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.

DarthSpader wrote: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's not how you do it if you have a 4+ Cover save (that your Raider would have for being a skimmer moving flat out, for example). You'd roll 6 saves on the pens, 4 on the glances. Whatever is left the opponent rolls on the damage table.

There - the saves we know about are against hits. Bjorn's Inv save is also against hits, and that's the only vehicle with an Inv save that actually explains how to use it.

DarthSpader wrote: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 would take the saves on the 6 pens and 4 glances *before* rolling on the damage table. Any hits that were not saved would be rolled on the damage table.

Edit: Ah, another page to the thread. With the same thing I just said. Oops.

nosferatu1001 wrote: every tournament ive been to this year, including 100+ player tournaments,

So you have been to 100+ tournaments so far this year... oh, i am sorry, more than that, 100+ PLAYER tournaments (what were the others, against robots or something?)
And every one ruled this way...

Yeah, Ok, I will discuss rules interpretations with people, but not if they blatantly lie and spin to skew facts in their favor.

Or, i am allowed to argue in kind:

The 400 GW sanctioned grand tournaments I attended this weekend all ruled that I was right, and furthermore, any rules changes i deem need to be made, i may do so due to the fact I use common sense in rulings.
I have this in writing, and notarized by Barack obama himself.

Back on subject- i do not have the rulebook in front of me, but I would argue that:
Ward saves prevents damage/ wounds from ANY SOURCE except those explicitly stated otherwise (eg necron warscythes, etc..).
Damage to a vehicle with a ward save was caused by difficult terrain, which in the rules EXPLICITLY state that ward saves may be used against it. Not that they cant, but they go out of the way to say they CAN.

I know the meme about arguing on the internet, and pretty much, when Mr. Tournament there throws around his 100+ tournaments in what, 7 months, I realize what i am facing is a losing cause, but my perspective is out there, and players can decide when they play a game.

CASTITAS hit the nail on the head here... Discuss before the game, and if you cant agree, ask for a ruling and move on.
besides, you might have 99 more tournaments to go to!

Or, you just fail at reading?

A tournament with more than 100 players. IndyGT, March this year. 113 from memory.

Sigh.

Seriously, ive used real rules (acknowledgng the gaps that dont currently allow Flickerfields to do anything), while you have so far presented no. Zip, zilch, nada, zero. Nothing.

You use invulnerable saves ON VEHCILES against, AT BEST, *HITS*.

Over to you - provide rules or concede.

Nos is correct. The rules mean that invulnerable saves (except for Bjorn) technically only work against wounds.

However since this is clearly silly and a bit odd, pretty much everyone (including all the people in this thread as far as I can tell) accept that you can use them for vehicles, and thus refer to the rules for cover saves which indicates that you take them against hits. i.e. before damage results are rolled for.

....which means they DO NOT work for Dangerous Terrain tests, because they do not give you a "hit" - they give you a result of "immobilised"

So to wrap up the whole DT thing...Pg 14 BRB
"On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed."
As for vehicles...Pg 57 BRB
"A resulf of 1 means that the vehicle halts immediately and suffers an Immobilised damage result, so if it was attempting to enter difficult terrain it stops just outside."
And last but not least Invul saves...Pg 20 BRB
"Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken."
So with that said, and yes I do play DE, I think that there is no reason why you woudn't get an invulnerable save from the FF, but I would ask a TO about dangerous terrain and go with that. It doesn't matter what we say as it is the TO who gets the final say. In friendly games however I have always been allowed to take a FF save on DT and I have always let others take them...aka The Most Important Rule!

TMIR is also "you shoudlnt take them, as you ONLY get to save HITs, and not RESULTS", because thats the actual resuls.

Its the rules you missed out that are most telling - you didnt include the rules for cover saves, which save against Hits, nor Bjorns rules for his invulnerable save (the ONLY rules we have for resolving inv saves) which also save against Hits.

A failed dangerous terrain test does not inflict a Hit, therefore you CANNOT save against it. Unless you houserule it.

Akroma06 wrote:So to wrap up the whole DT thing...Pg 14 BRB
"On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed."
As for vehicles...Pg 57 BRB
"A resulf of 1 means that the vehicle halts immediately and suffers an Immobilised damage result, so if it was attempting to enter difficult terrain it stops just outside."
And last but not least Invul saves...Pg 20 BRB
"Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken."
So with that said, and yes I do play DE, I think that there is no reason why you woudn't get an invulnerable save from the FF, but I would ask a TO about dangerous terrain and go with that. It doesn't matter what we say as it is the TO who gets the final say. In friendly games however I have always been allowed to take a FF save on DT and I have always let others take them...aka The Most Important Rule!

The most important rule is to have fun? How does taking inv saves to DT seem fun? lol

Regardless you brought up the rules again on how to take invul saves after taking wounds. So from the start your logic is flawed, as a vehicle doesnt take wounds.

My point is that the game is there to have fun...simply arguing about it will ruin the game. Any TO will say that you get an Invul from the FF, but like I said you should ask about DT before hand...wait a second where is the proof otherwise? Why can I not take the Invul save? Because it is damage done to a vehicle I am ALWAYS allowed to take the invul save. (codex special rules not withstanding, ie shield breaker rounds) Also why does it matter that much its a freaking 5++ you only have a 1 in 3 chance of passing anyway.

So to sum up, any opponent that says you cant take your invuln save (excluding DT because its pretty sketchy) is a Massive TFG that you should not play against!

Akroma06 wrote:My point is that the game is there to have fun...simply arguing about it will ruin the game. Any TO will say that you get an Invul from the FF, but like I said you should ask about DT before hand...wait a second where is the proof otherwise? Why can I not take the Invul save? Because it is damage done to a vehicle I am ALWAYS allowed to take the invul save. (codex special rules not withstanding, ie shield breaker rounds) Also why does it matter that much its a freaking 5++ you only have a 1 in 3 chance of passing anyway.

The proof has been given to you: you are ONLY allowed, AT BEST, to take your save against a HIT - penetrating or glancing.

Now, read the dangerous terrain rules. Please show me, page and paragraph, where it says you are HIT. Wait, it doesnt! You instead take the immobilsed *result*

Result /= Hit
Result /= Hit
Result /= Hit

Any more times? Cant make it any simpler.

And yet for infantry the result = wound...but you get the inv save so why not for vehicles?

You do not take invuls against hits... you take them against WOUNDS or against PENETRATION RESULTS.

You may roll 4 hits with your las cannons, but i am not taking flickerfields until you roll for and achieve either a penetration or a glance result. I am saving against the RESULT (before the roll to determine the severity of the result is taken).

difficult terrain is just a penetration or glance result that the outcome is pre-ordained.

So, therefore your argument about taking invul saves against HITS is faulty and wrong.

As stated earlier, it is best to get a TO's ruling before a tournament.

To say you can't take FF saves is absurd - that's the whole point of buying a flickerfield. You let the opponent roll to hit/glance/penetrate and then take the save, just like you do for normal invul saves on infantry. Admittedly, the game might drag out a bit if your opponent declares a lot of shots on your Venom/Raider/Ravager but to say you don't get a save at all is pathetic.

Abstract Catalyst wrote:To say you can't take FF saves is absurd - that's the whole point of buying a flickerfield. You let the opponent roll to hit/glance/penetrate and then take the save, just like you do for normal invul saves on infantry. Admittedly, the game might drag out a bit if your opponent declares a lot of shots on your Venom/Raider/Ravager but to say you don't get a save at all is pathetic.

With a very strict reading of the rules, vehicles can't take advantage of Cover saves, Armor saves, or Invul saves. The only thing they are allowed to use is an obscured save.

Of course, no one actually plays like that. The intention that the FF (and other vehicle saves) are supposed to work is very clear, and everyone allows those saves to be taken.

The only real issue is dangerous terrain checks. Because the rules for vehicle saves are non-existent, we need to do our best to extrapolate them.

My vote is that dangerous terrain on vehicles should work like dangerous terrain on non-vehicles. Meaning, you can take an Invul save, but no other type of save may be taken. But, this is simply an interpretation. There is no RAW answer.

No such thing as a, "obscured save".

Anglacon wrote:You do not take invuls against hits... you take them against WOUNDS or against PENETRATION RESULTS.

WRONG

Seriously - you need to read the rulebook, specifically how cover saves are taken.

Tehy are taken against Penetrating or Glancing HITS. For the last time.

The damage RESULT you do NOT save against. Its too late by this point.

Anglacon wrote:You may roll 4 hits with your las cannons, but i am not taking flickerfields until you roll for and achieve either a penetration or a glance result. I am saving against the RESULT (before the roll to determine the severity of the result is taken).

SOrry, you're wrong in terminology, which is probably where your confusion comes from. You roll penetrating or glancing hits - check your rulebook. You then roll on the damage chart and get a single result. There is no "severity" of the result - the result is a single number.

Anglacon wrote:difficult terrain is just a penetration or glance result that the outcome is pre-ordained.

Wrong. There is no "hit", there is no "glance" or "penetrate", there is simply the damage result "immobilised" - which means there is no penetrating or glanicng hit. And, what do you save agfainst? penetrating or glancing hits.

If you disagree - show some rules

Anglacon wrote:So, therefore your argument about taking invul saves against HITS is faulty and wrong.

No, it really isnt. See above.

Please, for the last time, provide RULES that back your position, not a flawed argument based on incorrect premises.

As stated earlier, it is best to get a TO's ruling before a tournament.

Nos is dead on. Not only with reasoning but also rules sources. People really do need to read the rules for vehicles.

Quick announcement, 1 thing in this thread has been seriously bugging me:

The declaration that any saves invul or Cover would be against "hits".

This is simply untrue, the saves are against "damaging hits".

Damaging hits would be defined as penetrating hits, or Glancing hits.

You do not roll cover saves as soon as the vehicle is hit by the attack, you roll when the vehicle is either Penetrated, or Glanced by the hit.

I know this is what has been meant by everyone who has been saying hits, but simply stating hits gives the "Damage result save" Camp ground to stand on by invalidating the "hits save" camp.

Only Damaging hits can be saved.

non-damaging hits have nothing to save.

Direct damage results cannot be saved.

I read my book and I still have not seen evidence. I have come out and quoted the BRB and given page numbers. I still want to know how it is different than infantry? You roll a 1 in dangerous terrain as infantry or a bike and you get an inv save. Why should a vehicle be different? You roll a one get a (slim) chance to save.

Guess you actually need to read the reasons here in the thread.

Here is a hint:

Infantry =/= Vehicles.

Because the way you damage vehicles is different?

You havent given any rules sources for vehicles, which is the problem. Quite a big one.

So, please - reread the rules for vehicles and cover saves, which are the ONLY general rules we have for making ANY saves on a vehicle - the ONLY ones. We have to assume that you can take them against invulnerable saves, and in the same way.

Note you save agisnt penetrating or glancing hits, and ONLY these. Dangerous terrain does not, at any point, generate a penetrating or glancing hit. So it doesnt work.
Demonstrate an actual rules based argument otherwise, as per the tenets of YMDC.

Huh cause going back I cannot see where anyone has quoted anything other than me so let he who has not sinned cast the first stone!
Yes there are no rules for inv saves on vehicles so how can you argue that you don't get the save. I was using the one example in the rulebook, infantry or more accurately jetbikes work better. I am being told that rolling a 1 on dangerous terrain has an effect, granted it does to both jetbikes and skimmers. Then a bike is able to make an inv save if it has one. That is the only precedent for dangerous terrain saves. So I use that to argue that since they would get a save then so should the vehicle with an inv.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Anglacon wrote:You do not take invuls against hits... you take them against WOUNDS or against PENETRATION RESULTS.

WRONG
You roll penetrating or glancing hits - check your rulebook.

I dont think we are playing the same game here...

You roll to HIT.

If it hits, then you roll an ARMOR PENETRATION ATTEMPT, eg, after i "hit", did I hit it good enough to cause damage?
but, to make it easy here,and to put it as simply as i can...


1. if you roll a "1" entering terrain, either on foot or by vehicle, damage occurs, be it a wound or immobilised.
2. ONLY Invunerable saves are allowed to deny this wound or damage result. This is stated in the RULEBOOK
3. A flickerfield is an invunerable save.


Therefore....

4. per the DT rules themselves, Flickerfields may prevent Dangerous terrain rolls of a "1'.

And FYI: obscured or cover saves are completely different than invul saves.

Instead of using Infantry as your comparison you could use another vehicle that has an invulnerable save like say, Bjorn.

If you insist on using the Infantry standard of Inv saves, then you do not get to use them at all on vehicles.

Lets see never owned a SW codex so if I tried to cite that I would be doing myself and everyone who reads this a disservice. I was using them as a reference since we obviously can take invul saves at some point in the game. My point was to counter the you roll a 1 then x happens argument. With after you roll a 1 for a jetbike he gets a save so after you roll a 1 for a venom you get a save.

I don't know if using Bjorn as an extra example is even a good idea, since his invuln save is worded different than the flickerfield. I LOVE DIFFERENT AUTHORS!!!

The wording is different but you have a choice;

Compare Infantry Inv saves to Vehicle Inv saves

or

Compare Vehicle Inv saves to Vehicle Inv saves.

I'll take on your Rulebook Challenge:

Dangerous terrain Page 14, last sentence: "On the roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armor or cover saves allowed(wounds and saves are explained in the next section)."

BRB Page 20, Invulnerable saves, 3rd through last sentence: "Models with wargear or abilities like these are allowed an Invulnerable aving throw. Invulnerable saves are different to armor saves because the may always be taken whenever the model suffers a wound - the Armor peircing value of attacking weapons has no effect. Even if a wound normally ignores all armour saves, an invulnerable save may still be taken."

BRB page 51, Unit Types, first Sentence of first non-bold paragraph: "In this section you will find the rules for each of these unit types, namely monstrous creatures, jump infantry, bikes & jetbikes, beasts & cavalry and artillery."

BRB page 51, Unit Types, Second Non-bold paragraph: "Except for the rules detailed in this section for each unit type, these units follow the same rules as infantry."

You would then have to re-read all of the vehicle Section of the rulebook(Pages 56-73), to see that there are absolutely zero references to vehicles ever getting wounded.

I will, however, quote the vehicle dangerous terrain failure result rules, Page 57, second paragraph under "terrain effects", third sentence: "A result of 1 means that the vehicle halts immediately and suffers an immobilized damage result, so if it was attempting to enter difficult terrain it stops just outside."

There you have it Akroma: rules backup to why you are dead wrong, invulnerable saves can generally only be taken by non-vehicle units, Bjorn the Fell-handed has specific rules for when his invul can be taken(which I will quote momentarily), Jet bikes are Infantry as far as rules go, except for where the bike and Jebike rules specifically differentiate themselves from Infantry; so they cannot be used to show why vehicles should get an invul save(bikes/jetbikes are far closer to infantry than vehicles).

Bjorn the fell handed can always use his "ward of the primarch" invulnerable save because it specifies when he uses it, SW Codex Page 49: "Famously resilient, Bjorn has a 5+ invulnerable saving throw against any glancing or penetrating hit inflicted upon him."

Flickerfield should have the same trigger applied to it for those players that wish the upgrade to actually work; since the vehicle Dangerous terrain test causes Neither a glancing, nor a penetrating hit, as such it can never be saved.

Hey its evidence to the other side. Ok so we both have some the point is that the DE codex was written by someone different (agreed with Omerakk yay different authors). The DE codex says that a vehicle equipped with a FF is allowed to take a 5++. This overrides the main rulebook saying they can't. To compare it to Bjorn...thanks for what it says as again I don't own the codex as I recall he is a walker and can't be hurt by moving into DT. I wish people would stop trying to break down my jetbike comparison as they are missing my point. It was to show how an effect happens from DT and then a save is given. As for the FF it only says a 5++ it does not say like Bjorn or only against pens or glances. It says a 5++ and that seems to be a pretty solid blanket to me. Like I said we all need to step back

Then you do not get to take any save with the FF if you insist on using it like Infantry.

Sucks to be you.




p.s. Jetbikes are not Vehicles.

I was referring to a different part of this discussion!!!! How many times can I say that! I freaking know jetbikes are not vehicles!

Akroma06 wrote:The DE codex says that a vehicle equipped with a FF is allowed to take a 5++. This overrides the main rulebook saying they can't.

The main rulebook does not say that that vehicles can't take invulnerable saves. By RAW a vehicles with an invulnerable save is free to take an invulnerable save every single time the vehicle takes a wound.

Now clearly the intent is that vehicles should benefit from having an invulnerable save in some way. And the rules we have for when a vehicle does get a save say that the save is against hits, not damage results.

Actually it says vehicles can only get obscured and thus a cover save. I'm tired of arguing this as it is going nowhere. Just ask a TO at a tournament and agree with your opponent before hand if a friendly game.

The rules do not say that the only way a vehicle can get a save is by being obscured. What they do say is that vehicles do not benefit from cover the way other units do.

I'm finding it hard to believe this is still going on...

Maybe the moral is: don't drive your skimmer into dangerous terrain and avoid this situation all together?

However, I'd rule no to the FF save against the Dangerous Terrain imobilised as you have not taken a Damaging Hit per se, rather just an instant Immobilised damage result; which you are not allowed saves against.

Iranna.

there is absolutely nothing that says walkers do not take Dangerous terrain tests, quite the opposite; BRB page 72 Moving walkers, third paragraph: "Difficult terrain affects walkers just as it does infantry. Difficult terrain only counts as dangerous terrain for walkers if it would do so for infantry. If walkers fail a Dangerous terrain test, they are immobilized."

So again, we go back to Bjorn and a venom both attempting to enter in to a Wrecked vehicle(Difficult and Dangerous terrain per the wrecks rules on page 62 of the BRB), both vehicles normally have an invulnerable save available, and neither vehicle would be able to use said save against the Immobilized damage result from failing the dangerous terrain test: Bjorn because his rule specifies he can only save vs a damaging hit(as defined in my earlier post), and the venom either for the save reason(must use bjorn's rule for functionality), or because no wound is caused thus no invulnerable save may be taken.

by the same rights bjorn and the Venom are both Shot at with Clear LOS and the venom did not move flat out, they are both hit and both penetrated, they are either both allowed o attempt their save via bjorn's rule, or only Bjorn is because the fickerfield does not define how the sve is to be taken and again no Wound was caused.

Akroma06 wrote:Actually it says vehicles can only get obscured and thus a cover save. I'm tired of arguing this as it is going nowhere. Just ask a TO at a tournament and agree with your opponent before hand if a friendly game.

Yes; we keep referencing vehicle rules which prove you are wrong, you ignore them and quote infantry rules as if they matter one iota.

You keep saying "I get to take a 5++!!!!!" but you have no rules telling you HOW YOU ACHIEVE THIS.

None.

The *closest* rules are those for cover saves and Bjorn, whose invulnerable save can be taken against penetrating or glancing hits. Nothing else.

Dangerous terrain does not inflict a penetrating or glancing hit, so you do not get a save. Please, provide VEHICLE RULES that prove this wrong, or concede

But my jetbikes can ...

btw what's a ward save?
and
I still wanna know how you can take saves from being wounded if you have no wounds?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:But my jetbikes can ...

btw what's a ward save?
and
I still wanna know how you can take saves from being wounded if you have no wounds?

Jetbikes arn't vehicles so that's not a very accurate comparison.

Ward save = Fantasy invulnerable save.

The vehicle can take saves from Damaging Hits: i.e penetrating or glancing hits. The main argument is that as it says nowhere in the rulebook that vehicles can take invulnerable saves, they only apply to wounds and as vehicles have no wounds, they cannot take a flickerfield save. Which to me is absurd, why can you take it without being able to use it? Common sense should prevail in times of GW's failings.

Iranna.

Yeah, at least everyone agrees that despite RAW vehicles should get some benefit from an invulnerable save.

----------------------------------------------------- Non-vehicle | Vehicle ----------------------------------------------------- 1. Roll to hit | Roll to hit | 2. Hit. | Hit. Roll to wound. | Roll to penetrate. | 3. Take a wound. | Glance/Pen suffered. Roll save. | Roll save. | 4. Save failed. | Save failed. Remove one wound. | Roll on damage table. | 5. n/a | Apply result of damage roll.

So when the terrain inflicts a wound on a non-vehicle you're at step 3 on the process and the model gets an invulnerable save. But when a vehicle suffers an immobilized result you're all the way at step 5 which is way too late to take a save.

however infantry that fail a DT test get invuns to avoid the wounds. following your chart, it woud be too late for them to make a save of any kind and a failed check = dead model.

Um, no. Read either the chart or the note I made below the chart. Infantry suffer a wound on step 3. And so get to make a save.

DarthSpader wrote:however infantry that fail a DT test get invuns to avoid the wounds. following your chart, it woud be too late for them to make a save of any kind and a failed check = dead model.

Nope, the chart is clear - infantry suffer a wound, step 3. Vehicles suffer a RESULT, step 5

Iranna - no, you clearly havent even read this thread. That isnt the argument at all - the actual argument is that, if you assume they can use an invulnerable save that invulnerable save does not save against damage results, but penetrating or glancing hits. DT does not infliuct a damaging hit, but a result - too late for you to save it.

Also note that Grot Tanks, Mega Dreads and Mekka dreads can also take their invul-saves only against glancing and penetrating hits, explicitly spelled out in IA:8 for each of them.

I'm torn on the issue. On one hand i understand the reasoning behind what Nos and co. are saying, on the other an invulnerable is intentionally all encompassing. The precedent being infantry get their save against dangerous terrain check.

I think this issue is one that honestly needs a FAQ as both sides have legitimate points.

NO, one side has actual rules (analogous rules implicitly included they may be), the other has the "but i shoud get a save!" opinion, which lacks any and all rules.

Night's Blood wrote:I'm torn on the issue. On one hand i understand the reasoning behind what Nos and co. are saying, on the other an invulnerable is intentionally all encompassing. The precedent being infantry get their save against dangerous terrain check.

I think this issue is one that honestly needs a FAQ as both sides have legitimate points.

Inv saves are all encompassing against WOUNDS, not penetrating or glancing hits. The rules are clear on that point. The only things you then have to fall back on are vehicle cover saves and Bjorn's Inv save, which Nos has pointed out would be the only correct way for resolving FF.

This constant rubbish argument that infantry get an inv save against a failed DT test is a crock of monkey crap. A direct immobilized result is not a wound. It is not a vehicles version of a wound. It is a diect immobilized result. Use the proper comparision aka VEHICLES, instead of trying to shoehorn Infantry rules into Vehicle rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:NO

But wouldn't an official FAQ answer be desirable, just in order to avoid this debate coming up in the future?

