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.

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.