THE DARK CITY
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.



 
HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityRegisterLog in

 

 Flickerfield

Go down 
+4
rotforge
Fruz
Massaen
Zanais
8 posters
AuthorMessage
Zanais
Kabalite Warrior
Zanais

Posts : 116
Join date : 2012-04-09

Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitimeWed Aug 29 2012, 11:57

Rulebook, page 17:
Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because
they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a
Wound - the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons
has no effect. Even if a Wound ignores all armour saves, an
invulnerable saving throw can sdll be taken.

Vehicles never suffer Wounds, so can Flickerfield Saves be ever taken? (except Dangerous Terrain test as per FAQ).

Im asking cause one guy states such thing in rules section in polish forum, and would like to know he's wrong Very Happy
Back to top Go down
Massaen
Klaivex
Massaen

Posts : 2268
Join date : 2011-07-05
Location : Western Australia

Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Re: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitimeWed Aug 29 2012, 12:19

Technically they did not work in 5th Ed either... But I would be very unhappy if some one stopped me using them

_________________
Objective Secured - Western Australia's Premier 40k Event Organisers and Website
OBJECTIVE SECURED
Back to top Go down
http://objectivesecured.com.au/
Fruz
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 143
Join date : 2012-06-28

Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Re: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitimeWed Aug 29 2012, 14:25

Quote :
Wound - the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons
technically, that would mean as well that .... no bonuses on explosion tables, right ? :p
Back to top Go down
rotforge
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 33
Join date : 2013-05-10
Location : Warsaw

Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Re: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitimeTue May 21 2013, 23:56

Sorry for the thread necromancy, but this issue was brought up in my gaming group today, and since I'm starting to build a DE army, I'd really like some clarification on whether it works or not. As I see it, RAW says it doesn't but everybody uses it anyway, because it doesn't make sense not to.

What is your experience on the subject from tournaments?

edit: nevermind! Dug up another thread with this discussion and what persuaded me was the jink analogy, where you'd argue that jink saves can be taken vs. ignore cover weapons as they are also against wounds and not hull points.

edit2: hmm, though I'm still interested in your experience from tournaments. Do people even make a fuss about it?
Back to top Go down
http://rotforge.blogspot.com
Dra'al Nacht
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 103
Join date : 2012-12-09
Location : Perth, Australia

Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Re: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitimeWed May 22 2013, 01:23

The recent BRB Faq clears this one up. Page 1. Top of right column. Vehicles are now explicitly given permission to take invulnerable saves.
Back to top Go down
Fruz
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 143
Join date : 2012-06-28

Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Re: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitimeWed May 22 2013, 01:24

How come would a jink save not be ignored by an ignoring cover weapon ????

Jink gives a cover save, therefore any weapon that ignores wover .... ignores the jink saves.
Having hull points or not is imho not relevant here, a save is a save, it being on a vehicule or another model.


Last edited by Fruz on Wed May 22 2013, 01:53; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
rotforge
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 33
Join date : 2013-05-10
Location : Warsaw

Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Re: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitimeWed May 22 2013, 01:42

dra'al, you're right, that's great!

fruz - BRB says that cover saves cannot be taken against wounds from weapons with this rule. Vehicles do not have wounds. That was the whole point of the initial debate concerning inv saves which, until faq'ed, could also be taken only against wounds and not hull points, therefore rendering flickerfields useless.

As it stands now, I'd argue that, since it's been faq'ed, our invs work all the time but jinks can still be taken vs ignore cover weapons Smile OK, I aggree that perhaps not on bikes/jetbikes because those have wound characteristics. Skimmers on the other hand, not so much Very Happy
Back to top Go down
http://rotforge.blogspot.com
Fruz
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 143
Join date : 2012-06-28

Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Re: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitimeWed May 22 2013, 01:56

okay, thx for answering, thats seems quite legit ( definitely stupid though ), glad it's been faq'ed =p.

