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 might be missing something, but a Soul Grinder is classed as a Daemon. As such, it benefits from the Fear rule and the new rule book also states that Daemons enjoy a 5+ invulnerable save.

Does a Soul Grinder now have a 5+ invulnerable save against Glances/Pens or am I missing something

Thanks in advance.

Isn't there a listing under the Soul Grinder in the codex that says that the Daemon rule translates to Daemonic Possession (it ignores shaken and stunned)?

Technically I suppose it does have an invulnerable save, but since you only get an invulnerable save on WOUNDS, which vehicles cannot sustain, it's useless.
edit - or possibly dangerous terrain.

Testify wrote:Technically I suppose it does have an invulnerable save, but since you only get an invulnerable save on WOUNDS, which vehicles cannot sustain, it's useless.
edit - or possibly dangerous terrain.

This argument has already be had with Dark Eldar Flickerfields, and it was ruled that they do indeed get the 5+ invulnerable against glances and pens. I would be inclined to say this is so with Soul Grinders also.

So yes, thanks to the daemon rule, a Soul Grinder (RAW) has a 5+ invulnerable save.

Iranna.

Testify wrote:Technically I suppose it does have an invulnerable save, but since you only get an invulnerable save on WOUNDS, which vehicles cannot sustain, it's useless.
edit - or possibly dangerous terrain.

The Dark Eldar Flickerfield confers a 5+ invulnerable save to any vehicles, which allows them to take a save against any glancing or penetrating result. (including shooting, cc, dangerous terrain etc.)

So if it does give the Soul Grinder a 5+ invun that could be an important point.

Iranna wrote:

Testify wrote:Technically I suppose it does have an invulnerable save, but since you only get an invulnerable save on WOUNDS, which vehicles cannot sustain, it's useless.
edit - or possibly dangerous terrain.

This argument has already be had with Dark Eldar Flickerfields, and it was ruled that they do indeed get the 5+ invulnerable against glances and pens. I would be inclined to say this is so with Soul Grinders also.

So yes, thanks to the daemon rule, a Soul Grinder (RAW) has a 5+ invulnerable save.

Iranna.

Vehicles cannot suffer wounds so they never get to make an invulnerable save.
A glancing/penetrating hit is NOT a wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ovion wrote:

Testify wrote:Technically I suppose it does have an invulnerable save, but since you only get an invulnerable save on WOUNDS, which vehicles cannot sustain, it's useless.
edit - or possibly dangerous terrain.

The Dark Eldar Flickerfield confers a 5+ invulnerable save to any vehicles, which allows them to take a save against any glancing or penetrating result. (including shooting, cc, dangerous terrain etc.)

So if it does give the Soul Grinder a 5+ invun that could be an important point.

I don't have the Dark Eldar codex, does it explicitly state that this 5+ invulnerable save may be taken against glancing/penetrating results? If so then it is a specific type of invulnerable save.
If not then yes, Soul Grinder would get a 5++ on glancing/damages.

I am aware of the argument as to whether or not the the vehicle can take an Invulnerable save - lets save that for after determining if the vehicle gets an invulnerable save.

What I am unsure on, is whether to apply the Daemon USR to the Soul Grinder from the book. It is classed as a Daemon for GK's and associated powers - I believe it lists Daemon under its entry in the codex - need to double check.

Special Rules: Deamon, Fleet.
So yes.

Technically flickerfields give you a useless invulnerable save. As you can use the save against any glancing or penetrating hit but passing it simply ignores the wounds those hits cause you so are powerless to prevent hullpoint and damage table results...

The Dark Eldar Flickerfield entry simply states that any vehicle with a Flickerfield has a 5+ invulnerable save.

Technically, every save described references taking them against against wounds, including cover saves.

But it then specifically states that vehicles get cover saves. (Obscured, page 74)

Nowehere can I find that it uses wording other than 'saves are used against allocated wounds'. This is for regular, invulnerable and cover saves.

So either all saves for vehicles work the same way (you roll to negate any given glance / pen result), or they all do nothing.

The FAQ says they gain the Fear special rule and the codex says that for soul grinders they just get to ignore shaken and stunned results, so no invulnerable saves for the grinder.

Yes, sadly the Soulgrinder doesn't get the 5+ Invulnerable save. The update makes it clear.

A Blood Slaughterer from Forgeworld on the other hand do get the 5+ Invulnerable save so far and so does the Plague Hulk, so maybe the Soulgrinder will end up getting it too.

By the way, the Invulnerable save has nothing to do with the model having wounds or an Armour value. Read page 17 and 26 in the rulebook.

Went back through the rules in the codex - there are two entries that are relevant. The first is in the back that states the Soul Grinder has the Special Rules: Daemon, Fleet

The second is in the actual Grinder entry which states that for a Soul Grinder being a Daemon means it can Deep Strike in and it ignore Shaken and Stunned results.

In short - it gets Terror as per the FAQ, but it does not gain a 5++ save.

Just wanted to provide closure for any Daemon players who read my question earlier and were unsure.