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.

If a character in terminator armour wins a challenges and rolls "armour save improved by 1" on the boon table, would he get a 1+ armour save? I know a roll of 1 always fails but if this was the case he would be able to take an armour save against AP2 weapons. Or did I miss something in the rules that prevents this?

Saves can never be improved past a 2+. Page 19.

Must have missed that. cheers

as there is an AP1, I would give him a 1+ save, that fails on a 1 like any save, but that is only negated by AP1. Always fail on a 1 but can still save vs plasma but not melta


I agree though, as the rules are, he would still have a 2+ save, the above is just how I think it should work.

While I agree with the assessment above, I have a "Devil's Advocate" question:

The Codex does not say models in terminator armor cannot receive the +1, and the BRB ALSO says that the codex overrides the rulebook.
Does this change how you look at it?

Eric

 MagickalMemories wrote:
While I agree with the assessment above, I have a "Devil's Advocate" question:

The Codex does not say models in terminator armor cannot receive the +1, and the BRB ALSO says that the codex overrides the rulebook.
Does this change how you look at it?

Eric

No. The Codex does not say you cannot take a Chaos Reaver Titan for 5 pts. However, you still can't.

The Terminator receives +1 to his armor save. Saves of any kind can never be better than 2+ (pg 19 as above). The Codex gives no special permission to ignore this rule. If it DID give special permission to improve the save better than 2+, then Codex > BRB.

But in this case, just no.

Look at it this way - the Terminator gets the boon applied to him. That fulfils the Codex requirement. You then check the Rulebook and see that, per basic rules, his save can't be modified past 2+. In short - he gets given the boon, but it has no practicable effect.

 Boneblade wrote:

No. The Codex does not say you cannot take a Chaos Reaver Titan for 5 pts. However, you still can't.

First, as explained below, 40K is a permissive game. So, your statement above, in this context, is nonsensical, at best.
Second, the codex doesn't even MENTION a Reaver Titan as a Codex Unit.

There's no reason to use absurdities to try to make your point here.

 Boneblade wrote:
The Terminator receives +1 to his armor save. Saves of any kind can never be better than 2+ (pg 19 as above). The Codex gives no special permission to ignore this rule. If it DID give special permission to improve the save better than 2+, then Codex > BRB.

But in this case, just no.

To reiterate: I agree that it doesn't get better than 2+, and I am ONLY playing Devil's Advocate.
That said, your reasoning doesn't hold water.

First, what is the difference between permission and "special" permission? Are there certain rules that can only be broken/changed by a codex if the codex states that it's "special" permission? If so, please show a list of rules (and source) for this specification. Otherwise, then the rulebook says that codex overrides rulebook... that's permission enough for me.


BRB says two things (paraphrased):
1) Saves never get better than 2+ and
2) Codex trumps BRB

Codex says (Paraphrased):
1) Certain models in Termie armor can get Boons (no restrictions listed) and
2) A model with a Boon might get a +1 to his Armor save.

Therefore, a model with Termie armor might get a +1 to his armor save.

WH40K is a permissive game. You cannot do anything that the rules/codex don't specifically say you can. That said, the rules/codex DO specifically say a Terminator can get a +1 save, while not using any verbiage to eliminate this argument from happening.

Unfortunately, I think this is something that might have to end up FAQed because, though my group and I would never make such a presumption, there ARE people out there who will take something this absurd and try to pass it off as a rule. I do not see, though I would welcome it, a RAW explanation that supports the "no +1 for terminators" rule. I can certainly see how a certain subset of players would email GW about this.

As secondary questions to this... What if this was rolled, then the model later lost it's armor value to Necron Scarabs? Could it get the bonus from this boon at that time? What would it be? Could a scarab attack take this away if it's not being applied to the termie's 2+ armor save?

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Super Ready wrote:
Look at it this way - the Terminator gets the boon applied to him. That fulfils the Codex requirement. You then check the Rulebook and see that, per basic rules, his save can't be modified past 2+. In short - he gets given the boon, but it has no practicable effect.

This doesn't hold water, either.
There's nothing in the rules to support your opinion.

Eric

Codex only beats BRB when there's a conflict. A conflict needs to be specific so we know what rules to replace/swap out. There's no conflict here, the codex doesn't override anything.

It's not that cut and dry though. The BRB says no save may be improved past 2+. It also says that codices trump the BRB in cases of conflict. If you get the Boon that improves an armour save on a Terminator, it is telling you to improve the save past 2+. The rule does not need to specifically say that it overrides the BRB to do so, or codices would be miles long, as they would need to give this permission for every unit that has a different rule than is found in the BRB.

Personally, I would play it as an unfortunate loss and keep the Terminator's save at 2+. But unless FAQ'd otherwise, it is a viable position to hold.

rigeld2 wrote:
Codex only beats BRB when there's a conflict. A conflict needs to be specific so we know what rules to replace/swap out. There's no conflict here, the codex doesn't override anything.

I agree with this. The actual quote from the rulebook:

"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence." (RB p7)

There is no conflict; the codex tells you to apply a modifier, and the rulebook tells you how to limit modifiers. If the codex specifically stated that you can get a 1+ armour save, it would be in conflict with the rulebook and would therefore overrule it. But it doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kaisshau wrote:
It's not that cut and dry though. The BRB says no save may be improved past 2+. It also says that codices trump the BRB in cases of conflict. If you get the Boon that improves an armour save on a Terminator, it is telling you to improve the save past 2+. The rule does not need to specifically say that it overrides the BRB to do so, or codices would be miles long, as they would need to give this permission for every unit that has a different rule than is found in the BRB.

Not really, the codex is only telling you to apply a modifier. It never tells you to break a rule, it never provides an exception, it never tells you to apply the modifier in any other way than is already defined in the rulebook. Therefore, you MUST apply the rules from the rulebook, because there is no conflict.

rigeld2 wrote:
Codex only beats BRB when there's a conflict. A conflict needs to be specific so we know what rules to replace/swap out. There's no conflict here, the codex doesn't override anything.

Absolutely.
If the Codex said the save can can be increased to 1+ then the Codex would override the restriction.
It doesn't, so you stick to normal restrictions.

While I agree that would be the RAI, you're actually making up your own version of RAW.
By RAW, the codex does not need to specifically include 2+ armor saves in the +1 boon. it does not need to specifically state that the boon makes a 1+ armor save a possibility. Your argument is a fallacy.
In fact, the permissive nature of the rules is such that it needs to specifically exclude them.
You get a 2+ save and a boon for a +1. Permissive rule sets state that you meet all the criteria, so you get it. In order for you not to qualify, the +1 boon would need to specifically exclude the option of receiving a 1+ armor save.

@Cheexsta:
Any time you apply a modifier, you're "breaking a rule" by your definition. If the BRB says something is one way, and a codex allows you to change that rule, it's no different than what we're discussing here. Not every codex rule/alteration that changes/violates a BRB rule specifies that "this gives you permission to break rule XYZ." Know what I mean?

And again, to reiterate (not aimed at any one person), I agree with the "no better than 2+" judgment. I'm merely playing Devil's Advocate to show how some could interpret it and, in fact, I believe that, due to unfortunate wording, they'd be following RAW (not that I always agree with RAW).

Eric

No, really.
You must have permission to break rules.
You cannot change you armor save in the middle of the game. Codex overrides.
You cannot have better than a 2+ save codex does not override, in fact it is silent - therefore BRB wins.

Yeah sorry just no effect if you roll this boon. Like if you roll the one that gives you Feel No Pain or Poisoned Weapons for a Plague Marine Champion, for example.

 MagickalMemories wrote:
While I agree that would be the RAI, you're actually making up your own version of RAW.
By RAW, the codex does not need to specifically include 2+ armor saves in the +1 boon. it does not need to specifically state that the boon makes a 1+ armor save a possibility. Your argument is a fallacy.
In fact, the permissive nature of the rules is such that it needs to specifically exclude them.
You get a 2+ save and a boon for a +1. Permissive rule sets state that you meet all the criteria, so you get it. In order for you not to qualify, the +1 boon would need to specifically exclude the option of receiving a 1+ armor save.

Restrictions are always stronger than permissions, that's part of the nature of the ruleset. So yes it would need to specifically override it.
Both rules can be followed nicely. In the case of Terminator Armour you simply can't apply the increase as the restriction on saves is in place. This isn't a conflict to be overridden, simply the max saves rule kicking in.
If this very specific rule was to be overridden by the boon, it would have to say so.

You have it backwards, MagikalMemories.

The boon rule would have to state that it allows for a 1+ armor to be possible, thus making an exception to the stated BRB limit on armor saved. We have to be given permission to break the 2+ armor limit and boon does not give that permission with a blanket gain +1 to armor saves. In fact I would even say that the last sentence on p2 seals it, “A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+.”

Yeah MM, that's not how logic works.
Easy example:

The Wailing Doom wrote:[...] It can be used to project a nimbus of burning psychic energy using the following profile [...].

If your "logic" was correct then I can shoot it after running just because although BRB disallows it, the Codex says 'can'. Also, I can use it twice, because I 'can'.
I can use it in my movement. I can shoot it in your movement, then in your shooting and after that in your assault. I can use it whenever, wherever at whatever target. For each rule you chow me in BRB I show you the same word over and over again.
Eldar codex says "can" so it overrides each and every single rule in the rulebook.

No, it doesn't work this way.

Partially off-topic question :

Where is this "boon table" located? I cannot seem to find it in the rulebook or my codex.

Full table p29.
Reference at the end (p.104).
CSM Codex.

Ok, that explains it. I don't have the new Chaos codex (nor any plans to buy it).

I assume this is relative ONLY to CSM then?

 Rorschach9 wrote:
Ok, that explains it. I don't have the new Chaos codex (nor any plans to buy it).

I assume this is relative ONLY to CSM then?

Yes, Chaos Spare Marines only. Chaos Daemons don't have many Terminators...

 grendel083 wrote:

 Rorschach9 wrote:
Ok, that explains it. I don't have the new Chaos codex (nor any plans to buy it).

I assume this is relative ONLY to CSM then?

Yes, Chaos Spare Marines only. Chaos Daemons don't have many Terminators...

No, but Codex: SM do. That's why I was asking. The OP only states "Terminators" and doesnt specify Chaos. That's why I was searching and could not find any reference to boons.

In any case I would argue the BRB rule takes precedence (without seeing the actual CSM rules) :

MAXIMUM SAVE
Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their savesby +1 or +2 or even more. However,
no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model
its save,a roll of 1 always fails.

rigeld2 wrote:No, really.
You must have permission to break rules.
You cannot change you armor save in the middle of the game. Codex overrides.
You cannot have better than a 2+ save codex does not override, in fact it is silent - therefore BRB wins.

Diakon wrote:Yeah sorry just no effect if you roll this boon. Like if you roll the one that gives you Feel No Pain or Poisoned Weapons for a Plague Marine Champion, for example.

Respectfully... Offering your opinions with nothing of substance to back them up does nothing to further your position or the discussion.

@rigeld - You don't defend your position. You don't show where there's fault in my logic. The codex being silent on a difference in rules does not equate to "BRB wins."

@Diakon - Your comparison is nonsensical. I'm talking about changing something, while you're talking about duplicating the same rule. Of course, a Plague marine champion would get the FNP or Poisoned boon... it just wouldn't make a difference, since he already has them.

grendel083 wrote:
Restrictions are always stronger than permissions, that's part of the nature of the ruleset. So yes it would need to specifically override it.
Both rules can be followed nicely. In the case of Terminator Armour you simply can't apply the increase as the restriction on saves is in place. This isn't a conflict to be overridden, simply the max saves rule kicking in.
If this very specific rule was to be overridden by the boon, it would have to say so.

I've never seen anything in the rules that states restrictions are stronger than permissions.
Your last sentence flies in the face of a permissive rule set. By nature, a permissive rule set allows you to ONLY do what you're told you can. To restrict that permission, the rule allowing it in the first place should specify such limitation. In this case, a simple blurb, similar to many used by GW in the past, that says, "Armor saves may not be made better than 2+ with this boon" (or something more professionally worded LOL) would do just that and, I believe, is what GW SHOULD have done.
That said, I believe GW SHOULD HAVE included such a phrase to make their intent clear. Does anyone disagree?
(This isn't something I'll debate with you. I'm just curious.).

hisdudeness wrote:You have it backwards, MagikalMemories.

The boon rule would have to state that it allows for a 1+ armor to be possible, thus making an exception to the stated BRB limit on armor saved. We have to be given permission to break the 2+ armor limit and boon does not give that permission with a blanket gain +1 to armor saves. In fact I would even say that the last sentence on p2 seals it, “A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+.”

P2 of what? The BRB or Codex? Sorry, I have neither at hand. If that rule is in the codex, then you've found the key to unlocking this debate and closing the door permanently.

Otherwise, I still disagree. There are countless examples in the past of people holding the same opinion you do regarding other codices, only to have a later FAQ prove them wrong.
Granted, there are examples of the opposite... but that doesn't diminish my point that GW's done stuff like this before.

Macok wrote:Yeah MM, that's not how logic works.
Easy example:

The Wailing Doom wrote:[...] It can be used to project a nimbus of burning psychic energy using the following profile [...].

If your "logic" was correct then I can shoot it after running just because although BRB disallows it, the Codex says 'can'. Also, I can use it twice, because I 'can'.
I can use it in my movement. I can shoot it in your movement, then in your shooting and after that in your assault. I can use it whenever, wherever at whatever target. For each rule you chow me in BRB I show you the same word over and over again.
Eldar codex says "can" so it overrides each and every single rule in the rulebook.

No, it doesn't work this way.

Yeah... except that you're using a partial phrase of an item's description to support your opinion, which is not a good way to debate. The quote you give - which we're not given the context of- only describes HOW the weapon works (projects a nimbus of psychic energy), but does nothing to describe the circumstances in which it's applied. It alters no rules and doesn't even give the slightest hint that it might be used in a non-standard manner.
The rule in question does both of those. It alters the "nothing better than 2+" rule (if you agree with my "Devil's Advocate" position) and describes how it would be used in the non-standard manner (by reducing the 2+ save to 1+).

I'm not asking ANYONE to agree with that line of reasoning. I'm just asking that, if you disagree with it, present evidence to back up what you say. Opinions hold no weight, whereas facts are what holds sway.

 Rorschach9 wrote:

MAXIMUM SAVE
Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their savesby +1 or +2 or even more. However,
no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model
its save,a roll of 1 always fails.

I don't see this as refuting the logic I'm presenting, and here's why... the +1 Boon can cause a break of the "nothing better than 2+" (paraphrased) rule, while not altering the rest. Why does this matter? Easy.
CSM Termie Champ gets hit by a Lascannon (AP2). He is forced to use his cover or I save. Later, he defeats a character in combat and rolls the +1 Boon. He still will not get an Armor save against Meltas or other AP1 weapons, but will get it against AP2, now. While a roll of 1 still fails (per the rules, since the +1 Boon has no wording to affect that), he'll still get the chance against the Lascannon.

Eric

Indeed the BRB always takes precedence, unless the codex specifically says otherwise. A good example of the codex being specific is Logan Grimnar. The BRB says you can not use special abilities off the table, like if you are in reserves, but the Space Wolves codex/errata specifically says Logan can use his off the table so he can make his unit of long fangs in drop pod assault relentless at the start of the turn before they are on the table. The boon table just says +1 armour save, it doesn't specifically say to increase the armour save to +1 even if it is above the limit of +2 stated in the BRB. The key here is the codex has to specifically say to do this or that to be able to override the BRB, otherwise you follow the rules in the BRB.

 MagickalMemories wrote:
The codex being silent on a difference in rules does not equate to "BRB wins."

Uh, yes it does. The codex doesn't tell you how to roll to-wound, therefore the BRB rule stands. The codex doesn't tell you what the maximum save is, therefore the BRB rule stands. For the codex to override the BRB, the codex must change the rule. In this case it does not.

BRB page 2 wrote:A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+.

More importantly

BRB page 19 wrote:Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However no save (armour, cover, or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+.

The boon gives you a +1 armour save. At that point the second quote comes into play. It is an additional benefit from a rule that increases a save by +1. As such no save can ever be improved beyond 2+.

MagickalMemories, go home you’re drunk. There is no such thing as a 1+ Armor Save as stated by the BRB on p2. The boon rule does not state it creates an exception allowing for a 1+ Armor Save thus there is no 1+ Armor Save. This simple idea of the rule creating the specific exception to a BRB in the rule itself has been used quite a few times.

I agree the model will still have a +1 to armor save, but it will just not have an effect because there is no 1+ armor save.

 hisdudeness wrote:
MagickalMemories, go home you’re drunk.

Not cool, dude. Whether or not he is drunk or at home has no bearing on this discussion (I should know, I'm home and drunk )

WolvesForTheWolfGod wrote:Indeed the BRB always takes precedence, unless the codex specifically says otherwise. A good example of the codex being specific is Logan Grimnar. The BRB says you can not use special abilities off the table, like if you are in reserves, but the Space Wolves codex/errata specifically says Logan can use his off the table so he can make his unit of long fangs in drop pod assault relentless at the start of the turn before they are on the table. The boon table just says +1 armour save, it doesn't specifically say to increase the armour save to +1 even if it is above the limit of +2 stated in the BRB. The key here is the codex has to specifically say to do this or that to be able to override the BRB, otherwise you follow the rules in the BRB.

(Emphasis mine)
You're using something from the errata to support your point. In this contaxt, that's invalid and, if anything, supports the Devil;s Avocate opinion I'm presenting.
Logan Grimnar's power wasn't properly worded in the codex and had to be erratta'd. That's exactly the point I'm making about this issue.

As I've pointed out, codices are full of rules that tell us to do one thing or another that are in violation of BRB rules. They don't typically point out that you have special permission to break/change the BRB rule in question. With the "codex overrides" rule, that is to be accepted as a given.

Pyrian wrote:

 MagickalMemories wrote:
The codex being silent on a difference in rules does not equate to "BRB wins."

Uh, yes it does. The codex doesn't tell you how to roll to-wound, therefore the BRB rule stands. The codex doesn't tell you what the maximum save is, therefore the BRB rule stands. For the codex to override the BRB, the codex must change the rule. In this case it does not.

Happyjew wrote:

BRB page 2 wrote:A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+.

More importantly

BRB page 19 wrote:Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However no save (armour, cover, or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+.

The boon gives you a +1 armour save. At that point the second quote comes into play. It is an additional benefit from a rule that increases a save by +1. As such no save can ever be improved beyond 2+.

This goes right back to codex over BRB.
While I agree with you on the INTENT, the fact is that that screwed themselves over by including the "codex overrides" rule. In this case, the Boon in the codex could easily be argued (as I'm demonstrating) to override even that rule, since no limits are placed on it (the Boon).

hisdudeness wrote:MagickalMemories, go home you’re drunk.

That was unnecessary, and reported as such.
If you've read the whole thread, you see that (a) I've been quite lucid (b) I've stated several times what my personal opinion is on the subject and what my intent is for taking this role in the thread.

hisdudeness wrote:There is no such thing as a 1+ Armor Save as stated by the BRB on p2. The boon rule does not state it creates an exception allowing for a 1+ Armor Save thus there is no 1+ Armor Save. This simple idea of the rule creating the specific exception to a BRB in the rule itself has been used quite a few times.

It does not need to state that it's creating an exception. In fact, GW is not clear on their methods. Sometimes, they list when something IS allowed to break codex rules and other times, they don't (but intend it to).

hisdudeness wrote:I agree the model will still have a +1 to armor save, but it will just not have an effect because there is no 1+ armor save.

Show me where The Black Mace exists in the BRB.
Many things don't exist until a codex makes them so.



Also, I'd like to see people address the other questions I had, regarding your opinions on tangential questions:

What if this was rolled, then the model later lost it's armor value to Necron Scarabs? Could it get the bonus from this boon at that time? What would it be? Could a scarab attack take this away if it's not being applied to the termie's 2+ armor save?

Eric