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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The leading character hint is probably just them returning to pre-8th ed embedded characters.

Which is great, because the 8th and 9th ed characters were stupid and clunky as hell.

Absolutely not. Characters attached to units was one of the single worst aspects of 3rd-7th since all other did was encourage death stars moreso than 8th worst "death stars". On top of that, it's characters forgetting they're leading an army, not just that one single squad.

The mission design of 9th Ed makes deathstars a lot less valuable than other editions.

Sure, you can pile all your characters into a star unit and then pump them up with all your relics and WLTs and stratagems to make them as powerful as possible. You could do this in 9th just fine, since characters weren't targetable as long as they stayed in the middle of a friendly unit.

But it's not a game-winning strategy if the opponent can pick apart the remainder of your army and take the three or four objectives your deathstar can't hold.

I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".

 jaredb wrote:
I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".

That's a significant distinction. It could also be poor wording on the part of GW. My big concern is that I still think there are too many variables for GW to manage and balance. We'll see how it pans out.

I'm really hoping we're not going back to deathstars. Time will tell.

The army abilities are concerning to me. I could see this easily causing a large imbalance in the game if GW isn't careful. If they get too "fluffy" with these abilities.... I think it could be bad.

 jaredb wrote:
I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".

The fact that nids get a rule called "Precise" when critically hitting character units practically says that characters are inside units.

It all comes down to character design. If you can't stuff multiple characters in a unit and their abilities only affect the unit they're in then you have to make some hard choices instead of having a collection of characters just flinging buffs.

Spoletta wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".

The fact that nids get a rule called "Precise" when critically hitting character units practically says that characters are inside units.

Or it could just be a USR for the 'ignore Look Out Sir' rule.

I wouldn't be opposed to them turning aura abilities into 'affects a single unit within 2"' and otherwise keeping how characters work the same as 9th, rather than actually joining units. Six of one, half dozen of the other as far as tabletop effect is concerned.

Spoletta wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".

The fact that nids get a rule called "Precise" when critically hitting character units practically says that characters are inside units.

I mean, there's a lot of different wibbly ways this could go.

We would have to know what the [ Precision ] keyword does.It might let them bypass Cover Saves, ignore negative Hit modifiers(since it counts Critical Hits--which we already know are rolls of natural 6s-- as those Precision Hits), or even things which might negate Critical Hits(IE: a "critical defense" trait).

Personal guess is that the "unit" part after Character is simply to note the Character element is what triggers that trait.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".

The fact that nids get a rule called "Precise" when critically hitting character units practically says that characters are inside units.

I mean, there's a lot of different wibbly ways this could go.

We would have to know what the [ Precision ] keyword does.It might let them bypass Cover Saves, ignore negative Hit modifiers(since it counts Critical Hits--which we already know are rolls of natural 6s-- as those Precision Hits), or even things which might negate Critical Hits(IE: a "critical defense" trait).

Personal guess is that the "unit" part after Character is simply to note the Character element is what triggers that trait.

We know that it is an anti character rule.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The allocation rules will determine how clumsy it will be. Majority toughness is no big deal and if you still need to allocate to the wounded unit then you're taking saves for that model rather than a unit wide average save.

Honestly I don't understand why it created such consternation in the first place.

When it was all the same toughness, you applied wounding hits at 1 per model until everyone had at least one hit on them before looping around. When there were different toughnesses you just did the same, but with hits, then rolled to wound.

Why it became "Every hit piles on the first guy you pick until he dies, then you move onto the next guy!" I will never know.

Two Words: Nob Bikers.

I too remember back in the day where hits were divided over the unit by like models (name and equipment) and those models then saved together. Then Nob Bikers rolled into town with every model is equipped differently and had multiple Wounds. The unit could lose half its wounds without losing a single model!

Better might be going back to 4th where all wounds were saved by the unit with models removed by the owner, except for every multiple Wounds of the unit size (unit of 5 models take 5/10/15... Wounds) the attacker could say, "make that model take a save". If the model failed its save, it took the wound and often died since it only had one. Made it so that the Squad Leader, Special Weapon, and Heavy Weapon were not always the last three models remaining in the 10 model unit.

jaredb wrote:I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".

Could be a little of both.

If a character has to lead a unit, maybe only one character can be added to a unit. When that character is leading a unit, it provides that unit a bonus.

This doesn't stop a character from having either aura or directed abilities that impact units it is not leading.

Spoletta wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".

The fact that nids get a rule called "Precise" when critically hitting character units practically says that characters are inside units.

I wonder if Precise may be a way of targeting characters while they lead a unit or models within a unit? Wouldn't it be awesome if Sniper Rifles had a chance to Snipe?

Spoletta wrote:

Spoiler:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".

The fact that nids get a rule called "Precise" when critically hitting character units practically says that characters are inside units.

I mean, there's a lot of different wibbly ways this could go.

We would have to know what the [ Precision ] keyword does.It might let them bypass Cover Saves, ignore negative Hit modifiers(since it counts Critical Hits--which we already know are rolls of natural 6s-- as those Precision Hits), or even things which might negate Critical Hits(IE: a "critical defense" trait).

Personal guess is that the "unit" part after Character is simply to note the Character element is what triggers that trait.

We know that it is an anti character rule.

I understand this. That is why I made the "personal guess" that I did.
Here's the specific element from GW:

It does not say "an enemy unit containing a character".
It says "an enemy Character unit".

It's entirely possible that they're implementing a Middle Earth/Warmahordes styled "warband" system where a character gets to "lead" X amount of units.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Spoiler:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
I feel that the choice of words of 'lead squads' instead of 'join squads' is significant. Maybe there are abilities which a character grants a squad they are near, instead of actually joining. Like Aura abilities being like 1", instead of 6".

The fact that nids get a rule called "Precise" when critically hitting character units practically says that characters are inside units.

I mean, there's a lot of different wibbly ways this could go.

We would have to know what the [ Precision ] keyword does.It might let them bypass Cover Saves, ignore negative Hit modifiers(since it counts Critical Hits--which we already know are rolls of natural 6s-- as those Precision Hits), or even things which might negate Critical Hits(IE: a "critical defense" trait).

Personal guess is that the "unit" part after Character is simply to note the Character element is what triggers that trait.

We know that it is an anti character rule.

I understand this. That is why I made the "personal guess" that I did.
Here's the specific element from GW:

Spoiler:

It does not say "an enemy unit containing a character".
It says "an enemy Character unit".

It's entirely possible that they're implementing a Middle Earth/Warmahordes styled "warband" system where a character gets to "lead" X amount of units.

Ah, good catch on the wording. Yeah, it definitely reads like Characters are still separate to units.

Or that a unit gains the character keyword if a char joins it.

 alextroy wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The allocation rules will determine how clumsy it will be. Majority toughness is no big deal and if you still need to allocate to the wounded unit then you're taking saves for that model rather than a unit wide average save.

Honestly I don't understand why it created such consternation in the first place.

When it was all the same toughness, you applied wounding hits at 1 per model until everyone had at least one hit on them before looping around. When there were different toughnesses you just did the same, but with hits, then rolled to wound.

Why it became "Every hit piles on the first guy you pick until he dies, then you move onto the next guy!" I will never know.

Two Words: Nob Bikers.

I too remember back in the day where hits were divided over the unit by like models (name and equipment) and those models then saved together. Then Nob Bikers rolled into town with every model is equipped differently and had multiple Wounds. The unit could lose half its wounds without losing a single model!

Yah. That was incredibly dumb, and one of the major problems with 5th edition.

I still don't know why 5th changed 4th's wound allocation system.

Spoletta wrote:
Or that a unit gains the character keyword if a char joins it.

Characters are considered units.

Captain
Unit size 1 model
Unit cost 85 pts
• Jump pack+25 pts
• Thunder hammer +10 pts

That's copy/pasted directly from the Munitorum Field Manual for this year.

I just feel like it would be incredibly weird for them to have brought back Guard Command Squads as a thing if they were just going to throw the ability to join a unit back into the mix.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The allocation rules will determine how clumsy it will be. Majority toughness is no big deal and if you still need to allocate to the wounded unit then you're taking saves for that model rather than a unit wide average save.

Honestly I don't understand why it created such consternation in the first place.

When it was all the same toughness, you applied wounding hits at 1 per model until everyone had at least one hit on them before looping around. When there were different toughnesses you just did the same, but with hits, then rolled to wound.

Why it became "Every hit piles on the first guy you pick until he dies, then you move onto the next guy!" I will never know.

Well imagine say 3 wound unit. Every model takes 1-2 wounds. Then you start actually losing models.

Sounds fun? Imagine wound tracking what a fun.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The leading character hint is probably just them returning to pre-8th ed embedded characters.

Which is great, because the 8th and 9th ed characters were stupid and clunky as hell.

Absolutely not. Characters attached to units was one of the single worst aspects of 3rd-7th since all other did was encourage death stars moreso than 8th worst "death stars". On top of that, it's characters forgetting they're leading an army, not just that one single squad.

Given the context of Hive Predators, I can't see it being an ability that is normally triggered by a Critical Hit nor apply only to Characters. If that was the case, it would just be granted to units rather than being granted upon a Critical Hit. This strongly implies that it is an ability that is useful for a Character unit that isn't just a single Character model.

Currently, a unit is considered to have all the keywords of all the models within it, so a Character unit can easily be a unit that includes one or more Character models. Perhaps leads is the new rules terminology for characters joining units, one you would hope informs the other rules around leading. We have certainly seen a number of character models in otherwise non-character units in the last few codexes (Cadian/Platoon Command Squad, Dark Commune).

My conjecture is it is a rule that allows you to single out a model within a unit to be hit from an attack, although it could only apply to character models leading a unit and Hive Predators is just limiting the impact of giving all attacks the rule by requiring a Critical Hit first.

It was just rules stacking. Take a unit with say 8-10 characters (half of which are psykers) plus some other stuff. Give it invisibility so it can only be hit on 6s (and not targeted at all with templates). Give it FNP from Endurance (I think?). Stack in Ravenwing with their buffs so you have rerollable 2++ jink save. Chaplain or something in there so the whole unit rerolls hits in melee etc. You had the Bark Bark Star which did this with masses of Fenrisian Wolves to provide meat and footprint etc.

Flash forward, you have a superfast unit which is almost impossible to hurt. It just runs around the table eating stuff for most of the game until its time to go sit on objectives. (See Nob Bikers for a similar thing half a decade or so earlier.)

As Catbarf said - partly this is a function of how scoring worked - both in regular 40k and ITC. It might not apply in 10th.

Ultimately given how trigger happy GW get with "lists that do not conform to how we imagine armies" these days, you feel they'd quickly nerf them if character blobs became a staple again. But I kind of hope if they do let characters join/lead units, they just limit it so only one character can do so at a time.

 Insectum7 wrote:
And then, was it 6th where the model in front took the wounds? So you had some tank character up front shrugging off wounds for the whole squad? That was ***t too.

Yeah, that was in 6th.

Also, not only could you have a character up front tanking wounds, but because LoS existed you could pretty much cherry-pick which wounds they took.

So if a character had a 2+ save, you could use them to tank small-arms fire, but then allocate wounds with AP2 or Instant Death to ordnary squad members instead.

Tyel wrote:


Ultimately given how trigger happy GW get with "lists that do not conform to how we imagine armies" these days, you feel they'd quickly nerf them if character blobs became a staple again. But I kind of hope if they do let characters join/lead units, they just limit it so only one character can do so at a time.

It should have always been one character, imo.
Stuffing a unit full of characters felt wrong to me. Dawn of War did it best, oddly enough.

 alextroy wrote:
Two Words: Nob Bikers.

I too remember back in the day where hits were divided over the unit by like models (name and equipment) and those models then saved together. Then Nob Bikers rolled into town with every model is equipped differently and had multiple Wounds. The unit could lose half its wounds without losing a single model!

Yeah, and in 3rd Ed it was't like that (and you couldn't only kill what was in range and that could be seen). Page 25 of the 5th Ed rulebook created the stupidity you're talking about, and it didn't need to be.

tneva82 wrote:
Well imagine say 3 wound unit. Every model takes 1-2 wounds. Then you start actually losing models.

Sounds fun? Imagine wound tracking what a fun.

'Cept you had to remove whole models first, and couldn't have multiple wounded models in a unit.

It seriously was't that hard.

GW has been adjusting wound allocation it seems every edition in an effort to fix the problems caused by their prior fix. First the fixed Rhino Scoping and intention range limiting. Then they had to fix the Nob Biker phenomenon. Then they had to fix the character shield. And so on and so forth.

Hopefully, they have worked hard to create a way for character to lead units that doesn't recreate the problems seen in the last 5 editions.

I imagine that "leading units", like others have said, will be giving targeted buffs while at close range to a friendly unit, but not actually being in that unit.

Characters joining units is cool and sometimes very thematic, but it creates a lot of rules wonkiness unless you make the rule that allows it absolute word salad.

Two Words: Nob Bikers.

I too remember back in the day where hits were divided over the unit by like models (name and equipment) and those models then saved together. Then Nob Bikers rolled into town with every model is equipped differently and had multiple Wounds. The unit could lose half its wounds without losing a single model!

Better might be going back to 4th where all wounds were saved by the unit with models removed by the owner, except for every multiple Wounds of the unit size (unit of 5 models take 5/10/15... Wounds) the attacker could say, "make that model take a save". If the model failed its save, it took the wound and often died since it only had one. Made it so that the Squad Leader, Special Weapon, and Heavy Weapon were not always the last three models remaining in the 10 model unit

This is one of the fixes we house ruled when we went back to playing our 5th ed games- 4th edition wound allocation-

rolls to wound are based on majority toughness and armor saves on majority saves, casualties are chosen by the owning player. wounded models must be removed first- simple and easy.

The issue with the leaders, special and heavy weapons...they will always be the last because in the lore the guy with a bolter will sling it and pick up that more important plasma gun if the guy with it goes down.

 alextroy wrote:
Two Words: Nob Bikers.

I too remember back in the day where hits were divided over the unit by like models (name and equipment) and those models then saved together. Then Nob Bikers rolled into town with every model is equipped differently and had multiple Wounds. The unit could lose half its wounds without losing a single model!

Better might be going back to 4th where all wounds were saved by the unit with models removed by the owner, except for every multiple Wounds of the unit size (unit of 5 models take 5/10/15... Wounds) the attacker could say, "make that model take a save". If the model failed its save, it took the wound and often died since it only had one. Made it so that the Squad Leader, Special Weapon, and Heavy Weapon were not always the last three models remaining in the 10 model unit.

Having faced Nob Bikers a lot back in the day, I never considered it much of an issue.

They could soak wounds pretty well but it hardly made them invincible. Especially when you consider how many points they cost. If my friend's army was anything to go by, you'd end up with something like 80-90% of your points invested into just 12 models.

Same thing with GK Paladins. Sure, they can make use of wound-allocation rules but they also cost an absolute ton of points.

 aphyon wrote:

Two Words: Nob Bikers.

I too remember back in the day where hits were divided over the unit by like models (name and equipment) and those models then saved together. Then Nob Bikers rolled into town with every model is equipped differently and had multiple Wounds. The unit could lose half its wounds without losing a single model!

Better might be going back to 4th where all wounds were saved by the unit with models removed by the owner, except for every multiple Wounds of the unit size (unit of 5 models take 5/10/15... Wounds) the attacker could say, "make that model take a save". If the model failed its save, it took the wound and often died since it only had one. Made it so that the Squad Leader, Special Weapon, and Heavy Weapon were not always the last three models remaining in the 10 model unit

This is one of the fixes we house ruled when we went back to playing our 5th ed games- 4th edition wound allocation-

rolls to wound are based on majority toughness and armor saves on majority saves, casualties are chosen by the owning player. wounded models must be removed first- simple and easy.

The issue with the leaders, special and heavy weapons...they will always be the last because in the lore the guy with a bolter will sling it and pick up that more important plasma gun if the guy with it goes down.

Doesn't sound like a good solution, and slows down the game considerably.

If you have a unit with mixed toughness and saves, you have to resolve the attacks one at a time because depending on which casualties are pulled, the majority save and toughness may change. Also, it allows a player to save on an high save and remove models with the bad save. Doesn't sound fair.
No, honestly the 9th edition system so far is the one with less issues.

Spoletta wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Two Words: Nob Bikers.

I too remember back in the day where hits were divided over the unit by like models (name and equipment) and those models then saved together. Then Nob Bikers rolled into town with every model is equipped differently and had multiple Wounds. The unit could lose half its wounds without losing a single model!

Better might be going back to 4th where all wounds were saved by the unit with models removed by the owner, except for every multiple Wounds of the unit size (unit of 5 models take 5/10/15... Wounds) the attacker could say, "make that model take a save". If the model failed its save, it took the wound and often died since it only had one. Made it so that the Squad Leader, Special Weapon, and Heavy Weapon were not always the last three models remaining in the 10 model unit

This is one of the fixes we house ruled when we went back to playing our 5th ed games- 4th edition wound allocation-

rolls to wound are based on majority toughness and armor saves on majority saves, casualties are chosen by the owning player. wounded models must be removed first- simple and easy.

The issue with the leaders, special and heavy weapons...they will always be the last because in the lore the guy with a bolter will sling it and pick up that more important plasma gun if the guy with it goes down.

Doesn't sound like a good solution, and slows down the game considerably.

If you have a unit with mixed toughness and saves, you have to resolve the attacks one at a time because depending on which casualties are pulled, the majority save and toughness may change. Also, it allows a player to save on an high save and remove models with the bad save. Doesn't sound fair.
No, honestly the 9th edition system so far is the one with less issues.

Hahahahahah

Oh wait you're serious

Hahahah hahahahahahaha

4th edition was a fast-rolling only edition. You calculated the majority toughness and majority save once for a single unit's shooting and rolled that. The end.

How does 9th's rules handle a unit with 3+ saves, 5+ saves, and some models T9 and some T5?

You choose the model that takes the safe, and have to role one by one until it's dread. Then you choose the next. If all profiles match, than you can fast roll.

I thinks it's better personally, only thing missing is that once no units are in line of sight of the attacker, the attack sequence ends and any left over attacks are lost.

Brickfix wrote:
You choose the model that takes the safe, and have to role one by one until it's dread. Then you choose the next. If all profiles match, than you can fast roll.

I thinks it's better personally, only thing missing is that once no units are in line of sight of the attacker, the attack sequence ends and any left over attacks are lost.

You had better decide before you wound, too.

A unit that is both T5/6+ and T4/4+ is an exciting unit isn't it, in 9th.