[Gatler]

First off; yes, this completely breaks the points system on a scale of about 11/10. Yes, everything will have to be rebalanced. But after reading about these rumoured 'ramming' rules (which would allow tanks that can't break 40 km/h on an open road to cause as much damage as a Krak missile to other vehicles), I've become rather fed up with all the bullshit.

First things you need to understand;
1. This is the future. One of the weakest weapons in Warhammer 40K will blow football-sized holes in you. Boltguns will splatter you. Pulse rifles will leave nothing more substantial of you than a fine red mist.
2. Appropriately, waving a glorified chainsaw in front of a guy with a lasgun is going to get you killed unless you're wearing some pretty substantial armour and/or can dodge laser beams moving at a modest three hundred million metres per second at a staggering range of 3-10 metres.
2b. For that matter, why bother with the chainsword at all when you can have your own lasgun in a pistol format?
3. If he emptied his clip into you, and you're still coming at him, his bayonet isn't going to hurt you, either.

So, here's my rules, in no particular order:

Turn Sequence
New phase: Melee Phase. This will replace the Assault Phase, which will now be used to represent close-ranged gunfights with pistols and the like.

Movement
No significant changes to how it works. It may be sacrificed in favour of a second Shooting Phase.

Shooting
May be traded for a second Movement Phase. To remain useful, Fleet will confer an additional D6" to any one Movement.

Shooting is resolved as per normal until we roll to hit. After this;
1. If target is a Monstrous Creature, roll to wound. Otherwise, skip this step and go directly to Step 2.
1b. If the MC is wounded, roll on the Vehicle Damage table and apply results accordingly.
2. Roll any applicable saves. Saves are cumulative. For example; a Space Marine Captain is alone in some poor cover (for whatever bizarre reason you can conjure) He is shot (unsurprisingly). He rolls his cover save, and fails. He rolls his invulnerable save, and also fails. He then rolls his armour save, and passes, eliciting a brief sigh of relief. He resumes kicking alien ass.
Saves are taken in the following order; Cover, Invulnerable, Armour/other

Assault
Pistol- and Assault- type weapons change their characteristics at ranges under 12" as follows;
- Rather than using their regular statistics to determine how many attacks are resolved, use the Attacks characteristic of the model using them.
- They may re-roll failed to-hit rolls.
Other weaponry may be used as normal. However, a model attempting to fire a weapon with a small or large blast template must first pass a Leadership test to do so.

Heavy weapons may not be fired during the Assault Phase. Assault- and Pistol- type weapons must not have been fired during the Shooting Phase if they are to be used during the Assault Phase.

Melee
Models that are not explicitly stated to have close combat weapons will not gain additional attacks for charging. (Seriously, what are they going to do, bite them?)
Models armed with power weapons need not roll to wound in close combat.

Vehicles
Tank Shock: Infantry targeted by a Tank Shock by a vehicle more than 6" away must Fall Back. They may fire any weapons that do not require them to be still at the tank. (Note that some vehicles may choose to tank shock with their Side or even Rear armour arcs)

Vehicles and Close-Combat; models not armed with power weapons or grenades of some sort may not harm a vehicle in close combat unless specified otherwise (Tyranid Warriors, or some other appropriately powerful creature that's not quite Monstrous, for example). Models armed with bombs, grenades, charges, etc. may resolve *one* attack against the vehicle per turn during the Melee Phase.

Monstrous Creatures
Monstrous Creatures roll two dice for Armour Penetration and select the highest roll.
Monstrous Creatures are immune to Instant Death.
Monstrous Creatures do not benefit from cover for the purposes of Assault and Melee, unless armed with Flesh Hooks and the like.

