tzeentch havocs on a skyshield.

[hornywingythingy]

Hya, quick question,

 

If you put a unit of tzeentch troops on a skyshield, using the 4+ invulnerable configuration, (makes most sense with havocs I'd guess.) do they get a 3++? I'd guess they do, but wasn't sure as the 4++ is being generated from outside the model?

[Warsmith Aznable]

My initial thought was no, but then I had a look at both sets of rules. The Skyshield confers an Invuln save instead of Cover save, and the Mark of Tzeentch upgrades an Invuln save, so I do believe that RAW a unit with MoT on a Skyshield would have a 3+ Invuln. I haven't tried it, obviously, but my fear would be that an enemy could use the ample space on top of the Skyshield to teleport or otherwise deepstrike on top of your Havocs and mug them.

[hornywingythingy]

I dunno, I don't actually have the skyshield model, so I'm not sure how big it is, but it would be risky to deepstrike there, scatter and you could mishap/dangerous terrain? Cos whilst its shielded you dont get the don't scatter effect do you? Just trying to think outside of the box atm, to try and get the best from the dex.

[Morollan]

If the Skyshield was shielded (to give models the 4++ save) then units Deep Striking on top of it would still scatter. The non-scatter rule only applies to an unfurled Skyshield.

[Lepaca]

Yes it works but it isn't really that good.

[hornywingythingy]

Yes it works but it isn't really that good.

 

Why would you say that? A 3++ seems pretty kick arse to me, given 6th has moved away from cc and towards shooting heavy, a 3++ for a big unit of troops in your deployment zone seems pretty useful to me. Plus it gives an elevated firing position, and only costs 75pts.

[Lepaca]

Yes it works but it isn't really that good.

 

Why would you say that? A 3++ seems pretty kick arse to me, given 6th has moved away from cc and towards shooting heavy, a 3++ for a big unit of troops in your deployment zone seems pretty useful to me. Plus it gives an elevated firing position, and only costs 75pts.

 

Are you talking about troops or about havocs? Because my comment was aimed at 3++ havocs.

Also I think that it is not worth it because havocs come with a built in 3+ and will mostly be killed by weight of fire against which there is no increase in protection by giving them a 3++.

It does of course grant greatly increased protection against anything AP2 but those weapons won't be targeted against your havocs most of the time anyway.

Also it does not only cost 75 points. You have to consider the opportunity cost, which is the fact that you can't bring another fortification! (looking at you here ADL)

 

Now troops on a landing platform is another matter. One could think about Tzeentch marked cultists units that hide up there all game and go objective grabbing during the late game.

A 3++ on a cultists unit would be a vast improvement as far as their defenses go but the question remains if that is worth the cost (both points and opportunity).

I'd say no because keeping those cultists behind an ADL grants the same amount of protection against ranged attacks (or even a 2+ cover save) AND you can place an objective behind an ADL so the cultists won't even have to leave their protection to score!

 

Hope this helps!

[hornywingythingy]

It does help, and I know I mentioned havocs in my initial post, but cultists would def make more sense on reflection. I'm not having luck with an aegis with quad gun, it keeps getting targeted and skragged by a unit of lootas/heavy weapons first turn, my thinking developed to objective behind the aegis, and jump off the troop for it on the last few turns. Also is it big enough to provide cover without blocking the guns on a forge fiend/defiler? I don't have the model, but it could be useful for that?

[EricBasser]

I want to try Olbiterators with Mark of Tzerntch on a landing pad. 2+/3++ seems a lot better than the 3+/3++. Now, just a Sorcerer that can cast Endurance on the lot. Even though most AP 2 weapons are double the toughness, Feel No Pain would be good for failed 2+.

[Spaz431]

That is a cover save not invulnerable though in most cases it's the same. Mark of Nurgle on the havocs in cover. Take your cover save and if flame templates show up now it's harder to kill them. The point of the aegis is to force your enemy into wasting shots on the gun and not on your havocs. The sky shield has goop potential, but lacks in the fact that when it is open, all your non-scatter deep strike have no additional cover, until they raise the barriers. Going to ground behind the ADL gives a 2++

[Jacinda]

That is a cover save not invulnerable though in most cases it's the same. Mark of Nurgle on the havocs in cover. Take your cover save and if flame templates show up now it's harder to kill them. The point of the aegis is to force your enemy into wasting shots on the gun and not on your havocs. The sky shield has goop potential, but lacks in the fact that when it is open, all your non-scatter deep strike have no additional cover, until they raise the barriers. Going to ground behind the ADL gives a 2++

I think you have it backwards there. Skyshield is an Invulnerable save. Your models do not even need to be obscured to get this. Just being on the skyshield while it is shielded mode give the model a 4++ save.

 

Going to ground behind a defense line is a 2+ cover save. Torrent flamers don't care about 2+ cover saves. Having elevation where the targets are not obscured also ignores the ADL's cover. But the invulnerable saves from the skyshield along with the elivated position to fire from is what makes them an attractive choice. Neither is the end all, be all best choice. They both have their uses.

[Sception]

Sky shields have a force field when their barriers are up, that's why it's an inv. and not a cover.

 

Of course, sky shields are ridiculously obnoxious fortifications, heavily abusable for other reasons already. Even if the combo is worthwhile - which I'm not passing any sort of judgment on, myself - I don't think using it is worth the hassle.