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.

 Imateria wrote:
You decided to pit Wraith Constructs against Haemonculus Covens, two subfactions who's entire point is to be amongst the most durable forces in any army and so designed to reflect that, against each other and your complaining that they're resiliant?

Do you not see a problem with this?

The problem was it was a snooze fest. I'm all for then being durable. But it slowed the game down and made it dull. And those guys are so tough they make land raiders fragile.

8E probably has more invuls than prior editions, but invuls in general have far less value, especially on things that already have decent armour.

While a Rhino doesn't technically have an invul, it still gets a 6+ armour vs a Lascannon. So units like Terminators, that have always paid for their invul, almost never get value out of them in 8E, because their armour is better or the same.
You need AP-4 or -5 against a Terminator for their invul to matter. That's rare.

-

I 100% agree there are too many iv saves. It defeats the design of the ap system when so many units ignore it.
Genestealers and hive tyrants
All DE vehicles
All knights
All deamons
Wave serpents
All custodes
The list goes on. Its almost easier to list armies not rellying on iv saves.

High AP is now anti-Imperial only for the most part. Obviously not IKs, but the rest of it. All other factions, you are taking serious risks with low rate of fire high AP weapons.

"Wave serpents"
No Invlun than I can think of? You could argue Protect might give them a 6+, but that's stretching it.

Gitdakka wrote:
I 100% agree there are too many iv saves. It defeats the design of the ap system when so many units ignore it.
Genestealers and hive tyrants
All DE vehicles
All knights
All deamons
Wave serpents
All custodes
The list goes on. Its almost easier to list armies not rellying on iv saves.

Out of that list, only DE vehicle gain a significant use out of their invul, because their normal armour is weak.
Knights are big expensive models that should be getting hit by weapons that deal multiple damage, so a failed invul means more than 1W
Daemons have always relied on invuls over armour and in 8E it means they gain 0 benefit from cover like other armies can.
Wave Serpents....DO NOT HAVE AN INVUL...so why mention them? Yes they have other trickery, but not an Invul.

If anything, 8E having too many invuls doesn't mean "Invuls are powerful and there should be less of them"
It really means "Invuls are mostly useless and redundant except in edge cases and should be less of them"

-

Wave Serpents are actually really good vs the weapons I'm using to get around invuln spam. Very annoying.

Invulns are great at gaking on lascannons, lances and melta coincidentally. As if there needed to be more reason to spam dissy cannons.

Invulns do the same vs Dissys as they do vs Lascannons, though, don't they? Dissys are just better in other ways.

Bharring wrote:
Invulns do the same vs Dissys as they do vs Lascannons, though, don't they? Dissys are just better in other ways.

Dissy cannons force WAY more saves because they hit on 3+ after moving and fire three times. Far more reliable. The standard deviation on the outcomes of lascannons vs invuln is nuts. Throw in quantum shields and I can make an argument for using zero lascannons now.

"Dissy cannons force WAY more saves because..."

But isn't it true that, against non-Invuln targets, Dissys do more wounds because of the same reasons, at the same ratio? Dissies are more normalized, but that cuts both ways: a less normalized threat is more likely to biff it and kill half of what you want too, but equally likely to get hot dice and kill half again what you want to.

Quantum Shielding does hurt the bigger impact weapons, but doesn't Serpent Shield similarly hurt Dissys more than Lascannons?

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Invulns do the same vs Dissys as they do vs Lascannons, though, don't they? Dissys are just better in other ways.

Dissy cannons force WAY more saves because they hit on 3+ after moving and fire three times. Far more reliable. The standard deviation on the outcomes of lascannons vs invuln is nuts. Throw in quantum shields and I can make an argument for using zero lascannons now.

Yeah, a Lascannon only forces 1 save, while a Dissy forces several.
But Dissies are obviously an outlier that need a points increase, or maybe even lower the damage. Make them basically Heavy Bolters with better AP. Even being treat as Assault on vehicles and they aren't doing much against anything that isn't a Marine.

-

Bharring wrote:
"Dissy cannons force WAY more saves because..."

But isn't it true that, against non-Invuln targets, Dissys do more wounds because of the same reasons, at the same ratio? Dissies are more normalized, but that cuts both ways: a less normalized threat is more likely to biff it and kill half of what you want too, but equally likely to get hot dice and kill half again what you want to.

Quantum Shielding does hurt the bigger impact weapons, but doesn't Serpent Shield similarly hurt Dissys more than Lascannons?

It does, but I'll take my chances vs one unit in one list vs a feature of an entire list.

Also, dissy cannons can kill up to three targets a turn, and lascannons only ever kill one. Also, lascannons cost more and come on gak platforms. At least for marines.

Aren't all those concerns independant of Invluns, though?

 Galef wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
I 100% agree there are too many iv saves. It defeats the design of the ap system when so many units ignore it.
Genestealers and hive tyrants
All DE vehicles
All knights
All deamons
Wave serpents
All custodes
The list goes on. Its almost easier to list armies not rellying on iv saves.

Out of that list, only DE vehicle gain a significant use out of their invul, because their normal armour is weak.
Knights are big expensive models that should be getting hit by weapons that deal multiple damage, so a failed invul means more than 1W
Daemons have always relied on invuls over armour and in 8E it means they gain 0 benefit from cover like other armies can.
Wave Serpents....DO NOT HAVE AN INVUL...so why mention them? Yes they have other trickery, but not an Invul.

If anything, 8E having too many invuls doesn't mean "Invuls are powerful and there should be less of them"
It really means "Invuls are mostly useless and redundant except in edge cases and should be less of them"

-

Fine i thought wave serpents had them. Whatever my point stands. I feel iv saves are too common. The ones on the custodes are particulary annoying as you can not hurt them with high quantity small arms or with weapons like meltas.

Bharring wrote:
Aren't all those concerns independant of Invluns, though?

You tell me.

Who would have thought at the beginning of 8th that the humble Autocannon would be the END OF ALL XENO?

Deathwatch should change all of their weapons for autocannons.

You're both playing Eldar. Did you think your armies would be weak? LOL. Most armies can't even dream of what you're complaining about having.

That said, it should be very difficult to get an invulnerable save beyond 4++.

Ubiquitous good invulns are annoying because it removes target priority a bit. Your weapons just don't work anywhere instead of needing to choose targets.

Imo -4ap or better should be 1 less and ignore 1 level of invuln. That gives non-invuln models a better chance at a 6+ save, and a reason to have melta at all against eldar.

Ironically melta works really well vs the wave serpent, but is worse than uselss vs Drukhari. And Tau. And Necrons. And Harliquins. And IKs. And ...

Ubiquitous invulnerable saves are a requirement in the edition where flat AP was replaced with Rending AP.

8th edition's balance issues stem from how powerful shooting is in the first place. Tone down shooting and invuln saves matter a lot less.

Bharring wrote:
Aren't all those concerns independant of Invluns, though?

Not sure exactly which concerns you mean. But I see most of the concerns mentioned here being tied into the proliferation of invul saves. It throws the balance off. Once the balance is off problems show up other places too.

Bottom line is that in the course of a single game, the dissy cannons are far more likely to average out and be more reliable. Shooting lascannons at 80 pt raiders with 5++ is a lottery I prefer to skip.

 Galas wrote:
Who would have thought at the beginning of 8th that the humble Autocannon would be the END OF ALL XENO?

Deathwatch should change all of their weapons for autocannons.

That's part of why Frag Cannons aren't terrible...as expensive as they are.

It just needs a counter - mortal wounds is supposed to be the counter but typically they are not target-able in any amount necessary to destroy tough targets.

Anti tank weapons (a list of weapons we will define d6 damage or flat 3 damage weapons or better) will be defined as "shield breakers".
Invulnerable saves are reduced by 1 to a minimum of a 6+ save when they are wounded by a weapon with this rule.

Stux wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ah yes, let's follow the GW edict of templates being the devil incarnate (just like points 3 years ago), despite numerous other games using them perfectly fine.

No. Templates worked and didn't cause gak like this with stupid "solutions" given to blast weapons that can seem as useful as Ann Frank's drum kit at times. Sorry bud, your devastating Battle Cannon that makes craters in the ground itself hits 1 guy despite all his mates standing around him.

Please please please no, I don't want to go back to having to space every model to maximum coherency with every move. You can't make me!

All I hear is that you don’t want positioning to matter, because in this edition it sure as hell doesn’t.

 Jaxler wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ah yes, let's follow the GW edict of templates being the devil incarnate (just like points 3 years ago), despite numerous other games using them perfectly fine.

No. Templates worked and didn't cause gak like this with stupid "solutions" given to blast weapons that can seem as useful as Ann Frank's drum kit at times. Sorry bud, your devastating Battle Cannon that makes craters in the ground itself hits 1 guy despite all his mates standing around him.

Please please please no, I don't want to go back to having to space every model to maximum coherency with every move. You can't make me!

All I hear is that you don’t want positioning to matter, because in this edition it sure as hell doesn’t.

You're right, my Slaanesh daemons never have to micromanage their moves to:

1) Ensure they do not end in base contact with an enemy, allowing them to pile in, which then ensures that
2) They surround every model in the enemy unit, if possible, so that
3) The enemy unit has no paths to fall back through with every model.

Seriously, micromanaging the assault phase for my army is the difference between victory or defeat, because you have to stop those fallbacks. And the assaulters have the tools to do it, with a charge move plus 6" of extra movement given that you meet certain conditions that you have to micromanage (some of which can be as significant as differences in fractions of millimeters).

Conversely, this also means that the shooting army opposing the assault army must then be careful about their positioning, to ensure that pile-ins and consolidates don't lock up important units, and that their units cannot be easily surrounded, or that they have a good place to pull casualties or morale-losses from to reduce the risk of a surround, etc. etc.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Ah yes, let's follow the GW edict of templates being the devil incarnate (just like points 3 years ago), despite numerous other games using them perfectly fine.

No. Templates worked and didn't cause gak like this with stupid "solutions" given to blast weapons that can seem as useful as Ann Frank's drum kit at times. Sorry bud, your devastating Battle Cannon that makes craters in the ground itself hits 1 guy despite all his mates standing around him.

Please please please no, I don't want to go back to having to space every model to maximum coherency with every move. You can't make me!

All I hear is that you don’t want positioning to matter, because in this edition it sure as hell doesn’t.

You're right, my Slaanesh daemons never have to micromanage their moves to:

1) Ensure they do not end in base contact with an enemy, allowing them to pile in, which then ensures that
2) They surround every model in the enemy unit, if possible, so that
3) The enemy unit has no paths to fall back through with every model.

Seriously, micromanaging the assault phase for my army is the difference between victory or defeat, because you have to stop those fallbacks. And the assaulters have the tools to do it, with a charge move plus 6" of extra movement given that you meet certain conditions that you have to micromanage (some of which can be as significant as differences in fractions of millimeters).

Conversely, this also means that the shooting army opposing the assault army must then be careful about their positioning, to ensure that pile-ins and consolidates don't lock up important units, and that their units cannot be easily surrounded, or that they have a good place to pull casualties or morale-losses from to reduce the risk of a surround, etc. etc.

Unless your an assault army, it doesn’t matter.

Your not punished for having valuable models in the front anymore.
Your not punished for grouping too tightly anymore.
Shooting if 24 inches or more is so prevalent that most movement doesn’t matter anymore got shooting.
Cover saves are so useless to get now that using cover is practically pointless unless it’s Los blocking.
Any viable army has so few assault units that are more than 1 model that actually micromanaging assault is basically rare as hell.

Knowing when to group up for cover vs when to spread out for avoiding templates is a dead art.

Sorry, positioning is basically watered down to the point of not mattering unless your using an assault army, and even then encircling the opponent isn’t some high skill thing. There is no decision making in your 3 points either, just the best way to play.

