Do you have to take Armour saves?

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

The Rulebook does tell you that you don't have to take saves by saying that you "can" take saves. The word 'can' is key. If you had to take them then the Rulebook would have to say "must test" instead of "can test". Edited March 13, 2012 by Res Ipsa Loquitur

[dswanick]

Yes I am but I'm not doing it to make it seem as if the meaning I've arbitrarily decided to attribute to it despite it making no sense in the context of the sentence is the correct one.

So, no. You do not have to take armour saves, nor any kind of save if you choose not to.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, this is pot. :tu:

I'd be willing to place a wager on the fact that if you were allowed to "skip" taking saves, the rulebook would tell you that.

 

This whole "can" versus "may" thing isn't productive in the least. As I said before, the wording is ambiguous enugh that the best policy is not to be a dingbat and roll your saves. ;)

Here you have it. Unless you claim that your hero has velcro armor which can be removed in 3/1000ths of a second - just stop being WAAC.

 

The Rulebook does tell you that you don't have to take saves by saying that you "can" take saves. The word 'can' is key. If you had to take them then the Rulebook would have to say "must test" instead of "can test".

Really? And how would you test, if it said 'must test', if you have no saves of any kind? This wowding would be just as open to mis-use and abuse as you claim 'can test' is.

Edited March 13, 2012 by dswanick

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, this is pot. :tu:

 

You misunderstand me. I mean to say that you are twisting the meaning of 'can' by taking it out of context, thus arbitrarily deciding that it says what you want it to say. What I wrote is in fact correct because it uses the word 'can' in the context of the sentence. There's nothing arbitrary about that.

 

Really? And how would you test, if it said 'must test', if you have no saves of any kind? This wowding would be just as open to mis-use and abuse as you claim 'can test' is.

 

Yes, that's an insurmountable problem that in no way can be solved by specifying that you "must test" if a saving throw is available.

[Jacinda]

Can jump out of a plane. A choice.

 

You're using it situationally to make it say what you want it to say.

As are you. :lol:

And there is my point. "Can" is not a valid word to either show permission nor deny it. It only declares the existence of an ability.

 

We do usually agree that the rules are permissive only. If it does not explicitly state something is allowed, then it is not allowed because you do not have permission.

 

"Can test." So we have the ability to test because have been given explicit permission to do so.

"Always use the best available."

So with the ability to test we always take the best available.

 

I think I just argued my way into a direction that I "can" live with.

 

So I am climbing off the fence and going with "no" for the original question.

 

But I still say the jar has a better chance of falling up than GW rule being unquestionably interpreted in a single manner.

[timmytool]

Can jump out of a plane. A choice.

 

You're using it situationally to make it say what you want it to say.

As are you. :)

And there is my point. "Can" is not a valid word to either show permission nor deny it. It only declares the existence of an ability.

 

We do usually agree that the rules are permissive only. If it does not explicitly state something is allowed, then it is not allowed because you do not have permission.

 

"Can test." So we have the ability to test because have been given explicit permission to do so.

"Always use the best available."

So with the ability to test we always take the best available.

 

I think I just argued my way into a direction that I "can" live with.

 

So I am climbing off the fence and going with "no" for the original question.

 

But I still say the jar has a better chance of falling up than GW rule being unquestionably interpreted in a single manner.

 

"Always use the best available." is a myth, out of all the cover saves available you can only use the best cover save available, this does not bleed over to the best "save available". STOP taking sound bits out of context.

You see a video of a man savagely rip a woman out of a car.... how could he do it.... the video zooms out and you see the cars on fire and about to explode.... any situation has context and saying "Always use the best available" without mentioning it only applies to cover saves is recklessly misinformation, and can only be a attempt to form bias via (intentional or unintentional) misinformation.

 

I'm sure your not going to argue we must always use cover saves because it says ", the unit uses the best cover save available", if you refer to the example "In these cases, the model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save." having an advantage in a example does not necessitate its use, my boss has the advantage of firing me, he does not need to use this advantage but if he chooses he can.

 

So I dont see a intention(much less a "RAW") for mandatory saves in the "models with more then one save" section which overrides the primary "save" granting section "taking saving throws" which says "can test" not "must test".

While "can" can be taken more then one way, one(or more) can be a choose so to disallow this choose based on your opinion in a permissive rules set I find distasteful.

[dswanick]

"Always use the best available." is a myth, out of all the cover saves available you can only use the best cover save available, this does not bleed over to the best "save available". STOP taking sound bits out of context.

You see a video of a man savagely rip a woman out of a car.... how could he do it.... the video zooms out and you see the cars on fire and about to explode.... any situation has context and saying "Always use the best available" without mentioning it only applies to cover saves is recklessly misinformation, and can only be a attempt to form bias via (intentional or unintentional) misinformation.

 

I'm sure your not going to argue we must always use cover saves because it says ", the unit uses the best cover save available", if you refer to the example "In these cases, the model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save." having an advantage in a example does not necessitate its use, my boss has the advantage of firing me, he does not need to use this advantage but if he chooses he can.

 

So I dont see a intention(much less a "RAW") for mandatory saves in the "models with more then one save" section which overrides the primary "save" granting section "taking saving throws" which says "can test" not "must test".

While "can" can be taken more then one way, one(or more) can be a choose so to disallow this choose based on your opinion in a permissive rules set I find distasteful.

Now it's you who needs to read the rules :

MODELS WITH MORE THAN ONE SAVE

Sometimes, a model will have a normal armour save and a separate invulnerable save - a good example is a Space Marine Chaplain who is protected by both power armour and a Rosarius-generated force field. As if this wasn't enough the model might be in cover as well. In these cases, the model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.

 

For example, if the Chaplain described above was standing in a fortified building and was wounded by an AP3 weapon his power armour would be of no use, as the shot's AP is equal to or lower than his armour save. The force field grants a 4+ invulnerable save. However, the fortified building grants a 3+ cover save. Neither of these saves is affected by the AP of the weapon so the Chaplain uses the cover save to give him the best chance of surviving.

And I'm sorry but anyone arguing that they can choose to not use the best available save in order to kill off a model for some tactical advantage is WAAC. Plain and simple. All these claims that conditional statements are actually optional statements are quite simply bull, cheesy, wrong, and WAAC. And unsupported by common english usage, common sense, or the Most Important Rule.

Edited March 14, 2012 by dswanick

[falldown]

The following is from the Necron Faq. Now I am aware of arguments against using FAQs to prove anything, but really...

 

Q: Can you choose to take the dispersion shield

invulnerable save against Wounds with an AP of 4 or

less? (p35)

A: No. You must always use the best save available.

Edited March 14, 2012 by falldown

[Morollan]

That seems to be fairly conclusive.

[ShinyRhino]

The following is from the Necron Faq. Now I am aware of arguments against using FAQs to prove anything, but really...

 

Q: Can you choose to take the dispersion shield

invulnerable save against Wounds with an AP of 4 or

less? (p35)

A: No. You must always use the best save available.

 

To play devil's advocate here...the folks who want to be able to flub saves will just tack on "if you choose to take any save at all." to the end of that answer.

[Morollan]

The following is from the Necron Faq. Now I am aware of arguments against using FAQs to prove anything, but really...

 

Q: Can you choose to take the dispersion shield

invulnerable save against Wounds with an AP of 4 or

less? (p35)

A: No. You must always use the best save available.

 

To play devil's advocate here...the folks who want to be able to flub saves will just tack on "if you choose to take any save at all." to the end of that answer.

 

Well, that's what I would generally call cheating. You can't just add sentences to the rules (or even to a FAQ).

[ShinyRhino]

Well, that's what I would generally call cheating. You can't just add sentences to the rules (or even to a FAQ).

 

As would I, but that crowd will state that the FAQ is a clarification of the general rule, and that general rule lets them choose to flub a save on purpose because it says "can".

[greatcrusade08]

tbh this is one of those rules questions that mak me hate the hobby and some people that play it..

now i realise this is the -OR- forum and we play devils advocate alot.. but for the most part we usually add a footnote saying how we really play it.

 

arguing the use of the word "can" adds the option of not taking a save is rediculous, loop hole rules lawyers of the highest order.. infact i think evil kinevil would struggle to make that leap.

40k is permissive, unless it grants the option to not take saves then it isnt an option to take.

 

I'd be willing to place a wager on the fact that if you were allowed to "skip" taking saves, the rulebook would tell you that.

 

This whole "can" versus "may" thing isn't productive in the least. As I said before, the wording is ambiguous enough that the best policy is not to be a dingbat and roll your saves. :P

 

this, this and so much more this ^^^

[Morollan]

tbh this is one of those rules questions that mak me hate the hobby and some people that play it..

now i realise this is the -OR- forum and we play devils advocate alot.. but for the most part we usually add a footnote saying how we really play it.

 

arguing the use of the word "can" adds the option of not taking a save is rediculous, loop hole rules lawyers of the highest order.. infact i think evil kinevil would struggle to make that leap.

40k is permissive, unless it grants the option to not take saves then it isnt an option to take.

 

Even though I feel that saves are complusory I do have to take issue with you and dswanick over the whole "can" issue. It is a perfectly valid argument and if "The owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage..." was all that was said in the rulebook I would have to agree that saves are optional. It is however invalidated by other areas which clarify that the best save available must be taken and further by the FAQ quoted a couple of posts up. That does not alter that situation that use of the word "can" does imply choice rather than necessity in everyday language.

 

"You can have an apple" does not force you to have one, it merely gives you the choice.

[greatcrusade08]

actually my dissaproval was specific to this case hence my long drawn out sentence.. im not opposed to your argument about apples.. but lets face it in this case its a rediculous argument to make

[Johnnyb79]

Erm I'm sorry this has turned inot a bit of an argument, I seriously didnt intend it.

 

Hate to add this but is armour of all types wargear and isnt use of any wargear optional?

[dswanick]

Erm I'm sorry this has turned inot a bit of an argument, I seriously didnt intend it.

 

Hate to add this but is armour of all types wargear and isnt use of any wargear optional?

No and not necessarily, in that order.

Necons have an armor save which is not given by wargear, as do several units in Codex: Chaos Space Marines (Daemon PRinces spring to mind).

And they also have the Dispersion Field which apparently is not an optional to use.

Edited March 14, 2012 by dswanick

[ShinyRhino]

The option to "nut use" some wargear was removed with the death of Fourth Edition.

In 4th, you could elect to "turn off" wargear like powerfists and power weapons, and strike with bare hands. That is no longer an option. If your sergeant is armed with a power sword and a pistol, all of his attacks ignore armor saves. From p42 of the BRB:

 

"A normal and a special weapon

These models gain one additional attack. All of their

attacks, including the bonus attack, benefit from the

special weapon’s bonuses.

Power fists, thunder hammers and lightning claws are

an exception to this. Only a second power fist, thunder

hammer or lightning claw can confer a bonus attack to

a model equipped with one of these weapons.

Two different special weapons

When it is their turn to attack, these models must

choose which weapon to use that turn, but they never

get the bonus attack for using two weapons (such is

the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!)."

 

In the first example, a power sword is wargear, and its use is mandatory in close combat.

[riddles]

This is...the most ridiculous argument I've ever read. Along the lines of the person last year who argued that because his Land Raider had been blown up and his terminators were forced to disembark, he could charge his opponent in his opponent's assault phase (using a stupid word twisting of the assault ramp rule "when models in the land raider disembark, they are able to charge")

 

GW uses permissive language. If the book doesn't say you can do something, you can't do it. If it does, you can. (e.g. space wolf terminators cannot deep strike because it doesn't say they can in the wolf guard terminator armour entry)

 

The sequence is;

- Roll to hit

- roll to wound

- allocate wounds

- take armour saves

 

you cannot elect to fail an armour save purposely because the rulebook does not tell you that you can.

 

Look at combat tactics - if marines want to fail a morale test when it would be tactically useful to do so, they can BECAUSE they have a rule that says they can. Same scenario.

[stormsson]

Sorry to bring this back but I thought I'd tag on to this thread rather than start another.

 

If I use bastonnes order to force you to reroll successful cover saves and I shoot at a unit of terms in cover, which is the best available save, their 4+ reroll successful cover or their 5+ invulnerable?

 

On average, if I cause 12 ap2 wounds then the cover will save 3, however the inv will save 4.

 

Although some people might still prefer their chances with the cover.

[DarkGuard]

Depends how you determine best save. If you determine it by lowest dice roll needed, like the rulebook seems to do, then you take the cover save.

 

If you determine it by best statistical chance of success, then it looks like the invulnerable save.

 

I'd go with the first personally.