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.

Thinking of Terminators, why not a 1+ save (for modifiers); still fail on a 1 roll, but need more AP to reduce. This was similar to old WHFB Empire and Chaos knights.

Then the tougher Terminator armour is differentiated more than the 'better power armour' Artificer and so on.

Because termis with 1+ sv in cover would get +1 to their sv, and it would be almost impossible to kill them with ranged weapons.

 p5freak wrote:
Because termis with 1+ sv in cover would get +1 to their sv, and it would be almost impossible to kill them with ranged weapons.

Is that too much of an issue though?

1s still fail, so volume of fire or very heavy AP weapons will still go through.

Because a 1+ armour save is effectively a 2+ invuln. Ap doesn't modify the save, it modifies the dice result. For example, an ap of -5. You roll a 2, which gets modified to a -3, but since you can't roll lower than a 1, the result becomes a 1. You then compare this to your save (1+), and declare that it has passed.

Thats sadly not how the rules work at the moment, so you would also need a rules re-write to make it function.

if you have a characteristic of 1+ then a modified 1 passes, so if you roll a 2 and then have -3 ap, the dice roll is then a roll of 1 (because the result can never be modified below 1), which passes due to having a charcateristic of 1+. Which then results in an equivalent of a 2++ invuln save (only unmodified 1's fail)

what would do roughly the same would be to ignore one point of ap from weapons

Removed, due to the reason previous posters said.

 p5freak wrote:
Because termis with 1+ sv in cover would get +1 to their sv, and it would be almost impossible to kill them with ranged weapons.

Gnarlmaw/obliterators are an example of the 0+ save.

A.T. wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Because termis with 1+ sv in cover would get +1 to their sv, and it would be almost impossible to kill them with ranged weapons.

Gnarlmaw/obliterators are an example of the 0+ save.

There is no 0+ sv. Not even with modifiers.

JakeSiren wrote:
Because a 1+ armour save is effectively a 2+ invuln. Ap doesn't modify the save, it modifies the dice result. For example, an ap of -5. You roll a 2, which gets modified to a -3, but since you can't roll lower than a 1, the result becomes a 1. You then compare this to your save (1+), and declare that it has passed.

Ah, so it is an artefact of the way the rules are worded in current edition.

I guess instead a special that decreases AP of incoming weapons by 1 is how you would implement it, but it doesn't seem as smooth as the old WHFB method.

 p5freak wrote:
There is no 0+ sv. Not even with modifiers.

Was that in the rulebook or errata? It's not covered on page 181 that I can see.

A.T. wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
There is no 0+ sv. Not even with modifiers.

Was that in the rulebook or errata? It's not covered on page 181 that I can see.

its not errata'd because its never been a 0+ save, you still have a characteristic of 2+ but you add 2 to the result which is similar to a 0+ but not the same. A characteristic can never be better than a 1+

aldo1234 wrote:
its not errata'd because its never been a 0+ save, you still have a characteristic of 2+ but you add 2 to the result which is similar to a 0+ but not the same. A characteristic can never be better than a 1+

That seems to be splitting hairs given the context of the post.

But for the sake of clarity - there exists the obliterator/gnarlmaw combo that gives effectively a 0+ save (2+ save, +2 cover)

There also exists the Bullgryn, who can get a +(-1) save... Put them in cover for +1 to save, use the Astropath to buff them for +1 to save, use the "Take Cover" stratagem from the Guard Codex for +1 to save... you're effectively taking a 2+ save against -3 AP weapons then.

For Terminators, I absolutely think they need 1+ armour. As many seem to forget, 1s auto-fail regardless on modifiers, so you effectively still only have a 2+, but the additional "point" gives some protection against some AP.

Even in Cover, Terminators will drop like flies to rate of fire weapons. And they'd still be dropped by Supercharged Plasma. AP-3 would bring 1+ Termies to a 4+ (3+ in Cover) and you'd still lose a whole model to a single failed Save against D2.

