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.
Spoletta wrote: This would never fly in a game, but i do agree with the technical interpretation, it's the same case as the WS 1+ Dark angels and Space Wolves.
I'd let it fly if an Ork player walked me through the logic in similar fashion to Stux's summary, even if it suddenly came out mid-turn 3 or something. Never say never.
That said, I would guess it'll be FAQ'd.
Yeah this needs an faq for sure but stux's explanation also really did help.
Dashofpepper wrote: I don't weigh in either way, I'm just trying to understand the argument.
@BCB Can you explain this in lay terms for someone still grappling to relearn the rules? Do MegaNobs have a 3++? Or a 3+? If it is a 3++ turning into a 2++, why would AP- modifiers matter, because I thought AP- characteristics only affected armor saves, not invulnerable saves? If it is a 3+ turning into a 2+ ...why isn't it simple logic about the result? A 2+ being hit by an AP-3 weapon needs a 5+ to pass? Or do MegaNobs already have a 2+ save? If they did, I'd assume +1 to their save can also be modified to +1 to their save from cover, or from other things, so a base 2+ save being fired on by an AP-3 weapon would factor in all things affecting the save and in that case be a 3+ save.
BCB's argument is thus:
The Meganob normally has a regular 2+ save.
The Meganob gets a 1+ save from loot it. Not a 1++, not a 2++, just a regular save but at 1+.
The rules say a roll of 1 always fails though, so it's not auto pass.
The rules also say that any roll below a 1 counts as 1 but, but importantly according to an FAQ only a natural 1 always fails, but a 1 that is reached due to modifiers does not always fail.
It is important to note with AP that this doesn't change the enemy save characteristic, it is a modifier to the roll.
So here's what happens for every possible roll, let's assume an AP of -5:
Natural roll
1
Modified
-4
Counts as
1
Result
Fail, as it was a natural 1
Natural roll
2
Modified
-3
Counts as
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+
Natural roll
3
Modified
-2
Counts as
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+
Natural roll
4
Modified
-1
Counts as
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+
Natural roll
5
Modified
0
Counts as
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+
Natural roll
6
Modified
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+
As you can see, although it's not technically an invulnerable save, a 1+ save characteristic is functionally the same in most circumstances to a 2+ invulnerable save.
This may well not be intended, but it is RAW
That's not true though, plasma affected by -1 to hit can then exploded on a 2+, why does that not apply here? Obviously if you roll a die and it's a 1, you stop, accept you've failed and move on. All the rest of the original argument seems like web spinning.
That kind of proves the point. If you have a 1+ Save, you roll a 2, and you're affected by a -1 AP attack, you count as having rolled a 1 and you pass. GW stated that no roll can be modified below a 1, thus if you have a 1+ Save, you succeed on a roll of 2 or better, no matter what the AP of the weapon attacking you is, because a natural 1 is always a failure.
That's not true though, plasma affected by -1 to hit can then exploded on a 2+, why does that not apply here? Obviously if you roll a die and it's a 1, you stop, accept you've failed and move on. All the rest of the original argument seems like web spinning.
Plasma explodes on a 2 if you have a -1 because plasma explodes on a roll of 1 and NOT an UNMODIFIED roll of 1 (as far as I know), thats the diference; until gw publishes a faq about this, raw 1+ saves work as the op pointed out
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/11/06 00:23:21
flandarz wrote: ... GW stated that no roll can be modified below a 1, thus if you have a 1+ Save, you succeed on a roll of 2 or better, no matter what the AP of the weapon attacking you is, because a natural 1 is always a failure.
(Emphasis mine)
The red is not what the rule says, you realize that right?
"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.
flandarz wrote: ... GW stated that no roll can be modified below a 1, thus if you have a 1+ Save, you succeed on a roll of 2 or better, no matter what the AP of the weapon attacking you is, because a natural 1 is always a failure.
(Emphasis mine)
The red is not what the rule says, you realize that right?
Yes it does, and the FAQ proves it.
Q: If a Succubus is given the Serpentin combat drug, does
its Weapon Skill characteristic increase to 1+? If so, does the Succubus still hit if a hit roll of 2 is rolled for an attack for a melee weapon and, due to an ability, I have to subtract 1 from that hit roll?
A: Yes, and yes – only unmodified hit rolls of 1 automatically fail.
I honestly don't think a 1+ is even that bad. That's still a 1/6 chance of failing the Save. Unload a bunch of attacks, and a Meganob will still go down. They only got T4 and W3, after all.
It's certainly better than running a Shoota unit and having an Admech player drop a -1 to-hit on them and having no chance at all of hitting the Dragoon unit moving up (pre-Dakkax3). I'll take a 1/6 over a 0/6 any day.
flandarz wrote: I honestly don't think a 1+ is even that bad. That's still a 1/6 chance of failing the Save. Unload a bunch of attacks, and a Meganob will still go down. They only got T4 and W3, after all.
It's certainly better than running a Shoota unit and having an Admech player drop a -1 to-hit on them and having no chance at all of hitting the Dragoon unit moving up (pre-Dakkax3). I'll take a 1/6 over a 0/6 any day.
Well it's clearly an unintended interaction, i don't think anyone has any doubt here, so i would fully expect to have it gone by the FAQ.
Dashofpepper wrote: I don't weigh in either way, I'm just trying to understand the argument.
@BCB Can you explain this in lay terms for someone still grappling to relearn the rules? Do MegaNobs have a 3++? Or a 3+? If it is a 3++ turning into a 2++, why would AP- modifiers matter, because I thought AP- characteristics only affected armor saves, not invulnerable saves? If it is a 3+ turning into a 2+ ...why isn't it simple logic about the result? A 2+ being hit by an AP-3 weapon needs a 5+ to pass? Or do MegaNobs already have a 2+ save? If they did, I'd assume +1 to their save can also be modified to +1 to their save from cover, or from other things, so a base 2+ save being fired on by an AP-3 weapon would factor in all things affecting the save and in that case be a 3+ save.
BCB's argument is thus:
The Meganob normally has a regular 2+ save.
The Meganob gets a 1+ save from loot it. Not a 1++, not a 2++, just a regular save but at 1+.
The rules say a roll of 1 always fails though, so it's not auto pass.
The rules also say that any roll below a 1 counts as 1 but, but importantly according to an FAQ only a natural 1 always fails, but a 1 that is reached due to modifiers does not always fail.
It is important to note with AP that this doesn't change the enemy save characteristic, it is a modifier to the roll.
So here's what happens for every possible roll, let's assume an AP of -5:
Natural roll
1
Modified
-4
Counts as
1
Result
Fail, as it was a natural 1
Natural roll
2
Modified
-3
Counts as
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+
Natural roll
3
Modified
-2
Counts as
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+
Natural roll
4
Modified
-1
Counts as
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+
Natural roll
5
Modified
0
Counts as
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+
Natural roll
6
Modified
1
Result
Pass, as it's 1+
As you can see, although it's not technically an invulnerable save, a 1+ save characteristic is functionally the same in most circumstances to a 2+ invulnerable save.
This may well not be intended, but it is RAW
That's not true though, plasma affected by -1 to hit can then exploded on a 2+, why does that not apply here? Obviously if you roll a die and it's a 1, you stop, accept you've failed and move on. All the rest of the original argument seems like web spinning.
This is a different situation.
Plasma explodes on a 1. A 1+ save PASSES on a 1, not fail. The only exception is if it is a natural 1, in which case there is a rule that says it fails anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 08:39:28
Exactly. If there wasn't the FAQ about being unable to modify below 1, there wouldn't be a problem. All GW had to do was make things that happen on a 1 like Plasma or KMBs to happen on a 1 or less.
There, no FAQ needed and no unintended side affects.
flandarz wrote: ... GW stated that no roll can be modified below a 1, thus if you have a 1+ Save, you succeed on a roll of 2 or better, no matter what the AP of the weapon attacking you is, because a natural 1 is always a failure.
(Emphasis mine)
The red is not what the rule says, you realize that right?
Yes it does, and the FAQ proves it.
Q: If a Succubus is given the Serpentin combat drug, does its Weapon Skill characteristic increase to 1+? If so, does the Succubus still hit if a hit roll of 2 is rolled for an attack for a melee weapon and, due to an ability, I have to subtract 1 from that hit roll? A: Yes, and yes – only unmodified hit rolls of 1 automatically fail.
That FAQ is for a Succubus that is is given the Serpentin combat drug...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 10:11:18
"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.
Which is fairly irrelevant when we have rulebook saying:
1. Hit Roll: Each time a model makes an attack, roll a dice. If the roll is equal to or greater than the attacking model’s Ballistic Skill characteristic, then it scores a hit with the weapon it is using. If not, the attack fails and the attack sequence ends. A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifers that may apply.
Rule is same whether you are talking about succubus or tau firewarrior. It just clarifies how the drugs work
edit: though albeit whether that applies to saves is another thing
edit2: Yes it does: A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifers that may apply
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/11/06 10:17:25
nosferatu1001 wrote: A hit roll of 1 always fails
You don't get to remove context and apply that to all rolls.
Exactly what he normally says to others, yet somehow here it works... hmmmm.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
nosferatu1001 wrote: A hit roll of 1 always fails
You don't get to remove context and apply that to all rolls.
It also works for armour saves as per rulebook. What "1 is not automatic fail" you are referring that is relevant here? Not to hit roll(where natural 1 fails always as per rulebook) nor saves(again natural 1 fails always as per rulebook) so...Ummm....what? To wound as well. I'm struggling real hard to come up with any roll where 1 is bad result and natural 1 isn't automatic fail. And any of those are unlikely to be of relevant interest here since we are talking about saving where, as per rulebook, natural 1 is always failure.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 10:52:04
I have no problem with this, as it means meganobs fail on a roll of a 1. This is still after a 50/50 roll after using CP, AND it costs the death of a vehicle, which can in turn kill your entire models inside with a roll of a 1.
