Flickerfield Saves Transport?

I'm probably confused over a rule I don't need to be confused about. I'm just trying to make the most of out this rule. Flickerfields are highly advanced optical force shields that make the vehicle they are fitted to appear to flicker in and out of reality which provides the vehicle with a 5+ invulnerable save.

Of course this is nothing but a fluffy description, but how does a Flickerfield really work? If it just "appears" to flicker in and out of their reality, it doesn't really, in truth, do this at all. It just gives the illusion that it sometimes isn't there. How would this translate into an invulnerable save? Wouldn't it be more logical if this would translate into a -1 or -2 BS reduction or that template weapons need to roll a 4+ to see if the actually hit their target?

Obviously this is theory crafting based on interpreting the rule in a way it doesn't work, but the Flickerfield concept itself made me wonder if it is a logical assumption that if the Flickerfield would save the vehicle from getting hit as some type of Forcefield, wouldn't it be just as logical to assume that this succesful save would just as well prevent it's passengers from getting hit?

In this case, I'm talking about template weapons that are a bane to open-topped vehicles. Despite the vehicle being opentopped, if the shield would succesfully prevent a flamer from damaging the vehicle, would it not by that same logic be acceptable that not only does no part of the vehicle get hit, but none of the passengers as well?

If you look at the Venom, there's always this guy behind the Splinter Cannon. How come he doesnt get hit by the flamer when the 5+ save is made? Logic dictates my transported models are safe as well when the Flickerfield saves the vehicle! Yes/No/Maybe?
(there is actually nothing in a rulebook which states that if the save is made, those transported aren't saved)

omkara wrote:

Of course this is nothing but a fluffy description, but how does a Flickerfield really work? If it just "appears" to flicker in and out of their reality, it doesn't really, in truth, do this at all. It just gives the illusion that it sometimes isn't there. How would this translate into an invulnerable save? Wouldn't it be more logical if this would translate into a -1 or -2 BS reduction or that template weapons need to roll a 4+ to see if the actually hit their target?

Yes but this is not Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

omkara wrote:

Logic dictates

You are buying from the wrong company man.

omkara wrote:

Logic dictates my transported models are safe as well when the Flickerfield saves the vehicle!

Why don't pilots in cockpits with a open canopies die when flame throwers are used? Maybe the vehicle is angled in such a way that he's not exposed. I always got the impression that most Venom passengers were hanging off the vehicle and were (in this edition) more exposed to incoming fire, no pun intended. At least the gunner has something to duck behind.

The question you should ask yourself is how holographic projections can be used to negate hull point loss due to dangerous terrain (we play that it does)?

It sure does, Dark Kindred. Clearly you fooled the ground!

Sometimes logic and realism must take a backseat to game mechanics for the sake of simplicity, functionality, balance, or any combination.

It's best to just shrug and keep rollin,' I find.

Indeed, the invun save is a simplified game mechanic - can you imagine how much time would be wasted figuring out the roll to hit for, let's say, Tau with markerlights?

'Ok so I've got a flickerfield, that reduces your ballistic skill by 2 so you're hitting me on sixes.'

'yeah but i've got four markerlight hits, so actually i'm hitting you on twos.'

'damn.'

I'll take the 5++ and not grumble!

I understand your opinion. I am, however, the type of person that likes things complicated

Many gamers are, lol. That's why Rollmaster was a thing for so long.

I will take the 5 up. I have seen a knight hit my venom and it's flickerfield invul has saved it.

For what it's worth, I also find it frustrating when my vehicle saves the flamer hit, but the troops onboard die. The only way I can justify it is like some kind of Star Trek scene, where the shields take the hit but a bunch of electric panels overload and explode.

True, I do agree that we should have something for our onboard troops, but logically when a flame thrower hits something it is not the bunker that is destroyed. Nor is the tank. The heated air can kill you just as much as the flames.

Jimsolo wrote:

For what it's worth, I also find it frustrating when my vehicle saves the flamer hit, but the troops onboard die.  The only way I can justify it is like some kind of Star Trek scene, where the shields take the hit but a bunch of electric panels overload and explode.

Well, maybe the flickerfield masks the vehicles true location, making it seem as if it just isn't there... but the driver forgot to or can't include the passengers in the settings.

So Jonny the Homicidal Flamer Guardsman sees a bunch of Dark Eldar flying past him in the air - and barbecues them. But since he didn't see the vehicle (thanks to the flickerfields), he elevated his weapon to centre on the things he could see, so the driver / air intakes / engine etc weren't hit by the column of flame, and it comes out looking like it's just been through a car wash.

Maybe

Quote :

Well, maybe the flickerfield masks the vehicles true location, making it seem as if it just isn't there... but the driver forgot to or can't include the passengers in the settings.

So Jonny the Homicidal Flamer Guardsman sees a bunch of Dark Eldar flying past him in the air - and barbecues them. But since he didn't see the vehicle (thanks to the flickerfields), he elevated his weapon to centre on the things he could see, so the driver / air intakes / engine etc weren't hit by the column of flame, and it comes out looking like it's just been through a car wash.

Maybe

This is the best explanation yet