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.

Only if you ignore context are the two rules different.

The context plays no part.

the hit is negated, and you do not roll on the damage table, if only the penetrating hit or Glancing hit were negated, but the hit still stands then there is no need for the "do not roll on the damage table portion.

Yes, I know GW likes to repeat themselves in their rules; but for that same reason they could have said that the penetrating or glancing hit is ignored instead of the hit.

Penetrating hits, are not the same as Glancing hits, which are not the same as hits.

I can also argue your context point, if you would like:

"The hit is discarded", not "That hit is discarded" the first means the general hit(in context); the second means the Penetrating or Glancing hit(in context)


P.S. I propose we end this silly semantic debate; it is likely to be FAQ'd either way(at the whim of GW), so we can later debate either this, or the whole of the Squadrons issue depending on which or if either are FAQ'd.

To be honest Squadrons are a mess I imagine only 6th ed could fix. And by "fix" I mean "mess up in new ways"

Too true my friend, too true.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You roll AFTER armour penetration has occured, which is AFTER The hit has already occured, obviously, and is AFTER entropic strike

ROll to hit -> Entropic Strike -> roll to armour penetrate -> roll for cover save.

Right right, that's what I've always played it as but Kel's comment of [what i thought were] the rules for this made it sound like it was "supposed" to be rolled before the damage chart roll. But ya, I agree with you (as I said a bit before this), if the cover save is after the pen roll, the initial hit still happened.

nosferatu1001 wrote:To be honest Squadrons are a mess I imagine only 6th ed could fix. And by "fix" I mean "mess up in new ways"

Truer words have never been spoken on these forums. It would be so incredibly easy to fix vehicle squadrons but I'm CERTAIN that GW will find a new and exciting way to f*#$ it up. I imagine the Necron Codex was written for 6th edition, so perhaps many things will become clear when the new edition is released, and perhaps the sinking feeling that Matt Ward hates anything not Space Marines will go away. I want to buy a Necron army, but I worry that they are pretty low on the competitive scale unless you play Scarab Shenanigans. Maybe I'll just use them as a modeling project.

imweasel wrote:
1. Find the number of hits.
2. Roll entropic strikes to see how many 'successes'.
3. Assign those 'successes' to vehicles. Each vehicle must take one entropic 'success' before another vehicle can take one.
4. Lower armor values accordingly.
5. Roll for pens and glances.
6. Assign pens and glances.
7. Roll cover saves, if applicable.
My problem? How do I figure out the AV of what I am supposed to roll for? The 'majority' is I suppose what I go with...

I don't see why you would try to allocate/distriibute the entropic strikes that way. If you just allocated the basic hits and then treated each vehicle separately after that it would solve your AV problem:

1. find the number of hits.
2. allocate the hits as if they were pens/glances as per squadron rules
3. roll for entropic strike for each vehicle according to how many hits were allocated to each vehicle
4. reduce each vehicles AV according to how many strikes each vehicle received
5. use the number of hits allocated to each vehicle in step 2 to roll pens and glances against the new AVs
6. roll on the damage table as appropriate for each vehicle.
7. apply results

Because doing it your way means that you change how pens and glances are allocated.

Normally you get to allocate pens and glances after determining how many you get .

Your method means that you don't get to allocate them

I would rather use majority av than to allocate 'hits'.

Yeah I agree, and I think Yak's suggestion is probably the cleanest from a rules perspective. Non-vehicle units use similar systems for varied toughness in a unit so it's the closest analogue we have, and spreading the hits evenly prior to rolling for Entropic Strike means there is still some random factor involved. It does make it more difficult for Scarabs to destroy units of vehicles, but not so difficult as to be impossible.

Aldarionn wrote:
Entropic Strike triggers off of hits against vehicles, however you do not allocate hits to vehicle squadrons. You allocate glancing or penetrating hits to vehicle squadrons. So what happens when you attack a vehicle squadron with a model that has Entropic Strike?

1 - Nothing happens. Hits are not allocated so the ability does not trigger against squadrons of vehicles.
2 - All vehicles in the squadron suffer Entropic Strike. The model(s) are attacking the squadron, and since nothing is allocated until damage results are rolled, that must mean that all vehicles in the squadron suffer the effects.
3 - Each individual vehicle in the squadron takes hits individually. If a unit of Leman Russ Battle Tanks is assaulted by a unit of Scarabs and only one vehicle is in assault range, only that vehicle suffers hits from Entropic Strike. After Entropic Strike is applied, damage results are rolled and allocated across the unit using the majority armor value. If multiple vehicles are struck, hits are applied to those vehicles that are struck from the models that struck them and the same process is used.

