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.

Insaniak and Stu-rat: invul saves are not taken into account when determining majority armor.

The drone issue is nothing to do with mixed armour. The Drone has the same Armour Save as the Broadside. The problem is simply that the Drone gets a Saving throw, and the Broadside doesn't. The Broadside therefore has to be removed first.

Again, I'm not trying to be stupid here, but I think the new codex adds a line or two that makes things less clear-cut than it was last version.

Yup, what they should have said, rather than 'counts as two weapon systems' is simply 'counts as two choices'

Posted By insaniak on 03/28/2006 2:37 PM

Insaniak and Stu-rat: invul saves are not taken into account when determining majority armor.

The drone issue is nothing to do with mixed armour. The Drone has the same Armour Save as the Broadside. The problem is simply that the Drone gets a Saving throw, and the Broadside doesn't. The Broadside therefore has to be removed first.

Not sure where you are getting this from... You allocate hits to the models with the majority armor save, then take any saves you get. The majority armor save for broadsides + drones is 4+, so models with the 4+ save take the hits first. They don't get a save against ap 4 weaponry, but you can opt to take their 4+ invul save.

There is no "majority invulnerable save" rule.

of course you can use torrent of fire to hit the broadsides easily, with the low model count. There's also the issue of "removing whole models" from the multi-wound squad, but that's a minimal issue, and I don't see how it would play any part in play.

The majority armor save for broadsides + drones is 4+, so models with the 4+ save take the hits first.

Exactly. And as per the second-last paragraph on page 24, models who do not get a Saving throw must be removed first.

Note that it does NOT say 'models that do not get an Armour Save'... it merely says 'Saving throw'.

The Broadside does not get a Saving throw.
The Drone DOES get a Saving throw.

Therefore the broadside must be removed first.

There is no "majority invulnerable save" rule.

Nor would it apply in this case if there were one. As I already said, it's nothing whatsoever to do with mixed armour... the whole problem stems from the fact that the Drone and the Broadside have the SAME armour save. The only time you consider the Invulnerable save at this point is to determine whether or not the model gets a Saving throw.

Not sure if this really matters to much. You get to pick which weapon a model makes a saving throw against and so just allow the drones to take the low AP shots and the Broadsides to make the regular ones.

There are only but a handful of instances where there is a ton of fire that doesn't allow a saving throw.

I don't see the confusion.

To Stu-Rat:

2. There?s still an unnecessary 100 point limit on Battlesuit Wargear.

I'm not sure if I agree with you here - if I take 2 Marker Drones (allowed in the specific rules for Drone Controllers,) Iridium Armour, a Stimulant Injector, and a Fail Safe Detonator, I'm pretty sure that adds up to105pts of Battlesuit Wargear. Note that under the rules for Special Issue, it says that "...only one of each system may be taken per army..." - so I can take one of each, just not the same item twice.

To Harkainos - please read Insaniak's post again, and the rules on page 24 of the main rulebook. Basically, if I shoot at a Broadside Team with Shield Drones with a Lascannon, because the Broadsides do not get a Saving throw, they must be removed before the Shield Drones. Sad, but true. Good gaming!

Clarence

The taking of two of the same weapons is handled well in the codex.  It simply states that you CANNOT take two of the same item.

Having said that, Shadowsun does set the precedent for having two weapons that aren't twinlinked, but the rules still implicitly imply that you CANNOT take two of the same item from the Battlesuit lists.

I want to point out that if you can take 6 Dreads, then the way the Battlesuit's equip is worded you may take 3 weapons, AND 3 systems and your wargear.  Does a "drone controller" and a "hard-wired drone controller" count as two different items as they have different names? 

I actually like Farsight the way he is now.  I usually bond nearly every squad, so he saves me 35 points in my army (basically bonding price is cut in half), making him a steal at 13 Firewarriors.

Just regarding the Tau twin linked weapons.  I think people are getting the terminology confused.

As i see it a suit has 3 hardpoints which must be used for armory items.

1 weapon takes up one hardpoint and is one armory chooise.  If you want the weapon twinlinked it takes up 2 hardpoints, but remains 1 weapon system and 1 armory chooise.

So for example twinlinked plasma and a missile pod would take 3 hardpoints, counting as 2 weapons systems and you would need a hardwired target lock to fire both in 1 round.

I don't see what people are getting confused about?

Phaezen

Posted By CaptAnderton on 03/29/2006 5:38 AM
You guys are idiots. READ MAJORITY ARMOR SAVE. ARMOUR SAVE. Not MAJORITY INVULNERABLE SAVE. How do you keep missing this.

...sigh...

Nobody missed it.

Once again, the Drone and the Broadside have the SAME ARMOUR SAVE.

The Mixed Armour rules never enter into it. The shot hits a unit comprised of a Drone and a suit. Because Shield Drones count as having the same Armour Save as their controller (Tau Empire, page 31), both have the SAME Armour Save, which means the Mixed Armour rules DO NOT APPLY.

However, as the Drone has an Invulnerable Save, it gets a Saving Throw. The suit does not have an Invulnerable save, and so does NOT get a Saving throw.

So, as per the rules on page 24:
"...you begin by removing all models that do not get a Saving throw, and then roll all other Saving throws together."


Nobody is disputing how it was intended here, and I very much doubt that too many players would insist on the RAW definition in a game. The Shield Drone was very clearly SUPPOSED to be able to take the shot. But that's simply not how the rules are written.

Having said that, Shadowsun does set the precedent for having two weapons that aren't twinlinked, but the rules still implicitly imply that you CANNOT take two of the same item from the Battlesuit lists.

Special Characters never set a precedent for anything. They have their own rules. That's why they're Special.

1 weapon takes up one hardpoint and is one armory chooise. If you want the weapon twinlinked it takes up 2 hardpoints, but remains 1 weapon system and 1 armory chooise.

The problem is that this is NOT what the codex actualy says. A twin linked weapons counts as a single choice, but according to the codex:
"A single-mounted weapon system coutns as a single battlesuit weapon system, and a twin-linked weapon counts as two"

And that's a problem. If the twin-linked weapon counts as two weapon systems, then you need a multitracker to fire it.

Okay, to continue?

Well, it seems like I?m not going to get my wish of a single thread with all the new Tau Codex problems in it. That?s all I wanted. However, it is not to be, so I?ll struggle valiantly on.

insaniak said:
What did you expect? If it's not really a problem, it doesnt belong in a list of problems, now does it?

Ah but they are problems. If you don?t think so, why waste your time posting here?

insaniak said:
Infiltration does not allow units that would normally be held in reserve to deploy. There is no conflict here. Escalation forces Jump Infantry to be held in Reserve. Infiltration specically states that it does not over-ride this.

No, it doesn?t. I repeat: Escalation disbars jump infantry from starting on the table unless they have a special rule that allows deployment. Infiltration is a special rule and allows deployment.

Prove that this is not a problem.

insaniak said:
The 'Drone problem' was that they were useless against shooting attacks. Tau aren't SUPPOSED to be any good at close combat.

True, but Shield Drones are also supposed to protect their Controller in close combat. That?s the premise behind them and another part of the problem under 4th edition rules. Either that premise has been changed or a problem exists.

insaniak said:
Nope. You just pay the 'twinlinked' cost from the Armoury, and the model gains a twin-linked weapon system. ? I did nothing of the sort. A
Twinlinked weapon is a single option from the armoury. A single weapon is a single option from the armoury.
Nope, a twinlinked weapon is two choices. Hence it filling two hardpoints and counting as two weapon systems. And you can?t select the same item twice. Technically, therefore, twinlinking is illegal. That?s stupid and I wouldn?t play it that way, but that?s what the RAW states.

insaniak said:
How?

Either the Drones are linked to another model, in which case they are removed if the model dies, or they are a Squadron, in which case they have a Ld. ? If you are referring to Drones that have dismounted from a vehicle, once they are dismounted they count as a Drone Squadron, and would use the appropriate statline. If that's not what you meant, I have no idea what you are talking about.

You?re really asking me this? And I?m respecting your opinions on the new Tau Codex too? sheesh. Just kidding you, insaniak. Okay, so a unit of four Piranhas is flying about, having fun, seeing the sights, when one gets popped. Rules say that all the Gun Drones must now disengage and form one unit. You now have a unit of 8 Gun Drones with no Ld. (Note that the rules refer to treating this as a Drone Squadron and not ? as they probably should ? a Gun Drone Squadron. Hence the problem.)

insaniak said:
And the Wargear comes from...?

Yes, yes, the Armoury. But then why do we have the distinction? Why does the Ethereal get to choose from the Armoury and others only from Wargear? There must be a reason. Hence the problem. RAW, like it or not.



insaniak said:
Nonsense. The Infantry Armoury has a single secion entitled 'Infantry Wargear'

No, it has three sections, two unlabelled and one labeled ?Infantry Wargear?. Or are you going to argue that all three sections of the Battlesuit Armoury is labelled ?Battlesuit Wargear?? Of course not.


chaossage said:
90% of your problems seem to stem from your inability to accept rules you don't like. the only valid complaint you have is the poor wording of the Cyclic Ion Blaster.

Actually, 90% of my problems stem from people not being able to read.

bigchris1313 said:
With the drones, the Crisis suit maintains its IC status. So he is treated like a seperate unit for purposes of hits/wounds/etc in CC. With the bodyguard, the Crisis suit is no longer an IC, so you can pull other models in the kill zone instead of him. They're guarding his body.

Unless he takes Drones. At which point he is an IC with a bodyguard.

Grimaldi said:
I'll add my concern. It's based off the premise that you can take twin-linked weapons on crisis suits (which seems pretty clear to me, as the "two identical weapons" are treated as a singular twin-linked weapon). The twin-linked weapon, while only counting as a single weapon, counts as two battlesuit weapon systems. This, in turn, means you must have a multi-tracker on a model with twin-linked weapons. Otherwise, you can only fire one weapon system. I guess that means you can't fire at all, because you don't have two seperate weapons, just one twin-linked one.

On a related note, that means all the old commander suits with a twin-linked weapon and a regular one won't be able to fire all their weapons together, as that would be 3 crisis suit weapon systems, and only two can ever fire at a time.

Yes! Thank you, Grimaldi, for restoring my faith in Dakka. At last someone has posted another problem they?ve encountered. Thank you.

And checking this, I agree that this is a major problem.

Antonin said:
Insaniak and Stu-rat: invul saves are not taken into account when determining majority armor. So that shield drone with the broadside gets a 2+ save, or its 4+ invul, and yes, the low AP hits can be assigned to it and not the broadside. There is one poorly-worded sentence in the BBB which almost suggests that invul and armor saves are the same, but for majority purposes, a model's invul save is a choice, not mandatory.

One, you?re mistaken on how the basic shooting rules work. Two, in your example their would be no majority armour, so it?s irrelevant. And three, there is a single reference in the rulebook to Invulnerable Armour Saves, which is what causes the problem with the Majority Armour rules.

Phasui said:
A twin-linked weapon only counts as a single weapon being fired, they just take two hardpoints on a crisis suit.

Obviously correct but not what the RAW says. Grimaldi is correct.

Hans said:
1. Not a problem, not an issue, been discussed and discounted in reply after reply. Stealth suits start off board in escalation, therefore they can't infiltrate.

Yes, it?s a problem. See above.

Hans said:
4. Shield drones may not be as good as they can be, but they have improved from the 4th edition FAQ debacle. Either way, this isn't a PROBLEM, it's just a matter of usefulness.

No, they haven?t improved. And no, it?s not a matter of usefulness. See above.

Hans said:
5. Uhhhh, the Crisis Commander, Ethereal, Farsight and Shadowsun, which are the specifically noted Independant Characters, all say to follow the independant character rules in the warhammer 40,000 rulebook. How does this mean that it functions differently than in the rulebook?

See above.

Hans said:
7. The rules do conflict with themselves, but as it specifically lists twin linked weapons with price and how they are to be ruled, then most people will allow it. The only ones that wont, also don't give terminator armor to terminators.

Absolutely agreed. But RAW is RAW.

Hans said:
8. P25. "the second is for two weapons (Counting as a twin linked weapon of that type). So, if you buy two weapons, you need to use the 2nd price, and they count as twin linked.

Prove it. Nowhere in the Codex does it say that you have to twinlink.

Hans said:
10. True, does not state victory conditions. However, it can be extrapolated fairly easily. ALL the units that can take it are multi-wound units. An ejected pilot only has one wound, so you would most likely count it as a wounded unit. Therefore it doesn't count as scoring and gives half points while the ejected pilot is alive.

Very good point. You are correct I believe.

Hans said:
11. Well, if the rest of the unit falls back other than the character using the detonator, then you have to break cohesion to do so. So, the fallback move you make is dictated by your using the detonator or not. Pretty inflexible sequence of events.

No, it?s not clear. You can roll for the fallback and then decide to use the detonator before moving the models, thus never breaking cohesion. Or you could decide to use it, roll for fallback and move the models.

Hans said:
13. yep, poor editing. We all know this, no need to bring it up again as we all agree and acknowledge it.

Bring it up again? No one has brought it up yet!

Hans said:
14. This has been clearly solved already. Drones that fall under a drone controller follow the rest of the unit. Drones that come off of vehicles function as a drone squadron.... which has a leadership rating of 7

Wrong. See above.

Hans said:
15. No, he cant. Drones do not take away the IC designation, but bodyguards do. You're combining things in a manner than doesn't add up in the wording.

No, I?m not. Read the text.

Hans said:
17. You're not making much sense there. In one sentance you say he looses the ork fighter rule, and another you say that he has it but it's useless. But he basically functions the same as he did in 3rd edition before the Monsterous Creature rule changed.

Sorry, you?re right, to make more sense I should have differentiated between the old ?Ork Fighter? rule and the new ?Ork Fighter? rule. I thought that wa s clear but evidently not. And O?Shovah now functions very, very differently (and much worse) than he did before ? for the same cost.

Hans said:
18. OK. #1, since when did access to the armory have anything to do with an item given to a character in an entry? If the entry says they have it, they have it, regardless if they can buy other stuff from the armory or not.

Also, you're totally wrong on this. ALL battlesuit units, Fire Warriors, Pathfinders, and ethereals can have at least one model access the appropriate parts of the armories. It just specifies which part of the armory instead of saying "the armory".

Nope. Only Ethereals have access to the Armoury. Other models have access to different sections of the Armoury. It clearly states this over and over again in the Codex. The free Bonding Knife says that only models that have access to the Armoury can have it. If it was what you claimed, it would state that only models that have access to any part of the Armoury. It does not. RAW.

Hans said:
20.. Shadowsun IS an independant character when she isn't accompanied by drones.

Wrong. See above.

CaptAnderton said:
Read Infiltration again in UNIVERSAL RULES. It says "You must be able to start on the table." No Jump Troops can be on the table in Escalation missions. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Don?t shout, cap?n. Here?s the flaw in your (and everyone else?s) argument. Escalation states that if you have a special rule that allows you to deploy on table, you can use it. Infiltration is a special rule that allows you deploy on table. Therefore ?Jump Troops? with Infiltrate can be on the table in Escalation missions? or maybe not. It?s unclear as there is evidence supporting both arguments. That?s why it?s a problem.

And seriously, guys, if CaptAnderton is chiming in on your side, you?ve lost the argument.

Clarence said:
I'm not sure if I agree with you here - if I take 2 Marker Drones (allowed in the specific rules for Drone Controllers,) Iridium Armour, a Stimulant Injector, and a Fail Safe Detonator, I'm pretty sure that adds up to105pts of Battlesuit Wargear. Note that under the rules for Special Issue, it says that "...only one of each system may be taken per army..." - so I can take one of each, just not the same item twice.

You are absolutely right. My apologies. That?s another problem crossed off the list. Thank you.

is it easy to see by the old codex and the new one what the designer's intent was Stu-Rat. I think the problem insaniak and all the rest are having is that you seem to be picking at just mere words now.

Drone Squadron vs Gun Drone Squadron, common, we know what its supposed to mean man.

As far as the Infantry Armory and Wargear sections go, they are one in the same in this case, where as the Battlesuit section deliberately seperates the Wargear from all the rest. Its intent.

It is not illegal to take two weapons to make a twin linked because you are not taking two choices when all is said and done. The rules for not allowing two of the same is to prevent from having two non twin-linked weapons, and you know it. Quit fussing over technicallities, because if you try and call that in a game, i hope you get laughed at.

Its pretty clear that drones that are attached to a unit, a non vehicle type im saying, other that a full Squadron from the Fast Attack choice, then it uses the parent model for Ld, since it states that when that parent model is dead, so are all connected drones. Only Drone Squadrons, both full squadrons and those that detach from a vehicle, have thier 7 LD. Its stated in Drone Controller section and Drone section of wargear.

Stu-Rat, it sounds like you just have a different grasp of the new codex than all others. While i'll admit that GW isnt exactly great at creating rules, even those same designers frown on taking each word without a basis in intent. Most of the posters in this thread have all come to an agreement on what the rules are meaning except you, so lets just leave it at that. Different opinions. I mean, when you have to say "Here?s the flaw in your (and everyone else?s) argument.", even admitting you have no peers what agree with you, maybe it is you that has the flawed logic.," even="" admitting="" have="" no="" peers="" what="" agree="" with="" maybe="" it="" is="" you="" that="" has="" the="" flawed="" logic="">

Wait, how does O'shovah function differently now? He works the same way in close combat that he did in 3rd. The only difference I can see is people trying to claim that he was 10 models in close combat in 4th. Is that what you are referring to?

No, it doesn?t. I repeat: Escalation disbars jump infantry from starting on the table unless they have a special rule that allows deployment. Infiltration is a special rule and allows deployment.

Prove that this is not a problem.

This has already been explained to you several times now.

Escalation prevents jump infantry from deploying.
Infiltration allows models to deploy a certain way, but not if they are otherwise prevented from deploying.

Escalation prevents them from deploying, as they are Jump Infantry. They therefore follow the rule in the Infiltration entry that says they don't get to deploy. It's that simple.

True, but Shield Drones are also supposed to protect their Controller in close combat. That?s the premise behind them

No, that's just your idea of the premise behind them. Clearly the guys who designed them had different ideas.

Rules say that all the Gun Drones must now disengage and form one unit. You now have a unit of 8 Gun Drones with no Ld. (Note that the rules refer to treating this as a Drone Squadron and not ? as they probably should ? a Gun Drone Squadron. Hence the problem.)

Ok. In which case, the problem isn't that you have a unit with no Ld, it's hat you have a choice to make: You either have a unit that has no rules at all, or you assume that a 'Drone Squadron' and a 'Gun Drone Squadron' are the same thing.

So yes, it's a (very minor) problem, just not for the reason you gave.

Nope, a twinlinked weapon is two choices. Hence it filling two hardpoints and counting as two weapon systems. And you can?t select the same item twice. Technically, therefore, twinlinking is illegal. That?s stupid and I wouldn?t play it that way, but that?s what the RAW states.

The RAW state merely that a twin-linked weapons counts as two systems. That doesn't make it two choices. You only pay a single points cost, for a single armoury entry.

Yes, yes, the Armoury. But then why do we have the distinction? Why does the Ethereal get to choose from the Armoury and others only from Wargear? There must be a reason.

Of coure there's a reason: GW are completely incapable of keeping their terminology consistent. But it makes no difference. Whether you are selecting from the Armoury as a whole, or from a single section of the Armoury, the item is still coming from the Armoury. You therefore have access to the Armoury in some fashion. If you didn't have access to the Armoury, you couldn't select items from it.

That would be like saying : You're not allowed to take anything from the kitchen, but you're allowed to take items from the fridge.

Without access to the kitchen, you can't get to the fridge in the first place.

No, it has three sections, two unlabelled and one labeled ?Infantry Wargear?.

...sigh.

It has three columns. That doesn't automatically make them three seperate sections. When you're reading a newspaper and come to the second column of an article, do you automatically assume you are now reading a completely seperate article?

And no, that doesn't have anything to do with the other Armouries, since each of their columns is labelled as a seperate section.

Unless he takes Drones. At which point he is an IC with a bodyguard.

The wording on the Commander entry is indeed poor. At best, it's ambiguous. You can argue that the Bodyguard rule takes precedencd, or you can argue that taking Drones allows him to join units as an IC regardless of whether he has a bodyguard.

Nowhere in the Codex does it say that you have to twinlink.

Again, this has been pointed out several times.

There is no way to take two single identical weapons, as the Armoury forbids taking the same item twice, and unlike other armouries, is worded in such a way as to apply to everything from the armoury, not just Wargear.

I label this another WHINER thread.

BloodyT, thank you for that entirely asinine, irrelevant, argumentative, *female dog*-ing post. Just because people won't see it your way in another post, don't go moaning and insulting in others. That's what GW's EoT forums are for. Grow-up, accept that people have different(more supportable) opinions than you, and move on. You're just going to be despised and invite the MODs to do something if you troll like this.

Stu-Rat, let me spell this out for you with direct qoutes:

BGB, pg 75, "... units with the Infiltrate ability may set uo in accordance with the Infiltrate special rule(see page 84) in any mission that uses this special rule(see Organizing a Battle)... The Infiltrate ability does not alow units that would normally be in reserve to deploy on the table. (emphasis mine)"

BGB, pg 81, "... In a mission using the Escalation rule, only basic infantry units that do not have dedicated transports (so no Monstrous Creatures, Bikes, Jump Infantry (emphasis again mine), Artillery, Beasts, etc.) may be deployed at the start of the game, unless the mission rules state otherwise... Some units have special rules, such as 'Scouts', that allows them to deploy on table. Such special rules still apply as normal."

As you can see, there is nothing in the Infiltration special ability that allows Jump Infantry(such as Stealth Suits) to remain on the table in Escalation.

Posted By insaniak on 03/28/2006 4:57 PM

The majority armor save for broadsides + drones is 4+, so models with the 4+ save take the hits first.

Exactly. And as per the second-last paragraph on page 24, models who do not get a Saving throw must be removed first.

Note that it does NOT say 'models that do not get an Armour Save'... it merely says 'Saving throw'.

The Broadside does not get a Saving throw.
The Drone DOES get a Saving throw.

Therefore the broadside must be removed first.

After looking through the rules, I see now exactly what you are looking at. Thanks for the page reference. I would argue in response that the defending player is not obligated to place the penetrating hits on any particular models - specifically, the defending player gets to pull models of his or her choice as casualties. Therefore, where there is no mixed armor rules, the defending player gets to take the mound on whatever model he chooses. So, the Tau player would place that wounding hit on the drone. The drone then gets a save - the rule on page 24 says that "models who do not get a Saving throw must be removed first" but if the broadside has not taken the hit, then it is not a viable choice for removal - only the drone is, and it gets a save. In other words, the model must be wounded, in order to not get its save due to low AP - however, nothing on page 24 requires the defending player to take the wound on a model with no save. THe majority armor rules do not take effect either, so they do not change the usual rules. Under the usual casualty removal rules, then, the Tau player gets to choose the Drone as the "casualty", and take the save.

The drone then gets a save - the rule on page 24 says that "models who do not get a Saving throw must be removed first" but if the broadside has not taken the hit, then it is not a viable choice for removal - only the drone is, and it gets a save.

The problem with this idea is that you have allocated the wound one step too early.

The unit takes a wounding hit.
As per the rules on page 24, all models that do not get a save are removed first.
THEN you roll Saving throws for any other wounds
THEN you allocate any unsaved wounds to specific models.


Before actually rolling Saves, you have no opportunity to allocate wounds to Drones in order to use their Save. The rules force you to remove the Broadside before the Drone's Save is used. The only time you get to allocate wounds before rolling saves is if the unit has Mixed Armour.

Hmm, okay, I see what you're pointing out. I still disagree. Your argument assumes that the wounds have to be allocated to the models that have no armor save first. That is also not supported by the rules. The rule on page 24 states that casualty removal and saving throws are done all at the same time - specifically it provide for some casualties to be removed before saves have been taken. If that is correct, then the defending player has control over which models are being used as casualties, and therefore has control over who is taking saves. At that point, the defending player can choose to take the saving throws of the unit, in which case the models without a save are not deprived of their save, because they are not wounded. Simply put, the rule on page 24 appears to break a few other rules, specifically (1) the casualty removal process, and (2) removal of models (rather than inflicting wounds).

Let's assume 2 wounds on a 2 broadside, 2 drone unit. Two models will get saves, which equals the number of wounds - therefore, the unit gets saves. No model without a save is getting hit, so no model without a save must be removed first. This is far different if there are more hits than invul saves, of course - at that point the excess do apply, and the models without a save would be "removed".

I understand that your next argument will be that units, not models, take wounds. In the unit I describe, the unit has two armor saves - which it may take against the two wounds.

No model without a save is getting hit, so no model without a save must be removed first.

Page 24 disagrees.

The unit takes the hits. You don't get the option to choose which models roll the Saves... the rules tell you then and there that the models who do not get a Save are removed first, before any Saves are rolled.

Once those models are removed, you still don't get to choose which models roll the Save... you simply roll a number of dice equal to the number of wounds, and THEN allocate any unsaved wounds.

Of course, that does lead to problems if some of the remaining models have an Invulnerable Save and some don't... since in that case, you HAVE to allocate before rolling, so that you know how many Invulnerables you are rolling. But the rules simply don't deal with Invulnerable saves in any detail. They just say that you get them, without bothering o explani how that is supposed to work.

Posted By insaniak on 03/31/2006 3:33 PM
The problem with this idea is that you have allocated the wound one step too early.

The unit takes a wounding hit.
As per the rules on page 24, all models that do not get a save are removed first.
THEN you roll Saving throws for any other wounds
THEN you allocate any unsaved wounds to specific models.


Before actually rolling Saves, you have no opportunity to allocate wounds to Drones in order to use their Save. The rules force you to remove the Broadside before the Drone's Save is used. The only time you get to allocate wounds before rolling saves is if the unit has Mixed Armour.

While this is understood, we also know that you allocate wounds in the order of your choice. Meaning that if there isn't a regular 'armour' save, but you invulnerable saves within the unit, you may allocate to them. Are we actually discussing an entire volley of fire that are ap3 or less? Otherwise the chance of you needing to remove a BS first is extremely low.

We arew talking about lascannon where the broadside doesn't have a save and his insta-kill at the same time. This is the reason to use shield drone but people argue that they will not save the broadside

Insaniak:

A Broadside w two drones suffers three hits. One from a las cannon two from bolters.

The Broadside has a save roll... from the bolters. Thus needn't be removed due to lack of save roll.

Of course, if the hits would be, say, one melta and two laser cannons, the Broadside would be removed as it has not save roll. Don't argument there.

insaniak said:
This has already been explained to you several times now.

No, a version of the rules (which is probably the right way to play it, the way I've always played, and the sensible way to play it) has been explained. But, while I have never denied your argument, you have failed to even look at mine.

insaniak said:
Escalation prevents jump infantry from deploying.
Infiltration allows models to deploy a certain way, but not if they are otherwise prevented from deploying.

