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.

Under the curent scheme of things, invulnerable save is more or less another flavor of FNP like mechanic. What if invul save was devised as a AP modifier instead of another leftover mechanism from earlier editions where it merely serves as alrernate save roll?

The mechanic would work as a plus-minus system with cap at 0 - as in AP value cannot be decreased to less than 0. Invul system would need to be inverted, so roughly 6++ is now 1++, 5++ is 2++. Invul save no longer works for melee whatsoever, except for rare cases.

Example:
A termie with 2+/2++ is shot by a plasmagun with AP-3 and is wounded. Termie now makes a saving throw for Sv+2 + (-3+2), so saves on three.
A termie is shot by a AC with -1. He now makes the save and he now makes saves on a roll of +2.

This is a similar discussion as the one going on here.

Weighing in with what I suggested in the other one, I think an invuln would work well by modifying both AP and the models save. This would achieve different results depending on what the invulnerable save is meant to protect against.

So, a force field to protect against small arms fire would convey a boost to the models save. A storm shield would convey a reduction of incoming AP.

This would work with the games existing system of save modifiers, and would still mean a lascannon is more likely to hurt a space marine with a stormshield than a lasgun. it's just less likely to hurt him than if he didn't have a shield.



I don't agree with the idea of invulnerable saves not working in combat, as they're needed to prevent powerklaws, thunderhammers etc from obliterating units in one go. (10 thunderhammer stormshield termies attacking 10 other thunderhammer stormshield terminators would entirely depent on who goes first. there's a very high chance that there be no-one left to retaliate.)

This would be amazing for the game.

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 think this could work, but should only apply if AP or other modifier is involved. So Invuls become a "counter-modifier"
So units that currently have 5++ would basically ignore AP-1 and AP-2, and treat AP-3 as only -1.
So 5++ is really up to +2. But it shouldn't bring armour above the regular value. Termies were still only even have a 2+ armour, but once you get to AP-3, they now have a 3+

But this would then mean Storm Shields would give them a 2+ armour against all weapons that aren't AP-6 (which I don't; think exists)
So I think the idea needs a bit more work, but it certainly is in the right direction

-

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 rationale for invulnerable save not working in melee is that the game currently does not reward the high-risk nature of getting something into combat. Melee in a ranged firefight-centric game should be that of all-or-nothing kind of maneuver where if it gets into melee with the right equipment, it annihilate the target.

After all, let's be real - how often are you TRULY threatened with dangers of PF/TH equivalent less the exception of the smash captain?

Of course, a few play testing may reveal that melee damage needs to be reduced to compensate for the increase in overall toughness against ranged attacks.

The basic translation template is as follows, where [OLD Invul Sv Value] > [New Invul Sv Value]
[6++] > [++1]
[5++] > [++2]
[4++] > [++3]
[3++] > [++4]
[2++] > [++5]

When you have a ++5, you are basically immune to the effects of negative AP.
We'll need to tone/revalue certain wargear & abilities, but this will come later once the core mechanics are shelled out and when we move onto detailing it.

For example,
Change functionality of shields instead of flat ++X modifier:
Combat shield from ++2 to ++1, reduce points from 4 to 2, gains re-roll on failed save
SS from ++4 to ++3, reduce points from 5 to 4, gains re-roll on failed save/or maintain ++4 and increase points from 5 to 8.

Tone down built-in invuls:
Crux terminatus from ++2 to ++1

Under this scheme, Terminators effectively ignores small arms fire (AP 0 & -1) and takes normal armor save at +2; against autocannons at +3; against plasmas/lascannons at +4; against meltas at +5.

Under the current scheme, a 13 pt gun kills termies just as well as a 17 pt gun, and an infantry can survive an anti-titan weapon with a lucky roll.

Please provide me more feedback regarding procs and cons and potential unintended results so I can better draft this up in full.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

And cover save also used to provide flat, unmodifiable save, and that got hauled away because it was an unnecessary mechanics where you had to choose from armor/invul/cover save. With the changes on how AP system works, it doesn't really make sense to keep a mechanic where it allows one to ignore the AP value of a weapon. It should simply follow suit with all these +/- modifiers is my opinion.

 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.

 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_

-

 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.

This was my gut reaction at the start of 8th, but I think there's a need for both Invul and AP resistance. There's a large difference between "cannot get worse than 5+" and "isn't affected AP -2". I can see the former working well for things like Force Fields and the latter being a good way to differentiate heavy armor. You could take it a step farther by having certain weapons (aka energy based stuff like LasCannons) ignore AP resistance.

As usual, what do Daemons get?

 skchsan wrote:
Under the curent scheme of things, invulnerable save is more or less another flavor of FNP like mechanic. What if invul save was devised as a AP modifier instead of another leftover mechanism from earlier editions where it merely serves as alrernate save roll?

The mechanic would work as a plus-minus system with cap at 0 - as in AP value cannot be decreased to less than 0. Invul system would need to be inverted, so roughly 6++ is now 1++, 5++ is 2++. Invul save no longer works for melee whatsoever, except for rare cases.

Example:
A termie with 2+/2++ is shot by a plasmagun with AP-3 and is wounded. Termie now makes a saving throw for Sv+2 + (-3+2), so saves on three.
A termie is shot by a AC with -1. He now makes the save and he now makes saves on a roll of +2.

An AP reduction mechanic is neat and would make a lot of sense on units like terminators that already have a good armor save. However, I think it would be a mistake to change all invul saves to AP modification.

Daemons, harlequins, and wyches (and tons of other units that I"m not considering at the moment) all depend on their invuls as their primary source of defense. Orks aren't bringing kustom force fields because they want to stop heavy bolters from ignoring their 6+ saves; they're taking KFFs because they want 5+ saves.

I'm all for turning storm shields and terminator invuls into AP reduction instead of (or in addition to?) a flat save, but many units would break if you made this change in a vacuum.

And invuls should absolutely work in melee. Making my harlies and wyches defenseless in close combat doesn't make them an attractive high risk high reward option; it makes them a bundle of points that will die instantly after maybe charging once. Getting rid of invuls in melee period is just depriving yourself of levers to pull.

This list just screams "Help mah Termies!".

Daemons? Screwed.
Harlies? Screwed.

You're basically trying to give Termies a better-than-2+ save, and explaining it away by saying "This is what an invuln does", without realizing what this does to models with Invulns but a 7+Sv.

I mean, how many realspace-based weapons in the game need a rule to allow it to kill something even when it's not in realspace? Because even a Volcano Cannon hitting a demon point blank won't do anything if it's not corporeal at the time.

I get that it's not physically possible. That's the point. The demon's invlun represents them being physically impossible.

Wyldhunt wrote:
An AP reduction mechanic is neat and would make a lot of sense on units like terminators that already have a good armor save. However, I think it would be a mistake to change all invul saves to AP modification.

Daemons, harlequins, and wyches (and tons of other units that I"m not considering at the moment) all depend on their invuls as their primary source of defense. Orks aren't bringing kustom force fields because they want to stop heavy bolters from ignoring their 6+ saves; they're taking KFFs because they want 5+ saves.

I'm all for turning storm shields and terminator invuls into AP reduction instead of (or in addition to?) a flat save, but many units would break if you made this change in a vacuum.

And invuls should absolutely work in melee. Making my harlies and wyches defenseless in close combat doesn't make them an attractive high risk high reward option; it makes them a bundle of points that will die instantly after maybe charging once. Getting rid of invuls in melee period is just depriving yourself of levers to pull.

TLDR, there are various types of defense beyond the normal "armor save", be it force fields, shields, reflexes, outer-worldly mechanisms - and the game should be flexible enough without making it convoluted (as in use pre-existing mechanics) to address those different types of saves differently.

These are fair points you bring up, especially the melee invul in harlies and wyches. While I see the difference between force-field type of invulnerable saves and reflex type of invulnerable saves (aka dodge saves), I think tying them up in a form of singular entity called "invulnerable save" is a wrong way of approaching it.

For harlies'/wyches' lightning reflex type of saves should be resolved where the fluff would indicate it occurs - during 'to hit' portion of when resolving attacks. Their reflexes doesn't all of a sudden makes a blade that hit them suddenly not hit, but to be not hit in the first place. The survivability granted through invulnerable saves of these kinds should instead offer neg. hit modifiers in melee & range. These targets are supposed to be hard to hit, not hard to wound. Obviously, there would need to be limit on how you stack or how many neg hits you can stack.

For shield type invuls would be implemented so that they offer invuls in melee as well as against ranged attacks (change from ++X, re-roll saves), inspired by earlier post about the mirror match between TH/SS termies.

As for daemon's survivability, I think daemons in general need an overhaul. They are just different flavor of MW spam army that relies on cheaper platforms that die easier, and any army/units that rely on invulnerable saves as their primary save mechanism needs to be reworked. As mentioned above, daemons could be implemented with some sort of AP ignoring mechanism where they ALWAYS save on roll of X, much like how poisoned weapons work offensively.

 skchsan wrote:
I think tying them up in a form of singular entity called "invulnerable save" is a wrong way of approaching it.

...

As for daemon's survivability, I think daemons in general need an overhaul. They are just different flavor of MW spam army that relies on cheaper platforms that die easier, and any army/units that rely on invulnerable saves as their primary save mechanism needs to be reworked. As mentioned above, daemons could be implemented with some sort of AP ignoring mechanism where they ALWAYS save on roll of X, much like how poisoned weapons work offensively.

I believe you may be letting your focus on marine units to cause you to use confusing terminology. "Some sort of AP ignoring mechanism where they ALWAYS save on roll of X," is what we currently call an invulnerable save. I would propose that what you want is not to actually rework invulnerable saves in general but rather to replace invulnerable saves on specific units with new "force field" and "dodge" mechanics. It's a difference of terminology, but one which is neater than reworking invulns as a whole and then recreating the exact same mechanic and renaming it.

For harlies'/wyches' lightning reflex type of saves should be resolved where the fluff would indicate it occurs - during 'to hit' portion of when resolving attacks. Their reflexes doesn't all of a sudden makes a blade that hit them suddenly not hit, but to be not hit in the first place. The survivability granted through invulnerable saves of these kinds should instead offer neg. hit modifiers in melee & range. These targets are supposed to hard to hit, not hard to wound. Obviously, there would need to be limit on how you stack or how many neg hits you can stack.

I'd argue you might be letting a lack of abstraction interfere with game mechanics. Invulnerable saves don't retroactively undo a hit. We just have one player roll their to-hit and to-wound rolls back to back because it takes less time than waiting for your opponent to collect and roll a dice pool after your to-hits and then have you do the same for your to-wounds. In the same way that a guardsman's flakk armor isn't retroactively removing a bullet wound when he makes a 5+ save. When he makes a 4+ save thanks to being in cover, or when he made a 4+ cover save in previous editions, it wasn't the ruins around him performing impromptu surgery to remove a bullet from his body. It's just an abstraction to indicate that the enemy attack didn't manage to damage his body after all.

I'm not especially opposed to turning wych/harlequin invulns into to-hit penalties, but I suspect you'd struggle to get a desirable result in practice. Right now, a 4+ invul in melee basically says, "About half the wounds you would have done to my wych won't actually happen." So how do you reflect that with to-hit rolls? A -1 to-hit penalty on something like a tactical marine isn't going to math out even close to the same as a 4+ invuln does, but it might be about right on a guardsman. Throw rerolls into the mix, and the math gets wonkier. Throw those to-hit penalties onto harlequins who already have access to a lot of to-hit penalties, and you'll often be hitting me on 6s or worse.

I'm receptive to suggestions for how exactly to implement that, but the math is going to vary a lot more based on the attacker than a simple 4+ invul would.

I agree that we need to deviate from terminators a bit here.

Regarding this "What do daemons get?" question, this is all solved by my suggestion of the +Sv/-AP
invulnerable.

Termies would get +0/--1 to help them tank heavy weapons.
Stormshields would give +0/-3 to further help them tank heavy weapons, and give 3+ saves with SS a good chance

Daemons would get +1/-4, so they would walk around with 5+ saves until you get AP5 or more.

KFF would be +2/-1, so orks get protection from small-arms, but not much help against lascannons (BW's & meganobs would get a 5+, same as now). Boys would get a 4+ save which ignores AP-1.

Cap it at 2+ save to avoid the meganob issue, and you've a solid basis for deciding what the invulnerable save is supposed to protect against and tailoring it accordingly.

What rules should things get?
A demon should have a 1/3 chance that anything that would hit it just doesn't do anything. A 5++ as is currently does that well.

A Termie should have armor so good even some of the best anti-armor weapons don't fully penetrate that. A really good Sv does that.

You want to make it so the Invuln increases that Sv. Why not just increase the Sv on units that need it? Give Termies a 1+ (and fix the modifier issue, of course, so it matters vs AP weapons). Give Super-Termies (of whatever variant is appropriate) a 0+ even.

I think this sounds appealing because you're looking at a 2+/5++ unit that doesn't have the durability you expect. You expect it's armor to be much better. So fix the armor. Using "but they have invulns" as a way to shore up armor that isnt' what you think it should just makes things wonkier.

What exactly should we do about Axe/Shield Wraithblades? JetSeers? Dire Avenger Exarchs? Shielded Tau suits? You're basically rewriting the game.

The things that say "Half the time, it's physically indestructable" should be implemented very different from "It's armor is nearly indestructable". "I'm a demon, reality just doesn't impact me a third of the time" works well as a 5++. "My armor is really thick, and takes things like orbital lasers to truly compromise it" should be a very good Sv. Because an AP-20 should still ignore such armor. But even an AP-20 still has a 1/3 chance to do nothing - a 1/3 chance for reality to not matter to that demon.

I could see changing Storm Shields and some other gear to be a "N++ and +1 Sv". But Sv and Invulns are and should be completely seperate.

Bharring wrote:
What rules should things get?
A demon should have a 1/3 chance that anything that would hit it just doesn't do anything. A 5++ as is currently does that well.

A Termie should have armor so good even some of the best anti-armor weapons don't fully penetrate that. A really good Sv does that.

You want to make it so the Invuln increases that Sv. Why not just increase the Sv on units that need it? Give Termies a 1+ (and fix the modifier issue, of course, so it matters vs AP weapons). Give Super-Termies (of whatever variant is appropriate) a 0+ even.

I think this sounds appealing because you're looking at a 2+/5++ unit that doesn't have the durability you expect. You expect it's armor to be much better. So fix the armor. Using "but they have invulns" as a way to shore up armor that isnt' what you think it should just makes things wonkier.

What exactly should we do about Axe/Shield Wraithblades? JetSeers? Dire Avenger Exarchs? Shielded Tau suits? You're basically rewriting the game.

The things that say "Half the time, it's physically indestructable" should be implemented very different from "It's armor is nearly indestructable". "I'm a demon, reality just doesn't impact me a third of the time" works well as a 5++. "My armor is really thick, and takes things like orbital lasers to truly compromise it" should be a very good Sv. Because an AP-20 should still ignore such armor. But even an AP-20 still has a 1/3 chance to do nothing - a 1/3 chance for reality to not matter to that demon.

I could see changing Storm Shields and some other gear to be a "N++ and +1 Sv". But Sv and Invulns are and should be completely seperate.

You can achieve the same effect as a 5++ with the modifiers I proposed.

for Daemons, where a 5++ best represents their corporeality, give them a 5+ save and a 0/-5 invuln, basically granting them no AP modifications from any attack, thus a 5+ against everything.

for stormshields, where it should give increased resistance to powerful damage, a 0/-3 invuln would work, so meltaguns will still have their chance, but most weapons won't affect the terminators save.

It's worth saying that the current invulnerable save system would work the same if it were "save may not be modified below x", so a stormshield means a save doesn't go below 3+, no matter what. changing this to "AP is reduced by x" will not only be as easy to work out, but it also utilises the flexibility that's throughout the game now - except in invulnerable saves. it will also mean that heavy weapons will still have their place in cracking heavy shields - you would imaging a meltagun having a better chance than a grot blaster at going through a stormshield!

There is a niche situation where Daemons, even with 5 points of AP resistance, still get no save.

Culexus Assassin in Close Combat. Which... Actually makes a lot of sense, that he can carve through Daemons with no saves.

'It's worth saying that the current invulnerable save system would work the same if it were "save may not be modified below x"'

Not at all. Change Harlequins to 'Save may not be modified below 4+' and what do you have? A 7+ save in the open, and a 6+ in cover.

If you meant "may not be modified below" as "always get at least", then that's already what it is.

What does reworking this to "AP reduced by X" even do for the game?

You could give everything with an X++ an X+ and an "AP reduction 10" to keep the numbers the same. But wouldn't it be simpler just to let them keep the X++ instead?

The benefit you see is in things like Termies having AP Reduction built in. But they have a 2+ base, so what's the difference between ultra-low Sv values (even negatives) and what you're proposing? For anything 2+, nothing.

The area it does change are things with both a 3+ or worse and an invlun. Basically, Captains. With this change, we have three stats instead of two with more interplay. All so the Captain still gets a benefit from Iron Halo when shot at with an AP-1 weapon? So what do Storm Shields do for him - allow his Armor Save to stay at a 3+ instead of giving him a 3++?

I fail to see the upsides here. What are you trying to fix by this rule change?

It sounds to me like it's another thread that recognizes that 2+ saves don't hold up as well as they should in this game. But instead of realizing that fewer things should have AP-1/-2, you're bolting on additional complexity instead of realigning the offenders to fit within the design space.

I definitely think that wargear that modifies the opponent's AP is a mechanic that is sorely missing from the game.

That being said, it's something that can easily go too far, quickly.

Bharring wrote:
I fail to see the upsides here. What are you trying to fix by this rule change?

It sounds to me like it's another thread that recognizes that 2+ saves don't hold up as well as they should in this game. But instead of realizing that fewer things should have AP-1/-2, you're bolting on additional complexity instead of realigning the offenders to fit within the design space.

It's about the invulnerable saves' poor scaling factor for units with high cost to units with low cost. It once again reinforce/reemphasize the value of cheap fodders.

A universal mechanic should not be exponentially more beneficial for certain units; it should be linear.

I see the argument, and I get that each army has their defensive gimmicks but personally I think the +n/++m where m<n is a poor game design. The difference of usefulness between 6+/5++ vs 5+/6++ is staggering.

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.

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 would say that their is realy 3 fundamental issues with invulnerable saves in 8th edition.

1 There is just far to many of them and definataly some being handed out where they really shouldn't.
2 Invulnerable saves as flat unmodifiable saves made sence when saves/ap were all or nothing
3 Many units are paying for invulnerable saves that they get so little out of they make no sence while their genuine armour doesn't justify their cost

This has also resulted in MW being everywhere aswell again reducing the value of actually having armour.
It also means that you get very little out of high AP weapons especially for their points.

 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.

-

But then Nurgle Daemons get shafted, since they have only two saves at most-same as other Daemons.

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.

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.

That overlaps with Tzeentch-they already have better invulns.

 JNAProductions 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.

That overlaps with Tzeentch-they already have better invulns.

Then alternatively allow 3 rolls to be made if this system is to work. Have one represent units natural toughness, (Deathguard/Mechanics) and the other represent warp shittery (Tzeentch.)