PDA

View Full Version : Choosing not to make a save?



coelomate
18-08-2006, 03:27
Hi there -

I'm wondering if you're allowed to NOT take a ward save.

Imagine a Wood Elf character with Stone of the Crystal Mere taking a wound from a crossbow bolt but knowing there's a cannon left to fire that turn. Could you simply take the wound and not risk 'breaking' the ward save?

Gorbad Ironclaw
18-08-2006, 09:10
Nope. Armour and Ward saves are always taken after suffering a wound. It's part of the mechanism, it's not an option.

scavenseer
18-08-2006, 09:17
If the wood elf has more than one save he can always choose to take the save that has the greater chance of failing.:)

Gorbad Ironclaw
18-08-2006, 09:22
Actually, no. You always add all armour together, and if you fail the armour, you take your ward save. And use the best ward if you have several.

DeathlessDraich
18-08-2006, 10:19
Pg 64 "Models that are wounded still have a chance to avoid damege....
Ward Saves: ... a model with a Ward may still try to make its Ward save ..."

From these rules a player has the option of Not making a Ward save.

This contrasts with combat: pg 68: "Models in base contact ... may not choose to avoidd attacking ..."

Restrictions for magic Items are similarly restricted Only with Close Combat Magic Weapons:

pg152: "A character with a magic close combat weapon cannot use other close combat weapons"

Shaitan
18-08-2006, 13:37
Imagine a Wood Elf character with Stone of the Crystal Mere taking a wound from a crossbow bolt but knowing there's a cannon left to fire that turn. Could you simply take the wound and not risk 'breaking' the ward save?

Hmm... do you mean to say that a ward save can only be taken once per character?

The BRB says the following (p. 64): A model may only ever make one Ward Save against each wound it has suffered.

So in your case I would say, make the ward save against the crossbow bolt and later on make a ward save against the cannon.

This is how me and my friends play the game... if it's wrong, please tell!

Festus
18-08-2006, 14:19
Hi

Hmm... do you mean to say that a ward save can only be taken once per character?


Imagine a Wood Elf character with Stone of the Crystal Mere ...

Does this answer your question?

Greetings
Festus

TheWarSmith
18-08-2006, 15:43
I'm not familiar w/ that item, but my guess is that it's something similar to the following:

Models gains a ward save versus the first wound suffered by a missile weapon.

Thus, he'd obviously much rather take the dinky crossbow wound and have the ward save versus the cannon which is about to blast him.

I'd say that ward saves are not optional. You take it every time. Your armor/blessing doesn't "choose" to work depending on situational circumstance.

CarlostheCraven
18-08-2006, 16:03
Isn't this a silly context for this question? The cannon, as a guess weapon, would have to be fired prior to any normal shooting. Therefore, one cannot negate ward using a crossbow to open up a cannon shot, unless of course the crossbow is used in one turn and the cannon in another, later turn. I suppose a warp lightning cannon and jezzails would be a better example to cite for this scenario.

The wording of the use of ward saves, as quoted above, includes the word "may", thus rendering it up to the user whether they wish to call upon power of their ward.

Generally, the answer to using a ward save is always "yes". The wording of the Stone of the Crystal Mere (I do not have the book with me atm) may imply that it is only usable against the first wound taken, and hence you might as well use it against the crossbow bolt. There is a Vampire Count item worded like this (the Goblet/Amulet of Blood IIRC?). However, if it is a one use only item, with no specifier as to when it applies, then the user can take it whenever he wants (the cannon shot).

Cheers

Avian
18-08-2006, 16:53
The wording of the use of ward saves, as quoted above, includes the word "may", thus rendering it up to the user whether they wish to call upon power of their ward.
For what it's worth, the 7. ed. rules say "must" in pretty much all these cases. I'm not going to say 100% that they do so in this case, but I am willing to stake money on it.

I'll check.

CarlostheCraven
18-08-2006, 17:23
If 7th does indeed use the word "must", then I would change my stance accordingly. Unfortunately, I would have to go to my local hobby shop to check, which I cannot do atm.

Cheers

NakedFisherman
18-08-2006, 17:35
If 7th does indeed use the word "must", then I would change my stance accordingly. Unfortunately, I would have to go to my local hobby shop to check, which I cannot do atm.

Cheers

It doesn't. Models with a ward save are 'allowed' to make a save, it doesn't say they must.

Armour saves must be used, however.

coelomate
18-08-2006, 20:02
Swanky!

Without divulging too many rules, this particular wood elf item may not be used again after the first time the save is failed. I guess my point is there may be a point where I have 3 wounds and don't care about losing one in order to not risk losing the save before a round of cannons, or maybe a challenge with the enemy general.

