Da Big Dok Question

[Darkriver]

So question regarding Mad Dok Grotsnik's special rule Da Big Dok...

The rule states that any unit in an army that includes Grotsnik may upgrade to have cybork bodies. Since it is not unprecedented for Walkers and even vehicles to have Invulnerable saves, could you give it to a Deff Dread or Battlewagon since they are still considered a unit?

This is more just a "what does the community think" than "can I get away with something" post. Mainly because I only play about 1 tournament a year and don't have an Ork army.

[Nungunz]

ICs are not allowed to join vehicle units so this could never happen anyway.

[Tynskel]

ICs are not allowed to join vehicle units so this could never happen anyway.

I thought the upgrade was unrelated to the IC joining the unit.

[Darkriver]

It is unrelated to joining a unit. It's basically pay X points to give any units a cybork body.

[Tynskel]

It is unrelated to joining a unit. It's basically pay X points to give any units a cybork body.

well, if you can give it to a deff dread, you should use an orkified dreadknight model to represent it!

[Nungunz]

I thought the upgrade was unrelated to the IC joining the unit.

My bad, didn't have the codex in front of me.

[MaltonNecromancer]

I can't see why you couldn't, as there is precedent for this: in IA8, Grot Tanks and Mega Dreds have the "Ramshackle" rule which gives them a 5++ save (as you shoot off bits of junk that didn't actually do anything, the Mek just stuck them on to look nice and Orky).

It's a little bit of a stretch, but it seems okay to me. A 6++ save isn't going to make a huge amount of difference, and it would help get otherwise sub-par pure melee Deff Dreds into combat a little more reliably.

[Cyberscape7]

Wait does this mean we can have 5++ Gretchin?

[MaltonNecromancer]

Wait does this mean we can have 5++ Gretchin?

That would be hilarious.

Also a pain in the hole to convert...

[Uncle Nutsy]

Wait does this mean we can have 5++ Gretchin?

yeah you can. crazy, huh?

[Nabterayl]

Yeah, strictly speaking you could use Grotsnik to give vehicles, or even big gunz, a 5++ for 5 points apiece. His Da Big Dok rule states "Any unit in an army including Grotsnik may upgrade its members to have cybork bodies for +5 points per model," and cybork bodies state "A model with a cybork body has a 5+ invulnerable save." It doesn't say orks, or squads, or anything like that - just models and units. So the only question would be, "Is this a unit?" and "if it is a unit, does it consist of models?" The answer to both questions with respect to vehicle units is obviously yes.

Probably not quite what the codex writers intended, but certainly legal according to the letter of the rules.

[Azrell]

I can't see why you couldn't, as there is precedent for this: in IA8, Grot Tanks and Mega Dreds have the "Ramshackle" rule which gives them a 5++ save (as you shoot off bits of junk that didn't actually do anything, the Mek just stuck them on to look nice and Orky).

It's a little bit of a stretch, but it seems okay to me. A 6++ save isn't going to make a huge amount of difference, and it would help get otherwise sub-par pure melee Deff Dreds into combat a little more reliably.

You cant give it to grot tanks or mega dreads as they are not allowed to wear armor, they can only use wargear from the vehicles section as they are vehicles. Check the wargear section of the codex. You cant upgrade a whirlwind to terminator armor either...

[Nabterayl]

You cant give it to grot tanks or mega dreads as they are not allowed to wear armor, they can only use wargear from the vehicles section as they are vehicles. Check the wargear section of the codex. You cant upgrade a whirlwind to terminator armor either...
You can't upgrade a Whirlwind to terminator armor because there is no entry in any marine codex allowing Whirlwinds to buy terminator armor, or (in the older codices) giving Whirlwinds access to the armory. Here we have an entry permitting any "model" in an army with Grotsnik in it to buy a cybork body. Vehicles are models; hence, they may do so. There is nothing in the ork codex that states vehicles may only ever purchase upgrades from one list of upgrades or another. In fact, plenty of ork vehicles can purchase upgrades from the "regular" wargear section. Models in the ork codex can purchase any upgrade, and only those upgrades, listed in their unit entry - unless a special rule says otherwise, which in this case it does.

