Night Shields effectiveness

lessthanjeff wrote:

Fair enough with the modeling stuff though.  I'll ask the players before I try to make anything.  I was envisioning a dropped barrier similar in appearance to those hand fans that would spike into the ground and I'll see if they're ok with me adding half an inch or so to the height but cutting out several lengths to keep the surface area the same.

As an opponent I would not be OK with this. Making the barrier able to cover vehicles is fine, but you're turning a 4+ cover for infantry into Line of Sight blocking terrain for infantry. That is HUGE.

Also, the OCD in me just has to point out;

It's a 16.666% increase to the Jink.
All the 17% talk is starting to curl my toes.

MyNameDidntFit wrote:

As an opponent I would not be OK with this. Making the barrier able to cover vehicles is fine, but you're turning a 4+ cover for infantry into Line of Sight blocking terrain for infantry. That is HUGE.

I wouldn't make it block LOS before if it didn't already nor do I have any desire to use it as such. I could easily put gaps and such in the barriers to permit shooting through. If that was what I wanted then there are plenty of other similarly priced fortifications that do the same thing.

I don't think the height to get a cover save for the ravager would make it stand taller than my infantry but I'd check just in case. If it is then I'd keep looking at whether my ravager can see over a bunker or if I'd need to trim those battlements down somehow.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Aren't the results an added 17% chance to save the vehicle?

Read the math and explanation in the spreadsheed I posted and subsequent comments. It is not as simple as saying "NS adds a fixed percentage to save the vehicle".

TBH I have never had an issue of jinking with my Ravagers. I just jink if it is needed. I really dont think that Ravagers have to shoot every turn to make a huge impact on the game. If I jink, I redeploy them. Something like "You made my ravager jink, Jim? Okay, now you have one behind your lines. Next turn you WILL expose your back or side armour to one of them." I lost one turn of shooting to make a kill next turn. Sometimes I do this even without jinking.

lessthanjeff wrote:

Getting night shields on them and putting them near mysterious objectives also gives you a pretty good chance to get that cover save to a 2+ without jinking now.  The games I've gotten that, my opponents have been completely unable to displace my ravagers.

I usually dont put anything on objectives before T4 or 5 so dont really know that issue either. Trying to grab objectives T1-3 limits your movement, usually spreads your army and goes against the two important DE tactic elements - focus and outrange. And puts you in harm's way. Let your enemy spread his forces and engage it in parts. And T4 or 5 my Ravagers are either gone or damaged so in no shape of grabbing objectives. And its not their role really.

lessthanjeff wrote:

I'll see if they're ok with me adding half an inch or so to the height but cutting out several lengths to keep the surface area the same.

If your club is OK with it... well go ahead, but pardon me, but I have to say that you would get sooo "that guy" label in my club for even asking this kind of question. Aegis is aegis. Period. Not shorter, not higher. There is a good reason for these dimensions. It was made to be infantry wall. I tried to hint this before, but frankly, what you are trying to pull would be considered cheating here.

Anyway. If you ever considered going on a tournament. I suggest you stop trying to modify anything and learn to play with standard stuff. I doubt this modified aegis would ever be accepted on any tourney. And you absolutely do not need it to win! You are willing to spend a considerable thought and effort on this instead of modifying your list build, strategy and tactics? Not a good investment IMHO. I would rather go and grab some games and playtest my builds.

aurynn wrote:

If your club is OK with it... well go ahead, but pardon me, but I have to say that you would get sooo "that guy" label in my club for even asking this kind of question. Aegis is aegis. Period. Not shorter, not higher. There is a good reason for these dimensions. It was made to be infantry wall. I tried to hint this before, but frankly, what you are trying to pull would be considered cheating here.

Anyway. If you ever considered going on a tournament. I suggest you stop trying to modify anything and learn to play with standard stuff. I doubt this modified aegis would ever be accepted on any tourney. And you absolutely do not need it to win! You are willing to spend a considerable thought and effort on this instead of modifying your list build, strategy and tactics? Not a good investment IMHO. I would rather go and grab some games and playtest my builds.

But that's why I kept asking you if you thought all the dimensions of fortifications are absolute. If that's the general consensus from people, I won't do it. But like I said before, don't the heights of models vary dramatically? Don't people bring buildings of various sizes to use as bunkers and void shield generators at your club?

I don't need it to win, in general I play a different list every week and I've been very successful. What I don't like is feeling blocked out of options because I like to vary things so much. One thing I'd like to be able to do is purchase a fortification (any of them really) to give cover to my vehicles because I feel like that's the entire point of them, to protect your army. Nobody bats an eye at a predator tank or hammerhead behind an aegis getting a cover save, and I don't think there was an intention behind making the ravager at a height where it can't do the same.

Well nobody bats an eye because they are standard models. Do not search for intentions. LOS rules are clear and models are done and set. Ravagers and Tanks alike. Ravager flies higher. It was made this way. Nobody will bat an eye that Ravager will probably laugh at tank behind aegis as from his angle at a shorter distance, there won't be 25% coverage. :-) Also hiding tank behind aegis isnt always advantageous. We had an incident when an Eldar player was denied ShuriCannon shooting from his tank behind Aegis as the gun is on the bottom of the Tank - No LOS. Or Predator sponsons having a no-LOS angle at the heightened sections. We started using laser pointers for this so its quite precise. Love those facepalms... :-)

And as to your question - no, nobody brings non-original or very precise conversions to our club to use as a "in-the-list fortification".

lessthanjeff wrote:

But that's why I kept asking you if you thought all the dimensions of fortifications are absolute.  If that's the general consensus from people, I won't do it.

It is the general consensus that dimensions of fortifications are absolute. If something was literal millimeters off, that you could barely see with the naked eye, people may not have a problem with it. But dimensions need to be right for there to be any hope at all of being able to use it competitively.

lessthanjeff wrote:

 But like I said before, don't the heights of models vary dramatically?  Don't people bring buildings of various sizes to use as bunkers and void shield generators at your club?

No, the heights of fortifications are all the same. Every Bastion is the same height. Every Aegis. Every Void Shield generator.

The exception to this rule is when GW releases rules for a fortification, but doesn't immediately release a model for it, as happened with the void shield generator. In that case, people just had to make what they considered a reasonable model. Some TOs allowed it, others didn't. But one thing was universal: When GW came out with an official model, 99.99% of those conversions became illegal, because they weren't the right dimensions.

Some people might be ok on a local level with using those conversions in a local, friendly game. But I wouldn't ever try to use it with a complete stranger. I might work the conversion into a conversation with my opponent while playing a game, telling them the story of me making it, and it subsequently becoming useless, but being a good conversion, etc. And my opponent MAY say, "Well hey, why don't you try using it next time? Just friendly games anyhow!"

In a case like that, it's fine. But it's never something you should depend on, and with things like the Aegis, which have always had a model, there is no excuse to have one that isn't the right dimensions. We've always known what those dimenstions are SUPPOSED to be.

Bah, ah well. Thanks guys. It's probably a consequence of me being too permissive of a player. I'm the guy who said "Transcendent C'tan in a 1250 game? Sure why not!", "Three heldrakes in a 1000 point match? Alright, let's do this.", "Cardboard box with the words 'Voidshield Generator' written on the side? Sounds reasonable enough", and "So that robocop action figure is actually a dreadnought? Well alright then, I'm ready".

I do like using very different lists every game and I wish I could find a fortification that would actually give effective cover to my ravagers to make some different lists, but I guess they'll just stay on my shelf instead. I'll save the aegis for my chaos, space wolves, and tau armies I suppose.

Back on the topic more then, the only thing I'll probably give nightshields to are the super expensive wwp units I make with blasterborn, fire dragons, or medusae loaded up that I still want to be able to move around the battlefield quickly after deepstriking and don't care about jinking on.

Well you are talking about friendly games, no? Perhaps your mates will be OK with it.

But 3 helldrakes in a 1000pt list is just cheese. Nothing against the rules, no? Dont know about C'tan though.

Nah, all of those but the robocop dreadnought one happened in a tournament. To me, it's a game. It's a game I'm really good at, but it's still a game so I don't mind people doing that stuff to add variety. I just hate using the same things multiple times. Plus, I like the challenge of having to overcome something different, and the owner has been joking about putting me at a handicap so I have less points to spend than everyone else.

Not everything you model has to be a purchaseable thing. When you're talking about playing at your local game store, you can always model normal terrain like trees, walls, ruins, etc.

Then get more involved in the game scene/setup. Set up a nice gaming table that HAS terrain, walls and such on it. I always find flat tables boring to play on anyhow. With terrain, you don't have to worry about dimensions.

That is a good idea and might work for some of our free play weekends. The tournaments always have the terrain and tables all set up though and starting from the lowest ranked player they get to choose opponent and table so I haven't been getting choices on anything. Since the tables are usually varied in terms of amount of LOS blocking terrain and forests or ruins, I don't like counting on the cover save I'll have in a game. In general I don't take risks, so if I can't expect ruins then I won't bring a ravager.

lessthanjeff wrote:

That is a good idea and might work for some of our free play weekends.  The tournaments always have the terrain and tables all set up though and starting from the lowest ranked player they get to choose opponent and table so I haven't been getting choices on anything.  Since the tables are usually varied in terms of amount of LOS blocking terrain and forests or ruins, I don't like counting on the cover save I'll have in a game.  In general I don't take risks, so if I can't expect ruins then I won't bring a ravager.

Well, alternatively, you can do what someone else mentioned, and pay 55 points to use a raider as mobile cover for your ravagers. Park your raider sideways in front of a couple ravagers to give them 5+, or 4+ with night shields, without them having to jink.

Then, on your turn, you move the raider out of the way, fire with your ravagers, then flat-out your raider back to give them cover again. It's basically the same cost as an aegis, except it's mobile, destructable, and 1 lower cover save, BUT it DOES work for vehicles!

I have done that a couple times, but I tend to run things in pairs so that would mean two dedicated raiders just for cover. The bigger draw for getting a fortification for me is the comms relay and quad guns though, but I'm having a hard time justifying the costs for those unless I can also take advantage of the cover they give. For now, it seems I'll be continuing to ally eldar for an autarch.

I don't exactly think ravagers are bad now, but I think there are better options for those points. What would make me tempted to use them again would be sitting them in 2+ or 3+ cover pretty consistently. I can still get that sometimes now, but not consistently enough to want to put them in my lists over a razorwing for anti-infantry or scourges for anti-armor.

Thor665 wrote:

Also, the OCD in me just has to point out;

It's a 16.666% increase to the Jink.
All the 17% talk is starting to curl my toes.

And, suddenly, you have my eyes twitching: truncating is horrible!

If you're going for a recurring 6, it's 16.(6)%*.
If you're going for 3 decimal places, it's 16.667%.

*you could also use 16.666...% or faff about finding a recurring period symbol.

... yes, um, I'll just go then...

>.>

lessthanjeff wrote:

I wouldn't make it block LOS before if it didn't already nor do I have any desire to use it as such. I could easily put gaps and such in the barriers to permit shooting through.  If that was what I wanted then there are plenty of other similarly priced fortifications that do the same thing.

I don't think the height to get a cover save for the ravager would make it stand taller than my infantry but I'd check just in case.  If it is then I'd keep looking at whether my ravager can see over a bunker or if I'd need to trim those battlements down somehow.

Definitely something to be careful of, regardless of your intentions, as even the standard GW Aegis blocks line of sight to some infantry (namely any crouching/lying models such as IG Heavy Weapon Teams) with it's higher parts.

Truncating is understood though.

How about 1/6? That's mathematically specific and more accurately represents the dice roll 'in game' anyway...
Or am I just being facetious...

Thor665 wrote:

Also, the OCD in me just has to point out;

It's a 16.666% increase to the Jink.
All the 17% talk is starting to curl my toes.

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/howcan1.htm

A fun article I read on my dreaded topic of maths!

TLDR:16.6666% is the same as 16.7%.

Anywho, 17% is a bit of a mathematical leap, and rounding up on statistics this small could definitely show negative effect on the survey. Anyways, turning Fractions into Decimals just confuses everyone. 1/6th. No crazy decimal numbers with infinitive decimals!

Aschen wrote:

TLDR:16.6666% is the same as 16.7%.

Well...no, it's not.
That said, I wouldn't have been bothered by a 16.7% commentary.
I was by a 17% commentary.

To bring it away from the maths, I did a little playtest yesterday against an Ork shooty list. I went for a gunboat and venom list. All the raiders had the 10 warriors in and a blaster. The difference was that half the raiders had nightshields and the other half hadn't. What I found was this.

The boats with the Nightshields lasted a lot longer and the units inside dealt out more damage. The 4+ jink was still good though, but the raiders with the NS lasted a good two turns longer and were more effective (there was 6 Raiders on the board). Now this could come down to the rolls on the day admittedly but it genuinely felt like it helped. So for Gunboats, I would say they certainly are effective. I would be tempted to try it with an assault list next time.

Granted its only against Orks but it gave an interesting insight in my opinion!

If I should choose to shoot on a raider with 10 warriors with a nightshield or a raider with 10 warriors without a nightshield, I would rather spend my bullets on the target without nightshields first. Thus, the raider with nightshields would survive longer anyway.

When he was picking targets he did not know which had NS and which didn't. We operated an honesty policy on my behalf to keep it a semi controlled experiment (this is a good friend of mine who is happy to play along with my whimsy)

Personally, I won't be bringing Night Shields on any of my vehicles this edition. My reasoning is fairly simple: I either don't care about the vehicle, or the vehicle needs to be shooting. I'll expand, unit by unit.

Raider: The only vehicle I would consider running it on. Useful for Gunboats, but it means you are creeping your price even further up. Useful for Grot, Wych or Incubi transports. Otherwise, Raiders are usually expendable enough for it to not be worth the expenditure.

Razorwing: This thing needs to be shooting, so getting an upgrade that's only useful when it's hampering it's shooting seems counter productive.

Ravager: Same as above. A bit more incentive if using cover, but you'll be adding more points to a model that is already a bit points heavy for it's effectiveness.

Void Raven: Same problem as the Razorwing, further compounded by the Voidravens hefty pricetag.

TL;DR I wouldn't bother unless it's on a gunboat raider or assault raider.

Thor665 wrote:

Aschen wrote:

TLDR:16.6666% is the same as 16.7%.

Well...no, it's not.
That said, I wouldn't have been bothered by a 16.7% commentary.
I was by a 17% commentary.

Interesting. I was actually bothered more that people were saying the difference between not having night shields and jinking and having them and jinking was just 16%. Since people were already rounding the number, that's why I changed it to what it should actually be rounded to.

Interesting, I was actually bothered more that people thought that the difference is anywhere near 16,67%. :-D