Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Wyche dodge entgry reads "They recieve a 4+ Invulnerable save whilst fighting in assault. However, their armour save versus shooting attacks is still 6+".

My question is if the Wyches are locked up in close combat and get hit by an errant blast template, or perhaps if fighting a daemonhost and get hit by bloodboil, do they recieve their 4+ invulnerable save because they are still fighting in assault? Or do they have to utilize their cardboard 6+ save (or shudder as all but the lightest weaponry punches through what little protection they have)?

4+ Inv save, as they are fighting in assault. Nothing states it *only* counts for wounds inflicted through close combat, therefore while in assault they have a 4+ inv save. They are forced to use this against any wounding hit as it is their best save.

"They recieve a 4+ Invulnerable save whilst fighting in assault. However, their armour save versus shooting attacks is still 6+".


My unofficial guess is that they would take the 6+ save against the errant blast as it is a shooting attack.

Except, as I said, it does not specifically state that they get an Inv save &just& against close combat attacks.

That's probably the *intent*, but you are required to take tghe best save which is a 4+ invulnerable...

Nos, I don't think it gets any more specific than this. I'll type it again for your viewing pleasure.

"They recieve a 4+ Invulnerable save whilst fighting in assault. However, their armour save versus shooting attacks is still 6+".

The errant blast attack is a shooting attack.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Anyone else care to chime in on this?

Well, yes it could be more specific. As I put in my first post. If you'd care to reread that?

Yes, their ARMOUR SAVE is 6+. Fine, agreed. However, as long as they are in an Assault they count as having a 4+ Invulnerable save.

I will type it out clearly for you: they have a 4+ Invulnerable Save.

So, they have two saves: 4+ Invulnerable and 6+ Armour. When hit by ANY shooting attack they MUST, per the BRB, take the BEST save possible.

What is their best save? A 4+ Invulnerable.

Now, if they had said "However they ONLY have an armour save against shooting, which is 6+", then that would be sufficient - however the two sentences are not exclusionary as they are currently written.

Does that help?

Id agree that the blast attack is counted as shooting so only the 6+ paper armour is applicable as there is no fists etc to dodge out of the way of. hopefully stuff like this will be cleared up soon enough if any of the rumors are true

I would say if they chose to use their armor save it would be 6+ but there's no reason they couldn't use an invulnerable save at 4+.

sleezesteve wrote:I would say if they chose to use their armor save it would be 6+ but there's no reason they couldn't use an invulnerable save at 4+.

The BRB does not give you that choice - you MUST use your best available save.

augustus5 wrote:

"They recieve a 4+ Invulnerable save whilst fighting in assault. However, their armour save versus shooting attacks is still 6+".

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Anyone else care to chime in on this?

Seems clear. In an assault they have a 4+ invuln. Yet is states very clearly their save versus a shooting attack is still 6+. Thus in an assault any shots (Errant blast / psychic shooting when allowed) that hit them are shooting attacks, which is explicitly stated as a 6+. There is no debate here.

Shas'O Dorian wrote:

augustus5 wrote:

"They recieve a 4+ Invulnerable save whilst fighting in assault. However, their armour save versus shooting attacks is still 6+".

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Anyone else care to chime in on this?

Seems clear. In an assault they have a 4+ invuln. Yet is states very clearly their save versus a shooting attack is still 6+. Thus in an assault any shots (Errant blast / psychic shooting when allowed) that hit them are shooting attacks, which is explicitly stated as a 6+. There is no debate here.

There is no debate, but the opposite is the correct RAW call. Read the saving throw rules, Nosf's post above sums it up perfectly.

You have a 4++ save if you're in an assault.
It doesn't matter if your armor save against shooting is 6+, you have a 4++ save that isn't restricted to apply only to CC attacks.

Incorrect. Please state where the two sentences are exclusionary.

I have already given two examples of the language that is required to make them exclusionary, and this is not present.

There is indeed no debate: while in Close COmbat they have a 4+ Invulnerable and a 6+ Armour Save. The rules for the save do not state it may only be take against close combat attacks and therefore, according tot he BRB you MUST take the 4+ Invulnerable save against any attacks.

If people wish to post further to "disprove" this could they please explain how the language is exclusionary or specifies that the Invulnerable save can only be taken against attacks made from Close Combat Attacks? So far that has been entirely ignored, which doesnt make for "debate"

Gorkamorka wrote:
You have a 4++ save if you're in an assault.
It doesn't matter if your armor save against shooting is 6+, you have a 4++ save that isn't restricted to apply only to CC attacks.

But it is. RaW "Your save versus shooting attacks is still 6+" Thus clearly stated, your save versus a shooting attack is still 6+

Shas'O Dorian wrote:
But it is. RaW "Your save versus shooting attacks is still 6+" Thus clearly stated, your save versus a shooting attack is still 6+

Nice misquote.
Apparently you don't understand how multiple saving throws work. There's a section in the rulebook entirely on them.

Having a save that has restrictions is fine. Best posible save = best that is not restricted from being used.

kirsanth wrote:Having a save that has restrictions is fine. Best posible save = best that is not restricted from being used.

The invulnerable save is not restricted from being used, as I have shown. To be restricted it actually needs to state this, for example "You have a 4+ invulnerable that may only be used to save against wounds caused by close combat attacks" would restrict the invulnerable to only being used against close combat attacks. However, it does not do this, it simply states that while "in" assault you havea 4+ invulnerable.

Shas'O - please accurately quote if you are going to base an argument on it. Your *armour* save is a 6+. "Save", as an unqualified item, does not exist in the rulebook. Your *armour* save is 6+, it does not state this is the ONLY save you may make against shooting attacks.

I suggest a quick read of the BRB and models possesing more than one save.

Again, cna you possibly provide something showing either the exclusionary language of the two sentences or something prohibiting the 4+ invulnerable frmo being used against other attacks?

The rule says "when in assault they have a 4+ inv save, they still get a 6+ armour save against shooting attacks"

neither of those counters the other as they are talking about two different types of saves. By RAW, as much as it seems to go against RAI, they have a 4+ inv save against everything including shooting attacks as long as they are locked in combat, sure their armour save is still 6+ against shooting attacks, but that's not sufficient to deny the 4+ inv save they have been granted.

I agree with nosferatu, Drunkenspleen, et al. The RAW is pretty clear:

1. If they are in combat, they get a 4+ invulnerable save.
2. If they are shot at, they get a 6+ armour save. Kinda redundant, though.

Nothing says that they lose their 4+ invulnerable save, but it seems like that would be the intention. Still, I'd just play it as it's written unless the DE player wanted to take the more disadvantageous reading.

If you are looking for a restriction then I think the "However" in the, "However, their armour save versus shooting attacks is still 6+", would be that restriction.

The 4+ inv. save is intended to show the wyches prowess in CC. If you want to ignore the obvious rai and only consider raw then the "however" statement should be evidence enough.

Its Only in assault they get there 4+ sav, I dont know anyone that uses a templete weapon in assault.

( NIghtBringer and Justicars use the large blast, ) in the assault phase so they get there 4+ there due to its in assault phase. IF someone shoots into C/C( said blast marker moves over on them. 6+ armour sav.
Its not in the Assault phase.

Trust me I wish they had a better save....

augustus5 wrote:If you are looking for a restriction then I think the "However" in the, "However, their armour save versus shooting attacks is still 6+", would be that restriction.

The 4+ inv. save is intended to show the wyches prowess in CC. If you want to ignore the obvious rai and only consider raw then the "however" statement should be evidence enough.

RaI, it simply means that their armour save isn't being replaced by the invulnerable. I get a cookie at home. However I have my milk while I work. My cookie has not suddenly disappeared if I work from home.

Yeah honestly I can see your logic on RAW OP, but the RAI on this one is pretty blindingly clear. I'd honestly have to throw the TFG flag on someone if they tried to pull this is the extremely rare scenario of a drifting blast marker. It's a rare instance, for the sake of the game take your 6+ on the 2-3 wyches hit and move on with life.

For my reasoning, the "However" clearly states that if they are hit by a shooting attack they have their 6+ armor not the 4+ invul. The first sentence is talking about assaults and only assaults, the however would not be needed if they didn't explicitly mean to say that if they are hit by a shooting attack they get their 6+ not 4+.

The wyches are dodging weapons, if a blast hits they can't dodge a giant explosion.

By my interpretation, the however specifies that the 6+ armor save is not lost even though they have a 4+ invul. This could come up if they were shot with a ap- weapon that ignores invul saves (maybe an anti deamon weapon).

This post is a little funny for me as I have been playing a wych cult for about 4 years now and this has never come up hehe. However it is pretty clear to me by all the quoted rules that even if in CC they only get the 6+ against shots that wander into them while engaged.

I read this and maybe I missed it but I have not seen anyone prove that they get to keep their 4+ save by an actual rules quote. If so please point me back to it so I can cogitate....

RaI, it simply means that their armour save isn't being replaced by the invulnerable. I get a cookie at home. However I have my milk while I work. My cookie has not suddenly disappeared if I work from home.

I sir take your milk while you were looking for your cookie then take your cookie while you were trying to cry into your milk...that I already had

Fishboy - the rules quote given in the OP is sufficient to show they get a 4+ save. I have already shown this at least twice now.

The "However" is a reminder that their save is not *replaced* with a 4+ invulnerable, but this is in addition to their armour save.

Fishboy - I have proven, beyond all doubt, that their 4+ invulnerable while in assault can be taken against all attacks. Simply saying "It is pretty clear to me..." is not a rules argument - it is your opinion, and you have not provided any rules to back this up. The simple fact that the "they get a 4+ invulnerable" rule is there is sufficient to grant it against any attack, as long as the wytches are in assault at the time. This is, as I have said (repeatedly) not an exclusionary phrase - and I have given examples of rules which *would* limit it to one phase

What would help further the debate would be to directly respond to posts, disecting arguments - rather than restating your opinion.

...

They get the 6+ save. The 4+ save is only granted while they are "fighting in assault," not while they are "locked in combat." Models can only fight in an assault during the Assault phase, so Wyches cannot dodge shooting attacks that scatter into assault.

...

Oooh, that, I like. Well put, Fetterkey

"Fightin in Assault" is not the same as making your close combat attacks. The tense used is covered in the rules for ongoing assaults indicating that "fighting in assault" is a continuiing state while you are Locked.