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.

I know it's a long shot, but I was hoping that special rule "The big dok" would allow me to give a vehicle an invul save. Could I argue this (even as "tfg") or is there no wiggle room?

There is a very threadbare argument for giving it to a unit of vehicles with more than one member, but it would be very very TFG. There are other threads on this further down the YMDC i think.

I think the general consensus was that it only applied to non-vehicles, even though the wording could be technically stretched to cover any unit in the codex...

Stretch it if you wish, then try to find anything about how vehicles make Inv saves in the rulebook. I doubt very many opponents will be interested in making a house rule for it.

Yes, only a TFG wouldn't agree that Inv saves work for deldar vehicles... but then those can actually buy them as vehicle upgrades.

Lol, thanks. I don't intend to be "tfg" but there are games we play at my flgs called "RAW Games" where you try to be as cheap as you can, while still following rules as written. If you do this however, and someone can call you out on it, then the unit is immediately destroyed "by" the player who called you out.
Oddly enough, one time someone won who wasn't even playing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:Stretch it if you wish, then try to find anything about how vehicles make Inv saves in the rulebook. I doubt very many opponents will be interested in making a house rule for it.

Yes, only a TFG wouldn't agree that Inv saves work for deldar vehicles... but then those can actually buy them as vehicle upgrades.

Thought that was faq'd?

It's perfectly legal RAW "Any unit in an army including Mad Doc Grotsnik may upgrade its members to have Cybork bodies for +X points per model" Pg 96
And Vehicles, even when just one, not a squadron, are indeed units. And given how GW has been using inv saves of late (Bjorn, Flicker field) it would seem to work. Bjorn has more explanation on how his works and FF has as much as Da Big Doc.

Haha I say do it...let us know how it works out. Point out the any unit and see if anyone can counter it.

Bjorn tells us specifically what his Inv save can do... Deldar codex doesn't. RAW they only work on wounds.

I dont recommend doing it. Its better to not rock that boat until an FAQ comes out being specific on the subject.

Spetulhu wrote:Yes, only a TFG wouldn't agree that Inv saves work for deldar vehicles...

Spetulhu wrote:Bjorn tells us specifically what his Inv save can do... Deldar codex doesn't. RAW they only work on wounds.

???
@Yodisi: Either Invul save work on vehicle or they don't, I hardly think they gave DE a point sink in that fashion. So if they work - then they work - otherwise one's standing on both sides of the fence and that hurts :(

IThe big mek's KFF gives a vehicle a 4+ save for being obscured, but it's a really big TFG move to try and extend MDG's special rule to vehicles.

How is using an unique ability of an IC in the specific fashion ("Any unit may...') outlined in the codex being 'TFG'?

Maybe because a chainsaw arm welded to a trukk should not help it survive a lascannon shot?

There was a thread two weeks ago about this, it clears it up in the FAQ and states that you CANNOT give vehicles invul.

Q. How many units in an army with Mad Dok
Grotsnik can be upgraded to have cybork
bodies? Are there any restrictions (apart from
non-vehicle) or can it even be Gretchin or
independent characters?
A. Any number of units can be upgraded. This
includes Gretchin (Super-Gretchin! Cool
conversions, but a bit expensive at 8 pts per
model!) and independent characters (except for
unique characters), effectively giving them a 5 pt
discount on the cybork body upgrade

That was directly cut and pasted from the FAQ, I hope it helps.

No, it does not state that.

Vehicles are units. The *question* may have excepted vehicles, but the answer didnt

I still have missed the part where vehicles are allowed to take invulnerable saves as invulnerable saves are only made against WOUNDS.

Bjorn has an explicit exception which allow his to be made against glace/pens and Flickerfields do 'nothing'.

I don't think it would be terrible for Mad Dok to give tanks Cybork (often a trukk is immobilized because the driver is killed, maybe the drivers all have cybork bodies?) but I would need an FAQ allowing invulnerable saves to actually work first.

I could see the metagame changing if all trukks and ork walkers could get a 5+ invun. I would have to really reconsider how I build an ork list.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it does not state that.

Vehicles are units. The *question* may have excepted vehicles, but the answer didnt

Yes it did, implicitly. When a FAQ is edited and compiled the questions are normally re-phrased for clarity and/or to add extra value by getting multiple issues clarified at once. The fact that the vehicle exclusion is left in there and not contradicted by the answer is implicit proof that vehicles are indeed ineligible.

nkelsch wrote:I still have missed the part where vehicles are allowed to take invulnerable saves as invulnerable saves are only made against WOUNDS.

Bjorn has an explicit exception which allow his to be made against glace/pens and Flickerfields do 'nothing'.

But no one actually plays that way, surely?

GW has made implicitly clear by the existence of the Flickerfield that Invulnerable saves obviously do apply to vehicles. They've made obvious as well that Cover Saves from wargear/psychic powers do as well, via the KFF rules and Shield of Sanguinius FAQ.

Yes, there is technically a hole in the rules that they never explicitly spell out (except in the SW codex) how to use an Invuln. save, but Bjorn's rules give a nice big indication, and the rules for vehicle cover saves give the same easy procedure. Surely none of us are too stupid to make such a tiny logical leap to play the game correctly?

Without being shot down repeatedly for not following the word of RAW?

I think its a perfectly logical leap, and I play this way just fine, but some people have a RAW-wedgie and will argue against it (ran into one of those on Saturday, trying to argue that flickerfields didn't work vs another guy's Dark Eldar, probably because he was losing after informing the other guy that Dark Eldar are just !@#$...

Anyone with that deep a "RAW-wedgie" needs to pause for a minute and extract it. I tend to find that speaking calmly and politely but with confidence tends to help them see reason.

Well we all probably agree that Flickerfields are intended to work against Glance/pen, but I can't see agreeing to that justifying Cybork bodies to grant invulnerables to all ork models.

Basically someone has to argue RAI to get invulnerable saves for Dark eldar and in the same breath argue RAW to get cybork bodies for battlewagons. Doesn't work that way for me. If you want to talk 'intent' and 'common sense' then no cybork for trukks and battleagons. If you want to talk RAW, then cybork the trukks and the invun save does nothing.

Both result in the same thing.

Edit: Don't get me wrong... get a TO to allow it and I will totally take an ambushing Mad Dok and cyborked dreadwall