[hr]

Alright, its a mess, but hopefully some of you can wade through it and help me tighten it up. Thanks in advance for your comments and complaints. ;D

[Max Smirnov]

Well, while proposing such fundamental changes, you could have written some explanation and reasoning behind each change. I also do not see any particular direction where those new rules are supposed to take us, other than 'nerf the melee' and 'empower the tanks' (the rule that scraps 'Death or Glory!' is a step backwards from the realism). Maybe because I'm blind, maybe not.
Perhaps the greatest thing about WH40K is that it happily ignores the reality in regards of the close combat, and lets us fight ludicrous sword battles. Without that, it would be just another game like 'Starship Troopers' or 'AT-43', and probably not as good as them.
I'm not criticizing your rules (except that one with the tank running over you), it's too soon. I'm just challenging you to provide some reasoning, and stating the direction you want to take the game in. All what you have provided so far, are those points 1-3, which are, frankly speaking, obvious to any decently educated 15-years old. I'd like to hear more.

There is one rule I like - using the Attacks statistic for firing pistols in assault. This is a smart rule.
The not so smart rule is allowing to take multiple saves. If you have a power armour, a bunch of trees isn't going to help you any further, etc - we could dwell into that if you wish.

[Gatler]

Originally Posted by Max Smirnov

Well, while proposing such fundamental changes, you could have written some explanation and reasoning behind each change. I also do not see any particular direction where those new rules are supposed to take us, other than 'nerf the melee' and 'empower the tanks' (the rule that scraps 'Death or Glory!' is a step backwards from the realism). Maybe because I'm blind, maybe not.

It's not so much 'nerf the melee' as it is 'inject some semblance of reality'. People use guns for a reason. Having lots of armour isn't really much of an excuse to go on a rampage with a chainsaw sword in a combat scenario. Of course, it's entertaining, so we won't make it as cripplingly ineffective as it probably should be.

I 'empower the tanks' because tanks are powerful in real life. Bringing in a tank is doom for infantry that aren't equipped to deal with them. Sure, we have some element of that, but it's not strong enough. As it stands, a bunch of 'gaunts can waltz around the back of the tank, rip off something shiny, and happily be on their way.

I did not totally get rid of Death or Glory. In fact, you can get extra shooting in at the tank if it Shocks you now. Any models that can fire on the move may fire at the tank before they Fall Back. The problem with Death or Glory was that you can supposedly do it to a Hammerhead buzzing in at a leisurely pace of 60 km/h, or a Falcon pushing 300 km/h...

I might allow it with an Initiative test. What do you think of that?

A note on vehicles: they are considered to be moving in the direction of their displacement for the turn unless specified otherwise in the rules. This means that you may have to risk exposing your side armour to cross a clearing, even though you ended your turn with your front armour pointed at the enemy. This should put an end to Leman Russes power-sliding across the battlefield; as cool as it would be, they just can't do it. :P

Some vehicles (Devilfish and Valkyries, for example) will be allowed to Strafe and this will not apply to them.

Perhaps the greatest thing about WH40K is that it happily ignores the reality in regards of the close combat, and lets us fight ludicrous sword battles. Without that, it would be just another game like 'Starship Troopers' or 'AT-43', and probably not as good as them.

Yeah sure. That's cool. It's when they deliberately slant the game towards this lunacy that I get annoyed. A 60-ton Leman Russ plodding along at a staggering 10 km/h is not going to seriously damage another vehicle even if it outright runs it over, not with the sort of punishment we know they can absorb already.

And Sentinels... how the hell do they even hit things in melee? :huh:

I'm not criticizing your rules (except that one with the tank running over you), it's too soon. I'm just challenging you to provide some reasoning, and stating the direction you want to take the game in.

Ah, of course. It was kind of late when I wrote this originally, and I was kind of tired. Pretty much, I'd like to see a game that plays a little more like modern combat where shooting is important, but I don't want to do away with melee in it's entirety, either. It should still be at least marginally effective.

And I believe this is doable without breaking everything, too.

All what you have provided so far, are those points 1-3, which are, frankly speaking, obvious to any decently educated 15-years old. I'd like to hear more.

That's the point. While they may be obvious, the trouble is that most people seem to be either willing to ignore them or simply too stupid to notice.

There is one rule I like - using the Attacks statistic for firing pistols in assault. This is a smart rule.

Thanks.

