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've been thinking a lot about durability in 8th lately, especially regarding the effects of the large core rules changes from 7th to 8th. I've posted most of the below in other threads, but think it's useful to have it all in one place.

First what I see as the problem:

The reason elite infantry are such garbage in 8th is purely because of the changes to AP, the wound chart, and multi wounds/damage.
The wound chart change is a big buff to T3, because they now treat S4 and S5 as the same thing. This is a big nerf to things that are supposed to be good at killing light infantry, like heavy bolters, heavy flamers, etc. This was clearly just done to make the wounding concept easier to remember, without thinking about what it does to these weapons.

The change to AP system is a massive reduction in durability to units that rely on armor saves for their durability. If you look at the math, the better armor you have the more your durability is decreased when AP is introduced. A 2+ save unit takes 100% more damage for each point of AP the wounding weapon has. A 3+ save unit takes 50% more damage per point. A 4+ is 25%, 5+ is 20%, and 6+ is 16% more damage per point. Because there are so any guns with at least 1 AP (pretty much any gun that isn't a basic infantry rifle), this means armor is not a particularly valuable stat, especially armor of 3+ or 2+.
Almost no matter how you look at it, the AP system is broken the way it is currently implemented. As an example, lets look at a heavy bolter. You would certainly think that a heavy bolter should be better at killing light infantry than it is elite infantry, which should be the job of things like plasma. Well, from a durability standpoint, a guardsmen out of cover would have to cost 7.8 points in order for a heavy bolter to kill as many points of guardsmen as it does 13 point marines. Guardsmen would have to cost 7.4 points for a heavy bolter to be just as good at killing them as it is at killing 37 point terminators (SB and power sword, their cheapest variant).

A third issue is wound/weapon damage thresholds, which are a new thing in 8th. Having 1 wound is typically better than paying for 2 wounds at the current prices, because there is a hard counter to having 2 wounds: weapons that do 2+ damage. The only counter to this on 2 wound models is FNP, as it as least lets you waste some of the 2 damage shots by reducing them down to 1, and forcing another 2 damage to finish you off. It isn't until 3 or 4 wounds that you can reliably survive 2 shots from most of the weapons in the game, and not until 5 that you can expect to survive a las cannon more than half the time, and not until 7 that you always take more than one D6 damage weapon to kill. Because pretty much all of the weapons that do 3.5 (the average of D6) or more damage are limited to 1 shot per weapon, 4 wounds is the peak of durability for infantry (i can't think of a 5 wound infantry model but might be forgetting something) and even then enough 2 damage weapons still drop them pretty effectively unless they have FNP. With the emergence of better auto cannon variants, 3 wounds can still be one-shotted by a number of weapons that have fairly high rates of fire, and there are tons of 2 damage weapons out there. The only counter to these weapons on high wound infantry is FNP, which can force them to survive an extra shot, and is why things like blight-lord terminators are actually hard to kill with 2 damage weapons.

All of this means that there is almost always a good weapon to shoot at elite infantry units, and no good weapons to shoot at light infantry.

Now what I think is a solution:

I think changing all the old template weapons to "can not do more hits than models in the unit" and then boosting the number of hits they get is the best option to fix those weapons. 2D6 should be the baseline. A flamer would then do an average of 7 hits but be terrible against vehicles and smaller units. This is just a quality of life change for those weapons. 

I don't see this change as being as important as the others, but some weapons like heavy bolters could use a rule like "+1 to wound against T3 or lower."

Then something has to change with AP, which is the main offender when it comes to elite infantry being uneffective. I think the easiest change would be to allow certain armor types to ignore a point of AP that would effect their armor save. All marine units, for sure, but other factions could probably use it was well, such as necrons. This let's these units survive high rate of fire weapons better. 

Then, cover shouldn't be something helps Marines more than it does guardsmen, so I'd remove the +1 to armor save and have it instead grant a 6+ FNP type roll to ignore damage. This is after any other saving rolls and sperate from other kinds of FNP. It increases any unit in cover's durability by the same percent. The only downside I see with this is it does sightly slow the game down. 