Personally though, I rather give Marines and Chaos Marines (specifically Infantry & Bike with the Astartes keyword) +1 to their armour save ROLL vs ranged attacks outside 12". And give all Astartes +1Atk if they charged or were charged
This would do 2 things:
A) Give Marines/CSM additional durability at range, representing their superior training with their armour (I.e. not just using it passively, but ACTIVELY maximizing the armour towards incoming shots)
B) By giving them more attacks, you still encourage Marines to get close and engage in melee, like good Shock Troops should do

Both can be added easily in the same manner as Bolter Discipline. You could do both in the same "Angels of Death" or similarly named rule. The only reason I suggest adding another special rule, is because, sadly, it far more easy to implement than updating countless Datasheets.

-

For what its worth, I've never met a TO who would enforce this particular mathematical outcome of GW's oversight.

Another bonus to giving +1 to armour rolls outside 12" to Marines is that it both punishes gunline armies, and encourages shooting lists to get close to ignore that bonus. Since Marines are designed to be close (but often don't have the means to do so), this would further boost Marines as a whole.

And if you really think about it, statistically Marines getting boosted save rolls as I've suggested would bring them more in line with their durability in prior editions in which they ALWAYS got their 3+ or 2+ armour save against AP4/5/6/- weapons and often still received a 4+/5+ Cover save against AP/1/2/3 weapon.
While I personally LOVE the AP system of 8E far more than the AP system previously, I find it is far more punishing to Marine/CSM armies than it should be. +1 to armour rolls would help fix that.

-

 Galef wrote:
For Terminators, I absolutely think they need 1+ armour. As many seem to forget, 1s auto-fail regardless on modifiers, so you effectively still only have a 2+, but the additional "point" gives some protection against some AP.

Even in Cover, Terminators will drop like flies to rate of fire weapons. And they'd still be dropped by Supercharged Plasma. AP-3 would bring 1+ Termies to a 4+ (3+ in Cover) and you'd still lose a whole model to a single failed Save against D2.

-

but thats not the rules, 1+ save characteristics breaks the game, ap -1000000000 weapons would mean they still pass any saves on a roll of 2-6, and fail on a 1, so they have an equivalent of a 2++ save. people seem to get cover and ap confused and think change the characteristic needed to pass, but the only change the roll

aldo1234 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
For Terminators, I absolutely think they need 1+ armour. As many seem to forget, 1s auto-fail regardless on modifiers, so you effectively still only have a 2+, but the additional "point" gives some protection against some AP.

Even in Cover, Terminators will drop like flies to rate of fire weapons. And they'd still be dropped by Supercharged Plasma. AP-3 would bring 1+ Termies to a 4+ (3+ in Cover) and you'd still lose a whole model to a single failed Save against D2.

-

but thats not the rules, 1+ save characteristics breaks the game, ap -1000000000 weapons would mean they still pass any saves on a roll of 2-6, and fail on a 1, so they have an equivalent of a 2++ save. people seem to get cover and ap confused and think change the characteristic needed to pass, but the only change the roll

What in the world are you talking about. If your characteristic is a 1+, and you take a wound from an AP-3 weapon, than a ROLL of 1,2 or 3 fails. Because the "score" you rolled would be -2,-1 or 0, none of which are a "1". Am I missing where the rules say your "roll" can never be less than "1'? Because it's not in the Battle Primer. Is there an FAQ I've missed?

But none a that matters if we implement my suggestion to just give Astartes +1 to their ROLL vs ranged attacks, not the characteristic

-

It's in designer's commentary I think, but it leads to an absurd result, and so should be discarded.

 Galef wrote:

aldo1234 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
For Terminators, I absolutely think they need 1+ armour. As many seem to forget, 1s auto-fail regardless on modifiers, so you effectively still only have a 2+, but the additional "point" gives some protection against some AP.

Even in Cover, Terminators will drop like flies to rate of fire weapons. And they'd still be dropped by Supercharged Plasma. AP-3 would bring 1+ Termies to a 4+ (3+ in Cover) and you'd still lose a whole model to a single failed Save against D2.

-

but thats not the rules, 1+ save characteristics breaks the game, ap -1000000000 weapons would mean they still pass any saves on a roll of 2-6, and fail on a 1, so they have an equivalent of a 2++ save. people seem to get cover and ap confused and think change the characteristic needed to pass, but the only change the roll

What in the world are you talking about. If your characteristic is a 1+, and you take a wound from an AP-3 weapon, than a ROLL of 1,2 or 3 fails. Because the "score" you rolled would be -2,-1 or 0, none of which are a "1". Am I missing where the rules say your "roll" can never be less than "1'? Because it's not in the Battle Primer. Is there an FAQ I've missed?

But none a that matters if we implement my suggestion to just give Astartes +1 to their ROLL vs ranged attacks, not the characteristic
-

yes you are missing the FAQ for the rulebook

Q: Can a dice roll ever be modified to less than 1?
A: No. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice
roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.

and since its a 1 it passes the characteristic of 1+

aldo1234 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

aldo1234 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
For Terminators, I absolutely think they need 1+ armour. As many seem to forget, 1s auto-fail regardless on modifiers, so you effectively still only have a 2+, but the additional "point" gives some protection against some AP.

Even in Cover, Terminators will drop like flies to rate of fire weapons. And they'd still be dropped by Supercharged Plasma. AP-3 would bring 1+ Termies to a 4+ (3+ in Cover) and you'd still lose a whole model to a single failed Save against D2.

-

but thats not the rules, 1+ save characteristics breaks the game, ap -1000000000 weapons would mean they still pass any saves on a roll of 2-6, and fail on a 1, so they have an equivalent of a 2++ save. people seem to get cover and ap confused and think change the characteristic needed to pass, but the only change the roll

What in the world are you talking about. If your characteristic is a 1+, and you take a wound from an AP-3 weapon, than a ROLL of 1,2 or 3 fails. Because the "score" you rolled would be -2,-1 or 0, none of which are a "1". Am I missing where the rules say your "roll" can never be less than "1'? Because it's not in the Battle Primer. Is there an FAQ I've missed?

But none a that matters if we implement my suggestion to just give Astartes +1 to their ROLL vs ranged attacks, not the characteristic
-

yes you are missing the FAQ for the rulebook

Q: Can a dice roll ever be modified to less than 1?
A: No. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice
roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.

and since its a 1 it passes the characteristic of 1+

So 4 things:
1) That's dumb
2) What Martel said, it should be ignored
3) If, as the subject of this thread, units DID receive a 1+ save Characteristic, that particular FAQ would 100% be changed/discarded and
4) Just give Marines +1 to the Roll as I keep suggesting and avoid the issue entirely

Done.

-

Its how we do it in real law. I want to hear the argument that gws rules are more absolute and important than actual law

No, just discard absurd results. Like real life. This requires a judge, ie TO, to determine "absurd". Every TO I've talked to thinks this is absurd.

Martel732 wrote:
No, just discard absurd results. Like real life. This requires a judge, ie TO, to determine "absurd". Every TO I've talked to thinks this is absurd.

funnily enough i just spoke to one and he thinks it's not absurd, so who wins now?

In that tournament, his rules apply.

Take a gander at BCB's sig. Rules as written technically provide no way to fire Assault weapons after advancing. I've never seen that be a problem in game.

And it's neither new nor unique to GW. Sometimes, rules are obviously in err. A TO can arbitrate some, but some don't need that.

My point 3 was that if we are changing the Characteristic to 1+, than obviously we need to address that particular FAQ as well, because as was said, it would "break the game" and make Terminators have an effective 2++. So we fix what is broken. I mean, come on, were are already talking about changing stuff. We can't just discuss the OPs change in isolation, we MUST also discuss the affects of that change.
That includes making other changes, or even making counter proposals that avoid snowballing changes

Shooting down someone's proposal outright because 1 FAQ or a few niche cases aren't compatible is far less productive than making addition suggestions to address those situations
That's all I'm sayin'

-

That FAQ rule was brought in because someone was being an edge lord about a 1 or 2 with -2 to hit was actually a -1 or 0 hit roll, so plasma didn't overheat. GW in traditional fashion FAQ'd something to band aid the problem instead of fixing the original rules.

The just had to change plasma to natural dice rolls or whatever the wording is for the newer weapons (no books to check it word for word) of 1. Instead they FAQ'd into effective 2++,s and unmissing dark eldar and a whole host of other stuff that's needed subsequently to be FAQ'd.

On the -3 to hit eldar no army could become unhitable and that base -2 to hit armies are still a thing is dumb you only have 5 usable die results FFS allowing 2 of them to be flat unachievable is removing 40% of the possible variable of to hit from the game adding in additional -1 to that turns into 60% of possibel stat values being unable to interact with that army.