First your opponent would allocate pens and glances but that is for purposes of rolling on the damage chart and is after Entropic Strike.

1. This seems wrong. Nothing says you ignore Entropic Strike or anything to that effect so that is out.

2. This looks very OP but RAW this would be the correct response. You attack a vehicle squadron as a group not as individual vehicles. If you attack a squadron you hit the squadron. Like I said in the open you allocate pens and glances not the "to hit" rolls. This seems very OP until you realise that one of the few vehicles that can be squadroned is a LRBT. 3 large blasts like that should wipe the scarabes before they can make it to the tanks so it really isn't that OP.

3. This seems the most ballanced yet not true RAW.

yakface wrote:
Until then, I plan to play it that the 'hits' are evenly spread amongst the squadron with the player owning the squadron deciding where any odd hits are allocated amongst his squadron members.

Look I have full respect for Yakface but I feel like that just isn't right. It may seem balanced but it nerfs the scarabs alot and doesn't follow proper procedure as you don't allocate hits you allocate pens and glances. It does make sense from a fluff perspective though as it would take time for the scarabs to crawl through and disrupt all of the tanks, but regardless rules =/= fluff...ever...ever...ever.

Nowhere does it say to remove the armor from just the one vehicle...now a whole other can of worms...err scarabs...gets opened if you are in B2B with 2 squadrons of vehicles.

So RAI and fluff say 3 RAW says 2

I go with RAW since this is YMDC.

Akroma06 wrote:
regardless rules =/= fluff...ever...ever...ever.

Except when GW says it does.

Well yeah but that is in an faq or blatantly laid out there...and no the C'Tan rule doesn't cout...yet as it specificaly mentions what weapons are affected. Honestly it should just have been weapons with "melta" effect and things that use templates and not the garbage that got thrown out there, but hey that's asking alot from GW.

Akroma06 wrote:Well yeah but that is in an faq or blatantly laid out there...and no the C'Tan rule doesn't cout...yet as it specificaly mentions what weapons are affected. Honestly it should just have been weapons with "melta" effect and things that use templates and not the garbage that got thrown out there, but hey that's asking alot from GW.

The only logical way is to distribute evenly, anything else is performing a gross injustice. Not to mention if you're saying 1 hit ='s 3 ...

Akroma06 wrote:
Look I have full respect for Yakface but I feel like that just isn't right. It may seem balanced but it nerfs the scarabs alot and doesn't follow proper procedure as you don't allocate hits you allocate pens and glances. It does make sense from a fluff perspective though as it would take time for the scarabs to crawl through and disrupt all of the tanks, but regardless rules =/= fluff...ever...ever...ever.

Nowhere does it say to remove the armor from just the one vehicle...now a whole other can of worms...err scarabs...gets opened if you are in B2B with 2 squadrons of vehicles.

So RAI and fluff say 3 RAW says 2

I go with RAW since this is YMDC.

Nerf the Scarabs? As if Scarabs aren't amazingly awesome regardless of how this particular issue ends up being played?

But honestly, this is a massive grey area in the rules, and there is no 'RAW' way to play. The Entropic Strikes work based on hitting vehicles, and against vehicle squadrons you don't hit vehicles, you hit the squadron. You can make the logical leap to say that 'hits on squadron' = 'hits on all vehicles' but this is not explicitly said by the rules. Because in reality we know that each hit cannot possibly strike more than one vehicle in the squadron, we just don't have any rules telling us how to distribute them until after armor penetration is rolled.

I believe it is very important to always stick with the less powerful interpretation anytime the rules are so vague, so that's what I'm proposing. GW may very well come along and FAQ this to make all members of the squadron affected equally by all the Entropic Strike hits (god help vehicle squadrons if that happens), but until that point I believe sticking with any less powerful interpretation you can muster is the right call.

yakface wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:
Look I have full respect for Yakface but I feel like that just isn't right. It may seem balanced but it nerfs the scarabs alot and doesn't follow proper procedure as you don't allocate hits you allocate pens and glances. It does make sense from a fluff perspective though as it would take time for the scarabs to crawl through and disrupt all of the tanks, but regardless rules =/= fluff...ever...ever...ever.

Nowhere does it say to remove the armor from just the one vehicle...now a whole other can of worms...err scarabs...gets opened if you are in B2B with 2 squadrons of vehicles.

So RAI and fluff say 3 RAW says 2

I go with RAW since this is YMDC.

Nerf the Scarabs? As if Scarabs aren't amazingly awesome regardless of how this particular issue ends up being played?

But honestly, this is a massive grey area in the rules, and there is no 'RAW' way to play. The Entropic Strikes work based on hitting vehicles, and against vehicle squadrons you don't hit vehicles, you hit the squadron. You can make the logical leap to say that 'hits on squadron' = 'hits on all vehicles' but this is not explicitly said by the rules. Because in reality we know that each hit cannot possibly strike more than one vehicle in the squadron, we just don't have any rules telling us how to distribute them until after armor penetration is rolled.

I believe it is very important to always stick with the less powerful interpretation anytime the rules are so vague, so that's what I'm proposing. GW may very well come along and FAQ this to make all members of the squadron affected equally by all the Entropic Strike hits (god help vehicle squadrons if that happens), but until that point I believe sticking with any less powerful interpretation you can muster is the right call.

Funny point Yakface, guess Akroma could also argue beings he's hitting the Squadron not the actual vehicle no armor is reduced?

I don't agree with allocating hits.

I'm going to stick with what I have where you allocate 'entropic success', somewhat like pens and glances before rolling for pens and glances.

Imweasel proposed very wise decision.

to-hit rolls -> entropic rolls -> allocation of positive entropic rolls -> armor penetration rolls (for reduced squadron common AV) -> allocation of glancing and penetrating hits.

Thus armor reduction will be most equal among squadron members.

Please don't say scarabs are nerf'd against squadrons because they are not. They all should get an attack and if they really are only touching one vehicle they don't have to worry about multiple vehicles blowing up around them.

I will base these attacks on a 10 man squad and a 13 man squad vs 3 lemon russ'.

40 hits, 20 armour drops. 20/3 - 6 with 2 extras's. So we are looking at two AV's of 7 and one of 8. With scarabs having a 3 str you only need 4's to glance and 5's to pen. You roll against the majority of AV7.

49 hits, 24 hits to make it easy. Each tank is at AV6 and you only need 3/s to glance and 4's to pen.

The 40 hits leaves you with around 12 pens and 7 glances.
The 49 hits leaves you with around 27 pens and 9 glances.

Both should be 3 dead lemon russ' from a Str 3 model.
I think this is not nerf'd at all.

And just to clarify how hitting a squadron does not mean the same thing as hitting all the vehicles, take a squadron getting hit by a single Harp of Dissonance shot.

Now clearly in the best case scenario this shot is only getting allocated against a single vehicle in the squadron (i.e. there's no way this one hit glances/penetrates more than one vehicle) yet by the faulty interpretation that a hit on the squadron = a hit on all the vehicles this single Harp of Dissonance hit would somehow hit all 3 vehicles and reduce all of their AV by 1?

imweasel wrote:Because doing it your way means that you change how pens and glances are allocated.

Normally you get to allocate pens and glances after determining how many you get .

Your method means that you don't get to allocate them

I would rather use majority av than to allocate 'hits'.

Understood. I think there's enough complexity in the interaction between the allocation, strike rolls, and penetration rolls that the outcomes would be comparable. In effect, a concentration of strikes on one vehicle in the squadron would necessarily lead to a larger portion of penetrating hits against that vehicle which is ultimately what your after when your allocating those pens and glances.

Arschbombe wrote:Understood. I think there's enough complexity in the interaction between the allocation, strike rolls, and penetration rolls that the outcomes would be comparable. In effect, a concentration of strikes on one vehicle in the squadron would necessarily lead to a larger portion of penetrating hits against that vehicle which is ultimately what your after when your allocating those pens and glances.

True, but it also means that you could wind up with one vehicle having a lot of 'entropic successes' as opposed to trying to even things out.

Makes the AV 'issue' more manageable.

Yes, it's a flavorful, but horrid mechanic like the rest of the record keeping mechanics GW has come up with of late. I hope GF9 produces some handy degraded armor markers soonish.

