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.

frag this game!

bleak wrote:

 ibushi wrote:
In conclusion, when Optimized Stealth Cadre units benefitting from Wall of Mirrors shoot at a Knight with an Ion Shield, they hit rear armour, and so an Ion Shield save may only be taken if the controlling player nominated "rear" facing for the Shield. (If the Knight does place the Ion Shield in the rear arc, the Tau units using Wall of Mirrors MUST hit it though, as they cannot choose which facing they hit.)

Wave Serpents hit in the rear arc by Wall of Mirrors attacks also do not benefit from the Serpent Shield.

This is correct. However, Wall of mirrors can be chosen to be active or inactive IIRC. Therefore the knight player needs to choose carefully where his shielding is.

And also @Filch, maybe its time to sell those knights and buy tau models?

Nope, they are "assumed to strike the rear armour of any vehicle that they hit, no matter what its actual facing." They cannot choose to disable it, even when it would be detrimental to shoot the rear armor of a vehicle.

I thought it just meant the OSC gets to shoot at a lower Armor Value. Most Vehicles have lower armor in the rear so I just thought it was like a Lance kinda thing where it ignored av14 and hits av12.

 Filch wrote:
I thought it just meant the OSC gets to shoot at a lower Armor Value. Most Vehicles have lower armor in the rear so I just thought it was like a Lance kinda thing where it ignored av14 and hits av12.

If there was a vehicle that had AV14 on the back, but 10 on the sides, they would still have to hit the 14 on the back.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Naw wrote:
GW is quite consistent in the use of as if. The two rules don't really match here too well. I'd go with the shots coming from whichever facing the Ghostkeel & co were at but always hitting against the rear AV.

Explain to me then how would the rear armor be hit.... if they shoot from the front. That literally makes no sense. The only logical way for the rear armor to be hit, is to be shooting from the direction of the rear armor. Unless you think that their bullets shoot past them and spin around 180 degrees to hit their back lol.

"As if" means they aren't actually behind them shooting, but hit their back armor like they are shooting from behind for all intensive purposes, including direction of shot.

And here I thought that is what I just said.

Nilok wrote:

bleak wrote:

 ibushi wrote:
In conclusion, when Optimized Stealth Cadre units benefitting from Wall of Mirrors shoot at a Knight with an Ion Shield, they hit rear armour, and so an Ion Shield save may only be taken if the controlling player nominated "rear" facing for the Shield. (If the Knight does place the Ion Shield in the rear arc, the Tau units using Wall of Mirrors MUST hit it though, as they cannot choose which facing they hit.)

Wave Serpents hit in the rear arc by Wall of Mirrors attacks also do not benefit from the Serpent Shield.

This is correct. However, Wall of mirrors can be chosen to be active or inactive IIRC. Therefore the knight player needs to choose carefully where his shielding is.

And also @Filch, maybe its time to sell those knights and buy tau models?

Nope, they are "assumed to strike the rear armour of any vehicle that they hit, no matter what its actual facing." They cannot choose to disable it, even when it would be detrimental to shoot the rear armor of a vehicle.

Ok reread that, it states,

Wall of Mirrors: At the start of the shooting phase, this formation can network their stealth fields to create a wall of mirrors. So you DO NOT have to shoot the rear. Looks like knights are really gonna have a bad time. Landraiders however still laughs at this, unless a lucky melta comes up.

bleak wrote:

Nilok wrote:

bleak wrote:

 ibushi wrote:
In conclusion, when Optimized Stealth Cadre units benefitting from Wall of Mirrors shoot at a Knight with an Ion Shield, they hit rear armour, and so an Ion Shield save may only be taken if the controlling player nominated "rear" facing for the Shield. (If the Knight does place the Ion Shield in the rear arc, the Tau units using Wall of Mirrors MUST hit it though, as they cannot choose which facing they hit.)

Wave Serpents hit in the rear arc by Wall of Mirrors attacks also do not benefit from the Serpent Shield.

This is correct. However, Wall of mirrors can be chosen to be active or inactive IIRC. Therefore the knight player needs to choose carefully where his shielding is.

And also @Filch, maybe its time to sell those knights and buy tau models?

Nope, they are "assumed to strike the rear armour of any vehicle that they hit, no matter what its actual facing." They cannot choose to disable it, even when it would be detrimental to shoot the rear armor of a vehicle.

Ok reread that, it states,

Wall of Mirrors: At the start of the shooting phase, this formation can network their stealth fields to create a wall of mirrors. So you DO NOT have to shoot the rear. Looks like knights are really gonna have a bad time. Landraiders however still laughs at this, unless a lucky melta comes up.

Ah, derp.
It does however cost their ignore cover too.

 Filch wrote:
wow, just wow, after buying 5 imperial knights GW pulls this crap? I hate you GW. I should have walked away from this game when I sold a large part of my CSM but instead I spent it on 5 Imperial Knights like an idiot. Imperial Knights are supper easy to kill. A 85 pt model can one shot a knight. Its a called a shokk attack cannon with a lucky STR D vortex shot. On top of that any melta or lascannon can pen and get a 6 on the damage table and take away d3 hull points where as a Wraith Knight giggles and shrugs of a hit with a invul save followed by a FNP.

Imperial Knights should just be treated like a Gargantuan Creature like the OP Wraith Knight and have a 4++ invul save.

I hate GW and I dont understand why I keep buying and playing this game.

Honestly, you have no one but yourself to blame for buying 5 knights without knowing their strengths and weaknesses. They have been out for over a year now and have been well analyzed by the tournament community, message boards, and various pages like frontline. Buying that many and then being upset by their rules is just silly.

Naw wrote:
GW is quite consistent in the use of as if. The two rules don't really match here too well. I'd go with the shots coming from whichever facing the Ghostkeel & co were at but always hitting against the rear AV.

As the rule was quoted incorrectly and I did not check the wording, it is now quite obvious that the knight must place the shield to its backside to benefit from it. This is very bad news also to Wave Serpents, which is positive

If the "as if" wording was correct nothing changes. You are aware of that right? "As if" "treated as"counts as" etc are all the same as "is" from a rules perspective. Also the Knight's shield cares nothing for where the shots come from only what facing is hit.

Obviously the solution, when playing against Tau, is to run Gallants backwards at them. Only turn around when it is time to charge.

Well, that and they are running the OSC, of course.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Obviously the solution, when playing against Tau, is to run Gallants backwards at them. Only turn around when it is time to charge.

Well, that and they are running the OSC, of course.

Nothing beats moonwalking knights

 FlingitNow wrote:
If the "as if" wording was correct nothing changes. You are aware of that right? "As if" "treated as"counts as" etc are all the same as "is" from a rules perspective. Also the Knight's shield cares nothing for where the shots come from only what facing is hit.

My comment was how I would play it but there was not any ambiguity in the rules. So yes, only if the shield was placed behind would it protect.

 IngenuityGap wrote:

 Filch wrote:
wow, just wow, after buying 5 imperial knights GW pulls this crap? I hate you GW. I should have walked away from this game when I sold a large part of my CSM but instead I spent it on 5 Imperial Knights like an idiot. Imperial Knights are supper easy to kill. A 85 pt model can one shot a knight. Its a called a shokk attack cannon with a lucky STR D vortex shot. On top of that any melta or lascannon can pen and get a 6 on the damage table and take away d3 hull points where as a Wraith Knight giggles and shrugs of a hit with a invul save followed by a FNP.

Imperial Knights should just be treated like a Gargantuan Creature like the OP Wraith Knight and have a 4++ invul save.

I hate GW and I dont understand why I keep buying and playing this game.

Honestly, you have no one but yourself to blame for buying 5 knights without knowing their strengths and weaknesses. They have been out for over a year now and have been well analyzed by the tournament community, message boards, and various pages like frontline. Buying that many and then being upset by their rules is just silly.

OReally? Did the community predict this wall of mirrors shenanigans a year ago? Did Front line leak Ghost Keel wandering in a Wall of Mirors like bruce lee? before a year ago it was just Paladin and Errants with the Adamantine Lance.

 Filch wrote:

 IngenuityGap wrote:

 Filch wrote:
wow, just wow, after buying 5 imperial knights GW pulls this crap? I hate you GW. I should have walked away from this game when I sold a large part of my CSM but instead I spent it on 5 Imperial Knights like an idiot. Imperial Knights are supper easy to kill. A 85 pt model can one shot a knight. Its a called a shokk attack cannon with a lucky STR D vortex shot. On top of that any melta or lascannon can pen and get a 6 on the damage table and take away d3 hull points where as a Wraith Knight giggles and shrugs of a hit with a invul save followed by a FNP.

Imperial Knights should just be treated like a Gargantuan Creature like the OP Wraith Knight and have a 4++ invul save.

I hate GW and I dont understand why I keep buying and playing this game.

Honestly, you have no one but yourself to blame for buying 5 knights without knowing their strengths and weaknesses. They have been out for over a year now and have been well analyzed by the tournament community, message boards, and various pages like frontline. Buying that many and then being upset by their rules is just silly.

OReally? Did the community predict this wall of mirrors shenanigans a year ago? Did Front line leak Ghost Keel wandering in a Wall of Mirors like bruce lee? before a year ago it was just Paladin and Errants with the Adamantine Lance.

Christ on a crutch. If you bought five Knights, you probably did it for one of two reasons: to be "that guy" or have an awesome looking army of gigantic robots with big guns and bigger chainswords. The first one was never viable because Necrons and Eldar. That's been the case for nearly every release. So please, listen to Arnold and "stop whining". If you did it for the second reason, you still have a group of badass looking robots. I hope you spent a good amount of time painting them to the level they deserve.

Also, it seems like this has been resolved (or at least the thread has derailed). Someone declare time of death?

nothing in the rules for optimised stealth cadre tell you to change where the shooting attack comes from, just that it hits rear armor. It does not state to treat the attack as if coming from the rear.

They would have to state such a thing, because it has implications for cover saves, ie vehicles may be behind cover on their front facing but not the rear facing. the vehicles overall cover save is based on where the attack comes from, not which facing is hit. So a vehicle right behind a low wall, would have cover from a model infront of it, even if the model had a special rule letting it hit the rear armor.

as for the knights shield, it gives a save to a facing on the knight, so unless the knight chose rear armor a shoot that hits the rear armor coming from a different facing, would still hit the rear armor and not the facing protected. Or, the knight cannot protect a facing of armor it did not nominate to protect.

the idea of running knights backwards would not work within the RAW to stop this ability. The optimised stealth cadre rules does not say it hits the opposite facing from which they are targetting, it says it hits the rear armor. If you run knights backwards [rear armor is forward] it will still hit the rear armor facing, which would be what is in front in this case.

blaktoof wrote:
nothing in the rules for optimised stealth cadre tell you to change where the shooting attack comes from, just that it hits rear armor. It does not state to treat the attack as if coming from the rear.

They would have to state such a thing, because it has implications for cover saves, ie vehicles may be behind cover on their front facing but not the rear facing. the vehicles overall cover save is based on where the attack comes from, not which facing is hit. So a vehicle right behind a low wall, would have cover from a model infront of it, even if the model had a special rule letting it hit the rear armor.

as for the knights shield, it gives a save to a facing on the knight, so unless the knight chose rear armor a shoot that hits the rear armor coming from a different facing, would still hit the rear armor and not the facing protected. Or, the knight cannot protect a facing of armor it did not nominate to protect.

the idea of running knights backwards would not work within the RAW to stop this ability. The optimised stealth cadre rules does not say it hits the opposite facing from which they are targetting, it says it hits the rear armor. If you run knights backwards [rear armor is forward] it will still hit the rear armor facing, which would be what is in front in this case.

OSC ignores all cover as well

the idea of running knights backwards would not work within the RAWto stop this ability. The optimised stealth cadre rules does not say it hits the opposite facing from which they are targetting, it says it hits the rear armor. If you run knights backwards [rear armor is forward] it will still hit the rear armor facing, which would be what is in front in this case. 

You know you've explained exactly why it WOULD work right? Run the Knights backwards so you can choose rear armour shield and get protection from the Ghostkeels AND the Stormsurge/Broadsides etc.

 Filch wrote:
wow, just wow, after buying 5 imperial knights GW pulls this crap? I hate you GW. I should have walked away from this game when I sold a large part of my CSM but instead I spent it on 5 Imperial Knights like an idiot. Imperial Knights are supper easy to kill. A 85 pt model can one shot a knight. Its a called a shokk attack cannon with a lucky STR D vortex shot. On top of that any melta or lascannon can pen and get a 6 on the damage table and take away d3 hull points where as a Wraith Knight giggles and shrugs of a hit with a invul save followed by a FNP.

Imperial Knights should just be treated like a Gargantuan Creature like the OP Wraith Knight and have a 4++ invul save.

I hate GW and I dont understand why I keep buying and playing this game.

lol

5 Knights right now lets you play at 2k points. $ wise the cost of the army is one of the lowest to get a 2kpt army, or even 1850pt army. You ignore most armies basic weapons, completely, as well as most armies basic assault units, completely.

the 85pt model you talk about, almost no one takes, because the 3.5" radius large blast marker it fires scatters 2d6-2, so about 40% of the time it scatters off the target(miss), the chance to get a D str shot is by rolling double 6's on 2d6, so a 12. I doubt you or anyone you have ever played with has ever seen this happen in a tournament with this model, if they did it was one person one time.

Yes a lascannon that hits a knight, and then pens armor, and then doesn't get stopped by shield/cover, and then rolls a 6 for the effect can cause d3 hps, which has a 33% chance to still be just 1.
and Yes a WK hit by the same lascannon(which is wounded easier than a knight on front facing is penned/glanced...) might also get a worse invulnerable save, if it bought the shield and gave up its D ranged weapons, and would then get a 5+ fnp. Considering any weapon with the instant death ability does no additional damage to a Knight, but does D3 wounds to a WK(doesn't need to roll explodes) and ignores FnP there are some obvious trade offs here, I would rather be the knight personally.

Anyways, if you think an IK army is not very powerful, maybe you should sell your knights and buy a farseer on a jetbike, and some squads of min sized scatter bikes, and then a bunch of WKs. or move on to a different hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

the idea of running knights backwards would not work within the RAWto stop this ability. The optimised stealth cadre rules does not say it hits the opposite facing from which they are targetting, it says it hits the rear armor. If you run knights backwards [rear armor is forward] it will still hit the rear armor facing, which would be what is in front in this case. 

You know you've explained exactly why it WOULD work right? Run the Knights backwards so you can choose rear armour shield and get protection from the Ghostkeels AND the Stormsurge/Broadsides etc.

the OSC doesn't hit the facing that is rear from the firing unit, it hits the rear armor facing...if the rear armor is the facing closest to them and right infront of them, they would still hit the rear armor with their special rule, not the front armor because its now on the other side of the model from the firer.

If I drive my rhino backwards the front isn't the rear. The front is still front armor, even though it is not backwards, and the rear is still rear armor even though it is the side closer to the enemy firing at it.

blaktoof wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

the idea of running knights backwards would not work within the RAWto stop this ability. The optimised stealth cadre rules does not say it hits the opposite facing from which they are targetting, it says it hits the rear armor. If you run knights backwards [rear armor is forward] it will still hit the rear armor facing, which would be what is in front in this case. 

You know you've explained exactly why it WOULD work right? Run the Knights backwards so you can choose rear armour shield and get protection from the Ghostkeels AND the Stormsurge/Broadsides etc.

the OSC doesn't hit the facing that is rear from the firing unit, it hits the rear armor facing...if the rear armor is the facing closest to them and right infront of them, they would still hit the rear armor with their special rule, not the front armor because its now on the other side of the model from the firer.

If I drive my rhino backwards the front isn't the rear. The front is still front armor, even though it is not backwards, and the rear is still rear armor even though it is the side closer to the enemy firing at it.

You are both saying the same thing and don't realize it

notredameguy10 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

the idea of running knights backwards would not work within the RAWto stop this ability. The optimised stealth cadre rules does not say it hits the opposite facing from which they are targetting, it says it hits the rear armor. If you run knights backwards [rear armor is forward] it will still hit the rear armor facing, which would be what is in front in this case. 

You know you've explained exactly why it WOULD work right? Run the Knights backwards so you can choose rear armour shield and get protection from the Ghostkeels AND the Stormsurge/Broadsides etc.

the OSC doesn't hit the facing that is rear from the firing unit, it hits the rear armor facing...if the rear armor is the facing closest to them and right infront of them, they would still hit the rear armor with their special rule, not the front armor because its now on the other side of the model from the firer.

If I drive my rhino backwards the front isn't the rear. The front is still front armor, even though it is not backwards, and the rear is still rear armor even though it is the side closer to the enemy firing at it.

You are both saying the same thing and don't realize it

Shhh, let them argue.

notredameguy10 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

the idea of running knights backwards would not work within the RAWto stop this ability. The optimised stealth cadre rules does not say it hits the opposite facing from which they are targetting, it says it hits the rear armor. If you run knights backwards [rear armor is forward] it will still hit the rear armor facing, which would be what is in front in this case. 

You know you've explained exactly why it WOULD work right? Run the Knights backwards so you can choose rear armour shield and get protection from the Ghostkeels AND the Stormsurge/Broadsides etc.

the OSC doesn't hit the facing that is rear from the firing unit, it hits the rear armor facing...if the rear armor is the facing closest to them and right infront of them, they would still hit the rear armor with their special rule, not the front armor because its now on the other side of the model from the firer.

If I drive my rhino backwards the front isn't the rear. The front is still front armor, even though it is not backwards, and the rear is still rear armor even though it is the side closer to the enemy firing at it.

You are both saying the same thing and don't realize it

We are agreeing on how the rules work but he is incapable of understanding how that works on the field for some reason...

Okay first thing is a moonwalking knight would not be able to fire at anything due to fire arcs. Second (as a Knight player) I agree that unless I declare rear arc I don't get the save and it pretty black and white to me. The bigger question to me is the Countermeasures. The rule states that once the unit declares countermeasures the enemy unit can only snapfire (it does not dictate snap fire at that unit it just states the enemy unit can now only snap fire). Seems to me that even if I fire my Knight at another unit I am still stuck with snap fire. This is more potent to an all knight army than the Ion Shield thing to me hehe.

 Fishboy wrote:
Okay first thing is a moonwalking knight would not be able to fire at anything due to fire arcs. Second (as a Knight player) I agree that unless I declare rear arc I don't get the save and it pretty black and white to me. The bigger question to me is the Countermeasures. The rule states that once the unit declares countermeasures the enemy unit can only snapfire (it does not dictate snap fire at that unit it just states the enemy unit can now only snap fire). Seems to me that even if I fire my Knight at another unit I am still stuck with snap fire. This is more potent to an all knight army than the Ion Shield thing to me hehe.

The obvious solution being don't fire your Knights at them...

 Fishboy wrote:
Okay first thing is a moonwalking knight would not be able to fire at anything due to fire arcs. Second (as a Knight player) I agree that unless I declare rear arc I don't get the save and it pretty black and white to me. The bigger question to me is the Countermeasures. The rule states that once the unit declares countermeasures the enemy unit can only snapfire (it does not dictate snap fire at that unit it just states the enemy unit can now only snap fire). Seems to me that even if I fire my Knight at another unit I am still stuck with snap fire. This is more potent to an all knight army than the Ion Shield thing to me hehe.

You HAVE to continue firing at the Ghostkeels as snap shots. You can no longer switch targets either.

Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

For the same reason that you can't change targets after you roll badly and decide you'd like to try again.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

For the same reason that you can't change targets after you roll badly and decide you'd like to try again.

Nothing in the rules require all of a Super-Heavy's targets to be declared at the same time. The only rulebook requirement is for weapons of the same group, and that is only because you have to use them all at the same time or lose the opportunity to fire them.

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

You have to snapfire with whatever weapons you originally targeted the Ghostkeels with. Any other weapons not yet fire can be fired at different targets, but must also snap fire.