Switch Theme:

Tau Shield Generator and other Invulnerable Saves  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




Washington USA

Hello, just registered here at dakkadakka! Didn't know you guys had a section just for house rules! Awesome! Anyway, my friends and I started playing 40k in 8th Edition and we're still wrapping our heads around the meta. I know some would say we're too inexperienced to make rules but I'll always be a modder first.

So I'm playing Tau and love it, but the shield generator seems strange to me. I've read discussions about the armor and AP rules of 7th versus 8th Edition, and I understand this one is supposed to be the most streamlined and balanced, but my question is more specifically "how does this make sense?"

It seems like what shield generators do in the game are opposite how they are in the lore.
I've read most of the Tau novels and it always shows the shield generators being invulnerable to conventional weapons like bolters, only being destroyed by heavy weapons.
However in the game, the shield generators are only useful as a counter to heavy weapons as it handles them the same as any bullet.
Consequently it's weight of dice that overwhelm my shields.

Never in my books have I read Sergeant Artillerius watch his bolter rounds disintegrate in the force field only to turn to his brothers and say "Surely if we shoot it MORE we can overload the bloody bastard capacitors!"
What they do is call in an airstrike instead.

I think the shield generator should be changed to protect against small arms fire, not counter heavy weaponry.
But is this a problem with the shield generator or Invulnerable Saves in general? Are there other invulnerable saves that are designed to counter heavy weapons?

If shield generators improved their unit's Toughness and Save Throw instead of using this unique AP-immune Save, I think they would be more in line with the lore. Small arms fire would be stopped, AP rounds would be reduced but not useless, and powerful high-Strength weapons would be the go-to.

- - - - - - - - -
Here's how I plan on changing it using the existing rules:

Invulnerable Saves can be rated by their save throw; 2++ is Godlike, 5++ might protect your cargo. So the lower the number, the better.
You can get the inverse by subtracting from d6:

Take Invulnerable Save "V" ...(ex. 4++)
Take d6 - V = X ...(ex. d6-4=2)
X is now the inverse rating of the Invuln ...(ex. 4++ = Inv2, 3++ = Inv3, etc)
Modify stats: T + 2X, AP - V, Discard Save++

So instead of the Save using an AP-immune roll, incoming AP gets weakened by Invuln rating X. Also I figured Toughness could use a doubled X, up to 10, but that's debatable.

Examples:

Firewarrior under the Guardian drone
Previously T3, sv4+/5++
Now changed to Toughness 5, sv4+, +1 AP resistance.

Crisis Suit with Shield Gen.
Previously T5, sv3+/4++
Now T9, sv3+, +2 AP resistance.


So, at a glance it doesn't seem to scale well. Those firewarriors will probably fall to a lasgun firing line and the Uber Crisis Suit will rip and tear (like they should be doing anyway) but I'm still going to give it a try.

What do you guys think?

UPDATE:
Changed my rule to incorporate AP Resistance instead of just buffing Save Roll. This allows a Terminator (2+, 5++) to Save the strongest AP rounds on a 5+ and weaker attacks on a 4+.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2018/11/06 19:11:36


Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
- Caiphas Cain, probably
 
  
   
Made in us
Focused Fire Warrior




NY

I feel like many invulnerable saves would better serve their flavor as FNP (dont lose a wound) to symbolize a large weapon being weakened in penetration power and small shots making it through both layers. GW seems to want infantry to be good per point so mass fire is always decent.
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Dominar _Jameson_V wrote:
Never in my books have I read Sergeant Artillerius watch his bolter rounds disintegrate in the force field only to turn to his brothers and say "Surely if we shoot it MORE we can overload the bloody bastard capacitors!"
This is 8th edition though. Shooting it with more bolters works for everything, even towering fortifications and battle titans.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




A.T. wrote:
 Dominar _Jameson_V wrote:
Never in my books have I read Sergeant Artillerius watch his bolter rounds disintegrate in the force field only to turn to his brothers and say "Surely if we shoot it MORE we can overload the bloody bastard capacitors!"
This is 8th edition though. Shooting it with more lasguns works for everything, even towering fortifications and battle titans.

Fixed that for you no one's using bolters when you can have 3 lasguns and meatbags to hold them for the points.
   
