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.

Ice_can wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I want to see what the glowy paint does... hold the phone...

"Battlezone Manufactorum Battlefield" - card surface. Hmm...

Also I'm pretty sure the crusade thing is this thing. If it's more than that then fine, but this seems like the type of thing that wouldn't be that useful.

Voss wrote:
I get the latter, but precedent in 40K is that stormshields actually do have different rules in the same edition, and we also know that 9th is using existing datasheets until new codexes happen.

And part of his explanation included AoS, where shields are a huge tangle of different piles of rules.

I think it'll be a case of gradual revision.

Marines are first cab off the rank, right, so they'll get a new set of Storm Shield rules (assume it's the ones we've seen previewed/leaked). Custodes on the other hand will keep what they have now, until their new book gets done.

Of course, they may just errata the whole lot in the big Day 1 FAQ, so who knows?

And Spacemarines Turn 9th into the new 7th edition with instead of invisibility we have 2++, invulnerable save spam, DA players your time has come to be the new Ironhands.

The shield modifies your save characteristic, not your invul save. So they'd have a 1+ in Terminator armour.

And as you can never modify a due to less than 1 they pass on anything but a natural 1.

I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.

Do you not know how AP works? AP doesn't modify any characteristics, it modifies rolls.

9th ed rules wrote:The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving
throw by rolling one D6 and modifying the roll by the Armour
Penetration (AP) characteristic of the weapon that the attack
was made with. For example, if the weapon has an AP of -1, then
1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll. If the result is equal
to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model the
attack was allocated to, then the saving throw is successful and
the attack sequence ends. If the result is less than the model’s Save
characteristic, then the saving throw fails and the model suffers
damage. An unmodified roll of 1 always fails

It's never worked by "increasing its target number", even in 8th edition.

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
How does it work when a monster or vehicle -let's say a Sydonian Dragoon for example, wants to charge unit in a ruin 5" from the ground ? I roll charge, end below it at 5" vertically, and then how does it fight ? It can fight as it is within Engagement Range, but if the Dragoon beside it wants to strike too it can't, as my first Dragoon can't be within 1/2" of the target, correct ? Or do we measure from the model itself, even though it has a base ?

I'm confused about this rule.

Yes being within a half inch of a half inch doesn't work vertically.

To engage in melee you need to either be in engagement range (1" horizontally, 5" vertically) or 1/2" of someone who is in engagement range. It works fine for units of multiple sizes.

I don't like that change, it seems counter-intuitive and causes weird edge cases with 25mm bases.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.

Do you not know how AP works? AP doesn't modify any characteristics, it modifies rolls.

Point stands, 40k doesn't have a way to prevent AP from modifying a 1+ save roll. Effectively you have a 2+ save (because unmodified 1s always fail) that ignores the first -1.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Only Marines can reroll all hits, not just 1's.

Admech and Eldar can get it too.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Only Marines can block deepstrike units from being able to drop within charge range.

Night lords can do it too.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

There are plenty of cases where Marines straight up ignore the game just because they can.

harlequins can fall back and charge + shoot freely, and ignore terrain/units when moving

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I don't like that change, it seems counter-intuitive and causes weird edge cases with 25mm bases.

It kills the arguement that rebasing off 25mm hurts your army, so I'm all for it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.

Do you not know how AP works? AP doesn't modify any characteristics, it modifies rolls.

Point stands, 40k doesn't have a way to prevent AP from modifying a 1+ save roll. Effectively you have a 2+ save (because unmodified 1s always fail) that ignores the first -1.

With the rules as they are right now, that's not how it works.

A 1+ save only ever fails on a natural 1. Since anything modified below a 1 becomes 1.

Now, since GW explicitly allows for 1+ saves (see the Crusade reward, I believe) they've HOPEFULLY fixed that, and made it work how you say. But that's not how it works right now.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.

Do you not know how AP works? AP doesn't modify any characteristics, it modifies rolls.

Point stands, 40k doesn't have a way to prevent AP from modifying a 1+ save roll. Effectively you have a 2+ save (because unmodified 1s always fail) that ignores the first -1.

here are the possible rolls against a shot with AP -10:

1 -10 = 1
2 -10 = 1
3 -10 = 1
4 -10 = 1
5 -10 = 1
6 -10 = 1

out of these, only one result had a dice with a natural one.

to fail a save, you need to roll under your save, with natural ones failing.

Tell me how many of these give a result of zero or lower?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.

Do you not know how AP works? AP doesn't modify any characteristics, it modifies rolls.

