Voss wrote: He's assuming (sight-unseen) that terminators and custodes with storm shields will be given a 1+ save. Unmodified 1s always fail, but modified rolls don't always fail, even if they end up as 1s (assuming they'd succeed on a 1+). He's assuming a corner case without verifying it actually exists.
True, this is all assuming their Storm Shields have the same rule as the other Storm Shield that has been shown. Given it's GW, we shouldn't assume the same wargear has the same rules between units.
I almost expect some drivel about how Cawl specifically designed Gravis armor to draw excess power from storm shield generators to reinforce the armor, and older armors Just Can't Do That. Because primaris, that's why.
BaconCatBug wrote: In short, 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" 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.
I'm not sure I get it.
Is the Storm Shield (in this instance) increasing their save to 1+, or is it adding +1 to the saving throw?
And wouldn't this:
BaconCatBug wrote: My save is 1+, I roll a 2, AP-4 can't lower it below 1, so it is modified to a 1. 1 is not less than the model's Save characteristic, so the save is successful.
...mean that the Terminator (or whatever) is essentially immune to damage. What would kill them (non-standard sources of damage notwithstanding)?
It improves the characteristic by 1. It's not modifying the roll like cover does.
Spoiler:
They aren't immune to damage because an "An unmodified roll of 1 always fails."
BaconCatBug wrote: In short, 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" 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.
I'm not sure I get it.
Is the Storm Shield (in this instance) increasing their save to 1+, or is it adding +1 to the saving throw?
And wouldn't this:
BaconCatBug wrote: My save is 1+, I roll a 2, AP-4 can't lower it below 1, so it is modified to a 1. 1 is not less than the model's Save characteristic, so the save is successful.
...mean that the Terminator (or whatever) is essentially immune to damage. What would kill them (non-standard sources of damage notwithstanding)?
That's whee it falls down for me. The Bastiladon if I remember correctly has/had a 1+ save. It wasn't a modifier. This is a modifier. So you should so AP -1 is +1 and -1 and so the same save. AP -2 is -2 and +1 and so would be an overall -1 to the save.
Oaka wrote: I read it that they have a 2+ save with a +1 modifier that interacts with AP.
You're reading it incorrectly. Separate sections of the rulebook explicitly call out 1+ saves as existing, and improving a 2+ to 1+ with just such an effect.
It alters the underlying characteristic, it isnt a modifier to the saving throw roll (as written).
BaconCatBug wrote: In short, 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" 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.
I'm not sure I get it.
Is the Storm Shield (in this instance) increasing their save to 1+, or is it adding +1 to the saving throw?
And wouldn't this:
BaconCatBug wrote: My save is 1+, I roll a 2, AP-4 can't lower it below 1, so it is modified to a 1. 1 is not less than the model's Save characteristic, so the save is successful.
...mean that the Terminator (or whatever) is essentially immune to damage. What would kill them (non-standard sources of damage notwithstanding)?
A natural roll of 1 on the dice would let the wound go through
Where in the rules does it say that a negative modifier can't reduce the roll to less than 1? It seems that by the base wording of the rule that it can. Although I will agree the rule probably should have said "reduce the save value of the target by X" rather than the dice roll
Considering all of the FAQs are obsolete unless stated otherwise,this seems like a whole lotta hoopla over nothing. Nothing in the NINTH edition rules say that a roll can't be modified below 1.
xeen wrote: Where in the rules does it say that a negative modifier can't reduce the roll to less than 1? It seems that by the base wording of the rule that it can. Although I will agree the rule probably should have said "reduce the save value of the target by X" rather than the dice roll
All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers, and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers. Round any fractions up after applying all modifiers. A dice roll can be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6 roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below 1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: Considering all of the FAQs are obsolete unless stated otherwise,this seems like a whole lotta hoopla over nothing. Nothing in the NINTH edition rules say that a roll can't be modified below 1.
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.
ERJAK wrote: Considering all of the FAQs are obsolete unless stated otherwise,this seems like a whole lotta hoopla over nothing. Nothing in the NINTH edition rules say that a roll can't be modified below 1.
Yes it does. Page 5. "If, after all modifiers have been a applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as 1"
Further, as general rule, a dice roll can be modified above its max, but never below 1.
ERJAK wrote: Considering all of the FAQs are obsolete unless stated otherwise,this seems like a whole lotta hoopla over nothing. Nothing in the NINTH edition rules say that a roll can't be modified below 1.
In the first page is states that the result of a roll can never be modified to be lower than 1.
The fix in this case is easy, they just need to errata the stormshields to improve the armor save ROLL by 1, not the characteristic.
ERJAK wrote: Considering all of the FAQs are obsolete unless stated otherwise,this seems like a whole lotta hoopla over nothing. Nothing in the NINTH edition rules say that a roll can't be modified below 1.
In the first page is states that the result of a roll can never be modified to be lower than 1.
The fix in this case is easy, they just need to errata the stormshields to improve the armor save ROLL by 1, not the characteristic.
xeen wrote: Where in the rules does it say that a negative modifier can't reduce the roll to less than 1? It seems that by the base wording of the rule that it can. Although I will agree the rule probably should have said "reduce the save value of the target by X" rather than the dice roll
All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply
all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers,
and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers.
Round any fractions up after applying all modifiers. A dice roll can
be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6 roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below
1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less
than 1, count that result as a 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: Considering all of the FAQs are obsolete unless stated otherwise,this seems like a whole lotta hoopla over nothing. Nothing in the NINTH edition rules say that a roll can't be modified below 1.
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.
Fair enough. But it's still irrelevant because no one will play it that way. Assault weapons weren't able to shoot after advancing for all of 8th edition and that never stopped anyone. You sure do like to spend a lot of your time on things that don't matter and will never matter.
ERJAK wrote: Fair enough. But it's still irrelevant because no one will play it that way. Assault weapons weren't able to shoot after advancing for all of 8th edition and that never stopped anyone. You sure do like to spend a lot of your time on things that don't matter and will never matter.
Why not? It's literally intended for saves to become 1+ You not liking a rule doesn't change it. And they FAQed it as intended in AOS.
Also they fixed Assault weapons in 9th, so you're welcome for that. If it didn't matter they wouldn't have fixed it!
xeen wrote: Where in the rules does it say that a negative modifier can't reduce the roll to less than 1? It seems that by the base wording of the rule that it can. Although I will agree the rule probably should have said "reduce the save value of the target by X" rather than the dice roll
All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply
all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers,
and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers.
Round any fractions up after applying all modifiers. A dice roll can
be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6 roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below
1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less
than 1, count that result as a 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: Considering all of the FAQs are obsolete unless stated otherwise,this seems like a whole lotta hoopla over nothing. Nothing in the NINTH edition rules say that a roll can't be modified below 1.
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.
Fair enough. But it's still irrelevant because no one will play it that way. Assault weapons weren't able to shoot after advancing for all of 8th edition and that never stopped anyone.
I will not play it RAW in this case, that's for sure, but if an opponent wants to play it like that I will call him all sort of names but still allow him.
GW already decided explicitely that 1+ save works like that and it is intended to work like that.
ERJAK wrote: Considering all of the FAQs are obsolete unless stated otherwise,this seems like a whole lotta hoopla over nothing. Nothing in the NINTH edition rules say that a roll can't be modified below 1.
In the first page is states that the result of a roll can never be modified to be lower than 1.
The fix in this case is easy, they just need to errata the stormshields to improve the armor save ROLL by 1, not the characteristic.
I'm not sure it even needs a fix yet. Keep in mind we'll be using existing codexes and datasheets exactly as is, unless there is a specific FAQ or errata.
Currently Terminators and Custodes have 2+ saves and their stormshields don't modify the save characteristic, but grant a 3++
You don't apply rules from one datasheet to another.
If anything, its a theoretical problem for the next Codex SM and Codex Custodes.
ERJAK wrote: Fair enough. But it's still irrelevant because no one will play it that way. Assault weapons weren't able to shoot after advancing for all of 8th edition and that never stopped anyone.
Why not? It's literally intended for saves to become 1+
You not liking a rule doesn't change it. And they FAQed it as intended in AOS.
It's intended for the save to be 1+, it's not intended for the save to be immune to AP. You spending a bunch of words arguing about semantics isn't going to make people let stormshields give a 2++ any more than it stopped people from using assault weapons after advancing. As usual, you're wasting your time.
Also, you know that bastildon is ALWAYS immune to rend right? Regardless of what it's save is, it has a totally separate rule that makes it immune to rend.
It don't think it's worthwile to discuss fringe cases. They said there will be an appendix with rare and advanced rules and in the unboxing video I could glimpse something about aircraft that is not in the PDF.
xeen wrote: Where in the rules does it say that a negative modifier can't reduce the roll to less than 1? It seems that by the base wording of the rule that it can. Although I will agree the rule probably should have said "reduce the save value of the target by X" rather than the dice roll
All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply
all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers,
and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers.
Round any fractions up after applying all modifiers. A dice roll can
be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6 roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below
1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less
than 1, count that result as a 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: Considering all of the FAQs are obsolete unless stated otherwise,this seems like a whole lotta hoopla over nothing. Nothing in the NINTH edition rules say that a roll can't be modified below 1.
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.
Fair enough. But it's still irrelevant because no one will play it that way. Assault weapons weren't able to shoot after advancing for all of 8th edition and that never stopped anyone. You sure do like to spend a lot of your time on things that don't matter and will never matter.
No plent of Marine players will totally insist that it is ment to work that way, even if they are 20 points each with a Stormshield.
As pointed out though wolfen and a host of other units also become not terminator level issues but certainly next level to kill now with this change.
Custides players will have to join in to compete and everyone else will stop playing untill it gets fixed in 10th edition
Spoletta wrote: I will not play it RAW in this case, that's for sure, but if an opponent wants to play it like that I will call him all sort of names but still allow him.
Dude, even in 8th, 1+ characteristics ignore negative modifiers.
Sorry, but you're just wrong here. You're free to house rule it, but don't expect others to play along with it.
ERJAK wrote: It's intended for the save to be 1+, it's not intended for the save to be immune to AP. You spending a bunch of words arguing about semantics isn't going to make people let stormshields give a 2++ any more than it stopped people from using assault weapons after advancing. As usual, you're wasting your time.
Did you not read the AOSFAQ, it literally says it is intended to be immune to AP.
How does it work when a monster or vehicle -let's say a Sydonian Dragoon for example, wants to charge unit in a ruin 5" from the ground ? I roll charge, end below it at 5" vertically, and then how does it fight ? It can fight as it is within Engagement Range, but if the Dragoon beside it wants to strike too it can't, as my first Dragoon can't be within 1/2" of the target, correct ? Or do we measure from the model itself, even though it has a base ?
Why are you discussing something that we don't even know is a fact? The shields shown don't matter because they're on something with a 3+ to begin with, so it only becomes a 2+.
If models with a 2+ to begin with get a shield that improves their save characterstic by 1 then you can start to have your argument about how stupid GW is (answer: very!).
Guys, it is irrelevant unless they FAQ all the other codexes and datasheets with Storm Shields to work that way.
As for now, that "Primaris" Storm Shield is only relevant to the Bladeguard veterans and the Primaris Lieutenant as the only ones with that version of the Storm Shield.
ERJAK wrote: Fair enough. But it's still irrelevant because no one will play it that way. Assault weapons weren't able to shoot after advancing for all of 8th edition and that never stopped anyone. You sure do like to spend a lot of your time on things that don't matter and will never matter.
Why not? It's literally intended for saves to become 1+ You not liking a rule doesn't change it. And they FAQed it as intended in AOS.
I think I get it now. You can't modify a roll below 1, and modified rolls of 1 always save when you have a 1+ save, so a 1+ save with a -42 AP cannot go beneath 1, therefore any dice roll is modified to 1, and as their save is 1+, it saves. Only a natural 1 would fail, as natural 1's always fail.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why are you discussing something that we don't even know is a fact? The shields shown don't matter because they're on something with a 3+ to begin with, so it only becomes a 2+.
If models with a 2+ to begin with get a shield that improves their save characterstic by 1 then you can start to have your argument about how stupid GW is (answer: very!).
Again, even forgetting Storm Shields, it's doable in the Crusade ruleset and even EXPLICITLY STATED YOU CAN DO IT.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think I get it now. You can't modify a roll below 1, and modified rolls of 1 always save, so a 1+ save with a -42 AP cannot go beneath 1, therefore any dice roll is modified to 1, and as their save is 1+, it saves. Only a natural 1 would fail, as natural 1's always fail.
Thank you for the (expansive) explanation.
I can't tell if that's sarcasm or sincerity, so I'll go all quantum wibbly wobbly assume it's both and neither!
yukishiro1 wrote: Crusade isn't matched play, so I don't think anybody really cares whether you get a 2++ there or not.
You would be very wrong about that. But that's not the issue at hand. Crusade functions within the 9th edition ruleset and explicitly allows a particular circumstance to occur. That circumstance must therefore be resolved within the confines of the ruleset. Therefore, barring any extraneous factor, a 1+ save in Crusade functions identically to a 1+ save in Matched Play.
I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying there is no written rule we have with an example of a model with a 2+ save to begin with getting one of these storm shields. So it's silly to speculate that it will happen. For all we know they'll keep the old 3++ storm shields that don't improve armor save.
The whole thing is built on total speculation. I could say "what if wraith knights in 9th get a 2+ save and then their shield option improves it by 1! wraithtknights would have a 2++!"
If the moon was made out of cheese, it'd be tasty.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying there is no written rule we have with an example of a model with a 2+ save to begin with getting one of these storm shields. So it's silly to speculate that it will happen. For all we know they'll keep the old 3++ storm shields that don't improve armor save.
The whole thing is built on total speculation. I could say "what if wraith knights in 9th get a 2+ save and then their shield option improves it by 1! wraithtknights would have a 2++!"
If the moon was made out of cheese, it'd be tasty.
Again, we're working on what knowledge we have. Why would Terminator or Custodes Storm Shields have different rules to Primaris Storm Shields? It's possible that they might, but for now Halon's Razor suggests that all Storm Shields will have the same rules.
Why wouldn't they? This is GW. They had an assault weapon rule that didn't work for an entire edition. Assuming everything they do is logical and consistent is pretty silly.
How would they even change it, for that matter? There are no indexes being released for 9th. The points updates just update points. There's an index of blast weapons, but no other suggestion that any other rules are being updated at the 9th release. So the earliest they could get the Primaris Storm Shields would be their codex anyway.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying there is no written rule we have with an example of a model with a 2+ save to begin with getting one of these storm shields. So it's silly to speculate that it will happen. For all we know they'll keep the old 3++ storm shields that don't improve armor save.
The whole thing is built on total speculation. I could say "what if wraith knights in 9th get a 2+ save and then their shield option improves it by 1! wraithtknights would have a 2++!"
If the moon was made out of cheese, it'd be tasty.
Again, we're working on what knowledge we have. Why would Terminator or Custodes Storm Shields have different rules to Primaris Storm Shields? It's possible that they might, but for now Halon's Razor suggests that all Storm Shields will have the same rules.
Even if true, this is not the place for your rules arguement.
ERJAK wrote: Fair enough. But it's still irrelevant because no one will play it that way. Assault weapons weren't able to shoot after advancing for all of 8th edition and that never stopped anyone. You sure do like to spend a lot of your time on things that don't matter and will never matter.
Why not? It's literally intended for saves to become 1+
You not liking a rule doesn't change it. And they FAQed it as intended in AOS.
I think I get it now. You can't modify a roll below 1, and modified rolls of 1 always save when you have a 1+ save, so a 1+ save with a -42 AP cannot go beneath 1, therefore any dice roll is modified to 1, and as their save is 1+, it saves. Only a natural 1 would fail, as natural 1's always fail.
Thank you for the (expansive) explanation.
Well, yeah, that's how it worked in WHFB.
In WHFB it was possible to have -1 saves. It didn't make your models immortal, it just gave them extra protection against save modifiers, as you still failed the save on a roll of a 1.
It's not a new mechanic at all, GW is just reusing mechanics from a system they abandoned.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying there is no written rule we have with an example of a model with a 2+ save to begin with getting one of these storm shields. So it's silly to speculate that it will happen. For all we know they'll keep the old 3++ storm shields that don't improve armor save.
The whole thing is built on total speculation. I could say "what if wraith knights in 9th get a 2+ save and then their shield option improves it by 1! wraithtknights would have a 2++!"
If the moon was made out of cheese, it'd be tasty.
A) it isn't 2+ invulnerable. This actually can't happen with invulnerable saves, since AP modifiers can't be applied.
B) there are existing circumstances in the game rules that make this not theoretical- any affect that changes the save characteristic can result in this situation.
BaconCatBug wrote:Again, we're working on what knowledge we have. Why would Terminator or Custodes Storm Shields have different rules to Primaris Storm Shields? It's possible that they might, but for now Halon's Razor suggests that all Storm Shields will have the same rules.
Currently they don't have the same rules. Until they're replaced, the stormshields give a 3++ and nothing else, as written on their datasheet. Existing books and datasheets are still the valid ones.
Now for something really important. My local game store just posted this on Facebook:
If you don't know yet you will very soon. The Indomitus Box which we all have been guessing would be betweet $220 and $300. Is going to be released for ONLY $199.
Does anyone else like the Necron terrain better without the rock/black stone/material covering all the mechanical techmo-metal-necron parts? I'm a bigger fan without the stone faces.
Warning Opinion ahead:
Spoiler:
To be honest, I'm getting really tired of Space Marines getting exceptions to everything. I don't have a problem making them powerful and tough, but it bugs me that they get exemptions from things that don't have exemptions (i.e. Mortal Wounds). "Hey everyone, new wound type that you get no saves against. Well, unless you're space marines, then you do."
I get that they're the protagonists of the saga, so I'd be fine with them getting an edge. The problem is when they make the edge such a slap in the face to everyone else. It causes everything to escalate and ramp up and then the scale of the game, in multiple areas, gets out of whack. Before anyone says, "Yeah, GW has always done that", I know. They've always done a lot of things.
punisher357 wrote: Does anyone else like the Necron terrain better without the rock/black stone/material covering all the mechanical techmo-metal-necron parts? I'm a bigger fan without the stone faces.
Warning Opinion ahead:
Spoiler:
To be honest, I'm getting really tired of Space Marines getting exceptions to everything. I don't have a problem making them powerful and tough, but it bugs me that they get exemptions from things that don't have exemptions (i.e. Mortal Wounds). "Hey everyone, new wound type that you get no saves against. Well, unless you're space marines, then you do."
I get that they're the protagonists of the saga, so I'd be fine with them getting an edge. The problem is when they make the edge such a slap in the face to everyone else. It causes everything to escalate and ramp up and then the scale of the game, in multiple areas, gets out of whack. Before anyone says, "Yeah, GW has always done that", I know. They've always done a lot of things.
Just stating my perspective. *Rant Over*
Opposite, I prefer the two rock covered ones. Might see I can trade the uncovered one for another of the other two.
punisher357 wrote: Does anyone else like the Necron terrain better without the rock/black stone/material covering all the mechanical techmo-metal-necron parts? I'm a bigger fan without the stone faces.
Warning Opinion ahead:
Spoiler:
To be honest, I'm getting really tired of Space Marines getting exceptions to everything. I don't have a problem making them powerful and tough, but it bugs me that they get exemptions from things that don't have exemptions (i.e. Mortal Wounds). "Hey everyone, new wound type that you get no saves against. Well, unless you're space marines, then you do."
I get that they're the protagonists of the saga, so I'd be fine with them getting an edge. The problem is when they make the edge such a slap in the face to everyone else. It causes everything to escalate and ramp up and then the scale of the game, in multiple areas, gets out of whack. Before anyone says, "Yeah, GW has always done that", I know. They've always done a lot of things.
Just stating my perspective. *Rant Over*
Plenty factions have access to special abilities that offer saves against Mortal Wounds. Are you new to 40K ? Have you skipped the whole 8th edition ?
Not Online!!! wrote: No, most tournies give out SEPARATE categories. In general a reward for the best painted army.
Now, you get potential up to 10 pts for painted armies in the OTHER category, aka playing the game.
SO basically the other side is still unafected, whilest the game side suddendly should get affected?
Because out of the 120 players that attended the tournament, about 5 or 6 actually care on best painted trophy, but about 80+ care about winning best general I'd reckon.
I can tell you concretely, this is not true at all.
Not everyone who submits to painting catagories plays in the tourney.
Nor are the events where people go to play in the biggest tournaments the most important places to get a nod for best painting. But GW has been running Golden Demon pretty much nonstop for decades.
Most big tourneys already have a minimum requirement for painted battle ready so I don't get why this is suddenly an issue. This is just codifying it somewhat and smaller tourneys are free to ignore this if they want.
It is also a rule in AoS and AoS players didn't get so salty about this.
because it makes live for WAAC Players who buy the flavour of the week of ebay for Seal Clubbing the local crowed in the FLGS so much harder if they Need to care about the paint Job as well
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule requires the models to be Battle Ready, doesn't that mean if you paint them BETTER than Battle Ready, you'll not have painted them to a Battle Ready standard and lose the points?
Yes.
You guys are just the silliest people on the planet.
Alex Fennel once told Cruddace that his interpretation of the rules was wrong. You know, the guy who literally wrote the rules. People will, especially in tournaments, rules lawyer the feth out of rules.
BaconCatBug wrote: If the rule requires the models to be Battle Ready, doesn't that mean if you paint them BETTER than Battle Ready, you'll not have painted them to a Battle Ready standard and lose the points?
Yes.
You guys are just the silliest people on the planet.
Just grab the popcorn and enjoy the show.
This phase is always good for a fireworks show with every new edition. Six months from now, all the stuff people are losing their minds over will be forgotten, and new (potentially legitimate) issues will have taken their place.
But this particular show might be the all-time best. It's been fun to watch. Some of the tears are just delicious.
Wow, you're just kind of a gak aren't you?
ClockworkZion wrote: Looks like GW is on full damage control this morning and have released the free core rules.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying there is no written rule we have with an example of a model with a 2+ save to begin with getting one of these storm shields. So it's silly to speculate that it will happen. For all we know they'll keep the old 3++ storm shields that don't improve armor save.
The whole thing is built on total speculation. I could say "what if wraith knights in 9th get a 2+ save and then their shield option improves it by 1! wraithtknights would have a 2++!"
If the moon was made out of cheese, it'd be tasty.
Again, we're working on what knowledge we have. Why would Terminator or Custodes Storm Shields have different rules to Primaris Storm Shields? It's possible that they might, but for now Halon's Razor suggests that all Storm Shields will have the same rules.
Its just as likely that Primaris Storm Shields will be different from Terminator or Custodes Storm Shields for the same reason Asartes Chainswords will be different from all other Chainswords.
We will have to see what GW does in the future. They haven't opened this can of worms yet.
Ghaz wrote: Now for something really important. My local game store just posted this on Facebook:
If you don't know yet you will very soon. The Indomitus Box which we all have been guessing would be betweet $220 and $300. Is going to be released for ONLY $199.
Ghaz wrote: Now for something really important. My local game store just posted this on Facebook:
If you don't know yet you will very soon. The Indomitus Box which we all have been guessing would be betweet $220 and $300. Is going to be released for ONLY $199.
punisher357 wrote: Does anyone else like the Necron terrain better without the rock/black stone/material covering all the mechanical techmo-metal-necron parts? I'm a bigger fan without the stone faces.
Warning Opinion ahead:
Spoiler:
To be honest, I'm getting really tired of Space Marines getting exceptions to everything. I don't have a problem making them powerful and tough, but it bugs me that they get exemptions from things that don't have exemptions (i.e. Mortal Wounds). "Hey everyone, new wound type that you get no saves against. Well, unless you're space marines, then you do."
I get that they're the protagonists of the saga, so I'd be fine with them getting an edge. The problem is when they make the edge such a slap in the face to everyone else. It causes everything to escalate and ramp up and then the scale of the game, in multiple areas, gets out of whack. Before anyone says, "Yeah, GW has always done that", I know. They've always done a lot of things.
Just stating my perspective. *Rant Over*
Plenty factions have access to special abilities that offer saves against Mortal Wounds. Are you new to 40K ? Have you skipped the whole 8th edition ?
Only Marines can drop on Turn 1.
Only Marines can reroll all hits, not just 1's.
Only Marines can block deepstrike units from being able to drop within charge range.
There are plenty of cases where Marines straight up ignore the game just because they can.
punisher357 wrote: Does anyone else like the Necron terrain better without the rock/black stone/material covering all the mechanical techmo-metal-necron parts? I'm a bigger fan without the stone faces.
Warning Opinion ahead:
Spoiler:
To be honest, I'm getting really tired of Space Marines getting exceptions to everything. I don't have a problem making them powerful and tough, but it bugs me that they get exemptions from things that don't have exemptions (i.e. Mortal Wounds). "Hey everyone, new wound type that you get no saves against. Well, unless you're space marines, then you do."
I get that they're the protagonists of the saga, so I'd be fine with them getting an edge. The problem is when they make the edge such a slap in the face to everyone else. It causes everything to escalate and ramp up and then the scale of the game, in multiple areas, gets out of whack. Before anyone says, "Yeah, GW has always done that", I know. They've always done a lot of things.
Just stating my perspective. *Rant Over*
Plenty factions have access to special abilities that offer saves against Mortal Wounds. Are you new to 40K ? Have you skipped the whole 8th edition ?
Only Marines can drop on Turn 1.
Only Marines can reroll all hits, not just 1's.
Only Marines can block deepstrike units from being able to drop within charge range.
There are plenty of cases where Marines straight up ignore the game just because they can.
Just to contradict you, but Tyranids too reroll all hits and not only misses
punisher357 wrote: Does anyone else like the Necron terrain better without the rock/black stone/material covering all the mechanical techmo-metal-necron parts? I'm a bigger fan without the stone faces.
Warning Opinion ahead:
Spoiler:
To be honest, I'm getting really tired of Space Marines getting exceptions to everything. I don't have a problem making them powerful and tough, but it bugs me that they get exemptions from things that don't have exemptions (i.e. Mortal Wounds). "Hey everyone, new wound type that you get no saves against. Well, unless you're space marines, then you do."
I get that they're the protagonists of the saga, so I'd be fine with them getting an edge. The problem is when they make the edge such a slap in the face to everyone else. It causes everything to escalate and ramp up and then the scale of the game, in multiple areas, gets out of whack. Before anyone says, "Yeah, GW has always done that", I know. They've always done a lot of things.
Just stating my perspective. *Rant Over*
Plenty factions have access to special abilities that offer saves against Mortal Wounds. Are you new to 40K ? Have you skipped the whole 8th edition ?
Only Marines can drop on Turn 1.
Only Marines can reroll all hits, not just 1's.
Only Marines can block deepstrike units from being able to drop within charge range.
There are plenty of cases where Marines straight up ignore the game just because they can.
Also most of those other factions don't have wargear that juts flat up gives you a save against any MW.
Ghaz wrote: Now for something really important. My local game store just posted this on Facebook:
If you don't know yet you will very soon. The Indomitus Box which we all have been guessing would be betweet $220 and $300. Is going to be released for ONLY $199.
Predictions went as high as $350. Heck, I was looking at setting aside $400USD just to make sure I had the money for one.
$200 a ~$60 rulebook and a pile of models isn't bad for GW.
punisher357 wrote: Does anyone else like the Necron terrain better without the rock/black stone/material covering all the mechanical techmo-metal-necron parts? I'm a bigger fan without the stone faces.
Warning Opinion ahead:
Spoiler:
To be honest, I'm getting really tired of Space Marines getting exceptions to everything. I don't have a problem making them powerful and tough, but it bugs me that they get exemptions from things that don't have exemptions (i.e. Mortal Wounds). "Hey everyone, new wound type that you get no saves against. Well, unless you're space marines, then you do."
I get that they're the protagonists of the saga, so I'd be fine with them getting an edge. The problem is when they make the edge such a slap in the face to everyone else. It causes everything to escalate and ramp up and then the scale of the game, in multiple areas, gets out of whack. Before anyone says, "Yeah, GW has always done that", I know. They've always done a lot of things.
Just stating my perspective. *Rant Over*
Plenty factions have access to special abilities that offer saves against Mortal Wounds. Are you new to 40K ? Have you skipped the whole 8th edition ?
Only Marines can drop on Turn 1.
Only Marines can reroll all hits, not just 1's.
Only Marines can block deepstrike units from being able to drop within charge range.
There are plenty of cases where Marines straight up ignore the game just because they can.
Just to contradict you, but Tyranids too reroll all hits and not only misses
Voss wrote: Currently they don't have the same rules.
Pretty sure BCB is aware of that, but it's not unreasonable to assume that Storm Shields overall will change to what we've seen in these previews.
Plus he was more explaining the mechanic of how 1+ works in this system.
I get the latter, but precedent in 40K is that stormshields actually do have different rules in the same edition, and we also know that 9th is using existing datasheets until new codexes happen.
And part of his explanation included AoS, where shields are a huge tangle of different piles of rules.
Crusade is in the core rules. As is open war. The only thing that might not be is the tournament rules, but those are likely matched play rules as well.
Honestly, the endless back and forth topics on here drive me insane sometimes...reading through the paint for 10pts whinefest for pages, and now the stormshield gak...
BUT...... I will give BCB this, if enough "noise" is made about this now, it is possible that someone from the dubs might see it and make a quick change to the day 1 FAQ to address it. One can only hope, because it can be tiresome to read through at times.
Ghaz wrote: Now for something really important. My local game store just posted this on Facebook:
If you don't know yet you will very soon. The Indomitus Box which we all have been guessing would be betweet $220 and $300. Is going to be released for ONLY $199.
my FLGS just told me that they still got no inormation on the price
The open war is the cards. Not sure what the crusade pack is, it's probably stupid themed cards and that silly "crusade log" they previewed and that sort of thing.
The only rulebooks on that list are the rulebook and the 2020 tournaments book (which includes the points updates).
So yeah, you're looking at $105 for the new 9th rules in their entirety.
Crusade is in the core rules. As is open war. The only thing that might not be is the tournament rules, but those are likely matched play rules as well.
It'll be the "not leather" leather book for your crusade roaster
Cool. The new paints are Runelord Brass Base (current version is a Layer paint), Canoptek Alloy Layer, Cryptek Armourshade Shade and Tesseract Glow Technical.
Also I'm pretty sure the crusade thing is this thing. If it's more than that then fine, but this seems like the type of thing that wouldn't be that useful.
Voss wrote: I get the latter, but precedent in 40K is that stormshields actually do have different rules in the same edition, and we also know that 9th is using existing datasheets until new codexes happen.
And part of his explanation included AoS, where shields are a huge tangle of different piles of rules.
I think it'll be a case of gradual revision.
Marines are first cab off the rank, right, so they'll get a new set of Storm Shield rules (assume it's the ones we've seen previewed/leaked). Custodes on the other hand will keep what they have now, until their new book gets done.
Of course, they may just errata the whole lot in the big Day 1 FAQ, so who knows?
General Kroll wrote: How much does $199 translate to in pounds with GW normally?
I flicked through the UK and US sites. Best I could find was the now unavailable Skaven Corrupting war swarm box set. That was $200 and £120. I'm crossing my fingers that's the price point.
I'm open to correction if anyone has better info.
Also I'm pretty sure the crusade thing is this thing. If it's more than that then fine, but this seems like the type of thing that wouldn't be that useful.
Voss wrote: I get the latter, but precedent in 40K is that stormshields actually do have different rules in the same edition, and we also know that 9th is using existing datasheets until new codexes happen.
And part of his explanation included AoS, where shields are a huge tangle of different piles of rules.
I think it'll be a case of gradual revision.
Marines are first cab off the rank, right, so they'll get a new set of Storm Shield rules (assume it's the ones we've seen previewed/leaked). Custodes on the other hand will keep what they have now, until their new book gets done.
Of course, they may just errata the whole lot in the big Day 1 FAQ, so who knows?
And Spacemarines Turn 9th into the new 7th edition with instead of invisibility we have 2++, invulnerable save spam, DA players your time has come to be the new Ironhands.
Also I'm pretty sure the crusade thing is this thing. If it's more than that then fine, but this seems like the type of thing that wouldn't be that useful.
