Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Spartacus wrote: Typical, pay as little attention to GK as possible.
Typical? GK used to be only a single optional squad in the Ultramarines codex. Now you've got your shiny new book for 8th edition while all but 2 other factions are still waiting, some will probably still be waiting this time next year. I'd say they've had quite a bit of attention.
Quickjager wrote: Libby 2++ in melee gone from index, GM 2++ gone from FAQ, whats next?
GM can still get 2++ as can Draigo. The only thing the FAQ stopped was Draigo getting it via sanctuary
Don't think it works that way. You apply the strat first, which takes a GM to 3++ and then Sanc has no effect since it comes later.
The stratagem is a +1 modifier to your roll, it *does not* change the invunerable save. The GM still has a 4++ but now with a +1 modifier; so you can then cast sanctuary to improve the invun to 3++ with a +1 modifier.
Quickjager wrote: Libby 2++ in melee gone from index, GM 2++ gone from FAQ, whats next?
GM can still get 2++ as can Draigo. The only thing the FAQ stopped was Draigo getting it via sanctuary
Don't think it works that way. You apply the strat first, which takes a GM to 3++ and then Sanc has no effect since it comes later.
The stratagem is a +1 modifier to your roll, it *does not* change the invunerable save. The GM still has a 4++ but now with a +1 modifier; so you can then cast sanctuary to improve the invun to 3++ with a +1 modifier.
it's an argument but I don't think most people will let you get away with it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/21 12:05:23
Quickjager wrote: Libby 2++ in melee gone from index, GM 2++ gone from FAQ, whats next?
GM can still get 2++ as can Draigo. The only thing the FAQ stopped was Draigo getting it via sanctuary
Don't think it works that way. You apply the strat first, which takes a GM to 3++ and then Sanc has no effect since it comes later.
The stratagem is a +1 modifier to your roll, it *does not* change the invunerable save. The GM still has a 4++ but now with a +1 modifier; so you can then cast sanctuary to improve the invun to 3++ with a +1 modifier.
it's an argument but I don't think most people will let you get away with it.
From the FAQ:
"Until the start of your next Psychic phase, the invulnerable save of that unit is improved by 1 (to a maximum of 3+)"
So applying this to a GM changes their invun save to a 3+. The strategem gives you a +1 modifier to your invunerable saving throws no matter what that saving throw number is.
What would be your argument to say that it does not work that way?
The Troops to Zerks and EC made me happy and sad at the same time.
Happy that I can run them as troops again, but sad that this means they might not see a codex for the foreseeable future.
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
it's an argument but I don't think most people will let you get away with it.
They specifically changed the wording of the Sanctuary power while leaving the stratagem with the old wording, which seems to suggest that they intend the difference in meaning. The theory here has to be something like: they just completely forgot that the stratagem existed. Right?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/21 12:47:31
I think it is important to note that without the Sanctuary change Draigo could have a 2++ every turn without much cost. At least to use a stratagem requires spending CP.
Happy that I can run them as troops again, but sad that this means they might not see a codex for the foreseeable future.
Pretty sure neither EC or WE will ever get a codex, at least in the 8th edition cycle. It would be like having an Imperial Fists or Raven Guard codex.
That's.. Not really close given the massive differences a god based chapter has. But I can understand the reasoning and I'm glad I can continue running an EC army properly, specially now that Sonics got so unnerfed from their horrid Salvo state.
Well there was a "rumor" a while back about how Daemon Fulgrim was getting a model. Considering that Magnus and Mortarion (the only other daemon primarchs) got codexes for their own legion, there was some hope that EC would have it's own codex, which logically would also mean that WE might get one too (what with being the last God-aligned daemon primarch and Khorne Daemonkin being a thing last edition). This FAQ seems to have lowered (if not quashed) those expectations for the foreseeable future.
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
it's an argument but I don't think most people will let you get away with it.
They specifically changed the wording of the Sanctuary power while leaving the stratagem with the old wording, which seems to suggest that they intend the difference in meaning. The theory here has to be something like: they just completely forgot that the stratagem existed. Right?
The entire ability to do this presented by Kalhor rests upon a single word. Sanctuary used to say "add 1" just like the Stratagem. We all interpreted that as making the invulnerables save better not adding +1 to the roll. Now they changed Sanctuary to say "improve" instead of "add". Kalhor uses this difference to say it still works and we now interpret add as a die modifier, which was not done before.
My point is that using "improve" over "add" was likely just an oversight. It's pretty clear GW's RAI is to eliminate the 2++ from GM's.
If they wanted the 2++ situation to exist like that they wouldn't of FAQ'd it at all. Sanc didn't need to be changed to give a 2++. It was specifically changed to try and prevent that. GW just sucks at rules writing.
Quickjager wrote: Libby 2++ in melee gone from index, GM 2++ gone from FAQ, whats next?
GM can still get 2++ as can Draigo. The only thing the FAQ stopped was Draigo getting it via sanctuary
Don't think it works that way. You apply the strat first, which takes a GM to 3++ and then Sanc has no effect since it comes later.
The stratagem is a +1 modifier to your roll, it *does not* change the invunerable save. The GM still has a 4++ but now with a +1 modifier; so you can then cast sanctuary to improve the invun to 3++ with a +1 modifier.
it's an argument but I don't think most people will let you get away with it.
From the FAQ:
"Until the start of your next Psychic phase, the invulnerable save of that unit is improved by 1 (to a maximum of 3+)"
So applying this to a GM changes their invun save to a 3+. The strategem gives you a +1 modifier to your invunerable saving throws no matter what that saving throw number is.
What would be your argument to say that it does not work that way?
See above.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/21 13:59:11
Quickjager wrote: Libby 2++ in melee gone from index, GM 2++ gone from FAQ, whats next?
GM can still get 2++ as can Draigo. The only thing the FAQ stopped was Draigo getting it via sanctuary
Don't think it works that way. You apply the strat first, which takes a GM to 3++ and then Sanc has no effect since it comes later.
The stratagem is a +1 modifier to your roll, it *does not* change the invunerable save. The GM still has a 4++ but now with a +1 modifier; so you can then cast sanctuary to improve the invun to 3++ with a +1 modifier.
it's an argument but I don't think most people will let you get away with it.
Yes they will, this is exactly how the rules work, and its stupid, people just need to send an email or post on the FB page and let them know so they can Errata this and close the issue.
it's an argument but I don't think most people will let you get away with it.
They specifically changed the wording of the Sanctuary power while leaving the stratagem with the old wording, which seems to suggest that they intend the difference in meaning. The theory here has to be something like: they just completely forgot that the stratagem existed. Right?
The entire ability to do this presented by Kalhor rests upon a single word. Sanctuary used to say "add 1" just like the Stratagem. We all interpreted that as making the invulnerables save better not adding +1 to the roll. Now they changed Sanctuary to say "improve" instead of "add". Kalhor uses this difference to say it still works and we now interpret add as a die modifier, which was not done before.
My point is that using "improve" over "add" was likely just an oversight. It's pretty clear GW's RAI is to eliminate the 2++ from GM's.
If they wanted the 2++ situation to exist like that they wouldn't of FAQ'd it at all. Sanc didn't need to be changed to give a 2++. It was specifically changed to try and prevent that. GW just sucks at rules writing.
Quickjager wrote: Libby 2++ in melee gone from index, GM 2++ gone from FAQ, whats next?
GM can still get 2++ as can Draigo. The only thing the FAQ stopped was Draigo getting it via sanctuary
Don't think it works that way. You apply the strat first, which takes a GM to 3++ and then Sanc has no effect since it comes later.
The stratagem is a +1 modifier to your roll, it *does not* change the invunerable save. The GM still has a 4++ but now with a +1 modifier; so you can then cast sanctuary to improve the invun to 3++ with a +1 modifier.
it's an argument but I don't think most people will let you get away with it.
From the FAQ:
"Until the start of your next Psychic phase, the invulnerable save of that unit is improved by 1 (to a maximum of 3+)"
So applying this to a GM changes their invun save to a 3+. The strategem gives you a +1 modifier to your invunerable saving throws no matter what that saving throw number is.
What would be your argument to say that it does not work that way?
See above.
We all interpreted that as making the invulnerables save better not adding +1 to the roll.
I never interpretted it as that. Almost everything in this edition is about modifiers to rolls (hence the whole rerolls/modifiers thing). I always saw that sanctuary (pre-faq) and the stratagem were designed to give a +1 modifier to the invunerable save; not to change the save value itself.
Post faq sanctuary is now specifically written as changing the save value itself, not a modifier to the roll.
I appreciate we disagree on this and there isn't anything more I can say that isn't saying the same thing over and over. I will be playing it as I've stated unless GW release some clarification. The biggest thing it changes is Draigo unable to get 2++ for "free".
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
The entire ability to do this presented by Kalhor rests upon a single word. Sanctuary used to say "add 1" just like the Stratagem. We all interpreted that as making the invulnerables save better not adding +1 to the roll. Now they changed Sanctuary to say "improve" instead of "add". Kalhor uses this difference to say it still works and we now interpret add as a die modifier, which was not done before.
My point is that using "improve" over "add" was likely just an oversight. It's pretty clear GW's RAI is to eliminate the 2++ from GM's.
If they wanted the 2++ situation to exist like that they wouldn't of FAQ'd it at all. Sanc didn't need to be changed to give a 2++. It was specifically changed to try and prevent that. GW just sucks at rules writing.
Just about every part of this appears to be clearly wrong. I don't we were all interpreting Sanctuary as improving the listed invulnerable save. We might have talked about it that way, as shorthand, because there wasn't any real difference between a 3++ and a 4++ with a +1 modifier, but by now we're all used to modifiers in 8th being to dice rolls rather than to characteristics -- this ends up being pretty important for shooting because of the interaction with re-rolls.
They did not simply change Sanctuary to "improve" instead of "add". They also changed it so that the power modifies an "invulnerable save" instead of "invulnerable saving throws". The rules make a very clear distinction between these things -- it's the difference between a model's Ballistic Skill and a hit roll. Nobody ever says: "my 5 guys have 2 shots each, so I make 10 ballistic skills". It's not that complicated. If a rule says to modify a dice roll, then it modifies a dice roll. If it says to modify a characteristic, then it modifies a characteristic.
The "2++ situation" clearly exists even with your interpretation. Draigo has a 3++ and can use the stratagem. What reason is there to think that you're not supposed to be able to similarly spend 2 CP to give other units a 2++, when they can otherwise achieve a 3++?
5000 
