Just finnished games 10 and 11. Prophets of flesh rolling against stupid buffed waith blades and an Avatar. Wraith blades have 3 or4 up invul save (one spell) and a 5 up feel no pain, another spell. I had 4 up invul on the Grots and talos, and a 6+ feel no pain. Wytches the same.

Avatar against 2 Talos wasn't quite as bad on his side but the Talos just ingnored 2 or 3 rounds of attacks.

We had a round where we had over 100 attacks between us and did 1 wound apiece. Thats dumb.

I don't know what the answer is but the game needs rebalancing. Not to make anyone better or worse but to make things faster.

The proliferation of invuln saves is a wonky fix for a system where otherwise nothing is durable for its points other than dirt cheap mooks.

Wraithblades can take a single 4+ invulnerable save with a piece of wargear (sacrificing a weapon), and there is a spell to make it 3+.

An Avatar has a 5+ invulnerable save, and a 5+ feel-no-pain save. So they could be buffed to a 4+.

I don't feel that I run into many invulnerable saves really. At least not good ones. I agree that a 3+ invulnerable save is pretty tough and annoying. You'll find in eight you're almost always better off rolling more light attacks vs. strong heavy attacks. When people ask how to kill most of my Eldar I tell them "bolt guns and lasguns...and lots of them". It's better than most stronger weapons.

Generally speaking though - if you guys are running those units that way...target anything else. The spells can only be cast once and on one unit...so skip that unit for a turn when possible and shoot something else. As a lot of folks say "attack what you can kill". If a unit has a 3+ invulnerable...ignore it at all costs (particularly if it loses that buff later).

Keep in min Wraithguard and their versions are super tough, lots of wounds...but slow and short ranged. If you're playing Dark Eldar just ignore them as best you can and kill the rest of the army first.

I agree, it does. Comes down to the mechanics though, as has been mentioned, it is a cheap fix for a system where things die too easy for the points you pay. Though even invulns are being cancelled out against weight of fire now (which is why guard are so good in many cases).

Unless an army can dish out obscene amounts of firepower, mortal wounds or tamper with invulns, it's at a huge disadvantage this edition.

I agree, even as a Daemons player.

My local group essentially agrees that unless it has an invuln, it's really not a good unit, unless its job is to die. I forget the context, but essentially something either has to be cheap, or have an invuln, or it's not good.

Invuls are a part of the problem in 8th, I think.

The main issue i have with them are 4++ or better invuls on vehicles.

Good invuls on vehicles heavily counter the AP of most "anti tank" D6 damage guns such as melta, las, etc that rely on good AP and S to get their damage through, to the point where pretty much the all the "good" vehicles in the game are the ones with invul saves, and high AP guns aren't typically as worthwhile as high rate of fire low AP guns. Getting past a single hit roll, wound roll, save roll, and then a random damage roll is already annoyingly swingy enough without having the save rolls ignore the AP of the weapon.

I honestly don't think that the AP system was thought through properly. Too many units pay too much for armor that just ends up being ignored by AP, and too many guns pay too much for AP that ends up getting ignored by invul saves, to the point where all you really want are lots of bodies with bad armor saves, or units with good invuls defensively, and offensively just need lots of shots with low to medium AP.

high invul saves on tanks is also a problem for things like terminators as it ensures people take more anti tank. and thus you run into people who have las cannons to spare

I disagree, I think the game has too many good AP weapons. The only way you'd even notice too many invuln saves is if you were shooting way too many AP weapons, and if it weren't for those pesky invuln saves, you'd be blowing everything away with your AP.

Yeah the Avatar was running a 5 invul 5 feel no pain. And its the Avatar. Thats fine. Its dead hard but not obnoxious. And its one guy. But I had a 4 6 against it. And that was on 2 guys. He was expecting to wreck me and would have but his ap didn't matter.

The Wraith blade were something else. They had a 3/4. Which was buffed to 2/3 2 rounds out of 3. And fortune for a 5 up feel no pain, toughness 6 and 3 wounds. 10 of 'em.

I had the 4 6s as I said.


Its not that there are invulsits that there are so many of them. So many of them that fire power is balanced to take down huge invuls, so when you shoot at something with out an invul it melts.



It I was to re balance, i would set some design parameters. Nothing gets better than a 5 up invul. Invuls can only ever be improved to 4. Units must make a sacrifice to get an invul. Like the Wraith shields.

I don't think its a problem for wytches, they are thoughness 3, 1 wound and they only have a 6 up to shooting, so they have a weakness. Grotesques in the prophets have t5 (or6) 5 wounds and a 4 up. They have no weakness and no reason to put them in cover. They should be tough, but they shouldn't ignore your fire power. And right now they do.


There are other units like that. Don't even get me started on Tau with shield drones.

In 7th edition 2++ invuls were common, and you could re-roll a lot of them. 8th isn’t nearly as bad

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
I disagree, I think the game has too many good AP weapons. The only way you'd even notice too many invuln saves is if you were shooting way too many AP weapons, and if it weren't for those pesky invuln saves, you'd be blowing everything away with your AP.

The issue is that it creates a large gap in power between the armies that rely on armor saves to survive and the ones that do not.

Guns with low rates of fire and high AP are supposed to be able to hurt models with lots of wounds (vehicles) with some semblance of effectiveness. They are also notably bad at killing things like infantry, which makes sense.

If whole armies (harlequins and DE for example) don't care about your AP (because everything has an invul, really bad armor saves, and/or FNP) then the meta has to shift to weapons that do hurt them. It turns out these are things with lots of shots and low AP. These weapons are not quite as good against the more typical vehicles with only armor saves, but they aren't terrible, and any high AP weapons that are still taken are still radically effective.

In the end invuls have no downside except cost, and that is typically too low for how much enemy power they allow you to ignore.

I think the main solution is to either increase the cost of invul saves (especially 4++ or better) or reduce the cost of armor saves (especially 3+ or better).

Headlss wrote:
Just finnished games 10 and 11. Prophets of flesh rolling against stupid buffed waith blades and an Avatar. Wraith blades have 3 or4 up invul save (one spell) and a 5 up feel no pain, another spell. I had 4 up invul on the Grots and talos, and a 6+ feel no pain. Wytches the same.

Avatar against 2 Talos wasn't quite as bad on his side but the Talos just ingnored 2 or 3 rounds of attacks.

We had a round where we had over 100 attacks between us and did 1 wound apiece. Thats dumb.

I don't know what the answer is but the game needs rebalancing. Not to make anyone better or worse but to make things faster.

Wraith units and coven units are some of the most durable units in their respective books, and you both made them even more tanky with your choice of psychic powers and obsessions. In the case of the craftworld units, much of the appeal of their offense is the AP of their weapons, which your army doesn't really care about for the most part. I'm not sure that's really indicative of how durable units are in general.

Also, doing 1 or 2 wounds with 100 attacks is statistically anomalous.

I don't think I really agree with the premise that invuln saves are a problem. One of the very best armies, Guard, have almost no invuln saves at all. And, even if invulnerable saves were commonplace, would that really a problem? The meta shifting away from low volume heavy AP weapons doesn't mean the game got any worse.

The problem isn't invul vs armor saves, it's armies with invul, armies with armor, armies with both, all having increase rate of fire to balance that out against each other.

And then those armies play against armies that have neither invuls, armor, nor rate of fire. That's the real problem.

 JimOnMars wrote:
The problem isn't invul vs armor saves, it's armies with invul, armies with armor, armies with both, all having increase rate of fire to balance that out against each other.

And then those armies play against armies that have neither invuls, armor, nor rate of fire. That's the real problem.

I do agree that right now invul saves and high rate of fire high AP weapons are the problem, as they tend to get caught in a bit of a feedback loop. IMHO the biggest problem right now are high AP "spalsh" weapons, that can effectively mean a high rate of fire. I don't mind getting rid of templates but we NEED some sort of "ordinance" rules that restricts how many times a flamer or a battle cannon (just for example) can hit the same fething unit.

You can pry my 3d6 flamer shots on a single model unit from my cold, dead hands.

BrianDavion wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
The problem isn't invul vs armor saves, it's armies with invul, armies with armor, armies with both, all having increase rate of fire to balance that out against each other.

And then those armies play against armies that have neither invuls, armor, nor rate of fire. That's the real problem.

I do agree that right now invul saves and high rate of fire high AP weapons are the problem, as they tend to get caught in a bit of a feedback loop. IMHO the biggest problem right now are high AP "spalsh" weapons, that can effectively mean a high rate of fire. I don't mind getting rid of templates but we NEED some sort of "ordinance" rules that restricts how many times a flamer or a battle cannon (just for example) can hit the same fething unit.

Eh. Do we though? I'm pretty okay with d6 shots from a flamer having the potential to kill off my 5 man squad if the dice are against me. A d6 shot flamer should probably be pretty decent at killing off the 2 survivors of my squad. If you're spaying prometheum at someone for X seconds and you only have two guys to point the nozzle at, you can spend more time spritzing those two guys than you would if you were spraying a wide arc at more dudes.

Against larger targets, spraying a carnifex with a flamer for 5 seconds is probably more damaging than spraying him for 1 second. As for blast weapons that "hit" multiple times, I just sort of see that as an abstraction for how well the shot was placed. A well-placed shot will land in the middle of a squad and kill a bunch of guys instead of just catching one or two at the edge of the squad's formation. A well-placed shot against a tank or carnifex will hit it in the head/engine instead of just blasting its limbs/treads.

meleti wrote:
You can pry my 3d6 flamer shots on a single model unit from my cold, dead hands.

the ideal would be to make stuff that is supposed to be splash hit more models then before, so that suddenly a flamer is a real threat to a horde.

I'd support giving every flamer type weapon an extra d6 but making them do a maximum number of hits equal to the size of the unit.

 greyknight12 wrote:
In 7th edition 2++ invuls were common, and you could re-roll a lot of them. 8th isn’t nearly as bad

The situation with covers saves got significantly better in the 8th ed.
We had editions with a 4+ cover save for tanks and infantry. As a consequence, almost nothing died.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'd support giving every flamer type weapon an extra d6 but making them do a maximum number of hits equal to the size of the unit.

sounds like a plan, but flamers aren't the only example of this, as such if I could make ONE rule change for a hypothetical 9th edition it would be to add the following weapon TYPES to 40k.

Ordinance: *all rules for heavy weapon* also may have a maximum number of hits equal to the number of units it targets.
Blast: may have a maximum number of hits equal to the number of units it targets.
Tempest:follow rules for assault weapon but may have a maxium number of... yadda yadda ya.

The big advantage here is it gives GW some added variaty which means more tools for the toolbox other then"X and X+1"

I don't think you can derive general balance problems from games between different Aeldari subfactions.

CWE and Drukhari are two of the best codices atm.

If anything the game doesn't have high enough INVs. +5 on terminators is laughable, Strikes have no invs and die to lasguns and mortars, where in the fluff their armors take blows from demon weapons.

What really blew my mind though was the fact that termintor armor was build around a civilian suit created to work in plasma reactors, yet somehow plasma is the best way to deal with termintors. Now am not saying an IG dude should be running around with a +3 inv, but those factions that have models that cost 20+ or even 40+pts each , before weapons, should get good invs to be semi playable.

Karol wrote:
If anything the game doesn't have high enough INVs. +5 on terminators is laughable, Strikes have no invs and die to lasguns and mortars, where in the fluff their armors take blows from demon weapons.

What really blew my mind though was the fact that termintor armor was build around a civilian suit created to work in plasma reactors, yet somehow plasma is the best way to deal with termintors. Now am not saying an IG dude should be running around with a +3 inv, but those factions that have models that cost 20+ or even 40+pts each , before weapons, should get good invs to be semi playable.

the problem IMHO is that we have so many invul saves, and so many high AP weapons that a 2+ armor save combined with a 5++ invul isn't all that great

Terminators should be highly survivable tough nuts to crack. the ideal way to do that is to makes multi shot High AP weapons extremely rare.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'd support giving every flamer type weapon an extra d6 but making them do a maximum number of hits equal to the size of the unit.

sounds like a plan, but flamers aren't the only example of this, as such if I could make ONE rule change for a hypothetical 9th edition it would be to add the following weapon TYPES to 40k.

Ordinance: *all rules for heavy weapon* also may have a maximum number of hits equal to the number of units it targets.
Blast: may have a maximum number of hits equal to the number of units it targets.
Tempest:follow rules for assault weapon but may have a maxium number of... yadda yadda ya.

The big advantage here is it gives GW some added variaty which means more tools for the toolbox other then"X and X+1"

If only there was some kind of elegant solution to this bass akwardsness made from Perspex or something? But sadly such a thing does not exist. A man can dream...

I'd rather see more wounds on those models than invulns.

 Grimtuff wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'd support giving every flamer type weapon an extra d6 but making them do a maximum number of hits equal to the size of the unit.

sounds like a plan, but flamers aren't the only example of this, as such if I could make ONE rule change for a hypothetical 9th edition it would be to add the following weapon TYPES to 40k.

Ordinance: *all rules for heavy weapon* also may have a maximum number of hits equal to the number of units it targets.
Blast: may have a maximum number of hits equal to the number of units it targets.
Tempest:follow rules for assault weapon but may have a maxium number of... yadda yadda ya.

The big advantage here is it gives GW some added variaty which means more tools for the toolbox other then"X and X+1"

If only there was some kind of elegant solution to this bass akwardsness made from Perspex or something? But sadly such a thing does not exist. A man can dream...

Except thats the definition of an inelegant solution, as it's just a step back to movement phase taking up most of the game time as everything has to be spaced to the limit for maximum minimization of templates. 8th edition is slow enough as it is with roll-reroll, roll-reroll, for every roll in the game.

Ah yes, let's follow the GW edict of templates being the devil incarnate (just like points 3 years ago), despite numerous other games using them perfectly fine.

No. Templates worked and didn't cause gak like this with stupid "solutions" given to blast weapons that can seem as useful as Ann Frank's drum kit at times. Sorry bud, your devastating Battle Cannon that makes craters in the ground itself hits 1 guy despite all his mates standing around him.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ah yes, let's follow the GW edict of templates being the devil incarnate (just like points 3 years ago), despite numerous other games using them perfectly fine.

No. Templates worked and didn't cause gak like this with stupid "solutions" given to blast weapons that can seem as useful as Ann Frank's drum kit at times. Sorry bud, your devastating Battle Cannon that makes craters in the ground itself hits 1 guy despite all his mates standing around him.

Please please please no, I don't want to go back to having to space every model to maximum coherency with every move. You can't make me!

You decided to pit Wraith Constructs against Haemonculus Covens, two subfactions who's entire point is to be amongst the most durable forces in any army and so designed to reflect that, against each other and your complaining that they're resiliant?

Do you not see a problem with this?

 Imateria wrote:
You decided to pit Wraith Constructs against Haemonculus Covens, two subfactions who's entire point is to be amongst the most durable forces in any army and so designed to reflect that, against each other and your complaining that they're resiliant?

Do you not see a problem with this?

The problem was it was a snooze fest. I'm all for then being durable. But it slowed the game down and made it dull. And those guys are so tough they make land raiders fragile.

8E probably has more invuls than prior editions, but invuls in general have far less value, especially on things that already have decent armour.

While a Rhino doesn't technically have an invul, it still gets a 6+ armour vs a Lascannon. So units like Terminators, that have always paid for their invul, almost never get value out of them in 8E, because their armour is better or the same.
You need AP-4 or -5 against a Terminator for their invul to matter. That's rare.

-

I 100% agree there are too many iv saves. It defeats the design of the ap system when so many units ignore it.
Genestealers and hive tyrants
All DE vehicles
All knights
All deamons
Wave serpents
All custodes
The list goes on. Its almost easier to list armies not rellying on iv saves.

High AP is now anti-Imperial only for the most part. Obviously not IKs, but the rest of it. All other factions, you are taking serious risks with low rate of fire high AP weapons.

"Wave serpents"
No Invlun than I can think of? You could argue Protect might give them a 6+, but that's stretching it.

Gitdakka wrote:
I 100% agree there are too many iv saves. It defeats the design of the ap system when so many units ignore it.
Genestealers and hive tyrants
All DE vehicles
All knights
All deamons
Wave serpents
All custodes
The list goes on. Its almost easier to list armies not rellying on iv saves.

Out of that list, only DE vehicle gain a significant use out of their invul, because their normal armour is weak.
Knights are big expensive models that should be getting hit by weapons that deal multiple damage, so a failed invul means more than 1W
Daemons have always relied on invuls over armour and in 8E it means they gain 0 benefit from cover like other armies can.
Wave Serpents....DO NOT HAVE AN INVUL...so why mention them? Yes they have other trickery, but not an Invul.

If anything, 8E having too many invuls doesn't mean "Invuls are powerful and there should be less of them"
It really means "Invuls are mostly useless and redundant except in edge cases and should be less of them"

-

Wave Serpents are actually really good vs the weapons I'm using to get around invuln spam. Very annoying.

Invulns are great at gaking on lascannons, lances and melta coincidentally. As if there needed to be more reason to spam dissy cannons.

Invulns do the same vs Dissys as they do vs Lascannons, though, don't they? Dissys are just better in other ways.

Bharring wrote:
Invulns do the same vs Dissys as they do vs Lascannons, though, don't they? Dissys are just better in other ways.

Dissy cannons force WAY more saves because they hit on 3+ after moving and fire three times. Far more reliable. The standard deviation on the outcomes of lascannons vs invuln is nuts. Throw in quantum shields and I can make an argument for using zero lascannons now.

"Dissy cannons force WAY more saves because..."

But isn't it true that, against non-Invuln targets, Dissys do more wounds because of the same reasons, at the same ratio? Dissies are more normalized, but that cuts both ways: a less normalized threat is more likely to biff it and kill half of what you want too, but equally likely to get hot dice and kill half again what you want to.

Quantum Shielding does hurt the bigger impact weapons, but doesn't Serpent Shield similarly hurt Dissys more than Lascannons?

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Invulns do the same vs Dissys as they do vs Lascannons, though, don't they? Dissys are just better in other ways.

Dissy cannons force WAY more saves because they hit on 3+ after moving and fire three times. Far more reliable. The standard deviation on the outcomes of lascannons vs invuln is nuts. Throw in quantum shields and I can make an argument for using zero lascannons now.

Yeah, a Lascannon only forces 1 save, while a Dissy forces several.
But Dissies are obviously an outlier that need a points increase, or maybe even lower the damage. Make them basically Heavy Bolters with better AP. Even being treat as Assault on vehicles and they aren't doing much against anything that isn't a Marine.

-

Bharring wrote:
"Dissy cannons force WAY more saves because..."

But isn't it true that, against non-Invuln targets, Dissys do more wounds because of the same reasons, at the same ratio? Dissies are more normalized, but that cuts both ways: a less normalized threat is more likely to biff it and kill half of what you want too, but equally likely to get hot dice and kill half again what you want to.

Quantum Shielding does hurt the bigger impact weapons, but doesn't Serpent Shield similarly hurt Dissys more than Lascannons?

It does, but I'll take my chances vs one unit in one list vs a feature of an entire list.

Also, dissy cannons can kill up to three targets a turn, and lascannons only ever kill one. Also, lascannons cost more and come on gak platforms. At least for marines.

Aren't all those concerns independant of Invluns, though?

 Galef wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
I 100% agree there are too many iv saves. It defeats the design of the ap system when so many units ignore it.
Genestealers and hive tyrants
All DE vehicles
All knights
All deamons
Wave serpents
All custodes
The list goes on. Its almost easier to list armies not rellying on iv saves.

Out of that list, only DE vehicle gain a significant use out of their invul, because their normal armour is weak.
Knights are big expensive models that should be getting hit by weapons that deal multiple damage, so a failed invul means more than 1W
Daemons have always relied on invuls over armour and in 8E it means they gain 0 benefit from cover like other armies can.
Wave Serpents....DO NOT HAVE AN INVUL...so why mention them? Yes they have other trickery, but not an Invul.

If anything, 8E having too many invuls doesn't mean "Invuls are powerful and there should be less of them"
It really means "Invuls are mostly useless and redundant except in edge cases and should be less of them"

-

Fine i thought wave serpents had them. Whatever my point stands. I feel iv saves are too common. The ones on the custodes are particulary annoying as you can not hurt them with high quantity small arms or with weapons like meltas.

Bharring wrote:
Aren't all those concerns independant of Invluns, though?

You tell me.

Who would have thought at the beginning of 8th that the humble Autocannon would be the END OF ALL XENO?

