LotD save

[Decoy]

I vote for 3+/3+. And if you play vs me, I'll give you that. No questions. I'll have to see if that is how it gets posted on lists in Army Builder. Since I do not have the models, I dnot's use them. But is stacked vs Vanguard with stormshields, or terminators with stormshields, they may be a good deal. They are one of the hidden cheese units in the CSM book, and highly overlooked. Should be considered for any deep strike or pod list. As to how the DHs special weapons will deal with them, the models have armor, carry weapons, and shoot bullets or other things from the 'non ghostly plane' so unless told otherwise by GW, 3+/3+ is the assumption from here.

 

But why? Do you have rules that we have yet to address that give them the 3+ Armor?

[Grey Mage]

The problem with your argument Ming is apparent in one word. "Assumption".

[Chapter Master Ignis Domus]

That same argument could be used to say predators only have AV 11 fronts.

 

It doesnt work like that.

 

No, no, I still agree that they definitely only have the invulnerable. What I am saying is that fluffwise, with no reference whatsoever to rules, they should have power armor. Just as according to fluff, Predators have reinforced armor in the front.

[Grey Mage]

That same argument could be used to say predators only have AV 11 fronts.

 

It doesnt work like that.

 

No, no, I still agree that they definitely only have the invulnerable. What I am saying is that fluffwise, with no reference whatsoever to rules, they should have power armor. Just as according to fluff, Predators have reinforced armor in the front.

Ah, I see what your saying.

 

Yeah, I could see them being warp-infused neo-corpses, and having PA. Maybe in the next codex.

[Gentlemanloser]

I too side with them also having an Armour save.

 

From the main book, any amount in the sv caracteristic is an armour save.

 

For example, there are units with a sv of - and an Invulnerable Save (which would be the correct way to notate a unit with an Invulnerable save and no armour save), and I also feel the Necron FAQ weighs in here;

 

Q:Does a Wraith have both an armour save and an Invulnerable Save?

A: Yes a Wraith has a 3+ Armour Save and a 3+ Invulnerable Save

 

When Wraiths have a 3+ in thier sv characteristic, with a rule that says 'they have a 3+ Invulnerable Save.'

 

Not the same wording as LotD, but the rule doesn't state "In additon to thier armour save".

 

If LotD were to only have a Invulnerable Save, and no Armour Save, the correct unit description would have been to have them as a sv -, with thier special rule telling you they had a 3+ Invulnerable save.

[Grey Mage]

Not the same wording as LotD, but the rule doesn't state "In additon to thier armour save".

 

Theres your problem right there. The wording isnt the same, because the rules arent the same.

 

Their saving throw is invulnerable. Thats what the words say. Not that they have a 3+ invulnerable save, not that they have an invulnerable save equal to their armor save, but that the save they have is invulnerable.

[Gentlemanloser]

And thier entry is still written incorrectly if they don't have an Armour Save. ^_^

 

They should be sv - like every other unit in the game, who has an Invulnerable save, but no armour save.

 

That, plus the necron FAQ I feel lends more weight to them having both, than the ambiguious wording of thier rule.

 

Edit;

 

To pass your arguement back;

 

Their saving throw is invulnerable. Thats what the words say.

 

As mentioned earlier in this thread, it also doens't say they lose thier armour save...

[thade]

And thier entry is still written incorrectly if they don't have an Armour Save. ^_^

 

They should be sv - like every toher unit int he game, who has an Invulnerable save, but no armour save.

 

That, plus the necron FAQ I feel lends more weight to them having both, than the ambiguious wording of thier rule.

 

Several problems with your assertions here.

- The writing is pretty clear: their save (they only have one) counts as Invulnerable. As others have said in this thread, all other units that have invuln saves and armor saves have clear references to having more than one save, e.g. "This piece of wargear confers a 4++ invulnerable save" instead of "their armor save counts as invulnerable".

- An assumption that the entry is written incorrectly; we have to assume were there a typo or mistake it'd already have been FAQed, given the age of the codex in question.

- "They sound (have an armor save)"...this is an opinion. One I won't dispute, but it really has no bearing here.

- Lots of issues with using another codecies FAQ to address issues with this codex...not the least of which being that you don't explain how the Necron FAQ might apply. (I've seen several of the big guns on this board come down on using FAQs from different codecies; I'll let them speak for themselves should they choose to).

[Sabadin]

To pass your arguement back;

 

Their saving throw is invulnerable. Thats what the words say.

 

As mentioned earlier in this thread, it also doens't say they lose thier armour save...

 

Going by that logic, they have an invulnerable save of "nothing" as it never defines a value for it. And by RAW, the very nature of being an "invulnerable save" means it is not an "armour save" as the two are mutually exclusive within the rules. It has to be one or the other, not both.

[Phosis]

lol this has gone from interesting to completely entertaining for me.

 

Unrelated because it's a different book.. arco-flagellants have the "Invulnerable" ("Saving throw IS Invulnerable") rule, but they have a 4+ in their save catagory. Hm, sounds like "Unyielding Spectres to me". Time for me to start a new thread so I can defend their 4+/4++.

 

All this "It doesn't say I can't do it" talk. Listen to yourselves. It's your job to prove to your opponent that you can do something, not to argue that you can't find something restricting you from doing what you want.

 

3+ invul because the rules say that's what your option (if any) turns into.

 

On a SUPER unrelated note: I just bacon-weaved a bacon plate.

[Grey Mage]

Their saving throw is invulnerable. Thats what the words say.

 

As mentioned earlier in this thread, it also doens't say they lose thier armour save...

No, it says its an invulnerable save. So its not an armor save, its an invulnerable save. Because its rules say so and Codex>BRB.

[Ktan]

The wording states that the Wraith has a 3+ Inv Save because of a special rule. The wording there is ambiguous, so needed clarifying in an FAQ. The wording in the Necron Codex is very different to the LotD one that says the saving throw is invulnerable.

 

Necron Wraiths

"Phase Shift: Because they can phase in and out as they move, Wraiths have a 3+ Invulnerable save."

And they have 3+ listed in their profile.

 

Legion of the Damned

"Unyielding Spectres: ... [fluff]. Their saving throw is Invulnerable"

 

Just throwing this in there because I had the Necron Codex to hand and thought that would be pertinent.

 

One states the model has an Invulnerable save. The other states that the model's save IS Invulnerable. The rule Phase Shift is ambiguous, but it does not seem to rule out an armour save directly: thus the FAQ.

[Acebaur]

The wording states that the Wraith has a 3+ Inv Save because of a special rule. The wording there is ambiguous, so needed clarifying in an FAQ. The wording in the Necron Codex is very different to the LotD one that says the saving throw is invulnerable.

 

Necron Wraiths

"Phase Shift: Because they can phase in and out as they move, Wraiths have a 3+ Invulnerable save."

And they have 3+ listed in their profile.

 

Legion of the Damned

"Unyielding Spectres: ... [fluff]. Their saving throw is Invulnerable"

 

Just throwing this in there because I had the Necron Codex to hand and thought that would be pertinent.

 

One states the model has an Invulnerable save. The other states that the model's save IS Invulnerable. The rule Phase Shift is ambiguous, but it does not seem to rule out an armour save directly: thus the FAQ.

 

 

Excellent comparison Ktan. This is exactly why they do not have an armor save. Also I think it bears mentioning again that every other Astartes in the codex has some type of armor listed in their profile, be it Power Armor, TDA, etc. Using the Servitors as an example isn't relavant as they do not have a special rule that changes their save. The LotD are listed as having a 3+ save in their profile. The Unyeilding Spectres special rule says that save is an invulnerable. Since they do not have Power Armor listed in their Wargear they do not get an addition 3+ armor save, only the Invulnerable one.

[pingo]

Acebaur seems to be thinking as I do.

 

The LotD have a Sv characteristic.

 

The rule 'Unyeilding Spectres' says their Sv characteristic is invulnrable.

 

A single Sv characteristic cannot simultaneously be both armour and invulnrable (they are two different types of saving throw, as defined in the BRB).

 

The BRB does define the Sv characteristic as being an armour save, but the Codex here is redefining it for this particular unit.

 

The BRB also states that a Codex trumps the main rulebook.

 

With the Sv characteristic repurposed, there is nothing in the LotD's rules or profile that can give them an armour save.

 

Therefore, I see no reason why they should have an armour save.

[Isiah]

Absolutely right pingo. I can't believe this topic is still ongoing :D . The RAW is here s pretty clear I think.

 

Cheers

I

[thade]

Absolutely right pingo. I can't believe this topic is still ongoing ;) . The RAW is here s pretty clear I think.

 

Srsly.