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.

Grotsnik's rule:

Any unit in an army including Grotsnik may upgrade its members to have cybork bodies for +5 points per model.

Cybork Bodies:

A model with a cybork body has a 5+ invulnerable saving throw.

To me, I see nothing that prevents you from giving a vehicle a cybork body, and Grotsnik's rule does say ANY unit.

According to Grotsnik's rule, you can only give the members of a unit cybork bodies. So normal vehicles are out, since they don't have members.

That only leaves squadrons. Unfortunately I don't have any argument to say they can't get them; I'll leave that up to someone else.

Also, if you really tried to pull this, your opponent can always tell you your invul saves don't work, since normal invul saves can only be used against wounds (that age-old argument).

Seem to be fair play but you probely get quite a few people complain on about it.

This shouldn't work. But, I can't think of no reason why not.

So... yeah, 5+ invul saves on vehicles all around for only 5 points!

Like I said, it doesn't work for all vehicles, as not all vehicles have "members."

The only vehicle units that have "members" are squadrons. So unless they're something else preventing this, only Ork vehicle squadrons can benefit.

Be prepared to be called TFG

Homer

Xca|iber wrote:Like I said, it doesn't work for all vehicles, as not all vehicles have "members."

The only vehicle units that have "members" are squadrons. So unless they're something else preventing this, only Ork vehicle squadrons can benefit.

A vehicle unit of only 1 model still has a "member". That member is the vehicle. It's just like an MC or an IC. Those units still have a single "member".

Xca|iber wrote:
Also, if you really tried to pull this, your opponent can always tell you your invul saves don't work, since normal invul saves can only be used against wounds (that age-old argument).

Um, they don't work because they can only be used against wounds. How can you say they do? Rules are permissive.

The space wolf Dred character explicitly states his Invun can be taken against Glances and Pens. Unless it explicitly says you can use it against glace/pens and there is no FAQ, then the cybork body does nothing for vehicles.

Wow nice loophole to find!

Considering a cybork body definitely seems like a type of body armor, you have to be searching hard for a loophole to even think of that.

but yeah, vehicles can get cover saves...and current dark eldar vehicles have invul saves...so nothing written that directly contradicts it...

Grakmar wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:Like I said, it doesn't work for all vehicles, as not all vehicles have "members."

The only vehicle units that have "members" are squadrons. So unless they're something else preventing this, only Ork vehicle squadrons can benefit.

A vehicle unit of only 1 model still has a "member". That member is the vehicle. It's just like an MC or an IC. Those units still have a single "member".

Fair enough. Then one can always fall back on: "As per the permissive ruleset, you may use your Invul save against any wounds I inflict against the vehicle. Have fun."

Xca|iber wrote:Like I said, it doesn't work for all vehicles, as not all vehicles have "members."

The only vehicle units that have "members" are squadrons. So unless they're something else preventing this, only Ork vehicle squadrons can benefit.

So you would just have to sculpt greenstuff "members" on all your...wait never mind.

Wouldn't it be terrible to be confronted with the requirement on page 95 of the codex that a model in an orc army has to be modeled to depict the upgrades.

I really want to see an Ork Truk modeled with a cybernetic body for the vehicle itself, and not the driver.

I have wondered about this loop hole quite a bit myself, the ork book itself is full of them, for a while, You could Waagh a Vehicle, but they corrected it in the FAQ, Since the Dark Eldar Codex has now set fountain for this with their Vehicles and Invul saves, I will can't see a reason why the orks can't do the same using Mad Dok. It would make a Kan Wall List kinda of annoying as hell to deal with.

You couldnt waaagh a vehicle, as it isnt Infantry. Having the special rule doesnt help when you're not the unit type the special rule requires you to be in order to function.....

Yes, you can have an invulnerable save, however it only works on wounds as you have no method for using it againt Hits. No, you cannot point to obscured and attempt to pretend it worls the same, as you have no permission to equate the two.

So in other words: pay 5 points, pay for Mad Dok, and enjoy vehicles saving any wounds I inflict. Or, more likely, the TO looks at you funny, determines you are attempting to pulla fast one, and disallows them / DQs you anyway.

Where do you get that vehicles can't take invuln saves? You know how to take saves for vehicles, given the obscured cover saves. If vehicles can't take invuln saves, then flickerfields, which only say "A vehicle with a flickerfield has a 5+ invulnerable save" do nothing.

Now, trying to claim that you can give cybork bodies to a vehicle is as ridiculous as that guy a while back who tried to argue that monstrous creatures get to fire two weapons every shooting phase, including their opponent's. The letter of the rules means nothing when something so outrageous is claimed, just like in actual law, where particularly creative "literal" interpretations of laws are ignored by legal systems (for example, claims that income tax is illegal [in the US] because the amendments ratified by various states used different capitalization from each other, and hence didn't refer to the same thing).

SP - you know how to take cover saves for vehicles, you do NOT know how to take invulnerable saves, nor do you have permission to.

Yes, this means that there is a gap in the rules for flickerfields. This does not, however, invalidate the point.

Saves are saves, the only difference lies in how they're granted or ignored. Were "vehicles aren't allowed invuln saves" an actual, intended part of the rules, then flickerfields would have been amended to elaborate. That they were not shows how much stock GW puts in the argument that they can't - that it is not even worth acknowledging by amending the apparent oversight.

Bjorn clearly says his invun works against glances and pens. Flickerfields 'do nothing' by RAW, but a FAQ or Errata that says they work for eldar vehicles doesn't translate to other codexes.

Invulnerable saves and armor saves are taken against wounds only right now. Unless there is a section of rules that allows you to take them against glances/pens, you can't.

They probably will begin allowing invulnerables for vehicles via an FAQ addition, but they also will probably remove Grotsniks ability to cybork non-wound-based models. So if you want to argue RAI for invun vehicles, then you also have to accept RAI for no cybork trukks.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Saves are saves, the only difference lies in how they're granted or ignored. Were "vehicles aren't allowed invuln saves" an actual, intended part of the rules, then flickerfields would have been amended to elaborate. That they were not shows how much stock GW puts in the argument that they can't - that it is not even worth acknowledging by amending the apparent oversight.

I assume you didnt bother to read Bjorns rules, where they explain how HE can take invulnerable saves. Apparently GW thought they needed to give you permission to use his save there.

Vehicles ARE allowed invulnerable saves, those printed on page 22 (from memory) - and those work against wounds. You are allowed cover saves that work againt hits, but only if obscured, and have no permission to assume invulnerable saves work in the same way.

There is a gap in the rules which means that, currently, the only vehicle with a useful invulnerable save is Bjorn. Acceot it or not, that IS the way the rules are written.

The upgrade that you can give to Dark Eldar Vehicle give a Invul save as well.

Alaster - we know, theyre called "flickerfields" and have been mentioned a few times already

Unfortunately there is no permission to use them in the current ruleset. Only Bjorn has a working vehicle invulnerable save, until / unless they get errata'd.

You know how a vehicle can take cover saves. You know that all saves are handled in the same fashion as one another, barring the minor differences in how they're obtained or ignored. It is intellectually disingenuous to then proclaim that clearly that means any save but a cover save doesn't function for vehicles.

Incorrect. It is perfectly, 100% valid to state that, without any permission to use invulnerable saves against hits you are prohibited from doing so.

As I pointed out: GW recognised the gap when they wrote Bjorns rules, so they HAVE acknowledged there is a gap.

You can ignroe it if you want, as TMIR lets you do, but it doesnt alter that one solid fact.

but if we are getting down into the grit of the topic, that is techically a different codex, So Bjorns Rules have no effect on Mad or main book rules.

Which is my point.

The ONLY vehicle which has permission to use an invulnerable save against Hits is Bjorn. No other vehicle does, therefore no other vehicle can

this is not even worth the effort of locating and uploading my facepalm pic.


sigh.


in order to gice cybork bodys to a unit, you must attach or join the character with that ability, either by upgrading an existing member to a painboy (ala nobs unit, "one may be a painboy for x points", or by attaching grotsnik via the IC rules.) since grotsnik is the only mad dok IC, and to confer this ability he has to JOIN the unit, and since IC cant join vehicles, the option is not avalable. IC can embark upon vehicles, like transports but do not form a single unit "however they do temporarilly co exist for the moment" - FAQ.

so yea.... this idea = FAIL.

off topic.... where is bill engvalls sign maker when you need him?

Darthspader - you're getting FNP and Cybork Bodies confused. MDG lets you give Cybork bodies to everyone, not just the nobs who can normally take them. Painboys confer FNP, along with MDG

page 96: ork dex " any unit in an army including grotsnik may upgrade its members to have cybork bodies for +5 pts per model"

key term. "unit in an army INCLUDING grotsnik" this means grotsnik must join that unit. if he embarks on a transport he is not included as part of that trasnport, else he could be affected by ranged attacks etc targeted at the vehicle. and the vehcle owner could allocate hits to grotsnik. clearly that cant happen....

page 98: - one nob may be a painboy , ... all models in the painboys unit may have cybork bodies"

again, same thing. a single nob in a nob unit can upgrade to painboy and provide cyborks to his unit. since his unit does not include a vehicle, just nobs, no chance of providing that upgrade to his transport. or, as mentioned before said unit embarked on the transport could be affected by things that affect the transport, and the nobs could be allocated shooting hits, as opposed to the trukk

IE:
player 1:" i shoot my lazcannon at that trukk holding your nobs"
- rolls hit
player 2: "ok ill take that hit on nob x"
player 1 rolls wound on nob, followed by 'cover'??? / invun saves
-----ERROR------ game broken. see admin.-------


fnp is a benefit recieved as soon as grotsnik or a painboy joins a unit. said unit can also purchase cyborks as a unit upgrade like grenades or weapon swaps. stating that you can give vehicles infantry upgrades just "cause dark eldar vehicles get invun saves" is absoloutly ridiculus.

i mean if thats the case, i should be able to upgrade my raiders with blasters and splinter cannons, or have it benefit from pain tokens when my warriors are embarked..."huh huh huh my raider has a 5+ invun and fnp"

ive played orks for years. im not getting fnp and cybork confused. whats confusing is this trend of people looking for any and all tiny little loopholes in an existing dex, "just cause new dex 'xyz' gets it" i mean SERIOUSLY.....

For someone who claims to play orks you are surprisibgly unfamiliar with faqs. (phone typing). OP: the FAQ specifies NON VEHICLE.

DarthSpader:

The word "including" references the army, not the unit. So, your army has to have Grotsnik to unlock Cybork Bodies. He doesn't have to join a unit.

This is a very good thing, because ICs don't join units until deployment, which is well after you have the opportunity to purchase upgrades to models.