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.

For those who are unaware, a while back GW broke the Astra Copywritum Take Cover! stratagem and Slab Shield rule by making them only affect "armour saves" (which aren't a thing in 40k). Furthermore, the AdMech Shroudpsalm rule also affects "armour saves" and thus has no actual effect.

The latest Imperial Fists errata has the following:

Page 61 – The Shield Unwavering
Change this Stratagem to read:
‘Use this Stratagem at the end of your Morale phase. Select one Imperial Fists Infantry unit from your army that is within 3" of any objective markers. Until
the start of your next turn, add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of models in that unit, and when resolving an attack made against that unit, add 1 to the saving throw (excluding invulnerable saves)

Notice how they CORRECTLY fixed the issue so that the rule instead of doing nothing at all now simply doesn't affect Invulnerable Saves, with all other types of Save (of which there is currently only one, the normal Save granted by a units Save Characteristic) are affected.

So, credit where credit is due. Good work GW for correctly fixing a rule for once. Now go back and fix Astra Copywritum and AdMech please.

With their recent releases it seems they are working at tightening their rules writing. I welcome it.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
With their recent releases it seems they are working at tightening their rules writing. I welcome it.

Its learning, getting smarter. This may be a sign of upcoming doom!

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
With their recent releases it seems they are working at tightening their rules writing. I welcome it.

Its learning, getting smarter. This may be a sign of upcoming doom!

Not really, the SM Codexes still show they don’t care much about the rules anyways.

Maybe the same person who wrote the rules, also wrote the FAQ.

Who are you and what have you done with the real BCB?!


Also the new Ossiarch FAQ and Errata was very well put together (even if they sort of avoided confirming any ruling on using the Nexus in competitive events with pre-established terrain)

Are you really implying you would argue with someone getting +1 to his save throw because it is written armor save on the stratagem take cover ?
You perfectly know what they mean by armor save.

 godardc wrote:
Are you really implying you would argue with someone getting +1 to his save throw because it is written armor save on the stratagem take cover ?
You perfectly know what they mean by armor save.

He's not saying he would or wouldn't; just that the way GW worded it before, in his opinion, left there to be room for someone to make that argument justifiably with how the rules were written. It's basically the difference between casual and technical writing.

Rules should never be writen in casual. In sports when a rule is writen in casual, bad things always happen.

For example my school had a "friendly" bout vs five other schools in our region. The rules only said how people are going to be paired up, weight classes for 2ed year and up, but non for first years. Usual stuff, but someone forgot to inform the school from ukrain that, setting up 1st years that are 20y+ vs 14y olds is a stupid idea, and no one cares that they are a school with classes for adults too.

 godardc wrote:
Are you really implying you would argue with someone getting +1 to his save throw because it is written armor save on the stratagem take cover ?
You perfectly know what they mean by armor save.

I have no idea what armour save means because there is no such rule term. But then again when I can build the mental fortitude to suffer 8th, I play Assault weapons RaW and require my opponent to do the same, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And no, I am not implying I would argue because there is nothing to argue about.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Are you really implying you would argue with someone getting +1 to his save throw because it is written armor save on the stratagem take cover ?
You perfectly know what they mean by armor save.

I have no idea what armour save means because there is no such rule term. But then again when I can build the mental fortitude to suffer 8th, I play Assault weapons RaW and require my opponent to do the same, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And no, I am not implying I would argue because there is nothing to argue about.

Well seeing as you don't really play 40k this is all pie in the sky...

The designer commentary for salamanders is frankly embarrassing

we are also taking the opportunity to change the Fires of Battle Stratagem now, rather than waiting for the next balance update. Some fiendish combinations we had not spotted are possible in order to reliably inflict far more mortal wounds than were ever intended

How is that fiendish? You using a stratagem that makes flamers good, and then using another stratagem that makes flamers good, did they forget you can use multiple stratagems each turn or did they forget what's in their own book?

