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.

My question for you is this:
If a unit only has an invulnerable save in close combat (i.e. The Swarmlord), is in close combat and hit by a non-close combat attack (i.e scattered blast marker). Does the model/unit still get invulnerable saves from that attack?

Don't see why he would, it's still a shooting attack

No; it was not a close combat attack.

True, however the rule states "While in close combat the Swarmlord has a 4+ Invulnerable save". The Swarmlord is in close combat for this situation. And for the record, it was my opponent who had the close combat invuln, getting hit by the Doom of Malen'tai s spirit leech.

The wording does seem to allow him to take his save.
Compare the wording to that of Dark Eldar Wyches for an example of when the opposite would apply.

Depends on how the specific rule is worded. If it gets its save while in close combat then it is entitled to the save whenever it is in close combat regardless of the source of the wound. If it gets its save against close combat attacks then it only gets to use it against close combat attacks. The Grey Knights FAQ brought this question up regarding the warding staff. It works whenever the bearer is in close combat regardless of where the wounds came from, whereas the subtly different nemesis force sword only helps defend against close combat attacks.

Surely "While in close combat the Swarmlord has a 4+ Invulnerable save" answers this question effectively. As long as the Swarmlord is in close combat at the point that wounds are resolved, he should get his save.

I think the idea is he is so in his element that he can literally shrug off attacks left right and centre. when he's out of combat, he lacks that extra bit of adrenaline

Gotta go with, he gets the 4++

While I do not believe the intent was for it to work as such, as per the wording I would say he gets the 4++.

He gets the 4+, Same as a Grey knight with a warding Staff gets his 2+ per the new FAQ:

Q: Can the save granted by a Nemesis warding stave
be taken against all Wounds suffered whilst the wielder
is engaged in close combat and not only against
Wounds caused by close combat attacks? (p54)
A: Yes.

And "wounds caused in close combat" is the when that the GKNWS uses, So wyches still do not get theirs from any other source than a Close combat attack.

Sam__theRelentless wrote:Surely "While in close combat the Swarmlord has a 4+ Invulnerable save" answers this question effectively.

It would if that were actually what the rule says. It's not.

However, the Grey Knight FAQ posted by Kommissar Kel would seem to set a precedent here, as silly a decision as it is.

insaniak wrote:

Sam__theRelentless wrote:Surely "While in close combat the Swarmlord has a 4+ Invulnerable save" answers this question effectively.

It would if that were actually what the rule says. It's not.

If I misquoted I apologize (as I did not have my codex on me at the time) Actually the model taking wounds was equipped with the warding staff. I was just using the Swarmlord (and misquote) as an example.

"The Swarmlord has a 4+ invulnerable save in Close Combat" pg 56 of the Codex

Same thing in that case...

Well, at least I quoted the misquote correctly

Rules as intended, I strongly stand in saying that he shouldn't get the save, as his CC invul is from his ability to parry all manner of attacks with his bone swords. (if i remember accurately).

But strictly RAW with the current phrasing, he has a 4++ against any and all wounds while he is locked in CC.

In my opinion...

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)

A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.

Solved.

Kurce wrote:In my opinion...

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)

A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.

Solved.

That's not particularly relevant to the discussion, and if you're going to keep posting it into YMDC threads, I'm going to start treating it as Spam and deal with it accordingly.

Seems legit to me. Official GW FAQ says roll off if it isn't obvious. Done.

This isn't an issue of contradictory rules, which is what the FAQ response you posted is talking about.

It's also, while a workable solution to use at the table, not an answer to the question. As such, it's no more relevant than pointing out that people can change the rules to suit themselves.