Unless you have a Fast Monolith, you cheated. Vehicles that Deep Strike count as having moved at Cruising speed (and GFA's wouldn't even count as defensive weapons). Page 95 of the rulebook.
Bobx66
· 5 months ago
Snap.
Kris
· 5 months ago
in the codex it clearly says that the partical whip may be fired even if the vehicle has moved, it may always fire, even if it deep struck.
(*ಠ益ಠ)
· 5 months ago
Counter Snap!
BuFFo
· 5 months ago
Broken Loose is talking about the Gauss Flux Arc, not the Partical Whip.....
Double Counter Snap!
Kris
· 5 months ago
perhaps, but the article was talking about firing the PWs on the IG not the GFA,
Tripple Counter Snap
BuFFo
· 5 months ago
Nice try, but that old trick won't work on me. You responded to Broken Loose, not the article.
Owned.
Cyclone
· 5 months ago
ooh, he just OWNED your Triple Counter Snap!!!
Broken Loose
· 5 months ago
True, but you can't "unload" a particle whip on an entire guard army at once.
bushidoredpanda
· 5 months ago
I beg to differ :) that whip is serious business.
PS_WAAAGGHHH
· 5 months ago
If the Monolith was really an Ork Trukk full of Boyz that thought it should look like a Monolith and that they should look like Necrons, it would work. XD
Havik110
· 5 months ago
I have a buddy that uses a looted monolith in Apoch games...He has grots holding it up but he stole the idea from a guy he saw with looted falcons...
duder
· 5 months ago
i love seeing three monoliths in necron army lists, it makes phasing out such an easy affair.
PS_WAAAGGHHH
· 5 months ago
Thats why the God Emperor blessed us Necron players with the Reserve rule. Can't Phase Out what you can't shoot.
BuFFo
· 5 months ago
Necrons not on the table will contribute to the phase out rule.
So yes, you CAN phase out what you can't shoot.
This is what I remember from a previous BOLS article. Can someone clarify that for me please?
Havik110
· 5 months ago
Yep...If they are in reserve they count as destroyed for your phase out rule...
bushidoredpanda
· 5 months ago
Actually, nope. Reserves do not count as destroyed as they once did (unless they mishap on turn 5 and the game ends...). It's pretty clear in the BRB about this one.
Havik110
· 5 months ago
your phase out number is influence by the number of crons you have on the table. if you hit it before you have more cron some in you phase out...
bushidoredpanda
· 5 months ago
Actually if you read the codex (I have mine right here) it says, "If a Necron army is reduced to 25% or less of it's original number (in other words, 75% of its models, rounding fractions up, are destroyed),...". I would say it's pretty clear that they have to be destroyed to count. What is on the board really doesn't have anything to do with it. As reserves do not count as destroyed, the figure into phase out.
DooDoo Head Brown
· 5 months ago
Bushido, I'm with you on this one, it's amazing how many people can't read, or add in words where they want to make the rules how they want. It's okay to say rules as intented since I prefer to play that way, but the Phase Out is based upon the total number of necrons in the army, reserves do not count as destroyed, they count as reserves. The only way a unit of warriors in reserve count as destroyed and never see the table is if a Necron player states they will arrive via monolith and all monoliths are destroyed when they enter from reserves, then they are destroyed, I think alot of idiots read that part, and think "oh it's not on the table so you they don't count towards the total, or they count as destroyed.
Hell if models in reserve counted as destroyed then I'll just run 100 warrior army, and only deploy 10, look I LOSE BY PHASE OUT!!!
DooDoo Head Brown
· 5 months ago
and somebody please state which edition of 40k counted reserves as destroyed units during the game. if that was ever the case, then necrons would never be able to hold reserves, and if a unit counts as destroyed, how does it come in??? I think alot of you are thinking the old "scoring units" rules, not the actual reserves rules.
khanaris
· 5 months ago
Units in Reserve never counted as destroyed for the purposes of Phase-Out. The difference is that it was possible to lose walk-on Reserves if the game ended before they could come on. Now you need a Mishap for that.
BlackSly
· 5 months ago
That's the way I read it also. I play with only 2 Warrior squads, and 2 Monoliths that allow them to come in from Reserve, advance to within Teleport range of the Monos, then Teleport out. Enter from Reserve, get Rapid Fire shots out to about 44". And they're safe until they enter, so I can't be Phased Out as long as at least one of them is still around. Heck, I wish I could force them to stay out till Turn 5 every single time ;)
Miami
· 5 months ago
Then you always have 100 percent of your Necrons that are "on the table" on the table. Even if you remove 500 necrons and only have 1 left on the table, that would be 100 percent of your Necrons that are on the table.
That interpretation makes no sense. I don't even get why reserves before didn't count. Glad 5th fixed that.
StephenK
· 5 months ago
5th didn't "fix" anything of the sort. You're thinking of Victory Points, which were "fixed" out of 5th.
The quoted text you're not reading DOES NOT use the words "on the table". It says "army reduced to 25% of its models"; "ARMY", not "table".
Yes, I just used a semi-colon.
Peter
· 5 months ago
Let me correct that statement: you can choose (before deployment, of course) either to deploy your reserved warriors via the portal, or from the table edge. If you choose the portal-deployment, and your Lith's are destroyed, before your troops could enter, warriors are count as destroyed indeed, and can trigger phase-out. In the case of the board-edge deployment, reserved units shall not trigger phase out. Think about it: in the case of DoW setup you deploy one troop, and phase out automatically , as your first turn begins :)
MoonRipper
· 5 months ago
ye 3 monoliths though fun to use, is a one trick pony that fall on its face in 1 shooting turn and 1 assault turn when your opponent kills a few necrons and wipes you out.
3 ordance blasts doesnt cut it
3 liths deep striking means a minimum of 1 turn with an army on the table that is 705 points. GG by phase out
Morgan666
· 5 months ago
I think the necron haters here forgot to ask how many points he is playing with to have 3 monoliths. I only run 1 monolith per 1500pts per game. I have not phased out more than once or so in 5th edition. I almost always win with a monolith, 2 lords, and the rest warriors. Damn that crusing speed rule. I gave up deep striking a couple of years ago. My units last longer and my kill ratios are much higher. The enemy frequently charges into the teeth of my flayers and die. I like playing against orks. The red ones die faster.
sjap
· 5 months ago
..."The red ones die faster".
hehehe
Digitus
· 5 months ago
I normally use 1 Monolith at 1500 pts, 2 at 2000 pts and 3 at 3000+ pts (in a 3600 pts Apocalypse touramente I fielded 1 Pylon an 3 Monoliths in Doomsday Phalanx).
I found using the "vehicle-as-wall" tactic particulary fitted for the Monolith thanks to his massive size. Once, in a 2000 pts battle against Dark Eldar, I used my 2 Monolith to "shield" me from my enemy's hand-to-hand squads; and in the meantime I rejoyced shooting 5'' blasts here and there.
By the way, I've phased out only a couple of times since I started playing necrons 3-4 years ago.
CrownAxe
· 5 months ago
First off, you can't assault after teleporting from a Monolith that moved, this is the case in the new Necron FAQ. So no First turn assaults with Wraiths and Necron Destroyer Lords
As for a trick i use, with skimmers blocking line of sight and the Monolith be low to the ground for not coming with a flying base, i take 2 Monoliths and put them side by side and use them as a wall to block line of sight to my warriors so that they can get into shooting range unharmed and then teleport them to the front when they are ready. I don't have to worry about phase out since the majority of my Necrons can't be shot at. Put Destroyers on both sides of it to stop flanking and a Ressurection Orb Lord amongst the Warriors and you are golden.
p.s. Whats a good way to send this to BOLS?
PS_WAAAGGHHH
· 5 months ago
Why bother moving the Warriors, there is no limit on the teleporting range of the Monolith unless you want to re-roll the Well Be Back in which case its 18".
Sathos
· 5 months ago
because if the warriors are miles behind, it would be easier to get around the monoliths and destroyers with something fast (or a deep strike) and attack just the warriors with their lord...keeping them near the monoliths means the liths and destroyers get to play their part too against fankers/strikers
CrownAxe
· 5 months ago
If they hang around the back, then the Monoliths won't be blocking line of site to them, and the Warriors will get shot at
CrownAxe
· 5 months ago
the the 18" limit always applies, not just for re-rolling WBB
James
· 5 months ago
There's no limit on the teleprting range..?
James
· 5 months ago
* teleporting
I'm with CrownAxe, you're limited to 18" with a Monolith teleport.
James
· 5 months ago
Re. assaulting after leaving the Monolith, as far as I know, the FAQ says:
" Q. Can a Necron Unit that teleports through a Monolith’s portal move after emerging?
A. Only if the Monolith (and the teleporting unit) hasn’t moved already that Movement phase. If the unit has already moved before being teleported, it may only be deployed within 2” of the portal; of it hasn’t already moved, it may deploy out 2” and then move normally. "
That doesn't seem to actually remove the rule from the Codex that says units emerging from the Monolith emerge as from a stationery transport vehicle, it just clarifies it. And it doesn't say that units who emerge cannot Assualt later that turn.
How do people read this? Obviously, if your unit and/or the Monolith have already moved, the unit has to be deployed with 2" of the portal and cannot move again that Movement Phase. But does it say that they cannot Assault in the Assault Phase of that turn?
Your thoughts on this would be very welcome.
bushidoredpanda
· 5 months ago
The monolith's don't move on the first turn... at least not until after the wraiths teleport in front of them for the extra 2" of movement.
jwolf_bols
· 5 months ago
belloflostsouls@gmail.com is the contact email for the blog. NECRONS in the subject line for something on Necrons would be great.
PS_WAAAGGHHH
· 5 months ago
I weep about the loss of the "get out of the monolith as if it was stationary" rule, that which was stated, stated again, faqed, faqed again just to make sure everyone got it, and then faqed to get rid of it... ;_: No more first turn assault Necrons.
Moving on. One of my favorite lists to run now a days for Necrons contains 3 Monoliths, 2 squads of Warriors, and a Lord. This nice little list can be done in a 1250 and with the new Reserves rules, one can just have 3 Monoliths on the board with the Necrons walking in from the board edge. There by avoiding turns of fire and being phased out early in the game (some one help them if they take a Master of the Fleet or two, your warriors may never come in). If your are dealing with a heavy weapons list like some Imp Guard armies, then you can just Deep Strike the Monoliths in as well and really put those 12" Gauss Flux Arcs to use.
James
· 5 months ago
As has been stated above, Deep Striking vehicles count as moving at Cruising Speed so in fifth edition you can no longer Deep Strike a Monolith and fire its Gauss Flux Arcs on the same turn.
It's a shame but there you can't do it anymore. You could still Deep Strike a Monolith and fire the Particle Whip but if you're surrounded by heavy weapons squads with Strength 8+ weapons, will you kill enough of them to survive until your next turn?
BlackSly
· 5 months ago
You will. Guard BS3 = 1/2 hit, then need a 6 to Glance, so 1/12 get a Glance, then with AP1 1 glance in 6 will destroy. That's 72 Meltagun shots to destroy, per Monolith, on the average. I'm more worried about Lascannon teams, but those are more expensive and you won't see as many. Monoliths smirk at Melta weapons ;) Drop in, Whip some Lascannon team or squad, and ignore everything that doesn't have Lascannons.
Necron_Lord
· 5 months ago
Meltas don't get the extra +1 for AP1, due to the living metal rule. Check out the Necron FAQ. The only "extra" die or modifier allowed against monoliths is for ordance weapons (roll two dice and pick the highest). ALL other modifiers don't apply. ;)
an angry jew
· 5 months ago
yes they do. the AP 1 does not affect the vehicle penetration, only vehicle damage. so a melta that glances (using strength 8) resolves damage at -1 rather than at -2. Living metal only affects vehicle penetration, not the damage modifier (unless LM is the rule that ignores crew stunned and shaken)
Tisten
· 5 months ago
you are right here. ap1 still gets a +1 on the table.
The ignore crew stunned and shaken is the power matrix. that means that if you are shaken or stunned you cannot fire your flux arc but you can drop the plate or teleport. The power matrix is not affected but the other shooting is. so if you are teleporting while being shaken or stunned you cannot use the flux arcs.
Grand Master Iapetus
· 5 months ago
Many of you have brought up some great comments about firing after DS-ing, moving after teleporting, etc.
AFA assaulting - it appears that as long as the vehicle hasn't moved before the units get out, assaults are allowed.
I don't play necrons, but one of the issues I had in the last game with a necron player was teleporting large squads of warriors through the Monolith and the 2" rule. The most he could squeeze within 2" base to base without stacking the models was around 13-15 models. He was losing several models every time he moved a big squad and was pretty upset when I pointed this out to him....
DMK
· 5 months ago
There are plenty of transports that simply cannot fit all they can carry within 2 inches of the door, it is quite unreasonable to tell someone to take away any models that don't fit due to what is often just a modeling issue.
Col.Straken
· 5 months ago
you do realise that it only has to be the back of the base not the whole base (as shown in diagram of disembarking troops in the main book) which means you can fit more models (its the only reason Termies can fit to get out the front of a land raider without using the side doors.)
DMK
· 5 months ago
Yes but still 12 guardsmen with part of the base, especially if one is HW within 2 of the door of the chimera, and depending on how guns are modelled, front or back of a LR fitting 8 termies or 16 troop doesn't always fit.
James Grant
· 5 months ago
Pg 67 of the BGB: You can emergency disembark anywhere within 2" of the transport if you can't fit the unit within 2" of the doors. The unit can't do anything else that turn though.
If they can't do that then they can't disembark. They never lose models.
randomuser
· 5 months ago
This should be an article? This is pathetic
BuFFo
· 5 months ago
Necrons need any help they can get.
Stay tuned next week for the Tactica Landraider; Put troops inside and drive!
DMK
· 5 months ago
I found it interesting and looks it's provoked discussion. BoLS do a lot of good work to have a active readership and community and I appreciate it.
Anonannoyed
· 5 months ago
Provoked discussion? The only discussion is, as usual, how BoLS rules articles consistently get the rules wrong (and since this is Necrons we're talking about, even the 2.0 article still gets it wrong).
This shows me two things: Necrons need a new codex and BoLS needs to stick to the hobby articles. Please & Thank You.
bushidoredpanda
· 5 months ago
LOL!
waffleman1
· 5 months ago
hello, this has nothing to do with this but does anyone know where i could find a good article on how to paint red nmm?
jwolf_bols
· 5 months ago
Painting red:
Undercoat with Mechrite Red Foundation paint. Apply slightly thinned red paint onto undercoat. Use even strokes in one direction. Allow coats to dry; one red coat will be enough in most cases once you've got the thinning down.
Chambers
· 5 months ago
check out "from the Warp" Ron has a good post about painting red up there
Tonelowke
· 5 months ago
Maybe not everyone is a Third edition drop-out and are new to the game. The BoLS Tactica's are very helpful to most, and I appreciate the broad spectrum coverage for inquiring, novice, and advanced players.
Now, if there were just more of them....
Omniwolf
· 5 months ago
BoLS articles involving rules are not consistently wrong. Look up the definition of the word you are using before slapping it onto a hate post. Consistent 2a: marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity : free from variation or contradiction. Straight out of Merriam's. Go ahead and waste more of your huge amount of free time to compile a pattern of correctness and error in BoLS rules article, and show me a pattern with no variation or contradiction. Then I will thank you for spending all that time in your basement, instead of mingling with the general public spreading your malcontent.
