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.

It seems to me that light armor and shields (5+) are hardly worth it.
Most of the time it seems I go up against strength 4 or 5 anyway (Chaos or Lizzies).
So just curious what others think. How much armor do you think it takes before it is worth the point cost?

Light armour and shield is great on low cost infantry, otherwise it is quite underwhelming.

In 8th, no one will take shooters with S3 if he can have anything else, so anything below a 4+ is not worth its point costs from my point of view. rather enlarge the unit with the saved points.

6+ is almost never worth it.

5+ is pretty standard. It’s usually built into the cost anyway

4+ is actually a good save in fantasy. At this point, I don’t mind paying for a shield

Everything above 4+ is pretty good with 1+ being awesome obviously. You have to take into account shield parry saves too

Adding points for shields on core troops goes toward your core percentage too so that’s another thing to consider.

I always take shields on my Dark Riders for example. That 4+ is very good because they mostly only see strength 3 or 4 attacks.

In combat it can be worth it for the Perry save. If you run in a lot of S4 of higher it does seem a bit underwhelming. I have kicked around the idea of using D8s for armour saves. That would make light better, but it would make things like Chaos Warriors a bit tanky. I feel like some of the upgrade options that have to pay for armour didn't catch up to the rules. Any unit that has to pay for light or shields should be getting them for free.

It's almost always better to have more bodies than it is to have more armor.

More bodies gives you more casualties until you lose steadfast, and it gives you better opportunities to negate steadfast. More bodies is more casualties needed before panic tests are required.

The only time I consider paying for armor is if the unit already has light/heavy armor and I want to give a shield, if they're the standout unit in the army and are most likely/guaranteed to see a lot of attention, or if the unit is armed with a ccw as the parry save is pretty damn sweet and can help curb runaway losses from high-strength units (if you're lucky).

But...I'm also primarily a Skaven player - at the end of the day more bodies is superior to better equipped bodies (for me). I just need to make sure that my rivals are leading the units that will see the heaviest fighting

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
In combat it can be worth it for the Perry save. If you run in a lot of S4 of higher it does seem a bit underwhelming. I have kicked around the idea of using D8s for armour saves. That would make light better, but it would make things like Chaos Warriors a bit tanky. I feel like some of the upgrade options that have to pay for armour didn't catch up to the rules. Any unit that has to pay for light or shields should be getting them for free.

Is that a one-handed save?

Armour saves get serious at 4+, but there a situational use for a 5+ save. I general I won't pay for it though except for base infantry or if it adds parry. There are some exceptions where the lifght armour and shield feels better. I give shields to Empire spearmen though I need not.
I draw the line at paying for 6+, any upgrade for 6+ is ignored and if the miniature looks better with, such as High Elf archers I model them how I wish then ignore the cost and save.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
In combat it can be worth it for the Perry save. If you run in a lot of S4 of higher it does seem a bit underwhelming. I have kicked around the idea of using D8s for armour saves. That would make light better, but it would make things like Chaos Warriors a bit tanky. I feel like some of the upgrade options that have to pay for armour didn't catch up to the rules. Any unit that has to pay for light or shields should be getting them for free.

Is that a one-handed save?

That is a bad joke

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Mr. S Baldrick wrote:
In combat it can be worth it for the Perry save. If you run in a lot of S4 of higher it does seem a bit underwhelming. I have kicked around the idea of using D8s for armour saves. That would make light better, but it would make things like Chaos Warriors a bit tanky. I feel like some of the upgrade options that have to pay for armour didn't catch up to the rules. Any unit that has to pay for light or shields should be getting them for free.

Is that a one-handed save?

That is a bad joke

But you still laughed...

And to be fair, if you hadn't misspelled "parry" I wouldn't have been given the ammunition in the first place, so it's your fault as well.

Whether armor is worth the points depends heavily on what sort of opposition you're facing.

Lots of S3 stuff like Skaven and elf shooting? It can be very much worth it. Facing lots of S6+ stuff... not so much.

For any unit with HW, a shield is generally worth the points so long as the cost of the shield is less than 1/6 the cost per model.

Most options for a shield are worth taking for 1pt. Moving from nothing to 6+ is not worth it. However most shield upgrade options already come with kight armour, or scaly skin, 6+ to 5+ is useful, most attacks are S3 or S4, and thus 5+ does save a proportion of casualties. You might not be making much statistical benefit, but it can effect combat resolution, which is worth more than its value in raw points vs un-upgraded models.

I tend not to pay for shields if I cannot use them in melee, halberds and shields only block missile fire, that matters very little, it also looks rather off to have halberd and shield armed models, though I do admit it is historical.

Cavalry often has to pay more, then it is often not worth it unless the native armour save is already very high pushing the same to a 2+ or 1+. If the bonus save costs the fast cavalry ability it should be avoided.

I still stand by my earlier comment that troops transition from ineffectively to effectively armoured once the save is 4+ or better.

I dunno guys, with stepping up / additional rank fighting in 8th there are a lot more dice being rolled.

With steadfast, units are hanging around a lot longer before breaking, too.

It's a lot more about attrition than quick charge-breaks as in previous eds.

5+ save against S3 attacks means a third of those would-be-casualties are saved. Over the course of several turns that will make a difference.

It is true the first round of combat receiving a mounted charge may see no saves due to lances, but as long as they hold that first charge, I would says 5+ saves are worthwhile.

So, you know, synergy with the rest of the army and purpose of your unit becomes influential here. A bunch of archers/skirmishers that will run away is probably not worth armouring. A holding ranked regiment with a BSB and/or general nearby, might be...

Hawke