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.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

EDIT: Found it. "For each hit a vehicle suffers from a weapon or model with this special rule, roll a D6. For each result of 4+, it immediately loses 1 point of armour value from all facings". A vehicle in a squadron does not 'suffer' a hit until Glances and Pens have been allocated. The rule doesn't say that you roll immediately after rolling to hit, it says you roll immediately after the vehicle has 'suffered' a hit; the reason you roll immediately after the To Hit roll normally is that, in all other circumstances, a vehicle 'suffers' a hit when you succeed in a roll To Hit. Since a Glancing or Penetrating Hit is a hit, and this is the only time a vehicle in a squadron 'suffers' a hit, I believe that this is how ES is applied to squadrons.

I think you posted before seeing my edit, nos. A vehicle in a squadron which suffers a Penetrating or Glancing hit has obviously suffered a hit; at the moment when it suffers that hit, you have to roll for ES. In order to refute that, it would be necessary to demonstrate that a Penetrating or Glancing Hit is not a hit.

Of course, if ES works this way against squadrons then it's a huge nerf, because a squadroned vehicle will only suffer the effects of Entropic Strike if the Scarabs can FIRST manage to Glance or Penetrate them at their un-reduced AV.

EDIT: Posted before seeing this.

rigeld2 wrote:Not true. Glance/Pen is a damage result, not a hit - regardless of the name.

The squadron is hit. The assaulting unit rolls to pen. The squadron allocates damage results.

There's no hitting a vehicle in there, just hitting the squadron.

I don't think a Glance or Pen IS a damage result; the result of the roll on the Vehicle Damage Table is a damage result. The Glance or Pen is something else, and looking at the name seems to tell us that it's a hit.

The squadron is hit. The assaulting unit rolls to pen. The squadron allocates Glancing and Penetrating Hits, THEN rolls to see what damage results there are.

BeRzErKeR wrote:In order to refute that, it would be necessary to demonstrate that a Penetrating or Glancing Hit is not a hit.

I don't think a Glance or Pen IS a damage result; the result of the roll on the Vehicle Damage Table is a damage result. The Glance or Pen is something else, and looking at the name seems to tell us that it's a hit.

Except hit has an explicit definition. If you're advocating a Glance/Pen as a Hit you have to apply all the Hit rules - which means rolling for Glance/Pen, which generate Hits, which means rolling for Glance/Pen...

Also, you're attributing quotes all wrong. Might want to fix that.

rigeld2 wrote:
Except hit has an explicit definition. If you're advocating a Glance/Pen as a Hit you have to apply all the Hit rules - which means rolling for Glance/Pen, which generate Hits, which means rolling for Glance/Pen...

Also, you're attributing quotes all wrong. Might want to fix that.

Sorry, I typed that into an edit instead of replying and I saw the wrong name. I'll fix it momentarily.

Back on topic; The To Hit rules have already been satisfied. You rolled to hit; those hits happened. They were then converted into Glancing or Penetrating hits, according to the vehicle rules.

What I'm saying, basically, is that a squadron gets 'hit' twice off of every successful roll To Hit; first the squadron as a whole gets hit, which is when To Hit rolls are made. Then, BEFORE they are actaully converted into damage results but AFTER it has been determined which ones will be so converted, those Hits which aren't simply ignored are assigned to individual vehicles.

At this point, those INDIVIDUAL VEHICLES have 'suffered a hit' for each Glance or Pen which they have been assigned. As a result, Entropic Strike triggers, because it activates whenever a vehicle "suffers a hit".

Except they havent suffered a hit - only a glancing or penetrating hit.

At no point is a vehicle in a squadron "hit" - it is only glancing or penetrating "hit", and you cannot simply break the phrase down and claim a hit has occured' it hasnt

So you are saying that a unit of vehicles is immune to an ability that specifically affects vehicles? Is there some hidden irony/sarcasm/joke that my english doesn't get?

Simply put; squadron rules are a total goof-up. Because of said goof up Entropic Strike, per RAW, cannot function on a squadron as a vehicle has not suffered a hit. The squadron takes the hit, and ES doesn't cover that situation. However you decide to play it from that point on is a house rule.

