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.

It gets the 5+ Invul save, you don't need to look any further into it.

jegsar wrote:
It gets the 5+ Invul save, you don't need to look any further into it.

See, I really don't like this attitude when we're discussing RAW on a forum. I'm not convinced that you can use the save, by pure RAW; it's now how I'd play it, but what happens if your opponent disagrees? Or worse, the TO? The reason I like to engage in RAW discussions like this is so that I have ammunition when the situation occurs to counter the argument. So far, all I've got is that the Negative argument is taking the second paragraph out of context (which could easily be applied to the Positive argument with the first paragraph), a bunch of "well, XYZ vehicle upgrades for other armies don't work", and "it's in White Dwarf". So yes, I feel like it does need to be looked into further.

Well, for what other reason could they have given the fiends the Daemon rule if not for the 5+ invulnerable save? Certainly not for Fear as that can be granted separately. Misprint? Oversight?

I

Not the same as demons invuln but sisters get shield of faith with their vehicles which is a 6+ invuln.

They are not going to give something the option of having an invul save and not let it use it. I belive in the DE FAQ this issue was addressed via flickerfields. I will confirm this in a moment.

I cannot seem to find it in the FAQ.

Ugh, this argument is getting really old, its been going on since a vehicle got saves to begin with. RAW I've got no help for you, but there are many instances of vehicles with Invul saves. SoB shield of faith is one, DE flickerfield is another, Daemon rule will fall in line. GW may be bad, but they arent going to give something a rule that it cannot benefit from. Even the nemesis DK got to make use of its dreadnought ccw.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
They are not going to give something the option of having an invul save and not let it use it. I belive in the DE FAQ this issue was addressed via flickerfields. I will confirm this in a moment.

I cannot seem to find it in the FAQ.

Ugh, this argument is getting really old, its been going on since a vehicle got saves to begin with. RAW I've got no help for you, but there are many instances of vehicles with Invul saves. SoB shield of faith is one, DE flickerfield is another, Daemon rule will fall in line. GW may be bad, but they arent going to give something a rule that it cannot benefit from. Even the nemesis DK got to make use of its dreadnought ccw.

You mean like giving models that have to rely on a Warlord trait to be able to Outflank the Acute Senses special rule?

I have no idea how the two are connected so.....?

We have something that gets an invul, we have many circumstances where other things get the same invul, and to say something that you would pay for, flickerfields for instance, dosent work because they dont take wounds....

Well thats just silly.

The Daemon Rule reada "Models with the demon rule have ...", not "Infantry with the Daemon Rule have ...". In multiple cases where units like the afore mentioned Dark Eldar and Sisters of Battle have vehicles with an Invulnerable save, why wouldn't a vehicle have one too? I agree there is no mention of invulnerable saves for vehicles in the Rulebook, but to quote the Dark Eldar faq's only entry for a flicker field ...

GW Dark Eldar Codex FAQ wrote:
Q: Can I take a flickerfield save against becoming immobilised from a
Dangerous Terrain test? (p63)
A: Yes.

This entry shows that the vehicle is allowed to take an invulnerable save, not only from regular instances to use it but from Dangerous Terrain. Why would one codex that has a rule that allows a vehicle an invulnerable save be allowed, when another codex that gives a vehicle a Special Rule that convers an invulnerable save not be allowed? This argument still doesn't make much sense to me. Yes, it wasn't written directly in the rulebook. However, other vehicles in the game have Invulnerable Saves. What makes this scenario different?