Voss wrote: I get the latter, but precedent in 40K is that stormshields actually do have different rules in the same edition, and we also know that 9th is using existing datasheets until new codexes happen.
And part of his explanation included AoS, where shields are a huge tangle of different piles of rules.
I think it'll be a case of gradual revision.
Marines are first cab off the rank, right, so they'll get a new set of Storm Shield rules (assume it's the ones we've seen previewed/leaked). Custodes on the other hand will keep what they have now, until their new book gets done.
Of course, they may just errata the whole lot in the big Day 1 FAQ, so who knows?
And Spacemarines Turn 9th into the new 7th edition with instead of invisibility we have 2++, invulnerable save spam, DA players your time has come to be the new Ironhands.
The shield modifies your save characteristic, not your invul save. So they'd have a 1+ in Terminator armour.
Also I'm pretty sure the crusade thing is this thing. If it's more than that then fine, but this seems like the type of thing that wouldn't be that useful.
Voss wrote: I get the latter, but precedent in 40K is that stormshields actually do have different rules in the same edition, and we also know that 9th is using existing datasheets until new codexes happen.
And part of his explanation included AoS, where shields are a huge tangle of different piles of rules.
I think it'll be a case of gradual revision.
Marines are first cab off the rank, right, so they'll get a new set of Storm Shield rules (assume it's the ones we've seen previewed/leaked). Custodes on the other hand will keep what they have now, until their new book gets done.
Of course, they may just errata the whole lot in the big Day 1 FAQ, so who knows?
And Spacemarines Turn 9th into the new 7th edition with instead of invisibility we have 2++, invulnerable save spam, DA players your time has come to be the new Ironhands.
The shield modifies your save characteristic, not your invul save. So they'd have a 1+ in Terminator armour.
And as you can never modify a due to less than 1 they pass on anything but a natural 1.
Aaranis wrote: How does it work when a monster or vehicle -let's say a Sydonian Dragoon for example, wants to charge unit in a ruin 5" from the ground ? I roll charge, end below it at 5" vertically, and then how does it fight ? It can fight as it is within Engagement Range, but if the Dragoon beside it wants to strike too it can't, as my first Dragoon can't be within 1/2" of the target, correct ? Or do we measure from the model itself, even though it has a base ?
I'm confused about this rule.
Yes being within a half inch of a half inch doesn't work vertically.
It intentionally favours taking small or solo units (like most of 9th) that can get all their models within engagement range of 1" H 5" V. Its better than 8th as at least one model gets to swing!
Its actually quite interesting, imagine a four walled ruined building (lots of doors in it) with a roof 4" up. Two scenarios:
Scenario 1: You have a squad of 20 Ork boys on the ground floor of the building. The enemy can't move anything on to the roof because they would end their move in engagement range.
Scenario 2: You have a squad of 20 Ork boys on the roof. The enemy can fight you with their own 20 Ork boys if they are on the ground floor.
It is also interesting from a charge perspective, as you don't have to measure the vertical difference just measure the horizontal and make sure you are within 5" on the vertical. e.g. If someone was standing at the edge of a container that was 3" high and was 7.1" away from that edge, I would only need to roll a 7 for my charge to land. Pretty sure I'd have needed a 10 or 11 (given I need room on the top of the container) in 8th.
I think you could have some very fun vertical terrain based fights now.
Also I'm pretty sure the crusade thing is this thing. If it's more than that then fine, but this seems like the type of thing that wouldn't be that useful.
Voss wrote: I get the latter, but precedent in 40K is that stormshields actually do have different rules in the same edition, and we also know that 9th is using existing datasheets until new codexes happen.
And part of his explanation included AoS, where shields are a huge tangle of different piles of rules.
I think it'll be a case of gradual revision.
Marines are first cab off the rank, right, so they'll get a new set of Storm Shield rules (assume it's the ones we've seen previewed/leaked). Custodes on the other hand will keep what they have now, until their new book gets done.
Of course, they may just errata the whole lot in the big Day 1 FAQ, so who knows?
And Spacemarines Turn 9th into the new 7th edition with instead of invisibility we have 2++, invulnerable save spam, DA players your time has come to be the new Ironhands.
The shield modifies your save characteristic, not your invul save. So they'd have a 1+ in Terminator armour.
And as you can never modify a due to less than 1 they pass on anything but a natural 1.
I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.
Do you not know how AP works? AP doesn't modify any characteristics, it modifies rolls.
9th ed rules wrote: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
It's never worked by "increasing its target number", even in 8th edition.
Aaranis wrote: How does it work when a monster or vehicle -let's say a Sydonian Dragoon for example, wants to charge unit in a ruin 5" from the ground ? I roll charge, end below it at 5" vertically, and then how does it fight ? It can fight as it is within Engagement Range, but if the Dragoon beside it wants to strike too it can't, as my first Dragoon can't be within 1/2" of the target, correct ? Or do we measure from the model itself, even though it has a base ?
I'm confused about this rule.
Yes being within a half inch of a half inch doesn't work vertically.
To engage in melee you need to either be in engagement range (1" horizontally, 5" vertically) or 1/2" of someone who is in engagement range. It works fine for units of multiple sizes.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.
Do you not know how AP works? AP doesn't modify any characteristics, it modifies rolls.
Point stands, 40k doesn't have a way to prevent AP from modifying a 1+ save roll. Effectively you have a 2+ save (because unmodified 1s always fail) that ignores the first -1.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.
Do you not know how AP works? AP doesn't modify any characteristics, it modifies rolls.
Point stands, 40k doesn't have a way to prevent AP from modifying a 1+ save roll. Effectively you have a 2+ save (because unmodified 1s always fail) that ignores the first -1.
With the rules as they are right now, that's not how it works.
A 1+ save only ever fails on a natural 1. Since anything modified below a 1 becomes 1.
Now, since GW explicitly allows for 1+ saves (see the Crusade reward, I believe) they've HOPEFULLY fixed that, and made it work how you say. But that's not how it works right now.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.
Do you not know how AP works? AP doesn't modify any characteristics, it modifies rolls.
Point stands, 40k doesn't have a way to prevent AP from modifying a 1+ save roll. Effectively you have a 2+ save (because unmodified 1s always fail) that ignores the first -1.
here are the possible rolls against a shot with AP -10:
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.
Do you not know how AP works? AP doesn't modify any characteristics, it modifies rolls.
Point stands, 40k doesn't have a way to prevent AP from modifying a 1+ save roll. Effectively you have a 2+ save (because unmodified 1s always fail) that ignores the first -1.
With the rules as they are right now, that's not how it works.
A 1+ save only ever fails on a natural 1. Since anything modified below a 1 becomes 1.
Now, since GW explicitly allows for 1+ saves (see the Crusade reward, I believe) they've HOPEFULLY fixed that, and made it work how you say. But that's not how it works right now.
I feel like this is one of those RAW arguments that either has an answer in the back of the book, or will get a Day One FAQ that says to treat any AP that takes a roll below a 1 as a 1.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.
Do you not know how AP works? AP doesn't modify any characteristics, it modifies rolls.
Point stands, 40k doesn't have a way to prevent AP from modifying a 1+ save roll. Effectively you have a 2+ save (because unmodified 1s always fail) that ignores the first -1.
here are the possible rolls against a shot with AP -10:
The drip feed of rules was fun, but I am glad that they pushed out the Core Rules after the mass leak yesterday (shenanigans). About the best response that they could have made and now we get to get some games in ourselves. It also cuts through the speculation and wish-listing that was fueling angst in some quarters.
That, combined with the suspected price point for the box make me a happy gamer (since I have pre-preordered it at my FLGS). This is assuming that we still use money in late July 2020.
I guess we can now follow along with the Saturday live stream of a full game.
xeen wrote: Where in the rules does it say that a negative modifier can't reduce the roll to less than 1? It seems that by the base wording of the rule that it can. Although I will agree the rule probably should have said "reduce the save value of the target by X" rather than the dice roll
All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply
all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers,
and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers.
Round any fractions up after applying all modifiers. A dice roll can
be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6 roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below
1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less
than 1, count that result as a 1.
IanVanCheese wrote: Does anyone else like the Necron terrain better without the rock/black stone/material covering all the mechanical techmo-metal-necron parts? I'm a bigger fan without the stone faces.
Opposite, I prefer the two rock covered ones. Might see I can trade the uncovered one for another of the other two.
Hope I got the quoted person right.
I BELIEVE that these monoliths will be one per box. They come in the stripped-down form, with a few "rock plates" to attach if you'd rathe rthem be partially, or fully, covered. This is GW showing you all three options with trhee models, but at the size each one is, I'd lay good odds that they're sold 1 per box.
Never mind, found the "can't modify below a 1" thing. I have a feeling there is answer for this that isn't stupid as hell, but I'll wait and see instead of arguing about it here. Regardless of RAW I know how I'll play it RAI if they apply this change to things with a 2+.
EDIT: And no, it's not the same as a bloody 2++ since this is likely something they have a fix for.
Show me the rule that says a die roll can't be modified below a 1.
It has already been shown like 10 times while you were saying people should stop arguing about it for pages while you were arguing about paint....
This thread is a comedy
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.
Do you not know how AP works? AP doesn't modify any characteristics, it modifies rolls.
Point stands, 40k doesn't have a way to prevent AP from modifying a 1+ save roll. Effectively you have a 2+ save (because unmodified 1s always fail) that ignores the first -1.
as it is written in the rules for is:
you need to roll a 1+ on a D6 AP modifies the rolled number
a number modified below 1 is one instead
if the modified rolled number is equal or higher the save, it passed
1+ save. need to roll a 1+
you roll a 3 with AP4 wich is -1 but get changed into 1 as the final modified result
1 is equal the needed save
if your save is 2+ it works the same, but as all negative results (rolled 3 with AP4) which turn into a modified 1 are below 2, it fails
ClockworkZion wrote: Never mind, found the "can't modify below a 1" thing. I have a feeling there is answer for this that isn't stupid as hell, but I'll wait and see instead of arguing about it here. Regardless of RAW I know how I'll play it RAI if they apply this change to things with a 2+.
so whats the RAI? Theres precedent from GW that says thats how its supposed to be played, heck theres already a 2++ in the game RIGHT NOW.
BaconCatBug wrote: I don't like that change, it seems counter-intuitive and causes weird edge cases with 25mm bases.
It kills the arguement that rebasing off 25mm hurts your army, so I'm all for it.
It also hugely nerfs units of more than 10, or charging multiple units into a single target. You may be fine with that too - the people who made 9th edition certainly seem fine with making big units bad, since almost every change they've made has done it - but it's a big part of the change. The main effect is to make it much harder to get models into fighting range.
ClockworkZion wrote: Never mind, found the "can't modify below a 1" thing. I have a feeling there is answer for this that isn't stupid as hell, but I'll wait and see instead of arguing about it here. Regardless of RAW I know how I'll play it RAI if they apply this change to things with a 2+.
so whats the RAI?
That you'll fail on modified 1s.
GW wouldn't intentionally give us unkillable Marines. Accidentally sure, but I can't see that being the intent.
BaconCatBug wrote: I don't like that change, it seems counter-intuitive and causes weird edge cases with 25mm bases.
It kills the arguement that rebasing off 25mm hurts your army, so I'm all for it.
It also hugely nerfs units of more than 10, or charging multiple units into a single target. You may be fine with that too - the people who made 9th edition certainly seem fine with making big units bad, since almost every change they've made has done it - but it's a big part of the change. The main effect is to make it much harder to get models into fighting range.
Yeah, hordes will be pretty much unusable in 9th with all the nerfs they received.
And by hordes i mean any squad that has more than 5 models in them.
ClockworkZion wrote: Never mind, found the "can't modify below a 1" thing. I have a feeling there is answer for this that isn't stupid as hell, but I'll wait and see instead of arguing about it here. Regardless of RAW I know how I'll play it RAI if they apply this change to things with a 2+.
so whats the RAI?
That you'll fail on modified 1s.
GW wouldn't intentionally give us unkillable Marines. Accidentally sure, but I can't see that being the intent.
Theyre not unkillable tho. and as i edited in my comment, theres precedent for a legit 2++ in 8th
BaconCatBug wrote: I don't like that change, it seems counter-intuitive and causes weird edge cases with 25mm bases.
It kills the arguement that rebasing off 25mm hurts your army, so I'm all for it.
It also hugely nerfs units of more than 10, or charging multiple units into a single target. You may be fine with that too - the people who made 9th edition certainly seem fine with making big units bad, since almost every change they've made has done it - but it's a big part of the change. The main effect is to make it much harder to get models into fighting range.
I disagree since with objectives being the primary means of scoring you'll have to spread out, which makes it easier to hit units with charges and get more models into combat.
Everyone is saying 9th is the death of hordes, I'd argue it's the death of the castle build. Move on to bunkers of power pairs perhaps, but not full blown armies huddled around a character or two past turn 1.
ClockworkZion wrote: Show me the rule that says a die roll can't be modified below a 1.
From Page 5 of the free rules preview:
"In order to fight a battle, you will require some six-sided dice (often
abbreviated to D6). Some rules refer to 2D6, 3D6 and so on – in
such cases, roll that many D6s and add the dice results together.
If a rule requires you to roll a D3, roll a D6 and halve the value
shown on the dice to get the dice result (rounding fractions up).
If a rule requires a D6 roll of, for example, 3 or more, this is often
abbreviated to 3+.
All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply
all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers,
and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers.
Round any fractions up after applying all modifiers. A dice roll can
be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6 roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below
1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less
than 1, count that result as a 1.
* D6 = A six-sided dice.
* D3 = D6 divided by 2 (rounding up).
* All modifiers cumulative.
* Apply modifiers in the following order: division,
multiplication, addition, then subtraction.
* Round fractions up after all modifiers have been applied.
* Dice roll cannot be modified to less than 1."
Please read and understand the rules before debating them.
ClockworkZion wrote: Never mind, found the "can't modify below a 1" thing. I have a feeling there is answer for this that isn't stupid as hell, but I'll wait and see instead of arguing about it here. Regardless of RAW I know how I'll play it RAI if they apply this change to things with a 2+.
so whats the RAI?
That you'll fail on modified 1s.
GW wouldn't intentionally give us unkillable Marines. Accidentally sure, but I can't see that being the intent.
They know this as they did the same thing in 8th and had to FAQ it.
Doing it now for marines seems intentional or They realy are going to go mental and have items of wargear with the same name and different rules. Thats not going to cause issues at all
At this point who ever is responsible for Marines/Primaris should be taken to a see saw and have balance explained to them as they clearly don't understand it.
ClockworkZion wrote: Show me the rule that says a die roll can't be modified below a 1.
From Page 5 of the free rules preview:
"In order to fight a battle, you will require some six-sided dice (often
abbreviated to D6). Some rules refer to 2D6, 3D6 and so on – in
such cases, roll that many D6s and add the dice results together.
If a rule requires you to roll a D3, roll a D6 and halve the value
shown on the dice to get the dice result (rounding fractions up).
If a rule requires a D6 roll of, for example, 3 or more, this is often
abbreviated to 3+.
All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply
all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers,
and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers.
Round any fractions up after applying all modifiers. A dice roll can
be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6 roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below
1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less
than 1, count that result as a 1.
* D6 = A six-sided dice.
* D3 = D6 divided by 2 (rounding up).
* All modifiers cumulative.
* Apply modifiers in the following order: division,
multiplication, addition, then subtraction.
* Round fractions up after all modifiers have been applied.
* Dice roll cannot be modified to less than 1."
Please read and understand the rules before debating them.
BaconCatBug wrote: I don't like that change, it seems counter-intuitive and causes weird edge cases with 25mm bases.
It kills the arguement that rebasing off 25mm hurts your army, so I'm all for it.
It also hugely nerfs units of more than 10, or charging multiple units into a single target. You may be fine with that too - the people who made 9th edition certainly seem fine with making big units bad, since almost every change they've made has done it - but it's a big part of the change. The main effect is to make it much harder to get models into fighting range.
I disagree since with objectives being the primary means of scoring you'll have to spread out, which makes it easier to hit units with charges and get more models into combat.
