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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue

Great googly moogly, no. No one is bringing down a knight with lasguns. 509 shots is 250 IS shooting within 24" with a CC giving them FRFSRF (which is impossible to get that many orders). You can't even physically get that many IS in range.

A real world scenario is 10 or 20 IS shooting from 24" hoping to score one wound, if that.

What is the probability of rolling a 6 on a D6? it is 1in 6 not 1 in 509.
But if we're being honest it's actually 1 in 5 of the viable results as GW insists on 1's always fail.
Also it's only 50 lasgun shots to do a wound not even close to your 509 number.

It results in a very overlapping position in 8th edition where bringin the cheapest firepower in volume after a certain point has no real downside.

GW designed the core rules around y to wound and z to save . When that gives like 20 different combinations the game isn't going to cope with the scale GW wants.

Yeah more wounds over invulnerable saves would probably work better but with d2, d3 and high rate of fire thing's that still convert hits at 20% your talking about having to massively scale shift in wounds to actually achieve the niche separation thats being talked about.

The only way to achieve the separation thats being talked about is move away from a d6 based system, which GW won't do.

The math is pretty simple really. They tend to base wounds off of size and im fine with that, but figuring out how many more wounds you need to match up with an invun save is like such:

5++ = 33% more wounds
4++ = 50% more wounds
3++ = 75% more wounds

The reason the 3++ is worth more is because it brings your chance of ignoring multi-damage wounds by more than 50%.

This would bring a castellan (using current rules) up to 42 wounds if it were to loose its invun, making small arms fire (and to an extent even 2 damage weapons) worthless againgst it, but make your melta's and lazcanons feel useful.


Note, im not suggesting to remove all invuns. Demon princes should all have a 5++ standard as they are demons, most characters should have an invun if they are over 50Pts (unless they are psychers or named), and its fine to give some vehicles a 5++ to represent super thick armor that absorbs some shots.

That's not how probability works, at all. Every increase in an Invuln save provides the same relative increase against 1-wound wounds as against multi-wounds. It's not Feel No Pain.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's not how probability works, at all. Every increase in an Invuln save provides the same relative increase against 1-wound wounds as against multi-wounds. It's not Feel No Pain.

It also ignores that the impact of going from 50% chance to 0 chance to save also has to be assessed carefully as in your bid ti remove invlunerable saves you just create the absolute horde meta nirvana, where High AP renders vehicals useless but nothing working against just raw numbers.
Also does a 5++ on a 5+ save really represent the same durability and hecne wounds that say a 2+ 5++?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's not how probability works, at all. Every increase in an Invuln save provides the same relative increase against 1-wound wounds as against multi-wounds. It's not Feel No Pain.

If everyone weapon did one wound, you would be correct. They don't, thus it modifies the formula. Granted I am not a matchmatician so I don't know the exact percentage that you would have to change it to when accounting for 2 damage, D3 damage, 3 damage, D6 damage, and D6 not less
than 3. However considering we are stuck using a D6 system I doubt being accurate to the tenth of a percent will make a difference.

Also I didn't not say to remove all invuns, just invuns on titanic stuff, sorry if I didn't clarify that. I did mention that most characters and all demons should keep their invuns I believe.

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue

Great googly moogly, no. No one is bringing down a knight with lasguns. 509 shots is 250 IS shooting within 24" with a CC giving them FRFSRF (which is impossible to get that many orders). You can't even physically get that many IS in range.

A real world scenario is 10 or 20 IS shooting from 24" hoping to score one wound, if that.

What is the probability of rolling a 6 on a D6? it is 1in 6 not 1 in 509.
But if we're being honest it's actually 1 in 5 of the viable results as GW insists on 1's always fail.
Also it's only 50 lasgun shots to do a wound not even close to your 509 number.

It results in a very overlapping position in 8th edition where bringin the cheapest firepower in volume after a certain point has no real downside.

GW designed the core rules around y to wound and z to save . When that gives like 20 different combinations the game isn't going to cope with the scale GW wants.

Yeah more wounds over invulnerable saves would probably work better but with d2, d3 and high rate of fire thing's that still convert hits at 20% your talking about having to massively scale shift in wounds to actually achieve the niche separation thats being talked about.

The only way to achieve the separation thats being talked about is move away from a d6 based system, which GW won't do.

That was to down a Knight.

For reference:

24 wounds
72 wounds before saves needed
432 hits before wounds
864 shots before hits

So 509 WAS wrong-it was too low.

The number of shots to do ONE wound is:

1 wound
3 wounds before saves
18 hits before wounds
36 shots before hits

So, a single squad of Guardsmen with FRF,SRF should, on average, peel a wound off a 3+ knight (so probably not the Gallant that catapulted itself into your lines with Armor of the Sainted Ion) if they're all within 12".

As many others have said, wounds and not invuls is how you make your big targets more hard to kill without making antitank weaponry useless.


And all the "But this model with a 4++ sucks!" yeah sherlock. Theres models that share rules with OP options that suck everyplace because a model is the sum of is parts.

That does not mean that very good invulnerable saves on very tought targets aren't bad for the game just like Formations and Jump-Shoot-Jump were.
Even if there was units with JSJ that were fine, or Formations that sucked ASS , at the end of the day the mechanics themselves were bad for the game, because they breaked so many basic rules and created such a disbalanced playing enviroment, that I'm glad (And I play tau so I know what Riptide-wing was and JSJ) they removed them.
The same applies to this.

When I see so many people advocating for even more invulnerable creep in the game, I can't but realise how far we have fallen in the rabbit hole.

Besides, doubling the wounds on a knight would give you another bonus as well. You could remove the Rotate Ion Shields stratagem from the game completely, buffing pure knight armies a lot (as they wouldn't need as much CP to operate).

Theres no reason fluff-wise to have RIS in 8th edition anyway as AV facings are no longer a thing anyway. It was stupid to have a +1 to invun no matter where you got shot from mechanic on knights to begin with.

I don't even like the idea of 3++ invul saves in the first place. I think there should be a hard cap of 4++, regardless of any whatsoever modifiers. You run into a player who happens to be super lucky, and that he will roll 3+ the entire turn that model is down to 1 hp, despite the fact you just need it to die.

Mortal wounds by psychic or other means are just a bad answer. Not every army has stuff able to pump out mortal wounds. Some armies don't even have psykers (Necrons).

The problem with the castellan was also its weapon. It was just too good at killing vehicles. It basically invalidated most of the vehicles in the game. Even from a marketing perspective, that wasn't good. Imagine every time you came out with a new vehicle and people said "zzz, useless because a Castellan would kill it in one turn". Regardless of the number of Castellan models gamesworkshop have sold, I don't believe they wanted it to be at the cost of all future vehicles,

If such a dangerous unit could be tied up in combat somehow, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But Castellan can just fall back away from infantry and continue shooting happily. And its not like its close combat abilities were bad. 12 attacks at str 8 doing d3 wounds is no joke. You need a lot of stuff to go right and probably very specific non-infantry units to be able to really tie up a Castellan in combat, and you need to get that unit into place in the backfield where the Castellan is because most of its guns are range 48 inches.

 Galas wrote:


When I see so many people advocating for even more invulnerable creep in the game, I can't but realise how far we have fallen in the rabbit hole.

for some armies good inv on a single model was one of the few things that was good about them. Making them lose that makes bad armies even worse.
But the biggest kick in the nuts would be, if somehow castellans after the change still ended up being played, a bit like reapers were after their first nerf.

Karol wrote:

 Galas wrote:


When I see so many people advocating for even more invulnerable creep in the game, I can't but realise how far we have fallen in the rabbit hole.

for some armies good inv on a single model was one of the few things that was good about them. Making them lose that makes bad armies even worse.
But the biggest kick in the nuts would be, if somehow castellans after the change still ended up being played, a bit like reapers were after their first nerf.

I feel like that is bad design. No army should be reliant on that one model with a good Invul save. This implies that the majority of that army's units are terrible. It should never be the case. I would still nerf Invul in general to a hard cap of 4++ regardless of any and all modifers and then faq that one or two army reliant on one high invul model so that its other units can help to pull their weight.

Karol wrote:

 Galas wrote:


When I see so many people advocating for even more invulnerable creep in the game, I can't but realise how far we have fallen in the rabbit hole.

for some armies good inv on a single model was one of the few things that was good about them. Making them lose that makes bad armies even worse.
But the biggest kick in the nuts would be, if somehow castellans after the change still ended up being played, a bit like reapers were after their first nerf.

Then give that model something else to be more durable - toughness or a FNP or a better armour save or more wounds. All of these are better than invuln saves, design wise

I agree with those saying that large models should have more wounds rather than invulnerable saves.

This would have the added benefit of making weapons with good AP actually mean something. As it stands, you have a lot of weapons with AP-4 or AP-5 that are supposed to be effective against armoured targets. However, so many of those models have invulnerable saves that anything more than AP-2 is usually worthless.


I also agree that Invulnerable saves really need to be scaled back. I think the real problem, though, is not merely models with good invulnerable saves but the fact that models don't trade anything for good invulnerable saves.

I actually think Terminators are an example of how saves should be done. They've got good saves but are slow-moving.

I think the best illustration of the current problem is when you look at a Space Marine Captain. You could buy him Terminator Armour, but that only gives him a 5++ and he already has a 4++ by default. So why not just take a Bike instead? That way he still gets an extra wound but also gets a point of toughness (rather than a redundant invulnerable save) and also a massive increase in movement.

