/tg/ - Traditional Games

I love winning marinebros

"Dabs on grayshitters"

Now is the time of the Terminator.

Fix my shitty color scheme.

Paint your models

>>73520579
I can't find where it says that units spawned in-game cost reinforcement points. I'm of course hoping it has been removed but I know it is a false hope.

So it's a given the marines and crons will be the first two 9th edition codices. What's your guess hich factions will be next?

Reminder that chaos sorcerers and daemon princes can turn off invulns

>Terminators are in because Stormshield
>tfw I have plenty of Terminators
>tfw I have Chaos ones

>>73520608
blade too dark, armor too light, gold on white looks like ass unless expertly done

>>73520616
dark eldar and chaos

*blocks your path*

>>73520616
Space marines again

>>73520614
The fact that Chaos Boons specifies that the DPs and Spawns produced by it do not cost points means that it's an outlier, ergo other instances of spawning units must cost points

>>73520611
I need a way to tactically deploy my painting station.
Can't simply leave on a table and hope my dumb kid wont touch them by accident at some point. Even my dumb wife has bump them into death.
Might simply abandon my family move to rural japan and teach shitty english. Maybe then I'll have a safe place for my models.

>>73520620
Not armor saves

>>73520620
>mfw the 2++ is technically an armour save so will be unaffected by null zone and death hex.

>>73520608
Only the skull should really be white on crons, pick an armor color you like for the body. The joints should be a metallic instead of the matte color you have there. Also impcat sucks for energy colors.

>>73520620
They can't turn off 1+ saves.

>>73520664
>>73520661
but doesn't ++ mean invuln

>>73520655
I just put my paints in a cardboard box when I'm moving them around

>>73520608
Do what I do. When lacking inspiration look at rocks/minerals until you find something you like.

>>73520616
Deldar have some new models coming in Q4

>>73520608
sorry, it doesn't work

try having the same dark green on arms and legs too (leave chest and head white)

>>73520620
>2++ is actually 1+

>>73520673
No, it's a 1+ just acts like a 2++ because GW can't into consequences.

>>73520669
>They can't turn off 1+ saves.
So why not just blast them with a meltagun? What's the problem here?

>>73520673
Yes but it's not an actual invul, just shorthand

>>73520673
yes but read the pic in OP
it's functionally a 2++ because it's a 1+ save that can't be decreased in any way, but it's still technically an armor, not invuln, save

>>73520673
Yes, but in this case it's just being used because the armour save functions akin to one. It's not actually one though

>>73520690
Only a natural roll of 1 autofails
Can't modify a roll below a 1
So a 1+ save always saves unless you roll a natural 1 regardless of AP

>>73520690
AP modifies the roll, not the model. Rolls can't be modified below a one. Therefore no AP can modify a 1+ save. 1s still fail to save because that's a separate rule.

>>73520690
Its explained in the OP, but basically the way a 1+ save interacts with rend means that you can never really negate it.

You cant reduce a save below 1 with rend, and these models pass on a 1 or higher per their save characteristic, therefore the only way they can fail a save is by rolling a nat 1 (which always fails), since the most you can do otherwise is reduce them to 1 (which normally passes)

>>73520690
1) because 1+ armour saves ignore AP
2) because it's retarded to use a mental gun against a 1+/4++ model even if they didn't.

I have like 5 replies to me right now and I don't understand any of this
I will just not play with marine or custodes players

>>73520655
Store everything in tackleboxes with magnetized base on the models. Paints can be stored fine without everything exploding if they get moved around. Lock them both with key padlocks and keep the keys on your car/house keys. Or same locking method but put everything into cabinets.

Also acquire a shed.

>>73520616

If I was a Space Marine player I'd be so pissed... literally just bought an updated Codex after Shadowspear dropped so they could add in Infiltrators, Eliminators, etc.

Now they're going to have to buy ANOTHER Codex which will undoubtedly come a month at most later once Indomitus Box set is released.

>>73520675
I'm looking for something more like a box that I can quickly open and close. Shoe box would requiere to remove paints/models from the box into another surface.
Currently even my wet pallet is inside a tupper for even faster deployment, but I need to figure out a way to build a box that I can simply open and get to paint in whatever room I'm escaping.
I would love to know why my fucking models and paint are like a magnet for bumps

>>73520733
Do you have a learning disability?

>>73520733
1+ save make AP go bye bye
only way to not save is to roll a 1

points not even mentioned in the new rules, are points officially dead?

>>73520746
Tackle box?

>>73520762
Yes

you guys do realize that +1 means 2-6 right? It's PLUS one, not '1'. Meaning you have to roll and add one, some if you roll a one it is 2, then you modify it back to one, and therefore it is an unmodified natural one and you take a wound.

>>73520737
Was trying to figure out something like picture related.
Not a table but something that can be "folded" I know its a dumb issue.

>>73520762
No

>>73520751
No, it's just that 40k rules are ridiculously unintuitive
This is like the time when I learned that +1 to hit doesn't turn a 1 into a 2

>>73520762
No? Points are in the rules. They even have point tables in the indomitus box

>>73520690
>literally explained in full in OP
>still doesn't get it

>>73520784
Distinctly not how it works. It changes the models characteristic, not it's saving throw in this case

>>73520784
>it's an unmodified 1 after the roll has been modified
that's not what the FAQ they're using as precedent says

>>73520614
Leaks have it. It's in a section of the rulebook that GW's PDF reveal doesn't include.

>>73520608
Silver crons best crons you done fucked up.

>>73520611
both pretty fuckable, you know

>>73520746
Can't be too hard to customize a case or trunk into something like pic related.

>>73520800
I opened it, saw the "humorous" tone, and then closed it, assuming it was a shitpost like "orktober vs chaos so far", which had similar editing

>>73520614
>I can't find where it says that units spawned in-game cost reinforcement points.

https://imgur.com/a/J4Bygoq
Under the "Building an Army" section on the page starting "Points Values" in the sidebar labeled "Reinforcement Points."

>>73520828
Thank you! That seems what I've been looking for.
Guess my shitty third world country didn't have something like this.

>>73520793
you're dumb nigga
a 1 with +1 does turn it into a 2

but an UNMODIFIED roll of 1 always fails, so while you can modify it as high as you want it will always fail

>>73520682
>banded gneiss
nice

>>73520793
No. Because a natural roll of 1 always fails. I don't know how this could be hard to remember

>>73520682
For best results look for minerals with interesting inclusions. Agates are a good choice

>>73520784

>>73520579

Jokes on them. It improves the Terminator's regular save by 1, not it's invulnerable save (which is still 4+).

It has two saving types you choose between.

>>73520738
Marinebabs are whales.

>>73520862
>>73520866
conflicting answers

Baneblades need a 5+++.

>>73520813
>>73520841
Thank ye.

>>73520862
But if it gets a +something would it be modified?
Or are we talking about natural 1s ?
Asking because I didn't have this issue back in my day of 40k during 4th

>>73520902
baneblades should cost as much as a leman russ

>>73520901
they aren't, a roll of 1 fails

>>73520579
>an FAQ for a forgeworld unit from a different edition

Well that's all the proof I need.

>>73520890
It turns the terminators regular save into a 1+ which works like a 2++

>>73520889
This should clear it up for everybody, a “1” was always a fail irrespective of any “modifiers”.

>>73520809
no, you just don't understand what an armour save value denotes. Nowhere do they say that a modified roll of a 2 is saved.

>>73520807
yes the characteristic of a saving throw, which is a given value denoted as '+ a figure from 1 to 6'. All those figures represent an addition to one.

>when rerolling charges you can't choose which dice to reroll, both must be rerolled together

really hope this is changed, the multi charge changes are 100% justified but this hurts melee armies significantly

>>73520880
>agate
>rhymes with ____

Man I love geology jokes
>>73520863

>>73520920
Leman russes should cost as much as baneblades.

>>73520901
Those both say the same thing you mong. If a 1 comes up on the die it fails regardless of ANY OTHER FACTORS

>>73520890
>joke's on them they have a 1+ armor save which functions like a 2++ except even better since it ignores the anti-invuln rules like null zone and xenophase blade

>>73520938
guardsmen should be free

>>73520934
You might be an idiot dude

>>73520928

Yeah but regular saves are affected by AP. Invulnerable saves are not.

It's not a 4+ Inv save which then gets a +1 to it's Sv.

>>73520889
Thank you, this legitimately helped explain it for me.

>>73520768
Tackle box or a tool box are the best choices since they fold in on themselves and generally tend to have a nice low center of gravity for stability.

Did the points for melee weapons for Adeptus Astartes get leaked yet?

>>73520901
both answers mean the same thing
it dosn't matter if the modifiers change the 1 or not (though they do) because an UNMODIFIED (ie the actual face on the die itself) roll of 1 always fails

Not super worried about the 1+ save thing, because everyone is making the assumption that the specific wording of the rules seen in the box set data sheets will make the jump to normal storm shields (all it takes is a wording shift to "improved to a minimum of 2+"), or that there won't be a FAQ before then (there will, they always fix this kinda shit).

>>73520957
A 1+ save is not affected by AP. No one cares or is talking about the 4++

>>73520809
Reminder that that FAQ *is* from Age of Sigmar.

So although there seems to be precedent that doesn't mean its not going to be errata'd.

Certainly rules as written this seems to be how it works now.

>>73520934
You'd be right if the rule didn't specifically say a 2+ save becomes a 1+ save.

>>73520604
greyknights basically ignore these rules with their smites

>>73520973
They didnt in AoS

I'm not reading any of that greytide faggot nitpicking to get back at gw for calling them out elsewhere.

If you roll a 1 on your save. You failed your save. Get fucked.

>>73520957
>Yeah but regular saves are affected by AP.
You only needed to spend 5 fuckmothering seconds reading the thread to see why you’re wrong
>>73520889

>>73520982
They habe the same FAQ for potion of strength or something in 40k. Can't remember the name

>>73520858
There's some online companies that do cases like that. https://frontierwargaming.com/product/paint-case/ is literally that product but you could probably put together a box yourself that's similar.
I was actually thinking more like pic related which is a kind of portable writing desk officers and businessmen would use around the 1940s-50s.

>>73520934
>Nowhere do they say that a modified roll of a 2 is saved.
the rules for armour says that

if after modifiers the roll is higher than the armour, then it's saved
the only exception is when the roll is a 1 BEFORE ANY MODIFIER IS APPLIED, which is what an unmodified roll is

this makes a 1+ armour effectively a 2+ armour to armour immune to armour penetration
the same case has happened before and this was the way the game designers confirmed the rules to work

>>73520579
Saves can be modified below 1 now, so this exploit no longer works RAW. Spread the word.

>>73520608
what app is that?

>>73520923
from a different game, actually

but if the same rules writers say all of the following
>yes when a model gets a 1+ it functions like a 2++ (bastilidon)
>yes we're actively changing rules to avoid things having a 1+ because RAW it functions as a 2++ (ork looted strat changing from +1 to characteristic to +1 to save to max of 2+)
>yes this storm shield gives you +1 to armor save characteristic
there's no debate at all what the rule means

Where is an actual datasheet that has a save of “1+”? And if a unit had such a save why would it even need an invulnerable save since it would take a -6 to even make a difference?

>>73520970
but applying a modifier makes it from an unmodified 1 to a modified 2

>>73521009
impcat

>>73521006
Proof?

>>73520889
Not anymore >>73521006

>>73521003
Yeah that seems more appropriate. Ordering it is not really an option for me. I'm still waiting for things from January.
Think I'll just make one wont be the first time.

>>73520920
>>73520953
take your meds cruddace

>>73520973
We had literally this exact situation in AoS when the new Lizardmen book came out.

