Night Shields effectiveness

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I, being the type of guy who looks for the cheese available in any given ruling, would be happy to follow that ruling, as it would also mean that our transports don't ever mishap when deep striking.

If I wanted to argue that I would note that deployment from reserves and deployment at game start are also two differently worded happenings.

The thing is, it's really just sloppy writing, because there's actually nothing preventing illegal model placement during game start deployment. You could, theoretically, deploy out of coherency if you were so inclined, or could deploy models stacked on top of models.

I suspect no TO worth his salt would allow any of that though, and few friendly gamers would support it either.

[quote="Thor665"]

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The thing is, it's really just sloppy writing, because there's actually nothing preventing illegal model placement during game start deployment. You could, theoretically, deploy out of coherency if you were so inclined, or could deploy models stacked on top of models.

I suspect no TO worth his salt would allow any of that though, and few friendly gamers would support it either.

The OTHER thing is, there really wouldn't be anything in the fluff preventing such walls from being used, though. I mean, if you're going to build 12x12 surface area of wall to protect stuff in your army, there isn't really any logical reason not to make the wall taller if that is what is needed to protect what you're trying to protect. And rules-wise, I believe the rules for the aegis simply say the sections have to be touching. One on top of the other is touching.

Sometimes common sense should be employed. I don't personally like trying to manipulate the rules for a benefit. I imagine that stacking stuff on top of each other for example is a bit silly and clearly not what they are designed for. Its the same with the DS never misshap with skimmers. I wouldn't claim that I could never misshap because if that. Seems very cheap to me! If GW have any sense they will clear that up in a proper FaQ, same with ramming off deepstrike although I personally love the idea!

Is it worthy take NS on a Voidraven? Please dont answer question if is worthy take VR itself, i have the model, i might as well use it.

Looks like we can drop its bomb after Jinking.

Do you guys not like the idea of stacking aegis pieces because it unfairly makes the wall higher? If that's the source of the issue, then I don't think many players would like me making a slightly taller version of the aegis so it could cover my ravagers and venoms. It would pretty well mimic what I'm thinking about by making the wall taller but not as long but it walks the line of modeling for advantage that I don't want to do to others.

I really like theburningeye's suggestion of piling bodies and other spikey bits on the base or on top of the walls to dark eldar it up.

@lessthanjeff
I think tailoring a piece of terrain to suit your purpose and trying to use it in the game is as bad as making stems on flying bases shorter just to help covering your vehicles. The army is perfectly playable without such shenanigans. I believe that time invested in devising interesting strategies and tactics is better spent than "conditioning" the game environment.

@Azdrubael
I wouldnt take it on Voidraven. Not expensive enough and/or tactically advantageous enough unit.

aurynn wrote:

@lessthanjeff
I think tailoring a piece of terrain to suit your purpose and trying to use it in the game is as bad as making stems on flying bases shorter just to help covering your vehicles. The army is perfectly playable without such shenanigans. I believe that time invested in devising interesting strategies and tactics is better spent than "conditioning" the game environment.

@Azdrubael
I wouldnt take it on Voidraven. Not expensive enough and/or tactically advantageous enough unit.

I agree that I don't want people to think I'm looking for an unfair advantage, but I think the line between customizing pieces and modeling for advantage can be blurry on a lot of topics. Lots of players make their own void shield generators, for example, do you consider it shennanigans when they don't use the exact dimensions of the limited release model that games workshop put out (or for any other fortification)? Reaver jetbikes and tau drones also come with two different height bases, is it modeling for advantage to only use the shorter ones?

What I would want to get an idea of is if people consider the dimensions on the aegis defense line absolute and that if any other army were trying to make a custom one to fit their character if it would be considered tacky.

I dont think that few milimetres bother anyone. I have a Dark Eldar aegis in my mind and ofc it won't be 100% precise, but I will make sure that if there is any discussion as to what my aegis covers, I would consider it having precise dimension of the original aegis. Discounting the spikes and extra stuff. Footprint dimensions should be precise though.

As for shield generators. It is understandable that something that has limited sale quantity will get converted. Although any converted model of such influence should be agreed between the players prior to the game IMHO.

I have only one length of stems on Hellions and Reavers. So havent faced that issue. But... If I had seen Ravager on a Wave Serpent stem, I would be interested to hear an explanation and if it is "to better hide in cover" is not a good one.

Perhaps it is just a difference in how I perceive the units then. I see a lot of the heights of models (and dimensions of fortifications too) as approximations because I imagine on the battlefield them maneuvering in such a way to maximize cover. I would also expect an army setting up defenses to take into account how high a barrier needs to be to protect their vehicles and then balance it out in game by making sure I only cover the same surface area. The other thing I'm still trying to find is a built bunker to see if my ravager's guns can see over that or if it would have to be a custom job again to get the heights right by trimming down the battlements or something.

