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.

In the rules for the Blade Guard and new Primaris Lt. we see the following:

"Storm Shields - The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. Improve the bearers Save characteristic by 1."

So that means that the Bladeguard/Lt. get a 2+ save, and a 4+ invul save... but what about Assault Terminators?

Obviously until the new Codex hits they have a 3+ invul, but assuming that this Storm Shield is the new SS for everyone, does that mean that Assault Terminators with Storm Shields now have a 1+ save? Obviously a 1 is always a fail - the rules say as much - but does that mean that Assault Terminators w/Storm Shields now ignore the first -1 worth of AP that comes at them?

Are they immune to AP now?

(In AoS you can't modify dice rolls to less than 1 so if your save characteristic is 1+ you pass any save that isn't a natural 1)

Does 40k limit the modifiers on dice rolls in the same way?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
In the rules for the Blade Guard and new Primaris Lt. we see the following:

"Storm Shields - The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. Improve the bearers Save characteristic by 1."

So that means that the Bladeguard/Lt. get a 2+ save, and a 4+ invul save... but what about Assault Terminators?

Obviously until the new Codex hits they have a 3+ invul, but assuming that this Storm Shield is the new SS for everyone, does that mean that Assault Terminators with Storm Shields now have a 1+ save? Obviously a 1 is always a fail - the rules say as much - but does that mean that Assault Terminators w/Storm Shields now ignore the first -1 worth of AP that comes at them?

Yes, they have a 1+ save. If the "cannot modify dice rolls to less than 1" rule still exists in 9th, then we have the Meganobz 2++ problem all over again.

However, given that Plasma now only overheats on an Unmodified 1, I suspect you can modify a dice roll below 1 now, which means you won't have silly issues like natural 2's exploding but not natural 1's. So assuming you can modify a dice roll to 0, the overall "effect" will mean that you still pass the save 5/6ths of the time even against AP-1.

9th might also cap the Sv characteristic to 2+ as a core rule much like how Strength, Toughness and Leadership can't be lowered below 1. I haven't seen anything to suggest either way.

Or they might change Terminator Storm Shields to be a different item that only grants the 4++.

 Eldarain wrote:
Are they immune to AP now?

(In AoS you can't modify dice rolls to less than 1 so if your save characteristic is 1+ you pass any save that isn't a natural 1)

Does 40k limit the modifiers on dice rolls in the same way?

In 8th edition right now, yes, a 1+ save makes you immune to all AP.

They confirmed that is working as intended in AoS.

1+ saves are explicitly called out as possible in sections of the leaked rules. The Crusade section has an upgrade that improves the save characteristic, and one of the examples given is improving a 2+ save to a 1+ save.

Sterling191 wrote:
1+ saves are explicitly called out as possible in sections of the leaked rules. The Crusade section has an upgrade that improves the save characteristic, and one of the examples given is improving a 2+ save to a 1+ save.

Oh cool. Thanks.

I haven't read through those yet, but I'll look out for it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

I haven't read through those yet, but I'll look out for it.

Crusade is the thing im most looking forward too in 9th so ive been devouring that section. To be clear though, I cant speak to how a 1+ save will interact with AP or other systems, only that such a characteristic appears to be physically possible within the ruleset presented so far.

1+ Saves have always been theoretically possible in 8th, but no rules have ever granted them (with the exception of the short lived Loot It! stratagem that got errata'd).

The "problem" is that they become effectively 2++ saves due to a quirk of the FAQs, but if that quirk no longer exists I can see 1+ armour saves being just fine, simply providing the ability to ignore 1 pip of AP.

The paragraph for Saving Throws in the leaked text still ends:

"An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails."

So that 1+ Invulnerable Save may as well still be a 2+.

 solkan wrote:
The paragraph for Saving Throws in the leaked text still ends:

"An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails."

So that 1+ Invulnerable Save may as well still be a 2+.

The point is that, with 8th edition rules, a 1+ Armor means you fail on a 1, but succeed on a 2-6 regardless of AP.

