do you have to take armor saves

AdeptiCon 2011 will be held April 1st - 3rd, 2011 at the Westin Lombard Yorktown Center in Lombard, IL. Visit the AdeptiCon website (www.adepticon.org) and start planning today!

Postby RAMSEY » Sun Feb 20, 2011 9:30 pm

seahawk wrote:No it doesn't.

Saying "A model has the advantage of" is completely different from "A model can take advantage of."

In the first (as it is in the book) a model has it, and because it has it, it must always use (which is equivalent to "always use") the best one. In the second a model can use it, but doesn't have to. The rule doesn't say anything about "can," only that it "has and always."


If "must" is used in the BRB tell me what page its on. Give me a quote or something. What you're saying your point of view. Give me a specific location.
"YOUR SUFFERING WILL BE LEGENDARY, EVEN IN HELL"
G.R.A.M.P.A. Member
No wait! That doesn't sound right.
RUMRUNNERS Gaming Group
Nephilim Jet Fighter…….. What’s it fighting?.... BALLOONS!
User avatar
RAMSEY
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:32 pm
Location: Naperville, IL

Postby n00bzilla99 » Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:04 pm

I'm going to chip in that, nowhere does the rulebook use the word "may" in this situation. It uses the word "can".

Can –auxiliary verb
1. to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to.
2. to know how to.
3. to have the power or means to.
4. to have the right or qualifications to.
5. may; have permission to
6. to have the possibility

—Usage note
Can and may are frequently but not always interchangeable in senses indicating possibility.

Source: Dictionary.com/Can.

Then a paragraph down, it defines what an armor save is and how a model gets it. It then says this:

"Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire and compare the results to the model's Sv characteristic. If the dice result is equal to or greater Sv value, the wound is stopped." pg, 20.

The passage from page 24 states once again, "that a model with multiple saves only ever gets to make one and has the advantage of always using the best save," not choosing. You MUST use the best save. If you have a save, you must take it. Otherwise that would not be using the best save available.
Image
Check out my band Brotherhood Sidekicks on Soundcloud!

G.R.A.M.P.A. Member
User avatar
n00bzilla99
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Postby EldarCorsair » Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:02 pm

RAMSEY is correct. RAW states you CAN take armour saves. It does not say a player MUST attempt to save.


Seahawk and ABCJoe, the sentence you both keep bringing up is the RAW for taking multiple armour saves. Your argument doesn't hold up as, if a player is referring to this section, then that player has already decided to take an armour save. The player is then - AND ONLY THEN - forced to make the "best save".


....The more you know... :roll:
Image
User avatar
EldarCorsair
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Woodstock

Postby n00bzilla99 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:25 pm

"Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire and compare the results to the model's Sv characteristic. If the dice result is equal to or greater Sv value, the wound is stopped." pg, 20.

This tells you that for every wound you have suffered, you roll a D6 and compare it to it's save characteristic. There is no choice for it.

RAW states you CAN take armour saves.


Yes, can, as in if you are wounded you are allowed to, this is a misunderstanding of what the word can means in this context. For every wound, an armor save can be made unless it cannot be taken, for example being hit by a weapon with a lower AP or a power weapon in CC.

By saying "Can" in the context of "The owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage..." the rulebook gives you permission to take save, not to make a choice to take the saves. Otherwise it would say "The owning player may choose to take an armor save to avoid damage."

It then goes on to say exactly what I quoted above, the rules say for every wound you take, you Roll a D6 and compare it to the save characteristic. There is no can in this section. The idea that can makes it optional is from above where "can" is used in the context "You are allowed to," not "you are allowed to choose to."

For example, my parents (when I was younger) would say "You can use the car for the day." That's not a choice that I make then, that's permission to do something. Had they said "You can choose to use the car" then I would have the permission to make the choice rather than simply permission.

The use of "can" in this case is missing words that would create the syntax of choice. This means that can gives permission, not a choice.

...The more you know... Rolling Eyes


Really uncalled for.
Image
Check out my band Brotherhood Sidekicks on Soundcloud!

G.R.A.M.P.A. Member
User avatar
n00bzilla99
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Postby EldarCorsair » Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:38 pm

AdeptusBrewCityJoe wrote:"Roll a D6 for each wound the model has suffered from incoming fire and compare the results to the model's Sv characteristic. If the dice result is equal to or greater Sv value, the wound is stopped." pg, 20.

This tells you that for every wound you have suffered, you roll a D6 and compare it to it's save characteristic. There is no choice for it.


I said before, both the above and your previous quoted sections, are worded after the player has decided he or she will make saving throws.

The sections on wounding all state that a player MUST roll to wound:

"As with shooting, once you have scored a hit with an attack you must roll again to see if you score a wound..." -p. 38

RAW then goes on to state:

"Invulnerable saves are different from armour saves because they may always be taken...even if a wound normally ignores all armour saves, an invulnerable saving throw may still be taken." -p.20
"...you can carry straight on and roll the saves in one batch."
"Models struck and wounded in close combat can attempt armour saves..."
"...even if the rules for a weapon or attack states that no armour save is allowed, an invulnerable save may still be made." -p.39

So, logically, if saving throws were mandatory, the language would include the term "must", not "can" or "may". Or, as with the To Hit roll, would at least leave all these terms out.

Argue syntax all you like, but RAW clearly states that taking a saving throw is a choice made by the player.
Image
User avatar
EldarCorsair
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Woodstock

Postby n00bzilla99 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:12 pm

"after the player has decided he or she will make saving throws."

Nowhere in the BRB does it EVER say this. Not once.

And once again, I argue that the can refers to permission, not choice. You CAN take a save, indicating there is a possibility that you might not be able to (Such as lower AP and power weapons) because if they said "must" then you would be forced to take saves against this as well but you cannot because they ignore armor. Therefore the "can" represents the ability to take the saves if not denied by a higher AP, not a choice to.

"Invulnerable saves are different from armour saves because they may always be taken...even if a wound normally ignores all armour saves, an invulnerable saving throw may still be taken."

Yes, and may once again means that if you cannot take your armor save, you may take the invulnerable save in it's place. Usually if your armor beats the invuln, you have to take that save, well if your armor is beaten, it is not longer the best save, meaning that you may now take the invuln save which isn't the best save and would break the rule of "best save available."

Argue syntax all you like, but RAW clearly states that taking a saving throw is a choice made by the player.


I disagree. Can does not automatically give a choice. I already have shown that can has other meanings.

Also, taking no save violates the principle of "must use the best save" since you aren't using one.
Image
Check out my band Brotherhood Sidekicks on Soundcloud!

G.R.A.M.P.A. Member
User avatar
n00bzilla99
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Postby EldarCorsair » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:25 pm

AdeptusBrewCityJoe wrote:"after the player has decided he or she will make saving throws."

Nowhere in the BRB does it EVER say this. Not once.


When I use examples from the rulebook, they are quoted and sourced. The above was neither, therefore it is part of my own argument....and it holds true.

You are consistently presenting 'evidence' for your argument that is either an irrevelant conclusion (arguing syntax, presenting verbiage from outside RAW, etc.) or based upon false cause (that subsequent "must" rules imply that their antecedents are also a "must" rule).

I've presented several examples from RAW to support my argument. Yet, you continue to present either logical fallacies or your own opinion dressed up as 'fact' to support your own. I really don't see the point of arguing with you over this any further.

I argue that the can refers to permission,


Permission
[per-mish-uhn]
–noun
1. authorization granted to do something; formal consent:

Rule
[rool]
–noun
1. a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.: the rules of chess.

The latter governs procedures, the former grants consent. Permitting someone to do something is different then making them do something.

For example, my parents (when I was younger) would say "You can use the car for the day." That's not a choice that I make then, that's permission to do something. Had they said "You can choose to use the car" then I would have the permission to make the choice rather than simply permission.


Right, they are giving consent, not MAKING you take the car. You just destroyed your own argument.

Also, taking no save violates the principle of "must use the best save" since you aren't using one.


Again, this is a subsequent rule that is mandatory. It is illogical to claim that this makes it's antecedent rule mandatory as well.
Image
User avatar
EldarCorsair
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Woodstock

Postby n00bzilla99 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:44 pm

Please read the complex units section where it tells you how to allocate wounds and saves to units.

It instructs you to sort out the dice for wounds and then it tells you that once you have allocated wounds, you roll for saves. No choice there. Nowhere in those paragraphs (which are a separate heading) does it say you can choose to take your armor saves. If you can find the word "can" in that section then you've wordhunted better than me because it is lacking.

"Having allocated the wounds, all of the models that are identical in gaming terms roll their saves at the same time, in one batch."


Nowhere does it use can at this point.

Assuming now that since there is no "can" in this section and it instructs to roll saves after wounds are allocated, we assume that you in this situation (allocation of wounds) MUST take saves.

This creates a contradiction. If you are correct, (which you are not) then you could take casualties without rolling on a non-complex unit, but you must always roll on a complex unit. Why would GW create a system like this? This calls for an application of common sense. When all of the wounds are allocated to a unit, (even non-complex) you roll all of the saves in one batch for each different group. No can, no choice. If there is only one group of models, you roll them all at once.
Image
Check out my band Brotherhood Sidekicks on Soundcloud!

G.R.A.M.P.A. Member
User avatar
n00bzilla99
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Postby yakface » Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:25 pm

The term 'can' or 'may' does not always (or even most of the time) indicate a choice is allowed. It is often used simply to mean 'to be able to' or to 'have permission to'.

Typically in rules, when a player is actively being given a choice, the term 'may' or 'can' is used as 'may choose' or 'can choose' or (at the very least) the alternative choice is presented in the actual rules.

For example (and this is a made up example) if I wrote a rule that said: 'when Reserves arrive they may move on from the player's table edge', all I have done is to give permission for units to move on from the player's table edge. Without presenting another valid option, the use of the word may does not allow the player to do anything else besides move his units on from his own table edge.

Of course, since 'may and 'can' are often used to denote choice, writing the rule this way would lead to ambiguity, as it has in this case (which is why its a good thing that the Reserve rules do use the word 'must'). 'Must' is always perfectly clear and has no ambiguity, but just because this word was not used does not clearly indicate that the author intended the player to have a choice in this situation...as I pointed out a perfectly valid interpretation is that it means 'permission'.

So the rule can correctly mean: "...the owning player has permission to test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by making a saving throw..."

And that permission is then further explained in the subsequent rules on how to take armor saves.


So if you have a rule that can be correctly read in several different ways then there is no one 'RAW' that everyone agrees on, such as in this case. At this point, taking the context of the rule into consideration to determine which definition is more appropriate is required.

Given that the rules clearly explain what a save is, it contextually ludicrous to assume that models could somehow remove or disable their armor/chitin/etc at will in order to ensure their own death.

Furthermore, GW actually removed from the rules in 5th edition instances of players being able to purposely make their models underperform for tactical benefit (the prime example being the removal of models being able to 'turn off' their power weapons in close combat).

Finally, the last big clue should be the 'remove casualties' section (on page 24) which says:

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP."

As you can see, the rules only acknowledge two possibilities: wounds from failed saves and wounds against which no save can be attempted. If the rules were trying to explicitly allow players to choose whether or not to take saves then in this section it would have to mention that point...because as it stands now, wounds that a player chooses not to attempt a saving throw against aren't explicitly defined as an 'unsaved wound' and therefore cannot be resolved in the normal casualty removal process.


So in conclusion:

1) Yes the rules are ambiguous as the term 'can' has multiple definitions and is sometimes used to denote permission while other times it is used to denote a choice.

2) Given that there are multiple ways to interpret the rule, taking context into consideration it becomes pretty clear (IMHO) which interpretation is correct: players do not get the choice to not take armor saves.


In the case of Adepticon, although this ruling is not in the INAT (yet), I can safely say that all tournament judges will be ruling this way at the event.
Last edited by yakface on Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
yakface
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:43 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby n00bzilla99 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:54 pm

yakface wrote:The term 'can' or 'may' does not always (or even most of the time) indicate a choice is allowed. It is often used simply to mean 'to be able to' or to 'have permission to'.


This is essentially what I was saying the entire time.

Thank you Yakface for the ruling. That's how I was hoping it was going to be played at AdeptiCon.
Image
Check out my band Brotherhood Sidekicks on Soundcloud!

G.R.A.M.P.A. Member
User avatar
n00bzilla99
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Postby Inquisitor_Malice » Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:51 pm

Hey Jon

PM Sent - we need to review this before an official ruling is made.

Greg
- Greg
User avatar
Inquisitor_Malice
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:58 pm

Postby EldarCorsair » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:30 am

yakface wrote:The term 'can' or 'may' does not always (or even most of the time) indicate a choice is allowed. It is often used simply to mean 'to be able to' or to 'have permission to'.


This statement is contradictory.

You say that can/may do not indicate choice, yet then go on to state that the player "has permission to". As I mentioned earlier, granting permission does not mean a player MUST do so.


Typically in rules, when a player is actively being given a choice, the term 'may' or 'can' is used as 'may choose' or 'can choose' or (at the very least) the alternative choice is presented in the actual rules.


Correct.

The "alternative choice" is not stated. Logically, that would mean that the player does not attempt to save, which brings us to...

Finally, the last big clue should be the 'remove casualties' section (on page 24) which says:

"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP."


No save was attempted, therefore, the model(s) is removed from play.


And that permission is then further explained in the subsequent rules on how to take armor saves.


As I mentioned earlier, these subsequent rules do not explain their antecedent nor make it mandatory.


Given that the rules clearly explain what a save is, it contextually ludicrous to assume that models could somehow remove or disable their armor/chitin/etc at will in order to ensure their own death.


This is your opinion.


In every other instance of the terms "can/may" coming up in the rulebook, they are considered to be optional and their use is at the discretion of the controlling player. Would you continue to say that the following are also mandatory?

Rapid Fire Weapons - p.28
"Models armed with rapid fire weapons can move and fire two shots...models armed with rapid fire weapons may instead fire one shot..."

Consolidation - p.40
"...they may consolidate. This means that they may move D6"..."

IC joining units - p.48
"They can join other indepedent characters...alternatively, an independent character may begin the game already with a unit...an independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase...

Psychic Powers - p.50
"Psykers can use one psychic power per turn."

Force Weapons -p.50
"The psyker may then take a psychic test to use the weapon's power..."

USRs - p.74-76
May/can are used throughout to denote player choice. Must is used when a rule or roll is mandatory.
Last edited by EldarCorsair on Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
EldarCorsair
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Woodstock

Postby YeezyMozart » Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Corsair your logic is sound and you present a great argument.

Permission does not force one to do anything.. correct so the use of May or Can and the definition you would like to present it whether it represents choice or permission doesn't change the fact that you are never directly forced to take a save in the rulebook overall.

I also agree that this decision of wheather or not to take armor saves takes precedence over the ruling that the "Best save must be Taken".

To be short I agree with everything you are saying, but I would rather have players forced to take armor saves because it just makes the game weird if you can just choose to die. Thats my opinion and it just takes the realism out of it a little bit for me, its not chess I am not sacrificing my pawn to get your horse three turns later you should be keeping your men alive not throwing them to die... again opinion based many player probably play more from a purely strategic perspective. But I love when my flashlights kill a terminator. :lol:


However the Quote below I think is a great counter argument that you didn't really address.

EldarCorsair wrote:
yakface wrote:
"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP."


No save was attempted, therefore, the model(s) is removed from play.


[/quote]

Think of wounds as a giant circle that could occur because of a bunch of different strings of cause and effect. Now you have a bunch of little circles inside this big one but the two main halves of the circle are:

"Models that fail their armor save and models that are not given permission to take an armor save".


You say no save was attempted now the question is if a model does not attempt to make a save did he fail his save? The way i look at it if the model didn't attempt to do something it could neither win or fail. I believe I can use your argument against you first one must choose to attempt to shoot the ball into the hoop if you choose not to shoot the ball you have neither failed nor passed your task you choose to forgo it all together.

Therefore if you choose to not take armor save you didn't fail or pass it. This is where we have an issue with the notion of choice. I agree no where does it say you must take a save, the second amendment is a right/permission to bear arms but no one makes you buy a gun.

But if the rule book states that wounds come from one of two overall places "Failed saves or wounds that do not give permission" therefore I believe you can not choose to forgo your save you must attempt it because forgoing it would not be the same as failing it and this would contradict the rules of where wounds come from. The choice to take it precedes the potential outcomes.

I hope I made some what of a sound argument. I have enjoyed your posts. I love to argue over terminology I was going to be a lawyer.
I knew a man who once said, ”Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back.”

Chicago Kamikazes: http://chicagokamikazes.blogspot.com/
YeezyMozart
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:42 am

Postby n00bzilla99 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:22 pm

EldarCorsair wrote:This statement is contradictory.


No it's not. It's english. Can or may can be used to indicate permission or give choice. There are multiple meanings to it. Hint: The underlined can does not give a choice, it explains there is a possibility.

EldarCorsair wrote:"For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP."

No save was attempted, therefore, the model(s) is removed from play.


If you didn't attempt it, you cannot fail it. Therefore how do you take casualties?

EldarCorsair wrote:As I mentioned earlier, these subsequent rules do not explain their antecedent nor make it mandatory.


No, but we have proven that can has other meanings... so you cannot assume that your interpretation is inherently correct.

EldarCorsair wrote:This is your opinion.


It's also your opinion that you can turn it off somehow.

EldarCorsair wrote:In every other instance of the terms "can/may" coming up in the rulebook, they are considered to be optional and their use is at the discretion of the controlling player. Would you continue to say that the following are also mandatory?[...]


They all offer permission using can.
Image
Check out my band Brotherhood Sidekicks on Soundcloud!

G.R.A.M.P.A. Member
User avatar
n00bzilla99
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Postby YeezyMozart » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:12 pm

AdeptusBrewCityJoe I a confused by your continuation of defining the word "Can or May" you say they grant permission. Okay we are all in agreement can gives me permission to take my saves what if I don't want to. Permission to do something does not force one to do it.

No one has to prove anything about what Can means it clearly grants permission to preform a task but never forces anyone to preform the task.

I said earlier the only argument that provides solid foundation to not allowing a player to choose to take a save is the knowledge of where wounds must come from. Two major places failed saves and no permission granted saves.
Since the choice to take a save is a precedent to the outcome choosing to not take a save eliminates a pass/fail scenario just like if you truly where able to say "I choose to fail these saves" you will never get to the condition that stipulates you must use your best save because the latter rule is dependent on the original decision.
I knew a man who once said, ”Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back.”

Chicago Kamikazes: http://chicagokamikazes.blogspot.com/
YeezyMozart
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:42 am

PreviousNext

Return to AdeptiCon 2011

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron