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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rules for the DSv state when you use, and which of the two values you pick, the DSv.

So where in the steps for resolving attacks does it tell you to use your daemonic save characteristic?

It doesn't, but specific rules in the DAEMONIC INVULNERABILITY rule tell you to use the Daemonic Save characteristic, because units with DAEMONIC INVULNERABILITY have something called a Daemonic Save characteristic Instead of a normal Save characteristic...

This tells us that you use the Daemonic Save characteristic instead of the Save characteristic.

No, it doesn't.

Instead of a normal Save characteristic, each LEGIONES DAEMONICA datasheet has a Daemonic Save characteristic. This characteristic has 2 values. The first characteristic is used when a melee attack is allocated to that model, while the second characteristic is used when a ranged attack is allocated to that model. In either case, the saving throw cannot be modified in any way.

Nowhere does it actually say how you use them, that they are used in place of the save characteristic during the saving throws step of resolving attacks for example. So, you are not permitted to use them unless they are save characteristics or invulnerable saves, which are the only things explicitly allowed to make saving throws in the rules. If they are a save characteristic, then they are affected by Jinx.

Incorrect.

They tell you to use the DSv when an attack is allocated. You can find this step quite clearly in the relevant rules. When you're not being obtuse you can see that the char is used to compare to the saving throw roll, which is exactly the same as normal as it even tells you, with the additional rule that the saving throw can never be modified


Jinx does nothing.
End.

Honestly I'm surprised that GW hasn't retroactively given Grey Knights some means of reducing Daemonic Saves...and at this point in time GK need MAJOR help, especially against Daemons.

All of the GK fluff on the matter points to tattoo'd and/or armor inscribed "hexagrammic wards" reducing daemonic stability, sometimes 'physically' harming lesser daemons, in a close proximity to the GK in question.

I could see this implemented as some form of an aura of daemonic instability, specifically (and only) reducing Daemonic Saves.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Honestly I'm surprised that GW hasn't retroactively given Grey Knights some means of reducing Daemonic Saves...and at this point in time GK need MAJOR help, especially against Daemons.

All of the GK fluff on the matter points to tattoo'd and/or armor inscribed "hexagrammic wards" reducing daemonic stability, sometimes 'physically' harming lesser daemons, in a close proximity to the GK in question.

I could see this implemented as some form of an aura of daemonic instability, specifically (and only) reducing Daemonic Saves.

Do they need major help against Daemons?
Does anyone? Daemons just seem... Meh, to me.

Grey Knights have little problem putting out Mortal Wounds. Mortal Wounds ignore Daemonic Saves so there is no need for additional rules to fight Daemons.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Instead of a normal Save characteristic, each LEGIONES DAEMONICA datasheet has a Daemonic Save characteristic. This characteristic has 2 values. The first characteristic is used when a melee attack is allocated to that model, while the second characteristic is used when a ranged attack is allocated to that model. In either case, the saving throw cannot be modified in any way.

Nowhere does it actually say how you use them.

Well you know except for when it says "The first characteristic is used when a melee attack is allocated to that model, while the second characteristic is used when a ranged attack is allocated to that model."

So it literally tells us when to use them, and your statement is incorrect.

This is a whole lot of hot air and posturing over a very, very, spectacularly clear rule.

Ridiculous.

Some people like to posture over GW's inability to be explicitly clear in their rules writing. The funny thing is GW had no problem doing so in the Invulnerable Save rule.

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.

Yes, because they have to allow that choice.
There is no choice for DSv...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This is a whole lot of hot air and posturing over a very, very, spectacularly clear rule.

Ridiculous.

Can you provide something useful to this discussion ? If not please stay away. Everytime you step in its always the same, the rule is very very clear, hot air, unnecessary discussion, blah blah.

Because it is! Daemon Save is not armour save and tells you it can’t be modified, so why are people making out like it can be modified and is a wholly different characteristic? Tell me what is useful about any post going down that rabbit hole? If my posts share a theme it’s generally being a ray of common sense in a well of ridiculousness. Which this thread so patently is.

Here we go again

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This is a whole lot of hot air and posturing over a very, very, spectacularly clear rule.

Ridiculous.

Can you provide something useful to this discussion ? If not please stay away. Everytime you step in its always the same, the rule is very very clear, hot air, unnecessary discussion, blah blah.

Because it is clear. Pretty much the majority of the playerbase agrees on a consensus on most of the crap you post in YMDC. Barking out "citation please" like a trained seal just makes these already tedious threads worse.

This thread appears to have run its course.