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.

Relevant example:

Zarakynel, Bringer of Torments has the following rule:
Dance of Serpents: Add +1 to any save rolls made for Zarakynel against Melee attacks.

The stratagem Warp Surge from the Daemons codex reads:
Use this Stratagem at the start of any phase. Select a unit of DAEMONS; until the end of the phase, you cannot re-roll saving throws for this unit, but its invulnerable save is improved by 1 (to a maximum of 3+)

Zarakynel has a 4+ invulnerable save innately.

The situation is the Fight Phase: Warp Surge has been played, making Zarakynel's saves un-re-rollable but also a 3++. The enemy bonks her with a weapon, and her player rolls a 2 - but with the +1 from Dance of Serpents, this is a 3, and so the save is passed.

Essentially, this gives her a 2+ invulnerable save, but it's "really" a 3+ with +1 to the relevant dice rolls, therefore without violating the wording of Warp Surge. Is this allowed? Or too much of a technicality?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Relevant example:

Zarakynel, Bringer of Torments has the following rule:
Dance of Serpents: Add +1 to any save rolls made for Zarakynel against Melee attacks.

The stratagem Warp Surge from the Daemons codex reads:
Use this Stratagem at the start of any phase. Select a unit of DAEMONS; until the end of the phase, you cannot re-roll saving throws for this unit, but its invulnerable save is improved by 1 (to a maximum of 3+)

Zarakynel has a 4+ invulnerable save innately.

The situation is the Fight Phase: Warp Surge has been played, making Zarakynel's saves un-re-rollable but also a 3++. The enemy bonks her with a weapon, and her player rolls a 2 - but with the +1 from Dance of Serpents, this is a 3, and so the save is passed.

Essentially, this gives her a 2+ invulnerable save, but it's "really" a 3+ with +1 to the relevant dice rolls, therefore without violating the wording of Warp Surge. Is this allowed? Or too much of a technicality?

Perfectly legal. There is a difference and this is the reason why. You're not getting a 2++ save, you're getting a 3++ save on a D6+1, because the two rules affect different things.

As for your question of is this "too much of a technicality", is it too much of a technicality for my Marines have to roll to hit? The rules are the rules, and they are clear.

GK can do the exact same thing. The end is the same (effectively a 2++) but the way that it is arrived at is different than outright stating 2++.

They're technically different but semantically same.

 skchsan wrote:
They're technically different but semantically same.

They are not semantically the same at all, and that is best proven by the Sisters of Battle Seraphim. Because of re-rolls before modifiers, and the fact their re-roll is mandatory, if they have a +1 to their 6++ save roll (such as from Celestine), they are forced to re-roll 5's even though they would "pass" after modifiers, thus giving them a 6++ on a D6 that re-rolls into a 6++ save on a D6+1.

Although I agree that a 2++ save and. 3++ save with a +1 to the die roll are technically different, I don’t expect others to necessarily agree with me. For example, I asked how a similar situation will be handled at NOVA (Tzeentch daemon with the impossible rope, under the effects of Warp Surge), and the ruling for that event is that because warp surge limits the invul save to a 3+, a natural roll of 1 or 2 will always fail. So I guess, know your audience.

Tower wrote:
Although I agree that a 2++ save and. 3++ save with a +1 to the die roll are technically different, I don’t expect others to necessarily agree with me. For example, I asked how a similar situation will be handled at NOVA (Tzeentch daemon with the impossible rope, under the effects of Warp Surge), and the ruling for that event is that because warp surge limits the invul save to a 3+, a natural roll of 1 or 2 will always fail. So I guess, know your audience.

Well those people have decided not to play by the rules because Warp Surge modifies your dice rolls and no where does it say that you can't have a +1 to saves with your maximum of a 3+ invulnerable save.

Tower wrote:
Although I agree that a 2++ save and. 3++ save with a +1 to the die roll are technically different, I don’t expect others to necessarily agree with me. For example, I asked how a similar situation will be handled at NOVA (Tzeentch daemon with the impossible rope, under the effects of Warp Surge), and the ruling for that event is that because warp surge limits the invul save to a 3+, a natural roll of 1 or 2 will always fail. So I guess, know your audience.

