Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is it possible to have a 1+ armor save? I can't find a rule saying that you can't, but I don't know for sure. Anybody have a definite answer?

It is impossible. Rolling a one on your save is always a fail.

Ya see, that's what I thought. Let me peruse the rules again and see if I can find it in black and white. Thanks!

The bright side being, should a 1+ save be available, it'd give you an armour save against weapons of AP2.

Illeix wrote:It is impossible. Rolling a one on your save is always a fail.

No. There is no rule that says that rolling a one always fails. A roll of one always fails because you can't have better than a 2+ armour save (Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook, page 24 'Maximum Save'). That's the result of the rule that you can't have better than a 2+ armour save, not a separate rule in and of itself.

BRB pg.24 "A roll of 1 always fails."
I see two rules no saves beyond 2+ and...heh

Ghaz wrote:No. There is no rule that says that rolling a one always fails. A roll of one always fails because you can't have better than a 2+ armour save (Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook, page 24 'Maximum Save'). That's the result of the rule that you can't have better than a 2+ armour save, not a separate rule in and of itself.

SeattleDV8 wrote:BRB pg.24 "A roll of 1 always fails."
I see two rules no saves beyond 2+ and...heh

"Heh" indeed!

Ghaz wrote:

Illeix wrote:It is impossible. Rolling a one on your save is always a fail.

No. There is no rule that says that rolling a one always fails. A roll of one always fails because you can't have better than a 2+ armour save (Warhammer 40,000 5th edition rulebook, page 24 'Maximum Save'). That's the result of the rule that you can't have better than a 2+ armour save, not a separate rule in and of itself.

even so, a one is still a fail either way...

SeattleDV8 wrote:BRB pg.24 "A roll of 1 always fails."
I see two rules no saves beyond 2+ and...heh

No. The rule is "... no save... can ever be improved beyond 2+." The result of that rule is that a roll of a 1 always fails. The first is the rule, the second is the result of the rule.

What is known as a distinction without a difference.

Yes, cool, whatever.

The redundancy is killing me, can we move on from arguing the same point?

No saves better than 2+, BS/WS higher than 5 adds an extra attack instead, to wound never gets better than 2+. so ones always mean failure.

We done yet?

snake eyes

Illeix wrote:Yes, cool, whatever.

The redundancy is killing me, can we move on from arguing the same point?

No saves better than 2+, BS/WS higher than 5 adds an extra attack instead, to wound never gets better than 2+. so ones always mean failure.

We done yet?

BS higher than 5 means you reroll if you fail. WS higher than 5 doesn't change anything. Where did you get that rule from?

SeattleDV8 wrote:What is known as a distinction without a difference.

There is a distinction. One is the rule, the other is not. The second by itself would not prevent a 1+ armor save.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
BS higher than 5 means you reroll if you fail. WS higher than 5 doesn't change anything. Where did you get that rule from?

Sorry, started typing without a rulebook in front of me.
I was trying to say that this thread has nothing more to offer, and the bickering is going in circles.

Ghaz wrote:

SeattleDV8 wrote:What is known as a distinction without a difference.

There is a distinction. One is the rule, the other is not. The second by itself would not prevent a 1+ armor save.

and what you said changes nothing. 1 is a fail.

Yes, it does change things. Just because a one always fails does not mean you can't get a 1+ save, it just means that doing so is pointless.

Again, the rule is that you can never have better than a 2+ save. The result of that rule is that a roll of a one always fails.

If only my head were to be instantly crushed by a 60 ton hydraulic press, I would die.

If my entire body but not my head were to be instantly crushed by a 60 ton hydraulic press, I would die.

The important distinction is that I would prefer either fate to seeing this discussion continue.

Ghaz wrote:
Again, the rule is that you can never have better than a 2+ save. The result of that rule is that a roll of a one always fails.

This is exactly what everyone's been arguing for the last few hours...

The rules are written that, since you cannot get better than a 2+, therefore a one is always a failure because of this rule, not nessicarily because a one is, by the RAW, an auto fail, just that the rules have been written to make it that way.

OK, is that good enough?

No, that's not what everyone's been arguing for the last few hours. Go back and actually read this thread. You will see that I'm the only person who is saying that there is one rule here. The others are trying to say that the passage "A roll of 1 always fails." is a complete and separate rule from the passage that states "However, no save... can ever be improved beyond 2+". There are not two separate rules that basically have the same effect. It should be read as follows:

However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. As a result A roll of 1 always fails.

Understand now?

maybe you should try and improve your comprehensive skills. You see, I have pretty much been defending your position in my last couple posts, and showing why the rule you cite makes a one a fail.
But, if you want to be oppositional, fine by me.

My comprehension skills are quite fine, thank you. Perhaps you should not state that everyone's been arguing the same thing when they've not then. No one's arguing about the results. If they had, then there wouldn't be a problem, would there? No. The argument here is the fact that people are trying to make a result of a rule into a separate rule. That's what everyone's been arguing about, not the quote of mine that you put in your previous post.

Now, I'm the one that brought up the auto fail in the first place, and then you rightfully corrected me, no problem there.
Everyone agrees on saves being no better than 2+, no problem there either.
But then you tell everyone that they are all wrong, and they couldn't care less. And you say that I am wrong, but then rewrite what I've said almost verbatim.

Jeezum crow...I didn't mean this to degenerate into an argument. Thanks for the clarification and the page reference. Now can we just let it go?

Actually, it is NOT technically impossible to get a 1+ save. If for some reason GW were to release a codex that had options through warger that somehow allowed a 1+ save it could happen. Remember, the rulebook even states that codex rules supercede the rulebook itself, so the part about saves being 2+ at best would be ignored.

But at this time no such wargear options exist, so the argument is a tad futile. I think the closest thing that ever poped up was Tyranid Warp Shield and extended carapace coombination, but that was taken care of in the codex as an impossible combination.

That's too bad, I'd love to see the look on some kids face when his "invincible" super duper dakka choppy godlyfex takes two steps and gets slapped with 3 multi-meltas and an orbital lance strike.

I can think of one.

Eldar Pathfinder allies with a marine player

Tech Marine special rule for boosting cover save on terrain piece.

there 2+ becomes 1+ in that case if it was possible to get a 1+

Ghaz wrote:No, that's not what everyone's been arguing for the last few hours. Go back and actually read this thread. You will see that I'm the only person who is saying that there is one rule here. The others are trying to say that the passage "A roll of 1 always fails." is a complete and separate rule from the passage that states "However, no save... can ever be improved beyond 2+". There are not two separate rules that basically have the same effect. It should be read as follows:

However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. As a result A roll of 1 always fails.

Understand now?

That is a misquote and your own take on the rules. the line you seem to like "As a result" is not in the rules. "A roll of 1 always fails."is in the rules. That rule has been part of 40K and Warhammer for many years and is one of the two stated and mutually supporting rules.

SeattleDV8 and Ghaz. The pissing contest is over. I declare you both winners. Can you please stop comparing penises now!

EDIT. Whoever doesn't stop is naturally the small-penised guy with the inferiority complex.

LOL good one steelmage99