Shield of Faith/Entropic strike?

[Dread]

So tonight we encountered something that we couldn't find errata/faq about. A unit of scarabs attacked my exorcist. Now do we get shield against the entropic strike or do we wait and take it against hits on armor? Thanks

[ValourousHeart]

I'd say that any damage would generate a save unless it is specifically denied.

 

So it has been a while since I read the Necron codex, does entropic strike say that you get no save of any kind?

[Dread]

Nope, just remove armor value, nothing about not taking armor saves.

[*Furyou Miko]

You take the save whenever you like, but it retroactively negates the attack... I'd say ask the FAQ team.

 

As someone who plays both Necrons and Sisters, I would say the SoF probably negates the Entropic AV reduction - if your Necron player complains, point out that it only stops one in six attacks and Scarabs are going to be reducing a vehicle by about 20 AV every round if they're used properly anyway.

[Dread]

Will do. It's funny I play 6 different armies including necrons and have never faced that before. I am the only sisters player in our area tho so could not have figured it out even if I had been playing my necrons against another sisters player. Wish we did have another.

[tvih]

Certainly a good question. But it seems to me that as vehicles take saves against glancing and penetrating hits, it could be argued that the AV reduction of entropic strike doesn't really count as such. Kind of like the shenanigans with the new SM grav weapons. Personally I would allow the saves at least, though. In any case, if you do take the save, you don't take it against the HIT just like you don't take saves against normal weapon hits, just results that do damage, you take it against the 4+ result. So let's say 20 entropic attacks hit and cause 10 4+ results that would lower AV. You then take saves against those 10 4+ results.

[ValourousHeart]

I feel that most of these rules conundrums come up because someone is being asinine, and trying to gain an advantage by intentionally confusing his opponent.  (Kind of like when people tried to say that you could place a webway portal on top of an enemy model, as a way of removing it from play.)

 

I use a very minimalistic approach to rules questions.  Things only get confusing when you start making the process confusing.  Conflicts occur usually between only 2 rules… specific rules from competing codices.  It is extremely rare that you would come across a situation where you have more than 2 rules in conflict or a rule book rule conflicting with a codex rule.
 

Generally speaking if you focus on just those 2 rules, and not go searching for anything else, you will find that one rule is the ACTION rule in this case and the other is the REACTION rule.  I say “in this case” because some rules could change roles depending upon whose turn it was.

 

From there it is very simple… the ACTION rule takes effect and then the REACTION rule affects the ACTION rule’s effect.

 

In this case the scarab swarm is making an attack, the Necron player chooses to EC as the form of attack (kind of like a SM choosing to use a Krak Grenade instead of his CCW).  Damage is dealt, and as a reaction to receiving damage, SoF kicks in.  Some damage is reduced and then we go back to EC and resolve the CC.

 

I know I haven’t faced every rules conflict so if someone sees a flaw I would appreciate the feedback.

 

*EDIT* Just to be clear, I don't think anyone in the thread is being asinine.  That comment was in reference to the Rules Conundrum Series on BOLS, which every couple of weeks picks a topic and attempts to stirs up the community.