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.

While this may look an awful lot like an invulnerable save, it’s not – daemons are far stranger! Even a railgun can’t just ignore Daemonic Invulnerability.

So we have invulnerable saves, weapons that ignore invulnerable saves and now we have invulnerable saves that ignore weapons that ignore invulnerable saves.

So the rumors check out 100% accurate so far. The rest is probably accurate as well given CSM. This is going to be really interesting.

I don't see the issue. I think this is a decent mechanic for Daemons.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

While this may look an awful lot like an invulnerable save, it’s not – daemons are far stranger! Even a railgun can’t just ignore Daemonic Invulnerability.

So we have invulnerable saves, weapons that ignore invulnerable saves and now we have invulnerable saves that ignore weapons that ignore invulnerable saves.

back to the good old days of 7th Edition

so I guess in 10th we will see the level system coming back?
Unit A has save level 1 that is ignored by weapons with ignore saves level 2 and and unit B gets save level 2 that is ignored with level 3 weapons

 Sersi wrote:
So the rumors check out 100% accurate so far. The rest is probably accurate as well given CSM. This is going to be really interesting.

What's really been interesting is the lack of a mention of OK_E's comment that Khorne Daemon armies can prevent fallbacks.

 blood reaper wrote:
...3++++...

Thanks, I hate it !

Voss wrote:

anti-anti-invulnerable save! We have achieved full special rules escalation!
I look forward to Grey Knights, Eldar, and possibly Necrons and a Space Marine relic or psychic power getting their individually 'bespoke' counters to anti-anti-invulnerable

This already exists and is called mortal wounds. GW should have saved themselves a major headache and just made a new save called Daemonic save that acts like an armor save immune to armor pen instead of having the silliness of having an invulnerability save that is not an invulnerable save (or avoided invulnerability ignoring weapons in the first place ), but GW rarely chooses the smarter choice...

 ikeulhu wrote:

Voss wrote:

anti-anti-invulnerable save! We have achieved full special rules escalation!
I look forward to Grey Knights, Eldar, and possibly Necrons and a Space Marine relic or psychic power getting their individually 'bespoke' counters to anti-anti-invulnerable

This already exists and is called mortal wounds. GW should have saved themselves a major headache and just made a new save called Daemonic save that acts like an armor save immune to armor pen instead of having the silliness of having an invulnerability save that is not an invulnerable save (or avoided invulnerability ignoring weapons in the first place ), but GW rarely chooses the smarter choice...

Don't FNP saves stop mortal wounds?

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

Don't FNP saves stop mortal wounds?

They potentially can, but many daemons do not have FNP. Also, FNP are not invulnerable saves which was what was actually being discussed.

 oni wrote:
I don't see the issue. I think this is a decent mechanic for Daemons.

Agreed, I assume that the new lower LD is to represent Daemonic Instability?

It feels like it would be very fluffy and lore appropriate that Night Lords are strong into Daemons who are scared of all their skulls and flayed skin.

I think it works in the context of daemons, who are very much a different sort of being than those from every other faction. It is two numbers on their stat line that are easy to know and keep track of. As long as there aren't a ton of factors modifying it (to be seen) I don't think it's bloated.

Though I do agree it is a symptom of how mismanaged invulnerable saves have been, and saves in general, that such a rule was even needed. IMO invulnerable saves should be exceedingly rare and usually supernatural, but cannot be ignored or modified by anything except mortal wounds, period. Meanwhile armor can simply come with a resilience score which counteracts AP. Many units that currently have invulnerable saves could be moved to having higher resilience. Not perfect and could use some extra nuance but it seems to me like such a system would better represent what GW is trying to do.

EightFoldPath wrote:
It feels like it would be very fluffy and lore appropriate that Night Lords are strong into Daemons who are scared of all their skulls and flayed skin.

It wouldn't suprize me if there is a rule that makes Chaos Daemon LD is unmodifiable.

Maybe Daemons will go back to 7th where by they only care about casualties inflicted in melee for morale? That would make sense for ld6.

I remember how everyone was a big fan of easily obtained 3++ in 6th and 7th, so this was a good call on GWs game designers.

 Sersi wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
It feels like it would be very fluffy and lore appropriate that Night Lords are strong into Daemons who are scared of all their skulls and flayed skin.

It wouldn't suprize me if there is a rule that makes Chaos Daemon LD is unmodifiable.

Ah. Yes. We definitely need to go back to armies that aren't affected by leadership tests. That's never been bad.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I remember how everyone was a big fan of easily obtained 3++ in 6th and 7th, so this was a good call on GWs game designers.

Its only tzeentch. There's never been any broken tzeentch based save shenanigans, right?

You both have me worried about past mistakes coming round again.

While they have shown marked improvement on several fronts in the last few years GW repeating old mistakes remains an inevitability.

Not that they don't share that trait with most other corporations, societies, and people, mind.

JakeSiren wrote:
Maybe Daemons will go back to 7th where by they only care about casualties inflicted in melee for morale? That would make sense for ld6.

That's certainly a good observation, and certainly fits as GW seems to retreading the same beats as before.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I remember how everyone was a big fan of easily obtained 3++ in 6th and 7th, so this was a good call on GWs game designers.

True, but in this case it is 3++ vs shooting and 6++ versus melee. Having a built-in way around the 3++ might be enough to make it reasonable.

 alextroy wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I remember how everyone was a big fan of easily obtained 3++ in 6th and 7th, so this was a good call on GWs game designers.

True, but in this case it is 3++ vs shooting and 6++ versus melee. Having a built-in way around the 3++ might be enough to make it reasonable.

I just hope Tzeentch has ways to sneak out of melee, or has enough shooting to avoid it in the first place; GW appears to be doubling down on Tzeentch and melee not mixing well. I mean, not only does Tzeentch generally suck at melee, but now they're effectively going to be punished for getting charged.

That might not be a universal Tzeentch Save. Horrors are not built for combat, but the same can’t be said for all Tzeentch units.

This makes me wonder if if Gk will get an FAQ giving various weapons changes to allow them to hit daemons better. It'd be a bit strange if the dedicated Daemon killers are barely more effective than anyone else.

Please, please can we write super invulnerable saves as 3# 😄

 Souleater wrote:
Please, please can we write super invulnerable saves as 3# 😄

This is probably a joke, but I actually really like it. It counts as 3++++, just stacked up. Tbh, I am just gonna start doing it myself.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Meanwhile armor can simply come with a resilience score which counteracts AP.

Aren't armor saves already this?

Domandi wrote:

 Souleater wrote:
Please, please can we write super invulnerable saves as 3# 😄

This is probably a joke, but I actually really like it. It counts as 3++++, just stacked up. Tbh, I am just gonna start doing it myself.

Oh, I'm quite serious about it. As you say, it's the pluses all stacked up on each other!

Ideally I'd campaign for:

Armour save 3+
INV Save 3++
FNP 3*
Unodifiable Armour Save 3#

If the global resest isn't true, we're gonna run out of symbols to use in 10th.

 alextroy wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I remember how everyone was a big fan of easily obtained 3++ in 6th and 7th, so this was a good call on GWs game designers.

True, but in this case it is 3++ vs shooting and 6++ versus melee. Having a built-in way around the 3++ might be enough to make it reasonable.

It's not reasonable, period.

3# is nice and compact, but what is the reasoning behind the pound sign? Is it just an arbitrary symbol you've chosen?

I'd call it a daemon save. So we'd have:
3+
3++
3+++
3+/6+ DM

If they start using the rule for non-daemon units, I'd call it an unmodifiable save:

3+ UM

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I remember how everyone was a big fan of easily obtained 3++ in 6th and 7th, so this was a good call on GWs game designers.

True, but in this case it is 3++ vs shooting and 6++ versus melee. Having a built-in way around the 3++ might be enough to make it reasonable.

It's not reasonable, period.

I mean... They're T3 W1 models. With a 3+ save-yes, you can't modify that with anything (for now), but they're less durable than a Marine against the vast majority of small arms fire.

Hell, a Hotshot Lasgun (S3 AP-2 D1) at BS3+ takes 9 shots to do a wound to a Pink Horror-the same as a Marine.
A regular Lasgun, at BS4+? 12 as compared to 18.
Bolter, at AP0 or -1 and BS3+? 6.75 as compared to 9.