The not so smart rule is allowing to take multiple saves. If you have a power armour, a bunch of trees isn't going to help you any further, etc - we could dwell into that if you wish.

Well let's dwell then. I see cover as being a little more abstract than *bounce off bush lol*.

Rather, I could be ordered to shoot you, but unable to find you to take the shot. That's how I see it. Or if you're in a bunker, I missed and hit it instead.

[hr]

I will also include a rule that allows you to target blatantly different models separately if they are the closest model in the unit and the unit is not in cover. Whether a model is considered to be "blatantly different" or not would be specified in their entry.

A change to the Assault Phase; rather than all shots re-rolling to-hit, all to-hit rolls have +1 added to the result. The un-modified result is still used for Gets Hot! and the like.

Actually, the Assault Phase needs a little expansion, since it's a bit like a shooting version of the Assault Phase that everybody's used to. I'll get to that in a bit.

[Gatler]

The Assault Phase

Who can fight?
Any model armed with a non-Heavy-type ranged weapon may fight in the Assault Phase. Models that fired Heavy-type weapons in the Shooting Phase may not attack unless they are armed with a pistol, as they do not have time to ready any other weapons. They must use only their pistol and will not gain any bonus attacks for having more than one pistol.
[hr]
[hr]
Beginning Assault
First, a target unit must be selected that is within 12" and is not engaged in a Melee with another unit.
[hr]
Following this, attacks are resolved in Initiative order; the model with the highest Initiative will go first, second highest will go afterward, and so on. Attacks that come from models with the same initiative are considered to occur simultaneously, but in the first turn of Assault the unit that initiated the Assault has the advantage; any attacks from his models that would be resolved simultaneously are resolved before the opponent's.

So, for example, a loyalist Infantry Squad engages a traitor Infantry Squad. All models share the same Initiative, but the loyalists initiated the Assault in this turn; they will strike first. In the following turn, both units strike simultaneously.
[hr]
[hr]
Models With Multiple Assault Weapons
Models armed with at least two Pistols gain an additional attack, and may split their attacks between any two pistols.
[hr]
[hr]
Models With Template Weapons
Models armed with weapons that use Small or Large Blast templates to determine hits may not use them; the risk of friendly fire is too great. Models with weapons that use a flamer template may not use them unless they are the closest model to the targeted squad.
[hr]
[hr]
Post-Assault
The side that inflicted the most Wounds (note: not casualties!) wins the Assault. The loser must pass a morale check if they wish to stay in the combat or charge into melee, with modifiers for being below half-strength, etc. If they fail, they may chose to disengage by making an immediate Fall Back move, or become pinned (the Get To Ground rule is in effect here.)

[JBunny]

Please do not take this as an attack or insult.

I really hate it when people want to change the rules to add more reality to a fantasy game. The rules are the way they are for to reasons.

Balance and ease of play. Sorry but your changes in my opinion do neither. It makes shooty armies so much more powerful compared to assault armies. Is there balance right now? Not perfect balance but I think it is alot closer than what you perpose.

I play Blood Angels. Let me clarify. I play Assault heavy Blood Angels with anywhere from 3-4 10 man Assault squads. Against an army geared toward nothing but shooting, I get shot to pieces before I can get into assault range. Giving them an addition round of shooting per turnwould mean I stand no chance of making it to their lines.

I give you the big E for effort but it still needs work. Actually I think the rules in 4th Ed work fine. Sure some things need to be tweaked here and there, but it is a fair set of rules.

[Wargamer]

Funny, but Warhammer is a far more "complex" game than 40K, and yet is at the same time more balanced and as easy (if not easier) to play once you've learned the rules. True, our gaming group does get a lot of "does X do Y or Z when this happens?", but nothing that cannot be solved with 30-seconds of quick chat between us.

Personally, I'd like to see an Epic system in play here; 12" feels too big a gap for close combat to me.

Instead, how about this; models in Base Contact. Resolve the Close Combat. Next, resolve a Firefight involving everyone within 6" (including any Close-Combat guys that survived, so long as they are now no-longer in base contact). Finally, work out which side is making a run for it.

Having a gun might be better than a sword, but when the guy with the sword is right in your face, that gun doesn't look quite as useful.

Likewise, I'd consider removal of 40K's "Assault move" and putting in an Epic-style Assault move; you make up to one normal movement, and then initiate an Assault instead of normal shooting.


You're probably now wondering where the advantage of a Firefight comes in... well, it comes from forcing people back! If you modify the rules to make "normal" shooting causing Pinning Tests instead of Break Tests, then the Assault Phase becomes all-important; you can thump away with rocket launchers all day long, your enemy's not leaivng the bunker until you hurl grenades through the viewslit!


To give another example from a game I'm working on, every model has a "Kill-Zone", representing close-quarters combat. This is typically about 8".

Normal shooting can inflict four levels of injury; it can cause flesh wounds (1 turn penalty to shooting / hand to hand), it can knock people down (can't move), it can knock people out (can't do anything unless someone helps them recover) or it can kill them.

An enemy in the Kill-Zone, however, can be torn apart. For example, no matter how many flesh wounds a model suffers, only one penalty applies (so others are wasted). However, a model that suffers injuries in a Kill-Zone has them upgraded. In other words, if you inflict a Flesh Wound on a model that is Knocked Down, it is automatically upgraded to a Seirous Injury. This represents how much easier it is to place shots up close, or to empty a mag into someone, or even to club them to death with the butt of your rifle.

In short, these rules mean the game revolves around close-quarter combat, without necessarily going into Hand to Hand.

[Gatler]

Originally Posted by JBunny

Please do not take this as an attack or insult.

Hey, remember; I asked for criticism, and welcome it.

I really hate it when people want to change the rules to add more reality to a fantasy game. The rules are the way they are for to reasons.

Balance and ease of play. Sorry but your changes in my opinion do neither. It makes shooty armies so much more powerful compared to assault armies. Is there balance right now? Not perfect balance but I think it is alot closer than what you perpose.

I don't think it makes them unmanageably more powerful.

The way I envision this edition being played is with lots and lots of terrain, which will allow for plenty of close in fire-fights and melees. Open ground is death, as it would be. Really, without a vehicle for protection, charging across it should be suicide, even for Blood Angels.

Games fought in a complex become much more balanced, since both shooty and assaulty armies can be effective in close-quarters now, but armies like Tau will still suffer from their low Initiative.

I play Blood Angels. Let me clarify. I play Assault heavy Blood Angels with anywhere from 3-4 10 man Assault squads. Against an army geared toward nothing but shooting, I get shot to pieces before I can get into assault range. Giving them an addition round of shooting per turnwould mean I stand no chance of making it to their lines.

Ok, I can sympathize with you here. Your Blood Angels would probably have to be made significantly more durable to compensate. Give them FNP or some such.

On the other hand, your close combat abilities are not completely wasted; there is still my new Assault Phase that you can engage in with your bolt pistols; this should be effective.

It can be entirely skipped too; sacrifice your Shooting Phase and you can move twice as fast, *and* assault afterwards. Eldar will get to make an additional 3" move per movement that their troops make, for a potential 18" per turn.

Your Blood Angels jump infantry can theoretically move and assault a unit that is 30" away! All you need to do is survive a single turn of Assault and then charge into Melee. With your Power Armour this shouldn't be all that difficult.

Vehicles will be faster to compensate.

I was going to use something similar to the 5th-ed rumor for managing vehicle damage, so your Rhinos would become much more useful than they are now, I imagine.

So while I have given shooting some serious boosts, I've also allowed for much faster movement. I'd like to think it balances out.

I give you the big E for effort but it still needs work. [...]

Well thanks. Any suggestions for improvement?

[hr]

Originally Posted by Wargamer

Personally, I'd like to see an Epic system in play here; 12" feels too big a gap for close combat to me.

Hmm, perhaps. I just figured that if I put it any shorter it might be too easy to avoid.

It's not so much close-combat as it is like close-*range* combat. Hollywood gunfights, if you will, where your heroes can see each other's faces, but aren't close enough to bother breaking out the chainsaws yet.

Instead, how about this; models in Base Contact. Resolve the Close Combat. Next, resolve a Firefight involving everyone within 6" (including any Close-Combat guys that survived, so long as they are now no-longer in base contact). Finally, work out which side is making a run for it.

Interesting, if I've understood you correctly; we'd resolve Melee attacks for models that are in base contact with each other. Once this is done, we remove casualties, and then resolve attacks for models that have Pistols and Assault weapons that aren't in base contact. We then total casualties/wounds/lollipops/whatever for both sides and resolve the combat.

I think I like that, somewhat.

I'll try both and see which one works better. At the moment I'm not sure.

Having a gun might be better than a sword, but when the guy with the sword is right in your face, that gun doesn't look quite as useful.

Which would you consider more dangerous; a gun pointed at your face, that merely requires your enemy to pull a trigger to kill you, or a sword that must be swung or pulled back and thrust to have a chance of hurting you at all?

It's alot easier to kill with a gun than a sword, no matter the range. But nevertheless, I ignored this so that we could still have our melee without getting interrupted by some tit with a plasma pistol.

Likewise, I'd consider removal of 40K's "Assault move" and putting in an Epic-style Assault move; you make up to one normal movement, and then initiate an Assault instead of normal shooting.

Yeah... that's an idea I could roll with.

You're probably now wondering where the advantage of a Firefight comes in... well, it comes from forcing people back! If you modify the rules to make "normal" shooting causing Pinning Tests instead of Break Tests, then the Assault Phase becomes all-important; you can thump away with rocket launchers all day long, your enemy's not leaivng the bunker until you hurl grenades through the viewslit!

I'm not sure if forcing pinning tests is all that fair. I think giving the opponent the choice to run or hide makes more sense. However, if they can't run, they have to sit still, so there's some element of that. You'd have to flank the bunker and get into a gunfight at the door for it to work, which makes some sense.

[...]In short, these rules mean the game revolves around close-quarter combat, without necessarily going into Hand to Hand.

Pretty much what I was going for, but I still wanted hand-to-hand combat to be useful so as not to alienate the players that prefer it.

[hr]

I'll make some changes and note a few things now, actually;

First, vehicles can trade movement for shooting and vice-versa as well as infantry.

Heavy- and Ordinance-type Weapons

Heavy weapons may only be fired by a stationary model; that is, the model firing them must not have moved at all in that turn. Note that only the model is required not to have moved; they may still fire if the squad moved but the model did not. Heavy weapons may only be fired once per turn; sacrificing moving for an additional shooting phase will not increase the number of attacks from heavy weapons.

Ordinance-type weapons must be stationary to fire. Vehicles may move up to 6" and still fire Ordinance with a -2 penalty to Ballistics Skill. No matter what platform the Ordinance is mounted on, it may not be fired in any additional Shooting Phases.

Crew-served Weapons

Weapon crews can be much more efficient than a single soldier; if the entire weapon crew is in coherency, and fulfills the prerequisite conditions for the weapon to be fired, they may make additional attacks with the rest of the squad.

So, an Imperial Guard Heavy Bolter team (consisting of a gunner and a loader) must both remain stationary and within 2" of each other in order to be used in any additional shooting phases. Obviously, if one of them dies, the weapon is no longer served by a crew, and is henceforth treated as a normal Heavy-type weapon.

[Max Smirnov]

One random thought on the Tank Shock: as far as I see, in your rules you cannot now fire Heavy Weapon at incoming tank. This doesn't seem real at all. If you have a missile launcher, and see a tank running toward you, you're not neccessarily running away screaming and firing your pistol at it. If you're brave/trained (high Ld), you use proper military drill: fire your missile at point-blank range, or wait, jump between the tracks, and put a shaped charge on its engine when it has passed over you. I think the current rules for the tank shock represent it nicely.
If the tank comes at you at great speed, the aforemntioned tactics need more bravery to perform, but work none the less. It is much harder to put a grenade on a fast moving vehicle, but the rule that you hit them on 6+ if moved more than 6", or are Skimmers, represents that nicely.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Lord-General Thunder

Well let's dwell then. I see cover as being a little more abstract than *bounce off bush lol*.

