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.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
armor of contempt was an excellent idea.

It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.

It needs to be extended to everything.

Just more confirmation that Orks are GWs punching bag faction and are never actually supposed to compete.

Most of our weapons struggle for AP at the best of times, and we were even given AP on our choppas as a sort of compensation, but now we've lost even more of our damage output across the board against half the factions in the game.

The Squigbuggy got inexplicably nerfed for a third time. It was good when you could have nine of them, yes. But now it functionally is a S5 AP0 D1 weapon against most of the game and isn't worth the plastic it's made from.

Even our go-to anti armour weapon, the rokkit, is functionally dead now. Everything is realistically going to be either in cover or wearing power armour most of the time, so best case scenario we get AP1, if not 0. How are we supposed to deal with armour now? Can't use massed boys and klaws like the old days because boys are awful and klaws bounce off. Can't use buggies or Wazboms, they'll just get further nerfed and taken away from us. At this point we're pretty much relying on good will from our opponent.

We weren't given a great book on release, and it seems that after a week or so of good tournament results Orks have had all the limelight they're allowed to have.

I understand that certain factions are overtuned and need bringing down a bit. But can we please do that in a sensible and nuanced way rather than saying "Harlequins are performing very well, best give the Ork players another kicking".

I also understand that certain factions are at death's door and are screaming out for a new codex. But again, we can be sensible with their buffs without giving them a rule that doesn't make sense (conscripts shouldn't be chasing off knights with massed lasgun fire. I don't care how much faith in the Emperor you have, this is unreasonable), and without nerfing everyone else.


At this point, GW either need to pull their finger out and release a book with well thought out set of major balance shifts across the board rather than knee jerk reactions, or accept that 9th is dead and start over with 10th and we go back to indexes that have been reset to a base power level.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
armor of contempt was an excellent idea.

It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.

They'd need a massive points hike then, though.

Armor of contempt was just a patch to help some low-mid tier factions being a bit more resilient, while custodes were already extremely resilient and top tier.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Just more confirmation that Orks are GWs punching bag faction and are never actually supposed to compete.

Most of our weapons struggle for AP at the best of times, and we were even given AP on our choppas as a sort of compensation, but now we've lost even more of our damage output across the board against half the factions in the game.

The Squigbuggy got inexplicably nerfed for a third time. It was good when you could have nine of them, yes. But now it functionally is a S5 AP0 D1 weapon against most of the game and isn't worth the plastic it's made from.

Even our go-to anti armour weapon, the rokkit, is functionally dead now. Everything is realistically going to be either in cover or wearing power armour most of the time, so best case scenario we get AP1, if not 0. How are we supposed to deal with armour now? Can't use massed boys and klaws like the old days because boys are awful and klaws bounce off. Can't use buggies or Wazboms, they'll just get further nerfed and taken away from us. At this point we're pretty much relying on good will from our opponent.

We weren't given a great book on release, and it seems that after a week or so of good tournament results Orks have had all the limelight they're allowed to have.

I understand that certain factions are overtuned and need bringing down a bit. But can we please do that in a sensible and nuanced way rather than saying "Harlequins are performing very well, best give the Ork players another kicking".

I also understand that certain factions are at death's door and are screaming out for a new codex. But again, we can be sensible with their buffs without giving them a rule that doesn't make sense (conscripts shouldn't be chasing off knights with massed lasgun fire. I don't care how much faith in the Emperor you have, this is unreasonable), and without nerfing everyone else.


At this point, GW either need to pull their finger out and release a book with well thought out set of major balance shifts across the board rather than knee jerk reactions, or accept that 9th is dead and start over with 10th and we go back to indexes that have been reset to a base power level.

bEsPoKe RuLeS aRe GrEaT bEcAuSe Gw CaN fIx ThEm InDiViDuAlLy, RaThEr ThAn MaKiNg SwEePiNg ChAnGeS...

Hey, it's not the Bespoke Rules fault that GW is inept.

But it is the USRs fault that GW is inept according to some

Voss wrote:

I know exactly why they did it, it's because of balance.