If the situation could potentially arise in a game, you would be best to discuss with your opponent how it should be resolved beforehand. Not when your scarabs are reading to eat his three LRBTs or whatever the case may be.

*edit*

I suppose that was about as helpful as a sack of hammers.

At my gaming table we resolve it as follows. For the course of that assault, the vehicle ceases to be a part of the squadron. We felt that evenly spreading ES results still leaned the results far too much in favour of those little metal munchers. Immobilized results still cause wrecks, but again, it's the only resolution we found that didn't totally break the game down.

Cheers

BeRzErKeR wrote:Sorry, I typed that into an edit instead of replying and I saw the wrong name. I'll fix it momentarily.

No biggie - just didn't want nos to get offended about someone putting words in his mouth

Back on topic; The To Hit rules have already been satisfied. You rolled to hit; those hits happened. They were then converted into Glancing or Penetrating hits, according to the vehicle rules.

Glance/Pen Hits are not a subset of Hits. They follow none of the same rules and you actually aren't required to have a hit before you suffer a Glance/Pen Hit.

What you're saying here is that wounds are also hits. And that's simply not true.

What I'm saying, basically, is that a squadron gets 'hit' twice off of every successful roll To Hit; first the squadron as a whole gets hit, which is when To Hit rolls are made. Then, BEFORE they are actaully converted into damage results but AFTER it has been determined which ones will be so converted, those Hits which aren't simply ignored are assigned to individual vehicles.

I can't think of/find any rules basis for this assertion. Could you cite something? Anything that shows a Glance/Pen hit counts as a hit from a to-hit roll would be sufficient.

At this point, those INDIVIDUAL VEHICLES have 'suffered a hit' for each Glance or Pen which they have been assigned. As a result, Entropic Strike triggers, because it activates whenever a vehicle "suffers a hit".

No, they've suffered a glance/pen hit. Without rules backup, these are entirely separate from a to-hit roll hit and cannot be combined.

RAW, ES doesn't effect squadrons. RAI, I'd say it nukes the one tank you're "hitting" (in b2b with)

canadianbigshot wrote:At my gaming table we resolve it as follows. For the course of that assault, the vehicle ceases to be a part of the squadron. We felt that evenly spreading ES results still leaned the results far too much in favour of those little metal munchers. Immobilized results still cause wrecks, but again, it's the only resolution we found that didn't totally break the game down.

This is very interesting. Have you playtested the case of spreading the ES at all?

Yes, technically the rules for ES do not work on squadrons

Its about the only good thing about squadrons

rigeld2 wrote:

What I'm saying, basically, is that a squadron gets 'hit' twice off of every successful roll To Hit; first the squadron as a whole gets hit, which is when To Hit rolls are made. Then, BEFORE they are actaully converted into damage results but AFTER it has been determined which ones will be so converted, those Hits which aren't simply ignored are assigned to individual vehicles.

I can't think of/find any rules basis for this assertion. Could you cite something? Anything that shows a Glance/Pen hit counts as a hit from a to-hit roll would be sufficient.

At this point, those INDIVIDUAL VEHICLES have 'suffered a hit' for each Glance or Pen which they have been assigned. As a result, Entropic Strike triggers, because it activates whenever a vehicle "suffers a hit".

No, they've suffered a glance/pen hit. Without rules backup, these are entirely separate from a to-hit roll hit and cannot be combined.

RAW, ES doesn't effect squadrons. RAI, I'd say it nukes the one tank you're "hitting" (in b2b with)

Hmm. . . the only things I can find are somewhat vague, honestly. That said, I think there is some rules support for my interpretation.

Page 61, first paragraph under 'Damage Rolls'; "A hit on a vehicle can have a variety of results. . ."

Glancing and Penetrating Hits are referred to as 'hits' here.

Page 60, bullet points under 'Armor Penetration'; "If the total is equal to the target's Armor Value, the shot causes a glancing hit. If the total is greater than the target's Armor Value, the shot scores a penetrating hit."

