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.

If a 6" moving JSJ unit with melta weapons at 18/9" are getting that close to your knight to kill it in one round then you're doing something wrong. The knight moves 12", assault 2d6, and has good firepower (choose your targets carefully to avoid the Ghostkeels snap fire shenanigans and thin out the overwatch capabilities). The formations maximum threat range is 18" so you should be able to assault them and with 5 knights that increases your odds for assault dramatically.

 IngenuityGap wrote:

 Filch wrote:
wow, just wow, after buying 5 imperial knights GW pulls this crap? I hate you GW. I should have walked away from this game when I sold a large part of my CSM but instead I spent it on 5 Imperial Knights like an idiot. Imperial Knights are supper easy to kill. A 85 pt model can one shot a knight. Its a called a shokk attack cannon with a lucky STR D vortex shot. On top of that any melta or lascannon can pen and get a 6 on the damage table and take away d3 hull points where as a Wraith Knight giggles and shrugs of a hit with a invul save followed by a FNP.

Imperial Knights should just be treated like a Gargantuan Creature like the OP Wraith Knight and have a 4++ invul save.

I hate GW and I dont understand why I keep buying and playing this game.

Honestly, you have no one but yourself to blame for buying 5 knights without knowing their strengths and weaknesses. They have been out for over a year now and have been well analyzed by the tournament community, message boards, and various pages like frontline. Buying that many and then being upset by their rules is just silly.

That is entirely unfair of you to say that. If he bought 5 Knights because they are cool or because they are effective shouldn't matter in the least, what matters is GW created an entire faction that this formation utterly neuters. I felt exactly the same when my Dark Eldar became irrelevant competitively due to all of Taus ignore cover. GW has created a power creep that alienates and discourages Pre-Necron armies and it is completely reasonable for Flitch to complain about that. His Knights have just hit the wall a little while after my Dark Eldar, it's still the same stupid power creeping wall.

On the actual rule, it seems to me that the shots are resolved against rear armour no matter what side they actually face. It's stupid, terrible fluff but that is how the rules seem to be.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:

 IngenuityGap wrote:

 Filch wrote:
wow, just wow, after buying 5 imperial knights GW pulls this crap? I hate you GW. I should have walked away from this game when I sold a large part of my CSM but instead I spent it on 5 Imperial Knights like an idiot. Imperial Knights are supper easy to kill. A 85 pt model can one shot a knight. Its a called a shokk attack cannon with a lucky STR D vortex shot. On top of that any melta or lascannon can pen and get a 6 on the damage table and take away d3 hull points where as a Wraith Knight giggles and shrugs of a hit with a invul save followed by a FNP.

Imperial Knights should just be treated like a Gargantuan Creature like the OP Wraith Knight and have a 4++ invul save.

I hate GW and I dont understand why I keep buying and playing this game.

Honestly, you have no one but yourself to blame for buying 5 knights without knowing their strengths and weaknesses. They have been out for over a year now and have been well analyzed by the tournament community, message boards, and various pages like frontline. Buying that many and then being upset by their rules is just silly.

That is entirely unfair of you to say that. If he bought 5 Knights because they are cool or because they are effective shouldn't matter in the least, what matters is GW created an entire faction that this formation utterly neuters. I felt exactly the same when my Dark Eldar became irrelevant competitively due to all of Taus ignore cover. GW has created a power creep that alienates and discourages Pre-Necron armies and it is completely reasonable for Flitch to complain about that. His Knights have just hit the wall a little while after my Dark Eldar, it's still the same stupid power creeping wall.

On the actual rule, it seems to me that the shots are resolved against rear armour no matter what side they actually face. It's stupid, terrible fluff but that is how the rules seem to be.

I wouldn't say this completely invalidates knights, or even neuters them. Its not like the 5th edition GK versus Daemons matchup. In fact saying its really a threats to knights at all is simply ignorant.

Knights are Armor 13/12/12 so their rear armor is the same as their side armor. 12.

The basic optimised stealth cadre is 310 pts before any additions, and only 1 model in it can hurt armor 12 at that point which is the single ghostkeel. It will be firing either 6 str 7 shots(average 4 hits, which will be 1 hp if there are no saves...) or 1 fusion shot, and the stealth team will fire a bunch of S5 shots which will do nothing.

Lets say you run into a very expensive Optimized stealth cadre. It has a squad of 3 ghostkeels with ion rakers and twin linked fusion, and 2 squads of 6 stealth suits with 2 fusion blasters each. This formation is 800pts without any further upgrades than those I just listed.

It has 3 twin linked fusion shots from the ghostkeels, another 18 str7 ap 4 shots from the ghost keels, and 4 fusion shots from all the suits, when they all get within 18".

Outside of 9" they do not get the bonus die for melta, so thats an average of 12 str7 hits, (4 HP) and 3 fusion hits (averge 1 pen, has a 33% chance to do d3 hp) and another 3 fusion hits which will average 1 more pen(another d3hp) for an average of 8hps done. If you put your shield in the rear, you took an average 4 hps.....

Obviously if they all get within 9" they will kill a knight, maybe even two. However your knights are probably shooting as they move up, and with a 12" move not slowed by terrain and a 2d6" charge the chance for tau to get within 9" untouched is very very low. Also as stated the above is 800pts without any support system upgrades etc, which is more than the cost of 2 knights.

Out of all the vehicles this affects knights aren't the ones bothered, its things like brass scorpions which are very expensive and have rear armor 10. As well as various imperial/ork vehicles with Armor 12-14 front but 10 on the rear- because the volume of fire from burst cannons which can glance/pen AV 10 is high. A ghostkeel and 6 stealth suits, fire off 24 str5 shots and 6 str7 shots. Against AV10 if they are in range, your looking at 16 str 5 hits, and 4 str 7 hits- against say a squad of leman russes this will trash a squadron of 3 pretty easy in one go.

Doesnt this formation allow a riptide to get the bonus of ignore cover and hit rear?

 Filch wrote:
Doesnt this formation allow a riptide to get the bonus of ignore cover and hit rear?

No.

The Wall of Mirrors: At the start of your shooting phase, this Formation can network their stealth fields to create a Wall of Mirrors. If you do so, then the weapons used by the Formation's Ghostkeels and by any unit of Stealth Battlesuits from this formation that are within 6" of a Ghostkeel from this Formation, have the Ignores Cover special rule, and these models add 1 to their BS for that Shooting phase. In addition, their weapons are assumed to strike the rear armour of any vehicle that they hit, no matter what its actual facing.

Unless a riptide is a ghostkeel or stealth suit unit in that formation.

even if the rule could be shared through 'coordinated firepower' the result would not benefit other models/units- because -if- the the rule is shared, and the rule states within itself who can benefit. "ghostkeels and stealth battlesuits from this formation within 6" of a ghostkeel from this formation" which if you check for a riptide or any other unit in the 'coordinated firepower' attack would not be a ghostkeel from the optimized stealth cadre formation, nor would it be a stealth suit unit from the optimized stealth cadre formation within 6" of a ghostkeel from the optimized stealth cadre formation.

Its not the same as markerlight, or monster hunter, in who it can benefit.

Charistoph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

For the same reason that you can't change targets after you roll badly and decide you'd like to try again.

Nothing in the rules require all of a Super-Heavy's targets to be declared at the same time. The only rulebook requirement is for weapons of the same group, and that is only because you have to use them all at the same time or lose the opportunity to fire them.

This is exactly incorrect. You are required to declare all of your targets before a single shot is resolved

 luke1705 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

For the same reason that you can't change targets after you roll badly and decide you'd like to try again.

Nothing in the rules require all of a Super-Heavy's targets to be declared at the same time. The only rulebook requirement is for weapons of the same group, and that is only because you have to use them all at the same time or lose the opportunity to fire them.

This is exactly incorrect. You are required to declare all of your targets before a single shot is resolved

Nope not true in the slightest. What Charistoph said is correct. There is nothing in the rules that states you must pick all of your targets first. I can fire one weapon, and when that is done, choose the target for my next weapon.

 luke1705 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

For the same reason that you can't change targets after you roll badly and decide you'd like to try again.

Nothing in the rules require all of a Super-Heavy's targets to be declared at the same time. The only rulebook requirement is for weapons of the same group, and that is only because you have to use them all at the same time or lose the opportunity to fire them.

This is exactly incorrect. You are required to declare all of your targets before a single shot is resolved

And where does it state this? The Shooting Sequence only specifies selecting A target, and does not allow for multiple Targetting. The Super-Heavy rules do not state how the Shooting Sequence is modified to account for their multiple targets.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

For the same reason that you can't change targets after you roll badly and decide you'd like to try again.

Nothing in the rules require all of a Super-Heavy's targets to be declared at the same time. The only rulebook requirement is for weapons of the same group, and that is only because you have to use them all at the same time or lose the opportunity to fire them.

This is exactly incorrect. You are required to declare all of your targets before a single shot is resolved

Nope not true in the slightest. What Charistoph said is correct. There is nothing in the rules that states you must pick all of your targets first. I can fire one weapon, and when that is done, choose the target for my next weapon.

Please show where permission to fire at different targets give you permission to perform step 2 of the shooting phase sequence, choose a target, more than once

Given this is a permissive rule set, you must show permission to do this. Rules please.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fishboy wrote:
Could you explain why they can't change targets? Not sure I understand that.

For the same reason that you can't change targets after you roll badly and decide you'd like to try again.

Nothing in the rules require all of a Super-Heavy's targets to be declared at the same time. The only rulebook requirement is for weapons of the same group, and that is only because you have to use them all at the same time or lose the opportunity to fire them.

This is exactly incorrect. You are required to declare all of your targets before a single shot is resolved

Nope not true in the slightest. What Charistoph said is correct. There is nothing in the rules that states you must pick all of your targets first. I can fire one weapon, and when that is done, choose the target for my next weapon.

Please show where permission to fire at different targets give you permission to perform step 2 of the shooting phase sequence, choose a target, more than once

Given this is a permissive rule set, you must show permission to do this. Rules please.

Show me where it says you cannot or says you must choose all at once?

You pick your GC/SH and then go from steps 2-7 and then repeat. GC/SH can shoot each of its weapons, at a different target. Step 2 is select a target. AS IN SINGULAR TARGET. This means you would repeat step 2 with each weapon as they are being fired at a different target.

You're reading quite a bit into that. The shooting steps are:
1. select unit
2: select target
3: select weapon
...
7. select another weapon

Step 7 is very clear - go back to step 3.

The super heavy rules give you permission to select multiple targets (modifying step 2) - they don't tell you to change the order of operations for the shooting phase.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
You're reading quite a bit into that. The shooting steps are:
1. select unit
2: select target
3: select weapon
...
7. select another weapon

Step 7 is very clear - go back to step 3.

The super heavy rules give you permission to select multiple targets (modifying step 2) - they don't tell you to change the order of operations for the shooting phase.

Selecting another weapon and then I chose to target a different unit. It makes no sense to "select a weapon" after I have picked multiple targets. Otherwise I will select every single enemy unit on the board then decide in step 3 which weapons will fire at each target, leading to the same result as just firing one at a time

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
You're reading quite a bit into that. The shooting steps are:
1. select unit
2: select target
3: select weapon
...
7. select another weapon

Step 7 is very clear - go back to step 3.

The super heavy rules give you permission to select multiple targets (modifying step 2) - they don't tell you to change the order of operations for the shooting phase.

Selecting another weapon and then I chose to target a different unit. It makes no sense to "select a weapon" after I have picked multiple targets. Otherwise I will select every single enemy unit on the board then decide in step 3 which weapons will fire at each target, leading to the same result as just firing one at a time

Well if you select a unit as a target you must then fire at it with at least 1 weapon so you can't quite do that. To be honest we are all guessing as the rules don't tell us how we select multiple targets forthings like GMCs or target locks.

 FlingitNow wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
You're reading quite a bit into that. The shooting steps are:
1. select unit
2: select target
3: select weapon
...
7. select another weapon

Step 7 is very clear - go back to step 3.

The super heavy rules give you permission to select multiple targets (modifying step 2) - they don't tell you to change the order of operations for the shooting phase.

Selecting another weapon and then I chose to target a different unit. It makes no sense to "select a weapon" after I have picked multiple targets. Otherwise I will select every single enemy unit on the board then decide in step 3 which weapons will fire at each target, leading to the same result as just firing one at a time

Well if you select a unit as a target you must then fire at it with at least 1 weapon so you can't quite do that. To be honest we are all guessing as the rules don't tell us how we select multiple targets forthings like GMCs or target locks.

There is nothing in the rules that prevent me from selecting a target and then if I have no remaining weapons to fire at it, I do not have to fire at it. If have a unit out of range of an enemy unit, I can still "target" it and then if no weapons are in range I do not have to / cannot fire at it.

Ah so you're going by "it doesn't say I can't"

Permissive rule sets don't work like that.

There is nothing in the rules that prevent me from selecting a target and then if I have no remaining weapons to fire at it, I do not have to fire at it. If have a unit out of range of an enemy unit, I can still "target" it and then if no weapons are in range I do not have to / cannot fire at it.

You need to show permission not me show restriction. It is a permissive ruleset.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so you're going by "it doesn't say I can't"

Permissive rule sets don't work like that.

Reread the step 3. "Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot". That is after step 2 of selecting targets. Therefore, I can select any target I want, and If I have no weapons that are in range of the enemy unit, I cannot shoot at that unit

notredameguy10 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so you're going by "it doesn't say I can't"

Permissive rule sets don't work like that.

Reread the step 3. "Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot". That is after step 2 of selecting targets. Therefore, I can select any target I want, and If I have no weapons that are in range of the enemy unit, I cannot shoot at that unit

Actually the rule you quoted says you cannot shoot. It does not say you cannot shoot the target. Ergo, if you select Unit A and Unit B, and Unit B is out of sight, you cannot shoot at all.

 Happyjew wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah so you're going by "it doesn't say I can't"

Permissive rule sets don't work like that.

Reread the step 3. "Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot". That is after step 2 of selecting targets. Therefore, I can select any target I want, and If I have no weapons that are in range of the enemy unit, I cannot shoot at that unit

Actually the rule you quoted says you cannot shoot. It does not say you cannot shoot the target. Ergo, if you select Unit A and Unit B, and Unit B is out of sight, you cannot shoot at all.

Nope. Step 2 is target selection. Aka i have already selected the unit as a target BEFORE I chose which weapons to fire. So I select target A, and if I have no weapons in range, I cannot shoot at target A. That is following the exact steps of the shooting phase sequence.

"Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit cannot shoot".

Not "cannot shoot at that target" - "cannot shoot".

What makes you think you get to have another go with that weapon at another target?

 Scott-S6 wrote:
"Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit cannot shoot".

Not "cannot shoot at that target" - "cannot shoot".

What makes you think you get to have another go with that weapon at another target?

Whats to say I even have any weapons left? I could have already shot all my weapons at other targets.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
"Any weapon that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit cannot shoot".

Not "cannot shoot at that target" - "cannot shoot".

What makes you think you get to have another go with that weapon at another target?

Whats to say I even have any weapons left? I could have already shot all my weapons at other targets.

Except you lost the ability to shoot as soon as one of your targets were found to be out of range/sight.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Whats to say I even have any weapons left? I could have already shot all my weapons at other targets.

And why would you be selecting a target if there are no weapons remaining? The shooting resolution sequence cycles through weapons - not through targets.

 Happyjew wrote:

Except you lost the ability to shoot as soon as one of your targets were found to be out of range/sight.

Well, no - the rules say that the weapon cannot shoot - not the model or unit. P31 - check range.


As FlingItNow says, the rules simply do not tell us how to handle units that can split fire. In the case of super heavy vehicles all we have is a permission to target "multiple" enemy units. How many? At least enough for all weapons to be able to select a different target. So we have a number of options:

1. Change step 7 so that you return to step 2 (instead of 3) and repeat
2. Change step 2 to select a pool of targets and change step 3 to be select a weapon and a target from the pool
3. Do away with step 2 and change step 3 to be select a target and a weapon
4. Change step 2 to select a target for each weapon.

1-3 are identical in their results (baring some other interaction with this process) and all require a significant change to shooting resolution sequence - specifically that the repeating cycle is both target selection and weapon selection.
4 makes a change to how targets are selected but leaves everything else intact. This is, imo, a smaller change than the others as it leaves target selection in step 2 and keeps step 3 purely for weapon selection. It's also the least powerful interpretation. Both of these make it a more desirable selection for handling a genuinely ambiguous situation to my mind.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Except you lost the ability to shoot as soon as one of your targets were found to be out of range/sight.

Well, no - the rules say that the weapon cannot shoot - not the model or unit. P31 - check range.

And every unit must be in range and sight for each weapon, otherwise, the weapon cannot be fired.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Whats to say I even have any weapons left? I could have already shot all my weapons at other targets.

