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.

I am asking here to make sure I haven't missed something super obvious. I feel the need to disclaim, as usual, that I'm not trying to stir anything up, I am genuinely curious as to whether this is the case because it seems odd and I don't know if I have missed something.

Codex: Orks Page 127 wrote:LOOT IT!
Use this Stratagem when a VEHICLE unit is destroyed within 3" of an ORK INFANTRY unit from your army. Improve the Save characteristic of that infantry unit by 1. A unit can only be affected by this stratagem once per battle, and once affected, cannot be selected for the Mob Up Stratagem. If this Stratagem is used on a LOOTAS unit from your army, roll a D6; on a 4+ the CP spent to use this Stratagem is immediately refunded.

As you can see there is no restriction other than having to be INFANTRY, which Meganobz, Big Meks in Mega Armour, Ghazghkull Thraka etc are.

Furthermore there is no restriction in the BRB on modifying statistics such as WS, BS or Save to 1+. The only restriction is:

BRB page 175 wrote:Note that, regardless of the source, characteristics of ‘-’ can never be modified, and the Strength, Toughness and Leadership characteristics of a model can never be modified below 1.

Therefore it's perfectly legal to modify statistics to 1.

Further-furthermore, the Dark Eldar FAQ confirms the RaW that only unmodified 1's automatically fail, not modified ones.

WARHAMMER 40,000 CODEX: DRUKHARI Official Update Version 1.1 Page 1 wrote:Q: If a Succubus is given the Serpentin combat drug, does its Weapon Skill characteristic increase to 1+? If so, does the Succubus still hit if a hit roll of 2 is rolled for an attack for a melee weapon and, due to an ability, I have to subtract 1 from that hit roll?
A: Yes, and yes – only unmodified hit rolls of 1 automatically fail.

Note that before the argument of "You can't use a specific FAQ to generalise", that isn't what I am doing, for two reasons. One is that the FAQ is confirming the RaW anyway, and secondly all of the entries for 1. Hit Roll , 2. Wound Roll and 4. Saving Throw use the exact, letter for letter wording:

BRB Page 181 Sections 3.4.1. Hit Roll , 3.4.2. Wound Roll and 3.4.4. Saving Throw wrote:A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.

Further-further-furthermore, the Designers Commentary states:

Designers Commentary wrote:Q: Can a dice roll ever be modified to less than 1?
A: No. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.

Because this is a 1 only after modification, it's not a 1 "irrespective" of modifiers. Indeed, it's well agreed upon that a Plasma with -1 to hit will overheat and slay the model carrying it on a roll of 1 and 2 To hit.

Further-further-further-furthermore, the rules for Saving Throw explicitly state that the roll is modified, not the characteristic itself.

BRB Page 181 Section 3.4.4 Saving Throw wrote:The player commanding the target unit then makes a saving throw by rolling a dice and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration characteristic of the weapon that caused the damage. For example, if the weapon has an Armour Penetration of -1, then 1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll.

Therefore we can conclude that if you wound a Meganob (or any other model with a 1+ Save characteristic) with an AP-5 weapon, you roll a D6-5 to save, which means you can roll the following set of results: {1-1, 2-1,3-1,4-1,5-1,6-1} = {1,1,1,1,1,1}. Because a Natural 1 always fails while a modified 1 can pass a 1+ check (as previously deduced) that means you have a 5/6 chance of passing the save, regardless of the AP of the weapon that wounds you. You have a 5/6 chance of passing your saving throw regardless of whether it's a AP-1 weapon or an AP-42 weapon.

As I said, this seems kind of weird to be giving out 2++ saves to Orks, but that is what this stratagem seems to be. I for one hope GW either erratas this to max out the save to a 2+, errata it so instead grant a modifier ala the Cover Bonus, change the Designers Commentary to allow dice to be modified below one (and either buff plasma or errata plasma to explode on a 1 or less) or confirm that this is the case via FAQ. I mean, let's face it, Meganobz need all the help they can get. I won't enjoy fighting a 2++ Ghazgul though!

