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.

First off-this should come coupled with a points decrease for all the Necron Vehicles affected. The main goal of this is to change Quantum Shielding to something that doesn't punish you for having good stats, which is something that virtually nothing else in the game does, and so kinda sticks out. That being said, it is a nerf to a weaker faction, so again-this should only be used with other Necron buffs or points decreases.

Now, on to the proposal.

Quantum Shielding provides a 7+ Invuln and a scaling save bonus, starting at +2 and ending at 0. For anything with a wound track (Monoliths (which would have it added), Arks, Stalkers) this is simply included on their wound track, as +2 at the highest bracket, +1 at the middle, and 0 at the lowest. This bonus is applied to all saves, armor and invulnerable alike. Quantum Shielding, additionally, only checks at the START of each phase, not constantly, so there's no wonkiness or slowdown.

For Barges and other units with Quantum Shielding but no wound tracks, they gain a 7+ Invuln. Also, +2 to saves while at 5+ wounds, +1 to saves while at 4-.

Stalkers should probably go to a 4+ armor with this, giving them a 2+/5++ at the top tier, dropping to a 3+/6++ at middle and 4+/nothing at bottom.

Monoliths could easily stay at 3+, giving them a 1+ effective armor at top tier, or even go to 2+ base to make them really stonking durable. Still would need other fixes to be worth fielding, but it's a start.

That's so much mor complicated than it is now.
Why change something that's thematic and actually works?

I read it twice and don't even understand the idea.

 Blndmage wrote:
That's so much mor complicated than it is now.
Why change something that's thematic and actually works?

Because, as I said, it actively punishes your opponent for having good stats. With the exception of Grav weaponry (damage increase if armor save is 3+ or better) I can't think of anything else in the game that does that. (FWIW, Grav should change too, methinks.)

And I don't see how it's that complicated. You add +2/+1/0 to your save rolls. That and gaining an invulnerable save is all there is to it. The only thing that might come off as complicated is that it doesn't update constantly, only at the start of each phase, but that's to stop slow-playing by trying to plink off the last wound of a bracket with Bolters before your Lascannons come in, for example.

Edit: Maybe I explained it poorly? Since one person thinks it's complicated and someone else doesn't understand it, I probably did.

Let me try again.

A Ghost Ark has a 4+ save. With my proposed Quantum Shielding, it also has a 7+ Invulnerable save (normally impossible to make, but with the rest of Quantum Shielding, quite doable). While in its top bracket (so at 50% or more wounds) it adds +2 to all save rolls. While in its middle bracket, +1. While on its last bracket, no bonus.

So, a full wounds Ghost Ark is targeted by a Bolter. The weapon wounds once, meaning you have to take just one save. Since the Ark is at its top bracket, it adds +2 to its save roll. You would roll 1d6+2, aiming to get a 4+, or, in effect, having a 2+ save.
Against a Heavy Bolter, you would roll 1d6+2-1, or, since you have an effective 2+ with an AP-1 weapon, you'd need a 3+.
Against a Melta, you'd have to rely on your Invuln, which is 7+ on 1d6+2, or an effective 5+.

This degrades as you take wounds, so on the middle bracket, you have an effective 3+/6++.

Does that make more sense?

This suggestion goes against the fluff of quant shielding and turns it into a worse generic 5++save.

Seems more like a personal issue than a thoughiful erratta.

From your first monoliths don't actually have quantum shielding, it's hard to tell if you are saying they do or what.

The fluff/background of QS is that it is more effective against more damaging weapons- and this proposed rule does not represent that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Quantum Shielding was originally AC 13 front and sides until you got a Penetrating hit, whereupon they dropped to their original values (usually 11).

I feel this represents the "Degrading shields" better than the current mechanic, as well as avoiding punishing people for having good stats.

Mechanically, I agree it's an overall nerf (5++ versus a Lascannon gives an average of 2.33 damage per wound, current Quantum Shielding makes it 1.56) though it does make these vehicles one HECK of a lot more durable against small arms (2+ armor versus 4+, with current Quantum Shielding doing nothing to 1 damage attacks). But it's why I wouldn't ever use these changes without dropping the points or somehow otherwise buffing Necrons.

