Changes to Armor and Saves (possibly somthing for next edition)

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.

**Eihnlazer**

8th edition brought a load of changes to movement, weapon characteristics, and unit abilities, but it kept saves the same and this has caused problems for a few armies. As an experiment or test for next edition possibilities lets change armor by adding Types to them all.

Armor would gain a type modifier to it behind its save value that would effect how weapons work againgst it.

Scout armor (SM Scout) Sv 3+/light
Power Armor (Space Marine) Sv 3+/Medium
Artificer Armor (SM Hero) Sv 2+/Medium
Ceramite Plating (Dreadnought) Sv 3+/Heavy
TDA (Tactical Terminator) Sv 2+/Heavy

Now before you flip over scouts having a 3+ save, remember its light armor. I'll go over how armor type is gonna change how AP works now.

Before (from 3rd-7th edition) AP was the number that a weapon had to match in order to ignore your armor. If the AP didn't match or beat your save you got your normal save with no modifiers. In 8th AP reduces your save by a flat amount, no matter how thick your armor is, or what its shooting at. Neither of these systems is perfect, and they cause either too much skew, or they effectively nerf armies that pay for better armor saves.

With the type system, you can more accurately represent how effective certain types of weapons are at taking on different types of armor.
Weapon types will now work againgst armor types in different ways.

Light armor will have no change to AP and will work just like it does in 8th edition. Most infantry will be armed with light armor.

Medium armor will take 1 less penalty from AP of all but the heaviest weaponry. If the weapon is not a Heavy Weapon, its AP value is reduced by 1 (i.e. -3 ap becomes -2 instead).

Heavy armor will take 2 less penalty from AP of all but heavy weaponry and will take 1 less AP from even Heavy Weaponry.

This will do a few things. It will make heavy weapons feel more important, giving you the need to choose between damage or the mobility of assault/rapid fire weaponry. It will give you a more accurate way to simulate the durability of different infantry types and vehicles. It will slightly nerf high power light weapons, which tend to outpreform other weapons that they shouldnt.

Thoughts and changes you would make are welcome.

**JNAProductions**

Not all Heavy Weapons are necessarily good at armor penetration.

Also, what happens with, say, House Raven? They treat Heavy weapons as Assault when advancing. Does that allow Medium armor to reduce AP by 1 and Heavy by 2?

**Wyldhunt**

JNAProductions wrote:
Not all Heavy Weapons are necessarily good at armor penetration.

Also, what happens with, say, House Raven? They treat Heavy weapons as Assault when advancing. Does that allow Medium armor to reduce AP by 1 and Heavy by 2?

This, although I do think "AP reduction" is a useful mechanic that should be considered. I'm not sure it needs to be a game-wide rule though. There are probably fewer units that ought to have this rule than oughtn't.. Why not just make it a special rule on units that need it? Maybe even make it a keyword, like Fly, that carries mechanical rules. No need to worry about the heaviness of the weapon being fired. Just make it a flat -1 or -2 depending on the rule or keyword. A heavy stubber (heavy) is probably not as good at hurting someone in armor as a meltagun (assault) for instance.

If you make it a keyword, then you could have other mechanics (I'm thinking grav weapons) utilize that keyword. Although it seems like this rule is less a reflection of the literal heft of the armor and more a reflection of its extra super special construction. Phoenix Lord armor might have it, for instance, but heavy, clunky bullgryn armor might not.

**Blackie**

Scout are already competitive, they don't need a buff (aka a better armor). They don't look like having a solid 3+ anyway. I think they could even be 5+.

Power armor and terminators durability is not an issue, make them more resilient and they should go up in points. Which is something SM would hate.

**some bloke**

I think that the "class of armour" idea is a good one. Going through light, medium and heavy would be a simple, easily related idea.

I think that most infantry would be light, then marines and bullgryns and so on would be medium armour, and then vehicles, terminators and meganobs would be heavy armour.

I think that a flat -1AP and -2AP for medium and heavy armour would work, and then a subsequent improvement to AP on dedicated anti-tank weapons like meltaguns and the like. Realistically, they should vaporise any light infantry if they hit them.

I'm not convinced that the weapons weight should come into it, as others have said a heavy stubber is not as good at anti-armour as a meltagun. But, this could be compensated for by the improvement of AP to anti-armour weapons, meaning that the weight of shots from a heavy machine gun will affect a marine, where it would cut through a guardsman already. lasgun fire would not be a viable option for killing tanks.

**Gitdakka**

I think this is a really cool suggestion. How would a sustem like this interact with the current cover rules? Maybe cover increases your armour class by one instead of being +1 armour?

**Eihnlazer**

Cover should provide -1 to hit or +1 armor depending on the type.

About the heavy vs. not heavy thing: A Heavy weapon should work againgst heavy armor better. A melta guns AP can just be -5 or something to better represent what it can do. Heavy stubbers should be -1 ap so that they do what they are intended for (kill light infantry).

About the scouts, Some light infantry will get improvements to their armor, just like some weapons AP will go up a bit. Light armor going up wont be a big problem though as AP gets full effect againgst them.

**Fightingfirst**

Think it is unnecessarily complicated. I would much rather it would be achieved via the following:

Power armour and equivalent goes down to 2 + and what was previously 2+ goes down to 1+. A roll of a 1 would always fail but would ignore the first ap. So an ap -1 on a 1+ save would mean it still has a 2+ save.

I think scouts though are fine at 4+. Marines though do need the above changes plus a few more to be competitive at their current points level

**Lance845**

Fightingfirst wrote:
Think it is unnecessarily complicated. I would much rather it would be achieved via the following:

Power armour and equivalent goes down to 2 + and what was previously 2+ goes down to 1+. A roll of a 1 would always fail but would ignore the first ap. So an ap -1 on a 1+ save would mean it still has a 2+ save.

I think scouts though are fine at 4+. Marines though do need the above changes plus a few more to be competitive at their current points level

You are wrong. Marines don't die too fast. Thats not their issue. Their issue is that volume of fire is the single most important thing in 8th and 5-10 bolt guns on 3+ BS platforms isn't as good as 10-30 devourers on 4+ platforms.

Marines don't have enough impact on the field. Keeping them around longer won't change that.

**Fightingfirst**

Lance845 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Think it is unnecessarily complicated. I would much rather it would be achieved via the following:

Power armour and equivalent goes down to 2 + and what was previously 2+ goes down to 1+. A roll of a 1 would always fail but would ignore the first ap. So an ap -1 on a 1+ save would mean it still has a 2+ save.

I think scouts though are fine at 4+. Marines though do need the above changes plus a few more to be competitive at their current points level

You are wrong. Marines don't die too fast. Thats not their issue. Their issue is that volume of fire is the single most important thing in 8th and 5-10 bolt guns on 3+ BS platforms isn't as good as 10-30 devourers on 4+ platforms.

Marines don't have enough impact on the field. Keeping them around longer won't change that.

I would respectfully disagree. Marines have many things wrong with them. One is their durability, a 3 plus save is not what it used to be. They have few models and everytime a model dies it effects their output more than say a horde army. I do agree their output needs altering as well. They need more lethality but just altering this in isolation will not be enough (unless you were to buff it to stupud levels).

**Slayer-Fan123**

Fightingfirst wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Think it is unnecessarily complicated. I would much rather it would be achieved via the following:

Power armour and equivalent goes down to 2 + and what was previously 2+ goes down to 1+. A roll of a 1 would always fail but would ignore the first ap. So an ap -1 on a 1+ save would mean it still has a 2+ save.

I think scouts though are fine at 4+. Marines though do need the above changes plus a few more to be competitive at their current points level

You are wrong. Marines don't die too fast. Thats not their issue. Their issue is that volume of fire is the single most important thing in 8th and 5-10 bolt guns on 3+ BS platforms isn't as good as 10-30 devourers on 4+ platforms.

Marines don't have enough impact on the field. Keeping them around longer won't change that.

I would respectfully disagree. Marines have many things wrong with them. One is their durability, a 3 plus save is not what it used to be. They have few models and everytime a model dies it effects their output more than say a horde army. I do agree their output needs altering as well. They need more lethality but just altering this in isolation will not be enough (unless you were to buff it to stupud levels).

Honestly you're just lying to yourself if you think a 3+ was ever worth anything in general in previous editions. It's certainly better than it was before.

That's why the primary issue is offense.

**Fightingfirst**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Think it is unnecessarily complicated. I would much rather it would be achieved via the following:

Power armour and equivalent goes down to 2 + and what was previously 2+ goes down to 1+. A roll of a 1 would always fail but would ignore the first ap. So an ap -1 on a 1+ save would mean it still has a 2+ save.

I think scouts though are fine at 4+. Marines though do need the above changes plus a few more to be competitive at their current points level

You are wrong. Marines don't die too fast. Thats not their issue. Their issue is that volume of fire is the single most important thing in 8th and 5-10 bolt guns on 3+ BS platforms isn't as good as 10-30 devourers on 4+ platforms.

Marines don't have enough impact on the field. Keeping them around longer won't change that.

I would respectfully disagree. Marines have many things wrong with them. One is their durability, a 3 plus save is not what it used to be. They have few models and everytime a model dies it effects their output more than say a horde army. I do agree their output needs altering as well. They need more lethality but just altering this in isolation will not be enough (unless you were to buff it to stupud levels).

Honestly you're just lying to yourself if you think a 3+ was ever worth anything in general in previous editions. It's certainly better than it was before.

That's why the primary issue is offense.

That is wrong though. Ap4 that had no effect on marine armour now reduces the save chance to 50%. That is a big change.

I am not saying you dont need to up offense, i agree you do. But unless you buff it to broken levels marines will still get shot off the board too quickly. They would become glass cannons. This does not fit what marines should be. Marines need both their offence and defence buffed if they are to occupy the role that they are supposed to (elite durable infantry). Doing either in isolation will not work.

**Sir Heckington**

Fightingfirst wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Think it is unnecessarily complicated. I would much rather it would be achieved via the following:

Power armour and equivalent goes down to 2 + and what was previously 2+ goes down to 1+. A roll of a 1 would always fail but would ignore the first ap. So an ap -1 on a 1+ save would mean it still has a 2+ save.

I think scouts though are fine at 4+. Marines though do need the above changes plus a few more to be competitive at their current points level

You are wrong. Marines don't die too fast. Thats not their issue. Their issue is that volume of fire is the single most important thing in 8th and 5-10 bolt guns on 3+ BS platforms isn't as good as 10-30 devourers on 4+ platforms.

Marines don't have enough impact on the field. Keeping them around longer won't change that.

I would respectfully disagree. Marines have many things wrong with them. One is their durability, a 3 plus save is not what it used to be. They have few models and everytime a model dies it effects their output more than say a horde army. I do agree their output needs altering as well. They need more lethality but just altering this in isolation will not be enough (unless you were to buff it to stupud levels).

Honestly you're just lying to yourself if you think a 3+ was ever worth anything in general in previous editions. It's certainly better than it was before.

That's why the primary issue is offense.

That is wrong though. Ap4 that had no effect on marine armour now reduces the save chance to 50%. That is a big change.

I am not saying you dont need to up offense, i agree you do. But unless you buff it to broken levels marines will still get shot off the board too quickly. They would become glass cannons. This does not fit what marines should be. Marines need both their offence and defence buffed if they are to occupy the role that they are supposed to (elite durable infantry). Doing either in isolation will not work.

2 Wounds
-1 AP
2 Attacks!

Bam, Marines are fixed! Easy Peasy fix, with appropriate point increases!

Course GW didn't wana do this and instead had to make new marines...

**Fightingfirst**

Sir Heckington wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Think it is unnecessarily complicated. I would much rather it would be achieved via the following:

Power armour and equivalent goes down to 2 + and what was previously 2+ goes down to 1+. A roll of a 1 would always fail but would ignore the first ap. So an ap -1 on a 1+ save would mean it still has a 2+ save.

I think scouts though are fine at 4+. Marines though do need the above changes plus a few more to be competitive at their current points level

You are wrong. Marines don't die too fast. Thats not their issue. Their issue is that volume of fire is the single most important thing in 8th and 5-10 bolt guns on 3+ BS platforms isn't as good as 10-30 devourers on 4+ platforms.

Marines don't have enough impact on the field. Keeping them around longer won't change that.

I would respectfully disagree. Marines have many things wrong with them. One is their durability, a 3 plus save is not what it used to be. They have few models and everytime a model dies it effects their output more than say a horde army. I do agree their output needs altering as well. They need more lethality but just altering this in isolation will not be enough (unless you were to buff it to stupud levels).

Honestly you're just lying to yourself if you think a 3+ was ever worth anything in general in previous editions. It's certainly better than it was before.

That's why the primary issue is offense.

That is wrong though. Ap4 that had no effect on marine armour now reduces the save chance to 50%. That is a big change.

I am not saying you dont need to up offense, i agree you do. But unless you buff it to broken levels marines will still get shot off the board too quickly. They would become glass cannons. This does not fit what marines should be. Marines need both their offence and defence buffed if they are to occupy the role that they are supposed to (elite durable infantry). Doing either in isolation will not work.

2 Wounds
-1 AP
2 Attacks!

Bam, Marines are fixed! Easy Peasy fix, with appropriate point increases!

Course GW didn't wana do this and instead had to make new marines...

I agree this somewhat helps but primaris are not competitive at the moment either.

**bouncingboredom**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Honestly you're just lying to yourself if you think a 3+ was ever worth anything in general in previous editions. It's certainly better than it was before.

Is this my cue to come in and talk about old 40k? Awesome!!!

There was a time, back when I literally had a pair of red tinted sunglasses, that a 3+ save was quite useful. It gave you a 4+ save against weapons that would deny armour saves to stuff like most guard and orks. To reduce it right down to say a 6+ took some serious (read expensive) weaponry.

I'll go back to my cardboard dreadnought now, thanks for listening.

**Blndmage**

bouncingboredom wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Honestly you're just lying to yourself if you think a 3+ was ever worth anything in general in previous editions. It's certainly better than it was before.

Is this my cue to come in and talk about old 40k? Awesome!!!

There was a time, back when I literally had a pair of red tinted sunglasses, that a 3+ save was quite useful. It gave you a 4+ save against weapons that would deny armour saves to stuff like most guard and orks. To reduce it right down to say a 6+ took some serious (read expensive) weaponry.

I'll go back to my cardboard dreadnought now, thanks for listening.

Sounds much like today if they flatten the AP scale a bit. Mostly 0, very rarely having -1's outside special weapons, most specials being -2, with -3 being super powerful. Stuff like anti knight weapons would be -4, things designed to cut through entire buildings.

**Slayer-Fan123**

bouncingboredom wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Honestly you're just lying to yourself if you think a 3+ was ever worth anything in general in previous editions. It's certainly better than it was before.

Is this my cue to come in and talk about old 40k? Awesome!!!

There was a time, back when I literally had a pair of red tinted sunglasses, that a 3+ save was quite useful. It gave you a 4+ save against weapons that would deny armour saves to stuff like most guard and orks. To reduce it right down to say a 6+ took some serious (read expensive) weaponry.

I'll go back to my cardboard dreadnought now, thanks for listening.

I've been playing since 4th and I can tell you that the 3+ wasn't even very useful back then

See I can say I used to play a long time ago too!

**Lance845**

Fightingfirst wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Think it is unnecessarily complicated. I would much rather it would be achieved via the following:

Power armour and equivalent goes down to 2 + and what was previously 2+ goes down to 1+. A roll of a 1 would always fail but would ignore the first ap. So an ap -1 on a 1+ save would mean it still has a 2+ save.

I think scouts though are fine at 4+. Marines though do need the above changes plus a few more to be competitive at their current points level

You are wrong. Marines don't die too fast. Thats not their issue. Their issue is that volume of fire is the single most important thing in 8th and 5-10 bolt guns on 3+ BS platforms isn't as good as 10-30 devourers on 4+ platforms.

Marines don't have enough impact on the field. Keeping them around longer won't change that.

I would respectfully disagree. Marines have many things wrong with them. One is their durability, a 3 plus save is not what it used to be. They have few models and everytime a model dies it effects their output more than say a horde army. I do agree their output needs altering as well. They need more lethality but just altering this in isolation will not be enough (unless you were to buff it to stupud levels).

Disagree all you want. The fact is marines are correctly durable compared to other things in THIS edition. You are basing their durability now off what their durability was in an entirely different game that had different mechanics. See the issue with that?

But lets pretend that we do boost their durability. Great! They still have minimal impact on the field. Durability isnt worth anything if the unit is incapable of doing anything worthwhile on the tabletop. And again, thats the issue. 30 termagants with devourers shoot 90 shots. At bs 4+ thats 45 hits. 22ish wounds. An average 4 1s will be rolled when you do your saves. Those marines are dead no matter what, no matter the durability, no matter the point cost. The ONLY thing that can make them competitive on any level is volume of fire.

**Sir Heckington**

Fightingfirst wrote:
Sir Heckington wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Think it is unnecessarily complicated. I would much rather it would be achieved via the following:

Power armour and equivalent goes down to 2 + and what was previously 2+ goes down to 1+. A roll of a 1 would always fail but would ignore the first ap. So an ap -1 on a 1+ save would mean it still has a 2+ save.

I think scouts though are fine at 4+. Marines though do need the above changes plus a few more to be competitive at their current points level

You are wrong. Marines don't die too fast. Thats not their issue. Their issue is that volume of fire is the single most important thing in 8th and 5-10 bolt guns on 3+ BS platforms isn't as good as 10-30 devourers on 4+ platforms.

Marines don't have enough impact on the field. Keeping them around longer won't change that.

I would respectfully disagree. Marines have many things wrong with them. One is their durability, a 3 plus save is not what it used to be. They have few models and everytime a model dies it effects their output more than say a horde army. I do agree their output needs altering as well. They need more lethality but just altering this in isolation will not be enough (unless you were to buff it to stupud levels).

Honestly you're just lying to yourself if you think a 3+ was ever worth anything in general in previous editions. It's certainly better than it was before.

That's why the primary issue is offense.

That is wrong though. Ap4 that had no effect on marine armour now reduces the save chance to 50%. That is a big change.

I am not saying you dont need to up offense, i agree you do. But unless you buff it to broken levels marines will still get shot off the board too quickly. They would become glass cannons. This does not fit what marines should be. Marines need both their offence and defence buffed if they are to occupy the role that they are supposed to (elite durable infantry). Doing either in isolation will not work.

2 Wounds
-1 AP
2 Attacks!

Bam, Marines are fixed! Easy Peasy fix, with appropriate point increases!

Course GW didn't wana do this and instead had to make new marines...

I agree this somewhat helps but primaris are not competitive at the moment either.

And Primaris can be fixed with points.

**Fightingfirst**

Lance845 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Think it is unnecessarily complicated. I would much rather it would be achieved via the following:

Power armour and equivalent goes down to 2 + and what was previously 2+ goes down to 1+. A roll of a 1 would always fail but would ignore the first ap. So an ap -1 on a 1+ save would mean it still has a 2+ save.

I think scouts though are fine at 4+. Marines though do need the above changes plus a few more to be competitive at their current points level

You are wrong. Marines don't die too fast. Thats not their issue. Their issue is that volume of fire is the single most important thing in 8th and 5-10 bolt guns on 3+ BS platforms isn't as good as 10-30 devourers on 4+ platforms.

Marines don't have enough impact on the field. Keeping them around longer won't change that.

I would respectfully disagree. Marines have many things wrong with them. One is their durability, a 3 plus save is not what it used to be. They have few models and everytime a model dies it effects their output more than say a horde army. I do agree their output needs altering as well. They need more lethality but just altering this in isolation will not be enough (unless you were to buff it to stupud levels).

Disagree all you want. The fact is marines are correctly durable compared to other things in THIS edition. You are basing their durability now off what their durability was in an entirely different game that had different mechanics. See the issue with that?

But lets pretend that we do boost their durability. Great! They still have minimal impact on the field. Durability isnt worth anything if the unit is incapable of doing anything worthwhile on the tabletop. And again, thats the issue. 30 termagants with devourers shoot 90 shots. At bs 4+ thats 45 hits. 22ish wounds. An average 4 1s will be rolled when you do your saves. Those marines are dead no matter what, no matter the durability, no matter the point cost. The ONLY thing that can make them competitive on any level is volume of fire.

Please reread my post again you are not addressing the point im making. I never stated altering the durability in isolation was the necessary fix. You seem to be labouring on this point when I am not even contesting it as an issue.

The standard marine is in a bad place right now due to numerous issues, I am sure we can agree on that. Now you could cut the points significantly but then you would be altering marines play style, a change I am sure you would be against too. I am much more in favour of keeping the points the same and instead buffing the stats which would seem to be what you are proposing too. Now I agree that the offence needs buffing but I do not think this would be enough and doesnt bring marines into what they represent. So I propose not only buffing their offence but the durability to. This would not only allow them to have the offence you propose but would stop them getting shot off the table.

**Lance845**

We dont agree on the numerous issues point. I think their durability is acurately represented. Compared to a termagant, and ork, a tau crisis suit, they function as they should in terms of durability against the various weapons in the game.

They shouldnt be staying on the table in the most lethal edition we have had to date.

The only issue is what they are capable of while they are there.

**Fightingfirst**

Lance845 wrote:
We dont agree on the numerous issues point. I think their durability is acurately represented. Compared to a termagant, and ork, a tau crisis suit, they function as they should in terms of durability against the various weapons in the game.

They shouldnt be staying on the table in the most lethal edition we have had to date.

The only issue is what they are capable of while they are there.

Ok fair enough. Then I suggest we agree to disagree.

**Lance845**

As I said. Disagree all you want. You're welcome to it. But do your math outside of a vacuum.

First, stop comparing a marine in this edition to a marine in a previous edition. What happened in a previous edition doesn't matter. It's a different game. They shouldn't be comparable.

