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

There's been a bit of discussion about Bjorn's 'Ward of the Primarch' rule and how it doesn't work, as vehicles don't take wounds and so can't take an invulnerable save. I found this a little odd, as I was fairly sure the codex I looked at specified that the save could be taken against glancing and penetrating hits in the same way as obscured vehicles taking cover saves. It was mentioned that this wasn't the case, and I wasn't about to argue the point without the codex in hand.

Well, I received my codex today, and sure enough:


(excuse the dodgy scan... I didn't feel like destroying the codex's spine to make a point. They're generally fragile enough as it is.)


So, it raises the question: what does your codex say? If there are some codexes out there that don't include the part about glancing and penetrating hits, it would seem to suggest that there was either a printing error in some copies, or someone spotted the omission and added it in after the first print run.

Either way, if your codex is different to other people's, it's worth knowing about. Who knows what else might be different in there...

That's what mine says, too. I only bought mine a fair bit after the codex release, though, so maybe it was one of the 'fixed ones'.

Mine reads the same that yours does.

I have only seen them read as posted.

I think the (problematic) interpretation that questions it still is based upon the brb rules that state that the saves, when taken; so even if the "ward of the primarch" allows the roll, that would only stop wounds. As the damage done is not wounds, the roll, even if it succeeds, cannot stop the ensuing roll on the vehicle damage chart.

Or something like that.

Very interesting! Mine also says glancing or penetrating as well.

G

My codex says that as well. I purchased mine in Late November.

This was in the original codex.

The argument was that the Invulnerable save rules specify wounds, and there is nothing in the vehicle rules that tells you how to otherwise apply Invulnerable saves.

Guys, when you read that far into this stuff, its a problem.

It says "against glancing and penetrating hits" so instead of taking it against "wounds" (which it can't take) the rule specifically specifies the Inv. Save works against glancing and penetrating hits. Theres no problem of how they worded it, your just reading too far into it, and not paying attention to what the actual melon-fething rule says.

just take it as is. i mean what a "wound" on a tank...? so he takes a hit, you roll your 5+ and if you pass no one rolls on a glance or pen chart, and Bjorn continues to smite the foes of the Great Emporer.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:This was in the original codex.

Which 'original' codex?

The argument was that the Invulnerable save rules specify wounds, and there is nothing in the vehicle rules that tells you how to otherwise apply Invulnerable saves.

The argument that was made to me by Gwar was that Bjorn's entry doesn't mention glancing or penetrating hits, which means the save can only be taken against wounds.

Gwar must have been mistaken or had an extremely rare misprint then. That highlighted section was in the first 5th edition SW codexes.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Gwar must have been mistaken or had an extremely rare misprint then. That highlighted section was in the first 5th edition SW codexes.

Yup. For some reason my one doesn't have the extra bit about the hits. -Shrug- I did get a preview copy though before the codex went on sale, so perhaps that was the problem

I'll be sure to buy the proper version of the codex asap

So... Gwar was wrong?

Gwar! wrote:Yup. For some reason my one doesn't have the extra bit about the hits. -Shrug- I did get a preview copy though before the codex went on sale, so perhaps that was the problem

I'll be sure to buy the proper version of the codex asap

Screen-shot or it didn't happen. I call shenanigans.

How far in advance did you get the preview copy? I just dug up an old black and white scan from when the black boxes came out and that phrase was present.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:How far in advance did you get the preview copy? I just dug up an old black and white scan from when the black boxes came out and that phrase was present.

Before that That's all I can say on the matter

Surely you just play it as a 5+ cover save? They make the roll on the damage chart as normal, and if you pass the %= roll then you get to ignore the hit. Simples.

Praxiss wrote:Surely you just play it as a 5+ cover save? They make the roll on the damage chart as normal, and if you pass the %= roll then you get to ignore the hit. Simples.

To play it as a 5+ cover save would be wrong IMO. You cannot use a cover save in close combat, although you can use an invulnerable save. That and his save isn´t ignored by cover-ignoring shooting attacks makes all the difference.

And, I have also seen it argued that the more 'specific' rule "wins" or whatever.. so wouldn´t "may take his invulnerable save against any galncing or penetrating hits" be more specific than the rulebook then?

Oh yeah, CC. lol. Well if it says it in the rules then woudln't work that the opponent makes the rolls on the damage table, and on a roll of +5 you get ignore that hit?

Probably what was missing was "exactly like a nonvehicle makes Invulnerable saves against wounds", which is how the vehicle cover saves rules work on page 62.

As it stands it looks like Bjorn is fine

This is an exception to the vehicle damage rules: Codex trumps Rulebook. After rolling AP but before rolling damage, take a 5 up.

Seems simple to me,
Homer

Mine reads exactly like yours.

However in a tournament setting I feel that the way the rule is supposed to work is clear (He gets a 5+ save Vs. any pen/glance hit unless he has an obscured)

I'd let the player take the save as someone who didn't would probably be deducted sportsmanship points.

Just assault him with your C'tan. That should avoid any save confusion issues.

I would play it as a cover save. If it was already in cover then I'd count it as having two cover saves or use the best one.

Eldar Own wrote:I would play it as a cover save. If it was already in cover then I'd count it as having two cover saves or use the best one.

Then you would ignore it if a weapon ignored cover?

Not the best way to play it IMO, given the rule is completely clear in the screenshot given by Insaniak.

Yup, the rule as written in the actual release codex is fine. He gets his save against glancing and penetrating hits.

All of the net-rage over Bjorn's non-functioning save has apparently come from nothing more than Gwar having a pre-release version of the codex that omits part of the rule.

So, since that mystery is settled, this thread is about done.