Escalation prevents them from deploying, as they are Jump Infantry. They therefore follow the rule in the Infiltration entry that says they don't get to deploy. It's that simple.

Okay, so to break down your argument into premises and a conlusion (please correct me if I'm wrong here).

P1. Escalation disbars infiltrating jump infantry from deploying on table (p84 of the rulebook: "In a mission using the Escalation rule, only basic infantry units that do not have dedicated transports (so no Monstrous Creatures, Bikes, Jump Infantry, Artillery, Beasts, etc) may be deployed at the start of the game, unless the mission rules state otherwise.").

P2. The Infiltrate rule clearly states that troops that are held in Reserve cannot Infiltrate (p75 of the rulebook: "The Infiltrate ability does not allow units that would normally be in reserve to deploy on the table.").

C: As Stealth Suits are jump infantry, they cannot be deployed regardless of their Infiltrate ability.

That, in a nutshell, is your argument, correct? It's a good one. It's flawed (in both P1 and P2) but I do believe that's the intent of the authors. However, we all know the problem with intent-versus-RAW.

Okay, so the alternative argument is:

P1. Escalation disbars jump infantry from deploying on table (p84 of the rulebook: "In a mission using the Escalation rule, only basic infantry units that do not have dedicated transports (so no Monstrous Creatures, Bikes, Jump Infantry, Artillery, Beasts, etc) may be deployed at the start of the game, unless the mission rules state otherwise."). However, units that have special rules that allow them to deploy, may deploy (p84 of the rulebook: "Some units have special rules, such as 'Scouts', that allows them to deploy on-table. Such special rules apply as normal.").

P2. Stealth Suits have a 'special rule that allows them to deploy on-table', i.e. Infiltration. Infiltrate clearly states that it is suce a rule (i.e. a 'special rule' and one that allows the unit to 'deploy on-table').

P3 (or counter-argument). But the text on the Infiltrate Special Rule (pg 75 of the rulebook) says: "The Infiltrate ability does not allow units that would normally be in reserve to deploy on the table." Aah, problem solved... no, not quite.

P4. Stealth Suits are not in Reserve as their Special Rule allows them to deploy on-table. So P3 has no bearing on the argument.

C. Circular logic caused by bad writing.

My last word on the subject. Thanks so much for all the help, guys.

Posted By Basileus66
Insaniak:

A Broadside w two drones suffers three hits. One from a las cannon two from bolters.

The Broadside has a save roll... from the bolters. Thus needn't be removed due to lack of save roll.

What we were discussing was a single high AP shot.

In your example, yes, the Broadside could elect to take the bolter shot... unless one were to argue that the 'start by removing models that do not get a save' takes precedence and forces you to take the Lascannon shot on him instead.

Posted By Stu-Rat
Insaniak:

P4. Stealth Suits are not in Reserve as their Special Rule allows them to deploy on-table. So P3 has no bearing on the argument.

Their special rule does no such thing, because their special rule specifically states that they may not deploy if they would normally be held in Reserve.

Posted By insaniak on 03/31/2006 3:33 PM

The drone then gets a save - the rule on page 24 says that "models who do not get a Saving throw must be removed first" but if the broadside has not taken the hit, then it is not a viable choice for removal - only the drone is, and it gets a save.

The problem with this idea is that you have allocated the wound one step too early.

The unit takes a wounding hit.
As per the rules on page 24, all models that do not get a save are removed first.
THEN you roll Saving throws for any other wounds
THEN you allocate any unsaved wounds to specific models.


Before actually rolling Saves, you have no opportunity to allocate wounds to Drones in order to use their Save. The rules force you to remove the Broadside before the Drone's Save is used. The only time you get to allocate wounds before rolling saves is if the unit has Mixed Armour.

Ok, if you would like to use that rule than here is an example of how it would work. . .

Bob fires a single plasma gun shot at some unit with a large amount of multi-wound models such as a Hive Tyrant and his tyrant guard, because you are able to cause one wound and none of them recieve an armor save, all models in the unit are removed.