It's so funny watching everyone be confused and in denial about it. GW never learns.

>>73521016
+1 isn't printed on any datasheets for this reason, it makes units practically unkillable

>>73521006
>Saves can be modified below 1 now
Dumb faggot

>>73520983
put it this way, you don't get a save if it the unit has a 6+ armour and gets shot by -1 AP. Works the other way round, you don't get a save if the unit has a +1 and it got shot by -6 AP.

>>73521014
Wouldn’t that shield work just like a Bullgryn’s shield that lets it at 2 to its regular saving throw? That is how I’m interpreting it, and that FAQ in the OP being from a DIFFERENT game for a single unit is just a lie.

>>73521044
Right, it's the roll, not the characteristic that's being modified.

>>73520990
>I'm not reading any of that
which explains how you've completely missed the point at hand
>If you roll a 1 on your save. You failed your save. Get fucked.
this whole argument is not about having an armour save that protects you from every roll of the dice, but about an armour save that does not get affected by AP and saves 5/6 wounds regardless of AP

>>73521031
Kys
>>73521044

>>73521057
No.

>>73521057
That's not what the rules say though.

>>73521017
it still has both values retard, it's both an unmodified 1 (which auto-fails) and a modified 2 which would pass, except it's an unmodified 1 which fails

>>73520957
You don't get it, AP doesn't effect the save characteristic of the model it effects the dice roll.

But with a 1+ save you will pass any save that isn't a natural 1, modified 1's caused by AP modifiers don't matter because you save on a 1+ and dice can never be modified below a 1, unmodified 1's always fail but theres nothing in the rulebook to suggest that dice rolls modified into 1 are an autofail.

so its basically a 2++ save except rules that ignore invulnerable saves don't effect it, the only way to break through is with a mortal wound.

its retarded and unintuitive but thats how this games mechanics works.

GW could fix this if they changed stormshield rules from modifying the save to just giving a +1 modifier to armour save rolls, as that would be nullified by AP because its not effecting the core save value, its just adding an AP buffer.

>>73521073
Fine, my blood is on your hands.

>>73521037
>It's so funny watching everyone be confused and in denial about it. GW never learns.

I firmly believe that GW writes some of their rules intentionally vague to see how players interpret and abuse it. If they like how the players interpret it then they can FAQ it to agree with the player interpretation. If it gets abused too much they can FAQ it to go against how the payers are using it. In either case they win since the players will test all of their shit for them.

>>73521073
>doesn't know the difference between a characteristic and a dice roll

Every argument I see says
>Not everyone has the time for painting

What kind of miserable existence to people lead where they cant spare a few hours each week to work on slowly painting their army?

>>73521085
no, it transmutates from 1 to 2
it's like picking up the die and turning it to a 2
it is no longer a 1

>>73521060
NO
fuck faggot you're a retard

read the godamn OP, the point is it is not a modifier but a change to the characteristic itself, which changes how it interacts with rules as opposed to just being a +1 to the saving throw like what cover gives

>>73521099
a hypocritical one

What was stopping this from happening in 8th with 2+ save models in cover?

>>73521006
>>73521044

Ready for all the salty Marinelet comments...

>>73521099
American cultural norm is at least 40hpw and usually as much free OT as they can squeeze out, and 2 hours total commute a day

>>73521097
>gets in rules arguments without actually reading the rules
It’s been explained for you in this thread.

For leather basecoat rhinox hide then wash in reikland fleshshade?

Should I play AoS or 40K if I want to get a bf?

>every day it's either raining or above 90 degrees
It's not fair, I want to paint, but I can't

>>73521099
That's not even the worst excuse.
>I'm scared to paint my stuff. What if I mess it up?
is far more obnoxious.

>>73521118
Cover modifies the dice roll not characteristic

>>73521006
Nothing in this part says anything about save.

>>73520923
It's actually a main line GW model from the current edition of AoS.
And while that is a different game, the wording in the BRB causing that FAQ for it is the same

>>73521132
Are you Male or Female (Male)

>>73521104
you might be too retarded to play the game

>UNMODIFIED 1's always fail
>this means if the dice roll result is a 1, it fails, period
>you can modify it up or down to be whatever you want but it doesn't matter because before any of that happens the unmodified value is still a 1, and 1's always fail
are you unwell?

>>73521118
Cover changes the dice roll, it doesn't effect the characteristic.

GW should just make modifiers like this modify the dice roll instead of the save value or this is going to happen literally every time an army with 2+ saves gets a save modifier.

>We gave some armies the ability to ignore AP-2, Marines aren't looking so fancy now
>OK, time to give them an unmodifiable 1+ save!

>tfw when play Tau and enjoy painting my models.

>>73521132
aos is full of soiboys
40k is full of sperglords

really, you should find a bf outside of your hobbies, as counterintuitive as that sounds

>>73521099
Literally just a base coat with a color primer, pick out the weapons and a few details with two different colors, a quick wash of nuln oil, then cover the base with PVA glue and dunk it in sand. Each mini can be done in about 15 - 20 minutes not including drying time.

>>73521162
There won't be any other armies with 2+ saves and save modifiers.

>>73521006
where does it say save you illiterate nigger

Imagine not having 2++ saves on your troops
this post was made by gold gang

>>73521099
Either way, it is irrelevant. You can just play the Open Hostility missions and you'll be fine with your unpainted army. You only have to have a painted army to play Eternal War or Crusade.

>>73520923
>>73521014
>>73521060
1+sv is going to be a staple of Crusade lists it seems so maybe they're going to be rolling out more 1+ units as the edition rolls on (hopefully attached to big money centerpiece units for each army!!!).

>>73521186
I would tell you if I knew how to read

>>73521075
it literally cannot be any other way if you use a D6 to determine results, any values that are <1 and >6 are irrelevant so a modified roll of a one always fails. Starting to understand why you autists always whine about clarification if you can't understand a basic concept like this.

>>73520579
Post armies/models that will assure victory over rule pinching and semantics arguing retards who have no other competitive outlets.

>>73521188
why do custodesfags think they're not jist another flavour of marinefag?

>>73520655
Fukkin weebs. Always think moving to Japan will solve problems caused by their own bad decisions

>>73521138
It's not like I don't understand the sentiment but if you're a grown fucking man I don't think the concept of "everyone starts somewhere" should be beyond you

>>73521162
>anyone besides Spess Muhrines getting 2+

>>73521196
Forgot muh nonsense.

>>73521206
i can't hear you with my golden cock in your mouth

>>73521182

9E will be far more enjoyable if you simply dont play against Marines.

>>73521154
Male

>>73521208

Yes, but do you not feel you're being judged for bringing grey, bare plastic as much or worse than a 'bad' paint job?

>>73521182
wait, disco lord, termis, warpsmiths all have 2+ save. If you put them behind correct cover they'll have 1+ save as well.

>>73521169
Show up with 60 lovingly painted individually detailed shield drones and watch people lose their minds.

>>73521158
WHEN YOU MODIFY SOMETHING
IT CEASES TO BE UNMODIFIED
IF I FUCKING CUT OPEN AN APPLE IT'S NOT BOTH AN "UNCUT APPLE" AND A "CUT APPLE"
IT'S A FUCKING CUT APPLE

FULGRIM!

>>73521239
They're apple products anon, no one cares what they look like.

>>73520579
Second hand buyer anons, what percentage of a box cost would be a good price for good condition, second hand, put together, well but incomplete painted minis?

Anyone got Inquisitor Draxus' datasheet handy? I want to know if she's worth it before I put in my order

>>73521237
Cover doesn't work like that

>>73521225
Yes.

>>73521241
Oh no, it's retarded

>>73521239
I'll fucking do it. I paint during my job which is 90% downtime during the middle of the night.

>>73521237
No, they get a +1 to their save roll. Different effect.

>>73521244
Which is why I would find it hilarious if they were lovingly painted and individually decorated. Like those small plastic barbie accessories, have one shield drone with some sunglasses, another with a baseball cap, another with a scarf, another with a top hat, etc.

>40k
>gets 1+ save
>people lose their shit
>WHFB
>has 0+, 1-, etc. saves

>>73521256
Yeah, that's really novel and clever, you totally haven't called me a retard in literally every single reply so far

>>73521237
Not how it works, see >>73521162

>>73521241
You check for natural 1's before applying modifiers anon.

>>73521245
is the unit sought after in the meta and difficult to acquire? then 30% off the original price
otherwise 50% off

>>73521266
>>73521247
hmm...
Is the shield really the only thing that increases the save value by 1? I'm guessing that they'll FAQ it to increase the save roll by 1 then.

>>73521208
>if you're a grown fucking man
I guess that's the root of the problem with these people. They never progressed past their whiny teenager phase

How does the new Heavy Bolt Pistol on the Bladeguard Vets compare to the Boltcaster sword&board Custodes use? That being, does AP-1 and 6" range compensate for the second shot?

I want to get a master of possession and a pair of obliterators for my CSM army. Will these ever go on sale outside of the CSM start collecting, or am I just stuck with eBay? Feels shitty having to dish out like $60 for just 3 little models

When you make a save, you roll a dice.
A dice roll cannot be modified below 1.
Therefore, regardless of AP, you can never roll below a 1+ save and thus can never fail.
The exception is natural 1s which are always an automatic fail.
Therefore 1+ saves behave identically to 2+ invuns.

>>73521246
she's not

>>73521277
So essentially the more complete a model is the less the value?

>>73521206
Because they're better and can shoot marines without consequences.

>>73521241
>literally too dumb to play 40k
lmao
think of it like having two saves, an unmodified value and modified value. the unmodified 1 will always fail, regardless of what the modified value would be

im not feeding you anymore retard, if you don't get it by now please just fuck off to a different wargame to not lower the average IQ anymore than it already is

>>73521188
Imagine not having 20+ wounds on each of your units
This post was made by knight gang

>>73521291
make them yourself
obliterators are ugly and the MoP can easily be converted from anything

>>73521283
The only other such effect got FAQed, so it seems likely.

>>73521208
>The 1+ save argument is back
God fucking dammit. It's literally the third time it happens. Last two times it shitted threads for weeks until GW released a faq. And it doesn't help how those two faq had opposite effects, namely that while both agreed that it's how it works, the first one corrected the rules to make it impossible to reach a 1+ while the second one said that it was absolutely intended to work that way. Time to go away for a while.

>>73521303
have fun getting shot at and not being able to fire back

>>73521302
>think of it like having two saves
Because you say so? I could just as easily say "don't think of it like having two saves".

>>73520616
Emperors Children and an Eldar of some kind.

>>73521283
No but it is hard to find other ones. Loot it used to do it but they faqd it. Crusade format has a generic ability that does it >>73521217
>>73521223
1+ saves are intentional

>>73521311
It was not meant to reply

>>73521203
>a modified roll of a one always fails
Incorrect.

Leave Storm Shields to me

>>73521293
They're better since invuln saves can be disabled.

>>73521326
But you thinking has been the root cause of this "discussion".

>>73521298
that's not what I said

>>73521336
Them making 1+ saves intentional makes me think they'll get rid of rolls not being able to go bellow 1.

>>73521360
They didn't.

>>73521349
Maybe it's everyone else's thinking

>>73520616
Imperial Fists.

>>73521272
Man, I love my Chaos Lord with his -2+ armour save.

>>73521217
This is marine shit right? Can't wait to see smash captains with a storm shield plus this

>>73521352
I know I'm just trying to get a general idea, thanks by the way.

>>73521241
>WHEN YOU MODIFY SOMETHING
>IT CEASES TO BE UNMODIFIED
Right, which is why the rule refers exclusively to results of a 1 before modifiers are applied.

>>73521116
Seriously why the fuck does tau attract so many grayshitters?
I thought it was just a silly meme at first but no. I have quite literally never seen a fully painted Tau army on TT.

>>73521367
>they didn't
but they wrote multiple times specifically 1+ saves being a thing explicitly.

>>73521099
It's odd to me, if they somehow don't have enough time to paint surely they must have enough money to pay someone else to do it for them.
There's really no excuse for not having painted models.

>>73521380
No that is from the crusade rules and can be applied to any unit

>>73521204

>no malcadors

>>73521204
Which turrets are those?

>>73521384
confirmation bias on your part
I have only seen painted Tau armies at my LGS
In fact, it's the Necrons players who don't paint here

>>73521373
ok boomer

How hard is it to understand that 1's will always fail

>>73521384
Tau just happen to attract the same kind of people that just happens to not like to paint.

good thing all my HQ's are psykers

>>73521096
It's not like GW doesn't have experience with 1+ armour saves. Back in Fantasy, it was not at all uncommon to have an entire unit of knights charging into battle with a 1+ save.
Of course, back then Armour Penetration didn't modify the roll itself, but the value of the save, so there was no 2++ sperging.

>>73521387
Yes and they didn't change the rules to allow modifying below 1

>>73521403
*

>>73521394
Ah my bad, thought it was a new piece of special issue wargear or something. Guess that isn't as bad.

>>73521396
are malcadors even worth taking?

>>73521384
it's kinda of a brain dead army so it attracts people who play lazily, and surprisingly, and too lazy to paint their stuff. The people who have more niche tau lists that don''t just sit and shoot probably paint their stuff.

For the love of all that's holy why don't we have the points for none astates yet?

Does the new box not come with the updated point values or something?

>>73521422

I dunno, they're just cool looking. That's how I made most of my army

>>73521403
How hard is it to understand thats not whats being argued?

>>73521326
He's trying to help and all you can do is bitch.

>>73521388
Well there is also >>73520655 sometimes even when you want to paint you end up in situations where is not actually possible to do it

>>73521403
almost as hard as getting that's not even the crux of the discussion, but the fact the armour save can't be penetrated by ap

>>73521399
For me it was the Guard Player.

>>73521348
In the grand scale of things, yes.

>>73521429
why should it come with something that doesn't concern the contents of the box?

>>73521429
Because the chad who dumped them only had the indomitus stuff

>>73521435
I don't accept help from people who insult me

>>73521419
i'm saying that they'll probably change the rules to allow below 1.
They couldn't have intended for 2+ invuls to be a thing.

>>73521290
the extra range doesn't matter much because if your assault unit is more than 12" from an enemy unit, it should be advancing instead of shooting.

>>73521384
Tau are a strong army with an easy play style where you don't have to remember rules or worry about positioning or deployment, you just put your models together and roll dice until you win. This is ideal for the WAACfag that wants to win but doesn't want to put any effort into learning the army, since as soon as another army gets stronger rules they'll switch to that army.

>>73521274
That was my first reply to you. Retard.

>>73521470
They didn't. The rules already got released. Look up thread

They intended it. FAQ shows they intended the interaction as well. Get over it.

>>73521470
When? 10e?

>>73521472
you can advance and shoot with assault weapons

>>73521478
I don't get it when people say this
I took a look at a tau codex the other day and it was a little overwhelming with the support systems and markerlight mechanics

>>73520738
>Complaining about releases for your army

Maybe You should write a letter of complaint to gw asking for more xenos releases

>>73521486
where was the FAQ posted?

Oh boy, I can't wait to see every single army besides bannanabois and termies to be made completely fucking irrelevant because it's damned near impossible to hurt them.

>>73521493
pistols aren't assault weapons

Based GW giving golden Chad's a 1+ save.
ALL IS GOLD AND ALL IS SUPREME

>>73521467
If you request help, you must first acknowledge your own inability.
If you can't handle people commenting on your inability, don't request help.

>>73521293
There area also things like the Culexus' Life Drain effect that don't allow armour saves to their melee attack.
Though I don't think it would be worth it to try to throw a Culexus at a squad of terminators.

>>73520986
>>73521037
Except they've rapidly nerfed abuse cases like the infinite attack reavers via FAQs, including making changes to things before the books even come out.

And in this case, it isn't like codex space marines is coming out alongside the box set. They have weeks to decide exactly how to tackle this now that everyone is screaming about it, and it has clearly been brought to their attention.

What does "mechanized guard" mean? Is that just vehicle spam?

>>73521517
This but unironically

>>73521522
Nothing is worth throwing at terminators, as they will automatically pass 5/6 armor saves even if smacked by an AP-100 weapon.

>>73521515
In the OP. They also FAQd it in a 40k rule interaction called strength something but I can't remember what it was for the life of me. They talked about it last night

>>73520611
So you can laugh at them? fuck painting

updated the 1+ meme to be easier to understand for all the retards too dumb to get it

>9th causing arguments before it even drops

>>73521538
AHHHHHH NO DECIMATOR-SAN I SUBMIT!!!! I KNEEL!!!! DON'T FIRE THE SOULBURNER AGAIN NOOOOO

>>73521498
comp tau lists have a few markerlight units with the bulk of the army being 3 riptides and a fuck ton of shield drones with maybe some crisis suits or a tank. the markerlight units are there just to make it easier to hit the units that need to die first and aren't necessary just helpful. almost all of the work of the army is done by the 3 riptides, the goal being that they destroy any meaningful threat by turn 2 before they run out of shield drones to pass wounds to. with the changes to secondary objectives it will hopefully force armies to adapt and move away from static castles, gun lines, and death stars.

>>73521534
*nothing AP-3/4 or above
Spamming a whole load of AP-1 and 2 isnt a bad way to chunk terminators down, like deathspitter warrior spam with boneswords

>>73521530
yes

>>73521517
12 shots of anything kills a 2++

>>73521544
The core rules are out, when is it considered dropped?

>>73521519

>>73521530
It usually means you have infantry in transports in addition to whatever tanks you brougt

>>73521478
You have clearly never played Tau before...

>>73521517
Its already been this way in 8th. Have you not experience the joy of putting 40 something shots into a unit of wulfen with stormshields and end up causing 1 wound?

>>73521517
it's not difficult to saturate a 2+ save until it dies

at least until rerolls aren't called in

ITS TIME

>>73521561
When it's available to buy.

>>73520654
Is this a new leak or something? Those cost points in 8e

>>73521576
>mfw the local wolf players is already salty about his shields being a 4++ now

>>73521515
They're literally using a FAQ from an entirely separate game system to try to justify this silly interpretation. It's a joke, ignore it.

>>73521534
>throw a huge mob of grots at a unit of termies
>drown them in shots from screaming green retards

idk why everyone is freaking out. If >>73521538 is true, all it means is that they will change it almost immediately

>>73520645
What armor are those?

>>73521545
>mortal wounds ignore armor and invuln saves
wow that's amazing chaos is so OP nobody knew about this before

>>73520579
Newfag here on a typical model is it possible to really take apart a model after it's been assembled? Wondering because I saw a good deal on some good quality secondhand stuff but they're modeled with a different wargear than I want.

>>73521594
Baste.

How this image makes you feel?

>>73521567
-10 VP

>>73521552
>>73521602
>They automatically pass every save except those they roll a nat 1 on
Okay, sure, have fun.

>>73521597
The best part is that the FAQ is just to help you dummies get it. The rules are airtight without them. Cope harder.

>>73521536
Ah the FAQ is precedent from AoS.
idk dude, wouldn't this make custodes and shield dudes just a tad bit too op? Crusades seem like they'll be fucked from the get go by having better armour give all your good stuff 2+ invul.
>>73521597
thanks

>>73521606
There was no reason to take it before

>>73521567
Different anon, but I played against a Tau gunline for 3 edition straight as my main opponent for about 1 game a week. That's basically all there is to it. Sometimes the guns are different, sometimes the target priority is different, sometimes you bubblewrap differently.

Either you're arguing semantics or you're a butthurt taufag

And ... For the love of god.... Stop... Misusing... These... Fucking... Boomer...

>>73521616
as a colourblind painter...im ver proud that i hand painted my army and am going to take those extra points with pride

>anyone really thinks GW isnt going to instantly FAQ 1+ saves to be affected normally by AP
You're literally retarded if you think AoS rulings apply at all.

>tfw like the new 9th ed changes
>tfw no 40k army I like atm
>tried GSC but dont care for their gameplay or lore
>tried Chaos but detest their vehicles
>hate Space Marines and their Primaris crap
>tried Ad Mech a while ago and just dont like them, too schizo

>>73521604
it isn't true, literally every other part of the game works on the assumption you don't count any modifiers of <1 and >6, and I don't mean 'they happen but aren't legit', I mean the modifiers don't happen at all, they can only modify within the scope of a six sided die.

>>73521620
Yes, that is the point. Well done, you figured it out.

So 9th edition is basically age of sigmar wearing a 40k skin.

Complete with the disgusting army limitations from AoS. Now all we need is for fags wankshop to start spamming "special formations" in new codexes and rules supplements that give you the privilege of building your army a way that isn't allowed in the core rulebook without fucking yourself sideways in CP losses.

>>73521622
Most people get that it's how they actually work eight now, but an FAQ would confirm that it's the way they intended it to work

>>73521627
Only deathwatch veterans would become OP

It is there.
+1 to the save, it goes from2+ to 1+ after that you substract the AP value fo 3 - means, this will be a 4+ Save.

Whats so hard about this, it is right there? o

>>73521630
But he's not misusing it? It's to imitate trailing off your speech. Also see how I used the question mark in the first sentence to denote an upward inflection, instead of a question.

>>73521628
ok
it's still kinda shit and less efficient than pretty much other mortal wound spam (or for that matter, just regular shooting spam to make them buckle under rolling 1's)

chaoslets btfo, as per normal

HEY NERDS, SO ARE THEY GOING WITH THE DUMB NEW MISALIGNED LOGO OR NOT?

SOMETIMES I SEE THE NEW ONE BUT WHEN I GO TO STORE I SEE THE GOOD OL' LOGO.

>>73521636
>Imagine have a brain the size of a pea

Sad

>>73521636
They did have this situation with Ork Lootas and meganobz which was FAQd out, that was not intended.

However on the other hand, artificer armour mentions +1 save being a thing they acknowledge and the AoS ruling is more recent that the Ork one.

>>73521610
Depending on what kind of glue was used, can be trivial or a massive pain.

>>73521644
That's retarded, and there's 0 point playing against them.

>>73521610
Relatively easy if the model is superglued together (just drop it in hot water).
If plastic glue has been used, you'll need to cut the model apart. If you're careful this is pretty easy to do along the joints between components of most models. If this isn't possible, cutting hands off at the wrists and replacing them with new hands holding the correct wargear is relatively easy.

It's time.

>>73521534
You're retarded. SS termies already ignored everything above AP -1, yet they were never competitive. The exact same tactics you would use against them (weight of fire, mortal wounds) work, it's just going to take a few more shots for it

>>73521652
Do you understand the difference between a characteristic and a roll?

>>73521099
I don't know. I personally don't like painting so I don't do it often, but I'm at least honest with myself as to why most of what I have is unpainted

>>73521654
>up to 12 mortal wounds per shooting phase that can't be denied
How is that bad

>>73521652
-3 ap affects the dice roll, not the save charectaristic. So if you rolled a 2 to save as a Custodes with that situation, you'd take 3 away from 2, down to -1. However the dice rule says you cannot modify below 1 so that the -3 takes your roll of 2, down to a 1. Your save is 1+ so you pass.

