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 just got finished painting this up, too!!! Gosh darn it!!!!

What do you think about the IK FAQ Tau gurus?

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/pcb.1621074768213156/1621073648213268/?type=3&theater

I don't think it's too much of a hit really.

While I think it's weird, it's not the end of the world.

It was...definitely unexpected. it just means I have to deploy the Ghost keels on one side and the Stormsurge on the other side, and it will give them the option of backing against a wall to avoid me, albeit atthat point, they are kind of letting me play to my strengths. it changes deployment necessities but thats about it

From my perspective, its that the "wall of mirrors" is adjusting the shots close enough to the knight that it still may impact the shield.
From a game play perspective it makes it a more balanced formation, something i no longer have to argue justifying bringing.

Seems like they could have said "the armor value of the vehicle hit by this formation counts as the vehicles rear armor value."

I think some of you guys are missing the point. The ability to hit "rear armor" is the same as always hitting rear armor in melee, it just means the attack seeks weak spots rather than actually hitting the rear of the vehicle. The GW ruling is in line with this.

SJ