I may be parsing these words quite finely, but do note that it doesn't say "the hit is a Glance" or "the hit penetrates". The SHOT causes a glancing or penetrating HIT. That seems to indicate that even after rolling for Armor Penetration, we are still discussing 'hits'. In other words, my reading of the rules is that glances/penetrating hits are are still considered 'hits'.

This is further supported by the phrasing of the Obscured Targets section, on page 62. "If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table." Clearly, the BGB uses the word 'hit' and 'glancing/penetrating hit' interchangeably when referring to vehicles, which I argue indicates that they are the same thing in game terms and should be treated the same until AFTER a Vehicle Damage roll is made.

IF a Hit and a Glancing / Penetrating hit are the same thing, then you never need to roll for AP, and ES occurs twice (once before you roll for AP, and once after)

Context is telling you what they mean here - they dont always write things out fully.

nosferatu1001 wrote:IF a Hit and a Glancing / Penetrating hit are the same thing, then you never need to roll for AP, and ES occurs twice (once before you roll for AP, and once after)

Context is telling you what they mean here - they dont always write things out fully.

Neither of those things are true, actually.

I phrased my argument badly; I apologize. What I'm arguing is that glancing/penetrating hits are SUBCATEGORIES of hits, and as such still qualify as 'hits' for the purposes of an effect that triggers when something 'suffers a hit'. In order to get to them, you have already satisfied the rules for hits, and there's nothing that requires you to go through them again; you scored a hit. You then went through the process that determined whether it was a glancing or penetrating hit. No backtracking required or indeed allowed. You have to roll for AP in order to GET a glancing or penetrating hit.

Furthermore, this interpretation does NOT make ES occur twice; it makes it occur once, against both individual vehicles and squadrons. Why? Because the rule says "when this vehicle suffers a hit". Against an individual vehicle, every hit which glances or penetrates has already BEEN suffered, before you ever got to that point; the vehicle 'suffered a hit' when the To Hit roll was passed. The process of determining if the hit glances or penetrates does NOT make the vehicle 'suffer' it again, and so does not give ES permission to activate again.

Vehicles in a squadron, however, don't 'suffer' those hits when the To Hit roll is made; they suffer them later, after it's been determined which hits are glancing or penetrating and those hits have been allocated to individual vehicles. So ES activates THEN, against them. It still doesn't activate twice; once again, these vehicles only 'suffer' a given hit once, and there's no permission to activate ES at any other time.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Hmm. . . the only things I can find are somewhat vague, honestly. That said, I think there is some rules support for my interpretation.

Page 61, first paragraph under 'Damage Rolls'; "A hit on a vehicle can have a variety of results. . ."

Glancing and Penetrating Hits are referred to as 'hits' here.

Page 60, bullet points under 'Armor Penetration'; "If the total is equal to the target's Armor Value, the shot causes a glancing hit. If the total is greater than the target's Armor Value, the shot scores a penetrating hit."

I may be parsing these words quite finely, but do note that it doesn't say "the hit is a Glance" or "the hit penetrates". The SHOT causes a glancing or penetrating HIT. That seems to indicate that even after rolling for Armor Penetration, we are still discussing 'hits'. In other words, my reading of the rules is that glances/penetrating hits are are still considered 'hits'.

So instead of rolling to hit, you just roll to pen vs vehicles?

Context is everything.

This is further supported by the phrasing of the Obscured Targets section, on page 62. "If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table." Clearly, the BGB uses the word 'hit' and 'glancing/penetrating hit' interchangeably when referring to vehicles, which I argue indicates that they are the same thing in game terms and should be treated the same until AFTER a Vehicle Damage roll is made.

If they're the same thing, then simply rolling to pen will satisfy the "Did I hit?" question. Also, the rules on page 62 absolutely refer only to the Glancing/Penetrating hit - context requires it (exactly like a non-vehicle unit would do against a wound - or are you trying to say that a successful save for a non-vehicle unit removes the hit entirely also?).

Berzerker - so you are claiming there is no way to have a Glancing Hit without also having a hit?

Perils of the warp on Libby dreads (glancing hit to rear armour) disagrees with you. Penalty for being in an exploding SR (as above) disagrees with you.

There are no rules, none whatsoever, that specifically state Hit is the super category of penetrating or glancing hit, and therefore your entire argument is null.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Berzerker - so you are claiming there is no way to have a Glancing Hit without also having a hit?

Perils of the warp on Libby dreads (glancing hit to rear armour) disagrees with you. Penalty for being in an exploding SR (as above) disagrees with you.

There are no rules, none whatsoever, that specifically state Hit is the super category of penetrating or glancing hit, and therefore your entire argument is null.

You're right; there are no rules that specifically state that. The entire argument I've presented is based off of indirect references, and my interpretation of what the text indicates.

I'm simply trying to find a way to make it work, really. I've always worked off the premise that, given the chance, the best interpretation of the rules is the one which nullifies the fewest rules. Squadron rules entirely nullify Entropic Strike UNLESS you interpret glancing/penetrating hits as a subcategory of hits; and I don't believe that doing so causes any other problems with the rules.

That said, I'm not married to this argument, and I don't think it's unassailable. You've raised good points. If the situation comes up in a game, I'll present both it and the argument that ES does nothing to squadrons to my opponent, and let them decide between the two or propose a reasonable house rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Hmm. . . the only things I can find are somewhat vague, honestly. That said, I think there is some rules support for my interpretation.

Page 61, first paragraph under 'Damage Rolls'; "A hit on a vehicle can have a variety of results. . ."

Glancing and Penetrating Hits are referred to as 'hits' here.

Page 60, bullet points under 'Armor Penetration'; "If the total is equal to the target's Armor Value, the shot causes a glancing hit. If the total is greater than the target's Armor Value, the shot scores a penetrating hit."

I may be parsing these words quite finely, but do note that it doesn't say "the hit is a Glance" or "the hit penetrates". The SHOT causes a glancing or penetrating HIT. That seems to indicate that even after rolling for Armor Penetration, we are still discussing 'hits'. In other words, my reading of the rules is that glances/penetrating hits are are still considered 'hits'.

So instead of rolling to hit, you just roll to pen vs vehicles?

Context is everything.

BeRzErKeR wrote:This is further supported by the phrasing of the Obscured Targets section, on page 62. "If the save is passed, the hit is discarded and no roll is made on the Vehicle Damage table." Clearly, the BGB uses the word 'hit' and 'glancing/penetrating hit' interchangeably when referring to vehicles, which I argue indicates that they are the same thing in game terms and should be treated the same until AFTER a Vehicle Damage roll is made.

If they're the same thing, then simply rolling to pen will satisfy the "Did I hit?" question. Also, the rules on page 62 absolutely refer only to the Glancing/Penetrating hit - context requires it (exactly like a non-vehicle unit would do against a wound - or are you trying to say that a successful save for a non-vehicle unit removes the hit entirely also?).

First off; no, even if I'm right, all of this is still wrong. As I said in my post just before yours, I phrased my argument badly; what I meant to say is that it's possible to interpret glancing/penetrating hits as a SUBCATEGORY of hits. Nothing ever removes the requirement to roll To Hit BEFORE rolling Armor Penetration; the question is whether rolling Armor Penetration turns glancing/penetrating hits into an entirely different thing, or simply moves them to a subcategory which falls under the general category of 'hits'.

Second; your second point is exactly what I was saying. The rules on page 62 clearly refer to glancing/penetrating hits, and still use the word 'hit', which indicates correspondence between glancing/penetrating hits and hits in general (since, as you've said, 'hit' has a clear in-game definition). Since, in context, the word 'hit' MUST refer to 'glancing or penetrating hit' and yet that word has a specific and distinct meaning, the logical implication is that 'penetrating or glancing hit' is either identical to or a subcategory of 'hit'. Since we both agree (aside from my poor word choice) that the two cannot be literally identical, I am following up the second possibility, that glancing/penetrating hits are a subcategory.

Third; Making a save against a wound does, indeed, nullify the hit entirely. It has no effect. There are a small number of special rules which activate when a wound is saved, but those specifically outline the circumstances under which the activate and what they do, and thus override the general rule. The general rule is that if you save against a wound, any 'hit' which caused it poofs away; nothing happens, there is no effect. That doesn't negate the argument.

Now, as I've said, I do agree that there is never any specific permission to designate glancing/penetrating hits as their own subcategory, and I would allow my opponent to choose the interpretation they preferred in-game, unless we both agreed on a reasonable house rule.

BeRzErKeR wrote:First off; no, even if I'm right, all of this is still wrong. As I said in my post just before yours, I phrased my argument badly; what I meant to say is that it's possible to interpret glancing/penetrating hits as a SUBCATEGORY of hits. Nothing ever removes the requirement to roll To Hit BEFORE rolling Armor Penetration; the question is whether rolling Armor Penetration turns glancing/penetrating hits into an entirely different thing, or simply moves them to a subcategory which falls under the general category of 'hits'.

Okay, misunderstood.

Second; your second point is exactly what I was saying. The rules on page 62 clearly refer to glancing/penetrating hits, and still use the word 'hit', which indicates correspondence between glancing/penetrating hits and hits in general (since, as you've said, 'hit' has a clear in-game definition). Since, in context, the word 'hit' MUST refer to 'glancing or penetrating hit' and yet that word has a specific and distinct meaning, the logical implication is that 'penetrating or glancing hit' is either identical to or a subcategory of 'hit'. Since we both agree (aside from my poor word choice) that the two cannot be literally identical, I am following up the second possibility, that glancing/penetrating hits are a subcategory.

Context showing that a=b does not show that a=b=c. Yes, using the same word is misleading, I'll give you that. But since "hit" in that paragraph cannot mean anything other than the Pen/Glance, you can't refer to the "normal" definition of the word.. they're completely separate.

Third; Making a save against a wound does, indeed, nullify the hit entirely. It has no effect. There are a small number of special rules which activate when a wound is saved, but those specifically outline the circumstances under which the activate and what they do, and thus override the general rule. The general rule is that if you save against a wound, any 'hit' which caused it poofs away; nothing happens, there is no effect. That doesn't negate the argument.

So (if I remember the rule correctly) Tesla weapons get extra shots when a to-hit of 6 is rolled. If you nullify the hit entirely, you'd have to remove those extra shots as well. I don't think that's correct. The unit was hit, the wound allocated to a model, you just saved the wound. (I could be wrong on the rule, and this one is a little bit of a stretch... but I think it still works).

copper.talos wrote:
This is very interesting. Have you playtested the case of spreading the ES at all?

Bear in mind this is purely anecdotal and our sample size is probably around the 50 game mark.

What we found in testing spreading ES was pretty messy and very biased situationally.

Since the most common squadron rear AV is 10, at least in my area, a reduction of 5+ would be regarded as catastophic to a squadron. If the squadron was vehicles there would be 15+ ES getting through.

Initially we were of the belief that getting an average of 15+ ES was a difficult task; however, with competant skill this was very readily achieved through means of one-two punches and scarab repopulation. This is where the situation bias comes in. Five scarab bases assaulting a moving vehicle squadron are not going to get fantastic numbers unless your dice are blessed, but it can still happen. When it does happen, it lends itself back to why we believe spreading the ES out is a bit too powerful. It's uncommon, but not impossible. If there are fewer than five bases, or fast moving vehicles, our ruling is biased in favour of the Necron player as the ES are concentrated to the one vehicle.

Why we chose to go down this route:

This assumes several components; three LRBTs in a squad move only enough to satisfy the 4+ to-hit criteria. Starting with ten scarab bases, allowing casualties repopulated through means of Spyders. Lastly it assumes a healthy 60%+ bias in favour of die rolls for the Necrons.

8+ bases making it into assault on the second turn resulted in oblivion for the LRBTs. You can argue until you're blue in the face saying that the IG player played poorly in allowing such an occurance, but I disagree. By means of maximizing cover, Solar Pulses and proper threat saturation I am more than capable of delivering the 8+ threshold we set as the point. If the scarabs go largely unoppressed I will have 10-16 bases assaulting. This is the point where the sqaudron sharing damage totally breaks down.

If 15+ ES get through, there are likely 30+ hits. If those hits cause damage on a 5+, you could expect 10 damage results. That almost always turns into 2/3 or 3/3 wrecks or explosions.

Again, this is purely anecdotal. We went with die rolls favouring the Necrons for the reason that it doesn't require overwhelmingly good rolling, IE, less than 75% success rate. With slightly better than average rolling, the results are totally biased towards the Necron player. Lose one LRBT and that point is totally moot, they stand no chance, they can only hope to take out some bases with explosions.

Of course we couldn't leave it there. We further ruled that in any assault, not just with scarabs, against a squadron that only vehicles in B2B can be destroyed/damaged. Although it breaks the squadron rules it fixes the exteme vulnerability squadrons have against assaults in this current edition.

Cheers

I can't say I agree with your results. It takes skill from the necron player and errors from the opponent, for that 8 scarabs to reach a squadron located in the back lines. You are actually penalizing skill and promoting errors.

There are units that can exterminate 10 untouched scarabs in one go. Should I change how instant death works so they can survive? Or should I learn how to avoid those units in the 1st place?

copper.talos wrote: Or should I learn how to avoid those units in the 1st place?

With a minimum of 26 inch second turn charge range, average of 30, and max of 36 inches, staying out of range is not going to be easy.

OP.

The strict wording of squadrons makes the vehicles within the squad immune to ES.

The best way to play it if you do not want squadrons to be immune would probably be to spread the hits to individual vehicles within the squadron and then roll for your ES on a per vehicle basis.

Yes they have a 26 charge range. DE with 1st turn pivoting raiders and a good fleet roll can do as much too. It's not unheard of.
The point is that you can see it it coming. Are you afraid for the squadrons? Put them in the back lines, bubblewrap them, deploy them so the scarabs must cross area terrain to reach them. There are plenty of solutions. IG who has most to fear from them can easily lock them in cc with 30 guardsman almost indefinitely. Scarabs just got a lot of hype. They are not the bogeyman of 40k...

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

calypso2ts wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but if 2 models in a squadron move 6" and the other stays stationary, you hit 2 of the models on a 4+ and the other you automatically hit. If this is the case, hits are resolved against the individual vehicle in the unit, damage results across the entire unit.

Pg 64: Movement Phase: "When a squadron moves, all of it's vehicles move a the same speed [ ]."

If one vehicle moves at all, then they all move, just like with Heavy Weapons in a squad.

bagtagger wrote:I think for now the best way is to sort of bend the rules and allocate the entopic strikes evenly amung the squadron and then go from there with armor values, the other options don't make enough sense.

Pg 64 Assault Phase: "When engaged in close combat against a squadron, enemy models roll to hit and for armour penetration against the squadron as a whole."

There is no need to bend anything. Every hit is done to the whole squadron, not individual vehicles, so EACH Entropic Strike would effect EVERY vehicle in the squadron. Then you roll the hits for each vehicle separately. Should these rolls reduce the Armour of the several vehicles to different values, the Majority Rule referenced on pages 19 and 37 will be in effect for rolling armour penetration against the squadron as a whole. The player controlling the squadron will allocate the pens and glances across the squadron as he desires, and Damage results will be rolled accordingly. Far out.

I would have to agree with this. and not because i'm a cron player but because when my swarms take wounds.. guess what i have to treat it accross the unit as a whole. like oh i don't know Templete blast hmmm yeah thats all instant death stuff there.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:There is no need to bend anything. Every hit is done to the whole squadron, not individual vehicles, so EACH Entropic Strike would effect EVERY vehicle in the squadron.

Macok wrote:One could argue that ES does nothing to squadrons because squadron, not the vehicle was hit and ES does nothing to squadrons.

