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.

 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.

Except AP is explicitly referred to as modifying the saving throw roll.
The result has to be _less_ than the Save characteristic.

_Unmodified_ rolls always fail

Crusade rules _explicitly_ say save characteristics can be changed to 1+ (and before any 'buts,' there is also a sidebar about modifying characteristics, and there isn't any exception for saves)

For the RAI to be different, they'd have to do a public mea culpa and revision saying that wasn't what they meant by writing it down the way they did.

You might as well argue that pistol rules don't really mean they can shoot while in engagement range.

-- Now at the moment, storm shield terminators still have a 2+ save (and 3++), and not a 1+. So outside of crusade... well there may be unit abilities, strats or psychic powers that modify the save characteristic directly. Any are valid.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.

ok, theres a 2++ in 9th already then, the datasheet hasnt changed yet.

And yeah, a 2++ is the exact same as what the storm shield will do when you look at the result.

And the save DOES get modified.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

The conversation was specifically about going from 1" of 1" to 1/2" of 1/2". There's no arguing that this makes it harder to get models into combat. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of geometry. It's not subject to argument, any more than 2+2=4 is subject to argument.

If your point is other things in the rules will make up for it you're welcome to have that opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that going to 1/2" of 1/2" makes it significantly harder to get models into combat range.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 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?

Easy there Dudley Doo Right, no need to get your Mounties in a twist.

GW has said there is an appendix in the book that covers some weird situations that could cover this. Alternatively, we could find out that there is no way to modifiy a save to a 1+ back there, or they may FAQ it so Custodes Storm shields (tm) and Terminator Storm shields (tm) work differently.

Too many assumptions are being made again. And when the RAW is that stupid, I'd rather play RAI which won't make nigh-unkillable Marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

The conversation was specifically about going from 1" of 1" to 1/2" of 1/2". There's no arguing that this makes it harder to get models into combat.

If your point is other things in the rules will make up for it you're welcome to have that opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that going to 1/2" of 1/2" makes it significantly harder to get models into combat range.

The front rank only has to be in 1" or 5", the second rank only has to be in 1/2" of that. The only thing that changed is how far back the second rank can be. And frankly I prefer this change because it means Ork players can stop crying about 32mm bases nerfing their melee since it'll give them the same number of units in combat as the 25mm bases.

And with GW largely moving away from 25mm bases (the only ones legitimately affected by this since they could squeeze extra ranks in) I'm fine with the change.

yukishiro1 wrote:


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 and silly me got excited when i first heard of "engagement range" as i stupidly though they would EXTEND the range that units would be able to fight... you know cause they said hordes still have a place in 40k and the 1" requirement was holding hordes back in CC (especially against small units) for ages now.

And then they reduced the range by half

RedNoak wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:


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 and silly me got excited when i first heard of "engagement range" as i stupidly though they would EXTEND the range that units would be able to fight... you know cause they said hordes still have a place in 40k and the 1" requirement was holding hordes back in CC (especially against small units) for ages now.

And then they reduced the range by half

They only reduced the range of the SECOND RANK by half.

Christ, any people say I'm not reading the rules.

GW can still throw a curveball in the FAQs by giving units bonus attacks for large numbers, like how AoS does. And if they don't, then I recommend giving them player feedback via the 40k FAQ email letting them know that they should and why. I know I will.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The front rank only has to be in 1" or 5", the second rank only has to be in 1/2" of that. The only thing that changed is how far back the second rank can be.

Wrong. It's either 1", or 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2". Not 1" or 1/2" of 1". If the first rank isn't within 1/2" the second rank doesn't get to fight at all.

Please read the rule before giving your take on it. It doesn't make your take more convincing when you don't even bother to read the rule.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Christ, any people say I'm not reading the rules.

That's because you clearly aren't.

Spoletta wrote:
199$ for that? That's a good 20% less than my best guess...wow. GW is really pushing this box.

Who wants to bet they’ve under produced this? I can see another Sisters box debacle...

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The front rank only has to be in 1" or 5", the second rank only has to be in 1/2" of that. The only thing that changed is how far back the second rank can be.

Wrong. It's either 1", or 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2". Not 1" or 1/2" of 1". If the first rank isn't within 1/2" the second rank doesn't get to fight at all.

Please read the rule before giving your take on it. It doesn't make your take more convincing when you don't even bother to read the rule.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Christ, any people say I'm not reading the rules.

That's because you clearly aren't.

Probably because I was up until 2am reading through the rules and got caught up in that crap about the saves thing.

Alright, I went and looked since no one bothered to POST THE RULES to back up their claims:

When a unit makes close combat attacks, only the models in that
unit that are either within Engagement Range (pg 4) of an enemy
unit, or that are within ½" of another model from their own unit
that is itself within ½" of an enemy unit, can fight.

