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.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Just Characters. so it does indeed look like you could get a 1+ Sv Knight. You'd have to use a stratagem to make the Knight a character, however, as the Crusade rules disable that part of the Knight Lance and Traitoris Lance abilities.

All the "Characters" lists specifically prohibit Monsters and Vehicles from accessing them.

That's certainly true for the Battle Traits, but I don't see any mention of that for the Crusade Relics.

So reading the DW article, does it mean they are screwed as soon as someone does not play the minimum siuzed tables

 kodos wrote:
So reading the DW article, does it mean they are screwed as soon as someone does not play the minimum siuzed tables

yeah, i did not like the emphasis on smaller tables...optional right?.......Right?

 Oguhmek wrote:
Huh, you guys act like Terminator armour is still going to be around in a couple of years...

No need to update the rules, they'll be off to Legends soon enough anyway.

Not that soon. GW is definitely setting up to Legends the old Marines, but the setting doesn't match that claim yet, and GW likes their lore to match the table.

 bullyboy wrote:

 kodos wrote:
So reading the DW article, does it mean they are screwed as soon as someone does not play the minimum siuzed tables

yeah, i did not like the emphasis on smaller tables...optional right?.......Right?

If you want to play competitive tournaments you're going to play small. It does make a difference. Obviously most people follow suit, but the garage hammer guys can do whatever the hell they want.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Oguhmek wrote:
Huh, you guys act like Terminator armour is still going to be around in a couple of years...

No need to update the rules, they'll be off to Legends soon enough anyway.

Not that soon. GW is definitely setting up to Legends the old Marines, but the setting doesn't match that claim yet, and GW likes their lore to match the table.

They can update the lore in the next BRB or in the next SM codex though.

hypnoticeris wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
If people think the blast rule is ambiguous then there is really no hope that GW will ever be able to write a rule that the community can't pick a hole in.

As it is currently written, it is about as clear as it gets. Regardless of how many dice you get to roll to determine how many hit rolls you make, if the result is less than 3 against a unit of 6-10 models you make 3. Doesn't matter if it is 1D3, 2D3 or 20D3. You make 3 attacks if you roll less than that. End of. It might not be what they intended, but that is what the rule currently says. Any ambiguity is player induced.

I agree the rule is pretty straightforward, what worries me is that the misinterpretation comes from some of the playtesters. This might mean that their role was less of a continuous feedback to and from GW and more of GW going "Hey, we are going to release this, check it out, adapt your upcoming tournaments. Any huge mistakes? No? Ok then, to the printer it goes "

It would explain why there are claims that blasts completely wreck hordes, but the math isn't lining up. Like the extra shots are good, but they aren't game breaking good. they just get the weapon more in line with past editions and make it feel less impotent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

 kodos wrote:
So reading the DW article, does it mean they are screwed as soon as someone does not play the minimum siuzed tables

yeah, i did not like the emphasis on smaller tables...optional right?.......Right?

Optional, but it's also what the game is balanced around more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Oguhmek wrote:
Huh, you guys act like Terminator armour is still going to be around in a couple of years...

No need to update the rules, they'll be off to Legends soon enough anyway.

Not that soon. GW is definitely setting up to Legends the old Marines, but the setting doesn't match that claim yet, and GW likes their lore to match the table.

They can update the lore in the next BRB or in the next SM codex though.

It's possible, but we'd see BRB leaks about Marines being phased out in the lore (along with another time jump I'm betting). Thing is that most of the Marine molds are less than 10 years old. I just don't see GW, a company known for using molds dating back to 2nd edition, tossing those out and not selling Old Marines.

I wouldn't stress it until they make all the Old Marines direct only. That'll be your first warning sign.

Might we see a return to a Terminator armor saves at 3+ on 2D6?

 oni wrote:
Might we see a return to a Terminator armor saves at 3+ on 2D6?

Not likely. GW is trying to speed the game up, not slow it down.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Thing is that most of the Marine molds are less than 10 years old.

I think they are probably the most used mould though, so they are going to wear out the fastest out of any of them.

 Trickstick wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Thing is that most of the Marine molds are less than 10 years old.

I think they are probably the most used mould though, so they are going to wear out the fastest out of any of them.

True, but they still probably have another decade in them.

 oni wrote:
Might we see a return to a Terminator armor saves at 3+ on 2D6?

They might just get a toughness increase or something.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 oni wrote:
Might we see a return to a Terminator armor saves at 3+ on 2D6?

Not likely. GW is trying to speed the game up, not slow it down.

yeah, they try but without understanding what slows the game down, and with per single model wound allocation and indicidual armour rolls being a thing, something like more dice rolls just because it sounds cool and/or to avoid a problem created within the core rules for no reason is not unlikely but would fit the style of current rules design

I mean, to be fair, 2D6 on 3+ wouldn't actually slow the game down. You still have to allocate wounds and save individually, you can't fast roll saves.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Oguhmek wrote:
Huh, you guys act like Terminator armour is still going to be around in a couple of years...

No need to update the rules, they'll be off to Legends soon enough anyway.

Not that soon. GW is definitely setting up to Legends the old Marines, but the setting doesn't match that claim yet, and GW likes their lore to match the table.

Yes. They did also just release new Chaos Terminators.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

hypnoticeris wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
If people think the blast rule is ambiguous then there is really no hope that GW will ever be able to write a rule that the community can't pick a hole in.

As it is currently written, it is about as clear as it gets. Regardless of how many dice you get to roll to determine how many hit rolls you make, if the result is less than 3 against a unit of 6-10 models you make 3. Doesn't matter if it is 1D3, 2D3 or 20D3. You make 3 attacks if you roll less than that. End of. It might not be what they intended, but that is what the rule currently says. Any ambiguity is player induced.

I agree the rule is pretty straightforward, what worries me is that the misinterpretation comes from some of the playtesters. This might mean that their role was less of a continuous feedback to and from GW and more of GW going "Hey, we are going to release this, check it out, adapt your upcoming tournaments. Any huge mistakes? No? Ok then, to the printer it goes "

It would explain why there are claims that blasts completely wreck hordes, but the math isn't lining up. Like the extra shots are good, but they aren't game breaking good. they just get the weapon more in line with past editions and make it feel less impotent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:

 kodos wrote:
So reading the DW article, does it mean they are screwed as soon as someone does not play the minimum siuzed tables

yeah, i did not like the emphasis on smaller tables...optional right?.......Right?

Optional, but it's also what the game is balanced around more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Oguhmek wrote:
Huh, you guys act like Terminator armour is still going to be around in a couple of years...

No need to update the rules, they'll be off to Legends soon enough anyway.

Not that soon. GW is definitely setting up to Legends the old Marines, but the setting doesn't match that claim yet, and GW likes their lore to match the table.

They can update the lore in the next BRB or in the next SM codex though.

It's possible, but we'd see BRB leaks about Marines being phased out in the lore (along with another time jump I'm betting). Thing is that most of the Marine molds are less than 10 years old. I just don't see GW, a company known for using molds dating back to 2nd edition, tossing those out and not selling Old Marines.

I wouldn't stress it until they make all the Old Marines direct only. That'll be your first warning sign.

Winters of DZTV read the BRB and he said there hasn’t been any advance in the story. If things will change in the future, who knows?

Since when did story have anything to do with Primaris? I mean, nobody really believes that it was the story that motivated Primaris, rather than getting every space marine player to replace their collection, right?

Story follows business decisions, it doesn't prompt them.

They can always cook something up easily enough when the time finally comes to tell the boiled frogs that they've been boiled.

GW doesn't need to phase out Old Marines for that, they only need to make Primaris more attractive.

And if they manage to get the player base to buy both it is double win for them.

Edit:

I talked it through out loud and I think I get it. It’s a confusing rule.

Is that a new pipeline? Doesn't look like the old prometheum pipes or the thermo plasma ones. More new terrain?

Heaven forbid a publicly owned company makes money.

If you had stock in GW you'd want them coming out with new models all the time.

Video games are a good example. The game companies that want to continue making shareholders happy release DLC and season passes for their games. Otherwise, with no updates to games the games eventually end up in the discount bin.

Why can't story be used to create new units? It's a far fetched conspiracy to say GW leadership tells the sculptors "quick, invent some new marine, we need money. We'll flesh out the story later."

Perhaps some fluff writer thought "hey, wouldn't it be cool if there were marines that were more badass than current marines? I'll run it by the boss tomorrow and see what he says?"

I swear, 99% of Dakkadakka run around wearing tinfoil hats when it comes to anything related to GW.

 godswildcard wrote:
Soooo, I’m genuinely confused on the armor save discussion. The way I read the rule seems pretty clear, but maybe I’m missing something? I read it like this

-AP modifies the dice result

-By definition, a saving throw that has not yet been modified is unmodified

-An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails

-A failed save results in damage suffered

-Thus, if you roll an armor save on a model with a 1+ save and roll a 1, the save is failed and no modifiers are applied. Apply damage.

-if the roll is greater than 1, proceed to step two and modify the dice roll. If after step two there are more failures to the armor save, resolve those by applying damage.

What am I missing?

The last stage. A dice cannot be modified to below a roll of a 1. So, a weapon with, say, an AP of -4 (say a meltagun) fires at a Terminator unit with Stormshields (Hence a 1+ armour save), chooses to roll Armour saves and roll a 3. Apply the Ap of -4 to that roll, drops it to a 1 (since minimum of 1 for rolls). You compare the final result to the save Characteristic, Did the final result equal of exceed the Save Characteristic? In this case the roll of a 1 IS equal to the save characteristic and so has passed their save. A roll of a 2 would be the same.

 godswildcard wrote:
Soooo, I’m genuinely confused on the armor save discussion. The way I read the rule seems pretty clear, but maybe I’m missing something? I read it like this

-AP modifies the dice result

-By definition, a saving throw that has not yet been modified is unmodified

-An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails

-A failed save results in damage suffered

-Thus, if you roll an armor save on a model with a 1+ save and roll a 1, the save is failed and no modifiers are applied. Apply damage.

-if the roll is greater than 1, proceed to step two and modify the dice roll. If after step two there are more failures to the armor save, resolve those by applying damage.

What am I missing?

The confusion comes from the camp of people saying 2++ save exists and another camp saying it doesn't.

I'm in the camp that if my opponent says his TH/SS terminators have a 2++ save I'm going to not play that person. It's pretty dang obvious it's not intended but RAW vs RAI will always be a thing so nobody is right and everybody is wrong.

They are explicitly aware of the consequences of having a 1+ save in their game having confirmed it's function in AoS and removing the ability for Orks to have it in 8th.

If 2+ units get the shield rules we've seen it's either intended or they only have themselves to blame for needing to address it as they know how it works under their mechanics.

Still a non issue until we see units it affects.

jivardi wrote:

 godswildcard wrote:
Soooo, I’m genuinely confused on the armor save discussion. The way I read the rule seems pretty clear, but maybe I’m missing something? I read it like this

-AP modifies the dice result

-By definition, a saving throw that has not yet been modified is unmodified

-An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails

-A failed save results in damage suffered

-Thus, if you roll an armor save on a model with a 1+ save and roll a 1, the save is failed and no modifiers are applied. Apply damage.

-if the roll is greater than 1, proceed to step two and modify the dice roll. If after step two there are more failures to the armor save, resolve those by applying damage.

What am I missing?

The confusion comes from the camp of people saying 2++ save exists and another camp saying it doesn't.

I'm in the camp that if my opponent says his TH/SS terminators have a 2++ save I'm going to not play that person. It's pretty dang obvious it's not intended but RAW vs RAI will always be a thing so nobody is right and everybody is wrong.

You're wrong. It's very much intended. We have literally two examples, one from AOS and one from 8th Edition 40k to show that a 1+ test is effectively immune to negative modifiers. Or are you saying the Dark Eldar FAQ isn't a good indication of intent?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
They are explicitly aware of the consequences of having a 1+ save in their game having confirmed it's function in AoS and removing the ability for Orks to have it in 8th.

If 2+ units get the shield rules we've seen it's either intended or they only have themselves to blame for needing to address it as they know how it works under their mechanics.

Still a non issue until we see units it affects.

And they FAQed Succubus with WS 1+ to work exactly how the rules (+ Modify FAQ) say it does.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

jivardi wrote:

 godswildcard wrote:
Soooo, I’m genuinely confused on the armor save discussion. The way I read the rule seems pretty clear, but maybe I’m missing something? I read it like this

-AP modifies the dice result

-By definition, a saving throw that has not yet been modified is unmodified

-An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails

-A failed save results in damage suffered

-Thus, if you roll an armor save on a model with a 1+ save and roll a 1, the save is failed and no modifiers are applied. Apply damage.

-if the roll is greater than 1, proceed to step two and modify the dice roll. If after step two there are more failures to the armor save, resolve those by applying damage.

What am I missing?

The confusion comes from the camp of people saying 2++ save exists and another camp saying it doesn't.

I'm in the camp that if my opponent says his TH/SS terminators have a 2++ save I'm going to not play that person. It's pretty dang obvious it's not intended but RAW vs RAI will always be a thing so nobody is right and everybody is wrong.

You're wrong. It's very much intended. We have literally two examples, one from AOS and one from 8th Edition 40k to show that a 1+ test is effectively immune to negative modifiers. Or are you saying the Dark Eldar FAQ isn't a good indication of intent?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
They are explicitly aware of the consequences of having a 1+ save in their game having confirmed it's function in AoS and removing the ability for Orks to have it in 8th.

If 2+ units get the shield rules we've seen it's either intended or they only have themselves to blame for needing to address it as they know how it works under their mechanics.

Still a non issue until we see units it affects.

And they FAQed Succubus with WS 1+ to work exactly how the rules (+ Modify FAQ) say it does.

I don't memorize FAQ's for all armies, only my own. Don't play AoS.

Doesn't matter. Until its clarified by GW I'm not going to play someone who does that. To each his/her own I guess.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

hypnoticeris wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
If people think the blast rule is ambiguous then there is really no hope that GW will ever be able to write a rule that the community can't pick a hole in.

As it is currently written, it is about as clear as it gets. Regardless of how many dice you get to roll to determine how many hit rolls you make, if the result is less than 3 against a unit of 6-10 models you make 3. Doesn't matter if it is 1D3, 2D3 or 20D3. You make 3 attacks if you roll less than that. End of. It might not be what they intended, but that is what the rule currently says. Any ambiguity is player induced.

I agree the rule is pretty straightforward, what worries me is that the misinterpretation comes from some of the playtesters. This might mean that their role was less of a continuous feedback to and from GW and more of GW going "Hey, we are going to release this, check it out, adapt your upcoming tournaments. Any huge mistakes? No? Ok then, to the printer it goes "

It would explain why there are claims that blasts completely wreck hordes, but the math isn't lining up. Like the extra shots are good, but they aren't game breaking good. they just get the weapon more in line with past editions and make it feel less impotent.

To be fair most horde armies run units bigger then 10 so it goes strait to max shots.
Which does wreck hordes real bad.

jivardi wrote:

Doesn't matter. Until its clarified by GW I'm not going to play someone who does that. To each his/her own I guess.

if you don't want to play with people who don't want to use your House Rules for 9th is up to you

If the phrase “2+ to hit, re-rolling 1’s, 2’s to wound, re-rolling 1’s” becomes the standard again - I may wait to play until X.

It did get to the point where the power books could have been switched to a DPS system