Neil Arthur Hotep

It seems to me that, when looking at Sniper-Master, Guarded Hero and Fight (as a stand in for "Shoot") next to each other, it is fairly clear that the effect of Sniper Master is limited to the target selection in the Declare step of Shoot. Maybe this helps you see where I am coming from. What's the difference between these rules: "For the rest of the turn, this unit can ignore the effect of the Guarded Hero ability (full stop)." "For the rest of the turn, this unit can ignore the effect of the Guarded Hero ability when resolving its shooting attacks." "For the rest of the turn, this unit can ignore the effect of the Guarded Hero ability when picking the target for its shooting attacks." IMO, it's fairly clear that these three rules would interact differently with Guarded Hero, disabling all of its effects, only the -1 to hit and only the targeting restriction, respectively. Since I don't think it's very fruitful to discuss rules in-depth before the full core rules are even out, this will be my last post on this particular topic. In the end, I think it's confusing enough that we will get an FAQ ruling, anyway.

It does not say that, dude. Maybe they want it to be like that, but they would have to errata it.

"...when picking targets." Not when you resolved your shooting attack.

Seems to only affect picking targets, not the -1 to hit.

Is he from a Call of Duty game? Is that why they painted him in only browns? You just know Skaven would be super toxic in chat, too. "Get owned-possessed, manling noob-noob."

What they didn't tell us is that Fyreslayer and KO are also going directly to legends to make dorf soup possible.

Yeah, right? Although a literal sniper hero should surely be on the upper end

I am hoping that the Fusil-Major gets a similar rule. Being a sniper should be niche in AoS for ranged units, so that they can be worthwhile without being able to point-and-click whole infantry blocks.

Some new info from the latest model reveal: Some things that stand out to me: Look Out, Sir! is still in the game under a new name. Seems otherwise identical to its last incarnation. Crit(Auto-Wound) is an ability that exists. A sniper rifle has a range of 24". SKRYRE keyword exists.

You were right! He actually works as a spotter for a unit of Jezzails.

I think he looks pretty neat, but the brown-on-brown paint job is not doing him any favors. Also, someone needs to tell Skaven how telescopes work.

Of course, the best thing would be to have models perpetually for sale, properly integrated into a faction. That much is clear. But starting from the assumption that GW is not always able or willing to do that for every commemorative or side game model? Putting them into Legends right away is the best solution. What other options are there? Release them with no rules: "But they already put out a model, why can't I use it in game?" Release them with matched play rules, then legends them next edition: "Great bait and switch, GW! I would not have bought that model if I knew you were squatting it." Release the model and update the rules: "Why is this weird out of production model from 6 years ago required to play competitively? Great pay to win game you got there, James Workshop!"

It's certainly reasonable to want more dwarf action in AoS. I'd like to see that, too. But maybe 4th ed is finally the time for it I stand by what I said about Legends having an image problem, though. If they had a separate category which was functionally the same, but called "Narrative rules" or whatever, I really believe people would be more accepting of it.

The perception change I am talking about is that at time of release, legends rules are just as good as non-legends rules (for non-tournament play). Putting a model's rules directly into Legends tells you what to expect: You can play this unit for now, but don't count on them being a permanent fixture in the game. This is 100% the best way to handle limited edition and side game models.

Legends rules have an image problem. They are treated as a warscroll graveyard, when it would be much better to treat them as non-tournament legal rules. Legends rules are perfect for casual matched play and narrative games.

I think the pocket watch and weights on his belt are KO bits. I don't know enough about Fyreslayers to point out their stuff, though. Maybe the rune on the axe?

That's the best part! Straight into casual-only, so he can get fun fluffy rules and we don't have to worry about a limited edition model messing up competitive play for the next three years.

Release the Malerion faction and then put him into deity jail right away.

Having infantry units give 4+ bodyguard to infantry heroes in their own regiment seems like a soft incentive they could implement without messing up a bunch of edge cases. But I suspect they will just leave it at Look Out, Sir! for now.

Seems to me that either it gets focus fired or it gets ignored. Not really sure how you get out of that dilemma. More to the point, I also think that if heroes were so good that you would never prioritize normal troops over them, people would be complaining about how hero hammer is too strong instead. Really, overall I think it's quite nice that normal troops are often the deciding factor, rather than heroes.

Yeah, no idea why they decided to give us three different witch hunter units and then made them all unique characters. I don't actually know if heroes getting sniped in melee will be a big concern in 4th. It's hard to predict how the interactions will play out. I can definitely see myself making the decision of trying to wipe out an infantry block on a 4+ save rather than trying to deal with a 3+ save on a hero model. Even more so if "anti-hero" is less common than "anti-infantry" or "anti-cavalry" melee troops, because that also changes target priority pretty significantly. And, of course, regular units are better at capturing objectives, and that's what wins games in the end.

I like running the ven Densts in Cities for that reason. You gotta respect damage 4 attacks against wizards, no matter who you are. Using Anti-X for similar abilities on melee heroes should help make them a threat without just invalidating melee infantry. Actually, 3" combat range should remove a lot of that concern, since concentrating that much hitting power into a single guy is no longer a big advantage vs. infantry blocks. A Chaos Lord with Anti-Infantry (Double Damage) should definitely feel suitably epic.

As I said, I think the discussion would benefit from a separate thread, since nothing about the strength of melee brawler heroes in 4th ed is currently known.

Do you mean in the eventual battletome or in the index? Because I am not 100% sure they will get their two subfactions in the index. I don't see a huge barrier for them to have one battle trait that basically goes like this, though: "A Seraphon army can be COALESCED or STARBORN. If COALESCED, then melee buffs. If STARBORN, then magic or whatever." Did they tell us yet if they are cutting back on summoning? If so, maybe Starborn will get a new focus, because as I understand it summoning is currently their "thing".

You can find a lot of solid unique melee heroes in AoS. Off the top of my head, I like Sigvald, the Light of Eltharion, Kurdoss and Radukar the Beast. For generics, there are fewer of them. The Ogor Tyrant is pretty good. A Megaboss on foot is certainly pretty fighty. The FEC Royal Decapitator is pretty scary, too. But in general, you will find few generic normal-sized dudes on 32mm bases who are worthy anything in combat. I think there are a few more in Fyreslayers. EDIT: I would appreciate if we opened a separate "griping about how chaos lords are too weak" thread, by the way.