Second, look at a marines durability compared to other units. How do they stack up to other 3+ models. Should a basic marine be more or equally survivable then/as Tyrant guard? Lychguard? Crisis suits? Why should their armor be better or do more? Why should they get additional wounds to bridge the gap between these other units?

It does no good to look only at marines in their little bubble and try to get them to perform how you THINK they should perform based on past games or fluff with no consideration for what impact that has on the broader game.

**Fightingfirst**

Lance845 wrote:
As I said. Disagree all you want. You're welcome to it. But do your math outside of a vacuum.

First, stop comparing a marine in this edition to a marine in a previous edition. What happened in a previous edition doesn't matter. It's a different game. They shouldn't be comparable.

Second, look at a marines durability compared to other units. How do they stack up to other 3+ models. Should a basic marine be more or equally survivable then/as Tyrant guard? Lychguard? Crisis suits? Why should their armor be better or do more? Why should they get additional wounds to bridge the gap between these other units?

It does no good to look only at marines in their little bubble and try to get them to perform how you THINK they should perform based on past games or fluff with no consideration for what impact that has on the broader game.

Look dude this is pointless I dont agree with what you are saying and you clearly dont either. Disagree all you want it is fine, it doesnt mean either is right because both are opinions.

Firstly, I am not comparing marines to the last edition. I am going off my experience this edition for them. They (and quite a few other elite units) need to be more durable other wise they will just be glass cannons. This is not their play style. If you dont bother about taking into account how marines should play then the easy fix is just drop the points.

Secondly, go reread my first post in this thread. I clearly mention "power armour and equivalent". I am not saying only marines should be more durable. This addresses both your second and third paras.

**Lance845**

Fightingfirst wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
As I said. Disagree all you want. You're welcome to it. But do your math outside of a vacuum.

First, stop comparing a marine in this edition to a marine in a previous edition. What happened in a previous edition doesn't matter. It's a different game. They shouldn't be comparable.

Second, look at a marines durability compared to other units. How do they stack up to other 3+ models. Should a basic marine be more or equally survivable then/as Tyrant guard? Lychguard? Crisis suits? Why should their armor be better or do more? Why should they get additional wounds to bridge the gap between these other units?

It does no good to look only at marines in their little bubble and try to get them to perform how you THINK they should perform based on past games or fluff with no consideration for what impact that has on the broader game.

Look dude this is pointless I dont agree with what you are saying and you clearly dont either. Disagree all you want it is fine, it doesnt mean either is right because both are opinions.

Firstly, I am not comparing marines to the last edition.

Fightingfirst wrote:
One is their durability, a 3 plus save is not what it used to be.

I am going off my experience this edition for them. They (and quite a few other elite units) need to be more durable other wise they will just be glass cannons. This is not their play style. If you dont bother about taking into account how marines should play then the easy fix is just drop the points.

No you are not. What you are doing is comparing the playstyle they do have to a play style they had in the past when versions of them were capable of being made nigh invulnerable. Elite armies suffer this edition. I imagine they will suffer again next edition. You are trying to patch over that problem with durability increases which doesn't actually tackle the root of the problem.

The REAL problem is GWs design philosophy that has allowed things to reach this point. The game is a game of extremes. In 7th 2++ rerollable saves made for invulnerable death stars. In 8th they introduced scalable AP. But they didn't do much or anything to make access to high AP any more difficult or challenging. Not that THAT would particularly matter for a base line infantry unit who should be getting shot to pieces on the regular when being placed onto a table top with small building sized monsters and tanks. Too much of 8ths numbers are transfered straight from 7th when they should have been rebuilding all the stat lines and costs from scratch.

There is a reason the humble guardsman was considered the most OP bull gak for a long time. It's a pure numbers game. Law of averages means more shots is the most valuable thing you can have. The more dice you can throw the better. All elite armies suffer because they pay a premium for stats that don't matter because GW has no idea how to not saddle each new edition with all the bull crap of the edition before it.

Secondly, go reread my first post in this thread. I clearly mention "power armour and equivalent". I am not saying only marines should be more durable. This addresses both your second and third paras.

Go reread MY posts. I didn't only talk about power armored equivalents. I also mentioned earlier, orks, termagants etc etc....

A SM gets his armor cut just like everyone else. And they should. Termagants loose 100% of their save from AP 1. Good. They should. Marines loose about 16% of their chance to save from AP 1. Good. That is correct.

Again, the changes you are suggesting effect more then just your little bubble you are considering. You throw the whole scale out of whack. So all 3+ saves become 2+, Okay... So all 4+ saves do what? 5+? 6+? Necron Warriors stay at 4+ but Immortals become 2+? 3+ just doesn't exist in the game any more? So we are going to take the already small scale of only 5 options and we will just remove one of those options. Cool. Why not just suggest that ALL guns have thier AP reduced by 1 or all saves increased by 1. At least then you are not playing favorites. Still not actually addressing the issue. Marines will still die JUST as fast because they will still get shot so many times that no amount of armor saves can save them. But hey, they look more durable on paper right?

**bouncingboredom**

Blndmage wrote:Sounds much like today if they flatten the AP scale a bit. Mostly 0, very rarely having -1's outside special weapons, most specials being -2, with -3 being super powerful. Stuff like anti knight weapons would be -4, things designed to cut through entire buildings.

Right. The trick is to keep high modifiers relatively rare. Something like a Lascannon used to have -6, but it was a one shot, mainly (expensive) anti-tank weapon. The mere minus one on Boltguns was enough to make them threatening to a lot of basic troops. The proliferation of high power pistols got a bit silly, but then you had to close the distance to make them work so it was swings and roundabouts.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I've been playing since 4th and I can tell you that the 3+ wasn't even very useful back then See I can say I used to play a long time ago too!

Ah, kids these days

See, where your somewhat snarky sounding post falls down is that you haven't gone back far enough. There was a time (we're heading back to the days of 2nd edition, where the duration of close combat rounds was measured in days, not minutes) when a 3+ was actually pretty good. It gave Marines the opportunity to seriously mitigate a lot of the firepower coming at them. It made them quite robust against anyone that was not specifically tailored up to kill them. As with all things in wargaming, the context of what's around them makes a big difference.

**Fightingfirst**

Lance845 wrote:
Fightingfirst wrote:
Lance845 wrote:
As I said. Disagree all you want. You're welcome to it. But do your math outside of a vacuum.

First, stop comparing a marine in this edition to a marine in a previous edition. What happened in a previous edition doesn't matter. It's a different game. They shouldn't be comparable.

Second, look at a marines durability compared to other units. How do they stack up to other 3+ models. Should a basic marine be more or equally survivable then/as Tyrant guard? Lychguard? Crisis suits? Why should their armor be better or do more? Why should they get additional wounds to bridge the gap between these other units?

It does no good to look only at marines in their little bubble and try to get them to perform how you THINK they should perform based on past games or fluff with no consideration for what impact that has on the broader game.

Look dude this is pointless I dont agree with what you are saying and you clearly dont either. Disagree all you want it is fine, it doesnt mean either is right because both are opinions.

Firstly, I am not comparing marines to the last edition.

Fightingfirst wrote:
One is their durability, a 3 plus save is not what it used to be.

I am going off my experience this edition for them. They (and quite a few other elite units) need to be more durable other wise they will just be glass cannons. This is not their play style. If you dont bother about taking into account how marines should play then the easy fix is just drop the points.

No you are not. What you are doing is comparing the playstyle they do have to a play style they had in the past when versions of them were capable of being made nigh invulnerable. Elite armies suffer this edition. I imagine they will suffer again next edition. You are trying to patch over that problem with durability increases which doesn't actually tackle the root of the problem.

The REAL problem is GWs design philosophy that has allowed things to reach this point. The game is a game of extremes. In 7th 2++ rerollable saves made for invulnerable death stars. In 8th they introduced scalable AP. But they didn't do much or anything to make access to high AP any more difficult or challenging. Not that THAT would particularly matter for a base line infantry unit who should be getting shot to pieces on the regular when being placed onto a table top with small building sized monsters and tanks. Too much of 8ths numbers are transfered straight from 7th when they should have been rebuilding all the stat lines and costs from scratch.

There is a reason the humble guardsman was considered the most OP bull gak for a long time. It's a pure numbers game. Law of averages means more shots is the most valuable thing you can have. The more dice you can throw the better. All elite armies suffer because they pay a premium for stats that don't matter because GW has no idea how to not saddle each new edition with all the bull crap of the edition before it.

Secondly, go reread my first post in this thread. I clearly mention "power armour and equivalent". I am not saying only marines should be more durable. This addresses both your second and third paras.

Go reread MY posts. I didn't only talk about power armored equivalents. I also mentioned earlier, orks, termagants etc etc....

A SM gets his armor cut just like everyone else. And they should. Termagants loose 100% of their save from AP 1. Good. They should. Marines loose about 16% of their chance to save from AP 1. Good. That is correct.

Again, the changes you are suggesting effect more then just your little bubble you are considering. You throw the whole scale out of whack. So all 3+ saves become 2+, Okay... So all 4+ saves do what? 5+? 6+? Necron Warriors stay at 4+ but Immortals become 2+? 3+ just doesn't exist in the game any more? So we are going to take the already small scale of only 5 options and we will just remove one of those options. Cool. Why not just suggest that ALL guns have thier AP reduced by 1 or all saves increased by 1. At least then you are not playing favorites. Still not actually addressing the issue. Marines will still die JUST as fast because they will still get shot so many times that no amount of armor saves can save them. But hey, they look more durable on paper right?

I dont know how I can make this clearer....I AM NOT COMPARING THEM TO LAST EDITION DEATHSTARS. Reason being I skipped 7th entirely so I have no experience what marines played like. I am trying to make marines closer to their fluff within the contraints of TT that is my only intention. This refutes and addresses your first point.

With regards to your second point, I agree elite armies do suffer this edition. However, you are wrong by buffing durability is just a patch. If we take that logic then buffing offence is "just a patch" . You could take either method to an extreme and it could fix the issue very easily or just drop their points. I am arguing doing any of these in isolation will take away from what marines should be and I dont want a points drop as then it just make marines a horde army. If we just buff offence then marines are glass cannons. If we just buff durability then the stadard marines becomes a tank with little offence. If we just drop points then the standard marines becomes a horde army.

"Go reread MY posts. I didn't only talk about power armored equivalents. I also mentioned earlier, orks, termagants etc"
You misunderstand, i said go reread my post in response to this:

"It does no good to look only at marines in their little bubble"
I was never looking at marines in just a bubble. I think I have established that now and made it pretty clear.

With regards to the termagaunts bit. They can afford to have no save as they are dirt cheap. Ap-1 on marines takes them from a 66 percent chance (which i dont think is good enough in the first place) to a 50 percent chance of making a save. Marines and other elite armies are effected by losses much more than horde armies.

Laslty, I am aware these changes affect more than just marines (I dont know how to make this any clearer for you). I am specifically focussing on marines as that is what the topic is about. But to make it clear for you. If marines go down to a 2+ it brings further granularity to the system. Your point on immortals, it would be for GW to decide is power armour at the same level as the armour of immortals, if so immortals move to 2+ if not stay at 3+. I dont get why this is such a hard concept to understand. And again I am not advocating just buffing defence but also offence too.

**Lance845**

Even worse.

Fluff does not equal crunch. And shouldnt.

First the fluff is wildly inconsistent. Which fluff, exactly, are you trying to emulate?

Second, 40ks fluff is alwYs to extremes. Everyone is the best. Every weapon is the deadliest. There is no granularity here.

Want an example? Tyanids shadow in the warp. If it did in the game what it does in the fluff then every non tyranid model would have massive penalties to leadship and every psyker would be killed by simply being on the planet with them.

The shadow is so strong that only a small select few psykers can even survive and be sane days before the tyanids even arrive let alone actually be in Orbit to deposit troops.

Psychic powers are just flat out impossible and deamons without some kind of artifact to help anchor them would fade back into the warp as the shadow disrupts their very existance.

Instead if you are within 12" of a synapse creature you take penalties to manifesting powers.

Fluff is an excuse for nothing. If your making your arguments based on trying to emulate fluff then you have no argument.

**Fightingfirst**

The rules are the basis of what the fluff roughly represent. If this is not the case why even are you suggesting buffing marines offensive power. A far simpler solution is just drop their points to say....6 pts a model. Why do GW not do this....because their modus operandi is an elite army not horde, which has come from their fluff. Basing the army on the fluff does not mean turning them into movie marines, but the fluff creates an expectation on what rules to expect. It is the reason why we wont see 6pt marines. Now I am not advocating writing rules entirely on fluff. Balance should take much more of a priority but to not see there is a connection is naive.

You did not address any of the points in my last post either.

**Lance845**

And again, you want durability based on fluff as per your own statements. Marines are now, acording to fluff, where devourer worms exude a acid capable of eating through the most durable armors so they can chew through the people inside and yet have ap0, are correctly durable in comparison.

Again, durability is not the issue. Marines as they are now, could stand to loose a point or 2 in cost. Or, combat squading needs to function in some way to allow for extra shots between the 2 units made from 1 working in tandum.

Or their guns need some kind of perk. But the suggestions you are putting down, on the completely fallable premise you are using as a argument, are wrong.

I didnt answer you point for point because if fluff is your reason then it doesnt matter what points your making.