Edit: Oh, I know Monoliths don't have it. Which I found a weird exclusion, and I propose adding it to them.

You are correct that it was +2 AV before, which also as a rule had nothing to do with how it worked in the background of the game.

Yeah, seems needlessly complex. I find it very interesting that the more powerful stuff is weaker against units with Quantum Shields than massed weaker shots. As soon as you've had just a few games against it, you find yourself in a better position. Plus, sometimes, you get a bid damaging shot through even with quantum shields. I think it's fun.

I like the proposed mechanic, but I don't feel that QS needs to be replaced. Currently, QS makes it unlikely that you'll "crit" and drop a vehicle with a couple lucky lascannons while also being mildly useful against D2+ weapons. I kind of like that.

But if we ever needed a new, unique shielding mechanic? Your proposed save boost could be an interesting way to go.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I like the proposed mechanic, but I don't feel that QS needs to be replaced. Currently, QS makes it unlikely that you'll "crit" and drop a vehicle with a couple lucky lascannons while also being mildly useful against D2+ weapons. I kind of like that.

But if we ever needed a new, unique shielding mechanic? Your proposed save boost could be an interesting way to go.

Thank you. Do you have any idea on how to tone down the complexity, since it's apparently too much?

Everything from ERA, to Aegis, and RAM all work best against relatively low volume attacks but fail against a higher volume of fire. As they are Quantum Shielding basically work as point defence which is effective against powerful low volume attacks but which gets overwhelmed by swarms of lower powered attacks. This makes perfect sense to me.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Everything from ERA, to Aegis, and RAM all work best against relatively low volume attacks but fail against a higher volume of fire. As they are Quantum Shielding basically work as point defence which is effective against powerful low volume attacks but which gets overwhelmed by swarms of lower powered attacks. This makes perfect sense to me.

I'm not overly concerned about fluff sense, I'm more concerned with mechanical sense. And mechanically, it punishes the player for having high stats-something that, as far as I know, only one other mechanic in the game does.

Also, I highly doubt, in the fluff, Necron technology of any sort is even remotely comparable to modern-day earth tech, so...

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm not overly concerned about fluff sense, I'm more concerned with mechanical sense. And mechanically, it punishes the player for having high stats-something that, as far as I know, only one other mechanic in the game does.

Also, I highly doubt, in the fluff, Necron technology of any sort is even remotely comparable to modern-day earth tech, so...

I don't see the issue with technology designed to defeat specifically high strength, high AP weapons it seems like something you'd logically want to do if you have the technological base to do so. The Necron's most certainly have the tech base to do it.

Fluff aside, my take is that every faction should have at least one cool 'rule-breaking' trait that they get access to feel mechanically unique. Quantum Shielding is more unique than most but it serves its purpose and rewards armies that bring a solid amount of mid-range firepower rather than nothing between S4 and S8.

If you want it to be more similar to how it operates before, the best way to do that is to bump their armor save a lot (I'm talking to a 2+) and have it degrade to the 4+ eventually after taking enough damage.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you want it to be more similar to how it operates before, the best way to do that is to bump their armor save a lot (I'm talking to a 2+) and have it degrade to the 4+ eventually after taking enough damage.

That's... That's literally what I proposed, along with a similarly scaling Invuln. 5++ to 7++.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you want it to be more similar to how it operates before, the best way to do that is to bump their armor save a lot (I'm talking to a 2+) and have it degrade to the 4+ eventually after taking enough damage.

That's... That's literally what I proposed, along with a similarly scaling Invuln. 5++ to 7++.

It isn't because I read your thing like twice and it was hard to understand. Unless you edited it. Regardless, trying to incorporate an Invul in there seems unneeded.

You add +2 to saves at top bracket.
Add +1 in the middle bracket.
No bonus on the bottom bracket.

For Barges, that don't have wound brackets, add +2 to saves while at 5+ wounds.
Add +1 while at 4 or less wounds.

What about that is so complicated to understand?

Not complicated but unneccessary nerf, goes against fluff, removes flavour and makes necrons even more of weak horde army when they should be elite. Weaken units and lower prices is opposite of how you should be with necrons.

Why not just a 4+/5+/6+ (depending on damage table) feel no pain effect?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I like the proposed mechanic, but I don't feel that QS needs to be replaced. Currently, QS makes it unlikely that you'll "crit" and drop a vehicle with a couple lucky lascannons while also being mildly useful against D2+ weapons. I kind of like that.

But if we ever needed a new, unique shielding mechanic? Your proposed save boost could be an interesting way to go.

Thank you. Do you have any idea on how to tone down the complexity, since it's apparently too much?

Honestly, I thought you explained it pretty well in your second post. I guess if I were to take a stab at writing it, I'd do something like...

Quantum Shielding: A model with this rule has a 7+ invulnerable save and adds X to all saving throws. See the Vehicle Damage Table to determine X.

And then on the vehicle damage chart, just add a "Quantum Shielding" column that has a +2/+1/+0. The only weird thing is that you'd probably have to create a damage chart for things like anhilation barges just to show X.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I like the proposed mechanic, but I don't feel that QS needs to be replaced. Currently, QS makes it unlikely that you'll "crit" and drop a vehicle with a couple lucky lascannons while also being mildly useful against D2+ weapons. I kind of like that.

But if we ever needed a new, unique shielding mechanic? Your proposed save boost could be an interesting way to go.

Thank you. Do you have any idea on how to tone down the complexity, since it's apparently too much?

Honestly, I thought you explained it pretty well in your second post. I guess if I were to take a stab at writing it, I'd do something like...

Quantum Shielding: A model with this rule has a 7+ invulnerable save and adds X to all saving throws. See the Vehicle Damage Table to determine X.

And then on the vehicle damage chart, just add a "Quantum Shielding" column that has a +2/+1/+0. The only weird thing is that you'd probably have to create a damage chart for things like anhilation barges just to show X.

The only other thing is I wanted it to check only at the start of the phase-to prevent things like trying to chip off a last wound with Bolter Fire before dropping in a Lascannon.

Any idea how to word that well?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I like the proposed mechanic, but I don't feel that QS needs to be replaced. Currently, QS makes it unlikely that you'll "crit" and drop a vehicle with a couple lucky lascannons while also being mildly useful against D2+ weapons. I kind of like that.

But if we ever needed a new, unique shielding mechanic? Your proposed save boost could be an interesting way to go.

Thank you. Do you have any idea on how to tone down the complexity, since it's apparently too much?

Honestly, I thought you explained it pretty well in your second post. I guess if I were to take a stab at writing it, I'd do something like...

Quantum Shielding: A model with this rule has a 7+ invulnerable save and adds X to all saving throws. See the Vehicle Damage Table to determine X.

And then on the vehicle damage chart, just add a "Quantum Shielding" column that has a +2/+1/+0. The only weird thing is that you'd probably have to create a damage chart for things like anhilation barges just to show X.

The only other thing is I wanted it to check only at the start of the phase-to prevent things like trying to chip off a last wound with Bolter Fire before dropping in a Lascannon.

Any idea how to word that well?

Quantum Shielding: A model with this rule has a 7+ invulnerable save and adds X to all saving throws. Consult the Damage Chart at the start of each phase to determine X.

Yeah, that works well. Thank you.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I like the proposed mechanic, but I don't feel that QS needs to be replaced. Currently, QS makes it unlikely that you'll "crit" and drop a vehicle with a couple lucky lascannons while also being mildly useful against D2+ weapons. I kind of like that.

But if we ever needed a new, unique shielding mechanic? Your proposed save boost could be an interesting way to go.

Thank you. Do you have any idea on how to tone down the complexity, since it's apparently too much?

Honestly, I thought you explained it pretty well in your second post. I guess if I were to take a stab at writing it, I'd do something like...

Quantum Shielding: A model with this rule has a 7+ invulnerable save and adds X to all saving throws. See the Vehicle Damage Table to determine X.

