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.

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

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

 JNAProductions wrote:

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

No. god no.

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

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

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

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

 JNAProductions wrote:

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

No. god no.

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

Good fething god. Seconded.

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

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

 Canadian 5th wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 vipoid wrote:

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

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

screw archon, it's Makari time!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stompas don’t have an invulnerable.

Nor do Baneblades.

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

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

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

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

Sounds familiar.

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

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

The alpha gamer indeed.

Martel732 wrote:
The alpha gamer indeed.

not sure I follow?

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

 JNAProductions wrote:
Stompas don’t have an invulnerable.

Nor do Baneblades.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you mean?

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

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

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

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

Dandelion wrote:
What do you mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
What do you mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Stompas don’t have an invulnerable.

Nor do Baneblades.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5-man Treminator squad.

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

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

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

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

@ Canadian 5th

1. You play test to see what feels right.

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

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

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

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

5-man Treminator squad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Canadian 5th wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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