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.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:You must have the chance to fail something to fail it.

Not exactly - and definitely not in every case.
The rules to remove casualties state that "Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted"
Which the "of course" being about failing saves. Which is to say: Of course not being given a chance to fail still counts as a failure.

Sorry I've read that Page24. Rule over and over and I see nothing that stipulates that you must use the best save. Only that the model "has the advantage of always using the best save available."

When an opponent has something that can force you to re-roll a save etc then obviously taking one save over another can be beneficial at this point another save not necessarily the best is advantageous.

Page 24 does not force me to play into an opponents hands.

To the original question I don't have either codex in front of me but if the wording is as written here then your Shadow field is still intact. One codex states a special rule that has the field destroyed on a D6 roll of 1. The other rule does not allow you a roll. They are not conflicting.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:IMO, the INAT ruling is incorrect. You must have the chance to fail something to fail it.

I certainly agree with this.

@Ordznik - I think your example has hit the question on the head to a degree. My reply is that the rulebook isn't very clear on the "best" ruling and thus there is no clear cut answer. I still submit that a 2++ you can't take is a "better" save then a 5+ you can't take since because it has been shown re-rolls are not considered that the GW ruling doesn't allow for percentage chance to be considered in the question for what is a "better" save (which is the only difference between the Shadowfield/warscythe save and your cover save example since both a 2+ cover save and the shadowfield at 2++ are identical in the way GW appears to classify "better" (numerically and applicably) whereas the 2++ and 5+ are not identical except in a percentage chance of success/failure, but are different numerically)

We covered the best save thing a week or so ago here.

Edited once I learned to type that sentence.

Ealiom wrote:Sorry I've read that Page24. Rule over and over and I see nothing that stipulates that you must use the best save. Only that the model "has the advantage of always using the best save available."

When an opponent has something that can force you to re-roll a save etc then obviously taking one save over another can be beneficial at this point another save not necessarily the best is advantageous.

The model has the advantage of always using the best save available.
The model does not have the advantage of choosing which save it uses.
The way many read it is that because you always use the best save available to you that you are obligated to use the best save available to you.

To the original question I don't have either codex in front of me but if the wording is as written here then your Shadow field is still intact. One codex states a special rule that has the field destroyed on a D6 roll of 1. The other rule does not allow you a roll. They are not conflicting.

Actually, the Shadowfield goes away "if the save is ever failed" not if you roll a 1 (though that often causes failure).

I understand the reasoning but there is no example written in there description to say that a player can't substitue a 4+ invulnerable for a 3+ armour save that would require re-rolling.
As that one save is clearly the 'best' save they can take then they may. There is no stipulation regarding what is determined to be best wether it be purely numerical order or percentage. RAW I choose the 'best' possible save for the unit. If you take it any other way you are adding to the rule.

The interaction between the Shadow field and Warcythe still do not contradict one another. One requires a save to be failed the other gives you no chance to make that failure. There is no clash of rules here.

Ealiom wrote:I understand the reasoning but there is no example written in there description to say that a player can't substitue a 4+ invulnerable for a 3+ armour save that would require re-rolling.
As that one save is clearly the 'best' save they can take then they may. There is no stipulation regarding what is determined to be best wether it be purely numerical order or percentage. RAW I choose the 'best' possible save for the unit. If you take it any other way you are adding to the rule.

You may have your opinion. If you really want to discuss that rule there is already a thread for it or you can start another one.

Ealiom wrote:The interaction between the Shadow field and Warcythe still do not contradict one another. One requires a save to be failed the other gives you no chance to make that failure. There is no clash of rules here.

INAT FAQ disagrees with you and I agree with you that it shouldn't count as a failure. My opinion and the INAT point have both been made in this thread. There is a rule question about it though because it's not clear if no ability to make a save constitutes failing the save. Clearly it doesn't constitute succeeding at a save and GW in the past has had in their FAQ that a save that could not be taken counts as failing a save, though they do not have that language now. Because of the way Shadowfield is worded it's very important to know if inability to take a save counts as failing a save and that's why there's a question (if not a clash).

Since INAT is often used at tourneys I participate in (and at most "official" events) I will note that my opinion and yours appear to be in the minority.

Yeah I respect that.

Regarding the main question I would only ever consult an INAT FAQ if there was no clear RAW to fall back on. In my most humble of opinions this isn't the case here. Seems overtly black and white to me and until GW themselves changed one rule or the other I would play it as RAW not an INAT FAQ ruling. If that puts me in a minority I'd have cause for quiet concern : /