Armor Saves optional?

[trefenwyd]

Question for wolves out there . . . Rulebook clearly states that after suffering a wound, a model "MAY" take an armor save. Has anyone ever played or played against anyone that has chosen not to take their saves? Many reasons why this could be a good strategy (completely disregarding the "what do you mean he's just going to accept death" anti-fluff discussion):

 

Your Lone Wolf really really needs to die on turn 6 of an Anhillation game where his kill point matters

Your lone remaining squad member needs to die so you can blast the heck out of some close combat monster on your turn rather than finish the assault on your turn, be unable to fire, and let him assault on his turn

Dying on a certain turn may be better based on other factors (necron C'Tan circle of S6 hits for example will hit a 2nd unit this turn but that unit is going to move away next turn, etc.)

[Jonny]

Somewhere in the main rule book it says you have to take your best save, be it cover, invulnerable or armour. I can't remember where but I know it's there so you sadly can't sacrifice your guy. I'll hunt for the rule and update but I'm 99.999999... % sure it's there.

 

[added]

 

Page 24 in the rule book

 

the model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.

 

Always using the best available save

 

Always

 

RAW

 

Sad but true

[lothbrok]

something like that came up during a game yesterday. the general thought at my store was that you were required to take an armor save if possible. but im not absoulutely sure about that.

[Grey Mage]

1) Having your Lone Wolf commit suicide is rude, dishonorable, and all around a bad idea.

2) You have no control over wether or not your enemies bullets go through your armor.

[trefenwyd]

Hey - I said we were ignoring the "a Space Wolf would never do this" argument. I've never done this, but a Nid player at our store has convinced everyone that saves are optional, just wondering if anyone else was playing that way. And I agree with Jonny that models always get to use the best save . . . IF . . . they choose to take a save. Don't have the rulebook in front of me, but it is very explicit, probably on pg 23 or 34, that a model MAY take a save (and if so, gets the best of normal/armor/cover/psychic as Jonny mentioned).

[Grey Mage]

In order to remove a casualty a model must fail its save first. Note, weapons whose AP is good enough cause "unsaved wounds" and that a model without a save built in still compares the AP value of the weapon for the purposes of the rules.

 

In short- you dont get to decide if your enemies bullets get through your armor.

 

Pg. 24, bottom right corner, "remove casualties".

[Jonny]

I disagree the rules say "always" not "always if you decide to take a save", not much leeway in the word "always". May take a save refers to there being other save options available, and if two saves are equal you don't have to take that one, you can take the other. So no you don't have to take an armour save, as long as you take a save equal or greater than it.

 

I honestly don't think you can get around "Always using the best available save", it's pretty clear. Unless you can find a rule that says "you don't have to take a save", then an armour save is greater than no save and when faced with multiple options then you proceed by "Always using the best available save"

[trefenwyd]

Thanks all - I completely agree that it makes no sense. Just need to get some ammo to challenge our store with since they've all been corrupted.

[Requiem of the Wolf]

Thanks all - I completely agree that it makes no sense. Just need to get some ammo to challenge our store with since they've all been corrupted.

Purge them with fire and Claw and it will all be allright.

[Decoy]

Thanks all - I completely agree that it makes no sense. Just need to get some ammo to challenge our store with since they've all been corrupted.

Purge them with fire and Claw and it will all be allright.

 

Or beat 'em with a hammer! I likes me some hammer-beatin'... STOP! Thundahamma time.

[Blarmb]

I honestly don't think you can get around "Always using the best available save", it's pretty clear. Unless you can find a rule that says "you don't have to take a save", then an armour save is greater than no save and when faced with multiple options then you proceed by "Always using the best available save"

 

The language on taking saves in general (Top of Page 20)makes the process seem optional as it says you "Can" make a save. If the whole process of taking a save at all is optional, then opting out of taking a save at all would come before the point where you're forced to take one kind of save over another.

 

Honestly though, this is just another example of how poorly structured and clumsily written the rules are. You're not going to get a 100% clear RAW argument out of the issue.

[Requiem of the Wolf]

I honestly don't think you can get around "Always using the best available save", it's pretty clear. Unless you can find a rule that says "you don't have to take a save", then an armour save is greater than no save and when faced with multiple options then you proceed by "Always using the best available save"

 

The language on taking saves in general (Top of Page 20)makes the process seem optional as it says you "Can" make a save. If the whole process of taking a save at all is optional, then opting out of taking a save at all would come before the point where you're forced to take one kind of save over another.

 

Honestly though, this is just another example of how poorly structured and clumsily written the rules are. You're not going to get a 100% clear RAW argument out of the issue.

And Blatant cheesiness like this sort of thing is well deserving of the time honored tradition of a boot-based attitude adjustment,placement optional.

[Blarmb]

I honestly don't think you can get around "Always using the best available save", it's pretty clear. Unless you can find a rule that says "you don't have to take a save", then an armour save is greater than no save and when faced with multiple options then you proceed by "Always using the best available save"

 

The language on taking saves in general (Top of Page 20)makes the process seem optional as it says you "Can" make a save. If the whole process of taking a save at all is optional, then opting out of taking a save at all would come before the point where you're forced to take one kind of save over another.

 

Honestly though, this is just another example of how poorly structured and clumsily written the rules are. You're not going to get a 100% clear RAW argument out of the issue.

And Blatant cheesiness like this sort of thing is well deserving of the time honored tradition of a boot-based attitude adjustment,placement optional.

 

This kind of attitude always seems strange to me. Maybe it's just my history, since I started with Video Games, then MTG and the like, before finally finding 40k.

 

Generally in gaming when somebody finds a little piece of the rules that benefits them at worst it's seen as slightly annoying. Usually it's seen as pretty interesting and a lot of people just think it's cool. If that bit of the engine breaks the game, the creators come in and make changes to fix it. In the meantime people who don't like it either houserule it (in games like MTG) or just agree to avoid using it (in video games). Rarely are people really made out to be like.. villainous for it or anything.

 

It seems there a lot of "GRRR! Somebody is playing within the confines of the rules! GRRR doing so is giving them a position more advantageous than I think was intended! Curse them for not breaking any rules! *Fist Shake*"

 

Okay yeah, the fist shaking "GRRRs" are horribly cheesy hyperbole and I apologize for that. However, I think that players who want to take advantage of silly rules aren't really at fault in any way. The game should be written better. When we acknowledge that the game has problems and that we use house rules things to make it workable instead of pointing fingers (or boots) at players who take advantage of RAW just maybe it'll contribute to us actually getting a better constructed and clearer ruleset. If someone doesn't want to play by the same houserules as you and wants to stick to RAW you consider to be "Cheesy" that's fine... don't play with them. They aren't "wrong" in any sense, they just want things different than you do.

 

 

(For the record If I was to guess at the RAI I think the saves are supposed to be mandatory. Mandatory saves are what would be most cohesive with other, similar rules like close combat attacks. Mandatory saves is how I'd want to play it. However, the actual language in the book makes the matter ambiguous. So that guess at RAI is still just that.. a guess, that could be wrong.)

[Grey Mage]

While I can agree with you on many things, this:

However, I think that players who want to take advantage of silly rules aren't really at fault in any way.

 

is something Ill never agree with you on. Personal responsibility. Just as the game designers are responsible for the quality of the rules, the players are responsible for how they use them. The english lanaguage is convoluted enough that alot of interpretations are possible for most sentences... and then you have the fact that were working over dozens of schools of thoughts and almost as many forms of english...

[Ullr Direfang]

i feel that not rolling for saves that you could make would be un-sportsmen like. but that is my view. if you opponent said you could choose then i don't see why not but i would advise against asking.

[Blarmb]

While I can agree with you on many things, this:

However, I think that players who want to take advantage of silly rules aren't really at fault in any way.

 

is something Ill never agree with you on. Personal responsibility. Just as the game designers are responsible for the quality of the rules, the players are responsible for how they use them. The english lanaguage is convoluted enough that alot of interpretations are possible for most sentences... and then you have the fact that were working over dozens of schools of thoughts and almost as many forms of english...

 

Players are responsible for having fun and that's about it. If for them that means using no rules and deciding who wins by making Bolter sound effects the loudest, that's fine. If for them that means coming with a clear idea of what the "RAI" is and playing with that, that's fine. If for them that means following the RAW to the letter no matter what, that's fine. If for them that means trying to find the best edge they can in the rules, that's fine. If it's anything that is in between those playstyles or totally unrelated, that's fine. If for them that means not playing with people who have a particular play style, that's fine too.

 

As for the rules, English may not be the easiest language world in the universe but they could certainly do much better than they are. They don't even clearly define half the terms they use.

[Black2Jack1]

I have to agree with those that say you must roll. Seeming if the game was a tie and your lone wolf can choose to basically commit suicide that would almost break some of the game, you could suicide 2 lone wolves and before the game starts already know you have 2 killpoints.

 

Iv just started playing but I feel that as Grey Mage mentioned, we dont know if the armor pierces theits target, unless we roll for it.

[Coverfire]

What about the Feel No Pain roll then?

 

can you choose not to roll it?

 

I feel that if a Lone Wolf should survive a battle, and defeat the largest threat on the field and gain

praise for his deeds, he may even find some reason for being.

 

Sure, it would help his commander out, if he were to just lay down and die; but it might be that is why

he is such a powerful warrior - He has struggled to find an opponent worthy enough to destroy him over

many battles or campaigns, and to perish to a lesser being would be dishonourable.

 

In short, a Lone Wolf would never give up and only be killed by an opponent strong enough (and the

stronger the better) - but if you're in a Tournament and you're in desperate need of this win... Can you

choose to forgo the Feel No Pain roll?

[MaleOpener]

I find this thread/question interesting, as I never ran into any player which does this.

 

Personally, if you choose not to take your saves, you should just forfit the game ... as armor saves are the only thing to protect you from my SW force ;)

 

Seriously though, one kill point? That wouldn't matter if the rest of your force is about "gone" anyway. If you want to follow such a ruling, then its fine by me. Just had over my "win" on a silver platter, would you?

 

:)