You can disagree all you want, the effect of moving to 1/2" of 1/2" instead of 1" of 1" is to make it harder to get models into combat, especially when it's also combined with coherency going to 2" of 2 models for 6+ model units. That's just geometry.
yukishiro1 wrote: I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying there is no written rule we have with an example of a model with a 2+ save to begin with getting one of these storm shields. So it's silly to speculate that it will happen. For all we know they'll keep the old 3++ storm shields that don't improve armor save.
The whole thing is built on total speculation. I could say "what if wraith knights in 9th get a 2+ save and then their shield option improves it by 1! wraithtknights would have a 2++!"
If the moon was made out of cheese, it'd be tasty.
Again, we're working on what knowledge we have. Why would Terminator or Custodes Storm Shields have different rules to Primaris Storm Shields? It's possible that they might, but for now Halon's Razor suggests that all Storm Shields will have the same rules.
Its just as likely that Primaris Storm Shields will be different from Terminator or Custodes Storm Shields for the same reason Asartes Chainswords will be different from all other Chainswords.
We will have to see what GW does in the future. They haven't opened this can of worms yet.
Whole point of bespoke rules is same stuff works differently. Imperium has 2 differently working meltaguns, orks 2 differently working kff etc
BaconCatBug wrote: I don't like that change, it seems counter-intuitive and causes weird edge cases with 25mm bases.
It kills the arguement that rebasing off 25mm hurts your army, so I'm all for it.
It also hugely nerfs units of more than 10, or charging multiple units into a single target. You may be fine with that too - the people who made 9th edition certainly seem fine with making big units bad, since almost every change they've made has done it - but it's a big part of the change. The main effect is to make it much harder to get models into fighting range.
I disagree since with objectives being the primary means of scoring you'll have to spread out, which makes it easier to hit units with charges and get more models into combat.
You can disagree all you want, the effect of moving to 1/2" of 1/2" instead of 1" of 1" is to make it harder to get models into combat, especially when it's also combined with coherency going to 2" of 2 models for 6+ model units. That's just geometry.
You can argue anything you want in a vaccuum and claim anything you want, but until people are sitting down and actually playing the game those claims as no actual backing to them.
ClockworkZion wrote: Never mind, found the "can't modify below a 1" thing. I have a feeling there is answer for this that isn't stupid as hell, but I'll wait and see instead of arguing about it here. Regardless of RAW I know how I'll play it RAI if they apply this change to things with a 2+.
so whats the RAI?
That you'll fail on modified 1s.
GW wouldn't intentionally give us unkillable Marines. Accidentally sure, but I can't see that being the intent.
Except AP is explicitly referred to as modifying the saving throw roll.
The result has to be _less_ than the Save characteristic.
_Unmodified_ rolls always fail
Crusade rules _explicitly_ say save characteristics can be changed to 1+ (and before any 'buts,' there is also a sidebar about modifying characteristics, and there isn't any exception for saves)
For the RAI to be different, they'd have to do a public mea culpa and revision saying that wasn't what they meant by writing it down the way they did.
You might as well argue that pistol rules don't really mean they can shoot while in engagement range.
-- Now at the moment, storm shield terminators still have a 2+ save (and 3++), and not a 1+. So outside of crusade... well there may be unit abilities, strats or psychic powers that modify the save characteristic directly. Any are valid.
You can argue anything you want in a vaccuum and claim anything you want, but until people are sitting down and actually playing the game those claims as no actual backing to them.
The conversation was specifically about going from 1" of 1" to 1/2" of 1/2". There's no arguing that this makes it harder to get models into combat. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of geometry. It's not subject to argument, any more than 2+2=4 is subject to argument.
If your point is other things in the rules will make up for it you're welcome to have that opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that going to 1/2" of 1/2" makes it significantly harder to get models into combat range.
You're sure one to talk missing that the exact rule was a) in the rules preview and b) posted on multiple previous pages...
But hey, you won't play by the rules anyway so why even read the book amirite?
Easy there Dudley Doo Right, no need to get your Mounties in a twist.
GW has said there is an appendix in the book that covers some weird situations that could cover this. Alternatively, we could find out that there is no way to modifiy a save to a 1+ back there, or they may FAQ it so Custodes Storm shields (tm) and Terminator Storm shields (tm) work differently.
Too many assumptions are being made again. And when the RAW is that stupid, I'd rather play RAI which won't make nigh-unkillable Marines.
You can argue anything you want in a vaccuum and claim anything you want, but until people are sitting down and actually playing the game those claims as no actual backing to them.
The conversation was specifically about going from 1" of 1" to 1/2" of 1/2". There's no arguing that this makes it harder to get models into combat.
If your point is other things in the rules will make up for it you're welcome to have that opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that going to 1/2" of 1/2" makes it significantly harder to get models into combat range.
The front rank only has to be in 1" or 5", the second rank only has to be in 1/2" of that. The only thing that changed is how far back the second rank can be. And frankly I prefer this change because it means Ork players can stop crying about 32mm bases nerfing their melee since it'll give them the same number of units in combat as the 25mm bases.
And with GW largely moving away from 25mm bases (the only ones legitimately affected by this since they could squeeze extra ranks in) I'm fine with the change.
It also hugely nerfs units of more than 10, or charging multiple units into a single target. You may be fine with that too - the people who made 9th edition certainly seem fine with making big units bad, since almost every change they've made has done it - but it's a big part of the change. The main effect is to make it much harder to get models into fighting range.
yeah and silly me got excited when i first heard of "engagement range" as i stupidly though they would EXTEND the range that units would be able to fight... you know cause they said hordes still have a place in 40k and the 1" requirement was holding hordes back in CC (especially against small units) for ages now.
It also hugely nerfs units of more than 10, or charging multiple units into a single target. You may be fine with that too - the people who made 9th edition certainly seem fine with making big units bad, since almost every change they've made has done it - but it's a big part of the change. The main effect is to make it much harder to get models into fighting range.
yeah and silly me got excited when i first heard of "engagement range" as i stupidly though they would EXTEND the range that units would be able to fight... you know cause they said hordes still have a place in 40k and the 1" requirement was holding hordes back in CC (especially against small units) for ages now.
And then they reduced the range by half
They only reduced the range of the SECOND RANK by half.
Christ, any people say I'm not reading the rules.
GW can still throw a curveball in the FAQs by giving units bonus attacks for large numbers, like how AoS does. And if they don't, then I recommend giving them player feedback via the 40kFAQ email letting them know that they should and why. I know I will.
The front rank only has to be in 1" or 5", the second rank only has to be in 1/2" of that. The only thing that changed is how far back the second rank can be.
Wrong. It's either 1", or 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2". Not 1" or 1/2" of 1". If the first rank isn't within 1/2" the second rank doesn't get to fight at all.
Please read the rule before giving your take on it. It doesn't make your take more convincing when you don't even bother to read the rule.
The front rank only has to be in 1" or 5", the second rank only has to be in 1/2" of that. The only thing that changed is how far back the second rank can be.
Wrong. It's either 1", or 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2". Not 1" or 1/2" of 1". If the first rank isn't within 1/2" the second rank doesn't get to fight at all.
Please read the rule before giving your take on it. It doesn't make your take more convincing when you don't even bother to read the rule.
Probably because I was up until 2am reading through the rules and got caught up in that crap about the saves thing.
Alright, I went and looked since no one bothered to POST THE RULES to back up their claims:
When a unit makes close combat attacks, only the models in that
unit that are either within Engagement Range (pg 4) of an enemy
unit, or that are within ½" of another model from their own unit
that is itself within ½" of an enemy unit, can fight.
And you are right. I was wrong. There is still a chance GW can fix this in FAQs with bonus attacks for hordes, but we'll see.
ClockworkZion wrote: Easy there Dudley Doo Right, no need to get your Mounties in a twist.
GW has said there is an appendix in the book that covers some weird situations that could cover this. Alternatively, we could find out that there is no way to modifiy a save to a 1+ back there, or they may FAQ it so Custodes Storm shields (tm) and Terminator Storm shields (tm) work differently.
Too many assumptions are being made again. And when the RAW is that stupid, I'd rather play RAI which won't make nigh-unkillable Marines.
You should get some nice socialized medicine for that butthurt you seem to be rocking.
Why would that interaction be somehow going against RAI if every single rule says it works the way BCB and myself are saying it does? Why would you claim to know GW's intent better than they do?
ClockworkZion wrote: Easy there Dudley Doo Right, no need to get your Mounties in a twist.
GW has said there is an appendix in the book that covers some weird situations that could cover this. Alternatively, we could find out that there is no way to modifiy a save to a 1+ back there, or they may FAQ it so Custodes Storm shields (tm) and Terminator Storm shields (tm) work differently.
Too many assumptions are being made again. And when the RAW is that stupid, I'd rather play RAI which won't make nigh-unkillable Marines.
You should get some nice socialized medicine for that butthurt you seem to be rocking.
Why would that interaction be somehow going against RAI if every single rule says it works the way BCB and myself are saying it does? Why would you claim to know GW's intent better than they do?
If it was a Xenos faction, it definitely wouldn't be RAI. But since it's Space Marines, who knows.
ClockworkZion wrote: Easy there Dudley Doo Right, no need to get your Mounties in a twist.
GW has said there is an appendix in the book that covers some weird situations that could cover this. Alternatively, we could find out that there is no way to modifiy a save to a 1+ back there, or they may FAQ it so Custodes Storm shields (tm) and Terminator Storm shields (tm) work differently.
Too many assumptions are being made again. And when the RAW is that stupid, I'd rather play RAI which won't make nigh-unkillable Marines.
You should get some nice socialized medicine for that butthurt you seem to be rocking.
Why would that interaction be somehow going against RAI if every single rule says it works the way BCB and myself are saying it does? Why would you claim to know GW's intent better than they do?
Because GW intentionally releasing a unit of that is immune to anything short of Mortal Wounds on purpose is on such a deep level of conspiritorial BS I don't even want to think about it.
If this isn't in the appendix with a note about save characteristics never going below a 2+ or a modified armour save of 1 counting as an unmodified 1 or in the day one FAQ I'll be shocked. Mostly because it means Reese dropped the ball a second time after this happened with MANz.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's either 1", or 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2".
Which is the exactly same thing, is it not? If Model A is 1/2" from the opponent and Model B is within 1/2" of Model A, wouldn't Model B also be within 1" of the opponent? So why not just say any model within 1" of the opponent can fight?
yukishiro1 wrote: It's either 1", or 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2".
Which is the exactly same thing, is it not? If Model A is 1/2" from the opponent and Model B is within 1/2" of them, wouldn't Model B also be within 1" of the opponent? So why not just say any model within 1" of the opponent can fight?
Because that'd only be true with 25mm bases and no other model?
ClockworkZion wrote: Easy there Dudley Doo Right, no need to get your Mounties in a twist.
GW has said there is an appendix in the book that covers some weird situations that could cover this. Alternatively, we could find out that there is no way to modifiy a save to a 1+ back there, or they may FAQ it so Custodes Storm shields (tm) and Terminator Storm shields (tm) work differently.
Too many assumptions are being made again. And when the RAW is that stupid, I'd rather play RAI which won't make nigh-unkillable Marines.
You should get some nice socialized medicine for that butthurt you seem to be rocking.
Why would that interaction be somehow going against RAI if every single rule says it works the way BCB and myself are saying it does? Why would you claim to know GW's intent better than they do?
Because GW intentionally releasing a unit of that is immune to anything short of Mortal Wounds on purpose is on such a deep level of conspiritorial BS I don't even want to think about it.
If this isn't in the appendix with a note about save characteristics never going below a 2+ or a modified armour save of 1 counting as an unmodified 1 or in the day one FAQ I'll be shocked. Mostly because it means Reese dropped the ball a second time after this happened with MANz.
Because GW intentionally releasing a unit of that is immune to anything short of Mortal Wounds on purporse is on such a deep level of conspiritorial BS I don't even want to think about it.
And They Shall Know no Unfavourable Rules Changes.
Unfortunately this years chapter approved has already been printed enjoy fighting in Marine's or GTFO meta 9th edition. Most balanced and playtested ever.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's either 1", or 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2".
Which is the exactly same thing, is it not? If Model A is 1/2" from the opponent and Model B is within 1/2" of them, wouldn't Model B also be within 1" of the opponent? So why not just say any model within 1" of the opponent can fight?
Because that'd only be true with 25mm bases and no other model?
Yeah, I guess you're right. Didn't really consider larger bases.
ClockworkZion wrote: Because GW intentionally releasing a unit of that is immune to anything short of Mortal Wounds on purporse is on such a deep level of conspiritorial BS I don't even want to think about it.
This is an incorrect reading of the rules. They'll still fail saves on unmodified rolls of 1, and thus still fail 1/6th of all saves from non-mortal wounds.
If this isn't in the appendix with a note about save characteristics never going below a 2+ or a modified armour save of 1 counting as an unmodified 1 or in the day one FAQ I'll be shocked. Mostly because it means Reese dropped the ball a second time after this happened with MANz.
They specifically have shown that saves CAN go to +1 so don't expect to see an FAQ on that one. Also counting modified rolls of 1 as unmodified opens a whole nasty can of worms and also shouldn't be expected and thus is also likely off the table.
ClockworkZion wrote: Easy there Dudley Doo Right, no need to get your Mounties in a twist.
GW has said there is an appendix in the book that covers some weird situations that could cover this. Alternatively, we could find out that there is no way to modifiy a save to a 1+ back there, or they may FAQ it so Custodes Storm shields (tm) and Terminator Storm shields (tm) work differently.
Too many assumptions are being made again. And when the RAW is that stupid, I'd rather play RAI which won't make nigh-unkillable Marines.
You should get some nice socialized medicine for that butthurt you seem to be rocking.
Why would that interaction be somehow going against RAI if every single rule says it works the way BCB and myself are saying it does? Why would you claim to know GW's intent better than they do?
If it was a Xenos faction, it definitely wouldn't be RAI. But since it's Space Marines, who knows.
Don't worry, the only non-theoretical example of this is the Crusade Master-crafted armor rule, which means Ghazghkull can get the 2++ save.
And because Orks cannot get anything nice, it is not going to be RAI.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's either 1", or 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2".
Which is the exactly same thing, is it not? If Model A is 1/2" from the opponent and Model B is within 1/2" of them, wouldn't Model B also be within 1" of the opponent? So why not just say any model within 1" of the opponent can fight?
Because that'd only be true with 25mm bases and no other model?
Yeah, I guess you're right. Didn't really consider larger bases.
It's not actually the same even for a 25mm base.
25mm base is just under 1 inch. So if your first guy is exactly .5" from the enemy, and then your next guy is exactly .5" from that guy, that's more like 1.95" from the enemy model.
ClockworkZion wrote: Easy there Dudley Doo Right, no need to get your Mounties in a twist.
GW has said there is an appendix in the book that covers some weird situations that could cover this. Alternatively, we could find out that there is no way to modifiy a save to a 1+ back there, or they may FAQ it so Custodes Storm shields (tm) and Terminator Storm shields (tm) work differently.
Too many assumptions are being made again. And when the RAW is that stupid, I'd rather play RAI which won't make nigh-unkillable Marines.
You should get some nice socialized medicine for that butthurt you seem to be rocking.
Why would that interaction be somehow going against RAI if every single rule says it works the way BCB and myself are saying it does? Why would you claim to know GW's intent better than they do?
Because GW intentionally releasing a unit of that is immune to anything short of Mortal Wounds on purpose is on such a deep level of conspiritorial BS I don't even want to think about it.
If this isn't in the appendix with a note about save characteristics never going below a 2+ or a modified armour save of 1 counting as an unmodified 1 or in the day one FAQ I'll be shocked. Mostly because it means Reese dropped the ball a second time after this happened with MANz.
theyre not immune at all, stop saying that.
Sorry, nearly immune. I don't think GW is giving us Achilles rules where you become nigh unkillable save for some lucky shots. At least not on purpose.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's either 1", or 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2".
Which is the exactly same thing, is it not? If Model A is 1/2" from the opponent and Model B is within 1/2" of Model A, wouldn't Model B also be within 1" of the opponent? So why not just say any model within 1" of the opponent can fight?
Base? Are your bases 0mm wide?
0.5mm from enemy, 32mm(more than inch), 0.5" from friend.