Point stands, 40k doesn't have a way to prevent AP from modifying a 1+ save roll. Effectively you have a 2+ save (because unmodified 1s always fail) that ignores the first -1.

With the rules as they are right now, that's not how it works.

A 1+ save only ever fails on a natural 1. Since anything modified below a 1 becomes 1.

Now, since GW explicitly allows for 1+ saves (see the Crusade reward, I believe) they've HOPEFULLY fixed that, and made it work how you say. But that's not how it works right now.

I feel like this is one of those RAW arguments that either has an answer in the back of the book, or will get a Day One FAQ that says to treat any AP that takes a roll below a 1 as a 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.

Do you not know how AP works? AP doesn't modify any characteristics, it modifies rolls.

Point stands, 40k doesn't have a way to prevent AP from modifying a 1+ save roll. Effectively you have a 2+ save (because unmodified 1s always fail) that ignores the first -1.

here are the possible rolls against a shot with AP -10:

1 -10 = 1
2 -10 = 1
3 -10 = 1
4 -10 = 1
5 -10 = 1
6 -10 = 1

out of these, only one result had a dice with a natural one.

to fail a save, you need to roll under your save, with natural ones failing.

Tell me how many of these give a result of zero or lower?

Show me the rule that says a die roll can't be modified below a 1.

The drip feed of rules was fun, but I am glad that they pushed out the Core Rules after the mass leak yesterday (shenanigans). About the best response that they could have made and now we get to get some games in ourselves. It also cuts through the speculation and wish-listing that was fueling angst in some quarters.

That, combined with the suspected price point for the box make me a happy gamer (since I have pre-preordered it at my FLGS). This is assuming that we still use money in late July 2020.

I guess we can now follow along with the Saturday live stream of a full game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Show me the rule that says a die roll can't be modified below a 1.

Page 5. If a roll would be modified below 1, it counts as 1.

No FAQ needed. Its right there at the front for all rolls.
Its even got a bullet point:
Dice roll cannot be modified to less than 1.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Show me the rule that says a die roll can't be modified below a 1.

BCB posted it multiple times already

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 xeen wrote:
Where in the rules does it say that a negative modifier can't reduce the roll to less than 1? It seems that by the base wording of the rule that it can. Although I will agree the rule probably should have said "reduce the save value of the target by X" rather than the dice roll

This is like the 4th time I've said it, but page 5. https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Lw4o3USx1R8sU7cQ.pdf

All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply
all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers,
and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers.
Round any fractions up after applying all modifiers. A dice roll can
be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6
roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below
1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less
than 1, count that result as a 1.

IanVanCheese wrote:

Does anyone else like the Necron terrain better without the rock/black stone/material covering all the mechanical techmo-metal-necron parts? I'm a bigger fan without the stone faces.


Opposite, I prefer the two rock covered ones. Might see I can trade the uncovered one for another of the other two.

Hope I got the quoted person right.

I BELIEVE that these monoliths will be one per box. They come in the stripped-down form, with a few "rock plates" to attach if you'd rathe rthem be partially, or fully, covered. This is GW showing you all three options with trhee models, but at the size each one is, I'd lay good odds that they're sold 1 per box.

Never mind, found the "can't modify below a 1" thing. I have a feeling there is answer for this that isn't stupid as hell, but I'll wait and see instead of arguing about it here. Regardless of RAW I know how I'll play it RAI if they apply this change to things with a 2+.

EDIT: And no, it's not the same as a bloody 2++ since this is likely something they have a fix for.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm not sure how that claim works since you can inflict AP on it to modify it to a 2+, 3+, ect. You can't improve it to a 0+, but AP "decreases" the save value by increasing its target number.

Do you not know how AP works? AP doesn't modify any characteristics, it modifies rolls.

Point stands, 40k doesn't have a way to prevent AP from modifying a 1+ save roll. Effectively you have a 2+ save (because unmodified 1s always fail) that ignores the first -1.

as it is written in the rules for is:
you need to roll a 1+ on a D6
AP modifies the rolled number
a number modified below 1 is one instead
if the modified rolled number is equal or higher the save, it passed

1+ save. need to roll a 1+
you roll a 3 with AP4 wich is -1 but get changed into 1 as the final modified result
1 is equal the needed save

if your save is 2+ it works the same, but as all negative results (rolled 3 with AP4) which turn into a modified 1 are below 2, it fails

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Show me the rule that says a die roll can't be modified below a 1.