And you are right. I was wrong. There is still a chance GW can fix this in FAQs with bonus attacks for hordes, but we'll see.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Easy there Dudley Doo Right, no need to get your Mounties in a twist.

GW has said there is an appendix in the book that covers some weird situations that could cover this. Alternatively, we could find out that there is no way to modifiy a save to a 1+ back there, or they may FAQ it so Custodes Storm shields (tm) and Terminator Storm shields (tm) work differently.

Too many assumptions are being made again. And when the RAW is that stupid, I'd rather play RAI which won't make nigh-unkillable Marines.

You should get some nice socialized medicine for that butthurt you seem to be rocking.

Why would that interaction be somehow going against RAI if every single rule says it works the way BCB and myself are saying it does? Why would you claim to know GW's intent better than they do?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Easy there Dudley Doo Right, no need to get your Mounties in a twist.

GW has said there is an appendix in the book that covers some weird situations that could cover this. Alternatively, we could find out that there is no way to modifiy a save to a 1+ back there, or they may FAQ it so Custodes Storm shields (tm) and Terminator Storm shields (tm) work differently.

Too many assumptions are being made again. And when the RAW is that stupid, I'd rather play RAI which won't make nigh-unkillable Marines.

You should get some nice socialized medicine for that butthurt you seem to be rocking.

Why would that interaction be somehow going against RAI if every single rule says it works the way BCB and myself are saying it does? Why would you claim to know GW's intent better than they do?

If it was a Xenos faction, it definitely wouldn't be RAI. But since it's Space Marines, who knows.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Easy there Dudley Doo Right, no need to get your Mounties in a twist.

GW has said there is an appendix in the book that covers some weird situations that could cover this. Alternatively, we could find out that there is no way to modifiy a save to a 1+ back there, or they may FAQ it so Custodes Storm shields (tm) and Terminator Storm shields (tm) work differently.

Too many assumptions are being made again. And when the RAW is that stupid, I'd rather play RAI which won't make nigh-unkillable Marines.

You should get some nice socialized medicine for that butthurt you seem to be rocking.

Why would that interaction be somehow going against RAI if every single rule says it works the way BCB and myself are saying it does? Why would you claim to know GW's intent better than they do?

Because GW intentionally releasing a unit of that is immune to anything short of Mortal Wounds on purpose is on such a deep level of conspiritorial BS I don't even want to think about it.

If this isn't in the appendix with a note about save characteristics never going below a 2+ or a modified armour save of 1 counting as an unmodified 1 or in the day one FAQ I'll be shocked. Mostly because it means Reese dropped the ball a second time after this happened with MANz.

We can lose the barbed comments and digs right now thanks.

Please do not derail the thread with pointless bickering.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's either 1", or 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2".

Which is the exactly same thing, is it not? If Model A is 1/2" from the opponent and Model B is within 1/2" of Model A, wouldn't Model B also be within 1" of the opponent? So why not just say any model within 1" of the opponent can fight?

 puma713 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's either 1", or 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2".

Which is the exactly same thing, is it not? If Model A is 1/2" from the opponent and Model B is within 1/2" of them, wouldn't Model B also be within 1" of the opponent? So why not just say any model within 1" of the opponent can fight?

Because that'd only be true with 25mm bases and no other model?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Easy there Dudley Doo Right, no need to get your Mounties in a twist.

GW has said there is an appendix in the book that covers some weird situations that could cover this. Alternatively, we could find out that there is no way to modifiy a save to a 1+ back there, or they may FAQ it so Custodes Storm shields (tm) and Terminator Storm shields (tm) work differently.

Too many assumptions are being made again. And when the RAW is that stupid, I'd rather play RAI which won't make nigh-unkillable Marines.

You should get some nice socialized medicine for that butthurt you seem to be rocking.

Why would that interaction be somehow going against RAI if every single rule says it works the way BCB and myself are saying it does? Why would you claim to know GW's intent better than they do?

Because GW intentionally releasing a unit of that is immune to anything short of Mortal Wounds on purpose is on such a deep level of conspiritorial BS I don't even want to think about it.

If this isn't in the appendix with a note about save characteristics never going below a 2+ or a modified armour save of 1 counting as an unmodified 1 or in the day one FAQ I'll be shocked. Mostly because it means Reese dropped the ball a second time after this happened with MANz.

theyre not immune at all, stop saying that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Because GW intentionally releasing a unit of that is immune to anything short of Mortal Wounds on purporse is on such a deep level of conspiritorial BS I don't even want to think about it.

And They Shall Know no Unfavourable Rules Changes.

Unfortunately this years chapter approved has already been printed enjoy fighting in Marine's or GTFO meta 9th edition. Most balanced and playtested ever.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's either 1", or 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2".

Which is the exactly same thing, is it not? If Model A is 1/2" from the opponent and Model B is within 1/2" of them, wouldn't Model B also be within 1" of the opponent? So why not just say any model within 1" of the opponent can fight?

Because that'd only be true with 25mm bases and no other model?

Yeah, I guess you're right. Didn't really consider larger bases.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Because GW intentionally releasing a unit of that is immune to anything short of Mortal Wounds on purporse is on such a deep level of conspiritorial BS I don't even want to think about it.

This is an incorrect reading of the rules. They'll still fail saves on unmodified rolls of 1, and thus still fail 1/6th of all saves from non-mortal wounds.

If this isn't in the appendix with a note about save characteristics never going below a 2+ or a modified armour save of 1 counting as an unmodified 1 or in the day one FAQ I'll be shocked. Mostly because it means Reese dropped the ball a second time after this happened with MANz.

They specifically have shown that saves CAN go to +1 so don't expect to see an FAQ on that one. Also counting modified rolls of 1 as unmodified opens a whole nasty can of worms and also shouldn't be expected and thus is also likely off the table.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Easy there Dudley Doo Right, no need to get your Mounties in a twist.

GW has said there is an appendix in the book that covers some weird situations that could cover this. Alternatively, we could find out that there is no way to modifiy a save to a 1+ back there, or they may FAQ it so Custodes Storm shields (tm) and Terminator Storm shields (tm) work differently.

Too many assumptions are being made again. And when the RAW is that stupid, I'd rather play RAI which won't make nigh-unkillable Marines.

You should get some nice socialized medicine for that butthurt you seem to be rocking.

Why would that interaction be somehow going against RAI if every single rule says it works the way BCB and myself are saying it does? Why would you claim to know GW's intent better than they do?

If it was a Xenos faction, it definitely wouldn't be RAI. But since it's Space Marines, who knows.

Don't worry, the only non-theoretical example of this is the Crusade Master-crafted armor rule, which means Ghazghkull can get the 2++ save.

And because Orks cannot get anything nice, it is not going to be RAI.

 puma713 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's either 1", or 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2".

Which is the exactly same thing, is it not? If Model A is 1/2" from the opponent and Model B is within 1/2" of them, wouldn't Model B also be within 1" of the opponent? So why not just say any model within 1" of the opponent can fight?

Because that'd only be true with 25mm bases and no other model?

Yeah, I guess you're right. Didn't really consider larger bases.

It's not actually the same even for a 25mm base.

25mm base is just under 1 inch. So if your first guy is exactly .5" from the enemy, and then your next guy is exactly .5" from that guy, that's more like 1.95" from the enemy model.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Easy there Dudley Doo Right, no need to get your Mounties in a twist.

GW has said there is an appendix in the book that covers some weird situations that could cover this. Alternatively, we could find out that there is no way to modifiy a save to a 1+ back there, or they may FAQ it so Custodes Storm shields (tm) and Terminator Storm shields (tm) work differently.

Too many assumptions are being made again. And when the RAW is that stupid, I'd rather play RAI which won't make nigh-unkillable Marines.

You should get some nice socialized medicine for that butthurt you seem to be rocking.

Why would that interaction be somehow going against RAI if every single rule says it works the way BCB and myself are saying it does? Why would you claim to know GW's intent better than they do?

Because GW intentionally releasing a unit of that is immune to anything short of Mortal Wounds on purpose is on such a deep level of conspiritorial BS I don't even want to think about it.

If this isn't in the appendix with a note about save characteristics never going below a 2+ or a modified armour save of 1 counting as an unmodified 1 or in the day one FAQ I'll be shocked. Mostly because it means Reese dropped the ball a second time after this happened with MANz.

theyre not immune at all, stop saying that.

Sorry, nearly immune. I don't think GW is giving us Achilles rules where you become nigh unkillable save for some lucky shots. At least not on purpose.

 puma713 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's either 1", or 1/2" of a model that is within 1/2".

Which is the exactly same thing, is it not? If Model A is 1/2" from the opponent and Model B is within 1/2" of Model A, wouldn't Model B also be within 1" of the opponent? So why not just say any model within 1" of the opponent can fight?

Base? Are your bases 0mm wide?

0.5mm from enemy, 32mm(more than inch), 0.5" from friend.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Because GW intentionally releasing a unit of that is immune to anything short of Mortal Wounds on purporse is on such a deep level of conspiritorial BS I don't even want to think about it.

This is an incorrect reading of the rules. They'll still fail saves on unmodified rolls of 1, and thus still fail 1/6th of all saves from non-mortal wounds.

If this isn't in the appendix with a note about save characteristics never going below a 2+ or a modified armour save of 1 counting as an unmodified 1 or in the day one FAQ I'll be shocked. Mostly because it means Reese dropped the ball a second time after this happened with MANz.

They specifically have shown that saves CAN go to +1 so don't expect to see an FAQ on that one. Also counting modified rolls of 1 as unmodified opens a whole nasty can of worms and also shouldn't be expected and thus is also likely off the table.

I missed the part about save characteristics saying anything about being modified one way or the other actually. Could you point that out?

GW also could have avoided the whole issue by making the SS 4++ and +1 to the roll. They didn't, they intentionally made it give +1 to the Sv stat. Seems pretty intentional to me that is what they wanted.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Because GW intentionally releasing a unit of that is immune to anything short of Mortal Wounds on purporse is on such a deep level of conspiritorial BS I don't even want to think about it.

This is an incorrect reading of the rules. They'll still fail saves on unmodified rolls of 1, and thus still fail 1/6th of all saves from non-mortal wounds.
.

Well 2+ turning to 2++ with stat modifier is derp anyway.

But it would be for marines so no surprise if it sticks. Orks had it errataed but that was npc race. Now it's master race


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Justyn wrote:
GW also could have avoided the whole issue by making the SS 4++ and +1 to the roll. They didn't, they intentionally made it give +1 to the Sv stat. Seems pretty intentional to me that is what they wanted.

Except wasn't what they wanted with same thing on npc faction

Justyn wrote:
GW also could have avoided the whole issue by making the SS 4++ and +1 to the roll. They didn't, they intentionally made it give +1 to the Sv stat. Seems pretty intentional to me that is what they wanted.

Yeah, but by the same token, it doesn't make a difference for those particular models since they have a 3+ save base, not a 2+ save. It's only with a 2+ that it becomes an issue. So it's just as likely they overlooked it, just like they overlooked the fact that assault weapons couldn't actually fire if you advanced for the entirety of 8th edition.

Assuming that GW must have had a reason for doing something and was thinking through all the consequences of it is not a safe assumption to make based on the historical record.

WHFB had 1+ saves for years and they didn't act like that. They essentially just acted like 2+ saves but you ignored the first point of AP. I think you guys are off base here.

Page 18 of the free core rules goes over saving throws.

4. SAVING THROW
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

At no point does it say you can't modify the roll to be less than 1 or greater than 0. So if you had a 1+ save model that was hit with an attach that had a AP of -2 and rolled a 2 you would fail the save.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I missed the part about save characteristics saying anything about being modified one way or the other actually. Could you point that out?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why are you discussing something that we don't even know is a fact? The shields shown don't matter because they're on something with a 3+ to begin with, so it only becomes a 2+.

If models with a 2+ to begin with get a shield that improves their save characterstic by 1 then you can start to have your argument about how stupid GW is (answer: very!).

Again, even forgetting Storm Shields, it's doable in the Crusade ruleset and even EXPLICITLY STATED YOU CAN DO IT.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think I get it now. You can't modify a roll below 1, and modified rolls of 1 always save, so a 1+ save with a -42 AP cannot go beneath 1, therefore any dice roll is modified to 1, and as their save is 1+, it saves. Only a natural 1 would fail, as natural 1's always fail.

Thank you for the (expansive) explanation.

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or sincerity, so I'll go all quantum wibbly wobbly assume it's both and neither!

It looks like the part about armor saves may be from the leaked rules rather than the free preview.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I missed the part about save characteristics saying anything about being modified one way or the other actually. Could you point that out?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why are you discussing something that we don't even know is a fact? The shields shown don't matter because they're on something with a 3+ to begin with, so it only becomes a 2+.

If models with a 2+ to begin with get a shield that improves their save characterstic by 1 then you can start to have your argument about how stupid GW is (answer: very!).

Again, even forgetting Storm Shields, it's doable in the Crusade ruleset and even EXPLICITLY STATED YOU CAN DO IT.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think I get it now. You can't modify a roll below 1, and modified rolls of 1 always save, so a 1+ save with a -42 AP cannot go beneath 1, therefore any dice roll is modified to 1, and as their save is 1+, it saves. Only a natural 1 would fail, as natural 1's always fail.

Thank you for the (expansive) explanation.

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or sincerity, so I'll go all quantum wibbly wobbly assume it's both and neither!

It looks like the part about armor saves may be from the leaked rules rather than the free preview.

Okay, so I did miss that, and they do call out a 1+ save. Which means it's not capped at a 2+. I can't imagine it ignores AP since that would be game breaking, but we'll have to see how they handle the full thing I guess.