Space Elf Martyrs

Gymbol · by **Gymbol** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:29 pm

I've been thinking about using 3 waveserpents with starengines and doing some ramming.

Firedragons (tankhunter) & Farseer (Guide, fortune, spear).

Move > 24", try to ram 2 vehicles at the same time, and then spill the firedragons out (when the serpent dies on a 4,5 or 6) for a bit of early shooting.

After the firedragons shoot, surround them with the other 2 waveserpents (w banshees inside.) turned so that no one gets rear shots at them.

A couple of questions here...

Is this tactic going to get shoes thrown at me?

Can a tank turn at the last moment so that it strikes with side armor in a ram?

Do the firedragons really need fortune (and a farseer) to plan on surviving a crash?

Is tankhunters worth taking (facing anything other than a monolith)?

Is the spear on the farseer granted +1 from tankhunters?

Is it worth 10 points for spirit stones (knowing I'm _trying_ to kill the serpent on the ram)?

DoctorTom · by **DoctorTom** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:55 pm

It's pretty much a given that you'll get shoes thrown at you.

Of course, if it's a KP game they might thank you for giving them the KPs.

The tank can't turn at the last moment - you have to have it going in a straight line.

It doesn't hurt to have fortune to help survive, if you're planning on having a wreck or explosion.

Tankhunters always helps - the +1 can come in handy sometimes (if they're not close enough for the extra d6 from melta, or if you're in hth with a walker and really want the meltabombs to work, or against AV14 non-monolith - get more penetrating hits).

I don't think the farseer gets the tankhunter bonus (don't have the codex and book here to check, but don't remember ever getting it in the past).

It might be worth the 10 points for the spirit stones, knowing that you want to make sure that the serpent keeps moving until you find the vehicle that will stop it moving. Besides, if you end up ramming walkers it helps against Death or Glory.

killmaimburn · by **killmaimburn** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:33 am

Just to second Dr Tom.
I've got my shoe ready.. it might have the range of a death spinner, but well what the heck its a death spinner with a heel.It can kill the game, or it can be funny.(Doing it with eldar you'll likely just force your locals into playing yet more skimmer and bike armies

)
Can't turn after it starts moving.(its move is "executed the same way"as tank shockp69-"no other changes of direction are allowed during a tank shock"p68)
Remember that ramming actually obliterating something is almost as tricky as melta death or glorying (you'll always get those numbers you don't want on the penetration table..)you need a 6 (explodes)- to carry on
Remember the wounds (taken on the squad rather than on individual models so you can minimise them) or pinning test you take when you hop out of the burning wreck.
Remember the energy field won't protect you

I like ramming, I like vindicators doing it after they've lost their only weapon.But I do stick my nose up a bit at it not being a last ditch screaming M.A.D. attempt, like the dude whose on fire taking down the bridge of the superstar destroyer in return of the jedi.
But then if you play against the 600pt bike stuffs all the time I guess it will fit in.

The tankhunters morale benefit won't protect from the negative side effects of ramming.It doesn't have an Asterisk in the USRs section..meaning the squad doesn't lose it by having the farseer join them.
BUT-its an exarch power and theres a little bit on top right p21(really obscure page for a core rule) of the codex that says exarch powers may only ever effect aspect warriors in the same squad..so no bonus for the farseer.
Hope it helps
KMB

Gymbol · by **Gymbol** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:58 am

Well, I did it, and I am amazed at the way it worked, this time.

Playing a guy with a guard army. With 2 falcons I tank shocked 8 squads, breaking 3 of them. wrecked one of the serpents while destroying one of his tanks, and then flamered 3 other squads including his command squad into oblivion. In the top of the first turn. He didn't seem to have too much fun, this time. (Not like the last 3 games where he templaterated me to oblivion.)

Ok, orkses on bikeses, lets see how this works against YOU.

Fighting against this???
1. Dreadnaughts 9" up front to stop the tank shocking and put the firedragons on the ground outside flamer range.
2. Win first turn and kill the waveserpents before they move.
???

killmaimburn · by **killmaimburn** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:31 am

1. "fails to stop".. I don't think dreaders will be very good at defending..(requires he gets you immmobiled or better)
2. (I use shrike+squad for that its funny)
3.Skimmer swarms (shuffle out the way) and high leadership/fearless mobile troops that don't care about tank shock.
4.All podding, will land beside you and melta you (also meaning they are close enough that ramming speed can't be built up to get around the pods)
5.MC heavy lists- Nidzilla, Demonzilla, Ctan+ stuff,(Wraithlord-Wraithguard swarm?) not effected much by the tankshock can reply in like kind if absolutly required.. and can expect to live after having 5-8 melta guns *try* to hit them.
6.Others I can't think of on a sunday morning:)
7.you get buried in shoes and can't roll dice anymore.

