In the rules for the Blade Guard and new Primaris Lt. we see the following:
"Storm Shields - The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. Improve the bearers Save characteristic by 1."
So that means that the Bladeguard/Lt. get a 2+ save, and a 4+ invul save... but what about Assault Terminators?
Obviously until the new Codex hits they have a 3+ invul, but assuming that this Storm Shield is the new SS for everyone, does that mean that Assault Terminators with Storm Shields now have a 1+ save? Obviously a 1 is always a fail - the rules say as much - but does that mean that Assault Terminators w/Storm Shields now ignore the first -1 worth of AP that comes at them?
H.B.M.C. wrote: In the rules for the Blade Guard and new Primaris Lt. we see the following:
"Storm Shields - The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. Improve the bearers Save characteristic by 1."
So that means that the Bladeguard/Lt. get a 2+ save, and a 4+ invul save... but what about Assault Terminators?
Obviously until the new Codex hits they have a 3+ invul, but assuming that this Storm Shield is the new SS for everyone, does that mean that Assault Terminators with Storm Shields now have a 1+ save? Obviously a 1 is always a fail - the rules say as much - but does that mean that Assault Terminators w/Storm Shields now ignore the first -1 worth of AP that comes at them?
Yes, they have a 1+ save. If the "cannot modify dice rolls to less than 1" rule still exists in 9th, then we have the Meganobz 2++ problem all over again.
However, given that Plasma now only overheats on an Unmodified 1, I suspect you can modify a dice roll below 1 now, which means you won't have silly issues like natural 2's exploding but not natural 1's. So assuming you can modify a dice roll to 0, the overall "effect" will mean that you still pass the save 5/6ths of the time even against AP-1.
9th might also cap the Sv characteristic to 2+ as a core rule much like how Strength, Toughness and Leadership can't be lowered below 1. I haven't seen anything to suggest either way.
Or they might change Terminator Storm Shields to be a different item that only grants the 4++.
1+ saves are explicitly called out as possible in sections of the leaked rules. The Crusade section has an upgrade that improves the save characteristic, and one of the examples given is improving a 2+ save to a 1+ save.
Sterling191 wrote: 1+ saves are explicitly called out as possible in sections of the leaked rules. The Crusade section has an upgrade that improves the save characteristic, and one of the examples given is improving a 2+ save to a 1+ save.
Oh cool. Thanks.
I haven't read through those yet, but I'll look out for it.
I haven't read through those yet, but I'll look out for it.
Crusade is the thing im most looking forward too in 9th so ive been devouring that section. To be clear though, I cant speak to how a 1+ save will interact with AP or other systems, only that such a characteristic appears to be physically possible within the ruleset presented so far.
1+ Saves have always been theoretically possible in 8th, but no rules have ever granted them (with the exception of the short lived Loot It! stratagem that got errata'd).
The "problem" is that they become effectively 2++ saves due to a quirk of the FAQs, but if that quirk no longer exists I can see 1+ armour saves being just fine, simply providing the ability to ignore 1 pip of AP.
solkan wrote: The paragraph for Saving Throws in the leaked text still ends:
"An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails."
So that 1+ Invulnerable Save may as well still be a 2+.
The point is that, with 8th edition rules, a 1+ Armor means you fail on a 1, but succeed on a 2-6 regardless of AP.
You could be hit with an AP-4 Melta, and still get your 2+ against it, since anything below a 1 is changed to a 1, which is equal to or higher than your save number.
Now, it appears they cleaned that up in 9th, so it should hopefully not be an issue.
H.B.M.C. wrote: In the rules for the Blade Guard and new Primaris Lt. we see the following:
"Storm Shields - The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. Improve the bearers Save characteristic by 1."
So that means that the Bladeguard/Lt. get a 2+ save, and a 4+ invul save... but what about Assault Terminators?
Obviously until the new Codex hits they have a 3+ invul, but assuming that this Storm Shield is the new SS for everyone, does that mean that Assault Terminators with Storm Shields now have a 1+ save? Obviously a 1 is always a fail - the rules say as much - but does that mean that Assault Terminators w/Storm Shields now ignore the first -1 worth of AP that comes at them?
Every 2+ save unit in cover already does this so I don't see why not.
1+ save means that only rolls of 1 cause wounds. AP becomes irrelevant. Say that a 1+ model is hit by a lascannon with its AP-3: save rolls of 4, 3 and 2 become 1 but modified 1s so the model still tanks the hit. Only actual 1s go through the armor.
If a 2+ model is in cover and is hit by a lascannon then even rolls of 3 and 2 cause wounds because the model's save is actually a 4+ (2+ base +1 thanks to cover and -3AP).
In 8th it certainly wasn't, in fact the only unit that could do it (Meganobz + Loot It! stratagem) got FAQed as soon as possible.
Since GW is aware of how that 1+ works, having already fixed it in 8th, I'd say that a unit with a 1+ in 9th could be intented. But it's also possible that GW is making the same mistake once again.
Ice_can wrote: But as discussed a 1+ save is the equivalent of a 2++, save, making the 3++ redundant.
Either that or they are going to split stormshields into PA only and Terminators will get the new relic shields.
They are in 8th, but they might not be in 9th. They might not have the AOS rule where rolls are capped to a minimum of 1. If they DO, then, well, yeah they have a 2++ like in AOS. I can see Terminators/Custodes getting different shields that only grant a 3++ or 4++.
I think we can agree at this point that whatever our feelings on its absurdity:
1. It would be RAW if the rule is as we are hearing.
2. GW are aware of the implications.
We can probably mostly all agree that every terminator in the game who can take a storm shield having a functional 2++ would probably not be a good thing generally (except maybe for Dark Angel players who have a load of Knight's sitting on shelf through 8e).
So, let's put a pin in this and return when we have more info.
Its possible the leaked Storm Shield rules only apply to Bladeguard Storm Shields after all.
So yes, if Terminators and Custodes have the same Storm Shield rule of improving their save by 1, then they ignore all AP.
From the core rule PDF
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.
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.
Therefore, if I have a 1+ save, and you wound me with an AP-6 weapon, I roll a D6-6 to save, which means I can roll the following set of results: {1-6, 2-6,3-6,4-6,5-6,6-6} = {1,1,1,1,1,1}. Because an unmodified 1 always fails, while a modified 1 " is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model" (as previously deduced) that means you have a 5/6 chance of passing the save, regardless of the AP of the weapon that wounds you. You have a 5/6 chance of passing your saving throw regardless of whether it's a AP-1 weapon or an AP-42 weapon.
There is no way it's the intended rules interaction, because if it was then why would Storm Shields also give a 4++, if it was also going to give them a 2++.
Right, but let's see if anyone with a 2+ save actually gets this rule before we go too crazy.
Personally I think erratas to every datasheet with a storm shield feels unlikely. But we'll see.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
IanVanCheese wrote: There is no way it's the intended rules interaction, because if it was then why would Storm Shields also give a 4++, if it was also going to give them a 2++.
Ask whoever wrote the Sigmar faq. They know this is a thing.
IanVanCheese wrote: There is no way it's the intended rules interaction, because if it was then why would Storm Shields also give a 4++, if it was also going to give them a 2++.
It is an intended interaction, at least in AOS which has the exact same system of saves and AP.
Stux wrote: Right, but let's see if anyone with a 2+ save actually gets this rule before we go too crazy.
Fair point, this is GW. It's totally possible Terminator and Golden Banana storm shields will work totally differently even though they are the same wargear.
Stux wrote: On the Captain it has a different name.
It still improves the save characteristic by 1 though. I suspect it was changed because they already have an Iron Halo giving them a 4++, and wanted to remove the ability for him to have a 3++. Makes THSS Smash Captains a little more fragile.
Stux wrote: On the Captain it has a different name.
It still improves the save characteristic by 1 though. I suspect it was changed because they already have an Iron Halo giving them a 4++, and wanted to remove the ability for him to have a 3++. Makes THSS Smash Captains a little more fragile.
This really is going to be meta defining if this is how GW are going. Or is it more likely whoever was having a "happy time" writing the rules for the new primaris forgot that stormshields already exsist on models with 2+,4++ without the stormshield Though at this point it really does look like the start of 9th is going to be a FAQ/Eratta nightmare untill people actually get 9th edition compatable rules.
It is also possible that this will be covered in the "strange rules interaction" section of the full rulebook. They may state that units cannot have a 1+ Save. Or they may errata all the units with 2+ Saves and the new Storm Shields to deal with this issue there.
Stux wrote: Right, but let's see if anyone with a 2+ save actually gets this rule before we go too crazy.
Personally I think erratas to every datasheet with a storm shield feels unlikely. But we'll see.
Having identically named wargear with different rules and/or costs is going to cause incredible mayhem.
Dark Angels wave their 4th/5th edition stormshields. The ones that gave 4++ (and only in melee, or was that just BT stormshields?), when a few months later Codex marines got 3++ all the time stormshields. That lasted for a long time.
