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.
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...
One of our local players is already hard at work crafting "10 foot poles" for all of his battlewagons. Basically 10 inch pvc tubes so that he can extend his range...
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails) The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
Right...we already have this in 8th, a 1 fails, you just get more room to dodge AP. Doesn't seem like an issue...
also, those are relic shields, not storm shields and cannot be taken by terminators...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/05 09:21:08
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
Would the issue be fixed if Storm Shields instead just gave you a +1 to your roll?
Would vanish. Another fix would be remove can't be modified below zero. That way removes worry gw will do it 3rd time with another way to gett 1+.
Has weird potential to mess with rules that take effect on a 1, they’d have to be changed to take effect on less than 1 as well. It’s probably easier to just never make a rule that improves your save characteristic, only your save rolls.
Has weird potential to mess with rules that take effect on a 1, they’d have to be changed to take effect on less than 1 as well. It’s probably easier to just never make a rule that improves your save characteristic, only your save rolls.
They have already shown not so easy since they repeated it. If they just change this it will come 3rd time eventually. And 4th. 5th etc
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/05 09:24:33
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...
One of our local players is already hard at work crafting "10 foot poles" for all of his battlewagons. Basically 10 inch pvc tubes so that he can extend his range...
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
Right...we already have this in 8th, a 1 fails, you just get more room to dodge AP. Doesn't seem like an issue...
also, those are relic shields, not storm shields and cannot be taken by terminators...
The captain has a Relic Shield, the other guys have Storm Shields.
Alright, breaking down the math again. I have a 1+ armor save. Your gun has a -6 AP. I roll a 2. That 2 becomes a -4. -4 counts as 1. I made my 1+ save roll. You could have AP minus a billion, and I will make my save roll on anything other than a Natural 1.
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...
One of our local players is already hard at work crafting "10 foot poles" for all of his battlewagons. Basically 10 inch pvc tubes so that he can extend his range...
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
Right...we already have this in 8th, a 1 fails, you just get more room to dodge AP. Doesn't seem like an issue...
also, those are relic shields, not storm shields and cannot be taken by terminators...
This argument has come up a bunch of times, but basically because RAW a roll can't be modified below 1, a 1+ save is automatically a 2+ invulnerable save because the weird quirk of the rules makes it immune to AP at that point.
Has weird potential to mess with rules that take effect on a 1, they’d have to be changed to take effect on less than 1 as well. It’s probably easier to just never make a rule that improves your save characteristic, only your save rolls.
They have already shown not so easy since they repeated it. If they just change this it will come 3rd time eventually. And 4th. 5th etc
To be fair, they repeated it from AoS (how much do the design teams cross?) where it was far more corner case on only a single monster in a single army and they decided it was ok and they’d allow it. They haven’t really established a policy of ok this never gets to happen again yet.
To be fair, they repeated it from AoS (how much do the design teams cross?) where it was far more corner case on only a single monster in a single army and they decided it was ok and they’d allow it. They haven’t really established a policy of ok this never gets to happen again yet.
Let's be clear, it was designed in AOS to specifically work like that. It is on a monster that's armour save deteriorates as it takes wounds. It works very nicely to simulate 'cracking open the shell' on the beast.
That's not to say the 1+ was deliberate in 40k, but it is definitely in GW's studio toolbox (whether that applies to 40k who can say).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/05 09:42:40
At the minute this is mute for marines because it currently only affects models with a 3+ save. We don’t know how and if it will apply to terminators yet. Maybe they change terminator stats so they have a 3+ save as well in their stats and terminator armour now gives them an in built extra wound and toughness? Who knows
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...
One of our local players is already hard at work crafting "10 foot poles" for all of his battlewagons. Basically 10 inch pvc tubes so that he can extend his range...
What for? To make sure he will never benefit from a KFF?
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Honestly I wouldn't stress about the 1+ save thing just yet since GW has apparently said they're aware of it. We'll see what the day one FAQs say and then all move on with our lives.
Given the sheer amount of unit issues and required changes the day 1 FAQ is going to be vast!
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Togusa wrote: One of our local players is already hard at work crafting "10 foot poles" for all of his battlewagons. Basically 10 inch pvc tubes so that he can extend his range...
That's modelling for advantage, and is not exactly a new thing in 9th. Your group needs to come to a position on how it is going to handle that. People will often puh the rules to gain an advantage, it is up to the rest to be a brake on that.
So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
It gets really absurd with the Ork Battlewagon, which is almost as high if built with turret and periscope... yes, in 9th ed you can measure from antennas etc...
One of our local players is already hard at work crafting "10 foot poles" for all of his battlewagons. Basically 10 inch pvc tubes so that he can extend his range...
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails) The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
Right...we already have this in 8th, a 1 fails, you just get more room to dodge AP. Doesn't seem like an issue...
also, those are relic shields, not storm shields and cannot be taken by terminators...
This argument has come up a bunch of times, but basically because RAW a roll can't be modified below 1, a 1+ save is automatically a 2+ invulnerable save because the weird quirk of the rules makes it immune to AP at that point.
funny thing is... orks already had a strat that gave them +1 to save (if an vehicle was destroyed near them). Paired with Meganobz they were in the same situation, they would get an +1 armour save. the text of the strat was FAQ'd to read: "...up to a minimun of 2+"
So yes. RAW +1 saves are a thing and they should've known from the beginning.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/05 11:33:54
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
...I don't get it. Are we the only ones who calculate AP as a modifier to the armor save, not the die roll? I mean, it's way easier that way, and I can't possibly see how it could ever result in that.
GW does it by modifying the roll, which is what causes the problem in the first place.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
...I don't get it. Are we the only ones who calculate AP as a modifier to the armor save, not the die roll? I mean, it's way easier that way, and I can't possibly see how it could ever result in that.
That is how everyone does it in practice and most do not even realise that this is actually not what the rules say. But outside this specific bug in the system it doesn't matter because the results are exactly the same.
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
+1 save issue?
A weird collision of rules that causes a 1+ armor save to effectively be a 2+ invulnerable save. (Any dice roll of 0 or less counts as a 1, and 1’s save because you have 1+ armor, but a Natural one always fails)
The new Storm Shields improve your armor characteristic by 1, so terminators and such would have a 1+ armor save.
...I don't get it. Are we the only ones who calculate AP as a modifier to the armor save, not the die roll? I mean, it's way easier that way, and I can't possibly see how it could ever result in that.
The way you calculate is irrelevant compared to how rules say. And until gw fixes it(if) 1+ save is 2++
Gadzilla666 wrote: So the new App is supposed to be available next week. What do we know about it? I'd assume it'll be pretty similar to the AoS App. Any Aos players want to share their opinions on that one and explain what's in it and what it does? Sorry if everyone else already knows this, but I don't play AoS, and I'd like a little more information.
It's good. Does everything you want for the cost of £1 per month. Used to use it all the time but unsubscribed when Soul Wars hit... it took far, far long to update. If the 40k ones the same, there'll be some major waiting time when major rule changes drop.
Pretty much my singular major gripe sigh the AoS app is it periodically forgets I’m subscribed. I’ll to use the army builder and it tells me you have to be subscribed to use that. I hit subscribe and it tells me I’m already subscribed. I go back to the builder and it tells me I have to subscribe to use that. The only way I’ve found to fix that is to delete the app and redownload it, which also deletes all your downloaded books and army lists. It does correctly remember you’ve paid for all those books and lets you download them again for free, but it’s a giant hassle and I hope you didn’t need those army lists you made or can remember what you had in them. It’s been a good bit since I’ve done AoS so I checked the app just now and I am once again locked out of the army builder I’m paying for.
Happens to me but if you go to the store page in the app you can select the button in the top-right corner and select restore purchases everything goes back to normal then without having to delete the app. Of course right now Azyr isn’t working, but I suspect it’s been temporarily disabled whilst they update all the points for GHB2020
cuda1179 wrote: So, this means that models without a base (like the Defiler) measure to the top of their model when measuring for engagement distance to another floor of a building? Those things are almost 5 inches tall, that means they can engage with things 10 inches in the air above them (4th floor?).
Oh, that's another thing to add to the dumb rule list. It's not that long this edition at least, they have done alright to limit it so far. I feel sorry for the guy with the awesome rearing defiler who is going to catch heat for modelling for advantage, even though his model is ten years old.
And the rest haha. I was using defilers back in the halcyon days of 3.5. Early noughties. So I guess that will be updated or replaced in a few years then
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/05 13:42:43
Has there been any reviews that go through the models in detail? I'd like to know if there are any extra optional bits, such as helmets. I'm not normally fussed about the helmets, but I want my Chaplains to have skull masks.
How is any of this News and Rumors for 9th edition?
It's almost like an internet forum post that isn't curated mod/press-release posts will tend to have a natural ebb and flow of the conversation within it, which may drift slightly from the strict definition of the topic.
So, some actual news, apparently the GW team are "aware" of the 1+ save issue and will fix it. How true that is or how well they will fix it is yet to be seen.
Would the issue be fixed if Storm Shields instead just gave you a +1 to your roll?
Would vanish. Another fix would be remove can't be modified below zero. That way removes worry gw will do it 3rd time with another way to gett 1+. If you just modify storm shield issue can pop again. They did same mistake with meganobz banning it from them. And here again. If they change storm shield it leaves door open for same issue come later.
