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.

Hellebore wrote:
There are I think 5 types of effect that are often represented by an invulnerable save:

Super reflexes
Energy fields
Regenerative ability
Warp energy
reinforced armour (terminators)

Of those only really energy fields and warp energy (ala daemons) really seem to warrant invulnerable saves.

Super reflexes should be a negative to hit, or a max chance to hit (ie they can never be hit on better than a 5+)

Regenerative power could just be regaining wounds in the next round

reinforced armour could be ignoring X AP



Part of the issue is that a) GW keeps creating lots of units or armies that have 'hard to hurt for various reasons' in their background and b) invulnerable saves are a simple catchall to cover a lot of them.

IMO the bigger problem is a). If they didn't keep doing it then it wouldn't seem like a problem.

I think it's a easier summary than even this:

1: You didn't hit them at all
2: something (warp energy, energy field etc) stopped the hit.


For "you didn't hit at all" - harlequins, the hologram thing mentioned earlier, assassins - it would make more sense for them to gain a "dodge" special rule.

Dodge(X+):
When a unit with the "dodge" special rule is hit by an attack, they may make their dodge saves immediately to cancel the hit. These saves are not affected by the AP of the weapon fired. For each save that is passed, one of the hits is discarded. EG Dodge (4+) means the unit cancels a hit on a saving throw of 4+. Other modifiers to saving throws (such as psychic powers, cover) apply as normal.

So you roll to hit them, then they roll to dodge, ignoring your weapons strength & AP (but, obviously, concerned by its rate of fire), and any failed attempts will hit them.

This adds a little bit of time, but not much different to the feel no pain rolls we have now, and suits the dodging aspect of the units. They also get to make a normal save afterward, if applicable.

"I rolled 10 hits"
"I dodged 4, so only 6 hits"
"I rolled 3 wounds"
"I saved 1, so 2 wounds"


This then leaves us free to modify "I have a magic shield/warp energy/lucky paint/force field" type invulns without it seeming wrong on units like harlequins and such.

"r AP probably shouldn't help you kill a daemonette, for instance."

I think AP should affect demons in some way. Very tired of "the warp did it" as a plot device.

Hellebore wrote:
I think it's a easier summary than even this:

1: You didn't hit them at all
2: something (warp energy, energy field etc) stopped the hit.


For "you didn't hit at all" - harlequins, the hologram thing mentioned earlier, assassins - it would make more sense for them to gain a "dodge" special rule.

Dodge(X+):
When a unit with the "dodge" special rule is hit by an attack, they may make their dodge saves immediately to cancel the hit. These saves are not affected by the AP of the weapon fired. For each save that is passed, one of the hits is discarded. EG Dodge (4+) means the unit cancels a hit on a saving throw of 4+. Other modifiers to saving throws (such as psychic powers, cover) apply as normal.

So you roll to hit them, then they roll to dodge, ignoring your weapons strength & AP (but, obviously, concerned by its rate of fire), and any failed attempts will hit them.

This adds a little bit of time, but not much different to the feel no pain rolls we have now, and suits the dodging aspect of the units. They also get to make a normal save afterward, if applicable.

"I rolled 10 hits"
"I dodged 4, so only 6 hits"
"I rolled 3 wounds"
"I saved 1, so 2 wounds"


This then leaves us free to modify "I have a magic shield/warp energy/lucky paint/force field" type invulns without it seeming wrong on units like harlequins and such.

That makes dodge a strictly better invulnerable save that's also somewhat slower to roll. This not only doesn't solve the issue that people against invulnerable saves have, that AP should matter, but it also slows the game down.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Hellebore wrote:
I think it's a easier summary than even this:

1: You didn't hit them at all
2: something (warp energy, energy field etc) stopped the hit.


For "you didn't hit at all" - harlequins, the hologram thing mentioned earlier, assassins - it would make more sense for them to gain a "dodge" special rule.

Dodge(X+):
When a unit with the "dodge" special rule is hit by an attack, they may make their dodge saves immediately to cancel the hit. These saves are not affected by the AP of the weapon fired. For each save that is passed, one of the hits is discarded. EG Dodge (4+) means the unit cancels a hit on a saving throw of 4+. Other modifiers to saving throws (such as psychic powers, cover) apply as normal.

So you roll to hit them, then they roll to dodge, ignoring your weapons strength & AP (but, obviously, concerned by its rate of fire), and any failed attempts will hit them.

