Do Terminators get 1+ saves now?

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.

**Kommissar Kel**

Slipspace wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

If terminators go to a 2+ invul with the points changes that have been leaked being correct, you honestly don't need to own anything else. 23pt base 2 wound model essentially immune to damage, with built in deepstrike, now with discounted ranged firepower and Angels of death making them each character equivalents in melee as well?

All we need is a way for them to reroll ones to save and get a 4+ FNP and it'd be 7th edition again.

Hardly. For regular Terminators to make use of this rule they currently need to be equipped with TH/SS (or a variation for units like Deathwing). Their firepower is 0 and they're not really all that much more resilient to the kinds of weapons that tend to prey on them anyway. For sure, it's a stupid interaction that I hope they FAQ day 1 but I'm not sure a wall of Terminators with no shooting is all that scary in reality.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Day One FAQs are gonna be more comprehensive, because people have been looking at these rules. Reece allegedly said in the TO Facebook group that the Blast weapon-wording for Units of 6-10 Models will be Day-1-FAQed because of the flaw the community found, which the playtesters missed.

I must have missed that one, what's the Blast weapon flaw?

Possibly that d3 blast are full hits against 6+model units.

I mean, that is the only "flaw" I can see.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Come to think of it, the Captain with his relic shield can also take those items of wargear, also gaining a 4+ vs Mortal Wounds.

So this makes a 1+ save that can ignore the Invul, and then getting a 4+ save to the only "counter" (other than massed fire) to his effective bullet sponging.

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

Blackie wrote:
We don't know if all the storm shields work in the same way. I highly doubt that 1+ terminator would exist, and even if they do they'd be FAQed as soon as possible.

Great, but I think it's more logical that all Storm Shields would end up with the same rules than they'd have two things with the same name in the same Codex but have different rules for them.

And as has been said dozens of time now, we don't know it would be FAQ'd out because this isn't a new situation and GW have ruled it both ways in the past. I think they're going to FAQ it out, but they could just as easily go "feature not a bug" as they have in the past and leave it at that.

**Stux**

H.B.M.C. wrote:

JohnnyHell wrote:
The rules include any Day One FAQs. And the whole book. So you have those?
Don't ask dumb questions that you know the answer to. Besides, you said to wait for the rules. We have those rules. We can see those rules. It's printed in black and white. What comes after the rules is immaterial to this specific conversation.

Thats unfair. The edition is not released yet. There is still time for FAQs. Day one is the 25th of July, complain then.

**JohnnyHell**

Indeed. Rules aren’t out. We know Day One FAQs are coming. FAQs are part of the rules and carry the weight of the rules no matter how you split that particular hair.

Moan later if they don’t address this, HBMC. For now stating something as fact without all the info is futile. You may well be right but for now we simply don’t know 100%. And the insults to my intelligence aren’t necessary. You made a statement; if you get asked to back it up in full maybe respond politely without biting. Rule 1, eh?

**Blackie**

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Great, but I think it's more logical that all Storm Shields would end up with the same rules than they'd have two things with the same name in the same Codex but have different rules for them.

Not necessarily. Thankfully there's no universal special rules list at the end of the rulebook anymore and all abilities and effects are described in each datasheet, so they can be different even if they have the same name.

It could also be logical to assume that storm shields used by primaris aren't the same storm shields used by classic marines.

**Sunny Side Up**

Slipspace wrote:

I must have missed that one, what's the Blast weapon flaw?

Blast working per weapon, not per dice rolled.

Discussion here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789724.page

Reece Robbins is on record saying it was "meant" to be minimum 3 per dice (e.g. 12 shots for a TFC or Wyvern shooting at a 6-man-unit), not per dice, and allegedly said in the Facebook Tournament TO group that it was added to the Day-1 FAQ (though I am not part of that Facebook group, so it's just hearsay for me).

It would fit with the old Castellan-debate on whether Order of Companion (re-roll all 1s) would allow you to re-roll the number of shots on 2d3 weapons, which was similarly worded but consistently ruled by ITC/FLG events under Reece's authority like the LVO that you could indeed roll 1s (and re-roll them) with 2D3.

**alextroy**

Sunny Side Up is correct. They clearly explained in the Warhammer Daily show that the minimum value of a single dice would be 3 for units of 6-10 models, but that is not what the rule says. This is one of those time you wish GW would use the singular die to clearly distinguish between the two.

**BaconCatBug**

Slipspace wrote:
I must have missed that one, what's the Blast weapon flaw?

There is no flaw in the rules, but in the players. Despite being crystal clear, some people think that the minimum of 3 is applied to each dice, not the total result.

**alextroy**

To be entirely accurate, the rule is clearly written. The question is did GW write the rule they intended?

**doctortom**

JohnnyHell wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
Wait. For. The. Rules.
We have the rules. There's nothing to wait for. We know how they work. This was an exercise in extrapolation.

The rules include any Day One FAQs. And the whole book. So you have those?

And the Chapter Approved, so that we know what the units and the wargear will cost in 9th edition. That might be another big factor here.

**Sunny Side Up**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
I must have missed that one, what's the Blast weapon flaw?
There is no flaw in the rules, but in the players. Despite being crystal clear, some people think that the minimum of 3 is applied to each dice, not the total result.

The rules is grammatically sound as written currently, but playtesters that tested 9th Ed. are on record that it is not worded to match the intent (which allegedly was per dice) and that a first day FAQ will change it to match the intent.

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

JohnnyHell wrote:
Rules aren’t out.

They are. GW haven't released the full book, but the entire thing got leaked. Don't try to pretend that it isn't out there.

JohnnyHell wrote:
Moan later if they don’t address this, HBMC.

The feth? Who's moaning, exactly? All I did was ask a simple question. Jesus...

JohnnyHell wrote:
And the insults to my intelligence aren’t necessary.

You came into this thread adding nothing, and now are accusing me of moaning. Tit for tat, bro.

**Martel732**

alextroy wrote:
To be entirely accurate, the rule is clearly written. The question is did GW write the rule they intended?

Almost certainly not. The whole 1+ = 2++ is such an internet meme. I know that's the RAW, but it's still nonsense.

**Aelyn**

Martel732 wrote:
alextroy wrote:
To be entirely accurate, the rule is clearly written. The question is did GW write the rule they intended?

Almost certainly not. The whole 1+ = 2++ is such an internet meme. I know that's the RAW, but it's still nonsense.

The thing is, there is precedent for 1+ = 2++: the AoS Bastiladon has a 1+ save on its warscroll while it's in its top bracket. This got similar amounts of debate at first, but the GW FAQ basically said "Yeah, it's equivalent to 2++".

**Blackie**

Aelyn wrote:

The thing is, there is precedent for 1+ = 2++: the AoS Bastiladon has a 1+ save on its warscroll while it's in its top bracket. This got similar amounts of debate at first, but the GW FAQ basically said "Yeah, it's equivalent to 2++".

There's also a precedent in 40k 8th edition, but with opposite result. Meganobz could get 1+ = 2++ thanks to the stratagem Loot It!. Of course, FAQed as soon as possible. SM units with possible 1+ would be FAQed as well, that's my take.

**BaconCatBug**

Blackie wrote:
Aelyn wrote:

The thing is, there is precedent for 1+ = 2++: the AoS Bastiladon has a 1+ save on its warscroll while it's in its top bracket. This got similar amounts of debate at first, but the GW FAQ basically said "Yeah, it's equivalent to 2++".

There's also a precedent in 40k 8th edition, but with opposite result. Meganobz could get 1+ = 2++ thanks to the stratagem Loot It!. Of course, FAQed as soon as possible. SM units with possible 1+ would be FAQed as well, that's my take.

Also in 8th edition, a 1+ WS Succubus ignores all negative hit modifiers.

**Martel732**

Aelyn wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
alextroy wrote:
To be entirely accurate, the rule is clearly written. The question is did GW write the rule they intended?

Almost certainly not. The whole 1+ = 2++ is such an internet meme. I know that's the RAW, but it's still nonsense.

The thing is, there is precedent for 1+ = 2++: the AoS Bastiladon has a 1+ save on its warscroll while it's in its top bracket. This got similar amounts of debate at first, but the GW FAQ basically said "Yeah, it's equivalent to 2++".

But it degrades. If this was truly GW's intent, why not just print 2++? They are so terrible at this.

At any rate, I've spoken to two TOs (not big tournaments) about this before, and they won't enforce it RAW because they agree that it doesn't make any sense. So there is at least some local control on this absurdity.

**BaconCatBug**

Martel732 wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
alextroy wrote:
To be entirely accurate, the rule is clearly written. The question is did GW write the rule they intended?

