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.

Which is the Dark Eldar that gives the 5+ invulnerable save, flickerfield or shadowsomething? Regardless, I found it interesting that the rules state the save provided is an invulnerable save. Every other similar ability (KFF, shield of sanguinius) provides a cover save for vehicles if I'm not mistaken. What are the implications for this? On the one hand, they are immune to markerlights. On the other hand, there could be some shooting attacks in future codices that negate invulnerable saves (GK!).

Flickerfield, vehicle upgrade. The implications are exactly like they are written. It's an invulnerable save, that it is attached to a vehicle makes no difference.

Oh come on, did they do that mistake again? I sure hope they remembered to state that you're allowed to use your invulnerable save against other things than wounds...

Mahtamori wrote:Flickerfield, vehicle upgrade. The implications are exactly like they are written. It's an invulnerable save, that it is attached to a vehicle makes no difference.

Well wait till the "only way for vehicles to get a cover save is via obscured" crowd get into it. The result will be that it does nothing for the DE vehicles.

Just wait for Gwar! to answer whether the codex provides a 5+ invulnerable or a 5+ invulnerable against damaging hits or similar wording. Haven't seen him (over)react yet and he's read the codex.

My god, why on earth would they do this?

Also, I thought the Codex didn't come out until next month?

M.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:Flickerfield, vehicle upgrade. The implications are exactly like they are written. It's an invulnerable save, that it is attached to a vehicle makes no difference.

Well wait till the "only way for vehicles to get a cover save is via obscured" crowd get into it. The result will be that it does nothing for the DE vehicles.

Leaving aside the RAW fundamentalists (until they wake up and have their coffee), I do wonder if "invulnerable save" vs. "cover save" for flickerfield was a conscious decision by the writers.

Infantryman wrote:My god, why on earth would they do this?

Also, I thought the Codex didn't come out until next month?

M.

From a game design point of view it's actually an interesting option to have on light vehicles. Emphasis being on light. On heavy vehicles it might just screw the game over, like how some armies have a serious problem with Monoliths while others don't.

Infantryman wrote:My god, why on earth would they do this?

Also, I thought the Codex didn't come out until next month?

M.

Store copies of the codex have been released and I had a read of it the other night.

Unless it states it works against hits, it doesnt. Saves only work against wounds, as defined in their rules.

If you read Gwars! thread on the DE codex FAQ its already in there....

This isn't a first. Bjorn the Fell Handed out of the Space Wolf codex already has an invulnerable save. Technically it doesn't do anything, because invul saves only work on attacks that inflict wounds. Practically, it's played as a 5+ chance to negate glancing or penetrating hits-like a cover save, but working against almost everything.

Hopefully, the flickerfield rules are solid. If they aren't, expect it to be played the same way Bjorn's is by most people.

Correct. Its the same as Bjorn.

That being said, I can't remember the exact wording for it, so it MIGHT just have a chance to work.

If someone can tell me if it does, I would appreciate it.

And while it isn't in my DE FAQ yet (I haven't gotten around to writing that part), it will be soon enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Mahtamori wrote:Flickerfield, vehicle upgrade. The implications are exactly like they are written. It's an invulnerable save, that it is attached to a vehicle makes no difference.

Well wait till the "only way for vehicles to get a cover save is via obscured" crowd get into it. The result will be that it does nothing for the DE vehicles.

RaW, it won't do anything, not because it isn't obscured (that is only for cover saves), but because Invulnerable saves may only be taken against wounds.

That being said, if the rules are solid, this might not be an issue. Knowing GW, it will be though.

Funnily enough, they made the same mistake on another Bjorn rule, regarding the dice to see who goes first. Epic Fails.

I don't see how you could possibly argue RAW for this. I'm pretty sure the designers intended for the vehicle to make use of it's god-damned save, or it wouldn't have it.

Sidstyler wrote:I don't see how you could possibly argue RAW for this. I'm pretty sure the designers intended for the vehicle to make use of it's god-damned save, or it wouldn't have it.

Im with you there Sidstyler. You see we are what is called RAI players. Rules lawyering just pisses me off.

KingCracker wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:I don't see how you could possibly argue RAW for this. I'm pretty sure the designers intended for the vehicle to make use of it's god-damned save, or it wouldn't have it.

Im with you there Sidstyler. You see we are what is called RAI players. Rules lawyering just pisses me off.

Save the hate for GW. They are the ones who repeatedly ?&@% up on these things. Everything would be nice and peachy if they, you know, actually knew how their own rules work. Oh, and having editors would help too.

I wouldn't put the blame on GW. I think most people will understand how the rule works. It's not that difficult.

Sidstyler wrote:I don't see how you could possibly argue RAW for this. I'm pretty sure the designers intended for the vehicle to make use of it's god-damned save, or it wouldn't have it.

Easy. The RaW is the Rules as Written.

What they Intended we have no idea, so we have to use the rules as written. What else are you going to use? Rules as not written?

KingCracker wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:I don't see how you could possibly argue RAW for this. I'm pretty sure the designers intended for the vehicle to make use of it's god-damned save, or it wouldn't have it.

Im with you there Sidstyler. You see we are what is called RAI players. Rules lawyering just pisses me off.

It is the age old argument.

If GW had intended for blah blah blah to do bleh bleh bleh, they could have just written that, instead of something else with a different meaning. Ultimately what is the point of writing rules if they aren't rules?

