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.

 skchsan wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Spoiler:

 greyknight12 wrote:
I disagree, the point of invulnerable saves is to provide a flat, unmodified save that a model always gets, regardless of what is shooting/attacking them. The argument for the OP will be “yeah but volcano cannons”, to which I will give you the answer of plasma guns. There is a place in this game for models that always get a decent save; that said there is probably an excess of invul saves right now.

But the opposite side of that has less to do with the AP of the weapon and more to do with the difference between the Sv and Invul.
Terminators pay for their 5++, but with the current AP system (which I like, don't get me wrong) they do not get to use that Invul save unless the weapon is at least AP-4.
This change is meant to make invuls more useful, instead of barely useful at all.

You could have the best of both by having something that translates current Invuls to positive modifiers that also don't allow a save to be brought below their value.
For example:
an invul of 5+ means the armour can never be taken below 5+, in addition subtracts 2 from any AP value
So AP-1 and -2 are treated as AP-0, AP-3 = -1, AP-4 = -2 and so on. But the model can always take a 5+ at minimum.

So you'd have your flat save, but you'd also be able to apply some protection against lower AP weapons

Although admittedly this kinda makes it feel like prior editions in which you needed AP_ to ignore Sv_

-

Yes but it has a much softer curve due to how AP system was converted into +/- system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
I like the idea but agree with Some Bloke that the invulnerable save would have to work melee also, not just against shooting.

My only real problem is it replaces a relatively simple mechanic (flat invulnerable save) with a potentially math-heavy mechanic

I mean no offense, and although I see what you're saying, but if sequential subtraction/addition is considered too math heavy, I think the game as a whole is too much for one to handle.

None taking, I'm just recalling bad 2nd Edition memories with hit and save modifiers similar to what you're suggesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
Alternatively, Invuls could be like "Ward" saves were back in Warhammer Fantasy. I.e. a save you can make after you fail an armour save.
It might get weird for units like DG that have Disgusting Resilience, but the way Fantasy handled that is to limit models to just one "after failed armour save" save. You'd have to pick either the Invul or the DR.
MWs would still ignore Invuls, but allow DR equivalents, so DG would still be as durable as they are not

This would give both Termies and Daemons a bump in durability equally. Termies could attempt their armou first, even if it's modified to a 5+ or 6 through AP, THEN take the 5++.
Daemons with 6+ armour and/or in cover vs AP-0 weapons would basically get double saves.

More rolling, sure, but far easier to work out what the save is in your head.

-

I was considering suggesting the Fantasy "ward" save method also, beat me to it. =)

Doing that would add a lot more die rolling but I feel would be more realistic in the long run. But I would suggest having to take the Invulnerable Save before any armor saves.

Example 1: A Heavy Bolter hit (AP-1) passes through a Refractor Field (a save roll of 1-4 against a 5++) only to be stopped by the Company Commander's Flak Armor (a save roll of 6 against 5+ Armor, -1 AP from the Shot).
Example 2: A Multimelta hit (AP-4) makes it past a Terminator's Storm Shield (a save roll of 1-2 against a 3++) and then penetrates his armor while he's behind cover (a save roll of 1-4 against 2+ Armor, +1 from Cover, -4 AP from the shot).

Bharring wrote:
So you're saying Bloodletters get too much out of their 5++; so wouldn't it be better to move them to a 6++, if that *were* the case? Or what other cheap units are getting invulns too cheaply, specifically?

And you're saying Termies should get a Sv0+; so wouldn't it be better to just give them an Sv0+?

Any Invuln on a unit should already factor into said unit.

If you really want Invulns to scale independantly of armor saves, you could just chain them again. We are only allowed 1 save for expedience purposes. But if we need the design space, wouldn't just making the two saves independent of eachother acomplish the same thing?
-The duplicate rolls would take less than managing the modifiers you're describing
-Readjusting Invulns to compensate for their now-improved value on units that have armor saves would be substantially simpler than readjusting every unit with an invuln to use the new SvA+ +B/-C statline you're introducing
-Fluffwise, these rolls should be independant: a demon wearing a breastplace has the same chance of the breastplate stopping the attack as a non-demon, and has the same chance of being incorporeal for the attack as a demon without the breastplate - and the either/or is a bad approximation.
-Thematically, it would provide much cleaner design space for "but I'm really, really hard to hurt"

I'm not arguing that splitting the saves is necessary; I'm arguing that it's a direct upgrade from the ideas proposed here.

A model's defensive capabilities should be tied into the Sv value instead of being an abstraction of how much armor one's wearing - I feel that there more issue of "lack of abstraction" here than there is in what invul saves are supposed to represent. This in itself I think is a relic of the past before the major overhaul to AP system. There really is no such thing as "Armor Save" in the game anymore - what the suggestion is to utilize the design space the current invul save takes up and convert it into something that actually reflects the protection offered by the armor the model is wearing.

If the mechanic of "ignore AP values" really truly needs to exist, it needs to exist in the post-save realm of FNP like abilities and not as a Sv mechanism because it's a hindrance to balancing out the whole game for the benefit of select few armies. Say, you can call it "invulnerability" and let it ignore the failed save on a roll of X - kind of uber FNP.

My stance is that a universal mechanic should not be left untouched because it alters the effect of a defensive gimmick for few armies & units. It should be exactly what the name implies - a universal mechanic.

"My stance is that a universal mechanic should not be left untouched because it alters the effect of a defensive gimmick for few armies & units. It should be exactly what the name implies - a universal mechanic."
Agree. But what does your suggestion accomplish better than the "Armor Save then Invuln Save"?

Your change doesn't so much better flesh out established concepts within the design space, as expand on concepts into an added piece of design space.

Sir Heckington wrote:
Could just change around Nurgle Daemons to have a better Invul than other daemons. To represent being tough and phasing out of reality. We could replace FNPs with just invuls.

Deamons invul saves are a special rule just like all invul saves. You can just keep the name of the rule and change the wording to "A unit with this rule has 5+ save that cannot be effected by armor penetration." Tzneeth deamons can have their special rule changed to "increase the deamon 5+ save to 4+"

 Lance845 wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Could just change around Nurgle Daemons to have a better Invul than other daemons. To represent being tough and phasing out of reality. We could replace FNPs with just invuls.

Deamons invul saves are a special rule just like all invul saves. You can just keep the name of the rule and change the wording to "A unit with this rule has 5+ save that cannot be effected by armor penetration." Tzneeth deamons can have their special rule changed to "increase the deamon 5+ save to 4+"

That works too. Personally I think Invuls are fine as is, we just need to see less of them/have some changed around on some models. The AP system (Including Invuls) is one of the things I like about 8th.

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Could just change around Nurgle Daemons to have a better Invul than other daemons. To represent being tough and phasing out of reality. We could replace FNPs with just invuls.

Deamons invul saves are a special rule just like all invul saves. You can just keep the name of the rule and change the wording to "A unit with this rule has 5+ save that cannot be effected by armor penetration." Tzneeth deamons can have their special rule changed to "increase the deamon 5+ save to 4+"

That works too. Personally I think Invuls are fine as is, we just need to see less of them/have some changed around on some models. The AP system (Including Invuls) is one of the things I like about 8th.

A more eloquent version could read something like:

"This model's Save cannot be modified worse than +5."

in order to account for units with better Sv than Invul Sv.

You're adding yet another special case. So you're changing a simple rule:
"Invuln saves may be taken instead of armor saves. They are not modified by AP"
To a not-insignificant blob of rules:
"Models now have save charactaristics of '+A/-B'. The first number represents their base Armor Save. AP modifiers subtract B, to a minimum 0. Then decrease A by the modified AP modifier to get the actual save.
Some models now have a 'This model's save cannot be modified worse than a +C'. Treat these models as having a +C/-NA save - do not apply any negative AP modifiers to their save."

Further, things like Cover should be modifying only Armor Saves, not what was Invuln Saves. Harlequins shouldn't go to a 3+ armor save in cover. Neither should Seers.

Finally, I get the impression you've come up with a great solution for the first subset you looked at, then started overfitting it to each problem that comes up. It won't apply across the game evenly. We'd be adding special cases everywhere. We'd have to rewrite the stat blocks and abilities of probably a third of the units in the game. Units in almost every book have to change. Many of them in non-trivial ways. And they have to change in very inconsistent ways. This is kinda a big deal.

I ask again: what are you trying to solve? How do modifiers solve it more cleanly than chained Armor than Invuln?

