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.

Tragically, I see his point, I can't find anywhere in the book where it spells out that +1 to a 3+ roll is in effect a 2+ roll, in fact it spells out the opposite on p5. "Modifying dice rolls".
We all know how it works because it's been that way forever. The only thing that might support the notion is where it says on p2 that the lower the armour save the better...

No, youre the troll. You have stated, with no rules, that it gives +1 to the D6 roll

The rule does not say "roll"

Armour SaveS means that, if he has more than one armour save, ALL armour saves are improved. YEs, this has no functional use

If you try to add +1 to your armour save ROLL, then you have broken the rule and are thus cheating.

If you cannot back up your contention with an actual rule, then you are the one trolling.

I fail to see how pg. 19 Maximum Saves doesn't address this.

Play it however you want though, and enjoy your games against a rapidly shrinking group of folks who'll play a game with you.

The Infinite wrote:Tragically, I see his point, I can't find anywhere in the book where it spells out that +1 to a 3+ roll is in effect a 2+ roll, in fact it spells out the opposite on p5. "Modifying dice rolls".
We all know how it works because it's been that way forever. The only thing that might support the notion is where it says on p2 that the lower the armour save the better...

Precisely. It states it is an Improved Armour Save. Going from a 3+ to a 4+ is not an improvement.

Additionally Fling still doesnt have a point, as Fling is trying to make up a whole new rule, by inserting the word "roll" into the rule. This word does not exist. Thus Flings argument is null.

Onion any rules to back up that statement?

Nosfuratu it doesn't give +1 to your armour save. It clearly states saves as you can't possibly have multiple armour saves the only plural possible in relation to saves is in the rolls. If i ask you to take 5 armour saves what am i asking you to do? Now what is i said add one to those?

Ovion wrote:Because FlingItNow wants necron lords in a chariot to be immortal for some reason.

I think they're tough enough already. I get barge-rage from most of my opponents as it is!

Please do attach or post scanned images of GW IP. Thanks ~ Manchu

FlingitNow wrote:Onion any rules to back up that statement?

Nosfuratu it does give +1 to your armour save. It clearly states saves as you can't possibly have multiple armour saves the only plural possible in relation to saves is in the rolls. If i ask you to take 5 armour saves what am i asking you to do? Now what is i said add one to those?

So, any rules yet?

No?

Please find some.

Also, while you're there, please find where you are prohibited from having more than one armour save - oh wait, you arent. Assertion from you is refuted, try again.

Hint: Look for the word "ROLL" in the rule for chariots under IMproved Save. Also, understand what an improved Save means (hint: it is better than it used to be by passing on a lower number. No effect on the actual roll you make, just on what you pass by)

The reason for the plural is if you take multiple hits you must take multiple saves. Go figure!

If they hadn't made it plural asshats would have been arguing that you only get the improvement once per game/turn or some such (other) idiocy.

15 different people have said the same thing, backed by 6 editions worth of rules.

Ask just about anyone, any staff member, or send an email to Games Workshop, and they'll say the same thing.

When everyone is confirming that it works in this way (same way such things have worked for years) and you are the only one actively arguuing it works differently.

My only logical conclusion is that your a troll / tfg and need to be ignored.

FlingitNow wrote:Onion any rules to back up that statement?

Nosfuratu it doesn't give +1 to your armour save. It clearly states saves as you can't possibly have multiple armour saves the only plural possible in relation to saves is in the rolls. If i ask you to take 5 armour saves what am i asking you to do? Now what is i said add one to those?

Plenty of models have multiple armour saves. I've already given an example.

Want a more specific one?
A Dark Eldar Archon in Ghostplate Armour with a Shadowfield standing in a Bastion has the following saves:
4+ Armour Save
6+ Invulnerable Save
2+ Invulnerable Save
3+ Cover Save.
So he has 4 available saves, and will use the best one (2+*)

Were he in a Chariot this would be a.
3+ Armour Save
5+ Invulnerable Save
2+ Invulnerable Save
2+ Cover Save.


Hell, if you want to be pickier, he could have a 3+ Cover Save from a Bastion, a 4+ Cover from sitting in area terrain, and a 5+ Cover save from intervening models. ( That's 6 different saves! )
Infact there's 3 paragraphs on Page 19 DEDICATED to Models with more than one save

Your calling me Onion further shows your immaturity and belligerant nature.

FlingitNow wrote:If i ask you to take 5 armour saves what am i asking you to do? Now what is i said add one to those?

That all depends. What armor save do I start with?

FlingitNow wrote:Onion any rules to back up that statement?

Nosfuratu it doesn't give +1 to your armour save. It clearly states saves as you can't possibly have multiple armour saves the only plural possible in relation to saves is in the rolls. If i ask you to take 5 armour saves what am i asking you to do? Now what is i said add one to those?

Yes, you can have multiple armor saves. Therefore your argument is void.
Take the plural off. Since that was the only thing making it apply to a roll (in your brain) now it improves your armor save. Now - take two wounds. You get +1 to one of them - since the word save isn't plural anymore.

FlingitNow wrote:Praxiss as pointed out stealth and shrouded do not say that. You must be trolling. Particularly as you mention 1+ saves and rolling a 1 always fail when neither has relevance to this debate on a 2+ save taken on a d6+1.

From the Blood Angels FAQ(Errata) 1st page right column, 7th entry:

Page 62 - Camo Cloak.
Change to: "A model wearing a camo cloak has a +1 cover save."

So the scouts with camo cloaks behind an aegis defense line have a 3+ cover save (4+ for the defense line and +1 to that for a 3+)

it does not give them a 4+1=5+ cover save.

Same applies in your situation.

Orion none of those examples has multiple armour saves...

Nos armour saves are part of your profile so as the rules state you have 1 of each of the characteristics.

Rigeld removing the plural does change the sentence we are not permitted to do this. What exactly a 1+ to your armour save means is another debate. No where does it state that statement+1 = improves by one. That i am aware of.

TFG wrote:Captain antivas a roll of 1 is exactly that. A roll of d6+1 gives results between 2 and 7. 1 is not possible just as a roll of 1 is not possible on 2d6.

Exactly my point. D6+1 gives a result of 2-7, but the roll is still 1-6.

Trolololololol wrote:I'm still not seeing any rules evidence that suggests that the chariot improves your save by 1. Everything points towards it giving you +1 to your armour saves instead.

I'll play your little game.

Rulebook, Page 19, Maximum Save wrote:Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armor, cover, or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails.

So, as we can see this quote from the Rulebook has the exact wording of the entry under Chariots.

Rulebook, Page 82, Improved Save wrote:...allowing the rider +1 to his armor saves

So, the book says no improvement to an armor save can be better than 2+, the chariot rule improves the save by 1, they use the same wording, but clearly one affects the save and one affects the roll? Maybe in Crazyworld where you seem to have a condo with a great ocean front view, but this is reality where normal people work and play.

FlingitNow wrote:Rigeld removing the plural does change the sentence we are not permitted to do this. What exactly a 1+ to your armour save means is another debate. No where does it state that statement+1 = improves by one. That i am aware of.

Actually it is not debatable at all:

From P.19:

"MAXIMUM SAVE
Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their Saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."

This shows us that +1 = increase = lower save = improved

DeathReaper wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:Praxiss as pointed out stealth and shrouded do not say that. You must be trolling. Particularly as you mention 1+ saves and rolling a 1 always fail when neither has relevance to this debate on a 2+ save taken on a d6+1.

From the Blood Angels FAQ(Errata) 1st page right column, 7th entry:

Page 62 - Camo Cloak.
Change to: "A model wearing a camo cloak has a +1 cover save."

So the scouts with camo cloaks behind an aegis defense line have a 3+ cover save (4+ for the defense line and +1 to that for a 3+)

it does not give them a 4+1=5+ cover save.

Same applies in your situation.

I appreciate what you're saying, but where does it say that in the rulebook?
While I think p19. alludes to this, I can't find anywhere where it spells out that 3+ plus +1 equals 2+ (or something similar).

FlingitNow wrote:Praxiss as pointed out stealth and shrouded do not say that. You must be trolling. Particularly as you mention 1+ saves and rolling a 1 always fail when neither has relevance to this debate on a 2+ save taken on a d6+1.

Are you going to address the fact that I posted a pictre of the rulebook proving this wrong? Or are you going to ignore it since it clearly makes you look quite silly.

The Infinite wrote:I appreciate what you're saying, but where does it say that in the rulebook?
While I think p19. alludes to this, I can't find anywhere where it spells out that 3+ plus +1 equals 2+ (or something similar).

P.19 tells us that +1 = increase = lower save = improved.


P.16: "This means that, unlike other characteristics, an Armour Save is befter if it is a lower number."

Better = improved.

The Infinite wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:Praxiss as pointed out stealth and shrouded do not say that. You must be trolling. Particularly as you mention 1+ saves and rolling a 1 always fail when neither has relevance to this debate on a 2+ save taken on a d6+1.

From the Blood Angels FAQ(Errata) 1st page right column, 7th entry:

Page 62 - Camo Cloak.
Change to: "A model wearing a camo cloak has a +1 cover save."

So the scouts with camo cloaks behind an aegis defense line have a 3+ cover save (4+ for the defense line and +1 to that for a 3+)

it does not give them a 4+1=5+ cover save.

