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.

Spoletta wrote:
By the way, we just need to learn that characters are supposed to get killed like any other unit. If you opponent really wants it dead, it will die.

The character keyword has been wildly OP until now.

Pretty much this. People don't seem to have a problem with a unit of, say, Harlequin Troupes being really squishy but for some reason a character who costs less and still has more innate protection should be much more difficult to kill. The character protection offered in 8th was too good and this rule seems to largely fix that, though it's absurdly wordy and does have some weird edge cases that may need to be looked at. One other thing to remember is the terrain rules may make it easier to hide characters out of LoS to keep them safe.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I don't think this chart is right though.
If a character is not within 3" of a monster/vehicle/unit with 3 models - you can always shoot at them. It doesn't have to be the nearest model.

As I see it you have a pretty clear one way line.

Nothing in 3"? You can shoot it.
Is the thing in 3" not a vehicle/monster or has 3 models? You can shoot it.
Is the character still the closest model to the shooter even though its within 3" of a vehicle/monster/unit? You can shoot it.

Essentially if the character is within 3" of a suitable unit, and not the closest model, it can't be shot. Characters don't count for closest model so if two characters were running coming towards a unit, it could shoot either.

So your two DPs could still be shot by any units which are nearer to either of them than any other model - but a Basilisk on the other side of the board couldn't target either if a Rhino was slightly closer despite being miles away from the DPs themselves - basically like 8th edition.

The last bit seems a bit strange, maybe will generate a FAQ, but it seems pretty clear cut to me.

Yes I guess its bad you can't stick a Vindicare on his own in your deployment zone and effectively he's impossible to shoot unless you drive onto him/kill everything else - but character immunity has been very powerful.
If you want to give him that immunity back, he can get some new rules. Otherwise he'll want to hang out with some friends.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
That isn't right though. If a Character isn't within 3" of a MONSTER, VEHICLE, or 3+ Size unit, it can be shot regardless of whether it is closest or not.

Whoops. Hang on.

Simpler now, I think?

Yep, that looks correct to me.

One I made.

Alternate Ork Edition, thanks to Dode for the Improvements:

BCB, I'd drop the (And my weapon doesn't ignore LOS) bit for the sake of clarity. Even if your weapon does ignore LOS, you still need LOS to target the character if they're near a screening unit.

The character keyword protection in 8th was stupid for lots of armies. Agreed. For those cases this rule is much better and more realistic. But not every army's like this. Not every character is a T4 badass in terminator armor. Just point some heavy bolters at any harlequins, characters or otherwise, and watch them disappear.

People don't have a problem with harlequin troupes being squishy? I assure you, they do. That's why transports are pretty much mandatory for them. And why people say playing harlequins is extremely unforgiving and they're not a competitive army. That's why when you see harlequins it's an outrider detachment of bikes and nothing else because you can give em 3++ and -2 to hit and hope they live. A single T3 model with 4++ is not hard to remove. I assure you. It's a free kill point. It's why the servitor from Combat Arena was laughed at and never used. Because even though his stats were ok for such a cheap character, he didn't have the character keyword. So everyone correctly concluded he's a guaranteed first blood.

 catbarf wrote:
BCB, I'd drop the (And my weapon doesn't ignore LOS) bit for the sake of clarity. Even if your weapon does ignore LOS, you still need LOS to target the character if they're near a screening unit.

I disagree, the "Ignore LOS for this one weapon" rule is more specific than the General Character rule.

ThePorcupine wrote:
The character keyword protection in 8th was stupid for lots of armies. Agreed. For those cases this rule is much better and more realistic. But not every army's like this. Not every character is a T4 badass in terminator armor. Just point some heavy bolters at any harlequins, characters or otherwise, and watch them disappear.

People don't have a problem with harlequin troupes being squishy? I assure you, they do. That's why transports are pretty much mandatory for them. And why people say playing harlequins is extremely unforgiving and they're not a competitive army. That's why when you see harlequins it's an outrider detachment of bikes and nothing else because you can give em 3++ and -2 to hit and hope they live. A single T3 model with 4++ is not hard to remove. I assure you. It's a free kill point. It's why the servitor from Combat Arena was laughed at and never used. Because even though his stats were ok for such a cheap character, he didn't have the character keyword. So everyone correctly concluded he's a guaranteed first blood.

The new missions may very well take precedent if they live up to the hype and kill points will be passe. It isn't hard to hide and guard a "snipable" character to avoid first blood. Harlies may find value in upcoming changes as well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
did people think the current character rules needed changing?

Changing? No. Muddying? Certainly. What we need these rules to do is achieve a largely similar effect, but with far more words. The net result is largely the same, but now it takes longer to figure out.

This the Nu-Design.

Add layer upon layer of complexity.

Remove all depth.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm sure it will get more wordy in the future to deal with super-friends.

That isn't right though. If a Character isn't within 3" of a MONSTER, VEHICLE, or 3+ Size unit, it can be shot regardless of whether it is closest or not.

Hence, muddying.

Vindication has never come so swiftly.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Simpler

I guess that's now a relative term.

"CHARACTERS with 9 or fewer wounds cannot be targeted during the Shooting Phase unless they are the closest model/unit to the shooting unit."

What is so hard about that?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
BCB, I'd drop the (And my weapon doesn't ignore LOS) bit for the sake of clarity. Even if your weapon does ignore LOS, you still need LOS to target the character if they're near a screening unit.

I disagree, the "Ignore LOS for this one weapon" rule is more specific than the General Character rule.

I expect they'll need to FAQ this. My take is that if the intent were for non-LOS weapons to not have the requirement, they wouldn't have specified that you need LOS to be able to target the character, for the same reason that they don't specify that you need to be in range to target the character- that's just normal targeting rules.

Pancakey wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
did people think the current character rules needed changing?

Changing? No. Muddying? Certainly. What we need these rules to do is achieve a largely similar effect, but with far more words. The net result is largely the same, but now it takes longer to figure out.

This the Nu-Design.

Add layer upon layer of complexity.

Remove all depth.

To be honest, I think part of the problem is that the game has become so deadly, with so many weapons able to fire at full-effect or near full-effect at exceptional ranges, that characters bascically only exist in 2 states:
1) Immune to shooting due to LoS.
2) Exposed and dead.

ThePorcupine wrote:
The character keyword protection in 8th was stupid for lots of armies. Agreed. For those cases this rule is much better and more realistic. But not every army's like this. Not every character is a T4 badass in terminator armor. Just point some heavy bolters at any harlequins, characters or otherwise, and watch them disappear.

People don't have a problem with harlequin troupes being squishy? I assure you, they do. That's why transports are pretty much mandatory for them. And why people say playing harlequins is extremely unforgiving and they're not a competitive army. That's why when you see harlequins it's an outrider detachment of bikes and nothing else because you can give em 3++ and -2 to hit and hope they live. A single T3 model with 4++ is not hard to remove. I assure you. It's a free kill point. It's why the servitor from Combat Arena was laughed at and never used. Because even though his stats were ok for such a cheap character, he didn't have the character keyword. So everyone correctly concluded he's a guaranteed first blood.

Kill points and first blood are no longer there, so that problem is gone. (Yes there is a kill char secondary, but the you need to have at least 4 chars the opponenet even starts thinking about selecting that objective).


You only have to ask yourself if that character cost will be justified by the time he gets removed.

Characters are half of the whole harlequin codex. They take 4 characters at a minimum, and realistically more like 6.

And yes, while first blood appears to be gone (in the missions that were previewed), kill points are a secondary you can take, along with killing characters specifically. Presumably able to double dip.

Will a lone death jester make his cost back by the time he gets removed? (1 turn)… probably not.

Spoletta wrote:
You only have to ask yourself if that character cost will be justified by the time he gets removed.

Not all armies have vast numbers of HQs to choose from in this regard.

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You only have to ask yourself if that character cost will be justified by the time he gets removed.

Not all armies have vast numbers of HQs to choose from in this regard.

I know, I play sisters, we have 1 HQ limited to one per detachment, a generic one and then all the other ones are locked in a subfaction.

And yet if i make my math with my characters, I see that a Canoness is a 45 point model plus weapons. The model itself with that aura and those defensive stats is worth 45 points, before char protection. Yeah, she will die. I've lost 45 points.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Characters are half of the whole harlequin codex. They take 4 characters at a minimum, and realistically more like 6.

And yes, while first blood appears to be gone (in the missions that were previewed), kill points are a secondary you can take, along with killing characters specifically. Presumably able to double dip.

Will a lone death jester make his cost back by the time he gets removed? (1 turn)… probably not.

I doubt it’s possible to double dip and get character kill points and general kill points since they said you can only choose one secondary from each category. I would expect all the kill point style objectives to be grouped in one category.

The Canoness is one of the best characters in the game. It makes he HATE my DE characters. I played SOB for a long time and i always loved her. She is just as easy to kill as many 80+pt characters but yet she is doing more than those do a lot of the time too. She is way worth more than 45pt base (tho i take her with the blessed blade). Look at a Succubus as an example. 50pts base, aura only works in melee (not both like Canoness) main weapon is -1 to hit even tho its worst in every way to the Canoness weapon, no army save so no 2+ in cover. She is 4pts cheaper over all. The biggest difference is she can take a Drug.

But after playing 2-3 Canoness and 2-3 Succubi, my Succubi has never done anything near a Canoness.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
The Canoness is one of the best characters in the game. It makes he HATE my DE characters. I played SOB for a long time and i always loved her. She is just as easy to kill as many 80+pt characters but yet she is doing more than those do a lot of the time too. She is way worth more than 45pt base (tho i take her with the blessed blade). Look at a Succubus as an example. 50pts base, aura only works in melee (not both like Canoness) main weapon is -1 to hit even tho its worst in every way to the Canoness weapon, no army save so no 2+ in cover. She is 4pts cheaper over all. The biggest difference is she can take a Drug.

But after playing 2-3 Canoness and 2-3 Succubi, my Succubi has never done anything near a Canoness.

whoever wrote the DE codex did a terrible job and they should be ashamed of themselves, same with whoever wrote the PA book with the most insulting "options" iv ever seen. iv pretty much shelved my DE all of 8th edition.

But yes the Canonness is one of the best characters in the game, but its a shame our new codex basically got nothing new, characters removed, new characters added. the 2 new units are just varients of other units, no flyer to replace the loss of avenger strike fighter, death cult assassins reduced to 6 model units for reasons along with crusaders. i dont think i even got to use my cannoness veryidian by the time i bought her and 8th rolled around and removed her from existance. Hell they renamed it to codex adeptus soriritas and half the units in the book arent battle sisters or dont have the order tag.

hopefully we see DE get an early 9E codex with an entire rework to give them some options... how about room for the character to sit in a raider with a unit instead of having to buy a transport just for themselves... or a late edition codex so it doesnt get power creeped as bad.

Why are we talking about the canoness. Isn't she a reroll aura buff character, which means she'll be smack dab in the middle of a bunch of units and thus have character protection? Or maybe I'm not understanding how sisters work. Please correct me if I'm wrong. She's seems quite safe.

Yeah, and celestians can protect her too with 2+ bodyguard redirection.

It's factions like harlequins that are utterly boned by this stuff - like they are getting boned by pretty much every single change in 9th edition.

Every edition has winners and losers. This one is no different.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Why are we talking about the canoness. Isn't she a reroll aura buff character, which means she'll be smack dab in the middle of a bunch of units and thus have character protection? Or maybe I'm not understanding how sisters work. Please correct me if I'm wrong. She's seems quite safe.

B.c she is very punchy too and will tend to run up turn 3 or so and solo units of Primaris at times.

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You only have to ask yourself if that character cost will be justified by the time he gets removed.

Not all armies have vast numbers of HQs to choose from in this regard.

See also T'au - commanders are limited to 1 per detachment (and taking multiple detachments bones your CP), ethereals are auras/priest-style buffs with virtually no survivability and fireblades are again an aura with a BS2+ markerlight attached.

The other HQ's are sept-locked, bar Shadowsun (who is still sub-optimal in non-T'au sept detachments).

sanguine40k wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
You only have to ask yourself if that character cost will be justified by the time he gets removed.

Not all armies have vast numbers of HQs to choose from in this regard.

See also T'au - commanders are limited to 1 per detachment (and taking multiple detachments bones your CP), ethereals are auras/priest-style buffs with virtually no survivability and fireblades are again an aura with a BS2+ markerlight attached.

The other HQ's are sept-locked, bar Shadowsun (who is still sub-optimal in non-T'au sept detachments).

Given that commanders will stick out like a sore thumb now when they cross the table I can envision that restriction going away.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
This is just another buff to gunline armies so I'm not a fan. It's already hard enough trying to screen your heroes from getting blown off the board before they can serve their purpose with some armies.

It might lean better for gunlines, but they still have consequences...and just wait until Fallback becomes a strat.

I play Tyranids, SW, BA, WE, Khorne Demons...and...and...what you said... I cried when I read it. I wasn't sure anything could be so beautiful, so wanted, so needed, so adored. I want this in my life...I NEED this in my life...

Please, great GW, I beseech thee, make this so...

Seabass wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
This is just another buff to gunline armies so I'm not a fan. It's already hard enough trying to screen your heroes from getting blown off the board before they can serve their purpose with some armies.

It might lean better for gunlines, but they still have consequences...and just wait until Fallback becomes a strat.

I play Tyranids, SW, BA, WE, Khorne Demons...and...and...what you said... I cried when I read it. I wasn't sure anything could be so beautiful, so wanted, so needed, so adored. I want this in my life...I NEED this in my life...

Please, great GW, I beseech thee, make this so...

I apologize in advance for getting your hopes up.

Though with the changes made so far it seems quite possible.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Why are we talking about the canoness. Isn't she a reroll aura buff character, which means she'll be smack dab in the middle of a bunch of units and thus have character protection? Or maybe I'm not understanding how sisters work. Please correct me if I'm wrong. She's seems quite safe.

B.c she is very punchy too and will tend to run up turn 3 or so and solo units of Primaris at times.

Sisters are also a very aggressive army in general, so it's not impossible to expose her with these rules as they move up or jump from a transport.

But more interestingly to sisters, How does Junith's 7 wound, Character, Vehicle work with these rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevermind. Reread stuff