Of course we all know that the real reason is that GW doesn't employ any editors, and they keep on stuffing up their own publications because of it.

Didn't turbo-boosting bikes used to get an invulnerable save and didn't Grey Knights use to have a Psycho round which ignored invulnerable saves. I know bikes aren't vehicles.

Kilkrazy wrote:Didn't turbo-boosting bikes used to get an invulnerable save and didn't Grey Knights use to have a Psycho round which ignored invulnerable saves. I know bikes aren't vehicles.

Correct. In 4th edition, Bikes who Turbo Boosted had their Armour Save Become invulnerable, and lost their armour save. That meant that Psycannon Rounds murdered them well good.

Of course, RaW they still murder Ork Bikers, because you can't take cover saves against them and they are AP4.

At the RaI players, if you don't play by the rules, what exactly are you playing by?

Gwar, go review the "raw fun" thread and you will see that you do not play by the rules either.

olympia wrote:Gwar, go review the "raw fun" thread and you will see that you do not play by the rules either.

The thing is, there is a difference between clear RaW and unclear RaW.

Unclear RaW is fine to house rule

The RaW regarding Invuls on vehicles is 110& clear though, so to house rule it is unnecessary.

Ordznik wrote:This isn't a first. Bjorn the Fell Handed out of the Space Wolf codex already has an invulnerable save. Technically it doesn't do anything, because invul saves only work on attacks that inflict wounds.

Bjorn's rules specify that it works against glancing and penetrating hits.

insaniak wrote:

Ordznik wrote:This isn't a first. Bjorn the Fell Handed out of the Space Wolf codex already has an invulnerable save. Technically it doesn't do anything, because invul saves only work on attacks that inflict wounds.

Bjorn's rules specify that it works against glancing and penetrating hits.

But they don't tell you what passing the save does when you pass it on a vehicle.

The rules for cover saves do, but all Bjorns save does is let you ignore a wound on a 5+ every time you take a Pen or Glance.

Not very useful, is it?

lol I see the funny side of this, It has an invunerable save, it takes the save, well done you ignored the wound, now about that penetrating hit?

I myself tend to outright ignore certain rules when playing (wound alocation one for example) as i dont play in tournaments, my oponents generally dont mind as usually it gives them an advantage, call me a cheat i dont care, I play for funzors, and if they do mind.. i play properly.

the point im failing to make is, it has a invunerable save, so it get it, and i ignore RAW AND RAI.

And I have F.U.N.

I have fun by playing by the rules.

Playing by the rules and having fun are not exclusive you know...

I agree with Sidstyler, GW must know there own rules (or so reason would have us believe!) and the inv. save is perhaps a typo for a cover save? I still think people take this game far to seriously, which is fine perhaps in a GM tourney but I would generally say that if both player have an understanding of what is meant I.E RAI and they both agree on it, then what´s the need of arguing further?

RAI is all well and good, but it really ticks me off when players start changing things for no reason (not just to make the things work properly, like vehicle Invul saves).

A prime example would be 3++ Storm Shields on SM codices that don't get them.

Start with RAW and work from there is my motto for these things. Generally I don't have to deviate too far to have a fun gaming experience for both players.

Over on the Forge World side of things, they gave Mega and Meka dreds an invulnerable save, and now Grot Battle tanks have one. For the orks, it represents redunancy of parts, and the fact that half the crap on an ork vehicle doesn't actually do anything.

Gwar! wrote:I have fun by playing by the rules.

Playing by the rules and having fun are not exclusive you know...

You're absolutely correct in this, partially.

That's also like saying somebody who gets out of murder because of a technicality of the court could be determined as justice. It's a fault of justice. Just like these are faults with the rules. Obviously, determining which is the fault and which isn't is a greyer area than in my example(GW getting off their lazy arses to make rulings would help alleviate this issue..), but that doens't mean that playing RaI isn't still playing within the rules. That's merely a matter of opinion, as the rulings of TOs being the true gospel proves.

I think the issue lies where the intention is 100% obvious, and rules lawyers refute it at the last second just to gain an advantage.

Gwar, out of curiosity,do you bring a list of your FAQ with you when you play a game to explain how you will interpret them for your opponent to keep in mind when making tactical/army building decisions.

A-P wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:I don't see how you could possibly argue RAW for this. I'm pretty sure the designers intended for the vehicle to make use of it's god-damned save, or it wouldn't have it.

Im with you there Sidstyler. You see we are what is called RAI players. Rules lawyering just pisses me off.

Save the hate for GW. They are the ones who repeatedly ?&@% up on these things. Everything would be nice and peachy if they, you know, actually knew how their own rules work. Oh, and having editors would help too.

I call bull****. That's just passing the buck. I won't hate on GW because people are trying to exploit poorly written/edited rules without applying logic simply because they feel that is the purist way to play. It's like playing an MMORPG and having people exploit/hack the game because of loopholes in the build. Don't hate the exploiters, hate the programmers. What? So, don't hold anyone accountable? As long as it's the people in power that screw up, it's okay, and then you should just turn your anger on them? Nah, I don't believe that. You could hold the person standing across the table accountable and when they say, "You can't use those flickerfields, ya know?" You can look at them and say, "Really, dude?" instead of throwing your fist in the air screaming, "Damn you, GW!!!"