You should take into account that this sight is not just for YOU. It is for everyone that is interested in this hobby. Take into account that there are rookie players that articles like this help out, b/c they haven't already seen every trick in the book. Anything that creates new ideas for any hobbyist whether veteran or rookie should be welcome on the site. Everyone sees things differently, and interpretations can vary between people. This is why rule problems arise, we can't KNOW exactly how the rule makers wanted their rules used.
I suspect you are not human since you believe everyone should be infallible, and mistakes may not be made by the PEOPLE that work on this site. You will be receiving a visit from the Inquisition shortly. Remain at your current location and await absolution.
Omniwolf
· 5 months ago
P.S.: Every article on this site is in fact a "hobby article", since it is an article related to our hobby.
weeler
· 5 months ago
LOL, LOL. What a novel idea I thought land raiders were lascannon platforms.
SinSynn
· 5 months ago
oh come on, BuFFo, be nice. Once upon a time, I witnessed a Grey Knight 3 Landraider list pretty much run the tables for a while where I play. I learned then that there is a big, big difference between 'getting in and driving' and really getting the most out of a very expensive vehicle- especially a transport. When this guy played those Landraiders, it was like an art. Try proxying and playing that list, and you'll see what I mean. Very, very sad to see that player switch to Orks as his codex got eclipsed by newer, more versatile codexes. The way he put it, the 3 LR build was one of the only competetive lists he could run, and he got tired of it after a while.... But greenskins? Heretic!!!
faultie
· 5 months ago
You're so edgy and raw. I want to be you!
obsequiousmelon
· 5 months ago
Lol!
DooDoo Head Brown
· 5 months ago
quite simply with the rules in the BRB regarding disembarking a vehicle that has not moved and the current Necron FAQ, it is completely possible to move a unit of necrons through the monolith portal, move their normal move, shoot and assault. end of discussion here is the snippet from the faq, and read the brb, it states if the vehicle didn't move prior to passangers getting out, they may move, shoot, and assault.
Q. Can a Necron unit that teleports through a Monolith’s portal move after emerging? A. Only if the Monolith (and the teleporting unit) hasn’t already moved that Movement phase. If the unit has already moved before being teleported, it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal; if it hasn’t already moved, it may deploy out 2" and then move normally
obsequiousmelon
· 5 months ago
I think the problem was that he said he got a first turn assault which you can't do using the monolith trick because it has to move to get the 26" first turn move. However the monolith trick is useful for a second turn assault when your wraiths were out of position as they can move 32" (18" teleport to the monolith + 2" disembark + 12" move plus the width of the monolith) and then charge.
sodcactus
· 5 months ago
Shoot and charge? Don't the Warriors carry Rapid Fire weapons?
bushidoredpanda
· 5 months ago
Warriors do, but they are the only ones. Everything else is assault or heavy and the models carrying heavy weapons are all able to shoot them and still assault, I believe.
BeastOfShadow
· 5 months ago
Yep. Damn relentless.
Necron_Lord
· 5 months ago
I would say that another pro is as a missile screen. If you have a monolith inbetween the low AP squads and your necrons, it seriously cuts down on the kills. This doesn't work on Tau, but Chaos and Imperials can be hampered by this. Laying down pie plates on hordes is also fun!
Regarding the phase out discussion earlier, warriors in reserve only count for phase out if they are to come in by monolith and all possible monoliths have been deployed and destroyed. Otherwise there is still an opportunity for them to deploy. The codex was written in 3rdEd, so the random turn ending really isn't accounted for, which would be a good issue for GW to address in a new FAQ.
Diet Evil
· 5 months ago
Necron tactica. Lul.
BuFFo
· 5 months ago
Next week, Tactica Wriaths! Trick = they can fly through terrain!
Amdor
· 5 months ago
edit - wrote same as obsequiousmelon, sory ;]
bushidoredpanda
· 5 months ago
22" is penty for a first turn assault. Not necessarily in every circumstance, but I've managed to do it more than once (though probably only once since the new FAQ came out reversing half of what the codex says).
Andy
· 5 months ago
Seriously guys, please read the rules before you post "kewl tipz and trickz" on your blog, most of which are common knowledge to those who already play the army.
I mean, at least it wasn't another Plague Marine article today, but really, read the rules. People come here for great coverage of the hobby; but as of late, it has become mediocre coverage of the hobby, "leaked" upcoming GW releases, and Tactica: THIS IS HOW YOU PLAGUE MARINE.
You guys used to have great tactics, and superb hobby advice.
The ways to improve? Get rid of the horde of advertisements, the flash that slows down your load time, read the rules before posting an article and drop that generally unfunny and poorly drawn TSoaLR nonsense.
Miami
· 5 months ago
What part of the rules did he get wrong? If you are referring to the first turn assault, it is possible depending on the type of game he played, and he never said he moved the Monolith before he assaulted out of it. Otherwise, I'm not seeing any incorrect rule interpretations.
Though I agree about TSoaLR... it is not funny. There are much better webcomics out there you could have up.
DooDoo Head Brown
· 5 months ago
I think it's a combination. BOLS used to get it right everytime, and every rumor was how it was to be. Now I'm pretty depressed about the site, not much good hobby advice and crappy tactica information. How about instead of trying to have a tactica for an entire army, you just narrow down a unit or two and a single tactic. trying to explain so much at one time just makes the article hard to follow, and then the rules arguments start pooring in. and then idiots can't even read what's read and try to add another word or two, maybe you should just stop comments on your blog.
sodcactus
· 5 months ago
"How about instead of trying to have a tactica for an entire army, you just narrow down a unit or two and a single tactic."
And what do you call Tactica:Necron Monoliths? Feels to me like a tactica for a single unit......
BlackSly
· 5 months ago
"kewl tipz and tricks": Two Monoliths advance about 8-10" apart. Place a unit of 10 Scarabs, so that there are 3 behind each Lith, and 4 in the middle between the Monos. The Scarab unit gets 3+ Cover (due to Swarm rule) since 6 of 10 models are in cover. Any infantry units behind the Scarabs get 4+ Cover from the Scarabs, but since the Scarabs are low, they shoot over them without giving a Cover Save to opponents.
Moving cover that you can shoot over, stops assaults, and actually does well enough in HtH. Not bad for 120 points (the Scarabs, not the Monos). Add a Lord with Lightning Field, Gaze of Flame, and Rez Orb in with the Scarabs, and they do even better in HtH, plus provide the Rez effect to Warriors hiding behind the Scarabs. Personally, I place Immortals there so I don't need the Rez Orb.
khanaris
· 5 months ago
I think you might have trouble convincing your opponent that reciprocity doesn't apply with the Scarabs. Maybe the cover save they give up will only be a 5+, but the barrier rule only applies to terrain. For the Scarabs not to count as intervening, model's-eye-view from every model in the Necron unit couldn't be obscured against any part of the target. So they would need to be fairly far away.
BlackSly
· 5 months ago
Well, the Scarabs are completely below the entire weapon and eyes of a line of Immortals. If the Scarabs are just an inch ahead of the Immortals, and the Immortal weapons are above the Scarabs, and their eyes are even higher than the weapons, and you're firing at targets more than 12" away... it would be a very interesting line that shows any part of the target as being obscured by the Scarabs.
Basically, if you draw a line from the rearmost Immortal's eyes, down over the highest part of the Scarabs, it hits the ground well before 12". So the Scarabs can't be providing cover past that line.
Miami
· 5 months ago
Agreed with Khanaris. Can you explain the logic behind how you get a cover save from the scarabs but the enemy doesn't? I'm just not sure how you think this works.
BlackSly
· 5 months ago
Take opponent gunline unit, say Space Marines, at 20" away. Take Scarabs 1" in front of Immortals.
Use laser pointer to draw line from SM eyes down to Immortal feet. The Scarabs rise up high enough and are close enough to the Immortals, that some will intersect the laser line. So they are giving cover to Immortals.
