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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


Page 13 Battle Primer: "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives."

Save = a save a model’s armour gives, which is synonymous with armour save.

All right there on page 13.

Technically it's never defined that save = armour save

It is though. right there on Page 13. it equates save with armour. People that ignore the context of the rule will disagree, but their arguments are not correct as I have shown proof of Save = Armour.

, but it's pretty evident what they meant by saying armour save, especially since they only talk about saves (with mentions of armour penetration) and invulnerable saves, It wouldn't be a problem for most people.

Wasn't the topic of this thread supposed to be about invulnerable saves, anyway? Invulnerable save isn't just a save or an armour save.

Form the rules there are Invulnerable saves and Armor Saves, currently I don't know of any other saves that exist.

Dude, why are you bothering to continue arguing this?

From the Invulnerable Saves sidebar "Each time a wound is allocated to a model with an invulnerable save, you can choose to use either its normal Save characteristic or its invulnerable save, but not both."

It doesn't list armour save there. It doesn't explicitly say armour save . We know that they mean for Save to be an armour save when they said armour save. Techinically Save is a combination of armour and cover save, since cover can improve your save. But, it doesn't explicitly state Save = Armour Save. None of what you quoted explicitly sates it, though it strongly implies it. It may equate save with armour save, but it doesn't state Save = Armour Save. We know what they mean though.

 doctortom wrote:

Dude, why are you bothering to continue arguing this?

Because people ignore the context and proof I cite. They say it is not an armour save when I have a page reference that equates save with armour save.

From the Invulnerable Saves sidebar "Each time a wound is allocated to a model with an invulnerable save, you can choose to use either its normal Save characteristic or its invulnerable save, but not both."

It doesn't list armour save there. It doesn't explicitly say armour save .

It does not need to explicitly say armour save in that rule, it equates Save and Armour save on page 13.

We know that they mean for Save to be an armour save when they said armour save. Techinically Save is a combination of armour and cover save, since cover can improve your save.

There is not such thing as a "cover save" Cover improves your armour save.

But, it doesn't explicitly state Save = Armour Save.

It does not need to explicitly say armour save in that rule, it equates Save and Armour save on page 13.

None of what you quoted explicitly sates it, though it strongly implies it.

The rule I posted equates the two, that is explicit. Do not ignore the context.

It may equate save with armour save, but it doesn't state Save = Armour Save. We know what they mean though.

Equating save with armour save is the same thing as stating it...

Everyone knows armour save means normal save and can apply common sense to the situation barring 1 person who will pedantically argue that armour save is undefined and is thetrefore meaningless reguardless of common sense or understanding built upon any GW game ever.

Simple solution - anyone who doesnt play that person you will use the correct answer

Anyone unlucky enough to play that person in a tourney get a TO ruling in your favour then thumbs down for time wasting.

Other than that it doesn't matter because your only going to play that person if you choose and personnally I wouldn't.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Dude, why are you bothering to continue arguing this?

Because people ignore the context and proof I cite. They say it is not an armour save when I have a page reference that equates save with armour save.

From the Invulnerable Saves sidebar "Each time a wound is allocated to a model with an invulnerable save, you can choose to use either its normal Save characteristic or its invulnerable save, but not both."

It doesn't list armour save there. It doesn't explicitly say armour save .

It does not need to explicitly say armour save in that rule, it equates Save and Armour save on page 13.

We know that they mean for Save to be an armour save when they said armour save. Techinically Save is a combination of armour and cover save, since cover can improve your save.

There is not such thing as a "cover save" Cover improves your armour save.

But, it doesn't explicitly state Save = Armour Save.

It does not need to explicitly say armour save in that rule, it equates Save and Armour save on page 13.

None of what you quoted explicitly sates it, though it strongly implies it.

The rule I posted equates the two, that is explicit. Do not ignore the context.

It may equate save with armour save, but it doesn't state Save = Armour Save. We know what they mean though.

Equating save with armour save is the same thing as stating it...

Did you only want the 5 minute argument, or did you want the full half hour?

I find the page 13 argument unpersuasive. Celestine's datasheet, for example, specifically notes that her invulnerable save comes from her armor.

So the page 13 quote could be talking about either her normal save characteristic or her "The Armour of Saint Katherine" listing. I believe the Crux Terminatus is also usually embedded in the armor as well, right?

Anyway, end result is that the page 13 definition is mostly superfluous as armor grants all kinds of saves. It doesn't mean save = armor save.

Audustum wrote:
I find the page 13 argument unpersuasive. Celestine's datasheet, for example, specifically notes that her invulnerable save comes from her armor.

There are a few exceptions as always, sure... but she has an armor save and an Invuln save.

So the page 13 quote could be talking about either her normal save characteristic or her "The Armour of Saint Katherine" listing. I believe the Crux Terminatus is also usually embedded in the armor as well, right?

No. "Crux Terminatus: All models in this unit have a 5+ invulnerable save." - P 159 Codex Space Marines. Does not say anything bout it being "embedded in the armor"

Anyway, end result is that the page 13 definition is mostly superfluous as armor grants all kinds of saves. It doesn't mean save = armor save.

It is not superfluous, armor does not grant "all kinds of saves" it grants armor saves, and in one special case, The Armour of Saint Katherine, gives Celestine an armour save and an invulnerable save.

It literally tells you that save = armor save on page 13. Ignoring that rule is playing with house rules.

 doctortom wrote:
Did you only want the 5 minute argument, or did you want the full half hour?

Exactly, some people are ignoring the context just so they can keep arguing.

RAW: There is no such thing as an Armor Save.

RAI: Clearly GW doesn't want those abilities to work on Invulnerable Saves, nor do they intend it to be literally unusable.

HIWPI: Works on normal saves, not Invulnerable Saves.

Question: Why they didn't just write "this modifier cannot be used with Invulnerable Saves" instead of adding a word that has no rules meaning?

I think that covers it all.

 alextroy wrote:
RAW: There is no such thing as an Armor Save.

RAI: Clearly GW doesn't want those abilities to work on Invulnerable Saves, nor do they intend it to be literally unusable.

HIWPI: Works on normal saves, not Invulnerable Saves.

Question: Why they didn't just write "this modifier cannot be used with Invulnerable Saves" instead of adding a word that has no rules meaning?

I think that covers it all.

Careful being so rational around here!!!

 alextroy wrote:
RAW: There is no such thing as an Armor Save.

This of course is false, as per page 13 in the battle primer.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
RAW: There is no such thing as an Armor Save.

This of course is false, as per page 13 in the battle primer.

Page 13 says no such thing. As has already been pointed out, by your logic Celestine's Invulnerable save is an Armour save.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
RAW: There is no such thing as an Armor Save.

This of course is false, as per page 13 in the battle primer.

Page 13 says no such thing.

This of course is incorrect.

Please stop taking the rules out of context.

 DeathReaper wrote:
This of course is incorrect.

Please stop taking the rules out of context.

I am afraid that I am not taking rules out of context, you're adding rules where no rules exist. Again, by your logic an Intercessor Sergeant is the same as an Intercessor, which is demonstrably false.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This of course is incorrect.

Please stop taking the rules out of context.

I am afraid that I am not taking rules out of context, you're adding rules where no rules exist.

I am not adding anything.

You are taking the rules out of context.

I have proven that save = armor save. They are synonymous as per the rules. Page 13 in the battle primer which backs my argument on this. You are dismissing rules. Do not ignore/dismiss rules citations for no reason.

Again, by your logic an Intercessor Sergeant is the same as an Intercessor, which is demonstrably false.

Where are you getting this from? I never said that. Stop with the false equivalencies.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This of course is incorrect.

Please stop taking the rules out of context.

I am afraid that I am not taking rules out of context, you're adding rules where no rules exist.

I am not adding anything.

You are taking the rules out of context.

I have proven that save = armor save. They are synonymous as per the rules. Page 13 in the battle primer which backs my argument on this. You are dismissing rules. Do not ignore/dismiss rules citations for no reason.

Again, by your logic an Intercessor Sergeant is the same as an Intercessor, which is demonstrably false.

Where are you getting this from? I never said that. Stop with the false equivalencies.

Again, you've proven no such thing. You're basically arguing that "Name" is the same as "Descriptor Name", which isn't true. The characteristic is not called Armour Save, and never has been in 8th.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Again, you've proven no such thing. You're basically arguing that "Name" is the same as "Descriptor Name", which isn't true. The characteristic is not called Armour Save, and never has been in 8th.

I have proven it, on page 13, you are just ignoring the rule I quoted.

Ill post it once again so maybe you can not ignore it this time.

Page 13 Battle Primer: "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives."

The Save value is an armour save value.

You're basically arguing that "Name" is the same as "Descriptor Name", which isn't true. The characteristic is not called Armour Save, and never has been in 8th.

Again this is not correct.

The characteristic is save which = armor save.

Your argument is wrong. Please stop trying to refute the actual rules.

It is like you are arguing from a "What I wish the rules said" perspective, not a "What the rules, as written in the rulebook, actually say" perspective.

This would appear to have gone around on circles for long enough. Moving on.