Astartes really do suck, unfortunately!

[Panzer]

But that's it. It doesn't conflict with anything.

Only WAAC players would try to argue that it's conflicting and then quickly get shut down since RAW is very clear there.

 

The wording you suggest would be something different than a straight Sv1+. Something like overcharged Plasma and stuff is the kind of wounds you'd want such a save for, not D1 wounds who often don't have much of AP anyway.

[MARK0SIAN]

I’m thinking more from an avoiding confusion for new players perspective. I just think GW would be reluctant to have page 2 of the rules say ‘saves of 1 always fail’ then show a marine stat line with a 1+ save.

 

Like I said, I’m not against them having what amounts to a 1+ save, I just think it will be done via a special rule to do with power armour rather than a direct change to the marine stat line.

[Panzer]

I think you are underestimating new player. It would cause as much confusion as a Sv2+ unit being in cover.

[Blindhamster]

less actually as they dont need to do two steps of modifications to the save.

[CCE1981]

I really think that invulnerable saves should have been additions to your armor save that don’t stack with cover. On most weapons functionally there is currently no use for a 5++ if you have a 2+ save. On units like Terminators that invulnerable save would help instead of being usless most of the time.

[Basteala]

I really think that invulnerable saves should have been additions to your armor save that don’t stack with cover. On most weapons functionally there is currently no use for a 5++ if you have a 2+ save. On units like Terminators that invulnerable save would help instead of being usless most of the time.

 

This is really true. a 5++ on a Terminator is only really useful if you're facing a -4 AP weapon in open ground. Back in the days of 7th ed were AP2 denied any save, it wasn't great, but at least you could use it.

 

Nowadays? It's a points sink. And it's not like a 5++ is gonna save you from a squad of overcharging hellblasters looking at you anyway.

[Panzer]

Invuls improving armour would be great. Assuming 5++ would be a +2 and so on it would mean Terminators would ignore anything worse than AP-3 and with Stormshields they'd basically always have their 2+ armor save. Captains and Chaplains as well would only care about AP-3 and better. :D

[Kallas]

Invuls improving armour would be great. Assuming 5++ would be a +2 and so on it would mean Terminators would ignore anything worse than AP-3 and with Stormshields they'd basically always have their 2+ armor save. Captains and Chaplains as well would only care about AP-3 and better.

It would also increase the relative value of AP-4/-5/-6 (is there anything with -6?) weapons, such as the Burning Blade and Melta in general (which is overpriced for the most part). Would definitely get behind that, but that would be a pretty substantial change to the save system and I doubt GW will make that kind of change this early in 8th (and possibly not until a 9th, if ever).

[BitsHammer]

I just can’t see them ever giving a 1+ armour save when a roll of one always fails. It’s writing a stat that is immediately invalidated.

 

It would have to be some other wording like the rubric Marines who get plus one to saves against D1 weapons. Maybe +1 to saves against AP0 or AP -1

A 1+ has the advantage of having a built in buffer against AP (the first -1 is effectively ignored for the purposes of what you need to roll to pass a save). WFB used to have stats like that (you could even stack to below a 0+ with some well aged cheddar).

[Morticon]

I’m thinking more from an avoiding confusion for new players perspective. I just think GW would be reluctant to have page 2 of the rules say ‘saves of 1 always fail’ then show a marine stat line with a 1+ save.

 

Like I said, I’m not against them having what amounts to a 1+ save, I just think it will be done via a special rule to do with power armour rather than a direct change to the marine stat line.

 

Totally see the concern, but having 1s always fail, and having a 1+ save doesn't conflict.  It just means that it only comes into effect with -1 AP weapons. Shouldn't be any confusion there, and wouldnt require anything more than a tiny sentence clarifying). 

 

 

My thinking for this is that marines in power armour would be strong again.  Viable,and powerful against small arms fire, like they are in fluff.  I think this small change COMPLETELY rebalances them, giving Tactical marines some swing and termies some serious consideration. 

 

In 8th, a missile launcher or equivalent means that Terms have a 50% chance of saving.  Vs. 7th where they had a 82% chance or so.  Similarly troubling stats with HB/Autocannon style weapons too.  

 

For me, this is the smallest change, with the biggest impact to the game, without breaking either the power-level or the meta and simultaneously keeping with the mythology and feel of Space Marines. 

 

 

 

 

(As noted though, this may cause rebalancing requirements from dex to dex.  But, I dont see this as an issue, really).  

[bluntpencil]

Remember that ITC tournament info may as well be thrown out the window, since it's not how the game is played. Choosing your objectives, etc etc, makes it easier for Guard to come out on top.

[Ishagu]

Also, keep in mind that Chapter Approved is just around the corner.

 

Point reductions and a few new rules/strats could go a long way!

[Sete]

When does it drop? December?

[Ishagu]

Someone mentioned October to me, I hope that's true!

[Captain Idaho]

It's got to be the longest wait ever! Feels like waiting for a new Codex!

[Panzer]

CA should be december.

[Basteala]

I suspect December. If it was October I imagine we would've heard by now.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

When was it released last year ?

[SillyDreadnought]

Points reductions won't fix some of the fundamental issues with the Space Marine codex, which lie in the datasheets. Points values only alter the availability of units, not the inherent usability of units. E.g. the Venerable Dreadnought being fundamentally better than the normal Dreadnought, or Assault Marines hitting like an undercooked noodle. That's a datasheet issue, and GW seems very reluctant to touch the datasheets beyond errata'ing spelling errors or supplying rules clarity.

 

If CA has sweeping datasheet changes to profiles and weapons, that'll be a better move than points adjustments, which're just a diversion from the real inherent problems in the codex.

[Panzer]

Throw enough wet noodles at something and you'll make a dent. 20 Marines may not be survivable in the meta but 200 sure would.

What I'm saying is that GW can achieve a LOT with just point adjustments even with Marines. It's not something I'd like to see happen because I'd like to see Marines more elite-ish and less horde-ish but it's wrong to say that just changing points can't be enough in terms of balance.

[Ishagu]

If an assault marine cost 6 points with wargear?

 

Suddenly assault Marines will be sold out...

[Kallas]

Yup, a 6pt AM would be about right. That will not happen, of that I'm pretty damn sure. At most they'll drop them to about 10/11, which won't be sufficient.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I have heard AM could go up to 5 pts at least.

[MARK0SIAN]

Points changes can make a huge difference but only in terms of quantity.

 

40K’s tagline should already be:

 

8th edition - quantity over quality

 

And this applies to pretty much every aspect of the game. I really don’t want to see anything that pushes us even further in that direction. I hope CA does make sweeping changes to the rules and stats but I think it unlikely.

 

Some things undoubtedly need to come down in price but i want the units to feel like space marines, not like I’m throwing enough conscripts at something that they eventually run out of bullets.

[MARK0SIAN]

I have heard AM could go up to 5 pts at least.

It’s not the end of the world if they do but I hope it’s not true. AM are a pain in that they are abused for CP batteries but played as a codex on their own it’s definitely not overpowered. I actually think it’s one of the most balanced codexes they’ve done.