[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.73520588

I love winning marinebros

>> No.73520604

"Dabs on grayshitters"

>> No.73520606
File: 357 KB, 800x600, GravisBTFO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Now is the time of the Terminator.

>> No.73520608
File: 517 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_20200702-142135_impcat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Fix my shitty color scheme.

>> No.73520611
File: 609 KB, 1080x1080, 1578141318851.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Paint your models

>> No.73520614

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.

>> No.73520616

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?

>> No.73520620

Reminder that chaos sorcerers and daemon princes can turn off invulns

>> No.73520628
File: 62 KB, 633x758, 28fj3w.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73520632

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

>> No.73520639

dark eldar and chaos

>> No.73520645
File: 259 KB, 1023x630, 8049887035_c8facb2617_b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

*blocks your path*

>> No.73520649

Space marines again

>> No.73520654

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

>> No.73520655

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.

>> No.73520661

Not armor saves

>> No.73520664
File: 278 KB, 800x800, RatBitchesBTFO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73520669

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.

They can't turn off 1+ saves.

>> No.73520673

but doesn't ++ mean invuln

>> No.73520675

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

>> No.73520682
File: 830 KB, 1600x852, rocks_01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73520685

Deldar have some new models coming in Q4

>> No.73520687

sorry, it doesn't work

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

>> No.73520688
File: 20 KB, 396x451, 1593641093455.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>2++ is actually 1+

>> No.73520689

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

>> No.73520690

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

>> No.73520698

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

>> No.73520707

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

>> No.73520708

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

>> No.73520712

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

>> No.73520722

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.

>> No.73520728

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)

>> No.73520731

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.

>> No.73520733

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

>> No.73520737

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.

>> No.73520738


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.

>> No.73520746

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

>> No.73520751

Do you have a learning disability?

>> No.73520759

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

>> No.73520762

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

>> No.73520768

Tackle box?

>> No.73520778


>> No.73520784
File: 34 KB, 508x310, fkfkfkfkf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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.

>> No.73520789
File: 77 KB, 1500x1495, Table.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73520790


>> No.73520793

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

>> No.73520794

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

>> No.73520800
File: 156 KB, 415x560, 1541363684191.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73520807

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

>> No.73520809

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

>> No.73520813
File: 403 KB, 1316x1755, 9e_pointsvalues.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73520825

Silver crons best crons you done fucked up.

>> No.73520827

both pretty fuckable, you know

>> No.73520828
File: 1.36 MB, 2000x1333, IMG_1228a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73520837

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

>> No.73520841

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

Under the "Building an Army" section on the page starting "Points Values" in the sidebar labeled "Reinforcement Points."

>> No.73520858

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

>> No.73520862

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

>> No.73520863

>banded gneiss

>> No.73520866

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

>> No.73520880
File: 116 KB, 512x438, rocks_03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73520889
File: 56 KB, 594x749, for anons who cant read rules.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.73520890


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.

>> No.73520898

Marinebabs are whales.

>> No.73520901

conflicting answers

>> No.73520902
File: 538 KB, 920x950, E96BCDFE-8FE7-4976-BABF-17AE9EE5E275.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Baneblades need a 5+++.

>> No.73520906

Thank ye.

>> No.73520908

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

>> No.73520920

baneblades should cost as much as a leman russ

>> No.73520922

they aren't, a roll of 1 fails

>> No.73520923
File: 110 KB, 630x484, this faggot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>an FAQ for a forgeworld unit from a different edition

Well that's all the proof I need.

>> No.73520928

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

>> No.73520931

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

>> No.73520934

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.

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.

>> No.73520935

>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

>> No.73520937

>rhymes with ____

Man I love geology jokes

>> No.73520938

Leman russes should cost as much as baneblades.

>> No.73520949

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

>> No.73520950

>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

>> No.73520953

guardsmen should be free

>> No.73520956

You might be an idiot dude

>> No.73520957


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.

>> No.73520962

Thank you, this legitimately helped explain it for me.

>> No.73520963

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.

>> No.73520969

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

>> No.73520970

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

>> No.73520973

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).

>> No.73520974

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

>> No.73520982

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.

>> No.73520983

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

>> No.73520985

greyknights basically ignore these rules with their smites

>> No.73520986

They didnt in AoS

>> No.73520990
File: 72 KB, 600x502, 1513180697928.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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.

>> No.73520991

>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

>> No.73521002

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

>> No.73521003
File: 23 KB, 500x470, 23a35b385948de150046c5af4b96854b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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.

>> No.73521005

>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

>> No.73521006
File: 32 KB, 412x72, characteristic modifiers.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73521009

what app is that?

>> No.73521014

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

>> No.73521016

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?

>> No.73521017

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

>> No.73521025


>> No.73521028


>> No.73521031

Not anymore >>73521006

>> No.73521034

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.

>> No.73521035

take your meds cruddace

>> No.73521037

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.

>> No.73521040

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

>> No.73521044
File: 66 KB, 332x382, 9e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Saves can be modified below 1 now
Dumb faggot

>> No.73521057

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.

>> No.73521060

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.

>> No.73521062

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

>> No.73521072

>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

>> No.73521073


>> No.73521074


>> No.73521075

That's not what the rules say though.

>> No.73521085

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

>> No.73521088
File: 471 KB, 500x550, An Expression Of Pain.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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.

>> No.73521093

Fine, my blood is on your hands.

>> No.73521096

>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.

>> No.73521097

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

>> No.73521099
File: 112 KB, 2208x1242, oflqzl61g9e21.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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?

>> No.73521104

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

>> No.73521115

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

>> No.73521116
File: 295 KB, 848x404, 20200702_220113.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

a hypocritical one

>> No.73521118

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

>> No.73521119


Ready for all the salty Marinelet comments...

>> No.73521120

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

>> No.73521130

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

>> No.73521131

For leather basecoat rhinox hide then wash in reikland fleshshade?

>> No.73521132 [DELETED] 

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

>> No.73521135

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

>> No.73521138

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

>> No.73521140

Cover modifies the dice roll not characteristic

>> No.73521146

Nothing in this part says anything about save.

>> No.73521152

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

>> No.73521154

Are you Male or Female (Male)

>> No.73521158
File: 2.92 MB, 220x220, 1590338480125.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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?

>> No.73521162

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.

>> No.73521167

>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!

>> No.73521169
File: 74 KB, 1280x1110, 1507039128651.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>tfw when play Tau and enjoy painting my models.

>> No.73521170

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

>> No.73521174

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.

>> No.73521182

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

>> No.73521186

where does it say save you illiterate nigger

>> No.73521188
File: 121 KB, 908x1199, Santodes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73521189

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.

>> No.73521196

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!!!).

>> No.73521200

I would tell you if I knew how to read

>> No.73521203

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.

>> No.73521204
File: 257 KB, 1080x1920, 93608970_222777785826286_1565493898397089792_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73521206

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

>> No.73521207

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

>> No.73521208
File: 209 KB, 872x1100, 1592522395745.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73521215

>anyone besides Spess Muhrines getting 2+

>> No.73521217
File: 164 KB, 741x233, Screen Shot 2020-07-02 at 3.06.43 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Forgot muh nonsense.

>> No.73521222

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

>> No.73521223
File: 258 KB, 1270x450, Screenshot_20200702-105519~2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.73521225

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

>> No.73521226 [DELETED] 


>> No.73521234


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

>> No.73521237

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

>> No.73521239

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

>> No.73521241


>> No.73521243
File: 24 KB, 346x346, 776.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.73521244

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

>> No.73521245
File: 1.84 MB, 1920x1080, shhh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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?

>> No.73521246
File: 76 KB, 823x585, psychic-awakening-banshee-rune.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73521247

Cover doesn't work like that

>> No.73521249


>> No.73521256

Oh no, it's retarded

>> No.73521265
File: 860 KB, 600x313, 1387872369024.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73521266

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

>> No.73521270

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.

>> No.73521272

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

>> No.73521274

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

>> No.73521276

Not how it works, see >>73521162

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

>> No.73521277

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

>> No.73521283

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.

>> No.73521285

>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

>> No.73521290
File: 103 KB, 418x209, ReiverHeavyBoltPistol.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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?

>> No.73521291

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

>> No.73521293

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.

>> No.73521294

she's not

>> No.73521298

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

>> No.73521300

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

>> No.73521302
File: 17 KB, 364x322, 1537946665350.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>literally too dumb to play 40k
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

>> No.73521303
File: 435 KB, 1920x1357, 1591387371216.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73521304

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

>> No.73521307

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

>> No.73521311

>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.

>> No.73521319

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

>> No.73521326

>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".

>> No.73521334

Emperors Children and an Eldar of some kind.

>> No.73521336

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
1+ saves are intentional

>> No.73521337

It was not meant to reply

>> No.73521343

>a modified roll of a one always fails

>> No.73521344
File: 56 KB, 640x640, gamesworkshop_1584112520369[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Leave Storm Shields to me

>> No.73521348

They're better since invuln saves can be disabled.

>> No.73521349

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

>> No.73521352

that's not what I said

>> No.73521360

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

>> No.73521367

They didn't.

>> No.73521373

Maybe it's everyone else's thinking

>> No.73521374

Imperial Fists.

>> No.73521375

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

>> No.73521380

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

>> No.73521381

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

>> No.73521382

Right, which is why the rule refers exclusively to results of a 1 before modifiers are applied.

>> No.73521384
File: 234 KB, 1200x1200, 1461764083948.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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.

>> No.73521387

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

>> No.73521388

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.

>> No.73521394

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

>> No.73521396


>no malcadors

>> No.73521398

Which turrets are those?

>> No.73521399

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

>> No.73521401

ok boomer

>> No.73521403

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

>> No.73521405

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

>> No.73521406

good thing all my HQ's are psykers

>> No.73521414
File: 164 KB, 1200x1305, 1516427583210.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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.

>> No.73521419

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


>> No.73521420

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

>> No.73521422

are malcadors even worth taking?

>> No.73521424

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.

>> No.73521429

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?

>> No.73521430


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

>> No.73521431

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

>> No.73521435

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

>> No.73521440

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

>> No.73521441

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

>> No.73521443

For me it was the Guard Player.

>> No.73521455

In the grand scale of things, yes.

>> No.73521458

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

>> No.73521465

Because the chad who dumped them only had the indomitus stuff

>> No.73521467

I don't accept help from people who insult me

>> No.73521470

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.

>> No.73521472

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.

>> No.73521478

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.

>> No.73521482

That was my first reply to you. Retard.

>> No.73521486

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.

>> No.73521491

When? 10e?

>> No.73521493

you can advance and shoot with assault weapons

>> No.73521498

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

>> No.73521502

>Complaining about releases for your army

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

>> No.73521515

where was the FAQ posted?

>> No.73521517

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.

>> No.73521518

pistols aren't assault weapons

>> No.73521519
File: 24 KB, 811x576, 1593370928791.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Based GW giving golden Chad's a 1+ save.

>> No.73521520

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.

>> No.73521522
File: 45 KB, 800x515, 40k-Officio-Assassinorum-Rules-4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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.

>> No.73521525

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.

>> No.73521530

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

>> No.73521531

This but unironically

>> No.73521534

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

>> No.73521536

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

>> No.73521537

So you can laugh at them? fuck painting

>> No.73521538
File: 1.87 MB, 1905x1502, stormshields.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73521544
File: 98 KB, 451x451, 20200306_115552.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>9th causing arguments before it even drops

>> No.73521545
File: 11 KB, 990x86, ab375e48ef[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.73521549

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.

>> No.73521552

*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

>> No.73521553


>> No.73521558

12 shots of anything kills a 2++

>> No.73521561

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

>> No.73521565
File: 164 KB, 307x363, axhhNRh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.73521566

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

>> No.73521567

You have clearly never played Tau before...

>> No.73521576

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?

>> No.73521581

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

at least until rerolls aren't called in

>> No.73521588
File: 78 KB, 720x960, PIC3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.73521589

When it's available to buy.

>> No.73521592

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

>> No.73521594
File: 9 KB, 300x168, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73521597

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.

>> No.73521602

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

>> No.73521604

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

>> No.73521605

What armor are those?

>> No.73521606

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

>> No.73521610

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.

>> No.73521612
File: 38 KB, 444x444, amusEd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.73521616
File: 212 KB, 353x391, 1593723549815.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

How this image makes you feel?

>> No.73521617

-10 VP

>> No.73521620

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

>> No.73521622

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

>> No.73521627

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.

>> No.73521628

There was no reason to take it before

>> No.73521630

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...

>> No.73521635

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

>> No.73521636

>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.

>> No.73521637
File: 57 KB, 946x1007, 1593496726176.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>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

>> No.73521642

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.

>> No.73521644

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

>> No.73521648

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.

>> No.73521650

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

>> No.73521651

Only deathwatch veterans would become OP

>> No.73521652
File: 107 KB, 568x475, Gerechnebechermett.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73521653

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.

>> No.73521654

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

>> No.73521656
File: 201 KB, 960x738, xm5mw6q050u11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]



>> No.73521657

>Imagine have a brain the size of a pea


>> No.73521659

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.

>> No.73521660

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

>> No.73521661

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

>> No.73521666

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.

>> No.73521668
File: 1.05 MB, 1502x2000, [spanish trumpet intensifies].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It's time.

>> No.73521669

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

>> No.73521673

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

>> No.73521675

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

>> No.73521676

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

>> No.73521680
File: 64 KB, 291x155, saving.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

-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.

