How GW should treat AP

[Jukkiz]

as some players have said, i think sticking with just D6 system hinders vehicles and other things

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

 

-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.

how about max 5 AP-3 or better per 1000 points.

10 is a lot, that can be spread out quite a bit keep an enemy from easily removing those high AP targets easily

[Halandaar]

 

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.

 

how about max 5 AP-3 or better per 1000 points. 10 is a lot, that can be spread out quite a bit keep an enemy from easily removing those high AP targets easily

 

5 is a single squad of Howling Banshees. It's not exactly an obnoxious quantity is it.

 

Besides, pushing even more bookkeeping on to players at the list building step is not a solution.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

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.

how about max 5 AP-3 or better per 1000 points. 10 is a lot, that can be spread out quite a bit keep an enemy from easily removing those high AP targets easily

5 is a single squad of Howling Banshees. It's not exactly an obnoxious quantity is it.

 

Besides, pushing even more bookkeeping on to players at the list building step is not a solution.

5 high AP weapons isn’t an obnoxious quantity, and that’s the point. To me 10 high AP weapons in a 1000 point game is an obnoxious amount.

 

A 1000 point marine army however will look very different than a 1000 point guard army, and balancing what’s obnoxious in one army vs another army will be difficult.

 

But as much as it might help vehicles survive longer it might also push vehicles out of lists even more.

Edited April 13, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Schlitzaf]

Level of Marine killing AP hasn’t ever really changed tbf. The main thing I’d change if I changed in general.

Is rework alot of core principles.

 

The basic principle. I’d go with:

Alot of “Bonus” AP Rules should go away. Shurikan, Doctrines, etc.

 

Range PewPew should be AP -2 at best for “good” AP Range for TAC Weaponry (Plasma/Autocannon/etc). While AntiTank should be AP -3.

Finally Anti”Infantry” Should be -1.

 

But Zaf isn’t this how this is? Well kinda. Often AntiInfantry is -2 or -3. Hell & GravCannon. While TAC has AP -3. With Anti-Tank Minus Billion.

 

Dudebro Weaponry should be AP - or -1 if squad no cool weapond or some limits apply. Limited real shots, heavy etc. AP -2 should not be nearly as ubgitious as it is on fudebro troopers.

 

Melee:

-1 AP Basic Weaponry

-2 AP for Power Weapons.* for anti”Infantry”

-3 AP fod AntiHeavy Units.

 

 

*I’d combine Maul and Axe.

 

There have to be more wofk done in this only a quick theoru hammer

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

This isn’t AP related but now tanks are even less attractive to all armies.

Guard can roll a 6 to hit and would a super heavy with a lasgun.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

 

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.

 

how about max 5 AP-3 or better per 1000 points. 10 is a lot, that can be spread out quite a bit keep an enemy from easily removing those high AP targets easily

 

5 is a single squad of Howling Banshees. It's not exactly an obnoxious quantity is it.

 

Besides, pushing even more bookkeeping on to players at the list building step is not a solution.

 

 

That and it's important to factor in the difference between good AP melee vs. good AP shooting. Positioning something to get in a charge is a lot more difficult than getting a unit into MM or a dark lance into range. That and a 1 damage powersword is not equivalent to a 3d+3, or d6+2 weapon and the cost of those upgrades isn't scaled to account for that.

 

That said, there was a major that goon hammer covered (battle to end Alzheimer's 98 players) both Harlequin lists in the finals would have been legal with this fix because both had 20 or less ap -3 weapons. So, I'm not sure if a restriction like that creates more balance. Honestly though I haven't looked into too hard. I do appreciate the data slate update ignoring a point of AP is a good, targeted buff.    

 

This isn’t AP related but now tanks are even less attractive to all armies.

Guard can roll a 6 to hit and would a super heavy with a lasgun.

 

Guard have been in really rough spot this whole edition. Even with this change they aren't going to be a force that scares vehicles, this is just GW putting lipstick on a pig. 

 

Honestly if guard were my fraction I would've quit on this game by this point, lucky to be a space wolf player.

[BloodyB]

AP is definitely too big of a deal for most weapons. My suggestion would be a rework of Toughness values and AP buffs to start. A Rhino in 5th and 6th was only ever vulnerable to a regular bolter on a 6+ roll to penetrate, and that made them much tougher, so maybe drastically increasing toughness of vehicular units could help? I envision T7 for speeders and sentinels, T8 for rhinos and similar tanks while truly tanky vehicles like Russes and Raiders get T9, with T10 being reserved for superheavies and buildings. This should make strength much more important ot deal with heavy armour, what with meltas only wounding the heavier tanks on 5+ while heavier ordinance is more likely to do it's job. In many cases the difference between S8 and S9 is negligible, which upsets me a little, but now it becomes an important consideration.

 

For the AP buffs rework, I would nix all AP buffs caused by things like Devastator doctrine. Change it to be something like ' ignores cover' or reroll to hit against enemy vehicles or monsters. Maybe having a choice between them for more tactical options and a strat to allow a unit to use both? Psychic powers and Warlord traits are fine by me, as most only work on 6+ to wound or similar, benefitting high RoF rather than massive bazookas.

 

Just my thoughts.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

how about max 5 AP-3 or better per 1000 points. 10 is a lot, that can be spread out quite a bit keep an enemy from easily removing those high AP targets easily

5 is a single squad of Howling Banshees. It's not exactly an obnoxious quantity is it.

 

Besides, pushing even more bookkeeping on to players at the list building step is not a solution.

That and it's important to factor in the difference between good AP melee vs. good AP shooting. Positioning something to get in a charge is a lot more difficult than getting a unit into MM or a dark lance into range. That and a 1 damage powersword is not equivalent to a 3d+3, or d6+2 weapon and the cost of those upgrades isn't scaled to account for that.

 

That said, there was a major that goon hammer covered (battle to end Alzheimer's 98 players) both Harlequin lists in the finals would have been legal with this fix because both had 20 or less ap -3 weapons. So, I'm not sure if a restriction like that creates more balance. Honestly though I haven't looked into too hard. I do appreciate the data slate update ignoring a point of AP is a good, targeted buff.

This isn’t AP related but now tanks are even less attractive to all armies.

Guard can roll a 6 to hit and would a super heavy with a lasgun.

Guard have been in really rough spot this whole edition. Even with this change they aren't going to be a force that scares vehicles, this is just GW putting lipstick on a pig.

 

Honestly if guard were my fraction I would've quit on this game by this point, lucky to be a space wolf player.

idk I think an automatic 16% chance to wound anything in the game is a little bit broken.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

That's a fair point Inquisitor_Lensoven, but the majority of their weapons either have no ap or we're gonna wound fairly easily. They also don't have many re-roll abilities so fishing for 6s is tough. It's strong for sure but I think to be good in this version of 40k you need like 3 strong abilities.

 

To be clear I'd love to be wrong, and for guard to be good. In 8th people mainly used them to generate cp for their good stuff. I think besides the index era of 8th when conscripts & commissary were too good, guard haven't been strong since 5th edition.

[Plague _Lord]

AP is definitely too big of a deal for most weapons. My suggestion would be a rework of Toughness values and AP buffs to start. A Rhino in 5th and 6th was only ever vulnerable to a regular bolter on a 6+ roll to penetrate, and that made them much tougher, so maybe drastically increasing toughness of vehicular units could help? I envision T7 for speeders and sentinels, T8 for rhinos and similar tanks while truly tanky vehicles like Russes and Raiders get T9, with T10 being reserved for superheavies and buildings. This should make strength much more important ot deal with heavy armour, what with meltas only wounding the heavier tanks on 5+ while heavier ordinance is more likely to do it's job. In many cases the difference between S8 and S9 is negligible, which upsets me a little, but now it becomes an important consideration.

 

For the AP buffs rework, I would nix all AP buffs caused by things like Devastator doctrine. Change it to be something like ' ignores cover' or reroll to hit against enemy vehicles or monsters. Maybe having a choice between them for more tactical options and a strat to allow a unit to use both? Psychic powers and Warlord traits are fine by me, as most only work on 6+ to wound or similar, benefitting high RoF rather than massive bazookas.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

 

I second this - rework strength and toughness values and bring back the rule that if T=2xS you have a 6+ to wound but if T>2xS then no wound is possible. To make this fairer however we totally overturn the T values of units. Let's for example give bolters a strength value of 5 - space marines could have a T of 5 so a 4+ to wound as is now, however chimeras could have a T value of 10 and bolters would wound on a 6+, leman russes would have 12 T and couldn't be wounded by bolters. I think the game is really hamstrung by the old "capped at 10" charachterestic values. If we expand this then we would have much more variety in weapons and if anti infantry guns won't wound vechicles then we wouldn't need 2 separate ap values on guns.

[roryokane]

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. 

My initial suggestion was that the old AP is used as well as save modifiers beforehand (so the modifier might make your save low enough that the AP ganks you), but the response putting it the other way around (check AP, then apply save modifiers) actually balances things nicely - i.e. Bolters with AP5/-1 mean that no armour saves of 5+ or 6+ are possible, but anyone else who DOES get a save still has a save modifier applied (so shooting at guard = no save as AP5 negates armour saves of 5+ or 6+, Scouts with their carapace armour would go from 4+ to 5+, space marines in power armour would go from a 3+ to 4+, Termies 2+ to 3+ etc).

Does that make sense?

[Schlitzaf]

That's a fair point Inquisitor_Lensoven, but the majority of their weapons either have no ap or we're gonna wound fairly easily. They also don't have many re-roll abilities so fishing for 6s is tough. It's strong for sure but I think to be good in this version of 40k you need like 3 strong abilities.

 

To be clear I'd love to be wrong, and for guard to be good. In 8th people mainly used them to generate cp for their good stuff. I think besides the index era of 8th when conscripts & commissary were too good, guard haven't been strong since 5th edition.

The Castallan List was actually an IG list tbf. To point there were some variations teplaced Castallan with Baneblade or 2. And use Scions and Bullgryns instead of smashy captains

[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. 

My initial suggestion was that the old AP is used as well as save modifiers beforehand (so the modifier might make your save low enough that the AP ganks you), but the response putting it the other way around (check AP, then apply save modifiers) actually balances things nicely - i.e. Bolters with AP5/-1 mean that no armour saves of 5+ or 6+ are possible, but anyone else who DOES get a save still has a save modifier applied (so shooting at guard = no save as AP5 negates armour saves of 5+ or 6+, Scouts with their carapace armour would go from 4+ to 5+, space marines in power armour would go from a 3+ to 4+, Termies 2+ to 3+ etc).

Does that make sense?

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't like your idea, because my aim was to make sure certain saves could be made without a modifier dependant based on each kind of weapon. Your system still retains what is wrong with the current AP system, in that lower saves have less value due to the AP values we have now. This is why xenos are so good in 9th, they trade their T, W and Sv values for AP weaponry and get a discount for that, while MEQ pay a premium for defence of dubious value, where extra bodies with guns/ melee is more efficient. Not to mention, more elite xenos with 4+ will catch a break from the many AP-1 weapons around like bolters, toning down lethality substantially with a re-work of weaponry under my idea. 

[Valkyrion]

If anyone has read any of my posts on the subject in numerous threads before then I'm sorry for beating this drum again, but the biggest problem the game has is with rerolls.

 

I had a game over the weekend against Leviathan and 3 raveners are hitting me with 9 S5, AP-2 shots, hitting on 3+, rerolling 1's, wounding on 3+, rerolling 1's, then hitting with 15 attacks at S6 AP-4, hitting on 3+, rerolling 1's, wounding on 3+, rerolling 1's, then hitting with 3 more S5, AP-1 attacks again rerolling 1's on hits and wounds.

This is a 90 point unit. 

They killed the unit and left themselves open to 10 auto bolt rifle intercessors in range of both a lieutentant and a captain - so I have 30 shots at 3+, rerolling 1's, wounding on 5+, rerolling 1's and so on and so on....it's just insane. 

 

Having high strength, high ap, high damage weaponry is fine, but not combined with all those rerolls.

 

Remove rerolls and everything becomes more survivable and patches like Armour of Contempt wouldn't be required. 

[Subtleknife]

I think we have gone as far as we can with the d6 system. I really hope 10th switches to a bigger D system. This would help a lot with ap I think and other parts of the game too.

 

Alternative activation would help as well as it would mean armies can act without getting deleted turn 1.

 

I do hope as well they get rid of the amount of buffs that can be applied externally to a unit. Ie re rolls, plus 1 to wound etc. Buffs should be pre baked into a unit. It makes it easier to balance.

[Valkyrion]

I think we have gone as far as we can with the d6 system. I really hope 10th switches to a bigger D system. This would help a lot with ap I think and other parts of the game too.

 

Alternative activation would help as well as it would mean armies can act without getting deleted turn 1.

 

I do hope as well they get rid of the amount of buffs that can be applied externally to a unit. Ie re rolls, plus 1 to wound etc. Buffs should be pre baked into a unit. It makes it easier to balance.

 

 

I think D6 is fine in and of itself. GW should make bigger use of the Toughness stat, and could arguably go back to a 2D6 save for certain, single units. e,g, Carnifex, Land Raider - not squads like terminators, but I appreciate that would slow the process down when being hit by many weapons at once. 

 

But D6 is fine if you don't have things like transhuman, or +1 to wound which defeat the whole point of the S vs T system. 

Transhuman or not, a S14 weapon should wound you on 2's. A S3 weapon should not be wounding T8 on 5's. 

 

I'd equally be fine with auto wounding/impossible to wound being introduced, especially so if rerolls were systemically removed from all but the best of the best, though I accept I'll be a minority there. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

I think we have gone as far as we can with the d6 system. I really hope 10th switches to a bigger D system. This would help a lot with ap I think and other parts of the game too.

 

Alternative activation would help as well as it would mean armies can act without getting deleted turn 1.

 

I do hope as well they get rid of the amount of buffs that can be applied externally to a unit. Ie re rolls, plus 1 to wound etc. Buffs should be pre baked into a unit. It makes it easier to balance.

I think D6 is fine in and of itself. GW should make bigger use of the Toughness stat, and could arguably go back to a 2D6 save for certain, single units. e,g, Carnifex, Land Raider - not squads like terminators, but I appreciate that would slow the process down when being hit by many weapons at once.

 

But D6 is fine if you don't have things like transhuman, or +1 to wound which defeat the whole point of the S vs T system.

Transhuman or not, a S14 weapon should wound you on 2's. A S3 weapon should not be wounding T8 on 5's.

 

I'd equally be fine with auto wounding/impossible to wound being introduced, especially so if rerolls were systemically removed from all but the best of the best, though I accept I'll be a minority there.

im with you on this.

Along with raising the T ceiling, which I think would help. T more than double S? Impossible to wound. A more than double T? Autowound.

Get rid of of wide scale rerolls.

Captain allows you two reroll two 1 rolls per turn, LT allows one, no random CP rerolls.

Or something like captains allow reroll a 1 to hit and LTs allow reroll 1s to wound

Edited April 20, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Bryan Blaire]

 

 

I think we have gone as far as we can with the d6 system. I really hope 10th switches to a bigger D system. This would help a lot with ap I think and other parts of the game too.

 

Alternative activation would help as well as it would mean armies can act without getting deleted turn 1.

 

I do hope as well they get rid of the amount of buffs that can be applied externally to a unit. Ie re rolls, plus 1 to wound etc. Buffs should be pre baked into a unit. It makes it easier to balance.

I think D6 is fine in and of itself. GW should make bigger use of the Toughness stat, and could arguably go back to a 2D6 save for certain, single units. e,g, Carnifex, Land Raider - not squads like terminators, but I appreciate that would slow the process down when being hit by many weapons at once.

 

But D6 is fine if you don't have things like transhuman, or +1 to wound which defeat the whole point of the S vs T system.

Transhuman or not, a S14 weapon should wound you on 2's. A S3 weapon should not be wounding T8 on 5's.

 

I'd equally be fine with auto wounding/impossible to wound being introduced, especially so if rerolls were systemically removed from all but the best of the best, though I accept I'll be a minority there.

im with you on this.

Along with raising the T ceiling, which I think would help. T more than double S? Impossible to wound. A more than double T? Autowound.

Get rid of of wide scale rerolls.

Captain allows you two reroll two 1 rolls per turn, LT allows one, no random CP rerolls.

Or something like captains allow reroll a 1 to hit and LTs allow reroll 1s to wound

None of which is on topic for “How GW should handle AP”… 

 

Maybe another discussion topic of “How to fix 9th Edition” or “How 10th Edition would be great” or “How to make WH40K the best game ever” or some such would be more appropriate for the above discussion - we should have at least one of those on-going around here already.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

 

 

 

I think we have gone as far as we can with the d6 system. I really hope 10th switches to a bigger D system. This would help a lot with ap I think and other parts of the game too.

 

Alternative activation would help as well as it would mean armies can act without getting deleted turn 1.

 

I do hope as well they get rid of the amount of buffs that can be applied externally to a unit. Ie re rolls, plus 1 to wound etc. Buffs should be pre baked into a unit. It makes it easier to balance.

I think D6 is fine in and of itself. GW should make bigger use of the Toughness stat, and could arguably go back to a 2D6 save for certain, single units. e,g, Carnifex, Land Raider - not squads like terminators, but I appreciate that would slow the process down when being hit by many weapons at once.

 

But D6 is fine if you don't have things like transhuman, or +1 to wound which defeat the whole point of the S vs T system.

Transhuman or not, a S14 weapon should wound you on 2's. A S3 weapon should not be wounding T8 on 5's.

 

I'd equally be fine with auto wounding/impossible to wound being introduced, especially so if rerolls were systemically removed from all but the best of the best, though I accept I'll be a minority there.

im with you on this.

Along with raising the T ceiling, which I think would help. T more than double S? Impossible to wound. A more than double T? Autowound.

Get rid of of wide scale rerolls.

Captain allows you two reroll two 1 rolls per turn, LT allows one, no random CP rerolls.

Or something like captains allow reroll a 1 to hit and LTs allow reroll 1s to wound

None of which is on topic for “How GW should handle AP”…

 

Maybe another discussion topic of “How to fix 9th Edition” or “How 10th Edition would be great” or “How to make WH40K the best game ever” or some such would be more appropriate for the above discussion - we should have at least one of those on-going around here already.

autowounding and impossible to wound, is very much in line with how GW should treat AP

[Closet Skeleton]

If anyone has read any of my posts on the subject in numerous threads before then I'm sorry for beating this drum again, but the biggest problem the game has is with rerolls.

 

I had a game over the weekend against Leviathan and 3 raveners are hitting me with 9 S5, AP-2 shots, hitting on 3+, rerolling 1's, wounding on 3+, rerolling 1's, then hitting with 15 attacks at S6 AP-4, hitting on 3+, rerolling 1's, wounding on 3+, rerolling 1's, then hitting with 3 more S5, AP-1 attacks again rerolling 1's on hits and wounds.

This is a 90 point unit.

Its not a 90 point unit if they're getting a reroll buff from another unit. Raveners have to give up some very powerful guns to get native rerolls to hit and need a tyranid prime to reroll to wound.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Dam13n
Off topic removed.

[Valkyrion]

The cost of the unit does matter though.

 

Take 3 Raveners, with rending claws and deathspitters, for 90 points.

9 S5, -2 shots, followed by 15 S6, -4 melee, with a 12" movement, 12 wounds, and a -1 to hit penalty for their enemies.

 

90 points elsewhere gets you 10 boyz, 5 naked tactical marines, 18 gretchin, 6 flayed ones....where else can you spend 90 points on a unit and get that level of potential damage output?

Without rerolls, it's a good, powerful unit - with rerolls it's just nuts.

 

The cheapest unit I can see in the SM codex to get 15 melee attacks, hitting on 3+ and wounding on 3+ regularly is 5 aggressors, which are 200 points.

 

My point is, without seeming like I'm taking the thread off course, is that there is no innate problem with the AP system taken in isolation - the problem arises from the multitude of rerolls that allows units to increase their output above and beyond the value of that unit.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Dam13n
Off topic removed.

[Dam13n]

Try to keep this on topic of how GW should handle Armour Piercing, rather than chasing off-topic tangents, please.

[MARK0SIAN]

The cost of the unit does matter though.

 

Take 3 Raveners, with rending claws and deathspitters, for 90 points.

9 S5, -2 shots, followed by 15 S6, -4 melee, with a 12" movement, 12 wounds, and a -1 to hit penalty for their enemies.

 

90 points elsewhere gets you 10 boyz, 5 naked tactical marines, 18 gretchin, 6 flayed ones....where else can you spend 90 points on a unit and get that level of potential damage output?

Without rerolls, it's a good, powerful unit - with rerolls it's just nuts.

 

The cheapest unit I can see in the SM codex to get 15 melee attacks, hitting on 3+ and wounding on 3+ regularly is 5 aggressors, which are 200 points.

 

My point is, without seeming like I'm taking the thread off course, is that there is no innate problem with the AP system taken in isolation - the problem arises from the multitude of rerolls that allows units to increase their output above and beyond the value of that unit.

You make a good point about the rerolls but I think there is an innate problem with the AP system. The problem is that it treats all armour equally. Weapons that degrade flak armour also degrade power armour, terminator armour or even Titan armour by exactly the same amount. The designers have kind of admitted this problem themselves with armour of contempt. They’re acknowledging that the armour is not providing the kind of protection it should against a lot of weapons.

 

This is partly a result of the rerolls you mentioned and the sheer number of shots that units have but it’s also due to the AP system. I think the AP system isn’t fit for purpose if you’re using it with a D6. I’d prefer they went back to the old AP system but if they’re determined to stick with this one I think it would be better to switch to D12 or 2D6 (maybe with a revision of some of the save values) to give it more granularity.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Here’s a radical idea, what if AP actually effected T value instead of the save?

 

So a S4 AP-1 weapon would wound a T8 unit as if it were T7?

After all, the T stat is much more representative of armor/protection than the Sv stat is, at least the way things are currently set up.

 

This would also add some more granularity since a Sv can’t go below 2+ or above 6+.

It makes the AP stat still valuable, but makes things slightly more likely to survive imho

Edited April 20, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven