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.

This spins right out of the Drone Leadership topic, Basically the issue is Broadsides or any other unit with the same armor save but has some models with invulnerable saves, whether the models that get "no save" from lower AP weapons must be removed first bypassing the models with the Invulnerable Save. Here is my arguement:

Every phase in this game is seperated into steps, Here are the Shooting steps; Choose a target, Check LOS and Range, Roll to Hit, Roll to Wound, Make Saving Throws, and Remove casulties.

The "No save" rule appears in the "Make Saving Throws" section of the rules, so we must assume that the rolls to wound from the enemy unit have already been made.

So here is the tricky thing as the owning player, I have the ability to decide which models are removed as casualties, essentially determining which models get wounded, now there are exceptions to the limit of my abilities as described in the "Remove Casualties" section, but nevertheless which actual model I remove is totally up to me.

So if my unit of Broadsides takes a wounding Lascannon hit, my shield drone should be able to tkae the wound because remember it bypasses it's armor as well.

So my conclusion is that Invulnerable saves do not apply to the "No Save" rule. Because wounding hits still bypass the normal armor of the models that have them. Therefore I can assign the wound to a model that has an Invulnerable Save in which that model can use that save.

I think this may address a larger, underlying issue.

Are invulnerable saves counted when we figure out mixed armor, no save, or other rules? I know that this has been discussed before, but this seems to be the crux of the problem to me. In the above situation would the drones be considered as having different armor because of their invulnerable save? I have read in the related threads that most people play it that the drone can take the hit, and I have personally always believed that the normal (non-invulnerable) save would be used. However, I also thought that by a strict RAW interp the drones actually do have a differing Armor value because of their invulnerable save, and would not be eligible to take the hits per the mixed armor rule.

I have probably missed the mark, but that's not uncommon for me so take this post as you will.

Well reading it, all I can see are references to normal armor saves in all the affected rules. The only carification we are given in invulnerable saves is that we can use them even if we don't get our normal save. So I am going on the idea that if a normal save is bypassed we can take any invulnerable save the unit might have until we run out.

agreed mahu

Generally I disagree. The wording on the No Save rule clearly states that models without a save must be removed. It does not specify any type of save and thus refer to both Armour and Invulnerable (not Cover, which is irrelevant).

Therefore if a unit of 5 SMs and 1 Chaplain with a 4+ Inv get hit by a Lascannon, the hit must be placed on one of the SMs.

Glaive Company CO said:
Are invulnerable saves counted when we figure out mixed armor, no save, or other rules?

No, yes, and it depends, in that order. Invulnerable Saves are not counted in the Mixed Armour rules because they are not Armour, they are Invulnerable. They are counted in the No Save rule because they are a save.

Glaive Company CO said:
I know that this has been discussed before, but this seems to be the crux of the problem to me. In the above situation would the drones be considered as having different armor because of their invulnerable save?

No. Thus there is no majority and the hits/wounds (that's another thread) can be applied wherever the hit/wounded player likes... unless another rule specifies otherwise, such as LoS for example, or in this case the No Save rule.

Glaive Company CO said:
I have read in the related threads that most people play it that the drone can take the hit, and I have personally always believed that the normal (non-invulnerable) save would be used. However, I also thought that by a strict RAW interp the drones actually do have a differing Armor value because of their invulnerable save, and would not be eligible to take the hits per the mixed armor rule.

I play that the Drone takes the hit, which I believe is the intent. And the Mixed Armour rules would make the Drones take the first hits anyway, if they did indeed have a 4+ Armour Save. There's some dispute about that. I believe they only have a 4+ Invulnerable Save at present although that might change in the new Codex.

However, if there was no Mixed Armour, the RAW seems to state that the Broadside would take the hit - provided you believe the word 'removed' equals 'wounded'. As the Broadside is a 2-wound model, it cannot be removed by some low AP hits (Plasma) and can by others (Lascannon) due to Insta-Kill.

A unit of 1-wound characters, like the SMs example above, would not have this problem obviously.

mahu said:
Well reading it, all I can see are references to normal armor saves in all the affected rules.

If by 'it' you mean the No Save rule it refers to any save.

mahu said:
The only carification we are given in invulnerable saves is that we can use them even if we don't get our normal save.

Agreed, provided you have followed all other rules. And the No Save rule says that models without... etc. etc.

mahu said:
So I am going on the idea that if a normal save is bypassed we can take any invulnerable save the unit might have until we run out.

Wrong. The No Save rule says the complete opposite. Like the Mixed Armour rules, and the Mixed Toughness rules, it forces you to start with the weakest.

Drones are an exception to the no save rule.  According to the Tau codex when shooting at a unit containing drones all drones that can be hit MUST have hits allocated to them before any hits are allocated to the rest of the unit and the owning player decides which hits are allocated to the drones. This overrides the normal no save rule because the drones are programed to intercept incoming shots for the units they're guarding.

We wish! Unfortunately the Tau FAQ points us to the 4th ed. rules for majority blah blah blah. That's where all of these problems start.

Well there is a conflict between what the Tau codex says and what the 4th edition rulebook says. I had assumed that since the tau codex is talking specifically about drones and the rulebook is talking about all units in general that it could be assumed that the drones are an exception.  However, I may be mistaken. By the way, what is this Tau FAQ you're talking about?

Stu-Rat:

I still want to focus on the underlying issue here. Although the wording in the so-called "no save" rule is troubling, the bigger issue (IMO) is the lack of the basic rules for a unit that has some models with an invulnerable save (or different invulnerable saves) and some without. This, I believe is truly the heart of the problem.

For example, say we have a unit of five Terminators, two of which have a Storm shield. Now, I think the majority of us here believe that invulnerable saves do not contribute towards a "mixed armor" status for the unit.

So, if that unit is hit a number of AP1 weapons (say meltaguns from a unit of Fire Dragons). If we play that wounds are not allocated to models before taking armor saves (as the rules seem to indicate), then how what invulnerable saving throw do we use for the unit? The 5+ or the 4+? Do we get to mix and match saves? If so how many at 5+ and how many at 4+? When it comes time to allocate unsaved wounds, do we have to then remove casualties from models that have that particular invulnerable save?

None of these questions can be answered by the rules. Just like a lone model with an invulnerable save in a unit apparently cannot use it unless there are more wounds than models inflicted and every wound ignores the unit's normal armor save.


What I'm getting at is this: The "drone" problem is caused by the "no save" rule, but rather the fact that the rules seem to have omited how to implement invulnerable saves into the game when some models in the unit have an invulnerable save and others don't (or differing invulnerable saves within the same unit).

Yakface said:
Stu-Rat:

I still want to focus on the underlying issue here. Although the wording in the so-called "no save" rule is troubling, the bigger issue (IMO) is the lack of the basic rules for a unit that has some models with an invulnerable save (or different invulnerable saves) and some without. This, I believe is truly the heart of the problem.

I'm afraid I don't see the problem, Yakface. Invulnerable Saves are simply not an issue, whether you play with the No Save rule (in any form) or without.

On the one hand, the No Save rule refers to 'saves' in general, not any one in particular. Thus whether or not the save is Invulnerable or not makes no difference.

On the other, Invulnerable Saves do not effect the Mixed Armour rule in any way.

So there is simply no problem - at least as far as I can see. If you can explain your perspective more clearly to me, please do. I apologise if I'm not getting what you think is a simple concept and frustrating you.

(I want to stress that I am not being contrary, I am not trying to encourage a flame war or anything of the ilk. Nor do I believe that the No Save rule is the intent of the rules. I do believe that it is part of the RAW, although what part I'm not sure. But I came across this rule in a recent discussion on Mixed Armour/Multi-Wound Models and I and others thought it raised some issues. It is worthy of discussion, I believe.)

Yakface said:
For example, say we have a unit of five Terminators, two of which have a Storm shield. Now, I think the majority of us here believe that invulnerable saves do not contribute towards a "mixed armor" status for the unit.

Majority or not, that's what the rules say. Page 76 of the rulebook refers almost exclusively to Armour Saves only. The only time it refers to an Invulnerable Save is when dealing with special attacks in close combat against a unit with Mixed Armour (paragraph 10, second sentence).

So we agree on that point. Moving on...

Yakface said:
So, if that unit is hit a number of AP1 weapons (say meltaguns from a unit of Fire Dragons). If we play that wounds are not allocated to models before taking armor saves (as the rules seem to indicate), then how what invulnerable saving throw do we use for the unit? The 5+ or the 4+? Do we get to mix and match saves? If so how many at 5+ and how many at 4+? When it comes time to allocate unsaved wounds, do we have to then remove casualties from models that have that particular invulnerable save?

It doesn't matter. Invulnerable Saves are not subject to majority rules. If two Terminators have a 4+ Inv Save and three have a 5+ Inv Save, it makes no difference. You follow the usual shooting and Mixed Armour rules.

1. Do any models in the unit have no save of any kind against the weapon (i.e. the No Save rule)? No, all of them have an Invulnerable Save.

2. Are any Armour Saves in the majority (if so hits have to be applied to them first)? No, all the Terminators have an Armour Save of 2+, which is negated by the Meltaguns, so all their Armour Saves are the same (i.e. none).

3. The owning player may distribute these wounds as he sees fit, just as it says in the rules (paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Mixed Armour rules on page 76).

 

(For the record, I'm not too familiar with the latest Space Marine Codex but don't Storm Shields only protect you in close combat? If so, then the differing Invulnerable Save is moot, as the No Save rule only applies to shooting.)

Yakface said:
None of these questions can be answered by the rules. Just like a lone model with an invulnerable save in a unit apparently cannot use it unless there are more wounds than models inflicted and every wound ignores the unit's normal armor save.

All these questions are answered by the rules and pretty clearly too (at least to me but maybe I'm missing something). And, according to the RAW, your second statement would appear to be correct.

Yakface said:
What I'm getting at is this: The "drone" problem is caused by the "no save" rule, but rather the fact that the rules seem to have omited how to implement invulnerable saves into the game when some models in the unit have an invulnerable save and others don't (or differing invulnerable saves within the same unit).

Maybe. The differing Inv Saves is incorrect - they make no difference to the end result. But yes, the rules do seem to suggest that Invulnerable Saves are worthless in small numbers. This might not be an omission however, although I believe you are correcting in saying it is. Whether it is or not is a matter of intent, which is always difficult to determine.

I am getting a tad bit frustrated. But I'll try again. I want you to try to wipe away the fact that this discussion had anything to do with the "no save" rule for now. Just try to take this in as a new topic we are discussing for the first time.