Made in us
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




Washington USA

A.T. wrote:
 Dominar _Jameson_V wrote:
Never in my books have I read Sergeant Artillerius watch his bolter rounds disintegrate in the force field only to turn to his brothers and say "Surely if we shoot it MORE we can overload the bloody bastard capacitors!"
This is 8th edition though. Shooting it with more bolters works for everything, even towering fortifications and battle titans.

You're right. With Strength vs Toughness how it is, anyone could kill Superman if you just hold him still.
So does it make sense that the only way to be bullet proof is to dodge bullets and get those -1's to hit that my precious Shadowsun loves?
I don't think so. Anti infantry bullets should do absolutely nothing to tanks.

So, to reiterate, I'm rewriting my shield generators and any other force field that should be stopping bullets but folding to lascannons.
But first let's look at Strength vs Toughness.
Is it true that Toughness 10 is the highest? On the SvT table the worst roll is when their T doubles your S, so what if when tripled it's impervious?
But then does that really make sense for AP weapons? Why does AP not improve Strength? Being in cover gives you some protection against AP weapons, but how does this make sense realistically? What DOES a saving throw represent, and how is the helped by being in cover?

I need to keep mulling on this and i welcome more input.
Should Strength vs Toughness be more important than the saving throw? How can we restructure this mechanic and get Chapter Approved??

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/29 13:56:45


Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
- Caiphas Cain, probably
 
  
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Thematically and realistically, it would make more sense that you take your saves before toughness kicks in. It kind of doesn't make sense you'd check if your armor saved you or not AFTER you got wounded.

Gets hit > armor saves the blow > no dmg done

Mathematically, I think it'd yield same results, but statistically crwates larger margin of results.



   
Made in us
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




Washington USA

I don't know the consensus on bumping old threads here but I couldn't give up on my idea.

 skchsan wrote:
Thematically and realistically, it would make more sense that you take your saves before toughness kicks in. It kind of doesn't make sense you'd check if your armor saved you or not AFTER you got wounded.


I always thought this would make sense for the Drone's Savior Protocols. Why am I checking the Toughness of my battlesuit when my drone is intercepting the shot?

On topic:
I came up with an idea to change how Invulnerable Saves work using the existing stats.
Basically you gain bonuses to Toughness and Armour Save instead of cancelling AP.

PROPOSED RULE CHANGE

Take Invulnerable Save "V" ... (Ex. 4++)
Take d6 - V = X ... (Ex. d6 - 4 = 2)
Apply: T + 2X, Save - V, Discard Save++ ... (Ex. add 4 to Toughness, improve Save by 2)
Toughness max 10, Save max 2+
Examples:

Firewarrior under Guardian drone
Previously T3, sv4+/5++
Now changed to Toughness 5 and saves on 3 instead of 5++

Crisis Suit with Shield Gen.
Previously T5, sv3+/4++
Now T9, sv2+.

DESIRED OUTCOME:
Shield Generator will shrug off las fire but collapse under meltaguns and krak grenades.
PROBABLE OUTCOME:
My Ork friend calls BS

Crisis Suit with T9 sv2 doesn't seem right.
Anyone have an idea? Should only toughness be modified? Maybe doubling the modifier to toughness is too much?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/11/05 21:12:36


Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
- Caiphas Cain, probably
 
  
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight






Yendor

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I feel like many invulnerable saves would better serve their flavor as FNP (dont lose a wound) to symbolize a large weapon being weakened in penetration power and small shots making it through both layers. GW seems to want infantry to be good per point so mass fire is always decent.


This would be most similar to how WHFB used to run 'Ward Saves' in 8th edition. WHFB featured far more modifiers with respect to Armor, and it had a stacking Ward Save feature where you took that after your armor saves had failed. It also used the older system where you typically weren't losing more than one of your wounds per failed save- although models had fewer wounds.

So a Bretonnian Lord with a 1+ Armor Save and a Grail Vow for a guarenteed 5++ Ward Save would have a save structure like this- Armor Save (modified by -1 for every point of strength above 3, and -1 for every point of AP on the weapon he was struck with), then any fails go to his 5++ save. This let you stack saves in a really big way (the Gromril Great Helm) let you re-rolled failed armor saves, so against a typical wound your Bretonnian Lord could make 3 saving throws. This lead to characters being able to be build like absolute turtles, although they still had to worry about things like Killing Blow or Heroic Killing Blow which would bypass armor and instantly kill if successful. This wouldn't work in 40K mainly because a 3++ invulnerable save is too strong under this system, and Invulnerable Saves are too common in general. Generally in WHFB unless you were playing Bretonnia (weak army overall) most armies would have at most 1 or two units with a Ward Save, and typically those capped out at 4++. Lone characters were also limited by being vulnerable to cannons "sniping" them, which lead to characters being primarily located in infantry blocks which had very predictable movement, compared to the free form nature of 40K.

The other thing I will note, as this design space is currently occupied in 40K with "Feel No Pain" or its equivalents (Disgustingly Resilient, Spirit Stones, Delightful Agonies, etc). That, and in 40K the Ward Save has always been an alternative save as opposed to an extra layer of protection. that said, this is not immune to change... remember Cover itself used to be a separate Save that was available for choice... Invulnerable Saves could be re-worked just as easily as Cover Saves.

The issue is also one of streamlining. I think we can agree that thematically a Tau Shield Generator or Drone functions in a fundamentally different way than the crackling warp energies that infuse and protect a Chaos Daemon Prince. Where it would make sense for a shield drone's field to hold until it is broken, that same concept would not work for the "always on" daemon invulnerable save. Yet both are represented and covered by the same rules.

This goes into your fundamental question
Dominar _Jameson_V wrote: What DOES a saving throw represent


A saving throw is your models ability to dodge a fatal wound, typically represented by wargear (armour, shields) as enhanced by terrain (Cover / cover enhancers like Camo Cloaks). A lot of confusion came from the move to 8th edition, where cover was awkwardly split into two different things- some things that used to be "cover" were changed to a -1 to hit roll. Other things were converted into the standard +1 to save while in cover. This leads to an awkward situation where Smoke Launchers no longer provide "cover" despite that being their effect for edition after edition.

Now, to get to your point regarding most "wargear" based invulnerable saves, what I think you are envisioning is a separate "wound bank" which is applied before armor saves are made. If an invulnerable save is made, then roll against that bank with the weapon and if it damage equal to the invulnerable save than it is destroyed. Here is how it would play out.

Storm Shield {3++, 4 wounds}
Terminator with Storm Shield is shot at by bolters. Hit > Wound > 3++ > 2+ > 1 Damage
Since a Bolter has a max of 1 damage, it cannot break the Storm Shield.

Shot at by Las Cannon Hit > Wound > 3++ > 5+ after AP > d6 damage
If the Terminator passes his 3++, the Lascannon Rolls damage off the Storm Shield's Wound Bank. On a 4+ the Storm Shield breaks and can no longer be used.

You can give different Invulnerable Save providing Wargear different wounds, so an Iron Halo for instance could have 3 (requiring heavy weapons to destroy), or a Refractor Shield just 2 (such that an overcharged plasma blast would overcharge the generator).

The problem comes into play from a logistics stand point. It doesn't work so well when you have entire units with Invulnerable Saves. The Daemon Issue can be fixed by simply giving Daemonic things an infinite invulnerable bank so that it cannot be broken, but then you need to be very careful about giving Daemons armor as they can stack saves forever. Especially when Tzeentch Daemons already have very good Invulnerable Saves. It would slow down the game immensely, and require a tough amount of book keeping to figure out which of your Storm Shields in the unit have been broken.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/05 22:43:06


Xom finds this thread hilarious!

My 5th Edition Eldar Tactica (not updated for 6th, historical purposes only) Walking the Path of the Eldar 
   
Made in nz
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot



New Zealand

Just a quick thought, what if these "force fields" could soak a certain amount of wounds each turn (or possibly each phase).

For example a SM Captain with an Iron Halo could be Soak 3. After a shooting phase, where a lascannon hit and several bolter hits, causes 5 wounds. You apply the Iron Halo soak value and the SM Captain only ends up losing 2 wounds.

edit: no rolling for field saves, just the soak.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/05 23:27:52


 
   
Made in us
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




Washington USA

 akaean wrote:
Now, to get to your point regarding most "wargear" based invulnerable saves, what I think you are envisioning is a separate "wound bank" which is applied before armor saves are made. If an invulnerable save is made, then roll against that bank with the weapon and if it damage equal to the invulnerable save than it is destroyed. Here is how it would play out...

In the fluff those shield generators do have their own "wound banks" that will work until depleted, but I don't think that needs to be in the tabletop. It would be cool to wear down and destroy a shield, but no units should have multiple wound trackers.
Instead, what I'm trying to work at is just having Invulnerable Saves provide invulnerability from small arms fire.

Right now it's like Invulnerable Saves are just another FNP roll to negate AP. High strength attacks are still a threat, but the biggest vulnerability to Invuls are hailstorms of lasbeams, bolter rounds, dakka snot rockets, consecutive normal punches, etc. Throw enough cheap dice and the Invulnerability field will falter! Which is utter nonsense.

So if the counter to FNP is quantity over quality, I think Invulnerable Saves should no longer function as such and should instead directly modify the unit's stats.

For an invulnerability shield to fulfill its role as a counter to light weapons, it needs to buff the Toughness stat. This however would be redundant for units that already have good T.
Its primary function then is to protect against armor penetrating weapons as this is what sets a "force shield" apart from a conventional shield providing cover.

With that in mind, I still think it's best to break off the separate dice roll and instead put the points in stats between Toughness and anti-AP.

Take Invulnerable Save, find the difference from d6 and add it to Save Throw down to 2+, then double it and add it to Toughness up to 10.
So a 4++ save would add 4 to Toughness and improve Save by 2.
I'll try this next time I play.

To Tygre: Your idea would make Tau Shield Gen have "Soak 2" and Guardian Field "Soak 1". In the shooting phase, simply protecting against the first amount of wounds doesn't really handle the "wounds of varying damage" mechanic. Maybe it should be soaking damage instead of wounds?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/11/06 05:12:30


Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
- Caiphas Cain, probably
 
  
   
Made in nz
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot



New Zealand

 Dominar _Jameson_V wrote:
.


To Tygre: Your idea would make Tau Shield Gen have "Soak 2" and Guardian Field "Soak 1". In the shooting phase, simply protecting against the first amount of wounds doesn't really handle the "wounds of varying damage" mechanic. Maybe it should be soaking damage instead of wounds?


My age is showing. Damage/Wounds whatever. I was referring to total wounds/damage inflicted, not individual shots.
Lets say the SM Captain in the shooting phase was hit by a lascannon; wounded; and he failed his armour save; and the damage roll was 3. He was also hit once by an overcharged plasma gun which wounded; and he failed his armour save; inflicting another 2 damage. He was also hit 9 times by bolters; 5 of which wounded; and he failed 2 of those armour saves; making 2x1 damage. So that is 3 (lascannon) + 2 (Plasma) + 2 (bolters) = 7 damage. Iron Halo soaks 4; 7-4=3; so he loses 3 wounds this shooting phase.

Note that I pulled the amount of damage he suffered and the Iron Halo soak value out of my personal eye of terror. So adjusting of values for balance shall apply.

My intent was that if you through enough small arms at a field it will eventually collapse or a few powerful hits will collapse it. Basically additional wounds that renew each turn on the model.

Edit: Oops. I see the error in my thinking. For single models it would work; but not for units. I need a rethink.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 02:53:01


 
   
Made in us
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




Washington USA

Tygre wrote:


My age is showing. Damage/Wounds whatever. I was referring to total wounds/damage inflicted, not individual shots.
Lets say the SM Captain in the shooting phase was hit by a lascannon; wounded; and he failed his armour save; and the damage roll was 3. He was also hit once by an overcharged plasma gun which wounded; and he failed his armour save; inflicting another 2 damage. He was also hit 9 times by bolters; 5 of which wounded; and he failed 2 of those armour saves; making 2x1 damage. So that is 3 (lascannon) + 2 (Plasma) + 2 (bolters) = 7 damage. Iron Halo soaks 4; 7-4=3; so he loses 3 wounds this shooting phase.

Note that I pulled the amount of damage he suffered and the Iron Halo soak value out of my personal eye of terror. So adjusting of values for balance shall apply.

My intent was that if you through enough small arms at a field it will eventually collapse or a few powerful hits will collapse it. Basically additional wounds that renew each turn on the model.

Edit: Oops. I see the error in my thinking. For single models it would work; but not for units. I need a rethink.

You know, I think I get you. It's kind of like Master Chief's shield in Halo. It absorbs damage and regenerates, but too much too fast and it will break, leaving you vulnerable.
I like that, but without raising toughness it can't stand up to a dozen lasguns.
I bet my friends would like to play with a Halo shield mechanic though.

Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
- Caiphas Cain, probably
 
  
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Dominar _Jameson_V wrote:
Never in my books have I read Sergeant Artillerius watch his bolter rounds disintegrate in the force field only to turn to his brothers and say "Surely if we shoot it MORE we can overload the bloody bastard capacitors!".


Depends on what shield we are talking about. Look at the void shields protecting titans for example. How they work is that basically as long as they are up titan is invincible from any attack approaching outside the bubble range. Everything. You can throw in anything from lascannon to volcano cannon and it just shrugs it off. However repeated strain on the shield will eventually cause generators to overheat, short circuit and generally lose integrity. Eventually unless barrage weakens enough for crew to fix things up shields will collapse. By then shield is completely useless. Not working anymore.

So proper way to deal with that is to throw in sufficient amount of sufficient strenght to worry(shield won't be bothered by something as weak as bolter or heavy bolter!) to overload shields and then once they are down send in the big gun. If you try with shadowsword...well it won't weaken shields any better or worse individually but as it's slow rate...well basically one volcano cannon will never get through shields that will keep coming back faster than volcano cannon can knocks them down.

Of course whether the force field protecting vs Sergeant Artillerius works on same way is another thing. 40k has lots of different fields. Some work even by sending wearer through warp somewhere else before shot strikes so indeed artirelly strike wouldn't be any better. It's pure matter of luck does the shield react in time or not! (well obviously faster the bullet the better)

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I wonder if invulnerable saves would work better if they simply modified the AP value of the attack. The idea is that they have this extra protection, but it seems a little wrong that a stormshield has the same chance of deflecting a lasgun as it does a magma cannon.

Giving stormshields, for example, the effect of "The AP of all attacks is reduced by 3", so it will tank a lot of fairly powerful weapons, but anything with AP-4 or more will start to get through.

Then, for infantry shield type things, such as the tau one and KFF, which is meant to shield against the pitter-patter of small arms, we can either just give +2 to saves, or a -1 to hit. I prefer the +2 to saves, as it makes sense, and still takes some of the bite out of heavy weapons but again, a decent AP will rip through it. This would give firewarriors a 2+ save, and orks a 4+ save.

If you could make this a standardised system for all invulns - increasing save by x and reducing AP by y - it will allow a better depth of purpose for the shield. if it's to protect against small arms fire, increase the save. if it's to protect against lascannons, reduce the AP.

so a KFF might be +2/-1, so +2 save and -1AP. this would give a 4+ to most orks in the bubble, and heavier arms would be needed to get through them - not just using lots of lasguns because they're as likely to save as against a lascannon.

The tau one could be +1/-1, as they have better saves already. most heavy anit-infantry is -1AP, so that's negated, and a better save as well.

Stormshield would be +1/-3, so improve save by 1 (to max 2+) and tank some of the lascannon fire as well. it stands to reason that a stormshield be more redundant on tactical dreadnaught armour than on regular power armour.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 some bloke wrote:
I wonder if invulnerable saves would work better if they simply modified the AP value of the attack. The idea is that they have this extra protection, but it seems a little wrong that a stormshield has the same chance of deflecting a lasgun as it does a magma cannon.

Giving stormshields, for example, the effect of "The AP of all attacks is reduced by 3", so it will tank a lot of fairly powerful weapons, but anything with AP-4 or more will start to get through.

Then, for infantry shield type things, such as the tau one and KFF, which is meant to shield against the pitter-patter of small arms, we can either just give +2 to saves, or a -1 to hit. I prefer the +2 to saves, as it makes sense, and still takes some of the bite out of heavy weapons but again, a decent AP will rip through it. This would give firewarriors a 2+ save, and orks a 4+ save.

If you could make this a standardised system for all invulns - increasing save by x and reducing AP by y - it will allow a better depth of purpose for the shield. if it's to protect against small arms fire, increase the save. if it's to protect against lascannons, reduce the AP.

so a KFF might be +2/-1, so +2 save and -1AP. this would give a 4+ to most orks in the bubble, and heavier arms would be needed to get through them - not just using lots of lasguns because they're as likely to save as against a lascannon.

The tau one could be +1/-1, as they have better saves already. most heavy anit-infantry is -1AP, so that's negated, and a better save as well.

Stormshield would be +1/-3, so improve save by 1 (to max 2+) and tank some of the lascannon fire as well. it stands to reason that a stormshield be more redundant on tactical dreadnaught armour than on regular power armour.

Your close to what I was actually about to suggest in that an invulnerable save should just be replaced by a + number to save with negative save allowing a reroll or something maybe.
So a shield drone gives +1 save combined with cover gives firewarriors a 2+ save. Custom forcefield does similar.
The issue is Terminators as they are already 2+ with a 5+ invulnerable, give them a storm shield and thats a 2+ with +3 or +4 to save.
Ie its a -number required to fail the issue is of course the 1's always fail rule.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Ice_can wrote:

Your close to what I was actually about to suggest in that an invulnerable save should just be replaced by a + number to save with negative save allowing a reroll or something maybe.
So a shield drone gives +1 save combined with cover gives firewarriors a 2+ save. Custom forcefield does similar.
The issue is Terminators as they are already 2+ with a 5+ invulnerable, give them a storm shield and thats a 2+ with +3 or +4 to save.
Ie its a -number required to fail the issue is of course the 1's always fail rule.


That's why I went for the AP modifier as well as the save modifier. To summarise:

+x to save conveys a bonus against small arms, but little help against heavy weapons, like the tau shield is supposed to.

-y from AP conveys little help against small arms, as they generally go by weight of dice, but a bonus against heavy weapons, like stormshields are used for.

so by adjusting these 2 parameters for the wargear that gives out invulnerable saves, we can eliminate invulns entirely and have wargear which is tailored against certain effects, utilising the existing system.

I was never a fan of the old AP system, as a terminator was as likely to survive a missile as a grot blaster, but suddenly a lascannon was too much. The idea that a force field is as likely to stop a guardsman with a knife as it is an orbital bombardment seems wrong to me, and I think that GW needs to embrace their new save-modifier system to its fullest.

if you exclusively dish out save modifiers, as you said it becomes irrelevant to terminators, and still has little benefit vs heavy weapons.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




Washington USA

I seem to be the only one advocating a Toughness bonus to counter lasguns. But I'm not giving up! How's this for a rule:

INVULNERABILITY
Provides improved Toughness and AP Resistance.

AP RESISTANCE
Incoming AP is reduced by this amount. If an attack's AP results in a negative value, the difference is given to the unit's Save up to 2+. (Eg. An AP of -1 gives +1 to Save.)

Shield Generator: Inv2
+2 to Toughness and AP-R. (Opponent must subtract 2 from AP.)

Guardian Field: Inv1
+1 to Toughness and AP-R

etc

Again I'm getting these numbers by subtracting the Invulnerable Save from a d6. Ex. 4++ --> 6-4=2 --> Inv2

Too much shorthand?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/11/06 20:18:07


Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
- Caiphas Cain, probably
 
  
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

So what do Daemons get?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




Washington USA

 JNAProductions wrote:
So what do Daemons get?

*BLAM*
I have little knowledge of Daemons, as I am Ordo Xenos. What's the problem with the rule I made? How are they different? I'm asking seriously.

Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
- Caiphas Cain, probably
 
  
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Dominar _Jameson_V wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
So what do Daemons get?

*BLAM*
I have little knowledge of Daemons, as I am Ordo Xenos. What's the problem with the rule I made? How are they different? I'm asking seriously.


Daemons have a 6+ armor save, and 5+ Invuln saves. (Mostly-Princes, and some Khorne models have better armor. Also Tzeentch have 4+ invulns.)

I will admit, what you're writing is a little confusing, but it would SEEM you'd be giving all Daemons +2 Toughness and only a 6+ save. Which... Yeah, not a fan.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/06 22:16:04


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




Washington USA

 JNAProductions wrote:
 Dominar _Jameson_V wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
So what do Daemons get?

*BLAM*
I have little knowledge of Daemons, as I am Ordo Xenos. What's the problem with the rule I made? How are they different? I'm asking seriously.


Daemons have a 6+ armor save, and 5+ Invuln saves. (Mostly-Princes, and some Khorne models have better armor. Also Tzeentch have 4+ invulns.)

I will admit, what you're writing is a little confusing, but it would SEEM you'd be giving all Daemons +2 Toughness and only a 6+ save. Which... Yeah, not a fan.

First, I was always confused why some units have better Invulnerable Saves than Armor Saves, like I remember one, the Jokaero I think, is 7+ and 5++. Wouldn't you always use the Invuln?

Here's how my rule would work for those Daemons:
5++ Invulnerable Save becomes an Invuln-1, or Inv1.
My first idea would have given him +2 Toughness and +1 to Save, bringing him down to 5+.

Now I've reconsidered that doubling the bonus to Toughness might be overkill, at least for my Crisis suits, so in that case it would only get +1 Toughness.

The second change I came to is that some units benefit more from AP Resistance than just adding a point to the Save Throw.
For example the Terminator is 2+ 5++. He can't get better then 2+ (because reasons) so he'd be saving a Meltagun's -4 AP on a 6+. However, with AP-R 1, (AP-Resistance 1) he'd be saving on a 5+. For an AP-3 attack he'd save on a 4+.

Now on the other hand we have your Daemon with 6+ 5++. With my first rule he would just become 5+, which means AP-0 attacks save on 5+, AP-1 saves on 6+, and AP-2+ is unsaveable.
But, with my second rule with AP-R, he would be saving both AP-0 and AP-1 attacks on 6+, and nothing past that.

In summary, AP-Resistance benefits units like Terminators that already have good Saves, but weaker units that rely on invulns would suffer.

So thank you for bringing this up, now it's more clear to me that there are units that need to negate AP attacks to be viable.

This thread in a nutshell:
Tau: Hey, I don't really like my Invulnerable Saves, can i trade some for more toughness?
Terminator: Hey me too.
Daemon: ++WTF HELL NO, THIS IS SOME BS++

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/11/07 20:40:36


Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
- Caiphas Cain, probably
 
  
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 Dominar _Jameson_V wrote:
[q
First, I was always confused why some units have better Invulnerable Saves than Armor Saves, like I remember one, the Jokaero I think, is 7+ and 5++. Wouldn't you always use the Invuln?


There at least used to be weapons that bypass invulnerable saves. Not sure about 8th ed. Also some spells flat out remove invulnerable save so at least you end up with SOME save.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I'm concerned that modifying toughness and save and AP all at once will slow the game down.

If you have an invulnerability which increases your toughness vs everything, there's no reason not to just have a higher toughness value.

Otherwise you have to roll to hit, then work out how tough the model is right now, then roll to wound, then work out how the AP is affected, and how that affects the saves, and then roll saves.

I maintain that whether a forcefield is for soaking up small arms or for tanking missiles should be represented by different effects. Increasing toughness will offer some protection against both - in your example, if toughness is increased by 2, then a KFF on a battlewagon can result in toughness 10, which is huge against missiles, but on an ork boy it results in toughness 6, which is huge against small arms.

By having the shield/forcefield/equipment modify the AP of the shot and the save of the bearer, you can achieve 2 very different effects, and balance the added complexity by removing invulnerable saves entirely.

terminators don't wield stormshields to protect against lasguns - it's to protect against lascannons. in your example, a stormshield would be inv3, so +3 toughness and -3AP. now you have a terminator with T7, making lasguns almost entirely ineffective, and they have a 3+ save against lascannons.

In my instance, if a stormshield was +1/-3, then the terminator would have +1 to save (capped at 2+) and the lascannons would only have -1AP, so a 3+ save against it. However, lasguns would still wound on 5's, not 6's, lascannons would wound on 2's. Meltaguns would only allow a 4+ save.

a KFF, on the other hand, would be +2/0, so confer +2 to saves, but no impact to AP, allowing it to soak up lasgun fire but not really help against lascannons, except giving battlewagons a 6+ save against them.

I would imagine that daemons would get a +2/-2 invuln, with a basic save of 6+, so they would have a 4+ save and that would be unmodified until you start hitting them with missiles and the like. If bloodthirsters are still 3+/5++, then they would now be 2+, and only start becoming worse when there's AP3 or more - a 3+ vs missile, 4+ vs lascannon, 5+ vs meltagun.

With daemons, actually, as they wouldn't have the option not to have it, they could be 0/-2 invuln, with their saves being what they are. so 5+ on basics, 3+ on bloodthirsters, etc. Tzeench would get +1/-2 invulns.

Invulns worked better when saves were either there or not - not got a save? use your invuln! I think with the modifiers to saves era, the invulns need to get with the times.



12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight






Yendor

I agree that modifying toughness is a mistake. Better to modify the AP and the Saving Throw because that can be done when you allocate the wound to the invulnerable save model as opposed to requiring a separate wound roll.

I think -3 is too strong an AP modifier. Especially combined with a +1 to save. Remember a Las Cannon or Plasma Gun is AP-3, which would mean a Vanguard Veteran with a Storm Shield would have a 2+ save against an overcharged Plasma or a Las Cannon. which is ridiculous. If a Storm Shield was simply -2 AP it would be a bit more in line with what I would expect. A Terminator would still save on a 3 vs a Las Cannon or overcharged Plasma, a Vanguard Veteran would save on a 4+ vs a Las Cannon. This would keep Las Cannons as an effective tool for good AP without making them useless, and it would give a place to super high AP weapons like Melta Guns for punching through heavy defenses.

Keep in mind that a + to Armor is more universally applicable than a - to AP. Against a Las Cannon +2 Armor is functionally equivalent to -2 AP (unless you cap the armor increase at 2+ then you start wanting - to AP which is relevant for Marines and Terminators who have good armor already. Remember, for a generic Terminator with 2+/5++ they have the same armor and invulnerable save against a Plasma Gun, and if the Terminator is in cover they would have a superior armor save to invulnerable save. If you just changed the regular terminator force field to -1 AP, they would actually have a 4+ save in the open against a Plasma Gun (which is an improvement, and a 3+ save in cover vs the same Plasma, also an improvement).

Iron Halo or Sigil of Corruption can be modified to +1 Armor (to a maximum of 2+), / -1 AP. Sort of in between the generic force field and the storm shield. And it would still potentially be worth it depending on cost for a Captain to buy a Storm Shield to stack up to -2 to AP.

tldr;
Storm Shield = -2 AP
Iron Halo = +1 Armor / -1 AP
Force Field (see terminators) = -1 AP

be careful about going too crazy modifying armor and AP, or you will have bizarre results







This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/07 16:18:34


Xom finds this thread hilarious!

My 5th Edition Eldar Tactica (not updated for 6th, historical purposes only) Walking the Path of the Eldar 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Why do you need to do anything bar change them into +1,+2,+3 to saves? 1's always fail anyway so your still on a 2+ for terminators in cover with a storm shield even against a bright lance which is kinda what they need 2+ D6-4+3+1=D6
A vanguard vet gets their 3+ save on D6-3+3 or D6 vrs a lascannon. But against a heavy bolter are Sv3 D6-1+3 so D6+2 so 1's fail everything else is saved.

Still leaves thing's failing on Sv rolls of 1 even if its just a lasgun against a terminator with storm shield. Which is just a limitation of the D6.

Demons are kinda screwed in that they are 6+ save with +2 to save so melt to anti tank weapons but I'm not sure thats uber game breaking.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/07 18:05:22


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Two things:

1) why not just modify the characteristic? Just make a +2/2 unit with a 4+ save a 2+ unit, and ignore the first two points of AP.

2) how much cheaper should daemons get with this rule?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Human Auxiliary to the Empire




Washington USA

 greyknight12 wrote:
I disagree, the point of invulnerable saves is to provide a flat, unmodified save that a model always gets, regardless of what is shooting/attacking them.
--- snip
There is a place in this game for models that always get a decent save; that said there is probably an excess of invul saves right now.

This is a post from a competing thread that got my attention. He brings up a good point and puts me back at my original problem: Either there is a problem with my Tau shields OR Invulnerable Saves in general. I'm starting to think it's the former.

So, Invulnerable Saves are really just another FNP roll you use instead of Armor Save to negate AP. This is a logical mechanic for some models.
BUT the Tau shields should not be using this because that's not their battlefield role (in the lore). They are supposed to stop small arms fire and will always fail to stop heavy attacks. Farsight knew to dodge, not block those.

My point is Anti-Infantry shields should use a different mechanic and Invulnerable Saves should be reserved for Storm Shields and the like.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/11/07 22:34:44


Dakka's Dive-In is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure, the amasec is more watery than a T'au boarding party but they can grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for the occasional ratling put through a window and you'll be alright.
- Caiphas Cain, probably
 
  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: