Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So i was talking to a friend of mine today about DE flickerfields. and he said that when we played a game he would not let me take my invulnerable save on my raider/ravager etc. because invulnerable saves may only be taken for a wound.

Any help?

What army does your friend play?


There are holes like this in every codex. If he's going to be TFG, give him a taste of his own medicine.

Alternately, don't play him. It'll be less stressful.

He plays the bugs

*Sigh.*

This is getting ridiculous.

Of course you can make your flickerfield save: does he really believe that GW would allow you a 5++ and not be able to use it?

Iranna.

you CAN take your save... Otherwise flickerfields would be pretty useless.

Remind him of the most important rule, tell him to stop being TFG and roll your saves. If he complains, you don't have to keep playing him.

As Iranna said, why would they make a vehicle only upgrade that confers a 5+ Inv save if you weren't allowed to use it?

this has been done to death. flicker fields provide invun saves against any damage roll from any source. CC, ranged etc. not sure about DT...and pretty sure it dosent work when ramming or DOG. but otherwise take your 5+ invun.


and as mentioned tell buddy to stop being tfg

Technically your friend is correct: vehicles have no *general* way to take saves against hits.

Actually your friend is being an idiot, and should probably be introduced to the dreadsock.

Invul saves are invul saves... Even for ramming, hand to hand or difficult terrain.

Does a demon get his 5+ invul save for difficult terrain? yes? then so does a raider...
It is a 5+ ward save for the model.

The only vehicle saves we have rules for are cover saves from being Obscured. It's certainly reasonable to assume those Invulnerable saves would work in the same way, that is you can take a save against a glancing/penetrating hit. Get Immobilized in terrain and you're out of luck - that's a set damage result, not a hit.

So if your model on foot with a ward save fails an dangerous terrain, he takes a "Set result" of a wound, and you are ok with him not getting the save?
Yeah, sorry, but the rules say otherwise.

Anglacon wrote:So if your model on foot with a ward save fails an dangerous terrain, he takes a "Set result" of a wound, and you are ok with him not getting the save?
Yeah, sorry, but the rules say otherwise.

where do the rulese say a vehicle gets to make an invulnerable save to failing DT ?

Under dangerous terrain rules, it states invunerable saves may be taken.

I don't see the issue here....

Against wounds, yes...

Every vehicle in the upcoming Codex: Sisters of Battle gets a 6+ invulnerable save. Did they really mean to do that if it was unusable?

Homer

Homer S wrote:Every vehicle in the upcoming Codex: Sisters of Battle gets a 6+ invulnerable save. Did they really mean to do that if it was unusable?

Homer

Well, they did give the Dreadknight Dreadnought Close Combat Weapons, which he can't use...

That being said, your friend is being an idiot. Either accept the fact that he's going to be an annoying cheating bastard, or quit playing with him.

Although, you are playing DE vs Bugs. If he's running a MC heavy list, he basically auto-looses every game, and that's never fun.

Anglacon wrote:So if your model on foot with a ward save fails an dangerous terrain, he takes a "Set result" of a wound, and you are ok with him not getting the save?
Yeah, sorry, but the rules say otherwise.

Except for vehicles they DO say otherwise. Youre wrong on this.

A failed dangerous teerrain test inflicts a RESULT, not a *hit*. You can only, at best, save against hits.

If you disagree, some actual rules that apply to vehicles would be useful.

nosferatu1001

Except for vehicles they DO say otherwise. Youre wrong on this.

A failed dangerous teerrain test inflicts a RESULT, not a *hit*. You can only, at best, save against hits.

If you disagree, some actual rules that apply to vehicles would be useful.

Isnt that how vehicles take damage? You roll to hit, pen, and then damage RESULT.

It doesnt say 5++ against shooting or CC. It says they get a 5++. Name where in the BRB it states that invulnerables may be taken against everything but vehicle damage results? Pretty sure there is nothing in the BRB that ignores ++ saves.

Rather show people where in the BRB vehicles take saves vs anything but glancing/penetrating hits, before rolling on the damage table. ;-)

You take vehicle saves against hits, not against the results themselves. That is why you roll your saves against the Pen's and Glances, not the Destroyed - Explodes result.

Edit: The rules do not work the way you describe, you need to show that you CAN take the save against the Result. Not where it says you cannot unless there is specific language relating to vehicles and invulnerable saves. There is not, go to the BRB (maybe pp 36?) and read how cover saves are taken against Glances/Pens. That is your guide for how to resolve Invulnerable Saves, which are not mentioned w.r.t. vehicles at all in the BRB.

Cover saves and invunerable saves are two seperate things. Saying the rules for one imply the rules for another is reaching...

Anglacon wrote:Cover saves and invunerable saves are two seperate things. Saying the rules for one imply the rules for another is reaching...

OK - then you hjave no rules, none whatsoever that let ytou take FlickerField invulnerable saves against ANYTHING AT ALL

OK, now youve realised that is a pointless stance, you take the *closest match*, which is that a) Cover saves work against HITS and NOT RESULTS and b) Bjorns Invulnerable save works the same way as cover saves against vehicles do.

So, there you have it. Your way: you get no benefit at all. My way: it works against everything but dangerous terrain, because that inflicts a RESULT and NOT a hit.

Your choice

I'm not sure I can agree on this one.

Infantry models, for example, that suffer a 1 in dangerous terrain suffer an automatic wound, not a hit, and they are allowed to take an invulnerable save against this. Shouldn't a vehicle also be allowed to claim an invulnerable save against an auto result with no hit?

omerakk wrote:Infantry models, for example, that suffer a 1 in dangerous terrain suffer an automatic wound, not a hit, and they are allowed to take an invulnerable save against this. Shouldn't a vehicle also be allowed to claim an invulnerable save against an auto result with no hit?

Unfortunately vehicles do not resolve damage results the same way as infantry. So to answer your question: No.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
OK - then you hjave no rules, none whatsoever that let ytou take FlickerField invulnerable saves against ANYTHING AT ALL

OK, now youve realised that is a pointless stance,

Your rudeness aside, your whole premise is laughable. Every tournament I have been to has ruled flickerfields lets you take a ward save against damage to the vehicle.
Common sense lets you take ward saves against damage to vehicles.


According to your "logic", the ward save prevents damage from:
Hand to hand, shooting, grenades, ramming, meltas, plasmas and flamers, but "Oh No! Theres a Bush!" and the flickerfield stops working...

Right....
Good luck with that.

I'm not sure if this input would help, but Under the description of vehicles taking terrain tests there is no rolling on damage, it simply states it "halts and immediately suffers an immobilized damage result" considering that most non skimmer type vehicles have specific upgrades to counter act this, and not invulnerable saves I'd imagine it makes sense that this is a non-saveable result. (You don't actually risk DESTROYING your vehicle, it just gets stuck)

For instance, you have have an awesome shimmery surface that make it hard to see/hit the vehicle, sweet! But... if you drive it off a cliff, or into a minefield, all that shininess isn't going to do you much good.

But best way to avoid this problem is discuss it before the game begins... if people are good with it awesome, if not, then just avoid the damaging terrain if you're worried about it.

Anglacon wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
OK - then you hjave no rules, none whatsoever that let ytou take FlickerField invulnerable saves against ANYTHING AT ALL

OK, now youve realised that is a pointless stance,

Your rudeness aside, your whole premise is laughable. Every tournament I have been to has ruled flickerfields lets you take a ward save against damage to the vehicle.
Common sense lets you take ward saves against damage to vehicles.


According to your "logic", the ward save prevents damage from:
Hand to hand, shooting, grenades, ramming, meltas, plasmas and flamers, but "Oh No! Theres a Bush!" and the flickerfield stops working...

Right....
Good luck with that.

Just like a drop pod hitting a grot mishaps. And a whole bunch of other unrealistic rules. For a given value of reality where mutant supermen fight evil space elves.

Vehicle cover saves may be taken against glancing and penetrating hits. Technically invulnerable saves are taken against wounds and so vehicles don't get any benefit from invulnerable saves because they don't take wounds. But as far as I know everyone plays vehicle invulnerable saves just like vehicle cover saves. Which means they only work against hits.

Of course tournaments are free to rule any way they want.

Anglacon wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
OK - then you hjave no rules, none whatsoever that let ytou take FlickerField invulnerable saves against ANYTHING AT ALL

OK, now youve realised that is a pointless stance,

Your rudeness aside, your whole premise is laughable. Every tournament I have been to has ruled flickerfields lets you take a ward save against damage to the vehicle.
Common sense lets you take ward saves against damage to vehicles.


According to your "logic", the ward save prevents damage from:
Hand to hand, shooting, grenades, ramming, meltas, plasmas and flamers, but "Oh No! Theres a Bush!" and the flickerfield stops working...

Right....
Good luck with that.

I highly doubt that the tourneys you have been to allowed for the opponent to Roll for Penetration, then roll for damage result, then allowed the invul Save.

More likely their proscribed order of operations was to roll for penetration, then roll for save, then rolling for damage result should the save failed(you know, the Same order as Bjorn, and Cover).

In all technicality, Only Bjorn can use an invulnerable save(as only he has one with the rules that allow you to do so).

In all Reality, any vehicle with access to an invulnerable can use said save, this save should be used in exactly the same manner as bjorn's(since his tells you how to use it). In this event you are told that bjorn may take his invulerable save against any penetrating or Glancing hit. Is the immobilized result from DT the result of a penetrating or glancing hit? then no invul save can be taken for vehicles.

Anglacon wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
OK - then you hjave no rules, none whatsoever that let ytou take FlickerField invulnerable saves against ANYTHING AT ALL

OK, now youve realised that is a pointless stance,

Your rudeness aside, your whole premise is laughable. Every tournament I have been to has ruled flickerfields lets you take a ward save against damage to the vehicle.
Common sense lets you take ward saves against damage to vehicles.


According to your "logic", the ward save prevents damage from:
Hand to hand, shooting, grenades, ramming, meltas, plasmas and flamers, but "Oh No! Theres a Bush!" and the flickerfield stops working...

Right....
Good luck with that.

Oddly enough, yes I have "good luck" with that - every tournament ive been to this year, including 100+ player tournaments, ruled this way. Why? Because its the way the rules work.

Please, as per the tenets of YMDC, please back your "argument" up with rules. Or concede you dont have any.

i would argue that damage results would be saved against. if your raider takes 6 pens and 4 glances resulting in 4 explodes, 2 immobilized, 2 wep destroyed and 2 shaken, you should roll saves on each of those effects. whatever fails applies to the vehicle. you cant just roll 10 dice and say ok i saved 4 so the vehicle is not exploded, but it takes the other results. (wich would wreck it anyway....)

that seems the fair way to do things. therefore your saving against effects, and it would apply the same to DT or ramming or whatever.

did some looking and the only thing refrenceing no saves in a ramming/DoG situation is the flatout skimmer NOT getting its obscured save vrs DOG. that would not seem to apply here....


edit:

process for invun saves on wound models

firing unit shoots
firing unit rolls wounds for # of hits //// firing unit rolls pens for # of hits to determine damage
wounded unit makes saves. ////////damaged vehicle saves against the damage (either obscured or invun or ward or w/e)

keeps things on as equal levels as possible methinks.