Co-founder of Frontline Gaming, and creator of the ITC, Reece Robbins has been a pillar of the tabletop community for over two decades. From developing Blood Throne to launching industry-leading hobby products and major events like the LVO, his career is defined by innovation and a lifelong passion for gaming since the 80s. Today, he remains a very active community organizer and business leader dedicated to the growth of the hobby.
And they couldn’t be bothered to clarify whether the blast hit minimums apply per die or or weapon. IE does a 2d6 blast weapon make a minimum of 3 attacks or 6.
They did, just in a weird spot right above the start of the errata in the core update.
“Designer’s Note: In addition to the errata below, we wanted to
briefly add an additional example to explain how the Blast rule
works when shooting a weapon that requires more than one dice
roll to determine its number of attacks. For example, if a Heavy
2D3 weapon with the Blast rule targets a unit that has 6 or more
models, and you roll a double 1 to determine how many attacks are
made, that result is less than 3 and so that weapon makes 3 attacks
against that target. If the same weapon targets a unit that has 11 or
more models, that weapon makes six attacks against that unit.”
What was the change to Look Out Sir intended to fix? From some of the comments, people seem to be suggesting that it was because a group of vehicle/monster characters could shield each other. I can’t see how that would be the case because the rule also specified that characters with 9 wounds or less are ignored.
What am I missing? What was the abuse this was designed to curtail?
Seems to hit certain armies really hard like harlequins,who don’t really have vehicles with 10+ wounds.
The old version of the rule did not have the clause about less than nine wounds. So two Daemon Princes next to each other (but not within 3″ of any other models) could shield each other, as long as there was another unit closer to the enemy.
Under the old rule, characters of 9 or less wounds were not ignored or even mentioned in the basic look-out-sir 3” rule.
There was a unique exception where even the 3” rule no longer applies (if the character was the closest). For checking the condition for this exception to the basic 3” look out sir rule only(!), characters of 9 wounds or less were ignored.
So am errata was indeed needed to stop mutually protecting Daemonprinces of Talonmasters (ideally perhaps adding the same exception noted above to the 3” look out sir rule).
Instead, they went full bore and made Venoms, Talos, Ridgerunners, Sentinels, Carnifex, etc.. irrelevant for character-protection
Not a fan of the change to fortifications. They were often a marginal inclusion already and their size, combined with the recommended terrain density, makes it virtually impossible to place a fort in most setups.
They might add faction-specific terrain, but codex units like the Tyranid Sporocyst took a big hit. Is there any other faction that have fortifications that are also unit entrys in the codex?
This seems like a ham-fisted way of fixing the daemon prince character problem. A lot of squishier armies get screwed by this change without any justification, it doesn’t feel like it was thought through properly. Dark Eldar, Harlequins, and even some Nid builds get punished by this new rule, with very few options for protecting their characters now.
They just needed to add a second clause to the section about ignoring other character models when determining if a character is the closest target. “Ignore monsters and vehicles with the character keyword and 9 or less wounds when determining if it is within 3″ of friendly vehicle or monster”.
Was a little bummed out they didn’t fix the Chaos Whip errata from Engine War. They were able to shoot into combat before. It was a super niche event but it was fun to do. The same rules exist in Codex Chaos Daemons and Codex Chaos Space Marines.
And they couldn’t be bothered to clarify whether the blast hit minimums apply per die or or weapon. IE does a 2d6 blast weapon make a minimum of 3 attacks or 6.
They did, just in a weird spot right above the start of the errata in the core update.
“Designer’s Note: In addition to the errata below, we wanted to
briefly add an additional example to explain how the Blast rule
works when shooting a weapon that requires more than one dice
roll to determine its number of attacks. For example, if a Heavy
2D3 weapon with the Blast rule targets a unit that has 6 or more
models, and you roll a double 1 to determine how many attacks are
made, that result is less than 3 and so that weapon makes 3 attacks
against that target. If the same weapon targets a unit that has 11 or
more models, that weapon makes six attacks against that unit.”
Space Wolves still army-wide ObSec after explicitly updating Saga of the Beast FAQ, lol
Guess it’s confirmed now!!!
Removed now.
Hi all,
What was the change to Look Out Sir intended to fix? From some of the comments, people seem to be suggesting that it was because a group of vehicle/monster characters could shield each other. I can’t see how that would be the case because the rule also specified that characters with 9 wounds or less are ignored.
What am I missing? What was the abuse this was designed to curtail?
Seems to hit certain armies really hard like harlequins,who don’t really have vehicles with 10+ wounds.
The old version of the rule did not have the clause about less than nine wounds. So two Daemon Princes next to each other (but not within 3″ of any other models) could shield each other, as long as there was another unit closer to the enemy.
Under the old rule, characters of 9 or less wounds were not ignored or even mentioned in the basic look-out-sir 3” rule.
There was a unique exception where even the 3” rule no longer applies (if the character was the closest). For checking the condition for this exception to the basic 3” look out sir rule only(!), characters of 9 wounds or less were ignored.
So am errata was indeed needed to stop mutually protecting Daemonprinces of Talonmasters (ideally perhaps adding the same exception noted above to the 3” look out sir rule).
Instead, they went full bore and made Venoms, Talos, Ridgerunners, Sentinels, Carnifex, etc.. irrelevant for character-protection
Not a fan of the change to fortifications. They were often a marginal inclusion already and their size, combined with the recommended terrain density, makes it virtually impossible to place a fort in most setups.
I think this will be a bigger deal going forward given that this will likely be a new frontier for them in 40k as they add faction-specific terrain
They might add faction-specific terrain, but codex units like the Tyranid Sporocyst took a big hit. Is there any other faction that have fortifications that are also unit entrys in the codex?
The various T’au tidewall pieces.
Plenty.
Nurgle Tree
Sister Sanctum
CSM Nocilith Crown
Ork Mek Workshop
GSC Tectonic Drill
Harlequin Webgate
Imperial Knights Forgeshrine
Etc..
And both Marines & Necrons will get some in their new books.
This seems like a ham-fisted way of fixing the daemon prince character problem. A lot of squishier armies get screwed by this change without any justification, it doesn’t feel like it was thought through properly. Dark Eldar, Harlequins, and even some Nid builds get punished by this new rule, with very few options for protecting their characters now.
They just needed to add a second clause to the section about ignoring other character models when determining if a character is the closest target. “Ignore monsters and vehicles with the character keyword and 9 or less wounds when determining if it is within 3″ of friendly vehicle or monster”.
Was a little bummed out they didn’t fix the Chaos Whip errata from Engine War. They were able to shoot into combat before. It was a super niche event but it was fun to do. The same rules exist in Codex Chaos Daemons and Codex Chaos Space Marines.