HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
AuthorMessage
dumpeal
Wych
avatar

Posts : 877
Join date : 2015-02-13
Location : Québec

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Fri Nov 25 2016, 22:52

While I'm glad we can pull out this kind of trick, I'm a little bit worried some lowly xeno could do it to our precious dark artisan or corpethieft claw. What is the best build to have a good chance to glory or death the vehicle? Heat lance?
Back to top Go down
amorrowlyday
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1300
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Massachusetts

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Fri Nov 25 2016, 23:24

Smash attack. S10AP1 even without melta your looking at 3+ to hurt most stuff, 4+ max, while you need 6 over 2 dice for a heatlance. marginally better vs av14, progressively worse against everything else.
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Sat Nov 26 2016, 06:54

@ammorowlyday - nah. No malice here or before. Its just a game. Even if we may disagree. My apologies. The smiley at my post might have looked like a smirk while it was just a well meant wink. :-D Ever a problem of forums. You cant see the other guy.

Anyway. Been pondering about the list myself... The list needs something scary in it Or something that would make the enemy nervous... 4 raiders are easily shot down. OTOH deathstar lists do not have much ranged AT usually. No? And I would still consider this as primarily anti-deathstar thing...
Back to top Go down
Ynneadwraith
Twisted
avatar

Posts : 1236
Join date : 2016-09-21

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Sat Nov 26 2016, 08:44

Agreed in the anti-deathstar front. It's sort of a waste to use against a 5-man tac squad.

Do you envisage the Raiders being sacrificial after they've tank-shocked or might they survive?

Here's a question. If the unit you've tank-shocked can't move back into coherency, can they charge on their next turn?

_________________
Check out may pan-Eldar projects Smile Exodites, Corsairs, Craftworld, True Kin, Croneworld (soon) and one Shadowseer!: http://www.thedarkcity.net/t14405-corsairs-exodites-craftworlders-and-hopefully-kabalites-soon
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Sat Nov 26 2016, 09:14

Still in bed so cant check but IIRC they can charge if they manage to get into coherency in movement phase. If not they have to use their run move to get into coherency asap. Which means that some units can charge even after that.

Provided they were not falling back due to tank shock. Hmmm. Now... I have to check something...

EDIT
Quote :
Trapped!
Sometimes, a unit finds its Fall Back move blocked by impassable terrain, friendly models or enemy models. The unit may move around these obstructions in such a way as to get back to their table edge by the shortest route, maintaining unit coherency, even if this means moving away from their table edge. If the unit cannot perform a full Fall Back move in any direction without doubling back, it is destroyed (see diagram below).

Does this mean that if the unit fails the Morale check (which we can support by negative LD modifiers) and our box of transports or units prohibits it to make the FULL fall back move, the whole unit is destroyed? By "not doublebacking" I assume it is meant that the models cannot go back and forth between the tank and the box.
Back to top Go down
fisheyes
Wych
avatar

Posts : 849
Join date : 2016-02-18

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Sat Nov 26 2016, 12:21

Hmm, nice progression on this thread since I left.

I actually didnt realize we had 5pt chain snares over the shock prow. Going to put them on all vehicles (10 at 1500), and treat it as a 12" Dont Come Here sign. Our vehicles are fast, but only in the shooting phase. I think it will be harder to pull off than I had previously hoped. Starting your turn in rapid fire range with our AV10 boxes will be difficult. Best to maximize possibilites by throwing them on venoms and ravagers too.

@dumpeal you are right, this is going to be very difficult on our DA and CTC. Even our Grotesquery will hurt from our guys loss in durability. But I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives. The meta has been pushing us towards MSU for years, this is just another nudge.

@aurynn, the doubling back (at least to me) means if your unit has to travel in a "S" pattern to get to your table edge, while avoiding enemy units, its destroyed.

Next Post:

So an update to the tank shocking thread. Went to play a game last weekend, vs a 30k Fist army. Before the game I talked to the guy, expaining the new tank shock rules, and went over a few examples of how it is done so that he wouldent call cheese on me mid game. Turns out he was equally interested to see how it went (eyeing his own 35 pt rhinos no doubt Wink )

So with 8 vehicles all armed with chain snares, and against an opponent with large blobs of infantry, I was unable to make a single tank shock. There was one time where I was correctly positioned with two raiders able to make a move, but he had blobed up around a piece of multi-level scenery, making it impossible. A second oportunity arrived, but I didnt see it until after my shooting had began.

I think we may be over-hyping this new mechanic. Its very hard to do, and as one random in the LGS stated "If you were to do this to me, I would just pack up my models", lol. I think the 5pt chain snare investment is worthwhile, but not the 10 pt shock-prow. May have been better against a deathstar build, where removing models via this mechanic is more valuable.

Anyone else have any experience?
Back to top Go down
Silverglade
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 376
Join date : 2012-12-30

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Thu Dec 01 2016, 03:47

as someone who plays against a rules lawyer, I`ll see if I can poke holes to firm up or disprove this theory.

To reiterate, the FAQ states:   "Pick up only those models actively displaced by the Tank Shock, and place them on the battlefield with all models within unit coherency"


Say I have the following:


X      x     x    o   o   x  x   x

Where the to 'o's are the guys under the raider.   I pick them up, and place them on the battle field as follows:


x     x    x ______   x  x  x
      o    o

So those two models are within unit coherency (which is all that the FAQ says needs to be done.   It doesn't say all the models in the units have to be in coherency.   Just the models picked up.


It comes down to whether "all models within unit coherency" refers to all models in the unit, or just all models picked up.    A rules lawyer will argue it is just those picked up since it is in the same sentence that refers to picking up the models under the tank.

discuss....
Back to top Go down
Kantalla
Wych
avatar

Posts : 823
Join date : 2015-12-21

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Thu Dec 01 2016, 05:33

Silverglade - I think what you are describing is exactly right. The o models would only be casualties if you couldn't place them in coherency with another model from the x set.

However, if you could have the following:

X X O O O O O O

Where you have models surrounding the X models so there is nowhere to place the O models then the O models would be destroyed.

_________________
From a midnight sky, there is a searing flash, a boom, a brief moment of destruction, and then it is gone.
Kabal of Lightning Strikes - Project Log
Drukhari damage output analysis
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Thu Dec 01 2016, 07:09

That has been discussed in this post. The problem is that there is nothing like "model coherency". There is only "unit coherency". If you split an unit in two parts that are incoherent between each other, it does not matter that the models in the two parts are "coherent" with models in their respective parts. The unit as a whole loses coherency and no matter where you place the two models in your hand, the unit does not regain coherency unless then can somehow bridge the gap between the two parts.

In addition the correct placement from Silverglade example would be:


x  x  x  x  _____  x  x  x
                o   o

IF in this placement the unit will regain coherency. If it is not possible, the models are destroyed IMO.

EDIT: The example shown above displays differently under different conditions. The "o" models are supposed to be placed around the tank, bridging the gap between unit "x" parts.
Back to top Go down
Kantalla
Wych
avatar

Posts : 823
Join date : 2015-12-21

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Thu Dec 01 2016, 08:36

Interesting, I have just read through the entirety of the thread in a bit more detail.

I see where you are coming from now, saying here is the definition of unit coherency, moving models from the middle of the chain doesn't fit that definition, therefore they are destroyed.

The counter position would be that the unit coherency definition you are using is explicitly for the situation of moving a unit. In the case of tank shock, we don't move the unit; only the models that would end up under the tank, so we would have a situation that doesn't meet the definition. Then we would need to assume either:
1) As others are doing on this thread - the strictest sense of unit coherency should apply even when moving only part of the unit
2) A looser definition of coherency applying to the models moved should apply

The consequence of choosing 1 seems silly to me, but I can't see the rules clearly pointing one way or the other, and will see how this gets ruled and adapt accordingly.

_________________
From a midnight sky, there is a searing flash, a boom, a brief moment of destruction, and then it is gone.
Kabal of Lightning Strikes - Project Log
Drukhari damage output analysis
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7188
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Thu Dec 01 2016, 09:05

Ain't it great that even with a rulebook and updated FAQ we still don't know how the bloody thing works!

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
Ynneadwraith
Twisted
avatar

Posts : 1236
Join date : 2016-09-21

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Thu Dec 01 2016, 09:56

I'm in agreement with aurynn's interpretation. It does state 'all models within unit coherency', not 'all displaced models within unit coherency' (or, more accurately given how unit coherency works: 'all displaced models within 2" of another model in the unit').

They probably intended it to be the latter, but if you're playing against a rules lawyer then they can't pick and choose whether a rule was 'intended' to be different or not.

Fight fire with fire!

_________________
Check out may pan-Eldar projects Smile Exodites, Corsairs, Craftworld, True Kin, Croneworld (soon) and one Shadowseer!: http://www.thedarkcity.net/t14405-corsairs-exodites-craftworlders-and-hopefully-kabalites-soon
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Thu Dec 01 2016, 11:28

@Kantalla wrote:
The consequence of choosing 1 seems silly to me
Actually not that silly in fact. If you tank shock too many models, the unit's formation just bends around your tank and the models are safe. However, played right, you not only crush one or two models, but force the unit to adapt to your action next movement phase. Seems right from my point of view.

Deploying a unit in conga line is after all a dangerous tactic for the unit itself, because it can become fractured easily. And honestly... was there ever an occasion when conga lines could stand against tanks on the field? :-)
Back to top Go down
Painjunky
Wych
avatar

Posts : 866
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Sunshine Coast

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Thu Dec 01 2016, 11:34

@Count Adhemar wrote:
Ain't it great that even with a rulebook and updated FAQ we still don't know how the bloody thing works!

My thoughts exactly. Rolling Eyes

This is giving me a headache.
I'm just not going to tank shock at all till GW learn how to walk and chew gum.

Imbeciles. Rolling Eyes
Back to top Go down
fisheyes
Wych
avatar

Posts : 849
Join date : 2016-02-18

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Thu Dec 01 2016, 12:41

I went to GW last weekend, and the resident rule-king agreed with my interpretation (but did call it cheesey). Has anyone else tried this "in the field"?

I guess only time will truly tell, and on a game-by-game basis. I am just waiting to be told that this is cheese by the guy who likes to bring his Knights to friendly 1500 pt games XD.
Back to top Go down
Kantalla
Wych
avatar

Posts : 823
Join date : 2015-12-21

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Thu Dec 01 2016, 19:37

aurynn - when I say it seems silly, I mean that it seems a bizarre and unrealistic thing. Somehow it is more dangerous to be spread out when a tank tries to drive over your unit than all clustered up. But that only applies if the tank stops on your position instead of carrying on through, and only if your unit isn't panicked by the attempt to run you over. Seeming silly isn't a rules argument in any way of course. Just a statement that it doesn't seem right.

Ynneadwraith - essentially the rules counterpoint is the definition of unit coherency starts with "When you are moving a unit...". What does unit coherency mean when moving part of a unit? Should it mean the same thing even if you aren't moving a unit? Or should it mean a similar thing where you replace the references to 'unit' with 'group of models'?

I could see the ruling being interpreted either way, so will watch with interest.

_________________
From a midnight sky, there is a searing flash, a boom, a brief moment of destruction, and then it is gone.
Kabal of Lightning Strikes - Project Log
Drukhari damage output analysis
Back to top Go down
fisheyes
Wych
avatar

Posts : 849
Join date : 2016-02-18

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Thu Dec 01 2016, 20:29

GW went to the trouble of telling us how to use tank shock to remove models, wouldent we be doing a disservice to them by not using this mechanic? Razz

But seriously, I do see where you are coming from with the "entire unit coherency" or "displaced models in unit coherency". Ugh, if only we could get a straight answer the first time...
Back to top Go down
Rhivan
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 354
Join date : 2016-04-03

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Thu Dec 01 2016, 20:32

@fisheyes wrote:
Ugh, if only we could get a straight answer the first time...
There's only one solution we need to FAQ the FAQs. It's the only reasonable thing to do!
Back to top Go down
dumpeal
Wych
avatar

Posts : 877
Join date : 2015-02-13
Location : Québec

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Thu Dec 01 2016, 22:48

@Kantalla wrote:
Ynneadwraith - essentially the rules counterpoint is the definition of unit coherency starts with "When you are moving a unit...". What does unit coherency mean when moving part of a unit? Should it mean the same thing even if you aren't moving a unit? Or should it mean a similar thing where you replace the references to 'unit' with 'group of models'?

When you move 1 model in the unit, you always count the whole unit as having moved. I don't see why it would be different during a tank shock.
Back to top Go down
aurynn
Incubi


Posts : 1626
Join date : 2013-04-23

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Fri Dec 02 2016, 05:05

@dumpeal is right. Moving an unit in movement phase means moving one model by fraction of an inch too. If one model moves, the whole unit "moves".

@Kantalla - Yea. I got that its a matter of imagining the thing. But still - the tanks do not stop. The battle is played in turns but "happens" in real time. Given the minimum speed needed to tank-shock, I would say that the tank is in fact moving fast. And I also think that clustered units are in more of a danger being crushed as a whole. Spread out units will more likely find a way to stay in coherency during the tank shock. Only when it is stretched to the edge of staying together some models will die in the effort to keep the unit whole. We were dealing with two extreme examples - clusters and congas. Both are absolutely OK to be punished the same way as blasts punish clusters and shooting a conga with the correct range-planning will too remove models from the middle of the unit and force the unit to move to regain coherency. Its perfectly sound to me even in the cinematic view. :-)

I have to say I am in love with this rule, because uses it and it opens sooo many options, especially for us DE, when we have Shock Prows and Chain Snares.

By the way, did you notice that if you position your tank between 6'' to 12'' to tank shock an enemy next turn, it can be easily cancelled by him moving towards you to get under the 6'' required for tank shock? Risky at their side, but totally possible to avoid the crunch. I would say its pretty balanced.
Back to top Go down
Kantalla
Wych
avatar

Posts : 823
Join date : 2015-12-21

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Fri Dec 02 2016, 05:36

@dumpeal wrote:
When you move 1 model in the unit, you always count the whole unit as having moved. I don't see why it would be different during a tank shock.
I don't think that is right anymore, as you can leave say a heavy weapon model stationary and not count as having moved for that model.

The key difference is in the movement phase you can move all of the models in a unit if you wish, so you are moving the unit. In a tank shock, you can only move those under the tank.

_________________
From a midnight sky, there is a searing flash, a boom, a brief moment of destruction, and then it is gone.
Kabal of Lightning Strikes - Project Log
Drukhari damage output analysis
Back to top Go down
fisheyes
Wych
avatar

Posts : 849
Join date : 2016-02-18

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   Fri Dec 02 2016, 13:43

@Kantalla, I was under the impression that if any of the unit moves, the whole unit moves. Of course I could be thinking of a previous edition...
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer   

Back to top Go down
 
New FAQ - Smashfacing the Smashfacer
Back to top 
Page 3 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

COMMORRAGH TACTICA

 :: Rules: Queries & Questions
-
Jump to: