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.

Platuan4th wrote:

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

Yes.

Sasori wrote:

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

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

Think I only got like 3 games with my old CA.... Great.

 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.

Nope. Regardless of how you did it, and how you believed it worked, this is how it works this edition and last edition- AP and save modifiers changed the die roll. Same with 8th edition fantasy. The difference is that previously a 1 always failed, whether it was modified or not. This says only that unmodified 1 always fails, in all other cases the roll needs to be less than the save characteristic, which isn't possible with 1+.

Ice_can wrote:

 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?

No, GW just knows there are enough white knights out there who will forgive anything GW says or does and still fork down ever more money for their stuff even though and I quote " we dont care about editing/ proof reading b/c there are 10s of thousands of people out there who will edit it for us and we will just write another book that fixes it and charge you guys for it."

It's a great business model, shut up and like and buy our stuff or 'you will not be missed'.

 Platuan4th wrote:
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.

Try answering to what I asked instead of moving the goalposts. I said "OK" and I asked a question. What's the net gain, given that it has created a situation like the one being discussed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss 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.

Nope. Regardless of how you did it, and how you believed it worked, this is how it works this edition and last edition- AP and save modifiers changed the die roll. Same with 8th edition fantasy. The difference is that previously a 1 always failed, whether it was modified or not. This says only that unmodified 1 always fails, in all other cases the roll needs to be less than the save characteristic, which isn't possible with 1+.

Does it say anywhere that a die roll can't go below 1? I haven't been able to locate it in the rules. EDIT: Ah, yeah, nevermind, there it was.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
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.

Try answering to what I asked instead of moving the goalposts. I said "OK" and I asked a question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss 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.

Nope. Regardless of how you did it, and how you believed it worked, this is how it works this edition and last edition- AP and save modifiers changed the die roll. Same with 8th edition fantasy. The difference is that previously a 1 always failed, whether it was modified or not. This says only that unmodified 1 always fails, in all other cases the roll needs to be less than the save characteristic, which isn't possible with 1+.

Does it say anywhere that a die roll can't go below 1? I haven't been able to locate it in the rules.

I didn't move any goal posts. What you asked is irrelevant to the conversation because it's not something that's been relevant to 40K for over 20 years, hence my second statement pointing out that you're conflating two different rules mechanics.

Pg. 5 Under Dice states rolls can never be less than 1.

 Platuan4th wrote:
I didn't move any goal posts. What you asked is irrelevant to the conversation because it's not something that's been relevant to 40K for over 20 years, Hence my second statement.

Pg. 5 Under Dice states rolls can never be less than 1.

Yeah, saw it. Once again, what's the net gain, given that it causes the discussed flaw?

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I'm just wondering if they guy contracted to make the app gave an unrealistic time frame to launch and is now pounding monsters and having panic attacks because the app is buggy and doesn't do half of what was promised. So GW is just quietly not giving more info in case they have to bail on the launch. Because I feel like the app should have more hype to it, its kind of a big deal.

I'm having PTSD now!
(Well not really but I mean we have a similar thing happen at work lol)

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
I didn't move any goal posts. What you asked is irrelevant to the conversation because it's not something that's been relevant to 40K for over 20 years, Hence my second statement.

Pg. 5 Under Dice states rolls can never be less than 1.

Yeah, saw it. Once again, what's the net gain, given that it causes the discussed flaw?

Why are you convinced there's a net gain? I even pointed out that they didn't "fix" anything.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
I didn't move any goal posts. What you asked is irrelevant to the conversation because it's not something that's been relevant to 40K for over 20 years, Hence my second statement.

Pg. 5 Under Dice states rolls can never be less than 1.

Yeah, saw it. Once again, what's the net gain, given that it causes the discussed flaw?

Why are you convinced there's a net gain?

I don't see why you would decide to do it if there wasn't, given that it adds points of error.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
I didn't move any goal posts. What you asked is irrelevant to the conversation because it's not something that's been relevant to 40K for over 20 years, Hence my second statement.

Pg. 5 Under Dice states rolls can never be less than 1.

Yeah, saw it. Once again, what's the net gain, given that it causes the discussed flaw?

Why are you convinced there's a net gain?

I don't see why you would decide to do it if there wasn't, given that it adds points of error.

Because the previous "APX ignores Saves of X+ or lower" isn't what they wanted for 8th. They didn't change a mechanic, they simply put in a different one with the same name which also happens to be a different mechanic from a slighty similar but different one with a different name.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
I didn't move any goal posts. What you asked is irrelevant to the conversation because it's not something that's been relevant to 40K for over 20 years, Hence my second statement.

Pg. 5 Under Dice states rolls can never be less than 1.

Yeah, saw it. Once again, what's the net gain, given that it causes the discussed flaw?

Why are you convinced there's a net gain?

I don't see why you would decide to do it if there wasn't, given that it adds points of error.

Because the previous "APX ignores Saves of X+ or lower" isn't what they wanted for 8th.

I mean why they did decide to use the modifier on the die roll instead of the save, don't be coy, that's what we were discussing. If earlier editions are to be dismissed as it is a whole new system it doesn't really matter if its the previous or the first.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
I didn't move any goal posts. What you asked is irrelevant to the conversation because it's not something that's been relevant to 40K for over 20 years, Hence my second statement.

Pg. 5 Under Dice states rolls can never be less than 1.

Yeah, saw it. Once again, what's the net gain, given that it causes the discussed flaw?

Why are you convinced there's a net gain?

I don't see why you would decide to do it if there wasn't, given that it adds points of error.

Because the previous "APX ignores Saves of X+ or lower" isn't what they wanted for 8th.

I mean why they did decide to use the modifier on the die roll instead of the save, don't be coy, that's what we were discussing. If earlier editions are to be dismissed as it is a whole new system it doesn't really matter if its the previous or the first.

Because they did? If you want a better answer, ask the studio why they wanted it that way. You're asking intent behind the rules to the wrong people.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Because they did? If you want a better answer, ask the studio why they wanted it that way.

I was asking if there was any net gain, not intent, but alright then, thanks for your time.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Because they did? If you want a better answer, ask the studio why they wanted it that way.

I was asking if there was any net gain, not intent, but alright then, thanks for your time.

And again, I'll ask why you assume there was net gain or an intent for such? Change doesn't have to have "net gains" at it's core reasoning, change for change's sake happens all the time, especially with GW. They used a different system because that's what they wanted to do.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Because they did? If you want a better answer, ask the studio why they wanted it that way.

I was asking if there was any net gain, not intent, but alright then, thanks for your time.

And again, I'll ask why you assume there was net gain or an intent for such? Change doesn't have to have "net gains" at it's core reasoning, change for change's sake happens all the time, especially with GW. They used a different system because that's what they wanted to do.

I guess I could answer once again, but I already did, so, once again, thanks for your time.

"We’ve re-engineered Chapter Approved this year to be purely about matched play, giving you a host of new content for Grand Tournaments, as well as new missions Incursion and Strike Force engagements."

I wonder why they went down this route, especially as they've just introduced Crusade, for which CA would be a perfect platform to expand that style of play.

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

It's the same thing. You roll anything but a 1, you save.

I'll bite. Which of these is easier to explain?

A) Model has a X+ Save, which is made on a d6. Weapon AP, expressed as -Y, which reduces the Save roll, which is then compared to the unit's save to see if the save was passed. So if the result of d6-Y = X or higher, the save is passed. Example: If you have a 3+ Save and are hit by an AP -2 attack, a roll of 5-2 = 3, which is a successful save.

B) Model has an X+ Save, which is made on a d6. Weapon as, expressed as -Y, increases X by the inverse of it's value to determine the save you need to roll. You then roll a d6 and compare to the adjusted Save value to see if the save is passed. Example: If you have a 3+ Save and are hit by an AP -2 attack, you adjust the Save up the inverse -2, so up 2. Thus 3 + (--2) = 5 giving an adjusted 5+ Save. If you roll a 5 on the d6, you pass the save.

