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.

stratigo wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
What's wrong with the AoS app? It works fine for me.

It's often buggy and sometimes gets things wrong, and can be slow to update.

I have to figure it’s not going to have points either since why sell a $40 point update book... which should have been free with the app.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
So Nids making a run at the "Sol System" fairly sure thats Terra Mars, satur and Jupitor with their respective moons.
That's a bold decision if thats where the story ia going for 10th edition.

I dunno if that’s the plan for 10th.
I’m assuming with thier new supreme command detachment they plan on making a big commander for each faction eventually.

If the 40k app doesn't have points GW is going to have a lot of unhappy people on their hands and they likely know it.

Ice_can wrote:
So Nids making a run at the "Sol System" fairly sure thats Terra Mars, satur and Jupitor with their respective moons.
That's a bold decision if thats where the story ia going for 10th edition.

Someone recently put some spoilers from in the 40klore subreddit

 Segersgia wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
So Nids making a run at the "Sol System" fairly sure thats Terra Mars, satur and Jupitor with their respective moons.
That's a bold decision if thats where the story ia going for 10th edition.

Someone recently put some spoilers from

Spoiler:

Pariah

in the 40klore subreddit

Spoiler:

A warp anomaly slat out a Hive Fleet that is heading straight to the Sol Sector. Seems you’re right on this.

tneva82 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 Togusa 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.

+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++

Erm, no. The way we usually do there's not way for that bug to happen. With 1+ Armor, AP -1 changes it to 2+, AP -2 to 3+ and so on and so forth, and when Armor goes down to 7+ it no longer has an armor save, easy peasy. It will never be anything remotely similar to 2++ save.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If the 40k app doesn't have points GW is going to have a lot of unhappy people on their hands and they likely know it.

They'll be unhappy mainly because they've already said that the app will have points.

On the same day that the Warhammer 40,000 pre-orders go live, a new app will be launched alongside it, providing several cool features to help you, including a full matched play army builder. The new app will do a number of things to assist players with their games, but one of the most useful will be the ability to build army lists using the updated points values and Detachments. We’ll have more on the Warhammer 40,000 app soon, so watch this space!

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Segersgia wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
So Nids making a run at the "Sol System" fairly sure thats Terra Mars, satur and Jupitor with their respective moons.
That's a bold decision if thats where the story ia going for 10th edition.

Someone recently put some spoilers from

Spoiler:

Pariah

in the 40klore subreddit

Spoiler:

A warp anomaly slat out a Hive Fleet that is heading straight to the Sol Sector. Seems you’re right on this.

Spoiler:

The warp storm front in question is situated to the galactic south of Luther McIntyre (pg.20), so not even in the Segmentum Solar. They've got a hell of a distance to travel to get to the Sol Sector.

Depends on what the "Timeline is for 9th edition to cover, as the lore seems to be a bit more flexible on what the "current timestamp" is with it going backwards and forwards 300 years or something in the PA books alone and they arn't in chronological order I believe, though GW keep making it even more challenging to tr6 and keep up with the lore as it's now shotguned into so many tiny chunks it's not worthwhile unless your into the hobby for the lore.

gungo wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
What's wrong with the AoS app? It works fine for me.

It's often buggy and sometimes gets things wrong, and can be slow to update.

I have to figure it’s not going to have points either since why sell a $40 point update book... which should have been free with the app.

As others have pointed out, GW have already said the app will have points and a matched play army list builder. As for selling a point update book, it could be that the app won’t update points unless you buy chapter approved, the same way that you need to buy a codex to unlock an army list in the app (or at least that’s what I understand is how it’s supposedly going to work).

gungo wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
What's wrong with the AoS app? It works fine for me.

It's often buggy and sometimes gets things wrong, and can be slow to update.

I have to figure it’s not going to have points either since why sell a $40 point update book... which should have been free with the app.

I highly doubt the points will be "free". The list builder portion of the app for AoS has a nominal monthly fee(~$1.50USD) to access list building and points.

 Albertorius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 Togusa 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.

