Can someone please explain to me how vehicles are allowed to roll Invulnerable saves, where are the mechanics regarding this specifically?

I thought the only save option for vehicles was with cover.

Thanks in Advance!!!

Technically the only vehicle with the explicit option to roll an invulnerable save vs glancing or penetrating hits is Bjorn the Fellhanded; as the invulnerable save rules themselves only include provision for rolling it for unsaved wounds.

That said, i suspect few will argue if you roll it exactly like you would a cover save; only vs both ranged and close combat attacks.

CSM vehicles can upgrade to demonic possession with a 5+ invuln. Say you get 1 pen and 2 glance. Roll them separately, if he saves them no worries, if not roll on the appropriate damage chart. . Same with sisters of battle except theirs is a 6+ invuln and comes stock.

Yes you would roll for each glance or pen and then act accordingly.

I can't find anything on page 68 that states Daemonic Possession confers the 'Daemon' special rule. Regardless of that.

chewielight wrote:
Yes you would roll for each glance or pen and then act accordingly.

Why? What is the page reference in the Rulebook?

I'm just looking for the location of the applicable mechanics that allow Invulnerable saves to be taken by vehicles.

Well if you want to ignore my prior post indicating there isn't one explicitly listed, i suppose i shall say it a second time.

The rule you are looking for does not exist in the specific format you are looking for it in. Be advised however that generally anyone you 'do' play with will roll invulnerable saves on vehicles in exactly the same fashion as they do on other models, with the exception that they will apply it to glancing or penetrating hits instead of unsaved wounds.

 Neorealist wrote:
Well if you want to ignore my prior post indicating there isn't one explicitly listed, i suppose i shall say it a second time.

The rule you are looking for does not exist in the specific format you are looking for it in. Be advised however that generally anyone you 'do' play with will roll invulnerable saves on vehicles in exactly the same fashion as they do on other models, with the exception that they will apply it to glancing or penetrating hits instead of unsaved wounds.

This, only Bjorn has a 100% RAW working invul save for a vehicle.

I didn't ignore your first post. You explained exactly how the mechanic for cover saves due to obscurity work. (pg 74)

Maybe I need to clarify further. .

We live in a permissive rule set, cover saves are explicitly granted to vehicle by having rules in place. There is no rule where explaining how to deal with Invulnerable saves that a vehicle is granted. It even has been expressed in this thread that Inv saves only interact with unsaved wounds, which a vehicle does not ever receive. The chance that Inv saves do not interact with vehicles at all is a real possibility. This is why I'm asking for help.

No need to get ridiculous Neorealist, I just want to have the correct answer with all information presented.

This was the same argument in 5th.

Like many of GW's rule, an FAQ is needed. This one hasnt been FAQ'd yet. However, everyone has played it the same as cover for several editions now. The wording is always the same.

If a vehicle did not get to roll an invuln because it does not suffer a wound, then the demon rule on the Helldrake is exactly worthless.

Fyrebyrd wrote: No need to get ridiculous Neorealist, I just want to have the correct answer with all information presented.

I apologise if i am being unclear or if there is any abiguity in what i am saying; however how many times do you require me to say quite explicitly that there is no written mechanic currently in place to roll an invulnerable save vs a glancing or penetrating hit (with the specific sole exception i noted in my earlier post)?

You are asking for a rule allowing you to roll an invulnerable save for a vehicle. There isn't one, by virtue of the Invulnerable save rules not being comprehensive enough. Any other questions?

 Darkness wrote:
This was the same argument in 5th.

Like many of GW's rule, an FAQ is needed. This one hasnt been FAQ'd yet. However, everyone has played it the same as cover for several editions now. The wording is always the same.

If a vehicle did not get to roll an invuln because it does not suffer a wound, then the demon rule on the Helldrake is exactly worthless.

It wouldn't be completely worthless, it would be a weakness when playing Grey Knights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks everyone for your input!

Saves grnted to vehicles allow them to avoid glancing and penetrating hits.

Chaos Daemon Soul Grinders and Bjorn are not the only ones who get saves. Flyers and skimmers set Jink saves. Dark Eldar have shields.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Saves grnted to vehicles allow them to avoid glancing and penetrating hits.

Chaos Daemon Soul Grinders and Bjorn are not the only ones who get saves. Flyers and skimmers set Jink saves. Dark Eldar have shields.

Jink is counted as a cover save - otherwise it woudln't stack with stealth/shrouded/turbo boost etc etc.



The "Daemon" special rule grants a 5+ invul save.

In the CSM Codex the following vehicles have the Daemon Rule (and therefore a 5++):
Maulerfiend
Forgefiend
Heldrake
Defiler

dark eldar flickerfields..

ork armor plates..

there were invulnerable saves prior to the chaos codex for vehicles not including bjorn.

Right, but there are no rules covering their use for anyone but Bjorn.

so of course they are included in the codex as options that cost points and have rules there but they are unusable....

sometimes this forum is more of lawyering discussion and less of rules discussion.

Yep, pretty much. This forum 'is' the lawyering section, that is it's intended purpose. (note: i do not have any problems with that, in fact i rather enjoy the intellectual exercise such engenders)

 conker249 wrote:
CSM vehicles can upgrade to demonic possession with a 5+ invuln.

