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.

 Tyran wrote:
The one thing I'm definitely not missing is the USRs in which only one model having one was enough to buff the entire unit.

I would like if (a trimmed) implementation of USRs came back, but Independent Character needs to stay dead.

I dont really see the problem with that. Right now we have effectively USRs given out as auras to multiple units. If you only have one character able to enter a unit and it gets that ability it is way easier to balance and also to counter on the table.

Having a character being forced to join a unit also makes them much more vulnerable than now when they can stay behind and just let their aura do their thing and only if they want to get into combat they can do a Heroic Intervention rather than being forced to get stuck in with the buffed unit. Armies with good bodyguard units just make this even worse.

I only played in 4th and 5th with Independent characters and never played 6th or 7th so maybe there were other problems there. But the way it worked in 4th and 5th is way better than how many characters work now.

 Tyran wrote:
The one thing I'm definitely not missing is the USRs in which only one model having one was enough to buff the entire unit.

I would like if (a trimmed) implementation of USRs came back, but Independent Character needs to stay dead.

Definitely don't agree. ICs are a huge hole in how the game actually functions- it would help limit buffs naturally (rather than Core and other janky fixes), and the endless iteration of attempts to make bodyguards work.

As for the first part- I suggest taking a look at how eldar exarchs function. Many powers are effectively single-model USRs for their units.

I think Independent Characters are vastly superior to the current implementation. So much jank comes from how 9th handles it.

The only USRs that carried to the current, as far as I recall, are Scout and Infiltrate.
I do agree it would be better if, in order to use those abilities, those characters had to join a capable squad. For those characters where you want to confer it to the unit they can have a special ability to do that.
But I don't see it as a huge issue.

USRs are great, we already have universal special rules. GW just gives every one a different name.
Most of what people like about the current implementation is that all the rules are on the datasheet (except for the tonnes that aren't, but let's ignore that). There's no reason you can't have both.
You can have the rule defined in the rulebook, with all the nitty gritty "rare rules" explanations, *and* have a short version listed on each datasheet. Maybe even bonus points for a page reference number to the BRB.

Not having USRs means FAQs and abilities need to use stupid wording like "any ability that allows a unit to be set up on the battlefield", which is just so open to confusion. If deepstrike atill officially existed (we all call it deepstrike anyway) they could just say that and everyone would understand.

Bodyguard is a nice rule, as far ideas goes. It is stops being a nice rule when used in practic. When units outside of LoS start making characters in LoS untargetable. And tau bring this to a new level when they can stay outside of LoS. bodyguard and on top of that still shot from outside of LoS.

Bodyguard, as a rule, should be something like Character X becomes a member of unit Y. For all purpose of rules, Ld, tests, rules targeting squad leaders etc the Character becomes units X leader. Any rules, auras and buffs that only affect character, when he is on his own, do not spread on to the bodyguard unit, unless a specific rule says it/they do.

Karol wrote:
Bodyguard is a nice rule, as far ideas goes. It is stops being a nice rule when used in practic. When units outside of LoS start making characters in LoS untargetable. And tau bring this to a new level when they can stay outside of LoS. bodyguard and on top of that still shot from outside of LoS.

Bodyguard, as a rule, should be something like Character X becomes a member of unit Y. For all purpose of rules, Ld, tests, rules targeting squad leaders etc the Character becomes units X leader. Any rules, auras and buffs that only affect character, when he is on his own, do not spread on to the bodyguard unit, unless a specific rule says it/they do.

Bodyguard is a fine concept that GW doesnt seem to be able to figure out how to fix. The version you suggest is complicated for no reason

While a friendly CHARACTER unit is within 3" of any models in this unit, enemy models cannot target that CHARACTER unit with ranged attacks IF THIS UNIT IS VISIBLE TO THEM.

nah. you will start to have problems with what visible is as soon, as GW intreduces units that can't be shot or who do pop up attacks. Plus it plays merry hell with how terrain and titanic stuff works right now. Making it a unit creation rule, also saves us from multiple bodyguard units protecting multiple HQs.

