Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 20:38:25
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Elite Tyranid Warrior
|
Answer me this Dakkanites if I were to attach two destroyer lords to a unit of two spiders could I claim a cover save from scarabs marching directly in front of said unit?
|
Im not larger than life , Im not taller than trees..
6000+ 1500+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 20:40:08
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Tunneling Trygon
|
No, as the Destroyer Lords are mounted on Flying Bases and will be flying ABOVE the Scarabs.
|
Grimtuff wrote: GW want the full wrath of their Gestapo to come down on this new fangled Internet and it's free speech.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Draigo is a Mat Ward creation. They don't follow the same rules as everyone else. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 20:42:42
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
Bloodhorror wrote:No, as the Destroyer Lords are mounted on Flying Bases and will be flying ABOVE the Scarabs.
That does not even matter, Members of one unit do not block LoS to other members of said unit.
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 20:43:52
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Elite Tyranid Warrior
|
but my opponent is shooting at a mixed unit through ano ther unit, the only difference is that swarms cannot give monstrous creatures and tanks a cover save , The fact that the lords are on flying base is irrevant
|
Im not larger than life , Im not taller than trees..
6000+ 1500+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 20:52:52
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
** Redacted, I misread the OP **
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/11 22:53:26
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 20:55:43
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Furious Fire Dragon
|
The Scarabs do not join with the Spyders, so the OP is talking about two units: Scarabs in front of a mixed unit of Spyders and D Lords. So, if you are shooting through the spaces between the bases in the Scarab unit and that gives cover to the D Lords, since 50% of the unit is in cover does the mixed unit gain a cover save even though Scarabs cannot provide cover to MCs?
Homer
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/11 20:58:09
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 20:56:24
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
That's not what he's saying.
He's asking if attaching two ICs to a unit of two spiders would give the unit cover if there was another unit in front.
The answer is yes - provided you can actually claim cover from the front unit. Destroyer Lords can't claim cover from scarabs - since the scarabs are so low and the Lords so high. Just shooting "through" another unit isn't enough - 5th ed. uses TLOS.
In the scenario you're proposing, no - the Lords/Spiders would not get a cover save.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 21:00:41
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Warplord Titan Princeps of Tzeentch
|
Why wouldn't they get a cover save? Half of the unit (2 spiders) is obscured by the front unit (scarabs), so the whole unit (lord + spiders) gets a cover save.
|
text removed by Moderation team. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 21:01:11
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Furious Fire Dragon
|
They would have to be some tall Scarabs, D Lords on the short flying base and a firer that is prone. Part of the Scarabs would have to obscure the LOS to the D Lords. Between the bases would not be enough.
Homer
|
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 21:03:35
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
biccat wrote:Why wouldn't they get a cover save? Half of the unit (2 spiders) is obscured by the front unit (scarabs), so the whole unit (lord + spiders) gets a cover save.
If you can get a picture of spiders being obscured by scarabs, then you're right.
90% of the time that won't happen.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 21:07:18
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Actually shooting THROUGH a unit *is* enough - its shooting *over* that isnt.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 21:09:22
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
I'll give you that - I worded my statement wrong.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 21:14:35
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
|
biccat wrote:Why wouldn't they get a cover save? Half of the unit (2 spiders) is obscured by the front unit (scarabs), so the whole unit (lord + spiders) gets a cover save.
But they are NOT obscured. The scarabs cannot provide cover to the Spyders, nor can they provide cover to the Lords (Because their body is floating too far above the Scarabs for them to actually obscure any part of the Destroyer Lord). It makes absolutely NO difference that the scarabs obscure 50% of the unit. The 50% of the unit that they are obscuring cannot benefit from the cover they provide, and even if they could, they do not obscure 50% of the Spyders body which is requires because the Spyders are Monstrous Creatures, AND mounted on flight bases meaning they, like the Lords, are too high off the ground to receive cover from models that are as low to the ground as Scarabs.
The answer to your question is a resounding NO. They do not get cover.
As for applying cover to a mixed unit of MC's and Jump Infantry, I actually don't know that there is anything in the rules to cover that. Reason would say that MC units work exactly like Vehicle units when it comes to cover, however there are very few instances in which MC's can be part of a unit that include other types of models (Tyrant Guard joined by a Hive Tyrant IIRC?). If the unit were all MC's I believe 50% of the models would have to be 50% obscured in order to claim a cover save, but when you add additional non- MC models to the unit, they could potentially grant cover to the MC's by claiming cover themselves (IE standing in Area Terrain). I did not see anything in the Tyranid FAQ to cover this situation but it is possible that such a ruling exists. If anyone knows of it please post it because I would definitely like to know.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 21:29:41
Subject: Re:Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Scarabs could provide cover to the unit if they are tall enough to block part of each of the destroyer lords. For example, they're on a hill. Or, depending on how short the firing model is, the angles involved may make them block part of the destroyer lords.
You have to actually get down and check from the firing model.
The Scarabs CANNOT provide cover for the Spyders, because Swarms can never provide cover for a MC (or vehicle).
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/11 22:51:35
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
But they are NOT obscured. The scarabs cannot provide cover to the Spyders, nor can they provide cover to the Lords (Because their body is floating too far above the Scarabs for them to actually obscure any part of the Destroyer Lord).
You're making the assumption that all of the models are sitting on a flat surface. That may not be the case as others have mentioned.
|
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/12 00:08:41
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
|
No other requirements were given, thus the assumption IS that all of the models are on a flat surface. If they are not on a flat surface then the question of Scarabs is irrelevant. It could be any model blocking part of the Destroyer Lords, or the terrain itself.
If that's the case, the question should be:
"If two Destroyer Lords are attached to a unit of two Canoptek Spyders, can the unit as a whole benefit from cover if just the Destroyer Lords are in cover? Can the unit as a whole benefit from cover if just the Canoptek Spyders are in cover?"
Why specify Scarabs in particular, a model that on a level playing surface cannot in any way, shape or form provide cover to either of the models listed due to their relative sizes, base-heights and special rules?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/11/12 00:10:16
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/12 00:14:23
Subject: Re:Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Trazyn's Museum Curator
|
Scarabs can't give cover anyway. They are swarms and as such cannot give intervening cover, no matter what.
And no. The Lords don't get cover because they are part of the spyder squad.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/12 00:15:28
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/12 00:27:23
Subject: Re:Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Swarms are restricted from providing cover to MCs and Vehicles, nothing else.
This is why they were specified in the OP I'm sure.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/12 03:14:38
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
No other requirements were given, thus the assumption IS that all of the models are on a flat surface.
P don't think you ban make a valid assumption either way.
|
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/12 05:07:52
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw
|
Ghaz wrote:No other requirements were given, thus the assumption IS that all of the models are on a flat surface.
P don't think you ban make a valid assumption either way.
Sure you can, I assumed the same thing when reading. It looks like someone misunderstood the shooting through rule, and thought it worked for shooting over as well.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/12 05:18:34
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
And how many games have you played on a perfectly flat and empty table? So no, there is no reason to assume that all the models were on a perfectly level surface.
|
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/12 05:22:40
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw
|
Ghaz wrote:And how many games have you played on a perfectly flat and empty table? So no, there is no reason to assume that all the models were on a perfectly level surface.
our tables involve mainly buildings, some hills other structures.
Yet I was just saying anyone is entitled to assume.
Lets just agree the OP or anyone else that tried would be hard pressed to get a cover save from scarabs, especially on Destroyer Lords + MC's
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/12 07:12:01
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
|
A friend of mine made the point that there are specifically no rules for MC's in units and cover, thus each MC is treated independently of other MC's and cover is etermined on an individual basis. The specific MC cover rules override the general cover rules in this case. He makes a good point. Can anyone point out any rules specifically governing units of Monstrous Creatures? I'm unable to look at the FAQ at the moment but I cannot find anything covering this circumstance in the rules.
If that is the case, this is easily resolved because unit rules would not apply, and the Spyders would not have cover even if the Destroyer Lords were joined to the unit and in cover unless they specifically had cover themselves.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/12 07:13:13
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/12 07:30:07
Subject: Re:Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
The page that starts the section on other unit types says, I believe, that you follow all rules for infantry presented before, except when stated otherwise.
It doesn't say that you treat cover for units differently, just that you determine obscurement differently with MCs. You still follow the rule for majority in cover.
As for playing on a level playing surface, if Scarabs on a hill are obscuring the unit from the OP, chances are it is actually the hill doing a little obscurement as well, making the Scarabs irrelevant.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/12 11:14:55
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
|
Which is exactly the reason why I don't see the need to bring Scarabs into this discussion. They cannot provide cover to the Canoptek Spyders directly, and they cannot provide cover to the Lords without assistance from a hill or an angle that would more than likely provide cover even if they WERE there. At it's root this issue is about a mixed unit of MC's/non-MC's and whether standard unit rules for cover apply when the unit includes MC's. It makes absolutely no difference where the cover comes from, only that there is cover for the Lords and not for the MC's (or technically Vice Versa), so I don't see the need to clutter the discussion and confuse people by including such a complex unit as Scarabs in the equation.
Do units of Monstrous Creatures use "unit" cover, or are they counted individually when determining which models get a cover save and which do not? If joined by non-Monstrous Creature Independent Characters, can those models use area terrain or intervening models/obstacles to provide cover to the unit as a whole even if the MC's have no cover, assuming they make up at least 50% of the unit?
Those are the questions we need to answer, not whether or not Scarabs can give cover to a Destroyer Lord.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/12 16:53:23
Subject: Re:Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
And the answer to that is, yes. The rules for units still apply. If 50% or mroe of a unit is counted as obscured, then the entire unit benefits.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/12 17:35:24
Subject: Re:Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Loyal Necron Lychguard
|
This has been long hashed out in regards to tyranid units (two primes and two carnifexes). The way cover is worked out is you check each individual model to see if it is in cover. The restrictions on MCs for getting cover saves are applied at this point. Once this is done, you add up all of the cover saves and if 50% of the unit has cover, then the entire unit gets cover because covers save granted in this manner are given to the entire unit, never to individual models. Example (lets assume a fictional unit consisting of 3 MCs and 3 ICs:
MC #1: in area terrain - no cover (due to being an MC)
MC #2: 50%+ of the firing unit's shots pass through an intervening unit - no cover (due to being an MC)
MC #3: 50% obscurred by terrain for 50%+ of the firing unit's shots - cover granted
IC #1: 50%+ of the firing unit's shots pass through an intervening unit - cover granted
IC #2: in area terrain - cover granted
IC #3: out in the open - no cover
So we have three out of the six models qualifiying for cover (1 MC and 2 ICs) which is 50% of the unit, so the entire unit gets cover.
|
11,100 pts, 7,000 pts
++ Heed my words for I am the Herald and we are the footsteps of doom. Interlopers, do we name you. Defilers of our
sacred earth. We have awoken to your primative species and will not tolerate your presence. Ours is the way of logic,
of cold hard reason: your irrationality, your human disease has no place in the necrontyr. Flesh is weak.
Surrender to the machine incarnate. Surrender and die. ++
Tuagh wrote: If you won't use a wrench, it isn't the bolt's fault that your hammer is useless. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/13 00:40:22
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
Eyesedragon wrote:Answer me this Dakkanites if I were to attach two destroyer lords to a unit of two spiders could I claim a cover save from scarabs marching directly in front of said unit?
I just realized something that no one else seems to have hit upon: Destroyer Lords are not Independent Characters, and therefor may never join a unit of any type.
|
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/13 00:55:00
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Nihilistic Necron Lord
The best State-Texas
|
Lordhat wrote:Eyesedragon wrote:Answer me this Dakkanites if I were to attach two destroyer lords to a unit of two spiders could I claim a cover save from scarabs marching directly in front of said unit?
I just realized something that no one else seems to have hit upon: Destroyer Lords are not Independent Characters, and therefor may never join a unit of any type.
Destroyer lords ARE Independent Characters. Check again.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/11/13 01:03:39
Subject: Double destroyer lords attached to two canoptek spiders, cover save allowed ? ?
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
Sasori wrote:Lordhat wrote:Eyesedragon wrote:Answer me this Dakkanites if I were to attach two destroyer lords to a unit of two spiders could I claim a cover save from scarabs marching directly in front of said unit?
I just realized something that no one else seems to have hit upon: Destroyer Lords are not Independent Characters, and therefor may never join a unit of any type.
Destroyer lords ARE Independent Characters. Check again.
I did, when I noticed it.
Necrons ppg. 31 & 89 wrote:
Unit Type: Jump Infantry (Character)
Character =/= Independent Character. Just ask ask DA players who want to attach Sammael to a unit of any sort.
|
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
|
|
 |
 |
|