Personally I hope they don’t change it as it’s not really an issue to be honest. It makes Custodes and assault terminators more like they are in the fluff and the same issues of MW and massed shots still affect them. I get why people don’t like it though and I do expect it will be changed
tneva82 wrote: The way you calculate is irrelevant compared to how rules say. And until gw fixes it(if) 1+ save is 2++
Not really if you don't play it that way. There are at least a few ways that the rules are subjective, and a glitch that gives a 4++ and a 2++ to a model is one of them. I think I would consider an opponent trying to force that on someone as TFG, unless they were doing it as part of a tournament or as some sort of RAW demonstration, fully knowing it was a stupid rule.
Yeah, the intention is pretty clear. There would be no problem with 1+ or 0+ saves if AP was applied to the save instead of the roll.
It's clearly intended that a 1+ save hit by a AP-4 weapons would require a 5+ to pass.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Jidmah wrote: Yeah, the intention is pretty clear. There would be no problem with 1+ or 0+ saves if AP was applied to the save instead of the roll.
It's clearly intended that a 1+ save hit by a AP-4 weapons would require a 5+ to pass.
That's literally the opposite of the way that GW clarified that the same mechanic works in AoS.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/05 14:25:19
And why exactly would 40k care about unintuitive rule clarifications in a completely different game?
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
tneva82 wrote: The way you calculate is irrelevant compared to how rules say. And until gw fixes it(if) 1+ save is 2++
Not really if you don't play it that way. There are at least a few ways that the rules are subjective, and a glitch that gives a 4++ and a 2++ to a model is one of them. I think I would consider an opponent trying to force that on someone as TFG, unless they were doing it as part of a tournament or as some sort of RAW demonstration, fully knowing it was a stupid rule.
Just keep in mind there are things that ignore armor saves so its not a 2++ and a 4++ at the same time, like the celexus assassin melee would ignore the 1+save and you would have to use the 4++ instead.... granted that's the only one i can think of off the top of my head, but it doesnt mean thats going to be the only thing forever. And the Callidus ignoring invuln saves but not armor saves is helpless to a 1+. So while a 1+ is similar to a 2++ just have to remember its not even though it works in a very similar way.
"If you are forced to use your trump card, then the battle is already lost"
Jidmah wrote: And why exactly would 40k care about unintuitive rule clarifications in a completely different game?
mainly because 40k has taken a lot of rules over from AoS by now and while the games were very different in the past, they have become more similar with main difference being that one is melee focused and the other focused on shooting
and we just hope now that the designers have this special case intended for one game, and just made a mistake by taking over the rules and not indented in 40k as well
I mean the rules are written in a very clear way without room for speculation that something like this is unlikley a mistake
or poeple who wrote #New40k had no clue what they were doing and just copy&paste rules that they thought were cool without thinking it thru once
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
RedNoak wrote: funny thing is... orks already had a strat that gave them +1 to save (if an vehicle was destroyed near them). Paired with Meganobz they were in the same situation, they would get an +1 armour save.
the text of the strat was FAQ'd to read: "...up to a minimun of 2+"
So yes. RAW +1 saves are a thing and they should've known from the beginning.
Like i said before the discussion is irrelevant it is clearly RAW.
GWFaq'd a ork strat because of the exact same thing. IF stormshields are written that way across the board, stictly RAW speaking, Terminators would have a (effectivly) 2++
Mr Morden wrote: Given the sheer amount of unit issues and required changes the day 1 FAQ is going to be vast!
1+ saves, charging flyers, and what else exactly?
I mean beyond all the updates to the codexes of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Has there been any reviews that go through the models in detail? I'd like to know if there are any extra optional bits, such as helmets. I'm not normally fussed about the helmets, but I want my Chaplains to have skull masks.
Captain has 3 helmet options, but I haven't seen anything about the Chaplain.
Jidmah wrote: Yeah, the intention is pretty clear. There would be no problem with 1+ or 0+ saves if AP was applied to the save instead of the roll.
It's clearly intended that a 1+ save hit by a AP-4 weapons would require a 5+ to pass.
That's literally the opposite of the way that GW clarified that the same mechanic works in AoS.
So just a few things about that argument: AoS has different mechanics for rending, the creature in question has a rule that prevents its save being modified by rend, AoS is written by a different rules team.
Like sure, there's precedent for it in a different system written by different people, but don't hold your breath.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MajorWesJanson wrote: Seems like they could fix it by saying that any save rolls of 1, modified or unmodified, fail.
Or that AP can modify die rolls below a 1. Or change the rule to +1 to the save roll, not the save characteristic.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/07/05 15:08:08