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.

Anybody who thinks balancing around toughness makes sense these days need to realize that the wound chart and prevalence of S5 and S6 weapons says otherwise. The AP system also makes higher armour values less rewarding hence the prevalence of invulnerable saves.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Anybody who thinks balancing around toughness makes sense these days need to realize that the wound chart and prevalence of S5 and S6 weapons says otherwise. The AP system also makes higher armour values less rewarding hence the prevalence of invulnerable saves.

GW thought that +1T was going to be sufficient for gravis armor. They were wrong. Terminators have been bumped TWICE on wounds now, because without them, they were just too fragile.

SecondTime wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Anybody who thinks balancing around toughness makes sense these days need to realize that the wound chart and prevalence of S5 and S6 weapons says otherwise. The AP system also makes higher armour values less rewarding hence the prevalence of invulnerable saves.

GW thought that +1T was going to be sufficient for gravis armor. They were wrong. Terminators have been bumped TWICE on wounds now, because without them, they were just too fragile.

The biggest issue with 40k is that it's built from the ground up to revolve around killing your opponent's models and yet sucks at balancing around it. Things are too tough, not tough enough, too powerful, not powerful enough, and this doesn't even include the melee versus ranged problem. If they made units useful and unique in ways that don't simply involve murdering your opponent's stuff and/or avoiding being murdered perhaps we could have an interesting game.

I have to say for example in Fantasy stats were more arbitrary. You had empire captains with F4 and T4 for... no reason whatsoever, and characters or elite units with more strenght and toughtness without being physically different and nobody saw that as something strange.

Like, playing with death characters or historical characters, but in 40k thats seen as something extremely extrange. "Of course they can't made a model and rules for X, he's dead!" but... why? And I know Aun'va and Kreedd are dead, but that was fluff after the model were released.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Anybody who thinks balancing around toughness makes sense these days need to realize that the wound chart and prevalence of S5 and S6 weapons says otherwise. The AP system also makes higher armour values less rewarding hence the prevalence of invulnerable saves.

GW thought that +1T was going to be sufficient for gravis armor. They were wrong. Terminators have been bumped TWICE on wounds now, because without them, they were just too fragile.

The biggest issue with 40k is that it's built from the ground up to revolve around killing your opponent's models and yet sucks at balancing around it. Things are too tough, not tough enough, too powerful, not powerful enough, and this doesn't even include the melee versus ranged problem. If they made units useful and unique in ways that don't simply involve murdering your opponent's stuff and/or avoiding being murdered perhaps we could have an interesting game.

More temporary effects would be nice. Like "halve enemy unit movement next turn", "enemy unit CAN'T move next turn", "enemy units get -1 to hit next turn", "enemy unit can't shoot next turn" etc.

SecondTime wrote:
More temporary effects would be nice. Like "halve enemy unit movement next turn", "enemy unit CAN'T move next turn", "enemy units get -1 to hit next turn", "enemy unit can't shoot next turn" etc.

That doesn't exactly fix things, unless you do that and cut lethality. Even then you're just applying video game debuffs.

If you want real change you need to redesign everything from deployment, to list building, to scope and scale, and once you've figured those out you can start looking at designing stats and special rules.

This is an analog video game. And debuffs to reduce or shop shooting does reduce lethality.

SecondTime wrote:
This is an analog video game. And debuffs to reduce or shop shooting does reduce lethality.

???

Debuffs increase lethality, as you're also now *weakening* their troops with your highly lethal shots lmao.
Imagine not only killing 40% of someone's army first turn but NOW the rest of their troops have a healthy mix of the following applied to them:

> Like "halve enemy unit movement next turn", "enemy unit CAN'T move next turn", "enemy units get -1 to hit next turn", "enemy unit can't shoot next turn" etc.


lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Anybody who thinks balancing around toughness makes sense these days need to realize that the wound chart and prevalence of S5 and S6 weapons says otherwise. The AP system also makes higher armour values less rewarding hence the prevalence of invulnerable saves.

A yes, because toughness 5 is pointless. Okay Brian. I mean, canadian.
T5 is very, very powerful against lots of factions that don't have over the top access to S5+ weapons.

