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.

So i looked for this but couldnt find it anywhere. Scarab assault on a Dark Eldar Raider. Would the raider get its flickerfield 5+ invul save against the entropic strike? Since it doesnt pen or glance but just hits i assumed no.

No, you'd get the flickerfield against any pens or glances that happen after the hits, but if your armor poofs to the ES hits you get no save.

I am wondering if gw will change this rule in the faq so you save before pens/glances are rolled. It seems to come up a bit... Actually maybe its just saves on vehicles in general that are odd.

Why would they change it?

You save after rolls to wound.
You save after pens/glances are determined.

Same time.

But gw does funny things with rules some times if they feel they missed something. Thus I can see them potentially allowing saves versus entropic strike. Or not. Like I said they can be funny.

Edit: for example I thought falchions for sure would give a total of 2 attacks. Gw said no however.

It may get faqed as you say. There is no precedent on abilities such as ES, so it could happen. Until then, invu on vehicles don't stop ES from resolving.

The problem comes from the rules not covering vehicles with ++ saves. Infact, vehicles are not even able to use saves (outside of the cover saves) as the rules descibe saves as being taken against wounds 9with obscured being the exception).

Fact is though that the intent is clear but the timing is not.

Yeah, cover saves should be done BEFORE shooting hits are calculated, so it should be: Roll to hit(whether the shot was on target) defeat cover save(make sure cover wasn't in the way) defeat armor(obvious) and then see what damage it does. Not that it would save you from scarabs since they are CC attacks and them touching the armor at all (hits of 4+) degrade the armor

I think the GW ruling will have more to do with Necron and Scarab sales. If they are not faring well enough, they will probably give them a more competitive ruling in the FAQ to increase attractiveness to buyers.

If it's faqed, it's faqed and sales won't have anything to do with this. Scarabs are sold with warriors on the same sprues. GW will never know how good are the scarabs sales.

They have never FAQ'd you to EVER be able to take saves against things that do not cause wounds.

See Lash, as just one really simple example

They have given the precedent of cover saves though. And we all use that precedent for invus on vehicles.

This will be a non-issue coming summer I think. Don't forget the Necrons are supposed to be primed for 6th edition already. Many of the issues the codex has now will probably fly out of the window.

copper.talos wrote:They have given the precedent of cover saves though. And we all use that precedent for invus on vehicles.

No idea what youre talking about now.

Yes, they have given vehicles cover saves against penetrating or glancing hits, and also invulnerable saves against the same

These are the vehicle equivalents of Wounds

They have NEVER given you saves against anything that isnt the analogue of a wound

copper.talos wrote:If it's faqed, it's faqed and sales won't have anything to do with this. Scarabs are sold with warriors on the same sprues. GW will never know how good are the scarabs sales.

I'm talking about Necron sales in general, not individual items. Increase the overall appeal of an item, and demand for related products increases as well. Kinda like car sales increasing when gas prices go down. Now I'll get flamed for referencing real life scenarios.

Sales in general cannot be a reason for favouring a specific unit via a faq. If it were about ie immortals when you can check their sales, then maybe you could have a point.

Regardless of Immortal sales, if the overall line was failing, then they would look for ways to increase sales by increasing customer interest in the army by increasing the playability of models. How do they do this without alienating other parts of their fan base? For example, there is no argument that Immortals are T4. If they decided to FAQ that they were T10 to increase their playable value, then some non-Necron players and Necron conservatives would reject this, damaging overall customer base. But if they look for debated or arbitrary unit incentives that are being discussed by customers, such as if ranged Entropic strikes take effect before cover saves, they can implement an army improvement via FAQ with much less consumer fallout. And they are not sitting at a desk looking at a sales ledger making these decisions. For checking individual sales of models, they have other ways to glean what models are being favored in multi-sprue packages by GW Tournamnet photos, submitted lists, and discussion rates on the internet. There is more than one reason they sanction forums like this.

Entropic Strike happens when a vehicle is hit.

No saves of any kind are allowed as the result of a hit.

Saves are only allowed vs wounds or Pens or glances. Entropic Strike is neither of those.

GT - nope, Penetrating or Gancing hits is when you take saves, not damage results.

Right, thats what I meant