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.

Martel732 wrote:
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.

So what's the replacement? You can't just say "Get rid of a lot of model's only line of defense" and not replace it with something.

Unless you want Daemonettes to be even cheaper than they already are.

For them, some kind of dodge save that doesn't work vs templates and blasts.

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.

A dodge save? You mean like jink on units like ravenwing bikers? Which is represented as an invulnerable save? And we don't have templates anymore.

The entire point of an invulnerable save is that it provides a save that ignores ap. If they don't work against anti tank what's the point? Why not just have an armour save and drop the points?

 Kcalehc wrote:

 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.

That doesn't fix the problem at all if you do it in a way that keeps the models at a similar toughness as they are now and is a nerf to large swathes of units if you just, as an example, double the wounds on a model with 4++ invuln. Also, how does this fix anything, and why should we ignore both fluff and rules precedence to make this change?

Martel732 wrote:
For them, some kind of dodge save that doesn't work vs templates and blasts.

What does this 'fix' aside from you nerfing the kinds of units your subpar army lists lose against?

Gadzilla666 wrote:

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.

A dodge save? You mean like jink on units like ravenwing bikers? Which is represented as an invulnerable save? And we don't have templates anymore.

The entire point of an invulnerable save is that it provides a save that ignores ap. If they don't work against anti tank what's the point? Why not just have an armour save and drop the points?

Weapons that used to be templates would ignore dodges.

"If they don't work against anti tank what's the point? Why not just have an armour save and drop the points?"

Because the ion screen of an IK should something vs AT guns, whereas an iron halo should not. But that something would be something like damage reduction, not an all or nothing roll.

Martel732 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

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.

A dodge save? You mean like jink on units like ravenwing bikers? Which is represented as an invulnerable save? And we don't have templates anymore.

The entire point of an invulnerable save is that it provides a save that ignores ap. If they don't work against anti tank what's the point? Why not just have an armour save and drop the points?

Weapons that used to be templates would ignore dodges.

"If they don't work against anti tank what's the point? Why not just have an armour save and drop the points?"

Because the ion screen of an IK should something vs AT guns, whereas an iron halo should not. But that something would be something like damage reduction, not an all or nothing roll.

They're both force fields, iron halos being relics from the Crusade era generally, and therefore of greater potency. Say they didn't work against anti tank, how would you represent that in game terms?

Also, what about invuls provided by being lucky such as deathskulls or Makari?

Edit:
Ach, you edited while I was replying. Ok, why doesn't the damage reduction work for iron halos? And doesn't that just bring us back to massed low damage weapons working best against invuls?

I don't know. I'd sit down and make up new mechanics for all this to make AP more useful in the game.

A personal force field should not work vs AT guns, I don't care the era. GW's fluff can piss off.

"And doesn't that just bring us back to massed low damage weapons working best against invuls?"

No, because I'd get rid of the minimum 1 rule for weapons below S6 or S5.

Maybe luck would remain as it is.

So you want to go back to small arms being useless against heavily armored units? Oh goody, carparks here we come.

And if you don't care about the fluff, why do you play this game? You don't seem to like anything about it, including dice.

Only vs IKs in this case. It would be a large undertaking, but GW has made AP past -2 very low value. And AP -1 and -2 are way too powerful vs expensive units.

As for iron halo, it would be fully functional vs plasma pistol, partial vs plasma gun, and not work at all vs plasma cannon. For example.

Martel732 wrote:
Only vs IKs in this case. It would be a large undertaking, but GW has made AP past -2 very low value. And AP -1 and -2 are way too powerful vs expensive units.

As for iron halo, it would be fully functional vs plasma pistol, partial vs plasma gun, and not work at all vs plasma cannon. For example.

This appears to be yet another thread where you call for nerfs to units you personally don't like without any reasonable suggestion as to what could change to make things more balanced. If you're going to whine make a venting thread if you want to propose rules do something thinking and make some rules.

I believe I explained myself in the previous post. If that's whining, I think its safe to ignore you. It has nothing to do with my army because I don't pay for AP in my army for the most part. For the reasons I just outlined above. -2 is almost always enough. I want lascannons and meltaguns to be worth taking.

Martel732 wrote:
Only vs IKs in this case. It would be a large undertaking, but GW has made AP past -2 very low value. And AP -1 and -2 are way too powerful vs expensive units.

As for iron halo, it would be fully functional vs plasma pistol, partial vs plasma gun, and not work at all vs plasma cannon. For example.

So you want knights to be impervious to small arms fire? That make them an even stronger skew army than they already are. Kill all the anti tank and they can pick off everything else at their leisure.

And why just knights and not other LOW? You planning on trading your ba for knights?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Only vs IKs in this case. It would be a large undertaking, but GW has made AP past -2 very low value. And AP -1 and -2 are way too powerful vs expensive units.

As for iron halo, it would be fully functional vs plasma pistol, partial vs plasma gun, and not work at all vs plasma cannon. For example.

This appears to be yet another thread where you call for nerfs to units you personally don't like without any reasonable suggestion as to what could change to make things more balanced. If you're going to whine make a venting thread if you want to propose rules do something thinking and make some rules.

Some things do scream out for the Nerf bat, but overall, most things are reasonably balanced IMO. Iron hands was gross and needed whittling back, I think Tau fall into that bracket too currently. One only needs to look at the sheer amount of wounds and invulnerables they have to know that they're way off kilter in relation to everything else. Rather than change the dynamics of the game, I personally it's better to amend units and abilities.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Only vs IKs in this case. It would be a large undertaking, but GW has made AP past -2 very low value. And AP -1 and -2 are way too powerful vs expensive units.

As for iron halo, it would be fully functional vs plasma pistol, partial vs plasma gun, and not work at all vs plasma cannon. For example.

So you want knights to be impervious to small arms fire? That make them an even stronger skew army than they already are. Kill all the anti tank and they can pick off everything else at their leisure.

And why just knights and not other LOW? You planning on trading your ba for knights?

It's just an example of what the ion screen COULD do instead of an all or nothing roll. Instead of rendering AT guns useless vs their intended targets. You are reading too much into this. I realize this will largely require a massive rewrite.

It was a joke. I know you won't give up your ba. What would you complain about then?

It's hard to tell on the internet.

For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming that unmodifiable saves are out of the question.

So what do we have that these normally represent?

Speed: dodges
Energy fields: iron halos et Al
Super healing: regen
Reinforced armour: terminators

I think you could cover these the following ways:

Dodge: modifiers to hit rolls ie dodge (1) -1 to hit

Energy fields/reinforced armour: roll to ignore attack, use field strength vs attacking AP. IE my field (3) vs AP (2), success on a 3+. Field (2) vs AP (3), 5+ success.

Regeneration: give the unit more starting wounds or have them reduce the number of wound they take from a single hit by 1 to minimum 1.

Roberts84 wrote:
Some things do scream out for the Nerf bat, but overall, most things are reasonably balanced IMO. Iron hands was gross and needed whittling back, I think Tau fall into that bracket too currently. One only needs to look at the sheer amount of wounds and invulnerables they have to know that they're way off kilter in relation to everything else. Rather than change the dynamics of the game, I personally it's better to amend units and abilities.

I agree with this take. Nerf the units that are an issue, not the underlying mechanic which isn't broken on most models in the game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Roberts84 wrote:
Some things do scream out for the Nerf bat, but overall, most things are reasonably balanced IMO. Iron hands was gross and needed whittling back, I think Tau fall into that bracket too currently. One only needs to look at the sheer amount of wounds and invulnerables they have to know that they're way off kilter in relation to everything else. Rather than change the dynamics of the game, I personally it's better to amend units and abilities.

I agree with this take. Nerf the units that are an issue, not the underlying mechanic which isn't broken on most models in the game.

I played ranked Arena in WOW for quite a few years, so Meta changes and imbalances aren't new to me. Unlike 40K, if your class got gimped because of a patch, there was nothing you could do about it until that changed, you just had to change your arena partner to do what you could. In 40k, dice rolls means you've always got a shot at least regardless of the Meta.

The unforseen flow-on effects of changes to game mechanics are always more disastrous than changes to abilities and perks. I can't remember which season it was, but at some point in WOTLK the game changed dramatically, and the result was that burst damage was mandatory for DPS units. I played a DOT damage class, and that was basically the end of it--I had to respec, and no longer enjoyed my class at all because it was no longer viable to play it the way I wanted. I quit shortly after.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Roberts84 wrote:
Some things do scream out for the Nerf bat, but overall, most things are reasonably balanced IMO. Iron hands was gross and needed whittling back, I think Tau fall into that bracket too currently. One only needs to look at the sheer amount of wounds and invulnerables they have to know that they're way off kilter in relation to everything else. Rather than change the dynamics of the game, I personally it's better to amend units and abilities.

I agree with this take. Nerf the units that are an issue, not the underlying mechanic which isn't broken on most models in the game.

It is, though. All the token 5++ break high AP weapons. There's no way I'm paying what GW is asking for AP the way the game works.

Martel732 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Roberts84 wrote:
Some things do scream out for the Nerf bat, but overall, most things are reasonably balanced IMO. Iron hands was gross and needed whittling back, I think Tau fall into that bracket too currently. One only needs to look at the sheer amount of wounds and invulnerables they have to know that they're way off kilter in relation to everything else. Rather than change the dynamics of the game, I personally it's better to amend units and abilities.

I agree with this take. Nerf the units that are an issue, not the underlying mechanic which isn't broken on most models in the game.

It is, though. All the token 5++ break high AP weapons.

You still have to make the saves. I used WOW as an example just now. In that game, there were no dice. If your class was broken, there was no recourse, you were just boned until things got better with a patch, which might not have happened. It is annoying that invulns often make expensive high AP units pointless, but here's also no guarantee that they will. It depends on the dice. I suppose what I'm saying is, be thankful for small mercies.

There definitely needs to be different keywords on saves like <dodge>, <force field>, etc. That way phase weapons only ignore force fields, not dodges. And force fields that are small can be overpowered by large weapons. I would just make terminators 1+ armor where 1 always fails. That way, -1 AP doesn't halve their save.

Martel732 wrote:
There definitely needs to be different keywords on saves like <dodge>, <force field>, etc. That way phase weapons only ignore force fields, not dodges. And force fields that are small can be overpowered by large weapons. I would just make terminators 1+ armor where 1 always fails. That way, -1 AP doesn't halve their save.

While I like the idea of 1+ or 0+ stats, currently, if they were implemented, that would give Terminators an effective 2++.

Ignore that interpretation. It's absurd. Absurd results are to be ignored. The three TOs I've talked to refuse to follow that interpretation for example. We all know how it's SUPPOSED to work. A comment in some GW document doesn't change this.

Martel732 wrote:
Ignore that interpretation. It's absurd. Absurd results are to be ignored. The three TOs I've talked to refuse to follow that interpretation for example.

There's only one thing in the game that can achieve a 1+ stat, and that's a Succubus under the effects of the improve WS combat drug.

And in that case? It's fine. But for an armor save? Hell no. You'd have to change a LOT to make 1+ stats work, since anything less than 1 is treated as a 1, which is required for Plasma to work properly.

Martel732 wrote:
There definitely needs to be different keywords on saves like <dodge>, <force field>, etc. That way phase weapons only ignore force fields, not dodges. And force fields that are small can be overpowered by large weapons. I would just make terminators 1+ armor where 1 always fails. That way, -1 AP doesn't halve their save.

That would make them more resilient to everything except -4 or better, with -4 having the same effectiveness as now. Not that I'm complaining as I run terminators.

Yeah, that's the point.

Martel732 wrote:
I believe I explained myself in the previous post. If that's whining, I think its safe to ignore you. It has nothing to do with my army because I don't pay for AP in my army for the most part. For the reasons I just outlined above. -2 is almost always enough. I want lascannons and meltaguns to be worth taking.

Your explanation lacks detail and doesn't really address the reason WHY such a larger undertaking is worth looking at rather than fixing units that are currently over performing.

Roberts84 wrote:
I played ranked Arena in WOW for quite a few years, so Meta changes and imbalances aren't new to me. Unlike 40K, if your class got gimped because of a patch, there was nothing you could do about it until that changed, you just had to change your arena partner to do what you could. In 40k, dice rolls means you've always got a shot at least regardless of the Meta.

The unforseen flow-on effects of changes to game mechanics are always more disastrous than changes to abilities and perks. I can't remember which season it was, but at some point in WOTLK the game changed dramatically, and the result was that burst damage was mandatory for DPS units. I played a DOT damage class, and that was basically the end of it--I had to respec, and no longer enjoyed my class at all because it was no longer viable to play it the way I wanted. I quit shortly after.

I raided in WotLK but never did much PvP because Arcane Mages weren't never great at it, except for one quickly reverted patch, and I didn't enjoy the way Frost or Frost Fire played.

"Your explanation lacks detail and doesn't really address the reason WHY such a larger undertaking is worth looking at rather than fixing units that are currently over performing."

Because the game has too many false choices under the current AP system. Melta is never a good choice, for example. As I said, you are vastly overpaying for any AP -3 or above.

Maybe invulnerables should have an overload value. If the str of the hit is above the overload value then no invulnerable save (or perhaps -1 or something if too harsh). Dodge type saves and daemonics could have no overload value.

Refractor fields that IG have could be 5+ save overload Str 8
Conversion fields (Iron Halos, Rosarius etc) could be 4+ save overload Str 9

Just an idea. Most invulnerables should not help if hit be a Volcano Cannon.