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.

This one time, at band camp.

I screwed up my last post by editing it WAY too much. So I reposted it here.

But I fixed it.

Well said Odd. You make a good case.

I think (thought?) that ?Armour? and ?Armour save? were the same thing. Also that the terms ?Armour save? and ?invulnerable save? were both subcategories of the term ?save?, not subcategories of the term ?armour' which is what you seem to be saying.

<?  

When reading the first heading regarding saves, they talk about physical protection. When you get to invulnerable saves they talk about force fields and mystic energy. So in my mind there was a distinction made between armour and invulnerable. This distinction forced them into separate, mutually exclusive, categories.

 

But as you say; ?armour saves? and ?invulnerable saves? could both fall under the heading ?armour?.

 

Also when the term ?armour? is used to reference both aforementioned saves yak-face?s ?hole in the rules? gets filled.

 

I can?t think of any reason why not to play this way, but it is early here. I?ll run it by the guys at the club.  

sorry, my take on this would be:

"A unit of 5 models two of which have 3+/5+ and three of which have 3+/4+ saves takes 10 AP1 wounds."

surely, you split them into 2 piles, and roll X amount of wounds against the 4+ invul, and Y amount against the 5+ invul

say if you fail 2 of each, you remove 2 of each type. its up to the owner which models from each type are removed, but in this case it'd be all of the 3+/5+ guys, and 2 out of 3 of the 3+/4+ guys, and the owner gets to choose which of the 3+/4+ models is left alive.


i think i see yak-rage fuming as it appears i'm apply a method akin to the mixed armour rules. it does make sense, maybe its not strictly correct RAW, but it is a workable solution at the very least, and causes no problems that i see, and no conflicts with other rules.

You guys can cook up whatever house rules you want for this situation. Here's how it actually works:

You may have noticed that the mixed armor rules apply only to "armor saves." There is no correlation to invulnerable saves. Say you take three AP 2 wounds on a squad of two 2+/5+ and three 2+/4+. Those wounds have to be assigned to armor save 2+, since that's the majority. You (the defender) then choose what invulnerable saves you would like to try. If you take three 4+ then you MUST TAKE 4+ invulnerable save models off, if you fail! None of this "saving with the 4+ and then taking off a 5+" garbage.

And where in the rules does it say that?

 

Odd the Quiet:

I do like your interpretation that a 2+/5+ save would be different than a 2+/4+ for mixed armor purposes. It does immediately clean up nearly every issue I was speaking of. The only problem would be trying to convince most players, IMO.


The only problem I can think of with using both saves to determine mixed armor is this: The mixed armor rules state that if there is a tie for the majority, then the "worst type" is assumed to be in the majority.

What exacctly is the "worst" type if we were taking about armor types 2+/5+ or 3+/4+ against a single Lascannon shot?


I would tend to lean towards 3+/4+ being the "worst" (as the 2+ is better than the 3+, even though only the invulnerables are going to be of use against the attack), but it certainly isn't clear to the point where everybody could understand or agree upon it, IMO.

In the case of a lascannon wound the models aren't allowed a normal Armour Save, the wounds are taken against the Invulnerable Armour Saves.

Against a single AP1 or AP2 wound, one model saves on 4+ and one model saves on 5+, the 2+/5+ is worst.
Against a single AP3 wound, one model saves on 4+ and one model saves on 2+, the 3+/4+ is worst.
Against a single AP4, AP5 or AP6 wound, one model saves on 3+ and one model saves on 2+, the 3+/4+ is worst.

If the unit suffers 1 lascannon wound and 1 bolter wound, "worst" does become hard to define. 2+/5+ is worst vs. the lascannon but 3+/4+ is worst vs. the bolter.

 

Which was exactly my point. . .and that the definition of what armor is the "worst" shouldn't change based on what weapons are being fired at the unit (as within the mixed armor rules the owning player determines which armor type a particular weapon hits, of course assuming there are more wounds than models in the majority armor type).

What exacctly is the "worst" type if we were taking about armor types 2+/5+ or 3+/4+ against a single Lascannon shot?

I was about to ask the same question, then I realised the situation never comes up.

Odd the quiet, you've convinced me. I always thought the rules referred to "armour saves" specifically, but they actually only refer to "type of armour", and I think it's quite reasonable to say that 2+ and 2+/5+ are two seperate types of armour.

What this will mean is that broadsides will need more shield drones than broadsides for the shield drones to take the hits first. I think this is fair, 2 broadsides with ASS and 2 shield drones are actually extremely powerful using mixed armour as most do.

As to the "no save" rule, I don't think broadsides need to be removed first against a lascannon wound (if there are more shield drones) because the broadsides have a save, they just automatically fail it.

What exacctly is the "worst" type if we were taking about armor types 2+/5+ or 3+/4+ against a single Lascannon shot?

I was about to ask the same question, then I realised the situation never comes up.

Huh? What are you talking about, of course a situation such as that can come up. And you don't seem to understand the concept he's putting forth. If there are broadsides with a 2+ save and Shield drones with a -/4+ save, then Odd the Quiet is proposing that you would be using the mixed armor rules. Anytime you're using the mixed armor rules then the "no save" issue is moot.

Okay, I've been thinking about this. (Oh God! Do I ever stop thinking about Warhammer? I not going to think about that.)

Which is worse 3+/4+ or 2+/5+?

Against a single AP1 or AP2 wound, one model saves on 4+ and one model saves on 5+, the 2+/5+ is worst.
Against a single AP3 wound, one model saves on 4+ and one model saves on 2+, the 3+/4+ is worst.
Against a single AP4, AP5 or AP6 wound, one model saves on 3+ and one model saves on 2+, the 3+/4+ is worst.

That isn't only based on a single lascannon shot. It's based on all possible hits that can be fired against each type of armour. That means, overall, the 3+/4+ armour is worse than the 2+/5+ armour. Two thirds of the time it will provide less protection. I'd say that makes it the worse armour.

I'll do it again for 3+/4+ armour and 4+/3+ armour.

Against a single AP1, AP2 or AP3 wound, one model saves on 4+ and one model saves on a 3+, the 3+/4+ is worst.
Against a single AP4 wound, one model saves on a 3+ and one model saves on a 3+, no worst.
Against a single AP5 or AP6 wound, one model saves on a 3+ and one model saves on a 4+, the 4+/3+ is worst.
That means the 3+/4+ is worse. One sixth of the time unless a model can choose to use it's Invulnerable Save instead of it's Armour Save. Then 3+/4+ is worse half of the time and equal half the time. Still worse overall.

It's a little involved but that's a way to determine which is worse. (And 3+/4+ armor isn't as good as I thought it was)

Well, I keep forgetting to look at my rulebook in the evening, when I'm home. So I still have no page numbers. I will provide those when I have them.

The key here is that you use the worst "armor". An invulnerable save is not armor; it is not an armor save. Those, invulnerable saves are not used to determine the "worst armor". I saw a reference to "invulnerable armor save" - that term does not exist in the game. There are armor saves, and there are invulnerable saves. Apples and oranges, though most of the time they get confused with each other.

Interesting analysis about which combination of invulnerable save and armor save is the best, by the way. I would say 2+/5+ is best against shooting, but with the large numbers of HTH armor-ignoring weapons now, I'ld say the 3+/4+ is best in HtH.

Actually Antonin,

Rulebook page 25:

"Sometimes a creature will have a normal Armour Save and a separate Invulnerable Armour save. . ."

An Invulnerable Armour Save is armour. Page 25 "More Than One Save"
The correct term is "Invulnerable Armour Save" not Invulnerable Save.

Invulnerable Save is a contraction of the full term, like Armour Save is a contraction of the full term "normal Armour Save".
Invulnerable Armour Save & normal Armour Save; both are "Armour" and both are "Saves".
This is what excludes Cover Saves and Special Saves from the Mixed Armour rules. All are Saves, not all are Armour.

And the rules for Mixed Armour say that Invulnerable Armour Saves are not considered against special close combat attacks. (Page46, which is just about every kind there is)

So, in the case of one 2+/- Broadside and one -/4+ Shield Drone, the Broadside has the better armour and the shield drone takes the saves.

Odd the Quiet wrote:
And the rules for Mixed Armour say that Invulnerable Armour Saves are not considered against special close combat attacks. (Page46, which is just about all every kind there is)

I think you screwed up somewhere (or I just am having a hard time understanding what you're writing here). The mixed armor rules are on page 76, not 46. And those rules don't say anything about considering or not considering Invulnerable saves against special close combat attacks. It just says that models with an invulnerable save may, of course, use it against such an attack.

An Invulnerable Armour Save is armour. Page 25 "More Than One Save"
The correct term is "Invulnerable Armour Save" not Invulnerable Save.

Invulnerable Save is a contraction of the full term, like Armour Save is a contraction of the full term "normal Armour Save".

I think that's going a little far. The full term "Invulnerable Armour Save" is used exactly once in the rulebook to my knowledge (and I quoted it in my post above). The official section on page 25 regarding Invulnerable Saves (where they would/should have the full title) is called simply "Invulnerable Saves", and never uses the full phrase.

If anything, I'd say the full title's use in the following section on page 25 is likely a simple error (or over-zealous use of the word). Because, besides that instance, they do a good job of keeping the terms completely seperate.


Like I said before, although I'd like to play the game using your interpretation Odd (barring the fact that "worst" armor is subjective then), but the problem is that common usage is still going to prevail in the end. And I have yet to meet someone who wants to treat a 3+/4+ save model as a different type of armor save as a 3+/5+ model, and use the mixed armor rules for them.

Until that happens, whatever RAW concept is concluded here (and I don't think too many are getting close to being convinced), that's the sad truth at the end of the day.

Fair Enough. I know when to stop fighting.

I did say it's more important to convince people than to prove that you're right.

But for clarity's sake, I meant to say "Invulnerable Armour Saves are not considered when determining majority armour against special close combat attacks" and page 46 is where "special close combat attacks" are listed.

I stand corrected! Thank you, Yakface. I didn't recall having seen that paragraph.