Bell of Lost Souls - Latest Comments in 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

Omniwolf — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:59:26 -0000

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.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

Omniwolf — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:44:45 -0000

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.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

cody.d — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:48:07 -0000

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).

oh an wasn't this about Monoliths originally?

GET ON TOPIC PLEASE!

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

BlackSly — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:14:25 -0000

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.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

Nabterayl — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:07:33 -0000

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.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:55:38 -0000

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.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

Nabterayl — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:01:09 -0000

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.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

Ask Your Momma — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:07:54 -0000

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.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

StephenK — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:48:43 -0000

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.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

Nabterayl — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:37:06 -0000

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.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

Ask Your Momma — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:52:33 -0000

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.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

BeastOfShadow — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:50:04 -0000

He probably surrounded the entire tank.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

bushidoredpanda — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:41:02 -0000

I beg to differ :) that whip is serious business.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

BeastOfShadow — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:34:50 -0000

Yep. Damn relentless.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

Ask Your Momma — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:04:37 -0000

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.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

Ask Your Momma — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:42:07 -0000

I hate BOLS approve my comment PLEASE it's relevant to the discussion.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

sodcactus — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:13:22 -0000

"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......

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

obsequiousmelon — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:29:14 -0000

straight out of a terminator film!

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

obsequiousmelon — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:28:25 -0000

they shouldn't of been distroyed, what about emergency dissembarkation or the rule that says that they wait until a portal is available.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

bushidoredpanda — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:15:38 -0000

I always liked the image of all the broken bits of necrons crawling forward trying to kill anything they can! :)

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

MythicalMothman — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:56:45 -0000

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.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

weeler — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:51:03 -0000

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.

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

SinSynn — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:12:05 -0000

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!!!

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

Trashboss — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:02:00 -0000

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....

Re: 40K TACTICA: Necron Monoliths (v 2.0)

Broken Loose — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:35:08 -0000

True, but you can't "unload" a particle whip on an entire guard army at once.