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.

so, the rules for 10e have been out for *checks watch* 3 days? and i think i have the first YMDC of 10th edition:

so, the question goes thusly, as i'm checking to see if i understand the literal sequence of an attack as its written, specifically in relation to an attack with ANTI-CHARACTER and PRECISION abilities:

1)roll to hit
2)roll to wound
3)allocate wound (normally controlling players choice)
4)roll to save
5)take damage.

As i understand the LEADER rule as laid out on page 39 of the 10e core rules, you never roll against the character toughness, but his bodyguards, and they are "treated as a single unit for all rules purposes" . The PRECISION rule (pg 26) lets the attacker allocate the wound to the attached character. ANTI-KEYWORD (X+) grants you automatic critical wound onto targets with the named KEYWORD on a dice roll of X or better.

so, if the attack isn't against the CHARACTER until step 3 of the sequence....ANTI CHARACTER wouldn't kick in to grant improved wound ability, would it? The attack is just hitting the bodyguard unit at step 2 when the wound roll is made, its not an attack against the attached leader specifically until step 3, when the attacker allocates it to the character via PRECISION.

or am i missing something?



edit: as of the the release of the desingers commentary, this interaction has been clarifed. ANTI-X weapons have their ability activate if any model in the unit has the relevant keywords. so, ANTI-CHARACTER would still be in effect.

It doesn’t actually say anywhere what happens if you have a unit where some models have a keyword that others don’t (either from a joined Leader or things like TS Rubricae or IG command squads), but the way quite a few rules/attacks seem to be worded imply that the intent is that as far as incoming attacks are concerned the unit has all of them.

Hopefully an early FAQ will make it clear either way.

From my reading of the Core Rules, we are missing a Rules Glossary that must be in the included in the book and not included for free. Hopefully, this Rules Glossary would clear up many rules issues.

Based on the 9th Edition rules, I expect a unit to count as having all keywords possessed by any models within the unit when being targeted for attacks. This would mean any Attached unit will count as a unit with the Character keyword for the purposes of Anti-Character weapons.

Time will tell. We also need to know simple things like:

If we can go to 0, how do we resolve things involving a 0 Characteristic?

What way do you round numbers when doing math during a game?

Has there been any Anti-Character weapons shown? If there aren't any then this is a moot question.

anyway I'll take a swing at it. Precision weapons let you allocate wounds to the attached Character. Anti-x weapons crit based on the un-modified roll. If I get say 5 4+ Wound Rolls and Anti-Character triggers on a 5+. I allocate all 5 to the attached Character because I can. I roll 2 5+ Wound rolls. Since these are allocated to the Character it triggers the Anti-Character rule and makes them Critical Wounds which trigger associate rules like Devastating Wounds.

The other 3 Wounds are normal but still only target the Character. These will only wound if I can beat the T of the Bodyguard unit. In total I would have, assuming wounding on 4+, 3 armor saves and 2 Devastating Wounds all allocated to the attached Character.

BomBomHotdog wrote:
Has there been any Anti-Character weapons shown?

Yes - Eldrad possess an anti-character attack.

BomBomHotdog wrote:
Has there been any Anti-Character weapons shown? If there aren't any then this is a moot question.

anyway I'll take a swing at it. Precision weapons let you allocate wounds to the attached Character. Anti-x weapons crit based on the un-modified roll. If I get say 5 4+ Wound Rolls and Anti-Character triggers on a 5+. I allocate all 5 to the attached Character because I can. I roll 2 5+ Wound rolls. Since these are allocated to the Character it triggers the Anti-Character rule and makes them Critical Wounds which trigger associate rules like Devastating Wounds.

The other 3 Wounds are normal but still only target the Character. These will only wound if I can beat the T of the Bodyguard unit. In total I would have, assuming wounding on 4+, 3 armor saves and 2 Devastating Wounds all allocated to the attached Character.

Precision doesn't kick in until after you have rolled To Wound. Thus this analysis is simply incorrect.

The big question is does an Attached Unit count as having the Character Keyword. If it does, then Anti-Character applies. If not, it is a very niche weapon ability.

A single unit has all the keywords of all its models. Therefore an attached unit has the CHARACTER keyword and is affected by ANTI CHARACTER.

