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.

 Type40 wrote:
Did they spoil a NEW model with plasma,,, or will everything be errated ?

One of the marine units in Indomitus has a plasma weapon, and it only overheats on a natural 1. We can infer that that is the 9th wording for plasma, but until day 1 FAQs drop that's all it is.

An easy fix would be to add "modified saving throws of 1 always fail". Unless or course they intend for 1+ saves to exist and work that way. Given they have an invulnerable save system, it seems odd to ha e because it basically creates a better than invulnerable save from a stat that is meant to be effected by AP. I say better because null zone death hex etc exist to counter invulnerable saves.

Voss wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Agreed. Going from 3++ to 2++ halves the number of saves you expect to fail, its huge and will be a problem if this all goes ahead.

There is absolutely nothing about going from 3++ to 2++. In fact, the stormshield on the new primaris stuff is 4++.

Please read earlier posts.

A 1+ save is functionally a 2++.

Except in all the ways it isn't (like effects that don't allow normal saves at all).

The concern at hand is a 1+ save. By referring to it as a 2+ invulnerable, you're doing nothing but adding ambiguity into a clear cut situation. It doesn't interact with the invulnerable save rules in any way at all.

Name two things that ignore armor saves that don’t also ignore invulnerable saves.

There’s a Culexus melee attack, and what else?

According to the Tapletop Titans guys, GW is aware of stuff like 1+ saves and it's not gonna stay.

So enjoy it until the FAQ.

tulun wrote:
According to the Tapletop Titans guys, GW is aware of stuff like 1+ saves and it's not gonna stay.

So enjoy it until the FAQ.

So now the question is, if they were aware of it, why wasn't it fixed at print? They fixed a whole host of other issues, and they knew of the 1+ issue before because of the Meganobz incident. So, they were either malicious or incompetent, and either way it's not a good sign.

Or we could look at this as a win and that our discussion alerted GW to the issue and thus we're responsible (again) for it being fixed. yey

Bwahahahaha not even out yet and people have already broken it. I sometimes wonder how some people's brains work the way they do to look at what on the surface appears to be reasonable and then immediately start processing BUT WAIT this means... when most people would look at it and think nothing of it and play it as likely intended.

Top kek. Top fething kek gentlemen.

So obviously social media is not a rules resource, but I thought this was interesting none the less.

Yippie! Let's go back to wargear with the same name having different rules depending on which dude is holding it!

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Yippie! Let's go back to wargear with the same name having different rules depending on which dude is holding it!

That's going to happen when you update an edition.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Yippie! Let's go back to wargear with the same name having different rules depending on which dude is holding it!

That's going to happen when you update an edition.

Not if
a) The Bladeguard stormshields didn't have different rules to everybody else's stormshields for no reason
b) Everybody else's stormshields were altered to match in a comprehensive update

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Yippie! Let's go back to wargear with the same name having different rules depending on which dude is holding it!

True grit would like to know your location.

In all seriousness, the communicae from GW isn't even that necessary: until a codex or faq/errata give ss/th termies the same ss, they will be different.

That said, I do like how the Captain's relic shield was handled for the 4++: he gets a 4+ vs MW.

So a blob of 3x3 Storm shield Custodian Guard just became a major player in winning missions by holding objectives. There is very little that could remove them at 1+/3++6+++(Psychic wounds only) with 3 wounds a pop. And throw in their strats?

 Stux wrote:
So obviously social media is not a rules resource, but I thought this was interesting none the less.

I would point out that this is a classic 40k Facebook team non-answer reply. There's no indication of a ruling on the underlying issue, with an entirely true tangential statement tacked on (in this case the statement that until there's subsequent eratta, old rules are still valid).

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So a blob of 3x3 Storm shield Custodian Guard just became a major player in winning missions by holding objectives. There is very little that could remove them at 1+/3++6+++(Psychic wounds only) with 3 wounds a pop. And throw in their strats?

Yes, but actually no.

Until we are told otherwise, only Bladeguard veteran Storm Shields have the 4++/add 1 to save characteristic.

Costodes are still 2+, 2++, 6++(vs psychic). Same with SS-TH Termies still being 2+, 3++.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So a blob of 3x3 Storm shield Custodian Guard just became a major player in winning missions by holding objectives. There is very little that could remove them at 1+/3++6+++(Psychic wounds only) with 3 wounds a pop. And throw in their strats?

Yes, but actually no.

Until we are told otherwise, only Bladeguard veteran Storm Shields have the 4++/add 1 to save characteristic.

Costodes are still 2+, 2++, 6++(vs psychic). Same with SS-TH Termies still being 2+, 3++.

3++. Not 2++.

Right now we have two melta rules. One says to discard the lowest result, the other says to discard one of the dice.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So a blob of 3x3 Storm shield Custodian Guard just became a major player in winning missions by holding objectives. There is very little that could remove them at 1+/3++6+++(Psychic wounds only) with 3 wounds a pop. And throw in their strats?

Yes, but actually no.

Until we are told otherwise, only Bladeguard veteran Storm Shields have the 4++/add 1 to save characteristic.

Costodes are still 2+, 2++, 6++(vs psychic). Same with SS-TH Termies still being 2+, 3++.

3++. Not 2++.

Forgot the "to a maximum of 3+".

I don't play Custodes and do not face them often.

Wait. For. The. Rules.

Honestly, no one can answer most 9th questions yet. Hold your questions until the Day One FAQs are out.

This rule doesn't need to be errated or faqed.

This "problem" is solved by replacing all "Improve the Save characteristic" by "Improve the armor saving throw by 1". And that's it.

In Crusade, I'd like to keep the 1+ save characteristic possible.

Selfcontrol wrote:
This rule doesn't need to be errated or faqed.

This "problem" is solved by replacing all "Improve the Save characteristic" by "Improve the armor saving throw by 1". And that's it.

In Crusade, I'd like to keep the 1+ save characteristic possible.

Replacing all instances of X with Y... like an errata does..?

Lord Damocles wrote:Yippie! Let's go back to wargear with the same name having different rules depending on which dude is holding it!

That's standard operating procedure for a new edition in many cases. The alternative is either to never update anything ever and use different names for what is essentially the same piece of kit, or errata everything on day one. Sine the game isn't out yet we don't know which route GW have chosen.

Selfcontrol wrote:This rule doesn't need to be errated or faqed.

This "problem" is solved by replacing all "Improve the Save characteristic" by "Improve the armor saving throw by 1". And that's it.

In Crusade, I'd like to keep the 1+ save characteristic possible.

That would be an errata.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Selfcontrol wrote:
This rule doesn't need to be errated or faqed.

This "problem" is solved by replacing all "Improve the Save characteristic" by "Improve the armor saving throw by 1". And that's it.

In Crusade, I'd like to keep the 1+ save characteristic possible.

Replacing all instances of X with Y... like an errata does..?

Here and on Reddit, most people are advocating for a faq or errata adding a limit to the save characteristic (for example, adding a sentence stating a save characteristic can never be better than 2+ in the core rules). This is what I'm talking about.

We don't need that. Stratagems (like the Orks' stratagem "Loot it !"), items, relics etc only need to be properly phrased : add a +1 bonus to the saving throw. It has the added benefit of still being useful for models which have a native 2+ save characteristic and it also allows GW to design a 1+ model (if they manage to balance it or for a more narrative experience such as Crusade).

Selfcontrol wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Selfcontrol wrote:
This rule doesn't need to be errated or faqed.

This "problem" is solved by replacing all "Improve the Save characteristic" by "Improve the armor saving throw by 1". And that's it.

In Crusade, I'd like to keep the 1+ save characteristic possible.

Replacing all instances of X with Y... like an errata does..?

Here and on Reddit, most people are advocating for a faq or errata adding a limit to the save characteristic (for example, adding a sentence stating a save characteristic can never be better than 2+ in the core rules). This is what I'm talking about.

We don't need that. Stratagems (like the Orks' stratagem "Loot it !"), items, relics etc only need to be properly phrased : add a +1 bonus to the saving throw. It has the added benefit of still being useful for models which have a native 2+ save characteristic and it also allows GW to design a 1+ model (if they manage to balance it or for a more narrative experience such as Crusade).

But how would you change that, without an errata?

So, just to point out something someone mentioned in the N&R thread.

Forgetting hypothetical terminators, forgetting Narrative Crusade malarky, this 1+ Sv "issue" is not a hypothetical, it's an actual, matched play situation.
The Primaris Lieutenant, the model causing this brouhaha in the first place, has access to two different relics from Codex: Space Marines and it's respective Codex Supplements: The Armour Indomitus and Artificer Armour.

Both of these relics, among other things, grants the bearer "a Save characteristic of 2+".

Therefore, a Primaris Lieutenant from the Indomius boxset with either The Armour Indomitus (good naming GW, no confusion here) or Artificer Armour, will have a Save characteristic of 1+, thus this "issue" occurs, and does so in matched play and, to be honest, is not going to be uncommon.

In any case, given that both the RaW for 8th and 9th edition and RaI for 8th edition (as proven by both the AOS and Dark Eldar FAQs) support the fact that this model will effectively ignore all AP, the only solution is to either FAQ this as intended (just to keep people from screeching about it) or implement some form of errata.

Given that the Crusade rules explicitly mention a 1+ Sv, I cannot see them adding a base rule cap on Sv to 2+. Either the Storm Shield itself will have the cap added to it, or the Storm Shield will instead grant +1 to save rolls rather than improving the characteristic. Or they might just leave it and allow Terminators to have 2++ saves. It's not like Terminators don't need the help.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Wait. For. The. Rules.

We have the rules. There's nothing to wait for. We know how they work. This was an exercise in extrapolation.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, just to point out something someone mentioned in the N&R thread.

Forgetting hypothetical terminators, forgetting Narrative Crusade malarky, this 1+ Sv "issue" is not a hypothetical, it's an actual, matched play situation.
The Primaris Lieutenant, the model causing this brouhaha in the first place, has access to two different relics from Codex: Space Marines and it's respective Codex Supplements: The Armour Indomitus and Artificer Armour.

Both of these relics, among other things, grants the bearer "a Save characteristic of 2+".

Therefore, a Primaris Lieutenant from the Indomius boxset with either The Armour Indomitus (good naming GW, no confusion here) or Artificer Armour, will have a Save characteristic of 1+, thus this "issue" occurs, and does so in matched play and, to be honest, is not going to be uncommon.

In any case, given that both the RaW for 8th and 9th edition and RaI for 8th edition (as proven by both the AOS and Dark Eldar FAQs) support the fact that this model will effectively ignore all AP, the only solution is to either FAQ this as intended (just to keep people from screeching about it) or implement some form of errata.

Given that the Crusade rules explicitly mention a 1+ Sv, I cannot see them adding a base rule cap on Sv to 2+. Either the Storm Shield itself will have the cap added to it, or the Storm Shield will instead grant +1 to save rolls rather than improving the characteristic. Or they might just leave it and allow Terminators to have 2++ saves. It's not like Terminators don't need the help.

If terminators go to a 2+ invul with the points changes that have been leaked being correct, you honestly don't need to own anything else. 23pt base 2 wound model essentially immune to damage, with built in deepstrike, now with discounted ranged firepower and Angels of death making them each character equivalents in melee as well?

All we need is a way for them to reroll ones to save and get a 4+ FNP and it'd be 7th edition again.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Wait. For. The. Rules.

We have the rules. There's nothing to wait for. We know how they work. This was an exercise in extrapolation.

We don't know if all the storm shields work in the same way. I highly doubt that 1+ terminator would exist, and even if they do they'd be FAQed as soon as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:


If terminators go to a 2+ invul with the points changes that have been leaked being correct, you honestly don't need to own anything else. 23pt base 2 wound model essentially immune to damage, with built in deepstrike, now with discounted ranged firepower and Angels of death making them each character equivalents in melee as well?

All we need is a way for them to reroll ones to save and get a 4+ FNP and it'd be 7th edition again.

They'd be overpowered for sure. SW ones also have +1 to hit in combat which makes thunder hammers very reliable and thanks to Wulfen/character with Wulfen Stone and Arjac they could easily get +2A. Plus auras to re-roll hits and wounds, etc...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Wait. For. The. Rules.

We have the rules. There's nothing to wait for. We know how they work. This was an exercise in extrapolation.

The rules include any Day One FAQs. And the whole book. So you have those?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Wait. For. The. Rules.

We have the rules. There's nothing to wait for. We know how they work. This was an exercise in extrapolation.

The rules include any Day One FAQs. And the whole book. So you have those?

Day One FAQs are gonna be more comprehensive, because people have been looking at these rules. Reece allegedly said in the TO Facebook group that the Blast weapon-wording for Units of 6-10 Models will be Day-1-FAQed because of the flaw the community found, which the playtesters missed.

Almost certainly gonna be the same for Daemonprinces/Chappy Dreads/Talon Masters covering each other under the character rule and quite possibly now the Storm Shield abuse.

ERJAK wrote:

If terminators go to a 2+ invul with the points changes that have been leaked being correct, you honestly don't need to own anything else. 23pt base 2 wound model essentially immune to damage, with built in deepstrike, now with discounted ranged firepower and Angels of death making them each character equivalents in melee as well?

All we need is a way for them to reroll ones to save and get a 4+ FNP and it'd be 7th edition again.

Hardly. For regular Terminators to make use of this rule they currently need to be equipped with TH/SS (or a variation for units like Deathwing). Their firepower is 0 and they're not really all that much more resilient to the kinds of weapons that tend to prey on them anyway. For sure, it's a stupid interaction that I hope they FAQ day 1 but I'm not sure a wall of Terminators with no shooting is all that scary in reality.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Day One FAQs are gonna be more comprehensive, because people have been looking at these rules. Reece allegedly said in the TO Facebook group that the Blast weapon-wording for Units of 6-10 Models will be Day-1-FAQed because of the flaw the community found, which the playtesters missed.

I must have missed that one, what's the Blast weapon flaw?