Flickerfields vs. Ram?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Lone Dragoon**

Augustus wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:You are required to show a rule stating they do not get to use their (technically useless) invulnerable save against a penetrating or glancing hit
Wow, you have it entirely backwards, YOU are required to show a rule where you get the save.

If I say I'm going to fire my twin linked lascannon as 2 separate lascannons, I don't get to say 'show me a rule where I cant'? That would allow for anything. That's not how rules work! They tell you what you CAN do!

Don't overly simplify the situation, no one is claiming the save doesn't apply from shooting, just for rams, because there is no rule mechanic in the base book, or in the codex specific rules.

I find the part about the fluff justifications for avoiding mutual ram damage as particularly egregiously vapid. Ram damage is mutual, either they both get hit or it misses.

Unless of course any of you Dark Eldar advocates can find any rules that explain how it works? (Right NONE so far.)

Getting to take an invulnerable save with a vehicle in HtH is already a pretty undefined spot in the rules and would be a concession where things are poorly defined, extending that to Rams, is an even bigger jump, but then also saying that if the save was made that the attacking vehicle would still taker damage is such a massive jump in logic it's absurd.

marv335 wrote:I know it's strict RAW, But I would feel like a complete TFG if I told a DE player that he couldn't use his flickerfield because is vehicle wasn't suffering a wound.
Why? When that's what the rules say?

Going on the belief that vehicles take invulnerable saves against glancing or penetrating hits Augustus, you would be the one that has it backwards. We can produce a rule that states that the Flickerfield provides a 5+ invulnerable (again assuming right now that the saves are made against glancing and penetrating hits). It is up to you to show where the ramming negates that save.

Since the ramming rule says nothing about reciprocating damage, it says if contact was made that both units take hits. If the Flickerfield armed vehicle takes a glancing or penetrating hit from the ram they may use their rule to prevent the damage. However contact has still occurred, as both rolls for armor penetration at the same time. The only thing that prevents the ram is the dodge, the other role doesn't prevent the hit, it just prevents damage from the hit.

**omerakk**

Saldiven wrote:
Augustus wrote:My argument is: there are no rules for saving from rams. I think I made that clear

No, there are only rules in the DE Flickerfield description for taking saves against glancing or penetrating hits. The source of the hits are never discussed, whether they be from shooting, assault, ramming, or any other mechanic that might occur.

Why should the source of the glancing hit matter?

This right here.

**nosferatu1001**

Augustus - you have it backwards.

You are ARBITRARILY and without merit dividing the source of damage into close combat, shooting and ram, and claiming there must be a specific rule allowing saves from each source before you will allow it.

In fact the general rules for vehicles saves is they can be taken against any penetrating or glancing hit. You assume, via Bjorn, that this applies to invulnerable saves OTHERWISE they would NEVER get ot use them.

Once you have assumed they work as a regular invulnerable save, only for pen/glancing hits instead of wounds, you have a rule - which is that you can ALWAYS take an invulnerable save, unless *explicitly* stated.

You cannot find a rule explicitly stating they do not get their FF save against Rams, therefore they do.

Note: this requires a *single* assumption -- that vehicle invulnerable saves work for vehicles in the same way as for models. Thats it.

**Augustus**

I'm not talking about Bjorn or shooting.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You cannot find a rule explicitly stating they do not get their FF save against Rams, therefore they do.

You can not find a rule stating that I can't play my melta guns as strength 10, therefore I do, double negative argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Note: this requires a *single* assumption -- that vehicle invulnerable saves work for vehicles in the same way as for models. That's it.

...and the assumption that vehicles get just invulnerable saves for rams, by that logic why wouldn't they get cover saves too?...because it's not in the rules.

**ToI**

Quit making the double negative argument it's absurd.

Show me...show me where his double negative is...

Still waiting for any rules based arguments...

Still waiting for you to come up with one too. You are using examples that have no bearing on the situation or that are absurd beyond reasonable logic...

**kirsanth**

Claiming a model cannot use a rule listed in its profile is just silly.

GW is silly sometimes, but at least they have consistently (???, no really!) agreed that a listed rule can be used.

That said, that have gone on to say that if the rule as stated does not work in current rules, it is not used.

Invulnerable saves can work against glance/pen in the current rules, however.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ToI wrote:Show me...show me where his double negative is...

nosferatu1001 wrote:You cannot find a rule explicitly stating they do not get their FF save against Rams, therefore they do.

There was one, even if it was just an abusable rewording of a point that was glossed over.

**Lone Dragoon**

Augustus wrote:You can not find a rule stating that I can't play my melta guns as strength 10, therefore I do, FAIL.

Actually that's quite an easy rule to find. Look under the rules for how to read a ranged weapon, more specifically the fact that it has a strength listed as 8. A rule telling you to play it at strength 8 is the same a rule telling you not to play it at Strength 10.

It's the same with the invulnerable save from the flickerfields. It is telling you how to play the ramming rule, the reason it mentions nothing about saves is simply because vehicles "normally" don't have saves. To negate a save, the rule must state that a save is negated; for example the AP rules of shooting attacks, or the rules for power weapons. There is no debate on if you get a save from them because they are very specific about what negates saves and what type of saves are negated in that situation. As we know invulnerable saves are always taken (unless a special rule ignores that). Thus an attack (from any source save those that negate invulnerable saves) that inflicts a glancing or a penetrating hit still allows a vehicle to make an invulnerable save against it.

**ToI**

kirsanth wrote:
ToI wrote:Show me...show me where his double negative is...

nosferatu1001 wrote:You cannot find a rule explicitly stating they do not get their FF save against Rams, therefore they do.
There was one, even if it was just an abusable rewording of a point that was glossed over.

Oh man is that a stretch... I get you aren't saying that's a true double negative but I'd like to explain for Augustus how this isn't what he thinks it is *track stretches* here goes.

A true double negative goes as follows " You can't not find me a ruling saying XYZ" That reads as "It's impossible for you to not find this rule"

What nos has said is this "You cannot find a rule explicitly stating they do not get their FF save against Rams, therefore they do." which reads as follows due to sentence structure..."Because you are unable to find a rule that states a FF save can't be taken against rams the save can be taken."

There is no double negative...

**nosferatu1001**

Augustus - fine, youve made your mind up, and are resorting to strawman arguments now.

Your contention is that you need a rule explicitly allowing Invulnerable saves against Rams. This is a logical fallacy, based on how the rules are constructed in this game

You have permission to take an invulnerable save any time you suffer a glancing or penetrating hit. To say otherwise you are denying FF any functional use; this may be RAW but is an absurd position (stopping new codexes working)

So, once you have permission to take a save against any glancing or penetrating hit, you have permission to take one suffered as a result of a ram. If you disagree with this you are implicitly stating that no single armour, cover or invulnerable save may ever be taken.

So, I have proven you can take Inv saves against a Ram - you need to find a rule disallowing this.

Edited for rudeness. Late night, 15 hour day posting is never good. Apologies

**Mannahnin**

The fact that rudeness is coming from both sides is the only thing inclining me (frr the moment) to not start handing out one or more suspensions right now. I would appreciate it if people who have been rude toward others in this thread, regardless of how they feel they have been treated, own up to that and apologize for their own inappropriate comments and unnecessarily aggressive tone.

Whether you choose to go and edit your earlier posts to remove the rudeness is up to you, but is probably a good idea.

Please remember that this is a hobby we engage in for fun (both the game and the discussion about it), and if you are not having fun in the discussion, to the point that you feel the need to be nasty, you need to NOT POST. If you feel someone else is being inappropriate, the correct move is to ALERT A MODERATOR, not to be inappropriate in return. As most of your mothers probably taught you, two wrongs do not make a right.

**ToI**

Mannahnin wrote:The fact that rudeness is coming from both sides is the only thing inclining me (frr the moment) to not start handing out one or more suspensions right now. I would appreciate it if people who have been rude toward others in this thread, regardless of how they feel they have been treated, own up to that and apologize for their own inappropriate comments and unnecessarily aggressive tone.

Whether you choose to go and edit your earlier posts to remove the rudeness is up to you, but is probably a good idea.

Please remember that this is a hobby we engage in for fun (both the game and the discussion about it), and if you are not having fun in the discussion, to the point that you feel the need to be nasty, you need to NOT POST. If you feel someone else is being inappropriate, the correct move is to ALERT A MODERATOR, not to be inappropriate in return. As most of your mothers probably taught you, two wrongs do not make a right.

<--------Owning...*deep breath*...also edited the USR jab out of the earlier post

**Augustus**

Mannahnin wrote:aggressive tone

I do that, edits made, sorry.

**Mannahnin**

Thanks, guys. I know several of you in here can get a bit hot in discussions, but are good dudes at heart.

**ToI**

Mannahnin wrote:Thanks, guys. I know several of you in here can get a bit hot in discussions, but are good dudes at heart.

No it's the other way around, we are awful people that act like civilized humans when we need to...

**obsidianaura**

I think in the next edition of 40k,vehicles with invunerable saves will feature a fair bit and that new codices in between now and then will also sport invunerable saves.

Still I'm surprised GW hasn't cleared this up in an errata

**Augustus**

Tell me about it!

**Homer S**

There is an easy way to rationalize taking saves against rams: the vehicle that got damaged swerved into an obstacle or the ground to avoid the other vehicle. Therefore, one vehicle got damaged and the other "saved" the hit.

Homer