Now, use laser pointer to draw line from Immortal eyes down to SM feet. The Scarabs are all completely below the line, and do not at any point block it. No matter how you sweep it back and forth, the Immortals are enough taller compared to the Scarabs, that the Scarabs are below the line. If you move the line lower and lower until it touches the Scarabs, then the line has moved well in front of the SMs, showing that they are not in the "shadow" of the Scarabs.
Granted, as the SMs approach, at some point they enter the "shadow" and get reciprocating cover. But at that point they are probably close enough to either assault or be assaulted, so the cover doesn't matter much anymore... jump the Scarabs forward and sideways so they're out of the way, shoot at the unit, and then assault.
CThoss
· 5 months ago
I would consider that the worst kind of RAW ruleslawyering. If the Scarabs only cover the feet or knees of the Immortals, they shouldn't grant a cover save.
Granted, this tactic is legal in the rules, but if pulled in a friendly in my gaming group, it would be your last game with us.
Nabterayl
· 5 months ago
Really? I'd absolutely allow that to work, even in friendly games. It's the same reason that screening orks with gretchin is different than screening orks with other orks - the grots are short enough that they can provide a one-way cover save. If that isn't working as intended, I don't know what is. And if it works for orks, I'd absolutely allow the same principle to work for necron, too.
You do have to be careful with this sort of thing, as if the Immortals (or boyz) are too far back from the screening shorties, the enemy *will* get a cover save. But as long as you stick close enough to the short models to make the TLOS work out right, I'd say this is absolutely fair game.
BlackSly
· 5 months ago
So you're saying that it's not RAI to have a non-monstrous model get cover save if only a small portion of it is covered? But if that's not the intent of the rules, then why did they clearly indicate that any cover is good enough, and then go on to specify that Monstrous Creatures are different and need to have at least 50% of their area covered? It seems to me that it's exactly RAI, that non-monstrous units get cover if any small part of their target area is in cover, while Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles require 50% of their area covered.
I agree that it may not be how it's usually played, but I warrant that "equal reciprocating cover" is how it's played only because it's easier. It's easier to say "if you get cover from me, I get cover from you", than to check true LOS in each shooting phase. So it gets played fast and simple.
But the rules as written are clear, that we should use true LOS from the model's head... and I think that given how much print they put into the subject, that it's hard to argue that it's not intended, that a model that is in any way in cover, gets the cover... and that a model that is completely out of cover, doesn't get the cover. MCs and Vehicles specifically excepted, of course.
Personally, I'd only argue this for models of clearly differing size, such as relatively tall models behind Swarms. Immortals behind Scarabs, Warriors behind Rippers. Frankly, it's probably true that Warriors could shoot cleanly over Gaunts... but that's a case where you might need a laser pointer on every shooting phase, and that would bog the game down unreasonably. Demonstrating that Scarabs don't provide cover out to 12" when Immortals fire over them is fast, easy, and after it's done once it's clear enough that it shouldn't slow the game down in the future.
weeler
· 5 months ago
I agree with CThoss , I thought you target the body of your opponent, not his or her feet. Although it would be amusing to rapid fire an entire front line of enemy troops in the feet, and watch them all scream and fall flat on their faces. Sorry it just makes a good mental image.
Nabterayl
· 5 months ago
Page 21 - "When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover. THis is intentionally generous ..."
Page 16 - "Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (for 'body' we mean its head, torso, legs and arms). Sometimes, all that may be visible of a body is a weapon, an antenna, a banner or some other ornament he is wearing or carrying (including its wings and tail, even though they are technically part of its body). In these cases, the model is not visible."
That seems pretty clear to me. Cover that only obscures the target unit's feet from the point of view of the eyes of the firing models absolutely places the target unit in cover.
weeler
· 5 months ago
Aw Crap! here come a ton of nurglings (lesser daemons) running 1" on front of chaos space marines. This is going to get ugly. You have to agree about the shooting the feet of your opponent, that is funny.
Nabterayl
· 5 months ago
I'd obviously discuss it with a new opponent; that's just good wargaming. If for some reason it didn't get discussed beforehand, though, I think the rules are quite clear. "Body" includes the head, the arms, and the legs as well as the torso (definition of "body" on page 16), and the cover rules are supposed to be interpreted generously (page 21).
Nabterayl
· 5 months ago
As for using nurglings as lesser daemons specifically, THAT I would discuss with an opponent, since lesser daemons could just as easily be modeled by daemonettes, plaguebearers, bloodletters, or horrors, none of which would grant a one-way cover save to CSM, and all of which are Infantry (like lesser daemons) rather than Swarms. Modeling swarms as counts-as infantry in order to gain a one-way cover save is dicey enough that I'd definitely check with my opponent beforehand.
LEGION3000
· 5 months ago
This is fascinating and I never thought about it. And technically speaking I believe it to be RAI and RAW. The scarabs are providing a "living" body shield for the warriors by zig-zagging all around in front of them causing confusion in the firing squad while the warriors can transmit instantly their intent to fire and disperse the cloud momentarily. This actually makes perfect sense to me.
As for the Monolith's providing cover for the scarabs, I am not entirely sold on that because the posts that it stands on is what is doing the blocking and we are not supposed to consider stands in LOS.
doo doo head brown
· 5 months ago
my god this is getting retarted. if a unit shoots over the scarabs they are shooting over an intervening friendly unit, thus granting the opponent a 4+ cover save, same thing applies opponents shooting over them give a 4+ cover save, it's an intervening unit. doesn't matter if the scarab only covers up the feet doesn't matter, intervening units are what matters.
doo doo head brown
· 5 months ago
you'd get people that line up their units so they can shoot the unit behind a different one, but not draw line of sign through it at all. cheezy.
Nabterayl
· 5 months ago
"If a unit shoots over the scarabs they are shooting over an intervening friendly unit ..."
Page 22: "If a model fires through the gaps ... between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the ... unit rather than through it."
Shots that go over an intervening unit do NOT provide a 4+ cover save.
MythicalMothman
· 5 months ago
Black Sly and Nabterayl have it completely right. It's RAW, it's RAI, it's not "rules lawyering", it should be completely allowed in "friendly" games. Scarabs would easily provide a one-way cover save by blocking Necrons' legs but not block Necrons' line of sight.
Omniwolf
· 5 months ago
Look what you have done!!!
Nice trick though.
Ask Your Momma
· 5 months ago
This trick doesn't work and here is why.
1. Page 22: "If a model fires through the gaps ... between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the ... unit rather than through it." YOUR TAKING SOME EXTREME LIBERTIES WITH DEFINING WHAT YOU SAY IS "SHOOTING OVER". Shooting "over" a unit occurs when a firing unit is at a higher elevation and the arc of fire goes over another unit. Then you are dealing with a unit shooting over another. IE like my IG heavy bolter squads are on a rooftop, shooting over an infantry squad. When the two units are on the same level as each other, AS THE RULES STATE even if it is completely visible to the firer. WHICH MEANS YOUR SCARABS DO NOT BLOCK LOS AT ALL, BUT THEY ARE AN INTERVEING UNIT AND GRANT A COVER SAVE.
SAME THING WITH NIDS AND ORKS USING GRETCHIN. YOU CANNOT DO A "ONE WAY COVER" WITH ANOTHER UNIT. CONGRATS, THIS IS WHY THIS GAME GETS MORE COMPLICATED, PLAYERS TRY TO TWEAK AND BEND THE RULES TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE. JUST BECAUSE THE IMMORTAL SEES OVER THE SCARAB MODEL DOESN'T MEAN THE OPPONENT DOESN'T GET A COVER SAVE, THEY DO AND THE NECRONS DO TO. YOUR STILL SHOOTING THROUGH A UNIT OF SCARABS IF THEY ARE ON THE SAME LEVEL.
The simple fact that BOLS can't pick up on this type of crap in their blog and remove the comments so that new gamers are not getting the rules incorrect makes me sad. Shooting over a friendly unit would mean that i can put a unit of IG in front of my battle tank, the turrent shoots over them, so I can get the protection of the screening IG and not give a coversave, which isn't how that works at all.
Nabterayl
· 5 months ago
This isn't a BoLS thing; my group has been gaming this way since 5th edition was released. We interpret "over" to mean "over," not "over unless it would provide a one-way cover save." One-way cover saves already exist in the case of defended walls, hedges, and fences; we see no reason why certain units can't be used the same way.
Consider the converse of what you propose: a group of scarabs is 1" in front of a group of immortals. Directly ahead of both, atop a very high hill, is an IG heavy bolter squad. The scarabs do not provide cover vs. the heavy bolters, because the angle of the heavy bolters' "eye lasers" can scan each part of the immortals' head, torso, arms, and feet without passing through any part of the scarabs, right? The same is true for the immortals, whose "eye lasers" can scan each part of the guardsmen's heads, torsos, arms, and feet without passing through any part of the scarabs. However, the the scarabs are plainly an intervening unit, and the immortals must look over them in order to see the heavy bolter squad. If you cannot shoot over a unit you can literally see completely over without conferring a cover save, what is the result? As you would have it, "just because the immortal sees over the scarab model doesn't mean the opponent doesn't get a cover save, they do and the necrons do." Your rule confers a two-way cover save if you look at it from the perspective of the unit on the ground, but not if you look at it from the perspective of the unit on the hill.
As page 16 says, we are supposed to "simply look to see if your warriors have a view to their targets. This is different to other, more abstract systems where terrain is assigned a height value and you have to calculate what warriors can see." As page 16 also says, the "target" is the head, torso, arms, and legs of the target model.
You can absolutely place a unit of IG in front of a battle tank and get a one-way cover save (with respect to the turret, probably not the hull weaponry) if you can obscure at least 50% of the facing of your tank your opponent would be shooting at using that unit. Same way you could get a one-way cover save by advancing your tank up the crest of a hill until only the turret showed above its top.
As for modeling units lying down, my gaming group draws its "eye lasers" from the height of a standing model of that type, since some types of units have prone and standing sculpts and we don't want individuals in the unit to be different based on which sculpt the player happens to own. I would be just as happy to play the rules literally and say that, while prone models are more likely to provide a one-way cover save to models firing over them, their view of the battlefield is also significantly restricted, as they fire from eyes that very close to the ground.
My group has been playing this way for months and we find it actually much LESS complex than the old terrain levels rules, or the old idea that you could shoot completely through intervening friendly units but intervening hostile units blocked incoming shots 100% of the time. If your objection is that one-way cover saves don't belong in wargames, that's ... just not true. Hull-down and edge-of-treeline positions provide one-way cover saves in virtually all wargames, including 5th edition 40K. In a universe where some armies really do use human shields in the thick of battle, I see no reason to object if it falls out of the rules that sometimes living creatures provide one-way cover saves as well.
Ask Your Momma
· 5 months ago
i'm not saying one way cover shouldn't be in war games, it's fine when you have situations that make sense by the rules. like a unit in a building shooting out a window or vechicle being obscured.
5th edition uses 4+ cover saves from units in between you and the target. To use scarabs, grethchin, and other "smaller" units to provide a form of mobile cover is incorrect. your still shooting through one of your friendly units, it doesn't matter that they are smaller or not, they are on the same "level" as the unit shooting through them, not "over" them. shotting over them pertains to different "levels" of terrain like buildings and hills. a unit of scarabs in front of a unit of warrirors is going to give your opponent a 4+ cover save, your not shooting "over" them. the rules even state even if your shooting between gaps and the LOS isn't blocked at all, still a cover save for your opponent. plain and simple this concept of a "one-way" cover save from your own UNIT (NOT TERRIAN) is attempts of gamers to find loopholes and expliots in the rules. I find it sad that gamers think "oh I'm shooting over scarabs cuz their small" IF GW WANTED PEOPLE TO SHOOT OVER SWARMS WITHOUT GIVING A COVER SAVE TO THEIR OPPONENTS IT WOULD BE IN THE USR FOR SWARMS. This is just another BS attempt for people to gain some type of advantage by "AS IT IS BLACK AND WHITE" without even using some type of a brain to figure out your still shooting through the unit, not over it.
Like i've said if this is true get ready for IG to make conscripts laying down so they get a cover save and their opponent doesn't.
Nabterayl
· 5 months ago
I agree with what you say about shooting through friendly units, but the same rule you're referring to is the one in which they say that shooting OVER friendly units doesn't trigger the rule they just stated.
I agree that the "shooting over" rule APPLIES to situations such as hills, rooftops, parapets, and the like. The trouble I have with your interpretation is that there ARE no terrain levels any more. Page 16, in the TLOS box, explicitly does away with them. It's an easy case if I'm at 0" elevation and my target is at 16" elevation. What about 12"? 6"? 3"? 2"? 1"? Less than 1"? Where's the magic line? How am I supposed to know that my target is sufficiently above me that I am now shooting "over" an intervening unit by your definition? The TLOS rules on page 16 seem explicit to me that the only way to tell is by actually looking through my models' eyes, and actually seeing if any intervening obstacles are high enough to obscure any part of my target.
Which brings us to the real interpretive question, I think, which is this: how high is a unit? You and I both agree that two models 28mm high, spaced 2" apart, create an invisible "fence" that is 28mm high and 4" long (2" of blank space plus 2x1" diameter bases). Presumably, if any part of the target unit would be obscured by that imaginary fence, the target would get a 4+ cover save.
Now suppose that we have two models 14mm high, spaced 2" apart. Do they create a 28mm x 4" fence? Or only a 14mm x 4" fence?
You seem to be arguing essentially that all models are 28mm high, or alternatively, that all models are the height of the firing model (so, e.g., a 28mm model DOES generate a "fence" that covers the muzzle of a battle cannon, notwithstanding that the battle cannon is more than 28mm off the ground it's standing on). I just don't see anything in the rules that suggests that. Models are the height that they are. Do you have any rules authority for the contrary proposition?
As I said, in my own gaming group, we play a little fast and loose with this - we say that models are the height that the model would be standing up. So for instance, a Catachan or Tau pathfinder that is modeled lying down or kneeling we consider to be the height of a Catachan or Tau pathfinder that is modeled standing up. But by the same token, if a model is simply short even when it IS standing up, like gretchin, then that is the height of the model as far as we're concerned.
BlackSly
· 5 months ago
The only "elevation" in the game now, AFAIK, is floors in a building.
So the only "over" that seems to be left in the game, is that of whether you can physically draw a line (such as with a laser pointer), over the models. Not a declared concept of level, saying that "this area is a level higher than that area", but a physical level shown by the models.
You are using a definition where "shooting over" a model includes the case where a line drawn by the shooter to the target passes completely over the intervening model at all points. However, there is a picture in the BRB that implies that if you can draw a line over a unit, and the line never intersects that unit, then the unit does not provide cover. If I recall rightly, the picture uses units on elevations but NOT in a building, thus strongly implying that we should be using true LOS to determine what is "over" a unit and what is "through" a unit.
If I have a leader on stilts so that he is 4" tall (say that it's a legal GW model somehow), and he's shooting at another leader on stilts, also 4" tall, and there is a 1/4" tall swarm unit in between the two... and the ground is completely level... does the swarm provide cover? True LOS says it doesn't, and IMO arguments that it should are based on 4th edition thinking. 5th edition is about true LOS wherever possible.
Omniwolf
· 4 months ago
Everything is relative and opinions differ. I myself would allow this trick b/c it makes realistic sense. The immortals are hiding behind the swarms of scarabs, only popping up to aim and fire. It follows the same exact principal as the 2 rules directly after the one so often quoted in this rule debate. A unit firing out of 2" of cover or over a barrier (in this case a wall of scarabs) denies the enemy a save from that cover. I personally think no cover saves should be granted from firing through your own units. No soldier is going to stand in the way of his comrades shots in a firefight.
Anonymous
· 5 months ago
If the Scarabs have the "Swarm" Special rule, then how exactly are they giving a cover save to the units behind them? I'm pretty sure that rule specifically states that the unit cannot provide cover to other units behind them.
Nabterayl
· 5 months ago
The Swarm USR on page 76 states that "[I]ntervening swarms never offer any cover save to monstrous creatures or vehicles." It says nothing about regular units.
Omniwolf
· 5 months ago
I frequently play with a newer player that is positively enamored with Necrons. It is good to still see articles helping out the "little guy". I will say however that my friend will never deep strike a monolith with warriors in teleporter reserves again. He deep struck both monoliths in the same turn, one immobilized due to dangerous terrain. I concentrated all of my firepower on the mobile one and managed to destroy it. the second one i surrounded with cheap troops. When his warriors had to come through the teleporter next turn, they could not due to my troops surrounding his monolith and were destroyed. Next and 5th turn, his second reserve squad had to come in and was destroyed the same way, which caused a phase out. It was a very situational loss, but it was so bad I don't believe he will try that again any time soon.
obsequiousmelon
· 5 months ago
they shouldn't of been distroyed, what about emergency dissembarkation or the rule that says that they wait until a portal is available.
BeastOfShadow
· 5 months ago
He probably surrounded the entire tank.
Ask Your Momma
· 5 months ago
wouldn't matter, they only become destroyed if no monoliths are left undestroyed, being blocked in doesn't matter. they would just sit in reserves again.
Omniwolf
· 4 months ago
I had the monolith completely surrounded by a full unit of Kroot. I missed that second part in the FAQ. It is a good thing the rest of his army was pretty much dead and I still held most objectives on the last turn, otherwise I would feel bad for cheating.
weeler
· 5 months ago
I don't really care about the cover save. I usually let opponents get away with murder anyway. I just enjoyed the image of 20+ troops falling to the ground screaming, because my chaos marines shot their feet off. although the Necrons would just keep crawling forward. THAT'S ALL THEY DO! Oh well this has been an interesting tactic discussion.
bushidoredpanda
· 5 months ago
I always liked the image of all the broken bits of necrons crawling forward trying to kill anything they can! :)
obsequiousmelon
· 5 months ago
straight out of a terminator film!
Ask Your Momma
· 5 months ago
I hate BOLS approve my comment PLEASE it's relevant to the discussion.
cody.d
· 5 months ago
The people discussing the scarab cover tactics are forgetting one thing. you can turbo boost forward (with lord) get a 2+ cover (turbo boosting gives 3+ plus the small target rule.) Then charge second turn and killing the unit or sticking it in CC and preventing it from shooting altogether (devastators, havocs, broadsides, pathfinders, obliterators. The list goes on).
All Comments
Double Counter Snap!
Tripple Counter Snap
Owned.
So yes, you CAN phase out what you can't shoot.
This is what I remember from a previous BOLS article. Can someone clarify that for me please?
table. if you hit it before you have more cron some in you phase out...
I'm with you on this one, it's amazing how many people can't read, or add in words where they want to make the rules how they want. It's okay to say rules as intented since I prefer to play that way, but the Phase Out is based upon the total number of necrons in the army, reserves do not count as destroyed, they count as reserves. The only way a unit of warriors in reserve count as destroyed and never see the table is if a Necron player states they will arrive via monolith and all monoliths are destroyed when they enter from reserves, then they are destroyed, I think alot of idiots read that part, and think "oh it's not on the table so you they don't count towards the total, or they count as destroyed.
Hell if models in reserve counted as destroyed then I'll just run 100 warrior army, and only deploy 10, look I LOSE BY PHASE OUT!!!
I play with only 2 Warrior squads, and 2 Monoliths that allow them to come in from Reserve, advance to within Teleport range of the Monos, then Teleport out. Enter from Reserve, get Rapid Fire shots out to about 44".
And they're safe until they enter, so I can't be Phased Out as long as at least one of them is still around. Heck, I wish I could force them to stay out till Turn 5 every single time ;)
That interpretation makes no sense. I don't even get why reserves before didn't count. Glad 5th fixed that.
The quoted text you're not reading DOES NOT use the words "on the table". It says "army reduced to 25% of its models"; "ARMY", not "table".
Yes, I just used a semi-colon.
In the case of the board-edge deployment, reserved units shall not trigger phase out. Think about it: in the case of DoW setup you deploy one troop, and phase out automatically , as your first turn begins :)
3 ordance blasts doesnt cut it
3 liths deep striking means a minimum of 1 turn with an army on the table that is 705 points. GG by phase out
hehehe
I found using the "vehicle-as-wall" tactic particulary fitted for the Monolith thanks to his massive size. Once, in a 2000 pts battle against Dark Eldar, I used my 2 Monolith to "shield" me from my enemy's hand-to-hand squads; and in the meantime I rejoyced shooting 5'' blasts here and there.
By the way, I've phased out only a couple of times since I started playing necrons 3-4 years ago.
As for a trick i use, with skimmers blocking line of sight and the Monolith be low to the ground for not coming with a flying base, i take 2 Monoliths and put them side by side and use them as a wall to block line of sight to my warriors so that they can get into shooting range unharmed and then teleport them to the front when they are ready. I don't have to worry about phase out since the majority of my Necrons can't be shot at. Put Destroyers on both sides of it to stop flanking and a Ressurection Orb Lord amongst the Warriors and you are golden.
p.s. Whats a good way to send this to BOLS?
I'm with CrownAxe, you're limited to 18" with a Monolith teleport.
" Q. Can a Necron Unit that teleports through a Monolith’s portal move after emerging?
A. Only if the Monolith (and the teleporting unit) hasn’t moved already that Movement phase. If the unit has already moved before being teleported, it may only be deployed within 2” of the portal; of it hasn’t already moved, it may deploy out 2” and then move normally. "
That doesn't seem to actually remove the rule from the Codex that says units emerging from the Monolith emerge as from a stationery transport vehicle, it just clarifies it. And it doesn't say that units who emerge cannot Assualt later that turn.
How do people read this? Obviously, if your unit and/or the Monolith have already moved, the unit has to be deployed with 2" of the portal and cannot move again that Movement Phase. But does it say that they cannot Assault in the Assault Phase of that turn?
Your thoughts on this would be very welcome.
No more first turn assault Necrons.
Moving on. One of my favorite lists to run now a days for Necrons contains 3 Monoliths, 2 squads of Warriors, and a Lord. This nice little list can be done in a 1250 and with the new Reserves rules, one can just have 3 Monoliths on the board with the Necrons walking in from the board edge. There by avoiding turns of fire and being phased out early in the game (some one help them if they take a Master of the Fleet or two, your warriors may never come in). If your are dealing with a heavy weapons list like some Imp Guard armies, then you can just Deep Strike the Monoliths in as well and really put those 12" Gauss Flux Arcs to use.
It's a shame but there you can't do it anymore. You could still Deep Strike a Monolith and fire the Particle Whip but if you're surrounded by heavy weapons squads with Strength 8+ weapons, will you kill enough of them to survive until your next turn?
Guard BS3 = 1/2 hit, then need a 6 to Glance, so 1/12 get a Glance, then with AP1 1 glance in 6 will destroy. That's 72 Meltagun shots to destroy, per Monolith, on the average.
I'm more worried about Lascannon teams, but those are more expensive and you won't see as many. Monoliths smirk at Melta weapons ;)
Drop in, Whip some Lascannon team or squad, and ignore everything that doesn't have Lascannons.
The ignore crew stunned and shaken is the power matrix. that means that if you are shaken or stunned you cannot fire your flux arc but you can drop the plate or teleport.
The power matrix is not affected but the other shooting is. so if you are teleporting while being shaken or stunned you cannot use the flux arcs.
