Prediction on 9th & how it will affect DA

[Skywrath]

Summary of points differences from Auspex Tactics.

 

[ValourousHeart]

I keep seeing articles talking about how GW screwed up again with 1+ saves.  The articles always seem to come to the conclusion that in 9th a 1+ save is a 2+ invulnerable because of the cap on modifiers.

 

So did I miss something?

 

Page 18 of the core rules, Making Attacks.

1. Hit roll says can never be modified by more than +/- 1.

2. Wound roll says can never be modified by more than +/- 1.

4. Saving throw DOES NOT say there is a limit to how much the roll can be modified, only that an unmodified roll of 1 is always a failure.

 

So If I'm reading that correctly then a model with a 1+ save who is hit and wounded with a Thundercoil Harpoon (AP -6) now has to make a 7+ save.

 

Did I miss where GW changed that, or are these people so rabid about being the first to scream their opinion to the void that they can't be bothered to take a minute to read the rules or the fraction of a second required to comprehend them?

[WrathOfTheLion]

The mechanic causing this is from dice only allowed to be modified down to 1 (no 0 or negative values) and the wording of how AP works. In the specific wording, it says that AP reduces the armor save roll, so it can only ever go down to 1.

This has already been FAQ'd in the edge of silence FAQ on warcom so it doesn't really matter I think.

Edited to add:

It doesn't make the save 7+, that may be shorthand on how you might practically use it. The rule itself is that AP modifies armor save roll down, which is thus capped at a minimum of 1 from another rule, which says that dice rolls cannot be modified below 1. This only matters in the case of a 1+ save, so GW just needs to avoid letting those exist, which it has for the most part and is how they fixed the issue with the storm shield.

They may also FAQ the core rule later to fix this. It really shouldn't be that difficult to fix. However, in AoS which has the same/similar enough rules there, they did rule in an FAQ earlier that this is how a 1+ save is supposed to work, so we'll see what they decide later.

Edited July 17, 2020 by WrathOfTheLion

[RayJ]

They may also FAQ the core rule later to fix this. It really shouldn't be that difficult to fix. However, in AoS which has the same/similar enough rules there, they did rule in an FAQ earlier that this is how a 1+ save is supposed to work, so we'll see what they decide later.

 

The Edge of Silence errata already addresses this issue and changes the wording of the Storm Shields to add one to saving throws instead of improving the save characteristic.

[WrathOfTheLion]

 

They may also FAQ the core rule later to fix this. It really shouldn't be that difficult to fix. However, in AoS which has the same/similar enough rules there, they did rule in an FAQ earlier that this is how a 1+ save is supposed to work, so we'll see what they decide later.

 

The Edge of Silence errata already addresses this issue and changes the wording of the Storm Shields to add one to saving throws instead of improving the save characteristic.

 

Definitely, I meant whether they retain their previous decision of that being how a 1+ save should work.

Edited July 17, 2020 by WrathOfTheLion

[ValourousHeart]

I think you are missing the point I'm making.  I really don't care about the semantic difference between modifying the save and modifying the dice roll.  We have input in and output out, and how the black box in the middle works is completely irrelevant.

 

A space marine (3+) save, who is hit and wounded by a heavy bolter (AP -1), needs to roll a 4+ on that dice or is removed as a casualty.  I don't care what mental gymnastics anyone has to go through to get to that result.  On the other side of that dice roll If that dice isn't a 4, 5 or 6 that save was failed.  It isn't complicated.

 

But the articles in question seem to indicate that a Plasma weapon (AP -3) and a Heavy Bolter (AP -1) are both capped at -1.  And in the example above, according to them, the space marine in power armor would only need to roll a 4+ to save vs plasma weapons.

 

My question is what page and heading can I find, stated in plain text, that AP is capped at -1?

 

Because what I'm finding is the following....

 

Page 18 clearly state that TO HIT is capped, so my Dark Talon (-1 to hit from Hard to Hit) next to my Dark Shroud (-1 to hit aura) only has a -1 to hit.

But if the shooter gets a +1 to hit, then my two -1 to hits result in my flyer still being -1 to be hit.

 

Page 18 TO WOUND is also capped.

 

Page 18 Saving Throw does not mention a cap at all.

 

And page 18 in the bullet points says "Roll one D6 and modify by the attack's AP.  If the result is less than the Sv of the selected model. the saving throw is failed and it suffers damage.  Otherwise attack is saved."

 

The Edge of Silence FAQ doesn't address my question which is questioning the claim that they are making in these articles which is that AP is capped at -1.  Edge of Silence FAQ simply states that you can't cherry pick rules from one unit and apply them to another unit.  I did realize that was a question people struggled with.

 

*Edit* Sorry if my tone comes off as rude.  I'm not trying to be.

Edited July 17, 2020 by ValourousHeart

[WrathOfTheLion]

AP is not capped at -1.

All of this fuss has to do with this phrase "If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1." on page 5 of the 9E core rules.

 

What was happening is, say a 2 is rolled for the armor save of 1+ and the AP is -4:

Apply AP:
2 - 4 = -2

 

-2 is less than 1, now becomes 1

 

1 meets 1+ save, thus it is saved.

 

Edit:

This can come into play commonly, but it doesn't matter.

With plasma at AP -3 against a tactical marine

If a 2 is rolled and the armor save is 3+

2 - 3 = -1

-1 is less than 1, becomes 1

1 is less than 3, so that distinction doesn't matter and the save is failed. This flooring of value only actually matters when the armor save is 1+, since 1 is still lower than 2, 3, etc.

 

A 4 wouldn't save against plasma, 4 - 3 is 1. 1 is less than the armor save characteristic, so it fails. 5 is the same, 5 - 3 is 2, 2 < 3 so the armor save fails.

Edited July 17, 2020 by WrathOfTheLion

[Isual]

I think you are missing the point I'm making.  I really don't care about the semantic difference between modifying the save and modifying the dice roll.  We have input in and output out, and how the black box in the middle works is completely irrelevant.

 

A space marine (3+) save, who is hit and wounded by a heavy bolter (AP -1), needs to roll a 4+ on that dice or is removed as a casualty.  I don't care what mental gymnastics anyone has to go through to get to that result.  On the other side of that dice roll If that dice isn't a 4, 5 or 6 that save was failed.  It isn't complicated.

 

But the articles in question seem to indicate that a Plasma weapon (AP -3) and a Heavy Bolter (AP -1) are both capped at -1.  And in the example above, according to them, the space marine in power armor would only need to roll a 4+ to save vs plasma weapons.

 

My question is what page and heading can I find, stated in plain text, that AP is capped at -1?

 

Because what I'm finding is the following....

 

Page 18 clearly state that TO HIT is capped, so my Dark Talon (-1 to hit from Hard to Hit) next to my Dark Shroud (-1 to hit aura) only has a -1 to hit.

But if the shooter gets a +1 to hit, then my two -1 to hits result in my flyer still being -1 to be hit.

 

Page 18 TO WOUND is also capped.

 

Page 18 Saving Throw does not mention a cap at all.

 

And page 18 in the bullet points says "Roll one D6 and modify by the attack's AP.  If the result is less than the Sv of the selected model. the saving throw is failed and it suffers damage.  Otherwise attack is saved."

 

The Edge of Silence FAQ doesn't address my question which is questioning the claim that they are making in these articles which is that AP is capped at -1.  Edge of Silence FAQ simply states that you can't cherry pick rules from one unit and apply them to another unit.  I did realize that was a question people struggled with.

 

*Edit* Sorry if my tone comes off as rude.  I'm not trying to be.

