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.

Can You Get a 0+ armor save? Terminators with storm shields in cover for example.

Cover adds to the die roll, not the save value.

I believe Storm shields also add to the die roll.

But they do stack, however I think the limit is a bonus of +1 (Not 100% sure about that though, I think that was an FAQ I can not seem to find right now).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Cover adds to the die roll, not the save value.

I believe Storm shields also add to the die roll.

But they do stack, however I think the limit is a bonus of +1 (Not 100% sure about that though, I think that was an FAQ I can not seem to find right now).

Cover and Stormshields both add modifiers to the roll, Armor saves do not have a modifer cap - else all those -3 and -4 armor save weapons would be pretty useless - that's from the hit roll.

A hit roll can never be modified by more than -1 or +1.

This is also in a few FAQ's that point out if you have multiple modifiers apply them all and the end result - positive or negative - is reduced to a -1 or +1


That said - and someone had a conniption over this a while ago because there is supposedly some technical difference I can't recall Potentially something along the lines of triggering the Grav Gun Damage esclator - a lot of people will call a 3+ with a +2 modifer a 1+ so I can understand your meaning is a 2+ with a +2 to the roll.

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.

So A Terminator (2+) with a Stormshield (+1) in cover (+1) will succeed on a theoretical dice roll of 0. However -

Dice roll cannot be modified to less than 1

And a natural 1 always fails

An unmodified roll of 1 always fails.

Thus if you have your 2+ +2 armor save, and get shot by a bolter with a 0AP you still need to roll a natural 2+ To put it another way, the +2 isn't to reduce the 16% (the natural 1 of 6) chance of always losing it increases your resilience against the -3 and -4 weapons Your 2+ +2 vs a -4 Multi Melta succeeds on 4+ (or half the time) vs a 6+ or 16% of the time without the +2.

 CKO wrote:
Can You Get a 0+ armor save? Terminators with storm shields in cover for example.

No, you cant. As DR said you can get +X to your armour saving throw. Light cover is +1 to the armour saving throw, SS is another +1, which is +2, because modifiers to your armour saving throws are cumulative, and there is no cap.

Its not possible to get a 1+ or even 0+ armour save, because that would equal a 2+ inv.

Thanks, guys, you are the best!

To be even more clear, for a short period you DID get models with a 1+ save; however because you cannot modify rolls below 1, and AP is a modifier to the dice roll to save, when you rolled a 2 and applied a -5 from AP-5 to the dice roll, the dice roll became a 1, you compared that the save value of 1, and so it saved.

Only a natural 1 failed. Ap was irrelevant. That's why it changed.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Cover adds to the die roll, not the save value.

I believe Storm shields also add to the die roll.

But they do stack, however I think the limit is a bonus of +1 (Not 100% sure about that though, I think that was an FAQ I can not seem to find right now).

There’s no penalty/bonus limit on saves, otherwise AP wouldn’t work.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Cover adds to the die roll, not the save value.

I believe Storm shields also add to the die roll.

But they do stack, however I think the limit is a bonus of +1 (Not 100% sure about that though, I think that was an FAQ I can not seem to find right now).

There’s no penalty/bonus limit on saves, otherwise AP wouldn’t work.

Who said anything about a penalty limit?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Cover adds to the die roll, not the save value.

I believe Storm shields also add to the die roll.

But they do stack, however I think the limit is a bonus of +1 (Not 100% sure about that though, I think that was an FAQ I can not seem to find right now).

There’s no penalty/bonus limit on saves, otherwise AP wouldn’t work.

Who said anything about a penalty limit?

It’s okay to admit when you’re wrong.

You were probably thinking of Hit or Wound rolls, which DO have capped bonuses and penalties.

It’s easy to make a mistake with how complex 40k is and how many different sources need to be referenced.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Cover adds to the die roll, not the save value.

I believe Storm shields also add to the die roll.

But they do stack, however I think the limit is a bonus of +1 (Not 100% sure about that though, I think that was an FAQ I can not seem to find right now).

There’s no penalty/bonus limit on saves, otherwise AP wouldn’t work.

Who said anything about a penalty limit?

It’s okay to admit when you’re wrong.

I know that, but I don't understand why you quoted me. All I asked was "Who said anything about a penalty limit?"

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Cover adds to the die roll, not the save value.

I believe Storm shields also add to the die roll.

But they do stack, however I think the limit is a bonus of +1 (Not 100% sure about that though, I think that was an FAQ I can not seem to find right now).

There’s no penalty/bonus limit on saves, otherwise AP wouldn’t work.

Unless you did it like aos that has cap on positive result. Of course lot more ways to buff save there than in 40k so cap is more essential.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Cover adds to the die roll, not the save value.

I believe Storm shields also add to the die roll.

But they do stack, however I think the limit is a bonus of +1 (Not 100% sure about that though, I think that was an FAQ I can not seem to find right now).

There’s no penalty/bonus limit on saves, otherwise AP wouldn’t work.

Who said anything about a penalty limit?

I was highlighting the inevitable “whatabout” from someone if I didn’t mention that bit.

You’re still wrong regardless, no core rules cap to positive save modifiers. I just wanted to give a complete answer without a hole for someone to needle.

Some people get pernickity about it being a 2+ save with a +2 modifier instead of a "0+ save" because, technically (and confirmed by GW) a 1+ (or better) armour save is essentially a 2+ super invulnerable due to silly buggers with modifier rules.

If you ignore those silly buggers then "0+" is a worthwhile shorthand imo.

As mentioned, nope, there was some shenanigan's in...8th? i wanna think where the box set and first set of rules for the storm shield actually let you get a 1+ and it ended up breaking the game, as in, if you have a 1+ armor save you ignored all AP in the game kinda broken.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Some people get pernickity about it being a 2+ save with a +2 modifier instead of a "0+ save" because, technically (and confirmed by GW) a 1+ (or better) armour save is essentially a 2+ super invulnerable due to silly buggers with modifier rules.

If you ignore those silly buggers then "0+" is a worthwhile shorthand imo.

Which is why I encourge the phrase, "I effectively have a 0+ save". It allow you to use the imprecise 0+ save when you really have a 2+ Save with a +2 Modifier.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
As mentioned, nope, there was some shenanigan's in...8th? i wanna think where the box set and first set of rules for the storm shield actually let you get a 1+ and it ended up breaking the game, as in, if you have a 1+ armor save you ignored all AP in the game kinda broken.

Indeed, there aren't any true 1+ saves in 9th, they're all 2+ +1.
But the shenanigans are there if they ever added true 1+ saves

Im pretty sure it will happen again, because GW is unable to learn from mistakes. They did that mistake back in 8th, repeated it in 9th, and they will do it again in the future.

I'm kinda curious how a 1+ save ignored ALL armor penetration in 8th... I hadn't heard that one.

But I think that's against the forum rules to ask--so if someone were to DM me the explanation, I would not object~

sieGermans wrote:
I'm kinda curious how a 1+ save ignored ALL armor penetration in 8th... I hadn't heard that one.

But I think that's against the forum rules to ask--so if someone were to DM me the explanation, I would not object~

I don't see why it would be against forum rules.

Essentially, any dice result that is modified below a 1 defaults into a 1.

So, say I have AP-6 and you roll a 4... that'll get modified into -2 but default into a 1.
Importantly, you rolled a natural 4 - so natural 1 auto-fail doesn't apply.
If you had an innate armour save of 1+ or better, the final result (1) is equal or better than your save so it succeeds.
It doesn't matter how far I push you into the negatives, it'll default to a 1 and succeed (unless you roll a natural 1 to trigger the auto-fail).

This is fixed by "2+ +1".
Now your 4 - 6 + 1 comes out as a -1 before defaulting into a 1, which does fail because your armour save is only a 2+.
So this works how any reasonable person would assume a "1+" save would work - it's just not prone to the silly buggers above.

Bearing in mind this appeared in AOS as well, and in this it was MEANT. This is because the model it's on has a save that degrades as it's wounded.