@ Necronmike: I may be exactly wrong. Macok has a strong argument. ES says nothing about squadrons, only vehicles, and no hits are allocated to the individual vehicles in a squadron.

@Ghenghis... well lets think why we play this game.. for the fun of it right? none of us are getting rich off this game. why wouldn't you let your oppent "damage" a squad of vehicles.. ES does hurt vehicles and if you try and tell me that because your unit of Vehicles are listed as a squad and your not going to let my swarms do thier thing because of that?.... really? well then i'd have to pick up my marbles and go find some one more fun to battle. because they would be a squad of "vehicles" let me do my one round of damage befor you kill them please its only for fun and good sports man ship. and we all have to remeber .... Every thing Dies in 40k .. ps don't for get .. Big Rule Book says WYSIWYG... so if i see a squad of Bikes .. well i don't know about ever one else but a bike is a vehicle and i'll call it, and i'm going to do my ES strick against it.

Necronmike wrote:@Ghenghis... well lets think why we play this game.. for the fun of it right? none of us are getting rich off this game. why wouldn't you let your oppent "damage" a squad of vehicles.. ES does hurt vehicles and if you try and tell me that because your unit of Vehicles are listed as a squad and your not going to let my swarms do thier thing because of that?.... really? well then i'd have to pick up my marbles and go find some one more fun to battle. because they would be a squad of "vehicles" let me do my one round of damage befor you kill them please its only for fun and good sports man ship. and we all have to remeber .... Every thing Dies in 40k .. ps don't for get .. Big Rule Book says WYSIWYG... so if i see a squad of Bikes .. well i don't know about ever one else but a bike is a vehicle and i'll call it, and i'm going to do my ES strick against it.

This is a Rules discussion, and terminology and sequencing are very important in the discussion. And I never said anything about the way I would play it for fun or for fairness.

As for Bikes, I don't know what you are trying to say here. They have a Toughness characteristic and not an Armour Value. ES could only take away their Armour Save.

Necronmike wrote:so if i see a squad of Bikes .. well i don't know about ever one else but a bike is a vehicle and i'll call it, and i'm going to do my ES strick against it.

Bike's aren't vehicles. A Biker will only lose his armor save if he suffers an unsaved wound, per the rules of ES.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

Necronmike wrote:@Ghenghis... well lets think why we play this game.. for the fun of it right? none of us are getting rich off this game. why wouldn't you let your oppent "damage" a squad of vehicles.. ES does hurt vehicles and if you try and tell me that because your unit of Vehicles are listed as a squad and your not going to let my swarms do thier thing because of that?.... really? well then i'd have to pick up my marbles and go find some one more fun to battle. because they would be a squad of "vehicles" let me do my one round of damage befor you kill them please its only for fun and good sports man ship. and we all have to remeber .... Every thing Dies in 40k .. ps don't for get .. Big Rule Book says WYSIWYG... so if i see a squad of Bikes .. well i don't know about ever one else but a bike is a vehicle and i'll call it, and i'm going to do my ES strick against it.

This is a Rules discussion, and terminology and sequencing are very important in the discussion. And I never said anything about the way I would play it for fun or for fairness.

As for Bikes, I don't know what you are trying to say here. They have a Toughness characteristic and not an Armour Value. ES could only take away their Armour Save.

First off I'd like to say that after re-reading this message. I'm not trying to poke at any ones chest lol. Yes it is a rule discussion and I am totally about being fair and chances are I'd be app to break up the rolls to my swarms on what bases are touching what bases, that is very logical . but we all want to have fun with this game and enjoy all the hobby side of it and finding friends that enjoy it as well. I didn't join dakka dakka to make enemy's ,,, I have enough of those on the 4X6 table lol. And yes I don't know what Im talking about when it comes to bikes lol I'm just now getting a set of bike in my codex. Over all what I'd like to say is that until it gets FAQ then we all need to find a way to work this out in case other people run into this problem

Well, the issue is that the ES rule does not tell us how it interacts with squadrons. So, we break down what the rules DO tell us, then we can come to an idea of what is wrong with the situation, and how to approach it in a similar manner to how similar situations that have come up before.