As someone already mentioned, Daemonic Possession doesn't grant a 5++ save. All it does is grant the vehicle (not any embarked units) immunity to the effect of shaken and stunned damage results, and the ability to 'eat' a passenger to regain a Hull Point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:
Yep, pretty much. This forum 'is' the lawyering section, that is it's intended purpose. (note: i do not have any problems with that, in fact i rather enjoy the intellectual exercise such engenders)

This. Reading and participating in this forum had vastly increased my understanding of the rules, as well as how to resolve rules questions when they come up during games.

blaktoof wrote:
so of course they are included in the codex as options that cost points and have rules there but they are unusable....

RAW yes. It's obvious how it's intended to work, and I don't know of anyone that plays this way.

sometimes this forum is more of lawyering discussion and less of rules discussion.

You should familiarize yourself with the tenets of the subforum. They're educational.

Dont forget Sisters of Battle vehicles. They all get a 6++ too!

Remember that many of the things said here probably they would never say at a tournament or gaming store... Caveat emptor.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
... Caveat lector

That should be the motto.

Officially, I mean.

According to RAW, Bjorn is the only vehicle that can make invulnerable saves.

It is very clear that RAI is to allow vehicles to benefit from invulnerable saves, look at the DE codex they actually have a piece of vehicle wargear that does nothing besides provide an invuln save.

One important thing to remember when reading these forums is that many discussions are about strict RAW, they are not how most of the people arguing it actually play.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
It is very clear that RAI is to allow vehicles to benefit from invulnerable saves, look at the DE codex they actually have a piece of vehicle wargear that does nothing besides provide an invuln save.

All too true, and as long as me and my opponent agree to use a vehicle Inv save just as their Cover saves and according to other save restrictions all is well. That is - you use it against Glance/Penetrate results and you only use the best save for any one hit.

If one wants to be a real donkey one can always try to dig up one of the FAQs where GW tells us about Codex options that don't seem to do anything - and they basically told us that if it doesn't work in the rules then it doesn't work until a new rulebook or codex makes it work. And we do have plenty of those things. Anything to do with Outnumbering in CC resolution, Eldar Banshee masks vs charging into terrain... Sadly the rules have changed and it doesn't work.

the atomantic shielding gives the contemptor a 5+ invulnerable save though iirc

 matapata98 wrote:
the atomantic shielding gives the contemptor a 5+ invulnerable save though iirc

There are many abilities that give many vehicles invul saves.

Cite the rules that allow it to actually do anything. FYI, unless you're referring to Bjorn, there are no rules for vehicle invuls.

There's technically no rules allowing Vehicles a save at all.

The rulebook specifies all saves are taken against Wounds.
The rules state Vehicles that a vehicle can get a Cover Save, but nothing specifies how it rolls them. (That I've seen)

So RAW, no vehicle apart from Bjorn gets a save.
BUT, Cover Saves and Invulnerable Saves abound among vehicles, so they can obviously take them.
And if anyone told me I couldn't, and insisted I wasn't able to, I think it would be one of the few instances I'd probably pack up and leave.

The rules for taking a cover save on a vehicle are on page 74 and 75 of your 6th edition codex. They explicitly state that: "...If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound..."

Sadly no similar verbiage exists for invulnerable saves at present, other than Bjorns' specific exception.

Every sisters of battle vehicle has an invul save.

I don't have my rulebook with me at work, but this question seems to be simple if you connect some dots. Vehicles get cover saves. check! Take the same as a model with wounds. check! Now someone read the section about a model with multiple saves. This should force the model that has multiple saves, to take the save that is the best. Thus a vehicle with a cover save (or even no cover save because it's in the open "it's cover save is negated") and/or inv save to take which ever save is the best for the situation. This should allow any vehicle that has an inv save to take it's inv if it's better then it's other options.

Like I said, if someone else could quote things, I'd be appreciative. Don't have my book here at work. Hopefully my line of thinking make sense to you.

Coyote81 wrote:
I don't have my rulebook with me at work, but this question seems to be simple if you connect some dots. Vehicles get cover saves. check! Take the same as a model with wounds. check! Now someone read the section about a model with multiple saves. This should force the model that has multiple saves, to take the save that is the best. Thus a vehicle with a cover save (or even no cover save because it's in the open "it's cover save is negated") and/or inv save to take which ever save is the best for the situation. This should allow any vehicle that has an inv save to take it's inv if it's better then it's other options.

Like I said, if someone else could quote things, I'd be appreciative. Don't have my book here at work. Hopefully my line of thinking make sense to you.

here's the thing, you can only take invul saves to wounds. Do vehicles have wounds?

Cover saves are allowed to work as normal.

What does the multiple save section say? If you can take an inv save (if it's better) any time you can take a cover save, then because vehicles take cover saves like infantry do when wounded, you can take a inv save as well.

I'll respond with book quotes when I get home, I'm sure it's there.

Coyote81 wrote:
What does the multiple save section say? If you can take an inv save (if it's better) any time you can take a cover save, then because vehicles take cover saves like infantry do when wounded, you can take a inv save as well.

I'll respond with book quotes when I get home, I'm sure it's there.

Right, but they don't have an allowance to take their invul save beings you havnt dealt a wound.

Lets say you're BTB smacking a Raider with a PF. RAW no cover, and you're not wounding. So no saves allowed.

Mind you I'd never play it that way. Thats just how the rules are though.

It's nice to know that, if all else fails, i can probably get a minimum wage, part time job being a GW proof reader.

Coyote81 wrote:
What does the multiple save section say? If you can take an inv save (if it's better) any time you can take a cover save, then because vehicles take cover saves like infantry do when wounded, you can take a inv save as well.

I'll respond with book quotes when I get home, I'm sure it's there.

It doesn't say what you think it says. Page 19.

Well RAW they did not write out Invuln saves in the rules, other than Bjorn's.

However, RAI is very clear here on how it should work and even has a precedent set (Bjorn).

I think we all agree on these issues so Im not really sure what the debate is.

Fragile wrote:
Well RAW they did not write out Invuln saves in the rules, other than Bjorn's.

However, RAI is very clear here on how it should work and even has a precedent set (Bjorn).

I think we all agree on these issues so Im not really sure what the debate is.

Arguing for arguings sake. Everyone knows how this rule should be played. If someone tried to tell me I couldn't take this save or any other invul save with vehicles because of this rules lawering, they would be put on my 40k blacklist.

I was playing against a Wraithguard army (Wraithguards with Warlocks + Farseer). He tried to claim I didn't get Invuln saves (was using my bud's IG as proxy SoB). At that point (very first shooting phase), I calmly informed him that he couldn't shoot or charge with with his Wraithguard as they do not have eyes and thus cannot draw LOS. I then calmly picked off his Warlocks and Farseer and just sat on the objectives for the rest of the game.

Fragile wrote:
Well RAW they did not write out Invuln saves in the rules, other than Bjorn's.

However, RAI is very clear here on how it should work and even has a precedent set (Bjorn).

I think we all agree on these issues so Im not really sure what the debate is.

We have a winner! I never responded because I couldn't figure out what the argument was since this precedent already existed, and I doubt GW would give so many vehicles invuln saves if they didn't intend them to work.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Chaos Daemon Soul Grinders and Bjorn are not the only ones who get saves. Flyers and skimmers set Jink saves. Dark Eldar have shields.

Chaos Daemon Soul Grinders do not get invuln saves. Check the codex, and then the FAQ, there is no invuln for C:CD Soul Grinders. GW spells out very clearly what they want the Daemon USR to be for Soul Grinders, and it does not include an invuln.

The FAQ clearly states not only that ALL units in the Chaos Daemons codex get Daemon, but that the Soul Grinder also gets Fear, as well.

And to correct an earlier mistake, Daemonic Possession on a vehicle does not confer an invulnerable save.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
The FAQ clearly states not only that ALL units in the Chaos Daemons codex get Daemon, but that the Soul Grinder also gets Fear, as well.

Actually, now that I look at the newest FAQ, it contradicts itself. In the Ammendments section, it says that the Soul Grinder only gains Fear with its Daemon USR, and later in the FAQ section, says that all models gain Fear and a 5+ invuln.

The question then would be - which takes precedence, the Ammendment, or the FAQ?

Sure if being given a 5++ and being given the Daemon USR do the same thing it doesn't matter.

 Praxiss wrote:
Sure if being given a 5++ and being given the Daemon USR do the same thing it doesn't matter.

But it's not the same thing at all.

The Soul Grinder has a different, specific entry in the codex for its Daemon USR. In the Ammendments section of their website update (Errata'FAQ) it adds the following:

"Page 45 - Soul Grinders.
Leave the text in brackets for the Daemon special rule as it is, but add "...and have the Fear special rule".

Later, in the FAQ section of the same update, it states:

Q.Do models chosen from Codex:Chaos Daemons and/or the White Dwarf, August 2012, Codex: Daemons official update have the Daemon army special rule frmo the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, or do they have the Daemon army special rule from Codex: Chaos Daemons?
(p27)
A: All Models from Codex:Chaos Daemons and or the White Dwarf, August 2012, Codex: Daemons official update have the Daemon army special rule listed in Codex: Chaos Daemons with the addition of the Fear special rule from the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook and a 5+ invulnerable save.

In my opinion, this would constitute an example of specific>general, and the Soul Grinder would not get the invuln.

(Please note, I am a Daemon player, and would love for them to get the save, but I do not believe they would get it with the current rules)

The problem is that the Daemon special rule is not what is giving them the Invuln. The FAQ is.

As you quoted, they have the Daemon special rule from the codex, but the Soul Grinder entry changes that (which means they deploy like demons and are immune to stunned and shaken results) So they do not get a Invuln from that.

But the FAQ goes on to add: "with the addition of Fear and a 5+ invuln"

That is what gives them the invuln save.

The grinder is getting fear already, why woluld they have a specific entry stating that, and then bundle it into the later one as well?

That entry made a universal rule that applies to all the Chaos Daemons.

All models from Codex: Chaos Daemons and/or the White
Dwarf, August 2012, Codex: Daemons official update have the
Daemon army special rule listed in Codex: Chaos Daemons
with the addition of the Fear special rule from the Warhammer
40,000 rulebook and a 5+ invulnerable save.

FAQ being discussed the past couple posts ^^

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
FAQ being discussed the past couple posts ^^

I already typed this out, along with the other relevant FAQ entry 4 posts above yours.

jdj, did you read the specific entry that comes earlier in the FAQ for the Soul Grinder?

