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.

@canadian 5th
1. You say that as if it’s impossible to do. Are you suggesting we don’t need to play test invulns? Or that it’s easier to play test them? You don’t need the unit to 100% match it’s current iteration, especially since many units need nerfs and many other units need buffs anyway.

2. My point is that the termie’s base invuln is near useless, so why even have it at all? And I take issue with plasma being shrugged off by a storm shield, because you’re just negating most of its value, which is poor for balance. How do we price a weapon that is only fully effective sometimes?

3. I’m not suggesting halving weapon damage, I’m just saying you could tweak weapons to make them less deadly as well as eliminate shoot/fight twice strats in addition to tweaking defensive profiles. Maybe drop plasma to ap-2 if ap-3 is too deadly. Maybe knights could get 26 wounds (these are just examples don’t take them too literally). Reduce lethality and you eliminate the need for invulns in the first place. The rest is just assigning points, which would have to be redone anyway.

 some bloke wrote:
[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?

No, it means that when looking to design the game you should look first at what happens in cases where the 'right' weapons are fired at the target under in-game conditions. If you don't you end up making units garbage in any sort of semi-competitive play.

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.

No, you have to balance against all threats. That's why you get rules compromises like current invulnerable saves.

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

They could stand to be tougher but this idea doesn't fix their issues. It just makes new ones.

Dandelion wrote:
1I recommend researching the phrase "Constructive Criticism", you may find yourself enlightened.

I expect people to have put thought into their ideas before posting on a message board. That is also enlightening for eliminating bad ideas before others find out you had them.

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.

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.

That's not even close to the only reason they suck. They also deal little damage per point and are stuck with power fists which are awful and overpriced. Just making them tougher against small arms, especially while nerfing them against things like D3 overcharged plasma guns, is not fixing them.

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'll keep my 3++ thanks.

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.

This is rapidly turning into a mess of additional wound pools and rules.

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!

I'm unsure where to even start with this...

How are they nerfed against D3 Plasma? (Which, to my knowledge, literally only DA and Ryza have access to.) They'd take 2 hits to kill, with a 5+ each time, as opposed to one hit at 3+. That's the same average, but less vulnerable to bad luck.

 JNAProductions wrote:
How are they nerfed against D3 Plasma? (Which, to my knowledge, literally only DA and Ryza have access to.) They'd take 2 hits to kill, with a 5+ each time, as opposed to one hit at 3+. That's the same average, but less vulnerable to bad luck.

I guess either way it's a 5+ save versus instant death via D3 plasma, but that same terminator could also shrug off 3 shots of that same attack on a 5++ as well. So it's a nerf in that respect.

There's also the question of how this scales, is 6++ now equal to 5++ in that they both ad a recharging wound? How many extra wounds is 3++ worth? Does a model with more base wounds (more chances to save) get more extra wounds? Less?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
[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?

No, it means that when looking to design the game you should look first at what happens in cases where the 'right' weapons are fired at the target under in-game conditions. If you don't you end up making units garbage in any sort of semi-competitive play.

if you only account for the hard-counter to every unit then you are missing an important part of the game - units are supposed to have counters. There should be a tool to deal with every threat. Eliminating this is what made deathstars so crap back in 6th and (shudder) 7th.

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.

No, you have to balance against all threats. That's why you get rules compromises like current invulnerable saves.

against all threats, not just the hard counter. I won't point out that you've just contradicted yourself - you doubtless already knew before you posted, after all - but I will point out that against the usual way of killing big things by chipping their wounds down over a few turns, my suggestion offers more general protection than the current system. Wounds cannot be bypassed, saves can.

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

They could stand to be tougher but this idea doesn't fix their issues. It just makes new ones.

Dandelion wrote:
1I recommend researching the phrase "Constructive Criticism", you may find yourself enlightened.

I expect people to have put thought into their ideas before posting on a message board. That is also enlightening for eliminating bad ideas before others find out you had them.

Funny, I thought I was putting the idea up for people to comment on and offer their constructive criticism on how to make it better, where it would and would not work. It's a forum for discussion, if I thought the idea was perfect, why would I post it?

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.

laughing off powerful weapons is the problem. invulns just don't work well for balancing, they either work too well or you pay too many points for them. If invulns weren't how common & powerful as they are, mortal wounds wouldn't have had to exist in the first place.

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.

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.

That's not even close to the only reason they suck. They also deal little damage per point and are stuck with power fists which are awful and overpriced. Just making them tougher against small arms, especially while nerfing them against things like D3 overcharged plasma guns, is not fixing them.

Terminators suck because any unit with decent massed dice rolls just overpowers their save and kills them. That, coupled with their save being reduced by AP now, means any termy without a stormshield just dies. Meganobs suffer less, because they have more wounds. They don't miss the 5++, as they rarely get reduced below 5+ anyway.

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'll keep my 3++ thanks.

Damn, couldn't sell you a complete overhaul of a game mechanic overnight? I thought my half-fleshed out idea would have you rewriting your codex right then & there.

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.

This is rapidly turning into a mess of additional wound pools and rules.

not really. Same rules as current but with the addition of he Power Field. Then remove some invulns from units which would suit Power Fields better. Not that complicated.

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!

I'm unsure where to even start with this...

I was just rambling to be fair. Just thinking the KFF suits a power field by design, but would be OP to even have charge 1 on a unit of ork boys. Power Fields should not be put on hordes!

Hey Canadian, it seems you re replied to my last point instead of the new one.

 some bloke wrote:
if you only account for the hard-counter to every unit then you are missing an important part of the game - units are supposed to have counters. There should be a tool to deal with every threat. Eliminating this is what made deathstars so crap back in 6th and (shudder) 7th.

So Knights will never be tournament viable again then. Sucks to be them if you get your way.

against all threats, not just the hard counter. I won't point out that you've just contradicted yourself - you doubtless already knew before you posted, after all - but I will point out that against the usual way of killing big things by chipping their wounds down over a few turns, my suggestion offers more general protection than the current system. Wounds cannot be bypassed, saves can.

No, you tend to want to OTK dangerous targets with your alpha strike. In the case of a three Knight list you want to try to drop one of them in your first turn, then hope you have enough left to kill another from full health the next turn.

Your suggestion is a massive nerf against that strategy and will kill the viability of the unit nearly instantly.

Funny, I thought I was putting the idea up for people to comment on and offer their constructive criticism on how to make it better, where it would and would not work. It's a forum for discussion, if I thought the idea was perfect, why would I post it?

If this was me, I'd post an entire playtested example codex annotated with my reasoning behind the changes on a unit by unit basis. Then I'd solicit comments. Anything else is a waste of time and energy as you're finding out while debating me.

laughing off powerful weapons is the problem.

*Looks at the top tables of tournaments* *Sees very few of these so called problem units* *blinks*

You're clearly looking at the game through a very casual lens. The issue is that you shouldn't balance around the casuals because that breaks things at the high end.

Damn, couldn't sell you a complete overhaul of a game mechanic overnight? I thought my half-fleshed out idea would have you rewriting your codex right then & there.

Do the work, show the math and the current wound probability curve versus the new one for a bunch of common weapons profiles. Then repeat for each model you want to change. I'd suggest writing a script to automate things.

not really. Same rules as current but with the addition of he Power Field. Then remove some invulns from units which would suit Power Fields better. Not that complicated.

If it's so easy where's the preview codex and mathematical proof to show how well it works?

Dandelion wrote:
@canadian 5th1. You say that as if it’s impossible to do. Are you suggesting we don’t need to play test invulns? Or that it’s easier to play test them? You don’t need the unit to 100% match it’s current iteration, especially since many units need nerfs and many other units need buffs anyway.

I'm saying that balancing hundreds of units against all possible weapons is a very difficult task and that its competing with a system that has already been extensively playtested and mostly works.

2. My point is that the termie’s base invuln is near useless, so why even have it at all?

5++ is a great thing to have. It saves a 3rd of literally any wound thrown at the model regardless of it's AP or damage.

And I take issue with plasma being shrugged off by a storm shield, because you’re just negating most of its value, which is poor for balance. How do we price a weapon that is only fully effective sometimes?

Plasma is the best special weapon in the game right now.

3. I’m not suggesting halving weapon damage, I’m just saying you could tweak weapons to make them less deadly as well as eliminate shoot/fight twice strats in addition to tweaking defensive profiles. Maybe drop plasma to ap-2 if ap-3 is too deadly. Maybe knights could get 26 wounds (these are just examples don’t take them too literally). Reduce lethality and you eliminate the need for invulns in the first place. The rest is just assigning points, which would have to be redone anyway.