Rather, I could be ordered to shoot you, but unable to find you to take the shot. That's how I see it. Or if you're in a bunker, I missed and hit it instead.

Okay. 'No multiple saves' rule also accounts for the fact, that the soldiers in heavier armour are also more bulky and clumsy, this makes them harder to use the cover. It is rough, but your rule is rough as well. As for the Invulnerable saves, they could take the form of a power field (probably makes you much easier to spot), or exceptional agility (you do not dodge the shots when trying to hide). Invulnerable vs Armour - accounts for the fact, if the shot was lucky enough to get through your armour, the probability that your Invulnerable save has helped you is slim. The main thing though is the gameplay issue. You'll be making a lot of extra throws.

I see your point of view, though. There could be a synergic bonus to the save you're taking provided by other saves (if the weapon that hits you allows for them). Let's say, if you're entitled to another save, that could be used instead the one you're taking, and that save is no more than 1 level worse, you get a +1 synergic bonus to the save you're taking. The best save is always 2+. I'm not so good with that complicated english sentences, so I'll make some examples:
1. Guy 'A' has an armour save of 3+ and an Ivulnerable save of 4+. If wounded by a Bolter, he is allowed a synergic +1 bonus to his Armour Save (since his Invulnerable Save is only 1 level worse), which increases to 2+ then.
2. The same guy is hit by a Melta. Melta ignores his Armour Save so the bonus doesn't apply.
3. The guy is hit by a Melta, but he hiding in bush (6+ Cover). He is not allowed a bonus since the cover is too light to make a difference.
4. But if he was hiding in a building (4+ Cover), the bonus applies (since both saves are on par), and he takes a 3+ save.
5. Guy 'B' has 3+ armour save and 5+ Invulnerable save, and he's in a 4+ Cover. He is hit by a flamer. He is not allowed a bonus to his Armour Save since the cover is ignored by the weapon, and the next save available (Invulnerable) is more than 1 level worse than his armour save.
6. Guy 'C' has 5+ Armour Save, 5+ Invulnerable Save and is hiding in a building (4+ Save). Against a lasgun wound, he gets +2 cumulative bonus to his Cover and gets a 2+ Save...

I hope this is clear now...

[Gatler]

Originally Posted by Max Smirnov

One random thought on the Tank Shock: as far as I see, in your rules you cannot now fire Heavy Weapon at incoming tank. This doesn't seem real at all. If you have a missile launcher, and see a tank running toward you, you're not neccessarily running away screaming and firing your pistol at it. If you're brave/trained (high Ld), you use proper military drill: fire your missile at point-blank range, or wait, jump between the tracks, and put a shaped charge on its engine when it has passed over you. I think the current rules for the tank shock represent it nicely.
If the tank comes at you at great speed, the aforemntioned tactics need more bravery to perform, but work none the less. It is much harder to put a grenade on a fast moving vehicle, but the rule that you hit them on 6+ if moved more than 6", or are Skimmers, represents that nicely.

I suppose. On the other hand, some of these vehicles can get around pretty quick; if they're more than 6" away, I figure they've had time to rev up to a decent speed. Obviously, a big plodding Leman Russ is a bad example of this; I had something more along the lines of a Chimera, Rhino, or Devilfish in mind when I made that rule.

EDIT:

Okay. 'No multiple saves' rule also accounts for the fact, that the soldiers in heavier armour are also more bulky and clumsy, this makes them harder to use the cover. It is rough, but your rule is rough as well. As for the Invulnerable saves, they could take the form of a power field (probably makes you much easier to spot), or exceptional agility (you do not dodge the shots when trying to hide). Invulnerable vs Armour - accounts for the fact, if the shot was lucky enough to get through your armour, the probability that your Invulnerable save has helped you is slim. The main thing though is the gameplay issue. You'll be making a lot of extra throws.