To fix the wound/damage issue, I think I'd change the way we roll armor saves to "when a model takes a wound, roll a number of armor saves equal to the damage characteristic of the weapon that caused the wound. Unsaved damage reduces the wounds of that model, but does not roll over to other models." So if you shoot an auto cannon at a marine, he has to take 2 saves to survive each shot. If you shoot an auto cannon at a primaris marine, he also has to take two saves. This increases the ability of high damage weapons to kill models with fewer wounds than they do damage, and simultaneously increases the durability of multi wound models by making it less likely that they get one shotted by weapons with exactly the damage they have wounds, assuming they get an armor save against it. VS targets that have more wounds than the firing weapons the average damage is about the same on average, but is less spikey (like now when you can fair a single save and take 6 damage or make it and take none), which I think would be more satisfying than the current system since a few points of damage from high damage weapons would be likely to always go through. This does slow the game a bit, but not by much, since most high damage weapons have low rates of fire. 

I think these changes would work well to fix the core issues with durability introduced in 8th without changing too much about how the game is played or feels to play. 

They are less about nerfing hordes than they are buffing elite infantry and making high damage weapons more relevant.

The % you post for the AP values taking increased damage are meaningless in the context you post them. Sure. A 2+ save takes "100% more" damage when targeted by a AP 1 weapon, but that "100% more" damage is still only 33% of the time.

Alternatively, a 6+ save model takes 16% more damage which means it takes damage 100% of the time when targeted by a AP 1 weapon.

The AP system isn't broken. You are only looking a partial picture and building an argument out of it. It's like saying 100% of deaths in shooting are related to guns so all guns need to be thrown into a pile and destroyed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The issue with elite models/armys is not their durability. Iit's their volume of fire.

Elite armies have less models with similar weapon profiles to most other armies. So for the same price they shoot less bullets and get less chances to remove enemy models from the field.

If the elite armies could provide a similar impact on the field it wouldn't be an issue. They can't, so it is.

 Lance845 wrote:
The % you post for the AP values taking increased damage are meaningless in the context you post them. Sure. A 2+ save takes "100% more" damage when targeted by a AP 1 weapon, but that "100% more" damage is still only 33% of the time.

Alternatively, a 6+ save model takes 16% more damage which means it takes damage 100% of the time when targeted by a AP 1 weapon.

The AP system isn't broken. You are only looking a partial picture and building an argument out of it. It's like saying 100% of deaths in shooting are related to guns so all guns need to be thrown into a pile and destroyed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The issue with elite models/armys is not their durability. Iit's their volume of fire.

Elite armies have less models with similar weapon profiles to most other armies. So for the same price they shoot less bullets and get less chances to remove enemy models from the field.

If the elite armies could provide a similar impact on the field it wouldn't be an issue. They can't, so it is.

I largely agree, although I'd argue that many elite armies (mostly marines) also have a durability problem, though that relates more to their rules representing their flavor than to their actual efficacy. Elite armies need to hit hard, but armies whose fluff says they feel really durable should actually feel durable on the tabletop.

As for needing weapons that are actually more efficient point for point against hordes than against elite armies, I think that's where flamers and blasts should come in. There's a recent thread that explores template weapon redesign here in the proposed rules forum. Personally, I like the idea of having "blast" and "template" weapons score a number of hits that scales with the target unit's model count. So a flamer might do 1d3 hits per 5 models in the target unit (rounding up). A frag grenade might hit d6 +1 per 5 models in the unit (rounding up). This would increase the average and maximum offensive output of the weapon, but only when firing upon large units.

It boils down to an issue class based pen and paper and video games had for a long time (and still do when built poorly). How do you balance survivability against damage output?

Is the glass canon really balanced against the tank?

The tank might be able to survive EVERYTHING, but if it has no dps of its own and cannot impact the playing field then the obvious answer is to just ignore it till the end.

The glass canon might die once you catch it, but until you actually do catch it it will lay waste to primary target after target.

Durability is not worth anything wothout an ability to impact the field. You could double the durability of elite, low model count, armies and they still wont be good because 40 guns shooting in an army is negligible against 200 in a horde army.

A single unit of termagants with devourers and a 1 point stratagem can shoot 120 shots on a single turn.

A full unit of 10 space marines can shoot 20 at half range. Those 2 units are not equivalent point for point. But the marines will NEVER catch up to the gants volume of fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Durability does not have any inherent value on its own. Durability only means something when compared to its impact on the field and needs to be valued based on that. A 100 wound model with a 2++ save a 4 movement and a single 6" range pistol 1 ap 0 gun has less value than a grot.

 Lance845 wrote:
It boils down to an issue class based pen and paper and video games had for a long time (and still do when built poorly). How do you balance survivability against damage output?

Is the glass canon really balanced against the tank?

The tank might be able to survive EVERYTHING, but if it has no dps of its own and cannot impact the playing field then the obvious answer is to just ignore it till the end.

The glass canon might die once you catch it, but until you actually do catch it it will lay waste to primary target after target.

Durability is not worth anything wothout an ability to impact the field. You could double the durability of elite, low model count, armies and they still wont be good because 40 guns shooting in an army is negligible against 200 in a horde army.

A single unit of termagants with devourers and a 1 point stratagem can shoot 120 shots on a single turn.

A full unit of 10 space marines can shoot 20 at half range. Those 2 units are not equivalent point for point. But the marines will NEVER catch up to the gants volume of fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Durability does not have any inherent value on its own. Durability only means something when compared to its impact on the field and needs to be valued based on that. A 100 wound model with a 2++ save a 4 movement and a single 6" range pistol 1 ap 0 gun has less value than a grot.

Because objectives don't exist, right? And neither does body-blocking charges, or shielding for characters, correct?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It boils down to an issue class based pen and paper and video games had for a long time (and still do when built poorly). How do you balance survivability against damage output?

Is the glass canon really balanced against the tank?

The tank might be able to survive EVERYTHING, but if it has no dps of its own and cannot impact the playing field then the obvious answer is to just ignore it till the end.

The glass canon might die once you catch it, but until you actually do catch it it will lay waste to primary target after target.

Durability is not worth anything wothout an ability to impact the field. You could double the durability of elite, low model count, armies and they still wont be good because 40 guns shooting in an army is negligible against 200 in a horde army.

A single unit of termagants with devourers and a 1 point stratagem can shoot 120 shots on a single turn.

A full unit of 10 space marines can shoot 20 at half range. Those 2 units are not equivalent point for point. But the marines will NEVER catch up to the gants volume of fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Durability does not have any inherent value on its own. Durability only means something when compared to its impact on the field and needs to be valued based on that. A 100 wound model with a 2++ save a 4 movement and a single 6" range pistol 1 ap 0 gun has less value than a grot.

Because objectives don't exist, right? And neither does body-blocking charges, or shielding for characters, correct?

Last I checked objectives are held by the army with the most models around it. Also, charges have a easier time going around less models than more. Also just declare your charge against both the small unit attempting to block you and the unit you intend to reach. Since they don't have many models and their guns are not shooting more to make up for it the chance of their added overwatch impacting you is negligible.

Again, durability without impact isn't worth anything. A brick that sits in the middle of the table is just a brick you go around. The elite armies need to have elite impact on the field not simply elite survivability.

Well, if the 100 Wound 2++ model costs 5 points, suddenly you have to deal with a literal wall of impossible to kill bodies.

Moreover, you can't hurt stuff when you're dead. You need at least a minimal durability or you're either useless or binary.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Well, if the 100 Wound 2++ model costs 5 points, suddenly you have to deal with a literal wall of impossible to kill bodies.

Moreover, you can't hurt stuff when you're dead. You need at least a minimal durability or you're either useless or binary.

Great. Try to apply the example I gave with the subject of the thread. In the extreme example of 100 w 2++ models that cost 5 points they are not elite armies any more are they? They are a horde who can stand to have no movement and no range because they are going to close the distance and do their thing anyway by sheet weight of numbers. 2k army made up of 5 point models is 200k wounds with 400 guns. They could only hit on 6s and they would STILL be valuable just because of how many shots they have. In fact they would probably be the best army in the game as they inevitably overwhelm everything.

Alternatively if those models cost 25 points per model they are 80 guns. Hitting on 6s and regardless of how tough they are orks are a better army.

Even at 50 ppm (still stupid cheap for 100w and a 2++ save) it's 40 models. Completely ignore-able. By a large margin, the absolute worst army in the game.

EVEN in the case of applying a metric of 1w 2++ = 1 point so each model costs 100 points (still incredibly cheaply costed considering models with 16 wounds can cost several hundred points), that puts them at 20 whole models. Think they stand a chance of winning any game type?

See how durability can't be valued 1 for 1 to points cost? You have to consider how the model can actively impact the field. Not how capable it is at sticking around. Elite armies don't suck right now because their durability is gak. They suck because everything else is capable of impacting the field more for the same cost.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Well, if the 100 Wound 2++ model costs 5 points, suddenly you have to deal with a literal wall of impossible to kill bodies.

