Flickerfield

Rulebook, page 17:
Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because
they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a
Wound - the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons
has no effect. Even if a Wound ignores all armour saves, an
invulnerable saving throw can sdll be taken.

Vehicles never suffer Wounds, so can Flickerfield Saves be ever taken? (except Dangerous Terrain test as per FAQ).

Im asking cause one guy states such thing in rules section in polish forum, and would like to know he's wrong

Technically they did not work in 5th Ed either... But I would be very unhappy if some one stopped me using them

Quote :

Wound - the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons

technically, that would mean as well that .... no bonuses on explosion tables, right ? :p

Sorry for the thread necromancy, but this issue was brought up in my gaming group today, and since I'm starting to build a DE army, I'd really like some clarification on whether it works or not. As I see it, RAW says it doesn't but everybody uses it anyway, because it doesn't make sense not to.

What is your experience on the subject from tournaments?

edit: nevermind! Dug up another thread with this discussion and what persuaded me was the jink analogy, where you'd argue that jink saves can be taken vs. ignore cover weapons as they are also against wounds and not hull points.

edit2: hmm, though I'm still interested in your experience from tournaments. Do people even make a fuss about it?

The recent BRB Faq clears this one up. Page 1. Top of right column. Vehicles are now explicitly given permission to take invulnerable saves.

How come would a jink save not be ignored by an ignoring cover weapon ????

Jink gives a cover save, therefore any weapon that ignores wover .... ignores the jink saves.
Having hull points or not is imho not relevant here, a save is a save, it being on a vehicule or another model.

dra'al, you're right, that's great!

fruz - BRB says that cover saves cannot be taken against wounds from weapons with this rule. Vehicles do not have wounds. That was the whole point of the initial debate concerning inv saves which, until faq'ed, could also be taken only against wounds and not hull points, therefore rendering flickerfields useless.

As it stands now, I'd argue that, since it's been faq'ed, our invs work all the time but jinks can still be taken vs ignore cover weapons OK, I aggree that perhaps not on bikes/jetbikes because those have wound characteristics. Skimmers on the other hand, not so much

okay, thx for answering, thats seems quite legit ( definitely stupid though ), glad it's been faq'ed =p.

I'm just gonna quote the faq here btw

Quote :

Page 17 – Invulnerable Saves
Change the second paragraph to “Invulnerable saves are
different to armoursaves because they may always be taken
wheneverthe model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles,
suffers a penetrating or glancing hit – the Armour Piercing
value of attacking weapons has no effect upon an Invulnerable
save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores
all armoursaves, an invulnerable save can still be taken”.

it doesn't explicitely fixes the problem though, but sinces it states wounds OR penetrating / glancing hits in the case of vehicles, I think we can assume that it works this way for flammers or sonic weapons for example, they should ignore jink saves on vehicles.
( I can see debates about it though, but I think there is no chance that I will contest it while playing personnally )

ignore cover gets rid of the jink save. There is no argument about it, and anyone that does argue about it needs to learn some common sense. Some rules lawyering is ok, but obvious things are obvious...

Can't agree with you entirely Shadows Revenge.

This thread is in existence so obviously there is room for argument, unfortunatly. It's the same old RAW vs RAI thing.

RAI you are absolutely right and I personally wouldn't play it another way. But RAW I'm afraid there's a loophole in the rulebook again. Needs to be FAQed IMHO.

Wanna start another email thread again guys?

I just want to say that, of course, I definitely go with the RAI on the jink thing, but I also aknowledge that there is room for argument on the issue

Jink save = cover save

How does ignore cover not ignore jink? Is this because of the wording of ignore cover not mentioning vehicles?

Mushkilla wrote:

Jink save = cover save

How does ignore cover not ignore jink? Is this because of the wording of ignore cover not mentioning vehicles?

Yeah, mentioning only wounds. And not glances/pens.

And because they FAQed invunerable saves they've created an opening for the argument that it needs to be explicit.

Quote :

ignore cover gets rid of the jink save. There is no argument about it, and anyone that does argue about it needs to learn some common sense. Some rules lawyering is ok, but obvious things are obvious...

yes, but even though, common sense being the basis of the rules, when it's time to debate about them there is no place for it.
Rules ares rules, and common sense is like fluff, just ignore it in a purely technical point of view.

I will also consider that sonic/flammers ignore saves on our skimmers still =) ( with my friends ).