84550
Post by: DaPino
Leak: http://i.imgur.com/I8u9d6U.jpg
Well... I don't know what to say. It's just stupid. This thing just made it possible for a heavy bolter to damage a land raider.
I don't want to be too negative because we don't have the codex yet, but I have an iffy feeling that this is setting the tone for one cheese--crusted Tau codex.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
DaPino wrote:This thing just made it possible for a heavy bolter to penetrate a land raider.
No it didn't. You are over reacting
84550
Post by: DaPino
 CrownAxe wrote:DaPino wrote:This thing just made it possible for a heavy bolter to penetrate a land raider.
No it didn't. You are over reacting
Yes it did, no I'm not.
If I use a Land Raider to shoot its heavy bolter at something behind a Tidewall, it can happen. Given, it's going to be an uncommon occasion, but the fact alone that it's possible is stupid.
The tidewall says that on a succesful coversave, you roll another die and if that die is a 6, the attacking unit receives a wound/glancing hit, no strings attached.
- Land raider shoots it's heavy bolter into [Insert Tau unit] behind a Tidewall rampart
- Tau unit passes its cover save
- Tau player rolls a 6 on his D6
- Land raider takes a glancing hit from his own Heavy bolter
edit: I think I see the confusion. I said "penetrate" but I didn't mean "penetrating hit". I meant that it could "penetrate" as in "do damage to". I'll fix the OP.
88779
Post by: Gamgee
It's an automatic glancing hit.
22286
Post by: vim_the_good
Eh. My pintle mounted heavy stubber can glance my Lemun Russ! Even on the front facing if Mr Tau player rolls a 6
Am I reading that right?
70451
Post by: Big Blind Bill
It does seem a bit silly to cause an auto wound/glance.
Surely having the opponent get hit by their own weapon and then rolling to wound/pen as normal would have made more sense.
91180
Post by: SideSwipe
Don't care, they're atill as vulnerable to getting punched in the face as they always were.
Every point spent on a fieldline is a point that's not shooting at me while I charge at them.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
SideSwipe wrote:Don't care, they're atill as vulnerable to getting punched in the face as they always were.
Every point spent on a fieldline is a point that's not shooting at me while I charge at them.
The fieldline can shoot you.
88718
Post by: Taffy17
Wait, so say you shot a large blast at a bunched up squad of firewarriors on this thing, you hit 12, assume they have 4+ cover, 6 make the save, role 6 dice, get one 6 you've just wounded whatever you shot at it with.
With blast weapons there's almost a certainty that your gonna wound yourself 
22286
Post by: vim_the_good
 Big Blind Bill wrote:It does seem a bit silly to cause an auto wound/glance.
Surely having the opponent get hit by their own weapon and then rolling to wound/pen as normal would have made more sense.
Yeah. I have a feeling this is going to be the common sense house rule. That is some shoddy rule writing, even for GW.
97877
Post by: chrispy1991
So... if I'm reading the rules correctly... I could say, fire my basilisk from 240 inches away at some firewarriors sitting behind this thing, deviate to where the shot is on the side where they will get cover saves.. and then there's chance that my basilisk that doesn't even have LoS could receive MULTIPLE glancing hits from multiple successful cover saves.
Very well thought out rule GW.. BRAVO. 
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
 chrispy1991 wrote:So... if I'm reading the rules correctly... I could say, fire my basilisk from 240 inches away at some firewarriors sitting behind this thing, deviate to where the shot is on the side where they will get cover saves.. and then there's chance that my basilisk that doesn't even have LoS could receive MULTIPLE glancing hits from multiple successful cover saves.
Very well thought out rule GW.. BRAVO.
Yeah this is going to be a problem.
Conversely, if you fire a D-weapon at it, which always penetrates and therefore always rolls on the damage table, it will be reflected and do an automatic glance.
WTF.
78396
Post by: Thairne
You`ve got to be kidding me.
Land Raider Crusader, Rapid Fire range.
24 shots, Tau go to Ground, receive a 2+ cover save (same as Aegis, right?)
He passes 20.
Averages 3.333333 automatic glancing hits on the Crusader.
So there is a GOOD SOLID chance that BOLTERS destroy my Land Raider in my OWN shooting phase?
Nuts.
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
Well, people where wondering where the broken stuff would be....
This will clearly need some negotiation to be included into the Game, which is a pity as I like the overall concept of this thing. A mobile defence platform capable of relocating during the game, with Rules designed to create a form of synergy between it and the Unit riding on top of it. Without going into the clearly broken Rule and some other flaws in the concept, they have created something that has tickled my fancy as it would operate so differently on the field. In any case, I could easily have seen myself including this thing in an army even if I had to negotiate it's inclusion just to see how the damn thing played out.
The biggest issue this thing has is being overlooked:
It costs 60 point cost for each Shield-line.
Simply stripping this clearly worrisome Special Rule from the Fortification will reduce it to nothing more then an segment generating a cover save, something you can get 4 short and 4 long with the Aegis Defence Line. Considering that the Aegis Defence Line costs only 50 points in total, that would make this shield segment grossly overpriced. A possible solution would to be changing the 'glance' to just a straight up hit, and then have it resolve against the 'default' armour of the Vehicle at the Strength of the shot. Sorry, I can't remember of default armour is side or rear. This will render the situation put forth by the Opening Poster a 0% possibility while still making the shield segment worth it's weight in points against the real threats it was designed for.
For Blast Weapons, someone else's concerns, do what was done with the Void Shield generator:
One Shot = One 'Hit'
52223
Post by: notredameguy10
JinxDragon wrote:Well, people where wondering where the broken stuff would be....
This will clearly need some negotiation to be included into the Game, which is a pity as I like the overall concept of this thing. A mobile defence platform capable of relocating during the game, with Rules designed to create a form of synergy between it and the Unit riding on top of it. Without going into the clearly broken Rule and some other flaws in the concept, they have created something that has tickled my fancy as it would operate so differently on the field. In any case, I could easily have seen myself including this thing in an army even if I had to negotiate it's inclusion just to see how the damn thing played out.
