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.

For resilience of smaller models (infantry, small monsters, etc) I think GW would be better served looking at number of Wounds. Mutilators and Obliterators are good examples of doing it right, IMO. They have 5 Wounds, which is an annoying number to deal with efficiently. Even proper anti-tank will fail to deal 5 damage around 50% of the time or more, depending on the exact weapon.

GW don't use enough of the range of T, W and Save range. Too many things scale linearly across all 3. Something that's got high Toughness will almost always also have lots of Wounds and usually a good save too. It's the same with weapons where you get a decrease in shots but an increase in Strength, AP and Damage in an almost linear fashion. If we saw more units with, for example, high T but poor armour and middling Wounds that's a different sort of problem to solve than we commonly see. Same for things with a decent number of Wounds, but low T and poor saves. Almost all uses of FNP could probably be replaced by varying those ranges more and I think the game would benefit because the larger the range of profile types that exist the harder it is to "solve" the meta and figure out the best weapons to take because there are simply more potential problems you need to solve.