History:
https://www.thedarkfortress.co.uk/tech_reports/da_5th_sm2.php#.Xv43yShKiUk
In modern day GW design, I'll point you to any shield in AoS, even in the same army book. Is it going to a) add to your save? b) let you ignore mortal wounds on a #+? c) something else?
---
Right now, we're told to use existing data sheets as is, so termies and custards with stormshields are 2+/3++.
When the new Codex SM and Codex Custodes happen, this might change.
But I suspect we'll be told that Cawl did super duper special things to Gravis armor to allow it to be the most special when combined with storm shields, and older types of armor can't do this, because primaris
But as for mayhem... It doesn't cause any. The rules don't break at all. I know people feel it sounds unfair, but it doesn't actually cause system problems. The system in fact explicitly allows for it. And the datasheets are completely self-contained. Whats on one doesn't affect any other, so no one should be confused by stormshields working one way for one unit and a different way for another, any more than they're confused that meltaguns currently are 'discard lowest' for some factions and 'discard one (dice)' for others.
---
The thing to worry about right now is how to kill 1+ saves in Crusade mode, or if there are strats, abilities or psychic powers that can modify the save characteristic down to 1+.
alextroy wrote: It is also possible that this will be covered in the "strange rules interaction" section of the full rulebook. They may state that units cannot have a 1+ Save. Or they may errata all the units with 2+ Saves and the new Storm Shields to deal with this issue there.
Time will tell.
That would seem unlikely. If GW didn't want this situation to arise thy could have avoided it by allowing saving throws to be modified below 1, while still allowing natural 1s to fail, or made SS apply a +1 modifier to the roll rather than improving the save outright. The fact they didn't do that suggests it's either intentional or an oversight, not something they're then going to deal with as an edge case in an appendix.
Given they have FAQd the 2++ twice (via buffs / stratagems / psychic powers) to never allow better than a 3++, and Loot it got hosed down to a 2+ at best, I doubt this will stay.
I don't know if it's remotely game breaking in AoS, but I believe 2++ save terminators running around would ruin competitive play. Multiwound, 2++ save models are simply too hard / inefficient to kill.
Given they have FAQd the 2++ twice (via buffs / stratagems / psychic powers) to never allow better than a 3++, and Loot it got hosed down to a 2+ at best, I doubt this will stay.
I don't know if it's remotely game breaking in AoS, but I believe 2++ save terminators running around would ruin competitive play. Multiwound, 2++ save models are simply too hard / inefficient to kill.
Given they have FAQd the 2++ twice (via buffs / stratagems / psychic powers) to never allow better than a 3++, and Loot it got hosed down to a 2+ at best, I doubt this will stay.
I don't know if it's remotely game breaking in AoS, but I believe 2++ save terminators running around would ruin competitive play. Multiwound, 2++ save models are simply too hard / inefficient to kill.
Not for their points. Terminators are expensive.
This.
My all Deathwing army might literally have a fighting chance! Not great mind you, but terminators actually being able to "tank hits" (ie, treating all hits as if AP0) like they're supposed to would be a nice change.
They still go down against high volume of shots though... so no, it wouldn't be game breaking.
So rolling a 1 before modifiers will fail as I see it, regardless of whether you have a +1 or -1.
I know this is GW we are talking about, and their rules can be vague at best, But I doubt they are intending to make models completely invulnerable to damage through a rules caveat.
It would still be interesting to see if the +1 save still interacts though. a terminator effectively ignoring 1 point of AP for using a storm shield isn't exactly a red flag issue.
So rolling a 1 before modifiers will fail as I see it, regardless of whether you have a +1 or -1.
I know this is GW we are talking about, and their rules can be vague at best, But I doubt they are intending to make models completely invulnerable to damage through a rules caveat.
It would still be interesting to see if the +1 save still interacts though. a terminator effectively ignoring 1 point of AP for using a storm shield isn't exactly a red flag issue.
I think you've missed the issue. We know a natural 1 always fails.
The problem is that if you roll a natural 2 with -4 ap on it then that just counts as a 1, because it can't be modified below a 1. As its not a natural 1 though, its not an auto fail. So if your save is 1+ then you just saved! Therefore you can ONLY fail on a natural 1 regardless of AP.
And anyone saying its not RAI, we know at least for Sigmar that they are very aware of this interaction and that they are fine with it, as they specifically say so in an FAQ. We can only assume this is also true for 40k unless we get any evidence to the contrary.
So rolling a 1 before modifiers will fail as I see it, regardless of whether you have a +1 or -1.
I know this is GW we are talking about, and their rules can be vague at best, But I doubt they are intending to make models completely invulnerable to damage through a rules caveat.
It would still be interesting to see if the +1 save still interacts though. a terminator effectively ignoring 1 point of AP for using a storm shield isn't exactly a red flag issue.
I think you've missed the issue. We know a natural 1 always fails.
The problem is that if you roll a natural 2 with -4 ap on it then that just counts as a 1, because it can't be modified below a 1. As its not a natural 1 though, its not an auto fail. So if your save is 1+ then you just saved! Therefore you can ONLY fail on a natural 1 regardless of AP.
And anyone saying its not RAI, we know at least for Sigmar that they are very aware of this interaction and that they are fine with it, as they specifically say so in an FAQ. We can only assume this is also true for 40k unless we get any evidence to the contrary.
Right, I see.
That's... Actually pretty interesting... Aaand I hate it already... Mainly because one of my friends regularly runs SS Terminators so if this interaction is correct, Then they just got that much more annoying...
Sterling191 wrote: Per the core rules released today by GW, a roll can never be modified to less than 1.
Also, for saves a roll of 1 always fails.
Unmodified 1 fails. Roll of 2 modified to 1 isn't unmodified 1. So pass if stat is 1+.
It's rather funny. Either GW managed to botch it again(and people said I was complaining non sense when with meganobz I said GW fixed it wrong way banning meganobz from getting 2++ but not fixing how 1+ is same as 2++...I said that's precisely because sooner or later GW would do that again and sure enough here we are. I already got cold shivers before ork PA when reviewer misquoted spell buffing save stat rather than save roll) and need to errata it "oops" style or they really intend for 2++ terminators for the master race(well...they are marines. Wouldn't surprise me if they get 2++ while NPC factions aren't allowed same thing)
Just to throw a fly in the ointment, this wouldn't be the first time that GW had rules for wargear with the same name and look on two different units that end up with different rules.
They've pushed away from that over the generations, so I doubt that's the case, but it was just a thought.
Terminators with 2W 2+ and 3++ and free deepstrike are already good. SW ones also get +1 to hit and tons of ways to be buffed like re-rolling hits and wounds, up to +2A, etc... They're just like many other SM units that suffer from the fact that in the same codex there are tons of overpowered units.
Terminators with 1++ should be 60ppm with shield and close combat weapon. In 8th they're basically half the price.
Yeah, cover doesn't improve your save characteristic it just adds to the save roll. Functionally very different in this specific scenario, even if in most other instances it would be the same result.
If the Storm Shid rule just added to the save roll instead this would all be fine!
Like, if 2+ in cover was the same problem, why would we only be now be discussing the 1+ save thing?
2+ on a D6+1 is not the same as a 1+ on a D6. The former can't pass a save if you are hit with a AP -6, while the latter has a 5/6 chance of passing, all because GW think negative numbers are too difficult for players to understand.
BaconCatBug wrote: Like, if 2+ in cover was the same problem, why would we only be now be discussing the 1+ save thing?
2+ on a D6+1 is not the same as a 1+ on a D6. The former can't pass a save if you are hit with a AP -6, while the latter has a 5/6 chance of passing, all because GW think negative numbers are too difficult for players to understand.
I thought the problem came from the fact that in 8th saves failed on a roll of 1 ,,, not an unmodified roll of a 1....
BaconCatBug wrote: Like, if 2+ in cover was the same problem, why would we only be now be discussing the 1+ save thing?
2+ on a D6+1 is not the same as a 1+ on a D6. The former can't pass a save if you are hit with a AP -6, while the latter has a 5/6 chance of passing, all because GW think negative numbers are too difficult for players to understand.
I thought the problem came from the fact that in 8th saves failed on a roll of 1 ,,, not an unmodified roll of a 1....
No, the problem comes from the fact you can't modify below 1. If you could, then a 1+ save would work as a 2+ save but would still pass 5/6ths of the time against AP-1 weapons (as you could roll a 0,1,2,3,4, or 5) and would fail 3/6ths of the time against AP-3 compared to a 2+'s 4/6ths (AP-3 can roll a -2,-1,0,1,2,3). Saves in 8th don't fail on a 1, only a "natural" 1.
if they allow modifications below one then plasma guns are gonna blow up on unmodified twos XD ... if you give someone -1 to hit and they roll a 1 it'll be 0 ... so no explosion... allowing rolls to go below 1 is not the answer. The answer is to say an unmodified 1 or a roll of 1 is a fail...
which is how interpreted the statement in the 8th BRB which stated
"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply"
I interpreted this statement differently from stating an unmodified 1. I interpreted this, perhaps incorrectly, as a 1 always fails, whether that 1 was determined by modifiers or not.
the point is,,, this can be solved by just stating that a roll of 1 for a save, modified or not, is a fail.
