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 did a search, and couldn’t find this specifically addressed,

Do storm Shields add 1 to both the armor save AND invulnerable saving throw? Effectively making them still have a 3+ (with minor differences)

Thanks and I’m sorry if I missed this in other discussions

+1 to save is just to armor.

The new Storm Shield rule is (emphasis added):

Storm Shield: The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. In addition, add 1 to armour saving throws made for the bearer.

rbacus wrote:
I did a search, and couldn’t find this specifically addressed,

Do storm Shields add 1 to both the armor save AND invulnerable saving throw? Effectively making them still have a 3+ (with minor differences)

Thanks and I’m sorry if I missed this in other discussions

It explicitly says "armour saving throw" which is actually defined in the 9th edition glossary now.

Thank you kindly!

while it might not be relevant, its worth pointing out that Storm Sheilds used by Custodes are still 3+ invulerable, as their deachment ability buffs invul saves, so a shield custodian is 1+/3++

xerxeskingofking wrote:
while it might not be relevant, its worth pointing out that Storm Sheilds used by Custodes are still 3+ invulerable, as their deachment ability buffs invul saves, so a shield custodian is 1+/3++

Not True. They are not a 1+ armour save. They are a 2+ armour save on D6+1. This is a VERY important distinction. The Storm Shield doesn't improve the armour save any more, it just adds 1 to the roll.

The Invulnerable portion is indeed buffed back up to 3++ via The Emperor's Chosen.

Don't get into that - it is a colloquial shorthand that lots of people use that it is technically wrong. You know exactly what was meant by it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

rbacus wrote:
I did a search, and couldn’t find this specifically addressed,

Do storm Shields add 1 to both the armor save AND invulnerable saving throw? Effectively making them still have a 3+ (with minor differences)

Thanks and I’m sorry if I missed this in other discussions

It explicitly says "armour saving throw" which is actually defined in the 9th edition glossary now.

Does this mean that Thousand Sons invulnerable saves aren't boosted by their All is Dust rule? (+1 to save against 1 damage weapons).

 Marmatag wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

rbacus wrote:
I did a search, and couldn’t find this specifically addressed,

Do storm Shields add 1 to both the armor save AND invulnerable saving throw? Effectively making them still have a 3+ (with minor differences)

Thanks and I’m sorry if I missed this in other discussions

It explicitly says "armour saving throw" which is actually defined in the 9th edition glossary now.

Does this mean that Thousand Sons invulnerable saves aren't boosted by their All is Dust rule? (+1 to save against 1 damage weapons).

They are boosted.

"Saving Throw" is not the same as "Armour Saving Throw", nor is it the same as "Invulnerable Saving Throw".

If a rule says "Saving Throw(s)" it applies to any kind of saving throw. (e.g. All is Dust)
If a rule says "Armour Saving Throw(s)" it applies only to saves made with a models Save Characteristic on their datasheet. (e.g. Storm Shields)
If a rule says "Invulnerable Saving Throw(s)" it applies only to saves made utilising an Invulnerable Save. (e.g. Ephemeral Form)

U02dah4 wrote:
Don't get into that - it is a colloquial shorthand that lots of people use that it is technically wrong. You know exactly what was meant by it.

I'm with BCB on this one. If you say "effectively 1+/3++" I'd let it slide. But there is a very important rules difference between a 2+ Save with a +1 Modifier and a 1+ Save.

 alextroy wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Don't get into that - it is a colloquial shorthand that lots of people use that it is technically wrong. You know exactly what was meant by it.

I'm with BCB on this one. If you say "effectively 1+/3++" I'd let it slide. But there is a very important rules difference between a 2+ Save with a +1 Modifier and a 1+ Save.

I'm curious as to what that difference is, if you don't mind explaining.

 Mulletdude wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Don't get into that - it is a colloquial shorthand that lots of people use that it is technically wrong. You know exactly what was meant by it.

I'm with BCB on this one. If you say "effectively 1+/3++" I'd let it slide. But there is a very important rules difference between a 2+ Save with a +1 Modifier and a 1+ Save.

I'm curious as to what that difference is, if you don't mind explaining.

Short Answer:
A 1+ armour save behaves similarly to 2+ invulnerable save.

Less Short Answer:
A 1+ armour save behaves similarly to a 2+ invulnerable save. A 2+ armour save rolling a D6+1 behaves as you would expect, allowing you to "ignore" one point of AP. AOS actually does have legitimate 1+ armour saves and, as confirmed by FAQ, they behave like 2+ invulnerable saves. Of course, there are niche differences, e.g. a 1+ armour save will still be able to be taken against a Vindicare Assassin's Exitus Rifle which states "When resolving an attack made with this weapon, an invulnerable saving throw cannot be made." which actually makes a 1+ armour save SUPERIOR to a 2+ invulnerable save since things that interact with invulnerable saves won't interact with it.

The rules say a dice roll cannot be modified below 1. The rules say an unmodified hit/wound/save roll of 1 always fails, but a modified roll of 1 can pass a 1+ test. The best example of this is a Dark Eldar Succubus which has been buffed to WS 1+.

CODEX: DRUKHARI FAQ Indomitus Version 1.2 wrote: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.

Therefore, even if you hit a 1+ armour save with an AP -10 attack, that AP modifies the roll to a 1 regardless of what you roll, which meets the 1+ test, thus only unmodified 1's will fail, thus allowing you to pass 5/6ths of saves (rolling a physical 2-6) while failing 1/6 of saves (rolling a natural 1), thus "acting" as a 2+ invulnerable save.

Long Answer:
A full explanation for when this was briefly a thing in 40k 8th Edition with Meganobs: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/766233.page

Now, when the new Storm Shield rule was first previewed, it didn't add 1 to the save rolls, it improved the save characteristic by 1. This meant that Terminators with a Storm Shield could get a 1+ armour save, and thus there was much bellyaching, and GW changed it. This was also an issue with the "Master-crafted Armour" Crusade Relic which used to state "The model’s Save characteristic is improved by 1 (e.g. a Sv 3+ becomes Sv 2+, Sv 2+ becomes Sv 1+ etc.)." showing that 1+ armour saves were very much intended. This was also changed to affect the roll, rather than the characteristic.

 Mulletdude wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Don't get into that - it is a colloquial shorthand that lots of people use that it is technically wrong. You know exactly what was meant by it.

I'm with BCB on this one. If you say "effectively 1+/3++" I'd let it slide. But there is a very important rules difference between a 2+ Save with a +1 Modifier and a 1+ Save.

I'm curious as to what that difference is, if you don't mind explaining.

Short answer is that it is effectively a 2++.

Longer answer: UNMODIFIED 1's always fail when rolling an armor save. Modified 1's (such as a roll of 2 with a -1) would still pass if you had an armor characteristic of 1+ because modified 1's don't automatically fail. In 9th, AP is just a modifier on an armor save; it does not change the characteristic. GW has also said that results cannot be modified below 1 (such as to 0).

So an example, model has a 1+ armor save. Gets hit with AP-3 weapon. Rolls 1D6, gets a 2. 2-3 would be -1 but nothing can be modified below 1 do it becomes 1. This is not a natural roll of 1 an unmodified 1, but a modified 1, so it does not automatically fail. Our model needs a 1+ roll on 1D6 to pass its armor save. It got that, so it passes.

Hence, the only way to fail the roll is to roll an unmodified 1. Making it effectively a 2++. By contrast, if you're just adding +1 to the 1D6 roll of a 2+ save, AP works as expected. Taking the same AP-3 weapon, we get 1D6+1-3 as the roll, meaning the model needs a 4+ to make a 1+ save after modifiers.

Audustum wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Don't get into that - it is a colloquial shorthand that lots of people use that it is technically wrong. You know exactly what was meant by it.

I'm with BCB on this one. If you say "effectively 1+/3++" I'd let it slide. But there is a very important rules difference between a 2+ Save with a +1 Modifier and a 1+ Save.

I'm curious as to what that difference is, if you don't mind explaining.

Short answer is that it is effectively a 2++.

Longer answer: UNMODIFIED 1's always fail when rolling an armor save. Modified 1's (such as a roll of 2 with a -1) would still pass if you had an armor characteristic of 1+ because modified 1's don't automatically fail. In 9th, AP is just a modifier on an armor save; it does not change the characteristic. GW has also said that results cannot be modified below 1 (such as to 0).

So an example, model has a 1+ armor save. Gets hit with AP-3 weapon. Rolls 1D6, gets a 2. 2-3 would be -1 but nothing can be modified below 1 do it becomes 1. This is not a natural roll of 1 an unmodified 1, but a modified 1, so it does not automatically fail. Our model needs a 1+ roll on 1D6 to pass its armor save. It got that, so it passes.

Hence, the only way to fail the roll is to roll an unmodified 1. Making it effectively a 2++. By contrast, if you're just adding +1 to the 1D6 roll of a 2+ save, AP works as expected. Taking the same AP-3 weapon, we get 1D6+1-3 as the roll, meaning the model needs a 4+ to make a 1+ save after modifiers.

Clearly your method is the correct one.

Even GW's rules are incorrect. (Except for the final sentence below)

4. SAVING THROW
The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving throw by rolling one D6 and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration (AP) characteristic of the weapon that the attack was made with. For example, if the weapon has an AP of -1, then 1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll. If the result is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model the attack was allocated to, then the saving throw is successful and the attack sequence ends. If the result is less than the model's Save characteristic, then the saving throw fails and the model suffers damage. An unmodified roll of 1 always fails.

/sarcasm off

GW's method is take the armour save, so lets say 2+ and then take the modifiers and find the difference between them before applying them to the roll result.

So 2+ save
AP-3 vs Save +1 = NET AP-2

So if you roll a 3 or less, the AP-2 reduces your result to 1, 0, or -1, which fail.

Audustum wrote:
GW has also said that results cannot be modified below 1 (such as to 0).

Provide the exact quote - directly in relation to armour saving tests. Results that cannot be modified below 1 would usually imply a test such as Leadership, Wounds, Toughness, Strength - where is the part where they refer directly to the Saving throw in particular?

This would mean giving a squad of Tempestus Scions cover, Psychic Barrier, and the Take Cover! stratagem an unmodifiable 2++ based upon your ruling. Where even an AP-5 Volcano Cannon being fired at the squad would result in only a 1 being a failed save (based on your explanation), not an overall 6+ save (4+ then +3 -5 = -2).

No. You misunderstand the difference between a 1+ and a 2+ with +1.

They might seem, on the surface level, the same, but they operate very differently.

 Slayer6 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Don't get into that - it is a colloquial shorthand that lots of people use that it is technically wrong. You know exactly what was meant by it.

I'm with BCB on this one. If you say "effectively 1+/3++" I'd let it slide. But there is a very important rules difference between a 2+ Save with a +1 Modifier and a 1+ Save.

I'm curious as to what that difference is, if you don't mind explaining.

Short answer is that it is effectively a 2++.

Longer answer: UNMODIFIED 1's always fail when rolling an armor save. Modified 1's (such as a roll of 2 with a -1) would still pass if you had an armor characteristic of 1+ because modified 1's don't automatically fail. In 9th, AP is just a modifier on an armor save; it does not change the characteristic. GW has also said that results cannot be modified below 1 (such as to 0).

So an example, model has a 1+ armor save. Gets hit with AP-3 weapon. Rolls 1D6, gets a 2. 2-3 would be -1 but nothing can be modified below 1 do it becomes 1. This is not a natural roll of 1 an unmodified 1, but a modified 1, so it does not automatically fail. Our model needs a 1+ roll on 1D6 to pass its armor save. It got that, so it passes.

Hence, the only way to fail the roll is to roll an unmodified 1. Making it effectively a 2++. By contrast, if you're just adding +1 to the 1D6 roll of a 2+ save, AP works as expected. Taking the same AP-3 weapon, we get 1D6+1-3 as the roll, meaning the model needs a 4+ to make a 1+ save after modifiers.

Clearly your method is the correct one.

Even GW's rules are incorrect. (Except for the final sentence below)

4. SAVING THROW
The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving throw by rolling one D6 and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration (AP) characteristic of the weapon that the attack was made with. For example, if the weapon has an AP of -1, then 1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll. If the result is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model the attack was allocated to, then the saving throw is successful and the attack sequence ends. If the result is less than the model's Save characteristic, then the saving throw fails and the model suffers damage. An unmodified roll of 1 always fails.

/sarcasm off

GW's method is take the armour save, so lets say 2+ and then take the modifiers and find the difference between them before applying them to the roll result.

So 2+ save
AP-3 vs Save +1 = NET AP-2

So if you roll a 3 or less, the AP-2 reduces your result to 1, 0, or -1, which fail.

Audustum wrote:
GW has also said that results cannot be modified below 1 (such as to 0).

Provide the exact quote - directly in relation to armour saving tests. Results that cannot be modified below 1 would usually imply a test such as Leadership, Wounds, Toughness, Strength - where is the part where they refer directly to the Saving throw in particular?

This would mean giving a squad of Tempestus Scions cover, Psychic Barrier, and the Take Cover! stratagem an unmodifiable 2++ based upon your ruling. Where even an AP-5 Volcano Cannon being fired at the squad would result in only a 1 being a failed save (based on your explanation), not an overall 6+ save (4+ then +3 -5 = -2).

Your entire post is incredibly hostile to a random person on the internet. I can only say that you may be happier if you lower the negativity that led to that.

As to the discussion, you are confusing +1 to an armor save roll with improving an armor save characteristic. GW's own rules, that you quoted, support what I and others have said. The rule in question for this thread improves the characteristic by 1. It does not add 1 to the roll.

1+ means that a melta gun (AP-4) only wounds a model with such save if the player rolls a 1, while "2+ with +1 to save" means that the same melta wound the model if the player rolls a 1,2,3 or 4. Huge difference.

1+ is in fact the equivalent of 2++.

 Slayer6 wrote:
This would mean giving a squad of Tempestus Scions cover, Psychic Barrier, and the Take Cover! stratagem an unmodifiable 2++ based upon your ruling. Where even an AP-5 Volcano Cannon being fired at the squad would result in only a 1 being a failed save (based on your explanation), not an overall 6+ save (4+ then +3 -5 = -2).

If Cover, Psychic Barrier, and Take Cover! improved the save Characteristic by 1, you would be correct.

However, each of those rules instead add 1 to the Saving throw, so you are incorrect.

Improving the Save Characteristic by 1 and Adding 1 to the Saving Throw ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

As JNAProductions says, an armour save of 1+ made on a D6 is not the same as an armour save of 2+ made on a D6+1.

If you see my post here you will find a more in-depth explanation, and the link in that post is an even more in depth explanation.

Audustum wrote:
\
Your entire post is incredibly hostile to a random person on the internet. I can only say that you may be happier if you lower the negativity that led to that.

I am quite possibly the #1 most toxic, combative, negative person you ever had the displeasure of meeting on a forum.

And I am completely OK with that!



But back on topic - modifying a save and adding something to it, doesn't restrict it from being modified by AP like an invulnerable save. I have yet to find a quote that mentions - in relation to armour saves that you can not modify a value below 1. I am aware of the quote applying to characteristics such as Strength, Toughness, Wounds, Leadership amongst other things. That Drukhari quote applies to Hit rolls, not armour saving rolls. That comparison is essentially the same as the old 7E Guard codex where the Enginseers with 4 servitors technically did not need to roll, as even rolling a 1, then adding +1 to the roll for each servitor for their repairs rule to pass on a 5+. The argument back then was that 1's always failed, but where that part was taken out of context. Unless explicitly stated that the aforementioned ruling applies to armour saving throws, then it remains an arbitrary statement - the same as the GW rules. Flip a coin.

I don't think the emotion on either side is needed here ... the discussion is an amicable one I trust.

