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.

Hey all,

Finished up a tournament where my opponent and I ran into two rules disagreements.  We resolved both and finished, but I'd like to get a little more clarification if possible.  One issue has been beat to death here on Dakka, but the other I frankly have no idea on and am unsure if it actually exists.

First off,

3 Broadsides w/ ASS, Team Leader with Hardwired Drone Controller and 2 Shield Drones.

Unit in the open takes a Lascannon wound and my opponent states that I have to pull a Broadside instead of a Shield Drone.  This is because of the Majority Armour rules (BBB, pg.76) where the wounding hits must be applied to the Majority Armour type first.

The assertion is that the Broadside 2+ Armour Save is different then the Shield Drone 2+ Armour Save by virtue that the Drone also has a 4+ Invulnerable Save.

Background Dakka Links

"Even more reasons never to take drones"
www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/tpage/2/view/Topic/postid/100617/Default.aspx

The "No Save"Rule
www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/tpage/4/view/Topic/postid/36416/Default.aspx


My opponent was certain that everybody played by the above assertion and that I was attempting to pull a "grey-area" rules interpretation to favour myself.  I was rather surprised to actually hear it come up, as I had never thought that it would have been played any other way.  Regardless, reading the links showed me that the issue was not at all clear-cut.  I was interested in hearing others' actual play experience as I'm well aware that not everything in YMTC and RAW gets played that way "in real life". 

To recap the question, would you claim an opponent in my situation would have to pull a Broadside instead of a Shield Drone?  Have you run into a situation (perhaps an out-of-town tournament) where your decision has been challenged?


Question Two:

Same game, my opponent had a squad of Bikers locked in CC with the same Broadside team w/ attached Ethereal.  Now, I typically protect the Ethereal by attaching him to the end of the unit, so that it's harder to get him in B2B without killing all the Broadsides first.  At the end of the CC round, Pile In moves took place, but I could not move the Ethereal into B2B because of intervening friendly models.  My opponent claimed that I had to move the Ethereal into B2B by moving through my intervening models and that Pile In ignored friendly models.

After the game, I could not find a reference to any such rule.  The section on Pile In (BBB, pg.44) states that Pile In moves are done the same way as moving chargers, but are not slowed by difficult terrain/do not trigger Dangerous Terrain tests.  The section on Moving Charging Units (BBB, pg.37) says that "...models may not move through friendly or enemy units and may not pass through gaps narrower than their base diameter."

Has anybody heard of this?  Is it from a previous edition or Trial Assault rules maybe?

1) The rules are a mess, but I would go with your interpretation. What on earth would Shield Drones be for otherwise?

2) I don't understand the point of your question. You want to know where your opponent got this weird misconception from? Well, who knows, and why does it matter? You've read the BGB, and you know how things really are. (IIRC, 3rd ed. rules did not allow piling in through friendly models, but I don't have the old book on hand.)

1. The links you included are very interesting.. the notion that a tournament ruled that a 3+ save is different from a 3+/4+ is a bit scary. Though a lot of the rules are unclear (such as the "no save" rule), it IS clear that the mixed armour save rules involving majority armour and such are just that, mixed ARMOUR SAVE rules, which have nothing to do with invulnerable saves. In your example, there is NO mixed ARMOUR, because everyone has a 2+. You can assign the wounds where you want, and thus take the LC wound on the drone and use your 4+ invulnerable save.

Edit:  Hmm, I apologize, I realize that I may have spoken too soon.  Although the "mixed armour" explanation for removing a broadside suit is clearly faulty, the "remove models getting no save first" rule does cause problems here.  Using the drone would seem to be the most sensible way to play it, but the RAW is not clear.  Apologies again.

2. What he said.

@Spmusubi/Erik, Congratulations on your RTT win. Can we get a Battle report from you?

Sorry to hijack the thread,

Darrian

It sounds like your opponent was jackin you for an advantage.  Do a search of the drone question and you will find your answer- I think there was a thread just a couple weeks ago about this very issue.  Basically you are right and your opponent totally wrong.

For pile in- if the Ethereal is unable to get into B2B because of impassable terrain and friendly models then he is stuck behind the Suits, but probably still in the kill zone.  If it was just difficult terrain that was blocking him on the sides, then he should have had plenty of movement to get into B2B (unless some really strange geometry was involved).

Posted By Beast on 07/15/2007 3:49 PM

For pile in- if the Ethereal is unable to get into B2B because of impassable terrain and friendly models then he is stuck behind the Suits, but probably still in the kill zone.  If it was just difficult terrain that was blocking him on the sides, then he should have had plenty of movement to get into B2B (unless some really strange geometry was involved).

Even if the Ethereal is attached to the broadside squad, he's still an IC for close combat purposes, right? So he may be close, but not enough to actually be targeted, so using the "kill zone" may not be the right wording here.

I have found in nearly every tournament that each player has their own way they handle pile in's. Generally to the player who has the advantage and knows how the game will turn out he won't care how the other player interprets pile in's. I know that I usually don't care. But for the guy who needs that assault for the win it gets sticky because how differently everyone intreprets it. In my mind that ethereal has to do everything he can do to get into base contact, but you can be sneaky, first we know he won't move more than 6", and its possible that with terrain and other friendly models you can still block the ethereal from getting into base contact, but when get to moving that ethereal you need to do everything you can do. Granted you still can't pass through models or exceed your movement, but some people insist on it you must. Its on them to prove it by the rules if you object. If the tournament organizer agrees with them, then you need to be quick to show in that rule book that they are both wrong or be forced to play their way.

The sheild drone and the broadside question, you've got that perfectly correct. The codex reverses the assinine nerfing of the sheild drones that came about in 4th ed.

Posted By Geddonight on 07/15/2007 7:13 PM

Posted By Beast on 07/15/2007 3:49 PM

For pile in- if the Ethereal is unable to get into B2B because of impassable terrain and friendly models then he is stuck behind the Suits, but probably still in the kill zone.  If it was just difficult terrain that was blocking him on the sides, then he should have had plenty of movement to get into B2B (unless some really strange geometry was involved).

Even if the Ethereal is attached to the broadside squad, he's still an IC for close combat purposes, right? So he may be close, but not enough to actually be targeted, so using the "kill zone" may not be the right wording here.

You are exactly right...  my bad...

 

1) I would never personally try to claim that my opponent couldn't allocate wounds to their Shield drone. 

Trying to convince someone intent on following this percieved "no save" rule can be tough, your opponent isn't taking this stance. He's just trying to say that the addition of an invulnerable save somehow makes a model count as having a different "armor" save than other models in the unit, something that is clearly not supported anywhere in the rules.

The mixed armor rules only deal with differing "Armour" saves, not when a unit has some models with invulnerable saves.

 

2) The trial assault rules (published before 4th edition) had pile-in moves ignore friendly and enemy models. This did not carry over into the 4th edition rules.

 

 

Yes, Yakface is correct on point #1. The 'No Save' rule does, by RAW, clearly state you would have to pull the Broadside first. However, that is (judging solely by what you wrote in your OP) not what your opponent was arguing. He was implying that an Invulnerable Save is an Armour Save, which is not true.

So... yes, you should have pulled the Broadside. No, not because of what he said. And no one plays it like that.

Stu-Rat: The Raw isn't really as clear about the 'No-Save' rule as you state.

pg 76, under the mixed armour rules, it gives the situation with the chosen of Tzeentch with 8 models with 3+ armor save, 1 model with 2+ armor save, and 3 models with no armor save. In this situation, 9 wounds are applied to the unit and it is directly stated that the 8 wounds are saved against the 3+ save, then the person is left with the choice of taking a save on 2+ or removing one of the models with no save.

If it went by your interpretation, then one of two things would happen:

1 - The three models with no armor save would be removed first before the other saves would need to be rolled for the rest of the unit.

2 - After the 8 3+ saves are rolled, there wouldn't be a choice between rolling the 2+ save or removing the model with no save.  

The 'No Save' rule contends that the models with no save take a wound first, then the saves for everyone else is rolled.

This doesn't happen, as specifically illustrated by the rules in page 76.

Mixed armor doesn't apply as much to this particular situation, I was just bringing up that this 'No Save' rule doesn't appear as solid as it seems.

If the unit has mixed armour, you use the mixed armour rules. If not, you use the standard rules including the No Save rule. Seems solid enough to me.

Stu-Rat:

If your unit gets hit by a single lascannon, you can allocate the hit to whatever model you wish in your cited unit. In this case, since there is no case of Mixed Armour, you will naturally choose to make the save using the Invulnerable Save of the Shield Drone. This is perfectly legal and is actually following the rules for removing the models which do not get a save. Check the example given on P. 25 BGB under "More than one save", which talks about how to deal with a Chaplain, and the phrase which begins "..always get their saving throw...." in the paragraph "Invulnerable Saves" on the same P.25 BGB.

If that same unit got hit by 3 lascannons all from the same enemy squad, then yes, one would have to allocated to a broadside, and it would be removed before I attempt saving throws on the 2 shield drones, which I allocated the other 2 hits to.  Since Mixed armor rules don't apply, I am able to designate which model takes a wound, so there is no reason why I can't have a shield drone take it. 

Is it possible that the "No save rule" is actually refering to models that don't have any armour save at all. As in models that "do not get a save", against anything, ever.

Example: A squad of 10 Chaos Space Marines (3+ save) is joined by a Chaos Space Marine Lord (3+ Save) and a Chaos Hound (-- Save). The squad gets hit by a single lascannon. The Chaos Hound is assigned the hit because it "doesn't get a save" (ie: is isn't wearing any kind of armour nor does it have an invulnerable save). The fact that the Marines armour of 3+ would be nuetralized by the AP2 lascannon is irrelevant. They are wearing armour and thus would nomally get a save. Therefore they are ignored by the "No save rule".

This rule interperetation would save the Broadsides since both them and their shield drones have armour saves (even though they wouldn't get to use them against a lascannon). Therefore, the no save rule does not apply and the defender would be free to allocate a lascannon hit to a drone and make their invulnerable save.

I'm just thinking out loud here. Apologies if this has been brought up before.

A lot of people here are confused.

You allocate wounds first, then the "no save" rule applies.

Thus the wound is allocated to the shield drone first, then the no save rule applies (or doesn't, in this case).

If it was 3 lascannons from 1 squad, you allocated the wounds first (2 to shield drones, then 1 to broadside), then the no save rule applies (remove the broadside), then take your saves.

Onlainari, I thought that wounding hits on a unit with the same armour were only alocated to individual models once the casualty removal phase was reached. That during the Saving Throw phase hits and saves were mearly grouped in a 1 save for each hit fashion that does not include choosing a specific model to take a certain hit. Where in the Save process does it allow us to designate specific models? Thanks for your time, I've always found your posts to be very helpful.

 

 

Hey Stu-rat, how’s it going? So I’m on another forum and I get sucked into a “no save rule” debate, lol. We went back and forth for a couple of pages and all of the sudden it appeared, a RAW sequence that allows the drone to take the wound in the case of a 2 broad-side 2 Shield drone unit taking a las cannon hit.

 

You do have to first accept that the ARMOUR PIERCING WEAPONS sub-section of MAKE SAVING THROWS p.24 and 25 BGB must be taken in context with the remainder of the section.

 

So the 2BS 2SD unit takes a las cannon shot, the marine player says “Ha, pull that BS like the no save rule says!”

 

You respond that “Well this drone has an invuln save, I want him to take the hit.”

 

SM player says “No way dude, you don’t get to chose which model takes which hit until casualty allocation p.26. And since they all have the same armour the hit goes to the guy with “NO SAVE” as per directions on P.24.”

 

So then you say “well not exactly; the last sentence on P.25 says “Sometimes a unit will contain models with a mix of different A Saves and I Saves. This complex situation is explained on P.76. So let’s go look at Mixed Armour; Yeah here it is, step 4 says …it is up to the owning player to decide who will save against which weapon. Cool, so I choose you “shield drone” to save against the las cannon.”

 

It’s been along time so I don’t remember if there is a counter to this argument. Am I reading everything correctly?     

You allocate wounds because it's a weapon that ignore armour and you have some models with invulnerable saves and some without.

No it's not in the actual rulebook, it's what people do.