Desirable, but not needed.
TBH all non-obscured cover saves and invulnerable saves, that arent Bjorns, need real errata that actually work.

You can't ignore the fact that infantry get their invulnerable save against DT check. That is clear precedent towards the FF question.

If you follow BR's logic the invulnerable save could never be taken as the vehicle doesn't take wounds, it is poisoning the actual debate as to whether the save can be taken. BR your interpretation is complete rubbish, it would make the FF a worthless upgrade.

I understand what you're saying NOS, and i can't argue RAW because i think this was a grey area never explored until vehicles got invulnerable saves.

However I maintain that the infantry example gives precedent to this debate.

Night's Blood wrote:You can't ignore the fact that infantry get their invulnerable save against DT check. That is clear precedent towards the FF question.

If you follow BR's logic the invulnerable save could never be taken as the vehicle doesn't take wounds, it is poisoning the actual debate as to whether the save can be taken. BR your interpretation is complete rubbish, it would make the FF a worthless upgrade.

I understand what you're saying NOS, and i can't argue RAW because i think this was a grey area never explored until vehicles got invulnerable saves.

However I maintain that the infantry example gives precedent to this debate.

Read the Tau codex, alot of their upgrades do nothing.

If someone tries to compare a FF save to an Invul save for infantry one more time i swear ...
Show me in the rules where you're allowed to take an invulnerable save on your skimmer without wounds, not an interpertation of the rules not RAI but pure RAW ...
The only way it makes sense to me is imo against glancing and Penetrating hits. It's not a true save as ... you have no wounds to save from just my 2 cents

Night's Blood wrote:You can't ignore the fact that infantry get their invulnerable save against DT check. That is clear precedent towards the FF question.

Here's the thing, No-one's ignoring the fact that non-vehicle models can take invuls vs DT; it simply does not matter to vehicles.

My wife is about to have my second child, My car can do no such thing.

Non-vehicle-troops can hold objects, vehicle-troops cannot.

Non-vehicle models can take invuls vs DT, Vehicles cannot.

Non-vehicle-troops can hold objects, vehicle-troops cannot.

Unless of course, you're grey knights... then you can make walkers score ><

Can an invulnerable save be taken against a DT check?
Yes.

The same should apply to vehicles UNLESS specifically stated against.

We're arguing in a grey area. You can say they don't get their save and i say they do. There is precedent even if you don't like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:You can't ignore the fact that infantry get their invulnerable save against DT check. That is clear precedent towards the FF question.

Here's the thing, No-one's ignoring the fact that non-vehicle models can take invuls vs DT; it simply does not matter to vehicles.

My wife is about to have my second child, My car can do no such thing.

Non-vehicle-troops can hold objects, vehicle-troops cannot.

Non-vehicle models can take invuls vs DT, Vehicles cannot.

How does it not matter? It's clearly the rub of this issue. If an invulnerable save can be taken against DT checks for one type of model, it should work on another unless stated otherwise.

Night's Blood wrote:Can an invulnerable save be taken against a DT check?
Yes.

No, that would be wrong. You can't prevent the check by rolling a save. You can use an invulnerable save against a wound suffered due to failing a DT check.

The same should apply to vehicles UNLESS specifically stated against.

Also wrong. In a permissive rule set you are not allowed to do anything unless explicitly told to do so. Terrain rules for infantry are completely replace in the Vehicle unit type rules, so none of the infantry rules apply to any vehicles but walkers.

We're arguing in a grey area. You can say they don't get their save and i say they do. There is precedent even if you don't like it.

Getting immobilized is not a wound nor a glancing/penetrating hit. You can't take saves against getting pinned, characteristic checks or being removed from the game either.

Night's Blood wrote:Can an invulnerable save be taken against a DT check?
Yes.

The same should apply to vehicles UNLESS specifically stated against.

We're arguing in a grey area. You can say they don't get their save and i say they do. There is precedent even if you don't like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:You can't ignore the fact that infantry get their invulnerable save against DT check. That is clear precedent towards the FF question.

Here's the thing, No-one's ignoring the fact that non-vehicle models can take invuls vs DT; it simply does not matter to vehicles.

My wife is about to have my second child, My car can do no such thing.

Non-vehicle-troops can hold objects, vehicle-troops cannot.

Non-vehicle models can take invuls vs DT, Vehicles cannot.

How does it not matter? It's clearly the rub of this issue. If an invulnerable save can be taken against DT checks for one type of model, it should work on another unless stated otherwise.

DE have now lost their FFl saves at my FLGS thanks to this ...

It was the quickest and easiest RAW way to end the constant whining of a DE player

NB - how is it a grey area?

You have presented no rules, none whatsoever, that show that VEHICLES can take a save against a damage result.

We are assuming, based on actual precedent (how Bjorn uses his invulnerable save) that Invulnerable Saves for vehicles work against Penetrting or Glancing Hits. Unless you receive a penetrating or glancing hit you cannot make a save - and DT does not present one.
You have no actual precedent, none

Night's Blood wrote:If an invulnerable save can be taken against DT checks for one type of model, it should work on another unless stated otherwise.

But DT is specifically stated as treating one type of model differently to another type. It inflicts wounds on non-vehicles and damage results on vehicles.

Have a look at the chart I whipped together and tell me where a vehicle gets a save against a damage result.

All other units get invul saves against Dangerous Terrain, right? No reason to deny Vehicles that same thing.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:All other units get invul saves against Dangerous Terrain, right? No reason to deny Vehicles that same thing.

Apart from the rules, oddly enough.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:All other units get invul saves against Dangerous Terrain, right? No reason to deny Vehicles that same thing.

Page 61 under 'Other Modifiers' says certain vehicles may have special rules that modify the damage roll.

So after rolling to hit a vehicle, the DE player can roll for an invulnerable save to modify the damage roll, on this case negating it.

In the case of a failed dangerous terrain test, the vehicle immediately suffers an immobilized result.

There is no damage roll, there is no modification, there is no invulnerable save taken.

No one is denying vehicles anything. They get all the benefits of their section of the rules. They get all the restrictions of them as well.

If not, one could argue that since vehicles can move and fire heavy weapons, there's no reason to deny infantry the same thing.

Except the rules for infantry and vehicles have differences. Not being allowed to take in invulnerable save against a failed dangerous terrain test for a vehicle is one of them.

And funny enough the cover save section for vehicles does tell us that for vehicles a damaging hit triggers a cover save, just as a wound does for infantry. Why should Invulnerable saves be different?

Because it DOES NOT INFLICT A DAMAGING HIT?

How about that for a reason?

It inflicts a RESULT.

Result /= Damaging Hit. Please, prove otherwise. Some actual rules, for the first time in 4 pages, would be useful.

punch him in the face and tell him to GTFO, people like that are ridiculous and should just give up wargaming in general, there's gunna be holes like this in everything and if people keep playing like this were gunna have to carry round a rulebook of FAQs just to play properly.

Spetulhu wrote:And funny enough the cover save section for vehicles does tell us that for vehicles a damaging hit triggers a cover save, just as a wound does for infantry. Why should Invulnerable saves be different?

"Damaged - Immobilized" is not a damaging hit, exactly like "removed as casualty" is not a wound.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:All other units get invul saves against Dangerous Terrain, right? No reason to deny Vehicles that same thing.

All other SPACE MARINES get AND THEY SHALL KNOW NO FEAR, right? No reason to deny CHAOS SPACE MARINES that same thing.

Strangely enough, different units follow different rules. Infantry and Vehicles are one exceptionally good example of this happening. Vehicles, in all situations where they may take saves and it has been clarified in this edition, take them against HITS. A DT failure doesn't inflict a hit, it skips straight to a result. No save allowed.

So, after 4 pages of non-rules from the "ffields works against DT" can we finally conclude that it, in fact, doesnt work as per the only applicable rules we can use?

Edited- Not worth the hassle.

I would have to agree with the conclusion that taking a 'save' against a damage result would be akin to taking a save against a model being removed as a casualty. Both are effecs which occur after saves have been taken and failed.

And so ends the argument...

Edit- nevermind. Didn't see pg 4

Bwolf999 wrote:And so ends the argument...

It should have ended page 1 - theres been no support in the rules for the other position all the way through. Just vague clutching at "well infantry get to do it"

This was a fun thread to read through! nosferatu1001 is 100% correct, as per usual.

Playing RAW is awesome; Doom of Malantai doesn't have a Invulnerable save, the Swarmlord doesn't have any Psyker powers, and technically, if you both roll the same number twice in a row when trying to determine who goes first, the game ends automatically! Or is that automagically? Nobody knows!

Youre wrong actually; reread page 2, and notice the difference between a reroll and a roll off

Hey, hey, stop bringing the rulebook into this.

This is a YMDC thread; the rulebook should only be referred to as a last resort. We haven't even argued for 3 days over the definition of a 'dice' yet.

Can't tell if trolling or unaware of the Tenents of YMDC.

I think it might be sarcasm lol

I actually had no problem with the people basing their argument on infantry and Inv saves. In fact I would gladly let them take said Infantry based Inv saves the moment a vehicke takes a wound. Hahahahahahaha!

unbeliever87 wrote:Hey, hey, stop bringing the rulebook into this.

unbeliever87 wrote:This is a YMDC thread; the rulebook should only be referred to as a last resort. We haven't even argued for 3 days over the definition of a 'dice' yet.

Lol...isn't it a die not a dice

unbeliever87 wrote:Hey, hey, stop bringing the rulebook into this.

This is a YMDC thread; the rulebook should only be referred to as a last resort. We haven't even argued for 3 days over the definition of a 'dice' yet.

you mean a 'die' right? because 'dice' is plural so you need at least 2 'dice'

GW uses both interchangeably for the singular.

Bwolf999 wrote:I think it might be sarcasm lol

This guy gets it.

I was referring to dice as a collective whole. Are dice considered dice because of their form, or because of their function? If it's the former, could a cube of wood with no markings also be called a dice? If it's the latter the latter, could a random number generator also be called a dice? Arguing over whether a vehicle can benefit from a invulnerable save is moot when your opponent is rolling with random peices of wood. Just sayin'

Very much so although this argument is not related to the thread topic I find it interesting.

And GW does use die and dice interchanably though die is plural, and dice is singular.

@unbeliever87 Im the guy who started this thread

Jwalker52 wrote:Very much so although this argument is not related to the thread topic I find it interesting.

And GW does use die and dice interchanably though die is plural, and dice is singular.

Wrong way round, actually. Die is singular

I honestly cant beleive that this thread is still going on o_0

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Jwalker52 wrote:Very much so although this argument is not related to the thread topic I find it interesting.

And GW does use die and dice interchanably though die is plural, and dice is singular.

Wrong way round, actually. Die is singular

Yup...wait this is still going on?

...drat I just added to it

Tyranid faq clarified the doom counts as zoanthrope and swarmy counts as a hive tyrant so raw they do get their powers. Just wanted to point that out quickly.

Hay! I never said you couldent take them bwolf999, i just said it annoyed me how GW and the people who write all the 40k codices leave so many RAW errors. In warhammer fantasy they at least have all the rules strait. Although I do have to laugh at some of the comments of this post. (thinking back now i did say it was funny that you technically can't take the save, however nobody in their right mind actualy plays RAW).

Although i would (well my hive guard at least) be very happy if they FAQ it to be a cover save

Well, most people have been in agreement that, while RAW states that Flickerfield doesn't really work on anything, nobody really plays it that way.
This has been the case from start to finish.

The thread took a detour, and a hugely added post-count, when Dangerous Terrain Tests entered the picture.
This is the issue that has been discussed for most of the thread.

@brood Lord haha you said if/when we played you demanded to convert my "unusable" invuln save into a cover save, which would then be ignored by your guard.


Wolf

Demand? I said it would make sense considering you "technically" can't take the save (and the only saves a vehicle can take is a coversave which hive guard would ignore). However i would rather wait (and hope) that GW would amend the rule, and in the mean time just let you take the save (especialy since ive been playing CSM a lot lately so it wouldn't matter).

Hive guard don't ignore cover saves, they disallow the benefits of being in cover unless you are in or touching a piece of terrain between them and you. Cover saves from KFFs, smoke, Skimmers Moving Fast, Turboboost and any other special rule work just fine.

Brood Lord wrote:Demand? I said it would make sense considering you "technically" can't take the save (and the only saves a vehicle can take is a coversave which hive guard would ignore). However i would rather wait (and hope) that GW would amend the rule, and in the mean time just let you take the save (especialy since ive been playing CSM a lot lately so it wouldn't matter).

Hiveguard would NOT ignore an inherent cover save. You dont get to ignore an Ork Bikes inherent cover save, you wouldnt get to ignore Shield of Sanguinius on a vehicle or infantry unit, and so on.

Also Bjorn, a vehicle, most definitely CAN take an invulnerable save. Also it doesnt make "sense" to change an invulnerable save into a cover save, when an easy and obvious way to make it work exists (Bjorn)

Follow rules hes right

it Clearly says INV saves may only be taken on wounds in the rule book

In Codex SW

The unique dread says "he has a INV save vs glancing and pentrating hits.

This clearly means your vehicles Should not get a save.

However as people we understand GW make so many dumb mistakes
"Troop Type" in 40k Lol

In order to fix this ever changed INV saves can only be use on wounds
Or put can be used on Glancing and pentrating hits on the end of flickerfields rules.

Also LOL if he is playing tyranids "U Mad GW made your codex suck comes to mind"