I'd say this is fairly balanced, and doesn't work any better than, say, +3 save Bullgryns (which also need a bit of trickery to get to +3, but are far more consistent with how they can get it).
A bolter fires and a Necron succumbs. His corpse rises up as a poxwalker much to the horror of his comrades. Then, to everyone's surprise his corpse rises again as a fully functionality necron. The necron and the poxwalker stare at each other, both wondering which of them is the clone.
Ravemastaj wrote: I have no problem with this, as it means meganobs fail on a roll of a 1. This is still after a 50/50 roll after using CP, AND it costs the death of a vehicle, which can in turn kill your entire models inside with a roll of a 1.
I'd say this is fairly balanced, and doesn't work any better than, say, +3 save Bullgryns (which also need a bit of trickery to get to +3, but are far more consistent with how they can get it).
I'm not happy with anything getting a 2++ in any circumstance to be quite honest. Particularly if it's already fairly durable and killy and has character protection.
nosferatu1001 wrote: A hit roll of 1 always fails You don't get to remove context and apply that to all rolls.
Except the rules for rolling to hit and to save are literally identical, word for word. The DEFAQ is confirming RaW, not ignoring it, because "irrespective" can mean two different things in this context.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 12:43:24
The "roll" in the faq has a single context. Same as the rule for to hit. I was pointing out you cannot remove context and pretend it applies. It's like taking a question about moving and firing and apply8ng it more widely than that.
Gitdakka wrote: I understand how is probably true RAW (even though I'll never play the game like this).
Question though: Is this then also the case for terminators in cover or other 2+sv models gaining +1 save. Or why is this case with meganobz special?
Because a modifier of +1 is not the same as improving the save. A modifier of +1 is a 2+ save on D6+1, improving the save by one results in a 1+ on a D6.
Simply put no player should be able to modify their models stats in game combat drugs should have just been this model can +1 to all to hit rolls made in CC for the rest of the game and loot it should have said
This unit add's 1 to it's saving throws for the rest of the game.
No wierd 1+ BS just 2+Sv with a D6+1.
At times I'm convinced that some of the people writing rules do not even play 40k
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/11/06 13:07:21
Ice_can wrote: Simply put no player should be able to modify their models stats in game combat drugs should have just been this model can +1 to all to hit rolls made in CC for the rest of the game and loot it should have said
This unit add's 1 to it's saving throws for the rest of the game.
No wierd 1+ BS just 2+Sv with a D6+1.
At times I'm convinced that some of the people writing rules do not even play 40k
Modifying stats is fine, the issue is the silly FAQ to prevent modifying below one. It was done so that plasma overheated on a 1, because otherwise a 0 wouldn't overheat. Yet it leads to this, all because GW couldn't be bothered to write the plasma rule correctly in the first place.
There is reason after every codex we get errata, since they modify the rules so often and in different books, its not surprise such mistakes are made. What is really not fine is that they give infantry model +2 save, but well orcs will be happy.
Really they should have made a distinction between a 'roll' of 1 (when the die shows 1 single pip) and a 'result' of 1 (when the die roll is modified) in the main rules. Probably could have headed off this whole thing before it started.
Drager wrote: Loot it improves the save. Cover adds 1 to the roll. As such Terminators in cover have a 2+ save on d6+1 not a 1+ save.
From a litteral sence it is a 2+ +1 However players call it a 1+ because a 1+ SV with 1's always failing is mechanically different to a 2+ SV in any situation where you apply AP and players want to communicate that efficiently in a short space of time.
I fire a heavy bolter at your terminators the "1+" terninators in cover save on a 2+ the 2+ terminators out of cover sav on a 3+ its functionally different what your complaining at is the use of coloquial terminology because its not litterally correct but players will always use coloquialisms when appropriate just like describeing a unit as having a 5+ fnp. If i say my unit has a 1+ sv you know what I mean.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 15:47:51
That's not true though, plasma affected by -1 to hit can then exploded on a 2+, why does that not apply here? Obviously if you roll a die and it's a 1, you stop, accept you've failed and move on. All the rest of the original argument seems like web spinning.
Plasma explodes on a 2 if you have a -1 because plasma explodes on a roll of 1 and NOT an UNMODIFIED roll of 1 (as far as I know), thats the diference; until gw publishes a faq about this, raw 1+ saves work as the op pointed out
I disagree, I'd not allow anyone to do this in any game I play because it's obvious what the intent behind the rule was. Anyone who would "try" to use this rule this way would be laughed at and likely not be the first person people in a group would pick to play from now on.