Deathwatch should change all of their weapons for autocannons.

You're both playing Eldar. Did you think your armies would be weak? LOL. Most armies can't even dream of what you're complaining about having.

That said, it should be very difficult to get an invulnerable save beyond 4++.

Ubiquitous good invulns are annoying because it removes target priority a bit. Your weapons just don't work anywhere instead of needing to choose targets.

Imo -4ap or better should be 1 less and ignore 1 level of invuln. That gives non-invuln models a better chance at a 6+ save, and a reason to have melta at all against eldar.

Ironically melta works really well vs the wave serpent, but is worse than uselss vs Drukhari. And Tau. And Necrons. And Harliquins. And IKs. And ...

Ubiquitous invulnerable saves are a requirement in the edition where flat AP was replaced with Rending AP.

8th edition's balance issues stem from how powerful shooting is in the first place. Tone down shooting and invuln saves matter a lot less.

Bharring wrote:
Aren't all those concerns independant of Invluns, though?

Not sure exactly which concerns you mean. But I see most of the concerns mentioned here being tied into the proliferation of invul saves. It throws the balance off. Once the balance is off problems show up other places too.

Bottom line is that in the course of a single game, the dissy cannons are far more likely to average out and be more reliable. Shooting lascannons at 80 pt raiders with 5++ is a lottery I prefer to skip.

 Galas wrote:
Who would have thought at the beginning of 8th that the humble Autocannon would be the END OF ALL XENO?

Deathwatch should change all of their weapons for autocannons.

That's part of why Frag Cannons aren't terrible...as expensive as they are.

It just needs a counter - mortal wounds is supposed to be the counter but typically they are not target-able in any amount necessary to destroy tough targets.

Anti tank weapons (a list of weapons we will define d6 damage or flat 3 damage weapons or better) will be defined as "shield breakers".
Invulnerable saves are reduced by 1 to a minimum of a 6+ save when they are wounded by a weapon with this rule.

Stux wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ah yes, let's follow the GW edict of templates being the devil incarnate (just like points 3 years ago), despite numerous other games using them perfectly fine.

No. Templates worked and didn't cause gak like this with stupid "solutions" given to blast weapons that can seem as useful as Ann Frank's drum kit at times. Sorry bud, your devastating Battle Cannon that makes craters in the ground itself hits 1 guy despite all his mates standing around him.

Please please please no, I don't want to go back to having to space every model to maximum coherency with every move. You can't make me!

All I hear is that you don’t want positioning to matter, because in this edition it sure as hell doesn’t.

 Jaxler wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ah yes, let's follow the GW edict of templates being the devil incarnate (just like points 3 years ago), despite numerous other games using them perfectly fine.

No. Templates worked and didn't cause gak like this with stupid "solutions" given to blast weapons that can seem as useful as Ann Frank's drum kit at times. Sorry bud, your devastating Battle Cannon that makes craters in the ground itself hits 1 guy despite all his mates standing around him.

Please please please no, I don't want to go back to having to space every model to maximum coherency with every move. You can't make me!

All I hear is that you don’t want positioning to matter, because in this edition it sure as hell doesn’t.

You're right, my Slaanesh daemons never have to micromanage their moves to:

1) Ensure they do not end in base contact with an enemy, allowing them to pile in, which then ensures that
2) They surround every model in the enemy unit, if possible, so that
3) The enemy unit has no paths to fall back through with every model.

Seriously, micromanaging the assault phase for my army is the difference between victory or defeat, because you have to stop those fallbacks. And the assaulters have the tools to do it, with a charge move plus 6" of extra movement given that you meet certain conditions that you have to micromanage (some of which can be as significant as differences in fractions of millimeters).

Conversely, this also means that the shooting army opposing the assault army must then be careful about their positioning, to ensure that pile-ins and consolidates don't lock up important units, and that their units cannot be easily surrounded, or that they have a good place to pull casualties or morale-losses from to reduce the risk of a surround, etc. etc.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ah yes, let's follow the GW edict of templates being the devil incarnate (just like points 3 years ago), despite numerous other games using them perfectly fine.

No. Templates worked and didn't cause gak like this with stupid "solutions" given to blast weapons that can seem as useful as Ann Frank's drum kit at times. Sorry bud, your devastating Battle Cannon that makes craters in the ground itself hits 1 guy despite all his mates standing around him.

Please please please no, I don't want to go back to having to space every model to maximum coherency with every move. You can't make me!

All I hear is that you don’t want positioning to matter, because in this edition it sure as hell doesn’t.

You're right, my Slaanesh daemons never have to micromanage their moves to:

1) Ensure they do not end in base contact with an enemy, allowing them to pile in, which then ensures that
2) They surround every model in the enemy unit, if possible, so that
3) The enemy unit has no paths to fall back through with every model.

Seriously, micromanaging the assault phase for my army is the difference between victory or defeat, because you have to stop those fallbacks. And the assaulters have the tools to do it, with a charge move plus 6" of extra movement given that you meet certain conditions that you have to micromanage (some of which can be as significant as differences in fractions of millimeters).

Conversely, this also means that the shooting army opposing the assault army must then be careful about their positioning, to ensure that pile-ins and consolidates don't lock up important units, and that their units cannot be easily surrounded, or that they have a good place to pull casualties or morale-losses from to reduce the risk of a surround, etc. etc.

Unless your an assault army, it doesn’t matter.

Your not punished for having valuable models in the front anymore.
Your not punished for grouping too tightly anymore.
Shooting if 24 inches or more is so prevalent that most movement doesn’t matter anymore got shooting.
Cover saves are so useless to get now that using cover is practically pointless unless it’s Los blocking.
Any viable army has so few assault units that are more than 1 model that actually micromanaging assault is basically rare as hell.

Knowing when to group up for cover vs when to spread out for avoiding templates is a dead art.

Sorry, positioning is basically watered down to the point of not mattering unless your using an assault army, and even then encircling the opponent isn’t some high skill thing. There is no decision making in your 3 points either, just the best way to play.

 Jaxler wrote:
Unless your an assault army, it doesn’t matter.

Your not punished for having valuable models in the front anymore.
Your not punished for grouping too tightly anymore.
Shooting if 24 inches or more is so prevalent that most movement doesn’t matter anymore got shooting.
Cover saves are so useless to get now that using cover is practically pointless unless it’s Los blocking.
Any viable army has so few assault units that are more than 1 model that actually micromanaging assault is basically rare as hell.

Knowing when to group up for cover vs when to spread out for avoiding templates is a dead art.

Sorry, positioning is basically watered down to the point of not mattering unless your using an assault army, and even then encircling the opponent isn’t some high skill thing. There is no decision making in your 3 points either, just the best way to play.

I would argue that "an assault army" doesn't mean anything, and you're talking about assault units, in which case, I'd challenge you to find any army that does well at tournaments without an assault element. Furthermore, of course there's a "best way to play" too, though I'd argue there are few situations when there's not a "best decision." It just depends on how obvious it is.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Unless your an assault army, it doesn’t matter.

Your not punished for having valuable models in the front anymore.
Your not punished for grouping too tightly anymore.
Shooting if 24 inches or more is so prevalent that most movement doesn’t matter anymore got shooting.
Cover saves are so useless to get now that using cover is practically pointless unless it’s Los blocking.
Any viable army has so few assault units that are more than 1 model that actually micromanaging assault is basically rare as hell.

Knowing when to group up for cover vs when to spread out for avoiding templates is a dead art.

Sorry, positioning is basically watered down to the point of not mattering unless your using an assault army, and even then encircling the opponent isn’t some high skill thing. There is no decision making in your 3 points either, just the best way to play.

I would argue that "an assault army" doesn't mean anything, and you're talking about assault units, in which case, I'd challenge you to find any army that does well at tournaments without an assault element. Furthermore, of course there's a "best way to play" too, though I'd argue there are few situations when there's not a "best decision." It just depends on how obvious it is.

How often are those assault elements not characters or large monsters?

Also for shooting forces, the point still stands, positioning is mostly dead.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Unless your an assault army, it doesn’t matter.

Your not punished for having valuable models in the front anymore.
Your not punished for grouping too tightly anymore.
Shooting if 24 inches or more is so prevalent that most movement doesn’t matter anymore got shooting.
Cover saves are so useless to get now that using cover is practically pointless unless it’s Los blocking.
Any viable army has so few assault units that are more than 1 model that actually micromanaging assault is basically rare as hell.

Knowing when to group up for cover vs when to spread out for avoiding templates is a dead art.

Sorry, positioning is basically watered down to the point of not mattering unless your using an assault army, and even then encircling the opponent isn’t some high skill thing. There is no decision making in your 3 points either, just the best way to play.

I would argue that "an assault army" doesn't mean anything, and you're talking about assault units, in which case, I'd challenge you to find any army that does well at tournaments without an assault element. Furthermore, of course there's a "best way to play" too, though I'd argue there are few situations when there's not a "best decision." It just depends on how obvious it is.

How often are those assault elements not characters or large monsters?

Also for shooting forces, the point still stands, positioning is mostly dead.

Custodes Jetbikes still worry about positioning, just to take an example. Being able to fly over the enemy when moving means you need to micromanage even more in some cases, because a large-based model can hit many things at once (but it has to declare all of them as charge targets). Zarakynel, as another example, can move 15+d6" in a turn before charging, and oftentimes the way I place her in the assault phase can make me able to tie up a ton of things with her if I'm very careful, plus her -3 Leadership aura (with Phantasmagoria on) only works on units within 6", and her base is oblong, so even the way she is pivoted matters.

And of course this matters to my opponents too if they don't want Zarakynel to tie up like 4 Leman Russ tanks in combat, even if they're a shooting army. In fact, most of my wins with such a sub-par army as Slaanesh Daemons leverages the fact that my opponent doesn't pay attention to positioning and then my units rampage across their whole army almost unopposed because of how bad their positioning of their units was.

How is cover pointless if it gives you +1 armor? Oh yeah it's not.

 Xenomancers wrote:
How is cover pointless if it gives you +1 armor? Oh yeah it's not.

To be fair, it is pointless in many cases, most of all involve units with no armour and an invul, like.....Daemons.

-

 Xenomancers wrote:
How is cover pointless if it gives you +1 armor? Oh yeah it's not.

It doesn't buff invul saves and there are a lot of those. And I am finding a saturation of high strenght multi damage shots to finally get through the invul saves, those come with huge ap as part of the package, which just washes out the cover bounis.

Cover isn't pointless, but its not very important.


Actully thats the issue right there. Tonnes of invul saves make building the army on the page more important than playing it on the table.

Welcome to lazy game design.
But this is what the people always wanted. So tough luck.

ValentineGames wrote:
Welcome to lazy game design.
But this is what the people always wanted. So tough luck.

The laziest

it's a lot better than MC toe in cover making them have essentially 4++ saves. At least it's harder for big units to get cover saves in this edition.

Cover also gives advantage to any unit utilizing it - not just trash units that don't pay for an armor save.

I really don't want to go back to terrain slowing your down...it slows the game down massively and it really buffs shooting armies more than anything.

I don't think we should attribute laziness for not understanding the goal. GW may write rules in weird ways, but they are far from lazy about it.

GW writes the rules in a way that makes perfect sense...so long as you are not trying to break them in the most competitive way possible. GW views 40K as what it is: A game designed to have fun with and sell plastic toy soldiers. GW does not view it as a hyper-competitive game to take so seriously.

A decent example of how much actual thought goes into their rules is the Eldar Stratagem: Linked Fire. For the longest time, I could not figure out why the main Prism had to resolve its shots last. Then it hit me: Fire & Fade.
If the main Prism could fire first, you couldn't use both Strats together. Linked Fire needs the main Prism to draw LoS, and F&F is immediately resolved after the unit shoots.
So by requiring the main Prism to fire last, it is compatible with F&F.
It's little examples like this that make it hard for me to believe GW is lazy. And there are too many examples for them to just get luck every now and then.

The issue is that GW does WANT us to be hyper competitive with this game. They only put in rules/suggestions for Matched play because they acknowledge a large part of their player base wants them.

On Topic, there are very, very few armies/units that get better than a 5++. Units that do are either very expensive, very slow, or both. Other examples, like Harlies that do get 4++ across the board are indeed very expensive and if you can provide any decent volume of fire, you see just how fragile they really are.

GW gives out invuls like candy for several reason:
-The AP makes invul saves far less valuable
-Mortal Wounds are a thing
-Players cried to make the shooting phase less powerful, so you got what you asked for

-

I wish certain weapons interacted with invo saves differently. Like I brought up earlier in the thread.

How stupid is it that a 9 point wrack with prophets of the flesh has a 4++ save against a volcano lance?

What is actually happening? Is the flesh so strong that it doesn't melt at 100k degrees?

Point I am making is invulnerable saves are too invulnerable. More weapons need to be able to reduce them or flat out ignore them.

Isn't the problem more that things get Invuln Saves for what should be other rules?

Genestealers, Harlequins, and Wyches all have Invulns that are more like "Cover Saves" from earlier editions. They don't "survive" the damage, they just aren't hit. I think many of us are conditioned to think of these as "not an invuln".

Wracks and Grots (and some other things), though, have invulns to show "Too tough to care" or "just doesn't feel the pain". Things that we still have rules for, but they don't use. THat seems odd.

So a Volcano Cannon hitting a Bloodletter and being ignored because the Bloodletter was not physically present at the time (invuln) makes sense. Or a ShimmerShield or Iron Halo - doesn't matter how strong the hit is, it didn't connect with something physically destructable.

As tough as Grots and Wracks and things are, though, an Invuln save feels wrong. It didn't fail to hit. It didn't hit something indestructable. Either a higher T or an improved FnP would better represent what's going on.

Bharring wrote:
Isn't the problem more that things get Invuln Saves for what should be other rules?

Genestealers, Harlequins, and Wyches all have Invulns that are more like "Cover Saves" from earlier editions. They don't "survive" the damage, they just aren't hit. I think many of us are conditioned to think of these as "not an invuln".

Wracks and Grots (and some other things), though, have invulns to show "Too tough to care" or "just doesn't feel the pain". Things that we still have rules for, but they don't use. THat seems odd.

So a Volcano Cannon hitting a Bloodletter and being ignored because the Bloodletter was not physically present at the time (invuln) makes sense. Or a ShimmerShield or Iron Halo - doesn't matter how strong the hit is, it didn't connect with something physically destructable.

As tough as Grots and Wracks and things are, though, an Invuln save feels wrong. It didn't fail to hit. It didn't hit something indestructable. Either a higher T or an improved FnP would better represent what's going on.

Yep, agreed.

Bharring wrote:
Isn't the problem more that things get Invuln Saves for what should be other rules?

Genestealers, Harlequins, and Wyches all have Invulns that are more like "Cover Saves" from earlier editions. They don't "survive" the damage, they just aren't hit. I think many of us are conditioned to think of these as "not an invuln".

Wracks and Grots (and some other things), though, have invulns to show "Too tough to care" or "just doesn't feel the pain". Things that we still have rules for, but they don't use. THat seems odd.

So a Volcano Cannon hitting a Bloodletter and being ignored because the Bloodletter was not physically present at the time (invuln) makes sense. Or a ShimmerShield or Iron Halo - doesn't matter how strong the hit is, it didn't connect with something physically destructable.

As tough as Grots and Wracks and things are, though, an Invuln save feels wrong. It didn't fail to hit. It didn't hit something indestructable. Either a higher T or an improved FnP would better represent what's going on.

Yeah I totally agree. This is where the "invo saves being thrown out like candy" phrase comes from. Invo saves being used to represent things that should be something else. As much as I complain about it. I have no problem with a venom's flicker field being a 5++ save. I have a real problem with the venoms getting a 4++ because they put flesh on the hull...which would actually have a negative reaction with a flicker field I am sure.

I know it would make the game more complicated but I wish there were more complicated dynamics with weapon types and special saves.
Like - call a flicker field a displacement save - which would be ignored by flamer weapons. Same with daemon saves.

Yeah, "not being hit" is actually a good reason to have an Invul. The only other way to represent this is yet more -1 to hit penalties. I think we can all agree GW made the right choice to go with Invuls in these cases.

Wracks, Grots and Pain engines are indeed a head scratcher. They using to have FnP, so you would have thought they would be an 8E equivalent. Maybe GW though they were handing out those rules too often (looking at Nurgle here), or wanted Coven units to be affected by Mortal Wounds?

-

GW needs to change the D6 to a D8 for Armor saves. Or a D10. I favor the D8. And get rid of invulnerable saves. Light cover +1 to your roll, Heavy cover +2, and Hardened Cover +3. And add some wounds to some current models.

This would fix a great many things. 2+ armor would be a big deal, Giving you a 12.5 percent chance on taking a wound from a AP-0, where before it was a 16.6. Low AP weapons would not be as effective. A wounding bolt rifle wouldn’t finish a guardsman 83.4% of the time, but would now kill them 62.5%. But I think it would be worth it.

 Galef wrote:
Yeah, "not being hit" is actually a good reason to have an Invul. The only other way to represent this is yet more -1 to hit penalties. I think we can all agree GW made the right choice to go with Invuls in these cases.

Only because they decided to have army wide -1 to hits. That was a bad call. Hit penalties are perfectly fine mechanic, but some subfactions having an access to an army wide penalty on top of which they can stack other penalties breaks the system.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Yeah, "not being hit" is actually a good reason to have an Invul. The only other way to represent this is yet more -1 to hit penalties. I think we can all agree GW made the right choice to go with Invuls in these cases.

Only because they decided to have army wide -1 to hits. That was a bad call. Hit penalties are perfectly fine mechanic, but some subfactions having an access to an army wide penalty on top of which they can stack other penalties breaks the system.

Even then, -1 to hit would be fine if it didn't stack.

Just make it a rule that you can't have more than -1 to a hit roll. You could still have exceptional rare abilities that could override that, but they would only apply in very restricted circumstances or to single models temporarily.

Say the Shroud relic that Dark Angels have, that could be an exception as it's one guy and uses up a relic slot. But a Heavy -1 wouldn't stack with a Raven Guard tactic -1.

I agree that to hit penalties shouldn't stack but I'd go further and say player generated to hit penalties shouldn't stack.

No -1 to hit for flyer with -1 to hit for alaitoc. But the -1 to hit for raven guard would stack with a -1 to hit for moving and shooting or a -1 to hit imposed by a psychic power.

-2's to hit are very powerful but do have some tactical merit (in small numbers). But should be capped at -2 (no crazy harlies @ -4...) and the mechanic for hitting on 7s (6 + 4+) should be brought back...

Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Yeah, "not being hit" is actually a good reason to have an Invul. The only other way to represent this is yet more -1 to hit penalties. I think we can all agree GW made the right choice to go with Invuls in these cases.

Only because they decided to have army wide -1 to hits. That was a bad call. Hit penalties are perfectly fine mechanic, but some subfactions having an access to an army wide penalty on top of which they can stack other penalties breaks the system.

Even then, -1 to hit would be fine if it didn't stack.

Just make it a rule that you can't have more than -1 to a hit roll. You could still have exceptional rare abilities that could override that, but they would only apply in very restricted circumstances or to single models temporarily.

Say the Shroud relic that Dark Angels have, that could be an exception as it's one guy and uses up a relic slot. But a Heavy -1 wouldn't stack with a Raven Guard tactic -1.

Moving with heavy weapons makes this less viable. Otherwise facing off against Alaitoc, Raven Guard or Alpha legion suddenly makes you more mobile than before. That make no sense. -1 to hit penalties should absolutely stack, they just should stack beyond, say, -2 and natural 6s should always hit regardless of modifiers. that would instantly restrict these abilities from abuse.

Invuls representing "not being hit" because the model is either too quick or ethereal in some way are fine. The vast, VAST majority of these are only 5++ or 4++. Just shoot them more and they fail those saves.

Let's also not forget that many units' invul save only applies in the shooting phase. This further supports the claim the GW is intentionally toning down the shooting phase to encourage melee.

-

Reemule wrote:
GW needs to change the D6 to a D8 for Armor saves. Or a D10. I favor the D8. And get rid of invulnerable saves. Light cover +1 to your roll, Heavy cover +2, and Hardened Cover +3. And add some wounds to some current models.

This would fix a great many things. 2+ armor would be a big deal, Giving you a 12.5 percent chance on taking a wound from a AP-0, where before it was a 16.6. Low AP weapons would not be as effective. A wounding bolt rifle wouldn’t finish a guardsman 83.4% of the time, but would now kill them 62.5%. But I think it would be worth it.

This again? I've been over this before but rolling anything other than D6s in the quantities that GW wants you to roll them in just does not work. Just look at Void 1.1 for an example- I love that game to bits and the D10s added a nice bit of granularity that 40k was missing but man they were a chore to roll and read quickly.

 Galef wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Yeah, "not being hit" is actually a good reason to have an Invul. The only other way to represent this is yet more -1 to hit penalties. I think we can all agree GW made the right choice to go with Invuls in these cases.

Only because they decided to have army wide -1 to hits. That was a bad call. Hit penalties are perfectly fine mechanic, but some subfactions having an access to an army wide penalty on top of which they can stack other penalties breaks the system.

Even then, -1 to hit would be fine if it didn't stack.

Just make it a rule that you can't have more than -1 to a hit roll. You could still have exceptional rare abilities that could override that, but they would only apply in very restricted circumstances or to single models temporarily.

Say the Shroud relic that Dark Angels have, that could be an exception as it's one guy and uses up a relic slot. But a Heavy -1 wouldn't stack with a Raven Guard tactic -1.

Moving with heavy weapons makes this less viable. Otherwise facing off against Alaitoc, Raven Guard or Alpha legion suddenly makes you more mobile than before. That make no sense. -1 to hit penalties should absolutely stack, they just should stack beyond, say, -2 and natural 6s should always hit regardless of modifiers. that would instantly restrict these abilities from abuse.

Invuls representing "not being hit" because the model is either too quick or ethereal in some way are fine. The vast, VAST majority of these are only 5++ or 4++. Just shoot them more and they fail those saves.

Let's also not forget that many units' invul save only applies in the shooting phase. This further supports the claim the GW is intentionally toning down the shooting phase to encourage melee.

-

Maybe Heavy was a bad choice. I still think the default being no more than -1 is the way to go though. -2 is already pretty crippling.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Reemule wrote:
GW needs to change the D6 to a D8 for Armor saves. Or a D10. I favor the D8. And get rid of invulnerable saves. Light cover +1 to your roll, Heavy cover +2, and Hardened Cover +3. And add some wounds to some current models.

This would fix a great many things. 2+ armor would be a big deal, Giving you a 12.5 percent chance on taking a wound from a AP-0, where before it was a 16.6. Low AP weapons would not be as effective. A wounding bolt rifle wouldn’t finish a guardsman 83.4% of the time, but would now kill them 62.5%. But I think it would be worth it.

This again? I've been over this before but rolling anything other than D6s in the quantities that GW wants you to roll them in just does not work. Just look at Void 1.1 for an example- I love that game to bits and the D10s added a nice bit of granularity that 40k was missing but man they were a chore to roll and read quickly.

The OP's questions wasn't for a solution that works for Grimtuff. Just a solution that works.

Stux wrote:
Maybe Heavy was a bad choice. I still think the default being no more than -1 is the way to go though. -2 is already pretty crippling.

I would only be ok with this if the penalty for moving with Heavy weapons DOES still stack, thereby leaving the tactical decision to stay still for only -1, or move for -2. Otherwise going against Alaitoc, RG or AL makes Heavy weapons have 0 penalty or tactical depth.
But in general, I still feel there are enough situations in which -2 SHOULD apply to merit -2 being the cap, along with natural 6s always hitting.

To answer the OP, the way around mass invuls is to either spam MWs or start taking more weapons that have multiple shots, rather than multiple damage (or both)

-

I think a simple enough fix would be that the enemy can't ever give you more than one -1 to hit, but there isn't a cap on the ones you give yourself.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Yeah, "not being hit" is actually a good reason to have an Invul. The only other way to represent this is yet more -1 to hit penalties. I think we can all agree GW made the right choice to go with Invuls in these cases.

Only because they decided to have army wide -1 to hits. That was a bad call. Hit penalties are perfectly fine mechanic, but some subfactions having an access to an army wide penalty on top of which they can stack other penalties breaks the system.

TRUTH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

Stux wrote:
Maybe Heavy was a bad choice. I still think the default being no more than -1 is the way to go though. -2 is already pretty crippling.

I would only be ok with this if the penalty for moving with Heavy weapons DOES still stack, thereby leaving the tactical decision to stay still for only -1, or move for -2. Otherwise going against Alaitoc, RG or AL makes Heavy weapons have 0 penalty or tactical depth.
But in general, I still feel there are enough situations in which -2 SHOULD apply to merit -2 being the cap, along with natural 6s always hitting.

To answer the OP, the way around mass invuls is to either spam MWs or start taking more weapons that have multiple shots, rather than multiple damage (or both)

-

Well the problem with that is a lot of things that have invo saves also have 2+ saves which can be 1+ saves. It's really just mortal wounds against these things.

I would love if they switched to d12s. They could had out more negatives to hit. They could give a 1 2 3 bounis to cover. They could have a lot more modifiers to dice and fewer re rolls.

The mortal wound mechanic is clearly one introduced to get arpund the invul saves. But then they wanted units that didn't go down to masses mortal wounds from the few armies that could spam it so they added more and better feel no pain saves. The avatars 3/5 5.

So we have a unit with high toughness and muilt wounds, ok need a high strenght multi damage weapon. Those all come with extra ap for this guy. Mortal wounds get reduced by the feel no pain. Everything else does too.

Reemule wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Reemule wrote:
GW needs to change the D6 to a D8 for Armor saves. Or a D10. I favor the D8. And get rid of invulnerable saves. Light cover +1 to your roll, Heavy cover +2, and Hardened Cover +3. And add some wounds to some current models.

This would fix a great many things. 2+ armor would be a big deal, Giving you a 12.5 percent chance on taking a wound from a AP-0, where before it was a 16.6. Low AP weapons would not be as effective. A wounding bolt rifle wouldn’t finish a guardsman 83.4% of the time, but would now kill them 62.5%. But I think it would be worth it.

This again? I've been over this before but rolling anything other than D6s in the quantities that GW wants you to roll them in just does not work. Just look at Void 1.1 for an example- I love that game to bits and the D10s added a nice bit of granularity that 40k was missing but man they were a chore to roll and read quickly.

The OP's questions wasn't for a solution that works for Grimtuff. Just a solution that works.

So I'll not drop in with actual experience of using large amounts of D10s in a game similar to 40k? We'll just go with speculation and theorycrafting as you don't like my answer? Ok.

Yes.

Not as a insult to you though.

I have plenty of experience in multiplies of games that use other dice.

I do not recall it being that difficult to be to sort the successes from the failures.

But as I didn't want to say that, I left it out.

Really, I can understand you putting something like "I find it harder to do this, so I'd not like this situation", but I was just ignoring the broader appeal to authority of your claim.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well the problem with that is a lot of things that have invo saves also have 2+ saves which can be 1+ saves. It's really just mortal wounds against these things.

I'm confused.
Are we complaining about too many invuls, or the AP system?
Because units with 2+ armour saves get an armour save against most weapons. Even Plasma or Lascannons still grant them a 5+. So unless they are hit with AP-4 or better, having a 5++ means jack.
So why would we complain about the invul in these cases, when the units are using their armour most of the time?

As I've said, it's really Harlies or DE that seemingly "abuse" invuls. And DE vehicles only get the invul against shooting. And none of their options have good armour or T compared to other armies equivalents.

Are we complaining about Imperials with 3++? Like Terminators or Custodes?

-

jcd386 wrote:
I think a simple enough fix would be that the enemy can't ever give you more than one -1 to hit, but there isn't a cap on the ones you give yourself.

This!

 LunarSol wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I think a simple enough fix would be that the enemy can't ever give you more than one -1 to hit, but there isn't a cap on the ones you give yourself.

This!

Agreed, but it has to be defined a bit better.
But an issue I still have is that it means Alaitoc Rangers need something else, because they gain nothing from the CW trait of the CW they are most famous for being from.
I'd also be ok with the -1 to be hit army traits like Alaitoc, RG and AL traits being changed entirely to: Units in detachments with this trait gain +1 to armour save rolls as if in cover, even in the open. If actually in cover, this unit receives +2 to armour save rolls instead of +1.
That should pretty much "fix" all this -1 complaining.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well the problem with that is a lot of things that have invo saves also have 2+ saves which can be 1+ saves. It's really just mortal wounds against these things.

I'm confused.
Are we complaining about too many invuls, or the AP system?
Because units with 2+ armour saves get an armour save against most weapons. Even Plasma or Lascannons still grant them a 5+. So unless they are hit with AP-4 or better, having a 5++ means jack.
So why would we complain about the invul in these cases, when the units are using their armour most of the time?

As I've said, it's really Harlies or DE that seemingly "abuse" invuls. And DE vehicles only get the invul against shooting. And none of their options have good armour or T compared to other armies equivalents.

Are we complaining about Imperials with 3++? Like Terminators or Custodes?

-

Oh what I am saying is. Things like auto-cannons and assault cannons are great vs things like wraiths that just have a 3++ save - they only have -1 ap though. So if they are a 2+ save in cover - it's still a 2+ save. Which means only 1/6 wound.

Something like a custodian biker. Or Gman. Or shining spears Really really hard to kill no matter what weapon you chose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I think a simple enough fix would be that the enemy can't ever give you more than one -1 to hit, but there isn't a cap on the ones you give yourself.

This!

Agreed, but it has to be defined a bit better.
But an issue I still have is that it means Alaitoc Rangers need something else, because they gain nothing from the CW trait of the CW they are most famous for being from.
I'd also be ok with the -1 to be hit army traits like Alaitoc, RG and AL traits being changed entirely to: Units in detachments with this trait gain +1 to armour save rolls as if in cover, even in the open. If actually in cover, this unit receives +2 to armour save rolls instead of +1.
That should pretty much "fix" all this -1 complaining.

-

Yeah - That would make the game like 50% better in an instant

Another fix that might be a PITA for book keeping is that Invuls degrade over the course of the round, or game. Say if you start the round with a 3++, after the first hit it saves you from, now it’s a 4++.

Or have it that Turn 3 all ++ saves lose 1 point of effectiveness, so that 3++ acts like a 4++, and a 5++ acts like a 6++.

Reemule wrote:
Another fix that might be a PITA for book keeping is that Invuls degrade over the course of the round, or game. Say if you start the round with a 3++, after the first hit it saves you from, now it’s a 4++.

Or have it that Turn 3 all ++ saves lose 1 point of effectiveness, so that 3++ acts like a 4++, and a 5++ acts like a 6++.

Something like that could work. Though - very complicated.

Yeah. Bookkeeping nightmare.

I don’t think giving eldar a faction wide +1 to armor saves is much better than the massive -1 to hit particularly with it still stacking with -1 to hit powers.

+1 armor while in cover would be a fine change for rangers though.

 Galef wrote:

I'd also be ok with the -1 to be hit army traits like Alaitoc, RG and AL traits being changed entirely to: Units in detachments with this trait gain +1 to armour save rolls as if in cover, even in the open. If actually in cover, this unit receives +2 to armour save rolls instead of +1.
That should pretty much "fix" all this -1 complaining.

Isn't that just a complicated way to say 'Units in detachments with this trait always gain +1 to armour save rolls?' And it would be crazy OP, I'd definitely always choose that.

More sane version: ''Units in detachments with this trait are always treated being in cover if the attacking model is more than 12" away.'

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

I'd also be ok with the -1 to be hit army traits like Alaitoc, RG and AL traits being changed entirely to: Units in detachments with this trait gain +1 to armour save rolls as if in cover, even in the open. If actually in cover, this unit receives +2 to armour save rolls instead of +1.
That should pretty much "fix" all this -1 complaining.

Isn't that just a complicated way to say 'Units in detachments with this trait always gain +1 to armour save rolls?' And it would be crazy OP, I'd definitely always choose that.

More sane version: ''Units in detachments with this trait are always treated being in cover if the attacking model is more than 12" away.'

Doesn't work in CC - doesn't work if you advance - Tyranids have the same trait and it's not even top 3. Kraken/Leviathan/Kronos are all much better.

My idea was to make the trait a little better and give you some reason to obtain cover. Maybe just make a fix in the rule that it can't increase you past a 2+. Or Also keep the range requirement of only within 12". IDK exactly. -1 to hit needs to die though.

Another fix would be for invuls to halve damage, rounding down. That way the volcano cannon can still erase most "invulnerable" things, but bolters can be negated like a cover save.

Too many invul saves is a consequence of the arms race GW has running vs your money (and FW more so). Bigger models, bigger shots and more shots. A space marine has become cannon fodder (and bad at it) while terminators can no longer be thought of as resilient to anything but the weakest of weapons, weapons that are often absent from lists.

Simply because while everything new got bigger and deadlier, the old stuff stayed the same.

If weapons got downtoned, you could have a version where only characters had invul saves, and where characters where targetable if in sight. As in the old days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
... oh, it is also a direct consequence of having to choose between regular save and invul save. Invul save thus became less effecient without it being an addition to normal saves, and could be handed out liberally, which is a pretty big downgrade for things like terminators.

LOL at the blaming of FW

Northern85Star wrote:
Too many invul saves is a consequence of the arms race GW has running vs your money (and FW more so). Bigger models, bigger shots and more shots. A space marine has become cannon fodder (and bad at it) while terminators can no longer be thought of as resilient to anything but the weakest of weapons, weapons that are often absent from lists.

Simply because while everything new got bigger and deadlier, the old stuff stayed the same.

If weapons got downtoned, you could have a version where only characters had invul saves, and where characters where targetable if in sight. As in the old days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
... oh, it is also a direct consequence of having to choose between regular save and invul save. Invul save thus became less effecient without it being an addition to normal saves, and could be handed out liberally, which is a pretty big downgrade for things like terminators.

No, overabundance of high invulnerable saves is itself a consequence of the poorly thought out and implemented AP system.
That is really about it.

This discussion begets another question- are saves worth having in 40k? Saves and AP have always been problematic since I've been playing: perhaps 40k would be the better for their removal.

Saves are fine, IMO. GW had 7 editions to generally figure out saves, AP, and so on, and there wasn't too much wrong with that part of the game by about 5th edition.

The issue is that they changed AP, gave everyone wounds, and increased the damage of weapons from 1 or instant death to variable damage all at the same time, without fully understanding the changes that would have to durability.

In general, armor saves are much less valuable because AP ignores them, and invuls are great on vehicles because they reduce of effectiveness of all the high damage guns which are paying a lot of points to have high AP they don't get to use.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Northern85Star wrote:
Too many invul saves is a consequence of the arms race GW has running vs your money (and FW more so). Bigger models, bigger shots and more shots. A space marine has become cannon fodder (and bad at it) while terminators can no longer be thought of as resilient to anything but the weakest of weapons, weapons that are often absent from lists.

Simply because while everything new got bigger and deadlier, the old stuff stayed the same.

If weapons got downtoned, you could have a version where only characters had invul saves, and where characters where targetable if in sight. As in the old days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
... oh, it is also a direct consequence of having to choose between regular save and invul save. Invul save thus became less effecient without it being an addition to normal saves, and could be handed out liberally, which is a pretty big downgrade for things like terminators.

No, overabundance of high invulnerable saves is itself a consequence of the poorly thought out and implemented AP system.
That is really about it.

that might be true if it was a new development as of 8th edition but it's not. the problem is an over abundance of high AP weapons.

The fact GW have stubbornly stuck to using D6s also hurts. If they used D10 or D12 it would be a lot better.

Tyranids have almost no invuln saves. Neither do Guard. Tau can get them on a few units, but often don't. Marines don't really, much. Orks? Nope. Genestealer cult? Not really. Necrons? A 5+ against shooting attacks mostly.

It's really not that much.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

No, overabundance of high invulnerable saves is itself a consequence of the poorly thought out and implemented AP system.
That is really about it.

that might be true if it was a new development as of 8th edition but it's not. the problem is an over abundance of high AP weapons.

Is that not what I said? The issue stems from the AP system being poorly thought out and implemented. I don't think the system can possibly work with just 6 die increments.

..which brings us to:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The fact GW have stubbornly stuck to using D6s also hurts. If they used D10 or D12 it would be a lot better.

I agree, but I don't think that GW can realistically change the D6 system to another DX (D3 does work, but that's because it is D6) as 'Warhammer 40k' is well known for it. That and it kills a lot of their branded die range.
So lets make the assumption we can only work with D6. How do we make it better?

Well, first of all we identify the problems of the system. What are they?
* AP -2 weapon effects Terminators almost as much as Space Marines
* AP -1 weapons effect SuperHeavyArmorForHumansTM just as much as ShirtsForOrks
* In order to ensure SuperHeavyBigBoyModelsThatAreExpensive dont die from a few -AP weapons they MUST now have good invulnerable saves
* Mortal Wounds are now the answer to all our problems

These can't be fixed without having an extensive `RPG system` that details how different kinds of AP effect different things:
* Weapon Types (ie, Gauss, Bolter) have different AP versus different targets
--- Necron Gauss weaponry should have higher AP against Biomass based armor (Carapace, Tough hide)
--- Bolter Rounds should have equal AP against all targets, higher damage against Biomass based armor
* Unique / Snowflake armor now has unique save rules to better represent the armors strength against different AP
--- Orky Tough Skin now saves on 2+ on a 1d3 (Very strong against no AP, terrible against any AP)
--- Space Marine armor now saves on 3+ on a 1d6 (Good against everything)
--- Terminator armor now saves on a 3+ on a 2d6 (Very good against no AP, still good against normal AP)

This means that taking wargear once again becomes a `Tactical Choice`, and not a DPS number sim.
Thoughts?

What if cover instead of +1, ignored all AP?

IMO, invulns should be capped at 5+ and give models a wounds increase to keep them from dying too fast.

Alternatively, invulns could just be a way to reduce AP values.
Example:
Invuln +1 negates 1 point of AP.
Invuln +2 negates up to 2 points of AP.
Invuln +3 negates up to 3 points of AP. (I would not go further than this, even this is likely too much)

So a termie gets invuln +2. When shot by plasma it gets a 3+ save, by melta it gets a 4+ etc...

Dandelion wrote:
IMO, invulns should be capped at 5+ and give models a wounds increase to keep them from dying too fast.

Alternatively, invulns could just be a way to reduce AP values.
Example:
Invuln +1 negates 1 point of AP.
Invuln +2 negates up to 2 points of AP.
Invuln +3 negates up to 3 points of AP. (I would not go further than this, even this is likely too much)

So a termie gets invuln +2. When shot by plasma it gets a 3+ save, by melta it gets a 4+ etc...

I like that idea.

Dandelion wrote:
IMO, invulns should be capped at 5+ and give models a wounds increase to keep them from dying too fast.

Alternatively, invulns could just be a way to reduce AP values.
Example:
Invuln +1 negates 1 point of AP.
Invuln +2 negates up to 2 points of AP.
Invuln +3 negates up to 3 points of AP. (I would not go further than this, even this is likely too much)

So a termie gets invuln +2. When shot by plasma it gets a 3+ save, by melta it gets a 4+ etc...

And Daemons get... What?

The smug sense of satisfaction that they are once again, the worst codex?

They would have to keep the old version, or just give a rule that says their armor save can't be modified.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
IMO, invulns should be capped at 5+ and give models a wounds increase to keep them from dying too fast.

Alternatively, invulns could just be a way to reduce AP values.
Example:
Invuln +1 negates 1 point of AP.
Invuln +2 negates up to 2 points of AP.
Invuln +3 negates up to 3 points of AP. (I would not go further than this, even this is likely too much)

So a termie gets invuln +2. When shot by plasma it gets a 3+ save, by melta it gets a 4+ etc...

And Daemons get... What?

DEAMONS GET SENT BACK TO THE HELL THAT SPAWNED THEM!!!!! DIE HERITIC!!!!

Dammit man I can't think of everything!

How about this: 5+ sv with invuln +5
It's functionally the same. Except for cover, where they'd get essentially a 4++. But maybe that's not such a bad thing? Incentive to use cover maybe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:

They would have to keep the old version, or just give a rule that says their armor save can't be modified.

Or this. Whatever's easier I guess.

Honestly i do not find a problem in the first place. Why are invul saves bad? They are there to create new target profiles. 8th edition is the edition where you need the right tool for the right job.

You need to take into account the following defenses of your target:

- Hit penalties
- Thoughness
- Armor Save
- Invul save
- FnP
- Wounds

Those 6 defenses meld together to create a large number of possible target profiles, each one has it's soft and hard counters.

As long as your definition of weapon firepower is "Takes x wounds from T7 3+" you are not understanding the mindset of this edition.

