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.

We know how they handle the 'full thing'. Anything reduced below 1 is 1.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
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.

Right. They acted like that because the rules were different. In old WHFB, any _result_ of 1 was a failure. In this ruleset only an unmodified 1 is automatically a failure.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

1) The previewed Storm Shields can make +1 saves.
2) AP modifies rolls not saves.
3) Modified rolls of 1 will be saved by +1 armor.

In which way could AP interact with +1 armor saves using the rules as they are currently written?

 Blood Hawk wrote:
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.

The difference is, in Warhammer Strength modfied the Armour Save
In 40k, AP modifies the Dice Roll

WHFB: 1+Save -3 = 4+ Save

40K: 1+Save, D6 -3, if result is below 1 it gets modified to 1, compare roll with Save, if it is equal or higher (natural 1 always fails)

there was never an argument in Warhammer because the rules were simpler and worked better, as even a negative Save value would have not been a problem

 Blood Hawk wrote:

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.

Page 5:
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

Voss wrote:
We know how they handle the 'full thing'. Anything reduced below 1 is 1.

As it stands a modified 1 would still pass because only an unmodified 1 always fails.

I'm willing to bet that Custodes and Terminators will be getting different Storm Shields as a start. Custodian Storm shields and Terminator Storm shields.

I just want to know how they handle a 1+ armour save with AP.

God the circlejerk is real.

One weapon from an alternative game mode plus stupid rules writing allow for this.

Even if the weapon passes on to matched, no TO is going to go for this. Nobody ever. In LFGS nobody will play you if you want to use this. Insist on this, you won't be finding games in a month.

Additionally, this is not RAI and it will get FAQ'd, the same way orks interaction got FAQ'd. Whoever thinks this is intentional or that it is here to stay don't know wtf they are talking about. Yes I read the bastilladon FAQ. Different game, different developers, different universe. Go to AoS threads and post whatever.

We really do not need 500 replies stating the same thing over and over.

There's a wonderful thread devoted 100% on how to interpret rules. Use that, it's good.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

1) The previewed Storm Shields can make +1 saves.
2) AP modifies rolls not saves.
3) Modified rolls of 1 will be saved by +1 armor.

In which way could AP interact with +1 armor saves using the rules as they are currently written?

1. We don't know that we won't see them just rename the Storm shields on other units to not have to share this rule with models that have a 2+ save.
2&3. I know that, which is why I want they want to handle this because I don't think a 1+ save ignoring AP feels right, especially with them saying that Orks couldn't do this in 8th.

Less arguing about dumb 1+ save RAW, more about that $199 US price point for Indomitus that was leaked like 3 pages back and ignored completely to continue the rules circlejerk?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:
We know how they handle the 'full thing'. Anything reduced below 1 is 1.

As it stands a modified 1 would still pass because only an unmodified 1 always fails.

Correct

I'm willing to bet that Custodes and Terminators will be getting different Storm Shields as a start. Custodian Storm shields and Terminator Storm shields.

That's the current situation, actually. The 4++, +1 save stormshields only apply to the datasheets they're actually on- the new primaris ones. Terminators and Custodes use their current datasheets until their new Codexes happen and they get replaced. (with or without that rule)

I just want to know how they handle a 1+ armour save with AP.

That's what people are telling you. AP modifies the save _roll_. If it goes below one, it becomes one (per page 5), and as it isn't _less_ than the 1+ save, the saving throw is a success.

 kodos wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
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.

The difference is, in Warhammer Strength modfied the Armour Save
In 40k, AP modifies the Dice Roll

WHFB: 1+Save -3 = 4+ Save

40K: 1+Save, D6 -3, if result is below 1 it gets modified to 1, compare roll with Save, if it is equal or higher (natural 1 always fails)

there was never an argument in Warhammer because the rules were simpler and worked better, as even a negative Save value would have not been a problem

 Blood Hawk wrote:

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.

Page 5:
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

Yea I see that now. Well another thing to add to the list of day 1 errata.

Voss wrote:
That's what people are telling you. AP modifies the save roll. If it goes below one, it becomes one, and as it isn't _less_ than the 1+ save, the saving throw is a success.

Right, but we're talking about GW who has made weird one off exceptions to rules before. That's why I want to know how they're going to handle it.

And forget Terminators, forget Custodes, you know who I don't want to have a 1+ save? Friggin Deathshroud. Or anything with a DR save. Hence why I'm hoping GW does something to make this less game breaking that it looks like it can be.

Reposting to maybe break the circlejerk

 Ghaz wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
https://imgur.com/a/IWRsbPI

Got this from local group. No idea about source.

Cool. The new paints are Runelord Brass Base (current version is a Layer paint), Canoptek Alloy Layer, Cryptek Armourshade Shade and Tesseract Glow Technical.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:
That's what people are telling you. AP modifies the save roll. If it goes below one, it becomes one, and as it isn't _less_ than the 1+ save, the saving throw is a success.

Right, but we're talking about GW who has made weird one off exceptions to rules before. That's why I want to know how they're going to handle it.

So... you agree that's how it works, but... you're expecting they're just going to make something else up to handle the rules in a different way from the printed rules.
Ok. I honestly don't know what to tell you or how to have a conversation with you, especially since this is the third time the conversation has gone this way.

I'm just not sure why a store would have English and French editions but US currency.

In an effort to get people onto some other topic:

What do people think of the deployment system?

To summarize:

1. Roll for attacker and defender. This doesn't impact who goes first, it just impacts who gets to choose the deployment zone - and who has to go first when deploying. Defender chooses zone and puts down the first unit.

2. Declare what stuff is in reserves, what stuff is in transports, etc. This is BEFORE any deployment. No more "I'll deploy X into deep strike."

3. AFTER revealing what is not being deployed on the table, defender deploys first unit, then players alternative until all units are deployed.

4. Roll off again; winner gets to choose who goes first. No seize (there wouldn't be any point with this system).

So you are deploying without knowing who is going first at all, but you do know what units aren't going to be deployed on the field.

I think this is going to have massive implications for competitive play.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Less arguing about dumb 1+ save RAW, more about that $199 US price point for Indomitus that was leaked like 3 pages back and ignored completely to continue the rules circlejerk?

$199? Not bad. $65 for the core rulebook? Even better! That makes the models inside worth $134? This is a pretty good price for all those models, imo.

So it seems that the box costs about as much as I expected, which is good. I started to get a bit worried when a lot of people constantly guessed way higher prices.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
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.

You cannot modify roll below 1. That's core rules. 2-2=1 thus. 1 passes. So either gw failed again this despite meganobz or because it's marines rather than npc intentional.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Right, but we're talking about GW who has made weird one off exceptions to rules before. That's why I want to know how they're going to handle it.

And forget Terminators, forget Custodes, you know who I don't want to have a 1+ save? Friggin Deathshroud. Or anything with a DR save. Hence why I'm hoping GW does something to make this less game breaking that it looks like it can be.

Don't forget to try to stack some FNP on that and modifiers to hit if you can manage them.

-1 to hit, 1+ save, 5+ FNP will be amazing.

yukishiro1 wrote:
In an effort to get people onto some other topic:

What do people think of the deployment system?

To summarize:

1. Roll for attacker and defender. This doesn't impact who goes first, it just impacts who gets to choose the deployment zone - and who has to go first when deploying. Defender chooses zone and puts down the first unit.

2. Declare what stuff is in reserves, what stuff is in transports, etc. This is BEFORE any deployment. No more "I'll deploy X into deep strike."

3. AFTER revealing what is not being deployed on the table, defender deploys first unit, then players alternative until all units are deployed.

4. Roll off again; winner gets to choose who goes first. No seize (there wouldn't be any point with this system).

So you are deploying without knowing who is going first at all, but you do know what units aren't going to be deployed on the field.

I think this is going to have massive implications for competitive play.

Helps alpha strike just as it did before gw went for system that helped vs that.

Voss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:
That's what people are telling you. AP modifies the save roll. If it goes below one, it becomes one, and as it isn't _less_ than the 1+ save, the saving throw is a success.

Right, but we're talking about GW who has made weird one off exceptions to rules before. That's why I want to know how they're going to handle it.

So... you agree that's how it works, but... you're expecting they're just going to make something else up to handle the rules in a different way from the printed rules.
Ok. I honestly don't know what to tell you or how to have a conversation with you.

Let me try to make this very clear since you don't seem to be actually listening to what I'm saying:
1. I don't think GW's intent at any point is to give models a 1+ save that ignores the effects of AP. Especially if someone of them out there can also get a FnP type save.
2. There is an appendix we haven't seen in the core rule book which is supposed to handle "uncommon rules interactions" and the like. There is also the ability that GW could FAQ this. There is also the possibility that they won't give this kind of storm shield to anything with a 2+ leaving 1+ saves only in Crusade. There are a lot of ways GW can handle this and that's what I am waiting to see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm just not sure why a store would have English and French editions but US currency.

Maybe they're near Canada?

 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 even in 8th, the RaI is you don't fail on a modified 1.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/warhammer_40000_drukhari_en.pdf

Q: If a Succubus is given the Serpentin combat drug, does
its Weapon Skill characteristic increase to 1+? If so, does the
Succubus still hit if a hit roll of 2 is rolled for an attack for a
melee weapon and, due to an ability, I have to subtract 1 from
that hit roll?
A: Yes, and yes – only unmodified hit rolls of 1
automatically fail.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Right, but we're talking about GW who has made weird one off exceptions to rules before. That's why I want to know how they're going to handle it.

