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 you're able to get a unit to a 1+ save through magic (Mystic Shield), cover and any other ability, would they auto-pass armor saves? I know the case has always been "rolls of a 1 always fail" but that's not in AoS, so I'm assuming that this is correct (same for To Hit rolls never failing due to being a 1+ to hit, etc).

Of course with the number of units that can do Mortal Wounds and Rends of 1-3, it is still possible to kill a model like this, but I want to know if a model, for example, with a 3+ save that has a +3 bonus to his armor save roll could never fail bar a -2 or -3 to his armor save?

Thanks.

RAW, there is no automatic failure on an unmodified 1. You can carry it over from previous editions/other games, but for now it isn't so. in AoS. 1+ save is certainly possible in the rules, atleast if you're stacking from different sources. There are opinions and interpretations from a RAI point of view that Mystic shields (or any other single source), for example, shouldn't stack as they are viewed like a condition - either you've got a mystic shield or not (which is a concept carried over by other games), but nothing in the rules supports that concept. I myself am in the camp of allowing the stacking of multiple mystic shields.
Also, check this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/657065.page

Exactly right.

 CoreCommander wrote:
RAW, there is no automatic failure on an unmodified 1. You can carry it over from previous editions/other games, but for now it isn't so. in AoS. 1+ save is certainly possible in the rules, atleast if you're stacking from different sources. There are opinions and interpretations from a RAI point of view that Mystic shields (or any other single source), for example, shouldn't stack as they are viewed like a condition - either you've got a mystic shield or not (which is a concept carried over by other games), but nothing in the rules supports that concept. I myself am in the camp of allowing the stacking of multiple mystic shields.

I definitely believe that RAW you can stack any number of bonuses, but RAI you can't stack more than 1 single rule/ability to gain it more than once. I'm more of a casual player so I wouldn't play it RAW unless my opponent knew about it and was ok with it.

I don't see any real reason not to play RAW in this fashion. As you've already stated there's a lot of things now that deal mortal wounds so a unit or character with a 1+ save certainly isn't invulnerable. You also have quite a bit of rend damage.

And if you're stacking mystic shields clearly you don't want your wizards to survive the game.

I think it's important to remember that the needed save never actually changes. It's all just a series of pluses and minuses.

My High Elf Prince, Lord PointyEars, comes stock with a 4+ armor save. Now, let's imagine that he's in cover (add 1 to his save roll), is under the effects of a Mystic Shield from Mage #1 (add 1 to his save roll) and is under the effects of a Mystic Shield from Mage #2 (add 1 to his save roll).

He still needs to achieve a 4 or higher to save any wounds coming his way.

Assume he's being attacked by stock Bloodreavers (Rend -). If he suffers a would, he rolls a die, adds 3 and then checks to see if he got a 4 or higher. In this scenario it's impossible to get a 3 or lower, so he effectively auto passes. Stock Bloodreavers will never hurt him.

Now, assume he's being attacked by Bloodreavers wielding Meatripper Axes (Rend -1). If he suffers a wound, he rolls a die, adds 3, subtracts 1 and then checks to see if he got a 4 or higher. In this scenario, it's possible to get a 3 (1 rolled plus 3 minus 1 = 3), so he can be hurt. Upgraded Bloodreavers can hurt him.

It's all about buffs and debuffs. The Prince still needs a 4+. 1+ armor saves aren't really a thing. It's just a shorthand way of talking about things.

If you have tons of ways of improving a save and your opponent has no ways to make it worse, you can easily have a scenario where models can't be hurt by non-mortal wounds. They're far from immortal though, as mortal wounds are super common.

I ran liberators in cover, with the bonus from the lantern and a mystic shield.
4+ armor save, +3 to the roll, any total of 6 or more recovers a wound.

My opponent shot and killed the stormcast hero and the wizard instead, and parked outside of cover, forcing the liberators out if they wanted to do anything.

-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
I ran liberators in cover, with the bonus from the lantern and a mystic shield.
4+ armor save, +3 to the roll, any total of 6 or more recovers a wound.

My opponent shot and killed the stormcast hero and the wizard instead, and parked outside of cover, forcing the liberators out if they wanted to do anything.

-Matt

And this is why "1+" saves aren't that scary. You just target the things granting the bonuses and generally ignore melee units who refuse to come out of cover.

There are news - 1+ roll is a thing. Skarbrand has it listed in his profile so it's official now.

 CoreCommander wrote:
There are news - 1+ roll is a thing. Skarbrand has it listed in his profile so it's official now.

It says 4+ unless I'm missing something.

The point isn't that Skarbrand has a 1+ save, it's that his rules include a roll that succeeds on a 1+.

While Incandescent, total carnage happens on a roll of 1+ for each hit it scores. That is fairly conclusive proof that AoS does not have a blanket "any roll of 1 always fails" rule, otherwise that line would be absurd (I guess despite the weight of evidence, we presume that GW doesn't write intentionally absurd rules )

A 1+ anything without an auto fail on a 1 is a bit silly in my mind. I'm sure that even GW didn't have that in mind. Hopefully they will do an FAQ at some point and clear it up.

 BlackLobster wrote:
A 1+ anything without an auto fail on a 1 is a bit silly in my mind. I'm sure that even GW didn't have that in mind. Hopefully they will do an FAQ at some point and clear it up.

Why is this silly? There are some scenarios where there is simply no chance of failure. This is represented in game by a 1+ required roll. I have yet to see any scenario in game where this is an issue and can't be easily solved by a change in tactics.

Mystic Shields stack to 1+? Ignore the unit with the 1+ and target the Wizards casting Mystic Shield. Or just use Rending weapons and change their armor to a 2+ or 3+. Actually, the answer is almost always to target whatever/whoever is generating the bonus or to use your own abilities to give them penalties to the roll. I don't need to provide more examples.

From a fluff standpoint...

Imagine a warrior with a decent suit of armor that will deflect about half of the incoming basic attacks he gets hit with. This suit gives him an in-game 4+ armor save. Now, he also picks up a shield. He's able to use the shield to incredible effect, allowing him to deflect even more attacks. He now has an effective 3+ against basic attacks. His Lord's Standard Bearer wanders by and shouts exaltation and chants traditional battle hymns. Our warrior is inspired to new levels of skill. He begins to duck and weave more rapidly and fights with a grace he is rarely able to achieve. He now has an effective 2+ against basic attacks. Lastly, his Lord's Court Wizard wanders by and throws out a spell to reinforce our warrior's armor. The armor sparkles with magical light and is reinforced beyond what the natural iron is capable of. He now has an effective 1+ against basic attacks. At this point, he is effectively immune to standard, non-rending attacks through a combination of good armor, a good shield, increased fighting ability and magical reinforcement. The warrior goes to battle and literally wades through his foes, slaughtering them left and right as their swords and arrows are turned aside. He fights his way to the opposing army's command tent. Our warrior, feeling nigh immortal, challenges his enemy, a very mighty Lord of Chaos to a battle. The enemy combatant laughs and promptly splits our warrior in half with his enchanted axe as the axe rends right through the armor.

Remember, kids... modifiers work both ways.

I think he means it is silly to roll a dice, who's sole purpose is to determine a random outcome, when the outcome has no chance of failure.

So his complaint is that they used the term 'passes on a 1+' instead of 'automatically passes'?

 Ghaz wrote:
So his complaint is that they used the term 'passes on a 1+' instead of 'automatically passes'?

I think it's important to remember that the ONLY example of a roll that passes on a 1+ is the one on Skarbrand's war scroll. There is no such thing as a 1+ armor save, no matter how many modifiers are in place.

If my unit has a 4+ armor save, they always need a modified result of 4 or higher to have a successful result. If I have three different +1 modifiers, I don't have a 1+ armor save. I still have a 4+ armor save. It's just impossible to have a modified result of less than 4, so practically speaking and in the absence of any negative modifiers, it is an auto pass. Add in rending or some other penalty and it's no longer an auto pass.

I also think it's just fine to have a 1+ listed on Skarbrand's war scroll. I can easily imagine a scenario where a future Tzeentch hero has an ability to give a single die roll a -1 modifier. In a case like this, a 1+ would become require an unmodified roll of 2 or higher to pass. "Auto Pass" wording would preclude this interaction. Obviously, with a modified 1+ requirement, there is no point in rolling the dice.