The situation is absurd, but suppose the Black Templar codex did say, "A Whirlwind may purchase items from the Black Templars armory." It would then absolutely be within the scope of the rules for a Whirlwind to purchase terminator armor and acquire a 2+ armor save - absurd, but within the scope of the rules. That's all anybody's pointing out here.

[Wildeybeast]

The situation is absurd, but suppose the Black Templar codex did say, "A Whirlwind may purchase items from the Black Templars armory." It would then absolutely be within the scope of the rules for a Whirlwind to purchase terminator armor and acquire a 2+ armor save - absurd, but within the scope of the rules. That's all anybody's pointing out here.

They could buy it, but they couldn't use it since the tank clearly can't fit inside the armour, so this is a rather unhelpful example.

p20 of the rulebook "invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a wound". Vehicles do not have a wounds characteristic and you never roll to wound a vehicle, so they never get the opportunity to take invulnerable saving throws. the same also applies to armour saving throws, they never get the opportunity to take them so any armour upgrades are irrelevant.

Of course you can still technically give them cybork bodies if you want to make some insane conversions, but that would largely be a waste of your invulnerable save.

[lattd]

p20 of the rulebook "invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a wound". Vehicles do not have a wounds characteristic and you never roll to wound a vehicle, so they never get the opportunity to take invulnerable saving throws. the same also applies to armour saving throws, they never get the opportunity to take them so any armour upgrades are irrelevant.
.

Sept you know Dark eldar vehicles getting invulnerable saves.

[Wildeybeast]

I did not know that. I assume that is some special rule unique to them? When do they take that saving throw and how exactly is the rule worded?

[lattd]

They can buy an upgrade and gives them a five plus invulnerable save think its taken after damage, but i don't have the codex at hand.

[Wildeybeast]

I guess its probably taken in the same way as cover saves on vehicles. I would imagine that this is a codex exception to the way in which invulnerbale saves are usually taken, which would mean that my point still stands. No wound roll means no opportunity for invulnerable saves (unless you have a special rule which says otherwise).

[wkz]

I guess its probably taken in the same way as cover saves on vehicles. I would imagine that this is a codex exception to the way in which invulnerbale saves are usually taken, which would mean that my point still stands. No wound roll means no opportunity for invulnerable saves (unless you have a special rule which says otherwise).

IIRC:

Tell that to BJorn the Fell Handed, mightiest Dreadnought of Yore. I guess you just made him very, very sad he can't use his invulnerable save (and in both the DE and SW examples, all that was said is "Model have an invulnerable save of X+". No exception text of any kind regarding "vehicles using invulnerable saves")

[Wildeybeast]

I didn't mean that there had to be a specific 'this overides the rulebook' written into the rule, rather that they have rules which are clearly in direct contradiction to the rulebook. In this case, as all others, the codex takes precedence in allowing them an invulnerable saving throw where vehicles normally cannot make them. These are rules for specific models, under ordinary circumstances vehicles cannot make invulnerable or armour saving throws since they do not take wounds.

So, in summary, unless a codex piece of wargear/upgrade/special rule etc explicitly says that it grants vehicles an invulnerable or armour save, it cannot be used to do so since this is forbidden by the main rules. So giving cybork bodies to 'any unit' is allowed, however if said unit is a vehicle it cannot take an invulnerbale saving throw since the codex rule does not explicitly override the rulebook.

[Nabterayl]

I didn't mean that there had to be a specific 'this overides the rulebook' written into the rule, rather that they have rules which are clearly in direct contradiction to the rulebook. In this case, as all others, the codex takes precedence in allowing them an invulnerable saving throw where vehicles normally cannot make them. These are rules for specific models, under ordinary circumstances vehicles cannot make invulnerable or armour saving throws since they do not take wounds.
I think this is a very interesting point, and one I had not considered before. Let me ask you to elaborate on your proposed principle, Wildeybeast. The Dark Eldar codex states only, "A vehicle with a flickerfield has a 5+ invulnerable save" (page 63). One might argue that although the codex allows flickerfields to give a vehicle a 5+ invulnerable save, the rulebook, which governs how invulnerable saves work, means that the flickerfield has no effect in the current edition of the rules.

Can you help me formulate a response that gives flickerfields their intended effect? I think you have an interesting line of argument here, and I'd like to see it refined.

[Wildeybeast]

Ok, now you're testing me here. For me, if we say a codex rule overrides the rulebook, it needs to clearly and explicitly do so, otherwise we end up on on very dodgy ground and endless debate. I would say the use of 'vehicles' in the phrasing of the rule is key. Therefore the rule needs to explictly refer to vehicles (as in the DE) or to an individual vehicle unit (as in Bjorn). Unless it states something along the lines of 'grants vehicles/specific unit an invulnerable save', then it doesn't overule the rulebook.

So in the case of Big Dok, it merely says any unit, which is short for 'any unit eligible for invulnerable saving throws (i.e. not vehicles)'.

Whereas Flickerfields clearly state that vehicles can have an invulnerable save, so here the codex precedence would kick in.

Also, I've just thought to check the Ork FAQ, which makes it clear that Big Dok does not apply to vehicles, I feel reinforcing what I have said.

Hope all that made sense, does that help Nabterayl?

[Nabterayl]

I overlooked that bit in the ork FAQ, which I can accept on a legislative intent basis. It doesn't really give me as clear a statement of principle as I was hoping we might be onto, but it certainly answers the vehicle invulnerable save question to my satisfaction.

[wkz]

Nabterayl, Wildeybeast; Here is the interesting thing: in the very early parts of the rulebook, there are 2 terms that were described:

Unit - one model, or a collection of models formed as a loose group
Model - any single player's piece on the table.

Everything is a model. Everything belongs to a unit. Whether it is a Monstrous creature, Beast, Speeder, Bike, Infantry, they're all models. VEHICLES also fall under models. Vehicles also fall under single model units (or multi-model units if ran as a Squadron)

And I do believe BOTH the BRB and the codex rule for Invulnerable saves grants it to MODELS. It says: "grant <model> an invulnerable save.", "<model> have an invulnerable save", "models within X inches have an invulnerable save" or some similar wording.

So for the most part it merely says the model has "an invulnerable save". And the save is applied to a MODEL. And if the model so happens to be a vehicle in the first place?


An example of this in action would be... a Venontrope. What if it is beside an allied Black Templar army, and the Rhino is in range to get the cover save? Yes, it does not state that a VEHICLE gets the cover save, but it does say a MODEL gets the cover save. Would the save be allowed?
(yes, that is a cover save, but the same argument applies... not to mention we're ignoring "allied army special rules bleed-over" here)


PS: please quote the FAQ entry which states that Grotsnik's invulnerable upgrade does not apply to vehicles, because I've looked at my copy and did not find it...
Edit: n'mind, found it. But the argument over vehicles + Invulnerable saves continues I guess.

[Wildeybeast]

Nabterayl, Wildeybeast; Here is the interesting thing: in the very early parts of the rulebook, there are 2 terms that were described:

Unit - one model, or a collection of models formed as a loose group
Model - any single player's piece on the table.

Everything is a model. Everything belongs to a unit. Whether it is a Monstrous creature, Beast, Speeder, Bike, Infantry, they're all models. VEHICLES also fall under models. Vehicles also fall under single model units (or multi-model units if ran as a Squadron)

And I do believe BOTH the BRB and the codex rule for Invulnerable saves grants it to MODELS. It says: "grant <model> an invulnerable save.", "<model> have an invulnerable save", "models within X inches have an invulnerable save" or some similar wording.

So for the most part it merely says the model has "an invulnerable save". And the save is applied to a MODEL. And if the model so happens to be a vehicle in the first place?


An example of this in action would be... a Venontrope. What if it is beside an allied Black Templar army, and the Rhino is in range to get the cover save? Yes, it does not state that a VEHICLE gets the cover save, but it does say a MODEL gets the cover save. Would the save be allowed?
(yes, that is a cover save, but the same argument applies... not to mention we're ignoring "allied army special rules bleed-over" here)


PS: please quote the FAQ entry which states that Grotsnik's invulnerable upgrade does not apply to vehicles, because I've looked at my copy and did not find it...
Edit: n'mind, found it. But the argument over vehicles + Invulnerable saves continues I guess.

Not really. Cover saves are different to armour/invulnerables saves. The rulebook allows for vehicles to make cover saves. The rulebook also makes it clear that you only make an invulnerable/armour save "whenever the model suffers a wound" and vehicles don't take wounds....

It seems pretty clear to me, but if you want to argue that vehicles in general can have invulnerable/armour saves then go right ahead. I doubt you'll find many people who are willing to allow you to play like that however.

[wkz]

Not really. Cover saves are different to armour/invulnerables saves. The rulebook allows for vehicles to make cover saves. The rulebook also makes it clear that you only make an invulnerable/armour save "whenever the model suffers a wound" and vehicles don't take wounds....

It seems pretty clear to me, but if you want to argue that vehicles in general can have invulnerable/armour saves then go right ahead. I doubt you'll find many people who are willing to allow you to play like that however.
Then again, here's the interesting thing: what would BJorn do? He explicitly have a built in Invulnerable save, but as you've so explicitly said, you take an Invulnerable save if the model suffers a wound.

As the codex only says "<model> have a X+ invulnerable save"... this is not a case of codex superseding the rulebook. This is:

Codex: "hey, here's a special rule on this guy, Rulebook, explain the rule!!"
Rulebook: .... .... ... "you do realize that the special rule does not work on this guy, right?"
Codex: "well, ****e..."

This is the same reason why the DoomFists (a DCCW) on a Dreadknight (Monster.C) short circuited a lot of people's rules interpretation by the way. And as a mostly RAW guy, this is why I stand on the side where the Doomfist's double str does not work on a Dreadknight...
....
But now, we have precedence: A vehicle (or at least a walker) CAN have an invulnerable save.

Does it work? No.
Should it work? ... Well, that's RAI now, isn't that?


(The main reason why I'm arguing with you is actually NOT "whether or not a vehicle can benefit from an invulnerable save"... the main reason I am arguing is "if the codex allows a vehicle to buy an invulnerable save ... should we allow that vehicle to even BUY said invulnerable save?"

If the codex allows, then YES, it can get that invulnerable save, regardless of whether or not it actually affects the vehicle in question. Your argument about "Grotsnik cannot make vehicles buy that invulnerable save" is... correct, but your reasoning behind that is what prompted my entry into this thread: "Vehicles trying to shrug into a armor vest" doesn't matter. Only the wording of the rules matter (and at that time I thought Grotsnik could allow said model to get an invulnerable save on vehicles). If one codex rule allows something, it allows something OUTRIGHT, despite anything and everything the rules or fluff says about the matter... ...

This is ignoring if the actual item actually affects the model, of course. See C:GK's "buy a digital weapon (rerolls) on a character that already have rerolls".
... ...
And that is also unless someone applies RAI to the matter, of course. Especially in poor Bjorn's case.

But it seems the topic has deviated somewhat... back to the "Vehicles actually befitting from the invulnerable save they have" topic now)

[SeattleDV8]

Well, in Bjorn's case we are free from RAI as we have a FAQ

Q. Can Bjorn the Fell-handed use his wolf tail talisman and
his Ward of the Primarch against the same psychic power?
(p49)
A. Yes. If the wolf tail talisman fails to nullify the psychic
power and it then causes a glancing or penetrating hit, he
can then try to pass his invulnerable save against it.

Bjorn is allowed to use his Invulnerable save against glancing/penetrating hits.

[Wildeybeast]

Thanks Seattle, that clears up the Bjorn situtation, he isn't taking wounds, he is making invulnerbale saves in the same way as cover saves on vehicles. And even if he was Wkz, he is not setting a precedent. He is a special character with unique rules, that does not, for me anyway, set a precedent. He is an exception to the rules.

As to "if the codex allows a vehicle to buy an invulnerable save ... should we allow that vehicle to even BUY said invulnerable save?", it is a pretty pointless deabte. Lets say that there was a piece of wargear that allowed a 'unit/model to make a run move and still fire'. Under your logic, you could buy this for a vehicle since it is a model/unit. However, doing so would be pointless since vehicles can't run, and they can already move and fire (with obvious caveats). The same applies to invulnerable saves. Unless the upgrade specifically says vehicles, it doesn't apply to them. The only reason GW doesn't write 'any unit/model except vehicles ' is that they assume most people will figure out that you can't give abilities to units that obviously can't use them according to the main rules.

At the end of the day, if my opponent really wants to waste his points buying upgrades for units on they basis they 'are a unit and it says any unit', then he is more than welcome. But I'm sure as hell not letting him use the ability if it contravenes the rules.

[Bean]

I think this is a very interesting point, and one I had not considered before. Let me ask you to elaborate on your proposed principle, Wildeybeast. The Dark Eldar codex states only, "A vehicle with a flickerfield has a 5+ invulnerable save" (page 63). One might argue that although the codex allows flickerfields to give a vehicle a 5+ invulnerable save, the rulebook, which governs how invulnerable saves work, means that the flickerfield has no effect in the current edition of the rules.

Can you help me formulate a response that gives flickerfields their intended effect? I think you have an interesting line of argument here, and I'd like to see it refined.

I think this is actually the correct response. There's no reason to think that a vehicle can't have an invulnerable save--clearly, many do. However, the rules which tell us what an invulnerable save actually does make it quite clear that they don't do anything for vehicles. Invulnerable saves, according to the BRB, are only used to stop wounds.

Unless a codex both has a rule which gives an invulnerable save to a vehicle (which several do) and has a rule which tells you what that invulnerable save does for that vehicle (which none, to my knowledge, do*) then your vehicle invulnerable save is worthless.

I think most people (myself included) are generally going to be willing to overlook this seemingly-unintentional hole in the rules and let Dark Eldar players and Bjorn (and whatnot) use their vehicle invulnerable saves, but if you're looking to play by the actual rules, vehicle invulnerable saves are worthless. They actually do nothing.

*except bjorn, as noted by Seattle, above.

[wkz]

...
I think most people (myself included) are generally going to be willing to overlook this seemingly-unintentional hole in the rules and let Dark Eldar players and Bjorn (and whatnot) use their vehicle invulnerable saves, but if you're looking to play by the actual rules, vehicle invulnerable saves are worthless. They actually do nothing.
...

So, basically, a ironclad, instinctively-agreed, community-wide RAI? Heh, next time some overly-raw guy goes off about the holyness of RAW, I'm going to rub this one in his face :D

(oh, don't worry, RAI-****s. I have a few for you too :D)

[tactica]

This might be technically within the rules but good luck convincing you gaming group to agree. I really dont fancy your chances

[The 57th]

Cyborg upgrades need an organic base to start from ie, an Ork body to add pistons, armour plates etc to. That's what cyborg means... is the Mek going to graft bits of Ork to the vehicles? Also I'd argue that vehicles don't have bodies as meant by the rule, rather they have hulls. Anybody trying this deserves to be laughed at lots :)

[blackarmchair]

Seriously? You're just trying to fudge the rules. What would giving a "metal body" to a vehicle do to improve it's odds of survival?

Invulnerable saves are taken against wounds. Vehicles like Bjorn can have invulnerable save because their rules specifically state that it functions against glancing and penetrating hits not against wounds.

A Cybork Body would do nothing for a vehicle because they do not take wounds, they take glancing and penetrating hits.

/thread

[wkz]

...
Invulnerable saves are taken against wounds. Vehicles like Bjorn can have invulnerable save because their rules specifically state that it functions against glancing and penetrating hits not against wounds.
...blackarmchair, 57th...

