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.

Sorry for adding yet another thread to this topic but my local gaming group (I.e. my friends and I) will be trialing a simple change to see if it brings Astartes/Chaos more into line of what we want.

Basically, Power Armoured models ignore the first minus of AP and Terminator armour ignores the first 2 minuses of AP.

It might not fit everyone's idea, but we're giving it a crack.

Your thoughts are welcome!

Funnily enough, I´m using exactly the same ruling with the same numbers, though as a general buff to high-armored models, not limited to space-smurfs and without a willing assembly of guinea-pigs (sniff, please tell me how your testings go).

I´ve got to ask though, for clarification: By "ignores the first minus of AP", do you mean AP1 is ignored and AP2 and above are completely unaffected (which is how I understand and use it) or do you mean, all AP gets reduced by 1 (I assume you would have written it as "reduce AP by 1", but I want to make sure).

Custodes for 6 months!

So does Custodes, with far greater armor, get the same rules?

Once again, durability is not their issue. And why should space marines be more durable then necrons? Or a bug with armor as thick as a tank? Or an actual tank?

Every single one of these durability suggestions are crap and they all miss the mark on over all game issues.

I've also been contemplating this change, keep us posted on your findings!

 Lance845 wrote:
Once again, durability is not their issue. And why should space marines be more durable then necrons? Or a bug with armor as thick as a tank? Or an actual tank?

Every single one of these durability suggestions are crap and they all miss the mark on over all game issues.

I get why this might be an annoying query, so I hope I don't offend you, for I just want to learn the general consensus, when i ask: what is the issue then?
It is my opinion that astartes nowadays are just to easily killed to facilitate their lore reinforced gameplay design (close range highly durable elite shock troops)

The main problem from what I have learned from all the "make marines great again" threads over the last 4 months is that space marines die way to fast for their points costs.
But making these boys cheaper goes against their elite nature, and those who love the astartes faction do not want to play a power armored guard army.
It maybe that the main problem may lie in the core rules, but these are allot more difficult to change and may take more time then giving marines a rules bonded buff a la bolter discipline.

So the only change I see with these conditions is to make the standard marine more durable.
Be it with a rule akin to the cult of the rusted clan faction tactic, or an extra wound and attack for all but the characters.

But what is your opinion?

Just posting my 5 pence here, but I think durability is exactly the issue. High-armored models used to be able to "plink off" small arms fire, only being really vulnerable to dedicated anti-armor weaponry. Now that any kind of AP affects any armor, all those high-armor models look kinda bad.

Also, AP is always more effective, the higher the armor of the target, i.e. AP1 is much stronger against 2+ armor than it is against 6+ armor, so there no longer is a distinction between "anti-light armor" and "anti-heavy armor". It is always anti-the-more-armor-the-better, which again makes high-armored dudes look bad.

I agree with Lance845, that marines shouldn´t randomly be more tanky than necrons or etc. Those issues affect everything. It is just that marines - being 3+ (almost) everywhere - are the army that where affected the most and, given that half the factions in 40k are some variation of marines, they also have the biggest player-basis. So it´s evident, that most threads focus on "make marines better" instead of "improve armor/AP mechanics" (the latter being what I would prefer to be implemented).

Note: you can apply similar arguments to the S-T chart. Basic infantry weapons hurting tanks on a 5+ is a) not ok, and b) the main reason why tanks aren´t very durable this edition.

Yeah except Marines only lost durability to old school AP4 weapons. Everything else they get a save against.

 timbosix wrote:
I've also been contemplating this change, keep us posted on your findings!

 Lance845 wrote:
Once again, durability is not their issue. And why should space marines be more durable then necrons? Or a bug with armor as thick as a tank? Or an actual tank?

Every single one of these durability suggestions are crap and they all miss the mark on over all game issues.

I get why this might be an annoying query, so I hope I don't offend you, for I just want to learn the general consensus, when i ask: what is the issue then?
It is my opinion that astartes nowadays are just to easily killed to facilitate their lore reinforced gameplay design (close range highly durable elite shock troops)

The main problem from what I have learned from all the "make marines great again" threads over the last 4 months is that space marines die way to fast for their points costs.
But making these boys cheaper goes against their elite nature, and those who love the astartes faction do not want to play a power armored guard army.
It maybe that the main problem may lie in the core rules, but these are allot more difficult to change and may take more time then giving marines a rules bonded buff a la bolter discipline.

So the only change I see with these conditions is to make the standard marine more durable.
Be it with a rule akin to the cult of the rusted clan faction tactic, or an extra wound and attack for all but the characters.

But what is your opinion?

Durability only has value in relation to impact on the field. If I made a unit that had a 2++ 2+++ with 30 wounds but it only had a 4" movement, no deepstrike, a melee weapon with 1 attack and no ap you would never bring it even though the thing was nigh invulnerable.

But if you had a unit with full table range 6 shots, doesn't require los, ap 5 str 10 gun but only 1 wound and a 7+ save you would be taking a COUPLE every game to hide in the back and do some damage.

Space marines don't have the impact on the field to keep up with larger cheaper units who do more damage through sheer volume of fire. You can make the space marines tougher if you want and they will still have the same problem. They will still get chipped away and die over the course of the game from volume of fire while having nowhere near the impact as guardsmen with lasguns.

SMs issue is a lack of impact on the field for the cost. Not durability. They are correctly durable this edition in comparison to all the other things and those things durabilties. What they can't do is get gak done on the battlefield.

OKorVesah wrote:
Funnily enough, I´m using exactly the same ruling with the same numbers, though as a general buff to high-armored models, not limited to space-smurfs and without a willing assembly of guinea-pigs (sniff, please tell me how your testings go).

I´ve got to ask though, for clarification: By "ignores the first minus of AP", do you mean AP1 is ignored and AP2 and above are completely unaffected (which is how I understand and use it) or do you mean, all AP gets reduced by 1 (I assume you would have written it as "reduce AP by 1", but I want to make sure).

Quick response until I have time to sit down later...
Our intention is to reduce AP. So -2 would become -1 for Astartes Power Armour and 0 for Terminator armour.

Custodes don't have the Astartes or Heretic Astartes key word that I'm aware of, so I'm not even worrying about them.

As others have said, durability is an issue. Maybe Astaetes lack in offensive ability as well, but they were never meant to be a glass hammer.

We'll be looking at other factions as we play them but this is our group's test, so your mileage may vary in your own group.

Space Marines should be closer to glass cannons though. They're shock troopers after all.

The durability is fine. They simply have no offensive output.

Try this. Take the current tac marine stat line. Compare it to ANY other unit from any other army. Is the durability correct by comparison?

They have the a higher Toughness then the average human. The second highest armor save in the game. And a single wound which is typical for all basic infantry.

Compare to necron warriors? 4+ save and rp. Seems right.

Immortals equivalent save and RP. Again. Looks right.

Hormagaunts. 6+ sv and t3.... yup.

Nid warriors. 4+ sv 3 wounds same T. Yup. They are twice the size of a normal human with more redundant organs or a lack of them to account for the extra wounds.


Keep doing this. Justify why in this edition SM should have even better armor by comparison to all the other things.

 Lance845 wrote:
Try this. Take the current tac marine stat line. Compare it to ANY other unit from any other army. Is the durability correct by comparison?

They have the a higher Toughness then the average human. The second highest armor save in the game. And a single wound which is typical for all basic infantry.

Compare to necron warriors? 4+ save and rp. Seems right.

Immortals equivalent save and RP. Again. Looks right.

Hormagaunts. 6+ sv and t3.... yup.

Nid warriors. 4+ sv 3 wounds same T. Yup. They are twice the size of a normal human with more redundant organs or a lack of them to account for the extra wounds.


Keep doing this. Justify why in this edition SM should have even better armor by comparison to all the other things.

And guess what? That was fine when Marines ignored the armor of a ton of those without the benefit of cover.

Now the issue is everyone gets a save. The durability significantly increased for Marines and you can't really deny that. The offense got incredibly pitiful though.

Try to ignore how they functioned in past editions It doesn't matter. Everyone has to deal with the reality of THIS edition. SM durability doesn't exist in a bubble. How does their durability stack up to other units NOW.

How do you justify needing a durability increase based on THAT information.

Yes. SM need more offensive oomph. I agree thats the real issue with the army (also they could be 1 or 2 points cheaper - GW over values durability). But in the most lethal edition in a long long time they have the equivalent staying power they should.

I'm finding myself being swayed quite a lot by Lance845's points - if we're looking at marines exclusively (and not my all-vehicles + marines idea) then improving their survivability is probably the wrong way to go.


So, marines should be a take-all-comers unit which can be tuned in one direction or another, but at their core they should be able to hurt tanks & monsters, hurt hordes and hurt elites.

Can a marine player confirm which of the 3 a unit of space marines (even if prepared for them with special weapons) struggles to impact?

Surely a simpler one is the saves going to 1+ for terminators and 2+ for marines in power armour?

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Surely a simpler one is the saves going to 1+ for terminators and 2+ for marines in power armour?

Not really, IMO - non AP weapons still have to be able to do the work that they normally do.

Given that my group is somewhat older I.e. 3rd edition + players, the dissociation between the old AP system and new really does make itself felt - so, no, we're not going to ignore the previous editions and expectations. There's no doubt that the game has scaled up and maybe smaller games would be an option, but we'd like to play with the new toys sometimes.

