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.

So the new chaos forge fiend has a 5 up invul due to the daemon special rule but people at my FLgS are saying that it's a
Vehicle so it doesn't takes wounds it takes armor penetration hits therefor no save. Really?! What do you guys say

*sigh*


This again....

So... how do vehicles get cover saves? Why can Dark elder buy wargear for vehicles that give them a 5+ invul. I think the people you are playing with are dicks.

I honestly don't get what the big deal is with this argument. Yes, a vehicle doesn't have wounds, therefore RAW you cannot take invulnerable saves, but only a real TFFG would say that a model with a built in Invuln can't take it. It's a dick move and you'd be better off finding better people to play.

Right...

Bjorns has been FAQed to let him take it.

Use that.

If they refuse it again afterwards, tell 'em to feth off and play someone who isn't a major prick....

I'm sure it says somewhere that wounds equate to pen/glance.
Will have to have a good hunt for it.

It does say it somewhere. I think in the beginning of the book.

I don't know what rule these people were looking at but the few references to actual invul save rules says nothing about "wounds". For instance -

Pg. 26: Invulnerable Saves
An invulnerable save can be made, if it is the best save available. It can even be made if a model is not permitted to take an armour save (because the AP of the Attack negates it or the rules for a weapon or Attack states that no armour save is allowed).

And - Pg .19
Sometirnes, a model will have a normal armour save and a separate invulnerable save - a good example is a Space Marine Captain who is protected by both power armour and a force field from his Iron Halo. As if this wasn't enough, the model might be in cover as will. In these cases,a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.


*edit*
Oh, I see it on pg 17...

 grendel083 wrote:
I'm sure it says somewhere that wounds equate to pen/glance.
Will have to have a good hunt for it.

Glance/Pen usually equates to Wounds, however not always. For example, if I have something that allows me to re-roll Wounds (such as a TL Flamer) that does not allow me to re-roll pen/glance.

Correct, but for save purposes they are identicle.

Vehicles could take Armor saves if any vehicle somehow got an Armor save.

*edit*
Oh, I see it on pg 17...

i don't see how that's a valid point either...under invulnerable saves, the first paragraph's last sentence:

"Models with wargear or abilities like these are allowed an invulnerable saving throw."

it specifically states MODELS not any classification of model IE: vehicles, infantry, or w/e. the only reason a vehicle doesn't have an armor save is because they have a AV and the pen/glance roll takes over that. Maybe a semantic dick would take the second paragraph out of context and say vehicles don't have wounds so no invulnerable save, but that's the only albeit vague reference they could make in their defense..... idiots....

overlordweasel wrote:

*edit*
Oh, I see it on pg 17...

i don't see how that's a valid point either...under invulnerable saves, the first paragraph's last sentence:

"Models with wargear or abilities like these are allowed an invulnerable saving throw."

it specifically states MODELS not any classification of model IE: vehicles, infantry, or w/e. the only reason a vehicle doesn't have an armor save is because they have a AV and the pen/glance roll takes over that. Maybe a semantic dick would take the second paragraph out of context and say vehicles don't have wounds so no invulnerable save, but that's the only albeit vague reference they could make in their defense..... idiots....

Ya, but if you look at the wording the actual rule about invulnerable saves it says that models can take them against any wound. Yes further references state something that is a little more vague in their wording but those sections are still referencing infantry as a whole and not vehicles, and obviously no one with a proper sense of gameplay would say you couldn't take it.

Also, I really hope you weren't calling me or the people here "idiots".

Seems like if a vehicle can get a cover save, it can get an invul save.

Also, I really hope you weren't calling me or the people here "idiots".

not any1 here no, i was referencing the semantic douches who will take RAW out of context to justify breaking the rules for their benefit.

Mark_Autarch wrote:Seems like if a vehicle can get a cover save, it can get an invul save.

Absolutely agree!

overlordweasel wrote:

Also, I really hope you weren't calling me or the people here "idiots".

not any1 here no, i was referencing the semantic douches who will take RAW out of context to justify breaking the rules for their benefit.

My Sister's Rhinos get them, so do Forgefiends

They're Demons, they get an Invulnerable save of 5+. There isn't need for a discussion here.

I agree wtih evildrspock, I fail to see how this even needs discussed. They have a 5+ invulnerable, they can use it against Pens/Glances, end of.

If these guys don't let you use it, take your dice, find the face with a 5 on it, and smash it into their forehead until it has become imprinted, and then joins the innermost part of their brain, meaning they won't forget this rule or live to do this to someone else.

Then find someone better to play with, also a new dice.

 Rysaer wrote:
I agree wtih evildrspock, I fail to see how this even needs discussed. They have a 5+ invulnerable, they can use it against Pens/Glances, end of.

Citation needed.

Also, Internet Tough Guy talk impresses no one. I agree that it's an absurd RAW (by my interpretation) ruling, but physical violence? Just tell your opponent that disallowing Invulnerable saves against glances/pens doesn't make sense since there is plenty of war gear out there that specifically gives vehicles an invulnerable save. Plus, the designers constantly rave on about how good the vehicles' Daemon invulnerable save is, all throughout the new WD.

But that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't really fit RAW.

I was sure that this was cleared up somewhere in the BrB or an FAQ for this edition......

