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.

I stumbled across a rule that I wasn't aware of on Page 76 of the 6th edition Rulebook that worries me somewhat. Under 'Charging a Vehicle': A unit can charge a vehicle in their Charge sub-phase. The charge move is conducted the same as charging other enemy units. However, a unit cannot charge a vehicle it cannot hurt - it must have some possibility, no matter how small, of being able to inflict at least a glancing hit.

So I flicked back to the definition of 'hits' under Armour Penetration Rolls on page 73. Page 73 lists three kinds of hit.
1) If the total is less than the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot has no effect.
2) If the total is equal to the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a glancing hit.
3) If the total is greather than the vehicle's Armour Value, the shot inflicts a penetrating hit.

Now I'm fully aware of Scarab's Entropic Strike ability and I know from the FAQ that other attacking Scarabs will get to roll against the reduced armour. What I'm concerned about is that by reading the rules as written, Scarab's can't actually attack vehicles at all.

They're Str 3, so can penetrate armour 9. In an assault, they'd be chewing through rear armour. BUT, no vehicle in the main rulebook has armour 9 on the rear, 10 is the minimum.

I know it hinges on the phrase "at least a glancing hit", but I'd say that since a Scarab can't glance or penetrate vehicle armour, it isn't eligible to assault, therefore Entropic Strike never even kicks off.

I wish they'd use a phrase like "at least be able to affect the vehicle in some manner.", but they didn't!

So, what do people think?

The rulebook doesn't specifically define what 'hurting' a vehicle is

Err, it does. It uses the phrase as I wrote it, namely "it must have some possibility, no matter how small, of being able to inflict at least a glancing hit. "

Scarabs can't inflict a glancing hit or the only type of hit better than that, a penetrating hit, ergo they can't assault.

Entropic Strike kicks off at the moment that the Scarab inflicts a hit (even the third type of unnamed 'ineffectual' hit - type 1), but if they aren't allowed to assault, ES won't kick off.

Thanks all for responding, but it seems that you are all giving me HWYPI interpretations (and I did mark the thread as RAW!) No one has backed their statements with any direct rules quotes.

Some people have stated that a hit with Entropic Strike is a glancing hit. It isn't - it doesn't remove a hull point. Others have stated that because Entropic Strike removes armour it is better than a glancing hit. No where in the rules that I can see is that stated. I can find a hierarchy of three hit types only, and Scarabs can only ahieve the first step, which by the RAW would mean they can't assault,

Please, guys, I really need direct rules quotes to support these views. My opponent is a real stickler for things like this!

AV 14 vs a scarab.

5 attacks on the charge.
5 successful ES hits = AV 9
Roll five 6's= dead vehicle


The odds are very extremely poor, but 1 scarab can kill any vehicle out there.

I beg to differ (even if I'm *hopefully* proved wrong on my main point).

You would need 5 successful hits to reduce the AV to 9, and then roll a further attack which inflicts a glancing hit and reduces the AV to 8. You then have a chance to roll a sixth 6 to get a penetrating hit and a 6 on the damage table whereupon the vehicle blows up. You're example leaves an AV9 live vehicle.

So, by the FAQ ruling that states that a 2nd Scarab in the Unit gets to roll against the reduced armour (the 1st one doesn't get to as far as I can work out from the FAQ answer), a unit of two Scarabs could kill any vehicle in the game by rolling 7 sixes in a row (1/6^6)= 1 in 46,656.

Possible, I guess! (Depending on the RAW answer to my original question!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yes they can, as the entropic strike lowers the AV before you roll to penetrate.

Can you back that up? The FAQ states that other Scarabs in the Unit get to roll vs the lower, not that the original Scarab does.

If you can, this only means that they would get to attack vehicle with AV 10 at the rear. Better than my original pessimistic thoughts, I guess.

reds8n - thanks for the quote. I'll slap my own wrist - the FAQ is at home and I'm sat at work.

I think, therefore, that the final conclusion is that a unit of single Scarab could assault a vehicle with up to AV 12, since it's final attack *could* be a glancing hit. A unit of two Scarabs could therefore assault up to AV16.

Thanks all!

Incorrect, you still seem to think ES replaces their attack roll to penetrate

Nope, I'm just may be mis-remembering - I thought Scarabs have 4 attacks, which means that by their 4th attack, the AV must be able to be down to 9, so can't start higher than 13. If they have 5, then yes, they can chew up AV 14.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bear in mind of course that against non walkers you'll be striking against the rear armour which is usually lower than front/side facings

Yeah, I know, it was that thought that had me initially check for vehicles with AV9 at the rear. Having not remembered the FAQ correctly and not realising that one Scarab gets to roll against the reduced armour, I was figuring that AV 9 would be all it could glance.

All

Many thanks to all who have chipped in, educated me and overall improved my knowledge base.

I've only been into the hobby for a month or so and had apparently got myself tied in knots.

Cheers!