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.

What kind of a saving throw do the flickerfields give? Is it an unnamed bonus or counts as cover? Also, can it be used against a death or glory attack during a tank shock if the vehicle has that prow thing?

Read the wargear section it clearly states that flickerfield gives a 5+ invulnerable save p63 of the DE codex

Don't play dark eldar so I don't have the codex.

it does to all of the above. Believe me an opponent of mine has a raider he has named photon torpedo because he will use it for a first turn s10 ram attack on a tank.

my poor predator has suffered this before


Automatically Appended Next Post:
it does to all of the above. Believe me an opponent of mine has a raider he has named photon torpedo because he will use it for a first turn s10 ram attack on a tank.

my poor predator has suffered this before

captain collius wrote:it does to all of the above. Believe me an opponent of mine has a raider he has named photon torpedo because he will use it for a first turn s10 ram attack on a tank.

my poor predator has suffered this before

I love this combo

The Raider rams an enemy vehicle, destroys that vehicle, but makes its FF save.

So, the enemy vehicle isn't actually destroyed, as it was just a holographic image of the Raider that hit the vehicle, but the enemy's entire army are absolutely convinced the vehicle was wrecked, including the crew and passengers. The fluff imagery of that is hilarious.

Grants in Invul save, which can also then be used against close combat. Which by extension would mean it would indeed take that save against ramming attacks, yeah.

kungfujew wrote:What kind of a saving throw do the flickerfields give? Is it an unnamed bonus or counts as cover? Also, can it be used against a death or glory attack during a tank shock if the vehicle has that prow thing?

It is an invulnerable save. It is not cover so things that ignore cover have no effect and the save can be taken in close combat. Also it can be used against death or glory or ramming attempts.

It cannot be taken against things like dangerous terrain. Basically if you suffer a glancing or penetrating hit you get the save. Now without a GK book I'm not sure how the shield breaker is worded so I'm not sure if that will bypass or destroy the FF.

Shield breaker breaks a piece of wargear since the flicker field is war gear it could be broken. However to break it you would have to score a hit where the vehicle fails its invul save which could be a pen or glance doesn't matter. Also the vindicator is a sniper rifle so use those rules to score a pen or glance.

It'd have no effect on vehicles, since Shield-Breaker specifies "When a wound from this round is allocated to a model, that model loses an invulnerable saves granted by items of wargear immediately, and for the rest of the battle."

Vehicles do not take wounds.

Invul saves only work against wounds, per the brb.

Really want to go there?

I would if I wanted to suffer an apoplexy. I should know better than to assume things have been cleared up since they were last brought up in YMDC.

Discuss it with <insert player here> beforehand or whatever, i'm out.

Avatar 720 wrote:I would if I wanted to suffer an apoplexy. I should know better than to assume things have been cleared up since they were last brought up in YMDC.

Discuss it with <insert player here> beforehand or whatever, i'm out.

I wasn't trying to be antagonistic.

Flickerfields offer an invulnerable save. Invulnerable saves only work against wounds.

We can either assume Flickerfields do nothing (that'd be wrong) or we can assume that wounds == pen/glancing hits.

That's all I was pointing out.

Def: pg 63 , DE Codex:
" Flicker Feild: The vehicle has a highly advanced optical force shield that makes it appear to flicker in and out of reality. A Vehicle with a Flickerfield has a 5+ invulneranle save"
Avatar 720-"""When a wound from this round is allocated to a model, that model loses an invulnerable saves granted by items of wargear immediately, and for the rest of the battle."

Vehicles do not take wounds. "

It is not Wargear, its a Vehicle Upgrade.
Wargear would be, a Shadowfield, or such.

Rigeld2-
"We can either assume Flickerfields do nothing (that'd be wrong) or we can assume that wounds == pen/glancing hits. "

For the sake of everyone understanding the point, its the latter.

rigeld2 wrote:Invul saves only work against wounds, per the brb.

Really want to go there?

Flickerfields are specific to dark eldar and work as follows as per the DE FAQ:

Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming
immobilised from a Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: No. The save from a flickerfield can only be taken
against glancing and penetrating hits.

Hey Kungfu.... was this topic started because of little ole me?? He he... guess you didn't like my flickerfields! LOL

Sister of Battle now have 6++ saves on vehicles too. Bjorn also has an invual save too I believe.

And using the DE FAQ as a precedent they would work the same way too. A shield breaker would not work since you need to score a wound, which a vehicle cannot take. To further solidify this the FAQ tells us how to take the flickerfield save.

As for the ramming tactic I find it rather foolish personally. I mean here let me throw my 70 point model at your predator. Drat rolled a 2. Well you instantly penetrate me due to speed so let see a 1/3 chance of saving the raider...nope. Well roll damage at +1. Yeah sounds like a very very expensive krak missile to me.

As for the ramming tactic I find it rather foolish personally

It's a bit chancy, certainly. But say you have an 80 point raider (flickerfield, shock prow, aethersails).

You're going to ram anything at S10 so long as you're able to travel far enough to do so S8 for the 24" flat out plus S[2d6/3] for the aethersails +d3 for the prow.

Now granted the raider takes an auto pen and therefore is wrecked or explodes 4/9 of the time (anything from a 3 up on the damage table but you get a save 1/3 of the time on those results). But it's undestroyed (though perhaps stunned or weapon destroyed) 5/9 of the time

Against AV12 the raider will penetrate 2/3 of the time and wreck or explode the enemy 1/3 of those, so 2/9.

Against AV13 penetrate 1/2 the time and destroy 1/3 so 1/6.

Against AV14 1/3, 1/3 so 1/9.

But in general against the higher AV's it's quite likely that the target will be something like a vindicator where you want the weapon destroyed or a landraider where you want it immobilised. Then the 'good' results are increased somewhat to better than 1 in 4 (including glances) and better than 1 in 6).

The raider being a somewhat annoying shape can obstruct the enemy if it hit obliquely (even if it's wrecked).

It's not a tactic to be undertaken willy nilly but a single raider so equipped against a landraider (say) is risking 80 points with a 4/9 chance of destruction) against destroying say 260 points with a 1 in 6 chance to immobilise or destroy and so forcing the nasty assault unit inside to hoof it across the board.

Very crudely that's 36 points average loss to an average gain of 43 (not quite the ideal way to look at it but it makes the point that it's not a bad bet, just a risky one).

Granted you could fire the lance against said raider (or whatever) but there you've got 2/3 hit, 1/3 pen, 1/2 pens give a desired result so about 1 in 9, 50% worse than the ram and of course the ramming attack is unaffected by cover or smoke.

I wouldn't do it all the time but spoending 10 points to give a single raider the aethersails and shock prow that would make the tactic viable if needed seems fair enough really. Obviously you'd disembark the troops first, or have deployed it empty.

Let me emphasise I'm not saying this is something that should certainly be done, but it's not a ridiculous notion either.

Blood and Slaughter wrote: Granted you could fire the lance against said raider (or whatever) but there you've got 2/3 hit, 1/3 pen, 1/2 pens give a desired result so about 1 in 9, 50% worse than the ram and of course the ramming attack is unaffected by cover or smoke.

As for the underlined, where does it say this?

DeathReaper wrote:

Blood and Slaughter wrote: Granted you could fire the lance against said raider (or whatever) but there you've got 2/3 hit, 1/3 pen, 1/2 pens give a desired result so about 1 in 9, 50% worse than the ram and of course the ramming attack is unaffected by cover or smoke.

As for the underlined, where does it say this?

Are you suggesting that smoke grants a cover save VS ramming?
BRB p 62 smoke launchers grant a cover save during the shooting phase only.

Ramming takes place in the movement phase, so no you don't get a cover save vs ramming.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

worldwarme wrote:Def: pg 63 , DE Codex:
" Flicker Feild: The vehicle has a highly advanced optical force shield that makes it appear to flicker in and out of reality. A Vehicle with a Flickerfield has a 5+ invulneranle save"
Avatar 720-"""When a wound from this round is allocated to a model, that model loses an invulnerable saves granted by items of wargear immediately, and for the rest of the battle."

Vehicles do not take wounds. "

It is not Wargear, its a Vehicle Upgrade.
Wargear would be, a Shadowfield, or such.

Rigeld2-
"We can either assume Flickerfields do nothing (that'd be wrong) or we can assume that wounds == pen/glancing hits. "

For the sake of everyone understanding the point, its the latter.

As for RAW, Avatar 720 is perfectly correct. Flickerfield is not wargear and vehicles do not take wounds. Flickefield grants a 5+ against glances and pens. So following RAW Shield-Breaker has no effect on vehicles.

Any other reading of this is RAI, HWYPI or "I think it should work a certain way because the effects are similiar." I'm all for playing it however you want in a friendly game. Ask your opponent before the game.

Akroma06 wrote: Yeah sounds like a very very expensive krak missile to me.

Not that expensive, really, and quite funny! I would laugh out loud if a Raider moved flat out across the board and managed to explode my Stormraven

Nemesor Dave wrote:Are you suggesting that smoke grants a cover save VS ramming?
BRB p 62 smoke launchers grant a cover save during the shooting phase only.

Ramming takes place in the movement phase, so no you don't get a cover save vs ramming.

I was just wondering where the rule was that says you can not take a cover save against a ram attack.

And I was just pointing out that an Ork vehicle with a KFF in range could indeed take a cover save against a Ram attack.

um, i actually think no, you dont get cover vrs a ram. and i believe although i could be wrong that the FAQ covers this.

The FAQ does not state that you cannot take cover saves against a ram

The BRB has no rules stating you cannot take cover saves against a ram attack

So smoke and KFF, plus any other non-LOS generated cover (as there is no firing model you cannot get LOS cover) would work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The FAQ does not state that you cannot take cover saves against a ram

The BRB has no rules stating you cannot take cover saves against a ram attack

So smoke and KFF, plus any other non-LOS generated cover (as there is no firing model you cannot get LOS cover) would work.

It's not as simple as that. You need to check the BRB p 62 rule about smoke. Smoke grants a cover save in the shooting phase only. Other non-LOS cover may vary.

True enough, just generally stating about cover saves not being excluded, so they arent

I've had a look at the vehicles and cover section on p62.

it says 50% or more of the vehicle's targetted facing must be obscured to claim to be in cover. Now when a vehicle rams, I'd say that if at the point of impact the preceding is true (ramming through a window, say) then a cover save would be fair enough. Otherwise not.

Smoke specifically only protects in the shooting phase as has been said (though I suspect that's actually an oversight and they didn't think about ramming when they put that in), same for 'flat out' cover saves,they protect the vehicle only 'when fired at'. Which incidentally means the 'raven and other flat outing skimmers are quite good targets for a suicide ram, being AV12 and also denied it's 'skimmer save' vs ram.

lance wrecks a flat out raven about 1/18 times, a suicide ramming raider wrecks it about 1/3 of the time.

cover saves are taken specifically against shooting attacks and shooting attacks only. A ram is not a shooting attack. I suggest you read page 69 of the brb. It tells you exactly how to handle ramming. then check the section on what cover saves are. They are used against shooting attacks. There needs to be a target and a firing model. Trying to add cover saves to this is just adding rules in where they dont exist. The only way terrain comes into ramming is through area terrain for the DT test. That is your cover save.

Remember you dont need to target a model to ram, you dont need LOS, You are just physically placing one model against another.

"cover saves are taken specifically against shooting attacks and shooting attacks only"

No rules basis for that statement can be found.

On another read, I tend to agree. It says in the ramming section that you roll for penetration and apply the results immediately.' There's no mention of a cover save option. Claiming such under any circumstances (except the specifically allowed 3+ dodge for skimmers rammed by non-skimmers) would rely on assuming that a ram attack is akin to a shooting one.

This also raises a question about Void Mines which are used in the movement phase and so presumably are equally exempt from smoke, etc,