Invuln saves in 9th were like two grade school children playing pretend. "I have an invulnerable save which ignores your AP!" "Oh yeah, well I have a railgun that ignores your invulnerable save!" "Nuh uh, I have a special demon save that ignores things that ignore invulnerable saves!" "oh... Well then I'll get an even bigger gun that also ignores your demon save!" Just a constant back and forth of "my new thing beats all the old things" that perfectly exemplifies the power creep of the last 6 years.
It’s early days yet, but as we shake the rigour mortis of 9th edition off of us, never was the damaging power creep and instability of the edition better represented than by the entire song and dance sound invulnerability saves.
We have Invul Saves, then Ignores Invul Saves Attack, then the Ignores Ignores Invul Save Attack Demon Save, finally the Ignores Ignores Ignores Invul Save Attack Daemon Save Grey Kmights Super Attack
Every edition start is filled with hope that this time they wont let powercreep and bloat make the game need another edition and every edition GW shows us the folly of our ways. Tread carefully design team you are treading on our dreams
Well, no. There's always going to be another edition. There's a whole host of competitive play reasons why that is, way too long to go into here. But I will point out that 8th edition was considered a major step down in power from 7th when it was released (mostly because of of 7ths Formations rules).
@@johngalt200 It did take GW quite a long time to get to 7th edition at least. 3rd edition was released in 1998, 7th in 2014 (and it ended in 2017). They managed to get a similar amount of power creep in less than 6 years as they previously did in just under 19 years.
@@AFnord Remember that joke video from Auspex about a Primaris unit that got stronger in real time? Given the acceleration of power creep, that's not as silly to consider as it should be.
@@AFnord Yeah, but prior to 7th they'd been really inconsistent about codex releases. It took 12 years for Dark Eldar to get a codex update. They basically missed all of 4th edition. I'd actually posit that 7th was the first time GW actually took competitive play seriously. It was the first time GW actually committed to every legal army having a printed codex released within an edition. They've always considered themselves a "miniature production company" not a "game production company". Also even as it was being released, I felt that 9ths power increase was a response to how disappointed everyone had been by the power loss of 8th. (Seriously, I remember people saying they were going to boycott the game because of things like DE losing fleet turn 1). Also, a lot of people were wishing games would be shorter around that time. An increased level of lethality probably seemed like a good way to keep games to
It's a good idea. Especially when some units also have access to FNP's. I like that AP has been reduced so having normal armour actually means something. There seems to be certain ways to still bypass saves with mortal wounds. It'll depend how things are costed. The fact that factions have been developed together and simplified seems encouraging so far.
Ya this was my issue. I'm fine with Invulns being stronger but I don't want it to be at the cost of armor. In 9e there are so many units with armor-only that you can't afford to take despite their utility or output because "4+ armor save" meant nothing against have the armies out there.
I'm really liking devastating wounds as the main source of mortals, which makes is so they can happen and you can't be certain that your 4++ save with a CP reroll banked is going to save you, but you also can't rely on using mortal wounds as the way to get through things. There looks like there will be tension in the attack steps.
Faction are only simultaneously released in the initial editin though, the power creep will still return with furure codex release but now new rule will be much more impactful because its limited to 1 page. You will essentially have every release creep up by the same margin as votann/tau creep
Invulnerable saves are supposed to be special, but nearly everything got them in the last edition. I think they should become expensive upgrades with only a very small number of characters getting them for free. It really cheapens the game when there are so many high AP weapons AND they're largely useless because your opponent has an invuln on everything.
Yeah suck to fight against Black templar with vow 5++ and 5+++ Oh all my army have invulnerable save now also they have it for mortal wound and give fnp like comon….
Agreed. I don't know how everyone else will feel about this, but does anyone else think GW should make it to where eligible units that have Invulv saves have to spend a command point to use them?
@@dominicscreativefilms That seems crazy to me to be honest. Maybe in terms of Relics or whatever for strong saves on characters, but having to spend a CP to even use it during the battle seems way to weak
@@tammy8157 From all we've seen they have scrapped it just from Abaddon. If GW follows their pattern then only 'ole Abby will be affected and everybody else will keep their damage caps. ;-) You know it's a joke but it's also not impossible to happen. Like the codex creep for every edition stops only when the CSM codex is released (and everybody praises it for not being OP) and continues with the next dex being released like nothing ever happened. Except the nerfs for the dex still happen even if it doesn't make sense. I can't be the only one who sees the pattern.
So far I'd say smart money is that damage caps are indeed gone in 10th, since we haven't seen them yet on anything, not even Abaddon. But it's not impossible they could sneak back in there somehow.
They are God !!! I’m sure they would have it again bc a God without damage reduction it’s really weird…. Also at 9 wound no damage cap it’s gonna die first turn….
I had a game vs leagues of Votaan yesterday and was oddly talking about this very point with them during the game as they just basically said nope to all my saves xD glad to see GW are scaling back on this
@@darthvaderbutwayshittier7054 Yea, but then it is still the slowest army and apart from Knights the most expensive. 105 points for the cheapest unit, with dogshit saves. And yes the ones with the accelerated keyword could advance faster, but the whole army had exactly one assault weapon.
@@florianwegler8184Bad saves? They get an improved version of Armor of Contempt baked into 80% of their datasheets and can deny rerolls to hit AND wound.
Honestly, while this is a good thing, invuln saves should be capped at 5+ in the first place (excluding zoanthropes and deamons) with most being at 6+. I hate that they represent plot armor in a game that should be about nameless armies slaughtering each other on unknown planets. That would make "Invulnerable" saves feel like you got saved in extremis by an unreliable force field that you would normally avoid counting on, which is how they felt in editions 3 to 5. And that would make armor saves and the promised drop in AP actually relevant. Still wish they had prefered a drop in number of attacks over the AP drop, because imagining Guilliman or Abaddon swinging these comically big swords 14 times in the same time a normal human stabs his bayonet once would just look like a ridiculous glitchy video game (but then again, a problem with named characters being playable)
In 10th invul on high toughness models like Angron and Imperial Knights will be much much stronger because fewer things can wound them on 3-4+, and the things that can will usually only have a single shot. It returns to the problem of when railguns were useless because the odds of hitting, wounding and going through a 4+ invul (not to mention cp reroll on top of that)is damn near nothing. The toughness boost in 10th essentially ensures that there are no good weapons to use against units that have 11+ toughness and an invulnerable save.
@@sanninjiraiya well remember, things like the hammerhead and fire prism have a good chance of going up to strength 24. So they can wound things like knights on 2s.
Doomsday Cannon. It's not that the defenses don't matter, but maybe the cron's roll three 6's to wound, maybe the target rolls 3's to save. You're probably fine, but you might not be.
The reason why I took issue with AP being prevalent in 9th was that almost all saves that took place in a game requires the player whos making the save rolls have to adjust the armor save to their disadvantage, if not deny them rolling at all.
I'm not sure I follow why that's a 9th edition problem? Classic AP just flat out ignore any armour it was better than. So you'd generally be denying them a roll if you had a good AP value. And the more modern AP system worked the same way in 8th edition as in 9th.
@D T reason for it being a 9th problem was that AP was everywhere, even the weapons that normally didn't have any AP in other versions, had some in 9th. The math was skewed in a different direction. It made made the whole game more killy. Less tactical play, and more deleting entire units back and forth. Players want interaction, but not in the vain of always being hit with a negative.
On one side, Im really glad all of the invul negating rules have been removed but on the other wasnt invuled meant to be something special? Everything seems to have in this new edition which makes sense I guess with so many special rule weapons
I think it's also an issue of what they're previewing. They're generally showing a lot of the biggest and baddest units and characters (namely the Primarchs) that would definitely have invulns, plus the Terminators being one of the centerpieces for the set. I'll want to see how some of the more mid-range units, and I'm willing to bet there will be a lot fewer ways to give invulns to units that don't have them natively
@crazyshak4827 That is, however, we have only seen invul upgrades. Like how sisters, a basic t3 human has a invul or how base terminators have a 4++ even without a shield. The only one who got a worsening invul was guiliman but he got a +3 to toughness, more wounds and a more reliable revive with 6 wounds instead of d6
@@Brother_Rony So, in defense of the Sisters, they've had that Invuln already in 9th, and possibly for longer. But as Auspex said, I don't think it'll be super relevant, since I don't think they're as likely to be hit with AP-4 weapons. All told, we'll have to see. I think Devastating Wounds is a good compromise without being super reliable at getting around invulns, and I think the big one will be avoiding rules that grant army wide invulns, or even just units like Feirros that grant them as an aura. I'm okay with the units that are supposed to be tanky having their invulns. It's when buffs start giving them to units that aren't supposed to have them that it gets weird
@@crazyshak4827 The best thing about devastating wounds is that it removes reliability rather than trading back absolute answers. The offense can't rely on getting mortal wounds, and the defense can't rely on there not being mortal wounds.
why should anything ignore invulnerable saves? even mortal wounds shouldnt... because the whole point of an invulnerable save is that it makes you invulnerable.
@@imaloser5689 usually its more than forcefields. its relics like pieces of the emperors armor. which is why its a bit silly that tau get invulnerable saves at all their tech isnt on the same level as emperor level relics. invulnerable saves should go back to being very rare like they used to be.
Very interesting that of minimizing the relevance of Invulns by a general AP reduction. It could be even further reduced by increasing the volume of attacks. Another way would be to takesway any Invuln save from Storm Shields and similar devices and design them so they just improve normal save rolls or making them expensive.
The only teased storm shield rule we've seen so far indicates they give an extra wound not an invulnerable save. But that was on the revealed teminator captain sheet and space marine characters already tend to get invulnerable saves of some sort.
It was ultimately a product of the AP being out of control in 9e. If you played anything that didn't have a T4 3+ at the barest of minimums you effectively didn't have a save against most things.
My troll hits your knight! But my knight is in armour and can survive the hit! But my troll is using an anti armour club! But my armour is magical and can withstand your club! But the club is made of anti magic hardwood and penetrates your defensive magics! But my armour is blessed by the priests of Cthulhu and is protected by divine holy power and can withstand your anti magic material! But my club is cursed by the unholy soul of a dead black dragon and can pierce your Devine protection! I could go on.
As a Hammerhead railgun enjoyer who's still learning the game, I'm not sure how I feel about this, but it seems to be for the best. Legit and broad balancing is better than the satisfaction of getting off a cheeky shot that ruins your enemy's day.
I don't think the tau railgun would have been that much of an issue seeing as how they were more or less weak in melee, however when they released the votann who were good at ranged and melee and gave them railguns out the ass, that kinda screwed tau
@@mikewillis9537 tbh the real weakness of the hammerhead is that it's on a fragile platform that does very little else, it gets 1 shot that hits on 4s maybe boosted to 3s and then has to make the wound roll. They are very good but they have enough drawbacks that they're not as meta defining as you'd think. I've absolutely had one whiff into knights and then watched a single knight pick Longstrike and another hammerhead up in 1 turns' shooting. With overkill. While Votann made theirs consistent and put it on something absurdly tough that could be boosted to blank a failed save, repaired and had lots of other guns and the overspill means it could be fed a 6 and be efficient into anything. Also I think with Votann turning off invuls was "here's yet another rule you can't use".
I wish they would tone it back more. Anything that isn't a named character that is getting an invuln should be 6+ and named characters should be 5+. Bring the AP down at least 1 point on everything. Only FNP should be 6+ on characters and expensive heroes.
I'd actually argue it's going to be worse in 10th. In 9th generally only big one shot weapons or melee attacks that ignore them but for 10th we've already seen quite a lot of devastating wounds so while it isn't garunteed there will be a lot more occasions across a lot more factions that will see you not getting your invuln
Also seems that wound phase caps are gone? Only really have Abaddon as an example but I’d be surprised if he lost it and others kept theirs. Makes sense to me if general survivability is up, don’t need to rely on a phase cap to keep you alive.
I’m sure Ctan will have it. Bc they are lone operative, Gods and if not everything can destroyed them first turn. Really weird to have a god with no damage cap.
Large models like the nightbringer didn't have damage caps until 9th, and they were just fine without them. Make the rest of the rules appropriate, and they aren't necessary.
Not having an Invulnerable save in 9th edition on almost every unit in your army felt like you were at a huge disadvantage, so proud of GW for this soft reset of the entire game in 10th
As an IG player I found that mechanic to interrupt with invulvs quit good. I just don't get why it has to fully ignore it? Just make anything with a normal - 4 automatically - 1 for invulvs, - 5 is - 2 and so on
Hot take. I didn’t really mind playing with invul denial abilities and weapons because playing against armies like custodes that have 4+ across entire army is not fun, and it was nice to actually kill things every once in a while. Never really saw these things as that big of a problem.
I am glad to hear this. I also hope they do away with that "if your unit takes a wound, roll a D6, if successful you don't loose they wound." rule for some units. Re-generation, healing and resurrection for certain units is fine though.
I think you did a great job giving a concise analysis as to how and why GW got themselves into this mess in 9th and hopefully the powercreep wont be as bad in 10th
I feel like losing the ability to ignore invuls aside from MWs will be great for the game. I think the issue came with the widespread access to invuls that lots of armies had. When you've got basic troops like gaunts shrugging of dedicated anti-tank it feels a bit off. Seeing as auras seem less common in 10th, Buffs that convey invuls are likely limited single units, so much more manageable So long as the units which can access them are weighted appropriately I don't mind invuls Being on select units and taking a little bit more to chew through.
now that psychic attacks just work like normal guns and dont do mortals im really hoping the pyschic keyword targets invulnerable saves with their AP instead of armor. you should need fairly supernatural defense for those but this allows an inbetween of normal damage and mortals that cant be stopped at all.
also i will not be shocked if the tau railgun receives anti vehicle 5+ or so along with its devastating wounds. wouldnt make it any more likely to wound on likely snything but maybe a warlord titan, but i believe the way the "anti" keyword is worded it makes the wound critical, so would activate the devastating wounds mortals on 5s.
Here's too hoping. The codex creep taking it from being a gentlemens game to this competition of who's got the more slanted rules was kind of annoying.
speaking of invulnerable saves, the wording for the praesidium shields has been confusing me, do models with praesidium shields still give the 3+ invuln via the +1 to saving throws or is it just t-shirt saves that they affect?
I think the issue reguarding the ignoring invulns is that it can work, but it should be something you have to work hard for, not just handed out as a weapon ability or stratgem. EG the SM has the null zone psychic power, but it's very limited in terms of usage and range, makes all unit in the range lose their invuln, and also usually leads to the death of the user. Sure some may say it's useless, but at least it's better than just handing out unsavable wounds with high ap on certain weapon types.
Eh, kinda on the fence about all this... As someone who had to endure the cancer of dealing with assault terminators back when their Invuln was a 3+, I honestly didn't mind that the last couple of editions had plenty of ways to ignore all that BS! Granted, I do agree it's gotten rather silly with all the conflicting rules that Geedubs have been churning out in the last year or so... still, I for one hope we're not going back to the days of being able to drop a _literal_ orbital bombardment directly on a unit's noggin, only to have it completely _ignored_ due to invuln 'shenanigans'..! Time will tell, I guess.
Seems fair to me. Probably will make me want to try my 20 death guard termies that saw play just a few times, because they were so bad, it wasn't actually fun neither for me or my opponents.
My guess is that Psychic keyword means "ignore inv and only inv" that's why psy powers still have ap and the possibility to deal MW, makes sense so far with no big str psy powers and little ap too, make even more sense considering Daemons have a normal save on top of the inv one
All the people glad to see the removal of ignoring vulnerable save... My experience was in 8th when I started I would go against my friend's space wolf cavalry with a 3+ invulnerable save using my tyranids and what was I supposed to do? If I use my strong attacks, I would just cross my fingers and hope he got a 1-2. The alternative is to use a shit ton of my weak attacks, which would make it more likely he would fail to resist them all, but it would also mean I would be more likely to just miss or not land the wound. There was literally nothing I could but pray to the dice gods. And when I used my death guard that's kind of the situation everyone had against disgusting resilience. There were no decisions to make about it. It was just pray to the dice gods. And then I started getting some psykers. And it became a bit more strategic. I had something I could do. I could target them with my psykers. But I had to be careful because of course he would prioritize shooting them. My tyranid army didn't have invulnerable saves so I never experienced the supposed pain of losing them in 9th. But you know what? I hate invulnerable saves. They're supposed to represent the unit being tough? Just give them more wounds! It's much more fun when something takes about three attacks to kill because it has three health, rather than it taking three attacks to kill because it has one health but it ignores 2/3 of the attacks going into it. It's much more fun when AP means something. I guess this is why I generally prefer matches that are swarms against hordes, rather than elite untouchable bullshit.
Like everything, I have reservations atm, but I will hold onto them till we get the full picture, basically correct points costs (either increases or decreases etc) will make or break this edition some pretty busted looking data sheets, but if costed correctly it shouldn't be a problem
We do still have weapons that ignore invuls though, every weapon with devastating wounds that deal mortals over regular damage not only ignore invuls but also potentially splash across a unit if the weapon's damage is higher than 1. If anything, ignores invuls rules are better this edition than 9th.
People got invupns and stuff meanwhile guard just hopes they brought a critical mass that you cant chew through before they bombard you into dust hopefully and take the board
Literally all that thousand sons have is the mortals output. The codex has a distinct lack of reliable utility compared to other armies, so if the mortal farming is taken away, I expect a serious bump in the reliability of the rest of the army rules and some excellent auras. Thousand sons are always meant to be a tricky army but currently you _have_ to soup to be competitive.
While its good that they removed the "ignore invuls" weapons and abilities, they really haven't because Mortal Wounds are still at thing. They do seem more rare though. Personally I would have Mortals reduced invul by one or something. I don't like entirely ignoring saves.
It's a good idea removing the "ignore invulns" rule, however things like belakor shouldn't be able to be tied up by like 4 bladeguard considering his weapon, or at least he could just fly on to a new target not just sit there.
They will be better in the sense of more useful. But not better in the sense of them being better/easier to succeed. I really dont think Termies needed a 4+ with the removal of Ignore Invulns. Going to T5 was a good enough boost imo and the 4+ should of been for specialty items, like the Iron Halo and Chaplains Rosarius. At least the first part of 10th will be Terminator Edition, or Terminator equivilant edition. Their stats plus their offense is about the best you can possibly have on foot sloggers, T5 W3 2+/4++ with Loyalist getting Oath and Traitor getting Pacts their output damage wise is going to be just unmatched imo. Know GW doesnt want to change Dataslates as its aggravating for players to have books/cards that say one thing but the game says it does another. But 4+ is just a bit TOO defensive on infantry IMO.
I mean, it could just be they're resetting the dial of power creep back to the beginning, fully planning to allow in more rules vs invulns as time goes on.
AP going down can only benefit my little guys that never had any ap in the first place. But only two models in my army had invuln saves, so I also don't care that the ignore invuln saves rules are going away.
Other than the DW xenophase blade (which is not game breaking at all), nothing should have an ignore invulnerable. Leave that to psychic powers or other hyper niche powers and relics.
Ignoring invulnerable should be UBER rare, and never on anything standard issue. The only things off the top of my mind that should do that are: Phase Swords (iconic in that they do this), Xenophase Blades (And even thats just re-roll, not ignore) and C'tan (because they're sodding C'tan).
C’tan attacks could be balanced further by attack rolls of 5+/6 being the invulnerable save breakers, but I entirely agree it should be some of the rarest thing around.
I forgot about that FAQ for GK that showed them to ignore demon saves!!!! WOW!!! I really love this company sometimes. You can't make this stuff up. Lol. Anyway, I'm so glad to see GW getting to use invuls more sparingly. They will be more valuable, and more annoying but let's see how it plays
If GW ever started using d10s or d12s we could just get rid of invuls and AP because we'd have a wide enough range of numbers that all of the different tiers of armour could be represented without having to give stuff invuls on top of their armor saves. It'll never happen though, too many people would be mad about buying dice.
Personally, I don’t mind one MAYBE two characters in a codex having an “ignores invul” mechanic if it really fits their persona. But mainstay units shouldn’t. Except Grey knights who should get more access to anti-demon invuls Side note I’ve wondered why big bada don’t get a FNP save more often.
Personally, I think the tau railgun should either maintain its invuln penetration or reduce the effectiveness of the invlun save. The samn thing is a single shot weapon, and if it follows last edition it hits on a 4+. It already just misses half the time without buffs, to miss half the time, fail to wound 1/3rd of the time (with toughness's going up, many of the big things we usually shoot the railgun at will have better than toughness 10), and then have enemies just ignore it with the seemingly common 5+ invuln for ANOTHER 1/3rd chance to just not do anything, if the tau railgun doesnt ignore invulns i see the ion chode quickly becoming the premier hammerhead weapon if only because it fires multiple times.
Devastating Wounds is the new "Ignores Invulns" rule. For most, it's a 1 in 6 chance, but I expect the Hammerhead may have Anti-Vehicle 3+ or something similar, either innately or through a stratagem, to trigger it more often. I won't be surprised if most factions have a Devastating Wounds + "Anti-X" combo.
they already mentioned that the hammerhead is strength 20 in one of the first rules previews so it would already wound vehicles, at least the ones we've seen so far, on 3+ it's even possible it has anti-tank 2+ if it were to have the anti-tank rule, based on Votan though I'd say there is a very good chance of it having devastating wounds.
Base rules have never been the issue, its always the codices. I have no idea why but GW seem to do a line of coke before they write a new codex and screw the balance up. Going have to wait and see.
Some weapons absolutely require ignores invulns to work at all. Those single shot AT russ weapons were never taken despite having ignores invulns AND doing mortals, because spamming plasma was better than even that. I think there are too many invulns as is, and its making certain types of guns very ineffective.
To many ignore invulns ruin the game not all armies are created equal. Which makes the writers/rule makers of the game to keep power creeping. They have a history of it. Last time there was a rules reset was 5th edition, each codex was outdoing the next codex. And that led to toxic games over time as armies getting outdated had a harder time winning as the newer ones kept coming into play. The only Codex that really stood the test of time during that time period was the reworked and new Imperial Guard written by Matt Ward. It was over the top.
The toughness spreading is doing a lot solve the "just spam plasma" or anything else. Things that have the strength to punch into vehicles are being given extra damage to make the vehicle punch matter, but not extra attacks so they are also good into non-single targets. Except the doomsday cannon, but I'm fine with that.
Fuck me I am a Black Spot. Built a generic Terminator Lord, and Lord Zhufor, just before World Eaters Codex confirmed no Termie Lords.... Finally get around to building Invocatus and now no "ignores Invuls" for him....
finally, hope they don't make thinks that ignore inv saves again. and with the reduced AP normal saves mean something again also. Toughness vs Strength is the best way to balance how hardy a model is.
I do think invulns will be better, but I'm not sure this is good for the game health. Now there's only one mechanic to skip that and it's mortal wounds, and isn't equally available to all armies. In enemies with big toughness and great invulns it's quite frustrating when your few high strength/damage weapons wounds are all saved and you just can't kill it because of luck In addition, I'm quite worried for 3++ saves making a comeback. It felt plainly unfair to fight against the herald of change saving at 3++ back in early 9th
The problem with invuln's is that there is no downside to them anymore. In 3rd edition, the downside was that if you failed, you'd usually get 1-shot, so there was risk-reward. Now, it's just reward. 10th's core rules are looking like they will be very irritating from a unit durability perspective.
Like, for real. It's called *Invulnerable Save* for a reason. Nothing should negate it. Some (rare) abilities could decrease it (down to 6++) tho, but not outright delete even 2++.
personally, I think some units should retain it. Not because I hate those units, but because GW really needs a way to set these weapons apart from the other options that unit has. For example, the Vanquisher Battle Cannon for the Leman Russ. The way I think it could work is that when it fires against vehicles, you can ingnore invulnerable saves. But if they take away the ignore invuln ability, they'll have to replace it with something that is unique to that units purpose. Maybe it could be you get extra attacks against the units you're supposed to be attacking. The VBC could get a single shot against infantry or characters, but could get D3 shots against vehicles or monsters. What do you guys think?
Or just don't have invuln saves on vehicles, they just have good armor saves and high toughness. Then a high strength, high ap, high damage is good into a vehicle, but is only okay into elites and centerpiece models. You could even have invuln saves only on light vehicles (venoms etc) which still get T8 or less so don't need the super high strength of the anti-tank, so you use other weapons on them that aren't good into tanks.
While I think the end of ignoring invulns is a good thing overall, I'm worried that GW will overcorrect and make invulns exceptionally annoying to deal with, like with termis going up to 4+. I get they're suppose to be tough, but a 50% chance to ignore even the highest quality of attacks on what is conceivably battle line infantry is going to be quite a pain to deal with and not particularly fun.
Personally, I think we should just basically do away with the invulnerable saves. You want tough terminators? Give them six wounds then, instead of ignoring half. Whatever, anything but invulnerable saves
For something like a Tau Railgun when it's a huge single shot having a single invulnerable save null ALL the damage is silly though. Unless there is a rule where Invulnerable Saves are rolled per wound line an FNP for certain weapons, which would be a fair compromise. Otherwise large single shot weapons will become unplayable, and they should retain their place having an important role on the battlefield
I really dislike toughness being related to anything other than a units inate toughness if it was unarmoured. Saves should represent the quality of armour and invulns for forcefields and the like. Rules for bypassing an invuln should only exist on weapons designed for that role, like snipers and psychically enfused weapons or similar in universe shenanigans
40k had/has 4+ stats for a models defense: save, invulns, tough, wounds. Still, they need further special rules to represent some models. Their core rules framework is just not well thought out.
Hard to say yet. Characters already get invulnerable saves in marine armies. So do terminators. So it might be a 'they give terminators extra wounds' or 'they give anyone extra wounds' situation. Or possibly even 'they give regular marines an invunerable save but terminators a wound' deal.
To me I think there should be a way to overcome invulnerable saves but strength if say a Terminator gets hit by a Titan grade weapons it will reduce or remove the save entirely as toughness 5 vs strength 16 or 24 it should be dead. It makes sense to me that they are durable but not that durable
We need to drop mortal wounds, ignore invul, guns shooting more then 3 shots 3+ damage things. Crunch the kill power back down to 3rd Ed time so the boards arnt 12 touring buildings craming ever inch so your army dosnt wipe from one turn without losing blocking crap cluttering up the board so much
@@cooke828 we've had smite before mortal wounds was a thing. Probably now that we have reducing pen . I would return Psy power as a stat and have smite be a Psy number of shots of s8 ap -2 or 3
Yes they're definitely not dropping the lethality enough, especially when it comes to named characters (these f*ckers can swing these giant swords 14 times in the same time that a normal human stabs once with his bayonet, that would look comical and ridiculous) If we're going to have multiple editions of lethality creep again, now would have been the time to do a hard reset on killiness.
I hope that this rules become special again and not to the point where invuls and ignoring invuls became so commen that demon got an extra special save because invul became nerly standart
It's all fine and well until sisters and eldar put auto-6's to wound with their BS saved dice mechanic. I'm fine with the rest but this little work-around is going to be a problem.
The only place we’ve seen Devastating Wounds on what’s been previewed for Sisters was Vahl’s Strike profile. Maybe it’ll be prevalent or maybe it’ll be rare for armies that have high dice manipulation mechanics to have broad access to Devastating Wounds.
@@adamheiermann2462 Yes, out of a tiny handful of profiles we've seen it's something sisters can have, meaning there's a more than plausible chance that sisters can and will deliver automatic mortal wounds when they want and a guarantee on at least one unit, the one you pointed out. "We don't know" doesn't cut it here, you've just delivered proof that it's already happening and I'm saying there's going to me more. I play against eldar on the regular, I can already see my armour getting disintegrated every turn because of fate dice.
After watching this play out i start to wonder if the system before AP became a thing was better or if the d6 system is restricting ap way too much that it can't be fine tuned enough to balance out. I guess 10th will be the tell for it all
Having armor being worth a damn was actually more important than less ignoring invuls. We still need ways to ignore invuls or at least reduce them since there are armies who run entirely on invuls and it would be boring if there was no way to interact with that.
I'd say there already is a way to counteract invul saves: Devastating Wounds. In my opinion it is even more elegant than the flat out "ignore invuls" since it feels less absolute. And the potency of devastating wounds can be increased by making crits easier as we'ev already seen on Votann.
@@patchesrk I forgot about Devastating Wounds. But yeah, instead of just straight up giving Mortal Wounds, but only on 6s is a good way to make a lesser version of just ignores invul always.
@@notdoomguy1616 I would be perfectly fine with this if they increase points cost. If everything is getting reduced firepower then it makes sense that I can only take so many Custodes. Would be more in line with how strong they’re supposed to be lore-wise.
I wouldnt say they got rid of it, a lot of weapons it seems are getting the "devastating wounds" which is ignoring invuls. So it actually seems like they spread it out more, than got rid of it Edit: switched "lethal hits" for the intended "devastating wounds"
Lethal hits doesn’t get around invulns. It just auto-wounds the unit on a hit roll of a 6. So you still get to make a save as the defending unit. It will get around unit toughness though.
My Daemons arguably nerfed by this happening but my god I'm thankful it is, seems such a silly song and dance that had gotten way past the ridiculous by the end of the edition. I'm here for my Belakor to morph into more of a field general daemon rather than ridiculous killing machine.
I hope they do something for volkite weapon leashing mortal wound better especially if assault cannon have this ability now… i just build my 2 weapon twin vilkite on my dreadnaught
Yeah, this whole mechanic made me mad. I'm not convinced it's not coming back as the creep sets in next year. I'm glad Armour of Contempt has been codified into the AP rules now. Everything should be one less.
What? 9th was perfect! We first had invulnerable saves. Then we had weapons that ignored invulnerable saves. Then we got super invulnerable saves with deamons. Finally, Gw closed the loop with ignore super invulnerable saves of deamons! ;)
Who knows? We've only seen a tiny fraction of 10th, and GW have been mostly showing off the most powerful stuff. There's not enough information to form a valid opinion on anything yet. Everything is pure speculation.
@@RanVor If the rest is really less strong, I'm talking weak enough for the game to be enjoyable again, we're going to face more Guillimen and Abbadons than footsoldiers
@@Stikarii Depends on the points. Don't get me wrong, I'm more skeptical about 10th than most, but it's still far too early to make declarative statements.
Invuln saves in 9th were like two grade school children playing pretend.
"I have an invulnerable save which ignores your AP!"
"Oh yeah, well I have a railgun that ignores your invulnerable save!"
"Nuh uh, I have a special demon save that ignores things that ignore invulnerable saves!"
"oh... Well then I'll get an even bigger gun that also ignores your demon save!"
Just a constant back and forth of "my new thing beats all the old things" that perfectly exemplifies the power creep of the last 6 years.
Nuh uh, I have this banner that ignores your daemon save!
@HispAnakin42 "no! That's cheating, poopyhead!"
Damm was it really that bad???
Well well... I have an anti demon gun that ultra kills your demons!
"....my Librarian has Null-Zone so you can kiss those Demons goodbye!"
It’s early days yet, but as we shake the rigour mortis of 9th edition off of us, never was the damaging power creep and instability of the edition better represented than by the entire song and dance sound invulnerability saves.
We have Invul Saves, then Ignores Invul Saves Attack, then the Ignores Ignores Invul Save Attack Demon Save, finally the Ignores Ignores Ignores Invul Save Attack Daemon Save Grey Kmights Super Attack
@@TheSYLOH Shwacked
Then again, history may repeat itself… it’s GW we’re talking about after all
Inv Saves themselves are an absurd mechanic. Anything having to do with them will of course be absurd.
@@SageSimulant I agree defenses that treat all fire the same is stupid.
Every edition start is filled with hope that this time they wont let powercreep and bloat make the game need another edition and every edition GW shows us the folly of our ways. Tread carefully design team you are treading on our dreams
Thread?
Well, no. There's always going to be another edition. There's a whole host of competitive play reasons why that is, way too long to go into here.
But I will point out that 8th edition was considered a major step down in power from 7th when it was released (mostly because of of 7ths Formations rules).
@@johngalt200 It did take GW quite a long time to get to 7th edition at least. 3rd edition was released in 1998, 7th in 2014 (and it ended in 2017). They managed to get a similar amount of power creep in less than 6 years as they previously did in just under 19 years.
@@AFnord Remember that joke video from Auspex about a Primaris unit that got stronger in real time? Given the acceleration of power creep, that's not as silly to consider as it should be.
@@AFnord Yeah, but prior to 7th they'd been really inconsistent about codex releases. It took 12 years for Dark Eldar to get a codex update. They basically missed all of 4th edition.
I'd actually posit that 7th was the first time GW actually took competitive play seriously. It was the first time GW actually committed to every legal army having a printed codex released within an edition. They've always considered themselves a "miniature production company" not a "game production company".
Also even as it was being released, I felt that 9ths power increase was a response to how disappointed everyone had been by the power loss of 8th. (Seriously, I remember people saying they were going to boycott the game because of things like DE losing fleet turn 1).
Also, a lot of people were wishing games would be shorter around that time. An increased level of lethality probably seemed like a good way to keep games to
It's a good idea. Especially when some units also have access to FNP's.
I like that AP has been reduced so having normal armour actually means something. There seems to be certain ways to still bypass saves with mortal wounds.
It'll depend how things are costed. The fact that factions have been developed together and simplified seems encouraging so far.
Ya this was my issue. I'm fine with Invulns being stronger but I don't want it to be at the cost of armor. In 9e there are so many units with armor-only that you can't afford to take despite their utility or output because "4+ armor save" meant nothing against have the armies out there.
I'm really liking devastating wounds as the main source of mortals, which makes is so they can happen and you can't be certain that your 4++ save with a CP reroll banked is going to save you, but you also can't rely on using mortal wounds as the way to get through things.
There looks like there will be tension in the attack steps.
i still dont like FNP on top of invulns
It's retarded. AP should matter. There is no risk-reward in 10th edition.
Faction are only simultaneously released in the initial editin though, the power creep will still return with furure codex release but now new rule will be much more impactful because its limited to 1 page.
You will essentially have every release creep up by the same margin as votann/tau creep
Invulnerable saves are supposed to be special, but nearly everything got them in the last edition. I think they should become expensive upgrades with only a very small number of characters getting them for free. It really cheapens the game when there are so many high AP weapons AND they're largely useless because your opponent has an invuln on everything.
Yeah suck to fight against Black templar with vow 5++ and 5+++ Oh all my army have invulnerable save now also they have it for mortal wound and give fnp like comon….
Agreed. I don't know how everyone else will feel about this, but does anyone else think GW should make it to where eligible units that have Invulv saves have to spend a command point to use them?
@@dominicscreativefilms That seems crazy to me to be honest. Maybe in terms of Relics or whatever for strong saves on characters, but having to spend a CP to even use it during the battle seems way to weak
I would love also the removal of "Can only take X wounds per phase" rules.
Yeah is such a road block if you are playing a dedicated range or mele army
They already removed this from Abaddon in the Chaos faction overview article that came out the other week. So yea they've scrapped it thankfully.
@@tammy8157 From all we've seen they have scrapped it just from Abaddon. If GW follows their pattern then only 'ole Abby will be affected and everybody else will keep their damage caps. ;-) You know it's a joke but it's also not impossible to happen. Like the codex creep for every edition stops only when the CSM codex is released (and everybody praises it for not being OP) and continues with the next dex being released like nothing ever happened. Except the nerfs for the dex still happen even if it doesn't make sense. I can't be the only one who sees the pattern.
So far I'd say smart money is that damage caps are indeed gone in 10th, since we haven't seen them yet on anything, not even Abaddon. But it's not impossible they could sneak back in there somehow.
They are God !!! I’m sure they would have it again bc a God without damage reduction it’s really weird…. Also at 9 wound no damage cap it’s gonna die first turn….
I had a game vs leagues of Votaan yesterday and was oddly talking about this very point with them during the game as they just basically said nope to all my saves xD glad to see GW are scaling back on this
To be fair, Votann say "nope" to a really solid chunk of game mechanics
@@darthvaderbutwayshittier7054 Yea, but then it is still the slowest army and apart from Knights the most expensive. 105 points for the cheapest unit, with dogshit saves. And yes the ones with the accelerated keyword could advance faster, but the whole army had exactly one assault weapon.
...so you played 9th with them then?
@@florianwegler8184slower then DG?
@@florianwegler8184Bad saves? They get an improved version of Armor of Contempt baked into 80% of their datasheets and can deny rerolls to hit AND wound.
Honestly, while this is a good thing, invuln saves should be capped at 5+ in the first place (excluding zoanthropes and deamons) with most being at 6+. I hate that they represent plot armor in a game that should be about nameless armies slaughtering each other on unknown planets.
That would make "Invulnerable" saves feel like you got saved in extremis by an unreliable force field that you would normally avoid counting on, which is how they felt in editions 3 to 5. And that would make armor saves and the promised drop in AP actually relevant.
Still wish they had prefered a drop in number of attacks over the AP drop, because imagining Guilliman or Abaddon swinging these comically big swords 14 times in the same time a normal human stabs his bayonet once would just look like a ridiculous glitchy video game (but then again, a problem with named characters being playable)
In 10th invul on high toughness models like Angron and Imperial Knights will be much much stronger because fewer things can wound them on 3-4+, and the things that can will usually only have a single shot. It returns to the problem of when railguns were useless because the odds of hitting, wounding and going through a 4+ invul (not to mention cp reroll on top of that)is damn near nothing.
The toughness boost in 10th essentially ensures that there are no good weapons to use against units that have 11+ toughness and an invulnerable save.
Yep. I'm going to hate named characters even more I feel like.
I wish they had also lowered Invuln saves across the board.
We're going back to the 7th edition problems that made riptides, wraithknights, Knights, and Daemon Princes so busted and miserable to play against
@@sanninjiraiya well remember, things like the hammerhead and fire prism have a good chance of going up to strength 24. So they can wound things like knights on 2s.
Doomsday Cannon.
It's not that the defenses don't matter, but maybe the cron's roll three 6's to wound, maybe the target rolls 3's to save.
You're probably fine, but you might not be.
@@PhthaloGreenskin I think GW already said that the good ol' Railgun will be strength 20, so probably only 3+ on big vehicles.
The reason why I took issue with AP being prevalent in 9th was that almost all saves that took place in a game requires the player whos making the save rolls have to adjust the armor save to their disadvantage, if not deny them rolling at all.
I'm not sure I follow why that's a 9th edition problem? Classic AP just flat out ignore any armour it was better than. So you'd generally be denying them a roll if you had a good AP value. And the more modern AP system worked the same way in 8th edition as in 9th.
@D T reason for it being a 9th problem was that AP was everywhere, even the weapons that normally didn't have any AP in other versions, had some in 9th. The math was skewed in a different direction. It made made the whole game more killy. Less tactical play, and more deleting entire units back and forth. Players want interaction, but not in the vain of always being hit with a negative.
On one side, Im really glad all of the invul negating rules have been removed but on the other wasnt invuled meant to be something special? Everything seems to have in this new edition which makes sense I guess with so many special rule weapons
I think it's also an issue of what they're previewing. They're generally showing a lot of the biggest and baddest units and characters (namely the Primarchs) that would definitely have invulns, plus the Terminators being one of the centerpieces for the set. I'll want to see how some of the more mid-range units, and I'm willing to bet there will be a lot fewer ways to give invulns to units that don't have them natively
@crazyshak4827 That is, however, we have only seen invul upgrades. Like how sisters, a basic t3 human has a invul or how base terminators have a 4++ even without a shield. The only one who got a worsening invul was guiliman but he got a +3 to toughness, more wounds and a more reliable revive with 6 wounds instead of d6
@@Brother_Rony So, in defense of the Sisters, they've had that Invuln already in 9th, and possibly for longer. But as Auspex said, I don't think it'll be super relevant, since I don't think they're as likely to be hit with AP-4 weapons. All told, we'll have to see. I think Devastating Wounds is a good compromise without being super reliable at getting around invulns, and I think the big one will be avoiding rules that grant army wide invulns, or even just units like Feirros that grant them as an aura. I'm okay with the units that are supposed to be tanky having their invulns. It's when buffs start giving them to units that aren't supposed to have them that it gets weird
@@crazyshak4827 The best thing about devastating wounds is that it removes reliability rather than trading back absolute answers.
The offense can't rely on getting mortal wounds, and the defense can't rely on there not being mortal wounds.
Mortal Wounds is the one and only mechanic we need to ignore invulns. Anything punching through invulns should do so via Mortals.
why should anything ignore invulnerable saves? even mortal wounds shouldnt... because the whole point of an invulnerable save is that it makes you invulnerable.
@@Khobai But what is giving that save? If it is a force field then there are things that explicitly do ignore those
@@imaloser5689 usually its more than forcefields. its relics like pieces of the emperors armor. which is why its a bit silly that tau get invulnerable saves at all their tech isnt on the same level as emperor level relics. invulnerable saves should go back to being very rare like they used to be.
@@Khobai Thats what I was kinda getting at. Invuln saves aren't special anymore.
Very interesting that of minimizing the relevance of Invulns by a general AP reduction. It could be even further reduced by increasing the volume of attacks. Another way would be to takesway any Invuln save from Storm Shields and similar devices and design them so they just improve normal save rolls or making them expensive.
The only teased storm shield rule we've seen so far indicates they give an extra wound not an invulnerable save. But that was on the revealed teminator captain sheet and space marine characters already tend to get invulnerable saves of some sort.
Better yet, storm shields go back to being an invulnerable save against melee attacks only.
It was ultimately a product of the AP being out of control in 9e. If you played anything that didn't have a T4 3+ at the barest of minimums you effectively didn't have a save against most things.
My troll hits your knight!
But my knight is in armour and can survive the hit!
But my troll is using an anti armour club!
But my armour is magical and can withstand your club!
But the club is made of anti magic hardwood and penetrates your defensive magics!
But my armour is blessed by the priests of Cthulhu and is protected by divine holy power and can withstand your anti magic material!
But my club is cursed by the unholy soul of a dead black dragon and can pierce your Devine protection!
I could go on.
As a Hammerhead railgun enjoyer who's still learning the game, I'm not sure how I feel about this, but it seems to be for the best. Legit and broad balancing is better than the satisfaction of getting off a cheeky shot that ruins your enemy's day.
I don't think the tau railgun would have been that much of an issue seeing as how they were more or less weak in melee, however when they released the votann who were good at ranged and melee and gave them railguns out the ass, that kinda screwed tau
@@mikewillis9537 tbh the real weakness of the hammerhead is that it's on a fragile platform that does very little else, it gets 1 shot that hits on 4s maybe boosted to 3s and then has to make the wound roll. They are very good but they have enough drawbacks that they're not as meta defining as you'd think. I've absolutely had one whiff into knights and then watched a single knight pick Longstrike and another hammerhead up in 1 turns' shooting. With overkill.
While Votann made theirs consistent and put it on something absurdly tough that could be boosted to blank a failed save, repaired and had lots of other guns and the overspill means it could be fed a 6 and be efficient into anything. Also I think with Votann turning off invuls was "here's yet another rule you can't use".
I wish they would tone it back more. Anything that isn't a named character that is getting an invuln should be 6+ and named characters should be 5+. Bring the AP down at least 1 point on everything.
Only FNP should be 6+ on characters and expensive heroes.
I'd actually argue it's going to be worse in 10th. In 9th generally only big one shot weapons or melee attacks that ignore them but for 10th we've already seen quite a lot of devastating wounds so while it isn't garunteed there will be a lot more occasions across a lot more factions that will see you not getting your invuln
Perhaps something like a Titan Weapon could have some Ignore Invuls, but anything less than that shouldn't have it.
I’m sure some Knight weapon also
Also seems that wound phase caps are gone? Only really have Abaddon as an example but I’d be surprised if he lost it and others kept theirs. Makes sense to me if general survivability is up, don’t need to rely on a phase cap to keep you alive.
You'd be surprised if CSM were the only faction to receive a nerf? Ha! You must be new here. ;-)
I’m sure Ctan will have it. Bc they are lone operative, Gods and if not everything can destroyed them first turn. Really weird to have a god with no damage cap.
Large models like the nightbringer didn't have damage caps until 9th, and they were just fine without them.
Make the rest of the rules appropriate, and they aren't necessary.
Not having an Invulnerable save in 9th edition on almost every unit in your army felt like you were at a huge disadvantage, so proud of GW for this soft reset of the entire game in 10th
It happens every edition. The same balance issue was in 7e when they reset to 8th. GW always power creeps
@@janiKB Yeah, I bet 10th will quickly spiral out of control once Codexes start getting released.
@@Saidan79 Guts...
@@Saidan79 do like most people do and start using more and more non-gw stuff until gw gets their shit thogeter.
We don't need them they need us
As an IG player I found that mechanic to interrupt with invulvs quit good. I just don't get why it has to fully ignore it? Just make anything with a normal - 4 automatically - 1 for invulvs, - 5 is - 2 and so on
Hot take. I didn’t really mind playing with invul denial abilities and weapons because playing against armies like custodes that have 4+ across entire army is not fun, and it was nice to actually kill things every once in a while. Never really saw these things as that big of a problem.
Except the guns who could ignore invulns also had insane AP. So you really couldn't do anything if they wounded you.
Maybe, but has it ever occurred to you that the real problem was army wide 4++ in the first place?
@@johngalt200 could've still skipped out in the -5 or -6 ap. Dunno why they had to have the right to blow you away without any chance of survival.
I am glad to hear this.
I also hope they do away with that "if your unit takes a wound, roll a D6, if successful you don't loose they wound." rule for some units.
Re-generation, healing and resurrection for certain units is fine though.
Invulns should be removed because it makes AP impossible to cost properly.
I think you did a great job giving a concise analysis as to how and why GW got themselves into this mess in 9th and hopefully the powercreep wont be as bad in 10th
I feel like losing the ability to ignore invuls aside from MWs will be great for the game. I think the issue came with the widespread access to invuls that lots of armies had. When you've got basic troops like gaunts shrugging of dedicated anti-tank it feels a bit off.
Seeing as auras seem less common in 10th, Buffs that convey invuls are likely limited single units, so much more manageable
So long as the units which can access them are weighted appropriately I don't mind invuls
Being on select units and taking a little bit more to chew through.
now that psychic attacks just work like normal guns and dont do mortals im really hoping the pyschic keyword targets invulnerable saves with their AP instead of armor. you should need fairly supernatural defense for those but this allows an inbetween of normal damage and mortals that cant be stopped at all.
also i will not be shocked if the tau railgun receives anti vehicle 5+ or so along with its devastating wounds. wouldnt make it any more likely to wound on likely snything but maybe a warlord titan, but i believe the way the "anti" keyword is worded it makes the wound critical, so would activate the devastating wounds mortals on 5s.
Still waiting to see mortarion profile. Hopefully he will be the tank he is supposed to be
Still waiting to see how much they make Khaine suck
Here's too hoping. The codex creep taking it from being a gentlemens game to this competition of who's got the more slanted rules was kind of annoying.
speaking of invulnerable saves, the wording for the praesidium shields has been confusing me, do models with praesidium shields still give the 3+ invuln via the +1 to saving throws or is it just t-shirt saves that they affect?
This is a good change. It got to a point where I actively WOULDNT take the nightbringer because it just wasnt fun to play against.
I think the issue reguarding the ignoring invulns is that it can work, but it should be something you have to work hard for, not just handed out as a weapon ability or stratgem.
EG the SM has the null zone psychic power, but it's very limited in terms of usage and range, makes all unit in the range lose their invuln, and also usually leads to the death of the user. Sure some may say it's useless, but at least it's better than just handing out unsavable wounds with high ap on certain weapon types.
Eh, kinda on the fence about all this...
As someone who had to endure the cancer of dealing with assault terminators back when their Invuln was a 3+, I honestly didn't mind that the last couple of editions had plenty of ways to ignore all that BS!
Granted, I do agree it's gotten rather silly with all the conflicting rules that Geedubs have been churning out in the last year or so... still, I for one hope we're not going back to the days of being able to drop a _literal_ orbital bombardment directly on a unit's noggin, only to have it completely _ignored_ due to invuln 'shenanigans'..!
Time will tell, I guess.
Seems fair to me. Probably will make me want to try my 20 death guard termies that saw play just a few times, because they were so bad, it wasn't actually fun neither for me or my opponents.
My guess is that Psychic keyword means "ignore inv and only inv" that's why psy powers still have ap and the possibility to deal MW, makes sense so far with no big str psy powers and little ap too, make even more sense considering Daemons have a normal save on top of the inv one
All the people glad to see the removal of ignoring vulnerable save...
My experience was in 8th when I started I would go against my friend's space wolf cavalry with a 3+ invulnerable save using my tyranids and what was I supposed to do?
If I use my strong attacks, I would just cross my fingers and hope he got a 1-2.
The alternative is to use a shit ton of my weak attacks, which would make it more likely he would fail to resist them all, but it would also mean I would be more likely to just miss or not land the wound.
There was literally nothing I could but pray to the dice gods.
And when I used my death guard that's kind of the situation everyone had against disgusting resilience.
There were no decisions to make about it. It was just pray to the dice gods.
And then I started getting some psykers.
And it became a bit more strategic.
I had something I could do. I could target them with my psykers.
But I had to be careful because of course he would prioritize shooting them.
My tyranid army didn't have invulnerable saves so I never experienced the supposed pain of losing them in 9th.
But you know what? I hate invulnerable saves.
They're supposed to represent the unit being tough?
Just give them more wounds!
It's much more fun when something takes about three attacks to kill because it has three health, rather than it taking three attacks to kill because it has one health but it ignores 2/3 of the attacks going into it.
