Vs. Imperial Knights v7.0

[WestRider]

Apr 5, 2015 7:29:24 GMT Jabberwocky said:

Against rear you have double the chance to roll a glance/pen, so even with the shield you get the same results on average. The only reason to ever hit side would be with the ESG if the back was shielded and it's only marginally better outside of cover.

I also think it's a bit gamey to fire from a different part of the model in an attempt to mislead your opponent.

What? They're 13/12/12, sides and back are the same.

Kark: I just realized something else: GW's rulebooks aren't always translated perfectly. If y'all are using a translated version, it's entirely possible that your version is actually correct in your rulebook, even tho it's ambiguous in the english one. Heck, it could even be correct. I know there was at least one incident where the French version was right and the english version had a wording problem.

[Kark]

We use original English version only

[Jabberwocky]

Apr 5, 2015 14:29:37 GMT WestRider said:

Apr 5, 2015 7:29:24 GMT Jabberwocky said:

Against rear you have double the chance to roll a glance/pen, so even with the shield you get the same results on average. The only reason to ever hit side would be with the ESG if the back was shielded and it's only marginally better outside of cover.

I also think it's a bit gamey to fire from a different part of the model in an attempt to mislead your opponent.

What? They're 13/12/12, sides and back are the same.

Kark: I just realized something else: GW's rulebooks aren't always translated perfectly. If y'all are using a translated version, it's entirely possible that your version is actually correct in your rulebook, even tho it's ambiguous in the english one. Heck, it could even be correct. I know there was at least one incident where the French version was right and the english version had a wording problem.

Sorry was having a derp moment and thinking about baneblades where it goes down in AV from front-side-rear.

I don't usually have to face IK.

[Kark]

Okey, I have finally gotten my rulebook

Model, to be able to fire its weapon, must have line of sight. Quote:

"for one model to have line of sight to another, You must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms, legs) to any part of the target's body."

So if You land Your Tyrant's center of the base at the exact line that determines armour facing, You may draw straight, unblocked line from its body, thus You may choose which part of the body to use for drawing line of sight, so in fact You have a choice at which facing You are about to shoot.

If You don't use any specific regulations that tell otherwise, this is a legal play to trick knight's ion shield save.

[WestRider]

Again, that just gives the minimum standard for drawing Line of Sight. It says that there must be at least one point on the shooter's body from which you can draw LoS. It says nothing about giving you a choice of which to use when there are multiple possible points.

[Jabberwocky]

The vehicle facing rules say to look at where the shot is being fired from.

I'd argue you'd look at where the guns were on your model (so you have a static point of reference) purely to avoid these shenanigans.

[WestRider]

Apr 7, 2015 7:22:43 GMT Jabberwocky said:

I'd argue you'd look at where the guns were on your model (so you have a static point of reference) purely to avoid these shenanigans.

And when you have Twin-Linked guns that count as a single Weapon even tho they're mounted on opposite sides of the firing Model?

[Jabberwocky]

Then you roll-off for an exact split or look at where the line sits on your model's facing, just like with the target.

Either that or count it as exactly in the middle of your base.

Either way there needs to be a fixed point of reference or you simply cannot use the rules.

The vehicle facing rules require you to be at a point within an area, as opposed to most rules which require your base area to be either partially or wholly within an area.

They even go as far as to say separate models (almost points) can be in different facings, even within the same unit. This to me shows that the facings are mutually exclusive and you cannot have a firing point that is within two different facings.

Therefore as the location of your firing point is ambiguous because of the model (just like some old line of sight issues) you need to declare and agree on a firing point to fit the model to the rules.

[WestRider]

See, the thing is, any of those are reasonable options. But none of them are actually in the book. Which is my whole point here: The Rules simply don't cover this situation. They imply a few things, but don't actually cover it. There are any number of possible and reasonable solutions, but all of them are House Rules.

[Jabberwocky]

GW rules writing at it's finest!

[gigasnail]

You're not actually going to be able to pull this off w/o a laser.

[glitchrr36]

one of the vets at the store I go to told me of a time either he watched a nid player or was the nid player (can't rmember which) that killed a knight in one turn with a harpy (to drop the int) and a canopenerfex. The crushing claws were very effective against it, since the fex got first turn.

[gigasnail]

this can happen, but mostly you're getting lucky. you're still hitting on 4's while it hits on 3's and relying on getting explodes results with your pens and destroying multiple hp. more on average, you'll maul one a bit and then it kills two of the MC with S:D and stomps, and finishes them off on that player's turn.

edit: to be fair, getting CC fexes into combat with an IK is effective, but you'll want to use multiples to actually seal their fate. then you're still faced with catching something that moves faster than your fexes and wants very solidly to be in CC with you on its own terms.

[Kark]

According to the latest ETC clarification it is impossible to target two facings at once. You have to agree with Your opponent (after finishing movement or when shield is positioning) at which facing You may fire.

[guidebot]

Hang on let me get this straight. Since I was last involved in 40k there's a new army, and it's entirely super heavy walkers, and it's totally legit that you can play Imperial Knights without any say-so from your foe? I mean, these guys are just, like, in the game now?