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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 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

Ah yes, Harlequins are known for transports and large models LOL

Star Wars Legion has characters without "Look out Sir".

The way it handles it is that 'HQs' are almost as tough, as tough, or tougher, than their equivalent squads.

For example, a Rebel squad might have 4-6 models and a 5+ save. A Rebel Officer has 4 wounds and a 5+ save.
A Jedi has 6 wounds and a 3/4+ save plus further damage mitigation abilities.

In Legion, Bodyguards have a special "Guardian" ability, which allows you to pawn off hits on the character to the bodyguard.

TBH, this is already what "heroic" characters like Space Marine Captains enjoy in 40k. Except they get character protection as well.

So the theory can work, absolutely.

Except there's one notable difference, Star Wars Legion is substantially less lethal than 40k. A standard Legion game is probably about comparable to a 1000pts 40k game in terms of what's on the board, and ranges/mobility is much reduced.
It's simply not possible to focus the same level of firepower in SWL as it is in 40k. But in 40k if you want a particular unit dead there's very little they can do to stop you between move+advance+shoot+charge+ignore LoS+whatever else.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 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

Ah yes, Harlequins are known for transports and large models LOL

...

EviscerationPlague 803436 11320223 wrote:
Ah yes, Harlequins are known for transports and large models LOL

Before DE dethroned them from being the best army in 9th ed, the whole faction was known for swarms of vehicles and jetbikes and doing drive by thanks to open topped rules being very good, if you have good guns.

 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.

Okay, and...?

Nowhere did I suggest that we shouldn't either:
A) Add bodyguard units
or
B) Make adjustments to account for it.

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

As if them being able to get a "Look Out, Sir!" doesn't already do that?

There's other ways to add survivability without just letting them pass wounds off elsewhere. Things like adding a limitation as to how far away it can be shot from as an off-the-cuff example.

I'm looking forward to my 35 wounds weird boy to make it even remotely as durable as the 4 wound weird boy is with LoS!.

Ah, right, people only ever think of marines and eldar when discussing these kinds of topics.

Do orks even have a unit with the bodyguard rule?

Karol wrote:
Do orks even have a unit with the bodyguard rule?

At least not since 4th edition. Ork characters have always relied on being hidden in a mob of regular orks to protect them.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm looking forward to my 35 wounds weird boy to make it even remotely as durable as the 4 wound weird boy is with LoS!.

Ah, right, people only ever think of marines and eldar when discussing these kinds of topics.

because eldar have bodyguards?

No, i'm advocating for positioning to matter more than a dumbass rule like the current bodyguard/LoS rules

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

Okay, and...?

Nowhere did I suggest that we shouldn't either:
A) Add bodyguard units
or
B) Make adjustments to account for it.

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

As if them being able to get a "Look Out, Sir!" doesn't already do that?

There's other ways to add survivability without just letting them pass wounds off elsewhere. Things like adding a limitation as to how far away it can be shot from as an off-the-cuff example.

You're right, you didn't suggest that we shouldn't do those things. But nor did you offer any practical solutions.

Adding bodyguard units does not solve the issue if said bodyguards are just T3 dudes.

This might be slightly less of an issue if there was some way for a character to leave a depleted bodyguard unit and instead join a different unit for protection. If only rules of that sort existed.


As for the Solitaire (and similar characters), I agree that the current rules are not ideal for them either. In fact, that was one of the complaints I made about 9th in that the decision seemed to be the worst of both worlds. Characters lost their much-touted independence (as they have to be in the armpits of at least one other unit to be protected), yet were still stuck as uninspired aura buff-bots. But while the current rules are bad for those characters, the rules you're proposing would be even worse. You don't put out a fire by pouring gasoline onto it.

I think if you really want this sort of thing, you need to first dial the lethality in the game way down.

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:
Do orks even have a unit with the bodyguard rule?

At least not since 4th edition. Ork characters have always relied on being hidden in a mob of regular orks to protect them.

If only there were a race of small, expendable minions that Orks could utilize as screening elements...

Grot Shields should be a 100% baseline ability, tied to screening non-Warboss and non-Vehicle characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

You're right, you didn't suggest that we shouldn't do those things. But nor did you offer any practical solutions.

Adding bodyguard units does not solve the issue if said bodyguards are just T3 dudes.

This might be slightly less of an issue if there was some way for a character to leave a depleted bodyguard unit and instead join a different unit for protection. If only rules of that sort existed.

That doesn't solve the issue if said bodyguards are just T3 dudes though...

Frankly, there are extremely few armies that do not have some type of bodyguard unit via the fluff. Craftworlders have the Seer Councils, Warlock Conclaves, and Courts of the Young King as immediate mentions. Drukhari have all kinds of stuff. Tau literally have Crisis Suit Bodyguards as a unit now. Necrons have the Lychguard and Praetorians. Tyranid have the Hive and Tyrant Guard. Orks have Gretchin(more meatshield than bodyguards, to be fair). Chaos Marines have Chosen(bodyguards) or Cultists(meatshields). Guard have Command Squads and literal Ogryn Bodyguards. Mechanicus should have Servitors fulfilling that role for the Techpriests and a "Skitarii Command Squad" for the Marshals.

As for the Solitaire (and similar characters), I agree that the current rules are not ideal for them either.

There's extremely few examples of "similar characters" to the Solitaire though. It's basically just the Imperial Assassins and the GSC Assassins. These things are meant to be literal glass cannons. They're assassin types, not leader types.

In fact, that was one of the complaints I made about 9th in that the decision seemed to be the worst of both worlds. Characters lost their much-touted independence (as they have to be in the armpits of at least one other unit to be protected), yet were still stuck as uninspired aura buff-bots.

Horsecrap. That's been a problem for editions for some armies, yet now when it occurs to others it's a "problem" for the entirety of the game?

Guard players have been talking about that for at least a decade. AdMech characters are the same way and have been since their introduction.

But while the current rules are bad for those characters, the rules you're proposing would be even worse. You don't put out a fire by pouring gasoline onto it.

You're welcome to your opinion. My experiences with attempting things differently have taught me otherwise.

I think if you really want this sort of thing, you need to first dial the lethality in the game way down.

Not really.

I think that ,at least rules wise, GW wants or wanted to make a difference between units that are hyper aware of the battlefield and are able to shield their designated target and a CSM champion standing in a throng of cultists.

Still waiting for Kanluwen to admit he was wrong about a tournament in Cherokee being relevant.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:
Do orks even have a unit with the bodyguard rule?

At least not since 4th edition. Ork characters have always relied on being hidden in a mob of regular orks to protect them.

If only there were a race of small, expendable minions that Orks could utilize as screening elements...

Grot Shields should be a 100% baseline ability, tied to screening non-Warboss and non-Vehicle characters.

Sure, let's bastardize the entire faction's lore to have the biggest and strongest members unable to survive without bringing weedy gretchin to save them.

And apparently warbosses should just go die. I guess that means captains, chaos lords, tau commanders and autarchs should also be shootable from across the board?

 Jidmah wrote:

Sure, let's bastardize the entire faction's lore to have the biggest and strongest members unable to survive without bringing weedy gretchin to save them.

That's not what I said, but I can understand why you might believe that.

Gretchin should be able to bodyguard for anything short of a Warboss.

And apparently warbosses should just go die.

No, they just should not be screenable with Gretchin as a default mechanism. Warbosses are supposed to be at the forefront, the biggest of the biggest Orks. They'll take the damn hits and keep on Waagh'ing their way to victory. If this means giving them more wounds? I'm 100% for it.

Adding a "bodyguard" mechanism to Nobs when they're near a Warboss would also not be a wildly unacceptable method to go for.

I guess that means captains, chaos lords, tau commanders and autarchs should also be shootable from across the board?

Are you taking an Honor Guard, Chosen Bodyguard, Crisis Bodyguards, or a Court of the Young King?

No? Then yeah, they absolutely should be.

Characters need some protection outside of "Look Out Sir" and "Bodyguard". Things like Vindicares and Death Jesters shouldn't be shackled to friendly units.

Hecaton wrote:
Still waiting for Kanluwen to admit he was wrong about a tournament in Cherokee being relevant.

The sun will go cold first.

Hecaton wrote:
Still waiting for Kanluwen to admit he was wrong about a tournament in Cherokee being relevant.

I'm still waiting for him to answer why Eldar players should suck it up with the Autarch issue but his Infantry sergeants having Lasguns is way more important.

I believe the character durability issue is tied to the lethality issue. As much fun as it would be for a chapter master running around with the same amount of wounds as a squad of Marines, or a Warboss having the wounds count of a horde of boyz, I feel like the game would just skew to compensate.

Honestly I don't have a great answer to balance the lethality down without a massive rework.

I still stand by the idea of a better modifier system to-hit and a better terrain system. For example of some thoughts I have:
A unit of Intercessors are shooting at a unit of Orks in heavy cover. The Orks are 20" away so they're more than the half range of the Bolt Rifle giving the Marines -1 to hit. Additionally the Ork Boyz are wholly inside of area terrain and can be assumed to ducking out of the way of fire behind the cover (or using the terrain to otherwise obscure them) giving them an additional -1. Lastly because the terrain is heavy cover (like a reinforced wall) the Orks get +1 to their armor save bringing them to a 5+ armour save.

In practice this means the Intercessors would hit on 5+, and even with a -1 AP from the bolt rifles the Orks would have a 6+ save. For comparison the Orks would currently take 2.22 wounds on average against 10 unbuffed Intercessors but would only take .93 average wounds in the above example.

I admit this is not a fast system, but I feel like it pushes a strong emphasis for positioning (being over half range incurs a penalty for example) and buffs terrain (by giving it a defensive bonus, and even adding rules that buff models inside of terrain by offering other kinds of bonuses.

And if the game continues to keep rules about objectives not being inside of terrain this means units have to choose between the bonuses of terrain and scoring points which I believe adds an interesting dynamic as well.

That said, I feel at minimum rules like doctrines should go away completely. They stack too much onto the game in a way that doesn't actually make the game more fun to play.

They definitely did not play with modifiers like they should. As long as we have the 6s always hit, we should've been able to go wonky with values instead of silly rules like "you only hit on a 4+ at best", which is fething stupid instead of just saying "-2 to hit in melee".

EviscerationPlague wrote:
They definitely did not play with modifiers like they should. As long as we have the 6s always hit, we should've been able to go wonky with values instead of silly rules like "you only hit on a 4+ at best", which is fething stupid instead of just saying "-2 to hit in melee".

I think part of the mess was the way they gave modifier access to units via special rules and the like. I feel if it was tied to terrain and positioning it'd be fine (and maybe give it to special rules that have limited usage like smokescreen) but things like the amount of minuses Eldar could stack broke the game.

That said, there should be ways to also add +1 to hit, especially for units that have low BS. Note I didn't say auto-hits (like Orks had), but bonuses to negate the penalties. Like maybe units get bonuses for being near objectives, or for being near characters, or characters can selectively buff target units, or you can pop a command point to buff a unit once per phase, ect, ect, ect.

That said, the bonuses should always be capped so they can never take a unit to a modifer better than their normal to hit roll. The point would be to balance penalties, not buff every army to hitting on 2+.

Considering other games I've played with to-hit mods on d6s (Bolt Action, Mordheim, old-WHFB, Necromunda...) they tend to work best when the to-hit values are usually 3+ or 4+ (which means you'd have to rethink nailing Orks to BS5+) and when the to-hit mods are entirely environmental conditions (range, cover, moving) rather than special rules on units, since making hit-mod special rules on units allows you to stack modifiers much more easily.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Considering other games I've played with to-hit mods on d6s (Bolt Action, Mordheim, old-WHFB, Necromunda...) they tend to work best when the to-hit values are usually 3+ or 4+ (which means you'd have to rethink nailing Orks to BS5+) and when the to-hit mods are entirely environmental conditions (range, cover, moving) rather than special rules on units, since making hit-mod special rules on units allows you to stack modifiers much more easily.

That's largely what I was thinking of myself. I love systems like that, though I get that GW wants to also try and push narrative into the models which may mean we should see other mechanics such as maybe the unit stands still and performs an action to get +1 because they took careful aim for longer ranged shots, or Orks don't suffer pentalties to hit because they're not really aiming anyways (but Grots do because they do try to aim).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
They definitely did not play with modifiers like they should. As long as we have the 6s always hit, we should've been able to go wonky with values instead of silly rules like "you only hit on a 4+ at best", which is fething stupid instead of just saying "-2 to hit in melee".

I think part of the mess was the way they gave modifier access to units via special rules and the like. I feel if it was tied to terrain and positioning it'd be fine (and maybe give it to special rules that have limited usage like smokescreen) but things like the amount of minuses Eldar could stack broke the game.

That said, there should be ways to also add +1 to hit, especially for units that have low BS. Note I didn't say auto-hits (like Orks had), but bonuses to negate the penalties. Like maybe units get bonuses for being near objectives, or for being near characters, or characters can selectively buff target units, or you can pop a command point to buff a unit once per phase, ect, ect, ect.

That said, the bonuses should always be capped so they can never take a unit to a modifer better than their normal to hit roll. The point would be to balance penalties, not buff every army to hitting on 2+.

Positive modifiers to hit should absolutely stack in the same way negative modifiers should. The problem is GW not trying to work with it. I'd argue it was one of the best parts of 8th itself, and that the other main problem is legacy statlines.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
They definitely did not play with modifiers like they should. As long as we have the 6s always hit, we should've been able to go wonky with values instead of silly rules like "you only hit on a 4+ at best", which is fething stupid instead of just saying "-2 to hit in melee".

I think part of the mess was the way they gave modifier access to units via special rules and the like. I feel if it was tied to terrain and positioning it'd be fine (and maybe give it to special rules that have limited usage like smokescreen) but things like the amount of minuses Eldar could stack broke the game.

That said, there should be ways to also add +1 to hit, especially for units that have low BS. Note I didn't say auto-hits (like Orks had), but bonuses to negate the penalties. Like maybe units get bonuses for being near objectives, or for being near characters, or characters can selectively buff target units, or you can pop a command point to buff a unit once per phase, ect, ect, ect.

That said, the bonuses should always be capped so they can never take a unit to a modifer better than their normal to hit roll. The point would be to balance penalties, not buff every army to hitting on 2+.

Positive modifiers to hit should absolutely stack in the same way negative modifiers should. The problem is GW not trying to work with it. I'd argue it was one of the best parts of 8th itself, and that the other main problem is legacy statlines.

I was thinking of positive modifiers being more of a way to negate the negatives than to buff units. To keep them operating at their respective peak, not giving you the ability to buff Guardsmen to a 2+ to hit.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I believe the character durability issue is tied to the lethality issue. As much fun as it would be for a chapter master running around with the same amount of wounds as a squad of Marines, or a Warboss having the wounds count of a horde of boyz, I feel like the game would just skew to compensate.

It sounds like you're describing the phenomenon known as Hero Hammer. They've done this here and there in the past. I think it was 5th edition of Fantasy, a little bit of 2nd edition in 40K.

I'm OK with Look Out Sir!, and I'm OK with Grots shielding a warboss. I can't imagine many people would blink twice at a mechanic for a warboss throwing a grot into the path of a missile to save himself with an order to "Go git dat!". All the new bodyguard rule does is enforce bodyguarding in a better mechanic than Transferring Mortal Wounds.

I think limiting buffs is a mistake. Layering buffs is a great mechanism and I love how, for example in Warmachine, I can use it to make action outcome almost surely a success. It feels like I am owning this success instead of it being dependant on blind luck. It is also satisfying, even when it's overkill, to pull it off, like firing a super powerful weapon you crafted in a video game.

The only thing that can go wrong IMO is if this layering buffs is too easy. Then instead of a success you deserved because you worked for it you get an auto solution on a silver platter. To avoid this you need short ranges, punishing order of activation requirements, extra conditions to satisfy, managing a tightly limited resource or relevant opportunity cost to make the process more demanding when it comes to planning it out. (generally I think building in as many "opportunities for mistake" as possible should be a cornerstone of all game design as it creates this range of skill and experience between players based on how many of these traps they have learned to avoid)

that was definitely 2nd ed 40K. In 5th only a couple characters across every army had more than 3 wounds (it maxed at 4 for marines and it was only 2 or 3 of the named characters) and many characters only had 2.

Cyel wrote:
I think limiting buffs is a mistake. Layering buffs is a great mechanism and I love how, for example in Warmachine, I can use it to make action outcome almost surely a success. It feels like I am owning this success instead of it being dependant on blind luck. It is also satisfying, even when it's overkill, to pull it off, like firing a super powerful weapon you crafted in a video game.

The only thing that can go wrong IMO is if this layering buffs is too easy. Then instead of a success you deserved because you worked for it you get an auto solution on a silver platter. To avoid this you need short ranges, punishing order of activation requirements, extra conditions to satisfy, managing a tightly limited resource or relevant opportunity cost to make the process more demanding when it comes to planning it out. (generally I think building in as many "opportunities for mistake" as possible should be a cornerstone of all game design as it creates this range of skill and experience between players based on how many of these traps they have learned to avoid)

Honestly I've seen how abusive and jank layered buffs can get. I get that some people like them, but I'm less of a fan.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
They definitely did not play with modifiers like they should. As long as we have the 6s always hit, we should've been able to go wonky with values instead of silly rules like "you only hit on a 4+ at best", which is fething stupid instead of just saying "-2 to hit in melee".

I think part of the mess was the way they gave modifier access to units via special rules and the like. I feel if it was tied to terrain and positioning it'd be fine (and maybe give it to special rules that have limited usage like smokescreen) but things like the amount of minuses Eldar could stack broke the game.

That said, there should be ways to also add +1 to hit, especially for units that have low BS. Note I didn't say auto-hits (like Orks had), but bonuses to negate the penalties. Like maybe units get bonuses for being near objectives, or for being near characters, or characters can selectively buff target units, or you can pop a command point to buff a unit once per phase, ect, ect, ect.

That said, the bonuses should always be capped so they can never take a unit to a modifer better than their normal to hit roll. The point would be to balance penalties, not buff every army to hitting on 2+.

Positive modifiers to hit should absolutely stack in the same way negative modifiers should. The problem is GW not trying to work with it. I'd argue it was one of the best parts of 8th itself, and that the other main problem is legacy statlines.

I was thinking of positive modifiers being more of a way to negate the negatives than to buff units. To keep them operating at their respective peak, not giving you the ability to buff Guardsmen to a 2+ to hit.

Infantry should be able to hit on a 2+ in certain circumstances. There's a unit pinned, they got their inspiring Commander nearby, they're on higher ground......it's the perfect storm.

Breton wrote:
I'm OK with Look Out Sir!, and I'm OK with Grots shielding a warboss. I can't imagine many people would blink twice at a mechanic for a warboss throwing a grot into the path of a missile to save himself with an order to "Go git dat!". All the new bodyguard rule does is enforce bodyguarding in a better mechanic than Transferring Mortal Wounds.

Heck, GW has literally stated that this happens in some cases with the LOS rule, in both 40K and Fantasy.