+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++

Erm, no. The way we usually do there's not way for that bug to happen. With 1+ Armor, AP -1 changes it to 2+, AP -2 to 3+ and so on and so forth, and when Armor goes down to 7+ it no longer has an armor save, easy peasy. It will never be anything remotely similar to 2++ save.

Except that is incorrect. If you or anyone in your group plays anyone who uses the rules for 40k for their games, the bug will still be there. In the rules, AP modifies the ROLL; in the way you've spelled it out AP modifies the CHARACTERISTIC.

The way your method works breaks down in a different place. What happens if you fire a grav weapon at a 3+ save model? The AP on grav modifies the 3+ save to a 6+ save so technically it wouldn't do d3 damage because it's not hitting a 3+ save anymore.

Unless you just plan on playing the rule completely differently every time it comes up.

Hey there, can someone briefly explain that "1+ save"-discussion to me, because I really don't get what all the commotion is about...

-Technically you can have a 1+ save or even better (i.e. Terminator getting his armor improved by 1)
-The reason for AP to exist is to modify the save and is calculated against save-improvements
-Dice rolls of 1 always fail

So you can have a 1+ but still save on 2+... the improvement only gives you an advantage, when something other than AP 0 is shooting at you. This is my understanding of 40k as I played it up to this day and a summary of single facts that have already been posted on previous pages. So where is the problem?

 Albertorius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 Togusa 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.

+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++

Erm, no. The way we usually do there's not way for that bug to happen. With 1+ Armor, AP -1 changes it to 2+, AP -2 to 3+ and so on and so forth, and when Armor goes down to 7+ it no longer has an armor save, easy peasy. It will never be anything remotely similar to 2++ save.

Because that isn't how AP affects saves.
Both 8th AND 9th tell you to subtract AP from the roll, not the save characteristic. (So did WHFB, for that matter)

There isn't any change in difficulty, its still simple subtraction. Though a die roll produces a real number (an integer), which 3+ or 2+ is not (its notation, not a mathematical value). One you can apply a mathematical operation to, the other you can't.

Just drop the arguing over the save thing. GW has said they know it exists and have an answer coming. Going round and round the mulberry bush doesn't solve anything right now.

Pyrosphere wrote:
Hey there, can someone briefly explain that "1+ save"-discussion to me, because I really don't get what all the commotion is about...

-Technically you can have a 1+ save or even better (i.e. Terminator getting his armor improved by 1)
-The reason for AP to exist is to modify the save and is calculated against save-improvements
-Dice rolls of 1 always fail

So you can have a 1+ but still save on 2+... the improvement only gives you an advantage, when something other than AP 0 is shooting at you. This is my understanding of 40k as I played it up to this day and a summary of single facts that have already been posted on previous pages. So where is the problem?

Only an unmodified 1 will fail, the ap on a gun is applied to the save roll, a roll of 2 against an ap -3 weapon would be -1. -1 can't happen and gets turned into a 1, this is a modified 1 and therefore passes on the 1+ save.

Voss wrote:
Because that isn't how AP affects saves.
Both 8th AND 9th tell you to subtract AP from the roll, not the save characteristic. (So did WHFB, for that matter)

There isn't any change in difficulty, its still simple subtraction. Though a die roll produces a real number (an integer), which 3+ or 2+ is not (its notation, not a mathematical value). One you can apply a mathematical operation to, the other you can't.

WHFB's saves worked as 2nd edition's 40k. Which is exactly how I've shown above. It was kind of elegant, really... armor bonuses added to the armor save up to 1+, armor penalties subtracted from the armor save down to not having one; the die roll was never touched at all and a 1 was always a miss.

If they have changed it for 8th, well... that's why now it's a problem.

 Albertorius wrote:

Voss wrote:
Because that isn't how AP affects saves.
Both 8th AND 9th tell you to subtract AP from the roll, not the save characteristic. (So did WHFB, for that matter)

There isn't any change in difficulty, its still simple subtraction. Though a die roll produces a real number (an integer), which 3+ or 2+ is not (its notation, not a mathematical value). One you can apply a mathematical operation to, the other you can't.

WHFB's saves worked as 2nd edition's 40k. Which is exactly how I've shown above. It was kind of elegant, really... armor bonuses added to the armor save up to 1+, armor penalties subtracted from the armor save down to not having one; the die roll was never touched at all and a 1 was always a miss.

If they have changed it for 8th, well... that's why now it's a problem.

They didn't "change it for 8th", they put in a different system just like 3rd-7th did. Note that they were specifically call "Save Modifiers" in WHFB and 40K 2nd and not "AP" or "Rend". Armour Penetration in 2nd ed 40K was specifically for getting through Vehicle armour.

Pyrosphere wrote:
Hey there, can someone briefly explain that "1+ save"-discussion to me, because I really don't get what all the commotion is about...

-Technically you can have a 1+ save or even better (i.e. Terminator getting his armor improved by 1)
-The reason for AP to exist is to modify the save and is calculated against save-improvements
-Dice rolls of 1 always fail

So you can have a 1+ but still save on 2+... the improvement only gives you an advantage, when something other than AP 0 is shooting at you. This is my understanding of 40k as I played it up to this day and a summary of single facts that have already been posted on previous pages. So where is the problem?

Modifiers are applied to the roll of the dice, not the save characteristic.

Take AP -1 firing at 3+ save. The saving roll is a 3, the 3 is then modified by the AP, in this case -1, so the final result is 2. 2 is less than the save value, so the save is failed.

So if a model has Sv 1+ and is shot by a weapon with AP -1 and the they roll a 2, apply the -1 modifier and the result is 1. This is not less than the save characteristic so the save is passed.

Now a weapon with AP-4 fires at the model with SV 1+, the save roll is 2 we apply the modifier and the final result is 1 (because the rules say that a dice roll can’t be modified to be less than 1). So the save passes.

Same with AP -10, a save roll of 2 or higher still passes because the result can only be modified to 1, which for a 1+ save is still a successful saving throw.

The only way to beat a 1+ save is if the dice roll is a natural 1, because the rules say that a natural 1 always fails.

Basically it’s a result of these 3 factors in combination:

- AP modifies the dice roll, not the save characteristic
- modifiers can’t make a dice roll less than 1
- a natural 1 always fails.

 Albertorius wrote:

If they have changed it for 8th, well... that's why now it's a problem.

this is the point, they changed it to work differently which leads to the question why they did it that way if those special cases for a 2++ was not intended

as you don't change a system that works perfectly well in all cases to something different, if the flaw of the new system is an intended feature

I'm glad internet people is not real and no human being would play the 2++ even if GW doesnt faq it.

ETC/WTC has allready said they are gonna do it in their own tournament ruleset so NP for my part.

What most people doesn't tell when they put down the Bastiladon example is that , that model literally ignored rend, so thats how they did it to allow it to ignore rend until it becomes damaged and then it loses that property to balance it.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

Voss wrote:
Because that isn't how AP affects saves.
Both 8th AND 9th tell you to subtract AP from the roll, not the save characteristic. (So did WHFB, for that matter)

There isn't any change in difficulty, its still simple subtraction. Though a die roll produces a real number (an integer), which 3+ or 2+ is not (its notation, not a mathematical value). One you can apply a mathematical operation to, the other you can't.

WHFB's saves worked as 2nd edition's 40k. Which is exactly how I've shown above. It was kind of elegant, really... armor bonuses added to the armor save up to 1+, armor penalties subtracted from the armor save down to not having one; the die roll was never touched at all and a 1 was always a miss.

If they have changed it for 8th, well... that's why now it's a problem.

They didn't "change it for 8th", they put in a different system just like 3rd-7th did. Note that they were specifically call "Save Modifiers" in WHFB and 40K 2nd and not "AP" or "Rend". Armour Penetration in 2nd ed 40K was specifically for getting through Vehicle armour.

I meant from the way it worked in other, previous versions of their games, where they used the exact same process for armor saves, but OK, my bad, I'm using the exact terminology wrong. Save Modifier, not AP, even if it was functionally the same and the actual name of the modifier has no bear on its application. Happy? feth, it was even in the fething name.

Still, the point remains. The way Save Modifiers worked on previous iteration of the Save rule, from previous editions of the game, worked with the same constraints and used very, very similar values, even. But didn't have a "1+ save is effectively a 2++ save" flaw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aash wrote:
Modifiers are applied to the roll of the dice, not the save characteristic.

Well, only if it's a negative one. Positive ones are added to the save, so... That's what I don't understand. Back in the day you used all the modifiers on the save, and it worked, no issues.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

Voss wrote:
Because that isn't how AP affects saves.
Both 8th AND 9th tell you to subtract AP from the roll, not the save characteristic. (So did WHFB, for that matter)

There isn't any change in difficulty, its still simple subtraction. Though a die roll produces a real number (an integer), which 3+ or 2+ is not (its notation, not a mathematical value). One you can apply a mathematical operation to, the other you can't.

WHFB's saves worked as 2nd edition's 40k. Which is exactly how I've shown above. It was kind of elegant, really... armor bonuses added to the armor save up to 1+, armor penalties subtracted from the armor save down to not having one; the die roll was never touched at all and a 1 was always a miss.

If they have changed it for 8th, well... that's why now it's a problem.

They didn't "change it for 8th", they put in a different system just like 3rd-7th did. Note that they were specifically call "Save Modifiers" in WHFB and 40K 2nd and not "AP" or "Rend". Armour Penetration in 2nd ed 40K was specifically for getting through Vehicle armour.

I meant from the way it worked in other, previous versions of their games, where they used the exact same process for armor saves, but OK, my bad, I'm using the exact terminology wrong. Save Modifier, not AP, even if it was functionally the same and the actual name of the modifier has no bear on its application. Happy? feth, it was even in the fething name.

Still, the point remains. The way Save Modifiers worked on previous iteration of the Save rule, from previous editions of the game, worked with the same constraints and used very, very similar values, even. But didn't have a "1+ save is effectively a 2++ save" flaw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aash wrote:
Modifiers are applied to the roll of the dice, not the save characteristic.

Well, only if it's a negative one. Positive ones are added to the save, so... That's what I don't understand. Back in the day you used all the modifiers on the save, and it worked, no issues.

It's important because AP has never worked the same as Save Modifiers. The first AP system gave you up to which save you ignore outright, it didn't modify anything. This one modifies a roll. You can't say "this is how it worked previously, because it didn't, a different mechanic(Save Modifiers) did.

What you don't understand is that one(Stormshields) specifically says to modify the Save Characteristic while the other(AP) specifically says to modify the roll. Those are two different rule mechanics with no relation to how a different mechanic in the past worked.

Is CA 2020 getting dropped at launch alongside the rulebook?

 Argive wrote:
Is CA 2020 getting dropped at launch alongside the rulebook?

Yes.

 Argive wrote:
Is CA 2020 getting dropped at launch alongside the rulebook?

Yes it is, as well as some paints and other goodies.

 Platuan4th wrote:
It's important because AP has never worked the same as Save Modifiers. The first AP system gave you up to which save you ignore outright, it didn't modify anything. This one modifies a roll. You can't say "this is how it worked previously, because it didn't, a different mechanic(Save Modifiers) did.

What you don't understand is that one(Stormshields) specifically says to modify the Save Characteristic while the other(AP) specifically says to modify the roll. Those are two different rule mechanics.

So, we get back to the first point: they "fixed" something that was already working correctly, and now it's broken. Weeeee.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
It's important because AP has never worked the same as Save Modifiers. The first AP system gave you up to which save you ignore outright, it didn't modify anything. This one modifies a roll. You can't say "this is how it worked previously, because it didn't, a different mechanic(Save Modifiers) did.

What you don't understand is that one(Stormshields) specifically says to modify the Save Characteristic while the other(AP) specifically says to modify the roll. Those are two different rule mechanics.

So, we get back to the first point: they "fixed" something that was already working correctly, and now it's broken. Weeeee.

No, they didn't. There were vast amounts of arguments of the previous AP system, too. 40K hasn't used Save Modifiers in over 20 years, stop comparing the two.

Aash wrote:

Pyrosphere wrote:
Hey there, can someone briefly explain that "1+ save"-discussion to me, because I really don't get what all the commotion is about...

-Technically you can have a 1+ save or even better (i.e. Terminator getting his armor improved by 1)
-The reason for AP to exist is to modify the save and is calculated against save-improvements
-Dice rolls of 1 always fail

So you can have a 1+ but still save on 2+... the improvement only gives you an advantage, when something other than AP 0 is shooting at you. This is my understanding of 40k as I played it up to this day and a summary of single facts that have already been posted on previous pages. So where is the problem?

Modifiers are applied to the roll of the dice, not the save characteristic.

Take AP -1 firing at 3+ save. The saving roll is a 3, the 3 is then modified by the AP, in this case -1, so the final result is 2. 2 is less than the save value, so the save is failed.

So if a model has Sv 1+ and is shot by a weapon with AP -1 and the they roll a 2, apply the -1 modifier and the result is 1. This is not less than the save characteristic so the save is passed.

Now a weapon with AP-4 fires at the model with SV 1+, the save roll is 2 we apply the modifier and the final result is 1 (because the rules say that a dice roll can’t be modified to be less than 1). So the save passes.

Same with AP -10, a save roll of 2 or higher still passes because the result can only be modified to 1, which for a 1+ save is still a successful saving throw.

The only way to beat a 1+ save is if the dice roll is a natural 1, because the rules say that a natural 1 always fails.

Basically it’s a result of these 3 factors in combination:

- AP modifies the dice roll, not the save characteristic
- modifiers can’t make a dice roll less than 1
- a natural 1 always fails.

Thanks for the explanation.!
In my group, we calculate in the opposite direction (mathematically ignoring the "minus" in the AP and explaining it that way, that it "weakens" the armor) So every point in AP raises the armor save by 1, meaning AP-1 on a 2+ save requires to roll a 3+ to pass. AP-2 on a 3+ save requires a 5+. And if you reach a calculated 7+ it ends in having no save at all.
With the exception of "ignoring" the "minus" I find this far more intuitive tbh... because it means you just have to look at the results rather than recalculating every single roll.

 Galas wrote:
I'm glad internet people is not real and no human being would play the 2++ even if GW doesnt faq it.

mean like everyone used to play that a whole squad could use grenades instead of just 1 per unit until GW explicit FAQed it and a rule that no human being what play the way it was written became real
and the same thing will happen fpr wound allocation too

you can already call this the House-Rule Edition as everyone will find a rule that they don't like and just change it because GW can't be that supid and really mean it, and will still ignore it even if GW say otherwise

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
It's important because AP has never worked the same as Save Modifiers. The first AP system gave you up to which save you ignore outright, it didn't modify anything. This one modifies a roll. You can't say "this is how it worked previously, because it didn't, a different mechanic(Save Modifiers) did.

What you don't understand is that one(Stormshields) specifically says to modify the Save Characteristic while the other(AP) specifically says to modify the roll. Those are two different rule mechanics.

So, we get back to the first point: they "fixed" something that was already working correctly, and now it's broken. Weeeee.

No, they didn't. There were vast amounts of arguments of the previous AP system, too. 40K hasn't used Save Modifiers in over 20 years, stop comparing the two.

OK. What have they fixed from that ancient system with this new one that needed applying the mod to the die roll instead of the save?

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
It's important because AP has never worked the same as Save Modifiers. The first AP system gave you up to which save you ignore outright, it didn't modify anything. This one modifies a roll. You can't say "this is how it worked previously, because it didn't, a different mechanic(Save Modifiers) did.

What you don't understand is that one(Stormshields) specifically says to modify the Save Characteristic while the other(AP) specifically says to modify the roll. Those are two different rule mechanics.

So, we get back to the first point: they "fixed" something that was already working correctly, and now it's broken. Weeeee.

No, they didn't. There were vast amounts of arguments of the previous AP system, too. 40K hasn't used Save Modifiers in over 20 years, stop comparing the two.

OK. What have they fixed from that ancient system with this new one that needed applying the mod to the die roll instead of the save?

Try reading what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote and you'll see I didn't say anything about "fixing" the Save Modifiers. I said there were argument with the previous AP system and a different statement that you need to stop conflating AP and Save Modifiers. There's zero reason for 40K to do anything about a system that stopped applying to 40K in the 90's.