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.

Wyches get a 4+ invuln save in close combat?

No.

Read the Dark Eldar codex and it states exactly what they get, against what and when they get it.

Well..... They have "Dodge" which as far as I understand is a 4+ inv save in close combat.... against everything..... so they do?

That's what my mate plays, don't have access to his codex right now but would love to find out if this isn't right (darn 4+ save against str 9/10 power fists)

Cheers,

Dave

Re-read 'Dodge' the next time you play your mate, it is very very specific as to what they get a save against.

Just looked it up. They get a 4+ against wounds caused by close combat attacks. As say, purifying flame is not a close combat attack, they would not get it there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But would they against Trazyns? That is a purifying flame attack based on a successful close combat attack.... Probably doesnt matter.

Only close combat attacks.

skronk wrote:Just looked it up. They get a 4+ against wounds caused by close combat attacks. As say, purifying flame is not a close combat attack, they would not get it there.

I'm guessing you mean the GK power Cleansing Flame. If I'm wrong, then nm.

GK FAQ page 2 wrote:Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close
combat attack? (p31)
A: A close combat attack.

Its called Dodge, and yes it is a 4+ invul save in Close Combat only. Lilith's is a 3+ in close combat and 4+ in shooting. Lady Malys has a 4+ Invul in either,as do Khymera's. Some Archons have a shadow field which is a 2+, in either. Raider/ Ravangers/ venoms/ Razorwings and VoidRavens have Flickerfields available to them, which is a 5+ Invul. These invulnerable saves are what keeps this army with such weak armour on the table.

worldwarme wrote:Its called Dodge, and yes it is a 4+ invul save in Close Combat only.

Not 100% accurate.

Sitting here with my codex, which part are you saying isn't accurate?Pg 27, last para, " Dodge (4+) Wyches have a 4+ Invulnerable saving throw against wounds caused by Close Combat attacks."

worldwarme wrote:Sitting here with my codex, which part are you saying isn't accurate?

It's a 4+ save against CC attacks - as Farmer and skronk said.

Your statement would mean they get a 4+ invul against a blast weapon that scatters over the combat, or some psychic power.. they don't.
They only get an invul save against CC attacks.

Okay.....are'nt we reaching out past the original question here ? From his original question, I thought we were talking about the basicsof a Wyche save in CC. A blast or Psycic attack fall under shooting or whatnot and are'nt really a part of this.

worldwarme wrote:Okay.....are'nt we reaching out past the original question here ? From his original question, I thought we were talking about the basicsof a Wyche save in CC. A blast or Psycic attack fall under shooting or whatnot and are'nt really a part of this.

I'm addressing the statement that Wyches get a 4+ invul in CC. They don't. They get a 4+ invul vs CC attacks.

sigh...ok...I see in my original post, that I only refer to to the saves as being in Close Combat. Foolishly, I assumed that would answer the question. Anyways, Devildog, I am sure you have the answer now, in all contexts of the question.

It's YMDC. If you can't take the pedantry, get out of the RAW.

LoL @ the Space marine player who found out that his space marines couldnt whipe a squad rofl.Are you going to make a post every time you hear a rule that puts you at a disadvantage?

Was just a question about a rule. Thought that was what this was for. Wasn't complaining. Wasn't making a hate blog. Just asking a question. Wanted to make sure. I don't own a de codex.

It doesnt why you post something. Anything.

There's always haters. It's best to not reply to them.

Devil Dog wrote:Was just a question about a rule. Thought that was what this was for. Wasn't complaining. Wasn't making a hate blog. Just asking a question. Wanted to make sure. I don't own a de codex.

And this forum *isnt* a replacement for having a rulebook, or codex.

The distinction here is reasonably important; Wyches not being protected by their 4+ from vehicle explosions is kind of a big deal. Also, the phrasing of their rule is different than the phrasing of the Grey Knight Warding Staff, which literally does work against any wound suffered while he's in close combat.

Concede that I was wrong in my wording as well as my back and forth with Rigeld2 . Had a bad day and was a bit rude. Apologies to him. I certainly did not intend for anyone to think of me as a Hater. Having said that, I take no issue with Devildog asking the question. If we didn't think it was deserving of an answer, we should'nt have posted a reply or comment of any sort.

worldwarme wrote:Apologies to him.

No offense taken.

I understand that a codex is needed to know all the rules of every army. I just don't make enough money to cover every codex and my army at the same time. I work for two charities. One as a music teacher for a prep school for Houstons under privileged children. The other a free drug rehab. Both are very successful. But I don't make a whole lot of money. Enough to make a living, but not enough to own every codex.

Understandable. I know I allow my opponants to look at mine whenever they doubt what I am doing. ( Its took some time for them to understand all my Invul saves and the fact that a strong majority of my weapontry is Poisoned and therefore their toughness is irrelevant). The next time you have doubts or misundertsanding, just ask your opponant to see his codex, ( And then light it on fire! ).

worldwarme wrote:Concede that I was wrong in my wording as well as my back and forth with Rigeld2 . Had a bad day and was a bit rude. Apologies to him. I certainly did not intend for anyone to think of me as a Hater. Having said that, I take no issue with Devildog asking the question. If we didn't think it was deserving of an answer, we should'nt have posted a reply or comment of any sort.

Oh, I didn't mean you.

It was more about Smitty0305's completely irrelevant comment.