I mentioned this in another thread on invulnerable saves, but it was not really replied to and the thread is in imminent danger of being closed, so I thought I would put it up as its own discussion.

So there's a fairly "feel-bad" aspect of facing an army with invulnerable saves at the moment. You throw your most powerful or weakest weapons at the guy with a stormshield, but no matter what, it is saved on a 3+. not that fun.

My suggestion is to allow invulnerable "saves" to instead soak up a certain amount of damage before they fail. This would reset each player turn.

So, as an example: the stormshield. Currently a 3++, my suggestion is to replace it as invuln, Charge 2.

The invuln will essentially add 2 wounds to the model who has it, and once a model starts using his invuln, all damage must be applied to them, as per wounding rules.

So a terminator (2 wounds) with a stormshield will need to lose 4 wounds to be killed. If you take 3 wounds off him, on the next turn the shield recharges, and he has 3 wounds.

A Knight's 3++ shield might be charge (5), so you have to chip 5 wounds off him before he starts to take actual damage.

A daemon would get a normal save (maybe even with a rule stating it cannot be affected by AP or cover, as this is their thing) and a charge 1 invuln.


This is separate from the idea of just increasing their wounds as it goes back up every time.


Makari, with his 2++, might have charge (6) on his - he can dodge 6 wounds per turn without getting hurt!


This has some significant effects on the game:

1: Firing a battlecannon at a guy with a stormshield will be more likely to do some damage than a warboss swinging a big choppa - both are comparable strength, but the cannon does more damage, so can chip off the stormshield effectively.
2: Invulnerable saves will no longer have god-qualities. they can be overpowered and tactically overcome, unlike now.
3: Bookkeeping, not as bad as you might think. one extra wound pool to think of in each unit with an invuln, so not a big problem. A Knight has to account for it's wounds and it's invuln. A unit of termies has to track the one guy getting wounded, as normal.

Yes, there would have to be the inevitable overhaul of who get's what, but it would give a more interesting flavour to the game, in my opinion.

Thoughts?

I addressed this in that other thread and I'll say here what I said there. This is an awful idea.

1. You still just fire AP-2 weapons at terminators and force them to use their invulnerable save.
2. It makes terminators, an already fairly unplayable unit, even worse.
3. It adds bookkeeping for no real gain.
4. Fun is subjective and it can be just as fun shrugging off wounds on a tough unit as it is removing enemy models.
5. You can already use mortal wounds to bypass invulnerable saves.
6. Invulns in 5e work exactly like saves used to work in older editions where AP was all or nothing. What's wrong with using this system for invulnerable saves.
7. In the lore the units shrugging of hits are supposed to be able to do that. It's kind of their entire shtick.
8. Picking a wound pool to take saves on is a terrible idea and this idea could be canned just for that.

There's a reason that rules like this aren't a part of 8th edition 40k.

I think something like this would be a fantastic mechanic for Knights.

However, for non-super heavy units, I think it would entail far too much bookkeeping.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I addressed this in that other thread and I'll say here what I said there. This is an awful idea.

1. You still just fire AP-2 weapons at terminators and force them to use their invulnerable save.

I don't think you're understanding my suggestion. AP won't matter with this suggestion. A terminator hit by an AP-2 Damage 2 weapon would tank that 2 damage on a storm shield, instead of losing the wounds. so hit>wound>save>damage stormshield first. There would be no invulnerable save to roll.

2. It makes terminators, an already fairly unplayable unit, even worse.

Not at all. Against small arms, the invuln is more useful - it makes a 2 wound termy into, essentially, a 4 wound termy. who regains 2 wounds each phase, but no more (EG if dropped to 1 wound, can only regain to 3).

3. It adds bookkeeping for no real gain.

minimal bookkeeping. It only needs to be tracked during the turn, as it resets at the end, and is no different from tracking wounds on multiple wound units.

4. Fun is subjective and it can be just as fun shrugging off wounds on a tough unit as it is removing enemy models.

Yeah that's fair.

5. You can already use mortal wounds to bypass invulnerable saves.

True. They would not be able to be tanked by this system - they would go straight on the unit, bypassing the invulnerable charges. (I need a different name for them)

6. Invulns in 5e work exactly like saves used to work in older editions where AP was all or nothing. What's wrong with using this system for invulnerable saves.

nothing really, but it is a bit flat and currently only countered by mortal wounds, which is a bit meh. My suggestion means that you can overkill a smaller unit in order to get past the invulnerable "save".

7. In the lore the units shrugging of hits are supposed to be able to do that. It's kind of their entire shtick.

Yes, but does it sound cooler that "he saw the lascannon aim at him, but his stormshield stopped it" or "he saw the lascannon take aim at him, but his stormshield took the brunt of the hit, and he was only lightly injured". I think big guns should do better against invulnerable saves.

8. Picking a wound pool to take saves on is a terrible idea and this idea could be canned just for that.

There's a reason that rules like this aren't a part of 8th edition 40k.

Picking a wound pool? not really. The unit is shot at, damage comes off a stormshield first, and once it's gone, the model you picked to be hit before takes wounds until it dies, then start again. as I said, exactly as if the terminators had 4 wounds, but with a little adjustment to be made at the end of each turn as things recharge.

I appreciate you rplying, but it doesn't feel like you've understood what I was implying - Is my description a bit too rough?

Any refinement of the current slapdash system is a step in the right direction to me.

 some bloke wrote:
I don't think you're understanding my suggestion. AP won't matter with this suggestion. A terminator hit by an AP-2 Damage 2 weapon would tank that 2 damage on a storm shield, instead of losing the wounds. so hit>wound>save>damage stormshield first. There would be no invulnerable save to roll.

If they fire AP-1 or AP0 weapons at the terminator why wouldn't the player take those on a 2+ or 3+ armor save while holding thier invulnerable save for heavier threats? Also, what's stopping people from using massed lasguns to strip the invulnerable saves and then kill the unit with something heavier?

Also, they can already do that as many times per round as they wish so massive nerf here.

Not at all. Against small arms, the invuln is more useful - it makes a 2 wound termy into, essentially, a 4 wound termy. who regains 2 wounds each phase, but no more (EG if dropped to 1 wound, can only regain to 3).

See above.

Picking a wound pool? not really. The unit is shot at, damage comes off a stormshield first, and once it's gone, the model you picked to be hit before takes wounds until it dies, then start again. as I said, exactly as if the terminators had 4 wounds, but with a little adjustment to be made at the end of each turn as things recharge.

Then what happens to the terminator's 2+ save when the invulnerable save is destroyed? Or are you saying they take all saves on a modified 2+ save and the first two points of damage each round get soaked? If so, that is a fething massive nerf to models that pay for invulnerable saves.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Then what happens to the terminator's 2+ save when the invulnerable save is destroyed? Or are you saying they take all saves on a modified 2+ save and the first two points of damage each round get soaked? If so, that is a fething massive nerf to models that pay for invulnerable saves.

The highlighted part is correct and should answer the other sections of your post. So continuing to use terminators as an example, a basic terminator with a 5+ invul save strictly comes out ahead. Each terminator basically ignores the first 2 points of damage they would take each round. Against anything with an AP of -3 or worse, they will still have a 5+ armor save (4+ if in terrain). The ONLY drawback for them would be against AP-4 or better attacks that also do 4 or more damage. Even something like a tactical doctrine overcharged plasma (2 damage, AP-4) would be less effective against a terminator with this rule because it would take 2 wounds getting past a 6+ save to kill them rather than 1 wound getting past a 5+ save.


I think I like this mechanic overall, BUT I would prefer it selectively replace specific invulnerable saves rather than invuls in general. Making my wyches functionally 3 wounds apiece against small arms fire isn't so bad, but making them easier to kill with a krak missile or a clunky thunderhammer than with bolters feels odd. But swapping out the archon's 2+ invul for, let's say, 5 soakable wounds? That's probably a better representation of its fluff, less prone to feelbad moments when you fail your first 2+ save, and less annoying for an opponent to deal with.

 vipoid wrote:
I think something like this would be a fantastic mechanic for Knights.

However, for non-super heavy units, I think it would entail far too much bookkeeping.

Indeed. Much like in the original Epic, where a Titan had layers of void shields, each one had to be taken down in succession but they regenerated each turn on a roll of a dice.

Probably not a mechanic for all units to use, but I think it would definitely work well for Knights.

A slew of extra wounds instead of a invulnerable save. At the start of their turn the knight player rolls to regenerate them (at say 5+ to get each back). These wounds must always be taken off first. Not a huge amount of bookkeeping when your army is only a handful of models.

I think replacing all invulns with Feel No Pain would be much less complex to implement.

Yeah, that's probably true. That way, AT guns still have value.

-Guardsman- wrote:I think replacing all invulns with Feel No Pain would be much less complex to implement.

Martel732 wrote:Yeah, that's probably true. That way, AT guns still have value.

And models that already have both get... What?

 JNAProductions wrote:

-Guardsman- wrote:I think replacing all invulns with Feel No Pain would be much less complex to implement.

Martel732 wrote:Yeah, that's probably true. That way, AT guns still have value.

And models that already have both get... What?

presumably, a better one.


For my suggestion, I was trying to come up with a standard for transferring invulns across to my idea(EG 5++ = charge 1, 4++ = charge 2, etc) but I realised that, of course ,this will vary on a case by case basis. A termies 3++ is usually warding off damage 2 or damage D3 weapons, where a knights 3++ is warding of damage D6, minimum 3, and all that jazz. so it would have to be case by case, so not an easy job.

Things like wytches and general daemons would have charge 2 or 3. Charge 1 would only really be useful for hordes, but making a horde take twice as much damage to kill them would be seriously OP - deffskull orks with 2 wounds, not really balanced.

I do believe that it would be better to have both the current invulns and this new system, to represent different things. Perhaps swap out the massed low invulns for fnp, and adopt this for the more elite, powerful invulns.

 Kcalehc wrote:

Indeed. Much like in the original Epic, where a Titan had layers of void shields, each one had to be taken down in succession but they regenerated each turn on a roll of a dice.

Probably not a mechanic for all units to use, but I think it would definitely work well for Knights.

A slew of extra wounds instead of a invulnerable save. At the start of their turn the knight player rolls to regenerate them (at say 5+ to get each back). These wounds must always be taken off first. Not a huge amount of bookkeeping when your army is only a handful of models.

You could also have a mechanic whereby a Knight can forgo firing one or more of its main weapons in order to regenerate more of its shields. That way you also add a choice for the Knight between offence and defence.

 JNAProductions wrote:
An idea I had for Ion Shields is to make them each a pool of wounds.

So a regular Knight's Ion Shields might have 4 wounds at T7 4+, and they have three of them. Each one comes back on a 5+ at the start of the controlling player's turn, and you have to beat down the shields before you hit the Knight itself.
Armigers could have 2 wound shields at T6 4+.

This is my idea. Nothing that should be used for little models (Lesser Daemons could just keep their 5++) but for big boys, should be interesting.

 JNAProductions wrote:

-Guardsman- wrote:I think replacing all invulns with Feel No Pain would be much less complex to implement.

Martel732 wrote:Yeah, that's probably true. That way, AT guns still have value.

And models that already have both get... What?

Maybe nerfed?

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

-Guardsman- wrote:I think replacing all invulns with Feel No Pain would be much less complex to implement.

Martel732 wrote:Yeah, that's probably true. That way, AT guns still have value.

And models that already have both get... What?

Maybe nerfed?

Because GUO are storming the top tables, aren't they? Beasts of Nurgle are ridiculously OP!

 some bloke wrote:

This has some significant effects on the game:

1: Firing a battlecannon at a guy with a stormshield will be more likely to do some damage than a warboss swinging a big choppa - both are comparable strength, but the cannon does more damage, so can chip off the stormshield effectively.
2: Invulnerable saves will no longer have god-qualities. they can be overpowered and tactically overcome, unlike now.
3: Bookkeeping, not as bad as you might think. one extra wound pool to think of in each unit with an invuln, so not a big problem. A Knight has to account for it's wounds and it's invuln. A unit of termies has to track the one guy getting wounded, as normal.

Yes, there would have to be the inevitable overhaul of who get's what, but it would give a more interesting flavour to the game, in my opinion.

Thoughts?

Sorry but Not a fan , at all just on the book keeping element

Example: My entire Sisters of Battle army, every single one of them now have to track an extra wound (or more ) every turn and which is also affected by specifc bubbles as part of their whole stic

You can tactically overcome Invulns - you use volume of fire.

Might be interesting for Superheavies/Knights etc.

Wyldhunt wrote:
The highlighted part is correct and should answer the other sections of your post. So continuing to use terminators as an example, a basic terminator with a 5+ invul save strictly comes out ahead. Each terminator basically ignores the first 2 points of damage they would take each round. Against anything with an AP of -3 or worse, they will still have a 5+ armor save (4+ if in terrain). The ONLY drawback for them would be against AP-4 or better attacks that also do 4 or more damage. Even something like a tactical doctrine overcharged plasma (2 damage, AP-4) would be less effective against a terminator with this rule because it would take 2 wounds getting past a 6+ save to kill them rather than 1 wound getting past a 5+ save.

I wasn't aware that regular terminators had 3++ storm shields now. He gave that as an example of a model which would get 2 charges. Regular terminators would likely get a single charge for their 5++ save which isn't nearly as good, plus, why should something in terminator armor be hiding in cover at all? Those models with 3++ saves get nerfed into the ground by getting two charges for a shield that, at present, could save many more wounds than that from a single lascannon shot.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

-Guardsman- wrote:I think replacing all invulns with Feel No Pain would be much less complex to implement.

Martel732 wrote:Yeah, that's probably true. That way, AT guns still have value.

And models that already have both get... What?

Maybe nerfed?

Because GUO are storming the top tables, aren't they? Beasts of Nurgle are ridiculously OP!

They'd obviously get cheaper to compensate.

I don't want GUO to be cheaper, I want them to be better.

Same with Beasts of Nurgle-they have NO PURPOSE right now.

Cheaper gives purpose. Just look at guardsmen.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
The highlighted part is correct and should answer the other sections of your post. So continuing to use terminators as an example, a basic terminator with a 5+ invul save strictly comes out ahead. Each terminator basically ignores the first 2 points of damage they would take each round. Against anything with an AP of -3 or worse, they will still have a 5+ armor save (4+ if in terrain). The ONLY drawback for them would be against AP-4 or better attacks that also do 4 or more damage. Even something like a tactical doctrine overcharged plasma (2 damage, AP-4) would be less effective against a terminator with this rule because it would take 2 wounds getting past a 6+ save to kill them rather than 1 wound getting past a 5+ save.

I wasn't aware that regular terminators had 3++ storm shields now. He gave that as an example of a model which would get 2 charges. Regular terminators would likely get a single charge for their 5++ save which isn't nearly as good, plus, why should something in terminator armor be hiding in cover at all? Those models with 3++ saves get nerfed into the ground by getting two charges for a shield that, at present, could save many more wounds than that from a single lascannon shot.

Or they could not save that lascannon shot. Current invulns are swingy - with no way to overcome them except mortal wounds, which not all armies have access to a lot of, or volume of fire, which can fail, they are just a bit meh. Having used invulns, I find that if you rely on them, they fail, and sometimes they just shrug off everything, and that's just too random for my liking.

Sorry but Not a fan , at all just on the book keeping element

Example: My entire Sisters of Battle army, every single one of them now have to track an extra wound (or more ) every turn and which is also affected by specifc bubbles as part of their whole stic

You can tactically overcome Invulns - you use volume of fire.

As above, volume of fire is not a guarantee of overcoming the invuln, or they might fail the first 2 and die. My suggestion would also be overcome by volume of fire, but in a reliable manner.

Bookkeeping-wise, it's not something to track for every model (unless they are all independant) as the first model to lose a charge must be the one to take all hits until they die, in the exact same way as multiple wound models in a unit. In fact, this is, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as adding X wounds to all models in the unit, and then adding X wounds, up to their max, to the wounded model at the end of the turn. not overly complex, but perhaps I'm wrong.

I don't want GUO to be cheaper, I want them to be better.

Same with Beasts of Nurgle-they have NO PURPOSE right now.

I would feel that the GUO would be best suited to a high toughness, low save and high "Invuln". EG T10, wth charge 5 invuln, but only a 4+ save. So every turn, you have to inflict 5 wounds before he starts taking damage. But the numbers can be tweaked to make it work, though I would hesitate to go above 5 as it means as soon as the game starts winding down, you could lose the ability to cause that many wounds in one turn!

 some bloke wrote:
[Or they could not save that lascannon shot. Current invulns are swingy - with no way to overcome them except mortal wounds, which not all armies have access to a lot of, or volume of fire, which can fail, they are just a bit meh. Having used invulns, I find that if you rely on them, they fail, and sometimes they just shrug off everything, and that's just too random for my liking.

Yes, that's part of why we roll dice in this game. Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you don't. Over large sample sizes, it averages out. Over smaller ones, it can create tension and drama. You're idea both nerfs units and removes a key aspect of why people play the game.

When designing a new rule in the future, try to think of what the current one does well and what it doesn't do well instead of just looking at the part you don't like.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
[Or they could not save that lascannon shot. Current invulns are swingy - with no way to overcome them except mortal wounds, which not all armies have access to a lot of, or volume of fire, which can fail, they are just a bit meh. Having used invulns, I find that if you rely on them, they fail, and sometimes they just shrug off everything, and that's just too random for my liking.

Yes, that's part of why we roll dice in this game. Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you don't. Over large sample sizes, it averages out. Over smaller ones, it can create tension and drama. You're idea both nerfs units and removes a key aspect of why people play the game.

When designing a new rule in the future, try to think of what the current one does well and what it doesn't do well instead of just looking at the part you don't like.

Again with the idea that this outright nerfs things?

Presently any unit with an invulnerable save equal to or worse than their regular save doesn't make use of it when presented with low AP weaponry. My suggestion makes terminators more survivable against small arms fire, which is what they are supposed to be. You're supposed to bring out big guns for them.

You're saying that a knight which currently ignores 2/3 of incoming shots will be nerfed by instead ignoring the first 6 damage per turn, whilst still getting its own armour save to stop it?

with regard to your latter statement:

What invulnerable saves do now: They give units a chance to ignore any incoming damage, but give a "feel bad" result if they either do too much or don't do enough. either the unit is unkillable, broken and I can't hurt it, or the damn character fluffed is first invuln and died. I don't want to bring a stormshield because it stops my character being killed outright in 2/3 of my games - I want that shield to give a consistent level of protection in every game, predictably. Balancing out over multiple games is a crap mechanic - it should work consistently all the time.

Which is what Armour Saves do. you don't feel so bad for failing a 2+ as you do for failing a 2++ - the latter feels like it should be better. Armour saves scale with AP, and I am suggesting that invulns instead scale with damage. Allowing more powerful weapons a better chance against invulnerable saves will increase the tacticl decisions made in the game, increasing the players agency in target priority, and thus making the game more fun. I played in 7th edition against Eldar in their all-powerful mode. Facing a 2++ was just feel bad for me - there was no point in firing my biggest guns at him, because he would ignore them. My suggestion would eliminate the feel-bad - and make people point their biggest guns at the toughest targets, as they should.


I just think that Invulnerable saves shouldn't be as swingy any more.

Especially with lots of weapons paying big points for AP.

 some bloke wrote:
Again with the idea that this outright nerfs things?

Presently any unit with an invulnerable save equal to or worse than their regular save doesn't make use of it when presented with low AP weaponry. My suggestion makes terminators more survivable against small arms fire, which is what they are supposed to be. You're supposed to bring out big guns for them.

And those big guns should have a high chance of bouncing off that AP 3++ shield I'm paying for.

You're saying that a knight which currently ignores 2/3 of incoming shots will be nerfed by instead ignoring the first 6 damage per turn, whilst still getting its own armour save to stop it?

Yes, that's a huge nerf given that it's a single shot, sisters with melta using a miracle die, away from being massively less protected than it used to be.

I'll do the math using overcharged Dark Angel's plasma guns, with a reroll aura and Weapons of the Dark Age to illustrate the difference:

Current System:
1 attack, 0.89 hits, 0.44 wounds, 0.22 unsaved wounds, 0.67 damage per shot, ~36 shots to kill a 24 Titan with a 4++ save from the relic

Your Proposal: No Assault Doctrine
1 attack, 0.89 hits, 0.44 wounds, 0.37 unsaved wounds, 1.1 damage per shot, ~27 shots to kill a 24 wound titan with 6 extra wounds from its shield

Your Proposal: Assault Doctrine
1 attack, 0.89 hits, 0.44 wounds, 0.44 unsaved wounds, 1.32 damage per shot, ~23 shots to kill a 24 wound titan with 6 extra wounds from its shield

That's a 9 to 13 shot nerf using your system.

What invulnerable saves do now: They give units a chance to ignore any incoming damage, but give a "feel bad" result if they either do too much or don't do enough. either the unit is unkillable, broken and I can't hurt it, or the damn character fluffed is first invuln and died. I don't want to bring a stormshield because it stops my character being killed outright in 2/3 of my games - I want that shield to give a consistent level of protection in every game, predictably. Balancing out over multiple games is a crap mechanic - it should work consistently all the time.

Boohoo play a different game if you don't want to deal with dice.

Which is what Armour Saves do. you don't feel so bad for failing a 2+ as you do for failing a 2++ - the latter feels like it should be better. Armour saves scale with AP,

Did you just start playing in 8th edition? Saves used to be all or nothing based on the AP of the weapon fired. That AP4 weapon used to give a marine a full 3+ armor save while ignoring a guardsman's armor entirely. That was fine, notwithstanding 7e death stars.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
The highlighted part is correct and should answer the other sections of your post. So continuing to use terminators as an example, a basic terminator with a 5+ invul save strictly comes out ahead. Each terminator basically ignores the first 2 points of damage they would take each round. Against anything with an AP of -3 or worse, they will still have a 5+ armor save (4+ if in terrain). The ONLY drawback for them would be against AP-4 or better attacks that also do 4 or more damage. Even something like a tactical doctrine overcharged plasma (2 damage, AP-4) would be less effective against a terminator with this rule because it would take 2 wounds getting past a 6+ save to kill them rather than 1 wound getting past a 5+ save.

I wasn't aware that regular terminators had 3++ storm shields now. He gave that as an example of a model which would get 2 charges.

Fair enough. I overlooked that detail, but most of what I said still stands. Functionally giving terminators 3 wounds apiece against small arms does a lot for their durability. It would take two overcharged plasma shots rather than one, for instance, to clear a single terminator. You'd have to fail three 2+ saves against AP 0 weapons .

why should something in terminator armor be hiding in cover at all?

Why wouldn't they? From a game mechanics perspective, even primaris bolters or tactical doctrine bolters give terminators a reason to hug cover under the current GW rules. That wouldn't change under these proposed rules. From a fluff perspective, well, most weapons are less likely to punch through or damage your armor if they have to go through a foot of rockrete or space metal first. Or, if the cover is more about concealment than blocking shots, the enemy might not see you well enough in the brush to aim for a vital spot and end up shooting a pauldron instead. Same reasons they want to hug cover in the current setup, basically.

Those models with 3++ saves get nerfed into the ground by getting two charges for a shield that, at present, could save many more wounds than that from a single lascannon shot.

3+ invuls would maybe need to be 3 extra wounds to make it worth it, but there's still an appeal to extra "shield wounds." Out in the open against a plasma gun, a terminator with (functionally) 5 wounds would take 3 overcharged wounds to drop and would take about 30 AP 0 wounds to kill. If that terminator stands in cover (because he's worried about lascannons), he'll have a 4+ save against that lascannon rather than the 3++ that the current storm shield rules offer, BUT he'll survive the hit on a damage roll of 4 or less instead of only surviving on a 1.

Obviously the math won't work out completely the same as it does now (If it did, what would be the point?), but I think it represents the idea of a forcefield or storm shield more flavorfully than an invul save does. Again, I wouldn't want to replace all invuls with this, but I certainly wouldn't mind having a shadowfield grant an archon 4 extra wounds (and maybe a 5+ invul on top of that). I really like the idea of terminators being chunky enough to warrant turning lascanons on them because bolters just don't do the trick reliably.

Wyldhunt wrote:
<snip>

See my comment below.

You're saying that a knight which currently ignores 2/3 of incoming shots will be nerfed by instead ignoring the first 6 damage per turn, whilst still getting its own armour save to stop it?

Yes, that's a huge nerf given that it's a single shot, sisters with melta using a miracle die, away from being massively less protected than it used to be.

I'll do the math using overcharged Dark Angel's plasma guns, with a reroll aura and Weapons of the Dark Age to illustrate the difference:

Current System:
1 attack, 0.89 hits, 0.44 wounds, 0.22 unsaved wounds, 0.67 damage per shot, ~36 shots to kill a 24 Titan with a 4++ save from the relic

Your Proposal: No Assault Doctrine
1 attack, 0.89 hits, 0.44 wounds, 0.37 unsaved wounds, 1.1 damage per shot, ~27 shots to kill a 24 wound titan with 6 extra wounds from its shield

Your Proposal: Assault Doctrine
1 attack, 0.89 hits, 0.44 wounds, 0.44 unsaved wounds, 1.32 damage per shot, ~23 shots to kill a 24 wound titan with 6 extra wounds from its shield

That's a 9 to 13 shot nerf using your system.

----

The math works out to it being a massive nerf for most models, this isn't some minor fudge the numbers thing either as the above math shows.

6++ = reduce incoming damage by 1.
5++ = reduce incoming damage by 2.
4++ = reduce incoming damage by 3.
3++ = reduce incoming damage by 4.
2++ = reduce incoming damage by 5.
To a minimum of 0.

 Blndmage wrote:
6++ = reduce incoming damage by 1.
5++ = reduce incoming damage by 2.
4++ = reduce incoming damage by 3.
3++ = reduce incoming damage by 4.
2++ = reduce incoming damage by 5.
To a minimum of 0.

No. god no.

That would make Wyches immune to lasguns and bolters.
Daemons immune to overcharged Plasma and autocannons.
Captains immune to thunder hammers.
Storm shields immune to Dreadnought chain fists.

 Blndmage wrote:
6++ = reduce incoming damage by 1.
5++ = reduce incoming damage by 2.
4++ = reduce incoming damage by 3.
3++ = reduce incoming damage by 4.
2++ = reduce incoming damage by 5.
To a minimum of 0.

That also doesn't work very well as either it makes models too immune to damage (if it works per shot) or goes away too quickly (per turn) and is a massive nerf.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
6++ = reduce incoming damage by 1.
5++ = reduce incoming damage by 2.
4++ = reduce incoming damage by 3.
3++ = reduce incoming damage by 4.
2++ = reduce incoming damage by 5.
To a minimum of 0.

No. god no.

That would make Wyches immune to lasguns and bolters.
Daemons immune to overcharged Plasma and autocannons.
Captains immune to thunder hammers.
Storm shields immune to Dreadnought chain fists.

What if it reduced the S of incoming attacks at the same rate, min S1?

 Blndmage wrote:
What if it reduced the S of incoming attacks at the same rate, min S1?

Try doing the math for how your suggestions change things for the unit being shot at and the unit doing the shooting before making another suggestion. These last two ideas have been awful.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
6++ = reduce incoming damage by 1.
5++ = reduce incoming damage by 2.
4++ = reduce incoming damage by 3.
3++ = reduce incoming damage by 4.
2++ = reduce incoming damage by 5.
To a minimum of 0.

No. god no.

That would make Wyches immune to lasguns and bolters.
Daemons immune to overcharged Plasma and autocannons.
Captains immune to thunder hammers.
Storm shields immune to Dreadnought chain fists.

Good fething god. Seconded.

 Blndmage wrote:
6++ = reduce incoming damage by 1.
5++ = reduce incoming damage by 2.
4++ = reduce incoming damage by 3.
3++ = reduce incoming damage by 4.
2++ = reduce incoming damage by 5.
To a minimum of 0.

Finally, it's the Archon's time to shine.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
Again with the idea that this outright nerfs things?

Presently any unit with an invulnerable save equal to or worse than their regular save doesn't make use of it when presented with low AP weaponry. My suggestion makes terminators more survivable against small arms fire, which is what they are supposed to be. You're supposed to bring out big guns for them.

And those big guns should have a high chance of bouncing off that AP 3++ shield I'm paying for.

yes, but there should also be a higher chance of killing something with a damage 6 weapon than a damage 1 weapon. it's more damaging.

You're saying that a knight which currently ignores 2/3 of incoming shots will be nerfed by instead ignoring the first 6 damage per turn, whilst still getting its own armour save to stop it?

Yes, that's a huge nerf given that it's a single shot, sisters with melta using a miracle die, away from being massively less protected than it used to be.

I'll do the math using overcharged Dark Angel's plasma guns, with a reroll aura and Weapons of the Dark Age to illustrate the difference:

Current System:
1 attack, 0.89 hits, 0.44 wounds, 0.22 unsaved wounds, 0.67 damage per shot, ~36 shots to kill a 24 Titan with a 4++ save from the relic

Your Proposal: No Assault Doctrine
1 attack, 0.89 hits, 0.44 wounds, 0.37 unsaved wounds, 1.1 damage per shot, ~27 shots to kill a 24 wound titan with 6 extra wounds from its shield

Your Proposal: Assault Doctrine
1 attack, 0.89 hits, 0.44 wounds, 0.44 unsaved wounds, 1.32 damage per shot, ~23 shots to kill a 24 wound titan with 6 extra wounds from its shield

That's a 9 to 13 shot nerf using your system.

There is an error in your maths here - you are assuming the ability to one-shot a knight in a single turn.
Let's assume it takes 2 turns instead, with your "The best possible knight killing example I could think of to illustrate my point" unit of plasmaguns with all the buffs.

36 shots to kill as it is now, doesn't change for being over 2 turns

at 1.1 damage per shot (I'm assuming your maths is correct) it's got 36 wounds to chew through over 2 turns, so thats 33 shots needed, only a difference of 3
at 1.32 damage per shot, it's 28 shots needed to kill it.

Let's assume that he makes it through to a third round - with the odd plasmagun blowing up and his own ability to kill them, that's reasonable - now the knight has effectively 42 wounds to get through:

at 1.1 damage, that's 39 shots needed
at 1.32 damage, that's 32 shots needed

I wouldn't say that this is so far from the current system as to be broken. but there's another comparison to consider - against a titan without that invuln, just a 3+ save:

overcharged plasma is AP-3, so 6+ save, needs 21 shots to kill it without the assault doctrine.

so if the current 4++, without assault doctrine, needs 36 shots to kill it in 2 turns (a good middle ground, I think), and my proposal needs 33 shots, compared with 21 shots without the invuln we get the figures:

71% increase in survival for a 4++ as now
52% increase in survival for a 6-charge over 2 turns
85% increase in survival for a 6-charge over 3 turns
109% increase in survival for a 6-charge over 4 turns

I think this shows that it's comparable, actually.

What invulnerable saves do now: They give units a chance to ignore any incoming damage, but give a "feel bad" result if they either do too much or don't do enough. either the unit is unkillable, broken and I can't hurt it, or the damn character fluffed is first invuln and died. I don't want to bring a stormshield because it stops my character being killed outright in 2/3 of my games - I want that shield to give a consistent level of protection in every game, predictably. Balancing out over multiple games is a crap mechanic - it should work consistently all the time.

Boohoo play a different game if you don't want to deal with dice.

At risk of sounding like I'm taking the bait - grow up. Comments like this only exist to provoke. Don't post this sort of thing in my threads again, please.

Which is what Armour Saves do. you don't feel so bad for failing a 2+ as you do for failing a 2++ - the latter feels like it should be better. Armour saves scale with AP,

Did you just start playing in 8th edition? Saves used to be all or nothing based on the AP of the weapon fired. That AP4 weapon used to give a marine a full 3+ armor save while ignoring a guardsman's armor entirely. That was fine, notwithstanding 7e death stars.

I've been playing since fourth edition. I know what saves used to be like. It doesn't mean they were right - if everything was right simply because "it always used to be like that", We'd still be playing rogue trader, first edition.

 vipoid wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
6++ = reduce incoming damage by 1.
5++ = reduce incoming damage by 2.
4++ = reduce incoming damage by 3.
3++ = reduce incoming damage by 4.
2++ = reduce incoming damage by 5.
To a minimum of 0.

Finally, it's the Archon's time to shine.

screw archon, it's Makari time!

 some bloke wrote:
yes, but there should also be a higher chance of killing something with a damage 6 weapon than a damage 1 weapon. it's more damaging.

Then can't you fix your issues by making the model save for each point of damage dealt by a weapon FNP style?

There is an error in your maths here - you are assuming the ability to one-shot a knight in a single turn.

Yes, because that's what good players will do against a Knight that regenerates 6 wounds per turn. They'll focus fire and one-shot it if they can.

Let's assume it takes 2 turns instead, with your "The best possible knight killing example I could think of to illustrate my point" unit of plasmaguns with all the buffs.

You do realize you have to factor in what tournament players will bring to handle Knights when making a rule like this, right? Also, I could have stacked a reroll ones to wound aura on there as well if I really wanted to buff those shots up. This is literally RWBKs with Sammael, and a Stratagem based on my own list. This is also why I cut your math for two and three turn kills because realistically that's not what's happening on the table when two skilled players meet.

I wouldn't say that this is so far from the current system as to be broken. but there's another comparison to consider - against a titan without that invuln, just a 3+ save:

I'm pretty sure all Titans come with at least a 5++ save base and no player bringing Titans to a serious game won't give as many of them as possible a 4++ save and other buffs. So how about you don't make-up scenarios to suit your terrible idea.

At risk of sounding like I'm taking the bait - grow up. Comments like this only exist to provoke. Don't post this sort of thing in my threads again, please.

Removed - Rule #1 please. Doubly so when you post gak rules that assume a list can't kill a Titan in a single turn even though the ITC meta has shown that when Titans are good lists will bring the anti-tank to deal with them,

Stompas don’t have an invulnerable.

Nor do Baneblades.

 Blndmage wrote:
6++ = reduce incoming damage by 1.
5++ = reduce incoming damage by 2.
4++ = reduce incoming damage by 3.
3++ = reduce incoming damage by 4.
2++ = reduce incoming damage by 5.
To a minimum of 0.

Sisters of Battle love this, they ALL ignore 1 Dam weapons - add in the -1/-2 Ap Order and the Emperor truely does Protect his chosen daughters.

Does this mean basic Sisters and Witches can't hurt each other

"At risk of sounding like I'm taking the bait - grow up. Comments like this only exist to provoke. Don't post this sort of thing in my threads again, please."

Sounds familiar.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Removed - Rule #1 please.

aaaaand I no longer have time for you. Shame, I was actually listening to your views and considering them, not trying to ignore you. But then you just kept trolling.

The alpha gamer indeed.

Martel732 wrote:
The alpha gamer indeed.

not sure I follow?

I'm referring to Canadian's bullying statements. I'm imagining him seeing himself as a an alpha gamer showing us how it is.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Stompas don’t have an invulnerable.

Nor do Baneblades.

Are any of those models Knights? Are any of those models seeing top table play in major tournaments? Would they even be touched by these changes given their lack of invulnerable saves?

 some bloke wrote:
aaaaand I no longer have time for you. Shame, I was actually listening to your views and considering them, not trying to ignore you. But then you just kept trolling.

Yes, ignore good advice because it was delivered in an unfriendly tone. That's the way to improve!

You wrote gak rules for a gak reason and got called for it. Man up.

I’m of the opinion that invulns don’t work well with the current ap system and should be removed and possibly replaced with either increased wounds, better normal saves or an ignore-wounds roll on a case-by-case basis.

For example, skitarii have a 6+ invuln that can just be deleted with no replacement, but a storm shield or shield generator could offer +1 to save rolls.
You’d have to rebalance the game obviously, but I find it improves gameplay (since I have played games without invulns) by giving high ap weapons an actual niche.

It also prevents a haves vs have nots scenario where high invuln units are generally much more resilient than non-invuln units. Units should be designed to be durable without needing an invuln. This would put all units on the same footing and allow for greater unit diversity in games.

Dandelion wrote:
I’m of the opinion that invulns don’t work well with the current ap system and should be removed and possibly replaced with either increased wounds, better normal saves or an ignore-wounds roll on a case-by-case basis.

For example, skitarii have a 6+ invuln that can just be deleted with no replacement, but a storm shield or shield generator could offer +1 to save rolls.
You’d have to rebalance the game obviously, but I find it improves gameplay (since I have played games without invulns) by giving high ap weapons an actual niche.

It also prevents a haves vs have nots scenario where high invuln units are generally much more resilient than non-invuln units. Units should be designed to be durable without needing an invuln. This would put all units on the same footing and allow for greater unit diversity in games.

Huh - what exactly are saves for some units being deleted.

What do you mean?

Dandelion wrote:
I’m of the opinion that invulns don’t work well with the current ap system and should be removed and possibly replaced with either increased wounds, better normal saves or an ignore-wounds roll on a case-by-case basis.

Please, explain why you have this opinion and give examples of where it is a problem.

You’d have to rebalance the game obviously, but I find it improves gameplay (since I have played games without invulns) by giving high ap weapons an actual niche.

They have a niche against models like an Ork Stomp, a Baneblade, a Knight with a 5++ already.

Dandelion wrote:
What do you mean?

For example, skitarii have a 6+ invuln that can just be deleted with no replacement

there are 2 problems imo: 1 is that invulns are all or nothing and 2 is that not all units have an invuln.

Invulns being all or nothing is a holdover from previous editions when ap was also all or nothing. Granting an invuln was the only way to step down armor without completely removing it. For example terminators required a 5++ so that plasma didn’t immediately negate their only point of defense. Without the invuln a termie would die just as easily as a guardsmen to said plasma.

Now though, ap works as a step down already, which makes the original purpose of invulns redundant. In addition, the game now has an easy means to increase wounds and armor saves without massively skewing the game thanks to increased weapon damage and modifiers. Everything invulns did before can now be done in a more granular fashion that is affected by the opponents weapon. Invulns are therefore unnecessary now, and are frankly inferior gameplay wise to other solutions.

To bring back the example of the termie: under the current ap system a plasma shot only reduces the save to a 5+. The invuln so far is completely unnecessary. Only against ap -4 does the invuln actually matter and even then the termie would still get save while most other units would not. Plus the termie got an extra wound which makes them more durable now than they were before.

Now let’s look at knights, which are my biggest pet peeve when it comes to invulns. A knight had a 5++ which is generally buffed to 4++ for as long as possible. Against this unit the majority of antitank weapons lose about half of their lethality while some weapons are completely unaffected. How do you balance a neutron laser that loses most of its punch against this specific unit, while auto cannons are completely unaffected?

Imo, the bane blade is a much better take on what the knight should have been. It has a couple extra wounds but no invuln. The extra wounds compensate for the lack of invuln while allowing the ap of all weapons to make a difference. It just presents a more enjoyable playing experience.

On to the other point, invulns are only given to certain units and leads to an arms race to deal with these increasingly durable units. Any units that don’t have an invuln get left behind as lethality increases and invulns are regarded as necessary to survive. This is bad for unit diversity. Tau tanks for example are generally shunned because they lack invulns and drone support.

So the solution is to modify wounds, saves, and toughness instead of granting invulns.

Removing invulns would require a ground up rebalance of the game but I think it would be worth it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
What do you mean?

For example, skitarii have a 6+ invuln that can just be deleted with no replacement

If you’re asking which saves can just be deleted then off the top of my head:
- Skitarii bionics invulns are just 5++ or 6++ and can just be removed with no major consequences (maybe just give a minor points drop if the unit needs it)
- ig commanders can lose their refractors
- terminators can lose the 5++

But other units should get something to make up for their loss
- DE Wyches could get -1 to hit in combat instead of the 4++
- assassins could get a feel no pain roll
- knights could get a couple more wounds
Etc...

Oh right so some units get extra stuff and some just get shafted - hmm not exactly a great first pitch

 Mr Morden wrote:
Oh right so some units get extra stuff and some just get shafted - hmm not exactly a great first pitch

Please explain then how the 6++ on a t3 model with a 4+ save actually matters. If you compare skitarii rangers to tau fire warriors both are 7pts yet one has an invuln and the other does not. Does that mean fire warriors have been shafted? But wait aren’t fire warriors actually pretty decent? So maybe it’s not that simple.

Worst case scenario you recost the units that need it. Hence why I mentioned a ground up rebalance of the game. None of this will happen obviously, but please don’t just dismiss the idea because I believe some units don’t need an invuln to be functional.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Stompas don’t have an invulnerable.

Nor do Baneblades.

Are any of those models Knights? Are any of those models seeing top table play in major tournaments? Would they even be touched by these changes given their lack of invulnerable saves?

 some bloke wrote:
aaaaand I no longer have time for you. Shame, I was actually listening to your views and considering them, not trying to ignore you. But then you just kept trolling.

Yes, ignore good advice because it was delivered in an unfriendly tone. That's the way to improve!

You wrote gak rules for a gak reason and got called for it. Man up.

If you'd care to read my previous reply, I was actually taking note of your advice - and it was interesting to see the math behind your argument, and I could indeed see that a knight would lose some survivability with the change I presented, when confronted by overcharging plasmaguns (as the tohit-towound doesn't change between comparisons, who wields them isn't strictly relevant, nor are the rerolls and such which I was so quick to comment on).

I don't think that being told "Boohoo play a different game if you don't want to deal with dice." is exactly good advice, any more than me telling you to "grow up" was.

Dandelion has also hit a nail on the head somewhat in this argument. Currently we are focusing on overcharged plasma in exclusivity, but we haven't touched on the increased survivability a knight (or any model) would have against any weapon which didn't knock its save below its invuln. AP-1 on a 3+/4++ knight effectively ignores the invuln. why does the power field stop working for weak shots? It's another hole in the invulnerable save logic.

I appreciate your taking the time to throw this back and forward, but please try to be a bit less unpleasant about it. It detracts from your otherwise sound argument.

Dandelion wrote:
there are 2 problems imo: 1 is that invulns are all or nothing and 2 is that not all units have an invuln.

Invulns being all or nothing is a holdover from previous editions when ap was also all or nothing. Granting an invuln was the only way to step down armor without completely removing it. For example terminators required a 5++ so that plasma didn’t immediately negate their only point of defense. Without the invuln a termie would die just as easily as a guardsmen to said plasma.

Now though, ap works as a step down already, which makes the original purpose of invulns redundant. In addition, the game now has an easy means to increase wounds and armor saves without massively skewing the game thanks to increased weapon damage and modifiers. Everything invulns did before can now be done in a more granular fashion that is affected by the opponents weapon. Invulns are therefore unnecessary now, and are frankly inferior gameplay wise to other solutions.

So how many wounds is a 3++ save on a terminator worth? How many wounds is a 4++ Iron Halo worth? A 4++ on Ghazkul? A 4++ on a Knight? Is there a way to make it so that these extra wounds don't make a unit so skewed that a unit lacking high damage weapons can't kill them as was the issue with 7e?

To bring back the example of the termie: under the current ap system a plasma shot only reduces the save to a 5+. The invuln so far is completely unnecessary. Only against ap -4 does the invuln actually matter and even then the termie would still get save while most other units would not. Plus the termie got an extra wound which makes them more durable now than they were before.

Except for those D2 weapons, which are what people shoot at Terminators...

Now let’s look at knights, which are my biggest pet peeve when it comes to invulns. A knight had a 5++ which is generally buffed to 4++ for as long as possible. Against this unit the majority of antitank weapons lose about half of their lethality while some weapons are completely unaffected. How do you balance a neutron laser that loses most of its punch against this specific unit, while auto cannons are completely unaffected?

You take enough lasers that one of them is likely to get through for super effective damage. This is literally what the ITC scene did when Knights were considered top tier. Now they're out of the meta for being too easy to kill.

Imo, the bane blade is a much better take on what the knight should have been. It has a couple extra wounds but no invuln. The extra wounds compensate for the lack of invuln while allowing the ap of all weapons to make a difference. It just presents a more enjoyable playing experience.

It's also crap because it dies on turn one against too many armies.

I may have missed this, but how would this method handle the following:

5-man Treminator squad.

Enemy squad of guard w/ Lasguns. They generate 3 wounds fro individual shots.

Would you strip 3 wounds off a single Terminator (2 charge + 1 wound) or could you remove it from the “charge” pool - I.e., you’d have to do in excess of 10 wounds to actually start hurting an actual terminator.

Would multi-wound weapons (such as charged plasma & Lascannons) work differently, allowing you to off/wound a single terminator in one shot?

Personally, I would prefer to see some mechanic where if you need 6’s to wound, you can only put one wound total onto the model/unit, no matter how many 6’s you roll, so you can’t simply bring down tough models through obscene numbers of rolled dice.

@ Canadian 5th

1. You play test to see what feels right.

2. The invuln doesn’t help the termie against plasma so that’s a moot point.

3. So it seems what you’re saying is that heavy weapons are fine when they do half damage, thanks to invulns? Why don’t we just reduce damage and number of shots? Or maybe we should increase wounds across the board? Or a little of both? Invulns are like giving units more wounds against high ap, so why is that a good thing?

4. That’s because the game is overturned to deal with invulns. Remove invulns and reduce lethality so that all units benefit. There are so many other ways to fix it.

 Stormonu wrote:
I may have missed this, but how would this method handle the following:

5-man Treminator squad.

Enemy squad of guard w/ Lasguns. They generate 3 wounds fro individual shots.

Would you strip 3 wounds off a single Terminator (2 charge + 1 wound) or could you remove it from the “charge” pool - I.e., you’d have to do in excess of 10 wounds to actually start hurting an actual terminator.

Would multi-wound weapons (such as charged plasma & Lascannons) work differently, allowing you to off/wound a single terminator in one shot?

Personally, I would prefer to see some mechanic where if you need 6’s to wound, you can only put one wound total onto the model/unit, no matter how many 6’s you roll, so you can’t simply bring down tough models through obscene numbers of rolled dice.

You would deal 3 damage to one terminator, as you say, 2 charge and 1 wound. If the squad takes more damage, this terminator must die first.

So, to continue your example: The terminator has 1 wound left, and a damage 2 weapon gets through - it loses its 1 remaining wound, and the rest of the damage is lost, as normal.
Then 2 lascannons hit. The first does 5 damage, killing a terminator (2 charge, 2 wounds and 1 overkill). The second does 2 damage, taking 2 charges off the next terminator.
The turn ends, and the charge lost on the terminator recharges - he is effectively unharmed by the shot.

 some bloke wrote:
If you'd care to read my previous reply, I was actually taking note of your advice - and it was interesting to see the math behind your argument, and I could indeed see that a knight would lose some survivability with the change I presented, when confronted by overcharging plasmaguns (as the tohit-towound doesn't change between comparisons, who wields them isn't strictly relevant, nor are the rerolls and such which I was so quick to comment on).

You should design your rules around the most effective way to kill a model and work backwards from there. So you should look at AP-4 D3 plasma guns, with rerolls to hit and wound as a basis for if your rules are a nerf or not.

Dandelion has also hit a nail on the head somewhat in this argument. Currently we are focusing on overcharged plasma in exclusivity, but we haven't touched on the increased survivability a knight (or any model) would have against any weapon which didn't knock its save below its invuln. AP-1 on a 3+/4++ knight effectively ignores the invuln. why does the power field stop working for weak shots? It's another hole in the invulnerable save logic.

Those aren't Knight killing weapons and most lists won't fire that profile at Knights. It's a less relevant profile to test.

As for the power field not stopping them maybe it's a slow blade cuts scenario, maybe it's a weird rules edge-case. It's not a big enough issue to be worth fixing.

Dandelion wrote:
1. You play test to see what feels right.

Good luck with that.

2. The invuln doesn’t help the termie against plasma so that’s a moot point.

Where did I mention plasma? I said D2 weapons of which there are some that don't currently hit a terminator's 5++ save. There's also 3++ TH/SS termies where they do laugh off plasma.

3. So it seems what you’re saying is that heavy weapons are fine when they do half damage, thanks to invulns? Why don’t we just reduce damage and number of shots?

Because they aren't at half damage against all types of target and that's a massive nerf to heavy weapons.

 some bloke wrote:
You would deal 3 damage to one terminator, as you say, 2 charge and 1 wound. If the squad takes more damage, this terminator must die first.

So, to continue your example: The terminator has 1 wound left, and a damage 2 weapon gets through - it loses its 1 remaining wound, and the rest of the damage is lost, as normal.
Then 2 lascannons hit. The first does 5 damage, killing a terminator (2 charge, 2 wounds and 1 overkill). The second does 2 damage, taking 2 charges off the next terminator.
The turn ends, and the charge lost on the terminator recharges - he is effectively unharmed by the shot.

This is still a nerf against weapons that deal 3 or more damage. It's also a nerf in the case where a 5++ would prevent more than 1 damage.

Are you intending to nerf a unit that already sees very little play?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
If you'd care to read my previous reply, I was actually taking note of your advice - and it was interesting to see the math behind your argument, and I could indeed see that a knight would lose some survivability with the change I presented, when confronted by overcharging plasmaguns (as the tohit-towound doesn't change between comparisons, who wields them isn't strictly relevant, nor are the rerolls and such which I was so quick to comment on).

You should design your rules around the most effective way to kill a model and work backwards from there. So you should look at AP-4 D3 plasma guns, with rerolls to hit and wound as a basis for if your rules are a nerf or not.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Does that mean that you would have all units be T5 with a 2+ save, as against S10 AP-5 weapons it is the same as T3 with a 6+, so is not a buff?

Srely it is better to look at average weaponry. As in, a missile and two lascannons. if you design everything with the most dangerous opponent in mind, then anyone without access to said dangerous unit is not going to stand a chance.

Dandelion has also hit a nail on the head somewhat in this argument. Currently we are focusing on overcharged plasma in exclusivity, but we haven't touched on the increased survivability a knight (or any model) would have against any weapon which didn't knock its save below its invuln. AP-1 on a 3+/4++ knight effectively ignores the invuln. why does the power field stop working for weak shots? It's another hole in the invulnerable save logic.

Those aren't Knight killing weapons and most lists won't fire that profile at Knights. It's a less relevant profile to test.

As for the power field not stopping them maybe it's a slow blade cuts scenario, maybe it's a weird rules edge-case. It's not a big enough issue to be worth fixing.

Maybe not to you, but I find it odd that a standard terminator's 5++ shield does nothing against even medium-AP weapons.

Dandelion wrote:
1. You play test to see what feels right.

Good luck with that.

I recommend researching the phrase "Constructive Criticism", you may find yourself enlightened.

2. The invuln doesn’t help the termie against plasma so that’s a moot point.

Where did I mention plasma? I said D2 weapons of which there are some that don't currently hit a terminator's 5++ save. There's also 3++ TH/SS termies where they do laugh off plasma.

3. So it seems what you’re saying is that heavy weapons are fine when they do half damage, thanks to invulns? Why don’t we just reduce damage and number of shots?

Because they aren't at half damage against all types of target and that's a massive nerf to heavy weapons.

 some bloke wrote:
You would deal 3 damage to one terminator, as you say, 2 charge and 1 wound. If the squad takes more damage, this terminator must die first.

So, to continue your example: The terminator has 1 wound left, and a damage 2 weapon gets through - it loses its 1 remaining wound, and the rest of the damage is lost, as normal.
Then 2 lascannons hit. The first does 5 damage, killing a terminator (2 charge, 2 wounds and 1 overkill). The second does 2 damage, taking 2 charges off the next terminator.
The turn ends, and the charge lost on the terminator recharges - he is effectively unharmed by the shot.

This is still a nerf against weapons that deal 3 or more damage. It's also a nerf in the case where a 5++ would prevent more than 1 damage.

Are you intending to nerf a unit that already sees very little play?

Terminators don't miss out on play because they lose their saves to big guns - they suck because you only need 6 successful wounds on a T4 model to make it fail a save. They die to massed firepower - something my suggestion overcomes effectively.



Thinking through the way it works, I feel that perhaps it is important to have the original invulnerable save kept to defend against high-AP weaponry, and also my idea (which I'm going to refer to as a "power field" as it will stop confusion).

So Terminators would have a 5++ invulnerable save. Stormshields would be a Power Field (3). So a terminator with both is pretty damn scary.

I would aim for the majority of invulns to be capped at 5++, with Tzeench being an obvious candidate for exception. Abilities like the knights invuln, stormshields, kustom force fields and that sort of thing would instead be replaced with Power Fields.

One interesting effect would be that power fields could, in some cases, be cumulative. So if you have a KFF in a vehicles, it's a Power Field (3) for the vehicle. Each extra KFF gives +1 to the field. KFF gives units within 9" a 5++ from shooting and the bearer a Power Field (3). Suddenly KFF Megameks seem a bit more useable!

@canadian 5th
1. You say that as if it’s impossible to do. Are you suggesting we don’t need to play test invulns? Or that it’s easier to play test them? You don’t need the unit to 100% match it’s current iteration, especially since many units need nerfs and many other units need buffs anyway.

2. My point is that the termie’s base invuln is near useless, so why even have it at all? And I take issue with plasma being shrugged off by a storm shield, because you’re just negating most of its value, which is poor for balance. How do we price a weapon that is only fully effective sometimes?

3. I’m not suggesting halving weapon damage, I’m just saying you could tweak weapons to make them less deadly as well as eliminate shoot/fight twice strats in addition to tweaking defensive profiles. Maybe drop plasma to ap-2 if ap-3 is too deadly. Maybe knights could get 26 wounds (these are just examples don’t take them too literally). Reduce lethality and you eliminate the need for invulns in the first place. The rest is just assigning points, which would have to be redone anyway.

 some bloke wrote:
[That's an interesting way of looking at it. Does that mean that you would have all units be T5 with a 2+ save, as against S10 AP-5 weapons it is the same as T3 with a 6+, so is not a buff?

No, it means that when looking to design the game you should look first at what happens in cases where the 'right' weapons are fired at the target under in-game conditions. If you don't you end up making units garbage in any sort of semi-competitive play.

Srely it is better to look at average weaponry. As in, a missile and two lascannons. if you design everything with the most dangerous opponent in mind, then anyone without access to said dangerous unit is not going to stand a chance.

No, you have to balance against all threats. That's why you get rules compromises like current invulnerable saves.

Maybe not to you, but I find it odd that a standard terminator's 5++ shield does nothing against even medium-AP weapons.

They could stand to be tougher but this idea doesn't fix their issues. It just makes new ones.

Dandelion wrote:
1I recommend researching the phrase "Constructive Criticism", you may find yourself enlightened.

I expect people to have put thought into their ideas before posting on a message board. That is also enlightening for eliminating bad ideas before others find out you had them.

2. The invuln doesn’t help the termie against plasma so that’s a moot point.

Where did I mention plasma? I said D2 weapons of which there are some that don't currently hit a terminator's 5++ save. There's also 3++ TH/SS termies where they do laugh off plasma.

3. So it seems what you’re saying is that heavy weapons are fine when they do half damage, thanks to invulns? Why don’t we just reduce damage and number of shots?

Because they aren't at half damage against all types of target and that's a massive nerf to heavy weapons.

Terminators don't miss out on play because they lose their saves to big guns - they suck because you only need 6 successful wounds on a T4 model to make it fail a save. They die to massed firepower - something my suggestion overcomes effectively.

That's not even close to the only reason they suck. They also deal little damage per point and are stuck with power fists which are awful and overpriced. Just making them tougher against small arms, especially while nerfing them against things like D3 overcharged plasma guns, is not fixing them.

Thinking through the way it works, I feel that perhaps it is important to have the original invulnerable save kept to defend against high-AP weaponry, and also my idea (which I'm going to refer to as a "power field" as it will stop confusion).

So Terminators would have a 5++ invulnerable save. Stormshields would be a Power Field (3). So a terminator with both is pretty damn scary.

I'll keep my 3++ thanks.

I would aim for the majority of invulns to be capped at 5++, with Tzeench being an obvious candidate for exception. Abilities like the knights invuln, stormshields, kustom force fields and that sort of thing would instead be replaced with Power Fields.

This is rapidly turning into a mess of additional wound pools and rules.

One interesting effect would be that power fields could, in some cases, be cumulative. So if you have a KFF in a vehicles, it's a Power Field (3) for the vehicle. Each extra KFF gives +1 to the field. KFF gives units within 9" a 5++ from shooting and the bearer a Power Field (3). Suddenly KFF Megameks seem a bit more useable!

I'm unsure where to even start with this...

How are they nerfed against D3 Plasma? (Which, to my knowledge, literally only DA and Ryza have access to.) They'd take 2 hits to kill, with a 5+ each time, as opposed to one hit at 3+. That's the same average, but less vulnerable to bad luck.

 JNAProductions wrote:
How are they nerfed against D3 Plasma? (Which, to my knowledge, literally only DA and Ryza have access to.) They'd take 2 hits to kill, with a 5+ each time, as opposed to one hit at 3+. That's the same average, but less vulnerable to bad luck.

I guess either way it's a 5+ save versus instant death via D3 plasma, but that same terminator could also shrug off 3 shots of that same attack on a 5++ as well. So it's a nerf in that respect.

There's also the question of how this scales, is 6++ now equal to 5++ in that they both ad a recharging wound? How many extra wounds is 3++ worth? Does a model with more base wounds (more chances to save) get more extra wounds? Less?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
[That's an interesting way of looking at it. Does that mean that you would have all units be T5 with a 2+ save, as against S10 AP-5 weapons it is the same as T3 with a 6+, so is not a buff?

No, it means that when looking to design the game you should look first at what happens in cases where the 'right' weapons are fired at the target under in-game conditions. If you don't you end up making units garbage in any sort of semi-competitive play.

if you only account for the hard-counter to every unit then you are missing an important part of the game - units are supposed to have counters. There should be a tool to deal with every threat. Eliminating this is what made deathstars so crap back in 6th and (shudder) 7th.

Srely it is better to look at average weaponry. As in, a missile and two lascannons. if you design everything with the most dangerous opponent in mind, then anyone without access to said dangerous unit is not going to stand a chance.

No, you have to balance against all threats. That's why you get rules compromises like current invulnerable saves.

against all threats, not just the hard counter. I won't point out that you've just contradicted yourself - you doubtless already knew before you posted, after all - but I will point out that against the usual way of killing big things by chipping their wounds down over a few turns, my suggestion offers more general protection than the current system. Wounds cannot be bypassed, saves can.

Maybe not to you, but I find it odd that a standard terminator's 5++ shield does nothing against even medium-AP weapons.

They could stand to be tougher but this idea doesn't fix their issues. It just makes new ones.

Dandelion wrote:
1I recommend researching the phrase "Constructive Criticism", you may find yourself enlightened.

I expect people to have put thought into their ideas before posting on a message board. That is also enlightening for eliminating bad ideas before others find out you had them.

Funny, I thought I was putting the idea up for people to comment on and offer their constructive criticism on how to make it better, where it would and would not work. It's a forum for discussion, if I thought the idea was perfect, why would I post it?

2. The invuln doesn’t help the termie against plasma so that’s a moot point.

Where did I mention plasma? I said D2 weapons of which there are some that don't currently hit a terminator's 5++ save. There's also 3++ TH/SS termies where they do laugh off plasma.

laughing off powerful weapons is the problem. invulns just don't work well for balancing, they either work too well or you pay too many points for them. If invulns weren't how common & powerful as they are, mortal wounds wouldn't have had to exist in the first place.

3. So it seems what you’re saying is that heavy weapons are fine when they do half damage, thanks to invulns? Why don’t we just reduce damage and number of shots?

Because they aren't at half damage against all types of target and that's a massive nerf to heavy weapons.

Terminators don't miss out on play because they lose their saves to big guns - they suck because you only need 6 successful wounds on a T4 model to make it fail a save. They die to massed firepower - something my suggestion overcomes effectively.

That's not even close to the only reason they suck. They also deal little damage per point and are stuck with power fists which are awful and overpriced. Just making them tougher against small arms, especially while nerfing them against things like D3 overcharged plasma guns, is not fixing them.

Terminators suck because any unit with decent massed dice rolls just overpowers their save and kills them. That, coupled with their save being reduced by AP now, means any termy without a stormshield just dies. Meganobs suffer less, because they have more wounds. They don't miss the 5++, as they rarely get reduced below 5+ anyway.

Thinking through the way it works, I feel that perhaps it is important to have the original invulnerable save kept to defend against high-AP weaponry, and also my idea (which I'm going to refer to as a "power field" as it will stop confusion).

So Terminators would have a 5++ invulnerable save. Stormshields would be a Power Field (3). So a terminator with both is pretty damn scary.

I'll keep my 3++ thanks.

Damn, couldn't sell you a complete overhaul of a game mechanic overnight? I thought my half-fleshed out idea would have you rewriting your codex right then & there.

I would aim for the majority of invulns to be capped at 5++, with Tzeench being an obvious candidate for exception. Abilities like the knights invuln, stormshields, kustom force fields and that sort of thing would instead be replaced with Power Fields.

This is rapidly turning into a mess of additional wound pools and rules.

not really. Same rules as current but with the addition of he Power Field. Then remove some invulns from units which would suit Power Fields better. Not that complicated.

One interesting effect would be that power fields could, in some cases, be cumulative. So if you have a KFF in a vehicles, it's a Power Field (3) for the vehicle. Each extra KFF gives +1 to the field. KFF gives units within 9" a 5++ from shooting and the bearer a Power Field (3). Suddenly KFF Megameks seem a bit more useable!

I'm unsure where to even start with this...

I was just rambling to be fair. Just thinking the KFF suits a power field by design, but would be OP to even have charge 1 on a unit of ork boys. Power Fields should not be put on hordes!

Hey Canadian, it seems you re replied to my last point instead of the new one.

 some bloke wrote:
if you only account for the hard-counter to every unit then you are missing an important part of the game - units are supposed to have counters. There should be a tool to deal with every threat. Eliminating this is what made deathstars so crap back in 6th and (shudder) 7th.

So Knights will never be tournament viable again then. Sucks to be them if you get your way.

against all threats, not just the hard counter. I won't point out that you've just contradicted yourself - you doubtless already knew before you posted, after all - but I will point out that against the usual way of killing big things by chipping their wounds down over a few turns, my suggestion offers more general protection than the current system. Wounds cannot be bypassed, saves can.

No, you tend to want to OTK dangerous targets with your alpha strike. In the case of a three Knight list you want to try to drop one of them in your first turn, then hope you have enough left to kill another from full health the next turn.

Your suggestion is a massive nerf against that strategy and will kill the viability of the unit nearly instantly.

Funny, I thought I was putting the idea up for people to comment on and offer their constructive criticism on how to make it better, where it would and would not work. It's a forum for discussion, if I thought the idea was perfect, why would I post it?

If this was me, I'd post an entire playtested example codex annotated with my reasoning behind the changes on a unit by unit basis. Then I'd solicit comments. Anything else is a waste of time and energy as you're finding out while debating me.

laughing off powerful weapons is the problem.

*Looks at the top tables of tournaments* *Sees very few of these so called problem units* *blinks*

You're clearly looking at the game through a very casual lens. The issue is that you shouldn't balance around the casuals because that breaks things at the high end.

Damn, couldn't sell you a complete overhaul of a game mechanic overnight? I thought my half-fleshed out idea would have you rewriting your codex right then & there.

Do the work, show the math and the current wound probability curve versus the new one for a bunch of common weapons profiles. Then repeat for each model you want to change. I'd suggest writing a script to automate things.

not really. Same rules as current but with the addition of he Power Field. Then remove some invulns from units which would suit Power Fields better. Not that complicated.

If it's so easy where's the preview codex and mathematical proof to show how well it works?

Dandelion wrote:
@canadian 5th1. You say that as if it’s impossible to do. Are you suggesting we don’t need to play test invulns? Or that it’s easier to play test them? You don’t need the unit to 100% match it’s current iteration, especially since many units need nerfs and many other units need buffs anyway.

I'm saying that balancing hundreds of units against all possible weapons is a very difficult task and that its competing with a system that has already been extensively playtested and mostly works.

2. My point is that the termie’s base invuln is near useless, so why even have it at all?

5++ is a great thing to have. It saves a 3rd of literally any wound thrown at the model regardless of it's AP or damage.

And I take issue with plasma being shrugged off by a storm shield, because you’re just negating most of its value, which is poor for balance. How do we price a weapon that is only fully effective sometimes?

Plasma is the best special weapon in the game right now.

3. I’m not suggesting halving weapon damage, I’m just saying you could tweak weapons to make them less deadly as well as eliminate shoot/fight twice strats in addition to tweaking defensive profiles. Maybe drop plasma to ap-2 if ap-3 is too deadly. Maybe knights could get 26 wounds (these are just examples don’t take them too literally). Reduce lethality and you eliminate the need for invulns in the first place. The rest is just assigning points, which would have to be redone anyway.

Do the work. Show the math. Explain in detail.

You know, you could offer help to try to refine the suggestion. If you think the idea is totally without merit, say so and leave. If you feel the idea has merit, but the specific implementation is flawed, offer advice.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You know, you could offer help to try to refine the suggestion. If you think the idea is totally without merit, say so and leave. If you feel the idea has merit, but the specific implementation is flawed, offer advice.

My suggestion is that they model the durability curve for the units they suggest changing and make a note of areas where these rules suggestions make them notably stronger or weaker than they are at present. I don't think such a request is unreasonable for such a sweeping change to the game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You know, you could offer help to try to refine the suggestion. If you think the idea is totally without merit, say so and leave. If you feel the idea has merit, but the specific implementation is flawed, offer advice.

My suggestion is that they model the durability curve for the units they suggest changing and make a note of areas where these rules suggestions make them notably stronger or weaker than they are at present. I don't think such a request is unreasonable for such a sweeping change to the game.

Except some models need nerfs, some need buffs.

I don't think "Make it exactly the same results as now with a different method" is a good goal.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except some models need nerfs, some need buffs.

I don't think "Make it exactly the same results as now with a different method" is a good goal.

Are the example units of Terminators and Knights in need of the nerfs that these's rules have generally been advocating for? Also, How will we know if a model has been buffed or nerfed if the numbers aren't run first?

I clearly said that removing invulns would require an overhaul, and that I don’t expect it to happen, ever. That does not mean it’s a bad idea in principle. GW rewrote the game from 7th to 8th, they could do it again and improve the game.

A 5++ on a 2+ model has next to zero value because of the new ap system. The vast majority of the time you never get past 5+ anyway. So if most of the time it never matters, you may as well just drop it and possibly make termie’s cheaper.

Keep in mind that these ideas have an approximately 0% chance of ever getting to GW. I’m just saying that I’ve played without invulns and it suits the game much better imo. I don’t need to write a thesis about how you could give a knight 6 more wounds to make it comparable to its current durability. And I don’t have the time to. These will at best be house rules, so if you don’t like it then say so and move on.

Dandelion wrote:
I clearly said that removing invulns would require an overhaul, and that I don’t expect it to happen, ever. That does not mean it’s a bad idea in principle. GW rewrote the game from 7th to 8th, they could do it again and improve the game.

So show the overhaul for a small codex like Custodes who will be majorly affected by it.

A 5++ on a 2+ model has next to zero value because of the new ap system. The vast majority of the time you never get past 5+ anyway. So if most of the time it never matters, you may as well just drop it and possibly make termie’s cheaper.

It still has value though, even if it is minimal at present.

They suck because -1 AP halves their save.

Pay me 40 bucks and I’ll write you a codex, otherwise I don’t feel like it. .
In my own games I have tweaked units to operate without invulns and it’s been more fun. For example, I give my tau shield drones and shield generators a 2+ and no invuln (and savior protocols redirects the normal attack, not a mw). For my admech, I just straight up delete all the invulns with no replacement because they don’t matter anyway. For knights I also just remove the invuln since they’re the biggest offenders in my limited collection, and they’ve been more fun to play against with no other changes.
Anyway, I’ve given you examples of how it could be handled so extrapolate that. If you’re worried about competitive balance then don’t be, because my suggestion will likely never leave this forum

Dandelion wrote:
In my own games I have tweaked units to operate without invulns and it’s been more fun. For example, I give my tau shield drones and shield generators a 2+ and no invuln (and savior protocols redirects the normal attack, not a mw). For my admech, I just straight up delete all the invulns with no replacement because they don’t matter anyway. For knights I also just remove the invuln since they’re the biggest offenders in my limited collection, and they’ve been more fun to play against with no other changes.
Anyway, I’ve given you examples of how it could be handled so extrapolate that. If you’re worried about competitive balance then don’t be, because my suggestion will likely never leave this forum

I'm sure glad I'll never need to play using those terrible rules.

You don’t have to like them. Though I would appreciate it if you would step back and stop insulting ideas you don’t like (especially if you won’t even bother to try them) A simple “I don’t think I’d like that idea” would have sufficed. I don’t come to Dakka Dakka to argue, so please don’t make these discussions confrontational.

Dandelion wrote:
You don’t have to like them. Though I would appreciate it if you would step back and stop insulting ideas you don’t like (especially if you won’t even bother to try them) A simple “I don’t think I’d like that idea” would have sufficed. I don’t come to Dakka Dakka to argue, so please don’t make these discussions confrontational.

Isn't the point of this part of the forum to convince other people that your idea is worth trying in their games? It must be otherwise we're just shouting into the void.

That's why I expect people suggesting new rules to approach things as if they were writing a pitch to GW to get an idea adopted. If you really make a good rule, you could actually change the game. Just look at how ITC started for proof that it can be done.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
You don’t have to like them. Though I would appreciate it if you would step back and stop insulting ideas you don’t like (especially if you won’t even bother to try them) A simple “I don’t think I’d like that idea” would have sufficed. I don’t come to Dakka Dakka to argue, so please don’t make these discussions confrontational.

Isn't the point of this part of the forum to convince other people that your idea is worth trying in their games? It must be otherwise we're just shouting into the void.

That's why I expect people suggesting new rules to approach things as if they were writing a pitch to GW to fet an idea adopted. If you really make a good rule, you could actually change the game. Just look at how ITC started for proof that it can be done.

"The proposed rules forum is here for people to propose changes to the rules of the game. You may not like some of those ideas. That's fine. But that's no excuse for ridiculing the poster making a suggestion.

Pointing out (politely!) why you think a given idea is the wrong way to go is just fine. As is offering ideas as to how the idea could be refined or improved. That's part of the point of posting these ideas in the first place.

Simply slamming someone for having the temerity to float an idea? Nope, not acceptable. The same rules on spam and inappropriate behaviour apply here as in the rest of the site.

Please keep in mind that the forum caters to people of all ages, and who don't always enjoy the same aspects of the game that you do. If you see a post that seems to be based more in youthful enthusiasm than in balanced game design, take that as an opportunity to help someone develop their ideas, rather than to stifle someone who is just trying to add a little something different to their game of toy soldiers."

Those are rules of the forum. If you think an idea is too poorly thought out to be worthy of your time drop it instead of commenting. I've made my point that I think invulnerable saves can be implemented well and aren't necessarily bad for the game, so have you, let them have their ideas and develop them maybe it becomes an idea that you or I think would be good later down the line but expecting people to have fully developed their ideas before they come here is not reasonable.

Dandelion wrote:
You don’t have to like them. Though I would appreciate it if you would step back and stop insulting ideas you don’t like (especially if you won’t even bother to try them) A simple “I don’t think I’d like that idea” would have sufficed. I don’t come to Dakka Dakka to argue, so please don’t make these discussions confrontational.

I've written a response to this above, but another thought has occurred to me. I couldn't use your rules if I wanted to because you haven't given enough detail for me to use them with the armies I play. Your posts are literally unusable without, at the very least, giving guidelines for adjusting saves based on the strength of the invulnerable and the model it's attached to.

For example, how does jink work in your system? How should I play my DW Knights? Do your rules interact with Stratagems at all? I need details to try playing your way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
You don’t have to like them. Though I would appreciate it if you would step back and stop insulting ideas you don’t like (especially if you won’t even bother to try them) A simple “I don’t think I’d like that idea” would have sufficed. I don’t come to Dakka Dakka to argue, so please don’t make these discussions confrontational.

Isn't the point of this part of the forum to convince other people that your idea is worth trying in their games? It must be otherwise we're just shouting into the void.

That's why I expect people suggesting new rules to approach things as if they were writing a pitch to GW to fet an idea adopted. If you really make a good rule, you could actually change the game. Just look at how ITC started for proof that it can be done.

"The proposed rules forum is here for people to propose changes to the rules of the game. You may not like some of those ideas. That's fine. But that's no excuse for ridiculing the poster making a suggestion.

Pointing out (politely!) why you think a given idea is the wrong way to go is just fine. As is offering ideas as to how the idea could be refined or improved. That's part of the point of posting these ideas in the first place.

Simply slamming someone for having the temerity to float an idea? Nope, not acceptable. The same rules on spam and inappropriate behaviour apply here as in the rest of the site.

Please keep in mind that the forum caters to people of all ages, and who don't always enjoy the same aspects of the game that you do. If you see a post that seems to be based more in youthful enthusiasm than in balanced game design, take that as an opportunity to help someone develop their ideas, rather than to stifle someone who is just trying to add a little something different to their game of toy soldiers."

Those are rules of the forum. If you think an idea is too poorly thought out to be worthy of your time drop it instead of commenting. I've made my point that I think invulnerable saves can be implemented well and aren't necessarily bad for the game, so have you, let them have their ideas and develop them maybe it becomes an idea that you or I think would be good later down the line but expecting people to have fully developed their ideas before they come here is not reasonable.

It's tough to give feedback or test a rule when the posters won't do the bare minimum of work to make their rules testable. I'd, at a minimum, expect guidelines for a the commonly used units from two popular armies so a test match could be played. Otherwise, how can one be expected to give feedback?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
You don’t have to like them. Though I would appreciate it if you would step back and stop insulting ideas you don’t like (especially if you won’t even bother to try them) A simple “I don’t think I’d like that idea” would have sufficed. I don’t come to Dakka Dakka to argue, so please don’t make these discussions confrontational.

I've written a response to this above, but another thought has occurred to me. I couldn't use your rules if I wanted to because you haven't given enough detail for me to use them with the armies I play. Your posts are literally unusable without, at the very least, giving guidelines for adjusting saves based on the strength of the invulnerable and the model it's attached to.

For example, how does jink work in your system? How should I play my DW Knights? Do your rules interact with Stratagems at all? I need details to try playing your way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
You don’t have to like them. Though I would appreciate it if you would step back and stop insulting ideas you don’t like (especially if you won’t even bother to try them) A simple “I don’t think I’d like that idea” would have sufficed. I don’t come to Dakka Dakka to argue, so please don’t make these discussions confrontational.

Isn't the point of this part of the forum to convince other people that your idea is worth trying in their games? It must be otherwise we're just shouting into the void.

That's why I expect people suggesting new rules to approach things as if they were writing a pitch to GW to fet an idea adopted. If you really make a good rule, you could actually change the game. Just look at how ITC started for proof that it can be done.

"The proposed rules forum is here for people to propose changes to the rules of the game. You may not like some of those ideas. That's fine. But that's no excuse for ridiculing the poster making a suggestion.

Pointing out (politely!) why you think a given idea is the wrong way to go is just fine. As is offering ideas as to how the idea could be refined or improved. That's part of the point of posting these ideas in the first place.

Simply slamming someone for having the temerity to float an idea? Nope, not acceptable. The same rules on spam and inappropriate behaviour apply here as in the rest of the site.

Please keep in mind that the forum caters to people of all ages, and who don't always enjoy the same aspects of the game that you do. If you see a post that seems to be based more in youthful enthusiasm than in balanced game design, take that as an opportunity to help someone develop their ideas, rather than to stifle someone who is just trying to add a little something different to their game of toy soldiers."

Those are rules of the forum. If you think an idea is too poorly thought out to be worthy of your time drop it instead of commenting. I've made my point that I think invulnerable saves can be implemented well and aren't necessarily bad for the game, so have you, let them have their ideas and develop them maybe it becomes an idea that you or I think would be good later down the line but expecting people to have fully developed their ideas before they come here is not reasonable.

It's tough to give feedback or test a rule when the posters won't do the bare minimum of work to make their rules testable. I'd, at a minimum, expect guidelines for a the commonly used units from two popular armies so a test match could be played. Otherwise, how can one be expected to give feedback?

This was an idea, not a hard, fast & finished rule. Please give me an example of where someone has put together a full & complete codex overhaul, in one shot, without prior threads looking for feedback on ideas, and just dumped it here as a testament to their own ability to write balanced rules!

I was looking for feedback - you've given it, and I've read it, so please stop repeating it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As Canadian 5th suggested, I've thrown together a humongous table of data to compare my suggestion with the existing invulnerable save system, to evaluate whether it is better, worse or comparable for a Knight.

I have calculated the amount of hits needed (as the BS is irrelevant in this comparison, as it doesn't change) to kill a knight in the following scenarios:

S1-10, with AP 0 to -4, with average damage 1-6, over 1-4 turns, for a total of 1200 different results.

This basically gives its chances against any massed weapon spammed enough to kill it.

The average of all of these (which is just for an idea of the implications) were as follows:

against a knight with a 5++, 70.7 hits needed to kill it
against a knight with a 4++, 81.9 hits to kill it
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 105.3 wounds to kill it.

this is of course an average and includes S1 weapons, which aren't really for knights. Let's look at the figures for S7+ weapons:


against a knight with a 5++, 37.24 hits
against a knight with a 4++, 43.12 hits
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 55.42 hits

again, new suggestion coming out on top.

In fact, this is because the knights become harder to deal with if you don't kill them in one turn, what with the regenerating power fields. so now I'll do S7+ and 1 turn only:

against a knight with a 5++, 37.24 hits
against a knight with a 4++, 43.12 hits
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 42.63 hits

So this is the stats for one-turn killing a knight with any weapon of S7+, damage 1-6, any AP.


I'm not going to refine it further, but you can see that knights will become harder to chip away at (a lot harder to chip away at) and also stay roughly as durable at anti-tank.

In fact, there are 360 combinations in which the 4++ is the best, and 780 in which the Power Field (6) is the best. there are some where it's tied.


I would call this a fairly good bit of number crunching. Clearly it is different, but not an outright nerf.

 some bloke wrote:
As Canadian 5th suggested, I've thrown together a humongous table of data to compare my suggestion with the existing invulnerable save system, to evaluate whether it is better, worse or comparable for a Knight.

I have calculated the amount of hits needed (as the BS is irrelevant in this comparison, as it doesn't change) to kill a knight in the following scenarios:

S1-10, with AP 0 to -4, with average damage 1-6, over 1-4 turns, for a total of 1200 different results.

Useful data, in a proposed rules thread... My good sir, are you certain about this?

This basically gives its chances against any massed weapon spammed enough to kill it.

The average of all of these (which is just for an idea of the implications) were as follows:

against a knight with a 5++, 70.7 hits needed to kill it
against a knight with a 4++, 81.9 hits to kill it
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 105.3 wounds to kill it.

I'm not sure this test holds a ton of value as you generally don't fire literally everything at a Knight, but that's fine. What were the values like using the current rules so we can have a fair comparison?

this is of course an average and includes S1 weapons, which aren't really for knights. Let's look at the figures for S7+ weapons:

against a knight with a 5++, 37.24 hits
against a knight with a 4++, 43.12 hits
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 55.42 hits

Again, I'd like to see the side by side old system versus new. I also don't think mashing together averages works for this sort of data set.

again, new suggestion coming out on top.

In fact, this is because the knights become harder to deal with if you don't kill them in one turn, what with the regenerating power fields. so now I'll do S7+ and 1 turn only:

against a knight with a 5++, 37.24 hits
against a knight with a 4++, 43.12 hits
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 42.63 hits

So this is the stats for one-turn killing a knight with any weapon of S7+, damage 1-6, any AP.

Again, no old versus new so we can see. Also, why didn't you run S8 AP-3 or better single turn as those are proper anti-tank weapons?

I'm not going to refine it further, but you can see that knights will become harder to chip away at (a lot harder to chip away at) and also stay roughly as durable at anti-tank.

In fact, there are 360 combinations in which the 4++ is the best, and 780 in which the Power Field (6) is the best. there are some where it's tied.

If I'm correct some of those 780 results are S1 weapons, with AP0 through -4, D1 through 6, over 1 to 4 turns. So 120 of those results are practically worthless.

In fact, remove the results for which no weapons profile exists, S3 D1d6 for example and I bet we start to see the true nature of our results.

I would call this a fairly good bit of number crunching. Clearly it is different, but not an outright nerf.

You made up S1 AP-4 D6 weapons and called that data and provided no current rules to new rules comparison. This data is less than worthless, it's full of data points that don't exist on the tabletop being used to justify a poorly designed rule.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
As Canadian 5th suggested, I've thrown together a humongous table of data to compare my suggestion with the existing invulnerable save system, to evaluate whether it is better, worse or comparable for a Knight.

I have calculated the amount of hits needed (as the BS is irrelevant in this comparison, as it doesn't change) to kill a knight in the following scenarios:

S1-10, with AP 0 to -4, with average damage 1-6, over 1-4 turns, for a total of 1200 different results.

Useful data, in a proposed rules thread... My good sir, are you certain about this?

You left me no choice, good sir!

This basically gives its chances against any massed weapon spammed enough to kill it.

The average of all of these (which is just for an idea of the implications) were as follows:

against a knight with a 5++, 70.7 hits needed to kill it
against a knight with a 4++, 81.9 hits to kill it
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 105.3 wounds to kill it.

I'm not sure this test holds a ton of value as you generally don't fire literally everything at a Knight, but that's fine. What were the values like using the current rules so we can have a fair comparison?

The first 2 are that of a knight, as it is now, with no changes - one with a 5++ and the other with a 4++, as I gather this is a relic.

this is of course an average and includes S1 weapons, which aren't really for knights. Let's look at the figures for S7+ weapons:

against a knight with a 5++, 37.24 hits
against a knight with a 4++, 43.12 hits
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 55.42 hits

Again, I'd like to see the side by side old system versus new. I also don't think mashing together averages works for this sort of data set.
[/quote
That is the old & new side by side - they all are.
[quote[

again, new suggestion coming out on top.

In fact, this is because the knights become harder to deal with if you don't kill them in one turn, what with the regenerating power fields. so now I'll do S7+ and 1 turn only:

against a knight with a 5++, 37.24 hits
against a knight with a 4++, 43.12 hits
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 42.63 hits

So this is the stats for one-turn killing a knight with any weapon of S7+, damage 1-6, any AP.

Again, no old versus new so we can see. Also, why didn't you run S8 AP-3 or better single turn as those are proper anti-tank weapons?

I was running anything of S7+, as you said plasma are the best. I can refine by AP as well, but the more refined you go, the more we skew the results by only considering how the unit is affected by a single data set - armies with massed S6 and no plasmaguns don't care htat a knight can be taken down with plasmaguns, after all.

I'm not going to refine it further, but you can see that knights will become harder to chip away at (a lot harder to chip away at) and also stay roughly as durable at anti-tank.

In fact, there are 360 combinations in which the 4++ is the best, and 780 in which the Power Field (6) is the best. there are some where it's tied.

If I'm correct some of those 780 results are S1 weapons, with AP0 through -4, D1 through 6, over 1 to 4 turns. So 120 of those results are practically worthless.

In fact, remove the results for which no weapons profile exists, S3 D1d6 for example and I bet we start to see the true nature of our results.

I would call this a fairly good bit of number crunching. Clearly it is different, but not an outright nerf.

You made up S1 AP-4 D6 weapons and called that data and provided no current rules to new rules comparison. This data is less than worthless, it's full of data points that don't exist on the tabletop being used to justify a poorly designed rule.

Sorry it's not up to your high standards. If you could quickly show me where to find:
1:what weapon profiles exist
2: the average number of these weapons in each army list
3: the average faction for each list in each game played in 8th

so that I can work out what an exactly average army list looks like, then I can give you some more accurate numbers.

the numbers you want are impossible. however, as my data system gives an average for any possible weapon, and applies this in a comparable way, it is better than establishing whether or not something dies to dark angels spamming rerollable overcharging plasma weapons. It may not be an exact metric of how survivable a unit is, but as it compares every possible weapon which can be fired at it, it does give a comparison between 2 different sets of rules.

I have attached a comparison of terminators for your perusal in a box-plot. This shows that, on a spread of all possible weapons, terminators gain durability when they have a Power Field (3). I've removed an outlier or 2 so the graph is viewable - it takes 180 shots form S1AP0dam1 to kill one of these.

The Y-axis is number of hits needed to kill in one turn, as it would be impractical to compare all the data at once.

You asked for data. At least act like you care when people give it to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I ran, as you requested, the numbers for:

A Knight with a 5++
A Knight with a 4++
A Knight with PF 6
A Knight with PF12

against anything S7 or higher and AP-2 or better, based on killing in one turn only. The results are attached - PF6 is comparable to a 5++. PF12 is a bit worse than a 4++, but that's just for 1 turn. I will rejig to show the effects of taking 2 turns to kill, and reply shortly.

 some bloke wrote:
The first 2 are that of a knight, as it is now, with no changes - one with a 5++ and the other with a 4++, as I gather this is a relic.

Now that it's pointed out I see it all clear as day. Forgive my just waking up brain for the embarrassing flub earlier.

I'll get to the rest tomorrow as I want to respond to your effort with a proper effort of my own.

@Some bloke:
So now that we're this far into the discussion, where do you stand on making this mechanic a forcefields-only sort of thing? I still feel like the current invul rules work better for things like wyches, harlequins, and daemons, but I do think your proposal could work well for many of the "force fields" in the game.

Wyldhunt wrote:
@Some bloke:
So now that we're this far into the discussion, where do you stand on making this mechanic a forcefields-only sort of thing? I still feel like the current invul rules work better for things like wyches, harlequins, and daemons, but I do think your proposal could work well for many of the "force fields" in the game.

I am leaning towards this hybrid. I think it would give a good feel to the game to have one style of save which is truly invulnerable and always there, and another which is aspired invulnerable, and is fundamentally different.

So units which dodge things would have invuln saves. Units with forcefields would have power fields. Units like Daemons could have both - tzeench focusing on the save, nurgle focusing on the field, to give 2 flavours of improved defence. One needs luck, the other concentrated firepower.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
6++ = reduce incoming damage by 1.
5++ = reduce incoming damage by 2.
4++ = reduce incoming damage by 3.
3++ = reduce incoming damage by 4.
2++ = reduce incoming damage by 5.
To a minimum of 0.

No. god no.

That would make Wyches immune to lasguns and bolters.
Daemons immune to overcharged Plasma and autocannons.
Captains immune to thunder hammers.
Storm shields immune to Dreadnought chain fists.

These suggestions aren't broken enough yet. I propose the following:

Each subsequent level of the invulnerability reflects 1 MW back on the attacking unit AND reduces their damage starting at the same 1, but adding a caveat that the Invulnerable also confers a wound regeneration system that depends on the invulnerable save.

So, here we go:

6++ reduces D by 1, reflects 1 MW back and heals 1 W on a 6+
5++ reduces D by 2, reflects 1 MW back and heals 1 W on a 5+
4++ reduces D by 3, reflects 1 MW back and heals 1 W on a 4+
3++ reduces D by 4, reflects 1 MW back and heals 1 W on a 3+
2++ reduces D by 5, reflects 1 MW back and heals 1 W on a 2+

FNP could also add a CP generation ability based upon the same roll.

Canadian 5th wrote:It's tough to give feedback or test a rule when the posters won't do the bare minimum of work to make their rules testable.

'I can't provide constructive feedback, so I have no choice but to be an donkey-cave instead'

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Boohoo play a different game if you don't want to deal with dice.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
No, if your whining like a baby about dice in a dice game then that's on you. Doubly so when you post gak rules

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Yes, ignore good advice because it was delivered in an unfriendly tone. That's the way to improve!

You wrote gak rules for a gak reason and got called for it. Man up.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I expect people to have put thought into their ideas before posting on a message board. That is also enlightening for eliminating bad ideas before others find out you had them.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'm sure glad I'll never need to play using those terrible rules.

Go find another thread to troll.

Anyways, OP, I like the idea as it reminds me of the blast marker system used in Epic and BFG. However, with 40K currently already favoring alpha strikes, you are proposing a mechanic which further incentivizes alpha-striking to delete a unit in one go so that you only have to chew through those extra invuln wounds once. The meta generally revolves around focus-firing the biggest threats to take them out in a single turn; if you can't kill a Knight in one turn you are generally considered unprepared to handle Knights.

Keep in mind also that abilities like this do not scale linearly with the size of the game, because the ability to alpha-strike increases as the game size increases. The smaller the game, the harder it is to kill something like a Knight in one turn, which correspondingly increases the utility of that defensive buff. It's the same issue you see with Necron Reanimation Protocols, where it's basically worthless at 2k+ but can be real nasty in smaller games.

 catbarf wrote:
Anyways, OP, I like the idea as it reminds me of the blast marker system used in Epic and BFG. However, with 40K currently already favoring alpha strikes, you are proposing a mechanic which further incentivizes alpha-striking to delete a unit in one go so that you only have to chew through those extra invuln wounds once. The meta generally revolves around focus-firing the biggest threats to take them out in a single turn; if you can't kill a Knight in one turn you are generally considered unprepared to handle Knights.

Isn't this exactly what the math I did up thread already showed? I even suggested to the OP that he should focus primarily on durability against anti-tank weapons and first turn alpha strikes, which is exactly what you're saying here as if it were something new. The worst part is, as you explain below is that this entire project cannot work because it doesn't and cannot scale. If the OP had done the math earlier he would have seen this issue and saved himself a thread.

Warhammer 40,000 3rd Edition: Codex Imperial Guard wrote:
Force Field
Yarrick is protected by a special force field that reduces the energy of enemy attacks.
Whenever he is hit, roll a D6 and deduct the amount from the strength of the attack.
If reduced to 0 or less the attack is stopped completely.
The force field has no effect on attacks that don't use strength to inflict damage.

This seems interesting...

Slayer6 wrote:

Warhammer 40,000 3rd Edition: Codex Imperial Guard wrote:
Force Field
Yarrick is protected by a special force field that reduces the energy of enemy attacks.
Whenever he is hit, roll a D6 and deduct the amount from the strength of the attack.
If reduced to 0 or less the attack is stopped completely.
The force field has no effect on attacks that don't use strength to inflict damage.

This seems interesting...

As written, you'd have to roll separately for each individual attack though. And then you'd potentially end up with 6 times the wound pools to resolve. Even if you made it a single roll at the start of the phase, you'd risk changing the math on a lot of weapons dramatically. Bolters would have a 2/3rds chance of only wounding a T4 model with that rule on a 6+. And all this is assuming that we remove the part where weapons stop being able to hurt you entirely (by rolling a 3+ against lasguns, for instance.)

Wyldhunt wrote:

Slayer6 wrote:

Warhammer 40,000 3rd Edition: Codex Imperial Guard wrote:
Force Field
Yarrick is protected by a special force field that reduces the energy of enemy attacks.
Whenever he is hit, roll a D6 and deduct the amount from the strength of the attack.
If reduced to 0 or less the attack is stopped completely.
The force field has no effect on attacks that don't use strength to inflict damage.

This seems interesting...

As written, you'd have to roll separately for each individual attack though. And then you'd potentially end up with 6 times the wound pools to resolve. Even if you made it a single roll at the start of the phase, you'd risk changing the math on a lot of weapons dramatically. Bolters would have a 2/3rds chance of only wounding a T4 model with that rule on a 6+. And all this is assuming that we remove the part where weapons stop being able to hurt you entirely (by rolling a 3+ against lasguns, for instance.)

The simple fix is to roll a D6 at the start of the enemy's shooting/CC phase to determine how much S is reduced (up to 6), and apply it to all attacks against the model.

To apply the same idea to Invulnerable saves, the stat could be D3 + X, where X could be:

6++ X = -1
5++ X = 0
4++ X = 1
3++ X = 2
2++ X = 3

If a result is 0 (from a 6++, then the shield is assumed to have failed).

So say a Lord Commissar with a 5++ rolls a D3 which results in a 3, added to X, which is 0, then all attacks against the Lord Commissar are resolved at -3S if they decide to use the 5++ (must be declared prior to W rolling).

Space Marine Terminator with Storm Shield rolls a D3 which results in a 2, added to X, which is 2, then all Boltgun attacks against the model result in S0, so they don't do any damage - if the 3++ is used.

Conversely if a Battle Cannon is used against the Terminator, it ends up being S4 AP-2 if used against the 3++.

The most interesting interaction is something with a 2+/5++ such as a... standard Terminator! If it rolls well, say a D3 result of 2 against a high AP weapon with low Strength, such as a Hot-Shot Lasgun, then you have the following scenario to consider:
S3 AP-2, wounds on a 5+, resultant Save is a 4+... or a 1/9
S1 AP-2, wounds on a 6+, Invulnerable Save is a 5++... or a 1/18

To save on clutter, a single D3 could be representative for each unit fired upon - 5 Terminators that roll D3, get a 1, result in an attack strength reduction of 1.

Slayer6 wrote:
The simple fix is to roll a D6 at the start of the enemy's shooting/CC phase to determine how much S is reduced (up to 6), and apply it to all attacks against the model.

To apply the same idea to Invulnerable saves, the stat could be D3 + X, where X could be:

6++ X = -1
5++ X = 0
4++ X = 1
3++ X = 2
2++ X = 3

If a result is 0 (from a 6++, then the shield is assumed to have failed).

So say a Lord Commissar with a 5++ rolls a D3 which results in a 3, added to X, which is 0, then all attacks against the Lord Commissar are resolved at -3S if they decide to use the 5++ (must be declared prior to W rolling).

Space Marine Terminator with Storm Shield rolls a D3 which results in a 2, added to X, which is 2, then all Boltgun attacks against the model result in S0, so they don't do any damage - if the 3++ is used.

Conversely if a Battle Cannon is used against the Terminator, it ends up being S4 AP-2 if used against the 3++.

The most interesting interaction is something with a 2+/5++ such as a... standard Terminator! If it rolls well, say a D3 result of 2 against a high AP weapon with low Strength, such as a Hot-Shot Lasgun, then you have the following scenario to consider:
S3 AP-2, wounds on a 5+, resultant Save is a 4+... or a 1/9
S1 AP-2, wounds on a 6+, Invulnerable Save is a 5++... or a 1/18

To save on clutter, a single D3 could be representative for each unit fired upon - 5 Terminators that roll D3, get a 1, result in an attack strength reduction of 1.

This hurts models that could already virtually reduce the strength of a weapon by using transhuman physiology. It's also useless against high AP low strength attacks, for example, a master-crafted instigator bolt carbine with assault doctrine fire against a Knight with a 4++ save. The strength reduction already does nothing as the weapon wounds on a 6+ anyway but the Knight doesn't get the benefit of saving on a 4+ anymore and is forced to make an armor save at 5+.

We have to be careful to look for exceptions like this before declaring that a rule is a fix for our current problems.

I'm not sure I really want my archon to reduce bolters and lasguns to strength 0 though.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm not sure I really want my archon to reduce bolters and lasguns to strength 0 though.

It wouldn't be that different from having a 2++. 0 is less than half of 3 so they'd still be wounding him on 6s.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm not sure I really want my archon to reduce bolters and lasguns to strength 0 though.

It wouldn't be that different from having a 2++. 0 is less than half of 3 so they'd still be wounding him on 6s.

That doesn't fix the following issues:

This hurts models that could already virtually reduce the strength of a weapon by using transhuman physiology. It's also useless against high AP low strength attacks, for example, a master-crafted instigator bolt carbine with assault doctrine fire against a Knight with a 4++ save. The strength reduction already does nothing as the weapon wounds on a 6+ anyway but the Knight doesn't get the benefit of saving on a 4+ anymore and is forced to make an armor save at 5+.

strength reduction won't work in any system where anything can still hurt anything. If there were a cut-off point where a weapon became useless, it would work - said knight would simply render a boltgun useless, regardless of AP.

reducing damage stat won't work because a lot of invuln models don't have huge amounts of wounds, unless you allow it to reduce to 0, which could mean nothing can hurt them, which is bad.

I have to admit, for simplicity, the current system still looks to be the best. But I still think it could, somehow, be improved.

To summarize so far:

1: My OP would not work well as it scales disproportionately with smaller games, where a knight will last more turns so survive better, with less shooting at it.
2: Reducing incoming damage by X won't work as it could render swathes of the army completely useless.
3: Reducing strength by X won't work as S0 still wounds T20 on a 6+.

So, the logical next step is to simply reduce AP.

looking into this:

if we say:
6++ = AP-1
5++ = AP-2
4++ = AP-3
3++ = AP-4
2++ = AP-5

before I start - I realise that this would warrant some changes to units. For example, units which rely solely on a 5++ and have no real saves of their own (IE Daemons) will need to changed to a 5+ save and 2++ invuln (reduce AP by 5) to achieve the same effect. Possibly 3++ and keep 2++ for daemon princes. But that can be worked out later - the point is, it can be done!

Knights:
4++ reducing incoming AP by 3. this is pretty big - 3+ save vs missiles, 4+ vs lascannons, 5+ vs melta. I like the way this scales, rather than being the same for an AP-1 weapon as it is for an AP-6 weapon.

TH/SS Terminators:
2+ and -4 to incoming AP. these guys will basically become gods vs powerful guns but still die to massed chaff firepower, but what can you do. bringing meltas to kill terminators seems thematic.

Deff Skull Ork Boys:
6+ with a 6++, basically getting a 6+ vs AP1 now as well. it's a bit of a nerf, but then there's this to consider:
Deff Skulls meganobs:
already with 3 wounds and 2+, throw in -1AP and it becomes a whole lot tougher.
Deff Skulls Vehicles:
3+ save, decent toughness and -1AP, is pretty good.
Kustom Force Field:
-2AP for units under the field. May need a different rule to give +2 to saves instead. that would make it a bit smoother.

most powerful:
deffskull meganobs under a KFF, getting (essentially, as they cannot go above 2+) -3AP from incoming (shooting) attacks. a bit worse than TH/SS termies but more wounds. want to be in combat and KFF is only ranged, so still have weaknesses.


I think that this would be the best, smoothest and most scaleable method.

The issue with the above solution is how does a model with say a 4++ currently deal with being shot with mass -1AP or AP- as that's what's often spammed widely.

However if it's a blanket + x to Saving throws I think you maybe started the tier a little to aggressive

6++ =0
5++ = +1 Sv
4++ = +2 Sv
3++ = +3 Sv
* I have seperated 2++ as they are rare and not supposed to be a thing anymore.
2++ = +4 Sv

Ice_can wrote:
The issue with the above solution is how does a model with say a 4++ currently deal with being shot with mass -1AP or AP- as that's what's often spammed widely.

However if it's a blanket + x to Saving throws I think you maybe started the tier a little to aggressive

6++ =0
5++ = +1 Sv
4++ = +2 Sv
3++ = +3 Sv
* I have seperated 2++ as they are rare and not supposed to be a thing anymore.
2++ = +4 Sv

I agree, but my suggestion was to have a modifier to incoming AP, so shooting a unit with a 4++ using AP0 weapons would not give them a better save.

4++ treats AP0, AP-1, AP-2 and AP-3 as AP0. It works similarly to most invulnerables now (which function as a lower limit for saves) but instead scales with immensely powerful AP (such as that of titan weapons) to make a stormshield less likely to save against being punched by a 20-ton powerfist as it is against a lasgun!

 some bloke wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The issue with the above solution is how does a model with say a 4++ currently deal with being shot with mass -1AP or AP- as that's what's often spammed widely.

However if it's a blanket + x to Saving throws I think you maybe started the tier a little to aggressive

6++ =0
5++ = +1 Sv
4++ = +2 Sv
3++ = +3 Sv
* I have seperated 2++ as they are rare and not supposed to be a thing anymore.
2++ = +4 Sv

I agree, but my suggestion was to have a modifier to incoming AP, so shooting a unit with a 4++ using AP0 weapons would not give them a better save.

4++ treats AP0, AP-1, AP-2 and AP-3 as AP0. It works similarly to most invulnerables now (which function as a lower limit for saves) but instead scales with immensely powerful AP (such as that of titan weapons) to make a stormshield less likely to save against being punched by a 20-ton powerfist as it is against a lasgun!

Except due to the way ap and saves work all your doing is not effecting the probability of failing a save against a lasgun at AP0 but improving the ability to save against a thunderhammer/powerfist, it's weird, a terminator etc should be able to esentially ignore ap0 and certainly one with a storm shield shouldn't have much to worry about short of lascannons and multimelta at range.

By only reducing AP it still leaves high AP low shot weaposn ferling hobbled by invulnerable saves and the current feels bads between the have invulnerable saves and don't hasn't been addressed.

Well, reducing AP would weaken the moderate-AP weapons that currently dominate the meta. AP0 still wouldn't care and AP-3/AP-4 tend to run into invulns as it stands anyways, so it would really be stuff like Disintegrators and Autocannons that lose out, which I'd be okay with.

It still leaves the issue of invulns not benefitting at all against massed AP0 fire, but it at least gets a little closer to something reasonable.

A blanket improvement to saves could also work, but fundamentally runs into the same problem: Even if a Terminator has a 0+ or 1+ save, if the 'always fail on 1' rule remains in effect (which I think it should), then you're still no tougher against lasguns.

The difference between the two would be on models that have 3+ or worse armor saves, but also have an invuln. For those, a simple improvement to their base save would significantly increase their durability against AP0 weapons. I'm not sure how desirable or meaningful such a change would be.

Sorry, I necron'd this thread before finding my old account along with the previous thread I posted in here:
/dakkaforum/posts/list/765696.page


But still I've got a new idea that's more in line with this thread's theme of replacing invuln saves with damage mitigation.

My solution is to replace certain force field or shield-based invulnerable saves with an "overshield" of tougher bonus wounds. This would exclude units with high Toughness and others like vile warpspawn that rely on the current invuln saves.

So here's my rule:

A model equipped with a Shield Generator has 2 additional Wounds with Toughness 7, but cannot make Saving Throws.
After losing those first two wounds the Shield Generator is destroyed, reverting the Toughness and Armor Save to normal.

This should make the unit far more resistant to lasguns while still vulnerable to high strength weapons. I've heard that increasing Toughness is unpopular but I think capping it at 7 should work...

Maybe this rule could be done as a separate statline like how vehicles lose accuracy and mobility as damage accrues. For example, one statline for active shielding, and the normal statline for no shield.

I would like to know if everyone else just plays with the current invulnerable saves as is. It just bothers me that my Tau shield generators are functioning opposite of how they are in the lore: impervious to small arms fire but disabled by heavier ordinance. In fact, the shield itself is a disc that the battlesuit must maneuver to block attacks, and I've thought about incorporating that with a WS roll, but alas that's probably better for Killteam or RPG play.

The 5++ on Terminators was a joke before, but now that AoC is a thing, it's almost never used, ever.

 kingpbjames wrote:
Sorry, I necron'd this thread before finding my old account along with the previous thread I posted in here:
/dakkaforum/posts/list/765696.page

You can also always make a new thread with a link to older threads. People might find it less intimidating to join the conversation, and it probably makes the mods happier too.

My solution is to replace certain force field or shield-based invulnerable saves with an "overshield" of tougher bonus wounds. This would exclude units with high Toughness and others like vile warpspawn that rely on the current invuln saves.

So here's my rule:

A model equipped with a Shield Generator has 2 additional Wounds with Toughness 7, but cannot make Saving Throws.
After losing those first two wounds the Shield Generator is destroyed, reverting the Toughness and Armor Save to normal.

This should make the unit far more resistant to lasguns while still vulnerable to high strength weapons. I've heard that increasing Toughness is unpopular but I think capping it at 7 should work...

Maybe this rule could be done as a separate statline like how vehicles lose accuracy and mobility as damage accrues. For example, one statline for active shielding, and the normal statline for no shield.

It's an interesting concept, but I don't think it would work very well as described. I assume your intent is to use the T7 until the wounds are lost and then switch over to the lower toughness? Do you intend for the Toughness to change immediately after the wounds are lost or after all the squad's attacks are resolved? Imagine a plasmagun squad shooting at an ethereal with this shield generator. The plasma guns wound T3 better than T7. So if the ethereal's Toughness changes immediately after losing those first two wounds, you have to slow-roll your to-wound rolls because the point at which the target fails those saves matters. If the Toughness changes only after the unit finishes its shooting, then it's possible the ethereal failed his first couple saves, but then he continued to get full benefits against a bunch of additional plasma attacks because his Toughness didn't decrease right away.

Depending on your answers to the above, this also potentially rewards MSU and punishes large units because spreading your attacks out across multiple units increases the odds that a larger number of your attacks will get to target the lower toughness.

I would like to know if everyone else just plays with the current invulnerable saves as is. It just bothers me that my Tau shield generators are functioning opposite of how they are in the lore: impervious to small arms fire but disabled by heavier ordinance.

If that's what you want to model, you could do something like this:
* The shield generator provides a good invulnerable save.
* The shield generator stops working once the model fails a save against an attack with a Strength of X or higher.

So basically a drukhari shadowfield, but it only gets blown out by a sufficiently high strength attack. Obviously you wouldn't want to do a 2+ invuln if you go that route.

In fact, the shield itself is a disc that the battlesuit must maneuver to block attacks, and I've thought about incorporating that with a WS roll, but alas that's probably better for Killteam or RPG play.

If opposed WS was still a thing, you could just say that the wielder counts as having +2 WS when enemies make to-hit rolls against them. But honestly, I always imagined that how good the invuln save was partially represented how easy it was to move into position. Theoretically, a shield generator that has some sort of improved danger recognition software might be a 3++ instead of a 4++.

The OP's idea is basically ablative armor, and it seems like it could be a great addition. I think that invul type saves still have a role, e.g refractor fields, magic, etc., but also some capped ablative mechanic sounds like a great idea to me.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

... you have to slow-roll your to-wound rolls because the point at which the target fails those saves matters. If the Toughness changes only after the unit finishes its shooting, then it's possible the ethereal failed his first couple saves, but then he continued to get full benefits against a bunch of additional plasma attacks because his Toughness didn't decrease right away.

I didn't think of this problem. I'm not OK with having to slow-roll or for getting a free pass on excess wounds. Now I see the problem with adjusting the defense stats during a shooting phase. Vehicles with degrading statlines don't have this problem since it's their movement and offense stats the degrade, and those only come in to play at the start of their turn.

I suppose the appropriate system to emulate a shield generator's finite power supply would be command points. Spend CP to flip on the shield generator and get T7 or a better save until your next turn.
I don't like it...

I mean, there are other ways to do the "overshield" idea. You could, for instance, give a model with an overshield X bonus wounds at the start of each battleround. The bonus wounds are lost first when you take damage, and any remaining bonus wounds are lost when you generate new bonus wounds at the start of the battle round.

^That would give you a rule that makes you more durable, is susceptible to either high volumes of fire or high damage weapons, can be "blown out" by smacking it enough, etc., but the only extra bookkeeping would be setting a die next to the model indicating its current bonus wounds.

Or you could do something like the bonus toughness and just design the rule around not losing out on the better Toughness stat until the end of the phase. So you don't have to worry about the Toughness changing issues I described before, and it feels like you have to plan which weapons to put into the target ahead of time.

Plenty of possibilities. You just have to think about how easy it's going to be to actually use during a game (keeping in mind how complicated the game already is) and ask yourself whether or not you'd enjoy playing against it. If you wouldn't want it used against you, or if you can't imagine using the rule in a 2k game, it probably needs tweaked.

The issue with the "overshield" rule as presented on page one is that for armies with an army-wide invuln save it makes them exponentially more durable.

If I run an army of Orks than spams Beast Snagga Boys, then every single basic trooper gains a second wound which is far more worthwhile than just getting a 6++.

You could make invulns a FNP type save per point of damage, but then that makes FNP basically a dead rule, and adds even more dice rolling which slows the game down further.