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.

 vipoid wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem of single shot weapons is invulnerable saves. Theres just too damm much invulnerable saves in this game.

There's an additional problem in that GW's business model and release schedule encourages perpetual power creep and scaling up.

If you released all codices at once (say, as free PDF documents) then you could easily make sweeping changes, such as lowering/removing a lot of invulnerable saves from the game.

However, when you release books one at a time, reducing invulnerable saves is going to make that book terribly underpowered for the next two years, until the other books are all released (and that's assuming GW don't just get bored and reverse their design philosophy halfway though the edition).

Both to your point and also against your point. . .

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't have the new Marine book, but didn't they just reduce the Storm Shield invuln save to 4++ and then introduce a new unit with new shields with a 3++?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Both to your point and also against your point. . .

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't have the new Marine book, but didn't they just reduce the Storm Shield invuln save to 4++ and then introduce a new unit with new shields with a 3++?

No unit has a 3++.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Both to your point and also against your point. . .

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't have the new Marine book, but didn't they just reduce the Storm Shield invuln save to 4++ and then introduce a new unit with new shields with a 3++?

No unit has a 3++.

I'm mistaken then? Good. I definitely agree that the invuln saves should be reduced in general.

ballzonya wrote:
So I have 3 Talos built with splinter cannons because I love them as screen killers with rapid 3. Now it's moved to heavy I'm I SOL because I can't move and shoot them effectively.

I've only fought dark eldar so correct me if I'm wrong but aren't Talos Monsters meaning they ignore the penalty to moving and firing heavy weapons, the same as my T-Fex or Exocrine do now?

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem of single shot weapons is invulnerable saves. Theres just too damm much invulnerable saves in this game.

It's a shame mortal wounds are usually too crappy to solve this problem.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem of single shot weapons is invulnerable saves. Theres just too damm much invulnerable saves in this game.

GW has chipped away at that. AP is more relevant now than before. The most popular faction is wide open to taking AP4 on the chin for the majority of its units. An AP4 weapon is only losing 1AP when shooting SS termies, termies/BGV in cover as well.

I don't think anyone should really shy away from them from fear of invulnerable saves.

The sad thing is d6 damage and the fact anything with good armor usually has a good inv. save too tends to make single shot weapons less valuable. This in turn makes multiple shot, multiple damage, average ap weapons the go to choice vs units with both saves (basically disintegrators).

Death Guard and dreadnoughts make weapons like disintegrators half as effective, so just spamming D2 isn't a good idea for TAC lists anymore. Better bring something bigger, or a lot of D1.

 Galas wrote:
The problem of single shot weapons is invulnerable saves. Theres just too damm much invulnerable saves in this game.

And why are there so many invul saves?
Because everyone without one was dying to fast.

 Ordana wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem of single shot weapons is invulnerable saves. Theres just too damm much invulnerable saves in this game.

And why are there so many invul saves?
Because everyone without one was dying to fast.

This is really a last edition thing.

People selected for invulns in an edition that leaned into shooting. There weren't many units created with an invuln that didn't have precedent for an invuln before ( terminator, storm shield unit, daemon engine, or a knight ).

3++ and well as 5+++ seems to be dead for standard units though I expect Nurgle might keep 5+++.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem of single shot weapons is invulnerable saves. Theres just too damm much invulnerable saves in this game.

And why are there so many invul saves?
Because everyone without one was dying to fast.

This is really a last edition thing.

People selected for invulns in an edition that leaned into shooting. There weren't many units created with an invuln that didn't have precedent for an invuln before ( terminator, storm shield unit, daemon engine, or a knight ).

3++ and well as 5+++ seems to be dead for standard units though I expect Nurgle might keep 5+++.

Lethality was still an issue before 8th, but the reasons were a little different.

7th just built upon the trend starting in 5th which was more high-AP weapons and less sight-obstructing cover. 8th changed the balance of high-lethality weapons with the reintroduction of save modifiers and an increase in the amount of shots (Twin Linked weapons firing double the number of shots, for example). At least 9th has non-TLOS obscuring terrain again.

Edit: Also consider the range of engagement of the most popular army. In 4th ed a marine could only fire once at 12" on the move. Now they can fire much more at greater range.

Many of the invul saves we were used to were ranged only (knights, jink, shining spears...), which are not looking so hot now.

At the same time, the worst melee offenders are AP-2 (claws and hammers), which makes high armor a lot better than it was.

Unfortunately, many events use the WTC maps, which are woefully bad for 9th. One day players will learn that a terrain element with heavy cover impacts the game as much as a big LoS blocker.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
"Lance" is nothing more than the category of weapon it is. Just like shuriken and splinter, Bright and Dark are two different technologies.

Or, say, "bolter" - lord knows those all have the same profiles, right?

Spoletta wrote:

At the same time, the worst melee offenders are AP-2 (claws and hammers), which makes high armor a lot better than it was.

I find it odd that Claws and Hammers were reduced to -2, personally. Maybe they figured a Terminator Squad being capable of wrecking multiple Knights in a single round was too powerful.

The Newman 796050 11054956 wrote:
Oh come on, it you're going to hyperbole go all out. I'll be ok with the game state when every time a bolt pistol fires in game the living embodiment of the concept of a Lord of War at 40k scale tears itself from the fabric of reality and commits seppuku on the nearest zebra-skin rug.

Well I can't cite the local proverb about wishes, because it would be against the forum rules. I am just saying, that if for multiple editions, the bright and dark lance, shared a stat line . And they happen to be used by the members of the same race, often mixed in the same army. Then chance that one is going to be different from the other, is rather low. And expecting a different result is exactly as if you would expect the models on the other side to blow up stuff in the real world.

It's a shame mortal wounds are usually too crappy to solve this problem.

okey but what is the anwser to this. Lets say bright and dark lances to mortal, suddenly the weapons get spamed on every unit that can take them, and everyone gets to enjoy 20+MW per turn on fast moving and, and sometimes or, hard to destroy platforms. I get it would be fun for armies with the weapons, but would be rather unfun to everyone else.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

At the same time, the worst melee offenders are AP-2 (claws and hammers), which makes high armor a lot better than it was.

I find it odd that Claws and Hammers were reduced to -2, personally. Maybe they figured a Terminator Squad being capable of wrecking multiple Knights in a single round was too powerful.

LC were always -2. Hammers did go down though.

GW may have tiered melee in anticipation of the striations in units.

Karol wrote:

The Newman 796050 11054956 wrote:
Oh come on, it you're going to hyperbole go all out. I'll be ok with the game state when every time a bolt pistol fires in game the living embodiment of the concept of a Lord of War at 40k scale tears itself from the fabric of reality and commits seppuku on the nearest zebra-skin rug.

Well I can't cite the local proverb about wishes, because it would be against the forum rules. I am just saying, that if for multiple editions, the bright and dark lance, shared a stat line . And they happen to be used by the members of the same race, often mixed in the same army. Then chance that one is going to be different from the other, is rather low. And expecting a different result is exactly as if you would expect the models on the other side to blow up stuff in the real world.

It's a shame mortal wounds are usually too crappy to solve this problem.

okey but what is the anwser to this. Lets say bright and dark lances to mortal, suddenly the weapons get spamed on every unit that can take them, and everyone gets to enjoy 20+MW per turn on fast moving and, and sometimes or, hard to destroy platforms. I get it would be fun for armies with the weapons, but would be rather unfun to everyone else.

Dark eldar and Craftworld are as much the same race as Astra militarum and Space marines.
My original suggestion was about doing damage in the form of mortal but still getting to save against them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

At the same time, the worst melee offenders are AP-2 (claws and hammers), which makes high armor a lot better than it was.

I find it odd that Claws and Hammers were reduced to -2, personally. Maybe they figured a Terminator Squad being capable of wrecking multiple Knights in a single round was too powerful.

LC were always -2. Hammers did go down though.

GW may have tiered melee in anticipation of the striations in units.

Well that tells you how often I used LCs during 8th . . .

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well that tells you how often I used LCs during 8th . . .

Barely anyone did, honestly. It took a while to get used to them not being the same AP as a power sword from 7th.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


This is really a last edition thing.

People selected for invulns in an edition that leaned into shooting. There weren't many units created with an invuln that didn't have precedent for an invuln before ( terminator, storm shield unit, daemon engine, or a knight ).
.

the best army right now is running around with invs on everything with stacked -1 to hit. Seems to me, as if invs are good in 9th too.

Dark eldar and Craftworld are as much the same race as Astra militarum and Space marines.

They eldar, they are the same race. There is not enough time passed between the fall and the creation of the scar, to make either eldar group no longer considered the same race. They all have the same biology, and can inter breed. A space marine couldn't breed with a human even if he wanted to, which they seem to not want to.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


This is really a last edition thing.

People selected for invulns in an edition that leaned into shooting. There weren't many units created with an invuln that didn't have precedent for an invuln before ( terminator, storm shield unit, daemon engine, or a knight ).
.

the best army right now is running around with invs on everything with stacked -1 to hit. Seems to me, as if invs are good in 9th too.

Dark eldar and Craftworld are as much the same race as Astra militarum and Space marines.

They eldar, they are the same race. There is not enough time passed between the fall and the creation of the scar, to make either eldar group no longer considered the same race. They all have the same biology, and can inter breed. A space marine couldn't breed with a human even if he wanted to, which they seem to not want to.

Harlies succeed in spite of invulns, in my opinion. The 4++ doesn't save their T3 from getting murdered. They're fast, ignore terrain, and hit hard with high AP weapons or mortal wounds. They're specifically geared to annihilate marines. Their transports are -1 and 4++, but they're also T5 and W6. Best army, but they're in less than 3% of all games.

Daemons didn't succeed well with all their invulns in 8th, because they had to cross the whole table or spend a crap ton of CP. Now they have the enemy coming to them.

Well all I can say is. Try playeing them without the ++4 on everything alongside the -1 to hit. If they still work well, then the speed would be the deciding factor in them being so good.

I don't really understand the 3% comment though. How does popularity impacts the fact that they are the best? They are eldar, just the same way Crimsion Fist players were being told that marines were OP, because Gulliman list existed. They are even good enough to be played as soups with regular eldar in tournaments and get high placments. That is something only SoB lists can achive on a regular basis in 9th.

Daemons didn't succeed well with all their invulns in 8th, because they had to cross the whole table or spend a crap ton of CP.

Also which part of 8th ed are we talking about, because I remember the time when chaos had their poxwalkers spliting tzeench demons soup lists, and those were horrible to play against. Each killed demon, ment just more models poping up.
The PB bombs were tar pits no one liked to play against, at least not in games where you played with a clock.

If you want to drop their points, sure. Run them without the 4++. You'd still see them do well.

You're worried about high AP not being useful, but propping up that concern with an army that represents 3% of games. You're highly unlikely to encounter them and if you did you would want the guns that take out Necron Warriors anyway.

Splitting horrors never got far. Mixed Thousand Sons and daemons did well, because they could have nurglings doing objective work, PBs blocking, and high power casters doing the killing. It was a pretty narrow list.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If you want to drop their points, sure. Run them without the 4++. You'd still see them do well.

I guess it depends on how low you go with these points - but I have my doubts.

The thing is that a 4++ allows you to get lucky. I don't quite know how to express this in theoryhammer - because everyone can get lucky. Oh, you hit me on 3s and reroll 1s? Oh look, half your dice have come up 2s etc.

But as we've all probably experienced, some games you throw enough firepower to kill a unit with good invuls 3 times over and it just shrugs it off. And this likely costs you the game. At a certain point these hotstreaks are not that unlikely - which I suspect is why GW is ditching 3++, and probably 5+++ outside of special circumstances.

But its difficult to calculate mathematically how much say Harlequin and Daemon victories are due to the stars aligning and their opponents having turns where they do a fraction of the expected damage. But I can't believe its negligible - and it can bail you out if your dice have not been hot in previous turns. If DG run through the Tournament scene I suspect it might be for similar reasons.

Tyel wrote:
I guess it depends on how low you go with these points - but I have my doubts.

The thing is that a 4++ allows you to get lucky. I don't quite know how to express this in theoryhammer - because everyone can get lucky. Oh, you hit me on 3s and reroll 1s? Oh look, half your dice have come up 2s etc.

But as we've all probably experienced, some games you throw enough firepower to kill a unit with good invuls 3 times over and it just shrugs it off. And this likely costs you the game. At a certain point these hotstreaks are not that unlikely - which I suspect is why GW is ditching 3++, and probably 5+++ outside of special circumstances.

But its difficult to calculate mathematically how much say Harlequin and Daemon victories are due to the stars aligning and their opponents having turns where they do a fraction of the expected damage. But I can't believe its negligible - and it can bail you out if your dice have not been hot in previous turns. If DG run through the Tournament scene I suspect it might be for similar reasons.

How many games do they lose from rolling 75% of their saves as 3's or worse? With a 4++ the rolls are equally likely to go badly as they are to go well and even for a 3++ with the number of dice rolled in an average game the odds of any given unit 'getting hot' for an entire game are low. Even if it does happen play it out and expect different luck the next game.

Karol wrote:
Well all I can say is. Try playeing them without the ++4 on everything alongside the -1 to hit. If they still work well, then the speed would be the deciding factor in them being so good.

I don't really understand the 3% comment though. How does popularity impacts the fact that they are the best? They are eldar, just the same way Crimsion Fist players were being told that marines were OP, because Gulliman list existed. They are even good enough to be played as soups with regular eldar in tournaments and get high placments. That is something only SoB lists can achive on a regular basis in 9th.

Daemons didn't succeed well with all their invulns in 8th, because they had to cross the whole table or spend a crap ton of CP.

Also which part of 8th ed are we talking about, because I remember the time when chaos had their poxwalkers spliting tzeench demons soup lists, and those were horrible to play against. Each killed demon, ment just more models poping up.
The PB bombs were tar pits no one liked to play against, at least not in games where you played with a clock.

harlies with a 4++ still die faster than marines with a 3+ save.... Its just that they have the punch, mobility and tricks to make their squishiness work.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
harlies with a 4++ still die faster than marines with a 3+ save.... Its just that they have the punch, mobility and tricks to make their squishiness work.

Right.

A player is a minimum of 19 points usually. 10 bolt rifles kill 2.2 of them. Those same bolt rifles do 1.7 to a marine. So you have a 40 point loss to a 0 to 20 point loss.

I think a lot of people get caught out when the Starweaver moves 16", runs 6", and slides in next to a character and 5 fusion pistols drop on them with no penalty from the foremost point of the model. They can wipe a 3 man gravis unit pretty easily that way too. How exactly does one stop something from hitting you first when it can fly from behind cover and move 22"?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
harlies with a 4++ still die faster than marines with a 3+ save.... Its just that they have the punch, mobility and tricks to make their squishiness work.

Right.

A player is a minimum of 19 points usually. 10 bolt rifles kill 2.2 of them. Those same bolt rifles do 1.7 to a marine. So you have a 40 point loss to a 0 to 20 point loss.

I think a lot of people get caught out when the Starweaver moves 16", runs 6", and slides in next to a character and 5 fusion pistols drop on them with no penalty from the foremost point of the model. They can wipe a 3 man gravis unit pretty easily that way too. How exactly does one stop something from hitting you first when it can fly from behind cover and move 22"?

seems like we agree here. I'm pointing out that the reason harlies are good right now isnt because of the invuln.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
seems like we agree here. I'm pointing out that the reason harlies are good right now isnt because of the invuln.

Yup yup. Just backing up the thought.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
harlies with a 4++ still die faster than marines with a 3+ save.... Its just that they have the punch, mobility and tricks to make their squishiness work.

Right.

A player is a minimum of 19 points usually. 10 bolt rifles kill 2.2 of them. Those same bolt rifles do 1.7 to a marine. So you have a 40 point loss to a 0 to 20 point loss.

I think a lot of people get caught out when the Starweaver moves 16", runs 6", and slides in next to a character and 5 fusion pistols drop on them with no penalty from the foremost point of the model. They can wipe a 3 man gravis unit pretty easily that way too. How exactly does one stop something from hitting you first when it can fly from behind cover and move 22"?

Screen the character, use indirect fire and/or Drop Pods to strike first?

Harlies on foot are indeed squishy if you throw enough shots. If you really think that Invuls are not a big deal for the Harlequin army, though, try running your Jetbikes and Clowncars without the 4++ (and ability to get to a 3++ for the bikes) and tell me how it goes.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Harlies on foot are indeed squishy if you throw enough shots. If you really think that Invuls are not a big deal for the Harlequin army, though, try running your Jetbikes and Clowncars without the 4++ (and ability to get to a 3++ for the bikes) and tell me how it goes.

Loughs in windriders...

 Insectum7 wrote:
Screen the character, use indirect fire and/or Drop Pods to strike first?

Yes, that's what they do their second time playing Harlies.

I do think marines lists have to change to deal with the evolving threats. You'd think tremor shells ( DG ignores it, but still ) or suppression fire should be more popular given the way other lists look. Should be interesting to see once COVID is over.