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.

Ah he is a god send to us all. Sometimes there is a level of force against which no tactics can prevail. God Bless you son/daughter of Tau.

Stupid rules and terrible idea

Imperial Knight wouldn't be even allowed to take his invul, as it is not shooting attack, Wraithknight on the other hand will take armour save AND fnp.

 Reinokarite wrote:
Imperial Knight wouldn't be even allowed to take his invul, as it is not shooting attack, Wraithknight on the other hand will take armour save AND fnp.

Just the FNP. It doesn't seem like it allows any save. FNP would trigger since it was a wound that was not saved.

It says it suffers a wound/glance at the weapon's AP. So models would get saves. Typically if GW doesn't want you to take a save the explicitly state as such (e.g. "Suffers a wound with no saves of any kind allowed")

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well I will have no problems as I refuse to play the resident Tau players but I can see the stupidity in this. It has no range on the deflection and can allow what is essentially a HMG (IE, the Heavy Stubber) to remove a HP from one of my Leman Russes. Now this really is beyond stupid.

Hey, it makes Imperial heavy weapons good against SOMETHING. It just happens to be the vehicle firing the weapon.

Well played


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vryce wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Vryce wrote:
I agree that the rule is worded poorly, but the reality is, as others have pointed out, this rampart will be difficult to use in its full capacity. As a Tau player myself, I wont even bother with it. If there's not at least 10 pieces of city ruins terrain (the most ubiquitous terrain @ my FLGS as the owner loves building/painting it), then there's something wrong. I literally would not even be able to deploy it, much less move it. Simply put more terrain on the board if you don't want to face it. If thats not an option, just remember that your opponent spent more than the cost of a decked out Riptide to be able to field it.

I remember how much everyone cried when the Fortress of Redemption was released - when was the last time someone dropped one of those down against you?

The difference is that the Fortress of Redemption can only be assembled one way.

The Tidewall Rampart can be assembled multiple ways. The only caveat is that each section must be touching/within 6" of a Shieldline(the straight portion) if separate and that if one section moves, it all moves.

And the more you space the sections, the larger the ultimate footprint becomes, making it even more unwieldy. This thing is a gimmick at best and a hindrance at worst. You may see this fortification once or twice, but once the owner realizes that it's not a moving wall of invincibility and destruction, it'll be gone.

Remind me again of the last time you saw a Tau gunline move more than 6" in the entire game?

I love the idea of this. Seems very Tau, with a moving line, paired with the whole energy shield thing.

Execution? Holy mother of Astartes, it's horrendous! Why the hell GW didn't just re-use the rules of a Lychguard Dispersion Shield I'll never know. Cool concept, terrible execution.

If any Tau players have the grace to use this thing against me, I'll request that they use the Dispersion Shield's rules, and I'll knock off 5 or 10 points from each Tidewall to compensate.

I think it's a neat model and while I don't think vehicles should take auto-glances I still like the idea of shots bouncing back...

I may pick up one of the segments when/if they get released separately.


I think there's a decent amount of stuff that could go right through it. I imagine the SM Vindicator formation with the massive S10 AP1 ignores cover blast tucked behind a couple void shields would make quite short work of pretty much an entire army were it hiding within the tidewall.

People are still confused about the criticism of this thing? It's not that it is over-powered or anything, it is that the shield rules are downright stupid.

Just thinking of it, a Punisher will actually glance itself to deathif it opens up on this thing......

 master of ordinance wrote:


Remind me again of the last time you saw a Tau gunline move more than 6" in the entire game?

'

Every game because, surprise, surprise, it's not a very good tactic. If they aren't moving, just play the objectives and hide behind LoS blocking terrain. You'll win if they don'r move. Even if you are playing annihilation, it's not a particularly good tactic. You play IG, and tau are horrible at anti-heavy armour. As long as you keep your LR backs covered from melt-cides, just create a wall of death, and use your 72" range guns to play his FWs apart. Boring but it works.

I play mobile tau, have been since the beginning of 4th edition codex. That end up being far most powerful, especially if I end up power-gaming (i.e. FE not my usual FW in Dfish setup).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Caederes wrote:
People are still confused about the criticism of this thing? It's not that it is over-powered or anything, it is that the shield rules are downright stupid.

Yeah. They are horribly designed. I'd personally rather some rule that makes their saves invuln saves or something, and just forgo the whole mess. At that point they'd be pretty well priced, and fair. Nothing overly powered, but not weak either.

Agreed:
Slight point reduction, maybe even as slight as 10 points off each shield, and have them grant an 4+ Invulnerability Save in situations where the Model is Obscured.

Game Workshop have obviously decided that Cover Saves are not tactically valuable, or at least not something you should have to pay for. Not only do they hand out Ignore Cover Weapons as if they are candy on Halloween, but take a look at the cost of Terrain designed to grant nothing more then a Cover Save. Unless the Fortification in question is granting something on top of a 4+ Cover Save, one pays more for the convenience of guaranteeing a certain Terrain Piece is going to be present on the battle field.

Yet grant a 4+ Invulnerable and it suddenly becomes worth 25 or so points....
Granting that same save to multiple Models has to be worth at least 30-50 points.