Who cares which is easier to explain?

You cannot modify a roll below 1. If you roll a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 you can subtract 1 or 1000 from it, it still never goes below 1.

A natural 1 fails, anything else is reduced to 1, and the save is 1+, therefore it saves. As I said, it's not brain science.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"We’ve re-engineered Chapter Approved this year to be purely about matched play, giving you a host of new content for Grand Tournaments, as well as new missions Incursion and Strike Force engagements."

I wonder why they went down this route, especially as they've just introduced Crusade, for which CA would be a perfect platform to expand that style of play.

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

It's the same thing. You roll anything but a 1, you save.

They have separated the narrative and campaing based rules from the competitive play ones so competitive players don't have to buy some unbalanced narrative crap that had 0 thought put onto it with their balance changes.

 Galas wrote:
They have separated the narrative and campaing based rules from the competitive play ones so competitive players don't have to buy some unbalanced narrative crap that had 0 thought put onto it with their balance changes.

Except both are in the rulebook... ? And all future Codices will have Crusade sections?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"We’ve re-engineered Chapter Approved this year to be purely about matched play, giving you a host of new content for Grand Tournaments, as well as new missions Incursion and Strike Force engagements."

I wonder why they went down this route, especially as they've just introduced Crusade, for which CA would be a perfect platform to expand that style of play.

Probably because they don't need a new narrative thing yet. Also, they can release 2 books now, a narrative one, and a matched one. Better profits and also better for consumers who dont want both.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Galas wrote:
They have separated the narrative and campaing based rules from the competitive play ones so competitive players don't have to buy some unbalanced narrative crap that had 0 thought put onto it with their balance changes.

Except both are in the rulebook... ? And all future Codices will have Crusade sections?

Just like Age of Sigmar Battletomes have path to glory tables. No human being uses that. Only people from UK.

This was the picture we used to explain the Bastilidon's save of 1+ in AoS. Just replace the word Rend with AP.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"We’ve re-engineered Chapter Approved this year to be purely about matched play, giving you a host of new content for Grand Tournaments, as well as new missions Incursion and Strike Force engagements."

I wonder why they went down this route, especially as they've just introduced Crusade, for which CA would be a perfect platform to expand that style of play.

My guess is the big push will be to put Crusade in the codexes first, then worry about adding on new Crusade missions and the like later.

So you need the new rulebook, which has no points for anything, and then buy another book that has all the new points for everything.

It warms my heart to know GW hasn't lost their touch with business world and how to maximize profit.

 TalonZahn wrote:
So you need the new rulebook, which has no points for anything, and then buy another book that has all the new points for everything.

It warms my heart to know GW hasn't lost their touch with business world and how to maximize profit.

Or you just buy the Rulebook, skip the $40 Chapter Approved, and pay your nominal monthly fee for the list builder to get the points.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 TalonZahn wrote:
So you need the new rulebook, which has no points for anything, and then buy another book that has all the new points for everything.

It warms my heart to know GW hasn't lost their touch with business world and how to maximize profit.

Or you just buy the Rulebook, skip the $40 Chapter Approved, and pay your nominal monthly fee for the list builder to get the points.

Or just use PL and play Crusade and not have to pay for either the app or CA.

Food sucks but there's not enough to eat.

Typical complaints 328 pages into this.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 TalonZahn wrote:
So you need the new rulebook, which has no points for anything, and then buy another book that has all the new points for everything.

It warms my heart to know GW hasn't lost their touch with business world and how to maximize profit.

Or you just buy the Rulebook, skip the $40 Chapter Approved, and pay your nominal monthly fee for the list builder to get the points.

Or just use PL and play Crusade and not have to pay for either the app or CA.

Or battlescribe like every one?

Without having to search through this thread, did someone say the new app costs $$$?