Now imagine if SM Captains didn't have a native 4++. He could still take a bike for speed but it's no longer giving him better protection than the terminator armour (Relics notwithstanding).

Basically, the issue is that too many units are allowed to eat their cake and still have it. So the units that do actually sacrifice something get left in the dirt.

Terminator armour provides a 2+ armour save and deep strike while bikes provide other benefits. It's not about the inv save.

Cataphractii armour even provides a 3++ invuln to HQs, but is even slower than regular terminator armour

The other big problem is that in an effort to fix this, GW gave a lot of armies a VERRRRRY shooty unit that is tough to kill, because 8 shots at 1 damage each will end up doing more damage than 2 shots at d6 damage against the castellan.

The problem with uppping the shots across the boards, is the infantry wasn't buffed to compensate for the increase. So you have squads of infantry getting mulched by what was essentially a weapon designed for fighting off heavy vehicles.

Check out the Custodes tank/telemon weapon: 48" range 12 shots of S7 ap2 d1 damage? who is this for? It's for the fighting the Castellan.

I know people hate the binary way I look at things, but you have anti-infantry and anti-tank weapons. The castellan's high defense and good invulns required the creation of anti-tank weapons with anti-infantry shot counts.

Result: Broken shooting units

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The other big problem is that in an effort to fix this, GW gave a lot of armies a VERRRRRY shooty unit that is tough to kill, because 8 shots at 1 damage each will end up doing more damage than 2 shots at d6 damage against the castellan.

The problem with uppping the shots across the boards, is the infantry wasn't buffed to compensate for the increase. So you have squads of infantry getting mulched by what was essentially a weapon designed for fighting off heavy vehicles.

Check out the Custodes tank/telemon weapon: 48" range 12 shots of S7 ap2 d1 damage? who is this for? It's for the fighting the Castellan.

I know people hate the binary way I look at things, but you have anti-infantry and anti-tank weapons. The castellan's high defense and good invulns required the creation of anti-tank weapons with anti-infantry shot counts.

Result: Broken shooting units

You understand that the Storm Cannon you're citing does nearly three times the damage to a 4++ knight in its Beam (Ie: AT) mode than it does in its Burst (Ie: AI) role right?

The issue isnt that people don't like the way you look at things. Its that the facts and assertions you present are flat out incorrect the overwhelming majority of the time.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The other big problem is that in an effort to fix this, GW gave a lot of armies a VERRRRRY shooty unit that is tough to kill, because 8 shots at 1 damage each will end up doing more damage than 2 shots at d6 damage against the castellan.

The problem with uppping the shots across the boards, is the infantry wasn't buffed to compensate for the increase. So you have squads of infantry getting mulched by what was essentially a weapon designed for fighting off heavy vehicles.

Check out the Custodes tank/telemon weapon: 48" range 12 shots of S7 ap2 d1 damage? who is this for? It's for the fighting the Castellan.

I know people hate the binary way I look at things, but you have anti-infantry and anti-tank weapons. The castellan's high defense and good invulns required the creation of anti-tank weapons with anti-infantry shot counts.

Result: Broken shooting units

Well, let's see. 12 Shots (we'll assume all hits, since they hit the same anyway) at S7 AP-2 D1 deal 4 wounds and 2 unsaved, for 2 damage.

2 Shots (again, assuming all hit) at S9 AP-4 D3, rerolling wounds against vehicles, deals 16/9 wounds and 8/9 unsaved, for 24/9 or 2.67 damage.

While the Invuln is problematic (against a Leman Russ, for instance, the numbers are 8/3 or 2.67 for the burst, but a whopping 5.33 for the beam) the anti-tank mode is still better than the anti-horde mode against a Knight.

Edit: Oh, the STORM CANNON? I was looking at the Twin Arcahnus!

The Storm Cannon is exactly the same, only half the shots in burst mode-so halve damage for the burst mode calculations.

 JNAProductions wrote:


While the Invuln is problematic (against a Leman Russ, for instance, the numbers are 8/3 or 2.67 for the burst, but a whopping 5.33 for the beam) the anti-tank mode is still better than the anti-horde mode against a Knight.

It's even more pronounced, as you're comparing the shooting output of two guns in the anti-infantry mode against one gun in AT mode.

Telemon puts out 2 shots per gun in AT, 6 shots per gun in AI.

Sterling191 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


While the Invuln is problematic (against a Leman Russ, for instance, the numbers are 8/3 or 2.67 for the burst, but a whopping 5.33 for the beam) the anti-tank mode is still better than the anti-horde mode against a Knight.

It's even more pronounced, as you're comparing the shooting output of two guns in the anti-infantry mode against one gun in AT mode.

