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.

Leak: http://i.imgur.com/I8u9d6U.jpg

Well... I don't know what to say. It's just stupid. This thing just made it possible for a heavy bolter to damage a land raider.
I don't want to be too negative because we don't have the codex yet, but I have an iffy feeling that this is setting the tone for one cheese--crusted Tau codex.

DaPino wrote:
This thing just made it possible for a heavy bolter to penetrate a land raider.

No it didn't. You are over reacting

 CrownAxe wrote:

DaPino wrote:
This thing just made it possible for a heavy bolter to penetrate a land raider.

No it didn't. You are over reacting

Yes it did, no I'm not.
If I use a Land Raider to shoot its heavy bolter at something behind a Tidewall, it can happen. Given, it's going to be an uncommon occasion, but the fact alone that it's possible is stupid.
The tidewall says that on a succesful coversave, you roll another die and if that die is a 6, the attacking unit receives a wound/glancing hit, no strings attached.

- Land raider shoots it's heavy bolter into [Insert Tau unit] behind a Tidewall rampart
- Tau unit passes its cover save
- Tau player rolls a 6 on his D6
- Land raider takes a glancing hit from his own Heavy bolter

edit: I think I see the confusion. I said "penetrate" but I didn't mean "penetrating hit". I meant that it could "penetrate" as in "do damage to". I'll fix the OP.

It's an automatic glancing hit.

Eh. My pintle mounted heavy stubber can glance my Lemun Russ! Even on the front facing if Mr Tau player rolls a 6
Am I reading that right?

It does seem a bit silly to cause an auto wound/glance.

Surely having the opponent get hit by their own weapon and then rolling to wound/pen as normal would have made more sense.

Don't care, they're atill as vulnerable to getting punched in the face as they always were.

Every point spent on a fieldline is a point that's not shooting at me while I charge at them.

SideSwipe wrote:
Don't care, they're atill as vulnerable to getting punched in the face as they always were.

Every point spent on a fieldline is a point that's not shooting at me while I charge at them.

The fieldline can shoot you.

Wait, so say you shot a large blast at a bunched up squad of firewarriors on this thing, you hit 12, assume they have 4+ cover, 6 make the save, role 6 dice, get one 6 you've just wounded whatever you shot at it with.

With blast weapons there's almost a certainty that your gonna wound yourself

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
It does seem a bit silly to cause an auto wound/glance.

Surely having the opponent get hit by their own weapon and then rolling to wound/pen as normal would have made more sense.

Yeah. I have a feeling this is going to be the common sense house rule. That is some shoddy rule writing, even for GW.

So... if I'm reading the rules correctly... I could say, fire my basilisk from 240 inches away at some firewarriors sitting behind this thing, deviate to where the shot is on the side where they will get cover saves.. and then there's chance that my basilisk that doesn't even have LoS could receive MULTIPLE glancing hits from multiple successful cover saves.


Very well thought out rule GW.. BRAVO.

 chrispy1991 wrote:
So... if I'm reading the rules correctly... I could say, fire my basilisk from 240 inches away at some firewarriors sitting behind this thing, deviate to where the shot is on the side where they will get cover saves.. and then there's chance that my basilisk that doesn't even have LoS could receive MULTIPLE glancing hits from multiple successful cover saves.


Very well thought out rule GW.. BRAVO.

Yeah this is going to be a problem.

Conversely, if you fire a D-weapon at it, which always penetrates and therefore always rolls on the damage table, it will be reflected and do an automatic glance.

WTF.

You`ve got to be kidding me.

Land Raider Crusader, Rapid Fire range.
24 shots, Tau go to Ground, receive a 2+ cover save (same as Aegis, right?)
He passes 20.
Averages 3.333333 automatic glancing hits on the Crusader.
So there is a GOOD SOLID chance that BOLTERS destroy my Land Raider in my OWN shooting phase?
Nuts.

Well, people where wondering where the broken stuff would be....

This will clearly need some negotiation to be included into the Game, which is a pity as I like the overall concept of this thing. A mobile defence platform capable of relocating during the game, with Rules designed to create a form of synergy between it and the Unit riding on top of it. Without going into the clearly broken Rule and some other flaws in the concept, they have created something that has tickled my fancy as it would operate so differently on the field. In any case, I could easily have seen myself including this thing in an army even if I had to negotiate it's inclusion just to see how the damn thing played out.

The biggest issue this thing has is being overlooked:
It costs 60 point cost for each Shield-line.

Simply stripping this clearly worrisome Special Rule from the Fortification will reduce it to nothing more then an segment generating a cover save, something you can get 4 short and 4 long with the Aegis Defence Line. Considering that the Aegis Defence Line costs only 50 points in total, that would make this shield segment grossly overpriced. A possible solution would to be changing the 'glance' to just a straight up hit, and then have it resolve against the 'default' armour of the Vehicle at the Strength of the shot. Sorry, I can't remember of default armour is side or rear. This will render the situation put forth by the Opening Poster a 0% possibility while still making the shield segment worth it's weight in points against the real threats it was designed for.

For Blast Weapons, someone else's concerns, do what was done with the Void Shield generator:
One Shot = One 'Hit'

JinxDragon wrote:
Well, people where wondering where the broken stuff would be....

This will clearly need some negotiation to be included into the Game, which is a pity as I like the overall concept of this thing. A mobile defence platform capable of relocating during the game, with Rules designed to create a form of synergy between it and the Unit riding on top of it. Without going into the clearly broken Rule and some other flaws in the concept, they have created something that has tickled my fancy as it would operate so differently on the field. In any case, I could easily have seen myself including this thing in an army even if I had to negotiate it's inclusion just to see how the damn thing played out.

The biggest issue this thing has is being overlooked:
It costs 60 point cost for each Shield-line.

Simply stripping this clearly worrisome Special Rule from the Fortification will reduce it to nothing more then an segment generating a cover save, something you can get 4 short and 4 long with the Aegis Defence Line. Considering that the Aegis Defence Line costs only 50 points in total, that would make this shield segment grossly overpriced. A possible solution would to be changing the 'glance' to just a straight up hit, and then have it resolve against the 'default' armour of the Vehicle at the Strength of the shot. Sorry, I can't remember of default armour is side or rear. This will render the situation put forth by the Opening Poster a 0% possibility while still making the shield segment worth it's weight in points against the real threats it was designed for.

For Blast Weapons, someone else's concerns, do what was done with the Void Shield generator:
One Shot = One 'Hit'

Um I think you are forgetting a couple rules here. Rerolling all 1s for shooting, and a MOVING defense line. Meaning pathfinders and broadsides get movable cover that gives them relentless.

 chrispy1991 wrote:
So... if I'm reading the rules correctly... I could say, fire my basilisk from 240 inches away at some firewarriors sitting behind this thing, deviate to where the shot is on the side where they will get cover saves.. and then there's chance that my basilisk that doesn't even have LoS could receive MULTIPLE glancing hits from multiple successful cover saves.


Very well thought out rule GW.. BRAVO.

Barrage bypasses the cover rule by being barrage - you take from the centre of the blast marker. Unless you roll bad scatter, your opponent will have to rely on covers not provided by the Tidewall.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not as sure as I was, since you'll still have the Tidewall between the Basilisk and whatever you fired at. Bravo GW.

 Frozocrone wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:
So... if I'm reading the rules correctly... I could say, fire my basilisk from 240 inches away at some firewarriors sitting behind this thing, deviate to where the shot is on the side where they will get cover saves.. and then there's chance that my basilisk that doesn't even have LoS could receive MULTIPLE glancing hits from multiple successful cover saves.


Very well thought out rule GW.. BRAVO.

Barrage bypasses the cover rule by being barrage - you take from the centre of the blast marker. Unless you roll bad scatter, your opponent will have to rely on covers not provided by the Tidewall.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not as sure as I was, since you'll still have the Tidewall between the Basilisk and whatever you fired at. Bravo GW.

No, you're correct. You would have to roll bad scatter on the blast marker. So as long as the blast doesn't land on the wrong side of the barrier, you'd be OK.

Do wounds / glancing hits caused by the Tidewall Field allow for cover saves to be taken against them? I think it would? So your Basalisk that is out of LoS would still at least get a cover save against it's own blast? That's no help to the Land Raider firing its heavy bolter though.

It's very silly. They should have simply edited the rules to say that the unit takes a HIT at the same strength and ap as the weapon it fired. Also it would have been common sense to say something like the rule only works within 24", so Basalisks aren't somehow hitting themselves with their own artillery shells.

At the same time though... 265 points? I can't imagine a Tau player picking this over a Riptide or more Crisis suits. It's a cool concept though. Moving the model on the table looks like it would be a REAL pain in the butt. Thank goodness it can't move over terrain. Wobbly Model Syndrome with this thing would get ridiculous.

 Frozocrone wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:
So... if I'm reading the rules correctly... I could say, fire my basilisk from 240 inches away at some firewarriors sitting behind this thing, deviate to where the shot is on the side where they will get cover saves.. and then there's chance that my basilisk that doesn't even have LoS could receive MULTIPLE glancing hits from multiple successful cover saves.

Very well thought out rule GW.. BRAVO.

Barrage bypasses the cover rule by being barrage - you take from the centre of the blast marker. Unless you roll bad scatter, your opponent will have to rely on covers not provided by the Tidewall.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not as sure as I was, since you'll still have the Tidewall between the Basilisk and whatever you fired at. Bravo GW.

Depends on the wording cause its whether having the intervening wall gives you the save or just being on the platform, while barrage allows you to shoot over intervening cover it doesn't allow you to ignore cover from area terrain.

Taffy17 wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:
So... if I'm reading the rules correctly... I could say, fire my basilisk from 240 inches away at some firewarriors sitting behind this thing, deviate to where the shot is on the side where they will get cover saves.. and then there's chance that my basilisk that doesn't even have LoS could receive MULTIPLE glancing hits from multiple successful cover saves.

Very well thought out rule GW.. BRAVO.

Barrage bypasses the cover rule by being barrage - you take from the centre of the blast marker. Unless you roll bad scatter, your opponent will have to rely on covers not provided by the Tidewall.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not as sure as I was, since you'll still have the Tidewall between the Basilisk and whatever you fired at. Bravo GW.

Depends on the wording cause its whether having the intervening wall gives you the save or just being on the platform, while barrage allows you to shoot over intervening cover it doesn't allow you to ignore cover from area terrain.

It specifically states that it is in regards to the Defense Line being in between the attacking unit and its target.

Anything firing Barrage or Indirectly should be fine though, and firing at targets from the angles of the Gunrig or Droneports would also be fine.

notredameguy10,
Which have nothing to do with the broken situation being discussed, promotes synergy between the Units using the Fortification and the Fortification itself, and adds an additional new Game Mechanic to a system that is capable of dying if it does not evolve. The only reason I didn't bring them up, though I am fascinated by the interactions between specific Units, was the first. Those additional Rules simply are not important to the situation I was addressing and still seem little to discuss, given the cost of the entire Fortification requires it to have some Special Rule or another to justify its purchase as both a plastic model and a Model in the Army.

I can not fault Game Workshop for the experimentations within this Fortification, but they have been very sloppy with the execution....
We really should have Flying Infantry by now.

hmm, you mean i have to outflank or assault to win against the shootiest army in the game. What a crime. The rules are a little weird I admit but I view it as the rounds hit the energy field and gaining power from the barrier. It's tough but not invincible.

also it's fairly expensive points wise

What I find interesting is how the wording interacts with the two different Model Types.
For Non-Vehicles it is a boon - They get Randomly Hit with a Strength: -, AP: X, Wound with no special Rules attached
For Vehicles it is a bane - They straight up suffer a Glancing Hit....