Stux wrote: Agreed. Going from 3++ to 2++ halves the number of saves you expect to fail, its huge and will be a problem if this all goes ahead.
There is absolutely nothing about going from 3++ to 2++. In fact, the stormshield on the new primaris stuff is 4++.
Please read earlier posts.
A 1+ save is functionally a 2++.
Except in all the ways it isn't (like effects that don't allow normal saves at all).
The concern at hand is a 1+ save. By referring to it as a 2+ invulnerable, you're doing nothing but adding ambiguity into a clear cut situation. It doesn't interact with the invulnerable save rules in any way at all.
Type40 wrote: Did they spoil a NEW model with plasma,,, or will everything be errated ?
One of the marine units in Indomitus has a plasma weapon, and it only overheats on a natural 1. We can infer that that is the 9th wording for plasma, but until day 1 FAQs drop that's all it is.
An easy fix would be to add "modified saving throws of 1 always fail". Unless or course they intend for 1+ saves to exist and work that way. Given they have an invulnerable save system, it seems odd to ha e because it basically creates a better than invulnerable save from a stat that is meant to be effected by AP. I say better because null zone death hex etc exist to counter invulnerable saves.
Stux wrote: Agreed. Going from 3++ to 2++ halves the number of saves you expect to fail, its huge and will be a problem if this all goes ahead.
There is absolutely nothing about going from 3++ to 2++. In fact, the stormshield on the new primaris stuff is 4++.
Please read earlier posts.
A 1+ save is functionally a 2++.
Except in all the ways it isn't (like effects that don't allow normal saves at all).
The concern at hand is a 1+ save. By referring to it as a 2+ invulnerable, you're doing nothing but adding ambiguity into a clear cut situation. It doesn't interact with the invulnerable save rules in any way at all.
Name two things that ignore armor saves that don’t also ignore invulnerable saves.
tulun wrote: According to the Tapletop Titans guys, GW is aware of stuff like 1+ saves and it's not gonna stay.
So enjoy it until the FAQ.
So now the question is, if they were aware of it, why wasn't it fixed at print? They fixed a whole host of other issues, and they knew of the 1+ issue before because of the Meganobz incident. So, they were either malicious or incompetent, and either way it's not a good sign.
Or we could look at this as a win and that our discussion alerted GW to the issue and thus we're responsible (again) for it being fixed. yey
Bwahahahaha not even out yet and people have already broken it. I sometimes wonder how some people's brains work the way they do to look at what on the surface appears to be reasonable and then immediately start processing BUT WAIT this means... when most people would look at it and think nothing of it and play it as likely intended.
Lord Damocles wrote: Yippie! Let's go back to wargear with the same name having different rules depending on which dude is holding it!
That's going to happen when you update an edition.
Not if
a) The Bladeguard stormshields didn't have different rules to everybody else's stormshields for no reason
b) Everybody else's stormshields were altered to match in a comprehensive update
Lord Damocles wrote: Yippie! Let's go back to wargear with the same name having different rules depending on which dude is holding it!
True grit would like to know your location.
In all seriousness, the communicae from GW isn't even that necessary: until a codex or faq/errata give ss/th termies the same ss, they will be different.
That said, I do like how the Captain's relic shield was handled for the 4++: he gets a 4+ vs MW.
So a blob of 3x3 Storm shield Custodian Guard just became a major player in winning missions by holding objectives. There is very little that could remove them at 1+/3++6+++(Psychic wounds only) with 3 wounds a pop. And throw in their strats?
Stux wrote: So obviously social media is not a rules resource, but I thought this was interesting none the less.
I would point out that this is a classic 40k Facebook team non-answer reply. There's no indication of a ruling on the underlying issue, with an entirely true tangential statement tacked on (in this case the statement that until there's subsequent eratta, old rules are still valid).
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So a blob of 3x3 Storm shield Custodian Guard just became a major player in winning missions by holding objectives. There is very little that could remove them at 1+/3++6+++(Psychic wounds only) with 3 wounds a pop. And throw in their strats?
Yes, but actually no.
Until we are told otherwise, only Bladeguard veteran Storm Shields have the 4++/add 1 to save characteristic.
Costodes are still 2+, 2++, 6++(vs psychic). Same with SS-TH Termies still being 2+, 3++.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So a blob of 3x3 Storm shield Custodian Guard just became a major player in winning missions by holding objectives. There is very little that could remove them at 1+/3++6+++(Psychic wounds only) with 3 wounds a pop. And throw in their strats?
Yes, but actually no.
Until we are told otherwise, only Bladeguard veteran Storm Shields have the 4++/add 1 to save characteristic.
Costodes are still 2+, 2++, 6++(vs psychic). Same with SS-TH Termies still being 2+, 3++.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So a blob of 3x3 Storm shield Custodian Guard just became a major player in winning missions by holding objectives. There is very little that could remove them at 1+/3++6+++(Psychic wounds only) with 3 wounds a pop. And throw in their strats?
Yes, but actually no.
Until we are told otherwise, only Bladeguard veteran Storm Shields have the 4++/add 1 to save characteristic.
Costodes are still 2+, 2++, 6++(vs psychic). Same with SS-TH Termies still being 2+, 3++.
Lord Damocles wrote:Yippie! Let's go back to wargear with the same name having different rules depending on which dude is holding it!
That's standard operating procedure for a new edition in many cases. The alternative is either to never update anything ever and use different names for what is essentially the same piece of kit, or errata everything on day one. Sine the game isn't out yet we don't know which route GW have chosen.
Selfcontrol wrote:This rule doesn't need to be errated or faqed.
This "problem" is solved by replacing all "Improve the Save characteristic" by "Improve the armor saving throw by 1". And that's it.
In Crusade, I'd like to keep the 1+ save characteristic possible.
This "problem" is solved by replacing all "Improve the Save characteristic" by "Improve the armor saving throw by 1". And that's it.
In Crusade, I'd like to keep the 1+ save characteristic possible.
Replacing all instances of X with Y... like an errata does..?
Here and on Reddit, most people are advocating for a faq or errata adding a limit to the save characteristic (for example, adding a sentence stating a save characteristic can never be better than 2+ in the core rules). This is what I'm talking about.
We don't need that. Stratagems (like the Orks' stratagem "Loot it !"), items, relics etc only need to be properly phrased : add a +1 bonus to the saving throw. It has the added benefit of still being useful for models which have a native 2+ save characteristic and it also allows GW to design a 1+ model (if they manage to balance it or for a more narrative experience such as Crusade).
This "problem" is solved by replacing all "Improve the Save characteristic" by "Improve the armor saving throw by 1". And that's it.
In Crusade, I'd like to keep the 1+ save characteristic possible.
Replacing all instances of X with Y... like an errata does..?
Here and on Reddit, most people are advocating for a faq or errata adding a limit to the save characteristic (for example, adding a sentence stating a save characteristic can never be better than 2+ in the core rules). This is what I'm talking about.
We don't need that. Stratagems (like the Orks' stratagem "Loot it !"), items, relics etc only need to be properly phrased : add a +1 bonus to the saving throw. It has the added benefit of still being useful for models which have a native 2+ save characteristic and it also allows GW to design a 1+ model (if they manage to balance it or for a more narrative experience such as Crusade).
So, just to point out something someone mentioned in the N&R thread.
Forgetting hypothetical terminators, forgetting Narrative Crusade malarky, this 1+ Sv "issue" is not a hypothetical, it's an actual, matched play situation. The Primaris Lieutenant, the model causing this brouhaha in the first place, has access to two different relics from Codex: Space Marines and it's respective Codex Supplements: The Armour Indomitus and Artificer Armour.
Both of these relics, among other things, grants the bearer "a Save characteristic of 2+".
Therefore, a Primaris Lieutenant from the Indomius boxset with either The Armour Indomitus (good naming GW, no confusion here) or Artificer Armour, will have a Save characteristic of 1+, thus this "issue" occurs, and does so in matched play and, to be honest, is not going to be uncommon.
In any case, given that both the RaW for 8th and 9th edition and RaI for 8th edition (as proven by both the AOS and Dark Eldar FAQs) support the fact that this model will effectively ignore all AP, the only solution is to either FAQ this as intended (just to keep people from screeching about it) or implement some form of errata.
Given that the Crusade rules explicitly mention a 1+ Sv, I cannot see them adding a base rule cap on Sv to 2+. Either the Storm Shield itself will have the cap added to it, or the Storm Shield will instead grant +1 to save rolls rather than improving the characteristic. Or they might just leave it and allow Terminators to have 2++ saves. It's not like Terminators don't need the help.
BaconCatBug wrote: So, just to point out something someone mentioned in the N&R thread.
Forgetting hypothetical terminators, forgetting Narrative Crusade malarky, this 1+ Sv "issue" is not a hypothetical, it's an actual, matched play situation.
The Primaris Lieutenant, the model causing this brouhaha in the first place, has access to two different relics from Codex: Space Marines and it's respective Codex Supplements: The Armour Indomitus and Artificer Armour.
Both of these relics, among other things, grants the bearer "a Save characteristic of 2+".
Therefore, a Primaris Lieutenant from the Indomius boxset with either The Armour Indomitus (good naming GW, no confusion here) or Artificer Armour, will have a Save characteristic of 1+, thus this "issue" occurs, and does so in matched play and, to be honest, is not going to be uncommon.
In any case, given that both the RaW for 8th and 9th edition and RaI for 8th edition (as proven by both the AOS and Dark Eldar FAQs) support the fact that this model will effectively ignore all AP, the only solution is to either FAQ this as intended (just to keep people from screeching about it) or implement some form of errata.
Given that the Crusade rules explicitly mention a 1+ Sv, I cannot see them adding a base rule cap on Sv to 2+. Either the Storm Shield itself will have the cap added to it, or the Storm Shield will instead grant +1 to save rolls rather than improving the characteristic. Or they might just leave it and allow Terminators to have 2++ saves. It's not like Terminators don't need the help.
If terminators go to a 2+ invul with the points changes that have been leaked being correct, you honestly don't need to own anything else. 23pt base 2 wound model essentially immune to damage, with built in deepstrike, now with discounted ranged firepower and Angels of death making them each character equivalents in melee as well?
All we need is a way for them to reroll ones to save and get a 4+ FNP and it'd be 7th edition again.
We have the rules. There's nothing to wait for. We know how they work. This was an exercise in extrapolation.
We don't know if all the storm shields work in the same way. I highly doubt that 1+ terminator would exist, and even if they do they'd be FAQed as soon as possible.
If terminators go to a 2+ invul with the points changes that have been leaked being correct, you honestly don't need to own anything else. 23pt base 2 wound model essentially immune to damage, with built in deepstrike, now with discounted ranged firepower and Angels of death making them each character equivalents in melee as well?
All we need is a way for them to reroll ones to save and get a 4+ FNP and it'd be 7th edition again.
They'd be overpowered for sure. SW ones also have +1 to hit in combat which makes thunder hammers very reliable and thanks to Wulfen/character with Wulfen Stone and Arjac they could easily get +2A. Plus auras to re-roll hits and wounds, etc...
We have the rules. There's nothing to wait for. We know how they work. This was an exercise in extrapolation.
The rules include any Day One FAQs. And the whole book. So you have those?
Day One FAQs are gonna be more comprehensive, because people have been looking at these rules. Reece allegedly said in the TO Facebook group that the Blast weapon-wording for Units of 6-10 Models will be Day-1-FAQed because of the flaw the community found, which the playtesters missed.
Almost certainly gonna be the same for Daemonprinces/Chappy Dreads/Talon Masters covering each other under the character rule and quite possibly now the Storm Shield abuse.
If terminators go to a 2+ invul with the points changes that have been leaked being correct, you honestly don't need to own anything else. 23pt base 2 wound model essentially immune to damage, with built in deepstrike, now with discounted ranged firepower and Angels of death making them each character equivalents in melee as well?
All we need is a way for them to reroll ones to save and get a 4+ FNP and it'd be 7th edition again.
Hardly. For regular Terminators to make use of this rule they currently need to be equipped with TH/SS (or a variation for units like Deathwing). Their firepower is 0 and they're not really all that much more resilient to the kinds of weapons that tend to prey on them anyway. For sure, it's a stupid interaction that I hope they FAQ day 1 but I'm not sure a wall of Terminators with no shooting is all that scary in reality.
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Day One FAQs are gonna be more comprehensive, because people have been looking at these rules. Reece allegedly said in the TO Facebook group that the Blast weapon-wording for Units of 6-10 Models will be Day-1-FAQed because of the flaw the community found, which the playtesters missed.
I must have missed that one, what's the Blast weapon flaw?
If terminators go to a 2+ invul with the points changes that have been leaked being correct, you honestly don't need to own anything else. 23pt base 2 wound model essentially immune to damage, with built in deepstrike, now with discounted ranged firepower and Angels of death making them each character equivalents in melee as well?
All we need is a way for them to reroll ones to save and get a 4+ FNP and it'd be 7th edition again.
Hardly. For regular Terminators to make use of this rule they currently need to be equipped with TH/SS (or a variation for units like Deathwing). Their firepower is 0 and they're not really all that much more resilient to the kinds of weapons that tend to prey on them anyway. For sure, it's a stupid interaction that I hope they FAQ day 1 but I'm not sure a wall of Terminators with no shooting is all that scary in reality.
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Day One FAQs are gonna be more comprehensive, because people have been looking at these rules. Reece allegedly said in the TO Facebook group that the Blast weapon-wording for Units of 6-10 Models will be Day-1-FAQed because of the flaw the community found, which the playtesters missed.
I must have missed that one, what's the Blast weapon flaw?
Possibly that d3 blast are full hits against 6+model units.
I mean, that is the only "flaw" I can see.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: So, just to point out something someone mentioned in the N&R thread.
Forgetting hypothetical terminators, forgetting Narrative Crusade malarky, this 1+ Sv "issue" is not a hypothetical, it's an actual, matched play situation.
The Primaris Lieutenant, the model causing this brouhaha in the first place, has access to two different relics from Codex: Space Marines and it's respective Codex Supplements: The Armour Indomitus and Artificer Armour.
Both of these relics, among other things, grants the bearer "a Save characteristic of 2+".
Therefore, a Primaris Lieutenant from the Indomius boxset with either The Armour Indomitus (good naming GW, no confusion here) or Artificer Armour, will have a Save characteristic of 1+, thus this "issue" occurs, and does so in matched play and, to be honest, is not going to be uncommon.
In any case, given that both the RaW for 8th and 9th edition and RaI for 8th edition (as proven by both the AOS and Dark Eldar FAQs) support the fact that this model will effectively ignore all AP, the only solution is to either FAQ this as intended (just to keep people from screeching about it) or implement some form of errata.
Given that the Crusade rules explicitly mention a 1+ Sv, I cannot see them adding a base rule cap on Sv to 2+. Either the Storm Shield itself will have the cap added to it, or the Storm Shield will instead grant +1 to save rolls rather than improving the characteristic. Or they might just leave it and allow Terminators to have 2++ saves. It's not like Terminators don't need the help.
Come to think of it, the Captain with his relic shield can also take those items of wargear, also gaining a 4+ vs Mortal Wounds.
So this makes a 1+ save that can ignore the Invul, and then getting a 4+ save to the only "counter" (other than massed fire) to his effective bullet sponging.
Blackie wrote: We don't know if all the storm shields work in the same way. I highly doubt that 1+ terminator would exist, and even if they do they'd be FAQed as soon as possible.
Great, but I think it's more logical that all Storm Shields would end up with the same rules than they'd have two things with the same name in the same Codex but have different rules for them.
And as has been said dozens of time now, we don't know it would be FAQ'd out because this isn't a new situation and GW have ruled it both ways in the past. I think they're going to FAQ it out, but they could just as easily go "feature not a bug" as they have in the past and leave it at that.
JohnnyHell wrote: The rules include any Day One FAQs. And the whole book. So you have those?
Don't ask dumb questions that you know the answer to. Besides, you said to wait for the rules. We have those rules. We can see those rules. It's printed in black and white. What comes after the rules is immaterial to this specific conversation.
Thats unfair. The edition is not released yet. There is still time for FAQs. Day one is the 25th of July, complain then.
Indeed. Rules aren’t out. We know Day One FAQs are coming. FAQs are part of the rules and carry the weight of the rules no matter how you split that particular hair.
Moan later if they don’t address this, HBMC. For now stating something as fact without all the info is futile. You may well be right but for now we simply don’t know 100%. And the insults to my intelligence aren’t necessary. You made a statement; if you get asked to back it up in full maybe respond politely without biting. Rule 1, eh?
Great, but I think it's more logical that all Storm Shields would end up with the same rules than they'd have two things with the same name in the same Codex but have different rules for them.
Not necessarily. Thankfully there's no universal special rules list at the end of the rulebook anymore and all abilities and effects are described in each datasheet, so they can be different even if they have the same name.
It could also be logical to assume that storm shields used by primaris aren't the same storm shields used by classic marines.
Reece Robbins is on record saying it was "meant" to be minimum 3 per dice (e.g. 12 shots for a TFC or Wyvern shooting at a 6-man-unit), not per dice, and allegedly said in the Facebook Tournament TO group that it was added to the Day-1 FAQ (though I am not part of that Facebook group, so it's just hearsay for me).
It would fit with the old Castellan-debate on whether Order of Companion (re-roll all 1s) would allow you to re-roll the number of shots on 2d3 weapons, which was similarly worded but consistently ruled by ITC/FLG events under Reece's authority like the LVO that you could indeed roll 1s (and re-roll them) with 2D3.
Sunny Side Up is correct. They clearly explained in the Warhammer Daily show that the minimum value of a single dice would be 3 for units of 6-10 models, but that is not what the rule says. This is one of those time you wish GW would use the singular die to clearly distinguish between the two.
Slipspace wrote: I must have missed that one, what's the Blast weapon flaw?
There is no flaw in the rules, but in the players. Despite being crystal clear, some people think that the minimum of 3 is applied to each dice, not the total result.
Slipspace wrote: I must have missed that one, what's the Blast weapon flaw?
There is no flaw in the rules, but in the players. Despite being crystal clear, some people think that the minimum of 3 is applied to each dice, not the total result.
The rules is grammatically sound as written currently, but playtesters that tested 9th Ed. are on record that it is not worded to match the intent (which allegedly was per dice) and that a first day FAQ will change it to match the intent.
alextroy wrote: To be entirely accurate, the rule is clearly written. The question is did GW write the rule they intended?
Almost certainly not. The whole 1+ = 2++ is such an internet meme. I know that's the RAW, but it's still nonsense.
The thing is, there is precedent for 1+ = 2++: the AoS Bastiladon has a 1+ save on its warscroll while it's in its top bracket. This got similar amounts of debate at first, but the GWFAQ basically said "Yeah, it's equivalent to 2++".
The thing is, there is precedent for 1+ = 2++: the AoS Bastiladon has a 1+ save on its warscroll while it's in its top bracket. This got similar amounts of debate at first, but the GWFAQ basically said "Yeah, it's equivalent to 2++".
There's also a precedent in 40k 8th edition, but with opposite result. Meganobz could get 1+ = 2++ thanks to the stratagem Loot It!. Of course, FAQed as soon as possible. SM units with possible 1+ would be FAQed as well, that's my take.
The thing is, there is precedent for 1+ = 2++: the AoS Bastiladon has a 1+ save on its warscroll while it's in its top bracket. This got similar amounts of debate at first, but the GWFAQ basically said "Yeah, it's equivalent to 2++".
There's also a precedent in 40k 8th edition, but with opposite result. Meganobz could get 1+ = 2++ thanks to the stratagem Loot It!. Of course, FAQed as soon as possible. SM units with possible 1+ would be FAQed as well, that's my take.
Also in 8th edition, a 1+ WS Succubus ignores all negative hit modifiers.
alextroy wrote: To be entirely accurate, the rule is clearly written. The question is did GW write the rule they intended?
Almost certainly not. The whole 1+ = 2++ is such an internet meme. I know that's the RAW, but it's still nonsense.
The thing is, there is precedent for 1+ = 2++: the AoS Bastiladon has a 1+ save on its warscroll while it's in its top bracket. This got similar amounts of debate at first, but the GWFAQ basically said "Yeah, it's equivalent to 2++".
But it degrades. If this was truly GW's intent, why not just print 2++? They are so terrible at this.
At any rate, I've spoken to two TOs (not big tournaments) about this before, and they won't enforce it RAW because they agree that it doesn't make any sense. So there is at least some local control on this absurdity.
alextroy wrote: To be entirely accurate, the rule is clearly written. The question is did GW write the rule they intended?
Almost certainly not. The whole 1+ = 2++ is such an internet meme. I know that's the RAW, but it's still nonsense.
The thing is, there is precedent for 1+ = 2++: the AoS Bastiladon has a 1+ save on its warscroll while it's in its top bracket. This got similar amounts of debate at first, but the GWFAQ basically said "Yeah, it's equivalent to 2++".
But it degrades. If this was truly GW's intent, why not just print 2++? They are so terrible at this.
At any rate, I've spoken to two TOs (not big tournaments) about this before, and they won't enforce it RAW because they agree that it doesn't make any sense. So there is at least some local control on this absurdity.
That's stupid. It's just as RaW to make people roll to hit with Bolters, why would they enforce one but not the other?
alextroy wrote: To be entirely accurate, the rule is clearly written. The question is did GW write the rule they intended?
Almost certainly not. The whole 1+ = 2++ is such an internet meme. I know that's the RAW, but it's still nonsense.
The thing is, there is precedent for 1+ = 2++: the AoS Bastiladon has a 1+ save on its warscroll while it's in its top bracket. This got similar amounts of debate at first, but the GWFAQ basically said "Yeah, it's equivalent to 2++".
But it degrades. If this was truly GW's intent, why not just print 2++? They are so terrible at this.
At any rate, I've spoken to two TOs (not big tournaments) about this before, and they won't enforce it RAW because they agree that it doesn't make any sense. So there is at least some local control on this absurdity.
That's stupid. It's just as RaW to make people roll to hit with Bolters, why would they enforce one but not the other?
Because humans aren't computers. We have judgment. One is an absurd result, the other isn't. You may not agree that it is absurd, but many do.
We don't follow RAW in real life law, so holding GW to a higher standard than actual statutes is also absurd.
It is valid, but not very common because it leads to absurd results. Like this one. Because legislators suck at their job and/or want to pass the buck to the judiciary.
I don't think the devs even know what they meant. Just like a legislature.
BTW, judges tell us what legislatures really meant all the time without claiming supernatural powers.
Martel732 wrote: BTW, judges tell us what legislatures really meant all the time without claiming supernatural powers.
No, they tell you what the judges want to house rule the law as being. "Legislating from the bench" is a real problem and/or a legitimate case for the separation of powers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Duskweaver wrote: Textualism is a valid method of statutary interpretation, though.
"RAW says X, but we don't like that so we've mutually agreed to houserule Y instead" is a perfectly legitimate way to play.
"RAW says X, but I know the devsreally meant Y" is to claim supernatural powers.
"RAW says X, but I'm going to insist on Y and insult anyone who wants to play by X" is TFG behaviour.
"RAW says X, but I'm going to play it as Y without talking it over with the other player at all" is flat-out cheating.
Thank you, finally someone else understands. It's perfectly fine to house rule (even if house rules, without exception, boil down to "Nerf units I dislike, buff units I like") but you can't claim your house rules are what was "intended" or "the way the game is meant to be played" or "the correct interpretation". I just choose to not use house rules.
That's how common law works, sorry. The judges literally make new law with their rulings. It's a feature, not a bug. You are looking for the continental European system.
And I can absolutely claim that GW did not intend the 1+ = 2++ phenomenon due to its absurdity. I find it amusing that GW won't directly address it. I wonder if the devs would even know what we were talking about if we asked them. They just write crap and don't consider the ramifications. Been like that since 2nd, which is why GWRAW is a joke to me. You almost can't call it a house rule when there is so little thought put into what they publish.
Martel732 wrote: That's how common law works, sorry. The judges literally make new law with their rulings. It's a feature, not a bug. You are looking for the continental European system.
And I can absolutely claim that GW did not intend the 1+ = 2++ phenomenon due to its absurdity. I find it amusing that GW won't directly address it. I wonder if the devs would even know what we were talking about if we asked them. They just write crap and don't consider the ramifications. Been like that since 2nd, which is why GWRAW is a joke to me. You almost can't call it a house rule when there is so little thought put into what they publish.
You can claim no such thing. Firstly, you didn't write the rulebook, so you have no idea of their intent. (Unless you did write the rulebook, in which case I commend you for fixing all the broken RaW I pointed out in the 8th rules and would like an official announcement about 1+ saves.) Secondly, we have two examples, one from AOS and one from 8th edition 40k, that show the intent is for 1+ characteristics to ignore all negative modifiers, as proven by FAQ. We even have an example showing intent for Saves to become 1+ saves in the Crusade rules. If anything, the case for it being "intended" is vastly stronger than any claim that it isn't.
It's seems more reasonable to claim they did do it intentionally since there are multiple ways to dget a 1+ save, they added more and gave explicit examples citing the validity of having a 1+ save, and it's actually what the rules say.
Martel732 wrote: That's how common law works, sorry. The judges literally make new law with their rulings. It's a feature, not a bug. You are looking for the continental European system.
And I can absolutely claim that GW did not intend the 1+ = 2++ phenomenon due to its absurdity. I find it amusing that GW won't directly address it. I wonder if the devs would even know what we were talking about if we asked them. They just write crap and don't consider the ramifications. Been like that since 2nd, which is why GWRAW is a joke to me. You almost can't call it a house rule when there is so little thought put into what they publish.
You can claim no such thing. Firstly, you didn't write the rulebook, so you have no idea of their intent. Secondly, we have two examples, one from AOS and one from 8th edition 40k, that show the intent is for 1+ characteristics to ignore all negative modifiers, as proven by FAQ. If anything, the case for it being "intended" is vastly stronger than any claim that it isn't.
I disagree due to the absurdity factor. I can claim it based off mathematical pattern progression, which shows mathematical intent. You are disagreeing based off other textual considerations. The problem is that we have no judge to make a ruling other than individual TOs, since GW is being GW. Maybe 40K designers were thinking of old Warhammer fantasy 1+ saves. It just makes no sense for the jump from 2+ to 1+ to be so huge. I have never talked to anyone outside of this forum willing to play it this way, either, including the local GW store guy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: It's seems more reasonable to claim they did do it intentionally since there are multiple ways to dget a 1+ save, they added more and gave explicit examples citing the validity of having a 1+ save, and it's actually what the rules say.
Not liking it doesn't make it not exist.
That doesn't tell how modifiers are SUPPOSED to work in their brain, though.
Martel732 wrote: I disagree due to the absurdity factor. I can claim it based off mathematical pattern progression, which shows mathematical intent. You are disagreeing based off other textual considerations. The problem is that we have no judge to make a ruling other than individual TOs, since GW is being GW.
Again, I want to point you to the Bastiladon. Why is it "absurd" in 40k but not in AOS, when they share a lot of the same mechanics? The Rend mechanic from AOS and the AP mechanic from 40k are quite literally identical, they both modify the roll To Save. Why is it "absurd" that in 40k a Succubus with 1+ WS can ignore negative modifiers when it's been explicitly FAQed as such?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: That doesn't tell how modifiers are SUPPOSED to work in their brain, though.
Again, AGAIN, Bastiladon and Succubus both give intended examples of how modifiers are "supposed" to work with 1+ characteristics. I get it, you dislike the rule. I also dislike that my Tactical Marines don't have 2 wounds, but that doesn't mean I get to just ignore the fact they only have 1 wound.
Because the outcome is absurd. I think there's not much else to talk about here. The jump from 2+ to 1+ functioning like this makes no sense at all to me. You are fine with it because you are a robot, I get it. I won't be playing this way until GW states that it applies in the general case. You've made your case. We need a judge.
That doesn't tell how modifiers are SUPPOSED to work in their brain, though.
There is literally a section in the core rules that goes into explicit detail about how modifiers function. If there was an intent to change that to disallow the artifact of the 1+ save, they would have.
Martel732 wrote: Because the outcome is absurd. I think there's not much else to talk about here. The jump from 2+ to 1+ functioning like this makes no sense at all to me. You are fine with it because you are a robot, I get it.
And you are the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't absurd?
It's also absurd I can shoot Bolt Pistols at a Thundhawk that is flying at Mach 34 seventeen miles above the battlefield, why is that OK but an intended mechanic is not? It's either all OK to ignore, or none of it is.
Do you also ignore the Dark Eldar FAQ about WS 1+ Succubus? If so, why is an official FAQ from GW unacceptable to you?
That doesn't tell how modifiers are SUPPOSED to work in their brain, though.
There is literally a section in the core rules that goes into explicit detail about how modifiers function. If there was an intent to change that, they would have.
That doesn't mean they contemplated this interaction. That's my point.
Martel732 wrote: Because the outcome is absurd. I think there's not much else to talk about here. The jump from 2+ to 1+ functioning like this makes no sense at all to me. You are fine with it because you are a robot, I get it.
And you are the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't absurd?
It's also absurd I can shoot Bolt Pistols at a Thundhawk that is flying at Mach 34 seventeen miles above the battlefield, why is that OK but an intended mechanic is not? It's either all OK to ignore, or none of it is.
Do you also ignore the Dark Eldar FAQ about WS 1+ Succubus? If so, why is an official FAQ from GW unacceptable to you?
That doesn't mean they contemplated this interaction. That's my point.
Your point is wrong. They absolutely have contemplated this interaction. There are documented instances of a 1+ save interaction in 8th (see: Meganobz). They knew what this meant.
That doesn't mean they contemplated this interaction. That's my point.
Your point is wrong. They absolutely have contemplated this interaction. There are documented instances of a 1+ save interaction in 8th (see: Meganobz).
I want to hear it from a judge. I don't think they have contemplated it, myself. Thinking is not their strong point.
A judge or TO's job is literally to enforce house rules.
But that is ALL they are, house rules. As we've stated multiple times, you're free to house rule whatever you want. It doesn't stop them being house rules and nothing more.
That doesn't mean they contemplated this interaction. That's my point.
Your point is wrong. They absolutely have contemplated this interaction. There are documented instances of a 1+ save interaction in 8th (see: Meganobz).
I want to hear it from a judge. I don't think they have contemplated it, myself. Thinking is not their strong point.
Not an uncommon thing to hear. If you had a lawyer, he'd be sympathetic to your opinion on this rule interaction's absurdity, but he'd also patiently explain that the case is, well, stacked against you. The FAQ entry in which they explicitly discuss the way modifiers and 1+ saves interact in WH40k, and where they explicitly stated that the rules as they apply RAW are how the rules SHOULD be applied, isn't controlling - it isn't determinative of GW's intent - but it definitely falls under the "Persuasive" category of things a proper Judge would consider.
The fact that the jump from 2+ to hit to 1+ to hit (don't say that outloud, what a tongue twister) is a huge jump in effectiveness is not something GW is unaware of - the Succubus FAQ was explicit.
The judge may be older and wiser now, your lawyer might mention, but the issue is that the facts available to us almost all point towards this being (at minimum) contemplated. Most lawyers will also try your case, but they're probably going to be very, very wishy-washy on giving you positive thoughts on success.
From practically all our perspectives, Common Sense rarely makes sense, and is not even close to common. Your absurdity argument relies on GW judges siding with your emotional opinion (a shared Common Sense), and that's a very fickle thing to rely on. Not impossible... just an uphill battle. Prepare for that, mentally.
Martel732 wrote: Because the outcome is absurd. I think there's not much else to talk about here. The jump from 2+ to 1+ functioning like this makes no sense at all to me. You are fine with it because you are a robot, I get it. I won't be playing this way until GW states that it applies in the general case. You've made your case. We need a judge.
No, you don't need a judge. You need to talk about it with your opponents before the game to see if they're amenable to a house rule so that you can play it in a way that isn't what the rules say. If they're not you can just skip gaming with them if you feel that strongly about it.
Martel732 wrote: As I said, I'll believe it when GW explicitly states that it's how it works for the general case.
But why? They have already stated that's how it works for both Saves and To Hit. And both times it was simply "Follow the rules".
I have a sneaking suspicion that even if GW said that was the case, you'd reject it. In fact I know you would because they HAVE said that it is the case, and you're rejecting it.
Martel732 wrote: Why is irrelevant and you are just being rude at this point.
I'm not trying to be rude, I am trying to understand why you are adamant on refusing to accept this despite both the rule and the FAQs being explicitly clear?
Martel732 wrote: Why is irrelevant and you are just being rude at this point.
I'm not trying to be rude, I am trying to understand why you are adamant on refusing to accept this despite both the rule and the FAQs being explicitly clear?
Because the intent is also clearly the opposite. Pointing out flaws in the rules is one thing, feigning wilful ignorance of the intent just to rile people is trolling.
There's a reason this rule is discussed here, while the rule of Bolters being Rapid Fire is not. The latter has an explicitly clear rule in alignment with the intent, the 1+ save has not.
Martel732 wrote: Why is irrelevant and you are just being rude at this point.
I'm not trying to be rude, I am trying to understand why you are adamant on refusing to accept this despite both the rule and the FAQs being explicitly clear?
Because the intent is also clearly the opposite. Pointing out flaws in the rules is one thing, feigning wilful ignorance of the intent just to rile people is trolling.
There's a reason this rule is discussed here, while the rule of Bolters being Rapid Fire is not. The latter has an explicitly clear rule in alignment with the intent, the 1+ save has not.
How is the intent clearly the opposite when multiple people have provided confirmation in AoS through FAQ's that this was their intent?
As to BCB "being rude", let me remind you that you started things with Mertel'732's "you are fine with it because you are a robot, I get it." Please refrain from personal attacks so that the thread doesn't get locked.
How about we wait of the judge (aka GW) to put out a ruling (via the Day 1 FAQ) to see if they really intended what they wrote? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
I for one look forward to our Golden Custodes overlords that are essentially immune to damage by inherent 1+/3++5+++ and only capable of being wounded by accident or mortal wound spam. #kissthelaurels
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I for one look forward to our Golden Custodes overlords that are essentially immune to damage by inherent 1+/3++5+++ and only capable of being wounded by accident or mortal wound spam. #kissthelaurels
It’s the new primaris captain that’s the killer:
Take Artificer Armour and he’s got character protection, then a 1+ which is essentially a 2++; an actual 4++ for those pesky attacks that ignore armour entirely; and similarly a 4+++ vs mortal wounds which ignore the other two...
WS 1+ succubus has never been an issue, it's a single model and an underperforming HQ that doesn't see the table very often.
1+ save models would be spammed in a faction that is already the absolute top tier. That's the problem with these new storm shields IF they aren't FAQed like meganobz did.
Martel732 wrote: That's how common law works, sorry. The judges literally make new law with their rulings. It's a feature, not a bug. You are looking for the continental European system.
And I can absolutely claim that GW did not intend the 1+ = 2++ phenomenon due to its absurdity. I find it amusing that GW won't directly address it. I wonder if the devs would even know what we were talking about if we asked them. They just write crap and don't consider the ramifications. Been like that since 2nd, which is why GWRAW is a joke to me. You almost can't call it a house rule when there is so little thought put into what they publish.
You can claim no such thing.
That's factually incorrect. You can claim anything you want, whether you can prove that claim is another matter.
In this case it doesn't really matter though. Martel's already described a situation where a TO is going to change the ruling and as long as that's communicated ahead of time that doesn't cause a problem. The quote where he mentions this even acknowledges the ruling isn't RAW. TOs making a judgement call about certain rules and situations is not a problem for the vast, vast majority of players to understand, provided communication about any rulings is done ahead of time.
TheAmazinGreat wrote: Seems to me the easiest way to remedy this is to make AP modify the save characteristic rather than the dice roll. No?
The easiest remedy generally doesn't involve making core changes to game mechanics to deal with a couple pieces of wargear on a couple models of a few factions. Instead, you'd make the Storm Shield and Relic Shield give +1 to the armor save roll. Does everything it really needs to, and would do in the current rules for anything EXCEPT a 2+ model, and does for a 2+ model most of what it does for any other save model EXCEPT when the attack is AP 0.
It's been "fixed". Glad to see once again the RaW crowd is vindicated.
Page 16 – Primaris Lieutenant, Other Wargear, storm shield, Abilities Change this to read: ‘The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. In addition, add 1 to armour saving throws made for the bearer.’
Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.
I call 100% fresh Grox Manure on this though, since the explicitly state 1+ sv is possible in the Crusade rules.
Designer’s Note: When we wrote Edge of Silence, we created some new rules for the relic shield and storm shield. When used in isolation – say, when playing through the missions in Edge of Silence – these rules work perfectly well, but when used with a Battle-forged army, it is possible to upgrade a Character with Artificer Armour, and in doing so have a model with a Save characteristic of 1+. This was not our intention, and so we are changing the rules for both these items of wargear as they appear on these datasheets.
Terminator's still are 3++ though
Please also note that while some weapons and other items of wargear (e.g. storm shields) appear in other places with slightly different rules, the rules for them that appear in Edge of Silence should not apply to other units – you should continue to use the rules as printed in your current Codex for the time being.
JohnnyHell wrote: Utterly disingenuous but do write to GW in case they feel like changing it for one person.
And claiming vindication when their intent was not what you deducted is again just baffling.
But we do this every FAQ and every edition sooooo
The RAW was clear. Feel free to rag on BCB for not knowing armour save means the regular save roll-that's obvious, even if TECHNICALLY not RAW-but an effective 2++ was 100% RAW, with the appropriate relic on a Storm Shield/Relic Shield model until they changed it.
Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.
You know exactly what is meant when they say "armour saving throw".
Stop pretending that you don't.
I genuinely don't. I've looked though the 9th edition core rules, I only see "Save" (page 7, page 18) and "Invulnerable Save" (page 19).
Now, if they FAQ to say that "Save" and "Armour Save" are synonymous? I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But they haven't, so they aren't.
You do, so stop pretending you do not. Maybe you did not look close enough through 9th ed?
1st page of the rules term glossary has the term "Armor Saving throw"
Also the Sv characteristic on the Dataslates say "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives." (Page 13 in 8th ed 40K) Thus Armour Save...
Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.
You know exactly what is meant when they say "armour saving throw".
Stop pretending that you don't.
I genuinely don't. I've looked though the 9th edition core rules, I only see "Save" (page 7, page 18) and "Invulnerable Save" (page 19).
Now, if they FAQ to say that "Save" and "Armour Save" are synonymous? I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But they haven't, so they aren't.
You do, so stop pretending you do not. Maybe you did not look close enough through 9th ed?
1st page of the rules term glossary has the term "Armor Saving throw"
Also the Sv characteristic on the Dataslates say "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives." (Page 13 in 8th ed 40K) Thus Armour Save...
Like I said, I have only read the core rules, the full rulebook isn't for sale yet. If they do define the save characteristic as an "Armour Saving Throw", then I will be happy, it's long past time for it to have been defined as such!
Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.
You know exactly what is meant when they say "armour saving throw".
Stop pretending that you don't.
I genuinely don't. I've looked though the 9th edition core rules, I only see "Save" (page 7, page 18) and "Invulnerable Save" (page 19).
Now, if they FAQ to say that "Save" and "Armour Save" are synonymous? I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But they haven't, so they aren't.
You do, so stop pretending you do not. Maybe you did not look close enough through 9th ed?
1st page of the rules term glossary has the term "Armor Saving throw"
Also the Sv characteristic on the Dataslates say "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives." (Page 13 in 8th ed 40K) Thus Armour Save...
Like I said, I have only read the core rules, the full rulebook isn't for sale yet. If they do define the save characteristic as an "Armour Saving Throw", then I will be happy, it's long past time for it to have been defined as such!
Then you should read closer, and gain some reading comprehension to learn to extrapotalte information from what you read:
Where extrapolation and reading Comprehension comes in:
Standard Saving throw rules excerpt: "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.
Data Sheets #4 Profiles, Save [ Sv ]: This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives.
Invulnerable Saves excerpt:If you use a model’s invulnerable save, it is never modified by a weapon’s Armour Penetration value.
So reading all of these; what would you think an "Armor Saving Throw" is/means? Hint: it is not a morale test.
Where extrapolation and reading Comprehension comes in: Standard Saving throw rules excerpt: "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.
Data Sheets #4 Profiles, Save [ Sv ]: This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives.
Invulnerable Saves excerpt:If you use a model’s invulnerable save, it is never modified by a weapon’s Armour Penetration value.
So reading all of these; what would you think an "Armor Saving Throw" is/means? Hint: it is not a morale test.
The same as in 8th, just because the Save Characteristic represents "the protection a model’s armour gives" doesn't make the "To Save" roll an "Armour Saving Roll".
Page 18, 9th Core Rules wrote: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.
Nowhere does it mention this mythical term "Armour Saving Throw" or "Armour Save Roll". Now, if it's defined in the glossary, there is no issue. However I don't have access to that glossary.
I normally stay out of these, but the Drukhari 9th Edition FAQ offers:
"each time a ranged attack is allocated to a model in that unit while it is receiving the benefits of cover, add an additional 1 to any armour saving throw made against that attack."
Don't know if that adds any clarity, but its something...
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I normally stay out of these, but the Drukhari 9th Edition FAQ offers:
"each time a ranged attack is allocated to a model in that unit while it is receiving the benefits of cover, add an additional 1 to any armour saving throw made against that attack."
Don't know if that adds any clarity, but its something...
Cheers
T2B
That doesn't add clarity, all it is is a rule that does nothing (in 8th), same as Shroudpsalm or the Take cover stratagem.
Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.
You know exactly what is meant when they say "armour saving throw".
Stop pretending that you don't.
I genuinely don't. I've looked though the 9th edition core rules, I only see "Save" (page 7, page 18) and "Invulnerable Save" (page 19).
Now, if they FAQ to say that "Save" and "Armour Save" are synonymous? I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But they haven't, so they aren't.
You do, so stop pretending you do not. Maybe you did not look close enough through 9th ed?
1st page of the rules term glossary has the term "Armor Saving throw"
Also the Sv characteristic on the Dataslates say "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives." (Page 13 in 8th ed 40K) Thus Armour Save...
Like I said, I have only read the core rules, the full rulebook isn't for sale yet. If they do define the save characteristic as an "Armour Saving Throw", then I will be happy, it's long past time for it to have been defined as such!
They did in 8th ed, so not quite that long. I do not see why they would take that definition away for 9th ed.
Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.
You know exactly what is meant when they say "armour saving throw".
Stop pretending that you don't.
I genuinely don't. I've looked though the 9th edition core rules, I only see "Save" (page 7, page 18) and "Invulnerable Save" (page 19).
Now, if they FAQ to say that "Save" and "Armour Save" are synonymous? I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But they haven't, so they aren't.
You do, so stop pretending you do not. Maybe you did not look close enough through 9th ed?
1st page of the rules term glossary has the term "Armor Saving throw"
Also the Sv characteristic on the Dataslates say "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives." (Page 13 in 8th ed 40K) Thus Armour Save...
Like I said, I have only read the core rules, the full rulebook isn't for sale yet. If they do define the save characteristic as an "Armour Saving Throw", then I will be happy, it's long past time for it to have been defined as such!
They did in 8th ed, so not quite that long. I do not see why they would take that definition away for 9th ed.
Can you give me a page reference? Not the fluff blurb about the save characteristic representing the armour, but an actual instance of "Armour Save" or "Armour Saving Throw"?
Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.
You know exactly what is meant when they say "armour saving throw".
Stop pretending that you don't.
I genuinely don't. I've looked though the 9th edition core rules, I only see "Save" (page 7, page 18) and "Invulnerable Save" (page 19).
Now, if they FAQ to say that "Save" and "Armour Save" are synonymous? I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But they haven't, so they aren't.
You do, so stop pretending you do not. Maybe you did not look close enough through 9th ed?
1st page of the rules term glossary has the term "Armor Saving throw"
Also the Sv characteristic on the Dataslates say "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives." (Page 13 in 8th ed 40K) Thus Armour Save...
Like I said, I have only read the core rules, the full rulebook isn't for sale yet. If they do define the save characteristic as an "Armour Saving Throw", then I will be happy, it's long past time for it to have been defined as such!
They did in 8th ed, so not quite that long. I do not see why they would take that definition away for 9th ed.
Can you give me a page reference? Not the fluff blurb about the save characteristic representing the armour, but an actual instance of "Armour Save" or "Armour Saving Throw"?
I have already quoted the relevant passage.
8th defines save (Sv) as an armour save. This is not a "fluff blurb" it is a definition (Page 13 btw in case you missed it).
Thus we, and GW can call it an armor save or a save and be correct.
P.S. For 9th 27:50 minute mark has the unboxing and has a page from the "Rules Terms Glossary" that lists the definition for "Armour saving throw". Watch it below:
Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.
You know exactly what is meant when they say "armour saving throw".
Stop pretending that you don't.
I genuinely don't. I've looked though the 9th edition core rules, I only see "Save" (page 7, page 18) and "Invulnerable Save" (page 19).
Now, if they FAQ to say that "Save" and "Armour Save" are synonymous? I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But they haven't, so they aren't.
You do, so stop pretending you do not. Maybe you did not look close enough through 9th ed?
1st page of the rules term glossary has the term "Armor Saving throw"
Also the Sv characteristic on the Dataslates say "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives." (Page 13 in 8th ed 40K) Thus Armour Save...
Like I said, I have only read the core rules, the full rulebook isn't for sale yet. If they do define the save characteristic as an "Armour Saving Throw", then I will be happy, it's long past time for it to have been defined as such!
They did in 8th ed, so not quite that long. I do not see why they would take that definition away for 9th ed.
Can you give me a page reference? Not the fluff blurb about the save characteristic representing the armour, but an actual instance of "Armour Save" or "Armour Saving Throw"?
I have already quoted the relevant passage.
8th defines save (Sv) as an armour save. This is not a "fluff blurb" it is a definition (Page 13 btw in case you missed it).
Thus we, and GW can call it an armor save or a save and be correct.
P.S. For 9th 27:50 minute mark has the unboxing and has a page from the "Rules Terms Glossary" that lists the definition for "Armour saving throw". Watch it below:
Spoiler:
Again, can you show me where the term "Armour Save" or "Armour Saving Throw" exists in the 8th edition rulebook?
Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.
You know exactly what is meant when they say "armour saving throw".
Stop pretending that you don't.
I genuinely don't. I've looked though the 9th edition core rules, I only see "Save" (page 7, page 18) and "Invulnerable Save" (page 19).
Now, if they FAQ to say that "Save" and "Armour Save" are synonymous? I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But they haven't, so they aren't.
You do, so stop pretending you do not. Maybe you did not look close enough through 9th ed?
1st page of the rules term glossary has the term "Armor Saving throw"
Also the Sv characteristic on the Dataslates say "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives." (Page 13 in 8th ed 40K) Thus Armour Save...
Like I said, I have only read the core rules, the full rulebook isn't for sale yet. If they do define the save characteristic as an "Armour Saving Throw", then I will be happy, it's long past time for it to have been defined as such!
They did in 8th ed, so not quite that long. I do not see why they would take that definition away for 9th ed.
Can you give me a page reference? Not the fluff blurb about the save characteristic representing the armour, but an actual instance of "Armour Save" or "Armour Saving Throw"?
I have already quoted the relevant passage.
8th defines save (Sv) as an armour save. This is not a "fluff blurb" it is a definition (Page 13 btw in case you missed it).
Thus we, and GW can call it an armor save or a save and be correct.
P.S. For 9th 27:50 minute mark has the unboxing and has a page from the "Rules Terms Glossary" that lists the definition for "Armour saving throw". Watch it below:
Spoiler:
Again, can you show me where the term "Armour Save" or "Armour Saving Throw" exists in the 8th edition rulebook?
Thank you for the video, I had not seen it.
Do you really credit GW so much to believe they could faq something correctly?
Just like having Terminators in cover now, they don't get a 2+ but an AP-1 weapon firing at them will still only go against their 2+, due to the bonus mitigation from the cover.
Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.
You know exactly what is meant when they say "armour saving throw".
Stop pretending that you don't.
I genuinely don't. I've looked though the 9th edition core rules, I only see "Save" (page 7, page 18) and "Invulnerable Save" (page 19).
Now, if they FAQ to say that "Save" and "Armour Save" are synonymous? I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But they haven't, so they aren't.
You do, so stop pretending you do not. Maybe you did not look close enough through 9th ed?
1st page of the rules term glossary has the term "Armor Saving throw"
Also the Sv characteristic on the Dataslates say "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives." (Page 13 in 8th ed 40K) Thus Armour Save...
Like I said, I have only read the core rules, the full rulebook isn't for sale yet. If they do define the save characteristic as an "Armour Saving Throw", then I will be happy, it's long past time for it to have been defined as such!
They did in 8th ed, so not quite that long. I do not see why they would take that definition away for 9th ed.
Can you give me a page reference? Not the fluff blurb about the save characteristic representing the armour, but an actual instance of "Armour Save" or "Armour Saving Throw"?
I have already quoted the relevant passage.
8th defines save (Sv) as an armour save. This is not a "fluff blurb" it is a definition (Page 13 btw in case you missed it).
Thus we, and GW can call it an armor save or a save and be correct.
P.S. For 9th 27:50 minute mark has the unboxing and has a page from the "Rules Terms Glossary" that lists the definition for "Armour saving throw". Watch it below:
Spoiler:
That rule book isn't out yet. How can you possible say that armor saves are a thing at all.
Currently 9th does not define armor saves anywhere and if you saw it the video you don't know whether or not it will change before release date ? how could you possibly assume anything from such lackluster and unreleased material.
Ridiculous speculation. Why don't you just wait for the book to be released or an FAQ to clarify it @DeathReaper . What a foolish post you have there.
BaconCatBug wrote: Again, can you show me where the term "Armour Save" or "Armour Saving Throw" exists in the 8th edition rulebook?
Thank you for the video, I had not seen it.
I do not need to show you that specific term (you already know they do not specifically say "Armour Save" or "Armour Saving Throw" in 8th), because the definition for Save (Sv) defines Saving throw or (Sv) as an Armour save...
BaconCatBug wrote: Again, can you show me where the term "Armour Save" or "Armour Saving Throw" exists in the 8th edition rulebook?
Thank you for the video, I had not seen it.
I do not need to show you that specific term (you already know they do not specifically say "Armour Save" or "Armour Saving Throw" in 8th), because the definition for Save (Sv) defines Saving throw or (Sv) as an Armour save...
@BCB your right, no such definition exists as of yet.
Slayer6 wrote: It just adds a modicum of bonus AP mitigation.
Just like having Terminators in cover now, they don't get a 2+ but an AP-1 weapon firing at them will still only go against their 2+, due to the bonus mitigation from the cover.
BaconCatBug wrote: Again, can you show me where the term "Armour Save" or "Armour Saving Throw" exists in the 8th edition rulebook?
Thank you for the video, I had not seen it.
I do not need to show you that specific term (you already know they do not specifically say "Armour Save" or "Armour Saving Throw" in 8th), because the definition for Save (Sv) defines Saving throw or (Sv) as an Armour save...
@BCB your right, no such definition exists as of yet.
I know you refuse to accept reason, and have a strange obsession with "context", as if that changes anything, but nowhere on that page does it define the term "Armour Save" or "Armour Saving Roll".
In 8th, it was not defined. In 9th, it seems it's defined in the glossary.
Though at this point it really does look like the start of 9th is going to be a 