We both agreed that models in a unit with mixed invulnerable saves don't count towards mixed armor, yet you then immediately jumped to the mixed armor rules to explain your point. That is both incorrect rules procedure and the source of the confusion between you and I. If a unit does not have mixed (regular) armor saves, it does not follow the mixed armor rules.

So for this example presented below the mixed armor rules should not be used (as there is only one type of regular save in the unit: 3+):

For this example we're going to use a unit of 5 non-descript models. Three of them have a 3+/4+ save, the other two have a 3+/5+ save.

The unit suffers seven AP1 wounds. We do not use the mixed armor rules to allocate these wounds, so what do we do now?

Based on the standard saving throw/casualty removal procedure we should roll saves for the unit and then, after the saving throws have been made, allocate the wounds to models and remove them as casualties.

Do we concur on this procedure so far?


If so, based on this scenario, what invulnerable save should we be using (since the normal armor save is ignored)? 4+ or 5+? Or how many of each? Again, the standard rules do not cover this because they indicate that we allocate the wounds to particular models in the unit after making saving throws (or failing to get a saving throw).


Is this making sense yet?

What I have been saying (and this is just purely informational, not part of any argument) is that the "no save" rule isn't the issue here. The issue is that the way the rules are written GW either planned to put invulnerable saves fully into the mixed armor rules (but ended up not doing that), or it didn't occur to them that a unit could have differing invulnerable saves and/or some models with an invulnerable saves in a unit and some without.

I say this because (as I have been trying to illustrate) neither of those scenarios are properly described within the rules, whether it be from standard casualty removal or from the mixed armor standpoint (see the other thread going on for my argument on that topic).

Yakface said:
I am getting a tad bit frustrated. But I'll try again. I want you to try to wipe away the fact that this discussion had anything to do with the "no save" rule for now. Just try to take this in as a new topic we are discussing for the first time.

I apologise if my misunderstanding of your POV is frustrating you, Yakface. I, too, am frustrated. Obviously we both have what we think are very clear viewpoints but we are not understanding that of the other.

And it is difficult to ignore the No Save rule seeing as that is how it has been what this topic (and two others) is about.

Yakface said:
We both agreed that models in a unit with mixed invulnerable saves don't count towards mixed armor, yet you then immediately jumped to the mixed armor rules to explain your point. That is both incorrect rules procedure and the source of the confusion between you and I. If a unit does not have mixed (regular) armor saves, it does not follow the mixed armor rules.

No, I didn?t. And I followed correct rules procedure. You check the No Save rule (which in the example did not apply), check to see if the Mixed Armour rule applies (which it did not), then proceed to divvy up wounding hits and make saving throws. That is exactly how the rules tell you to play and exactly what I did.

But even assuming I am wrong on this point it simply doesn?t matter. Mixed Armour rules or not, the fact that all the Terminators have an Invulnerable Save overrides the No Save rule automatically. So I really don?t understand why you used the example.

Yakface said:
So for this example presented below the mixed armor rules should not be used (as there is only one type of regular save in the unit: 3+):

For this example we're going to use a unit of 5 non-descript models. Three of them have a 3+/4+ save, the other two have a 3+/5+ save.

The unit suffers seven AP1 wounds. We do not use the mixed armor rules to allocate these wounds, so what do we do now?

Based on the standard saving throw/casualty removal procedure we should roll saves for the unit and then, after the saving throws have been made, allocate the wounds to models and remove them as casualties.

Do we concur on this procedure so far?

Nope. You?ve got it very wrong. The procedure runs exactly as I have already listed above:

1. Check to see if any of the models receive a Saving Throw against AP1. All of them do, as all of them have an Invulnerable Save. Therefore, the No Save rule does not apply.

2. Check to see if Mixed Armour applies. It does not as all the models have the same Armour Save, i.e. none.

3. The player who controls the targeted models decides which models take which hits and makes the appropriate Saving Throws.

(To stop your head exploding in sheer frustration, Yakface, just imagine Step 2 doesn?t exist. You do have to check to see if Mixed Armour applies for all units but of course most of the time it won?t and more of the time experienced players like us know when and where it does apply beforehand and so we blithely skip over this Step. If I, in my Imperial Guard army, buy Carapace Armour for my Senior Officer, I know his Command Squad has Mixed Armour. I don?t have to check every single time. You with me?)

This is where you make your error: ?Based on the standard saving throw/casualty removal procedure we should roll saves for the unit and then, after the saving throws have been made, allocate the wounds to models and remove them as casualties.?

There are two problems with this. One is the No Save rule but as you said lets ignore that for right now. The other is that you allocate hits first, then make Saving Throws. If not, how would you know what you were saving against? (Not that this matters when all saves are Invulnerable, of course.)

You have to give each of the five models one hit. You then circle around and divvy up the last two hits. So three models get hit once, two get hit twice. As the rules state, it is up to you which gets what. As there are no restrictions on Invulnerable Saves (unlike Armour Saves) you can place the hits wherever you choose. Obviously, in this case, it is best to take the two hits on each of the 4+ saves.

Yakface said:
If so, based on this scenario, what invulnerable save should we be using (since the normal armor save is ignored)? 4+ or 5+? Or how many of each? Again, the standard rules do not cover this because they indicate that we allocate the wounds to particular models in the unit after making saving throws (or failing to get a saving throw).

Is this making sense yet?

No, it?s not. The rules are perfectly clear on the subject. If there is no Mixed Armour in the unit, it comes down to one thing: does the unit have a save against any weapons or not? If so, then make the Saving Throws. If not, or a mix of no and yes, then remove those models that don?t have a Saving Throw and then make the Saving Throws for those that do (if any).

Example A: A squad of Tactical Marines with a Chaplain with an Invulnerable Save gets hit by a few Lasguns shots, a Bolter round and a Frag Grenade. Does the unit have saves against these weapons? Yes, as even though they all have different APs none beat the Marines? Armour Save of 3+. And so you follow the procedure ? Step 1, Step 2, and then Step 3 which is? - and make all the Saving Throws at the same time. Any that fail you remove as casualties.

Example B: A squad of Tactical Marines with a Chaplain with an Invulnerable Save gets hit by a few Lasguns shots and a Lascannon shot. Does anyone in the unit have saves against these weapons? Yes, everyone can save against the Lasgun shots but only the Chaplain can save against the Lascannon shot. So you have to allocate the wound the Lascannon causes before rolling any Saving Throws and it has to be against one of the Marines who do not get a Saving Throw. One Marine model is removed. You then move on to the next Steps, which include making Saving Throws against the Lasguns. Again it does not matter who gets hit with what as they all have the same save.

Models without a Saving Throw (the unfortunate Marine in Example B above) are removed before making any Saving Throws. You then make Saving Throws for those models that get them and then allocate wounds.

So where?s the problem?


Yakface said:
What I have been saying (and this is just purely informational, not part of any argument) is that the "no save" rule isn't the issue here. The issue is that the way the rules are written GW either planned to put invulnerable saves fully into the mixed armor rules (but ended up not doing that), or it didn't occur to them that a unit could have differing invulnerable saves and/or some models with an invulnerable saves in a unit and some without.

I thought we weren?t discussing Mixed Armour at present? You?re confusing the issue (and me too I don?t mind confessing! ).

Anyway, if the former assumption is correct, then there is no problem. The No Save rule applies and everything is sweetness and light. If the latter assumption is correct, then it?s a problem but one that won?t be fixed until the next edition or until GW start putting out official FAQs again (either for individual armies that encounter this problem regularly, like the Tau, or for the entire rulebook, which is unlikely). Personally, I doubt very much that the latter is correct as there is a direct reference to Invulnerable Saves in the latter part of the Mixed Armour rules.

Either way, it does not matter. The rule is there and has to be resolved and fixed or adapted to.

Yakface said:
I say this because (as I have been trying to illustrate) neither of those scenarios are properly described within the rules, whether it be from standard casualty removal or from the mixed armor standpoint (see the other thread going on for my argument on that topic).[/I]

Sorry, I just don?t see the problem. ?Standard casualty removal? as you call it is unaffected by the No Save rule. Mixed Armour is unaffected by the No Save rule and by Invulnerable Saves.

I see where the misunderstanding stems from now. Huzzah.

So from here on out we are not going to even discuss mixed armor or the "no save" rule. That is not the issue that (at this point) we are really discussing.

The issue is that you seem to be under the (mistaken) impression that under normal saving circumstances you allocate wounds specific to models before taking a saving throw.

This is not what the basic rules indicate.

The basic rules indicate that you make saving throws for the unit, and then assign the wounds that were not saved to models and remove them as casualties.

There are two problems with this. One is the No Save rule but as you said lets ignore that for right now. The other is that you allocate hits first, then make Saving Throws. If not, how would you know what you were saving against? (Not that this matters when all saves are Invulnerable, of course.)

.

And that, my friend, is the issue! The basic rules make the assumption that every model in the unit has the same saving throw, so they just have you make saves for the unit and then apply the wounds to models to remove casualties.

The ONLY time an issue arises is if the unit has differing invulnerable saves and/or some models with invulnerable saves and some without.

Hopefully this (even if you still disagree with me) should finally start making some sense to you.

Yakface said:

I see where the misunderstanding stems from now. Huzzah.

I'm glad you do, Yakface. I, on the other hand, am even more confused than ever.

 

Yakface said:

So from here on out we are not going to even discuss mixed armor or the "no save" rule. That is not the issue that (at this point) we are really discussing.

It may not be the issue you're discussing but it is what I'm discussing. Maybe that's where the problem stems from.

Hence I cannot just refuse to discuss the No Save rule. That rule is the issue.

 

Yakface said:

The issue is that you seem to be under the (mistaken) impression that under normal saving circumstances you allocate wounds specific to models before taking a saving throw.

Yes, I did say that, didn't I? And yes I was wrong. And you are indeed right in saying wounds are done against the unit using the Majority Toughness rule. I understand that. The wounds are not targeted against any particular model...

...with one exception. Yes, that's right, the No Save rule. The No Save rule takes place before making Saving Throws and thus you logically must assign wounds before then too.

(Actually, sorry, there are more exceptions. Line of Sight being one. But that's neither here nor there right now, I suppose).

Yakface said:

This is not what the basic rules indicate.

The basic rules indicate that you make saving throws for the unit, and then assign the wounds that were not saved to models and remove them as casualties.

Absolutely. Except when the No Save rule is enforced (or LoS, or range, etc.). In that case the models are removed before making any saving throws, as the rules clearly indicate on page 24.

 

Yakface said:

And that, my friend, is the issue! The basic rules make the assumption that every model in the unit has the same saving throw, so they just have you make saves for the unit and then apply the wounds to models to remove casualties.

No, the basic rules do not assume anything of the kind. They assume you all have the same Armour Saving Throw, which is completely different. And, in the example we keep using, the Broadsides and the Shield Drones have the same Armour Save. But it matters not when the No Save rule is applied as the No Save rule refers to Saving Throws in general.

 

Yakface said:

The ONLY time an issue arises is if the unit has differing invulnerable saves and/or some models with invulnerable saves and some without.

No. Again, I stress that the No Save rule makes no distinction between saving throws. The rule is used for all saving throws. A unit with no invulnerable saves is still subject to the rule. The example used on page 24 even states as much.

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!

Ignore the no save rule for now. Ignore it. I don't care about the no save rule. It has absolutely no bearing on what I am discussing at this time. None. I know that you want to discuss the no save rule, but it doesn't actually pertain to what I have been writing about in the previous 2 posts (at least not directly).

I am not arguing that the "no save" rule doesn't exist or doesn't work (at least not now). I am agreeing that it exists and that it works.

I am trying to get you to accept that there is a huge hole in the rules that has nothing to do with the "no save" rule. And that issue is the fact that the basic armor save/casualty removal rules have nothing in place to handle a unit that has the same "armor" save but differing invulnerable saves.

So YET AGAIN:

A unit of 5 models two of which have 3+/5+ and three of which have 3+/4+ saves takes 10 AP1 wounds. What invulnerable save do we use for the unit?

THE RULES DON'T SAY. They don't. The unit is supposed to make saves, and then we are supposed to allocate those wounds to models. However we have a situation where the unit has differing (invulnerable) saves, so we have no way to know what save we should be using by the RAW.


Once (and only once) you can accept and understand this hole in the rules can I (apparently) begin to get you to understand how it relates to the "no save" rule.


The end result of this (if you ever understand me) will not be that I convince you that the no save rule doesn't exist or doesn't work. Just that the fundamental problem with this section of the rules (and thereby shield drones) comes from the "hole" I'm describing.

Ahoj!
Will saying that in a situation like this:

"A unit of 5 models two of which have 3+/5+ and three of which have 3+/4+ saves takes 10 AP1 wounds. What invulnerable save do we use for the unit?"

we roll four 5+ saves and six 4+ saves
will get me killed?
With no saves of any kind - Armor, Invulnerable or Cover - allowed?
Borys

No, it won't get you killed Borys. This is precisely what I've been saying all along. In your example, Yakface, wounds are allocated as you see fit, provided you obey all the rules, one of which is that each model in the unit must take one hit before any can take two (or three or four etc.).

The rules do say that.

But it doesn't matter simply because the question is totally irrelevant. It has no bearing on the subject whatsoever. What we are discussing, I will remind you again, Yakface, is the No Save rule. We are not discussing whether or not their should be a Mixed Invulnerable rule. There isn't one and even if there was it would have no bearing on the matter.

To repeat myself yet again:

1. Do any models in the unit have no save of any kind against the weapon (i.e. the No Save rule)? No, all of them have an Invulnerable Save. It does not matter how high or low the Invulnerable Saves are. That is not questioned in any way, at any time.

2. Are any Armour Saves in the majority (if so hits have to be applied to them first)? No, all the models have an Armour Save which is negated by AP1, so all their Armour Saves are the same (i.e. none). Armour Saves. Armour Saves. Armour Saves. No mention of Invulnerable Saves. I don't know how to make that any clearer. Sorry, Yakface, I really don't.

3. The owning player may distribute these wounds as he sees fit, just as it says in the rules (paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Mixed Armour rules on page 76 and the Remove Casualties section on page 26.).

Again, I stress that we are not discussing whether or not their should be a Mixed Invulnerable rule. For what little it is worth I agree with you that there is no ruling on mixed Invulnerable Saves. (So you follow the standard rules and allocate wounds to whomever you like, etc. etc. as on page 26.) However, whether there is or not has no bearing on the subject of this topic at all.

And again, I think you are creating a problem where there isn't one and ignoring the one that exists.

Sorry to be driving you crazy, Yakface, really I am. But I don't see why you're insisting on taking this topic off-subject and I don't see the problem you insist exists.

You guys are argueing in circles so I will step in and help carify. We have to know how all these rules interact in the procedure of the shooting phase.

The "No Save" rule takes place in the "Make Saving Throws" section.

Please notice that "Remove Casualties" is a step after the "Make Saving Throws" section. So what does that tell us.

My arguement (now that I though about it) is that the purpose of the "no save" rule is a procedural one. We always like to forget the simple fact that all the shooting coming from a unit happens at the same time, that means there will be situations where lower AP weapons are mixed into high AP weapons and we are given the "no save" rule for only one reason. It tells us one and only one thing that models being affected by low AP weapons are affected first before any save can be made. That is the only stipulation of that rule.

Now in the "Remove Casualties" section we are given a definition on Invulnerable Saves. Which, I paraphrase, says that we can take those saves even if we are denied saves.

So here is the procedure. The Broadsides takes fire from a Ultramauleed 6-man Tact Squad. The Lascannon and Plasma Cannon must be resolved first as detail in the "No save" rule, but because we have an Invulnerable Save in the unit, we may use that save and remove the models failing the save. Then we move on to making saves off the normal weaponry.

That is the procedure, it is horribly worded, but that is the only natural conclusion you can get from the RAW.

I also understand Yakfaces comments, I think it all come down to the "you can wound a model more than once" rule. So you would essentially spread the wounds around the models until you come back to the first. Since Mixed armor doesn't apply that is the only rule we have for guidance. Still doesn't address how pourly GW worded the Invulnerable save rules.

Oh. My. God.

You seem incapable of stepping outside of the loop you keep repeating to read what I'm typing.

Again, I stress that we are not discussing whether or not their should be a Mixed Invulnerable rule. For what little it is worth I agree with you that there is no ruling on mixed Invulnerable Saves. (So you follow the standard rules and allocate wounds to whomever you like, etc. etc. as on page 26.) However, whether there is or not has no bearing on the subject of this topic at all.

There is NO SUCH BASIC RULE ON PAGE 26. Page 26 contains rules for how to allocate wounds AFTER saving throws have been failed.

The problem is if the unit has different invulnerable saves, THERE ARE NO RULES TELLING US WHAT SAVES TO USE FOR THE UNIT. THE WOUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOCATED TO ANY MODELS SO WE HAVE NO BASIS TO DETERMINE WHAT INVULNERABLE SAVING THROW TO USE FOR OUR ROLLS.

This in NO WAY REFUTES THE "NO SAVE" RULE. I am not trying to say that you are wrong.

I am not trying to say that you are wrong.

I am not trying to say that you are wrong.

I am simply trying to get you to accept the fact that the basic rules do not give us any guidance on what to do when a unit has multiple invulnerable saves, and no guidance on how to use a lone invulnerable save within a unit under normal armor save/casualty removal procedures, wounds are not allocated to specific models until AFTER saving throws are rolled.


I'm sorry if you don't understand how this topic is related to the original argument. It really doesn't matter. I'm making a simple statement (just like: "The sun is in the sky, correct?") and all I've been looking for is for you to agree or try to refute that statement ("Yes, the sun is in the sky" or "No, the sun is not in the sky because. . .").

So STOP trying to bring what I'm typing back to the no save rule. I am not refering to the no save rule at all.

I am not refering to the no save rule at all.

I am not refering to the no save rule at all. Not. At. All.

It may seem off-topic to you, but in my mind it is related. . .but don't worry about that. Just don't try to bring it back to the no save rule. This has NOTHING to do with the no save rule argument.

Very well, Yakface, I concede. I'm just too tired of this to argue any more.

You insist on dragging this subject off-topic and discussing something else instead of starting a new thread. The problem you insist exists (which I do not believe) has no bearing whatsoever on the subject of this thread, which is the No Save rule, no matter how much you scream and rant that it is not.

Two people have refuted your argument (the sun is not in the sky...) and yet you refuse to listen. And what makes it worse is that we are talking about the core of the earth which has nothing to do with the sun. But you keep dragging it back to the sun. And yet one moment you say you your argument has nothing to do with the No Save rule ("I'm sorry if you don't understand how this topic is related to the original argument. ") and the next you do. ("It may seem off-topic to you, but in my mind it is related.") You seem to have no clear idea of what your argument is.

My last word on the matter. You win. Congratulations.

I was not trying to win. I'm still not.

And you haven't even discussed the "argument" I've brought up in this thread, let alone tried to refute it. You keep trying to go back to some previous argument I made in the last thread (which I gave up on long ago).


I'm sorry you can't understand where I'm going with this, but the point of all this was that if we could start to discuss the matter I was trying to in this thread and come to an agreement on THAT. Then, and only then could we actually discuss the "no save" rule.


But you won't do it. I'm not sure exactly why, but you won't. And that's fine.


And the only reason I started saying that the discussion had absoultely nothing to do with the no save rule is because it only does from a round-about way.

I was trying to discuss point A, because if we could come to agreement on point A, I would then show how point A relates to point B.

You wouldn't discuss point A, so I tried to distance the argument by telling you that point A had absolutely nothing to do with point B.

I wasn't trying to be contradictory, just to get you to answer the question I was posing to you.


But oh well.

Stu-rat, an issue that I haven't seen you covered.

A unit of 5, 3 with 2+/5+, 2 with 2+/4+, is wounded twice with an AP2 weapon.

What invulnerable saves do I take? Can I take 2 4++ saves and remove a 2+/5+ model if I fail one?

In onlainari's example I would say that the hits are assigned to the 2+/5+ models and casualties removed from said models.

On page 25, under "More than one save", it says "Sometimes a unit will contain models with a mix of different armour saves and invulnerable saves. This complex situation is explained on page 76."

The preface of "Mixed armour" only mentions armour saves but page 25 says it covers both.

In the first step, you must "count up the number of models that have each type of armour."
"Type of armour" not type of armour saves.

2+/5+ armour is different than 2+/- armour is different than -/5+ armour is different than 2+/4+ armour.

I don't know Tau but, assuming the Broadsides have the invunerable save, a wounding lascannon hit would be assigned to the Broadsides in a unit of 2 Broadsides and 1 Shield Drone and assigned to the Drones in a unit with 2 Drones and 1 Broadside.

Odd says;<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

?In onlainari's example I would say that the hits are assigned to the 2+/5+ models and casualties removed from said models.?

 

You have hit upon the reason that Yak-face and Stu-rat do not understand one another.

Yak-face says that hits are not assigned to individual models before saves are made. And RAW I think he is spot on. The MIXED ARMOUR section on P. 76 states that unsaved wounding hits must be applied against models with the same armour type that was used for the save.  Even here wounds are not assigned to a specific model, but rather to a group of models with the same armour type.

 

 I have a feeling that you are going to disagree and tell me why my statement doesn?t apply to your example. It, doesn?t really, I?m just thinking out loud here, and trying to understand why stu and yak can?t seem to communicate. So please bear with me.

On page 25, under "More than one save", it says "Sometimes a unit will contain models with a mix of different armour saves and invulnerable saves. This complex situation is explained on page 76.?

?The preface of "Mixed armour" only mentions armour saves but page 25 says it covers both.?

?In the first step, you must "count up the number of models that have each type of armour."
"Type of armour" not type of armour saves.

I believe that any reference to (armour) is referring to an ?armor save?. If the rules are trying to reference another type of save i.e. cover or invulnerable, they will directly reference cover or invulnerable. The general heading for saves of different sorts would be ?Save?.  So if the mixed armour section were referring to saves in general it would say ?Type of save? not ?type of armour?.

 

A similar circumstance can be found in reference to embarked units. The rules will often mention units which are ?aboard? or ?inside? or ?within? a vehicle, I believe that these terms all indicate only that the unit is embarked, and that all relation the unit has to the game is covered under the rules pertaining to ?embarked units?.

2+/5+ armour is different than 2+/- armour is different than -/5+ armour is different than 2+/4+ armour.?

 

So here 2+/5+ is not a classification of ?armour?, rather it indicates the models ?Saves? in general. Including armour and invulnerable. If this is the case then the MIXED ARMOUR rules on P.76 do not instruct us to divide the unit into subgroups based on the SV characteristic. Rather we are instructed to divide the unit into subgroups based only on differing ?armour? stats.   

?I don't know Tau but, assuming the Broadsides have the invunerable save, a wounding lascannon hit would be assigned to the Broadsides in a unit of 2 Broadsides and 1 Shield Drone and assigned to the Drones in a unit with 2 Drones and 1 Broadside.?

 

Yours is not a bad construal of the RAW, especially considering your point about P.25 indicating that the mixed armour section is meant to incorporate both armour saves and invulnerable saves. However, RAW on P.76 do not tell us to divide the unit into subgroups based on saves in general, only based on armour saves. So in order to clear things up we as players need some guidance on how to incorporate invulnerable saves with mixed armour, which is what I think yak-face was saying.

 

You may be correct, but there isn?t enough substance to make a case, and that is why we need some guidance here.

 

<o:p another. one understand not do Stu-rat and Yak-face that reason the upon hit have img]You > 

Yak-face says that hits are not assigned to individual models before saves are made. And RAW I think he is spot on. The MIXED ARMOUR section on P. 76 states that unsaved wounding hits must be applied against models with the same armour type that was used for the save. Even here wounds are not assigned to a specific model, but rather to a group of models with the same armour type.

I agree fully.
Hits are assigned at the same time as armour saves are made, to the majority "type of armour" models, starting with "unsavable" ones.

I believe that any reference to (armour) is referring to an ?armor save?. If the rules are trying to reference another type of save i.e. cover or invulnerable, they will directly reference cover or invulnerable. The general heading for saves of different sorts would be ?Save?. So if the mixed armour section were referring to saves in general it would say ?Type of save? not ?type of armour?.

Here is where we disagree.
On page12, the characteristics are defined. It says "Most creatures have a saving throw based on what kind of armour they are wearing, so their saving throw can be improved if they are equipped with better armour."

Saving throws are "based on" the "kind of armour" the model is wearing (including natural armours).
A model in Terminator Armour doesn't have the same "kind of armour" as a model with Daemon Armour and a Daemon Aura.
It does have the same "type of armour", both affording 2+/5+ protection.

Page 76 can't tell us to divide the unit into subgroups based on saves in general because it would then include cover saves and special saves (such as Bionics or Feel No Pain), and those saves are not considered when determining mixed armour majority.

Thank you so much for being reasonable.

<?  

Here is where we disagree.
On page12, the characteristics are defined. It says "Most creatures have a saving throw based on what kind of armour they are wearing, so their saving throw can be improved if they are equipped with better armour."

Saving throws are "based on" the "kind of armour" the model is wearing (including natural armours).
A model in Terminator Armour doesn't have the same "kind of armour" as a model with Daemon Armour and a Daemon Aura.
It does have the same "type of armour", both affording 2+/5+ protection.

This is a common interpretation of P.12, and one of which I?m not sure of. I think that the Save (Sv) characteristic is referring only to an ?armour save?.

 

Premise 1; as you have already pointed out the wording on P.12 refers to armor.

 

Premise 2; take the space marine codex for example, the save column for a terminator or a chaplain only lists the models ?armour save?, the invulnerable save is mentioned elsewhere.

 

Premise 3; the Sv column in the war gear book lists the armor save in large type, any invulnerable save the model may have is printed in superscript, after the armor save.

 

Argument 1; Tau shield drones have an armour save of 4+ and an invulnerable save of 4+. (this is unrelated to our current debate.)

 

Argument 2; at the time the 4rth edition rules were written the Sv characteristic referred specifically to armour saves.

 

Argument 3; the Sv column in a units summary table has been reformatted to include any invulnerable Sv of the model.

 

So perhaps the direction the rules will take is for MIXED ARMOUR to be broken down into subgroups based not only on armour save but also using invulnerable saves as you suggest. However the RAW in the 4rth edition rule book do not instruct us to create subgroups of differing armour and differing invulnerable saves. Rather the RAW instruct us to find the majority armour, and to create subgroups based solely on armour.

 

  

Page 76 can't tell us to divide the unit into subgroups based on saves in general because it would then include cover saves and special saves (such as Bionics or Feel No Pain), and those saves are not considered when determining mixed armour majority.

 

This is yak-face?s point, the rules do not tell us how to handle situations in which there are different saves in one unit. They only tell us how to handle situations where there are different armour saves in one unit.

 

So your conclusion is both playable and logical, but in tournament games you may be hard pressed to make it stick.

So your conclusion is both playable and logical, but in tournament games you may be hard pressed to make it stick.

I don't care about tournament games. I'm trying to change your mind, bluespruce.

Arguement1; agreed
Arguement2; unproven, in my second printing Chaos Codex(published pre-4th ed) I have save characteristics of 3+, 2+/5+, -/5+, and 5+(representing an invulnerable save only),and the same in my third printing codex(published post-4th ed).
Arguement3; If the coloumn has been reformatted, in the end your terminators have a Sv. of 2+/5+,also see above.^

And don't do that, it's long, boring, and hard to follow. You don't need to "logically prove your position", you need to convince me.

You haven't convinced me that the term "Sv." only applies to normal Armour Saves. "Sv." is based on "kind of armour", not kind of armour save. Armour, in my opinion is wargear, purchased with the base model or as an option, that augments the save characteristic of the model.

Strictly speaking, the RAW only refers to Armour Saves in regards to "special close combat attacks". The first paragraph of Mixed Armour isn't part of RAW. It's a descriptive passage that describes when the rules that follow are used, like the passage on page25, and the examples aren't exclusionary. If mixed invulnerable saves aren't mentioned that doesn't mean they aren't applied.

I'm a little lost, again.

Back to my example, Odd the Quiet you have divvied up the wounds in the same manner as you would if the 3 models had a 5+ armour save and the other 2 models had a 4+ armour save.

You're suggesting that the words "type of armour" in the rules are not only reffering to armour saves, but the combination of armour and invulnerable saves. Are you using page 12 as evidence of your argument?

I must say, the mixed armour rules do clarify what would otherwise be unclarified if you take that interpretation, I think.

Otherwise I see nothing stopping me taking a 4+ inv. save and removing a 5+ inv. model, as long as they have the same armour save.

I think you have it Onlainari.

Odd?s position is that the Sv column represents all saves not just armour saves. And that the MIXED ARMOUR rules tell us to divide the unit into subgroups based on that interpretation of the Sv characteristic. (Or his position is that armour saves include invulnerable saves. It works out the same way regarding mixed armour.)

This interpretation would clean up a bunch of issues.

But, I?m not convinced that the term ?armour save? includes invulnerable saves. The CSM dex is the first place I have found the combined armour/invulnerable stat. But this syntax was not a universal precedent at that time; rather it was a new way of doing things. If it was universal then the space marine dex should include this format.

Odd, do you think it is perfectly clear that ?Armour? includes ?invulnerable?? (not that I agree with that position) Or do you think they could have been more concise, and given us better direction regarding the definitions of SAVE, ARMOUR, and INVULNERABLE?



Odd the quiet: ?And don't do that, it's long, boring, and hard to follow. You don't need to "logically prove your position", you need to convince me.?
Dude that is the funniest thing anyone has ever said to me ? lol Do you mind if I use it as a signature?

I'm not saying the Sv. coloumn represents all saves.
I am saying the Sv. coloumn includes both normal Armour Saves and Invulnerable Armour Saves.
I'm not saying that the term "Amour Save" includes invulnerable saves.
I am saying the term "armour" includes both normal Armour and Invulnerable Armour.

Page12 says Sv. is based on "armour".
Page 25 says the mixed "Armour" rules apply to units with mixed Armour Saves and Invulnerable Saves.
Page 76 has rules for mixed "Armour" not mixed "Armour Saves", until you get into close combat.

Throughout the "Mixed Armour" rules, it specifically avoids the term "Armour Save".The rules themselves are titled "Mixed Armour" not "Mixed Armour Saves"
In points 1. to 5. the term "Armour Save" is not used.
The term "Armour Save" is used in the case of special close combat attacks (as defined by Page46, which is just about everything).
In close combat only, the models do not consider Invulnerable Saves when determining majority type.

If this issue were perfectly clear we wouldn't be discussing it. I think it's somewhat clear.
You can use that as a signature. If you understand the point. I can logically prove the world is hollow and we live on the inside. It doesn't make me right. Observe. It's long. It's boring. It's hard to follow. It logically proves the world is hollow. It doesn't convince me the world is hollow.

If  the Sv. coloumn is written 3 different ways in 3 different sources (SM Codex, CSM Codex, the Wargear book) and 2 different ways in the same source (unit entry and unit summary) how can you define it only refering to armour saves?

Also, why do you think "armour" refers only to "Armour Saves"?