It has already been shown like 10 times while you were saying people should stop arguing about it for pages while you were arguing about paint....
This thread is a comedy

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Never mind, found the "can't modify below a 1" thing. I have a feeling there is answer for this that isn't stupid as hell, but I'll wait and see instead of arguing about it here. Regardless of RAW I know how I'll play it RAI if they apply this change to things with a 2+.

so whats the RAI? Theres precedent from GW that says thats how its supposed to be played, heck theres already a 2++ in the game RIGHT NOW.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I don't like that change, it seems counter-intuitive and causes weird edge cases with 25mm bases.

It kills the arguement that rebasing off 25mm hurts your army, so I'm all for it.

It also hugely nerfs units of more than 10, or charging multiple units into a single target. You may be fine with that too - the people who made 9th edition certainly seem fine with making big units bad, since almost every change they've made has done it - but it's a big part of the change. The main effect is to make it much harder to get models into fighting range.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Never mind, found the "can't modify below a 1" thing. I have a feeling there is answer for this that isn't stupid as hell, but I'll wait and see instead of arguing about it here. Regardless of RAW I know how I'll play it RAI if they apply this change to things with a 2+.

so whats the RAI?

That you'll fail on modified 1s.

GW wouldn't intentionally give us unkillable Marines. Accidentally sure, but I can't see that being the intent.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I don't like that change, it seems counter-intuitive and causes weird edge cases with 25mm bases.

It kills the arguement that rebasing off 25mm hurts your army, so I'm all for it.

It also hugely nerfs units of more than 10, or charging multiple units into a single target. You may be fine with that too - the people who made 9th edition certainly seem fine with making big units bad, since almost every change they've made has done it - but it's a big part of the change. The main effect is to make it much harder to get models into fighting range.

Yeah, hordes will be pretty much unusable in 9th with all the nerfs they received.

And by hordes i mean any squad that has more than 5 models in them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Never mind, found the "can't modify below a 1" thing. I have a feeling there is answer for this that isn't stupid as hell, but I'll wait and see instead of arguing about it here. Regardless of RAW I know how I'll play it RAI if they apply this change to things with a 2+.

so whats the RAI?

That you'll fail on modified 1s.

GW wouldn't intentionally give us unkillable Marines. Accidentally sure, but I can't see that being the intent.

Theyre not unkillable tho. and as i edited in my comment, theres precedent for a legit 2++ in 8th

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I don't like that change, it seems counter-intuitive and causes weird edge cases with 25mm bases.

It kills the arguement that rebasing off 25mm hurts your army, so I'm all for it.

It also hugely nerfs units of more than 10, or charging multiple units into a single target. You may be fine with that too - the people who made 9th edition certainly seem fine with making big units bad, since almost every change they've made has done it - but it's a big part of the change. The main effect is to make it much harder to get models into fighting range.

I disagree since with objectives being the primary means of scoring you'll have to spread out, which makes it easier to hit units with charges and get more models into combat.

Everyone is saying 9th is the death of hordes, I'd argue it's the death of the castle build. Move on to bunkers of power pairs perhaps, but not full blown armies huddled around a character or two past turn 1.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Show me the rule that says a die roll can't be modified below a 1.

From Page 5 of the free rules preview:

"In order to fight a battle, you will require some six-sided dice (often
abbreviated to D6). Some rules refer to 2D6, 3D6 and so on – in
such cases, roll that many D6s and add the dice results together.
If a rule requires you to roll a D3, roll a D6 and halve the value
shown on the dice to get the dice result (rounding fractions up).
If a rule requires a D6 roll of, for example, 3 or more, this is often
abbreviated to 3+.

All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply
all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers,
and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers.
Round any fractions up after applying all modifiers. A dice roll can
be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6
roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below
1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less
than 1, count that result as a 1.

* D6 = A six-sided dice.
* D3 = D6 divided by 2 (rounding up).
* All modifiers cumulative.
* Apply modifiers in the following order: division,
multiplication, addition, then subtraction.
* Round fractions up after all modifiers have been applied.
* Dice roll cannot be modified to less than 1."

Please read and understand the rules before debating them.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Who on earth was guessing 300 for a starter box?

Eh this is not starter box. This is unusually cheap

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Never mind, found the "can't modify below a 1" thing. I have a feeling there is answer for this that isn't stupid as hell, but I'll wait and see instead of arguing about it here. Regardless of RAW I know how I'll play it RAI if they apply this change to things with a 2+.

so whats the RAI?

That you'll fail on modified 1s.

GW wouldn't intentionally give us unkillable Marines. Accidentally sure, but I can't see that being the intent.

