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.

Hey its evidence to the other side. Ok so we both have some the point is that the DE codex was written by someone different (agreed with Omerakk yay different authors). The DE codex says that a vehicle equipped with a FF is allowed to take a 5++. This overrides the main rulebook saying they can't. To compare it to Bjorn...thanks for what it says as again I don't own the codex as I recall he is a walker and can't be hurt by moving into DT. I wish people would stop trying to break down my jetbike comparison as they are missing my point. It was to show how an effect happens from DT and then a save is given. As for the FF it only says a 5++ it does not say like Bjorn or only against pens or glances. It says a 5++ and that seems to be a pretty solid blanket to me. Like I said we all need to step back

Then you do not get to take any save with the FF if you insist on using it like Infantry.

Sucks to be you.




p.s. Jetbikes are not Vehicles.

I was referring to a different part of this discussion!!!! How many times can I say that! I freaking know jetbikes are not vehicles!

Akroma06 wrote:The DE codex says that a vehicle equipped with a FF is allowed to take a 5++. This overrides the main rulebook saying they can't.

The main rulebook does not say that that vehicles can't take invulnerable saves. By RAW a vehicles with an invulnerable save is free to take an invulnerable save every single time the vehicle takes a wound.

Now clearly the intent is that vehicles should benefit from having an invulnerable save in some way. And the rules we have for when a vehicle does get a save say that the save is against hits, not damage results.

Actually it says vehicles can only get obscured and thus a cover save. I'm tired of arguing this as it is going nowhere. Just ask a TO at a tournament and agree with your opponent before hand if a friendly game.

The rules do not say that the only way a vehicle can get a save is by being obscured. What they do say is that vehicles do not benefit from cover the way other units do.

I'm finding it hard to believe this is still going on...

Maybe the moral is: don't drive your skimmer into dangerous terrain and avoid this situation all together?

However, I'd rule no to the FF save against the Dangerous Terrain imobilised as you have not taken a Damaging Hit per se, rather just an instant Immobilised damage result; which you are not allowed saves against.

Iranna.

there is absolutely nothing that says walkers do not take Dangerous terrain tests, quite the opposite; BRB page 72 Moving walkers, third paragraph: "Difficult terrain affects walkers just as it does infantry. Difficult terrain only counts as dangerous terrain for walkers if it would do so for infantry. If walkers fail a Dangerous terrain test, they are immobilized."

So again, we go back to Bjorn and a venom both attempting to enter in to a Wrecked vehicle(Difficult and Dangerous terrain per the wrecks rules on page 62 of the BRB), both vehicles normally have an invulnerable save available, and neither vehicle would be able to use said save against the Immobilized damage result from failing the dangerous terrain test: Bjorn because his rule specifies he can only save vs a damaging hit(as defined in my earlier post), and the venom either for the save reason(must use bjorn's rule for functionality), or because no wound is caused thus no invulnerable save may be taken.

by the same rights bjorn and the Venom are both Shot at with Clear LOS and the venom did not move flat out, they are both hit and both penetrated, they are either both allowed o attempt their save via bjorn's rule, or only Bjorn is because the fickerfield does not define how the sve is to be taken and again no Wound was caused.

Akroma06 wrote:Actually it says vehicles can only get obscured and thus a cover save. I'm tired of arguing this as it is going nowhere. Just ask a TO at a tournament and agree with your opponent before hand if a friendly game.

Yes; we keep referencing vehicle rules which prove you are wrong, you ignore them and quote infantry rules as if they matter one iota.

You keep saying "I get to take a 5++!!!!!" but you have no rules telling you HOW YOU ACHIEVE THIS.

None.

The *closest* rules are those for cover saves and Bjorn, whose invulnerable save can be taken against penetrating or glancing hits. Nothing else.

Dangerous terrain does not inflict a penetrating or glancing hit, so you do not get a save. Please, provide VEHICLE RULES that prove this wrong, or concede

But my jetbikes can ...

btw what's a ward save?
and
I still wanna know how you can take saves from being wounded if you have no wounds?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:But my jetbikes can ...

btw what's a ward save?
and
I still wanna know how you can take saves from being wounded if you have no wounds?

Jetbikes arn't vehicles so that's not a very accurate comparison.

Ward save = Fantasy invulnerable save.

