Thoughts on Invulnerable Saves and Command Points

[Dizzyeye01]

Just a disclaimers note here before I start rambling on. I can't say I'm a frequent player for battles in 40k. I played more during 6th edition roughly but nowadays I don't have the time to get to GW and play. Mods, if this is in the wrong place then apologies. In any case, to the topic at hand.

 

Just today, I finished taking part at a narrative campaign in Warhammer World where I had a couple of games ranging from a unique 500 point detachment , 1750 and a 3000. In general, it's been a good weekend and its raised something I've spotted especially today; invulnerable saves was one of the biggest challenges of getting damage in. Lemme give some examples.

 

1. Dark Eldar. I can't remember the specific list but it featured grotesques, Talios' and the apothecary guys that gave +1 toughness for wracks. I had a decent fireline involving rapier batteries with laser destroyers in a devastation battery alongside havocs and a Leviathan dreadnought. In the end, their lucky saves alongside the odd command point used kept a lot of his units alive.

 

2. Custodes. Due to the special detachment in use, there could be no model with over 10 wounds in play and both sides had 3 command points to use with the potential to gain more from 4 supply catches in each square. He had the shield captain on jet bike alongside 3 jet bike fliers with him while I had a havoc as heavy support with Lord, CSM and cultists to try cap an evac point. In the end, with their +4 Inv saves and command points used soaked up a lot of damage and could have really turned the game around.

 

In short, it feels like a really nasty combo to pull on but even without the CPs invulnerable saves are a lot more common nowadays than before. How do you guys handle this? I'm really curious what people have to say about it.

[The Unseen]

Dice are dice, and they swing games sometimes.

Invulnerable saves aren't the problem, as 2++ saves don't really exist anymore (thank the emperor for that) and 3++ is rare and usually on a single character who you can't shoot normally anyway.

The one exception to that I can think of is magnus, but he's a whole other ball game. In fact, the last game I played, magnus just managed to waltz through enough power fist attacks to kill him twice over because my opponent just didn't fail his 3+ invulns, and then turned my squad of sanguinary guard to paste afterward. But it isn't his invuln that's the problem.

 

Now that knights are capped at a 4++, I don't see invulns as a problem.

 

Look at it from the other side, without invulns, expensive multi wound models just straight up die if you point guns with a lot of AP at them, and of course that doesn't feel good either.

 

The key against units with invulnerable saves is to pepper them with more shots with mediocre ap and damage, rather than try and rely on really potent single shot weapons that might miss or get saved.

[toaae]

There certainly are more invulnerable saves then any previous edition, and the answer now is generally more dice. There are a few ways to eliminate invulnerables, but for the most part, the key is to just make the opponent roll so many of them that they will fail some. It's for this reason that AP-1 is, generally, the best. You aren't wasting efficiency with AP that will get ignored by invulnerables, and such weapons usually have a lot more shots.

[Panzer]

Weight of fire and Mortal wounds usually take care of annoying invulnerable safe units. I don't see it as much of a problem either.

Edited July 15, 2019 by sfPanzer

[MARK0SIAN]

IMO invulnerable saves aren’t an issue with the weight of fire available to most forces. If anything I’d say there are quite a few units in the game that should get an invulnerable save that don’t already have one because (as The Unseen says) any expensive model without one just dies to a stiff breeze.

[Slasher956]

Play the mission in the CA2018 where you have to take the center spot... which turns off all Invun saves in 12" (?)

 

If your close enough to score you have no invun....

[Jarl Caldersson]

IMO invulnerable saves aren’t an issue with the weight of fire available to most forces. If anything I’d say there are quite a few units in the game that should get an invulnerable save that don’t already have one because (as The Unseen says) any expensive model without one just dies to a stiff breeze.

 

 

This. A prime example is the primaris dreadnought, it cost a ton of points and dies easilly due to no invuln. To a degree Bjorn also falls into this as he is a venerable dreadnought that lacks a invulnerability and dies to mass fire, only surviving because people hide him behind troops that do have a invuln save.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

IMO invulnerable saves aren’t an issue with the weight of fire available to most forces. If anything I’d say there are quite a few units in the game that should get an invulnerable save that don’t already have one because (as The Unseen says) any expensive model without one just dies to a stiff breeze.

This. A prime example is the primaris dreadnought, it cost a ton of points and dies easilly due to no invuln. To a degree Bjorn also falls into this as he is a venerable dreadnought that lacks a invulnerability and dies to mass fire, only surviving because people hide him behind troops that do have a invuln save.

Exactly. The way the ‘To Wound’ table works (and the fact that everything can wound everything) along with the AP mechanic in use this edition means it is way too easy to inflict wounds on big models like vehicles. Add in the increase in volume of fire and rerolls and it almost becomes a farce.

 

It’s made good armour worth a lot less than it used to be and means units that you would never dream of needing an invulnerable in a previous edition, desperately need one to be survivable.

Edited July 15, 2019 by MARK0SIAN

[Finkmilkana]

An invuln basically has 3 effects:

 

Effectively multiples the wound count against any weapon. 2+ is x6, 3+ is x3, 4+ is x2 etc.

 

Relatively strengthens low AP weapons by making high AP (which is usually used to remove the wound count multiplier that is armor saves) weaker while not doing anything against low AP (since they land in the armor save).

 

Increases the variance of the wounding process, which makes low shot weapons very swingy and frustrating to use (though it doesn’t actually make them worse in expectation, for any time where a unit doesn’t want to die, there is one where it dies incredible fast). This is greatly amplified if a limited number of rerolls is available (though rerolls are less of an influence here if they are unlimited).

 

Now, all these effects can be desirable on some units, but to simply make „expensive“ units survivable, invuln saves are frankly the wrong solution.

If they just wanted to make them more survivable, they should give them more wounds. This still makes them more survivable against anti tank weapons at roughly the same rate, but wouldn’t have the effect that big tanks suddenly become resistant to big anti tank weapons. Invuln saves on the other hand should mainly be given to stuff that specifically is resistant to very heavy weapons, but are easily destroyed by ‚lucky hits‘, i.e., venoms that survive by not being hit.

But for some reason GW prefers to give any big model (wound for point) few wounds but an invuln save...

 

In conclusion:

If a unit should be more survivable, give it more wounds.

 

If a unit should be less vulnerable against high AP weapons, give it more wounds but a correspondingly worse armor save.

 

If limited rerolls are available (like 1 per round command point reroll etc) and a unit should be more resistant against single shot weapons, give it an invuln.

 

If you want to make a units survivability more swingy give it an invuln save and less wounds.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Finkmilkana

[MARK0SIAN]

An invuln basically has 3 effects:

 

Effectively multiples the wound count against any weapon. 2+ is x6, 3+ is x3, 4+ is x2 etc.

 

Relatively strengthens low AP weapons by making high AP (which is usually used to remove the wound count multiplier that is armor saves) weaker while not doing anything against low AP (since they land in the armor save).

 

Increases the variance of the wounding process, which makes low shot weapons very swingy and frustrating to use (though it doesn’t actually make them worse in expectation, for any time where a unit doesn’t want to die, there is one where it dies incredible fast). This is greatly amplified if a limited number of rerolls is available (though rerolls are less of an influence here if they are unlimited).

 

Now, all these effects can be desirable on some units, but to simply make „expensive“ units survivable, invuln saves are frankly the wrong solution.

If they just wanted to make them more survivable, they should give them more wounds. This still makes them more survivable against anti tank weapons at roughly the same rate, but wouldn’t have the effect that big tanks suddenly become resistant to big anti tank weapons. Invuln saves on the other hand should mainly be given to stuff that specifically is resistant to very heavy weapons, but are easily destroyed by ‚lucky hits‘, i.e., venoms that survive by not being hit.

But for some reason GW prefers to give any big model (wound for point) few wounds but an invuln save...

 

In conclusion:

If a unit should be more survivable, give it more wounds.

 

If a unit should be less vulnerable against high AP weapons, give it more wounds but a correspondingly worse armor save.

 

If limited rerolls are available (like 1 per round command point reroll etc) and a unit should be more resistant against single shot weapons, give it an invuln.

 

If you want to make a units survivability more swingy give it an invuln save and less wounds.

The thing is, unless you’re going to start giving them a LOT more wounds it still won’t make them survivable enough. The real solution is to just make heavily armoured units harder to wound in the first place so that their armour saves are worth taking and that invulnerable saves give them a decent chance against weapons with good AP.

 

For a start, I’d say that weapons cannot wound anything whose toughness is double the weapon’s strength. However that’s too much of a core change for them to go for so given the choice between units getting a few more wounds or an invulnerable save, I would go for the invulnerable save.

[Halandaar]

I don't think they are worse than they used to be. In any case, it's part of the game and you play around them, the same way you bring stuff to deal with armour or high toughness opponents. 

 

Custodes for example, although they are tough to bring down, you can (usually) easily outmanoeuvre them and beat them on objectives because they have such a small board presence, although obviously the particular mission you're playing will affect that.

 

Anyway, the key to beating invulns, as mentioned above, is by throwing dice at them; the same reason Terminators are susceptible to small arms fire even with a 2+ save, because if you make them roll enough dice, then statistically they have to fail some. 

[DanPesci]

 

 

Anyway, the key to beating invulns, as mentioned above, is by throwing dice at them; the same reason Terminators are susceptible to small arms fire even with a 2+ save, because if you make them roll enough dice, then statistically they have to fail some. 

 

 

totally agree. Either massed small arms fire or enough fire with AP-1 or AP-2 weapons.

 

Models with 2+/3++ hit them with a ton of AP -1 small arms, and force them to take multiple 3+ saves. Main issue with these is when something is T5, making your number of actual wounds lower....but these arent that prevalnet in my experience...and if they are....assualt cannons/autocannons are your friend here.

 

 

Other options

 

- Vindicare (ignores inv)

- Anything that can cause mortal wounds

- Smite

- Some other pyschic (i believe death hex removes inv?)

Edited July 15, 2019 by DanPesci

[Finkmilkana]

 

 

The thing is, unless you’re going to start giving them a LOT more wounds it still won’t make them survivable enough. The real solution is to just make heavily armoured units harder to wound in the first place so that their armour saves are worth taking and that invulnerable saves give them a decent chance against weapons with good AP.

 

For a start, I’d say that weapons cannot wound anything whose toughness is double the weapon’s strength. However that’s too much of a core change for them to go for so given the choice between units getting a few more wounds or an invulnerable save, I would go for the invulnerable save.

Well, if a unit right now has a 4++ and you now double it’s wounds while removing the 4++ it is far more durable than it was before. Simply giving expensive units (unless they have some other defensive mechanics) at least 1 wound per 12 points would solve the issue and still end up giving them 3 times less wounds than the corresponding number of guardsmen.

And honestly, why shouldn’t something like a landraider, that costs 3 times as much as a cheap tank, have 2-3 times as many wounds? Currently it doesn’t even have twice as many. Invuln saves do exactly the same thing, just obscuring the high number through another mechanical layer.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Finkmilkana

[Halandaar]

Well, if a unit right now has a 4++ and you now double it’s wounds while removing the 4++ it is far more durable than it was before. 

 

Only against things that can't bypass it's normal armour anyway;

• 6 Lascannons hit and wound. 4++ saves 3, so 3 successful wounds at D6 damage each, for a maximum of 18 Damage, but an Average of 10.5
• 6 Lascannons hit and wound, no invuln so all 6 successfully wound at D6 damage each, for a maximum of 36 Damage but an average of 21.

The wounds are doubled, but the average damage taken is also doubled. There is statistically no difference between the two in this situation.

 

Now sure, it's a different story if you're talking about Boltguns vs a 3+, 10 wound vehicle and a 3+, 20 wound vehicle. But what you're effectively doing by removing invulnerables and compensating with more wounds is making things even tougher against weaker weapons with no change to their durability against stronger weapons.

[Finkmilkana]

 

 

Well, if a unit right now has a 4++ and you now double it’s wounds while removing the 4++ it is far more durable than it was before.

Only against things that can't bypass it's normal armour anyway;

• 6 Lascannons hit and wound. 4++ saves 3, so 3 successful wounds at D6 damage each, for a maximum of 18 Damage, but an Average of 10.5
• 6 Lascannons hit and wound, no invuln so all 6 successfully wound at D6 damage each, for a maximum of 36 Damage but an average of 21.

The wounds are doubled, but the average damage taken is also doubled. There is statistically no difference between the two in this situation.

 

Now sure, it's a different story if you're talking about Boltguns vs a 3+, 10 wound vehicle and a 3+, 20 wound vehicle. But what you're effectively doing by removing invulnerables and compensating with more wounds is making things even tougher against weaker weapons with no change to their durability against stronger weapons.