As for the counterpoints that have been brought up:
1) You feel it's weird that Armor Saves are impacted by AP and not Invulns.
I disagree. Armor can be bypassed by things like hot-as-hell-melting-weapons. Or lasers designed to skip through space upon initial impact. Or globs of plasma. AP modifiers should change them. Stronger anti-armor weapons *should* modify armor, certainly. But many saves - Demons, ShimmerShields, etc - aren't simply better armor. They are equally likely to stop a flying rock from hurting the model as they are to stop a naval bunkerbusting cannon. Mostly they involve it being physically impossible, not just a question of strength. So a save that is a flat N+ makes a lot of sense.

2) Also, you feel that the Sv characteristic should encompass everything about it's ability to save. But you didn't just reduce it to one stat: you turned the Sv characteristic into two stats. And added special rules. Sv +A/-B and Sv A+/A++ both answer this question in the exact same way.

3) Finally, you don't want individual gimmicks to prevent the application of a global rule. I don't want a "random" global rule change that with more gimmick fixes to make the rule change work than actual scenarios that make it work.

To this point, the global rules should make generic sense. They shouldn't be tailored due to current balance concerns. "Units have a base save, you apply modifiers to it. But you also reduce those modifiers by this other stat" makes less generic sense than "Units have a base armor save, and a base invuln save. Take one first then the other.

To summarize, "AP Modifiers" still seems like a worse change than chained Sv/Invuln saves. The former option is less generically stable, requires far more special fixes, requires far more tinkering in a much less consistent manner, adds far more complexity, and reflects only a small subset of the fluff well.

It's an interesting idea, but I think chaining-saves is better.

Thanks for the feedback.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the game does not have enough gradients to represent different tiers of units. The thread itself is not an anti-InSv – in fact, I think InSv is so relied on, it’s almost unfair for some units to NOT have at least InSv 6++. The proposal here is to utilize the system of InSv and alter it slightly to meet our needs. Instead of making the game from d6 based to dX where X>6 (which would require entire overhaul of the game as we know it), utilize the system of Sv+/InSv++ and let InSv act as a buffer zone to soften the offensive curve. It is not the removal of existing invulnerable system & its “immune to effects of AP”, but rather a change in use of the notation of SV+/InSv++. Perhaps, when the game becomes ever so slightly less killy, the game will become more about board control and strategic placements, and focused more on accruing VP’s

Of course, by no means is this a simple change, but not one of an unprecedented scale. We’ve seen a great deal of changes made to how AP & wound system works in 8th edition. This is an edition where the weakest of the weapons have a chance at dealing damage to the toughest of targets. This was a great change made units that relied on weight of dice over quality much more significant and impactful. The issue here is however how the AP system scales against weak units to tough units - AP penalizes high Sv unit exponentially more per point than it does against low Sv units.

Another significant changes made in the 8th ed was the overhauling of how vehicles are treated in terms of their stats. The removal of Hull Point and Av values were compensated with high W and high T. In order to prevent vehicles from becoming too tough, the game introduced multi-damage weapons capable of taking down multiple wounds with a single shot. IMO, the main issue starts here – with the introduction of multi-wound system, removal of instant death, and removal of HP and Av, the class of units that sits between hordes and vehicles got the short end of the stick: high AP, multi damage weapons, created to deal with multi wound vehicles, are more deadly against multi-wound models than they are against single wound units & vehicles (looking at you, plasma), weapons that used to deal instant death still deal instant death (high S/AP, multi damage weapons) due to AP and Multi damage system but doesn't gimp vehicles like it used to, and weapons that were revamped to deal with HP and Av changes deal with non-vehicle multi-wound models better.

How do these translate to needing to change the InSv system? There currently is an inherent flaw on how Sv+/InSv++ works. The core rules allow us two separate types of save – one which is affected by AP and one that is not affected by AP. We are told that you have to choose between which save to use and that they cannot be both taken. In practice, the InSv is something that you choose to use when using Sv would be worse after being modified by AP. When InSv is better than Sv, there’s no longer a “choice” of using Sv or InSv – you would obviously always use the InSv. Therefore, it shall be implied that in Sv+/InSv++, where Sv & InSv are integers, InSv cannot be numerically less than Sv (as in yield a better save). However, we know that this to be false in the game currently where certain units have better InSv than Sv.

Taking this, we should be able to better apply the Sv+/InSv++ notation to something more widely applicable, and decouple the “immunity from AP” as something that is inherent in invulnerable saves, to potentially apply it as a special rule on datasheets for certain units.

What I'm going for here in general is that the durability are represented something in the lines of the following:
light infantries by low T/Sv & no/low InSv;
reg/medium infantries by moderate T/Sv & low InSv;
heavy infantries by moderate/high T & moderate Sv/InSv;
light vehicles by high T & moderate Sv/InSv;
vehicles by high T, moderate/high Sv, moderate InSv;

Where high InSv is reserved for very few units/wargear.

Bharring wrote:
You're adding yet another special case. So you're changing a simple rule:
"Invuln saves may be taken instead of armor saves. They are not modified by AP"
To a not-insignificant blob of rules:
"Models now have save charactaristics of '+A/-B'. The first number represents their base Armor Save. AP modifiers subtract B, to a minimum 0. Then decrease A by the modified AP modifier to get the actual save.
Some models now have a 'This model's save cannot be modified worse than a +C'. Treat these models as having a +C/-NA save - do not apply any negative AP modifiers to their save."

Further, things like Cover should be modifying only Armor Saves, not what was Invuln Saves. Harlequins shouldn't go to a 3+ armor save in cover. Neither should Seers.

Finally, I get the impression you've come up with a great solution for the first subset you looked at, then started overfitting it to each problem that comes up. It won't apply across the game evenly. We'd be adding special cases everywhere. We'd have to rewrite the stat blocks and abilities of probably a third of the units in the game. Units in almost every book have to change. Many of them in non-trivial ways. And they have to change in very inconsistent ways. This is kinda a big deal.

I ask again: what are you trying to solve? How do modifiers solve it more cleanly than chained Armor than Invuln?

As for the counterpoints that have been brought up:
1) You feel it's weird that Armor Saves are impacted by AP and not Invulns.
I disagree. Armor can be bypassed by things like hot-as-hell-melting-weapons. Or lasers designed to skip through space upon initial impact. Or globs of plasma. AP modifiers should change them. Stronger anti-armor weapons *should* modify armor, certainly. But many saves - Demons, ShimmerShields, etc - aren't simply better armor. They are equally likely to stop a flying rock from hurting the model as they are to stop a naval bunkerbusting cannon. Mostly they involve it being physically impossible, not just a question of strength. So a save that is a flat N+ makes a lot of sense.

2) Also, you feel that the Sv characteristic should encompass everything about it's ability to save. But you didn't just reduce it to one stat: you turned the Sv characteristic into two stats. And added special rules. Sv +A/-B and Sv A+/A++ both answer this question in the exact same way.

3) Finally, you don't want individual gimmicks to prevent the application of a global rule. I don't want a "random" global rule change that with more gimmick fixes to make the rule change work than actual scenarios that make it work.

To this point, the global rules should make generic sense. They shouldn't be tailored due to current balance concerns. "Units have a base save, you apply modifiers to it. But you also reduce those modifiers by this other stat" makes less generic sense than "Units have a base armor save, and a base invuln save. Take one first then the other.

To summarize, "AP Modifiers" still seems like a worse change than chained Sv/Invuln saves. The former option is less generically stable, requires far more special fixes, requires far more tinkering in a much less consistent manner, adds far more complexity, and reflects only a small subset of the fluff well.

It's an interesting idea, but I think chaining-saves is better.

Why should Harliquins have a 4+ invulnerable though? Being hard to hit, it should be a to hit modifier. You can't dodge/misdirect someone slamming an orbital lance into your possition.
Being bathed in flames not exactly something they ahould be able to avoid 50% of the time.
This is the biggest issue with invulnerable saves in 8th edition they are everywhere many of which should have been represented by other mechanics.
The spamming of invulnerable saves by GW led to the introduction of Mortal wounds. At which point why bother with armour it's useless.

Ice_can,
I agree. Invulns are given out far too quickly, and for too many things. There are "Invuln" invulns, "hard to hit" invulns, and "I'm really tough" invulns. Which has always bothered me.

skchsan,
It sounds like we see a lot of the same problems. Different ideas of which solution is better.