The vehicle can take saves from Damaging Hits: i.e penetrating or glancing hits. The main argument is that as it says nowhere in the rulebook that vehicles can take invulnerable saves, they only apply to wounds and as vehicles have no wounds, they cannot take a flickerfield save. Which to me is absurd, why can you take it without being able to use it? Common sense should prevail in times of GW's failings.

Iranna.

Yeah, at least everyone agrees that despite RAW vehicles should get some benefit from an invulnerable save.

----------------------------------------------------- Non-vehicle | Vehicle ----------------------------------------------------- 1. Roll to hit | Roll to hit | 2. Hit. | Hit. Roll to wound. | Roll to penetrate. | 3. Take a wound. | Glance/Pen suffered. Roll save. | Roll save. | 4. Save failed. | Save failed. Remove one wound. | Roll on damage table. | 5. n/a | Apply result of damage roll.

So when the terrain inflicts a wound on a non-vehicle you're at step 3 on the process and the model gets an invulnerable save. But when a vehicle suffers an immobilized result you're all the way at step 5 which is way too late to take a save.

however infantry that fail a DT test get invuns to avoid the wounds. following your chart, it woud be too late for them to make a save of any kind and a failed check = dead model.

Um, no. Read either the chart or the note I made below the chart. Infantry suffer a wound on step 3. And so get to make a save.

DarthSpader wrote:however infantry that fail a DT test get invuns to avoid the wounds. following your chart, it woud be too late for them to make a save of any kind and a failed check = dead model.

Nope, the chart is clear - infantry suffer a wound, step 3. Vehicles suffer a RESULT, step 5

Iranna - no, you clearly havent even read this thread. That isnt the argument at all - the actual argument is that, if you assume they can use an invulnerable save that invulnerable save does not save against damage results, but penetrating or glancing hits. DT does not infliuct a damaging hit, but a result - too late for you to save it.

Also note that Grot Tanks, Mega Dreads and Mekka dreads can also take their invul-saves only against glancing and penetrating hits, explicitly spelled out in IA:8 for each of them.

I'm torn on the issue. On one hand i understand the reasoning behind what Nos and co. are saying, on the other an invulnerable is intentionally all encompassing. The precedent being infantry get their save against dangerous terrain check.

I think this issue is one that honestly needs a FAQ as both sides have legitimate points.

NO, one side has actual rules (analogous rules implicitly included they may be), the other has the "but i shoud get a save!" opinion, which lacks any and all rules.

Night's Blood wrote:I'm torn on the issue. On one hand i understand the reasoning behind what Nos and co. are saying, on the other an invulnerable is intentionally all encompassing. The precedent being infantry get their save against dangerous terrain check.

I think this issue is one that honestly needs a FAQ as both sides have legitimate points.

Inv saves are all encompassing against WOUNDS, not penetrating or glancing hits. The rules are clear on that point. The only things you then have to fall back on are vehicle cover saves and Bjorn's Inv save, which Nos has pointed out would be the only correct way for resolving FF.

This constant rubbish argument that infantry get an inv save against a failed DT test is a crock of monkey crap. A direct immobilized result is not a wound. It is not a vehicles version of a wound. It is a diect immobilized result. Use the proper comparision aka VEHICLES, instead of trying to shoehorn Infantry rules into Vehicle rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:NO

But wouldn't an official FAQ answer be desirable, just in order to avoid this debate coming up in the future?

Desirable, but not needed.
TBH all non-obscured cover saves and invulnerable saves, that arent Bjorns, need real errata that actually work.

You can't ignore the fact that infantry get their invulnerable save against DT check. That is clear precedent towards the FF question.

If you follow BR's logic the invulnerable save could never be taken as the vehicle doesn't take wounds, it is poisoning the actual debate as to whether the save can be taken. BR your interpretation is complete rubbish, it would make the FF a worthless upgrade.

I understand what you're saying NOS, and i can't argue RAW because i think this was a grey area never explored until vehicles got invulnerable saves.

However I maintain that the infantry example gives precedent to this debate.

Night's Blood wrote:You can't ignore the fact that infantry get their invulnerable save against DT check. That is clear precedent towards the FF question.

If you follow BR's logic the invulnerable save could never be taken as the vehicle doesn't take wounds, it is poisoning the actual debate as to whether the save can be taken. BR your interpretation is complete rubbish, it would make the FF a worthless upgrade.

