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.

If a vehicle were to have an invuln save can it actually use it

I'm not a 100% sure of what your asking but if it's what I think then the answer is Yes.

There actually is a Vehicle with an Invulnerable Save. Bjorn the Felhanded of the Space Wolves has a 4++ Invulnerable save that is not a Cover Save.

Being a little more specific would help here. Vehicles with an actual invulnerable save are pretty few and far between. A cover save is not an invulnerable save.

So what specifically are you asking about. Blanket answers don't work well in 40k.

The reason I was asking is because under invuln saves in the rules it says it can be used even if an armor save can't but it mentions wounds.

Imunsure of what its called but its some kindof grot mini tank form IA 8.

Yes, invulnerable saves are generally only for wounds. Bjorn has a specific part in his rule that lets it work on armor glances and pens.

How does this work for Dark Eldar vehicles?

Or is their 5+ rule worded as a cover save?

technically vehicles except bjorn cant use an invulnerable save. because there is nothing in the rules to let them use it. the same goes for cover saves taht are granted unless it also grants obscured.

from a RAW : game breaks because there is nothing to let you use the invulnerable save as no wound is ever inflicted. And you can only use a cover save if your vehicle is obscured first.

from RAI : make a cover or invul save treating glance/pen hits ~= wound for the purposes of the rules.

Boneblade wrote:How does this work for Dark Eldar vehicles?

Or is their 5+ rule worded as a cover save?

It's an Invulnerable save. While it doesn't specify that this save is taken against glancing or penetrating hits as is the case with Bjorn, it's a fairly safe assumption to make.

Yes. Prime example you see often is raiders with flickerfields. It gives a 5++

You roll right before the VDC and right after a wound is scored.

Yes vehicles can have Invulnerable Saves.

Technically the rulebook section on Invulnerable Saves talks about Wounds, but if you read that in context with the rules for vehicle cover saves (instead of saving against a wound, you save against a Glancing or Penetrating hit), you can easily figure it out.

Bjorn was the first vehicle in the current edition to have an Invulnerable Save, but now Dark Eldar have Venoms which come with built-in 5+ Invulnerable Saves from their Flickerfields, and lots of their other vehicles can take Flickerfields too, so the question's been coming up lately.

I raged when I learned DE vehicles could have invul saves.

How silly.

Yeah it was pretty stupid when I first saw it, too. Oh look.. 80 points for a Fast Skimmer 3 Darklance BS 4 heavy support option with a 5+ invulnerable save and 6" darkshields.

Lol.

You're confusing raiders and ravagers. Raiders are the 60 point, one weapon transports. Ravagers start at 105 points. Both are made of paper, and a 5+ save doesn't much change that.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:You're confusing raiders and ravagers. Raiders are the 60 point, one weapon transports. Ravagers start at 105 points. Both are made of paper, and a 5+ save doesn't much change that.

It changes it 1/3 of the time when I try ramming them with Wave Serpents, and if even one flickerfield works throughout the entire game, it paid for having it on everything in the entire army.

But yeah. Unfortunately, people can (correctly?) argue that the rules do not allow a vehicle to take an invulnerable save and it thusly does nothing. And TOs will sometimes agree with these people. And TheRedArmy never attended a tournament.

No, they don't work.

They want you to pay the points for something that is intended to do nothing. I know!! Confusing right?!?!

Yeah by RaW no vehicles invulnerable saves do anything.

Flickerfields can only be used against wounds. Whilst Bjorn's allows you to use it against Glancing and penetrating hits it doesn't cancel the hit (because it doesn't tell you that is does). So they are all useless in RaWhammer...

You know, until someone actually makes a recording of a TO saying "Sorry mate them FFs that come as standard on your venomes, nothing but pretty words, GW put in the codex to screw you over." it's 'never-ever-ever' going to have, can, or "my best was totally at this event..."..ed.

ChrisCP wrote:You know, until someone actually makes a recording of a TO saying "Sorry mate them FFs that come as standard on your venomes, nothing but pretty words, GW put in the codex to screw you over." it's 'never-ever-ever' going to have, can, or "my best was totally at this event..."..ed.

I don't typically bring tape recorders to my games. If anything, a camcorder, so I can review my game later, along with a laptop for taking notes. But then I've never been to tournaments, so I don't know anything - just ask DashofPepper.

Considering the horror stories of the GW rep being more think-headed than a rhino, I would not be surprised at that exact turn of events (albeit with different wording).

puma713 wrote:No, they don't work.

GW will be introducing those invulnerable saves for vehicles in 6th edition, then the upgrades in the Deldar codex will actually work.

Until then just put it on the list of things to discuss before the battle. It's not the only codex with issues so you're pretty assured of being able to trade reasonable interpretations.

The intent on Flickerfields is so obvious that it will never be an issue, except possibly with someone having a cerebral aneurysm.

If a TO ever tries to rule so, simply stare at them hard until the aneurysm passes, and they either die or wake up to what they are doing and stop being a prat.

Yeah, quite frankl I don't think it's even something to consider worth discussing pre-game. While yes, it would be nice if GW had written the actual rules a bit more specifically, it's really obvious enough how a vehicle's Invulnerable save should work that no reasonable opponent is even going to question it.

I remember there was a discussion about the KFF saves on kans, and the 5+ not being able to use on the veh pens/gl, just wounds.

If we were to now infer the invulnerables as applicable to non wounds, wouldnt the previous KFF discussion be invalid?

Hehe yeah, I'm fairly sure I avoided that one for just that reason. But yes, squadrons are units, and as such can take the cybork bodies for a 5++.

Fling - not true, Bjorn has a fully described method for how HIS invulnerable save works, so it does actually "work" as regards the actual rules.

if you tell me before a game tourney or not, that my flicker fields dont work and have no effect your going to be playing a game with yourself. its in the dex, the specific of the codex trumps the generic in the BRB. plain - and - simple.

Darth - find the specific rule that allows them to work. Show the fully described process for USING invulnerable saves given in the DE codex.

Oh wait, you cant. You appear to misunderstand what "specific vs general" means.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Darth - find the specific rule that allows them to work. Show the fully described process for USING invulnerable saves given in the DE codex.

Oh wait, you cant. You appear to misunderstand what "specific vs general" means.

this is true, sucks i know.

I cannon think of a simgle person that would be pig headed or stupid enough to insist that a vehicle with a Inv save cannot take it.
Imagine if DA get there old Lion Helm back, that will couse even more arguments along these lines

Some people aren't real good at reading through inference. GW addressed the issue in the BA FAQ when it noted that Shield benefits vehicles. Anyone not being a RAWtard won't give any problem. Flickerfields, Bjorn, Shield of Sanguinius, Stormcaller, whatever- it's all good.

As a purely academic debate, maybe there is something there. As a practical matter, it's just another example of literalists trying too hard with a rule set that was never written that way.

TheRedArmy wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:You're confusing raiders and ravagers. Raiders are the 60 point, one weapon transports. Ravagers start at 105 points. Both are made of paper, and a 5+ save doesn't much change that.

It changes it 1/3 of the time when I try ramming them with Wave Serpents, and if even one flickerfield works throughout the entire game, it paid for having it on everything in the entire army.

But yeah. Unfortunately, people can (correctly?) argue that the rules do not allow a vehicle to take an invulnerable save and it thusly does nothing. And TOs will sometimes agree with these people. And TheRedArmy never attended a tournament.

I would rage at that in a spearhead game then where you can get invul saves for any vehicle in the proper spearhead.

TheRedArmy wrote:It changes it 1/3 of the time when I try ramming them with Wave Serpents

Um, don't skimmers already avoid rams on a 3+?

So, you're already only hitting on a 1/3 chance. The Flickerfield save doesn't change the chance that much more (although it does affect it).

This is assuming I'm remembering the skimmer ram rules correctly, as I haven't been victim of a ram with my skimmers.