While a Bodyguard unit contains a Leader, it is
known as an Attached unit and, with the exception
of rules that are triggered when units are destroyed
(pg 12), it is treated as a single unit for all rules
purposes.

Btw, its not the first YMDC question.

 p5freak wrote:
A single unit has all the keywords of all its models. Therefore an attached unit has the CHARACTER keyword and is affected by ANTI CHARACTER.

While a Bodyguard unit contains a Leader, it is
known as an Attached unit and, with the exception
of rules that are triggered when units are destroyed
(pg 12), it is treated as a single unit for all rules
purposes.

Btw, its not the first YMDC question.

Conversely, as I discussed in the 10th thread, this wouldn't extend deepstrike to a model joining a deepstrike unit seemingly.

 p5freak wrote:
A single unit has all the keywords of all its models. Therefore an attached unit has the CHARACTER keyword and is affected by ANTI CHARACTER.

While a Bodyguard unit contains a Leader, it is
known as an Attached unit and, with the exception
of rules that are triggered when units are destroyed
(pg 12), it is treated as a single unit for all rules
purposes.

Btw, its not the first YMDC question.

That quote doesn’t back up your assertion, you know? It doesn’t state what you say it states. In fact, other areas of the rules such as Deep Strike go against it.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A single unit has all the keywords of all its models. Therefore an attached unit has the CHARACTER keyword and is affected by ANTI CHARACTER.

While a Bodyguard unit contains a Leader, it is
known as an Attached unit and, with the exception
of rules that are triggered when units are destroyed
(pg 12), it is treated as a single unit for all rules
purposes.

Btw, its not the first YMDC question.

That quote doesn’t back up your assertion, you know? It doesn’t state what you say it states. In fact, other areas of the rules such as Deep Strike go against it.

An attached unit may have a character which doesnt have deep strike. If so, the unit cant deep strike. I dont see how this goes against what i said, or what the quote says.

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A single unit has all the keywords of all its models. Therefore an attached unit has the CHARACTER keyword and is affected by ANTI CHARACTER.

While a Bodyguard unit contains a Leader, it is
known as an Attached unit and, with the exception
of rules that are triggered when units are destroyed
(pg 12), it is treated as a single unit for all rules
purposes.

Btw, its not the first YMDC question.

That quote doesn’t back up your assertion, you know? It doesn’t state what you say it states. In fact, other areas of the rules such as Deep Strike go against it.

An attached unit may have a character which doesnt have deep strike. If so, the unit cant deep strike. I dont see how this goes against what i said, or what the quote says.

Reverse the logic, if the character being a character gives the unit the character rule, as they're "treated as a single unit for all rules purposes", then conversely wouldn't the unit having the deepstrike word mean the attached character also gets it applied?

I've been led to think the answer would be no, so conversely the unit doesn't also count as a character/psyker etc. so those rules can only kick in if you're targeting one directly.

I think it'd warrant a FAQ to just clarify the interactions though.

Dudeface wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A single unit has all the keywords of all its models. Therefore an attached unit has the CHARACTER keyword and is affected by ANTI CHARACTER.

While a Bodyguard unit contains a Leader, it is
known as an Attached unit and, with the exception
of rules that are triggered when units are destroyed
(pg 12), it is treated as a single unit for all rules
purposes.

Btw, its not the first YMDC question.

That quote doesn’t back up your assertion, you know? It doesn’t state what you say it states. In fact, other areas of the rules such as Deep Strike go against it.

An attached unit may have a character which doesnt have deep strike. If so, the unit cant deep strike. I dont see how this goes against what i said, or what the quote says.

Reverse the logic, if the character being a character gives the unit the character rule, as they're "treated as a single unit for all rules purposes", then conversely wouldn't the unit having the deepstrike word mean the attached character also gets it applied?

I've been led to think the answer would be no, so conversely the unit doesn't also count as a character/psyker etc. so those rules can only kick in if you're targeting one directly.

I think it'd warrant a FAQ to just clarify the interactions though.

There’s a difference between rules/abilities and keywords though.

Deep Strike (and Leader) are rules/abilities.

CHARACTER, PSYKER, etc are keywords.

Seems clear that rules/abilities don’t transfer (except where otherwise stated). It’s not clear what is supposed to happen with keywords, though a number of rules appear to have been written assuming they do.

It’s very clear that the whole unit doesn’t get CHARACTER, or the Leader and Precision rules wouldn’t be written as they are.

There’s no rule stating that Keywords transfer, and several elements of evidence to the contrary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:
Has there been any Anti-Character weapons shown?

Yes - Eldrad possess an anti-character attack.

That power also has Precision to allow you to target the Character in a unit and blat them. So it has its own solution built in.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s very clear that the whole unit doesn’t get CHARACTER, or the Leader and Precision rules wouldn’t be written as they are.

There’s no rule stating that Keywords transfer, and several elements of evidence to the contrary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

BomBomHotdog wrote:
Has there been any Anti-Character weapons shown?

Yes - Eldrad possess an anti-character attack.

That power also has Precision to allow you to target the Character in a unit and blat them. So it has its own solution built in.

Precision doesn’t target the character until damage is allocated - I.e. after to-wound rolls are made. So if keywords don’t transfer then the anti-character ability has no effect against embedded characters, only unattached ones.

There are a few things that could imply keywords are intended to transfer.

Eldrad’s mindwar is one. Guard command squads attaching as a unit despite only one model being a character is another. Plus some of the things related to psykers.

But it’s not stated and tb( GW could rule it either way.

Interesting, good spot!

I think this one is a genuine enquiry.

Its possible to imagine for example that the Anti-Character aspect of Mind War would only apply when Eldrad targets an unattached character. Its probably not what I'd consider the obvious response - but if you assume the bodyguard are somehow getting in the way (like a bodyguard), it sort of makes sense?

But I could also see "if you target a unit containing a character then the rule applies" - which is what I'd say would be the obvious reading.

That is how it works in 9th. The problem is that part of the rules is missing from the 10th Core Rules.

 alextroy wrote:
That is how it works in 9th. The problem is that part of the rules is missing from the 10th Core Rules.

That does seem to be the case. Perhaps there's a glossary or designer's commentary that clears up these sort of interactions. It's quite a big oversight either way as it seems like keyword interactions should really have been fully defined in the core rules.

Tyel wrote:
I think this one is a genuine enquiry.

Its possible to imagine for example that the Anti-Character aspect of Mind War would only apply when Eldrad targets an unattached character. Its probably not what I'd consider the obvious response - but if you assume the bodyguard are somehow getting in the way (like a bodyguard), it sort of makes sense?

But I could also see "if you target a unit containing a character then the rule applies" - which is what I'd say would be the obvious reading.

see, that interpretation would mean that a squad of terminators with an attached Libarian would be getting wounded on easily by ANTI-PSYKER weapons, even though the terminators are not psykers. If that is what they intend, it significantly devalues bodyguards, and makes LONE OPERATIVES much more desirable.

I definatly think this is something that must be covered in the 10th ed version of the "rare rules" section, or one of the early FAQs, but its intresting to see how people have different interpretations of it.

The PRECISION keyword doesn't allocate wounds. It allocates attacks. The PRECISION ability states "When targeting an Attached unit, the attacking model's player can have the attack allocated to a CHARACTER model in that unit visible to the bearer." So you simply select the CHARACTER in the unit as the target.

 SirHappy wrote:
10e Core Rules, pg 39, subsection 'Leader', paragraph 3
"While a Bodyguard unit contains a Leader, it is known as an Attached unit and, with the exception of rules that are triggered when units are destroyed, it is treated as a single unit for all rules purposes."
Therefore, if a CHARACTER model is in a unit, thus an Attached Unit, then the unit has the CHARACTER keyword until the CHARCTER model leaves or is destroyed.
PRECISION simply lets you bypass the rule stating that 'wounds cannot be allocated to a CHARACTER model' as stated further in the same paragraph. In fact, it is worded specifically this way so as to show the significance of the PRECISION ability.

Which takes us back to, how do you feel this interact with rules on the unit the character has joined and vice versa?

Because if you're going to apply keywords across both because "with the exception of rules that are triggered when units are destroyed, it is treated as a single unit for all rules purposes." Then how does a rule that applies to the unit not also apply to the Attached character. Deepatrike is the unfortunate case I keep picking on, but if you treat all models in the unit as having the same rules, how does the limitation of the per model basis of deepstrike come to pass?

Same might be true of any rules that target things with other special rules, although I don't know if we have examples of this outside of keywords yet?

Which takes us back to, how do you feel this interact with rules on the unit the character has joined and vice versa?

Because if you're going to apply keywords across both because "with the exception of rules that are triggered when units are destroyed, it is treated as a single unit for all rules purposes." Then how does a rule that applies to the unit not also apply to the Attached character. Deepatrike is the unfortunate case I keep picking on, but if you treat all models in the unit as having the same rules, how does the limitation of the per model basis of deepstrike come to pass?

Same might be true of any rules that target things with other special rules, although I don't know if we have examples of this outside of keywords yet?

I've edited my response. The PRECISION keyword allocates attacks, not wounds. "When targeting an Attached unit, the attacking model's player can have the attack allocated to a CHARACTER model in that unit visible to the bearer."

So, in conclusion, when attacking with a weapon with the PRECISION keyword, you select the Attached unit as the target of the attack, but you allocate the attack to the CHARACTER model.

 SirHappy wrote:

Which takes us back to, how do you feel this interact with rules on the unit the character has joined and vice versa?

Because if you're going to apply keywords across both because "with the exception of rules that are triggered when units are destroyed, it is treated as a single unit for all rules purposes." Then how does a rule that applies to the unit not also apply to the Attached character. Deepatrike is the unfortunate case I keep picking on, but if you treat all models in the unit as having the same rules, how does the limitation of the per model basis of deepstrike come to pass?

Same might be true of any rules that target things with other special rules, although I don't know if we have examples of this outside of keywords yet?

I've edited my response. The PRECISION keyword allocates attacks, not wounds. "When targeting an Attached unit, the attacking model's player can have the attack allocated to a CHARACTER model in that unit visible to the bearer."

So, in conclusion, when attacking with a weapon with the PRECISION keyword, you select the Attached unit as the target of the attack, but you allocate the attack to the CHARACTER model.

You’ve taken the summary rather than the actual rule there and the actual rule takes primacy. The rule is as follows:

10th Ed Core Rules wrote:Weapons with [PRECISION] in their profile are known as Precision weapons. Each time an attack made with such a weapon successfully wounds an Attached unit (pg 39), if a Character model in that unit is visible
to the attacking model, the attacking model’s player can choose to have that attack allocated to that Character model instead of following the normal attack sequence.

(emphasis mine)

Precision does not get allocated to a Character until after a successful to-wound roll - I.e. after the point at which ‘anti-character’ is relevant.

Deep Strike is not a Keyword. It’s a special rule.
They are not the same.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Deep Strike is not a Keyword. It’s a special rule.
They are not the same.

The only provision I can see for any interactions of rules or keywords falls under "it is treated as a single unit for all rules purposes" on page 39 for leaders.

I can't see any written definition that says that either unit rules or keywords behave differently, happy to be wrong though, but it feels like people are applying common sense/historic rules rather than sticking to the rules as written. To me you either apply both keywords and rules both ways or you apply neither both ways.

This seems quite easy by RAW. For an attached character you go through the hit phase long before precision kicks in and then you miss the anti character rule.

For RAI they need an FAQ.

It is worth noting that it might be working as intended already. There are many characters that do not join bodyguard units.

You can’t RAW the rule because the Core Rules alone do not tell you how to adjudicate keywords when all models of the unit do not have the keyword.

so, Goonhammer, who clearly have had early access to the rules, mentioned in thier admech review that keywords do, in fact, propagate out to the whole unit, and specifcally mention that a unit led by psykers gets increased vulnerability to [anti-psychic] attacks.

I don;t know where they are getting thier certainty form, but my guess is they had had eyes on some form of "rare rules" or designers commentary that they cant yet explictly mention because of NDA clauses.

I will admit i was wrong if this does prove to be the case

There are some very weird interactions if keywords spread to the unit, so I could see it going either way.

Also if they are meant to be spread around, then why some datasheets bother to assign different keywords to different models within the unit? For example the Traitor Enforcer.

Because if particular models die, those keywords go with them.

For example, if snipers kill the Platoon Commander out of a Platoon Command Squad, the unit is no longer a Character nor an Officer unit.