Imagine armies not having access to troops that have S5 AP2 D2 shots. Hahahahahahaa

 Eonfuzz wrote:
A yes, because toughness 5 is pointless. Okay Brian. I mean, canadian.
T5 is very, very powerful against lots of factions that don't have over the top access to S5+ weapons.

Imagine armies not having access to troops that have S5 AP2 D2 shots. Hahahahahahaa

Why do you need troops to do your killing? One of the core issues with 40k is that troops are often useless because they simply don't kill enough to justify taking more than a minimum number of them.

Your options may be over priced, not meta, or have other issues but almost every army can spam weapons that treat S4 and S5 the same.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
This is an analog video game. And debuffs to reduce or shop shooting does reduce lethality.

???

Debuffs increase lethality, as you're also now *weakening* their troops with your highly lethal shots lmao.
Imagine not only killing 40% of someone's army first turn but NOW the rest of their troops have a healthy mix of the following applied to them:

> Like "halve enemy unit movement next turn", "enemy unit CAN'T move next turn", "enemy units get -1 to hit next turn", "enemy unit can't shoot next turn" etc.


lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Anybody who thinks balancing around toughness makes sense these days need to realize that the wound chart and prevalence of S5 and S6 weapons says otherwise. The AP system also makes higher armour values less rewarding hence the prevalence of invulnerable saves.

A yes, because toughness 5 is pointless. Okay Brian. I mean, canadian.
T5 is very, very powerful against lots of factions that don't have over the top access to S5+ weapons.

Imagine armies not having access to troops that have S5 AP2 D2 shots. Hahahahahahaa

Yes, something would have to be done about alpha strikes, and more wounds probably need to be handed out as well.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
This is an analog video game. And debuffs to reduce or shop shooting does reduce lethality.

???

Debuffs increase lethality, as you're also now *weakening* their troops with your highly lethal shots lmao.
Imagine not only killing 40% of someone's army first turn but NOW the rest of their troops have a healthy mix of the following applied to them:

> Like "halve enemy unit movement next turn", "enemy unit CAN'T move next turn", "enemy units get -1 to hit next turn", "enemy unit can't shoot next turn" etc.


lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Anybody who thinks balancing around toughness makes sense these days need to realize that the wound chart and prevalence of S5 and S6 weapons says otherwise. The AP system also makes higher armour values less rewarding hence the prevalence of invulnerable saves.

A yes, because toughness 5 is pointless. Okay Brian. I mean, canadian.
T5 is very, very powerful against lots of factions that don't have over the top access to S5+ weapons.

Imagine armies not having access to troops that have S5 AP2 D2 shots. Hahahahahahaa

Oh totally, Heavy Intercessors have so many S5 AP-2 D2 shots for the price!

Oh wait they don't.

gibbindefs wrote:
Toughness is how hard you are to wound and what strength weapons you are more likely to withstand. (...) T4 because they are harder to wound than a human

Okay, so I'll give you the same challenge I gave Slayer-Fan: Find me a lore source indicating that Orks are physically difficult to damage, like how Marines' skeletal augmentation allow them to bounce bullets. I can give you plenty of sources showing lasguns blowing big chunks out of Orks just like what they do to humans, but they keep fighting despite grievous injury and take more physical damage to put down. So if we're to go by what the stats are 'supposed' to mean, an Ork Boy should be something like T3/W2.

Then while you're at it, explain what it is about a Plague Marine that makes them harder to wound than a normal Chaos Marine. It's not like rotting away makes it harder to damage them, quite the opposite; frequently in the fluff we see shots tearing bits off of them but not slowing them down. So they shouldn't be any tougher than a normal Marine, but have more Wounds before they die. Call it T4/W3, maybe T4/W4 if we drop Disgustingly Resilient.

I'm not being pedantic; this is fundamental game design: You pick stats to represent the relative characteristics of game pieces, and then rate them according to their real-world or lore-based performance in those respective stats. If the model really were that Toughness indicates inherent resistance to damage and Wounds represents how much damage they can take before being incapacitated, then the scale would look something like:
Humans/Eldar: T3/W1
Orks/Gaunts: T3/W2
Skitarii: T4/W1
Marines: T4/W2

So the things that have augmentations or other things to reduce the actual effect of bullets have higher T, and the ones that have more organ redundancy and less susceptibility to pain have higher W. Toughness represents how hard you are to damage, Wounds reflects how much damage you can take, right? Simple. Consistent.

But obviously that's not the actual model. The actual model is a legacy, pre-8th carryover that generally held that, for infantry, W1 is taken as a baseline. Then the nebulous idea of 'how tough is it to kill' was reflected through Toughness alone, but scaled to fit designer's intent for gameplay rather than fluff.

There's no logical reason a Plague Marine should be harder to damage than a normal Marine. Their skin doesn't become bulletproof when they turn to Nurgle, if anything it gets weaker as it rots out. They're not physically harder to damage. They're just able to take a lot more punishment and have to be systematically dismembered to render them combat-ineffective. Under the legacy model, that's why they were T5. But then that wasn't enough, so they got a FNP too. Why do Plague Marines, who feel no pain, get a Feel No Pain, but Orks, who feel no pain, just get T4? If you're still trying to justify the stat model, there's no consistency- the simple explanation is that FNPs were a bolt-on mechanic to increase durability without adding a second Wound or messing with the S-vs-T scale.

Throw translating fluff directly into stats completely out the window, because that hasn't how it's worked since, like, 2nd. 40K is Design For Effect through and through. And in terms of effect, I think W2 basic infantry cause more problems than they solve, and it will only get worse if more things get brought up to that level.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Anybody who thinks balancing around toughness makes sense these days need to realize that the wound chart and prevalence of S5 and S6 weapons says otherwise. The AP system also makes higher armour values less rewarding hence the prevalence of invulnerable saves.

GW thought that +1T was going to be sufficient for gravis armor. They were wrong. Terminators have been bumped TWICE on wounds now, because without them, they were just too fragile.

The biggest issue with 40k is that it's built from the ground up to revolve around killing your opponent's models and yet sucks at balancing around it. Things are too tough, not tough enough, too powerful, not powerful enough, and this doesn't even include the melee versus ranged problem. If they made units useful and unique in ways that don't simply involve murdering your opponent's stuff and/or avoiding being murdered perhaps we could have an interesting game.

I think one of the major problems is that the game is constantly one-upping itself.

When it's not giving new units bigger and better weapons just because, it's instead engaging in a constant offence vs. defence battle against itself.

e.g.:

"There are too many weapons with good AP! I know, we'll start improving Invulnerable saves across the board and also adding more of them!"

"Now AP isn't worth a damn because everything and its dog has an invulnerable save! I know, we'll make a new mechanic that ignores Armour *and* Invulnerable saves!"

"Wait, now elite units are getting killed by Mortal Wounds even when they have good armour *and* Invulnerable Saves! That's just not right. I know, clearly we need a new type of save that can be taken against any type of wound - even ones that bypass Invulnerable Saves. Now tough units can really feel tough again!"

"So many weapons aren't doing enough because the new super-hyper-mega-FNP is able to ignore even Mortal Wounds and has no weaknesses. I know, we'll start adding weapons that also ignore FNP . . ."

etc.

See the problem? At no point do they ever go back and fix the initial problem. Instead, they just escalate things more and more. And because of how the codex cycle works, it's never in an even manner but instead tends to be only some of the codices (typically the later ones in a given edition) that get the extra buffs.

 vipoid wrote:
I think one of the major problems is that the game is constantly one-upping itself.

When it's not giving new units bigger and better weapons just because, it's instead engaging in a constant offence vs. defence battle against itself.

e.g.:

"There are too many weapons with good AP! I know, we'll start improving Invulnerable saves across the board and also adding more of them!"

"Now AP isn't worth a damn because everything and its dog has an invulnerable save! I know, we'll make a new mechanic that ignores Armour *and* Invulnerable saves!"

"Wait, now elite units are getting killed by Mortal Wounds even when they have good armour *and* Invulnerable Saves! That's just not right. I know, clearly we need a new type of save that can be taken against any type of wound - even ones that bypass Invulnerable Saves. Now tough units can really feel tough again!"

"So many weapons aren't doing enough because the new super-hyper-mega-FNP is able to ignore even Mortal Wounds and has no weaknesses. I know, we'll start adding weapons that also ignore FNP . . ."

etc.

See the problem? At no point do they ever go back and fix the initial problem. Instead, they just escalate things more and more. And because of how the codex cycle works, it's never in an even manner but instead tends to be only some of the codices (typically the later ones in a given edition) that get the extra buffs.

I see it, but I also feel like GW sees it as a feature rather than as a bug. They figure players are already so invested that they'll ride the rollercoaster of balance in hope that they get a turn at the top of the heap.

When you look at it this way the constant bloat and scale creep all makes sense.

 catbarf wrote:

I'm not being pedantic; this is fundamental game design: You pick stats to represent the relative characteristics of game pieces, and then rate them according to their real-world or lore-based performance in those respective stats. If the model really were that Toughness indicates inherent resistance to damage and Wounds represents how much damage they can take before being incapacitated, then the scale would look something like:
Humans/Eldar: T3/W1
Orks/Gaunts: T3/W2
Skitarii: T4/W1
Marines: T4/W2

I'd totally play this, but we'd have people complaining how T4 doesn't mean anything and how W2 is pointless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Oh totally, Heavy Intercessors have so many S5 AP-2 D2 shots for the price!

Oh wait they don't.

I don't believe I mentioned Heavy Intercessor's Heavy Intercessor Heavy Auto Stalker Bolt Rifle at all.
But maybe S5 AP2 D2 shots aren't as ubiquitous as people are saying they are.... Does that mean T5 and W2 is good now?

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I don't believe I mentioned Heavy Intercessor's Heavy Intercessor Heavy Auto Stalker Bolt Rifle at all.
But maybe S5 AP2 D2 shots aren't as ubiquitous as people are saying they are.... Does that mean T5 and W2 is good now?

Way to shift the goalposts Eon. Is T5 a meaningful increase over T4 without factoring in wounds?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I don't believe I mentioned Heavy Intercessor's Heavy Intercessor Heavy Auto Stalker Bolt Rifle at all.
But maybe S5 AP2 D2 shots aren't as ubiquitous as people are saying they are.... Does that mean T5 and W2 is good now?

Way to shift the goalposts Eon. Is T5 a meaningful increase over T4 without factoring in wounds?

Yes. It doesn't matter against S1-3, S6-7, and S10+, but a LOT of weapons are S4-5 or S8-9.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes. It doesn't matter against S1-3, S6-7, and S10+, but a LOT of weapons are S4-5 or S8-9.

So you admit that it's useless against most weapon types.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes. It doesn't matter against S1-3, S6-7, and S10+, but a LOT of weapons are S4-5 or S8-9.

So you admit that it's useless against most weapon types.

So T3 has the same ranges
1-2, 5, 7-infinity

Does that means t3 is overly weak and needs a buff? Hell yeah!
Those poor T2 guys have it even worse!

1, 5-infinity!

Holy moly lets buff grtechin please!

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes. It doesn't matter against S1-3, S6-7, and S10+, but a LOT of weapons are S4-5 or S8-9.

So you admit that it's useless against most weapon types.

If you look at the number of Strength values it's not useful against, then yes, it's not super useful.

If you look at the number of weapons that it'll matter against? Then it matters a LOT.

Looking at the first three lists in the Army Lists section...

Deathskulls, 500 Points has a lot of S4 and S5 weapons, as well as at least one S8.

RG Succesor, 1,750 Points has one squad that has S6/7 weapons, the Hellblasters. Everything else falls into the S4-5 or S8-9 range, excepting some Combi-Plas which might fire at S7.

Necrons, 2,000 Points has two units (the Doomsday Arks) that fall outside those ranges. Everything else, to my knowledge, is S4-5.

Ork reference

"Orks are brave and tough, and their bodies have a natural resilience which allows them to survive traumatic injuries and the most primitive surgery. They feel very little pain and can keep fighting even if they lose a limb or sustain a major body wound. Their blood, which is green, carries a symbiotic algae through their veins, digesting and reconstituting damaged body tissue and even rebuilding major organs." Codex Orks, 2nd Edition, Page 4 and Page 5

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes. It doesn't matter against S1-3, S6-7, and S10+, but a LOT of weapons are S4-5 or S8-9.

So you admit that it's useless against most weapon types.

If you look at the number of Strength values it's not useful against, then yes, it's not super useful.

If you look at the number of weapons that it'll matter against? Then it matters a LOT.

Looking at the first three lists in the Army Lists section...

Deathskulls, 500 Points has a lot of S4 and S5 weapons, as well as at least one S8.

RG Succesor, 1,750 Points has one squad that has S6/7 weapons, the Hellblasters. Everything else falls into the S4-5 or S8-9 range, excepting some Combi-Plas which might fire at S7.

Necrons, 2,000 Points has two units (the Doomsday Arks) that fall outside those ranges. Everything else, to my knowledge, is S4-5.

So if we only look at terrible lists that will struggle against anything remotely optimized... Is that really your argument?

I think T5 is a situation help, but probably not as valuable as GW thinks it is. Gravis armor was garbage until it went to 3W, due to all the 2 damage weapons.

Tygre wrote:
Ork reference

"Orks are brave and tough, and their bodies have a natural resilience which allows them to survive traumatic injuries and the most primitive surgery. They feel very little pain and can keep fighting even if they lose a limb or sustain a major body wound. Their blood, which is green, carries a symbiotic algae through their veins, digesting and reconstituting damaged body tissue and even rebuilding major organs." Codex Orks, 2nd Edition, Page 4 and Page 5

Perfect! So fluff-accurate Orks shouldn't be any tougher to damage than humans (they're just made of flesh, after all), but should be able to sustain a lot more damage before dying. So if T represents how hard they are to damage, and W represents how much damage they can sustain, then Orks will be lore-accurate at T3/W2.

See, what I think is really going on is people interpret Toughness as 'how hard a thing is to kill' and Wounds as 'how hard a thing is to kill', and don't actually differentiate between the two. Until this question comes up, and then differing identities for the stats are retroactively justified, even though in practice they're both used much to the same effect.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes. It doesn't matter against S1-3, S6-7, and S10+, but a LOT of weapons are S4-5 or S8-9.

So you admit that it's useless against most weapon types.

If you look at the number of Strength values it's not useful against, then yes, it's not super useful.

If you look at the number of weapons that it'll matter against? Then it matters a LOT.

Looking at the first three lists in the Army Lists section...

Deathskulls, 500 Points has a lot of S4 and S5 weapons, as well as at least one S8.

RG Succesor, 1,750 Points has one squad that has S6/7 weapons, the Hellblasters. Everything else falls into the S4-5 or S8-9 range, excepting some Combi-Plas which might fire at S7.

Necrons, 2,000 Points has two units (the Doomsday Arks) that fall outside those ranges. Everything else, to my knowledge, is S4-5.

So if we only look at terrible lists that will struggle against anything remotely optimized... Is that really your argument?

Is all gameplay in cutthroat tournaments?

But sure, let me google up some tournament lists.

Taking the first three from this Blood of Kittens post.

Custodes
This list has more stuff that ignores T4->T5 than not. So okay, that's one list where it doesn't matter a TON-it still matters. There's the Guardian Spear shooting, Sentinel Blade shooting and melee...

Goffs
First model? S8.
Then over 100 Skarboys at S5.
Some Kommandos, S4.
And a few Big Shootas, S5.
The majority of this list? Is affected by T4->T5.

Death Guard-CSM
Decent amount of S4 Bolters, lot of Possessed who are S5.

Overall? No, T4->T5 is not ALWAYS going to help. But against a lot of lists-including, as shown especially with that second list-it will.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Is all gameplay in cutthroat tournaments?

If you're playing a PUG you need to account for the fact that you might play against anything from Timmy's first list to the hardest of hardcore tournament grinders.

But sure, let me google up some tournament lists.

Taking the first three from this Blood of Kittens post.

Custodes
This list has more stuff that ignores T4->T5 than not. So okay, that's one list where it doesn't matter a TON-it still matters. There's the Guardian Spear shooting, Sentinel Blade shooting and melee...

Goffs
First model? S8.
Then over 100 Skarboys at S5.
Some Kommandos, S4.
And a few Big Shootas, S5.
The majority of this list? Is affected by T4->T5.

Death Guard-CSM
Decent amount of S4 Bolters, lot of Possessed who are S5.

Overall? No, T4->T5 is not ALWAYS going to help. But against a lot of lists-including, as shown especially with that second list-it will.

I said it doesn't make a meaningful difference, not that it makes no difference. Is T4 versus T5 going to reliably change outcomes? Is it difficult to change a viable tournament list to deal with a T5 meta rather than a T4 or mixed toughness meta? That's what I'm interested in.

T5 isn't hard to remove unless it has a bunch of wounds, but that's a wounds issue, not a toughness issue. Was Gravis armour good at T5 W2? Would people take terminators if they were changed to T5 W2 rather than T4 W3? In the context of the discussion does toughness provide enough of a benefit to make a unit that doesn't work at T4 work at T5? How about going from T5 to T6 or T3 to T4 without another change to compliment it?

Tygre wrote:

See, what I think is really going on is people interpret Toughness as 'how hard a thing is to kill' and Wounds as 'how hard a thing is to kill', and don't actually differentiate between the two. Until this question comes up, and then differing identities for the stats are retroactively justified, even though in practice they're both used much to the same effect.

You still don't get it. They aren't both "how hard a thing is to kill." Toughness and Wounds are completely different. Toughness is what strength of weapon is required to wound the creature. Wounds is how wounded can the creature get before it can no longer fight.

The difference between T3 and T4 is that you need a stronger attack to wound them. An example: You have a full grown man and a toddler, you punch each of them on the arm, full force. The full grown man might get a bruise or he might just feel a stinging pain for a couple seconds, whereas the baby will probably have its bone broken or have massive bruises and internal injuries. The same attack had different chances of wounding them, based on how tough they were. This is how Toughness stat works. Wounds is how much damage they can sustain before going down. You don't reach wounds until after you bypass toughness. The example above, the full grown man didn't get wounded at all but the baby did. If there were a metal baseball bat involved then they would have both probably been wounded because the strength of the attack would have been much higher.

An example of the difference between 1W and 2W: Let's say you shot someone in the head and you succeeded to wound them. If it's a human they're pretty much dead. If it's a a massive muscular alien Ork with regenative capabilities that are known to keep living even when their head is cut off, they might survive. So even though they both took the wound, one of them can keep on fighting, the other can't. Special characters have high wounds because they are basically action heroes or protagonists. Think of an action movie where the main character gets hit with a bunch of bullets, but keeps on going through plot armor or by being a badass, but all the minor characters die in a single hit. Or how about a giant Ogre in a lord of the rings movie with arrows sticking out of his body and he gets stabbed a bunch of times, but he keeps on going. Technically all of those wounds got past his toughness but, do to his large bulk and his high pool of wounds he was able to keep on fighting longer than an average fighter.

Armor save is the chance for your armor... to save you. Underneath is still your toughness

Tygre wrote:

Perfect! So fluff-accurate Orks shouldn't be any tougher to damage than humans (they're just made of flesh, after all), but should be able to sustain a lot more damage before dying. So if T represents how hard they are to damage, and W represents how much damage they can sustain, then Orks will be lore-accurate at T3/W2.

Just because they are both flesh doesn't mean they aren't harder to wound. If you got a in a fight with a goat or a gorilla, and you had a baseball, which would be easier for you to wound? Animals have massively different toughness based on bone density, muscle fiber density, skin thickness, how protected their organs are. If you think everything with flesh is equally as easy to hurt you are badly mistaken.

Goat: T2 1W
Gorilla: T4 2W

An Ork has Toughness 4 because he is tougher to WOUND than a human. Increasing their wounds to 2 would be a way to also show how they can keep on kickin' when they do finally get wounded.

You can't just arbitrarily change the stat balance of things. Are vehicles just going to be Toughness 15 and only have 1 wound? How about a Carnifex, Toughness 3 with 15 wounds? It doesn't make sense this way and is inconsistent with how the combat system has worked.

Man a lot of butthurt over the proposal of Orks needing to be W2.

Quite frankly stats aren't explored enough. Make Exarchs W3! Make Meganobz W4! What's with the hesitation?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Man a lot of butthurt over the proposal of Orks needing to be W2.

Quite frankly stats aren't explored enough. Make Exarchs W3! Make Meganobz W4! What's with the hesitation?

This! If we aren't going to redesign the game from the ground up could we please explore what limited design space the game has?

Let's try wacky stuff like making some weapons just outright kill non-character multi-wound models on an unmodified hit roll of 6, this would make a unit like snipers terrifying for the new multi-wound units. We could try giving horde units modifiers where they get +1 to hit as long as they have more than 11 models, call it something like 'weight of fire'. I'm even down for half stats, like a 3.5 strength that wounds T3 like it's S4 and wounds T4 like it's S3. That way you can make something stronger, or tougher than a guardsman but weaker and less tough than a space marine.

40k might never be a deep game with loads of moment to moment tactical depth but it has scope to be far better than it is.

gibbindefs wrote:

Tygre wrote:

See, what I think is really going on is people interpret Toughness as 'how hard a thing is to kill' and Wounds as 'how hard a thing is to kill', and don't actually differentiate between the two. Until this question comes up, and then differing identities for the stats are retroactively justified, even though in practice they're both used much to the same effect.

You still don't get it. They aren't both "how hard a thing is to kill." Toughness and Wounds are completely different. Toughness is what strength of weapon is required to wound the creature. Wounds is how wounded can the creature get before it can no longer fight.

The difference between T3 and T4 is that you need a stronger attack to wound them. An example: You have a full grown man and a toddler, you punch each of them on the arm, full force. The full grown man might get a bruise or he might just feel a stinging pain for a couple seconds, whereas the baby will probably have its bone broken or have massive bruises and internal injuries. The same attack had different chances of wounding them, based on how tough they were. This is how Toughness stat works. Wounds is how much damage they can sustain before going down. You don't reach wounds until after you bypass toughness. The example above, the full grown man didn't get wounded at all but the baby did. If there were a metal baseball bat involved then they would have both probably been wounded because the strength of the attack would have been much higher.

An example of the difference between 1W and 2W: Let's say you shot someone in the head and you succeeded to wound them. If it's a human they're pretty much dead. If it's a a massive muscular alien Ork with regenative capabilities that are known to keep living even when their head is cut off, they might survive. So even though they both took the wound, one of them can keep on fighting, the other can't. Special characters have high wounds because they are basically action heroes or protagonists. Think of an action movie where the main character gets hit with a bunch of bullets, but keeps on going through plot armor or by being a badass, but all the minor characters die in a single hit. Or how about a giant Ogre in a lord of the rings movie with arrows sticking out of his body and he gets stabbed a bunch of times, but he keeps on going. Technically all of those wounds got past his toughness but, do to his large bulk and his high pool of wounds he was able to keep on fighting longer than an average fighter.

Armor save is the chance for your armor... to save you. Underneath is still your toughness

Tygre wrote:

Perfect! So fluff-accurate Orks shouldn't be any tougher to damage than humans (they're just made of flesh, after all), but should be able to sustain a lot more damage before dying. So if T represents how hard they are to damage, and W represents how much damage they can sustain, then Orks will be lore-accurate at T3/W2.

Just because they are both flesh doesn't mean they aren't harder to wound. If you got a in a fight with a goat or a gorilla, and you had a baseball, which would be easier for you to wound? Animals have massively different toughness based on bone density, muscle fiber density, skin thickness, how protected their organs are. If you think everything with flesh is equally as easy to hurt you are badly mistaken.

Goat: T2 1W
Gorilla: T4 2W

An Ork has Toughness 4 because he is tougher to WOUND than a human. Increasing their wounds to 2 would be a way to also show how they can keep on kickin' when they do finally get wounded.

You can't just arbitrarily change the stat balance of things. Are vehicles just going to be Toughness 15 and only have 1 wound? How about a Carnifex, Toughness 3 with 15 wounds? It doesn't make sense this way and is inconsistent with how the combat system has worked.

I think you messed up the quotes. That was not me; it was Catbarf quoting me.

Personally I think the natural resilience and regeneration of organs warrant a better durability than thickened human flesh and redundant organs.

I have had an idea for a while that maybe Characters should have a wounds characteristic normal to their race/species; but have a certain amount of "Plot Armour" points. These "Plot Armour" points can be used to negate damage (maybe after rolling to save?). Maybe the "Plot Armour" save could also be cancelled if the damage was inflicted by a character who expends a "Plot Armour" point to make sure it counts. If a IG Captain is hit squarely by a heavy bolter he is as much paste as a new conscript except for Fate/Plot whatever. Just a thought, that probably belongs in the Proposed Rules section.