I understand what you're saying NOS, and i can't argue RAW because i think this was a grey area never explored until vehicles got invulnerable saves.

However I maintain that the infantry example gives precedent to this debate.

Read the Tau codex, alot of their upgrades do nothing.

If someone tries to compare a FF save to an Invul save for infantry one more time i swear ...
Show me in the rules where you're allowed to take an invulnerable save on your skimmer without wounds, not an interpertation of the rules not RAI but pure RAW ...
The only way it makes sense to me is imo against glancing and Penetrating hits. It's not a true save as ... you have no wounds to save from just my 2 cents

Night's Blood wrote:You can't ignore the fact that infantry get their invulnerable save against DT check. That is clear precedent towards the FF question.

Here's the thing, No-one's ignoring the fact that non-vehicle models can take invuls vs DT; it simply does not matter to vehicles.

My wife is about to have my second child, My car can do no such thing.

Non-vehicle-troops can hold objects, vehicle-troops cannot.

Non-vehicle models can take invuls vs DT, Vehicles cannot.

Non-vehicle-troops can hold objects, vehicle-troops cannot.

Unless of course, you're grey knights... then you can make walkers score ><

Can an invulnerable save be taken against a DT check?
Yes.

The same should apply to vehicles UNLESS specifically stated against.

We're arguing in a grey area. You can say they don't get their save and i say they do. There is precedent even if you don't like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:You can't ignore the fact that infantry get their invulnerable save against DT check. That is clear precedent towards the FF question.

Here's the thing, No-one's ignoring the fact that non-vehicle models can take invuls vs DT; it simply does not matter to vehicles.

My wife is about to have my second child, My car can do no such thing.

Non-vehicle-troops can hold objects, vehicle-troops cannot.

Non-vehicle models can take invuls vs DT, Vehicles cannot.

How does it not matter? It's clearly the rub of this issue. If an invulnerable save can be taken against DT checks for one type of model, it should work on another unless stated otherwise.

Night's Blood wrote:Can an invulnerable save be taken against a DT check?
Yes.

No, that would be wrong. You can't prevent the check by rolling a save. You can use an invulnerable save against a wound suffered due to failing a DT check.

The same should apply to vehicles UNLESS specifically stated against.

Also wrong. In a permissive rule set you are not allowed to do anything unless explicitly told to do so. Terrain rules for infantry are completely replace in the Vehicle unit type rules, so none of the infantry rules apply to any vehicles but walkers.

We're arguing in a grey area. You can say they don't get their save and i say they do. There is precedent even if you don't like it.

Getting immobilized is not a wound nor a glancing/penetrating hit. You can't take saves against getting pinned, characteristic checks or being removed from the game either.

Night's Blood wrote:Can an invulnerable save be taken against a DT check?
Yes.

The same should apply to vehicles UNLESS specifically stated against.

We're arguing in a grey area. You can say they don't get their save and i say they do. There is precedent even if you don't like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:You can't ignore the fact that infantry get their invulnerable save against DT check. That is clear precedent towards the FF question.

Here's the thing, No-one's ignoring the fact that non-vehicle models can take invuls vs DT; it simply does not matter to vehicles.

My wife is about to have my second child, My car can do no such thing.

Non-vehicle-troops can hold objects, vehicle-troops cannot.

Non-vehicle models can take invuls vs DT, Vehicles cannot.

How does it not matter? It's clearly the rub of this issue. If an invulnerable save can be taken against DT checks for one type of model, it should work on another unless stated otherwise.

DE have now lost their FFl saves at my FLGS thanks to this ...

It was the quickest and easiest RAW way to end the constant whining of a DE player

NB - how is it a grey area?

You have presented no rules, none whatsoever, that show that VEHICLES can take a save against a damage result.

We are assuming, based on actual precedent (how Bjorn uses his invulnerable save) that Invulnerable Saves for vehicles work against Penetrting or Glancing Hits. Unless you receive a penetrating or glancing hit you cannot make a save - and DT does not present one.
You have no actual precedent, none

Night's Blood wrote:If an invulnerable save can be taken against DT checks for one type of model, it should work on another unless stated otherwise.

But DT is specifically stated as treating one type of model differently to another type. It inflicts wounds on non-vehicles and damage results on vehicles.

Have a look at the chart I whipped together and tell me where a vehicle gets a save against a damage result.