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.

Not sure if this belongs in tactics or gen discussion as its not a terribly specific question I threw it in here. Now ive played a lot of 40k on and off, I maintain a fairly good win to loss ratio, never played competative tournaments so can't really say how good I am competativly. In my time playing 40k ive played alot of armies, i started with marines (As do most) found them a tad boring, tried CSM, had a lot of fun with them then they got a dreaded re-release of +10 boredom. I switched around over the years playing a variety of different armies, mainly with low armour saves, orks, tau and nids for example. Recently I began my Space wolves, im very happy with them and im happy with how ive painted and converted them. My first game in a while was against my best mate, who has religously played Black templars since he started 40k (He's dabbled with proxy tau and recently branching out to eldar... baby steps)

Now not having played for a while I wasnt entirely sure how survivable my marines were, and suddenly possessed of suicidal tendancies, dropped a grey hunter squad in between 2 full units of dire avengers, a farseer and two wave serpents. They fire off, kill about 3 avengers, Eldar return fire takes out 3 grey hunters and blows the pod... the pod in return explodes killing 2 more avengers... (My drop pods are blessed, thats another story) and for a good few moments im fairly shocked,

Both dire avengers squads had bladestormed and the serpents had poured on fire and it all totted up to 3 dead grey hunters.... what the what? I honestly didnt expect that squad to live, the whole thing then devolved into a mass melee fight where the remaining hunters butchered the majority of both squads before the dire avengers finished them off. In a bit of a reversal i remember a game against the same freind, first time he proxied tau against my proxied imperial guard, this was his first game without the comfort of a 3+ save, he moved his firewarriors out of cover to get a better firing line, only to be mowed down with heavy bolter fire, when i pointed out HB's ignore 4+ armour saves he cried out in mock shock and pain "I HAVE NEVER NEEDED TO KNOW THAT!!!!!"

The point is that i find a 3+ save can be a bit misleading as to how survivable a unit can be, say what you want about statistics but in a real life scenario it can generally be quiet a shock to consign a unit to a suicide run, only for it to walk back mauled but largely ready to fight, I;ve made tactical desicions since with my space wolves knowing their bad ideas and normal troops would be eaten alive, but ive come to rely on the fact that Grey hunters are just a cut above normal troops.

TLDR
Most people start with marines, some stick with them for a long time and get used to a 3+ save. Is this a bad thing for people who might move onto other armies and be genuinely shocked at how squishy they are?
And do people consider Power armour to be a crutch for a fighting force?

Honestly, I think a 3+ save is a good average for a mini war-game.

All it means is that with average shooting, you remove slighly less than half the models wounded. Perhaps pretty much exactly half if you add a "40K-average-mix" of special/heavy weapons into it.

Some "squishy" armies should fare worse. Some "tough" armies should fare better. But the scope for distinquishing units on the "squishy" end of the scale is fairly negligble. Who cares if you're facing an army with 5+ save of 6+ save or no save? It's largely irrelevant to the game and just as mind-numbingly boring as a deluge of 3+ armies. Not to mention, I find it pointless to lovingly assemble, paint, model, convert, base, etc.. loads of models that'll just go back to the army-case by the handfull starting turn 1 (or stay hidden behind some terrain, which is just as pointlessly counter-intuitive for "showing off" your hobby-skills). If I go into the hobby-side of the whole thing, I want to have the "majority" of my minis on the table and in action for "most" of the game. Otherwise, what's the fething point?

Also, as your example shows, saves towards the "middle" likely have the greatest statistical range and variance for unexpected outcomes. Rolling exceptionally bad for loads of 2+ saves is rare. Rolling exceptionally good for lots of 6+ saves is equally rare. 4+ saves can swing either which way, with 3+ being slightly on the "heroic" end of the spectrum of your plastic guys doing amazing feats every so often. It makes for "fun", less predictable gaming where you have to think on your feet. With a game already far to heavily biased to "list-building" and deployment, rather than "in-game" decisions, that can only be a good thing. Ergo, bring on the 3+ saves.

Power armor isn't a 'crutch' per se; you do get pretty nice armor, but you pay a premium for it. That story you told was more a case of bad luck on the Eldar player's part than anything else, one Dire Avenger unit Bladestorming a Tactical Squad should get about four kills before factoring in Guide and Doom on average, plus whatever guns are on the Wave Serpents means your Grey Hunters ought to have been wiped out. I've seen power armored troops weather fire that would take down a Carnifex, I've also seen them slaughtered in droves to a Guard lasgun line. Both are outliers that don't happen a lot.

Yes, power armored troops tend to be tougher than most troops. They're more forgiving for new players, plus they're not as horridly expensive to buy since you don't need so many and they come in the starter boxes at a massive discount. They're easy to learn, easy to play, and easy to win with for beginners and intermediate players. Space Marines are the poster children of 40k, they aren't likely to disappear from their overrepresented role anytime soon, but I don't see anything wrong with the fact that they're the default starter army.

Think my question may have been a bit poorly phrased, I understand that Marines are never NOT going to be the starter army, GW over promotes tot he point of insanity, and I understand that a 3+ save is a nice cushion for a new player to land on, should he make some bad desicions that other armies wouldnt be so forgiving over. What im saying is, for people who are good at the game and have been playing a while is it entirely fair for experienced players to use power armoured forces?

Or to put a personal slant on it am I being a bit of an ass for using space wolves against a few freinds of mine who have just started up?

Well, when half the armies in 40k are Space Marines of some kind or another, all of which having at least 3+ armor save, I'd say it's a bit of a crutch for some people. The harder it is for your guys to die, the less tactical acumen is required to get the job done. Don't mistake that for me saying that SM players don't have/need/use tactics, I'm just saying you have a nest egg to fall back on, if/when your strategy fails. Man for man, space marines have an advantage that can be difficult to overcome even with equally priced models (points).

That said, most armies that don't have great armor saves rely on other things to get the job done. For example, IG can field so many vehicles it's crazy, and the variety of vehicles is just as crazy. They can use those vehicles as their "armor save" to combat more heavily armored infantry models like SM. Tyranids and Orks rely on massive amounts of models, so losing 7 guys in a single shooting phase it's really a big deal because there are 23 more in the squad still charging in. Necrons can die all day long and keep getting back up.

Being an IG player, I would find myself fielding lots of vehicles in any army I play (I play nids also so I field lots of MC instead) because it's kind of my crutch. I'm used to vehicles and I like them so I play vehicles. People who spend lots of time playing 3+ armor get used to it and have a harder time adapting to lesser armor. Simple as that. So.....long story short, yes it's a crutch.

And no you're not being an ass for playing SW against a new player. You're doing them a favor if you ask me because there are a lot of SW players so if they can develop tactics against them in casual games they'll be better off in the long run. Besides, every army as a weakness even BA and GK. You just gotta find out what it is and exploit it.

I only like the lower armor save because it means I have to paint, move, store and have less models over all.

Most people with power armor just means anti-power armor tactics work better.

No, Power armour is great and it saves me tons of painting

I don't think it's a crutch. It's part of the statline the army is built around.

Lucky dice rolls are what drive the story behind each game.

Powerarmour is a feature for which an army has to pay and not a crutch.
Being used to powerarmour will of course mean that you have to rethink some strategies when you suddenly play something else
but the same can be said for quite a few other pieces of wargear/ special rules. ( the ability to easily wound pretty much everything when you got used to playing Dark Eldar, stormbolters for Grey knights,
mass fnp for certain bloodangels builds, ultracheap bodies and tanks for imperial guard, losing all the time for chaos and sisters...oh, wait... )

Your Dire Avenger example says much about the general suckiness of Dire Avengers ( bwhahaha, 3 points more than Kabalite warriors but imo less effective most of the time \o/ ).

It's a crutch only if you don't adapt your playstyle when fielding armies that don't have it. Otherwise, it's as much a weapon or feature of the army as their bolters or TH/SS Termies.

If it is I need to find me some wheelchair armour

You say power armor is a crutch, but when you face down a battle cannon, a plasma command squad, longfang spam, genestealers, banshees/incubi/death cult or anything else that tends to ignore your armor (and there is a lot of units that do) and then look at armies that just throw dice until you drown like orks, you'll realize your 3+ doesn't mean squat. There is a reason that non stormshield termies are considered bad. Because there is a lot out there to ignore their 2+ which results in a punny 5+ invul. Armor saves come and go. Why do you think Codex Marines struggles in the competitive scene? It has power armor just like Grey Knights and Space Wolves, but it lacks the firepower to back it up. Why do you think Imp Guard man handles Codex despite wandering around in armor that is ignored by the basic unit C:SM has? Again firepower, but also cover saves negate the armor pen that should have killed them outright.

SilverMK2 wrote:If it is I need to find me some wheelchair armour

That would be Termie armour.

Life support in ICU would be Termie armour with Storm Shield. Doesn't get much more crutchy than that




I've found power armour armies to be 'easy mode', for me, as most things will bounce of you, while most things you hand out will ignore the other guy's armour (unless he's also a PA player.)

Not saying it's bad. If that's the way you roll, and you do pay points for the privilege, but it makes mistakes a whole lot more forgiving, especially if you also have the highest AV vehicles in the game to hide in


Considering 3+ armour as the average armour for 40K would be a little out though, even if most of the codexes are PA ones (you may be mathematically right, but i don't care ).

The average armour for the game IMO is 4+. Some have worse, some better, but the AP and so on seem to be built around that, so you need heavier guns to outright ignore average or good armour, but need to roll for regular infantry shots as a whole. Feel free to disagree

Why do you think Codex Marines struggles in the competitive scene? It has power armor just like Grey Knights and Space Wolves, but it lacks the firepower to back it up.

Because it's internal cost is horrible, and thus it has issues with putting out competitive firepower. It's still mid tier however despite it's flaws. It should be ironed out come 6th edition now that matt ward knows how to make a good space marine codex after his marine practice throughout 5th.

Why do you think Imp Guard man handles Codex despite wandering around in armor that is ignored by the basic unit C:SM has? Again firepower, but also cover saves negate the armor pen that should have killed them outright.

Because their underpriced firepower is cheap, powerful, and good.

There's a difference between quality and actual productive codex value..

KingDeath wrote:

Your Dire Avenger example says much about the general suckiness of Dire Avengers ( bwhahaha, 3 points more than Kabalite warriors but imo less effective most of the time \o/ ).

Are you seeing dire avengers used right? Mines always kick ass the other day I bladestormed and took out 9 termies

But anyway, OT:

I started with eldar, so didn't have this supposed 'crutch', meaning I quickly learned that I was outmatched and had to rely on tactics and thinking. So personally, I think MEQ's are rather a bad starting forcem and god forbid grey knights (draigowing). I say this because I started rubbish, my brother started good (with chaos) but as time progressed I became better and better learning more and more tactics while my brother didn't budge much, because his sheer survivability meant he didn't have to. Now I destroy all comers with superior tactics, while I see people like my brother (who no longer plays :( ) fail against the players who have learned not to rely on great toughness and saves, for they can be overcome easy enough. At my (now closed) local store, there are tonnes of new player draigowings who maul their peers because for a new eldar/ork/etc player, it is nigh impossible to kill a terminator army when you have little experience, where as I eat draigowing for breakfast


TLDR: I think it's a crutch, but has a negative impact.

Von Chogg

4+ cover makes power armour useless in lots of circumstances. Only assault troops really need it.

Von Chogg wrote:

KingDeath wrote:

Your Dire Avenger example says much about the general suckiness of Dire Avengers ( bwhahaha, 3 points more than Kabalite warriors but imo less effective most of the time \o/ ).

Are you seeing dire avengers used right? Mines always kick ass the other day I bladestormed and took out 9 termies

It takes on average 108 hits to take out 9 termies which equates to 162 shots, comming from 54 bladestorming Dire Avengers...
I guess that you were realy realy realy lucky
While Bladestorm can be nice and useful in certain situations it decreases your overal firepower ( because you cannot shoot in the next round ) and increases the cost of the Direavengers even more.
So, while i congratulate you to killing 9 terminators ( btw, i hope you played at the lottery that day ) i have to stick with my rather negative opinion about Dire Avengers ( not that the alternative troop choices are much better ).

Joey wrote:4+ cover makes power armour useless in lots of circumstances. Only assault troops really need it.

I agree, we should go back to 4th editions 5++ for standard cover saves.

KingDeath wrote:

Von Chogg wrote:

KingDeath wrote:

Your Dire Avenger example says much about the general suckiness of Dire Avengers ( bwhahaha, 3 points more than Kabalite warriors but imo less effective most of the time \o/ ).

Are you seeing dire avengers used right? Mines always kick ass the other day I bladestormed and took out 9 termies

It takes on average 108 hits to take out 9 termies which equates to 162 shots, comming from 54 bladestorming Dire Avengers...
I guess that you were realy realy realy lucky
While Bladestorm can be nice and useful in certain situations it decreases your overal firepower ( because you cannot shoot in the next round ) and increases the cost of the Direavengers even more.
So, while i congratulate you to killing 9 terminators ( btw, i hope you played at the lottery that day ) i have to stick with my rather negative opinion about Dire Avengers ( not that the alternative troop choices are much better ).

My veterans shrugged off being Bladestormed by 3+ cover. Yeah it's not "all that" but the huge amounts of shots means if you do get lucky, it can be devestating.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Joey wrote:4+ cover makes power armour useless in lots of circumstances. Only assault troops really need it.

I agree, we should go back to 4th editions 5++ for standard cover saves.

Great idea. Make footslogging lists even more useless than they already are.

KingDeath wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Joey wrote:4+ cover makes power armour useless in lots of circumstances. Only assault troops really need it.

I agree, we should go back to 4th editions 5++ for standard cover saves.

Great idea. Make footslogging lists even more useless than they already are.

Make Lascannons AP1. Sorted.

Joey wrote:

KingDeath wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Joey wrote:4+ cover makes power armour useless in lots of circumstances. Only assault troops really need it.

I agree, we should go back to 4th editions 5++ for standard cover saves.

Great idea. Make footslogging lists even more useless than they already are.

Make Lascannons AP1. Sorted.

Then you would have to increase their price, you would also have to improve darklances/ brightlances. Railguns would suddenly lose much of their relative power, which would have to be compensated somehow.
Orks would be screwed as usual because they have no lascannons which means that they remain vulnerable to mechlists while they suddenly lose much of their already low survivability.

A better solution imo is to keep the 4+ save for infantry and decrease the coversave to +5 for vehicles.

KingDeath wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Joey wrote:4+ cover makes power armour useless in lots of circumstances. Only assault troops really need it.

I agree, we should go back to 4th editions 5++ for standard cover saves.

Great idea. Make footslogging lists even more useless than they already are.

The main footslogging (Or supposed to be..) Are

Orks (KFF, 5++ already)

Black Templar (3+ armor saves)

Sisters of battle (It can be done, and 3+ armor saves)

By having 4++ makes two classes of weapons entirely useless, plasma and AP3 weapons, what's the point when they'll still get a 4++ regardless. Cover should not be so ambiguous that Iron halo's should be on par with cover.

Unless we can somehow give AP3/AP2 some way of penetrating cover or decreasing cover saves (Yes because a Lascannon or Railgun is going to be stopped by your simple little barricade!) In which case I'd really agree, cover saves should have ways of being decreased, of course I also agree armor saves should be decreased vs certain things as well, but one step at a time. If AP3 maybe decreased it by -1, AP2 -2 and AP1 -3, it could work wonderfully.

If you want to call anything a crutch, 4++ cover saves are a crutch

I find cover saves just fine. Troops in cover should be tough as hell to root out. Thats why your have template weapons. And its not just that the cover stops the weapons, it also factors in that the shooter misses due to not seeing the target.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

KingDeath wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Joey wrote:4+ cover makes power armour useless in lots of circumstances. Only assault troops really need it.

I agree, we should go back to 4th editions 5++ for standard cover saves.

Great idea. Make footslogging lists even more useless than they already are.

The main footslogging (Or supposed to be..) Are

Orks (KFF, 5++ already)

Black Templar (3+ armor saves)

Sisters of battle (It can be done, and 3+ armor saves)

By having 4++ makes two classes of weapons entirely useless, plasma and AP3 weapons, what's the point when they'll still get a 4++ regardless. Cover should not be so ambiguous that Iron halo's should be on par with cover.

Unless we can somehow give AP3/AP2 some way of penetrating cover or decreasing cover saves (Yes because a Lascannon or Railgun is going to be stopped by your simple little barricade!) In which case I'd really agree, cover saves should have ways of being decreased, of course I also agree armor saves should be decreased vs certain things as well, but one step at a time. If AP3 maybe decreased it by -1, AP2 -2 and AP1 -3, it could work wonderfully.

If you want to call anything a crutch, 4++ cover saves are a crutch

4+ coversaves are a necessity for certain armies, particularly those which do not have the luxury of 3+ armour saves. Your lascannon and railgun examples are misleading. The weapon's aren't stoped by little barricades but the weapon operator can no longer get a clear shot and therefore tends to miss. AP3/AP2 weapons still decrease the savee of meqs from 3+ to 4+ which is actualy quite relevant. The only problem with Plasmaweapons is that they are currently too expensive. How you got the idea that only the armies you mentioned should be viable on foot is beyond me. Perhaps you confuse current viability ( not that foot Sisters or foot Orks are actualy good ) with good codex design.
Reducing coversaves makes mechanised armies the only ones which remain viable which is frankly bad game design.

Your lascannon and railgun examples are misleading. The weapon's aren't stoped by little barricades but the weapon operator can no longer get a clear shot and therefore tends to miss

Than think of the lowered covered saves as tearing through the forest terrain, the lowering of cover saves being the fact that it tears a large hole through the terrain, thus meaning that accuracy is less useful when your shots can penetrate through the terrain in their general vicinity. Giving less area for them to hide in aside from that lucky shot

How you got the idea that only the armies you mentioned should be viable on foot is beyond me. Perhaps you confuse current viability ( not that foot Sisters or foot Orks are actualy good ) with good codex design.

I tend to base my thoughts on who should have the best horde around what their fluff and what their codex was originally designed to do for them. I don't tend to take their current codexs at face value when they are outdated, and have issues from their time (Orks being screwed by the Jervis Streamlining afterall)

Reducing coversaves makes mechanised armies the only ones which remain viable which is frankly bad game design.

I believe that they shouldn't be as good as they are either, but If I was to state all of my thoughts on what needs to be fixed on 5th we'd be here for a while, and it's not related to the topic at hand.

As for 3+, sure it can be a good crutch if you don't learn to vary yourselves with others. You may make some really heady decisions you wouldn't make if you had started with 5+ or 4+ saves. (I started with daemons, 5++ saves were nice, but so unreliable)

Cover saves represent the weapons operator actually missing because he couldn't see his enemy properly to place the shot and/or the weapon was actually deflected.

Obviously a low wall isn't going to stop a lascannon but if everyone ducks(like proper soldiers) and hides then the guy with the lascannon can only guess where his targets are behind it. Hence the 50/50 or 1/3 chance of his failing to guess properly, depending on the exact wall.

Ok, I put up a thread and it rapidly mutates into something about cover saves, fair enough, opinions on the crutchyness of power armour seem largely divided (Interestingly between those that have it and those who dont, but nvm) On the subject of cover saves being reduced back to the sanity of 4th... I kind of agree with dropping cover back a bit.

Yes it will harm foot slogging list, but to be fair foot slogging lists in a game where the average equipped firearm is a fully automatic gyro-proppelled-grenade launcher, it makes you wonder why foot slogging lists make any sense at all. I had a similiar thing when the "Leaked" 6th ed rule came out and the guard players wailed for the doom of power weapon guardsmen blob armies. Thematically they made no sense to be there in the first place. Armies that are designed to foot slog have ways of making up for their shortcommings, be it the ork KFF Kan Wall or sheer numbers in the case of nids.

And for the armies with lower saves (5+ and 6+) a 5++ cover save was usually better armour then what they came with anyway, I dislike the fact that an ork is an ork till he stands behind a tree and gains carapace armour (4+ over save). Those who say power armour is included with the cost, fair enough, we pay for our 3+ saves that with the 5th ed cover rules everyone seems to get for free.

Most armys pack a template of same kind, so I dont realy think of cover saves as being to bad, I have had the unfortunate experiance of a drop pod dread takeing out almost all of my dire avengers in 1 turn with a heavy flamer.
So imo a good armour save is much better than situational cover that can work to the benifit of eather player.

Grey Templar wrote:Cover saves represent the weapons operator actually missing because he couldn't see his enemy properly to place the shot and/or the weapon was actually deflected.

Obviously a low wall isn't going to stop a lascannon but if everyone ducks(like proper soldiers) and hides then the guy with the lascannon can only guess where his targets are behind it. Hence the 50/50 or 1/3 chance of his failing to guess properly, depending on the exact wall.

Except they're not ducking, because jump pack troopers/assault troops in general can EASILY get 4+ cover while still advancing at full speed.
It's part of why combat is not stronger than shooting, there's no real difference between embedded troops and 10 space marines standing behind a two-foot wall. LOL 4+ COVER.
I'd like to see default cover 5+, but allow troops to shoot while Gone to Ground, but not shoot.
That way an embedded gunline would have 4+, but a Terminator who's slighty obscured by a rock will only get 5+.