PDA

View Full Version : Have Invulnerable saves become vulnerable?



UnRiggable
10-09-2006, 01:53
So I've been at my friends house who plays 'crons and I saw the entry for the warscytheand I thought that invulnerable are not invulnerable anymore. Every Invulnerable save is different (Transition between realspace and warp space, ability to dodge, etc.) and so making those all go away seemed unreasonable. Does anybody else think that invulnerable saves should ALWAYS be invulnerable?\

EDIT:
Sorry I was asleep (it's 9:00AM in the US).

Option 1: Invulnerable saves have become vulnerable (as in, you cannot take them when you need them) and it should be changed so that invulnerable saves are always allowed. This does not mean that you can take 2 saves per shot, it simply means you can take one regardless of the weapon (warscythes and incinerators, for example, don't allow you to take them).
Option 2: Invulnerable saves have become vulnerable and it should be that way.
Option 3: I think Invulnerable saves can always be taken, you're just insane.

EDIT: I thought this up when I saw the entire Daemonhunters arsenal. I know that it's to make the Daemon deaths go faster but it adds too much to the rules.

sulla
10-09-2006, 02:03
I'm a bit confused by your poll...what does answer one mean?

Chaplin Loki
10-09-2006, 02:06
you need to change the wording on the poll, I think the few things that negate inv saves are fine. There arnt many of then and a ton of things with inv saves.

Da Reddaneks
10-09-2006, 02:20
i do not understand the wording of your poll either. close this thread and restart the thread with clearer poll options.

Seerluminatti
10-09-2006, 02:40
Agreed, the poll options are ambiguously stated.

I believe that the variety of invulnerable saves needs to be updated to reflect the various natures in which they arise, be they the product of uncanny dodging ability, a powerful energy field, or a preternatural knowledge of attacks to come.

MrInsomniac
10-09-2006, 02:41
Am I the only one who understands the poll? The first option means 'Yes they've become vulnerable, invulnerable should mean invulnerable no matter what'. And if I'm way off the mark I apologise and the poll needs to be reworded ;)

Personally I think there are a lot of invulnerable saves in the game, and not that many things really that ignore them. I'm quite happy to leave the rules as they are.

Ironhand
10-09-2006, 03:33
The poll options as stated don't make any sense.

mooserehab86
10-09-2006, 03:33
In my experience, the issue of ignoring invulnerable saves is not a problem, because there are very few people I know who use such units/wargear.

However, while it may add unecessarily complicated rules to the game, I think it would make sense to provide some differences between special types of saves as opposed to labelling everything as invulnerable, and have only certain types be ignored. For example, an Imperial Assassin has an invulnerable save due to being incredibly fast and agile. It doesn't make sense that a warscythe would ignore this save, because it has to hit the assassin in the first place in order to have any effect.

chaos0xomega
10-09-2006, 03:52
They make perfect sense.

Option 1 - The invulnerable saves aren't invlunerable anymore, and should be made so that they can always be taken, even if a weapon says otherwise.
Option 2 - The invulnerable saves aren't invulnerable anymore, and should remain that way, with certain weapons being able to bypass it.
Option 3 - The rules-lawyers option. Basically 'No invlulnerable saves are not vulnerable, and are still invulnerable, adn because a printing in the core rulebook, can always be taken, even if a weapon says otherwise'.

Hope that clears things up.

I voted for #2/.

ReDavide
10-09-2006, 04:50
Odd, I read it more as:

#2: Yay for Vulnerability! More save-bypassing weapons please!

#3: No, invulnerable saves haven't become significantly vulnerable. (with an added jab from the poll author to mock those who might think such a thing).

Khaine's Messenger
10-09-2006, 08:19
Does anybody else think that invulnerable saves should ALWAYS be invulnerable?

In the sense of hard-coding a rule into the core rules that allows you to always take an inv. save? No. The main problem, as it were, is more along the lines of streamlining the system and getting over those odd bumps in game logic, like psycannons vs. turbo-boosting bikes. To me that speaks more along the lines of working out when and how to judiciously use such special rules--both when handing out inv. saves and when handing out inv. save negaters.

Taking it as a given that armies can retool their weapons to cause damage to Necrons where this would otherwise appear nonsensical (Necron codex itself), the invulnerable save abstraction should be little different--while the difference between a dodge, ridiculous speed, power fields, fighting styles, phase shifting, and daemonic irreality may be profound conceptually, the singular abstraction still exists. Just as AP 4 weapons work equally well against feral worlder plate and Eldar Aspect Warrior armor regardless of their material qualities or operating principles, and power weapons don't discriminate between terminator armor and sheets of paper.

Lastie
10-09-2006, 09:22
While I've always felt the game could do with the reintroduction of Dodge Saves and Psychic Saves to distinguish more between the types of special Saves a unit may have in addition, or instead of any type of armour, I'm happy with the system as it's played now. While the term 'Invulnerable' may be misleading to a Save that can be negated by several weapons and psychic powers in the game, said occurances are thankfully rare, and most belong to an army that's both difficult to play and highly specialised towards fighting one type of opponent, so the ability to negate Invulnerable Saves is logically appropriate considering who they fight against and what is said creature's only line of defence. In the case of the Necrons, and the C'tan Phase Sword of the Callidus Assassin, such ability reflect the highly advanced nature of the makers, and such a weapon is restricted to only one occurance (the C'tan themselves notwithstanding). Basically, Invulnerable Save ignoring weaponry/abilities are still quite rare, and so the ability is not yet game breaking in the sense of making Invulnerable Saves pointless (as they are the main defence against the abundent Power Weapons and similar).

Poisonpen
10-09-2006, 10:07
I too am confused by the poll options, but I think I got it... option 2 meant they are vulnerable and should be... right?

Anyway, that is what I think and others have stated it in far greater detail than I so I will not go into too much detail other than: If a weapon operates by moving the material universe around it to chop into you, it deserves to ignore everything :p

Also, Necrons are in painful need of more colorful options, I'd hate to see one of their few weapon choices taken away; and I don't even play Necrons! And while other armies have their ways of ignoring saves... the Necron one is the one I remembered, so I guess the others are good too, just as long as inv. saves protect me from powerfists. :D

Eidolon
10-09-2006, 10:21
I don't mind weapons that bypass inv saves, as long as these weapons are rare, balanced and make sense fluffwise. The only one that gets me is that demon weapon which can ignore all armour saves. A bit overpowered, I think.

Azazel
10-09-2006, 12:47
It only gets a bit 'urk' when things like Assassins or Wychs Dodge save is ignored.

marv335
10-09-2006, 13:03
there are not very many weapons that ignore inv saves.
i don't see the problem.
lets see.

weapons that deny normal/inv saves.

necron lord with warscythe; loses ranged attacks/average in combat anyway.
necron pariahs; rarely taken/poor at combat/expensive
c'tan; very expensive
callidus assassin; requires inquisitor
a chaos weapon i can't remember the name of ;)

weapons that deny inv saves but allow armour saves.

psycannons;
incinerators; short range

can anyone think of any others?

to be honest, the only one i dislike is the psycannon. it does horrible things to my scout bikers.

Azazel
10-09-2006, 13:04
a chaos weapon i can't remember the name of ;)


Dread Axe.

Xander-K
10-09-2006, 13:12
The only one that gets me is that demon weapon which can ignore all armour saves. A bit overpowered, I think.
Dreadaxe, it only ignores all saves on a statured prince, making him an easily targetable unit anyway. If you think that is cheesy check out this thing called a Nemesis Force Weapon ;)

Daemon king Mad Dog
10-09-2006, 13:17
I think, that there are plenty of things that take away invulnerable (swear it was invunerable, but then i got 12/50 in my last spelling test so hey!) so their basicly useless, aspecialy if you just give a daemon prince dread axe, no save allowed. My lord has wasted a good lot oif points with his berserker glaive because about 1/4 of the points is for the 4+ invunerable, which now i never get.

marv335
10-09-2006, 13:22
nemesis forceweapon does not ignore inv saves.
at best it's a s6 force weapon.

Ironhand
10-09-2006, 13:23
There aren't that many weapons that bypass invulnerable saves. Having such just keeps folks on their toes. I don't see a problem.

Hellebore
10-09-2006, 13:26
I see absolutely NO problem with it.

Why? Because people are stuck on the word DEFINITION.

There are Three SAVE mechanics in the game:

Cover saves: These IGNORE AP, but can't be used in combat
Armour Saves: These are used against shooting AND combat
Invulnerable saves: These ignore AP, and (generall) CAN be used in combat

EVERY SINGLE save mechanic has a counter mechanic.

Cover: The Template rule
Armour: The AP rule
Invulnerable: The "Ignores invulnerable saves" Rule ;)

Invulnerable should probably read - "Not affected by AP" Save. Because that is all it is.

Although, I do think that the Psycannon would be better if its ignore Invuln. saves rule only worked on a model with the "Daemonic." special rule.

Seems pretty easy to me, if is "daemonic" as described by their very own list, it doesn't get an Invulnerable save.

Thus the "Dodge" Invulnerable save, and the Turbo booster one, and the force field one, would still work.

Fair, fluffy, and Fun. The Three Fs are your friend.

Hellebore

Xander-K
10-09-2006, 13:28
nemesis forceweapon does not ignore inv saves.
at best it's a s6 force weapon.yeah I didn't say they ignored inv. saves, just someone complaining about a dreadaxe ignoring saves, when a force weapon can kill outright :P, I personally have no problem with either weapon.

mooserehab86
10-09-2006, 16:11
can anyone think of any others?

Scourging psychic power! It ignores invulnerable saves but allows normal ones.


I think, that there are plenty of things that take away invulnerable (swear it was invunerable, but then i got 12/50 in my last spelling test so hey!) so their basicly useless, aspecialy if you just give a daemon prince dread axe, no save allowed. My lord has wasted a good lot oif points with his berserker glaive because about 1/4 of the points is for the 4+ invunerable, which now i never get.

There aren't that many circumstances, on average, in which invulnerable saves get ignored. Sure, if your opponent plays Chaos and usually takes a daemon prince w/ dreadaxe, then you personally will find yourself losing a lot of invulnerable saves. For most people though, units/wargear that negate those saves don't come up very often.

Khaine's Messenger
10-09-2006, 18:23
can anyone think of any others?

Vindicaire shield breaker round. Which he only gets one of per game that he could totally whiff with, so the balance issues there are pretty much nonexistant.

I'm in agreement with hellebore about the matter of daemonic inv. saves and the GK, too, although I'm not sure exactly how GW playtested that one. Altering the rule there could change some things. Not many, since a lot of inv. save models can hide in units anyway and the GK are a specialist army and such....

Dais
10-09-2006, 19:57
i think the availability of things that give no save at all is a little too high. its just a bit too abuseable.
conversly i love the demonhunter style inv. denial style and think there needs to be more of those arround.
all those things that deny inv. saves led to the sillyness of the doubly inv. save on the fw demons. its a slippery slope to having fw double inv. save denial and triple inv. saves.

Cactusman
10-09-2006, 22:52
Arco flagellants anyone? They're invulnerable because they're mad but hit them with a psycannon and suddenly they stop being mad and start dying like everyone else. Cobblers I say. the psycannon should only see off daemons. That's what they're designed to do. Laziness if you ask me. Laziness! (This is something of an obsession of mine)

Eidolon
10-09-2006, 23:46
all those things that deny inv. saves led to the sillyness of the doubly inv. save on the fw demons. its a slippery slope to having fw double inv. save denial and triple inv. saves.

There are double inv. saves on FW demons :wtf:? How do they work exactly?

chickenuggets
11-09-2006, 09:40
Although, I do think that the Psycannon would be better if its ignore Invuln. saves rule only worked on a model with the "Daemonic." special rule.

Seems pretty easy to me, if is "daemonic" as described by their very own list, it doesn't get an Invulnerable save.

Thus the "Dodge" Invulnerable save, and the Turbo booster one, and the force field one, would still work.

i totally agree with you, it would make the grey nyts more anti demonic and less stupid because they are supposed to have the tech to kill demons, not guys on speedy bikes like u said

BrainFireBob
11-09-2006, 09:48
Personally, I'm not fond of things ignoring invulnerable saves- a trend regrettably started with the Necron codex, as I recall- or the Chaos, whichever was released first (same time roughly as my foggy brain suggests, but it's 2am fog now, the most unreliable of fogs).

Mainly, because it always smacked to me of codex creep. Armor saves got better.

2) Low AP weapons and power weapons (especially units with them) became more widely available.

3) Invulnerable saves became more widely available- and better.

4) Weapons ignoring invulnerable saves are coming out.

A) When will it stop?
B) Any game system needs either immoveable object or irresistable force. Pick one, danggit!

GrimZAG
11-09-2006, 09:58
I think they should change the wording of the rules that make the current "invulnerable save" into "ingnore Armour Piercing save" and create a true invulnerable save that cannot be negated by ANYTHING; ie the hand of the emperor protects this guy, or something like that, and daemonhunters are a bit silly in that they can override all invulnerable saves with their weapons, yet they only specialise in killing daemons. ah well, what can you do about stuff you don't like except rant about it :)

xibo
11-09-2006, 12:14
iyana iyanden's armour of vaul is what a invulnerable save like it should be imo. besides, of cause, on a d6.

marv335
11-09-2006, 12:22
i have a grand total of one invulnerable save in my whole army (two if you count my vet Sgt combat shield)
the best way to pass a save is to make sure you don't have to take one.
if you're relying on your armour to win you the game, you're going to lose.

Ironhand
11-09-2006, 13:29
I absolutely agree marv335.

Charax
11-09-2006, 13:39
the alternative to negating Invulnerables is the 2nd edition route - two pages of categories for saves and what negates what. I'm fine either way, to be honest.