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.

It's too late to keep scrolling through threads and flipping through my Codex to figure this out: I am looking at every unit and character having a 2+ for MegaArmour, 4+ for 'Eavy Armour or being on a bike, and 6+ for everybody else EXCEPT Mad Dok Grotsnik and Zagstruk. They have 4+ and no armour listed in their wargear, but they do have Cybork Bodies. Does that mean they have 4+ invuls only? Or 4+ armour and 5+ invuls? I am rather certain that it is the latter, but I remember seeing like Eldrad's invul in the Sv column of his characteristic profile instead of a - or something weird. Anyway, please, tell me I am an idiot for thinking they may have a 4+ invul, or because I have not been playing them as having a 4+ invul all these years.

Also, where is Ork base armour written about? Other than the number in the Sv column on the individual unit descriptions and the Army List and Index at the back? Isn't there a name for it like Flak? Thanks.

They have regular cybork and very thick skin (4+ armor).
Stat line saves are always armor, unless stated otherwise.

RAW, there is no connection rules-wise between the save on their stat line and the equipment a model. While every model with 'eavy armor has a 4+ armor save, not every 4+ armor save results from 'eavy armor. Most likely answer is Phil Kelly simply forgetting to give them 'eavy armor.

Jidmah wrote:They have regular cybork and very thick skin (4+ armor).
Stat line saves are always armor, unless stated otherwise.

RAW, there is no connection rules-wise between the save on their stat line and the equipment a model. While every model with 'eavy armor has a 4+ armor save, not every 4+ armor save results from 'eavy armor. Most likely answer is Phil Kelly simply forgetting to give them 'eavy armor.

This one. Saves in the statline are not necessarily from wargear, and saves given from wargear are not represented in the statline (even when they should be). This can lead to some interesting conclusions (For instance, Ghazzy has TWO armor saves) but it's how the game works. So Zagstruk and Grotsnik have 4+ armor and a 5+ invulnerable save.

Berzerker; your post is a bunch of nonsense.

A Save in a Statline does not need to come from any armour; this much is true(if there is a Save, be that save a 6+ or a 2+, but there is no armor listed in the wargear; then that save is just the Model's natural state and cannot be negated by wargear-denying effects).

But if there is an armor listed in the wargear; then any listed save comes from that armor(even if the save is in-congruent with the armor claimed; such as a model with carapace armor in wargear but a profile with a 3+ save; his 3+ save comes from the carapace even though the carapace armor should only provide a 4+; unless another special rule explains the incongruity).

The claim that ghazzy has 2 armour saves is ridiculous and baseless. He has only 1 armour save; a 2+ granted by his mega armor; just like every space marine only has the 1 3+ from their power armor, and etc for every model in every army.

Kommissar Kel wrote:
But if there is an armor listed in the wargear; then any listed save comes from that armor(even if the save is in-congruent with the armor claimed; such as a model with carapace armor in wargear but a profile with a 3+ save; his 3+ save comes from the carapace even though the carapace armor should only provide a 4+; unless another special rule explains the incongruity).

Are there any rules to back this up? If so, could you quote them?

Considering the rules are codex-specific; and I happen to have the IG codex open in front of me:

IG codex page 71 lists all of the armors, and tells you that those armors confer saves. Then Page 89 explains that the wargear listed is the wargear that the unit's have.

The definition for armor save in the BRB page 7 tells us that the save comes from either the armor that the model is wearing(wargear); or is a natural state.

The Armor section of the wargear in each Codex combined with the BRB rule defines that the save comes from any armor listed in wargear.

Back to the IG codex; we have Col "Iron Hand" Straken, who is listed with Flak armor but has a 3+ Save, now while Flak armor rules state it grants a 5+, he has a 3+; but he has an armor listed in his wargear; therefore the 3+ must come from his wargear-armor(since he has no special rules that explain the 3+ instead of the 5+ he should have). If he did not have Flak armor listed in his profile then he would have a 3+ as a natural state

Any claims to the contrary would grant every single model with 2 armor saves; their "Natural State" on their profile, and the Wargear they are carrying. This would mean that any models suffering an unsaved wound from an entropic strike would lose their profile save, and then have their wargear save kick in until they suffer a second unsaved wound.

Any Claims that the unexplained profile Save is not the wargear armor save(modified via undefined/unstated rules) would return those models to the wargear save only(straken would only have a 5+ because he is a model equipped with flak armor).

Kommissar Kel wrote:Berzerker; your post is a bunch of nonsense.

A Save in a Statline does not need to come from any armour; this much is true(if there is a Save, be that save a 6+ or a 2+, but there is no armor listed in the wargear; then that save is just the Model's natural state and cannot be negated by wargear-denying effects).

But if there is an armor listed in the wargear; then any listed save comes from that armor(even if the save is in-congruent with the armor claimed; such as a model with carapace armor in wargear but a profile with a 3+ save; his 3+ save comes from the carapace even though the carapace armor should only provide a 4+; unless another special rule explains the incongruity).

The claim that ghazzy has 2 armour saves is ridiculous and baseless. He has only 1 armour save; a 2+ granted by his mega armor; just like every space marine only has the 1 3+ from their power armor, and etc for every model in every army.

It may be nonsense; I freely grant that MANY 40k rules are nonsense, from a logical perspective. It's not baseless, however.

A model with no armor listed as wargear can still have an armor save; the save listed in their profile. Clearly, this save does NOT come from armor, because they don't have any! What's listed on the model's statline is simply 'part of the model;, separate and distinct from their wargear; so far we agree, and are supported by the rules.

Then you say this; "But if there is an armor listed in the wargear; then any listed save comes from that armor(even if the save is in-congruent with the armor claimed; such as a model with carapace armor in wargear but a profile with a 3+ save; his 3+ save comes from the carapace even though the carapace armor should only provide a 4+; unless another special rule explains the incongruity)."

That's simply incorrect. There are no rules whatsoever to support it, unless I somehow managed to skip a page in my BGB. In fact it CONTRADICTS the rules governing armor! Armor gives the armor save it specifies, and NO OTHER. If your rulebook says otherwise somewhere, please feel free to quote it and provide a page number.

If a model has a 3+ save in their statline and is also wearing carapace armor, then they have a 3+ armor save (from their statline) AND a 4+ save (from their carapace armor). Ghazghkull has a 2+ armor save (in his statline) and ANOTHER 2+ armor save (from the mega armor listed in his wargear).

Now, here's the funny thing; this makes NO DIFFERENCE for gameplay purposes. Why? Because any effect that disallows the best armor save (which is the one you use) ALSO disallows the other! It's simply an example of poor rules-writing on the part of GW, and a humorous anecdote about the strangeness that crops up in 40k all the time.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Considering the rules are codex-specific; and I happen to have the IG codex open in front of me:

IG codex page 71 lists all of the armors, and tells you that those armors confer saves. Then Page 89 explains that the wargear listed is the wargear that the unit's have.

The definition for armor save in the BRB page 7 tells us that the save comes from either the armor that the model is wearing(wargear); or is a natural state.

The Armor section of the wargear in each Codex combined with the BRB rule defines that the save comes from any armor listed in wargear.

Back to the IG codex; we have Col "Iron Hand" Straken, who is listed with Flak armor but has a 3+ Save, now while Flak armor rules state it grants a 5+, he has a 3+; but he has an armor listed in his wargear; therefore the 3+ must come from his wargear-armor(since he has no special rules that explain the 3+ instead of the 5+ he should have). If he did not have Flak armor listed in his profile then he would have a 3+ as a natural state

Any claims to the contrary would grant every single model with 2 armor saves; their "Natural State" on their profile, and the Wargear they are carrying. This would mean that any models suffering an unsaved wound from an entropic strike would lose their profile save, and then have their wargear save kick in until they suffer a second unsaved wound.

Any Claims that the unexplained profile Save is not the wargear armor save(modified via undefined/unstated rules) would return those models to the wargear save only(straken would only have a 5+ because he is a model equipped with flak armor).

All of this is true, except possibly the part about Entropic Strike; I haven't read the actual wording of the rule. Would you mind quoting it?

However, none of it actually contradicts the fact that a model with both armor listed in their wargear and an armor save on their statline have two armor saves. Armor either comes from wargear OR is a natural state; the statline defines the models 'natural state', while the wargear section defines what wargear they have.

Straken has a 3+ armor save on his profile; this is his 'natural state' save. He ALSO has flak armor, which confers a 5+ armor save. You can NOT assume, without any support, that somehow flak armor on Straken confers a 3+. You KNOW what save flak armor confers; a 5+. Straken is no exception. He has a 3+ armor save, and a 5+ armor save.

If this little factoid interacts badly with Entropic Strike, that would be hilarious and (at least in my opinion) deserving of a house rule or an FAQ to retain the effectiveness of the rule. However, it doesn't change the rules.

Thanks for the reassurance that I have not been playing this wrong all these years.

Kommissar Kel wrote:A Save in a Statline does not need to come from any armour; this much is true(if there is a Save, be that save a 6+ or a 2+, but there is no armor listed in the wargear; then that save is just the Model's natural state and cannot be negated by wargear-denying effects).

They must be few and far between. The majority deny armour saves, regardless if the model is imbued with the save naturally or through wargear. What kind effects deny wargear specifically? It could be helpful to know if they ever get used against my Boyz. I know the 1994 Codex specifically gives them Flak Armour, but the 1999 and 2008 Codices do not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:However, none of it actually contradicts the fact that a model with both armor listed in their wargear and an armor save on their statline have two armor saves. Armor either comes from wargear OR is a natural state; the statline defines the models 'natural state', while the wargear section defines what wargear they have.

Sorry, I have to disagree. Ork 'Ard Boyz are listed as having an Armour Save of 4+ on their characteristic profile and 'Eavy Armour in their wargear. The 4+ is NOT the 'natural state' of the 'Ard Boyz, it is conveyed by their wargear. They do not have 4+ Armour AND 4+ 'natural' armour. If they had 4+ 'natural' armour, they wouldn't need to list 'Eavy Armour in their Wargear section. Zagstruck and the Gud Doktor just happen to have a natural state of 4+, probably because they are both more machine than Ork, which you could say about MegaNobz as well. The point is that every model has but 1 Armour Sv Characteristic, and that is it, not layers of Armour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:If this little factoid interacts badly with Entropic Strike, that would be hilarious and (at least in my opinion) deserving of a house rule or an FAQ to retain the effectiveness of the rule. However, it doesn't change the rules.

ENTROPIC STRIKE: "Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses it's armour save for the remainder of the battle (effectively altering it's armour save to '-').

Yep, it says "it's armour save", not "one of it's armour saves for the remainder of the battle (effectively altering it's armour save to it's natural state)". You only have 1 Sv Characteristic, not layers of them.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:Thanks for the reassurance that I have not been playing this wrong all these years.

Kommissar Kel wrote:A Save in a Statline does not need to come from any armour; this much is true(if there is a Save, be that save a 6+ or a 2+, but there is no armor listed in the wargear; then that save is just the Model's natural state and cannot be negated by wargear-denying effects).

They must be few and far between. The majority deny armour saves, regardless if the model is imbued with the save naturally or through wargear. What kind effects deny wargear specifically? It could be helpful to know if they ever get used against my Boyz. I know the 1994 Codex specifically gives them Flak Armour, but the 1999 and 2008 Codices do not.

So few and far between in fact that I cannot think of a single one; the only reason that a distinction must be made is the event of a special rule similar to the Exitus weaponry's "shield Breaker round", which removes invulnerable saves granted by wargear, and not "natural state/special rule" invul saves(if such a rule were to exist with armor saves; the distinction between a Profile listing and a save granted via the armor would be necessary)

Ghenghis Jon wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:However, none of it actually contradicts the fact that a model with both armor listed in their wargear and an armor save on their statline have two armor saves. Armor either comes from wargear OR is a natural state; the statline defines the models 'natural state', while the wargear section defines what wargear they have.

Sorry, I have to disagree. Ork 'Ard Boyz are listed as having an Armour Save of 4+ on their characteristic profile and 'Eavy Armour in their wargear. The 4+ is NOT the 'natural state' of the 'Ard Boyz, it is conveyed by their wargear. They do not have 4+ Armour AND 4+ 'natural' armour. If they had 4+ 'natural' armour, they wouldn't need to list 'Eavy Armour in their Wargear section. Zagstruck and the Gud Doktor just happen to have a natural state of 4+, probably because they are both more machine than Ork, which you could say about MegaNobz as well. The point is that every model has but 1 Armour Sv Characteristic, and that is it, not layers of Armour.

This along with my above statements; and the following statements is why these are true: if there is an armor listed in wargear then whatever Save exists comes from the armor.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:If this little factoid interacts badly with Entropic Strike, that would be hilarious and (at least in my opinion) deserving of a house rule or an FAQ to retain the effectiveness of the rule. However, it doesn't change the rules.

ENTROPIC STRIKE: "Any model that suffers one or more unsaved wounds from a weapon or model with this special rule immediately loses it's armour save for the remainder of the battle (effectively altering it's armour save to '-').

Yep, it says "it's armour save", not "one of it's armour saves for the remainder of the battle (effectively altering it's armour save to it's natural state)". You only have 1 Sv Characteristic, not layers of them.

And Armor save is defined as the value in it's profile; but if the model had 2 values(especially 2 different values such as with Straken and a rare few others), then the 1 profile save is turned to a "-", but the wargear armor still grants the model with a save value determined via the wargear entry.

Lets use Straken as a full example of what I am taking about(since he has the 2 different saves when we discount that his 3+ profile save must come from his Flak armour and some unwritten rule): Staken takes a single unsaved wound from a scarab swarm, he then loses his armor save; Page 7 of the BRB tells us that the 3+ value on his profile is his armor save. Berzerker is telling us that since he has Flak armor he has his "Natural state" armor save of 3+ and then whatever is granted by the flak armor(5+). Since entropic strike tells you to effectively make the model's save a "-" by removing their save value, and only the 3+ is listed on the profile; then the 3+ becomes a "-" and straken is left using his Flak armor of 5+.

But again we can go back to the fact that you do only have 1 save "layer"; the save is that which is on your profile and it comes from any wargear armor you are equipped with, or it is your natural state should you lack any defined armor-wargear.

This gets even more clear when you realize there is no rules whatsoever for models with multiple armor saves.
A model with multiple saves from the 3 types always uses the best available.
A Model with multiple sources of Cover saves uses the value of the majority of it's unit; or the best available if none are in majority.
I am not sure it is possible to get multiple invul saves; most options where you can give an invul to a model that has one has that rule lower the save by 1(MoT)
There is absolutely no rule that states a model with multiple armor saves must use any particular one(so straken could choose to use his 5+ against AP6 or less, or CC attacks)

Two questions.

First; Why is it that, among all of these examples, you cannot in fact find a single rule which says that a save granted by wargear replaces the save on a statline? We have rules defining what a save is and how to take it. We have rules which tell us that the saves on a statline are different from those granted by wargear. We have rules telling us that it is possible to have multiple saves, and that when you do you use the best one. We have NO RULES WHATSOEVER saying that one save REPLACES another. Claiming that an armor save granted by wargear replaces an armor save listed on a profile is an unwarranted assumption, which has no rules backing at all. You cannot invoke 'some unwritten rule' to defend your position; no such rule exists.

Ork 'Ard Boyz do, in fact, have two armor saves, one from their statline and one from their wargear, Why GW chose to repeat themselves in different places, and thus give the unit two identical saves, I don't know; perhaps to avoid having someone claim that since they had no save in their statline, they couldn't take one.

Second; Now that I've read the Entropic Strike rule, I have to ask; why are you bringing it up? Entropic Strike alters the model's Armor Save value to '-'; they even provide a clarification which states it in exactly that way. That doesn't have an exception for saves granted by wargear; they are all saves possessed by the model, and would all be equally affected. A model with multiple Armor Saves (and it's worth noting that some models DO only have one, depending on their codex) would be affected in just the same way; no matter what item of wargear it has or what number is on its statline, Entropic Strike sets its Armor Save value to '-', which means it cannot take an armor save, ever. Should Straken be wounded by Entropic Strike, he would be unable to take ANY armor save from then on, whether 3+ or 5+.

As I have said before, having multiple armor saves has NO effect whatsoever on gameplay. It's actually the very least harmful of the many, many strange and illogical quirks in the rules of 40k, and in all honesty I'm not sure why Kel is so upset about it.

Stop hijacking the dudes thread you two.

The 4+ save listed is armor, in all cases except demons the save listed is explained as something else on the units page, so for example if the save listed was an invun, the units page would mention this.

Ork armor technically doesn't exist, they just simply have a 6+ armor save standard, and you can make up the reason why. I hear most around here is that it's a shirt save or some crap.

BeRzErKeR wrote:We have NO RULES WHATSOEVER saying that one save REPLACES another.

This is the first I have ever heard or read from anyone anywhere that this may the case, and I am not even remotely convinced of it's validity.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Ork 'Ard Boyz do, in fact, have two armor saves, one from their statline and one from their wargear, Why GW chose to repeat themselves in different places, and thus give the unit two identical saves, I don't know; perhaps to avoid having someone claim that since they had no save in their statline, they couldn't take one.

Or perhaps because they only have one Armour Save.

So, what do you say it means for Zagstruck and Dok Grotsnik?

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:We have NO RULES WHATSOEVER saying that one save REPLACES another.

This is the first I have ever heard or read from anyone anywhere that this may the case, and I am not even remotely convinced of it's validity.

Well, if it's wrong then it should be easy to disprove. It's a negative statement; all you need to do is find a counter-example. Find a rule in the BGB which says that when you gain a second save of a particular kind, it replaces any save of that kind which you already have. If you can do that, I'm wrong, and we can all have a hearty laugh at how dumb I am. If you can't, I'm right, and we can all have a hearty laugh at how dumb GW is.

Please remember; Warhammer 40k is a positive rules system. That means that the rules must (positively) give you permission to do something; if there isn't a rule that says "You can do X" or "In this situation, X occurs", then you cannot do X, or X does not occur. I don't believe there is any rule giving you permission to replace a model's save, only rules giving you permission to ADD saves to it. That being so, you are not allowed to replace a model's save; you may only give it more saves, by buying wargear which confer saves on it. Of course, if such a rule DOES exist, then I'm incorrect; fortunately, either way makes no difference to the game. I'll simply lose one of my collection of 'Nonsensical Rules in Warhammer 40k'.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Ork 'Ard Boyz do, in fact, have two armor saves, one from their statline and one from their wargear, Why GW chose to repeat themselves in different places, and thus give the unit two identical saves, I don't know; perhaps to avoid having someone claim that since they had no save in their statline, they couldn't take one.

Or perhaps because they only have one Armour Save.

So, what do you say it means for Zagstruck and Dok Grotsnik?

Nothing; as I've said (repeatedly), it has no effect whatsoever on gameplay. Zagstruck and Doc Grotsnik both have 4+ armor saves from their statlines, and 5+ invulnerable saves from their Cybork Bodies.

Pg 7: Armour Save(Sv): "Most creatures have an armour save based on what kind of armour they are wearing, so this characteristic may be improved if they are equipped with better armour."

BeRzErKeR wrote:[Well, if it's wrong then it should be easy to disprove. It's a negative statement; all you need to do is find a counter-example.

Nope. I don't need to prove anything. You are the one with the new fangled rules interpretation. All I know is what Dictionary.com tells me 'improve' means. If I upgrade my armour from base to Mega, it 'improves' the save from 6+ to 2+. It does not add a 2+ armour save on top of my 6+ base. It is the same Save, an Armour one, improved. As for a counter-example, I thought the 'Ard Boyz one was good enough. You are the one trying to explain away this supposed variation in a 20+ year process of gameplay and Codex writing as an attempt on GW's part not to confuse players.

BeRzErKeR wrote: Ork 'Ard Boyz do, in fact, have two armor saves, one from their statline and one from their wargear, Why GW chose to repeat themselves in different places, and thus give the unit two identical saves, I don't know; perhaps to avoid having someone claim that since they had no save in their statline, they couldn't take one.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:Pg 7: Armour Save(Sv): "Most creatures have an armour save based on what kind of armour they are wearing, so this characteristic may be improved if they are equipped with better armour."

BeRzErKeR wrote:[Well, if it's wrong then it should be easy to disprove. It's a negative statement; all you need to do is find a counter-example.

Nope. I don't need to prove anything. You are the one with the new fangled rules interpretation. All I know is what Dictionary.com tells me 'improve' means. If I upgrade my armour from base to Mega, it 'improves' the save from 6+ to 2+. It does not add a 2+ armour save on top of my 6+ base. It is the same Save, an Armour one, improved. As for a counter-example, I thought the 'Ard Boyz one was good enough. You are the one trying to explain away this supposed variation in a 20+ year process of gameplay and Codex writing as an attempt on GW's part not to confuse players.

BeRzErKeR wrote: Ork 'Ard Boyz do, in fact, have two armor saves, one from their statline and one from their wargear, Why GW chose to repeat themselves in different places, and thus give the unit two identical saves, I don't know; perhaps to avoid having someone claim that since they had no save in their statline, they couldn't take one.

That's a nice line, and it is certainly a clear statement of what the RAI is. Unfortunately, GW failed to actually translate that into the RAW. . .

. . . which has been my point all along. Try finding a RULE if you intend to pursue this argument.

And there has, quite clearly, been variation on this very subject. For instance, in 4th Edition (which had all the same statements and rules regarding Armor Saves in all particulars, including the line you just quoted) neither Codex: Space Marines nor Codex; Imperial Guard included a single model with armor listed separately from their statline. The practice of listing armor as a piece of wargear has only appeared in 5th Edition; and since the rules are EXACTLY the same, giving models a save from two different locations does, indeed, indicate two different saves. There is absolutely no need to list the source of the Armor Save on a model's statline, and there is still no rules backing for assuming that the save listed on their statline comes from any piece of wargear, or indeed that a save granted by a piece of wargear has any effect on it.

Turn it around. What happens if you have a model with a high save on their statline, and also has a piece of wargear that DECREASES it, either because it was purchased for them or because they begin the game with it? The exact same logic you and Kel are using (buying armor modifies the Save value on the statline) would force you to lower the save on the statline to match the wargear, with exactly as much rules backing. This would indicate that Straken actually has a 5+ save, not a 3+ one; wargear modifies the statline, right? You can't have it go only one wayl either wargear modifies the statline or it doesn't, but there is CERTAINLY no rules basis for trying to claim that wargear can only increase the statline and not decrease it.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Try finding a RULE if you intend to pursue this argument.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:Nope. I don't need to prove anything. You are the one with the new fangled rules interpretation.

BeRzErKeR wrote:There is absolutely no need to list the source of the Armor Save on a model's statline, and there is still no rules backing for assuming that the save listed on their statline comes from any piece of wargear, or indeed that a save granted by a piece of wargear has any effect on it.

Pg 20, ARMOUR SAVES: " Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire and compare the results to the model's Sv characteristic."

You say your interpretation does not affect the game, but it does. Wounds are rolled against the Sv characteristic. If the Sv characteristic cannot be improved, then how does upgrade armour confer a different armour save value?

Pg 24, Models with more than one save: "Sometimes, a model will have a normal armour save and a separate invulnerable save, [ ]. [ ] the model might be in cover as well."

Having two Armour Saves is not referenced here.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Turn it around. What happens if you have a model with a high save on their statline, and also has a piece of wargear that DECREASES it, either because it was purchased for them or because they begin the game with it? The exact same logic you and Kel are using (buying armor modifies the Save value on the statline) would force you to lower the save on the statline to match the wargear, with exactly as much rules backing. This would indicate that Straken actually has a 5+ save, not a 3+ one; wargear modifies the statline, right? You can't have it go only one wayl either wargear modifies the statline or it doesn't, but there is CERTAINLY no rules basis for trying to claim that wargear can only increase the statline and not decrease it.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:Pg 7: Armour Save(Sv): "Most creatures have an armour save based on what kind of armour they are wearing, so this characteristic may be improved if they are equipped with better armour."

Improved, not decreased.

I have included written references to every statement I have made. In fact, they have spoken for me better than I could for myself. Please reference anything you have typed other than the permissive logic circuit 'they didn't say', because they did, at several times and in several places.

BeRzErKeR wrote:You can't have it go only one wayl either wargear modifies the statline or it doesn't, but there is CERTAINLY no rules basis for trying to claim that wargear can only increase the statline and not decrease it.

The word "improve" in the above rule pretty much by definition says that it can only make the save better.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Ghenghis Jon wrote:Pg 7: Armour Save(Sv): "Most creatures have an armour save based on what kind of armour they are wearing, so this characteristic may be improved if they are equipped with better armour."

That's a nice line, and it is certainly a clear statement of what the RAI is. Unfortunately, GW failed to actually translate that into the RAW. . .

rigeld2 wrote:The word "improve" in the above rule pretty much by definition says that it can only make the save better.

Apparently, the definition counts as fluff and not rules to BeRsErKeR, so he can ignore the statement.

They way I see it:
======================
There are 3 different saves in the game:

Armour Save - The Save on the statline, or given by wargear. If you have multiple armour values between the statline and wargear, the better save is used throughout as it super-seeds the worse wargear.

Cover Save - Save granted by Cover

Invuln Save - Granted by Wargear/Special Rule.

You can have a value in each of the above, but you can only roll on one...


Example 1:
Space Marine Terminator is in the open...
Armour Save 2+
Cover Save -
Invuln Save 5+

Example 2:
Grotsnik is moving through cover (which confers a 4+ save in this case)...
Armour Save 4+
Cover Save 4+
Invuln Save 5+

Example 3:
Col. Straken is in the open...
Armour 3+*
Cover Save -
Invuln Save ? (Not sur eof his stat line!)

* In Example 3, if he does have a 5+ Flak Armour save, then its over-ridden by his 3+ Save specified. You can't take both with you in to battle, a model only has 1 Armour Save during a game.

So the whole arguement is null and void. Only reason you might want to continue this argument is if you want to use the worse armour save for some obscure reason?
=========================================
That's my take on it anyway!