How GW should treat AP

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

-1: pierces standard body armor

-2: pierces light vehicles and heavy body armor

-3: pierces medium vehicles

-4+: dedicated anti-tank/monster

 

I think this would make a lot more sense than the seemingly random attribution of AP stats that we have now.

 

Other minutia of how well things work against what can then be dealt with via the S stat.

S5+ and AP-1 would be for things like bikes and gravis/terminators

S4 or lower and AP-1 would be for things like long las for work against light infantry.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Bryan Blaire]

Not sure how far back your Edition play goes, but that sounds very similar to how earlier Editions of the game managed it, but the AP value represented the Save value that didn’t get to roll against the weapon - i.e. AP5 meant that anything with an 6+ or 5+ save didn’t get to make an armor save if it was Wounded by the weapon.

 

In 2nd Edition, a couple of weapons had AP values of -7, -8, or -9 - those were things like las cannons and melta weapons (and I think Chain Fists) and pretty much prevented any saves on standard armors - you had to have things of Terminator armor level to get a save, because those rolled on a 2D6 and you applied the AP penalty to the roll value (IIRC, not reading my rule book right now).  So a 3+ save for TDA on 2D6 was really hard to get through without plasma, etc.

 

That system was changed when they went to everything on a single D6 roll.  I still think that could be done (somewhat) with higher than values of 6, etc.  I’m not sure exactly how GW should handle Armor Piercing, but I think there’s better ways than they are doing it now, though it would likely complicate the game more than GW seems to think is acceptable.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Not sure how far back your Edition play goes, but that sounds very similar to how earlier Editions of the game managed it, but the AP value represented the Save value that didn’t get to roll against the weapon - i.e. AP5 meant that anything with an 6+ or 5+ save didn’t get to make an armor save if it was Wounded by the weapon.

 

In 2nd Edition, a couple of weapons had AP values of -7, -8, or -9 - those were things like las cannons and melta weapons (and I think Chain Fists) and pretty much prevented any saves on standard armors - you had to have things of Terminator armor level to get a save, because those rolled on a 2D6 and you applied the AP penalty to the roll value (IIRC, not reading my rule book right now). So a 3+ save for TDA on 2D6 was really hard to get through without plasma, etc.

 

That system was changed when they went to everything on a single D6 roll. I still think that could be done (somewhat) with higher than values of 6, etc. I’m not sure exactly how GW should handle Armor Piercing, but I think there’s better ways than they are doing it now, but it would likely complicate the game more than GW seems to think is acceptable.

i played 3-5

I’m not necessarily saying things should get no armor save unless of course a weapon is AP-6.

 

I think it would help add context to weapons.

For example the autocannon is supposed to be able to kill light armor and hvy/elite infantry. It can, but the HB does so better despite being more hoard clearance, because both are AP-1

 

As it is now and as it has been, it seems like GW assigns AP values almost Willy nilly, and without much thought.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[tychobi]

 

Not sure how far back your Edition play goes, but that sounds very similar to how earlier Editions of the game managed it, but the AP value represented the Save value that didn’t get to roll against the weapon - i.e. AP5 meant that anything with an 6+ or 5+ save didn’t get to make an armor save if it was Wounded by the weapon.

 

In 2nd Edition, a couple of weapons had AP values of -7, -8, or -9 - those were things like las cannons and melta weapons (and I think Chain Fists) and pretty much prevented any saves on standard armors - you had to have things of Terminator armor level to get a save, because those rolled on a 2D6 and you applied the AP penalty to the roll value (IIRC, not reading my rule book right now). So a 3+ save for TDA on 2D6 was really hard to get through without plasma, etc.

 

That system was changed when they went to everything on a single D6 roll. I still think that could be done (somewhat) with higher than values of 6, etc. I’m not sure exactly how GW should handle Armor Piercing, but I think there’s better ways than they are doing it now, but it would likely complicate the game more than GW seems to think is acceptable.

i played 3-5

I’m not necessarily saying things should get no armor save unless of course a weapon is AP-6.

 

I think it would help add context to weapons.

For example the autocannon is supposed to be able to kill light armor and hvy/elite infantry. It can, but the HB does so better despite being more hoard clearance, because both are AP-1

 

As it is now and as it has been, it seems like GW assigns AP values almost Willy nilly, and without much thought.

 

Willy nilly is the design philosophy these days isn't it?  That said variable AP is a feature and lets various interactions that a set table does not.  Is it a sense of realism you are chasing?

