Save stacking - Menace or necessary?

[Kadeton]

2 hours ago, stratigo said:

Which renders a bunch of armies, and like 80 percent of all models completely useless. Like utterly and completely not worth bothering. Game's mighty boring with the same 5 armies using only the same 5 units of their books.

Yeah - that happens every time there's a major change in the rules. Lots of stuff gets (competitively) invalidated, it's just how edition changes work by nature. Put pressure on GW to change their release model, because it sucks for most players to have to wait around for months to years before their favourite army gets updated.

Or, just play friendly games against other friendly lists. Play 2nd Ed games, if you prefer!

46 minutes ago, Kasper said:

I somewhat get where you are coming from with this but I still find your logic flawed. Your point seems to be there is no issue at all because the whole save-stacking thing is a "skill", but for it to be a skill debate everyone needs to have the same tools or access to those same tools or access to ways to deal with it. Thats simply not the case. It has created a "have" and "have not" situation with many armies. I would also argue it isnt difficult to play S2D, point at your Archaon and click and he gets all those amazing buffs for free without your opponent really being able to do jack about it. 

Lotta people misinterpreting things I've said around here.

The "skill" (though I'm pretty sure I put it in terms of rigid vs flexible thinking, rather than skill) is in figuring out how to respond to the fact the rules have changed and the tactics that worked last edition don't always work any more. And it's not about the player making a save stack (that's just using the basic mechanics), it's about their opponent who has to overcome their own habitual behaviour.

2nd Ed, everyone: "Playing against Archaon. I know, I'll hit him with my hammer units - done! I win!"

3rd Ed, everyone at first: "Playing against Archaon. I know, I'll hit him with my hammer units... oh no, he's still alive!"

3rd Ed, rigid approach: "Ugh, Archaon again. Right, hit him with the hammers... WTF that still didn't work? Every time, I throw everything at him and it hasn't worked once! Why is the game broken?"

3rd Ed, flexible approach: "Archaon again. Pretty sure I can't kill him, at least not when he's buffed like that. Can I win some other way?"

And yes, absolutely - for some armies, the answer to "Can I win some other way?" is pretty much "No". Those armies shouldn't be playing against top-tier tournament lists. That's never going to be a fun time for either player. Soft lists getting curb-stomped by tournament lists is not new to 3rd Ed.

People trying to "fix" save stacking are really just trying to go back to the 2nd Ed approach. Which is fine, as a preference, but then why not just continue to play 2nd Ed? I prefer the 3rd Ed game, where some problems can't easily be solved by brute force.

[Schulzy]

So forgive my potential over-simplification of the issue but, wouldn't a lot of the issues with regard to save stacking, 3+ save capping and rend distribution be fixed by simply re-implementing a toughness value as an extra tuning nob? I'm not advocating for an old S/T chart, but an implementation of the newer streamlined toughness system of 40k and Warcry.

Of course this would require a complete re-write of all existing battletomes and core rules, but maybe its a way forward for 4th edition. I personally don't think it would add excessive bloat or complexity, it would simply add another (much needed imo) tuning nob to solve some of these existing issues. Thoughts?

[EMMachine]

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

The "skill" (though I'm pretty sure I put it in terms of rigid vs flexible thinking, rather than skill) is in figuring out how to respond to the fact the rules have changed and the tactics that worked last edition don't always work any more. And it's not about the player making a save stack (that's just using the basic mechanics), it's about their opponent who has to overcome their own habitual behaviour.

2nd Ed, everyone: "Playing against Archaon. I know, I'll hit him with my hammer units - done! I win!"

3rd Ed, everyone at first: "Playing against Archaon. I know, I'll hit him with my hammer units... oh no, he's still alive!"

3rd Ed, rigid approach: "Ugh, Archaon again. Right, hit him with the hammers... WTF that still didn't work? Every time, I throw everything at him and it hasn't worked once! Why is the game broken?"

3rd Ed, flexible approach: "Archaon again. Pretty sure I can't kill him, at least not when he's buffed like that. Can I win some other way?"

And yes, absolutely - for some armies, the answer to "Can I win some other way?" is pretty much "No". Those armies shouldn't be playing against top-tier tournament lists. That's never going to be a fun time for either player. Soft lists getting curb-stomped by tournament lists is not new to 3rd Ed.

Looking at this I would say having gods or demigods as playable characters is a large part of the problem.

I mean, if Archaon would be defeated or killed by say for example Freeguild General Michael Miller or his unit of Greatswords, this would be a world changing event and literially lore breaking (Michael Miller in that must be included as "Archaon Slayer" in the lore if something like this would happen). In the lore Archaon like Gods or other Demigods is nearly invulnerable, otherwise he hadn't survived for thousands of years.

[zilberfrid]

6 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

Looking at this I would say having gods or demigods as playable characters is a large part of the problem.

I mean, if Archaon would be defeated or killed by say for example Freeguild General Michael Miller or his unit of Greatswords, this would be a world changing event and literially lore breaking (Michael Miller in that must be included as "Archaon Slayer" in the lore if something like this would happen). In the lore Archaon like Gods or other Demigods is nearly invulnerable, otherwise he hadn't survived for thousands of years.

10/10, would venerate Micheal Miller.

(I totally agree with you).

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 hour ago, Schulzy said:

So forgive my potential over-simplification of the issue but, wouldn't a lot of the issues with regard to save stacking, 3+ save capping and rend distribution be fixed by simply re-implementing a toughness value as an extra tuning nob? I'm not advocating for an old S/T chart, but an implementation of the newer streamlined toughness system of 40k and Warcry.

Of course this would require a complete re-write of all existing battletomes and core rules, but maybe its a way forward for 4th edition. I personally don't think it would add excessive bloat or complexity, it would simply add another (much needed imo) tuning nob to solve some of these existing issues. Thoughts?

I still believe that there is enough complexity in the current AoS stats to allow for a wide variety of interactions. In theory, there should be room for a rock-paper-scissors thing:

 

High damage low rend beats low saves high wounds.

High saves low wounds beat high damage low rend.

Low damage high rend beats high saves low wounds.

High saves low wounds beats high damage low rend.

 

I think that should kinda be the basic setup around which most of the game is based. But that train has long since left the station, because mass mortal wounds are in the game, and they just kinda beat everything. I personally hope we never go back to strength/toughness, though. I really don't want to have to look at a chart to figure out how much damage I deal ever again.

EDIT: I am also not sold on introducing any large rules changes if the major selling point is "it would make save stacking more managable". It's not like save stacking is some kind of unchangable constant we just find ourselves stuck with. It could literally be removed by changing a single line of text, and was not in the game before the most recent rules revision. It could realistically be gone come next GHB.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[Skreech Verminking]

In all actuality huge changes aren’t needed, at least from my perspective.

we could easily just use a single faq that basically states.

save rolls can never be modified beyond a 3+ (Unless this model starts with a better save characteristic), which would mean that the total toughness of 3+ save models (especially monsters)  goes down by a good amount.

we could then chance the artefact known as amulet of destiny towards something like the archon has in 40k (this model has a 2+ ward save. if this models fails his 2+ ward save for the first time, it can not be used for the rest of the game)

Rule changes like those really only need like halve a page of a faq, or an event willing to use them as an experiment.

if it is truly a bad idea, you could just ignore it in this way, when the next event or tournament is planned

Edited November 10, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

13 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

save rolls can never be modified beyond a 3+ (Unless this model starts with a better save characteristic), which would mean that the total toughness of 3+ save models (especially monsters)  goes down by a good amount.

I don't personally love this solution (although it's a lot better than having any old 3+ save goober running around on a 2+ unrendable), because it would still allow you to stack save bonuses to negate rend for high saves.

I'd rather let 3+ save models have the ability to get up to that 2+ save, but that's it. No further stacking for rend negation. But I think we are largely entering the territory of opinion here.

[Skreech Verminking]

Just now, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

But I think we are largely entering the territory of opinion here.

Definitely,

Yet the best solution would be for the events or tournaments, to try some stuff out, and send the results to gw (who will hopefully  Listen)

[Kasper]

3 hours ago, Kadeton said:

The "skill" (though I'm pretty sure I put it in terms of rigid vs flexible thinking, rather than skill) is in figuring out how to respond to the fact the rules have changed and the tactics that worked last edition don't always work any more. And it's not about the player making a save stack (that's just using the basic mechanics), it's about their opponent who has to overcome their own habitual behaviour.

Tzeentch Archaon and well Archaon in general (largely just S2D tbh) has had an amazing showing the past months since AoS3 got released. The win rate has been incredibly high and a lot of tournaments were either won or podiumed in general. So I guess people were just bad at figuring out how to beat this guy then? You dont see him "as much" anymore which is due to a number of reasons.

I just find it naive that the underlying solution from you is "just play better" instead of realizing that there might be something wrong. When Archaon has performed THAT well for so long, it should speak for itself? Archaon isnt the end-all-be-all but he is one of those models that exacerbate the issue with save stacking.

I know there are corner cases of people like Jack or Bill performing exceptionally well with lists that supposedly shouldnt do well, but this situation is not one of them. 

[Kadeton]

6 minutes ago, Kasper said:

I just find it naive that the underlying solution from you is "just play better" instead of realizing that there might be something wrong. When Archaon has performed THAT well for so long, it should speak for itself? Archaon isnt the end-all-be-all but he is one of those models that exacerbate the issue with save stacking.

There may well be a problem with Archaon, yes.

If Archaon is a problem, fix Archaon. There's no need to throw out the entire concept of tough units just because one God-level hero isn't costed appropriately.

[stratigo]

4 hours ago, Kadeton said:

Yeah - that happens every time there's a major change in the rules. Lots of stuff gets (competitively) invalidated, it's just how edition changes work by nature. Put pressure on GW to change their release model, because it sucks for most players to have to wait around for months to years before their favourite army gets updated.

Or, just play friendly games against other friendly lists. Play 2nd Ed games, if you prefer!

Lotta people misinterpreting things I've said around here.

The "skill" (though I'm pretty sure I put it in terms of rigid vs flexible thinking, rather than skill) is in figuring out how to respond to the fact the rules have changed and the tactics that worked last edition don't always work any more. And it's not about the player making a save stack (that's just using the basic mechanics), it's about their opponent who has to overcome their own habitual behaviour.

2nd Ed, everyone: "Playing against Archaon. I know, I'll hit him with my hammer units - done! I win!"

3rd Ed, everyone at first: "Playing against Archaon. I know, I'll hit him with my hammer units... oh no, he's still alive!"

3rd Ed, rigid approach: "Ugh, Archaon again. Right, hit him with the hammers... WTF that still didn't work? Every time, I throw everything at him and it hasn't worked once! Why is the game broken?"

3rd Ed, flexible approach: "Archaon again. Pretty sure I can't kill him, at least not when he's buffed like that. Can I win some other way?"

And yes, absolutely - for some armies, the answer to "Can I win some other way?" is pretty much "No". Those armies shouldn't be playing against top-tier tournament lists. That's never going to be a fun time for either player. Soft lists getting curb-stomped by tournament lists is not new to 3rd Ed.

People trying to "fix" save stacking are really just trying to go back to the 2nd Ed approach. Which is fine, as a preference, but then why not just continue to play 2nd Ed? I prefer the 3rd Ed game, where some problems can't easily be solved by brute force.

And it is never good.

 

Like, just because GW keeps stepping on this rake and smacking themselves in the face doesn't mean this is a good thing. GW should strive to make all armies viable, and most units in those armies. And they clearly don't even try. It's no mistake that threads complaining about balance are pretty much perennial. AoS balance is always trash, and players always want it to be better (Unless they are the archaon player and just like ruining their friends). So, keep complaining. GW isn't deaf, they get motivated to fix things by player sentiment.

 

And I'd argue strongly that it is much worse now then it was in 2nd. There are fewer viable models, and they are mostly heroes riding monsters.

 

The haves absolutely can still hit archaon with their hammer and kill him (or archaeon lists would literally never lose). 3rd has done nothing but made the vast gulf between haves and have nots dramatically wider, and changed a few haves and have nots. It has narrowed how you can play the game to such a tiny amount of models and lists. 40k 9th edition didn't do this.

 

52 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

There may well be a problem with Archaon, yes.

If Archaon is a problem, fix Archaon. There's no need to throw out the entire concept of tough units just because one God-level hero isn't costed appropriately.

Archaon is just the effigy. His problem is shared by any 3 plus monster hero. He just concentrates it.

[JackStreicher]

57 minutes ago, stratigo said:

most units in those armies

agreed.
It also has financial consequences which are most likely neglectable: I for one love the look of the new Vanquisers and vigilors. However I won't spent money, or make room in my display case, for miniatures whose rules are just bad. That's ~ 90€-180€ less they've earned, due to being sloppy with rules (warscrolls) once again.

 

@Kadeton There is no such thing is though units. They are beyond tough which is the big part of the issue. In most situation they're immortal unless you can throw one hundret wounding attacks at them.

Edited November 10, 2021 by JackStreicher

[whispersofblood]

6 hours ago, Kasper said:

I somewhat get where you are coming from with this but I still find your logic flawed. Your point seems to be there is no issue at all because the whole save-stacking thing is a "skill", but for it to be a skill debate everyone needs to have the same tools or access to those same tools or access to ways to deal with it. Thats simply not the case. It has created a "have" and "have not" situation with many armies. I would also argue it isnt difficult to play S2D, point at your Archaon and click and he gets all those amazing buffs for free without your opponent really being able to do jack about it. 

I wouldn't say there is no issue at all. I'm just not sure if save stack specifically is the issue or if some warscrolls for other reasons make save stacking problematic. 

Like I said before if save stacking was the problem we'd be seeing lists that broadly speaking lean into the mechanic. And, I'm not seeing those lists anywhere. We aren't seeing Avalenor and Spirits of the mountain. We aren't seeing steam tanks, or massed bastillidons even in thunderlizards. No liege-kavalos or Valkia the bloody tarpits.

Even when we do see it with things like blood knights really it's because the whole list is very tough, mobile and with enough combat umph. But even great players aren't burning the world down with it. And, players are killing Nagash in games as well.

We are seeing specific sorts of warscrolls though and they are leveraging save stacking. So it appears to me there is something that save stacking exasperates. For me the data says that it is the number of wounds + healing on Megas and healing in Archaon that is the problem. 

Anecdotal but healing is what makes my 4+ save Killaboss on Vulcha such a threat as well. In BW I have lots of points for save stacking, because the chart caps my +1s right away. And, he can use CMD abilities even after they have already been used elsewhere. And, still it's not the most impactful.

What is though is being able to heal 3d3 between when I choose to engage with it and before my opponent has a 2nd turn to respond. 

[Kadeton]

20 minutes ago, stratigo said:

Like, just because GW keeps stepping on this rake and smacking themselves in the face doesn't mean this is a good thing. GW should strive to make all armies viable, and most units in those armies. And they clearly don't even try. It's no mistake that threads complaining about balance are pretty much perennial. AoS balance is always trash, and players always want it to be better (Unless they are the archaon player and just like ruining their friends). So, keep complaining. GW isn't deaf, they get motivated to fix things by player sentiment.

Who's saying it's a good thing? I've said multiple times that GW's slow release schedule is a huge problem every time there's an edition change, because it means players wait for far too long for updates to their armies.

But - and this is a really big but, as far as I'm concerned - making improvements to the basic systems of the game should still be done, even if it throws the balance completely out of whack for a while. 3rd Ed's core rules are an improvement on 2nd Ed's, in my opinion. In several important ways, but including allowing units that are meant to be tough really feel tough for the first time ever.

Yes, the edition change has ruined the balance of the old battletomes and invalidated some armies at the competitive level... temporarily. Now comes the work of balancing all the armies to work with the new, improved rules.

20 minutes ago, stratigo said:

And I'd argue strongly that it is much worse now then it was in 2nd. There are fewer viable models, and they are mostly heroes riding monsters.

Worse than which bit of 2nd? The era where Triple Keepers dominated every tournament with a 70% winrate? The Age of Gristlegore? The times when everyone was crying about the Petrifex Elite? Or Skinks? Sentinel Spam?

Or was it that period when all the Beasts of Chaos and Gloomspite Gitz players got their time in the sun, and played at the top tables? Oh wait.

Don't view last edition with rose-tinted glasses, just because it was relatively stable towards the end.

20 minutes ago, stratigo said:

The haves absolutely can still hit archaon with their hammer and kill him (or archaeon lists would literally never lose).

This is literally what I mean by rigid thinking. "If it never dies, it can't lose! If I can't kill it, I can't win!" You don't have to kill anything to score VP.

[Kadeton]

16 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

@Kadeton There is no such thing is though units. They are beyond tough which is the big part of the issue. In most situation they're immortal unless you can throw one hundret wounding attacks at them.

So? Let them be "immortal", for as long as their controlling player can afford to keep pouring all their defensive resources into one model.

Morathi's actually immortal, at least for a few turns. Gotrek has always been essentially immortal, save-stacking or not. If you see a model like that across the table, do you just give up and go home? Do you throw everything into them even though it's pointless, and get your butt handed to you? Or do you figure out a different way to beat them?

[JackStreicher]

9 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

This is literally what I mean by rigid thinking. "If it never dies, it can't lose! If I can't kill it, I can't win!" You don't have to kill anything to score VP.

That's at least true for most scenarios. In some archaon will ping-pong among objectives murdering everthing you have XD

[JackStreicher]

Just now, Kadeton said:

So? Let them be "immortal", for as long as their controlling player can afford to keep pouring all their defensive resources into one model.

Morathi's actually immortal, at least for a few turns. Gotrek has always been essentially immortal, save-stacking or not. If you see a model like that across the table, do you just give up and go home? Do you throw everything into them even though it's pointless, and get your butt handed to you? Or do you figure out a different way to beat them?

rigid thinking.
You need way too few ressources to achieve immortality atm. And no, no model should be immortal as long as you can buff it up a little. We're not talking about complex, accurate movement or well performed plans to make something immortal. You basically spent one CP and chuckle, maybe some magic and maybe an aura. And nothing stops you from repeating this over and over and over again. And suddenly immortl for a turn becomes "immortal whenever I need it". This is plainly stupid.

Morathi dies, after 3 turns. She barely has any defenses.
Gotrek dies to massed 1dmg attacks and he is really slow.

[stratigo]

26 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Who's saying it's a good thing? I've said multiple times that GW's slow release schedule is a huge problem every time there's an edition change, because it means players wait for far too long for updates to their armies.

But - and this is a really big but, as far as I'm concerned - making improvements to the basic systems of the game should still be done, even if it throws the balance completely out of whack for a while. 3rd Ed's core rules are an improvement on 2nd Ed's, in my opinion. In several important ways, but including allowing units that are meant to be tough really feel tough for the first time ever.

Yes, the edition change has ruined the balance of the old battletomes and invalidated some armies at the competitive level... temporarily. Now comes the work of balancing all the armies to work with the new, improved rules.

Worse than which bit of 2nd? The era where Triple Keepers dominated every tournament with a 70% winrate? The Age of Gristlegore? The times when everyone was crying about the Petrifex Elite? Or Skinks? Sentinel Spam?

Or was it that period when all the Beasts of Chaos and Gloomspite Gitz players got their time in the sun, and played at the top tables? Oh wait.

Don't view last edition with rose-tinted glasses, just because it was relatively stable towards the end.

This is literally what I mean by rigid thinking. "If it never dies, it can't lose! If I can't kill it, I can't win!" You don't have to kill anything to score VP.

You absolutely have to kill things to score vps. You get vps for killing things. There's more than just primaries.

 

And, again, a hero monster dominates the field. It makes careful movement impossible. I don't know what games you are playing where you manage to win by ignoring a hero monster. I don't think they exist. You reckon with the hero monster, or that monster kills all your objective scoring units. There are precious few ways to keep away from it. Can't score many points when archaon has killed your entire army after all.

 

Archaon is a damage check, with maybe a scant handful of tricks that can keep him locked down. But he needs to go or be nullified, or you lose.

[Orbei]

11 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

You need way too few ressources to achieve immortality atm. And no, no model should be immortal as long as you can buff it up a little. We're not talking about complex, accurate movement or well performed plans to make something immortal. You basically spent one CP and chuckle, maybe some magic and maybe an aura. And nothing stops you from repeating this over and over and over again. And suddenly immortl for a turn becomes "immortal whenever I need it". This is plainly stupid.

This is a big part of the problem. There's no real choice or tactical thinking involved - you point at the strongest thing, buff it, and now it doesn't die. Resources that are incredibly easy to access (5+ cast mystic shield, were they drunk?), All out defense every turn, finest hour which is 100% guaranteed and unstoppable. There's no counter play on the other side. No dispelling mystic shield since it's cast from the other side of the table. All out attack is pathetic compared to all out defense. In all cases the defensive buffs are just better than offensive buffs. You either have a skew list which pumps out mortal wounds or you don't kill the target.

It's way too high of a return on investment when you apply these buffs to high armor save hero monsters. No one cares if you stack a bunch of save buffs on an average hero to achieve a 4+ unrendable. But save stacking gives obscene value when applied to 3+ save hero monsters, beyond the investment in either initial points or in game resources.

[Skreech Verminking]

3 minutes ago, stratigo said:

Archaon is a damage check, with maybe a scant handful of tricks that can keep him locked down. But he needs to go or be nullified, or you lose.

Mass horror spam, currently the cheapest (at 4.3points per wound, with a -1 to hit buff (tzeentch daemon allegiance in combat)) and the chance to literally just straight put ignore battleshock, till they hit the brimstone line.

Perfect in keeping an archaon occupied for more then 2 turns. 

can other armies like the skaven do this?

no our battle-line the clanrats cost more are worse in most ways and can’t shoot nor do they have a -1 to be hit, and yet they cost 6.5points per models, and they don’t ignore battle-shock 

[Doko]

So easy to fix as put the +1 save cap before rend,so we can have monsters with save 2 rerolling 1 ok.......now we can kill them with rend 1 or 2.

Btw gotrek never have been a problem(he never have won any tournament since his release before 3.0 even if every order can bring him) and also he is veeeeeeeeeery far of unkillable as you said, i have killed him every time that i played againts him in only one turn with no problems with my irondrakes buffed but i cant say the same of these 3.0 joke rules of save 2 rerolling 1 ignore rend and feel no pain 5....... I can attack him with 2000000 points of irondrakes and i wont do them nothing.

I hope gw fix this in this big faq that must come in one month or so because 3.0 have been the worst edittion(for me) that i never have played of all aos where we have inmortal monsters,very cheap battleline to get some objetive and broken units of spam mortals......and thats it is,the other 90% of units are useless and cant be playable.

So who want a meta where only can be used unkillable momsters and hammers that can do somethimg against these monsters?(mortal wounds spam).

Entire my group agree that is stupid this meta and hope that save stacking be deleted but they dont like play with houserules(some of us are playing 3.0 but with save stacking changed to +1 before rend and the lists are so much diverse and fun to play)

Im am not english native and betwen this and my usually negative point of view i dont know if i explained it well,to my group 3.0 feels as the edition of fantasy of herohammer that almost killed that game because every unit was useless and the game were won only with heroes.

3.0 feels the same and one or two games are fun with epic monsters winning the game alone......but then it get boring very fast

Edited November 10, 2021 by Doko

[Skreech Verminking]

2 minutes ago, Doko said:

So who want a meta where only can be used unkillable momsters and hammers that can do somethimg against these monsters?(mortal wounds spam).

Well if that is the cost for having the chance to field 4.0 points skaven clanrat models I’m in,

in any other case I would be with you

[Kasper]

1 hour ago, Doko said:

So easy to fix as put the +1 save cap before rend,so we can have monsters with save 2 rerolling 1 ok.......now we can kill them with rend 1 or 2.

Its not an easy fix though, well depending on what kind of a result you wish to see. If you capped saves at +1 before rend Im pretty sure you can toss Archaon and a bunch of other units in the bin. 

[yukishiro1]

35 minutes ago, Kasper said:

Its not an easy fix though, well depending on what kind of a result you wish to see. If you capped saves at +1 before rend Im pretty sure you can toss Archaon and a bunch of other units in the bin. 

I doubt it. But even if so...just reduce his points, Issue fixed, gameplay experience improved for everyone. 

I see no loss to making rend actually relevant to killing stuff with high armor saves. That is literally what the mechanic is supposed to be for. Yet in 3.0 it largely doesn't function that way, which is just weird. Why have a mechanic that doesn't actually do what it is specifically meant to do?

+1 save before rend, not after, fixes all the issues with save stacking in a way that doesn't end up rewarding masses of crappy attacks. Rend actually becomes an important thing to put in your list for cracking tough targets. And a 3+ save stops being some magic superpower compared to a 4+, which also doesn't make sense. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by yukishiro1

[stratigo]

11 hours ago, Kasper said:

Its not an easy fix though, well depending on what kind of a result you wish to see. If you capped saves at +1 before rend Im pretty sure you can toss Archaon and a bunch of other units in the bin. 

Archaon getting binned is better than having archaon be the reason that 90 percent of the model range is binned.

 

Archaon is good enough that he suppresses even other hero monsters.