Invulnerable Saves can't be taken by vehicles?

[hallodx]

Hi all, me again...

 

According to BRB P17, 

"Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound - the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapon has no effect. Even if a Wound ignores all armour saves, an invulnerable saving throw can still be taken."

 

Be noted it's a "Wound", not a pen nor glance.

 

And Vehicle part... P75

If the target is obscured and suffers a glancing or penetrating hit, it must take a cover save against it, exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound

 

So, looks like no Invulnerable Saves for vehicles, nor hell turkey or power field DA can give their LR.

 

Am I right? Or please correct me.

 

[Magpie]

Although no one I know needed it to know the answer to this; GW have addressed this "issue" in the latest update errata.

 

Page 17 – Invulnerable Saves

Change the second paragraph to “Invulnerable saves are

different to armour saves because they may always be taken

whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles,

suffers a penetrating or glancing hit – the Armour Piercing

value of attacking weapons has no effect upon an Invulnerable

save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores

all armour saves, an invulnerable save can still be taken”.

[hallodx]

 

Although no one I know needed it to know the answer to this; GW have addressed this "issue" in the latest update errata.

 

Page 17 – Invulnerable Saves

Change the second paragraph to “Invulnerable saves are

different to armour saves because they may always be taken

whenever the model suffers a Wound or, in the case of vehicles,

suffers a penetrating or glancing hit – the Armour Piercing

value of attacking weapons has no effect upon an Invulnerable

save. Even if a Wound, penetrating hit or glancing hit ignores

all armour saves, an invulnerable save can still be taken”.

Aha! Thanks!

 

 

EDIT:

Wait, P75 says "MUST", so even invulnerable saves may be taken against pen or glance, P75 said you Must take cover save...

 

God damn it......

[Grey Mage]

1) Its covered by the always take the best save rule.

 

2) Stop over thinking it.

[hallodx]

But that's RAW. How can anyone say it's over thinking when talking about RAW?

[Morollan]

But that's RAW. How can anyone say it's over thinking when talking about RAW?

 

What exactly are you claiming is RAW?

[Jolemai]

Hasn't this been covered already?

[Magpie]

 

But that's RAW. How can anyone say it's over thinking when talking about RAW?

 

What exactly are you claiming is RAW?

 

I think the notion is that as the rules for cover saves on vehicles say that if the vehicle is obscured it must take the cover save. The implication being that it cannot forgo the cover save and take the invul. 

 

It's better IMO to consider a save on a vehicle to be no different to a save for an Infantry model, i.e. you always have the choice.

 

It's overthinking it to drill the meaning down to individual words, rather than considering the concept of the rule as a whole.

[hallodx]

Which means as long as there's a interventions model, unit or terrain, that vehicle can only take cover save, because it MUST.

 

Edit, but sorry for bad titling since length not enough.

[Magpie]

Like Grey Mage said you're over analysing it. It's a save just like any other model's save.

Invuls have always applied to vehicles and vehicles always have a choice of their best save, just like any other unit type.

Cover saves are the only ones detailed for vehicles because they work slightly differently for vehicles as compared to other models.

 

The rules for cover saves as they apply to vehicles do not exclude any of the other rules for saves as mentioned on page 19.

 

For Invuls not to apply there would need to be a rule that says "unlike other models, vehicles cannot take invulnerable saves even if they are granted one by their own wargear or other special rules or powers" because the general case on page 19 grants the ability to take an invul to all models who have them. 

 

Similarly the general case of being able to take your best save has not been overridden by anything in the vehicle rules. You would need a specific rule along the lines of :  "a vehicle must always take a cover save over an invulnerable save if it has the choice of both" 

[Morollan]

Which means as long as there's a interventions model, unit or terrain, that vehicle can only take cover save, because it MUST.

 

Edit, but sorry for bad titling since length not enough.

 

Yes It says it "must take a cover save" but it also says "exactly like a non-vehicle model would do against a Wound" and a non-vehicle model uses the best available save. So if your cover save is worse than your invulnerable then you take your invulnerable.

[hallodx]

Then that MUST is not MUST. But Megpie your point makes sense, and shame on GW made such bad wording. But well, since when GW is good at wording!

[Magpie]

I think GW's main fault is trusting us to understand rather than using water tight legalese.

 

I'm happy with how they do it now rather than:

 

A vehicle, as listed in schedule 57, shall at anytime and not withstanding rules, special abilities and powers which may from time to time be in force at the given moment of determination, take, as circumstances may dictate, the save that has the most advantageous possible outcome not withstanding rules, special abilities and powers that may run contrary to that outcome.

[Disruptor_fe404]

It doesn't need to be legalese, it just needs good templating and definition of terms (see: Magic: the Gathering).

[Magpie]

Yeh maybe MTG is a more rigid environment tho' so things in 40k ate a lot harder to define particularly when "use your imagination" is a key basic principle

[Disruptor_fe404]

That shouldn't impact the writing of rules (6th was a step in the right direction, albeit a small step).

 

But we're going off-topic a tad now.

[hallodx]

Partly because of my job(IT), rules or algorithm should all be clear cut. So such rule that require players to think or guess what the writer want to say is really unacceptable to me...

Seriously, if that is a MAY, problem is solved.

Some people will still argue about this, but I can try to convince them.

[Grey Mage]

Then that MUST is not MUST. But Megpie your point makes sense, and shame on GW made such bad wording. But well, since when GW is good at wording!

You 'must' take a save. Period. If you have a usable save. Thats part of the rules.

 

You are over thinking it. Because the english language has this remarkable, poetic quality to it wich means that any word you can think of beyond basic adverbs and pronouns is going to have multiple meanings. Must has seven dictionairy definitions, seven. Some of them label it as requirements, others as requests, and another as a 'logical deduction'. So do not sit here and say that your coloquial definition of a single word causes the convoluted house of cards that is GWs rules to fall apart. They do that enough on their own thank you kindly, and many of the 'broken' issues with the system are from people fixating on a particular definition instead of the intent, as shown by what works within the rules framework.

 

If your definition of the word 'must' causes this problem, then by all means educate yourself on the other meanings and find one that does.

 

GW is ran by lawyers, it is not written by them. Do not treat it as a mathematical equation.

[Magpie]

 

issues with the system are from people fixating on a particular definition instead of the intent

 

I'm having this embossed on the front cover of my rule book.