Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You've made your position clear. I've made mine clear. These changes will likely never happen, so you get your way by default. Next time I move, melta models are probably getting trashed. This includes painted attack bikes, but GW has made them useless.

What I do is none of your business.

Martel732 wrote:
You've made your position clear. I've made mine clear. These changes will likely never happen, so you get your way by default. Next time I move, melta models are probably getting trashed. This includes painted attack bikes, but GW has made them useless.

What I do is none of your business.

So you have no answer to the question of why meltas showed up in a GT winning list then?

You win the internet debate. Congrats. Move on. And don't reply to my posts anymore.

Martel732 wrote:
You win the internet debate. Congrats. Move on. And don't reply to my posts anymore.

Here lies Martel. A testament to never giving a solid answer to a question that could be ignored and never reading a reply that might correct his poor assumptions.

He will be missed.

invulnerable saves are a poor way to increase units durability in an already poor armor save system.

let me explain.

it's one of the few mechanics we should dump in the trash with 9th edition.

armor save is already a poor mechanic to simulate various resilience against weapons.
But on the other hand it's fairly simple at the first glance: roll a dice, avoid damage.
And hard to master since it involves percentage over percentage wich is not exactly intuitive.

In the worst exemple possible: you roll to determine the number of attacks, roll to hit, roll to pass toughness, roll for armor save, roll for dmg, roll for fnp.

that's a gak-ton of rolls and many of them are unecessary and time consuming.
Now include various modificators, rerolls and and stratagems and it's a nightmare to predict the outcome outside mathammer.

Idealy we should have a roll for the attacker and a roll for the defender.
thus, both player are active during the phase.

Armor save increase a model durability by increment of 16,6%.
+16% for cover, -33% for ap2 weapon etc.
This can already be simulated by "armor wounds" working as ablative wounds you recover at the end of the phase.
6+ save is one armor point for 6 wounds , bypassed by ap1, one more armor point in cover...
The problem with this solution: you have to multiply by 6 every wound characteristic in the game and do the same thing for every damage output.
16% is a very little margin to work around and lead to verry odd results.
if only they had chosen d10...

amor points works, it's simple, it's the same system without rolls.

Now for the invulnerable save.
In this already overcomplicated (but working) system you introduce an unmodifiable save you can pick over your armor save if this one is better.

there is only one way to bypass this save: mortal wounds.

What do you want to simulate with this?
4++ armor with lesser amor save is simply +50% durability barring mortal wounds.
You nullify all the weapon AP system with it just give them more wounds.

as exemple: terminators.
2w, 2+ armor, 5++.
the only way to use 5++ is facing ap 4+
You gain 16% durability against ap 4, 33% against ap5.
it's even worst if they are in cover.

seriously give them three wounds get rid of invulnerable, adjust the price and call it a day.

the only smart use of invulnerable save is the specific invulnerable save in close combat or against shooting.
it's very smart beacause it simulate a weakness/resilience without the need of weapon skill chart .

imperial knights durability is good exemple.
in the old 40k rule system imperial knight should have a very weak weapon skill and initiative making him far easier to deal with in close combat.
In our mordern 40k system he just need an invulnerable save specificaly against shooting to achieve this.

One other thing wich is dumb with invulnerable save.
The way i understand invulnerable save it should be an increased durability against all odds except the most letal weapons of 40k.

your invulnerable save wont help against a lucky lasgun shot but you can survive a barrage from a sunfury plasma anihilator.

invulnerable mechanic should be: reroll saves, ignore/lessen ap/dmg until a certain treshold.
ignoring small arm fire, mitigating moderatly dangerous weapons and leting you die from titanic/heroic threats.

I'll be honest, a lot of the "solutions" I've seen proposed here seem to be a case of 'the rich get richer'. As in, models that have good armour saves *and* Invulnerable Saves get to be even stronger, whilst models like Harlequins, Farseers, Warlocks, Succubi, Archons etc. who rely purely on Invulnerable Saves for protection get to lose their only defence.

Roberts84 wrote:
I'm somewhat in agreement with this. It's pretty ridiculous when some piece of weaponry that costs an absolute fortune to field and has S10 -4 gets shrugged by an invulnerable save, and the way they work now has completely changed the game. Basically, invuln saves are God, and if you don't have them, you're probably playing something not worth its points.

Tau players would hate this though as its really the invulns on their shield drones that keep their good stuff alive. Being able to modify those would cause big problems for them--and by that, I mean bring their lists into some semblance of fairness.

At least it will buff Terminators - Tempestus Lambdan Lions make an already crazy AP-2 hotshot lasgun, AP-3 which turns their 2+ into a 5+/++, the increased Sv would make them more survivable on a 4+...

It even supports the weapons that 'Ignore Invulnerable saves' - the bonus is simply not counted in those cases.

Invulnerable Saves should simply be an "ignore AP" modifier. You get to ignore AP but not boost the save like cover does.

A Terminator would have, for example, a Ignore AP value of 2, so gets to ignore the first 2 points of AP. AP-2 becomes AP0, AP-3 becomes AP-1, etc.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Invulnerable Saves should simply be an "ignore AP" modifier. You get to ignore AP but not boost the save like cover does.

A Terminator would have, for example, a Ignore AP value of 2, so gets to ignore the first 2 points of AP. AP-2 becomes AP0, AP-3 becomes AP-1, etc.

And this is exactly what I meant.

Terminators get a big buff, Farseers, Succubi, Harlequins et al. lose their defence entirely.

 vipoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Invulnerable Saves should simply be an "ignore AP" modifier. You get to ignore AP but not boost the save like cover does.

A Terminator would have, for example, a Ignore AP value of 2, so gets to ignore the first 2 points of AP. AP-2 becomes AP0, AP-3 becomes AP-1, etc.

And this is exactly what I meant.

Terminators get a big buff, Farseers, Succubi, Harlequins et al. lose their defence entirely.

Why? Just set their "armour" save to their old invulnerable save and give them an AP ignore of 5 or 6. The only downside is you can't intentionally let your dudes die by using a worse "armour" save. This could be fixed by making the ignore ap "up to" or optional.

The only models I can thinkof, off the top of my head, that have a better Invulnerable save than "Armour" save are Archons and Makari. For the shadowfield just add a rule changing the "armour" save and AP ignore when the shadowfield fails.

Part of thr issue also sounds very much like it's tied up in the over abundance of things that have crazy AP and such because of the number of invulnerable saves, but that crazy ap means armour si worthless so you need and invulnerable meaning apa is back to being handed out like candy, it's a circular argument of GW's own making.

Ice_can wrote:
Part of thr issue also sounds very much like it's tied up in the over abundance of things that have crazy AP and such because of the number of invulnerable saves, but that crazy ap means armour si worthless so you need and invulnerable meaning apa is back to being handed out like candy, it's a circular argument of GW's own making.

Yup. Just like 2nd ed. Except fewer invulns.

I don't know if this has been proposed before in this almost 200-post thread, but...

Could we fix some of the problems with invulnerable saves by removing all invulnerable saves from the game and replacing them with a Feel No Pain mechanic? This way, some of the damage from that krak missile can still get through the Space Marine Captain's iron halo, but is somewhat mitigated. (E.g.: the kinetic energy is absorbed, but the Captain still gets seared from the explosion just two feet away from his face.)

If a model used to have both an invulnerable save and a Feel No Pain, they simply get an improved FNP.

.

That would be an improvement.

-Guardsman- wrote:
I don't know if this has been proposed before in this almost 200-post thread, but...

Could we fix some of the problems with invulnerable saves by removing all invulnerable saves from the game and replacing them with a Feel No Pain mechanic? This way, some of the damage from that krak missile can still get through the Space Marine Captain's iron halo, but is somewhat mitigated. (E.g.: the kinetic energy is absorbed, but the Captain still gets seared from the explosion just two feet away from his face.)

If a model used to have both an invulnerable save and a Feel No Pain, they simply get an improved FNP.

.

That would probably fix certain problems, but it would create other weirdness. A harlequin with a FNP instead of an invul is suddenly much more vulnerable to something like a lascannon (more likely to wound than a bolter, more damage means better chance of bypassing FNP). Which seems odd given that the harlie's invul save is a representation of his agility and holosuit making him hard to land a hit on. Similarly, a wych's dodge save probably shouldn't be less effective against the slow, clunky power fist than against a duelist's power sword.

-Guardsman- wrote:
I don't know if this has been proposed before in this almost 200-post thread, but...

Could we fix some of the problems with invulnerable saves by removing all invulnerable saves from the game and replacing them with a Feel No Pain mechanic? This way, some of the damage from that krak missile can still get through the Space Marine Captain's iron halo, but is somewhat mitigated. (E.g.: the kinetic energy is absorbed, but the Captain still gets seared from the explosion just two feet away from his face.)

If a model used to have both an invulnerable save and a Feel No Pain, they simply get an improved FNP.

.

In short, no.

This is a massive nerf to models with invulnerable saves due to the fact that an invulnerable save stops all damage coming at the model if it succeeds. Using FnP you need to roll versus each point of damage that isn't saved. Thus even a 2+++ FnP save is worse than a 3++ save against any weapon that deals 3 or more damage.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

-Guardsman- wrote:
I don't know if this has been proposed before in this almost 200-post thread, but...

Could we fix some of the problems with invulnerable saves by removing all invulnerable saves from the game and replacing them with a Feel No Pain mechanic? This way, some of the damage from that krak missile can still get through the Space Marine Captain's iron halo, but is somewhat mitigated. (E.g.: the kinetic energy is absorbed, but the Captain still gets seared from the explosion just two feet away from his face.)

If a model used to have both an invulnerable save and a Feel No Pain, they simply get an improved FNP.

.

In short, no.

This is a massive nerf to models with invulnerable saves due to the fact that an invulnerable save stops all damage coming at the model if it succeeds. Using FnP you need to roll versus each point of damage that isn't saved. Thus even a 2+++ FnP save is worse than a 3++ save against any weapon that deals 3 or more damage.

In short, yes. Invulns need a nerf, as GW has deemed to hand them out like candy and invalidate high AP as a concept in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:

-Guardsman- wrote:
I don't know if this has been proposed before in this almost 200-post thread, but...

Could we fix some of the problems with invulnerable saves by removing all invulnerable saves from the game and replacing them with a Feel No Pain mechanic? This way, some of the damage from that krak missile can still get through the Space Marine Captain's iron halo, but is somewhat mitigated. (E.g.: the kinetic energy is absorbed, but the Captain still gets seared from the explosion just two feet away from his face.)

If a model used to have both an invulnerable save and a Feel No Pain, they simply get an improved FNP.

.

That would probably fix certain problems, but it would create other weirdness. A harlequin with a FNP instead of an invul is suddenly much more vulnerable to something like a lascannon (more likely to wound than a bolter, more damage means better chance of bypassing FNP). Which seems odd given that the harlie's invul save is a representation of his agility and holosuit making him hard to land a hit on. Similarly, a wych's dodge save probably shouldn't be less effective against the slow, clunky power fist than against a duelist's power sword.

They use invuln to represent too many things. Consequently, too many invulns and no reason to bring high AP weapons.

SOME invulns need a nerf. Knights could stand with a nerf, or at least losing their invuln.

Not all invulns.

Riptides would still be dumb. A 2+ armor save with an extra bonus of +3 to its save means even with dark eldar heat lances he still gets a 4+ save. It's a little better but nowhere near enough. I'd rather just spam mortal wounds at that point. Also heat lances aren't ideal weapons in general but good job at an attempt to make them suck less.

Roberts84 wrote:
Necrons are one of those armies that's hard to amend without making them either terrible or utterly bananas OP. It's probably necessary to rebuild at least some of their core strategies from the ground up...but I guess then they wouldn't really be crons.

I think Necrons are still good. Well, they're nowhere near as bad as something like GS cult anyway. Probably the reason they don't turn up in tournaments more is because there's simply so many space marines armies, and law of averages just means space marines are going to be overrepresented vs everything. That and Necs are pretty slow overall. They still have some excellent units: Immortals, scarabs, destroyers. Warriors are pretty ordinary, I'll say that.

I'm OK with wraiths staying as they are, but yeah, they are pretty amazing.

Part of it is simply that the wacked Necron durability with a dozen nerf bats while simultaneously making 8th edition probably the most lethal environment the game has ever had. Its a poor combination.
Wraiths simply stand out for having escaped it and being a reasonably effective close combat platform in an army that largely has utterly terrible combat units. (whether hampered by speed, effectiveness or cost. Or, like flayed ones, all three)

 JNAProductions wrote:
SOME invulns need a nerf. Knights could stand with a nerf, or at least losing their invuln.

Not all invulns.

Most of them. Otherwise, why pay for AP? IKs are one culprit, but daemons and Drukhari are just as guilty. At least the IK invuln needs a relic to invalidate thunderhammers.

At this point, I'd prefer to remove invulns and implement force fields with fake wounds.

Martel732 wrote:
In short, yes. Invulns need a nerf, as GW has deemed to hand them out like candy and invalidate high AP as a concept in the game.

Call me when you can actually win a game...

I can win plenty, I just have to shower afterwards. I'd rather lose than spam tripoints.

An easy way to do this would be to have invulns degrade (by some strategems involving an ap-4 weapon being used on them) by 1++ till the end of phase.
For example, you might shoot knights's 4++ invuln with a melta and spend the command points, and turn it back to a 5++ invlun for that phase. Follow on shots from plasma are suddenly more scary! Call it the "overload effect".

Also, you could put in a rule that if the strength of a weapon is x2 higher than the toughness of the model, that weapon ignores 1++ of an invuln defense. So follow on s8 shots on a t4 captain with a 4++ rosarius become 5++ (melta strat) and then 6++ (overload effect) Suddenly melta isn't such a bad deal to sprinkle aroudn the army a bit.

So if you went all out on a bunch of 4++ bullygrn with a demolisher cannon and a squad of meltas, you could 1) use the melta strat to drop the invuln to 5++ and then 2) use the high power demolisher s10 to make the shields function as 6++.

You couldn't do the same to a knight -- its hard to find s16 weapons lying around, but you could easily do the same to an t3 eldar guy if you were shooting him with orbital lance guns from a knight castellan. Similarly, a thunderhammer could have better odds of pounding its way past such a shield, but not against such a shield on a t8 levi- dreadnaught with a 3++ shield.

Point is, it gives you a broad range of possible shield effects while making some of the more egregious examples a bit less crazy. Heavy bolters shooting s3 3++ shields don't phase them -- but start playing your melta across the guy, he starts to worry about his shield overloading.

Grotesques can die in a hole now that we are on the topic.

I actually think knights are pretty vulnerable even with their fancy schmancy 4++ shield rotation -- its the relics and warlord traits being passed out like candy that makes the knights able to give 3 of the big knights extra defense -- and then soup in some admech to give the third one cover from canticles for the first 2 rounds.
3 knights with 5++? Kinda easy.
3 knights with 4++, 4++ (rotated) and 2+armor + cover canticle?
Much harder!

A FOURTH knight would be almost unprotected by comparison, cause you can pick between 2 that are counting on having the rotated shield for defense. Just blow up the one the enemy doesn't rotate, no biggy.

Dukeofstuff wrote:
I actually think knights are pretty vulnerable even with their fancy schmancy 4++ shield rotation -- its the relics and warlord traits being passed out like candy that makes the knights able to give 3 of the big knights extra defense -- and then soup in some admech to give the third one cover from canticles for the first 2 rounds.
3 knights with 5++? Kinda easy.
3 knights with 4++, 4++ (rotated) and 2+armor + cover canticle?
Much harder!

A FOURTH knight would be almost unprotected by comparison, cause you can pick between 2 that are counting on having the rotated shield for defense. Just blow up the one the enemy doesn't rotate, no biggy.

Even as it stands most competitive lists have the firepower to blow a 4++ Knight off the board in a turn and possibly even have enough left to put a dent into the next one as well.

Except the kinds of weapons that you would expect to work against them don't.

Dukeofstuff wrote:
An easy way to do this would be to have invulns degrade (by some strategems involving an ap-4 weapon being used on them) by 1++ till the end of phase.
For example, you might shoot knights's 4++ invuln with a melta and spend the command points, and turn it back to a 5++ invlun for that phase. Follow on shots from plasma are suddenly more scary! Call it the "overload effect".

Also, you could put in a rule that if the strength of a weapon is x2 higher than the toughness of the model, that weapon ignores 1++ of an invuln defense. So follow on s8 shots on a t4 captain with a 4++ rosarius become 5++ (melta strat) and then 6++ (overload effect) Suddenly melta isn't such a bad deal to sprinkle aroudn the army a bit.

So if you went all out on a bunch of 4++ bullygrn with a demolisher cannon and a squad of meltas, you could 1) use the melta strat to drop the invuln to 5++ and then 2) use the high power demolisher s10 to make the shields function as 6++.

You couldn't do the same to a knight -- its hard to find s16 weapons lying around, but you could easily do the same to an t3 eldar guy if you were shooting him with orbital lance guns from a knight castellan. Similarly, a thunderhammer could have better odds of pounding its way past such a shield, but not against such a shield on a t8 levi- dreadnaught with a 3++ shield.

Point is, it gives you a broad range of possible shield effects while making some of the more egregious examples a bit less crazy. Heavy bolters shooting s3 3++ shields don't phase them -- but start playing your melta across the guy, he starts to worry about his shield overloading.

Neat ideas there, but most of that only makes sense against invulns that represent forcefields. Being a higher strength probably shouldn't matter against invulns representing holograms , for instance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

They use invuln to represent too many things. Consequently, too many invulns and no reason to bring high AP weapons.

Eh. I feel like that's a slightly misleading statement. You could make things that are invulns not invulns, but the mechanic you'd substitute for them would probably warrant a thread in its own right. Going back to harlequins, invul saves do a pretty okay job of representing their durability against something like a lascannon or plasma. AP shouldn't matter there.

Maybe there should be fewer invulns on things that high AP weapons are meant to work against, but there are plenty of things with invuls that AP shouldn't matter against, right? Better AP probably shouldn't help you kill a daemonette, for instance.

There are I think 5 types of effect that are often represented by an invulnerable save:

Super reflexes
Energy fields
Regenerative ability
Warp energy
reinforced armour (terminators)

Of those only really energy fields and warp energy (ala daemons) really seem to warrant invulnerable saves.

Super reflexes should be a negative to hit, or a max chance to hit (ie they can never be hit on better than a 5+)

Regenerative power could just be regaining wounds in the next round

reinforced armour could be ignoring X AP



Part of the issue is that a) GW keeps creating lots of units or armies that have 'hard to hurt for various reasons' in their background and b) invulnerable saves are a simple catchall to cover a lot of them.

IMO the bigger problem is a). If they didn't keep doing it then it wouldn't seem like a problem.