Vehicles with the Daemon special rule and resolving Invulnerable Saves

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.

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

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.

**Coyote81**

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.

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

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.

**Praxiss**

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.

**rigeld2**

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.

**Fragile**

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.

**Samurai_Eduh**

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.

**Happyjew**

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.

**WolvesForTheWolfGod**

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.

**nolzur**

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.

**SoloFalcon1138**

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.

**nolzur**

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?

**Praxiss**

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

**nolzur**

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)

**Fragile**

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.

**nolzur**

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?

**Fragile**

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

**jdjamesdean@mail.com**

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 ^^

**nolzur**

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)

**nosferatu1001**

It doesnt override - it is simply redundant..

**Happyjew**

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?

**Lungpickle**

codex>rulebook

**Che-Vito**

< Taken by the void dragon. >

**Praxiss**

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.

**Godless-Mimicry**

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.

**nosferatu1001**

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

**jb7090**

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)

**rigeld2**

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.

**jb7090**

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.

**rigeld2**

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.