 Continuity wrote:
The designer commentary for salamanders is frankly embarrassing

we are also taking the opportunity to change the Fires of Battle Stratagem now, rather than waiting for the next balance update. Some fiendish combinations we had not spotted are possible in order to reliably inflict far more mortal wounds than were ever intended

How is that fiendish? You using a stratagem that makes flamers good, and then using another stratagem that makes flamers good, did they forget you can use multiple stratagems each turn or did they forget what's in their own book?

Spamming 6 aggressor with flame gauntlets isn't skill, its weight of numbers. Arguing anybody used anything else to deliver mortal wounds as effective as they did is lying.

Or do you believe getting 20+ MW with a sub 50pts model is balanced?

 Dr. Mills wrote:

 Continuity wrote:
The designer commentary for salamanders is frankly embarrassing

we are also taking the opportunity to change the Fires of Battle Stratagem now, rather than waiting for the next balance update. Some fiendish combinations we had not spotted are possible in order to reliably inflict far more mortal wounds than were ever intended

How is that fiendish? You using a stratagem that makes flamers good, and then using another stratagem that makes flamers good, did they forget you can use multiple stratagems each turn or did they forget what's in their own book?

Spamming 6 aggressor with flame gauntlets isn't skill, its weight of numbers. Arguing anybody used anything else to deliver mortal wounds as effective as they did is lying.

Or do you believe getting 20+ MW with a sub 50pts model is balanced?

The point of my post wasn't defending the combo as balanced or good, I'm commenting on how out of touch the rule writers are with their own game when they state they didn't anticipate that people will use a strat that makes flamers good and then use another strat that makes flamers good and call that "fiendish"

 Stormonu wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
With their recent releases it seems they are working at tightening their rules writing. I welcome it.

Its learning, getting smarter. This may be a sign of upcoming doom!

Not really, the SM Codexes still show they don’t care much about the rules anyways.

The Sisters book concurs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Continuity wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:

 Continuity wrote:
The designer commentary for salamanders is frankly embarrassing

we are also taking the opportunity to change the Fires of Battle Stratagem now, rather than waiting for the next balance update. Some fiendish combinations we had not spotted are possible in order to reliably inflict far more mortal wounds than were ever intended

How is that fiendish? You using a stratagem that makes flamers good, and then using another stratagem that makes flamers good, did they forget you can use multiple stratagems each turn or did they forget what's in their own book?

Spamming 6 aggressor with flame gauntlets isn't skill, its weight of numbers. Arguing anybody used anything else to deliver mortal wounds as effective as they did is lying.

Or do you believe getting 20+ MW with a sub 50pts model is balanced?

The point of my post wasn't defending the combo as balanced or good, I'm commenting on how out of touch the rule writers are with their own game when they state they didn't anticipate that people will use a strat that makes flamers good and then use another strat that makes flamers good and call that "fiendish"

It's a basic rule of video games; 2 buffs applied in concert will tend to surpass the value of the same buffs applied seperately. It's why you wait for trinket procs to use your steroids in World of Warcraft and why Protect the Kog'Maw comps work in League of Legends.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Are you really implying you would argue with someone getting +1 to his save throw because it is written armor save on the stratagem take cover ?
You perfectly know what they mean by armor save.

I have no idea what armour save means because there is no such rule term. But then again when I can build the mental fortitude to suffer 8th, I play Assault weapons RaW and require my opponent to do the same, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And no, I am not implying I would argue because there is nothing to argue about.

In the rulebook if you go to the explanation of datasheets sv is defined as “this indicates the protection a model’s armour gives” so yeah armour save is a defined game term.

I don't have a problem with calling them armour saves. I know what it means, and so does literally every person I've ever played with. It's literally a non-issue that never has, and never will affect any game played between two sane, rational people. While there are many real issues with the rules, this is not one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaneda88 wrote:
In the rulebook if you go to the explanation of datasheets sv is defined as “this indicates the protection a model’s armour gives” so yeah armour save is a defined game term.

Also this ^^^

There is good reasons to fix things like this, Its so other rules can be built on top of them that works without confusion.

Vague rules, tend to just pile on issues latter on.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
For those who are unaware, a while back GW broke the Astra Copywritum Take Cover! stratagem and Slab Shield rule by making them only affect "armour saves" (which aren't a thing in 40k). Furthermore, the AdMech Shroudpsalm rule also affects "armour saves" and thus has no actual effect.

The latest Imperial Fists errata has the following:

Page 61 – The Shield Unwavering
Change this Stratagem to read:
‘Use this Stratagem at the end of your Morale phase. Select one Imperial Fists Infantry unit from your army that is within 3" of any objective markers. Until
the start of your next turn, add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of models in that unit, and when resolving an attack made against that unit, add 1 to the saving throw (excluding invulnerable saves)

Notice how they CORRECTLY fixed the issue so that the rule instead of doing nothing at all now simply doesn't affect Invulnerable Saves, with all other types of Save (of which there is currently only one, the normal Save granted by a units Save Characteristic) are affected.

So, credit where credit is due. Good work GW for correctly fixing a rule for once. Now go back and fix Astra Copywritum and AdMech please.

The also fixed the untargetable bubble of frustration that was possible with the Salamanders.
Now you can only protect ONE unit, and that protecting unit still has to be visible to take hits.
So no hiding behind a wall and protecting a bunch of units for a turn.

Kaneda88 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Are you really implying you would argue with someone getting +1 to his save throw because it is written armor save on the stratagem take cover ?
You perfectly know what they mean by armor save.

I have no idea what armour save means because there is no such rule term. But then again when I can build the mental fortitude to suffer 8th, I play Assault weapons RaW and require my opponent to do the same, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And no, I am not implying I would argue because there is nothing to argue about.

In the rulebook if you go to the explanation of datasheets sv is defined as “this indicates the protection a model’s armour gives” so yeah armour save is a defined game term.

As I have explained, just because the description of what a "Save" is mentions armour, it doesn't make "Armour Save" a defined rules term.

 Continuity wrote:
The designer commentary for salamanders is frankly embarrassing

we are also taking the opportunity to change the Fires of Battle Stratagem now, rather than waiting for the next balance update. Some fiendish combinations we had not spotted are possible in order to reliably inflict far more mortal wounds than were ever intended

How is that fiendish? You using a stratagem that makes flamers good, and then using another stratagem that makes flamers good, did they forget you can use multiple stratagems each turn or did they forget what's in their own book?

Probably both. Likely they never combined it in their games so assumed nobody else would try (the 40k designers are notorious for thinking everyone plays the game the same way they do). At least they fixed it?

Don't worry about it. Think about how much anger you're experiencing. For what reason?

Do you expect a person to change, because a rando on the internet tells them they're a selection of unpleasant names?

Let it wash away. Let a person express their opinion. You don't need to care about it. Feel free to disagree, but calling names is pointless, and says more about the caller than the callee.

This person does it every time. They get a reaction, and feed on it. Engaging creates more irritation. Advice is free to give, free to take, or free to leave on the floor. Just advice.

Apple fox wrote:
There is good reasons to fix things like this, Its so other rules can be built on top of them that works without confusion.

Vague rules, tend to just pile on issues latter on.

I could live with rules as intended for issues like this if this was a free rule set someone gave away on their web page. But GW charges hundreds of dollars for rules and codexes and still can’t be bothered to run them through a good tech writer/editor.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Are you really implying you would argue with someone getting +1 to his save throw because it is written armor save on the stratagem take cover ?
You perfectly know what they mean by armor save.

I have no idea what armour save means because there is no such rule term. But then again when I can build the mental fortitude to suffer 8th, I play Assault weapons RaW and require my opponent to do the same, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And no, I am not implying I would argue because there is nothing to argue about.

In the rulebook if you go to the explanation of datasheets sv is defined as “this indicates the protection a model’s armour gives” so yeah armour save is a defined game term.