Spoletta wrote:
Honestly i do not find a problem in the first place. Why are invul saves bad? They are there to create new target profiles. 8th edition is the edition where you need the right tool for the right job.

You need to take into account the following defenses of your target:

- Hit penalties
- Thoughness
- Armor Save
- Invul save
- FnP
- Wounds

Those 6 defenses meld together to create a large number of possible target profiles, each one has it's soft and hard counters.

As long as your definition of weapon firepower is "Takes x wounds from T7 3+" you are not understanding the mindset of this edition.

Except there is one counter to all of the above which is raw volume of dice as it just blitzes through every thing that is supposed to counter it.

Spoletta wrote:
Honestly i do not find a problem in the first place. Why are invul saves bad? They are there to create new target profiles. 8th edition is the edition where you need the right tool for the right job.

You need to take into account the following defenses of your target:

- Hit penalties
- Thoughness
- Armor Save
- Invul save
- FnP
- Wounds

Those 6 defenses meld together to create a large number of possible target profiles, each one has it's soft and hard counters.

As long as your definition of weapon firepower is "Takes x wounds from T7 3+" you are not understanding the mindset of this edition.

I think the issue is that there aren't counters to invul saves, particularly on high wound models.

Once a model has over about 5 wounds, you really have to start focusing it with 3 damage or d6 damage weapons. It's pretty clear that these weapons are designed for large single targets. They typically have 1-2 shots, high Str, and high AP, and are usually very expensive.

Against things like rhinos, this is okay, since they get to use these stats and be better at killing the target than lighter guns. Against things like DE skimmers, a lot of anti infantry guns out perform anti vehicle weapons. Because these anti infantry guns are also good at killing infantry, you just bring lots of them instead of the anti tank weapons. Even against the really big vehicles of the current meta, like a Raven Castellan popping the 3++, twin autocannons do about 95% of the damage per point of a Las cannon, as well as being really good against a wide spectrum of other targets.

To me this just means that most vehicles with invul saves probably need a points increase, or more ideally something is done to make the anti tank weapons actually good at killing vehicles.

RoF is indeed a stat that almost universally scales linearly but i don't see it as a problem and they can't be part of the "right tool" equation because in assault those are tied to the model stats.

That said, invul does have a counter, which is weapons who do not trigger the invul save. If i shoot at Mortarion with an autocannon i "countered" the invul save, since he did pay for it but i ignored it. One could make a case of invul saves not costing enough, but we should keep model's issues well separated from game issues.

In the end every profile has a counter and the profiles are well distributed, there isn't a predominance of one over the others, so all weapons are needed. We should just assume that what we used to call "AT weapons" are "Anti armor weapons" and are meant to be used on heavy armored (without invul) targets.

I generally agree, and it might actually be armored units and high AP weapons that are overpriced, rather than the units with invuls bring underpriced, but it's definitely one of them, and these sorts of points issues do cause game issues.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

I'd also be ok with the -1 to be hit army traits like Alaitoc, RG and AL traits being changed entirely to: Units in detachments with this trait gain +1 to armour save rolls as if in cover, even in the open. If actually in cover, this unit receives +2 to armour save rolls instead of +1.
That should pretty much "fix" all this -1 complaining.

Isn't that just a complicated way to say 'Units in detachments with this trait always gain +1 to armour save rolls?' And it would be crazy OP, I'd definitely always choose that.

More sane version: ''Units in detachments with this trait are always treated being in cover if the attacking model is more than 12" away.'

Sorry, I was assuming outside 12", I just forgot to put it in my post. It does need something to make actually being in cover have some benefit, otherwise positioning means less for these army traits. So the rule should be:
If targeted by enemies outside 12", units in detachments with this trait gain +1 to armour save rolls as if in cover, even in the open. If actually in cover, this unit receives +2 to armour save rolls instead of +1.
So in general, it would basically be +1 armour unless you are within 12", but it's clear that it is cover based. It also prevents stacking with -1 to hit penalties, which is the point.

-

Alcibiades wrote:
Tyranids have almost no invuln saves. Neither do Guard. Tau can get them on a few units, but often don't. Marines don't really, much. Orks? Nope. Genestealer cult? Not really. Necrons? A 5+ against shooting attacks mostly.

It's really not that much.

Nids have defensive tricks though.
-1 to hit bubbles. -1 to hit upgrades. 4++ saves on some important units. Plus as standard - most nids are fearless - fast - and good in assault. Unlike marines who are slow - and not good in assault.
True - guard don't have invo saves in general - they can buff their armor and never need to leave cover though. Plus they have a lot of t8 AND bodies that are too cheap (which is just as bad as an invo save)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

I'd also be ok with the -1 to be hit army traits like Alaitoc, RG and AL traits being changed entirely to: Units in detachments with this trait gain +1 to armour save rolls as if in cover, even in the open. If actually in cover, this unit receives +2 to armour save rolls instead of +1.
That should pretty much "fix" all this -1 complaining.

Isn't that just a complicated way to say 'Units in detachments with this trait always gain +1 to armour save rolls?' And it would be crazy OP, I'd definitely always choose that.

More sane version: ''Units in detachments with this trait are always treated being in cover if the attacking model is more than 12" away.'

Sorry, I was assuming outside 12", I just forgot to put it in my post. It does need something to make actually being in cover have some benefit, otherwise positioning means less for these army traits. So the rule should be:
If targeted by enemies outside 12", units in detachments with this trait gain +1 to armour save rolls as if in cover, even in the open. If actually in cover, this unit receives +2 to armour save rolls instead of +1.
So in general, it would basically be +1 armour unless you are within 12", but it's clear that it is cover based. It also prevents stacking with -1 to hit penalties, which is the point.

-

Yes - I like this trait a lot. It would be a good fix for all -1 to hit traits. It is counter able by AP and it doesn't ruin armies that hit on 4's or 5's.

Hit penalties are not a "defensive trick", they are a defensive stat like the other ones, which is good against low BS and countered by high BS.

It's not like something must be a strait T + save without anything else or it's unfair.

I just don't like that negatives to hit reduce the effectiveness of some armies more than others. Tau and guard miss 33% less, while Marines and eldar only miss 25% less. This is arbitrary, and not something that you can really balance.

jcd386 wrote:
I just don't like that negatives to hit reduce the effectiveness of some armies more than others. Tau and guard miss 33% less, while Marines and eldar only miss 25% less. This is arbitrary, and not something that you can really balance.

Except it sort of is as a BS3+ model pays more for the same weapon than a BS4+ model so they should loose the same points worth of shooting per -1 to hit, if GW got that maths correct is a different question but the design should be balanceable the real issue is D6's don't give a lot of options for variation.

jcd386 wrote:
I just don't like that negatives to hit reduce the effectiveness of some armies more than others. Tau and guard miss 33% less, while Marines and eldar only miss 25% less. This is arbitrary, and not something that you can really balance.

That is true for other defensive stats though.

T counters tyranids and Tsons much more than it counters T'au for example.

Dark eldars are the ones who suffer invul saves the most.

SM and CSM are probably the ones that suffer more against high armor values, while Eldars will have an easier time.

IG struggles against hit penalties, but custodes laugh at it.

Ice_can wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I just don't like that negatives to hit reduce the effectiveness of some armies more than others. Tau and guard miss 33% less, while Marines and eldar only miss 25% less. This is arbitrary, and not something that you can really balance.

Except it sort of is as a BS3+ model pays more for the same weapon than a BS4+ model so they should loose the same points worth of shooting per -1 to hit, if GW got that maths correct is a different question but the design should be balanceable the real issue is D6's don't give a lot of options for variation.

Its definitely possible to balance the same gun at a different BS. But when you then decrease one BS by a higher % than the other, I don't think you can balance that, unless you do so by just giving the lower BS a permanent discount all the time because negatives to hit exist, which means they would be more efficient than higher BS per point anytime they aren't being reduced.

For example, let's pay we have 2000 points of space Marines and Tau that are both magically worth 2000 points of shooting armies. Against an enemy with -1 to hit, the Tau take a bigger overall penalty than the Marines do, somewhat arbitrarily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I just don't like that negatives to hit reduce the effectiveness of some armies more than others. Tau and guard miss 33% less, while Marines and eldar only miss 25% less. This is arbitrary, and not something that you can really balance.

That is true for other defensive stats though.

T counters tyranids and Tsons much more than it counters T'au for example.

Dark eldars are the ones who suffer invul saves the most.

SM and CSM are probably the ones that suffer more against high armor values, while Eldars will have an easier time.

IG struggles against hit penalties, but custodes laugh at it.

This is true, but the negatives to hit have very little counterplay, whereas most of the armies mentioned have builds and strategies around the other issues you mentioned, or would in a balanced game.

jcd386 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
I just don't like that negatives to hit reduce the effectiveness of some armies more than others. Tau and guard miss 33% less, while Marines and eldar only miss 25% less. This is arbitrary, and not something that you can really balance.

Except it sort of is as a BS3+ model pays more for the same weapon than a BS4+ model so they should loose the same points worth of shooting per -1 to hit, if GW got that maths correct is a different question but the design should be balanceable the real issue is D6's don't give a lot of options for variation.

Its definitely possible to balance the same gun at a different BS. But when you then decrease one BS by a higher % than the other, I don't think you can balance that, unless you do so by just giving the lower BS a permanent discount all the time because negatives to hit exist, which means they would be more efficient than higher BS per point anytime they aren't being reduced.

For example, let's pay we have 2000 points of space Marines and Tau that are both magically worth 2000 points of shooting armies. Against an event with -1 to hit, the Tau take a bigger overall penalty than the Marines do, somewhat arbitrarily.

No the idea is for example auto hit lascannon is worth 40 points a bs 2+ is worth 33 points a BS3+ is 26 points bs4+ 19 points bs5+ 12 and bs6+ is 5 points. So the damage per point should scale accordingly even when effected by -1 to hits.
A marine does hit 100% of the time he hits 66.6% of the time and 50% with a -1 so a 16.6% reduction
A Tau hits 50% of the time or 33.3% of the time or a 16.7% reduction.
16.6 and 16.7 are the same reduction, people keep taking about reduction in chances to hit as if every model always hits they don't. 25% of 66% = 16.5 % and 33% of 50% = 16.5% that's the same effect.

