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.

How does a Flickerfields work when a Dark Eldar vehicle is rammed?

A Flickerfield provides a 5+ invulnerable, I think it is the only example of a vehicle with an invulnerable save in the game. If a Ram automatically hits (assumed from another skimmer) what happens (rules wise)?

What if the attacking vehicle was NOT a skimmer? Could a DE vehicle get the skimmer evade save AND the Flickerfields invulnerable as well?

Edit: Flickerfields, I originally had nightshield, my mistake, subsequent posts are correct.

Flickerfield * Since ramming is just a tank doing an attack, take saves as normal. As for doing both saves, fairly sure it's only one save (can't remember the wording on the dodge thing).

First as Sapt said it is a Flickerfield not a Nightshield. Nightshields reduce range while a Flickerfield gives a vehicle a 5++. With that said you only get one save and you are required to take your best save. If you are allowed to dodge (ie not imobilised or coming from another skimmer) then you get a 3+ dodge. If not and you suffer a glancing or penetrating hit then you take the 5++ provided by the flickerfield.

Also its not the only vehilce. I can't remember the guys name but I believe it is the SW Dread character.

Akroma06 wrote:With that said you only get one save and you are required to take your best save.

The skimmer dodge isn't a save - it's before any damage could even be done! A Raider with Flickerfields would get both the 3+ skimmer evade chance and the 5+ invulnerable.

AS above, Akroma - "DOdge" is NOT a "save" as defined in the rulebook, it is a roll to *ignore* the Ram. It never happened.

AS such you get to dodge (if able) THEN you get to use the flickerfield, as it is an invulnerable save

nosferatu1001 wrote:...THEN you get to use the flickerfield, as it is an invulnerable save

Why do you think that?

Can you reference any rules?

I am honestly trying to understand how this works and I couldn't find any examples of 'saving' from rams (outside of the evade roll) or of invulnerable saves for vehicles and I didn't think a direct reading from the codex was very helpful?

You save damage results. The ram inflicts a damage result.

Augustus - assuming you let Invulnerable saves for vehicles (outside of Bjorn) work at all, there is absolutely no reason why you would get to attempt to save a penetrating or glancing hit from any source, ramming included.

Well vehicles don't get cover saves from rams, no one assumes they do, why would it be automatically right to assume they would get an invulenrable save?

OK, lets just assume they get a save.

What happens if the Flickerfield save is made, is the ram avoided completely as if it dodged? Or does the attacking vehicle still get hit back?

Nos doesn't believe in invuls for non Bjorn vehicles as it isn't in the BRB. If the save is made then the damage that was dealt to the skimmer is saved and nothing is done to it. This is of course assuming that the ram did cause a glance or pen. I see no reason why damage still couldn't go the otherway (from the vehicle with the FF to the vehicle without the FF.)

Akroma06 wrote:Nos doesn't believe in invuls for non Bjorn vehicles as it isn't in the BRB. If the save is made then the damage that was dealt to the skimmer is saved and nothing is done to it. This is of course assuming that the ram did cause a glance or pen. I see no reason why damage still couldn't go the otherway (from the vehicle with the FF to the vehicle without the FF.)

Then how did it avoid the ram in the first place? How could you NOT see a reason for that?

Augustus wrote: Then how did it avoid the ram in the first place? How could you NOT see a reason for that?

It didn't avoid the ram, the Dark Eldar vehicle used an Invuln save to negate the damage result on the vehicle.

The ram still took place, and the Dark Eldar vehicle inflicts its ram attack against the enemy vehicle as normal.

Only if you dodge (only a Skimmer at a 3+) does neither vehicle take any damage.

Ok if the Skimmer makes its (dodge) than nothing goes back to the first vehicle.

However if it fails the (dodge) gets hit, it will hit back regardless if it makes the FF save or not.

If it makes the FF save it will ignore the Glance/Pen
If not roll it out

The flickerfield ignores a result not the ram itself. A dodge ignores the ram itself and thus would not be able to do damage.

So lets say a Rhino is ramming your raider with a flickerfield. You are not imobilised. You're friend succesfully is able to make contact (after following all steps to ram) with your ravager. You then roll to dodge. If you pass then the Rhino stops and no damage is done either way.

Let's say you fail however he went 12" so his strength is 6 (1+1+4 for movement) and he rolls a 5, which should be a penetrating hit. You may now roll to save on your flickerfield. Assuming you fail he would roll on the damage table (adding 1 for open topped) you would also be able to strike back with a strength of 5. With a roll of a 6 you would glance him.

Should you pass the 5++ then you have saved against the damage to your ravager just like passing a save for a wound (don't get all uptight about comparing wounds and saves to vehicles its an example). You then get to strike back as nothing has stopped the ram itself only the damage caused to your ravager.

Now all the Sister of Battle vehicles get Invulnerable saves. It would be nice for GW to officially say how/when those saves apply.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Now all the Sister of Battle vehicles get Invulnerable saves. It would be nice for GW to officially say how/when those saves apply.

They would be applied just like cover saves apply to vehicles.

while nothing, other than Bjorn the fell handed states this, This is how it is intended, and this will be RAW once they update the FaQ.

Akroma06 wrote:Nos doesn't believe in invuls for non Bjorn vehicles as it isn't in the BRB. If the save is made then the damage that was dealt to the skimmer is saved and nothing is done to it. This is of course assuming that the ram did cause a glance or pen. I see no reason why damage still couldn't go the otherway (from the vehicle with the FF to the vehicle without the FF.)

Do NOT tell me what I "believe". Fact: there is no allowed mechanism for veicles to use invulnerable saves *except* for Bjorn. Fact: everyone assumes GW are fething idiots who dont understand this and dont tell DE players that they cant use their vehicles invulnerable saves. Both are facts, neither requires "belief".

Augustus wrote:Well vehicles don't get cover saves from rams, no one assumes they do, why would it be automatically right to assume they would get an invulenrable save?

OK, lets just assume they get a save.

Because you are told you can *always* use an invulnerable save againt wounds, and people assume the same for invulnerable saves on vehicles damaging hits. 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

Augustus wrote:What happens if the Flickerfield save is made, is the ram avoided completely as if it dodged? Or does the attacking vehicle still get hit back?

No, it is not "avoided completely" - the vehicle ignores the damage result from the Ram, it does not ignore the ram itself. The attacking vehicle is still hit back, because a ram occured.

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.

I would never do so either - for a while with Stormcaller it appeared that they maybe didnt mean vehicles to benefit from the 5+ save, then they kept on producing non-obscuring cover saves that apply to vehicles, THEN DE with invulnerable saves for vehicles, and only in one instance (Bjorn) did they bother to write rules that cover them.

Mildly annoying as it is quite an important gap!

Augustus wrote:...OK, lets just assume they get a save.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because you are told you can *always* use an invulnerable save againt wounds, and people assume the same for invulnerable saves on vehicles damaging hits.

Some people ASSUME, show me a rule! There isn't one, that means dark Eldar players are making that up, assumption, by your own quote.

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.

Ram damage is mutual, either they both get hit or it misses.

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?

So wait... now we're arguing that DE vehicles don't ever get a flickerfield save because they can't be wounded, and invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds?

The f%$k is going on in here?

Why would GW make *an entire army* that gets Invulnerable saves for it's vehicles if *they could not use them*? Decoration?

Homer

Homer S wrote:Why would GW make *an entire army* that gets Invulnerable saves for it's vehicles if *they could not use them*? Decoration?

Homer

Why? Pretty simple, an invulnerable save would not be nullified by weapons that ignore cover like flamers and sternguard. That's a direct purpose and benefit in the scope of the existing rules that doesn't require egregious rules fabrication like saving from rams.

omerakk wrote:So wait... now we're arguing that DE vehicles don't ever get a flickerfield save because they can't be wounded, and invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds?

Augustus wrote: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 am not saying that, just Ram here, as the thread title suggests.

Why? When that's what the rules say?

because that would make the upgrade LITERALLY useless. You said that no-one is arguing that you would get the save from shooting but you are arguing the rams. This is a pick and choose attitude. The effects are one in the same. Your arguement that the save isn't usable by RAW is that it doesn't cause wounds, ok, fair enough. So why would shooting be any different. Against a vehicle you either get a glance, a pen, or nothing. And when it comes to deciding if you get the save you can't say that the invuln applies to just the shooting, or just the ramming, but the not the other. It's all or nothing.

Remember the tenets sir. Real world logic isn't what matters here, it's what the rules say. The whole thing is undefined, but it's not as massive a jump as you think to go from I get to take a flickerfield save from the giant railgun slug flying at me, to..."I get to take my flickerfield save against the impact of me flying at something else". The rules don't define it, but because of the way invuln saves work where you always get them no matter what, I have to say that the DE player does get the flickerfield save either versus a ram or vs the hit they inflict from ramming, either way. And yes they would get both the flickerfield and the dodge (if the dodge was allowed by the situation) since dodge isn't a save

ToI wrote:..Your arguement that the save isn't usable by RAW is that it doesn't cause wounds..

No that is not my argument. That was proposed by Omerak

omerakk wrote:... now we're arguing that DE vehicles don't ever get a flickerfield save because they can't be wounded, and invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds?

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

Augustus wrote: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.

Your statement still divides shooting results and ramming results into two different areas, but because there is no precedent or rule for invuln saves on vehicles you can't say one thing is valid to save against while the other isn't.

So here I'll make the claim that if flickerfield saves can't be taken against ramming they also cannot be taken against shooting. Prove me wrong...

Why else do 2 of the 3 most recent codecies have invulnerable saves if they can't be taken?

Akroma06 wrote:Why else do 2 of the 3 most recent codecies have invulnerable saves if they can't be taken?

If you are talking to me, I am trying to make a point, not that I really believe that is the way it should be played. I simply am saying that if you go one way with one of the situations you must go the same way with the other.

Yes I was, and I got your point, it is either all or none. My point was that the only way to argue none borders on being a TFG.

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?