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.

andystache wrote:


I'm only slightly trying to be glib when I say this, but if I read this correctly your counter to my statement of "there is a difference between 'AP2' and 'Ignores Armor'" is that there is a difference between AP2 and Ignores Armor? This is YMDC and someone asked for specificity in replies. You know this is truly foolish, the OPs question was answered ages ago and you and I can, and most likely would, go round and round with each other. For the sake of getting questions that need answers to the top I'm going to stop arguing. You make a great case, take that as you will. Cheers.

You don't need to pyramid entire quotes. Its really annoying.

My response is "AP2" ignores Armour Saves (all of them, mind), THEN has another added benefit. (+1 on Armour penetration.)

Ignores Armour Simply ignores armour saves. (all of them, mind.)

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It doesnt mean it is impossible, either. It is also not even Improbable, just "unlikely", and therefore worthy of including for completeness sake.

If you dont like people being precise, in a forum dedicated to determining how rules operate, then maybe this isnt the forum for you?

I just used the exact language of a rule to prove that a Rending weapon ignores armour.

False.

You used the exact language of a rule to prove that a Rending weapon, when it scores a rend, ignores armour of 2+ or worse.

You did not prove it ignores armor. Subtle but important difference.

Actually he did, using the same context of the rules.

In this game there are armor saves, they range from 2-6. If a weapon rends (ap2) it will ignore all armor saves.
Until at a later time in which they add in new armor saves other tan 2+, or change ap2 or rending.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It doesnt mean it is impossible, either. It is also not even Improbable, just "unlikely", and therefore worthy of including for completeness sake.

If you dont like people being precise, in a forum dedicated to determining how rules operate, then maybe this isnt the forum for you?

I just used the exact language of a rule to prove that a Rending weapon ignores armour.

False.

You used the exact language of a rule to prove that a Rending weapon, when it scores a rend, ignores armour of 2+ or worse.

You did not prove it ignores armor. Subtle but important difference.

Actually he did, using the same context of the rules.

In this game there are armor saves, they range from 2-6. If a weapon rends (ap2) it will ignore all armor saves that are 2+ or worse....
Until at a later time in which they add in new armor saves other tan 2+, or change ap2 or rending.

Fixed that for you with the Orange Text.

3+6+d3 (1,2, or 3). It's that simple

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

andystache wrote:


I'm only slightly trying to be glib when I say this, but if I read this correctly your counter to my statement of "there is a difference between 'AP2' and 'Ignores Armor'" is that there is a difference between AP2 and Ignores Armor? This is YMDC and someone asked for specificity in replies. You know this is truly foolish, the OPs question was answered ages ago and you and I can, and most likely would, go round and round with each other. For the sake of getting questions that need answers to the top I'm going to stop arguing. You make a great case, take that as you will. Cheers.

You don't need to pyramid entire quotes. Its really annoying.

My response is "AP2" ignores current Armour Saves (all of them, mind), THEN has another added benefit. (+1 on Armour penetration.)

Ignores Armour Simply ignores armour saves. (all of them, mind.)

Fixed that for you. Being specific really helps.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Fixed that for you. Being specific really helps.

Current rules are far more specific than listing the possibility of unimplemented future rules, or rules that have been removed from the game.

Being specific about the game rules is far more important than pretending you're right. If you want to sulk about there being no 1+ armour saves to substantiate your claim, that's fine. It doesn't make me any less correct, nor does it make your argument any less a fallacy.

I mean, come on. Your argument is literally if 1+ armour saves existed, then AP2 would not ignore 1+ armour saves. We've already gone through conditionals not being arguments.

If rending were AP1, then you'd still be wrong.

What're you going to say now, that because Rending is, in fact not AP1 that my conditional isn't acceptable?

A Long Forgotten Source of Unknown Origins wrote:
It doesnt mean it is impossible, either. It is also not even Improbable, just "unlikely", and therefore worthy of including for completeness sake.

If you don't like people being precise and to the letter of the current game, in a forum dedicated to determining how rules operate in the current game, then maybe this isn't the forum for you?

You were not being precise about the rules, were corrected on it and are simply trying to bluster your way through to still being right, despite being demonstrably wrong.

I am not the one sulking, I would hazard

Firstly, allow me to apologise for the lateness of reply. I was on ‘holiday’.

So, during my ban I had a lot of thinking time. I decided I’d take your advice; I’d be more precise than I usually would. I went to the index to find the entries for armour saves. I noted them down and went along to read them.
Nosferatu1001, I know you love preciseness, so I’d just like to be very, very precise when I write this out.
I’d like you to go to the second numbered page (the eleventh unnumbered.) of the Sixth Edition Rulebook. Having done that, I’d like to direct you to the final paragraph of this page, It reads simply ARMOUR SAVE (SV). This is a rather long paragraph, so I would like you to read precisely the last sentence (last two lines.) of this paragraph. I’ll also note that its precisely the first rules reference to armour saves, so it’s probably the most important.

This sentence reads, in a very precisely and succinct manner:

A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+.

Now I’ll admit; I didn’t think to look at precisely this entry for the duration of this argument. That’s a fault of mine. But, you’re the one who claims to be more precise than me. Surely, in your spate of preciseness, you read precisely this rule?

nosferatu1001 wrote: The old first attempts at rules for Primarchs had 1+ armour saves.

Just saying, you really cant say "never", especially when it happened.

I may not be able to say “Never”, but the rulebook seems to be able to do it.

I’d also like to take the time to point out some of the “Tenets of You Make Da Call”. These can be found here.

Lorek wrote:2. The Only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

It seems that the only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and GW FAQs on YMDC, which is a sub forum dedicated to determining the precise operation of rules. So, your point, which I will requote for preciseness sake, is invalid

nosferatu1001 wrote:The old first attempts at rules for Primarchs had 1+ armour saves.

No 1+ armour saves are found in any current (and thus official) rulebook, Codex or FAQ. If I’m wrong about this, I’d be more than happy to be shown an existing unit in a current Rulebook, Codex or FAQ that has a 1+ armour save. I will give you an allowance; Wargear is allowed to be used in place of the characteristic value, as some models may have their base SV value changed. (Captains, for example)

nosferatu1001 wrote: doesnt mean it is impossible, either. It is also not even Improbable, just "unlikely", and therefore worthy of including for completeness sake.

This, obviously is false. Well, we know that if something never occurs, then it is impossible.

Do you want me to requote the rule for preciseness sake?

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you dont like people being precise, in a forum dedicated to determining how rules operate, then maybe this isnt the forum for you?

Don’t you hate how you said this now?

nosferatu1001 wrote:You were not being precise about the rules, were corrected on it and are simply trying to bluster your way through to still being right, despite being demonstrably wrong.

I am not the one sulking, I would hazard

Well, it seems you didn’t even read the rules. You’ve been corrected on them, are you simply going to try to bluster your way to still being right, despite being demonstrably wrong?

I also never said you were sulking. I gave you leave to sulk. There’s a difference that a precise person should pick up on.

TL;DR/ to put it Parsimoniously

My premises are:

Wounds caused by rolls of 6 from the rending rule are resolved at AP2. [Page 41]

AP rating indicates the Armour Save that a weapon can ignore. (That armour or worse) [Page 17]

An AP2 weapon ignores armour saves that are 2+ or worse. [Page 17]

No Armour save may be better than 2+. [Page 2]

My Conclusion is:

In response to Happyjew’s statement

Happyjew wrote: At no point does Rending ignore armour.

Rending does, in fact ignore armour.

Now the fact that this [utterly true by the facts of the rulebook] statement does not impact on the way the game is played at all is not important; Next time you want patronise someone or to tell people they’re not precise enough for your standards, look to making sure of your own precision. I must ask, in parting was all this precise enough for you?

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+.

Now I’ll admit; I didn’t think to look at precisely this entry for the duration of this argument. That’s a fault of mine. But, you’re the one who claims to be more precise than me. Surely, in your spate of preciseness, you read precisely this rule?

Correct. Despite modifiers a model can never have a save better than 2+. If the Eldar codex came out tomorrow with a new Psychic Power that says "This power is a blessing that improves the targets armour save by 1. Note this makes it possible to have a 1+ Armour Save." What happens? We have an advanced rule/basic rule conflict (exactly like Heroic Intervention vs DS). The advanced rule (the power) wins and the model could possibly have a 1+ save.

Currently there is no way to have better than a 2+ armour save. Does that make it impossible? No. Improbable? Maybe. Unlikely? Yes. As has been pointed out AP2 and "Ignores Armour Saves" are 2 different mechanics and the only reason I made that comment is due to the .000000000000000000000...001% chance GW releases something that is able to get a 1+ armour save.

Scipio - apparently you didnt learn much.

Page 7: Basic Versus Advanced. A codex could state that models have an armour save of 1+, and this would override the basic rules.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+.

Now I’ll admit; I didn’t think to look at precisely this entry for the duration of this argument. That’s a fault of mine. But, you’re the one who claims to be more precise than me. Surely, in your spate of preciseness, you read precisely this rule?

Correct. Despite modifiers a model can never have a save better than 2+. If the Eldar codex came out tomorrow with a new Psychic Power that says "This power is a blessing that improves the targets armour save by 1. Note this makes it possible to have a 1+ Armour Save." What happens? We have an advanced rule/basic rule conflict (exactly like Heroic Intervention vs DS). The advanced rule (the power) wins and the model could possibly have a 1+ save.

Currently there is no way to have better than a 2+ armour save. Does that make it impossible? No. Improbable? Maybe. Unlikely? Yes. As has been pointed out AP2 and "Ignores Armour Saves" are 2 different mechanics and the only reason I made that comment is due to the .000000000000000000000...001% chance GW releases something that is able to get a 1+ armour save.

I'd take another gander at your Basic Versus Advanced Rules section.

Basic rules are rules between pages 10 and 31. These rules begin at the movement phase and are things that the codexes can im[pact upon.

For precision's sake

Basic rules apply to all models in the game, unless specifically stated otherwise. They include the rules ... [description of rules] found between pages 10 and 31.

I would argue also like to restate YMDC's tenets as a point of argument.

Lorek wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

That word current... it means a lot. Just like the word never, found on Page 2 of the main rules. You also know for a fine fact that they would not include such an exact statement as that if they did not mean it to be true.

So, saying "There's a possibility" is not a recognisable argument on YMDC, as YMDC only uses current rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd also like to point out, before you post of the "conflict between a rule in this rulebook and one printed in a codex" that the notes from pages 2-9 are not rules; they're principles.

Principle means "A Fundamental truth that serves as the foundation for a system."

We can deduce (and deduction is a form of argument, whereas stating a conditional is not) that “A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+.” Is a “Fundamental truth” of warhammer 40,000 as a game.

In fact, it goes deeper than that.

Second paragraph specifically reads

The odd characteristic out is Armour Save (Sv) which can ruin from 2+ through 6+ to - (for models with no armour save.)

I don't see how you can cling to this. The rules are specifically designed not to allow 1+ armour saves yet you insist that there's a possibility that it's true, seemingly because it brings you happiness to insist on exceptions that will not ever exist.

I reiterate: it is not "Unlikely" or even "Improabable". It will never happen. It is impossible.

Page 4 - 9, actually. That lack of precision again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Page 4 - 9, actually. That lack of precision again.

Precision, heh.

So then, what, precisely are characteristics?

Let's think about this.

To be a basic rule, it must be between pages 10 and 31, as stated in Basic Versus Advanced rules, on page 7. This isn't in question I assume, since the rule is there in black and white and no codex update will have an opportunity to say differently.

We can safely assume they're not advanced rules, as we all know it's possible to play a teaching game without advanced rules, and heaven forget me if I can't play one without model characteristics. O'course, if you would like to go down this inane little road, that's up to you.

Precisely what kind of rules are they? For arguments sake we'll assume they're not Principles.

So, to recap
- they're not basic rules
- they're not advanced rules
- they're not even Principles (in your opinion)

They can't simply 'be rules', no, YMDC is a place about precision! The rulebook took the time to explain basic and advanced rules to us, then decided not to include them for a reason, surely? Or, are we now allowed to make imprecise assumptions now?

So what the heck are they, Nos?


I'd also strongly recommend you rethink this. There's a reason YMDC says current Codex and Rulebook and FAQ. That's because that's all we have to go on.

On that note, I'll offer you a compromise to this argument: I am correct so long as there are no 1+ armour saves in this edition (6) of 40k (if 7th edition changes this, that's a new edition and this argument becomes an outdated note anyway), as soon as there is a 1+ armour save in a current codex or FAQ (we'll say rulebook too, but the rulebook shouldn't change) that is not later found to be an errata'd mistake, you will get the final victory of this argument.