Do the work. Show the math. Explain in detail.

You know, you could offer help to try to refine the suggestion. If you think the idea is totally without merit, say so and leave. If you feel the idea has merit, but the specific implementation is flawed, offer advice.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You know, you could offer help to try to refine the suggestion. If you think the idea is totally without merit, say so and leave. If you feel the idea has merit, but the specific implementation is flawed, offer advice.

My suggestion is that they model the durability curve for the units they suggest changing and make a note of areas where these rules suggestions make them notably stronger or weaker than they are at present. I don't think such a request is unreasonable for such a sweeping change to the game.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You know, you could offer help to try to refine the suggestion. If you think the idea is totally without merit, say so and leave. If you feel the idea has merit, but the specific implementation is flawed, offer advice.

My suggestion is that they model the durability curve for the units they suggest changing and make a note of areas where these rules suggestions make them notably stronger or weaker than they are at present. I don't think such a request is unreasonable for such a sweeping change to the game.

Except some models need nerfs, some need buffs.

I don't think "Make it exactly the same results as now with a different method" is a good goal.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except some models need nerfs, some need buffs.

I don't think "Make it exactly the same results as now with a different method" is a good goal.

Are the example units of Terminators and Knights in need of the nerfs that these's rules have generally been advocating for? Also, How will we know if a model has been buffed or nerfed if the numbers aren't run first?

I clearly said that removing invulns would require an overhaul, and that I don’t expect it to happen, ever. That does not mean it’s a bad idea in principle. GW rewrote the game from 7th to 8th, they could do it again and improve the game.

A 5++ on a 2+ model has next to zero value because of the new ap system. The vast majority of the time you never get past 5+ anyway. So if most of the time it never matters, you may as well just drop it and possibly make termie’s cheaper.

Keep in mind that these ideas have an approximately 0% chance of ever getting to GW. I’m just saying that I’ve played without invulns and it suits the game much better imo. I don’t need to write a thesis about how you could give a knight 6 more wounds to make it comparable to its current durability. And I don’t have the time to. These will at best be house rules, so if you don’t like it then say so and move on.

Dandelion wrote:
I clearly said that removing invulns would require an overhaul, and that I don’t expect it to happen, ever. That does not mean it’s a bad idea in principle. GW rewrote the game from 7th to 8th, they could do it again and improve the game.

So show the overhaul for a small codex like Custodes who will be majorly affected by it.

A 5++ on a 2+ model has next to zero value because of the new ap system. The vast majority of the time you never get past 5+ anyway. So if most of the time it never matters, you may as well just drop it and possibly make termie’s cheaper.

It still has value though, even if it is minimal at present.

They suck because -1 AP halves their save.

Pay me 40 bucks and I’ll write you a codex, otherwise I don’t feel like it. .
In my own games I have tweaked units to operate without invulns and it’s been more fun. For example, I give my tau shield drones and shield generators a 2+ and no invuln (and savior protocols redirects the normal attack, not a mw). For my admech, I just straight up delete all the invulns with no replacement because they don’t matter anyway. For knights I also just remove the invuln since they’re the biggest offenders in my limited collection, and they’ve been more fun to play against with no other changes.
Anyway, I’ve given you examples of how it could be handled so extrapolate that. If you’re worried about competitive balance then don’t be, because my suggestion will likely never leave this forum

Dandelion wrote:
In my own games I have tweaked units to operate without invulns and it’s been more fun. For example, I give my tau shield drones and shield generators a 2+ and no invuln (and savior protocols redirects the normal attack, not a mw). For my admech, I just straight up delete all the invulns with no replacement because they don’t matter anyway. For knights I also just remove the invuln since they’re the biggest offenders in my limited collection, and they’ve been more fun to play against with no other changes.
Anyway, I’ve given you examples of how it could be handled so extrapolate that. If you’re worried about competitive balance then don’t be, because my suggestion will likely never leave this forum

I'm sure glad I'll never need to play using those terrible rules.

You don’t have to like them. Though I would appreciate it if you would step back and stop insulting ideas you don’t like (especially if you won’t even bother to try them) A simple “I don’t think I’d like that idea” would have sufficed. I don’t come to Dakka Dakka to argue, so please don’t make these discussions confrontational.

Dandelion wrote:
You don’t have to like them. Though I would appreciate it if you would step back and stop insulting ideas you don’t like (especially if you won’t even bother to try them) A simple “I don’t think I’d like that idea” would have sufficed. I don’t come to Dakka Dakka to argue, so please don’t make these discussions confrontational.

Isn't the point of this part of the forum to convince other people that your idea is worth trying in their games? It must be otherwise we're just shouting into the void.

That's why I expect people suggesting new rules to approach things as if they were writing a pitch to GW to get an idea adopted. If you really make a good rule, you could actually change the game. Just look at how ITC started for proof that it can be done.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
You don’t have to like them. Though I would appreciate it if you would step back and stop insulting ideas you don’t like (especially if you won’t even bother to try them) A simple “I don’t think I’d like that idea” would have sufficed. I don’t come to Dakka Dakka to argue, so please don’t make these discussions confrontational.

Isn't the point of this part of the forum to convince other people that your idea is worth trying in their games? It must be otherwise we're just shouting into the void.

That's why I expect people suggesting new rules to approach things as if they were writing a pitch to GW to fet an idea adopted. If you really make a good rule, you could actually change the game. Just look at how ITC started for proof that it can be done.

"The proposed rules forum is here for people to propose changes to the rules of the game. You may not like some of those ideas. That's fine. But that's no excuse for ridiculing the poster making a suggestion.

Pointing out (politely!) why you think a given idea is the wrong way to go is just fine. As is offering ideas as to how the idea could be refined or improved. That's part of the point of posting these ideas in the first place.

Simply slamming someone for having the temerity to float an idea? Nope, not acceptable. The same rules on spam and inappropriate behaviour apply here as in the rest of the site.

Please keep in mind that the forum caters to people of all ages, and who don't always enjoy the same aspects of the game that you do. If you see a post that seems to be based more in youthful enthusiasm than in balanced game design, take that as an opportunity to help someone develop their ideas, rather than to stifle someone who is just trying to add a little something different to their game of toy soldiers."

Those are rules of the forum. If you think an idea is too poorly thought out to be worthy of your time drop it instead of commenting. I've made my point that I think invulnerable saves can be implemented well and aren't necessarily bad for the game, so have you, let them have their ideas and develop them maybe it becomes an idea that you or I think would be good later down the line but expecting people to have fully developed their ideas before they come here is not reasonable.

Dandelion wrote:
You don’t have to like them. Though I would appreciate it if you would step back and stop insulting ideas you don’t like (especially if you won’t even bother to try them) A simple “I don’t think I’d like that idea” would have sufficed. I don’t come to Dakka Dakka to argue, so please don’t make these discussions confrontational.

I've written a response to this above, but another thought has occurred to me. I couldn't use your rules if I wanted to because you haven't given enough detail for me to use them with the armies I play. Your posts are literally unusable without, at the very least, giving guidelines for adjusting saves based on the strength of the invulnerable and the model it's attached to.

For example, how does jink work in your system? How should I play my DW Knights? Do your rules interact with Stratagems at all? I need details to try playing your way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
You don’t have to like them. Though I would appreciate it if you would step back and stop insulting ideas you don’t like (especially if you won’t even bother to try them) A simple “I don’t think I’d like that idea” would have sufficed. I don’t come to Dakka Dakka to argue, so please don’t make these discussions confrontational.

Isn't the point of this part of the forum to convince other people that your idea is worth trying in their games? It must be otherwise we're just shouting into the void.

That's why I expect people suggesting new rules to approach things as if they were writing a pitch to GW to fet an idea adopted. If you really make a good rule, you could actually change the game. Just look at how ITC started for proof that it can be done.

"The proposed rules forum is here for people to propose changes to the rules of the game. You may not like some of those ideas. That's fine. But that's no excuse for ridiculing the poster making a suggestion.

Pointing out (politely!) why you think a given idea is the wrong way to go is just fine. As is offering ideas as to how the idea could be refined or improved. That's part of the point of posting these ideas in the first place.

Simply slamming someone for having the temerity to float an idea? Nope, not acceptable. The same rules on spam and inappropriate behaviour apply here as in the rest of the site.

Please keep in mind that the forum caters to people of all ages, and who don't always enjoy the same aspects of the game that you do. If you see a post that seems to be based more in youthful enthusiasm than in balanced game design, take that as an opportunity to help someone develop their ideas, rather than to stifle someone who is just trying to add a little something different to their game of toy soldiers."

Those are rules of the forum. If you think an idea is too poorly thought out to be worthy of your time drop it instead of commenting. I've made my point that I think invulnerable saves can be implemented well and aren't necessarily bad for the game, so have you, let them have their ideas and develop them maybe it becomes an idea that you or I think would be good later down the line but expecting people to have fully developed their ideas before they come here is not reasonable.

It's tough to give feedback or test a rule when the posters won't do the bare minimum of work to make their rules testable. I'd, at a minimum, expect guidelines for a the commonly used units from two popular armies so a test match could be played. Otherwise, how can one be expected to give feedback?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
You don’t have to like them. Though I would appreciate it if you would step back and stop insulting ideas you don’t like (especially if you won’t even bother to try them) A simple “I don’t think I’d like that idea” would have sufficed. I don’t come to Dakka Dakka to argue, so please don’t make these discussions confrontational.

I've written a response to this above, but another thought has occurred to me. I couldn't use your rules if I wanted to because you haven't given enough detail for me to use them with the armies I play. Your posts are literally unusable without, at the very least, giving guidelines for adjusting saves based on the strength of the invulnerable and the model it's attached to.

For example, how does jink work in your system? How should I play my DW Knights? Do your rules interact with Stratagems at all? I need details to try playing your way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
You don’t have to like them. Though I would appreciate it if you would step back and stop insulting ideas you don’t like (especially if you won’t even bother to try them) A simple “I don’t think I’d like that idea” would have sufficed. I don’t come to Dakka Dakka to argue, so please don’t make these discussions confrontational.

Isn't the point of this part of the forum to convince other people that your idea is worth trying in their games? It must be otherwise we're just shouting into the void.

That's why I expect people suggesting new rules to approach things as if they were writing a pitch to GW to fet an idea adopted. If you really make a good rule, you could actually change the game. Just look at how ITC started for proof that it can be done.

"The proposed rules forum is here for people to propose changes to the rules of the game. You may not like some of those ideas. That's fine. But that's no excuse for ridiculing the poster making a suggestion.

Pointing out (politely!) why you think a given idea is the wrong way to go is just fine. As is offering ideas as to how the idea could be refined or improved. That's part of the point of posting these ideas in the first place.

Simply slamming someone for having the temerity to float an idea? Nope, not acceptable. The same rules on spam and inappropriate behaviour apply here as in the rest of the site.

Please keep in mind that the forum caters to people of all ages, and who don't always enjoy the same aspects of the game that you do. If you see a post that seems to be based more in youthful enthusiasm than in balanced game design, take that as an opportunity to help someone develop their ideas, rather than to stifle someone who is just trying to add a little something different to their game of toy soldiers."

Those are rules of the forum. If you think an idea is too poorly thought out to be worthy of your time drop it instead of commenting. I've made my point that I think invulnerable saves can be implemented well and aren't necessarily bad for the game, so have you, let them have their ideas and develop them maybe it becomes an idea that you or I think would be good later down the line but expecting people to have fully developed their ideas before they come here is not reasonable.

It's tough to give feedback or test a rule when the posters won't do the bare minimum of work to make their rules testable. I'd, at a minimum, expect guidelines for a the commonly used units from two popular armies so a test match could be played. Otherwise, how can one be expected to give feedback?

This was an idea, not a hard, fast & finished rule. Please give me an example of where someone has put together a full & complete codex overhaul, in one shot, without prior threads looking for feedback on ideas, and just dumped it here as a testament to their own ability to write balanced rules!

I was looking for feedback - you've given it, and I've read it, so please stop repeating it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As Canadian 5th suggested, I've thrown together a humongous table of data to compare my suggestion with the existing invulnerable save system, to evaluate whether it is better, worse or comparable for a Knight.

I have calculated the amount of hits needed (as the BS is irrelevant in this comparison, as it doesn't change) to kill a knight in the following scenarios:

S1-10, with AP 0 to -4, with average damage 1-6, over 1-4 turns, for a total of 1200 different results.

This basically gives its chances against any massed weapon spammed enough to kill it.

The average of all of these (which is just for an idea of the implications) were as follows:

against a knight with a 5++, 70.7 hits needed to kill it
against a knight with a 4++, 81.9 hits to kill it
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 105.3 wounds to kill it.

this is of course an average and includes S1 weapons, which aren't really for knights. Let's look at the figures for S7+ weapons:


against a knight with a 5++, 37.24 hits
against a knight with a 4++, 43.12 hits
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 55.42 hits

again, new suggestion coming out on top.

In fact, this is because the knights become harder to deal with if you don't kill them in one turn, what with the regenerating power fields. so now I'll do S7+ and 1 turn only:

against a knight with a 5++, 37.24 hits
against a knight with a 4++, 43.12 hits
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 42.63 hits

So this is the stats for one-turn killing a knight with any weapon of S7+, damage 1-6, any AP.


I'm not going to refine it further, but you can see that knights will become harder to chip away at (a lot harder to chip away at) and also stay roughly as durable at anti-tank.

In fact, there are 360 combinations in which the 4++ is the best, and 780 in which the Power Field (6) is the best. there are some where it's tied.


I would call this a fairly good bit of number crunching. Clearly it is different, but not an outright nerf.

 some bloke wrote:
As Canadian 5th suggested, I've thrown together a humongous table of data to compare my suggestion with the existing invulnerable save system, to evaluate whether it is better, worse or comparable for a Knight.

I have calculated the amount of hits needed (as the BS is irrelevant in this comparison, as it doesn't change) to kill a knight in the following scenarios:

S1-10, with AP 0 to -4, with average damage 1-6, over 1-4 turns, for a total of 1200 different results.

Useful data, in a proposed rules thread... My good sir, are you certain about this?

This basically gives its chances against any massed weapon spammed enough to kill it.

The average of all of these (which is just for an idea of the implications) were as follows:

against a knight with a 5++, 70.7 hits needed to kill it
against a knight with a 4++, 81.9 hits to kill it
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 105.3 wounds to kill it.

I'm not sure this test holds a ton of value as you generally don't fire literally everything at a Knight, but that's fine. What were the values like using the current rules so we can have a fair comparison?

this is of course an average and includes S1 weapons, which aren't really for knights. Let's look at the figures for S7+ weapons:

against a knight with a 5++, 37.24 hits
against a knight with a 4++, 43.12 hits
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 55.42 hits

Again, I'd like to see the side by side old system versus new. I also don't think mashing together averages works for this sort of data set.

again, new suggestion coming out on top.

In fact, this is because the knights become harder to deal with if you don't kill them in one turn, what with the regenerating power fields. so now I'll do S7+ and 1 turn only:

against a knight with a 5++, 37.24 hits
against a knight with a 4++, 43.12 hits
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 42.63 hits

So this is the stats for one-turn killing a knight with any weapon of S7+, damage 1-6, any AP.

Again, no old versus new so we can see. Also, why didn't you run S8 AP-3 or better single turn as those are proper anti-tank weapons?

I'm not going to refine it further, but you can see that knights will become harder to chip away at (a lot harder to chip away at) and also stay roughly as durable at anti-tank.

In fact, there are 360 combinations in which the 4++ is the best, and 780 in which the Power Field (6) is the best. there are some where it's tied.

If I'm correct some of those 780 results are S1 weapons, with AP0 through -4, D1 through 6, over 1 to 4 turns. So 120 of those results are practically worthless.

In fact, remove the results for which no weapons profile exists, S3 D1d6 for example and I bet we start to see the true nature of our results.

I would call this a fairly good bit of number crunching. Clearly it is different, but not an outright nerf.

You made up S1 AP-4 D6 weapons and called that data and provided no current rules to new rules comparison. This data is less than worthless, it's full of data points that don't exist on the tabletop being used to justify a poorly designed rule.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
As Canadian 5th suggested, I've thrown together a humongous table of data to compare my suggestion with the existing invulnerable save system, to evaluate whether it is better, worse or comparable for a Knight.

I have calculated the amount of hits needed (as the BS is irrelevant in this comparison, as it doesn't change) to kill a knight in the following scenarios:

S1-10, with AP 0 to -4, with average damage 1-6, over 1-4 turns, for a total of 1200 different results.

Useful data, in a proposed rules thread... My good sir, are you certain about this?

You left me no choice, good sir!

This basically gives its chances against any massed weapon spammed enough to kill it.

The average of all of these (which is just for an idea of the implications) were as follows:

against a knight with a 5++, 70.7 hits needed to kill it
against a knight with a 4++, 81.9 hits to kill it
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 105.3 wounds to kill it.

I'm not sure this test holds a ton of value as you generally don't fire literally everything at a Knight, but that's fine. What were the values like using the current rules so we can have a fair comparison?

The first 2 are that of a knight, as it is now, with no changes - one with a 5++ and the other with a 4++, as I gather this is a relic.

this is of course an average and includes S1 weapons, which aren't really for knights. Let's look at the figures for S7+ weapons:

against a knight with a 5++, 37.24 hits
against a knight with a 4++, 43.12 hits
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 55.42 hits

Again, I'd like to see the side by side old system versus new. I also don't think mashing together averages works for this sort of data set.
[/quote
That is the old & new side by side - they all are.
[quote[

again, new suggestion coming out on top.

In fact, this is because the knights become harder to deal with if you don't kill them in one turn, what with the regenerating power fields. so now I'll do S7+ and 1 turn only:

against a knight with a 5++, 37.24 hits
against a knight with a 4++, 43.12 hits
against a knight with no invuln but a power field (6), 42.63 hits

So this is the stats for one-turn killing a knight with any weapon of S7+, damage 1-6, any AP.

Again, no old versus new so we can see. Also, why didn't you run S8 AP-3 or better single turn as those are proper anti-tank weapons?

I was running anything of S7+, as you said plasma are the best. I can refine by AP as well, but the more refined you go, the more we skew the results by only considering how the unit is affected by a single data set - armies with massed S6 and no plasmaguns don't care htat a knight can be taken down with plasmaguns, after all.

I'm not going to refine it further, but you can see that knights will become harder to chip away at (a lot harder to chip away at) and also stay roughly as durable at anti-tank.

In fact, there are 360 combinations in which the 4++ is the best, and 780 in which the Power Field (6) is the best. there are some where it's tied.

If I'm correct some of those 780 results are S1 weapons, with AP0 through -4, D1 through 6, over 1 to 4 turns. So 120 of those results are practically worthless.

In fact, remove the results for which no weapons profile exists, S3 D1d6 for example and I bet we start to see the true nature of our results.

I would call this a fairly good bit of number crunching. Clearly it is different, but not an outright nerf.

You made up S1 AP-4 D6 weapons and called that data and provided no current rules to new rules comparison. This data is less than worthless, it's full of data points that don't exist on the tabletop being used to justify a poorly designed rule.

Sorry it's not up to your high standards. If you could quickly show me where to find:
1:what weapon profiles exist
2: the average number of these weapons in each army list
3: the average faction for each list in each game played in 8th

so that I can work out what an exactly average army list looks like, then I can give you some more accurate numbers.

the numbers you want are impossible. however, as my data system gives an average for any possible weapon, and applies this in a comparable way, it is better than establishing whether or not something dies to dark angels spamming rerollable overcharging plasma weapons. It may not be an exact metric of how survivable a unit is, but as it compares every possible weapon which can be fired at it, it does give a comparison between 2 different sets of rules.

I have attached a comparison of terminators for your perusal in a box-plot. This shows that, on a spread of all possible weapons, terminators gain durability when they have a Power Field (3). I've removed an outlier or 2 so the graph is viewable - it takes 180 shots form S1AP0dam1 to kill one of these.

The Y-axis is number of hits needed to kill in one turn, as it would be impractical to compare all the data at once.

You asked for data. At least act like you care when people give it to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I ran, as you requested, the numbers for:

A Knight with a 5++
A Knight with a 4++
A Knight with PF 6
A Knight with PF12

against anything S7 or higher and AP-2 or better, based on killing in one turn only. The results are attached - PF6 is comparable to a 5++. PF12 is a bit worse than a 4++, but that's just for 1 turn. I will rejig to show the effects of taking 2 turns to kill, and reply shortly.

 some bloke wrote:
The first 2 are that of a knight, as it is now, with no changes - one with a 5++ and the other with a 4++, as I gather this is a relic.

Now that it's pointed out I see it all clear as day. Forgive my just waking up brain for the embarrassing flub earlier.

I'll get to the rest tomorrow as I want to respond to your effort with a proper effort of my own.

@Some bloke:
So now that we're this far into the discussion, where do you stand on making this mechanic a forcefields-only sort of thing? I still feel like the current invul rules work better for things like wyches, harlequins, and daemons, but I do think your proposal could work well for many of the "force fields" in the game.

Wyldhunt wrote:
@Some bloke:
So now that we're this far into the discussion, where do you stand on making this mechanic a forcefields-only sort of thing? I still feel like the current invul rules work better for things like wyches, harlequins, and daemons, but I do think your proposal could work well for many of the "force fields" in the game.

I am leaning towards this hybrid. I think it would give a good feel to the game to have one style of save which is truly invulnerable and always there, and another which is aspired invulnerable, and is fundamentally different.

So units which dodge things would have invuln saves. Units with forcefields would have power fields. Units like Daemons could have both - tzeench focusing on the save, nurgle focusing on the field, to give 2 flavours of improved defence. One needs luck, the other concentrated firepower.

 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.

These suggestions aren't broken enough yet. I propose the following:

Each subsequent level of the invulnerability reflects 1 MW back on the attacking unit AND reduces their damage starting at the same 1, but adding a caveat that the Invulnerable also confers a wound regeneration system that depends on the invulnerable save.

So, here we go:

6++ reduces D by 1, reflects 1 MW back and heals 1 W on a 6+
5++ reduces D by 2, reflects 1 MW back and heals 1 W on a 5+
4++ reduces D by 3, reflects 1 MW back and heals 1 W on a 4+
3++ reduces D by 4, reflects 1 MW back and heals 1 W on a 3+
2++ reduces D by 5, reflects 1 MW back and heals 1 W on a 2+

FNP could also add a CP generation ability based upon the same roll.

Canadian 5th wrote:It's tough to give feedback or test a rule when the posters won't do the bare minimum of work to make their rules testable.

'I can't provide constructive feedback, so I have no choice but to be an donkey-cave instead'

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Boohoo play a different game if you don't want to deal with dice.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
No, if your whining like a baby about dice in a dice game then that's on you. Doubly so when you post gak rules

 Canadian 5th wrote:
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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I expect people to have put thought into their ideas before posting on a message board. That is also enlightening for eliminating bad ideas before others find out you had them.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'm sure glad I'll never need to play using those terrible rules.

Go find another thread to troll.

Anyways, OP, I like the idea as it reminds me of the blast marker system used in Epic and BFG. However, with 40K currently already favoring alpha strikes, you are proposing a mechanic which further incentivizes alpha-striking to delete a unit in one go so that you only have to chew through those extra invuln wounds once. The meta generally revolves around focus-firing the biggest threats to take them out in a single turn; if you can't kill a Knight in one turn you are generally considered unprepared to handle Knights.

Keep in mind also that abilities like this do not scale linearly with the size of the game, because the ability to alpha-strike increases as the game size increases. The smaller the game, the harder it is to kill something like a Knight in one turn, which correspondingly increases the utility of that defensive buff. It's the same issue you see with Necron Reanimation Protocols, where it's basically worthless at 2k+ but can be real nasty in smaller games.

 catbarf wrote:
Anyways, OP, I like the idea as it reminds me of the blast marker system used in Epic and BFG. However, with 40K currently already favoring alpha strikes, you are proposing a mechanic which further incentivizes alpha-striking to delete a unit in one go so that you only have to chew through those extra invuln wounds once. The meta generally revolves around focus-firing the biggest threats to take them out in a single turn; if you can't kill a Knight in one turn you are generally considered unprepared to handle Knights.

Isn't this exactly what the math I did up thread already showed? I even suggested to the OP that he should focus primarily on durability against anti-tank weapons and first turn alpha strikes, which is exactly what you're saying here as if it were something new. The worst part is, as you explain below is that this entire project cannot work because it doesn't and cannot scale. If the OP had done the math earlier he would have seen this issue and saved himself a thread.

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...