There can be big differences between models especially when you look at old and new ones. My old scourges are low to the ground and hunched over a bit and much better at hiding in cover than the newer models which stretch up high. I believe both are perfectly legal and acceptable in games though even though there are advantages to both.

I would recommend asking your local Tourney Organizer what would pass in competitive environment. That is a good guide. Anything considered unfair on a tourney I wouldnt try to play.

Models are issued by the game developer. That is a different thing.

But as I said... why spend time trying to find a bunker that would give your ravager 1 pt better cover than a forest? The actual effectiveness of that +1 is the same as illustrated in the NS mathhammer - negligible. Ravagers need that +1 even less than Raiders.

And do not try bringing realism into fortification design. There is only one aegis - the original one. That is the rule of the game.

And DE vehicles behind fortifications? The entire idea of fortifications with DE is very unfluffy IMHO.

Azdrubael wrote:

Is it worthy take NS on a Voidraven? Please dont answer question if is worthy take VR itself, i have the model, i might as well use it.

I would say NS have a higher value to flyers as they cannot otherwise get cover and thus are more likely to jink.

Azdrubael wrote:

Looks like we can drop its bomb after Jinking.

I would disagree, the rules are very clear that a bomb is a shooting weapon, and a shooting weapon makes shooting attacks. With that in mind - since it is a blast weapon, you cannot use it after jinking.

Where do you read that?

Okay...there will be a lot of references here, because GW writes badly put together books
So just bear with me, I'm going to hit all the salient points.

Page 40, weapons.

Under the paragraph labeled 'weapon profiles' it establishes what makes something a weapon. By this ruling we know a void mine is a 'weapon'.

Under the paragraph labeled 'Type' is where it establishes that a shooting weapon has the type 'bomb' and also (at the end of the paragraph) that a shooting weapon can only make shooting attacks.

It then says that the other type of weapon is melee - making a weapon either melee type or shooting type.

A void mine is thus a 'shooting type' weapon and must make a shooting attack to be used.

Page 167 'Jink' [em] - they can only fire snap shots until the *end* of their next turn.
So, if you Jink it will affect your entire next turn, which means it is in effect during all phases of the player turn. This includes the movement phase.

Page 42 'Bomb' - this establishes that bombs are a weapon (and as a weapon they are either shooting or melee type) and can be used with a bombing run during the movement phase.

Page 158 'Blast Weapons and Snap Shots' - Blast weapons cannot be fired as snap shots.

Codex Dark Eldar.
Page 106 'Void Mine'
Its weapon profile lists it as a Bomb and Blast weapon. Therefore it is a shooting weapon, and also cannot be snap fired.

Make sense?

Way to complicated.
Also there is no indication that there are only 2 weapon types. And last the Bomb is no blast weapon as it does not follow a single rule from the "blast" USR (Only D6 scatter, no BF reduction, used in movement phase).
A good example of a "special" type would be Vector strike. It is no shooting attack and no melee attack.
Bomb is also neither. It does not qualify for shooting (movement phase, no BF involved, can be aimed at another target) and is no melee attack either.
And there is this:

Quote :

Bombs are weapon types unique to Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures.

So Type is not melee or ranged but "Bomb".

Also the "bombing run" is a special kind of attack. So no shooting nor melee attack either.

Quote :

Unlike other weapons, Bombs must be used in the Movement phase of their turn, in a special kind of attack called a Bombing Run.

Isn't it counted as one of the shooting attacks the flyer makes in 1 round? Against the max weapons shots?

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Way to complicated.

Not my fault

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Also there is no indication that there are only 2 weapon types.

Well, sort of correct. Basically the book says there are a number of types that qualify as shooting and a single type that qualifies as Melee.
That said, a weapon is either melee or shooting - there is no other weapon option offered.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

And last the Bomb is no blast weapon as it does not follow a single rule from the "blast" USR (Only D6 scatter, no BF reduction, used in movement phase).

Incorrect - it has the Blast rule and follows many of the rules with some specific exceptions due to also having the Bomb rule. This is noted on Page 41, BRB 'Special Rules'

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

A good example of a "special" type would be Vector strike. It is no shooting attack and no melee attack.

Correct - which is why it is not listed as a weapon and also lacks a weapon profile.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Bomb is also neither. It does not qualify for shooting (movement phase, no BF involved, can be aimed at another target) and is no melee attack either.

I see no reason to support this logic. Being activated in the shooting phase is not a prerequisite to being a shooting weapon.
I don't know what BF is.
I agree it can be aimed at another target, so can many other shooting attacks, this does not prevent them from being shooting attacks.
I agree it is not a melee type weapon.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Quote :

Bombs are weapon types unique to Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures.

So Type is not melee or ranged but "Bomb".

I think you misunderstand what Page 40 is saying.
Page 40 is *defining* what the 'type' heading in the weapon profile means.
I will agree Bomb is a type.
So is Ordinance.
So is Primary Weapon.

That said, Page 40 specifies that weapons with that type are shooting weapons.
And that shooting weapons make shooting attacks.

Make sense?

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Also the "bombing run" is a special kind of attack. So no shooting nor melee attack either.

The bombing run is the method of the shooting attack made with a bomb type weapon.
It still has a profile.
The profile has a type.
The type is classified as a 'shooting weapon'.
All shooting weapons make shooting attacks and therefore the rules for snap fire apply.

Quote :

Isn't it counted as one of the shooting attacks the flyer makes in 1 round? Against the max weapons shots?

So does Vector strike.

Quote :

Correct - which is why it is not listed as a weapon and also lacks a weapon profile.

It has none because it needs none. Its always the same AP2 and the same S as the model. It cant vary in size, S, AP.
Also the bomb rule mentions nothing of shooting attack. If you have to look up 4 different pages and make an assumption, its more often than not too complicated and thus not intended.
Nova powers also have weapon profiles and are no shooting attacks for example.

aurynn wrote:

I dont think that few milimetres bother anyone.

I would agree with this, but generally speaking, if making a custom fortification, the dimensions should be very, very close to the original. If it's slightly off because of angles, arches, or other decor, that's acceptable, so long as you're willing to play the game as if it's exactly the same dimensions as the original. (ie, if it's a centimeter too tall, pretend it's not for LoS and cover purposes.) Anything else would be modeling for advantage.

On the other hand, if you are simply using the GW model, but placing them in such a manner that would provide cover to a vehicle(ie, Stacked on top of each other), I wouldn't see anything wrong with that unless someone could produce a rule saying that isn't allowed.

aurynn wrote:

The actual effectiveness of that +1 is the same as illustrated in the NS mathhammer - negligible.

3+ instead of 4+ isn't negligible. It's 1/2 vs. 1/3. It's 66% vs. 50%. It makes a difference.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

It has none because it needs none. Its always the same AP2 and the same S as the model. It cant vary in size, S, AP.

Whether or not it needs one, by lacking one it is not classified as a weapon per the rules which makes it different from the 'Bomb' weapon, which is, thus making comparisons between the two non-valid for proving a point.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Also the bomb rule mentions nothing of shooting attack.

Correct, the type explanation does. For the record, pistol weapons also do not claim that they make shooting attacks. Yet they do, because they are classed as shooting weapons in the same way bombs are.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

If you have to look up 4 different pages and make an assumption, its more often than not too complicated and thus not intended.

To make the Bomb a shooting attack you only need to look at one page and make no assumptions.
To find out how it interacts with Jink, and how Jink interacts with Blast, and what type of weapon a Void Mine is you do need to look at 4 different locations in the rulebook. That does not prevent it from being the rule, however.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Nova powers also have weapon profiles and are no shooting attacks for example.

That is incorrect, per page 27 "Witchfire" it defines all psychic witchfire powers as shooting attacks. Nova has some specific exceptions, but is a shooting attack.

Quote :

Nova has some specific exceptions, but is a shooting attack.

As does the bomb by beeing a special type of attack (called Bombing Run) in the movement phase with special rules and restrictions.


I guess we have do disagree here. With the same reasoning you could prevent Vector Strikes too as the Jink rule clearly states that you cant use weapons that dont need a to hit roll either.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

Quote :

Nova has some specific exceptions, but is a shooting attack.

As does the bomb by beeing a special type of attack (called Bombing Run) in the movement phase with special rules and restrictions.

I do not follow the point you are making here.
The specific exceptions for Nova do not fail to make it a shooting attack.
The same applies to the Bomb type shooting weapon.

Klaivex Charondyr wrote:

I guess we have do disagree here. With the same reasoning you could prevent Vector Strikes too as the Jink rule clearly states that you cant use weapons that dont need a to hit roll either.

Since Vector Strikes are not a weapon, I would not use that reasoning.
That is like suggesting Jink would prohibit Run moves. Just because something uses up your ability to make a shooting attack does not, in turn, prove it is a shooting attack.

Also, there is no restriction to using weapons that don't need a 'to hit' roll.
The restriction is to shooting attacks that do not use the ballistic skill of the model. (as an example, a flamer)
There is no restriction to a Vector Strike as it is not a shooting attack.
There would be multiple restrictions to Bomb weapons, because they are.

aurynn wrote:

Models are issued by the game developer. That is a different thing.

But as I said... why spend time trying to find a bunker that would give your ravager 1 pt better cover than a forest? The actual effectiveness of that +1 is the same as illustrated in the NS mathhammer - negligible. Ravagers need that +1 even less than Raiders.

And do not try bringing realism into fortification design. There is only one aegis - the original one. That is the rule of the game.

And DE vehicles behind fortifications? The entire idea of fortifications with DE is very unfluffy IMHO.

There are models for the buildings, but I've found fortifications to be the one thing that varies the most in the game in terms of dimensions. That's why I was asking if you consider the rules on the dimensions of bunkers, aegies defense lines, and void shield generators absolutes. I know a lot of people who tend to make their own fortifications of varying sizes and that seems to be a generally accepted practice that there could conceivably be more than one specific defensive barrier or small building constructed to protect its soldiers in the world of 40k.

To the point of saying ravagers don't need the cover as much, I'd disagree. I think the raider needs the cover less because for me its primary role is to get its occupants around the field faster and protect them, not for its own firepower. When I field a ravager, the last thing I want to have to do is jink with it because I need its guns to fire at full effect. It also has less need to move around the battlefield and is better suited to setting up behind cover and staying in close proximity to it.

I wasn't trying to bring in realism to fortification design either, I was trying to make the parallel that even within models in the game there are lots of varying heights and sizes and even though those things can affect elements of the game I don't find people consider them unbalanced.

Fluff-wise, one thing I wanted to try to make was a large spike that could be dropped from an airship to install itself in the ground and set up a void shield wherever it was needed. I thought the idea would actually work pretty well with Dark Eldar as they storm in on a lightning raid. I think there are ways to make fluffy fortifications for Dark Eldar like that, I just don't think the stock fortifications designed for space marines are them.

lessthanjeff wrote:

To the point of saying ravagers don't need the cover as much, I'd disagree.  I think the raider needs the cover less because for me its primary role is to get its occupants around the field faster and protect them, not for its own firepower.  When I field a ravager, the last thing I want to have to do is jink with it because I need its guns to fire at full effect.  It also has less need to move around the battlefield and is better suited to setting up behind cover and staying in close proximity to it.

All I am saying is that +1 does not give you anything close to an extra protection from the statistic point of view. It has even less effect on Ravager than on Raider while being pretty bad in the first place. Math and reasons explained earlier in the thread. But as discussed before, statistics is not the only consideration here.

Anyway. I like the idea of dropped shield installation. I toyed with the idea of dropped "aegis". Sort of automated jet-powered armoured drones that hit the ground head-on and have the exact footprint of an aegis.

As BetrayTheWorld said, you really should keep within very very small marginof difference to official models. It is fair to your opponent. I have seen a picture of someone's wraithknight modelled so it is laying on the ground in sniper position so it can better get cover. I guess noone would really like to play him... Modifying the fortifications by more than say 10% is getting into the realm of "those guys". :-)

The issue im seeing here is not NS versus Worth, its Can jink versus cant jink versus worth.

The nightshields make a small difference but are worth it if it helps a ravager not jink this is something we can all agree CANT jink (if it does you are out points you could have spent on 2 raiders instead potentially more effective this is an opinion)

Now raiders CAN jink if they are there for cargo transport, But CANT if they are your anti-armor.

So the thought here is can this add to my ability to survive? the answer is simple jinking is not a save it is a concession so that the enemy cant guarantee your vehicle is out of commission (this is  the reason i hate our flyers) Jinking is not and never will be an advantage until we have a BS 1 vehicle.

I can see why it doesnt sit right that the nightshield is the price it is. It does one thing i despise (point out our reliance on cover). if you fight anything with ignores cover with or without nightshields you are evenly screwed ( although the man who did not take them is at a slight advantage)

What im trying to ramble into my keyboard here is our only form of survival (for vehicles) is to agree that a 1/6 chance to hit the enemy is worth multiple 66% / 50% / 0% saves but also knowing failing a single save can destroy our vehicle.

I believe our cardboard boxes are too harshly armored at 10 all around with a 1/6th chance of exploding from anything stronger than a bolter. Im not saying more armor will fix it, it just seems that with the loss of our go to Flickerfields and nightshields being what they are now, we only have two options Jink and remove our shooting capability's or not jink and hope the enemy rolls bad (This being option B sucks).

And on top of that with all these changes every last one of our "ground" vehicles lost positioning and mobility. Making what should be the most maneuverable army Shoot and hope nothing fires back ( this assuming you have the first turn )


The problem isnt is improving my jink worth it but exactly where i can position this thing with nightshields so it does not have to jink Which is against the very concept of our army.

Sorry for the rant post its just these things give me mixed feelings i want to see them useful, but outside of cover they make a terrible situation less terrible and do not add to dark eldar army i started playing with.

Aren't the results an added 17% chance to save the vehicle? On a raider that's an expected value of saving 9.35 points so not worth it unless you fill it with an expensive unit, but on a dark lance ravager that's an expected value of saving 21.25 points so for a 15 point upgrade that does earn its keep.

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.

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.