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.

The Chariot never has the IC rule. Special rules are part of a model's profile and the profiles are explicitly kept separate.

Hi JinxDragon, I don't have the latest rulebook here so I apologise if I misunderstand. Did you mean the IC rule must be evoked but not sure when it can be evoked? If so, what about the IC rule? If you could give an example it would be helpful.

While I was trying to understand your post, another thought came up. If the chariot was in the front, the defending player actually has 3 options. One, to tank the shot, two to allow the chariot chassis to tank the shot and three, Look Out Sir!

So if small arms, chassis takes it. If melta, pass it to the poor dude beside him. If everyone is dead, tank the wound and hope you've donated during the last Everliving charity ball.

It does sound kind of OP. Short of close combat, it might be hard to kill.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
It's because the rules tell us that it's a single model with 2 profiles (1 for the 'vehicle', 1 for he 'character).

You can't just say the rules for the character don't apply.

You can, actually.

In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section. It might also have an additional save of some kind, representing any special armour or mystical protection it might have, it could be carrying one or more shooting or Melee weapons or might have one or more special rules.

A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself.

While they're 1 model, there's 2 profiles. The profiles include a model's special rules, any wargear, and unit type.

So their wargear is entirely separate, as dictated by the chariot rules.

Except for the single line after that where it says they are ALWAYS treated as a single model.

This single, combined model is the Chariot.. not your arbitrary choice of one of the profiles.

Where does it say we only consider the vehicle portion of the profile for special rules for the Chariot unit type?

 Shandara wrote:
Where does it say we only consider the vehicle portion of the profile for special rules for the Chariot unit type?

It's treated as a single model. Show me the special rules associated with that single model. I can show you special rules that are part of two separate profiles, but I don't see special rules associated with the single model.

As stated above, I'm with Rigeld on this one.

What further backs this up in the rules is that they explicitely mention WBB (or rather Ever Living) working for the chariot if the rider comes with it.

If we assumed that every special rule / wargear etc. is transferred to the other part as well, why would GW specifically mention it?

MilkBoy,
The Rule which creates the timing issue is one on Chariots, not the Independent Character Special Rule itself. Containing instructions informing us to stop at the To Hit stage of any attack to be resolved against a Chariot, it requires us to know when a shooting sequence is being resolved against the Chariot. Normally this isn't an issue, thanks to the rule stating that both Rider and Chariot are one Model and a few others, but when that Chariot is hiding within a Unit of Infantry it raises a few questions to say the least. In this case, every Shot within the attack could be resolved against a non-Chariot Model before they make it to the Chariot, so what happens in those situations?

In the past, when it came to similar Special Rules, it seemed that Game Workshop was reluctant to issue such a statement that containing a single model of X would be enough to trigger all Rules related to shooting at X. Forgeworld went an additional step further and issued the exact opposite Rule when it came to one of their most unusual Preferred Enemies: Independent Characters. They Ruled that the Shot would have to have a Special Rule allowing it to single out the Independent Character, such as Precision Shot, or the Rule can not be evoked as it has passed the To Hit stage by the time the shot is actually resolved against the individual Model. The mixed messages, or complete lack of them, makes it impossible for us to state for certainty what Game Workshop intends to do with Mixed Units....

Following Forgeworld's logic creates even more questions here, as that would leave us with Wounds to allocate to a Vehicle Model by the time it is certain we are resolving a shot against the thing.....

rigeld2 wrote:

RivenSkull wrote:
You simply had a question earlier as to how the math of adding +1 to a 5++ does not equal a 6++, which is in fact a worse probability.

Why yes - yes it is! I already knew that, of course, but congratulations on figuring it out!

Now, I'll go a little slower this time because obviously my point flew right over your head last time.
We have rules for Armor Saves on how they're modified - when you get +1 to your AS, your target number goes down.
Please, cite the rule that allows the same for invul saves.

I'm confused. You seemed to not understand before, as shown with your question, but now you're claiming you do understand:

rigeld2 wrote:
Oh, great. So when you take +1 to an invul save that is 5++, you make it a 6++ right? Because that's how math works. Unless you have some new math.

I was never going into the aspect of invulnerable save or armor save or any other type of result to which ever rolls being made for that matter. All I simply was doing was showing you the mathematics of increasing probability of dice as you claimed to not understand it.

Why would you post you didn't understand the mathematics if you did understand them? To what end would that be?

If I have embarrassed you in some way by needing to explain the math, I am apologetic as this was not my intention and I was only trying to help you.

RivenSkull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

RivenSkull wrote:
You simply had a question earlier as to how the math of adding +1 to a 5++ does not equal a 6++, which is in fact a worse probability.

Why yes - yes it is! I already knew that, of course, but congratulations on figuring it out!

Now, I'll go a little slower this time because obviously my point flew right over your head last time.
We have rules for Armor Saves on how they're modified - when you get +1 to your AS, your target number goes down.
Please, cite the rule that allows the same for invul saves.

I'm confused. You seemed to not understand before, as shown with your question, but now you're claiming you do understand:

rigeld2 wrote:
Oh, great. So when you take +1 to an invul save that is 5++, you make it a 6++ right? Because that's how math works. Unless you have some new math.

I was never going into the aspect of invulnerable save or armor save or any other type of result to which ever rolls being made for that matter. All I simply was doing was showing you the mathematics of increasing probability of dice as you claimed to not understand it.

Why would you post you didn't understand the mathematics if you did understand them? To what end would that be?

If I have embarrassed you in some way by needing to explain the math, I am apologetic as this was not my intention and I was only trying to help you.

Almost all of RigeId's posts are rhetorical questions. Don't take his questions seriously, ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
He was trying to demonstrate that by their reading of the rule (where invul saves are not part of the profile) then you can't apply +1 to the invul save in the same way that you do to armor saves because the BRB only describes how to apply +1 to saves in a profile.

Without the BRB's definition of applying +1 to save as meaning to increase the odds by 1, you have to assume it means to increase a 5+ save to a 6+ save. His rhetorical question demonstrated that this is obviously not the case and therefore an invul save would be part of the profile.

Or at least something like that... I shouldn't speak for him.

RivenSkull,
There is a group that believes that Invulnerability Saves are not a Characteristic because they are not found within the Characteristic section of the Rulebook. There is a group that believes that they are Characteristics regardless because we are informed to resolve them in the same fashion as an Armor Save, which involves treating them as Characteristics to do so. The group which believes they are characteristics always challenges the group which believes they are not in the same way: Asking how 1 added to 3 equals 2, when common math would conclude that it has to be 4.

This is because the Rules for Characteristics tell us that adding one to a Save Characteristic lowers it, so Invulnerability Saves would have to be Characteristics to function in the same way.

RivenSkull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Oh, great. So when you take +1 to an invul save that is 5++, you make it a 6++ right? Because that's how math works. Unless you have some new math.

I was never going into the aspect of invulnerable save or armor save or any other type of result to which ever rolls being made for that matter. All I simply was doing was showing you the mathematics of increasing probability of dice as you claimed to not understand it.

Actually, that's not what I claimed to not understand.

Please read the thread. When you add one to an invul save, and that invul save is currently a 5+, normal math would take that to a 6+ - correct?
Note that I'm not addressing the probability of dice, I'm not addressing adding one to the roll - I'm simply addressing how the actual rules work. Your attempt to draw the thread off on an irrelevant tangent is noted and reported.
Have a great day.

rigeld2 wrote:
When you add one to an invul save, and that invul save is currently a 5+, normal math would take that to a 6+ - correct?

Technically, I think you are supposed to add one to the result of your die roll, rather than subtract 1 from your Invul Save.

6 to one, 1/2 dozen to the other.

rigeld2 wrote:

RivenSkull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Oh, great. So when you take +1 to an invul save that is 5++, you make it a 6++ right? Because that's how math works. Unless you have some new math.

I was never going into the aspect of invulnerable save or armor save or any other type of result to which ever rolls being made for that matter. All I simply was doing was showing you the mathematics of increasing probability of dice as you claimed to not understand it.

Actually, that's not what I claimed to not understand.

Please read the thread. When you add one to an invul save, and that invul save is currently a 5+, normal math would take that to a 6+ - correct?
Note that I'm not addressing the probability of dice, I'm not addressing adding one to the roll - I'm simply addressing how the actual rules work. Your attempt to draw the thread off on an irrelevant tangent is noted and reported.
Have a great day.

It's not that I'm trying to derail the thread in any way, I'm simply trying to help you. If you are basing your argument off of unsound information, your argument itself becomes unsound, and your apparent current understanding of the dice probability mathematics is doing just that.

There is no such thing as "Normal math". Algebra is really the base level of math, in which probability is encompassed, and all dice games are based off of probability.

RivenSkull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

RivenSkull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Oh, great. So when you take +1 to an invul save that is 5++, you make it a 6++ right? Because that's how math works. Unless you have some new math.

I was never going into the aspect of invulnerable save or armor save or any other type of result to which ever rolls being made for that matter. All I simply was doing was showing you the mathematics of increasing probability of dice as you claimed to not understand it.

Actually, that's not what I claimed to not understand.

Please read the thread. When you add one to an invul save, and that invul save is currently a 5+, normal math would take that to a 6+ - correct?
Note that I'm not addressing the probability of dice, I'm not addressing adding one to the roll - I'm simply addressing how the actual rules work. Your attempt to draw the thread off on an irrelevant tangent is noted and reported.
Have a great day.

It's not that I'm trying to derail the thread in any way, I'm simply trying to help you. If you are basing your argument off of unsound information, your argument itself becomes unsound, and your apparent current understanding of the dice probability mathematics is doing just that.

There is no such thing as "Normal math". Algebra is really the base level of math, in which probability is encompassed, and all dice games are based off of probability.

Do you dispute that there is a difference between adding one to a roll, and adding one to the target number of a roll?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
When you add one to an invul save, and that invul save is currently a 5+, normal math would take that to a 6+ - correct?

Technically, I think you are supposed to add one to the result of your die roll, rather than subtract 1 from your Invul Save.

6 to one, 1/2 dozen to the other.

Since your save is distinctly not a roll, that's not correct.

Rigeld you are wandering rather far from the OP's question when you are following up on determining if the other posters understand 40k math.

To draw it back into the discussion at hand, How do (did?) you refute the fact that the phase shifter applies to the model which has it, and the chariot and rider are considered to be one model?

 Neorealist wrote:
Rigeld you are wandering rather far from the OP's question when you are following up on determining if the other posters understand 40k math.

Wow. *I'm* the one taking it on a tangent?
No, you're directing your comment to the wrong person.

To draw it back into the discussion at hand, How do (did?) you refute the fact that the phase shifter applies to the model which has it, and the chariot and rider are considered to be one model?

If you'd read the thread, you'd note that wargear is part of the profile, and while it is one model, each profile is distinct. Please prove that when using the Chariot's profile you have access to wargear from the other profile.

Because there is no specific (ie: rule) reason to presume that the wargear in question only applies to the overlords' profile when it (the wargears rules-text) explicitly tells us it applies to the overlords' model?

 Neorealist wrote:
Because there is no specific (ie: rule) reason to presume that the wargear in question only applies to the overlords' profile when it (the wargears rules-text) explicitly tells us it applies to the overlords' model?

...
So the chariot has access to reach into an entirely separate profile and gain access to wargear? I'm sure you can cite a rule for that, after making a statement like that.
The fact that the wargear modifies the model is irrelevant if the profile being used doesn't have access to the wargear.

I like that no one is defending the Chariot having the IC rule anymore - and this is the exact same situation.

 Neorealist wrote:
Because there is no specific (ie: rule) reason to presume that the wargear in question only applies to the overlords' profile when it (the wargears rules-text) explicitly tells us it applies to the overlords' model?

What is the exact rules text of the wargear? I don't think that has been quoted yet in the thread and it would be a key element.

"...a model with a phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save..." is the exact wording.

You have an interesting point, but if that is true, then nothing you buy for the Overlord would matter since it would all disappear when the Overlord becomes a subsection of the Chariot rule.

rigeld2 wrote:So the chariot has access to reach into an entirely separate profile and gain access to wargear? I'm sure you can cite a rule for that, after making a statement like that.
The fact that the wargear modifies the model is irrelevant if the profile being used doesn't have access to the wargear...

Yes in this instance. The CCB is a model with a phase shifter because it counts as both the overlord and the chariot. There is nothing that indicates the overlord loses it's wargear or that it stops being applicable, and the wargear itself never mentions the 'profile' it applies to, just the model.

There is lots of precedent for wargear that applies to a whole unit or even army without being explicitly written on every profile of every model within that group, why is it so mind-blowing that some wargear applies to the whole model? (a distinction that has never before been relevant, granted)

Question for the CCB benefiting. If an Overlord takes the Sempiternal Weave, does the CCB gain a 2+ Armour Save?

Given it is worded the same way as the phase shifter more or less (in that it refers to a model with the wargear), yes, it would in my interpretation of the relevant rules?

That said, the rules don't really currently allow a vehicle to benefit from an armor save since they only address taking an armor save vs. wounds. (similar to how invulnerable saves 'worked' on vehicles pre-faq in the last edition)

 Happyjew wrote:
Question for the CCB benefiting. If an Overlord takes the Sempiternal Weave, does the CCB gain a 2+ Armour Save?

It gets a 2+ armor save, but I don't think you can use an armor save against glancing or penetrating hits.

 Nilok wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Question for the CCB benefiting. If an Overlord takes the Sempiternal Weave, does the CCB gain a 2+ Armour Save?

It gets a 2+ armor save, but I don't think you can use an armor save against glancing or penetrating hits.

yup, armor saves only work against wounds.

I don't have the rulebook or FAQ handy, so I can't for sure recall how the wording of Chariots is,but when the Overlord is combined with a CCB, and it becomes a single model with unit type Chariot, would that not then exclude you from being able to take any wargear that is not a vehicle upgrade? I truly don't know how this will go if it every gets FAQed, but wouldn't you have to take into consideration the vehicle unit type when choosing wargear?

Nilok wrote:You have an interesting point, but if that is true, then nothing you buy for the Overlord would matter since it would all disappear when the Overlord becomes a subsection of the Chariot rule.

No, it wouldn't. If you're using the Overlord's profile for something, you can use his wargear. The rules do allow you to use the Overlord's profile.

Neorealist wrote:There is lots of precedent for wargear that applies to a whole unit or even army without being explicitly written on every profile of every model within that group, why is it so mind-blowing that some wargear applies to the whole model? (a distinction that has never before been relevant, granted)

So are you arguing intent? Because I don't see a rules argument in this post... Just some appeal to .. I don't even know.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I don't have the rulebook or FAQ handy, so I can't for sure recall how the wording of Chariots is,but when the Overlord is combined with a CCB, and it becomes a single model with unit type Chariot, would that not then exclude you from being able to take any wargear that is not a vehicle upgrade? I truly don't know how this will go if it every gets FAQed, but wouldn't you have to take into consideration the vehicle unit type when choosing wargear?

There is nothing in the Overlord, Catacomb Command Barge, or Chariot entries which explicitly forbids selecting non-vehicle wargear at this time.

rigeld2 wrote: So are you arguing intent? Because I don't see a rules argument in this post... Just some appeal to .. I don't even know.

You may wish to address the full content of the post you partially quoted. However: Yes, there is plenty of wargear with rules that obviously apply to models which do not directly contain said wargear in their respective profiles. I can quote you dozens of examples, but I'm sure your familiarity with the game is sufficient to take my statement as truth.

In other words, requiring the chariot's profile to contain a phase shifter in order to benefit from it's effects is not supported in the rules as written. That argument would result in any wargear which effects more than one profile from functioning as intended. Following the literal rules for the phase shifter and the chariot is.

 Neorealist wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I don't have the rulebook or FAQ handy, so I can't for sure recall how the wording of Chariots is,but when the Overlord is combined with a CCB, and it becomes a single model with unit type Chariot, would that not then exclude you from being able to take any wargear that is not a vehicle upgrade? I truly don't know how this will go if it every gets FAQed, but wouldn't you have to take into consideration the vehicle unit type when choosing wargear?

There is nothing in the Overlord, Catacomb Command Barge, or Chariot entries which explicitly forbids selecting non-vehicle wargear at this time.

So you could take a phase shifter on, say, a Ghost Ark or Night Scythe? If the unit type becomes Chariot, and Chariot is a vehicle, wouldn't that restrict you to taking only vehicle upgrades? I'm just trying to get a handle on this, because I play against Necrons on a regular basis, and I know I'll be facing these things (my opponent loves him some power units). Its bad enough that it has 13 armour, 4+ Jink (3+ with nightfighting because Imhotekh is always there) and will be able to sweep attack Landraiders into oblivion, and then MSS any unit it charges.

 Neorealist wrote:
There is lots of precedent for wargear that applies to a whole unit or even army without being explicitly written on every profile of every model within that group

I'm pretty sure that every single one of those wargear specify that they affect the whole unit/army. Generally along the lines of "A unit that has X..." or "The bearer and his unit...".