Jink rule on FMC

[ravengoescaw]

No it works like this: Get hit with spot light (Marker Light) Crash nto the ground. Get Almost hit with missle do a wing over...... into the ground.

[Davor]

Sept 22, 2012 3:01:44 GMT wisdomseyes1 said:

Sept 22, 2012 2:34:08 GMT Davor said:

Like flashlights or laser beams? LOL.

Dont joke about that! Lazor pointers can cause serious retina damage and even lead to blindness bro!

That is true.

Someone mentioned that they work on cats. Now I can't get this out of my mind. Just like how I use the laser pointer for my cats and dogs, imagine a Tau using the Marker lights to make the Tyranids run in circles chasing a red dot on the floor LMFAO.

[coredump]

I don't get it. Jink is a cover save. Cover saves never stop you from getting hit, they only stop you from getting wounded.

[wisdomseyes1]

Coredump: read the op, everyone understands that ...

[coredump]

I did. His complaint is that we "only get Jink on hits that don't ground us"

No one get Jink against *any* hits. No one gets any cover save against any hits. It is a non sensical complaint; unless you propose changing some of the most basic rules in the game.

[wisdomseyes1]

When he said hits, you know he was talking about hits that have already hit which is of course the roll to wound.

The complaint is that the automatic hit (or roll to wound) ignored coversaves.


*Not* the roll to hit. The hits that have already hit... which is the roll to wound. Albeit, you still need to roll to wound before you can take the save, but come on coredump you know exactly what is being said in that OP and your just choosing not to see it, either out of exhaustion or because you didnt see it initially and have to defend yourself.

[ravengoescaw]

Actualy I personally think you should get your cover and armour saves before they roll to wound and if you save the hits then the hits didn't hit you (useing jink for the cover save means you got out of the way of the bullet so less grounding tests). invulnerability sould be less prevalent and be a second save like fnp. The reason for this is one it maes more sense to me that hits being negated from saves cover=hard to hit armour= not hitting a weak point in the armour. Instead of how it is now This rock I am hiding behind saved me from the bullet that hit me from hurting me.

[wisdomseyes1]

Ravengoescaw: Sure, now explain the rules for mixed armor saves using that method.

Call me a simpleton, but i wouldnt want to try and deal with that, especially when GW writers already have a hard time explaining the current methods of wound allocation.

You could always consider current wound allocation as "I will get hurt by this if my armor doesnt stop it"

Instead of how it is now This rock I am hiding behind saved me from the bullet that hit me from hurting me.

The way you just said it, it makes sense...

what you meant to say was "This bullet that just hurt me no longer hurts me because it hit this rock"

[ravengoescaw]

Closest model to the firing unit that is the armour save you use, or allocate the hits evenly, roll your saves, opponent rolls wounds on those models only. That didn't make the saves. so some wounds might be wasted. Wasn't hard at all to explain. I personally like the second option.

[Anggul]

Basically he's saying that it's stupid because although Jink is meant to represent you dodging the hit, it still technically hit so can still knock you out of the sky. I think we can agree that's pretty stupid, but sadly Jink doesn't count you as never being hit, even though it should for the purposes of Grounding fluff-wise.

[pom611]

Sorry maybe I haven't explained what I mean properly. I thought that the ideas of a cover save in particular a jink cover save was to represent fast units using evasive manoeuvres and so not being hit in the first place and if there not hit because of the uv jinked out of the way should that not negate the grounding test that happens wen your hit? This isn't the way the rules are set up probable because it would be to complicated. I understand that cover saves from hiding behind a barricade are to represent the barricade stopping the hit same as for armour saves in both cases something has been hit preventing the target from being harmed if it was an armour save I wouldn't have a problem with the grounding test going off as the target has still been hit but if it jinked the hole idea is they moved out of the way of the shot and never got hit in the first place right?

[tarrasque]

Your complaint makes a lot of sense. I figure that since you are doing a dive to gain the Jink rule, then crashing into the ground (while focusing more on evading that lascannon shot) is a real possibility.

[ravengoescaw]

Sept 22, 2012 22:15:21 GMT wisdomseyes1 said:

Ravengoescaw: Sure, now explain the rules for mixed armor saves using that method.

Call me a simpleton, but i wouldnt want to try and deal with that, especially when GW writers already have a hard time explaining the current methods of wound allocation.

You could always consider current wound allocation as "I will get hurt by this if my armor doesnt stop it"

Instead of how it is now This rock I am hiding behind saved me from the bullet that hit me from hurting me.

The way you just said it, it makes sense...

what you meant to say was "This bullet that just hurt me no longer hurts me because it hit this rock"

No I said it the ay I ment it. it annoys me. From my perspective the save/hit rules do not make logical sense. I do believe it would be more realistic for saves to be taken against hits not wounds. Especially the cover save.

[gigasnail]

there's that realism/common sense thing rearing its ugly head again.

[wisdomseyes1]

No I said it the ay I ment it. it annoys me. From my perspective the save/hit rules do not make logical sense. I do believe it would be more realistic for saves to be taken against hits not wounds. Especially the cover save.

If you say the your armor stopped something that hit you from hurting you, that makes perfect realistic sense.

And while its more realistic, it actually is pretty confusing to write. I know exactly what you tried to say with your "explanation" but it is so vague... its not solely laziness that causes bad writing in the rules (though it is a big part of it)