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.

If you play IG using SM models and rules, of course they fail.

Wounds trumping saves? What's good these days?
Necron Wraiths - 3++
TWC - 2+/3++
Wraithknight - 3+/5+++
Skyhammer - 3+
Cents - 2+
IKs - 4++
Wind riders - 3+/4+
Shadow field WPP Archon w/Scytheguard - 2++/3+

So IKs aren't good saves, but almost everything else is.

I have always hated Armour Saves for two reasons:
1) They are an all or nothing venture, either the weapon ignores it or it does not
2) They work with negative numbers, to make a save better you reduce it instead of increasing it

The second point is a little bit of a pet-peeve, THAC0 really annoyed me back in the day, as a Rule system should be uniformed when it comes to counting up or down as 'better.' It would be a lot simpler if the Armour Save was a modifier to the dice roll, with the intention to ensure the roll is Greater then 6 in order to pass, then the result the dice needs to surpass. I wouldn't mind Equal to, but in order to keep an Armour save of - as useless as it currently is it would need to be Greater then 6. This would also allow the AP of the weapon to matter in all instances, not just those it negates entirely, as they could become a penalty to that Roll. Allowing for AP 3 weapons to negate an Armour Save of 3 as they currently do, but it stops the phenomenon of a bolter suddenly being as useless as a lasgun whenever the enemy decided to put on their Carapace on that day.

It might not increase the survivability of the Marine above what it is currently, but it will make the weapons they carry far more effective against all targets instead of being over-powered against a handful and useless against the rest.

Addendum:
Actually, the more I think on this the more it could be used to increase the survivability of Units that are currently getting their **** handed to them due to weight of fire even though it makes no sense, like Terminators facing Auto-Guns. With the numbers counting upwards, and the AP being a penalty on the Save, it becomes possible to make certain weapons useless against certain Units in the same ways certain Weapons are useless against certain Vehicles... they simply can not get past the Save. While care needs to be taken to ensure a troop choice does not become immune to other troop choices, it is something that easily can be done with a 1-10 system for both Armour Save and Armour Piercing. This would ensure Units that are clearly 'Heavy-Infantry' need to be dealt with by Units carrying weapons specifically designed for that purpose. Of course, it means re-tooling every Model and Weapon profile, and that would require Errata for older books, so I won't hold my breath.

Example:
Terminators would be a +7 Armour Save, making them completely immune to weapons that do not have a -2 AP or greater penalty.

Bharring wrote:
If you play IG using SM models and rules, of course they fail.

Wounds trumping saves? What's good these days?
Necron Wraiths - 3++
TWC - 2+/3++
Wraithknight - 3+/5+++
Skyhammer - 3+
Cents - 2+
IKs - 4++
Wind riders - 3+/4+
Shadow field WPP Archon w/Scytheguard - 2++/3+

So IKs aren't good saves, but almost everything else is.

None of those are a fair comparison. Most of those are Inv saves, not armour, those units are known best for damage output or special rule advantages (like Cents and Psykers), and not one of them is a Troops Choice.

Bharring wrote:
If you play IG using SM models and rules, of course they fail.

Wounds trumping saves? What's good these days?
Necron Wraiths - 3++
TWC - 2+/3++
Wraithknight - 3+/5+++
Skyhammer - 3+
Cents - 2+
IKs - 4++
Wind riders - 3+/4+
Shadow field WPP Archon w/Scytheguard - 2++/3+

So IKs aren't good saves, but almost everything else is.

None of those things are good because of their saves. They are good because of their stats/special rules/shooting. They just happen to have those saves. If I could get double the wind riders with a 6+ save, I would because of the firepower bump.

In fact, the 3+ save is the still the achilles heel of the Wraithknight in a way.

The 3+ save is actually the best part of a basic marine now, but in the end it ends up not being worth it because they can't cause enough damage to the enemy.

Necron warriors have 4+ and immortals have 3+. I think people chooses immortals if they are not using transports.

Disclaimer: I do not have necrons.

My understanding was Immortals paid a lot for that 3+.

(And Windriders, in that list, actually are troops...)

Which seems most likely:
-Everything and its sister has a 3+ these days
-3+s being so common on that list being a coincidence
-Or, the survivability helps, but isn't the primary driving force, of what is OP these days.

I'd bet on the last one, but the first is up there too.

Just compare the survivability of a Fire Dragon to a Kalabite!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There aren't a lot of good analogues for most of the list that lack said saves, that I could come up with.

"-Or, the survivability helps, but isn't the primary driving force, of what is OP these days. "

This.

"(And Windriders, in that list, actually are troops...) "

I threw up in my mouth a little when reminded of this.

Sometimes I wonder if people even play this game. Marines aren't durable enough?

Jesus, I feel sorry for the poor Orks, Tau, Eldar, Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Sororitas, Inquisition, and all the other armies who lack MEQ. They must be ridiculously flimsy, if a Marine isn't durable enough.

It's been said, but it is a points cost thing. You can get 20 guardsman for the same cost as 10 space marines. While that matchup is more or less even, the guard have a huge advantage in value against ap 1,2,&3, as strength will negate toughness boost, and AP makes armor worthless.

Since no one but beginners fight only troops, a case can be made that tactical marines lack in points efficiency.

a lot of people are probably complaining about 3+ save not being good because they have awful luck with rolling saves(common problem) or volume of fire....Which will wreck any armor save.

 DaKKaLAnce wrote:
a lot of people are probably complaining about 3+ save not being good because they have awful luck with rolling saves or volume of fire....

This is certainly one of the problems. My SoB get around it by going mini-Horde (at the least 70+ models at 1500) and just ignoring casualties while taking out key enemy units. It's true that a 3+ save fails a lot even if you get it, but you also get the funny victories like a 5-girl Dominion Squad taking out their target on outflanking and then proceeding to rout a pack of Fenrisian Wolves and Thunderwolves in CC...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if people even play this game. Marines aren't durable enough?

Jesus, I feel sorry for the poor Orks, Tau, Eldar, Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Sororitas, Inquisition, and all the other armies who lack MEQ. They must be ridiculously flimsy, if a Marine isn't durable enough.

Durability is meaningless without efficacy. Base marines can't get enemy models off the table, which is why they fail as "elite" troops. They must suffer the full wrath of their opponent turn after turn. Give the marines some weapons to do some damage, and suddenly their durability/pt plummets. I'm largely ignoring the rapeage caused by AP 1/2/3 weapons as well here. I'm just focusing on wound spam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DaKKaLAnce wrote:
a lot of people are probably complaining about 3+ save not being good because they have awful luck with rolling saves(common problem) or volume of fire....Which will wreck any armor save.

There is no such thing as luck over the long run. Marines fail exactly 1/3 of all their saves. Volume of fire exploits this phenomenon and also denies any benefits from cover worse than 2+

I'd say T4 and 3+ is about average survivability with all the 2+ saves running around. MEQs are very common in the game, seeing as how there are only 2 stats in the game that is used for troops, that is 3 and 4.

 triplegrim wrote:
I'd say T4 and 3+ is about average survivability with all the 2+ saves running around. MEQs are very common in the game, seeing as how there are only 2 stats in the game that is used for troops, that is 3 and 4.

Numerically speaking, it's actually above average. The problem is the models who have T4 3+ pay a lot of points for offensive power and weapons that make a mockery of those two stats, particularly the Toughness.

As a mainly IG player I look at those 3+ saves with great envy. On the other hand I can pick up ten guardsmen and its not breaking the bank or even a sweat.

With my venture into Admech I've had my first encounter with having a 3+ save with Kastelans and breachers. I have to say I enjoy the 3+ very much, the 2+ on a dominus and datasmiths is almost godlike for me.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if people even play this game. Marines aren't durable enough?

Jesus, I feel sorry for the poor Orks, Tau, Eldar, Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Sororitas, Inquisition, and all the other armies who lack MEQ. They must be ridiculously flimsy, if a Marine isn't durable enough.

I don't know what your tables look like, but locally, Str 6+ and Ap 2 is very common.
This means that, against every single solider in the lists you posted, they are wounded on a 2+ (so T4 does nothing), and possibly don't get a save beyond cover (where everyone gets the same save, so that 3+ is useless).
The T4 is only beneficial for ID tests. Armies try to avoid taking less then T4 troops that can be ID'ed (even nid warriors are considered terrible because they ID to Str 8). This is why you don't see Guard heavy weapon teams.

Meanwhile offensively, per point, everyone is pretty close to the same.
If Orks could drop to T3 for -3pts per model, would they? -2? How much is that upgrade worth really?

I suppose if your tables are pretty fluffy then you may not see the issue. Our tables are mostly guys who play WMH and like more...cutthroat lists. Marines are pretty bad in that environment.


The problem is really the all or nothing nature of 40k. If I roll a 1, it always fails regardless of save. If I'm guard, every 1 cost me ~5 points, in marines its ~14 (13?). In other games, you rolling a high number when I have high armor means less damage then when I have low armor.

This thread is a frustrating but pertinent example of the tunnel-vision horde faction players frequently have when discussing game balance.

the only real solution to the problem is a roll back on the power creep. I started playing at the tail end of 3rd edition and beginning of 4th edition. A Space Marine was awesome then. The problem for them in the more recent editions is the huge increase in ROF weapons and AP1-3 weapons.

Running into a Lascannon or its equivalent was RARE where as now we have weapons that make Lascannons look weak by comparison. It boils down to GW making stupid decisions to increase sales on a temporary basis.

I don't understand how the 3+ 4++ of the 1K sons is not relevant here? Anything that is AP3 or lower, I get to take a 50% save against.....How is that not winning. lol

 sub-zero wrote:
I don't understand how the 3+ 4++ of the 1K sons is not relevant here? Anything that is AP3 or lower, I get to take a 50% save against.....How is that not winning. lol

because they are expensive models and they don't put out much dakka in return for their great invul save.

So is the problem with marines their durability or their offensive output?

What would increase their durability? 2+ save? T5? They can already get armywide FNP.

A reduction of fire-power across the entire board is the only way to make 3+ saves cost-effective and relevant again. Anything else just contributes to the arms-race nature of power creep.

A general downsizing of the lethality in 40K doesn't just help MEQ either. Orks, IG and ground-pounding melee armies are all suffering in the meta due to the prevalence of high strength, high rof firepower.

As someone who uses a lot of Aspect Warriors, I can tell you firsthand how useful a 3+ save is. T4 would be even better, as it means that most anti-infantry firepower wounds you on a 4+ instead of a 3+ or 2+. When under fire, a 3+ save is the best most infantry models can hope for.

The problems lie in the power creep of the game. While AP3 or lower is still uncommon, every army has the means to make a mockery of even Space Marine armour. The other problem is sheer volume of fire; the easiest way to kill MEQ is to force them to make lots of saves. Combine this with undercosted means of delivering S6/7 fire, and whole armies can crumble. Camping cover is a good idea, but puts you on the same level as units without the glorious 3+. This is where things like Drop Pods and Rhinos (with the occasional Land Raider) come in to give the infantry some protection against mid-strength spam.

Tactical Marines a bad, but only in comparison to other units (Scouts, Scatbikers, Bikes, etc.) They have decent damage output against infantry, and can take a variety of upgrades to deal with any other threat. Krak Grenades mean they can hurt vehicles and MC's, while pistol+CCW gives them a solid amount of attacks on the charge. Combine this with Combat Squads and ATSKNF, and you have units that will stick around on the board a long time.

Most of the complaints about marine survivability come from MEQ players. If they played other armies, I can guarantee that they would quickly get some perspective about the merits of T4 3+ infantry. That and the importance of always staying in cover.

 carldooley wrote:
If people learned how to play\started out with armies like orks or guard, this sort of thread would be rarer.

If people had time and money to get 100+ models for a 1250 pt game, paint them all up and than get wiped out in 2 turns every time they meet scatbikes...

 koooaei wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
If people learned how to play\started out with armies like orks or guard, this sort of thread would be rarer.

If people had time and money to get 100+ models for a 1250 pt game, paint them all up and than get wiped out in 2 turns every time they meet scatbikes...

I have yet to lose when i field my green tide but by the same token I haven't fielded them against Scat bikes and I can only assume they would be tabled quickly.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So is the problem with marines their durability or their offensive output?

What would increase their durability? 2+ save? T5? They can already get armywide FNP.

Durability is very good with T4 Sv3+ ATSKNF but it has cost. Terminators are Sv2+/5++ but cost makes them worse than tacticals. Damage output and speed are weakness (wind riders are excellent). Bike troops in vanilla codex are far better than tacticals (sv3+ T5 Speed 12, great dmg output).

However I like tacticals, they are resilient home objectives keepers.

The game would certainly be a lot better if someone took the nerfhammer to the top, say, 10% of the game.

Even as is, though, typically its S6 or AP3 for massed fire, not both. Part of the problem is that most of the threats are hard targets, and its not that relatively expensive in a lot of cases to bring the big guns instead of small arms. So everyone min/maxxes towards big guns. So survivability vs small arms becomes less important. So those who pay for it get pissed that those who don't comparatively pay less.

Also recall that an SM Captain or SM takes a 4++ against a Plasma Gun, or a 3+ against a grenade or Wraith or power maul or whatever, and just loses a wound if they fail. A commissar, Farseer, Archon, or whatever fails a save and outright dies.

Also, I was just trying to point out above was that the game *is* more about saves than wounds. That doesn't mean everything with a decent save is decent. It just means things with decent saves seem to outperform things with more HP (how many times have I heard people bitch about 3-4 Rhinos dying faster than one Wave Serpent?).

If you compare an SM to a Guardsmen, SM can look terrible. Guardsmen are great at soaking wounds. Its what they do. So of course they cost less per wound soaked than the comparatively better offense and adaptability of an SM. SMs cost almost 3x the price, and frequently don't have three times the durability (S6+ AP6/- means the SM is only twice as durable, for instance). But what about Kalabites? Guardians? Fire Warriors? Against most other non-Horde troops, SM have more survivability/pt against most attacks (needs s6+ *and* AP3 to not be true).

If small arms made a comeback - as unlikely as that seems - the strengths of the SM statline might be more apparent.

Finally, another thing people often dismiss is their assault threat. Nobody will let most of their vehicles sit within assault range of even a naked tac squad. Because they can kill it. Same for almost all non-CC units in the game. Even many of the units Tacs outshoot. So, while this means that CC won't happen most of the time, it means the SM player sets the terms. Tremendous board control advantage.

Tacs are bad only because the game is broken.

Bharring wrote:

Finally, another thing people often dismiss is their assault threat. Nobody will let most of their vehicles sit within assault range of even a naked tac squad. Because they can kill it. Same for almost all non-CC units in the game. Even many of the units Tacs outshoot. So, while this means that CC won't happen most of the time, it means the SM player sets the terms. Tremendous board control advantage.

This. So much. I can't count the number of times I've lost 200-300+ points to a tactical squad simply because I have no good melee defense.

Bharring wrote:
If you play IG using SM models and rules, of course they fail.

Wounds trumping saves? What's good these days?
Necron Wraiths - 3++T5 W2, resurrection protocols.
TWC - 2+/3++ T5 W2
Wraithknight - 3+/5+++ T8 W6
Skyhammer - 3+ Toughness is irrelevant, Alpha strike unit
Cents - 2+ T5 W2 and invisibility very often.
IKs - 4++ AV13/12
Wind riders - 3+/4+ Staying power is unnecessary. It's all about the firepower here. 36" range is their armor.
Shadow field WPP Archon w/Scytheguard - 2++/3+ Alpha strike, T6

So IKs aren't good saves, but almost everything else is.

The save is a toughness multiplier on top of otherwise VERY tough models....and only the invul saves really matter. If you are tough enough that it makes basic weapons need a 5 or 6 to wound, the save is just insult to injury, and makes you shift to a more efficient weapon class for dealing with the threat, namely S6+ and AP2 to both get through the toughness and ignore the normal saves.

 Carnage43 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
If you play IG using SM models and rules, of course they fail.

Wounds trumping saves? What's good these days?
Necron Wraiths - 3++T5 W2, resurrection protocols.
TWC - 2+/3++ T5 W2
Wraithknight - 3+/5+++ T8 W6
Skyhammer - 3+ Toughness is irrelevant, Alpha strike unit
Cents - 2+ T5 W2 and invisibility very often.
IKs - 4++ AV13/12
Wind riders - 3+/4+ Staying power is unnecessary. It's all about the firepower here. 36" range is their armor.
Shadow field WPP Archon w/Scytheguard - 2++/3+ Alpha strike, T6

So IKs aren't good saves, but almost everything else is.

The save is a toughness multiplier on top of otherwise VERY tough models....and only the invul saves really matter. If you are tough enough that it makes basic weapons need a 5 or 6 to wound, the save is just insult to injury, and makes you shift to a more efficient weapon class for dealing with the threat.

Soooo you're saying if you took their saves away or made them a 6+ these units would still be the best in the game?