Zubb wrote: A note on servitors -
IMO they were very good before for their ability to score/screen the backline for as cheap as possible & they will still be good even at 7 ppm.
They are infantry, they can do actions, 4 of them cost as much as a single melee weapon wielding intercessor sergeant - whats not to love?
The points getting bumped for the faction that they're actually a part of, mostly, as a knock-on for Marines abusing it.
Jidmah wrote: When all the marines have crossed the rubricon primaris, marine armies will have the model count a of 3rd edition marine army but will cost as much as a 7th edition sisters army
GW hopes.
Actually really liking the fact GW is basically redoing all of the space marine range. All of these need to be redone too (and possibly more) before all of the old SMs get removed (moved to legends collection).
I'm ok with this as GW not releasing twice as many space marine boxes as everything else seem uncomfortingly abnormal. (Not that I play SMs though)
This probably means that imperial guard factions getting made into plastics (Valhallan, Mordian Iron Guard, Death Korps of Krieg, Tallarn Desert Raiders, etc) have been pushed back to infinity o'clock though, so I'm annoyed anyway.
tneva82 wrote: So did necrons get any token win in showoff or clean sweep for master faction?
Token win, though it seemed pretty rigged. Marines win one, necrons win one, back and forth, everything was 2:1 one way or the other.
Scarabs beat the bikers, which was mega lols.
Yeah, I'm not sure I want to know how they spun that last one. I assume that somehow they started in charge range on the scarab's turn, and the laws of probability still took the day off.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Well tau are definitely gundam inspired, and the new bikes look very Akira, so it's possible gw have been watching a bit too much anime.
Space Marines were inspired by Gundam as well. Jes has even said so. I mean just look at them and then at the old 80s Gundams lol.
Also I am pretty sure in the book that establishes the Emperor fought the Void Dragon and imprisoned him on Mars by the end of the book establishes that the story is a lie and we will never know the truth.
I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.
Jidmah wrote: When all the marines have crossed the rubricon primaris, marine armies will have the model count a of 3rd edition marine army but will cost as much as a 7th edition sisters army
GW hopes.
Actually really liking the fact GW is basically redoing all of the space marine range. All of these need to be redone too (and possibly more) before all of the old SMs get removed (moved to legends collection).
I'm ok with this as GW not releasing twice as many space marine boxes as everything else seem uncomfortingly abnormal. (Not that I play SMs though)
This probably means that imperial guard factions getting made into plastics (Valhallan, Mordian Iron Guard, Death Korps of Krieg, Tallarn Desert Raiders, etc) have been pushed back to infinity o'clock though, so I'm annoyed anyway.
The Librarian already has a Primaris version. We don't know if the full kit for Intercessors with chainswords will include jump packs. Scouts are pretty bad models but don't need replacing as such. The Command Squad doesn't need replacing, just the Emperor's Champion.
Really, if they gloss over tanks, the only significant marine unit that will need replacing is Devastators.
Voss wrote: Oh. So... still no generic c'tan shard.
That's exciting.
Almost as exciting as the green putty bloating this model beyond practicality.
This and silent king are the first two real knocks these new necrons have taken.
Isn't the one in the tesseract ark a generic one?
The one in the Tesseract Vault is a Transcendent C'tan. Note however the only C'tan datasheets in the 8th edition codex are the Transcendent C'tan, C'tan Shard of the Deceiver and C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer.
Jidmah wrote: When all the marines have crossed the rubricon primaris, marine armies will have the model count a of 3rd edition marine army but will cost as much as a 7th edition sisters army
GW hopes.
Actually really liking the fact GW is basically redoing all of the space marine range. All of these need to be redone too (and possibly more) before all of the old SMs get removed (moved to legends collection).
I'm ok with this as GW not releasing twice as many space marine boxes as everything else seem uncomfortingly abnormal. (Not that I play SMs though)
This probably means that imperial guard factions getting made into plastics (Valhallan, Mordian Iron Guard, Death Korps of Krieg, Tallarn Desert Raiders, etc) have been pushed back to infinity o'clock though, so I'm annoyed anyway.
Commander and librarian already have Primaris versions- 3 captains and a libby for primaris.
Scouts and sniper scouts are easily merged, really if the necromunda enforcers box had a bit better weapon load out it would already be covered.
Command squad, we just need a champion and probably an ancient sold separately.
Devastator seem to be replaced with hell blasters and the new melta dudes, who could have more weapons options in a multipart kit.
Land speeder and predator we have that leaked pic of.
Assault marines, if we are lucky the multipart assault Intercessor will include jump packs.
Carnikang wrote: I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.
Get that money Space Marines....
Yes I hope so too! I've been waiting for some of those for a very long time! (ok actually all of them)
Carnikang wrote: I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.
Get that money Space Marines....
Yes I hope so too! I've been waiting for some of those for a very long time! (ok actually all of them)
I think Tyranids are coming, maybe even the next big release after this lot. The Silent King came back to stop the nid... with that said, you might be the big bad of 10th ed, in which case you gotta wait out 9th like Necrons had to wait out 8th (though tbf nids sucked in 8th too, so we feel your pain lol).
ClockworkZion wrote: Yeah, if this is how they're doing points I'm not going to be happy. Free weapons are bad for the game.
Why?
Harder to balance if specific weapons become good because they're baked into the cost of the model, meaning points increases screw with model balance when other wargear options are considered. It removes levers that they can use for balance, and that's never a good thing.
Jidmah wrote: When all the marines have crossed the rubricon primaris, marine armies will have the model count a of 3rd edition marine army but will cost as much as a 7th edition sisters army
GW hopes.
Actually really liking the fact GW is basically redoing all of the space marine range. All of these need to be redone too (and possibly more) before all of the old SMs get removed (moved to legends collection).
I'm ok with this as GW not releasing twice as many space marine boxes as everything else seem uncomfortingly abnormal. (Not that I play SMs though)
This probably means that imperial guard factions getting made into plastics (Valhallan, Mordian Iron Guard, Death Korps of Krieg, Tallarn Desert Raiders, etc) have been pushed back to infinity o'clock though, so I'm annoyed anyway.
Commander and librarian already have Primaris versions- 3 captains and a libby for primaris.
Scouts and sniper scouts are easily merged, really if the necromunda enforcers box had a bit better weapon load out it would already be covered.
Command squad, we just need a champion and probably an ancient sold separately.
Devastator seem to be replaced with hell blasters and the new melta dudes, who could have more weapons options in a multipart kit.
Land speeder and predator we have that leaked pic of.
Assault marines, if we are lucky the multipart assault Intercessor will include jump packs.
Phobos Armour is the new Scout equivalent. Infiltrators, Incursors, Reivers and Eliminators fulfil all the old scout roles between them.
Actually really liking the fact GW is basically redoing all of the space marine range. All of these need to be redone too (and possibly more) before all of the old SMs get removed (moved to legends collection).
"need" is a strong word here as they don't to make a 1:1 replacemant but just something similar or merge the units with something else
and from all those you mentioned, there is only the Scout Bikes, Scout Landspeeder and Thunderfire Cannon that would need something new, the rest is already covered
ClockworkZion wrote: Yeah, if this is how they're doing points I'm not going to be happy. Free weapons are bad for the game.
Why?
Harder to balance if specific weapons become good because they're baked into the cost of the model, meaning points increases screw with model balance when other wargear options are considered. It removes levers that they can use for balance, and that's never a good thing.
This is only true because GW insists on all non-default options coming with a points increase. If some were -points..................
Automatically Appended Next Post: Silent King looks ok as a terrain piece. I don't care for the flying chair/staircase motif GW is using so often, and that Cape of Tripping..........
Void Dragon ain't bad- the lighting stuff looks better executed than the Citadel Swirly GakTM we've come to know and loathe.
Primaris Bike Chappy was inevitable- don't like the move away from Firstborn. He has an Iron Halo WHY??
Same for the Techmarine.... They could have at least included the full servo harness, and resisted the temptation to up-gun him.
ClockworkZion wrote: Yeah, Vanguard replaced the one scout unit with three, and added in some scout HQs which is nice since previously only Ultramarines had one.
Vanguard replaced nothing. Scouts are still a thing, even in the lore. They effectively added/coopted a Raven Guard Horus Heresy concept into the Primaris.
Guilliman is all about that stealing concept crap. The Moritat are a good example of this.
ClockworkZion wrote: Yeah, if this is how they're doing points I'm not going to be happy. Free weapons are bad for the game.
Why?
Harder to balance if specific weapons become good because they're baked into the cost of the model, meaning points increases screw with model balance when other wargear options are considered. It removes levers that they can use for balance, and that's never a good thing.
This is only true because GW insists on all non-default options coming with a points increase. If some were -points..................
You also have to pay for the default options. They're not a part of the unit's base cost. The only reason you would need an option to cost negative points is if for some reason it was worse than having absolutely nothing at all...
ClockworkZion wrote: Yeah, Vanguard replaced the one scout unit with three, and added in some scout HQs which is nice since previously only Ultramarines had one.
Vanguard replaced nothing. Scouts are still a thing, even in the lore. They effectively added/coopted a Raven Guard Horus Heresy concept into the Primaris.
Guilliman is all about that stealing concept crap. The Moritat are a good example of this.
Meh, give it time. Eventually they'll replace the scouts completely. They already make up the 10th now in addition to proper scouts.
Though does that mean the Exorcists have 3 companies of Vanguard?
I can't get the picture up, but is that a new necron model in the upper left of the silent king on the community page. It looks like a new pylon weapon
specia_k_squared wrote: I can't get the picture up, but is that a new necron model in the upper left of the silent king on the community page. It looks like a new pylon weapon
It's been mentioned. It's probably just a studio terrain piece since we already have the Dominion of Convergence coming for a Necron terrain piece.
I’m curious -because I’m not much of a math hammer kinda dude- about the balance in the Indomitus box set in general. Does it seem fair? Or does it look one sided?
Carnikang wrote: I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.
Get that money Space Marines....
Yes I hope so too! I've been waiting for some of those for a very long time! (ok actually all of them)
I think Tyranids are coming, maybe even the next big release after this lot. The Silent King came back to stop the nid... with that said, you might be the big bad of 10th ed, in which case you gotta wait out 9th like Necrons had to wait out 8th (though tbf nids sucked in 8th too, so we feel your pain lol).
Yeah I really hope GW take this treatment of Necrons and apply to it Nids- these are spectacular!
{and obviously brand new Squats coming after the Nids to extract their revenge.. although that would break my bank account/require the selling of a kidney and there's only so many of those you can steal before you get caught... ]
ClockworkZion wrote: Yeah, Vanguard replaced the one scout unit with three, and added in some scout HQs which is nice since previously only Ultramarines had one.
Vanguard replaced nothing. Scouts are still a thing, even in the lore. They effectively added/coopted a Raven Guard Horus Heresy concept into the Primaris.
Guilliman is all about that stealing concept crap. The Moritat are a good example of this.
Actually we really don't know if scouts are still a thing GW has said nothing on it. They presumably will be in the new codex, at that GW intends on replacing them with primairis equivalents at some point. I don't mind if they don't as people have already mentioned that their roles have effectively been replaced by these:
And given its clearly in pain, imagine Szarekh has to say “shut up, Bob” with regularity.
See, you see Bob in pain.
To me, it looks like Bob's into it.
So it's less trying to talk over him screaming, more trying to talk over him moaning.
"YES foolish fleshlings, soon all that you know will be OBLITER... Bob? Do you mind not … making those noises? And do you have to keep squirming back there? It's really distracting from …. Bob please, people are *watching*…"
And given its clearly in pain, imagine Szarekh has to say “shut up, Bob” with regularity.
See, you see Bob in pain.
To me, it looks like Bob's into it.
So it's less trying to talk over him screaming, more trying to talk over him moaning.
"YES foolish fleshlings, soon all that you know will be OBLITER... Bob? Do you mind not … making those noises? And do you have to keep squirming back there? It's really distracting from …. Bob please, people are *watching*…"
Yes but over that 30 year period we've had several generations of marine models released. Primaris are just the newest generation, only instead of swapping over models and calling them marines GW went the odd path of keeping both lines at once in the same army. So instead of replacing the old marine kit with the primaris and then steadily swapping things in and out (ergo your old marines they now count as primaris) they went for a duel release. So now you've an army of two parts that's sort of wanting to go with the newer, but at the same time wanting to keep the old. It's sort of stuck half way and feels messy.
That said I don't play marines so its a curiosity and oddness and my only worry is GW trying it with other forces (which I don't think is going to happen).
That part that makes me sorrowful about it is that sooner or later, Firstborn will go away, and at that point, we lose the ability to play games set between the end of the Heresy and the beginning of the Indomitus Crusade. Miniatures will of course remain available for a long time, there's enough secondhand Marines to pave over all of Nottingham, but Legend rules will be created in a halfhearted and slapdash way because GW will be incentivised to minimize the appeal of models they no longer produce.
If I was a betting man, I'd put money down on the 10th edition Marine codex to be Primaris-only, with perhaps one or two "Firstborn Veterans" unit entries at best, for people who want to field a handful of oldmarines in Xth.
Voss wrote: Oh. So... still no generic c'tan shard.
That's exciting.
Almost as exciting as the green putty bloating this model beyond practicality.
This and silent king are the first two real knocks these new necrons have taken.
Isn't the one in the tesseract ark a generic one?
The one in the Tesseract Vault is a Transcendent C'tan. Note however the only C'tan datasheets in the 8th edition codex are the Transcendent C'tan, C'tan Shard of the Deceiver and C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer.
As I already tried to explain, the unit labelled “Transcendent C’tan” has the statline of a generic C’tan shard. There are no rules currently that actually represent multiple shards united into a terrifyingly powerful being.
ClockworkZion wrote: Yeah, Vanguard replaced the one scout unit with three, and added in some scout HQs which is nice since previously only Ultramarines had one.
Vanguard replaced nothing. Scouts are still a thing, even in the lore. They effectively added/coopted a Raven Guard Horus Heresy concept into the Primaris.
Guilliman is all about that stealing concept crap. The Moritat are a good example of this.
Actually we really don't know if scouts are still a thing GW has said nothing on it.They presumably will be in the new codex, at that GW intends on replacing them with primairis equivalents at some point.
It's in the book that came out last August. We absolutely, 100% do know "scouts are still a thing".
I don't mind if they don't as people have already mentioned that their roles have effectively been replaced by these:
None of those are really "replacements" for Scouts though. Unless your only understanding of scouts is "they deploy differently!".
No Marines outside of Ultramarines had a 'Scout Equivalent HQ'. Argument can be made for Sergeant Namaan for the Dark Angels but that model is long since gone.
None of those are really "replacements" for Scouts though. Unless your only understanding of scouts is "they deploy differently!".
that is the point, the only thing going for Scouts is different deployment and Sniper Rifles
details changed with each edtion as have the profiles (from Recruits with worse stats to Marines with no armour) but the constant thing over time was Sniper Rifles and different deployment
Actually we really don't know if scouts are still a thing GW has said nothing on it.They presumably will be in the new codex, at that GW intends on replacing them with primairis equivalents at some point.
It's in the book that came out last August. We absolutely, 100% do know "scouts are still a thing"
So we don't know if they are still a thing with the next Codex as information from last year is easily changed or replaced (it it would not be the first time fluff changes 180° from one Codex to the next)
specia_k_squared wrote: I can't get the picture up, but is that a new necron model in the upper left of the silent king on the community page. It looks like a new pylon weapon
It's been mentioned. It's probably just a studio terrain piece since we already have the Dominion of Convergence coming for a Necron terrain piece.
Voss wrote: Oh. So... still no generic c'tan shard. That's exciting.
Almost as exciting as the green putty bloating this model beyond practicality.
This and silent king are the first two real knocks these new necrons have taken.
Isn't the one in the tesseract ark a generic one?
The one in the Tesseract Vault is a Transcendent C'tan. Note however the only C'tan datasheets in the 8th edition codex are the Transcendent C'tan, C'tan Shard of the Deceiver and C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer.
As I already tried to explain, the unit labelled “Transcendent C’tan” has the statline of a generic C’tan shard. There are no rules currently that actually represent multiple shards united into a terrifyingly powerful being.
Or we don't have a generic C'tan shard and all we have is a generic Transcendent C'tan, which is just a large shard or an amalgamation of multiple shards. From Codex Necrons (8th edition, pg. 64):
Not all C’tan Shards are equal in size and power. Some are mere fragments of energy, scarcely powerful enough to hold themselves together. Such fractured essences are of little threat to other creatures, and of no use as weapons – if they serve any function at all, it is as curios or trinkets for acquisitive Crypteks. On the other end of that scale are the Transcendent Shards – C’tan remnants of such size that even the most reckless of Overlords think carefully before employing them. These beings are sometimes created through several shards of the same C’tan flowing into one another to become an echo of its former godlike power
All newly made primaris marines still serve as scouts before becoming real marines right (exception is Cawl's original ones who were cloned, or at least already baked and put in statis after the heresy?)
So there still need to be scouts from a lore perspective. Scouts are marines in training, who can't yet wear power armor - hence all the phobos armor guys cannot really be a replacement for scouts.
So I would expect new scout models at some point. The old ones are pretty bad, just look at those faces - even the heavy metal painters can't make them look good.
Danny76 wrote: From that I always took that deceiver and nightbringer were also transcendent in power level
Yeah same, Trancendant Shards are several bits of the lower level C'Tan smushed together, bringing them into the same power level as shards of the big guys like Deceiver, Nightbringer etc.
specia_k_squared wrote: I can't get the picture up, but is that a new necron model in the upper left of the silent king on the community page. It looks like a new pylon weapon
It's been mentioned. It's probably just a studio terrain piece since we already have the Dominion of Convergence coming for a Necron terrain piece.
From War of Sigmar:
That's very clearly a cut up Mk1 Monolith
Its clearly not. The monolith is made of 4 mostly flat panels, the crystal doesn't look like that (its made of the same stuff as the green rods), doesn't have anything like the round base the arms are attached to, and it doesn't have putty lightning (which is a signature of the new stuff, not the old, especially not monolith old).
Oguhmek wrote: All newly made primaris marines still serve as scouts before becoming real marines right (exception is Cawl's original ones who were cloned, or at least already baked and put in statis after the heresy?)
So there still need to be scouts from a lore perspective. Scouts are marines in training, who can't yet wear power armor - hence all the phobos armor guys cannot really be a replacement for scouts.
So I would expect new scout models at some point. The old ones are pretty bad, just look at those faces - even the heavy metal painters can't make them look good.
If you really think scouts are going to continue, after adding Phobos..including snipers, I think you're in for disappointment. They may still be in the fluff as a training wing, but removed from the battlefield. There is zero reason to have them in the codex...their role has been replaced. The replacement is ongoing for all old marines, but it is happening.
specia_k_squared wrote: I can't get the picture up, but is that a new necron model in the upper left of the silent king on the community page. It looks like a new pylon weapon
It's been mentioned. It's probably just a studio terrain piece since we already have the Dominion of Convergence coming for a Necron terrain piece.
From War of Sigmar:
That's very clearly a cut up Mk1 Monolith
Its clearly not. The monolith is made of 4 mostly flat panels, the crystal doesn't look like that (its made of the same stuff as the green rods), doesn't have anything like the round base the arms are attached to, and it doesn't have putty lightning (which is a signature of the new stuff, not the old, especially not monolith old).
OK, it's the FW Necron board tile with a cut up Mk1 Monolith on top.
Carnikang wrote: I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.
Get that money Space Marines....
I've heard from several sources that GW has a 20 year policy on models, once those models hit 20 years, I'm sure they'll be replaced. People need to be patient, GWs releases have been in overdrive for three to four full years now, we've seen more new models kits since 2016 than we did the previous decade, and they're not done yet. Look at how AoS evolved over time. Your factions will get redone, necrons are proof of that. You're just going to have to be patient and wait it out.
specia_k_squared wrote: I can't get the picture up, but is that a new necron model in the upper left of the silent king on the community page. It looks like a new pylon weapon
It's been mentioned. It's probably just a studio terrain piece since we already have the Dominion of Convergence coming for a Necron terrain piece.
From War of Sigmar:
That's very clearly a cut up Mk1 Monolith
Its clearly not. The monolith is made of 4 mostly flat panels, the crystal doesn't look like that (its made of the same stuff as the green rods), doesn't have anything like the round base the arms are attached to, and it doesn't have putty lightning (which is a signature of the new stuff, not the old, especially not monolith old).
The 'arms' however are from the original Monolith.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I think it's looking more and more likely that the old marines are not going to stick around all of this edition and will probably be off to legends in a year or two
anybody who needs anything from the range had better get shopping as soon it's going to be Primeris as far as the eye can see
Honestly besides a random idea of greed I never got why GW didn't just outright upgrade marines into Primeris in one go. Like they did every time before. It seems really odd to have two model lines in the same army that are basically copy-catting each other.
Plausible?
Legal team meets marketing team. Marines in space are not defensible properties. Marketing meets designers. Sell marines under a different name plus feed the pulp fiction mill. Design meets writers. Make up stories that give us defensible IP that sells to kids, so... make them really good, tacticool and shiny. What about OG marines? Writers meet marketing. Marketing says eff em. And here we are.
The whole point of Primaris was to replace the entire marine line with new models so all marine players would have to buy whole new armies. There is no other reason for Primaris. It is 100% about getting marine players to replace their armies. The lore is just a shallow justification for getting people to replace their armies.
You can't do that all at once, it would piss people off way too much and lots of people would just quit the game rather than having to immediately drop 1k on a new army. You gotta boil the frog, do it slowly, piece by piece, so before people know it they've replaced their army without realizing they had to.
GW are smart when it comes to selling people stuff. If they weren't, they wouldn't be the biggest, most successful miniature company by far.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I think it's looking more and more likely that the old marines are not going to stick around all of this edition and will probably be off to legends in a year or two
anybody who needs anything from the range had better get shopping as soon it's going to be Primeris as far as the eye can see
Honestly besides a random idea of greed I never got why GW didn't just outright upgrade marines into Primeris in one go. Like they did every time before. It seems really odd to have two model lines in the same army that are basically copy-catting each other.
Plausible?
Legal team meets marketing team. Marines in space are not defensible properties. Marketing meets designers. Sell marines under a different name plus feed the pulp fiction mill. Design meets writers. Make up stories that give us defensible IP that sells to kids, so... make them really good, tacticool and shiny. What about OG marines? Writers meet marketing. Marketing says eff em. And here we are.
The switch to Primaris is not for legal reasons. IP wise there is no difference between Primaris and Space marines. They are giant genetic warriors in advanced armour.
The issue is the problem "how do you sell space marines to people who have hundreds of them in every possible configuration". Solution: make new 'better' space marines to sell them.
Primaris exist because everyone already had a space marine army.
yukishiro1 wrote: The whole point of Primaris was to replace the entire marine line with new models so all marine players would have to buy whole new armies. There is no other reason for Primaris. It is 100% about getting marine players to replace their armies. The lore is just a shallow justification for getting people to replace their armies.
You can't do that all at once, it would piss people off way too much and lots of people would just quit the game rather than having to immediately drop 1k on a new army. You gotta boil the frog, do it slowly, piece by piece, so before people know it they've replaced their army without realizing they had to.
GW are smart when it comes to selling people stuff. If they weren't, they wouldn't be the biggest, most successful miniature company by far.
Yeah, pretty much. The outrage would be massive if they just instantly squatted the line, especially while there were holes in the lines. Now that we are starting to see a critical mass of Primaris, it's very likely we are going to start seeing all the Firstborn go Direct only and then shuffled off to legends from there.
Carnikang wrote: I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.
Get that money Space Marines....
I've heard from several sources that GW has a 20 year policy on models, once those models hit 20 years, I'm sure they'll be replaced. People need to be patient, GWs releases have been in overdrive for three to four full years now, we've seen more new models kits since 2016 than we did the previous decade, and they're not done yet. Look at how AoS evolved over time. Your factions will get redone, necrons are proof of that. You're just going to have to be patient and wait it out.
-squint-
I am having a hard time guessing whether this is sarcasm or a legitimate bit of scuttlebutt.
Carnikang wrote: I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.
Get that money Space Marines....
I've heard from several sources that GW has a 20 year policy on models, once those models hit 20 years, I'm sure they'll be replaced. People need to be patient, GWs releases have been in overdrive for three to four full years now, we've seen more new models kits since 2016 than we did the previous decade, and they're not done yet. Look at how AoS evolved over time. Your factions will get redone, necrons are proof of that. You're just going to have to be patient and wait it out.
Carnikang wrote: I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.
Get that money Space Marines....
I've heard from several sources that GW has a 20 year policy on models, once those models hit 20 years, I'm sure they'll be replaced. People need to be patient, GWs releases have been in overdrive for three to four full years now, we've seen more new models kits since 2016 than we did the previous decade, and they're not done yet. Look at how AoS evolved over time. Your factions will get redone, necrons are proof of that. You're just going to have to be patient and wait it out.
-squint-
I am having a hard time guessing whether this is sarcasm or a legitimate bit of scuttlebutt.
If that's true, then they're behind schedule on the Ork Boyz, Cadian Shock Troops and Catachan Jungle Fighters.
Carnikang wrote: I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.
Get that money Space Marines....
I've heard from several sources that GW has a 20 year policy on models, once those models hit 20 years, I'm sure they'll be replaced. People need to be patient, GWs releases have been in overdrive for three to four full years now, we've seen more new models kits since 2016 than we did the previous decade, and they're not done yet. Look at how AoS evolved over time. Your factions will get redone, necrons are proof of that. You're just going to have to be patient and wait it out.
-squint-
I am having a hard time guessing whether this is sarcasm or a legitimate bit of scuttlebutt.
I've heard this from a lot of people, including my local gw store manager. Once a model hits the big 20, it gets either replaced with a new version, or with a new unit entirely. I expect that Tyranids, Eldar and Guard will get the necron treatment within the next 18-24 months, and I imagine Orcs will also show up at some point.
Carnikang wrote: I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.
Get that money Space Marines....
I've heard from several sources that GW has a 20 year policy on models, once those models hit 20 years, I'm sure they'll be replaced. People need to be patient, GWs releases have been in overdrive for three to four full years now, we've seen more new models kits since 2016 than we did the previous decade, and they're not done yet. Look at how AoS evolved over time. Your factions will get redone, necrons are proof of that. You're just going to have to be patient and wait it out.
-squint-
I am having a hard time guessing whether this is sarcasm or a legitimate bit of scuttlebutt.
If that's true, then they're behind schedule on the Ork Boyz, Cadian Shock Troops and Catachan Jungle Fighters.
Cadian plastic sprues are 2002 correct? So they still have 2 years before hitting the big 20.
Togusa wrote: I've heard this from a lot of people, including my local gw store manager.
Not trying to burst any bubbles, but the average GW store manager is as well informed about GW internal procedures as any other guy on the internet.
On top of that this really doesn't add up with many kits being redone way before they hit those mysterious 20 years, and some being a good bit older without any replacement or remake.
Carnikang wrote: I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.
Get that money Space Marines....
I've heard from several sources that GW has a 20 year policy on models, once those models hit 20 years, I'm sure they'll be replaced. People need to be patient, GWs releases have been in overdrive for three to four full years now, we've seen more new models kits since 2016 than we did the previous decade, and they're not done yet. Look at how AoS evolved over time. Your factions will get redone, necrons are proof of that. You're just going to have to be patient and wait it out.
-squint-
I am having a hard time guessing whether this is sarcasm or a legitimate bit of scuttlebutt.
I've heard this from a lot of people, including my local gw store manager. Once a model hits the big 20, it gets either replaced with a new version, or with a new unit entirely. I expect that Tyranids, Eldar and Guard will get the necron treatment within the next 18-24 months, and I imagine Orcs will also show up at some point.
Carnikang wrote: I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.
Get that money Space Marines....
I've heard from several sources that GW has a 20 year policy on models, once those models hit 20 years, I'm sure they'll be replaced. People need to be patient, GWs releases have been in overdrive for three to four full years now, we've seen more new models kits since 2016 than we did the previous decade, and they're not done yet. Look at how AoS evolved over time. Your factions will get redone, necrons are proof of that. You're just going to have to be patient and wait it out.
-squint-
I am having a hard time guessing whether this is sarcasm or a legitimate bit of scuttlebutt.
If that's true, then they're behind schedule on the Ork Boyz, Cadian Shock Troops and Catachan Jungle Fighters.
Cadian plastic sprues are 2002 correct? So they still have 2 years before hitting the big 20.
But Beserkers hit 20 two years ago. That theory is also massively blown out of the water by Falcons and Vypers, which are both well over 20 without replacements.
Carnikang wrote: I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.
Get that money Space Marines....
I've heard from several sources that GW has a 20 year policy on models, once those models hit 20 years, I'm sure they'll be replaced. People need to be patient, GWs releases have been in overdrive for three to four full years now, we've seen more new models kits since 2016 than we did the previous decade, and they're not done yet. Look at how AoS evolved over time. Your factions will get redone, necrons are proof of that. You're just going to have to be patient and wait it out.
-squint-
I am having a hard time guessing whether this is sarcasm or a legitimate bit of scuttlebutt.
I've heard this from a lot of people, including my local gw store manager. Once a model hits the big 20, it gets either replaced with a new version, or with a new unit entirely. I expect that Tyranids, Eldar and Guard will get the necron treatment within the next 18-24 months, and I imagine Orcs will also show up at some point.
Carnikang wrote: I'm just hoping that Space Marines make enough money for GW to consider producing plastic Biovores, Lictors, Pyrovores, Shrikes, redone Deathleaper, and Red Terror.
Get that money Space Marines....
I've heard from several sources that GW has a 20 year policy on models, once those models hit 20 years, I'm sure they'll be replaced. People need to be patient, GWs releases have been in overdrive for three to four full years now, we've seen more new models kits since 2016 than we did the previous decade, and they're not done yet. Look at how AoS evolved over time. Your factions will get redone, necrons are proof of that. You're just going to have to be patient and wait it out.
-squint-
I am having a hard time guessing whether this is sarcasm or a legitimate bit of scuttlebutt.
If that's true, then they're behind schedule on the Ork Boyz, Cadian Shock Troops and Catachan Jungle Fighters.
Cadian plastic sprues are 2002 correct? So they still have 2 years before hitting the big 20.
But Beserkers hit 20 two years ago. That theory is also massively blown out of the water by Falcons and Vypers, which are both well over 20 without replacements.
To name a couple.
Also see Avatar of Khaine, Colonel Schaffer, other phoenix lords
Lets not talk about how old eldar minatures are again.. Not while there another wave of space marines with some pointless plastic-brick-with-guns. Makes me sad...
I hope they don't replace the falcon kit for another 50 years, it's one of the best ever made and there's about a bajillion other things in the Eldar army that need a remake much worse.
yukishiro1 wrote: The whole point of Primaris was to replace the entire marine line with new models so all marine players would have to buy whole new armies. There is no other reason for Primaris. It is 100% about getting marine players to replace their armies. The lore is just a shallow justification for getting people to replace their armies.
You can't do that all at once, it would piss people off way too much and lots of people would just quit the game rather than having to immediately drop 1k on a new army. You gotta boil the frog, do it slowly, piece by piece, so before people know it they've replaced their army without realizing they had to.
GW are smart when it comes to selling people stuff. If they weren't, they wouldn't be the biggest, most successful miniature company by far.
Yea they'll let old marines die on the vine. They'll be supported a good while in rules, but eventually they'll fade away.
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
Something I just noticed is that vehicles on bases will just use the base for all measuring. So the annoyance of a valkyie's hull footprint being massive, and having to worry about it hanging over the edge of the board, will be gone.
I do see some ambiguity in their repeated use of the term "(or hull)". However, I believe that the hull only becomes a thing you account for when a model doesn't have a base, due to the initial definition.
Measuring distances, page 5 of free rules, 1st paragraph:
If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull.
I can see people trying to use the hull on based models, mainly as a hold over from 8th where you had to do that. But I think that the hull is entirely irrelevent for measuring when a vehicle has a base. Am I wrong here?
Trickstick wrote: Something I just noticed is that vehicles on bases will just use the base for all measuring. So the annoyance of a valkyie's hull footprint being massive, and having to worry about it hanging over the edge of the board, will be gone.
I do see some ambiguity in their repeated use of the term "(or hull)". However, I believe that the hull only becomes a thing you account for when a model doesn't have a base, due to the initial definition.
Measuring distances, page 5 of free rules, 1st paragraph:
If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull.
I can see people trying to use the hull on based models, mainly as a hold over from 8th where you had to do that. But I think that the hull is entirely irrelevent for measuring when a vehicle has a base. Am I wrong here?
There is a rule on vehicle model that tell us to measures the distance from its hull instead, which will overide the core rule if I understand correctly.
Trickstick wrote: Something I just noticed is that vehicles on bases will just use the base for all measuring. So the annoyance of a valkyie's hull footprint being massive, and having to worry about it hanging over the edge of the board, will be gone.
I do see some ambiguity in their repeated use of the term "(or hull)". However, I believe that the hull only becomes a thing you account for when a model doesn't have a base, due to the initial definition.
Measuring distances, page 5 of free rules, 1st paragraph:
If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull.
I can see people trying to use the hull on based models, mainly as a hold over from 8th where you had to do that. But I think that the hull is entirely irrelevent for measuring when a vehicle has a base. Am I wrong here?
There's no ambiguity with 'hull' anymore.
page 5, measuring distances wrote:If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles,
measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called
measuring to the model’s hull.
Any part of the model is the hull. _Anything_. [Its completely unrelated to the real world definition of hull, but its unambiguous in terms of the game.
Crazy poking out parts also become problematic for the owning player for 'wholly within,' if any little bobbin is outside the distance, it isn't completely within.
On the other hand, if there is a base, you always use the base.
Trickstick wrote: Something I just noticed is that vehicles on bases will just use the base for all measuring. So the annoyance of a valkyie's hull footprint being massive, and having to worry about it hanging over the edge of the board, will be gone.
I do see some ambiguity in their repeated use of the term "(or hull)". However, I believe that the hull only becomes a thing you account for when a model doesn't have a base, due to the initial definition.
Measuring distances, page 5 of free rules, 1st paragraph:
If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull.
I can see people trying to use the hull on based models, mainly as a hold over from 8th where you had to do that. But I think that the hull is entirely irrelevent for measuring when a vehicle has a base. Am I wrong here?
There is a rule on vehicle model that tell us to measures the distance from its hull instead, which will overide the core rule if I understand correctly.
From the 9th edition Core Rules:
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull.
So if the vehicle has a base (e.g., the Ork Megatrakk Scrapjet) you would measure from the base without a specific rule saying otherwise.
So the new App is supposed to be available next week. What do we know about it? I'd assume it'll be pretty similar to the AoS App. Any Aos players want to share their opinions on that one and explain what's in it and what it does? Sorry if everyone else already knows this, but I don't play AoS, and I'd like a little more information.
The Repulsor and Impulsor both have rules for measuring from the hull so exceptions will occur.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: So the new App is supposed to be available next week. What do we know about it? I'd assume it'll be pretty similar to the AoS App. Any Aos players want to share their opinions on that one and explain what's in it and what it does? Sorry if everyone else already knows this, but I don't play AoS, and I'd like a little more information.
We know that it exists. GW has yet to show us the app, or anything really in detail about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thinking of things still unseen, anyone see the Appendix for the new book yet? I've been waiting to see it spoiled but everyone seems to be ignoring it for coverage.
If DG and TS should go back into CSM than DA, BA, SW, IH, IF, CF, etc should all be rolled into one codex.
Black Legion represents the generic CSM. The 4 "god" legions in fluff don't behave or fight battles like Black Legion. The "4" SHOULD have separate codeciies and I'm hoping like hell the EC and WE get a codex in 9th.
I'm catching up to this thread but just wanted to say that I've heard that some Slaaneshi marines with most likely their big daddy are coming this Christmas So they might get their book then too (nothing on that though, just speculating for the book)!
Trickstick wrote: Something I just noticed is that vehicles on bases will just use the base for all measuring. So the annoyance of a valkyie's hull footprint being massive, and having to worry about it hanging over the edge of the board, will be gone.
I do see some ambiguity in their repeated use of the term "(or hull)". However, I believe that the hull only becomes a thing you account for when a model doesn't have a base, due to the initial definition.
Measuring distances, page 5 of free rules, 1st paragraph:
If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull.
I can see people trying to use the hull on based models, mainly as a hold over from 8th where you had to do that. But I think that the hull is entirely irrelevent for measuring when a vehicle has a base. Am I wrong here?
There is a rule on vehicle model that tell us to measures the distance from its hull instead, which will overide the core rule if I understand correctly.
From the 9th edition Core Rules:
Distances are measured in inches (") between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, such as is the case with many vehicles, measure to the closest point of any part of that model; this is called measuring to the model’s hull.
So if the vehicle has a base (e.g., the Ork Megatrakk Scrapjet) you would measure from the base without a specific rule saying otherwise.
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
NinthMusketeer wrote: I could definitely see a defiler 'rearing up' on its back legs while the front half crawls up a building and claws at the 4th floor.
Gadzilla666 wrote: So the new App is supposed to be available next week. What do we know about it? I'd assume it'll be pretty similar to the AoS App. Any Aos players want to share their opinions on that one and explain what's in it and what it does? Sorry if everyone else already knows this, but I don't play AoS, and I'd like a little more information.
It's good. Does everything you want for the cost of £1 per month. Used to use it all the time but unsubscribed when Soul Wars hit... it took far, far long to update. If the 40k ones the same, there'll be some major waiting time when major rule changes drop.
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...
The instructions tell you to model the turret with the periscope, so it's not even modeling for advantage. So, have fun getting run over by a deff rolla despite being 12" up on a ruin
Gadzilla666 wrote: So the new App is supposed to be available next week. What do we know about it? I'd assume it'll be pretty similar to the AoS App. Any Aos players want to share their opinions on that one and explain what's in it and what it does? Sorry if everyone else already knows this, but I don't play AoS, and I'd like a little more information.
It's good. Does everything you want for the cost of £1 per month. Used to use it all the time but unsubscribed when Soul Wars hit... it took far, far long to update. If the 40k ones the same, there'll be some major waiting time when major rule changes drop.
Pretty much my singular major gripe sigh the AoS app is it periodically forgets I’m subscribed. I’ll to use the army builder and it tells me you have to be subscribed to use that. I hit subscribe and it tells me I’m already subscribed. I go back to the builder and it tells me I have to subscribe to use that. The only way I’ve found to fix that is to delete the app and redownload it, which also deletes all your downloaded books and army lists. It does correctly remember you’ve paid for all those books and lets you download them again for free, but it’s a giant hassle and I hope you didn’t need those army lists you made or can remember what you had in them. It’s been a good bit since I’ve done AoS so I checked the app just now and I am once again locked out of the army builder I’m paying for.
cuda1179 wrote: So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
Oh, that's another thing to add to the dumb rule list. It's not that long this edition at least, they have done alright to limit it so far. I feel sorry for the guy with the awesome rearing defiler who is going to catch heat for modelling for advantage, even though his model is ten years old.
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
Would the issue be fixed if Storm Shields instead just gave you a +1 to your roll?
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
Would the issue be fixed if Storm Shields instead just gave you a +1 to your roll?
Yes, it would, +1 to the save roll is very different to 1+ save. I'm hoping this is the way they go on this one.
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
If DG and TS should go back into CSM than DA, BA, SW, IH, IF, CF, etc should all be rolled into one codex.
Black Legion represents the generic CSM. The 4 "god" legions in fluff don't behave or fight battles like Black Legion. The "4" SHOULD have separate codeciies and I'm hoping like hell the EC and WE get a codex in 9th.
I'm catching up to this thread but just wanted to say that I've heard that some Slaaneshi marines with most likely their big daddy are coming this Christmas So they might get their book then too (nothing on that though, just speculating for the book)!
You know what I'd like to see story wise?
That clone of Flugrim mentioned in PA get's freed, picked up by Roboute and expressed his desire to make amends. Make a "good" Fulgrim and then the Deamon Fulgrim. Have them both around. Imagine all the story potential. How does Guiliman feel about having an ally that slit his throat (even if this clone isn't the one who did that, the resemblance would be more than a bit unnerving). What goal would the clone have, does he want to atone for the sin of Fulgrims fall? Or does he actually want to try and save members of the legion. (Have there ever been any traitor marines who came back to the loyalist side after finding their choice distasteful?) How does the imperial administration feel about this, and what does Fulgrim himself think? Will they eventually meet and fight?
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
Would the issue be fixed if Storm Shields instead just gave you a +1 to your roll?
Would vanish. Another fix would be remove can't be modified below zero. That way removes worry gw will do it 3rd time with another way to gett 1+. If you just modify storm shield issue can pop again. They did same mistake with meganobz banning it from them. And here again. If they change storm shield it leaves door open for same issue come later.
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...
One of our local players is already hard at work crafting "10 foot poles" for all of his battlewagons. Basically 10 inch pvc tubes so that he can extend his range...
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails) The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
Right...we already have this in 8th, a 1 fails, you just get more room to dodge AP. Doesn't seem like an issue...
also, those are relic shields, not storm shields and cannot be taken by terminators...
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
Would the issue be fixed if Storm Shields instead just gave you a +1 to your roll?
Would vanish. Another fix would be remove can't be modified below zero. That way removes worry gw will do it 3rd time with another way to gett 1+.
Has weird potential to mess with rules that take effect on a 1, they’d have to be changed to take effect on less than 1 as well. It’s probably easier to just never make a rule that improves your save characteristic, only your save rolls.
Has weird potential to mess with rules that take effect on a 1, they’d have to be changed to take effect on less than 1 as well. It’s probably easier to just never make a rule that improves your save characteristic, only your save rolls.
They have already shown not so easy since they repeated it. If they just change this it will come 3rd time eventually. And 4th. 5th etc
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...
One of our local players is already hard at work crafting "10 foot poles" for all of his battlewagons. Basically 10 inch pvc tubes so that he can extend his range...
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
Right...we already have this in 8th, a 1 fails, you just get more room to dodge AP. Doesn't seem like an issue...
also, those are relic shields, not storm shields and cannot be taken by terminators...
The captain has a Relic Shield, the other guys have Storm Shields.
Alright, breaking down the math again. I have a 1+ armor save. Your gun has a -6 AP. I roll a 2. That 2 becomes a -4. -4 counts as 1. I made my 1+ save roll. You could have AP minus a billion, and I will make my save roll on anything other than a Natural 1.
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...
One of our local players is already hard at work crafting "10 foot poles" for all of his battlewagons. Basically 10 inch pvc tubes so that he can extend his range...
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
Right...we already have this in 8th, a 1 fails, you just get more room to dodge AP. Doesn't seem like an issue...
also, those are relic shields, not storm shields and cannot be taken by terminators...
This argument has come up a bunch of times, but basically because RAW a roll can't be modified below 1, a 1+ save is automatically a 2+ invulnerable save because the weird quirk of the rules makes it immune to AP at that point.
Has weird potential to mess with rules that take effect on a 1, they’d have to be changed to take effect on less than 1 as well. It’s probably easier to just never make a rule that improves your save characteristic, only your save rolls.
They have already shown not so easy since they repeated it. If they just change this it will come 3rd time eventually. And 4th. 5th etc
To be fair, they repeated it from AoS (how much do the design teams cross?) where it was far more corner case on only a single monster in a single army and they decided it was ok and they’d allow it. They haven’t really established a policy of ok this never gets to happen again yet.
To be fair, they repeated it from AoS (how much do the design teams cross?) where it was far more corner case on only a single monster in a single army and they decided it was ok and they’d allow it. They haven’t really established a policy of ok this never gets to happen again yet.
Let's be clear, it was designed in AOS to specifically work like that. It is on a monster that's armour save deteriorates as it takes wounds. It works very nicely to simulate 'cracking open the shell' on the beast.
That's not to say the 1+ was deliberate in 40k, but it is definitely in GW's studio toolbox (whether that applies to 40k who can say).
At the minute this is mute for marines because it currently only affects models with a 3+ save. We don’t know how and if it will apply to terminators yet. Maybe they change terminator stats so they have a 3+ save as well in their stats and terminator armour now gives them an in built extra wound and toughness? Who knows
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...
One of our local players is already hard at work crafting "10 foot poles" for all of his battlewagons. Basically 10 inch pvc tubes so that he can extend his range...
What for? To make sure he will never benefit from a KFF?
Honestly I wouldn't stress about the 1+ save thing just yet since GW has apparently said they're aware of it. We'll see what the day one FAQs say and then all move on with our lives.
Togusa wrote: One of our local players is already hard at work crafting "10 foot poles" for all of his battlewagons. Basically 10 inch pvc tubes so that he can extend his range...
That's modelling for advantage, and is not exactly a new thing in 9th. Your group needs to come to a position on how it is going to handle that. People will often puh the rules to gain an advantage, it is up to the rest to be a brake on that.
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...
One of our local players is already hard at work crafting "10 foot poles" for all of his battlewagons. Basically 10 inch pvc tubes so that he can extend his range...
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails) The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
Right...we already have this in 8th, a 1 fails, you just get more room to dodge AP. Doesn't seem like an issue...
also, those are relic shields, not storm shields and cannot be taken by terminators...
This argument has come up a bunch of times, but basically because RAW a roll can't be modified below 1, a 1+ save is automatically a 2+ invulnerable save because the weird quirk of the rules makes it immune to AP at that point.
funny thing is... orks already had a strat that gave them +1 to save (if an vehicle was destroyed near them). Paired with Meganobz they were in the same situation, they would get an +1 armour save. the text of the strat was FAQ'd to read: "...up to a minimun of 2+"
So yes. RAW +1 saves are a thing and they should've known from the beginning.
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
...I don't get it. Are we the only ones who calculate AP as a modifier to the armor save, not the die roll? I mean, it's way easier that way, and I can't possibly see how it could ever result in that.
...I don't get it. Are we the only ones who calculate AP as a modifier to the armor save, not the die roll? I mean, it's way easier that way, and I can't possibly see how it could ever result in that.
That is how everyone does it in practice and most do not even realise that this is actually not what the rules say. But outside this specific bug in the system it doesn't matter because the results are exactly the same.
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
...I don't get it. Are we the only ones who calculate AP as a modifier to the armor save, not the die roll? I mean, it's way easier that way, and I can't possibly see how it could ever result in that.
The way you calculate is irrelevant compared to how rules say. And until gw fixes it(if) 1+ save is 2++
Gadzilla666 wrote: So the new App is supposed to be available next week. What do we know about it? I'd assume it'll be pretty similar to the AoS App. Any Aos players want to share their opinions on that one and explain what's in it and what it does? Sorry if everyone else already knows this, but I don't play AoS, and I'd like a little more information.
It's good. Does everything you want for the cost of £1 per month. Used to use it all the time but unsubscribed when Soul Wars hit... it took far, far long to update. If the 40k ones the same, there'll be some major waiting time when major rule changes drop.
Pretty much my singular major gripe sigh the AoS app is it periodically forgets I’m subscribed. I’ll to use the army builder and it tells me you have to be subscribed to use that. I hit subscribe and it tells me I’m already subscribed. I go back to the builder and it tells me I have to subscribe to use that. The only way I’ve found to fix that is to delete the app and redownload it, which also deletes all your downloaded books and army lists. It does correctly remember you’ve paid for all those books and lets you download them again for free, but it’s a giant hassle and I hope you didn’t need those army lists you made or can remember what you had in them. It’s been a good bit since I’ve done AoS so I checked the app just now and I am once again locked out of the army builder I’m paying for.
Happens to me but if you go to the store page in the app you can select the button in the top-right corner and select restore purchases everything goes back to normal then without having to delete the app. Of course right now Azyr isn’t working, but I suspect it’s been temporarily disabled whilst they update all the points for GHB2020
cuda1179 wrote: So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
Oh, that's another thing to add to the dumb rule list. It's not that long this edition at least, they have done alright to limit it so far. I feel sorry for the guy with the awesome rearing defiler who is going to catch heat for modelling for advantage, even though his model is ten years old.
And the rest haha. I was using defilers back in the halcyon days of 3.5. Early noughties. So I guess that will be updated or replaced in a few years then
Has there been any reviews that go through the models in detail? I'd like to know if there are any extra optional bits, such as helmets. I'm not normally fussed about the helmets, but I want my Chaplains to have skull masks.
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
Would the issue be fixed if Storm Shields instead just gave you a +1 to your roll?
Would vanish. Another fix would be remove can't be modified below zero. That way removes worry gw will do it 3rd time with another way to gett 1+. If you just modify storm shield issue can pop again. They did same mistake with meganobz banning it from them. And here again. If they change storm shield it leaves door open for same issue come later.
Personally I hope they don’t change it as it’s not really an issue to be honest. It makes Custodes and assault terminators more like they are in the fluff and the same issues of MW and massed shots still affect them. I get why people don’t like it though and I do expect it will be changed
tneva82 wrote: The way you calculate is irrelevant compared to how rules say. And until gw fixes it(if) 1+ save is 2++
Not really if you don't play it that way. There are at least a few ways that the rules are subjective, and a glitch that gives a 4++ and a 2++ to a model is one of them. I think I would consider an opponent trying to force that on someone as TFG, unless they were doing it as part of a tournament or as some sort of RAW demonstration, fully knowing it was a stupid rule.
Yeah, the intention is pretty clear. There would be no problem with 1+ or 0+ saves if AP was applied to the save instead of the roll.
It's clearly intended that a 1+ save hit by a AP-4 weapons would require a 5+ to pass.
Jidmah wrote: Yeah, the intention is pretty clear. There would be no problem with 1+ or 0+ saves if AP was applied to the save instead of the roll.
It's clearly intended that a 1+ save hit by a AP-4 weapons would require a 5+ to pass.
That's literally the opposite of the way that GW clarified that the same mechanic works in AoS.
tneva82 wrote: The way you calculate is irrelevant compared to how rules say. And until gw fixes it(if) 1+ save is 2++
Not really if you don't play it that way. There are at least a few ways that the rules are subjective, and a glitch that gives a 4++ and a 2++ to a model is one of them. I think I would consider an opponent trying to force that on someone as TFG, unless they were doing it as part of a tournament or as some sort of RAW demonstration, fully knowing it was a stupid rule.
Just keep in mind there are things that ignore armor saves so its not a 2++ and a 4++ at the same time, like the celexus assassin melee would ignore the 1+save and you would have to use the 4++ instead.... granted that's the only one i can think of off the top of my head, but it doesnt mean thats going to be the only thing forever. And the Callidus ignoring invuln saves but not armor saves is helpless to a 1+. So while a 1+ is similar to a 2++ just have to remember its not even though it works in a very similar way.
Jidmah wrote: And why exactly would 40k care about unintuitive rule clarifications in a completely different game?
mainly because 40k has taken a lot of rules over from AoS by now and while the games were very different in the past, they have become more similar with main difference being that one is melee focused and the other focused on shooting
and we just hope now that the designers have this special case intended for one game, and just made a mistake by taking over the rules and not indented in 40k as well
I mean the rules are written in a very clear way without room for speculation that something like this is unlikley a mistake
or poeple who wrote #New40k had no clue what they were doing and just copy&paste rules that they thought were cool without thinking it thru once
RedNoak wrote: funny thing is... orks already had a strat that gave them +1 to save (if an vehicle was destroyed near them). Paired with Meganobz they were in the same situation, they would get an +1 armour save.
the text of the strat was FAQ'd to read: "...up to a minimun of 2+"
So yes. RAW +1 saves are a thing and they should've known from the beginning.
Like i said before the discussion is irrelevant it is clearly RAW.
GWFaq'd a ork strat because of the exact same thing. IF stormshields are written that way across the board, stictly RAW speaking, Terminators would have a (effectivly) 2++
Mr Morden wrote: Given the sheer amount of unit issues and required changes the day 1 FAQ is going to be vast!
1+ saves, charging flyers, and what else exactly?
I mean beyond all the updates to the codexes of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Has there been any reviews that go through the models in detail? I'd like to know if there are any extra optional bits, such as helmets. I'm not normally fussed about the helmets, but I want my Chaplains to have skull masks.
Captain has 3 helmet options, but I haven't seen anything about the Chaplain.
Jidmah wrote: Yeah, the intention is pretty clear. There would be no problem with 1+ or 0+ saves if AP was applied to the save instead of the roll.
It's clearly intended that a 1+ save hit by a AP-4 weapons would require a 5+ to pass.
That's literally the opposite of the way that GW clarified that the same mechanic works in AoS.
So just a few things about that argument: AoS has different mechanics for rending, the creature in question has a rule that prevents its save being modified by rend, AoS is written by a different rules team.
Like sure, there's precedent for it in a different system written by different people, but don't hold your breath.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MajorWesJanson wrote: Seems like they could fix it by saying that any save rolls of 1, modified or unmodified, fail.
Or that AP can modify die rolls below a 1. Or change the rule to +1 to the save roll, not the save characteristic.
Jidmah wrote: Yeah, the intention is pretty clear. There would be no problem with 1+ or 0+ saves if AP was applied to the save instead of the roll.
It's clearly intended that a 1+ save hit by a AP-4 weapons would require a 5+ to pass.
I'm unconvinced that 'clearly intended' is the right phrase for 'if they rewrote the rule so it was a completely different mechanic'
Is the +1 save thing an issue? So far nobody has produced any evidence the +1 save thing actually exists in the game. What we have is a couple of new data sheets with bespoke rules on them. One of the bespoke rules is named after an already existing piece of wargear but we have no idea if they have the same rules, something will change names to be different, etc.
Everyone is getting really juiced up over an assumption.
BrotherGecko wrote: Is the +1 save thing an issue? So far nobody has produced any evidence the +1 save thing actually exists in the game. What we have is a couple of new data sheets with bespoke rules on them. One of the bespoke rules is named after an already existing piece of wargear but we have no idea if they have the same rules, something will change names to be different, etc.
Everyone is getting really juiced up over an assumption.
I take said unit and use the honoured Sargent Strategum to give the Bladeguard Sargent 2+ armour suit, the 1+ armour is now in the game.
So even Bladeguard can have the 1+ armour we dont even need to wait its an issue at launch.
Its obviously not an actual thing, and will be FAQ very, very quickly (because it seems the book has quite a bit of an faq department built in, and GW started to realize they have to patch up the most obvious edge cases to be beyond any doubt as gakky people keep lawyering)
BoomWolf wrote: Its obviously not an actual thing, and will be FAQ very, very quickly (because it seems the book has quite a bit of an faq department built in, and GW started to realize they have to patch up the most obvious edge cases to be beyond any doubt as gakky people keep lawyering)
This was known issue the moment they wrote storm shield rule.
BoomWolf wrote: Its obviously not an actual thing, and will be FAQ very, very quickly (because it seems the book has quite a bit of an faq department built in, and GW started to realize they have to patch up the most obvious edge cases to be beyond any doubt as gakky people keep lawyering)
Tgis was an Issue in 8th, an issue in AoS and they have created the same issue day 1 with this unit, seriously at some point they have to start learning from the mistakes they keep making and having to FAQ/Eratta for months.
Also why did it take the comunity less than half an hour from the datashests leaking to spot the broken and non of the playtesters or GW notice? Are they all asleep at the wheeel?
Ice_can wrote: Also why did it take the comunity less than half an hour from the datashests leaking to spot the broken and non of the playtesters or GW notice? Are they all asleep at the wheeel?
I tend to give companies at least some slack on this sort of thing. For all we know, they caught 95% of the mistakes and one slipped through. We only see the one though. Also, the sheer number of extra eyeballs is insane. The work of ten people full time can be surpassed within half an hour by a few thousand, so they may instantly spot something that was missed.
The important part is how they react to the mistakes when they are spotted.
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
Would the issue be fixed if Storm Shields instead just gave you a +1 to your roll?
Would vanish. Another fix would be remove can't be modified below zero. That way removes worry gw will do it 3rd time with another way to gett 1+. If you just modify storm shield issue can pop again. They did same mistake with meganobz banning it from them. And here again. If they change storm shield it leaves door open for same issue come later.
Personally I hope they don’t change it as it’s not really an issue to be honest. It makes Custodes and assault terminators more like they are in the fluff and the same issues of MW and massed shots still affect them. I get why people don’t like it though and I do expect it will be changed
BrotherGecko wrote: Is the +1 save thing an issue? So far nobody has produced any evidence the +1 save thing actually exists in the game. What we have is a couple of new data sheets with bespoke rules on them. One of the bespoke rules is named after an already existing piece of wargear but we have no idea if they have the same rules, something will change names to be different, etc.
Everyone is getting really juiced up over an assumption.
BrotherGecko wrote: Is the +1 save thing an issue? So far nobody has produced any evidence the +1 save thing actually exists in the game.
It is. Its even cited as an example in the rulebook itself, under the Crusade rules (one of the Crusade perks is a save characteristic increase).
So yes, it is.
It isn't necessarily for terminator & custodes with stormshields (since they'll use their current datasheets), but there are ways to get it between various unit abilities, strats, relics, psychics and etc.
BrotherGecko wrote: Is the +1 save thing an issue? So far nobody has produced any evidence the +1 save thing actually exists in the game. What we have is a couple of new data sheets with bespoke rules on them. One of the bespoke rules is named after an already existing piece of wargear but we have no idea if they have the same rules, something will change names to be different, etc.
Everyone is getting really juiced up over an assumption.
I take said unit and use the honoured Sargent Strategum to give the Bladeguard Sargent 2+ armour suit, the 1+ armour is now in the game.
So even Bladeguard can have the 1+ armour we dont even need to wait its an issue at launch.
BrotherGecko wrote: Is the +1 save thing an issue? So far nobody has produced any evidence the +1 save thing actually exists in the game. What we have is a couple of new data sheets with bespoke rules on them. One of the bespoke rules is named after an already existing piece of wargear but we have no idea if they have the same rules, something will change names to be different, etc.
Everyone is getting really juiced up over an assumption.
There is a screen shot that shows that GW specifically mentions you can have a 1+ save, I believe it's in the Crusade rules.
And I took the time to look, from the Crusade Relics under Narrative play:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: Also why did it take the comunity less than half an hour from the datashests leaking to spot the broken and non of the playtesters or GW notice? Are they all asleep at the wheeel?
Because sometimes the fixes for other issues cause new issues. Just ask anyone who programs.
ClockworkZion wrote: There is a screen shot that shows that GW specifically mentions you can have a 1+ save, I believe it's in the Crusade rules.
The 1+ save itself is not the issue. Having a save be slightly resistant to AP is fine. Hey, I remember when Abaddon used to have a 2+ save on 2d6, but after AP it was ok. Thats the point, having an armour save suddenly become immune to AP because of certain rule interactions just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
ClockworkZion wrote: There is a screen shot that shows that GW specifically mentions you can have a 1+ save, I believe it's in the Crusade rules.
The 1+ save itself is not the issue. Having a save be slightly resistant to AP is fine. Hey, I remember when Abaddon used to have a 2+ save on 2d6, but after AP it was ok. Thats the point, having an armour save suddenly become immune to AP because of certain rule interactions just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
Oh I agree. Hence why I say wait for the FAQ and don't stress it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: GW have rules this both ways, so we don't know what they're going to do.
Until they do, a 1+ save means you save on a 2+. It's not rocket surgery.
No, a 1+ save means you save on a 1+, except unmodified 1s, because that's what the rules actually say.
And then I laugh, ask if you are serious, then don't play you anymore.
Because there are more rules that you want to ignore?
Maybe waiting until we know what all the interactions are before deleting parts of the rulebook is a reasonable thing?
ClockworkZion wrote: There is a screen shot that shows that GW specifically mentions you can have a 1+ save, I believe it's in the Crusade rules.
The 1+ save itself is not the issue. Having a save be slightly resistant to AP is fine. Hey, I remember when Abaddon used to have a 2+ save on 2d6, but after AP it was ok. Thats the point, having an armour save suddenly become immune to AP because of certain rule interactions just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
Oh I agree. Hence why I say wait for the FAQ and don't stress it.
The only way I can see this 'leaving a sour taste in the mouth' is if only one army had this and could spam it.
Because there are more rules that you want to ignore?
from the current point of view everyone is going to ignore the new would allocation, 1+ saves being immune to AP and no LOS needed for 18+ Wound models behind obscouring terrain
maybe there are some more rules everyone will play wrong because they make no sense if played right
BrotherGecko wrote: Is the +1 save thing an issue? So far nobody has produced any evidence the +1 save thing actually exists in the game. What we have is a couple of new data sheets with bespoke rules on them. One of the bespoke rules is named after an already existing piece of wargear but we have no idea if they have the same rules, something will change names to be different, etc.
Everyone is getting really juiced up over an assumption.
There is a screen shot that shows that GW specifically mentions you can have a 1+ save, I believe it's in the Crusade rules.
And I took the time to look, from the Crusade Relics under Narrative play:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: Also why did it take the comunity less than half an hour from the datashests leaking to spot the broken and non of the playtesters or GW notice? Are they all asleep at the wheeel?
Because sometimes the fixes for other issues cause new issues. Just ask anyone who programs.
Crusade/Narrative play isn't matched play though so if one thing allows a +1 save it doesn't really break the game or anything. Someone getting a hard to kill HQ isn't that huge of a deal in a story based game.
I was speaking more towards matched play. We have no evidence that we can take entire squads of +1 sv units. And from what I have heard from playtesters the primaris storm shield is unique to those datasheets. On the terminator or custodes datasheet it might say can not modify beyond 2+ or they might rename their storm shields.
I know a +1 save functions within the rules. And I know for fun characterful games its possible to get the 1+ sv but people seem to be worried about facing 10-30 storm shield terminators or entire armies of 1+ sv custodes, not one dude in your for funzies game.
Easy fix in an FAQ “Saves max out at 2+”. Bound to happen. Not worth pitching a fit or starting and argument about. May even be in Day One FAQ. Chill out, give it a couple of weeks and paint some models.
Voss wrote: Because there are more rules that you want to ignore?
Maybe waiting until we know what all the interactions are before deleting parts of the rulebook is a reasonable thing?
It's an inherently social game. If this rule came up, I would discuss it and would have to base my decision on how reasonable I think the opponent was. If they were friendly and it was an honest disagreement, I would be much more likely to keep playing than if I think they are just trying to game an advantage out of the system. Of course, there are different levels of rules too. Something minor that I think is stupid is much more likely to get a pass than an armour save suddenly becoming invulnerable because of roll modification rules.
You can be 100% correct in the rules, but you need to realise that people will judge you for using odd rules interactions in what they think is an abusive way.
ClockworkZion wrote: There is a screen shot that shows that GW specifically mentions you can have a 1+ save, I believe it's in the Crusade rules.
The 1+ save itself is not the issue. Having a save be slightly resistant to AP is fine. Hey, I remember when Abaddon used to have a 2+ save on 2d6, but after AP it was ok. Thats the point, having an armour save suddenly become immune to AP because of certain rule interactions just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
Oh I agree. Hence why I say wait for the FAQ and don't stress it.
The only way I can see this 'leaving a sour taste in the mouth' is if only one army had this and could spam it.
Voss wrote: Because there are more rules that you want to ignore?
Maybe waiting until we know what all the interactions are before deleting parts of the rulebook is a reasonable thing?
It's an inherently social game. If this rule came up, I would discuss it and would have to base my decision on how reasonable I think the opponent was. If they were friendly and it was an honest disagreement, I would be much more likely to keep playing than if I think they are just trying to game an advantage out of the system. Of course, there are different levels of rules too. Something minor that I think is stupid is much more likely to get a pass than an armour save suddenly becoming invulnerable because of roll modification rules.
You can be 100% correct in the rules, but you need to realise that people will judge you for using odd rules interactions in what they think is an abusive way.
Which is all entirely irrelevant when you play the rules in a standardized system meant to create an even playing field and facilitate a competitive environment. If you go to GW's GT events, this is how the rule would be played pre-faq and there's nothing talking to your opponent could do about it.
Voss wrote: Because there are more rules that you want to ignore?
Maybe waiting until we know what all the interactions are before deleting parts of the rulebook is a reasonable thing?
It's an inherently social game. If this rule came up, I would discuss it and would have to base my decision on how reasonable I think the opponent was. If they were friendly and it was an honest disagreement, I would be much more likely to keep playing than if I think they are just trying to game an advantage out of the system. Of course, there are different levels of rules too. Something minor that I think is stupid is much more likely to get a pass than an armour save suddenly becoming invulnerable because of roll modification rules.
You can be 100% correct in the rules, but you need to realise that people will judge you for using odd rules interactions in what they think is an abusive way.
Then the rules shouldn't be open for that interpretation. This was a problem found in literally the same day as we had all the rules.
I like it. Abstract and weird, but cool. Pretty sure it's a tyranid hive fleet entering a system, which is also cool that nids get in the cover. Leans into my theory that they'll be getting a big push down the line, as the Silent King famously came back when he saw the nids and shat his pants.
I like it. Abstract and weird, but cool. Pretty sure it's a tyranid hive fleet entering a system, which is also cool that nids get in the cover. Leans into my theory that they'll be getting a big push down the line, as the Silent King famously came back when he saw the nids and shat his pants.
I don't think it is a system. I think it is a representation of the organisation of the Imperium. When I saw it I thought of this picture:
Crimson wrote: I'm not gonna buy a crazy expensive limited edition book, but I have to say that I really, really like the art style.
And hilariously enough, its _still_ unclear if you can just buy a normal rulebook.
The article says you can get it in the boxed set (at least, a 'version' of it, whatever that means) or buy a limited edition copy.
It doesn't say if you can just buy just a normal copy by itself.
But hey, buy six box sets. Because limited and whatever...
They noted a while back that it would be launched when the pre-orders go live (i.e., next weekend) so I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Warhammer Community article or Warhammer 40,000 Daily stream covering the app.
Crimson wrote: I'm not gonna buy a crazy expensive limited edition book, but I have to say that I really, really like the art style.
And hilariously enough, its _still_ unclear if you can just buy a normal rulebook.
The article says you can get it in the boxed set (at least, a 'version' of it, whatever that means) or buy a limited edition copy.
It doesn't say if you can just buy just a normal copy by itself.
But hey, buy six box sets. Because limited and whatever...
The picture of the Core book below the Indomitus box is the normal one with text on the cover and its listed in the price chart so we know it will be available at launch
Automatically Appended Next Post: I am more interested in those new paints specifically in the new glow paint and what it looks like on a model as we still haven't seen anything about them except the computer render now which doesn't tell us anything except its gonna be green
I like it. Abstract and weird, but cool. Pretty sure it's a tyranid hive fleet entering a system, which is also cool that nids get in the cover. Leans into my theory that they'll be getting a big push down the line, as the Silent King famously came back when he saw the nids and shat his pants.
I don't think it is a system. I think it is a representation of the organisation of the Imperium. When I saw it I thought of this picture:
Spoiler:
Yeah you're probably right. I'm still seeing tyranid hive fleet on the back, or maybe just a vague representation of all the threats from outside.
Crimson wrote: I'm not gonna buy a crazy expensive limited edition book, but I have to say that I really, really like the art style.
And hilariously enough, its _still_ unclear if you can just buy a normal rulebook.
The article says you can get it in the boxed set (at least, a 'version' of it, whatever that means) or buy a limited edition copy.
It doesn't say if you can just buy just a normal copy by itself.
But hey, buy six box sets. Because limited and whatever...
From Warhammer Community:
A version of the Core Book is included in the Indomitus boxed set, making this a great tome to pick up if you’re splitting the set with a friend!
Seems perfectly clear to me that the book is being sold separately.
They noted a while back that it would be launched when the pre-orders go live (i.e., next weekend) so I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Warhammer Community article or Warhammer 40,000 Daily stream covering the app.
I'm just wondering if they guy contracted to make the app gave an unrealistic time frame to launch and is now pounding monsters and having panic attacks because the app is buggy and doesn't do half of what was promised. So GW is just quietly not giving more info in case they have to bail on the launch. Because I feel like the app should have more hype to it, its kind of a big deal.
They noted a while back that it would be launched when the pre-orders go live (i.e., next weekend) so I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Warhammer Community article or Warhammer 40,000 Daily stream covering the app.
I'm just wondering if they guy contracted to make the app gave an unrealistic time frame to launch and is now pounding monsters and having panic attacks because the app is buggy and doesn't do half of what was promised. So GW is just quietly not giving more info in case they have to bail on the launch. Because I feel like the app should have more hype to it, its kind of a big deal.
It's more than likely just the AoS app with a new coat of paint.
Crimson wrote: I'm not gonna buy a crazy expensive limited edition book, but I have to say that I really, really like the art style.
And hilariously enough, its _still_ unclear if you can just buy a normal rulebook.
The article says you can get it in the boxed set (at least, a 'version' of it, whatever that means) or buy a limited edition copy.
It doesn't say if you can just buy just a normal copy by itself.
But hey, buy six box sets. Because limited and whatever...
The picture of the Core book below the Indomitus box is the normal one with text on the cover and its listed in the price chart so we know it will be available at launch
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am more interested in those new paints specifically in the new glow paint and what it looks like on a model as we still haven't seen anything about them except the computer render now which doesn't tell us anything except its gonna be green
From Facebook:
Facebook Poster wrote:I’d love an article on the four new paints so we can see what they do and how they look on their own.
Warhammer TV wrote:We may take a separate look at them soon.
So I'm thinking we may see them on the Twitch 'Hobby Clinic' on Tuesday.
Jidmah wrote: Yeah, the intention is pretty clear. There would be no problem with 1+ or 0+ saves if AP was applied to the save instead of the roll.
It's clearly intended that a 1+ save hit by a AP-4 weapons would require a 5+ to pass.
That's literally the opposite of the way that GW clarified that the same mechanic works in AoS.
And the way they clarified it working in 40K, too.
Jidmah wrote: Yeah, the intention is pretty clear. There would be no problem with 1+ or 0+ saves if AP was applied to the save instead of the roll.
It's clearly intended that a 1+ save hit by a AP-4 weapons would require a 5+ to pass.
That's literally the opposite of the way that GW clarified that the same mechanic works in AoS.
And the way they clarified it working in 40K, too.
They have also ruled the other way too, with Necron Quantum Shielding and the Quantum Deflection stratagem, which applies a -1 to your roll. They ruled that a roll of 1 would ignore 1 damage, since the minus would make the roll a 0. So we'll see.
They noted a while back that it would be launched when the pre-orders go live (i.e., next weekend) so I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Warhammer Community article or Warhammer 40,000 Daily stream covering the app.
I'm just wondering if they guy contracted to make the app gave an unrealistic time frame to launch and is now pounding monsters and having panic attacks because the app is buggy and doesn't do half of what was promised. So GW is just quietly not giving more info in case they have to bail on the launch. Because I feel like the app should have more hype to it, its kind of a big deal.
I like it. Abstract and weird, but cool. Pretty sure it's a tyranid hive fleet entering a system, which is also cool that nids get in the cover. Leans into my theory that they'll be getting a big push down the line, as the Silent King famously came back when he saw the nids and shat his pants.
I don't think it is a system. I think it is a representation of the organisation of the Imperium. When I saw it I thought of this picture:
Spoiler:
Nah, it's Holy Terra and Mars in the centre, plus six other planets. Definitely the Sol System, although perhaps not a literal claim that there are presently Tyranids attacking it.
They noted a while back that it would be launched when the pre-orders go live (i.e., next weekend) so I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Warhammer Community article or Warhammer 40,000 Daily stream covering the app.
I'm just wondering if they guy contracted to make the app gave an unrealistic time frame to launch and is now pounding monsters and having panic attacks because the app is buggy and doesn't do half of what was promised. So GW is just quietly not giving more info in case they have to bail on the launch. Because I feel like the app should have more hype to it, its kind of a big deal.
I mean, the AoS app isn't... amazing.
It's better than their last attempt and would at least be functional.
Skywave wrote: Kinda dig the look of the LE rule book! As a Tyranids player I like to see something about my faction on the cover!
It does bring a bit of joy to see the Tyranid threat personified on the Book. It could be more representative of all the threats, but the art is very similar to all the representations of Tyranid Hive Fleet tendrils.
Skywave wrote: Kinda dig the look of the LE rule book! As a Tyranids player I like to see something about my faction on the cover!
It does bring a bit of joy to see the Tyranid threat personified on the Book. It could be more representative of all the threats, but the art is very similar to all the representations of Tyranid Hive Fleet tendrils.
I wonder if it will come up later in the edition?
Yeah it could be something else than Tyranids, but this kind of depiction is how Tyranids hive fleet tendrils have always being depicted (that I've seen), so it's easy to assume! Also, since the Silent King kinda came back for/because of the Tyranids apparently, it's also another hint that this covert might represent the Tyranids. Will wait for a confirmation but so far it makes me happy
But special edition usually being double the price, might be a though buy anyway sadly.
So Nids making a run at the "Sol System" fairly sure thats Terra Mars, satur and Jupitor with their respective moons.
That's a bold decision if thats where the story ia going for 10th edition.
EnTyme wrote: What's wrong with the AoS app? It works fine for me.
It's often buggy and sometimes gets things wrong, and can be slow to update.
I have to figure it’s not going to have points either since why sell a $40 point update book... which should have been free with the app.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: So Nids making a run at the "Sol System" fairly sure thats Terra Mars, satur and Jupitor with their respective moons.
That's a bold decision if thats where the story ia going for 10th edition.
I dunno if that’s the plan for 10th.
I’m assuming with thier new supreme command detachment they plan on making a big commander for each faction eventually.
Ice_can wrote: So Nids making a run at the "Sol System" fairly sure thats Terra Mars, satur and Jupitor with their respective moons.
That's a bold decision if thats where the story ia going for 10th edition.
Someone recently put some spoilers from
Spoiler:
Pariah
in the 40klore subreddit
Spoiler:
A warp anomaly slat out a Hive Fleet that is heading straight to the Sol Sector. Seems you’re right on this.
Ice_can wrote: So Nids making a run at the "Sol System" fairly sure thats Terra Mars, satur and Jupitor with their respective moons.
That's a bold decision if thats where the story ia going for 10th edition.
Someone recently put some spoilers from
Spoiler:
Pariah
in the 40klore subreddit
Spoiler:
A warp anomaly slat out a Hive Fleet that is heading straight to the Sol Sector. Seems you’re right on this.
Spoiler:
The warp storm front in question is situated to the galactic south of Luther McIntyre (pg.20), so not even in the Segmentum Solar. They've got a hell of a distance to travel to get to the Sol Sector.
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
...I don't get it. Are we the only ones who calculate AP as a modifier to the armor save, not the die roll? I mean, it's way easier that way, and I can't possibly see how it could ever result in that.
The way you calculate is irrelevant compared to how rules say. And until gw fixes it(if) 1+ save is 2++
Erm, no. The way we usually do there's not way for that bug to happen. With 1+ Armor, AP -1 changes it to 2+, AP -2 to 3+ and so on and so forth, and when Armor goes down to 7+ it no longer has an armor save, easy peasy. It will never be anything remotely similar to 2++ save.
On the same day that the Warhammer 40,000 pre-orders go live, a new app will be launched alongside it, providing several cool features to help you, including a full matched play army builder. The new app will do a number of things to assist players with their games, but one of the most useful will be the ability to build army lists using the updated points values and Detachments. We’ll have more on the Warhammer 40,000 app soon, so watch this space!
Ice_can wrote: So Nids making a run at the "Sol System" fairly sure thats Terra Mars, satur and Jupitor with their respective moons.
That's a bold decision if thats where the story ia going for 10th edition.
Someone recently put some spoilers from
Spoiler:
Pariah
in the 40klore subreddit
Spoiler:
A warp anomaly slat out a Hive Fleet that is heading straight to the Sol Sector. Seems you’re right on this.
Spoiler:
The warp storm front in question is situated to the galactic south of Luther McIntyre (pg.20), so not even in the Segmentum Solar. They've got a hell of a distance to travel to get to the Sol Sector.
Depends on what the "Timeline is for 9th edition to cover, as the lore seems to be a bit more flexible on what the "current timestamp" is with it going backwards and forwards 300 years or something in the PA books alone and they arn't in chronological order I believe, though GW keep making it even more challenging to tr6 and keep up with the lore as it's now shotguned into so many tiny chunks it's not worthwhile unless your into the hobby for the lore.
EnTyme wrote: What's wrong with the AoS app? It works fine for me.
It's often buggy and sometimes gets things wrong, and can be slow to update.
I have to figure it’s not going to have points either since why sell a $40 point update book... which should have been free with the app.
As others have pointed out, GW have already said the app will have points and a matched play army list builder. As for selling a point update book, it could be that the app won’t update points unless you buy chapter approved, the same way that you need to buy a codex to unlock an army list in the app (or at least that’s what I understand is how it’s supposedly going to work).
EnTyme wrote: What's wrong with the AoS app? It works fine for me.
It's often buggy and sometimes gets things wrong, and can be slow to update.
I have to figure it’s not going to have points either since why sell a $40 point update book... which should have been free with the app.
I highly doubt the points will be "free". The list builder portion of the app for AoS has a nominal monthly fee(~$1.50USD) to access list building and points.
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
...I don't get it. Are we the only ones who calculate AP as a modifier to the armor save, not the die roll? I mean, it's way easier that way, and I can't possibly see how it could ever result in that.
The way you calculate is irrelevant compared to how rules say. And until gw fixes it(if) 1+ save is 2++
Erm, no. The way we usually do there's not way for that bug to happen. With 1+ Armor, AP -1 changes it to 2+, AP -2 to 3+ and so on and so forth, and when Armor goes down to 7+ it no longer has an armor save, easy peasy. It will never be anything remotely similar to 2++ save.
Except that is incorrect. If you or anyone in your group plays anyone who uses the rules for 40k for their games, the bug will still be there. In the rules, AP modifies the ROLL; in the way you've spelled it out AP modifies the CHARACTERISTIC.
The way your method works breaks down in a different place. What happens if you fire a grav weapon at a 3+ save model? The AP on grav modifies the 3+ save to a 6+ save so technically it wouldn't do d3 damage because it's not hitting a 3+ save anymore.
Unless you just plan on playing the rule completely differently every time it comes up.
Hey there, can someone briefly explain that "1+ save"-discussion to me, because I really don't get what all the commotion is about...
-Technically you can have a 1+ save or even better (i.e. Terminator getting his armor improved by 1)
-The reason for AP to exist is to modify the save and is calculated against save-improvements
-Dice rolls of 1 always fail
So you can have a 1+ but still save on 2+... the improvement only gives you an advantage, when something other than AP 0 is shooting at you. This is my understanding of 40k as I played it up to this day and a summary of single facts that have already been posted on previous pages. So where is the problem?
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
...I don't get it. Are we the only ones who calculate AP as a modifier to the armor save, not the die roll? I mean, it's way easier that way, and I can't possibly see how it could ever result in that.
The way you calculate is irrelevant compared to how rules say. And until gw fixes it(if) 1+ save is 2++
Erm, no. The way we usually do there's not way for that bug to happen. With 1+ Armor, AP -1 changes it to 2+, AP -2 to 3+ and so on and so forth, and when Armor goes down to 7+ it no longer has an armor save, easy peasy. It will never be anything remotely similar to 2++ save.
Because that isn't how AP affects saves.
Both 8th AND 9th tell you to subtract AP from the roll, not the save characteristic. (So did WHFB, for that matter)
There isn't any change in difficulty, its still simple subtraction. Though a die roll produces a real number (an integer), which 3+ or 2+ is not (its notation, not a mathematical value). One you can apply a mathematical operation to, the other you can't.
Just drop the arguing over the save thing. GW has said they know it exists and have an answer coming. Going round and round the mulberry bush doesn't solve anything right now.
Pyrosphere wrote: Hey there, can someone briefly explain that "1+ save"-discussion to me, because I really don't get what all the commotion is about...
-Technically you can have a 1+ save or even better (i.e. Terminator getting his armor improved by 1)
-The reason for AP to exist is to modify the save and is calculated against save-improvements
-Dice rolls of 1 always fail
So you can have a 1+ but still save on 2+... the improvement only gives you an advantage, when something other than AP 0 is shooting at you. This is my understanding of 40k as I played it up to this day and a summary of single facts that have already been posted on previous pages. So where is the problem?
Only an unmodified 1 will fail, the ap on a gun is applied to the save roll, a roll of 2 against an ap -3 weapon would be -1. -1 can't happen and gets turned into a 1, this is a modified 1 and therefore passes on the 1+ save.
Voss wrote: Because that isn't how AP affects saves.
Both 8th AND 9th tell you to subtract AP from the roll, not the save characteristic. (So did WHFB, for that matter)
There isn't any change in difficulty, its still simple subtraction. Though a die roll produces a real number (an integer), which 3+ or 2+ is not (its notation, not a mathematical value). One you can apply a mathematical operation to, the other you can't.
WHFB's saves worked as 2nd edition's 40k. Which is exactly how I've shown above. It was kind of elegant, really... armor bonuses added to the armor save up to 1+, armor penalties subtracted from the armor save down to not having one; the die roll was never touched at all and a 1 was always a miss.
If they have changed it for 8th, well... that's why now it's a problem.
Voss wrote: Because that isn't how AP affects saves. Both 8th AND 9th tell you to subtract AP from the roll, not the save characteristic. (So did WHFB, for that matter)
There isn't any change in difficulty, its still simple subtraction. Though a die roll produces a real number (an integer), which 3+ or 2+ is not (its notation, not a mathematical value). One you can apply a mathematical operation to, the other you can't.
WHFB's saves worked as 2nd edition's 40k. Which is exactly how I've shown above. It was kind of elegant, really... armor bonuses added to the armor save up to 1+, armor penalties subtracted from the armor save down to not having one; the die roll was never touched at all and a 1 was always a miss.
If they have changed it for 8th, well... that's why now it's a problem.
They didn't "change it for 8th", they put in a different system just like 3rd-7th did. Note that they were specifically call "Save Modifiers" in WHFB and 40K 2nd and not "AP" or "Rend". Armour Penetration in 2nd ed 40K was specifically for getting through Vehicle armour.
Pyrosphere wrote: Hey there, can someone briefly explain that "1+ save"-discussion to me, because I really don't get what all the commotion is about...
-Technically you can have a 1+ save or even better (i.e. Terminator getting his armor improved by 1) -The reason for AP to exist is to modify the save and is calculated against save-improvements -Dice rolls of 1 always fail
So you can have a 1+ but still save on 2+... the improvement only gives you an advantage, when something other than AP 0 is shooting at you. This is my understanding of 40k as I played it up to this day and a summary of single facts that have already been posted on previous pages. So where is the problem?
Modifiers are applied to the roll of the dice, not the save characteristic.
Take AP -1 firing at 3+ save. The saving roll is a 3, the 3 is then modified by the AP, in this case -1, so the final result is 2. 2 is less than the save value, so the save is failed.
So if a model has Sv 1+ and is shot by a weapon with AP -1 and the they roll a 2, apply the -1 modifier and the result is 1. This is not less than the save characteristic so the save is passed.
Now a weapon with AP-4 fires at the model with SV 1+, the save roll is 2 we apply the modifier and the final result is 1 (because the rules say that a dice roll can’t be modified to be less than 1). So the save passes.
Same with AP -10, a save roll of 2 or higher still passes because the result can only be modified to 1, which for a 1+ save is still a successful saving throw.
The only way to beat a 1+ save is if the dice roll is a natural 1, because the rules say that a natural 1 always fails.
Basically it’s a result of these 3 factors in combination:
- AP modifies the dice roll, not the save characteristic - modifiers can’t make a dice roll less than 1 - a natural 1 always fails.
If they have changed it for 8th, well... that's why now it's a problem.
this is the point, they changed it to work differently which leads to the question why they did it that way if those special cases for a 2++ was not intended
as you don't change a system that works perfectly well in all cases to something different, if the flaw of the new system is an intended feature
I'm glad internet people is not real and no human being would play the 2++ even if GW doesnt faq it.
ETC/WTC has allready said they are gonna do it in their own tournament ruleset so NP for my part.
What most people doesn't tell when they put down the Bastiladon example is that , that model literally ignored rend, so thats how they did it to allow it to ignore rend until it becomes damaged and then it loses that property to balance it.
Voss wrote: Because that isn't how AP affects saves.
Both 8th AND 9th tell you to subtract AP from the roll, not the save characteristic. (So did WHFB, for that matter)
There isn't any change in difficulty, its still simple subtraction. Though a die roll produces a real number (an integer), which 3+ or 2+ is not (its notation, not a mathematical value). One you can apply a mathematical operation to, the other you can't.
WHFB's saves worked as 2nd edition's 40k. Which is exactly how I've shown above. It was kind of elegant, really... armor bonuses added to the armor save up to 1+, armor penalties subtracted from the armor save down to not having one; the die roll was never touched at all and a 1 was always a miss.
If they have changed it for 8th, well... that's why now it's a problem.
They didn't "change it for 8th", they put in a different system just like 3rd-7th did. Note that they were specifically call "Save Modifiers" in WHFB and 40K 2nd and not "AP" or "Rend". Armour Penetration in 2nd ed 40K was specifically for getting through Vehicle armour.
I meant from the way it worked in other, previous versions of their games, where they used the exact same process for armor saves, but OK, my bad, I'm using the exact terminology wrong. Save Modifier, not AP, even if it was functionally the same and the actual name of the modifier has no bear on its application. Happy? feth, it was even in the fething name.
Still, the point remains. The way Save Modifiers worked on previous iteration of the Save rule, from previous editions of the game, worked with the same constraints and used very, very similar values, even. But didn't have a "1+ save is effectively a 2++ save" flaw.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aash wrote: Modifiers are applied to the roll of the dice, not the save characteristic.
Well, only if it's a negative one. Positive ones are added to the save, so... That's what I don't understand. Back in the day you used all the modifiers on the save, and it worked, no issues.
Voss wrote: Because that isn't how AP affects saves. Both 8th AND 9th tell you to subtract AP from the roll, not the save characteristic. (So did WHFB, for that matter)
There isn't any change in difficulty, its still simple subtraction. Though a die roll produces a real number (an integer), which 3+ or 2+ is not (its notation, not a mathematical value). One you can apply a mathematical operation to, the other you can't.
WHFB's saves worked as 2nd edition's 40k. Which is exactly how I've shown above. It was kind of elegant, really... armor bonuses added to the armor save up to 1+, armor penalties subtracted from the armor save down to not having one; the die roll was never touched at all and a 1 was always a miss.
If they have changed it for 8th, well... that's why now it's a problem.
They didn't "change it for 8th", they put in a different system just like 3rd-7th did. Note that they were specifically call "Save Modifiers" in WHFB and 40K 2nd and not "AP" or "Rend". Armour Penetration in 2nd ed 40K was specifically for getting through Vehicle armour.
I meant from the way it worked in other, previous versions of their games, where they used the exact same process for armor saves, but OK, my bad, I'm using the exact terminology wrong. Save Modifier, not AP, even if it was functionally the same and the actual name of the modifier has no bear on its application. Happy? feth, it was even in the fething name.
Still, the point remains. The way Save Modifiers worked on previous iteration of the Save rule, from previous editions of the game, worked with the same constraints and used very, very similar values, even. But didn't have a "1+ save is effectively a 2++ save" flaw.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aash wrote: Modifiers are applied to the roll of the dice, not the save characteristic.
Well, only if it's a negative one. Positive ones are added to the save, so... That's what I don't understand. Back in the day you used all the modifiers on the save, and it worked, no issues.
It's important because AP has never worked the same as Save Modifiers. The first AP system gave you up to which save you ignore outright, it didn't modify anything. This one modifies a roll. You can't say "this is how it worked previously, because it didn't, a different mechanic(Save Modifiers) did.
What you don't understand is that one(Stormshields) specifically says to modify the Save Characteristic while the other(AP) specifically says to modify the roll. Those are two different rule mechanics with no relation to how a different mechanic in the past worked.
Platuan4th wrote: It's important because AP has never worked the same as Save Modifiers. The first AP system gave you up to which save you ignore outright, it didn't modify anything. This one modifies a roll. You can't say "this is how it worked previously, because it didn't, a different mechanic(Save Modifiers) did.
What you don't understand is that one(Stormshields) specifically says to modify the Save Characteristic while the other(AP) specifically says to modify the roll. Those are two different rule mechanics.
So, we get back to the first point: they "fixed" something that was already working correctly, and now it's broken. Weeeee.
Platuan4th wrote: It's important because AP has never worked the same as Save Modifiers. The first AP system gave you up to which save you ignore outright, it didn't modify anything. This one modifies a roll. You can't say "this is how it worked previously, because it didn't, a different mechanic(Save Modifiers) did.
What you don't understand is that one(Stormshields) specifically says to modify the Save Characteristic while the other(AP) specifically says to modify the roll. Those are two different rule mechanics.
So, we get back to the first point: they "fixed" something that was already working correctly, and now it's broken. Weeeee.
No, they didn't. There were vast amounts of arguments of the previous AP system, too. 40K hasn't used Save Modifiers in over 20 years, stop comparing the two.
Pyrosphere wrote: Hey there, can someone briefly explain that "1+ save"-discussion to me, because I really don't get what all the commotion is about...
-Technically you can have a 1+ save or even better (i.e. Terminator getting his armor improved by 1)
-The reason for AP to exist is to modify the save and is calculated against save-improvements
-Dice rolls of 1 always fail
So you can have a 1+ but still save on 2+... the improvement only gives you an advantage, when something other than AP 0 is shooting at you. This is my understanding of 40k as I played it up to this day and a summary of single facts that have already been posted on previous pages. So where is the problem?
Modifiers are applied to the roll of the dice, not the save characteristic.
Take AP -1 firing at 3+ save. The saving roll is a 3, the 3 is then modified by the AP, in this case -1, so the final result is 2. 2 is less than the save value, so the save is failed.
So if a model has Sv 1+ and is shot by a weapon with AP -1 and the they roll a 2, apply the -1 modifier and the result is 1. This is not less than the save characteristic so the save is passed.
Now a weapon with AP-4 fires at the model with SV 1+, the save roll is 2 we apply the modifier and the final result is 1 (because the rules say that a dice roll can’t be modified to be less than 1). So the save passes.
Same with AP -10, a save roll of 2 or higher still passes because the result can only be modified to 1, which for a 1+ save is still a successful saving throw.
The only way to beat a 1+ save is if the dice roll is a natural 1, because the rules say that a natural 1 always fails.
Basically it’s a result of these 3 factors in combination:
- AP modifies the dice roll, not the save characteristic
- modifiers can’t make a dice roll less than 1
- a natural 1 always fails.
Thanks for the explanation.!
In my group, we calculate in the opposite direction (mathematically ignoring the "minus" in the AP and explaining it that way, that it "weakens" the armor) So every point in AP raises the armor save by 1, meaning AP-1 on a 2+ save requires to roll a 3+ to pass. AP-2 on a 3+ save requires a 5+. And if you reach a calculated 7+ it ends in having no save at all.
With the exception of "ignoring" the "minus" I find this far more intuitive tbh... because it means you just have to look at the results rather than recalculating every single roll.
Galas wrote: I'm glad internet people is not real and no human being would play the 2++ even if GW doesnt faq it.
mean like everyone used to play that a whole squad could use grenades instead of just 1 per unit until GW explicit FAQed it and a rule that no human being what play the way it was written became real
and the same thing will happen fpr wound allocation too
you can already call this the House-Rule Edition as everyone will find a rule that they don't like and just change it because GW can't be that supid and really mean it, and will still ignore it even if GW say otherwise
Platuan4th wrote: It's important because AP has never worked the same as Save Modifiers. The first AP system gave you up to which save you ignore outright, it didn't modify anything. This one modifies a roll. You can't say "this is how it worked previously, because it didn't, a different mechanic(Save Modifiers) did.
What you don't understand is that one(Stormshields) specifically says to modify the Save Characteristic while the other(AP) specifically says to modify the roll. Those are two different rule mechanics.
So, we get back to the first point: they "fixed" something that was already working correctly, and now it's broken. Weeeee.
No, they didn't. There were vast amounts of arguments of the previous AP system, too. 40K hasn't used Save Modifiers in over 20 years, stop comparing the two.
OK. What have they fixed from that ancient system with this new one that needed applying the mod to the die roll instead of the save?
Platuan4th wrote: It's important because AP has never worked the same as Save Modifiers. The first AP system gave you up to which save you ignore outright, it didn't modify anything. This one modifies a roll. You can't say "this is how it worked previously, because it didn't, a different mechanic(Save Modifiers) did.
What you don't understand is that one(Stormshields) specifically says to modify the Save Characteristic while the other(AP) specifically says to modify the roll. Those are two different rule mechanics.
So, we get back to the first point: they "fixed" something that was already working correctly, and now it's broken. Weeeee.
No, they didn't. There were vast amounts of arguments of the previous AP system, too. 40K hasn't used Save Modifiers in over 20 years, stop comparing the two.
OK. What have they fixed from that ancient system with this new one that needed applying the mod to the die roll instead of the save?
Try reading what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote and you'll see I didn't say anything about "fixing" the Save Modifiers. I said there were argument with the previous AP system and a different statement that you need to stop conflating AP and Save Modifiers. There's zero reason for 40K to do anything about a system that stopped applying to 40K in the 90's.
Platuan4th wrote: It's important because AP has never worked the same as Save Modifiers. The first AP system gave you up to which save you ignore outright, it didn't modify anything. This one modifies a roll. You can't say "this is how it worked previously, because it didn't, a different mechanic(Save Modifiers) did.
What you don't understand is that one(Stormshields) specifically says to modify the Save Characteristic while the other(AP) specifically says to modify the roll. Those are two different rule mechanics.
So, we get back to the first point: they "fixed" something that was already working correctly, and now it's broken. Weeeee.
Nope. Regardless of how you did it, and how you believed it worked, this is how it works this edition and last edition- AP and save modifiers changed the die roll. Same with 8th edition fantasy. The difference is that previously a 1 always failed, whether it was modified or not. This says only that unmodified 1 always fails, in all other cases the roll needs to be less than the save characteristic, which isn't possible with 1+.
BoomWolf wrote: Its obviously not an actual thing, and will be FAQ very, very quickly (because it seems the book has quite a bit of an faq department built in, and GW started to realize they have to patch up the most obvious edge cases to be beyond any doubt as gakky people keep lawyering)
Tgis was an Issue in 8th, an issue in AoS and they have created the same issue day 1 with this unit, seriously at some point they have to start learning from the mistakes they keep making and having to FAQ/Eratta for months.
Also why did it take the comunity less than half an hour from the datashests leaking to spot the broken and non of the playtesters or GW notice? Are they all asleep at the wheeel?
No, GW just knows there are enough white knights out there who will forgive anything GW says or does and still fork down ever more money for their stuff even though and I quote " we dont care about editing/ proof reading b/c there are 10s of thousands of people out there who will edit it for us and we will just write another book that fixes it and charge you guys for it."
It's a great business model, shut up and like and buy our stuff or 'you will not be missed'.
Platuan4th wrote: Try reading what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote and you'll see I didn't say anything about "fixing" the Save Modifiers. I said there were argument with the previous AP system and a different statement that you need to stop conflating AP and Save Modifiers. There's zero reason for 40K to do anything about a system that stopped applying to 40K in the 90's.
Try answering to what I asked instead of moving the goalposts. I said "OK" and I asked a question. What's the net gain, given that it has created a situation like the one being discussed?
Platuan4th wrote: It's important because AP has never worked the same as Save Modifiers. The first AP system gave you up to which save you ignore outright, it didn't modify anything. This one modifies a roll. You can't say "this is how it worked previously, because it didn't, a different mechanic(Save Modifiers) did.
What you don't understand is that one(Stormshields) specifically says to modify the Save Characteristic while the other(AP) specifically says to modify the roll. Those are two different rule mechanics.
So, we get back to the first point: they "fixed" something that was already working correctly, and now it's broken. Weeeee.
Nope. Regardless of how you did it, and how you believed it worked, this is how it works this edition and last edition- AP and save modifiers changed the die roll. Same with 8th edition fantasy. The difference is that previously a 1 always failed, whether it was modified or not. This says only that unmodified 1 always fails, in all other cases the roll needs to be less than the save characteristic, which isn't possible with 1+.
Does it say anywhere that a die roll can't go below 1? I haven't been able to locate it in the rules. EDIT: Ah, yeah, nevermind, there it was.
Platuan4th wrote: Try reading what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote and you'll see I didn't say anything about "fixing" the Save Modifiers. I said there were argument with the previous AP system and a different statement that you need to stop conflating AP and Save Modifiers. There's zero reason for 40K to do anything about a system that stopped applying to 40K in the 90's.
Try answering to what I asked instead of moving the goalposts. I said "OK" and I asked a question.
Platuan4th wrote: It's important because AP has never worked the same as Save Modifiers. The first AP system gave you up to which save you ignore outright, it didn't modify anything. This one modifies a roll. You can't say "this is how it worked previously, because it didn't, a different mechanic(Save Modifiers) did.
What you don't understand is that one(Stormshields) specifically says to modify the Save Characteristic while the other(AP) specifically says to modify the roll. Those are two different rule mechanics.
So, we get back to the first point: they "fixed" something that was already working correctly, and now it's broken. Weeeee.
Nope. Regardless of how you did it, and how you believed it worked, this is how it works this edition and last edition- AP and save modifiers changed the die roll. Same with 8th edition fantasy. The difference is that previously a 1 always failed, whether it was modified or not. This says only that unmodified 1 always fails, in all other cases the roll needs to be less than the save characteristic, which isn't possible with 1+.
Does it say anywhere that a die roll can't go below 1? I haven't been able to locate it in the rules.
I didn't move any goal posts. What you asked is irrelevant to the conversation because it's not something that's been relevant to 40K for over 20 years, hence my second statement pointing out that you're conflating two different rules mechanics.
Pg. 5 Under Dice states rolls can never be less than 1.
Platuan4th wrote: I didn't move any goal posts. What you asked is irrelevant to the conversation because it's not something that's been relevant to 40K for over 20 years, Hence my second statement.
Pg. 5 Under Dice states rolls can never be less than 1.
Yeah, saw it. Once again, what's the net gain, given that it causes the discussed flaw?
BrotherGecko wrote: I'm just wondering if they guy contracted to make the app gave an unrealistic time frame to launch and is now pounding monsters and having panic attacks because the app is buggy and doesn't do half of what was promised. So GW is just quietly not giving more info in case they have to bail on the launch. Because I feel like the app should have more hype to it, its kind of a big deal.
I'm having PTSD now!
(Well not really but I mean we have a similar thing happen at work lol)
Platuan4th wrote: I didn't move any goal posts. What you asked is irrelevant to the conversation because it's not something that's been relevant to 40K for over 20 years, Hence my second statement.
Pg. 5 Under Dice states rolls can never be less than 1.
Yeah, saw it. Once again, what's the net gain, given that it causes the discussed flaw?
Why are you convinced there's a net gain? I even pointed out that they didn't "fix" anything.
Platuan4th wrote: I didn't move any goal posts. What you asked is irrelevant to the conversation because it's not something that's been relevant to 40K for over 20 years, Hence my second statement.
Pg. 5 Under Dice states rolls can never be less than 1.
Yeah, saw it. Once again, what's the net gain, given that it causes the discussed flaw?
Why are you convinced there's a net gain?
I don't see why you would decide to do it if there wasn't, given that it adds points of error.
Platuan4th wrote: I didn't move any goal posts. What you asked is irrelevant to the conversation because it's not something that's been relevant to 40K for over 20 years, Hence my second statement.
Pg. 5 Under Dice states rolls can never be less than 1.
Yeah, saw it. Once again, what's the net gain, given that it causes the discussed flaw?
Why are you convinced there's a net gain?
I don't see why you would decide to do it if there wasn't, given that it adds points of error.
Because the previous "APX ignores Saves of X+ or lower" isn't what they wanted for 8th. They didn't change a mechanic, they simply put in a different one with the same name which also happens to be a different mechanic from a slighty similar but different one with a different name.
Platuan4th wrote: I didn't move any goal posts. What you asked is irrelevant to the conversation because it's not something that's been relevant to 40K for over 20 years, Hence my second statement.
Pg. 5 Under Dice states rolls can never be less than 1.
Yeah, saw it. Once again, what's the net gain, given that it causes the discussed flaw?
Why are you convinced there's a net gain?
I don't see why you would decide to do it if there wasn't, given that it adds points of error.
Because the previous "APX ignores Saves of X+ or lower" isn't what they wanted for 8th.
I mean why they did decide to use the modifier on the die roll instead of the save, don't be coy, that's what we were discussing. If earlier editions are to be dismissed as it is a whole new system it doesn't really matter if its the previous or the first.
Platuan4th wrote: I didn't move any goal posts. What you asked is irrelevant to the conversation because it's not something that's been relevant to 40K for over 20 years, Hence my second statement.
Pg. 5 Under Dice states rolls can never be less than 1.
Yeah, saw it. Once again, what's the net gain, given that it causes the discussed flaw?
Why are you convinced there's a net gain?
I don't see why you would decide to do it if there wasn't, given that it adds points of error.
Because the previous "APX ignores Saves of X+ or lower" isn't what they wanted for 8th.
I mean why they did decide to use the modifier on the die roll instead of the save, don't be coy, that's what we were discussing. If earlier editions are to be dismissed as it is a whole new system it doesn't really matter if its the previous or the first.
Because they did? If you want a better answer, ask the studio why they wanted it that way. You're asking intent behind the rules to the wrong people.
Platuan4th wrote: Because they did? If you want a better answer, ask the studio why they wanted it that way.
I was asking if there was any net gain, not intent, but alright then, thanks for your time.
And again, I'll ask why you assume there was net gain or an intent for such? Change doesn't have to have "net gains" at it's core reasoning, change for change's sake happens all the time, especially with GW. They used a different system because that's what they wanted to do.
Platuan4th wrote: Because they did? If you want a better answer, ask the studio why they wanted it that way.
I was asking if there was any net gain, not intent, but alright then, thanks for your time.
And again, I'll ask why you assume there was net gain or an intent for such? Change doesn't have to have "net gains" at it's core reasoning, change for change's sake happens all the time, especially with GW. They used a different system because that's what they wanted to do.
I guess I could answer once again, but I already did, so, once again, thanks for your time.
"We’ve re-engineered Chapter Approved this year to be purely about matched play, giving you a host of new content for Grand Tournaments, as well as new missions Incursion and Strike Force engagements."
I wonder why they went down this route, especially as they've just introduced Crusade, for which CA would be a perfect platform to expand that style of play.
Voss wrote: No, a 1+ save means you save on a 1+, except unmodified 1s, because that's what the rules actually say.
It's the same thing. You roll anything but a 1, you save.
A) Model has a X+ Save, which is made on a d6. Weapon AP, expressed as -Y, which reduces the Save roll, which is then compared to the unit's save to see if the save was passed. So if the result of d6-Y = X or higher, the save is passed. Example: If you have a 3+ Save and are hit by an AP -2 attack, a roll of 5-2 = 3, which is a successful save.
B) Model has an X+ Save, which is made on a d6. Weapon as, expressed as -Y, increases X by the inverse of it's value to determine the save you need to roll. You then roll a d6 and compare to the adjusted Save value to see if the save is passed. Example: If you have a 3+ Save and are hit by an AP -2 attack, you adjust the Save up the inverse -2, so up 2. Thus 3 + (--2) = 5 giving an adjusted 5+ Save. If you roll a 5 on the d6, you pass the save.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "We’ve re-engineered Chapter Approved this year to be purely about matched play, giving you a host of new content for Grand Tournaments, as well as new missions Incursion and Strike Force engagements."
I wonder why they went down this route, especially as they've just introduced Crusade, for which CA would be a perfect platform to expand that style of play.
Voss wrote: No, a 1+ save means you save on a 1+, except unmodified 1s, because that's what the rules actually say.
It's the same thing. You roll anything but a 1, you save.
They have separated the narrative and campaing based rules from the competitive play ones so competitive players don't have to buy some unbalanced narrative crap that had 0 thought put onto it with their balance changes.
Galas wrote: They have separated the narrative and campaing based rules from the competitive play ones so competitive players don't have to buy some unbalanced narrative crap that had 0 thought put onto it with their balance changes.
Except both are in the rulebook... ? And all future Codices will have Crusade sections?
H.B.M.C. wrote: "We’ve re-engineered Chapter Approved this year to be purely about matched play, giving you a host of new content for Grand Tournaments, as well as new missions Incursion and Strike Force engagements."
I wonder why they went down this route, especially as they've just introduced Crusade, for which CA would be a perfect platform to expand that style of play.
Probably because they don't need a new narrative thing yet. Also, they can release 2 books now, a narrative one, and a matched one. Better profits and also better for consumers who dont want both.
Galas wrote: They have separated the narrative and campaing based rules from the competitive play ones so competitive players don't have to buy some unbalanced narrative crap that had 0 thought put onto it with their balance changes.
Except both are in the rulebook... ? And all future Codices will have Crusade sections?
Just like Age of Sigmar Battletomes have path to glory tables. No human being uses that. Only people from UK.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "We’ve re-engineered Chapter Approved this year to be purely about matched play, giving you a host of new content for Grand Tournaments, as well as new missions Incursion and Strike Force engagements."
I wonder why they went down this route, especially as they've just introduced Crusade, for which CA would be a perfect platform to expand that style of play.
My guess is the big push will be to put Crusade in the codexes first, then worry about adding on new Crusade missions and the like later.
I seriously dont get how people will bitch and moan about gw releasing new books or rules when those same people will pirate those rules a week before they come out and use BattleScribe after that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or jump to conclusions about a new edition that is still 3 weeks from launch
puma713 wrote: Without having to search through this thread, did someone say the new app costs $$$?
If it's like the AoS app, you'll have free features and then a paid subscription for additional features. I think I pay like a dollar a month for it.
IMO, it's worth it, because the AoS app is the easiest way to build lists and you can reference everything you need on your phone, including unit data sheets.
TalonZahn wrote: So you need the new rulebook, which has no points for anything, and then buy another book that has all the new points for everything.
It warms my heart to know GW hasn't lost their touch with business world and how to maximize profit.
Or you just buy the Rulebook, skip the $40 Chapter Approved, and pay your nominal monthly fee for the list builder to get the points.
Or just use PL and play Crusade and not have to pay for either the app or CA.
Or battlescribe like every one?
Honestly not a fan of it on mobile. I used to use Army Builder back in the day on PC but that seems to have died when everyone switched to mobile list builders.
I hate that battlescribe PC became just another version of Battlescribe movile.
The old PC version was much uglier but much more usefull. But alas. Better that than going back to writting hand lists and calculating point costs with a calculator.
I watched the second 9th edition bat rep from TTT and sadly again it was rather one sided. Partially down to such disparate dice rolls and luck and partially due to marines being insane
Two observations however:
Chef recommended to play MSU to nullify blast and to achieve some secondaries due to sacrificing units’ phases beyond movement. At the very least he advised performing actions on units you have no issue doing nothing else all turn
They were playing on a smaller board and whilst said you can of course play on larger, they highly recommended using the minimum size. Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide. They also advised always set up your army to go second due to the 50/50 roll off
They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future
MPJ wrote: I watched the second 9th edition bat rep from TTT and sadly again it was rather one sided. Partially down to such disparate dice rolls and luck and partially due to marines being insane
Two observations however:
Chef recommended to play MSU to nullify blast and to achieve some secondaries due to sacrificing units’ phases beyond movement. At the very least he advised performing actions on units you have no issue doing nothing else all turn
They were playing on a smaller board and whilst said you can of course play on larger, they highly recommended using the minimum size. Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide. They also advised always set up your army to go second due to the 50/50 roll off
They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future
MPJ wrote: I watched the second 9th edition bat rep from TTT and sadly again it was rather one sided. Partially down to such disparate dice rolls and luck and partially due to marines being insane
Two observations however:
Chef recommended to play MSU to nullify blast and to achieve some secondaries due to sacrificing units’ phases beyond movement. At the very least he advised performing actions on units you have no issue doing nothing else all turn
They were playing on a smaller board and whilst said you can of course play on larger, they highly recommended using the minimum size. Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide. They also advised always set up your army to go second due to the 50/50 roll off
They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future
Chef seems very excited, which makes me think he's been testing the new necron book.
With that said, (game spoilers)
Spoiler:
yeah some huge tactical errors combined with shocking dice rolls kinda ruined this game.
MPJ wrote: I watched the second 9th edition bat rep from TTT and sadly again it was rather one sided. Partially down to such disparate dice rolls and luck and partially due to marines being insane
Two observations however:
Chef recommended to play MSU to nullify blast and to achieve some secondaries due to sacrificing units’ phases beyond movement. At the very least he advised performing actions on units you have no issue doing nothing else all turn
They were playing on a smaller board and whilst said you can of course play on larger, they highly recommended using the minimum size. Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide. They also advised always set up your army to go second due to the 50/50 roll off
They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...
One of our local players is already hard at work crafting "10 foot poles" for all of his battlewagons. Basically 10 inch pvc tubes so that he can extend his range...
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
Right...we already have this in 8th, a 1 fails, you just get more room to dodge AP. Doesn't seem like an issue...
also, those are relic shields, not storm shields and cannot be taken by terminators...
The captain has a Relic Shield, the other guys have Storm Shields.
Alright, breaking down the math again. I have a 1+ armor save. Your gun has a -6 AP. I roll a 2. That 2 becomes a -4. -4 counts as 1. I made my 1+ save roll. You could have AP minus a billion, and I will make my save roll on anything other than a Natural 1.
You don't get a 1+ armor save. You get +1 to your armor save. I think you guys are reading it wrong, the intention is pretty clear...
MPJ wrote: I watched the second 9th edition bat rep from TTT and sadly again it was rather one sided. Partially down to such disparate dice rolls and luck and partially due to marines being insane
Two observations however:
Chef recommended to play MSU to nullify blast and to achieve some secondaries due to sacrificing units’ phases beyond movement. At the very least he advised performing actions on units you have no issue doing nothing else all turn
They were playing on a smaller board and whilst said you can of course play on larger, they highly recommended using the minimum size. Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide. They also advised always set up your army to go second due to the 50/50 roll off
They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future
Goddamn spoilers...
Not a huge spoiler though. I feel like I've seen 10 or less batreps with Marines involved where they lost and it wasn't a mirror match since the ridiculous power boost. And somewhere around half of them were from the game being a swingy Maelstrom result.
MPJ wrote: I watched the second 9th edition bat rep from TTT and sadly again it was rather one sided. Partially down to such disparate dice rolls and luck and partially due to marines being insane
Two observations however:
Chef recommended to play MSU to nullify blast and to achieve some secondaries due to sacrificing units’ phases beyond movement. At the very least he advised performing actions on units you have no issue doing nothing else all turn
They were playing on a smaller board and whilst said you can of course play on larger, they highly recommended using the minimum size. Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide. They also advised always set up your army to go second due to the 50/50 roll off
They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future
Chef seems very excited, which makes me think he's been testing the new necron book.
Definitely. I hope this go round all books are far closer to power and there are less pointless units and rules in them
With that said, (game spoilers)
Spoiler:
yeah some huge tactical errors combined with shocking dice rolls kinda ruined this game.
I hope the Necron (and all other books) are a lot closer together in terms of viability and power, with far less pointless units and rules
You don't get a 1+ armor save. You get +1 to your armor save. I think you guys are reading it wrong, the intention is pretty clear...
It specifies "Improve the bearer's Save characteristic", not armor save. If you're going to claim people are reading it wrong, you may want to read it correctly yourself. So yes, if you start with a 2+ save, you are now at 1+.
MPJ wrote: Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide.
Fewer places for large units (ie. 6+ according to GW) to hide.
MPJ wrote: They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future
What does that even mean? A lot coming in the future? A lot of what? We have the rules. If they just mean Codices, then why not say so? What else could be coming for 40K besides new Codices that would significantly change anything with the rules?
MPJ wrote: Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide.
Fewer places for large units (ie. 6+ according to GW) to hide.
In the first bat rep I watched even smaller units couldn’t hide that well due the opposing player moving units. I think boards will need to be spammed with anything that’s obscuring and/or dense
MPJ wrote: They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future
What does that even mean? A lot coming in the future? A lot of what? We have the rules. If they just mean Codices, then why not say so? What else could be coming for 40K besides new Codices that would significantly change anything with the rules?
I’m guessing positive changes to rules and units, plus plenty of new stuff, perhaps even new armies. It’s a tease that could lead to nothing. I remember the statements made by the guys at FLG before 8th’s release and the bat reps they played and goddamn they were wrong! Guess we’ll just have to see really
MPJ wrote: In the first bat rep I watched even smaller units couldn’t hide that well due the opposing player moving units. I think boards will need to be spammed with anything that’s obscuring and/or dense
It'll probably takes us a while to work out GW's amazingly counter intuative new cover rules and what they actually mean. Once we've got that down, then they can change them all via FAQ and start the cycle anew.
MPJ wrote: I’m guessing positive changes to rules and units, plus plenty of new stuff, perhaps even new armies. It’s a tease that could lead to nothing. I remember the statements made by the guys at FLG before 8th’s release and the bat reps they played and goddamn they were wrong! Guess we’ll just have to see really
Sorry if it sounded like I was jumping down your throat a moment a go. It was more a general "what did this mean" rather than a "what do YOU mean by this".
New armies and whatnot is a given, IMO. It's just such an odd comment for them to make about "more to come". Outside of rule changes, which would be an odd thing to talk about just as a new book's about to come out, I can't imagine what the "new" stuff could be.
You don't get a 1+ armor save. You get +1 to your armor save. I think you guys are reading it wrong, the intention is pretty clear...
It specifies "Improve the bearer's Save characteristic", not armor save. If you're going to claim people are reading it wrong, you may want to read it correctly yourself. So yes, if you start with a 2+ save, you are now at 1+.
I'll state it again. The intention of +1 to the roll is clear. Only those min/maxer waac types would try to argue otherwise.
Togusa wrote: I'll state it again. The intention of +1 to the roll is clear. Only those min/maxer waac types would try to argue otherwise.
Sorry, but... what?
If the intent was +1 to the roll, the rule would say +1 to the roll. The rules for cover already use the +1 to the roll verbiage. Following the rules does not make you waac.
They have LITERALLY clarified the intent, both in 8th edition for Succubus and in AOS for whatever that unit is called, that a 1+ characteristic ignores all negative modifiers. You have both the RaW and the FAQs saying that you are wrong, why is it so hard for you to understand that?
Togusa wrote: I'll state it again. The intention of +1 to the roll is clear. Only those min/maxer waac types would try to argue otherwise.
A minute ago you said it was clear, and got it 100% wrong. Now you're moving the goalposts and talking about the "intention" being clear.
But it's not.
GW has had 1+ saves appear a few other times and has rules both ways in the past. So the intention is not clear, and trying to tar everyone with "min/maxer waac" types only makes your argument weaker.
You don't get a 1+ armor save. You get +1 to your armor save. I think you guys are reading it wrong, the intention is pretty clear...
It specifies "Improve the bearer's Save characteristic", not armor save. If you're going to claim people are reading it wrong, you may want to read it correctly yourself. So yes, if you start with a 2+ save, you are now at 1+.
I'll state it again. The intention of +1 to the roll is clear. Only those min/maxer waac types would try to argue otherwise.
You mean people that read the rules correctly? Not-existing FAQ hasn’t changed the wording.
MPJ wrote: In the first bat rep I watched even smaller units couldn’t hide that well due the opposing player moving units. I think boards will need to be spammed with anything that’s obscuring and/or dense
It'll probably takes us a while to work out GW's amazingly counter intuative new cover rules and what they actually mean. Once we've got that down, then they can change them all via FAQ and start the cycle anew.
Yeah haha. That sounds about right. Whilst I think the terrain traits are a good addition, it remains to be seen how good. Still not convinced they help melee armies that much either
MPJ wrote: I’m guessing positive changes to rules and units, plus plenty of new stuff, perhaps even new armies. It’s a tease that could lead to nothing. I remember the statements made by the guys at FLG before 8th’s release and the bat reps they played and goddamn they were wrong! Guess we’ll just have to see really
Sorry if it sounded like I was jumping down your throat a moment a go. It was more a general "what did this mean" rather than a "what do YOU mean by this".
New armies and whatnot is a given, IMO. It's just such an odd comment for them to make about "more to come". Outside of rule changes, which would be an odd thing to talk about just as a new book's about to come out, I can't imagine what the "new" stuff could be.
No worries mate. All good. I get what you mean though. Could be a whole range of things. Really wish GW would create a roadmap to give us some idea. Also wish we knew what the changes to armies will be as I’m so reluctant to build and paint anything in case it sucks with the new rules or an upcoming codex
You don't get a 1+ armor save. You get +1 to your armor save. I think you guys are reading it wrong, the intention is pretty clear...
It specifies "Improve the bearer's Save characteristic", not armor save. If you're going to claim people are reading it wrong, you may want to read it correctly yourself. So yes, if you start with a 2+ save, you are now at 1+.
I'll state it again. The intention of +1 to the roll is clear. Only those min/maxer waac types would try to argue otherwise.
You can state is as many times as you want, you're still wrong. The intent and RAW both are clear and they're the opposite of what you keep trying to assert. The 9th rules are very explicit on Characteristic increases vs roll modifiers.
I watched the second 9th edition bat rep from TTT and sadly again it was rather one sided. Partially down to such disparate dice rolls and luck and partially due to marines being insane
Two observations however:
Chef recommended to play MSU to nullify blast and to achieve some secondaries due to sacrificing units’ phases beyond movement. At the very least he advised performing actions on units you have no issue doing nothing else all turn
They were playing on a smaller board and whilst said you can of course play on larger, they highly recommended using the minimum size. Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide. They also advised always set up your army to go second due to the 50/50 roll off
They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future
Honestly I feel like the blast thing is being overstated. Maybe I've been playing too long but I just don't see it as horde breaking. I mean a maxed Wyvern only kills like half it's points in Boyz in a single round of shooting (with no buffs for other side) so I can't even say it looks unbalanced.
Maybe it's the swing from how impotent blast weapons felt in 8th that's the issue for most, I don't know.
I do believe as the codexes get updated we'll be looking at stuff being worked into them beyon what we currently know which will likely change the MSU meta, but that's just an assumption based on how the game has shifted over the years from various updates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: What else could be coming for 40K besides new Codices that would significantly change anything with the rules?
H.B.M.C. wrote: "We’ve re-engineered Chapter Approved this year to be purely about matched play, giving you a host of new content for Grand Tournaments, as well as new missions Incursion and Strike Force engagements."
I wonder why they went down this route, especially as they've just introduced Crusade, for which CA would be a perfect platform to expand that style of play.
Voss wrote: No, a 1+ save means you save on a 1+, except unmodified 1s, because that's what the rules actually say.
It's the same thing. You roll anything but a 1, you save.
EnTyme wrote: What's wrong with the AoS app? It works fine for me.
It's often buggy and sometimes gets things wrong, and can be slow to update.
I have to figure it’s not going to have points either since why sell a $40 point update book... which should have been free with the app.
As others have pointed out, GW have already said the app will have points and a matched play army list builder. As for selling a point update book, it could be that the app won’t update points unless you buy chapter approved, the same way that you need to buy a codex to unlock an army list in the app (or at least that’s what I understand is how it’s supposedly going to work).
Surely army lists for existing codexes will be included, otherwise no one will buy it until the new codexes are released.
Togusa wrote: I'll state it again. The intention of +1 to the roll is clear. Only those min/maxer waac types would try to argue otherwise.
A minute ago you said it was clear, and got it 100% wrong. Now you're moving the goalposts and talking about the "intention" being clear.
But it's not.
GW has had 1+ saves appear a few other times and has rules both ways in the past. So the intention is not clear, and trying to tar everyone with "min/maxer waac" types only makes your argument weaker.
Wait, reading that data sheet he has a 3+ save, +1 to the C = 2+, not 1+.
I still think you guys aren't reading this properly.
Togusa wrote: Wait, reading that data sheet he has a 3+ save, +1 to the C = 2+, not 1+.
I still think you guys aren't reading this properly.
We know full well what the sheet says. The implication is for Storm Shields on units that start with 2+ saves (like Assault Terminators, Deathwing Knights or Custodes), or for units with a 2+ save that get the Crusade rule bonus to armour saves.
MPJ wrote: I watched the second 9th edition bat rep from TTT and sadly again it was rather one sided. Partially down to such disparate dice rolls and luck and partially due to marines being insane
Two observations however:
Chef recommended to play MSU to nullify blast and to achieve some secondaries due to sacrificing units’ phases beyond movement. At the very least he advised performing actions on units you have no issue doing nothing else all turn
They were playing on a smaller board and whilst said you can of course play on larger, they highly recommended using the minimum size. Armies do still start the same distance away from each other though, but a smaller board means less places to hide. They also advised always set up your army to go second due to the 50/50 roll off
They did tease that only having the rules for 9th is just a tiny piece of the puzzle and there’s lot coming in the future
Chef seems very excited, which makes me think he's been testing the new necron book.
Definitely. I hope this go round all books are far closer to power and there are less pointless units and rules in them
With that said, (game spoilers)
Spoiler:
yeah some huge tactical errors combined with shocking dice rolls kinda ruined this game.
I hope the Necron (and all other books) are a lot closer together in terms of viability and power, with far less pointless units and rules
Ive been saving it to watch at lunchtime at work.
Yeah the bat reps where marines fail are few and far between unles they really go out of their way to build a terrible list (old marine inferior units for example).
Togusa wrote: Wait, reading that data sheet he has a 3+ save, +1 to the C = 2+, not 1+.
I still think you guys aren't reading this properly.
We know full well what the sheet says. The implication is for Storm Shields on units that start with 2+ saves (like Assault Terminators, Deathwing Knights or Custodes), or for units with a 2+ save that get the Crusade rule bonus to armour saves.
How do we know all storm shields have this though? That's what I'm wondering. So far we've seen, what, two data sheets? Are we sure that this applies to these other units?
I guess I don't understand here what the issue is.
Togusa wrote: Wait, reading that data sheet he has a 3+ save, +1 to the C = 2+, not 1+.
I still think you guys aren't reading this properly.
We know full well what the sheet says. The implication is for Storm Shields on units that start with 2+ saves (like Assault Terminators, Deathwing Knights or Custodes), or for units with a 2+ save that get the Crusade rule bonus to armour saves.
How do we know all storm shields have this though? That's what I'm wondering. So far we've seen, what, two data sheets? Are we sure that this applies to these other units?
I guess I don't understand here what the issue is.
Even if for some reason Storm Shields have different rules on different units in the same army (which would be one of the dumbest things ever), there's still the Crusade upgrade that explicitly states that a 1+ save is possible.
Togusa wrote: Wait, reading that data sheet he has a 3+ save, +1 to the C = 2+, not 1+.
I still think you guys aren't reading this properly.
We know full well what the sheet says. The implication is for Storm Shields on units that start with 2+ saves (like Assault Terminators, Deathwing Knights or Custodes), or for units with a 2+ save that get the Crusade rule bonus to armour saves.
How do we know all storm shields have this though? That's what I'm wondering. So far we've seen, what, two data sheets? Are we sure that this applies to these other units?
I guess I don't understand here what the issue is.
Even if for some reason Storm Shields have different rules on different units in the same army (which would be one of the dumbest things ever), there's still the Crusade upgrade that explicitly states that a 1+ save is possible.
And the Relic Shields on a few of the new Primaris characters happens to give the same benefit. Some of those characters can, I am quite certain, pick up relics for a 2+ base armor save (which then becomes 1+).
So Day 1, based on everything we've released, there can be 2++ (effectively) Space Marine characters running around.
Not the end of the world, but not exactly an ideal start.
Togusa wrote: Wait, reading that data sheet he has a 3+ save, +1 to the C = 2+, not 1+.
I still think you guys aren't reading this properly.
We know full well what the sheet says. The implication is for Storm Shields on units that start with 2+ saves (like Assault Terminators, Deathwing Knights or Custodes), or for units with a 2+ save that get the Crusade rule bonus to armour saves.
How do we know all storm shields have this though? That's what I'm wondering. So far we've seen, what, two data sheets? Are we sure that this applies to these other units?
I guess I don't understand here what the issue is.
Even if for some reason Storm Shields have different rules on different units in the same army (which would be one of the dumbest things ever), there's still the Crusade upgrade that explicitly states that a 1+ save is possible.
And the Relic Shields on a few of the new Primaris characters happens to give the same benefit. Some of those characters can, I am quite certain, pick up relics for a 2+ base armor save (which then becomes 1+).
So Day 1, based on everything we've released, there can be 2++ (effectively) Space Marine characters running around.
Not the end of the world, but not exactly an ideal start.
With how promient 3++ / 4++ invuln saves have gotten and the few fringe cases where a 1+ save might be possible... there is practically 0 reason why the archon's shadowfield shouldnt just be a permanent 2++ a t3 body is far less egregious compared to a T4 or T5 character/unit getting the same thing.
Togusa wrote: Wait, reading that data sheet he has a 3+ save, +1 to the C = 2+, not 1+.
I still think you guys aren't reading this properly.
We know full well what the sheet says. The implication is for Storm Shields on units that start with 2+ saves (like Assault Terminators, Deathwing Knights or Custodes), or for units with a 2+ save that get the Crusade rule bonus to armour saves.
How do we know all storm shields have this though? That's what I'm wondering. So far we've seen, what, two data sheets? Are we sure that this applies to these other units?
I guess I don't understand here what the issue is.
Even if for some reason Storm Shields have different rules on different units in the same army (which would be one of the dumbest things ever), there's still the Crusade upgrade that explicitly states that a 1+ save is possible.
What is the crusade upgrade? I don't understand what that is.
SirGrotzalot wrote: So what time do pre orders usually go live and are they the same time for everyone or do they go by time zones?
In the mainland US, they go live at the same time- 1pm east coast, 10am fire coast (and so on for the time zones in between).
Stock and distribution is handled separately for different continents/regions, so the only folks you'll be competing with are Canadians; despite the website separation, their orders come out of Nashville as well.
(possibly Mexico and Caribbean, but that's never been really clear, if they even have a significant level of demand).
It'll be interesting to see if the website chokes on Saturday. Pure uncertainty about how much 'a lot of stock' really is might combine poorly with Covid pushing remote sales over in-person store visits- and preorders for same.
Togusa wrote: Wait, reading that data sheet he has a 3+ save, +1 to the C = 2+, not 1+.
I still think you guys aren't reading this properly.
We know full well what the sheet says. The implication is for Storm Shields on units that start with 2+ saves (like Assault Terminators, Deathwing Knights or Custodes), or for units with a 2+ save that get the Crusade rule bonus to armour saves.
How do we know all storm shields have this though? That's what I'm wondering. So far we've seen, what, two data sheets? Are we sure that this applies to these other units?
I guess I don't understand here what the issue is.
Even if for some reason Storm Shields have different rules on different units in the same army (which would be one of the dumbest things ever), there's still the Crusade upgrade that explicitly states that a 1+ save is possible.
What is the crusade upgrade? I don't understand what that is.
It's part of the new Narrative system. When a unit gains enough experience to rank up, it gains a battle honour. If it's a Character, that battle honour can be a Crusade Relic. One of the options, Master-crafted Armour, improves the model's save Characteristic by 1 among other things. As one of the examples on what improving the save characteristic means, it gives a 2+ Sv becoming a 1+ Sv.
SirGrotzalot wrote: So what time do pre orders usually go live and are they the same time for everyone or do they go by time zones?
Time zoned. 9am EST for North America for example.
Preorders go live at 1pm Eastern on the GW webstore.
Would that be the same time for the App being available for downloads? Hope the server doesn't crash. I need to know points costs. I've been dieing to make some lists.
Togusa wrote: Wait, reading that data sheet he has a 3+ save, +1 to the C = 2+, not 1+.
I still think you guys aren't reading this properly.
We know full well what the sheet says. The implication is for Storm Shields on units that start with 2+ saves (like Assault Terminators, Deathwing Knights or Custodes), or for units with a 2+ save that get the Crusade rule bonus to armour saves.
How do we know all storm shields have this though? That's what I'm wondering. So far we've seen, what, two data sheets? Are we sure that this applies to these other units?
I guess I don't understand here what the issue is.
Even if for some reason Storm Shields have different rules on different units in the same army (which would be one of the dumbest things ever), there's still the Crusade upgrade that explicitly states that a 1+ save is possible.
And the Relic Shields on a few of the new Primaris characters happens to give the same benefit. Some of those characters can, I am quite certain, pick up relics for a 2+ base armor save (which then becomes 1+).
So Day 1, based on everything we've released, there can be 2++ (effectively) Space Marine characters running around.
Not the end of the world, but not exactly an ideal start.
With how promient 3++ / 4++ invuln saves have gotten and the few fringe cases where a 1+ save might be possible... there is practically 0 reason why the archon's shadowfield shouldnt just be a permanent 2++ a t3 body is far less egregious compared to a T4 or T5 character/unit getting the same thing.
Honestly I've been for getting rid of that stipulation on them since they're only T3 anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Either that or a 3++ and halve incoming damage.
Galas wrote: I'm glad internet people is not real and no human being would play the 2++ even if GW doesnt faq it.
ETC/WTC has allready said they are gonna do it in their own tournament ruleset so NP for my part.
What most people doesn't tell when they put down the Bastiladon example is that , that model literally ignored rend, so thats how they did it to allow it to ignore rend until it becomes damaged and then it loses that property to balance it.
Funnily enough people did use 2++ meganobz in tournaments before gw banned meganobz(but not prevent mechanism). Not surprising when rules and faq supported it
H.B.M.C. wrote: "We’ve re-engineered Chapter Approved this year to be purely about matched play, giving you a host of new content for Grand Tournaments, as well as new missions Incursion and Strike Force engagements."
I wonder why they went down this route, especially as they've just introduced Crusade, for which CA would be a perfect platform to expand that style of play.
Voss wrote: No, a 1+ save means you save on a 1+, except unmodified 1s, because that's what the rules actually say.
It's the same thing. You roll anything but a 1, you save.
They have separated the narrative and campaing based rules from the competitive play ones so competitive players don't have to buy some unbalanced narrative crap that had 0 thought put onto it with their balance changes.
If you think matched play is balanced or ever will be you are in for rude shock. Gw doesn't want balance. Just changing imbalance so you keep buying new models. Your chase of balance equals just more cash lost with zero change in game balanance level.
Matched play, gw's name of marketing tool to fool people
SirGrotzalot wrote: So what time do pre orders usually go live and are they the same time for everyone or do they go by time zones?
Time zoned. 9am EST for North America for example.
Preorders go live at 1pm Eastern on the GW webstore.
Would that be the same time for the App being available for downloads? Hope the server doesn't crash. I need to know points costs. I've been dieing to make some lists.
That's what GW said. Since the app will be through the normal app stores it should be fine.
If you think matched play is balanced or ever will be you are in for rude shock. Gw doesn't want balance. Just changing imbalance so you keep buying new models. Your chase of balance equals just more cash lost with zero change in game balanance level.
Matched play, gw's name of marketing tool to fool people
Not everything is a conspiracy to fleece people of their money.
40k will never be perfectly balanced (not unless they stop making new models anyways), but it does reach a point of equilibrium. That point isn't always where the community thinks it should be which in turn leads to changes which causes that point to shift.
That's not going into how a team of maybe a dozen people and a handful of playtesters can't catch every possible issue. Maybe the issue wasn't noticed because there was a bigger issue, maybe the issue was caused by a rules rewrite to try and correct a different problem, maybe the issue requires multiple codexes making it less likely to be found, or maybe egos get involved and the issue isn't treated as seriously as it should be.
There are a lot of things that can cause problems to slip through the cracks, and even the most polished product has problems.
Best we can do is hope for a proper response from.the devs when the community points the issues out so the game can be healthier for all involved.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, that includes GW because they make more money the less churn their customer base has. Happy customers spend more money.
About the Lt and the 1+ save, are we discussing how he can get a 1+ save using the relic from Crusade? If so I agree that he would get a 1+ save.
He would get a 2+ save by the shield, as it says that it improves his characteristic by 1. Then the relic would do the same and specifies a 2+ goes to a 1+.
The issue really though ends up coming from the core rule that only an unmodified roll of a 1 fails. I hope that is FAQed or some units are gonna become bonkers.
I do hope that this new "Tournament Pack" book contains some of the missions from the last Chapter Approved book. There were some really fun ones in there, like Lockdown, where there are fewer objectives as the game goes on, forcing you to move around to stay on top of your opponent.
The Storm shield rules on both the new lieutenant and the Bladeguard both say a 4+ invulnerable save not the classic 3+ so already there’s a difference on top of the +1 to armour characteristic.
Maybe the terminator storm shields will stay as they are?
Continue to think this is just this editions "assault guns dont work" but the simplest FAQ would just be "a units save can't be improved beyond a 2+". Therefore a 1+ save can't exist and any problem goes away.
Tyel wrote: Continue to think this is just this editions "assault guns dont work" but the simplest FAQ would just be "a units save can't be improved beyond a 2+". Therefore a 1+ save can't exist and any problem goes away.
Nah, the far simpler way to do it stop giving bonuses to the safe characteristic and only hand out bonuses to the armor save roll.
Tyel wrote: Continue to think this is just this editions "assault guns dont work" but the simplest FAQ would just be "a units save can't be improved beyond a 2+". Therefore a 1+ save can't exist and any problem goes away.
One way to solve. Another is to do so that 1+ is buffer vs ap rather than 2++
So they might get their book then too (nothing on that though, just speculating for the book)!
