Rules Q: Scout moves and fortifications

[AgentP]

A unit with the scout rule deploys in fortification.  Can the unit use its scout move to exit the building via an escape hatch?

[pretre]

You can't embark/disembark with scout moves. You just redeploy.

[WestRider]

Correct. No Embarkation or Debarkation. Note, however, that ALL Units in a Skitarii Maniple get Scout. As written, that includes the Fortification slot. And since Scout is now a Redeployment instead of a Move, they can actually take advantage of it.

[pretre]

Yep. So you can move your fort after you deploy. With them in it. Scout transfers to the embarked, right?

 

Here's the funny part though.

 

Escape hatch is placed when the building is first occupied and put 12" away. You redeploy the fort 12" in the opposite direction. There is no permission to move the escape hatch. The hatch is now 24" away.

[WestRider]

Yep. Scout transfers to anything embarked, but only transfers the other way to Dedicated Transports.

 

And I hadn't even thought about that with the Escape Hatch. I doubt I'd ever do it in the complete opposite direction, but I can definitely see ending up 18" away or so.

[pretre]

I just thought of it now. Blame AgentP.

[Frowbakk]

Must have a pneumatic tube system to get you there that fast...

[Guest]

Escape hatch is placed when the building is first occupied and put 12" away. You redeploy the fort 12" in the opposite direction. There is no permission to move the escape hatch. The hatch is now 24" away.

But can't assault out of the escape hatch, so it really isn't much different than a drop pod (often the cheaper route).

 

Still, this would be one of those reasons I think tyranids should be running fortifications.....

[pretre]

But can't assault out of the escape hatch, so it really isn't much different than a drop pod (often the cheaper route).

 

Still, this would be one of those reasons I think tyranids should be running fortifications.....

The difference from a drop pod is pretty drastic, it allows you to reliably own two objectives.

 

As for the second part, I really don't see it still, but that was covered in the other thread.

[Guest]

The difference from a drop pod is pretty drastic, it allows you to reliably own two objectives.

The escape hatch isn't part of the fortification for model purposes, so can't contest. Plus the building can't hold two objectives. But I suppose you mean a unit disembarks to hold that objective. This is true, but seems pretty limited. There is also a dirt cheap legacy to make the drop pod not scatter, which should make it cheaper than any fortification with escape hatch.

 

Though the more pressing issue is that the upgrade requires a building upgrade "slot" so it may limit your purchasing of void shields or other useful upgrades.

[pretre]

You'll notice I said own and not contest/hold. The implication is that you can reliably get those two objectives easily.

 

Drop pods are a bit easier to blow up than most forts, as well.

[Guest]

Drop pods are a bit easier to blow up than most forts, as well.

Kinda. I mean, yeah, of immobile vehicles, the one with less HP and AV is weaker. That said, with a lot of the dedicated AT weapons, it really doesn't make much difference since the target is immobile.

[AbusePuppy]

AV14 HP4 is pretty different from AV12 HP3. Or do you suddenly think Land Raiders are as vulnerable as Chimeras?

[fluger]

AV14 HP4 is pretty different from AV12 HP3. Or do you suddenly think Land Raiders are as vulnerable as Chimeras?

Also open topped...

[Guest]

Kinda. I mean, yeah, of immobile vehicles, the one with less HP and AV is weaker. That said, with a lot of the dedicated AT weapons, it really doesn't make much difference since the target is immobile.

Perhaps we disagree what a "dedicated AT weapon" is.

 

An autocannon or krak missile, is not a dedicated AT weapon. A lasgun, bolter, heavy bolter and so forth, not dedicated AT weapons. They are weapons that can sometimes pop tanks, especially lighter tanks, but they are not dedicated to that role.

 

A vanquisher cannon is a dedicated AT weapon. A melta gun too.

AV14 HP4 is pretty different from AV12 HP3. Or do you suddenly think Land Raiders are as vulnerable as Chimeras?

Against a squad with melta bombs (demo vets), the immobile LR and the immobile chimera are about the same vulnerability. Haywire grenades too. The LR is only 1 HP better than the drop pod against lance weapons, too.

 

Average roll on a single melta gun in melta range is 7 for armor pen. That's 15 for armor pen and +2 on the damage chart. A chimera and Land Raider are both ruined pretty easily against this weapon. I run land raiders a lot, most of time AV14 and 4 HP do not protect against dedicated AT weapons any more than a chimera is protected. That's why I invest in that force field generator and other upgrades to bolster the LR's defenses against dedicated AT weapons.

 

The strong point of the AV 14 LR vs the lower AV of the 12/10/10 chimera is its ability to ignore the non-AT weapons.

 

Anyway, topic was about buildings, not land raiders. Buildings are av12-15 with 3-5 HP. They are immobile.

 

The drop pod doesn't have to start on the table. For turn 1 alpha strike, the drop pod is more durable than the building because the drop pod is not on the table and cannot be shot at or charged. You can also place it after knowing where most of the opponent's army is and after their turn 1 deep strikers.

 

Yeah, drop pods will probably be alive at a later game turn than your building. This does depend on the player still, as treating the any unit as a disposable piece will certainly shorten it's expected lifespan.

 

Beyond that, I think the building damage table is harsher for the building (and embarked units) than the vehicle damage table.

[Guest]

Also open topped...

So, an interesting point in 7th.

 

Vehicle Damage chart: 1-3 shaken (snaps), 4 stunned (snaps), 5 weapon gone (but doesn't snap), 6 immobile (but doesn't snap) 7+ explodes (destroyed)

 

Bonuses to the damage chart actually don't really affect whether or not a vehicle will be useless next turn or not. Most of the time, I prefer 5-6 over any other damage result. 1-4 is crippling, as is 7+. Bonuses on the damage chart do not really sway my opinion of durability. Being forced to snap for a turn is often as devastating as being destroyed.

 

Plus a techmarine can repair HP loss, immobilization and destroyed weapons, but they can't un-snap your vehicle. Extra armor doesn't help either.

 

Mind you, if the vehicle is transporting something, has lots of TL non-blast weapons, is holding an objective, or is denying an objective by surviving, then the snapping is better than being destroyed.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

AV14 HP4 is pretty different from AV12 HP3. Or do you suddenly think Land Raiders are as vulnerable as Chimeras?

Don't forget open topped

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

So, an interesting point in 7th.

 

Vehicle Damage chart: 1-3 shaken (snaps), 4 stunned (snaps), 5 weapon gone (but doesn't snap), 6 immobile (but doesn't snap) 7+ explodes (destroyed)

 

Bonuses to the damage chart actually don't really affect whether or not a vehicle will be useless next turn or not. Most of the time, I prefer 5-6 over any other damage result. 1-4 is crippling, as is 7+. Bonuses on the damage chart do not really sway my opinion of durability. Being forced to snap for a turn is often as devastating as being destroyed.

 

Plus a techmarine can repair HP loss, immobilization and destroyed weapons, but they can't un-snap your vehicle. Extra armor doesn't help either.

 

Mind you, if the vehicle is transporting something, has lots of TL non-blast weapons, is holding an objective, or is denying an objective by surviving, then the snapping is better than being destroyed.

What? you make no sense. Bonuses to the chart don't sway your opinion but a result of 1-4 or 7+ you fear, well open topped bumps you up a 7+ result by 16%.

 

So you don't care about bonuses? So you don't care if the weapon is ap 2 or 1?

[Guest]

What? you make no sense. Bonuses to the chart don't sway your opinion but a result of 1-4 or 7+ you fear, well open topped bumps you up a 7+ result by 16%.

 

So you don't care about bonuses? So you don't care if the weapon is ap 2 or 1?

Did you read the posts, there's two together. They make more sense if you read them.

 

When fielding an AV14 vehicle, the biggest concern is getting penetrated. Regardless of the result on the damage table, the key thing is that if they can penetrate you once, they often do it again (and often in the same salvo).

 

On the damage table, 1-4 means you snap (a dramatic loss in offensive power). 5-6 don't really really impair you, as again, if you can be penetrated, it will likely happen again and soon. 7+ is destroyed, which is often the same dramatic loss in firepower. Or rather, a LR subject to snap is "bleeding out" while and exploded LR is "head shot."

 

So, in regards to fears, my LRs fear getting penetrated, but beyond that, explodes and shaken are often not much different. If you "only" shake the LR, chances are high you'll be hitting it again, probably that turn, until it dies.

 

The only damage table results which do not feature a dramatic loss in firepower, is the 5-6, which although you lose weapons and mobility, you don't lose nearly the firepower that you'd lose with snaps or explodes.

 

Oh, when I say dramatic loss in firepower, the LR is 250pts and shoots like 150pts of marines. Snap makes it roughly a quarter as accurate, so it starts shooting like about 37pts of marines. 37pts remaining of a 250pt model is effectively destroyed.

 

A key point is that Machine Spirit no longer grants BS4 shooting while subject to snap, as snap changes the base BS of the firer and machine spirit uses the BS of the firer, not a fixed BS like in prior editions.

 

Though as mentioned:

 

if the vehicle is transporting something, has lots of TL non-blast weapons, is holding an objective, or is denying an objective by surviving, then the snapping is better than being destroyed.

 

Back to the building topic:

 

The building table is much worse, as they snap on almost every result, some results lower AV, and occupants take more damage. Mind you, this doesn't really matter when comparing a building to a pod.

[AbusePuppy]

Against a squad with melta bombs (demo vets), the immobile LR and the immobile chimera are about the same vulnerability. Haywire grenades too. The LR is only 1 HP better than the drop pod against lance weapons, too.

 

Lances and squads equipped entirely with Haywire/Meltabombs are... rather rare things to face on the battlefield.

[pretre]

Lances and squads equipped entirely with Haywire/Meltabombs are... rather rare things to face on the battlefield.

Geeze, AP, Assault Tau. Duh.

 

Oh and the 5th edition Dark Eldar army with tons of Venoms and Ravagers.

 

:)

[Guest]

Lances and squads equipped entirely with Haywire/Meltabombs are... rather rare things to face on the battlefield.

Admech? Eldar? Space Marines? Orks? Tyranids? Tau? Dark Eldar? Space Wolves?

 

All of the above armies can field units with just haywire/melta bombs, or lance weapons. When you bring AV14, players tend to bring out those "rare" weapons.

[Guest]

Last game against tyranids they brought "warp blast" and popped the LR in one shot via the Lance mode. Least I didn't have to snap .

 

At annihilation, I got to learn that tank busta bombs are now straight melta bombs that every model has. I made a priority of torching them out of their open topped vehicles, only to learn that the other vehicles where full of meganobz with armorbane saws....

 

Again, at annihilation, opponent brought skitarii super-quick infantry all equipped with haywire grenades. I survived only because of a 4++ PFG and the Schism of Mars battle legacy, which reduced 3 haywire hits into 1.

 

Skimming through the SW book, the SF Gunship includes a Helfrost Destructor, which is fired as a lance weapon.

 

Not to mention that almost every SM variant army has a unit or two that can all take melta bombs, should they want.

 

I can keep going, GW's been really pushing the melta, lance, and haywire into the normal 40k armies. Lance used to be mostly a DE/E thing. Melta used to be less common aside from melta guns and MM, but now it's S9 melta large blasts and such. And haywire has become downright common in some armies, despite being super rare in the past.

[AbusePuppy]

Admech? Eldar? Space Marines? Orks? Tyranids? Tau? Dark Eldar? Space Wolves?

 

All of the above armies can field units with just haywire/melta bombs, or lance weapons. When you bring AV14, players tend to bring out those "rare" weapons.

 

You listed a bunch of armies that can get a full unit of those things. Now how many of them commonly do field whole units of those things in tournaments?

 

Orks. Occasionally Eldar, for someone playing against the grain and not maxing out Jetbikes.

[Guest]

You listed a bunch of armies that can get a full unit of those things. Now how many of them commonly do field whole units of those things in tournaments?

 

Orks. Occasionally Eldar, for someone playing against the grain and not maxing out Jetbikes.

Again, as you and others say, I don't really play tournaments.

 

That annihilation event, was a tourney format, though I think it was probably too low key to count (I enjoy low key). Game 1 against GK, who don't have that sort of melta/haywire/lance access as far as I know. Then Admech in game 2, with haywire grenade units. And then Orks with multiple tank busta units.

 

2/3 games in one day...

 

I think the last actual tourney I did was the GG mini-cup. SW first with TWC, they didn't need it. Second game was DE, they had some lances, but the player was having pretty big issues getting their units into range (first day playing DE or something...). And Third was the non-fully painted GK army, which did field melta bombs, but not entire units of them ('cause they can't).

 

1/3, though I think I had all the odd-duck opponents that event, so I'm not sure how great it was for this sort of thing.

 

So of 6 games at events for me, half had lance weapons, melta bomb units, or haywire grenade units.

 

As for commonly fielding full units of these, I think it's mostly playstyle. I've heard of TAU players taking down imperial knights with EMP fire warriors, but my TAU opponents always field 6-man firewarriors that hide all game out of TLOS as if they bring shame to their TAU forces. I don't really know if this is a lack of viability of the firewarriors, of if the players just have a playstyle that does not consider melee an option.