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.

Two questions does the All is Dust rule improve invul saves for Rubic Marines vs damage 1 weapons? ?


Also, can you combine the weaver of fates and indomitable foes abilities and the all is dust ability to gain a 2++ invul save on RM? The weaver of fates and indomitable foe abilities can only take the save to a maximum of 3+, but the all is dust ability is allowed to take it to a 2++??

To the first, yes.

To the second, not sure.

broxus wrote:
Two questions does the All is Dust rule improve invul saves for Rubic Marines vs damage 1 weapons? ?


Also, can you combine the weaver of fates and indomitable foes abilities and the all is dust ability to gain a 2++ invul save on RM? The weaver of fates and indomitable foe abilities can only take the save to a maximum of 3+, but the all is dust ability is allowed to take it to a 2++??

Ok, you've made the common mistake of confusing +1 to the roll vs improving the save by 1, as it's a common shortcut to say, for example, "I need 2's" to pass an AP0 armour save for Marines in Light Cover.

All is Dust says to "add 1 to saving throws". As it does not specify armour or invulnerable, it applies to any and all types of saving throws, including armour and invulnerable.

That means you add 1 to the roll when making invulnerable saves.

If you have a 3+ invulnerable save, however you're getting it, adding 1 to the roll does not improve the save by one, it adds to the roll. Rubrics with a 3+ invulnerable save will make those saves on a D6+1 vs Damage 1 weapons, and need a 3 or more to pass the save. i.e. All is Dust isn't affected by the "to a maximum of 3+" restriction because it's not affecting the invulnerable save itself.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

broxus wrote:
Two questions does the All is Dust rule improve invul saves for Rubic Marines vs damage 1 weapons? ?


Also, can you combine the weaver of fates and indomitable foes abilities and the all is dust ability to gain a 2++ invul save on RM? The weaver of fates and indomitable foe abilities can only take the save to a maximum of 3+, but the all is dust ability is allowed to take it to a 2++??

Ok, you've made the common mistake of confusing +1 to the roll vs improving the save by 1, as it's a common shortcut to say, for example, "I need 2's" to pass an AP0 armour save for Marines in Light Cover.

All is Dust says to "add 1 to saving throws". As it does not specify armour or invulnerable, it applies to any and all types of saving throws, including armour and invulnerable.

That means you add 1 to the roll when making invulnerable saves.

If you have a 3+ invulnerable save, however you're getting it, adding 1 to the roll does not improve the save by one, it adds to the roll. Rubrics with a 3+ invulnerable save will make those saves on a D6+1 vs Damage 1 weapons, and need a 3 or more to pass the save. i.e. All is Dust isn't affected by the "to a maximum of 3+" restriction because it's not affecting the invulnerable save itself.

A few things there is no such thing in the rule book as “armor saves” which creates the confusion. There are only saving throws and invulnerable saves. Page 221 and 222 in the core rule book lays that out notice the bold text.

Additionally, the spell, strategem, and All is Dust are all simultaneously going off (not in a specific order or an order of operations.) Therefore, the strategem and spell would stop working and prevent the 2++.

broxus wrote:
A few things there is no such thing in the rule book as “armor saves” which creates the confusion. There are only saving throws and invulnerable saves. Page 221 and 222 in the core rule book lays that out notice the bold text.

Additionally, the spell, strategem, and All is Dust are all simultaneously going off (not in a specific order or an order of operations.) Therefore, the strategem and spell would stop working and prevent the 2++.

Au contraire, mon ami! If you look to the Rules Terms Glossary, on page 354 364, you will find the following entry:

9th Edition Core Book, Page 364 wrote:Armour saving throw: An armour saving throw is a saving throw made using a model's Save characteristic (pg 202).

While in 8th edition, the term "Armour saving throw" had no meaning, 9th edition fixed this issue, along with Assault Weapons and Pistols.

Finally, your statement that "the strategem and spell would stop working and prevent the 2++" is misleading. The Stratagem and the Spell never stop working, you're just capped to a 3+ invulnerable save at best. Adding 1 to a roll when trying to make a 3+ invulnerable save is not the same as improving that invulnerable save to 2+.