And why would you be selecting a target if there are no weapons remaining? The shooting resolution sequence cycles through weapons - not through targets.

thats exactly my point. People are saying you have to select every one of you targets for a GC/SH before you choose which weapoms to fire at each and not "pick target A and fire weapon #1, pick target B, fire weapon #2" due to the order of shooting being "Pick target, then fire a single weapon all the way through wounds and repeat at the fire single weapon part again".

If you have to pick the targets before picking weapons to fire at the targets, the rules permit picking all enemies and then choosing which to fire each weapon at.

I agree that the rules do not say what to do and I am just playing the devil's advocate


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Except you lost the ability to shoot as soon as one of your targets were found to be out of range/sight.

Well, no - the rules say that the weapon cannot shoot - not the model or unit. P31 - check range.

And every unit must be in range and sight for each weapon, otherwise, the weapon cannot be fired.

And if i already have fired all my weapons before reaching the rest of the targets that does not matter.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Whats to say I even have any weapons left? I could have already shot all my weapons at other targets.

And why would you be selecting a target if there are no weapons remaining? The shooting resolution sequence cycles through weapons - not through targets.

thats exactly my point. People are saying you have to select every one of you targets for a GC/SH before you choose which weapoms to fire at each and not "pick target A and fire weapon #1, pick target B, fire weapon #2" due to the order of shooting being "Pick target, then fire a single weapon all the way through wounds and repeat at the fire single weapon part again".

If you have to pick the targets before picking weapons to fire at the targets, the rules permit picking all enemies and then choosing which to fire each weapon at.

I agree that the rules do not say what to do and I am just playing the devil's advocate

Absolutely and that interpretation (select a pool of enemies in step 2 and then select both a weapon and a target from the pool in step 3) does lead to some odd circumstances. This is why I think that selecting each weapon's target in step 2 is the best resolution - it's the smoothest mechanically, it's the least powerful and it's how previous editions handled it - that adds up to fewest arguments.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:

Whats to say I even have any weapons left? I could have already shot all my weapons at other targets.

And why would you be selecting a target if there are no weapons remaining? The shooting resolution sequence cycles through weapons - not through targets.

thats exactly my point. People are saying you have to select every one of you targets for a GC/SH before you choose which weapoms to fire at each and not "pick target A and fire weapon #1, pick target B, fire weapon #2" due to the order of shooting being "Pick target, then fire a single weapon all the way through wounds and repeat at the fire single weapon part again".

If you have to pick the targets before picking weapons to fire at the targets, the rules permit picking all enemies and then choosing which to fire each weapon at.

I agree that the rules do not say what to do and I am just playing the devil's advocate

Absolutely and that interpretation (select a pool of enemies in step 2 and then select both a weapon and a target from the pool in step 3) does lead to some odd circumstances. This is why I think that selecting each weapon's target in step 2 is the best resolution - it's the smoothest mechanically, it's the least powerful and it's how previous editions handled it - that adds up to fewest arguments.

Except imagine now with the Tau codex and coordinated Firepower. Use the stormsurge as the main firing unit and choose 5 different targets. Do you now have to pick 10 other units and who is firing at who all at the same time? That is going to lead to way too much headache... It would be much simpler to just pick a target, fire a weapon, and repreat.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Except imagine now with the Tau codex and coordinated Firepower. Use the stormsurge as the main firing unit and choose 5 different targets. Do you now have to pick 10 other units and who is firing at who all at the same time? That is going to lead to way too much headache... It would be much simpler to just pick a target, fire a weapon, and repreat.

Except for how easy to abuse that .
Shoot super killer super weapon #1 at unit 1 . Roll poorly . Shoot sub-super killy weapon #2 at unit 1 again cause you botched the rolls Versus Shoot super killy super weapon #1 at unit 1. Roll poorly. Unit 1 gets to live cause of luck . Shoot sub-super killy weapon #2 at unit 2 cause you thought for sure the first weapon would have wiped that first unit off by itself

Select TARGET is singular

Show permission to repeat step 2

Page and graph.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Except imagine now with the Tau codex and coordinated Firepower. Use the stormsurge as the main firing unit and choose 5 different targets. Do you now have to pick 10 other units and who is firing at who all at the same time? That is going to lead to way too much headache... It would be much simpler to just pick a target, fire a weapon, and repreat.

This is how super heavy vehicles worked in every previous edition explicitly and all vehicles worked like that in several previous editions.