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.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/klOc84lA6MCml4d2.pdf

EDIT: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/08/12/look-out-sir-for-an-faq-update/

EDIT: v1.1 of the Core Rules FAQ - https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/zRRFp4xVk5v3d4YI.pdf

RIP Smite Spam. RIP Hand Holding Daemon Princes. RIP Teleporting Imperial Bastions. RIP 1+ Crusade Armour Saves.

Glad to see CP Refunding stratagems are fixed though.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Glad to see CP Refunding stratagems are fixed though.

Okay my tiny brain reads this as-
"The limit of gaining or refunding 1 CP per battle round does not apply to any CPs gained via Stratagems that are used during a phase."

... does that mean CP farms are alive again? Drukhari Labrynthine Cunning back to first release shenanigans?

From the paragraph above the bullet point (and yeah, I keep reading it over and over):

" ... the limit of gaining or refunding 1 Command point per battle round does not apply to any Command points gained via Stratagems."

This has got to be wrong. Right?

Rip Venoms, Void and Starweavers protecting characters. Also Heavy terrain is fix.

 Brothererekose wrote:

... does that mean CP farms are alive again? Drukhari Labrynthine Cunning back to first release shenanigans?

From the FAQ (emphasis added):

The limit of gaining or refunding 1 CP per battle round does not apply to any CPs gained via Stratagems that are used during a phase.

'Labyrinthine Cunning' is a Warlord Trait, not a Stratagem.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

... does that mean CP farms are alive again? Drukhari Labrynthine Cunning back to first release shenanigans?

From the FAQ (emphasis added):

The limit of gaining or refunding 1 CP per battle round does not apply to any CPs gained via Stratagems that are used during a phase.

'Labyrinthine Cunning' is a Warlord Trait, not a Stratagem.

Warlord Trait! Very good, Ghaz. While as a Dark Elf/Melnibonean player I woulda loved this, I'm glad that GW did not take a step backward.

Thank you for that clarification.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Rip Venoms, Void and Starweavers protecting characters. Also Heavy terrain is fix.

Ouch, can't protect characters with a Talos or two either.

Honestly GW are over-complicating character protection so much.

Instead of Hand-Holding Daemon princes, we now have this:

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

... does that mean CP farms are alive again? Drukhari Labrynthine Cunning back to first release shenanigans?

From the FAQ (emphasis added):

The limit of gaining or refunding 1 CP per battle round does not apply to any CPs gained via Stratagems that are used during a phase.

'Labyrinthine Cunning' is a Warlord Trait, not a Stratagem.

Warlord Trait! Very good, Ghaz. While as a Dark Elf/Melnibonean player I woulda loved this, I'm glad that GW did not take a step backward.

Thank you for that clarification.

This basically fixes stuff like sisters of battle stratagem that when warlord dies for 1CP you gain d3 CP. Well nice except since it was max 1 CP gained period it was +-0 so...yeah. Useless.

Tyranids also have similar I have heard.

Finally those actually DO something.

Yes. The 'Feeder Tendrils' stratagem is specifically mentioned in the FAQ as an example.

SW have a strat where they get CP for killing a character, I think. Assassin's also have a strat where you gain CP for killing a character.

World Eaters, too.

Overall, good update fixes most problems as far as I can see. We still have the question of whether AIRCRAFT can be charged by FLY units or not, though.

It also means Agent of Vect refunds them the entire CP cost instead of 1.

So, what if a Character is near a UNIT of <10W vehicles or monsters?
Let's say a Farseer is behind a unit of 2 War Walkers. Was only have 6Ws, but 2 of them would be 12W. Does that count? Or do I need a third WW?

Also, what happens when a >10W Monster or Vehicle drops below 10Ws?
This is needlessly complicated. I liked it before this FAQ

 Galef wrote:
So, what if a Character is near a UNIT of <10W vehicles or monsters?
Let's say a Farseer is behind a unit of 2 War Walkers. Was only have 6Ws, but 2 of them would be 12W. Does that count? Or do I need a third WW?

Also, what happens when a >10W Monster or Vehicle drops below 10Ws?
This is needlessly complicated. I liked it before this FAQ

1) It doesn't matter how many wounds the unit has, it matters what the Wound Characteristic is on the datasheet.

2) See 1.

Wound Characteristic != Wounds remaining.

So yes, you would need a 3rd war walker since a unit of 2 cannot screen a character and they are not VEHICLES or MONSTERS with a wounds characteristic of 10 or more on their datasheet.

I made a flowchart for the new Look Out, Sir!

I prefer the old one:

"Does my character have 9 or fewer wounds, and is it the closest target to the firer and within LOS? If yes, then it can be shot."

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I prefer the old one:

"Does my character have 9 or fewer wounds, and is it the closest target to the firer and within LOS? If yes, then it can be shot."

Yes but it lead to silly situations like this one:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Galef wrote:
So, what if a Character is near a UNIT of <10W vehicles or monsters?
Let's say a Farseer is behind a unit of 2 War Walkers. Was only have 6Ws, but 2 of them would be 12W. Does that count? Or do I need a third WW?

Also, what happens when a >10W Monster or Vehicle drops below 10Ws?
This is needlessly complicated. I liked it before this FAQ

1) It doesn't matter how many wounds the unit has, it matters what the Wound Characteristic is on the datasheet.

2) See 1.

Wound Characteristic != Wounds remaining.

So yes, you would need a 3rd war walker since a unit of 2 cannot screen a character and they are not VEHICLES or MONSTERS with a wounds characteristic of 10 or more on their datasheet.

I made a flowchart for the new Look Out, Sir!

Spoiler:

Yeah that's what I was afraid of.
Nice flowchart though, thanx.

I think they should have just made Character Monsters/Vehicles not about able to screen other Characters.
That would have stopped hand-holding DPs without pretty much gimping all other Characters.
Unless you are running a horde of INFANTRY or tons of 10+W vehicles, there's pretty much no decent to protect your Characters now.
It'll be far too easy to just kill a few models down below 3 and snipe Characters.

Could be they see that as a feature, not a bug.

 alextroy wrote:
Could be they see that as a feature, not a bug.

Agreed. IC's were traditionally untargettable only when joined into another unit.

With all these excessive iterations of character protection, it could be that GW is pushing forward towards that direction again where protecting a character requires more specific criteria than the mess that was 8th ed.

It would be nice to see dedicated bodyguard units override the standard LO,S! via bodyguard abilities.

Yes but it lead to silly situations like this one:

The scout's not in LOS there though, so Gman would be a valid target ...

But yeah, the old rule did lead to some legitimately silly situations. I'm just not sure how much better this new one will turn out to be. They seem to add an additional level of over-complication each time they bring it back up ...

Tycho wrote:


The scout's not in LOS there though, so Gman would be a valid target ...

Not in 8th (that was his example). It did not matter if you could not see a unit. If they were closer you could not shoot a character.

The Look Out Sir FAQ is a mess, a classic example of people not thinking through what they're doing. There is zero chance the original rule was intended to not allow a 9 wound buggy to block shooting, and zero chance they made the change because they thought 9 wound buggies blocking shooting was overpowered. This is 100% a case of GW seeing the Daemon Prince Superfriends memes and thinking "we gotta fix that!" but not caring enough to actually test and think through the consequences of their change.

That is supposition on your part. GW could just as easily changed the rule to add “and is not a Character with less than 10 wounds”. They chose otherwise, which shows intent to do something beyond fixing the specific problem. Did you notice that the “murder buckets” have a rule that flat out makes a unit untargetible while close to them?

You think GW thought it made sense to make a rule that means that 3 grots prevent you from shooting at a wartrike 10x their size, but a 9 wound buggy that is basically a plane without the wings doesn't, despite being larger than the wartrike?

The whole talk they were talking with 9th was getting rid of stupid interactions like the carnifex that can't hit the grot on the crate. 3 grots blocking LOS to a character but a 9 wound buggy not is just the sort of stupid stuff they said 9th edition was supposed to get rid of.

The fact that they could have easily fixed it another way doesn't mean anything other than that GW wasn't thinking things through. You can't assume that because GW worded things one way it meant to do that - if you could, we wouldn't have needed this FAQ in the first place because they obviously intended the Daemon Prince Super Friends thing to work because the rule could easily have been worded in a way that stopped it!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
[spoiler]

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I prefer the old one:

"Does my character have 9 or fewer wounds, and is it the closest target to the firer and within LOS? If yes, then it can be shot."

Yes but it lead to silly situations like this one:

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical. It is a rules system. an abstract system used to play a game.

So people will find all sort of interactions that are as you say "silly". But the rules do not have to make sense from a "what would happen in our world" standpoint because it is juat a game with rules.

If you are stuck in a "this is silly" situation, it seems like you are saying it does not make sense. But due to the rules at the time it made perfect sense.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
[spoiler]

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I prefer the old one:

"Does my character have 9 or fewer wounds, and is it the closest target to the firer and within LOS? If yes, then it can be shot."

Yes but it lead to silly situations like this one:

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical. It is a rules system. an abstract system used to play a game.

So people will find all sort of interactions that are as you say "silly". But the rules do not have to make sense from a "what would happen in our world" standpoint because it is juat a game with rules.

If you are stuck in a "this is silly" situation, it seems like you are saying it does not make sense. But due to the rules at the time it made perfect sense.

Did I say the rules didn't work? No. I said they were silly. Big difference. It's also silly my flamer can hit a Thunderhawk moving at Mach 25 6 miles up in the air, but it's also the rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical. It is a rules system. an abstract system used to play a game.

So people will find all sort of interactions that are as you say "silly". But the rules do not have to make sense from a "what would happen in our world" standpoint because it is juat a game with rules.

If you are stuck in a "this is silly" situation, it seems like you are saying it does not make sense. But due to the rules at the time it made perfect sense.

Did I say the rules didn't work? No. I said they were silly. Big difference. It's also silly my flamer can hit a Thunderhawk moving at Mach 25 6 miles up in the air, but it's also the rules.

Who said anything about the rules not working? I did not.

No it is not silly, like you claim, because the game is not at all based on real life...

There is no real "Thunderhawk moving at Mach 25 6 miles up in the air" That is not a real thing. It is a RULES system for a game. That is all.

If you are going by what is "silly" compared to the real world, then over 90% of the game is silly, as most of it can not really happen.

Please move yourselves into PM if you're going to devolve this discussion into what the word 'silly' means to you.

yukishiro1 wrote:
You think GW thought it made sense to make a rule that means that 3 grots prevent you from shooting at a wartrike 10x their size, but a 9 wound buggy that is basically a plane without the wings doesn't, despite being larger than the wartrike?

The whole talk they were talking with 9th was getting rid of stupid interactions like the carnifex that can't hit the grot on the crate. 3 grots blocking LOS to a character but a 9 wound buggy not is just the sort of stupid stuff they said 9th edition was supposed to get rid of.

The fact that they could have easily fixed it another way doesn't mean anything other than that GW wasn't thinking things through. You can't assume that because GW worded things one way it meant to do that - if you could, we wouldn't have needed this FAQ in the first place because they obviously intended the Daemon Prince Super Friends thing to work because the rule could easily have been worded in a way that stopped it!

If you can’t kill three Grots your army has bigger problems than the targeting rules.