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.

If I have a Techmarine with a Servoharness and 3 Servo-Arm Servitors aboard a Land Raider, and say it suffers a glancing hit (and thereby -1HP), can I, on the next shooting phase, repair the Land Raider without having to roll the dice?

As I understand it 5+ for Blessing -> +1 for harness and +1 for each servo-arm servitor, so 1+

2+… a roll of one will always fail. nice try.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
2+… a roll of one will always fail. nice try.

Citation needed. I can think of a couple instances where a roll of 1 does not fail.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
2+… a roll of one will always fail. nice try.

Not a general rule in 40k. Or are you suggesting that a roll of 1 on an initiative test still fails?

also, the servo arms add +1 to your roll, so you can never roll a 1 to begin with.

You need a 5+ to repair, and your dice roll is modified by +4 so the smallest thing you can roll is a 5.........

OP; you still technically have to roll the dice, you just have no chance to fail.

Eihnlazer wrote:
also, the servo arms add +1 to your roll, so you can never roll a 1 to begin with.

You need a 5+ to repair, and your dice roll is modified by +4 so the smallest thing you can roll is a 5.........

Yeah, so servo harness + 3 servitors means whatever I roll, it's going to be a 5 or better, so at this point you dont even have to make the roll (only 2 servitors or 3 servitors and no harness needed if I am Iron Hands).

I've been meaning to ask about this for my Iron Hands gunline. Is there anywhere that says that a roll of 1 is an auto-fail on everything but characteristic tests? I know characteristic tests specifically say that a roll of 6 is an auto-fail and a roll of 1 an auto-success, but is there any such 'a 1 always fails' rule?

 Jimsolo wrote:
Is there anywhere that says that a roll of 1 is an auto-fail on everything but characteristic tests?

No.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I've been meaning to ask about this for my Iron Hands gunline. Is there anywhere that says that a roll of 1 is an auto-fail on everything but characteristic tests? I know characteristic tests specifically say that a roll of 6 is an auto-fail and a roll of 1 an auto-success, but is there any such 'a 1 always fails' rule?

No such line exists, although a lot of people think it is there, somewhere. It isnt.

I believe such a line existed in the 5th edition rulebook, hence the confusion.

Similar to the existence of the "a re-roll cannot be re-rolled" line.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I believe such a line existed in the 5th edition rulebook, hence the confusion.

Similar to the existence of the "a re-roll cannot be re-rolled" line.

No, no it didnt. It also didnt exist in 4th. Probably 3rd as well.

People assume that because a 1 always fails for saves, that this somehow extends elsewhere. It doesnt.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
I believe such a line existed in the 5th edition rulebook, hence the confusion.

Similar to the existence of the "a re-roll cannot be re-rolled" line.

No, no it didnt. It also didnt exist in 4th. Probably 3rd as well.

People assume that because a 1 always fails for saves, that this somehow extends elsewhere. It doesnt.

They assume it because the game mechanics build in those failures to prevent auto successes. A 6 on the characteristic test. The extreme opposite die roll is usually the failure or even success in the case of LD tests (aka a 2 even with modifiers that would put it negative). There is no RAW support, but I expect GW would rule this as 1 still fails even with a +5 bonus.

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
I believe such a line existed in the 5th edition rulebook, hence the confusion.

Similar to the existence of the "a re-roll cannot be re-rolled" line.

No, no it didnt. It also didnt exist in 4th. Probably 3rd as well.

People assume that because a 1 always fails for saves, that this somehow extends elsewhere. It doesnt.

They assume it because the game mechanics build in those failures to prevent auto successes. A 6 on the characteristic test. The extreme opposite die roll is usually the failure or even success in the case of LD tests (aka a 2 even with modifiers that would put it negative). There is no RAW support, but I expect GW would rule this as 1 still fails even with a +5 bonus.

Except that the rules already specify exactly when a roll of 1 always fails. To assume that a roll of one always fails on rolls which are not specified in that way is without basis.

It's one of those situations you run into occasionally with older games (and gaming communities). People have a mistaken impression of a rule, and have had it so long, they assume it's the way the rules actually work. (Poison use in D&D is a little like this. Many people believe the rules at one time stated that using poison was an evil action, although this is not the case.) The blanket auto-failure of 1's is not supported by the rules, and hasn't been for some time (if ever it was).

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
I believe such a line existed in the 5th edition rulebook, hence the confusion.

Similar to the existence of the "a re-roll cannot be re-rolled" line.

No, no it didnt. It also didnt exist in 4th. Probably 3rd as well.

People assume that because a 1 always fails for saves, that this somehow extends elsewhere. It doesnt.

They assume it because the game mechanics build in those failures to prevent auto successes. A 6 on the characteristic test. The extreme opposite die roll is usually the failure or even success in the case of LD tests (aka a 2 even with modifiers that would put it negative). There is no RAW support, but I expect GW would rule this as 1 still fails even with a +5 bonus.

Actually I would not expect it at all

For example, An AP roll of "1" on a S10 weapon against an AV10 target will NEVER FAIL to penetrate. Hasnt done since 4th edition (ignore SMF, this isnt a skimmer ) . Has never been FAQ'd

Isn't there also a daemon power (some kind of Tzeentch fire?) that has the potential to give the person who gets hit by it a +1 to their Feel no Pain rolls? So, couldn't Corbulo potentially have a 1+ Feel no Pain? (Or am I confused on one of those rules? I don't play EITHER of those armies...)