It's much more fun when AP means something.
I guess this is why I generally prefer matches that are swarms against hordes, rather than elite untouchable bullshit.
Like everything, I have reservations atm, but I will hold onto them till we get the full picture, basically correct points costs (either increases or decreases etc) will make or break this edition some pretty busted looking data sheets, but if costed correctly it shouldn't be a problem
We do still have weapons that ignore invuls though, every weapon with devastating wounds that deal mortals over regular damage not only ignore invuls but also potentially splash across a unit if the weapon's damage is higher than 1.
If anything, ignores invuls rules are better this edition than 9th.
People got invupns and stuff meanwhile guard just hopes they brought a critical mass that you cant chew through before they bombard you into dust hopefully and take the board
Literally all that thousand sons have is the mortals output. The codex has a distinct lack of reliable utility compared to other armies, so if the mortal farming is taken away, I expect a serious bump in the reliability of the rest of the army rules and some excellent auras. Thousand sons are always meant to be a tricky army but currently you _have_ to soup to be competitive.
While its good that they removed the "ignore invuls" weapons and abilities, they really haven't because Mortal Wounds are still at thing. They do seem more rare though. Personally I would have Mortals reduced invul by one or something. I don't like entirely ignoring saves.
Don't forget there's an assassin that ignores demons saves too!
It's a good idea removing the "ignore invulns" rule, however things like belakor shouldn't be able to be tied up by like 4 bladeguard considering his weapon, or at least he could just fly on to a new target not just sit there.
They will be better in the sense of more useful. But not better in the sense of them being better/easier to succeed. I really dont think Termies needed a 4+ with the removal of Ignore Invulns. Going to T5 was a good enough boost imo and the 4+ should of been for specialty items, like the Iron Halo and Chaplains Rosarius. At least the first part of 10th will be Terminator Edition, or Terminator equivilant edition. Their stats plus their offense is about the best you can possibly have on foot sloggers, T5 W3 2+/4++ with Loyalist getting Oath and Traitor getting Pacts their output damage wise is going to be just unmatched imo.
Know GW doesnt want to change Dataslates as its aggravating for players to have books/cards that say one thing but the game says it does another. But 4+ is just a bit TOO defensive on infantry IMO.
I mean, it could just be they're resetting the dial of power creep back to the beginning, fully planning to allow in more rules vs invulns as time goes on.
AP going down can only benefit my little guys that never had any ap in the first place. But only two models in my army had invuln saves, so I also don't care that the ignore invuln saves rules are going away.
Other than the DW xenophase blade (which is not game breaking at all), nothing should have an ignore invulnerable. Leave that to psychic powers or other hyper niche powers and relics.
Only seeing the title, but entirely agree and looking forward to it
Heve they clarified that you only get an armor save or an invulnerable save?
I am definitely very happy with this change.. it was absolutely silly what was going on in 9th
Ignoring invulnerable should be UBER rare, and never on anything standard issue. The only things off the top of my mind that should do that are: Phase Swords (iconic in that they do this), Xenophase Blades (And even thats just re-roll, not ignore) and C'tan (because they're sodding C'tan).
agreed.
The vindicare should have this as well since its a sniper for characters
Perhaps limit ignore invulns to one unit per faction?
C’tan attacks could be balanced further by attack rolls of 5+/6 being the invulnerable save breakers, but I entirely agree it should be some of the rarest thing around.
I would say reduce invulnerable by one could work on some weapons that ignored them completely before
I forgot about that FAQ for GK that showed them to ignore demon saves!!!! WOW!!! I really love this company sometimes. You can't make this stuff up. Lol.
Anyway, I'm so glad to see GW getting to use invuls more sparingly. They will be more valuable, and more annoying but let's see how it plays
If GW ever started using d10s or d12s we could just get rid of invuls and AP because we'd have a wide enough range of numbers that all of the different tiers of armour could be represented without having to give stuff invuls on top of their armor saves.
It'll never happen though, too many people would be mad about buying dice.
Personally, I don’t mind one MAYBE two characters in a codex having an “ignores invul” mechanic if it really fits their persona. But mainstay units shouldn’t. Except Grey knights who should get more access to anti-demon invuls
Side note I’ve wondered why big bada don’t get a FNP save more often.
Personally, I think the tau railgun should either maintain its invuln penetration or reduce the effectiveness of the invlun save. The samn thing is a single shot weapon, and if it follows last edition it hits on a 4+. It already just misses half the time without buffs, to miss half the time, fail to wound 1/3rd of the time (with toughness's going up, many of the big things we usually shoot the railgun at will have better than toughness 10), and then have enemies just ignore it with the seemingly common 5+ invuln for ANOTHER 1/3rd chance to just not do anything, if the tau railgun doesnt ignore invulns i see the ion chode quickly becoming the premier hammerhead weapon if only because it fires multiple times.
Devastating Wounds is the new "Ignores Invulns" rule. For most, it's a 1 in 6 chance, but I expect the Hammerhead may have Anti-Vehicle 3+ or something similar, either innately or through a stratagem, to trigger it more often. I won't be surprised if most factions have a Devastating Wounds + "Anti-X" combo.
they already mentioned that the hammerhead is strength 20 in one of the first rules previews so it would already wound vehicles, at least the ones we've seen so far, on 3+ it's even possible it has anti-tank 2+ if it were to have the anti-tank rule, based on Votan though I'd say there is a very good chance of it having devastating wounds.
Base rules have never been the issue, its always the codices. I have no idea why but GW seem to do a line of coke before they write a new codex and screw the balance up. Going have to wait and see.
FOMO and power creep to drive sales.
I think we would be ok if crazy weapons reduced targets invul by 1, but ignoring them all together is pretty serious
Some weapons absolutely require ignores invulns to work at all. Those single shot AT russ weapons were never taken despite having ignores invulns AND doing mortals, because spamming plasma was better than even that. I think there are too many invulns as is, and its making certain types of guns very ineffective.
To many ignore invulns ruin the game not all armies are created equal. Which makes the writers/rule makers of the game to keep power creeping. They have a history of it. Last time there was a rules reset was 5th edition, each codex was outdoing the next codex. And that led to toxic games over time as armies getting outdated had a harder time winning as the newer ones kept coming into play. The only Codex that really stood the test of time during that time period was the reworked and new Imperial Guard written by Matt Ward. It was over the top.
The toughness spreading is doing a lot solve the "just spam plasma" or anything else. Things that have the strength to punch into vehicles are being given extra damage to make the vehicle punch matter, but not extra attacks so they are also good into non-single targets.
Except the doomsday cannon, but I'm fine with that.
Fuck me I am a Black Spot. Built a generic Terminator Lord, and Lord Zhufor, just before World Eaters Codex confirmed no Termie Lords.... Finally get around to building Invocatus and now no "ignores Invuls" for him....
finally, hope they don't make thinks that ignore inv saves again.
and with the reduced AP normal saves mean something again also.
Toughness vs Strength is the best way to balance how hardy a model is.
Meanwhile the Anti- rule laughs at that concept and frustrates me to no end.
I do think invulns will be better, but I'm not sure this is good for the game health. Now there's only one mechanic to skip that and it's mortal wounds, and isn't equally available to all armies.
In enemies with big toughness and great invulns it's quite frustrating when your few high strength/damage weapons wounds are all saved and you just can't kill it because of luck
In addition, I'm quite worried for 3++ saves making a comeback. It felt plainly unfair to fight against the herald of change saving at 3++ back in early 9th
The problem with invuln's is that there is no downside to them anymore. In 3rd edition, the downside was that if you failed, you'd usually get 1-shot, so there was risk-reward. Now, it's just reward. 10th's core rules are looking like they will be very irritating from a unit durability perspective.
Like, for real. It's called *Invulnerable Save* for a reason. Nothing should negate it. Some (rare) abilities could decrease it (down to 6++) tho, but not outright delete even 2++.
personally, I think some units should retain it. Not because I hate those units, but because GW really needs a way to set these weapons apart from the other options that unit has. For example, the Vanquisher Battle Cannon for the Leman Russ. The way I think it could work is that when it fires against vehicles, you can ingnore invulnerable saves. But if they take away the ignore invuln ability, they'll have to replace it with something that is unique to that units purpose. Maybe it could be you get extra attacks against the units you're supposed to be attacking. The VBC could get a single shot against infantry or characters, but could get D3 shots against vehicles or monsters. What do you guys think?
Or just don't have invuln saves on vehicles, they just have good armor saves and high toughness.
Then a high strength, high ap, high damage is good into a vehicle, but is only okay into elites and centerpiece models.
You could even have invuln saves only on light vehicles (venoms etc) which still get T8 or less so don't need the super high strength of the anti-tank, so you use other weapons on them that aren't good into tanks.
SOOOOO happy GW did this for 10th. It really had gotten ridiculous in 9th.
While I think the end of ignoring invulns is a good thing overall, I'm worried that GW will overcorrect and make invulns exceptionally annoying to deal with, like with termis going up to 4+. I get they're suppose to be tough, but a 50% chance to ignore even the highest quality of attacks on what is conceivably battle line infantry is going to be quite a pain to deal with and not particularly fun.
Personally, I think we should just basically do away with the invulnerable saves.
You want tough terminators?
Give them six wounds then, instead of ignoring half.
Whatever, anything but invulnerable saves
For something like a Tau Railgun when it's a huge single shot having a single invulnerable save null ALL the damage is silly though.
Unless there is a rule where Invulnerable Saves are rolled per wound line an FNP for certain weapons, which would be a fair compromise. Otherwise large single shot weapons will become unplayable, and they should retain their place having an important role on the battlefield
It was *funny that many powers did more than an orbital strike.
Nobody gonna take orbital strike if its 3cp again when you start at zero cp now 😂
I really dislike toughness being related to anything other than a units inate toughness if it was unarmoured. Saves should represent the quality of armour and invulns for forcefields and the like.
Rules for bypassing an invuln should only exist on weapons designed for that role, like snipers and psychically enfused weapons or similar in universe shenanigans
40K 3rd Edition has 99 problems but Invulnerable Saves ain't one.
40k had/has 4+ stats for a models defense: save, invulns, tough, wounds.
Still, they need further special rules to represent some models.
Their core rules framework is just not well thought out.
I think there is a good chance storm shields don’t give an inv anymore. Looking at the terminator caption sheet
Hard to say yet. Characters already get invulnerable saves in marine armies. So do terminators. So it might be a 'they give terminators extra wounds' or 'they give anyone extra wounds' situation. Or possibly even 'they give regular marines an invunerable save but terminators a wound' deal.
To me I think there should be a way to overcome invulnerable saves but strength if say a Terminator gets hit by a Titan grade weapons it will reduce or remove the save entirely as toughness 5 vs strength 16 or 24 it should be dead.
It makes sense to me that they are durable but not that durable
We need to drop mortal wounds, ignore invul, guns shooting more then 3 shots 3+ damage things. Crunch the kill power back down to 3rd Ed time so the boards arnt 12 touring buildings craming ever inch so your army dosnt wipe from one turn without losing blocking crap cluttering up the board so much
How would you represent smite without mortals?
@@cooke828 we've had smite before mortal wounds was a thing. Probably now that we have reducing pen . I would return Psy power as a stat and have smite be a Psy number of shots of s8 ap -2 or 3
Yes they're definitely not dropping the lethality enough, especially when it comes to named characters (these f*ckers can swing these giant swords 14 times in the same time that a normal human stabs once with his bayonet, that would look comical and ridiculous)
If we're going to have multiple editions of lethality creep again, now would have been the time to do a hard reset on killiness.
Laughs in primarily lasgun army. What's an invuln?
I hope that this rules become special again and not to the point where invuls and ignoring invuls became so commen that demon got an extra special save because invul became nerly standart
Ignore invul/mortal wounds could've been balanced by not having them bleed over unless it had the blast keyword.
I still want to see Terminators go back to their original 3+ on 2d6. They don't need a stinking invul.
It's all fine and well until sisters and eldar put auto-6's to wound with their BS saved dice mechanic. I'm fine with the rest but this little work-around is going to be a problem.
The only place we’ve seen Devastating Wounds on what’s been previewed for Sisters was Vahl’s Strike profile. Maybe it’ll be prevalent or maybe it’ll be rare for armies that have high dice manipulation mechanics to have broad access to Devastating Wounds.
@@adamheiermann2462 Yes, out of a tiny handful of profiles we've seen it's something sisters can have, meaning there's a more than plausible chance that sisters can and will deliver automatic mortal wounds when they want and a guarantee on at least one unit, the one you pointed out.
"We don't know" doesn't cut it here, you've just delivered proof that it's already happening and I'm saying there's going to me more. I play against eldar on the regular, I can already see my armour getting disintegrated every turn because of fate dice.
After watching this play out i start to wonder if the system before AP became a thing was better or if the d6 system is restricting ap way too much that it can't be fine tuned enough to balance out. I guess 10th will be the tell for it all
Having armor being worth a damn was actually more important than less ignoring invuls. We still need ways to ignore invuls or at least reduce them since there are armies who run entirely on invuls and it would be boring if there was no way to interact with that.
And thats where lethal hits come in now
I'd say there already is a way to counteract invul saves: Devastating Wounds. In my opinion it is even more elegant than the flat out "ignore invuls" since it feels less absolute. And the potency of devastating wounds can be increased by making crits easier as we'ev already seen on Votann.
@@Kibbet21 Lethal hits don't interact with invuls at all. They counteract toughness instead.
@@patchesrk I forgot about Devastating Wounds. But yeah, instead of just straight up giving Mortal Wounds, but only on 6s is a good way to make a lesser version of just ignores invul always.
@Lupus Grey what's the one that turns damage to mortal wounds that's the one I mean
Ignores invuls I think was interesting, it just should NOT be on guns. The worst idea was letting that become a thing
The only Attack that should bypass invulnerable saves are mortal wounds.
The 'ignore invulnerable saves' just just daft.
Bet Custodes are still going to have 2+ and 4++ saves though, just as everything else loses the ability to counter it
Probably. Though, with some point hikes all around most likely.
@@notdoomguy1616 I would be perfectly fine with this if they increase points cost. If everything is getting reduced firepower then it makes sense that I can only take so many Custodes. Would be more in line with how strong they’re supposed to be lore-wise.
I wouldnt say they got rid of it, a lot of weapons it seems are getting the "devastating wounds" which is ignoring invuls. So it actually seems like they spread it out more, than got rid of it
Edit: switched "lethal hits" for the intended "devastating wounds"
Lethal hits doesn’t get around invulns. It just auto-wounds the unit on a hit roll of a 6. So you still get to make a save as the defending unit. It will get around unit toughness though.
@@dominicrucco5756 I meant "devastating wounds", I'll update the original comment
If this change comes, many weapons are still going to be useless in some cases.
My Daemons arguably nerfed by this happening but my god I'm thankful it is, seems such a silly song and dance that had gotten way past the ridiculous by the end of the edition. I'm here for my Belakor to morph into more of a field general daemon rather than ridiculous killing machine.
Hopefully it stays that way. I’m so tired of seeing invuln/ignore invuln saves in 40k, especially on things that don’t need it
I hope they do something for volkite weapon leashing mortal wound better especially if assault cannon have this ability now… i just build my 2 weapon twin vilkite on my dreadnaught
Yeah, this whole mechanic made me mad. I'm not convinced it's not coming back as the creep sets in next year. I'm glad Armour of Contempt has been codified into the AP rules now. Everything should be one less.
What? 9th was perfect!
We first had invulnerable saves.
Then we had weapons that ignored invulnerable saves.
Then we got super invulnerable saves with deamons.
Finally, Gw closed the loop with ignore super invulnerable saves of deamons! ;)
How many units had their invuls removed or greatly reduced in 10th? Thats the problem, too many invuls
Yes!
Who knows? We've only seen a tiny fraction of 10th, and GW have been mostly showing off the most powerful stuff. There's not enough information to form a valid opinion on anything yet. Everything is pure speculation.
@@RanVor If the rest is really less strong, I'm talking weak enough for the game to be enjoyable again, we're going to face more Guillimen and Abbadons than footsoldiers
@@Stikarii Depends on the points.
Don't get me wrong, I'm more skeptical about 10th than most, but it's still far too early to make declarative statements.
Honestly, everything being a little more simplified is definitely better.
Not in a game stuck on the d6 with so many units.
Even with the limited releases we have still seen plenty of high AP. Im increasingly less optimistic about 10th.
I hope vanquished cannon doesn’t suck
I hope bile can at least have an inval. It was always sad to see him do really easily in 8th and 9th
I'm interested in seeing if anything has damage caps
Should go to 3 save types, and different weapons target different saves...
People are gonna be fire selling Leagues of Votaan faster than a Flashgit goes through ammo.😂