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.

I've been thinking a lot about the nature of invulnerable saves, armour saves and cover saves in 8th Edition and how AP works with negative modifiers.

In my own experience, a large majority of the time high AP weapons are rendered useless as the things they are firing against often have an invulnerable save.

For clarity, an invulnerable save is a flat save that is both unaffected by AP of aweapon, nor cover modifiers. By this, an invunerable save is essentially a minimum value. Ie, a SM Terminator, with a 2+ save, will always pass on a roll of 5+ (value of its Invul) regardless of AP or cover.


I find this slightly unbalanced as it renders high AP far less valuable against ideal targets, as models with strong saves often have an invulnerable to boot (Terminators, characters and Custodes, for example). What this means is that a weapon such as Meltagun (Str 8, AP-5 in Tactical Doctrine) is exactly as to inflict damage as a Krak Missile (Str 8 AP-2 base), and the extra AP on the Meltagun is entirely worthless. Against many units with invulnerables, have -1 or -10 on the weapon is no different and I feel this needs to change in order to make high AP more useful, particularly in melee.

On the other hand I very much enjoy the simple rules on Cover Save in this edition - a flat +1. I feel as though the invulnerable save mechanic could go a similar route.

My proposal is thus

Any model with an invulnerable save rule has their gear reworded as follows.

"This model receives +X modifier to saving throw rolls. This bonus is not cumulative with the bonus of cover. This model always passes a saving throw on an unmodified roll of 6 regardless or modifiers."


How much bonus should each model receive?

In my humble opinion -

Anything currently granting a 6++ would now give +0 to save values.
Anything currently granting a 5++ (such as Terminator Armour) would now give +1 to save values.
Anything currently granting a 4++ would (Iron Halo, etc) grant +2 to save values.
Anything currently granting a 3++ would grant +3 to saving throws
Anything with a 2++ (ie, Makari) would get +4
Etc.


How would this affect real world examples?

Let's take Terminators as a baseline.

Having a 5++, Terminators would now be saving on a 2+ vs AP-1, while vs a Lascannon at AP-3, they'd actually be saving on a 4+ (2+ with -3 becoming a 5+, then becoming a 4+ with Invul), making them more durable vs both low and high AP, but rewarding the high AP weapon for its high AP.

A 2+/3++ model, say, Terminator with Stormshield, would now have +3 to its save instead. This means that Lascannons and Power Swords will still be going up against a 2+ save, Meltaguns and Chainfists will be going against a 3+ save. A meltagun or chainfist in the relevant doctrine will be going up against a 4+ save. Tyranid Monstrous Rending Claws hitting the rend (-6 AP) will be going up against a 5+ save.


This has some kinks obviously, but I think my idea has merit both in buffing the units with invulnerable save as well as making high AP weapons more valuable in a meta where many, low AP shots are much more valuable than a single high AP. I believe giving the rule of auto-passing on 6s means that in the rare circumstance when a model gets hit with a super high AP weapon vs a low armour invulnerable model, means its still balanced for those units that jcurrently have a 6+ save - things like Deff Skullz Orks and Tyranid gaunts with the BoB adaptation for a 6+ save, able basically means they are unaffected by this change. Something like a Genestealer will be on a natural 4+ save, so better against Lasguns, Boltguns, etc, slightly worse vs AP-2 weaoons (say, Tactical Doctrine Intercessors). This would then make the extended carapaces (4+ Sv base) better options for them in some cases.


I also think making in not stack with cover will encourage these kinds of units to venture more effectively into the open, and thus be exposed to more kinds of weaponry. Where those with a 6++ (or +0 under my proposal) will be netter in cover, and unchanged, those with a 5++ or better will get nothing from cover, encouraging elite units like Terminators, Custodes, and the like to venture into the open like they should be.

I'm somewhat in agreement with this. It's pretty ridiculous when some piece of weaponry that costs an absolute fortune to field and has S10 -4 gets shrugged by an invulnerable save, and the way they work now has completely changed the game. Basically, invuln saves are God, and if you don't have them, you're probably playing something not worth its points.

Tau players would hate this though as its really the invulns on their shield drones that keep their good stuff alive. Being able to modify those would cause big problems for them--and by that, I mean bring their lists into some semblance of fairness.

Roberts84 wrote:
I'm somewhat in agreement with this. It's pretty ridiculous when some piece of weaponry that costs an absolute fortune to field and has S10 -4 gets shrugged by an invulnerable save, and the way they work now has completely changed the game. Basically, invuln saves are God, and if you don't have them, you're probably playing something not worth its points.

Tau players would hate this though as its really the invulns on their shield drones that keep their good stuff alive. Being able to modify those would cause big problems for them--and by that, I mean bring their lists into some semblance of fairness.

It was a match against Tau that inspired this. Drones completely aside for a moment, the fact that my Lascannons had a 50/50 chance to damage his Ghostkeels IF it wounds and IF it hits, struck a chord. What's the point in bringing super powerful weaponry if they do no better against their "optimal target" than cheaper, weaker weapons.

Drones are their own thing entirely and would need a whole other thread, but the same holds against other targets and armies.

 Deadshot wrote:

Roberts84 wrote:
I'm somewhat in agreement with this. It's pretty ridiculous when some piece of weaponry that costs an absolute fortune to field and has S10 -4 gets shrugged by an invulnerable save, and the way they work now has completely changed the game. Basically, invuln saves are God, and if you don't have them, you're probably playing something not worth its points.

Tau players would hate this though as its really the invulns on their shield drones that keep their good stuff alive. Being able to modify those would cause big problems for them--and by that, I mean bring their lists into some semblance of fairness.

It was a match against Tau that inspired this. Drones completely aside for a moment, the fact that my Lascannons had a 50/50 chance to damage his Ghostkeels IF it wounds and IF it hits, struck a chord. What's the point in bringing super powerful weaponry if they do no better against their "optimal target" than cheaper, weaker weapons.

Drones are their own thing entirely and would need a whole other thread, but the same holds against other targets and armies.

Not really. It's really just Tau cheese that creates this problem. Space marines armies pay a lot for their invulnerables when it comes to troops at least, shields aren't cheap. The good invulnerable saves space marines armies have are usually warlord traits and/or relics which go on characters. You'll pay for them one way or another. Tau drones are not like that...they cost a pittance and you can field a bazillion of them. 10 points for a 4+ invulnerable is ridiculous especially when you've got ghostkeels running stealth drones along side them which are ten wounds -1 to hit with enough weaponry to table a squad for less than 100 points.

I agree with you, it is ridiculous. They're honestly not much less broken than IH pre-nerf were.

So, Daemons now get a 5+, affected by AP meaning they're (in practice) only gonna get a 6+?

And I now need AP-4 to make a Storm Shield Terminator drop to a 3+?

No. You can argue that Invulns are too prevalent, but this solution basically only works for some Imperium armies.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, Daemons now get a 5+, affected by AP meaning they're (in practice) only gonna get a 6+?

And I now need AP-4 to make a Storm Shield Terminator drop to a 3+?

No. You can argue that Invulns are too prevalent, but this solution basically only works for some Imperium armies.

This, pretty much.

A broad stroke of the invuln nerf brush would cause carnage to too many armies, rendering some of them pointless. I'm building a BA list man. We're already pretty gimped. A flat change to to invulnberables would render BA almost useless.

There's a simpler fix; reduce the number of drone Tau can take.

You also run into some weird issues. Like Imperial Guard Company/Platoon Commanders, 5+ save, 5++ save. This would effectively give them a 4+ save; actually making them better in some cases against small arms fire, and significantly worse against weapons that currently they could save against.

I am in agreement with the general sentiment that Invulnerable saves are much too common; and feel many should be changed/removed entirely. Damage reduction or simply more wounds is probably a better alternative in many cases I think.

I think, as others have suggested, the solution is to limit Invulnerable saves - both in terms of the models that have them and also the actual save value.

To be honest, I think where invulnerable saves work best is when models - particularly fragile models - have them instead of armour saves (or instead of any armour save worth a damn). So stuff like Farseers, Warlocks, Mandrakes, Harlequins, etc.

The reason invulnerable saves work on these models is because they don't significantly distort what weapons these models are vulnerable to. They will always get their save, but the fact that their save is only 4++ (at best), combined with their relatively low Toughness value, means that they are still highly vulnerable to weight of fire.

