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.

Vehicles have been taking invulnerable saves for years and the intent is there that a pen or glance = a wound for a vehicle (refer to the FAQ about a dangerous terrain test if you're still struggling with the concept).

jb7090 wrote:
Vehicles have been taking invulnerable saves for years and the intent is there that a pen or glance = a wound for a vehicle (refer to the FAQ about a dangerous terrain test if you're still struggling with the concept).

Can you show rules to support your theory, with the exception of BJORN who is fully allowed to take invul saves.

Didn't see a FAQ to help you out.
Can you cite it?

The part where it says vehicles have a 5+ invulnerable save.

jb7090 wrote:
The part where it says vehicles have a 5+ invulnerable save.

Okie dokes, now where does it say you can take invul saves to pens/glances and not wounds?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jb7090 wrote:
The part where it says vehicles have a 5+ invulnerable save.

Okie dokes, now where does it say you can take invul saves to pens/glances and not wounds?

What is up with the stupid arguments like this? I am sorry I am not targeting you just the general argument your presenting. I mean come on. They have invulnerable saves but arent allowed to take them. Then why again do they have invulnerable saves? You can purchase a flickerfield from the dark eldar codex. Are you saying that is now a worthless upgrade? I would literally laugh at my opponent if he tried to pitch this argument with the legitimate expectation that he was joking. Unless of course your post is in fact a joke then sorry for the rant.

He's obviously trolling. Well played I guess?

jb7090 wrote:
He's obviously trolling. Well played I guess?

I'm bringing a very obvious rules argument to your attention.
You've yet to cite/quote relevant rules to back up your suggestions.
Standard RAW only Bjorn may take invul saves to pens/glances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jb7090 wrote:
The part where it says vehicles have a 5+ invulnerable save.

Okie dokes, now where does it say you can take invul saves to pens/glances and not wounds?

What is up with the stupid arguments like this? I am sorry I am not targeting you just the general argument your presenting. I mean come on. They have invulnerable saves but arent allowed to take them. Then why again do they have invulnerable saves? You can purchase a flickerfield from the dark eldar codex. Are you saying that is now a worthless upgrade? I would literally laugh at my opponent if he tried to pitch this argument with the legitimate expectation that he was joking. Unless of course your post is in fact a joke then sorry for the rant.

Not a joke, just pointing out that the only Vehicle allowed to take invul savs is Bjorn.
Just a RAW argument.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jb7090 wrote:
He's obviously trolling. Well played I guess?

I'm bringing a very obvious rules argument to your attention.
You've yet to cite/quote relevant rules to back up your suggestions.
Standard RAW only Bjorn may take invul saves to pens/glances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jb7090 wrote:
The part where it says vehicles have a 5+ invulnerable save.

Okie dokes, now where does it say you can take invul saves to pens/glances and not wounds?

What is up with the stupid arguments like this? I am sorry I am not targeting you just the general argument your presenting. I mean come on. They have invulnerable saves but arent allowed to take them. Then why again do they have invulnerable saves? You can purchase a flickerfield from the dark eldar codex. Are you saying that is now a worthless upgrade? I would literally laugh at my opponent if he tried to pitch this argument with the legitimate expectation that he was joking. Unless of course your post is in fact a joke then sorry for the rant.

Not a joke, just pointing out that the only Vehicle allowed to take invul savs is Bjorn.
Just a RAW argument.

Reading both bjorn's faq and flickerfield terrain faq. There is nothing in there that states only bjorn gets to use his invulnerable save. Bjorn's just states that he can use it in two ways. Getting his invul save is already implied in both cases. The rules are not specific to a T. Sometimes you have to connect the gaps that are left open by vague rules. I believe this is even mentioned in the rulebook.

Quick question: In both a tournament and/or a friendly game would you not allow your DE opponent to take his flickerfield invulnerable saves? Are there any vehicles that you would legitimately prevent from getting their armor save based the standard you implied upon vehicles and invul saves?

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jb7090 wrote:
He's obviously trolling. Well played I guess?

I'm bringing a very obvious rules argument to your attention.
You've yet to cite/quote relevant rules to back up your suggestions.
Standard RAW only Bjorn may take invul saves to pens/glances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

jb7090 wrote:
The part where it says vehicles have a 5+ invulnerable save.

