Switch Theme:

Daemons uber save  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Malicious Mutant Scum




Whitby uk

Holla, it's me back with probably another obvious question.

Is this a thing:
Daemon prince = 5++
+ Impossible robe = 4++
+ warp surge(max 3++) = 3++
+ephemeral form = 2++ (dunno why, saw someone use it saying it's after warp surge)

Or:
Daemon prince = 5++
+ Impossible robe = 4++
+ warp surge(max 3++) = 3++
+ephemeral form = still 3++ (nice try boyo)

4000
2000 
   
Made in gb
Horrific Hive Tyrant





Warp Surge is max 3++

That means you can't stack it with anything past that.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/15 22:43:42


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




OP is almost correct. Ephemeral form = "Add 1 to any invulnerable saving throws made for this unit". Different then improving the invulnerable save like Warp Surge.

So your invulnerable save is a 3+ with a +1 on the roll. So a roll of 1 becomes a 2, a roll of 2 becomes a 3 (and passes), etc.
   
Made in us
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Again the problem with 8th is ambiguity, there is no rule on the order of application of modifiers

To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 Backspacehacker wrote:
Again the problem with 8th is ambiguity, there is no rule on the order of application of modifiers


Yes there is. Check the header "Modifying Characteristics" in the BRB / Battle Primer (pg 13 on battle primer)

But order doesn't matter any way in this situation, warp surge puts an additional restriction on invulnerable saves which is "to a maximum of 3+". Even if you improve the invulnerable from other sources you still have this restriction which you don't have permissions to ignore.

An important note about Ephemeral form is that it doesn't improve the invulnerable save, rather it improves the roll. It is an important distinction in this situation as the model will have a 3+ invulnerable save, but with a +1 to their saving roll. Effectively making rolls of 2's turn in to 3's which then pass the invulnerable save.
   
Made in nz
Regular Dakkanaut




Just remember though, a roll of a 1 always fails.

But yes. Empirical form is a +1 to invulnerable saving throw, not a modifier of the invulnerable itself. Hense the Impossible robe + warp surge will give you a 3++, but the Empirical form gives you a +1 modifier to the saving roll. Hense you still need to roll a 3+ on the save, but it is with a +1.

So technically this is a 3++ with a +1 to the saving throw, hence a 2 after modifiers becomes a 3

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/16 04:46:05


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Also, keep in mind, each and every single time that GW has EVER had to answer an FAQ question as to whether you can combine "add 1 to the roll" with "improves the characteristic by 1", GW has always taken the stance that the two are SYNONYMOUS.

That is, adding 1 to your roll for Invulnerable Saves, and improving your Invulnerable Save by 1, are the same thing (even if, RAW, they are not). As such, I would STRONGLY recommend you leave the maximum as being 3+ Inv, as if GW goes over this with an FAQ, they will almost certainly side with "nope, the max is still 3+".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/16 13:04:30


 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

I don't see the problem here and feel like the way the OP is asking the question is what makes it seem like an order of operations problem. But it's not.

Warp Surge takes the invulnerable save to 3+. Ephemeral Form adds +1 to the saving throw.

A player rolls a 2. That 2 is a 3, thus the save is made. A player subsequently rolls a 1. That 1 is a 2, thus the save is failed. All requirements satisfied.

   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Yarium wrote:
Also, keep in mind, each and every single time that GW has EVER had to answer an FAQ question as to whether you can combine "add 1 to the roll" with "improves the characteristic by 1", GW has always taken the stance that the two are SYNONYMOUS.

That is, adding 1 to your roll for Invulnerable Saves, and improving your Invulnerable Save by 1, are the same thing (even if, RAW, they are not). As such, I would STRONGLY recommend you leave the maximum as being 3+ Inv, as if GW goes over this with an FAQ, they will almost certainly side with "nope, the max is still 3+".


So if I have Sergeant Telion (4+ save) in cover (+2 to his save rolls), he starts taking d3 damage from Grav weaponry?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in ca
Been Around the Block




RAW, I guess you can have a 2++ save but as others have said, if GW ever FAQs this it will be max 3++. This is because RAI, the max invuln they seem to want to give out is a 3++. A lot of Tzeentch invuln stuff across both Daemons and Chaos Space Marines do say "max of 3++". The only actually instance of a 2++ save I can think of is the shadowfield for Archons and that even has a stipulation to not be rerolled.

Short version: GW really doesn't want the invulns of 7th back.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 JNAProductions wrote:
 Yarium wrote:
Also, keep in mind, each and every single time that GW has EVER had to answer an FAQ question as to whether you can combine "add 1 to the roll" with "improves the characteristic by 1", GW has always taken the stance that the two are SYNONYMOUS.

That is, adding 1 to your roll for Invulnerable Saves, and improving your Invulnerable Save by 1, are the same thing (even if, RAW, they are not). As such, I would STRONGLY recommend you leave the maximum as being 3+ Inv, as if GW goes over this with an FAQ, they will almost certainly side with "nope, the max is still 3+".


So if I have Sergeant Telion (4+ save) in cover (+2 to his save rolls), he starts taking d3 damage from Grav weaponry?


No. His Save characteristic is 4+, and that's what the Grav weapon works off, not what modifiers you have to the roll.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in pt
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

Azoqu wrote:
Short version: GW really doesn't want the invulns of 7th back.


And the community too!

AI & BFG: / BMG: Mr. Freeze, Deathstroke / Battletech: SR, OWA / HGB: Caprice / Malifaux: Arcanists, Guild, Outcasts / MCP: Mutants / SAGA: Ordensstaat / SW Legion & X-Wing: CIS / WWX: Union

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





 JohnnyHell wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Yarium wrote:
Also, keep in mind, each and every single time that GW has EVER had to answer an FAQ question as to whether you can combine "add 1 to the roll" with "improves the characteristic by 1", GW has always taken the stance that the two are SYNONYMOUS.

That is, adding 1 to your roll for Invulnerable Saves, and improving your Invulnerable Save by 1, are the same thing (even if, RAW, they are not). As such, I would STRONGLY recommend you leave the maximum as being 3+ Inv, as if GW goes over this with an FAQ, they will almost certainly side with "nope, the max is still 3+".


So if I have Sergeant Telion (4+ save) in cover (+2 to his save rolls), he starts taking d3 damage from Grav weaponry?


No. His Save characteristic is 4+, and that's what the Grav weapon works off, not what modifiers you have to the roll.


Yeah I have to say I don't know where Yarium got his info from, because I've never heard it myself, but I could be wrong. Statsline and modifiers are two different things entirely. And anyway, it's not like it would be the first 2+ invul save in the game either, imperials can get it from at least 2 differents ways without the "cannot be rerolled" clause.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Anacortes

I’m going with it’s a three plus period. Not a 2. What imperial
Units have a 2 plus re-rollable?

In a dog eat dog be a cat. 
   
Made in nz
Regular Dakkanaut




The only thing i can think of is grey knights with stratagem and sanctuary
   
Made in se
Dakka Veteran





Lungpickle wrote:
I’m going with it’s a three plus period. Not a 2. What imperial
Units have a 2 plus re-rollable?


Not re-rollable, but Bullgryns with Bruteshields can easily get a 2++.

Edit: Vs shooting that is.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/25 01:14:51


5500 pts
6500 pts
7000 pts
9000 pts
13.000 pts
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






And this is why mortal wounds are necessary.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Daring Dark Eldar Raider Rider




The Mid-Western Front

 Lance845 wrote:
And this is why mortal wounds are necessary.



I concur, but a good chunk of armies have little or no access to the amount of mortal wounds needed to deal with that, or mortal wounds in the first place.

P'tah Dynasty
Iron Warriors
Dark Eldar

" It is always good to remember WHY we are in this hobby, and often times it is because of the PEOPLE we share our time with" 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Lance845 wrote:
And this is why mortal wounds are necessary.


In a world where toughness is not how good save you have but how cheap you are per wound...No.

Those still are not king of attrition in the game. Bohoo. 2++ isn't problem anyway. Especially on selected units. IT was 2++ rerollable that was issue. Especially if it could be given freely to whatever you want.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






tneva82 wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
And this is why mortal wounds are necessary.


In a world where toughness is not how good save you have but how cheap you are per wound...No.

Those still are not king of attrition in the game. Bohoo. 2++ isn't problem anyway. Especially on selected units. IT was 2++ rerollable that was issue. Especially if it could be given freely to whatever you want.


A 2++ isn't a big issue on a unit that has only 1 or 2 or maybe even 3 wounds.

But a 2++ on a 10 wound model is a fething nightmare.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 Lance845 wrote:
And this is why mortal wounds are necessary.


Agreed. Let them stack as much as they like, then Smite the overpriced, overpowered thing away. The Great Leveller!

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: