3++ Save on CCB

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.

**Nilok**

DarthOvious wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
DarthOvious wrote:
Hasn't somebody already mentioned that Logans chariot gets a separate save from Logan himself thus confirming that the writers didn't think that Logans invulnerable save would be transferred to the chariot? Otherwise what would be the point in giving Stormrider a separate invulnerable save?
Clarification?
They also tell you he loses Deep Strike, implying that otherwise it would confer to the Chariot.
So that's 1 argument for and 1 argument against it (from a RAI point of view).
But no matter the RAI, the RAW is 100% clear: The model gets a 3++.

How is that one for and one against? The point is in concerns to setting a precedent for invulnerable saves for chariots and thus your point about deep strike is irrelevant. When setting precedents in 40K you need to find like for like examples of which deep strike is not. Also not to mention that Logan is specifically forbidden from deep striking anyway in his chariot and thus does not gain the deep strike rule in that circumstance showing that the designers once again don't just give give chariots everything that the caracter bringing them has. You would actually need to find an example of a character giving his chariot the same rules with the same wording as invul saves to make a point.
Apples and oranges.

**FlingitNow**

It shows they know that special rules transfer. So for instance the solar thermite would give the barge S7 Tesla and reroll 1s on jink. It also clearly shows they don't believe invuns transfer over. This is a known fact which Grimnar proves that you need to ignore to push your beneficial interpretation.

**Kangodo**

Solar Thermasite doesn't apply on a model-basis, but to the bearer.
The Overlord is the bearer and the Overlord + CCB is the model.

And for crying out loud.. "This is a known fact.."? Can you please stop with stuff like that when apparently the majority disagrees with you?

**FlingitNow**

So it is not a known fact that GW gave Stormrider its own separate invun when your interpretation means that it already had that same invun. What is untrue or unknown about that statement. Please enlightened me.

**Sigvatr**

This thread is awesome despite me not being sure if people who claim that their interpretation of a sentence is a "fact" are actually serious or just...well...

**Kangodo**

FlingitNow wrote:
So it is not a known fact that GW gave Stormrider its own separate invun when your interpretation means that it already had that same invun. What is untrue or unknown about that statement. Please enlightened me.

You said it was a known fact after "..they don't believe invuns transfer over."
That has nothing to do with whether Stormrider has a save or not, because it clearly has.

So, please :') This is getting ridiculous.

**FlingitNow**

Yes it has an invun. Its own separate invun, which can only mean that they didn't believe it had one before they gave it one. Or what was the reason for giving it its own separate 4+ invun. Give me a plausible answer for that and your RaI isn't clear stance might have some legs.

**insaniak**

This doesn't appear to be going anywhere productive. Moving on.