It would seem it is optional, which provides some nice tactical flexibility. Anybody have anything else to add?

Thanks!

T10
18-08-2006, 23:03
Hi there -

I'm wondering if you're allowed to NOT take a ward save.



Can an Orc chose not to use his Ironskin Shield? Maybe. Can a Daemon chose not to use his Daemonic save? Not likely.

In either case, I doubt the model can be assumed to have any grasp of the game's rules, certainly not enough to distinguish a crossbow bolt as being less likely to kill him than would a cannon ball.

-T10

Atrahasis
18-08-2006, 23:10
In either case, I doubt the model can be assumed to have any grasp of the game's rules, certainly not enough to distinguish a crossbow bolt as being less likely to kill him than would a cannon ball.

Both these things exist in real life, and I know which I would rather be hit by, given the choice.

coelomate
18-08-2006, 23:18
Although all things being equal, I think I'd still perfer not to be hit by either a cannon ball OR a crossbow bolt :D

T10
18-08-2006, 23:19
Both these things exist in real life, and I know which I would rather be hit by, given the choice.

But the character doesn't have a choice, does he? He's already been hit! :)

Anyways, the cannon is a guess range weapon and should be worked out before the crossbow shot.

-T10

ZomboCom
19-08-2006, 09:16
The cannon shot should certainly have taken place before the crossbow bolt.

This is one of those wheedling points. The use of the word "may" has given people the idea that it's ok to not take the save. That's just wordsmithing and lawyering as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, 7th edition is very clear on this iirc. Ward saves must be taken.

Atrahasis
19-08-2006, 10:37
This is one of those wheedling points. The use of the word "may" has given people the idea that it's ok to not take the save. That's just wordsmithing and lawyering as far as I'm concerned.

If we assume that the designers are not saying what they mean, then the rules become absolutely meaningless. Yes, there are many proven cases where the designers have not said what they meant, but that gives us no precedent to begin lossely interpreting what they say to satisfy our own notions of intent.

The rules say "may", and without official word to change that, "may" is what we must play by (obviously house rules can change this).


Anyway, 7th edition is very clear on this iirc. Ward saves must be taken.Please read the thread, it has already been stated that this is not the case.

DeathlessDraich
19-08-2006, 11:33
Just had a look at 7th.

It says "Ward saves must be taken after armour saves" but it does not say that Armour saves Must be taken neither does it say Ward saves (if they are the only saves available) must be taken.
Looks like we're almost back to square 1.

mageith
19-08-2006, 14:45
I have to go with Atrahasis on this one. There isn't any requirement to take a ward save on pages 64-65.

The words 'may' and 'allowed to' are used. Very permissive. It's almost as if GW went out of its way to say the ward save is optional.

"If it [normal save] is failed, the model is allowed to try to make a Ward save." (65) I can't find anything else that contradicts this.

Don't know why they made it so optional but they clearly did.

The Crystal mere doesn't shed any light either. It just confers a ward save that can go away if it fails.

NakedFisherman
19-08-2006, 15:15
Just had a look at 7th.

It says "Ward saves must be taken after armour saves" but it does not say that Armour saves Must be taken neither does it say Ward saves (if they are the only saves available) must be taken.
Looks like we're almost back to square 1.

Read the 'Armour Saves' section. It doesn't allow an option -- wounded troops take a save with their armor.

However, the 'Ward Saves' box inset says ward saves are 'allowed' to be taken.

T10
19-08-2006, 20:15
Quite frankly, I am willing to assume that the game designers are using the words "may" and "is allowed to" in order to distinguish between models with/without ward saves rather than between models with/without the wish to actually use it.

-T10

ZomboCom
19-08-2006, 21:07
If we assume that the designers are not saying what they mean, then the rules become absolutely meaningless. Yes, there are many proven cases where the designers have not said what they meant, but that gives us no precedent to begin lossely interpreting what they say to satisfy our own notions of intent.

The rules say "may", and without official word to change that, "may" is what we must play by (obviously house rules can change this).

Please read the thread, it has already been stated that this is not the case.

Sure, by the letter of the 6th edition rules you are correct. But also by the letter of the 6th edition rules Treemen are not stubborn, and swordmasters can have killing blow arrows and spells.

Would you argue that the Treeman isn't stubborn?

Atrahasis
19-08-2006, 21:53
Would you argue that the Treeman isn't stubborn?

No. In the case of the Treeman he has two rules, one of which negates the other. It is, in that case, reasonable to assume that an omission was made and that the Treeman's two rules should apply without interfering with each other.

It is NOT reasonable to assume that ONE rule that contradicts nothing should be interpreted in a way in which is not supported by its text.

T10
20-08-2006, 09:03
Regeneration:
A creature with this ability may try to regenerate any wound on a D6 roll of 4+.


Please don't tell me that a Troll can make the conscious decision *not* to regenerate a wound.

-T10

CarlostheCraven
20-08-2006, 09:36
Perhaps the permissive modal verb "may" was used because there are other rules within the game that deny the use of regeneration (flaming attacks, killing blow), wherein one "may not" regenerate.

A more accurate writing of this rule would have been
"A creature with this ability must try to regenerate any wound on a D6 roll of 4+, unless regeneration is disallowed by another ability, which will be clearly stated in the ability's description."

However, this takes up a lot more space, and perhaps they were required to edit the rule to fit within the page restrictions for special rules. Who knows what they were thinking, really.

Totally Sarcastic -
Apparently, since RaW is the order of the day, at least in 40k, then, sure, you could choose not to make your regeneration rolls, though it was probably not the writer's intent. Perhaps you really need to open up some space for a counter-charge... (Disclaimer - I am just a little bitter over the Tyranid FAQ)

Cheers

Gazak Blacktoof
20-08-2006, 09:45
Its more likely the case that the guy writing the rules decided he'd used the word "must" too many damned times and wanted to type something different. GW has a history of not writing tightly worded rules because they don't always say what they mean. They don't like dry, instructive rules-sets.

If you were being shot at would you want a crossbowbolt in the face? No? Then neither will the elf. Doing something completely weird just to gain some small advantage is rules lawyering. Think how a situation is likely to resolve itself and apply the most common sense solution. In this case survival instinct takes over. You wont be thinking hmmm what if I get shot by something more powerful later, you'll be thinking I hope my magic item doesn't fail me, or I hope I don't get shot at again.

CarlostheCraven
20-08-2006, 10:08
Gazak, you are absolutely right, the player electing to save his ward save is being a rules lawyer. Is it sporting and within the spirit of the rules? No. At least not from your perspective (or mine for that matter), or probably from the gaming community as a whole.

However, is his decision "fair" and "legal". Absolutely. Can you argue against the Rules as they are written? Apparently not in a competitive situation.

Although, this whole ward save thing is rather minor when compared to other 6th edition abuses - for example, a unit with unit strength 5 can claim a table quarter, but any unit of any size can contest. WTF? How is this possible? the editor/writer missed a single comma when writing the rule. With the addition of one comma the US5 proviso would have applied to both sides of the equation. (this is clearly resolved in 7th. HUZZAH!!!) The intent was clear, but the letter of the rules was rather different. The first time this was done to me I was rather upset. Lets not get started about a charged unit getting overrun after wiping out the charging unit...

Unfortunately, there are players who are looking for any advantage they can get. The best solution is not "4+ it", rather the solution is a tightly written rules set for tournament/league play.

Cheers

DeathlessDraich
20-08-2006, 11:38
Read the 'Armour Saves' section. It doesn't allow an option -- wounded troops take a save with their armor.

However, the 'Ward Saves' box inset says ward saves are 'allowed' to be taken.

Are you talking about 6th or 7th edition rules?

In Both editions the important word "must" is omitted for Armour Saves and in the 7th edition, the statement used for Ward Saves is still ambiguous:

" Ward saves must be taken after Armour Saves"

This does not necessarily mean they must be taken but could mean they can only be taken After Armour saves.

It cannot be argued the omission of the word "must" is an oversight because there is a similar "must", an imperative, in pg 68:

"Models in base contact ... may not choose to avoid attacking ..."

i.e. models MUST always fight - the tactic of avoiding slaying all enemy models, so that a unit can win by CR and then pursue to try to avoid being charged in the rear, is Not allowed.


(this is clearly resolved in 7th. HUZZAH!!!)
Not quite - see above


GW has a history of not writing tightly worded rules because they don't always say what they mean. They don't like dry, instructive rules-sets.


True - Same narrative style in the 7th!


Please don't tell me that a Troll can make the conscious decision *not* to regenerate a wound.
-T10

Yes and why not if the rules state they 'may', then they might not.:)


I can't see anything wrong with using the word 'may' in the rules.
It simply changes the complexion of the game and allows for flexibility and sacrificial tactics which is very much part of Warhammer.
As for making the game more realistic, a warrior who chooses not to make a save is simply sacrificing himself for his general or the army - as in Leonidas and the Battle of Thermopylae.

CarlostheCraven
20-08-2006, 22:34
My Huzzah was refering to the clarification of claiming and contesting table quarters, not the save issue. Also, overrun is clarified. Huzzah again.

I believe the Skull Pass booklet, which I cannot quote directly, but rather from memory, uses "must" in reference to armour saves, and "can" in reference to ward and regeneration saves, an even more permissive modal verb in English than "may."

Cheers