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.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Regarding melee and sidestepping out of such, it is a good strategic consideration to bring a couple of cheap Warhounds or Knight lances on the field to give you more activations. If you can bait the relevant activations out, you can then more easily charge the proper targets you want to when they can't flee anymore.

You know, tactics and maneuver

Similar issue btw with many alternative activation games. Something pretty much requires you to have more activation. Titan h2h weapons in AT, boresight weapons in call to arms(for those who don't know those were basically laser beams so they fired straight ahead. So if you moved and targeted enemy ship with that if the enemy moved then it was quaranteed to go out of firearc. Ergo if you didn't outactivate your enemy your boresight weapons were super unlikely to shoot at anything and even if you did it was target ENEMY wanted you to shoot at)

That is very true. It is also very hard to design a game in such a manner that it wouldn't be the case, especially if you wish to retain an alternating phase structure instead of doing everything a model does at once.

Yep. Something to keep in mind in list building though. If you take fists take cheap stuff for activations. Or in game target soft targets quickly to turn the activation count to your favour

Rule questions:

1) I had a situation come up. A reaver hit a warlord with a fist - which has the concussive trait. The result for the concussive roll was 1 (turn 45 degrees). Since the reaver was in base-to-base with the warlord in the front arc, there was not room to turn 45 degrees. There's room to turn maybe 20.

Does this count as an involuntary collision?

2) Machine Spirit contradictions - on page 44 under the machine spirit rules, (3rd paragraph, last sentence) It says that if the titan is not currently performing an action - for example pushing the reactor to power shields, then it does nothing and you still get your shield boost. However, on the same page under "unusual circumstances : moving during the enemy's activation" - it indicates that you can be forced to move as a result of powering shields.

There doesn't really seem to be answers to either of these unless I'm failing to understand something. If so, what are opinions on how to run these situations?

SirWeeble wrote:
Rule questions:

1) I had a situation come up. A reaver hit a warlord with a fist - which has the concussive trait. The result for the concussive roll was 1 (turn 45 degrees). Since the reaver was in base-to-base with the warlord in the front arc, there was not room to turn 45 degrees. There's room to turn maybe 20.

Does this count as an involuntary collision?

2) Machine Spirit contradictions - on page 44 under the machine spirit rules, (3rd paragraph, last sentence) It says that if the titan is not currently performing an action - for example pushing the reactor to power shields, then it does nothing and you still get your shield boost. However, on the same page under "unusual circumstances : moving during the enemy's activation" - it indicates that you can be forced to move as a result of powering shields.

There doesn't really seem to be answers to either of these unless I'm failing to understand something. If so, what are opinions on how to run these situations?

I can't see any reason why you'd cause a collision while hitting the enemy away from you, so on my table we'd probably play that by wheeling the knocked titan slightly backwards, like instead on pivoting from the middle just wheel the indicated side of the base backwards or something.

Regarding machine spirit, what it says is that normally you end your action (moving, an attack or whatevs) and perform the machine spirit result immediately. If you're not active, then there is nothing to stop or otherwise worry about, you just do what the table says. No contradictions there. Yes, you can be forced to move by pushing your shields.

 Sherrypie wrote:

I can't see any reason why you'd cause a collision while hitting the enemy away from you, so on my table we'd probably play that by wheeling the knocked titan slightly backwards, like instead on pivoting from the middle just wheel the indicated side of the base backwards or something.

Regarding machine spirit, what it says is that normally you end your action (moving, an attack or whatevs) and perform the machine spirit result immediately. If you're not active, then there is nothing to stop or otherwise worry about, you just do what the table says. No contradictions there. Yes, you can be forced to move by pushing your shields.

Ah ok - i did misunderstand the machine spirit rule then. I thought it was saying that nothing happens with the machine-spirit rather than nothing happens with the action.

That's probably a good policy with the concussion turning.

Titan might have tried to hit straight front but misses and hits side causing enemy titan to stagger and actually step forward thus hitting you. I would say it's collision.