>> No.73521683

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

>> No.73521685
File: 183 KB, 804x1080, Blood_Claws.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73521687
File: 240 KB, 1440x1080, blitz-brigade.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

this is the new blitz brigade

>> No.73521691

Good god man.

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

>> No.73521692

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

>> No.73521694

AP modifies the saving roll not the save characteristic.

>> No.73521695

It matters immensely

>> No.73521696

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

>> No.73521702

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

>> No.73521704

>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

>> No.73521705

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

>> No.73521710

What are the thoughts on the necrom fortifications?

>> No.73521711

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

>> No.73521722

Citadel is plastic glue right satan?

>> No.73521725

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.

>> No.73521726

Based, I need to get me one of these

>> No.73521730

> "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

>> No.73521731

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.

>> No.73521735

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

>> No.73521737

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

>> No.73521738

>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.

>> No.73521739

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

>> No.73521743

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

>> No.73521746

Is "Battle Ready" defined in the rules anywhere?

>> No.73521748

>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.

>> No.73521751
File: 26 KB, 349x151, maxs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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

>> No.73521753

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

>> No.73521758

Anyone know if flamers will get blast?

>> No.73521759

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

>> No.73521761
File: 519 KB, 1080x1483, Blood Claws.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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.

>> No.73521763

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

>> No.73521765

they dont

>> No.73521770

>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.

>> No.73521780

Why paint if you're colorblind?

>> No.73521790
File: 6.35 MB, 4032x3024, WD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

you guys fucking wish 40k was AoS

>> No.73521791

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:


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

>> No.73521796

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

>> No.73521800


It’s not hard

>> No.73521805

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

>> No.73521807

>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.

>> No.73521809

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

>> No.73521813

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

>> No.73521828

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

>> No.73521830

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

>> No.73521835

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

>> No.73521844

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

>> No.73521850

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.

>> No.73521854
File: 154 KB, 632x500, 1242771907884.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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.

>> No.73521855

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

>> No.73521856

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

>> No.73521860

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

>> No.73521861

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.

>> No.73521865

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

>> No.73521867

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

>> No.73521868

Not how it works

>> No.73521874
File: 167 KB, 1200x735, CviDkzAWIAAjzzs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

just placed an order for some of these dudes

>> No.73521877

6s always succeed. Everything has a 6+ invul

>> No.73521884
File: 2.28 MB, 3811x2111, IMG_20200702_224737.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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.

>> No.73521885

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

>> No.73521887

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.

>> No.73521896

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

>> No.73521907

>day 1 FAQ
you done fucked up nigga

>> No.73521908

I cant get into sisters, as a misogynist.

>> No.73521909

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.

>> No.73521912

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

>> No.73521924

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.

>> No.73521930

can't have xenos be accidentally above unplayable lol

>> No.73521932

LMAO what, no they don't

>> No.73521933

>watch as they faq it for Custodes but not marines

>> No.73521941
File: 1.35 MB, 2180x1778, bastiloboi.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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"

>> No.73521944


>> No.73521955

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

>> No.73521956

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

>> No.73521959

that's different since invuls cant be modified

>> No.73521961

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

>> No.73521965

its literally baffling that they missed something this simple

its incredibly basic. did they playtest this at all?

>> No.73521966

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.

>> No.73521982

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.

>> No.73521983

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

>> No.73521984

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.

>> No.73521989

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

>> No.73521991

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.

>> No.73522002
File: 3.47 MB, 3456x4608, IMG_20200318_093342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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.

>> No.73522006

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.

>> No.73522007

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.

>> No.73522011

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

>> No.73522014

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.

>> No.73522015

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

>> No.73522019


>> No.73522020

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

>> No.73522021

Mortal wounds probably

>> No.73522023

Knights knights knights knights!

>> No.73522029

That's not how written english works.

>> No.73522031

I pointed out that this is only a 16% increase to termies durability, and that TH+SS termies were terrible before, and that this does not change the tactics that you used against them.

You constantly spamming that they have what is functionally a 2++ despite my post being predicated upon that does not address what I said at all, it's just repeating what my post already assumes

>> No.73522032

Easily because this is going to get FAQ'd so fast it'll make your anus prolapse.

>> No.73522036

1+ is still only a 83.33% save rate.

>> No.73522038

I don't think its that intiuitive though and requires knowledge of several odd test cases. Playtesters may have assumed 1+ can be modified as normal and completely missed it. no matter how thoroughly playtested games are there's always things that get through the net.

We'll see how it works.

>> No.73522040

Dont want big guy models

>> No.73522041

It's how informal typed English works.

>> No.73522042

what's the deal with terminators? Do they also get 1+ saves?

>> No.73522048

First White Dwarf I ever bought, I think. Damn that's some powerful nostalgia

>> No.73522055

Yes, for hit rolls only, not for saves

>> No.73522057

I know you are anon, I know

>> No.73522067
File: 209 KB, 368x416, 1592406060154.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>tfw GKs used to be the only marines with a 2++ save back in 8th
>only got to use it on one unit, and got nerfed into oblivion by GW because of it
>now every single chapter with storm shields gets armywide 2++ saves
>tfw GKs only have a single model with a storm shield
>tfw you dont actually care though, since you can just smite-spam everything to death

>> No.73522069

Also, complete immunity to AP. Making it a functional 1++

>> No.73522070

Cope harder fag

>> No.73522075

a one is always natural

>> No.73522076
File: 130 KB, 1024x762, militarum_tempestus_codex_interior_art_01_by_luches-d7d8vv4-1024x762.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

How about an all tempestus scions list then?
Naught but scions, valkyries and taurox's

>> No.73522077
File: 11 KB, 366x138, download.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

GW here
There is a hungry mouse snooping.
If the marvel/GW 40k comic does well enough, Disney will look to buy GW in the next 5 years.
The guys on Disney side view 40k as if it is a very similar but more niche marvel-like setting setting
Thats right, if a 40k screen adpation (and I don't mean the cheap shit GW makes in house) is ever made, it will be Disney making it.
And no it is not "too dark", marvel bought the aliens franchise recently

>> No.73522085
File: 196 KB, 828x471, 1593674349516.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It makes me sad because my models are higher than Battle Ready and RAW I won't get the points.

>> No.73522086

He's saying that they meant for it to be an AP buffer and not accidentally make models impervious to damage 83% of the time.

>> No.73522089

>Making it a functional 1++
you mean 2++
1++ and 2++ are the same thing actually

>> No.73522094

You already sound furiously buttmad and the new edition let alone the FAQ hasnt even dropped, this is going to be incredible

>> No.73522097

You are hit by a -1AP weapon. You have a 6+ save. You roll a 6. It is modified to 5. You fail the save.

You are hit by a -9000AP weapon. You have a 1+ save. You roll a 6. it is modified to 1. You pass the save.

