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.

I have had some argument with my necron and IG friends.... and you can guess what my friends oppinion is....

Im I allowed to do a armor save with the affected Nob when using the boss pole?

/Martin

No.

: (

I wish I could get an armour save when My Commissar pops off that poor pip commander when he fails his check, but it aint happening, sorry. They're instant casaulties.

Doesn't it say causes a wound? Wounds allow saves unless stated they ignore certain saves so yes you can. That's how it was worked out before on Dakka (this has come up before a while ago).

While the rulebook is not clear on this most people assume you get saves against all wounds (not just ones caused by shooting or close combat) unless the description says otherwise.

So you get a save vs boss pole wounds.

a94marbo wrote:Im I allowed to do a armor save with the affected Nob when using the boss pole?

Yep. The Bosspole simply states that you "inflict a wound on that unit" with nothing saying that this wound ignores armour saves.

Commissars, on the other hand, VERY clearly state that the model is automatically executed, and removed as a casualty. The two are not related.

Ork Codex, page 92. "Each time a unit with a Bosspole fails a morale test you may choose to inflict a wound on that unit (not on the model with the Bosspole) in order to re-roll that Morale test."

There's nothing in there about ignoring the armor save or removing a model. All it does is give the unit a wound which cannot be allocated to the Nob.


According to the rulebook, page 20
"Before he removes any models as casualties, the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by taking a saving throw."

Regardless of source, a wound like this has a saving throw unless it is specifically disallowed. This is most often done with high AP weapons, power weapons, or monstrous creatures.

Minimax put it perfectly. You are allowed to take a save from the bosspole wound, although it cannot be on the Nob himself. Otherwise, you get your normal armor save. (I've made the save several times!!) Until this is FAQ'd (which I don't see happening because it's pretty clear cut) I'm going to continue to take an armor save. M

My two coppers....

Gitzbitah wrote:Ork Codex, page 92. "Each time a unit with a Bosspole fails a morale test you may choose to inflict a wound on that unit (not on the model with the Bosspole) in order to re-roll that Morale test."

"Each time", does that mean that I can use the boss pole unlimited times in a row until I run out of boys?

Gah that is gay. You would think a guardsmen can act dead for at least a minute and then transfer to a new unit :(

Oh well, gogo 6+!

a94marbo wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:Ork Codex, page 92. "Each time a unit with a Bosspole fails a morale test you may choose to inflict a wound on that unit (not on the model with the Bosspole) in order to re-roll that Morale test."

"Each time", does that mean that I can use the boss pole unlimited times in a row until I run out of boys?

No roll may ever be re-rolled more than once. See page 2 of the rulebook for reference.

This is from the Ork FAQ

Q. Are saves allowed against wounds caused by
rolling a ‘1’ for the ‘Waaagh!’ fleet roll? Or by a
Bosspole’s re-roll?
A. Armour and invulnerable saves are allowed.
These are just the same as wounds suffered in
close combat from a normal weapon (actually, a
big green fist…).

You would think that after 11 responses, someone would check the online FAQ....

Hehe.

AffliKtion wrote:Gah that is gay. You would think a guardsmen can act dead for at least a minute and then transfer to a new unit :(

Oh well, gogo 6+!

Have someone shoot you in the head and we'll see how much acting you're doing. The Commissar isn't taking a potshot at the guy, he's executing him(generally Commissars stand very close to the Officer/NCO they're assigned to to give moral support/tactical advice and "remind" them of certain protocols).

padixon wrote:This is from the Ork FAQ

Q. Are saves allowed against wounds caused by
rolling a ‘1’ for the ‘Waaagh!’ fleet roll? Or by a
Bosspole’s re-roll?
A. Armour and invulnerable saves are allowed.
These are just the same as wounds suffered in
close combat from a normal weapon (actually, a
big green fist…).

You would think that after 11 responses, someone would check the online FAQ....

Actually, I thought it was protocol not to check the FAQ until some point after the thread hit its second page.


Eric

Now that it's been done, Protocol tells us that TFG will show up and remind us that the FAQ isn't anything more than a suggestion.

padixon wrote:This is from the Ork FAQ

Q. Are saves allowed against wounds caused by
rolling a ‘1’ for the ‘Waaagh!’ fleet roll? Or by a
Bosspole’s re-roll?
A. Armour and invulnerable saves are allowed.
These are just the same as wounds suffered in
close combat from a normal weapon (actually, a
big green fist…).

You would think that after 11 responses, someone would check the online FAQ....

Actually my good sir, unless specified as Errata FAQ's are nothing more than "House Rules" and therefore hold no weight in a rules discussion.

Happy now Lordhat?

Yup, Procedure is satisfied. We can all go home happy in the knowledge that yet another question wasn't answered to anyone's satisfaction.

Well actually RaW it lets you take an armour save. It says wound, not unsaved wound.

The FAQ is just a reminder, not a ruling, since the ruling cannot be disputed

I haven't studied this issue too hard but I believe RAW you only take saves from wounds caused by shooting and close combat and when you are specifically told to.

No thats wrong. You always take saves against wounds unless told not to.

Otherwise every single non-power CCW in the game would have to say "You may take armour saves against this weapon"

Platuan4th wrote:

AffliKtion wrote:Gah that is gay. You would think a guardsmen can act dead for at least a minute and then transfer to a new unit :(

Oh well, gogo 6+!

Have someone shoot you in the head and we'll see how much acting you're doing. The Commissar isn't taking a potshot at the guy, he's executing him(generally Commissars stand very close to the Officer/NCO they're assigned to to give moral support/tactical advice and "remind" them of certain protocols).

Yeah, I'm sure a Nob misses with his Big Choppa Chain Axe/Power Klaw, give me a break...

AffliKtion wrote:Yeah, I'm sure a Nob misses with his Big Choppa Chain Axe/Power Klaw, give me a break...

Hitting someone with a pole or backhanding them with the flat of your axe is a much different experience than shooting them in the face.

Aff, try looking at it differently.

A Nob or Warboss isn't a Commissar.

The Nob knows he doesn't need to kill someone to scare the others into submission. He just needs to cuff one in the back of the head hard enough to knock some sense into him. If he does that, mob mentality kicks in, and the rest follow.

Orks like fight. Fight like Orks. They just need a reminder sometimes.

Eric

Webbe wrote:I haven't studied this issue too hard but I believe RAW you only take saves from wounds caused by shooting and close combat and when you are specifically told to.

And RAW non-shooting or CC wounds don't instruct you to remove models either, so technically they do nothing.


I was actually planning on making a post regarding this exact subject (wounds generated outside of shooting and CC and how exactly people handle resolving them). The only problem is that it is really too big an issue to fit into a single poll. I'd need to break it down into several polls to really cover it completely.

yakface wrote:

Webbe wrote:I haven't studied this issue too hard but I believe RAW you only take saves from wounds caused by shooting and close combat and when you are specifically told to.

And RAW non-shooting or CC wounds don't instruct you to remove models either, so technically they do nothing.

True that. I wish GW wrote more general rules for wounding, saving and removing casualties instead of having them in the shooting and close combat sections.