It all depends how you read 'irrespective of any modifiers'.

You have interpreted it as 'without modifiers'. However this can easily be taken to mean 'with or without modifiers'.

The latter interpretation means that a 1 before OR after modifiers always fails.

As the result of the latter feels much more intuitive I would generally go with it.

I agree this could use some official clarification though.

 Stux wrote:
It all depends how you read 'irrespective of any modifiers'.

You have interpreted it as 'without modifiers'. However this can easily be taken to mean 'with or without modifiers'.

The latter interpretation means that a 1 before OR after modifiers always fails.

As the result of the latter feels much more intuitive I would generally go with it.

I agree this could use some official clarification though.

It did get official clarification.

WARHAMMER 40,000 CODEX: DRUKHARI Official Update Version 1.1 Page 1 wrote:Q: If a Succubus is given the Serpentin combat drug, does its Weapon Skill characteristic increase to 1+? If so, does the Succubus still hit if a hit roll of 2 is rolled for an attack for a melee weapon and, due to an ability, I have to subtract 1 from that hit roll?
A: Yes, and yes – only unmodified hit rolls of 1 automatically fail.

I didn't "interpret" anything, the FAQ did it for me. If having a 1+ to hit means a 2-1 passes, then having a 1+ to save means a 2-1 passes because they have literally the exact same rule. You can't have it work one way for hits and one way for saves without major Special Snowflaking, which this FAQ isn't because it matches one of the two "interpretations" of "irrespective". Otherwise it would be like claiming a -1 to hit on a (non-ork) BS6+ model lets you pass on a 6 anyway, but having a save of 6+ being hit with a AP-1 weapon means you can't pass.

I 100% agree with BCBs read here.

Drager wrote:
I 100% agree it BCBs read here.

Yeah. It's not RAI, definitely, but it is RAW.

A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply...

A 5-5 gets adjusted to a 1 and fails, since A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.

 DeathReaper wrote:
A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply...

A 5-5 gets adjusted to a 1 and fails, since A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.

Come on man, did you not read the OP? I clearly answered why this line of reasoning is flawed.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Further-furthermore, the Dark Eldar FAQ confirms the RaW that only unmodified 1's automatically fail, not modified ones.

WARHAMMER 40,000 CODEX: DRUKHARI Official Update Version 1.1 Page 1 wrote:Q: If a Succubus is given the Serpentin combat drug, does its Weapon Skill characteristic increase to 1+? If so, does the Succubus still hit if a hit roll of 2 is rolled for an attack for a melee weapon and, due to an ability, I have to subtract 1 from that hit roll?
A: Yes, and yes – only unmodified hit rolls of 1 automatically fail.

Note that before the argument of "You can't use a specific FAQ to generalise", that isn't what I am doing, for two reasons. One is that the FAQ is confirming the RaW anyway, and secondly all of the entries for 1. Hit Roll , 2. Wound Roll and 4. Saving Throw use the exact, letter for letter wording:

BRB Page 181 Sections 3.4.1. Hit Roll , 3.4.2. Wound Roll and 3.4.4. Saving Throw wrote:A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.

Further-further-furthermore, the Designers Commentary states:

Designers Commentary wrote:Q: Can a dice roll ever be modified to less than 1?
A: No. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.

Because this is a 1 only after modification, it's not a 1 "irrespective" of modifiers. Indeed, it's well agreed upon that a Plasma with -1 to hit will overheat and slay the model carrying it on a roll of 1 and 2 To hit.

I read it, and your reasoning is incorrect.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I read it, and your reasoning is incorrect.

I posted an Official FAQ that agrees with my reasoning. How can I be "incorrect" when GW says in an official FAQ document that I am correct?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Further-furthermore, the Dark Eldar FAQ confirms the RaW that only unmodified 1's automatically fail, not modified ones.

WARHAMMER 40,000 CODEX: DRUKHARI Official Update Version 1.1 Page 1 wrote:Q: If a Succubus is given the Serpentin combat drug, does its Weapon Skill characteristic increase to 1+? If so, does the Succubus still hit if a hit roll of 2 is rolled for an attack for a melee weapon and, due to an ability, I have to subtract 1 from that hit roll?
A: Yes, and yes – only unmodified hit rolls of 1 automatically fail.

Note that before the argument of "You can't use a specific FAQ to generalise", that isn't what I am doing, for two reasons. One is that the FAQ is confirming the RaW anyway, and secondly all of the entries for 1. Hit Roll , 2. Wound Roll and 4. Saving Throw use the exact, letter for letter wording:

BRB Page 181 Sections 3.4.1. Hit Roll , 3.4.2. Wound Roll and 3.4.4. Saving Throw wrote:A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.

Further-further-furthermore, the Designers Commentary states:

Designers Commentary wrote:Q: Can a dice roll ever be modified to less than 1?
A: No. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.

Because this is a 1 only after modification, it's not a 1 "irrespective" of modifiers. Indeed, it's well agreed upon that a Plasma with -1 to hit will overheat and slay the model carrying it on a roll of 1 and 2 To hit.

Can you point out where in this section of the OP I am wrong? Just saying "No, you're wrong" isn't much of a rules argument. I took the time to cite my assertions, I only ask for you to do the same.

Funny how different-situation FAQs are relevant when it supports one of your arguments and ‘irrelevant’ when I use them to support mine.

I’m gently and amicably pulling your leg here as I agree the FAQ supports your position, but maybe mind you be more careful about admonishing others for using relevant precedent in future! I could quite easily use your ‘special snowflake’ line of derision and claim that FAQ only relates to that specific situation. I don’t think that’s the case though. It’s sensible application of a relevant precedent. Nice to see.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Funny how different-situation FAQs are relevant when it supports one of your arguments and ‘irrelevant’ when I use them to support mine.

I’m gently and amicably pulling your leg here as I agree the FAQ supports your position, but maybe mind you be more careful about admonishing others for using relevant precedent in future! I could quite easily use your ‘special snowflake’ line of derision and claim that FAQ only relates to that specific situation. I don’t think that’s the case though. It’s sensible application of a relevant precedent. Nice to see.

As I clearly stated, I am not using one FAQ to answer an unrelated but similar question, I am using one FAQ to answer the EXACT same question. The rules for To Hit and To Wound regarding 1's are word for word IDENTICAL, not just slightly similar. My position still stands that an FAQ that is contrary to the RaW cannot be used as precedent for a non-identical situation.

Furthermore, the Dark Eldar FAQ is not a Special Snowflake one. Special Snowflake FAQs are ones that ignore unambiguous RaW. Ones that give an answer to where there are two legitimate answers, or an answer to a situation that is genuinly ambiguous are clarificatory. The FAQs about being unable to modify below 1, or the one about Faction Keywords, or the one about using T when the S is "-" and you need to use S, those are Special Snowflake because they ignore what the rules actually say, and would be better served as legitimate errata. The questions about exactly 1" being within 1" or about re-rolling D3 results of 1 or having a WS of 1+ and having -1 to hit are not Special Snowflake, they are clarificatory, because they're answers are in line with the RaW or answer a question that had two mutually exclusive answers that could both be true (for a specific value of true).

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Funny how different-situation FAQs are relevant when it supports one of your arguments and ‘irrelevant’ when I use them to support mine.

I’m gently and amicably pulling your leg here as I agree the FAQ supports your position, but maybe mind you be more careful about admonishing others for using relevant precedent in future! I could quite easily use your ‘special snowflake’ line of derision and claim that FAQ only relates to that specific situation. I don’t think that’s the case though. It’s sensible application of a relevant precedent. Nice to see.

As I clearly stated, I am not using one FAQ to answer an unrelated but similar question, I am using one FAQ to answer the EXACT same question. The rules for To Hit and To Wound regarding 1's are word for word IDENTICAL, not just slightly similar. My position still stands that an FAQ that is contrary to the RaW cannot be used as precedent for a non-identical situation.

Hey, I’ve clearly stated my use of similarly-directly-relevant/identical stuff in other threads and you’ve lit me up and derided me. Jussayin ‘. And anyway, I agree with you here and am just gently making a point... I’ll let you get your thread back on track now.

Yes but your use doesn't follow the RaW+Special Snowflake FAQs. Your use is like saying "Because Flamers automatically hit, Bolters automatically hit." or saying "because the Tyranid FAQ says you can't use stratagems on GSC, that means you can't use ANY stratagems on units not in the same book for all codexes", which is both untrue RaW and untrue via other FAQs. I'm sanguine about the use of ignoring RaW FAQs instead of errata. I don't like it, but I accept it. But that means those FAQ that ignore the RaW HAVE to be specific to that ONE instance of a rule/situation. If you generalise it then the game simply fails to function.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Can you point out where in this section of the OP I am wrong? Just saying "No, you're wrong" isn't much of a rules argument. I took the time to cite my assertions, I only ask for you to do the same.

You seem to have misinterpreted the word irrespective.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Can you point out where in this section of the OP I am wrong? Just saying "No, you're wrong" isn't much of a rules argument. I took the time to cite my assertions, I only ask for you to do the same.

You seem to have misinterpreted the word irrespective.

Then so has GW. Like I said, if a modified 1 passes a WS1+ test, then it HAS to pass a Sv1+ test because the rule is exactly the same. Or are you saying that GW FAQs can be ignored when you don't like them?

We know this isn’t how it’s supposed to work; but I love that RAW, everything seems to support it. The key is that the AP doesn’t reduce the actual armor value for that hit, just the roll - and rolls can’t go below 1 after modifications, so a 1+ works; "natural 1’s fail" and all.

WAAAGH on, you Meganobz, you. Finally, these boys are as tough as they look.

I don't weigh in either way, I'm just trying to understand the argument.

@BCB Can you explain this in lay terms for someone still grappling to relearn the rules? Do MegaNobs have a 3++? Or a 3+? If it is a 3++ turning into a 2++, why would AP- modifiers matter, because I thought AP- characteristics only affected armor saves, not invulnerable saves? If it is a 3+ turning into a 2+ ...why isn't it simple logic about the result? A 2+ being hit by an AP-3 weapon needs a 5+ to pass? Or do MegaNobs already have a 2+ save? If they did, I'd assume +1 to their save can also be modified to +1 to their save from cover, or from other things, so a base 2+ save being fired on by an AP-3 weapon would factor in all things affecting the save and in that case be a 3+ save.

@OP: Good luck with this. /s

 Dashofpepper wrote:
I don't weigh in either way, I'm just trying to understand the argument.

@BCB Can you explain this in lay terms for someone still grappling to relearn the rules? Do MegaNobs have a 3++? Or a 3+? If it is a 3++ turning into a 2++, why would AP- modifiers matter, because I thought AP- characteristics only affected armor saves, not invulnerable saves? If it is a 3+ turning into a 2+ ...why isn't it simple logic about the result? A 2+ being hit by an AP-3 weapon needs a 5+ to pass? Or do MegaNobs already have a 2+ save? If they did, I'd assume +1 to their save can also be modified to +1 to their save from cover, or from other things, so a base 2+ save being fired on by an AP-3 weapon would factor in all things affecting the save and in that case be a 3+ save.

BCB's argument is thus:

The Meganob normally has a regular 2+ save.

The Meganob gets a 1+ save from loot it. Not a 1++, not a 2++, just a regular save but at 1+.

The rules say a roll of 1 always fails though, so it's not auto pass.

The rules also say that any roll below a 1 counts as 1 but, but importantly according to an FAQ only a natural 1 always fails, but a 1 that is reached due to modifiers does not always fail.

It is important to note with AP that this doesn't change the enemy save characteristic, it is a modifier to the roll.

So here's what happens for every possible roll, let's assume an AP of -5:

Natural roll
1
Modified
-4
Counts as
1
Result
Fail, as it was a natural 1

Natural roll
2
Modified
-3
Counts as
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+

Natural roll
3
Modified
-2
Counts as
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+

Natural roll
4
Modified
-1
Counts as
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+

Natural roll
5
Modified
0
Counts as
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+

Natural roll
6
Modified
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+

As you can see, although it's not technically an invulnerable save, a 1+ save characteristic is functionally the same in most circumstances to a 2+ invulnerable save.

This may well not be intended, but it is RAW

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Yes but your use doesn't follow the RaW+Special Snowflake FAQs. Your use is like saying "Because Flamers automatically hit, Bolters automatically hit." or saying "because the Tyranid FAQ says you can't use stratagems on GSC, that means you can't use ANY stratagems on units not in the same book for all codexes", which is both untrue RaW and untrue via other FAQs. I'm sanguine about the use of ignoring RaW FAQs instead of errata. I don't like it, but I accept it. But that means those FAQ that ignore the RaW HAVE to be specific to that ONE instance of a rule/situation. If you generalise it then the game simply fails to function.

Nice discrediting attempt via fallacy. I have made no such comparisons.

You tell yourself what you need to. Your use of a relevant FAQ as guidance for a different situation is appropriate and I agree with it it’s use here. That you hate that it’s similar logic to how I’ve supported my posts in the past is neither here not there.

Moving futher onto topic, there is one leap that seems like GW may patch, if the result is unintended. The OP relies on guidance for stats where low=bad not being modifiable below 1. For saves low=good, so if they want to avoid this they could just FAQ that saves cannot be modified better than 2+. That would fix it if the result in the OP is unintended.

I must agree with BCB's RAW here. It is 100% the same, and is logically sound. C'mon boyz! It's time for loot'in!

Curious to see how GW responds here, because you literally can't have this answer not flow naturally from the rules given. I suspect they'll errata the stratagem to be "max of 2+".

 Yarium wrote:
I must agree with BCB's RAW here. It is 100% the same, and is logically sound. C'mon boyz! It's time for loot'in!

Curious to see how GW responds here, because you literally can't have this answer not flow naturally from the rules given. I suspect they'll errata the stratagem to be "max of 2+".

Aye, that seems a likely response.

 Yarium wrote:
I must agree with BCB's RAW here. It is 100% the same, and is logically sound. C'mon boyz! It's time for loot'in!

Curious to see how GW responds here, because you literally can't have this answer not flow naturally from the rules given. I suspect they'll errata the stratagem to be "max of 2+".

It should be a game wide 2+ max for any armour save.

While it's RAW, it really feels like an unintended interaction.

Sure try it, try it everywhere. And be sure to win a GT with it so GW can faq the stratagem to say you get +1 to armor saves instead of improving the save by 1.

This is just a bad designer making a mistake in the wording with unforseen consequences.

The IG "take cover" stratagem does use the correct wording of "add one to saving throws" for example.

Wouldn't the -5 modifier from the AP apply at the same time as your +1 save modifier?

Or, in other words, why is your armour modifier applied after the AP and not before?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Wouldn't the -5 modifier from the AP apply at the same time as your +1 save modifier?

Or, in other words, why is your armour modifier applied after the AP and not before?

It doesn't modify the roll, it modifies the characteristic.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Wouldn't the -5 modifier from the AP apply at the same time as your +1 save modifier?

Or, in other words, why is your armour modifier applied after the AP and not before?

It doesn't modify the roll, it modifies the characteristic.

Hm, good point. GW being GW I guess.

This would never fly in a game, but i do agree with the technical interpretation, it's the same case as the WS 1+ Dark angels and Space Wolves.

It may not have been intended, but who cares - Meganobz finally got some teeth back. RaW supports this 100%... good catch, BCB.

Spoletta wrote:
This would never fly in a game, but i do agree with the technical interpretation, it's the same case as the WS 1+ Dark angels and Space Wolves.

I'd let it fly if an Ork player walked me through the logic in similar fashion to Stux's summary, even if it suddenly came out mid-turn 3 or something. Never say never.

That said, I would guess it'll be FAQ'd.