What is actually being discussed is whether or not this overrides the general thing later on in the FAQ (that you typed, and I quoted a few posts earlier)

It doesnt override - it is simply redundant..

 nolzur wrote:
The grinder is getting fear already, why woluld they have a specific entry stating that, and then bundle it into the later one as well?

Because they're redundant?All monstrous creatures with the daemon rule have Fear twice, as well as everyone in C: Daemons. Why not give the grinder multiple copies of Fear?

codex>rulebook

< Taken by the void dragon. >

Ok, so the main issue seems to be that both the Rulebook and Codex: Daemons have a special rule called "Daemon", and those 2 rule both have different stipulations.

Cheers GW, you rock.

 conker249 wrote:
CSM vehicles can upgrade to demonic possession with a 5+ invuln.

No, no they can't. Daemonic Possesion doesn't give you an invulnerable save at all.

 Praxiss wrote:
Ok, so the main issue seems to be that both the Rulebook and Codex: Daemons have a special rule called "Daemon", and those 2 rule both have different stipulations.

Cheers GW, you rock.

not any more. The only issue is that the soul grinder has a redundant entry, which is confusing some

rigeld2 wrote:

 matapata98 wrote:
the atomantic shielding gives the contemptor a 5+ invulnerable save though iirc

There are many abilities that give many vehicles invul saves.

Cite the rules that allow it to actually do anything. FYI, unless you're referring to Bjorn, there are no rules for vehicle invuls.

De FAQ:
Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming immobilised from a
Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: Yes.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
CSM vehicles can upgrade to demonic possession with a 5+ invuln.

No, no they can't. Daemonic Possesion doesn't give you an invulnerable save at all.

correct, daemonic possession reduces the vehicles BS to 3 and allows it (on a 2+) to ignore crew shaken and stunned, along with possibly eating a passenger to regain a hull point. The 5+ invulnerable on the helldrake comes from the Daemon rule (5+ and causes fear)

jb7090 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 matapata98 wrote:
the atomantic shielding gives the contemptor a 5+ invulnerable save though iirc

There are many abilities that give many vehicles invul saves.

Cite the rules that allow it to actually do anything. FYI, unless you're referring to Bjorn, there are no rules for vehicle invuls.

De FAQ:
Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming immobilised from a
Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: Yes.

That works for flickerfields against Dangerous Terrain tests.
If I hit one of the paper boats with a lascannon that FAQ doesn't apply.

You're flat out wrong if you think a vehicle with an invulnerable save won't be able to take it against a glancing or penetrating hit.

jb7090 wrote:
You're flat out wrong if you think a vehicle with an invulnerable save won't be able to take it against a glancing or penetrating hit.

How about quoting some rules?
RAW they can't. It's obvious what the intent is and no one plays RAW when it comes to that.

Vehicles have been taking invulnerable saves for years and the intent is there that a pen or glance = a wound for a vehicle (refer to the FAQ about a dangerous terrain test if you're still struggling with the concept).

jb7090 wrote:
Vehicles have been taking invulnerable saves for years and the intent is there that a pen or glance = a wound for a vehicle (refer to the FAQ about a dangerous terrain test if you're still struggling with the concept).

Can you show rules to support your theory, with the exception of BJORN who is fully allowed to take invul saves.

Didn't see a FAQ to help you out.
Can you cite it?

The part where it says vehicles have a 5+ invulnerable save.

jb7090 wrote:
The part where it says vehicles have a 5+ invulnerable save.

Okie dokes, now where does it say you can take invul saves to pens/glances and not wounds?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jb7090 wrote:
The part where it says vehicles have a 5+ invulnerable save.

Okie dokes, now where does it say you can take invul saves to pens/glances and not wounds?

What is up with the stupid arguments like this? I am sorry I am not targeting you just the general argument your presenting. I mean come on. They have invulnerable saves but arent allowed to take them. Then why again do they have invulnerable saves? You can purchase a flickerfield from the dark eldar codex. Are you saying that is now a worthless upgrade? I would literally laugh at my opponent if he tried to pitch this argument with the legitimate expectation that he was joking. Unless of course your post is in fact a joke then sorry for the rant.

He's obviously trolling. Well played I guess?

jb7090 wrote:
He's obviously trolling. Well played I guess?

I'm bringing a very obvious rules argument to your attention.
You've yet to cite/quote relevant rules to back up your suggestions.
Standard RAW only Bjorn may take invul saves to pens/glances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jb7090 wrote:
The part where it says vehicles have a 5+ invulnerable save.

Okie dokes, now where does it say you can take invul saves to pens/glances and not wounds?

What is up with the stupid arguments like this? I am sorry I am not targeting you just the general argument your presenting. I mean come on. They have invulnerable saves but arent allowed to take them. Then why again do they have invulnerable saves? You can purchase a flickerfield from the dark eldar codex. Are you saying that is now a worthless upgrade? I would literally laugh at my opponent if he tried to pitch this argument with the legitimate expectation that he was joking. Unless of course your post is in fact a joke then sorry for the rant.

Not a joke, just pointing out that the only Vehicle allowed to take invul savs is Bjorn.
Just a RAW argument.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jb7090 wrote:
He's obviously trolling. Well played I guess?

I'm bringing a very obvious rules argument to your attention.
You've yet to cite/quote relevant rules to back up your suggestions.
Standard RAW only Bjorn may take invul saves to pens/glances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jb7090 wrote:
The part where it says vehicles have a 5+ invulnerable save.

Okie dokes, now where does it say you can take invul saves to pens/glances and not wounds?

What is up with the stupid arguments like this? I am sorry I am not targeting you just the general argument your presenting. I mean come on. They have invulnerable saves but arent allowed to take them. Then why again do they have invulnerable saves? You can purchase a flickerfield from the dark eldar codex. Are you saying that is now a worthless upgrade? I would literally laugh at my opponent if he tried to pitch this argument with the legitimate expectation that he was joking. Unless of course your post is in fact a joke then sorry for the rant.

Not a joke, just pointing out that the only Vehicle allowed to take invul savs is Bjorn.
Just a RAW argument.

Reading both bjorn's faq and flickerfield terrain faq. There is nothing in there that states only bjorn gets to use his invulnerable save. Bjorn's just states that he can use it in two ways. Getting his invul save is already implied in both cases. The rules are not specific to a T. Sometimes you have to connect the gaps that are left open by vague rules. I believe this is even mentioned in the rulebook.

Quick question: In both a tournament and/or a friendly game would you not allow your DE opponent to take his flickerfield invulnerable saves? Are there any vehicles that you would legitimately prevent from getting their armor save based the standard you implied upon vehicles and invul saves?

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jb7090 wrote:
He's obviously trolling. Well played I guess?

I'm bringing a very obvious rules argument to your attention.
You've yet to cite/quote relevant rules to back up your suggestions.
Standard RAW only Bjorn may take invul saves to pens/glances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jb7090 wrote:
The part where it says vehicles have a 5+ invulnerable save.

Okie dokes, now where does it say you can take invul saves to pens/glances and not wounds?

What is up with the stupid arguments like this? I am sorry I am not targeting you just the general argument your presenting. I mean come on. They have invulnerable saves but arent allowed to take them. Then why again do they have invulnerable saves? You can purchase a flickerfield from the dark eldar codex. Are you saying that is now a worthless upgrade? I would literally laugh at my opponent if he tried to pitch this argument with the legitimate expectation that he was joking. Unless of course your post is in fact a joke then sorry for the rant.

Not a joke, just pointing out that the only Vehicle allowed to take invul savs is Bjorn.
Just a RAW argument.

Reading both bjorn's faq and flickerfield terrain faq. There is nothing in there that states only bjorn gets to use his invulnerable save. Bjorn's just states that he can use it in two ways. Getting his invul save is already implied in both cases. The rules are not specific to a T. Sometimes you have to connect the gaps that are left open by vague rules. I believe this is even mentioned in the rulebook.

Quick question: In both a tournament and/or a friendly game would you not allow your DE opponent to take his flickerfield invulnerable saves? Are there any vehicles that you would legitimately prevent from getting their armor save based the standard you implied upon vehicles and invul saves?

Well I did specify from a RAW perspective not as a HIWPI perspective

Actually Bjorn's rules say he has a 5++ to any glancing/pens

jb7090 wrote:
Vehicles have been taking invulnerable saves for years and the intent is there that a pen or glance = a wound for a vehicle (refer to the FAQ about a dangerous terrain test if you're still struggling with the concept).

Yes, the intent is there. I don't disagree with that. I even play it that way.
Intent != Rules.

The Bjorn ruling is a) specific b) explicitly allows him.
The DE FF FAQ explicitly only works on DT results.
Can you show any actual rules showing that a Flickerfield gets a save against a lascannon?

HYWIPI > RAW

Unless of course you are suggesting otherwise for this particular example.

You people are looking for something that isnt there. Codex says 5+ invulnerable save, then the vehicle gets a 5+ save against whatever.

jb7090 wrote:
You people are looking for something that isnt there. Codex says 5+ invulnerable save, then the vehicle gets a 5+ save against whatever.

I understand that's HYWPI, however you're still not quoting any relevant rules to back up your stance.

RAW you can only take invul saves to wounds. Vehicles do not have wounds.
Bjorn is explicitly allowed to take his invul to glances/pens.
Show me where your vehicle is allowed to take it's save to glances/pens.

News for ya bud, you're the one lookin for something that's not there.

Why would the Dark Eldar codex have a 10 point upgrade that does nothing? The intent here is clear. They get a 5++ inv save. There is no arguing that Flickerfields were added to trick noobs into paying for them so RAW guys could laugh and deny them saves. It is a case of poor wording.

Edit- Just so I can try to wrap my mind around your argument, and put it in simpler terms...you're claiming that vehicles cant have invulnerable saves because on page 17 of the brb it says "...may be taken whenever the model suffers a wound..." and since vehicles have no "wounds" (some cold argue that hull points are wounds) that they dont get an invulnerable save.

So what's the point of a flickerfield, an upgrade that costs 10 points for DE vehicles?

In Bjorn's entry it clearly states "Bjorn has a 5++ invulnerable save against glancing and penetrating hits" so a precedent has been set for vehicles to have it.

In the DE FAQ they are allowed to take a FF save vs. a DT check, thereby nullifying an effect on the vehicle damage chart, another precedent. If you can nullify an immobilized result then you can nullify an explosion or wreck or crew shaken/stunned.

I dunno why this bothers me so much, but I'm done arguing with you, your response will have zero bearing on the game I play saturday other than I might smile a little more when I make a flickerfield save against a LasCannon

jb7090 wrote:
Why would the Dark Eldar codex have a 10 point upgrade that does nothing? The intent here is clear. They get a 5++ inv save. There is no arguing that Flickerfields were added to trick noobs into paying for them so RAW guys could laugh and deny them saves. It is a case of poor wording.

Yes. Exactly. Which is what we've been saying. Thank you for agreeing that there's no RAW basis for them to work, but no one plays that way because the intent is obvious.

rigeld2 wrote:

jb7090 wrote:
Why would the Dark Eldar codex have a 10 point upgrade that does nothing? The intent here is clear. They get a 5++ inv save. There is no arguing that Flickerfields were added to trick noobs into paying for them so RAW guys could laugh and deny them saves. It is a case of poor wording.

Yes. Exactly. Which is what we've been saying. Thank you for agreeing that there's no RAW basis for them to work, but no one plays that way because the intent is obvious.

Pretty much this.

JB7090 - What you're going to find in this section of the site is that people argue RAW and strictly RAW. Arguing strict RAW can, and often does, ignore intent and logic. That's the joy of dealing with the GW rules and how they word them.

Some people will say that they argue RAW and not HIWPI, but the text based communication that we are doing can make that line blurry to anyone who isn't overly familiar with the posters or who are not good at reading between the lines. Couple that with the fact that some posters argue RAW so vehemently that you'd be hard pressed to believe that they play it any other way and you'll find yourself frustrated and feeling like you're being trolled.

This section of Dakka isn't for everyone, but looking at things from a strictly RAW perspective can really open your eyes to how rules work in a HIWPI scenario...I know it's helped me quite a bit.

If you're coming here for clarification of how someone would play an actual rule (vehicle invuln saves are a great example of this), you're going to be a bit disappointed and might be a little put off by the way that some people post.

I don't see any forum rules or policy stating RAW should be given precedence to HYWPI.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't see any forum rules or policy stating RAW should be given precedence to HYWPI.

Forum rules discussion in rules forum!

That is all. Carry on.

 kcwm wrote:
Some people will say that they argue RAW and not HIWPI, but the text based communication that we are doing can make that line blurry to anyone who isn't overly familiar with the posters or who are not good at reading between the lines. Couple that with the fact that some posters argue RAW so vehemently that you'd be hard pressed to believe that they play it any other way and you'll find yourself frustrated and feeling like you're being trolled.

Remember, I (and others) posted multiple times in this thread that people don't play it that way.

jb7090 wrote:
Why would the Dark Eldar codex have a 10 point upgrade that does nothing?

I don't know... Some upgrades or rules stop working when a new rules edition comes out, don't they? And as players were told when 5th came out, if you have an upgrade/rule that does nothing in 5th then that's how it is, don't expect a FAQ to make it work somehow. It might be the Flickerfields are there for the day they'll become useful - maybe in 7th?

jb7090 wrote:


In Bjorn's entry it clearly states "Bjorn has a 5++ invulnerable save against glancing and penetrating hits" so a precedent has been set for vehicles to have it.

In the DE FAQ they are allowed to take a FF save vs. a DT check, thereby nullifying an effect on the vehicle damage chart, another precedent. If you can nullify an immobilized result then you can nullify an explosion or wreck or crew shaken/stunned.

I dunno why this bothers me so much, but I'm done arguing with you, your response will have zero bearing on the game I play saturday other than I might smile a little more when I make a flickerfield save against a LasCannon

Bjorn has specific allowance FF's do not.

FF's have specific allowance to take them agains DT tests which is not a pen/glance. Not sure where you're getting that they're the same.

Not sure why it bothers you so much either. The rules are clearly written against you, yet you argue otherwise. You have yet to quote anything with relevance to back your side.

This is not how we play it. However it is RAW.
The forum does dictate if you're arguing HIWPI to say so (IIRC)

You enjoy goading people. It is not cool.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You enjoy goading people. It is not cool.

Not really. I just like to show when someone is wrong from a RAW perspective. That said it's fine as HIWPI. The forum cares about the difference between the two.

This one.

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

I am an engineer... assumptions are fundamental... you could learn something.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am an engineer... assumptions are fundamental... you could learn something.

Never assume ^^
What type of engineer?
Working on my BA for Electrical Eng atm.

Ha ha... I am an electrical engineer. Good luck. Where are you going to school?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Ha ha... I am an electrical engineer. Good luck. Where are you going to school?

unfortunately nothing fancy. Just ITT

That is okay... an education is the best investment.

In the rule book I believe assault a glance equals 1 wound and a penatration equals 2 for working out combat

mobirds4all wrote:
In the rule book I believe assault a glance equals 1 wound and a penatration equals 2 for working out combat

Which has nothing to do with saving against them. Or do you have to save twice to negate a penetrating hit?

rigeld2 wrote:

 kcwm wrote:
Some people will say that they argue RAW and not HIWPI, but the text based communication that we are doing can make that line blurry to anyone who isn't overly familiar with the posters or who are not good at reading between the lines. Couple that with the fact that some posters argue RAW so vehemently that you'd be hard pressed to believe that they play it any other way and you'll find yourself frustrated and feeling like you're being trolled.

Remember, I (and others) posted multiple times in this thread that people don't play it that way.

So why create a big debate about it then?

If everyone agrees there's no EXACT wording for it to function, but everyone also agrees to ignore that fact and play it a certain way, then why does this thread still exist?

GameFreak975 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 kcwm wrote:
Some people will say that they argue RAW and not HIWPI, but the text based communication that we are doing can make that line blurry to anyone who isn't overly familiar with the posters or who are not good at reading between the lines. Couple that with the fact that some posters argue RAW so vehemently that you'd be hard pressed to believe that they play it any other way and you'll find yourself frustrated and feeling like you're being trolled.

Remember, I (and others) posted multiple times in this thread that people don't play it that way.

So why create a big debate about it then?

If everyone agrees there's no EXACT wording for it to function, but everyone also agrees to ignore that fact and play it a certain way, then why does this thread still exist?

Because that's exactly what this forum is here for. Debating rules.

 grendel083 wrote:

GameFreak975 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 kcwm wrote:
Some people will say that they argue RAW and not HIWPI, but the text based communication that we are doing can make that line blurry to anyone who isn't overly familiar with the posters or who are not good at reading between the lines. Couple that with the fact that some posters argue RAW so vehemently that you'd be hard pressed to believe that they play it any other way and you'll find yourself frustrated and feeling like you're being trolled.

Remember, I (and others) posted multiple times in this thread that people don't play it that way.

So why create a big debate about it then?

If everyone agrees there's no EXACT wording for it to function, but everyone also agrees to ignore that fact and play it a certain way, then why does this thread still exist?

Because that's exactly what this forum is here for. Debating rules.

Also, it is not unheard of for someone comes up with an entirely legitimate response that changes everything and makes these sorts of response stop.

Getting people to critically read the words the rules are written in, instead of what they think is written, is a great way to instigate this.

That is correct.

i wonder if anyone plays the game RAW, i cant imagine i would last long at my local games club if i insisted on nonsensical rules because it doesn't explicitly tell you that you can do it.

i'm sure if i really studied the rulebook i could find an omission that renders the game unplayable

there are plenty of badly worded rules in the codexes and rulebooks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also there seems to be some confusion about the daemonic possession and the daemon rule

daemonic possession is an upgrade for a vehicle in the CSM codex

the daemon rule is a special rule that applies to some vehicles and some models, it gives the recipient both fear and a 5+ invulnerable

GameFreak975 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 kcwm wrote:
Some people will say that they argue RAW and not HIWPI, but the text based communication that we are doing can make that line blurry to anyone who isn't overly familiar with the posters or who are not good at reading between the lines. Couple that with the fact that some posters argue RAW so vehemently that you'd be hard pressed to believe that they play it any other way and you'll find yourself frustrated and feeling like you're being trolled.

Remember, I (and others) posted multiple times in this thread that people don't play it that way.

So why create a big debate about it then?

If everyone agrees there's no EXACT wording for it to function, but everyone also agrees to ignore that fact and play it a certain way, then why does this thread still exist?

I wasn't creating a big debate - I stated that RAW they didn't and people kept coming back with "nuh uh!"

if you want to truly practice RAW you need to first read "The Most Important Rule"

Not in this forum because its irrelevant when discussing rules.

It is the most important rule. If you ignore that rule, then what stops you from ignoring any other rule. It certainly does hold relevancy here.

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

rigeld2 wrote:
7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

100% this. That link should be a sticky, too many people do not read the Tenets of You Make Da Call.

 grendel083 wrote:
Because that's exactly what this forum is here for. Debating rules.

Except we are not As Dozer said its the RAW folks poking at the HIWPI folks. Reminds me of kids throwing rocks at a hornets nest to get them all stirred up.

Fragile wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Because that's exactly what this forum is here for. Debating rules.

Except we are not As Dozer said its the RAW folks poking at the HIWPI folks. Reminds me of kids throwing rocks at a hornets nest to get them all stirred up.

Actually the RAW folks were pointing out RAW and the HIWPI's were saying nuh-uh.

/poke

:edit... btw, will you be there at the Tournament Sat?

Fragile wrote:
/poke

:edit... btw, will you be there Sat?

Who/What/Where/When/

The How is irrelevant

I think it is a good thing we can have some fun here.

: )

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

100% this. That link should be a sticky, too many people do not read the Tenets of You Make Da Call.

Fair Enough. My Apologies

Fragile wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Because that's exactly what this forum is here for. Debating rules.

Except we are not As Dozer said its the RAW folks poking at the HIWPI folks. Reminds me of kids throwing rocks at a hornets nest to get them all stirred up.

I'm terribly sorry.
Firstly I was arguing RAW. Even stated so

Secondly the Tenets of YMDC state you're not supposed to argue HIWPI vs RAW.

I honestly thought he was trying to prove something RAW, there was never a statement of HIWPI for quite some time.

Could you quote the tenet that states we are not supposed to argue RAW versus HYWPI?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Could you quote the tenet that states we are not supposed to argue RAW versus HYWPI?

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

It goes both ways... RAW is not given preference in the tenets.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It goes both ways... RAW is not given preference in the tenets.

Read the OP. He asked for where it was written. That's not a HYWPI discussion.

Also:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

Since the only thing you can demonstrably back up is RAW, that's the default. HYWPI discussions are absolutely fine - but you need to clarify that's what you're saying.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It goes both ways... RAW is not given preference in the tenets.

Read the OP. He asked for where it was written. That's not a HYWPI discussion.

Also:
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

Since the only thing you can demonstrably back up is RAW, that's the default. HYWPI discussions are absolutely fine - but you need to clarify that's what you're saying.

That was very rude.

How is that rude. That is the first Tenet of the forum he quoted.

Dozer - if you think it was rude - report it.

Given it is the tenets of the forum you are posting in I dont imagine it will go anywhere, but thatis the method - just complaining in a thread doesnt do much

rigeld2 wrote:

 matapata98 wrote:
the atomantic shielding gives the contemptor a 5+ invulnerable save though iirc

There are many abilities that give many vehicles invul saves.

Cite the rules that allow it to actually do anything. FYI, unless you're referring to Bjorn, there are no rules for vehicle invuls.

Please cite the rule disallowing a vehicle with the Daemon rule from getting a 5+ invulnerable save? I'm confused as to what you nay sayers are talking about (rulebook is not with me on my business trip). Also please cite the rule regarding Bjorn the Fellhanded...as far as I know, Dreadnoughts are vehicles. Then we can compare and contrast their specific wordages.

In a competitive tournament setting there's no way they would say nay on the Daemon save for the Chaos Marines Daemon Engines with the Daemon rule. Furthermore, Eldar Titans and Superheavy Tanks get Titan Holofields, a 4+ invul save if they moved in the previous turn. So you people are arguing that they would give something to a vehicle which specifically provides an invulnerable save, and then it just wouldn't be able to use it despite having it? This is the same b.s. about Noxious Touch and non-Daemon followers of Nurgle.

FYI RAI is crystal clear on these issues; and anyone who would call a judge over to a table about it is a time-wasting pain in the arse.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 matapata98 wrote:
the atomantic shielding gives the contemptor a 5+ invulnerable save though iirc

There are many abilities that give many vehicles invul saves.

Cite the rules that allow it to actually do anything. FYI, unless you're referring to Bjorn, there are no rules for vehicle invuls.

Please cite the rule disallowing a vehicle with the Daemon rule from getting a 5+ invulnerable save? I'm confused as to what you nay sayers are talking about (rulebook is not with me on my business trip). Also please cite the rule regarding Bjorn the Fellhanded...as far as I know, Dreadnoughts are vehicles. Then we can compare and contrast their specific wordages.

In a competitive tournament setting there's no way they would say nay on the Daemon save for the Chaos Marines Daemon Engines with the Daemon rule. Furthermore, Eldar Titans and Superheavy Tanks get Titan Holofields, a 4+ invul save if they moved in the previous turn. So you people are arguing that they would give something to a vehicle which specifically provides an invulnerable save, and then it just wouldn't be able to use it despite having it? This is the same b.s. about Noxious Touch and non-Daemon followers of Nurgle.

FYI RAI is crystal clear on these issues; and anyone who would call a judge over to a table about it is a time-wasting pain in the arse.

The part where invuln saves are taken to wounds. Not to pens/glances.
Bjorn is specifically allowed with his Special Codex rule to use his invul save to pens/glances.
It's a RAW argument, as there are no rules in the BGB to say you can.
Noxious Touch can only be used if it's a Daemon. It specifies the "Daemon's CC Attacks"

Again, not a RAI argument but a RAW one. It's not HIWPI, but that's for another time.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Please cite the rule disallowing a vehicle with the Daemon rule from getting a 5+ invulnerable save? I'm confused as to what you nay sayers are talking about (rulebook is not with me on my business trip). Also please cite the rule regarding Bjorn the Fellhanded...as far as I know, Dreadnoughts are vehicles. Then we can compare and contrast their specific wordages.

"Invulnerable Saves - page 17
...they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound..."

The rule says Wound, makes no mention of Pen / Glances

"Ward of the Primarch" - Codex: Space Wolves page 49
...Bjorn has a 5+ invulnerable saving throw against any glancing or penetrating hit..."

In a competitive tournament setting there's no way they would say nay on the Daemon save for the Chaos Marines Daemon Engines with the Daemon rule. Furthermore, Eldar Titans and Superheavy Tanks get Titan Holofields, a 4+ invul save if they moved in the previous turn. So you people are arguing that they would give something to a vehicle which specifically provides an invulnerable save, and then it just wouldn't be able to use it despite having it? This is the same b.s. about Noxious Touch and non-Daemon followers of Nurgle.

FYI RAI is crystal clear on these issues; and anyone who would call a judge over to a table about it is a time-wasting pain in the arse.

It has been stated many many (many) times, that this is not how people here play the rule. Obviously vehicles are meant to take the saves. No one here would dispute that. We are simply debating that technically, the rules don't allow the save.
Please try and keep that in mind when posting.

I think the upshot of this discussion is that it's quite frankly amazing that this STILL hasn't been FAQ'd by GW after all this time.

Maybe no one has explicitly told them they can, and therefore within the confines of a permissive ruleset they simply cannot.

 Daedricbob wrote:
I think the upshot of this discussion is that it's quite frankly amazing that this STILL hasn't been FAQ'd by GW after all this time.

exactly...

however- it wouldn't hurt if GW had mentioned it in the rulebook regarding invunlerbales saves, all it requires is a line saying "invunerables saves can also be taken on vehicles after taking glancing and penetrating hits..." or something to that effect, what GW rely on in this matter is the often pointed out fact that in pratice you would never play it that way because its a) totally bonkers and b) do you really want to be that arsey?

it still does not excuse GW not proof reading the rules