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.

yakface wrote:

GamzaTheChaos wrote:
for CC against the squad i would play it out as the entropic strike happens to the vehicle he is actually in base with.
so I would simply roll separately for the scarab bases in contact with other vehicles

???

When you're in CC with a vehicle squadron the hits are still spread amongst squadron members, it is exactly the same as with shooting. To limit attacks only to the vehicles that a model is in base contact with is both against the rules and non-sensical when dealing with a multitude of attacks from a ton of models attacking a vehicle squadron.

I mean only the entropic strikes.


2 scarabs in CC with 2 land speeders each scarab bases a speeder I'll roll their attacks separately scarab A gets 1 hit, scarb B gets 3 hits I roll the entropic strikes against those vehicles they are actually basing/attacking to see who actually loses armor value.
Then I roll for armor pen the penetrating/glancing hits are allocated normally as the squad rules

I think those house rules, both for cover and for Entropic Strike, make the most sense.

Yes, they are house rules. But they're better than the official ones.

I think the prblem is that thy are HOUSE rules, and thus in a tournament setting can vary from tournament to tournament. The rules need consistency, which is something GW has NEVER provided and likely never will unless they write a vastly superior book for 6th edition. At the very least they have started keeping up with their FAQ, so we can expect to see may of these issues resolved in a few weeks (and perhaps some additional issues created!), though I doubt this one will be fully resolved until 6th editon and ONLY if they abolish the rules for vehicle sqadrons and re-write them to make more sense.

I've had a desire for a long time to re-write the BRB as an exercise, using clear and consistent wording with a glossary of terms, and divorcing the fluff from the rules passages so as to clean them up, but it's quite a serious task and involves a lot of time. Still, it's something I would like to try to amuse myself and see if I can do any better. I often critique GW on the laziness of their writing, so trying it myself sometime might be a way to look at the problem from their angle.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I think those house rules, both for cover and for Entropic Strike, make the most sense.

Yes, they are house rules. But they're better than the official ones.

They aren't really house rules in the sense that the 'official' rules literally present us with no clear way to play...so anyone dealing with Entropic Strikes vs. a vehicles squadron is going to have to come up with something that's not in the rules as there literally is no way to play that is 'in' the rules.

Aldarionn wrote:I think the prblem is that thy are HOUSE rules, and thus in a tournament setting can vary from tournament to tournament. The rules need consistency, which is something GW has NEVER provided and likely never will unless they write a vastly superior book for 6th edition. At the very least they have started keeping up with their FAQ, so we can expect to see may of these issues resolved in a few weeks (and perhaps some additional issues created!), though I doubt this one will be fully resolved until 6th editon and ONLY if they abolish the rules for vehicle sqadrons and re-write them to make more sense.

I've had a desire for a long time to re-write the BRB as an exercise, using clear and consistent wording with a glossary of terms, and divorcing the fluff from the rules passages so as to clean them up, but it's quite a serious task and involves a lot of time. Still, it's something I would like to try to amuse myself and see if I can do any better. I often critique GW on the laziness of their writing, so trying it myself sometime might be a way to look at the problem from their angle.

One big issue with that concept is that rules written purely from a technical standpoint (completely divorced from any fluff/examples and written only to stand up to really close logical dissection) tend to be very, very hard to read for most people as they basically read like stereo instructions.

I think a great example of this is the Fantasy Flight card game 'Death Angel' (basically a card version of SH). It uses a LOT of 'keywords' and is very, very concise with its wording, but the problem is that makes it really, really hard to actually get a mental grasp on how to play the game, especially the first time. Once you go back and check and re-check the rules a half dozen times you eventually figure out exactly what is being said (and realize all the rules are very clearly written), but getting to that point can be incredibly frustrating because the rules are written more like a technical manual than something that is really helpful towards getting you to understand what is being said.

This is especially true with a miniature game where you have literally dozens of tiny possibilities that can come up with weird rules. If you spend the time in the rulebook covering all those exceptions then it becomes an incredibly tedious and hard to read set of rules (as you have to wade through dozens of exceptions and examples that are only going to affect your games very seldom).

So IMHO, the way to write rules is to make them very easy to read, pretty much how GW does it, but then the key is to have a very detailed and often updated set of FAQs...maybe even some in the back of the rulebook.

That way you have a nice easy read for new players to go through the rules and learn the game, but for those of us online that really like to dive in and dissect rules to their core, then you have all that crunchiness there, but not cluttering up the main rules sections.

As a few people have mentioned before, "Roll for all entropic strike results then assign them to vehicles as you would wounds to a unit" in my oppinion is the best method for doing it. then for the damage roll, just use the majority.

As for cover saves vs the harp, cover doesnt really negate the hit, it just slows it down enough that it doesnt cause significat damage, nothing there would stop the entropic strikes effect.