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.

Welcome to a Cruddace led project? :-P

goundry wrote:saying that these models would make amazing black templars or dark angels which begs the question why paint them blue for the marketing !!

A lot of that comes down to GW wanting a coherent aesthetic for all their "generic" Marines. It's why they have all their Admech in the Mars scheme, and their Chaos in Black Legion, and Tau in their white scheme - it's just so they look unified on the shelves.

GW do a pretty good job of showing off what the models look like in other Chapter colours through the back box art and their online resources.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

goundry wrote:saying that these models would make amazing black templars or dark angels which begs the question why paint them blue for the marketing !!

A lot of that comes down to GW wanting a coherent aesthetic for all their "generic" Marines. It's why they have all their Admech in the Mars scheme, and their Chaos in Black Legion, and Tau in their white scheme - it's just so they look unified on the shelves.

GW do a pretty good job of showing off what the models look like in other Chapter colours through the back box art and their online resources.

Hence why reckon that, while it might still look a little silly, the ATV thing might look better in another color.

This brings me to a slightly off topic observation I've made regarding Primaris. I'm seeing many more Primaris painted in a camouflage pattern than we ever saw Baby Marines. The argument being Marines should be seen and heard. Was there a fluff section I glossed over that said Primaris are more inclined for stealth than their older kin?

Edited for speelingz

I think it’s just people harking back to RT, in line with things like helmet stripes coming back. That, or embracing the tacticool look and deciding that Primaris and the Vanguard allow for a fresh start and the use of camouflage.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then you clearly don't have an open mind. How do W2 Orks break the game? I haven't seen Nobz be broken whatsoever and they're really not much more expensive!

Very simple. Nobz are units of 5-10 dudes. 20W in total. And they're exactly 2x than a single boy, plus weapons. So they can be even 4x more expensive than a boy, in fact even 6x if equipped with both ranged and melee special weapons like a power klaw and kombi-skorcha. But it's fine as they are the elite unit, not the standard grunt unit.

30 orks with 2W would be 60W (or 61 if assuming that nob has +1W). Nobz and bikes would bump to 3W, meganobz to 4W, etc.... Now I may have to roll 60 saves, eventually with 60 FNP, just for a single troop unit. Not to mention that I'll probably have to field half the models in the list, which is something I'd hate.

We'll end up with either a few models on the table or with hordes that require infinte dice rolling.

More dice rolling for a single unit, lesser models. Both negative things, IMHO. In fact I think primaris are a mistake on any possible level, 1W tacs at 13-14 points were perfect. I can't stand this obsession with trying to push everything in lethality and/or survivability; to me a unit with high rate of fire should be a squad of devastators with 4 HB or a twin ass razorbacks, not things like Aggressors.

Kayback wrote:
This brings me to a slightly off topic observation I've made regarding Primaris. I'm seeing many more Primaris painted in a camouflage pattern than we ever saw Baby Marines. The argument being Marines should be seen and heard. Was there a fluff section I glossed over that said Primaris are more inclined for stealth than their older kin?

Edited for speelingz

Personally my Phobos armored primaris marines are joining my 10th company force, which has classically worn camo. Although they are going with arctic patterns to match the snow bases on my main force. My old scouts were on the exchange program with my Eldar, where their recon units were based to match the opposing forces.

From a fluff POV I always thought that a scout’s job was to gather information, not give it away, so they had no unit markings, and camo, not chapter colors.

From a practical POV, I painted my scouts when I still entertained the thought of keeping both my BA and Ultras as active armies. So no chapter color/markings meant I could use my scouts with either force.

Generally, the Primaris have been accepted more as “modern/future soldier” than “knights in space” so more practical color/camo choices fit better than banners flying and heraldic schemes.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then you clearly don't have an open mind. How do W2 Orks break the game? I haven't seen Nobz be broken whatsoever and they're really not much more expensive!

