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.

This may be a really dumb question but I can't seem to find an answer.

If you had a DA HQ with a Powerfield generator ( 4++) and also had the banner of fortitude (FnP) mounted in a vehicle, would the vehicle get to a FnP roll? The Powerfield would grant it a saving throw so i would think FnP would then apply but i may be missing something or not reading it correctly.

thanks in advance.

Vehicles do not suffer wounds. FNP does nothing for vehicles.

WOUNDS!! that is the one word that makes it all impossible! Thank you, I know i was not seeing something correctly.

Now i imagine all my destroyed rhinos screaming in pain. Thanks 40k-noob.

Just remember that there is no rule to allow Invul saves against non-wounds as well, though common convention seems to allow it (otherwise lots of pieces of wargear and special rules become completely useless). So, if an Invul save can be taken against a glancing/penetrating hit, then why not also FNP?

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Neronoxx wrote:
Now i imagine all my destroyed rhinos screaming in pain. Thanks 40k-noob.

If you play Chaos, then that is entirely possible

 Cheexsta wrote:
Just remember that there is no rule to allow Invul saves against non-wounds as well, though common convention seems to allow it (otherwise lots of pieces of wargear and special rules become completely useless). So, if an Invul save can be taken against a glancing/penetrating hit, then why not also FNP?

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Neronoxx wrote:
Now i imagine all my destroyed rhinos screaming in pain. Thanks 40k-noob.

If you play Chaos, then that is entirely possible

Because the rules state that an invul save can be taken and the rules for FNP state that it can only be taken vs wounds. Go read the vehicles section of the rule book for further explanation.

 Azrell wrote:
Because the rules state that an invul save can be taken

For vehicles? Citation required.

Go read the vehicles section of the rule book for further explanation.

When you're asserting a rule exists it's normally a good idea to verify that it does.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Azrell wrote:
Because the rules state that an invul save can be taken

For vehicles? Citation required.

Go read the vehicles section of the rule book for further explanation.

When you're asserting a rule exists it's normally a good idea to verify that it does.

Shield Generators, Force Dome Generators, Skyshield Landing Pad, Telekine Dome.

All would provide vehicles an invulnerable save (they all state they affect a "model" or "unit" within a particular range. Model and Unit includes vehicles)

Rorschach9 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Azrell wrote:
Because the rules state that an invul save can be taken

For vehicles? Citation required.

Go read the vehicles section of the rule book for further explanation.

When you're asserting a rule exists it's normally a good idea to verify that it does.

Shield Generators, Force Dome Generators, Skyshield Landing Pad, Telekine Dome.

All would provide vehicles an invulnerable save (they all state they affect a "model" or "unit" within a particular range. Model and Unit includes vehicles)

Great. Now look up invulnerable saves. See how they can only be taken on wounds?

 Azrell wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:
Just remember that there is no rule to allow Invul saves against non-wounds as well, though common convention seems to allow it (otherwise lots of pieces of wargear and special rules become completely useless). So, if an Invul save can be taken against a glancing/penetrating hit, then why not also FNP?

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Neronoxx wrote:
Now i imagine all my destroyed rhinos screaming in pain. Thanks 40k-noob.

If you play Chaos, then that is entirely possible

Because the rules state that an invul save can be taken and the rules for FNP state that it can only be taken vs wounds. Go read the vehicles section of the rule book for further explanation.

He was referring to possessed rhinos screaming in pain, which would indeed happen.

Rorschach9 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Azrell wrote:
Because the rules state that an invul save can be taken

For vehicles? Citation required.

Go read the vehicles section of the rule book for further explanation.

When you're asserting a rule exists it's normally a good idea to verify that it does.

Shield Generators, Force Dome Generators, Skyshield Landing Pad, Telekine Dome.

All would provide vehicles an invulnerable save (they all state they affect a "model" or "unit" within a particular range. Model and Unit includes vehicles)

Great, you have proiven the first part -that vehicles can possess an invulnerable save. Now, prove they can use one

From memory only Bjorn has explicit instructions in this area.

Great, you have proiven the first part -that vehicles can possess an invulnerable save. Now, prove they can use one

I didn't say they could use it, only that they have ("can take", not "can utilize/use") it. There is a difference. The citation that they can take (ie : have available) an invuln is there. Their inability to use it is something else.

"Can take" does not only mean "has". In the context given "can take" clearly meant "make use of"

Rorschach9 wrote:

Great, you have proiven the first part -that vehicles can possess an invulnerable save. Now, prove they can use one

I didn't say they could use it, only that they have ("can take", not "can utilize/use") it. There is a difference. The citation that they can take (ie : have available) an invuln is there. Their inability to use it is something else.

So.. you responded to my original post why? I asked for a citation than an invul save can be taken. You respond with different ways to have them.
Be taken (in context) was to use/roll it, not to purchase it.

Enough.