ClockworkZion wrote: Because GW intentionally releasing a unit of that is immune to anything short of Mortal Wounds on purporse is on such a deep level of conspiritorial BS I don't even want to think about it.
This is an incorrect reading of the rules. They'll still fail saves on unmodified rolls of 1, and thus still fail 1/6th of all saves from non-mortal wounds.
If this isn't in the appendix with a note about save characteristics never going below a 2+ or a modified armour save of 1 counting as an unmodified 1 or in the day one FAQ I'll be shocked. Mostly because it means Reese dropped the ball a second time after this happened with MANz.
They specifically have shown that saves CAN go to +1 so don't expect to see an FAQ on that one. Also counting modified rolls of 1 as unmodified opens a whole nasty can of worms and also shouldn't be expected and thus is also likely off the table.
I missed the part about save characteristics saying anything about being modified one way or the other actually. Could you point that out?
GW also could have avoided the whole issue by making the SS 4++ and +1 to the roll. They didn't, they intentionally made it give +1 to the Sv stat. Seems pretty intentional to me that is what they wanted.
ClockworkZion wrote: Because GW intentionally releasing a unit of that is immune to anything short of Mortal Wounds on purporse is on such a deep level of conspiritorial BS I don't even want to think about it.
This is an incorrect reading of the rules. They'll still fail saves on unmodified rolls of 1, and thus still fail 1/6th of all saves from non-mortal wounds.
.
Well 2+ turning to 2++ with stat modifier is derp anyway.
But it would be for marines so no surprise if it sticks. Orks had it errataed but that was npc race. Now it's master race
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Justyn wrote: GW also could have avoided the whole issue by making the SS 4++ and +1 to the roll. They didn't, they intentionally made it give +1 to the Sv stat. Seems pretty intentional to me that is what they wanted.
Except wasn't what they wanted with same thing on npc faction
Justyn wrote: GW also could have avoided the whole issue by making the SS 4++ and +1 to the roll. They didn't, they intentionally made it give +1 to the Sv stat. Seems pretty intentional to me that is what they wanted.
Yeah, but by the same token, it doesn't make a difference for those particular models since they have a 3+ save base, not a 2+ save. It's only with a 2+ that it becomes an issue. So it's just as likely they overlooked it, just like they overlooked the fact that assault weapons couldn't actually fire if you advanced for the entirety of 8th edition.
Assuming that GW must have had a reason for doing something and was thinking through all the consequences of it is not a safe assumption to make based on the historical record.
WHFB had 1+ saves for years and they didn't act like that. They essentially just acted like 2+ saves but you ignored the first point of AP. I think you guys are off base here.
Page 18 of the free core rules goes over saving throws.
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
At no point does it say you can't modify the roll to be less than 1 or greater than 0. So if you had a 1+ save model that was hit with an attach that had a AP of -2 and rolled a 2 you would fail the save.
ClockworkZion wrote: I missed the part about save characteristics saying anything about being modified one way or the other actually. Could you point that out?
yukishiro1 wrote: Why are you discussing something that we don't even know is a fact? The shields shown don't matter because they're on something with a 3+ to begin with, so it only becomes a 2+.
If models with a 2+ to begin with get a shield that improves their save characterstic by 1 then you can start to have your argument about how stupid GW is (answer: very!).
Again, even forgetting Storm Shields, it's doable in the Crusade ruleset and even EXPLICITLY STATED YOU CAN DO IT.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think I get it now. You can't modify a roll below 1, and modified rolls of 1 always save, so a 1+ save with a -42 AP cannot go beneath 1, therefore any dice roll is modified to 1, and as their save is 1+, it saves. Only a natural 1 would fail, as natural 1's always fail.
Thank you for the (expansive) explanation.
I can't tell if that's sarcasm or sincerity, so I'll go all quantum wibbly wobbly assume it's both and neither!
It looks like the part about armor saves may be from the leaked rules rather than the free preview.
ClockworkZion wrote: I missed the part about save characteristics saying anything about being modified one way or the other actually. Could you point that out?
yukishiro1 wrote: Why are you discussing something that we don't even know is a fact? The shields shown don't matter because they're on something with a 3+ to begin with, so it only becomes a 2+.
If models with a 2+ to begin with get a shield that improves their save characterstic by 1 then you can start to have your argument about how stupid GW is (answer: very!).
Again, even forgetting Storm Shields, it's doable in the Crusade ruleset and even EXPLICITLY STATED YOU CAN DO IT.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think I get it now. You can't modify a roll below 1, and modified rolls of 1 always save, so a 1+ save with a -42 AP cannot go beneath 1, therefore any dice roll is modified to 1, and as their save is 1+, it saves. Only a natural 1 would fail, as natural 1's always fail.
Thank you for the (expansive) explanation.
I can't tell if that's sarcasm or sincerity, so I'll go all quantum wibbly wobbly assume it's both and neither!
It looks like the part about armor saves may be from the leaked rules rather than the free preview.
Okay, so I did miss that, and they do call out a 1+ save. Which means it's not capped at a 2+. I can't imagine it ignores AP since that would be game breaking, but we'll have to see how they handle the full thing I guess.
We know how they handle the 'full thing'. Anything reduced below 1 is 1.
Blood Hawk wrote: WHFB had 1+ saves for years and they didn't act like that. They essentially just acted like 2+ saves but you ignored the first point of AP. I think you guys are off base here.
Right. They acted like that because the rules were different. In old WHFB, any _result_ of 1 was a failure. In this ruleset only an unmodified 1 is automatically a failure.
ClockworkZion wrote: Okay, so I did miss that, and they do call out a 1+ save. Which means it's not capped at a 2+. I can't imagine it ignores AP since that would be game breaking, but we'll have to see how they handle the full thing I guess.
1) The previewed Storm Shields can make +1 saves.
2) AP modifies rolls not saves.
3) Modified rolls of 1 will be saved by +1 armor.
In which way could AP interact with +1 armor saves using the rules as they are currently written?
Blood Hawk wrote: WHFB had 1+ saves for years and they didn't act like that. They essentially just acted like 2+ saves but you ignored the first point of AP. I think you guys are off base here.
The difference is, in Warhammer Strength modfied the Armour Save
In 40k, AP modifies the Dice Roll
WHFB: 1+Save -3 = 4+ Save
40K: 1+Save, D6 -3, if result is below 1 it gets modified to 1, compare roll with Save, if it is equal or higher (natural 1 always fails)
there was never an argument in Warhammer because the rules were simpler and worked better, as even a negative Save value would have not been a problem
At no point does it say you can't modify the roll to be less than 1 or greater than 0. So if you had a 1+ save model that was hit with an attach that had a AP of -2 and rolled a 2 you would fail the save.
Page 5:
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
Voss wrote: We know how they handle the 'full thing'. Anything reduced below 1 is 1.
As it stands a modified 1 would still pass because only an unmodified 1 always fails.
I'm willing to bet that Custodes and Terminators will be getting different Storm Shields as a start. Custodian Storm shields and Terminator Storm shields.
I just want to know how they handle a 1+ armour save with AP.
One weapon from an alternative game mode plus stupid rules writing allow for this.
Even if the weapon passes on to matched, no TO is going to go for this. Nobody ever. In LFGS nobody will play you if you want to use this. Insist on this, you won't be finding games in a month.
Additionally, this is not RAI and it will get FAQ'd, the same way orks interaction got FAQ'd. Whoever thinks this is intentional or that it is here to stay don't know wtf they are talking about. Yes I read the bastilladon FAQ. Different game, different developers, different universe. Go to AoS threads and post whatever.
We really do not need 500 replies stating the same thing over and over.
There's a wonderful thread devoted 100% on how to interpret rules. Use that, it's good.
ClockworkZion wrote: Okay, so I did miss that, and they do call out a 1+ save. Which means it's not capped at a 2+. I can't imagine it ignores AP since that would be game breaking, but we'll have to see how they handle the full thing I guess.
1) The previewed Storm Shields can make +1 saves.
2) AP modifies rolls not saves.
3) Modified rolls of 1 will be saved by +1 armor.
In which way could AP interact with +1 armor saves using the rules as they are currently written?
1. We don't know that we won't see them just rename the Storm shields on other units to not have to share this rule with models that have a 2+ save.
2&3. I know that, which is why I want they want to handle this because I don't think a 1+ save ignoring AP feels right, especially with them saying that Orks couldn't do this in 8th.
Less arguing about dumb 1+ save RAW, more about that $199 US price point for Indomitus that was leaked like 3 pages back and ignored completely to continue the rules circlejerk?
Voss wrote: We know how they handle the 'full thing'. Anything reduced below 1 is 1.
As it stands a modified 1 would still pass because only an unmodified 1 always fails.
Correct
I'm willing to bet that Custodes and Terminators will be getting different Storm Shields as a start. Custodian Storm shields and Terminator Storm shields.
That's the current situation, actually. The 4++, +1 save stormshields only apply to the datasheets they're actually on- the new primaris ones. Terminators and Custodes use their current datasheets until their new Codexes happen and they get replaced. (with or without that rule)
I just want to know how they handle a 1+ armour save with AP.
That's what people are telling you. AP modifies the save _roll_. If it goes below one, it becomes one (per page 5), and as it isn't _less_ than the 1+ save, the saving throw is a success.
Blood Hawk wrote: WHFB had 1+ saves for years and they didn't act like that. They essentially just acted like 2+ saves but you ignored the first point of AP. I think you guys are off base here.
The difference is, in Warhammer Strength modfied the Armour Save
In 40k, AP modifies the Dice Roll
WHFB: 1+Save -3 = 4+ Save
40K: 1+Save, D6 -3, if result is below 1 it gets modified to 1, compare roll with Save, if it is equal or higher (natural 1 always fails)
there was never an argument in Warhammer because the rules were simpler and worked better, as even a negative Save value would have not been a problem
At no point does it say you can't modify the roll to be less than 1 or greater than 0. So if you had a 1+ save model that was hit with an attach that had a AP of -2 and rolled a 2 you would fail the save.
Page 5:
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
Yea I see that now. Well another thing to add to the list of day 1 errata.
Voss wrote: That's what people are telling you. AP modifies the save roll. If it goes below one, it becomes one, and as it isn't _less_ than the 1+ save, the saving throw is a success.
Right, but we're talking about GW who has made weird one off exceptions to rules before. That's why I want to know how they're going to handle it.
And forget Terminators, forget Custodes, you know who I don't want to have a 1+ save? Friggin Deathshroud. Or anything with a DR save. Hence why I'm hoping GW does something to make this less game breaking that it looks like it can be.
Cool. The new paints are Runelord Brass Base (current version is a Layer paint), Canoptek Alloy Layer, Cryptek Armourshade Shade and Tesseract Glow Technical.
Voss wrote: That's what people are telling you. AP modifies the save roll. If it goes below one, it becomes one, and as it isn't _less_ than the 1+ save, the saving throw is a success.
Right, but we're talking about GW who has made weird one off exceptions to rules before. That's why I want to know how they're going to handle it.
So... you agree that's how it works, but... you're expecting they're just going to make something else up to handle the rules in a different way from the printed rules.
Ok. I honestly don't know what to tell you or how to have a conversation with you, especially since this is the third time the conversation has gone this way.
1. Roll for attacker and defender. This doesn't impact who goes first, it just impacts who gets to choose the deployment zone - and who has to go first when deploying. Defender chooses zone and puts down the first unit.
2. Declare what stuff is in reserves, what stuff is in transports, etc. This is BEFORE any deployment. No more "I'll deploy X into deep strike."
3. AFTER revealing what is not being deployed on the table, defender deploys first unit, then players alternative until all units are deployed.
4. Roll off again; winner gets to choose who goes first. No seize (there wouldn't be any point with this system).
So you are deploying without knowing who is going first at all, but you do know what units aren't going to be deployed on the field.
I think this is going to have massive implications for competitive play.
lord_blackfang wrote: Less arguing about dumb 1+ save RAW, more about that $199 US price point for Indomitus that was leaked like 3 pages back and ignored completely to continue the rules circlejerk?
$199? Not bad. $65 for the core rulebook? Even better! That makes the models inside worth $134? This is a pretty good price for all those models, imo.
So it seems that the box costs about as much as I expected, which is good. I started to get a bit worried when a lot of people constantly guessed way higher prices.
Blood Hawk wrote: WHFB had 1+ saves for years and they didn't act like that. They essentially just acted like 2+ saves but you ignored the first point of AP. I think you guys are off base here.
Page 18 of the free core rules goes over saving throws.
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
At no point does it say you can't modify the roll to be less than 1 or greater than 0. So if you had a 1+ save model that was hit with an attach that had a AP of -2 and rolled a 2 you would fail the save.
You cannot modify roll below 1. That's core rules. 2-2=1 thus. 1 passes. So either gw failed again this despite meganobz or because it's marines rather than npc intentional.
ClockworkZion wrote: Right, but we're talking about GW who has made weird one off exceptions to rules before. That's why I want to know how they're going to handle it.
And forget Terminators, forget Custodes, you know who I don't want to have a 1+ save? Friggin Deathshroud. Or anything with a DR save. Hence why I'm hoping GW does something to make this less game breaking that it looks like it can be.
Don't forget to try to stack some FNP on that and modifiers to hit if you can manage them.
1. Roll for attacker and defender. This doesn't impact who goes first, it just impacts who gets to choose the deployment zone - and who has to go first when deploying. Defender chooses zone and puts down the first unit.
2. Declare what stuff is in reserves, what stuff is in transports, etc. This is BEFORE any deployment. No more "I'll deploy X into deep strike."
3. AFTER revealing what is not being deployed on the table, defender deploys first unit, then players alternative until all units are deployed.
4. Roll off again; winner gets to choose who goes first. No seize (there wouldn't be any point with this system).
So you are deploying without knowing who is going first at all, but you do know what units aren't going to be deployed on the field.
I think this is going to have massive implications for competitive play.
Helps alpha strike just as it did before gw went for system that helped vs that.
Voss wrote: That's what people are telling you. AP modifies the save roll. If it goes below one, it becomes one, and as it isn't _less_ than the 1+ save, the saving throw is a success.
Right, but we're talking about GW who has made weird one off exceptions to rules before. That's why I want to know how they're going to handle it.
So... you agree that's how it works, but... you're expecting they're just going to make something else up to handle the rules in a different way from the printed rules.
Ok. I honestly don't know what to tell you or how to have a conversation with you.
Let me try to make this very clear since you don't seem to be actually listening to what I'm saying:
1. I don't think GW's intent at any point is to give models a 1+ save that ignores the effects of AP. Especially if someone of them out there can also get a FnP type save.
2. There is an appendix we haven't seen in the core rule book which is supposed to handle "uncommon rules interactions" and the like. There is also the ability that GW could FAQ this. There is also the possibility that they won't give this kind of storm shield to anything with a 2+ leaving 1+ saves only in Crusade. There are a lot of ways GW can handle this and that's what I am waiting to see.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: I'm just not sure why a store would have English and French editions but US currency.
ClockworkZion wrote: Never mind, found the "can't modify below a 1" thing. I have a feeling there is answer for this that isn't stupid as hell, but I'll wait and see instead of arguing about it here. Regardless of RAW I know how I'll play it RAI if they apply this change to things with a 2+.
so whats the RAI?
That you'll fail on modified 1s.
GW wouldn't intentionally give us unkillable Marines. Accidentally sure, but I can't see that being the intent.
Q: If a Succubus is given the Serpentin combat drug, does
its Weapon Skill characteristic increase to 1+? If so, does the
Succubus still hit if a hit roll of 2 is rolled for an attack for a
melee weapon and, due to an ability, I have to subtract 1 from
that hit roll?
A: Yes, and yes – only unmodified hit rolls of 1
automatically fail.
ClockworkZion wrote: Right, but we're talking about GW who has made weird one off exceptions to rules before. That's why I want to know how they're going to handle it.
And forget Terminators, forget Custodes, you know who I don't want to have a 1+ save? Friggin Deathshroud. Or anything with a DR save. Hence why I'm hoping GW does something to make this less game breaking that it looks like it can be.
Don't forget to try to stack some FNP on that and modifiers to hit if you can manage them.