Eh. I don't really think this solves any balance problems.

I think its just a quiet admission (without really admitting it) that the guard codex is months off, and they want people to shut up for a while. Take your 'get-you-by' garbage and like it.
I don't think they're going to get the reaction they want, as they've raised to many hackles with this particular set of handwaves.

I imagine that guard need such a complete overhaul that their book has a ways to go to be finished for this edition.

We could maybe make some handwaves up about disciplined weight of fire but honestly it's a mechanical decision to not kick an army that's already down.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
armor of contempt was an excellent idea.

It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.

Marines have needed such a buff to be back in the game.
Marine players have shelved their army and can now think about rallying their Marines again.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
armor of contempt was an excellent idea.

It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.

Marines have needed such a buff to be back in the game.
Marine players have shelved their army and can now think about rallying their Marines again.

Yup. That said I wouldn't mind Sisters of Silence getting it, but I don't think Custodes need a durability buff.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
armor of contempt was an excellent idea.

It needs to be expanded to Custodes and Sisters of Silence. I'm a bit bitter that a 28 point Heavy Intercessor is just as hard to remove, arguably harder depending on faction, than a 50 point Custodes. I'm not saying Marines aren't elite and are too good, only that they are too close to Custodes now, who have far, far fewer toys and options.

Marines have needed such a buff to be back in the game.
Marine players have shelved their army and can now think about rallying their Marines again.

I agree. I don't see any of the Armor of Contempt factions automatically jumping to the winner podium with this change. However, I do see them moving from the bottom of the fat middle to possibly the top of the fat middle of factions with occasional overall tournament wins.

On the casual side, I see this change allowing marine armies to go the distance much more often, making it to Turn 5 or even actually finishing games instead of being tabled. Which I only see as a good thing. Doubly so as space marines are largely a new player army in my experience. I don't care so much about firepower with my marines (spikey or loyal) as much as I want them to be durable. Because being durable allows new players to make mistakes and allows seasoned players to leverage both shooting and melee out of them. Which is how I believe marines should handle having relatively average offensive capabilities.

I suspect that GW still has much work to be done for Necrons and Orks. I think they both may continue to slip until GW can figure out how they want to work.


@Cuda1179
Regular Custodian Guard vs. Heavy Intercessors, have a 17pt difference. This covers the +1 M", WS/BS 2+, +1 S, +3 Ld, more Attacks, Save 2+ (which is still more universal than Save 3+ (ignore 1 AP, read page 364 in BRB if you haven't already), a 4+ Invul, a 6+ MW Save for the Custodes. Even more offenseive ability if you are talking about the 50pt version.

Just eyeballing it, Heavy Intercessors are pretty close to Custodian Guard (the 45pt version, the 55pt version blows Heavy Intercessors away) at range, but clearly not as good in melee by a wide margin. Note, +1" Move is a melee buff as it can allow easier charges among other things. Additionally, Custodian Guard are still notably more durable than Heavy Intercessors, regardless of the enemy faction. There might be an argument that the points gap between Custodian Guard and Heavy Intercessors should be narrowed. Likely with Heavy Intercessors going up 2 points, but I don't see anything between them that demonstrates an obvious power discrepancy that you are concerned about. Especially not in terms of durability.

Note, I have never considered unit depth (i.e. number of options available) as something that changes points balance. Especially in a game that doesn't have a sideboard. Because it doesn't make sense to me that a faction such a Harlequins should always be overpowered because of lack of choice, any more than a faction such as space marines should be always be underpowered due to bloat of choice. 100 poor unit options isn't going to equal 1 good one.

This thread:

Dakkites - "Gw NeEdS tO fIx ThIs GaMeS bAlAnCe IsSuEs"
GW - *releases great balance dataslate which fixes a huge number of issues*
Dakkites - "No, not like that."


Pretty telling that the vast majority of other online social media sources, as well as my in person interactions with other 40k players have been overwhelmingly positive on the balance dataslate. Im beginning to suspect that most of the people bitching in this thread don't actually play the game.

All this "bUt mAh ImMeRsIoN~~" pearl-clutching is pretty silly. Lasguns were already able to wound and destroy tanks, you just needed a few more of them than you do now (about 53% more by my math), the game and setting is already filled with all sorts of inconsistencies, etc. Recalibrate your disbelief suspension systems and your abstraction comprehension filters and move on. Theres a million and one immersive ways to spin or justify the changes, you're choosing not to accept them for arbitrary reasons. Arguments that this is unfluffy or immersion breaking really have no leg to stand on (though I know you believe they do, but your belief isnt a justifiable basis for an argument).

Spoletta wrote:
Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.

This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...

In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost

...

Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.

Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.

Agreed. Just wish they had given Tyranids a pre-emptive nerf by dq'ing Crusher Stampede

Quasistellar wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Look, I get what you're saying -- the dataslate will make the competitive meta healthier, and that was needed. But do you really not see why people are upset about this incredibly immersion-breaking Guard change?

Actually? Truly?

Yes, I do see. It's the MAGNITUDE of their outrage at the rule that I don't understand, lol.

Why is my battlefield limited to this darned table?! I should be able to drive my tank into the living room! Why is my tank only able to shoot the scale equivalent of across a city block???!!?! MUH ImMuRsIoN!!!

People on this forum just pick the most BIZARRE hills to die on or lines in sand to draw.

I can find a fluffy explaination for this guard rule: volume of fire and faith in the god-emperor. Think of it like an inverse shield of faith. Boom, fluff!

Spend less time being upset about this rule, and more time being upset that GW is still trickling out rules to you with overpriced dead trees that are so heavily errata'd within 6 months as to be unrecognizable.

I mean holy cow they are finally actually trying to balance factions every three months with a free digitally available thing and people are upset at THIS?

PREACH. Some of the posters in this thread (as well as the guys in the "lets call a time of death for 40k" thread -- SHEESH) really need to grow the feth up, go outside and touch some grass, and I suspect some of them need to actually pick up some dice and play a game or two - preferably against someone who isn't a regular opponent, because it seems some of them have a myopic and skewed perspective on the state of game balance that I can only explain as being the result of limited experience and exposure to other players and the broader meta/community.

I've yet to hear a decent lore justification for why Imperial Guard auto-wound on 6s, or why they alone ignore indirect fire penalities.
At least not one that doesn't fall apart upon the most skin level thought.

Perhaps it's a difference of priorities. I don't much care for balance, for me this game is about simulating battles in the 41st millenium. Balance only matters in so far as it supports that.

So a balance datasheet with actively hurts how well the game simulates real battles is a bad thing in my eyes.

And no I don't care that there already exists some other small mechanic somewhere else that's also unrealistic.
Chances are you won't find me praising that rule anywhere, so I don't see the relevance!

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I've yet to hear a decent lore justification for why Imperial Guard auto-wound on 6s, or why they alone ignore indirect fire penalities.
At least not one that doesn't fall apart upon the most skin level thought.

Perhaps it's a difference of priorities. I don't much care for balance, for me this game is about simulating battles in the 41st millenium. Balance only matters in so far as it supports that.

So a balance datasheet with actively hurts how well the game simulates real battles is a bad thing in my eyes.

And no I don't care that there already exists some other small mechanic somewhere else that's also unrealistic.
Chances are you won't find me praising that rule anywhere, so I don't see the relevance!

There is no lore justification because there doesn't need to be one. This is an emergency attempt to prop up a faction that is doing horribly and likely won't get a new book for some time.

If you want to play 'real' battles you honestly should not be playing 40k to begin with.

If this is deeply troubling to you then feel free to play without these crutches.

 Ordana wrote:

If you want to play 'real' battles you honestly should not be playing 40k to begin with.

Depends how you define "real". Do you mean fluffy or simulatory? Though 40k fails at both and is going for competitive right now.

 Ordana wrote:
There is no lore justification because there doesn't need to be one. This is an emergency attempt to prop up a faction that is doing horribly and likely won't get a new book for some time.

I agree, yet it's rushed and hamfisted. There's so many things they could have gone for that didn't piss all over the similitude like this.
Not to mention this is in no way mutually exclusive to the point people are making. If you're responding negatively to or otherwise contradicting people who are saying they don't like the anti-lore aspect of these rules, you need to come up with a retort better than "you're wrong because it personally doesn't bother me"

If you want to play 'real' battles you honestly should not be playing 40k to begin with.

Why not? 40k's always been about recreating battles in the 41st millenium. People are always going on about telling their narrative and such.
Just because it's not a realistic recreation of real warfare doesn't mean it can't be a 'realistic' creation of fictional warfare - fiction has it's own internal realism.

If this is deeply troubling to you then feel free to play without these crutches.

"Oh hey buddy Imperial Guard player, I don't like that you get to auto-wound on 6s, mind not using that rule?" "no, you want to use that powerful buff you got?"
Hmm, maybe I'm not so free to do what I want in a multi-player game then.

Also, define how deeply troubling this is to me? The bar for "chatting on the internet when I'm bored" is pretty low for me.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Why not? 40k's always been about recreating battles in the 41st millenium. People are always going on about telling their narrative and such.
Just because it's not a realistic recreation of real warfare doesn't mean it can't be a 'realistic' creation of fictional warfare - fiction has it's own internal realism.

40k has never been more realistic than how already is.

It's perfectly fine to prefer some old mechanics in the name of immersion or whatever, but immersion doesn't always mean realism. Templates and blasts for example were not more realistic than D6 or 2D6 shots but for some people were fun.

Shooting across units used to give 5+ cover for the targets, instead of a much more logical -1 to hit. Of course units in bewteen that were screening or caught in the crossfire didn't lose any casualties for each successful cover save that was rolled, which is also something that didn't make any sense unless justifying it as an abstraction.

Battles that were won on Kill Points rather than actual points of killed stuff, or other mechanics, didn't make any sense at all (I kill 500 points of cheap stuff for 6VPs, you kill 1500 points of more expensive units but only worthy of 5VPs and lose) and yet for some people 5th edition is much more fun and immersive than 9th.

Etc... there are tons of example like that for older edition mechanics that were completely unrealistic.

It's always been full of abstractions.

Your example for why 40k has never been more realistic than "Imperial Guard auto-wound titans with lasguns" is "you used to get a cover save for shooting through units".
Surely I don't need to elaborate on why I would be entirely unconvinced by that argument.

Of course the game wasn't a completely accurate rendition of every little detail. But everything at least made some degree of sense. Blasts were an actual explosion on the battlefield, cover was cover, killing stuff was good...
Cover providing a 5+ invulnerable is an abstraction, it's a rough but imperfect rules approximation of a real thing.

The point is these recent 'abstractions' aren't abstractions of anything, they're just flat out bare-faced game-isms.

Yeah.

An "abstraction" is a reasonable accommodation for things that can't easily be modeled (e.g. explosions - both templates and the d6 hit attempts are abstractions). One abstraction can be different from another and people can think one is better than another (some people prefer templates, some people prefer d6s). I don't want to get into THAT argument again, but it is a useful example.

Other mechanics can exist that AREN'T abstractions at all. Whilst one can argue about the quality or not of an abstraction, at least SOMETHING "real" (in the context of the setting) is being modeled, to whatever degree of quality.

Auto-wounding on 6s to hit is NOT an abstraction of anything. My argument has always been that the quality of GW's abstractions have been decreasing - which is contestable.

But this rule is a difference in KIND, rather than merely DEGREE. It fully exists purely as a mechanic without any abstraction behind it whatsoever - and in my opinion, is the epitome of "the game doesn't have to follow the fluff" argument. It is the end-state of Balance Uber Alles mixed with lazy rules writing.

As someone who prefers narrative games, I hope people can understand why this additional step - moving away from abstraction altogether and stepping into pure gameness - is alarming. In addition, and as a separate claim, I would argue that the community has been desensitized to this loss of verisimilitude by the increasingly low quality of abstraction already present - after all, if the abstractions are gakky, them why bother with them at all?