>>73521673
Not him but doesnt matter, the modifiers still follow those rules.

>>73521538
Oh boy. This is going to make my Blood Claw bombs with accompanying Terminator even more bombastic.

>>73521538
this is the new blitz brigade

>>73521652
Good god man.

The +1 to the save affects the save characteristic. The -3 AP affects the die roll.

>>73521669
Except now you can't reduce rolls to a number below 1. How is this difficult for you?

>>73521652
AP modifies the saving roll not the save characteristic.

>>73521683
It matters immensely

>>73521673
The charateristic ist the target you have to roll.
Where is the roll modified in the wording, its +1 to the save (i agree it is still the invuln then)

never does it mention the roll

>>73521680
Not how it will actually work lol. You retards are getting all excited just to get immediately slapped the fuck down by day 1 FAQ

>>73521120
>ot and commute.
My commute is about 30 minutes total a day and I'm lucky to work a max of 40 hours a week. I would hate myself if i had to spend like 60 hours at it traveling to work a week

>>73521597
Except this had to be FAQ'd when it happened to orks in 8e of 40k.

What are the thoughts on the necrom fortifications?

>>73521652
You're trying too hard with those spelling errors man.

>>73521666
Citadel is plastic glue right satan?

>>73521705
And how did they FAQ it anon? By the Age if Sigmar ruling, or did they make it so 1+ saves do not function as 2++?

Now guess which one it will be for 40k again.

>>73521344
Based, I need to get me one of these

>>73521648
> "special formations" in new codexes and rules supplements that give you the privilege of building your army a way that isn't allowed in the core rulebook without fucking yourself sideways in CP
That was called 7th, newfag

>>73521702
It's possible they update storm shield to say something like can't improve save past 2+, but all the other mechanics are pretty set in stone.

>>73521648
Well they're already setting up for that horseshit with army specific terrain pieces.

>>73521685
Wut. You only get benefits to those if terminator is part of the unit not just nearby

>>73521642
>literally every other part of the game works on the assumption you don't count any modifiers of <1
Yup, and that's why 1+ saves are unaffected by AP.

>>73521702
That's what we fucking hope, but GW doesn't inspire any amount of confidence.

>>73521722
citadel has both plastic and super, basically is the model plastic - if yes it will be a pain in the ass, if metal or resin you'll be fine

>>73521616
Is "Battle Ready" defined in the rules anywhere?

>>73521702
>Not how it will actually work
>I’m going to argue rules based on my headcanon of the future instead of the actual books
Just admit you were wrong. Everyone makes mistakes anon. I forgive you.

>>73521725
they fixed it by not allowing you to get to +1

because they know that going +1 like custodes can causes them to ignore AP

Holy shit, yes i am wrong.
what is this wording - why not handle it the same way as above on the charteristics.

well, yeah - so this is the new Brimstone Horror of 9th

Anyone know if flamers will get blast?

>>73521384
I dunno. I saw 1, but he still regularly cheated and made shit up.

Mike, if you're reading this, your tau and their Barney paint scheme can go fuck themselves

>>73521737
Yes, that's how Space Wolves work. They get special snowflake rules for their special snowflake units.
Still waiting for Primaris Blood Claws to attach Terminators to.

>>73521616
FEELS GOOD MAN, like im nutting directly on the face of greytide shitters

>>73521758
they dont

>>73521692
>Except now you can't reduce rolls to a number below 1.
1) You couldn't before either
2) That has nothing to do with what I did.

>>73521635
Why paint if you're colorblind?

>>73521648
you guys fucking wish 40k was AoS

>>73521770
The reason why before it wasnt an issue was because of wording. Look at the wording of the stormshield and the ork loot it stratagem here:

>>73521751

The wording of many other +1 saves affected the dice roll, this affects the characteristic which is crucial.

>>73521676
because it can mortal wound you, only does about 5MW per turn on a relatively fragile frame with noticeable point costs and not great range, which also deals you about 2 wounds a turn. it's not a super great option all around, especially when psykers can just jump in and dab easy mode

A 1+ save PASSES EVERY SAVE NO MATTER THE AP UNLESS THERES A NATURAL DICE ROLL OF 1

It’s not hard

>>73521758
Flamers are not blast weapons. The tradeoff is that blast weapons can't be used in close combat, but flamers can.

>>73521648
>Now all we need is for fags wankshop to start spamming "special formations" in new codexes and rules supplements that give you the privilege of building your army a way that isn't allowed in the core rulebook without fucking yourself sideways in CP losses.
Yeah, we do need that. Sounds good.

>>73521748
I'm going to drink your tears the day of the FAQ lmao

>>73521791
Again, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said.

>>73521616
Don't really care. It's 10 points on an otherwise max of 90 you can get. If a significant portion of your strategy involves relying on having a painted army to get an extra 10 points just to try and win, then clearly you're not going to be Sun Tzu or Napoleon on the tabletop

How many more editions do you give it before the game is fucked up so bad they hard reset it again?

>>73521780
Color-blindness is generally not inability to see color, but to tell the difference between some colors. Most commonly red and green.

>>73521800
Which will be instantly errata'd within a week at most of the edition coming out because of you morons spreading this all over the internet and drawing attention to it lmao

>>73521809
Whether they change it after launch has no bearing on me being correct. I don’t even own terminators so I have no dog in this fight other than correcting willfully rules-ignorant posters.

>>73521637
The answer is always Sisters of Battle.

I have Dark Angels, a small thing of Tau, and just started Custodes. I played DA with a sprinkle of Sisters since 3rd, off and on for 5 years, and won maybe 3 times. I hated it, and it made me leave the game. I'm a terrible loser and it wasn't fun going and losing to people week after week.

Fast forward to 8th, I get in on the new stuff, and add more to my sisters. I still lose, but now it's not as bad. In fact, I just love getting to play them. It's much more fun because they're adaptable. I don't feel completely screwed if I don't have enough exorcists or penitents. If anything they make great distractions. Your opponent will hate you for the miracle dice, but they're so much fun.

>>73521844
No it won’t. It’s functionally the same as a 2++ invulnerable save

>>73521738
again, no save allowed for 6+ if it's Ap -1, same the other way round, simple as.

>>73521830
Well considering this one is actually mostly an improvement over 8th... gonna be a long time.

>>73520889
I bet this gets faqd out to work like in warhammerfantasy where having 1+ armor just means you get to negate an armor piercing value.

>>73521737
Wolves can have terminator wearing veteran sergeants in pretty much every single one of their manlet infantry units short of I think their scouts

>>73521616
It means that I'll be dropping my troops instead of painting them
I'd rather take the CP hit of running a spearhead than use models that I don't like

>>73521856
Not how it works

just placed an order for some of these dudes

>>73521856
6s always succeed. Everything has a 6+ invul

Oh boy this edition is looking good, not only I shall "penetrate" the enemy lines with my fast Slaanesh models that can charge 5" in height now, but also my Custodes are getting a lovely 1+ Sv.
Since I want those 10 extra points (and not being a grey-tider), how should I base this scary giant goat-daemons? Pigments? Try a more realistic base?
Light (photo) wasn't the best.

>>73520738
Imagine not playing stuff like 'crons so you can buy a codex once per edition at most

>>73521828
What do you think the average game is win or lost by? I'd say most my games are like 2 points. Missing out a ten free points is an insta loss for anybody.

>>73521874
Chadamanders are top-tier and you should feel great. I prefer the standard spacehulk era termy faces tho

>>73521874
>day 1 FAQ
you done fucked up nigga

>>73521854
I cant get into sisters, as a misogynist.

>>73521616
It's nice that as a fully painted wysiwyg player I got some recognition.

I'm not sure if victory points were the right way, but it's okay I guess.

Calling it now, GW is going to leave in a rule interaction for Space Marines that they specifically faq'd out for Orcs.

>>73521855
It will because of how obtuse and unintuitive the rule is which goes directly against what they're trying to accomplish with 9th edition. Little timmy being told his -4 AP melta rifle eradicators have no effect on your Custodes because
>anon busts out 3 different paragraphs of rules text in separate locations and an FAQ from Age of Sigmar
Isn't going to fly lmao. If GW want a unit to have a 2+ invulnerable save they'll just give it a 2+ invulnerable save. It's not happening and I am SO pleased that you fags think it is because the FAQ day threads are going to be a delicious, delicious salt mine of autistic tears.

>>73521912
can't have xenos be accidentally above unplayable lol

>>73521877
LMAO what, no they don't

>>73521912
>watch as they faq it for Custodes but not marines

Man I love this shit.
It was so much fun watching the retards in aosg screech and whine about "noooooo, bastilodons can't have 2+ unmodifiable saves, thats not intentional" and "i-i't'll get errata'd day, one, j-just you wait and see"

>>73521924
Wrong

About to start playing against with the magic of Tabletop Simulator and a VR headset. Actually hyped its been over a decade

>>73521932
wasn't that one of the first 9th ed rules the spoiled? 1s always fail and 6s always succeed?

>>73521877
that's different since invuls cant be modified

>>73521887
Most every match I've played or personally witnessed has been a stomp one direction or another or limp noodle fight. Of course, with how many vp you can score in 9th, and I don't think the particulars for scoring has been released yet, I'm just saying that it's probably not going to be a make or break outside of rare instances

>>73521861
its literally baffling that they missed something this simple

its incredibly basic. did they playtest this at all?

>>73521813
What you said is that the game will be fine as written, probably because you just shelled out a shitload of money to buy models that benefit from broken rules, despite the fact that 1+s can now only take wounds by rolling a nat 1, simultaneously negating AP completely.

>>73521722
It can be either, they make both. Best thing would be to leave the models in hot water for a bit and test a joint. If it snaps cleanly, you've got superglue. If there's resistance or the part bends, it's plastic glue.

>>73521941
>muh Age of Shitmar ruling will apply to muh Custodes
Looool I can't wait

>>73521336
>>73521360
1+ saves seem intentional and Fine.

But if they wanted it to work like a 2++ invulnerable. then they would have just given it a 2++ invulnerable save.

I expect it to get faqd to make it work like in old fantasy.

>>73521965
Hey anon, the gw play testing team works hard. They're only able to play a couple games a week, so it's impossible for them to catch everything. Small family owned business, please understand

>>73521941
no one has ever complained or whined about the bastiladon and it has never been an issue so I presume you are hallucinating some schizo shit.

Ahem faggots
How y'all gonna cope with slamguinius with a 1+ save. Characteristic modifiers stack, artificer armor, and storm shield both take 3+ to 1+. Slamguinius is back with a vengeance.

>>73521965
Considering that playtesters only started leaking things very recently I think odds are that the playtest book will be the one that ships and whatever playtester catch will be in a day 1 faq.

>>73521984
I want the to FAQ the to hit modifier so it doesn't feel like my alpha legion has basically a useless legion trait. I don't even play possessed.

>>73521984
>Intentional and fine
>Completely ignore any amount of AP
>Only takes a wound on a nat 1 roll
Yeah, okay.

>>73521933
They won't faq it at all they'll just pretend it wasn't an oversight and be like "yeah, it's 9e now, that's what we intended, other factions will get cool things too!" and then other factions won't get anything.

>>73521907
good, nothing gives me more joy than the meta chasers getting curbstomped by nerfs

>>73521983
Seething

>terminators are already sold out on the webstore
Man, people really didn't waste any time, did they

>>73522002
Mortal wounds probably

>>73521637
Knights knights knights knights!
THE MAIDENS AQUIVER AT THE SIGHT OF GIANT ROBOTS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5oEVJ7ru2E