ClockworkZion wrote: Never mind, found the "can't modify below a 1" thing. I have a feeling there is answer for this that isn't stupid as hell, but I'll wait and see instead of arguing about it here. Regardless of RAW I know how I'll play it RAI if they apply this change to things with a 2+.
so whats the RAI?
That you'll fail on modified 1s.
GW wouldn't intentionally give us unkillable Marines. Accidentally sure, but I can't see that being the intent.
Q: If a Succubus is given the Serpentin combat drug, does
its Weapon Skill characteristic increase to 1+? If so, does the
Succubus still hit if a hit roll of 2 is rolled for an attack for a
melee weapon and, due to an ability, I have to subtract 1 from
that hit roll?
A: Yes, and yes – only unmodified hit rolls of 1
automatically fail.
Stop quoting 8th, it's a different edition. They could have changed their mind about when writing 9th. You're pulling too much from different games and different editions to back up your arguement.
Crimson wrote: So it seems that the box costs about as much as I expected, which is good. I started to get a bit worried when a lot of people constantly guessed way higher prices.
Shadowspear + rulebook value was the best existing comparison, it could have reasonably been as high as $225 I think. Luckily the book was discounted at around the same rate as the minis.
I somewhat suspect this is the new High Price Tier starter and we'll see another one with 1-2 sprues less for the old starter price soon, then at least one mini-starter.
ClockworkZion wrote: Stop quoting 8th, it's a different edition. They could have changed their mind about when writing 9th. You're pulling too much from different games and different editions to back up your arguement.
Except I am citing the rules as my argument. I don't need any other sources to back it up. You're the one screeching how it is incorrect, when it demonstrably is not. The FAQs from two different games by GW that use the exact same rule wording is just icing on the cake.
1. Roll for attacker and defender. This doesn't impact who goes first, it just impacts who gets to choose the deployment zone - and who has to go first when deploying. Defender chooses zone and puts down the first unit.
2. Declare what stuff is in reserves, what stuff is in transports, etc. This is BEFORE any deployment. No more "I'll deploy X into deep strike."
3. AFTER revealing what is not being deployed on the table, defender deploys first unit, then players alternative until all units are deployed.
4. Roll off again; winner gets to choose who goes first. No seize (there wouldn't be any point with this system).
So you are deploying without knowing who is going first at all, but you do know what units aren't going to be deployed on the field.
I think this is going to have massive implications for competitive play.
Helps alpha strike just as it did before gw went for system that helped vs that.
Does it? My first reaction is actually the opposite, that the safest thing to do is deploy defensively, and then, if you win the die roll for who goes first, just go second. Worst comes to worst, your opponent forces you to go first, and then you just do whatever.
If you deploy offensively, if you lose the roll to go first, you leave yourself really exposed.
It is a mild buff for MSU and for putting less stuff in reserves, since the more units you are putting down on the table, the easier you can run your opponent out of deploys, at which point you get to counter-deploy with everything else you have.
Cool. The new paints are Runelord Brass Base (current version is a Layer paint), Canoptek Alloy Layer, Cryptek Armourshade Shade and Tesseract Glow Technical.
What could the Combat Gauge possibly have to make it special for $27
ClockworkZion wrote: Stop quoting 8th, it's a different edition. They could have changed their mind about when writing 9th. You're pulling too much from different games and different editions to back up your arguement.
Except I am citing the rules as my argument. I don't need any other sources to back it up. You're the one screeching how it is incorrect, when it demonstrably is not. The FAQs from two different games by GW that use the exact same rule wording is just icing on the cake.
You have a strong argument for how it -might- work -if- they let models with a 2+ have access to this rule from the 9th ed rules. No need to quote old design philosophy or a game run by a different rules team.
Cool. The new paints are Runelord Brass Base (current version is a Layer paint), Canoptek Alloy Layer, Cryptek Armourshade Shade and Tesseract Glow Technical.
What could the Combat Gauge possibly have to make it special for $27
Maybe it's all metal? The all metal one for AoS that came out in 2015 was around $26-27 from what a quick Google search tells me.
1. Roll for attacker and defender. This doesn't impact who goes first, it just impacts who gets to choose the deployment zone - and who has to go first when deploying. Defender chooses zone and puts down the first unit.
2. Declare what stuff is in reserves, what stuff is in transports, etc. This is BEFORE any deployment. No more "I'll deploy X into deep strike."
3. AFTER revealing what is not being deployed on the table, defender deploys first unit, then players alternative until all units are deployed.
4. Roll off again; winner gets to choose who goes first. No seize (there wouldn't be any point with this system).
So you are deploying without knowing who is going first at all, but you do know what units aren't going to be deployed on the field.
I think this is going to have massive implications for competitive play.
Helps alpha strike just as it did before gw went for system that helped vs that.
Since you have only got a 50/50 chance of going first, I am not sure its as alpha-strike friendly as early 8th edition was at least.
Aaranis wrote: How does it work when a monster or vehicle -let's say a Sydonian Dragoon for example, wants to charge unit in a ruin 5" from the ground ? I roll charge, end below it at 5" vertically, and then how does it fight ? It can fight as it is within Engagement Range, but if the Dragoon beside it wants to strike too it can't, as my first Dragoon can't be within 1/2" of the target, correct ? Or do we measure from the model itself, even though it has a base ?
I'm confused about this rule.
Yes being within a half inch of a half inch doesn't work vertically.
To engage in melee you need to either be in engagement range (1" horizontally, 5" vertically) or 1/2" of someone who is in engagement range. It works fine for units of multiple sizes.
Not quite, the rulebook says:
Which Models Fight
When a unit makes close combat attacks, only the models in that
unit that are either within Engagement Range (pg 4) of an enemy
unit, or that are within ½" of another model from their own unit
that is itself within ½" of an enemy unit, can fight.
As you can see, it isn't within 1/2" of someone in Engagement Range, it is within 1/2" of a model within 1/2" itself. For horizontal play this doesn't make too much difference as the difference is 1" vs. 1/2". But, for vertical play it is 5" vs 1/2".
Aaranis wrote: How does it work when a monster or vehicle -let's say a Sydonian Dragoon for example, wants to charge unit in a ruin 5" from the ground ? I roll charge, end below it at 5" vertically, and then how does it fight ? It can fight as it is within Engagement Range, but if the Dragoon beside it wants to strike too it can't, as my first Dragoon can't be within 1/2" of the target, correct ? Or do we measure from the model itself, even though it has a base ?
I'm confused about this rule.
Yes being within a half inch of a half inch doesn't work vertically.
To engage in melee you need to either be in engagement range (1" horizontally, 5" vertically) or 1/2" of someone who is in engagement range. It works fine for units of multiple sizes.
Not quite, the rulebook says:
Which Models Fight
When a unit makes close combat attacks, only the models in that
unit that are either within Engagement Range (pg 4) of an enemy
unit, or that are within ½" of another model from their own unit
that is itself within ½" of an enemy unit, can fight.
As you can see, it isn't within 1/2" of someone in Engagement Range, it is within 1/2" of a model within 1/2" itself. For horizontal play this doesn't make too much difference as the difference is 1" vs. 1/2". But, for vertical play it is 5" vs 1/2".
Yeah, I already went and looked and pasted that myself.
bullyboy wrote: Came back to see what was new, but no...... just the same tools arguing the same crap over and over. Imagine if we actually had a place on the forum to discuss rules and rule interpretations?
The rules are the game. It's way more useful to talk rules than painting or price because both of those are mutable and won't apply to every player, the rules apply to every person who plays 40k equally.
lord_blackfang wrote: Less arguing about dumb 1+ save RAW, more about that $199 US price point for Indomitus that was leaked like 3 pages back and ignored completely to continue the rules circlejerk?
$199? Not bad. $65 for the core rulebook? Even better! That makes the models inside worth $134? This is a pretty good price for all those models, imo.
I'm pretty pleased with that price. Was expecting $220-250 range.
1. Roll for attacker and defender. This doesn't impact who goes first, it just impacts who gets to choose the deployment zone - and who has to go first when deploying. Defender chooses zone and puts down the first unit.
2. Declare what stuff is in reserves, what stuff is in transports, etc. This is BEFORE any deployment. No more "I'll deploy X into deep strike."
3. AFTER revealing what is not being deployed on the table, defender deploys first unit, then players alternative until all units are deployed.
4. Roll off again; winner gets to choose who goes first. No seize (there wouldn't be any point with this system).
So you are deploying without knowing who is going first at all, but you do know what units aren't going to be deployed on the field.
I think this is going to have massive implications for competitive play.
Helps alpha strike just as it did before gw went for system that helped vs that.
Aye, and don't forget that "Prepared Positions" wasn't in the leaked core strategems either. Another boost for gun lines.
1. Roll for attacker and defender. This doesn't impact who goes first, it just impacts who gets to choose the deployment zone - and who has to go first when deploying. Defender chooses zone and puts down the first unit.
2. Declare what stuff is in reserves, what stuff is in transports, etc. This is BEFORE any deployment. No more "I'll deploy X into deep strike."
3. AFTER revealing what is not being deployed on the table, defender deploys first unit, then players alternative until all units are deployed.
4. Roll off again; winner gets to choose who goes first. No seize (there wouldn't be any point with this system).
So you are deploying without knowing who is going first at all, but you do know what units aren't going to be deployed on the field.
I think this is going to have massive implications for competitive play.
Helps alpha strike just as it did before gw went for system that helped vs that.
Aye, and don't forget that "Prepared Positions" wasn't in the leaked core strategems either. Another boost for gun lines.
But obscuring is a nerf for gunlines since it breaks LoS more readily, so that might be a wash between the two.
lord_blackfang wrote: Less arguing about dumb 1+ save RAW, more about that $199 US price point for Indomitus that was leaked like 3 pages back and ignored completely to continue the rules circlejerk?
$199? Not bad. $65 for the core rulebook? Even better! That makes the models inside worth $134? This is a pretty good price for all those models, imo.
I'm pretty pleased with that price. Was expecting $220-250 range.
But the CA books aren't in the box are they? So, if you get the box + CA Grand Tournament it would be $239. $274 if you want the box + CAGT + CA Crusade. I didn't see the CA books in the unboxing articles.
lord_blackfang wrote: Less arguing about dumb 1+ save RAW, more about that $199 US price point for Indomitus that was leaked like 3 pages back and ignored completely to continue the rules circlejerk?
$199? Not bad. $65 for the core rulebook? Even better! That makes the models inside worth $134? This is a pretty good price for all those models, imo.
I'm pretty pleased with that price. Was expecting $220-250 range.
But the CA books aren't in the box are they? So, if you get the box + CA Grand Tournament it would be $239. $274 if you want the box + CAGT + CA Crusade. I didn't see the CA books in the unboxing articles.
They aren't, but Crusade rules are in the main rulebook, so we suspect the Crusade one is the faux leather Crusade Journal and maybe some cards.
Don't worry, the only non-theoretical example of this is the Crusade Master-crafted armor rule, which means Ghazghkull can get the 2++ save.
Special Characters are explicitly forbidden from gaining XP and Crusade Bonuses. In exchange they can't gain Scars and always count as being a Warlord for purposes of their Warlord Trait even if not your actual Warlord.
I'm wondering if CA2020 is going to be points and a stripped down rulebook that only covers core rules and matched play and nothing else so tournament players can a mini rulebook they can use.
I'm wondering if CA2020 is going to be points and a stripped down rulebook that only covers core rules and matched play and nothing else so tournament players can a mini rulebook they can use.
From Warhammer Community:
The Grand Tournament 2020 Mission pack is … well, packed with new missions, alongside guidance for running and playing in tournaments, special Secondary Objectives, and loads more. It’s even got a special binding to make it extra friendly to the tabletop setting. The second book is the Munitorum Field Manual, which holds a full list of updated points for Warhammer 40,000 units. With their powers combined, the new Chapter Approved will have you on the cutting edge of Warhammer 40,000 competitive gaming.
1. Roll for attacker and defender. This doesn't impact who goes first, it just impacts who gets to choose the deployment zone - and who has to go first when deploying. Defender chooses zone and puts down the first unit.
2. Declare what stuff is in reserves, what stuff is in transports, etc. This is BEFORE any deployment. No more "I'll deploy X into deep strike."
3. AFTER revealing what is not being deployed on the table, defender deploys first unit, then players alternative until all units are deployed.
4. Roll off again; winner gets to choose who goes first. No seize (there wouldn't be any point with this system).
So you are deploying without knowing who is going first at all, but you do know what units aren't going to be deployed on the field.
I think this is going to have massive implications for competitive play.
Helps alpha strike just as it did before gw went for system that helped vs that.
Since you have only got a 50/50 chance of going first, I am not sure its as alpha-strike friendly as early 8th edition was at least.
At a first glance I would prefer the CA19 deploy.
The kind of deploy where you don't know who's going first until the last second leads to those games that are decided by the first dice rolled.
The kind of deploy where you don't know who's going first until the last second leads to those games that are decided by the first dice rolled.
Only if both players go all-in on the alpha strike and just hopes to win the roll-off, right?
If both players instead deploy with the assumption they're going second, doesn't it lead to a game where it becomes much less important who goes first, and, in fact, where both players are probably hoping to go second - but where going first isn't a huge disadvantage for them either?
I mean don't get me wrong, I liked ITC's change in the 2020 mission pack to just make you know before deployment who's going first and second, with no seize. I would prefer that. But I'm not sure this is really as bad re: alpha strike as some think.
Dakka does that with large threads like this. It will usually correct itself, but if you edit one of the posts, the other one is always deleted by the system.
Special Characters are explicitly forbidden from gaining XP and Crusade Bonuses. In exchange they can't gain Scars and always count as being a Warlord for purposes of their Warlord Trait even if not your actual Warlord.
Then replace Ghazghkull with a Warbozz in mega armor.
The point is that it isn't some faction unique rule but a general one.
Dakka does that with large threads like this. It will usually correct itself, but if you edit one of the posts, the other one is always deleted by the system.
bullyboy wrote: Came back to see what was new, but no...... just the same tools arguing the same crap over and over. Imagine if we actually had a place on the forum to discuss rules and rule interpretations?
The rules are the game. It's way more useful to talk rules than painting or price because both of those are mutable and won't apply to every player, the rules apply to every person who plays 40k equally.
Except that you're in the wrong place. This is news and rumours. We have the rule, many disagree on it...guess what? There is a place for that. Go there.
What could the Combat Gauge possibly have to make it special for $27
Maybe it's all metal? The all metal one for AoS that came out in 2015 was around $26-27 from what a quick Google search tells me.
The only reason why I got the original GW combat gauge was because it's flexible, unlike the ones most other companies sell.
I also have the knight one because it looked cool, but it is utterly worthless in games because it's made of metal and therefore not flexible. It's also heavy and knocks over models by accident.
I don't think the rules reveal by GW was a "panic" reaction. I think it was meant to be released.
The guys over at Tabletop Titans are doing a 9th edition battle report tonight on their Youtube channel. Brian was one of the playtesters for 9th edition so obviously he has gotten the "green light" from GW to show off the new edition.
Tau vs Imperial Fists. 7PM Central time.
No other groups I've seen on Youtube are doing 9th bat reps tonight but I know some groups only do batreps on certain days. Could possibly see a Tabletop Tactics 9th ed batrep soon since Bone was a playtester for 9th (I think all of them might have been IIRC).
TT guys always have such beautiful armies. Adrian's Chaos are really lovely.
I'm thinking GW did what they usually do: sent out review copies for folks to release stuff on come the day the pre-order goes up, but it got spoiled a week early.
Eh they already previewed the box contents a few weeks ago on the twitch, so the contents are not a huge surprise. Chances are they are just ramping up the marketing now ready to get people really fired up for the 11th.
jivardi wrote: I don't think the rules reveal by GW was a "panic" reaction. I think it was meant to be released.
The guys over at Tabletop Titans are doing a 9th edition battle report tonight on their Youtube channel. Brian was one of the playtesters for 9th edition so obviously he has gotten the "green light" from GW to show off the new edition.
The rules were released around the same time the NDAs were lifted. Which makes me believe this was intended.
Overread wrote: Eh they already previewed the box contents a few weeks ago on the twitch, so the contents are not a huge surprise. Chances are they are just ramping up the marketing now ready to get people really fired up for the 11th.