I still think durability was botched in a number of places in the conversion. Far too many things got AP-1/-2; with AP modifiers, it needs to be rare, or Sv3+/Sv2+ isn't worth nearly as much. Further, a lot of the anti-heavy-infantry weapons (mainly Plasma of many variants) got D2 (PlasmaGun got nerfed a ton, Disintigrator got overtuned, Reaper Heavy2 option is unecessarily good, etc). To add to that, each Melta Gun was a notable risk to any vehicle it could get close to in 6E/7E. Now, it might just possibly maybe bracket a vehicle. Finally, the change to the wound table made midling values (t3 vs t4) of strength and toughness matter so much less. S5 no longer scares T3 more than T4. All this combines to basically gut the concept of durability.

GW responded to that by making some things super durable. Good luck killing an Alaitoc LFR Shining Spears with Protect and Fortune. But there's been no finesse, no light touch philosophy. And so things went crazy sideways.

I'm going to politely disagree with a lot of your post, Ice_can.

Ice_can wrote:

Why should Harliquins have a 4+ invulnerable though? Being hard to hit, it should be a to hit modifier. You can't dodge/misdirect someone slamming an orbital lance into your possition.

Agreed, but orbital bombardment type rules do mortal wounds. Invuls don't help against those as-is.

Being bathed in flames not exactly something they ahould be able to avoid 50% of the time.

Kind of disagree. Shooting at a harlequin is like shooting at a displacer beast with ninja training and super speed. A flamer should be better at hitting them than a lasgun (and it is), but their speed, agility, and optical illusions still have their place. You think the clowns are going left, so you aim your prometheum-spewing garden hose left, but then you realize that was just the after-image of their holo-suits, and they're juking right. So you try to compensate, but now they're a couple strides away, and half of them are backflipping over your head.

Plus, if you made their invul into a flat to-hit penalty, flamers, which I acknowledge need a price reduction or a buff, would just evaporate these expensive and supposedly very competent xenos. T3 with no save against an auto-hitting weapon makes for a bad time.

This is the biggest issue with invulnerable saves in 8th edition they are everywhere many of which should have been represented by other mechanics.
The spamming of invulnerable saves by GW led to the introduction of Mortal wounds. At which point why bother with armour it's useless.

As mentioned in my previous post, I'm not necessarily against replacing certain invul saves with a to-hit modifier, but how exactly do you intend to implement that for, let's say, mandrakes, wyches, and harlequins? A -1 to hit is a poor substitute for the wych and clowns' 4+ invuls. A -2 is probably closer to being about right if you're facing WS 3+ opponents (you've ignored half their hits before rerolls), but it also makes them literally immune to some units in melee and makes anything WS4+ only hit on 6s. Dark eldar and harlequins have plenty of ways to stack on additional to-hit penalties as well.

Mandrakes are weird in that they have both a to-hit penalty and an invulnerable save, perhaps to reflect their questionably daemonic nature and probably partially because everyone realized last edition that giving a "melee" unit no save in melee didn't work out so well. So do they just become a -2?

Not shutting you down on this point. I'd be interested in seeing how you'd implement this. I'd just hate to sacrifice reasonably good mechanics for wonkier mechanics just because people are uncomfortable with a certain amount of abstraction.

Invulnerable saves are fine, just give some heavily armored models some extra armor through treating -1 AP as 0 AP, or getting to reroll their armor save but with an additional -2ap

Ie 2+ save rerolls fails but needs a 4+, if hit by a weapon with -2 AP the reroll needs a 6+

Invulnerable saves have a value in the game, that value is just situationally diminished when someone shoots 18 S6 ap0 shots at your terminators.

I'd suggest letting players take both saves, but roll invulnerable first, and increase the points cost of all models with a 5++ to 133% of list price to represent their increased survivability but no one that is pro getting more out of ++ saves for free is going to agree- and that's most people.

Are you saying that lesser daemons should all be 10 PPM for an incredibly minor durability buff?

Lesser daemons are already priced fine for what they do.

I am saying any change that increases the survivability of a model with an invulnerable save has to come with a relative in rease in cost of the model.

If a proposes change has no effect on a blodetter with a 5++, but due to how the rule works makea a model with 2+/5++ 33% more survivable the base cost of that model within the rules needs to reflect it's newfound power, whereas the lessser daemon which would receive no benefit would go unchanged. Much like how powerful shooting weapons tend to cost more on BS3+ and 2+ models than they do on BS5+ models.

If lesser daemons become 33% more survivable due to some buff then maybe they should cost 33% more, which for a seven point model would be 9-10ppm.

If there is a similar change that makes knights s 33% harder to kill, they also have to cost more points, same as terminators.

You said all models with a 5++.

That includes lesser daemons

blaktoof wrote:
Invulnerable saves are fine, just give some heavily armored models some extra armor through treating -1 AP as 0 AP, or getting to reroll their armor save but with an additional -2ap

Ie 2+ save rerolls fails but needs a 4+, if hit by a weapon with -2 AP the reroll needs a 6+

Invulnerable saves have a value in the game, that value is just situationally diminished when someone shoots 18 S6 ap0 shots at your terminators.

I'd suggest letting players take both saves, but roll invulnerable first, and increase the points cost of all models with a 5++ to 133% of list price to represent their increased survivability but no one that is pro getting more out of ++ saves for free is going to agree- and that's most people.

So exactlly what value does a 5++ have on a model with a 2+ save?
0AP Armour save is better no value
-1AP Armour save is better no value
-2AP Armour save is better no value
-3AP Armour save is same(better in cover) no value
-4AP Armour save is finally worse (same in cover) situational value
-5AP invulnerable save is Better Actually valueable
How often are you seeing -5AP weapons?

Secondly the additional flaw is that many of these models are already paying a points cost for this essentially useless stat. If you genuinely believe that you can justify 50ppm for terminators you need to ease ip on whatever it is your smoking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm going to politely disagree with a lot of your post, Ice_can.

Ice_can wrote:

Why should Harliquins have a 4+ invulnerable though? Being hard to hit, it should be a to hit modifier. You can't dodge/misdirect someone slamming an orbital lance into your possition.

Agreed, but orbital bombardment type rules do mortal wounds. Invuls don't help against those as-is.

Being bathed in flames not exactly something they ahould be able to avoid 50% of the time.

Kind of disagree. Shooting at a harlequin is like shooting at a displacer beast with ninja training and super speed. A flamer should be better at hitting them than a lasgun (and it is), but their speed, agility, and optical illusions still have their place. You think the clowns are going left, so you aim your prometheum-spewing garden hose left, but then you realize that was just the after-image of their holo-suits, and they're juking right. So you try to compensate, but now they're a couple strides away, and half of them are backflipping over your head.

Plus, if you made their invul into a flat to-hit penalty, flamers, which I acknowledge need a price reduction or a buff, would just evaporate these expensive and supposedly very competent xenos. T3 with no save against an auto-hitting weapon makes for a bad time.

This is the biggest issue with invulnerable saves in 8th edition they are everywhere many of which should have been represented by other mechanics.
The spamming of invulnerable saves by GW led to the introduction of Mortal wounds. At which point why bother with armour it's useless.

As mentioned in my previous post, I'm not necessarily against replacing certain invul saves with a to-hit modifier, but how exactly do you intend to implement that for, let's say, mandrakes, wyches, and harlequins? A -1 to hit is a poor substitute for the wych and clowns' 4+ invuls. A -2 is probably closer to being about right if you're facing WS 3+ opponents (you've ignored half their hits before rerolls), but it also makes them literally immune to some units in melee and makes anything WS4+ only hit on 6s. Dark eldar and harlequins have plenty of ways to stack on additional to-hit penalties as well.

Mandrakes are weird in that they have both a to-hit penalty and an invulnerable save, perhaps to reflect their questionably daemonic nature and probably partially because everyone realized last edition that giving a "melee" unit no save in melee didn't work out so well. So do they just become a -2?

Not shutting you down on this point. I'd be interested in seeing how you'd implement this. I'd just hate to sacrifice reasonably good mechanics for wonkier mechanics just because people are uncomfortable with a certain amount of abstraction.

This is were I will agree with you that answering a number of these questions that just flat removing some invulnerable saves brings up is far from simple or quick.
8th edition while it was a redesign, I feel like alot of the rules have been grandfathered in from previous editions and could have been represented better.
I dont understand why deamons have a 6+ and a 5++ for being warpy but Harliquins get a 4++ (for dodging) but 6+ save when stand around a librarian. It just downright wierd to me that they lose the ability to dodge when standing around a librarian.

I would actually be ok with harlequins being -2 to hit but being 6+Sv as they would feel more like they should.
It's even more of an issue with custodes 2+4++ it just resulted in the wierd mess we have where 20 Ap0 shots are better than 5 Ap-3

I'm.not sure what the answer is without basically starting from.a blank canvas wgich I just can't see GW undertaking.

But why does a vehical exploding now need to cause mortal wounds, like realy being in TDA will allow you to walk around inside of a plasma reactor but an exploding hellhound oh god no, no armour can save you from flying metal and burning fuel?

GW needs to really figure out what each save is trying to represent and hence the best way to generate the effect in game.

Goign back to your Harliquins should dodging be equally effective against say an ork who doesn't aim as against a guardsmen, guardian etc who do? I'm not saying they need to be removed from every unit but the value they have and the effect they are supposed to be representing does need a check and rebalance otherwise we'll just end up with 8th edition descending even more into the MW or trash edition

Terminators are 40ppm not 50ppm.

That includes a 12 point powerfist, and. A 2 point stormbolter. This makes them base 26ppm which is a reasonable cost.

Would you be cool going down to 22ppm but losing the ++ save so they would just be 2+, curious because you think the ++ save has no value.

I'd be cool with Termies losing the Invul entirely and going to 1+ armour. That gives them a 5+ armour against AP-4. There really isn't much out there that is AP-5, and Termies would still get a 6+ against those.
But they'd have a 4+ against Plasma.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
I disagree, the point of invulnerable saves is to provide a flat, unmodified save that a model always gets, regardless of what is shooting/attacking them. The argument for the OP will be “yeah but volcano cannons”, to which I will give you the answer of plasma guns. There is a place in this game for models that always get a decent save; that said there is probably an excess of invul saves right now.

The game ether needs a mechanic like this or a class of weapon that ignores Invo saves. A wrack surviving volcano lance shots with a 4++ save is completely idiotic.

Mortal Wounds say hi.

blaktoof wrote:
Terminators are 40ppm not 50ppm.

That includes a 12 point powerfist, and. A 2 point stormbolter. This makes them base 26ppm which is a reasonable cost.

Would you be cool going down to 22ppm but losing the ++ save so they would just be 2+, curious because you think the ++ save has no value.

You said they need to be 133% of their current cost if they got to take their 5++ along with their 2+. That makes them ok 49 points per terminator. Please justify why you think they should be that points cost?

I'm not sure 22ppm is cheap enough given the mandatory equipment costs probably need to be 18 points of their wargear needs to be cheaper.

blaktoof wrote:
Terminators are 40ppm not 50ppm.

That includes a 12 point powerfist, and. A 2 point stormbolter. This makes them base 26ppm which is a reasonable cost.

Would you be cool going down to 22ppm but losing the ++ save so they would just be 2+, curious because you think the ++ save has no value.

Honestly a 6+ and a 5++ after that much AP would mean little to me. I'd be fine with that to be honest.

 Galef wrote:
I'd be cool with Termies losing the Invul entirely and going to 1+ armour. That gives them a 5+ armour against AP-4. There really isn't much out there that is AP-5, and Termies would still get a 6+ against those.
But they'd have a 4+ against Plasma.

And an awful lot simpler to implement and for peopel to recall.

Sometimes simple is both better and more effective.

Ice_can wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Terminators are 40ppm not 50ppm.

That includes a 12 point powerfist, and. A 2 point stormbolter. This makes them base 26ppm which is a reasonable cost.

Would you be cool going down to 22ppm but losing the ++ save so they would just be 2+, curious because you think the ++ save has no value.

You said they need to be 133% of their current cost if they got to take their 5++ along with their 2+. That makes them ok 49 points per terminator. Please justify why you think they should be that points cost?

I'm not sure 22ppm is cheap enough given the mandatory equipment costs probably need to be 18 points of their wargear needs to be cheaper.

That's not what I said at all.

I said if you are proposing a change to ++ saves that improves the models overall surviving it needs to have an increased cost, there were multiple propoals in this thread to make ++ saves modify AP, or improve normal saves.

22pm is cheap enough. There are comparable models around that cost with more expensive mandatory bgear but no ++ saves.

 Galef wrote:
I'd be cool with Termies losing the Invul entirely and going to 1+ armour. That gives them a 5+ armour against AP-4. There really isn't much out there that is AP-5, and Termies would still get a 6+ against those.
But they'd have a 4+ against Plasma.

Yea this would lead into terminators actually passing everything that isn't a natural roll of 1, cause how AP actually works in this game.

A 1+ save on anything means they only fail on a unmodified 1.

Your logic is flawed because AP adds a negative modifier to the roll (A.k.a D6 - 4 for a AP -4 weapon) And since everything that is a result of a negative (-1,-2,-3) in this game automatically goes to a 1 instead for saves. The terminator can take melta's and only die on a natural roll of 1.

This is why loot it was maxed capped to 2+, because you could actually make mega nobs a 1+ save, which meant they could not fail anything with AP unless you rolled a natural 1.

If you think I'm wrong about this, read the rule book. It tells you to add the modifier of AP (Which are all minuses) to the dice rolls, like how Cover adds +1 to your Armour saving throw.

Basic math says everything goes down to 1, anything below 1 (eg. 0,-1,-2,-3 ect) gets rounded to 1 instead because of the FAQ.

So do not make anything a 1+ save, because that just makes them only fail on a natural 1 because of the rules.


I would probably go with the logic of "invulnerable saves" making units have a had cap on their saves. Like how one person was suggesting that daemons can never have a save modified beyond 5+, and then add tweaks from there (Tzeench daemons could be their daemon rule applies on a 4+ instead now, Nurgle still has DR,and artifacts that give invulns would just modify the daemon rule accordingly).

For other units, it could either be this mechanic (saves cannot be modified past this point) or a modifier somewhere else (-X to hit, -X to wound) either one of these three mechanics could be used instead of the current Invulnerable saves

But for the love of all that is holy, DO NOT under any circumstances give anything a 1+ Armour save, because the rules make it godly, and it would be the equivalent of a 2++ save atm

Actually, the rules (as written) do no such thing, it's the Special Snowflake FAQ in the Designers Commentary that makes 1+ saves "break". If you remove that, then 1+ save Terminators become perfectly viable. You'd need to re-write the Plasma, CIB rules etc to work either on a natural 1 or on a 1 or less, but that's how they should have been written in the first place.

Actually terminators with a 1+ or a 2++ might actually b3 playable though as it certainly feels like they are currently costed like they have that level of durability.
Also it's generally not High AP weapons that I loose marines too it just volume even a 2++ does little when for 400 points the enemy can have you rolling 20 or 30 saves anyway. 8th edition overcosted quality and undercosted quantity.

It takes 72 lasgun shots to take down a termie on average.

That's not very good, and is imo fair.

They don't need a 2++, that just feths over AP and adds to mortal wounds worth.

Anything with 2++ is silly in any edition of 40k. Archons get away with it because enuff dakka makes their 2++ go away.

A working 1+ save or just allowing all Space Marines to add 1 to saves vs AP0 would make them far more viable. Plasma should be able to kill Terminators well because that's what Plasma is meant to do, wreck light tanks and heavy infantry.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Anything with 2++ is silly in any edition of 40k. Archons get away with it because enuff dakka makes their 2++ go away.

A working 1+ save or just allowing all Space Marines to add 1 to saves vs AP0 would make them far more viable. Plasma should be able to kill Terminators well because that's what Plasma is meant to do, wreck light tanks and heavy infantry.

Why is a 2++ a problem with MW spam possible?
Between AP, Volume and MW a save is worthless, invlunerables de-valued and FNP's king for survival.
Simply put terminators need to be cheaper or a lot tankier to stay their current costs.

If plasma, disintegration cannons etc were actually costed appropriately but they aren't so they need to be less efficient or recosted for their counter everything ability. That said GW seams to be doubling down on points reductions and larger armies anyway so roll on 20 point terminators

Ice_can wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Anything with 2++ is silly in any edition of 40k. Archons get away with it because enuff dakka makes their 2++ go away.

A working 1+ save or just allowing all Space Marines to add 1 to saves vs AP0 would make them far more viable. Plasma should be able to kill Terminators well because that's what Plasma is meant to do, wreck light tanks and heavy infantry.

Why is a 2++ a problem with MW spam possible?
Between AP, Volume and MW a save is worthless, invlunerables de-valued and FNP's king for survival.
Simply put terminators need to be cheaper or a lot tankier to stay their current costs.

If plasma, disintegration cannons etc were actually costed appropriately but they aren't so they need to be less efficient or recosted for their counter everything ability. That said GW seams to be doubling down on points reductions and larger armies anyway so roll on 20 point terminators

And what about armies without easy MW spam? Just feth them over I suppose?