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.

I was stunned at how many bases of Scarabs there were at the end. o.O Very entertaining battle report, I'll be subscribing for more in the future.

Thanks guys!

Yeah, we opened our own store, recently. Things have been crazy hectic, but a lot of fun.

The Crons seem to be an army that is all over the place, and it will be really easy to make a bad list, but a good player with the right combination of units will do very well.

There are some big weaknesses though, the army has very vulnerable troops, but we're experimenting with Ghost arcs and res orbs to make the troops more resilient. The problem though, is close combat. They get rundown and die so easily!

We are really liking the book though. I was wrong to say it was a disappointment.

It's alot of points to take Ghost Arcs, Res Orbs, Nightfighting, 30 scarabs, and then whatever you full you need in the HS section to win the game. I don't have any conclusive battle-rep evidence but my initial feeling is that the new necrons have a very simular playability of Tau.

I'm seeing the scarabs as a fearless kroot screen with the Night Fighting shananigans as a means to soften up the long range beating they may take.all the while CC units move into position and really make all those first 3 turns of posturing/positioning moot.

Back to my origional thought...points cost...and I think Necrons ramp up in effectiveness as the points value increases. I just think they need too many of their special gadgets and quirky rules all in one bag to make them functional. CC is still a huge problem and I've yet to see the Wraiths win games but I'm still hopeful.

Immediately doesn't need a FAQ to the Entropic strike.

Something worth noting Firing over a unit doesn't provide a cover save. Firing through a unit does. So the tiny scarabs don't do jack to Dudes on flight stands.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Immediately doesn't need a FAQ to the Entropic strike.

Something worth noting Firing over a unit doesn't provide a cover save. Firing through a unit does. So the tiny scarabs don't do jack to Dudes on flight stands.

^^This

I saw several instances in the first battle report where the scarabs were providing cover to Destroyers which doesn't work at all. I can think of very few situations where a Scarab base could block any portion of the Destroyers body without any intervening terrain to assist. It seems to have gotten better with this report, using the Ghost Arks to give cover rather than Scarabs, but many don't realize that shooting through a unit does nothing if that unit does not in fact obscure the models you are shooting at in any way. This seems to be a common mistake.

Aldarionn wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Immediately doesn't need a FAQ to the Entropic strike.

Something worth noting Firing over a unit doesn't provide a cover save. Firing through a unit does. So the tiny scarabs don't do jack to Dudes on flight stands.

^^This

I saw several instances in the first battle report where the scarabs were providing cover to Destroyers which doesn't work at all. I can think of very few situations where a Scarab base could block any portion of the Destroyers body without any intervening terrain to assist. It seems to have gotten better with this report, using the Ghost Arks to give cover rather than Scarabs, but many don't realize that shooting through a unit does nothing if that unit does not in fact obscure the models you are shooting at in any way. This seems to be a common mistake.

Read the rules guys. Swarms can only not give cover to MC's and vehicles. So infantry and jump infantry can receive cover from swarms. The model doesnt have to physically block and portion of another unit to give a cover save for infantry models. If unit A is shooting thru unit B to get to C. Unit C will get cover.

italiaplaya wrote:
Read the rules guys. Swarms can only not give cover to MC's and vehicles. So infantry and jump infantry can receive cover from swarms. The model doesnt have to physically block and portion of another unit to give a cover save for infantry models. If unit A is shooting thru unit B to get to C. Unit C will get cover.

No, youre totally wrong there.

Page 21 and 22 of the Rulebook

When are models in cover?
When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover.....[not relevant to this discussion]

Firers may of course shoot over intervening terrain if they are tall enough or high up on some terrain piece so that their line of sight is completely clear. As usual, check the firer's line of sight by taking a good look from behind their heads, and "see what they see".

Exceptions:
-Firing through units or area terrain: If a model fires through the gaps between some elements of area terrain (such as between two trees in a wood) or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the area terrain or unit rather than through it (see the photographic diagram below).

The underlined section under "Exceptions" is what matters. If the Scarabs are not tall enough so as to obscure the Destroyers and the shots go over their heads, then they CANNOT provide cover to the destroyers. Because the destroyers are on flight bases, and are tall enough that the Scarabs are completely below them, you cannot claim that you are firing between the scarabs to get to the destroyers. If you trace a line from the eyes of a standard 25mm model to any part of a Destroyers body, no part of that line will go "between" and of the scarabs, it will go OVER them.

So no, you are wrong. They could provide cover to Warriors/Immortals with no question, but not Destroyers.

Aldarionn wrote:

italiaplaya wrote:
Read the rules guys. Swarms can only not give cover to MC's and vehicles. So infantry and jump infantry can receive cover from swarms. The model doesnt have to physically block and portion of another unit to give a cover save for infantry models. If unit A is shooting thru unit B to get to C. Unit C will get cover.

No, youre totally wrong there.

Page 21 and 22 of the Rulebook

When are models in cover?
When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover.....[not relevant to this discussion]

Firers may of course shoot over intervening terrain if they are tall enough or high up on some terrain piece so that their line of sight is completely clear. As usual, check the firer's line of sight by taking a good look from behind their heads, and "see what they see".

Exceptions:
-Firing through units or area terrain: If a model fires through the gaps between some elements of area terrain (such as between two trees in a wood) or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the area terrain or unit rather than through it (see the photographic diagram below).

The underlined section under "Exceptions" is what matters. If the Scarabs are not tall enough so as to obscure the Destroyers and the shots go over their heads, then they CANNOT provide cover to the destroyers. Because the destroyers are on flight bases, and are tall enough that the Scarabs are completely below them, you cannot claim that you are firing between the scarabs to get to the destroyers. If you trace a line from the eyes of a standard 25mm model to any part of a Destroyers body, no part of that line will go "between" and of the scarabs, it will go OVER them.

So no, you are wrong. They could provide cover to Warriors/Immortals with no question, but not Destroyers.

I can see your point of view. However, Id still have to disagree. The base is still apart of the model, in which case gives cover to the destroyer.

Exceptions:
-Firing through units or area terrain: If a model fires through the gaps between some elements of area terrain (such as between two trees in a wood) or through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the area terrain or unit rather than through it (see the photographic diagram below).

The base is not included when determining cover except for area terrain. Read the description of "body" on page 16 referenced by the "When are models in cover?" section. It does not include the base.

I see your point there, but then, couldn't you argue that swarms don't provide cover to nearly anything as a model will fire "over" them from the point of view of their eyes?

You could also make that argument with grots to a certain extent.

It is a typical GW, poorly written rule that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

I think you are correct in this case though, Aldarionn, and it looks like we were playing it wrong. I seem to remember GW defining the space occupied by its base, but maybe that was in the last book. They say almost nothing about bases in this book other than how decorative bases can change the game....

Reecius wrote:I see your point there, but then, couldn't you argue that swarms don't provide cover to nearly anything as a model will fire "over" them from the point of view of their eyes?

You could also make that argument with grots to a certain extent.

It is a typical GW, poorly written rule that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

I think you are correct in this case though, Aldarionn, and it looks like we were playing it wrong. I seem to remember GW defining the space occupied by its base, but maybe that was in the last book. They say almost nothing about bases in this book other than how decorative bases can change the game....

No, because a swarm base could be placed close enough to a standard model that from the perspective of the firing model he is shooting "between" the scarabs. My argument is that you MUST use TLoS to determine if you are firing over or through the scarabs, and in the case of Destroyers, you are clearly firing OVER them, not THROUGH them. If the Scarabs were elevated on something roughly as tall as a Destroyers base (a low hill for example) then it could easily be said that you are firing THROUGH the scarabs rather than over them, but assuming level ground with no outside interference, a Space Marine shooting a Destroyer with a Scarab base anywhere between the two will not grand cover to the Destroyer. It's simply too low to the ground.

Reece, you own all of the models necessary to physically test this. Take a Destroyer and place it, say, 12" away from a Space Marine. Then, place a Scarab base between them and get a models eye view of the Destroyer from the Space Marines perspective and move the Scarab along the line between the two models. At any point does the Space Marine look like he is firing BETWEEN the Scarabs?

Reecius wrote:I see your point there, but then, couldn't you argue that swarms don't provide cover to nearly anything as a model will fire "over" them from the point of view of their eyes?

You could also make that argument with grots to a certain extent.

It is a typical GW, poorly written rule that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

I think you are correct in this case though, Aldarionn, and it looks like we were playing it wrong. I seem to remember GW defining the space occupied by its base, but maybe that was in the last book. They say almost nothing about bases in this book other than how decorative bases can change the game....

Well, as with all true line of sight based issues, it is dependent upon the models and their positioning in the game. Could they write rules to just use 'size categories' with set levels of how they provide cover to each other? Of course, but then you'd lose the actual impact of playing with 3D model on 3D terrain, so its a case of taking the good with the bad.

The point here is that the LOS rules do specify that it is possible to draw LOS over a unit instead of through it, and therefore there must be some capacity to do so. While the rules do not provide any specifics on exactly how to determine when you are firing OVER a unit as opposed to through it, I think the common perception is illustrated by the 'A' poll result in this thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/219003.page


Although, after that poll I revised the 'A' diagram to include the very highest points of any part of the obscuring models, as I think that's how most people who know of the rule actually play (and that diagram is in the INAT covering this particular question).


But yeah, LOS to destroyers would not pass 'through' a unit of Scarabs at all, it would pass OVER them. Warriors however, have at least their legs/feet touching the ground and therefore they could get cover saves from intervening Scarabs, provided they were actually close enough to the Warriors and the firing models aren't shooting from an elevated position that allows them to see 'over' the Scarabs completely.

Thanks for the clarification. We've been playing it wrong.

Well, that particular tactic won't work then, but never-the-less, scarabs are still amazing.

We've actually been leaning towards running Wraiths in the list as it compliments to overall build very well.

Great Batrep, thanks for the tips. plus good luck to ya'lls new store. I would like to see a Batrep Necron vs Grey Knights.

Thanks! Glad you've been enjoying them.