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.

I can't help but always wonder why they seem to make 4+ armor basically pointless in 40K. I mean, I guess I can understand due to their extreme love of SMs, but it seems rather ridiculous. Most decent strength weapons have an AP4, which seems like it was given just so it won't be AP3. I mean, why not just make those things AP5 or less? It seems like AP4 is slapped on so many things without a second thought.
AP4 isn't a big deal for power armor, but it makes things like 'eavy armor on orks pretty pointless, among other things.
I really wish they would even out the armor power levels and make 4+ armor options viable in the game.

Agree. There is very little out there these days that isnt at the VERY least AP4. There is also WAYYYYYYY to much AP2...

Given that 3+ saves aren't getting the job done anymore, I'd say 4+ saves are in the same boat. The saving grace is that you are probably paying less per wound, so you lose less when your armor is ignored.

My only real experience with 4+ armor has been with imperial guard storm troopers and veterans. I always felt the 4+ armor was over priced because you rarely get a save, and even when you do get a save, you fail 50% of the time.

Its really an issue with the armor save system in general. Look at 5+ and 6+. You basically never get to make a 5+ or 6+ save, and when you do have the chance it will hardly make a difference.

I run dark eldar. It's a very. rare day when I get to take an armour save. Cover was usually my saving grace, but even those aren't guaranteed.

In a rush to have more models on the table they've been steadily increasing the power level so that you feel like you've been making progress in killing the opponent.

I've had the opposite experience. My fire warriors have always felt downright tanky with their 4+. I guess it's because I'm normally fighting against marines of some kind though so I actually get to make my saves the majority of the time.

In fairness they're resistant to boltguns, the most common and one of the deadliest basic guns in the game.. And against all other basic infantry guns they still have a 50/50 chance of living so, I don't see why people are complaining.

This is from a Guard Grenadier Veteran player here.

Armor saves seem to be pointless in general these days, its all about the cover and low invul saves now.

I do agree with the point that armor in general seems to be pointless nowadays. The old mechanic of weapons reducing your save by a set amount makes much more sense.
It goes in the same boat of how outright ignoring cover is stupid; there should be a modifier.

However, I don't ever rely on 3+ saves anymore but at least a lot of the time I get to at least attempt the save. With 4+ it seems to be a very rare day that a chance for a save happens.

As a nid and dark eldar player I would like some of that 4+ goodness.

What you need is cover that isn't completely negated by the two most powerful armies! lol

Do you face an army with bolters, stormbolters, fleshborers, shruicats, splinter rifles, lasguns, pulse rifles, as its main armament? (i.e. any of them)

Then the 4+ is useful.

Even if you are not taking the saves, it is because you have made the enemy use one of its bigger and more expensive guns to kill one of your 4+ save mooks.

Crystal-Maze speaks the truth. In a shootout, cheaper guys with 4+ can even outlast marines.

I concur with all those saying 4+ is great. I'd even go so far as to say it's possibly the best spot to be. The reason for this being that, across most of the weapons in the game, AP5 is the most common AP band, so anything that can take you from no save to a 50% save. 3+ also does this, but you generally pay more per model and therefore lose more to each AP3 or better shot, which will target you more often.

4+ is strong enough to save you damage from small arms, while not being expensive enough that melta/plasma/grav ect get a great return on investment.

OMG. Someone agreed with me about 4+ armor. I usually get shouted down.

My nid warriors love their 4+. If my opponent is firing krak missiles lascannons or anything S8+ at them to double them out he is not shooting them at my big bugs approaching his lines. Its a win win for me.

At least that is the luck I have been having recently with the new dex

 Paradigm wrote:
I concur with all those saying 4+ is great. I'd even go so far as to say it's possibly the best spot to be. The reason for this being that, across most of the weapons in the game, AP5 is the most common AP band, so anything that can take you from no save to a 50% save. 3+ also does this, but you generally pay more per model and therefore lose more to each AP3 or better shot, which will target you more often.

4+ is strong enough to save you damage from small arms, while not being expensive enough that melta/plasma/grav ect get a great return on investment.

+1

Even back in 5th, I honestly never felt much like my marines 3+ was really that much help. Sheer volumn of fire did them in as easily as it did my 4+ and 5+ models.

Toughness is more useful than armor.

Well I am going to take this opportunity to pimp 2nd ed mechanic of armor save modifers

If that's similar to how WFB handles armor I honestly think I prefer that system. Sure I need to do a little basic math, but I roll less dice.

GorillaWarfare wrote:
My only real experience with 4+ armor has been with imperial guard storm troopers and veterans. I always felt the 4+ armor was over priced because you rarely get a save, and even when you do get a save, you fail 50% of the time.

Its really an issue with the armor save system in general. Look at 5+ and 6+. You basically never get to make a 5+ or 6+ save, and when you do have the chance it will hardly make a difference.

Just how I feel with 3+ saves in this edition lately.

4+ saves are easily negated, absolutely. It's more balanced than the molestation 3+ saves have received though, because at least you aren't paying a premium for that 4+ save.

I gotta jump into this one. First off, i am not making a statement here that considers the current state of the game (low ap everywhere/removes cover). Ok I understand every bodies gripes, I got the AP blues to. So here is what I see. Targets with crap armor saves are meant to be in cover. Tactically, you should put your troops in cover, utilize every scrap of terrain, that is the way those troops are designed to be played. The armor save they do get is a last ditch safety measure for when they at caught out of position. If your guard aren't getting a cover save, your doing it wrong.

On a side note, we all have the riptide/interceptor blues. Here is how I fixed 6th. I made terrain. I mean I made TONS of terrain. Not little hills, not craters, I made buildings, lots of damn buildings, some 4 stories tall. LOS is the real deal in our games. Positioning your units tactically, using occlusive angles, mirror movement with ranged threats, the the simple ability to move units without ever presenting a target. This simple fix has made the game so much more enjoyable for almost all of our gamers. The power gamers don't like that we bricked all their brand new WAC toys, but feth them.

By the by, I am a tau player. I use riptides, and I love the fact that he can no longer shoot EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME.

 LordofHats wrote:
If that's similar to how WFB handles armor I honestly think I prefer that system. Sure I need to do a little basic math, but I roll less dice.

Except that back in the days of 2nd ed and the save modifier system, Space Marines where a massive joke and died almost as easily as Guardsmen on a good day...

Remember that back then, S4 was already a -1 modifier, so Marines most of the time had at best a 4+ save, but typically paid double or more the pts of everyone else's similar infantry. But then take really, really deadly stuff like Plasma, (which granted was even deadlier to use back then - yay plasma grenades!), which had additional modifiers on top of the basic Strength modifier!
Marines were actually bottom feeders back then, simply because outside of Terminators (which were heinously expensive!) they were horrendously overcosted and got little to no added benefit for that 3+ save that seriously inflated their points cost.

The system works in Fantasy primarily because;
1. Even so-called 'elite' units tend to be fairly cheap pts-wise. Knights for example who typically sport 2+ or even 1+ saves tend to at most clock in at 30-35'ish pts/model. (only Chaos Knights break this general rule because well, they're freaking Chaos Knights!)
And that's the very top-end stuff like Blood Knights, Dragon Princes & Cold One Knights/Riders. Most knights only cost 21-25'ish or so pts a pop, which keeps them quite viable even with the hard counters out there.
Your common masses of 'basic' units are again, outside of Chaos Warriors, Daemons of Chaos & Ogre Kingdoms typically no more than 11pts/model. Heck, even most elite infantry units tend to only pay 10-16'ish or so pts/model depending on the army in question!

2. The game's most common strength value is S3 which has no modifier. That's not the case in 40k where the most strength is S4 and S5 is plentiful, which means most average attacks are already nailing -1/-2 to saves.
Added to the larger unit sizes in general, and even the -1 save from S4, (also fairly common), can be absorbed fairly easily.

3. Units in Fantasy are much bigger in general, meaning even if faced with lots of armour modifying attacks, you can typically weather the storm to a point.
If Tactical Squads suddenly because say up to 20 models per squad, then fine, Marines could weather the early added casualties and maintain some fighting effectiveness. 10 dudes though facing down a couple enemy units worth of S4 w/-1 save modifier would be a bad joke however.

4. Shooting is not the 'main' phase of the game, but rather Close Combat & Magic are the make-or-break phases. Shooting is mainly there to do things such as finish off a crippled monster, clear chaff units, remove a rank bonus, etc... It's not meant to clear entire units of grunts or even elite killers like it does in 40k.


To go back to a similar system, you'd have to basically make it so that armour doesn't start getting nailed until the S6/7 mark, otherwise Marines should only cost maybe 4pts more than your basic Guardsman because he's now relying almost entirely on his raw stats to protect him, rather than his 3+ save.
Oh, and cover itself would need to go back to a to-hit modifier system as well!

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
In fairness they're resistant to boltguns, the most common and one of the deadliest basic guns in the game.

I'm sorry, boltguns one of the deadliest? Boltguns are pretty near the bottom in infantry armament power level.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
In fairness they're resistant to boltguns, the most common and one of the deadliest basic guns in the game.

I'm sorry, boltguns one of the deadliest? Boltguns are pretty near the bottom in infantry armament power level.

Hmmm... Off topic a bit, but...

In my opinion:

Pulse rifle (Tau)
Gauss Rifle
Shurikan Catapults
Splinter Rifle
Storm Bolter
Boltgun
Shoota
Fleshborer
Lasgun

Considering that the Boltgun is easily the most common, I feel its position close to the middle of the pack is adequate. However I left Flickering Fire off, because... well it's a weird power and hard to compare.

On the rankings themselves I feel like I could switch Gauss and Shurikan weapons, but the range wins it for me.

The shoota is better than the boltgun. It's assault and has full firepower out to 18". AP in this case is irrelevant in Woundspamhammer.

Shuriken catapults have a 12" max range, combined with mostly being on t3 5+ models, which are APed by Bolters, which have twice the range.

Pseudo rending is powerful, and being Assault is good, but I think the Bolt Gun is a little better overall.

Bharring wrote:
Shuriken catapults have a 12" max range, combined with mostly being on t3 5+ models, which are APed by Bolters, which have twice the range.

Pseudo rending is powerful, and being Assault is good, but I think the Bolt Gun is a little better overall.

I'd agree, but the DA shuriken catapult is better than the boltgun by far.

As someone who has to deal with 5+ and 6+ save models, no, 4+ armour is fantastic.