I'll admit that there is probably mileage in how -1 to hit scales with hoards vrs smaller numbers of elite models but the same could be said for fast armies like drukari who can just jump within 12 inches etc. I'm not saying -1 to hit is good I'm just saying it should be balanceable. The issue I do see is when you get to -2 and -3 as that does have some wierd interactions as it effects bs4+ and bs5+ models in odd ways.

So, doing some math, if a BS3 Las cannon is worth 25 points, a BS4 Las cannon would be worth 18.75 to get the exact same hits per point ratio. This means that the current 20 point Las cannon for IG is actually sightly over costed if you ignore everything else.

But let's assume that the BS4 las cannon price is 18.75, and you buy 4 of them for 75 points, and 3 of the BS3 Las cannons for 75 points. These would be equal to each other as long as they get to use their normal BS, since they both average 2 hits for 75 points.

However, once you bring in a -1 to hit modifier, 4 shots with BS4 -1 becomes 1.3333 average hits, and 3 shots with BS3 -1 becomes 1.5 average hits. And you'd still be paying the same price for these weapons.

It isn't a 16% reduction for each point of BS you lose. If you go from hitting 3 out of 6 times with BS4 to 2 out of 6 times with a -1, you lose 33% of your hits. Going from 4/6 to 3/6 is only a 25% reduction.

And yet the 20 pt lascannons are still better, imo, because they are going on much better platforms.

Martel732 wrote:
And yet the 20 pt lascannons are still better, imo, because they are going on much better platforms.

And the multiple ablative wounds the Guardsman squad gives.

jcd386 wrote:
So, doing some math, if a BS3 Las cannon is worth 25 points, a BS4 Las cannon would be worth 18.75 to get the exact same hits per point ratio. This means that the current 20 point Las cannon for IG is actually sightly over costed if you ignore everything else.

But let's assume that the BS4 las cannon price is 18.75, and you buy 4 of them for 75 points, and 3 of the BS3 Las cannons for 75 points. These would be equal to each other as long as they get to use their normal BS, since they both average 2 hits for 75 points.

However, once you bring in a -1 to hit modifier, 4 shots with BS4 -1 becomes 1.3333 average hits, and 3 shots with BS3 -1 becomes 1.5 average hits. And you'd still be paying the same price for these weapons.

It isn't a 16% reduction for each point of BS you lose. If you go from hitting 3 out of 6 times with BS4 to 2 out of 6 times with a -1, you lose 33% of your hits. Going from 4/6 to 3/6 is only a 25% reduction.

Again 33% of 50% =16.5% reduction. 25% of 66.6% =16.6 % reduction.
Percentage of hits doesn't represent the change in odds it represents the change is results.
As for the 3 vrs 4 for the same price point again I didn't say the system was perfect, it's just not as imple as 25% of a % vrs 33% of a %. Ratios do wierd things but if you include the price of the model even at a best case of 5ppm guards men and 12ppm marines the maths changes.

111points of 3 marines (12ppm) with lascannons = 74 points per hit
95 points of 3 guardsmen (5ppm) with lascannons = 71.4 points per hit.
The rest from then on out is the same as the shooting models stats don't influence the rolls.

Ice_can wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
So, doing some math, if a BS3 Las cannon is worth 25 points, a BS4 Las cannon would be worth 18.75 to get the exact same hits per point ratio. This means that the current 20 point Las cannon for IG is actually sightly over costed if you ignore everything else.

But let's assume that the BS4 las cannon price is 18.75, and you buy 4 of them for 75 points, and 3 of the BS3 Las cannons for 75 points. These would be equal to each other as long as they get to use their normal BS, since they both average 2 hits for 75 points.

However, once you bring in a -1 to hit modifier, 4 shots with BS4 -1 becomes 1.3333 average hits, and 3 shots with BS3 -1 becomes 1.5 average hits. And you'd still be paying the same price for these weapons.

It isn't a 16% reduction for each point of BS you lose. If you go from hitting 3 out of 6 times with BS4 to 2 out of 6 times with a -1, you lose 33% of your hits. Going from 4/6 to 3/6 is only a 25% reduction.

Again 33% of 50% =16.5% reduction. 25% of 66.6% =16.6 % reduction.
Percentage of hits doesn't represent the change in odds it represents the change is results.
As for the 3 vrs 4 for the same price point again I didn't say the system was perfect, it's just not as imple as 25% of a % vrs 33% of a %. Ratios do wierd things but if you include the price of the model even at a best case of 5ppm guards men and 12ppm marines the maths changes.

111points of 3 marines (12ppm) with lascannons = 74 points per hit
95 points of 3 guardsmen (5ppm) with lascannons = 71.4 points per hit.
The rest from then on out is the same as the shooting models stats don't influence the rolls.

The change in results is all that matters.

I know its heresy but I think you should look at modifiers arithmeticly. -1 to hit results in 1 fewer hit per 6 dice. Doesn't matter what your balistic skill is (excepting edge cases) 1 few hit per 6 shots.

By that math negatives to hit affect orcs and elfs the same.

Mechanicus Electro Priests are the worst for this.

They have a 5++ AND a 5+++ feel no pain.
Plus canticles.
They shoot a billion S5 shots.

All for 14 points per model.

Compare that to a freaking Terminator.

Headlss wrote:
I know its heresy but I think you should look at modifiers arithmeticly. -1 to hit results in 1 fewer hit per 6 dice. Doesn't matter what your balistic skill is (excepting edge cases) 1 few hit per 6 shots.

By that math negatives to hit affect orcs and elfs the same.

But how does that make sense? If you are paying a certain points value for a unit that will hit 4/6 times, and another points value for a unit that will hit 2/6 times, and then you reduce the number of hits by 1, you've reduced the first unit's output by 25% but the second unit's by 50%. Not to mention that if a unit only hits 1/6 times you'd reduce it by 100%. If we assume that all of these units are priced correctly based on their ability to hit things, you've reduced one unit's effectiveness by more points than the other. This isn't a giant issue if it is one unit or something from a psychic ability, but when it is army wide i think it's a real problem.

If you were to pay 5 points for the ability to hit 1 out of every 6 times, in theory you'd pay 10 points for the ability to hit 2 out of every 6, or 15 points to hit 3 out of every 6.

A -1-to-hit only drops the value of the unit by 5 points, that is true. So 1 15-point unit loses 5 points of value, and 1 5-point unit loses 5 points of value. However, that -1-to-hit affects everything shooting at it (in almost every case). So it works out to be 1 15-point unit loses 5 points, but 3 5-point units lose 15 points.

Yes, it is 1 fewer hit per 6 dice. Same decrease per die regardless of price. But the better shooting pays more for the same number of dice. So, if you lose the same per dice and have fewer dice, you lose more.

6 guys who hit on a 3+ lose 1 hit
12 guys who hit on a 5+ lose 2 hits

If you're paying the same for output, the 12 guys lose twice the *hits* of the 6 guys.

This works out because nobody cares about misses. It's like Saves - going from a 6+ to a 5+ does a lot less than going from a 3+ to a 2+, despite only being 1 out of every 6 different.

If that's still not enough, consider the cost of going from hitting on 6s to hitting on 7s. Or, for a clearer example. consdier going from a 2++ to a 1++ save. The rules don't allow that for a reason: despite only improving the result 1 out of every 6 dice, it makes you go from really darn tough to truly invincible.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Northern85Star wrote:
Too many invul saves is a consequence of the arms race GW has running vs your money (and FW more so). Bigger models, bigger shots and more shots. A space marine has become cannon fodder (and bad at it) while terminators can no longer be thought of as resilient to anything but the weakest of weapons, weapons that are often absent from lists.

Simply because while everything new got bigger and deadlier, the old stuff stayed the same.

If weapons got downtoned, you could have a version where only characters had invul saves, and where characters where targetable if in sight. As in the old days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
... oh, it is also a direct consequence of having to choose between regular save and invul save. Invul save thus became less effecient without it being an addition to normal saves, and could be handed out liberally, which is a pretty big downgrade for things like terminators.

No, overabundance of high invulnerable saves is itself a consequence of the poorly thought out and implemented AP system.
That is really about it.

I disagree, the AP system isn't new (we've seen it before in stuff like WFB and was a mechanic I rather liked in that game, though the 0+ saves (or better) some armies could buff to were insane and I'm glad to see that we can't seem to do better than a 1+ (with 1s always failing of course) making the game a lot more balanced than WFB was at times.

Unlike WFB though, Invuls are a bleeder valve for the AP system (instead of being an additional save you'd take after failing armour saves that would occassionally replace your armour save if you were pushed into the realms of needing a 7+ to save). Basically they exist, in all their flavors, to prevent AP from outright denying certain models a save worse than X (usually a 4 or a 5, sometimes a 6 with rare outliers being things like Storm Shields granting a 3++). For some units (like Daemons) this can be better than their armour, thus effectively replacing it, while for others (like Genestealers) it keeps them from being outright denied a save, but ultimately it acts as a kind of pressure valve versus AP to give a unit a certain amount of staying power versus AP.

The problem tends to be mostly for 2+ units as they're still more readily dragged down by weight of fire rather than good AP weapons making the pressure valve built into their stats less effective than it should be. Perhaps if Terminators took 1 less damage (to a minimum of 1) we'd see heavier guns aimed their way to compensate, but it's more likely people would just unleash a unit of Intercessors on them instead to force the wounds.

Of course Mortal Wounds push past the safety net we get from the invul save, but considering they don't spam nearly as easily as something like bolters or lasguns do, and thanks to things like VotLW which boost wound rolls, the ease of inflicting wounds via basic weapons is even easier than spamming Mortal Wounds as well.

Plus with Marines and CSM having ways of turning off invuls it's even more common that hammer type units that heavily rely on low invuls (Necron Wraiths for example) will see a lot of time being shut off which keeps the near unkillable deathstar style units from being as common since there is a counter mechanic built into the game.

As for the OP's complaint that durable units were durable, I'd argue that seeing as both armies are built around being anvils and not hammers that's a given. If you're good at not dying you tend to be less good at combat and inflicting wounds when compared to other armies who lack your durability but can bring more pain in a turn (like well played Guard). This is only pushed further when middling damage dealing power is reduced even further by unit durability resulting in a pillow fight between the armies.

 dan2026 wrote:
Mechanicus Electro Priests are the worst for this.

They have a 5++ AND a 5+++ feel no pain.
Plus canticles.
They shoot a billion S5 shots.

All for 14 points per model.

Compare that to a freaking Terminator.

Compare that to a tactical marine lol.