Astra Militarum: To buy the new codex or to not buy the new codex

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.

**ClockworkZion**

Vaktathi wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Cover is done on a model by model bases (hence why you can focus fire) so yeah, the models out of cover wouldn't get a save.
I don't have my rulebook on me, so I freely admit I could be wrong, but, unless I'm mistaken and everyone I've played with is too, the unit as a whole gets the cover save (as otherwise Focus Fire serves no purpose) until it gets shot at again, as it had a majority of models in cover when shot at. Casualty removal is not broken up into initiative style phases, the shooting is supposed to be simultaneous, and thus even if the AP5 hits kill off enough such that a majority of the unit is not in cover, it's assumed the AP2 shots are hitting at the same time and so the unit still gets the cover save if not focus firing.

I may have to start a YMDC thread on that, but I believe if this principle is followed, then the downgrading of the save would only apply to the next unit to shoot at the Bullgryns.

Since models get cover on a by model basis (thus making Focus Fire work as you are focusing on models with a cover save of X or worse and ignoring the ones who have better ones in the same unit) then I'd have to say you're mixing up 5th ed's cover with 6th ed's.

Vaktathi wrote:
To further muddy the waters: Shadowfields are a 2++ save that once you fail it you lose it. I see that as being a pretty good precedence of something like this as the save becomes downgraded because of a failed save.
It specifically says you lose the save however as soon as its failed, and applies only to a single model.

The point was that there is already a situation in the game that basically mimics the kind of situation we're discussing: one where the saves can change during the same shooting phase.

**Trickstick**

Vaktathi wrote:
As shooting from a unit is assumed to be simultaneous, it would only matter once you moved to the next unit's shooting I would imagine, unless I'm missing something.

The armour saves only come in to play when you allocate a wound to a model, at which point you take their save. There is nothing saying to work out armour saves earlier than this, and it is only for the model that takes the wound. So you only determine the save when it needs to be rolled, at which point a Bullgryn may only have a 4+.

**Sir Arun**

Trickstick wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
...has a shield that gives it +1 to it's save if there is another model in the unit with the same type of shield...

It is much worse than that, and is actually a bit limiting. You need to be in base contact with another slab shield to get the bonus, This means that you either have to have the models lined up in base contact, or separate them out into pairs boosting each other. The first makes them easy pickings for blast weapons, the second means that after killing one model with shooting, the next few shots are against 4+.

I can see resolving wounds against a unit of these being slow, as you have to worry about at which point saves change.

So the best way to field this unit is in a U formation as that way wounds will always be allocated to the outermost ones and the chain cannot be broken?

**Sir Arun**

well I got the AM codex and made some changes to my 1st post since I had gotten some details wrong, but overall I think it is still a shame we lost units otherwise this would have been the perfect codex.

**Mysterious Pants**

Sir Arun wrote:
well I got the AM codex and made some changes to my 1st post since I had gotten some details wrong, but overall I think it is still a shame we lost units otherwise this would have been the perfect codex.

The funniest bit is that most of the things that made this codex meh could have just been fixed with some copy+pasting. If GW had just copy+pasted the special characters, the missing vehicles, and penal legion squads from the previous codex most of my issues would be solved. But nope, they took them out instead.