Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
|
2021/07/23 04:04:22
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Big Mek in Kustom Dragster with Soopa-Gun
|
Looking at the Ork relics one that stands out is Da Krushin' Armour. On its own its pretty good, granting a 4++, a ramming speed effect, and +1 armor save.
....wait +1 armor save? on a 2+ model?
I remember this is why Meganobz were denied using Loot It! in a faq because technically it gave them a 2++ due to how AP mods the die roll, not the save stat.
Am i missing something that fixed this loophole or did GW just give orks a 2++ Megaboss?
(note that no way in hell am i playing it that way but the question is in my head)
|
An ork with an idea tends to end with a bang.
14000pts Big 'n Bad Orkz
6000pts Admech/Knights
7500pts Necron Goldboys |
|
|
|
2021/07/23 04:09:33
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Gargantuan Gargant
|
Vineheart01 wrote:Looking at the Ork relics one that stands out is Da Krushin' Armour. On its own its pretty good, granting a 4++, a ramming speed effect, and +1 armor save.
....wait +1 armor save? on a 2+ model?
I remember this is why Meganobz were denied using Loot It! in a faq because technically it gave them a 2++ due to how AP mods the die roll, not the save stat.
Am i missing something that fixed this loophole or did GW just give orks a 2++ Megaboss?
(note that no way in hell am i playing it that way but the question is in my head)
I believe it specifies that the bearer adds 1 to their armour saving throws, not give them a 1+ save for their save characteristic. It's effectively a stormshield upgrade, so there's no issues here.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/07/23 04:10:54
|
|
|
|
2021/07/23 04:39:37
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
As Grim said, Da Krushin' Armour adds 1 to armor saving throws made for the bearer, this is not the same as adding 1 to the Save characteristic. +1 to the roll is fine. No issues here.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/23 04:40:17
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
|
|
2021/07/23 04:41:37
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Nihilistic Necron Lord
|
Vineheart01 wrote:Looking at the Ork relics one that stands out is Da Krushin' Armour. On its own its pretty good, granting a 4++, a ramming speed effect, and +1 armor save.
....wait +1 armor save? on a 2+ model?
Adding one to saving throws is fine. Thats not a 1+ armor save, which would be broken.
|
|
|
|
2021/07/23 07:09:20
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
Tallarook, Victoria, Australia
|
Vineheart01 wrote:Looking at the Ork relics one that stands out is Da Krushin' Armour. On its own its pretty good, granting a 4++, a ramming speed effect, and +1 armor save.
....wait +1 armor save? on a 2+ model?
I remember this is why Meganobz were denied using Loot It! in a faq because technically it gave them a 2++ due to how AP mods the die roll, not the save stat.
Am i missing something that fixed this loophole or did GW just give orks a 2++ Megaboss?
(note that no way in hell am i playing it that way but the question is in my head)
The rules state "An unmodified (or “natural”) roll of 1 always fails. So whether it is a +1 armour save or +1 to your armour save of 2+ is irrelevant.
All it means is that you need -2 AP before your +2 becomes a +3 instead of -1 AP Automatically Appended Next Post: p5freak wrote: Vineheart01 wrote:Looking at the Ork relics one that stands out is Da Krushin' Armour. On its own its pretty good, granting a 4++, a ramming speed effect, and +1 armor save.
....wait +1 armor save? on a 2+ model?
Adding one to saving throws is fine. Thats not a 1+ armor save, which would be broken.
Even a +1 armour save is not broken because a roll of 1 always fails.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/23 07:11:38
|
|
|
|
2021/07/23 07:32:40
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Battleship Captain
|
1+ armour save is broken because only a natural 1 always fails.
So you could get hit by AP-6 and roll a 2; it'll get modified down to -4, hits the "floor" of 1, but it's not natural so it doesn't autofail and succeeds against the 1+ save. Ergo, you effectively have a 2++ save (arguably better as ignores-invulns are becoming a thing).
+1 to armour saving rolls is fine though.
It's only modifiers to the characteristic that can be a problem.
|
|
|
|
2021/07/23 12:31:31
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle
|
kirotheavenger wrote:1+ armour save is broken because only a natural 1 always fails.
So you could get hit by AP-6 and roll a 2; it'll get modified down to -4, hits the "floor" of 1, but it's not natural so it doesn't autofail and succeeds against the 1+ save. Ergo, you effectively have a 2++ save (arguably better as ignores-invulns are becoming a thing).
+1 to armour saving rolls is fine though.
It's only modifiers to the characteristic that can be a problem.
Only attacks and leadership cannot be modified below a 1. Saves can be modified to any value, auto-failing on a roll of a 1. See “Profiles, Modifying Characteristics” for only attacks and leadership never falling below 1.
|
|
|
|
2021/07/23 13:09:32
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade
|
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: kirotheavenger wrote:1+ armour save is broken because only a natural 1 always fails.
So you could get hit by AP-6 and roll a 2; it'll get modified down to -4, hits the "floor" of 1, but it's not natural so it doesn't autofail and succeeds against the 1+ save. Ergo, you effectively have a 2++ save (arguably better as ignores-invulns are becoming a thing).
+1 to armour saving rolls is fine though.
It's only modifiers to the characteristic that can be a problem.
Only attacks and leadership cannot be modified below a 1. Saves can be modified to any value, auto-failing on a roll of a 1. See “Profiles, Modifying Characteristics” for only attacks and leadership never falling below 1.
"A dice roll can be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6 roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below 1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1."
Emphasis mine. A save characteristic of 1+ is functionally a 2+ invulnerable save, which is why Storm Shields and certain Crusade Relics and so forth add to your save roll, instead of modifying your save characteristic.
/Thread
|
Triggerbaby wrote:In summary, here's your lunch and ask Miss Creaver if she has aloe lotion because I have taken you to school and you have been burned.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:I too can prove pretty much any assertion I please if I don't count all the evidence that contradicts it. |
|
|
|
2021/07/23 13:16:45
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: kirotheavenger wrote:1+ armour save is broken because only a natural 1 always fails.
So you could get hit by AP-6 and roll a 2; it'll get modified down to -4, hits the "floor" of 1, but it's not natural so it doesn't autofail and succeeds against the 1+ save. Ergo, you effectively have a 2++ save (arguably better as ignores-invulns are becoming a thing).
+1 to armour saving rolls is fine though.
It's only modifiers to the characteristic that can be a problem.
Only attacks and leadership cannot be modified below a 1. Saves can be modified to any value, auto-failing on a roll of a 1. See “Profiles, Modifying Characteristics” for only attacks and leadership never falling below 1.
Nit-picking, but for the sake of accuracy:
Regardless of the source, the Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Leadership characteristics of a model can never be modified below 1.
AP modifies the roll not the Save characteristic.
MinMax wrote:PoorGravitasHandling wrote: kirotheavenger wrote:1+ armour save is broken because only a natural 1 always fails.
So you could get hit by AP-6 and roll a 2; it'll get modified down to -4, hits the "floor" of 1, but it's not natural so it doesn't autofail and succeeds against the 1+ save. Ergo, you effectively have a 2++ save (arguably better as ignores-invulns are becoming a thing).
+1 to armour saving rolls is fine though.
It's only modifiers to the characteristic that can be a problem.
Only attacks and leadership cannot be modified below a 1. Saves can be modified to any value, auto-failing on a roll of a 1. See “Profiles, Modifying Characteristics” for only attacks and leadership never falling below 1.
"A dice roll can be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6 roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below 1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1."
Emphasis mine. A save characteristic of 1+ is functionally a 2+ invulnerable save, which is why Storm Shields and certain Crusade Relics and so forth add to your save roll, instead of modifying your save characteristic.
/Thread
This ^
|
|
|
|
2021/07/23 16:19:42
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle
|
Going to pose the argument here that "counts as a roll of 1" isn't a modification. Modifications are defined as division, multiplication, addition, and subtraction in the dice rolling rules.
So counts as a roll of a 1 is, for saves, a result that hasn't been modified. Technically.
|
|
|
|
2021/07/24 01:26:14
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
PoorGravitasHandling wrote:Going to pose the argument here that "counts as a roll of 1" isn't a modification. Modifications are defined as division, multiplication, addition, and subtraction in the dice rolling rules.
So counts as a roll of a 1 is, for saves, a result that hasn't been modified. Technically.
(Old) Seraphon FAQ (from AoS):
Current Orks FAQ :
Page 127 – Stratagems, Loot It!Change the first and second sentences of rules text to read: ‘Use this Stratagem when a Vehicle unit is destroyed. Select an Ork Infantry unit from your army that was either within 3" of the vehicle or embarked within it when it was destroyed. Improve the Save characteristic of that infantry unit by 1 (e.g. a Save characteristic of 6+ will become a Save characteristic of 5+), to a maximum of 2+.’
Can you guess why GW said the Armor Save of a unit can never be improved beyond 2+ with this stratagem ?
Also, when the Indomitus box was released, the datasheets in it said that the Storm Shields equiped bu Bladeguards and the Primaris Captain / Lieutenant were improving their Armor Save by 1. Can you guess why GW changed it to "1+ to save roll" in a FAQ and in the 9th edition Codex ?
You are wrong and this is not up for debate.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/07/24 01:28:32
|
|
|
|
2021/07/24 02:36:35
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle
|
So you don't actually have a response to a technically RAW answer, as you're referencing a different game entirely?? Automatically Appended Next Post: Would anyone like to guess what AoS 2nd edition didn't say in their core rules? Was it that rolls of less than one count as 1? You're correct!
"Modifiers can never reduce a dice roll to less than 1" - From the previous edition of a different game.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/24 02:42:50
|
|
|
|
2021/07/24 02:59:10
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
Tallarook, Victoria, Australia
|
The actual rule on the relic states, since no one bothered reading it
"Add 1 to armour saving throws made for the bearer"
It's clearly not a +1 armour save.
It does mean RAW that the model gets to add 1 to its +4 invulnerable save making it, in effect actually +3 inv
LOOOOL thats the real easter egg
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/24 03:00:29
|
|
|
|
2021/07/24 03:39:15
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Invulnerable saves are not Armour saves.
|
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
|
|
2021/07/24 04:58:10
Subject: Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
Tallarook, Victoria, Australia
|
As per definition they are still saving throws (roll) See p.222 CRB.
But humour me and find somewhere which says it is not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
p.222 specifically says invulns are SAVING THROWS
p. 221 under 4. SAVING THROW describes saving throw
How is an invulnerable save not a saving throw/roll again?
The real case in point is in the cover rules it specifically stipulates Invulnerable saving throws are unaffected by cover. The stipulation does not apply to this relic
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/07/24 05:17:28
|
|
|
|
2021/07/24 05:23:53
Subject: Re:Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Nihilistic Necron Lord
|
JNA is right. An invulnerable save is not an armour save. First is not modified by AP, the second is. Both are saving throws. If a rule modifies saving throws it works for both invulnerable save and armour save. But this rule only modifies armour saving throws, not invulnerable saving throws. An armour saving throw is a saving throw made using the models save characteristic (p.364). An invulnerable saving throws is a saving throw made using the models invulnerable save instead of its save characteristic (p. 366).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/24 05:30:30
|
|
|
|
2021/07/24 06:26:53
Subject: Re:Da Krushin' Armour - Did GW mess up...again?
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
Tallarook, Victoria, Australia
|
p5freak wrote:JNA is right. An invulnerable save is not an armour save. First is not modified by AP, the second is. Both are saving throws. If a rule modifies saving throws it works for both invulnerable save and armour save. But this rule only modifies armour saving throws, not invulnerable saving throws. An armour saving throw is a saving throw made using the models save characteristic (p.364). An invulnerable saving throws is a saving throw made using the models invulnerable save instead of its save characteristic (p. 366).
EDIT: conceded you are correct
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/24 06:33:08
|
|
|
|
|