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.

 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.

I'm unconvinced that 'clearly intended' is the right phrase for 'if they rewrote the rule so it was a completely different mechanic'

Is the +1 save thing an issue? So far nobody has produced any evidence the +1 save thing actually exists in the game. What we have is a couple of new data sheets with bespoke rules on them. One of the bespoke rules is named after an already existing piece of wargear but we have no idea if they have the same rules, something will change names to be different, etc.

Everyone is getting really juiced up over an assumption.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Is the +1 save thing an issue? So far nobody has produced any evidence the +1 save thing actually exists in the game. What we have is a couple of new data sheets with bespoke rules on them. One of the bespoke rules is named after an already existing piece of wargear but we have no idea if they have the same rules, something will change names to be different, etc.

Everyone is getting really juiced up over an assumption.

I take said unit and use the honoured Sargent Strategum to give the Bladeguard Sargent 2+ armour suit, the 1+ armour is now in the game.

So even Bladeguard can have the 1+ armour we dont even need to wait its an issue at launch.

Its obviously not an actual thing, and will be FAQ very, very quickly (because it seems the book has quite a bit of an faq department built in, and GW started to realize they have to patch up the most obvious edge cases to be beyond any doubt as gakky people keep lawyering)

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its obviously not an actual thing, and will be FAQ very, very quickly (because it seems the book has quite a bit of an faq department built in, and GW started to realize they have to patch up the most obvious edge cases to be beyond any doubt as gakky people keep lawyering)

This was known issue the moment they wrote storm shield rule.

Also this time it benefits marines. Not as sure

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its obviously not an actual thing, and will be FAQ very, very quickly (because it seems the book has quite a bit of an faq department built in, and GW started to realize they have to patch up the most obvious edge cases to be beyond any doubt as gakky people keep lawyering)

Tgis was an Issue in 8th, an issue in AoS and they have created the same issue day 1 with this unit, seriously at some point they have to start learning from the mistakes they keep making and having to FAQ/Eratta for months.
Also why did it take the comunity less than half an hour from the datashests leaking to spot the broken and non of the playtesters or GW notice? Are they all asleep at the wheeel?

Ice_can wrote:
Also why did it take the comunity less than half an hour from the datashests leaking to spot the broken and non of the playtesters or GW notice? Are they all asleep at the wheeel?

I tend to give companies at least some slack on this sort of thing. For all we know, they caught 95% of the mistakes and one slipped through. We only see the one though. Also, the sheer number of extra eyeballs is insane. The work of ten people full time can be surpassed within half an hour by a few thousand, so they may instantly spot something that was missed.

The important part is how they react to the mistakes when they are spotted.

 MPJ wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

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

In my opinion, NOTHING should EVER have a 2++.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Is the +1 save thing an issue? So far nobody has produced any evidence the +1 save thing actually exists in the game. What we have is a couple of new data sheets with bespoke rules on them. One of the bespoke rules is named after an already existing piece of wargear but we have no idea if they have the same rules, something will change names to be different, etc.

Everyone is getting really juiced up over an assumption.

The ork stratagem Loot it! on MANz is a thing.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Is the +1 save thing an issue? So far nobody has produced any evidence the +1 save thing actually exists in the game.

It is. Its even cited as an example in the rulebook itself, under the Crusade rules (one of the Crusade perks is a save characteristic increase).
So yes, it is.

It isn't necessarily for terminator & custodes with stormshields (since they'll use their current datasheets), but there are ways to get it between various unit abilities, strats, relics, psychics and etc.

Ice_can wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Is the +1 save thing an issue? So far nobody has produced any evidence the +1 save thing actually exists in the game. What we have is a couple of new data sheets with bespoke rules on them. One of the bespoke rules is named after an already existing piece of wargear but we have no idea if they have the same rules, something will change names to be different, etc.

Everyone is getting really juiced up over an assumption.

I take said unit and use the honoured Sargent Strategum to give the Bladeguard Sargent 2+ armour suit, the 1+ armour is now in the game.

So even Bladeguard can have the 1+ armour we dont even need to wait its an issue at launch.

How? Honoured Sargeant only upgrades weapons.

ERJAK wrote:
In my opinion, NOTHING should EVER have a 2++.

I think that the Archon's shadowfield is alright at least, but that is not a true 2++.

GW have rules this both ways, so we don't know what they're going to do.

Until they do, a 1+ save means you save on a 2+. It's not rocket surgery.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW have rules this both ways, so we don't know what they're going to do.

Until they do, a 1+ save means you save on a 2+. It's not rocket surgery.

No, a 1+ save means you save on a 1+, except unmodified 1s, because that's what the rules actually say.

Voss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW have rules this both ways, so we don't know what they're going to do.

Until they do, a 1+ save means you save on a 2+. It's not rocket surgery.

No, a 1+ save means you save on a 1+, except unmodified 1s, because that's what the rules actually say.

And then I laugh, ask if you are serious, then don't play you anymore.

Isn't unmodified just their way of saying natural? I think this has already been covered in 8th ed.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Is the +1 save thing an issue? So far nobody has produced any evidence the +1 save thing actually exists in the game. What we have is a couple of new data sheets with bespoke rules on them. One of the bespoke rules is named after an already existing piece of wargear but we have no idea if they have the same rules, something will change names to be different, etc.

Everyone is getting really juiced up over an assumption.

There is a screen shot that shows that GW specifically mentions you can have a 1+ save, I believe it's in the Crusade rules.

And I took the time to look, from the Crusade Relics under Narrative play:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Also why did it take the comunity less than half an hour from the datashests leaking to spot the broken and non of the playtesters or GW notice? Are they all asleep at the wheeel?

Because sometimes the fixes for other issues cause new issues. Just ask anyone who programs.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
There is a screen shot that shows that GW specifically mentions you can have a 1+ save, I believe it's in the Crusade rules.

The 1+ save itself is not the issue. Having a save be slightly resistant to AP is fine. Hey, I remember when Abaddon used to have a 2+ save on 2d6, but after AP it was ok. Thats the point, having an armour save suddenly become immune to AP because of certain rule interactions just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

 Trickstick wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
There is a screen shot that shows that GW specifically mentions you can have a 1+ save, I believe it's in the Crusade rules.

The 1+ save itself is not the issue. Having a save be slightly resistant to AP is fine. Hey, I remember when Abaddon used to have a 2+ save on 2d6, but after AP it was ok. Thats the point, having an armour save suddenly become immune to AP because of certain rule interactions just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Oh I agree. Hence why I say wait for the FAQ and don't stress it.

 Trickstick wrote:

Voss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW have rules this both ways, so we don't know what they're going to do.

Until they do, a 1+ save means you save on a 2+. It's not rocket surgery.

No, a 1+ save means you save on a 1+, except unmodified 1s, because that's what the rules actually say.

And then I laugh, ask if you are serious, then don't play you anymore.

Because there are more rules that you want to ignore?
Maybe waiting until we know what all the interactions are before deleting parts of the rulebook is a reasonable thing?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
There is a screen shot that shows that GW specifically mentions you can have a 1+ save, I believe it's in the Crusade rules.

The 1+ save itself is not the issue. Having a save be slightly resistant to AP is fine. Hey, I remember when Abaddon used to have a 2+ save on 2d6, but after AP it was ok. Thats the point, having an armour save suddenly become immune to AP because of certain rule interactions just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Oh I agree. Hence why I say wait for the FAQ and don't stress it.

The only way I can see this 'leaving a sour taste in the mouth' is if only one army had this and could spam it.

Voss wrote:

Because there are more rules that you want to ignore?

from the current point of view everyone is going to ignore the new would allocation, 1+ saves being immune to AP and no LOS needed for 18+ Wound models behind obscouring terrain

maybe there are some more rules everyone will play wrong because they make no sense if played right

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Is the +1 save thing an issue? So far nobody has produced any evidence the +1 save thing actually exists in the game. What we have is a couple of new data sheets with bespoke rules on them. One of the bespoke rules is named after an already existing piece of wargear but we have no idea if they have the same rules, something will change names to be different, etc.

Everyone is getting really juiced up over an assumption.

There is a screen shot that shows that GW specifically mentions you can have a 1+ save, I believe it's in the Crusade rules.

And I took the time to look, from the Crusade Relics under Narrative play:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Also why did it take the comunity less than half an hour from the datashests leaking to spot the broken and non of the playtesters or GW notice? Are they all asleep at the wheeel?

Because sometimes the fixes for other issues cause new issues. Just ask anyone who programs.

Crusade/Narrative play isn't matched play though so if one thing allows a +1 save it doesn't really break the game or anything. Someone getting a hard to kill HQ isn't that huge of a deal in a story based game.

I was speaking more towards matched play. We have no evidence that we can take entire squads of +1 sv units. And from what I have heard from playtesters the primaris storm shield is unique to those datasheets. On the terminator or custodes datasheet it might say can not modify beyond 2+ or they might rename their storm shields.

I know a +1 save functions within the rules. And I know for fun characterful games its possible to get the 1+ sv but people seem to be worried about facing 10-30 storm shield terminators or entire armies of 1+ sv custodes, not one dude in your for funzies game.

Easy fix in an FAQ “Saves max out at 2+”. Bound to happen. Not worth pitching a fit or starting and argument about. May even be in Day One FAQ. Chill out, give it a couple of weeks and paint some models.

Voss wrote:
Because there are more rules that you want to ignore?
Maybe waiting until we know what all the interactions are before deleting parts of the rulebook is a reasonable thing?

It's an inherently social game. If this rule came up, I would discuss it and would have to base my decision on how reasonable I think the opponent was. If they were friendly and it was an honest disagreement, I would be much more likely to keep playing than if I think they are just trying to game an advantage out of the system. Of course, there are different levels of rules too. Something minor that I think is stupid is much more likely to get a pass than an armour save suddenly becoming invulnerable because of roll modification rules.

You can be 100% correct in the rules, but you need to realise that people will judge you for using odd rules interactions in what they think is an abusive way.

 Ghaz wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
There is a screen shot that shows that GW specifically mentions you can have a 1+ save, I believe it's in the Crusade rules.

The 1+ save itself is not the issue. Having a save be slightly resistant to AP is fine. Hey, I remember when Abaddon used to have a 2+ save on 2d6, but after AP it was ok. Thats the point, having an armour save suddenly become immune to AP because of certain rule interactions just leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Oh I agree. Hence why I say wait for the FAQ and don't stress it.

The only way I can see this 'leaving a sour taste in the mouth' is if only one army had this and could spam it.

Custodes?

 Trickstick wrote:

Voss wrote:
Because there are more rules that you want to ignore?
Maybe waiting until we know what all the interactions are before deleting parts of the rulebook is a reasonable thing?

It's an inherently social game. If this rule came up, I would discuss it and would have to base my decision on how reasonable I think the opponent was. If they were friendly and it was an honest disagreement, I would be much more likely to keep playing than if I think they are just trying to game an advantage out of the system. Of course, there are different levels of rules too. Something minor that I think is stupid is much more likely to get a pass than an armour save suddenly becoming invulnerable because of roll modification rules.

You can be 100% correct in the rules, but you need to realise that people will judge you for using odd rules interactions in what they think is an abusive way.

Which is all entirely irrelevant when you play the rules in a standardized system meant to create an even playing field and facilitate a competitive environment. If you go to GW's GT events, this is how the rule would be played pre-faq and there's nothing talking to your opponent could do about it.

ClockworkZion wrote:Custodes?

Custodes won't be the only army that could have a 1+ save though, and even if they can spam it their armies have a fairly small model count.

 Trickstick wrote:

Voss wrote:
Because there are more rules that you want to ignore?
Maybe waiting until we know what all the interactions are before deleting parts of the rulebook is a reasonable thing?

It's an inherently social game. If this rule came up, I would discuss it and would have to base my decision on how reasonable I think the opponent was. If they were friendly and it was an honest disagreement, I would be much more likely to keep playing than if I think they are just trying to game an advantage out of the system. Of course, there are different levels of rules too. Something minor that I think is stupid is much more likely to get a pass than an armour save suddenly becoming invulnerable because of roll modification rules.

You can be 100% correct in the rules, but you need to realise that people will judge you for using odd rules interactions in what they think is an abusive way.

Then the rules shouldn't be open for that interpretation. This was a problem found in literally the same day as we had all the rules.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Isn't unmodified just their way of saying natural? I think this has already been covered in 8th ed.

Yes. And in 8th as well any 1+ save unit saved on anything but unmodified 1 regardless of ap