|I am the powaaah! Of 3++|
Okay, so it's not all that rare (but feel free to call it wondrous if you like). Either way, let's get to it...
Somewhere out there on the interwebs I saw some people spouting about now being unable to take invulnerable saves against Perils.
"But wait!" my id cries. "You've *always* been able to take Invulnerable saves against Perils! Surely you can still do the same!!"
"Alas, dear Pog', chastises Bill, my superego, 'the new rules are not bound by the way things used to be - we must look forward, not back, to triumph!"
"Guys!' my poor ego, Posho, cries in exasperation, 'will you stop arguing for just once?? We can just look it up!"
And so it came to pass that the artifact known as The New Shiny was rifled through, and even more archaic tomes were referenced for good measure.
The result? Unending confusion. Probably, admittedly, because I'm stuck on 10+ years of Inv saves working on *everything*, and it's hard to get past that.
So focusing on 6th and only 6th, let's take it step by step. What do Inv saves do?
Pg 17 - "Inv saves are different to armor saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a wound - the armor piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect."
Okay, this basically says anytime you're wounded, you can still take an Inv save. What about Perils then?
Pg 67 - "... the Psyker immediately suffers 1 wound with no saves of any kind allowed".
Potential trump material? Looking back at older editions, it said more or less this, but that Inv saves could still be taken (with or without a re-roll, etc). Did perils just become that much more perilous because of this omission? Or were people gut-reacting and the original "any time a wound is suffered" trigger for Inv still goes off?
Part of me thinks that this should be way easier than I'm making it, and the other part thinks I'm just caught up on too many editions of 40k, and I can't even look at the rules clearly because of it.
My gut says that Inv saves stand, because you get them any time you take a wound, period (via Pg 17). But a lot of that is influenced by the past, and "it's always been done that way". So I worry. I don't want to be biased, but I can't help but feel that, likely, I am. So I'm bringing it to you guys. Help me out here. What are your thoughts on all this silliness?
And, finally, a secondary. This is definitely something that I may have glossed over when the Dark Eldar codex first hit shelves, but there's a potentially crippling piece of Arcane Wargear available to Haemonculi... the Shattershard
|I eat souls.|
But, Inv saves have a trigger (that may or may not have existed in previous editions) - you get them against *wounds*. The Shattershard (and scarce few other things, like the Necron portal attack) don't cause wounds. They're "remove" effects. Maybe the portal specifically allows or disallows Inv saves, I don't have the book to reference. In truth, there are a number of pieces of Arcane Wargear that have similar effects, so this is really a more encompassing question - if piece of kit and/or attack simply removes a model, rather than causing wounds, can you still try to take an Inv save?
My gut on this one is reversed (and not just because I play DE). Inv saves activate when you take a wound, these attacks do not do wounds. Again, though, I'm looking for reinforcement/clarification, so as always leave your comments below, and let me know what you think!