Dark Eldar Vehicle Saves

killmaimburn · by **killmaimburn** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:07 pm

They do get cover saves as stipulated in vehicles in cover rules section.
Where as the rules for invulnerable are not covered by the vehicle section rules.
I'm just saying someone double arses it- I'll double arse back.

Baragash · by **Baragash** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:23 pm

Maybe we should ban everything in the game that no one else gets?

killmaimburn · by **killmaimburn** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:00 pm

Well it would lead to a more tactical and less rock paper scissors game (see KOW threads)

Baragash wrote:if that's the goal people set out with in the first place.

Has the vehicle suffered a glancing or penetrating hit? If yes, take save.

So you would have inside something that doesn't follow movement rules, but the specific game mechanic of ramming(p69), that a form of attack that at no point mentions saves, is allowed a save. Because
you may do so whenever you suffer "a wound" (p20)
(I had to check that smurf force dome didn't get super bumped by your viewpoint..unfortunately its just unit he is with..otherwise he could mount up and lead a fleet of super invulnerable suiciders)
I think a hamfisted middle ground is appropriate until FAQ.

KInG · by **KInG** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:36 pm

Personally I would allow the Inv save for the vehicle against any damage result it got that appeared on the table. So if it was immobilised by any means then I would allow it the inv save roll.

Damage to a vehicle is, in my opinion, like a wound to an infantry model.

timewizard · by **timewizard** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 3:20 am

KInG wrote:Damage to a vehicle is, in my opinion, like a wound to an infantry model.

I feel the same.
Makes the flickerfield well worth the 10 points. Gives a save against damage as well as a save against immobilized!
Have to test it with night shields as well to see if that's a viable upgrade as well.
Don't like putting that many extra points onto a paper tiger, but I'll see.

mattjgilbert · by **mattjgilbert** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:06 am

You treat the save like you would in any circumstance for a "normal" model. So yes, this means you get a save for dangerous terrain.

killmaimburn · by **killmaimburn** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:16 am

mattjgilbert wrote:You treat the save like you would in any circumstance for a "normal" model. So yes, this means you get a save for dangerous terrain.

Is that you joining "my camp" as ramming doesn't allow a "normal" model a save?

Baragash · by **Baragash** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:46 am

killmaimburn wrote:but the specific game mechanic of ramming(p69), that a form of attack that at no point mentions saves, is allowed a save. Because you may do so whenever you suffer "a wound" (p20)

"model ramming" (ie DoG) doesn't follow any of the normal inflicting wound process.

"vehicle ramming" does follow the stnadard vehicle equivalent of normally inflicting "wounds" on a vehicle.

I see no basis for excluding ramming damage from things vehicles can take saves from (even if IMO RAI would not allow it for ramming or DT, I can't even see a circumstantial basis for justifiying that exclusion).

killmaimburn · by **killmaimburn** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:54 am

Baragash wrote:I can't even see a circumstantial basis for justifiying that exclusion.
"vehicle ramming" does follow the stnadard vehicle equivalent of normally inflicting "wounds" on a vehicle.

So when you intend to ram into a vehicle we should pretend its like a plasma overheat if the risk associated with choosing to perform such an act occurs..oh ok as long as everyone thinks thats ok.