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.

There's a discussion over on AWC currently about whether or not taking an armor save if optional or mandatory. Basically, can a player choose to "fail" an armor save by not taking one?

Here's my article (with a link to the AWC thread) on the issue.

It appears the INAT FAQ council is currently discussing the issue as well.

Discuss...

No, you cannot chose not to take an armour save.

You ALWAYS have the advantage of using your best save.

ancientsociety wrote:Basically, can a player choose to "fail" an armor save by not taking one?

I agree with nosferatu on this one. There are a few relevant rules to back it up.
BRB page 20 under 'Take Saving Throws', 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, "You roll all the saves for the unit in one go...". It doesn't say roll the saves except for the ones you wish not to make or the ones you wish to auto-fail.
BRB same page under 'Armour Saves', 2nd paragraph, "Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire...". Again, no option to not take the save or auto-fail is indicated or specified.
BRB page 24 under 'Remove Casualties', "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted...". While nowhere do the rules state you must take a save, all these rules talk about failing the save or that no save can even be attempted. There is no reference to opting not to attempt a save in the first place.
Even within the rules for assaults on 'Taking Saves' on page 39 BRB, the rules say you still get to save regardless of the attacker's strength. The rules go on to say you don't get a cover save but that even if no armour save is allowed, an invulnerable say may still be made.
And finally, BRB page 24 under 'Models With More Than One Save' it says, "...the model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save."
If one wishes to take the phrase "...can test...by making a saving throw..." to mean that taking the save is optional, then it can equally be argued that the phrase "...always using the best available save." means that the model in question has no other option than to make the best saving throw that it possibly can.

time wizard wrote:

ancientsociety wrote:Basically, can a player choose to "fail" an armor save by not taking one?

I agree with nosferatu on this one. There are a few relevant rules to back it up.
BRB page 20 under 'Take Saving Throws', 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, "You roll all the saves for the unit in one go...". It doesn't say roll the saves except for the ones you wish not to make or the ones you wish to auto-fail.
BRB same page under 'Armour Saves', 2nd paragraph, "Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire...". Again, no option to not take the save or auto-fail is indicated or specified.
BRB page 24 under 'Remove Casualties', "For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted...". While nowhere do the rules state you must take a save, all these rules talk about failing the save or that no save can even be attempted. There is no reference to opting not to attempt a save in the first place.
Even within the rules for assaults on 'Taking Saves' on page 39 BRB, the rules say you still get to save regardless of the attacker's strength. The rules go on to say you don't get a cover save but that even if no armour save is allowed, an invulnerable say may still be made.
And finally, BRB page 24 under 'Models With More Than One Save' it says, "...the model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save."
If one wishes to take the phrase "...can test...by making a saving throw..." to mean that taking the save is optional, then it can equally be argued that the phrase "...always using the best available save." means that the model in question has no other option than to make the best saving throw that it possibly can.

As I pointed out, all these rules are subsequent to the very first sentence of the very first paragraph of "Take Saving Throws":

"Before he removes any models as casualties, the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw."

Subsequent rules depend upon the owning player choosing to do that very first thing - take a saving throw. They do not make its antecedent mandatory. Usage throughout BRB of the term "can" is universally accepted as a choice.

Can: is capable of.

May: Has Permission to, and/or the Choice of whether to or not.

Can means they do it, may mean they have the choice.

In CC you first determine who Can make attacks, those models must then all make attacks and must make every attack that they Can make.

The Shooting Rules are the same with 1 major distinction; you first determine who Can shoot, and are then given permission(via a May) to fire or not fire as you so choose with those models(although you must make every available shot with any weapons chosen to fire, no single shots from a Heavy3 or Rapid fire weapon with 12").

If you are going to nit-pick with the wording, you should at least understand the meaning of the words.

ancientsociety wrote:Usage throughout BRB of the term "can" is universally accepted as a choice.

I don't know about that, and I don't want to start an argument about the use of the word "can".
But units with rapid fire weapons (for example) "...can move and fire two shots at targets up to 12" away."
If the term "can" is universally accepted as a choice, can I move up to 12" and only fire one shot?
Be that as it may, there is nothing in any rules concerning saves that specifically allow you to elect not to make a saving throw.
In fact, the rules I cited tell you to always take the best possible save.

Now, this discussion begs this question.

why would you want to automatically fail a save if you have one?

This would be people attempting to deny charges, or to ensure they "wipe" in CC in their opponents turn, ensuring they get to shoot the hell out of them the following turn.

It's been tried before, and repeatedly shot down, as "can" does not mean "you have the choice to do" - that is the job of "may"

nosferatu1001 wrote:This would be people attempting to deny charges, or to ensure they "wipe" in CC in their opponents turn, ensuring they get to shoot the hell out of them the following turn.

It's been tried before, and repeatedly shot down, as "can" does not mean "you have the choice to do" - that is the job of "may"

This is definately a case of people trying to pull a sneaky, ill-spirited move. Personally I'd call it cheating (but that's for the lawyers to decide) - it's definately bad sportsmanship. I am certain this was NOT the intent of the designers when they wrote the word "can" [take a save]

Kommissar Kel wrote:Can: is capable of.

May: Has Permission to, and/or the Choice of whether to or not.

If you are going to nit-pick with the wording, you should at least understand the meaning of the words.

"Can" may also indicate giving permission to do something as well

karlosovic wrote:

This is definately a case of people trying to pull a sneaky, ill-spirited move. Personally I'd call it cheating (but that's for the lawyers to decide) - it's definately bad sportsmanship. I am certain this was NOT the intent of the designers when they wrote the word "can" [take a save]

I agree. The most important rule is to have fun, and it wouldn't be fun playing against someone who pulls ------ like that.

Also, can you imagine a lone space marine not taking an armor save in the middle of a brawl? What is he gonna do? Get naked real quick before he gets jumped?

Kommissar Kel wrote:Can: is capable of.

May: Has Permission to, and/or the Choice of whether to or not.

Can means they do it, may mean they have the choice.

In CC you first determine who Can make attacks, those models must then all make attacks and must make every attack that they Can make.

The Shooting Rules are the same with 1 major distinction; you first determine who Can shoot, and are then given permission(via a May) to fire or not fire as you so choose with those models(although you must make every available shot with any weapons chosen to fire, no single shots from a Heavy3 or Rapid fire weapon with 12").

Agreed. While "Can" is sometimes used for permission, it is NOT universally so. The language in the rest of the saves sections cited makes it perfectly clear.

This is similar to Sweeping Advance and using Special Weapons in close combat. Your troops automatically do them, regardless of what would be to the player's strategic benefit.

In the case of Armor Saves it seems particularly absurd and counterintuitive to suggest that units would/could choose to automatically fail them. These are guys trying to live and fight and using their gear to do so. If the game meant for you to be able to kill your own guys at will you'd be able to shoot into close combat, for one.

This doesn't pass the sniff test.

ancientsociety wrote:"Can" may also indicate giving permission to do something as well

Which can be a problem in a rules discussion leading to arguments that can never be resolved. About the only way you can make a decision is for one or the other side to agree how the rule can work. I can see an argument about not having to take an armor save being brought up, but there's no way I can really see it being an option. I think that there can be only one conclusion, that saying you can take a saving throw means you do take it whenever you can, which is anytime the enemy can inflict a wound.
It's like saying a human can breathe the air. Does this mean you have an option not to breathe the air? Well, you have that option, but in reality, if you can breathe, you will, and you do.

In proper English, can is never permissive; it is always a capability.

In conversational American English we often use it to infer permission, Something many teachers try to correct in grade school.

Have you never had a teacher reply: "I don't know Can you?" when you asked if you can go to the bathroom?

Around these parts that was the common, accepted and expected response to such a question; and permission was not granted to go to the restroom until the student asked if they may go to the bathroom.

Kommissar Kel wrote:In proper English, can is never permissive; it is always a capability.

In conversational American English we often use it to infer permission, Something many teachers try to correct in grade school.

Have you never had a teacher reply: "I don't know Can you?" when you asked if you can go to the bathroom?

Around these parts that was the common, accepted and expected response to such a question; and permission was not granted to go to the restroom until the student asked if they may go to the bathroom.

Same sotry where I grew up. Can denotes ability, may denotes permision.

Kommissar Kel wrote:In proper English, can is never permissive; it is always a capability.

In conversational American English we often use it to infer permission, Something many teachers try to correct in grade school.

Have you never had a teacher reply: "I don't know Can you?" when you asked if you can go to the bathroom?

Around these parts that was the common, accepted and expected response to such a question; and permission was not granted to go to the restroom until the student asked if they may go to the bathroom.

Imo, this makes all the rest of the discussion moot. If everyone reads this quote, I think they'll understand the reason they are in error and be able to move on.

Can != May

If you agree with that (and you should, because it's correct) then there's no reason to argue any further. It's an interesting idea and if it was part of the game it would be an interesting tactic, but it's not legal.

DoW