Manta Missile Destroyer |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Manta Missile Destroyer  Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:23 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
What makes anyone think that the Manta receives BMs from saved hits? That's just wrong.
The shooting procedure in 1.9 is clear. Step 3 includes all saves of any kind. Step 4 allocates BMs only based on casualties (points of damage for a WE). No damage means no BMs. Nothing in the Deflector shield overrules this, so if it saves there is no BM.
The only exception to this would be Disrupt weapons. Jervis stated that mechanics which negate hits (including void shields) also negate the Disrupt effect. Tau shields don't negate the hit, they just save.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Manta Missile Destroyer Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:07 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
Steele,
NH makes a fair point that I cannot dispute, but that's not the way my group - and even locals - have been playing them. 
I cannot speak for other groups.
dptdexys,
the deflector timing is as invulnerable, but with variable save number.
'wave'
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Manta Missile Destroyer Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:14 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
| Quote (nealhunt @ 22 Nov. 2005 (16:23)) | What makes anyone think that the Manta receives BMs from saved hits? ?That's just wrong.
The shooting procedure in 1.9 is clear. ?Step 3 includes all saves of any kind. ?Step 4 allocates BMs only based on casualties (points of damage for a WE). ?No damage means no BMs. ?Nothing in the Deflector shield overrules this, so if it saves there is no BM.
The only exception to this would be Disrupt weapons. ?Jervis stated that mechanics which negate hits (including void shields) also negate the Disrupt effect. ?Tau shields don't negate the hit, they just save. |
Neal,
I don?t think that I said it would take BM?s from saved Hits, I just stated that it takes 1 BM for every attack made on the Manta, not each hit from an attack, and dptdexys wrote in his example 6 attacks ( I assumed different attacks from more than one Formation)- net results a minimum of 6 BM for coming under Fire , regardless of the Deflector saved or not. Possibly more BM if successive Armor Saves failed as well.
Cheers!
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
dptdexys
|
Post subject: Manta Missile Destroyer Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:31 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
|
|
It was tacticas qoute in an earlier post I was pondering,where he claimed the manta was easier to supress than the warlord.
I already knew about the way NH explains in his post.
I thought I had missed something on the tau list which meant deflector shield saves still caused BMs (when reading tacticas post it seems this way).
Tactica,if your group is using the wrong procedure for placing BMs then your perspective of the manta will be off quite a bit.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Manta Missile Destroyer Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:34 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
| Quote (dptdexys @ 22 Nov. 2005 (15:32)) | Mmmm,
So if a Warlord fired at a Manta and got the following :-
6hits from TLD + 2 from GB then another 1 hit causing 2TK damage with the VC.
The manta would recieve 10 BMs + 1 for coming under fire even if it saved all the hits via its deflector shield.
Also does the deflector shield saves come before or after armour saves,technically it should come before but as it is classed as an invulnerable save it should come after. |
dptdexys,
in your example the Manta could receive from 1 BM ( all Hits saved , 1 BM for coming under Fire) to "11 BM" - but at this point the Manta already is dead meat ( assuming no Hits were saved , 1 BM for coming under Fire). So in general I understand the Ruling - 1 BM for coming under fire and 1 additional BM per Hit NOT Saved (Damage caused) per Armor Roll/Deflector Roll ( depending on Weapon Type). Does that sound clearer for You? Sometimes I find it difficult to explain in English what comes in my Head.
edit: It seems that you already got it while I was writing this.
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Manta Missile Destroyer Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:43 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
|
@Tactica.
Even if the deflector was to work against the first 6 hits - each deflected shot still causes the manta a blast marker.
|
what does you think it works this Way?
If it would, who would take it? If after 8 scored Hits on a Manta ,SAVED by the Def. it breaks, what kind of Crew do they have? After all no shot went through, no Damage caused...
Sorry, can?t understand it if this should be right.
