Invulnerable Saves and

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.

**rigeld2**

Pyrian wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
It means the same thing in any rules set.
Always unless there's an exception.
By that definition, "Always A" means the exact same thing as "A". "Always unless there's an exception" is a meaningless descriptor which adds nothing to a rule.

Correct. There's no reason to use it, but they're not using it wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:
And in this case we don't even have that. Because you still always take an invul when armor saves are denied, but if all saves are denied that's more than just armor saves.
If the rule said what you said, that might be correct(-ish), but it doesn't. It says straight up that "they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a wound" and then goes on about AP and armor-save-ignoring not clearing invulnerable. "May always be taken" versus "no saves of any kind" is a contradiction resolved by specificity, and not by some notion that invulnerable saves ONLY apply to wounds that ignore your armor (which, BTW, they do not - if your invulnerable save is better than your armor save, you take your invulnerable even if your armor save has not been negated).

I never said that invuls only apply when your armor is ignored. But I wasn't clear enough with my statement - you're right.

**Selym**

Zagman wrote:I honestly cannot believe people are arguing this. "no saves of any kind allowed." is explicitly clear. You have a general rule for Invulnerable Save which states you can always take it even if you aren't allowed an armor save. You have a second, more specific rule which overrides the first.

GW has many rules issues, this is not one of them.

Selym wrote:
sickening wrote:
My BRB also says that " they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound"

It said I can ALWAYS take an invul. Its very funny to how you are acting like this rule I so very clear. What rule do we follow, always or no save?

I have been and will keep playing it as you do not get an invul save on Perils because thats how I feel it was intended. I only came to DakkaDakka to see how others viewed the rules as written.

You don't take the Invuln. This can be decided by realising that the INV save rule is written for a generalized situation, whilst Perils is a single-action specific occurrence, and thus is the more specific rule.

And thus we come to the conclusion that the rule about "always taking INV saves" is in fact overridden by "no saves of any kind may be taken".

**necronspurs2012**

perils stops all saves but you will get FNP as that is not a save and you cannot use a psychic power if perils of a double 1 causes you to die as th psyker is gone

**grendel083**

necronspurs2012 wrote:
perils stops all saves but you will get FNP as that is not a save and you cannot use a psychic power if perils of a double 1 causes you to die as th psyker is gone

Please, please use sentences and punctuation. It makes things so much easier to understand.
And I'm afraid you're not right, on a double one the power goes off, even if it kills the Psyker (p67).

**Happyjew**

grendel083 wrote:
necronspurs2012 wrote:
perils stops all saves but you will get FNP as that is not a save and you cannot use a psychic power if perils of a double 1 causes you to die as th psyker is gone
Please, please use sentences and punctuation. It makes things so much easier to understand.
And I'm afraid you're not right, on a double one the power goes off, even if it kills the Psyker (p67).

Yes, but if the Psyker only has one wound left, and the power gives him FNP, he would be dead before being granted FNP.

**fuusa**

Despite many posters claiming (correctly) what is right, I think this best sums the situation up.

Pyrian wrote:
"May always be taken" versus "no saves of any kind" is a contradiction resolved by specificity,.

Note that there is a contradiction and implying that the op is foolish, is a bit insulting.

**Zagman**

You can't use a general rule to say you can when a specific rule says you can't.

FYI, the wording is exactly the same for Demonic Instability, "suffers an additional Wound, with no saves of any kind."

Does the op believe that Daemons should be getting invulnerable saves versus Daemonic Instability? I sincerely hope not.