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.

Zenithfleet wrote:
Is it correct to say that the position of each Knight model matters when it fires at an enemy (for LOS, range, etc.)...

Line of fire is tracked *from each weapon*, regardless of whether that weapon is mounted on a knight or a titan. This even applies to Warlord Carapace weapons, which are mounted as matched pairs, and which can be partially obstructed or blocked due to terrain, with the subsequent affect on the attack dice being contributed by that half of the weapon pair.

I agree with the other 2 answers here with a bit of an addendum. If a single weapon did enough damage to kill 3 knights, you would remove 3 knights. However, if a single weapon killed one knight, since the combat phase requires you to run through each weapon separately, you would attack the first knight with no accuracy modifier. Now that it's dead, your next LOS check would apply to what remains of the lance.

So - if for example: 2 knights are out of LOS. 1 knight is 50% covered. One knight is exposed.

First weapon shoots. No modifiers. kills 1 knight.

Second weapon shoots. +2 modifier to hit. His anyway. Kills a knight.

3rd weapon shoots. No LOS. Can't hit, the attack is over.

I don't think that there's any need for a house rule, personally. I think the knight's fragility is built into their cost and the rules for their damage were not complicated for the sake speeding the game up. It's fairly easy to abstract as far as fiction/head cannon goes. These machines aren't shooting rifles or machineguns. They're shooting massive weapons that melt concrete or have explosions the power of small nukes. Even the weapons that don't have 'blast' probably do cause explosions.

Patriarch wrote:
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.

Aha! That's one of the things I was missing. Thanks. That makes much more sense.

You could still use a Targeted Attack to hit a Knight in partial cover without suffering any to-hit modifier, though, right? (Besides the one for the Targeted Attack, that is.)

SirWeeble wrote:
I agree with the other 2 answers here with a bit of an addendum. If a single weapon did enough damage to kill 3 knights, you would remove 3 knights. However, if a single weapon killed one knight, since the combat phase requires you to run through each weapon separately, you would attack the first knight with no accuracy modifier. Now that it's dead, your next LOS check would apply to what remains of the lance.

So - if for example: 2 knights are out of LOS. 1 knight is 50% covered. One knight is exposed.

First weapon shoots. No modifiers. kills 1 knight.

Second weapon shoots. +2 modifier to hit. His anyway. Kills a knight.

3rd weapon shoots. No LOS. Can't hit, the attack is over.

Another great point. (Just thought of it myself this afternoon actually, and was about to post it. )

Normally the player controlling the Knights gets to choose which one to remove, so would probably pick the one out in the open when the first weapon kills it. When the next weapon fires, there's no Knight out in the open anymore, so one of the models in cover would become the yardstick. And so on.

SirWeeble wrote:

I don't think that there's any need for a house rule, personally. I think the knight's fragility is built into their cost and the rules for their damage were not complicated for the sake speeding the game up. It's fairly easy to abstract as far as fiction/head cannon goes. These machines aren't shooting rifles or machineguns. They're shooting massive weapons that melt concrete or have explosions the power of small nukes. Even the weapons that don't have 'blast' probably do cause explosions.

Yep, I agree now, given the two clarifications above re Targeted Attacks and firing one weapon at a time.

Considering how many structure points of damage you'd have to do to kill off a bunch of Knights in a single weapon volley, anything that powerful probably blew away the obstructing terrain in the process.

Has anyone played with the destructible terrain rules?

Fajita Fan wrote:
Has anyone played with the destructible terrain rules?

Yup. And everyone should, too.

It adds a nice element of both tactics and atmosphere to the game. You can waste time shooting your enemy out of cover instead of taking pot shots a them or combined with the stray shots rule accidentally blow something else entirely, creating new problems and opportunities on the field. On the atmospheric side, this is THE game for crushing your enemies (seeing them driven before you and hearing the lamentations of their women) or stopping your enemies from razing your cities. It's great fodder for all sorts of narrative scenarios.