As I have explained, just because the description of what a "Save" is mentions armour, it doesn't make "Armour Save" a defined rules term.

Yes it does, armour save as in the save that comes from the armor as in the save characteristic it is litterally defined there, you seem to think “armour save” is a keyword but it is not.

Kaneda88 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Are you really implying you would argue with someone getting +1 to his save throw because it is written armor save on the stratagem take cover ?
You perfectly know what they mean by armor save.

I have no idea what armour save means because there is no such rule term. But then again when I can build the mental fortitude to suffer 8th, I play Assault weapons RaW and require my opponent to do the same, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And no, I am not implying I would argue because there is nothing to argue about.

In the rulebook if you go to the explanation of datasheets sv is defined as “this indicates the protection a model’s armour gives” so yeah armour save is a defined game term.

As I have explained, just because the description of what a "Save" is mentions armour, it doesn't make "Armour Save" a defined rules term.

Yes it does, armour save as in the save that comes from the armor as in the save characteristic it is litterally defined there, you seem to think “armour save” is a keyword but it is not.

BCB thinks a lot of things. Let him scream into the void and let him pretend he plays 40k.

Kaneda88 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Are you really implying you would argue with someone getting +1 to his save throw because it is written armor save on the stratagem take cover ?
You perfectly know what they mean by armor save.

I have no idea what armour save means because there is no such rule term. But then again when I can build the mental fortitude to suffer 8th, I play Assault weapons RaW and require my opponent to do the same, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And no, I am not implying I would argue because there is nothing to argue about.

In the rulebook if you go to the explanation of datasheets sv is defined as “this indicates the protection a model’s armour gives” so yeah armour save is a defined game term.

As I have explained, just because the description of what a "Save" is mentions armour, it doesn't make "Armour Save" a defined rules term.

Yes it does, armour save as in the save that comes from the armor as in the save characteristic it is litterally defined there, you seem to think “armour save” is a keyword but it is not.

The characteristic name is "Save", not "Armour Save".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Are you really implying you would argue with someone getting +1 to his save throw because it is written armor save on the stratagem take cover ?
You perfectly know what they mean by armor save.

I have no idea what armour save means because there is no such rule term. But then again when I can build the mental fortitude to suffer 8th, I play Assault weapons RaW and require my opponent to do the same, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And no, I am not implying I would argue because there is nothing to argue about.

In the rulebook if you go to the explanation of datasheets sv is defined as “this indicates the protection a model’s armour gives” so yeah armour save is a defined game term.

As I have explained, just because the description of what a "Save" is mentions armour, it doesn't make "Armour Save" a defined rules term.

Yes it does, armour save as in the save that comes from the armor as in the save characteristic it is litterally defined there, you seem to think “armour save” is a keyword but it is not.

The characteristic name is "Save", not "Armour Save".

Save has also a generic meaning in the rules as it can be invulnerable or not, since the save characteristic is defined as the save coming from the armour it is perfectly correct to refer to it as the armour save in a sentence. They are not making a reference to a keyword, they are explaining the effect of the stratagem.

Kaneda88 wrote:
Save has also a generic meaning in the rules as it can be invulnerable or not, since the save characteristic is defined as the save coming from the armour it is perfectly correct to refer to it as the armour save in a sentence. They are not making a reference to a keyword, they are explaining the effect of the stratagem.

Again, "A save that is granted by armour" is not the same thing as an "Armour save", the same way that Ballistic Skill and Weapon Skill are not the same, or the way that an Ignore Wounds effect is not a save. Much like how "Invulnerable save" would mean nothing without a rule defining it, the same is true for the term "Armour Save".

Why are you arguing semantics for stuff that doesn't really matter? Like seriously dude.

Wayniac wrote:
Why are you arguing semantics for stuff that doesn't really matter? Like seriously dude.

He's sometimes over the top but he has an excellent point with how bad some of the writing is.