Please, pray tell, show me the exact sentence where this "allowed to take" sentence (invul save can be taken for Bjorn, DE vehicles) is stated, because I don't see it. There IS a reason why Bjorn's invulnerable save had to be FAQ'ed after all.


And before anything, I've already stated my point: if a codex/BRB allows something via black and white wording, does it allow it despite it being on the odd side? And if a codex/BRB does NOT allow something via black and white wording, does it allow it despite it being a bit on the odd side?

So far this thread have raised BOTH sides of the above argument:

- I've already long ago agreed that Grotsnik couldn't give the invulnerable save to a vehicle, thanks to the FAQ (FAQ: "non-vehicles")... BUT before the exact sentence is brought to the attention of this thread it appears that we can.

If we can do something that by all meanings of the fluff is only for Infantry, but black and white rules says it can be given to "models", can you stick it on a vehicle because RAW says so??
("I've already long ago agreed that Grotsnik...", so we're kinda arguing academically, but this IS an interesting point to talk about)

Curious addum: can we then agree that the Dreadknight is an illegal model right out of the box, because it is a monstrous creature packing walker weapons?


- AND, there is NO wording for Bjorn (before the FAQ) and no wording for DE vehicles for the Invulnerable save to work. (If there is, sorry about that, but I've searched a bit, and there isn't... well, except for Bjorn of course). The BRB does NOT allow the Invulnerable save to work.

If we cannot do something that by all meanings of the fluff SHOULD work as a force field for something it is equipped on, but black and white rules say it cannot because it is not a "wound", can you allow Invulnerable saves to work because RAI says so??

Curious addum: can we then agree that the Dreadknight is using double-strength right out of the box, because despite it being a monstrous creature equipping walker weapons, it is allowed to have double strength by the fact "all DCCW should have double strength"?

In short: the age old RAW vs RAI, and which situations should apply which...

[The 57th]

My comment was really based on the fact that the upgrade is about giving Orks cyborg bodies. Cyborg meaning

"A living being whose powers are enhanced by computer implants or mechanical body parts"

I think that trying to argue that you could enhance vehicle units using a cyborg upgrade just doesn't make any sense. I'm firmly of the RAI view rather than RAW, I kinda think we are all trying to have fun playing a cool game rather than finding some lawyer like loop holes in wording that enables us to gain an unintended advantage against our opponent.

Cheers Dave

[Tynskel]

My comment was really based on the fact that the upgrade is about giving Orks cyborg bodies. Cyborg meaning

"A living being whose powers are enhanced by computer implants or mechanical body parts"

I think that trying to argue that you could enhance vehicle units using a cyborg upgrade just doesn't make any sense. I'm firmly of the RAI view rather than RAW, I kinda think we are all trying to have fun playing a cool game rather than finding some lawyer like loop holes in wording that enables us to gain an unintended advantage against our opponent.

Cheers Dave

whose to say that the orks weren't attaching body parts to the tanks...

[Wildeybeast]

blackarmchair, 57th...

Please, pray tell, show me the exact sentence where this "allowed to take" sentence (invul save can be taken for Bjorn, DE vehicles) is stated, because I don't see it. There IS a reason why Bjorn's invulnerable save had to be FAQ'ed after all.


And before anything, I've already stated my point: if a codex/BRB allows something via black and white wording, does it allow it despite it being on the odd side? And if a codex/BRB does NOT allow something via black and white wording, does it allow it despite it being a bit on the odd side?

So far this thread have raised BOTH sides of the above argument:

- I've already long ago agreed that Grotsnik couldn't give the invulnerable save to a vehicle, thanks to the FAQ (FAQ: "non-vehicles")... BUT before the exact sentence is brought to the attention of this thread it appears that we can.

If we can do something that by all meanings of the fluff is only for Infantry, but black and white rules says it can be given to "models", can you stick it on a vehicle because RAW says so??
("I've already long ago agreed that Grotsnik...", so we're kinda arguing academically, but this IS an interesting point to talk about)

Curious addum: can we then agree that the Dreadknight is an illegal model right out of the box, because it is a monstrous creature packing walker weapons?


- AND, there is NO wording for Bjorn (before the FAQ) and no wording for DE vehicles for the Invulnerable save to work. (If there is, sorry about that, but I've searched a bit, and there isn't... well, except for Bjorn of course). The BRB does NOT allow the Invulnerable save to work.

If we cannot do something that by all meanings of the fluff SHOULD work as a force field for something it is equipped on, but black and white rules say it cannot because it is not a "wound", can you allow Invulnerable saves to work because RAI says so??

Curious addum: can we then agree that the Dreadknight is using double-strength right out of the box, because despite it being a monstrous creature equipping walker weapons, it is allowed to have double strength by the fact "all DCCW should have double strength"?

In short: the age old RAW vs RAI, and which situations should apply which...

What? Look if a codex clearly allows you to do something that you cannot do under the rules, that is fine because codex trumps rulebook. The issue was, how far does this extend e.g. 'invulnerbale saves to any unit' under grotsniks rules. I thought we had clearly establsihed that the rules actually mean 'to any unit that is allowed invulnerbale saves (e.g. one with wounds)'. This is backed up by the FAQ. Thus you can only violate the main rules when your codex explicitly states it e.g. DE vehicles, Bjorn. There is no conflict between rules RAI and RAW that i can see, because codexes only intend to violate the main rules when they explicitly write as such.

[wkz]

What? Look if a codex clearly allows you to do something that you cannot do under the rules, that is fine because codex trumps rulebook. The issue was, how far does this extend e.g. 'invulnerbale saves to any unit' under grotsniks rules. I thought we had clearly establsihed that the rules actually mean 'to any unit that is allowed invulnerbale saves (e.g. one with wounds)'. This is backed up by the FAQ. Thus you can only violate the main rules when your codex explicitly states it e.g. DE vehicles, Bjorn. There is no conflict between rules RAI and RAW that i can see, because codexes only intend to violate the main rules when they explicitly write as such.
Dude, I've already agreed with you on this point, a LONG, LONG time ago (Grotsnik not giving non-wound stuff Invul saves). I even agreed inside the post you have quoted, please read carefully.

What I am disagreeing on is your argument on WHY you can't give vehicles an Invulnerable save, your "you can't grant invulnerable saves on a model without a wound, because vehicles and invulnerable saves does not work" argument...


Here's the thing you may have missed: The codex grants Invulnerable saves to Bjorn, DE vehicles... and says nothing else about the matter.

The Rulebook states Invulnerable saves works ONLY FOR successful Wounds; unlike cover saves, there is no extra sentence/paragraph in the rulebook for Invulnerable saves to be used for Vehicles. As someone earlier in the thread so happily states: "Successful Vehicle Penetration =/= Successful Wound".

So, the end result is: Codex grants something. That something cannot be used at all. Can you use it? This is why Bjorn have to get a FAQ ruling just so he can use his Invulnerable save after all. In short, we use Invulnerable saves in codexes granting it... as a generally accepted RAI, because by RAW they just doesn't work (until FAQed)!!

Remember this point: by RAW, before FAQs, invulnerable saves for vehicles does not work.


Now, with the above, lets examine the Ork codex again: Grotsnik granting Invulnerable saves (lets, for a moment, think the Ork FAQ does not exist). He grants Invulnerable saves, correct? He grants Invulnerable saves to MODELS, correct? Is there a single sentence in that rule that says "He grants Invulnerable saves ONLY to models with wounds"???

And because the part of the sentence "only models with wounds" does not exist... WHY CAN'T he grant it to ALL available models!???

The RAW approach: Models = Models, that's the lowest common denominator in 40k's "stuff on the table". A vehicle is too a model. WHY can't you apply it to a vehicle then?

The fluff approach: DeffKoptaz and Bikes have about as much machinery as Buggies, why one and not the other? Why can't he grant it to Killa Kans, which DOES have flesh and blood inside the chassis? WHY CAN'T he grant it to Looted Tanks, complete with drivers?

And also note: The RAW approach: Models = Models, you can buy something for it. BUT IT Doesn't mean you can USE THAT PURCHASED SOMETHING: For example, a space marine captain can exchange his pistol and/or chainsword for a pair of lightning claws... ... by RAW he can end up with 4 lightning claws (2 pairs)!! BUT he has only 2 hands to use it: there is no way he's going to get +3A from all 4 lightning claws!!


There have been cases of wargear that can be purchased for something WITHOUT IT GIVING A SINGLE BENEFIT to the unit in question. (The latest is in Codex Gray Knight: Digital weapons to a Brother Captain... who already have rerolls for attacks). I will grant you your "that vehicle CANNOT use its Invulnerable save"... but WHY is it that you can use this as an argument for the fact you cannot buy the (useless) upgrade for that vehicle?

[Wildeybeast]

There have been cases of wargear that can be purchased for something WITHOUT IT GIVING A SINGLE BENEFIT to the unit in question. (The latest is in Codex Gray Knight: Digital weapons to a Brother Captain... who already have rerolls for attacks). I will grant you your "that vehicle CANNOT use its Invulnerable save"... but WHY is it that you can use this as an argument for the fact you cannot buy the (useless) upgrade for that vehicle?

I'm not sure that I ever did. In fact on page three I said "At the end of the day, if my opponent really wants to waste his points buying upgrades for units on they basis they 'are a unit and it says any unit', then he is more than welcome. But I'm sure as hell not letting him use the ability if it contravenes the rules". And I made similar points on p2. Your point about reading carefully goes both ways dude. I agree with you that you can, theoretically, grant invulnerable saves to any model, but the process for actually rolling for invulnerable when taking wounds, so it is completely useless on non-wound models (codex exceptions aside). This would also apply to a whole host of other abilities, upgrades etc. You may be able to buy them, but you sure can't use them.

[wkz]

I'm not sure that I ever did. In fact on page three I said "At the end of the day, if my opponent really wants to waste his points buying upgrades for units on they basis they 'are a unit and it says any unit', then he is more than welcome. But I'm sure as hell not letting him use the ability if it contravenes the rules". And I made similar points on p2. Your point about reading carefully goes both ways dude. I agree with you that you can, theoretically, grant invulnerable saves to any model, but the process for actually rolling for invulnerable when taking wounds, so it is completely useless on non-wound models (codex exceptions aside). This would also apply to a whole host of other abilities, upgrades etc. You may be able to buy them, but you sure can't use them.

...
That's not what your last post said.

...The issue was, how far does this extend e.g. 'invulnerbale saves to any unit' under grotsniks rules. I thought we had clearly establsihed that the rules actually mean 'to any unit that is allowed invulnerbale saves (e.g. one with wounds)'. This is backed up by the FAQ...Key phrase: 'to any unit that is allowed invulnerable saves'? aka cannot BUY the upgrade for vehicles??

Sorry if I misunderstood, but the above post you quoted is in the context of this single post.



Ah well. I guess we're agreed then? (a) Mr HQ Mad Dok cannot get Vehicles to have Invulnerable saves (thanks to the FAQ), (b) Vehicles and Invulnerable saves don't mix, and (c) Any race with Vehicles that are operating with Invulnerable saves are either working under an FAQ, or under the grace of a community-wide RAI.

[Wildeybeast]

...
That's not what your last post said.
Key phrase: 'to any unit that is allowed invulnerable saves'? aka cannot BUY the upgrade for vehicles??

Sorry if I misunderstood, but the above post you quoted is in the context of this single post.



Ah well. I guess we're agreed then? (a) Mr HQ Mad Dok cannot get Vehicles to have Invulnerable saves (thanks to the FAQ), (b) Vehicles and Invulnerable saves don't mix, and (c) Any race with Vehicles that are operating with Invulnerable saves are either working under an FAQ, or under the grace of a community-wide RAI.

Yes we are entirely agreed. I'm not sure how we got there, but we did.