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.

 Nem wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Show me the Restriction which states a vehicle can never have an Armour Save, even if a Special Rule or Power would grant them one.

There is no restriction I can think of, but the rules do say vehicles have a different profile, and the save characteristic is not on there. The rider does not have a vehicle profile.

I was going to post this.

It'd be a permissible thing here: Does it say anywhere that Vehicles can have a save (rather than does it say they cannot). Their profile does not show a save, and any invuns state specifically that they have one and the BrB has rules on how those work.

JinxDragon wrote:
Show me the Restriction which states a vehicle can never have an Armour Save, even if a Special Rule or Power would grant them one.

Are you guys arguing just because you can? That is a non-issue.

Chariots are going to be played with a lot of house rules. We can argue a lot of RAW on the subject but RAW is pretty debilitating to the chariot rider specifically - This comes from giving a non vehicle profile the Vehicle unit type.

In this case, I would suggest a vehicle who is given a armor an increase in armor save does nothing to the chariot profile, but does increase the armor save of the riders profile. The Chariot does not have the characteristic to be able to add it to, and normally effects which give a unit XYZ in the vehicle world have no effect, and the other way around -> This could mean the rider would technically never benefit from it, but sometimes It's better to pretend (Just pretend) they are not one model.

Corey and Matt are correct in the ruling IMO. If the save is also on the chariot then the grav will cause its effects on that save. It's order of precedence. If the grav gun doesn't work on a chariot, then the chariot should not benefit from a 2+ save...or any save.

Naw,

Yep, pure academical argument as it has no Table-Top use what so ever!
It is a non-issue, no one is arguing that it will ever become a problem or an abusable loophole if people stick to the Rules themselves. The problem I have with the concept that a Vehicle can never be granted an Armour Save comes down to the fundamental concept of a permission based system. Should a Rule states that we May or Must do X then we May or Must do X, unless it is further Restricted by a more specific Y. In this situation we have the possibility that a Chariot can be the subject of a Rule granting the Model an Armour Save, which raises some very interesting questions as to how such an action plays out now they have that duel-profile thing. Yet of all the answers that could be provided, the answer of 'it can never legally happen!' is not going to be correct unless someone can produce before mentioned Restriction Y stating as such.

As for not appearing on the Profile:
There is a reason Invulnerably Saves was brought up, a good attempt to pre-empt the usual argument that points out that Invulnerability Saves are Characteristics even though they are not listed on a profile. I wonder if the attempt to pre-empt the argument could be because it also shows that not all things need to be listed on the Profile if they are granted by an outside force. Another fundamental concept would come into play right now, Specific Over-turns Generic, as the hypothetical Special Rule or Power being evoked grants the Model an Armour Save so the Model would therefore have an Armour Save, unless a Restriction is preventing the Rule from being Evoked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kal-El,
So you are fine with Generating Wounds against a profile that has no Wound Characteristic to bring down to 0?
What those guys where ruling is what makes the Chariot Immortal as a by product....

Following actual Rules leads to this situation:
Grav-Weapon fires at Chariot and Generates Hit's
Chariot Rule Triggers, Defending Player allocates Hit's to either Chariot or Rider
If Rider then Wound Vs Model's Armour Save, Allocate to Rider Profile
If Chariot then Glance on 6's, Allocate to Chariot Profile

Considering the situation wasn't broken in the first place, they simply should of laughed at the question and pointed out that the Rule to resolve the attack against the Profile requires the Attack to be Resolved against the Profile. They could of easily pointed out what everyone else has to date, that an Armour Save on a Vehicle means sweet **** all as Vehicles are never Wounded, and made it a non-issue entirely. However, they created this strange House Rule to try and "balance" a non-issue and it led to the problems the Opening Poster commented on and the logical, if unintended, conclusion of making the Chariots actually immortal.

JinxDragon wrote:

Following actual Rules leads to this situation:
Grav-Weapon fires at Chariot and Generates Hit's
Chariot Rule Triggers, Defending Player allocates Hit's to either Chariot or Rider
If Rider then Wound Vs Model's Armour Save, Allocate to Rider Profile
If Chariot then Glance on 6's, Allocate to Chariot Profile

You clearly answered the question with that statement. This is the most logical and simple way to go about resolving Grav-Weapons against a Chariot.