Yes, against some weapons it’s exactly double, against other weapons it’s more than double. So on average more than double. The goal is exactly making them (relatively) more durable against weak weapons, in order to make anti tank weapons actual good at killing tanks. I’m not saying you should literally exactly double the wounds for every model, that was just to illustrate how much of an wound increase would be required to achieve similar durability to adding a 4++.

Also note that most vehicles still get a 6+ armor save against lascannons.

[Panzer]

But anti-tank weapons ARE good at killing tanks. Too good to be honest. Hence why many vehicles really need those invulnerable saves.

[Ishagu]

There's no issue with invuls now. The real enemy are hit modifyers.

[Claws and Effect]

There's no issue with invuls now. The real enemy are hit modifyers.

Only when you can stack them.

 

My Raven Guard aren't really that much tougher outside 12" with their -1 that they can't stack with anything.

[Halandaar]

 

 

 

Well, if a unit right now has a 4++ and you now double it’s wounds while removing the 4++ it is far more durable than it was before.

Only against things that can't bypass it's normal armour anyway;

• 6 Lascannons hit and wound. 4++ saves 3, so 3 successful wounds at D6 damage each, for a maximum of 18 Damage, but an Average of 10.5
• 6 Lascannons hit and wound, no invuln so all 6 successfully wound at D6 damage each, for a maximum of 36 Damage but an average of 21.

The wounds are doubled, but the average damage taken is also doubled. There is statistically no difference between the two in this situation.

 

Now sure, it's a different story if you're talking about Boltguns vs a 3+, 10 wound vehicle and a 3+, 20 wound vehicle. But what you're effectively doing by removing invulnerables and compensating with more wounds is making things even tougher against weaker weapons with no change to their durability against stronger weapons.

Yes, against some weapons it’s exactly double, against other weapons it’s more than double. So on average more than double. The goal is exactly making them (relatively) more durable against weak weapons, in order to make anti tank weapons actual good at killing tanks. I’m not saying you should literally exactly double the wounds for every model, that was just to illustrate how much of an wound increase would be required to achieve similar durability to adding a 4++.

Also note that most vehicles still get a 6+ armor save against lascannons.

But an invulnerable save isn't there to increase durability against small arms or things with low AP, it's there to give you a chance of surviving against high powered weapons which, in addition to cracking your normal armour and wounding easily, also strip multiple wounds. Replacing them with more wounds solves the wrong problem.

[Tyriks]

Invuln saves are less of an issue than they've ever been. They are less powerful overall and you can bypass them entirely with Mortal Wounds.

[Ishagu]

 

There's no issue with invuls now. The real enemy are hit modifyers.

Only when you can stack them.

 

My Raven Guard aren't really that much tougher outside 12" with their -1 that they can't stack with anything.

I agree with this 100%

It's only when you stack 2 or 3 that they really throw things out of balance. Elite units you pay big points for can suddenly be useless.

[kombatwombat]

There's no issue with invuls now. The real enemy are hit modifyers.

There is, but only on units that are already tough, have lots of wounds and a good armour save - namely Knights and Daemon Primarchs. Blocking low-volume high-impact shots can be downright obnoxious on a model that small arms only wound on 6s and medium weapons wound on 5s.

[Panzer]

 

There's no issue with invuls now. The real enemy are hit modifyers.

There is, but only on units that are already tough, have lots of wounds and a good armour save - namely Knights and Daemon Primarchs. Blocking low-volume high-impact shots can be downright obnoxious on a model that small arms only wound on 6s and medium weapons wound on 5s.

 

 

But then it's not the invul that's the problem. It's the whole package, including low point costs. Knights would be much less durable with less wounds or just T7 too even with their invul. Also Daemon Primarchs aren't a problem. They need that invul. Most of the time they die turn 1-2 as is anyway.

[kombatwombat]

Actually yeah that’s fair. Magnus and Morty only become difficult when buffed with things like a 3++ or -1 to hit, but with just a 4++ they’re manageable.

 

Knights with 2 out of 3 of an Invul, more than 16-18 wounds or T8 would be fine. They’re just obnoxious because they have all 3. Or even just go back to the way their Invul used to work - they pick one facing to have it active on for the turn. That at least gives some counter play by outflanking them, which is a tactic we sadly lost in general in the move to 8th - flanking is now meaningless.

[Panzer]

Dunno, outflanking rarely worked in the first two turns because of how far you'd have to move to threaten a flank and how immobile anti-tank weapons usually are ... which would be fine if games wouldn't be decided in the first two turns.