Flickerfield questions

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.

**Your Friend Doctor Robert**

All other units get invul saves against Dangerous Terrain, right? No reason to deny Vehicles that same thing.

**nosferatu1001**

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:All other units get invul saves against Dangerous Terrain, right? No reason to deny Vehicles that same thing.

Apart from the rules, oddly enough.

**time wizard**

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:All other units get invul saves against Dangerous Terrain, right? No reason to deny Vehicles that same thing.

Page 61 under 'Other Modifiers' says certain vehicles may have special rules that modify the damage roll.

So after rolling to hit a vehicle, the DE player can roll for an invulnerable save to modify the damage roll, on this case negating it.

In the case of a failed dangerous terrain test, the vehicle immediately suffers an immobilized result.

There is no damage roll, there is no modification, there is no invulnerable save taken.

No one is denying vehicles anything. They get all the benefits of their section of the rules. They get all the restrictions of them as well.

If not, one could argue that since vehicles can move and fire heavy weapons, there's no reason to deny infantry the same thing.

Except the rules for infantry and vehicles have differences. Not being allowed to take in invulnerable save against a failed dangerous terrain test for a vehicle is one of them.

**Spetulhu**

And funny enough the cover save section for vehicles does tell us that for vehicles a damaging hit triggers a cover save, just as a wound does for infantry. Why should Invulnerable saves be different?

**nosferatu1001**

Because it DOES NOT INFLICT A DAMAGING HIT?

How about that for a reason?

It inflicts a RESULT.

Result /= Damaging Hit. Please, prove otherwise. Some actual rules, for the first time in 4 pages, would be useful.

**Mantle**

punch him in the face and tell him to GTFO, people like that are ridiculous and should just give up wargaming in general, there's gunna be holes like this in everything and if people keep playing like this were gunna have to carry round a rulebook of FAQs just to play properly.

**Jidmah**

Spetulhu wrote:And funny enough the cover save section for vehicles does tell us that for vehicles a damaging hit triggers a cover save, just as a wound does for infantry. Why should Invulnerable saves be different?

"Damaged - Immobilized" is not a damaging hit, exactly like "removed as casualty" is not a wound.

**Chrysis**

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:All other units get invul saves against Dangerous Terrain, right? No reason to deny Vehicles that same thing.

All other SPACE MARINES get AND THEY SHALL KNOW NO FEAR, right? No reason to deny CHAOS SPACE MARINES that same thing.

Strangely enough, different units follow different rules. Infantry and Vehicles are one exceptionally good example of this happening. Vehicles, in all situations where they may take saves and it has been clarified in this edition, take them against HITS. A DT failure doesn't inflict a hit, it skips straight to a result. No save allowed.

**nosferatu1001**

So, after 4 pages of non-rules from the "ffields works against DT" can we finally conclude that it, in fact, doesnt work as per the only applicable rules we can use?

**Anglacon**

Edited- Not worth the hassle.

**ChrisCP**

I would have to agree with the conclusion that taking a 'save' against a damage result would be akin to taking a save against a model being removed as a casualty. Both are effecs which occur after saves have been taken and failed.

**Bwolf999**

And so ends the argument...

**xlEternitylx**

Edit- nevermind. Didn't see pg 4

**nosferatu1001**

Bwolf999 wrote:And so ends the argument...

It should have ended page 1 - theres been no support in the rules for the other position all the way through. Just vague clutching at "well infantry get to do it"

**unbeliever87**

This was a fun thread to read through! nosferatu1001 is 100% correct, as per usual.

Playing RAW is awesome; Doom of Malantai doesn't have a Invulnerable save, the Swarmlord doesn't have any Psyker powers, and technically, if you both roll the same number twice in a row when trying to determine who goes first, the game ends automatically! Or is that automagically? Nobody knows!

**nosferatu1001**

Youre wrong actually; reread page 2, and notice the difference between a reroll and a roll off

**unbeliever87**

Hey, hey, stop bringing the rulebook into this.

This is a YMDC thread; the rulebook should only be referred to as a last resort. We haven't even argued for 3 days over the definition of a 'dice' yet.

**Jidmah**

Can't tell if trolling or unaware of the Tenents of YMDC.

**Bwolf999**

I think it might be sarcasm lol

**Brother Ramses**

I actually had no problem with the people basing their argument on infantry and Inv saves. In fact I would gladly let them take said Infantry based Inv saves the moment a vehicke takes a wound. Hahahahahahaha!

**Akroma06**

unbeliever87 wrote:Hey, hey, stop bringing the rulebook into this.

unbeliever87 wrote:This is a YMDC thread; the rulebook should only be referred to as a last resort. We haven't even argued for 3 days over the definition of a 'dice' yet.

Lol...isn't it a die not a dice

**sirlynchmob**

unbeliever87 wrote:Hey, hey, stop bringing the rulebook into this.

This is a YMDC thread; the rulebook should only be referred to as a last resort. We haven't even argued for 3 days over the definition of a 'dice' yet.

you mean a 'die' right? because 'dice' is plural so you need at least 2 'dice'

**nosferatu1001**

GW uses both interchangeably for the singular.

**unbeliever87**

Bwolf999 wrote:I think it might be sarcasm lol

This guy gets it.

I was referring to dice as a collective whole. Are dice considered dice because of their form, or because of their function? If it's the former, could a cube of wood with no markings also be called a dice? If it's the latter the latter, could a random number generator also be called a dice? Arguing over whether a vehicle can benefit from a invulnerable save is moot when your opponent is rolling with random peices of wood. Just sayin'

**Jwalker52**

Very much so although this argument is not related to the thread topic I find it interesting.

And GW does use die and dice interchanably though die is plural, and dice is singular.

**Bwolf999**

@unbeliever87 Im the guy who started this thread

**nosferatu1001**

Jwalker52 wrote:Very much so although this argument is not related to the thread topic I find it interesting.

And GW does use die and dice interchanably though die is plural, and dice is singular.

Wrong way round, actually. Die is singular

**Bwolf999**

I honestly cant beleive that this thread is still going on o_0

**Akroma06**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jwalker52 wrote:Very much so although this argument is not related to the thread topic I find it interesting.

And GW does use die and dice interchanably though die is plural, and dice is singular.

Wrong way round, actually. Die is singular

Yup...wait this is still going on?

...drat I just added to it

**tetrisphreak**

Tyranid faq clarified the doom counts as zoanthrope and swarmy counts as a hive tyrant so raw they do get their powers. Just wanted to point that out quickly.