You could do what Mr6 did for a bit of a joke and have a seer council riding in one so its a bit like a drop pod army of suicideyness.(mixing the whole fear of 3++ FNP of your group into your own thing and serving it back to them)

Kyrolon · by **Kyrolon** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:24 pm

One other thing you might want to be forewarned of if you try this again:

Some people will argue that if you ram with a transport going flat out and there are troops inside, they will all die if the transport is destroyed. There are interesting points of argument on both sides of course, but what it boils down to is that troops aren't allowed to disembark in the movement phase if a vehicle moves flat out. Troops that can't disembark from a destroyed vehicle all die.

The counter argument is the emergency disembarkation rules. If you do a search on Warseer, or Dakka, or maybe even here, you should find something.

Just be forewarned that your tactic may not be as great as you think.

Gymbol · by **Gymbol** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:07 pm

3. Skimmer swarms don't dodge other skimmers. Or at least that's my take on the skimmer dodging rules.
4. Hop over the pods and then begin the tankshock in the shooting phase when you use the star engines.. (hah, I think I just won the Mr. McCheesypants title.)

the rest of the stuff you are absolutely correct about kmb.

In probably another topic altogether, it looks like the entire purpose of army building now is to ramp up the cheese factor. People will defend to the death their right to interpret RaI from RaW and just get absolutely WRONG with you when you say that particular ruling just doesn't make sense. I try not to fall into that, but occasionally have a morals breakdown. The current injunction from GW staff to just say yes, and that the purpose of the game is to have fun kind of go astray when there are two people defending a position and neither are willing to concede that the opponent may have as clear vision as "I" do.

killmaimburn · by **killmaimburn** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:54 pm

3. Good point, my bad :oops:

, But the other bit remains.. adn so I can pull a shred of dignity back.. how about a swarm of skimmers meaning a squadron.. you allocate who takes the glancings.. you choose not the one you hit= you can never go passed the first one you hit (because that one stays alive while the one beside it faints..absurd.. but I think correct by RAW)
4. So 12" away and then 12" back, thats a lot less str..Its a good get around..I don't think its McCheesy pants quite yet.. needs some sprinkles and maybe a kilt.

Army Building (I think) is meant to be about a fun concept (whether it be all fluff, or angry marines, or all bikes) realised in models that you then make into something that doesn't embarress you on the table too much one way or the other..and thats pretty much all dependant on who else is in your group. Just taking the best a codex has to offer and bypassing all the above can lead to too many people getting in your way (GW spank the rules you've relied on, players always taking the rock to your scissor, gaming group gets to play high and mighty) I don't know really, I know our lot put more attention into list building than most other AoSers.
On RAW vs RAI No jinx had a nice thread on that
http://www.ageofstrife.com/modules.php? ... =4019#4019
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.ph ... =absurdity
I've grown more and more to just reckon that trying to play faster so you can go over the bumps and then discussing and whining about stuff afterwards is better for the ingame play than having it out there and then (unless you have a decent judge about).

EDIT

Kyrolon wrote:Some people will argue that if you ram with a transport going flat out and there are troops inside, they will all die if the transport is destroyed. There are interesting points of argument on both sides of course, but what it boils down to is that troops aren't allowed to disembark in the movement phase if a vehicle moves flat out. Troops that can't disembark from a destroyed vehicle all die..

I must admit I pretty much ignored all the threads about this (but would love a sane summary/recap

) wasn't half the rebuttal that you don't disembark if your destroyed your "placed" and that then led to the ultra silly raw of those folks taking trukks ramming them,them being destroyed and the contents assualting because they hand't disembarked just "placed"(which I thought more than a little silly)

Kyrolon · by **Kyrolon** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:24 am

Actually, KMB, I don't think this one had anything to do with the "placed" verbage. This one came from the line in the fast vehicles section that says that troops in a transport that moves flat out cannot disembark in that movement phase.

This is then added to the line from the vehicle damage section on emergency disembarkation such that troops which cannot make a legal disembarkation are destroyed.

It amounts (IMO) to taking 2+2=5. The line from the emergency disembarkation is referring to whether the models can be physically placed. In order to arrive at the conclusion presented above that line has to be taken out of context to apply to any situation in which you can't normally disembark.

Obviously it only comes up for fast vehicles because non-fast vehicles can't go flat out (and thus even at max speed the troops can disembark).

Note also that the line on fast vehicles specifically says "in that movement phase", so this never comes up when a vehicle gets shot down, only if you do something (like ramming) that kills you in your OWN movement phase. That's what made me bring it up here.

It's probably accurate by strict RAW if you read every sentence without applying context, but I don't think it flies by RAI.

killmaimburn · by **killmaimburn** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:13 am

Cheers for that, certainly something to chew on

Gymbol · by **Gymbol** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:01 pm

Kyrolon wrote:Note also that the line on fast vehicles specifically says "in that movement phase", so this never comes up when a vehicle gets shot down, only if you do something (like ramming) that kills you in your OWN movement phase. That's what made me bring it up here.

Ah, well then! That would not apply to me, because the ram happens in MY shooting phase so all the little space elf martyrs come tumbling out during shooting phase, not the movement phase.

See how .... unsatisfying ... that rule is? How did someone recently put it.. "Sort of like kissing your sister, only worse... like kissing your grandmother without her teeth." I've messed the quote up, but since I also forgot who said it maybe I'll never have to pay royalties for using it.

Do you think it may be possible to approach GW about electing an independent panel of 'People Who Care' (but don't draw paychecks from GW) that could be delegated the responsibility of creating official errata to the rules? It would only take GW about 5 minutes to establish rules for who could be on the panel and about 5 minutes per candidate to select them for a period of service. (I can't really imagine they would ever spend MORE than 5 minutes on making any decision.)

edit: Btw kmb, thanks for that link back to nojinx post.

LordMalekTheRedKnight · by **LordMalekTheRedKnight** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:50 pm

on the disembarking thing, doesnt the Eldar FAQ about Wraithsight set a precedent?

Q. If you have Wraithguards embarked in a Wave
Serpent, do they still have to make the Wraithsight
roll? If yes, can a friendly psyker within 6" of the
vehicle prevent them from making this roll?
A. Yes, and yes. However, if they fail their Wraithsight
roll and the Wave Serpent is destroyed during that
same player turn, all of the Wraithguards are destroyed
as well.

hope that helps

~ Tim

Kyrolon · by **Kyrolon** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:23 pm

That does add a shade of grey to the discussion, Tim. I think there is a subtle difference though. Wraithguard that fail a WS check are for all purposes immobile. They can take no voluntary actions at all, not even fighting in close combat. Other troops in a destroyed transport are certainly not in the same state. I think that's an important distinction, but is solely RAI.

Like I said above, a strict RAW reading would probably have them destroyed, and your addition adds a little more weight to the RAW. I still don't like it though. If an immobile vehicle stops immediately and counts as immobile for all purposes, why shouldn't a wrecked one as well?

Gymbol · by **Gymbol** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:43 pm

Huh. Reviewed the rule again and am unsure of something...

Does the prepositional phrase "in that movement phase" modify 'passengers embarking' or 'vehicles moving flat out'?

You interpret it as the former Kyrolon. I.E. (Rule happens) in the movement phase, IF the vehicle moves flat out.

I'm not sure the latter isn't just as good an interpretation. (Rule happens), IF the vehicle moves flat out in that movement phase.

And it fits the writing of the sentence a bit better since you don't have to move words around.

But this phrasing also contradicts 90% of the rules regarding vehicles, because it says if a unit ever rides on a transport that moves flat out even one time, the unit can't ever get out of the transport.

Either way, once again, we are trying to stretch RaW to match our perceptions because the RaW is internally contradictory.

Kyrolon · by **Kyrolon** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:35 pm

Actually, Gymbol, I don't think it comes down to parsing the sentence as much as it does which rule is more specific.

Rule A: When a vehicle moves flat out the troops may not disembark in that movement phase. (since this is the only time troops can voluntarily disembark).

Rule B: When a vehicle is destroyed troops that cannot get out but could otherwise be placed can get out.

Which one is the priority? Are models restricted under Rule A the same as models unable to disembark because of blocked access points? The ruling that Tim quoted above seems to say that no, troops that can't disembark are not the same. However, as I stated above, I think the wraithguard a just a little more restricted than a normal unit.

It all comes down to this interpretation, and indeed whether you even find contradiction at all. Many people don't. So...when it comes down to the tactic you've developed, if you try it in competitive play, be prepared to have the troops die in the ramming attempt, because that is how many people play it, and how many tournament organizers will probably rule on it.