[Jings]

Said it before and I'll say it again - every unit should have an amount of AP they can ignore. An Integrity value or whatever. Much more preferable to capping the amount of armour that can reduced steps on the toes of invulnerable saves, having units have 'ignores ap-0/1/2/3 and lower' would go a long way to solving it. Chuck in some angle shenanigans to give increases to AP (i.e., shooting from a higher level gives -1 AP) and bam, you can them together to make vertical positioning actually a thing outside of LoS as anti-cover that can be used to get over integrity values. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

Not sure how far back your Edition play goes, but that sounds very similar to how earlier Editions of the game managed it, but the AP value represented the Save value that didn’t get to roll against the weapon - i.e. AP5 meant that anything with an 6+ or 5+ save didn’t get to make an armor save if it was Wounded by the weapon.

 

In 2nd Edition, a couple of weapons had AP values of -7, -8, or -9 - those were things like las cannons and melta weapons (and I think Chain Fists) and pretty much prevented any saves on standard armors - you had to have things of Terminator armor level to get a save, because those rolled on a 2D6 and you applied the AP penalty to the roll value (IIRC, not reading my rule book right now). So a 3+ save for TDA on 2D6 was really hard to get through without plasma, etc.

 

That system was changed when they went to everything on a single D6 roll. I still think that could be done (somewhat) with higher than values of 6, etc. I’m not sure exactly how GW should handle Armor Piercing, but I think there’s better ways than they are doing it now, but it would likely complicate the game more than GW seems to think is acceptable.

i played 3-5

I’m not necessarily saying things should get no armor save unless of course a weapon is AP-6.

 

I think it would help add context to weapons.

For example the autocannon is supposed to be able to kill light armor and hvy/elite infantry. It can, but the HB does so better despite being more hoard clearance, because both are AP-1

 

As it is now and as it has been, it seems like GW assigns AP values almost Willy nilly, and without much thought.

Willy nilly is the design philosophy these days isn't it? That said variable AP is a feature and lets various interactions that a set table does not. Is it a sense of realism you are chasing?

not a sense of realism, but just some guidelines that scale various weapons relative to each other.

Said it before and I'll say it again - every unit should have an amount of AP they can ignore. An Integrity value or whatever. Much more preferable to capping the amount of armour that can reduced steps on the toes of invulnerable saves, having units have 'ignores ap-0/1/2/3 and lower' would go a long way to solving it. Chuck in some angle shenanigans to give increases to AP (i.e., shooting from a higher level gives -1 AP) and bam, you can them together to make vertical positioning actually a thing outside of LoS as anti-cover that can be used to get over integrity values.

GW won’t likely bring back any mechanic that requires angles to achieve a different result

[Jings]

 

Said it before and I'll say it again - every unit should have an amount of AP they can ignore. An Integrity value or whatever. Much more preferable to capping the amount of armour that can reduced steps on the toes of invulnerable saves, having units have 'ignores ap-0/1/2/3 and lower' would go a long way to solving it. Chuck in some angle shenanigans to give increases to AP (i.e., shooting from a higher level gives -1 AP) and bam, you can them together to make vertical positioning actually a thing outside of LoS as anti-cover that can be used to get over integrity values.

GW won’t likely bring back any mechanic that requires angles to achieve a different result

 

 

I'm talking less angle, more vertical positioning. Could be as simple as if the firing units base is higher than the unit being fired at. I'm pretty similar mechanics are used in the current cover system, though I could be misremembering. 

[Bryan Blaire]

I definitely agree that the current method of implementation on AP leaves things to be desired, but how “should” GW do it seems like a really strong statement - I don’t know that the system that was proposed in the original post is necessarily or automatically any better than what GW has implemented now, other than an attempt to give a bit more structure to it.  We really can’t objectively evaluate the proposal without a revision/re-write of the rule set to incorporate the idea and play it out and see if it actually makes the game better.

 

So I would say that there are numerous ways that GW could implement Armor Penetration/Piercing, and that the proposed method is one of them, but isn’t necessarily what they should do over all other methods that could be implemented.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

Said it before and I'll say it again - every unit should have an amount of AP they can ignore. An Integrity value or whatever. Much more preferable to capping the amount of armour that can reduced steps on the toes of invulnerable saves, having units have 'ignores ap-0/1/2/3 and lower' would go a long way to solving it. Chuck in some angle shenanigans to give increases to AP (i.e., shooting from a higher level gives -1 AP) and bam, you can them together to make vertical positioning actually a thing outside of LoS as anti-cover that can be used to get over integrity values.

GW won’t likely bring back any mechanic that requires angles to achieve a different result

I'm talking less angle, more vertical positioning. Could be as simple as if the firing units base is higher than the unit being fired at. I'm pretty similar mechanics are used in the current cover system, though I could be misremembering.

pretty sure the cover system simply says if a model is on the base of a terrain piece that provides cover it gets cover.

 

I’d love them to bring back true LOS again but I don’t think they will.

[chapter master 454]

So I feel the current system has issues with how different armours are treated, effectively we have a lot of weapon sided boosting without much defender sided defences being apparent.

 

To me, the current system is fine. It allows for more granular impacts of weapons instead of feeling all or nothing, which effectively meant ether you were an army that got armour saves or you were an army that didn't...there wasn't much variable to it. This system allows weapons to feel like they can dent armour, despite maybe not being the most optimal target. However there is a case that maybe armour types should have a minor return. However I do need people to bare here with the fact we are balancing some elements here: we are talking adding some rules here. Nothing major, just adding the mechanic that what your troops (and maybe some tanks) wear matters. Think of it as "PD" (Penetration Defence) but more to do with what each faction uses.

 

Lets start with our forums keystone: Power Armour. This is meant to be the finest protection that the Emperor's finest wear, and while there are variants of it that range in their durability it is undoubtable that this armour should be by effect like that of a tank. The armour itself likely makes those who wear it weigh near or more than a standard car. What attributes does this armour have and how do we convey this?

By using the rather nifty Keywords system we have! Yes, I am using that to help add this mechanic; sue me!

So units with the power armour Keyword would gain a boost against weapons with AP. Just a simple reduces AP of weapons targeting them by 1. While this does also mean anti-tank weapons are somehow worse against power armoured troops, this would make some element of sense: those weapons are meant for large surfaces and big game not small targets. Also, in my system it would also confer a benefit against blast. (in my head, blast weapons should gain the wound spill over rule mortal wounds have when used against Infantry keyword units. Power Armour would negate that).

 

Not all armour is equal though, though you could use it to help add special abilities that are tied to armours. Terminator Armour would likely have a larger boost to AP defence but also confer deep strike. These sort of common rules could be put in the armies armoury section, what do these armours confer. 

 

Could also be interesting to have Invulnerables rolled into that system, possibly even adding to your saving throw instead where as power armours AP negation can never improve your save beyond what its baseline is. Just my thoughts.

[Antarius]

I sort of preferred the old AP system, as it was logical, easy to understand and cut down on the amount of rolls, rather than increas them. It ended up pretty much as willy-nilly as the current system though, as everyone and their mum eventually “had” to have AP3 weapons as the power/edition creep wore on.

 

In general, I think the rules need more abstraction and less processes requiring multiple series of dice rolls, not the other way around.

 

Assuming that we’re not going back to the old AP system, I think a rule of thumb like the one presented in the OP would be a good thing. I do kinda think the design team already has that, though. It’s just that AP inflation goes on as editions progress, which is probably (and sadly) somewhat inevitable.

[Iron Lord]

I sort of preferred the old AP system, as it was logical, easy to understand and cut down on the amount of rolls, rather than increas them. It ended up pretty much as willy-nilly as the current system though, as everyone and their mum eventually “had” to have AP3 weapons as the power/edition creep wore on.

 

In general, I think the rules need more abstraction and less processes requiring multiple series of dice rolls, not the other way around.

 

Assuming that we’re not going back to the old AP system, I think a rule of thumb like the one presented in the OP would be a good thing. I do kinda think the design team already has that, though. It’s just that AP inflation goes on as editions progress, which is probably (and sadly) somewhat inevitable.

I'd say, at least with regard to melee weapons with powerfields, 6e, and all subsequent editions, deflated AP rather strongly.

 

Pre-6e, lightning claws, power weapons, and so on went straight through Terminator Armour, mega armour, etc.

 

After 6e came out, the AP system being applied to melee weapons meant only the best weapons ignored a Terminator's armour save.

 

With 8e -and 9e, and every melee weapon with powerfields having so-so AP (and lightning claws being one of the worse ones) they aren't nearly as good at penetrating armour as they used to be, but they do make a difference.

 

 

 

 

I think it would help add context to weapons.

For example the autocannon is supposed to be able to kill light armor and hvy/elite infantry. It can, but the HB does so better despite being more hoard clearance, because both are AP-1

 

 

The Damage Point system also makes a difference to what's easily killable and what isn't. Being Damage 2 can make a big difference to how quickly light vehicles and 2-wound models go down.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Iron Lord

[Antarius]

 

I sort of preferred the old AP system, as it was logical, easy to understand and cut down on the amount of rolls, rather than increas them. It ended up pretty much as willy-nilly as the current system though, as everyone and their mum eventually “had” to have AP3 weapons as the power/edition creep wore on.

 

In general, I think the rules need more abstraction and less processes requiring multiple series of dice rolls, not the other way around.

 

Assuming that we’re not going back to the old AP system, I think a rule of thumb like the one presented in the OP would be a good thing. I do kinda think the design team already has that, though. It’s just that AP inflation goes on as editions progress, which is probably (and sadly) somewhat inevitable.

I'd say, at least with regard to melee weapons with powerfields, 6e, and all subsequent editions, deflated AP rather strongly.

 

Pre-6e, lightning claws, power weapons, and so on went straight through Terminator Armour, mega armour, etc.

 

After 6e came out, the AP system being applied to melee weapons meant only the best weapons ignored a Terminator's armour save.

 

With 8e -and 9e, and every melee weapon with powerfields having so-so AP (and lightning claws being one of the worse ones) they aren't nearly as good at penetrating armour as they used to be, but they do make a difference.

 

You're definitely right about the melee thing - I actually quite liked the differentation between power weapons in 6th, although it did have its own problems as well (just like pretty much every rule will). I do still seem to recall AP3 (or 2) being more and prevalent on ranged weapons as the editions wore on.

 

What I like about the current system is that there's more granularity. What I don't like compared to the earlier system was that it seemed intuitively "right" that power armour and terminator armour would be strong against everything except stuff that was powerful enough to punch through tank armour. I sort of feel that the idea that a less powerful gun can penetrate power armour with a lucky shot is represented in the fact that you can roll a 1-2 for your save.

In the current system, power armour and terminaor armour is devalued by getting modified "faster". Under the old system it was the increased prevalence of AP3 that eventually sort of devalued power armour.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

So I feel the current system has issues with how different armours are treated, effectively we have a lot of weapon sided boosting without much defender sided defences being apparent.

 

To me, the current system is fine. It allows for more granular impacts of weapons instead of feeling all or nothing, which effectively meant ether you were an army that got armour saves or you were an army that didn't...there wasn't much variable to it. This system allows weapons to feel like they can dent armour, despite maybe not being the most optimal target. However there is a case that maybe armour types should have a minor return. However I do need people to bare here with the fact we are balancing some elements here: we are talking adding some rules here. Nothing major, just adding the mechanic that what your troops (and maybe some tanks) wear matters. Think of it as "PD" (Penetration Defence) but more to do with what each faction uses.

 

Lets start with our forums keystone: Power Armour. This is meant to be the finest protection that the Emperor's finest wear, and while there are variants of it that range in their durability it is undoubtable that this armour should be by effect like that of a tank. The armour itself likely makes those who wear it weigh near or more than a standard car. What attributes does this armour have and how do we convey this?

By using the rather nifty Keywords system we have! Yes, I am using that to help add this mechanic; sue me!

So units with the power armour Keyword would gain a boost against weapons with AP. Just a simple reduces AP of weapons targeting them by 1. While this does also mean anti-tank weapons are somehow worse against power armoured troops, this would make some element of sense: those weapons are meant for large surfaces and big game not small targets. Also, in my system it would also confer a benefit against blast. (in my head, blast weapons should gain the wound spill over rule mortal wounds have when used against Infantry keyword units. Power Armour would negate that).

 

Not all armour is equal though, though you could use it to help add special abilities that are tied to armours. Terminator Armour would likely have a larger boost to AP defence but also confer deep strike. These sort of common rules could be put in the armies armoury section, what do these armours confer.

 

Could also be interesting to have Invulnerables rolled into that system, possibly even adding to your saving throw instead where as power armours AP negation can never improve your save beyond what its baseline is. Just my thoughts.

idk what you mean by this way it feels like a weapon can dent armor…body armor or vehicle armor it doesn’t matter, denting armor isn’t a penetration and isn’t going to cause any actual damage to the vehicle or serious enough injury to the wearer to take them out of the fight…any time a model passes an armor save that could reasonably be interpreted as the armor simply being dented.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

I sort of preferred the old AP system, as it was logical, easy to understand and cut down on the amount of rolls, rather than increas them. It ended up pretty much as willy-nilly as the current system though, as everyone and their mum eventually “had” to have AP3 weapons as the power/edition creep wore on.

 

In general, I think the rules need more abstraction and less processes requiring multiple series of dice rolls, not the other way around.

 

Assuming that we’re not going back to the old AP system, I think a rule of thumb like the one presented in the OP would be a good thing. I do kinda think the design team already has that, though. It’s just that AP inflation goes on as editions progress, which is probably (and sadly) somewhat inevitable.

I'd say, at least with regard to melee weapons with powerfields, 6e, and all subsequent editions, deflated AP rather strongly.

 

Pre-6e, lightning claws, power weapons, and so on went straight through Terminator Armour, mega armour, etc.

 

After 6e came out, the AP system being applied to melee weapons meant only the best weapons ignored a Terminator's armour save.

 

With 8e -and 9e, and every melee weapon with powerfields having so-so AP (and lightning claws being one of the worse ones) they aren't nearly as good at penetrating armour as they used to be, but they do make a difference.

 

 

 

I think it would help add context to weapons.

For example the autocannon is supposed to be able to kill light armor and hvy/elite infantry. It can, but the HB does so better despite being more hoard clearance, because both are AP-1

 

 

The Damage Point system also makes a difference to what's easily killable and what isn't. Being Damage 2 can make a big difference to how quickly light vehicles and 2-wound models go down.

I agree it can…when comparing weapons with the same number of shots, but the math hammer between the two just doesn’t show the AC as being significantly better than the HB at killing such targets. Their profiles are just too close so that extra :cuss make a difference

 

 

 

That's actually pretty interesting, I'd never mathhammered it before. Does that make a case for including HB in infantry squads or HWS, or on Russes maybe? Infantry squads you normally want moving, HWS die to a stiff breeze, and sponson weapons on Russes are so pricey.

 

I guess this is the issue with the dex: it's behind the power curve on mobility, survivability, and output for points cost.

 

If you were already taking autocannons right now, I'd suggest swapping to HB.

 

If you want to mathhammer here's some scenarios:

 

Heavy bolter:

- Against T3 3+: 0.5 unsaved wounds.

- Against T4 3+: 0.5 unsaved wounds.

- Against T5 3+: 0.375 unsaved wounds.

- Against T6 3+: 0.25 unsaved wounds.

- Against T7 3+: 0.25 unsaved wounds.

- Against T8 3+: 0.25 unsaved wounds.

 

Autocannon:

- Against T3 3+: 0.417 unsaved wounds.

- Against T4 3+: 0.333 unsaved wounds.

- Against T5 3+: 0.333 unsaved wounds.

- Against T6 3+: 0.333 unsaved wounds.

- Against T7 3+: 0.25 unsaved wounds.

- Against T8 3+: 0.167 unsaved wounds.

 

Regular autocannon loses/ties against everything except T6.

 

Autocannon buffed to AP-2:

- Against T3 3+: 0.556 unsaved wounds.

- Against T4 3+: 0.444 unsaved wounds.

- Against T5 3+: 0.444 unsaved wounds.

- Against T6 3+: 0.444 unsaved wounds.

- Against T7 3+: 0.333 unsaved wounds.

- Against T8 3+: 0.222 unsaved wounds.

 

Autocannon buffed to AP-2 beats the heavy bolter at everything except T4 and T8.

 

Autocannon buffed to S8:

- Against T3 3+: 0.417 unsaved wounds.

- Against T4 3+: 0.417 unsaved wounds.

- Against T5 3+: 0.333 unsaved wounds.

- Against T6 3+: 0.333 unsaved wounds.

- Against T7 3+: 0.333 unsaved wounds.

- Against T8 3+: 0.25 unsaved wounds.

 

Autocannon buffed to S8 beats the heavy bolter at T6, and T7. Heavy bolter wins at T3, T4, T5, and ties at T8.

 

So, honestly. I'd probably go with the autocannon going to S8. That puts it firmly at an anti-light/medium vehicle weapon, but can still do okay at infantry work. Making the autocannon AP-2 just makes it swap places with the heavy bolter.

[Halandaar]

-1: pierces standard body armor

-2: pierces light vehicles and heavy body armor

-3: pierces medium vehicles

-4+: dedicated anti-tank/monster

 

I think this would make a lot more sense than the seemingly random attribution of AP stats that we have now.

This is even more convoluted than what we have now. You'd have to give every unit in the game an additional attribute simply for the purposes of the AP system, and then it doesn't even have any granularity for different saves within a category. "Standard body armour" could be everything from an Ork Boy's t-shirt (6+) to a carapace armour (4+) and yet they're all being treated as equivalent by your -1 tier. Similarly it assumes all monsters are as heavily armoured as tanks, and even that all tanks are as heavily armoured as each other.

[Schlitzaf]

Here what I’d do:

So yeah here my fix for modern 40k:

Reduce AP of Basic DudeBro AP by 1 in general.

Shurikans Lose Super Rending and their AP -1.

Necron & Tau Troop Units in general down an AP on their basic dudebro ranged weaponry.

Rangers also lose an AP.

 

TSons, Scions and Stalker Cessors are now only weaponry with AP -2 base. On Dudebro Joe. With AP -1 not being uncommon.

 

Beyond that I could see a general argument for Special Weapon (24” range guns Upgraded Weaponry) losing an AP. As well.

 

In general I’d limit AP stacking or AP procs on 6’s

Edited April 7, 2022 by Schlitzaf

[Naryn]

Without more granularity in dice results I'm not sure how to make the system work well for all factions and possible matchups. Personally it feels like 40k has outgrown the 1d6 for all rolls system. There were rumors a while back that 9th edition might move to a d10 as the basic die, and I was really excited about that.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

-1: pierces standard body armor

-2: pierces light vehicles and heavy body armor

-3: pierces medium vehicles

-4+: dedicated anti-tank/monster

 

I think this would make a lot more sense than the seemingly random attribution of AP stats that we have now.

This is even more convoluted than what we have now. You'd have to give every unit in the game an additional attribute simply for the purposes of the AP system, and then it doesn't even have any granularity for different saves within a category. "Standard body armour" could be everything from an Ork Boy's t-shirt (6+) to a carapace armour (4+) and yet they're all being treated as equivalent by your -1 tier. Similarly it assumes all monsters are as heavily armoured as tanks, and even that all tanks are as heavily armoured as each other.

no extra attributes need to be given.

And how is a guardsmen’s flak jacket treated any differently than a marines power armor as far as AP goes?

 

I really am not understanding any of the points you’re trying to make.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Without more granularity in dice results I'm not sure how to make the system work well for all factions and possible matchups. Personally it feels like 40k has outgrown the 1d6 for all rolls system. There were rumors a while back that 9th edition might move to a d10 as the basic die, and I was really excited about that.

I agree, similar situation with the T8 cap, which if rumors are true is finally being broken.

 

Personally I’d just rather go back to AVs

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I think a lot of this wouldn’t matter if there was much higher T caps at like 12.

[Bryan Blaire]

 

 

-1: pierces standard body armor

-2: pierces light vehicles and heavy body armor

-3: pierces medium vehicles

-4+: dedicated anti-tank/monster

 

I think this would make a lot more sense than the seemingly random attribution of AP stats that we have now.

This is even more convoluted than what we have now. You'd have to give every unit in the game an additional attribute simply for the purposes of the AP system, and then it doesn't even have any granularity for different saves within a category. "Standard body armour" could be everything from an Ork Boy's t-shirt (6+) to a carapace armour (4+) and yet they're all being treated as equivalent by your -1 tier. Similarly it assumes all monsters are as heavily armoured as tanks, and even that all tanks are as heavily armoured as each other.

no extra attributes need to be given.

And how is a guardsmen’s flak jacket treated any differently than a marines power armor as far as AP goes?

 

I really am not understanding any of the points you’re trying to make.

 

Halandaar’s points are pretty clear - if AP-1 pierces “standard body armor”, then you have to have an attribute or rule that defines “standard body armor” and you have to have a rule that defines what “piercing” means (do they not get a roll?  Is the roll reduced in some fashion? Etc.)

 

Either you are proposing a change to the game rules, or you aren’t.

 

If you are proposing a change to the rules, then you need to actually explain what the change is, otherwise you leave the rest of us guessing at your intent.  As I said in my initial response post to yours, it seems by using the term “piercing”, you are implying that the armor does nothing against the shot, and they don’t get an armor save, which is how it worked in previous Editions of the game.

 

If you aren’t proposing a change to the game rules, then your “How GW should handle AP” assertion is meaningless, because you aren’t adjusting anything about the game - you are stating that GW should handle AP the way it is handled in the game now…

 

If your only proposal is “GW should assign values based on my personal assessments of what weapons are for, but nothing changes about how the game works”, then that is also pretty meaningless - I could assert that my personal assessment of weapon usage is better than anyone else’s without any kind of objective measurement and all we are doing is peeing into the wind.  It leaves us nothing to discuss, and some cleaning to do.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

 

-1: pierces standard body armor

-2: pierces light vehicles and heavy body armor

-3: pierces medium vehicles

-4+: dedicated anti-tank/monster

 

I think this would make a lot more sense than the seemingly random attribution of AP stats that we have now.

This is even more convoluted than what we have now. You'd have to give every unit in the game an additional attribute simply for the purposes of the AP system, and then it doesn't even have any granularity for different saves within a category. "Standard body armour" could be everything from an Ork Boy's t-shirt (6+) to a carapace armour (4+) and yet they're all being treated as equivalent by your -1 tier. Similarly it assumes all monsters are as heavily armoured as tanks, and even that all tanks are as heavily armoured as each other.

no extra attributes need to be given.

And how is a guardsmen’s flak jacket treated any differently than a marines power armor as far as AP goes?

 

I really am not understanding any of the points you’re trying to make.

Halandaar’s points are pretty clear - if AP-1 pierces “standard body armor”, then you have to have an attribute or rule that defines “standard body armor” and you have to have a rule that defines what “piercing” means (do they not get a roll? Is the roll reduced in some fashion? Etc.)

 

Either you are proposing a change to the game, or you aren’t. If you are proposing a change to the rules, then you need to actually explain what the change is, otherwise you leave the rest of us guessing at your intent.

 

If you aren’t making a change to the game, then your “How GW should handle AP” assertion is meaningless, because you aren’t adjusting anything about the game - you are stating that GW should handle AP the way it is handled in the game now…

 

If your only proposal is “GW should assign values based on my personal assessments of what weapons are for, but nothing changes about how the game works”, then that is also pretty meaningless - I could assert that my personally assessment of weapon usage is better than anyone else’s without any kind of objective measurement and all we are doing is peeing into the wind. It leaves us nothing to discuss, and some cleaning to do.

no you don’t have to have a rule for that, it’s a guideline for which weapons get what AP. Something I’ve clearly stated.

 

Except that’s not how they handle it now, they throw AP levels on weapons all Willy nilly.

 

Heavy bolters and autocannons have the same AP level but have two different intended uses. One is meant for clearing hoardes efficiently and one is meant for killing elite/heavy infantry and light armor. Same for heavy flamers. Why do they have AP-1? It makes no sense. GW has just been wanting to make things more lethal so they slap an AP level on a weapon

Edited April 7, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Bryan Blaire]

no you don’t have to have a rule for that, it’s a guideline for which weapons get what AP. Something I’ve clearly stated.

Except that’s not how they handle it now, they throw AP levels on weapons all Willy nilly.

 

Heavy bolters and autocannons have the same AP level but have two different intended uses. One is meant for clearing hoardes efficiently and one is meant for killing elite/heavy infantry and light armor. Same for heavy flamers. Why do they have AP-1? It makes no sense. GW has just been wanting to make things more lethal so they slap an AP level on a weapon

 

Okay - so you aren’t actually proposing a change to the game rules - you are asserting that your assessment of weapons is how GW should do things - see the final statement of my previous post.  ;)

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

no you don’t have to have a rule for that, it’s a guideline for which weapons get what AP. Something I’ve clearly stated.

Except that’s not how they handle it now, they throw AP levels on weapons all Willy nilly.

 

Heavy bolters and autocannons have the same AP level but have two different intended uses. One is meant for clearing hoardes efficiently and one is meant for killing elite/heavy infantry and light armor. Same for heavy flamers. Why do they have AP-1? It makes no sense. GW has just been wanting to make things more lethal so they slap an AP level on a weapon

 

Okay - so you aren’t actually proposing a change to the game rules - you are asserting that your assessment of weapons is how GW should do things - see the final statement of my previous post. ;)

not my assessment fact, based on the history of the weapons and how they’re portrayed one lore.

 

I never said I was proposing a rule change only how GW sets certain rules.