fluger

Maybe it is me, but every link is for the hydras...

Hmmm, I think we shouldn't read to much into this.  Considering how the Escalation/SA stuff got moved around.  

I know Razorbacks are so last edition. Ineffective and easily killed, but it is always an.option.

I love the plasma gun/lascannon ten man tactical squad in a TL Plas/las back. Combat squad the las plas into five , then the five bolters.go in ride to score.

I really don't think it is all that bad.  250 pts for that is pretty decent.  Covers a lot of bases and is pretty durable overall.  First blood is an issue, of course, but that's true of a lot of builds.  

Also, if you are going whole-hog on SA rules, you can literally have both the aegis and the firestorm or wall of martyrs bunker (good suggestion, AP!).  

Now make sandbags!  I have yet to see good sandbags.  

Yeah, next time take the video on the side.  I haven't watched it all yet.  Got distracted by chil'ens.  

I've been running 2 squads of HB and a squad of Lascannons (all w/ imperial fist tactics), and have been having a lot of fun with it. Adding a 55 pt. Divination inquisitor in the mix make the lascannon squad pretty good for taking down flyers and (most) armor, and 24 HB shots will do quite a bit of damage to most things in the game.

I like this a lot for Imp Fist because you get to re-roll the 1s on the HBs and they have tank hunter so they are pretty good at taking out lighter vehicles.  

The lascannons obviously work really well as well.  

To Mr More Tanks' question:  I think there is a place for Devs compared to TFCs, but not often.  I suspect one could get more mileage out of tacticals split up with Razorbacks and then TFCs in the HS slots.  

Something like 4 10-man tacticals, with 4 lascannons, and 4 las/plas Razors.  TFCs cover light vehicle/infantry killing duty and the tactical lascannons and the razors help with anti-tank.  

That purple looks amazing! I have serious troubles with purple for some reason but yours looks sooo good...

I hate you in the best way possible;)

What's really crazy is that these pictures don't even really do it justice.  He also has entire units with those skull cloaks.  

Some people took millions of shipping logs from the 18th and 19th centuries and plotted them.  

YAY!  More skull cloaks!

LOOKS GREAT!!!

Those look great!  

YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES.

THE INTERNET IS SAVED!

However from a spirit of the game standpoint I still think I have it right. I see it as an abuse, but it doesn't follow that it is by nessesity being abused just because that is my viewpoint. /shrug

That's why RAI arguments are futile, because *I* think that by the spirit of the game *I* have it right.  There is no winner here.  I think the wording is incredibly vague for this instance, and therefore it would come down to personal feelings.  

Also, back to fluff rationales, there are plenty of blast weapons in modern arsenals (heck, even in older ones) in which things explode at a distance to target and not on impact.  

Pinwheel Mirror

What scale rail is that?  

I don't see it. Its one shell that is exploding Fluger, and the only reason it does multiple hits is because of that explosion. The void shield prevents it from reaching those targets. An assault cannon, sure it fires three separate rounds. A missile is a missle though. It seems kinda plain to me. /shrug

Why wouldn't it explode on contact, then the force knocks it offline and the residual blast hits the people in cover?  

Also, I think WestRider hit the nail on the head in terms of how shooting attacks are resolved.  Technically, all the shots from one unit to another unit would be part of one shooting attack, therefore it would be all or nothing.  Meaning, that an autocannon that fires and hits the target unit twice would only get to resolve those shots against the shield in your version, not getting a chance to break through on the first and then resolving the wound on the unit with the second.  

In any game you have the rules, and you have the spirit of the rules, that is true in any legal dealing. 

IMO, the spirit of this rule is to get more than one hit with this.  As RCNjack is saying (though I don't think this is his argument) weapons with multiple shots get to try multiple times, I don't see the disconnect here between that and the blast markers.  

 

Any shooting attack that originates from outside a Void Shield Zone and hits a target within the Void Shield Zone instead hits the projected void shield.

That's the rule as written in SA.  

I think the single hit can be interpreted from that, I also think that the multi-hit can be interpreted from that.  

Here is an example of a rules interaction that seems implied to me. The idea that the shield takes x number of hits is ridiculous. Some folks are absurd legalists who spit at the spirit of the game by trying to split hairs.

I think it should take x number of hits.  Not because I'm beholden to rules lawyering, but because I think that makes the most sense. 

My fluff justification, and one that I think is solid, is that the blast area stresses a shield out more than a single point because it is over a wider area.  Therefore a blast of enough strength to say, blow up 3 tanks in one shot (demolisher cannon) should probably have enough force to cause a shield to collapse 3 or more times.  

My rules justification is that I think that that is how it is worded.

My logical justification is that a shield generator is only, what, 50 pts?  What do you want for 50 points?  

I'll watch this when I get home! 

If you are using the Stronghold Assault rules, I think a Firestorm Redoubt with the magos upgrade for BS3 would be awesome.  The improved rules for it are great too since you can have 6 models fire out of it's firepoint to the front.  Makes for a great place to hide some lootas both inside and out and then you can also hide lobbas behind it.  All told, it is 230 pts in that configuration, but gives you solid anti-air and some much needed AP2 S9 shooting (even if it has to use crappy automated fire rules).  

This is pure speculation though.