Almost certainly not. The whole 1+ = 2++ is such an internet meme. I know that's the RAW, but it's still nonsense.

The thing is, there is precedent for 1+ = 2++: the AoS Bastiladon has a 1+ save on its warscroll while it's in its top bracket. This got similar amounts of debate at first, but the GW FAQ basically said "Yeah, it's equivalent to 2++".

But it degrades. If this was truly GW's intent, why not just print 2++? They are so terrible at this.

At any rate, I've spoken to two TOs (not big tournaments) about this before, and they won't enforce it RAW because they agree that it doesn't make any sense. So there is at least some local control on this absurdity.

That's stupid. It's just as RaW to make people roll to hit with Bolters, why would they enforce one but not the other?

**Stux**

Because most people don't regard it as a binary choice.

**Martel732**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
alextroy wrote:
To be entirely accurate, the rule is clearly written. The question is did GW write the rule they intended?

Almost certainly not. The whole 1+ = 2++ is such an internet meme. I know that's the RAW, but it's still nonsense.

The thing is, there is precedent for 1+ = 2++: the AoS Bastiladon has a 1+ save on its warscroll while it's in its top bracket. This got similar amounts of debate at first, but the GW FAQ basically said "Yeah, it's equivalent to 2++".

But it degrades. If this was truly GW's intent, why not just print 2++? They are so terrible at this.

At any rate, I've spoken to two TOs (not big tournaments) about this before, and they won't enforce it RAW because they agree that it doesn't make any sense. So there is at least some local control on this absurdity.
That's stupid. It's just as RaW to make people roll to hit with Bolters, why would they enforce one but not the other?

Because humans aren't computers. We have judgment. One is an absurd result, the other isn't. You may not agree that it is absurd, but many do.

We don't follow RAW in real life law, so holding GW to a higher standard than actual statutes is also absurd.

**Duskweaver**

Martel732 wrote:
We don't follow RAW in real life law, so holding GW to a higher standard than actual statutes is also absurd.

Textualism is a valid method of statutary interpretation, though.

"RAW says X, but we don't like that so we've mutually agreed to houserule Y instead" is a perfectly legitimate way to play.

"RAW says X, but I know the devs really meant Y" is to claim supernatural powers.

"RAW says X, but I'm going to insist on Y and insult anyone who wants to play by X" is TFG behaviour.

"RAW says X, but I'm going to play it as Y without talking it over with the other player at all" is flat-out cheating.

**Martel732**

It is valid, but not very common because it leads to absurd results. Like this one. Because legislators suck at their job and/or want to pass the buck to the judiciary.

I don't think the devs even know what they meant. Just like a legislature.

BTW, judges tell us what legislatures really meant all the time without claiming supernatural powers.

**BaconCatBug**

Martel732 wrote:
BTW, judges tell us what legislatures really meant all the time without claiming supernatural powers.

No, they tell you what the judges want to house rule the law as being. "Legislating from the bench" is a real problem and/or a legitimate case for the separation of powers.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Duskweaver wrote:
Textualism is a valid method of statutary interpretation, though.

"RAW says X, but we don't like that so we've mutually agreed to houserule Y instead" is a perfectly legitimate way to play.

"RAW says X, but I know the devs really meant Y" is to claim supernatural powers.

"RAW says X, but I'm going to insist on Y and insult anyone who wants to play by X" is TFG behaviour.

"RAW says X, but I'm going to play it as Y without talking it over with the other player at all" is flat-out cheating.

Thank you, finally someone else understands. It's perfectly fine to house rule (even if house rules, without exception, boil down to "Nerf units I dislike, buff units I like") but you can't claim your house rules are what was "intended" or "the way the game is meant to be played" or "the correct interpretation". I just choose to not use house rules.

**Martel732**

That's how common law works, sorry. The judges literally make new law with their rulings. It's a feature, not a bug. You are looking for the continental European system.

And I can absolutely claim that GW did not intend the 1+ = 2++ phenomenon due to its absurdity. I find it amusing that GW won't directly address it. I wonder if the devs would even know what we were talking about if we asked them. They just write crap and don't consider the ramifications. Been like that since 2nd, which is why GW RAW is a joke to me. You almost can't call it a house rule when there is so little thought put into what they publish.

**BaconCatBug**

Martel732 wrote:
That's how common law works, sorry. The judges literally make new law with their rulings. It's a feature, not a bug. You are looking for the continental European system.

