Switch Theme:

Is a 2W the new standard for infantry sized model in 40k?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







 Brutus_Apex wrote:
...So maybe chalk this one up to GW having absolutely no internal consistancy and just doing whatever they want.


Bingo.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






You figure at this point they would have a checks and balance or a rules/points system in place. But nope, its clear they don't

15k+
:harlequin: 4k
Beastmen 9500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






 Kanluwen wrote:
 Stormonu wrote:

For some reason, now I want to have a Colonel Sanders HQ for my AdMech.

By that logic, how many wounds should a Necron have? ALL of their parts have been replaced with regenerating metal.

We know that the 'regenerating metal' takes time to regenerate.

Not that long, considering they can be cut in half and pop back up a turn later. If marines had 2W, Necron Warriors, Immortals and Wraiths should absolutely have 2W.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





Ever since they were first introduced I’ve thought they got the necron warriors wrong. I’d have given them toughness 1 or 2, 2 wounds and 2+ save.
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






Aash wrote:
Ever since they were first introduced I’ve thought they got the necron warriors wrong. I’d have given them toughness 1 or 2, 2 wounds and 2+ save.

That's a funny way to go about it. What's your reasoning?

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Furious Fire Dragon





All I'm really interested in is the points, considering they're basically swooping hawks but better in pretty much every way they better have a price that reflects it or I'm going to be quite annoyed in a completely impotent way!
   
Made in de
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun





As mentioned Sicarians have a lot of enhancements in bionics, chemicals ... They are also on 40mm bases and are bigger than primaris if they stood tall like a primaris marine.
Gw shows the durability with 3 kinds of saves, toughness, wound count and sometimes to hit modifier, and leadership to some sort, which Skitarii and sicarians for whatever reason only have guardsmen leadership instead of their LD 9 of 7th
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





 Insectum7 wrote:
Aash wrote:
Ever since they were first introduced I’ve thought they got the necron warriors wrong. I’d have given them toughness 1 or 2, 2 wounds and 2+ save.

That's a funny way to go about it. What's your reasoning?


I’m not necessarily suggesting it for the current edition ( haven’t given it much thought tbh) but back when necrons first showed up, and vehicles still had AV, I thought necrons should either all be classed as vehicles and also have AV but recognised that it was probably impractical. I figured the next best thing to represent it was to give them really good armour and really bad toughness. At the time necrons were T4 and W1, 3+ Sv.

The way I saw it, the armour of the necron was it’s skin/muscles etc, so the strength of this should be represented by the armour save. If something did penetrate this, then the inside was probable wires and stuff, so fairly easy to damage, so low toughness value. And there was probably a decent amount of redundancy in a necron, and it was likely to be able to keep going after losing a limb or whatnot, so 2 wounds to represent that.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/21 18:03:59


 
   
Made in us
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan




On the Internet

Necrons are honestly fine as is and Warriors should stay 1 wound (Immortals at 2 wounds at least would make more sense as they are the definition of heavy infantry). RP represents the healing metal, we don't need extra wounds on top of that to represent it even further.

Honestly uppping all Astartes (and by extension Custodes) by a wound might be what the game needs to make heavy infantry feel appropiate again. If we stay in the design space 9th has been running in then creating a multi-wound heavy infantry category would fit the game design quite well and may go a long way to making them feel better balanced. Granted this means a lot of points readjustments would be needed again, but it would do a lot to fix the game.

I mean Astartes, Nobz, Immortals, Tyranid Warriors, and likely even more could break away into this design space of heavy infantry.
   
Made in ca
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!




 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I could see it being the standard for Elite infantry, while normal infantry on 25mm bases retain their 1 wound.
IMHO that's definatly how it should be, 2 wounds should be used on infantry thats supposed to be durable. if you're described in the novels as regularly getting half your body shot off and still fighting you ABSOLUTELY should have 2 or more wounds.

So like, Orks then?


For most elite/heavy support units this would actually make sense, but I don't think there is a way to make 2 wound boyz without giving the unit a major rework akin to tacticals -> intercessors.

There is just no way to properly cost a troops unit of 30 2W models.


Right. And that is why using fluff to justify multiple wounds doesn't work in practice a lot of the time.

And if you are assigning wounds based on fluff then the HQ units for lots of factions would have the same number of wounds as their non-HQ equivalent. An Imperial Guard commander is still just a human, a fire warrior commander in an XV-8 battlesuit is still just a fire warrior in an XV-8 etc.

In fact, if anything they would have less wounds as they are typically older and so are more likely to be killed by an equivalent wound thanks to greater accumulated wear and tear on their bodies (this applies to all factions).

Wounds are purely a game mechanic and should be approached as such.


No. Rules have to represent the fluff or else what the hell is the relation? You might as well play any other tabletop game with GW models if that was the case.
Unit rules are based off fluff, just very very loosely.
It doesnt help that GW sucks at writing both rules and fluff now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Stormonu wrote:
I was afraid GW would start taking this route.

Primaris should have never been 2 wounds. They should have just used the marine stat line and been touted as "true scale".

I'm sure down the road we'll see 2 wound Necrons, and then Orks. Maybe aspect Eldar.

Then to compensate, marines will be given 3 wounds, and the cycle starts all over again...

I disagree. If anything I feel like they should have made all Marines 2 wounds but left Scouts at 1 wound. Marines shrug off wounds that'd destroy the bodies of lesser men, but on the table they never felt like that.

Not everyone needs 2 wounds, and GW isn't giving everyone 2 wounds. Heck, look at Sisters. 1 Wound models on anything that isn't a vehicle or character.


This would have been the best route to go. If we didnt get primaris marines, and instead got marines with simply new wealpns and armour, then its likely all PA marines would have been 2W standard, with 1 for scouts and 3 for termies. It honestly would have been so much more appropriate in the long and the short run.

Edit: Off-topic but really, Baneblades should have definatley gotten a 2+ save instead of 3+. It wouldnt be as bad if the Strength vs Toughness table was more like it was in 7th as opposed to now.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/23 02:44:58


123ply: Dataslate- 4/4/3/3/1/3/1/8/6+
Autopistol, Steel Extendo, Puma Hoodie
USRs: "Preferred Enemy: Xenos"
"Hatred: Xenos"
"Racist and Proud of it" - Gains fleshbane, rending, rage, counter-attack, and X2 strength and toughness when locked in combat with units not in the "Imperium of Man" faction.

Collection:
AM/IG - 122nd Terrax Guard: 2094/3000pts
Skitarii/Cult Mech: 1380/2000pts
Khorne Daemonkin - Host of the Nervous Knife: 1701/2000pts
Orks - Rampage Axez: 1753/2000pts 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Stormonu wrote:
I was afraid GW would start taking this route.

Primaris should have never been 2 wounds. They should have just used the marine stat line and been touted as "true scale".

I'm sure down the road we'll see 2 wound Necrons, and then Orks. Maybe aspect Eldar.

Then to compensate, marines will be given 3 wounds, and the cycle starts all over again...


So? Outside of the slippery slope fallacy, does it really matter?

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




well yes. more wounds means longer games. And GW reaction to this is never smaller games with fewer models, but making the game more deadly. And soon basic weapons are d2 and d3.

Per se not bad, unless your codex happens to be updated too soon or too later or not well enough, and suddenly those basic games that are spamed to killed the best of the best , are slaughtering your weaker army .

you know it is like castellans meta made almost all vehicles, that were not flyers, no longer worth running.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: