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.

Another fix that might be a PITA for book keeping is that Invuls degrade over the course of the round, or game. Say if you start the round with a 3++, after the first hit it saves you from, now it’s a 4++.

Or have it that Turn 3 all ++ saves lose 1 point of effectiveness, so that 3++ acts like a 4++, and a 5++ acts like a 6++.

Reemule wrote:
Another fix that might be a PITA for book keeping is that Invuls degrade over the course of the round, or game. Say if you start the round with a 3++, after the first hit it saves you from, now it’s a 4++.

Or have it that Turn 3 all ++ saves lose 1 point of effectiveness, so that 3++ acts like a 4++, and a 5++ acts like a 6++.

Something like that could work. Though - very complicated.

Yeah. Bookkeeping nightmare.

I don’t think giving eldar a faction wide +1 to armor saves is much better than the massive -1 to hit particularly with it still stacking with -1 to hit powers.

+1 armor while in cover would be a fine change for rangers though.

 Galef wrote:

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.

Isn't that just a complicated way to say 'Units in detachments with this trait always gain +1 to armour save rolls?' And it would be crazy OP, I'd definitely always choose that.

More sane version: ''Units in detachments with this trait are always treated being in cover if the attacking model is more than 12" away.'

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

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.

Isn't that just a complicated way to say 'Units in detachments with this trait always gain +1 to armour save rolls?' And it would be crazy OP, I'd definitely always choose that.

More sane version: ''Units in detachments with this trait are always treated being in cover if the attacking model is more than 12" away.'

Doesn't work in CC - doesn't work if you advance - Tyranids have the same trait and it's not even top 3. Kraken/Leviathan/Kronos are all much better.

My idea was to make the trait a little better and give you some reason to obtain cover. Maybe just make a fix in the rule that it can't increase you past a 2+. Or Also keep the range requirement of only within 12". IDK exactly. -1 to hit needs to die though.

Another fix would be for invuls to halve damage, rounding down. That way the volcano cannon can still erase most "invulnerable" things, but bolters can be negated like a cover save.

Too many invul saves is a consequence of the arms race GW has running vs your money (and FW more so). Bigger models, bigger shots and more shots. A space marine has become cannon fodder (and bad at it) while terminators can no longer be thought of as resilient to anything but the weakest of weapons, weapons that are often absent from lists.

Simply because while everything new got bigger and deadlier, the old stuff stayed the same.

If weapons got downtoned, you could have a version where only characters had invul saves, and where characters where targetable if in sight. As in the old days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
... oh, it is also a direct consequence of having to choose between regular save and invul save. Invul save thus became less effecient without it being an addition to normal saves, and could be handed out liberally, which is a pretty big downgrade for things like terminators.

LOL at the blaming of FW

Northern85Star wrote:
Too many invul saves is a consequence of the arms race GW has running vs your money (and FW more so). Bigger models, bigger shots and more shots. A space marine has become cannon fodder (and bad at it) while terminators can no longer be thought of as resilient to anything but the weakest of weapons, weapons that are often absent from lists.

Simply because while everything new got bigger and deadlier, the old stuff stayed the same.

If weapons got downtoned, you could have a version where only characters had invul saves, and where characters where targetable if in sight. As in the old days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
... oh, it is also a direct consequence of having to choose between regular save and invul save. Invul save thus became less effecient without it being an addition to normal saves, and could be handed out liberally, which is a pretty big downgrade for things like terminators.

No, overabundance of high invulnerable saves is itself a consequence of the poorly thought out and implemented AP system.
That is really about it.

This discussion begets another question- are saves worth having in 40k? Saves and AP have always been problematic since I've been playing: perhaps 40k would be the better for their removal.

Saves are fine, IMO. GW had 7 editions to generally figure out saves, AP, and so on, and there wasn't too much wrong with that part of the game by about 5th edition.

The issue is that they changed AP, gave everyone wounds, and increased the damage of weapons from 1 or instant death to variable damage all at the same time, without fully understanding the changes that would have to durability.

In general, armor saves are much less valuable because AP ignores them, and invuls are great on vehicles because they reduce of effectiveness of all the high damage guns which are paying a lot of points to have high AP they don't get to use.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Northern85Star wrote:
Too many invul saves is a consequence of the arms race GW has running vs your money (and FW more so). Bigger models, bigger shots and more shots. A space marine has become cannon fodder (and bad at it) while terminators can no longer be thought of as resilient to anything but the weakest of weapons, weapons that are often absent from lists.

Simply because while everything new got bigger and deadlier, the old stuff stayed the same.

If weapons got downtoned, you could have a version where only characters had invul saves, and where characters where targetable if in sight. As in the old days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
... oh, it is also a direct consequence of having to choose between regular save and invul save. Invul save thus became less effecient without it being an addition to normal saves, and could be handed out liberally, which is a pretty big downgrade for things like terminators.

No, overabundance of high invulnerable saves is itself a consequence of the poorly thought out and implemented AP system.
That is really about it.

that might be true if it was a new development as of 8th edition but it's not. the problem is an over abundance of high AP weapons.

The fact GW have stubbornly stuck to using D6s also hurts. If they used D10 or D12 it would be a lot better.

Tyranids have almost no invuln saves. Neither do Guard. Tau can get them on a few units, but often don't. Marines don't really, much. Orks? Nope. Genestealer cult? Not really. Necrons? A 5+ against shooting attacks mostly.

It's really not that much.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

No, overabundance of high invulnerable saves is itself a consequence of the poorly thought out and implemented AP system.
That is really about it.

that might be true if it was a new development as of 8th edition but it's not. the problem is an over abundance of high AP weapons.

Is that not what I said? The issue stems from the AP system being poorly thought out and implemented. I don't think the system can possibly work with just 6 die increments.

..which brings us to:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The fact GW have stubbornly stuck to using D6s also hurts. If they used D10 or D12 it would be a lot better.

I agree, but I don't think that GW can realistically change the D6 system to another DX (D3 does work, but that's because it is D6) as 'Warhammer 40k' is well known for it. That and it kills a lot of their branded die range.
So lets make the assumption we can only work with D6. How do we make it better?

Well, first of all we identify the problems of the system. What are they?
* AP -2 weapon effects Terminators almost as much as Space Marines
* AP -1 weapons effect SuperHeavyArmorForHumansTM just as much as ShirtsForOrks
* In order to ensure SuperHeavyBigBoyModelsThatAreExpensive dont die from a few -AP weapons they MUST now have good invulnerable saves
* Mortal Wounds are now the answer to all our problems

These can't be fixed without having an extensive `RPG system` that details how different kinds of AP effect different things:
* Weapon Types (ie, Gauss, Bolter) have different AP versus different targets
--- Necron Gauss weaponry should have higher AP against Biomass based armor (Carapace, Tough hide)
--- Bolter Rounds should have equal AP against all targets, higher damage against Biomass based armor
* Unique / Snowflake armor now has unique save rules to better represent the armors strength against different AP
--- Orky Tough Skin now saves on 2+ on a 1d3 (Very strong against no AP, terrible against any AP)
--- Space Marine armor now saves on 3+ on a 1d6 (Good against everything)
--- Terminator armor now saves on a 3+ on a 2d6 (Very good against no AP, still good against normal AP)

This means that taking wargear once again becomes a `Tactical Choice`, and not a DPS number sim.
Thoughts?

What if cover instead of +1, ignored all AP?

IMO, invulns should be capped at 5+ and give models a wounds increase to keep them from dying too fast.

Alternatively, invulns could just be a way to reduce AP values.
Example:
Invuln +1 negates 1 point of AP.
Invuln +2 negates up to 2 points of AP.
Invuln +3 negates up to 3 points of AP. (I would not go further than this, even this is likely too much)

So a termie gets invuln +2. When shot by plasma it gets a 3+ save, by melta it gets a 4+ etc...

Dandelion wrote:
IMO, invulns should be capped at 5+ and give models a wounds increase to keep them from dying too fast.

Alternatively, invulns could just be a way to reduce AP values.
Example:
Invuln +1 negates 1 point of AP.
Invuln +2 negates up to 2 points of AP.
Invuln +3 negates up to 3 points of AP. (I would not go further than this, even this is likely too much)

So a termie gets invuln +2. When shot by plasma it gets a 3+ save, by melta it gets a 4+ etc...

I like that idea.

Dandelion wrote:
IMO, invulns should be capped at 5+ and give models a wounds increase to keep them from dying too fast.

Alternatively, invulns could just be a way to reduce AP values.
Example:
Invuln +1 negates 1 point of AP.
Invuln +2 negates up to 2 points of AP.
Invuln +3 negates up to 3 points of AP. (I would not go further than this, even this is likely too much)

So a termie gets invuln +2. When shot by plasma it gets a 3+ save, by melta it gets a 4+ etc...

And Daemons get... What?

The smug sense of satisfaction that they are once again, the worst codex?

They would have to keep the old version, or just give a rule that says their armor save can't be modified.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
IMO, invulns should be capped at 5+ and give models a wounds increase to keep them from dying too fast.

Alternatively, invulns could just be a way to reduce AP values.
Example:
Invuln +1 negates 1 point of AP.
Invuln +2 negates up to 2 points of AP.
Invuln +3 negates up to 3 points of AP. (I would not go further than this, even this is likely too much)

So a termie gets invuln +2. When shot by plasma it gets a 3+ save, by melta it gets a 4+ etc...

And Daemons get... What?

DEAMONS GET SENT BACK TO THE HELL THAT SPAWNED THEM!!!!! DIE HERITIC!!!!

Dammit man I can't think of everything!

How about this: 5+ sv with invuln +5
It's functionally the same. Except for cover, where they'd get essentially a 4++. But maybe that's not such a bad thing? Incentive to use cover maybe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:

They would have to keep the old version, or just give a rule that says their armor save can't be modified.

Or this. Whatever's easier I guess.

Honestly i do not find a problem in the first place. Why are invul saves bad? They are there to create new target profiles. 8th edition is the edition where you need the right tool for the right job.

You need to take into account the following defenses of your target:

- Hit penalties
- Thoughness
- Armor Save
- Invul save
- FnP
- Wounds

Those 6 defenses meld together to create a large number of possible target profiles, each one has it's soft and hard counters.

As long as your definition of weapon firepower is "Takes x wounds from T7 3+" you are not understanding the mindset of this edition.

Spoletta wrote:
Honestly i do not find a problem in the first place. Why are invul saves bad? They are there to create new target profiles. 8th edition is the edition where you need the right tool for the right job.

You need to take into account the following defenses of your target:

- Hit penalties
- Thoughness
- Armor Save
- Invul save
- FnP
- Wounds

Those 6 defenses meld together to create a large number of possible target profiles, each one has it's soft and hard counters.

As long as your definition of weapon firepower is "Takes x wounds from T7 3+" you are not understanding the mindset of this edition.

Except there is one counter to all of the above which is raw volume of dice as it just blitzes through every thing that is supposed to counter it.

Spoletta wrote:
Honestly i do not find a problem in the first place. Why are invul saves bad? They are there to create new target profiles. 8th edition is the edition where you need the right tool for the right job.

You need to take into account the following defenses of your target:

- Hit penalties
- Thoughness
- Armor Save
- Invul save
- FnP
- Wounds

Those 6 defenses meld together to create a large number of possible target profiles, each one has it's soft and hard counters.

As long as your definition of weapon firepower is "Takes x wounds from T7 3+" you are not understanding the mindset of this edition.

I think the issue is that there aren't counters to invul saves, particularly on high wound models.

Once a model has over about 5 wounds, you really have to start focusing it with 3 damage or d6 damage weapons. It's pretty clear that these weapons are designed for large single targets. They typically have 1-2 shots, high Str, and high AP, and are usually very expensive.

Against things like rhinos, this is okay, since they get to use these stats and be better at killing the target than lighter guns. Against things like DE skimmers, a lot of anti infantry guns out perform anti vehicle weapons. Because these anti infantry guns are also good at killing infantry, you just bring lots of them instead of the anti tank weapons. Even against the really big vehicles of the current meta, like a Raven Castellan popping the 3++, twin autocannons do about 95% of the damage per point of a Las cannon, as well as being really good against a wide spectrum of other targets.

To me this just means that most vehicles with invul saves probably need a points increase, or more ideally something is done to make the anti tank weapons actually good at killing vehicles.

RoF is indeed a stat that almost universally scales linearly but i don't see it as a problem and they can't be part of the "right tool" equation because in assault those are tied to the model stats.

That said, invul does have a counter, which is weapons who do not trigger the invul save. If i shoot at Mortarion with an autocannon i "countered" the invul save, since he did pay for it but i ignored it. One could make a case of invul saves not costing enough, but we should keep model's issues well separated from game issues.

In the end every profile has a counter and the profiles are well distributed, there isn't a predominance of one over the others, so all weapons are needed. We should just assume that what we used to call "AT weapons" are "Anti armor weapons" and are meant to be used on heavy armored (without invul) targets.

I generally agree, and it might actually be armored units and high AP weapons that are overpriced, rather than the units with invuls bring underpriced, but it's definitely one of them, and these sorts of points issues do cause game issues.

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

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.

Isn't that just a complicated way to say 'Units in detachments with this trait always gain +1 to armour save rolls?' And it would be crazy OP, I'd definitely always choose that.

More sane version: ''Units in detachments with this trait are always treated being in cover if the attacking model is more than 12" away.'

Sorry, I was assuming outside 12", I just forgot to put it in my post. It does need something to make actually being in cover have some benefit, otherwise positioning means less for these army traits. So the rule should be:
If targeted by enemies outside 12", 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.
So in general, it would basically be +1 armour unless you are within 12", but it's clear that it is cover based. It also prevents stacking with -1 to hit penalties, which is the point.

-

Alcibiades wrote:
Tyranids have almost no invuln saves. Neither do Guard. Tau can get them on a few units, but often don't. Marines don't really, much. Orks? Nope. Genestealer cult? Not really. Necrons? A 5+ against shooting attacks mostly.

It's really not that much.

Nids have defensive tricks though.
-1 to hit bubbles. -1 to hit upgrades. 4++ saves on some important units. Plus as standard - most nids are fearless - fast - and good in assault. Unlike marines who are slow - and not good in assault.
True - guard don't have invo saves in general - they can buff their armor and never need to leave cover though. Plus they have a lot of t8 AND bodies that are too cheap (which is just as bad as an invo save)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Galef wrote:

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.

Isn't that just a complicated way to say 'Units in detachments with this trait always gain +1 to armour save rolls?' And it would be crazy OP, I'd definitely always choose that.

More sane version: ''Units in detachments with this trait are always treated being in cover if the attacking model is more than 12" away.'

Sorry, I was assuming outside 12", I just forgot to put it in my post. It does need something to make actually being in cover have some benefit, otherwise positioning means less for these army traits. So the rule should be:
If targeted by enemies outside 12", 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.
So in general, it would basically be +1 armour unless you are within 12", but it's clear that it is cover based. It also prevents stacking with -1 to hit penalties, which is the point.

-

Yes - I like this trait a lot. It would be a good fix for all -1 to hit traits. It is counter able by AP and it doesn't ruin armies that hit on 4's or 5's.

Hit penalties are not a "defensive trick", they are a defensive stat like the other ones, which is good against low BS and countered by high BS.

It's not like something must be a strait T + save without anything else or it's unfair.