 Jaxler wrote:
Unless your an assault army, it doesn’t matter.

Your not punished for having valuable models in the front anymore.
Your not punished for grouping too tightly anymore.
Shooting if 24 inches or more is so prevalent that most movement doesn’t matter anymore got shooting.
Cover saves are so useless to get now that using cover is practically pointless unless it’s Los blocking.
Any viable army has so few assault units that are more than 1 model that actually micromanaging assault is basically rare as hell.

Knowing when to group up for cover vs when to spread out for avoiding templates is a dead art.

Sorry, positioning is basically watered down to the point of not mattering unless your using an assault army, and even then encircling the opponent isn’t some high skill thing. There is no decision making in your 3 points either, just the best way to play.

I would argue that "an assault army" doesn't mean anything, and you're talking about assault units, in which case, I'd challenge you to find any army that does well at tournaments without an assault element. Furthermore, of course there's a "best way to play" too, though I'd argue there are few situations when there's not a "best decision." It just depends on how obvious it is.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Unless your an assault army, it doesn’t matter.

Your not punished for having valuable models in the front anymore.
Your not punished for grouping too tightly anymore.
Shooting if 24 inches or more is so prevalent that most movement doesn’t matter anymore got shooting.
Cover saves are so useless to get now that using cover is practically pointless unless it’s Los blocking.
Any viable army has so few assault units that are more than 1 model that actually micromanaging assault is basically rare as hell.

Knowing when to group up for cover vs when to spread out for avoiding templates is a dead art.

Sorry, positioning is basically watered down to the point of not mattering unless your using an assault army, and even then encircling the opponent isn’t some high skill thing. There is no decision making in your 3 points either, just the best way to play.

I would argue that "an assault army" doesn't mean anything, and you're talking about assault units, in which case, I'd challenge you to find any army that does well at tournaments without an assault element. Furthermore, of course there's a "best way to play" too, though I'd argue there are few situations when there's not a "best decision." It just depends on how obvious it is.

How often are those assault elements not characters or large monsters?

Also for shooting forces, the point still stands, positioning is mostly dead.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Unless your an assault army, it doesn’t matter.

Your not punished for having valuable models in the front anymore.
Your not punished for grouping too tightly anymore.
Shooting if 24 inches or more is so prevalent that most movement doesn’t matter anymore got shooting.
Cover saves are so useless to get now that using cover is practically pointless unless it’s Los blocking.
Any viable army has so few assault units that are more than 1 model that actually micromanaging assault is basically rare as hell.

Knowing when to group up for cover vs when to spread out for avoiding templates is a dead art.

Sorry, positioning is basically watered down to the point of not mattering unless your using an assault army, and even then encircling the opponent isn’t some high skill thing. There is no decision making in your 3 points either, just the best way to play.

I would argue that "an assault army" doesn't mean anything, and you're talking about assault units, in which case, I'd challenge you to find any army that does well at tournaments without an assault element. Furthermore, of course there's a "best way to play" too, though I'd argue there are few situations when there's not a "best decision." It just depends on how obvious it is.

How often are those assault elements not characters or large monsters?

Also for shooting forces, the point still stands, positioning is mostly dead.

Custodes Jetbikes still worry about positioning, just to take an example. Being able to fly over the enemy when moving means you need to micromanage even more in some cases, because a large-based model can hit many things at once (but it has to declare all of them as charge targets). Zarakynel, as another example, can move 15+d6" in a turn before charging, and oftentimes the way I place her in the assault phase can make me able to tie up a ton of things with her if I'm very careful, plus her -3 Leadership aura (with Phantasmagoria on) only works on units within 6", and her base is oblong, so even the way she is pivoted matters.

And of course this matters to my opponents too if they don't want Zarakynel to tie up like 4 Leman Russ tanks in combat, even if they're a shooting army. In fact, most of my wins with such a sub-par army as Slaanesh Daemons leverages the fact that my opponent doesn't pay attention to positioning and then my units rampage across their whole army almost unopposed because of how bad their positioning of their units was.