Invulnerables should work as a modifier like cover

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.

**Roberts84**

vict0988 wrote:
Roberts84 wrote:
I can't believe that's your argument. Naturally a wound isn't just a wound due to strength/ toughness etc but that simply proves my point further, because outside of shield captains, you're only going to be putting shields on terminators and vets which are T4. Obviously having a 3+ on a Paladin ( can't be done) or or a Wraith is a way, way bigger deal than something like a Vanguard vet, because all a vet needs to do is fail one save and it's hosed of the board. A paladin or a wraith with a 3+ is an enormously bigger problem.

Honestly, you would only have a valid point to make if it were possible stick a 3+ invuln on high wound, high toughness models, and in space marines armies you can't. No such models exist to my knowledge--at least not without a relic or warlord trait. Name one elite or troop choice with more than two wounds that can take a stormshield in a space marines list. Get back to me because I'll definitely be running whatever they are.

Seriously, it's starting to feel like you're senselessly hating on SM armies.

YOU said a wound is a wound, that going from a 3+ to a 3+/3++ is no big difference, it is a RELATIVELY big difference, no it doesn't make them worth 300 pts each, which is not what I said, but 2/10 pts relative to their base cost makes stormshields an auto-include on most units. You don't need to become as tough as a Knight for a toughness upgrade to be worthwhile, do you think using a Stratagem to get a 4++ on Craftworld Guardians is useless because they're vulnerable anyway? No, because it massively increases their defences, it's about RELATIVE cost and RELATIVE durability, same thing with Necron Tomb Blades you can pay 2 pts for +1 Sv, it doesn't make them into Knights but it does make them a lot more durable RELATIVE to their baseline stats. Stop being silly we don't play in fantasy land how much a unit costs before and costs after compared to how tough it is before and after is what matters, stormshields are amazing for 2 pts. I don't hate on Space Marines, I just think stormshields are undercosted. We're in an invul whining thread, complaining invuls are everywhere, well guess what? When the units with invulns are OP, when the options that give invulns are OP, invulns become popular. If Repulsors and lightning claws are better than Leviathans and stormshields then melta becomes better.

But vets and Terminators aren't OP. If they are so good, why aren't the represented in competition? Terminators are terrible units! Vanguard Vets are mediocre at best and never even appear in competitive lists. If everything is relative, then the survivability granted by a storm shield is also relative to ultimate effect it has on the unit it is put on, and the value of the unit to which it is applied. A vet with a storm shield isn't OP and neither is a terminator. They're both still bad WITH a 3+.Putting a 3+ on a bad unit doesn't make it a good unit. It just makes it slightly less bad. How are you not understanding this?

**vict0988**

Roberts84 wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Roberts84 wrote:
I can't believe that's your argument. Naturally a wound isn't just a wound due to strength/ toughness etc but that simply proves my point further, because outside of shield captains, you're only going to be putting shields on terminators and vets which are T4. Obviously having a 3+ on a Paladin ( can't be done) or or a Wraith is a way, way bigger deal than something like a Vanguard vet, because all a vet needs to do is fail one save and it's hosed of the board. A paladin or a wraith with a 3+ is an enormously bigger problem.

Honestly, you would only have a valid point to make if it were possible stick a 3+ invuln on high wound, high toughness models, and in space marines armies you can't. No such models exist to my knowledge--at least not without a relic or warlord trait. Name one elite or troop choice with more than two wounds that can take a stormshield in a space marines list. Get back to me because I'll definitely be running whatever they are.

Seriously, it's starting to feel like you're senselessly hating on SM armies.

YOU said a wound is a wound, that going from a 3+ to a 3+/3++ is no big difference, it is a RELATIVELY big difference, no it doesn't make them worth 300 pts each, which is not what I said, but 2/10 pts relative to their base cost makes stormshields an auto-include on most units. You don't need to become as tough as a Knight for a toughness upgrade to be worthwhile, do you think using a Stratagem to get a 4++ on Craftworld Guardians is useless because they're vulnerable anyway? No, because it massively increases their defences, it's about RELATIVE cost and RELATIVE durability, same thing with Necron Tomb Blades you can pay 2 pts for +1 Sv, it doesn't make them into Knights but it does make them a lot more durable RELATIVE to their baseline stats. Stop being silly we don't play in fantasy land how much a unit costs before and costs after compared to how tough it is before and after is what matters, stormshields are amazing for 2 pts. I don't hate on Space Marines, I just think stormshields are undercosted. We're in an invul whining thread, complaining invuls are everywhere, well guess what? When the units with invulns are OP, when the options that give invulns are OP, invulns become popular. If Repulsors and lightning claws are better than Leviathans and stormshields then melta becomes better.

But vets and Terminators aren't OP. If they are so good, why aren't the represented in competition? Terminators are terrible units! Vanguard Vets are mediocre at best and never even appear in competitive lists. If everything is relative, then the survivability granted by a storm shield is also relative to ultimate effect it has on the unit it is put on, and the value of the unit to which it is applied. A vet with a storm shield isn't OP and neither is a terminator. They're both still bad WITH a 3+.Putting a 3+ on a bad unit doesn't make it a good unit. It just makes it slightly less bad. How are you not understanding this?

That just means the other options need buffs that are as big or bigger than the nerfs shields need to get, destroy the crutch and build the unit back up from scratch. Same thing with Shield Drones that also need to be changed. "But without my silly Shield Drones my Suits are horrible." I don't care, nerf the Drones buff the suits.

**Roberts84**

vict0988 wrote:
Roberts84 wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Roberts84 wrote:
I can't believe that's your argument. Naturally a wound isn't just a wound due to strength/ toughness etc but that simply proves my point further, because outside of shield captains, you're only going to be putting shields on terminators and vets which are T4. Obviously having a 3+ on a Paladin ( can't be done) or or a Wraith is a way, way bigger deal than something like a Vanguard vet, because all a vet needs to do is fail one save and it's hosed of the board. A paladin or a wraith with a 3+ is an enormously bigger problem.

Honestly, you would only have a valid point to make if it were possible stick a 3+ invuln on high wound, high toughness models, and in space marines armies you can't. No such models exist to my knowledge--at least not without a relic or warlord trait. Name one elite or troop choice with more than two wounds that can take a stormshield in a space marines list. Get back to me because I'll definitely be running whatever they are.

Seriously, it's starting to feel like you're senselessly hating on SM armies.

YOU said a wound is a wound, that going from a 3+ to a 3+/3++ is no big difference, it is a RELATIVELY big difference, no it doesn't make them worth 300 pts each, which is not what I said, but 2/10 pts relative to their base cost makes stormshields an auto-include on most units. You don't need to become as tough as a Knight for a toughness upgrade to be worthwhile, do you think using a Stratagem to get a 4++ on Craftworld Guardians is useless because they're vulnerable anyway? No, because it massively increases their defences, it's about RELATIVE cost and RELATIVE durability, same thing with Necron Tomb Blades you can pay 2 pts for +1 Sv, it doesn't make them into Knights but it does make them a lot more durable RELATIVE to their baseline stats. Stop being silly we don't play in fantasy land how much a unit costs before and costs after compared to how tough it is before and after is what matters, stormshields are amazing for 2 pts. I don't hate on Space Marines, I just think stormshields are undercosted. We're in an invul whining thread, complaining invuls are everywhere, well guess what? When the units with invulns are OP, when the options that give invulns are OP, invulns become popular. If Repulsors and lightning claws are better than Leviathans and stormshields then melta becomes better.

But vets and Terminators aren't OP. If they are so good, why aren't the represented in competition? Terminators are terrible units! Vanguard Vets are mediocre at best and never even appear in competitive lists. If everything is relative, then the survivability granted by a storm shield is also relative to ultimate effect it has on the unit it is put on, and the value of the unit to which it is applied. A vet with a storm shield isn't OP and neither is a terminator. They're both still bad WITH a 3+.Putting a 3+ on a bad unit doesn't make it a good unit. It just makes it slightly less bad. How are you not understanding this?

That just means the other options need buffs that are as big or bigger than the nerfs shields need to get, destroy the crutch and build the unit back up from scratch. Same thing with Shield Drones that also need to be changed. "But without my silly Shield Drones my Suits are horrible." I don't care, nerf the Drones buff the suits.

Again, shields would only be a problem if you could put them on something with high toughness and/or wounds. They're simply not a problem as things stand right now. and they're not in the same ballpark as shield drones. It's just not a useful comparison to make.

**vipoid**

Regarding the melta debate, my general view is:

- Units like Terminators with 5++ saves isn't an issue*. The reason is that these shouldn't be ideal targets for Meltaguns in the first place. Yes, they have 2+ saves but they're also infantry models with just 2 wounds apiece. Meltas should really be about burning through tanks and monsters, with 'Heavy Infantry' being very much secondary targets. Hence, I don't think it's an issue that meltas aren't efficient against them.

- Vehicles and Monsters with 2+ or 3+ saves should not have invulnerable saves. The reason is that these are the targets melta is supposed to be designed to bring down. These are what meltas pay for extra AP against.

*Note: I don't think Storm Shields in their current form should be a thing, but that's a separate issue to the melta thing.

Hellebore wrote:
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.

Agreed regarding Dodge but shouldn't Regeneration be about healing wounds afterwards, rather than preventing them?

Also, in your system, would the Energy Field save be taken instead of an armour save or would it be an extra save on top of it?

**Martel732**

Doesn't change the fact that armies like Drukhari and Daemons exist. Those alone would make me dump melta. Even if the opposing army has good targets, the opportunity cost on melta is very high. At least lascannons can reach most of the board.

**vipoid**

Martel732 wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that armies like Drukhari and Daemons exist. Those alone would make me dump melta. Even if the opposing army has good targets, the opportunity cost on melta is very high. At least lascannons can reach most of the board.

Okay then, let's turn this around - in your view, what would make Melta worth taking?

I mean, people definitely took a lot of meltas back in 5th. And I'm pretty sure they saw use up to and including 7th (as in, they're not one of the elements of the game that have been consistently awful, regardless of edition).

So what change(s) would you like to see that would make Meltas viable in 8th?

**Martel732**

How much are we changing here?

Limited change: double strength inside melta range to 16, so they can at least wound on a 2+ so they clear more wounds over the game.

Bigger change: melta inside melta range give invuln saves a -1 or -2 modifier because they overload defense with intense energy.

Boring change: make them super cheap.

**JNAProductions**

vipoid wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that armies like Drukhari and Daemons exist. Those alone would make me dump melta. Even if the opposing army has good targets, the opportunity cost on melta is very high. At least lascannons can reach most of the board.

Okay then, let's turn this around - in your view, what would make Melta worth taking?

I mean, people definitely took a lot of meltas back in 5th. And I'm pretty sure they saw use up to and including 7th (as in, they're not one of the elements of the game that have been consistently awful, regardless of edition).

So what change(s) would you like to see that would make Meltas viable in 8th?

Not the one you're asking, but a bonus to-wound would be good, and more in-line with what it used to do.

If Melta got +2 to-wound when in half-range, it'd still wound Termis on 2+, but now it's ALSO wounding Knights and Russes on a 2+, if you manage to hit half-range.

Edit: A penalty to Invulns doesn't make sense in all cases. It works for Terminators or Captains, but not Harlequins (who are just plain not there) or Daemons (who literally ignore the rules of reality).

**Martel732**

+2 to wound would work too in place of double strength.

**Gadzilla666**

Both of those ideas sound workable. Wouldn't be op as it requires getting within 6 so no good straight out of ds. Might actually involve some of that "strategy" stuff.

