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.

Regarding the plasma over melta thing: most D2 weapons are in the S6-S7 range with multiple shots which makes them more reliable to hit and do damage than a S8+ weapon with only one shot and random damage.

One thing brought up is that the melta really needs to be double strength at half range instead of an extra die for damage so it can actually punch holes into things like it used to.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Regarding the plasma over melta thing: most D2 weapons are in the S6-S7 range with multiple shots which makes them more reliable to hit and do damage than a S8+ weapon with only one shot and random damage.

One thing brought up is that the melta really needs to be double strength at half range instead of an extra die for damage so it can actually punch holes into things like it used to.

The current extra dice for damage is actually better vs anything the melta is wounding on 3s or better than having double S instead.

Generally, melta's problem isn't wounding, it's:
A) getting passed invul saves.
B) only averaging 3.5 to 4.5 damage depending on if you are in melta range or not. This actually isn't that much damage against a lot of targets when you compare other weapons with 2-3 flat damage, worse AP, and more shots. It also really sucks when you roll 1 or 2 damage.
3) multi-melta's are heavy but typically need to move to get into range, and -1 to hit is a massive reduction in accuracy.

I'd change melta to always do at least 3 damage, which would make it considerably less annoying to use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for dark angels, I think they are actually in a pretty good place if you ignore all the issues that all Marines have.

Their speeders and bike have jink, which is a great rule, those units are just too expensive/not normally durable enough.

The chapter tactic means you don't need a captain or dread around for backfield units, which isn't terrible, and it would allow them to take large marine squads if the game incentivised that at all (which it doesn't die to the way detachments work).

Az is a boss, they have some very good strats (like fall back and shoot, or more damage to plasma), good powers, so if Marines in general were more durable/hit harder I think DA would be just fine. They certainly don't need a full rework right away.

 Dysartes wrote:
Given we've gone back to the 1st/2nd ed approach to armour, why not take Terminators back to their 2nd ed save?

It's a little finicky to use in play (unless users of Terminators bring pairs of coloured dice), but 3+-on-2d6 (I think you'd remove the invul at this point, and have a roll of 2 as an auto-fail) gives a resilience against any weapon in the game that would be unmatched in this edition.

I'd suggest a blanket Re-roll failed saves for all SM/CSM units as the simplest solution to their durability problem. In order to make sure it applies to the units needing a boost and not thiose that are already or would be potentially problematic, or that simply would notmake any sense, fluff wise, I'de word it as follows.

The Black Carapace
Units in ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES Detachments (other than than PRIMARCH, SCOUT, SERVITOR, CHAOS CULTISTS, DAEMON PRINCE, WULFEN, BEAST, DAEMON ENGINE, THOUSAND SONS and DEATH GUARD units) may reroll failed Save (Sv) and Invulnerability (Inv) rolls for models in that unit.

Also,I ve done a quick mock up of the odds of shots getting through for both re-rolling failed saves and giving a +1 to saves, versus Tactical and terminators current save chance.

Tactical Marine
Lasgun | BS4+|S3|AP-0
Base=5.55%|Sv+1=2.77%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=1.85%
Bolt Gun | BS3+|S4|AP-0
Base=11.11%|Sv+1=5.55%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=3.70%
Heavy Bolter | BS3+|S5|AP-1
Base=22.22%|Sv+1=14.81%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=11.11%
Disintigration Cannon| BS3+|S5|AP-3
Base=37.03%| Sv+1=29.62%|Re-roll failed Sv's=30.86%
Plasma Gun O.C | BS3+|S8|AP-3
Base=46.29%| sv+1=37.03%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=38.58%
Hellblaster O.C | BS3+|S8|AP-4
Base=55.55%| Sv+1=37.96%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=55.55%

Terminators
Lasgun | BS4+|S3|AP-0
Base=2.77%|Sv+1=2.77%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=0.46%
Bolt Gun
Base=5.55%|Invuln=5.55%|Sv+1=5.55%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=0.925%
Heavy Bolter
Base=14.81%|Invuln=14.81%|Sv+1=7.40%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=4.93%
Disintigration Cannon
Base=29.62%|Invuln=29.62%|Sv+1=22.22%|Re-roll failed Sv's=19.75%
Plasma Gun O.C
Base=37.037%|Invuln=37.03%|sv+1=27.77%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=24.69%
Hellblaster O.C
Base=46.29%|Invuln=37.03%|Sv+1=37.037%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=38.58%

Djangomatic82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Given we've gone back to the 1st/2nd ed approach to armour, why not take Terminators back to their 2nd ed save?