This adds a little bit of time, but not much different to the feel no pain rolls we have now, and suits the dodging aspect of the units. They also get to make a normal save afterward, if applicable.

"I rolled 10 hits"
"I dodged 4, so only 6 hits"
"I rolled 3 wounds"
"I saved 1, so 2 wounds"


This then leaves us free to modify "I have a magic shield/warp energy/lucky paint/force field" type invulns without it seeming wrong on units like harlequins and such.

That makes dodge a strictly better invulnerable save that's also somewhat slower to roll. This not only doesn't solve the issue that people against invulnerable saves have, that AP should matter, but it also slows the game down.

I think the issue evolved somewhat, though I could be wrong:

1: started with players wanting AP to matter for invulns
2: Players asked "what about daemons" and "what about dodging"

It doesn't make sense for a high-AP weapon to be more difficult to dodge than a low-AP weapon. I suppose, in this case, the classic invulnerable save makes sense (actually, a direct "to hit" modifier would make the most sense, though).

I wonder if, perhaps, in order to speed the game up as well, you could transfer the 2 types of invuln ("you didn't hit" and "something stopped it") into modifiers to "to hit" and "to wound" rolls.

EG a 5++ "you didn't hit" would instead be -1 to hit.
a 3++ "something stopped it" would be -3 to wound

Granted this means that a knight wouldn't care about S4 or worse weapons with his invuln, but having a 4++ turn to "-2 to wound" would mean meltas (previously a 4+) would become a 6+. Then titan-killing weapons (S16 or so) will come into their own as being needed to regularly kill the bigger monsters.

"you didn't hit":
6++ = 6+++ fnp
5++ = -1 to hit
4++ = -2 to hit
3++ = -3 to hit
4++ = -4 to hit

(I reason that these saves tend to be much lower, I can't think of anything with a 3++ dodging save!)

"Something Stopped it"

6++ = -1 to wound
5++ = -2 to wound
4++ = -3 to wound
3++ = -4 to wound
2++ = -5 to wound

(this one can be more liberal due to 6's always wounding).

This reduces the number of dice needed, and keeps AP relevant, and makes strength the force which punches past an invulnerable save.

It's not quite the same as just increasing their toughness:

S4 Vs T4 = 4+ to wound
S10 vs T4 = 2+ to wound
S4 vs T5 = 5+ to wound
S10 vs T5 = 2+ to wound

S4 vs T4 with -1 to wound = 5+ to wound
S10 vs T4 with -1 to wound = 3+ to wound
S1000 vs T4 with -1 to wound = 3+ to wound

Slightly different, it's always relevant (As you never wound on less than a 2+, so -1 to wound will never be wounded on a 2+

Makari will only ever be wounded on a 6+

TH/SS termies would only ever be wounded on 5+, yikes... but AP will finish them off if you do wound them.

I actually really like this idea, now I've written it!

6s don't always wound.

 JNAProductions wrote:
6s don't always wound.

True, but I assume if this system was implemented they would make a rule saying natural 6's always hit and natural 6's always wound.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
6s don't always wound.

True, but I assume if this system was implemented they would make a rule saying natural 6's always hit and natural 6's always wound.

Fair-but that then devalues STRENGTH.

If a 4++ inflicts a -3 to-wound, then a T8 Knight is wounded on 6s by anything S15 or less. And S16 only pushes that to 5s!

Oh I agree the system doesn't really work all that well, but that's because it has to account from Grots to Knights. If Flyers and LoW were removed from the game it would be a lot easier to balance with such a system.

The limitation of a D6 system is also an issue. My idea for my own system was to use D12s, and replace invulnerable saves with an Ignore AP characteristic.

The other alternative is to make low ROF high AP weapons cheaper, of course. Because they aren't valuable the way GW has implemented 8th.

Why not remove armor saves and AP altogether? Makes invulns special.

I'd rather remove invulns.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
6s don't always wound.

True, but I assume if this system was implemented they would make a rule saying natural 6's always hit and natural 6's always wound.

Fair-but that then devalues STRENGTH.

If a 4++ inflicts a -3 to-wound, then a T8 Knight is wounded on 6s by anything S15 or less. And S16 only pushes that to 5s!

It also devalues TOUGHNESS. Why am I paying for T9 on my fellblade when it's easier to wound than said T8 knight against EVERYTHING?
It also means an impulsor with a shield dome is wounded by 6s by anything less than S14.

This would be worse than the current invulnerable system.

That's a system similar to the old legions of steel game.

Maybe a compromise:

Absorb invuln: some weapons can overload and partially negate

Dodge invuln: blast weapon can partially negate.

Martel732 wrote:
That's a system similar to the old legions of steel game.

Maybe a compromise:

Absorb invuln: some weapons can overload and partially negate

Dodge invuln: blast weapon can partially negate.

Ok, how would the first work? Overload based on strength, ap, or number of shots?

As for the second, we don't have blast template weapons anymore, unfortunately. Number of shots? That's already how you beat invuls.

Overload based off AP, since that's what is completely negates atm. Or perhaps a keyword <penetrating>.

Weapons would be given the trait <blast> to interact with the invuln. A blats is different many individual shots, whether GW thinks so or not.

So give certain weapons "penetrating (X)" with X representing the invulnerable save it can defeat? So penetrating 4 would defeat any 4++ or weaker invul?

Could work. A way to bring back armourbane. I miss that rule.

Something like that.

It should probably be limited to anti tank weapons. Anything with the rule would probably need a bump in points as well.

I don't think so. Invulns are undercosted. Melta would be perfectly fine with this rule.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think so. Invulns are undercosted. Melta would be perfectly fine with this rule.

Maybe. It would have to be a case to case basis. And if the weapon's penetration value defeats the target's invul then it still gets its standard armour save against the weapon's ap.

Blastaar wrote:
Why not remove armor saves and AP altogether? Makes invulns special.

40K does currently have a lot of redundancy in its damage model. Armor save/AP is pretty self-explanatory, but the distinction between S-vs-T and D-vs-W seems arbitrary. I think it made a lot more sense when most things only had one wound, the number of wounds on any one model was pretty low, and Instant Death provided a mechanism for high-S weapons to remove multiple wounds at once.

It'd be a lot of work, but you could probably roll armor into Toughness and roll AP into Strength, leaving Wounds and Damage alone. Then it would be Toughness that defines how hard it is to inflict damage on something (with Strength being how likely a weapon is to inflict damage), with Wounds reflecting how much damage that thing can actually take (and Damage being how much damage the weapon actually does). At that point, yeah, stuff that gives you a flat chance to ignore damage (invulns would essentially be another flavor of FNP) would definitely feel special again.

Ok so now my weapons have the same chance of wounding a Grot as it does an Imperial Knight? Seems fair. /s

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ok so now my weapons have the same chance of wounding a Grot as it does an Imperial Knight? Seems fair. /s

No.
Not at all.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ok so now my weapons have the same chance of wounding a Grot as it does an Imperial Knight? Seems fair. /s

No.
Not at all.

He is suggesting removing the concept of Toughness. Having better armour and being tougher are not synonymous. Something can be extremely tough but be poorly armoured, and something can be extremely heavily armoured but not be tough. His proposal would make heavy armour low toughness the same as light armour high toughness.

It works in other games because, in general, most things are roughly the same scale and mostly infantry/powered armour/mechanised armour scale.. 40k has ballooned into including things like Baneblades, Knights and Flyers, and always included APCs, IFVs and MLBTs, so removing the concept of Toughness simply isn't viable.

Most larger scale games do away with this number of layers.

The EPIC armageddon system had a fixed roll to hit for each weapon based on how it affected infantry or vehicles.

You then made saves against that. It had 'ignore save' weapons in the form of macro weapons as well and It still had invulnerable saves and wounds, although they were restricted to larger vehicles or monsters.


BFG was even simpler, with a you needing to equal or exceed the target's armour score in order to hit them. But it dealt with almost every unit having multiple wounds and damage tracking.


IMO I think it's fine to have invulnerable saves working the way they do as long as they aren't over used, which they currently are.

 catbarf wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Why not remove armor saves and AP altogether? Makes invulns special.

40K does currently have a lot of redundancy in its damage model. Armor save/AP is pretty self-explanatory, but the distinction between S-vs-T and D-vs-W seems arbitrary. I think it made a lot more sense when most things only had one wound, the number of wounds on any one model was pretty low, and Instant Death provided a mechanism for high-S weapons to remove multiple wounds at once.

