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 DrewCarr(DruKhari) mandrakes have a save of 7+
....I don't understand. Is there a special rule somewhere that makes this relevant?

If the unit is in cover, it gets a +1 bonus to its save. Going to 6+.
Some other effects or abilities might boost saves too.

Listing it as a 7+ save just means that they don't have to write something along the lines of 'units without a save gain a save from this effect' to everything that boosts saves.

"7+" means "No saves".

Unless you find something that gives +1 to saves somewhere. Like cover. It saves the writers from needing to attach "...or a 6+ if the unit didn't have a save" to every armour save modifier.

Spore mines and pox walkers are the same.

It's weird, my Harlequins are the same. It means that being in cover gives you a 6+ Save, except your invulnerable save is better, so there is apart from LOS blocking literally NO benefit for Mandrakes or Harlequins to be in cover. They don't benefit from it at all. Which is weird when you consider how much of a cover-camper unit Mandrakes used to be.

Even weirder? Due to Harlequin flip belts they ignore terrain for movement as well. Harlequins don't interact with cover. At all. Unless it's blocking LoS. I feel like an Ork charging across the field in a bee-line for you without having to use any cover or positioning.

Yeah those Mandrakes have a 5++ so i don't get why they would even bother putting in a 7+ save as unless you can get a +3 to saves from somewhere (and get hit by 0AP weaponry at the same time) it's never gonna come into play, ever.

Does GW intend to have means to raise saves by more than +1 to cover?

There are a small number of abilities that remove invulnerable saves, such as the Vindicare Assassin's exitus weapons. So the armour save on Harlequins and Mandrakes is there for those edge cases. Otherwise there'd be eighteen threads on here about why they don't have armour saves...

Thommy H wrote:
There are a small number of abilities that remove invulnerable saves, such as the Vindicare Assassin's exitus weapons. So the armour save on Harlequins and Mandrakes is there for those edge cases. Otherwise there'd be eighteen threads on here about why they don't have armour saves...

Isnt it weird that an ability will remove an "invur save" but not the regular save?

Exitus shield-breaker rounds have been doing it since 2nd Edition. It's also been a rule that has, in some form, been applied to Grey Knight guns and C'tan phase weapons in the past. It represents something that specifically targets force fields but, because of how the rules work, also rolls in stuff like dodges. Not ideal, but better than tediously defining every kind of invulnerable save.

It's because in AOS you can have a save of "-" which means you can't get a save AT ALL, even if in cover/from another source. The 7+ removes such a stupid thing, as it means you normally don't get a save, but you can stack buffs on it to give them a save.

Soulless wrote:

Thommy H wrote:
There are a small number of abilities that remove invulnerable saves, such as the Vindicare Assassin's exitus weapons. So the armour save on Harlequins and Mandrakes is there for those edge cases. Otherwise there'd be eighteen threads on here about why they don't have armour saves...

Isnt it weird that an ability will remove an "invur save" but not the regular save?

wasn't this the point of mortal wounds? additional wounds that no save can be taken against? no armor, no invul?

If we're looking at fringe examples, a Harlequin in cover under the negative effects of Null Zone would get a 6+ armour vs bolters...

Wayniac wrote:
It's because in AOS you can have a save of "-" which means you can't get a save AT ALL, even if in cover/from another source. The 7+ removes such a stupid thing, as it means you normally don't get a save, but you can stack buffs on it to give them a save.

That's in this rulebook as well

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
It's weird, my Harlequins are the same. It means that being in cover gives you a 6+ Save, except your invulnerable save is better, so there is apart from LOS blocking literally NO benefit for Mandrakes or Harlequins to be in cover. They don't benefit from it at all. Which is weird when you consider how much of a cover-camper unit Mandrakes used to be.

Even weirder? Due to Harlequin flip belts they ignore terrain for movement as well. Harlequins don't interact with cover. At all. Unless it's blocking LoS. I feel like an Ork charging across the field in a bee-line for you without having to use any cover or positioning.

Hrm..."ignores Invulnerable saves" exists, but the only place I know of it is on a weapon that's already AP-3 (Vindicare's exitus rifle), so a 6+ armour save wouldn't actually help.

Harlequin infantry certainly don't care about cover, but you could use it to give Starweavers/Voidweavers/Skyweavers a 3+ armour save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
If we're looking at fringe examples, a Harlequin in cover under the negative effects of Null Zone would get a 6+ armour vs bolters...

Or that one. Yes. General invul-ignoring powers.

It makes the system mathematically coherent. This way they can have unarmored units but still have them interact with the system.

A '-' save getting +1 from cover is a divide by cheese error.

On the other hand, roll 7 or higher, but in some circumstances you can get +1 or +2 to the roll, that actually functions.

Pretty sure there's some terrain type in the cities of death rules that gives +2 to saves, so combine that with +1 from another source and you'd be taking 4+'s on normally save-less models. Even if that isn't a possible scenario now, giving consideration for it makes the game more future-proof/expandable.