It's a little finicky to use in play (unless users of Terminators bring pairs of coloured dice), but 3+-on-2d6 (I think you'd remove the invul at this point, and have a roll of 2 as an auto-fail) gives a resilience against any weapon in the game that would be unmatched in this edition.

I'd suggest a blanket Re-roll failed saves for all SM/CSM units as the simplest solution to their durability problem. In order to make sure it applies to the units needing a boost and not thiose that are already or would be potentially problematic, or that simply would notmake any sense, fluff wise, I'de word it as follows.

The Black Carapace
Units in ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES Detachments (other than than PRIMARCH, SCOUT, SERVITOR, CHAOS CULTISTS, DAEMON PRINCE, WULFEN, BEAST, DAEMON ENGINE, THOUSAND SONS and DEATH GUARD units) may reroll failed Save (Sv) and Invulnerability (Inv) rolls for models in that unit.

Also,I ve done a quick mock up of the odds of shots getting through for both re-rolling failed saves and giving a +1 to saves, versus Tactical and terminators current save chance.

Tactical Marine
Lasgun | BS4+|S3|AP-0
Base=5.55%|Sv+1=2.77%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=1.85%
Bolt Gun | BS3+|S4|AP-0
Base=11.11%|Sv+1=5.55%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=3.70%
Heavy Bolter | BS3+|S5|AP-1
Base=22.22%|Sv+1=14.81%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=11.11%
Disintigration Cannon| BS3+|S5|AP-3
Base=37.03%| Sv+1=29.62%|Re-roll failed Sv's=30.86%
Plasma Gun O.C | BS3+|S8|AP-3
Base=46.29%| sv+1=37.03%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=38.58%
Hellblaster O.C | BS3+|S8|AP-4
Base=55.55%| Sv+1=37.96%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=55.55%

Terminators
Lasgun | BS4+|S3|AP-0
Base=2.77%|Sv+1=2.77%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=0.46%
Bolt Gun
Base=5.55%|Invuln=5.55%|Sv+1=5.55%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=0.925%
Heavy Bolter
Base=14.81%|Invuln=14.81%|Sv+1=7.40%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=4.93%
Disintigration Cannon
Base=29.62%|Invuln=29.62%|Sv+1=22.22%|Re-roll failed Sv's=19.75%
Plasma Gun O.C
Base=37.037%|Invuln=37.03%|sv+1=27.77%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=24.69%
Hellblaster O.C
Base=46.29%|Invuln=37.03%|Sv+1=37.037%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=38.58%

That's way too much durability.

A rerollable 3+ is 3 times as durable as a normal 3+ save, and 1.5 times as durable as a current 2+ save.

The problem isn't the 3+ or the 2+ save against non AP weapons. A 3+ save, with the ability to make it 2+ in cover is actually really good. That's why you cant just give all Marines a 2+ save, because theyd be way too durable against small arm fire.

The problem is that even 1 point of AP drastically reduces marine durability, so that's where the change needs to happen. If Marines ignored the first point of AP that effected their armor save, most of the power armor durability issues would go away. The other durability issues would be solved by letting all of the 2 wound Marines (primaris, bikes, etc) ignore 1 point of damage to a min of 1.

jcd386 has it exactly right. Rerollable saves become basically broken against basic weapons (which are by and large AP0). The simplest and cleanest solution is negating the first -1AP and decreasing damage by 1 (to a min of 1). This gives them durability much closer to what they used to have without breaking the game. And if you think that's too durable, it could always be given a restriction such as "Against weapons with a Strength characteristic of 8 or less..."

jcd386 wrote:

Djangomatic82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Given we've gone back to the 1st/2nd ed approach to armour, why not take Terminators back to their 2nd ed save?

It's a little finicky to use in play (unless users of Terminators bring pairs of coloured dice), but 3+-on-2d6 (I think you'd remove the invul at this point, and have a roll of 2 as an auto-fail) gives a resilience against any weapon in the game that would be unmatched in this edition.

I'd suggest a blanket Re-roll failed saves for all SM/CSM units as the simplest solution to their durability problem. In order to make sure it applies to the units needing a boost and not thiose that are already or would be potentially problematic, or that simply would notmake any sense, fluff wise, I'de word it as follows.

The Black Carapace
Units in ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES Detachments (other than than PRIMARCH, SCOUT, SERVITOR, CHAOS CULTISTS, DAEMON PRINCE, WULFEN, BEAST, DAEMON ENGINE, THOUSAND SONS and DEATH GUARD units) may reroll failed Save (Sv) and Invulnerability (Inv) rolls for models in that unit.

Also,I ve done a quick mock up of the odds of shots getting through for both re-rolling failed saves and giving a +1 to saves, versus Tactical and terminators current save chance.

Tactical Marine
Lasgun | BS4+|S3|AP-0
Base=5.55%|Sv+1=2.77%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=1.85%
Bolt Gun | BS3+|S4|AP-0
Base=11.11%|Sv+1=5.55%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=3.70%
Heavy Bolter | BS3+|S5|AP-1
Base=22.22%|Sv+1=14.81%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=11.11%
Disintigration Cannon| BS3+|S5|AP-3
Base=37.03%| Sv+1=29.62%|Re-roll failed Sv's=30.86%
Plasma Gun O.C | BS3+|S8|AP-3
Base=46.29%| sv+1=37.03%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=38.58%
Hellblaster O.C | BS3+|S8|AP-4
Base=55.55%| Sv+1=37.96%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=55.55%

Terminators
Lasgun | BS4+|S3|AP-0
Base=2.77%|Sv+1=2.77%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=0.46%
Bolt Gun
Base=5.55%|Invuln=5.55%|Sv+1=5.55%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=0.925%
Heavy Bolter
Base=14.81%|Invuln=14.81%|Sv+1=7.40%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=4.93%
Disintigration Cannon
Base=29.62%|Invuln=29.62%|Sv+1=22.22%|Re-roll failed Sv's=19.75%
Plasma Gun O.C
Base=37.037%|Invuln=37.03%|sv+1=27.77%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=24.69%
Hellblaster O.C
Base=46.29%|Invuln=37.03%|Sv+1=37.037%|Re-Roll Failed Sv's=38.58%

That's way too much durability.

A rerollable 3+ is 3 times as durable as a normal 3+ save, and 1.5 times as durable as a current 2+ save.

A Terminator would take 108 bolter shots to kill.

The problem isn't the 3+ or the 2+ save against non AP weapons. A 3+ save, with the ability to make it 2+ in cover is actually really good. That's why you cant just give all Marines a 2+ save, because theyd be way too durable against small arm fire.

The problem is that even 1 point of AP drastically reduces marine durability, so that's where the change needs to happen. If Marines ignored the first point of AP that effected their armor save, most of the power armor durability issues would go away. The other durability issues would be solved by letting all of the 2 wound Marines (primaris, bikes, etc) ignore 1 point of damage to a min of 1.

But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.

I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.

Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.

The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.

I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard.

Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.

The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.

I don't think they do. Especially if they also ignore 1 point of AP, which they should IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.

Yeah I wouldn't give it to Bobby G or HQs since they have more than 3 wounds, which is typically better.

jcd386 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.

I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard.

Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.

The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.

I don't think they do. Especially if they also ignore 1 point of AP, which they should IMO.

Yeah, it was mostly something that came up when we were still discussing treating Terminators and other multi-wound models differently than single wound models. Making it a single rule works better and means less to keep track of.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.

I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.

Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.

The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.

I'm more concerned about the lack of consistency. Somehow all these Marines have this armor that's granting rerolling of saves yet the Primarchs, who would obviously have far more advanced armor, don't get the bonus.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.

I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.

Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.

The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.

Thats pretty much why I don't think the SM/CSM base rule should be a +1 to save, it gets needlessly complicated when you start to factor in terminators and other similar units. A +1 save essentially makes Termies 5+Invuln and HQ's 4+ Invuln redundant, necessitating another rule to be added on top to differentiate them. re-rolling saves and invulnes doesn't require that while it increases their durability to an acceptable level while leaving the invuln as a still useful ability against the highest AP attacks.
If you are afraid of the durability increase this will cause against low strength and AP weapons, I'd say that that isn't really an issue, because, as a rule, your opponent should be shooting what they can kill or finding other ways of neutralizing the threat, like tying up the unit, devoting heavy weapons fire to them or using mortal wounds,instead of relying on S3, AP-0 and similar weapons to be the solution to armored units.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.

I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.

Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.

The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.

I'm more concerned about the lack of consistency. Somehow all these Marines have this armor that's granting rerolling of saves yet the Primarchs, who would obviously have far more advanced armor, don't get the bonus.

I'm not going to write to GW and ask them to give us rerolls on all of our saves. That is so massively broken that it's not even funny. Rerollable 2+ in cover for Tacticals? Not a chance.

Well I don't think you should have captains be reducing damage by one. That makes them way too durable.

If you wanted it to be one rule for all units, it could be something like "this unit ignores the first point of AP that would reduce it's armor save to a value worse than it's unmodified save value. Additionally, as long as this model is at its original number of wounds, incoming damage is reduced by 1 to a minimum of 1."

So 2 wound models would pretty much always reduce damage or just die, 1 wound models would just die but have a slight buff against multi damage weapons of they have FNP, but characters would still die okay to lots of multi damage attacks.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.

I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.

Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.

The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.

I'm more concerned about the lack of consistency. Somehow all these Marines have this armor that's granting rerolling of saves yet the Primarchs, who would obviously have far more advanced armor, don't get the bonus.

there's no reason, regarding game mechanics, that would necessitate the Primarchs getting the buff. They are so full of abilities already that anyone should be able to develop some head cannon for to justify them not getting a buff,

jcd386 wrote:
Well I don't think you should have captains be reducing damage by one. That makes them way too durable.

If you wanted it to be one rule for all units, it could be something like "this unit ignores the first point of AP that would reduce it's armor save to a value worse than it's unmodified save value. Additionally, as long as this model is at its original number of wounds, incoming damage is reduced by 1 to a minimum of 1."

So 2 wound models would pretty much always reduce damage or just die, 1 wound models would just die but have a slight buff against multi damage weapons of they have FNP, but characters would still die okay to lots of multi damage attacks.

A Captain is still a Space Marine, so not doing it would be sillier than doing it. If anything it might mean a points bump which would make it harder to spam them (which we're likely going to get in December to cut down on the Slamcaptains), but it's a fair trade for a character who doesn't wilt under fire automatically. Especially for Primaris who have trouble getting a 2+ save on characters.

And never write rules that require constant book keeping or could slow down rolls. Besides, I already mentioned a way to mitigate it a bit: gate it to S8 or less weapons so that against anything heavier it wouldn't be given the -1 treatment. This would punish lone characters who zip ahead of the army more as they could end up eating heavy weapon fire for being exposed like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Djangomatic82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.

I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.

Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.

The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.

I'm more concerned about the lack of consistency. Somehow all these Marines have this armor that's granting rerolling of saves yet the Primarchs, who would obviously have far more advanced armor, don't get the bonus.

there's no reason, regarding game mechanics, that would necessitate the Primarchs getting the buff. They are so full of abilities already that anyone should be able to develop some head cannon for to justify them not getting a buff,

In all fairness, the buff I want only works against S8 or less weapons meaning the big guns you aim at Magnus would be unhampered by it anyways.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
Well I don't think you should have captains be reducing damage by one. That makes them way too durable.

If you wanted it to be one rule for all units, it could be something like "this unit ignores the first point of AP that would reduce it's armor save to a value worse than it's unmodified save value. Additionally, as long as this model is at its original number of wounds, incoming damage is reduced by 1 to a minimum of 1."

So 2 wound models would pretty much always reduce damage or just die, 1 wound models would just die but have a slight buff against multi damage weapons of they have FNP, but characters would still die okay to lots of multi damage attacks.

A Captain is still a Space Marine, so not doing it would be sillier than doing it. If anything it might mean a points bump which would make it harder to spam them (which we're likely going to get in December to cut down on the Slamcaptains), but it's a fair trade for a character who doesn't wilt under fire automatically. Especially for Primaris who have trouble getting a 2+ save on characters.

And never write rules that require constant book keeping or could slow down rolls. Besides, I already mentioned a way to mitigate it a bit: gate it to S8 or less weapons so that against anything heavier it wouldn't be given the -1 treatment. This would punish lone characters who zip ahead of the army more as they could end up eating heavy weapon fire for being exposed like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Djangomatic82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.

I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.

Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.

The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.

I'm more concerned about the lack of consistency. Somehow all these Marines have this armor that's granting rerolling of saves yet the Primarchs, who would obviously have far more advanced armor, don't get the bonus.

there's no reason, regarding game mechanics, that would necessitate the Primarchs getting the buff. They are so full of abilities already that anyone should be able to develop some head cannon for to justify them not getting a buff,

In all fairness, the buff I want only works against S8 or less weapons meaning the big guns you aim at Magnus would be unhampered by it anyways.

There isn't any book keeping you aren't already doing. If the model is at full wounds, reduce damage. If it's not, don't.

jcd386 wrote:
There isn't any book keeping you aren't already doing. If the model is at full wounds, reduce damage. If it's not, don't.

I guess bookkeeping was the wrong word. I was more thinking how it would force you to roll every save one at a time for units of Terminators or Primaris as each wound could change on if it's affected or not. Basically it's too much complexity for the game for certain unit choices and would only lead to issues in competitive scenes.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
Well I don't think you should have captains be reducing damage by one. That makes them way too durable.

If you wanted it to be one rule for all units, it could be something like "this unit ignores the first point of AP that would reduce it's armor save to a value worse than it's unmodified save value. Additionally, as long as this model is at its original number of wounds, incoming damage is reduced by 1 to a minimum of 1."

So 2 wound models would pretty much always reduce damage or just die, 1 wound models would just die but have a slight buff against multi damage weapons of they have FNP, but characters would still die okay to lots of multi damage attacks.

A Captain is still a Space Marine, so not doing it would be sillier than doing it. If anything it might mean a points bump which would make it harder to spam them (which we're likely going to get in December to cut down on the Slamcaptains), but it's a fair trade for a character who doesn't wilt under fire automatically. Especially for Primaris who have trouble getting a 2+ save on characters.

And never write rules that require constant book keeping or could slow down rolls. Besides, I already mentioned a way to mitigate it a bit: gate it to S8 or less weapons so that against anything heavier it wouldn't be given the -1 treatment. This would punish lone characters who zip ahead of the army more as they could end up eating heavy weapon fire for being exposed like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Djangomatic82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
But Primarchs not getting that bonus would be silly as they're clearly in more advanced armor.

I'm suggesting that both bonuses apply to all Infantry and Biker Astartes models (Chaos and Loyalist) as even if you only have one wound, for FnP style effects reducing how many wounds you have to save is important for factions like Iron Hands and Death Guard. Naturally that would apply to Primarchs as well since even they could use the extra protection.

Plus it goes a long way to fixing a lot of units.

The only thing I'm on the fence of suggesting on top of that is saying that Terminators also need a 1+ save on top of it.

I'm more concerned about the lack of consistency. Somehow all these Marines have this armor that's granting rerolling of saves yet the Primarchs, who would obviously have far more advanced armor, don't get the bonus.

there's no reason, regarding game mechanics, that would necessitate the Primarchs getting the buff. They are so full of abilities already that anyone should be able to develop some head cannon for to justify them not getting a buff,

In all fairness, the buff I want only works against S8 or less weapons meaning the big guns you aim at Magnus would be unhampered by it anyways.

hmm, I dont really see how an Sv buff affects the Strength of an attack,other than that High strength attacks TEND to have high AP values, but whatever. If re-rolling all failed saves is too much how about this instead?

BLACK CARAPACE
Units in ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES Detachments (other than than PRIMARCH, SCOUT, SERVITOR, CHAOS CULTISTS, DAEMON PRINCE, WULFEN, BEAST, DAEMON ENGINE, THOUSAND SONS and DEATH GUARD units) may reroll failed Save (Sv) and Invulnerability (Inv) rolls OF 1 for models in that unit.

I'm still not down for the rerolls. If anything one of the complaints I've seen a lot of is the game has too many rerolls right now. Call it a preference thing but I feel like modifying a roll then rolling it once is better than rerolls.

Why wouldn't Death Guard get the bonus either?

You see the issue with consistency here?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
There isn't any book keeping you aren't already doing. If the model is at full wounds, reduce damage. If it's not, don't.

I guess bookkeeping was the wrong word. I was more thinking how it would force you to roll every save one at a time for units of Terminators or Primaris as each wound could change on if it's affected or not. Basically it's too much complexity for the game for certain unit choices and would only lead to issues in competitive scenes.

You could still roll them all at once. Say you have 5 terminators that took 6 plasma wounds. You save on a 4+ because you reduce the AP3 to AP2. You fail 3. It kills 1 terminators outright with the first two, and does 1 wound to the other. You'd only have to roll things seperately if they were different weapons, which you normally do anyway.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why wouldn't Death Guard get the bonus either?

You see the issue with consistency here?

Also Wulfen still have a Black Carapace so that's not even accurate there either. I'd argue that the Rubrics might not have a Black Carapace their sealed armour likely works just the same and the Sorcerers definitely do have a carapace meaning the rule is just arbitrarily restricting the "good stuff" regardless of lore.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm still not down for the rerolls. If anything one of the complaints I've seen a lot of is the game has too many rerolls right now. Call it a preference thing but I feel like modifying a roll then rolling it once is better than rerolls.

OK, but the +1 to save/ignore 1 ap is even more complicated and has far more consequences to units with invulnerability saves. When you contrast the tedium of re-rolling with all of the extra work that GW would need to implement (and wont do) to get everything the save and then more mechanics to fix those abilities that are made redundant by it. people really just need to get over it. roll dice and then roll more dice until someone wins.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why wouldn't Death Guard get the bonus either?

You see the issue with consistency here?

They would as far as I'm concerned.

FNP might need a price hike though, especially on blightlords etc.

jcd386 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
There isn't any book keeping you aren't already doing. If the model is at full wounds, reduce damage. If it's not, don't.

I guess bookkeeping was the wrong word. I was more thinking how it would force you to roll every save one at a time for units of Terminators or Primaris as each wound could change on if it's affected or not. Basically it's too much complexity for the game for certain unit choices and would only lead to issues in competitive scenes.

You could still roll them all at once. Say you have 5 terminators that took 6 plasma wounds. You save on a 4+ because you reduce the AP3 to AP2. You fail 3. It kills 1 terminators outright with the first two, and does 1 wound to the other. You'd only have to roll things seperately if they were different weapons, which you normally do anyway.