Very simple. Nobz are units of 5-10 dudes. 20W in total. And they're exactly 2x than a single boy, plus weapons. So they can be even 4x more expensive than a boy, in fact even 6x if equipped with both ranged and melee special weapons like a power klaw and kombi-skorcha. But it's fine as they are the elite unit, not the standard grunt unit.

30 orks with 2W would be 60W (or 61 if assuming that nob has +1W). Nobz and bikes would bump to 3W, meganobz to 4W, etc.... Now I may have to roll 60 saves, eventually with 60 FNP, just for a single troop unit. Not to mention that I'll probably have to field half the models in the list, which is something I'd hate.

We'll end up with either a few models on the table or with hordes that require infinte dice rolling.

More dice rolling for a single unit, lesser models. Both negative things, IMHO. In fact I think primaris are a mistake on any possible level, 1W tacs at 13-14 points were perfect. I can't stand this obsession with trying to push everything in lethality and/or survivability; to me a unit with high rate of fire should be a squad of devastators with 4 HB or a twin ass razorbacks, not things like Aggressors.

13-14 for a tac was a joke. Way too fragile, especially after gear. Beginning to sound like you just want easy wins over marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kayback wrote:
This brings me to a slightly off topic observation I've made regarding Primaris. I'm seeing many more Primaris painted in a camouflage pattern than we ever saw Baby Marines. The argument being Marines should be seen and heard. Was there a fluff section I glossed over that said Primaris are more inclined for stealth than their older kin?

Edited for speelingz

Sounds like accepting the reality that power armor is garbage in 40K.

"But it's fine as they are the elite unit, not the standard grunt unit."

It's not fine is they aren't worth that cost.

 Nevelon wrote:


Generally, the Primaris have been accepted more as “modern/future soldier” than “knights in space” so more practical color/camo choices fit better than banners flying and heraldic schemes.

That's what I always thought of the Primaris, then they went OTT with the Bladeguard Vets.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then you clearly don't have an open mind. How do W2 Orks break the game? I haven't seen Nobz be broken whatsoever and they're really not much more expensive!

Very simple. Nobz are units of 5-10 dudes. 20W in total. And they're exactly 2x than a single boy, plus weapons. So they can be even 4x more expensive than a boy, in fact even 6x if equipped with both ranged and melee special weapons like a power klaw and kombi-skorcha. But it's fine as they are the elite unit, not the standard grunt unit.

30 orks with 2W would be 60W (or 61 if assuming that nob has +1W). Nobz and bikes would bump to 3W, meganobz to 4W, etc.... Now I may have to roll 60 saves, eventually with 60 FNP, just for a single troop unit. Not to mention that I'll probably have to field half the models in the list, which is something I'd hate.

We'll end up with either a few models on the table or with hordes that require infinte dice rolling.

More dice rolling for a single unit, lesser models. Both negative things, IMHO. In fact I think primaris are a mistake on any possible level, 1W tacs at 13-14 points were perfect. I can't stand this obsession with trying to push everything in lethality and/or survivability; to me a unit with high rate of fire should be a squad of devastators with 4 HB or a twin ass razorbacks, not things like Aggressors.

You still haven't described how W2 Orks would break the game and you're only demonstrating Nobz as bad to begin with.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I think it’s just people harking back to RT, in line with things like helmet stripes coming back. That, or embracing the tacticool look and deciding that Primaris and the Vanguard allow for a fresh start and the use of camouflage.

For me it was just that the primaris marines and dreadnaughts look good in od green(or I think they do), I didn’t go full camo paint scheme though.


I am not a great painter by any means but with an OD green base color this is what mine looked like: https://imgur.com/a/Xepb2an

The game actually favors 10 Man units for marines (with 10 man units I can basically cover the whole table and chain to a 6" aura of reroll everything.) ITC was an entirely different way to play the game. I say was because ITC looks to be the way 9th ed will play. Which is sad because they have catered to the MTG style players that dont actually want units interacting at all. Can't get to pessimistic - I like a lot of these new changes so far as well.

On the issue for marines. They needed those buffs. Super doctrines they probably didn't need. You gotta realize. Marine vehicals weren't getting chapter tactics for all of 8th eddition until the new codex...when everyone elses did (cept chaos....which still makes no sense) - marine units were over-costed by approximately 20% accorss the board (because they were the first codex released). Instead of reducing the cost of everything they decided to make things worth those points...So they got +1A first round of combat and an additional -1 AP for certain weapon types on certain turns and IMO a great way to make bad units good.

IMO buffing IF chapter tactic was a stupid idea...they already had an amazing tactic (ignore cover is a fantastic army wide ability) They didn't need DAKKA DAKKA on top of it. Iron hands literally have 3 army traits when most armies have 1. It is clear where they messed up.

If you look at the 9th ed rules, it looks like it's shifting to MSU. Which was my point. Just about everything seems to favor 5 man marine squads so far ("any squad of 6 or more" etc), but I admit that it only LOOKS that way and we need to wait for the final rules.

And yeah, as someone who started the edition w/marines and DG, I totally agree marines needed buffs. Here's what we DIDN't need. TWO full codexes in 3 years, and the 7 million supplements we got. IN an edition where some armies literally don't function without their CP, and in an edition where some armies had almost no useful strats, marines (even the bare bones basic ones) basically got a strat that let's them avoid every rule that might be harmful to them. They went too far across the board imo. The problem is, the went SO far over with IH (I mean that might have been the most egregiously OP army ever - INCLUDING 7thed Eldar and 3rd ed BA) that it's hard to calibrate how bad the regular strats are. The problem is that everyone else in the game is more or less playing by the core rules, and the marines are playing a totally different game.

Then you add in the fact that ever since the 2.0 codex, the releases have essentially been "all marines all the time" in the face of DG not even getting a codex update in 3 years and Drukhari not getting any new models or characters in almost, what? 7, 8 years? On top of LOSING models with every release? In the past I've been the first one to defend marines. But we're at a point where, if you can't understand why people are having issues with how GW is handling them, I don't think you've been paying attention ...

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Drager wrote:
I dream of chapter tactics on all my units. Imagine if they let devastator squads have CT... Off. The. Chain.

Wait. No. I meant obsessions and Scourges.

I liked the marines getting fixed. I really didn't like them getting super doctrines. Their power is perfect without them.

Yeah makes no sense why there are units in the DE codex that are literally excluded in writing from befitting from kabal traits.

It's because they're MERCENARIES...well, except for they're literally all supposed to be mercenaries...including the units like Hellions and Reavers who are members of independent gangs and just as much a separate mercenary organization like the Scourges are....except you can't have your Kabalites hire a group of Reavers as mercenaries, they're part of the wych cults and they're locked in to the wych cult traits....

WE WANTED TO SPLIT UP THE CODEX, OK? GOD. JUST LET US ARBITRARILY DIVIDE IT INTO THREE, PLUS A BUNCH OF RANDOS WHO JUST DONT GET A TRAIT BECAUSE WE DONT KNOW HOW THEY FIT IN!!!

To be fair. Power from pain is a really powerful ability to begin with. GW might have been playing it safe due to power from pain being so good. It was the wrong call ofc. I really don't think flayed skull scourges would have been that OP. They certainly would be auto include level good though.

Part of the issue is you not getting traits if you mix them into the same detachment as well. THEN on top of that there's so many units that don't even get benefits overall, with Incubi being the worst offender.

And power from pain is only good on some units (excluding the first benefit) reroll charges and +1 to hit in combat are not useful on shooting units, whilst Immune to morale does next to nothing for a pretty dedicated MSU army and -1 to opponents leadership within six is real niche.

That's what I always thought of the Primaris, then they went OTT with the Bladeguard Vets.

Yeah - the more I look at/think about the new models, the less I like them. When I look at my own collection of "classics" and Primaris, there's a really cool contrast where the older marines are, to varying degrees decked out in all their bling and religious icons, etc, and the Primaris look more tactical. Like they're really just about the business of being soldiers and nothing else. Which, to me, is kind of cool because the Primaris are essentially Bobby G's idea, and he's not down with the whole Imperial Death Cult thing. It looked like a physical representation of the two different philosophies from the fluff. I liked that, and it made it feel like there was at least *some* reason to shoehorn the Primaris in using the story they did. But now, we're just going back to business as usual and I'm back to saying "yeah, should have just called 'em "true-scale".

It's just that they've reached Phase II of replacing the entire marine line. Now that the plan to completely replace and obsolete every original marine model is in full swing, they need to make gothic primaris too to fill that niche, because as soon as they can justify it to the boiled frogs, all those original marines are going the way of the dodo.

 Xenomancers wrote:
To be fair. Power from pain is a really powerful ability to begin with. GW might have been playing it safe due to power from pain being so good. It was the wrong call ofc. I really don't think flayed skull scourges would have been that OP. They certainly would be auto include level good though.

While I can't disagree (and I play Flayed Skull to boot), something to make Scourges an auto take was needed. It's such a lovely kit, but on the battlefield it's a suicide unit that struggles to kill things; all glass, no cannon.

That's ALSO another problem: Flayed Skull is the only Kabal that rewards you for playing Kabal units like they should be played.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's ALSO another problem: Flayed Skull is the only Kabal that rewards you for playing Kabal units like they should be played.

Mostly agree with this! Poisoned Tongue could be Kabalish as well in the way they played (the redeploy strat fits the style well), but mostly only FS ever really encouraged me to play 'correctly'.

The other problem with DE is they have so very few generic strats. Most strats (that would be generic in other armies) are locked behind specific obsessions. This locks you in to playing the obsession for that strat, which is infuriating. It also means that when we got the choose your own traits stuff and got no new strats or warlord traits to go with it those new traits were pretty underpowered by lack of strats. DE was the book that arguably needed new strats for generic factions the most, I think we were the only faction not to get them. Even CWE in the same book did.

DE have the worst set of strats in the game. They also have the best single strat in the game, but overall, they're incredibly weak. Really suffer from being in the first PA book, before GW knew what PA books were supposed to be.

yukishiro1 wrote:
DE have the worst set of strats in the game. They also have the best single strat in the game, but overall, they're incredibly weak. Really suffer from being in the first PA book, before GW knew what PA books were supposed to be.

Nah. DE were just shafted. The CWE though in the same book got a significant buff in power. They are marine tier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
To be fair. Power from pain is a really powerful ability to begin with. GW might have been playing it safe due to power from pain being so good. It was the wrong call ofc. I really don't think flayed skull scourges would have been that OP. They certainly would be auto include level good though.

While I can't disagree (and I play Flayed Skull to boot), something to make Scourges an auto take was needed. It's such a lovely kit, but on the battlefield it's a suicide unit that struggles to kill things; all glass, no cannon.

I take them usually in full kabal lists. Still one of the better options you have. It's really too bad they don't get ignore cover and reroll 1's like the rest of your army.

CWE didn't get new strats either, they just got a ridiculously overpowered, cheesy, terrible compbination of custom traits.

Which again feeds back into the point of GW not knowing what they were doing with the PA books at that stage.

yukishiro1 wrote:
CWE didn't get new strats either, they just got a ridiculously overpowered, cheesy, terrible compbination of custom traits.

Which again feeds back into the point of GW not knowing what they were doing with the PA books at that stage.

PA is similar to every other series of releases GW has ever done.
Some are OP like SM/Tau/Eldar
Some are okish like CSM
Some are terrible like DE and Tyranids and IK

Tycho wrote:

That's what I always thought of the Primaris, then they went OTT with the Bladeguard Vets.

Yeah - the more I look at/think about the new models, the less I like them. When I look at my own collection of "classics" and Primaris, there's a really cool contrast where the older marines are, to varying degrees decked out in all their bling and religious icons, etc, and the Primaris look more tactical. Like they're really just about the business of being soldiers and nothing else. Which, to me, is kind of cool because the Primaris are essentially Bobby G's idea, and he's not down with the whole Imperial Death Cult thing. It looked like a physical representation of the two different philosophies from the fluff. I liked that, and it made it feel like there was at least *some* reason to shoehorn the Primaris in using the story they did. But now, we're just going back to business as usual and I'm back to saying "yeah, should have just called 'em "true-scale".

That actually makes sense to me, since these are the first veteran primaries that we get.

The primaries marines are indeed a Gman creation, and they come without all the blings that define a chapter. If you read the fluff, most chapters use them as cannon fodder initially, because they don't mesh really well with them.

Centuries have passed though since the first primaries. Now some of those really made it into the ranks of the chapters and gained enough merits on the battlefield to become veterans. Those marines have been necessarily fully accepted by the chapter and have started looking like a marine of it. They have taken up their chapter's habits and uses, bling included.

To me, a "clean" veteran primaries would have sounded weird.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You still haven't described how W2 Orks would break the game and you're only demonstrating Nobz as bad to begin with.

Because they'd contribute to escalate the rush towards killyness. Everything becomes more resistent because everything can also do tons of damage. That's a bad concept that culminates in more elite oriented armies and more dice rolling, both cancer of 8th edition.

I simply dislike superheroes, unkillable stuff and units that cause overkill. It has nothing to do with the game's balance, only with the game's design. I would hate playing with 50-60 uber orks if that means a perfectly balanced 40k, orks are designed to have way more infantry models than SM. They can also go elite oriented with a list full with nobz, meganobz, flash gitz but that's the player choice. Primarizing everything just because primaris are broken isn't the answer, nerf the primaris is the way to go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
DE have the worst set of strats in the game. They also have the best single strat in the game, but overall, they're incredibly weak. Really suffer from being in the first PA book, before GW knew what PA books were supposed to be.

True, DE strats are mostly garbage and only a very few of them actually are used by the players. But DE also are one of the few armies that are very effective even without investing a single CP in stratagems.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then you clearly don't have an open mind. How do W2 Orks break the game? I haven't seen Nobz be broken whatsoever and they're really not much more expensive!

Very simple. Nobz are units of 5-10 dudes. 20W in total. And they're exactly 2x than a single boy, plus weapons. So they can be even 4x more expensive than a boy, in fact even 6x if equipped with both ranged and melee special weapons like a power klaw and kombi-skorcha. But it's fine as they are the elite unit, not the standard grunt unit.

30 orks with 2W would be 60W (or 61 if assuming that nob has +1W). Nobz and bikes would bump to 3W, meganobz to 4W, etc.... Now I may have to roll 60 saves, eventually with 60 FNP, just for a single troop unit. Not to mention that I'll probably have to field half the models in the list, which is something I'd hate.

We'll end up with either a few models on the table or with hordes that require infinte dice rolling.

More dice rolling for a single unit, lesser models. Both negative things, IMHO. In fact I think primaris are a mistake on any possible level, 1W tacs at 13-14 points were perfect. I can't stand this obsession with trying to push everything in lethality and/or survivability; to me a unit with high rate of fire should be a squad of devastators with 4 HB or a twin ass razorbacks, not things like Aggressors.

You still haven't described how W2 Orks would break the game and you're only demonstrating Nobz as bad to begin with.

Because then you would have to cost them at least at 11 points (8th edition points), and this takes them away from the horde role they are assumed to cover in the faction.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You still haven't described how W2 Orks would break the game and you're only demonstrating Nobz as bad to begin with.

Because they'd contribute to escalate the rush towards killyness. Everything becomes more resistent because everything can also do tons of damage. That's a bad concept that culminates in more elite oriented armies and more dice rolling, both cancer of 8th edition.

I simply dislike superheroes, unkillable stuff and units that cause overkill. It has nothing to do with the game's balance, only with the game's design. I would hate playing with 50-60 uber orks if that means a perfectly balanced 40k, orks are designed to have way more infantry models than SM. They can also go elite oriented with a list full with nobz, meganobz, flash gitz but that's the player choice. Primarizing everything just because primaris are broken isn't the answer, nerf the primaris is the way to go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
DE have the worst set of strats in the game. They also have the best single strat in the game, but overall, they're incredibly weak. Really suffer from being in the first PA book, before GW knew what PA books were supposed to be.

True, DE strats are mostly garbage and only a very few of them actually are used by the players. But DE also are one of the few armies that are very effective even without investing a single CP in stratagems.

Except it doesn't promote killyness. It makes them worth their cost. It's basically the same as cutting their cost in half for the amount of wounds you would get. Killing an Ork with W2 at 8-9 points is not any worse than killing 2 Gaunts or Infantry.

True or false?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then you clearly don't have an open mind. How do W2 Orks break the game? I haven't seen Nobz be broken whatsoever and they're really not much more expensive!

Very simple. Nobz are units of 5-10 dudes. 20W in total. And they're exactly 2x than a single boy, plus weapons. So they can be even 4x more expensive than a boy, in fact even 6x if equipped with both ranged and melee special weapons like a power klaw and kombi-skorcha. But it's fine as they are the elite unit, not the standard grunt unit.

30 orks with 2W would be 60W (or 61 if assuming that nob has +1W). Nobz and bikes would bump to 3W, meganobz to 4W, etc.... Now I may have to roll 60 saves, eventually with 60 FNP, just for a single troop unit. Not to mention that I'll probably have to field half the models in the list, which is something I'd hate.

We'll end up with either a few models on the table or with hordes that require infinte dice rolling.

More dice rolling for a single unit, lesser models. Both negative things, IMHO. In fact I think primaris are a mistake on any possible level, 1W tacs at 13-14 points were perfect. I can't stand this obsession with trying to push everything in lethality and/or survivability; to me a unit with high rate of fire should be a squad of devastators with 4 HB or a twin ass razorbacks, not things like Aggressors.

You still haven't described how W2 Orks would break the game and you're only demonstrating Nobz as bad to begin with.

Because then you would have to cost them at least at 11 points (8th edition points), and this takes them away from the horde role they are assumed to cover in the faction.

Why do you HAVE to price them at 11 points? We ready know GW did a random increase of points anyway that doesn't make any sense all the time. Spoiler Alert: Cultists aren't going to be a great horde unit at 6 points either!

Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.

That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.

 Trimarius wrote:
Surely, if the game is too lethal for you, adding in extra wounds on models that are historically described as tough would be in your interest? If there are twice as many wounds (and obviously not everything would go up, but just for arguments sake), then wouldn't the number of models removed in a turn go down by about half? Thus halving the lethality? I don't think anyone is claiming that we should up the damage output to compensate for the increased durability, after all.

That aside, there's always going to be an certain skew to how 40k represents survivability, as there are three different stats for "how hard it is to kill once you hit them" and none for "how hard it is to hit them in the first place". Ideally they'd add in a stat, let's call it "defense" for now, that interacts with WS/BS to determine hits. I also wouldn't mind rolling T and Sv into a single stat, as the differentiation (how you shrug off the damage) isn't super important at 40k's current scale (outside of a few outlier weapons), but that's really just to speed up play by removing a set of rolls. Low T/Sv but high Wounds gets you a punching bag that can roll with the hits, while high T/Sv and low Wounds gives you something that's hard to wound but brittle, though, so that distinction has a place even if you do combine T and Sv.

This. Change nothing besides doubling the wound count on every single thing in the game and moving the Character protection limit to 19 (...and double the degradation charts I suppose) would massively tone down 8th ed's absurd lethality.