I'm just gonna quote the faq here btw
Quote :
Page 17 – Invulnerable Saves
Change the second paragraph to “Invulnerable saves are
different to armoursaves because they may always be taken
wheneverthe model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles,
suffers a penetrating or glancing hit – the Armour Piercing
value of attacking weapons has no effect upon an Invulnerable
save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores
all armoursaves, an invulnerable save can still be taken”.
it doesn't explicitely fixes the problem though, but sinces it states wounds OR penetrating / glancing hits in the case of vehicles, I think we can assume that it works this way for flammers or sonic weapons for example, they should ignore jink saves on vehicles.
( I can see debates about it though, but I think there is no chance that I will contest it while playing personnally )
Back to top Go down
Shadows Revenge
Hierarch of Tactica
Shadows Revenge

Posts : 2587
Join date : 2011-08-10
Location : Bmore

Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Re: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitimeWed May 22 2013, 08:28

ignore cover gets rid of the jink save. There is no argument about it, and anyone that does argue about it needs to learn some common sense. Some rules lawyering is ok, but obvious things are obvious...

_________________
Status:
Usurping Kabal leadership for his Patriarch

Current List:
First 2k GSC List
Back to top Go down
tlronin
Wych
avatar

Posts : 818
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : The Netherlands

Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Re: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitimeWed May 22 2013, 10:33

Can't agree with you entirely Shadows Revenge.

This thread is in existence so obviously there is room for argument, unfortunatly. It's the same old RAW vs RAI thing.

RAI you are absolutely right and I personally wouldn't play it another way. But RAW I'm afraid there's a loophole in the rulebook again. Needs to be FAQed IMHO.

Wanna start another email thread again guys? Very Happy

_________________
Archon of the kabal of The Bleeding Hand.
Member of local Dutch community: http://www.sweetlakesentinels.nl
Back to top Go down
rotforge
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 33
Join date : 2013-05-10
Location : Warsaw

Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Re: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitimeWed May 22 2013, 10:54

I just want to say that, of course, I definitely go with the RAI on the jink thing, but I also aknowledge that there is room for argument on the issue Smile

_________________
http://rotforge.blogspot.com - my painting blog
Back to top Go down
http://rotforge.blogspot.com
Mushkilla
Arena Champion
Mushkilla

Posts : 4017
Join date : 2012-07-16
Location : Toroid Arena

Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Re: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitimeWed May 22 2013, 11:21

Jink save = cover save

How does ignore cover not ignore jink? Is this because of the wording of ignore cover not mentioning vehicles?

_________________
Latest Report: BR4: The Repugnant Ramblers Vs Imperial Knights - 1250pts
Pragmatic Realspace Raider Series


“Even the Black Buzzards thought highly of him, and those maniacs were renowned for hating everyone.” - Tantalus, by Braden Campbell
Back to top Go down
tlronin
Wych
avatar

Posts : 818
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : The Netherlands

Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Re: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitimeWed May 22 2013, 11:56

@Mushkilla wrote:
Jink save = cover save

How does ignore cover not ignore jink? Is this because of the wording of ignore cover not mentioning vehicles?

Yeah, mentioning only wounds. And not glances/pens.

And because they FAQed invunerable saves they've created an opening for the argument that it needs to be explicit.

_________________
Archon of the kabal of The Bleeding Hand.
Member of local Dutch community: http://www.sweetlakesentinels.nl
Back to top Go down
Fruz
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 143
Join date : 2012-06-28

Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Re: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitimeWed May 22 2013, 12:37

Quote :
ignore cover gets rid of the jink save. There is no argument about it, and anyone that does argue about it needs to learn some common sense. Some rules lawyering is ok, but obvious things are obvious...
yes, but even though, common sense being the basis of the rules, when it's time to debate about them there is no place for it.
Rules ares rules, and common sense is like fluff, just ignore it in a purely technical point of view.

I will also consider that sonic/flammers ignore saves on our skimmers still =) ( with my friends ).
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




Flickerfield Empty
PostSubject: Re: Flickerfield   Flickerfield I_icon_minitime

Back to top Go down
 
Flickerfield
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

COMMORRAGH TACTICA

 :: Rules: Queries & Questions
-
Jump to: