Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
2,399 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Psycannons ignore invunerable saves however what happens when:
1) Bikes turbo boost e.g. Marine bikes. It appears to read their save becomes invunerable (not MAY) - and can this then be ignored? It makes sense that they'd still get their standard save, but as the rules are written (I hope not to use that phrase in a friendly game ever. Am gearing up knowledge in case I need to start returning it in tourneys.) Am I right in saying they dont?
2) Ork bike "cloud of dust" - same
3) Eldar conceal - giving a 5+ cover save. Even though it's a psycannon vs a psychic power it's a cover save. Save still happens. Is that right?
 

·
Sparta!
Joined
·
1,438 Posts
It really does depend on the wording.
If turbo boost states that they gain an invulnerable save equal to their normal save then they still have recourse to their normal save.
Not sure about orks - is it a cover save or invulnerable (haven't read the codex closely yet)
As for Conceal - it is a cover save so Psycannons (assuming they only effect invulnerable saves) does not alter it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,638 Posts
As far as Ork Warbikes go, they always receive a 4+ cover save, due to the "Exhaust Cloud" special rule.
 

·
The ORIGINAL Sniper Puss
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
The Turbo-Boosting one is a hot potato question, because it really does come down to the wire regarding semantics and RAW vs RAI! Apparently the 5th Ed is supposed to address this by making it into a cover save, but since 5th Ed hasn't appeared yet.....:?

Where the TB rule is concerned, the BGB says we are to treat the bike's normal Armour Save as beingan Invulnerable Save, so I personally would tend towards the Psycannon being able to ignore the save. However, that is only my opinion so take it whatever way you like!!

You just gotta love RAW....not. Well, maybe sometimes...;)

E.
 

·
The Fallen
Joined
·
7,745 Posts
Eigle is right, the TB is a hot potatoe, I would disagree with his interpretation of "may treat the Armour save as an inv save" but not sure that is actually the wording is it mate
 

·
The ORIGINAL Sniper Puss
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
Yep, the actual wording is:

"In the following enemy Shooting Phase, treat the bike's Armour Save as being an Invulnerable Save, [.....]"

P.75 BGB

E.
 

·
The Fallen
Joined
·
7,745 Posts
Hmm yes, back to semantics, you can see why it becomes such a bone of contention! I vote for RAI
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
497 Posts
1.) I vote RAW.

One rule says it becomes X. Second rule says the round ignores X. No ambiguity there, I mean not even a little.

One guy can open his books and show (and show clearly) how he gets to ignore that save. The other guy has only his opinion that he doesn't like that rule. Allowing that 2nd method to trump the 1st is a hugely dangerous way to go about deciding problems and a slippery slope covered in oil and ice. After all this isn't a realistic game, it's a table game.

So with no FAQ correcting that, if you absolutely must have a fluff reason... driving at madenning break neck speed against rounds that are mystical and psionic probably isn't asking for a good result.

Then again I oppose RAI in almost all it's forms, unless it comes from GW in a more direct way then this, because "as intended" translates 99% of the time into "Some dudes opinion of it", and I've yet to meet an unbiased opinion. Not even mine. Which is why I prefer to stick to RAW.

The rules don't always make sense, and they aren't always realistic sounding, but keep in mind it is a board game and not a real life simulation of futaristic combat physics. So when they're clear they are the rules, so even when they aren't always 'fair' in the sense they seem realistic, they ARE fair and unbiased in the game sense because we all have to play by them. They screw us all equally at times, unless people start editing them for personal likes and dislikes, and having seen a game shop staff that does that too much let me assure you... as bad as it seems GW can be, they are still the Pro's at this and you'd be amazed how much damage well meaning amateurs trying to interpret RAI can do.

2 and 3.) Both are cover saves as far as I know. You should have taken an Incinerator. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,213 Posts
Yeah, the RAW on this one is clear. Not ambiguous in the least. The fact that the physics don't make a great deal of sense in this case is unfortunate, of course, but the rules are quite straightforward. The fact that psycannons, Incinerators, C'Tan Phase Swords, and Warscythes all negate "Dodge" based invulnerable saves (such as the ones Assassins get) is pretty ludicrous as well (well, the Incinerator makes sense), but they all clearly do. Yet more arguments for "dodge" invulnerable saves and turbo-boosting to give a cover save instead, but the current rule-set is crystal on this one.

-H
 

·
The Fallen
Joined
·
7,745 Posts
going a little off topic, but it doesnt say the armour save becomes an inv save it says treat it like one, therefore although you treat it like and inv save, it is still an armour save and NOT an inv save, therefore psi cannon dont ignore it. If you were looking after your friends pet monitor lizard when he went on holiday, and you didnt know how to look after it, and he told you "treat it like a dog" then you would know what to do, but other than for comedy your wouldnt try and convince anyone that it was a dog for the duration of its stay with you


Now before we kick off, I accept there is merrit on both sides of the arguement, and although I dont agree with you, I think this may stem from the anbsurd physics rather than the wording, so lets not argue it further, I will conceed you have a case, the above is simple an illustration of a point, the wording can be interpreted both ways, hence wether one is more valid than the other is mute, either agree it in a freindly manner or roll a dice
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
497 Posts
going a little off topic, but it doesnt say the armour save becomes an inv save it says treat it like one, therefore although you treat it like and inv save, it is still an armour save and NOT an inv save, therefore psi cannon dont ignore it. If you were looking after your friends pet monitor lizard when he went on holiday, and you didnt know how to look after it, and he told you "treat it like a dog" then you would know what to do, but other than for comedy your wouldnt try and convince anyone that it was a dog for the duration of its stay with you


Now before we kick off, I accept there is merrit on both sides of the arguement, and although I dont agree with you, I think this may stem from the anbsurd physics rather than the wording, so lets not argue it further, I will conceed you have a case, the above is simple an illustration of a point, the wording can be interpreted both ways, hence wether one is more valid than the other is mute, either agree it in a freindly manner or roll a dice
Ugh... I hate being on the opposite side to a Mod... I always feel like I'm trying to argue with a cop about a ticket...

I understand you'd like this to be an agree to disagree, but I'm just not seeing how it can be interpreted both ways. This isn't a case where wording was left out, or is ambigious in how it can be defined, or two rules contradict, or some way exists to confirm to both rules other then one. I mean normally I see that here... a place where both sides can make a rules arguement for it... but this one just seems so clearly written.

Rule One says treat it as an invulnerable save.
In order to follow this rule, you must therfore treat it as you would an invulnerable save.

Rule Two says, shots ignores invulernable saves.
In order to follow this rule, you must ignore invulernable saves.

So to treat it as an invulernable save and follow rule one, you must then ignore it to be following rule two. And their is NO other rule which gets involved here (at least none anyone has brought up).

So I'm still not getting how you can say you are treating it as an invulernable save IF you want to also say when invulerable saves are ignored that it is some exeception that isn't ignored...
Because to do so would violate rule one, because you're not treating it as an invulernable save anymore, but you are now treating it as an armor save when it suits your side... and the rules told you to treat it like an invul save.

There is only one way to follow both rules here and not create some rules paradox. Treat it as the invulernable save, and then ignore it. Any other result violates a rule. This really isn't even a game unbalancing issue because we're only talking 1 uncommon weapon in 1 uncommon army (that generally needs a boost) being used against 1 uncommon unit type in only 1 special rules circumstance. (although that arguement is really here nor there, because even if it was a common weapon in the most common army in the game and had massive ramifications, the rules are still clear).

Not using a rule because you don't like it leads to a simple problem. We all have rules we don't like, but we are able to play this as a game between two people because... like any game be it table top or sport... two sides conform to one set of rules. Even when the rules are hurting your side, that doesn't mean it's okay to toss them out, because over the long run it's almost guarenteed something is going to eventually favor you and hurt the other guy... and if you BOTH start tossing out rules when you don't agree with them then you don't have a game anymore, you have mayhem.

Mayhem I tell you.

Anarchy. The falling of society as we know it.

Cities burn. Madness reigns.

And all because YOU wanted your armor save and the rules didn't let you have it.

Was it worth it, was it REALLY worth it?

[That last part was very in jest... I realize like you that this is getting to serious, so I deserioused it for a moment. I'm pretty sure disagreeing with me here won't bring society to an end. REally though, do you WANT to take that chance?]


Let me use your lizard and dog example.

If you (A) and another person (B) agreed to take care of another friends (C) pet, and you both agreed that you'd split the duties and do exactly what C asked...

If friend C said...

"You should pet all dogs"

and said

"Treat my lizard like a dog"

Would you not pet the lizard when it was your turn because YOU felt it wouldn't notice the difference and you didn't agree? I mean sure, it might NOT notice it, but you and the other person B... to facilitate an otherwise vague arrangement... agreed to follow a set of rules together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moglun

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,213 Posts
Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything that was just said by BFGMid (except I'm not too keen on "petting" his "lizard", thank you very much =P). Much as I hate to say it (because it seems like something that was an unintended side-effect of special rules), there are really no two ways about it. If we follow the argument you just made, Cheredanine, we run into all manner of difficulties, because what you're saying is that when something "counts as" something else, it does so for some things but not others. And we've no real way of telling when it counts as one thing and when it counts as another. By your argument I could say that my Melta Gun negates the invulnerable save in question, because it's not really an invulnerable save. Doesn't really work, does it =)? If the rules tell us to treat something as something else, we don't have the luxury (rules-wise) of picking-and-choosing when we treat it as something else.

[edit: Oh, and by the way, I notice we're ->Veterans<- now! That's a lot cooler than being 'enhanced' -- Huzzah!]

-H
 

·
Advocatus Diaboli
Joined
·
4,571 Posts
I say turbo-boosting bikes are fair game vs psycannons. It's not like you see a lot of psycannons, either.

(And what do you do in the case of marines or Eldar? Not turbo-boost ;) )
 

·
Dark Eldar Zealot
Joined
·
3,699 Posts
Hi,
I too must admit to allowing the Psycannon the ability to ignore any invulnerable save and only rely upon a standard armour.

The phrase “treat the bike’s armour save as being an invulnerable...” gives no other condition other than the very act of turbo boosting to enact it.

So the normal armour save gets treated as an invulnerable due to the bikes action and then in turn gets denied by the use of a Psycannon.

I would still turbo boost where needed in a game regardless of the presence of Psycannons, its just that I would do so more judiciously.

Cheers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
As with many other rules in the game, people come to a census as to what happens.
For me i would talk with my opponent and deal with it case by case. Though it seems by stricted definition of the rules the save would be denied.

But try and think of it this way, the turbo boost gives them the invul save becuase of their speed, so its basically a dodge. But their armor is still there to protect them when they can't dodge the attack to begin with...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
497 Posts
As with many other rules in the game, people come to a census as to what happens.
Untrue. A concensus is only needed when the rules don't cover something, or in following all rules some paradox is formed meaning some rule has to go because no matter what you do something would be violated.

That is not the case here. There is a clear path which allows all rules to be followed, and in fact ONLY one path that allows all rules to be followed.

A concensus isn't needed for a rule in the game. It's only needed for things there are not rules in the game or when the rules break down. It is NOT needed just because someone doesn't like how a rule is negative to them at the time.

Opponents consent and D6'ing off in a pinch isn't called for when the rules define something, and you don't have to humor your opponent in such situations. They're the bad sport for not wanting to follow the rules when they don't like it. Not you for playing by the rules.

Example... Many people would love to have a concensus to nerf the special armor of a Monolith. However it doesn't matter what % of players would like that, it still wouldn't matter. The rules say they get it, and define pretty clearly when they get it between the Codex and the FAQs. So they do.

When the rules are clear and defined, it does not matter how many people jolly well would like it to be otherwise, it's still the rules and doing anything else is breaking the rules. Even if every player of this game hated a rule or a clear combination of rules, if it was clearly written, then doing otherwise is breaking the rules.

Now some places DO houserule stuff like this, and the GW police won't come kicking in your door for that, but I've never met a house rule... especially one that effects only one army and one weapon... that I think is fair and balanced. It also always seems to me places with houserules like that invariably have staff that benefit from the change, and generally don't play the armies negatively effected by it (ditto with their regulars). I'm sure the vast majority don't make the change for that reason, but since most close circles like gamer groups engage in group think if they like it or not, it's amazing how many times that's the case even if they didn't realize it.

[Hence why GW generally keeps a tight reign on GTs, and GT staff generally make house rule changes only to facilitate the mass playing that goes on, NOT to 'balance' things or 'fix' problems]


For me i would talk with my opponent and deal with it case by case. Though it seems by stricted definition of the rules the save would be denied.
Technically Correct.

However I'd no more allow discussion on this from my opponent then I'd allow him to discuss how, because his LasCannon is REALLY big and is described as penetrating tank armor, it should automatically allow him to ignore Terminator invulnerable saves. After all Terminator armor doesn't have forcefields or anything, it's just REALLY thick... yet clearly visually it's no thicker then say Land Raider armor, and made of the same stuff... SO why would a Str 15 Hit from a LasCannon, which will go through a Land RAider, not ignore the "Invulnerable Save" provided by the Terminators special 5+?

Because the rules say the Terminator gets the save that's why.

Quit trying to validate things using real world... well, pretend real world... theoretical justications and you'll begin to grasp the issue here. It's a board game, NOT a realistic simulation.

The fluff is only there to make the battles seem more colorful. When it comes down to it, you could replace the word Bolter with Bow and the word Space Marine with Archer and the game would work near the same. [and yes, I've seen "Fantasy" played using 40k rules by someone who renamed things thusly].

Again... one player has clear rules saying that is how it works, the other player has the fact he doesn't like it. I would not play against the kind of person that wanted rules that are clearly written to be ignored just because they didn't favor him at that particular time (especially when he had options like, say, just not Turbo Boosting).


But try and think of it this way, the turbo boost gives them the invul save becuase of their speed, so its basically a dodge. But their armor is still there to protect them when they can't dodge the attack to begin with...
Well first off, even if it is a dodge style invul save, we've established those are ignored as well... and more importantly you are once again trying to use real world physics to debate this here.

You're arguing that because it's a dodge save, his real armor is still there.

The problem is... and I can't stress this enough... THERE IS NO REAL ARMOR.

It's just a plastic mini, on a table, using dice for rules, in a game... and not a very realistic one at that (even for sci fi).

He has no "armor". He just has a roll on a dice that the game gives him. It's called an armor save because it sounds cool and looks nice with the armor designs on the models, but it's not real armor, their is no spoon. It's just a dice roll in a game. A Dice roll he changes if he turbo boosts, and after he changes can be hit by a weapon that ignores it's new dice type.

So when the rules say something, that's it, if you ignore it because it's inconvienant for you it's no better then someone playing soccer and complaining when someone makes a legal slide tackle on them, or playing football and complaining because the other team is using a perfectly legal formation, or playing baseball and complaining because the other guy had a better trainer then you so hits harder (okay, in this day and age, it's probably because he had a better chemist, but it's getting hard lately to use baseball as an example of playing by the rules isn't it).

PS= 350 posts!!!
 

·
The Fallen
Joined
·
7,745 Posts
Guys. not particularly going to argue it, please feel free to continue, however please keep it polite, for example BFG you quote Wakka when he states an opinion and reply "technically correct" of course it is, his statement is opinion, unless he is lieing. try and adress the issues (both sides) without criticism.
(please dont worry about putting forwards a point opposed to what a mod says, all mods are players, they are mods because they have a goos understanding of the subject, but by no means better than any other experianced player, I am certainly regularly wrong :), mods are generally chosen because of their atitude and approach as much as anything else. (i.e. my opinion on the rule is only as valid as anyone elses)

BFG. You say you dont see how it can be interpreted both ways, to be honest, it clearly can as people are arguing it both ways, if it could not be seen the other way they would not argue.

The point I would put forwards, and I am still playing devils advocate, is that the wording says "treat it like an inv save" it does not say "it is no longer an armour save".

This clearly causes contentions with psy cannons "ignoring inv saves". but they dont ignore armour saves.

I agree you have a point but you dont seem able to see the other side of the arguement.

The problem is that the wording between the two rules produces an ambiguous situation.

it is exhaserbated by the RAW vs RAI arguement, which can be loosley (note that) coallessed into the competative gamers vs the friendly gamers. (I point back to the loosley, I am steriotyping, it is by no means an absolute, personality types also have an effect)

As such a RAW approach will tend, although not always, go down the route you are suggesting, wheras the RAI will tend to probably produce polite disagreement and a dice off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,213 Posts
The point I would put forwards, and I am still playing devils advocate, is that the wording says "treat it like an inv save" it does not say "it is no longer an armour save".

This clearly causes contentions with psy cannons "ignoring inv saves". but they dont ignore armour saves.

I agree you have a point but you dont seem able to see the other side of the arguement.

The problem is that the wording between the two rules produces an ambiguous situation.
I'll be honest, I don't see any ambiguity here, and I'd like there to be. The "physics" (ie fluff) behind it are darned silly, of course, and I like it when games are at least internally consistent in their logic. That said, I refer again to the Necron Warscythe and the Callidus C'Tan Phase Sword, both of which negate this invulnerable save. Turbo-boosting bikers have just as much "physical" claim to ignore these weapons as they do to ignore psycannon rounds, yet no one seems to quibble about their fluff. To then object to the psycannon negation on fluff terms is odd, to say the least.

To be blunt, I just don't see any wiggle room. There are no tortuous definitions and leaps of logic necessary here, no FAQs or GT rulings to look up. The BGB states that their armor save is treated as invulnerable. Psycannons negate invulnerable saves. To say that psycannons don't negate this invulnerable save using the logic that it's not really an invulnerable save makes the turbo-boosting save utterly useless. I could, after all, claim that my AP2 weapon therefore allows no save at all, because the armor save is not really invulnerable. It's the exact same logic, and it completely negates the turbo-boost rule.

I'm not saying there's not another side to this. I'm just saying that the other side doesn't have much to support their stance. Furthermore, I strongly object to the notion that because we all have opinions, that this somehow imbues all arguments with validity. Opinions must be girded with facts if they're to be meaningful.

Again, I agree that the situation the rules create is quite quite silly, and that GW should have made this into some sort of "Avoidance" save instead. Unfortunately for us, they didn't. If a person wants to play with a different rule-set, they're welcome to! Indeed, I think it's a fun thing to do in a friendly setting! But they need to acknowledge that that's what they're doing.

Anyways, there's my take on it. Feel free to take it or leave it.

-H
 

·
Fun guy from Yuggoth
Joined
·
772 Posts
It's a pretty steep hill to climb if you want to argue keeping the turbo save vs psycannons. You can't claim that you treat the armor save like an invulnerable save against things like weapon AP and then in the same breath say that you don't treat it like an invulnerable save against psycannons. Nor can you claim that the bike now has an invulnerable save AND an armor save, as the wording is pretty clear in that the original save is treated differently, not that a new save is added.

I'm with the majority on this one. Psycannons beat turbo boosting.
 

·
No Rest For the Righteous
Joined
·
1,140 Posts
This topic has always been a touchy one, and I remember reading a response somewhere from GW saying to play it RAW, meaning psycannons will just plain ignore turbo boost saves. The response was along the lines of "So the Grey Knights can nuke some heretic Chaos Bikers, big deal. They train their whole life to do it, so just play it as it is till it gets changed and stop whining." Of course that is liberally paraphrased. :D

I myself would let my opponent take his armor saves(though I wouldnt argue if he said no since GW themself said play it as is), but everyone may not want or expect it to be played that way.

I strongly recommend players address the issue before the game and come to agreement ahead of time. Wouldnt it be funny if an opponent spent the whole game not turbo boosting only to find that I would have let him take saves? Likewise, it would shock a player if his bikes got nuked and he didn't know they would have no saves because he was actually thinking logically. Go figure eh? :?
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top