How GW should treat AP

[Halandaar]

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

 

Remember everything in 40k is an abstraction. Heavy Flamers don't have an AP value because they pierce armour, they have one to represent the fact that armour is not protecting you if it is literally on fire. 

 

Besides, "i think all anti-infantry weapons should have -1AP, all anti-tank -4" etc is an oversimplification too because different weapons can approach the same job in different ways; a high-powered single shot rifle kills infantry by punching through their armour (and potentially even cover they might be hiding behind), whereas an automatic weapon does it by spraying the target with a large amount of lower-power rounds. Both weapons do the same job, but need to have different AP values to represent how they work differently. In your suggestion, they both get the same AP because they're both killing infantry.

[Bryan Blaire]

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

 

Your post was very unclear about what you were actually suggesting, as was this statement.

 

“How GW sets certain rules” implies that the rule itself is the issue - AP works within the rule set as written, the rule is not the issue, nor does it need to be “set” a different way.

 

What you seem to be saying is that GW should set AP values for weapon profiles according to your arbitrary determinations (which are oversimplified and not actually indicative of piercing/penetration, as Halandaar indicated above), as opposed to whatever the rules developers (who may be different people from Codex to Codex) determine based on how they are indicating the weapons work in game (as opposed to the lore, because as we know “lore does not equal game rules”).

 

I would suggest instead how GW should set AP values be based on what armor the weapon should penetrate completely and allow no save for.

 

This would mean:

Weapons given the AP -1 value should completely penetrate anything with a 6+ armor save.

Weapons given the AP -2 value should completely penetrate anything with a 5+ armor save.

Weapons given the AP -3 value should completely penetrate anything with a 4+ armor save.

Weapons given the AP -4 value should completely penetrate anything with a 3+ armor save.

Weapons given the AP -5 value should completely penetrate anything with a 2+ armor save.

Weapons given the AP -6 or higher value should completely penetrate any armor save.

 

I’d have to go weapon by weapon to determine whether an individual weapon has an AP value that matches what I think the lore indicates it should have (which would still be somewhat meaningless, since lore does not equal game rules) - since I don’t have an exhaustive list of all weapons or lore for everything currently in the game, as well as the fact that this would take an immense amount of time and explanation of my reasoning, I won’t.

 

I would also have to go unit by unit to indicate whether I think they have the appropriate armor save value for the type I think is indicated by the lore (again, lore does not equal game rules), also something that I won’t take the time to do.

[Dr. Clock]

 

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.

Indeed... but 'armour that is dented' at a certain point becomes 'armour that is ineffective to the next shot', and there will be high diversity in terms of 'other kinds of damage' that, while not mortal, will indeed 'take them out of the fight' for at least the few minutes of real combat/contact time that a typical 40k game would take.

 

I agree with the general sentiment that GW has allowed certain weapons to languish in obscurity by leaving their AP and Dmg lower then we feel they 'ought' to be, but to me the current system framework, containing the continuum of 'regular/mortal' damage and 'regular/invulnerable/FNP' saves, gives a heck of alot of levers to increase the diversity of weapon profiles and armour or defence mechanisms.

 

I think if anything GW has been slow to pull those levers consistently mostly by over-emphasizing conventional 'armour save vs AP' interactions. So there have been winners over time (heavy flamer, multi-melta) and losers (autocannon, lascannon). I think GW is getting better at this, but part of that is by using invulnerables and mortals to a fuller potential [albeit inconsistently and too late]. So dropping 3++ saves generally from the game, or dropping most save re-rolls has been important in a world where it's more common to get a save at all.

 

Reducing the prevalence of FnP was also important, if only in part to make the mechanic itself stand out a bit more when it does apply. Mortal wounds were really quite the edge case for a long time, and I think the stacking of them 'in addition to other damage' is actually a good indication that invulnerables aren't... always. Indeed I think it's specifically with respect to mortals that we see the 'super-penetrator' or 'super accuracy' cropping up as a hard counter to invulnerables. The game would benefit overall, I think, from slight increases in the mortal wound potential of key cool units like snipers and infantry heavy weapons.

 

The autocannon is a great example when you compare it to the heavy bolter. Basically the autocannon is 'better' against only very few targets, to the point that when it's playing into its 'ideal', it is once again outclassed by 'dedicated anti-material' or plasma/las weapons that are using handwavium to get high AP without corresponding high S and/or high D. But that is a pretty natural outcome if we consider that in some important respects 'in-universe' almost everyone would prefer a heavy bolter to an autocannon, except that the former's ammunition is apparently so much harder to produce. Part of that preference also comes from the autocannon being 'just bigger' and more unwieldy than the more limber heavy bolter... so there are at least two things that the current rules framework has basically no way of reflecting 'in the stat-line'. So is it a fix to make autocannons Ap -2, and the same cost as heavy bolters in-game.?.. Do we make vehicle ones a bit better with like '3+d3 shots' on heavier vehicle versions? Assault cannons could also be alot more interesting just going to 30"+ range and ap-2...

 

I think what we've learned from the past is just as much that we want the ability to take diverse choices, we want those choices to be meaningful, and that it's okay for something to be 'clearly better' than another in most applications as long as we represent the 'points or resources used' reflect that. Please don't make all weapons cost the same amount or 'be the same', but also don't make any of them useless... and give them all some overlap lol.

 

Simply put, the demands of unit diversity almost compel the game designer to permit for weird edge cases like 'things that have little armour, but are really difficult to see, and are also resistant to mind bullets and sometimes can dodge because their friend can see the future'. That's an Ulthwé Ranger for all of you keeping score at home...

 

Recently for Aspect warriors, the addition of a 5++ was a great way to represent a combination effect that is diverse within the faction, likely ranging from 'banshee dodge' to 'dragon rage' or 'teleport shenanigans' that demonstrates a 'protective factor' not limited to armour thickness/sophistication', while being 'easier to use and remember' as a rule.

 

In the new Eldar codex it's also great to see, for instance, that a scatter laser is universally the cheapest 'heavy' option. But it's still effective, and more effective than the shuri cannon against anything with no armour or single W...This outcome was achieved by first improving them to 'actually do something decently well' (shoot lots of beams!).

 

It's also easy to forget that 'some degree of hardening' is achieved by rules like 'reduces/ignores ap on some [usually damage 1] weapons'. I really tend to like those kinds of _{factions, but mostly because they feel a bit more special and cool than the competition even if the benefit is a bit marginal.}

 

_{If you really want to decrease the complexity and number of things you have to remember in this game, then my main advice would be to essentially find or create a more 'restricted' gaming community of only a few factions. This is one of the unsung virtues of 'Heresy setting', if not rules; because there is generally a narrower band of 'things in the game', tweaks at the edges all speak 'much the same language' and you don't have to try to account for the sheer differences implicit across several literally alien cultures, biological communities, and their approaches to 'technology'.}

 

_{In sum I think the current system is probably the worst, except for all the others lol.}

 

_Cheers,

 

_{The Good Doctor.}

[MARK0SIAN]

I’m generally of the opinion that no AP/armour system using a D6 can withstand the sheer weight of accurate dice that is thrown out this edition. There’s simply too many shots hitting too many times wounding too easily and causing too much damage for regular armour to cope.

 

The toughness and armour saves of vehicles in particular are largely irrelevant. The vehicles that are actually tough to take down are pretty fragile on their stats but have things like invulnerable saves and hit modifiers to make them tough. I don’t really think you can modify the armour/AP system in any way to make it better without also tackling a lot of other issues.

Edited April 7, 2022 by MARK0SIAN

[MegaVolt87]

Buff vehicles, give them classes-

 

Medium- 3+, 5++, ignore AP 0 and AP -1 attacks

Heavy- 2+, 5++, ignore AP 0, AP -1 and AP-2, reduce enemy weapon AP by 1.

LoW- 1+, 4++, ignore AP 0, AP-1 and AP-2, reduce enemy weapon AP by 1, reduce unsaved dmg by 1. 

Skimmer- 3+, 5++ (4++ advance no shoot), -1 to hit if advancing or moving full mvt value. 

Aircraft/ flyer- zoom, strafe, 3++, 4++, -1 to hit while at full mvt or zoom. (remember we are docked at one flyer/ flyer slot now with new 40k FOC's via FAQ)

 

Vehicles would start to reflect their points and have those points make sense by changing their primary function vs changing the AP system itself. Model counts should be going up slightly IMO with the lethality. 

[Dr. Clock]

Buff vehicles, give them classes-

 

Medium- 3+, 5++, ignore AP 0 and AP -1 attacks

Heavy- 2+, 5++, ignore AP 0, AP -1 and AP-2, reduce enemy weapon AP by 1.

LoW- 1+, 4++, ignore AP 0, AP-1 and AP-2, reduce enemy weapon AP by 1, reduce unsaved dmg by 1. 

Skimmer- 3+, 5++ (4++ advance no shoot), -1 to hit if advancing or moving full mvt value. 

Aircraft/ flyer- zoom, strafe, 3++, 4++, -1 to hit while at full mvt or zoom. (remember we are docked at one flyer/ flyer slot now with new 40k FOC's via FAQ)

 

Vehicles would start to reflect their points and have those points make sense by changing their primary function vs changing the AP system itself. Model counts should be going up slightly IMO with the lethality. 

If every vehicle or option with a 2+ also has a 5++ standard, what would ever be the point of anything above AP-3? Like... we don't actually want the game that's just 'I brought every lascannon I could and you brought a LoW so let's see how many 4++ saves you can roll'. Unless you add 2 to the damage on a lascannon and probably give it 'a mortal in addition', LOW would have to double or triple in price. Just play Titanicus if you want to ignore infantry entirely lol.

 

That said, I think a world of 'basic tank armour is 2+ if it doesn't have an inv.' is a perfectly cromulent solution on its own... then it would make a bit more sense than a terminator in cover being both harder to hit and harder to shake than a main battle tank. And sure, if it's LoW then a 1+ and/or 5++ and/or damage reduction is fine because they'll likely always be big eggs in small baskets...

 

And I certainly wouldn't say that invulnerables don't make sense for some vehicles, but as soon as you give it to all of them you 'remove' ways to differentiate that are critically important to the theme, like... what if it's tank running on daemons? Do you just keep increasing around that 'floating invulnerable' to create the literally dozens of different tank and vehicle classes in all the ranges? I don't think so.

 

Generally I'd also be quite happy dispensing entirely with the '3 levels of degradation' on tanks and have them drop to what's now 'second band' only below 25%. Most Monsters don't suffer that bracketing business at all, and otherwise perfectly serviceable units really feel hard done by when they're too easily bracketed and then ignored, plus it adds a whole layer of things to remember that are simply not fun.

 

Finally, I think it'd be sweet to see a 'reverse explosion' mechanic on some vehicles where if a '1' is rolled on the explosion dice they remain at 1W, or fight on death.

 

So buff the low end of vehicles, certainly, but moving them as a class 'out of harm's way' by whole hosts of units will lead directly to badfeels (again). Letting 'anything possibly hurt anything' was a good move in this, the darkest of grims.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[MegaVolt87]

 

Buff vehicles, give them classes-

 

Medium- 3+, 5++, ignore AP 0 and AP -1 attacks

Heavy- 2+, 5++, ignore AP 0, AP -1 and AP-2, reduce enemy weapon AP by 1.

LoW- 1+, 4++, ignore AP 0, AP-1 and AP-2, reduce enemy weapon AP by 1, reduce unsaved dmg by 1. 

Skimmer- 3+, 5++ (4++ advance no shoot), -1 to hit if advancing or moving full mvt value. 

Aircraft/ flyer- zoom, strafe, 3++, 4++, -1 to hit while at full mvt or zoom. (remember we are docked at one flyer/ flyer slot now with new 40k FOC's via FAQ)

 

Vehicles would start to reflect their points and have those points make sense by changing their primary function vs changing the AP system itself. Model counts should be going up slightly IMO with the lethality.

 

If every vehicle or option with a 2+ also has a 5++ standard, what would ever be the point of anything above AP-3? Like... we don't actually want the game that's just 'I brought every lascannon I could and you brought a LoW so let's see how many 4++ saves you can roll'. Unless you add 2 to the damage on a lascannon and probably give it 'a mortal in addition', LOW would have to double or triple in price. Just play Titanicus if you want to ignore infantry entirely lol.

 

That said, I think a world of 'basic tank armour is 2+ if it doesn't have an inv.' is a perfectly cromulent solution on its own... then it would make a bit more sense than a terminator in cover being both harder to hit and harder to shake than a main battle tank. And sure, if it's LoW then a 1+ and/or 5++ and/or damage reduction is fine because they'll likely always be big eggs in small baskets...

 

And I certainly wouldn't say that invulnerables don't make sense for some vehicles, but as soon as you give it to all of them you 'remove' ways to differentiate that are critically important to the theme, like... what if it's tank running on daemons? Do you just keep increasing around that 'floating invulnerable' to create the literally dozens of different tank and vehicle classes in all the ranges? I don't think so.

 

Generally I'd also be quite happy dispensing entirely with the '3 levels of degradation' on tanks and have them drop to what's now 'second band' only below 25%. Most Monsters don't suffer that bracketing business at all, and otherwise perfectly serviceable units really feel hard done by when they're too easily bracketed and then ignored, plus it adds a whole layer of things to remember that are simply not fun.

 

Finally, I think it'd be sweet to see a 'reverse explosion' mechanic on some vehicles where if a '1' is rolled on the explosion dice they remain at 1W, or fight on death.

 

So buff the low end of vehicles, certainly, but moving them as a class 'out of harm's way' by whole hosts of units will lead directly to badfeels (again). Letting 'anything possibly hurt anything' was a good move in this, the darkest of grims.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

Oh? Nothing wrong with LoW being higher points for higher durability. They already are a lot of points, what's a few more ? Go back and read the LoW points from 8th ed (spoiler- higher pts), those would be fine if LoW were as durable as I propose, people would consider them and we would be seeing more than knights around. Also newer codexes have buffed firepower, my changes even the feild for that without nerfing the fun out of the firepower heading vehicles way.

[spessmarine]

Different systems have ups and downs.

 

Current system stops the AP2 golden standard of the past, enables some more potency from weapons that were AP4 or so in the past. That way people don't just skip Saves altogether and there is a less all-or-nothing effect.

 

But, current system means guardsmen are saving against bolters, which doesn't really makes sense. Bolters should make a make mess of any light infantry, hit and wound rolls already give a marine a sizeable 1/3 chance to miss and 1/3 chance of dud round when shooting at a guardsmen. AP-1 hurts higher saves more because they pay a premium for it and rely on it, so all the AP-1 and general AP creep hurts some things more than others. Whereas AP5 classification from before deftly solved this issue with the the all-or-nothing.

Edited April 8, 2022 by spessmarine

[Plague _Lord]

We've talked about the absurdness of ap in another thread recently and it seems the only fix is to just overhaul every weapon statistic and lower AP all around. When I play my Deathguard vs my regular ork opponent I actually never roll armour saves - his whole army has ap values of at least -2 so I'm only rolling inv saves. I actually can't take any non INV units (besides units like poxwalkers who don't care about  ap) like plague marines or helbrute because when I take them just die to anti infantry fire like it's no tommorrow. Same happens vs Tau, same happens vs space marines, same happens vs thousand sons. 1ks sons are actually a fun example of how far it;s gone - back in the day high armour penetration on troops was kind of their schtick - now nearly every army has this.

 

The only way to fix this is to limit killing power of antiinfantry weapons and also the buffs they can get to ap from chars/army rules. When antiinfantry guns stop boasting AP-2 everywhere, the worth of power armour goes drastically up. The worth of transports also goes up when you won't lose your rhino because some fire warriors shot at it. Let the strength of the gun determine if it's better or worse at killing infantry.

 

Oh and of course we have to get rid of the mass rerolls everywhere - they make games longer and discard the need for dice rolling at all in some cases, which is not what this game is about.

[Valkyrion]

Why not get rid of the To Wound roll and AP altogether, and by extension removing S and T. 

 

A bit radical, but the To Hit roll decides whether or not the shot makes contact, the armour save is to decide if the target is hurt by the attack, and the damage is roll is to decide the level of hurt suffered - so, objectively speaking, the only point of the to wound roll is to minimize risk to the defender. If you allow that defender to always have a save, you needn't have a to wound roll.

 

It's not really any more immersion breaking - the lascannon that hits your guardsman that makes his save could have just blown a hand off, or the missile that bounces harmlessly off an ork could be a dud.

 

 

Remove the +1/-1 hit cap and make maximising hit bonuses important again.

All hits go straight to armour saves

Fails go to damage.

Mortal wounds bypass armour saves.

Invulnerable saves can be taken against mortal wounds.

 

This would extend the time it takes to work out your hit modifier, but massively reduce the rest of the shooting phase and make units more survivable.

 

You could then expand this further with weapon abilities. e.g,

Anti Tank - if it hits on a natural 6 then the vehicle doesn't get it's armour save. 

Shred - infantry units hit by this weapon must reroll successful armour saves.

Deadly Weapon - this weapon may reroll the damage dice

 

etc etc

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

We've talked about the absurdness of ap in another thread recently and it seems the only fix is to just overhaul every weapon statistic and lower AP all around. When I play my Deathguard vs my regular ork opponent I actually never roll armour saves - his whole army has ap values of at least -2 so I'm only rolling inv saves. I actually can't take any non INV units (besides units like poxwalkers who don't care about ap) like plague marines or helbrute because when I take them just die to anti infantry fire like it's no tommorrow. Same happens vs Tau, same happens vs space marines, same happens vs thousand sons. 1ks sons are actually a fun example of how far it;s gone - back in the day high armour penetration on troops was kind of their schtick - now nearly every army has this.

 

The only way to fix this is to limit killing power of antiinfantry weapons and also the buffs they can get to ap from chars/army rules. When antiinfantry guns stop boasting AP-2 everywhere, the worth of power armour goes drastically up. The worth of transports also goes up when you won't lose your rhino because some fire warriors shot at it. Let the strength of the gun determine if it's better or worse at killing infantry.

 

Oh and of course we have to get rid of the mass rerolls everywhere - they make games longer and discard the need for dice rolling at all in some cases, which is not what this game is about.

id make number what determines how good a gun is against standard infantry rather than S. Because then what’s the cut off? 5? 6? 7?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Why not get rid of the To Wound roll and AP altogether, and by extension removing S and T.

 

A bit radical, but the To Hit roll decides whether or not the shot makes contact, the armour save is to decide if the target is hurt by the attack, and the damage is roll is to decide the level of hurt suffered - so, objectively speaking, the only point of the to wound roll is to minimize risk to the defender. If you allow that defender to always have a save, you needn't have a to wound roll.

 

It's not really any more immersion breaking - the lascannon that hits your guardsman that makes his save could have just blown a hand off, or the missile that bounces harmlessly off an ork could be a dud.

 

 

Remove the +1/-1 hit cap and make maximising hit bonuses important again.

All hits go straight to armour saves

Fails go to damage.

Mortal wounds bypass armour saves.

Invulnerable saves can be taken against mortal wounds.

 

This would extend the time it takes to work out your hit modifier, but massively reduce the rest of the shooting phase and make units more survivable.

 

You could then expand this further with weapon abilities. e.g,

Anti Tank - if it hits on a natural 6 then the vehicle doesn't get it's armour save.

Shred - infantry units hit by this weapon must reroll successful armour saves.

Deadly Weapon - this weapon may reroll the damage dice

 

etc etc

to me I don’t view removing a model from the table as necessarily that model ‘dying’ simply that they took a wound too grievous to be an effective combatant, so in your lascannon vs guardsmen scenario, losing a hand to me is a ‘kill’ in game terms.

 

A game that treats infantry and vehicles the same in regards to damage imho is a bad game and is part of why I think 8th and 9th are worse than previous editions.

[Valkyrion]

 

Why not get rid of the To Wound roll and AP altogether, and by extension removing S and T.

 

A bit radical, but the To Hit roll decides whether or not the shot makes contact, the armour save is to decide if the target is hurt by the attack, and the damage is roll is to decide the level of hurt suffered - so, objectively speaking, the only point of the to wound roll is to minimize risk to the defender. If you allow that defender to always have a save, you needn't have a to wound roll.

 

It's not really any more immersion breaking - the lascannon that hits your guardsman that makes his save could have just blown a hand off, or the missile that bounces harmlessly off an ork could be a dud.

 

 

Remove the +1/-1 hit cap and make maximising hit bonuses important again.

All hits go straight to armour saves

Fails go to damage.

Mortal wounds bypass armour saves.

Invulnerable saves can be taken against mortal wounds.

 

This would extend the time it takes to work out your hit modifier, but massively reduce the rest of the shooting phase and make units more survivable.

 

You could then expand this further with weapon abilities. e.g,

Anti Tank - if it hits on a natural 6 then the vehicle doesn't get it's armour save.

Shred - infantry units hit by this weapon must reroll successful armour saves.

Deadly Weapon - this weapon may reroll the damage dice

 

etc etc

to me I don’t view removing a model from the table as necessarily that model ‘dying’ simply that they took a wound too grievous to be an effective combatant, so in your lascannon vs guardsmen scenario, losing a hand to me is a ‘kill’ in game terms.

 

A game that treats infantry and vehicles the same in regards to damage imho is a bad game and is part of why I think 8th and 9th are worse than previous editions.

 

 

fair enough and I don't disagree, but I think we've all seen enough sci fi/action/fantasy movies to know that losing a hand isn't really a handicap when it comes to killing the bad guy. 

Neither is watching your beloved drown, or best friend blown up, or that for a true professional the only motivation is actually revenge....

 

It's all justified by whatever metric you wish to use. Trying to normalise or rationalise 40k is a sisyphean task that we should all really be above, by now. That's not to say we shouldn't discuss it, of course we should, but in your view the one handed guardsman can't continue, in my view they could, on a roll of 5+. 

 

Really, it should be to hit, save, to wound, damage. That should be the logical order. Has it hit? Has it penetrated armour? Has it hurt? Are you dead? Four simple steps that are made more complicated than they need to be, and in my opinion, could be reduced by 1. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

Why not get rid of the To Wound roll and AP altogether, and by extension removing S and T.

 

A bit radical, but the To Hit roll decides whether or not the shot makes contact, the armour save is to decide if the target is hurt by the attack, and the damage is roll is to decide the level of hurt suffered - so, objectively speaking, the only point of the to wound roll is to minimize risk to the defender. If you allow that defender to always have a save, you needn't have a to wound roll.

 

It's not really any more immersion breaking - the lascannon that hits your guardsman that makes his save could have just blown a hand off, or the missile that bounces harmlessly off an ork could be a dud.

 

 

Remove the +1/-1 hit cap and make maximising hit bonuses important again.

All hits go straight to armour saves

Fails go to damage.

Mortal wounds bypass armour saves.

Invulnerable saves can be taken against mortal wounds.

 

This would extend the time it takes to work out your hit modifier, but massively reduce the rest of the shooting phase and make units more survivable.

 

You could then expand this further with weapon abilities. e.g,

Anti Tank - if it hits on a natural 6 then the vehicle doesn't get it's armour save.

Shred - infantry units hit by this weapon must reroll successful armour saves.

Deadly Weapon - this weapon may reroll the damage dice

 

etc etc

to me I don’t view removing a model from the table as necessarily that model ‘dying’ simply that they took a wound too grievous to be an effective combatant, so in your lascannon vs guardsmen scenario, losing a hand to me is a ‘kill’ in game terms.

 

A game that treats infantry and vehicles the same in regards to damage imho is a bad game and is part of why I think 8th and 9th are worse than previous editions.

fair enough and I don't disagree, but I think we've all seen enough sci fi/action/fantasy movies to know that losing a hand isn't really a handicap when it comes to killing the bad guy.

Neither is watching your beloved drown, or best friend blown up, or that for a true professional the only motivation is actually revenge....

 

It's all justified by whatever metric you wish to use. Trying to normalise or rationalise 40k is a sisyphean task that we should all really be above, by now. That's not to say we shouldn't discuss it, of course we should, but in your view the one handed guardsman can't continue, in my view they could, on a roll of 5+.

 

Really, it should be to hit, save, to wound, damage. That should be the logical order. Has it hit? Has it penetrated armour? Has it hurt? Are you dead? Four simple steps that are made more complicated than they need to be, and in my opinion, could be reduced by 1.

i definitely agree on the order it never made sense why we roll to wound before we know if the armor protected them

[Valkyrion]

I think I read a thing by Chambers or Johnson once that they did it this way so that the defender is actively saving their guys;  hit on 3+, wound on 3+, save on 3+ has no difference to hit on 3+, save on 3+, wound on 3+; but in the former you are saving your guys and in the latter your are just removing your guys.  Tabletop science fiction wargame psychology is a thing, turns out. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Why not get rid of the To Wound roll and AP altogether, and by extension removing S and T. 

 

A bit radical, but the To Hit roll decides whether or not the shot makes contact, the armour save is to decide if the target is hurt by the attack, and the damage is roll is to decide the level of hurt suffered - so, objectively speaking, the only point of the to wound roll is to minimize risk to the defender. If you allow that defender to always have a save, you needn't have a to wound roll.

 

It's not really any more immersion breaking - the lascannon that hits your guardsman that makes his save could have just blown a hand off, or the missile that bounces harmlessly off an ork could be a dud.

 

 

Remove the +1/-1 hit cap and make maximising hit bonuses important again.

All hits go straight to armour saves

Fails go to damage.

Mortal wounds bypass armour saves.

Invulnerable saves can be taken against mortal wounds.

 

This would extend the time it takes to work out your hit modifier, but massively reduce the rest of the shooting phase and make units more survivable.

 

You could then expand this further with weapon abilities. e.g,

Anti Tank - if it hits on a natural 6 then the vehicle doesn't get it's armour save. 

Shred - infantry units hit by this weapon must reroll successful armour saves.

Deadly Weapon - this weapon may reroll the damage dice

 

etc etc

 

I don't think they should remove the cap on +1/-1 hit modifiers. It just gets out of control quickly if you can stack it. I think most of the issues with the current AP system have to do with how lethal things are and honestly without all the re-rolls, hit modifiers, and wound modifiers a lot of units would feel more durable.

 

That said just having saves is an interesting concept, I do think it would require an edition change though. Profiles would need to be changed especially for vehicles. 

 

I've avoided this topic because AP has always been clunky because its complex and we use d6 for this game, but this was a fresh take I like it. I just think the game would have to be re-worked around it.

[Iron Lord]

Different systems have ups and downs.

 

Current system stops the AP2 golden standard of the past, enables some more potency from weapons that were AP4 or so in the past. That way people don't just skip Saves altogether and there is a less all-or-nothing effect.

 

But, current system means guardsmen are saving against bolters, which doesn't really makes sense. Bolters should make a make mess of any light infantry, hit and wound rolls already give a marine a sizeable 1/3 chance to miss and 1/3 chance of dud round when shooting at a guardsmen. 

 

 

2nd ed was mid-way between the current system and the 3e-7e system, with bolters having an AP-1 modifier (so light infantry mostly got a 6+ save).

[Petitioner's City]

 

Different systems have ups and downs.

 

Current system stops the AP2 golden standard of the past, enables some more potency from weapons that were AP4 or so in the past. That way people don't just skip Saves altogether and there is a less all-or-nothing effect.

 

But, current system means guardsmen are saving against bolters, which doesn't really makes sense. Bolters should make a make mess of any light infantry, hit and wound rolls already give a marine a sizeable 1/3 chance to miss and 1/3 chance of dud round when shooting at a guardsmen. 

 

 

2nd ed was mid-way between the current system and the 3e-7e system, with bolters having an AP-1 modifier (so light infantry mostly got a 6+ save).

 

 

I don't know if that's true about "light infantry" - orks (including gretchin) and guard (including storm troopers) generally had flak - a 6+ save (5+ against blast and templates) - so AP-1 cut through them. Eldar Guardians did have mesh (5+), and Genestealers had chitin (5+), but other light infantry were often unarmoured - brood brothers and hybrids had basic no amour (but could buy flak), while termagants and hormagaunts didn't have armour.

 

In that way, bolters really did make a mess of light infantry in 2nd edition like spessmarine suggested.

 

Another wonderful curio of 2nd edition is that plasma was really a weapon not for high armour, but low armour targets (although a plasmagun could reduce power armour to 5+):

 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Petitioner's City

[Marshal Mittens]

It's been a long time, but I seem to remember that armor pen was overall very rare in 2e. Good armor saves were pretty rare outside of marines too though, iirc. Plasma wasn't as powerful as it is now, but it was stronger than most guns still!

 

Feels like high armor pen is a lot more common in 9e than its ever been.

[Helias_Tancred]

-3 and -4+ AP should be a lot more rare. 

[MegaVolt87]

-3 and -4+ AP should be a lot more rare. 

 

It won't change anything significantly. All that will accomplish is making such systems auto includes/ double down on that now shallow unit pool for AT capability. which people are taking already because of those very AP stats. The only thing that has changed is variety/ diversity. 

[Valkyrion]

 

-3 and -4+ AP should be a lot more rare. 

 

It won't change anything significantly. All that will accomplish is making such systems auto includes/ double down on that now shallow unit pool for AT capability. which people are taking already because of those very AP stats. The only thing that has changed is variety/ diversity. 

 

 

They could limit -3 and -4 melee AP to relics. I'm not suggesting it's a good idea, but that way players would have to spend CP to get more AP melee attacks if the rest of the army capped at -2. 

 

Some abstract thoughts on shooting AP:

Limit -4 exclusively to VEHICLES. This would either encourage vehicle use, or eliminate -4 from the game. This would require a codex change. 

 

Limit -3 and -4 exclusively to Heavy Support - this would mean MM Attack Bikes are sent to Heavy Support, Lascannons removed from Tactical Squads, but would cap at 3 units, or 5 units if you pay the brigade tax. This would require a codex change. 

 

Keep AP, but bring in 'a 6 always succeeds' for armour saves, in effect giving everyone a 6++.  A 6 succeeds at everything else, why not armour? This would only need a FAQ/balance update.

 

For every 1000 points, your army can include a maximum of 10 weapons with AP -3 or better. This would only need a FAQ/balance. 

[roryokane]

It's interesting to note that there's the separate "armour piercing" and "save modifier" on 2nd Ed weapons profiles. I'd forgotten that. I realise the former is designed to be used against vehicle armour, but I think re-introducing a 3rd-7th Ed style AP AND having a 8-9th ed save modifier for each weapon would allow for an excellent degree of granularity.

 

For example, take the Bolter.

3rd-7th ed: AP 5, so no 5+ or 6+ saves possible against it. Everyone else ignores it.

Now: everyone ignores it.

So, how about combining the two?
Using the hybrid model,  lets say the bolter gets a base AP of 6 (so no 6+ saves), but a -1 save modifier as well. Guard in their flak armour, go from 5+ to 6+ and thus fall afoul of the AP of 6. Anyone with a 6+ save doesn't get a save any way. But crucially, being hit by a bolter is still more unpleasant for anyone in 4+ or better armour than a heavy stubber, say.
Cover retains its importance with the modifiers, but it allows a greater modularity of weapon modifiers (Heavy flamers could be AP 6, save modifier -1, for example, and ignore cover modifiers, so they'd be super effective against most things in cover - and again, a Space Marine would still prefer not to be hit by one even if it wasn't going to be the BEST thing against them, and better against Space Marines in cover than the heavy bolter (which could justifiably be AP 6, save modifier -1, for comparison).

Having two characteristics to play around with could allow for the differentiation between things like Heavy Bolters and autocannon, for example (which, along with heavy flamers, were AP 4 in previous editions - so space marines could shrug them off but Storm Troopers, T'au fire warriors, all Orks except the ones in mega armour, and most aspect warriors were dead when they got hit).
I realise that might be a slightly clunkier system but it might help in some regards and allow for things like power armour to matter more without completely doing away with the idea that some weapons are still going to be harder to protect against even if it doesn't just cut clean through your armour.

[Jings]

It's interesting to note that there's the separate "armour piercing" and "save modifier" on 2nd Ed weapons profiles. I'd forgotten that. I realise the former is designed to be used against vehicle armour, but I think re-introducing a 3rd-7th Ed style AP AND having a 8-9th ed save modifier for each weapon would allow for an excellent degree of granularity.

 

For example, take the Bolter.

3rd-7th ed: AP 5, so no 5+ or 6+ saves possible against it. Everyone else ignores it.

Now: everyone ignores it.

So, how about combining the two?

Using the hybrid model,  lets say the bolter gets a base AP of 6 (so no 6+ saves), but a -1 save modifier as well. Guard in their flak armour, go from 5+ to 6+ and thus fall afoul of the AP of 6. Anyone with a 6+ save doesn't get a save any way. But crucially, being hit by a bolter is still more unpleasant for anyone in 4+ or better armour than a heavy stubber, say.

Cover retains its importance with the modifiers, but it allows a greater modularity of weapon modifiers (Heavy flamers could be AP 6, save modifier -1, for example, and ignore cover modifiers, so they'd be super effective against most things in cover - and again, a Space Marine would still prefer not to be hit by one even if it wasn't going to be the BEST thing against them, and better against Space Marines in cover than the heavy bolter (which could justifiably be AP 6, save modifier -1, for comparison).

Having two characteristics to play around with could allow for the differentiation between things like Heavy Bolters and autocannon, for example (which, along with heavy flamers, were AP 4 in previous editions - so space marines could shrug them off but Storm Troopers, T'au fire warriors, all Orks except the ones in mega armour, and most aspect warriors were dead when they got hit).

I realise that might be a slightly clunkier system but it might help in some regards and allow for things like power armour to matter more without completely doing away with the idea that some weapons are still going to be harder to protect against even if it doesn't just cut clean through your armour.

 

Seems to be the consensus. Keep AP because the granularity is nice, but tempered by a mechanic that limits where that AP kicks in. 

 

I think what your proposing is the most elegant solution. I liked the idea of an Integrity value for units, but you're approach of implementing penetration levels the weapon profile is much better. It makes terrain and units that grant cover much more important too, as in addition to the +1 to saves reducing incoming AP values, you get the possibility of mitigating AP entirely. 

 

Bolter - RF1/S4/AP5-1/D1

Heavy Bolter - H3/S5/AP4-1/D2

Lascannon - H1/S9/AP2-3/Dd6

 

It's idiot-proof. 

 

One issue I can see cropping up however is Storm Shields. A TH/SS Terminator in cover has effectively a 0+ save, which would mean that they can't have their AP reduce at all. To solve that solution, I'd suggest that Unmodified 6s on wound rolls always apply their AP to compensate. There would still be a huge boost to unit survivability across the board, but it would make those heavily armoured a little less overbearing. They'd still effectively ignore up to AP-2, but if, say, Plasma Guns were made AP3-3, they'd at least force 3+ saves on a 6. 

[MegaVolt87]

Instead of the vehicle buffs I proposed, if I had to change AP without fully rolling back to the old systems I would do split profile mechanics. eg-

 

Astartes Bolter

® 24, (S) 4, (AP) -1/5+, (D) 1, Rapid fire 1

 

Lascannon 

® 48 (S) 9 (AP) -4/2+, (D) D6, heavy 1

 

Plasma gun

 

(normal)

® 24, (S) 7, (AP) -3/3+, (D) 1, Rapid fire 1

 

(overcharge)

® 24, (S) 8, (AP) -3/2+, (D) 2, Rapid fire 1, overheat

 

Melta gun

 

(normal)

® 12, (S) 8, (AP) -4/3+, (D) D6, Assault 1

 

(half range)

® 6, (S) 8, (AP) -4/2+, (D) D6+2, Assault 1

 

 

What does this mean? well the AP-1 Bolter only works on armour saves of 5+ and 6+, and prevents reducing a vehicles save if we insist on chip dmg + current to wound tables, still being a thing it will be resolved at AP 0. The lascannon is still a menace to everything due to it being an AT weapon as is appropriate. The plasma gun is interesting in that it will still be a menace to power armoured foes, but more deadly ones such as terminators, custodes etc while risking an overheat to match them. The melta now also requires a commitment like the plasma gun to be devastating. The current melta is a reward and extra reward weapon system currently due to its AP advantage active close or far. Also notice how the melta fire mode is now in line with the plasma weapon formatting for continuity sake. So at a minimum, larger vehicles (eg, Land Raider, Repulsor) will need a 2+ save to force AT and high AP weapons into alt fire modes at such risks for rewards. This tomes down lethality by a wide margin across the game IMO.

 

EDIT- didn't see above posts, seems like we are on a similar idea track overal. 

Edited April 13, 2022 by MegaVolt87