In this situation, you would have a 3+ invulnerable save that you roll a D6+1 to try and beat. You still need to roll more than 3, but your possible set of results are {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}, with the 2 failing both because it is an unmodified 1 and because it is less than 3. Now, you can shortcut this to say "I need 2's to pass", but that is also misleading, and I highly encourage people to not use such shortcuts as they lead to this exact confusion.

broxus wrote:
A few things there is no such thing in the rule book as “armor saves” which creates the confusion. There are only saving throws and invulnerable saves. Page 221 and 222 in the core rule book lays that out notice the bold text.

This is 100% false. There is the save characteristic, and invulnerable save. The rule book defines “armor saves” some people do not realize this, which creates the confusion.

Check page 364 in the rules terms glossary, this details that the save characteristic is an Armour saving throw.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

broxus wrote:
A few things there is no such thing in the rule book as “armor saves” which creates the confusion. There are only saving throws and invulnerable saves. Page 221 and 222 in the core rule book lays that out notice the bold text.

Additionally, the spell, strategem, and All is Dust are all simultaneously going off (not in a specific order or an order of operations.) Therefore, the strategem and spell would stop working and prevent the 2++.

Au contraire, mon ami! If you look to the Rules Terms Glossary, on page 354, you will find the following entry:

9th Edition Core Book, Page 354 wrote:Armour saving throw: An armour saving throw is a saving throw made using a model's Save characteristic (pg 202).

While in 8th edition, the term "Armour saving throw" had no meaning, 9th edition fixed this issue, along with Assault Weapons and Pistols.

Finally, your statement that "the strategem and spell would stop working and prevent the 2++" is misleading. The Stratagem and the Spell never stop working, you're just capped to a 3+ invulnerable save at best. Adding 1 to a roll when trying to make a 3+ invulnerable save is not the same as improving that invulnerable save to 2+.

In this situation, you would have a 3+ invulnerable save that you roll a D6+1 to try and beat. You still need to roll more than 3, but your possible set of results are {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}, with the 2 failing both because it is an unmodified 1 and because it is less than 3. Now, you can shortcut this to say "I need 2's to pass", but that is also misleading, and I highly encourage people to not use such shortcuts as they lead to this exact confusion.

The glossary isn’t on page 354. I think you mean 364.

It refers you back to page 202 which only refers to the value on the data sheet. However, on page 221 which goes through 4. SAVING THROWS paragraph which refers a unit’s Save Characteristic which can be modified. On the following page 222 it breaks out Invulnerable saves separately and says you can use it in place of normal saves.

I understand your argument and point. I just don’t see it that way as RAW or RAI. GW should have clearly state the rule about saving throws. A glossary isn’t a rule it simply shows you where a rule is or defines a term. No one has used the term armor save yet and isn’t even a debate. The debate is saving throw vs invulnerable save which are listed separately as outlined above. Other than in the glossary there is no mention of armor saves. I can’t believe there is no FAQ for this in the PA book or codex.

Typo notwithstanding (You're correct it is on page 364), the fact that it defines "Armour saving throw" means that whenever you see the term "Armour saving throw", it refers to the save granted by the save characteristic, which is what the rule for making saving throws references.

All is Dust doesn't mention armour or invulnerable, it only mentions saving throws, so it applies to all types.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Typo notwithstanding (You're correct it is on page 364), the fact that it defines "Armour saving throw" means that whenever you see the term "Armour saving throw", it refers to the save granted by the save characteristic, which is what the rule for making saving throws references.

All is Dust doesn't mention armour or invulnerable, it only mentions saving throws, so it applies to all types.

Yes but the rule book only shows saving throws and invulnerable saves in the rules section and breaks them out separately. Armor saves are not mentioned in the rules other than the glossary and refers to the units data sheet. So using the actual RAW “saving throws” do not include invulnerable saves. RAI maybe they do, but it is confusing. That being said I don’t think RAI that RM are supposed to get a 2++ either (which is absurd), so shrug who knows.

Glossary is part of the rules. Trying to claim a defined term is not defined is wrong and futile. Let it go...

Reread my argument. The term armor save in the glossary refers only to a unit’s data sheet. Please read the actual paragraphs. Yes it is a rule, but it is a rule to nowhere and is irrelevant since ‘armor save’ isn’t mentioned in any of the strategems or spells win discussed. However, saving throws and invulnerable saves are defined in the rules and are mentioned in the spells, stratgems, and AID ability. In fact, they specifically call out invulnerable saves in the spell and strategem.

Honestly this is like the 5th type of unit that gets screwy with the +1 to saves (albiet badly written) rule. Custodian Guard with shields is another one. Everyone thought they were running around with a bunch of 1+2+6+++ models, when in actuality, (thank you for explaining this umpteen times BCB) it's just +1 to the roll.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honestly this is like the 5th type of unit that gets screwy with the +1 to saves (albiet badly written) rule. Custodian Guard with shields is another one. Everyone thought they were running around with a bunch of 1+2+6+++ models, when in actuality, (thank you for explaining this umpteen times BCB) it's just +1 to the roll.

In fairness... the original Storm Shield rule they previewed DID improve the save characteristic (as did the Crusade armour) which could result in 1+ armour save models, which work similarly to a 2+ invulnerable save. They fixed it quickly when it was pointed out, and also an intended mechanic in AOS (as confirmed by FAQ, there is a AOS unit that has a 1+ armour save while at it's top bracket).

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honestly this is like the 5th type of unit that gets screwy with the +1 to saves (albiet badly written) rule. Custodian Guard with shields is another one. Everyone thought they were running around with a bunch of 1+2+6+++ models, when in actuality, (thank you for explaining this umpteen times BCB) it's just +1 to the roll.

Not sure how they didn’t clean all this up with FAQs or the new edition. One sentence in the rule book stating. Saving throws are used to ignore damage and consist of armor saving throws which can be modified by AP and invulnerable saves which are not modified by AP. These save values are shown on unit data sheets.

Right now it is a hot mess of language and RAW and RAI.

broxus wrote:
Reread my argument. The term armor save in the glossary refers only to a unit’s data sheet. Please read the actual paragraphs. Yes it is a rule, but it is a rule to nowhere and is irrelevant since ‘armor save’ isn’t mentioned in any of the strategems or spells win discussed. However, saving throws and invulnerable saves are defined in the rules and are mentioned in the spells, stratgems, and AID ability. In fact, they specifically call out invulnerable saves in the spell and strategem.

I stopped reading your “argument” as it was predicated on you claiming something that is in the book actually isn’t in the book, then trying to claim because it’s on a different page it’s somehow not RAW. Given the absolute absence of fact or logic here, why read on?

broxus wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honestly this is like the 5th type of unit that gets screwy with the +1 to saves (albiet badly written) rule. Custodian Guard with shields is another one. Everyone thought they were running around with a bunch of 1+2+6+++ models, when in actuality, (thank you for explaining this umpteen times BCB) it's just +1 to the roll.

Not sure how they didn’t clean all this up with FAQs or the new edition. One sentence in the rule book stating. Saving throws are used to ignore damage and consist of armor saving throws which can be modified by AP and invulnerable saves which are not modified by AP. These save values are shown on unit data sheets.

Right now it is a hot mess of language and RAW and RAI.

*Draws sword* How dare you besmirch the honor of our fair GW rules writing team! They are but poor young high school drop outs! I demand you amend your statement, or I shall have to insist on satisfaction for honor's sake.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

broxus wrote:
Reread my argument. The term armor save in the glossary refers only to a unit’s data sheet. Please read the actual paragraphs. Yes it is a rule, but it is a rule to nowhere and is irrelevant since ‘armor save’ isn’t mentioned in any of the strategems or spells win discussed. However, saving throws and invulnerable saves are defined in the rules and are mentioned in the spells, stratgems, and AID ability. In fact, they specifically call out invulnerable saves in the spell and strategem.

I stopped reading your “argument” as it was predicated on you claiming something that is in the book actually isn’t in the book, then trying to claim because it’s on a different page it’s somehow not RAW. Given the absolute absence of fact or logic here, why read on?

No it wasn’t so I guess you didn’t bother to read the RAW (i even listed out the pages to make it easy for you). I guess you can pretend the rules say something different, but they don’t and I am stating RAW, not your opinions. If you are just going to argue a straw man that has nothing to do with that topic, by all means. I will even concede that it mentions armor saves are on the data sheet in the glossary. What does that have to do with saving throws (which seem synonymous) with armor saving throws clearly laid out in the rules?

Once again, the Glossary = part of the Rules. If it is written in the rules it is part of the Rules As Written, demonstrably. Given this, I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve in the post above. The attempts to belittle are cute, but whatever. Accept that the Glossary is a functional part of RAW and move on.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Once again, the Glossary = part of the Rules. If it is written in the rules it is part of the Rules As Written, demonstrably. Given this, I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve in the post above. The attempts to belittle are cute, but whatever. Accept that the Glossary is a functional part of RAW and move on.

Yes the glossary is rules, but what does that have to do with saving throws? The glossary actually reinforces my point. I guess if you refuse to read it and continue to make a straw man argument then you won’t see the RAW. So long as we never play I guess it all works out.

broxus wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Once again, the Glossary = part of the Rules. If it is written in the rules it is part of the Rules As Written, demonstrably. Given this, I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve in the post above. The attempts to belittle are cute, but whatever. Accept that the Glossary is a functional part of RAW and move on.

Yes the glossary is rules, but what does that have to do with saving throws? The glossary actually reinforces my point. I guess if you refuse to read it and continue to make a straw man argument then you won’t see the RAW. So long as we never play I guess it all works out.

Seriously? I think you are a Poe now. Arguing just for the purpose of arguing. It's obvious why we are arguing with you about Glossaries, because you made the statment that they do not count as rules. And the Glossary defines an armor saving throw.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

broxus wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Once again, the Glossary = part of the Rules. If it is written in the rules it is part of the Rules As Written, demonstrably. Given this, I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve in the post above. The attempts to belittle are cute, but whatever. Accept that the Glossary is a functional part of RAW and move on.

Yes the glossary is rules, but what does that have to do with saving throws? The glossary actually reinforces my point. I guess if you refuse to read it and continue to make a straw man argument then you won’t see the RAW. So long as we never play I guess it all works out.

Seriously? I think you are a Poe now. Arguing just for the purpose of arguing. It's obvious why we are arguing with you about Glossaries, because you made the statment that they do not count as rules. And the Glossary defines an armor saving throw.

Why are we still talking about that glossary or armor saves? What does that have to do with this topic? Are seriously trying to troll. You are the ones ring up the glossary and armor saves when no strategem, power, or skill I am talking about refers to an armor save?

broxus wrote:

Spoiler:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

broxus wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Once again, the Glossary = part of the Rules. If it is written in the rules it is part of the Rules As Written, demonstrably. Given this, I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve in the post above. The attempts to belittle are cute, but whatever. Accept that the Glossary is a functional part of RAW and move on.

Yes the glossary is rules, but what does that have to do with saving throws? The glossary actually reinforces my point. I guess if you refuse to read it and continue to make a straw man argument then you won’t see the RAW. So long as we never play I guess it all works out.

Seriously? I think you are a Poe now. Arguing just for the purpose of arguing. It's obvious why we are arguing with you about Glossaries, because you made the statment that they do not count as rules. And the Glossary defines an armor saving throw.

Why are we still talking about that glossary or armor saves? What does that have to do with this topic? Are seriously trying to troll. You are the ones ring up the glossary and armor saves when no strategem, power, or skill I am talking about refers to an armor save?

We're still talking about the glossary because you didn't want to acknowledge that the glossary still covers rules - definitions and the like. It doesn't matter that "no strategem, power, or skill I am talking about refers to an armor save", the glossary defining it still counts as RAW. It may be more important with some future 9th edition supplement or codex that hasn't been published yet. We're still talking about it because of your continued denials and inability to let the subject die; don't complain about people not shutting up about it when you're just as guilty of it as the rest.

 doctortom wrote:

broxus wrote:

Spoiler:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

broxus wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Once again, the Glossary = part of the Rules. If it is written in the rules it is part of the Rules As Written, demonstrably. Given this, I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve in the post above. The attempts to belittle are cute, but whatever. Accept that the Glossary is a functional part of RAW and move on.

Yes the glossary is rules, but what does that have to do with saving throws? The glossary actually reinforces my point. I guess if you refuse to read it and continue to make a straw man argument then you won’t see the RAW. So long as we never play I guess it all works out.

Seriously? I think you are a Poe now. Arguing just for the purpose of arguing. It's obvious why we are arguing with you about Glossaries, because you made the statment that they do not count as rules. And the Glossary defines an armor saving throw.

Why are we still talking about that glossary or armor saves? What does that have to do with this topic? Are seriously trying to troll. You are the ones ring up the glossary and armor saves when no strategem, power, or skill I am talking about refers to an armor save?

We're still talking about the glossary because you didn't want to acknowledge that the glossary still covers rules - definitions and the like. It doesn't matter that "no strategem, power, or skill I am talking about refers to an armor save", the glossary defining it still counts as RAW. It may be more important with some future 9th edition supplement or codex that hasn't been published yet. We're still talking about it because of your continued denials and inability to let the subject die; don't complain about people not shutting up about it when you're just as guilty of it as the rest.

Ok I’ll try one more time to break down this for you.

1) Armor save (defined in the glossary page 364) a saving throw using Save value on the data sheet and refers you to page 202 that covers data sheets and Save (Sv)

2) Saving Throw (defined on page 221) a roll that is modified by AP and is based on the units Save (Sv) characteristic. (Basically what an armor save is)

3) invulnerable save (defined on page 222) a special type saving throw that is never modified by a weapon AP and can be used instead of a normal save.


All three things are separate entries and don’t cross reference each at all. Very confusing. That being said RAW a saving throw is a specific thing which is modified by AP and uses the save value on a data sheet. As stated earlier invulnerable saves, normal saves, and armor saves are all written and summarized differently. All the powers/skills/strategems question refer to improving saving throws which are clearly defined on page 221. No where does it state that saving throws consist of armor saves and invulnerable saves. It actually doesn’t mention either and gives a separate definition.

Now RAI we could debate, but RAW are clear.

Good lord. So to simplify, as everyone but you seems to acknowledge, Armour Save = Saving Throw and the Glossary entry just covers the writers’ asses in case they wrote some rules with ‘armour save’ mentioned by mistake. That’s all she wrote. You ready to move on yet? Cos everyone else is. No-one said Saving Throw covers Invulns. It explicitly does not.

broxus wrote:
Ok I’ll try one more time to break down this for you.

1) Armor save (defined in the glossary page 364) a saving throw using Save value on the data sheet and refers you to page 202 that covers data sheets and Save (Sv)

2) Saving Throw (defined on page 221) a roll that is modified by AP and is based on the units Save (Sv) characteristic. (Basically what an armor save is)

3) invulnerable save (defined on page 222) a special type saving throw that is never modified by a weapon AP and can be used instead of a normal save.


All three things are separate entries and don’t cross reference each at all. Very confusing. That being said RAW a saving throw is a specific thing which is modified by AP and uses the save value on a data sheet. As stated earlier invulnerable saves, normal saves, and armor saves are all written and summarized differently. All the powers/skills/strategems question refer to improving saving throws which are clearly defined on page 221. No where does it state that saving throws consist of armor saves and invulnerable saves. It actually doesn’t mention either and gives a separate definition.

Now RAI we could debate, but RAW are clear.

You need to reread the rules for Saving Throw and Invulnerable Saves. They clearly define an Invulnerable Save as a type of Saving Throw.

broxus wrote:

Ok I’ll try one more time to break down this for you.

1) Armor save (defined in the glossary page 364) a saving throw using Save value on the data sheet and refers you to page 202 that covers data sheets and Save (Sv)

2) Saving Throw (defined on page 221) a roll that is modified by AP and is based on the units Save (Sv) characteristic. (Basically what an armor save is)

3) invulnerable save (defined on page 222) a special type saving throw that is never modified by a weapon AP and can be used instead of a normal save.


All three things are separate entries and don’t cross reference each at all.

False. In number 1, under Armor save, literally says " a saving throw using Save value on the data sheet". This specifically references a "Saving Throw" (from #1) and the "units Save (Sv) characteristic" (From #2) which = "Save value on the data sheet" (From #1)

Very confusing.

Maybe to you, but not to most everyone else.

That being said RAW a saving throw is a specific thing which is modified by AP and uses the save value on a data sheet. As stated earlier invulnerable saves, normal saves, and armor saves are all written and summarized differently. All the powers/skills/strategems question refer to improving saving throws which are clearly defined on page 221. No where does it state that saving throws consist of armor saves and invulnerable saves. It actually doesn’t mention either and gives a separate definition.

Now RAI we could debate, but RAW are clear.

RAW is clear, but you seem to not be understanding it. "normal saves" (the only real mention of normal save is on page 19 (PDF) or page 222 BRB, where is states "normal Save (Sv) characteristic") and "Armor Saves" both use the Save value on the data sheet (No one was really talking about invulnerable saves), so normal Save = Armor save.

This part is not what we are talking about at all "3) invulnerable save (defined on page 222) a special type saving throw that is never modified by a weapon AP and can be used instead of a normal save."

So we can leave the invulnerable saves out of this discussion.

RAW Armor save = save.

 DeathReaper wrote:

broxus wrote:

Ok I’ll try one more time to break down this for you.

1) Armor save (defined in the glossary page 364) a saving throw using Save value on the data sheet and refers you to page 202 that covers data sheets and Save (Sv)

2) Saving Throw (defined on page 221) a roll that is modified by AP and is based on the units Save (Sv) characteristic. (Basically what an armor save is)

3) invulnerable save (defined on page 222) a special type saving throw that is never modified by a weapon AP and can be used instead of a normal save.


All three things are separate entries and don’t cross reference each at all.

False. In number 1, under Armor save, literally says " a saving throw using Save value on the data sheet". This specifically references a "Saving Throw" (from #1) and the "units Save (Sv) characteristic" (From #2) which = "Save value on the data sheet" (From #1)

Very confusing.

Maybe to you, but not to most everyone else.

That being said RAW a saving throw is a specific thing which is modified by AP and uses the save value on a data sheet. As stated earlier invulnerable saves, normal saves, and armor saves are all written and summarized differently. All the powers/skills/strategems question refer to improving saving throws which are clearly defined on page 221. No where does it state that saving throws consist of armor saves and invulnerable saves. It actually doesn’t mention either and gives a separate definition.

Now RAI we could debate, but RAW are clear.

RAW is clear, but you seem to not be understanding it. "normal saves" (the only real mention of normal save is on page 19 (PDF) or page 222 BRB, where is states "normal Save (Sv) characteristic") and "Armor Saves" both use the Save value on the data sheet (No one was really talking about invulnerable saves), so normal Save = Armor save.

This part is not what we are talking about at all "3) invulnerable save (defined on page 222) a special type saving throw that is never modified by a weapon AP and can be used instead of a normal save."

So we can leave the invulnerable saves out of this discussion.

RAW Armor save = save.

So you conveniently throw out the entire bold paragraph that defines what a saving throw is on page 221 and are saying the invulnerable save section takes priority and isn’t a separate entry? Page 221 literally defines what a saving throw is and yet you are ignoring it.

broxus wrote:
So you conveniently throw out the entire bold paragraph that defines what a saving throw is on page 221 and are saying the invulnerable save section takes priority and isn’t a separate entry? Page 221 literally defines what a saving throw is and yet you are ignoring it.

No one is ignoring page 221.
We know what a saving throw is. It is "Saving Throw (defined on page 221) a roll that is modified by AP and is based on the units Save (Sv) characteristic." This is an Armor save as Armor save is "a saving throw using Save value on the data sheet"

And we all know that a saving throw is "a roll that is modified by AP and is based on the units Save (Sv) characteristic."

"Save value on the data sheet" = "the units Save (Sv) characteristic."

Save is just shorthand for armor save, they mean the same thing.

 DeathReaper wrote:

broxus wrote:
So you conveniently throw out the entire bold paragraph that defines what a saving throw is on page 221 and are saying the invulnerable save section takes priority and isn’t a separate entry? Page 221 literally defines what a saving throw is and yet you are ignoring it.

No one is ignoring page 221.
We know what a saving throw is. It is "Saving Throw (defined on page 221) a roll that is modified by AP and is based on the units Save (Sv) characteristic." This is an Armor save as Armor save is "a saving throw using Save value on the data sheet"

And we all know that a saving throw is "a roll that is modified by AP and is based on the units Save (Sv) characteristic."

"Save value on the data sheet" = "the units Save (Sv) characteristic."

Save is just shorthand for armor save, they mean the same thing.

Exactly!

So with that definition you will notice that an invulnerable save is something separate and even has its own section and paragraph. Since
saving throws are referring to armor saves specifically (as you laid out) then invulnerable saves don’t get the same benefit unless it was specifically stated. So for those skills/powers/ it should state it improves saving throws (armor saves) and invulnerable saves which are separate things and refer to separate rules.
I

This is not rocket science:

Warhammer 40,000 Rules, PDF Page 19 wrote: INVULNERABLE SAVES
Some models have an invulnerable save. Each time an attack is allocated to a model with an invulnerable save, you can choose to use either its normal Save (Sv) characteristic or its invulnerable save, but not both. If a model has more than one invulnerable save, it can only use one of them – choose which it will use. If you use a model’s invulnerable save, it is never modified by a weapon’s Armour Penetration value.
* Invulnerable save: Saving throw that is never modified by attacking weapon’s AP.
* A model with an invulnerable save can use it instead of its normal Sv.

As you can note, GW defines an Invulnerable save as a Saving throw.