Ambushes and Feints

A review of past Tactics by commanders during the First, Second, Third & Fourth Phase Expansion.
User avatar
nic
Kroot'La
Kroot'La
Posts: 766

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#19 » Nov 02 2015 07:23

jay170788 wrote:
nic wrote:
EmbraveYourInnerGeek wrote:So hold on a moment - let me get this straight.

Lets say I have 3 units of strikers and a piranha in front of a wolf star. The sensible chap has positioned the wolf lord with a 2+ save, and a bunch of fenrisian wolves at the front to tank wounds. I can flat out the piranha to the rear of the wolf star, and as long as it's the closest model to the star, I can use Coordinated Firepower to "link" the strikers and the Piranha together, and wounds are taken from the Piranha?

That's pretty damn powerful.

The more I think about it the more I'm beginning to think that the Coordinated Firepower rule was specifically designed to defeat death stars.

EYIG


That is exactly what the rules say happens when resolving the wound pool from shooting. It works differently when shooting vehicles of course, that is dealt with on a model by model basis if necessary.



That is not strictly true, there is now no longer a grouped wound pool, each weapon is resolved separately so all burst cannon shots would come from the piranha's, but as soon as you shoot your pulse rifle's then the wounds come from the nearest model with a pulse rifle and so this strategy IMO is flawed unless you plan on making use of crisis with twin burst cannons to lump all the wounds into one pool and thus coming from the burst cannon equipped piranha.


The example in the BRB covers this perfectly using a marine unit with bolted and missile launcher. I made sure I had read that carefully before I posted.

The nearest model is what counts regardless of having a different weapon and therefore the wounds being in a different pool.

User avatar
Jefffar
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 1015

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#20 » Nov 02 2015 07:37

One one level, I do hope they FAQ that trick out of existence ... On the other, being able to garuntee back armour hits with Railguns. Heavy Rail Rifles, Seeker Missiles, Heavy Burst Cannons, High Yield Missile Pods, Ion Accelerators, Ion Cannons and Pulse Drivers against my mostly mostly Necron opposition is going to be too much fun to pass up.

User avatar
jay170788
Shas
Posts: 79

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#21 » Nov 02 2015 08:30

@nic

Thanks for that. I always assumed the common sense interpretation and never thought to look at it. This is great news. This is now my new tactic...
Veritas Vos Liberabit

User avatar
Vector Strike
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 955

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#22 » Nov 02 2015 08:38

I believe this one won't get much hold in many tables. The OSC get a pass because taht's hardcoded in its rules, but a Hammerhead firing against front armour, hitting behind because a Piranha is behind the enemy and firing together? Nah.

People will use the model's position for that.

User avatar
KuroRyu
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 284
Contact:

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#23 » Nov 02 2015 09:26

Vehicles work differently. You use the firing models position for determining which armour facing of a vehicle you hit.

The rules for shooting a unit specifically state that you use the closest model regardless of which model fired the shot.

However against vehicles the rules say that you resolve shots seperately for each armour facing when you have a unit firing on more than one facing.

User avatar
Vector Strike
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 955

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#24 » Nov 02 2015 12:08

KuroRyu wrote:Vehicles work differently. You use the firing models position for determining which armour facing of a vehicle you hit.

The rules for shooting a unit specifically state that you use the closest model regardless of which model fired the shot.

However against vehicles the rules say that you resolve shots seperately for each armour facing when you have a unit firing on more than one facing.


Ok, rephrasing:

I really doubt people will fly with Crisis suits using meltas to the rear armour because a piranha firing in tandem with them is firing at the enemy's back, or Crisis suits with plasmas killing the apothecary behind the entire command squad because of the same reason.

User avatar
Jefffar
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 1015

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#25 » Nov 02 2015 12:17

Vector Strike,

That would be the common sense version and I would be totally okay with it working the way you say if my opponent complains about it.

Technically however, it currently doesn't work that way.

User avatar
KuroRyu
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 284
Contact:

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#26 » Nov 02 2015 01:08

As I said, this strategy doesn't work on vehicles regardless because the rules specifially say you resolve shots against the armour facing that shot came from. In your example the crisis meltas hit the front armour and the piranha hits the rear. This is RAW.

This strategy only works on non vehicle units assuming your Opponent/tournament organisers don't make a fuss about it.

User avatar
Bitterman
Shas
Posts: 909

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#27 » Nov 02 2015 01:17

I wonder: what, really, is the difference between a single unit, spread out in a large C shape to surround an opponent, where one "horn" of the C is near the back of the enemy, and the other is to their front; and two units firing "as if" they were one unit, where one is behind the enemy, and the other is in front?

In other words, in both of these cases (letters are "our" troops, numbers are the enemy):

Code: Select all

AAAAAAA
A
A     1
A     2
A     3
A
A
A
AAAAAAA
AAAAAAA
AAAAAAA


Code: Select all

  A

  1
  2
  3



BBBBB
BBBBB
BBBBB


...model 1 would die first, if A and B combine their fire in the second example, even though in both cases more models are nearer 3.

It's silly, of course. But tabletop wargames require abstraction to a greater or lesser degree. Personally I think 40K's current hit/wound allocation rules are the best they've ever been (crossfires and enfilades matter, unlike, say, 5th Ed where the enemy would just choose his least important troops to die first, even if you'd completely outnumbered and surrounded him) and the occasional (and rather artificial) case where they break down is a price worth paying. It's that or roll every shot individually, and life's too short for that!

(FWIW, I personally wouldn't abuse this for different weapons. It's one thing for all meltas to hit rear armour as one melta is closest and we just want to roll all meltas at the same time, it's something else entirely for a single Drone in a vehicle's rear arc to enable three Railheads in its front arc to hit rear armour. Or the non-vehicle equivalent if armour facings are taken from the "shot" no matter what. I wouldn't do that to my opponent - a fun, satisfying game is unlikely to be the result, I suspect).

User avatar
nic
Kroot'La
Kroot'La
Posts: 766

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#28 » Nov 02 2015 01:28

Jefffar wrote:One one level, I do hope they FAQ that trick out of existence ... On the other, being able to garuntee back armour hits with Railguns. Heavy Rail Rifles, Seeker Missiles, Heavy Burst Cannons, High Yield Missile Pods, Ion Accelerators, Ion Cannons and Pulse Drivers against my mostly mostly Necron opposition is going to be too much fun to pass up.


No need for a FAQ, the rules already state that it this does not alter the armour facing hit which is resolved on a model by model basis.

User avatar
nic
Kroot'La
Kroot'La
Posts: 766

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#29 » Nov 03 2015 04:58

Bitterman wrote:I wonder: what, really, is the difference between a single unit, spread out in a large C shape to surround an opponent, where one "horn" of the C is near the back of the enemy, and the other is to their front; and two units firing "as if" they were one unit, where one is behind the enemy, and the other is in front?

<snip example>



There is basically no difference, no difference should really be expected between resolving the shooting of a unit and "as if" a unit. I think I have managed this a grand total of once with my kroot blob stringing out hounds to move the point of attack to a key model in the target unit. It should be an easier trick to pull off with the new codex so more than once per year maybe!

As has been said a few times, it does not work on vehicles. Or to be more specific; it can never alter the armour facing a model hits but if you are shooting at a vehicle squadron you could alter which vehicle in that squadron takes the hits in the same way.

As for cheese; I would not be using this against little Timmy hiding his Librarian at the back of a tactical squad but I might well use it against some tournament-bred netlist superfriends wolfstar. Context is everything.

User avatar
Vector Strike
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 955

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#30 » Nov 03 2015 06:31

nic wrote:As for cheese; I would not be using this against little Timmy hiding his Librarian at the back of a tactical squad but I might well use it against some tournament-bred netlist superfriends wolfstar. Context is everything.


The moment any Tau player pulls this up, TOs will try to forbid it. This is so bizarre. :neutral:

User avatar
nic
Kroot'La
Kroot'La
Posts: 766

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#31 » Nov 04 2015 09:37

Vector Strike wrote:
nic wrote:As for cheese; I would not be using this against little Timmy hiding his Librarian at the back of a tactical squad but I might well use it against some tournament-bred netlist superfriends wolfstar. Context is everything.


The moment any Tau player pulls this up, TOs will try to forbid it. This is so bizarre. :neutral:


In all honesty it is bizarre, but then so is rolling saves and LOS one at a time to perfectly distribute wounds. Those wolves must move as fast as Neo in the matrix to be selectively jumping in front of some bullets but not others as they are about to hit the iron priest.

It's the rules. To be fair to GW it is at least a simple way to represent the advantage you should get from enfilading Fire.

User avatar
KuroRyu
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 284
Contact:

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#32 » Nov 04 2015 09:44

This doesn't just affect the rules for Tau though. Any TO that says this rule is stupid for tau to use is admitting that it's a poorly written rule and than nobody should be able to do it. The fact that tau abuse it best is beside the point. Either everyone resolves using the closest model in the squad for simplicity (accepting the rules abuse that comes with that.) OR everyone uses the closest model firing each weapon for an accurate representation of what weapon hits where. You can't have some people doing it one way and other people doing it the other. That isn't fair.

Changing the rules in the BRB for tau and not anyone else is quite frankly unacceptable imo.

User avatar
counterwave
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 46

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#33 » Nov 04 2015 05:23

Vector Strike wrote:People will use the model's position for that.


And they should. Counting all units as firing from behind because that's where the Piranha is, turns things into a game of rules, not a game of simulated warfare. From a tabletop perspective that makes absolutely no sense and presumes that the Tau have invented revolutionary teleportation technology that, unfortunately, only works when three or more units fire at something. The concept is silly and trying to pull it off is incredibly poor sportsmanship. There's a place for rules as written and there's a place for common sense.
The Devil Hides in You!

User avatar
nic
Kroot'La
Kroot'La
Posts: 766

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#34 » Dec 04 2015 04:17

So I used this in a Dawn Blade Contingent today and the pseudo-relentless effect on the Broadside was priceless, keeping it alive so it was still there to deliver devastation on turns 3 and 4 when it sealed the deal on the win.

I had the Broadside sitting in heavy ruins with a lot of LOS blocking parts against a very shooty Eldar list. On the first 2 turns I was able to shuffle it sideways each shooting phase just enough to get a shot while only exposing itself to return fire from the unit of jet bikes it had just depleted. The inability to move even 1" to take a shot without then snap-shooting was always my big issue with Broadsides and this rule transforms the performance of small units into nasty little cover-camping problems for an opponent.

The Burning Eye
Shas
Posts: 4

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#35 » Dec 08 2015 11:50

To me the simple application of common sense to this rule would be thus:

Three units at different points in relation to a target unit would, in actuality, result in casualties being taken from three different points of the target unit.

Whilst I appreciate that RAW once you treat the three firing units as a single unit you should technically take casualties from the single nearest point, I think it's fair to say that the rule for that didn't foresee the coordinated firepower rule being in play at the time it was written.

I think what I'll be doing (with my opponent's agreement of course) is resolving the fire of each weapon type in each of the constituent units separately - I'll quite happily resolve each weapon type before moving on to different weapons, but I'll keep each squad's firing separate. It may take a bit longer but it makes things far more realistic in terms of casualty removal and I'm sure in respect of my opponents they will feel that's a far more reasonable and fair approach. This approach also doesn't preclude me from sharing special rules as set out in coordinated firepower either.

User avatar
nic
Kroot'La
Kroot'La
Posts: 766

Re: Ambushes and Feints

Post#36 » Dec 08 2015 02:10

The Burning Eye wrote:To me the simple application of common sense to this rule would be thus:

Three units at different points in relation to a target unit would, in actuality, result in casualties being taken from three different points of the target unit.

Whilst I appreciate that RAW once you treat the three firing units as a single unit you should technically take casualties from the single nearest point, I think it's fair to say that the rule for that didn't foresee the coordinated firepower rule being in play at the time it was written.

I think what I'll be doing (with my opponent's agreement of course) is resolving the fire of each weapon type in each of the constituent units separately - I'll quite happily resolve each weapon type before moving on to different weapons, but I'll keep each squad's firing separate. It may take a bit longer but it makes things far more realistic in terms of casualty removal and I'm sure in respect of my opponents they will feel that's a far more reasonable and fair approach. This approach also doesn't preclude me from sharing special rules as set out in coordinated firepower either.


You are of course free to ignore the clause of treating them as a single unit if your opponent is happy with that, you are free to ignore any part of any rule if that is mutually agreed.

Return to “Archival Datacore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests