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.

I find it interesting to think about how this new rule will affect MSU old Marine armies.

Removing 3 one wound Marines from 5 man squads is a pretty trivial task with how lethal the game is.

dode74 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
What's wrong with the 3x2 cultist case? The char can be shoot, seems obvious.

Can someone tell me which absurd semantic loop brings you to think that the sorcerer can't be shoot?

The enemy sorcerer is visible, is not the closest target and has no vehicle or monster or big unit near him. He is toast.

I'm not sure anyone is saying you can't shoot him. I think people are saying it's odd that one sorc with 6 people around him can be shot while another cannot based solely on how those 6 people are organisationally grouped.

The fact that the same amount of models react differently with rules based on the organization is true for a huge amount of rules, this isn't surely the first case.

This whole rule has been made because it makes things LESS weird compared to what we have now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I find it interesting to think about how this new rule will affect MSU old Marine armies.

Removing 3 one wound Marines from 5 man squads is a pretty trivial task with how lethal the game is.

It is actually a nerf to primaris armies more than old marines armies. The "point tax" you have to pay in a unit to let the other models in it to be able to screen is higher the higher the cost of the single model. This is especially bad for aggressors. Out of a 111 points unit, 74 are there just to allow the third guy to screen the character. And that's with old costs. Cultist even under the new cost only pay 12 points in tax before becoming a screen.

This is a rule that favors hordes and cheap models in general.

This fits in with blasts punishing big squads, morale punishing small squads (probably) and detachment slots being more limited.

Makes it so that MSU isn't always the correct answer during list design. I like it.

dode74 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
What's wrong with the 3x2 cultist case? The char can be shoot, seems obvious.

Can someone tell me which absurd semantic loop brings you to think that the sorcerer can't be shoot?

The enemy sorcerer is visible, is not the closest target and has no vehicle or monster or big unit near him. He is toast.

I'm not sure anyone is saying you can't shoot him. I think people are saying it's odd that one sorc with 6 people around him can be shot while another cannot based solely on how those 6 people are organisationally grouped.

Because people love nitpicking semantics to make themselves feel superior. I'm no exception, but I consider my selectiveness way less capricious.

They could have easily said 3 models instead of a unit, but then we have to consider the abuses and balance issues THAT opens up.

It isnt simple and pretending as such is wrong.

dode74 wrote:
I think people are saying it's odd that one sorc with 6 people around him can be shot while another cannot based solely on how those 6 people are organisationally grouped.

Yeah, and it's odd too that they are affected by moral differently, and affected by rules that gives wounds on each unit in a zone differently, and affected by charge differently, and affected by blast weapons differently, and...
It's just how 40k work. Have always been. We have the exact same thing where one unit of 6 models is behaving completely differently from 3 units of 2 models. Not sure why this one is a big deal.

Except this isn't that. This is about cover and "the maelstrom of battle [making] it difficult to pick out such individuals". Personally I'm not particularly fussed about it, but if they write the reasons then they should be in line with the rule. I do agree that "3 models" opens up other opportunities for "abuse" and I know it's not simple, but surely you can see the dissonance caused by the wording and the effect? *That* is the issue.

I'm more fussed about character monster/vehicles covering for each other, tbh.

A psyker can buff a unit of 20, but can't apply the same buff to two units of five standing next to eachother....

 harlokin wrote:
A psyker can buff a unit of 20, but can't apply the same buff to two units of five standing next to eachother....

yep, even if both 5 came from the same squad that just split in to two 5 mans, and are standing in the same formation as they did before the split. But that is w40k being a game and not a battlefield simulator.

Karol wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
A psyker can buff a unit of 20, but can't apply the same buff to two units of five standing next to eachother....

yep, even if both 5 came from the same squad that just split in to two 5 mans, and are standing in the same formation as they did before the split. But that is w40k being a game and not a battlefield simulator.

I dont think I've ever agreed with you more.

Units are a thing in 40k. Effects are very often applied based on unit. This should not come as anything new or surprising to anyone here.

Sure it's not the most realistic, but it helps manage what is happening whom a lot more easily in most circumstances. That's generally going to be worth a few immersion issues. Because, as Karol says, this is a game first and foremost. Not a simulation.

dode74 wrote:
Except this isn't that. This is about cover and "the maelstrom of battle [making] it difficult to pick out such individuals". Personally I'm not particularly fussed about it, but if they write the reasons then they should be in line with the rule. I do agree that "3 models" opens up other opportunities for "abuse" and I know it's not simple, but surely you can see the dissonance caused by the wording and the effect? *That* is the issue.

I'm more fussed about character monster/vehicles covering for each other, tbh.

They don't. Best you get is a character chaining of the closest character's protective body

dode74 wrote:
Except this isn't that.

What?

dode74 wrote:
but surely you can see the dissonance caused by the wording and the effect? *That* is the issue.

Same as all the other dissonance I listed.
Why is that vehicle exploding killing 3 times as many people if they are in three different squads?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
... (except the faction specific ones, which I've already said I mostly just ignore)...

Why are you ignoring them?

Simplicity, really. Saves having to add in extra abilities, ones that I can't immediately see on the datasheet, and so on. As a Marine player, I miss out the most on that (as Marines have the most subfaction effects and abilities and doctrines and whatnot), so it's hardly like I'm doing it to gain an advantage.

I like simpler 40k, so I play with simpler rules.

Brutus_Apex wrote:Your tool comment isn't the same thing. Measuring tapes all serve the same purpose and therefore should be the same. All hacksaws serve the same purpose so they should all function the same, drills, screw drivers etc. These are different tools to construct much like different USR's are tools to construct a game. You create one rule to apply in a specific situation and apply that equally where it is required.

But not all saws are the same - so should I only carry hacksaws, and no coping saws? Should I remove all my bandsaws too? They're all there for cutting things, but doing so in slightly different ways.

And I will say to you, please stop defending the indefensible.

How is it indefensible? Just because you don't like it doesn't make it indefensible.

USR's are objectively and definitively the only proper way to organize a game.

No, they're not. Such an utterly reductive and ignorant point deserves no further explanation other than simply "no".
There's plenty of ways to organise a game without USRs, which blows the whole "objectively and definitely" part out of the water. Look, you have your preferences, but they're not facts.

We have proven it to you before on other threads and this one.

You've done nothing of the sort. You've just doubled down on "muh objectivity".

Can you build a game without USR's? yes. But it will always be inferior to one that is built upon a strong organized foundation of USR's. Every time.

What's your measure for "inferior" here? Do you have ANY objective units of measurement? No? I thought not.

Stop using "objective" to describe things - you clearly don't know what it means.

The only reason you're defending bespoke rules is because GW did it anyway. Would you be defending USR's if GW had created 8th/9th using that format? Probably.

Did you see me calling for USRs when 8th came out because 7th had used them? No.

For what it's worth, I don't actually hate USRs. But this "they're objectively better" stuff is abject BS. You're allowed to say "I think this is the best system" without needing to make up that it's "objectively the best", and by doing so, you're just putting me off your viewpoint.

Having standardized rules across 500+ units is far better than having non-standardized rules. At the very least for purposes of communication. We all still say Deep Strike even though the actual rule is named different things from unit to unit. It's just easier.

You probably could measure that.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

For what it's worth, I don't actually hate USRs. But this "they're objectively better" stuff is abject BS. You're allowed to say "I think this is the best system" without needing to make up that it's "objectively the best", and by doing so, you're just putting me off your viewpoint.

it's objectively better if everyone plays by the same rules, and not if different writers randomly decide that their favorite army they are writing the codex for should have better rules than other army because "reasons" (ie marine codex 2.0). Which is exactly what USR prevented in a way.

Insectum7 wrote:Having standardized rules across 500+ units is far better than having non-standardized rules. At the very least for purposes of communication. We all still say Deep Strike even though the actual rule is named different things from unit to unit. It's just easier.

For the purposes of communication, sure - but then what about all the weapons that have S:User AP:0 D:1, and grant an extra attack in melee - do we call them all chainswords for simplicity and communication? Or S4 AP0 D1 12" pistols - even though that could be sluggas or bolt pistols?

People will create their own methods of identifying things together for the purposes of communcation. After all, MEQ, GEQ and TEQ aren't official groupings, but used anyway amongst players. They don't need to be standardised to do that.

Siegfriedfr wrote:it's objectively better if everyone plays by the same rules, and not if different writers randomly decide that their favorite army they are writing the codex for should have better rules than other army because "reasons" (ie marine codex 2.0). Which is exactly what USR prevented in a way.

If writers being biased is a concern, what's to stop those writers just slapping more USRs onto those units?

This debate just goes round and round.

USR's make a better game.
Yeah but 7th had USRs and sucked.
That's cos GW screwed it up.
Who do you think is designing 40k now?
Yeah... but USRs are the best tho we need all the USRs.

Then you have a long rambling conversation and it melts down to "I don't like the fact deepstrike is called something different on the datasheets."

I mean its really hard for me to see why say adding "Rending (1), Rending (3) and Rending (4)" to say Galvanic Rifles, Shuriken weapons and Daemonette Claws is going to dramatically improve the game. Let alone make it "objectively" better.

Especially when going by precedent you would just have "Rending (X)" on the datasheet and then be told to look through a 400+ page rule book to find the specific section covering that rule if you happen to have forgotten what it does.
Based on 7th there is no evidence USRs made for a better game. It wasn't easier to learn, it wasn't quicker to find out what units did.

Tyel wrote:
This debate just goes round and round.

USR's make a better game.
Yeah but 7th had USRs and sucked.
That's cos GW screwed it up.
Who do you think is designing 40k now?
Yeah... but USRs are the best tho we need all the USRs.

Then you have a long rambling conversation and it melts down to "I don't like the fact deepstrike is called something different on the datasheets."

I mean its really hard for me to see why say adding "Rending (1), Rending (3) and Rending (4)" to say Galvanic Rifles, Shuriken weapons and Daemonette Claws is going to dramatically improve the game. Let alone make it "objectively" better.

Especially when going by precedent you would just have "Rending (X)" on the datasheet and then be told to look through a 400+ page rule book to find the specific section covering that rule if you happen to have forgotten what it does.
Based on 7th there is no evidence USRs made for a better game. It wasn't easier to learn, it wasn't quicker to find out what units did.

What made 7th bad werent USR.

Again, USR are better, because everyone plays by the same rules. It's so easy to understand that wasting typing time trying to answer to the contrary is exhausting

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Having standardized rules across 500+ units is far better than having non-standardized rules. At the very least for purposes of communication. We all still say Deep Strike even though the actual rule is named different things from unit to unit. It's just easier.

For the purposes of communication, sure - but then what about all the weapons that have S:User AP:0 D:1, and grant an extra attack in melee - do we call them all chainswords for simplicity and communication? Or S4 AP0 D1 12" pistols - even though that could be sluggas or bolt pistols?

People will create their own methods of identifying things together for the purposes of communcation. After all, MEQ, GEQ and TEQ aren't official groupings, but used anyway amongst players. They don't need to be standardised to do that.

The debate isn't whether or not they're necessay, only whether or not they are better than individually named, similar (or even exactly thw same) abilities. Which, if it facilitates communication, ease of reference and clarity, it is actually better.

That doesn't mean everything needs to be a USR, and that they are better in every case. I think 7th went too far with them, and it became overbearing and clumsy. But 8th turned the dial too far in the other direction. Deep Strike and the 'bodyguard' units are prime examples of unnessecary 'bespoking'.

Tyel wrote:
This debate just goes round and round.

USR's make a better game.
Yeah but 7th had USRs and sucked.
That's cos GW screwed it up.
Who do you think is designing 40k now?
Yeah... but USRs are the best tho we need all the USRs.

Then you have a long rambling conversation and it melts down to "I don't like the fact deepstrike is called something different on the datasheets."

I mean its really hard for me to see why say adding "Rending (1), Rending (3) and Rending (4)" to say Galvanic Rifles, Shuriken weapons and Daemonette Claws is going to dramatically improve the game. Let alone make it "objectively" better.

Especially when going by precedent you would just have "Rending (X)" on the datasheet and then be told to look through a 400+ page rule book to find the specific section covering that rule if you happen to have forgotten what it does.
Based on 7th there is no evidence USRs made for a better game. It wasn't easier to learn, it wasn't quicker to find out what units did.

Based on the most hated edition ever? Sounds like confirmation bias. What about 6th, 5th, 4th....... or every other game that uses USRs?

Blastaar wrote:
Based on the most hated edition ever? Sounds like confirmation bias. What about 6th, 5th, 4th....... or every other game that uses USRs?

If you want to go play 6th, 5th, 4th etc go ahead.

But 7th is where GW and USRs eventually got to.
When a rules system using them is apparently "the most hated edition ever" its hard to see how they are "objectively better".

Tyel wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Based on the most hated edition ever? Sounds like confirmation bias. What about 6th, 5th, 4th....... or every other game that uses USRs?

If you want to go play 6th, 5th, 4th etc go ahead.

But 7th is where GW and USRs eventually got to.
When a rules system using them is apparently "the most hated edition ever" its hard to see how they are "objectively better".

It's hard when you want to make a blanket statement because you are still haunted by bad experiences during 7th, and need a boogeyman instead of doing the hard work of critical thinking.

I shouldn't have to say this, everyone on Dakka has heard it time and again, but- USRs are not a bad mechanic. They provide superior organization and ease of communication. GW wrote crappy ones. IE, USRs were not the problem, poor balance and incoherent phrasing was. As is normal for GW's "rules" team.

Like I said, go check out any non GW game that uses them and note the stark difference.

Tyel wrote:
Based on 7th there is no evidence USRs made for a better game.

Do you really need someone to explain why 'because [bad thing] used [good idea], [good idea] is bad' is a crap argument?

Especially when [good idea] has been used by dozens of other systems, including ones written by the same company?

The bigger question is: since USRs aren’t the topic of the thread, why is the USR debate being rehashed once again here?

Thread’s about the new Character targeting rules, peeps...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The bigger question is: since USRs aren’t the topic of the thread, why is the USR debate being rehashed once again here?

Thread’s about the new Character targeting rules, peeps...

Indeed. If you want to rehash the USR debate once again then make a thread for it.

I like most of the teased 9th edition changes, but the new LoSir has me a little worried. Knowing what we do at this time, I'm not sure how I keep one of my melee-centric aeldari characters alive the turn after they charge.

Like, if I charge my autarch and their banshee friends out of a wave serpent to engage an enemy unit, it won't take much to kill 3 of the 5 banshees and then point every lascannon in the enemy army at my autarch. And if I try to take larger squads to have more ablative wounds, I'll be making any blast weapons (which are likely pretty good at killing banshees) more reliable/efficient.

Maybe if I just have the wave serpent charge everything they charge so the autarch can crouch next to it all game?

Staying optimistic, but this one has me worried.

So take a proper 10 strong Banshee unit instead of the minimum?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So take a proper 10 strong Banshee unit instead of the minimum?

Can't fit 11 models in a Wave Serpent, so it'd have to be a 9-man squad.

But yeah, I think taking good-sized squads is going to be the go-to strategy for keeping characters alive. Five Banshees aren't difficult to wipe out in the first place, so I'm a little surprised by the idea that this change really is what makes the Autarch vulnerable.

 catbarf wrote:
Can't fit 11 models in a Wave Serpent, so it'd have to be a 9-man squad.

Wave Serpents hold 12.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Can't fit 11 models in a Wave Serpent, so it'd have to be a 9-man squad.

Wave Serpents hold 12.

You know, I could have sworn it was 12, but I wasn't quite sure, so I checked GW's website, and they actually say '10 models or 5 Wraithguard and a Warlock'. Sack the intern

But yeah, full squads seem the way to go if you have a character you don't want getting blasted.

 catbarf wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So take a proper 10 strong Banshee unit instead of the minimum?

Can't fit 11 models in a Wave Serpent, so it'd have to be a 9-man squad.

But yeah, I think taking good-sized squads is going to be the go-to strategy for keeping characters alive. Five Banshees aren't difficult to wipe out in the first place, so I'm a little surprised by the idea that this change really is what makes the Autarch vulnerable.

Ah, but if I take more than 5 banshees, I make blast weapons just a bit more effective against me. And as I don't know what my opponent's list will look like ahead of time, buffing up the squad size feels less like a trade-off and more like a gamble.


The big difference between now and 8th edition is that, currently, I can charge a flank or something and rely on something in my army being closer to the enemy than my character is. So that serpent I hopped out of? It's keeping me safe from most things on the opposite flank. So are the second serpent moving up on the opposite flank, the deepstrikers that landed wherever this turn, and the rangers in my deployment zone that are technically closer to the russ left corner than my right-flank-charging autarch is (on certain deployment maps). But in 9th, a russ or knight or whatever can shoot my character on the opposite end of the table once I lose enough banshees. Or worse, once the autarch fails the charge that the banshees just made.

8th edition rules, while far from perfect, make it so that my characters generally only get targeted by things in the same general vicinity as themselves. But in 9th, it sounds like a few spare lasguns aimed at the banshees can make the autarch (or Jain Zar or whatever) vulnerable to every other gun in the army.

I'm not panicking or anything. There's plenty we don't know about 9th yet. I just feel like my own armies would have a pretty easy removing a modest squad of single-wound non-horde infantry to get at the squishy character behind them. So that makes me worry I might be fielding a lot of my characters less often in 9th. Even if that's the case, it's not a game breaker. Just kind of a bummer.

And in that case the enemy will shoot your char death. 73 points for 5W on a 4++, not really great as a defensive profile but i have seen worse. He is not a free kill, the opponent will still need to dedicate a certain quantity of fire at him and in with smaller maps with more LoS blockers a single infantry model may be difficult to focus with a lot of shooters. He is still hard enough that 2 catachan basilisks don't take him out on average rolls.

Your opponent could even decide to not kill him since he isn't really dangerous alone.

In any case, it is just a 73 point model. Is there any reason why he should be as difficult to kill as it right now?