# avoiding armour



## Azzaphox (Jul 13, 2012)

When does it stop being worthwhile spending on armour?

I mean, clearly putting additional points into armour for Skavenslaves does not make much sense. But for, say, beastmen, does it make much sense to spend points upping thier armour? When you could just spend more points on putting more troops on the battlefield?
For the lighter levels of armour you are looking at a roll of a 6 or maybe a 5+ to save, which means you have spent some points that may well not turn out to have done anything.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

I cannot find my piece of paper with the maths on so am going from memory.

At 8 points per model it is worth paying 1 point to gain +1AS rather than buying more models.


----------



## olderplayer (Dec 11, 2009)

It all depends. As a general rule, never spend points on armour if in combat the maximum increase in the probability of saving the model as a result of adding a +1 or +2 to the armour save times the points cost per model (including all other items) prior to adding the extra armour save is equal to or less than the points costs of adding the extra armour save. For example, if adding armour to a 6 point model costs 1 point, then in shooting and close combat the 6+ armour save will save (at most) one-sixth of the models hit and wounded which times 6 points per model is worth only one point of savings. However, since there are many attacks that are at strength 4 or 5 or have armour piercing and many shooting attacks and spells will either ignore or cut through the armour save, some proportion of the time the extra armour save will not pay off at all and be worthless when exposed to combat or shooting. For example, if you will be fighting an ogres army with ironguts and leadbelchers, increasing the armour save from 6+ to 5+ does very little but increasing the armour save (assuming the unit comes equipped with a 5+ armour save) from 5+ to 4+ and adding a parry save may be a big benefit (at least with respect to the leadbelcher shooting at S4 and AP) and the parry save could be worthwhile against ironguts in combat. 

On the other hand, a chaos warrior is so expensive and elite that, even with halberds which negate shields in close combat, many people are willing to buy shields just to reduce the damage from normal shooting and magic attacks. It is actually a close call and depends on the meta game. If you expect to see a lot of stone throwers and organ guns and normal shooting and magic missile fire, then adding shields does potentially make sense. 

Where the issue is a closer call is when the +1 armour save is on top of an existing armour save and when the model cost is greater than 5 or 6 points. For example, increasing the armour save from 3+ to 2+ is huge because it dramatically reduces the incremental probability of dying to wounds from normal attacks. The difference between mounted knights with a 1+ armour save as compared with a 2+ armour save is huge in 8the edition. A 1+ armour save can take a blow from S4 or S3 and AP and survive 5/6th of the time. A 2+ armour save will only survive 2/3rds of the time. This makes incremental increases in armour saves slightly more valuable that simple increasing the armour save from none to 6+. 

Another factor is the type of armour save benefit. Shields on infantry with hand weapons are worth a lot more because of the parry save. A five point model with light armour make very well be worth buying shield for both because of the increase in probably of saving the model in combat (approxi 30% increase). 

Finally, one of the factors often not considered is combat resolution. How much does lowering the number of models killed reduce the chance of a panic check (when from magic or shooting), reduce the chance of the unit falling to or below 25% of its original model count (which makes it very difficult to rally), or significantly reduces the likely loss in combat resolution and affect the chances of avoiding or passing a break test. For example, if, on average your unit will cause 8 wounds in close combat and will suffer 10 wounds without the boosted armour and have only a 25% chance of winning or drawing combat, then adding armour might reduce the average number of wounds suffered to 8.5and increase the chance of a draw or win in combat to 45%. Additionally, the break test when you lose combat will average testing on a 5 when you lose without the extra armour as opposed to testing on a 7 when you lose with the extra armour. 

With undeaded units and daemonic units, the combat resolution issue can be particularly important. Undead armies crumble based on the loss in combat resolution. Often these models are slightly overpriced due to fear and being immune to pysch and unbreakable. Thus, putting shields over light armour with spears might reduce the number of models lost by approximately one-sixth and, in frontal combat, reduces the number of lost models by approximately 30% when equipped with handweapons. That can mean the difference between losing combat and winning combat. Even if combat is lost consistently, which often occurs with skeletons, the number of additiional models that will be lost will be similarly reduced by adding extra armour. Thus, at the margin, putting shields on models with hand weapons can dramatically reduce the rate at which an undead unit in extended combat will crumble and even with spears the shields lead to a 1/6th reduction in wounds that actually saves two models times one-sixth (not just one model) at the margin due to the instability ("crumble") rule. For that reason, some Tomb King players may consider not taking spears (which take away the parry save of the hand weapon shield combo) and do consider putting light armour on their skeleton warriors, even though the math might not favour adding light armour. On the other hand, smaller units of skeleton archers in the Tomb Kings army are not likely to get into combat as often and will often not benefit from adding light armour, so paying extra points to equip them them with light armour is generally not worthwhile. Similarly, vampire counts skeletons come with light armour and shields and most will not swap the hand weapon for the extra rank of attacks from the spears because of the benefit of the parry save, even if the swap is free. 

The point is that the actual calculation of issues is far more complex and requires that one make assumptions as to what one opposing armies and units the unit or model in question will be facing. The primary issues are:
1. Average points worth of models saved on average relative to to cost of saving them from shooting, magic and combat attacks. This includes consideration of the type of armour added and the typical frequency and types of attacks that will be faced by the model/unit. 
2. The combat resolution benefit from saving more models on average as compared with the likelihood of extra ranks and steadfast benefit of more models. 
3. Does adding armour reduce wounds on average as compared with the benefits of adding models mean one is less likely to panic when attacked at range, less likely to fall below 25% in a unit subject to panic, and, thus, less likely to be destroyed and give up victory points.

Ultimately, given the complexities, it is an educated guess as to whether increasing the armour save (adding light armour or heavy armour, replacing light armour with heavy armour, or adding a shield or increasing heavy armour to plate or chaos armour) is worthwhile. Sometimes, it makes sense to actual play out a number of times combat between two opposing units (a unit or set of units your are likely to fit with the unit of concern) and see how the combat turns out over extended rounds of combat with and without the extra armour.


----------



## kain1989 (Dec 1, 2009)

Older player really nailed it on the head, and I don't have to much to contribute to that. but I will say on basic troops, I'll never pay for only a 6+ save. too many things take it away, and even if they don't, it hardly saves anything anyway. 

I start considering extra armor when you get a 4+, because then you'll usually get it, and have a reasonable assurance of making the save.

In the case of beastmen, I understand they don't get much of a save anyway, so I'd go cheap as possible with only armor on characters. With beastmen, being toughness 4 saves you from more wounds than heavy armor would.


----------



## Azzaphox (Jul 13, 2012)

the long answer was great.

the short answer was even more useful.

thanks to you all.



> In the case of beastmen, I understand they don't get much of a save anyway, so I'd go cheap as possible with only armor on characters. With beastmen, being toughness 4 saves you from more wounds than heavy armor would


I think that is the key bit - basically in the last battle I had I tried not putting armour on and found them to be still fairly damage resistant


----------



## olderplayer (Dec 11, 2009)

Got carried away. 

Beastmen don't really benefit much from armour and have pretty limited option armour choices. 
-The shield for ungors is in the base cost (not optional) and is good because of the parry save such that one might refrain from paying an upgrade price for a spear (which provides an extra rank of attacks in combat when the unit did not charge but loses the parry save).
-There is at least an argument (close call) for giving gors a shield given their points cost for the 6+ AS and parry save unless one chooses the additional hand weapon. It is a very close call as to whether to take a shield or not or should opt, instead, for an additional hand weapon given primal fury giving the unit re-rolls to hit (hatred) most of the time in combat. 
-Bestigors come with heavy armour. 
-Characters (beastlord, wargor, doombull, gorebull) should take heavy armour given the very low points cost relative to the cost per wound of those models and a shield if not taking a great weapon or magic weapon that requires two hands. 
-Minotaurs should take shields if they do not take great weapons or additional hand weapons especially given that they have light armour already but they are often better off killing stuff with the AHW or GW (given that the already have 3 attacks). Given their S5 and most opposing models and units being T3 or T4 with some occasional T5 and T6 models, more attacks with WS 4 is probably more important than increasing the strength of the attacks unless you are fairly certain of fighting T4 and T5 models and occasionally T6 models or models with extremely high armour saves consistently.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Generally, if the cost of adding shields ends up using points that could buy you a significant amount of extra troops, it's not worth it.


----------