Moreover, you can't hurt stuff when you're dead. You need at least a minimal durability or you're either useless or binary.

Great. Try to apply the example I gave with the subject of the thread. In the extreme example of 100 w 2++ models that cost 5 points they are not elite armies any more are they? They are a horde who can stand to have no movement and no range because they are going to close the distance and do their thing anyway by sheet weight of numbers. 2k army made up of 5 point models is 200k wounds with 400 guns. They could only hit on 6s and they would STILL be valuable just because of how many shots they have. In fact they would probably be the best army in the game as they inevitably overwhelm everything.

Alternatively if those models cost 25 points per model they are 80 guns. Hitting on 6s and regardless of how tough they are orks are a better army.

Even at 50 ppm (still stupid cheap for 100w and a 2++ save) it's 40 models. Completely ignore-able. By a large margin, the absolute worst army in the game.

EVEN in the case of applying a metric of 1w 2++ = 1 point so each model costs 100 points (still incredibly cheaply costed considering models with 16 wounds can cost several hundred points), that puts them at 20 whole models. Think they stand a chance of winning any game type?

See how durability can't be valued 1 for 1 to points cost? You have to consider how the model can actively impact the field. Not how capable it is at sticking around. Elite armies don't suck right now because their durability is gak. They suck because everything else is capable of impacting the field more for the same cost.

When did I say durability should be counted 1 to 1?

When did I say anything about elite models?

Let me give you a counter-hyperbole. Let's take a model with an Assault 20 240" range, S40, AP-7, D20 gun. Hits on a 2+, rerollable. That mofo is gonna delete a unit a turn. But let's also say it's T1, W1, with an 8+ save and no FNP or character protection or anything. This is a unit with incredible offensive power, but no durability. If costed appropriately, it's going to make for crappy games-it's not even necessarily weak, since if you get first turn, you delete anything important, but if you don't, all of your stuff gets deleted.

Offensive power matters. But so does durability. Again, you can't affect the battlefield when you're dead.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Well, if the 100 Wound 2++ model costs 5 points, suddenly you have to deal with a literal wall of impossible to kill bodies.

Moreover, you can't hurt stuff when you're dead. You need at least a minimal durability or you're either useless or binary.

Great. Try to apply the example I gave with the subject of the thread. In the extreme example of 100 w 2++ models that cost 5 points they are not elite armies any more are they? They are a horde who can stand to have no movement and no range because they are going to close the distance and do their thing anyway by sheet weight of numbers. 2k army made up of 5 point models is 200k wounds with 400 guns. They could only hit on 6s and they would STILL be valuable just because of how many shots they have. In fact they would probably be the best army in the game as they inevitably overwhelm everything.

Alternatively if those models cost 25 points per model they are 80 guns. Hitting on 6s and regardless of how tough they are orks are a better army.

Even at 50 ppm (still stupid cheap for 100w and a 2++ save) it's 40 models. Completely ignore-able. By a large margin, the absolute worst army in the game.

EVEN in the case of applying a metric of 1w 2++ = 1 point so each model costs 100 points (still incredibly cheaply costed considering models with 16 wounds can cost several hundred points), that puts them at 20 whole models. Think they stand a chance of winning any game type?

See how durability can't be valued 1 for 1 to points cost? You have to consider how the model can actively impact the field. Not how capable it is at sticking around. Elite armies don't suck right now because their durability is gak. They suck because everything else is capable of impacting the field more for the same cost.

When did I say durability should be counted 1 to 1?

GW Seams to think durability equals cost. It's why marines are a point or 2 more expensive then they should be. It's also consistent with their older game theory/design and problems people have had balancing durability in the past.

When did I say anything about elite models?

This whole thread is about durability and elite models. I assume that when you decided to jump in on the conversation that you were participating in that conversation.

Let me give you a counter-hyperbole. Let's take a model with an Assault 20 240" range, S40, AP-7, D20 gun. Hits on a 2+, rerollable. That mofo is gonna delete a unit a turn. But let's also say it's T1, W1, with an 8+ save and no FNP or character protection or anything. This is a unit with incredible offensive power, but no durability. If costed appropriately, it's going to make for crappy games-it's not even necessarily weak, since if you get first turn, you delete anything important, but if you don't, all of your stuff gets deleted.

Offensive power matters. But so does durability. Again, you can't affect the battlefield when you're dead.

I get what your saying. I never said that durability was not a factor. I said it's value is based on the impact that thing has on the field. Durability itself has no actual value. It's only durability in relation to impact.

In your example, that units cost would be adjusted according to how easy it is to kill, but it would STILL have a cost, because as you say, it can just delete an entire unit from the field every turn from across the board. Take as many as you can and hide them in the back corners and you have a winning strategy.

But on the opposite end of a spectrum, something with nigh infinite survive-ability and NO weapons of any kind has no value. Maybe take 1 for 1 point so that you cannot actually be wiped from the board? But you can't win either so whats the point.

This thread suggests that the problem with elite armies is that they are not tough enough and it uses faulty examples and bad math to argue that point. Elite armies are not being wiped off the board turn 2 because of their lower model count. They are sticking around relatively similar to larger model count armies. What they CAN'T do is steam the tide or remove models fast enough to keep pace over the course of the game. All I am saying is if you want to fix elite armies don't look towards their staying power. It's not worth anything to you until you can balance out their ability to remove models.

 Lance845 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Well, if the 100 Wound 2++ model costs 5 points, suddenly you have to deal with a literal wall of impossible to kill bodies.

Moreover, you can't hurt stuff when you're dead. You need at least a minimal durability or you're either useless or binary.

Great. Try to apply the example I gave with the subject of the thread. In the extreme example of 100 w 2++ models that cost 5 points they are not elite armies any more are they? They are a horde who can stand to have no movement and no range because they are going to close the distance and do their thing anyway by sheet weight of numbers. 2k army made up of 5 point models is 200k wounds with 400 guns. They could only hit on 6s and they would STILL be valuable just because of how many shots they have. In fact they would probably be the best army in the game as they inevitably overwhelm everything.

Alternatively if those models cost 25 points per model they are 80 guns. Hitting on 6s and regardless of how tough they are orks are a better army.

Even at 50 ppm (still stupid cheap for 100w and a 2++ save) it's 40 models. Completely ignore-able. By a large margin, the absolute worst army in the game.

EVEN in the case of applying a metric of 1w 2++ = 1 point so each model costs 100 points (still incredibly cheaply costed considering models with 16 wounds can cost several hundred points), that puts them at 20 whole models. Think they stand a chance of winning any game type?

See how durability can't be valued 1 for 1 to points cost? You have to consider how the model can actively impact the field. Not how capable it is at sticking around. Elite armies don't suck right now because their durability is gak. They suck because everything else is capable of impacting the field more for the same cost.

When did I say durability should be counted 1 to 1?

GW Seams to think durability equals cost. It's why marines are a point or 2 more expensive then they should be. It's also consistent with their older game theory/design and problems people have had balancing durability in the past.

When did I say anything about elite models?

This whole thread is about durability and elite models. I assume that when you decided to jump in on the conversation that you were participating in that conversation.

Let me give you a counter-hyperbole. Let's take a model with an Assault 20 240" range, S40, AP-7, D20 gun. Hits on a 2+, rerollable. That mofo is gonna delete a unit a turn. But let's also say it's T1, W1, with an 8+ save and no FNP or character protection or anything. This is a unit with incredible offensive power, but no durability. If costed appropriately, it's going to make for crappy games-it's not even necessarily weak, since if you get first turn, you delete anything important, but if you don't, all of your stuff gets deleted.

Offensive power matters. But so does durability. Again, you can't affect the battlefield when you're dead.

I get what your saying. I never said that durability was not a factor. I said it's value is based on the impact that thing has on the field. Durability itself has no actual value. It's only durability in relation to impact.

In your example, that units cost would be adjusted according to how easy it is to kill, but it would STILL have a cost, because as you say, it can just delete an entire unit from the field every turn from across the board. Take as many as you can and hide them in the back corners and you have a winning strategy.

But on the opposite end of a spectrum, something with nigh infinite survive-ability and NO weapons of any kind has no value. Maybe take 1 for 1 point so that you cannot actually be wiped from the board? But you can't win either so whats the point.

This thread suggests that the problem with elite armies is that they are not tough enough and it uses faulty examples and bad math to argue that point. Elite armies are not being wiped off the board turn 2 because of their lower model count. They are sticking around relatively similar to larger model count armies. What they CAN'T do is steam the tide or remove models fast enough to keep pace over the course of the game. All I am saying is if you want to fix elite armies don't look towards their staying power. It's not worth anything to you until you can balance out their ability to remove models.

Lance is correct. If your indestructible but have nothing to attack with, you might as well be a wall on the battlefield. Cause you have the same effectiveness of the wall.

That said, elite armies atm do not have the firepower nor the "oomph" of effecting the battlefield as horde do at the moment, this is mostly due to the sheer weight of firepower that the enemy can pour out.

GW have always held durability much higher than offense, which is counterproductive because having a strong combination of both is key to the role of any unit.

Lets take the primaris marine vs the normal marine.

They both have the same toughness and save( T4,3+ respectively) they both have the same potential offensive capabilities (WS and BS 3+, Str 4) but when it compares to their firepower and survivability (Attacks, weaponry,Wounds) they are worlds apart, (AP-1 vs Ap - weapons on shooting and longer range, 1 vs 2 atks in CC, 2 Wounds vs 1 Wounds) the primaris marine in this example has much more firepower or killing potential than it's normal space marine counterpart.

Changing the killing potential of a model (higher fire rate, more attacks, AP penetration, Extra range, Extra damage) all these can change a unit to be more powerful without effecting the toughness or durability.


Lets look at the really great elite units "Custodian Guard", already their statlines are impressive (WS2+, BS2+,S5,T5,W3,A3,2+/5++) and their weaponry matches that with pure killing potential (Str4,AP-1,D2,24"range on shooting)

Just from their stat line you can tell that this unit not only can take a beating but can also deliver a beating aswell, yet apart from a few things, they are almost the same as the normal SM.

So what is the difference?

Killing potential (AP-1, D2 weapons) 3 Atks per model on power weapons.

Yet killing potential is determined not just by one stat, but by a few. These are:

Fire rate/Attacks
AP penetration
Damage potential
Range
Unit size

If you change any of these things, then the killing potential of the unit either goes up or down. Having a model that shoots only one shot wouldn't be much or a problem, until you decided that it would be a squad size of 30 models on average in that unit. Then the killing potential goes higher.

All these things are what you must consider when making a unit, because durability after a point becomes irrelevant in this edition

Honestly you could remedy a lot of stuff by just reducing the AP of a whole lot of weapons by 1...

What about the following changes:
Wound chart:
-Back to +1/-1 on the roll for each difference between S and T
-unmodified 1s always fail, unmodified 6s always succeed

AP weapons:
-All AP-1 becomes AP0
-All AP-2 becomes AP-1
-Specific targetted changes
--Gauss remains unchanged (AP-1)
--Shuriken becomes AP-2 on 6s
--Plas becomes S6AP-2D1 normal, S7AP-3D1 Gets Hot overcharge
---Gets Hot does a Mortal Wound on an Unmodified 1

Template/Blast weapons
-Hits limited by number of models in the target unit

Bharring wrote:
What about the following changes:
Wound chart:
-Back to +1/-1 on the roll for each difference between S and T
-unmodified 1s always fail, unmodified 6s always succeed

AP weapons:
-All AP-1 becomes AP0
-All AP-2 becomes AP-1
-Specific targetted changes
--Gauss remains unchanged (AP-1)
--Shuriken becomes AP-2 on 6s
--Plas becomes S6AP-2D1 normal, S7AP-3D1 Gets Hot overcharge
---Gets Hot does a Mortal Wound on an Unmodified 1

Template/Blast weapons
-Hits limited by number of models in the target unit

I largely agree. I just preface that some weapons, like the primaris bolt rifles and actual autocannons likely should keep their -1 AP, but otherwise, some other weapons could certainly use a hit to AP.

Further *targetted* specifics would need to be fleshed out.

Off the top of my head, here's how I see some specific weapons landing:
Heavy Bolter: S5AP0 - it's for shooting doods, not for penetrating armor. S5 is better now.
Heavy Flamer - same
Plasma Grenades - I'm going to miss their AP-1.
Dark Reapers - Not as scary with just AP-1.
Lascannons/Brightlance - no change - their AP is appropriate.

GW Seams to think durability equals cost. It's why marines are a point or 2 more expensive then they should be. It's also consistent with their older game theory/design and problems people have had balancing durability in the past.



This problem also applies to hordes and terrible balancing. GW charges very similar prices of weapons to the orks who die to 1 shot with a 6+ save. However if they restrict the points too far then that weapon gets spammed and then it doesn't matter how many of them you kill there will be more to follow up. Ultimately there are way too many variables to 100% balance the game. The closest we have come is this living ruleset that can change slightly as imbalances appear/disappear.