Born soldiers changes

[Honos]

12 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Units that join together share keywords, so as long as a command squad is leading a regiment unit, they lethals.

I can't seem to find that spelled out in the free rules.

[Emperor Ming]

While they do gain the keyword, not all keywords means rules actually work?

 

Otherwise all units characters join, would be characters, which of course is not the case*

 

It confuses the heck out of me. 

 

Unless of course I'm wrong, then that sounds silly to me, were all characters now lads......

Edited June 23 by Emperor Ming

[Minsc]

26 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

While they do gain the keyword, not all keywords means rules actually work?

 

Otherwise all units characters join, would be characters, which of course is not the case

 

It confuses the heck out of me. 

 

Are you sure about that?

I'm pretty sure that if my Librarian joins a unit, the entire unit gains the <Psyker> Keyword, and attacks that are anti-psyker (like Anti-Psyker 2+) would work against the unit even if regular models are killed first, so why wouldn't the opposite be true?

 

Edited June 23 by Minsc

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

11 hours ago, Honos said:

I can't seem to find that spelled out in the free rules.

 

6 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

While they do gain the keyword, not all keywords means rules actually work?

 

Otherwise all units characters join, would be characters, which of course is not the case*

 

It confuses the heck out of me. 

 

Unless of course I'm wrong, then that sounds silly to me, were all characters now lads......

Where in the rules does it say that’s not the case? It very much is the case.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

This is why I say that a unit with a castellan or commissar can embark in a T. Prime. 
as long as the castellan or commissar are alive they get his keywords.

[DemonGSides]

 

I think because it says the it's when the "model from a Regiment UNIT" (emphasis mine), makes a ranged attack, rather than "Each time a MODEL WITH the REGIMENT keyword", though I could see GW clarifying it either way later on.

For now I'm definitely going to push for it to work that way, if for no other reason than to speed up gameplay.  Making we roll command squad separate from their attached infantry is just annoying.

Edited June 24 by DemonGSides

[AutumnEffect]

22 hours ago, Minsc said:

 

Are you sure about that?

I'm pretty sure that if my Librarian joins a unit, the entire unit gains the <Psyker> Keyword, and attacks that are anti-psyker (like Anti-Psyker 2+) would work against the unit even if regular models are killed first, so why wouldn't the opposite be true?

 

 

Yep, that's how it works.

 

Quote

While they do gain the keyword, not all keywords means rules actually work?

 

Otherwise all units characters join, would be characters, which of course is not the case*

 

It confuses the heck out of me. 

 

Unless of course I'm wrong, then that sounds silly to me, were all characters now lads......

 

Kinda.
The unit would have the Character keyword but the models of the bodyguard unit would not.

So for example, if a Leader had the Fly keyword and can move as though it had Fly, each individual model that DOESN'T have Fly moves as though it doesn't have Fly. (Like a Tyranid Prime that's joined a Warrior unit)
And Anti-Fly weapons, because they target the unit would get their bonuses when attacking it.

 

The only special rule I'm aware of (probably more) that keys off of the Character keyword is Precision, but it specifies Character model.

 

I think about it like how every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle a square.

The unit has every keyword of the models in it, but not every model has every keyword of the unit.

 

 

Edited June 24 by AutumnEffect

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Is the failing a natural 1-3 now part of the penalty to hit for indirect?

 

based on the wording I’d say it is, and as a result the scout sentinel should negate that.

[TrawlingCleaner]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Is the failing a natural 1-3 now part of the penalty to hit for indirect?

 

based on the wording I’d say it is, and as a result the scout sentinel should negate that.

 

The Indirect fire rule:

Quote

If no models in a target unit are visible to the attacking unit when you select that target, then each time a model in the attacking unit makes an attack against that target using an Indirect Fire weapon, subtract 1 from that attack’s Hit roll, an unmodified Hit roll of 1-3 always fails, and the target has the Benefit of Cover against that attack

 

And the wording from the Hit Rolls from the Core Rules

Quote

 An unmodified Hit roll of 1 always fails.

 

If you boost your BS to 2+ or 3+ and roll a 2 or a 3, you still automatically fail the roll in the same vein that a roll of an unmodified 1 always fails to hit or wound.

 

Scouts Sentinels seem like good takes if you've got some Indirect Fire Weapons that have a 4+ BS and want to move them around or they don't have Heavy as you can still get them to hit on 4+

Edited July 3 by TrawlingCleaner

[Focslain]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Is the failing a natural 1-3 now part of the penalty to hit for indirect?

 

based on the wording I’d say it is, and as a result the scout sentinel should negate that.

Scout Sentinel's ability states the unit does not suffer the penalty to the To Hit roll (ie the -1), I'm reading the fail on a 1-3 as a different part of the Indirect rule, much like the unit being shot gets cover.  

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

54 minutes ago, TrawlingCleaner said:

 

The Indirect fire rule:

 

And the wording from the Hit Rolls from the Core Rules

 

If you boost your BS to 2+ or 3+ and roll a 2 or a 3, you still automatically fail the roll in the same vein that a roll of an unmodified 1 always fails to hit or wound.

 

Scouts Sentinels seem like good takes if you've got some Indirect Fire Weapons that have a 4+ BS and want to move them around or they don't have Heavy as you can still get them to hit on 4+

The rule says nothing about treating a 2&3 the same as a 1.

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

53 minutes ago, Focslain said:

Scout Sentinel's ability states the unit does not suffer the penalty to the To Hit roll (ie the -1), I'm reading the fail on a 1-3 as a different part of the Indirect rule, much like the unit being shot gets cover.  

Cover doesn’t effect the hit roll at all, that’s why that’s separate. Daring recon is clearly specifically negating the hit penalty.

 

failing on a natural 1-3 is a penalty, ergo is negated by the scout sentinel ability.

 

it’s literally in the same sentence as the -1 to hit.

[DemonGSides]

I understand what you're getting at, but I think the intent is pretty obvious considering when the Scout Sentinel got it's ability, it was only a -1 to hit.

RAW, there's an argument to be had, RAI I think it's pretty obvious they want you to only ever be able to score indirect on 4-6, and the Scout Sentinel ability is to make it so it's not also taking a -1 to hit on top of the 1-3 restriction.

 

I bet it gets FAQ's if it sticks around or the Sentinel gets a rules change. To me it seems thats the intent.

Edited July 3 by DemonGSides

[TrawlingCleaner]

13 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

The rule says nothing about treating a 2&3 the same as a 1.

 

 

 

Maybe I should've highlighted it but the wording is exactly the same for Indirect as it is for normal Hit Rolls:

 

Normal Hit Rolls:

Quote

 An unmodified Hit roll of 1 always fails.

 

Indirect Fire:

Quote

An unmodified Hit roll of 1-3 always fails

 

The Penalty in the Indirect fire equation is the:

Quote

subtract 1 from that attack’s Hit roll

 

[Focslain]

We should have a FAQ on this soonish. Checked for other units that have a rule similar and the SM desolation squad has the ignore penalty rule as well. 

 

Personally going for the 1-3 auto-fail being separate and not a penalty. Just seems like what the RAI was supposed to be. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

25 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

I understand what you're getting at, but I think the intent is pretty obvious considering when the Scout Sentinel got it's ability, it was only a -1 to hit.

RAW, there's an argument to be had, RAI I think it's pretty obvious they want you to only ever be able to score indirect on 4-6, and the Scout Sentinel ability is to make it so it's not also taking a -1 to hit on top of the 1-3 restriction.

 

I bet it gets FAQ's if it sticks around or the Sentinel gets a rules change.  It seems pretty obvious the intent.

The fact that the indirect rule was different when daring recon was written is exactly why the interaction’s intent isn’t clear.

24 minutes ago, TrawlingCleaner said:

 

Maybe I should've highlighted it but the wording is exactly the same for Indirect as it is for normal Hit Rolls:

 

Normal Hit Rolls:

 

Indirect Fire:

 

The Penalty in the Indirect fire equation is the:

 

Again, as the rule is newly worded, the entire thing is the penalty to hit.

[TrawlingCleaner]

10 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

The fact that the indirect rule was different when daring recon was written is exactly why the interaction’s intent isn’t clear.

Again, as the rule is newly worded, the entire thing is the penalty to hit.

 

The ability still works exactly the same though, right? You ignore penalties to hit for firing indirect

Would the Daring Recon ability allow you to hit something on a natural roll of a 1?

[DemonGSides]

57 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

The fact that the indirect rule was different when daring recon was written is exactly why the interaction’s intent isn’t clear.

 

 

Yeah, that's my point.  The rules as is there's some wiggle room to have an argument about it, but I think the intent is VERY clear from GW.

This kind of rules lawyering is a feels bad.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, TrawlingCleaner said:

 

The ability still works exactly the same though, right? You ignore penalties to hit for firing indirect

Would the Daring Recon ability allow you to hit something on a natural roll of a 1?

That’s not a penalty to hit, that’s a core rule, and daring recon says nothing about that core rule, it only covers the penalty to hit as a result from indirect fire.

2 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Yeah, that's my point.  The rules as is there's some wiggle room to have an argument about it, but I think the intent is VERY clear from GW.

This kind of rules lawyering is a feels bad.

The intent isn’t any more clear than the interaction is.

[sairence]

I'd be extremly surprised if the intent was for Scout Sent to still let us hit indirectly better than anyone else. 

 

The aim was to make indirect less "main-damage" for everyone, it's meant to be support, hence the efficiency should be limited. They said as much in the Metawatch video, specifically mentioning Guard as a faction that could too easily get around this.

 

Finally...if you look up the definition of hit roll, it states "a hit roll can never be modified by more than -1 or +1". So "a hit roll of 1-3 always fails" is not a modifier to your roll the way 40k defines it, because it doesn't add or subtract a value from your roll, it instead imposes a separate condition on it.

 

There really is no ambiguity here.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

8 hours ago, sairence said:

I'd be extremly surprised if the intent was for Scout Sent to still let us hit indirectly better than anyone else. 

 

The aim was to make indirect less "main-damage" for everyone, it's meant to be support, hence the efficiency should be limited. They said as much in the Metawatch video, specifically mentioning Guard as a faction that could too easily get around this.

 

Finally...if you look up the definition of hit roll, it states "a hit roll can never be modified by more than -1 or +1". So "a hit roll of 1-3 always fails" is not a modifier to your roll the way 40k defines it, because it doesn't add or subtract a value from your roll, it instead imposes a separate condition on it.

 

There really is no ambiguity here.

I’m pretty sure other factions have a similar special rule somewhere, so it wouldn’t be uniquely strong guard artillery.

 

it also requires investment in a secondary unit to make it good again so it’s not really ‘main damage’ lose your scout sentinel(s) and suddenly your artillery is becomes much less useful. The more redundancy to keep the artillery viable, the more points your sinking into that artillery (think of each sentinel as a destructible enhancement) meaning you now have fewer points for tanks, or infantry.

3 scout sentinels and 3 basalisks is more than 1/4 of your points in a 2k game.

 

9 scout sentinels on their own is more than 1/4 of a 2k list. That plus 3 basalisks is nearly half of a 2k list.

 

killing 3 scout sentinels could realistically happen pretty easily in a single turn, so you are looking at needing 6-9 to ensure your artillery is operating at maximum effectiveness.

 

also, the rule says nothing about hit roll, it says penalty to hit, so your entire section about the hit roll is irrelevant.

Edited July 4 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[sairence]

You do you mate. :)

 

GWs comments in the Metawatch video accompanying the release of the update were pretty explicit and no single TO I'm aware of has ruled it your way. Nothing's stopping you from emailing for an FAQ though.

[mertbl]

I think an elegant solution would be stationary units get lethal against anything it can see. Anything moving only gets current version of born soldiers. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, mertbl said:

I think an elegant solution would be stationary units get lethal against anything it can see. Anything moving only gets current version of born soldiers. 

 devastating wounds against their opposites (infantry-vehicles/monsters, and vehicles-infantry) and lethal hits if stationary against their like targets(how lethals currently work.)

I think would be better, without being OP. Keeps our artillery relevant if GW does FAQ the daring recon interaction against us.

and since so many people are adamant that the game absolutely needs the whole army moving moving every turn apparently, it shouldn’t be too OP.

Edited July 8 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[mertbl]

I think Dev Wounds would be a bit much.