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.

One thing to note-This isn't an oversite. Vehicle mounted psycannon rounds specifically allow cover and armor saves. The infantry version of psycannon bolts and psycannons themselves only allow armor saves.

Oaka-They didn't change the wording between the DH codex and the wargear book. As for Feel No Pain, Bionics, leadership tests, etc...Those aren't saves, thus can be taken against a psycannon.

Posted By TheGreatAvatar on 08/27/2006 6:46 PM

4.  The summary page just lists the Wraith has having an invulnerable save..

Now, where's the prove the invulnerable save replaces the armor save?

Next to the 3+ there's an asterisk in the summary.  It appears as such: "3+*".  Below is written: "* indicates an invulnerable save."  Why is that not sufficient?  An asterisk next to a save that means "indicates an invulnerable save." Not has an invulnerable save.  Indicates an invulnerable save.  There's no other way to interpret it.

I'd see it like this....the other codices go out of their way to portray units with a natural invulnerable save and a normal save. For example the Terminator 2+/5+ (Scrap the crappy wargear book error). If the Wraith had a normal save it would have been listed as 3+/3+ in the wargear entry.

However, there were times in the third edition rules, if I remember correctly, that a unit would just have a 4+ in their entry and the note would say that the unit had a 4+ invulnerable on top of its normal armor save (assuming the 4+ normal save).

My guess would be to make a decision with a necron player BEFORE playing the game, so as to clear up any potential confusion.

@ Skyth:

I would be in agreement with you if the wording was more along the lines of "The only save a model may make against a psycannon is an armor save."  But the wording is "Only armor saves are allowed."  It is a jump in logic that is just not supported to assume this rule only applies to any and all 'saves'.  In fact, if only armor saves are allowed, then you are not allowed to make any other roll that results from a psycannon, for any reason.

- Oaka 

Interesting debate before it got hijacked by the overdone "psycannon and yes/no to coversave" issue.

 

Avatar is right according to RAW. Wraiths have the standard Necron WS/BS/Ld and 3+ save statline entry. Their special rules states they have a 3+ invulnerable avaliable to them because of phaseshift. It doesn't specify that the statline 3+ is this invulnerable save or clarify if the invulnerable save is in addition to what is read in every other given statline in 40k as an armour save.

Because it doesn't specify, we should default to interpreting this entry as we would any other, and reading wraiths as having the standard 3+ armour save. All statline Sv values consisting of one value entry should be read IMO as that one value being an armour save. Phaseshift is not explicit enough to change this I think and should be read as conferring an additional option to take a 3+ invulnerable save.

 

When do we take summaries into account? Strictly by RAW, never, as summaries are not rules. The Wargear contains up-to-date rule information, and also contains up-to-date summaries. An up-to-date summary doesn't overide real rules either.

 

Also, by this train of argument, C'tan have 4+ armour saves and a 4+ invulnerable save.

Halfpast Yellow,

Your logic is flawed by your unfounded assumptions on how to interpret the rules in the face of a conflict. What precedence have we to "default to interpreting this entry as we would any other?"

There is clearly a conflict on interest in these rules, and the ethical choice is to take the least advantageous interpretation.

Posted By TheGreatAvatar on 08/27/2006 6:46 PM

Now, where's the prove the invulnerable save replaces the armor save?

In the Wargear book, which has the most up-to-date version of the rules.

And since you seem to have missed it the first time, the Terminator Armour/Invuilnerable save IS listed correctly in the Wargear book, in the armour's rules entry. And as always with GW publications, when a summary differs with the rules entry in the same book, the rules entry takes precedence. So you can stop using Terminator Armour as an excuse to completely ignore the Wargear book.

That may be true, let me point out that it's pretty easy to see the intent of the rules here, and in a game I'd always play 'ethically' and play that Wraiths and C'tan get no saves against psycannons..

 

But from a purely RAW perspective of the rules, the rules summary is providing the conflict here, and does that count for anything under a RAW philosophy?

 

 

I'd have to put in a somewhat extraneous background comment.  Wraiths rather need the help from the 3+/3+ interpretation.  I do wish the Phase Shift rule read, 'also' or 'becomes' to clear this up.

As a relevant question, does any codex summary list BOTH the armor and invunerable save on a model with both?

As a relevant question, does any codex summary list BOTH the armor and invunerable save on a model with both?

I believe the CSM codex does this (bloodthirster, bloodletters, possessed, and obliterators).

It does, but not in the summary (wich I cant find).

But it also shows units with only Inv save as -/4+.