I say that because we both realise this argument won't end unless we compromise. (We'll argue and we'll compromise, and we'll realise that nothing ever changes, to quote Billy Joel.) It's like a religious debate; your set in a belief that you believe is the only truth and I believe in something else that I believe is the only truth. What I've said here, is that if, by some stroke of extraordinary oversight on GW part (I will concede they're prone to that), your argument becomes valid because 1+ armour saves have become available and my belief no longer is valid (that 1+ armour saves do not and will not exist), then I will concede to you.

I mean, how would Christians/Atheists/skeptics behave if it turned out that aliens existed/god was real after all/pigs can, in fact, fly?

Given they are not under the heading "Principles", which starts page 4, it isnt really "for arguments sake" - it is called actually reading the written rules. They are not defined as General Principles.

Your posts continue to be sarcastic sounding.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Given they are not under the heading "Principles", which starts page 4, it isnt really "for arguments sake" - it is called actually reading the written rules. They are not defined as General Principles.

Your posts continue to be sarcastic sounding.

I'm not being sarcastic, I just don't agree with you.

I think the problem is that you're trying to read sarcasm, because you can't hear my tone. It's a dangerous road to go down, my friend.

You still haven't answered my question. What are characteristic values, if not rules and not Principles? This is the second time you've just ignored the stated argument to attack something else.

So I'll reiterate both of them.

If it is a possibility that Armour saves of 1+ will exist, is it not a possibility that rending will be FAQ'd to read as AP1 and thus still make my claim correct?

And then, Characteristics seem undefined, I don't want them to be defined as a rule (because they aren't on the pages described as basic rules and they definitely aren't an advanced rule) and you don't want them to be a principle (because they aren't on the pages described as general principles) We can both agree that it's imprecise to simply call them rules, so what are they?

Oh, and the only time I reached writing sarcasm was while writing my long post. I was actually being sarcastic in a few places there.

Edit: You should be careful saying "Sounding", since we're not talking. As I've already spoken directly to you of, sarcasm is very often drawn from the tones we use (I'm sure you're aware already.) and it is a dangerous path to assume sarcasm. Much safer to assume someone's always being honest in a rules argument.

I would like to point out two things. Per pg 17 AP tells you what Armour saves can be ignored. Ignoring armour is something else which is arguable that all special rules of said armour could be ignored, if they would normally be trigger by wounds, if caused by a weapon that ignores armour. All depends on wording of course.

Scipio, That was my problem with your initial statement, you said AP 2 weapons ignore armour which is different from ignoring armour saves.

Edit: Actually it appears to be your second statement but I digress.

Scipio, you claim that everything prior to page 10 is not rules but "principles" and as such cannot be affected by basic v advanced. Iirc "multiple modifiers" is on page 5. Per that you multiply then add. Per Hammerhand, you add then multiply. Which takes precedence, and why?

 Gravmyr wrote:
I would like to point out two things. Per pg 17 AP tells you what Armour saves can be ignored. Ignoring armour is something else which is arguable that all special rules of said armour could be ignored, if they would normally be trigger by wounds, if caused by a weapon that ignores armour. All depends on wording of course.

Scipio, That was my problem with your initial statement, you said AP 2 weapons ignore armour which is different from ignoring armour saves.

Edit: Actually it appears to be your second statement but I digress.

I believe I stated that AP2 weapons ignore armour saves. I do note a difference between AP2 and Ignores armour as rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Scipio, you claim that everything prior to page 10 is not rules but "principles" and as such cannot be affected by basic v advanced. Iirc "multiple modifiers" is on page 5. Per that you multiply then add. Per Hammerhand, you add then multiply. Which takes precedence, and why?

Actually, you're wrong. They're on Page 2. But this does prove something in Nosferatu's favour, that Codex rules are allowed to affect the notes on page 2. This now pointed out very clear to me, I'm going to concede to the possibility of 1+ armour save argument, as the notes on page 2 are meant to be considered rules.

Edit: Maybe not rules, but that they can be altered by Codex statements.

I still maintain, however, that as long as there are no 1+ armour saves in the game that AP2 is capable of ignoring all armour saves. I also maintain my belief that we will not see any 1+ armour saves.

Further Edit: This has almost 800 views. I feel like I'm on national television or something.

Original question is answered, the rest of this is pointless bickering.