How GW should treat AP

[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.

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.

 

 

I agree and disagree 

 

The premise of saving on 3+, 4+, 5+ etc with modifiers is fine, it is the the volume of fire and misuse of AP-3 upwards that is causing the issues.

 

Traditionally, high S, high Damage, high AP weapons were very much an eggs in basket issue - if it hit it would likely wound, if it wounded you would unlikely save, you therefore would likely die. But they only had 1 chance. Now we've got multi melta and lascannon equivalents capable of firing multiple shots per turn.

The Exocrine fires D3+6 shots. What's the point? Just make it heavy 8, no one would care, you're just adding an extra dice roll for the sake of it. 

The rupture cannon, a S14 weapon, should not be firing 3 shots. It should be one shot, auto-wound. Nothing on less than a Titanic platform should be firing guns with a strength greater than 10. 

 

I don't think any melee weapon beyond a relic or two should be better than AP-2, including Thunder Hammers, rending claws and so on. There's no mechanic now for representing parrying, so this could be justified by stating it represents all blocks, dodges and parries. 

Shooting is harder, but I don't think things with a S8 or higher should have multiple shots, and things with multiple shots should only be AP-2 and D1 max. Give lascannons and venom cannons higher damage, or introduce a splash damage system like the Flail of the Unforgiven or something, that way the AP-3 or more issue is limited to just the one shot per model. 

 

Multiple shots or attacks that are often hitting and wounding on 3's, with rerolls, and an AP-3 or better is quite literally overkill. 

[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.

 

 

I agree and disagree 

 

The premise of saving on 3+, 4+, 5+ etc with modifiers is fine, it is the the volume of fire and misuse of AP-3 upwards that is causing the issues.

 

Traditionally, high S, high Damage, high AP weapons were very much an eggs in basket issue - if it hit it would likely wound, if it wounded you would unlikely save, you therefore would likely die. But they only had 1 chance. Now we've got multi melta and lascannon equivalents capable of firing multiple shots per turn.

The Exocrine fires D3+6 shots. What's the point? Just make it heavy 8, no one would care, you're just adding an extra dice roll for the sake of it. 

The rupture cannon, a S14 weapon, should not be firing 3 shots. It should be one shot, auto-wound. Nothing on less than a Titanic platform should be firing guns with a strength greater than 10. 

 

I don't think any melee weapon beyond a relic or two should be better than AP-2, including Thunder Hammers, rending claws and so on. There's no mechanic now for representing parrying, so this could be justified by stating it represents all blocks, dodges and parries. 

Shooting is harder, but I don't think things with a S8 or higher should have multiple shots, and things with multiple shots should only be AP-2 and D1 max. Give lascannons and venom cannons higher damage, or introduce a splash damage system like the Flail of the Unforgiven or something, that way the AP-3 or more issue is limited to just the one shot per model. 

 

Multiple shots or attacks that are often hitting and wounding on 3's, with rerolls, and an AP-3 or better is quite literally overkill. 

 

I agree with pretty much everything you say there :) Where I do differ is in the modifiers. I genuinely think power armoured warriors and heavy tanks should be getting their full save against pretty much every weapon. It should only be dedicated anti-armour weapons that degrade it or ignore it. This is why I don't like the modifiers, or at least I don't like the way they're used now. A marine should be getting his full save against a las pistol, a bolter and a heavy bolter, but the heavy bolter degrades it. It feels like units that rely on armour get their full save against almost nothing and that is annoying because those factions tend to pay a premium for their armour. Theres much more value in degrading the save of an expensive MEQ (or better) model than there is in degrading the save of a GEQ model and so I believe the current system is particularly unfair to such armies.

 

However, they also need to address all those other issues which you pointed out which are 100% correct :) 

[Iron Lord]

. Nothing on less than a Titanic platform should be firing guns with a strength greater than 10. 

 

IMO that undermines the point of breaking out of the whole "Str 10 is maximum - after that, it's Str D" paradigm.

 

The introduction of Str 12 for things like railguns, prism cannons, and so forth, is a good starting point.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

. Nothing on less than a Titanic platform should be firing guns with a strength greater than 10. 

 

IMO that undermines the point of breaking out of the whole "Str 10 is maximum - after that, it's Str D" paradigm.

 

The introduction of Str 12 for things like railguns, prism cannons, and so forth, is a good starting point.

 

The problem is that what also undermines the breaking out of S10 being the maximum is that they're not also breaking that barrier with regards to Toughness. If they'd start radically upping the Toughness of units as well then less wounds would be getting through which would mean the AP system could cope better. Basically you can't radically up the Strength of weapons without also upping the defences, which include the Toughness and Save stats.

 

I know the Mods want us to stay on topic so I'm trying not to talk about Toughness much, but how many wounds get through is definitely relevant to the AP system. So I'll just say that having a wound table where units need to have a Toughness that is double the Strength of the weapon before it only wounds on a 6+ offers almost zero granularity if you're going to cap Toughness at 8. With the way it is currently, simply too many wounds are getting through for any AP system to cope with in a way that doesn't either make the weapons feel like nerf guns or make the armour feel like paper.

[Valkyrion]

 

. Nothing on less than a Titanic platform should be firing guns with a strength greater than 10. 

 

IMO that undermines the point of breaking out of the whole "Str 10 is maximum - after that, it's Str D" paradigm.

 

The introduction of Str 12 for things like railguns, prism cannons, and so forth, is a good starting point.

 

 

I'm not sure. We've got two full super heavy armies, we've got super heavies in Orks, Guard, Necrons, Chaos, Eldar, Tau, and Primarchs in 3 other armies. Those super heavies and lords of war is where S12+ should be, not on an alien equivalent of a predator. 

The Rupture Cannon mentioned above is firing 3 shots, hitting on 3's, wounding every super heavy in the game on 3's and causing 5-10 damage - on a 190 point model. 

It has the potential to strip 30 wounds off a single model which I think is enough to kill every single Titanic codex datasheet except a Stompa, and you can have 2 or 3 Tyrannofex for each other super heavy. 

The Tyrannofex is not gated behind Super Heavy Detachments, or exempt from doctrine and stratagem abilities either. 

 

The chances of it doing 30 damage in a single round is obviously slim, but not impossible given the nature of rerolls, lets say you have two of them, plus a hive tyrant with the shardgullet (3 shots, 2+ hit, 3+ wound, AP-5, D5). That's 600 points, fair enough, and you'd be killing most super heavies worth only 500 points - but once my super heavy is dead I've lost a quarter of my army whilst you still have 3 lots of 200 point models putting out up to 75 wounds a turn between them. 

 

I don't have the Tau or Eldar book, but I would imagine their Prism Cannon and Railgun platforms can be mounted on 150 - 200 point models too. So the question is, why do their weapons need to be S12 or higher? Just to take on Knight armies? S10 does for Knights as much as S14 does. No one takes super heavies in a <2000 game, or very rarely. Nothing in any Imperial or chaos book, AFAIK, can wound T7 natively on 2+, so why do the Tyranids or Tau need that kind of weapon? 

[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.

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.

 

 

I agree and disagree 

 

The premise of saving on 3+, 4+, 5+ etc with modifiers is fine, it is the the volume of fire and misuse of AP-3 upwards that is causing the issues.

 

Traditionally, high S, high Damage, high AP weapons were very much an eggs in basket issue - if it hit it would likely wound, if it wounded you would unlikely save, you therefore would likely die. But they only had 1 chance. Now we've got multi melta and lascannon equivalents capable of firing multiple shots per turn.

The Exocrine fires D3+6 shots. What's the point? Just make it heavy 8, no one would care, you're just adding an extra dice roll for the sake of it. 

The rupture cannon, a S14 weapon, should not be firing 3 shots. It should be one shot, auto-wound. Nothing on less than a Titanic platform should be firing guns with a strength greater than 10. 

 

I don't think any melee weapon beyond a relic or two should be better than AP-2, including Thunder Hammers, rending claws and so on. There's no mechanic now for representing parrying, so this could be justified by stating it represents all blocks, dodges and parries. 

Shooting is harder, but I don't think things with a S8 or higher should have multiple shots, and things with multiple shots should only be AP-2 and D1 max. Give lascannons and venom cannons higher damage, or introduce a splash damage system like the Flail of the Unforgiven or something, that way the AP-3 or more issue is limited to just the one shot per model. 

 

Multiple shots or attacks that are often hitting and wounding on 3's, with rerolls, and an AP-3 or better is quite literally overkill. 

 

I agree with pretty much everything you say there Where I do differ is in the modifiers. I genuinely think power armoured warriors and heavy tanks should be getting their full save against pretty much every weapon. It should only be dedicated anti-armour weapons that degrade it or ignore it. This is why I don't like the modifiers, or at least I don't like the way they're used now. A marine should be getting his full save against a las pistol, a bolter and a heavy bolter, but the heavy bolter degrades it. It feels like units that rely on armour get their full save against almost nothing and that is annoying because those factions tend to pay a premium for their armour. Theres much more value in degrading the save of an expensive MEQ (or better) model than there is in degrading the save of a GEQ model and so I believe the current system is particularly unfair to such armies.

 

However, they also need to address all those other issues which you pointed out which are 100% correct

 

 

Armour of Contempt: Models with this special rule count AP-1 and AP-2 as AP0.

 

The problem with it, as far as I can see, is with things that increase AP - would a weapon with basic AP-2 which has it's AP increased to -3 through a stratagem or doctrine then mean the marine only saves on a 6? Because going from 3+ to 6+ through stratagem or ability use would just focus armies towards those stratagems and abilities, making the change a bit moot. 

 

Or are we needing to go a step further: Armour of Contempt - models with this rule cannot have their save reduced to worse than 4+. 

This doesn't help at all against AP-1 weapons, though.

 

Armour of Contempt: If this model is hit by a weapon with a S value equal to or less than the models T, that attack is resolved at AP0. 

Good for gravis, no better for Sisters. 

 

Armour of Contempt: Models with this special rule count AP as one lower than it is, and ignore 1 point of incoming damage, unless the weapons strength is twice the models toughness. 

This gives your heavy bolter example a 4+ chance of a wound, but not a kill, but still allows proper heavy weapons to kill outright. 

[Iron Lord]

 

Nothing in any Imperial or chaos book, AFAIK, can wound T7 natively on 2+, so why do the Tyranids or Tau need that kind of weapon? 

Chaos have lots of things that can wound T7 natively on 2+ - but normally they're melee.

 

The Fire Prism and Hammerhead are less "predator equivalent" and more "dedicated anti-tank vehicle equivalent" - the Leman Russ Vanquisher, the Destroyer, and so forth. Though I would agree that they've gotten rather a lot of boosting in power.

 

The Tyrannofex is that, but bigger - like a Land Raider with no transport capacity.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Iron Lord

[BrainFireBob]

If I had my druthers, I'd use the current AP system for melee and the old system for shooting.

 

Part of the problem is thematic design space. Tau filled a playstyle gap in 3rd when released- effectively similar to what Scions are now- but that same gap didn't exist in other editions.