benefit of cutting down on the player needing to cross-reference rules text out of the BRB or GW having to make new USRs ever time they need to differentiate a rule for the purpose of balancing a single unit.

No instead it made cross-referencing worst, b.c now instead of a USR that everyone knows i need to know 20 versions of the same rule and needs to borrow or have multi armies books to know what rules i'm playing against.

Everyone knows the basica 10-15 USR rules after a handful of games. No one knows all these stupid specialist versions of the rules unless they play many games and study the game.

You only need to know... 3? Grot shields, Shield Drones and Inqusitorial Acolytes rules

Lammia wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In short, why is there seemingly an active attempt to make bodyguard rules as unstandardised as possible?

.
This also has the added benefit of cutting down on the player needing to cross-reference rules text out of the BRB or GW having to make new USRs ever time they need to differentiate a rule for the purpose of balancing a single unit.

No instead it made cross-referencing worst, b.c now instead of a USR that everyone knows i need to know 20 versions of the same rule and needs to borrow or have multi armies books to know what rules i'm playing against.

Everyone knows the basica 10-15 USR rules after a handful of games. No one knows all these stupid specialist versions of the rules unless they play many games and study the game.

You only need to know... 3? Grot shields, Shield Drones and Inqusitorial Acolytes rules

Why only 3? What about Death Shroud Terminators? Necron Lychguard? Drukhari Sslyth have a bodyguard rule as well, I think. BTW, I have no idea if these bodyguard rules are the same as the ones above or different...and that's the point. In many cases it's not even immediately obvious a unit has a specific type of rule because they all have unique, bespoke names which makes understanding units so much more difficult than it needs to be.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, any army *that* reliant on an optional upgrade model is in dire need of a rewrite anyway.

Aye.

Especially in case when the only playstyle reliant on one Option is just Next Level annoying.

Speaking as a long term Tau player, yes.

I think removing the Shield Drone stand-alone unit could be a good first step and stripping saviour protocols off of gun and marker drones.

So shield drones can only be bought as extra models for a unit (max of 2 per non-drone model in the unit). They do not form a separate unit, have the toughness of the model which bought them (to avoid mixed toughness issues), follow the normal rules for wound allocation etc. Saviour protocols becomes "drones removed as casualties do not count for the purposes of calculating morale", or whatever the wording should be. Once a units drones are used up, they are used up, no sharing another units drones. If there are no non-drone models left in the unit at the end of any phase, then the drones are removed from the table (they shut down in the absence of their principal).

This still allows for ablative wounds but they are more limited (cannot be using multiple units of drones, you only have as many as you bought for a specific unit).

Then recost stuff, fix the damn markerlights (bring back spending tokens for effects!) and make mechanised Tau work again so we're not reduced to the big stompy robot faction any longer!

I am not confident enough to answer that, since i don't play Tau, only rarely against them but i guess that could work.
I don't mind the robots that much, however i 'd like to see more mech and auxilia based playstyles as an option, an army only having one "viable"* build is annoying as hell.

* with viable i mean on a normal casual level, where more builds are there but in such an environment the rather overpriced nature of tau shows up and fwiw when you see 2 infantry lists slug it out and one is marines and it beats the tau at their own game then i feel like something's gone wrong.