**Martel732**

"Edit: A penalty to Invulns doesn't make sense in all cases. It works for Terminators or Captains, but not Harlequins (who are just plain not there) or Daemons (who literally ignore the rules of reality)."

That's why invulns need to be typed, but that's more complicated.

**vipoid**

+2 to wound at half-range sounds good.

**Martel732**

I probably still wouldn't use them, but I'd at least consider it. That's how bad they are right now. 5++ and 4++ just kill low rate of fire weapons no matter what bells and whistles we tack on.

**JNAProductions**

Martel732 wrote:
I probably still wouldn't use them, but I'd at least consider it. That's how bad they are right now. 5++ and 4++ just kill low rate of fire weapons no matter what bells and whistles we tack on.

Which is an issue with Melta targets having an Invuln, not Invulns in general.

A squad of 5 Tactical Marines (I know, suboptimal choice, but still) with one Meltagun firing all their weapons at a Leman Russ, a 4++ Knight, and a squad of Bloodletters, do...

1.17 (Melta)+.30 (Bolters)=1.47 damage to a Leman Russ
.58 (Melta)+.30 (Bolters)=.88 damage to a 4++ Knight
.37 (Melta)+2.37 (Bolters)=2.74 damage to Bloodletters

It's only the Invuln-having BIG target that's a standout there.

**Martel732**

Errr... sorta. It's not just melta. Take hellblasters. Their schtick is the -4 AP. This is wasted against so many targets that its never worth paying for them. Basically, as I said, AP -1 and -2 are OP because of what units pay for good armor saves and AP -3 and up are all overcosted because of invuln proliferation.

**JNAProductions**

Martel732 wrote:
Errr... sorta. It's not just melta. Take hellblasters. Their schtick is the -4 AP. This is wasted against so many targets that its never worth paying for them. Basically, as I said, AP -1 and -2 are OP because of what units pay for good armor saves and AP -3 and up are all overcosted because of invuln proliferation.

Terminators in cover need the whole AP-4.
Centurions take the whole AP-4, cover or not.
Sanguinary Guard too.
Most Marines not in cover take the whole AP-4 too.
Leman Russes, Land Raiders, Repulsors...

And, in addition to that, you're not paying SOLELY for AP-4. You're paying for Plasma-a high Strength, good AP, 2 Damage weapon.

**Martel732**

But the AP is a big part of it. And it just doesn't come up enough to be a realistic choice. And getting the "whole thing" still suffers from diminishing returns. -3 is a lot better value than -4+ for this reason. But still overcosted. The first two points of AP are very valuable, and then there's a huge, huge dropoff. GW charges like its the opposite.

**JNAProductions**

Martel732 wrote:
But the AP is a big part of it. And it just doesn't come up enough to be a realistic choice. And getting the "whole thing" still suffers from diminishing returns. -3 is a lot better value than -4+ for this reason. But still overcosted. The first two points of AP are very valuable, and then there's a huge, huge dropoff. GW charges like its the opposite.

That's a point issue, then, not an inherent issue.

Are you also gonna complain that there's models with 4+ or worse armor? You don't get the whole value of AP-4 against them either.

**Martel732**

They are another reason to never bring AP -4 to me. At least for what GW charges for it. Price is always inherent to the issue. Make something cheap enough, and it will be used. The list of units where AP -3 or greater is actually desirable and useful is pretty short. Then stack on what GW charges for it.

**vipoid**

Martel732 wrote:
But the AP is a big part of it. And it just doesn't come up enough to be a realistic choice. And getting the "whole thing" still suffers from diminishing returns. -3 is a lot better value than -4+ for this reason. But still overcosted. The first two points of AP are very valuable, and then there's a huge, huge dropoff. GW charges like its the opposite.

I agree about AP having diminishing returns.

However, we're still talking about a weapon that would be S8 AP-5 Dd6 and which also wounds almost anything on 2s in half-range and rolls 2d6 and takes highest on the damage dice.

I think that would be well worth the current cost, honestly. There are very few weapons in the entire game (let alone ones available to basic infantry) that can wound Knights and Monsters on 2s.

I get that Invulnerable Saves are a thing (though as I've already argued, units like Knights shouldn't have them to begin with), but even then those invulnerable saves are basically the only possible defence against meltas in melta-range - as they wound on 2s and ignore armour entirely.

**Martel732**

"I think that would be well worth the current cost, honestly. There are very few weapons in the entire game (let alone ones available to basic infantry) that can wound Knights and Monsters on 2s."

Not really because of poor rate of fire. 14 pts for a meltagun is just nuts. This underscores just how crappy single shot weapons are in 8th. We can bolt on as many rules as we want, they are still bad.

**Gadzilla666**

-4ap works pretty well. My fellblade's ae shells feth up leman russes and executioner tanks quite well, and my chainclaw contemptor is my army's all time mvp.

**Martel732**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
-4ap works pretty well. My fellblade's ae shells feth up leman russes and executioner tanks quite well, and my chainclaw contemptor is my army's all time mvp.

Except it doesn't in the general case. If I could guarantee these targets, I'd agree. But blind? No reason to pay. Not when AP -1 and -2 almost always do work. The assault bolter is a better value vs IKs than almost any AT gun. That's such a huge problem.

**Gadzilla666**

Martel732 wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
-4ap works pretty well. My fellblade's ae shells feth up leman russes and executioner tanks quite well, and my chainclaw contemptor is my army's all time mvp.

Except it doesn't in the general case. If I could guarantee these targets, I'd agree. But blind? No reason to pay.

Leman Russes and executioner tanks are pretty common, as are tanks with similar toughness and armour saves. Exactly what do you plan for when you make a TAC list?

**Martel732**

Not common enough to pay for AP.

Depends on how assaulty I want my list to be. But I usually assume my targets have a 5++ at least. Doing otherwise invites disaster because of GW pricing on AP.

**Gadzilla666**

Martel732 wrote:
Not common enough to pay for AP.

Depends on how assaulty I want my list to be. But I usually assume my targets have a 5++ at least.

So, your pure infantry lists with little shooting and no anti tank that you're always complaining about losing with? Think maybe you should try something else? Like some dreadnoughts or one of those fething floating tanks?

**Martel732**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Not common enough to pay for AP.

Depends on how assaulty I want my list to be. But I usually assume my targets have a 5++ at least.

So, your pure infantry lists with little shooting and no anti tank that you're always complaining about losing with? Think maybe you should try something else? Like some dreadnoughts or one of those fething floating tanks?

Stephen Box wins with it. But that's against elite castle meta. I'm dealing with a mix of hordes and marines atm. It's really hard to build BA against both. Bottom line is that compared to vanilla, BA don't shoot worth a damn. I use more shooting than Box, btw. There's a huge split in the BA community about shooting. I think bolter inceptors are really good now, for example.

I realize now that BA entire game is wrap and trap. Nothing else matters. That's my take away from top player battle reports. So I guess in that sense, invulns don't matter to BA that much. Unless its something like Wulfen, in which case BA just lose.

**Gadzilla666**

Ah, so a problem with your particular meta. Don't know what to say to that. But if for some inconceivable reason I was to ever play ba I'd get a libby dread. A dreadnought that can fly seems pretty fething good. Of course all I know for sure about them is how to kill them.

**Martel732**

They are okay. Nothing special. Libby dread has low base attacks and is very squishy.

It's really demotivating for wrap and trap to be so critical, because I don't want to play that way.

**Gadzilla666**

Martel732 wrote:
They are okay. Nothing special. Libby dread has low base attacks and is very squishy.

It's really demotivating for wrap and trap to be so critical, because I don't want to play that way.

Tell me about it. I wish gw had their whole wombo combo csm concept where the sun doesn't shine.