The biggest issue this thing has is being overlooked:
It costs 60 point cost for each Shield-line.
Simply stripping this clearly worrisome Special Rule from the Fortification will reduce it to nothing more then an segment generating a cover save, something you can get 4 short and 4 long with the Aegis Defence Line. Considering that the Aegis Defence Line costs only 50 points in total, that would make this shield segment grossly overpriced. A possible solution would to be changing the 'glance' to just a straight up hit, and then have it resolve against the 'default' armour of the Vehicle at the Strength of the shot. Sorry, I can't remember of default armour is side or rear. This will render the situation put forth by the Opening Poster a 0% possibility while still making the shield segment worth it's weight in points against the real threats it was designed for.
For Blast Weapons, someone else's concerns, do what was done with the Void Shield generator:
One Shot = One 'Hit'
Um I think you are forgetting a couple rules here. Rerolling all 1s for shooting, and a MOVING defense line. Meaning pathfinders and broadsides get movable cover that gives them relentless.
86452
Post by: Frozocrone
chrispy1991 wrote:So... if I'm reading the rules correctly... I could say, fire my basilisk from 240 inches away at some firewarriors sitting behind this thing, deviate to where the shot is on the side where they will get cover saves.. and then there's chance that my basilisk that doesn't even have LoS could receive MULTIPLE glancing hits from multiple successful cover saves.
Very well thought out rule GW.. BRAVO.
Barrage bypasses the cover rule by being barrage - you take from the centre of the blast marker. Unless you roll bad scatter, your opponent will have to rely on covers not provided by the Tidewall.
EDIT: Actually, I'm not as sure as I was, since you'll still have the Tidewall between the Basilisk and whatever you fired at. Bravo GW.
36241
Post by: Murrdox
 Frozocrone wrote: chrispy1991 wrote:So... if I'm reading the rules correctly... I could say, fire my basilisk from 240 inches away at some firewarriors sitting behind this thing, deviate to where the shot is on the side where they will get cover saves.. and then there's chance that my basilisk that doesn't even have LoS could receive MULTIPLE glancing hits from multiple successful cover saves.
Very well thought out rule GW.. BRAVO.
Barrage bypasses the cover rule by being barrage - you take from the centre of the blast marker. Unless you roll bad scatter, your opponent will have to rely on covers not provided by the Tidewall.
EDIT: Actually, I'm not as sure as I was, since you'll still have the Tidewall between the Basilisk and whatever you fired at. Bravo GW.
No, you're correct. You would have to roll bad scatter on the blast marker. So as long as the blast doesn't land on the wrong side of the barrier, you'd be OK.
Do wounds / glancing hits caused by the Tidewall Field allow for cover saves to be taken against them? I think it would? So your Basalisk that is out of LoS would still at least get a cover save against it's own blast? That's no help to the Land Raider firing its heavy bolter though.
It's very silly. They should have simply edited the rules to say that the unit takes a HIT at the same strength and ap as the weapon it fired. Also it would have been common sense to say something like the rule only works within 24", so Basalisks aren't somehow hitting themselves with their own artillery shells.
At the same time though... 265 points? I can't imagine a Tau player picking this over a Riptide or more Crisis suits. It's a cool concept though. Moving the model on the table looks like it would be a REAL pain in the butt. Thank goodness it can't move over terrain. Wobbly Model Syndrome with this thing would get ridiculous.
88718
Post by: Taffy17
Frozocrone wrote: chrispy1991 wrote:So... if I'm reading the rules correctly... I could say, fire my basilisk from 240 inches away at some firewarriors sitting behind this thing, deviate to where the shot is on the side where they will get cover saves.. and then there's chance that my basilisk that doesn't even have LoS could receive MULTIPLE glancing hits from multiple successful cover saves.
Very well thought out rule GW.. BRAVO.
Barrage bypasses the cover rule by being barrage - you take from the centre of the blast marker. Unless you roll bad scatter, your opponent will have to rely on covers not provided by the Tidewall.
EDIT: Actually, I'm not as sure as I was, since you'll still have the Tidewall between the Basilisk and whatever you fired at. Bravo GW.
Depends on the wording cause its whether having the intervening wall gives you the save or just being on the platform, while barrage allows you to shoot over intervening cover it doesn't allow you to ignore cover from area terrain.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Taffy17 wrote: Frozocrone wrote: chrispy1991 wrote:So... if I'm reading the rules correctly... I could say, fire my basilisk from 240 inches away at some firewarriors sitting behind this thing, deviate to where the shot is on the side where they will get cover saves.. and then there's chance that my basilisk that doesn't even have LoS could receive MULTIPLE glancing hits from multiple successful cover saves.
Very well thought out rule GW.. BRAVO.
Barrage bypasses the cover rule by being barrage - you take from the centre of the blast marker. Unless you roll bad scatter, your opponent will have to rely on covers not provided by the Tidewall.
EDIT: Actually, I'm not as sure as I was, since you'll still have the Tidewall between the Basilisk and whatever you fired at. Bravo GW.
Depends on the wording cause its whether having the intervening wall gives you the save or just being on the platform, while barrage allows you to shoot over intervening cover it doesn't allow you to ignore cover from area terrain.
It specifically states that it is in regards to the Defense Line being in between the attacking unit and its target.
Anything firing Barrage or Indirectly should be fine though, and firing at targets from the angles of the Gunrig or Droneports would also be fine.
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
notredameguy10,
Which have nothing to do with the broken situation being discussed, promotes synergy between the Units using the Fortification and the Fortification itself, and adds an additional new Game Mechanic to a system that is capable of dying if it does not evolve. The only reason I didn't bring them up, though I am fascinated by the interactions between specific Units, was the first. Those additional Rules simply are not important to the situation I was addressing and still seem little to discuss, given the cost of the entire Fortification requires it to have some Special Rule or another to justify its purchase as both a plastic model and a Model in the Army.
I can not fault Game Workshop for the experimentations within this Fortification, but they have been very sloppy with the execution....
