boon table and terminators

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.

**rigeld2**

MagickalMemories wrote:

@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."

Except it does. If the codex doesn't allow you to do something then you must go with the BRB rule.
I showed fault in your logic - you're assuming that a bonus to an armor save is an explicit allowance to ignore the "can never be improved past a 2+" rule, when its no such thing. It might be implicit but I'd disagree with extending it even that far.

To break a BRB rule you must have explicit allowance. Show it. You haven't yet.

**liturgies of blood**

@Magickal

Rigeld has it.

If you take assaults and deepstriking for example.

Nobody can assault after deepstriking according to the BRB, BA codex gave specific rules to Vanguard vets to assault after deepstriking. This is a specific conflict between the brb and the codex.

You need the rules to actually interact, the BRB already has stated that even with modifiers the save cannot go beyond 2+. Getting an increased save doesn't have an allowance to go beyond 2+. The +1 to the save is a general allowance not a specific one, while the Vanguard vets above have a specific allowance.

**hisdudeness**

MM, I firmly believe you are just trolling. Or I am just misunderstanding your view, which is possible because you keep jumping back to “Codex over BRB” with no support. Which I read now, is all just your personal option…and has no place on YMDC.

It has been explained multiple times by multiple people were your logic falls apart. You choosing to not accept the points presented do not make you correct.

Honestly, what part of an armor save cannot be modified beyond 2+ is so hard to understand? Where does the boon rule tell us that you can change this fact?

**Godless-Mimicry**

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

For someone who has spent all but his first post in this thread doing nothing but telling everyone that disagrees with you that they aren't making a valid argument, you haven't made one yourself. You haven't even really tried. Something to think about.

As for the ruling, rigeld had it spot on earlier; these are two rules working in unison, not in conflict, so there's no overwrite. This is the basis on how the rules of this game always work, and it boggles my mind why people try to act like something should be different for no reason whatsoever. The Chaos book says take +1 AS, the BRB tells you that it is to a maximum of 2+, no conflict, no fuss, no confusion, no matter how many times somebody says it isn't clear cut, the written fact says otherwise.

**rigeld2**

(Wow first copper.talos agrees with me, then Godless-Mimicry does? The Mayans were soooooo right...)

**WolvesForTheWolfGod**

MagickalMemories wrote:
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.

How is an errata invalid? If anything you just answered your own question. If not worded properly then follow the BRB, and wait for an errata. The point was it specified you could use Logan's ability off the table even thought the BRB said you couldn't. You would need an errata saying you can increase your armour save to better then a 2+ since your codex does not specifically say you can. You can try it all you want, but TO's won't go for it if it isn't specifically stated that you can. Devil's advocate is fine and all, but you can't give anywhere in the CSM: codex that specifically says you can increase your armour save to better then a 2+.

**SoloFalcon1138**

Sure. His armor save will go to 1+, but he will still fail saves on a one and AP 1 weapons will deny the armor save.

Simply put, its just wasted.

**DeathReaper**

AP 2 weapons will bypass it as well, as "no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+"

**Luide**

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Sure. His armor save will go to 1+, but he will still fail saves on a one and AP 1 weapons will deny the armor save.
Simply put, its just wasted.

It is in fact still 2+ save, because of what DR said and because rulebook also states that Armour Save statistic runs from 2+ through 6+ to - (Page 2, second paragraph).

**Praxiss**

I would have thought if the boon you roll can't be applied to the model in question then you just re-roll.

This is going to be a pretty rare situation after all.

**rigeld2**

Praxiss wrote:
I would have thought if the boon you roll can't be applied to the model in question then you just re-roll.

This is going to be a pretty rare situation after all.

It would be nice if the rules allowed that.
Just like it'd be nice if they allowed a re-roll on the psyker tables if you have a BS0 and get a whitchfire power.

**MagickalMemories**

hisdudeness wrote:MM, I firmly believe you are just trolling.

Unnecessarily rude again, and reported again. I'm being polite and respectful. There's no reason you can't, too.
If you can't, then I can just ignore you from here on.
You should look at what Trolls do. That's clearly not what I'm doing here.

hisdudeness wrote:Or I am just misunderstanding your view, which is possible because you keep jumping back to “Codex over BRB” with no support. Which I read now, is all just your personal option…and has no place on YMDC.

It has been explained multiple times by multiple people were your logic falls apart. You choosing to not accept the points presented do not make you correct.

You seem to be misunderstanding because, as I've said numerous times, it's not MY view. MY view is in line with yours. I'm presenting a differing view for the sake of discussion.
I don't know what you mean by "is all just your personal option…and has no place on YMDC," but, if you meant OPINION (no insult intended, I am well known for typos, so wouldn't slam you for one), then you're wrong. Opinions are part of YMDC. It's about reading or deciphering rules you find ambiguous and, while I believe I know RAI on this, the RAW has some ambiguity. If the rules are CLEAR, there's no need to "make a call." You'd just read the rule.

hisdudeness wrote:Honestly, what part of an armor save cannot be modified beyond 2+ is so hard to understand? Where does the boon rule tell us that you can change this fact?

When it says to bump the armor save by +1.

Godless-Mimicry wrote:
MagickalMemories wrote:Respectfully... Offering your opinions with nothing of substance to back them up does nothing to further your position or the discussion.

For someone who has spent all but his first post in this thread doing nothing but telling everyone that disagrees with you that they aren't making a valid argument, you haven't made one yourself. You haven't even really tried. Something to think about.

But I have offered positions to back them up. Sadly, I don't see where anyone's found a legitimate hole in the logic. Essentially, everyone's presented the same defense against it that I would, which amounts to RAI.
What RAI would be seems clear to me. No doubt. What I'm looking for is a position that can't have any holes punched in it by the position I'm offering. I haven't seen any. I really would like it, because I KNOW there are going to be people out there arguing the point I'm presenting and using the same points to do it. Unfortunately, I can't think of any non-RAI way to show them they're wrong.

Godless-Mimicry wrote:
MagickalMemories wrote:As for the ruling, rigeld had it spot on earlier; these are two rules working in unison, not in conflict, so there's no overwrite. This is the basis on how the rules of this game always work, and it boggles my mind why people try to act like something should be different for no reason whatsoever. The Chaos book says take +1 AS, the BRB tells you that it is to a maximum of 2+, no conflict, no fuss, no confusion, no matter how many times somebody says it isn't clear cut, the written fact says otherwise.

Because the Codex over-rides, which allows it to break ANY rule in the BRB, and the +1 Boon does not indicate a deference to the BRB.

WolvesForTheWolfGod wrote:
How is an errata invalid? If anything you just answered your own question. If not worded properly then follow the BRB, and wait for an errata. The point was it specified you could use Logan's ability off the table even thought the BRB said you couldn't. You would need an errata saying you can increase your armour save to better then a 2+ since your codex does not specifically say you can. You can try it all you want, but TO's won't go for it if it isn't specifically stated that you can. Devil's advocate is fine and all, but you can't give anywhere in the CSM: codex that specifically says you can increase your armour save to better then a 2+.

In THIS instance, it's invalid because it's not IN the codex. It's errata. By bringing up errata, you're supporting the position I'm offering, which is that the codex does not properly indicate that you can NOT violate the "2+ Armor" limitation from the BRB. The codex you're referring to had the wording bad enough that they had to errata it, which is the exact point I'm making here... they had to specify in a SECOND document what their intent was in the Codex. We're discussing a codex which, I believe, needs this issue FAQed, if fo no other reason than to silence the PITA's out there who will run with this issue legitimately (for them), rather than hypothetically (for me).

Luide wrote:
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Sure. His armor save will go to 1+, but he will still fail saves on a one and AP 1 weapons will deny the armor save.
Simply put, its just wasted.
It is in fact still 2+ save, because of what DR said and because rulebook also states that Armour Save statistic runs from 2+ through 6+ to - (Page 2, second paragraph).

Right. As stated, though, he'd still get a save against lascannons and any AP2 HtH weapons.

Praxiss wrote:This is going to be a pretty rare situation after all.

I sincerely hope it's rare. I hope nobody ever takes the stance that it's a legitimate roll for a character who already has a 2+ save. Sadly, I believe people will present that case, and I don't see a RAW defense against it.

Don't misunderstand me. As I've tried to make clear, I do NOT agree with the opinion I'm presenting. Unfortunately, it looks as if some people are not realizing that. It also seems as if some people are taking this personally - those people should reconsider whether or not to take part in the discussion.
I am presenting the p.o.v. because I do NOT see a RAW defense against it, and I'd really like to. So far, nothing presented so far is cut & dried. It's unfortunate, but I really believe that.

I'm not doing this for my own benefit. The 3 other guys I game with are very RAI. We'd never try such shenanigans. I do believe there are people out there who would, though.

