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.

So I have seen the following article from couple days ago:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/05/18/the-adeptus-mechanicus-swoop-into-battlegw-homepage-post-2/

It seems the new ad mech flying infantry dudes are 2W base.

Lets look at this through prism of internal logic -
They are spindly robot skelingotn things flying on wings made of da vinci paper membrane stuff... They are still T3 so that's a human sized "chassis"

And you telling me they are as resilient as a temrinator or only 1 less wound than a wraithguard who is a construct made of space magic bone stuff?

So one could conclude the advent of the primaris has now power crept the new base stat of new infantry sized models to 2.
An example of 1 does not pattern make.... I am aware. But it is a strange phenomenon nonetheless.

The Skitarii Sicaran units are W2 as well, and that's likely what these guys are modeled after. I wouldn't overthink it.

I could see it being the standard for Elite infantry, while normal infantry on 25mm bases retain their 1 wound.

I could be totally wrong about this, but the new flying mechanicum infantry guys look quite large.

Also, the new Havocs got toughness 5 for absolutely no reason at all.

So maybe chalk this one up to GW having absolutely no internal consistancy and just doing whatever they want.

The extra wound likely represents the fact most of their body is mechanical, thus harder to take out of the fight.

I'm happy to see that GW has kind of cracked the lid on using 2 wounds to represent more elite and harder to kill things rather than just toughness, but I wouldn't expect it to be the defacto statline going forward.

I think question is: is 2W the new standard for infantry who serve a purpose other than holding objectives, filling slots, screening, or being a horde?

In other words: 2W infantry serve an actual purpose, 1W infantry take up space and die.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I could see it being the standard for Elite infantry, while normal infantry on 25mm bases retain their 1 wound.

IMHO that's definatly how it should be, 2 wounds should be used on infantry thats supposed to be durable. if you're described in the novels as regularly getting half your body shot off and still fighting you ABSOLUTELY should have 2 or more wounds.

I was afraid GW would start taking this route.

Primaris should have never been 2 wounds. They should have just used the marine stat line and been touted as "true scale".

I'm sure down the road we'll see 2 wound Necrons, and then Orks. Maybe aspect Eldar.

Then to compensate, marines will be given 3 wounds, and the cycle starts all over again...

 Stormonu wrote:
I was afraid GW would start taking this route.

Primaris should have never been 2 wounds. They should have just used the marine stat line and been touted as "true scale".

I'm sure down the road we'll see 2 wound Necrons, and then Orks. Maybe aspect Eldar.

Then to compensate, marines will be given 3 wounds, and the cycle starts all over again...

I disagree. If anything I feel like they should have made all Marines 2 wounds but left Scouts at 1 wound. Marines shrug off wounds that'd destroy the bodies of lesser men, but on the table they never felt like that.

Not everyone needs 2 wounds, and GW isn't giving everyone 2 wounds. Heck, look at Sisters. 1 Wound models on anything that isn't a vehicle or character.

8th edition has resiliency issues. The Armor Save vs. AP system makes the resiliency of models a moot point. Hitting is easy with all the modifiers available (special rules for units, a strategem, etc.). Next, wounding. Because it's possible to wound anything no matter what the strength of the weapon vs the toughness of the target is, and because mortal wounds are a thing, that only leaves the armor save. Even an AP -1 weapon is deadly. -2 or greater and you might as well not have any armor at all, leaving you with Invulnerable Saves and Feel No Pain. Again, about the best you will get here is a 4+ (maybe 3+).

The only resiliency models have is in the number of wounds a model has. Every weapon in the game does at least 1 damage (I am sure there is an exception somewhere...). Therefore, any model with just one wound and an armor of 5+ or worse, and no invulnerable or FNP might as well be removed as soon as it's hit. By giving a model just one more wound, you increase it's resiliency by a factor of 2, and now those armor saves might actually matter.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I could see it being the standard for Elite infantry, while normal infantry on 25mm bases retain their 1 wound.

IMHO that's definatly how it should be, 2 wounds should be used on infantry thats supposed to be durable. if you're described in the novels as regularly getting half your body shot off and still fighting you ABSOLUTELY should have 2 or more wounds.

So like, Orks then?

i'd dig it for specific units it would help more.

But i feel it's more a case of fighting the symptom of armor beeing more and more negated due to the prevalence of AP , especially when nu marînes get involved.¨

 Argive wrote:
So one could conclude the advent of the primaris has now power crept the new base stat of new infantry sized models to 2.
An example of 1 does not pattern make.... I am aware. But it is a strange phenomenon nonetheless.

The last full codex released - sisters of battle - had only a single 2 wound infantry unit (the elite arco flagellants) and next to no 2 wound guns to fight them. So if it's a trend it is one that doesn't apply to all factions.

You're overthinking things. Pteraxii are basically flying Sicarians, and these have been W2 from the very beginning. And they better be, with T3 Sv4+ for a model from 11 (Ruststalkers) to 20ish (for new Batmans, I expect Flamers to actually break 20 ppm) range they are going to be very soft and situational choice anyway. Just as Sicarians were (and are) so far.

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I could see it being the standard for Elite infantry, while normal infantry on 25mm bases retain their 1 wound.

IMHO that's definatly how it should be, 2 wounds should be used on infantry thats supposed to be durable. if you're described in the novels as regularly getting half your body shot off and still fighting you ABSOLUTELY should have 2 or more wounds.

So like, Orks then?

For most elite/heavy support units this would actually make sense, but I don't think there is a way to make 2 wound boyz without giving the unit a major rework akin to tacticals -> intercessors.

There is just no way to properly cost a troops unit of 30 2W models.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I could see it being the standard for Elite infantry, while normal infantry on 25mm bases retain their 1 wound.

IMHO that's definatly how it should be, 2 wounds should be used on infantry thats supposed to be durable. if you're described in the novels as regularly getting half your body shot off and still fighting you ABSOLUTELY should have 2 or more wounds.

So like, Orks then?

For most elite/heavy support units this would actually make sense, but I don't think there is a way to make 2 wound boyz without giving the unit a major rework akin to tacticals -> intercessors.

There is just no way to properly cost a troops unit of 30 2W models.

^^^ This
Let's add we are theorising about 60 wounds that, if simply slapped into the existing codex, could be resurrected in full squad strength and DSed on the board. Pre-nerf IH would be jealous about the cheese

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I could see it being the standard for Elite infantry, while normal infantry on 25mm bases retain their 1 wound.

IMHO that's definatly how it should be, 2 wounds should be used on infantry thats supposed to be durable. if you're described in the novels as regularly getting half your body shot off and still fighting you ABSOLUTELY should have 2 or more wounds.

So like, Orks then?

For most elite/heavy support units this would actually make sense, but I don't think there is a way to make 2 wound boyz without giving the unit a major rework akin to tacticals -> intercessors.

There is just no way to properly cost a troops unit of 30 2W models.

Right. And that is why using fluff to justify multiple wounds doesn't work in practice a lot of the time.

And if you are assigning wounds based on fluff then the HQ units for lots of factions would have the same number of wounds as their non-HQ equivalent. An Imperial Guard commander is still just a human, a fire warrior commander in an XV-8 battlesuit is still just a fire warrior in an XV-8 etc.

In fact, if anything they would have less wounds as they are typically older and so are more likely to be killed by an equivalent wound thanks to greater accumulated wear and tear on their bodies (this applies to all factions).

Wounds are purely a game mechanic and should be approached as such.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I could see it being the standard for Elite infantry, while normal infantry on 25mm bases retain their 1 wound.

IMHO that's definatly how it should be, 2 wounds should be used on infantry thats supposed to be durable. if you're described in the novels as regularly getting half your body shot off and still fighting you ABSOLUTELY should have 2 or more wounds.

So like, Orks then?

For most elite/heavy support units this would actually make sense, but I don't think there is a way to make 2 wound boyz without giving the unit a major rework akin to tacticals -> intercessors.

There is just no way to properly cost a troops unit of 30 2W models.

yeah I was specificly thinking Orks when I said this and Ork Boyz being that tough is silly but Ork Nobs ABSOLUTELY should have 2 wounds (and I'm pretty sure they do) and Ork Mgeanobz should proably have 3 wounds which.. BTW I belive they do.

 Argive wrote:
So I have seen the following article from couple days ago:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/05/18/the-adeptus-mechanicus-swoop-into-battlegw-homepage-post-2/

It seems the new ad mech flying infantry dudes are 2W base.

Lets look at this through prism of internal logic -
They are spindly robot skelingotn things flying on wings made of da vinci paper membrane stuff... They are still T3 so that's a human sized "chassis"

And you telling me they are as resilient as a temrinator or only 1 less wound than a wraithguard who is a construct made of space magic bone stuff?

So one could conclude the advent of the primaris has now power crept the new base stat of new infantry sized models to 2.
An example of 1 does not pattern make.... I am aware. But it is a strange phenomenon nonetheless.

No, you've made this up completely in your own head and there's no evidence of it whatsoever.

As others have said they have 2W because they are flying sicarias that have had 2 wounds since 7th edition.

Wounds now also reflect the difficulty killing stuff without increasing Toughness values.

Sicarians are made from Skitarii Nuggets - holy warriors of the Machine God unfortunate enough to have lost all their limbs in combat, but fortunate enough to have survived the experience.

So as well as all mechanical limbs (even Drumsticks have the remaining limb lopped off), their general level of cybernetic enhancement is more extensive.

This in turn means it’s harder to take them out of action. Shoot me in the leg, and I’m hobbled. Shoot a Sicarian in the leg? Far less likely it’ll have a sufficiently detrimental affect.

In game terms, this shuffles up what weapons are desirable. If we consider the humble Devastator Squad. For anti-infantry, you want rate of fire, so the Heavy Bolter might be your go to. For anti-tank, Lascannon is a classic for a reason.

But against things like Sicarians (multiple wounds, better save, chance to outright ignore wounds), the choice isn’t immediately clear. They make decent targets for Autocannon equivalents, but less so for more specialised weapons.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
I could see it being the standard for Elite infantry, while normal infantry on 25mm bases retain their 1 wound.

IMHO that's definatly how it should be, 2 wounds should be used on infantry thats supposed to be durable. if you're described in the novels as regularly getting half your body shot off and still fighting you ABSOLUTELY should have 2 or more wounds.

So like, Orks then?

For most elite/heavy support units this would actually make sense, but I don't think there is a way to make 2 wound boyz without giving the unit a major rework akin to tacticals -> intercessors.

There is just no way to properly cost a troops unit of 30 2W models.

Just saying, Orks are supposed to be super-tough.

If Tacticals got two wounds I would definitely expect Necron Warriors and Immortals to get two wounds.

But IMO the Elite-trooper-toughness thing is better solved with improved terrain rules, adjusted wound charts and de-proliferation of high-ap weapons. The prevalence and capability of high-powered shooting is the issue. Start handing out 2W to a bunch of units and Assault units get markedly worse, which is not what we want.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wounds now also reflect the difficulty killing stuff without increasing Toughness values.

Sicarians are made from Skitarii Nuggets - holy warriors of the Machine God unfortunate enough to have lost all their limbs in combat, but fortunate enough to have survived the experience.

So as well as all mechanical limbs (even Drumsticks have the remaining limb lopped off), their general level of cybernetic enhancement is more extensive.

For some reason, now I want to have a Colonel Sanders HQ for my AdMech.

By that logic, how many wounds should a Necron have? ALL of their parts have been replaced with regenerating metal.

isnt it due to them being more or less admech jetbikes rather than jump troops

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
isnt it due to them being more or less admech jetbikes rather than jump troops

I think so, yes. I doubt they're going to be shifting a bunch of core-unit stats around.

 Stormonu wrote:
I was afraid GW would start taking this route.

Primaris should have never been 2 wounds. They should have just used the marine stat line and been touted as "true scale".

I'm sure down the road we'll see 2 wound Necrons, and then Orks. Maybe aspect Eldar.

Then to compensate, marines will be given 3 wounds, and the cycle starts all over again...

We already have 2 wound infantry units for necrons, out of all of the data sheets for necrons only 4 have a single wound per model.

I like the idea of heavy infantry with 2 or 3 wounds, it's too bad that outside of a few select units heavy infantry in 40k kind of blow.

AoS has all heavy infantry with 2 wounds and theres nothing wrong with that.

Things like Tzaangors that in 40k have only one.

 Galas wrote:
AoS has all heavy infantry with 2 wounds and theres nothing wrong with that.

Things like Tzaangors that in 40k have only one.

AoS also has spill over damage and no Toughness, wounds are a way to should toughness, so you can't really compare the two together.

Yeah, and thats why big meele monsters like greater demons can actually work.

I mean, I don't ask for spill over damage for 40k but I have to admit when 30 ork boyz tarpit my Contemptor Achillus Dreadnought and I kill 4 a turn it feels bad.

 Stormonu wrote:

For some reason, now I want to have a Colonel Sanders HQ for my AdMech.

By that logic, how many wounds should a Necron have? ALL of their parts have been replaced with regenerating metal.

We know that the 'regenerating metal' takes time to regenerate.

The Sicarian(which is what the Pteraxii are based off of) aren't 2W just because they have their limbs replaced. It also has to do with pain enhancements, blahblahblahblahblah. They're basically Eversor Lites.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
AoS has all heavy infantry with 2 wounds and theres nothing wrong with that.

Things like Tzaangors that in 40k have only one.

AoS also has spill over damage and no Toughness, wounds are a way to should toughness, so you can't really compare the two together.

Wounds and saves are the way that AoS shows Toughness.

Not all saves, sometimes its just more wounds, look at Ogres for that.