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.

 Stux wrote:
On the Captain it has a different name.

It still improves the save characteristic by 1 though. I suspect it was changed because they already have an Iron Halo giving them a 4++, and wanted to remove the ability for him to have a 3++. Makes THSS Smash Captains a little more fragile.

 Stux wrote:
On the Captain it has a different name.

It also has a different effect.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
On the Captain it has a different name.

It still improves the save characteristic by 1 though. I suspect it was changed because they already have an Iron Halo giving them a 4++, and wanted to remove the ability for him to have a 3++. Makes THSS Smash Captains a little more fragile.

This really is going to be meta defining if this is how GW are going. Or is it more likely whoever was having a "happy time" writing the rules for the new primaris forgot that stormshields already exsist on models with 2+,4++ without the stormshield Though at this point it really does look like the start of 9th is going to be a FAQ/Eratta nightmare untill people actually get 9th edition compatable rules.

It is also possible that this will be covered in the "strange rules interaction" section of the full rulebook. They may state that units cannot have a 1+ Save. Or they may errata all the units with 2+ Saves and the new Storm Shields to deal with this issue there.

Time will tell.

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.

Dark Angels wave their 4th/5th edition stormshields. The ones that gave 4++ (and only in melee, or was that just BT stormshields?), when a few months later Codex marines got 3++ all the time stormshields. That lasted for a long time.
History:
https://www.thedarkfortress.co.uk/tech_reports/da_5th_sm2.php#.Xv43yShKiUk

In modern day GW design, I'll point you to any shield in AoS, even in the same army book. Is it going to a) add to your save? b) let you ignore mortal wounds on a #+? c) something else?

---
Right now, we're told to use existing data sheets as is, so termies and custards with stormshields are 2+/3++.
When the new Codex SM and Codex Custodes happen, this might change.

But I suspect we'll be told that Cawl did super duper special things to Gravis armor to allow it to be the most special when combined with storm shields, and older types of armor can't do this, because primaris

But as for mayhem... It doesn't cause any. The rules don't break at all. I know people feel it sounds unfair, but it doesn't actually cause system problems. The system in fact explicitly allows for it. And the datasheets are completely self-contained. Whats on one doesn't affect any other, so no one should be confused by stormshields working one way for one unit and a different way for another, any more than they're confused that meltaguns currently are 'discard lowest' for some factions and 'discard one (dice)' for others.

---
The thing to worry about right now is how to kill 1+ saves in Crusade mode, or if there are strats, abilities or psychic powers that can modify the save characteristic down to 1+.

 alextroy wrote:
It is also possible that this will be covered in the "strange rules interaction" section of the full rulebook. They may state that units cannot have a 1+ Save. Or they may errata all the units with 2+ Saves and the new Storm Shields to deal with this issue there.

Time will tell.

That would seem unlikely. If GW didn't want this situation to arise thy could have avoided it by allowing saving throws to be modified below 1, while still allowing natural 1s to fail, or made SS apply a +1 modifier to the roll rather than improving the save outright. The fact they didn't do that suggests it's either intentional or an oversight, not something they're then going to deal with as an edge case in an appendix.

That's a lot of assumptions are you making there.

Assuming terminator armour (and similar) gets it? Yes.

Given they have FAQd the 2++ twice (via buffs / stratagems / psychic powers) to never allow better than a 3++, and Loot it got hosed down to a 2+ at best, I doubt this will stay.

I don't know if it's remotely game breaking in AoS, but I believe 2++ save terminators running around would ruin competitive play. Multiwound, 2++ save models are simply too hard / inefficient to kill.

tulun wrote:
Assuming terminator armour (and similar) gets it? Yes.

Given they have FAQd the 2++ twice (via buffs / stratagems / psychic powers) to never allow better than a 3++, and Loot it got hosed down to a 2+ at best, I doubt this will stay.

I don't know if it's remotely game breaking in AoS, but I believe 2++ save terminators running around would ruin competitive play. Multiwound, 2++ save models are simply too hard / inefficient to kill.

Not for their points. Terminators are expensive.

 DeathReaper wrote:

tulun wrote:
Assuming terminator armour (and similar) gets it? Yes.

Given they have FAQd the 2++ twice (via buffs / stratagems / psychic powers) to never allow better than a 3++, and Loot it got hosed down to a 2+ at best, I doubt this will stay.

I don't know if it's remotely game breaking in AoS, but I believe 2++ save terminators running around would ruin competitive play. Multiwound, 2++ save models are simply too hard / inefficient to kill.

Not for their points. Terminators are expensive.

This.

My all Deathwing army might literally have a fighting chance! Not great mind you, but terminators actually being able to "tank hits" (ie, treating all hits as if AP0) like they're supposed to would be a nice change.

They still go down against high volume of shots though... so no, it wouldn't be game breaking.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/02/free-core-rules-new-models-sighted/

Page 18, Saving throw heading, last line.

"An unmodified roll of 1 always fails."

So rolling a 1 before modifiers will fail as I see it, regardless of whether you have a +1 or -1.
I know this is GW we are talking about, and their rules can be vague at best, But I doubt they are intending to make models completely invulnerable to damage through a rules caveat.
It would still be interesting to see if the +1 save still interacts though. a terminator effectively ignoring 1 point of AP for using a storm shield isn't exactly a red flag issue.

 Tristanleo wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/02/free-core-rules-new-models-sighted/

Page 18, Saving throw heading, last line.

"An unmodified roll of 1 always fails."

So rolling a 1 before modifiers will fail as I see it, regardless of whether you have a +1 or -1.
I know this is GW we are talking about, and their rules can be vague at best, But I doubt they are intending to make models completely invulnerable to damage through a rules caveat.
It would still be interesting to see if the +1 save still interacts though. a terminator effectively ignoring 1 point of AP for using a storm shield isn't exactly a red flag issue.

I think you've missed the issue. We know a natural 1 always fails.

The problem is that if you roll a natural 2 with -4 ap on it then that just counts as a 1, because it can't be modified below a 1. As its not a natural 1 though, its not an auto fail. So if your save is 1+ then you just saved! Therefore you can ONLY fail on a natural 1 regardless of AP.

And anyone saying its not RAI, we know at least for Sigmar that they are very aware of this interaction and that they are fine with it, as they specifically say so in an FAQ. We can only assume this is also true for 40k unless we get any evidence to the contrary.

 Stux wrote:

 Tristanleo wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/02/free-core-rules-new-models-sighted/

Page 18, Saving throw heading, last line.

"An unmodified roll of 1 always fails."

So rolling a 1 before modifiers will fail as I see it, regardless of whether you have a +1 or -1.
I know this is GW we are talking about, and their rules can be vague at best, But I doubt they are intending to make models completely invulnerable to damage through a rules caveat.
It would still be interesting to see if the +1 save still interacts though. a terminator effectively ignoring 1 point of AP for using a storm shield isn't exactly a red flag issue.

I think you've missed the issue. We know a natural 1 always fails.

The problem is that if you roll a natural 2 with -4 ap on it then that just counts as a 1, because it can't be modified below a 1. As its not a natural 1 though, its not an auto fail. So if your save is 1+ then you just saved! Therefore you can ONLY fail on a natural 1 regardless of AP.

And anyone saying its not RAI, we know at least for Sigmar that they are very aware of this interaction and that they are fine with it, as they specifically say so in an FAQ. We can only assume this is also true for 40k unless we get any evidence to the contrary.

Right, I see.

That's... Actually pretty interesting... Aaand I hate it already... Mainly because one of my friends regularly runs SS Terminators so if this interaction is correct, Then they just got that much more annoying...

Agreed. Going from 3++ to 2++ halves the number of saves you expect to fail, its huge and will be a problem if this all goes ahead.

We won't know for sure until launch day faqs and errata I think.

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.

Unmodified 1 fails. Roll of 2 modified to 1 isn't unmodified 1. So pass if stat is 1+.

It's rather funny. Either GW managed to botch it again(and people said I was complaining non sense when with meganobz I said GW fixed it wrong way banning meganobz from getting 2++ but not fixing how 1+ is same as 2++...I said that's precisely because sooner or later GW would do that again and sure enough here we are. I already got cold shivers before ork PA when reviewer misquoted spell buffing save stat rather than save roll) and need to errata it "oops" style or they really intend for 2++ terminators for the master race(well...they are marines. Wouldn't surprise me if they get 2++ while NPC factions aren't allowed same thing)

Just to throw a fly in the ointment, this wouldn't be the first time that GW had rules for wargear with the same name and look on two different units that end up with different rules.

They've pushed away from that over the generations, so I doubt that's the case, but it was just a thought.

Terminators with 2W 2+ and 3++ and free deepstrike are already good. SW ones also get +1 to hit and tons of ways to be buffed like re-rolling hits and wounds, up to +2A, etc... They're just like many other SM units that suffer from the fact that in the same codex there are tons of overpowered units.

Terminators with 1++ should be 60ppm with shield and close combat weapon. In 8th they're basically half the price.

 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.

it doesnt mater, because with these rules,,,, any 2+ save model can just stand in cover as is....

 Type40 wrote:

it doesnt mater, because with these rules,,,, any 2+ save model can just stand in cover as is....

A 2+ save with a +1 to the roll and a 1+ save are exceptionally different mechanical results.

Yeah, cover doesn't improve your save characteristic it just adds to the save roll. Functionally very different in this specific scenario, even if in most other instances it would be the same result.

If the Storm Shid rule just added to the save roll instead this would all be fine!

true,,,

Like, if 2+ in cover was the same problem, why would we only be now be discussing the 1+ save thing?

2+ on a D6+1 is not the same as a 1+ on a D6. The former can't pass a save if you are hit with a AP -6, while the latter has a 5/6 chance of passing, all because GW think negative numbers are too difficult for players to understand.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Like, if 2+ in cover was the same problem, why would we only be now be discussing the 1+ save thing?

2+ on a D6+1 is not the same as a 1+ on a D6. The former can't pass a save if you are hit with a AP -6, while the latter has a 5/6 chance of passing, all because GW think negative numbers are too difficult for players to understand.

I thought the problem came from the fact that in 8th saves failed on a roll of 1 ,,, not an unmodified roll of a 1....

 Type40 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Like, if 2+ in cover was the same problem, why would we only be now be discussing the 1+ save thing?

2+ on a D6+1 is not the same as a 1+ on a D6. The former can't pass a save if you are hit with a AP -6, while the latter has a 5/6 chance of passing, all because GW think negative numbers are too difficult for players to understand.

I thought the problem came from the fact that in 8th saves failed on a roll of 1 ,,, not an unmodified roll of a 1....

No, the problem comes from the fact you can't modify below 1. If you could, then a 1+ save would work as a 2+ save but would still pass 5/6ths of the time against AP-1 weapons (as you could roll a 0,1,2,3,4, or 5) and would fail 3/6ths of the time against AP-3 compared to a 2+'s 4/6ths (AP-3 can roll a -2,-1,0,1,2,3). Saves in 8th don't fail on a 1, only a "natural" 1.

if they allow modifications below one then plasma guns are gonna blow up on unmodified twos XD ... if you give someone -1 to hit and they roll a 1 it'll be 0 ... so no explosion... allowing rolls to go below 1 is not the answer. The answer is to say an unmodified 1 or a roll of 1 is a fail...

which is how interpreted the statement in the 8th BRB which stated

"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply"
I interpreted this statement differently from stating an unmodified 1. I interpreted this, perhaps incorrectly, as a 1 always fails, whether that 1 was determined by modifiers or not.

the point is,,, this can be solved by just stating that a roll of 1 for a save, modified or not, is a fail.

 Stux wrote:
Agreed. Going from 3++ to 2++ halves the number of saves you expect to fail, its huge and will be a problem if this all goes ahead.

There is absolutely nothing about going from 3++ to 2++. In fact, the stormshield on the new primaris stuff is 4++.

Voss wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Agreed. Going from 3++ to 2++ halves the number of saves you expect to fail, its huge and will be a problem if this all goes ahead.

There is absolutely nothing about going from 3++ to 2++. In fact, the stormshield on the new primaris stuff is 4++.

Please read earlier posts.

A 1+ save is functionally a 2++.

 Stux wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Agreed. Going from 3++ to 2++ halves the number of saves you expect to fail, its huge and will be a problem if this all goes ahead.

There is absolutely nothing about going from 3++ to 2++. In fact, the stormshield on the new primaris stuff is 4++.

Please read earlier posts.

A 1+ save is functionally a 2++.

Except in all the ways it isn't (like effects that don't allow normal saves at all).

The concern at hand is a 1+ save. By referring to it as a 2+ invulnerable, you're doing nothing but adding ambiguity into a clear cut situation. It doesn't interact with the invulnerable save rules in any way at all.

 Type40 wrote:
if they allow modifications below one then plasma guns are gonna blow up on unmodified twos XD

They have previewed plasma in 9th, it's been changed to an unmodified 1.

Did they spoil a NEW model with plasma,,, or will everything be errated ?