AFA assaulting - it appears that as long as the vehicle hasn't moved before the units get out, assaults are allowed.
I don't play necrons, but one of the issues I had in the last game with a necron player was teleporting large squads of warriors through the Monolith and the 2" rule. The most he could squeeze within 2" base to base without stacking the models was around 13-15 models. He was losing several models every time he moved a big squad and was pretty upset when I pointed this out to him....
If they can't do that then they can't disembark. They never lose models.
Stay tuned next week for the Tactica Landraider; Put troops inside and drive!
This shows me two things: Necrons need a new codex and BoLS needs to stick to the hobby articles. Please & Thank You.
Undercoat with Mechrite Red Foundation paint. Apply slightly thinned red paint onto undercoat.
Use even strokes in one direction.
Allow coats to dry; one red coat will be enough in most cases once you've got the thinning down.
Ron has a good post about painting red up there
Now, if there were just more of them....
You should take into account that this sight is not just for YOU. It is for everyone that is interested in this hobby. Take into account that there are rookie players that articles like this help out, b/c they haven't already seen every trick in the book. Anything that creates new ideas for any hobbyist whether veteran or rookie should be welcome on the site. Everyone sees things differently, and interpretations can vary between people. This is why rule problems arise, we can't KNOW exactly how the rule makers wanted their rules used.
I suspect you are not human since you believe everyone should be infallible, and mistakes may not be made by the PEOPLE that work on this site. You will be receiving a visit from the Inquisition shortly. Remain at your current location and await absolution.
Once upon a time, I witnessed a Grey Knight 3 Landraider list pretty much run the tables for a while where I play.
I learned then that there is a big, big difference between 'getting in and driving' and really getting the most out of a very expensive vehicle- especially a transport. When this guy played those Landraiders, it was like an art. Try proxying and playing that list, and you'll see what I mean.
Very, very sad to see that player switch to Orks as his codex got eclipsed by newer, more versatile codexes. The way he put it, the 3 LR build was one of the only competetive lists he could run, and he got tired of it after a while....
But greenskins?
Heretic!!!
Q. Can a Necron unit that teleports through a
Monolith’s portal move after emerging?
A. Only if the Monolith (and the teleporting unit)
hasn’t already moved that Movement phase. If the
unit has already moved before being teleported,
it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal; if
it hasn’t already moved, it may deploy out 2" and
then move normally
Regarding the phase out discussion earlier, warriors in reserve only count for phase out if they are to come in by monolith and all possible monoliths have been deployed and destroyed. Otherwise there is still an opportunity for them to deploy. The codex was written in 3rdEd, so the random turn ending really isn't accounted for, which would be a good issue for GW to address in a new FAQ.
I mean, at least it wasn't another Plague Marine article today, but really, read the rules. People come here for great coverage of the hobby; but as of late, it has become mediocre coverage of the hobby, "leaked" upcoming GW releases, and Tactica: THIS IS HOW YOU PLAGUE MARINE.
You guys used to have great tactics, and superb hobby advice.
The ways to improve? Get rid of the horde of advertisements, the flash that slows down your load time, read the rules before posting an article and drop that generally unfunny and poorly drawn TSoaLR nonsense.
Though I agree about TSoaLR... it is not funny. There are much better webcomics out there you could have up.
And what do you call Tactica:Necron Monoliths? Feels to me like a tactica for a single unit......
Two Monoliths advance about 8-10" apart.
Place a unit of 10 Scarabs, so that there are 3 behind each Lith, and 4 in the middle between the Monos.
The Scarab unit gets 3+ Cover (due to Swarm rule) since 6 of 10 models are in cover.
Any infantry units behind the Scarabs get 4+ Cover from the Scarabs, but since the Scarabs are low, they shoot over them without giving a Cover Save to opponents.
Moving cover that you can shoot over, stops assaults, and actually does well enough in HtH. Not bad for 120 points (the Scarabs, not the Monos). Add a Lord with Lightning Field, Gaze of Flame, and Rez Orb in with the Scarabs, and they do even better in HtH, plus provide the Rez effect to Warriors hiding behind the Scarabs. Personally, I place Immortals there so I don't need the Rez Orb.
Basically, if you draw a line from the rearmost Immortal's eyes, down over the highest part of the Scarabs, it hits the ground well before 12". So the Scarabs can't be providing cover past that line.
Take Scarabs 1" in front of Immortals.
Use laser pointer to draw line from SM eyes down to Immortal feet. The Scarabs rise up high enough and are close enough to the Immortals, that some will intersect the laser line. So they are giving cover to Immortals.
Now, use laser pointer to draw line from Immortal eyes down to SM feet. The Scarabs are all completely below the line, and do not at any point block it. No matter how you sweep it back and forth, the Immortals are enough taller compared to the Scarabs, that the Scarabs are below the line. If you move the line lower and lower until it touches the Scarabs, then the line has moved well in front of the SMs, showing that they are not in the "shadow" of the Scarabs.
Granted, as the SMs approach, at some point they enter the "shadow" and get reciprocating cover. But at that point they are probably close enough to either assault or be assaulted, so the cover doesn't matter much anymore... jump the Scarabs forward and sideways so they're out of the way, shoot at the unit, and then assault.
Granted, this tactic is legal in the rules, but if pulled in a friendly in my gaming group, it would be your last game with us.
You do have to be careful with this sort of thing, as if the Immortals (or boyz) are too far back from the screening shorties, the enemy *will* get a cover save. But as long as you stick close enough to the short models to make the TLOS work out right, I'd say this is absolutely fair game.
I agree that it may not be how it's usually played, but I warrant that "equal reciprocating cover" is how it's played only because it's easier. It's easier to say "if you get cover from me, I get cover from you", than to check true LOS in each shooting phase. So it gets played fast and simple.
But the rules as written are clear, that we should use true LOS from the model's head... and I think that given how much print they put into the subject, that it's hard to argue that it's not intended, that a model that is in any way in cover, gets the cover... and that a model that is completely out of cover, doesn't get the cover. MCs and Vehicles specifically excepted, of course.
Personally, I'd only argue this for models of clearly differing size, such as relatively tall models behind Swarms. Immortals behind Scarabs, Warriors behind Rippers. Frankly, it's probably true that Warriors could shoot cleanly over Gaunts... but that's a case where you might need a laser pointer on every shooting phase, and that would bog the game down unreasonably. Demonstrating that Scarabs don't provide cover out to 12" when Immortals fire over them is fast, easy, and after it's done once it's clear enough that it shouldn't slow the game down in the future.
Page 16 - "Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (for 'body' we mean its head, torso, legs and arms). Sometimes, all that may be visible of a body is a weapon, an antenna, a banner or some other ornament he is wearing or carrying (including its wings and tail, even though they are technically part of its body). In these cases, the model is not visible."
That seems pretty clear to me. Cover that only obscures the target unit's feet from the point of view of the eyes of the firing models absolutely places the target unit in cover.
As for the Monolith's providing cover for the scarabs, I am not entirely sold on that because the posts that it stands on is what is doing the blocking and we are not supposed to consider stands in LOS.
Page 22: "If a model fires through the gaps ... between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the ... unit rather than through it."
Shots that go over an intervening unit do NOT provide a 4+ cover save.
Nice trick though.
1. Page 22: "If a model fires through the gaps ... between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the ... unit rather than through it." YOUR TAKING SOME EXTREME LIBERTIES WITH DEFINING WHAT YOU SAY IS "SHOOTING OVER". Shooting "over" a unit occurs when a firing unit is at a higher elevation and the arc of fire goes over another unit. Then you are dealing with a unit shooting over another. IE like my IG heavy bolter squads are on a rooftop, shooting over an infantry squad. When the two units are on the same level as each other, AS THE RULES STATE even if it is completely visible to the firer. WHICH MEANS YOUR SCARABS DO NOT BLOCK LOS AT ALL, BUT THEY ARE AN INTERVEING UNIT AND GRANT A COVER SAVE.
SAME THING WITH NIDS AND ORKS USING GRETCHIN. YOU CANNOT DO A "ONE WAY COVER" WITH ANOTHER UNIT. CONGRATS, THIS IS WHY THIS GAME GETS MORE COMPLICATED, PLAYERS TRY TO TWEAK AND BEND THE RULES TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE. JUST BECAUSE THE IMMORTAL SEES OVER THE SCARAB MODEL DOESN'T MEAN THE OPPONENT DOESN'T GET A COVER SAVE, THEY DO AND THE NECRONS DO TO. YOUR STILL SHOOTING THROUGH A UNIT OF SCARABS IF THEY ARE ON THE SAME LEVEL.
The simple fact that BOLS can't pick up on this type of crap in their blog and remove the comments so that new gamers are not getting the rules incorrect makes me sad. Shooting over a friendly unit would mean that i can put a unit of IG in front of my battle tank, the turrent shoots over them, so I can get the protection of the screening IG and not give a coversave, which isn't how that works at all.
Consider the converse of what you propose: a group of scarabs is 1" in front of a group of immortals. Directly ahead of both, atop a very high hill, is an IG heavy bolter squad. The scarabs do not provide cover vs. the heavy bolters, because the angle of the heavy bolters' "eye lasers" can scan each part of the immortals' head, torso, arms, and feet without passing through any part of the scarabs, right? The same is true for the immortals, whose "eye lasers" can scan each part of the guardsmen's heads, torsos, arms, and feet without passing through any part of the scarabs. However, the the scarabs are plainly an intervening unit, and the immortals must look over them in order to see the heavy bolter squad. If you cannot shoot over a unit you can literally see completely over without conferring a cover save, what is the result? As you would have it, "just because the immortal sees over the scarab model doesn't mean the opponent doesn't get a cover save, they do and the necrons do." Your rule confers a two-way cover save if you look at it from the perspective of the unit on the ground, but not if you look at it from the perspective of the unit on the hill.
As page 16 says, we are supposed to "simply look to see if your warriors have a view to their targets. This is different to other, more abstract systems where terrain is assigned a height value and you have to calculate what warriors can see." As page 16 also says, the "target" is the head, torso, arms, and legs of the target model.
You can absolutely place a unit of IG in front of a battle tank and get a one-way cover save (with respect to the turret, probably not the hull weaponry) if you can obscure at least 50% of the facing of your tank your opponent would be shooting at using that unit. Same way you could get a one-way cover save by advancing your tank up the crest of a hill until only the turret showed above its top.
As for modeling units lying down, my gaming group draws its "eye lasers" from the height of a standing model of that type, since some types of units have prone and standing sculpts and we don't want individuals in the unit to be different based on which sculpt the player happens to own. I would be just as happy to play the rules literally and say that, while prone models are more likely to provide a one-way cover save to models firing over them, their view of the battlefield is also significantly restricted, as they fire from eyes that very close to the ground.
My group has been playing this way for months and we find it actually much LESS complex than the old terrain levels rules, or the old idea that you could shoot completely through intervening friendly units but intervening hostile units blocked incoming shots 100% of the time. If your objection is that one-way cover saves don't belong in wargames, that's ... just not true. Hull-down and edge-of-treeline positions provide one-way cover saves in virtually all wargames, including 5th edition 40K. In a universe where some armies really do use human shields in the thick of battle, I see no reason to object if it falls out of the rules that sometimes living creatures provide one-way cover saves as well.
5th edition uses 4+ cover saves from units in between you and the target. To use scarabs, grethchin, and other "smaller" units to provide a form of mobile cover is incorrect. your still shooting through one of your friendly units, it doesn't matter that they are smaller or not, they are on the same "level" as the unit shooting through them, not "over" them. shotting over them pertains to different "levels" of terrain like buildings and hills. a unit of scarabs in front of a unit of warrirors is going to give your opponent a 4+ cover save, your not shooting "over" them. the rules even state even if your shooting between gaps and the LOS isn't blocked at all, still a cover save for your opponent. plain and simple this concept of a "one-way" cover save from your own UNIT (NOT TERRIAN) is attempts of gamers to find loopholes and expliots in the rules. I find it sad that gamers think "oh I'm shooting over scarabs cuz their small" IF GW WANTED PEOPLE TO SHOOT OVER SWARMS WITHOUT GIVING A COVER SAVE TO THEIR OPPONENTS IT WOULD BE IN THE USR FOR SWARMS. This is just another BS attempt for people to gain some type of advantage by "AS IT IS BLACK AND WHITE" without even using some type of a brain to figure out your still shooting through the unit, not over it.
Like i've said if this is true get ready for IG to make conscripts laying down so they get a cover save and their opponent doesn't.
I agree that the "shooting over" rule APPLIES to situations such as hills, rooftops, parapets, and the like. The trouble I have with your interpretation is that there ARE no terrain levels any more. Page 16, in the TLOS box, explicitly does away with them. It's an easy case if I'm at 0" elevation and my target is at 16" elevation. What about 12"? 6"? 3"? 2"? 1"? Less than 1"? Where's the magic line? How am I supposed to know that my target is sufficiently above me that I am now shooting "over" an intervening unit by your definition? The TLOS rules on page 16 seem explicit to me that the only way to tell is by actually looking through my models' eyes, and actually seeing if any intervening obstacles are high enough to obscure any part of my target.
Which brings us to the real interpretive question, I think, which is this: how high is a unit? You and I both agree that two models 28mm high, spaced 2" apart, create an invisible "fence" that is 28mm high and 4" long (2" of blank space plus 2x1" diameter bases). Presumably, if any part of the target unit would be obscured by that imaginary fence, the target would get a 4+ cover save.
Now suppose that we have two models 14mm high, spaced 2" apart. Do they create a 28mm x 4" fence? Or only a 14mm x 4" fence?
You seem to be arguing essentially that all models are 28mm high, or alternatively, that all models are the height of the firing model (so, e.g., a 28mm model DOES generate a "fence" that covers the muzzle of a battle cannon, notwithstanding that the battle cannon is more than 28mm off the ground it's standing on). I just don't see anything in the rules that suggests that. Models are the height that they are. Do you have any rules authority for the contrary proposition?
As I said, in my own gaming group, we play a little fast and loose with this - we say that models are the height that the model would be standing up. So for instance, a Catachan or Tau pathfinder that is modeled lying down or kneeling we consider to be the height of a Catachan or Tau pathfinder that is modeled standing up. But by the same token, if a model is simply short even when it IS standing up, like gretchin, then that is the height of the model as far as we're concerned.
So the only "over" that seems to be left in the game, is that of whether you can physically draw a line (such as with a laser pointer), over the models. Not a declared concept of level, saying that "this area is a level higher than that area", but a physical level shown by the models.
You are using a definition where "shooting over" a model includes the case where a line drawn by the shooter to the target passes completely over the intervening model at all points. However, there is a picture in the BRB that implies that if you can draw a line over a unit, and the line never intersects that unit, then the unit does not provide cover. If I recall rightly, the picture uses units on elevations but NOT in a building, thus strongly implying that we should be using true LOS to determine what is "over" a unit and what is "through" a unit.
If I have a leader on stilts so that he is 4" tall (say that it's a legal GW model somehow), and he's shooting at another leader on stilts, also 4" tall, and there is a 1/4" tall swarm unit in between the two... and the ground is completely level... does the swarm provide cover? True LOS says it doesn't, and IMO arguments that it should are based on 4th edition thinking. 5th edition is about true LOS wherever possible.
you can turbo boost forward (with lord) get a 2+ cover (turbo boosting gives 3+ plus the small target rule.) Then charge second turn and killing the unit or sticking it in CC and preventing it from shooting altogether (devastators, havocs, broadsides, pathfinders, obliterators. The list goes on).
oh an wasn't this about Monoliths originally?
GET ON TOPIC PLEASE!