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.

mauleed said:

Except the RAW doesn't support any of that. But whatever. That's a different thread. Feel free to open it if you like and I'll explain.

 

This comment is in reference to the much-debated 'No Save' rule (p.24 of the rulebook, and see assorted numerous threads here on Dakka).

So, Ed, would you care to explain your POV?

 

By the way, I'm not saying you're wrong (and nor am I saying that the No Save rule is the way the game should be played) but I'm just interested in your argument against it.

First you state the argument, then I'll explain it's flaw. That's what I promised, not that I'd make an argument of my own.

Okay, sure. The whole 'No Save' thing caused confusion to everyone (including me) when bluespruce and I discovered it, and things have not improved.

So first, let's deal with the basics. A squad of 10 Tactical Marines, eight of whom are armed with Boltguns, one with a Plasmagun and one with a Lascannon, open fire on a Crisis Suit with 2 Shield Drones.

Unless I'm mistaken (and please by all means point it out if I am), the sequence of events runs like this:

1. The Marine Player declares the Tactical Squad is firing at the Crisis Suit and Drones.

2. The Marine Player measures the range between the Tactical Squad and the Crisis Suit Drones.

3. If in range (let's assume they are, and within the range of all weapons, say 18"), the Marine Player rolls to hit. He rolls separately (or with different coloured/marked/shaped dice) for the three different weapon types.

4. The Marine Player totals the number of hits he has made with each different weapon type. He then rolls this number to wound, based on the Strength of the relevant weapon(s) and the majority Toughness of the unit (which in this case is irrelevant as the Shield Drones take on their controller's Toughness).

5. Under the 'No Save' rule (p24 of the rulebook - I don't have it with me at the moment so I can't give you an exact quote, sorry), the Tau Player is instructed to remove all models that do not get a save first. (Note that these models are never referred to as 'casualties'.)

Therefore, if the Lascannon and/or Plasmagun hits, these are both weapons that would cut through the Armour Save of the Tau models (AP2 against 3+). So, it comes down to which models get a save and which do not. The Shield Drones get a 4+ Invulnerable Save. The Crisis Suit has no save. Thus the Crisis Suit must be removed first (along with the Drones incidentally).



How does that sound? Is there a glaring error I'm missing somewhere? There is the 'removing multi-wounds models' problem, of course, but for the sake of argument can we ignore that for now? (And besides in the above example the Lascannon would insta-kill the Crisis Suit anyway.)

Well, there is no "no save rule". There's a detailed list of how to handle armor saves, which this is under. But it's context is very clearly "armor saves". So you're taking a single sentence out of it's context and then attempting to apply it universally.

It's also before the rules even mention invulnerable saves.

And if we're taking rules out of context, I'll simply take the "models with an invulnerable save may alway take it" rule out of context from the mixed armor rules, since that sentence standing alone would make the issue moot.

But I certainly see your point. It definitely could have been written better.

Aah, but the rule doesn't say 'Armour Saves'. It refers to models that do not get a 'saving throw.'

And I don't quite understand how this is out of context. Sorry. Unless... hold on, brain synapses firing... you're referring to the fact that this line is in a section on Armour Saves (again, I don't know because my rulebook is not here beside me) and thus the 'No Save' rule (it's just a name, Ed, like the 'Torrent of Fire' rule) applies solely to Armour Saves.

Admittedly, that's a good argument. The only problems I can see with it is the same old ones we all banged our heads against in the first place. Namely: the reference to 'saving throws' and not 'Armour saving throws', which you might have got around; and the fact that if the model is removed it will not get an Invulnerable Saving Throw. Yes, I know the section on Invulnerable Saves says models always get one, but if the model has already been removed, then how can it get a save?

The whole area of wounding and saves is absolutely the most complex and worst explained in the entire rules.

Agreed, Kilkrazy.

I think I'll refrain from further comments until I can get a look at my rulebook.

Here's one to consider. Try looking at this rule in conjunction with the majority armor save rule.

If someone were to make, for example, a DE retinue with 5 Incubi (3+ save) and 2 warriors (5+ save), and that unit got shot up witih bolters (AP 5), would you have to "begin by removing all models that do not get a save," or would you apply the majority armor save rule?

I don't really have an opinion on this one; I'm just curious as to what the most correct method would be.

Sal.

Let's try this. I pulled this quote fo the rules from an Insaniak post a while back:


On page 24, the rules say:
"...you begin by removing all models that do not get a Saving throw, and then roll all other Saving throws together."

Shall we call this the "no save models die first" rule? Shortened to "no saves" rule.

I will play devil's advocate here, and outline a strawman, and I hope Ed can demolish it.

P1: The rule does not refer to armor saves, but instead to saving throws.

P2: an invulnerable save is a saving throw.

Conclusion: if a unit with mixed invulnerable saves is wounded by a high AP weapon which does not allow armor saves, models without invulnerable saves must be removed first.

Thius rule has nothing to do with the majority armor rules that I have been able to ascertain; it is separate.