It certainly seems like it’d fun but knowing how picky I am I’d end up making a destroyed building for each building

Fajita Fan wrote:
It certainly seems like it’d fun but knowing how picky I am I’d end up making a destroyed building for each building

... And that's bad how ?

But really, having some scatter rubble does wonders and goes pretty far.

2 questions from game. Warlord has one carapace barrage weapon so it sees with -1 leve# and other -2. Do you roll 10 missiles at -1, -2 or 5 of each?

Also attack against pair of warhounds b2b. He has 1 and 2 shields. Fail 3. Can he put all to 1 shield leaving other with 2 and regardless of which i hit next it's still vs 2 shields?

tneva82 wrote:
2 questions from game. Warlord has one carapace barrage weapon so it sees with -1 leve# and other -2. Do you roll 10 missiles at -1, -2 or 5 of each?

Also attack against pair of warhounds b2b. He has 1 and 2 shields. Fail 3. Can he put all to 1 shield leaving other with 2 and regardless of which i hit next it's still vs 2 shields?

The way I read the rules on shields, yes you can take all the hits from one gun and blow out one model’s shields leaving the other untouched. By merging their bubbles you can “pick which of the void shields levels is reduced.” This is why shots are done one at a time per gun.

Also if one has 3 shields while the other has 2 and you take 3 hits you can split the shots so they both go down to one last shield each. Then you won’t have to roll a 6 to reignite later.

That's how it looked but that seems awfully powerfull ability with zero drawback. FW shouldn't have put that part about both shield collapsing fluff text then as as it is that hints there being drawback to the very powerfull ability while in practice there's only gain here. Shudder at the idea of trio of warhounds. Those will be bugger to take down without concentrated shieldbane weapons.

The drawback is that you have to keep those fast flanking Warhounds in base contact, which might not always be possible or preferable.

tneva82 wrote:
That's how it looked but that seems awfully powerfull ability with zero drawback. FW shouldn't have put that part about both shield collapsing fluff text then as as it is that hints there being drawback to the very powerfull ability while in practice there's only gain here. Shudder at the idea of trio of warhounds. Those will be bugger to take down without concentrated shieldbane weapons.

I rather like the rule about shields blowing out and damage from that gun not transferring to the hull. However you are right about the fluff and how one shield overloading *should* damage the other one. Dunno. Maybe the only thing an exploding void can’t hurt is another void field, the energy bent around it or something.

Fajita Fan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
That's how it looked but that seems awfully powerfull ability with zero drawback. FW shouldn't have put that part about both shield collapsing fluff text then as as it is that hints there being drawback to the very powerfull ability while in practice there's only gain here. Shudder at the idea of trio of warhounds. Those will be bugger to take down without concentrated shieldbane weapons.

I rather like the rule about shields blowing out and damage from that gun not transferring to the hull. However you are right about the fluff and how one shield overloading *should* damage the other one. Dunno. Maybe the only thing an exploding void can’t hurt is another void field, the energy bent around it or something.

No issue with not transfering to hull. But shields having possibilty to split shield failures evenly untill it's inconvenient and just put all to 1 shield seems awfully strong. Those warhounds soaked up more firepower than warlord! I shudder what trio will take.

tneva82 wrote:
2 questions from game. Warlord has one carapace barrage weapon so it sees with -1 leve# and other -2. Do you roll 10 missiles at -1, -2 or 5 of each?

I believe all of the Warlord Carapace weapons also have the 'Paired' trait. So it would be 5 dice for each modifier See the description of the Paired Weapon trait on page 39.



As for paired Warhounds in base to base, remember that putting the models so close to each other also makes them more vulnerable to blast weapons. For instance, if one of those two Volcano Cannons that all of the Warlords are bundled puts the center of the blast template over one Warhound, then another Warhound in base to base contact will almost certainly get hit as well. That means that one Warhound takes two hits on the Void Shield while the other one takes 1 point. So the two points get resolved first (assuming that the attacking player chooses to resolve them in that order). If they knock down the void shields on one Warhound, then the additional point of damage on the other Warhound isn't lost.

