Question about the Deceiver model - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Senior Member the_pariah7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Age
    24
    Posts
    406
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    21 (x1)

    Question about the Deceiver model

    I was just playing a 2v2 game the other day, roughly 1000pts a player and I used the Deceiver.

    A very annoying debate arose mid game in regards to the Deceiver 'model' for the purposes of LOS and claiming cover. In short, I had the Deceiver behind a ruin/building that we classed as a 3+ cover save, which naturally I wanted to use.

    The building was in between the Deceiver and the shooters, and from the shooter's LOS, you could only see roughly above the waistline/torso of the Deceiver. In my view, from the base up, the building obscures more than 50% of the Deceiver but my opponents said that I couldn't claim the cover save because the ribbons that holds him up "don't count as part of the model". They 'claimed' that the part of the model that is used for LOS purposes is the feet upwards, which I know is a load of bull.

    I'm pretty sure that I can claim a cover save as more than 50% of the Deceiver from the base upwards is obscured. Am I wrong here? What evidence can I use to beat them back with? Greatly appreciated in advance.

    Necrons W68-D13-L10 (3rd edition codex)
    Necrons W3-D1-L1 (latest codex)
    Skaven still being assembled

  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Member Ganmeyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    a frozen hell from which there is no escape (Utah)
    Age
    25
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    50 (x1)

    Quote Originally Posted by the_pariah7 View Post
    I was just playing a 2v2 game the other day, roughly 1000pts a player and I used the Deceiver.

    A very annoying debate arose mid game in regards to the Deceiver 'model' for the purposes of LOS and claiming cover. In short, I had the Deceiver behind a ruin/building that we classed as a 3+ cover save, which naturally I wanted to use.

    The building was in between the Deceiver and the shooters, and from the shooter's LOS, you could only see roughly above the waistline/torso of the Deceiver. In my view, from the base up, the building obscures more than 50% of the Deceiver but my opponents said that I couldn't claim the cover save because the ribbons that holds him up "don't count as part of the model". They 'claimed' that the part of the model that is used for LOS purposes is the feet upwards, which I know is a load of bull.

    I'm pretty sure that I can claim a cover save as more than 50% of the Deceiver from the base upwards is obscured. Am I wrong here? What evidence can I use to beat them back with? Greatly appreciated in advance.
    You're right. Rules as written state nothing about "feet," he was mistaken and/or trying to gain an advantage.

  4. #3
    Senior Member SergeantTelion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    346
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    10 (x1)

    Most of the time in 40k if its debated over your units you will usally know your rules of your units better than the opponet
    Space marines 6 dread army Wins: 4 ties:2 Loses:7 Modified Standard nilla marines Wins:37 Ties:8 Loses 42 Daemonhunters Wins:3 Ties:0 Loses:1 Full assualt concept army wins: 6 Ties: none Loses: 2

  5. #4
    My backpack has JETS! Ravendove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Basingstoke
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,983
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    545 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by the_pariah7 View Post
    [...] my opponents said that I couldn't claim the cover save because the ribbons that holds him up "don't count as part of the model". They 'claimed' that the part of the model that is used for LOS purposes is the feet upwards, which I know is a load of bull.
    Actually, I'm pretty sure your opponents are right. I haven't got a rulebook at hand but I recall that it specifically states decorative 'extras' on a model such as gun barrels, cloaks, horns, antennae etc. do not count for purposes of LOS. Only the body and the limbs count. It's the same with tanks and other vehicles - you can't shoot at it if all you can see is a gun barrel or searchlight, for example.

  6. #5
    Senior Member Dark Trainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,877
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    102 (x5)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravendove View Post
    Actually, I'm pretty sure your opponents are right. I haven't got a rulebook at hand but I recall that it specifically states decorative 'extras' on a model such as gun barrels, cloaks, horns, antennae etc. do not count for purposes of LOS. Only the body and the limbs count. It's the same with tanks and other vehicles - you can't shoot at it if all you can see is a gun barrel or searchlight, for example.
    I'm fairly certain Raven is right. I remember a quote in the book talking specifically about how you model your models. On the same note, destroyers...would you claim they get a cover save because the post is hidden?

    In this case I would have just diced it off, but I think it's based on the actual model...however in the deceiver's case...the robe is part of him like a cloak would be on a sniper...tough call.
    "There is only do, or do not. There is no try." - Yoda

  7. #6
    Junior Member kamikaze watermelon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    1 (x1)

    I would say that he gets the save, because he could easily float down to behind the building to protect himself from enemy fire.
    Shoot first, shoot later and if it's still moving shoot some more. Then ask if anybody has any questions.

  8. #7
    Senior Member Dark Trainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,877
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    102 (x5)

    Quote Originally Posted by kamikaze watermelon View Post
    I would say that he gets the save, because he could easily float down to behind the building to protect himself from enemy fire.
    But then on this note, you'd be saying because a Destroyer is on a tall post, he'd get a cover save because he in theory could float lower. GW did warn about how to model your models, and TLOS is TLOS... I'm all for taking the cover save as I want it! But I can see both sides of this...
    "There is only do, or do not. There is no try." - Yoda

  9. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    2 (x1)

    i must agree with you above the hovering buisness, i have a house rule with my friend that if a unit that has a flying base can be seen, first check it off its base (and slightly higher than its actual hieght, up to about 3 inches), as we believe that a floating object should be able to float lower or higher. I would say the Deciever would be included in this case, as the ribbons mean that its higher than its should be, but folowing fluff he can reshape itself.

  10. #9
    My backpack has JETS! Ravendove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Basingstoke
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,983
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    545 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by kamikaze watermelon View Post
    I would say that he gets the save, because he could easily float down to behind the building to protect himself from enemy fire.
    If you show me where in the rules it says he can 'float down', I'm all for giving you a cover save.

  11. #10
    Senior Member the_pariah7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Age
    24
    Posts
    406
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    21 (x1)

    Still, although its not that big an issue (you're unlikely to be using pieces of terrain that provides 3+ cover saves anyways) but it seems a little harsh because that's the way GW modelled the Deceiver. I've been thinking, you wouldn't have the same problem if it were the nightbringer model instead of the deceiver. I mean, you can't tell where the legs start/finish so one could assume that the long flowing cloak bit is part of the model for the purposes of LOS. What would be your thoughts on that?
    Necrons W68-D13-L10 (3rd edition codex)
    Necrons W3-D1-L1 (latest codex)
    Skaven still being assembled

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts