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.

Slipspace wrote:

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.

Because nobody is taking them. For their bodyguard rule. Those three have the 'gotcha' rules that you need to properly consider when you shoot. The others, not so much.

Lammia wrote:
Because nobody is taking them. For their bodyguard rule. Those three have the 'gotcha' rules that you need to properly consider when you shoot. The others, not so much.

Wow. Nice argument.

To put it simply, not all bodyguards act in the same way.
Some are more effective than others.

I’d say they could split it into 3 USRs to use.

1: basic level bodyguard, worst odds of actually doing their job.
This would be for things like grots and basic drones.

2: mid level, designed for units that are actually trained to do so.

3: high tier.
This is for the units specialised to be bodyguards.
They would offer the best possible odds of saving a character.


I honestly think that making it universal from 1 rule would make some units too good and literally make others useless.
There has to me some room in there for a difference.




As for “joining units was far more simple” it really wasn’t.
There would be several topics a day on here discussing how varying rules work with this and conferring abilities.

It also helps to lower the deathstar units.
If a character can’t confer stacks of special rules (or multiple characters even) then it’s going to run a lot more smooth.
Tons of tournament lists relied on a single unit being fed abilities by joined character to either make them unkillable or an extreme blender.

I like the fact that this has been toned down a good bit, same with AoS.
Sure, characters can give abilities to units now, but it’s far from what it was before.

Lammia wrote:
Because nobody is taking them. For their bodyguard rule. Those three have the 'gotcha' rules that you need to properly consider when you shoot. The others, not so much.

Victrix Honor Guard tanking for Chronos, Gulliman or Tigurius is fairly common in my area, Tyrant Guard is used to protect swarmlords. And now we're up to 5 rules you need to know.

Jackal90 wrote:
Tons of tournament lists relied on a single unit being fed abilities by joined character to either make them unkillable or an extreme blender.

That wasn't a problem with characters being able to join units* - it was usually a problem with Look Out Sir!** and janky wound allocation rules***.



* and deathstars pumped full of abilities by characters and command points totally don't exist in the current edition, right...)
** which should never have existed
*** go back to 5th edition's system, but add an extra line saying that wounds have to allocated in batches according to the AP so that it becomes far more difficult to stack all the most damaging hits on one dude

shudders in invisibility.

Jackal90 wrote:
To put it simply, not all bodyguards act in the same way.
Some are more effective than others.

From a background perspective I agree. But the real question is does this really matter in a game at the scale of 40k? Surely we could even write a bodyguard rule in such a way that it took the guarding unit's stats into account. In this way heavy bodyguards like Deathshroud could use the same basic rules as a Grot but get extra benefits thanks to their Toughness and saves. Seems to me that talking about 3 different levels of bodyguard training is like trying to differentiate the level of special forces training between the SAS and the SBS. It just doesn't matter at the scale we're talking about.

Jackal90 wrote:
1: basic level bodyguard, worst odds of actually doing their job.
This would be for things like grots and basic drones.

2: mid level, designed for units that are actually trained to do so.

3: high tier.
This is for the units specialised to be bodyguards.
They would offer the best possible odds of saving a character.

That's a fairly arbitrary classification.
Grot shield aren't actually gretchin protecting their ork masters, but an ork grabbing a nearby grot and using it as shield/chucking it at an Incoming projectile/herding some gretchin into firing lanes.
I'd also very much say that shield drones are specialized body guards.

I honestly think that making it universal from 1 rule would make some units too good and literally make others useless.
There has to me some room in there for a difference.

From a game perspective there basically two kinds of bodyguards:
- Bodyguards: High cost, good defenses
- Meath shields: Low cost, bad defenses

The first serve to replace the defensive profile of some high value target with their own. Deathshrouds, Ogryns and Tyrant Guard are examples of this.
The later just add additional wounds to a high value target that tends to have a better defensive profile. Gretchin or Drones would fall in this category.

If you'd change all rules to read the same as the one for deathshrouds, you'd resolve the entire shot (if deflected) against the body guard unit as if you had shot them in the first place. Meat shields die faster that way and expensive bodyguards can actually do their jobs.
As for the drone blocking a shadow-sword shot due to the 5++ - it works that way when directly shooting a drone, why shouldn't it work when the drone intercepts the shot?

In any case, tau should be designed around how the body guard rule works, not the other way around.

 Jidmah wrote:

Lammia wrote:
Because nobody is taking them. For their bodyguard rule. Those three have the 'gotcha' rules that you need to properly consider when you shoot. The others, not so much.

Victrix Honor Guard tanking for Chronos, Gulliman or Tigurius is fairly common in my area, Tyrant Guard is used to protect swarmlords. And now we're up to 5 rules you need to know.

I guess Tyrant Guard is important enough to know. I feel that any unit with that says it's an Honour Guard in it's name should trigger the question of what does it guard and how does it work at the start of the game, so it's not important for everyone to know how it works.

 Jidmah wrote:

As for the drone blocking a shadow-sword shot due to the 5++ - it works that way when directly shooting a drone, why shouldn't it work when the drone intercepts the shot?

Actually the drone works better tanking the shot directly at 4++ vs the 5+++ FNP.

My personal opinion is that all bodyguard abilities should work on hits rather than wounds. People complain about the Tau MW conversion yet say very little about the layers that certain other armies get with their armour saves, damage reduction, FNP, transfer wounds, additional FNP that tie the game up into a series of rolls and rerolls.

My 2 cents

Andrew

Lammia wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Lammia wrote:
Because nobody is taking them. For their bodyguard rule. Those three have the 'gotcha' rules that you need to properly consider when you shoot. The others, not so much.

Victrix Honor Guard tanking for Chronos, Gulliman or Tigurius is fairly common in my area, Tyrant Guard is used to protect swarmlords. And now we're up to 5 rules you need to know.

I guess Tyrant Guard is important enough to know. I feel that any unit with that says it's an Honour Guard in it's name should trigger the question of what does it guard and how does it work at the start of the game, so it's not important for everyone to know how it works.

To summarize your argument:
Having to ask
- for the detailed sequence on when an attack is intercepted
- on what roll
- whose toughness and save is used
- can it be used against mortal wounds
- whether FNP can be used by the original target, the intercepting model or both
- whether it outright kills the intercepting model or does it deal mortal wounds
- if it does deal mortal wounds, does it deal just one or one for each point of damage taken
is superior to having to ask
- whether the unit is a bodyguard

 Jidmah wrote:

To summarize your argument:
Having to ask
- for the detailed sequence on when an attack is intercepted
- on what roll
- whose toughness and save is used
- can it be used against mortal wounds
- whether FNP can be used by the original target, the intercepting model or both
- whether it outright kills the intercepting model or does it deal mortal wounds
- if it does deal mortal wounds, does it deal just one or one for each point of damage taken
is superior to having to ask
- whether the unit is a bodyguard

Well of course when you put it like that then having clear, easily understood rules seems like the better option

 Jidmah wrote:

Lammia wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Lammia wrote:
Because nobody is taking them. For their bodyguard rule. Those three have the 'gotcha' rules that you need to properly consider when you shoot. The others, not so much.

Victrix Honor Guard tanking for Chronos, Gulliman or Tigurius is fairly common in my area, Tyrant Guard is used to protect swarmlords. And now we're up to 5 rules you need to know.

I guess Tyrant Guard is important enough to know. I feel that any unit with that says it's an Honour Guard in it's name should trigger the question of what does it guard and how does it work at the start of the game, so it's not important for everyone to know how it works.

To summarize your argument:
Having to ask
- for the detailed sequence on when an attack is intercepted
- on what roll
- whose toughness and save is used
- can it be used against mortal wounds
- whether FNP can be used by the original target, the intercepting model or both
- whether it outright kills the intercepting model or does it deal mortal wounds
- if it does deal mortal wounds, does it deal just one or one for each point of damage taken
is superior to having to ask
- whether the unit is a bodyguard

Ano... no. I wasn't aware I had made an argument other than some Bodyguarding abilities are good and others aren't.

But since you've asked, it takes two questions. What can this unit do? And how exactly does it work? It's answering that should take longer, but we should know *our* army's rules well enough to explain it throughly if we actually intend on ever using it.

How do you know that you actually need to explain how your bodyguards work in detail if you don't know that others work differently?

 Jidmah wrote:
How do you know that you actually need to explain how your bodyguards work in detail if you don't know that others work differently?

USRs are dead, Jid.

More seriously, ever rule is unique and players should explain them in detail if asked. Especially if they intend on using them.

I also mentioned the value of knowing three of the different versions - the good ones - that should be enough to clue a tournament player in.

If only (4th) there was an edition (4th) with independent characters (4th) that worked (4th). Would allocation made sense (in 4th), and shooting seemed pretty balanced (4th) with melee outside of some obvious but singularly alterable issues.

Change the levels system to make it slightly more granular (but don't go to TLOS OH GOD 5TH WHY). Remove piling in from combat to combat (or make that pile in d3" instead of d6") and you've got yourself a pretty good edition of Warhammer 40k.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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 .

1] Look dude, one is made of metal, one is made of flesh. Ain't No Thing to \|Explain the Difference! Metal, in case you didn't know it, doesn't behave like flesh. There. Are you surprised?

2] Then fix the one specific rule that you think is broken instead of getting on the "one method of bodyguarding is inferior, so lets make everything the same" train. Everybody gets the best rule, even though one of the models is 50 points and one of the models is 4 points. Ridiculous.

USRs Sucked. |'m happy that I don't have to cross reference from codex to BRB like we used to.Cripes, people complain about having to use campaign books in addition to codices, which is easy enough [CWE? Banshee and Jain Zar in PA everything else in dex], yet all y'all seem ready and willing to go back to a system where the codex tells you what rules every unit in your army has, but if you want to know what the rules actually are, you have to look them up in a different book.

Thing about this system? You Could play with your dex and the rules download and FAQ which means buying one book and getting 2 free things.
Thing about USRs is that your codex is actually incomplete without the BRB, which means buying two books.

Now obviously, I don't care how many books I buy, because I'm a collector and generally like having the books. But everyone else here seems to whine about needing so many books. This is why it confuses me when they turn around and advocate a system where one book is literally incomplete without another.

We may have some units that appear in campaign books instead of dexes in this edition, but every unit has the explanations for all of its rules in whichever book it comes from, meanining each book is complete, even if it doesn't have every unit in it.

You don't have to worry about how someone else's bodyguard rule is different than yours, because your opponent will know their rule while you know yours. It doesn't put you at any more of a disadvantage to not know your opponent's rule, because your opponent is in the exact same boat as you are.

And if it fills you with anxiety, ask in game: "So I think these guys want to shoot that guy; is this a body guard unit? Okay, how does their rule work? Oh, okay, I don't think I'll be able to get through that, I'll shoot these guys instead." Easy peasy.

Has anyone actually suggested that the wording for a USR shouldn't appear in the datasheet, space permitting?

 Dysartes wrote:
Has anyone actually suggested that the wording for a USR shouldn't appear in the datasheet, space permitting?

Fair point, no one in this thread has.

But that's how they worked when we had them, and it was supposedly the point of creating them in the first place.

But you're right, maybe I should tone down my self righteousness and moral indignation a little, because no, so far that hasn't been explicitly suggested in this thread.

 Dysartes wrote:
Has anyone actually suggested that the wording for a USR shouldn't appear in the datasheet, space permitting?

It would be nice tho if there would be a summary of all usrs at the End of the supposed dex that are used.
It was annoying as hell when we had to dig up the brb and then Search there.

I don't get why so many people have fond memories of the independent character rules. It was such a PITA:
- mixed defensive profiles provided a new head-ache in every edition
- characters without that rule were just trash
- joining and leaving units could create all sort of weird effects when it came to effects like buffs, debuffs, running, going to grounds, etc
- conferring special rules and related argument

IMO, the only bad thing about characters right now is how a lone warboss in the middle of a road 22" in front of you gets protected from getting shot by a kopta in a building 16" behind you that you can't even see. But that is easier resolved than the clustfeth that IC were.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lammia wrote:
More seriously, ever rule is unique and players should explain them in detail if asked. Especially if they intend on using them.

The whole point of is this thread is that they are unique for no reason whatsoever.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If only (4th) there was an edition (4th) with independent characters (4th) that worked (4th). Would allocation made sense (in 4th), and shooting seemed pretty balanced (4th) with melee outside of some obvious but singularly alterable issues.

Lets not get too ahead of ourselves. 4th's Torrent of Fire/Blows was a garbage wound allocation system which may as well not have existed.
Similarly Kill Zones were a fine idea, but could lead to some really janky interactions - I remember units of death Comapany and Incubi with attached characters sitting shooting at each other because whichever unit charged would likely get screwed out of most of their attacks...

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If only (4th) there was an edition (4th) with independent characters (4th) that worked (4th). Would allocation made sense (in 4th), and shooting seemed pretty balanced (4th) with melee outside of some obvious but singularly alterable issues.

Lets not get too ahead of ourselves. 4th's Torrent of Fire/Blows was a garbage wound allocation system which may as well not have existed.
Similarly Kill Zones were a fine idea, but could lead to some really janky interactions - I remember units of death Comapany and Incubi with attached characters sitting shooting at each other because whichever unit charged would likely get screwed out of most of their attacks...

I liked torrent of fire, it made a lot of sense to me.

Kill Zones are one of the rules I would adjust but... that said, I think it's actually a pretty cool interaction for two combat units to come up short, each alarmed of the other's prowess, and shirk into a shooting war. I can definitely see units like Orks and Ogryns (for example) going "Oi, bugger, those lads is big, let's not get stuck in!" about each other.

For units like Death Company and Khorne Berzerkers that don't have that sense of self preservation - well, the Rage USR used to require you to charge, IIRC. Or at least, units like that should be required to charge, given that they're uncontrollable psychopaths and no amount of the Force Comamnder/Chaos Lord going "WAIT STOP INCUBI ARE DANGEROUS" would actually change their behavior.

As for the Independent Character rules, the reason those didn't work were on GW. Here's my independent character rules:
The character loses any buff (or debuff) that says unit, and becomes a model in the unit for all rules purposes. Any buff/debuff that specifies "model" continues to work.

You want your Character to get his Stealth cover bonus? Then don't put him in a unit of bright-pink clowns. You want a unit of bright pink clowns to catch bullets for him? Sorry, he won't be stealthy.

 Jidmah wrote:

Lammia wrote:
More seriously, ever rule is unique and players should explain them in detail if asked. Especially if they intend on using them.

The whole point of is this thread is that they are unique for no reason whatsoever.

Well, there is a reason. Some units exist and have the added 'benefit' of a bodyguard rule (Celestian/Lychguard/Tyrant Guard/Ect.) while others are only taken for their Bodyguarding ability (Shield Drone/Inquisitorial Acolyte).

With all their differences, it's a benefit to have tailored rules for each unit.

PenitentJake wrote:
1] Look dude, one is made of metal, one is made of flesh. Ain't No Thing to \|Explain the Difference! Metal, in case you didn't know it, doesn't behave like flesh. There. Are you surprised?

That's extra-dumb because :
- you didn't explain the difference, and how it's better represented by the different rules
- in 40k, metal and flesh works the exact same, and especially so with 8th lol.
There are no rule difference between models made of metal (drones, necrons, dreadnoughts,...) models made of flesh surrounded by metal (space marines, sisters of battle, ...) and models made of flesh (orks, various tyranids, ...). Each model has it rules, but there are no common rules that come with belonging to one of those category.

When you don't have a case, just be snarky and hope it'll work, right, PenitentJake?

PenitentJake wrote:
Everybody gets the best rule, even though one of the models is 50 points and one of the models is 4 points. Ridiculous.

That's how it works for the rules for wounding. They are the same regardless of whether your model is 500+ points or just 4 points. You look at the same table and roll the same dice.
Duh.
But yeah, I explicitly mentioned why it would be better to have two different rules, one for elite bodyguard and another for meatshield. That's 2 rules, AND that explicitly relates to lore. One of those is about things that sacrifice/get sacrificed to stop the shot, the other is about trained people trying to prevent the shot from doing damage.

PenitentJake wrote:
|'m happy that I don't have to cross reference from codex to BRB like we used to.

Yeah yeah whatever. I don't care about your inabilities, because as Dysartes already mentioned, you can just rewrite the same rule on every datasheet and say "Hey it's not a USR it's just a bunch of bespoke rules that just happens to be the same". Then you won't have to cross-reference. And it is not even a new thing, all the various FNP-like abilities work, and are worded, the same way, and we even got a FAQ making them not stack.
If those being the same despite representing stuff that's different in the lore, why can't you accept the bodyguard rules working the same is beyond me.

PenitentJake wrote:
You don't have to worry about how someone else's bodyguard rule is different than yours, because your opponent will know their rule while you know yours. It doesn't put you at any more of a disadvantage to not know your opponent's rule, because your opponent is in the exact same boat as you are.
And if it fills you with anxiety, ask in game: "So I think these guys want to shoot that guy; is this a body guard unit? Okay, how does their rule work? Oh, okay, I don't think I'll be able to get through that, I'll shoot these guys instead." Easy peasy.

I love spending 20 minutes telling my opponents my rules, and learning theirs, at the beginning of every game. Not.
I mean, I should know, I played Warmachine.
That sucks. And playing without knowing the rules sucks too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lammia wrote:
Well, there is a reason. Some units exist and have the added 'benefit' of a bodyguard rule (Celestian/Lychguard/Tyrant Guard/Ect.) while others are only taken for their Bodyguarding ability (Shield Drone/Inquisitorial Acolyte).

So, that's two type of units. Let's get two types of rules then!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Lammia wrote:
Well, there is a reason. Some units exist and have the added 'benefit' of a bodyguard rule (Celestian/Lychguard/Tyrant Guard/Ect.) while others are only taken for their Bodyguarding ability (Shield Drone/Inquisitorial Acolyte).

So, that's two type of units. Let's get two types of rules then!

At the risk of making a point you've already argued against, 3 Celestians =/= 1 Hive Guard.

I... don't understand your point here.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Everybody gets the best rule, even though one of the models is 50 points and one of the models is 4 points. Ridiculous.

That's how it works for the rules for wounding. They are the same regardless of whether your model is 500+ points or just 4 points. You look at the same table and roll the same dice.
Duh.
But yeah, I explicitly mentioned why it would be better to have two different rules, one for elite bodyguard and another for meatshield. That's 2 rules, AND that explicitly relates to lore. One of those is about things that sacrifice/get sacrificed to stop the shot, the other is about trained people trying to prevent the shot from doing damage.
So, that's two type of units. Let's get two types of rules then!

Also, if all these shot intercepting units intercepted hits rather than wounds and didn't convert them into mortal wounds then the more expensive bodyguard unit would actually function better relative to the cheap option as they actually get to use their better defensive stats which I assume an expensive bodyguard unit has.

So the warboss who has his grots intercept 20 bolter shots ends up with a handful of dead grots.

The Space Marine captain who has his terminator guard equipped with FNP drug injectors ends up with like a single wounded terminator from those 20 shots.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I... don't understand your point here.

Well in this only two versions of the Bodyguard scenario, Celestians ans Tyrant Guard have exactly the same rule, but it affects them differently because of the difference between their stat lines, so you'll need to balance the effect between 2 units that aren't supposed to be balanced against each other.

Lammia wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I... don't understand your point here.

Well in this only two versions of the Bodyguard scenario, Celestians ans Tyrant Guard have exactly the same rule, but it affects them differently because of the difference between their stat lines, so you'll need to balance the effect between 2 units that aren't supposed to be balanced against each other.

How is that different from, say, having to balance the profile of a weapon against both the statline of a hive guard and the statline of a celestian? The weapon affects each unit differently because of their different profile. It is to be expect, that is the whole reason why they have different statlines.