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
| Top |
|
|
|
tneva82
|
Post subject: Manta Missile Destroyer Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:51 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606
|
| Quote (Steele @ 22 Nov. 2005 (18:14)) | | and dptdexys wrote in his example 6 attacks ( I assumed different attacks from more than one Formation)- net results a minimum of 6 BM for coming under Fire , regardless of the Deflector saved or not. Possibly more BM if successive Armor Saves failed as well. |
But that's no different to warlord so why bring it up? Apart from 2 DC he would be no more vulnerable to BM's than warlord in that situation._________________ www.tneva.net
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Manta Missile Destroyer Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:08 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
| Quote (tneva82 @ 22 Nov. 2005 (20:51)) | | Quote (Steele @ 22 Nov. 2005 (18:14)) | | and dptdexys wrote in his example 6 attacks ( I assumed different attacks from more than one Formation)- net results a minimum of 6 BM for coming under Fire , regardless of the Deflector saved or not. Possibly more BM if successive Armor Saves failed as well. |
But that's no different to warlord so why bring it up? Apart from 2 DC he would be no more vulnerable to BM's than warlord in that situation. |
I know that, but Neals post about :"What makes anyone think that the Manta receives BMs from saved hits? That's just wrong", brought me about this thing. I thought he should know that NOT everyone thinks that way.
Cheers!
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Manta Missile Destroyer Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:30 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
Holy mackerel. I think it's straight. 
Tactica's group was playing like that.
No one else apparently thinks it should be that way and all "but you said..." was spawned off responses to Tac's original post.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Manta Missile Destroyer Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:51 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
Guys,
My group plays this wrong - no question about it. I have no logical explanation for it - its just a - oops.
Just like I've heard others have fired AP only Disrupt weapons into AT only targets and thought that was legit to blast multiple blast markers... ehem... ?
Anyway, just an accident. Upon presenting it to the group and asking, Hey, why did we do this? The answer was ?
SO, just an honest error on our part.
I resend the statement on this point about the blast marker, and appoligize for all the traffic this one point created ... however, even though embarrassed, I'm glad I noted it. At least now I can try it the other way!
BTW: to make things worse, I don't ever recall doing this with the Moray in our group (and there's 3 of us that play Tau, two that own the armies) ...lol, for some reason, we've always (best I can remember) played the Manta this way though! ? I know - that doesn't make any sense, but its true.
OK - to bring this thread back around full circle, the point Hena started this thread on was something about the description... regardless of my groups recent enlightenment with the Manta's D Shield... I think we beat his original point to death.
The Manta has more uses than a snippet of our description.
Cheers,
PS - and sorry for my groups obvious oversight. ?
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Steele
|
Post subject: Manta Missile Destroyer Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:51 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 423
Location: Duisburg , Germany
|
|
@Tactica,
you don?t have to excuse yourself or your group. I think, everyone misunderstood a rule or meaning sometimes. I can?t deny it to myself as well. So let?s be happy again, and cheers on the great community we have.
Steele
_________________
Quid pro Quo
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Legion 4
|
Post subject: Manta Missile Destroyer Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:51 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Manta Missile Destroyer Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:55 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
Just like I've heard others have fired AP only Disrupt weapons into AT only targets and thought that was legit to blast multiple blast markers... ehem... |
Actually, we never did that. We immediately agreed that regardless of any official interpretation/FAQ, we wouldn't use it that way.
Incidentally, in discussing that issue and rules interpretation, someone pointed out that they couldn't think of any non-BP weapons that had disrupt outside the Tau. Does anyone see that as a potential issue?
_________________
Neal
|
| Top |
|
|
|
tneva82
|
Post subject: Manta Missile Destroyer Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:16 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606
|
| Quote (nealhunt @ 23 Nov. 2005 (14:55)) | | Incidentally, in discussing that issue and rules interpretation, someone pointed out that they couldn't think of any non-BP weapons that had disrupt outside the Tau. Does anyone see that as a potential issue? |
Tyranids and their biovores(AP5+, AT6+, indirect, disrupt)._________________ www.tneva.net
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Err ... well most of them anyway ... 