I see your point of view, though. There could be a synergic bonus to the save you're taking provided by other saves (if the weapon that hits you allows for them). Let's say, if you're entitled to another save, that could be used instead the one you're taking, and that save is no more than 1 level worse, you get a +1 synergic bonus to the save you're taking. The best save is always 2+. I'm not so good with that complicated english sentences, so I'll make some examples:
1. Guy 'A' has an armour save of 3+ and an Ivulnerable save of 4+. If wounded by a Bolter, he is allowed a synergic +1 bonus to his Armour Save (since his Invulnerable Save is only 1 level worse), which increases to 2+ then.
2. The same guy is hit by a Melta. Melta ignores his Armour Save so the bonus doesn't apply.
3. The guy is hit by a Melta, but he hiding in bush (6+ Cover). He is not allowed a bonus since the cover is too light to make a difference.
4. But if he was hiding in a building (4+ Cover), the bonus applies (since both saves are on par), and he takes a 3+ save.
5. Guy 'B' has 3+ armour save and 5+ Invulnerable save, and he's in a 4+ Cover. He is hit by a flamer. He is not allowed a bonus to his Armour Save since the cover is ignored by the weapon, and the next save available (Invulnerable) is more than 1 level worse than his armour save.
6. Guy 'C' has 5+ Armour Save, 5+ Invulnerable Save and is hiding in a building (4+ Save). Against a lasgun wound, he gets +2 cumulative bonus to his Cover and gets a 2+ Save...

I hope this is clear now...

Hmm, an interesting idea that occurred to me while I was reading yours; The saves are bonuses. So rather than having a 3+ armour save and a 5+ invulnerable save, you would have some points of armour and some points of invulnerable, which would add up to a 2 or 3+ save when they're all active, or a 5+ when the armour is ignored, etc.

That would necessitate a wider scale for saves, however, which would require everybody to buy D10s or possibly even D20s just for armour saves. Needless to say, that's a tad extreme, I think.

Your idea is interesting, I'll think about it.

Alternatively, we could just go with the current system anyways, remembering to specify that Daemons and the like have Warp saves, and that Psycannons, Incinerators, and their ilk ignore these rather than all invulnerable saves.

[Gatler]

Carnifex, edited to have an appropriately in-context statline;

[table][tr]
[td]Carnifex[/td]
[td]

60 POINTS

[/td]
[/tr][tr][td]
[/td][/tr][tr]
[td][/td]
[/tr][tr]
[td]
[table][tr][td]
[table][tr]
[td][/td]
[td]

WS

[/td]
[td]

BS

[/td]
[td]

S

[/td]
[td]

T

[/td]
[td]

W

[/td]
[td]

I

[/td]
[td]

A

[/td]
[td]

Ld

[/td]
[td]

Sv

[/td]
[/tr][tr]
[td]Carnifex[/td]
[td]

3

[/td]
[td]

1

[/td]
[td]

8

[/td]
[td]

5

[/td]
[td]

4

[/td]
[td]

2

[/td]
[td]

2

[/td]
[td]

7

[/td]
[td]

3+

[/td]
[/tr][/table][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr][tr]
[td]
[table][tr]
[td]
[b]Unit Type[b]

• Infantry

[/td]
[td]
Wargear

• Flesh hooks
• Heavy carapace

Special Rules

• Monstrous Creature
• Feels No Pain
• Synapse Thrall

[/td]
[/tr][/table]
[/td][/tr][/table][/td]
[td]
Options

• blah
• blah
• blah

[/td][/tr][/table]

[hr]

Don't let it's seemingly "low" toughness fool you; it's oodles more durable than say, four Space Marines.

Upgrades like Poison Glands would make it S 8(9), meaning it's Str 9 against everything but vehicles. There'd be another upgrade that'd make it straight Str 9 against everything.

Synapse Thrall let's it use the nearest Synapse Node creature's Ld for tests. Note that Fearlessness is not conveyed through Synapse.