Telemon puts out 2 shots per gun in AT, 6 shots per gun in AI.

Yeah, I realized I was looking at the wrong weapon. They're pretty similar, but as I said in my edit, halve the anti-horde calculations for the Storm Cannon.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Yeah, I realized I was looking at the wrong weapon. They're pretty similar, but as I said in my edit, halve the anti-horde calculations for the Storm Cannon.

It doesnt help that Fezzik was posting an obsolete unit entry from before the Custodes mini-dex was released by FW. Like I said, his accuracy is...dubious. At best. I'm fairly certain he doesn't even play (or play against) most of the things he kvetches about.

While the 3++ -> 4++ is a significant nerf, it still doesn't solve the problem of having to alpha a knight before it gets a chance to blender a chunk of your army. My one final adjustment would be to nerf Machine Spirit Resurgent so it bumped the model to the next highest (i.e. not top) bracket if it's used on Knights. The idea that I have to nuke a 500+pt model off the map or it'll just fire back at full blast for 1CP(!!!) is bull.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
While the 3++ -> 4++ is a significant nerf, it still doesn't solve the problem of having to alpha a knight before it gets a chance to blender a chunk of your army. My one final adjustment would be to nerf Machine Spirit Resurgent so it bumped the model to the next highest (i.e. not top) bracket if it's used on Knights. The idea that I have to nuke a 500+pt model off the map or it'll just fire back at full blast for 1CP(!!!) is bull.

Gwtting 1 round of shooting as if undamaged for 1/6th of your CP is bull?
Or is allies and CP generation system bull.
I know more match ups that have bull CP inbalances than 1 person not loosing 25%of their lists effect is bull

Ice_can wrote:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
While the 3++ -> 4++ is a significant nerf, it still doesn't solve the problem of having to alpha a knight before it gets a chance to blender a chunk of your army. My one final adjustment would be to nerf Machine Spirit Resurgent so it bumped the model to the next highest (i.e. not top) bracket if it's used on Knights. The idea that I have to nuke a 500+pt model off the map or it'll just fire back at full blast for 1CP(!!!) is bull.

Gwtting 1 round of shooting as if undamaged for 1/6th of your CP is bull?
Or is allies and CP generation system bull.

Look at it this way - even if the CP generation and allies were changed the Castellan could still shoot back for 1 CP. It is a stratagem that would mean nothing to small models, but everything to a monster like the Castellan.

I should state this: I'm not a fan of full-Knight armies at all, but if lists with 90+ Boyz are allowed to exist then I feel it it's imperative to allow players to play on the other end of the spectrum without grumbling about "Back in mah day...".

Make no mistake tho, we're talking about an entire skew codex and so said codex should be balanced accordingly. The downside of putting all your eggs into 3-5 robotic baskets is that if I bracket one of them, I bracket a 1/3rd to 1/5th of your list and if you didn't like that then don't put 2000pts into three to five models. The idea that after your opponent pumping everything above small-arms fire into a Knight Questoris/Dominus and knocking it down a bracket or two, the "acceptable downside" is spending 1 command point is beyond crazy.

Machine spirit resurgent is really good.

I think though there needs to be some competition to see what is winning before pulling out the Nerf Hammer further on knights.

I don't think your going to see Pure Knights win anything. And even Soup is going to be interesting with Smash Captains back in the mix.

Reemule wrote:
And even Soup is going to be interesting with Smash Captains back in the mix.

When weren't they?

The 4 months of Nerf shelved them fairly effectively I found. YMMV.

Skimming the thread one of the things I didn't see mentioned is that a lot of the nerf from 3++ to 4++ comes from rerolls. Rerolls are of course stronger on a better save. You can get 2 rerolls in the shooting phase on a castellan, one free, one command reroll.

A 3++ with 2 rerolls was a massive amount of survivability.
A 4++ not only reduces the base save but reduces the efficiency of those rerolls.

cmspano wrote:
Skimming the thread one of the things I didn't see mentioned is that a lot of the nerf from 3++ to 4++ comes from rerolls. Rerolls are of course stronger on a better save. You can get 2 rerolls in the shooting phase on a castellan, one free, one command reroll.

A 3++ with 2 rerolls was a massive amount of survivability.
A 4++ not only reduces the base save but reduces the efficiency of those rerolls.

Where do you get the free reroll from?

 JNAProductions wrote:

cmspano wrote:
Skimming the thread one of the things I didn't see mentioned is that a lot of the nerf from 3++ to 4++ comes from rerolls. Rerolls are of course stronger on a better save. You can get 2 rerolls in the shooting phase on a castellan, one free, one command reroll.

A 3++ with 2 rerolls was a massive amount of survivability.
A 4++ not only reduces the base save but reduces the efficiency of those rerolls.

Where do you get the free reroll from?

You pay a command point.