40k 9th edition, : App released page 413

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.

**General Kroll**

How many more pages of this storm shield discussion is there going to be? It’s getting VERY repetitive.

**Unusual Suspect**

General Kroll wrote:
How many more pages of this storm shield discussion is there going to be? It’s getting VERY repetitive.

Storm Shield discussions with a native rumor 2+ continuation save end up being entirely immune to all self-moderation in contributor behavior penalties, only failing on a Natural Mod roll.

Gork (and possibly Mork) help us all if we end up with a Day 1 FAQ reroll.

**Stormonu**

Darsath wrote:
godswildcard wrote:
Soooo, I’m genuinely confused on the armor save discussion. The way I read the rule seems pretty clear, but maybe I’m missing something? I read it like this

-AP modifies the dice result

-By definition, a saving throw that has not yet been modified is unmodified

-An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails

-A failed save results in damage suffered

-Thus, if you roll an armor save on a model with a 1+ save and roll a 1, the save is failed and no modifiers are applied. Apply damage.

-if the roll is greater than 1, proceed to step two and modify the dice roll. If after step two there are more failures to the armor save, resolve those by applying damage.

What am I missing?

The last stage. A dice cannot be modified to below a roll of a 1. So, a weapon with, say, an AP of -4 (say a meltagun) fires at a Terminator unit with Stormshields (Hence a 1+ armour save), chooses to roll Armour saves and roll a 3. Apply the Ap of -4 to that roll, drops it to a 1 (since minimum of 1 for rolls). You compare the final result to the save Characteristic, Did the final result equal of exceed the Save Characteristic? In this case the roll of a 1 IS equal to the save characteristic and so has passed their save. A roll of a 2 would be the same.

Very fast-moving discussion lately, no wonder I missed all this.

Okay, so I'm following now, but the armor save itself - wouldn't the +1 Armor save also then modify the roll, not the armor value? Thus, the Terminator would have a 2+ save, but a +1 to the roll (for the shield), and then a -4 to the roll (for AP) hence an overall -3 to save on a 2+ armor? If that's not the case, can someone point out in the new rules where the armor save, not the roll is directly affected?

**Trickstick**

General Kroll wrote:
How many more pages of this storm shield discussion is there going to be? It’s getting VERY repetitive.

It's the news and rumour thread just before release, people are going to go round and round on things until new info comes out. I like to view it as a release valve, people need a place to vent.

**Voss**

jivardi wrote:
godswildcard wrote:
Soooo, I’m genuinely confused on the armor save discussion. The way I read the rule seems pretty clear, but maybe I’m missing something? I read it like this

-AP modifies the dice result

-By definition, a saving throw that has not yet been modified is unmodified

-An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails

-A failed save results in damage suffered

-Thus, if you roll an armor save on a model with a 1+ save and roll a 1, the save is failed and no modifiers are applied. Apply damage.

-if the roll is greater than 1, proceed to step two and modify the dice roll. If after step two there are more failures to the armor save, resolve those by applying damage.

What am I missing?

The confusion comes from the camp of people saying 2++ save exists and another camp saying it doesn't.

Nope. There is zero confusion. Some folks just don't like it.
An unmodified 1 always fails, and otherwise a save roll has to be less than the save characteristic to fail. But a result can't be modified below 1, so 1+ always succeeds except on a natural 1.

The rule itself is unambiguous and isn't actually a change from 8th edition. Its just that a lot of people never encountered the combos that allowed it in 8th.
For 9th, GW introduced a new 1+ save combo right in the Crusade rules, and people are concerned that custodes and terminators will get the new primaris stormshield rules, which would provide a lot of 1+ saves to Marines and Custards... if and when their datasheets change.

**Eldarain**

@ Stormonu the new shield mods the characteristic not the roll. We do have a thread in the 40k rules forum for all this though.

**Unusual Suspect**

Stormonu wrote:

Very fast-moving discussion lately, no wonder I missed all this.

Okay, so I'm following now, but the armor save itself - wouldn't the +1 Armor save also then modify the roll, not the armor value? Thus, the Terminator would have a 2+ save, but a +1 to the roll (for the shield), and then a -4 to the roll (for AP) hence an overall -3 to save on a 2+ armor? If that's not the case, can someone point out in the new rules where the armor save, not the roll is directly affected?

Linked here you will find the datasheet for one of the new units with one of the new Shields. In this case, it is a Relic shield, but you can easily find Storm Shields on a different leaked datasheet with the exact same wording (regarding the armor save increase, at least). The wording is VERY explicit.

Edit: Also, the linked datasheet is more relevant to Day 1 of 9th edition, since they're Space Marine characters, with all the potential relic choices that goes along with it. That character, and The new Lt Primaris, both have that Relic Shield and both have access to Relics.

Effectively 2++, 4++ if they have armor-but-not-invuln-save ignoring special properties (and not just high AP), 4+++ against Mortal Wounds). There's hard, and there's HARD.

**Daedalus81**

Ordana wrote:
To be fair most horde armies run units bigger then 10 so it goes strait to max shots.
Which does wreck hordes real bad.

3 WWs v Cultists

Prior:

21 * .666 * .833 * .833 = ~10
Morale : 13 - 6 = 7

17 dead
68 points for 240 points spent; 28% return

Now:

36 * .666 * .833 * .833 = ~17
Morale: 83% fail; 1 model plus 4

22 dead
132 points for 375 points; 35% return

So Blast weapons are presumably 25% more efficient against hordes (based on the limited info we have and a favorable morale test for old morale) than previous even with a points increase, but here's the kicker - how efficient are they without hordes on the table?

I get that people can point BCs at hordes, but do they have no vehicles to shoot? A BC kills 5.8 unprotected cultists up from 2.9 - realistically it would be 3.9 up from 1.9. Is this "wrecking them real bad"?

**Ice_can**

You mean there is Marines Broken and then New Primaris Marines Broken.

They are like Marines but more broken for less points.

But aslong as you count Yellow Marines, Green Marines, Red Marines, White Marines, Blue Marines, Black Marines, other black Marines, other Black Marines and Grey marines all as different factions then yeah it's all balanced we had 9 factions in the top 10 places.

**EnTyme**

Trickstick wrote:
General Kroll wrote:
How many more pages of this storm shield discussion is there going to be? It’s getting VERY repetitive.

It's the news and rumour thread just before release, people are going to go round and round on things until new info comes out. I like to view it as a release valve, people need a place to vent.

And not a single bit of new information has been brought into the discussion in 20 pages. Maybe it's time to let it rest until we actually see a unit capable to getting a 1+ armor save in a matched play list.

**Ice_can**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Ordana wrote:
To be fair most horde armies run units bigger then 10 so it goes strait to max shots.
Which does wreck hordes real bad.

3 WWs v Cultists

Prior:

21 * .666 * .833 * .833 = ~10
Morale : 13 - 6 = 7

17 dead
68 points for 240 points spent; 28% return

Now:

36 * .666 * .833 * .833 = ~17
Morale: 83% fail; 1 model plus 4

22 dead
132 points for 375 points; 35% return

So Blast weapons are presumably 25% more efficient against hordes (based on the limited info we have and a favorable morale test for old morale) than previous even with a points increase, but here's the kicker - how efficient are they without hordes on the table?

I get that people can point BCs at hordes, but do they have no vehicles to shoot? A BC kills 5.8 unprotected cultists up from 2.9 - realistically it would be 3.9 up from 1.9. Is this "wrecking them real bad"?

More likely Guard now with doubel shooting Wyverns etc and all the double shooting russes they were taking any way

**Tyran**

MSU Horde is likely going to be a thing, Like for example take a Tyranid Brigade and fill it with 120 termagants and 50 gargoyles in 10 weapon-beast strong broods.

**Ice_can**

EnTyme wrote:
Trickstick wrote:
General Kroll wrote:
How many more pages of this storm shield discussion is there going to be? It’s getting VERY repetitive.

It's the news and rumour thread just before release, people are going to go round and round on things until new info comes out. I like to view it as a release valve, people need a place to vent.

And not a single new bit of new information has been brought into the discussion in 20 pages. Maybe it's time to let it rest until we actually see a unit capable to getting a 1+ armor save in a matched play list.

Take LT, Captain give them Arrificer Armour Special issue wargear 2+, improved to a 1+ Armour save.

Seriously if people want to talk about this go to YMDC all the info on how to do it is in there.

**BorderCountess**

Trickstick wrote:
General Kroll wrote:
How many more pages of this storm shield discussion is there going to be? It’s getting VERY repetitive.

...people need a place to vent.

It's called the 'You Make Da Call' section of the forum.

I'm sure those of us who actually are looking for News and/or Rumors would appreciate not having this thread cluttered for another 20 pages of the same argument - especially since the mods have already requested it be ceased here.

**Unusual Suspect**

EnTyme wrote:
Trickstick wrote:
General Kroll wrote:
How many more pages of this storm shield discussion is there going to be? It’s getting VERY repetitive.

It's the news and rumour thread just before release, people are going to go round and round on things until new info comes out. I like to view it as a release valve, people need a place to vent.

And not a single new bit of new information has been brought into the discussion in 20 pages. Maybe it's time to let it rest until we actually see a unit capable to getting a 1+ armor save in a matched play list.

I linked one a few steps up thread. Assuming there's at least one Space Marine relic that grants 2+ armor (AFAIK there's two, one generic and one linked to Ultramarines), the new Primaris Captain (and Primaris Lieutenant, not linked) will be able to have a 1+ armor save on Day 1 of release, unless there's an errata that changes something (or the new Primaris Captain can't get a relic... heh).

**EnTyme**

Does the new Primaris Captain or Lieutenant have access to those relics?

**Ice_can**

EnTyme wrote:
Does the new Primaris Captain or Lieutenant have access to those relics?

Unless their is going to be a weird day 1 FAQ saying a charcitor in an army can nkt be given a relic from the codex any charictor can be given yes they can.

**BaconCatBug**

EnTyme wrote:
Does the new Primaris Captain or Lieutenant have access to those relics?

Yes? The Armour Indomitus is restricted to INFANTRY and BIKER CHARACTERS, while Artificer Armour can be given to any non-VEHICLE (as per the rules for Relics) CHARACTER.

The Primaris Lieutenant is an INFANTRY CHARACTER.

To quote my post in YMDC:

BaconCatBug wrote:
So, just to point out something someone mentioned in the N&R thread.

Forgetting hypothetical terminators, forgetting Narrative Crusade malarky, this 1+ Sv "issue" is not a hypothetical, it's an actual, matched play situation.
The Primaris Lieutenant, the model causing this brouhaha in the first place, has access to two different relics from Codex: Space Marines and it's respective Codex Supplements: The Armour Indomitus and Artificer Armour.

Both of these relics, among other things, grants the bearer "a Save characteristic of 2+".

Therefore, a Primaris Lieutenant from the Indomius boxset with either The Armour Indomitus (good naming GW, no confusion here) or Artificer Armour, will have a Save characteristic of 1+, thus this "issue" occurs, and does so in matched play and, to be honest, is not going to be uncommon.

In any case, given that both the RaW for 8th and 9th edition and RaI for 8th edition (as proven by both the AOS and Dark Eldar FAQs) support the fact that this model will effectively ignore all AP, the only solution is to either FAQ this as intended (just to keep people from screeching about it) or implement some form of errata.

Given that the Crusade rules explicitly mention a 1+ Sv, I cannot see them adding a base rule cap on Sv to 2+. Either the Storm Shield itself will have the cap added to it, or the Storm Shield will instead grant +1 to save rolls rather than improving the characteristic. Or they might just leave it and allow Terminators to have 2++ saves. It's not like Terminators don't need the help.

**EnTyme**

I don't play Space Marines. That's why I asked whether or not he had access.

**xeen**

I concur. The 1+ save thing needs to move elsewhere. I keep coming back looking for points leaks and it is 10 pages of 1+ discussion.

**jeff white**

ClockworkZion wrote:
oni wrote:
Might we see a return to a Terminator armor saves at 3+ on 2D6?

Not likely. GW is trying to speed the game up, not slow it down.

How does this slow anything down?

**Trickstick**

jeff white wrote:
How does this slow anything down?

You have to roll more dice, which takes longer. Maybe not much longer, but every tiny thing adds up.

**jeff white**

Trickstick wrote:
jeff white wrote:
How does this slow anything down?

You have to roll more dice, which takes longer. Maybe not much longer, but every tiny thing adds up.

Are you serious?

Rerollable rerolls, everything with an invulnerable save, psykic shenanigans, trying to remember this snowflake unit’s special rule as opposed to that unit ...
Seriously? Rolling two dice?

Frankly there needs to be more 2d6 rolls. The storm shield fiasco is evidence for that...

**H.B.M.C.**

bullyboy wrote:
yeah, i did not like the emphasis on smaller tables...optional right?.......Right?

Yeah. Totally optional.

jivardi wrote:
It's pretty dang obvious it's not intended...

But again, and I can't believe how often this has been said in this thread alone, this situation isn't new and GW have ruled ---both--- ways in the past. They have sometimes said it is working as intended, other times they have FAQ'd it. So saying "It's not intended" isn't true.

jeff white wrote:
Rerollable rerolls, everything with an invulnerable save, psykic shenanigans, trying to remember this snowflake unit’s special rule as opposed to that unit ... Seriously? Rolling two dice?

Yes. Because they all have to be done individually. You cannot just roll a bunch of 2D6 saves at once. That's why it slows things down.

**BaconCatBug**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yes. Because they all have to be done individually. You cannot just roll a bunch of 2D6 saves at once. That's why it slows things down.

You do know you can't roll a bunch of D6 saves at once either, right? You cannot fast roll saves. Not in 9th, not in 8th.

**Tyran**

I'm pretty sure everyone fast roll saves as units with multiple Save characteristics are quite rare.

**bullyboy**

You now how many people actually care about this stormshield discussion? 1+

Damn, we have just under 3 weeks of this to go, what else can they possibly drip feed us now?

**Trickstick**

bullyboy wrote:
You now how many people actually care about this stormshield discussion? 1+

Damn, we have just under 3 weeks of this to go, what else can they possibly drip feed us now?

Isn't the app out on Saturday? Is that is going to be a massive info dump, as it has the points?

**Platuan4th**

Tyran wrote:
I'm pretty sure everyone fast roll saves as units with multiple Save characteristics are quite rare.

The problem is that now you apply wounds to a single model until it fails a roll. So we're basically at Wound groups from 5th all over again, except even worse because you can't roll each group simultaneously.

**EnTyme**

That's how I roll saves in AoS anyway. I thought everyone did that.