I see in the brb ninth that there IS a definite statement that 4 things cannot be modified below one, but I do not see a direct statement that a save is among them. Strength, attacks, leadership, and toughness cannot be lowered below one, per the "modifying a characteristic" on 366. That rule clearly lists its four targets, and has nothing to do with armor saves. Page 220 lists several combat roles that cannot be MODIFIED more than by +/1 one, but has in the discussion on page 221, (which is the only discussion pertinant to the save roll modifiers I have seen) no comment in the rules about being unable to go below any specific number. It DOES note that a natural 1 allways fails, period, full stop, but does not put any limit on lower modifier level, and it requires either a natural 1 to fail OR that the save result is below the save characteristic as modified. So you are able to discuss a terminator's -1 save against a melta gun's -4 ap as failing on a 1 (natural) and on a 2 (as 2 -4 = -2, a save attempt that failed.) .. There are no rules against that set of data points..

Note that p203 restates the 4 specific things (T,A,LD, and S) that cannot be modified below 1. I don't see any commentary in the rules about it being illegal to have a save RESULT (which is an outcome, not a characteristic, and surely not one of the ones they carefully list each time) below 0, or to have a situation where the interactions of external factors like AP and the roll result of the dice might result in your saves being -2 or -3 (a lambda lions melta affecting a role of 2 on the die ... -3 save attempt. I do not believe a single non invuln save in the game system could make that save work!) and thus unlikely to care about the effects of even very good (2+) armor in cover (1+ more) with a stormshield's effect (+1 on the armor save DIE, but not characteristic). The putative marine terminator would start at 2+, and subtract 2 from his armor characteristic (this is allowed as it is not in fact A,T, S OR LD) .. giving you a zero ap start point. If there is a rule to forbid this I don't know it. By rules, however, a natural 1 fails, of course, and any other not armor piercing equipped weapons will only score on that natural 1. However.
AP-5 weapons will score on a 4,3,2 or 1, as 4-5 is less than the value of the save (0) in this model. It appears this is the current (ninth edition) rules by reading the big rule book. I have NOT looked for any faq changes to this, nor am I aware of any pages in the BRB I have missed, and I encourage people to correct me with references if that is the case, because I would like to have this correct.

Is there a rule I am missing, perhaps one that addresses modifying a roll of a die? If so, what page is it on?

Yes, you are missing something. Emphasis added

DICE
In order to fight a battle, you will require some six-sided dice (often abbreviated to D6). Some rules refer to 2D6, 3D6 and so on – in such cases, roll that many D6s and add the dice results together. If a rule requires you to roll a D3, roll a D6 and halve the value shown on the dice to get the dice result (rounding fractions up).
If a rule requires a D6 roll of, for example, 3 or more, this is often abbreviated to 3+.

All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers, and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers. Round any fractions up after applying all modifiers. A dice roll can be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6 roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below 1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.

Dukeofstuff, as I explained before, you're conflating modifying a characteristic with modifying a roll. These are NOT the same things. The rule alextroy quotes is on page 200 of the BRB and page 5 (iirc?) of the free PDF.

 Slayer6 wrote:

Audustum wrote:
\
Your entire post is incredibly hostile to a random person on the internet. I can only say that you may be happier if you lower the negativity that led to that.

I am quite possibly the #1 most toxic, combative, negative person you ever had the displeasure of meeting on a forum.

And I am completely OK with that!



But back on topic - modifying a save and adding something to it, doesn't restrict it from being modified by AP like an invulnerable save. I have yet to find a quote that mentions - in relation to armour saves that you can not modify a value below 1. I am aware of the quote applying to characteristics such as Strength, Toughness, Wounds, Leadership amongst other things. That Drukhari quote applies to Hit rolls, not armour saving rolls. That comparison is essentially the same as the old 7E Guard codex where the Enginseers with 4 servitors technically did not need to roll, as even rolling a 1, then adding +1 to the roll for each servitor for their repairs rule to pass on a 5+. The argument back then was that 1's always failed, but where that part was taken out of context. Unless explicitly stated that the aforementioned ruling applies to armour saving throws, then it remains an arbitrary statement - the same as the GW rules. Flip a coin.

Alex and BCB quoted it before I looked. There it is.

You may be O.K. with it, but try to think of others. Here's hoping it's all smiles one day.

Thank you both BCB for your reply and alextroy for the definitive quote and page.

I am at peace with sayign (after looking at this from multiple spots in the BRB) that you two are quite correct.

Again, thanks for the replies!