>> No.73522101

Yet to be seen. It might be the shield for just Primaris.

>> No.73522103

Oh gods no.
Wait no. Disney won't buy GW because GW produces wargames, something Disney doesn't want to waste time on.
They won't want all their physical assets either, only their IP.

>> No.73522104
File: 279 KB, 1431x851, Who-Would-Win.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>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.
Dude check out the archives, the meltdown was hilarious.

>> No.73522108

Allright, I'm fucking lost. If you got a 1+ save, and an AP-5 weapon hits, it becomes a 6+ right? Whats with all the 2++ noise.

>> No.73522109

Taurox look like shit.

>> No.73522110

wait does this include on infantry?

>> No.73522115

Typo. Good catch.

>> No.73522127

As I said I expect it get faqd to make it work like in old fantasy. basically a 1+ essentially reduces the AP of a weapon by 1

0ap against 1+ is a 2+ save
-1ap against 1+ is a 2+ save
-2ap against 1+ is a 3+ save etc...

I don't think the 1+ becomes a 2++ is intentional or fine, it does make sense that holding a shield magically makes a railgun shot ineffective.

I get why the logic is there and why people follow the logic. I also get why it will be day 1 faqd.

But 1+ saves if they work in the way they worked in old fantasy would be fine.

>> No.73522130

Scions and aircraft then.
You got quite the flyer mix to go with and scions to get their feet dirty.

>> No.73522132

I don't understand it either

>> No.73522137

No. Ap changes the roll not the characteristic

>> No.73522140

RAW loophole that will be patched out in a week after these retards bought up all the terminator backstock.

Just as planned.

>> No.73522149

No. You take 5 off the die roll.

>> No.73522151


>> No.73522163


>> No.73522167

Sace characteristic 1
Ap 5

Roll a 3. Ap modifies the result to 1. 1 meets the save characteristic, passes. Roll a 1. 1 automatically fails.

>> No.73522176

I think the boat has already sailed on changing the mechanics for saving rolls when 9e rulebooks are likely being printed as we speak.

>> No.73522183

Pretty much this. I wouldn't be surprised if all the stormshields and terminators were sold out on the web store already.

In the end maybe it was a just as planned gw move to get the last of the terminator stock cleaned out so that they can finally soft squat it.

>> No.73522191
File: 44 KB, 716x548, whensheseesit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Aren't we all forgetting the 'nothing can be improved by more or less than one' rule in 9th? I look forward to the elephants foot that forms when GW release that kicker.

>> No.73522192

Right, /tg/, which Mechanicus units are good? In 8th and (if you're a bad enough dude to guess) 9th?

>> No.73522194

They're just going to errata out the word "unmodified" from the line about a 1 always failing. That's it. That's how easily this gets squashed.

>> No.73522197

What you fail to understand on purpose is that now AP simply does not matter. It's not a 17% increase to durability. It no longer matters if they're hit by AP0 or AP-20. AP-4 is now just as effective as AP0 against Custards and termtards as AP0. There is only a 17% chance of them taking damage -per wound- no matter what you're hitting them with.

>> No.73522200

>rewritten three times people still too dumb to get it

>> No.73522204

>40kg has been arguing about this shit for two fucking days
>it was already acknowledged as a valid RAW by GW when they had to errata Loot It! two years ago to prevent 1+ armor saves on Meganobz

>> No.73522208

The magic of Day 1 Faqs

>> No.73522214

Dunno whay they did not use the charakteristic modification for saves. It would work just fine.

jet it is fun and the outrage the day it is faqed will be pure awesome - just iagin all the cring of waacfags

>> No.73522216

I thought the same thing too but apparently if you play now the removal of +1 to cast that GK and TSons enjoy from CA 2019 isn't there.

>> No.73522217

Well this is fucking dumb. In 9th it was possible that you'd need a 7 or higher on a d6 to hit things that stacked to hit modifiers. Why the hell doesn't it work the other way?

>> No.73522223
File: 64 KB, 430x430, mood.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>that's not how the rules work retard lol
>Yes it is.
>well it's gonna be FAQ'd to not work that way so you're still wrong lol
Every time.

>> No.73522225

That's not a rule. It's literally only hit rolls.

>> No.73522227

>book isn't even out yet and it will already be printed with erroneous information

>> No.73522229

They just brougght in more unmodified to plasma so probably not. Besides doing that would create other problems like making +1 to hit on BS 2 units autohit.

>> No.73522230

>I don't think the 1+ becomes a 2++ is intentional or fine, it doesn't make sense that holding a shield magically makes a railgun shot ineffective.
its obviously a doesn't. not a does.

>> No.73522236

in 8th*

>> No.73522242

They're not going to FAQ a core mechanic to be completely different than what is printed in the rulebook. If there's a day 1 FAQ it's going to be modifying storm shield to not be able to push Save past 2+.

>> No.73522244

Yeah, that's what we're all hoping for, but GW is retarded and incompetent, so who the fuck knows.

>> No.73522247

>in 9th
no, in 8th

this is the result of GW changing the rules so you can't go higher than 1 or lower than 6 to make rules more streamlined
it backfired, of course

>> No.73522253

And then every time it actually IS FAQ'd as predicted, I'm like 5 for 5 on 8th edition rules autism so enjoy those odds bruv lol

>> No.73522256

so close
It affects wound rolls as well

>> No.73522260

No, the save characteristic itself remains the same (namely a 1+)
The AP value modifies the result of the dice you roll (so, if you rolled a 6, an AP value of -5 would turn it into a 1)
Your save roll is successful if:
>the unmodified result is not a 1 (e.g. you rolled a natural 1)
>the modified result of the dice is equal or greater than the save characteristic
However, since a dice roll may never be modified to anything lower than a 1 (stated in core rules section on dice), any roll unmodified roll of 2+ you make with a die that is modified by AP (any amount of AP, in fact) will at worst become a modified 1. As this result of 1 is
>A. not an UNmodified 1
>and B. equal to the save characteristic,
your save is successful, as long as you roll a natural 2 or higher.

>> No.73522261

>people STILL don't get it
goddamn 40k players are retarded

i find this hilarious too because the WS/BS and save changes in 8th were supposed to make the game simpler and instead half the player base can't even navigate the web of interacting modifiers that exists now

>> No.73522263

I've come to the conclusion everyone is trolling now. I'd rather believe they are trying to piss us off rather than that they are that stupid.

>> No.73522268

>storm shields become useless
I don't know which would make me laugh more

>> No.73522272

God I wish 4e 40k was released now. People would have a field day with the Rapid Fire rule. Or 3e Codex: Necrons where the monolith's Gauss Arc Flux gains attacks from Weapon Destroyed results.

>> No.73522273

>This model gets a 2++ and 4++. This makes perfect sense an upgrade would give two values for a similar save. One of which requires 8 pages of case law to work.
>Clearly it is working as intended and not a bug.

>> No.73522281

The eternal war scoring is all available. 10 points is pretty significant.

>> No.73522283

>core mechanic to be completely different
It's literally a weird edge case that shows up almost never ever and they would only be changing it to work how most people already expect it does before the lisping fat rules lawyers trip all over themselves to jerk off about RAW

It's absolutely doomed to be FAQ'd

>> No.73522284

all this means is nobody will want to play with me if i bring my terminators

>> No.73522287

Ok so now termies in cover are immune to AP- weapons.

>> No.73522288

Meand a friend never even bothered reading the rule book. We just use the data sheets in a way that seems right lol.

>> No.73522290

>I thought the same thing too but apparently if you play now the removal of +1 to cast that GK and TSons enjoy from CA 2019 isn't there.
We might get it back ala codex FAQs, so here's hoping.

>> No.73522296

Wounds also in 9th. Never more than +/-1 to the wound roll and natural 1s always fail.

>> No.73522297

There's already rules in the book that push saves to 1+.
It's intended retard

>> No.73522301

Aren't these just the terminators we always wanted?

>> No.73522308

How do termis get 1+ save? Is this a loyalist termi only thing?

>> No.73522312

Ooh, elaborate. I'm curious.

>> No.73522316

i remember everyone making fun of me for making 10 terminators a month ago

>> No.73522319

>termies in cover are immune to AP- weapons
Doesn’t seem unreasonable at all to me desu.

>> No.73522322

Remember that time they straight up forgot to include the warlord traits page in the space wolves codex? I feel like gw is doing this on purpose, because I honestly have no idea how they're this incompetent

>> No.73522323
File: 3.99 MB, 1425x950, powerful.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.73522326

Storm shields anon, scroll up for fucks sake

>> No.73522328

cover modifies the roll not the save so it doesn't work.

>> No.73522330

>it's not a 17% increase to durability
Except it is. Before they had a 3++, now they have a 2++. That's only a 16% difference in durability.
> There is only a 17% chance of them taking damage -per wound- no matter what you're hitting them with.
Yes, and before there was only a 33% chance at most because they had a 3+ invul. Which is a change of 16% at worst for every gun with AP, and no change for anything without.

I really am beginning to doubt you even play the game, because you don't seem to know what an invul save it

>> No.73522332

Storm shields give +1 to your armour save and a 4++

>> No.73522337

>It affects wound rolls as well
Ah so it does

>> No.73522338

not getting a save versus saved on a 2+ is different anon

>> No.73522341

The point is that doesn't make the current intepretation incorrect. It's just something smoothbrains fall back on when they're proven wrong.

>> No.73522343

They already knew about it from 8th.

>> No.73522350

I'm not making any judgements on whether or not it's intended. I'm just saying that they're not going to FAQ to change the order of operations for saving rolls or how AP functions when it's already being printed in the rulebook AND if they didn't intend it, they'll fix it on the data sheet for storm shield, not by changing core mechanics.

>> No.73522351

So it'snot termis in general but just loyalist termis? chaos termis don't get storms as far as I know.

>> No.73522360

It’s a fortification

>> No.73522369

It does in a situation where you take away rolls of 1 autofailing

>> No.73522373

This. Of all the models that were misrepresented on the Tabletop, Terminators were far and away some of the worst.
Now they're actually nigh indestructible as they should be.

>> No.73522380

>Tzeentch and TS stuff get invul limits of 3+
>Custodes get 2++ invuls but also ignore things that disable invuls

>> No.73522383

No the point is that no one gives a fuck how it works by accidental RAW that is going to get FAQ'd.

>> No.73522390

I don't hate this, because automated weapon systems getting dropped with space marine drop pod assaults has been a fluff staple for years, I just wish it didn't look like a knock off star craft turret with a whirlwind missile pod on it

>> No.73522392

If you're done to a higher standard than battle ready you'll absolutely get them

>> No.73522396

then chaosniggers get fucked.
simple as

>> No.73522406
File: 36 KB, 546x238, paint models.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The new painting rule is unfair to people who don't like to paint.

>> No.73522410


>> No.73522412

I have a termite chaplain and a squad of 2 thss and 3 claws so I get to benefit from strong termies without being accused of cheese

>> No.73522417

Prove it. The loot it faq shows GW knows exactly what they are doing

>> No.73522418
File: 112 KB, 884x1076, 32444.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

will they update KoS aegis too?

>> No.73522423

there is a ton of ways it could be justified by rules we don't yet have, you can't expect a minority issue like this to be covered by core rules, especially when it is regarding more ocmplex rules like modifiers and saves.

>> No.73522429


>> No.73522430

Not him, but you're clearly not getting his point and/or don't play the game

Before the worst save they could get was 3+, now it's 2+. In both cases you want mortal wounds or lots of shots to deal with it, which is what he said

>> No.73522436

Then I guess I'm wrong. That being said though, I'm still going to wait and see how it actually interacts on the table top, because if I'm being honest this is far from the first time we've over reacted to something that turned out to be a big nothing

>> No.73522442

Should up it to 20 points and threaten 30 if they get uppity

>> No.73522448

That’s a completely different argument than
>you’re wrong it doesn’t work
If you just predicted that they would be FAQed nobody would have a problem with you. It’s a good prediction. The fact that it probably won’t work in the future doesn’t change the fact that it works now. That’s why people are calling you a retard.

>> No.73522449

4e rapid fire rule stated that a model carrying a rapid fire weapons cannot shoot and assault in the same turn. It did not say "shoot a rapid fire weapon and assault" it was any shooting. So a model with a combi-flamer couldn't fire the flamer and assault, because they were carrying a rapid fire weapon (the bolter half of the combi-flamer) and had shot.

3e Necron monolith's gauss arc flux rule states that when it's hit with a weapon destroyed result, you reduce its attack by -1. Now, if you reduce something by -1, you're effectively adding 1 to it. Like, say, 3-(-1) equals 4.

>> No.73522453

Paint your models you fucking faggot

>> No.73522459

If anything the amount of people in this thread alone who have to be walked through how this convoluted rules interaction works is proof that it's not going to survive the errata. Killing unintuitive rules is literally one of the main goals of 9th compared to 8th, which is why they made all those changes to Aircraft for example.

>> No.73522461

a 2+ model takes half the unsaved wounds a 3+ model does

>> No.73522469

should slace with number of colours
0 colour army -30
1 colour -20
2 -10

>> No.73522472

Good. They objectively suck and are bad for the hobby. Send them back to video games.

>> No.73522474

Imagine /tg/ trying to play pretty much any edition of warhammer fantasy after looking at how shields work.

>> No.73522478

>If you just predicted that they would be FAQed nobody would have a problem with you
That's literally all I did, you're mixing me up with other anons apparently. Dumbfuck.

>> No.73522480

>When there are 40 of them
Oh wow that’s sooo much, that’s gonna be sooo haarrd you poor baby.
Take your ten point hit, your hurt feelings, and go.

>> No.73522482

>People being stupid on 4chan is proof
Only proof that 4chan is stupid

>> No.73522490

Smoothbrain identified.

>> No.73522493

I suppose psychic powers and orbital bombardments still work just fine so its not all that bad.

>> No.73522496

All this coping just to justify being lazy and not painting models.

Why are people so fucking lazy.
>But I can't paint my models, I'm too busy catching pokemon in Pokemon go. And then after that I have to watch some guy play Fortnite on Twitch, Where in there is time to actually enjoy this hobby I spent hundreds of dollars on.

All these people just trying to justify laziness, and the worst part is that in any sane world with sane people these points are meaningless, just have a discussion with your opponent on whether you want to include bonus points or not. Its in the rule book to aid tournament play and to also be a rule to use against RAQ rules laywers who like to spam latest mechanically broken units/models like fucking terminators with stormshields.

>> No.73522498

It's basically a free secondary objective.

>> No.73522501

>Grognards and faggots already seething about 9th edition, painting rules, saves, AoSificstion.

Based edition incoming.

>> No.73522523

Its absolutely fair. You cant/eont want to paint? Ok, but handle those delicious 10 VP. Everything has a price.

>> No.73522524

If he did one troop a day he'd probably be done his entire army in a couple months. I hate how people get so intimidated by their backlog and bitch that they'll never do it all, when if they just did even one model a day they'd fucking crush it.

>> No.73522529

Megas actually doesn't have a bad scheme for a chaos knight.

>> No.73522536

I can guarantee you that as soon as one soiboi brings this up on GWs facebook comments they'll respond with "we'll have the rules team take a look at it!" Followed by errata a week and a half later that destroys this forever because GW doesn't want unclear rules causing arguments in the edition marketed as being extra tight and clear on rules.

>> No.73522541
File: 50 KB, 640x1138, “”””battle ready”””%22.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The linked model for those interested

>> No.73522542


>> No.73522543

Ok, you can just say that without hitting us with the rules!

>> No.73522548

This is why you gatekeep

>> No.73522550

Rubrics actually can get an effective 2++. 5++ normally, 4++ from Indomitable Foes, 3++ from Weaver of Fates, which puts you at hard cap 3++. However you get +1 to all saving throws against one damage weapons.

>> No.73522559

am I missing something here? Having a 1 in 6 chance of failing a save isn't game breaking is it? That's literally how a 2++ invulnerable saves works yeah?

Unless there's some way to get entire guard platoons to 1+ I really don't see how, what is mostly just going to be HQ units and assault terminators, having a flat 1 in 6 chance of failure is overpowered. Especially if storm shields and other save improving wargear have been priced appropriately

>> No.73522561


Good in 8th, will remain good in 9th or possibly get better:

>Skorpius Disintegrators
>Skorpius Duneriders
>Kataphron Destroyers
>Skitarii Rangers/Vanguard
>Fulgurite Electro-priests
>Ironstrider Ballistarii
>Archeopter Stratoraptor
>Tech-priest Enginseers

Good in 8th, probably getting worse in 9th:

>Either flavor of Pteraxii
>Sydonian Dragoons

Just ok and unlikely to change:

>Cavalry dogs
>Onager Dunecrawlers
>Archeopter Transvector
>Sicarian Infiltrators
>Kataphron Breachers
>Tech-priest Dominus

Bad to shit now, no reason to think they'll improve:

>Archeopter Fusilave
>Corpuscarii Electro-priests
>Sicarian Ruststalkers
>Cybernetica Data-smith

>> No.73522565
File: 180 KB, 319x465, 1593014868609.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Free secondary for non secondaries

Pretty based

>> No.73522567

I plan on using it for a loyalist knight too

>> No.73522569

I don't know who I hate more

Paintlets who are bitching about painting their shit
The people who have already started buying/building stormshield terminators.

If I had a button to kill one group only, I would seriously have to think long and hard about which one to press... But I would definitely press it.

>> No.73522572

It is what you'd think, simply +1 to armour saves. In close combat +2 armour/6+ ward depending on edition.

>> No.73522575
File: 63 KB, 640x576, Firedrake_Terminator.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'm going to shit in the mouth of every xenos player.

>> No.73522576

Adding 1 to the saving throw =/= Add 1 to the save Characteristic.
Also adding 1 to the saving throw doesn't affect inv. save rolls.

>> No.73522588

Maybe for storm shields specifically by the intentionally added 1+ saves to the game and they know exactly how 1+ saves work. There is zero evidence that this is some unintended effect

>> No.73522596

This is all predicted on the notion that 40k is or should be your primary hobby which is fucking stupid. This coming from somebody who doesn't play, I just collect and paint.

>> No.73522598

>am I missing something here? Having a 1 in 6 chance of failing a save isn't game breaking is it? That's literally how a 2++ invulnerable saves works yeah?
It's honestly not even gamebreaking, but I just refuse to play with the kind of sniveling self-satisfied weasel autists who get a half-chub over arcane rules interactions and RAW abuse on principal and watching their new precious loophole get stamped on by GW in a week, causing them to go cry and bitch and moan in their facebook comments they wouldn't have bought all those terminators if they knew they couldnt abuse it, will bring me great joy.

>> No.73522599

Adding to saving throws does work on invulns unless stated otherwise.

>> No.73522600

if it says to all saving throws doesn't that include invuls?

>> No.73522602

>Marinefag getting good rules and fucking every other army

How is this new?

>> No.73522604

GW will FAQ the SS termies within a week, and those people will look stupid as fuck. Paintlets will forever seethe and throw excuses out for why they can't pick up a fucking brush. Abhor the paintlet. Suffer not the paintlet to live.

>> No.73522607

its going to be stupid that in the end the weakness of these heavily armored units isn't armor piercing weapons, but lost of low ap shots. LIke just spamming flashlights vs using las cannons against a walking tank...

But more importantly Its why would the shield give +1 armor as well as a 4++ if the intention was to give the model a defacto 2++ anyways. Why wouldn't it just give a 2++ natively.

>> No.73522618

it's AoS 2.0 all over again and it's everything.

>> No.73522638

You can give the shield to models without 2+ saves.

>> No.73522646

Because storm shields can go on things other than terminators dipshit

>> No.73522649

it's true that in terms of relative increase a 2+ save takes half the number of wounds that a 3+ does, because 3+ fails on 1 or 2 whereas 2+ only fails on 1

however, it's also true that it's only a 16% (technically 16.67) increase to durability in its absolute value, because a 2+ passes 83% of saves whereas a 3+ passes only 67% of saves.
this means that while it will take twice the amount of AP firepower generally, it doesn't really change the way you fight against terminators, just spam a lot of firepower with decent wound rolls and/or high damage as opposed to relying on AP to get through it

>> No.73522651

I'm fine with the stormshield termie people as long as they plan on painting them.

>> No.73522652

It was FAQ'd for killteam, so the brainlet is just confused.

>> No.73522657

Yes it does. Some rules have "add 1 to saving throws. Invulnerable saves are not effected." TSons don't. They wouldn't print that if the default wasn't it effects invulns.

>> No.73522672

It's a 16% of 6, 50% of 2 situation.

>> No.73522676

Well, then that one opponent of yours is an idiot. 8th ed Tau lists piloted by most players tend to rush the board center and try to get into 18" mid range to blast things away with crisis commanders / suit bombs w/riptide support.

>> No.73522679

>People ready to abuse stormshields

Buuut important question: Will you paint them marineanons?

>> No.73522682

This entire shitstorm already played out in AoS last year, and they ultimately confirmed that it was working as intended. I don't see any reason to think it isn't the same for 40k.

>> No.73522689

Yeah you're correct, just checked the FAQ. The Tsons player has been playing wrong in the LGS.

>> No.73522690
File: 625 KB, 1920x1314, blood angel termie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

does it make it better if i was planning on buying termies anyways?

>> No.73522695

is smite the most efficent power to deal with them?

>> No.73522709

It's still a flat reduction of 16.67% of losses suffered.

>> No.73522715

But of course. If it's not painted, I don't play it.

>> No.73522716

I already have bash and smash termies painted cuz I thought they looked cool

>> No.73522723

>TSons player had rules lawyered against himself
As any proper disciple of change would.

>> No.73522726

who cares about your simple little game

>> No.73522733
File: 26 KB, 634x624, Necron Warrior Prepares For 9th Edition.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Bring it faggot, you can't kill ALL MY BOYS.

>> No.73522735

>Do you play with friends?
Then the rule is meaningless friends will play with whatever bullshit rules
>Do you play with randoms?
Then just discuss it before hand, If they have a fully painted army, but you have a grey tide you should probably ask them. most likely they will want to play. And if you win by 5 points then they'll probably mention how they would have won had you counted the hobby points, and both people leave happy knowing that they probably won.
>Do you play at a tournament.
Then you were already losing out on hobby score anyways since most tournaments already had points for painted armies, some of them giving more points for better paint jobs.
>Is your opponent fielding 3 of the latest game breaking unit against your lovingly converted painted army
Show them the rule and say its part of the game.

Its a rule only targetted at the worst types. People are assuming their opponents will be the worst type of autist and RAW every single thing instead of being a chill dudebro. If you play with randoms you should expect some autism but this is solved by playing with friends.

>> No.73522745

My hammerboys sat out half of 8th. I'm bringing them back with a revengance, no new paint needed.

>> No.73522746

AoS has a different rules team and that game gets far less scrutiny. Also that applies to only 1 specific giant model in that system. Smash captains with this shit will not be allowed and you are DELUSIONAL if you think GW won't instantly slap this shit down considering part of the reason they're releasing a new Marine Codex only 1 year after the last one is to fucking nerf them.

>> No.73522764

Only assuming all weapons are AP0. If the average AP is higher than that it will be more than 16.66%, since pushing from a 2+ to a 1+ means that you're pushing an roll of 4 of AP-3 and everything below it from fail to pass.

>> No.73522765

Corpuscarii Electro-Priests got a pretty serious buff in Engine War, and the greater availability of CP to spam -2AP every turn + being able to outflank even when not in Lucius will make 9th even better.

>> No.73522767

People getting upset about this 1+ thing are ridiculous. It's clearly their intention for it not to be a 2++ because if they wanted them to give a 2++, then that's what they would have set the invulnerable save on the shield to in the first place instead of 4++.

Clearly the intention is not for it to be a 2++, so expect changes before it ever hits an actual codex or wargear entry outside of this box set.

>> No.73522770

I don't have any strong opinion on whether or not there should hobby points. All I was saying is people generally have multiple hobbies and warhammer might not be first on the list.

>> No.73522776

Don't Smash Captains have a 3+ Sv characteristic?

>> No.73522779

Stormshields go on units that aren't 2+ too.

>> No.73522782

Just in time for Slaanukah.

>> No.73522800

Yeah and 16% is a pretty significant percentage when you're throwing lots of attacks.

>> No.73522801

Smash captains can't do it anyway, the only marine model capable of this is the space marine terminator and who the fuck takes terminator captains in current year?

>> No.73522804

Artificer armour as a relic

>> No.73522809
File: 1.94 MB, 1465x678, 5435555.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

i'm just happy to play with my terminators again

>> No.73522810

>Sicarian Ruststalkers
W/the ability to deep strike them and taking a custom FW that gives an extra -1 AP I'd thought these guys might end up being better

>> No.73522812

>part of the reason they're releasing a new Marine Codex only 1 year after the last one is to fucking nerf them.
What part of "24 inch Assault 2 Meltaguns" sounded like a nerf to you?

>> No.73522823

>It's clearly their intention for it not to be a 2++ because if they wanted them to give a 2++, then that's what they would have set the invulnerable save on the shield to in the first
A number of models can take SS but not get the 2++ though.
Smash captians already take a different relic IIRC
At this point it's hard to tell what GW intended, since they've dealt with this twice (bastiladon and meganobs) and dealt with it in conflicting ways.

>> No.73522831

Aren't all modifiers capped at +/- 1 in 9th, though? I don't think Artificer Armour and Storm Shield will stack.

>> No.73522837

blowing the relic on the armour means you're not getting a mastercrafted hammer, I'd take slightly better durability against weight of fire over 4 damage swings any day.

>> No.73522838

No, only hit and wound rolls are modifier capped.

>> No.73522839

So the 1+ save is going to be fixed, but what is your guess on how they'll fix it?
Hard mode: Try to come up with the most elegant way of doing it that doesn't make the shields worse.

>> No.73522843

Step by step and bit by bit. I’m guilty of it, had my poker in too many fires and had a sad about it, but you knuckle down and do it. I painted a company of marines like that, squad by squad and layer by layer.
Hell if he did a guy a day he’d be done in 40 days, it’d be all over. They’re Cultists, this >>73522541 barely counts as an attempt. They just won’t try, they want to be obstinate. Fact is, GW doesn’t want to photograph and publish a paint job that looks half-assed and praise them in an article congratulating their win. Their sculptors must hate it. Imagine you cook a prime steak to a high standard and the patron covers it in ranch, not even steak sauce, and declares it just as good.

>> No.73522845

Only hit and wound roll

>> No.73522847

Primaris are meant to be op so nobody complains next year when normal marines are removed from the game

>> No.73522851

Fair enough, But if you're dedicating so much time to gaming that 10VPs are actively causing you problems and you're so in tune with the hobby that you are already crying about it when the rule book was just leaked 24 hours ago, chances are the hobby is a pretty big part of your life. If they have time to bitch they have time to paint.

