Thursday, July 12, 2012

Invulnerable saves not so invulnerable?

by Anonymous Foodie
I am the powaaah!  Of 3++
Welcome one and all, to one of those rare and wondrous moments when I admit that I am well and truly stumped by something...
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.
This nasty bugger, for any unfamiliar, is a one-shot flamer that forces a T test against any model hit.  Failure = removed from play, no saves of any kind.  Normally my gut would go the same way as Perils - you get Inv saves. 

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!


  1. Wait, you're saying these rules are poorly worded and you can't decide how something should work?

    No way. You must be imagining it. :P

    1. Just once I'd like to see something constructive from you Keith. You could be a serious boon to the hobby, instead of constantly looking for ways to tear it down.

      I have almost left this blog a number of times because of you and the things you say. But I've kept with it because I truly enjoy the hobby, and even like talking about it with friends now and again, having open discussions and furthering myself and others.

      Please, if all you can do is degrade, just stay off of my posts. I have never once come on to yours to say something bad about Flames, or even try. Because at the very least I can respect that it's a hobby you enjoy, and I'll let you have it.

      If you have something worthwhile to add, then by all means do so. Otherwise, kindly keep it to yourself.

    2. I do post constructive stuff Foodie. You just don't like or appreciate it.

      Nobody says that you have to like what I write, but you've dumped enough emo complaints on my posts that I couldn't resist poking some fun at you for complaining about a similar issue to one you berated me for. I'm done now though. If you keep the emo off of my posts, I'll return the favor by only commenting constructively on yours. It works both ways.

      As for your problem, I'll come down on the "no saves means no saves" side.

      It probably doesn't need a FAQ, but you might see enough arguments to require one. There's going to be a lot of folks who will mix editions in their heads. Even 5th was never quite free of the holdover memories of 4th. I really don't expect 6th to be any different. Heck, I ran into this last night playing Flames of War too, so it's not just a GW thing. Though I think GW could make a better effort to call out these changes more clearly and not assume that everyone is starting the game fresh. But that's been a problem for over 2 decades now.

    3. Games Workshop, and their lack of ability to write well-defined rulesets, is not 'the hobby.'

      If you have to work this hard to find out how something works in a game, something is wrong. Very, very wrong.

      That you accept it, and take umbrage at people who point these things out (no matter how sarcastically they do so), does not improve the rules, does it?

    4. Sarcasm is the recourse of a weak mind.

  2. um....doesn't the "no saves of any kind" take care of this? No saves of any kind of means no saves of any kind.

    Looks like over thinking this a bit.

    Fail perils = take a wound (unless you are a ghost helm Eldar as their codex gives a save vs. perils) that is that.

  3. not having the rulesbook, I would read it from what you've listed, attacks that give no save, give no save.

    It looks like the Inv. save is only applicable to wounds that happen because normal armor would not be able to work due to AP.

    so since the new Perils doesn't allow saves, there are no saves for it. In 5th ed, perils was rough. You took your Inv. save, and had to re-roll it if you passed, thereby making you save it twice.
    So they made perils a little more dangerous, and made invuls a little more less... invulnerable.

    not super clear wording, but it's a change to the way the game is executed it seems.

  4. Well, the "no saves" is how I read it, but I am just an Engineer, not a Lawyer :-) 'course, the Eldar still have their save that is not a save ("avoid") for now... But, yes, it also means the Eldar runes are really quite a good weapon against enemy (remember a lot of folks who ally with Eldar are considered "enemy" for this if I read that correctly as well)... Also, some of the GK weapons that cause the perils seem to be pretty nasty... Missile hits, the closest to the center if you put the round on the Librarian and rolled the "hit" would be him, so wouldn't that cause a perils and make character sniping a possibility?

    1. Character sniping is indeed a possibility with Mindstrike Missiles. Got a problem with Eldrad...nail him with some Mind Strikes and make him think about those next few rolls.

      I for one am happy to see just how scary some facets of the game have become. Challenges make for dramatic combat that will have people grinding their teeth. Flying Monstrous Creatures crushing everything in their way...I love it.

    2. Actually, following a battle last night where it became a complex mathematical equasion trying to distribute wounds from six Grotzooka markers firing at a large squad of Battle Sisters with multiple characters in it we re-read the rules for blast markers and barrage.

      Blast Marker rules state that wounds are DISTRIBUTED AS PER A NORMAL SHOOTING ATTACK and thus blast markers inflict wounds to the closest model from the firing unit, not the centre of the hole.

      The Barrage rules specifically state in the last sentance in the last bullet point in working out damage that wounds are assumed to come from the centre blast for the purpose of working out the closest model for wound allocation.

      Now I don't think Mindstrike missiles are barrage, but I could be wrong. If they're just blast, they're deffinately not capable of sniping (even with precision strike, as doesn't work with blast/template weapons)

    3. Multiple barrages are indeed a pain when they scatter and/or characters under the blast...

  5. Like I said (or think I said, I've put another post on another forum, more for the DE tidbit) I'm mostly grappling with rules that have been in play for over a decade... it's hard to clear my head and simply read what's in front of me.

    Wording with power weapons has changed dramatically enough to facilitate all of this to working... so many weapons that "allowed no saves" are simply AP3 now. It may just be that a lot of hidden boosts are rearing up...

  6. Im with Ian. If we really want to get philisophical on the matter though, to understand 'No saves of any kind' We need to understand what is meant by a save. A save is an attempt to NULLIFY a WOUND suffered by the victim. There are three types; Normal, Cover and invunerable. THERE ARE NO OTHER TYPES OF SAVE IN THE GAME. FnP, It will not die (if that what the new name for Regen is, can't remember off the top of my head) are not SAVES per se.

    So now we understand the concept of a save, the expression 'No saves of any kind allowed' becomes a bit simpler. We know there are three kinds of saves, and we know no kind of save is allowed against a perils attack. Ergo, we could replace 'no saves of any kind' with the sentance 'no armour, cover or invunerable saves' as these are the only three types of save available.

    With this (somewhat vague) philosophy though, does this mean you CAN take FnP or it will not die rolls to negate the wound from a perils attack after its been suffered?

    As for point two on the list, I agree. Removes from play effects DO NOT inflict wounds. As there are no wounds inflicted, there is obviously nothing to save against. In effect, your Toughness test is the roll to see if you're effected by the Shattershard. If that fails, some punk ass armour or force field ain't gonna help you at all. same applies for Necron Portal of NastyDeaffiness.

    Back in the day (like second or third Ed.) we used to keep it simple. No Save means no saves. No Armour saves means no Armour saves. Simple, but effective :)

  7. Remove effect vs doing damage. Any magic player knows how that works. So yeah, no inv save vs remove effects, it was that way in 5th too. There were effects in 5th that denied inv saves, necron warscythe for example. Nothing really has changed in 6th with respect to how inv saves work. And as you have said, there are no inv save vs perils any more!

  8. hehe, your gut was right, and it looks like you got a lot of reinforcement. Now go shatter some terminator souls!

  9. >_< stupid question. No save means NO save. Yes I understand for 10+ years you got saves. For 10+ years you couldnt premeasure. For 10+ years you didn't have snapfire. For 10+ years you didnt have. . .the list goes on. Wipe the harddrive (brain) and realize that 6th is not based off of old rules. NO SAVES! means. . .NOOOO SAAAAVES!!!

    1. Well, 6th is based off of 5th, and it isn't (same with all previous editions too). That's what's hard. You have to read every little thing multiple times and re-build the game in your head. Stuff is going to get mixed up no matter what.

      I think that, ideally, the rulebook should include a "What's Different?" section that summarizes the most important changes and gives you a heads up about what might be different elsewhere. Battlefront did that with a separate PDF for 3rd Edition FoW that worked pretty well, but I think that it should still be in the main rulebook itself. Of course I think that GW should also list version numbers on rulebooks and have a section that expressly lists what Codices (and versions thereof) are superseded by the rules changes. But I know they probably think that's off-putting to new players.

  10. No offense, but this is an incredibly basic question. You don't get Invul saves against Perils anymore, and it's very clear and very explicitly stated.

    In reality, I hope this post was actually just a test to see if Keith would post "LOL UNCLEAR RULEZ!!@!@" regardless of how obvious the answer was.