Now, my thoughts: (1) a strict application of this rule removes whole models, without consideration for wounds - it does not say that a wound is caused, but rather that models are removed. Thus, that rule is not meant to be read literally, as it leads to a result wholly at odds with the rest of the rules. Second: i believ what the rule is intended to do is to simplify the game (remember how GW is always trying to simplify things, even when we really just need some rules?) by reducing die rolls, by removing models that are inevitably going to die anyway. GW just didn't account for invulnerable saves, in their lack of editing.

A strict application of that rule, which has been urged by some posters, would say yes, that the warriors are removed first, despite the majority armor save rules.

I just barely realized that high AP weapons make you autofail your armor save - you still get it technically (see the apothecary and instant death rules debates.) So, the No save rule on page 24 doesn't apply if the models have any armor, even when that armor is beaten by high AP.

That is a reasonable interpretation of the p.24 rule; models with "no save" = models with not even Armour AV 6+. It simplifies things and solves a problem.

Hrm...I'm not quite sure I agree with that interpretation.

The section discussing AP of weapons and saves does not say that the armor save is automatically failed. It specifically states that "If the weapon's Armour Piercing value is equal to or lower than the model's Armour Save then it is sufficiently powerful to punch straight through the armour and the target gets no save at all." (emphasis mine)

The section I was referring to earlier states: "When a unit takes a number of wounds from an enemy unit shooting at it, you begin by removing all models that do not get a Saving throw..." (emphasis mine)

It seems to me that there is no real "auto fail," simply a negation of the armor.

Sal.

If it isn't an auto-save failure, then krak missles/Melta guns/Power fists/etc no longer insta-kill Marine characters.

I think you've got it. Kudos, everybody. That explains that and I can shut up about the 'No Save' rule now. Thanks!

Who's got what? I've lost track of things. Are we saying...

(A) The Broadside has no save (against a lascannon) so dies immediately (p.24)
(B) The Broadside has a save (although it can't make it against a lascannon) so it counts as the same T&A group as the drone, allowing the drone to take the hit.

Or have I completely lost the plot?

Ok. A marine with two wounds in terminator armor(2+ armor, 5+ invulnerable saves), is shot by a krak missle(str 8 ap 3). If he fails the save he is dead, since it is twice his toughness.

Does he get only a 5+ invulnerable save, or does he get a 2+ save? Does he not get a regular armor save it is still twice his toughness or is the armor save only defeated by AP?

Ahoj!
Only Ap counts.
Borys

I looked over the mixed saving throw rules on Pg. 76 and came to this conclusion, which I will try to explain.

Example 1:

3 Crisis Suits with 6 Gun Drones are shot by 3 Missile Launchers. However, because the Gun Drones have majority, all the Missile Launchers must be assigned onto the gun drones.
or
8 Initiates and 3 Neophytes are shot by two starcannons, taking 4 wounds. You must remove the Initiates first, because their armor save is in the majority.

Point: You must assign wounds to the majority armor save.

3 Crisis Suits with 3 Gun Drones are shot by the same 3 Missile Launchers. Because there is an equal number of armor saves, you must assign the shots to the worst armor save. Thus, in this case, the Gun Drones again take the damage.

3 Crisis Suits with 2 Shield Drones are shot by 2 Missile Launchers. This case is one that causes confusion, but this is my conclusion. Because the rules for Mixed Saves only look at armor save, I believe the situation plays out like this: You can assign both shots to the Shield Drones because there is no difference in armor save, and the rules on Pg. 76 clearly state you can assign wounds to which unit you want (As long as all units take 1 wound before assigning another, and that wounds are assigned to the units with the majority armor save). And, because you can assign the wounds to the Shield Drones, you can then take their invulnerable armor save.

Point 2 of above example. 3 Crisis Suits with 2 Shield Drones are hit by 2 Missile Launchers and 4 Boltgun shots. Because, again, there are no majority armor saves in this unit (As all the units have 3+ saves, the only save taken into account in the Pg. 76 mixed armor rules) and the wrap around rules you are free to assign both missile launcher hits to the Shield Drones, but must then assign 1 boltgun shot to each Crisis Suit, with the 1 left over boltgun shot then assigned to whatever unit you wish (Shield drone, or crisis suit) as every other unit has had 1 wound assigned to it.

This makes it clear that if you were to take shield drones in a Crisis Suit unit, regardless of majority, as long as you did not take more insta-kill wounds than you had shield drones, you could assign those wounds to the shield drones. Why? Because both the shield drones and crisis suits have 3+ armor saves (And the mixed armor saves rules only take into account of normal armor saves). However, if you take more insta-kill wounds than you have shield drones, you must assign 1 wound to each unit including the Crisis Suits until every unit has been assigned 1, then every unit assigned 2, and so on. (This takes into account that if your unit comes under overwhelming firepower, a few shield drones or meat shields won't be able to stop all the hits).

However, if you were to take those Crisis Suits with gun drones, you would need to have more gun drones than you did Crisis Suits, otherwise the wounds would be applied to the Crisis Suits first.

This also means that if you were to have a unit with 1 Marshall with artificer armor, 5 Initiates, and 10 Neophytes, the Marshall would be last to have a wound assigned to him. (Meaning, in one round, the unit would need 10 hits assigned to the majority armor save first, before you could then choose to assign the other hits to the Initiates or the Marshall).