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.

You keep focusing on the example that uses mixed saves, and claiming my own example defeats my argument. Why is that?

Fragile wrote:
No, he is right. Pg 15.

Allocate wounds and remove casualties.

[For now, we're going to assume that all the models in the target unit have the same saving throw. If this is not the case, the method is slightly different, but we'll come to that later (see Mixed Saves below).]

1. Take Saving Throws.
2. Allocate Unsaved Wounds&Remove Casualties
3. Random Allocation
4. Emptied Wound Pool

..is the procedure for same save models without a Character or IC.

But with deadshot and shield breaker the allocation is before saves are taken, it states it ion the rules in the codex. so he is wrong


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
You keep focusing on the example that uses mixed saves, and claiming my own example defeats my argument. Why is that?

Your very own example highlighted that wound allocation is before saves, as the vindicare can choose wound allocation on specific models, your very own example proves that this is before saves are made.

My example shows that sometimes allocation is before wounds. Using that example as a way to defeat my argument is like me saying that infantry moves 6" and bikes move 12", and you saying bikes move 6" because I said infantry does.

champagne_socialist wrote:
But with deadshot and shield breaker the allocation is before saves are taken, it states it ion the rules in the codex. so he is wrong

Care to prove that part ?

Fragile wrote:

champagne_socialist wrote:
But with deadshot and shield breaker the allocation is before saves are taken, it states it ion the rules in the codex. so he is wrong

Care to prove that part ?

Well deadshot states wounds are allocated by the vindicare. Sgield breaker states that when a wound is allocated to a model that model loses any invun save immediately, any remaining saves (if any) can THEN be taken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
My example shows that sometimes allocation is before wounds. Using that example as a way to defeat my argument is like me saying that infantry moves 6" and bikes move 12", and you saying bikes move 6" because I said infantry does.

your eg was that wound allocation is before saves. if the vindicare can choose wound allocation that means his shot is before saves.

champagne_socialist wrote:

Fragile wrote:

champagne_socialist wrote:
But with deadshot and shield breaker the allocation is before saves are taken, it states it ion the rules in the codex. so he is wrong

Care to prove that part ?

Well deadshot states wounds are allocated by the vindicare. Sgield breaker states that when a wound is allocated to a model that model loses any invun save immediately, any remaining saves (if any) can THEN be taken.

Your restating your argument. You have to show the allocation occurs BEFORE the saves are made. Nothing in either rule does that RAW.

Your arguing HIWPI, which is exactly the way everyone does because it is obvious that it should work that way. However, RAW, it is one of those things that doesnt work.

Fragile wrote:

champagne_socialist wrote:

Fragile wrote:

champagne_socialist wrote:
But with deadshot and shield breaker the allocation is before saves are taken, it states it ion the rules in the codex. so he is wrong

Care to prove that part ?

Well deadshot states wounds are allocated by the vindicare. Sgield breaker states that when a wound is allocated to a model that model loses any invun save immediately, any remaining saves (if any) can THEN be taken.

Your restating your argument. You have to show the allocation occurs BEFORE the saves are made. Nothing in either rule does that RAW.

Your arguing HIWPI, which is exactly the way everyone does because it is obvious that it should work that way. However, RAW, it is one of those things that doesnt work.

going by happyjews post under mixed saves we can see that wound allocation happens before saves.

Yes, we are not talking about Mixed Saves. We are talking about Same saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
I would like to point out that a unit that dots not use mixed saves (such as a warlock council, or terminator squad without a sergeant) would still get an invuln save against shield breaker.

Only when using Mixed Saves (which is only when a: models in the unit have different saves, b: there is a character in the unit, c: models in the unit have FNP).

Dude, just play it how you want to. GW writers are unable to write rules if their lives depending upon it so don't depend on what's a) in the BRB or b) what's in the codex. Just go with what makes sense. Life's too short to get this irate over little plastic soldiers.


And this...

agnosto, I agree that GW has problems writing rules. However, the "conflicting" rules are from two different editions. You wouldn't try to argue that plasma guns cannot fire two turns in a row since the second edition rulebook says so, would you? Of course not. As fragile stated earlier, while the RAW say one thing, the intent behind the rule is different.

Of course there are those who claim that the rules are what GW intends and not what they write, but...

 Happyjew wrote:
agnosto, I agree that GW has problems writing rules. However, the "conflicting" rules are from two different editions. You wouldn't try to argue that plasma guns cannot fire two turns in a row since the second edition rulebook says so, would you? Of course not. As fragile stated earlier, while the RAW say one thing, the intent behind the rule is different.

Of course there are those who claim that the rules are what GW intends and not what they write, but...

You already highlighted that wound allocation is before saving throws which is on page 15 under mixed saves.

So as the rule book says wound allocation is before saving throws and shield breaker in the GK codex says this ammo is allocated BEFORE saving throws are made the evidence is that it is before saving throws are made.

The codex overrules the rulebook.

 Happyjew wrote:
agnosto, I agree that GW has problems writing rules. However, the "conflicting" rules are from two different editions. You wouldn't try to argue that plasma guns cannot fire two turns in a row since the second edition rulebook says so, would you? Of course not. As fragile stated earlier, while the RAW say one thing, the intent behind the rule is different.

Of course there are those who claim that the rules are what GW intends and not what they write, but...

That's the problem when we all play a game that is haphazardly supported by the parent company. Instead of doing a thorough FAQ that updates each army book to the new edition, GW chooses the "forge a narrative" approach to rules writing (i.e. make up an excuse why your writers are incapable of making a balanced game). GW's really busted their collective humps to release updated army lists but it wouldn't be necessary to move so quickly if they'd just update each army at the beginning of the edition....either that or, you know, release the army books first with the new edition in mind and then release the updated rules...

And that my friend, is why I hardly play 40k anymore. I don't want to sit hashing out rules with my friend, across the table for hours when we could get a game in and then head out for a beer or something. Arguing about rules cuts into my valuable beer imbibing time so I choose to play other games now.

And as has been pointed out (multiple times I might add) we were discussing a unit that does not use the Mixed Saves method.

 Happyjew wrote:
And as has been pointed out (multiple times I might add) we were discussing a unit that does not use the Mixed Saves method.

it doesn't matter because it is the principle behind the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
agnosto, I agree that GW has problems writing rules. However, the "conflicting" rules are from two different editions. You wouldn't try to argue that plasma guns cannot fire two turns in a row since the second edition rulebook says so, would you? Of course not. As fragile stated earlier, while the RAW say one thing, the intent behind the rule is different.

Of course there are those who claim that the rules are what GW intends and not what they write, but...

That's the problem when we all play a game that is haphazardly supported by the parent company. Instead of doing a thorough FAQ that updates each army book to the new edition, GW chooses the "forge a narrative" approach to rules writing (i.e. make up an excuse why your writers are incapable of making a balanced game). GW's really busted their collective humps to release updated army lists but it wouldn't be necessary to move so quickly if they'd just update each army at the beginning of the edition....either that or, you know, release the army books first with the new edition in mind and then release the updated rules...

And that my friend, is why I hardly play 40k anymore. I don't want to sit hashing out rules with my friend, across the table for hours when we could get a game in and then head out for a beer or something. Arguing about rules cuts into my valuable beer imbibing time so I choose to play other games now.

It is annoying that they have been running 40k for 30 years and they released 6 editions but still have old codexes and outdated rules. you would think they woud learn.

agnosto, my group only plays two nights of the week. In game, I'm very easy going (to the point where I've allowed my opponent to run illegal lists). Part of the reason for this sub-forum, is to hash out the rules outside of games so people either play correctly, or make an informed decision when making house rules (such as letting helmeted models draw LOS).

 Happyjew wrote:
agnosto, my group only plays two nights of the week. In game, I'm very easy going (to the point where I've allowed my opponent to run illegal lists). Part of the reason for this sub-forum, is to hash out the rules outside of games so people either play correctly, or make an informed decision when making house rules (such as letting helmeted models draw LOS).

I get ya but you guys had gotten to the point where you weren't listening to each other anymore. It's hard to say what's "correct"; I've been involved with GW since 1992 and I've seen questionable stuff go either way. Conversations where people understand each others' points but keep debating anyway don't usually end up with either party convincing the other they're right but just circular arguments.

I'll bow out now.

Have a good day.

Champagne socialist - do you agree or not that, when you are NOT using mixed saves, that allocation is AFTER making saves ?

If you disagree, post an actual rule.

Oh, and reported for trolling.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Champagne socialist - do you agree or not that, when you are NOT using mixed saves, that allocation is AFTER making saves ?

If you disagree, post an actual rule.

Oh, and reported for trolling.

Because the deadshot/shield breaker forces allocation before saves are made because it states that allocation is before saving throws are made under the description of shield breaker.

champagne_socialist wrote:
But it highlights wound allocation is made before saving throws. the vindicare allows the controlling player to wound allocate..

It does not. Nothing in either rule states what you claim. You are using RAI or HIWPI, but it is not the rules.

Because the deadshot/shield breaker forces allocation before saves are made because it states that allocation is before saving throws are made under the description of shield breaker.

Shield Breaker:When a wound from this round is allocated to a model, that model loses any invulnerable saves granted by items of wargear immediately, and for the rest of the battle. Remaining saves (if any) can then be taken.

Deadshot: Wounds caused by the Vindicare's shooting attacks are always allocated by the Vindicare's controlling player.


Show me in either of those rules where it says that allocation is before saving throws as you just stated in the rules for Same Saves.

Fragile wrote:

champagne_socialist wrote:
But it highlights wound allocation is made before saving throws. the vindicare allows the controlling player to wound allocate..

It does not. Nothing in either rule states what you claim. You are using RAI or HIWPI, but it is not the rules.

Because the deadshot/shield breaker forces allocation before saves are made because it states that allocation is before saving throws are made under the description of shield breaker.

Shield Breaker:When a wound from this round is allocated to a model, that model loses any invulnerable saves granted by items of wargear immediately, and for the rest of the battle. Remaining saves (if any) can then be taken.

Deadshot: Wounds caused by the Vindicare's shooting attacks are always allocated by the Vindicare's controlling player.


Show me in either of those rules where it says that allocation is before saving throws as you just stated in the rules for Same Saves.

Because under shield breaker it says saves CAN THEN BE TAKEN eg after the allocation.

You can't be hit by the shield breaker take your save then allocate and then save again.

You are hit, the wound is allocated before the save. the chosen model then makes the save if it can.

Your skipping the "If any" part.

You cannot make a second save since you already made saves.

Again your arguing how it should work and not how it does work.

Fragile wrote:
Your skipping the "If any" part.

You cannot make a second save since you already made saves.

Again your arguing how it should work and not how it does work.

No i am debating how it does work. The if any means cover saves or any invun saves through psychic abilities or fortifications eg sky pad etc

Yes. Under 5th edition the wound was allocated and then you made whatever save you could.. Typically it would be cover since the round is AP2 and kills (1) Invuln save from wargear.

The edition changed and the method of allocation has changed. You have already taken you "best" save for the model. Therefore there is no option for (If Any). FNP is your last resort at that point (but thats not a save)

Fragile wrote:
Yes. Under 5th edition the wound was allocated and then you made whatever save you could.. Typically it would be cover since the round is AP2 and kills (1) Invuln save from wargear.

The edition changed and the method of allocation has changed. You have already taken you "best" save for the model. Therefore there is no option for (If Any). FNP is your last resort at that point (but thats not a save)

Actually per the FAQ, if a model has FNP, you used mixed saves.

Fragile wrote:
Yes. Under 5th edition the wound was allocated and then you made whatever save you could.. Typically it would be cover since the round is AP2 and kills (1) Invuln save from wargear.

The edition changed and the method of allocation has changed. You have already taken you "best" save for the model. Therefore there is no option for (If Any). FNP is your last resort at that point (but thats not a save)

I disagree because if you have mixed saves then wound allocation is before saves. So we know wound allocation is before saves. The shield breaker ammo is a special ammo that lets the vindicare allocate a wound to a model before any saves are made. therefore wound allocation is before saves.

Why are you soending 4 hours on my thread? you could see me and happyjew never agreed on this issue so why have you jumped into the argument spouting the same things? if we disagree then we will always disagree so why keep posting? I will not agree with what you have to say as I believe you are wrong

You don't use the rules for mixed saves, because the vindicare rules do not tell you to. Therefore, you default to the normal rules and allocate wounds after taking saves.

champagne_socialist wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Yes. Under 5th edition the wound was allocated and then you made whatever save you could.. Typically it would be cover since the round is AP2 and kills (1) Invuln save from wargear.

The edition changed and the method of allocation has changed. You have already taken you "best" save for the model. Therefore there is no option for (If Any). FNP is your last resort at that point (but thats not a save)

I disagree because if you have mixed saves then wound allocation is before saves. So we know wound allocation is before saves. The shield breaker ammo is a special ammo that lets the vindicare allocate a wound to a model before any saves are made. therefore wound allocation is before saves.

We know that allocation is before saves for mixed units.
Please read page 15 and explain the order of paragrphs found there.

Why are you soending 4 hours on my thread? you could see me and happyjew never agreed on this issue so why have you jumped into the argument spouting the same things? if we disagree then we will always disagree so why keep posting? I will not agree with what you have to say as I believe you are wrong

If you're refusing to change your mind given evidence that you are incorrect you're not engaging in an honest discussion.
That would be disappointing.

champagne_socialist wrote:
I disagree because if you have mixed saves then wound allocation is before saves. So we know wound allocation is before saves.

Why do you keep going on about Mixed Saves. Yes we know how allocation works on mixed saves. Which is different from Same Saves. Go read page 15. They are two entirely different things. Your ignoring a rule because its convenient for your argument.

The shield breaker ammo is a special ammo that lets the vindicare allocate a wound to a model before any saves are made. therefore wound allocation is before saves.

Your making this rule up. I posted the rules above. Nothing in either rule states what you claim.

Why are you soending 4 hours on my thread? you could see me and happyjew never agreed on this issue so why have you jumped into the argument spouting the same things? if we disagree then we will always disagree so why keep posting? I will not agree with what you have to say as I believe you are wrong

Because Happyjew was right. Whether you like it or not. But RAW is different when how people play, so you can argue all you want, your still wrong by rule even if everyone plays it your way.

 Happyjew wrote:
You don't use the rules for mixed saves, because the vindicare rules do not tell you to. Therefore, you default to the normal rules and allocate wounds after taking saves.

the vindicare rules state that sves are taken after allocation. It specifically states that.