Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
This question came up in a recent "dispute" during a game & i figured i'd check & see what the folks @ LO thought:
i understand that psycannons ignore invulnerable saves but it also says "Only armour saves may be taken..." & the arguement went that this meant no cover saves either.
I was quite dumbfounded @this interpretation but does it hold true?
Why is this ever an issue? It should be blatantly obvious that psycannons don't ignore cover saves. Let's quote the relevent section for the psycannon:And let's compare that to the text for the incinerator:Originally Posted by Codex: DaemonhuntersAlso, pay special attention to the weapon stats on the DH rules summary at the back of the codex. This is especially important, because it is only in this section of an army codex that GW lists the entire statline of any weapon. Not in the armoury, not in a unit entry, only here. And here, it says for the psycannon -- in either mode -- "ignores Invulnerable saves". Again, contrast that with the incinerator: "no Invulnerable or cover saves".Originally Posted by Codex: Daemonhunters
This is a case where I see people trying to do something because, in one specific location (but, pointedly, not in the other), it is not specifically prohibited. Whereas, in the normal course of reading and understanding the rules, and playing any game, you are only allowed to do things that are specifically allowed.
At no point does the codex say that you are allowed to ignore cover saves with psycannon fire. From just this point of view, it should be obvious that psycannons don't ignore cover saves.
But for more evidence, we have the both the wording of the rules in the wargear section and the very exact descriptions in the rule summary. In neither location is the psycannon said to have any special interaction with cover saves. Again, it should be obvious, therefore, that you cannot invent an interaction where none exists.
ninjabackhand: point and click, again, really? even after i give you an military term "shock tactic" you still call it point and click.
RIP Warhammer 40,000: 21 Sep 1998 - 24 May 2014
Yeah, I've heard a few people try to say the same thing. It's utter hog-wash, for all the reasons number6 pointed out. Furthermore, it's absurd, unfluffy, and a glaring example of bad sportsmanship! If someone tries to play it this way, just explain that you need to look at the "only armour saves may be taken..." comment in context, where it is abundantly clear that they're contrasting armour saves with invulnerable saves.
Good times *rolls eyes*
Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
If you're intruiged by doctors who are also ninjas, then this is the webcomic for you!