SirWeeble wrote:
Rule questions:

1) I had a situation come up. A reaver hit a warlord with a fist - which has the concussive trait. The result for the concussive roll was 1 (turn 45 degrees). Since the reaver was in base-to-base with the warlord in the front arc, there was not room to turn 45 degrees. There's room to turn maybe 20.

Does this count as an involuntary collision?

we had an incident similar where two reavers with fists charged at each other, and became base to base contact. we played it as involuntary collisions when attempting to turn them due to the concussive rule, which meant that the reavers actually ended up doing more damage to each other with the collisions than the actual fists.

We did have a question come up about concussive weapons hitting the rear of a titan which would normally cause it to potentially move directly backwards, however we house ruled it as moving the titan directly away from the source for a roll of a 3-4 which seemed slightly more fluffy

I think just not doing the collision is a better solution personally. I asked just to see what others were doing, and i can see it going either way. A stumbling titan is certainly realistic, but the whole situation can be mitigated by being 1cm away from base-to-base which makes me feel as if it was not an intentional part of the rules.

Also rules state that involuntary moving causes collisions - so whether 'turning' is considered 'moving' becomes the core question i suppose. I'm leaning towards 'no' since they need to be performed separately and have separate rules.

If turning is not movement you could use repair order, turn and shoot. That would be big

edit: No that's actually incorrect. Though I still consider turning movement. Good one for FAQ anyway.

2 questions from game. Warlord has knights in his face. Can he shoot at titan 1 and stomp at knights?

Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"

tneva82 wrote:
2 questions from game. Warlord has knights in his face. Can he shoot at titan 1 and stomp at knights?

Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"

1) Page 36 says Smash attacks are made in addition to any other attacks the titan makes. I would personally allow Smash attacks against the knights, as the primary attack goes like normal and the machine's general movements then whack the knights about.

2) Melee weapons work just like any other weapons: one weapon targets one opponent, so a single knight won't hit more than one titan. The unit though, sure, just split the dice. Regarding extra dice, it's per unit and not per model with knights and as the +1 / 3" rule goes, James Hewitt said that he'd use the least movement in the unit to decide how many are acquired. So no extra attacks there unless the entire blob goes at least 3".

For 2 though(and 1) unit targets 1 and can't normally split without split fire. Does melee ignore that?

tneva82 wrote:
For 2 though(and 1) unit targets 1 and can't normally split without split fire. Does melee ignore that?

Hm, true.

After a bit of reading I can't find anything that would indicate any exceptions. Maybe you just have to take what you get and hit that Split Fire button more often if you wish to both shoot far away and kick the Knights away, that's also an interesting tactical choice to be made. Likewise the Knights have to target only one unit unless they use Split Fire, which of course means they won't be Charging anywhere.

Yeah. In game i had shields down and reactor hot so emergency repair felt more pressing. Though maybe should have risked him at least not daring to use volcano cannons vs my warlord as that would torch his knights also. Reaver could pepper flank. Though ws5 but one solid hit would halve knights hacking me.

Those knights are plain nasty!

I think I quite like the Gatling blaster on a Warlord, as it is powerful enough to both hurt titans and shoot some pesky knights away if they diddle in front of it without pushing your reactor all day. That or the double fisted bubble of death. Eat 6 dice of instant death, gnats

tneva82 wrote:
2 questions from game. Warlord has knights in his face. Can he shoot at titan 1 and stomp at knights?

Yes, if you're using the split fire command.

tneva82 wrote:
Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"

You can charge both, but you can't make melee attacks at both(if i remember right - need to check the book). In order to target separate units, you need to use the split fire command. If you're using the charge command already, then you can't use the split fire command. I don't think the charge command requires an actual target - it just requires you move straight forward. (can anyone confirm this?)

Additionally - even during the combat phase, you couldn't attack 2 separate targets with the knight close combat weapons. You could use split fire and attack one with the melee weapon and another with a long range weapon - but you can't split up the pools. Knights add all of their dice for a weapon together and treat it like 1 weapon. eg: you have 3 knights with Thermal Cannons. You treat it like 1 thermal cannon with 3 shots.

Another question. Weapon hits 3 times and gets damage with all. If first or second pushes damage where is modifier does remaining dices get already or only next weapon?

tneva82 wrote:
Another question. Weapon hits 3 times and gets damage with all. If first or second pushes damage where is modifier does remaining dices get already or only next weapon?

Page 34: "Note that if the marker moves into a hole with a different modifier as a result of the attack, the new modifier is not used until the next attack is resolved."

SirWeeble wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"

You can charge both, but you can't make melee attacks at both(if i remember right - need to check the book). In order to target separate units, you need to use the split fire command. If you're using the charge command already, then you can't use the split fire command. I don't think the charge command requires an actual target - it just requires you move straight forward. (can anyone confirm this?)

A banner of knights is considered to be a single multi-model unit.

zerosignal wrote:
Anyone else think that 'merge void shields' is missing a paragraph?

The fluff description seems to suggest it risks both titan's void shields, but there is nothing in the rule which supports that.

Perhaps a burnout on one titan should drop the shields on both?

No, it's just that it's a bit of a tradeoff. If that titan pair get targeted with a ton of firepower by one shield breaker titan, they both end up with shields dropped.

eg: say you have a warlord that is nothing but bolters and apoc missiles. It gets like 20 shots with low powered weapons that could break both warhound's shields. If instead it only attacked one titan, it would break 1 titan's shields, but its weapons wouldn't be strong enough to damage the hull. Now, next activation, you've got 2 shieldless warhounds instead of 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eumerin wrote:

SirWeeble wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"

You can charge both, but you can't make melee attacks at both(if i remember right - need to check the book). In order to target separate units, you need to use the split fire command. If you're using the charge command already, then you can't use the split fire command. I don't think the charge command requires an actual target - it just requires you move straight forward. (can anyone confirm this?)

A banner of knights is considered to be a single multi-model unit.

I don't get why that's relevant. I don't mean that in a snarky way. If there's more to it, then do tell. AFIK, you can still only issue it one order and all models fire/swing their weapon at once. I don't have a book where I am.

SirWeeble wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

SirWeeble wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"

You can charge both, but you can't make melee attacks at both(if i remember right - need to check the book). In order to target separate units, you need to use the split fire command. If you're using the charge command already, then you can't use the split fire command. I don't think the charge command requires an actual target - it just requires you move straight forward. (can anyone confirm this?)

A banner of knights is considered to be a single multi-model unit.

I don't get why that's relevant. I don't mean that in a snarky way. If there's more to it, then do tell. AFIK, you can still only issue it one order and all models fire/swing their weapon at once. I don't have a book where I am.

Page 46: "All the weapons in a banner must be fired at the same target unless the banner has Split Fire orders, at which point each weapon can be directed at a different target." and "Instead of attacking with each knight individually, make an attack with each different weapon in turn [and multiply by each knight equipped blah blah]"

So yeah, the blob attacks one target only unless on Split Fire. Regarding Charge order, there's no need to have a target. You just get an extra opportunity for pain if you get in grips with someone

SirWeeble wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

SirWeeble wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"

You can charge both, but you can't make melee attacks at both(if i remember right - need to check the book). In order to target separate units, you need to use the split fire command. If you're using the charge command already, then you can't use the split fire command. I don't think the charge command requires an actual target - it just requires you move straight forward. (can anyone confirm this?)

A banner of knights is considered to be a single multi-model unit.

I don't get why that's relevant. I don't mean that in a snarky way. If there's more to it, then do tell. AFIK, you can still only issue it one order and all models fire/swing their weapon at once. I don't have a book where I am.

Because the Warlord *is* attacking both knights. Technically it's treated as an attack against a single model. But when one knight is destroyed, excess damage from additional hits inflicted gets carried over as the countdown starts toward the next destroyed knight. And a good hit from a single Smash attack could conceivably destroy both knights at once (it's not that hard for a Warlord to crit against knights with a smash attack).


On a related note, has there been any word on what happens when part of a banner is within range of a weapon, and part of a banner is not? Is all of the damage counted? Or can you apply any kills only on models within range of the weapon, and ignore the rest of the damage? RAW seems to suggest that damage gets carried over regardless of the distance to the other knights. But I'm checking to make sure that I haven't missed anything.

Eumerin wrote:

SirWeeble wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

SirWeeble wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Also knights in combat with warlord. One has clear route toward another. Can he charge and hit both if coherency :s maintained? And how extra attack if other can move ahead like 0.5"

You can charge both, but you can't make melee attacks at both(if i remember right - need to check the book). In order to target separate units, you need to use the split fire command. If you're using the charge command already, then you can't use the split fire command. I don't think the charge command requires an actual target - it just requires you move straight forward. (can anyone confirm this?)

A banner of knights is considered to be a single multi-model unit.

I don't get why that's relevant. I don't mean that in a snarky way. If there's more to it, then do tell. AFIK, you can still only issue it one order and all models fire/swing their weapon at once. I don't have a book where I am.

Because the Warlord *is* attacking both knights. Technically it's treated as an attack against a single model. But when one knight is destroyed, excess damage from additional hits inflicted gets carried over as the countdown starts toward the next destroyed knight. And a good hit from a single Smash attack could conceivably destroy both knights at once (it's not that hard for a Warlord to crit against knights with a smash attack).


On a related note, has there been any word on what happens when part of a banner is within range of a weapon, and part of a banner is not? Is all of the damage counted? Or can you apply any kills only on models within range of the weapon, and ignore the rest of the damage? RAW seems to suggest that damage gets carried over regardless of the distance to the other knights. But I'm checking to make sure that I haven't missed anything.

Eumerin, the question wasn't can the Warlord hit more than one knight, it was about the same Banner hitting multiple Warlords

Regarding range, the Knights are indeed treated as a unit. You have range to some, you blast enough dakka their way, the entire Banner gets wiped. Done.

Had a few questions come up in my first game:

When rolling to attack, do you roll all of your dice for all weapons at once (and do one shield save vs all attacks) or do one attack at a time and make separate shield saves?

And related: if you do make separate attacks, do you apply the new lower shield save if a shield was dropped from the previous attack from the same titan?

In regards to machine spirit - it says the 'current action is canceled'. If you were attacking - does it cancel all attacks, or just that one weapon?

The way I had interpreted it was that you do each weapon individually with separate saves, with a new shield value and that a machine-spirit will only cancel that one attack. My opponent had been rolling all attacks for all weapons at one time and doing one save.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Eumerin, the question wasn't can the Warlord hit more than one knight, it was about the same Banner hitting multiple Warlords

Huh.

I suppose it could be read that way. The good news is that it appears I was the only person confused over whether "another" referred to another knight, or another warlord.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

SirWeeble wrote:
Had a few questions come up in my first game:

When rolling to attack, do you roll all of your dice for all weapons at once (and do one shield save vs all attacks) or do one attack at a time and make separate shield saves?

The answer to this question is in the handy little chart at the bottom left of page 33 of the rulebook. There's a helpful Combat Sequence summary that lays out the order of actions each time you activate a unit. Unfortunately, when the Combat Phase chapter was written, the writers included every step in that sequence except for the 6th step, which is "Repeat steps 2-5 for each remaining weapon". So if you miss the chart, it can be a bit confusing trying to figure out how the weapons shooting is supposed to work.

Shooting is not simultaneous, even for weapons being fired by the same unit. This is intentional, as it allows you to fire the rapid fire, low strength weapons that will strip shields first, and then take advantage of the lack of shields on your target to hit it with your low rate of fire, high strength weapons like a Volcano Cannon.

Ah yes, i see the chart. I overlooked it.

I was thrown by the long-form rule's use of ambiguous plurals.

step 2 "Declare which of the unit's *weapons* will attack"

better pharasing: "declare which weapon the activated unit will attack with."

SirWeeble wrote:
Ah yes, i see the chart. I overlooked it.

I was thrown by the long-form rule's use of ambiguous plurals.

step 2 "Declare which of the unit's *weapons* will attack"

better pharasing: "declare which weapon the activated unit will attack with."

It's possible that you have to declare all of the weapons being used beforehand. This can be important as there are certain weapons (such as anything with the Drain trait) that you might not want to fire on a turn depending on the status of your target. You might decide not to fire your Volcano Cannon because you don't think you'll completely strip your enemy's shields (and you don't want to push your reactor), and then get surprised by a very nice set of to hit and shield save rolls that leave your opponent wide open. Whether you have to declare the Volcano Cannon at the start of the unit's activation, or can wait to declare it until after other weapons have fired can be important.

But the bit you quoted and Step 6 appear to contradict each other. Looks like that needs to be FAQed.

Eumerin wrote:

It's possible that you have to declare all of the weapons being used beforehand. This can be important as there are certain weapons (such as anything with the Drain trait) that you might not want to fire on a turn depending on the status of your target. You might decide not to fire your Volcano Cannon because you don't think you'll completely strip your enemy's shields (and you don't want to push your reactor), and then get surprised by a very nice set of to hit and shield save rolls that leave your opponent wide open. Whether you have to declare the Volcano Cannon at the start of the unit's activation, or can wait to declare it until after other weapons have fired can be important.

But the bit you quoted and Step 6 appear to contradict each other. Looks like that needs to be FAQed.

The part i quoted is just ambiguous. eg: "choose which of your fingers to point at me" could mean "choose a finger to point at me" or "choose any number of fingers to point at me". But the ambiguity is resolved by the chart that simply says "1) choose a weapon 2) roll to hit 3) shields.. 6) repeat"

Couple of questions about Knights after our first game (which involved a Reaver and a 3-strong Knight Banner on each side).

Is it correct to say that the position of each Knight model matters when it fires at an enemy (for LOS, range, etc.)... but doesn't matter when it takes fire?

Example: A 3-strong unit of Knights is lurking near blocking terrain (e.g. a big building). From the point of view of an enemy Titan, one Knight model is in the open, one is partly behind the corner of the building, and one is entirely hidden behind the terrain.

The controlling player activates the Knight unit and fires at the enemy Titan. For this purpose, each Knight (or rather each weapon) is treated as a separate model when working out who can fire, yes?

In this case, assume there are three battlecannon weapons in the unit--one on each Knight. One of the battlecannons is mounted on the Knight completely hidden behind the building. The second is on the Knight half-hidden by the building corner. The third is on the Knight in the open.

As far as I can tell, the battlecannon with no LOS to the Titan can't fire; the one partly hidden sees the Titan as 25%+ obscured (after hunkering down to eyeball it), so it has a to-hit modifier; and the one in the open can see the Titan clearly, so it has no modifier to hit. Is that right?

OK. Now the opposing player activates the entirely unbothered Titan and fires back at the annoying gnats. Now, when Knights are fired at, they're treated as a single blob. So he chooses the model in the open as the 'yardstick' for measuring range, line of sight, etc. Therefore he doesn't suffer any modifiers to hit for obscured LOS, even though only one of the Knights is fully visible. Yes?

For the sake of argument, assume he does enough damage to kill all three Knights at once. Or he does enough damage to remove one Knight, but it happens to be a Targeted Attack, so he gets to choose which Knight he removes; he takes out the one completely hidden behind the building. In either case, the fact that two of the Knights were wholly or partly concealed doesn't matter a bit.

Is that how it's meant to go? Seems unfair if so. I feel like I'm missing something obvious...

It's not explicitly spelt out, but the intent may be that you aren't supposed to be able to deliberately target a location you can't see.

The rules make you reroll the location dice if you randomly hit a location you can't see, but the "targeted attacks" bit is written in a different section.

The next supposition is that targeted knights work like targeted locations, so if you can't see a knight, you can't choose for that one to be targeted by your attack.

I'd be happy to houserule that's what the rules mean, but that's not what they actually say explicitly.

As it stands, the rules work the way you described. The only way to keep your knights safe is to keep all members of the banner out of sight; but if you want to use all weapons, you must keep all exposed.