Okie dokes, now where does it say you can take invul saves to pens/glances and not wounds?

What is up with the stupid arguments like this? I am sorry I am not targeting you just the general argument your presenting. I mean come on. They have invulnerable saves but arent allowed to take them. Then why again do they have invulnerable saves? You can purchase a flickerfield from the dark eldar codex. Are you saying that is now a worthless upgrade? I would literally laugh at my opponent if he tried to pitch this argument with the legitimate expectation that he was joking. Unless of course your post is in fact a joke then sorry for the rant.

Not a joke, just pointing out that the only Vehicle allowed to take invul savs is Bjorn.
Just a RAW argument.

Reading both bjorn's faq and flickerfield terrain faq. There is nothing in there that states only bjorn gets to use his invulnerable save. Bjorn's just states that he can use it in two ways. Getting his invul save is already implied in both cases. The rules are not specific to a T. Sometimes you have to connect the gaps that are left open by vague rules. I believe this is even mentioned in the rulebook.

Quick question: In both a tournament and/or a friendly game would you not allow your DE opponent to take his flickerfield invulnerable saves? Are there any vehicles that you would legitimately prevent from getting their armor save based the standard you implied upon vehicles and invul saves?

Well I did specify from a RAW perspective not as a HIWPI perspective

Actually Bjorn's rules say he has a 5++ to any glancing/pens

jb7090 wrote:
Vehicles have been taking invulnerable saves for years and the intent is there that a pen or glance = a wound for a vehicle (refer to the FAQ about a dangerous terrain test if you're still struggling with the concept).

Yes, the intent is there. I don't disagree with that. I even play it that way.
Intent != Rules.

The Bjorn ruling is a) specific b) explicitly allows him.
The DE FF FAQ explicitly only works on DT results.
Can you show any actual rules showing that a Flickerfield gets a save against a lascannon?

HYWIPI > RAW

Unless of course you are suggesting otherwise for this particular example.

You people are looking for something that isnt there. Codex says 5+ invulnerable save, then the vehicle gets a 5+ save against whatever.

jb7090 wrote:
You people are looking for something that isnt there. Codex says 5+ invulnerable save, then the vehicle gets a 5+ save against whatever.

I understand that's HYWPI, however you're still not quoting any relevant rules to back up your stance.

RAW you can only take invul saves to wounds. Vehicles do not have wounds.
Bjorn is explicitly allowed to take his invul to glances/pens.
Show me where your vehicle is allowed to take it's save to glances/pens.

News for ya bud, you're the one lookin for something that's not there.

Why would the Dark Eldar codex have a 10 point upgrade that does nothing? The intent here is clear. They get a 5++ inv save. There is no arguing that Flickerfields were added to trick noobs into paying for them so RAW guys could laugh and deny them saves. It is a case of poor wording.

Edit- Just so I can try to wrap my mind around your argument, and put it in simpler terms...you're claiming that vehicles cant have invulnerable saves because on page 17 of the brb it says "...may be taken whenever the model suffers a wound..." and since vehicles have no "wounds" (some cold argue that hull points are wounds) that they dont get an invulnerable save.

So what's the point of a flickerfield, an upgrade that costs 10 points for DE vehicles?

In Bjorn's entry it clearly states "Bjorn has a 5++ invulnerable save against glancing and penetrating hits" so a precedent has been set for vehicles to have it.

In the DE FAQ they are allowed to take a FF save vs. a DT check, thereby nullifying an effect on the vehicle damage chart, another precedent. If you can nullify an immobilized result then you can nullify an explosion or wreck or crew shaken/stunned.

I dunno why this bothers me so much, but I'm done arguing with you, your response will have zero bearing on the game I play saturday other than I might smile a little more when I make a flickerfield save against a LasCannon

jb7090 wrote:
Why would the Dark Eldar codex have a 10 point upgrade that does nothing? The intent here is clear. They get a 5++ inv save. There is no arguing that Flickerfields were added to trick noobs into paying for them so RAW guys could laugh and deny them saves. It is a case of poor wording.

Yes. Exactly. Which is what we've been saying. Thank you for agreeing that there's no RAW basis for them to work, but no one plays that way because the intent is obvious.

rigeld2 wrote:

jb7090 wrote:
Why would the Dark Eldar codex have a 10 point upgrade that does nothing? The intent here is clear. They get a 5++ inv save. There is no arguing that Flickerfields were added to trick noobs into paying for them so RAW guys could laugh and deny them saves. It is a case of poor wording.

Yes. Exactly. Which is what we've been saying. Thank you for agreeing that there's no RAW basis for them to work, but no one plays that way because the intent is obvious.

Pretty much this.

JB7090 - What you're going to find in this section of the site is that people argue RAW and strictly RAW. Arguing strict RAW can, and often does, ignore intent and logic. That's the joy of dealing with the GW rules and how they word them.

Some people will say that they argue RAW and not HIWPI, but the text based communication that we are doing can make that line blurry to anyone who isn't overly familiar with the posters or who are not good at reading between the lines. Couple that with the fact that some posters argue RAW so vehemently that you'd be hard pressed to believe that they play it any other way and you'll find yourself frustrated and feeling like you're being trolled.

This section of Dakka isn't for everyone, but looking at things from a strictly RAW perspective can really open your eyes to how rules work in a HIWPI scenario...I know it's helped me quite a bit.

If you're coming here for clarification of how someone would play an actual rule (vehicle invuln saves are a great example of this), you're going to be a bit disappointed and might be a little put off by the way that some people post.

I don't see any forum rules or policy stating RAW should be given precedence to HYWPI.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't see any forum rules or policy stating RAW should be given precedence to HYWPI.

Forum rules discussion in rules forum!

That is all. Carry on.

 kcwm wrote:
Some people will say that they argue RAW and not HIWPI, but the text based communication that we are doing can make that line blurry to anyone who isn't overly familiar with the posters or who are not good at reading between the lines. Couple that with the fact that some posters argue RAW so vehemently that you'd be hard pressed to believe that they play it any other way and you'll find yourself frustrated and feeling like you're being trolled.

Remember, I (and others) posted multiple times in this thread that people don't play it that way.

jb7090 wrote:
Why would the Dark Eldar codex have a 10 point upgrade that does nothing?

I don't know... Some upgrades or rules stop working when a new rules edition comes out, don't they? And as players were told when 5th came out, if you have an upgrade/rule that does nothing in 5th then that's how it is, don't expect a FAQ to make it work somehow. It might be the Flickerfields are there for the day they'll become useful - maybe in 7th?

jb7090 wrote:


In Bjorn's entry it clearly states "Bjorn has a 5++ invulnerable save against glancing and penetrating hits" so a precedent has been set for vehicles to have it.

In the DE FAQ they are allowed to take a FF save vs. a DT check, thereby nullifying an effect on the vehicle damage chart, another precedent. If you can nullify an immobilized result then you can nullify an explosion or wreck or crew shaken/stunned.

I dunno why this bothers me so much, but I'm done arguing with you, your response will have zero bearing on the game I play saturday other than I might smile a little more when I make a flickerfield save against a LasCannon

Bjorn has specific allowance FF's do not.

FF's have specific allowance to take them agains DT tests which is not a pen/glance. Not sure where you're getting that they're the same.

Not sure why it bothers you so much either. The rules are clearly written against you, yet you argue otherwise. You have yet to quote anything with relevance to back your side.

This is not how we play it. However it is RAW.
The forum does dictate if you're arguing HIWPI to say so (IIRC)

You enjoy goading people. It is not cool.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You enjoy goading people. It is not cool.

Not really. I just like to show when someone is wrong from a RAW perspective. That said it's fine as HIWPI. The forum cares about the difference between the two.

This one.

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

I am an engineer... assumptions are fundamental... you could learn something.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am an engineer... assumptions are fundamental... you could learn something.

Never assume ^^
What type of engineer?
Working on my BA for Electrical Eng atm.

Ha ha... I am an electrical engineer. Good luck. Where are you going to school?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Ha ha... I am an electrical engineer. Good luck. Where are you going to school?

unfortunately nothing fancy. Just ITT

That is okay... an education is the best investment.

In the rule book I believe assault a glance equals 1 wound and a penatration equals 2 for working out combat