Idea for changing how invulnerable saves work

[Ipsen]

I will preface this by saying that yes the change suggested in this thread is strictly not specifically relevant to space marines, so mods feel free to move it to somewhere more relevant if you feel it necessary. However this thread talking about desired changes to space marines and one of the main examples I'll be using (terminators) is what prompted this one.

 

I also have no idea if this has already been suggested. I'm sorry if it has. A cursory search didn't find anything.

 

TLDR replace inv saves with invulnerability that reduces the effect of AP on armour saves point for point.

 

In short I think invulnerable saves should be changed in response to the changes to the AP (armour penetration) mechanic. AP used to work by removing the armour save of any unit with a save higher than or equal to the AP value. AP6 would remove 6+ saves, AP5 would remove 5+ and 6+, and so on till AP1 that would remove all saves. This created a jarring cliff edge that heavily punished units with poor armour saves but made no real difference to units with the very best saves. Armies like Orcs suffered heavily as nigh on ever infantry weapon in the game could strip them of their armour save. So a more granular approach was conceived that is the current AP mechanic. Successively higher AP values reduce units saves linearly. Less of a cliff edge. Most infantry weapons like the humble bolter are now AP0 (pls make it AP-1).

 

There is however another cliff present at the other end of the spectrum in the form of invulnerable saves. Many of the toughest units have an invulnerable save which, as in the previous AP system, prevents their save from being reduced past a point. A 4++ common to many HQ units means that that unit's save can not be degraded past 4+ by a weapons AP value. Weapons in the previous editions with low ap values like the melta gun with AP1 were converted to the current system with larger AP values. AP-4 in this case. The presence of invulnerable saves devalues these large AP weapons. The burning blade space marine relic sees very little use, as the units a character holding it is likely to face usually have an invulnerable save that almost completely invalidates the AP. A hangover from the previous edition also sees that large AP values are generally more expensive than small values. Why take an expensive large AP weapon when a cheap small AP weapon will do the same thing more efficiently.

 

I propose that invulnerable saves be removed and replaced with a similar stat that I'll call invulnerability in this post. The stat would instead counteract AP. 1 invulnerability would reduce the effect of AP on a unit's armour save by 1, eg. a unit with a 3+ save with 1 invulnerability hit by a weapon with AP-3 would have a 5+ save roll. With 2 invulnerability the unit would have a 4+ save roll. I think that doing it this way round would be more relevant and be easier to balance. I'd suggest that the availability of invulnerability be managed such that any value above 3 be very expensive or impossible to achieve from available sources.

 

In real terms I think units like a terminator would have 1 point of native invulnerability, granted by crux terminatus, and that a storm shield would give another point of stackable invulnerability giving them 2 points altogether. This would change how certain weapons effect them. Currently a plasma gun against an unshielded terminator reduces it's save to a 5+, and with a shield to 3+. Using invulnerability the unshielded terminator would have a 4+ save and the shielded one would still have a 3+. The bigger difference would be in the larger and smaller AP values. Terminators would be more resistant to lower amounts of armour penetration (eg. heavy bolters) as makes sense and be killed easier with weapons with larger AP values (like the burning blade).

 

Deamons and units like them with better invulnerable saves than armour save could just be given their invulnerable saves as their armour save and a high invulnerability stat. Also bubbles and abilities like Celestine's beacon of faith or Armageddon imperial guard's industrial efficiency could be a point of unstackable invulnerability.

 

The main point I believe is that making this change would mean elite units could be made resistant to anti-horde weaponry, without affecting how those weapons work against hordes, whilst also giving weapons with larger AP values a niche for use against higher invulnerability units. Cheap weapons to kill cheap units. Expensive weapons to kill expensive units.

 

I realise that Games Workshop are unlikely to make a change like this outside of making a new edition as, while I've called it one change, it is a very broad update to the rules affecting a large number of units. But maybe with their new approach to faqs and game balancing they might put the work in. who knows. I just felt like putting this into words and documenting it somewhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CCE1981]

Yup, this is exactly what I was thinking, and the same reasons behind it.

[Captain Idaho]

I like the idea and considered it myself. It is something for a whole edition of course since it is a fundamental change.

 

The main problem is those weapons with a -1 save would have the exact same effect as weapons without a modifier. I'd still rather this system but I'm just pointing it out.

[Ahistorian]

I preferred the cliff edge personally. Armour works or it doesn't.

[Ipsen]

I preferred the cliff edge personally. Armour works or it doesn't.

 

It's the other way round. If it has armour it doesn't matter what you hit it with. Dropping a nuke on it is the same as slapping it with a fish.

[NiceGuyAdi]

AP-1 and AP0 would only be the same against targets with an invulnerability of 1, no?

 

I started thinking this would be a good idea when I heard about the AP shift when the 8th rumours abounded, and Ipsen articulates well why it would be a good idea.

 

It’d give more granularity and ease of balance against the current x+/y++ system, the only negative being a small load of mental arithmetic.

[Panzer]

Against anything with any invul.

[MARK0SIAN]

I like the idea, I’d like to try a few games with it to see how it goes.

 

The only negative I would say is that even if it works great, it’s more complicated than the current system and GW have shown they want to move in the opposite direction.

[Ahistorian]

 

I preferred the cliff edge personally. Armour works or it doesn't.

 

 

It's the other way round. If it has armour it doesn't matter what you hit it with. Dropping a nuke on it is the same as slapping it with a fish.

I rather assume a nuke is more likely to be AP2 than the fish.

[Claws and Effect]

Eh. Not sure about this.

 

It's rare to see an invulnerable save better than 4+. That's still a 50% chance to fail it.

 

If you implement that and hit a Space Marine Captain with a meltagun (a rather common weapon), you reduce his save to a 6+ at best and are one dice roll away from your Warlord getting 1-shotted by an 8 point grunt.

 

Characters should be difficult to kill or there is little point to taking them. You'd see everyone just using the cheapest possible option because there is no longer a significant difference between a 65 point LT and a 120 point Captain.

[CCE1981]

Eh. Not sure about this.

 

It's rare to see an invulnerable save better than 4+. That's still a 50% chance to fail it.

 

If you implement that and hit a Space Marine Captain with a meltagun (a rather common weapon), you reduce his save to a 6+ at best and are one dice roll away from your Warlord getting 1-shotted by an 8 point grunt.

 

Characters should be difficult to kill or there is little point to taking them. You'd see everyone just using the cheapest possible option because there is no longer a significant difference between a 65 point LT and a 120 point Captain.

6+??? Depending on what bonus for a current invulnerable save he can easily have a 5+ or 4+. If you translate a 4++ into a +2 to your save for your Captain, he would need a 5+ to sabe. If you translated that 4++ into a +3 save he’d need a 4+. Give him Terminator armor and those saves increase by one.

[Ishagu]

The game should be as streamlined as possible. This is a step backwards.

[Charlo]

The game should be as streamlined as possible. This is a step backwards.

 

I'm in two mind on this point.

 

On the one hand, streamlining is absolutely the way to go, but on the other - the mental maths needed to work out AP is hardly more taxing by including a positive modifier into the mix.

 

For things like Terminators aswell, this is a supremely elegant solution - much better representing the use of a forcefield and plated heavy armour in tandem, rather than the Armour stopping bullets and the field randomly stopping lascannons. Instead anything with AP-2 is ignored and anything AP-3 starts to degrade the save down.

 

Taking it even further, you can make it even EASIER by just making the rule appear on a unit by unit basis. For example:

 

Iron Halo: The captain is equipped with a powerful forcefield generator called an Iron Halo. Reduce the AP of any attack against him by 3. For example, AP-4 would become AP-1 and AP-2 would become AP0 etc.

[Ishagu]

Is there a consensus that invulnerable saves aren't good enough or something?

 

I think they are good enough and, overused if anything.

[Cpt_Reaper]

In my humble opinion, the current armour saves/armour piercing/invuln mechanic works just fine.

 

Using a heap of single damage shots to look for that inevitable roll of 1 is just as valid as trying for the single high powered shot that lowers their save. An Invulnerable preventing a save from lowering too far doesn't make either method any less valid or over complicated. If all else fails just throw a Mortal Wound or two and ignore that save entirely.

 

You know what's not fine? Things with high armour/invulnerable saves and Feel No Pain.

[Charlo]

Not that they aren't good enough, it's that they don't really feel fluffy with then being so binary.

[Xenith]

Or just remove the invulnerability rule and give terminators a 1+ save.

 

A 1 always fails, but an ap-3 weapon will still grant a 4+ save.

I preferred the cliff edge personally. Armour works or it doesn't.

That's what the save roll is for.