>> No.73522864

Change it to modify the armor save roll.

>> No.73522871
File: 85 KB, 837x960, Citation Power.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Only hit and wound mods, characteristic mods stack.

you can stack multiple S or T boosters but only one hit mod.

>> No.73522873

>all these people crying about 2+ invul
haha, reaper chain cannon go brr

>> No.73522874

They're releasing a new marine codex because it will sell well, and to accompany the new primaris units. While some things in codex marines got nerfed (centurions, thunderfire cannons) nothing primaris has been touched, and the new eradicators are incredibly pushed even by 8e standards.

>> No.73522875

24" assault 2 meltaguns aren't all that good.

Not when everything has a 2++

>> No.73522881

Who wants to bet all firstborn are gonna be using terminator armour from now on?
With cawl or a new rival of his finding a way to mass produce it for them

>> No.73522891

we KNOW that or we assume that given the info we have so far? Big difference.

>> No.73522893

Normal marines will never, ever be removed from the game.

If Tactical Squads didn't have a legal datasheet, they'd still be a GW model and be a valid "counts-as" proxy for Intercessors, and then you wouldn't have to buy more Primaris.

>> No.73522894

>(minimum 2+)

>> No.73522895

>Simple: Change it to a +1 to the save roll, not the characteristic.
>Stupid: Make a bunch of different shields that work in different ways
>Inane: Just say it doesn't work "Because we say so"
>Future-proof: Make it so save cannot be improved beyond 2+ globally

>> No.73522896

>part of the reason they're releasing a new Marine Codex only 1 year after the last one is to fucking nerf them.
>laughs in eradicators
>laughs in astartes chainswords
>laughs in 40 attack assault intercessors squad

>> No.73522899

sooth me, i'm jealous

>> No.73522904

We know, the rulebook was leaked.

>> No.73522910

GW has already posted the entire core rules dude.

>> No.73522920

1 reaper chaincannon does .59 damage to a terminator. You will need 4 reaper chain cannons to kill 1 terminator with a 1+ save

Brr indeed

>> No.73522922

Leviathans aren't that good when they're also shooting at invincible Leviathans. It's still far better then any other anti tank infantry I can think of.

>> No.73522926

"x go brr" has to be the most annoying modern meme there is

>> No.73522929

There are plenty of relics to give a Smash Captain 2+ armor.

>> No.73522933


>> No.73522941

Good thing havocs come in groups of 4 and veteran of the long war is a thing.
I blame /biz/

>> No.73522944

A Blood Angels Smash Captain can go Artificer Armor and Artisan of War Warlord Trait. Now that Angel's Wing is a little less critical with the changes to Overwatch. There is still some kind of tradeoff involved somewhere though.

>> No.73522945

...y'all know that 2++ isn't intended and will get nerfed before 9th even hits the ground, right?

It's not going to happen- it's bullshit. And while GW is... questionable... at balance, this isn't going to fly.

I hope.

>> No.73522946

I agree, but only in terms of currency.

>> No.73522947

Nigger we have the entire fucking rulebook where have you been.

>> No.73522953

the core rules aren't the rulebook and don't deal with modifiers from wargear without stats aka armour and relics.

>> No.73522983

Nah, they’ll squat them

>> No.73522987

Crusaders still exist don't they? I think they had a shitty 6+ save because they're just human inquisitorial troops, but the storm shield made them nice little tanks.

At any rate, all GW needs to do is under the rules for armor saves state explicitly that armor saves can never be improved beyond 2+, boom done. Assuming this is a loophole and not something GW intended.

>> No.73522995

>unironically couldn't stop laughing at this moron for 6 fucking minutes.

>> No.73523006

I can’t believe that GW found a way to sell out all their old terminator back stock so quickly only to ensure that this rules interaction will not work as anons read it and continue to make primaris literally better versions of marinelets.

>> No.73523064

Yeah, using something like prolonged Mortal wound spam would likely be a better idea, a lot of armies are capable of that but the ones that can't will fear the terminator.

>> No.73523076


I wouldn't count on them getting to shoot more than once.


It's too damn hard to compete with Fulgurites when it comes to dedicated CC. It's getting harder to compete in 9th because there's so many ways to deliver Fulgurites.

>> No.73523093

>new 9E starter comes with a bunch of primaris toting storm shields
>new 9E rules allow for some models with a storm shield to reach a 1+
How does anyone think this is a loophole exploit and a coincidence? I think GW knows what they're doing. Do we even know that these new bladeguard veteran guys are wearing basic bitch 3+ armor and not some victrix guard tier artificer armor for the 2+?

>> No.73523113

That's a pretty fair point, honestly. Fulgurites are probably our best CC unit, especially with siphoned vigor in mind. Taking 10 in a Dunerider and dropping them off onto a gunline sounds sweet

>> No.73523144

None of the primaris with stormshields can get to 1+ armor.

>> No.73523177

Marble if you can do it. Something bright and expensive looking.

>> No.73523492

The rules around this scenario are written the same and work the same in AoS and 40k 9e

Given they FAQ confirmed it in AoS I'd say this is the intended function. That SS termies have a 2+save that Ignores AP.

Assuming of.course termies get the new SS rules at all.

>> No.73523636
File: 2.57 MB, 266x258, woah.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

what was the point of CP anyway? Why are we playing with cards when there are models with rules and measurements and 3d terrain and space and time n shit. Moving a unit or choosing what it fires at or what abilities it uses for example should matter more than when to say UNO! What was CP and these cards supposed to accomplish or fix in 7th?

>> No.73523660


Thats a damn shame.

I understand vehicles can with their new rules, but are infantry able to shoot flamers into combat now too?

>> No.73523735

That sounds trippy as fuck but also incredible

Tell me how it goes anon

>> No.73523905

>thinks forty troops is a lot.

I'm fucking terrible at panting, and i manged to paint 100 guardsmen

>> No.73524022

>i have no interest in spending the amount of time on each troop when there are 40 of them.
Either quit being lazy or pick a more mechanized/elite army
He didn't even fucking try. Unironically will not be missed

>> No.73524213

>0 color army
But how? Invisible army?

>> No.73524380
File: 266 KB, 1600x1200, download (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

are these guys any good if i just want to stay in aegis protocol?
i want to run a group six to march down the table, some with triple phosphor blasters and some with fists + phosphor blaster because i think it would be neat from thematic point of view
especially since they won't get penalties for moving + shooting anymore in 9th

>> No.73524576

You'd get more out of them if you put them in Protector mode at some point, but yes Aegis is solid

>> No.73524780

I get that not everyone loves painting and chaos cultist are like 4 points but they still deserve better than this. If they paint the skin an appropriate colour and paint the weapons/dogtags/boots/hair black I'll take it my standards aren't that high.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.