I would think that, since cover saves are meant to (fluff-wise) represent missing your target because it's too fast, missing your chance to fire because of objects in the way, hitting something else in the way, or hitting nothing vital due to one of those reasons, that you would ignore entropic strike on a successful cover save, even if it passed in the first place.

That's how I'm running it at my store.

Smufflez wrote:I would think that, since cover saves are meant to (fluff-wise) represent missing your target because it's too fast, missing your chance to fire because of objects in the way, hitting something else in the way, or hitting nothing vital due to one of those reasons, that you would ignore entropic strike on a successful cover save, even if it passed in the first place.

That's how I'm running it at my store.

Lol, in that case can I take a cover save to a marker light?

Nah that'd nerf tau too hard. Though logically I'd say yes, that would be way too imbalanced for the tau. Old codex syndrome means you get to break logic to stay in tune with new rules and other army books. Lolz

Smufflez wrote:I would think that, since cover saves are meant to (fluff-wise) represent missing your target because it's too fast, missing your chance to fire because of objects in the way, hitting something else in the way, or hitting nothing vital due to one of those reasons, that you would ignore entropic strike on a successful cover save, even if it passed in the first place.

That's how I'm running it at my store.

Man, that's just crazy talk!

Vehicles only get to take cover (and presumably invulnerable) saves against glancing/penetrating hits, but Entropic hits work on ALL hits. So you're telling me that with Entropic Strike you actually don't want to roll penetrating/glancing hits because then a save could be taken which would then retroactively negate the AV reduction by Entropic Strike?

That does not work! Just imagine:

I hit your Raider with a Flicker Field with 6 Scarab Attacks. I roll for my entropic strike and 3 of them roll the '4+' and reduce your vehicle's armor by 3 (down to AV7 on all sides). I now roll the Scarab's S3 attacks against the AV7 and I glance or penetrate with 2 of them. Now you're saying that any Invulnerable Flickerfield saves you make suddenly bring your armor BACK UP, even though I just rolled for 3 attacks on the lower value?

It does not work! Entropic Strike occurs as soon as a hit happens and therefore (unfortunately) it makes no sense in the game mechanics to retroactively try to cancel the Entropic effect when or if the 'hit' is subsequently saved.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:Understood. I think there's enough complexity in the interaction between the allocation, strike rolls, and penetration rolls that the outcomes would be comparable. In effect, a concentration of strikes on one vehicle in the squadron would necessarily lead to a larger portion of penetrating hits against that vehicle which is ultimately what your after when your allocating those pens and glances.

True, but it also means that you could wind up with one vehicle having a lot of 'entropic successes' as opposed to trying to even things out.

Makes the AV 'issue' more manageable.

I do totally agree that your solution is 'cleaner', but I think the way I've suggested matches a wee bit more closely to the way that damage is typically handled on vehicle squadrons.

You see, you have to allocate penetrating/glancing hits onto specific vehicles before rolling to see what the damage is, so it can totally happen where one vehicle ends up with a bunch of weapons destroyed, for example, while another vehicle just gets a bunch of 'shaken' results.

Of course, yeah, in this case there aren't too many different outcomes (since immobilized = destroyed with a squadron), as opposed to having vehicles in a squadron with totally different AV from Entropic Strike (which can definitely create some odd situations)...I dunno.

I just hope GW gets this question in their first-run FAQ.

It might be crazy talk.

I would just say roll saves for the entropics, then roll to pen, and use however many saves pass to cancel pens.

Otherwise it's pretty OP.

Except you have no permission to roll saves on the entropic strikes.

For shooting I would just let my opponent place the entropic hits.

for CC against the squad i would play it out as the entropic strike happens to the vehicle he is actually in base with.
so I would simply roll separately for the scarab bases in contact with other vehicles

GamzaTheChaos wrote:
for CC against the squad i would play it out as the entropic strike happens to the vehicle he is actually in base with.
so I would simply roll separately for the scarab bases in contact with other vehicles

???

When you're in CC with a vehicle squadron the hits are still spread amongst squadron members, it is exactly the same as with shooting. To limit attacks only to the vehicles that a model is in base contact with is both against the rules and non-sensical when dealing with a multitude of attacks from a ton of models attacking a vehicle squadron.