We really should have Flying Infantry by now.
97856
Post by: HoundsofDemos
hmm, you mean i have to outflank or assault to win against the shootiest army in the game. What a crime. The rules are a little weird I admit but I view it as the rounds hit the energy field and gaining power from the barrier. It's tough but not invincible.
also it's fairly expensive points wise
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
What I find interesting is how the wording interacts with the two different Model Types.
For Non-Vehicles it is a boon - They get Randomly Hit with a Strength: -, AP: X, Wound with no special Rules attached
For Vehicles it is a bane - They straight up suffer a Glancing Hit....
One of these allows the Wound to be directed away from important Characters, Independent Characters and gives a chance that the Model carrying the Weapon system designed to deliver high strength shots from a distance is not the one being picked off by the ricochet. On top of this re-direction ability, the Model the Wound is Allocated to is still given all the usual Saving Chances that they would be normally granted in such a situation. The other gets to sit there with a single Hull Point removed in a game where Hull Points already make it possible to destroy vehicles in a single volley of moderate strength fire....
Might want to work on a better interaction mechanic with vehicles.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Really sad to see people already wanting to change rules.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Why does GW hate vehicles so much? I mean, this piece of terrain unfairly penalizes vehicles just for being vehicles.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
People don't want to "change rules", they want one rule to not be so crummily written.
18698
Post by: kronk
Seems wonky. I don't like it. Why can't it just be a wall that gives cover?
50138
Post by: Savageconvoy
 kronk wrote:Seems wonky. I don't like it. Why can't it just be a wall that gives cover?
Because this is the future and in space. Where the best offense is a good defense and the most dangerous weapon is a shield.
97877
Post by: chrispy1991
Murrdox wrote: Frozocrone wrote: chrispy1991 wrote:So... if I'm reading the rules correctly... I could say, fire my basilisk from 240 inches away at some firewarriors sitting behind this thing, deviate to where the shot is on the side where they will get cover saves.. and then there's chance that my basilisk that doesn't even have LoS could receive MULTIPLE glancing hits from multiple successful cover saves.
Very well thought out rule GW.. BRAVO.
Barrage bypasses the cover rule by being barrage - you take from the centre of the blast marker. Unless you roll bad scatter, your opponent will have to rely on covers not provided by the Tidewall.
EDIT: Actually, I'm not as sure as I was, since you'll still have the Tidewall between the Basilisk and whatever you fired at. Bravo GW.
No, you're correct. You would have to roll bad scatter on the blast marker. So as long as the blast doesn't land on the wrong side of the barrier, you'd be OK.
Do wounds / glancing hits caused by the Tidewall Field allow for cover saves to be taken against them? I think it would? So your Basalisk that is out of LoS would still at least get a cover save against it's own blast? That's no help to the Land Raider firing its heavy bolter though.
It's very silly. They should have simply edited the rules to say that the unit takes a HIT at the same strength and ap as the weapon it fired. Also it would have been common sense to say something like the rule only works within 24", so Basalisks aren't somehow hitting themselves with their own artillery shells.
At the same time though... 265 points? I can't imagine a Tau player picking this over a Riptide or more Crisis suits. It's a cool concept though. Moving the model on the table looks like it would be a REAL pain in the butt. Thank goodness it can't move over terrain. Wobbly Model Syndrome with this thing would get ridiculous.
Considering how far barrage scatters on average, I'd say it's pretty likely the tau will get cover saves by a bad scatter. Barrage does not in any way ignore cover, it just gets around it when it actually hits where you want it to. As for the Basilisk getting a cover save because of LoS or for any other reason, I can't see why it would because the RAW don't designate an origin of the glancing hit, it just kinda... happens. I don't find the tidewall as a whole OP or anything, I just can't get past how senseless this Tidewall Shield rule is. It's like they didn't even stop to think about how silly it was.
EDIT: In addition.. direct firing blast weapons means 1 leman russ cannon shot could see the russ taking multiple glancing hits even though it only fired 1 shot, potentially even wrecking itself.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
I think the rule here is to just not shoot the unit on the tidewall with vehicles and to just shoot them with not vehicles who would get saves against the rebounding wounds
94103
Post by: Yarium
Call me crazy, but I like this rule. Okay, there's some messed up situations (the Basilisk, the Land Raider, etc), but there's some good stuff too! Auto-glancing an Imperial Knight or auto-wounding an Eldar Wraithknight or Jetbike isn't too bad. Generally speaking, the cheesier you get, the better this defence becomes!
Meanwhile, a basic footslogger doesn't mind shooting at this, as suffering a couple of casualties from shooting at it is a minor issue.
Watch out Deathstars, the Tau have shields!
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
 Yarium wrote:Call me crazy, but I like this rule. Okay, there's some messed up situations (the Basilisk, the Land Raider, etc), but there's some good stuff too! Auto-glancing an Imperial Knight or auto-wounding an Eldar Wraithknight or Jetbike isn't too bad. Generally speaking, the cheesier you get, the better this defence becomes!
Meanwhile, a basic footslogger doesn't mind shooting at this, as suffering a couple of casualties from shooting at it is a minor issue.
Watch out Deathstars, the Tau have shields!
Or just hit them with ignores cover.
4183
Post by: Davor
People are getting upset for over nothing. This is 40K. Nothing would work if stuff was real.
I would love to know what army people play who are complaining. I am sure we can find something that is not real or shouldn't work with your army as well.
For example there is no reason why a Space Marine Terminator is as fast as a Tyranid or Eldar. But they are. There is no way a Space Marine can shoot after the first turn since it doesn't carry ammo for their bolters. Have you seen the size of those shells? No way SM can keep firing for over 6 turns let alone more than one. 
So don't worry what should or shouldn't happen and just have fun and play the game.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Davor wrote:People are getting upset for over nothing. This is 40K. Nothing would work if stuff was real.
I would love to know what army people play who are complaining. I am sure we can find something that is not real or shouldn't work with your army as well.
For example there is no reason why a Space Marine Terminator is as fast as a Tyranid or Eldar. But they are. There is no way a Space Marine can shoot after the first turn since it doesn't carry ammo for their bolters. Have you seen the size of those shells? No way SM can keep firing for over 6 turns let alone more than one.
So don't worry what should or shouldn't happen and just have fun and play the game.
You think it's okay that a Land Raider can be glanced by a Stormbolter round or a Basilisk 10 feet away and completely out of line of sight to be hit by it's own shell? With no saves of any kind allowed besides invulns? You think that's fair when Infantry/ MCs can get their saves/ FNPs?
52223
Post by: notredameguy10
Yarium wrote:Call me crazy, but I like this rule. Okay, there's some messed up situations (the Basilisk, the Land Raider, etc), but there's some good stuff too! Auto-glancing an Imperial Knight or auto-wounding an Eldar Wraithknight or Jetbike isn't too bad. Generally speaking, the cheesier you get, the better this defence becomes!
Meanwhile, a basic footslogger doesn't mind shooting at this, as suffering a couple of casualties from shooting at it is a minor issue.
Watch out Deathstars, the Tau have shields!
More like, watch out deathstars, tau have two Str 10 AP2 large blasts coming from a stormsurge each turn that (depending on if it changes) can also have ignore cover from marker lights. Although there is still invisibility (single worst rule of 40k)
64904
Post by: GoliothOnline
Time to be a dick and nit pick everything about 40k because I hate Tau now.
If you ever play me and ask "Can your Fire Warriors see over that Defense Line, I WILL SAY NO, and therefore they cannot gain LoS to you.
Since Im shooting you through a D-Line you're getting a 4+ cover save, weather its mine or not, because GW never specified if it was paid for or not you dont give cover to your opponent for shooting through it like Terrain. (Least that Im aware of)
87291
Post by: jreilly89
While I love the idea of moving cover, the auto glance is flat out stupid.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
To me this is a symptom of people already changing rules.
18698
Post by: kronk
What is? Can you be more specific? The conversation is all over the place right now.
86074
Post by: Quickjager
To me this is a player who can't see a stupid rule because it benefits them.
62061
Post by: Ffyllotek
I don't really have a problem with the glancing hits thing. As I understand it, the bolter round is not bouncing off a wall, but being thrown back with tremendous force against its firer...
65628
Post by: welshhoppo
True, but it would have to be a super perfect rebound. The calculations for it to work would be immense.
90213
Post by: Mallich
Yay - yet another rule that has wounds being randomly allocated. I just love determining which member of my 30-strong combined infantry platoon is hit. Wait, what's that - I'll have to track which of my heavy weapon teams are at half health due to wounds being allocated randomly? Even better!
 Thairne wrote:You`ve got to be kidding me.
Land Raider Crusader, Rapid Fire range.
24 shots, Tau go to Ground, receive a 2+ cover save (same as Aegis, right?)
He passes 20.
Averages 3.333333 automatic glancing hits on the Crusader.
So there is a GOOD SOLID chance that BOLTERS destroy my Land Raider in my OWN shooting phase?
Nuts.
A land raider crusader has a pair of hurricane bolters and a twin linked assault cannon. That's 6 twin-linked bolters (12 shots), plus 4 assault cannon shots. You'll also need to roll to hit and roll to wound. Let's assume that the land raider doesn't have psybolts, and the fire warriors go to ground.
(8/9) of the bolter shots would hit, (2/3) would wound. Now comes the fun hit.
The tau go to ground. There's a (1/6) chance of their cover save failing them. There's a (5/6) chance of the cover save protecting them, followed by a (1/6) chance of the shield inflicting a wound. Yep, that's right - the chance of a wound getting through their cover save is about the same as the chance of a wound getting reflected and damaging the vehicle.
The bolters will kill 1 tau soldier, and take off 1 hull point. The assault cannon will do a little bit less.
Tl:dr:
No, your Crusader would take around 3 turns to shred itself. It would also kill 4 or 5 fire warriors while keeping the rest of the squad suppressed. "Yay". A unit of tau that goes to ground will take roughly as many wounds as it reflects (against vehicles), unless the attacker uses Ignore Cover.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
People have been lead to believe if they complain enough a TO will come along and nerf new units.
8546
Post by: krazynadechukr
97208
Post by: rowboatjellyfanxiii
You are responsible for the language in your posts; the filter isn't going to catch everything. --Janthkin
52812
Post by: Tiger9gamer
I think that maybe some communication between players would be better for this fortification... Maybe just agree that they are like the repulsor rules for the Kastelen Robots in cult mechanicus.
On a seperate roll of a six, the model shooting at them gets hit with the same strength and ap of the weapon they shot at the original target, Barring any weapon with the blast or template rules. They only get automatically hit, so you still have to roll to wound.
maybe we should be thankful this terrain set was a limited run...
77233
Post by: Caederes
I think you pay for what you get with this thing. It has a lot of crazy rules and the whole "BS4+ Monster Hunter/Tank Hunter Twin-Linked Railgun" is amusing, especially when made to Ignore Cover (current rules). It's also very expensive for the full formation. I'm interested to see how the pro-scene reacts to this.
15582
Post by: blaktoof
thoughts on the tidewall:
interestingly enough it also affects the Tau player, if you move onto it, or within 1" of the shieldlines, the tau shots bounce back on them as well as the rules only specify models within 1", and not friendly models, or tau models. This also prevents the tidewall from moving. Considering certain armies can move and turboboost quite far you can in effect nullify the tidewall on turn 1. Charge tau turn 2 with your units if they are still there (some things with re-rollable jinks will be...) and if they overwatch any of your re-rollable cover saves will let you roll a dice to see if you auto wound the tau that fired at you.
Please Tau players take this thing in your army lol.
also not sure why people are scared about shooting D at this, you get hit back with an auto wound/glance at the AP of the weapon. So if you fired a Strength D weapon at something on the tidewall and it made its cover save, then rolled a 6 you would just take 1 wound/glance at AP1- not at STR D. This also means if you fired a S10 shot, it would not be a S10 hit as it does not say at the Strength of the shot fired, so it would not have ID for example.
77233
Post by: Caederes
blaktoof wrote:thoughts on the tidewall:
interestingly enough it also affects the Tau player, if you move onto it, or within 1" of the shieldlines, the tau shots bounce back on them as well as the rules only specify models within 1", and not friendly models, or tau models. This also prevents the tidewall from moving. Considering certain armies can move and turboboost quite far you can in effect nullify the tidewall on turn 1. Charge tau turn 2 with your units if they are still there (some things with re-rollable jinks will be...) and if they overwatch any of your re-rollable cover saves will let you roll a dice to see if you auto wound the tau that fired at you.
Please Tau players take this thing in your army lol.
By the looks of it to get within 1" of the shield-wall would mean being in base contact with the terrain...which would be illegal if there is a unit garrisoning it per the rules for defence lines if I'm remembering their rules correctly. Not so easy to nullify. You also have to be either on the terrain or surrounding it entirely so it can't move.
Additionally, I like the assertion that the re-rollable Jinks are such a big deterrent to an army that has by far the most Ignores Cover of any codex in the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
People are scared of the lack of a Strength value for precisely the opposite reasons to the ones you talk about. A Leman Russ Punisher shooting at a unit that Goes to Ground while manning a Tidewall will kill itself even though normally its guns wouldn't be able to hurt anything that is AV12 or above.
86074
Post by: Quickjager
I've decided to approach it as though they now have Overwatch in the enemy shooting phase now.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Thairne wrote:You`ve got to be kidding me.
Land Raider Crusader, Rapid Fire range.
24 shots, Tau go to Ground, receive a 2+ cover save (same as Aegis, right?)
He passes 20.
Averages 3.333333 automatic glancing hits on the Crusader.
So there is a GOOD SOLID chance that BOLTERS destroy my Land Raider in my OWN shooting phase?
Nuts.
I'm pretty sure the cover increase is unique to the aegis. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eh, that's what my boards look like anyway. I'm a big terrain lover. 
88779
Post by: Gamgee
Then next Tau edition GW makes it so the pieces can all split up and move independently to make it fair to take them on maps like that.
You push, they push. Especially if it makes them a dollar.
77886
Post by: TheNewBlood
Co'tor Shas wrote: Thairne wrote:You`ve got to be kidding me.
Land Raider Crusader, Rapid Fire range.
24 shots, Tau go to Ground, receive a 2+ cover save (same as Aegis, right?)
He passes 20.
Averages 3.333333 automatic glancing hits on the Crusader.
So there is a GOOD SOLID chance that BOLTERS destroy my Land Raider in my OWN shooting phase?
Nuts.
I'm pretty sure the cover increase is unique to the aegis.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eh, that's what my boards look like anyway. I'm a big terrain lover.
The bonus to GtG applies to all defense lines, not just the Aegis.
Terrain will really hinder this thing's deployment and movement.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Ah, my mistake. 
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Lychguard used to have basically the same rule and it wasn't the end of the world. It is something new that is nice for Tau and it's not cheap either.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 Dozer Blades wrote:Lychguard used to have basically the same rule and it wasn't the end of the world. It is something new that is nice for Tau and it's not cheap either.
So Lychguard were causing Glancing Hits with no rolls to Hit or for Armor Pen?
Somehow I feel like that was not the case.
84878
Post by: ionusx
a few things that really ruin this models day:
thunderfire cannon and a fortress of redemption.. in a word artillery marine list.
with tfc's or an achillies you cause generate difficult terrain checks and that means the wall cannot move in a given direction. it cant cross ANY terrain so simply playing cities of death or suiciding a metal bawks with a knight titan throwing a dead rhino means you can kill its ability to travel. the fortress of redemption has hellstorm missles, more than enough to hurt the inhabitants of the tidewall you dont even need to waste magic dice on enchatments your auto hits back are taken against the fortress walls which are a lot thicker than the tidewalls. it has the most HP in the game and you wont be shoving it off, in addition its a glancing hit if your void shields are still up the fortress takes no damage anyway. and for a fraction of the price, the fortress after missles is like 250ish while the tidewall is 268 or so base. simply put its a giant waste of points in a war against a fortress of redemption.
if orks also ever steal it your going to have a heck of apredictament on your hands, orks rarely: if ever, ever get bs 4+ shooting they could use that to lethal effect and now your going to need to spend time assaulting into a structure something the tau are not well known for and will likely fail because ya know orks.
4183
Post by: Davor
 TheCustomLime wrote:Davor wrote:People are getting upset for over nothing. This is 40K. Nothing would work if stuff was real.
I would love to know what army people play who are complaining. I am sure we can find something that is not real or shouldn't work with your army as well.
For example there is no reason why a Space Marine Terminator is as fast as a Tyranid or Eldar. But they are. There is no way a Space Marine can shoot after the first turn since it doesn't carry ammo for their bolters. Have you seen the size of those shells? No way SM can keep firing for over 6 turns let alone more than one.
So don't worry what should or shouldn't happen and just have fun and play the game.
You think it's okay that a Land Raider can be glanced by a Stormbolter round or a Basilisk 10 feet away and completely out of line of sight to be hit by it's own shell? With no saves of any kind allowed besides invulns? You think that's fair when Infantry/ MCs can get their saves/ FNPs?
It's a game. Don't worry about it. Too much in 40K is not fair, so this is no big deal. Not aimed at you, but I find it funny when the shoe is on the other foot, people get upset when they perceive they have an unfair advantage.
Maybe playing Nids and Dark Angels (at the poor end of the power scale) and then quitting at 5th edition, (since basically everyone in my area quit) I don't find this a big deal no more and just roll with it if I ever get back to gaming. Automatically Appended Next Post: I am curious, can a bunch of Rippers prevent the wall from moving? Imagine that, Rippers prevent the Tidewall from moving because it can't move within 1" if Rippers.