Eric

**liturgies of blood**

I have 2" of aluminium on the side of my house. A nuke goes off a few miles away. My house is good against all the alpha and beta particles in the fallout. Gamma rays go through the aluminium like paper.

I get a magical bonus 6" of aluminium on the side of the house. It still keeps all the alpha and beta particles but unfortunately gamma still shoot through.

That is what you get when you get the +1 armour save bonus, the bonus is added to your score and then you realise that there is nothing specific to overcome the brb restriction( or the real world of aluminium becoming lead). So it remains a 2+ save.
Plasma and melta still go through your armour like paper. A save that cannot fail is not something the game can work with.

**MagickalMemories**

Your mistakes are that (a) your real world example does not correlate with the issue at hand and (b) a roll of 1 can still fail on a 1+ save. I never claimed otherwise. In fact, I specifically agreed with that point.
The only difference this would make would be to, essentially, allow a save on AP2 weapons. Since said save would still save on a roll of 1, that essentially gives a 2+ save against AP2 weapons.

Yes. I agree it's stupid. I just don't see any of the logic presented so far being enough to deter someone who's taking the stance I am presenting if they're looking for a concrete reason why they're wrong.

Eric

Eric

**DeathReaper**

The reason is:

"no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+"

So you can not have any model with a 1+ save.

**hisdudeness**

OK, now I understand. But the premise still stands. The differing view is based on the incorrect application of the rules and has been shown by numerous people why this is the case. Options WITH support are part of YMDC, not an option with a single statement.

A +1 modifier to Armor Save is not permission for a 1+ Armor Save to exist. Not a single line in the C:CSM changes the 2+ Armor Save limit. How on earth is "no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+" considered RAI? You will really need to explain that one to me. That is the rule and boon does not give permission to exceed this limitation.

The position you are advocating for “codex trumps BRB” is applied incorrectly as you keep leaving off the entire beginning of the clause which is “if there is a conflict”. There is no conflict. Nothing stops us from placing a +1 modifier on the model. In this case the modifier will not change the Armor Save because of the BRB limit on Armor Saves. A codex does not allow us to break a rule, the codex modifies the rules of the BRB. In this case there is no modification to a rule, but a modification to a stat line in which there is a strict limit of values. And boon does nothing to modify that limit.

All said, there is no such this as a 1+ Amror Save and you have not shown me (anyone) any proof that boon creates this allowance.

**MagickalMemories**

DeathReaper wrote:The reason is:

"no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+"

So you can not have any model with a 1+ save.

No rule in the BRB can be broken, unless a codex later allows it to. That goes for any and all rules. No rule is sacrosanct.

hisdudeness wrote:OK, now I understand. But the premise still stands. The differing view is based on the incorrect application of the rules and has been shown by numerous people why this is the case. Options WITH support are part of YMDC, not an option with a single statement.

A +1 modifier to Armor Save is not permission for a 1+ Armor Save to exist. Not a single line in the C:CSM changes the 2+ Armor Save limit. How on earth is "no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+" considered RAI? You will really need to explain that one to me. That is the rule and boon does not give permission to exceed this limitation.

Numerous people have shown the same reasons. All of these reasons boil down to "because the BRB says so." As there is a precedent for codices trumping the BRB, simply citing a BRB rule isn't good enough.
The part you quoted "no save..." is RAW. My point is that I believe it's RAI that the Boon doesn't override that rule. Until it's FAQed otherwise, I'll play it that way (only), too. With the inclusion of the "codex trumps' rule, it becomes RAI.

hisdudeness wrote:The position you are advocating for “codex trumps BRB” is applied incorrectly as you keep leaving off the entire beginning of the clause which is “if there is a conflict”. There is no conflict. Nothing stops us from placing a +1 modifier on the model. In this case the modifier will not change the Armor Save because of the BRB limit on Armor Saves. A codex does not allow us to break a rule, the codex modifies the rules of the BRB. In this case there is no modification to a rule, but a modification to a stat line in which there is a strict limit of values. And boon does nothing to modify that limit.

All said, there is no such this as a 1+ Amror Save and you have not shown me (anyone) any proof that boon creates this allowance.

I'm not leaving it off so much as I'm simply using shorthand.
I think the difference is that you and I don't look at it the same way. I see the existence of a codex rule that says it causes a save to be lowered by 1, combined with the fact that a model with a 2+ save can receive this rule as a conflict. There's nothing in the CODEX that says a model in Terminator armor can't receive the Boon. All it says is (in essence) "Your champion gets this if you roll it." Where there are limitations on other Boons, they're listed.

Call it breaking or modifying rules. To me, the terms don't make a difference.

Nothing stops us from placing a +1 modifier on the model. In this case the modifier will not change the Armor Save because of the BRB limit on Armor Saves.

If you apply the Boon to the model, but don't let him use it, you're not applying it. The Boons say to apply them to the model (shorthand version). If you roll the +1 and SAY it's applied, but don't alter the save, it's not actually applied.
If you apply it to the character, his save lowers by 1. if the save isn't lowered, the Boon isn't applied.

Eric

**WolvesForTheWolfGod**

So you answered the question yourself if it isn't specifically stated in the codex you play by the BRB, and wait for an errata. When the SW: codex wasn't clear nobody could use Logan's abilities off the table. I actually never even thought about doing it till they errata'ed it. Then I was all to happy to use it.

I think the biggest problem with your argument is the fact that a codex doesn't simply override the BRB, the codex most first specify what is to be overridden before you can alter the BRB rule. Saying the boon table adds +1 to the armour save isn't specific enough. The codex would have to say it adds +1, and if the dude has a +2 armour save already he can be improved beyond a 2+ armour save. If the codex rule is intended to override the BRB it has to be specific either in the codex or in later errata/faq.

**Rorschach9**

MagickalMemories wrote:

I'm not leaving it off so much as I'm simply using shorthand.
I think the difference is that you and I don't look at it the same way. I see the existence of a codex rule that says it causes a save to be lowered by 1, combined with the fact that a model with a 2+ save can receive this rule as a conflict. There's nothing in the CODEX that says a model in Terminator armor can't receive the Boon. All it says is (in essence) "Your champion gets this if you roll it." Where there are limitations on other Boons, they're listed.

Call it breaking or modifying rules. To me, the terms don't make a difference.

Calling out the "nothing says it can't" portion, as I've been informed several times over now, with this being a permissive game it must say what you CAN, not what you can't.

RAW, there must be a conflict in the rules between the BRB and the Codex. I don't think anyone sees a conflict in the rules as they are two completely seperate entities. One is an absolute, one is a modification. The absolute states no matter what modification, you cannot have an Armor Save better than 2+. Modifications are clearly mentioned in this ruling. You're trying to convince us that a modification is now in conflict with this rule.

With this boon you get to modify your armor save by +1. Armor saves, no matter what modifiers are used, cannot be better than 2+. Simple, straightforward and to the point.

**grendel083**

MagickalMemories wrote:
No rule in the BRB can be broken, unless a codex later allows it to. That goes for any and all rules. No rule is sacrosanct.

There are only two ways that a rule can be broken or overruled.
1). A Specific rule over a Basic rule.
2). Codex rule over a BRB rule (but only in the event of a conflict).

No conflict is created from the Codex. Both rules can be followed. Armour saves can be improved, but a max limit can be reached.

For Specific Vs. Basic, we have a basic rule that saves can be improved.
We then have a Specific restriction that if a save is improved it can't be better than 2+ (a rule written for exactly this situation - an improved armour save).

So now we have a Codex rule that improves armour saves. We have a rule covering improving saves, and another rule for a maximum save. All three working in harmony.
Very Specific permission would have to be granted to overrule these rules. And specific permission is not subtle, nor hinted at. Specific permission would flat out say "this can improve the save to 1+" (ATSKNF being a great example in regards to Sweeps). The rule says nothing even similar.
If a rule is to be broken, it needs to state it's breaking it.

**DeathReaper**

MagickalMemories wrote:

If you apply the Boon to the model, but don't let him use it, you're not applying it. The Boons say to apply them to the model (shorthand version). If you roll the +1 and SAY it's applied, but don't alter the save, it's not actually applied.
If you apply it to the character, his save lowers by 1. if the save isn't lowered, the Boon isn't applied.

Eric

By that reasoning Orks in a mob of 30 have a LD score of 30...

Which of course is not true.

The codex does not specify that it can lower an armor save to 1+, so it can not.

The Permissive ruleset tells us this.

**hisdudeness**

MM, You keep using those words- I do not think they mean what you think they mean. Here is the full rule that you base your entire differing view on. “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.” (p7, BRB)

You notice the "conflict" part of the rule? You brought up the differing view and need to support the view. To do this you will need to support the view that there is a conflict. Now show us where the ‘boon’ bonus is in conflict with a BRB rule. Additionally, show us where ‘boon’ allows for a 1+ Armor Save.