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.

Martel732 wrote:
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.

And you are the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't absurd?

It's also absurd I can shoot Bolt Pistols at a Thundhawk that is flying at Mach 34 seventeen miles above the battlefield, why is that OK but an intended mechanic is not? It's either all OK to ignore, or none of it is.

Do you also ignore the Dark Eldar FAQ about WS 1+ Succubus? If so, why is an official FAQ from GW unacceptable to you?

Sterling191 wrote:

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, they would have.

That doesn't mean they contemplated this interaction. That's my point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
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.

And you are the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't absurd?

It's also absurd I can shoot Bolt Pistols at a Thundhawk that is flying at Mach 34 seventeen miles above the battlefield, why is that OK but an intended mechanic is not? It's either all OK to ignore, or none of it is.

Do you also ignore the Dark Eldar FAQ about WS 1+ Succubus? If so, why is an official FAQ from GW unacceptable to you?

We need a judge at this point, as I said.

Martel732 wrote:

That doesn't mean they contemplated this interaction. That's my point.

Your point is wrong. They absolutely have contemplated this interaction. There are documented instances of a 1+ save interaction in 8th (see: Meganobz). They knew what this meant.

Sterling191 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

That doesn't mean they contemplated this interaction. That's my point.

Your point is wrong. They absolutely have contemplated this interaction. There are documented instances of a 1+ save interaction in 8th (see: Meganobz).

I want to hear it from a judge. I don't think they have contemplated it, myself. Thinking is not their strong point.

A judge or TO's job is literally to enforce house rules.

But that is ALL they are, house rules. As we've stated multiple times, you're free to house rule whatever you want. It doesn't stop them being house rules and nothing more.

As I said, I'll believe it when GW explicitly states that it's how it works for the general case.

Martel732 wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

That doesn't mean they contemplated this interaction. That's my point.

Your point is wrong. They absolutely have contemplated this interaction. There are documented instances of a 1+ save interaction in 8th (see: Meganobz).

I want to hear it from a judge. I don't think they have contemplated it, myself. Thinking is not their strong point.

Not an uncommon thing to hear. If you had a lawyer, he'd be sympathetic to your opinion on this rule interaction's absurdity, but he'd also patiently explain that the case is, well, stacked against you. The FAQ entry in which they explicitly discuss the way modifiers and 1+ saves interact in WH40k, and where they explicitly stated that the rules as they apply RAW are how the rules SHOULD be applied, isn't controlling - it isn't determinative of GW's intent - but it definitely falls under the "Persuasive" category of things a proper Judge would consider.

The fact that the jump from 2+ to hit to 1+ to hit (don't say that outloud, what a tongue twister) is a huge jump in effectiveness is not something GW is unaware of - the Succubus FAQ was explicit.

The judge may be older and wiser now, your lawyer might mention, but the issue is that the facts available to us almost all point towards this being (at minimum) contemplated. Most lawyers will also try your case, but they're probably going to be very, very wishy-washy on giving you positive thoughts on success.

From practically all our perspectives, Common Sense rarely makes sense, and is not even close to common. Your absurdity argument relies on GW judges siding with your emotional opinion (a shared Common Sense), and that's a very fickle thing to rely on. Not impossible... just an uphill battle. Prepare for that, mentally.

Martel732 wrote:
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.

No, you don't need a judge. You need to talk about it with your opponents before the game to see if they're amenable to a house rule so that you can play it in a way that isn't what the rules say. If they're not you can just skip gaming with them if you feel that strongly about it.

Martel732 wrote:
As I said, I'll believe it when GW explicitly states that it's how it works for the general case.

But why? They have already stated that's how it works for both Saves and To Hit. And both times it was simply "Follow the rules".

I have a sneaking suspicion that even if GW said that was the case, you'd reject it. In fact I know you would because they HAVE said that it is the case, and you're rejecting it.

Why is irrelevant and you are just being rude at this point.

Martel732 wrote:
Why is irrelevant and you are just being rude at this point.

I'm not trying to be rude, I am trying to understand why you are adamant on refusing to accept this despite both the rule and the FAQs being explicitly clear?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why is irrelevant and you are just being rude at this point.

I'm not trying to be rude, I am trying to understand why you are adamant on refusing to accept this despite both the rule and the FAQs being explicitly clear?

Because the intent is also clearly the opposite. Pointing out flaws in the rules is one thing, feigning wilful ignorance of the intent just to rile people is trolling.

There's a reason this rule is discussed here, while the rule of Bolters being Rapid Fire is not. The latter has an explicitly clear rule in alignment with the intent, the 1+ save has not.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why is irrelevant and you are just being rude at this point.

I'm not trying to be rude, I am trying to understand why you are adamant on refusing to accept this despite both the rule and the FAQs being explicitly clear?

Because the intent is also clearly the opposite. Pointing out flaws in the rules is one thing, feigning wilful ignorance of the intent just to rile people is trolling.

There's a reason this rule is discussed here, while the rule of Bolters being Rapid Fire is not. The latter has an explicitly clear rule in alignment with the intent, the 1+ save has not.

How is the intent clearly the opposite when multiple people have provided confirmation in AoS through FAQ's that this was their intent?

As to BCB "being rude", let me remind you that you started things with Mertel'732's "you are fine with it because you are a robot, I get it." Please refrain from personal attacks so that the thread doesn't get locked.

Let's tone it down everyone, thanks!

I've said what I have to say about this.

"Prepare for that, mentally."

Prepare for GW issuing a terrible ruling for a terrible oversight? I'm pretty used to GW being pure gak at this point.

How about we wait of the judge (aka GW) to put out a ruling (via the Day 1 FAQ) to see if they really intended what they wrote? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

I for one look forward to our Golden Custodes overlords that are essentially immune to damage by inherent 1+/3++5+++ and only capable of being wounded by accident or mortal wound spam. #kissthelaurels

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I for one look forward to our Golden Custodes overlords that are essentially immune to damage by inherent 1+/3++5+++ and only capable of being wounded by accident or mortal wound spam. #kissthelaurels

It’s the new primaris captain that’s the killer:

Take Artificer Armour and he’s got character protection, then a 1+ which is essentially a 2++; an actual 4++ for those pesky attacks that ignore armour entirely; and similarly a 4+++ vs mortal wounds which ignore the other two...

WS 1+ succubus has never been an issue, it's a single model and an underperforming HQ that doesn't see the table very often.

1+ save models would be spammed in a faction that is already the absolute top tier. That's the problem with these new storm shields IF they aren't FAQed like meganobz did.

 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.

That's factually incorrect. You can claim anything you want, whether you can prove that claim is another matter.

In this case it doesn't really matter though. Martel's already described a situation where a TO is going to change the ruling and as long as that's communicated ahead of time that doesn't cause a problem. The quote where he mentions this even acknowledges the ruling isn't RAW. TOs making a judgement call about certain rules and situations is not a problem for the vast, vast majority of players to understand, provided communication about any rulings is done ahead of time.

Seems to me the easiest way to remedy this is to make AP modify the save characteristic rather than the dice roll. No?

TheAmazinGreat wrote:
Seems to me the easiest way to remedy this is to make AP modify the save characteristic rather than the dice roll. No?

The easiest remedy generally doesn't involve making core changes to game mechanics to deal with a couple pieces of wargear on a couple models of a few factions. Instead, you'd make the Storm Shield and Relic Shield give +1 to the armor save roll. Does everything it really needs to, and would do in the current rules for anything EXCEPT a 2+ model, and does for a 2+ model most of what it does for any other save model EXCEPT when the attack is AP 0.

K.I.S.S. principle seems highly applicable here.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/aK1eH5c5H9DbDo0F.pdf

It's been "fixed". Glad to see once again the RaW crowd is vindicated.

Page 16 – Primaris Lieutenant, Other Wargear, storm
shield, Abilities
Change this to read:
‘The bearer has a 4+ invulnerable save. In addition, add 1 to
armour saving throws made for the bearer.’

Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.

I call 100% fresh Grox Manure on this though, since the explicitly state 1+ sv is possible in the Crusade rules.

Designer’s Note: When we wrote Edge of Silence, we created
some new rules for the relic shield and storm shield. When used
in isolation – say, when playing through the missions in Edge
of Silence – these rules work perfectly well, but when used with
a Battle-forged army, it is possible to upgrade a Character with
Artificer Armour, and in doing so have a model with a Save
characteristic of 1+. This was not our intention, and so we are
changing the rules for both these items of wargear as they appear
on these datasheets.

Terminator's still are 3++ though

Please also note that while some weapons and other items of
wargear (e.g. storm shields) appear in other places with slightly
different rules, the rules for them that appear in Edge of Silence
should not apply to other units – you should continue to use the
rules as printed in your current Codex for the time being.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.

You know exactly what is meant when they say "armour saving throw".

Stop pretending that you don't.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.

You know exactly what is meant when they say "armour saving throw".

Stop pretending that you don't.

Technical writing shouldn't be out of reach for GW.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.

You know exactly what is meant when they say "armour saving throw".

Stop pretending that you don't.

I genuinely don't. I've looked though the 9th edition core rules, I only see "Save" (page 7, page 18) and "Invulnerable Save" (page 19).

Now, if they FAQ to say that "Save" and "Armour Save" are synonymous? I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But they haven't, so they aren't.

Utterly disingenuous but do write to GW in case they feel like changing it for one person.

And claiming vindication when their intent was not what you deducted is again just baffling.

But we do this every FAQ and every edition sooooo

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Utterly disingenuous but do write to GW in case they feel like changing it for one person.

And claiming vindication when their intent was not what you deducted is again just baffling.

But we do this every FAQ and every edition sooooo

The RAW was clear. Feel free to rag on BCB for not knowing armour save means the regular save roll-that's obvious, even if TECHNICALLY not RAW-but an effective 2++ was 100% RAW, with the appropriate relic on a Storm Shield/Relic Shield model until they changed it.

Congrats everyone was right. Let’s just move on with clarity, the only thing that actually matters at the end of the day.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Of course, what an "armour saving throw" is is beyond me.

You know exactly what is meant when they say "armour saving throw".

Stop pretending that you don't.

I genuinely don't. I've looked though the 9th edition core rules, I only see "Save" (page 7, page 18) and "Invulnerable Save" (page 19).

Now, if they FAQ to say that "Save" and "Armour Save" are synonymous? I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But they haven't, so they aren't.

You do, so stop pretending you do not. Maybe you did not look close enough through 9th ed?

1st page of the rules term glossary has the term "Armor Saving throw"

Also the Sv characteristic on the Dataslates say "Save (Sv): This indicates the protection a model’s armour gives." (Page 13 in 8th ed 40K) Thus Armour Save...