It'd be a lot of work, but you could probably roll armor into Toughness and roll AP into Strength, leaving Wounds and Damage alone. Then it would be Toughness that defines how hard it is to inflict damage on something (with Strength being how likely a weapon is to inflict damage), with Wounds reflecting how much damage that thing can actually take (and Damage being how much damage the weapon actually does). At that point, yeah, stuff that gives you a flat chance to ignore damage (invulns would essentially be another flavor of FNP) would definitely feel special again.

I'd be fine with FnP and invulns stacking (assuming invuln saves become much more rare) or just running with FnP only.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ok so now my weapons have the same chance of wounding a Grot as it does an Imperial Knight? Seems fair. /s

No.
Not at all.

He is suggesting removing the concept of Toughness. Having better armour and being tougher are not synonymous. Something can be extremely tough but be poorly armoured, and something can be extremely heavily armoured but not be tough. His proposal would make heavy armour low toughness the same as light armour high toughness.

It works in other games because, in general, most things are roughly the same scale and mostly infantry/powered armour/mechanised armour scale.. 40k has ballooned into including things like Baneblades, Knights and Flyers, and always included APCs, IFVs and MLBTs, so removing the concept of Toughness simply isn't viable.

The distinction between toughness and armor is pointless. How difficult something is to wound is really all that matters. Saves are an extra step in the resolution process that only exists because of IGOGUO, and giving players something "to do" during their opponent's turns. I have also been consistent in saying that superheavies/flyers/gargantuans/primarchs should be apocalypse-only units.

I think S and toughness need to scale differently. Some units SHOULD be unable to wound (or hit) others with S or Evasion far above their Bs, WS or weapon strength, so long as armies can still deal with them through strategy, teamwork, and appropriate units.

Blastaar wrote:

I think S and toughness need to scale differently. Some units SHOULD be unable to wound (or hit) others with S or Evasion far above their Bs, WS or weapon strength, so long as armies can still deal with them through strategy, teamwork, and appropriate units.

Eh. That sounds nice in theory, but the execution can be problematic. My opponent shows up with a vanilla IG list. He's got some anti-tank, some anti-infantry, a fair number of infantry, some tanks. Just a well-rounded list. Then I show up with an all knights list that can kill pretty much all of his anti-tank in a single turn and ignore the rest of his offense for the remainder of the game. I'm literally immune to his lasguns, and a lot of his other low-mid strength weapons are presumably only wounding me on a 6+. He can't do enough damage to actually fight me. He can only maybe throw bodies on objectives and hope that I roll poorly enough for him to win on objectives.

But I'd argue that isn't the game of 40k he signed up for; that's me punching him in the face for 6 game rounds and saying, "Congrats! You win!" if he's still conscious afterwards.


You can take "appropriate units" by leaning heavily into anti tank when building your list just in case you end up facing my knights. At which point you and everyone else taking the same approach end up ignoring huge chunks of their codex, and lists generally begin to look very samey. List diversity plummets.

"Strategy" and "teamwork," sound cool, and I'm all for hearing what those would look like mechanically. But currently? Playing smart against an enemy you're not allowed to hurt probably just looks like hiding behind terrain all game and then hoping your opponent rolls badly when you try to take objectives.

But again, I'm genuinely open to ideas on how what you're proposing would work. I like a lot of what you're saying. There's probably a way to get rid of the Save and AP stats and boost Toughness or Wounds by an appropriate amount to compensate. Especially if the end result isn't to end up with basically identical math to what we have now but instead to convey the fluff of untis in a game with a different level of lethality than what we have now.

Didn’t the previous poster say that they wouldn’t have super heavies/ lords of war etc in the game but only in larger scale ones like apocalypse? So facing an all knights wouldn’t be a thing in that case.

Also another way to fix that sort of miss match is with properly written missions. If you can score even without destroying your opponent then winning is possible.

Also tactics like tieing up knights in combat etc to prevent them shooting and not always letting them walk straight out of combat could also be explored to allow these sort of match ups to still work.

There are a number of ways to make the game viable without letting every model/weapon be able to damage everything else.

That doesn't matter. Wounding on 6s is not much better than not wounding at all. What's stupid is that assault bolters suffer less vs IKs than meltaguns.

Martel732 wrote:
That doesn't matter. Wounding on 6s is not much better than not wounding at all. What's stupid is that assault bolters suffer less vs IKs than meltaguns.

Fancy that a vehicle's active defenses work best against anti-vehicle weapons... You must be equally upset that the real-life Iron Dome system doesn't shoot down handgun bullets but does shoot down rockets and mortar shells.