And I can absolutely claim that GW did not intend the 1+ = 2++ phenomenon due to its absurdity. I find it amusing that GW won't directly address it. I wonder if the devs would even know what we were talking about if we asked them. They just write crap and don't consider the ramifications. Been like that since 2nd, which is why GW RAW is a joke to me. You almost can't call it a house rule when there is so little thought put into what they publish.

You can claim no such thing. Firstly, you didn't write the rulebook, so you have no idea of their intent. (Unless you did write the rulebook, in which case I commend you for fixing all the broken RaW I pointed out in the 8th rules and would like an official announcement about 1+ saves.) Secondly, we have two examples, one from AOS and one from 8th edition 40k, that show the intent is for 1+ characteristics to ignore all negative modifiers, as proven by FAQ. We even have an example showing intent for Saves to become 1+ saves in the Crusade rules. If anything, the case for it being "intended" is vastly stronger than any claim that it isn't.

**Voss**

It's seems more reasonable to claim they did do it intentionally since there are multiple ways to dget a 1+ save, they added more and gave explicit examples citing the validity of having a 1+ save, and it's actually what the rules say.

Not liking it doesn't make it not exist.

**Martel732**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
That's how common law works, sorry. The judges literally make new law with their rulings. It's a feature, not a bug. You are looking for the continental European system.

And I can absolutely claim that GW did not intend the 1+ = 2++ phenomenon due to its absurdity. I find it amusing that GW won't directly address it. I wonder if the devs would even know what we were talking about if we asked them. They just write crap and don't consider the ramifications. Been like that since 2nd, which is why GW RAW is a joke to me. You almost can't call it a house rule when there is so little thought put into what they publish.
You can claim no such thing. Firstly, you didn't write the rulebook, so you have no idea of their intent. Secondly, we have two examples, one from AOS and one from 8th edition 40k, that show the intent is for 1+ characteristics to ignore all negative modifiers, as proven by FAQ. If anything, the case for it being "intended" is vastly stronger than any claim that it isn't.

I disagree due to the absurdity factor. I can claim it based off mathematical pattern progression, which shows mathematical intent. You are disagreeing based off other textual considerations. The problem is that we have no judge to make a ruling other than individual TOs, since GW is being GW. Maybe 40K designers were thinking of old Warhammer fantasy 1+ saves. It just makes no sense for the jump from 2+ to 1+ to be so huge. I have never talked to anyone outside of this forum willing to play it this way, either, including the local GW store guy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
It's seems more reasonable to claim they did do it intentionally since there are multiple ways to dget a 1+ save, they added more and gave explicit examples citing the validity of having a 1+ save, and it's actually what the rules say.

Not liking it doesn't make it not exist.

That doesn't tell how modifiers are SUPPOSED to work in their brain, though.

**BaconCatBug**

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree due to the absurdity factor. I can claim it based off mathematical pattern progression, which shows mathematical intent. You are disagreeing based off other textual considerations. The problem is that we have no judge to make a ruling other than individual TOs, since GW is being GW.

Again, I want to point you to the Bastiladon. Why is it "absurd" in 40k but not in AOS, when they share a lot of the same mechanics? The Rend mechanic from AOS and the AP mechanic from 40k are quite literally identical, they both modify the roll To Save. Why is it "absurd" that in 40k a Succubus with 1+ WS can ignore negative modifiers when it's been explicitly FAQed as such?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
That doesn't tell how modifiers are SUPPOSED to work in their brain, though.

Again, AGAIN, Bastiladon and Succubus both give intended examples of how modifiers are "supposed" to work with 1+ characteristics. I get it, you dislike the rule. I also dislike that my Tactical Marines don't have 2 wounds, but that doesn't mean I get to just ignore the fact they only have 1 wound.

**Martel732**

Because the outcome is absurd. I think there's not much else to talk about here. The jump from 2+ to 1+ functioning like this makes no sense at all to me. You are fine with it because you are a robot, I get it. I won't be playing this way until GW states that it applies in the general case. You've made your case. We need a judge.

**Sterling191**

Martel732 wrote:

That doesn't tell how modifiers are SUPPOSED to work in their brain, though.

There is literally a section in the core rules that goes into explicit detail about how modifiers function. If there was an intent to change that to disallow the artifact of the 1+ save, they would have.