PDA

View Full Version : Doesn't FNP repesent force fields better than an inv sv does?



OgreBattle
19-08-2012, 04:28
It is an additional layer of protection, beyond the armor you're wearing.
It stops power weapons
It shorts out against overwhelming attacks.

If anything, I'd use this to represent a forcefield effect over an inv sv. Just imagine all of your current forcefield equiped IC's getting FNP instead, doesn't it feel more 'right'?

Kakapo42
19-08-2012, 04:50
Not really.

Forcefields, to me at least, work on the same principles as armour does (i.e. deflecting or stopping attacks before they cause too much damage), the difference being that they're energy-based rather than physical. I think the current invulnerable save reflects this quite well, as it's basically an armour save that's always in effect, and the potential for failure represents it being overwhelmed (I'd imagine 12 dozen laser beams/plasma blasts/explosive shells/volleys of bullets/acid globs/lightning bolts/whatever all at once would have a fair chance of overloading most personal shields).

Also, invulnerable saves don't just represent forcefields. They also represent other defences, such as fantastically quick reflexes (the dodge saves I believe DE Wyches get in close combat) or attacks simply passing straight through a target that isn't quite there (daemon invulnerable saves).

I also believe inv. saves work against power weapons as well, although I may be wrong.

Perth
19-08-2012, 04:53
A better question would be why guardsmen take off their flak armor when they are behind cover.

OgreBattle
19-08-2012, 04:53
Also, invulnerable saves don't just represent forcefields.

Yeah, that's why I specifically mentioned force fields, because Inv sv's representing dodging already fits properly.

RaShondala
19-08-2012, 05:02
Feel No Pain.

A forcefield doesn't stop you from feeling pain. It stops hits from getting that far to begin with, though the times it shorts out accounts for the errors and potency of it. Feel No Pain seems more like the IC in question is drunk.

OgreBattle
19-08-2012, 10:50
Feel No Pain.

A forcefield doesn't stop you from feeling pain. It stops hits from getting that far to begin with, though the times it shorts out accounts for the errors and potency of it. Feel No Pain seems more like the IC in question is drunk.
the idea is to look at the mechanical effect, then apply the fluff to it.

A.T.
19-08-2012, 11:25
If anything, I'd use this to represent a forcefield effect over an inv sv. Just imagine all of your current forcefield equiped IC's getting FNP instead, doesn't it feel more 'right'?Why would a priests rosarius short out more easily than a chaplains?

You'd need a 2-part FnP with save followed by effective toughness. You'd also have the balance issue of giving many characters double saves as it stands.

Xandros
19-08-2012, 11:29
In short: Been there, done that; Didn't work.

In 2nd edition you could stack saves, having multiple forcefields and armour, and maybe other defenses too. There wasn't even a cover save at the time. Problem was that it very much skewed the game towards characters and other things with multiple saves. In todays game it would be far worse.

And that's exactly the same as replacing force field mechanics with feel no pain, except why wouldn't it be the same for cover as well? It's a slippery slippery slope at the bottom of which is only more icky goo.

It would actually be a good mechanic though to have sufficiently powerful ignore coversaves or forcefields/ invulnerable saves. I feel it's more pertinent for cover though. It would be good to have a mechanic for punching through cover.

Andy089
19-08-2012, 11:56
The problem is...once you start going down this road, there only thing that's waiting is a huge bucket of dice.
Or lots of special rules that ignore cover and/or armor and/or invulnerable saves and/or FnP etc.

Think of it: Ideally you would get your cover save, as the bullet (or whatever is coming at you) has to penetrate anything in front of you, then you'd get armor and invulnerable saves (again - ideally your armor would wear so that has to be taken into account as well), then you get any FnP rolls. 5+ cover, 3+ armor, 4+invulnerable save (SM captain) From every wound only 0.139 shots actually harm him.
So either you give your weapons some rule to overcome this (higher AP, ignores armor, ignores cover, no invul. saves allowed, instant death, etc) or you make a bolter fire more shots. 3 times the shots should do. But then you would also have to consider them running out of ammo, changing magazines etc. (the latter could be included in the weapon type - i.e. rapid fire weapons are faster to reload than assault weapons).
Now a 10man squad would shoot 60 times (rapid fire n stuff), that is a lot of die you have to bring for a game.
And don't get me started on Termagants or a Leman Russ Punisher....


HOWEVER I think for a skirmish game with only a few models this would be a pretty good idea! You get all your saves, but if you *just* pass your armor save it's wrecked and you can't take any more armor saves. If you *just* made a cover save, that wall you were hiding behind is now gone, so you don't get your cover save. And maybe you'd want to include something that your force field generator just stopped working after taking a serious hit...

Haravikk
19-08-2012, 12:09
I think the current mechanism works okay, though I do agree it feels a lot more like fantasy's armour + Ward Save (or Regeneration) setup where the saves stack. But then in fantasy armour can be nullified by strength bonuses so it works pretty well as a ward save is often the only save you get against threatening attacks, and just a safety net the rest of the time.

I do think that 40k could do with some further differentiation; I wouldn't want the full range of modifiers on armour for example, but weapons that are close to the right AP value should really inflict some kind of modifier, as the current binary behaviour, though simple, is a bit inflexible.


Looking at purely in terms of gameplay mechanics, Feel No Pain is more like fantasy's regeneration; the model has suffered a wound, but simply shrugged it off as minor. Whereas armour, forcefields, cover etc. are all about avoiding injury in the first place, so I think invulnerable saves are a fair enough fit; they're just armour that works against more things.

What would be nicer to see would be better forcefield invulnerable saves, but some limit to how much damage they can absorb each turn. A bit like void shields (since they surely work in a similar way), where they take to recharge after absorbing/deflecting damage. E.g - a forcefield invulnerable save might be 3+, but it only works against one hit per phase, something like that.

In fact, I was a bit surprised not to see some special rules for implementing things like that more easily. At the very least you'd think a combat only Dodge save would have made it into the universal special rules.

Mr Zoat
19-08-2012, 12:10
In short: Been there, done that; Didn't work.

In 2nd edition you could stack saves, having multiple forcefields and armour, and maybe other defenses too. There wasn't even a cover save at the time. Problem was that it very much skewed the game towards characters and other things with multiple saves. In todays game it would be far worse.

You could NOT stack force field saves in 2nd edition at any point.


A model can have only one energy field activated at a time

There was even a list in White Dwarf clarifying what counted as a energy field, though the only people it really affected were Eldar Farseers. You could combine it with armour, though that wasn't any more complicated than FNP is now.

Beppo1234
19-08-2012, 12:29
There wasn't even a cover save at the time.

There were hit modifiers though

OgreBattle
19-08-2012, 17:39
The problem is...once you start going down this road, there only thing that's waiting is a huge bucket of dice.
Or lots of special rules that ignore cover and/or armor and/or invulnerable saves and/or FnP etc.


It's kind of odd the way they've gone about these different bits.

dodging? Well, that's what weaponskill is suppose to do
feel no pain? having high toughness, or some claus like 'poison weapons are 1 step worse' so dark eldar wound on a 5+

Khorneguy
19-08-2012, 17:53
what you've got to remember is that inv. saves stop instant death hits as well, which is what forcefields are designed for - stopping high powered hits from hurting you.

The current mechanic works quite well, why nit pick about it?

Andy089
19-08-2012, 18:19
as fair as I know cover saves used to modify the Ballistic skills of shooters. That sounds like a good idea. And I think similar to hull points on vehicles armor should wear. So that, as I said above, if you *just* make that armor save, you can't take another one. And you always get an invulnerable save additionally - that wouldn't be too bad and would make the whole thing a bit more realistic.
But then how do you use multiple invulnerable saves? Perhaps you could rewrite things like storm shields to give an invulnerable save but can't be destroyed or something like that. Countless possibilities =D

Askari
19-08-2012, 18:45
Ideally, I'd have them work like Titan Void Shields - i.e. they stop the first few hits from doing anything but then they need to recharge, and that's when you're in trouble. It would also open up the tactic of using small arms like Lasguns to strip forcefields before firing the Lascannon.

But, as has been said, this is far too detailed for such a level of game.

Still Standing
19-08-2012, 19:54
It is an additional layer of protection, beyond the armor you're wearing.
It stops power weapons
It shorts out against overwhelming attacks.

If anything, I'd use this to represent a forcefield effect over an inv sv. Just imagine all of your current forcefield equiped IC's getting FNP instead, doesn't it feel more 'right'?

I'd go with that so long as when I hit you with a laser weapon you place the large template over the model to represent the small nuclear explosion...



Ideally, I'd have them work like Titan Void Shields - i.e. they stop the first few hits from doing anything but then they need to recharge, and that's when you're in trouble. It would also open up the tactic of using small arms like Lasguns to strip forcefields before firing the Lascannon.

But, as has been said, this is far too detailed for such a level of game.

It's not too complex, it already works in Apoc. I shoot Autocannons at Void Shields to strip them, then strike with the dedicate antitank / Titan weapons.

Askari
19-08-2012, 20:05
It's not too complex, it already works in Apoc. I shoot Autocannons at Void Shields to strip them, then strike with the dedicate antitank / Titan weapons.

You don't have multiple squads of 10 Titans. (If you do, you have far too much disposable income) Do you want to keep count of which of a 10-man Storm Shield Terminator Squad's shields are down? I don't.

Still Standing
19-08-2012, 20:21
You don't have multiple squads of 10 Titans. (If you do, you have far too much disposable income) Do you want to keep count of which of a 10-man Storm Shield Terminator Squad's shields are down? I don't.

Doesnt seem any different to keeping track of wounds on nob or Paladin squads.

Askari
19-08-2012, 20:24
Doesnt seem any different to keeping track of wounds on nob or Paladin squads.

I imagine it would be, Nobs and Paladins don't 'recharge' some wounds every turn, void-shield Inv. saves would.

The_Klobb_Maniac
19-08-2012, 21:33
Personally, I'm unsure where I think in the general sense of the where the thread is going. A friend was talking about how wyches should be WS5 because of their fluff, but IMO they already have 2-3 attacks, a dodge save, and I6. They go about different ways to represent similar things.

The problem with simplifying things is that we'll get a more symmetrical game style; I.E. wyches may end up feeling exactly like banshees or something. The problem with the way it is is that units represent the same thing in different ways:
-Some get FnP, some get higher Toughness values, some get a better save, some get an invulnerable
-Some get WS, some get attacks, some get initiative, some get extra saves or improved saves, etc..

I imagine they could probably simplify the rules overhead if they dropped a metric or two and then could fit in complexity elsewhere, like armor modifying, cover doubling up with your armor, etc...

Also, personally I feel the FnP rule is far too over-used and often for the wrong reasons. I think it should be limited to one type of fluff justification and stick with it. As it is it's a mix of being:
-part cyborg
-really tough
-invigorated (or crazy)
-Medics/drugs
-etc..

but there's justification for FnP almost everywhere when you include all of that. Why don't Necrons have FnP as they.. definitely don't feel pain. Orks? they shrug off pain too! Hell, let's look at "crazy bloodlust" and argue that Orks, Berzerkers, Noise Marines, etc.. don't have that.

Why on earth does it make any more sense for blood angels or plague marines or wyches to have FnP when their justifications are all lined up with units that don't have the same rule?


Meh? I like that the game feels diverse, but I wish on this front they were more consistent.

Sekhmet
20-08-2012, 06:06
I imagine it would be, Nobs and Paladins don't 'recharge' some wounds every turn, void-shield Inv. saves would.

Perhaps a "clix"-like system, where you can rotate the base to keep track of information like wounds, etc.

Vaktathi
20-08-2012, 06:28
And this is all way more detail than the game really needs. We already have more models on a 6x4 board than games played at scales many times smaller, I see 40k boards with more visible infantry and tanks than a Flames of War Soviet Battalion would on the same table where infantry are only marginally bigger than bolters.

And in many ways this is 40k's problem. It spends a whole lot of time with micro-level mechanics more suited to games with 10 models than 60/80/100+.

Sekhmet
20-08-2012, 07:16
And this is all way more detail than the game really needs. We already have more models on a 6x4 board than games played at scales many times smaller, I see 40k boards with more visible infantry and tanks than a Flames of War Soviet Battalion would on the same table where infantry are only marginally bigger than bolters.

And in many ways this is 40k's problem. It spends a whole lot of time with micro-level mechanics more suited to games with 10 models than 60/80/100+.

Do you think this is 40k's problem, or do you think it's players who always want to take all their goodies? I saw this when the tournament standard went from 1500 to 1750 to 1850 to 2000 to 2500. I still like 1500 because it seems to be the most balanced, has fewer models on the table (more room to maneuver), and people have to make choices for their list and can't just take 3 of everything. The ratio of time spent on the game also favors less wasted time just shuffling models around and lets you get to other parts of playing the game. I also saw this when codexs started to drop the point cost of many things, making me wish the standard sized game was closer to 1000-1300 pts.

I think 40k's level of detail is suited for maybe 50 models on average per side (I'd say a good generic army would be 2x10 marines in rhinos, 5 terminators, 10 devastators, a captain with 5-man retinue and razorback, and a few land speeders... this was off the top of my head, but I think this comes out to around 1500 pts actually). Orks have way more, deathwing have way less, the average being maybe vanilla marines.

Vaktathi
20-08-2012, 07:54
Part of the problem is that today's 1500 is yesteryear's 2000 and 2nd ed's 3000 (or more). Even at relatively stable points values model size has gone up. There are many reasons for this, some good (often grunts were overcosted in the past, like guardsmen and basic orks), some bad (more WTFPWN units come out, others need to be re-adjusted lower to compensate), but nevertheless armies can buy more stuff at 1500 than they could in 3rd or 4th and are positively gigantic next to 2nd edition armies.

I just looked at the 2E IG book's sample 1500pt list, costing it out at current levels it's a hair over 900pts and it's wargear light and over half the points in character units with like 4 or 5 heavy weapons. Approximating my 5E 2K IG tournament list as best I could (since valks were FW flyers back then) back to 3E points levels it's over 3000pts.


The other issue is that there's 40k has always had some sort of emphasis, and in 6th a heavily reinforced emphasis, on characters, meaning every bit of detail had to be wrangled out of them. In many cases 40k characters have more detail and special rules than games much smaller, and the core game mechanics have now reinforced that further with challenges, warlord abilities, look out sir, etc. Then we've got legions of grunts, tanks, MC's, aircraft, etc that also come into play that use much the same system but really operate typically at a more abstract level. It's trying to be both a skirmish game and a company level wargame at the same time. And that's a problem in many respects, as we end up with this constant tug of war between this two expressed in many ways (e.g. dozens of awkward special rules conveying many highly similar but differentiated abilities that often make a huge difference one some levels and relatively little on others, vehicle rules that change radically every edition with GW not quite sure what role they want vehicles to play and what exactly they want them to do while general infantry rules remain largely unchanged, etc). We then get issues where we've got individual characters that cost routinely cost between 200 and 300pts while the average human soldier is worth so little that many don't think 5pts is low enough and the granularity between costing differences at that point means even a 1-2pt difference suddenly means you can field several several dozen more models over the size of an army.

So basically we've got this twofold issue of a game that has been expanding at two different levels (both in average points size and what those points buy) while also trying to play at two different levels (skirmish and company) at the same time.

Haravikk
20-08-2012, 11:33
Medics/drugs
Personally I find medics a bit of weird one; it's not exactly standard practise to dope up all your soldiers on painkillers unless they really need it. Besides which what would a Space Marine Apothecary be doing exactly? The Space Marines themselves have all the genetic enhancements that allow them to heal quickly, withstand pain etc. For these types of models it's a bit silly that they grant Feel No Pain all the time, it would make more sense for them to give say Feel No Pain and It Will Not Die (for characters in the squad) but only during the enemy Shooting phase, as in close combat the medic is going to be too busy defending themselves to do anything, but during other phases they could at least be removing bullets etc. where possible, bandaging/cauterising and so-on.

El_Machinae
21-08-2012, 12:15
Ideally, I'd have them work like Titan Void Shields - i.e. they stop the first few hits from doing anything but then they need to recharge, and that's when you're in trouble. It would also open up the tactic of using small arms like Lasguns to strip forcefields before firing the Lascannon.


That's basically what LoS! is :D