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.

Is it written anywhere (please state where) that Draigos invul save can be lowered to a 2+.

RB wrote:
Is it written anywhere (please state where) that Draigos invul save can be lowered to a 2+.

The Sanctuary psychic power used to be able to do this by giving a +1 to invulnerable saving throws (not actually give him a 2++, but give him a 3++ on D6+1), but it was given errata to no longer be able to. It now instead improves the save to a maximum of 3+. Since Draigo already has a 3+ invulnerable save, the power doesn't have any effect.

Nothing can be lowered to 2++ in GK's but there's strategem(I think it was strategem) that gives you +1 to your save rolls so if you have 3++ and that +1 to your saves that's effectively 2++. You roll 2, it becomes 3, 3++ means it's passed.

tneva82 wrote:
Nothing can be lowered to 2++ in GK's but there's strategem(I think it was strategem) that gives you +1 to your save rolls so if you have 3++ and that +1 to your saves that's effectively 2++. You roll 2, it becomes 3, 3++ means it's passed.

As I said, it was changed in the errata. It was a psychic power, not a stratagem. My bad, the stratagem does exist, see below.

I tried FAQs couldn't find it.

RB wrote:
I tried FAQs couldn't find it.

Ghaz keeps a sticky updated at the top of the forum: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/736188.page

Main Page: https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/?orderby=title&order=asc#items-warhammer-40000

Grey Knights FAQ: https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_grey_knights_en-1-1.pdf

Page 101 – Sanctic Discipline, Sanctuary
Change the rules text to read:
‘Sanctuary has a warp charge value of 6. If manifested, pick a friendly Grey Knights unit within 12" of the psyker. Until the start of your next Psychic phase, the invulnerable save of that unit is improved by 1 (to a maximum of 3+). Models that do not have an invulnerable save instead gain a 5+ invulnerable save.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Nothing can be lowered to 2++ in GK's but there's strategem(I think it was strategem) that gives you +1 to your save rolls so if you have 3++ and that +1 to your saves that's effectively 2++. You roll 2, it becomes 3, 3++ means it's passed.

As I said, it was changed in the errata. It was a psychic power, not a stratagem.

Not quite, BCB. While you're right with regards to Sanctuary, Heed the Prognosticators is a strat that gives +1 to Invulnerable saves and wasn't errat'd. You can still do that for a 2++.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RB wrote:
Is it written anywhere (please state where) that Draigos invul save can be lowered to a 2+.

This is the wrong way to phrase this. You don't need a rule saying something can be lowered to 2++ because no general rule says things can't be. You have to check each ability for restrictions.

Fair enough. I'm not overly familiar with Grey Knights so I apologize for the confusion.

So, while Draigo can't get a 2+ invulnerable save, he can get a 3+ invulnerable save on D6+1. More generally, nothing in the core rules prevents a save being improved to 2+.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Fair enough. I'm not overly familiar with Grey Knights so I apologize for the confusion.

So, while Draigo can't get a 2+ invulnerable save, he can get a 3+ invulnerable save on D6+1. More generally, nothing in the core rules prevents a save being improved to 2+.

This is true, it has been suggested by multiple sources that GW don't want 2++ saves but I have scoured every faq and commentary and I have seen nothing to support this idea.

Additionally, you can play heed the prognosticars and Sanctuary on the same target. EG a GMNDK has a 4++. Play the strat to give him +1 to that when rolling and then in the psychic phase he can sanctuary himself. So its a 3++ with +1 modifier. The only sad thing for me is you can't play the strat if the model is in deepstrike because it has to be played at the beginning of the turn

Yet numerous faction can still do it guard crusaders with the +1sv psychic power for example. The faq lowered the prevalence of these options but left plenty intact either through intention or incompetance.

I thought that only worked on armour saves, post faq?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I thought that only worked on armour saves, post faq?

No, they just changed some options to only work on "armour saves", which is funny because that prevents them from doing anything at all (see my sig).

If something just says "saves", it applies to all saves, invulnerable included. You're thinking of the Cover bonus which explicitly forbids Invulnerable saves from benefiting.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I thought that only worked on armour saves, post faq?

No they changed the strat to only work on armour saves they didn't touch the psychic power.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I thought that only worked on armour saves, post faq?

No, they just changed some options to only work on "armour saves", which is funny because that prevents them from doing anything at all (see my sig).

It doesn't, unless you ignore the context...

"Saving Throw: The player commanding the target unit then makes a saving throw by rolling a dice and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration characteristic..." - Battle Primer Page 7

Armour Penetration characteristic is modifying what exactly? Ohh the save? it must be an armor save...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I thought that only worked on armour saves, post faq?

No, they just changed some options to only work on "armour saves", which is funny because that prevents them from doing anything at all (see my sig).

It doesn't, unless you ignore the context...

"Saving Throw: The player commanding the target unit then makes a saving throw by rolling a dice and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration characteristic..." - Battle Primer Page 7

Armour Penetration characteristic is modifying what exactly? Ohh the save? it must be an armor save...

Save is not the same as armour save. Just because it's called Armour Penetration doesn't change what the characteristic on the datasheet is called.

By your logic an Intercessor Sergeant is the same as an Intercessor, which we know explicitly to not be the case.

It's a case of we clearly know exactly what they mean despite bad wording but some people are determined to be obtuse on the matter.

U02dah4 wrote:
It's a case of we clearly know exactly what they mean despite bad wording but some people are determined to be obtuse on the matter.

It's not bad wording at all. Clearly GW intended for these things to no longer do anything. After all, they "intended" re-rolls before modifiers despite that being silly, so who knows what is or isn't "intended" anymore.

My point is you can't have it both ways, you either ignore all "bad wording" or you accept all "bad wording", there is no in-between. Even GW agree with me.

No you apply a little common sense. Some bad wording is genuinely unclear and you go with raw and with some like the term armour save it is perfectly clear what is meant to any reasonable person.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I thought that only worked on armour saves, post faq?

No, they just changed some options to only work on "armour saves", which is funny because that prevents them from doing anything at all (see my sig).

It doesn't, unless you ignore the context...

"Saving Throw: The player commanding the target unit then makes a saving throw by rolling a dice and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration characteristic..." - Battle Primer Page 7

Armour Penetration characteristic is modifying what exactly? Ohh the save? it must be an armor save...

Save is not the same as armour save.

It is, you do not think it is, but that is because you are ignoring the context of the rule.

Just because it's called Armour Penetration doesn't change what the characteristic on the datasheet is called.

What does the datasheet have to do with the battle Primer Page 7 rules I posted???

By your logic an Intercessor Sergeant is the same as an Intercessor, which we know explicitly to not be the case.

False equivalency is false.

Edit: Page 13 Battle Primer: "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives."

Checkmate. Sv = armour as per the rules. Save is = to Armor Save.

That last point doesn't matter because a description is not a name. You're incorrect but I'll drop the issue since your obviously not willing to listen to opposing arguments. You're always bringing up "context" when context does not matter.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
That last point doesn't matter because a description is not a name. You're incorrect but I'll drop the issue since your obviously not willing to listen to opposing arguments. You're always bringing up "context" when context does not matter.

And you still say I am incorrect when I have proof that sv = armor...

Wow seriously?

P.S. Context always matters when you are talking about the rules.

Rules applied out of context are not the correct way to apply rules.

You have no such proof. I already explained why it isn't proof.

Oh good lord, they goofed and wrote ‘armour save’ big whoop. If you’re not being wilfully obtuse you can reconcile that with the rules. It’s not worth arguing about online.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh good lord, they goofed and wrote ‘armour save’ big whoop. If you’re not being wilfully obtuse you can reconcile that with the rules. It’s not worth arguing about online.

How do we know they "goofed"? For all we know it's entirely intended to no longer do anything. Argument from Absurdity doesn't work anymore because there is plenty that is absurd and intended in 8th (re-roll before modifiers, plasma exploding at night, etc.)

Decades of gaming precedent. Of course they didn’t intend to write a meaningless rule. That’s an absurd thing to claim. Stop trying to be clever...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Decades of gaming precedent. Of course they didn’t intend to write a meaningless rule. That’s an absurd thing to claim. Stop trying to be clever...

Rules with no effect have always been a thing. MTG famously had the "Substance" keyword.

Normally I would agree with you JohnnyHell but GWs behaviour so far in 8th means we simply cannot be sure without an FAQ or Errata.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You have no such proof. I already explained why it isn't proof.

It is proof, that you are ignoring...

Page 13 Battle Primer: "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives."

Save = a save a model’s armour gives, which is synonymous with armour save.

All right there on page 13.

BaconCatBug wrote:That last point doesn't matter because a description is not a name.

This is 100% false. The description of the characteristic denotes what the characteristic is used for. It does not matter that it is not a name. They reference Armour save in an FAQ. we look on page 13 and see that Save = Armour Save.

Seriously you have no legs to stand on, stop being contrary after your argument was proven incorrect.

It is like you are arguing from a "What I wish the rules said" perspective, not a "What the rules, as written in the rulebook, actually say" perspective.

 DeathReaper wrote:
This is 100% false. The description of the characteristic denotes what the characteristic is used for. It does not matter that it is not a name. They reference Armour save in an FAQ. we look on page 13 and see that Save = Armour Save.

By that logic an Intercessor Sergeant is the same as an Intercessor, which demonstrably false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Seriously you have no legs to stand on, stop being contrary after your argument was proven incorrect.

When my argument is "proven incorrect", I will do so. So far, you've done nothing of the sort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Save = a save a model’s armour gives, which is synonymous with armour save.

This is where you are incorrect. You're making an assertion that is not backed up by the rules. You might as well say "Ballistic Skill is synonymous with Shooty-Tooty-Point-and-Shooty."

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You have no such proof. I already explained why it isn't proof.

It is proof, that you are ignoring...

Page 13 Battle Primer: "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives."

Save = a save a model’s armour gives, which is synonymous with armour save.

All right there on page 13.

Technically it's never defined that save = armour save, but it's pretty evident what they meant by saying armour save, especially since they only talk about saves (with mentions of armour penetration) and invulnerable saves, It wouldn't be a problem for most people.


Wasn't the topic of this thread supposed to be about invulnerable saves, anyway? Invulnerable save isn't just a save or an armour save.

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


Page 13 Battle Primer: "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives."

Save = a save a model’s armour gives, which is synonymous with armour save.

All right there on page 13.

Technically it's never defined that save = armour save

It is though. right there on Page 13. it equates save with armour. People that ignore the context of the rule will disagree, but their arguments are not correct as I have shown proof of Save = Armour.

, but it's pretty evident what they meant by saying armour save, especially since they only talk about saves (with mentions of armour penetration) and invulnerable saves, It wouldn't be a problem for most people.

Wasn't the topic of this thread supposed to be about invulnerable saves, anyway? Invulnerable save isn't just a save or an armour save.

Form the rules there are Invulnerable saves and Armor Saves, currently I don't know of any other saves that exist.