 

AP does not cap at -1. But it modifies the armor roll and page 5 (dice) says that a roll cant be modified to less than 1. So a 1+ Armor save could ony fail because of a natural 1 because AP modifies the armor roll, page 18 saving throw.

 

But if SS only give a +1 modifier it makes a differnce again.

[Berzul]

Yeah but that "1+ saves makes you immune to AP" thing is clearly a flaw of the text, amd its gonna get fixed ASAP.

[ValourousHeart]

AP is not capped at -1.

 

All of this fuss has to do with this phrase "If, after all modifiers have been applied, a dice roll would be less than 1, count that result as a 1." on page 5 of the 9E core rules.

 

What was happening is, say a 2 is rolled for the armor save of 1+ and the AP is -4:

 

Apply AP:

2 - 4 = -2

 

-2 is less than 1, now becomes 1

 

1 meets 1+ save, thus it is saved.

 

Edit:

 

This can come into play commonly, but it doesn't matter.

 

With plasma at AP -3 against a tactical marine

 

If a 2 is rolled and the armor save is 3+

 

2 - 3 = -1

 

-1 is less than 1, becomes 1

 

1 is less than 3, so that distinction doesn't matter and the save is failed.

 

Ok so that is what they are saying.

And it doesn't occur to them that they are prioritizing modifiers?

Because the rules on page 5 and 8 state that you have to apply all modifiers, all modifiers are cumulative, and all modifiers have to be applied Division, then Multiplication, then Addition, and finally Subtraction.

To only apply certain modifiers seems to be a willful misinterpretation of the rules.

 

The way that math should work is.

 

TDA has a 2+ save.  The storm shield improves the save by 1.  The thundercoil harpoon has an AP -6.

If the dice roll + 1 - 6 is > or = 2 then saved.

If the dice roll + 1 - 6 is < 2 then failed.

X + 1 - 6 = 2  or X = 7

 

 

Yeah but that "1+ saves makes you immune to AP" thing is clearly a flaw of the text, amd its gonna get fixed ASAP.

Now that I have my head around this, it isn't a flaw in the text, it is a flaw in the order in which they are applying modifiers.

 

SS rule says it modifies the save.

And page 5 says you have to apply all modifiers and in which order.

They are applying the SS modifier to the save before ever taking into account any other modifiers.

Instead of taking all modifiers in aggregate.

[WrathOfTheLion]

No, SS modified the save itself, not the save roll. So the save characteristic became a 1+. So you need to compare to 1 not 2.

 

They have now FAQ'd the SS to add 1 to the save roll, so it does now behave how you would expect.

 

Before the FAQ, they modified two different things. So they were not prioritizing them and that clause from p 5 was not applicable.

 

I don't think there is anything left on topic about this though. Since this interaction and the abilities of the wargear have been fixed already, then the only effect it will have is that some datasheets/equipment may see a day 1 change

Edited July 17, 2020 by WrathOfTheLion

[Angel of Solitude]

 

 

They may also FAQ the core rule later to fix this. It really shouldn't be that difficult to fix. However, in AoS which has the same/similar enough rules there, they did rule in an FAQ earlier that this is how a 1+ save is supposed to work, so we'll see what they decide later.

The Edge of Silence errata already addresses this issue and changes the wording of the Storm Shields to add one to saving throws instead of improving the save characteristic.

To also be absolutely clear: this definition applies only to the Indomitus Captain’s Relic Shield and and the Indomitus Lieutenant’s Storm Shield. All other Storm Shields retain their existing rules as per their respective codex - I.e. offers the bearer a 3+ invulnerable save. This is per the Edge of Silence FAQ:

 

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

[aura_enchanted]

 

Outriders don't have the ravenwing keyword rip all that synergy (for now) which means the atv and the chaplain also lack that keyword and that basically devestates their functionality and practical uses.

 

Black knights and raven bikers officially back in business cue the angry ravenwing

Edited July 18, 2020 by aura_enchanted

[Skywrath]

It's been confirmed that outriders have the ravenwing keyword on their website, at least more than once??

Edited July 18, 2020 by Skywrath

[Gederas]

It's been confirmed that outriders have the ravenwing keyword on their website, at least more than once??

Yeah, plus, the Bladeguard are shown as Deathwing by GW.

 

Which means the booklet isn't the end-all, it's just lacking the rules for them

 

[jaxom]

Edge of Silence is the stop-gap meant to get models on the table as fast as possible within the context of the boxed set itself. It's not what's going to be in a codex. It'd be like if the Beast boxset was the starter set and everyone flipped out that codex chapters weren't getting Incursors because the contained datasheets showed Space Wolves.

[WrathOfTheLion]

I think it's clear we need to wait for a new publication. Perhaps they will announce some codexes next week.

[Skywrath]

Grand Tournament missions leaked!

 

https://imgur.com/a/uH74BUw?fbclid=IwAR3UIIiEQjtaDVQLTs-SUUqeU9z5qqvL086SwBms1j6JzGRnCpeSpVDG4S8

[RayJ]

Yeah but that "1+ saves makes you immune to AP" thing is clearly a flaw of the text, amd its gonna get fixed ASAP.

 

The reason the wording on storm shields has changed in Edge of Silence Errata is because 1+ armor saves are intended to work this way (we just aren't meant to get them in this circumstance). The language in 9th is identical to Age of Sigmar where the Bastilodon gets a 1+ save and the Seraphon FAQ spells out how it works.

[jaxom]

At the moment a 1+ save has nothing to do with Dark Angels. Perhaps of note, Ravening specialist detachment is no longer feasible at tournaments. Edited July 18, 2020 by jaxom

[aura_enchanted]

Vigilus defiant/vigilus ablaze formations and supplemental datasheets aren't allowed in tournament formats by decree of gw

[jaxom]

Is it safe to assume then that people will still be using the Ravenwing detachment? We've more CP available to run pure Ravenwing (perhaps with some Deathwing mixed in), but did the detachment bring all that much that isn't available in Ritual of the Damned?

[Gederas]

Is it safe to assume then that people will still be using the Ravenwing detachment? We've more CP available to run pure Ravenwing (perhaps with some Deathwing mixed in), but did the detachment bring all that much that isn't available in Ritual of the Damned?

It did. Both the stratagems from it aren't reprinted in Ritual of the Damned, and the Warlord Trait and Relic all are really good

 

Also: I just noticed this in Ritual of the Damned, but now it annoys me. We don't get the "get extra Warlord Traits" stratagem like other Chapters. What gives GW? :lol:

 

[Varizel]

 

Is it safe to assume then that people will still be using the Ravenwing detachment? We've more CP available to run pure Ravenwing (perhaps with some Deathwing mixed in), but did the detachment bring all that much that isn't available in Ritual of the Damned?

It did. Both the stratagems from it aren't reprinted in Ritual of the Damned, and the Warlord Trait and Relic all are really good

 

Also: I just noticed this in Ritual of the Damned, but now it annoys me. We don't get the "get extra Warlord Traits" stratagem like other Chapters. What gives GW?

 

 

We do.... Hero of the chapter, page 52 Ritual of the Damned.

[Fierce Bear]

 

 

 

 

Is it safe to assume then that people will still be using the Ravenwing detachment? We've more CP available to run pure Ravenwing (perhaps with some Deathwing mixed in), but did the detachment bring all that much that isn't available in Ritual of the Damned?

It did. Both the stratagems from it aren't reprinted in Ritual of the Damned, and the Warlord Trait and Relic all are really good

 

Also: I just noticed this in Ritual of the Damned, but now it annoys me. We don't get the "get extra Warlord Traits" stratagem like other Chapters. What gives GW?

 

We do.... Hero of the chapter, page 52 Ritual of the Damned.

Phew! Had me worried there!