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.

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.