And forget Terminators, forget Custodes, you know who I don't want to have a 1+ save? Friggin Deathshroud. Or anything with a DR save. Hence why I'm hoping GW does something to make this less game breaking that it looks like it can be.

Don't forget to try to stack some FNP on that and modifiers to hit if you can manage them.

-1 to hit, 1+ save, 5+ FNP will be amazing.

Feth that bullgak.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm just not sure why a store would have English and French editions but US currency.

Canada. They still get their stock from Memphis if I'm not mistaken and the original image could have cropped out the Canadian prices.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 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 even in 8th, the RaI is you don't fail on a modified 1.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/warhammer_40000_drukhari_en.pdf

Q: If a Succubus is given the Serpentin combat drug, does
its Weapon Skill characteristic increase to 1+? If so, does the
Succubus still hit if a hit roll of 2 is rolled for an attack for a
melee weapon and, due to an ability, I have to subtract 1 from
that hit roll?
A: Yes, and yes – only unmodified hit rolls of 1
automatically fail.

Stop quoting 8th, it's a different edition. They could have changed their mind about when writing 9th. You're pulling too much from different games and different editions to back up your arguement.

 Crimson wrote:
So it seems that the box costs about as much as I expected, which is good. I started to get a bit worried when a lot of people constantly guessed way higher prices.

Shadowspear + rulebook value was the best existing comparison, it could have reasonably been as high as $225 I think. Luckily the book was discounted at around the same rate as the minis.

I somewhat suspect this is the new High Price Tier starter and we'll see another one with 1-2 sprues less for the old starter price soon, then at least one mini-starter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm just not sure why a store would have English and French editions but US currency.

Canada. They still get their stock from Memphis if I'm not mistaken.

I guess? But EU stores have order forms in Euros despite ordering from GW UK tho

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Stop quoting 8th, it's a different edition. They could have changed their mind about when writing 9th. You're pulling too much from different games and different editions to back up your arguement.

Except I am citing the rules as my argument. I don't need any other sources to back it up. You're the one screeching how it is incorrect, when it demonstrably is not. The FAQs from two different games by GW that use the exact same rule wording is just icing on the cake.

tneva82 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
In an effort to get people onto some other topic:

What do people think of the deployment system?

To summarize:

1. Roll for attacker and defender. This doesn't impact who goes first, it just impacts who gets to choose the deployment zone - and who has to go first when deploying. Defender chooses zone and puts down the first unit.

2. Declare what stuff is in reserves, what stuff is in transports, etc. This is BEFORE any deployment. No more "I'll deploy X into deep strike."

3. AFTER revealing what is not being deployed on the table, defender deploys first unit, then players alternative until all units are deployed.

4. Roll off again; winner gets to choose who goes first. No seize (there wouldn't be any point with this system).

So you are deploying without knowing who is going first at all, but you do know what units aren't going to be deployed on the field.

I think this is going to have massive implications for competitive play.

Helps alpha strike just as it did before gw went for system that helped vs that.

Does it? My first reaction is actually the opposite, that the safest thing to do is deploy defensively, and then, if you win the die roll for who goes first, just go second. Worst comes to worst, your opponent forces you to go first, and then you just do whatever.

If you deploy offensively, if you lose the roll to go first, you leave yourself really exposed.

It is a mild buff for MSU and for putting less stuff in reserves, since the more units you are putting down on the table, the easier you can run your opponent out of deploys, at which point you get to counter-deploy with everything else you have.

Definitely a big boost to redeploy strats, too.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Reposting to maybe break the circlejerk

 Ghaz wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
https://imgur.com/a/IWRsbPI

Got this from local group. No idea about source.

Cool. The new paints are Runelord Brass Base (current version is a Layer paint), Canoptek Alloy Layer, Cryptek Armourshade Shade and Tesseract Glow Technical.

What could the Combat Gauge possibly have to make it special for $27

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Stop quoting 8th, it's a different edition. They could have changed their mind about when writing 9th. You're pulling too much from different games and different editions to back up your arguement.

Except I am citing the rules as my argument. I don't need any other sources to back it up. You're the one screeching how it is incorrect, when it demonstrably is not. The FAQs from two different games by GW that use the exact same rule wording is just icing on the cake.

You have a strong argument for how it -might- work -if- they let models with a 2+ have access to this rule from the 9th ed rules. No need to quote old design philosophy or a game run by a different rules team.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Carnikang wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Reposting to maybe break the circlejerk

 Ghaz wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
https://imgur.com/a/IWRsbPI

Got this from local group. No idea about source.

Cool. The new paints are Runelord Brass Base (current version is a Layer paint), Canoptek Alloy Layer, Cryptek Armourshade Shade and Tesseract Glow Technical.

What could the Combat Gauge possibly have to make it special for $27

Maybe it's all metal? The all metal one for AoS that came out in 2015 was around $26-27 from what a quick Google search tells me.

The core book on it's own is more expensive than the box???