Speed rolling doesn't work when you have to arbitrarily switch what your saves are like that. If some are saving on 4s while others are saving on 5s you'd roll one at a time to ensure you rolled for the correct save every time. It'd be nigh on required to do it that way in tournaments to prevent possible cheating too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Djangomatic82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm still not down for the rerolls. If anything one of the complaints I've seen a lot of is the game has too many rerolls right now. Call it a preference thing but I feel like modifying a roll then rolling it once is better than rerolls.

OK, but the +1 to save/ignore 1 ap is even more complicated and has far more consequences to units with invulnerability saves. When you contrast the tedium of re-rolling with all of the extra work that GW would need to implement (and wont do) to get everything the save and then more mechanics to fix those abilities that are made redundant by it. people really just need to get over it. roll dice and then roll more dice until someone wins.

It's not "+1 to save" it's "reduce AP by 1 to a minimum of 0".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
There isn't any book keeping you aren't already doing. If the model is at full wounds, reduce damage. If it's not, don't.

I guess bookkeeping was the wrong word. I was more thinking how it would force you to roll every save one at a time for units of Terminators or Primaris as each wound could change on if it's affected or not. Basically it's too much complexity for the game for certain unit choices and would only lead to issues in competitive scenes.

You could still roll them all at once. Say you have 5 terminators that took 6 plasma wounds. You save on a 4+ because you reduce the AP3 to AP2. You fail 3. It kills 1 terminators outright with the first two, and does 1 wound to the other. You'd only have to roll things seperately if they were different weapons, which you normally do anyway.

Speed rolling doesn't work when you have to arbitrarily switch what your saves are like that. If some are saving on 4s while others are saving on 5s you'd roll one at a time to ensure you rolled for the correct save every time. It'd be nigh on required to do it that way in tournaments to prevent possible cheating too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Djangomatic82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm still not down for the rerolls. If anything one of the complaints I've seen a lot of is the game has too many rerolls right now. Call it a preference thing but I feel like modifying a roll then rolling it once is better than rerolls.

OK, but the +1 to save/ignore 1 ap is even more complicated and has far more consequences to units with invulnerability saves. When you contrast the tedium of re-rolling with all of the extra work that GW would need to implement (and wont do) to get everything the save and then more mechanics to fix those abilities that are made redundant by it. people really just need to get over it. roll dice and then roll more dice until someone wins.

It's not "+1 to save" it's "reduce AP by 1 to a minimum of 0".

You misunderstand me. Your saves would always ignore 1 point of AP.

The second part of the rule reduces incoming damage by 1 if you are full wounds.

So you would roll everything normally, but each terminator would take 2 failed saves to kill because the first one would only do one damage while the second did two.

It would slow down FNP on multi wound models though.

I apologize for my confusion. I still don't like it since it would slow stuff down in a game that already has trouble with that. It's not that it's bad, it's that the way the game works just slows things down too much as is so I find myself looking at keeping mechanics as simple as possible so they can't slow things down.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Why wouldn't Death Guard get the bonus either?

You see the issue with consistency here?

Also Wulfen still have a Black Carapace so that's not even accurate there either. I'd argue that the Rubrics might not have a Blac k Carapace their sealed armour likely works just the same and the Sorcerers definitely do have a carapace meaning the rule is just arbitrarily restricting the "good stuff" regardless of lore.

kinda, regarding the rubrics, they only really need a points drop to see play. they really do have amazing weapon options with AP-2 as the base line, as well as psychic powers on top of that. same goes for the Wulfen, they already have a 5+FNP with a baked in fight again, reroll 1's, 3+ invuln storm shield and all kind of stuff on top of it. they really dont need anything else.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I apologize for my confusion. I still don't like it since it would slow stuff down in a game that already has trouble with that. It's not that it's bad, it's that the way the game works just slows things down too much as is so I find myself looking at keeping mechanics as simple as possible so they can't slow things down.

There are only a few Maine units that are multi wound and have FNP.

But generally I'd just not give the rule to characters and you won't have an issue. Characters don't need more durability against multi damage, only 2W models do.

If it works on S8, it might as well work on everything. If it works on S7 and below, it's mostly pointless because plasma is still dropping terminators and whatnot.