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.

So a Templar squad has 5 initiates and 4 Neophytes and suffers two lascannon wounds.

To whom are the 2 wounds allocated?

A)  Initiates as they are the most numerous armor type (Pg 76, mixed armor saves).

B)  Anyone as all models have the same save versus lascannons.

 

Page 25. More than One Save, bottom right, last paragraph. Sometimes a unit will contain models with a mix of different armour saves and invulnarable saves. The complex situation is explained on page 76.


Page 76.

It is possible for some units to have models with different Armour saves, and in these cases, the normal casualty removal and Armour Save rules are modified slightly. (read it yourself, I'm not typing in ).

Page 18: Saving throws derive from armour worn or any special invulnerable saveing throws, or by being in cover.

Agree.

The armor type worn by the models determines whether or not you follow the mixed armor rules, not whether or not the models actually get to make a saving throw or not.

In other words, the Initiates take the Lascannon wounds.

'Page 76.

It is possible for some units to have models with different Armour saves, and in these cases, the normal casualty removal and Armour Save rules are modified slightly. (read it yourself, I'm not typing in ).'

Ah... so that's the clause GW was using to justify their FAQs.

On topic:

Initiates, for the reasons outlined above. 'Sv' is definitely one of these characteristics that causes arguments. Gamers have no problem with the concept of using base S or T for various rules; why the problem with base Sv?

Fellas,
I need a hand then. I'm not the best at formulating a coherent arguement, so I came to the masters. (I bow down before yakface, ed, and bill and abase myself). Okay, now that the groveling is done with....

Could someone give me an arguement that addresses the whole "in order for the Mixed armor rule to take affect, you must be allowed an armor save. No armor save, no mixed armor rule. Take your invulnerable and pull from where you like. " arguement? I know how I read it, but the opposing viewpoint is being obstinant.

Thanks.

Here are the arguments as I have experienced them:

Argument for removing models that get no save before calculating any ratios goes like this:
The second paragraph from the bottom of page 24 BGB tells us to remove the models that don't get a save first, then roll all other saving throws together. So, they must mean to remove the dudes that get no save before figuring out mixed armour and rolling all of them together. Of course, this does not address the issue of models that are wounded bt not killed.

Argument for calculating the ratios before removing any models or assigning any wounds goes like this:
The same paragraph mentioned above ends by telling us that if the unit contains models with different types of armor we should refer to those rules. Since the mixed armor rules make so distinction on having a save or not having a save we simply use the majority.

The way I read it is that you first remove models that don't get saves, then you proceed to the mixed armour rules. It makes the most sense and it is the easiest way to play. So, in effect you would only end up using the mixed armour rules with models that don't get saves if those models were already wounded before this point. Again, this is based on the understanding that when they say "remove all models that do not get a saving throw" they mean "assign a wound to all models that do not get a saving throw."

Depending on how the first arguments are decided upon the whole "invulnerable save" issue can then be argued.

This is the kind of writing that makes answering a simple question such an arduous task in 40K.

I have to agree with Yakface. If you think of the rules as a poorly written flow chart, you get the answer.

P.24 Only discusses the effect of AP on the save.
P.25 Talks about models with more than one type of save and specifically says to go to P.76 for mixed armor.
P.76 Says how to allocate wounds to units with different armor saves. It doesn't say anything about if you can make the save or not, only who gets the wound. In your example, you would roll to hit and wound, if they wound, the target squad takes two wounds, and by the wording on P.76 you apply the wounds to the models with majority armor.

This would all be much simpler if they just did away with the moronic "mixed armor rule". It serves no purpose other than to dumb-down the game.

Papa Nurgle:

I'm not sure how to counter that "argument" because it isn't an argument. There isn't anything (I can find) in the rules to support that stance.

The unit clearly has differing armor saves, so the mixed armor rules are used. The mixed armor rules explain how to allocate wounds amongst a unit before actually making a saving throw.

That's what the mixed armor rules do, they force you to allocate the wounds to the models in the majority. Whether or not those models actually get to make a saving throw or not is immaterial.

Here's the argument the other way. I'm having a great deal of trouble getting through to him. Is this just obstinancy, or someone taking a stand when they're right?*
*****

Many of you convieniently discard the rules for AP weapons and Armor Saves but then even on p.76 it states Quote:
It's sometimes possible for some units to have models with different Armour Saves, and in these cases the normal casualty removal and Armor Save rules are modified slightly. The attacking player rolls hits and wounds for whichever unit he is attacking with as normal. However, when the player makes his Armour Saves, he must follow this procedure.


How does this come before making a saving throw? THis is the very first part of the rule you are trying to enforce. This is the beginning of the process. Hence it is the very first paragraph in the rules for mixed armor.

This is also left on the wayside... it is how you determine when to use the majority armor rules. It is not referring to how many models have what kinds of armor... it is referring to models that get to make a save, and when they do make thier save this rule determines where you must allocate the hits. NO SAVE, NO MAJORITY ARMOR RULE!

Papa, you talk as if this rule exists in a vacuume. It does not, there are other factors to take into consideration. Even you have downplayed the role of the basic rules which the majority armor rule is based upon. (Such as resolving weapon AP values, Armor Saves and Invulnerable saves, hell even on p.76 it states this rule takes effect when the player makes his Armour Saves.
Now the real problem seems to be the examples given on p.76. At least 1 does not match the rules throughout the rulebook. Just as the Black Templar army example given for 4th edition had Whirlwinds in the background. As well as according to the rulebook infantry cannot be affected by ordinance weapons and AP1 weapons are ALWAYS upgraded to penetrating hits.

And no one seems prepared to take on the topic of sniping the heavy/special weapons either.

Every person who disagrees with this idea hinges the entire argument on 1 line of text, while the other side of the argument is based upon page after page of rules as well as the entire rule about mixed armor.

**********
So any help is appreciated. I have a feeling that this is one of those emotional arguments that isn't really backed up in the rules unless you ignore a few things.

p.s. i just copy and paste so dont chew my behind out



Here it is... the whole ball of wax...

p.76 under the Mixed Armor rules... 1st paragraph...


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's sometimes possible for some units to have models with different Armour Saves, and in these cases the normal casualty removal and Armor Save rules are modified slightly. The attacking player rolls hits and wounds for whichever unit he is attacking with as normal. However, when the player makes his Armour Saves, he must follow this procedure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now to further this point... Tim was stating that weapons that have a better AP do not eliminate an armor save, they just automatically fail it so you can take an invulnerable.

That is completely wrong.

Here is the rule for that...

Armor Piercing Weapons p.24


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the weapon's Armour Piercing value is equal to or lower than the model's Armor Save then it is sufficiently powerful to punch straight through the armor and the target gets no save at all. The armor is ineffective against the shot.

Re: Templar Mixed Armour Saves
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought you always had the choice to take an invulnerable save or a regular save. Key point, your choice. So if this is the case with your models all having a 6+ invul, you would get to chose the scouts at any time, right?

Are we talking about true mixed armor like the neophytes example in the book, or are we talking about ixed armor because of invulnerable saves like the Tau shield drone dilema? The only reason I ask is because even though the rulebook tells us that invulnerable saves are dealt with in the mixed armor section it doesn't appear that they are. To me, that throws a whole seperate set of issues into the mix.

Anyways, let me see if I can break aussie's argument down.

it looks like you're hinging your entire argument on the fact that when the book says "Armour Save" on page 24 it is talking about the statline on the model. Like Space Marine Save = 3+

But when they say "Armour Saves" on page 26 they are talking about the model's ability to roll for a save. Like Space Marine wounded by a Lascannon shot Sv(3+) vs AP(2) = No Save.

Hopefully, I've got it right, but if I've misunderstood your argument please correct me.

Wait a minute.


The very last example in the mixed armor section shoots down Havoc's and Aussie's interpretation.

In this paragraph, GW describes allocating wounds in a close combat with power weapons (which allow no save like a lascannon) and regular attacks that allow saves.

In this example, the Templar player is forced to allocate to the Initiates first since they are the majority armor save and after allocating the non-power weapon attacks, must allocate the power weapon attacks on the initiates also. The owning player is not allowed the option of assigning the power weapon attacks (which allow no save) to anyone.

Read mixed armor rules. Page 76, last example.

ok fred here goes,

now there is a vow the templars get, cost 10 points and gives your entirer army a 6 up invulnerable.

Now you used the example in close combat as the hing of your arguement. On page 76.

Now we all will agree that power weapons are speacial attacks which only invulnerable saves can be taken.

Now if you go one paragrath up from the example you are throwing out it states

If speacial close combat attacks come into play against a unit with different Armour Saves, it is up to the owning player to decide which models make saves against the special attacks, subject to the rules detailed above. If any model has an Invulnerable Save ( which every model does) they are, of course, at liberty to use it against a special attack.



Now that you brought forward the close combat. We can argue the second way too.

Since you highlighted that lascannon's are like power weapons, Fred

Aussie,
I think you just agreed with Fred. Which side of this discussion are you on?

So, against lascannons (special attack), it is up the owning player to decide which models make saves (still agree), subject to the rules detailed above (which happen to be the mixed armor rules, so 3+ before 4+ if they outnumber). If any model has an Invulnerable Save (which every model does) they are, of course, at liberty to use it against a special attack.

Okay. I'm fine with that. I agree. It's what I've been trying to say. I never claimed that the owning player couldn't decide which models would make saves against special attacks as long as he followed the rules in the mixed armor section.

Papa Nurgle is spot on. You cannot ignore the line about "rules detailed above".

The mixed armor rules dictate what type of armor save the wound must be allocated to, but then the invulnerable save (if applicable) may be taken against the wound if the model has one.

OMG i cant believe that no one in this thread used the correct wording of p76 RAW.


it spells out the procedure clearly.

now why it works this way.

p26 under casualty removal right side paragraph starting Under normal circumstances.....

"The owning player can choose which wounding hit he saves against and, if the model has more than one type of save, may select which he uses. other saves are then taken as normal."

now refer to the example immediately below that. the shots are allocated to models in the squad, THEN wether they get a save of any type is evaluated.

now let us address p76 as refenced under p24.


Our example we have a squad of 10 black templars 6 are Initiates and 4 are neophytes. they have been shot with one las cannon, which has hit and wounded the majority of the toughness ( T4) and all 10 in the squad are in range and line of sight.

we have proceded to the armor save page which has refered us to p76 for mixed armor types.

opening paragraph describes the set up. now let us follow the procedure.

"1. Count up the number of model that have each type of armor. Only count models that could potentially be casualties."

so in our example, there are 6 3+ saves and 4 4+ saves.

NOTE that there is absolutely nothing here about the weapon that has hit or wounded in any way shape or form. also notice that it says nothing about wether they might get a save or not or even what kind of save it is very specific on "type of armor"

"2. Determine which armor type is in the majority - if it is a tie then the worst type is asumed to be in the majority ( it can be assumed that they are picked on by the enemy)."

so in our example, the 6 3+ saves are in the majority.

AGAIN NOTE that there is absolutlely nothing here about the weapon that has hit or wounded in any way shape or form.

"3. Apply the wounding hits to the majority armour type first."

so the las cannon shot has to go against the 3+ armor save by the procedure.

now who the shot his has been determined the model makes it save ( or lack of save at this point)



now let up reset our example.

same BT squad is hit by 6 wounding bolter shots and 1 las cannon wound.
following the above procedure as spelled out in the BBB.

i allocate 6 bolters to the Initiates first, and the hapless Neophyte gets left with the las cannon. now make saves.


ok lets try it again same BT squad takes one las cannon shot except 3 Initiates are not in LOS of the las cannon. the majority armor save here is 4+ since there are 4 neophytes in range and LoS and only 3 initiates, poor neophyte takes the las cannon.

there is no question about it and i can not under stand why people can not follow the RAW on p76.