You could be hit with an AP-4 Melta, and still get your 2+ against it, since anything below a 1 is changed to a 1, which is equal to or higher than your save number.

Now, it appears they cleaned that up in 9th, so it should hopefully not be an issue.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
In the rules for the Blade Guard and new Primaris Lt. we see the following:

"Storm Shields - The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. Improve the bearers Save characteristic by 1."

So that means that the Bladeguard/Lt. get a 2+ save, and a 4+ invul save... but what about Assault Terminators?

Obviously until the new Codex hits they have a 3+ invul, but assuming that this Storm Shield is the new SS for everyone, does that mean that Assault Terminators with Storm Shields now have a 1+ save? Obviously a 1 is always a fail - the rules say as much - but does that mean that Assault Terminators w/Storm Shields now ignore the first -1 worth of AP that comes at them?

Every 2+ save unit in cover already does this so I don't see why not.

 solkan wrote:
The paragraph for Saving Throws in the leaked text still ends:

"An unmodified roll of a 1 always fails."

So that 1+ Invulnerable Save may as well still be a 2+.

I explain it in the thread I linked. The point is, an unmodified 1 will still failed, bit a MODIFIED 1 doesn't fail.

ERJAK wrote:
Every 2+ save unit in cover already does this so I don't see why not.

No, it doesn't.

2+ on a D6+1 is not the same as a 1+ on a D6. Cover modifies the roll, not the characteristic.

1+ save means that only rolls of 1 cause wounds. AP becomes irrelevant. Say that a 1+ model is hit by a lascannon with its AP-3: save rolls of 4, 3 and 2 become 1 but modified 1s so the model still tanks the hit. Only actual 1s go through the armor.

If a 2+ model is in cover and is hit by a lascannon then even rolls of 3 and 2 cause wounds because the model's save is actually a 4+ (2+ base +1 thanks to cover and -3AP).

Wut. Well that's definitely not intended if you ask me.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Wut. Well that's definitely not intended if you ask me.

In 8th it certainly wasn't, in fact the only unit that could do it (Meganobz + Loot It! stratagem) got FAQed as soon as possible.

Since GW is aware of how that 1+ works, having already fixed it in 8th, I'd say that a unit with a 1+ in 9th could be intented. But it's also possible that GW is making the same mistake once again.

Also the way I read the Storm shield, it would still give 3++ regardless? Aka 4++ save AND +1 to your saves?

I want Scarab Occult terminators with 1+ armor too :(

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Also the way I read the Storm shield, it would still give 3++ regardless? Aka 4++ save AND +1 to your saves?

I want Scarab Occult terminators with 1+ armor too :(

No, it gives a 4+ invulnerable save and +1 to your save characteristic. The +1 to the Save Characteristic doesn't affect the Invulnerable saves.

However, Custodes will have 1+/3++ with Storm Shields, as their Detachment bonus improves Invulnerable saves to a max of 3+.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

However, Custodes will have 1+/3++ with Storm Shields, as their Detachment bonus improves Invulnerable saves to a max of 3+.

We dont know if thats still true in 9th.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Also the way I read the Storm shield, it would still give 3++ regardless? Aka 4++ save AND +1 to your saves?

I want Scarab Occult terminators with 1+ armor too :(

No, it gives a 4+ invulnerable save and +1 to your save characteristic. The +1 to the Save Characteristic doesn't affect the Invulnerable saves.

However, Custodes will have 1+/3++ with Storm Shields, as their Detachment bonus improves Invulnerable saves to a max of 3+.

But as discussed a 1+ save is the equivalent of a 2++, save, making the 3++ redundant.

Either that or they are going to split stormshields into PA only and Terminators will get the new relic shields.

Ice_can wrote:
But as discussed a 1+ save is the equivalent of a 2++, save, making the 3++ redundant.

Either that or they are going to split stormshields into PA only and Terminators will get the new relic shields.

They are in 8th, but they might not be in 9th. They might not have the AOS rule where rolls are capped to a minimum of 1. If they DO, then, well, yeah they have a 2++ like in AOS. I can see Terminators/Custodes getting different shields that only grant a 3++ or 4++.

We are getting a little ahead of ourselves here.

I think we can agree at this point that whatever our feelings on its absurdity:
1. It would be RAW if the rule is as we are hearing.
2. GW are aware of the implications.

We can probably mostly all agree that every terminator in the game who can take a storm shield having a functional 2++ would probably not be a good thing generally (except maybe for Dark Angel players who have a load of Knight's sitting on shelf through 8e).

So, let's put a pin in this and return when we have more info.

Its possible the leaked Storm Shield rules only apply to Bladeguard Storm Shields after all.

Per the core rules released today by GW, a roll can never be modified to less than 1.

Sterling191 wrote:
Per the core rules released today by GW, a roll can never be modified to less than 1.

Also, for saves a roll of 1 always fails.

Slipspace wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:
Per the core rules released today by GW, a roll can never be modified to less than 1.

Also, for saves a roll of 1 always fails.

Please, don't spread misinformation. The rule says "An unmodified roll of 1 always fails." https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Lw4o3USx1R8sU7cQ.pdf Page 18

So yes, if Terminators and Custodes have the same Storm Shield rule of improving their save by 1, then they ignore all AP.

From the core rule PDF

All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers, and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers.

Round any fractions up after applying all modifiers. A dice roll can be modified above its maximum possible value (for example, a D6 roll can be modified above 6) but it can never be modified below 1. If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1.

The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving throw by rolling one D6 and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration (AP) characteristic of the weapon that the attack was made with. For example, if the weapon has an AP of -1, then 1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll. If the result is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model the attack was allocated to, then the saving throw is successful and the attack sequence ends. If the result is less than the model’s Save characteristic, then the saving throw fails and the model suffers damage. An unmodified roll of 1 always fails.

Therefore, if I have a 1+ save, and you wound me with an AP-6 weapon, I roll a D6-6 to save, which means I can roll the following set of results: {1-6, 2-6,3-6,4-6,5-6,6-6} = {1,1,1,1,1,1}. Because an unmodified 1 always fails, while a modified 1 " is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model" (as previously deduced) that means you have a 5/6 chance of passing the save, regardless of the AP of the weapon that wounds you. You have a 5/6 chance of passing your saving throw regardless of whether it's a AP-1 weapon or an AP-42 weapon.

There is no way it's the intended rules interaction, because if it was then why would Storm Shields also give a 4++, if it was also going to give them a 2++.

Right, but let's see if anyone with a 2+ save actually gets this rule before we go too crazy.

Personally I think erratas to every datasheet with a storm shield feels unlikely. But we'll see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IanVanCheese wrote:
There is no way it's the intended rules interaction, because if it was then why would Storm Shields also give a 4++, if it was also going to give them a 2++.

Ask whoever wrote the Sigmar faq. They know this is a thing.

IanVanCheese wrote:
There is no way it's the intended rules interaction, because if it was then why would Storm Shields also give a 4++, if it was also going to give them a 2++.

It is an intended interaction, at least in AOS which has the exact same system of saves and AP.

 Stux wrote:
Right, but let's see if anyone with a 2+ save actually gets this rule before we go too crazy.

Personally I think erratas to every datasheet with a storm shield feels unlikely. But we'll see.

Having identically named wargear with different rules and/or costs is going to cause incredible mayhem.

 Stux wrote:
Right, but let's see if anyone with a 2+ save actually gets this rule before we go too crazy.

Fair point, this is GW. It's totally possible Terminator and Golden Banana storm shields will work totally differently even though they are the same wargear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Right, but let's see if anyone with a 2+ save actually gets this rule before we go too crazy.

Personally I think erratas to every datasheet with a storm shield feels unlikely. But we'll see.

Having identically named wargear with different rules and/or costs is going to cause incredible mayhem.

Not like it hasn't happened before.

On the Captain it has a different name.