PDA

View Full Version : The Max(?) 1+ Armour Save



Archangelion
26-07-2010, 01:59
So, they changed the words for the armour save rule with an errata... my intrest in that is... why?

Before, it seemed plain that armour saves were not permited to add up to greater than a total of a 1+ armour save.

After (now) it still seems the same, but... now the rules state that you may take items to add up to greater than a 1+ save, but may still not have greater than a 1+ save.

Interestly enough, as a friend of mine pointed out to me today, strenth 10 inflicts a -7 modifer to an armour save... but... the most anything would ever need is -6 as nothing further would be gained from a -7 modifer if the save can only go up to 1+ to begin with.

Unless... you are aloud to take items that would bestow a THEORETICAL armour save greater than 1+ and that negative modifiers would reduce that, so that once all modifers are acumulated and applied, if the save would be better than 1+ than the save is 1+, but a 1 still fails...

This all leads me to believe that the errata SHOULD have been nothing more than and FAQ pointing out that it does not limit equipment choices, just the save itself, and that the player is not limited to what armour can be given to the model, just that the save will not exceed 1+ EVER, as if it were the intent of GW to do as I explained above, then I would think that the rule would rather be, a save can never count as being higher than 2+, or whatever.

Comments? Am I wrong? CAN you have a THORETICAL save that exceeds the 1+ limit but when it comes to rolling you can only count as having the 1+ save... or am I right? That the rules simply mean no save better than 1+ and it just doesn't restrict your equipment choices.

Zaustus
26-07-2010, 02:04
I think an FAQ would have been clearer than this erratum, too.

What I'm leaning toward right now is to say that the hard cap is 1+ for all purposes (including modification). However, if your save somehow gets "damaged" e.g. from the Metal spell Plague of Rust, if you still have equipment enough to keep you at 1+ anyway, you stay at 1+. This is how I plan to play it, in the unlikely event the situation arises.

I have no guarantee that this interpretation is correct, and it may be that it's simply a hard 1+ cap period forever, and you simply get the additional magical effects of extra magic armor or whatnot.

solkan
26-07-2010, 02:21
I think the problem here is that people are confusing "armor save modifiers", which modify the saving throw, with things which change the "armor save" of a model.

If you have a 1+ armor save, and someone hits you with a S10 attack, your armor save is still a 1+. What you have is a -7 to your saving throw--the die roll that you make in order to try to pass your armor save.

burad
26-07-2010, 02:27
In any case, a 1 is always a fail.

Bloody Nunchucks
26-07-2010, 03:34
i think that theoretically you can have better than a 1+ armour save. at least that is how i interpritt it

SideshowLucifer
26-07-2010, 05:14
I'm fairly certain the save can not be improved below 1+, but you can still take equipment that would bring your save lower but don't get the save benefit.
It seems like it was just to clairify if you can even take gear that would give you a better then 1+ save.

Brother iKon
26-07-2010, 05:53
I think this is most confusing because a roll of 1 always fails so the best armour save you can roll for is infact a 2+ so it must refer to the best armour save you can have before armour save modifiers being 1+.

current example of saves better than 1+
armour of destiny, steed, barding + Enchanted shield (0+ armour save)
i guess chuck in dragon helm for a -1+ armour save

now i always fail a save on 1 but i takes -3 armour save modifier (or s6) to reduce my save to 3+

Blueskies
26-07-2010, 06:24
The best armour save you can have now is 1+; its as simple as that, no such thing as 0+ or -1+ anymore.

When you take an armour save you roll a dice, if you roll a 1, you fail regardless. If you have a 1+ armour save and roll a 1 that means you fail.

If you have a 1+ armour save and you roll a 2. and the modifier to the roll is -1, then you have a total value of 1, without rolling a 1 itself, and so you pass your 1+ armour save.

If you have a 1+ armour save and roll a 6, but there is a -6 modifier to your roll then you net a 0, which fails your 1+ armour save.

pootleberry
26-07-2010, 07:32
I read it that you can take your amour save below 1+, all it means is that the enemy will need an even higher strength shot to get through your armour. For example, S3 hit vs -1AS you will still fail on a 1 but should that chaos warrior with great weapon hit you you would still only fail on a 1 (-1 +3 = 2), rather than needing a 4+.

Great if you can find the kit. I don't see a problem with this.

slasher
26-07-2010, 07:37
Your armour save can never go above 1+ irrespective of what you have (ie heavy armour, mount, helm, sheild etc). But you will get any other properties of the armour ie re-rolling failed armour saves etc.

So a chaos Lord with chaos Armour, sheild, Barded Stead, and a helm from the rule book only gest 1+ dispite it adding up to 0+. but they still get the benifits of the helm.

sayles78
26-07-2010, 08:07
Your armour save can never go above 1+ irrespective of what you have (ie heavy armour, mount, helm, sheild etc). But you will get any other properties of the armour ie re-rolling failed armour saves etc.

So a chaos Lord with chaos Armour, sheild, Barded Stead, and a helm from the rule book only gest 1+ dispite it adding up to 0+. but they still get the benifits of the helm.


The best armour save you can have now is 1+; its as simple as that, no such thing as 0+ or -1+ anymore.

When you take an armour save you roll a dice, if you roll a 1, you fail regardless. If you have a 1+ armour save and roll a 1 that means you fail.

If you have a 1+ armour save and you roll a 2. and the modifier to the roll is -1, then you have a total value of 1, without rolling a 1 itself, and so you pass your 1+ armour save.

If you have a 1+ armour save and roll a 6, but there is a -6 modifier to your roll then you net a 0, which fails your 1+ armour save.

These 2 learned men explain it perfectly. Pay attention to them.

Malladorin
26-07-2010, 08:08
The cap is +1. Does it really require more explanation, or are people just looking for advantages where the rules don't support it?

Poseidal
26-07-2010, 08:28
A -7 will come into play where something specifically allows the armour save to be improved better than 1+, which would be an exception to the norm.

Falkman
26-07-2010, 08:57
current example of saves better than 1+
armour of destiny, steed, barding + Enchanted shield (0+ armour save)
i guess chuck in dragon helm for a -1+ armour save
You can't take more than one piece of magic armour on a character.

Archangelion
26-07-2010, 11:19
That event, Poseidal, would have to now originate from an army book rule. Know of any magic armour or whatever that specifically states that it gifts the bearer with a 0+ or better armour save... I'm comeing up blank.

Lungboy
26-07-2010, 11:28
There's none currently, but who knows what future books might bring?

slasher
26-07-2010, 11:32
Or they thought it would be easier to put S 9 = -6 and S 10 =-7 modifiers rather than try to fit "ignores armour" into the same space?

I mean have you tried formatting a table to fit in with bodies of text that have both figures & words in?

knightwire
26-07-2010, 11:46
i think that theoretically you can have better than a 1+ armour save. at least that is how i interpritt it


I read it that you can take your amour save below 1+, all it means is that the enemy will need an even higher strength shot to get through your armour. For example, S3 hit vs -1AS you will still fail on a 1 but should that chaos warrior with great weapon hit you you would still only fail on a 1 (-1 +3 = 2), rather than needing a 4+.

Great if you can find the kit. I don't see a problem with this.


If you could get better than 1+ AS (below 1+ AS)... why would they say there is a "cap" on armor saves? The point of calling it a 'cap' to to start armor save modifiers (Strength, for example) at 1+. The point of the errata/faq to to make it clear that you are not restricted in taking equipment because of this rule.

Otherwise, what exactly do you think it means to be capped at 1+ AS?

ChrisIronBrow
26-07-2010, 16:24
I don't see the confusion. The new rules seem to be clear. They claim there is a 1+ "cap" but then explain that you can take equipment that would improve on it. Making the claim of a "cap" untrue. I don't think that's what GW intended, but that's what they wrote. And because it's an erratta and not an faq it's just a new rule we need to deal with.

I'm not saying this is how I want this rule too work, infact I prefered it before, but The rules now allow better than a 1+ even if they claim not too.

Zinch
26-07-2010, 16:37
I don't see the confusion. The new rules seem to be clear. They claim there is a 1+ "cap" but then explain that you can take equipment that would improve on it. Making the claim of a "cap" untrue. I don't think that's what GW intended, but that's what they wrote. And because it's an erratta and not an faq it's just a new rule we need to deal with.

I'm not saying this is how I want this rule too work, infact I prefered it before, but The rules now allow better than a 1+ even if they claim not too.

No, as someone has said before, what this rule means is that you can take equipment that would improve your armour save beyond 1+, but that your armour save is capped at 1+, so your only benefits of that equipment would be the secondary ones (repeating the armour saves, inmune to flamming attacks, whatever...)


You can't take more than one piece of magic armour on a character.

Yes, you can. You can take a magic armour AND a magic shield.

knightwire
26-07-2010, 16:45
I don't see the confusion. The new rules seem to be clear. They claim there is a 1+ "cap" but then explain that you can take equipment that would improve on it. Making the claim of a "cap" untrue. I don't think that's what GW intended, but that's what they wrote. And because it's an erratta and not an faq it's just a new rule we need to deal with.

I'm not saying this is how I want this rule too work, infact I prefered it before, but The rules now allow better than a 1+ even if they claim not too.

um... What? :confused:


Page 43 – Saving Throws
Change the third paragraph to “Note that a save of any kind
can never be better than 1+. This does not prevent a model
having items or special rules that would take the save even
lower, it simply caps the saving throw at 1+. Also, remember
that a roll of 1 is always a failure.”

This does not prevent a model
having items or special rules that would take the save even
lower, it simply caps the saving throw at 1+.

This allows you to take equipment that would add up to a saving throw (in this case an Armor Save) that's better than 1+, but explicitly tells you that the save itself is capped at 1+. Armor Save = Saving Throw, they are the same thing and can be used interchangeably.

Your Armor Save can not be better than 1+ when you take a wound. Simply as that. That's what they mean... that's what they wrote.

Tarian
26-07-2010, 16:49
No, as someone has said before, what this rule means is that you can take equipment that would improve your armour save beyond 1+, but that your armour save is capped at 1+, so your only benefits of that equipment would be the secondary ones (repeating the armour saves, inmune to flamming attacks, whatever...)



Yes, you can. You can take a magic armour AND a magic shield.

No, actually you can't, since they fall under the "Magic Armor" section, with shields being considered armor. Can still only claim 1 item from each section, so no doubling up on magic armor.

stripsteak
26-07-2010, 16:50
Yes, you can. You can take a magic armour AND a magic shield.

no you can't reread the balance of power rules from pg 500. a model can only have 1 choice from each family of items. magic shields and magic armour are both from the Magic Armour family.

Dutch_Digger
26-07-2010, 16:51
Yes, you can. You can take a magic armour AND a magic shield.

Is that a new rule or something? where did you get this?

ChrisIronBrow
26-07-2010, 17:12
No, as someone has said before, what this rule means is that you can take equipment that would improve your armour save beyond 1+, but that your armour save is capped at 1+, so your only benefits of that equipment would be the secondary ones (repeating the armour saves, inmune to flamming attacks, whatever...)



Yes, you can. You can take a magic armour AND a magic shield.

Look, I'm not trying to be insulting, but your wrong. The rules do not say that. You are making an assumption that GW intended that, but that's not what they wrote. The real problem is that GW took a clear rule, made a change to it, and did so in a way that isn't clear what they meant.

I'm really not trying to argue with everyone here, but If all you do is read the rule itself it's clear what is supposed to happen. If a ruleset forbids you from doing one thing, and then permits it, you are permitted to do it.

I don't think that's what GW intended, but my opinion on their intent is irrelevant here.

The rules as written now allow you to have a better than 1+ save, while never "officially" having better than a 1+. Meaning your capped at 1+ whenever you officially "check" for what the save is. Well if you have additional pluses and minuses then you could still have what is functionally a better than 1+ save when you take into account Armor modifiers.

The only real issue is the terminology.

ChrisIronBrow
26-07-2010, 17:16
Your Armor Save can not be better than 1+ when you take a wound. Simply as that. That's what they mean... that's what they wrote.

This is a true statement, however the problem is that if a wound tries to modify an armor save above 1+, and the model has equipment making it better than a 1+, than the modifier must be applied to the armor save, which while capped at 1+ has extra points of armor that can be removed before it reaches the 1+.

They wrote a Functionally unfunctional rule. They claim a limit, but then allow you to break that limit. I'm not happy about it either, but it's clearly what they said.

xxRavenxx
26-07-2010, 17:19
Yes, you can. You can take a magic armour AND a magic shield.

And a helmet if it comes from the right sections of the book...

Lungboy
26-07-2010, 17:31
They claim a limit, but then allow you to break that limit. I'm not happy about it either, but it's clearly what they said.

No, they don't, and no, it isn't. The 1+ is a proper cap. If you take armour that adds to -1, for example, your save is still only 1+ and will be affected as such. Str4 attacks will still make your save 2+, str5 3+ etc. As has been said, the only thing the faq/errata is clearing up is that you can take armour that would theoretically put your save below 1+ to give yourself the benefit of secondary special rules.

knightwire
26-07-2010, 17:38
This is a true statement, however the problem is that if a wound tries to modify an armor save above 1+, and the model has equipment making it better than a 1+, than the modifier must be applied to the armor save, which while capped at 1+ has extra points of armor that can be removed before it reaches the 1+.

They wrote a Functionally unfunctional rule. They claim a limit, but then allow you to break that limit. I'm not happy about it either, but it's clearly what they said.

I must admit CIB, I'm totally lost as to your reasoning here. I'm simply just not following how you are getting from A to B. :confused:

But... you are entitled to your opinion, so good luck with that. :)

T10
26-07-2010, 18:14
I think this is what he's gunning for: An Empire Grand Marshal has an armour save of 1+ (Full plate armour, shield, barded warhorse). Equip him with an enchanted shield and he would have a 0+ armour save if not for the cap.

CIB seem to suggest that, if the model is subject to an armour save penalty, the armour save modifier is first reduced by the excess armour, e.g. a -3 armour save would be reduced to -2. This is of course bunk. The 1+ cap would be rendered meaningless.

The way the rule works, however, is that the model has, at best, a 1+ armour save to which the armour save modifiers are then applied. A -6 or better armour save will negate the armour save of any armour that complies with the standard armour save cap.

-T10

GodlessM
26-07-2010, 18:50
I think this is what he's gunning for: An Empire Grand Marshal has an armour save of 1+ (Full plate armour, shield, barded warhorse). Equip him with an enchanted shield and he would have a 0+ armour save if not for the cap.

CIB seem to suggest that, if the model is subject to an armour save penalty, the armour save modifier is first reduced by the excess armour, e.g. a -3 armour save would be reduced to -2. This is of course bunk. The 1+ cap would be rendered meaningless.

The way the rule works, however, is that the model has, at best, a 1+ armour save to which the armour save modifiers are then applied. A -6 or better armour save will negate the armour save of any armour that complies with the standard armour save cap.

-T10

Flawless logic I reckon, and well put, touche.

Mr_Rose
27-07-2010, 01:44
That event, Poseidal, would have to now originate from an army book rule. Know of any magic armour or whatever that specifically states that it gifts the bearer with a 0+ or better armour save... I'm comeing up blank.
The closest you get is the Eye of the Gods table in the WoC book: One of the results boosts your armour save by one point and specifies that the maximum save after the boost is 0+

Redman120185
27-07-2010, 07:37
So not sure,but is there a specific order in which your current armor save is figured out?does it say to add up your armor then apply the stenegth. Just trying to figure out why there would be an option to take all the extras, besides one theoretical instance against one army that would really only be used if your trying to list tailor your opponent.

Synnister
27-07-2010, 07:48
What you have to look at in this case is what did the rule do before it was errata'd. With the wording that is in the rulebook, if you tried to take say take a Helm when you already had a 1+ AS you couldn't because according to the rule you can never have > 1+ AS. As the helm increases your AS by 1 you couldn't take it.

Also, they use the words cap for a reason you can never get better than that. It doesn't matter that the armor you have would take you to 0+ or better. You go to 1+ stop then modify that AS since that is the model's armor save.

Col. Dash
27-07-2010, 11:09
The reason the errata'd it is to allow secondary effect of the items to be taken but still doesnt increase the save better than 1+. For example a +2 helm that last edition would have increased the save to 0+ and grant immunity to fire. Still grants immunity to fire but doesnt improve better than 1+.

T10
27-07-2010, 11:52
So not sure,but is there a specific order in which your current armor save is figured out?does it say to add up your armor then apply the stenegth. Just trying to figure out why there would be an option to take all the extras, besides one theoretical instance against one army that would really only be used if your trying to list tailor your opponent.

However, the procedure is quite simple: Roll the die, apply the modifiers and compare the result with your armour save. Or calculate the save based on the modifiers and then roll against the modified save. The end result is the same.

The rule doesn't take into account recalculating the armour save peice-meal during the save:


Your Empire Grand Marshal is struck with a -4 armour save. He has full plate armour (4+) and barding (3+ total), so the armour save modifier negates those two. However, he's got a warhorse (back to 6+) and an enchanted shield (4+ total).


There is nothing in the rules that suggest you can work out armour saves in this manner. This is just a way of attempting to circumvent the max 1+ armour save cap, and an extremely contrived way at that.

-T10

Mr_Rose
27-07-2010, 13:45
Oh, here's a thing; how does this interact with stuff like the Lore of Metal that permanently reduces AS?

Could it be the intent that if you happen to have enough equipment and gubbins to get a -1+save or even better, the roll you need to make your save won't be affected until the third Plague of Rust?

Lungboy
27-07-2010, 14:09
I don't see how it's any different to a str4 attack reducing your armour. 1+ would become 2+, even if your armour adds up to -1 originally.

T10
27-07-2010, 15:29
Since you apply the cap to the total armour save it seems reasonable to assume that any permanent or transitory penalty (or bonus, even!) is applied before the cap.

This would mean that the Empire Grand Marshal with his Enchanted Shield (0+ armour save before applying the cap) would start the game with a 1+ armour save, he would have a 1+ armour save after being subject to the Plague of Rust the first time and a 2+ armour save after the second time.

At least it seems reasonable to me.

-T10

xxRavenxx
27-07-2010, 16:57
Since you apply the cap to the total armour save it seems reasonable to assume that any permanent or transitory penalty (or bonus, even!) is applied before the cap.