The Impossible Robe doesn't give +1 to save rolls; warp surge should absolutely give it a 3++, since it is a 4++ natively.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
They're technically different but semantically same.

They are not semantically the same at all, and that is best proven by the Sisters of Battle Seraphim. Because of re-rolls before modifiers, and the fact their re-roll is mandatory, if they have a +1 to their 6++ save roll (such as from Celestine), they are forced to re-roll 5's even though they would "pass" after modifiers, thus giving them a 6++ on a D6 that re-rolls into a 6++ save on a D6+1.

Right, which is what I meant by them being technically different.

In this particular case, the wound is saved on a roll of 2, regardless of whether you try to interpret it as 2++ or 3++ w/ +1 to save roll.

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
They're technically different but semantically same.

They are not semantically the same at all, and that is best proven by the Sisters of Battle Seraphim. Because of re-rolls before modifiers, and the fact their re-roll is mandatory, if they have a +1 to their 6++ save roll (such as from Celestine), they are forced to re-roll 5's even though they would "pass" after modifiers, thus giving them a 6++ on a D6 that re-rolls into a 6++ save on a D6+1.

Right, which is what I meant by them being technically different.

In this particular case, the wound is saved on a roll of 2, regardless of whether you try to interpret it as 2++ or 3++ w/ +1 to save roll.

Well, in BCB's defense, semantically different is precisely how it is different.

Because, semantically, there is a difference between adding 1 to your roll and adding 1 to your save. You need to roll a 3 or higher AND you get to add 1 to your roll. Technically speaking, they are still different. Semantically because the wording has different meanings, and technically because both versions have different functionality.

I think people want to say they are functionally the same, but technically different.

Technically, the rules allow you to have a 3++ Save with a +1 to Save Test.
Functionally, this means a die roll of 2 makes your Invulnerable Save just like a 2++ Save would do.

Another difference is that the +1 can be modified by a negative circumstance thereby negating its effect. If you just had a 2++ then the circumstance wouldn't matter.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
They're technically different but semantically same.

They are not semantically the same at all, and that is best proven by the Sisters of Battle Seraphim. Because of re-rolls before modifiers, and the fact their re-roll is mandatory, if they have a +1 to their 6++ save roll (such as from Celestine), they are forced to re-roll 5's even though they would "pass" after modifiers, thus giving them a 6++ on a D6 that re-rolls into a 6++ save on a D6+1.

You probably shouldn't use yet to be FAQd and highly debated rules as 'proven' examples for other rules. We don't know if it's +1 to the roll or if it increases the save itself by 1. But if it does end up increasing the roll, then yes, you would be correct.

 deviantduck wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
They're technically different but semantically same.

They are not semantically the same at all, and that is best proven by the Sisters of Battle Seraphim. Because of re-rolls before modifiers, and the fact their re-roll is mandatory, if they have a +1 to their 6++ save roll (such as from Celestine), they are forced to re-roll 5's even though they would "pass" after modifiers, thus giving them a 6++ on a D6 that re-rolls into a 6++ save on a D6+1.

You probably shouldn't use yet to be FAQd and highly debated rules as 'proven' examples for other rules. We don't know if it's +1 to the roll or if it increases the save itself by 1. But if it does end up increasing the roll, then yes, you would be correct.

If it improved the save, it would say "improves the save by 1". It doesn't, so it affects the roll.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
They're technically different but semantically same.

They are not semantically the same at all, and that is best proven by the Sisters of Battle Seraphim. Because of re-rolls before modifiers, and the fact their re-roll is mandatory, if they have a +1 to their 6++ save roll (such as from Celestine), they are forced to re-roll 5's even though they would "pass" after modifiers, thus giving them a 6++ on a D6 that re-rolls into a 6++ save on a D6+1.

You probably shouldn't use yet to be FAQd and highly debated rules as 'proven' examples for other rules. We don't know if it's +1 to the roll or if it increases the save itself by 1. But if it does end up increasing the roll, then yes, you would be correct.

If it improved the save, it would say "improves the save by 1". It doesn't, so it affects the roll.

If it added 1 to the roll it would say add 1 to the roll. It doesn't, so it increases the save.

 deviantduck wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
They're technically different but semantically same.

They are not semantically the same at all, and that is best proven by the Sisters of Battle Seraphim. Because of re-rolls before modifiers, and the fact their re-roll is mandatory, if they have a +1 to their 6++ save roll (such as from Celestine), they are forced to re-roll 5's even though they would "pass" after modifiers, thus giving them a 6++ on a D6 that re-rolls into a 6++ save on a D6+1.

You probably shouldn't use yet to be FAQd and highly debated rules as 'proven' examples for other rules. We don't know if it's +1 to the roll or if it increases the save itself by 1. But if it does end up increasing the roll, then yes, you would be correct.

If it improved the save, it would say "improves the save by 1". It doesn't, so it affects the roll.

If it added 1 to the roll it would say add 1 to the roll. It doesn't, so it increases the save.

So you're saying my Seraphim have a 7++ then? Because that is what "add 1 to their Shield of Faith invulnerable saves" would do if it affected the save characteristic.

And people call me unreasonable!

You'd be right, if adding to a save wasn't already known to actually reduce the roll needed to pass.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You'd be right, if adding to a save wasn't already known to actually reduce the roll needed to pass.

[Citation Needed] Please show me where it says that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You'd be right, if adding to a save wasn't already known to actually reduce the roll needed to pass.

[Citation Needed] Please show me where it says that.

I don't think GW ever uses the term "add" or "+1" to a save, only to a saving throw. If you see Warp Surge, it says "improve" the save, which is the non-ambiguous way of wording it.

 alextroy wrote:
I think people want to say they are functionally the same, but technically different.

Technically, the rules allow you to have a 3++ Save with a +1 to Save Test.
Functionally, this means a die roll of 2 makes your Invulnerable Save just like a 2++ Save would do.

Until you get hit with a Shieldbreaker missile or Null Field. Then it really matters whether its a +1 to a save or +1 improvement to Invuln.

Fragile wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I think people want to say they are functionally the same, but technically different.

Technically, the rules allow you to have a 3++ Save with a +1 to Save Test.
Functionally, this means a die roll of 2 makes your Invulnerable Save just like a 2++ Save would do.

Until you get hit with a Shieldbreaker missile or Null Field. Then it really matters whether its a +1 to a save or +1 improvement to Invuln.

+1 to a save and +1 improvement to invul are the same, at least as far as the invulnerable save is concerned.

Not when you cannot take your invuln.

 Kharneth wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I think people want to say they are functionally the same, but technically different.

Technically, the rules allow you to have a 3++ Save with a +1 to Save Test.
Functionally, this means a die roll of 2 makes your Invulnerable Save just like a 2++ Save would do.

Until you get hit with a Shieldbreaker missile or Null Field. Then it really matters whether its a +1 to a save or +1 improvement to Invuln.

+1 to a save and +1 improvement to invul are the same, at least as far as the invulnerable save is concerned.

Is this actually stated anywhere?

I mean, if I have an invulnerable save, and an effect gives me +1 to my save, and then I'm hit with something that causes -1 to the save; is the +1 from the effect also 'invulnerable' or is it still modifiable, and the two cancel each other out leaving me with only my regular invulnerable save?

 Kcalehc wrote:

 Kharneth wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I think people want to say they are functionally the same, but technically different.

Technically, the rules allow you to have a 3++ Save with a +1 to Save Test.
Functionally, this means a die roll of 2 makes your Invulnerable Save just like a 2++ Save would do.

Until you get hit with a Shieldbreaker missile or Null Field. Then it really matters whether its a +1 to a save or +1 improvement to Invuln.

+1 to a save and +1 improvement to invul are the same, at least as far as the invulnerable save is concerned.

Is this actually stated anywhere?

I mean, if I have an invulnerable save, and an effect gives me +1 to my save, and then I'm hit with something that causes -1 to the save; is the +1 from the effect also 'invulnerable' or is it still modifiable, and the two cancel each other out leaving me with only my regular invulnerable save?

The +1 and -1 cancel out. The invulnerable save is not invulnerable to modifications, it's simply invulnerable to armor piercing (AP) modifiers. If you have +1 to your saves this increases both your armor and invulnerable save, and then if you're hit by a -1 modifier they will cancel out.