Time to go hunting.

 Cheexsta wrote:

 Rysaer wrote:
I agree wtih evildrspock, I fail to see how this even needs discussed. They have a 5+ invulnerable, they can use it against Pens/Glances, end of.

Citation needed.

Also, Internet Tough Guy talk impresses no one. I agree that it's an absurd RAW (by my interpretation) ruling, but physical violence? Just tell your opponent that disallowing Invulnerable saves against glances/pens doesn't make sense since there is plenty of war gear out there that specifically gives vehicles an invulnerable save. Plus, the designers constantly rave on about how good the vehicles' Daemon invulnerable save is, all throughout the new WD.

But that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't really fit RAW.

I don't think citation is needed, firstly this is not intended to be tough talk, I just think it's a pretty common sense rule, I can't really see how anyone can argue it.

Also, the physical violence it was intended as humour, maybe a tad on the violent side (Khorne in nature) but humour none the less.

 Rysaer wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:

 Rysaer wrote:
I agree wtih evildrspock, I fail to see how this even needs discussed. They have a 5+ invulnerable, they can use it against Pens/Glances, end of.

Citation needed.

Also, Internet Tough Guy talk impresses no one. I agree that it's an absurd RAW (by my interpretation) ruling, but physical violence? Just tell your opponent that disallowing Invulnerable saves against glances/pens doesn't make sense since there is plenty of war gear out there that specifically gives vehicles an invulnerable save. Plus, the designers constantly rave on about how good the vehicles' Daemon invulnerable save is, all throughout the new WD.

But that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't really fit RAW.

I don't think citation is needed, firstly this is not intended to be tough talk, I just think it's a pretty common sense rule, I can't really see how anyone can argue it.

Also, the physical violence it was intended as humour, maybe a tad on the violent side (Khorne in nature) but humour none the less.

Sorry, I take that back on the tough talk comment. It's been a long day :/

 Cheexsta wrote:
Sorry, I take that back on the tough talk comment. It's been a long day :/

It's okies mate, looking back on it I can see why it might be taken that way, I forget that people can't see my facial expressions or wild hand movements when I'm on the interwebs

Besides you are pretty spot on in that it doesn't really fit RAW.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
I was sure that this was cleared up somewhere in the BrB or an FAQ for this edition......

Time to go hunting.

The only place that I could find where glance/pen and wounds are equated to one another is in the "assaulting vehicles" section.

I cannot imagine that GW didn't somewhere talk about saves with vehicles since the idea of a walker with an invul is hardly new seeing as the soul grinder was around before 6th. Check the section where the book talks about vehicle cover saves and use the rules for that minus the need for cover.

 White Ninja wrote:
I cannot imagine that GW didn't somewhere talk about saves with vehicles since the idea of a walker with an invul is hardly new seeing as the soul grinder was around before 6th. Check the section where the book talks about vehicle cover saves and use the rules for that minus the need for cover.

They only talk about Obscured and Jink saves for vehicles.

This is an excellent example of how people can abuse the concept of RAW & legalese to break down any piece of language into useless ink. It's one thing when lawyers do it to earn a living, it's different when people who should consider themselves hobbyists and gamers do it to either gain the advantage or just be outright rude.

Either way, 100% literal dis-articulation of anything written will almost ALWAYS result it in making no sense whatsoever. This is why the human race uses tools like context and empathy.

The unit is specifically afforded a 5+ invulnerable save which all indications in actual play and intentions from the developers and playtesters suggest should be used on the vehicles in question. Arguing otherwise is just taking a few motes of data wildly out of context and standing your ground in the absence of an official FAQ that will never come because no business or gaming company has the time to address every TFG's personal opinion every single time it comes up.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 White Ninja wrote:
I cannot imagine that GW didn't somewhere talk about saves with vehicles since the idea of a walker with an invul is hardly new seeing as the soul grinder was around before 6th. Check the section where the book talks about vehicle cover saves and use the rules for that minus the need for cover.

They only talk about Obscured and Jink saves for vehicles.

Yes but it also tells you when in the whole process to actually make the save. So take said Invul save at the same point. It tells you when you would take your save right there and the rules for saves say you may always use your best to switching a cover save for an invul is both natural and within the rules.

 White Ninja wrote:
I cannot imagine that GW didn't somewhere talk about saves with vehicles since the idea of a walker with an invul is hardly new seeing as the soul grinder was around before 6th. Check the section where the book talks about vehicle cover saves and use the rules for that minus the need for cover.

Err, check again friend. Soul Grinders don't have an invuln save, and didn't in 5th either. They have a specific entry for their daemon special rule, and still do in the new faq. No daemon invuln for the only Daemon codex vehicle, only for the Chaos codex vehicles with the daemon rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To clarify that last post: I definitely agree that the new vehicles with the daemon special rule have the invuln, just that the Soul Grinder does not (GW has said so in multiple places).

Playing devils advocate here for a moment but you must remember the Flickerfield issue a while back. It was so legitamately RAW that GW had to errat it. While I am not a fan of the "Pens/Glances are not wounds so cant be saved" mentality, you do have to remember that,that was the norm of thinking back in 5th. Some people cant follow RAI because they are blinded by RAW.