This would mean that the Empire Grand Marshal with his Enchanted Shield (0+ armour save before applying the cap) would start the game with a 1+ armour save, he would have a 1+ armour save after being subject to the Plague of Rust the first time and a 2+ armour save after the second time.

At least it seems reasonable to me.

-T10

Agreed.



Ps. Did you know you can wear two hats if you're a Chaos lord? :P (Just throwing it in since armor is being discussed. Your choice of dragon helms, hats of many eyes, or wizards hats :P (You could wear three if not for points issues).

Tarian
27-07-2010, 17:01
Agreed.



Ps. Did you know you can wear two hats if you're a Chaos lord? :P (Just throwing it in since armor is being discussed. Your choice of dragon helms, hats of many eyes, or wizards hats :P (You could wear three if not for points issues).

Guess we're talking some serious mutations going on! :D

Mr_Rose
27-07-2010, 17:16
Guess we're talking some serious mutations going on! :D
Well, one of the chaos gifts is a second head...

ChrisIronBrow
27-07-2010, 17:39
Since you apply the cap to the total armour save it seems reasonable to assume that any permanent or transitory penalty (or bonus, even!) is applied before the cap.

This would mean that the Empire Grand Marshal with his Enchanted Shield (0+ armour save before applying the cap) would start the game with a 1+ armour save, he would have a 1+ armour save after being subject to the Plague of Rust the first time and a 2+ armour save after the second time.

At least it seems reasonable to me.

-T10


This is exactly the argument I was making earlier.

knightwire
27-07-2010, 17:52
This is exactly the argument I was making earlier.

Except that according to the rules there is no "total armor save" and "capped armor save". There is just your "armor save" which is a value between 1+ and 6+.

ChrisIronBrow
27-07-2010, 18:36
Except that according to the rules there is no "total armor save" and "capped armor save". There is just your "armor save" which is a value between 1+ and 6+.

Except that according to the rules you can take items improving your armor save past 1+.

Stymie Jackson
27-07-2010, 18:46
So you can benefit from the items other affects.

Like getting a 6+ ward save from a shield, even if the shield took you below 1+ save.

THAT is why the errata was added. So you can take other armor items, get other benefits, but still suffer from the 1+ cap.

"Note that a save of any kind can never be better than 1+. This does not prevent a model having items or special rules that would take the save even lower, it simply caps the saving throw at 1+"

Sounds to be like they use the word 'CAP'. So if you technically have a saving throw of 0+, and take a strength 4 hit, your save is actually 2+ now, not 1+.

There'd be no point in 'capping' the armor save if you could still in effect have a better than 1+ save.

ChrisIronBrow
27-07-2010, 18:51
So you can benefit from the items other affects.



That's not in the rules, your just guessing that's what is meant.

knightwire
27-07-2010, 18:55
Except that according to the rules you can take items improving your armor save past 1+.

That's true, you can take those items except they stop improving your armor at 1+. You cannot have a saving throw better than 1+ at any time. I know this because the rules say: "Note that a save of any kind can never be better than 1+." Which is stated again in the next line: "This does not prevent a model having items or special rules that would take the save even lower, it simply caps the saving throw at 1+."

Having equipment that would give you a better save and having a max 1+ save is not mutually exclusive.

Strength Mods, Plague of Rust, whatever it is starts at 1+ because nothing lower exists.

Stymie Jackson
27-07-2010, 18:57
Are you kidding me?

"This does not prevent a model having items or special rules that would take the save even lower..."

I'm guessing what is meant? What it means is exactly what it says.

You can have an item that would take your armor save below the cap normally. So if your character has an armor save of 1+ and you add a shield, he still has a 1+ save.

But if he's using a handweapon he can gain the parry rule, even though the armor rule is unaffected.

The aformentioned example of the helm is the same deal. The helm may not improve your armor save if you are at the cap already, but you can benefit from the items special rule.

How is that guessing? By reading the actual rule book/errata and quoting it, I'm guessing?

ChrisIronBrow
27-07-2010, 19:09
That's true, you can take those items except they stop improving your armor at 1+.

If that were written in the rules you would be correct. It doesn't say it stops improving your save.

I think I've stated what the rules say enough for now. There's really no point in me continuing to argue over it.

ChrisIronBrow
27-07-2010, 19:11
Are you kidding me?

"This does not prevent a model having items or special rules that would take the save even lower..."



This is in direct opposition to a "cap". Which is my point. The rules claim to impose a limitation, but then override themselves. It's bad rules writting, and GW should fix it.

Col. Dash
27-07-2010, 19:41
It does not go against the cap. It just allows you to take items that do other things. Look at a Jugger lord. He has a +1 save to start with. If he wanted to take a shield that gave MR(I dont know if one actually exists, just an example) before the errata he could not take that item, now post errata, he can. However he still is capped at 1+ so if a str 4 magic missile hits him, his save is 2+ but at least before that happens he gets the MR from the shield, the extra AS from the shield is however wasted due to the cap. Its pretty clear what their intent was and what it actually says.

Grentain
27-07-2010, 19:42
The errata, in the same respect, could be read as "This does not prevent a model
having items or special rules that would take the save even lower..." meaning that the rules aren't barring you from grabbing that shield for the 6+ ward save in close combat, or from grabbing an item that gives 1 to your armor save, if you're already sitting at 1+. You're absolutely allowed to, it just doesn't do anything.

Bah, got ninja'd

T10
27-07-2010, 20:00
This is exactly the argument I was making earlier.

No, it was not. "This" deals with effects that apply penalties to what is effectively the armour save "value".

Your argument was that the armour save modifier of "a wound" would first be reduced due to armour in excess of the 1+ cap, and then the remainder would be applied to the capped armour save. Another contrived way of circumventing the armour save cap.

-T10

knightwire
27-07-2010, 21:16
If that were written in the rules you would be correct. It doesn't say it stops improving your save.


Page 43: "Note that a save of any kind can never be better than 1+."

Archangelion
28-07-2010, 00:57
Yeh ha... you can't just make up your own rules as to how saves are made. Follow what it states in the rule book. Your model has armour, the combination of that models armour and some other things that affect that models save come together to create that model's armour save value. That value is restricted to a maximum of 1+.

Now, the way I understand it is that your save is checked when the model recieves a wound. You check what your model's save is, comparing all modifiers (both negative and positive) noteing that you may not exceed a 1+ save at any point (unless an army book rule or item states specificly that it may do so). After you have deturmined your save, you roll for your save subtracting any armour save modifiers from the required save that you need to roll for. So, if you need a 1+, and a strenth 5 hit is dealing your model a wound, you will now need to roll a 3+. Or, if the strenth were only 4, you would need a 2+ (which is really the same as it was before due to a 1 always being a failure).

The way I understand it, is that the armour save modifiers modify the roll you need to make, not the armour save itself.

SideshowLucifer
28-07-2010, 01:13
I can't beleive people are even trying to say it allows your save to go lower.

Braugi
28-07-2010, 03:22
So you can benefit from the items other affects.

Like getting a 6+ ward save from a shield, even if the shield took you below 1+ save.

THAT is why the errata was added. So you can take other armor items, get other benefits, but still suffer from the 1+ cap.

"Note that a save of any kind can never be better than 1+. This does not prevent a model having items or special rules that would take the save even lower, it simply caps the saving throw at 1+"

Sounds to be like they use the word 'CAP'. So if you technically have a saving throw of 0+, and take a strength 4 hit, your save is actually 2+ now, not 1+.

There'd be no point in 'capping' the armor save if you could still in effect have a better than 1+ save.

Here's the difference...with a high strength, it would be based on the cap of +1 IMO, because before the attack is resolved, you calculate your total armor save...say Chaos Armor +4, Mounted on Juggernaught +2, Enchanted Sheild +0, then its set to +1, the cap, then the strength modifiers are applied, i.e. strength 5 attack gives me AS of 3+.

With a spell like this one, my AS is reduced by -1. Then I'm hit with an attack...so I calculate my AS as above, adding in a -1, so I still get the same result as above.

Thats my interpretation of RAW.

That said, the way it is written is ambiguous enough to give the guys arguing about effectively having negative AS...the wording can be interpreted to mean your ACTUAL, post calculation save can never be better than a 1+. That becomes almost nonsensical when you add that a roll of a 1 is always a failure, but, if there were an instance of gaining some advantage for making a save by a certain threshold, it could be an important distinction. The allowance for taking equipment that would bring that AS lower seems to point to the first interpretation IMO, almost negating the cap...in short, this is a very poorly worded piece of errata.

Kayosiv
28-07-2010, 06:55
Did you know you can wear two hats if you're a Chaos lord? :P (Just throwing it in since armor is being discussed. Your choice of dragon helms, hats of many eyes, or wizards hats :P (You could wear three if not for points issues).

But if I cover my helm of many eyes with my wizard hat, do I still have to test for stupidity?

venomx51
28-07-2010, 12:59
My only comment (and one that certainly makes this a non-issue for me) is not to confuse a models Armour Save value with a modifier to the Armour Save dice roll.

An Armour Save modifier does not change your actual Armour Save value. It modifies the dice roll used to make that Armour Save roll.

So a -2 Armour Save modifier does not turn your 1+ Armour Save into a 3+ Armour Save; You still have a 1+ Armour Save. The -2 Armour Save modifier means you have to subtract 2 from the dice roll used to make that 1+ Armour Save.

That is how saving throw modifiers worked in 7th, and that's how they still work in 8th; they modify the value on the Dice rolled to make an Armour Save, not the actual value of a models Armour Save.

CmdrLaw
28-07-2010, 13:06
If you guys above are arguing that you can get better than a 1+ and that thats to account for modifiers isn't that exactly how the saves worked in the last edition??? as a roll of 1 always failed.

And I'm pretty sure they have made a point of changing the rule specifically to stop this.

Col. Dash
28-07-2010, 15:17
I like Venoms way of explaining it. Works for me and is very simple to explain to others.

CmdrLaw
28-07-2010, 15:25
That is how saving throw modifiers worked in 7th, and that's how they still work in 8th; they modify the value on the Dice rolled to make an Armour Save, not the actual value of a models Armour Save.

What are you on about? GW made it abundantly clear that the armour saves are different to 7th. Everyone knows they changed it, it was one of the big original rumours. Christ if someone pulled that in a game I would hand him the victory then and there for the sheer impertinence of the claim.


Read the damn rules without your Exploit hat on.

Haravikk
28-07-2010, 15:33
Finally, now everyone has a 1+ limit so Dwarfs (master armorers) aren't the only ones with a limit.

It makes sense to have a limit to prevent the silly ones anyway, 1+ means you get a 2+ save and a 1 point resistance to save modification, so Strength 4 won't eat into your armour save. That's plenty.

The point on Strength 10's -7 modifier is certainly valid, but still potentially applicable if, for example, an item were to reduce armour save modifier, then Strength 10 might still negate a save anyway.

venomx51
28-07-2010, 15:43
What are you on about? GW made it abundantly clear that the armour saves are different to 7th. Everyone knows they changed it, it was one of the big original rumours. Christ if someone pulled that in a game I would hand him the victory then and there for the sheer impertinence of the claim.


Read the damn rules without your Exploit hat on.
Hmmm, I think you're misunderstanding (and getting quite angry with it)

I'm on about strength modifiers to saving rolls.They don't change the models armour save value, but are subtracted from the dice rolled to make the armour save. The end result is the same, but there is no confusion about the cap at 1+.

e.g
3+ Armour Save, hit with a S5 attack (-2 modifier)

The model still has a 3+ armour save. The players Armour Save roll needs to be 3 or more. However because it's a strong hit the dice roll suffers a -2 modifer, meaning the player needs to roll a 5+ on the dice (5-2=3) to meet the models 3+ Armour Save value.

the only reason there is confusion about strength modifiers and the cap is because people, for sake of ease get in the habit of thinking of the modifier as changing a models Armour Save value, and not as a modifier to the dice rolled to make the Armour Save which is what it actually is.

CmdrLaw
28-07-2010, 15:53
Hmmm, I think you're misunderstanding (and getting quite angry with it)



No I'm not angry just shocked, I was amazed people were actually arguing you could have a greater than +1 plus save, but yes you are of course right the save is capped at +1 and the armour save modifier is applied to the dice roll. Well put sir.

Thought you were stating that it could go below +1 as you could in the last edition.

Please accept my apologies for the slight misunderstanding.

ChrisIronBrow
28-07-2010, 16:14
Except that according to page 43 of the new rule book high strength applies a modifier to the armor save, not to the saving "throw" as you put it.

Pg 43 makes it very clear that high strength applies a - to the save itself.

venomx51
28-07-2010, 16:18
No I'm not angry just shocked, I was amazed people were actually arguing you could have a greater than +1 plus save, but yes you are of course right the save is capped at +1 and the armour save modifier is applied to the dice roll. Well put sir.

Thought you were stating that it could go below +1 as you could in the last edition.

Please accept my apologies for the slight misunderstanding.
Heh, no probs. :)

CmdrLaw
28-07-2010, 17:03
Except that according to page 43 of the new rule book high strength applies a modifier to the armor save, not to the saving "throw" as you put it.

Pg 43 makes it very clear that high strength applies a - to the save itself.


Read the title of page 43 chris....its called saving THROWS.

Col. Dash
28-07-2010, 19:45
I think Venom wasnt arguing that the 1+ save wasnt the cap. Just that the actual roll is what is modified not the actual armor save value when rolled. He didnt negate the mostly common agreement that 1+ is the max a character can ever have.

Oh nevermind, it was cleared up. Only CIB is disagreeing now. heheh

ChrisIronBrow
28-07-2010, 20:18
Read the title of page 43 chris....its called saving THROWS.

It's important to note that the title of a rule is not a rule. A literal reading of the rules shows that what I'm saying is correct. I don't really care one way or the other. I'm not advocating based on bias for gameplay reasons. However, you are all assuming the reasons why they allow this, I am not making any assumptions. I'm just reading the rules.

The rules do not say anything about this new equipment not improving your save, it simply mentions a "cap".

Furthermore Pg 43 states that strength modifiers adjust the armor save. So if you have a minus and a plus, they cancel each other out. Meaning that the "cap" is non functional. It's plain english, and it's not my fault GW wrote it poorly.

I feel that I have given all the page references neccessary, and I no longer see the reason to continue arguing with those who aren't interested in the rules, but rather in divining the intent of the writer.

If someone has a rules reference that shows me wrong please post it. Really, I'm interested. Otherwise I don't feel it neccessary to stay involved in this conversation.

antihelten
28-07-2010, 20:35
actually page 43 says "such attacks inflict a modifier on the saving throw...", although to muddy it further, page 43 states that armor saves are actually just a type of saving throws, so a saving throw apparently doesn't refer to just the dice roll itself.

But then the example on page 43 goes on to make it fairly clear that the modifier is applied to the dice roll.

venomx51
28-07-2010, 21:04
actually page 43 says "such attacks inflict a modifier on the saving throw...", although to muddy it further, page 43 states that armor saves are actually just a type of saving throws, so a saving throw apparently doesn't refer to just the dice roll itself.

But then the example on page 43 goes on to make it fairly clear that the modifier is applied to the dice roll.
Aye, in italics bottom of p.43 it says "Normally, the warrior would need to roll 5 or 6 to make his armour save... but, because of the crossbow's hitting power; a -1 modifier is applied to the dice roll..."

Caladin
28-07-2010, 21:25
The rule is very clear. Your armor save can never be better than 1+. If you want to take, say the dragonhelm on a character who already has a 1+ armor save you may do so and will get the ward save vrs flaming attacks but your armor save will remain 1+. If you are hit by a s5 hit and roll a 2 you fail your armor save.

Redman120185
28-07-2010, 23:04
Heh no where are you told the order in which to figure out your save. So itis viable to count up your positve modifiers first reach a max of one then apply negative modifiers, or count up negative modifiers then apply positive ones, or anything in between. To say that isn't the way because I do it like this or to try and belittle people for having an opinion different than yours and discussing it with you doesn't help prove your point. Everyone understands that a save can not be better than 1+, the issue is when do we check to see if it is at that point? After countig your armor? After adding negative modifiers? No one can answer that question with a rule because there isn't one.

Zaustus
29-07-2010, 01:41
Venom, excellent catch. Here are the rules:

Page 43: "powerful... attacks inflict a modifier on the saving throw, just as shooting modifiers affect the To Hit roll." (Emphasis mine, as it is throughout this post)

Okay, so armor save modifiers work like To Hit modifiers, discussed on p.40. Let's look at that: "Shooting modifiers are applied to the dice rolls...."

So armor modifiers work like To Hit modifiers, which are applied to the dice roll. That's completely clear, so let's have no more false claims about modifiers. They are definitively applied to the roll itself.

As we all know, p.43 and the erratum both state that a model can never have better than a 1+ save, and that a natural 1 always fails. The erratum continues to say that "this does not prevent a model from having items or special rules that would take the save even lower, it simply caps the saving throw at 1+."

Now let's put this all together. Modifiers affect the roll itself. Saves are capped at 1+. Models may have an item that would make it better, but the save is still capped at 1+. The erratum lets your model possess such rules/items, though they do not affect the armor save of the model once it is at the cap of 1+.

Let's take an example. A Chaos Lord of Khorne on a Juggernaut has been given the Charmed Shield. His armor save would be 0+, but the rules cap it at 1+. He is wounded by a S6 hit, which imposes a -3 save penalty per p.43. He rolls a 3, which is modified (-3) down to a 0. Zero is less than his save of 1+, thus he fails his save and takes a wound.

That clears up that, without any doubt. The only remaining question is regarding the permanent armor save penalty spells. The rules aren't completely clear about the interaction between those spells and armor that would have been below the cap, but is, erm, capped at 1+.

I think it's reasonable to play that situation as though you then add up the "un-rusted" items, and if they still give 1+ then you're good. However, the rules don't make it clear either way in that regard.

venomx51
29-07-2010, 09:14
The only remaining question is regarding the permanent armor save penalty spells. The rules aren't completely clear about the interaction between those spells and armor that would have been below the cap, but is, erm, capped at 1+.

I think it's reasonable to play that situation as though you then add up the "un-rusted" items, and if they still give 1+ then you're good. However, the rules don't make it clear either way in that regard.
Good summary

And I agree about the items that actually reduce a models Armour Save value (i.e Banner of Rust), although the rules do not really cover it well.

Imo a models Armour Save value is the sum of all their armour + any negative modifiers to their armour (i.e. Banner of Rust). This gives you a models total Armour Save value. If this total value is then better than 1+ it is capped at 1+

Modifiers to the Armour Save roll (i.e. from high strength attacks) are then applied to the dice roll when making the saving throw (as quoted above from p.43 of the rule book)

Archangelion
30-07-2010, 01:08
I agree with that, Zaustus, I was about to post a similar responce.

The negative effects from Armour Save Modifiers are made clear enough to be made against the saveing throw itself, and not the armour save.

The armour save is clearly intended to be capped at 1+, but GW has simply thrown in a clause that allows a player to choose equipment that would increase the save beyond the cap if there were none. I believe that this is to remove any doubts about magical armour and mount selection.

I also agree that spells such as Plague of Rust would effect the armour save (not the saveing throw) and thus if the model DID have equipment that would increase the save beyond the cap if there were none it would effect that 'extra' armour and leave the 'total' armour save in place, but if the cap were exceeded still, then it would remain at the cap.

This, of course, could not be the case, and the case could very well be that a model's armour save is deturmined at the start of the game, rather than throughout the game. However, I don't believe this will be the case, as a character that is dismounted off their monsterous mount or whatever, or a character that has a piece of their magical armour destroyed by a special rule could still have enough equipment to bequith an armour save of 1+.

Braad
30-07-2010, 10:04
Regarding the original topic, this is how I read it: Your save can't be better then 1+. They clearify in the FAQ that you can take items that would add up to a better save, so that you can use the other benefits from those items, but the save itself doesn't get improved beyond 1+.

In example, when you got a model that already has a 1+ armour save for whatever reason, and you decide to give him the Dragenhelm, then he doesn't improve his armour save as per the cap-rule, but he is still allowed to take the item to get the 2+ ward against flaming attacks, as per the FAQ.

Archangelion
30-07-2010, 10:51
What is your opinion of the Plauge of Rust spell having effects on armour saves? Would it effect the overall armour save that the model COULD have, or does it affect the save from the cap, meaning that a model with armour that COULD add up to greater than the cap simply gets the cap value at the start of the game, and when affected by the spell is then knocked down to a 2+ regardless of the rest of the models armour that could take the save back to cap level.

Haravikk
30-07-2010, 10:54
I would say it affects the capped value, so if you were previously capped at 1+ then you're now stuck at 2+. It's not that clear though so you could probably argue either way.

Personally though I see Plague of Rust applying a penalty, so it'd just get added to any armour save modifier, much as if the spell had caused all enemy attacks to be Armour Piercing for example.

T10
30-07-2010, 10:56
What is your opinion of the Plauge of Rust spell having effects on armour saves? Would it effect the overall armour save that the model COULD have, or does it affect the save from the cap, meaning that a model with armour that COULD add up to greater than the cap simply gets the cap value at the start of the game, and when affected by the spell is then knocked down to a 2+ regardless of the rest of the models armour that could take the save back to cap level.

Hi!


Since you apply the cap to the total armour save it seems reasonable to assume that any permanent or transitory penalty (or bonus, even!) is applied before the cap.

This would mean that the Empire Grand Marshal with his Enchanted Shield (0+ armour save before applying the cap) would start the game with a 1+ armour save, he would have a 1+ armour save after being subject to the Plague of Rust the first time and a 2+ armour save after the second time.

At least it seems reasonable to me.

-T10

-T10

knightwire
30-07-2010, 14:31
I would say it affects the capped value, so if you were previously capped at 1+ then you're now stuck at 2+. It's not that clear though so you could probably argue either way.

Personally though I see Plague of Rust applying a penalty, so it'd just get added to any armour save modifier, much as if the spell had caused all enemy attacks to be Armour Piercing for example.


Agreed. Plague of Rust doesn't negate a specific piece of armor, and so having redundant armor items shouldn't be related. It simply says you take a -1 penalty to your armor save for each successful cast. If you have 1+ AS with a -1 penalty, that's a 2+ AS.

Draconian77
30-07-2010, 14:34
In effect, we shall play the 1+ as a hard cap? Sounds reasonable to me. GW might want to FAQ the FAQ though. :D

Haravikk
30-07-2010, 15:11
In effect, we shall play the 1+ as a hard cap? Sounds reasonable to me. GW might want to FAQ the FAQ though. :D
Heh, possibly! I think the intent behind the FAQ though was just to point out that even if you already have a 1+ save, then you can take more armour improving items if you wish even though no improvement will be seen; i.e - just because you can't improve your save further, doesn't mean you can't take more armour save improving items if you want to.

For example; a Chaos Lord with shield on a barded steed would already have a 1+ save I think, but that doesn't mean he can't still take a Helm of Discord. It won't give him any further armour bonus, but the ability to incapacitate an enemy could still be useful.

Draconian77
30-07-2010, 15:14
I already know and agree with that, I was just discussing how to apply Plague of Rust to the theoretical 0+ save. In effect, I will be ignoring any such ablative layers of armour and assuming that the 1+ save is a hard cap.

Thus, theoretical 0+ save vs Plague of Rust = 2+ save.

mattjgilbert
30-07-2010, 16:35
Modifiers have always been against the dice roll. We naturally learn what that means in terms of the dice roll needed in terms of the "effective armour save" as that's faster for the brain to compute but really, you should roll the die, apply the modifiers and then compare the result against the armour save of the model.

Otherwise a negative modifier applied to the armour save would actually improve the save.

e.g. 5+ save with a -2 modifier results in a 3+ save!

I concur that 1+ cap means exactly that. Sure you can take items which would normally improve the armour save but they can't if the cap is reached already. You still get any other benefits they confer though.

L1qw1d
30-07-2010, 20:38
In any case, a 1 is always a fail.

I DO stand by this- in Close Combat. I think the reason they changed anything is because of ranged attacks or things like that that can hit with re-rolling 6's and scoring a 4, 5, 6 (that would be 10+ and topping it out as an attack).

Archangelion
01-08-2010, 11:40
It does seem to be the way GW is going in this case.
It seems that the save will then be deturmined at the start of the game.

I would, however, add that an event that ends up with a model losing its magical set of armour to an magic item destroyer weapon or spell, would get to keep its 1+ save if it still had enough armour to keep that save in that event.

mortiferum
10-09-2010, 09:57
Sorry new player here, where are people getting there reference from with regards to the 1+ max save, is it from page 43 of the BRB under the section titled Sheilds?

"If a model carries a shield, the score it needs to save is reduced by 1 (though this can't take the save to beyond 1+)".

Is this the rule that you are using or is it mentioned elsewhere?

Reason I ask, RAW it appears that this is specific to when the model is armed with a shield, this rule starts... "If a model carries a shield...." what if the model doesn't carry a shield, could it's save then go better than 1+?

For example, Skulltaker has a scaly skin save of 3+, if I mount him on a Juggernaught of Khorne, the special rule (Brass Behemoth) adds +3 to armour save, this would provide an overall 0+ armour save (no shield was used to obtain this)?

stripsteak
10-09-2010, 17:53
other column of pg 43 third paragraph

wilsongrahams
10-09-2010, 18:12
I totally agree that the save is supposed to be limited to 1+ so a save modifier always applies even if you have an extra shield etc that would otherwise had made it 0+. Save modifiers apply
to the dice roll not the save, so maybe the -7 for S10 isn't an oversight but there just in case a model ever gets to take a save on 2D6 like old 40k Terminator Armour. The -7 could then still be applied fully.
All the talk about a save being capped at -1 but you being able to take the extra equipment is as stated purely for any extra benefits those extra items may have but a model with a 1+ save and a shield hit by a Strength 6 attack needs a 4+ to pass not a 3+ as the save remains 1+ before the modifiers are applied and the shield is ignored other than for say a 6+ parry save if using a hand weapon.

SiNNiX
10-09-2010, 23:00
I'm not sure how current this thread is, nor am I aware of what has been established, but the way I understand it is that your armour basically stops improving at 1+, and then immediately starts receiving reductions from Strength or any other modifiers.

A Chaos Lord with Shield of Ptolos on a Juggernaut would still have a 1+ armour save against shooting attacks instead of a -3 armour save, and so would have a 3+ armour save against S5 shooting attacks.

That's just my take I guess, and the way people interpret it where I'm from.

ChrisIronBrow
11-09-2010, 04:16
I'm not sure how current this thread is, nor am I aware of what has been established, but the way I understand it is that your armour basically stops improving at 1+, and then immediately starts receiving reductions from Strength or any other modifiers.

A Chaos Lord with Shield of Ptolos on a Juggernaut would still have a 1+ armour save against shooting attacks instead of a -3 armour save, and so would have a 3+ armour save against S5 shooting attacks.

That's just my take I guess, and the way people interpret it where I'm from.


And really, that's the problem. That's the way that most people are interpreting it. It's not actually what it says. It probably is meant to work like that, but the rules say different.

Basicly I'd imagine you'll never have it come up in a game, but the rule clearly doesn't do what it claims.

The rule places a "cap" at 1+, but never mentions when you apply that cap.

As I used an analogy earlier.

If I'm allowed to use 3 balls to juggle, but I own 5, if someone steals one of them I can still use 3. I'm not required to use 3 -1.

knightwire
11-09-2010, 05:00
The rule places a "cap" at 1+, but never mentions when you apply that cap.


And Plague of Rust never mentions whether it affects the armor you are using, the armor you aren't or all of it. You'll just have to use your noodle on that one.

FoolsJourney
11-09-2010, 12:44
errrr, missed some other messages that said the exact same thing...

ChrisIronBrow
12-09-2010, 11:22
And Plague of Rust never mentions whether it affects the armor you are using, the armor you aren't or all of it. You'll just have to use your noodle on that one.


Which means, like I said, The rules don't work, and we are forced to guess as too how to procede

EDMM
13-09-2010, 01:23
Yes, you can. You can take a magic armour AND a magic shield.

No, you can't.

SiNNiX
13-09-2010, 02:23
No, you can't.

Hahaha! Right you are, Spirtle!

donaldtroll
17-09-2010, 10:06
I think this is what he's gunning for: An Empire Grand Marshal has an armour save of 1+ (Full plate armour, shield, barded warhorse). Equip him with an enchanted shield and he would have a 0+ armour save if not for the cap.

CIB seem to suggest that, if the model is subject to an armour save penalty, the armour save modifier is first reduced by the excess armour, e.g. a -3 armour save would be reduced to -2. This is of course bunk. The 1+ cap would be rendered meaningless.

The way the rule works, however, is that the model has, at best, a 1+ armour save to which the armour save modifiers are then applied. A -6 or better armour save will negate the armour save of any armour that complies with the standard armour save cap.

-T10

Could not the 1+ cap be seen as clarification to the maximum strength of metal spells?

The way I see it, the armor save modifiers modify the armor save and not the dice roll, so my guess would be that a "0+" armor save modified by a -3 armor save modifier would give a 3+ armor save. It neatly explains both the need for the "cap rule" and also the existence of the -7as modifier at s10

could very well be wrong though, and anyone who dosent think THEY could very well be wrong as well are probably jumping to conclusions...

Dutch_Digger
18-09-2010, 08:36
Interesting to see this is basicly the same issue that was with the 12 magic dice cap, where the results were the exact opposite ( that rule ended in saying you cant have more than 12 at one time, while this cap is used as a hard cap: 1+ is the total added up max)

I do agree with T10 here for 2 reasons:
- Nobody came with a reason why that rule is in the book if not for this reason.
- On a standard roll 2+ is the maximum, since 1 is a fail. That shows intent of the writer, cant get around this... Or can we?

Tarian
18-09-2010, 15:50
That shows intent of the writer, cant get around this... Or can we?

Are you kidding? With enough whining/complaining and/or rules lawyering, we can get around anything! :evilgrin:

Dutch_Digger
19-09-2010, 11:03
cant get around forum rules :p

stainawarjar
19-09-2010, 11:49
I think this is what he's gunning for: An Empire Grand Marshal has an armour save of 1+ (Full plate armour, shield, barded warhorse).

Sorry for being nitpicky here, but there's no unit choice in The Empire named Grand Marshal ;)