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.

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