As I said, we're still testing to see what we like. Maybe to keep it fair to all factions, we just lower the AP on all weapons.
So far, had fun with Orks vs Marines, but not a lot of AP there anyway.

I get what you mean lance, those arguments seem valid.
Maybe the reason that people feel the way they do is that the marines die easier then that they kill.
Their less then average melee effectiveness, their low shot count, their best ranged weaponry limited to 2 a squad/platforms that lose bs as soon as they move.

Would be an extra bolter shot at RF range be enough? What about 2?
(Let' tread carefully, not to swing by the topic though)

But I still feel that with the buff we got for ap3+(ap-3, -4, -5) weaponry, we also got nerfed against ap4- (ap-2, -1) weaponry, the majority of the game.

Also, should the power armour of a sister or inquisitor offer the same protection as the armour of a space marine, being that the black carapace unlocks the full potential of these suits.

As for the unit type we mostly struggle with, with the little experience I have since the end of 5th, all of them? I always needed multiple sources of anti tank, anti infantry and anti elite to reliably take down the corresponding unit I wanted to.
With plasma helping me the most cause of the amount of rending shots

 timbosix wrote:

Also, should the power armour of a sister or inquisitor offer the same protection as the armour op a space marine, being that the black carapace unlocks the full potential of these suits.

Given that the black carapace has no bearing on the armors protective capabilities, there should be no difference. If anything, a very tiny "lightning reflex" invuln save (6+), as all it does is let marines move as if they weren't wearing the armor.

Zelse wrote:

 timbosix wrote:

Also, should the power armour of a sister or inquisitor offer the same protection as the armour op a space marine, being that the black carapace unlocks the full potential of these suits.

Given that the black carapace has no bearing on the armors protective capabilities, there should be no difference. If anything, a very tiny "lightning reflex" invuln save (6+), as all it does is let marines move as if they weren't wearing the armor.

Literally would be the most useless thing ever, not saying it's like, a horrible idea, but -4 AP doesn't come up enough.

I think tac marines need a boost in the form of combat squading.

Something like...

If you combat squad. When one unit shoots at a target the second combat squaded unit may pick a weapon and also shoot at that same target. This does not count as shooting for the round for that second unit.

In effect, 2 units of 5 marines can function together and potentially double their shooting. If one unit aims its las canon at a tank the other unit can also aim ITS las canon at that tank. When the second unit goes the first unit can do it again.

You would need to keep both units in range of the target. So bolters would work best flanking and/or moving together.

But you would HAVE to take 10 marines and combat squad them to get this benefit and it only lasts until one unit has been killed.

Still while its there it ups their field impact and puts some tactical into your tac marines.

You dont need to change the guns. You dont change the armor. You just let marines function together as a cohesive unit while combat squaded.

Zelse wrote:

 timbosix wrote:

Also, should the power armour of a sister or inquisitor offer the same protection as the armour op a space marine, being that the black carapace unlocks the full potential of these suits.

Given that the black carapace has no bearing on the armors protective capabilities, there should be no difference. If anything, a very tiny "lightning reflex" invuln save (6+), as all it does is let marines move as if they weren't wearing the armor.

I don't totally agree that the carapace doesn't add protective capabilities, but I do agree that the effects are small enough for the scale of our game and might only facilitate a low invuln.

What about adding the effects of the black carapace together (I.e. autosenses enhanced reflexes, direct medical treatments, and momentary combat drug enhancements) and give these boys a 6+ Fnp standard, might be a leap to far though...

I agree with the futility of 6+ invulns, would a 5+ be to much?

Edit: Given the size of standard marine armies, a 5+ invuln would actually be to much in my opinion.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Zelse wrote:

 timbosix wrote:

Also, should the power armour of a sister or inquisitor offer the same protection as the armour op a space marine, being that the black carapace unlocks the full potential of these suits.

Given that the black carapace has no bearing on the armors protective capabilities, there should be no difference. If anything, a very tiny "lightning reflex" invuln save (6+), as all it does is let marines move as if they weren't wearing the armor.

Literally would be the most useless thing ever, not saying it's like, a horrible idea, but -4 AP doesn't come up enough.

Good, I'm glad you understand me then. To reiterate for everyone, black carapace is useless as a tabletop rule for marines.

I don't feel like FNP is good for it; Iron Hands replace a good portion of their body with bionics and that only gives them a 6+++. It takes a venerable dreadnought to otherwise gain said 6+++. I'm not going to expect minor medical injectors and bio monitors to suddenly give them all 6+++.

And the 6++ was largely a joke, referencing that nimble units are represented by invulns. Since marines are certainly not as nimble as Genestealers, any invuln good enough to matter simply won't be possible.

And so, I think black carapace is a dead end.

If a new rule is made for marines involving durability, it has to do with their black carapace or Transhuman morphology, otherwise people will be crowing about how other factions should get the rule too