Daemon Engines, I reakize many of us have been using them wrongly.

[Daemonette666]

After reading a rules question on another website discussing whether Grotsnik could give Dreadnoughts Battle wagons, etc cybork bodies, I realized that many Chaos Space Marine and Chaos Daemon players are using the Daemon rule incorrectly on Chaos Daemon Engines.

The argument came up that Grotsnik could not give the Ork vehicles and walkers cybork bodies, because invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds, not damage. Therefore under that reasoning, The 5+ invul save that the daemon rule gives, can not be taken by daemon engines, because they take damage not wounds.

A Dread Knight that somehow gets an invulnerable save could use it however because it has a toughness value, even though I think it should be classified as an open topped walker, and be given armour values instead.

Since more than 70% of the armies you see in tournaments, or even in general wargaming come from the various Loyalist Space marine codexes, they normally either get fearless or ATSKNF, and so are immune to the Daemons fear rule. The only reason for them to have the Daemon rules really is to make it easier for Grey Knights to hurt them.

This certainly makes it a lot harder to use the Helldrake. If it takes a jink cover save, then it can not use its Bale Flamer in the next turn, as it can only make snap shot if it Jinks. They are then either more vulnerable to enemy attacks, or less effective in hurting the enemy. Now I realise why they are only 170 points each, they only have one ranges weapon, and their vector strike. This makes bale flamers less attractive an upgrade than I thought they were.

[Learn2Eel]

So how do you explain Dark Eldar vehicles paying for Flickerfields which grant the vehicle a +5 invulnerable save? I'm sorry, but if you try to use that argument in any gaming circle, they will laugh it off. It is clear that vehicles with an invulnerable save are intended to use it. If this was actually a FAQ, it would have popped up by now.
Not to mention the Chaos Space Marines battle report from the White Dwarf makes frequent mention of the vehicles taking invulnerable saves...
Oh, need I mention Contemptor Dreadnoughts?

From memory, having just checked it, the references to invulnerable saves talk specifically about non-vehicle models. Cover saves in those passages specifically mention wounds as well, exactly like the invulnerable saves. By this logic, vehicles can have cover saves, but not take then either.
This is why I think trying to argue this is RAW gone mad - no offence to you, as it is a valid point to bring up. But clearly by RAI vehicles are allowed invulnerable saves, otherwise, why would they have them or otherwise pay points for them?

[Saint_Anger]

It feels to me like the topic poster suffers so much from Heldrake’s baleflamer in many games and try to raise something to convince anyone that Heldrake gotta be much more weaker. That’s why he raise a point to Heldrake in the end. Anyway you need to get, perhaps, Quadgun to kill it.

[Nabterayl]

The argument came up that Grotsnik could not give the Ork vehicles and walkers cybork bodies, because invulnerable saves can only be taken against wounds, not damage.
This argument has come up before, even in 5th edition, and rests on the notion that because the rules never tell us what an invulnerable save does against a glancing or penetrating hit, they don't do anything. The canon of construction here says that if the rules don't say you can do something, you can't do it.

This is certainly a good canon. On the other hand, as Learn2Eel rightly points out, we have numerous examples of both Games Workshop and Forge World vehicles with invulnerable saves written into their unit entries. So we reference another canon: unless absolutely unavoidable, never interpret a rule such that it would have no effect at the time it was written.

There are certainly some people who think that the first canon trumps the second. These people are not, in my opinion, very good rules lawyers.

[Learn2Eel]

It feels to me like the topic poster suffers so much from Heldrake’s baleflamer in many games and try to raise something to convince anyone that Heldrake gotta be much more weaker. That’s why he raise a point to Heldrake in the end. Anyway you need to get, perhaps, Quadgun to kill it.

Daemonette666 is actually a Chaos player, so I think (s)he was referring to the possibility that this may be a way to sort of balance Heldrakes previously never having to Evade.


This argument has come up before, even in 5th edition, and rests on the notion that because the rules never tell us what an invulnerable save does against a glancing or penetrating hit, they don't do anything. The canon of construction here says that if the rules don't say you can do something, you can't do it.

This is certainly a good canon. On the other hand, as Learn2Eel rightly points out, we have numerous examples of both Games Workshop and Forge World vehicles with invulnerable saves written into their unit entries. So we reference another canon: unless absolutely unavoidable, never interpret a rule such that it would have no effect at the time it was written.

There are certainly some people who think that the first canon trumps the second. These people are not, in my opinion, very good rules lawyers.

Agreed. I can understand the argument, but there are way too many clear-cut examples of vehicles specifically being given or allowed to purchase invulnerable saves for one to say that vehicles in general cannot use them if they have them. Given that you can also cast Blessings such as Forewarning (grant a unit a +4 invulnerable save) on vehicles, I think we can understand the intent of the rules.

[Denzark]

D666 I feel, has slightly misinterpreted. For all the reasons mentioned before. And anyway, Heldrakes could potentially use evade having moved flat out in the shooting phase, for a 4+ cover save through jink - useful if you have deployed on short table edges and need to make up the ground.

[Daemonette666]

The reason I put this thread up was to ascertain whether I had interpreted the rules correctly or not. Having not played with or against Eldar with flicker fields, or many other vehicles /walker that have invul saves, I am used to vehicles having cover saves as the rule book covers this under the obscured vehicles section.

It suppose it is just another example of GWs rule book/codex checking system not picking up everything (as usual). They could have replaced the word "wound" with "wound or damage" or mentioned that vehicles could also take invul saves to save people misinterpreting it as I did.

Thanks Learn2Eel for noticing that I was both a Chaos player and a Female LOL. And Nabterayl I was not trying to make everyone believe the Helldrake was weak and powerless. I have found them to be extremely powerful, and thought that I may have been using them the wrong way. I know if I jink and use that cover save, I can only Snap shot next turn, so no Bale Flamer. I thought that if vehicles did not get invul saves then the upgrade was a silly one. Similar to the mistake GW made in the new Daemons codex giving the Tzeentch Chariot the heavy template weapon and not giving it relentless or something to allow it to shoot it.

I could not find any rule that allowed them to take an invul save, so voiced the question, as to whether I was using them correctly.

Thanks everyone, question has been answered.

[Slacker]

As far as Grotsnik goes, he still cannot give the cybork body upgrade to vehicles, pg 5 of the Ork FAQ covers the restrictions of his upgrades. Vehicles and unique characters are specifically called out there.

[dvs1]

Not to mention that all models in my SoB army come with a stock 6+ inv as well. Even the exorcists lol

[Nabterayl]

And Nabterayl I was not trying to make everyone believe the Helldrake was weak and powerless.
Er, I think you may be thinking of Saint Anger's post. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were.

[Daemonette666]

Er, I think you may be thinking of Saint Anger's post. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were.

Sorry, I meant Saint Anger. I had a long day at work that seemed to go on and on, and I was tired. Not enough coffee (synthetic blood).