It's not great (iirc, all of the existing Blast weapons only roll 1 die; and the sole Firestorm weapon rolls 3), but it is something to keep in mind. Warhounds don't have that many shields to start with, so they're more vulnerable to that then Reavers and Warlords.

Eumerin wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
2 questions from game. Warlord has one carapace barrage weapon so it sees with -1 leve# and other -2. Do you roll 10 missiles at -1, -2 or 5 of each?

I believe all of the Warlord Carapace weapons also have the 'Paired' trait. So it would be 5 dice for each modifier See the description of the Paired Weapon trait on page 39.



As for paired Warhounds in base to base, remember that putting the models so close to each other also makes them more vulnerable to blast weapons. For instance, if one of those two Volcano Cannons that all of the Warlords are bundled puts the center of the blast template over one Warhound, then another Warhound in base to base contact will almost certainly get hit as well. That means that one Warhound takes two hits on the Void Shield while the other one takes 1 point. So the two points get resolved first (assuming that the attacking player chooses to resolve them in that order). If they knock down the void shields on one Warhound, then the additional point of damage on the other Warhound isn't lost.

It's not great (iirc, all of the existing Blast weapons only roll 1 die; and the sole Firestorm weapon rolls 3), but it is something to keep in mind. Warhounds don't have that many shields to start with, so they're more vulnerable to that then Reavers and Warlords.

Plasma plastguns from warhounds actually shoot 2 so yeah those are handy. 3 hits per hit with some hits from scatter certainly helps. Might bring in warhound with pair of those to bugger off any bunched up warhounds. Or just ignore warhounds with guns because even warlord will struggle to dent those. Send in knights instead or just take it in the chin.

I'm not buying that shield shenanigan. The rules say you reduce shield levels when you fail saves and Merging rules let you pick where you reduce it from, not to shunt it all on one engine and get extra durability by soaking fire with already dead shields. So if you have multiple Warhounds there, if you fail X saves you split X reductions amongst them, which may cause them all to fail.

 Sherrypie wrote:
I'm not buying that shield shenanigan. The rules say you reduce shield levels when you fail saves and Merging rules let you pick where you reduce it from, not to shunt it all on one engine and get extra durability by soaking fire with already dead shields. So if you have multiple Warhounds there, if you fail X saves you split X reductions amongst them, which may cause them all to fail.

That's what I thought but we couldn't come on conclusion based on rulebook so in these sort of cases I tend to go stop arquing and hand it out for opponent and ask elsewhere later. Thing is it says CAN split so one can easily arque you don't HAVE to split. That word basically made me during game go "okay let's play it that way".

tneva82 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
I'm not buying that shield shenanigan. The rules say you reduce shield levels when you fail saves and Merging rules let you pick where you reduce it from, not to shunt it all on one engine and get extra durability by soaking fire with already dead shields. So if you have multiple Warhounds there, if you fail X saves you split X reductions amongst them, which may cause them all to fail.

That's what I thought but we couldn't come on conclusion based on rulebook so in these sort of cases I tend to go stop arquing and hand it out for opponent and ask elsewhere later. Thing is it says CAN split so one can easily arque you don't HAVE to split. That word basically made me during game go "okay let's play it that way".

I think the RAI is very clear on this: the shields merge to one, it acts as one and if it blows, both go down. Thus when it takes damage, it then very well takes that damage without any shunty shenanigans. The rules text isn't too ambivalent either: you can put all reductions on one or more engines, but for each failed save you have to reduce one if you can.

Question about Victory points:

How are Imperial Knights counting, if i have a Unit of 4 oder 5. A Imperial Knight Unit in Standard size has a value of "3". Or is this the value of one single Knight? How many Victory Points gives a Unit Imperial Knights when playing the first Mission from the Book?

Aexcaliber wrote:
Question about Victory points:

How are Imperial Knights counting, if i have a Unit of 4 oder 5. A Imperial Knight Unit in Standard size has a value of "3". Or is this the value of one single Knight? How many Victory Points gives a Unit Imperial Knights when playing the first Mission from the Book?

The unit has a Scale of 3, just like Warhounds have 6, Reavers 8 and Warlords 10. The number of models in the unit does not matter.

 Sherrypie wrote:
I'm not buying that shield shenanigan. The rules say you reduce shield levels when you fail saves and Merging rules let you pick where you reduce it from, not to shunt it all on one engine and get extra durability by soaking fire with already dead shields. So if you have multiple Warhounds there, if you fail X saves you split X reductions amongst them, which may cause them all to fail.

If two Warhounds merge shields and you take a handful of saves from a macro Gatling or Apoc launcher then you can dump the failed saves between either shield or split them amongst both. As written you can dump 5 failed saves on one engine with one shield remaining and blow it out without hurting the other shield. You have the *option* of splitting the 5 failed saves but you don’t have to split them. What you’re talking about would be a reason to *never* form squadrons.

Remember we’re talking about saves taken from one weapon at a time. You fire a Gatling cannon at one Warhound who can soak all the failed saves. Then you fire an Apoc launcher and the other Warhound can take all the saves potentially blowing out its shields. THEN you fire the volcano blast template and catch them both without shields. The shield bubble rule is meant to let the defender soak hits in a way to improve their survivability, it’s just a gameplay tool.

Fajita Fan wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
I'm not buying that shield shenanigan. The rules say you reduce shield levels when you fail saves and Merging rules let you pick where you reduce it from, not to shunt it all on one engine and get extra durability by soaking fire with already dead shields. So if you have multiple Warhounds there, if you fail X saves you split X reductions amongst them, which may cause them all to fail.

If two Warhounds merge shields and you take a handful of saves from a macro Gatling or Apoc launcher then you can dump the failed saves between either shield or split them amongst both. As written you can dump 5 failed saves on one engine with one shield remaining and blow it out without hurting the other shield. You have the *option* of splitting the 5 failed saves but you don’t have to split them. What you’re talking about would be a reason to *never* form squadrons.

Remember we’re talking about saves taken from one weapon at a time. You fire a Gatling cannon at one Warhound who can soak all the failed saves. Then you fire an Apoc launcher and the other Warhound can take all the saves potentially blowing out its shields. THEN you fire the volcano blast template and catch them both without shields. The shield bubble rule is meant to let the defender soak hits in a way to improve their survivability, it’s just a gameplay tool.

Never? Even with that the ability to keep shields up longer for both would be big help. It's bit much to claim it's reason to never form squadrons when you are getting big help in survivability(even if you have to spread it in this scenario) and firepower nevermind ability to benefits of activating at once.

In your above scenario those warhounds would still be laughting at the volcano cannon barring some seriously good luck.

With the have to share it's good survivability boost. If you can dumb all to 1 at will it turns pair of warhounds tougher than reaver and three will shrug off firepower that even warlord is seriously worried(unless it rolls god like like I did yesterday)

Fajita Fan wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
I'm not buying that shield shenanigan. The rules say you reduce shield levels when you fail saves and Merging rules let you pick where you reduce it from, not to shunt it all on one engine and get extra durability by soaking fire with already dead shields. So if you have multiple Warhounds there, if you fail X saves you split X reductions amongst them, which may cause them all to fail.

If two Warhounds merge shields and you take a handful of saves from a macro Gatling or Apoc launcher then you can dump the failed saves between either shield or split them amongst both. As written you can dump 5 failed saves on one engine with one shield remaining and blow it out without hurting the other shield. You have the *option* of splitting the 5 failed saves but you don’t have to split them. What you’re talking about would be a reason to *never* form squadrons.

Remember we’re talking about saves taken from one weapon at a time. You fire a Gatling cannon at one Warhound who can soak all the failed saves. Then you fire an Apoc launcher and the other Warhound can take all the saves potentially blowing out its shields. THEN you fire the volcano blast template and catch them both without shields. The shield bubble rule is meant to let the defender soak hits in a way to improve their survivability, it’s just a gameplay tool.

No, I still don't think that's possible. The thing with merged shields is that since you only roll against one value, you can gave a Hound with one 4+ shield left and a fresh 3+ Hound with three left, use the 3+, fail two and take them on the fresh one, which still leaves you with shields and is thus better than losing shields on the already beaten one. That is a plus, your reading is a HUGE plus, which also goes against the spirit of the rules (as far as I think). Having the option to shunt would be both immensely effective and fluffwise weird, which goes against the spirit of a very fluffy game.

I’m leaving for work and I’ll take my rulebook. We’ll look later and we can even roll out a Warlord shooting a Warhound to see how fragile they are.

But yes, squadroning is meant to be a bonus to help the survivabilty of fragile models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
“If a Titan's base is touching the base of another Titan in the same Squadron, they can merge their void shields. If either of the Titans is attacked, the controlling player can use the Void Shield level of either Titan. If any saves are failed, they can pick which of the Titans' Void Shield levels is reduced, and can even split it between them.”

I wish they addressed blowing out one shield vs the other because it doesn’t make sense to me why one shield going down wouldn’t affect the other. Given how the rules work for failing saves where you roll a save based on the current shield level and once the shield goes out any further hits are lost it sounds like you allocate all of the hits vs one shield. The second part says “can even split between them” sounds like you’re not required split up remaining failed saves.

A lascannon in 40k does D6 wounds but wounds don’t carry over to other models (unlike AoS). The fluff text says they risk both shields but the condition that you “can split” failed saves doesn’t sound like you have to.

You know personally I don’t even see the fluff in merging void shields, they sound like something that couldn’t merge in the first place.

Fajita Fan wrote:
The second part says “can even split between them” sounds like you’re not required split up remaining failed saves.

A lascannon in 40k does D6 wounds but wounds don’t carry over to other models (unlike AoS). The fluff text says they risk both shields but the condition that you “can split” failed saves doesn’t sound like you have to.

That's merely an expression to say "you know, normally you take X reductions from this one titan. You can do it now too, sure, but you can also put part of it on this titan, some on this guy and the rest on the third! How convenient, now you can keep all of them up by taking little damage here and there instead of leaving one unshielded!"

This is just the same kind of language game writers use when things take more damage than they have hit points or some equivalents, we've all seen this a thousand times. "Lose 2 HP. If you can't, lose all you have." Same type of situation.

“Failed saves transfer to the next titan” would be a helpful sentence.

I'd have to side with Sherrypie on the shield question. Initially i thought the opposite, but the ambiguity of the rules combined with the fluff makes it seem that the intention is that both are risked.

I feel that overly literal interpretations that are common in 40k aren't going to work as well with AT. I have a feeling that GW/FW will be slower to do FAQs for a non-flagship game - if they do them at all.

Either way, It seems that this rule isn't particularly easy to exploit since warhounds only have a 2 for repair, so you can't just repeatedly collapse/block each turn since you need a 6+ to bring up the collapsed shield.

Fajita Fan wrote:
“Failed saves transfer to the next titan” would be a helpful sentence.

True. I just feel it's clear enough when you think of it as an atomistic operation: somethign shoots, something throws shield saves (be it a titan, a squadron of titans or a banner of knights). In this instance the squadron fails X saves, which means the squadron "pays" X VSG points divided as it likes and no machine can pay more than it has, obviously.

I initially thought it worked that way with failed saves transferring. However they’re two separate models and it ended up sounding like you can treat each weapon attack as separate attacks that can potentially blow out one model’s shields.

They clarified the Knights melee bonus attacks so maybe this will get clarified too.

A question to movement:

In the german Rulebook, the movement Rules and picture description are not similiar.

In the Rules it's said, a Diagonal Move within the front arc has the same range like a move straight foreward. But on the picture above, Is a exact diagonal Movement example, only with 2 Inches diagonal move.

What is correct?


Another question to the mission design.

The Mission Rules for Mission 1-2 in the Rulebook are not similiar to the Data Card from the Objectives Set. In the Book, a destroyed Titan gives Victory Points in Scale to its size. On the Data Card, the Victory Points are double the size. And even the Points for a damaged Titan shown in the Book and the Chart are completely different.