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.

My buds and I were playing a friendly game last night and we came across an issue involving the Lifta Droppa on my Stompa. My friend runs a Tau army, his tanks "Hammerhead" come equipped with disruption pods... We got into a "debate" into what exactly the disruption pods do for him. I argued that the pods make the target obscured which by the rule book would provide him with a +4 cover save...however the Lifta Droppa simply says if the target is within range it is automatically lifted. He argued that the disruption pod makes his tanks harder to target???, which I disagreed with based on the rule book definition. Any help on this issue would be great.

Also, how does the Lifta Droppa work with skimmers? If they are dropped, does their "skimming aray" save the tank by hovering, or since it is being dropped from such a high elevation does that negate the skimmer ability all together?

It is Apoc. Find a Amicable agreement.

If you cannot, then you are playing the wrong game.

I agree with having a house rule that we can all live with. I just want to know the correct ruling for my own understanding. If all the disruption pods do is provide a +4 cover save cool. Because no where in the description does it say "it stealths the vehicle" making it harder to target, that seemed to be a little subjective.

This is yet another example of GWs "clear as muddy water" approach to writing rules. They have so many special rules that counteract other rules that they will never be able to FAQ everything that needs to be.

Toxxic wrote:This is yet another example of GWs "clear as muddy water" approach to writing rules. They have so many special rules that counteract other rules that they will never be able to FAQ everything that needs to be.

No offence, but MTG has many MANY more interactions, and they run a Tight Ship. GW doesn't because they are lazy, plain and simple.

You will hear no argument out of me about that statement my friend.

Agreed. If they wanted to, they could have most of the conflictions officially FAQed in a week. In this case, the disruption pod would grant a 4+ save against the D6 glancing hits as long as the hammerhead is more than 12" away from the stompa.

Ian1138 wrote:Agreed. If they wanted to, they could have most of the conflictions officially FAQed in a week. In this case, the disruption pod would grant a 4+ save against the D6 glancing hits as long as the hammerhead is more than 12" away from the stompa.

I guess my question would then be, how can the vehicle get a cover same from itself? I understand if the unit or tank getting dropped on got a cover save. But if the vehicle is lifted no matter what, how can it then receive a cover save? Remind me to thank GW this btw lol. And I appreciate all the input btw, kinda new to 40k.

The glancing hits are being caused by the Lifta-Droppa. As the Lifta-Droppa has to be fired to have any effect and the disruption pod comes into effect when a weapon is fired from more than 12" away; the disruption pod will grant a cover save as long as the Lifta-Droppa is more than 12" away.

Personally I think it is negated by the lifta droppa, being harder to target doesn't really matter when you are 20-30m in the air and (possibly) upside-down, regardless of how you try to conceal yourself your still gonna drop like a stone.

Using that example, shouldn't a skimmer get a save because the pilot could gun the engines in an attempt to stay airborne or at least land softly? In any event, trying to apply common sense/logic to 40k is an overwhelming task.

As to answer OP's questions:
RAW, skimmers do not have an inherent save against a Lifta-Droppa, and disruption pods work as stated in my last post. The only confusing part is whether you get your save if the Lifta-Droppa drops the vehicle within 12".

If you want to write a house rule, make sure that you cover all possibilities as arguing over a house rule discourages people from writing more.

Vehicles only take their saves against glancing/penetrating hits, like non-vehicles only take saves against wounds.

The lifta-droppa will hit a target in range automatically. Against this there is no save.

It will then cause d6 glancing hits. Against each of these you will have a save, but you must save against each individually rather than just once for the whole lot.

So distruption pods do have an effect against a lifta-droppa

Leigen_Zero wrote:Personally I think it is negated by the lifta droppa, being harder to target doesn't really matter when you are 20-30m in the air and (possibly) upside-down, regardless of how you try to conceal yourself your still gonna drop like a stone.

Yes but if we are going by fluff logic the disruption pod creates magnetic and visual spoofs of the vehicle so the lifta dropa gun crew may have no idea if the tank is two feet or two hundred feet off the ground. Yes, your still gona drop like a stone but the effects will be vastly different.

Krimmsonscurge wrote:

Leigen_Zero wrote:Personally I think it is negated by the lifta droppa, being harder to target doesn't really matter when you are 20-30m in the air and (possibly) upside-down, regardless of how you try to conceal yourself your still gonna drop like a stone.

Yes but if we are going by fluff logic the disruption pod creates magnetic and visual spoofs of the vehicle so the lifta dropa gun crew may have no idea if the tank is two feet or two hundred feet off the ground. Yes, your still gona drop like a stone but the effects will be vastly different.

I reject your reality, and lifta droppa my own...

In the old "Final Liberation" 40K computer wargame, lifta droppas just picked you up and chucked you about. There was nothing you could do to stop them -- nothing!

For me, that's a big part of the fun of lifta droppas. I don't own a Stompa, but I will be very happy to have any or all of my vehicles hurled around by the army of *anyone* who has enhanced my fun by scratch-building a lifta droppa arm onto their Stompa.

Er, so I guess I agree with Gwar, that you should find an amicable agreement, preferably with a strong focus on fun.

Ian Sturrock wrote:In the old "Final Liberation" 40K computer wargame, lifta droppas just picked you up and chucked you about. There was nothing you could do to stop them -- nothing!

For me, that's a big part of the fun of lifta droppas. I don't own a Stompa, but I will be very happy to have any or all of my vehicles hurled around by the army of *anyone* who has enhanced my fun by scratch-building a lifta droppa arm onto their Stompa.

Er, so I guess I agree with Gwar, that you should find an amicable agreement, preferably with a strong focus on fun.

I think with regards to the disruption pods and considering the "fun quotient" we should just roll the scatter dice and 4d6 it would be cool if the lifta just hit something random and threw it acccross the table or even off the table!! I would be so mad if this happened to me LOL.