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.

Akkados: that is not what you said, what you said is:

I think your wrong the faqs says all terminators are now relentless.

What this quote means is exactly what it says: "all" terminators. That is not the case, only models in terminator armor gain the relentless per the FAQ, and BT Termintor units are not in Terminator armor.

The point that was being argued was that Thrakka has a 2+ Save, and on his waagh his save becomes Invulnerable. The Vindicare has a "shield Breaker round" that completely removes all Invulnerable Saves granted by wargear. Thrakka's save comes from Mega-armor(an Item of wargear), so when a special rule makes his wargear-granted save invulnerable instead of regular, it can be removed via the Vindicare.

I think he is trying to say that terminators wear terminator armor, and wearing terminator armor makes you a terminator, but being a terminator does not mean you wear terminator armor.

Which most disagree with, that I have seen, but that is what I read.

What I was saying is that using the Logic Che Vito et'al were toying with(and they, along with my reply were all facetious; we all know that Termie units should be wearing termie armor); that since the BT termi units are not wearing terminator armor; they can Sweeping advance, only take the space of 1 model per model, and can ride in non-landraider/drop pod transports, But they lose the 5++ and relentless.

You then said that per the FAQ all terminators are relentless, I countered that only models in terminator armor gain relentless, so no terminator unit gains it.

I think the loss may be in translation Akkados(please forgive the assumption here that you do not speak English as a native language):

The BT FAQ does indeed alter Terminator Armor to have relentless, it is the only FAQ that does so(Every other Codex excepting DA have Relentless in the Terminator armors rules, and DA have all the wording of relentless).

BT Terminator Units(regular, assault, or Command) are not listed as having Terminator Armor.

Che-vito pointed this lack of Terminator armor out, and Almighty Walrus ran with the idea joking about being able to sweeping advance with them. Che-vito confirmed(which is technically correct, just never played that way), I then pointed out that said terminators also lose everything else that their terminator armor gives them, such as relentless(to point out that if you choose to be TFG with it, you must abide by them not having Termie armor at all).

This is when you came in and stated that the FAQ gave "terminators" relentless. I quoted the FAQ to show that such a statement is false: the FAQ gives relentless to "Terminator Armor", since the discussion was about BT "Terminators" not having "Terminator Armor" it is an important distinction to make.

RAP: you are correct, BT Terminators of all stripe and color have relentless because they are all assumed to be wearing terminator armor(and suffering from a bad case of OCS, or "Old Codex Syndrome")

RAW: Black Templar Terminator units do not have relentless, nor a basic 5++ save, they can fit in rhinos and Razor backs, only count as 1 model/model in any transport, and can sweeping advance. Any BT character in terminator armor follows all the rules for terminator armor though.

I was just trying to point out the silliness of even bringing up Black Templars, apologies for the addition to unrelated issues--which are always exacerbated by 'OCS'.

So back to the gazzy question.
Can someone post the quoted wording from his codex?
I feel like that would clear alot of this up.

"During this period Ghaz's saving throw is invulnerable" 58 Orks

Okay, if this is the direct wording then no, his invol is not ignored b/c it dosent actually say his armor becomes the invol. It simply states his saving throw. It dosent even say his mega armor is granting the 2++. It says his saving throw becomes invoulnerable, Not that his mega armor gives him a 2++

Which is what I said in the first place. Mega-Armour never provides an invulnerable save, not even during the Waagh! and thus isn't affected by shield breaker at all.

Mind you though, this is a very fine wording here that is going to hold up like a house of cards against any WAAC guy. If this is actually called into an argument you are not likely to change his mind no matter how many people on dakka agree.

The wording is immensely fine, whats to say eh doesn't have the regular 6+ Sv like a vanilla warboss? I don't know the ork codex whether it's given by wargear or not, shouldn't matter though, as IMO it's granted by a special rule that just gives him a 2++ for the turn. It's like asurmans battle fate special rule, shield breaker doesn't igonre special rules only wargear. That's how i would play it anyways

How does "his save is invulnerable" differ from "his save becomes invulnerable". I was under the impression that "is" == "becomes".

The difference is "his saving throw" and "2+ armor save". The saving throw is the best out of armor, cover and invulnerable saves, i.e. what you are actually rolling. Just because your saving throw is invulnerable, doesn't mean that the piece of terrain you're behind provides an invulnerable save, exactly like MA doesn't provide an invulnerable save.

Look at it this way, it is not the armor that becoms invulnerable, its the value of the armor.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing? *confused*

Ummm okay.....
not clear enough.......
The armor dosent give an invol save, it merely acts as a guideline to what the value of his save is. The armor dosent provide, it shows. Therefore gazzy would keep the 2++

If there were a round that did the opposite, and broke a models normal armor save, leaving their invul save intact, what would this do to him? IF he used MotW after that would he still gain a 2++, or would he not get a save? It seems like you are saying that the invul in completely independant of the armor save. Your whole argument seems to be based on the independance of the two saves.

Not that they are independent, it is only that one tells you wha tthe other will be. If he were to lose the armor save then whatever save he had left would become invulnerable because the 2+ value is not there. The wargear isint giving the save. The wargear tells you what the save would be

Essentially what you're saying is that the save is some form of psychic shield that is based on the current save, but is not connected to it. I think I can live with that answer for fluff, RaI.
I still feel that it's a coin toss on RaW, but with the fluff explanation, the pendulum has swung in the way of no affect on the save from the Shield breaker round.

axeman1n wrote:If there were a round that did the opposite, and broke a models normal armor save, leaving their invul save intact, what would this do to him? IF he used MotW after that would he still gain a 2++, or would he not get a save? It seems like you are saying that the invul in completely independant of the armor save. Your whole argument seems to be based on the independance of the two saves.

Correct. If there was a round breaking any armor he had, he would lose his 2++ save, even while PotW is active.

DaOrkz1977 wrote:
Does Shield Breaker Round....

1) Eliminate all invul saves from all wargear?
2) Eliminate the save just by hitting, regardless of wounding?
3) Eliminate invul save that are given in certain situations...i.e. Wyches CC, Blessing of Blood God against Force Weapons, Ghaz's WAAGH!?

OK, I've only skimmmed over the last few pages, but I'm seeing some very wrong answers.

1) Yes. It says any Invulnerable saveS provided by itemS of wargear. Key part there is wargear, not special abilities.
2) No. It has to wound. It says "when a is wound allocated" (keep in mind the vindicare gets to do the allocating).
3) Yes, and no, depnds upon if it's wargear or not. Wyches, for instance, absolutely not.

Ghaz, (I believe, not an Ork expert) gets a 5++ due to his mega armour. Shield Breaker Breaks that. However, his WAAGH! invo is a special ability that grants him an invo save equal to his armor save. That's not wargear, it's a special ability that is granting an invo based upon a value of his wargear. So Ghaz still gets that. Also, the vindicare did have to role to wound on a 4+ (sniper) to be able to do that.

Ghaz really isn't a great target for the vindicare. The Vindicare is a weirdly bad at targeting characters, actually.

Correct, but the 5++ comes from his adamantite skull, not mega-armor

And ork mega armor dont get the 5++ like terminators do

akkados wrote:And ork mega armor dont get the 5++ like terminators do

Jidmah wrote:Correct, but the 5++ comes from his adamantite skull, not mega-armor

OK.

It has appears this has been resolved
to wrap up
1. Gazzy will keep the invol
2. The round does indeed have to wound (however keep in mind that you do lose any invol by wargear even if you do save it through terrain ect. as it says the wargear is destroyed, any other saves may be taken as normalother saves (if any apply) may be taken as normal)
3. any and all wargear is destroyed at once.

if im wrong please say so.

Pretty much right, with a little nitpick: The wargear isn't destroyed, just the invul save. The model does not lose any other benefits conferred by that piece of wargear.