102
Post by: Jayden63
I find it pretty funny that people are using the crusader as the example of a LR killing itself. In order to get all those hurricane bolters into rapid fire range the gun must be within 12" of an enemy model. Since the guns are usually in the first side door position, that means the front of the land raider is 2 1/2" closer to the wall. That means the front of the tank is only 9" away from the enemy model.
Now, since most crusaders are transporting something that really wants to get into combat, that mean you go out the front door 6" and now only have to cover a 3" charge. Sounds doable and now within a few turns there will no longer be any Tau behind the tide wall to shoot at.
I'll agree that the rule as it is worded is pretty silly. Especially when taken to the extreme case of say DE venoms with twin splinter cannons. These weapons cannot hurt vehicles in any way, however, when coming back from the wall suddenly they are stripping hull points.
77886
Post by: TheNewBlood
 Jayden63 wrote:I find it pretty funny that people are using the crusader as the example of a LR killing itself. In order to get all those hurricane bolters into rapid fire range the gun must be within 12" of an enemy model. Since the guns are usually in the first side door position, that means the front of the land raider is 2 1/2" closer to the wall. That means the front of the tank is only 9" away from the enemy model.
Now, since most crusaders are transporting something that really wants to get into combat, that mean you go out the front door 6" and now only have to cover a 3" charge. Sounds doable and now within a few turns there will no longer be any Tau behind the tide wall to shoot at.
I'll agree that the rule as it is worded is pretty silly. Especially when taken to the extreme case of say DE venoms with twin splinter cannons. These weapons cannot hurt vehicles in any way, however, when coming back from the wall suddenly they are stripping hull points.
Chance of a DE Venom losing a hull point (2+ GtG): 55%
15582
Post by: blaktoof
Caederes wrote:blaktoof wrote:thoughts on the tidewall:
interestingly enough it also affects the Tau player, if you move onto it, or within 1" of the shieldlines, the tau shots bounce back on them as well as the rules only specify models within 1", and not friendly models, or tau models. This also prevents the tidewall from moving. Considering certain armies can move and turboboost quite far you can in effect nullify the tidewall on turn 1. Charge tau turn 2 with your units if they are still there (some things with re-rollable jinks will be...) and if they overwatch any of your re-rollable cover saves will let you roll a dice to see if you auto wound the tau that fired at you.
Please Tau players take this thing in your army lol.
By the looks of it to get within 1" of the shield-wall would mean being in base contact with the terrain...which would be illegal if there is a unit garrisoning it per the rules for defence lines if I'm remembering their rules correctly. Not so easy to nullify. You also have to be either on the terrain or surrounding it entirely so it can't move.
Additionally, I like the assertion that the re-rollable Jinks are such a big deterrent to an army that has by far the most Ignores Cover of any codex in the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
People are scared of the lack of a Strength value for precisely the opposite reasons to the ones you talk about. A Leman Russ Punisher shooting at a unit that Goes to Ground while manning a Tidewall will kill itself even though normally its guns wouldn't be able to hurt anything that is AV12 or above.
You cannot move into b2b with the wall as that counts as being in b2b with the models
The wall is battlefield debris, and not a model, and there is no rule preventing you from moving within 1" of the wall- as long as you are more than 1" away from the models on the otherside.
The D comment, was because a few posts people commented they would auto kill their characters by doing orbital bombardment etc.
as such it is very viable to just move within 1" of the wall and be more than 1" away from the models on the otherside- preventing the wall from moving and causing any models on the otherside firing at you with weapons that cannot ignore cover (yeah tau can get markerlight hits, but usually its on 1-2 units a turn...) having re-rollable cover saves will still protect you versus many shots.
88026
Post by: casvalremdeikun
I kinda want to make the Blood Angels formation that generates difficult terrain when it deep strikes. Move your stupid 265 of line over that. Meanwhile, eat a bunch of Flamer shots. I really want a squad of TFCs for my Crimson Fists now. A Land Raider Achilles would be nice too.
Edit: Damnit, the Angel's Wrath trick wouldn't work. Oh well.
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
Dozer Blades wrote:Lychguard used to have basically the same rule and it wasn't the end of the world. It is something new that is nice for Tau and it's not cheap either.
The difference is: - Lychguard w/ Shield had a 3+/4++ then, and the deflection only worked with the ++ save. Basically the enemy had to shoot them with AP1-3 weapons for the reflection to even occur. - The Dispersion shield could only deflect shots into a unit with 6". The shieldwall can hit a unit on the other side of the world. - The Dispersion shield reflected the shot back as an auto hit using the original shot's Str and SP, not as an auto glance/wound with an AP value. "Basically the same" as in same idea, completely different execution.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Less whining back then though for sure.
90213
Post by: Mallich
Indeed. People didn't whine about the lychguard shield idea being so poorly executed that anti-infantry guns could harm distant heavy vehicles.
... Because the lychguard shields didn't work that way.
Now there's a shield rule that does work that way and, surprise surprise, people are objecting to the poor execution. How horrid of us.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
Our tau player bought this. We have explained to him that he will be forced to tell us if he is bringing it, so that we may stock up on ignores cover firepower to render it useless.
89259
Post by: Talys
 casvalremdeikun wrote:I kinda want to make the Blood Angels formation that generates difficult terrain when it deep strikes. Move your stupid 265 of line over that. Meanwhile, eat a bunch of Flamer shots. I really want a squad of TFCs for my Crimson Fists now. A Land Raider Achilles would be nice too.
Edit: Damnit, the Angel's Wrath trick wouldn't work. Oh well.
I don't think I've played on a table in the last three years with enough space to actually deploy the Tidewall in an intelligent way -- much less move it more than a few inches
I think the movement stuff is only really useful for a scenario where the table is specifically designed for the Tidewall to move. I mean, if your Fortress of Redemption could move, it really wouldn't be any better, because well, it's just too big to go anywhere.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Pain4Pleasure wrote:Our tau player bought this. We have explained to him that he will be forced to tell us if he is bringing it, so that we may stock up on ignores cover firepower to render it useless.
I remember watching a landraider blow itself up shooting at them.
96501
Post by: hanshotfirst
WHAT?!? damnit someone near me just bought 3... and i have very litter ignores cover... maybe to troll him i will use some tua allies...
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
Well I will have no problems as I refuse to play the resident Tau players but I can see the stupidity in this. It has no range on the deflection and can allow what is essentially a HMG (IE, the Heavy Stubber) to remove a HP from one of my Leman Russes. Now this really is beyond stupid.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Dozer Blades wrote:Pain4Pleasure wrote:Our tau player bought this. We have explained to him that he will be forced to tell us if he is bringing it, so that we may stock up on ignores cover firepower to render it useless.
I remember watching a landraider blow itself up shooting at them.
Like, all in one turn, or over time?
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
To be fair I doubt we'll see much use of them considering they're already sold out. Good job GW, your products are sold out before they even hit the shelves.
52812
Post by: Tiger9gamer
 Valkyrie wrote:To be fair I doubt we'll see much use of them considering they're already sold out. Good job GW, your products are sold out before they even hit the shelves.
on the app today they announced they will be available separately on the 31st of october 
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
 Tiger9gamer wrote: Valkyrie wrote:To be fair I doubt we'll see much use of them considering they're already sold out. Good job GW, your products are sold out before they even hit the shelves.
on the app today they announced they will be available separately on the 31st of october
Fair enough, consider me corrected.
52812
Post by: Tiger9gamer
Valkyrie wrote: Tiger9gamer wrote: Valkyrie wrote:To be fair I doubt we'll see much use of them considering they're already sold out. Good job GW, your products are sold out before they even hit the shelves.
on the app today they announced they will be available separately on the 31st of october
Fair enough, consider me corrected.
Yea I posted yesterday that they were out of stock so they may have jynxed it... literally when I saw it I cussed in the college elevator 
11860
Post by: Martel732
 master of ordinance wrote:Well I will have no problems as I refuse to play the resident Tau players but I can see the stupidity in this. It has no range on the deflection and can allow what is essentially a HMG (IE, the Heavy Stubber) to remove a HP from one of my Leman Russes. Now this really is beyond stupid.
Hey, it makes Imperial heavy weapons good against SOMETHING. It just happens to be the vehicle firing the weapon.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
We finally get Xenos terrain and GW finds a way to ruin it. GG, GW. GG.
26018
Post by: Vryce
I agree that the rule is worded poorly, but the reality is, as others have pointed out, this rampart will be difficult to use in its full capacity. As a Tau player myself, I wont even bother with it. If there's not at least 10 pieces of city ruins terrain (the most ubiquitous terrain @ my FLGS as the owner loves building/painting it), then there's something wrong. I literally would not even be able to deploy it, much less move it. Simply put more terrain on the board if you don't want to face it. If thats not an option, just remember that your opponent spent more than the cost of a decked out Riptide to be able to field it.
I remember how much everyone cried when the Fortress of Redemption was released - when was the last time someone dropped one of those down against you?
64904
Post by: GoliothOnline
So we have to abuse Ignores Cover right?
Typhon Heavy Siege tank, AWAY!
95942
Post by: Intercessor
Time to load up on Hellhounds and Bombards...
14
Post by: Ghaz
... or Necron Tomb Blades with Nebuloscopes (like we need an excuse to take them to begin with )
91468
Post by: War Kitten
I need to go buy some more wyverns apparently
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
It's a dumb special rule but it doesn't scare me at all from a practical stand-point.
It's way too expensive for what it does, frankly. I don't see it ever ending up in a competitive list.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 Vryce wrote:I agree that the rule is worded poorly, but the reality is, as others have pointed out, this rampart will be difficult to use in its full capacity. As a Tau player myself, I wont even bother with it. If there's not at least 10 pieces of city ruins terrain (the most ubiquitous terrain @ my FLGS as the owner loves building/painting it), then there's something wrong. I literally would not even be able to deploy it, much less move it. Simply put more terrain on the board if you don't want to face it. If thats not an option, just remember that your opponent spent more than the cost of a decked out Riptide to be able to field it.
I remember how much everyone cried when the Fortress of Redemption was released - when was the last time someone dropped one of those down against you?
The difference is that the Fortress of Redemption can only be assembled one way.
The Tidewall Rampart can be assembled multiple ways. The only caveat is that each section must be touching/within 6" of a Shieldline(the straight portion) if separate and that if one section moves, it all moves.
51889
Post by: Vash108
Cant we just blow it up first, then deal with the Troops?
88978
Post by: JimOnMars
 Vash108 wrote:Cant we just blow it up first, then deal with the Troops?
No, it's terrain, not a building or model.
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
The Tidewall isn't actually a building.
The only destructable part is the Railgun emplacement.
90374
Post by: Pain4Pleasure
People.. Ignores cover is plentyful.. This thing sucks.
94119
Post by: the Signless
Of course, I'll just go and grab my pile of burna-bommers with six single shot skorcha missiles that have to be purchased individually and then. . . I don't know. Realise that ignores cover is only plentiful for certain (read: Tau) armies.
I can't stop thinking what it would look like if someone shot a deathstrike missile at the wall. It would go "boing!"
This model has weirdly worded rules and is too expensive for most games. Nicely done GW.
26018
Post by: Vryce
 Kanluwen wrote: Vryce wrote:I agree that the rule is worded poorly, but the reality is, as others have pointed out, this rampart will be difficult to use in its full capacity. As a Tau player myself, I wont even bother with it. If there's not at least 10 pieces of city ruins terrain (the most ubiquitous terrain @ my FLGS as the owner loves building/painting it), then there's something wrong. I literally would not even be able to deploy it, much less move it. Simply put more terrain on the board if you don't want to face it. If thats not an option, just remember that your opponent spent more than the cost of a decked out Riptide to be able to field it.
I remember how much everyone cried when the Fortress of Redemption was released - when was the last time someone dropped one of those down against you?
The difference is that the Fortress of Redemption can only be assembled one way.