Same applies in your situation.

I appreciate what you're saying, but where does it say that in the rulebook?
While I think p19. alludes to this, I can't find anywhere where it spells out that 3+ plus +1 equals 2+ (or something similar).

Is everyone going to ignore my rulebook quotes? Fine, I'll do it again and address you personally so you can't ignore it.

From P.19:

"MAXIMUM SAVE
Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their Saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+."

You kids have fun arguuing with the troll.

He's blatantly disregarded proof presented (+1 to cover saves, being a universal constant, the ability to have multiple saves, etc.) frm 15-20 people and keeps repeating the same broken-record statement trying to get a rise from people.

As for me, I'm out - everyone should ignore the troll and wait for the threads inevitable death.

FlingitNow wrote:Rigeld removing the plural does change the sentence we are not permitted to do this.

When you're assuming that a plural changes the entire meaning of the sentence, you should really look at the sentence again to make sure you're right.

How do you interpret these rules? Note that they all say "armour saves" just like the chariot does.

Unlike ordinary Dangerous Terrain tests, armour saves cannot be taken against Impact tests. Jump and Jet Pack models must still take Impact tests but they ignore any modifiers from falling 3 or more inches.

If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed.

The rules for armour saves and AP values can be found on pages 16-17.

For each roll of a 1,the weapon Gets Hot; the firing model suffers a Wound (armour saves or invulnerable saves can be taken) and that shot is not fired.

FlingitNow wrote:What exactly a 1+ to your armour save means is another debate. No where does it state that statement+1 = improves by one. That i am aware of.

It's not a debate.

MAXIMUM SAVE
Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save,a roll of 1 always fails.

See how it says some rules may increase saves by +1? Therefore something that gives "+1 to his armour saves" improves your armor save. Just like every single person in this thread, except you, understands.

Ovion wrote:You kids have fun arguuing with the troll.

He's blatantly disregarded proof presented (+1 to cover saves, being a universal constant, the ability to have multiple saves, etc.) frm 15-20 people and keeps repeating the same broken-record statement trying to get a rise from people.

As for me, I'm out - everyone should ignore the troll and wait for the threads inevitable death.

I am done too. if nothing we have said proves he is wrong he is either epically stupid or trolling.

I'm starting to think that FlingitNow might be reading from a different rulebook.

You know this is a 40k forum and uses the 40k rulebook, as produced by GW, right? Just wanted to make sure.

Captain antivas please point to the part where your quote says increased = improves. I can't find it.

Also you posted the stealth rules which further back me up as they say "a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 1 point better than normal"

here the plural makes sense as a model can have multiple cover saves. Note the total lack of anything mentioning +1 to their saves...

annnd, Ignore.

Rigeld none of those examples refer to a specific model. So multiple models would indeed result in multiple armour saves. The chariot rules relate to a single model which can only ever have 1 save. Its not rocket science people. This is fairly straight forward. A model gesturing +1 to his armour saves giving him rolls between 2 and 7 but his armour save remains unchanged

Anybody trying to claim something like this against me would be getting a sock full of Chaos Dreadnought to the face.
Sheesh.

FlingitNow wrote:Rigeld none of those examples refer to a specific model. So multiple models would indeed result in multiple armour saves. The chariot rules relate to a single model which can only ever have 1 save. Its not rocket science people. This is fairly straight forward. A model gesturing +1 to his armour saves giving him rolls between 2 and 7 but his armour save remains unchanged

So you're ignoring the quote from page 19?
And literally every single one of them can refer to a single model.

You're right-it's not rocket science. So quit treating it as such! I came into the thread curious about an "unfailable save" and now I just want to bang my head against a wall until my brains turn to mush-I'm pretty close already from this thread. I've been playing fantasy for over a decade, and 40k since the tail end of 4th, and in both a +1 to your armor save improves it from a 3+ to a 2+ or a 5+ to a 4+, etc. This doesn't change the roll to a 2-7. This is just you arguing with everyone until they shut up and agree with you because it's easier. The guy who told you to enjoy your dwindling opponent base is right-if you start making illogical claims to a game mechanic that has never existed, and probably never will, most people won't play against it or you. Accept that a 3+ with the chariot bonus changes it to a 2+ save. It's the way it work.

Your other question is a simpler answer: if you have a 3+ and the chariot brings it to a 2+ you'll still get your save against AP3 because your new save with chariot modifier is now a 2+. It's pretty straightforward.

This is the only post I'm making, because after the first 20 people told you that you were wrong, you continued to argue and it really puts for the possibility that you are trolling. I won't feed you.

It is in every current rulebook, and the past couple as well, that you always fail on a 1 for armor saves, and always fail on a 6 for characteristic tests.