survivability from marks

[henrywalker]

when it comes to giving units marks to increase survivability there are two options, nurgle +1 toughness or tzeentch +1 invuln. I was wondering what you guys think works best to increase survivability.

obviously the answer may be different depending on what the unit already has but what would you guys go for in different situations?

[Blood Shadow]

I would say that if it already has an invulnerable save go for Tzeentch, if not then go for Nurgle if you aren't bothered about a theme

[JamesI]

I would say that if it already has an invulnerable save go for Tzeentch, if not then go for Nurgle if you aren't bothered about a theme

I agree.

 

Tzeentch is great, but I wouldn't bother on a unit that didn't have a 5++ at least to begin with. Anyone else, Nurgle.

[Lord Asvaldir]

++6 really isn't that good so for any unit that doesn't already have an invul save, it's really not worth it.

 

Another option would be MoS and the icon of excess. If you plan on taking noise marines I'd deffinetly go for that. Overall though I'd say MoN is best.

[TheDarkOne]

Another option would be MoS and the icon of excess. If you plan on taking noise marines I'd deffinetly go for that. Overall though I'd say MoN is best.

 

on the head....

 

I like FNP and I5 Personally... Chaos Space Marines with FNP makes me relaly happy, and FNP on Bikers is awesome too!

 

I do like to use a lot of plasma, so that helps with overheats... wheras the +1 Inv and +1 Tough does nothing...

[AmCjkh]

I would say that if it already has an invulnerable save go for Tzeentch, if not then go for Nurgle if you aren't bothered about a theme

 

The only thing I'd add to this is that MoN can stave off instant death for multiwound models. For instance with Obliterators nurgle might be more useful than tzeentch because they become immune to instant death from S8-9 weapons.

[Jacinda]

Statistically Nurgle has an advantage.

 

Let's look at the number of dice that will be affected. Toughness works against all hits. saves only work on those hits that have passed through your toughness. So if you are going to add +1 anywhere (which is basically causing a 16.6% reduction) then putting it where it affects more dice yields the greatest change.

 

Now if you look at bumping Invulnerable saves, you are actually only affecting those that by-pass your armor save which are only a fraction of the wounds that will be saved against. Whether going from 5++ to 4== or going from nothing to 6++ is irrelevant. They are statistically the same. 16.6% increase in saves that normally by pass armor.

 

+1T will give more survivability over +1 to any save. Plasmaguns are the threshold, tho. Since the high strength weapons wound on 2+ regardless if you have T4 or T5, the only way to mitigate those hits is with Invulnerable saves. If you are being hit by plasma, melta and lascannon then that point in Toughness is operating at 0% but that 6++ is saving 16.6% of your wounds. As an oddity, on the low end of Strength, if you already have a T5 and are taking S1 hits, +1T yields 0% as well since there are zero wounds being caused in the first place; the same can also be said of Inv saves for the same reason.

 

 

So the final tally is is this. If the majority of the hits you receive are S6 and under (and I would be stunned if this were not the case) , you will get more benefit from +1T. Mark for Mark, Nurgle beats Tzeentch for survivability.

 

 

If you want to compare with FNP (which comes from an Icon, added expense and can be snipped, but let's see the numbers anyway) the numbers may surprise you.

 

Let's assume we take 36 bolter hits. (36 makes the fractions easier)

36 bolter hits -- 4 or better to wound

18 wounds -- 3 or better to save

6 unsaved -- 5 or better to ignore

4 total unsaved wounds

 

With +1T the numbers are different. Sort of.

36 hits -- 5 or better to wound

12 wounds -- 3 or better to save

4 unsaved wounds.

 

Why would +1T (16.6% of the dice affected) be the same as FNP at 5+(33.3% of the dice affected)?

This was my first point. Toughness is the first thing checked against so there are more dice being affected. Fewer pass by each step until FNP can only be taken against a small pool.

 

So again, MoN > (MoS + IoS) as far as survivability goes.

[henrywalker]

i figured the math would show something like that. i dunno if i like the idea of giving the sorceror in my tzeentch army MoN though. damn fluff

[HJL]

Its true with bolter hits but lets look at plasma hits.

T5

6 plasma hits

5 wounds

5 kills

 

Fnp

6 hits

5 wounds

3.3 kills.

 

In order to get fnp you need to spend more points though. Its swings and round abouts

[Azekai]

In order to get fnp you need to spend more points though. Its swings and round abouts

Or (shameless plug time) just use plague marines. :)

[Brother Nihm]

when it comes to giving units marks to increase survivability there are two options

Neither,

 

If all the enemies are dead, your troops will have survived.

 

Could not resist. :P

[Jacinda]

Its true with bolter hits but lets look at plasma hits.

T5

6 plasma hits

5 wounds

5 kills

 

Fnp

6 hits

5 wounds

3.3 kills.

 

In order to get fnp you need to spend more points though. Its swings and round abouts

Plasma is the one sweet spot.

S7 vs T4 is the one sole exception to the rule since it falls at the point of 2+ to wound and right before ID kicks in and denies FnP.

Neither +1T or FNP will do anything for melta on their own. You need them both to mitigate S8 and S9 hits.

[Sception]

Actually, on multi wound models (like oblits or characters) +1T denies instant death from melta (or power fists, lascannons, any other S8-9 weapons).

 

In general, I'd say +1T is better. Against lower strength it has as big an effect or better when compared to FNP or inv. Against higher strength, it defends against instant death, at least on multiwound models. Only S7 and S10 attacks don't care about +1T. You'll see a fair bit of plasma in the S7 zone, but not enough to make other choices more ideal.

 

I would tend towards MoT only on single wound models that already had both a native invulnerable save and a 2+ save - which would make them already highly resistant to small arms fire. Basically, terminators only. Plasma & fists are the primary enemies of terminators, and MoT defends best against them on single wound models. Multiple wound models prefer the protection from S8-9 instant death (particularly characters, which can't typically be picked out by plasma, but can get locked in challenges with fists and hammers) afforded by MoN. However, due to unit compatibility issues, you might take MoT on a character that you plan on putting in a terminator unit, just because the terminator unit prefers MoT.

 

The Slaanesh icon's FNP is somewhat equivalent to MoN, but costs more. However, it comes on top of the MoS's +1 Init, so it isn't an even comparison. The FNP icon is something you buy for a unit as added durability after already deciding you wanted higher initiative to begin with.

[HJL]

Yes, i agree. +1T is more usefull generaly. With the lack of vehicles in this ed i forsee a lot more plasma though, so perhaps FNP will still have a place.

 

The idea of 4 CSM squads with T5 and 2 plasma guns really seems like a good option, its a very durable fire base for people that dont want to get a nurgle lord. I for instance plan on having a khorne jugernaut lord + sorcerer, then a load of CSM with MON.

[Prot]

Another angle to take on this....

 

More units = more survivability.

 

Rather than blow points on marks, you can add to your numbers, effectively increasing wounds in your units.

 

Personally, I find competitively at least you run into one or two armies in a tournament that just simply ignore your toughness value and then what have you paid all those points for? Nothing. You run into something like Dark Eldar, or Nids, and there's a good chance your + toughness doesn't even come into play.

 

But add extra bodies? That's always going to make a difference.

 

It's just food for thought. A different angle for you. I've gone down this road many times, and played full Death guard for a while, and then swapped to vanilla chaos for more bodies. They both have their merits. ;)

[Lord Asvaldir]

That's a very good point Prot...deffinetly something to think about and keep in mind.

[Sception]

it's a fair point, but the marks are cheap enough these days that they're quite tempting. Well, for the most part, we've already established that MoT is basically worthless on units without native invulnerable saves. You can get four MoN marines for the price of, what, five regular marines? At that point you're actually seeing a positive return on durability, at least against small arms fire. And the more points you spend on upgrades like icons, plasma, and kit for your champions, the more attractive that few extra points for a mark becomes.

 

Of course, that creates this temptation to go overboard, but even if you do the result isn't typically objectively worse. There's actual tangible, worthwhile benefits for the investment, and it makes balancing your upgrade choices an interesting and engaging aspect of list building - exactly the kind of thing our last book lacked completely.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Brother Nihm raised an interesting point, though, that everyone seems to be disregarding. You don't need to worry about your own durability if the enemy is already dead -- this being the entire offensive mindset of both the Eldar and Dark Eldar. So, MoS and its Initiative boost indirectly increase durability while in close combat only, since you'll be killing enemies before they kill you and thus are taking fewer attacks back. Granted, there are limitations in when this is in effect while MoN and MoT are always "on," but also consider that a model can theoretically fight twice as long in melee as it can by shooting (you fight twice each turn, but only shoot once) so CC effects should be weighted slightly heavier than shooting effects in discussions like this one.

 

That being said, I'm running MoN on my Havocs, MoS on my Chosen, and MoT on my Terminators. Play to the strengths of the marks.

[the jeske]

icons ? most of the time not . makes units cost too much . they are ok if someone can micro mange his army . stuff like 4 NM units two fron have FnP those at the back dont . 2/2 as sonic arment goes . If someone can play with something like that [and he likes it] the go ahead .

 

marks , always on front line units . always if it is part of the build[tally lists]. but support section ? not always viable . 2x3 bikers ? go ahead . 2x8 havocks ? probably wont fit pointwise .

 

 

can someone explain to me what happens if I have dudes with MoT on a landing pad that gives +4inv ?

[TheDarkOne]

Interesting point abotu the 4+ formt he ladning pad Jeske, FAq I think... thouigh as written their MoT woudl increase their inv to a 3+.

 

The other thing to condier with the MoS and Icon, is that if you're planning on using lots of plasma (like I am) the FNP can be used on overheats, which the +1T cannot help.

 

The big issue I think is that the icon can be sniped, so I think the MoS w Icon loses in this comparison... Nurgle is the best defensive mark, as it should be.

 

Units that wuold appriciate being marked Tzeentch are mostly HQ, Terminators, and Daemonic Units, like Warp Talons and Posessed. Though, the investment to bring that 5++ to a 4++ is a hard pill to swallow... I think Posessed with Tzeentch are a solid unit, and fluffy too, if anyone is going to be mutated, it'll be followers of Tzeentch.

[the jeske]

probably less important anyway . most games remove the landing pad as an option to be taken . aegis is a good fortification. bastion is good for some very specific lists , landing pad is rather OP for some IG builds.

[confused_gordy]

If we are talking about a basic chaos space marine squad, math hammer suggests that it is almost always a bad idea to buy a mark in order to make your unit more durable.

 

The mark of tzeentch, provides a 6+ invun - so that's optimally 1/6 more unit durability (of course this will never be the case as you will get armor saves occasionally.

6 marks of tzeentch cost 1 point less than an extra chaos space marine, who also increases the unit durability by 1/6, more reliably, and adds more attacks and bolter shots to the unit, along with unlocking unit options more easily. Therefore it is almost always a better idea to buy more chaos marines, than buy a mark of tzeentch.

 

The mark of nurgle, incrases the units T value, so that weapons with st 3, 4, 5 and 6 will have 1/6 less chance to hurt them. So again that's optimally a 1/6 increase in durability.

6 marks of nurgle are 5 points more than a extra chaos space marine, who also increases the unit durability by 1/6, more reliably, and adds more attacks and bolter shots to the unit, along with unlocking unit options more easily. Therefore it is almost always a better idea to buy more chaos marines, than buy a mark of nurgle.

 

A mark of slaanesh is a little harder to analyse, as with the icon, it does depend upon the size of the squad it is attached to.

Feel no pain optimally increases you units durability by 1/3.

With a unit size of 20, this will cost 3.5 pts per model therefore 3 marines with this would be cheaper than an extra marine by only 1.5 points. Again an extra marin still does more damage.

A unit size of 10 makes the icon conssiderably more expensive per model and ultimately not viable.

 

The initiative bonus wont often make a huge difference to the units durability, as its combat only, and relies on the opposition being a scary unit that happens to be init 4 or 5, and easily killed by marines.

 

This brings us to the mark of khorne which is the only mark that might be worth it. As the number of additional attacks it provides relative to its cost is much more than you would get with extra marines. However it doesn't help you survive any better, but its a different style of play.

 

To conclude. For basic chaos space marine units, it is almost always better to not take marks of chaos, if you could get more marines instead.

 

I havent done the maths on other chaos units but I expect similar results.

[the jeske]

wait wait wait . with squads being 10-12 man in general . its 24 -36pts per marine . that is 1 marine or 2 max.

this means we get max 3-6 marines extra per army [just counting the csm] . 3-6 marines is nothing comparing to being wounded on +5 by normal weapons in both shoting and hth . if anything marks should always be taken for front line csm units. back or support units , or bubble wrap like cultists can run around without it , but not csm .

[HJL]

Wht not generic csm jeske?

[confused_gordy]

Going from a wound on a 4+ to a wound on a 5+ is a 1/6 increase in survivability jeske.

 

Therefore having 1/6 more marines provides the unit with this same level of protection. Yet more offence.

 

Having more marines is better protection, when strength 7+ weapons, or poisoned weapons start flying.