    1. Litmus test FAILED! lol Well done that just made my day. Sandy got pro baited into whining when he said he wouldn't anymore. . . Point for the community, subtract one from Sandy.

      The rule is very obvious and NO I do not believe the game is built off previous editions. It's not like monopoly where you have a new york, simpsons, power ranger version same game just reskinned. You have 40k 4th edition (monopoly), 40k 5th edition (hangman), 40k 6th edition (ants in the pants). They're completely different games that just build off the basic idea of little plastic spacemen, dice, fluff and Gws economic growth.

    2. Dodger, he asked an honest question. Chill. Foodie's on 'your' side, if you really want to believe there are sides.

      Rionnay... WTF?

    3. Huh? There's no problem at all with asking a question, and he got his answer from about twenty people before me. There certainly aren't "sides," as much as you'd like this to somehow be a rules problem.

      I just find it amusing that you've set your own self-created burden of excellence in terms of rules-writing, wherein if ANYONE ever asks ANY question about ANY rule, it means the rule was poorly written and LOL GW SUX and etc. You made this very clear in your comments-disabled ego-rant about the Power Weapon issue, by going "OKAY WELL SOME PEOPLE THINK SOMETHING DIFFERENT SO CLEARLY IT CAN NEVER BE SOLVED GUESS WE DON'T NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT EVER AGAIN."

      Guess what: Some people will ALWAYS think something different, and people will ALWAYS ask questions. There's plenty of people who think we never landed on the moon, y'know? But nobody's really out there going "WELL, WE CAN'T ALL AGREE TO THE EXACT SAME THING, SO I GUESS WE JUST HAVE TO BLAME NASA FOR NOT TAKING US ALL TO THE MOON WITH THEM SO WE COULD AGREE" or whatever.

      You purposefully set an impossible, unreachable burden (100% of players having acceptance, understanding, and identical interpretations of all rules) so that you could then point and giggle when it wasn't reached. It's immature, and it's getting old.

      I feel as if some kid were to talk up to you and ask if you hit on a "3" or "4" with BS4 shooting, you'd go "AMBIGUOUS RULES! WE'LL NEVER KNOW! HOW DARE THEY!" and start throwing Flames of War miniatures at him until he agrees never to bring it up ever again because there's clearly no answer.

    4. You're putting words in my mouth Dodger. Didn't I say more than once in these comments that this kind of question is normal and that it probably wasn't an issue that needed a FAQ? You're imagining all sorts of stuff, both written and implied that's not there.

      I'm fine with disagreements, but don't attribute a lot of malice to my actions, because I simply don't think like that. I'm disappointed in the latest version of a game that I love, and I'm honest (to a fault) in expressing it. I'm REALLY hoping that over time, I can enjoy this edition once the major kinks are worked out. I still believe that it's possible to do so. But I know that's going to take a lot of work, by a lot of people, to make that happen.

      I don't expect 100% perfection from any rules set. Not even my own. It's impossible, straight-up, and I can tolerate a lot of imperfections if I'm having fun. But GW has competitors, and when you play their games you simply don't have arguments of the same type and ferocity going on all of the time. I'd like some of those ideas to be improved upon and incorporated in 40K so that we argue less and play more.

      You do realize the reputation that the 40K crowd at G2D4 has amongst the players of other games there, right? That everyone sees you guys arguing all of the time while you play? That they make assumptions about 40K players and 40K itself based upon what they see? That it drives potential players away? If there's more arguments in this edition than last, is that a positive thing or a negative thing for attracting new (and former) players into playing the game?

      Think about it.

    5. He is such an easy mark and a one note joke.

    6. What you or "other players" think Sandwyrm is irrelevent to the discussion here. Everyone gets thier own opinions. The point is if a lot of people are telling someone they don't like something someone is doing then that is the way they feel. If I ask you not to comment on my posts then don't. I you continue even though others are asking or telling you to stop then you are just being a bully.

    7. I think that when I keep getting accused of being out of touch and ruining the blog, some perspective is in order. Readers aren't turning away. Far from it.

      We've gained 14 new members since all this hee-haw started, which is much faster than normal. And every time I go to the store, I get pulled aside by guys in the 40K group who offer me words of support and good humor at your expense, even when they don't completely agree with the things I've said.

      Just today, while walking into the store, a 40K player said this to me:

      "Hey! I hope you brought your earplugs, because the whiners are here today."

      Then Dodger walked by on cue and proved his point.

      And the guys NOT in the 40K group? The ones who don't read our blog or know that I'm 'e-famous' at all? Well... I've gotten to know more of them lately, and let's just say that most of them used to play 40K... until their experiences with the core 40K group at the store turned them away.

      So am I really so out of touch? So negative? So crazy? Not from where I'm sitting.

  11. As usual, people love the 'GW can't write rules' garbage meme. It's simply not true. Still, people like to pretend they're cool or something by crapping on things they are not equipped to do themselves. You can prove me wrong by writing a miniature rule set that becomes wildly popular. I will even buy it when you do. But, the people above that feel a need to be douchey about GW won't, because it's a lot easier just to complain.

    In any case, yes... this is all very clear. The perils rule says 'no savess of any kind'. That would mean... no saves of any kind. The Shattershard removes models. If they got a save the rule would give them a save.

  12. I agree with the majority that no saves. So that dark eldar special wargear that has all psykers in 3d6 inches take a test or take a wound is better now...????

    And Sandwyrm did take the bait. Caught a big fish there you did.

    Even SinnSynn is getting that tag.

    1. Haha. Hook, line and sinker.

      I'm kinda disappointed that SinSynn took it as well.

    2. Well not really a straight leadership test failure is not that scary when you are leadership 9 or 10. Plus the lousy random distance on top of that. Wait, it is also one use like all the crazy Dark Eldar arcane wierdy wargear.

      That is no different as it is removed from play so would not allow any saves either. Why is "allow not saves of any kind" such a bug-a-boo?


      What is this? High School? Score 'points' if you want to, the grown ups have better stuff to do.

    4. So you think you're superior just cause I'm in high school? at least I'm mature enough to not moan an complain about a game on the internet...

    5. Is this this passive aggressiveness thing I heard about? lol

      Come on SandWyrm, you're better than this. ^^
      Stop commenting on this issue and draw your own conclusions with a cooled head.

      I enjoy your Flames of War Articles, when they're 40K free
      (, which you can't look at anymore without getting your hateroda on.
      At least that's my impression, which is fine, if you can just avoid it.)

      Stick to FoW and I can enjoy your blog. =)

    6. @Link

      I see much more hatred coming from those who cry HERESY any time anyone, somewhere, says the slightest not-so-great thing about 6th. Even when folks ask innocent rules interaction questions of the sort that everyone also asked at the beginning of 5th, 4th, 3rd, and 2nd Editions. Chill dudes!


      The comment wasn't directed at you. It was directed at folks much older than you who are reminding me of why I hated High School politics and cliqs. We have many fine high-school aged players around here, it's not an age thing at all.

  13. Are you guys aware as to how silly you all sound fighting about all of this. THIS is why I just smile and laugh and don't care anymore.

  14. To be fair you said you weren't going to complain anymore. But moving on. I love Coteaz! He is amazing!

    1. Spag, I wasn't complaining about 6th in any of my comments to this post. I was poking fun at someone who had railed against me for criticizing something very similar to what this post was about. He ranted about me in an entire post. I poked him with one comment. Big deal.

      I was asked to be constructive afterwards, so I weighed in on the rules problem. I even said that it probably didn't need a FAQ. It was much more positive than Dodger calling him stupid for even asking the question, unless of course it was some attempt to 'bait' me into... yeah whatever. It's cliq thinking. We should all be better than that. I guess that's what comes of not playing games together for 3-4 months though.

      Along the way I made a few comments about GW's rules-writing IN GENERAL, in regards to version-labeling issues I've always had with their books (not just 6th) for oh, twenty years now. I even pointed out that certain problems are universal to other games I've played and that you'll always have veteran players mixing up rules in their heads.

      And if I was running Coteaz, I would think he's amazing too. :)

    2. Just because it's your blog doesn't mean you get to put words in my mouth, Keith.

      It takes some mental gymnastics to turn the statement "No offense, but this is a basic question" into "YOU'RE STUPID" in what is an incredibly transparent attempt to stir up some kind of drama about me being a jerk to Foodie (who apparently wasn't even bothered enough to comment on it, and instead wrote a whole mini-article asking you to stay off of his articles if you can't be positive) to redirect from the actual point of what I was saying, which is that you were being immature and annoying whenever given even the slightest opening.

      While I appreciate that you've now made this identical statement twice, I assure you that if Foodie thinks I said anything offensive, he's fully capable of informing me of that on his own.

      If you want everyone to stop pointing out how negative and destructive you're being, you could always...stop being those things? It might be more successful than "HEY HE SAID SOMETHING MEAN TO FOODIE, GET HIM!" because I've really got no interest in letting you twist my words.

    3. It's not my blog Dodger, it's Farmpunk's; and I'm under no illusions that Foodie is anything but pissed off at both of us right now. I'm really sorry Foodie. I started this mess with my snide little comment. I won't do it again.

      Since these arguments have gone all Sheen-y, what with the NASA thing and the silly '40K is not 40K' assertions, I'm going to bow out because it's just not going to end well. You win.

    4. Oh, I'm not angry at Dodger or Rionnay for the way they responded - I knew (and said enough) that it was a simple, basic question. It was me being caught off guard and unable to wrap my silly little mind around the silly, basic answer without someone else stepping in to say "yes, it is that silly/basic".

      That's why I posed it to the community, as a *question*, not a complaint about the rules as you have *multiple times* said I was doing.

      I'm not even really pissed at you, Sandwyrm. I *am* tired of your tone. And the manner in which you go about expressing your opinion. Not that you *do*, because you're well within your right to do so... but there's a way to disagree, and there's a way to shout about how terrible something is at every opportunity, which gets old fast, is not fun to listen to, and is detrimental to the hobby, this blog, and just about everything else.

      Don't stop saying what you're saying, just have a *discussion* about your thoughts, questions, concerns, and even complaints, in a reasonable manner, instead of GW-bashing.

      You get upset when anyone asks you to stop, but every time someone says something positive about GW you get on a soap box about how they belief the company can do no wrong. You have continuously said that this original post and your thoughts are the same, which can not be further from the truth. Never once did I complain about "this is unclear", it was me saying, to my own derogation, that I needed a push in the right direction. It happens. It was because I was stuck on 3+ previous editions, and couldn't see the answer in front of me.

      If you want to have a post laying out why you think 6th ed is "bad" or at least "not well balanced/written", by all means put it up... because chances are I can counter-point most of what you'll have, if not all. It will not be an argument, it will be pointing out why I think it's true. What pisses me off is the fuming that this blog has degenerated to, instead of being a group of friends and a few hobbies we share.

    5. (sigh...)

      I hear you Foodie. Really, I do. And again, I apologize.

      But I don't think, at this point, that I can say or post anything that's not unabashed cheerleading for GW, and not have someone tell me that I'm just being negative. Because to them, ANY critical look at GW is bashing.

      Heck, look at my recent criticisms of Battlefront. Even at my most respectful and balanced, I still had folks jumping on me for being negative. It's reflexive and unthinking at this point. There's almost no thought behind it, only feelings.

      I could try and explain myself some more. But what's the point? Most of the regular folks I run into in the community already agree with me, or at least understand and respect my positions. While the hard-core folks who are currently enamored with 6th and are lovingly studying it's complex intricacies won't care. All I'm doing is spoiling their high.

      So I've been made 'the enemy', and 'sides' have formed, because it's easier than looking honestly at the thing they're still in love with and admitting that it has certain problems that will impact the competitive community. Not insurmountable problems, but big problems none the less. Problems that you can't simply wave away with the magic wand of optimism.

      As for writing further on the specifics of 6th, I really can't do that in any sort of useful way yet. Because I can't play the game in the same way that most other people can. The rules arguments I'd have would result in REAL diatribes and anger from me, which nobody who reads this blog has ever seen. So I haven't gone there. I DON'T WANT to go there. It's not who I want to be.

  15. All good playa! I want to get in a game of 40k with you soon to test my lists against yours. When can we play?


out dang bot!

Recent Favorites

All-Time Favorites