PDA

View Full Version : Triarch Praetorian Builds?



FTE-Charge!!!
12-12-2011, 12:26 PM
Hi gang,

Has anyone used these models yet in a game? My local scene has focused more on the Lychguard. What do you make of them?

And if you use them, or have had them used against you, what kind of equipment were they fielding?

I seem to think that the RoC is the better choice until an FAQ lets us know when Entropic Strike works. The Rending blade/ Pistol variant is what I am most interested in. Seems like it is geared towards hunting light vehicles?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

Ketharim
12-13-2011, 01:30 AM
Used them against Space Marines with RoC by now... they cut through 2 Units of Terminators, Sternguard and the Chapter Master himself without loosing one of their own squad ;)

Btw. I do not see where is the problem with Entropic strike, rules are pretty clear. Throw for To Hit and for each resulting hit throw a dice on 4+ reducing the armor etc. After that throw for to wound and so on. I do not understand where all those discussions about this rule come from. The only way to make this rule more clear is to draw a picture of it ;)

Luke Licens
12-13-2011, 09:21 AM
Used them against Space Marines with RoC by now... they cut through 2 Units of Terminators, Sternguard and the Chapter Master himself without loosing one of their own squad ;)

Btw. I do not see where is the problem with Entropic strike, rules are pretty clear. Throw for To Hit and for each resulting hit throw a dice on 4+ reducing the armor etc. After that throw for to wound and so on. I do not understand where all those discussions about this rule come from. The only way to make this rule more clear is to draw a picture of it ;)

Situations like this, actually.

If a model takes an unsaved wound, it loses its armor save for the rest of the game. No 4+ roll against non-vehicle models.

If you hit a model with an AV, for each hit roll for Entropic Strike. For each 4+ reduce the vehicle's armor on all facings by 1. It is implied (but not explicitely stated) that this roll takes place immediately after hits, and hence before armor penetration.

SaganGree
12-13-2011, 09:54 AM
Situations like this, actually.

If a model takes an unsaved wound, it loses its armor save for the rest of the game. No 4+ roll against non-vehicle models.

If you hit a model with an AV, for each hit roll for Entropic Strike. For each 4+ reduce the vehicle's armor on all facings by 1. It is implied (but not explicitely stated) that this roll takes place immediately after hits, and hence before armor penetration.

Edit - removed as I had my order of operations... well... out of order

Ketharim
12-14-2011, 03:03 AM
Situations like this, actually.

If a model takes an unsaved wound, it loses its armor save for the rest of the game. No 4+ roll against non-vehicle models.

If you hit a model with an AV, for each hit roll for Entropic Strike. For each 4+ reduce the vehicle's armor on all facings by 1. It is implied (but not explicitely stated) that this roll takes place immediately after hits, and hence before armor penetration.

I see no discussion, I just do not have my Codex copy in office ;)

For vehicles as you say the phrasing implies that it takes place immediately after the 4+ roll. So the only reason for discussions here is that GW expects too much of its customers and forgot those sneaky gits who love to exploit "not explicitly stated" issues :D

Ketharim
12-14-2011, 03:19 AM
Situations like this, actually.

If a model takes an unsaved wound, it loses its armor save for the rest of the game. No 4+ roll against non-vehicle models.

If you hit a model with an AV, for each hit roll for Entropic Strike. For each 4+ reduce the vehicle's armor on all facings by 1. It is implied (but not explicitely stated) that this roll takes place immediately after hits, and hence before armor penetration.

I see no discussion, I just do not have my Codex copy in office ;)

For vehicles as you say the phrasing implies that it takes place immediately after the 4+ roll. So the only reason for discussions here is that GW expects too much of its customers and forgot those sneaky gits who love to exploit "not explicitly stated" issues :D