They know this as they did the same thing in 8th and had to FAQ it.
Doing it now for marines seems intentional or They realy are going to go mental and have items of wargear with the same name and different rules. Thats not going to cause issues at all

At this point who ever is responsible for Marines/Primaris should be taken to a see saw and have balance explained to them as they clearly don't understand it.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Theyre not unkillable tho. and as i edited in my comment, theres precedent for a legit 2++ in 8th

8th=/=9th, and a 2++ would be a 2+ invul save. Not the same as an armour save that can't be modified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Show me the rule that says a die roll can't be modified below a 1.

From Page 5 of the free rules preview:

"In order to fight a battle, you will require some six-sided dice (often
abbreviated to D6). Some rules refer to 2D6, 3D6 and so on – in
such cases, roll that many D6s and add the dice results together.
If a rule requires you to roll a D3, roll a D6 and halve the value
shown on the dice to get the dice result (rounding fractions up).
If a rule requires a D6 roll of, for example, 3 or more, this is often
abbreviated to 3+.

All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply
all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers,
and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers.
Round any fractions up after applying all modifiers. A dice roll can
be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6
roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below
1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less
than 1, count that result as a 1.

* D6 = A six-sided dice.
* D3 = D6 divided by 2 (rounding up).
* All modifiers cumulative.
* Apply modifiers in the following order: division,
multiplication, addition, then subtraction.
* Round fractions up after all modifiers have been applied.
* Dice roll cannot be modified to less than 1."

Please read and understand the rules before debating them.

Day late and a Maple Dollar Short bud.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I don't like that change, it seems counter-intuitive and causes weird edge cases with 25mm bases.

It kills the arguement that rebasing off 25mm hurts your army, so I'm all for it.

It also hugely nerfs units of more than 10, or charging multiple units into a single target. You may be fine with that too - the people who made 9th edition certainly seem fine with making big units bad, since almost every change they've made has done it - but it's a big part of the change. The main effect is to make it much harder to get models into fighting range.

I disagree since with objectives being the primary means of scoring you'll have to spread out, which makes it easier to hit units with charges and get more models into combat.

You can disagree all you want, the effect of moving to 1/2" of 1/2" instead of 1" of 1" is to make it harder to get models into combat, especially when it's also combined with coherency going to 2" of 2 models for 6+ model units. That's just geometry.

Mariongodspeed wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying there is no written rule we have with an example of a model with a 2+ save to begin with getting one of these storm shields. So it's silly to speculate that it will happen. For all we know they'll keep the old 3++ storm shields that don't improve armor save.

The whole thing is built on total speculation. I could say "what if wraith knights in 9th get a 2+ save and then their shield option improves it by 1! wraithtknights would have a 2++!"

If the moon was made out of cheese, it'd be tasty.

Again, we're working on what knowledge we have. Why would Terminator or Custodes Storm Shields have different rules to Primaris Storm Shields? It's possible that they might, but for now Halon's Razor suggests that all Storm Shields will have the same rules.

Its just as likely that Primaris Storm Shields will be different from Terminator or Custodes Storm Shields for the same reason Asartes Chainswords will be different from all other Chainswords.

We will have to see what GW does in the future. They haven't opened this can of worms yet.

Whole point of bespoke rules is same stuff works differently. Imperium has 2 differently working meltaguns, orks 2 differently working kff etc

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Day late and a Maple Dollar Short bud.

You're sure one to talk missing that the exact rule was a) in the rules preview and b) posted on multiple previous pages...

But hey, you won't play by the rules anyway so why even read the book amirite?

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I don't like that change, it seems counter-intuitive and causes weird edge cases with 25mm bases.

It kills the arguement that rebasing off 25mm hurts your army, so I'm all for it.

It also hugely nerfs units of more than 10, or charging multiple units into a single target. You may be fine with that too - the people who made 9th edition certainly seem fine with making big units bad, since almost every change they've made has done it - but it's a big part of the change. The main effect is to make it much harder to get models into fighting range.

I disagree since with objectives being the primary means of scoring you'll have to spread out, which makes it easier to hit units with charges and get more models into combat.

You can disagree all you want, the effect of moving to 1/2" of 1/2" instead of 1" of 1" is to make it harder to get models into combat, especially when it's also combined with coherency going to 2" of 2 models for 6+ model units. That's just geometry.

You can argue anything you want in a vaccuum and claim anything you want, but until people are sitting down and actually playing the game those claims as no actual backing to them.