Hence why most of the abstractions of 8th have always rubbed me the wrong way, and will continue to do so if they are pursued into 10th.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Pretty telling that the vast majority of other online social media sources, as well as my in person interactions with other 40k players have been overwhelmingly positive on the balance dataslate. Im beginning to suspect that most of the people bitching in this thread don't actually play the game

Yeah, the local tournament group is also habby, while the casual group will ignore it

The patch helps, but it the main problem is that it adds additional rules to balance factions instead of addressing the issues of 9th.

That said, the casual players are all older who already played during 3rd/4th so those have a different view on such changes

For me, the arguments on Dakka are entertaining, the change for Guard is at the same time the one thing the army needed while it has no real impact on the tabletop as well
Also funny that those people who usually are from "need extensive testig first before you can say it is bad balanced" are now sure that everything is fine just by reading the rules

That social medias are all now hyped because this time GW did listen and made something good was already there with Squats and now they are praising that the game is changing again (without anyone can be sure that the development is going into a positive direction as no one has had games with the new rules yet)

chaos0xomega wrote:

Spoiler:

This thread:

Dakkites - "Gw NeEdS tO fIx ThIs GaMeS bAlAnCe IsSuEs"
GW - *releases great balance dataslate which fixes a huge number of issues*
Dakkites - "No, not like that."


Pretty telling that the vast majority of other online social media sources, as well as my in person interactions with other 40k players have been overwhelmingly positive on the balance dataslate. Im beginning to suspect that most of the people bitching in this thread don't actually play the game.

All this "bUt mAh ImMeRsIoN~~" pearl-clutching is pretty silly. Lasguns were already able to wound and destroy tanks, you just needed a few more of them than you do now (about 53% more by my math), the game and setting is already filled with all sorts of inconsistencies, etc. Recalibrate your disbelief suspension systems and your abstraction comprehension filters and move on. Theres a million and one immersive ways to spin or justify the changes, you're choosing not to accept them for arbitrary reasons. Arguments that this is unfluffy or immersion breaking really have no leg to stand on (though I know you believe they do, but your belief isnt a justifiable basis for an argument).

Spoletta wrote:
Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.

This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...

In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost

...

Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.

Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.

Agreed. Just wish they had given Tyranids a pre-emptive nerf by dq'ing Crusher Stampede

Quasistellar wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Look, I get what you're saying -- the dataslate will make the competitive meta healthier, and that was needed. But do you really not see why people are upset about this incredibly immersion-breaking Guard change?

Actually? Truly?

Yes, I do see. It's the MAGNITUDE of their outrage at the rule that I don't understand, lol.

Why is my battlefield limited to this darned table?! I should be able to drive my tank into the living room! Why is my tank only able to shoot the scale equivalent of across a city block???!!?! MUH ImMuRsIoN!!!

People on this forum just pick the most BIZARRE hills to die on or lines in sand to draw.

I can find a fluffy explaination for this guard rule: volume of fire and faith in the god-emperor. Think of it like an inverse shield of faith. Boom, fluff!

Spend less time being upset about this rule, and more time being upset that GW is still trickling out rules to you with overpriced dead trees that are so heavily errata'd within 6 months as to be unrecognizable.

I mean holy cow they are finally actually trying to balance factions every three months with a free digitally available thing and people are upset at THIS?

PREACH. Some of the posters in this thread (as well as the guys in the "lets call a time of death for 40k" thread -- SHEESH) really need to grow the feth up, go outside and touch some grass, and I suspect some of them need to actually pick up some dice and play a game or two - preferably against someone who isn't a regular opponent, because it seems some of them have a myopic and skewed perspective on the state of game balance that I can only explain as being the result of limited experience and exposure to other players and the broader meta/community.

I'll tell you why it's being recievd positively elsewhere: Armor of Contempt is total Marine fanwank, and lots of people have Marines. It's like a tragedy of the commons.

Marines not tough enough? Add a wound!

Still not working? Ignore a point of AP!

Meanwhile Necron Warriors be like: Remember when we were tougher than Marines? Anybody?

It's ridiculous.

Frankly, Armour of Contempt is long overdue. It should be expanded to a few other faction units though.

Necrons could benefit from it on their "elite" units for sure.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly, Armour of Contempt is long overdue. It should be expanded to a few other faction units though.

Necrons could benefit from it on their "elite" units for sure.

At that point, you're better off just shifting all the AP1 weapons to AP0.

IMHO, they should just reduce AP by 1 across the board, and lower points for the weapons hurt by that.

Now, if you want something to ignore Imperial Guard Flak Armor but not drop Marines to a 5+, you would have to implement some kind of all-or-nothing system, where a weapon has the penetrating power to ignore Flak but cannot penetrate Power Armor... some kind of system like that.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly, Armour of Contempt is long overdue. It should be expanded to a few other faction units though.

Necrons could benefit from it on their "elite" units for sure.

At that point, you're better off just shifting all the AP1 weapons to AP0.

You could.

Or you could just leave it as this. Or you could make it a potential "bounce" of weapons of a specific Strength value.

Small arms being AP 0 is something I know I've argued for, but I know that hasn't been entirely popular.

As for some of the calls to change "the fundamental problems with 9th" that is not as straightforward as correcting the obvious symptoms. It takes time to find the source of the problem (and it's easy to point fingers at things and claim that the source of the problem is X but sometimes the problem is Y or Z instead and X is a symptom of the actual problem) and then even more time to playtest a solution. If that is being done I'd expect it's being done to make corrections going into 10th edition over them trying to rework the framework that this edition is built on.

With how GW uses theit games to try out new ideas for other games I imagine both AoS and HH have been playtesting new ideas for 40k. It'll be interesting to see what DNA in those games will make it into 40k.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Your example for why 40k has never been more realistic than "Imperial Guard auto-wound titans with lasguns" is "you used to get a cover save for shooting through units".
Surely I don't need to elaborate on why I would be entirely unconvinced by that argument.

To me it definitely looks much more absurd my cover save example. I mean a successful cover save litterally means that the shot hits the cover rather than the target but in the old mechanics those saved shots didn't hit the cover, aka the other unit. They were simply shrugged off. Think about gretchins' ability to shield units: they grant an invuln to a unit that is behind them but any successful roll results in a casualty on the gretchin squad. That is something immersive, not the old silly cover save granted by shooting through units.

So yeah, super lucky lasgun shots wounding a titan seems comparable to me, if not even more realistic and immersive . We've seen plenty of movies in which a lucky or extremely precise shot destroys something heavily armoured or a single arrow takes down a gigantic creature.

That's called an abstraction. We don't bother resolving successful cover saves in that instance because it's not worth the time to do so.

If "6s to hit autowound" was a general rule, I'd file it under abstraction. One I sincerely didn't like, but at least it'd be there. For a start I'd argue the "golden BB" is already represented in the abstract "a 6 to wound automatically wounds", hence a lasgun can even hurt a titan at all.
But it's not a general rule, you need to justify why Sgt Atkins with his boltgun is putting damage on titans (or battletanks) more effectively than a Space Marine.

Ive been calling for Armour of Contempt since very early in 8th. Im not a marine fanboy and only recently started playing TSons (last week in fact, first time ive touched marines in 20 years), but it never sat right with me that their armor was now so easily negated. Yonow, it was unfluffy and immersion breaking.

Frankly "Armour Quality" should be a stat alongside armour save, where quality = the amount of AP that the model can offset before it impacts their save.

IE AQ2 , Sv 3+ means the model gets a 3+ save vs AP0, AP1, and AP2, and 4+ save vs AP3, etc.

It opens up a ton of design space in terms of both weapons and model characteristics and allows for much greater differentiation than is otherwise possible

Do we really want 2 stats to represent pretty much exactly the same thing though?

Well, they could just go back to the old AP system and then they wouldn't need to, but seems a lot of people wanted armor modifiers