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.

Does anything take away invulnerable saves?

I played against a GK opponent (me playing daemons) and a decent number of his shots had "no invuln saves". I've looked through the GK codex and I can't find it. Also just curious to know if anything takes the invuln away. Thought the crew here could get me an answer much faster than trying to look through every codex.

Thanks in advance.

In the old Daemonhunters book, Psycannons (and maybe a few other weapons) ignored Invulnerable saves. This is not the case in the current GK codex.

If it says "No saves of any kind", then sure, you'd have no save of any kind including invulnerables and/or cover.

What was he using, do you know?

Librarian - Warp Rift (Psychic shooting attack)
Brotherhood Champion - Heroic Sacrifice (requires his dying in combat as well)
Brother-Captain Stern - Zone of Banishment (requires a strength test instead and only in combat, but also applies to friendly models)

Vindicare Assassin - Shield-Breaker - when wounded the model loses any invuln for the rest of the game. Still gets regular armor/cover saves.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

big mek rolling double 6 on his shokk attack gun

Being removed from play isn't the same as being destroyed. With double 6s on a SAG, no wounds are allocated, nor can they be as the strength of the weapon isn't ever defined when rolling double 6s. You only have an effect. There is no wound for his invuln to save!

Being squigged by Zogwort.

You lose all wargear and special rules.

Rorschach9 wrote:

Vindicare Assassin - Shield-Breaker - when wounded the model loses any invuln for the rest of the game. Still gets regular armor/cover saves.

This is not how the Shield Breaker round works. Re-read the rule and get back to us.

Also, Whigwam, with the second post, was correct: nothing in the 2010 GK book (the current book) ignores invulns against Daemons.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Vindicare Assassin - Shield-Breaker - when wounded the model loses any invuln for the rest of the game. Still gets regular armor/cover saves.

This is not how the Shield Breaker round works. Re-read the rule and get back to us.

Also, Whigwam, with the second post, was correct: nothing in the 2010 GK book (the current book) ignores invulns against Daemons.

Fine .. Invuln granted by wargear. Minor point. ..I.. (#dontbeadick)

And so none of those other items that "no save of any kind allowed" ignores invulnerable saves (against Daemons)?

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Vindicare Assassin - Shield-Breaker - when wounded the model loses any invuln for the rest of the game. Still gets regular armor/cover saves.

This is not how the Shield Breaker round works. Re-read the rule and get back to us.

Also, Whigwam, with the second post, was correct: nothing in the 2010 GK book (the current book) ignores invulns against Daemons.

Fine .. Invuln granted by wargear. Minor point. ..I..

And so none of those other items that "no save of any kind allowed" ignores invulnerable saves (against Daemons)?

It's not a minor point when talking to a Daemon player, as none of their invulns come from Wargear. Letting your incorrect comment stand would have made the OP think that the Vindicare could remove his Fateweaver's invuln save. Do you really want him to think that? Because that's cheating.
And also, at AP1, "regular" armour saves (to quote you) don't exactly work, do they.....?

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Vindicare Assassin - Shield-Breaker - when wounded the model loses any invuln for the rest of the game. Still gets regular armor/cover saves.

This is not how the Shield Breaker round works. Re-read the rule and get back to us.

Also, Whigwam, with the second post, was correct: nothing in the 2010 GK book (the current book) ignores invulns against Daemons.

Fine .. Invuln granted by wargear. Minor point. ..I..

And so none of those other items that "no save of any kind allowed" ignores invulnerable saves (against Daemons)?

It's not a minor point when talking to a Daemon player, as none of their invulns come from Wargear. Letting your incorrect comment stand would have made the OP think that the Vindicare could remove his Fateweaver's invuln save. Do you really want him to think that? Because that's cheating.
And also, at AP1, "regular" armour saves (to quote you) don't exactly work, do they.....?

But would the Vindicare take Fateweaver's save down to a 4++ as the Grimoire is wargear?

Bojazz wrote:
Being removed from play isn't the same as being destroyed.

It is now. Find a bit in the rule book that allows you to be removed from the play without being removed as a casualty? It's not their anymore. Destroyed is also equated with being removed as a casualty. This is why any RFP effect allows necrons to come back.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Vindicare Assassin - Shield-Breaker - when wounded the model loses any invuln for the rest of the game. Still gets regular armor/cover saves.

This is not how the Shield Breaker round works. Re-read the rule and get back to us.

Also, Whigwam, with the second post, was correct: nothing in the 2010 GK book (the current book) ignores invulns against Daemons.

Fine .. Invuln granted by wargear. Minor point. ..I..

And so none of those other items that "no save of any kind allowed" ignores invulnerable saves (against Daemons)?

It's not a minor point when talking to a Daemon player, as none of their invulns come from Wargear. Letting your incorrect comment stand would have made the OP think that the Vindicare could remove his Fateweaver's invuln save. Do you really want him to think that? Because that's cheating.
And also, at AP1, "regular" armour saves (to quote you) don't exactly work, do they.....?

Letting my incomplete comment (not incorrect, incomplete since people like to get gakky about putting complete rules here) comment stand would certainly not be "cheating" and you could have simply added the correction. And, besides, he said he read the GK codex and could not find anything that ignored invulnerable saves. I was merely pointing out a few points to read (excuse my ignorance without having the rules in front of me at the time as I DID say it was "off the top of my head" .. #dontbeadick)

What does AP1 have to do with anything? You still get an invuln against AP1 (unless it's been removed/ignored). You still get cover save against AP1 (if applicable). And you would get "regular" armour save if there was one available (which there are none), so they work just fine and have nothing to do with invulnerables.

 FlingitNow wrote:


But would the Vindicare take Fateweaver's save down to a 4++ as the Grimoire is wargear?

Fatey's save isn't from the Grimoire, it's a base 4++ from his rules. So no, Shield Breaker would have no effect on Fateweaver's 4++ save.
If you meant, "Would Fateweaver's (or any Daemon's) improved Grimoire save be reduced back to their natural save?", then I would say no. The Grimoire doesn't grant an invuln--it adds to the invuln. So the original invulnerable isn't coming from wargear, only the bonus is. But Shield Breaker doesn't remove "bonuses," and it cannot remove the invulnerable.
And the Grimoire isn't wargear! It's a Daemonic Gift--Hell-forged Artefact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

Vindicare Assassin - Shield-Breaker - when wounded the model loses any invuln for the rest of the game. Still gets regular armor/cover saves.

This is not how the Shield Breaker round works. Re-read the rule and get back to us.

Also, Whigwam, with the second post, was correct: nothing in the 2010 GK book (the current book) ignores invulns against Daemons.

Fine .. Invuln granted by wargear. Minor point. ..I..

And so none of those other items that "no save of any kind allowed" ignores invulnerable saves (against Daemons)?

It's not a minor point when talking to a Daemon player, as none of their invulns come from Wargear. Letting your incorrect comment stand would have made the OP think that the Vindicare could remove his Fateweaver's invuln save. Do you really want him to think that? Because that's cheating.
And also, at AP1, "regular" armour saves (to quote you) don't exactly work, do they.....?

Letting my incomplete comment (not incorrect, incomplete since people like to get gakky about putting complete rules here) comment stand would certainly not be "cheating" and you could have simply added the correction instead of being a jerk. And, besides, he said he read the GK codex and could not find anything that ignored invulnerable saves. I was merely pointing out a few points to read (excuse my ignorance without having the rules in front of me at the time as I DID say it was "off the top of my head" .. #dontbeadick)

What does AP1 have to do with anything? You still get an invuln against AP1 (unless it's been removed/ignored). You still get cover save against AP1 (if applicable). And you would get "regular" armour save if there was one available (which there are none), so they work just fine and have nothing to do with invulnerables.

Just to be clear, Rors, YOU were the one who flipped me off originally (I "embiggened" all the especially rude comments in the included quote, in case you wanted to see them again); if anyone has been a jerk, it's you. I didn't comment on your use of the finger, since I thought you were being wry, but your following comments have proved that you are in fact upset about me calling you out on being wrong about the Vindi. I have not been a "dick." And again, my correction of your statement was not a "minor point." Vindi cannot remove some invulns; you claimed that he could. It's ok to be wrong, which you were. It is also good to accept correction graciously, which you did not. This forum isn't about seeing whose is bigger--it's about accurately understanding the rules of 40k. If you can't handle other folk pointing out when you're wrong sometimes, you should probably post in a different forum. If you wish to continue posting in YMDC, you should stop calling people names, because that's rude, unhelpful, and not constructive.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


But would the Vindicare take Fateweaver's save down to a 4++ as the Grimoire is wargear?

Fatey's save isn't from the Grimoire, it's a base 4++ from his rules. So no, Shield Breaker would have no effect on Fateweaver's 4++ save.
If you meant, "Would Fateweaver's (or any Daemon's) improved Grimoire save be reduced back to their natural save?", then I would say no. The Grimoire doesn't grant an invuln--it adds to the invuln. So the original invulnerable isn't coming from wargear, only the bonus is. But Shield Breaker doesn't remove "bonuses," and it cannot remove the invulnerable.
And the Grimoire isn't wargear! It's a Daemonic Gift--Hell-forged Artefact.

I did state take Fateweaver DOWN TO A 4++ so why you'd think I was talking about removing his 4++ I don't know.

So if the Grimoire isn't wargear what is your definition of wargear? Is Terminator Armour Wargear? How about Storm Shield? Aura of Dark Majesty? Lion Helm? Power field generator?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


But would the Vindicare take Fateweaver's save down to a 4++ as the Grimoire is wargear?

Fatey's save isn't from the Grimoire, it's a base 4++ from his rules. So no, Shield Breaker would have no effect on Fateweaver's 4++ save.
If you meant, "Would Fateweaver's (or any Daemon's) improved Grimoire save be reduced back to their natural save?", then I would say no. The Grimoire doesn't grant an invuln--it adds to the invuln. So the original invulnerable isn't coming from wargear, only the bonus is. But Shield Breaker doesn't remove "bonuses," and it cannot remove the invulnerable.
And the Grimoire isn't wargear! It's a Daemonic Gift--Hell-forged Artefact.

I did state take Fateweaver DOWN TO A 4++ so why you'd think I was talking about removing his 4++ I don't know.

So if the Grimoire isn't wargear what is your definition of wargear? Is Terminator Armour Wargear? How about Storm Shield? Aura of Dark Majesty? Lion Helm? Power field generator?

You could have been confused about what Fatey's original save is. You said "Fateweaver's save" instead of "Daemon save." It was just strange to automatically assume that Fatey would be the one being buffed by the Grimoire. I don't think I've ever used it on him.

As to wargear, I would say that anything listed in the "Wargear" of the book counts as wargear--simple enough! My Termies have Terminator armour listed in their wargear, so I would count that. My Crusaders have Storm Shield listed in their wargear, so I would count that. I don't know where "Aura of Dark Majesty" originates from, so I can't comment on that. Both Lion Helm and PFG sound like wargear, so they'd prolly count.
Daemons don't have wargear.

EDIT: Whenever I use the Shield Breaker, I always ask my opponent, "Does your invuln come from Wargear?" If he's not sure, we look at his codex. Sometimes I decide not to use it, since it doesn't work on all forms of invulnerable. But I do check every time I am unsure (as I would in the case of Aura, Lion Helm, and PFG).

Lion Helm is a DA Chapter Relic but is listed under wargear in Azreal's entry.

Sticking with the same codex there is no "Warmgear" section just an armoury of the Rock. Which includes PFG in "Special Issue Wargear" and Terminator armour in "Armour". Whilst TA is listed as war gear for anyone who has it as standard it has no such status for anyone who purchases it as an upgrade.

Aura of Dark Majesty is from the "Forbidden Armoury" section of the CSM Codex (which like all 6th Ed codexes has no "Wargear" section). It is in the section "Chaos Rewards" but again any model that comes with it standard has it listed as Wargear. Likewise for Terminator Armour in this codex.

Same issue with the Tau codex. Arsenal of Expansion is the name of their wargear section with the Shield Generator being in the "Support Systems" sub section.

Basically if you're stating that Grimoire isn't Wargear, then no upgrades from a 6th edition codex are wargear (though all of those things are wargear to anyone who has them as standard).

 FlingitNow wrote:
Lion Helm is a DA Chapter Relic but is listed under wargear in Azreal's entry.

Sticking with the same codex there is no "Warmgear" section just an armoury of the Rock. Which includes PFG in "Special Issue Wargear" and Terminator armour in "Armour". Whilst TA is listed as war gear for anyone who has it as standard it has no such status for anyone who purchases it as an upgrade.

Aura of Dark Majesty is from the "Forbidden Armoury" section of the CSM Codex (which like all 6th Ed codexes has no "Wargear" section). It is in the section "Chaos Rewards" but again any model that comes with it standard has it listed as Wargear. Likewise for Terminator Armour in this codex.

Same issue with the Tau codex. Arsenal of Expansion is the name of their wargear section with the Shield Generator being in the "Support Systems" sub section.

Basically if you're stating that Grimoire isn't Wargear, then no upgrades from a 6th edition codex are wargear (though all of those things are wargear to anyone who has them as standard).

Hmmmm, I see the problem....
I would have to use an argument from precedent, then. If a model doesn't have Termie armour but can upgrade to it, and Termie armour is listed in Wargear in some places, then it must be wargear for him, right?

CSM and DA both have "Wargear" in the army -building section, meaning that their armies have Wargear. You can extrapolate what does and does not count as wargear based on those entries.
Daemons, on the other hand, do not have "Wargear" in any part of the book at all.

But we're getting distracted from my main claim, which I was afraid was going to happen. "Grimoire isn't wargear" wasn't my main argument as to why the Grimoire wouldn't be affected, it was a side observation. My main argument was: "The Grimoire doesn't grant an invuln--it adds to the invuln. So the original invulnerable isn't coming from wargear, only the bonus is. But Shield Breaker doesn't remove 'bonuses,' and it cannot remove the original invulnerable."
If you want Shield Breaker to affect the Grimire, you'll have to deal with this. I don't really care (in this argument) whether the Grimoire is wargear or not.

I know that wasn't your main point I just wanted to point out the issued with requiring a Wargear section to mean you have wargear. As not all options in the variously titled wargear sections appear on any model as standard (shield generator, Sigil of corruption, PFG). Which created a silly situation if followed through. Hence I would class the Grimoire very much as wargear.

We'll stick with Fateweaver for simplicity (as other Daemon options need to cast a psychic power to get the 2++ rerollable). Does Fateweaver have a 2++ without the Grimoire granting him it?

For the purposes of Shield Breaker, your question is loaded incorrectly. We should ask, "Does Fateweaver have an invulnerable without the Grimoire granting him it?"
The answer is Yes! The Grimoire does not grant an invulnerable save. Shield Breaker's wording does not interact with the Grimoire.

Edit: Wow, poor editing. Sorry!

So a model with Mark of Tzeentch and terminator armour can't have their 4++ reduced to a 6++ by the shield breaker?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So a model with Mark of Tzeentch and terminator armour can't have their 4++ reduced to a 6++ by the shield breaker?

Since the armor grants a 5+ invuln, shieldbreaker can remove that.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So a model with Mark of Tzeentch and terminator armour can't have their 4++ reduced to a 6++ by the shield breaker?

Since the armor grants a 5+ invuln, shieldbreaker can remove that.

DR says it correctly, I think. A Tzeentch Termie that gets a wound allotcated to it from the Shield Breaker will then have a 6++ to rely on (or cover).

Does the bearer have an invun save without the Terminator armour granting it (the answer is like in your example "yes").

If he used the Dark Excommunication psychic power, he might be able to take away your invuln save in melee if it was a Daemonic Gift. DE makes all Gifts of one unit in melee with the caster cease to function while the power is in effect.

But no, nothing can specifically ignore Invuln saves in the current GK codex.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Does the bearer have an invun save without the Terminator armour granting it (the answer is like in your example "yes").

Yesssss....? I agree? You're using a parallel between Fatey and the Tzeentch Termie, I think. Unfortunately, this parallel doesn't work out, no matter how you align the parts.

You are claiming that Fate's save is comparable to MoT, and that Termie armour is comparable to Grimoire.
But we can't do that because Termie armour grants a save, while Grimoire does not.
I'll look in the DA book to compare some wording, since it's recent:
Termie armour: "Terminator armour confers...a 5+ invulnerable save." Ie. "This is the save that you have; the wargear grants you this exact number."
PFG: "A model with a PFG, and all models (friendly and enemy within 3" of a model with a PFG, have a 4+ invulnerable save." Ie. "This is the save that you have; the wargear grants you this exact number."

Shield-Breaker: "That model loses any invulnerable saves granted by items of wargear immediately, and for the rest of the battle." Kairos's SR, "Oracle of Eternity," grants the invulnerable, not wargear. Thus, Fatey's invuln cannot be taken away by Shield-Breaker.

Grimoire: "All Daemon models...in the unit have a +2 bonus to their invulnerable saves." So, Breaker round only affects the source of the invuln. The source of Fatey's invuln, whether it's a 2++ or a 4++, is his Oracle of Eternity SR. The Grimoire does not give him an invuln.

But we can't do that because Termie armour grants a save, while Grimoire does not.

I think that is the sticking point. I'm not disagreeing with you but not yet convinced by your argument. Does the Grimoire grant a invun to a model that does not have one? No but all daemons have one to start with so for me that is not a great way to determine if the Shield Breaker works or not.

Is granting an improved invulnerable save granting an invulnerable save. For me the wording is not clear. I'm hedging towards your argument but am not fully convinced.

Is fateweavers invul save granted by a piece of wargear? No. Simple answer.

If it has been boosted to a 2++ by the Grimoire it has...

 FlingitNow wrote:
If it has been boosted to a 2++ by the Grimoire it has...

No thats been improved, NOT granted.

 FlingitNow wrote:

But we can't do that because Termie armour grants a save, while Grimoire does not.

I think that is the sticking point. I'm not disagreeing with you but not yet convinced by your argument.

Is granting an improved invulnerable save granting an invulnerable save. For me the wording is not clear. I'm hedging towards your argument but am not fully convinced.

Fair enough. I'm convinced because, as you already seem to know, the Grimoire only improves the save, and can never change a save from a - to a 6++.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Does the Grimoire grant a invun to a model that does not have one? No but all daemons have one to start with so for me that is not a great way to determine if the Shield Breaker works or not.

As to this... Compare the way the Grimoire is worded to the way the MoT is worded. MoT specifically allows for a model to gain a save from it. (It's not Wargear, though, so wouldn't be broken, but that's tangential and not my point.) The Grimoire does not allow for this. Yes, all Daemons have a base invuln, and so it wouldn't need to have wording for a gain--but the way the Grimoire is worded means the design team thought of this.

Thinking about all this led me to something of a vaguely similar situation with PFG. Can a model who has a save from the PFG, but is not himself holding the PFG, be permanently stripped of the PFG save by the Breaker round? It seems like RAW yes--he's getting his save from a piece of wargear, and then it would cease working--but that feels a bit silly. Maybe the model w/o the PFG isn't getting his save from a piece of wargear, but rather from an AoE? No, that doesn't sound quite right....