One of these allows the Wound to be directed away from important Characters, Independent Characters and gives a chance that the Model carrying the Weapon system designed to deliver high strength shots from a distance is not the one being picked off by the ricochet. On top of this re-direction ability, the Model the Wound is Allocated to is still given all the usual Saving Chances that they would be normally granted in such a situation. The other gets to sit there with a single Hull Point removed in a game where Hull Points already make it possible to destroy vehicles in a single volley of moderate strength fire....

Might want to work on a better interaction mechanic with vehicles.

Really sad to see people already wanting to change rules.

Why does GW hate vehicles so much? I mean, this piece of terrain unfairly penalizes vehicles just for being vehicles.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Really sad to see people already wanting to change rules.

People don't want to "change rules", they want one rule to not be so crummily written.

Seems wonky. I don't like it. Why can't it just be a wall that gives cover?

 kronk wrote:
Seems wonky. I don't like it. Why can't it just be a wall that gives cover?

Because this is the future and in space. Where the best offense is a good defense and the most dangerous weapon is a shield.

Murrdox wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:
So... if I'm reading the rules correctly... I could say, fire my basilisk from 240 inches away at some firewarriors sitting behind this thing, deviate to where the shot is on the side where they will get cover saves.. and then there's chance that my basilisk that doesn't even have LoS could receive MULTIPLE glancing hits from multiple successful cover saves.


Very well thought out rule GW.. BRAVO.

Barrage bypasses the cover rule by being barrage - you take from the centre of the blast marker. Unless you roll bad scatter, your opponent will have to rely on covers not provided by the Tidewall.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not as sure as I was, since you'll still have the Tidewall between the Basilisk and whatever you fired at. Bravo GW.

No, you're correct. You would have to roll bad scatter on the blast marker. So as long as the blast doesn't land on the wrong side of the barrier, you'd be OK.

Do wounds / glancing hits caused by the Tidewall Field allow for cover saves to be taken against them? I think it would? So your Basalisk that is out of LoS would still at least get a cover save against it's own blast? That's no help to the Land Raider firing its heavy bolter though.

It's very silly. They should have simply edited the rules to say that the unit takes a HIT at the same strength and ap as the weapon it fired. Also it would have been common sense to say something like the rule only works within 24", so Basalisks aren't somehow hitting themselves with their own artillery shells.

At the same time though... 265 points? I can't imagine a Tau player picking this over a Riptide or more Crisis suits. It's a cool concept though. Moving the model on the table looks like it would be a REAL pain in the butt. Thank goodness it can't move over terrain. Wobbly Model Syndrome with this thing would get ridiculous.

Considering how far barrage scatters on average, I'd say it's pretty likely the tau will get cover saves by a bad scatter. Barrage does not in any way ignore cover, it just gets around it when it actually hits where you want it to. As for the Basilisk getting a cover save because of LoS or for any other reason, I can't see why it would because the RAW don't designate an origin of the glancing hit, it just kinda... happens. I don't find the tidewall as a whole OP or anything, I just can't get past how senseless this Tidewall Shield rule is. It's like they didn't even stop to think about how silly it was.

EDIT: In addition.. direct firing blast weapons means 1 leman russ cannon shot could see the russ taking multiple glancing hits even though it only fired 1 shot, potentially even wrecking itself.

I think the rule here is to just not shoot the unit on the tidewall with vehicles and to just shoot them with not vehicles who would get saves against the rebounding wounds

Call me crazy, but I like this rule. Okay, there's some messed up situations (the Basilisk, the Land Raider, etc), but there's some good stuff too! Auto-glancing an Imperial Knight or auto-wounding an Eldar Wraithknight or Jetbike isn't too bad. Generally speaking, the cheesier you get, the better this defence becomes!

Meanwhile, a basic footslogger doesn't mind shooting at this, as suffering a couple of casualties from shooting at it is a minor issue.

Watch out Deathstars, the Tau have shields!