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.

 vipoid wrote:

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.

Reg same wayeneration: 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?

With the field idea, you'd roll it after a failed save. I mean technically we should all be rolling saves before wound rolls due to the nature of being injured, but we don't so using the current paradigm, you'd roll this after a failed save.

As AP affects it, the field degrades against high penetration in the same way your toughness is worse against high strength. But as it interacts with armour it becomes a reinforcement to it rather than just a separate save


With regard to regen, it's currently kind of a second save on individual wounds rather than hits (as in armour and invulnerable saves ignore a hit and all the wounds it causes, while those resilience rules are rolled against each wound individually?).

You could apply the same field rule here as well, but have it against individual wounds instead. Or you can just say that units are able to withstand more punishment and this just have more wounds, it doesn't make a huge mechanical difference.

Any roll a d6 and get a wound back rules are basically invulnerable saves written differently.

I'd make the fields come back at a set rate. Fewer rolls are good. There are too many damn rolls already.

 some bloke wrote:
Because it used to be that:
A: if you brought a lasgun to shoot a wraithlord, it didn't work.
B: if you brought a lasgun to shoot a landraider, it didn't work.

Big things were immune to small-arms - they didn't need to have umpteen wounds to chip off, and so didn't need invulnerable saves to make them more resistant to anti-tank weapons.

This change was intentional to prevent skew lists from dominating the way they did in earlier editions.

Firstly, nothing has less than a 6+ now (IIRC)

Demons that only get a 5++ save have an effective null armor save.

Yes, there actually is more of a difference between a bunker and a boy, but the armour save scale seems so small, and so clunky. It always used to be that 5+ or worse was useless, and 3+ or better was king. there will always be a poit where the save goes from useful to useless. having only 5 to choose from makes it so, so clunky. They could easily have added things like:
Long range - firing over 1/2 range gives +1 to saves
Point Blank - firing within 6" gives +1 to AP and ignores cover

The goal of 8th edition was to simplify the game, this is the opposite of that...

I likes AV and facings. The game had a better feel to it back then. I loved getting the rear shots on vehicles. But I doubt we're going back, as the goal is an easier resolution to the points which made people argue - scatter direction, vehicle facings, line of sight for a specific gun. All gone, and all nonsense. Even the model designers realise it - why else would repulsors have guns on the back?

Should I show you pictures of real tanks that have had rear-facing weapons?

It's not about nerfing or improving things, per se- it's the fact that a power field o na knight should not behave in the same way as a stormshield on a terminator.

Purely in terms of game mechanics why should this be the case?

Having to get through the fields to hurt the knight would be a much more interesting mechanic than "did a load of damage, but then he saved it with his invuln". "I did a load of damage, took some wounds off him, but then the shields flickered back to life" is a much more dramatic and fun system

The current system can already be interpreted as that being the case though. A made save is a shot that was caught by a void shield, a failed save went through a gap or dropped a shield so that a follow-up shot could score a hit.

If we wanted a change, start Knights off with a better invulnerable save, but have it drop off as they get bracketed. So a Knight may start with a 4++ at full health, then drop to a 5++ at the middle bracket, and then a 6++ when it's nearly dead. It's more elegant than having a second set of wound profiles and could fit within the current system with minimal changes being made.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Even a gamey unintended accident? feth that. Sorry, a gamey unintended accident that is the ONLY thing that stops shooting lists from easy tablings? Yeah, feth that. Watch GW get rid of tripointing in 9th but keep fall back.

It. Is. A. Game.

Everything about it is gamey and abstracted. If you don't like it find a new game.

I don't want it simplified. I want a lot more complexity that actually adds meaningful decisions. Instead of "stay within 6" for rerolls".

Martel732 wrote:
They're taking out the Kamikaze part by tripointing. If they can't do that for some reason, it's back to Kamikaze. Getting close in 8th is basically suicide in 8th without tripionting.

Invulns factor into a few BA woes, primarily in the form of Wulfen, Grotesques, and Bullgryns. These units stop BA assault cold, and BA players basically have no counter except stay away. This isn't the point of my critique about invulns, though.

Well, here's how I plan on mitigating this to an extent (the real problem with BA is that they are the best examples of glass canons in all of space marines however).

10x sanguinary guard with a sanguinary ancient (power fists/angelus) for hit rerolls and wound rerolls of 1)
The sanguinor ( extra attacks)
Brother Corbulo ( extra attacks for everything within 6 on 6's, can revive/heal twice per round and can reroll one of his dice)
Chaplain dread ( 1+ S to everything within six, can cast litanies for extra strength and attacks). It's a character and can't be targeted, gets a 5+ FNP, and a 6+ FNP. It's a real PITA to clear, far more survivable than the Librarian dreadnought and it's cheaper.

Pros: Very survivable
Cons: Slower.

More points sunk into survivable models, no points sunk into DC which are expensive for one-wound models and are just gambling. Sanguinary guard are the best units BA have by far.

Hellebore wrote:
With the field idea, you'd roll it after a failed save. I mean technically we should all be rolling saves before wound rolls due to the nature of being injured, but we don't so using the current paradigm, you'd roll this after a failed save.

As AP affects it, the field degrades against high penetration in the same way your toughness is worse against high strength. But as it interacts with armour it becomes a reinforcement to it rather than just a separate save

With regard to regen, it's currently kind of a second save on individual wounds rather than hits (as in armour and invulnerable saves ignore a hit and all the wounds it causes, while those resilience rules are rolled against each wound individually?).

You could apply the same field rule here as well, but have it against individual wounds instead. Or you can just say that units are able to withstand more punishment and this just have more wounds, it doesn't make a huge mechanical difference.

Any roll a d6 and get a wound back rules are basically invulnerable saves written differently.

How is this any better than what we have already?

Evidently nothing is better to you and the current game is perfect.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Hellebore wrote:
With the field idea, you'd roll it after a failed save. I mean technically we should all be rolling saves before wound rolls due to the nature of being injured, but we don't so using the current paradigm, you'd roll this after a failed save.

As AP affects it, the field degrades against high penetration in the same way your toughness is worse against high strength. But as it interacts with armour it becomes a reinforcement to it rather than just a separate save

With regard to regen, it's currently kind of a second save on individual wounds rather than hits (as in armour and invulnerable saves ignore a hit and all the wounds it causes, while those resilience rules are rolled against each wound individually?).

You could apply the same field rule here as well, but have it against individual wounds instead. Or you can just say that units are able to withstand more punishment and this just have more wounds, it doesn't make a huge mechanical difference.

Any roll a d6 and get a wound back rules are basically invulnerable saves written differently.

How is this any better than what we have already?

The original premise was that ap is less powerful because invulnerable saves ignore it. Within this premise then, any solutions should hinge on ap always having an effect. Ergo, fields are opposed by AP

Martel732 wrote:
Evidently nothing is better to you and the current game is perfect.

No, I've posted several questions asking for detailed responses as to why these large and difficult to implement changes are worth looking. Thus far nobody has answered them and so I'm left asking, is this the best you have?

----

It seems like a lot of people have ideas to 'fix' invulnerable saves even though none of you have proven why they need fixing. So how about we start there by answering a few key questions.

1) What fundamentally is the issue with invulnerable saves?
1a) Are these issues isolated to a few problem units or are they a systemic flaw?
1b) Are there other rules already in place that mitigate or otherwise deal with these problems?

2) What your suggestion is, how it fixes these flaws, and how you intend to balance the units that were changed to make them viable after these changes?
2a) A list of potential unintended consequences of these changes?

3) What effect these changes will have on game complexity and the pace of play?

4) A summary of why these changes are more effective than making changes within the rules as they currently exist?

Would you care to answer these challenges?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If we wanted a change, start Knights off with a better invulnerable save, but have it drop off as they get bracketed. So a Knight may start with a 4++ at full health, then drop to a 5++ at the middle bracket, and then a 6++ when it's nearly dead. It's more elegant than having a second set of wound profiles and could fit within the current system with minimal changes being made.

So void shields without stopping mortal wounds? It could work, but I'd start them at 5++, they have a stratagem if they want better.

I don't really think invulnerable saves are a problem. That's what death hex is for.

Edit:
No more giraffe?

IMO invulnerable saves aren't the issue, it's all the force multipliers. If there weren't invulnerable saves in the game as it stands now the army that went first would probably win every time because it would table too many of its opponent's models for them to be able to recover. That's already the case a lot of the time.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If we wanted a change, start Knights off with a better invulnerable save, but have it drop off as they get bracketed. So a Knight may start with a 4++ at full health, then drop to a 5++ at the middle bracket, and then a 6++ when it's nearly dead. It's more elegant than having a second set of wound profiles and could fit within the current system with minimal changes being made.

So void shields without stopping mortal wounds? It could work, but I'd start them at 5++, they have a stratagem if they want better.

I was trying to not nerf them unduly, so I'd start them at 4++ and make it so the stratagem put their shields back up a level.

No more giraffe?

People weren't answering the first 4 questions, I figured maybe the bonus question was scaring them off.

I see the point that having extra profiles for the shields could easily become overcomplex and too bookkeepingy.

I do think that the power field fro ma stormshield should be different from the void shields of a knight. And I loce the idea of overloading a knights shields, so would suggest perhaps:
1: the knights invuln starts at 2++, but degrades each time it is used. So if you fire 6 shots at it, then it saves the first with a 2++, second on a 3++, etc. It only degrades when it passes, so if you fail the 2++, you still have it. This resets at the start of the knights turn.
This would give them a decent initial survivability, but one which can actually be tactically dealt with instead of just a permanat 3++ "nuh-uh!" to all your powerful attacks.

This makes me think, perhaps invulns can be made the same, in a way.

So invulnerable saves have a "charge", and basically, if you fail a save, you can instead tank it with your invuln. Invulns recharge on your turn.

EG: A stormshield is an invulnerable save with 2 charges. A terminator is shot with a lascannon, and fails his save. The lascannon rolls a 3 for damage, which is reduced to 1 by the stormshield. Assuming he survives to his turn, the stormshield recharges, meaning he has lost 1 wound and has 2 charges left.

Alternative way to do it:

An invulnerable save has a charge of 3. a terminator is hit by a lascannon and fails his save. He elects to use his stormshield. The lascannon rolls 4 damage, which is reduced by 3. The stormshield cannot be used until his next turn.
Another terminator is shot by another lascannon. He fails his save, and also uses his stormshield. The lascannon rolls a 1, the damage is reduced by 3, and the stormshield cannot be used again until his next turn. in this case, it is regarded as "wasted".


This would have to be a different thing entirely, as it would not work for Daemons and other armies who rely entirely on invulns, but for armies who use invulns as backup, this mechanic could be a viable alternative to separate the 2 "types" of invuln.

You could have a "Charge" and "Strength" of invuln. So a stormshield would have 1 charge and strength 3, meaning once per turn it reduces incoming damage by 3, declared before damage rolls. Daemons would have Charge 2 and strength 1, meaning that they would need to be targeted by damage 2 weapons to start hurting them. Basic weapons need to kill 3 charges per Daemon to bring one down.

These would have to be done akin to wounds, so once one starts to get hurt, all wounds are allocated to him.

What do you think? I'm actually quite pleased with the idea, for one I was making up as I went along!

 some bloke wrote:
I see the point that having extra profiles for the shields could easily become overcomplex and too bookkeepingy.

I do think that the power field fro ma stormshield should be different from the void shields of a knight. And I loce the idea of overloading a knights shields, so would suggest perhaps:
1: the knights invuln starts at 2++, but degrades each time it is used. So if you fire 6 shots at it, then it saves the first with a 2++, second on a 3++, etc. It only degrades when it passes, so if you fail the 2++, you still have it. This resets at the start of the knights turn.
This would give them a decent initial survivability, but one which can actually be tactically dealt with instead of just a permanat 3++ "nuh-uh!" to all your powerful attacks.

So shoot lasguns at Knights, termies, or what have you and then nail them with the good stuff. This is not a fix, it's a huge nerf that creates even worse gamey situations.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
I see the point that having extra profiles for the shields could easily become overcomplex and too bookkeepingy.

I do think that the power field fro ma stormshield should be different from the void shields of a knight. And I loce the idea of overloading a knights shields, so would suggest perhaps:
1: the knights invuln starts at 2++, but degrades each time it is used. So if you fire 6 shots at it, then it saves the first with a 2++, second on a 3++, etc. It only degrades when it passes, so if you fail the 2++, you still have it. This resets at the start of the knights turn.
This would give them a decent initial survivability, but one which can actually be tactically dealt with instead of just a permanat 3++ "nuh-uh!" to all your powerful attacks.

So shoot lasguns at Knights, termies, or what have you and then nail them with the good stuff. This is not a fix, it's a huge nerf that creates even worse gamey situations.

Ok, so you can chip the 2++ off the knight. Then it's a 3++, and it has a 3+ save, so vs lasguns, it doesn't use the invuln, so doesn't degrade it.

You would have to use AP-1 to chip the 3++ down, AP-2 to chip the 4++ down, and so on, and even then it's not a guarantee as it has to pass to lose it. So you might fire an AP-2 weapon at the knight to line up your big gun, and it fail, take 1-2 damage, then the big gun fires and the shield holds. Still got decent defence, but not some weird barrier which shrugs off everything 2/3 f the time, all the time.

What do you think to my ideas of completely changing it from being a save at all?

 some bloke wrote:
Ok, so you can chip the 2++ off the knight. Then it's a 3++, and it has a 3+ save, so vs lasguns, it doesn't use the invuln, so doesn't degrade it.

You would have to use AP-1 to chip the 3++ down, AP-2 to chip the 4++ down, and so on, and even then it's not a guarantee as it has to pass to lose it. So you might fire an AP-2 weapon at the knight to line up your big gun, and it fail, take 1-2 damage, then the big gun fires and the shield holds. Still got decent defence, but not some weird barrier which shrugs off everything 2/3 f the time, all the time.

What do you think to my ideas of completely changing it from being a save at all?

That's a lot of pointless bookkeeping to do something that could just be done by tying the invulnerable save to the number of wounds multi-wound models have left. For anything else, they likely have too few wounds for such differentiation to make a meaningful change.

Also, void shields are literally some weird barrier which can shrug off anything so long as it's online and covering the right space, so I'm not sure your change even works within the fluff...

This thread has probably gone on long enough. Anyway, the main greivance people have is expensive, low-shot weaponry getting shrugged by what is comparatively chaff due to cheap invulnerable saves. And I do agree, that sucks.

However, rather than completely re-tool the game, it's much smarter to simply adjust the weapons themselves by granting them special priveleges to counter this problem. We already have this in many instances, such as with the Grav Flux Bombard used by the leviathan dreadnought. Probably not a great example given that nobody uses them because dual storm cannon arrays are better in every situation, but the point remains, it can be done.

Give The weapons in question a rule against x targets that make them viable rather than just taking a machete to invulnerable saves.

Roberts84 wrote:
This thread has probably gone on long enough. Anyway, the main greivance people have is expensive, low-shot weaponry getting shrugged by what is comparatively chaff due to cheap invulnerable saves. And I do agree, that sucks.

However, rather than completely re-tool the game, it's much smarter to simply adjust the weapons themselves by granting them special priveleges to counter this problem. We already have this in many instances, such as with the Grav Flux Bombard used by the leviathan dreadnought. Probably not a great example given that nobody uses them because dual storm cannon arrays are better in every situation, but the point remains, it can be done.

Give The weapons in question a rule against x targets that make them viable rather than just taking a machete to invulnerable saves.

No, the issue is BIG targets with invulns.

A Melta might be crap against Bloodletters (for its cost), but Bolters do just fine.

 some bloke wrote:
I see the point that having extra profiles for the shields could easily become overcomplex and too bookkeepingy.

To be honest, I think this would actually be a good thing.

Knights are a unit that could do with being more complex to use and fight.

As it is, they've been abstracted to the point where they're just featureless bricks.

A few random thoughts:

* I haven't seen a good argument presented for why the current invulnerable save mechanic needs to be "fixed." Saying that too many things have invulnerable saves doesn't necessarily mean that the mechanic needs to be changed. If you feel a raider or forgefiend are too durable due to their 5+ invuls, present reasons why, and come up with a solution to fix them specifically. My wyches and harlies would probably rather have their 4+ invuls than a -1 to hit modifier.

* The early posts seemed to mostly have terminators in mind. If the main goal is to help out terminators, well, we haven't had a thread about that in five minutes.

* If you wanted a mechanic to reduce a knight's invuln as it takes damage, I'd suggest having the invul only degrade at the end of a given phase. that way you don't have to do your d3 damage attacks one at a time just in case the first one rolls a 3 and lowers the knight's save. Plus, this would create a mechanic vaguely similar to Ghazkull's that allows you to make progress in killing a big thing during a given turn but increases the likelihood that it will be around for more than a single turn.

* @Vipoid: While I very much DO NOT want armor facings to come back for normal vehicles, I agree that knights (if they *must* be a thing in normal 40k) could stand to be slightly more complicated. I could see giving them a 6" line with its center touching the knight's base (represented by a token probably) that indicates the direction the knight's shield is facing. If your entire shooting unit can draw a line from their bases without passing over that line, they can ignore your invul (or treat is as 1 lower than normal)?

Roberts84 wrote:
This thread has probably gone on long enough. Anyway, the main greivance people have is expensive, low-shot weaponry getting shrugged by what is comparatively chaff due to cheap invulnerable saves. And I do agree, that sucks.

However, rather than completely re-tool the game, it's much smarter to simply adjust the weapons themselves by granting them special priveleges to counter this problem. We already have this in many instances, such as with the Grav Flux Bombard used by the leviathan dreadnought. Probably not a great example given that nobody uses them because dual storm cannon arrays are better in every situation, but the point remains, it can be done.

Give The weapons in question a rule against x targets that make them viable rather than just taking a machete to invulnerable saves.

Piling more special rules onto weapons to counter other special rules is not the way to go. I think there are two problem areas with invulnerables: big targets that are already very tough with an invulnerable layered on top and, to a much lesser extent, 3+ or better invulnerables that are spammable on infantry models. I think the latter is more of an issue of how frustrating it feels to play against rather than balance. The former problem is better solved by removing invulnerables from the offending units, IMO. You could make them degrade as well, which is a good middle ground because it ties into an existing mechanic.

The problem with any of these solutions is they are consequences of the ridiculous lethality in 40k right now and to truly fix them I think you'd need a substantial change in philosophy for the game. The biggest problem, IMO, is that GW were too lazy at the start of 8th and didn't take the opportunity to more radically change the stats on weapons and units. If we had anti-tank weapons with Strengths in the 14-18 range we'd be much better able to differentiate between anti-tank and anti-personnel weapons.

Wyldhunt wrote:

* I haven't seen a good argument presented for why the current invulnerable save mechanic needs to be "fixed." Saying that too many things have invulnerable saves doesn't necessarily mean that the mechanic needs to be changed. If you feel a raider or forgefiend are too durable due to their 5+ invuls, present reasons why, and come up with a solution to fix them specifically. My wyches and harlies would probably rather have their 4+ invuls than a -1 to hit modifier.

Personally, I don't think the core mechanic needs to be changed - I just think it needs to be scaled back. I'm not convinced that 3++ saves should even exist at all, let alone at the current levels. Ignoring all effects of an attack 2/3 of the time, regardless of the AP of the attack, just seems like poor design to me.

Wyldhunt wrote:
My wyches and harlies would probably rather have their 4+ invuls than a -1 to hit modifier.

That's fair.

From a flavour perspective, I did like Martel's idea of different save types (Dodge, Force Field etc.). However, I think that would be better suited to a much smaller scale game, with more focus on individual models. I think it would require too much rewriting otherwise - especially since since AP is a core part of all weapons (so having so many saves that ignore it outright would be rather odd).

Out of interest, though, would you prefer a -1 to hit to the 6++ that Wyches currently get outside of combat?

Wyldhunt wrote:

* If you wanted a mechanic to reduce a knight's invuln as it takes damage, I'd suggest having the invul only degrade at the end of a given phase. that way you don't have to do your d3 damage attacks one at a time just in case the first one rolls a 3 and lowers the knight's save.

I'll confess to being a bit iffy about that. Because it also means that if you're 1 or 2 wounds shy of lowering a Knight's shield, it's then guaranteed another entire turn with its shield at full strength. Not sure that would be a good thing.

Wyldhunt wrote:

* @Vipoid: While I very much DO NOT want armor facings to come back for normal vehicles, I agree that knights (if they *must* be a thing in normal 40k) could stand to be slightly more complicated. I could see giving them a 6" line with its center touching the knight's base (represented by a token probably) that indicates the direction the knight's shield is facing. If your entire shooting unit can draw a line from their bases without passing over that line, they can ignore your invul (or treat is as 1 lower than normal)?

As I said earlier, I actually much prefer the idea of Knight shields working like a T7 model that you have to reduce to 0 wounds before you can start putting wounds on the Knight (rather than an Invulnerable save). Perhaps Knights could forgo firing one or more of their heavier weapons to recharge their shields?

"I haven't seen a good argument presented for why the current invulnerable save mechanic needs to be "fixed." Saying that too many things have invulnerable saves doesn't necessarily mean that the mechanic needs to be changed. "

They make weapons too hard to cost and create false choices. In my view.

Martel732 wrote:
"I haven't seen a good argument presented for why the current invulnerable save mechanic needs to be "fixed." Saying that too many things have invulnerable saves doesn't necessarily mean that the mechanic needs to be changed. "

They make weapons too hard to cost and create false choices. In my view.

Any game that has math involved will have 'false-choices' and even with these issues the only example you ever seem to give is melta weapons, which could be fixed with a unique special rule. Is it not preferable to buff a couple of weak options and nerf some strong ones rather than overhaul the entire system?

Melta was an example. I'm referring to any low rate of fire weapon that depends on AP. I don't use lascannons, either for the same reason.

I'd prefer the game was completely rewritten. So of course I'm going for solutions that upend the status quo. The current system is too swallow, and the issues of invulns highlights this.

"Any game that has math involved will have 'false-choices"

I disagree with this. At a minimum, it can be minimized. GW doesn't even try.

Martel732 wrote:
Melta was an example. I'm referring to any low rate of fire weapon that depends on AP. I don't use lascannons, either for the same reason.

You're objectively wrong to not use lascannons and meltas.

Here's a GT winning list that uses meltas which you call unusable:



How did he win handicapping himself so terribly?



*Gasp* and this one uses the even more sucky-ish lascannon! It must suck more because it lost to a list that took melta weapons!

That was a few minutes of looking for games played post FAQ. Do you need more examples?

Yes please.

Martel732 wrote:
Yes please.

How about you reply to the ones I've given first, there are even full battle reports about the games they were involved in. You might even learn how to win a game!

Seems like a waste of time with you.

Martel732 wrote:
Seems like a waste of time with you.

So you refuse to look at tournament winning lists the use melta weapons, which you say aren't competitive, because you don't like the person posting them? You won't detail your proposed rules changes because you aren't getting paid? You don't use your army right because you feel wrap and trap is gamey?

Mind if I ask what you do actually do with your hobby time?