Box contents, no, rules contents should have been though.
jivardi wrote: I don't think the rules reveal by GW was a "panic" reaction. I think it was meant to be released.
The guys over at Tabletop Titans are doing a 9th edition battle report tonight on their Youtube channel. Brian was one of the playtesters for 9th edition so obviously he has gotten the "green light" from GW to show off the new edition.
The rules were released around the same time the NDAs were lifted. Which makes me believe this was intended.
Right. That's why it was covered in swear words and lusty cowboy fornication.
jivardi wrote: I don't think the rules reveal by GW was a "panic" reaction. I think it was meant to be released.
The guys over at Tabletop Titans are doing a 9th edition battle report tonight on their Youtube channel. Brian was one of the playtesters for 9th edition so obviously he has gotten the "green light" from GW to show off the new edition.
The rules were released around the same time the NDAs were lifted. Which makes me believe this was intended.
I think they have a decent relationship with their marketing partners and decided to lift the NDA because of the leaks.
Otherwise, everyone would be discussing the new rules BUT the persons they intended to.
Edit : And yeah, there is the teenage watermarks issue too.
Overread wrote: Eh they already previewed the box contents a few weeks ago on the twitch, so the contents are not a huge surprise. Chances are they are just ramping up the marketing now ready to get people really fired up for the 11th.
Box contents, no, rules contents should have been though.
jivardi wrote: I don't think the rules reveal by GW was a "panic" reaction. I think it was meant to be released.
The guys over at Tabletop Titans are doing a 9th edition battle report tonight on their Youtube channel. Brian was one of the playtesters for 9th edition so obviously he has gotten the "green light" from GW to show off the new edition.
The rules were released around the same time the NDAs were lifted. Which makes me believe this was intended.
Right. That's why it was covered in swear words and lusty cowboy fornication.
This is 2020 bro and GW have been very clear if you exclude people from the hobby for non hobby reasons your not welcome
If one of the playtesters wants to go Brookback mountain over their spoilers thats their choice.
Everything interesting aside from the missions and the engagement range nerf had already been revealed by the time the guy leaked it, gotta think that probably isn't a coincidence.
Thanks for the answers on my question a few pages back about engagement range for huge models, wasn't there to answer earlier
With the few BatReps we'll see on Youtube, does that mean they'll play with the new points value ? Or are they playing 9th with 8th's points ? I'm really itching to see the point cost of everything, it's the most important thing now that rules are released.
I think the swear words were there for a different reason
the person was talking about what was written in the book on /tg/ and was told that he should take his made up stuff over to reddit were people will believe the stupid things he write
an hour later we got pictures of the rules with swear words and "f... reddit"
this was not something planned by GW, but they reacted fast enough to get us the real stuff and not some bad pictures with missing pages
Aaranis wrote: Thanks for the answers on my question a few pages back about engagement range for huge models, wasn't there to answer earlier
With the few BatReps we'll see on Youtube, does that mean they'll play with the new points value ? Or are they playing 9th with 8th's points ? I'm really itching to see the point cost of everything, it's the most important thing now that rules are released.
Unless GW sent them the new points, I imagine they'll play with PL and focus on the mechanics. That or use 8th ed points.
Brad Chester's AOW40k podcast interview made it sound like the playtesters possibly didn't have the new points values when they were testing. Several times he said stuff like "we'll have to see what the points are for X," which I guess could just be "I can't tell you that," but I sorta interpreted as "I don't know what the points are either."
All this has ruined the Saturday stream though, we know the rules, we've seen the units in the box already and they're not even running a standard battle.
yukishiro1 wrote: Brad Chester's AOW40k podcast interview made it sound like the playtesters possibly didn't have the new points values when they were testing.
I can imagine different teams got different stuff based on what they were testing. Was he doing matched or narrative? Or maybe they used 8th points so GW could get feedback on how it impacted different things so they could adjust them from there?
yukishiro1 wrote: Why are you discussing something that we don't even know is a fact? The shields shown don't matter because they're on something with a 3+ to begin with, so it only becomes a 2+.
If models with a 2+ to begin with get a shield that improves their save characterstic by 1 then you can start to have your argument about how stupid GW is (answer: very!).
You mean if you give them the armour indomitus or artificer armour relics?
yukishiro1 wrote: Brad Chester's AOW40k podcast interview made it sound like the playtesters possibly didn't have the new points values when they were testing.
I can imagine different teams got different stuff based on what they were testing. Was he doing matched or narrative? Or maybe they used 8th points so GW could get feedback on how it impacted different things so they could adjust them from there?
It's possible they all all got the same test packets and points but when they receive feedback they don't return to the playtesters, so if they placed a unit at 17, the playtesters all said it should be 19-21 they just publish it at 20.
Yeah that was kinda the impression I got: the playtesters were given points values of some sort, but they were provisional, with the understanding they would change based on feedback.
Because he did say somewhere something to the effect that "stuff that everybody complained about in 8th will probably get a big points hike, stuff that didn't won't, rather than an across the board 20%." So that implies they had at least some info.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why are you discussing something that we don't even know is a fact? The shields shown don't matter because they're on something with a 3+ to begin with, so it only becomes a 2+.
If models with a 2+ to begin with get a shield that improves their save characterstic by 1 then you can start to have your argument about how stupid GW is (answer: very!).
You mean if you give them the armour indomitus or artificer armour relics?
Ah, that's a good point.
Given that this exact same thing happened with Orks in 8th, I assume the solution will be the same.
yukishiro1 wrote: Brad Chester's AOW40k podcast interview made it sound like the playtesters possibly didn't have the new points values when they were testing.
I can imagine different teams got different stuff based on what they were testing. Was he doing matched or narrative? Or maybe they used 8th points so GW could get feedback on how it impacted different things so they could adjust them from there?
It's possible they all all got the same test packets and points but when they receive feedback they don't return to the playtesters, so if they placed a unit at 17, the playtesters all said it should be 19-21 they just publish it at 20.
Or testing was done like for 8th. "here's 2 army lists and their rules, play it out, tell your opinions"
yukishiro1 wrote: Brad Chester's AOW40k podcast interview made it sound like the playtesters possibly didn't have the new points values when they were testing.
I can imagine different teams got different stuff based on what they were testing. Was he doing matched or narrative? Or maybe they used 8th points so GW could get feedback on how it impacted different things so they could adjust them from there?
It's possible they all all got the same test packets and points but when they receive feedback they don't return to the playtesters, so if they placed a unit at 17, the playtesters all said it should be 19-21 they just publish it at 20.
Or testing was done like for 8th. "here's 2 army lists and their rules, play it out, tell your opinions"
I don't know if it's that simple anymore if only because of the feedback the devs have gotten abouy the playtesting from the community.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah that was kinda the impression I got: the playtesters were given points values of some sort, but they were provisional, with the understanding they would change based on feedback.
Because he did say somewhere something to the effect that "stuff that everybody complained about in 8th will probably get a big points hike, stuff that didn't won't, rather than an across the board 20%." So that implies they had at least some info.
This worries me as most of the stuff people complained about was stuff that toptables gave 0 cares about as the units generally weren't have as busted as people complained they were.
Sadly this probably means I'll be skipping 9th entirely.
Well maybe get some more models added to my armies for 1pth edition then.
I just want to watch 2 beautifully painted armies battle it out on a good looking board using new rules that I'll be using until 10 edition comes out.
I know Brian said the traditional Tau castle will change. Be curious to see how many Tau players watch the battle report and still decided to Ebay their armies.
Maybe I'll start a 4th army with all the cheap ebay discounts we'll see. LOL.
Well he's one of the top players in the world, so I think he meant by that the stuff that the tournament circuit complained about. TFCs being undercosted, that kind of thing.
yukishiro1 wrote: Well he's one of the top players in the world, so I think he meant by that the stuff that the tournament circuit complained about. TFCs being undercosted, that kind of thing.
Via netlisting some of that has always had a knock down effect into less competetive games so seeing it fixed is a good thing.
Tabletop Titans: 9th is even more of a shooting edition because it's much easier to draw LOS to stuff than it was in ITC 8th now due to obscuring being so much less effective at blocking LOS than the ITC "bottom floor is solid" rule. Also, T'au overwatch is even more powerful than before, thanks to freeing up support systems, and MSU shield drone spam is also even more powerful than ever.
Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but disappointing to see none-the-less.
Does this mean Iron Hands have a gimmick again? Terminator Captain, THSS, Gorgon chains & All Fleah Is Weakness, for an amazing 1+ 4++ 5+++ with -1 to wound against incoming shooting. Smashfether returns!!!
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Titans: 9th is even more of a shooting edition because it's much easier to draw LOS to stuff than it was in ITC 8th now due to obscuring being so much less effective at blocking LOS than the ITC "bottom floor is solid" rule. Also, T'au overwatch is even more powerful than before, thanks to freeing up support systems, and MSU shield drone spam is also even more powerful than ever.
Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but disappointing to see none-the-less.
How is it worse the ITC rule? Because it doesn't let you hide in a.magic box?
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Titans: 9th is even more of a shooting edition because it's much easier to draw LOS to stuff than it was in ITC 8th now due to obscuring being so much less effective at blocking LOS than the ITC "bottom floor is solid" rule.
Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but disappointing to see none-the-less.
True but armor save increases from being in ruins and other terrain with the "heavy cover" trait and "dense cover" like trees giving a -1 to hit, while not completely denying units shots, does increase survivability compared to standing in the open on planet bowling ball.
The 3 armies I play like the new terrain rules for the most part and no, they aren't SM (well Deathguard but they aren't anywhere near the power level of loyalist marines, even with the buffs from PA).
StarHunter25 wrote: Does this mean Iron Hands have a gimmick again? Terminator Captain, THSS, Gorgon chains & All Fleah Is Weakness, for an amazing 1+ 4++ 5+++ with -1 to wound against incoming shooting. Smashfether returns!!!
No one knows for sure and continually guessing at this point is meaningless.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Titans: 9th is even more of a shooting edition because it's much easier to draw LOS to stuff than it was in ITC 8th now due to obscuring being so much less effective at blocking LOS than the ITC "bottom floor is solid" rule. Also, T'au overwatch is even more powerful than before, thanks to freeing up support systems, and MSU shield drone spam is also even more powerful than ever.
Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but disappointing to see none-the-less.
How is it worse the ITC rule? Because it doesn't let you hide in a.magic box?
Because in ITC 8th you can be in the ruin and have LOS blocked. In 9th you have to be behind the ruin to block LOS; if you take a step inside you can be blown off the table just like there was no ruin there at all, except for maybe some token -1 to hit or +1 to saving throws that absolutely won't save you against something proper shooty. It's a massive difference, as I've been stating since it was revealed. It means you have to be way further back in order to get the LOS blocking effect.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Titans: 9th is even more of a shooting edition because it's much easier to draw LOS to stuff than it was in ITC 8th now due to obscuring being so much less effective at blocking LOS than the ITC "bottom floor is solid" rule.
How is this possible? ITC "bottom floor is solid" LOS is the same as entire building blocks LOS...?
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Titans: 9th is even more of a shooting edition because it's much easier to draw LOS to stuff than it was in ITC 8th now due to obscuring being so much less effective at blocking LOS than the ITC "bottom floor is solid" rule.
How is this possible? ITC "bottom floor is solid" LOS is the same as entire building blocks LOS...?
See above. In ITC 8th you can be in the ruin and be safe; in 9th you have to be behind the ruin to be safe - and if the opponent steps into the ruin, they can shoot you too. It's a massive difference.
Surely a fan made version of 8th is irrelevant when comparing 8th to 9th in terms of their actual rules. What ITC decide to do with 9th edition is entirely up in the air.
mould2k wrote: Surely a fan made version of 8th is irrelevant when comparing 8th to 9th in terms of their actual rules. What ITC decide to do with 9th edition is entirely up in the air.
Well, except that the "fan-made" version is what 99% of the competitive game used. It was the default, much more than the "real" rules were, because those rules were so lacking.
Also, they have already announced they'll follow the base 9th edition rules, so it isn't up in the air at all. If it's a disaster they or some other organization might come up with their own rules, but it's 100% clear that at launch ITC will be using the base 9th rules.
Its still a fan made set of house rules, it is also way less common in the UK than US.
Talking about ITCs set of house rules like that was what the actual 8th edition rules is simply erroneous, regardless of the competitive scene in the US.
mould2k wrote: Its still a fan made set of house rules, it is also way less common in the UK than US.
Talking about ITCs set of house rules like that was what the actual 8th edition rules is simply erroneous, regardless of the competitive scene in the US.
You're welcome to your opinion, but it's an opinion all competitive players will ignore, because the "bottom floor of ruins block LOS" rule was universal across competitive 40k in 8th edition. People call it the ITC rule for short in the US, but it was in ETC and WTC too. I'm not aware of any serious competitive format that didn't use it.
"It doesn't matter what competitive 40k was actually like in 8th when comparing it to competitive 40k in 9th" is not a take any competitive player is going to take very seriously.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Titans: 9th is even more of a shooting edition because it's much easier to draw LOS to stuff than it was in ITC 8th now due to obscuring being so much less effective at blocking LOS than the ITC "bottom floor is solid" rule. Also, T'au overwatch is even more powerful than before, thanks to freeing up support systems, and MSU shield drone spam is also even more powerful than ever.
Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but disappointing to see none-the-less.
That's not a problem with 9th, that's a problem with the terrain people use. While the 8th edition terrain rules were terrible and I understand that FLG had a vested interest in coming up with a "fix" that didn't invalidate all their terrain, the best solution to 8th's bad terrain rules would have been to make terrain that actually blocks LoS instead of house-ruling it. We saw that start to happen with the boring and ubiquitous L-shaped ruins popping up everywhere. I think combining proper LoS blockers with 9ths new terrain rules should be the way forward from now on.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Titans: 9th is even more of a shooting edition because it's much easier to draw LOS to stuff than it was in ITC 8th now due to obscuring being so much less effective at blocking LOS than the ITC "bottom floor is solid" rule. Also, T'au overwatch is even more powerful than before, thanks to freeing up support systems, and MSU shield drone spam is also even more powerful than ever.
Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but disappointing to see none-the-less.
That's not a problem with 9th, that's a problem with the terrain people use. While the 8th edition terrain rules were terrible and I understand that FLG had a vested interest in coming up with a "fix" that didn't invalidate all their terrain, the best solution to 8th's bad terrain rules would have been to make terrain that actually blocks LoS instead of house-ruling it. We saw that start to happen with the boring and ubiquitous L-shaped ruins popping up everywhere. I think combining proper LoS blockers with 9ths new terrain rules should be the way forward from now on.
Well, sort-of. But it's not like it was only FLG with the terrain full of holes. Practically every piece of GW's terrain is the same. The "bottom floor blocks LOS" thing was a great compromise because it let people use cool-looking terrain without turning everything into a shooting gallery.
9th should have just followed it, not come up with an "obscuring" rule that doesn't actually obscure if you're in the terrain in question, but only if you're behind it.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Titans: 9th is even more of a shooting edition because it's much easier to draw LOS to stuff than it was in ITC 8th now due to obscuring being so much less effective at blocking LOS than the ITC "bottom floor is solid" rule. Also, T'au overwatch is even more powerful than before, thanks to freeing up support systems, and MSU shield drone spam is also even more powerful than ever.
Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but disappointing to see none-the-less.
That's not a problem with 9th, that's a problem with the terrain people use. While the 8th edition terrain rules were terrible and I understand that FLG had a vested interest in coming up with a "fix" that didn't invalidate all their terrain, the best solution to 8th's bad terrain rules would have been to make terrain that actually blocks LoS instead of house-ruling it. We saw that start to happen with the boring and ubiquitous L-shaped ruins popping up everywhere. I think combining proper LoS blockers with 9ths new terrain rules should be the way forward from now on.
because bombed out ruins are
a) easy to make b) looking awesome c) are immersive as hell
on the other hand bombed out ruins with all windows closed, barricaded or blackened just look...odd...
having the first floor of ruins blocking LOS, regardless if someone is inside or behind, is an easy and elegant fix to prevent stuff to be shot at. But since shooting stuff seems to be the goal in this edition... why bother?
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Titans: 9th is even more of a shooting edition because it's much easier to draw LOS to stuff than it was in ITC 8th now due to obscuring being so much less effective at blocking LOS than the ITC "bottom floor is solid" rule.
How is this possible? ITC "bottom floor is solid" LOS is the same as entire building blocks LOS...?
See above. In ITC 8th you can be in the ruin and be safe; in 9th you have to be behind the ruin to be safe - and if the opponent steps into the ruin, they can shoot you too. It's a massive difference.
I mean, yeah, if you're playing with terrain that hardly blocks LOS already. In 9th, you still have to see the unit to shoot it. It's not like if I am halfway across the board, can't see your unit in a ruin, and am allowed to shoot it because it is in Obscuring terrain. It's more realistic, imo, and doesn't lend itself to abuse as much as the ITC rule.
And yet what it does do is radically increase the amount of stuff that can be shot. That's the point. You can think that's a good thing, but that's the result.
So, those 2 Chapter Approved books.. Anyone know if that content gonna be included in the Indomitus rulebook? Or will we still have to buy them separately?
yukishiro1 wrote: And yet what it does do is radically increase the amount of stuff that can be shot. That's the point. You can think that's a good thing, but that's the result.
Sure. Everyone has an opinion on whether it's better or not. But it largely depends on the terrain you play on as well.
Necros wrote: So, those 2 Chapter Approved books.. Anyone know if that content gonna be included in the Indomitus rulebook? Or will we still have to buy them separately?
They're separate from the main rulebook, just like in 8E.
Also, in 9th, looking at the rules, there's no limitations on vehicles, bikers and monsters entering ruins or going over walls. You have to pay movement for it, but you can move your tank straight up a vertical wall, get to the top, then move it straight down the vertical wall, ending on the other side (or in the middle of the ruin). Which is a bit funny.
Automatically Appended Next Post: P.S. Per Tabletop Titans, you can give the Assault Intercessors Sergeants hammers and other upgrades. It's just the datasheets in the box that don't let you you do that.
yukishiro1 wrote: Also, in 9th, looking at the rules, there's no limitations on vehicles, bikers and monsters entering ruins or going over walls. You have to pay movement for it, but you can move your tank straight up a vertical wall, get to the top, then move it straight down the vertical wall, ending on the other side (or in the middle of the ruin). Which is a bit funny.
Automatically Appended Next Post: P.S. Per Tabletop Titans, you can give the Assault Intercessors Sergeants hammers and other upgrades. It's just the datasheets in the box that don't let you you do that.
Except most common terrain will probably have the scaleable trait, which limits climbing to infantry, beasts, swarms, and fly models. Terrain is all about the traits really. Ruins, for example, have scaleable.
yukishiro1 wrote: Also, in 9th, looking at the rules, there's no limitations on vehicles, bikers and monsters entering ruins or going over walls. You have to pay movement for it, but you can move your tank straight up a vertical wall, get to the top, then move it straight down the vertical wall, ending on the other side (or in the middle of the ruin). Which is a bit funny.
Most likely it will only be possible with obstructions that are a bit over 1" right? Except super fast tanks advancing like certain ork vehicles which could make it up and down a 5" wall of infinite length with some room to spare. Which I guess to imagine it in world could be explained away by the vehicle grinding and trundling over the rubble of said obstruction.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop Titans: 9th is even more of a shooting edition because it's much easier to draw LOS to stuff than it was in ITC 8th now due to obscuring being so much less effective at blocking LOS than the ITC "bottom floor is solid" rule. Also, T'au overwatch is even more powerful than before, thanks to freeing up support systems, and MSU shield drone spam is also even more powerful than ever.
Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but disappointing to see none-the-less.
That's not a problem with 9th, that's a problem with the terrain people use. While the 8th edition terrain rules were terrible and I understand that FLG had a vested interest in coming up with a "fix" that didn't invalidate all their terrain, the best solution to 8th's bad terrain rules would have been to make terrain that actually blocks LoS instead of house-ruling it. We saw that start to happen with the boring and ubiquitous L-shaped ruins popping up everywhere. I think combining proper LoS blockers with 9ths new terrain rules should be the way forward from now on.
Well, sort-of. But it's not like it was only FLG with the terrain full of holes. Practically every piece of GW's terrain is the same. The "bottom floor blocks LOS" thing was a great compromise because it let people use cool-looking terrain without turning everything into a shooting gallery.
9th should have just followed it, not come up with an "obscuring" rule that doesn't actually obscure if you're in the terrain in question, but only if you're behind it.
Doesn't work for anything 18+ wounds either, even if the terrain actually fully obscures it from LOS, because "reasons".
Necros wrote:So, those 2 Chapter Approved books.. Anyone know if that content gonna be included in the Indomitus rulebook? Or will we still have to buy them separately?
If you want the tournament stuff you need the new ca. One assumes that the points will be available on the App, otherwise why would you pay for it?
yukishiro1 wrote:Also, in 9th, looking at the rules, there's no limitations on vehicles, bikers and monsters entering ruins or going over walls. You have to pay movement for it, but you can move your tank straight up a vertical wall, get to the top, then move it straight down the vertical wall, ending on the other side (or in the middle of the ruin). Which is a bit funny.
Isn't "scalable" only applicable to infantry? Pretty sure that's what I read.
What is this Crusade Pack? Is it just the silly dairy thing?
Carnikang wrote: What could the Combat Gauge possibly have to make it special for $27
It's a Citadel™ FineGauge™. It is simply the greatest combat gauge ever made, and all other types of combat gauges simply cannot meet its level of excellence.
I'm going to laugh so fething hard if it doesn't have a 1/2" measurement on it.
yukishiro1 wrote:Also, in 9th, looking at the rules, there's no limitations on vehicles, bikers and monsters entering ruins or going over walls. You have to pay movement for it, but you can move your tank straight up a vertical wall, get to the top, then move it straight down the vertical wall, ending on the other side (or in the middle of the ruin). Which is a bit funny.
Isn't "scalable" only applicable to infantry? Pretty sure that's what I read.
Scaleable just means you can't end your movement on top of it unless you're infantry/beasts/swarm. If the wall didn't have scaleable, it looks like a tank can actually go straight up a vertical wall and end its movement on top of it - the wobbly model rule seems to say that as long as it can physically be placed there, you can have it "counts as" there even if it would fall off if you removed your hand. I don't see anything about bases hanging off being illegal, though it could be there and I just missed it.
Regardless, any model can mover over any terrain in 9th, scaleable or not, as long as they can get to the other side in the same movement phase. I.e. if you have a tank with a 10" movement range right by a 4" wall, it can cross that wall. It'll cost 8" of movement to go up and down, but it can do it.
Actually, you may be right. A bit tired right now though. Scaleable seems to only apply to ending moves above the ground floor. So as long as you have the movement to get back to the ground floor it may work. Have to have a proper read though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wobbly model is on pg5 of the free rules they put out. However, i think the terrain rules explicitly prevent you from ending your movement half way up something.
Trickstick wrote: Actually, you may be right. A bit tired right now though. Scaleable seems to only apply to ending moves above the ground floor. So as long as you have the movement to get back to the ground floor it may work. Have to have a proper read though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wobbly model is on pg5 of the free rules they put out. However, i think the terrain rules explicitly prevent you from ending your movement half way up something.
Halfway up, yes. But that's different than "on top." Presumably most things you can go over will have scaleable so it won't be an issue, but technically, if it doesn't, I think a tank can trundle up that vertical service and then end its movement on top, even if it can't get down to the other side. What it can't do is end its movement halfway up or down.
edit: oops, example was wrong because it has unstable position, so nobody can end their movement there.
So tl;dr seems to be unless something has either scaleable or unstable position, you can end your movement on top of it, even with a vehicle. If it has either of those keywords, you can't, but you can still go straight up it and down the other side as long as you can do it all in one movement phase.
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't work for anything 18+ wounds either, even if the terrain actually fully obscures it from LOS, because "reasons".
Pretty sure this bit is incorrect. From the new rulebook "In order
to target an enemy unit, at least one model in that unit must be within
range (i.e. within the distance of the Range characteristic) of the
weapon being used and be visible to the shooting model. "
You still need actual LOS to shoot a unit, even if the Obscuring rule doesn't cover you. So Triumph of St Katherine can still hide behind a big ruin wall, assuming she's not visible.
Technically obscuring says that the piece never blocks LOS for anything 18W+ or an aircraft, even if it otherwise would if it didn't have the obscuring trait. It's stupid, but that's what it says. The bullet point doesn't say this, but the actual rules text does, and apparently the real text is what matters, not the bullet point.
On page 11 of the rules there's a little square regarding moving over terrain. It's an odd place to have it rather then with the terrain keywords but it does let you make any move up and down terrain as long as you have the needed movespeed. By default you can't move through any terrain taller than an inch but you can always use distance to travel over it.
I was talking about terrain with the obscuring trait. If a repulsor executioner can hide behind something like that so should a spartan or the Triumph.
I'm just going to put the Crackdown wall climbing cars on my mental list, along with 1++ saves, as future faq fodder.
Are there any other major RAI vs RAW points cropping up yet? They are always fun, although you have to be careful to move on from debates about them by about page 7.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yep. Cawl musta outfitted those land raiders with some fancy new treads so they can go straight up vertical walls.
Or all the ork vehicles are straight out of that wonderful Anime Movie Redline. The silly gak their vehicles get up to is fantastic.
One thing I'm super curious about is engagement ranges. If your in engagement range you can't shoot right? And every unit has a tube around them going out 1 inch and up 5. Does that mean if you park a vehicle with a base on the ground floor and that engagement range reaches to the second floor does that stop either unit from shooting even though neither are in the 0.5" range needed to swing in melee?
Trickstick wrote: I'm just going to put the Crackdown wall climbing cars on my mental list, along with 1++ saves, as future faq fodder.
Are there any other major RAI vs RAW points cropping up yet? They are always fun, although you have to be careful to move on from debates about them by about page 7.
Pretty sure it's intended for the land raider to be able to go up and down the wall. The wording is really clear on this.
Whether it's stupid or not is another question. Just like how in the past edition the grot could stand on the barrel and laugh at the carnifex. That was stupid, but intended.
yukishiro1 wrote: Pretty sure it's intended for the land raider to be able to go up and down the wall. The wording is really clear on this.
Whether it's stupid or not is another question. Just like how in the past edition the grot could stand on the barrel and laugh at the carnifex. That was stupid, but intended.
I think the problem is with the scaleable rule. Without it, you could have terrain like ramps and hills, perfect for driving over. However, scaleable only matters for ending your move, where I think it is intended to restrict vehicles from moving over at all.
Eh, I've been through too many RAI vs RAW debates in my life to care much anymore about the endless debates, but knowing the two positions is still useful. Just HYWPI and move on, or ask a TO if you have to.
Tabletop titans again (paraphrasing): 9th is a shooting edition, all these changes that seem to nerf melee absolutely do, all our testing has come up with the result that shooting is hugely buffed and melee is boned
Also, you have to choose warlord traits, relics, psychic powers, etc on your datasheet, before you see your opponent's army. No customization at all any more of any kind. Everything needs to be done before on your army list.
This is a huge change, and a really negative one in my opinion. It really sucks having to choose relics and powers before you know the match-up. I didn't even realize this myself looking at the rules. What a huge bummer, and the result is going to be far more homogenization as people will go for safe choices instead of interesting ones.
Trickstick wrote:I'm just going to put the Crackdown wall climbing cars on my mental list, along with 1++ saves, as future faq fodder.
Are there any other major RAI vs RAW points cropping up yet? They are always fun, although you have to be careful to move on from debates about them by about page 7.
I'd add this:
yukishiro1 wrote:Technically obscuring says that the piece never blocks LOS for anything 18W+ or an aircraft, even if it otherwise would if it didn't have the obscuring trait. It's stupid, but that's what it says. The bullet point doesn't say this, but the actual rules text does, and apparently the real text is what matters, not the bullet point.
So technically if a piece of terrain has the obscuring trait something can be on the other side of it, behind a solid wall that it can't see through, and freely fire on a super heavy, which it can't see. Makes sense.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yep. Cawl musta outfitted those land raiders with some fancy new treads so they can go straight up vertical walls.
Or you slow way down and bulldoze through the wall.
I do like the change to multicharge that now you have to get into range of all declared targets to succeed, no more declaring an extra unit way far back just for the off chance you can then tag it with the pile in move.
I still don't understand the RAI behind the Heavy Cover trait. So a unit charging a defender gets a +1 to their save, but the defender dug into cover doesn't? I'm glad this isn't how real life works or pikemen would have been terrible.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yep. Cawl musta outfitted those land raiders with some fancy new treads so they can go straight up vertical walls.
Or you slow way down and bulldoze through the wall.
Well, but you don't. The wall is still there and functioning.
Same as if you drop an icbm on a unit hiding right behind it.
Yep. Walls are still indestructible in the 41st millennium, even if they're already full of holes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, tabletop titans just confirmed that the old release schedule was scrapped due to the leaks; the NDA wasn't set to be lifted until next week.
Winters SEO goes through the terrain rules. Biggest surprise is that ruins don’t offer the dense cover trait, meaning units within can be shot at normal BS
yukishiro1 wrote: Brad Chester's AOW40k podcast interview made it sound like the playtesters possibly didn't have the new points values when they were testing. Several times he said stuff like "we'll have to see what the points are for X," which I guess could just be "I can't tell you that," but I sorta interpreted as "I don't know what the points are either."
Yea it could be that he just doesn't know if they settled on something different after feedback.
THs on assault intercessors were apparently an error; you can't do that, at least not until the codex comes out. So for some bizarre reason the normal intercessors have better melee sergeants than the assault ones. Go figure.
TT also said something just now about still using the 8th edition points too. It was a little weasel-y but it did make it sound like they didn't know the new points yet either.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop titans again (paraphrasing): 9th is a shooting edition, all these changes that seem to nerf melee absolutely do, all our testing has come up with the result that shooting is hugely buffed and melee is boned
Also, you have to choose warlord traits, relics, psychic powers, etc on your datasheet, before you see your opponent's army. No customization at all any more of any kind. Everything needs to be done before on your army list.
This is a huge change, and a really negative one in my opinion. It really sucks having to choose relics and powers before you know the match-up. I didn't even realize this myself looking at the rules. What a huge bummer, and the result is going to be far more homogenization as people will go for safe choices instead of interesting ones.
Yikes. I guess that is the tournament rules?
I'm ok with relics. Marines get abusive with that gak. Psychic powers makes me a little sad, but I have a swap out. It may well force more coherent lists instead of tailoring to the opponent. ALSO - it saves a ton of time.
yukishiro1 wrote: THs on assault intercessors were apparently an error; you can't do that, at least not until the codex comes out. So for some bizarre reason the normal intercessors have better melee sergeants than the assault ones. Go figure.
I have a huge fear that they just leave it like that and the assault and biker sergeants won't get the same weapons than the shooty sergeants. I mean it would be completely crazy, but that's what they did with the Reivers, Infiltrators and Incursors. Anyone who would actually really benefit of melee weapons won't get them.
yukishiro1 wrote: Tabletop titans again (paraphrasing): 9th is a shooting edition, all these changes that seem to nerf melee absolutely do, all our testing has come up with the result that shooting is hugely buffed and melee is boned
Also, you have to choose warlord traits, relics, psychic powers, etc on your datasheet, before you see your opponent's army. No customization at all any more of any kind. Everything needs to be done before on your army list.
This is a huge change, and a really negative one in my opinion. It really sucks having to choose relics and powers before you know the match-up. I didn't even realize this myself looking at the rules. What a huge bummer, and the result is going to be far more homogenization as people will go for safe choices instead of interesting ones.
Yikes. I guess that is the tournament rules?
I'm ok with relics. Marines get abusive with that gak. Psychic powers makes me a little sad, but I have a swap out. It may well force more coherent lists instead of tailoring to the opponent. ALSO - it saves a ton of time.
I know some local stuff has us do that, keep everything the same throughout the tournament. It does mean you're playing to your strengths and trying to predict what you might see. I tend to do that as a default though, especially if hard copies of a list are required.
I've definitely had that backfire though. Planning to see lots of conscripts early on in the edition and bringing barbed stranglers/flamers/lots of anti-infantry, only to be matched up against the few DG/Marine armies with tanks or .... so it'll be jarring for some.
If it didn't matter they wouldn't have fixed it!
