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 must be going blind - I can't find anywhere to say that an invul or cover save can't be improved beyond 2+, nor that a roll of 1 always fails. There is a reference on p2 for Armour saves, but I can't see anything else.

What am I missing?

A roll of a 1 always fails, and as a general rule an Invuln or cover is not allowed to be improved beyond 2. You are correct, and someone will follow me with a page number.

I am blind - found it on p19!

Cheers Scipio

Edit: though it's worth noting that "a roll of 1 always fails" is only the case for saves (because they can't be improved beyond 2+) and characteristic tests, rather than being a general rule. This one I DO know!

 Cheexsta wrote:
I am blind - found it on p19!

Cheers Scipio

Edit: though it's worth noting that "a roll of 1 always fails" is only the case for saves (because they can't be improved beyond 2+) and characteristic tests, rather than being a general rule. This one I DO know!

Doesn't apply to Characteristic Tests. Those are "6 always fails."

 Cheexsta wrote:
I am blind - found it on p19!

Cheers Scipio

Edit: though it's worth noting that "a roll of 1 always fails" is only the case for saves (because they can't be improved beyond 2+) and characteristic tests, rather than being a general rule. This one I DO know!

How can a roll of a 1 be a fail when taking a characteristics test? You know you have to roll equal or less than your stat for a characteristic test.

Edit: Ninjad -.-

Yeah as suggested a roll of a 1 fails. Not a natural roll of a 1 though as there is an important distinction. For instance someone with a 2+ armour saves on a chariot passes his save on a 1 as chariots give +1 to the roll so that 1 becomes a 2.

Chrysis wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:
I am blind - found it on p19!

Cheers Scipio

Edit: though it's worth noting that "a roll of 1 always fails" is only the case for saves (because they can't be improved beyond 2+) and characteristic tests, rather than being a general rule. This one I DO know!

Doesn't apply to Characteristic Tests. Those are "6 always fails."

Mywik wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:
I am blind - found it on p19!

Cheers Scipio

Edit: though it's worth noting that "a roll of 1 always fails" is only the case for saves (because they can't be improved beyond 2+) and characteristic tests, rather than being a general rule. This one I DO know!

How can a roll of a 1 be a fail when taking a characteristics test? You know you have to roll equal or less than your stat for a characteristic test.

Edit: Ninjad -.-

Sigh. My brain clearly isn't braining today.

I'm just going to get some sleep

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yeah as suggested a roll of a 1 fails. Not a natural roll of a 1 though as there is an important distinction. For instance someone with a 2+ armour saves on a chariot passes his save on a 1 as chariots give +1 to the roll so that 1 becomes a 2.

No, this has no basis in fact. The Chariot improves his "armour saves", and "no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+" (page 19). If you are trying to pass a save on a 1, you've improved it beyond 2+ and have broken the rules.

No read the actual rules. I am not passing the armour save on a 1 I am passing it on a 2. Check how modifiers work with dice rolls page 5. Then read what a chariot does :

"... we represent by allowing the rider to +1 to his armour saves against..."

Emphasis mine. We know that +1 armour save makes your save worse (the lower the better with saves) we know a model can only have 1 armour save thus this is s +1 to his armour save rolls. Thus my armour save rolls will generate results between 2 & 7 none of which will fail a 2+ save.

+1 to armor save acctually just makes your armor save better just like the eldar psychic power.


+1, while in normal math does indeed raise a 2 to a 3 is acctually just intoning that the save gets better. And a better save is a lower save.

If does not say +1 to your save ROLL, just +1 to your save so no you are incorrect.

As above. It isn't modifying the roll, but the save. Plural allows the model to somehow have more than one armour save without invalidating the rule.

Sorry but +1 does not improve your save. Check the save rules the lower the better. Armour save is s characteristic can't have more l.

 FlingitNow wrote:
. We know that +1 armour save makes your save worse (the lower the better with saves)

This is not true at all.

"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+." (19)

It has been established that the lower the save the better it is and a higher value is worse. It also helps establish that improved means lower.

"A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+" Page 2

Better = lower. Improved = lower, and worse = higher. Page 19 shows that adding to a save improves it by lowering it.

Increasing a save lowers its value, and a +1 is an increase, as a -1 is a decrease.

Therefore +1 armour save makes your save better, as +1 is an increase.

If you could get a 1+ armor save it would still be worth it. 1s would still fail, but a 2 would still save against AP2 weapons.

To my knowledge, the only rolls that can be improved to the point of automatic success are Corbulo's Feel No Pain (if he gets hit by that Tzeentch thing that improves it) and the ability of a techmarine to repair a vehicle (assuming he has enough positive modifiers).

 FlingitNow wrote:
Sorry but +1 does not improve your save. Check the save rules the lower the better. Armour save is s characteristic can't have more l.

apart FTP. The rules stating the exact opposite, of course.

I have a request:
On what pages does it state that the Save Characteristic can also be refereed to as 'Saves?'

I have been going on the assumption that this was a case of duel terminology and now I am not to sure if they outright stated that 'saves = Save Characteristic.' It is possible that we players just started doing so because the way the rest of the rules where written. However, there is something interesting to keep in mind as well: Rules modifying a Characteristic are not worded 'save,' by it's lonesome, but state which Save Characteristic is being modified. Even page 19, which is using a lone word of save to talk about all Save Characteristics, contains clarification that the word save in that situation is talking about (Armour, Invulnerability or Cover). It seems rules informing us to change the Characteristic give us the name of the characteristic, and do not just leave it as 'saves.'

Unlike page 16 which does outright state that the term Saving Throw will appear throughout the books shortened to just 'saves.'

This makes it really hard to simply discard the view of people whom state the Saving Throw is being modified in these situations because they can quote page and paragraph to support their ideal. There is even some rules, such as Go To Ground, which do not use the short term of 'Saves' but instead uses the longer term of Saving Throw, that makes problems for the idea that the only Save that is being discussed is the Save Characteristic. This whole section raises the simple question of why would the writer contain instructions informing us that 'saves = Saving Throws' if they only ever intended for the Save Characteristic to be modified. It would be far better to just have instructions informing us how to modify a Save Characteristic, state outright that saves = Save Characteristic and then leave it at that.

An example of what I am trying to explain:
If you have a rule which gives a +1 to your To Hit do you modify the To Hit Roll or do you modify the Ballistic Skill Characteristic you are comparing the hit against?

There is one good silver lining, either through design or fluke, Page 19's restriction covers both ideals:
No save (Armour, Invulnerability or Cover) can ever be improved beyond 2+.
Regardless of what is giving the model its saves, a roll of 1 is always a failure.

Is this really happening right now?..

 FlingitNow wrote:
Sorry but +1 does not improve your save. Check the save rules the lower the better. Armour save is s characteristic can't have more l.

Your Armor Save is a characteristic.

If it grants +1 to your Armor Saveroll you would be correct.

JinxDragon wrote:
If you have a rule which gives a +1 to your To Hit do you modify the To Hit Roll or do you modify the Ballistic Skill Characteristic you are comparing the hit against?

"Modifying Dice Rolls" in the General Priciples section.
It uses different terminology for when a modifier is applied to a roll rather than the objective of that roll.

Grendel083,
Explain more please?

Right now I am thinking you are trying to state that a modification of a Roll will always be written as XD6+Y. However, I have never seen a Rule which modifies a Roll give us the full formula to use over just stating +Y. There are some rules which talk about modifying Rules directly, one easiest one to find is Adamantium Will, and these do not provide us with the entire formula either. Like wise many other rule talk about modifying an 'objective,' a you put it, but that 'objective' is nothing more then a single D6 roll. That shows that the line between an individual Roll and an 'objective' is very thin indeed, not raising the possibility that Page 5 used the full formula because it was smack in the middle of the section explaining what D6 means.

This also doesn't rule out the possibility that the Saving Throw is an 'objective,' therefore the modification still falls on the result of the Saving Throw sequence and not the Characteristic being compared to.

Regardless, pg. 19 still says a roll of a 1 always fails.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Regardless, pg. 19 still says a roll of a 1 always fails.

Which has no relevance as on a d6+1 I will never roll a 1. The only results I can get are 2-7. If it said natural 1 like it had in previous Editions then you'd be correct. In this edition they removed that qualifier and go to lengths to explain that a d6+1 roll will give you a result between 2 & 7


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Sorry but +1 does not improve your save. Check the save rules the lower the better. Armour save is s characteristic can't have more l.

apart FTP. The rules stating the exact opposite, of course.

True my bad. But saves refers to saving throws as Jinxdragon has proven. So we're still at a 2+ armour taken on a d6+1.

Why oh why do I ever click "show this post".

Ugh...

 FlingitNow wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Regardless, pg. 19 still says a roll of a 1 always fails.

Which has no relevance as on a d6+1 I will never roll a 1.

True, but in this case we are not told to modify the dice roll.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Regardless, pg. 19 still says a roll of a 1 always fails.

Which has no relevance as on a d6+1 I will never roll a 1.

True, but in this case we are not told to modify the dice roll.

The rules disagree with you. We are told to +1 to saves and the rules tell us saves = saving throws (i.e. the rolls).

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Regardless, pg. 19 still says a roll of a 1 always fails.

Which has no relevance as on a d6+1 I will never roll a 1.

True, but in this case we are not told to modify the dice roll.

The rules disagree with you. We are told to +1 to saves and the rules tell us saves = saving throws (i.e. the rolls).

Actually they don't.

Maximum Saves 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 (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.

As seen here +1 to a save is a modification to the actual save value, not the dice result.

Also Saving Throw, isn't the D6 roll either.
If you look at the rule it's comparing the result of a D6 roll with a models save value, resulting in a pass or fail.
The whole thing is a "Saving Throw" not just the dice rolling part.
If it said "Dice roll" or "Dice Result" or even "Roll" then it might refer to the roll itself, but "Saving Throw" does not.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Why oh why do I ever click "show this post".

Ugh...

I wonder the same for me, too, man. :(

Anyway, I thought the assumption was whenever the BRB said "a roll of", it specifically meant the physical dice roll. So a dice roll of 1, modified by 700,000, was still a physical roll of 1 and therefore would automatically fail.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Regardless, pg. 19 still says a roll of a 1 always fails.

Which has no relevance as on a d6+1 I will never roll a 1. The only results I can get are 2-7. If it said natural 1 like it had in previous Editions then you'd be correct. In this edition they removed that qualifier and go to lengths to explain that a d6+1 roll will give you a result between 2 & 7


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Sorry but +1 does not improve your save. Check the save rules the lower the better. Armour save is s characteristic can't have more l.

apart FTP. The rules stating the exact opposite, of course.

True my bad. But saves refers to saving throws as Jinxdragon has proven. So we're still at a 2+ armour taken on a d6+1.

This statment is false.

on a d6+x being the total result you can still roll a 1.

Rolling a 1, is rolling a 1 on the 6 sided dice. The total result is modified but the roll is still a 1, and it the roll of 1 always fails and not the total result of 1 always failing, then a roll of 1 fails.

"Regardless of what is giving the model its save, a roll of 1 always fails"

That is the actual roll of the dice, not the die roll plus the modifiers but they die roll alone.

Blacktoof

Check the rules on dice roll modifiers. If the rule said on a natural roll of a 1 you would be correct.

As seen here +1 to a save is a modification to the actual save value, not the dice result.

Not really proof that sentence still reads fine if you assume the +1, +2 etc are applied to the dice throw. So we have many incidences of the terminology being able to be read as type of saves or save throws. We have a cast iron incidence of it applying to the saving throw. Also whilst a model may have many saves (making your interpretation valid for that sentence) it can only ever have 1 armour (making your interpretation invalid for the Chariots sentence).