Topic: War Altar Ward Save

[Counts_Champion]

Where does it say that the War Altars ward save does not pass along to its rider?

I can't find it in the rulebook.

Thank you.

[Syn Ace]

Ridden Monsters and Characters don't share armor/wards. The War Altar counts as a Chariot Mount, which uses most of the Ridden Monster rules. The old War Altar rules explicitly said the ward save applied to the altar and the rider. Now it doesn't. 

[Counts_Champion]

That may be true, but is there anything in the BRB that comments on this question is specific terms? I can't find anywhere that says a chariot mounted character is not allowed the ward save. If a war altar and arch Lector can be targeted as a unit why can't they share the same defensive capabilities of one unit?

[Syn Ace]

Because they have separate profiles and are attacked and fight separately. Notice one can be killed and the other will fight on. The rider gets a +1 to his armor save for being mounted, that's about it. A rider can get a ward save, but it's got to come from a magic item he's got or an innate ability and vice versa. That's why a griffon doesn't get the ward save of it's rider.

[Counts_Champion]

I defer to your expertise and the expertise of this forum, however it would be nice to have a specific entry in the BRB saying it can't happen. Again, correct me if I am wrong is there actual text that specifically says the ward save does not transfer or is it just assumed?

[Syn Ace]

Well, I don't have a rule book handy right now, but I'm pretty sure the language says Ridden Monsters/Chariot Mounts and characters each get their own armor saves, so, following along with that, I don't think there is anything in there saying they can share a ward save; which is why the War Altar was unique among Ridden Monsters/Chariot Mounts in that the last edition Empire book said they both got the altar's ward save (there may be others out there with a similar exception written into their rules, but I can't think of them off hand).

[Darknight]

I think the question would be where does it say it DOES? The rules cannot be interpreted negatively, assuming something not explicitly condemned is allowed would result in VASTLY larger rulebooks (and, ultimately, necessitate an infinitely large set of rules).

[Counts_Champion]

I think the question would be where does it say it DOES? The rules cannot be interpreted negatively, assuming something not explicitly condemned is allowed would result in VASTLY larger rulebooks (and, ultimately, necessitate an infinitely large set of rules).

An excellent point. Thank you two for your help. Just trying to understand the rules better. 

[Syn Ace]

An excellent point. Thank you two for your help. Just trying to understand the rules better. 

No problem -- this comes up enough times that GW really should rewrite it so that it's clear. And in fact, I just sent them off an FAQ/errata request and that was amongst the items.

I think the question would be where does it say it DOES? The rules cannot be interpreted negatively, assuming something not explicitly condemned is allowed would result in VASTLY larger rulebooks (and, ultimately, necessitate an infinitely large set of rules).

I wish we could look at the rules that way. I'd love to claim invisibility for my general on a griffon. "But where does it say he's not invisible? Sorry, I'm afraid that you just can't shoot at him." 

[Lord Solar Plexus]

Yep, what Darknight said. It's a permissive ruleset, so unless something says it does, it does not.