And I don't think it is complicated. It is like having a BT squad leader with a relic and a power weapon of some sort. People don't get confused because those exist. I don't think someone having a crissis suit Cmd in a unit of suits or a marine HQ in a unit of marines, confuses people. Now on the other hand a unit with bodyguard protecting a vehicle, which happens to be a character can be confusing as hell.

Voss wrote:

Definitely don't agree. ICs are a huge hole in how the game actually functions- it would help limit buffs naturally (rather than Core and other janky fixes), and the endless iteration of attempts to make bodyguards work.

You are forgetting the issue that IC had endless iterations because each one broke in a specific different way.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Bodyguard is a fine concept that GW doesnt seem to be able to figure out how to fix. The version you suggest is complicated for no reason

While a friendly CHARACTER unit is within 3" of any models in this unit, enemy models cannot target that CHARACTER unit with ranged attacks IF THIS UNIT IS VISIBLE TO THEM.

Problem is, that opens up the possibility of sniping a character by using a building, vehicle, or whatever else to block LoS to the bodyguard and allow you to target the character.

 Tyran wrote:

Voss wrote:

Definitely don't agree. ICs are a huge hole in how the game actually functions- it would help limit buffs naturally (rather than Core and other janky fixes), and the endless iteration of attempts to make bodyguards work.

You are forgetting the issue that IC had endless iterations because each one broke in a specific different way.

I'm... not. I'm not even sure what you mean by 'endless iterations' or anything particularly broken.
Can you posit some examples?

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Bodyguard is a fine concept that GW doesnt seem to be able to figure out how to fix. The version you suggest is complicated for no reason

While a friendly CHARACTER unit is within 3" of any models in this unit, enemy models cannot target that CHARACTER unit with ranged attacks IF THIS UNIT IS VISIBLE TO THEM.

Problem is, that opens up the possibility of sniping a character by using a building, vehicle, or whatever else to block LoS to the bodyguard and allow you to target the character.

I'm not seeing that as a problem.
Well, except on the bodyguard players end. But they'll eventually learn how to properly position their models....

Voss wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Voss wrote:

Definitely don't agree. ICs are a huge hole in how the game actually functions- it would help limit buffs naturally (rather than Core and other janky fixes), and the endless iteration of attempts to make bodyguards work.

You are forgetting the issue that IC had endless iterations because each one broke in a specific different way.

I'm... not. I'm not even sure what you mean by 'endless iterations' or anything particularly broken.
Can you posit some examples?

For example, in one edition (IIRC 5th), IC could join units as long as those units didn't include monsters or vehicles. And in another (IIRC 6th) it could join units as long as those units had more than 1 model (which led to ICs in monster units). Or with battle brother units in which ICs from different factions could merge their USRs in some quite ridiculous death stars (until rerolleable 2++ made them all irrelevant in 7th).

The first two don't strike me as problematic in any way. It was just an editing pass so tyrant guard could do their actual job.

The last seems 100% a problem with battle brothers that has very little to do with ICs. Or USRs, to be honest.

Voss wrote:
The first two don't strike me as problematic in any way. It was just an editing pass so tyrant guard could do their actual job.

It was weird that Riptides were suddenly bodyguarding ICs (and benefiting from USRs) if they had bought drones.

Or USRs, to be honest.

And it was also weird that if an IC knew scout or stealth, suddenly a terminator unit became very sneaky and very stealthy.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Bodyguard is a fine concept that GW doesnt seem to be able to figure out how to fix. The version you suggest is complicated for no reason

While a friendly CHARACTER unit is within 3" of any models in this unit, enemy models cannot target that CHARACTER unit with ranged attacks IF THIS UNIT IS VISIBLE TO THEM.

Problem is, that opens up the possibility of sniping a character by using a building, vehicle, or whatever else to block LoS to the bodyguard and allow you to target the character.

So? thats why you should stick your bodyguards in front of the character, base to base

The current character implementation has other problems though.

Take melee characters and their units, trying to charge.
The unit makes the distance and goes charging off ahead. Meanwhile the character rolls poorly and just stands there watching them go.
Now, not only is your unit out of buff range (unless you tail back a mile, losing half your attacks) but your character is exposed to enemy fire (again, unless you tail back a mile).

Same goes for advancing. Unit rolls a 6, character rolls a 1.

Even worse is for both of those situations you need to roll for one unit and finish moving it before you can roll for the second. So you don't even know if you need to slow down or tail back until it's too late.
At least when charging you could charge with the character first, except that now they're the ones eating the overwatch to the face so the whole point of the bodyguard is rendered moot. Plus you'll really have egg on your face if the unit fails the charge.

None of these were an issues with characters in units. They solved the few problems it did have (which were all isolated and trivial) in the absolute worst possible way.

 Tyran wrote:

Voss wrote:
The first two don't strike me as problematic in any way. It was just an editing pass so tyrant guard could do their actual job.

It was weird that Riptides were suddenly bodyguarding ICs (and benefiting from USRs) if they had bought drones.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Honestly I'd argue IC should come back as a rule to eliminate bodyguard jank, but they lose the character keyword while inside a unit and all buffs are auras from their model specifically.

That just means the bodyguard rule needs to be reworked.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Honestly I'd argue IC should come back as a rule to eliminate bodyguard jank, but they lose the character keyword while inside a unit and all buffs are auras from their model specifically.

That just means the bodyguard rule needs to be reworked.

Or that it creates more problems than it solves.

For the record I generally like characters generating auras of influence on the board and being able to pass out targetted buffs, but there are a lot of rules around the rest of the character rule that creates some weird jank.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...For the record I generally like characters generating auras of influence on the board and being able to pass out targetted buffs, but there are a lot of rules around the rest of the character rule that creates some weird jank.

If left purely to my own devices, and considering only what'd make the game work better, my typical solution is to replace all non-monster characters of any kind with command squads. Spreading the durability/damage output across several big fancy models avoids some of the weirder jank (captains as disposable melee missiles, hundred-point characters one-rounding Knights because someone didn't bother to do the math on what would happen if they gave vehicles and units the same statline, the command squad can have meaningful damage output without needing relic weapons as a patch or giving the one character as many attacks as a squad would get...).

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...For the record I generally like characters generating auras of influence on the board and being able to pass out targetted buffs, but there are a lot of rules around the rest of the character rule that creates some weird jank.

If left purely to my own devices, and considering only what'd make the game work better, my typical solution is to replace all non-monster characters of any kind with command squads. Spreading the durability/damage output across several big fancy models avoids some of the weirder jank (captains as disposable melee missiles, hundred-point characters one-rounding Knights because someone didn't bother to do the math on what would happen if they gave vehicles and units the same statline, the command squad can have meaningful damage output without needing relic weapons as a patch or giving the one character as many attacks as a squad would get...).

Honestly I'd generally be alright with that in most cases.

Frankly, they should have left Look Out Sirs in the dumpsterfire of history. Bodyguard units should have been the only ones to have it, or as army specific rules for things like GSC, Tau for Ethereals, or Tyranids.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Bodyguard is a fine concept that GW doesnt seem to be able to figure out how to fix. The version you suggest is complicated for no reason

While a friendly CHARACTER unit is within 3" of any models in this unit, enemy models cannot target that CHARACTER unit with ranged attacks IF THIS UNIT IS VISIBLE TO THEM.

Problem is, that opens up the possibility of sniping a character by using a building, vehicle, or whatever else to block LoS to the bodyguard and allow you to target the character.

No it doesn't. It just means you have to position your bodyguard models more carefully. If they're directly in front of the character, between the firing model and the target character, they are necessarily in LoS. That seems thematic while also giving potential counterplay against sloppy positioning. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Perhaps it could be solved by forcing bodyguards to stay in engagement range of the character they're protecting?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Perhaps it could be solved by forcing bodyguards to stay in engagement range of the character they're protecting?

You're trying to solve something that's not a problem beyond user error when positioning.

ccs wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Perhaps it could be solved by forcing bodyguards to stay in engagement range of the character they're protecting?

You're trying to solve something that's not a problem beyond user error when positioning.

Nah, it has some jank interactions with line of sight, thought was that the jank could be removed.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

ccs wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Perhaps it could be solved by forcing bodyguards to stay in engagement range of the character they're protecting?

You're trying to solve something that's not a problem beyond user error when positioning.

Nah, it has some jank interactions with line of sight, thought was that the jank could be removed.

its not janky, its logical

how can a bodyguard protect a character if hes hidden behind it or not physically intercepting the shots.
positioning the bodyguards with their base touching in front of the character makes a wall that your opponent cannot shoot through (unless they manage to position themselves in a wide enough angle

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

ccs wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Perhaps it could be solved by forcing bodyguards to stay in engagement range of the character they're protecting?

You're trying to solve something that's not a problem beyond user error when positioning.

Nah, it has some jank interactions with line of sight, thought was that the jank could be removed.

its not janky, its logical

how can a bodyguard protect a character if hes hidden behind it or not physically intercepting the shots.
positioning the bodyguards with their base touching in front of the character makes a wall that your opponent cannot shoot through (unless they manage to position themselves in a wide enough angle

I was talking about forcing them to stay in engagement range to solve the issue of people doing stuff like making them untargetable while using them to intercept shots directly.

Honestly I'd prefer if they were an upgrade for the character costing the character the character keyword while they're alive but making them all one unit but if we can't do that I was looking at alternatives.

Also, thinking of unit placement, I sincerely hope that GW makes the GSC crossfire and exposed rules core mechanics. Making positioning important to shooting again would be great, and I feel that it's a better option than what we've seen with people talking about returning to having vehicle facings again.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
left purely to my own devices, and considering only what'd make the game work better, my typical solution is to replace all non-monster characters of any kind with command squads. Spreading the durability/damage output across several big fancy models avoids some of the weirder jank (captains as disposable melee missiles, hundred-point characters one-rounding Knights because someone didn't bother to do the math on what would happen if they gave vehicles and units the same statline, the command squad can have meaningful damage output without needing relic weapons as a patch or giving the one character as many attacks as a squad would get...).

I can see that coming in to play, so long as the aura stayed to the model. The 4th Edition Marine Characters and Command Squads prior to Dark Angels had rules like that.

"All may lead a Command squad. The character and the unit area a single HQ choice. The character is a member of the unit and may not leave it. If the (rest of the) squad is destroyed, the character may operate independently."

You could even add in a Chaplain and Librarian in to it (or just a Chaplain for Black Templars) and they would all be one unit and squad until the Command Squad models were destroyed.

A good portion of other armies have units that would be able to do that as well, and some have added units since those old days that could fit in, like the Lychguard, for example.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly, they should have left Look Out Sirs in the dumpsterfire of history. Bodyguard units should have been the only ones to have it, or as army specific rules for things like GSC, Tau for Ethereals, or Tyranids.

The problem with this is it's as good as saying some factions just aren't allowed to have characters.

Not every faction has super-durable bodyguard units, or even any bodyguard units for some or all of their characters.

It also makes a mockery of characters like the Solitaire, which, by their very nature, are supposed to act independently.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly, they should have left Look Out Sirs in the dumpsterfire of history. Bodyguard units should have been the only ones to have it, or as army specific rules for things like GSC, Tau for Ethereals, or Tyranids.

The problem with this is it's as good as saying some factions just aren't allowed to have characters.

Not every faction has super-durable bodyguard units, or even any bodyguard units for some or all of their characters.

It also makes a mockery of characters like the Solitaire, which, by their very nature, are supposed to act independently.

Thats where terrain, transports or just large models come in