And then on the vehicle damage chart, just add a "Quantum Shielding" column that has a +2/+1/+0. The only weird thing is that you'd probably have to create a damage chart for things like anhilation barges just to show X.

The only other thing is I wanted it to check only at the start of the phase-to prevent things like trying to chip off a last wound with Bolter Fire before dropping in a Lascannon.

Any idea how to word that well?

Quantum Shielding: A model with this rule has a 7+ invulnerable save and adds X to all saving throws. Consult the Damage Chart at the start of each phase to determine X.

JNAProductions wrote:Yeah, that works well. Thank you.

I think rather than a special rule this would be more efficiently done simply by having models with the Quantum Shielding rule add a new column for saves into their damage chart. It's less confusing than adding something at the start of each phase.

Trust me-defensive profile changes should NOT happen mid-phase.

Let me put it this way-I fire 30 shots with my one Intercessor Auto squad, hit 27 times, wound 10. You now have to take saves seven at a time, because the eighth save COULD be different. You take, say, three wounds off that. The next squad deals another 10 wounds, meaning you now have to take saves four at a time.

Whereas if it only checks at the start of the phase, you never have to worry about lumping saves like that.

Technically I'm not sure if you would have to roll separately as all wounds would be done simultaneously so the model would simply go from it's wounds pre-shooting attack to its new wound total (and save) which would be used for the next shooting attack. Otherwise you'd have to roll saves in batches already for a unit of DA terminators with a mix of TH/SS and PF/SB models.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Technically I'm not sure if you would have to roll separately as all wounds would be done simultaneously so the model would simply go from it's wounds pre-shooting attack to its new wound total (and save) which would be used for the next shooting attack. Otherwise you'd have to roll saves in batches already for a unit of DA terminators with a mix of TH/SS and PF/SB models.

You... You do have to do that.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Technically I'm not sure if you would have to roll separately as all wounds would be done simultaneously so the model would simply go from it's wounds pre-shooting attack to its new wound total (and save) which would be used for the next shooting attack. Otherwise you'd have to roll saves in batches already for a unit of DA terminators with a mix of TH/SS and PF/SB models.

You... You do have to do that.

It's been ages since I've actually played a game... In any case given that such a scenario already exists there's no reason not to go with my version of Quantum Shielding, it literally slots right in using already existing systems.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Technically I'm not sure if you would have to roll separately as all wounds would be done simultaneously so the model would simply go from it's wounds pre-shooting attack to its new wound total (and save) which would be used for the next shooting attack. Otherwise you'd have to roll saves in batches already for a unit of DA terminators with a mix of TH/SS and PF/SB models.

You... You do have to do that.

It's been ages since I've actually played a game... In any case given that such a scenario already exists there's no reason not to go with my version of Quantum Shielding, it literally slots right in using already existing systems.

He just explained the reason, just because GW can't write rules that create fun gameplay doesn't mean fanwriters should not aspire to write rules that don't drag out the game into endlessly rolling 1-4 dice at a time to resolve what could be one roll. Fanwriters fill both the roles of filling in all the content GW doesn't want to fill out and replace the existing rules that are badly designed or written.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Technically I'm not sure if you would have to roll separately as all wounds would be done simultaneously so the model would simply go from it's wounds pre-shooting attack to its new wound total (and save) which would be used for the next shooting attack. Otherwise you'd have to roll saves in batches already for a unit of DA terminators with a mix of TH/SS and PF/SB models.

You... You do have to do that.

It's been ages since I've actually played a game... In any case given that such a scenario already exists there's no reason not to go with my version of Quantum Shielding, it literally slots right in using already existing systems.

He just explained the reason, just because GW can't write rules that create fun gameplay doesn't mean fanwriters should not aspire to write rules that don't drag out the game into endlessly rolling 1-4 dice at a time to resolve what could be one roll. Fanwriters fill both the roles of filling in all the content GW doesn't want to fill out and replace the existing rules that are badly designed or written.

The game's obviously fun to a vast swathe of people already or it wouldn't continue to dominate the market year after year. Even when it was 'dead' in 7th it was still crushing.