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.

Incorrect, as I have explained - it simply means you have to go by how the phrase is used in English.

As I said - inclusive RAW is impossiblein 40k, as the book does not define *every* term. As such you MUST use English.

Perhaps responding to an entire post rather than removing something from context would be more helpful? Especially when I raise that exact same point earlier on....

Well I have a history major which is worthless EXACTLY AS IF it were an English major. So now that we are all in agreement that I have a consummate command of the English vernacular, and that I can be targeted even when I am with my tyrant guard, I will dispense with my opinion.

'However' is the lynch-pin for me. It is acknowledging that the latter sentence is in contrast to the former. Consider the following "When at church I wear my sunday best, however, when required to work I wear greasy coveralls" Is anyone going to argue that if I am required to work while at church I will not wear greasy coveralls?

Well I have a history major which is worthless EXACTLY AS IF it were an English major.

This means you either teach or sell fast food (J/K)

You said exactly what I have been trying to saying it in an extremly simple way with a great comparison. Thanks.

You mean the second edition of your 3rd ed-era codex? DE didnt have a codex in 2nd

Heh yeah that is what I meant hehe. I started playing in third edition and was not aware there was anything about the DE in 2nd.

Volkov wrote:Well I have a history major which is worthless EXACTLY AS IF it were an English major. So now that we are all in agreement that I have a consummate command of the English vernacular, and that I can be targeted even when I am with my tyrant guard, I will dispense with my opinion.

'However' is the lynch-pin for me. It is acknowledging that the latter sentence is in contrast to the former. Consider the following "When at church I wear my sunday best, however, when required to work I wear greasy coveralls" Is anyone going to argue that if I am required to work while at church I will not wear greasy coveralls?

That's not what the sentence says though, the saves aren't replacing or overwriting eachother.
It's more of a "I have a red tie I like to wear all the time (armor). On Monday I wear a black suit to work (invulnerable). However, I still wear my red tie to work on Monday (armor)."
Is anyone going to argue that if it's monday and I'm at work that I'm not wearing my suit?

The two clauses refer to different things entirely. "armor save against shooting" is just referring your armor save and has no effect on your other saving throws or their availability.

However you can only wear the red tie when someone is shooting at you...that is what the rule is saying.

Fishboy wrote:However you can only wear the red tie when someone is shooting at you...that is what the rule is saying.

No, it says I'm wearing the tie (armor) against shooting. Not that I'm not wearing the suit (invuln), or that I'm only wearing the tie.

It doesn't say I can't take the invulnerable save, or that I lose it.
It doesn't say 'However, their saving throw against shooting is still only a 6+ armor save' or 'However, they lose the invulnerable save against shooting'... it says that their armor save against shooting is a 6+.

This part of the argument seems abundantly clear, and that's why it's moved on to whether 'fighting' covers the full turn.

I'm sorry Nosferatu, at this point, I think you and I will have to agree to disagree.

I've pointed out, with exact page numbers and headings, times when the rulebook talked about "fighting an assault" "assaulting units fighting" "Fight in this turn's assault phase".

And then I also provided pages where the rulebook talks about "locked in assault". (which, incidentally, includes the section on shooting into close combat, which mentions stray blasts. The quote is (BGB pg 40) "While blast templates may not be deliberately placed such that they cover any models [b]locked in combat,[/i] (emphasis mine) they may end up there after scattering and will then hit any models they touch."

So I find your claim that 'fighting in assault' is not defined, so it gets to cover a broad range of things to be an unfair statement. Even if you don't accept that the rulebook uses 'fighting' exclusively for the assault phase, when attacks are being made, at least you can accept that models not 'fighting' (as defined in the rulebook) are locked in combat.

Also, you're making a big deal out of the however. It's just clarifying that wyches don't lose their armour save for the dodge save, they gain it in addition, so they can still take a paper save when blast weapons hit them while they are, wouldn't you know, 'locked in combat'.

So, if you disagree with my reasoning and references, that's great. If we ever play and one of us has DE, we can dice off before the game, and I'd be content. I feel that you're incorrect, mind you, but if we cannot agree, then I'll leave it up to fate (rather a lot of fate, given the chance of us playing, one of us having DE, and then the chance of a blast scattering onto a wyche combat)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ gorkamorka:

Actually, because of the language used in the rulebook, the proper analogy is

I have an umbrella to protect me from the rain. (dodge save) I also have a flak vest to protect me against bullets. (armor save) If someone shoots me when it's sunny, what good is the umbrella?

(note: the umbrella is also useless against shooting when it's raining)

Orkestra - except AS I pointed out *your quotes did not prove the phrase "fighting in an assault" is a defined term* within the 40k Ruleset. You *did not* refute this and have fallen back to talking about your quotes - when I have shown they do not say what you are stating they do. You have to show the *entire phrase* is defined, which you did not and presumably cannot do.

As such your *only* recourse, as 40k is NOT an inclusive ruleset, is to do what you do *every* time you cannot find an "in game" definition - you fall back on English usage. And english usage would not limit "fightin" to when you make attacks - all the time you are locked you are fighting, it is however only resolved at set points.

In addition, if you would reread, I would point out that *I* did not make a big deal out of the "however", I was responding to others who thought that it magically overwrites the first sentence - when it does not, not even close. Go back to the very first page when I explained this....

End result: the two sentences are not exclusionary or restrictive in their wording, and therefore it comes down to whether you can find a definition of the phrase "fighting in an assault" within the 40k ruleset. As you cannot you must fall back on english usage, which des not restrict the invulnerable save to a single phase.

Oh, right, I forgot that there was a hang up because even though the term 'Fighting' is clearly used in the rules (pertaining to 'assaults' no less) that "fighting in assault" needs a clear definition.

You say that we must use the English definition. Okay, then we will. Fighting is not a state of being, it is an action that is carried out. In a boxing match, are the two people in the 'fight' with each other actively fighting while they are sitting in their corner having cool towels draped on their necks?

No, they are not, by the English definition of the word that you harp on so much. So even though those two people are engaged in a sport that is basically a ritualized form of combat, they are not 'fighting' during the entirety of the 'fight' (Technically a match, but 'fight' is a common term for it).

So, even though you want to use fluff to say 'they're still fighting', they aren't, because they aren't, by the rules, actively in combat (which is closer to the English definition)

Also, the rulebook does give us a defined phrase for units who are engaged in an assault. This phrase is 'locked in combat'. Models fighting in assault are locked in combat. Models locked in combat are not necessarily fighting in assault.

Therefore, if GW wanted Wyches to get a saving throw against shooting when they were locked in combat, then GW would say that the dodge save may be used by models locked in combat.


I disagree with the narrow minded vision that GW must define 'fighting in assault', when they have defined 'fighting' and 'assault'. Especially when there is a specific term used to described units in close combat during the shooting phase (which is locked in combat).

EDIT: Also, I consider that when the rules use a term with a very narrow usage, it is 'defined' to be restricted to that usage, even if the rulebook does not say 'Fight: noun etc"

You do realise that the DE codex was written in 3rd ed?

In 3rd ed, step 2 of the assault phase was "Fighting a close combat". I know it's not relevant for a RaW discussion (rules change, we all know that), but something to keep in mind I would imagine.

The entire time they are in the Fight they are Fighting, as Fighting is the present imperfect, if memory serves.

Their state is "fighting" until the match is over, whether they are physically exchanging blows or not - until the fight is over they are still int he state of Fighting to see who wins. If your restrictive defintion was true, which it isnt, then the match would be over sa soon as they stop fighting - so no fights over one round?

Sorry for being "hung up" on the english language,m but given you are debating rules written in that language it can occasionally be useful, yes? Sarcasm is again not needed, it doesnt make your posts seem very worthwhile.

You will find, if you look closely, "Assault" is used in a *number* of different meanings, both before resolution of attacks and after. therefore your definition is not as narrow as you are making it out to be.

Anyway, this will all be irrelevant when the next DE codex is released - maybe 2019?

Good point on 'assault' not being as narrowly defined as I thought. But here's an interesting find on an 'assault'. We declare an assault, and make assault moves, then we make close combat attacks, and then determine assault results.

Now, under the heading 'determine assault results', they only talk about 'combat', and never mention that the assault ends. So, either 'assault' and 'combat' are used interchangeably, or every model who was ever involved in an assault is still involved in that assault, since the assault is never stated to have ended.
Note, I'm not trying to set this up as an absurd proposition, it might actually be how the RaW works. People should look into this.
Especially since for those of that mindset it makes Wyches very good against shooting, because any time after they have fought in an assault (even if they fall back from it or win it, not just if 'combat continues to another round) they get their 4+ invulnerable save. The assault is never said to have ended, and by using the English definition of fight our models are all fighting because they are fighting a battle.

(continuing in spite of my disclaimer)
Now, the 'combat' is stated to have ended, and so the logical thing to deduce is that 'assault' and 'combat' are fairly interchangeable within the rules. Especially since the 'combat' continues on other turns. (and units who are engaged with the enemy (which occurred through an assault) are 'locked in combat')

Just food for thought. I tend to ramble sometimes, and these things made me wonder as I pored over my rulebook. (as is appropriate for RaW discussions, right? I'm not very good at these)

Also, I'll concede that the boxers are in a state of fighting, even while getting a drink of water. It isn't intuitive, but it is true for the English language.

So, as I said a short while ago, we're stuck, because I feel that the fact that the verb fight is used in a specific context in the rulebook, and therefore is defined in the rules, and you don't.

Oh, and I'll concede that sarcasm is just as useful as condescension. Especially when your particular high horse isn't appropriate in YMDC.

Edited because I abused the lovely parenthesis.

Fetterkey wrote:They get the 6+ save. The 4+ save is only granted while they are "fighting in assault," not while they are "locked in combat." Models can only fight in an assault during the Assault phase, so Wyches cannot dodge shooting attacks that scatter into assault.

Incorrect. Saying that that models only count as "fighting in assault" in the assault phase would mean that units in assault could be shot at directly in the shooting phase.

Although it likely flies in the face of RAI, and makes no sense conceptually, I think they would still receive their 4+ invulnerable save. The fact that their armour save versus shooting attacks is still 6+ does not preclude the fact that they have an invulnerable save.

Actually, unbeliever, if you check the rulebook, it specifically prevents you from shooting at units locked in combat.

The 'fighting in assault' is resolved at the end of the assault phase after wounds have been allocated and saved, casualties removed, moral checks taken and then any consequent movement. The consequent movement being piling in, consolidating, or jumping out. The fighting is then done until the next assault phase. I contend that in between the end of one assault phase and the beginning of the other the units are not considered to be fighting in assault.

Also, english lessons from Nos aside, I still think the "however" in the now infamous "however" statement is there to say that shooting attacks are saved on a 6+. I can't figure out what else the statement could mean. Anyone have an idea of what the "however" statement means if not that shooting attacks are saved on a 6+?

augustus5 wrote: Anyone have an idea of what the "however" statement means if not that shooting attacks are saved on a 6+?

No different ideas here, I'm afraid. It seems totally pointless to mention their normal armour save unless it has something to do with being hit by shooting while in CC.

augustus5 wrote:
Also, english lessons from Nos aside, I still think the "however" in the now infamous "however" statement is there to say that shooting attacks are saved on a 6+. I can't figure out what else the statement could mean. Anyone have an idea of what the "however" statement means if not that shooting attacks are saved on a 6+?

Exactly what it says, that their armor save against shooting is still a 6+.
The fact that the statement changes nothing in either interpretation (4++ against shooting or no) isn't our problem, it's the RAW.

Orkestra wrote:Actually, unbeliever, if you check the rulebook, it specifically prevents you from shooting at units locked in combat.

Exactly. I'm pointing out a flaw in the logic Fetterkey used to come to his/her conclusion. If they didn't count as "being in assault" then they could be shot at, makes sense? Luckily they do count as being in assault, so the flaw remains.

Gorkamorka wrote:Exactly what it says, that their armor save against shooting is still a 6+.
The fact that the statement changes nothing in either interpretation (4++ against shooting or no) isn't our problem, it's the RAW.

Just what I was trying to say (I think). Their armour save is still 6+, but their invulnerable save is still 4++.

Aaaand, that's where it breaks down. The rulebook uses specific wordings for 'fighting' with regards to assaults and combats.

The rulebook also uses specific wordings for 'locked in combat'. Since units in close combat are referred to as 'locked in combat' at all times except for the short period of the assault phase where they make attacks (indeed, models unable to attack during the assault phase aren't fighting a close combat, they're locked in asault), the dodge save only applies while models in that combat are 'fighting' (making close combat attacks)

i say that they still get both saves if a errant template fell on them. if they are in combat then they could use the enemy's bodys as protection or in this case their 4+ save.
thats what i think.

It's more of a "I have a red tie I like to wear all the time (armor). On Monday I wear a black suit to work (invulnerable). However, I still wear my red tie to work on Monday (armor)."
Is anyone going to argue that if it's monday and I'm at work that I'm not wearing my suit?

The two clauses refer to different things entirely. "armor save against shooting" is just referring your armor save and has no effect on your other saving throws or their availability.

Your sentence actually references the same event twice. The original sentence does not. Analogies are always messy so let me try another approach...in essence the sentence is an if/then conditional statement. 'If (a) then (S1)' a being in combat and S1 being invuln save. The second half 'However, if (b) then (S2)' b being shooting and s2 6+ save. So take that and enter in whatever situations you like and you should see that the second clause is a more specific conditional that trumps the first clause

'If (a) then (S1), however, if (b) then (S2)'

Volkov wrote:

It's more of a "I have a red tie I like to wear all the time (armor). On Monday I wear a black suit to work (invulnerable). However, I still wear my red tie to work on Monday (armor)."
Is anyone going to argue that if it's monday and I'm at work that I'm not wearing my suit?

The two clauses refer to different things entirely. "armor save against shooting" is just referring your armor save and has no effect on your other saving throws or their availability.

Your sentence actually references the same event twice. The original sentence does not. Analogies are always messy so let me try another approach...in essence the sentence is an if/then conditional statement. 'If (a) then (S1)' a being in combat and S1 being invuln save. The second half 'However, if (b) then (S2)' b being shooting and s2 6+ save. So take that and enter in whatever situations you like and you should see that the second clause is a more specific conditional that trumps the first clause

'If (a) then (S1), however, if (b) then (S2)'

But that's not quite right, To continue your analogy, (S2) doesn't negate (S1) in any way. If the Wyches rule had said "However, their save versus shooting attacks is still 6+" then you would be correct, but it doesn't say that, it says armour save, so your interpretation is incorrect.

I think the whole "However, ..." sentence is completely redundant. Ofcourse their armour save against shooting attacks is 6+, that's the only armour save they get!

But that's not quite right, To continue your analogy, (S2) doesn't negate (S1) in any way. If the Wyches rule had said "However, their save versus shooting attacks is still 6+" then you would be correct, but it doesn't say that, it says armour save, so your interpretation is incorrect.

What if the wyches are in cover, if they had written that there save was only 6+ then they would not get a cover save

"however" is simply reiterating that their Armour Save has not been replaced or removed by the addition of this specific Invulnerable Save.

POinted this out 2 pages back...

Fishboy wrote:This means you either teach or sell fast food (J/K)

Hey now, my knowledge of Nazis has also prepared me to pump gas and haul trash I'll have you know ;-)

Neconilis wrote:

Fishboy wrote:This means you either teach or sell fast food (J/K)

Hey now, my knowledge of Nazis has also prepared me to pump gas and haul trash I'll have you know ;-)

Hahaha, well I drive buses

nosferatu1001 is so right it hurts.

They have a 4+ invulnerable save when in combat. However, they still maintain a 6+ armour save against shooting. Oh no, I got hit with a blast. Great, I'll take the invulnerable save please, as it's the best available-and still available. Seems clear

It just doesnt seem like intent - trouble is this is a 10 year old codex made 2 editions of the ruleset ago....who can really say they havent learnt how to flip behind the enemy models so they get hit by the blast?

For what it's worth, after reading all the debate (and as a DE player) I wouldn't try and take that 4+inv. save against an errant blast unless my opponent offered it to me first. Although the RAW might give me some leeway because of changing main rulebook language the use of "however" and "fighting in close combat" instead of "locked in combat" would tend to make me think that the 6+ save is the correct save against any shooting attack (regardless of whether locked in assault or not) from both a RAW and RAI standpoint. thanks for all the discussion

Except it isnt RAW, but possibly RAI - the "however" has no bearing on it, as has been explained previously.