The Tidewall Rampart can be assembled multiple ways. The only caveat is that each section must be touching/within 6" of a Shieldline(the straight portion) if separate and that if one section moves, it all moves.
And the more you space the sections, the larger the ultimate footprint becomes, making it even more unwieldy. This thing is a gimmick at best and a hindrance at worst. You may see this fortification once or twice, but once the owner realizes that it's not a moving wall of invincibility and destruction, it'll be gone.
A select few may make this a cornerstone of their army; a player at my FLGS is talking about using one of these alongside a Stormsurge or two and filling the remaining points with cheap troops and a Riptide and is just expecting to table armies and not play for objectives. To which I said - and others have too - "Good luck finding a game."
88779
Post by: Gamgee
Ah he is a god send to us all. Sometimes there is a level of force against which no tactics can prevail. God Bless you son/daughter of Tau.
94172
Post by: Scion of the Emperor
Stupid rules and terrible idea
90599
Post by: Reinokarite
Imperial Knight wouldn't be even allowed to take his invul, as it is not shooting attack, Wraithknight on the other hand will take armour save AND fnp.
88026
Post by: casvalremdeikun
 Reinokarite wrote:Imperial Knight wouldn't be even allowed to take his invul, as it is not shooting attack, Wraithknight on the other hand will take armour save AND fnp.
Just the FNP. It doesn't seem like it allows any save. FNP would trigger since it was a wound that was not saved.
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
It says it suffers a wound/glance at the weapon's AP. So models would get saves. Typically if GW doesn't want you to take a save the explicitly state as such (e.g. "Suffers a wound with no saves of any kind allowed")
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
Martel732 wrote: master of ordinance wrote:Well I will have no problems as I refuse to play the resident Tau players but I can see the stupidity in this. It has no range on the deflection and can allow what is essentially a HMG (IE, the Heavy Stubber) to remove a HP from one of my Leman Russes. Now this really is beyond stupid.
Hey, it makes Imperial heavy weapons good against SOMETHING. It just happens to be the vehicle firing the weapon.
Well played Automatically Appended Next Post: Vryce wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Vryce wrote:I agree that the rule is worded poorly, but the reality is, as others have pointed out, this rampart will be difficult to use in its full capacity. As a Tau player myself, I wont even bother with it. If there's not at least 10 pieces of city ruins terrain (the most ubiquitous terrain @ my FLGS as the owner loves building/painting it), then there's something wrong. I literally would not even be able to deploy it, much less move it. Simply put more terrain on the board if you don't want to face it. If thats not an option, just remember that your opponent spent more than the cost of a decked out Riptide to be able to field it.
I remember how much everyone cried when the Fortress of Redemption was released - when was the last time someone dropped one of those down against you?
The difference is that the Fortress of Redemption can only be assembled one way.
The Tidewall Rampart can be assembled multiple ways. The only caveat is that each section must be touching/within 6" of a Shieldline(the straight portion) if separate and that if one section moves, it all moves.
And the more you space the sections, the larger the ultimate footprint becomes, making it even more unwieldy. This thing is a gimmick at best and a hindrance at worst. You may see this fortification once or twice, but once the owner realizes that it's not a moving wall of invincibility and destruction, it'll be gone.
Remind me again of the last time you saw a Tau gunline move more than 6" in the entire game?
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
I love the idea of this. Seems very Tau, with a moving line, paired with the whole energy shield thing.
Execution? Holy mother of Astartes, it's horrendous! Why the hell GW didn't just re-use the rules of a Lychguard Dispersion Shield I'll never know. Cool concept, terrible execution.
If any Tau players have the grace to use this thing against me, I'll request that they use the Dispersion Shield's rules, and I'll knock off 5 or 10 points from each Tidewall to compensate.
80425
Post by: digital-animal
I think it's a neat model and while I don't think vehicles should take auto-glances I still like the idea of shots bouncing back...
I may pick up one of the segments when/if they get released separately.
I think there's a decent amount of stuff that could go right through it. I imagine the SM Vindicator formation with the massive S10 AP1 ignores cover blast tucked behind a couple void shields would make quite short work of pretty much an entire army were it hiding within the tidewall.
77233
Post by: Caederes
People are still confused about the criticism of this thing? It's not that it is over-powered or anything, it is that the shield rules are downright stupid.
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
Just thinking of it, a Punisher will actually glance itself to deathif it opens up on this thing......
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
' Every game because, surprise, surprise, it's not a very good tactic. If they aren't moving, just play the objectives and hide behind LoS blocking terrain. You'll win if they don'r move. Even if you are playing annihilation, it's not a particularly good tactic. You play IG, and tau are horrible at anti-heavy armour. As long as you keep your LR backs covered from melt-cides, just create a wall of death, and use your 72" range guns to play his FWs apart. Boring but it works. I play mobile tau, have been since the beginning of 4th edition codex. That end up being far most powerful, especially if I end up power-gaming (i.e. FE not my usual FW in Dfish setup). Automatically Appended Next Post: Caederes wrote:People are still confused about the criticism of this thing? It's not that it is over-powered or anything, it is that the shield rules are downright stupid.
Yeah. They are horribly designed. I'd personally rather some rule that makes their saves invuln saves or something, and just forgo the whole mess. At that point they'd be pretty well priced, and fair. Nothing overly powered, but not weak either.
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
Agreed:
Slight point reduction, maybe even as slight as 10 points off each shield, and have them grant an 4+ Invulnerability Save in situations where the Model is Obscured.
Game Workshop have obviously decided that Cover Saves are not tactically valuable, or at least not something you should have to pay for. Not only do they hand out Ignore Cover Weapons as if they are candy on Halloween, but take a look at the cost of Terrain designed to grant nothing more then a Cover Save. Unless the Fortification in question is granting something on top of a 4+ Cover Save, one pays more for the convenience of guaranteeing a certain Terrain Piece is going to be present on the battle field.
Yet grant a 4+ Invulnerable and it suddenly becomes worth 25 or so points....
Granting that same save to multiple Models has to be worth at least 30-50 points.
|
|