Where I think Invulnerable saves don't work is when they're applied to models like Knights (or other vehicles) with lots of wounds and excellent armour saves. The reason they cause problems here is because they completely upset the dynamic when it comes to what weapons these units should be vulnerable to. These are exactly the targets that weapons like Meltaguns should be effective against, but the presence of invulnerable saves mean that the high AP of these weapons is typically wasted, as most of it is negated by the model's Invulnerable Save.

Put simply, I think the game really needs to move away from protecting big models with 4++ (or even 3++) Invulnerable Saves. If they really need to be more survivable, just give them more wounds.

In general, I think 3++ saves should be a lot rarer than they currently are (if they even need to be present at all), and 2++ saves simply should not exist in any form.

 vipoid wrote:
I think, as others have suggested, the solution is to limit Invulnerable saves - both in terms of the models that have them and also the actual save value.

To be honest, I think where invulnerable saves work best is when models - particularly fragile models - have them instead of armour saves (or instead of any armour save worth a damn). So stuff like Farseers, Warlocks, Mandrakes, Harlequins, etc.

The reason invulnerable saves work on these models is because they don't significantly distort what weapons these models are vulnerable to. They will always get their save, but the fact that their save is only 4++ (at best), combined with their relatively low Toughness value, means that they are still highly vulnerable to weight of fire.

Where I think Invulnerable saves don't work is when they're applied to models like Knights (or other vehicles) with lots of wounds and excellent armour saves. The reason they cause problems here is because they completely upset the dynamic when it comes to what weapons these units should be vulnerable to. These are exactly the targets that weapons like Meltaguns should be effective against, but the presence of invulnerable saves mean that the high AP of these weapons is typically wasted, as most of it is negated by the model's Invulnerable Save.

Put simply, I think the game really needs to move away from protecting big models with 4++ (or even 3++) Invulnerable Saves. If they really need to be more survivable, just give them more wounds.

In general, I think 3++ saves should be a lot rarer than they currently are (if they even need to be present at all), and 2++ saves simply should not exist in any form.

I think canoptek wraiths fly under the radar a bit. For 360 points you can kit 6 of them out to be lethal in melee and they have a 3+ invulnerable save. 18 wounds is a LOT to chew through with a 3+ invulnerable....getting rid of them will pretty much require all your army's firepower, concentrated, with above average rolls. And you can't just ignore them either.

JNAProductions wrote:So, Daemons now get a 5+, affected by AP meaning they're (in practice) only gonna get a 6+?

And I now need AP-4 to make a Storm Shield Terminator drop to a 3+?

No. You can argue that Invulns are too prevalent, but this solution basically only works for some Imperium armies.

This. Your proposal would do some very unpleasant things to my wyches, harlies, and daemons. There should maybe be fewer invulns on big stuff in the game, and there are maybe too many 3+ invuls present in certain armies, but the proposed change would be very harsh on armies that use invulns as their primary save.

Roberts84 wrote:
I think canoptek wraiths fly under the radar a bit. For 360 points you can kit 6 of them out to be lethal in melee and they have a 3+ invulnerable save. 18 wounds is a LOT to chew through with a 3+ invulnerable....getting rid of them will pretty much require all your army's firepower, concentrated, with above average rolls. And you can't just ignore them either.

On paper, I agree with this sentiment. However, to my knowledge necrons aren't going around winning a bunch of tournaments, so nerfing one of their better units probably isn't necessary right now. Also, as a newly-awoken 'cron player, my experience has been that wraiths actually die at a respectable pace provided you're just shooting them with small arms fire. Tossing plasma and lascannons at them is rendered inefficient by their toughness and invuln saves, but a steady flow of strength 3, 4, and 5 attacks will eat through them relatively efficiently. Wraiths are pricey enough that you feel every loss, and they have to cross the table to reach you. Granted, they cross the table quite quickly, and they are quite durable.

Necrons are one of those armies that's hard to amend without making them either terrible or utterly bananas OP. It's probably necessary to rebuild at least some of their core strategies from the ground up...but I guess then they wouldn't really be crons.

I think Necrons are still good. Well, they're nowhere near as bad as something like GS cult anyway. Probably the reason they don't turn up in tournaments more is because there's simply so many space marines armies, and law of averages just means space marines are going to be overrepresented vs everything. That and Necs are pretty slow overall. They still have some excellent units: Immortals, scarabs, destroyers. Warriors are pretty ordinary, I'll say that.

I'm OK with wraiths staying as they are, but yeah, they are pretty amazing.

My 2+/3++ DW Knights love that idea. They're taking 2+ saves until AP-4 now and laughing all the way into your best units.

Roberts84 wrote:

I think canoptek wraiths fly under the radar a bit. For 360 points you can kit 6 of them out to be lethal in melee and they have a 3+ invulnerable save. 18 wounds is a LOT to chew through with a 3+ invulnerable....getting rid of them will pretty much require all your army's firepower, concentrated, with above average rolls. And you can't just ignore them either.

Wraiths are also a unit that has changed considerably in theme and design.

Back in 3rd, they were basically modified Necron Warriors with clawed hand and long tails in place of legs. They were still T4, single-wound models but they had 12" moves and 3++ saves.

Whilst it probably could have used a little refinement, I actually really liked that design. As with Destroyers, I liked the idea of Necrons being mutable, and I know I wasn't the only one who would have liked to see a Wraith Lord.

However, from 5th onwards the design of Wraiths changed completely and they instead became these Canoptek machines, rather than augmented Warriors. However, they retained their phasing abilities - including their 3++. And then as the game progressed they ended up with additional toughness and more wounds, such that instead of being T4 W1 they ended up as T5 W3.

Much as I like the 'phasing' idea, I think they're now really pushing it for models that should have 3++ saves.

Frankly, given that their design has been changed completely, I think they really could have dropped the phasing thing (including its invulnerable save) altogether.

To generate a better effect, I think you'd have to do two things:

Give units without armour an armour value (Harlequins, demons etc)
Make invulnerable saves ignore X pts of AP

IE A warlock has 3+ armour an rune armour (2). This means that it subtracts 2 from the ap of attacks, requiring ap3 or more to affect their save value.

Anything that affects armour values will have a disproportionate affect on units without a normal save, so you'd have to give them one to get it to work

vipoid wrote:... and I know I wasn't the only one who would have liked to see a Wraith Lord.

Here you go!
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Eldar-Wraithlord-2017

Hellebore wrote:To generate a better effect, I think you'd have to do two things:

Give units without armour an armour value (Harlequins, demons etc)
Make invulnerable saves ignore X pts of AP

IE A warlock has 3+ armour an rune armour (2). This means that it subtracts 2 from the ap of attacks, requiring ap3 or more to affect their save value.

Anything that affects armour values will have a disproportionate affect on units without a normal save, so you'd have to give them one to get it to work

That's a fun mechanic, but I think it works better as a unique mechanic on specific units rather than as a blanket replacement for the current invuln rules. It doesn't make a ton of sense for plague bearers and wyches to suddenly have 4+ (or whatever) armor saves that then get modified by their invuln-granting special rules, and you'd be creating a lot of work with an end goal of having many units land basically where they are now (but with more steps involved).

But swapping out a terminator armor invuln save for a special rule that ignores the first point or two of AP? That could be cool.

Invulnerable saves and ward saves have worked this way from the earliest days of Warhammer. Why is it that they don't serve their function now when they, seemingly, worked in past editions?

Your opponent paid for an upgrade to get that invul, he could have cheapened out or taken an upgrade to his offensive output, but chose to pay extra to not get blasted apart by high AP weaponry. Invulns are working as intended from a crunch perspective, making sure that high-AP weaponry aren't dominating. Invulns are working as intended from a fluff perspective, they are protecting against the heaviest types of ordnance. Considering how prevalent thunderhammers have been this edition, I find the statement that high-AP melee weapons need to be better to be weird. What has suffered this edition is high-AP high-Strength weapons' ability to destroy vehicles compared to previous editions, but the effect of invulnerable saves on this development is small compared to them being much tougher overall, even more so against low-AP weapons. With Assault Doctrine it takes 3 times as many attacks to destroy a Rhino with Space Marine combat knives this edition.

High AP weapons are still good for lots of stuff. Leman Russes, Repulsors, Centurions, Aggressors, Mek Guns, Flyers. There was a time when Predators and Hammerheads were viable as well. There are also lots of units where the invuln is an option and not a given, if Sororitas aren't in range of buffs they got a negligible 6++, Impulsors and Ghostkeels need to buy their invuln as an upgrade. Units with a 2+/5++ almost never benefit, AP-4 weapons are very rare and if they become too bad because relatively many units in the game have invulns GW can lower the price. If anything needs changing it's Terminators getting a 4++ regardless of which armour variant they wear, give the Cataphractii 3++ and rebalance pts. That makes the benefit of Terminators over Centurions and Aggressors way more clear, these are the guys with the invulns.

Roberts84 wrote:
Not really. It's really just Tau cheese that creates this problem. Space marines armies pay a lot for their invulnerables when it comes to troops at least, shields aren't cheap. The good invulnerable saves space marines armies have are usually warlord traits and/or relics which go on characters. You'll pay for them one way or another.

Shields are absolutely too cheap, 2 pts for a 3++ is absurd.

 vict0988 wrote:
Your opponent paid for an upgrade to get that invul, he could have cheapened out or taken an upgrade to his offensive output, but chose to pay extra to not get blasted apart by high AP weaponry. Invulns are working as intended from a crunch perspective, making sure that high-AP weaponry aren't dominating. Invulns are working as intended from a fluff perspective, they are protecting against the heaviest types of ordnance. Considering how prevalent thunderhammers have been this edition, I find the statement that high-AP melee weapons need to be better to be weird. What has suffered this edition is high-AP high-Strength weapons' ability to destroy vehicles compared to previous editions, but the effect of invulnerable saves on this development is small compared to them being much tougher overall, even more so against low-AP weapons. With Assault Doctrine it takes 3 times as many attacks to destroy a Rhino with Space Marine combat knives this edition.

High AP weapons are still good for lots of stuff. Leman Russes, Repulsors, Centurions, Aggressors, Mek Guns, Flyers. There was a time when Predators and Hammerheads were viable as well. There are also lots of units where the invuln is an option and not a given, if Sororitas aren't in range of buffs they got a negligible 6++, Impulsors and Ghostkeels need to buy their invuln as an upgrade. Units with a 2+/5++ almost never benefit, AP-4 weapons are very rare and if they become too bad because relatively many units in the game have invulns GW can lower the price. If anything needs changing it's Terminators getting a 4++ regardless of which armour variant they wear, give the Cataphractii 3++ and rebalance pts. That makes the benefit of Terminators over Centurions and Aggressors way more clear, these are the guys with the invulns.

Roberts84 wrote:
Not really. It's really just Tau cheese that creates this problem. Space marines armies pay a lot for their invulnerables when it comes to troops at least, shields aren't cheap. The good invulnerable saves space marines armies have are usually warlord traits and/or relics which go on characters. You'll pay for them one way or another.

Shields are absolutely too cheap, 2 pts for a 3++ is absurd.

Yeah but you're gonna be taking them with a hammer pretty much always, and they're only an option for a very limited number of units, notably vets which are overpriced to begin with and are 1 wound squishies. A vet with a shield and a hammer is 36 points unless I'm mistaken, which is a big sink for something that is definitely going to die pretty quickly @ 1 wound. There's better ways to spend points.You could use a shield with a sword or whatever but that would be pretty pointless, Terminators are a thing of the past now too, horrifically expensive and there's no value at all spending points on a hammer and shied for termies. Pretty much a shield is only an auto-take on smash captains.

Roberts84 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Roberts84 wrote:
Not really. It's really just Tau cheese that creates this problem. Space marines armies pay a lot for their invulnerables when it comes to troops at least, shields aren't cheap. The good invulnerable saves space marines armies have are usually warlord traits and/or relics which go on characters. You'll pay for them one way or another.

Shields are absolutely too cheap, 2 pts for a 3++ is absurd.

Yeah but you're gonna be taking them with a hammer pretty much always, and they're only an option for a very limited number of units, notably vets which are overpriced to begin with and are 1 wound squishies. A vet with a shield and a hammer is 36 points unless I'm mistaken, which is a big sink for something that is definitely going to die pretty quickly @ 1 wound. There's better ways to spend points.You could use a shield with a sword or whatever but that would be pretty pointless, Terminators are a thing of the past now too, horrifically expensive and there's no value at all spending points on a hammer and shied for termies. Pretty much a shield is only an auto-take on smash captains.

If you are giving hammers to all your Vets you are making a mistake, give them combi-bolters or chainswords. You can give the Champion and in special circumstances one other dude a better weapon, certainly not all. Hammers are only overcosted if you take lots of them, they are already a competitive option on Intercessor Sergeants, the pricing system needs a discount option for units that take an option on all the guys so you can have your thematic all-shield/hammer or shield/sword units or you can pay a premium if you just have 3/4 with shields to tank lascannons. Vets are overcosted because they are an Elites choice and Vanguard Detachments aren't too great in terms of command benefits, once Deathwatch get PA their Vets will most likely be great again. I don't think Company Veterans are *that* terrible, what's problematic for them is firstborn transports not being viable in competitive SM, you can probably still them work. All-thunder-hammers on a 1W unit needs to come down 5-10 pts per model, but you are not really working within the system as it is when you take a crazy loadout like that. You can also take both mobility options for Reivers or take flamers on a unit in a Drop Pod, the system doesn't baby you, but if you somehow find a way to deliver those 16 thunderhammer attacks then it's going to delete half a Knight (300 pts vs your 150) and only lose a couple of guys in return and if you take the extra range chapter tactic the flamers can actually shoot after coming out from a Drop Pod.

I do think some invulnerable saves should work as a modifier, like units that are adept at dodging enemy attacks should be -1 to hit, not 5++.

 vict0988 wrote:
Your opponent paid for an upgrade to get that invul, he could have cheapened out or taken an upgrade to his offensive output, but chose to pay extra to not get blasted apart by high AP weaponry.

Except that the vast majority of invulnerable saves in the game aren't upgrades, they're just standard wargear.

 vict0988 wrote:

Roberts84 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Roberts84 wrote:
Not really. It's really just Tau cheese that creates this problem. Space marines armies pay a lot for their invulnerables when it comes to troops at least, shields aren't cheap. The good invulnerable saves space marines armies have are usually warlord traits and/or relics which go on characters. You'll pay for them one way or another.

Shields are absolutely too cheap, 2 pts for a 3++ is absurd.

Yeah but you're gonna be taking them with a hammer pretty much always, and they're only an option for a very limited number of units, notably vets which are overpriced to begin with and are 1 wound squishies. A vet with a shield and a hammer is 36 points unless I'm mistaken, which is a big sink for something that is definitely going to die pretty quickly @ 1 wound. There's better ways to spend points.You could use a shield with a sword or whatever but that would be pretty pointless, Terminators are a thing of the past now too, horrifically expensive and there's no value at all spending points on a hammer and shied for termies. Pretty much a shield is only an auto-take on smash captains.

If you are giving hammers to all your Vets you are making a mistake, give them combi-bolters or chainswords. You can give the Champion and in special circumstances one other dude a better weapon, certainly not all. Hammers are only overcosted if you take lots of them, they are already a competitive option on Intercessor Sergeants, the pricing system needs a discount option for units that take an option on all the guys so you can have your thematic all-shield/hammer or shield/sword units or you can pay a premium if you just have 3/4 with shields to tank lascannons. Vets are overcosted because they are an Elites choice and Vanguard Detachments aren't too great in terms of command benefits, once Deathwatch get PA their Vets will most likely be great again. I don't think Company Veterans are *that* terrible, what's problematic for them is firstborn transports not being viable in competitive SM, you can probably still them work. All-thunder-hammers on a 1W unit needs to come down 5-10 pts per model, but you are not really working within the system as it is when you take a crazy loadout like that. You can also take both mobility options for Reivers or take flamers on a unit in a Drop Pod, the system doesn't baby you, but if you somehow find a way to deliver those 16 thunderhammer attacks then it's going to delete half a Knight (300 pts vs your 150) and only lose a couple of guys in return and if you take the extra range chapter tactic the flamers can actually shoot after coming out from a Drop Pod.

I do think some invulnerable saves should work as a modifier, like units that are adept at dodging enemy attacks should be -1 to hit, not 5++.

No plans on running any vets. As I say, there's better ways to spend the points. And the point remains, 3+ invulnerables in space marines armies aren't cheap, and they are situational. A Grey Knights Paladin squad will delete 10 Vanguard vets before they do anything the vast majority of the time.

I do agree there needs to be some kind of modifier that allows really expnseive, high strength high AP weaponry to get around 3+ shrugs. It might be possible to have strength affect invulns the way AP modifiers affect saving throws.

Roberts84 wrote:
No plans on running any vets. As I say, there's better ways to spend the points. And the point remains, 3+ invulnerables in space marines armies aren't cheap, and they are situational. A Grey Knights Paladin squad will delete 10 Vanguard vets before they do anything the vast majority of the time.

I do agree there needs to be some kind of modifier that allows really expnseive, high strength high AP weaponry to get around 3+ shrugs. It might be possible to have strength affect invulns the way AP modifiers affect saving throws.

Fair enough on not running Vets, you haven't actually made a point about INVULNS being expensive, you've made a point that THUNDERHAMMERS are expensive. No one squad is invincible, 5 Paladins cost more than 5 Veterans. 5 stormshield Veterans can survive an amazing amount of melta/powerfist attacks. In your "everybody takes thunderhammers on everybody" world the Paladins should be terrible. 96 vs 104 pts for 4 chainswords vs 4 stormshields. Assuming a chainsword is worth 1 pt then it's 92 vs 104, that's 13% more pts for 50% more durability against AP-1 100% more durability against AP-2, 150% against AP-3, 200% against AP-4/-5.

Mortal wounds already exist, the only thing that isn't working with regards to saves is terrain and suppressing fire/going to ground missing from the game but the latter two are hard to reimplement in the framework of 8th.

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Your opponent paid for an upgrade to get that invul, he could have cheapened out or taken an upgrade to his offensive output, but chose to pay extra to not get blasted apart by high AP weaponry.

Except that the vast majority of invulnerable saves in the game aren't upgrades, they're just standard wargear.

I was addressing OP's problem of facing a Ghostkeel, which is completely silly in the first place, what's broken isn't a 4++ against lascannons, it's the 2+ lookout sir the Drones get to make and then they get to shrug on 5+++. A 3+ 4++ is not that amazing, I don't know why people feel entitled to ignore saves with their lascannons, I pay for AP-5 and only get to use it under very rare circumstances. I suspect maybe OP just wanted tougher Terminators, that can be done in other ways, like updating their invulnerable rule to fit with the new edition, by improving it by 1 or further improving their W characteristic or adding one to Terminator Toughness. Terminators should not be super tough to lasguns, tough to heavy bolters and then get completely wasted by melta, the fluff says they have a forcefield that protects them against melta, so lasguns ineffective, heavy bolters and melta somewhat effective, but no weapon should perfectly remove them, with the exception of mortal wounds, the great equalizer.

 vict0988 wrote:

I was addressing OP's problem of facing a Ghostkeel, which is completely silly in the first place, what's broken isn't a 4++ against lascannons, it's the 2+ lookout sir the Drones get to make and then they get to shrug on 5+++.

Ah okay. I thought you were speaking more generally about Invulnerable Saves.

Regarding Drones, I can understand them protecting smaller models, but having them able to intercept shots for units the size of small buildings seems rather silly.

 vict0988 wrote:
I don't know why people feel entitled to ignore saves with their lascannons, I pay for AP-5 and only get to use it under very rare circumstances.

To be fair, I'm not sure that's a good thing. Like I said earlier, there seems to be a real issue with big, multi-wound units with 2+ armour saves also getting invulnerable saves. So weapons like meltas, which are supposed to be most effective against those targets, actually end up with a lot of extra AP that doesn't actually do anything.

I think giving big units more wounds rather than invulnerable saves would go a long way to balancing things out and making it that meltaguns serve an actual purpose.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Invulnerable saves and ward saves have worked this way from the earliest days of Warhammer. Why is it that they don't serve their function now when they, seemingly, worked in past editions?

I think you missed the point. Its not that they don't work, its that they are handed out to too many models and render the weapons designed to combat those models, less effective than cheaper weapons.

I'm of the belief that most of the large models with invulnerable should just have more wounds and or toughness instead. Not all of course though, some are fine.

 vict0988 wrote:

Roberts84 wrote:
No plans on running any vets. As I say, there's better ways to spend the points. And the point remains, 3+ invulnerables in space marines armies aren't cheap, and they are situational. A Grey Knights Paladin squad will delete 10 Vanguard vets before they do anything the vast majority of the time.

I do agree there needs to be some kind of modifier that allows really expnseive, high strength high AP weaponry to get around 3+ shrugs. It might be possible to have strength affect invulns the way AP modifiers affect saving throws.

Fair enough on not running Vets, you haven't actually made a point about INVULNS being expensive, you've made a point that THUNDERHAMMERS are expensive. No one squad is invincible, 5 Paladins cost more than 5 Veterans. 5 stormshield Veterans can survive an amazing amount of melta/powerfist attacks. In your "everybody takes thunderhammers on everybody" world the Paladins should be terrible. 96 vs 104 pts for 4 chainswords vs 4 stormshields. Assuming a chainsword is worth 1 pt then it's 92 vs 104, that's 13% more pts for 50% more durability against AP-1 100% more durability against AP-2, 150% against AP-3, 200% against AP-4/-5.

Mortal wounds already exist, the only thing that isn't working with regards to saves is terrain and suppressing fire/going to ground missing from the game but the latter two are hard to reimplement in the framework of 8th.

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Your opponent paid for an upgrade to get that invul, he could have cheapened out or taken an upgrade to his offensive output, but chose to pay extra to not get blasted apart by high AP weaponry.

Except that the vast majority of invulnerable saves in the game aren't upgrades, they're just standard wargear.

I was addressing OP's problem of facing a Ghostkeel, which is completely silly in the first place, what's broken isn't a 4++ against lascannons, it's the 2+ lookout sir the Drones get to make and then they get to shrug on 5+++. A 3+ 4++ is not that amazing, I don't know why people feel entitled to ignore saves with their lascannons, I pay for AP-5 and only get to use it under very rare circumstances. I suspect maybe OP just wanted tougher Terminators, that can be done in other ways, like updating their invulnerable rule to fit with the new edition, by improving it by 1 or further improving their W characteristic or adding one to Terminator Toughness. Terminators should not be super tough to lasguns, tough to heavy bolters and then get completely wasted by melta, the fluff says they have a forcefield that protects them against melta, so lasguns ineffective, heavy bolters and melta somewhat effective, but no weapon should perfectly remove them, with the exception of mortal wounds, the great equalizer.

Paladins are three wound models that have a lot more survivability in general due to GK's special rules and psychic. It's also not possible to take shields on them, which might be fair because if you could gak could get real very fast. So really, we're talking terminators and Vanguard vets that will be using shields, as well as smash captains. Really of those three options only the smash captain is a competitive choice. Honestly, I'm yet to see any evidence that Vets can take an amazing mount of anything which is why nobody uses them, and if they do, they're using SS to protect the bulk of the vets which are kitted out dual wielding (I personally think dual claws are the best). If you're not taking a hammer with a shield vet, those vets aren't really going to be fulfilling their purpose, which is kill team units. At the end of all things, one wound is one wound; a slight survivability improvement on bugger all is still bugger all. It isn't hard to fail 3+ saves. Vets need to be bumped up to two wounds to become competitive. They're just OK with shields against low output high AP weaponry but utterly useless against hordes, or high output low AP attacks.
Anyway, the point is space marines don't have access to cheap invulnerable saves the way Tau do, and they don't have anything like as many of them.The amount of drones Tau can take needs to be limited.

Or just be eliminated.

Martel732 wrote:
Or just be eliminated.

So what should Daemonds get? Their 6+?
Harlequins? Their 6+?

A dodge save. Which is ignored by templates and blasts.

Other daemons can get a daemon save, with different rules. But no flat unmodifiable saves.

Things like iron halos should not function vs anti-tank weaponry.

Martel732 wrote:
A dodge save. Which is ignored by templates and blasts.

Other daemons can get a daemon save, with different rules. But no flat unmodifiable saves.

Things like iron halos should not function vs anti-tank weaponry.

So what do you propose a Daemon save should actually BE?

I'd probably make it different for each god. I guess i'd leave Tzeentch the old invuln. But I'd get rid of invuln as a general rule.