Does AP need changing in 10th

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 1/16/2023 at 6:10 AM, tychobi said:

AP is fine. Blanket rules are hard to balance but better for offence to be weighed than defence. 9th has a lot of issues but armor preparation is not one of them. 

Sorry, but I don’t think it’s fine how common AP-1 and AP-2 is now.

it makes it impossible to keep GEQ on the table, and MEQ don’t feel tough or elite at all, and again AP-1 and -2 on small arms means that when low S weapons do manage to wound vehicles they’re more likely to wound than previously making vehicles even more flimsy than ever before.

 

On 1/16/2023 at 7:09 AM, chapter master 454 said:

Certainly a very slight then sudden jump in power I would agree. Feels weird that AoC was a means to bleed out some of that AP...hmm...I wonder if that is factoring in to GWs move forward with how they handle 10th.

 

I would say that as much as it can be a clown car of updates...I would say that considering we have gone from whining about NO updates like it used to be to now have TOO MANY, I think we are getting somewhere with GW. We just need them to know how to do it properly and they are trying. Not say not to give them a good grilling when needed but grill them on bad balance decisions, not the decision to balance things so actively.

Personally I’d rather a bad codex w/ no updates so I can actually learn the codex and it’s rules, than this current process of constantly updating and changing nearly every codex in some way every few weeks.

[Captain Idaho]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Personally I’d rather a bad codex w/ no updates so I can actually learn the codex and it’s rules, than this current process of constantly updating and changing nearly every codex in some way every few weeks.

 

I wouldn't have said it ages ago as I thought I could handle it, but I have to agree. I'd rather be able to play games than nothing, which has pretty much happened in my local gaming group.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

41 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

I wouldn't have said it ages ago as I thought I could handle it, but I have to agree. I'd rather be able to play games than nothing, which has pretty much happened in my local gaming group.

I just never really know if I’m up to date or not, or if me and my opponent are using the same updates or not.

[Emperor Ming]

6 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I just never really know if I’m up to date or not, or if me and my opponent are using the same updates or not.

Thats why my group always uses the latest warzone mission pack

 

Having the up-to-date core rules, with the faqs included, so you don't need the big core rule book is much easier we find

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Thats why my group always uses the latest warzone mission pack

 

Having the up-to-date core rules, with the faqs included, so you don't need the big core rule book is much easier we find

Again, that’s an agreement that can be made amongst a group that regularly plays together.

 

not everyone has that available.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

21 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Naw, there’s waaay too much AP in the game right now.

guard might as well not have a save. Marines barely get a save now, and vehicles are too flimsy. Vehicles have to be pointed ridiculously low for how flimsy they are as a result.

Yeah, the rumor is a soft reset for 10th

 

I said the system was fine meaning I don't want the old AV/AP system back. To be brutally honest if they want free upgrades, then they need to rebalance just about everything. I just think that it's really important that they don't have all of these layers of rules that modify things. They've created a moving target for balance and it's just asking too much.

 

Getting rid of re-rolls, and +1 to hit stratagems would also have a huge effect on units' survivability. I think people really underestimate how much power creep those rules have caused. 

 

 

 

 

[chapter master 454]

I mean, at this point are we talking only AP or we talking all of 9th going into 10th and having a fun time giving our two cents on what we think should be the system?

 

As it stands, there are some...heh...CORE issues with how they build codices.

First, they have the tools. They made a great foundation in 8th, refined that foundation in 9th and even got some decent plumbing and electric put in...wifi needs work but we will get there. 9th really introduced the idea of having units with their keywords actually mean something, being important "tribal" concepts however we saw them underutilise it whether because this is the Proto-form of it with more keywords to come that matter or if Core is a unique universal keyword. The idea of Core is good, useful even as what Core should be is the keyword that all Auras work on (with SELECT exceptions...not an exception every codex...), when you see Core that is the word that tells you this unit is where you want your buff-totems to go. These units should uniquely be Troops imo, the units that should lack of inherent special rules or any real special gear bar maybe a smattering of special and heavy weapons.

This would then allow space for HQ units to become the "flavour" of your army. Troops by themselves can do work but are a multiplier and place where the more common HQs should shine. Things like Catachan Commanders of Imperial guard making Standard guardsman squads and Catachan squads more fearsome at close range and close combat, Librarians offering unique mortal wound protection by existing near units (done by ether their powers giving sight to order the unit what to avoid or just naturally having more ONGOING mind battles with enemy psykers). The boring HQs are ironically the ones where we just slap a bunch of power house gear on them and let them tear a hole in the enemy, what if...instead of that they did that sort of power-housing THROUGH troops. Not saying a HQ makes troops insane top tier always take, never leave at home, super broken unkillable machines of death, but give the Troop slot an identity.

 

Sorry, that addresses a different issue but I mean...we can't talk AP which is Lethality without talking the rather poorly handled Core Keyword that has held units hostage of if they are broken or not (Broadsides in tau just vanished overnight. Admech LITERALLY died when they lost their iron striders though other factors didn't help).

The issue isn't just AP.

 

I would point out that the system itself works. Nothing wrong with it and is very good. Just the internal settings and stats need adjusted within to be more reasonable and this includes what is Core, what gets AP, what can access Re-rolls (and how many of those we have access to)? These are questions that need an overarching document to help focus the writers of each codex so that each of them KNOW what the others are working with instead of just working off of the last codex.

In effect, they need a bar to work with. Something that is centralised instead of constantly changing.

[Reskin]

Well, you make some good points 454, and to answer the topic's question and header.

 

Yes, AP does need changing in 10th, both the AP profile of weapons needs scaling back, and the ability to increase the AP of weapons by HQ's and stratagems needs to be toned waaaay back.

[Djangomatic82]

Since mid 8th edition, I've wished that GW just dealt with AP differently. I really am not a fan of the degradation effect of AP.

I don't think we need a return to a comparative chart for AP as there had been previously and is currently in use for the wounds chart, but I do think it should be a binary equation.

If the AP value of the attack would be enough to remove your save, it is removed and you skip the Sv. Roll for that attack.

If the attack is not enough to remove your Sv, you get your full armour save.

Ex: AP-1 vs. Sv 5+ means the defender gets their full 5+ Sv roll.

AP-2 vs. Sv 5+ means the defender gets no Sv roll.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Djangomatic82

[Rogue]

I remember that approach from a few editions ago - it wasn't one I liked. It means Marines have the same chance to shrug off a lasgun as they do a lascannon (or anything else short of melta, pretty much).

 

It is simpler, but in this case, too simple and subsequently a bit frustrating, especially when you watch your heavy weapons bounce off 3+ saves.

 

Or to put it another way - imagine giving every marine in the game a 3+ invulnerable save against everything but melta. Because that's what this approach does.

 

Obviously, views differ. But I wouldn't want to go back to that version of AP.

[Xenith]

1 hour ago, Djangomatic82 said:

If the AP value of the attack would be enough to remove your save, it is removed and you skip the Sv. Roll for that attack.

If the attack is not enough to remove your Sv, you get your full armour save.

Ex: AP-1 vs. Sv 5+ means the defender gets their full 5+ Sv roll.

 

Well this is the AP system used from 3rd to 7th ed - Weapons have an ap, eg a bolter is AP5, and if the AP is lower than the save value, you don't get a save. It's what's used in heresy now.

 

11 minutes ago, Rogue said:

I remember that approach from a few editions ago - it wasn't one I liked. It means Marines have the same chance to shrug off a lasgun as they do a lascannon (or anything else short of melta, pretty much).

 

Lascannon's had (have, in HH2) AP2, while lasguns have ap-, so nothing gets saves from lascannons, while everything gets armour saves against lasguns. 

 

The binary (yes/no) system is interesting, and does work well, as it did for 15 years, and it does mean that 2+ saves and such are actually worth something, and makes unit actually quite tough. 

 

On AP, I've said before that:

• I like the Sv modifier, however AP has been handed out like candy and this should be reigned in. 
• In a game with lots of stuff with various saves, the all or nothing system is good - so a bolter will always punch through flakk armour, plasma will always go through power armour etc, you can really specialise each weapon to a different intended target.
• Personally , and this has been met with disdain before, in a game with a lot of guns, and 90% power armour (HH) only the guns that can punch through power armour are usually worthwhile, meaning a lot of guns are seen as useless. In a game where the targets are always similar, this is ripe for a save modifier system where you can actually have anti infantry fire do something. Currently in HH you might as well take a lascannon for every job. 

 

 

[jaxom]

6 hours ago, chapter master 454 said:

when you see Core that is the word that tells you this unit is where you want your buff-totems to go. These units should uniquely be Troops imo, the units that should lack of inherent special rules or any real special gear bar maybe a smattering of special and heavy weapons.

Plus a few more specific additions to the exact rules in question. Easy writing is why Thundwolves and Sanguinary Guard got Core, because one was expected to run an HQ aura-buffer with them because it was fluffy.

[Cleon]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

Plus a few more specific additions to the exact rules in question. Easy writing is why Thundwolves and Sanguinary Guard got Core, because one was expected to run an HQ aura-buffer with them because it was fluffy.

I would argue that it's lazy rules writing. 'Core' should be for the classic main troops and there shuold be a second 'Retinue' or similar keyword for elite units that expect to gwet HQ buffs and each rule can then specify if it works on Core, or Core and Retinue.

[Lexington]

6 hours ago, Rogue said:

I remember that approach from a few editions ago - it wasn't one I liked. It means Marines have the same chance to shrug off a lasgun as they do a lascannon (or anything else short of melta, pretty much).

 

Well, not just melta. Back in those days, you could knock a Marine's save out with plasma, melta, lascannons, etc. AP3 wasn't everywhere, but it wasn't exactly rare.

 

I'm kinda torn on the question of which system's better. Degrading armor values feels more "real," but the game system one is still one that tries to simulate some pretty huge variance in weapon strength with the roll of a humble D6. Doesn't help that everything in the game has an Armor Save now, which means that weapons negate the armor of both a Terminator and a Titan at the same rate. GW's own designers are obviously to blame for their enthusiastic overpowering of even basic weaponry, but maybe the whole system just isn't good for simulating games on the scale that the business demands 40K operate at.

 

Sometimes I look back at the weird, unintuitive AP system of 3rd - 7th and see some real wisdom there. True of a lot of things from that era of the game.

[Evil Eye]

14 minutes ago, Lexington said:

 

Well, not just melta. Back in those days, you could knock a Marine's save out with plasma, melta, lascannons, etc. AP3 wasn't everywhere, but it wasn't exactly rare.

 

I'm kinda torn on the question of which system's better. Degrading armor values feels more "real," but the game system one is still one that tries to simulate some pretty huge variance in weapon strength with the roll of a humble D6. Doesn't help that everything in the game has an Armor Save now, which means that weapons negate the armor of both a Terminator and a Titan at the same rate. GW's own designers are obviously to blame for their enthusiastic overpowering of even basic weaponry, but maybe the whole system just isn't good for simulating games on the scale that the business demands 40K operate at.

 

Sometimes I look back at the weird, unintuitive AP system of 3rd - 7th and see some real wisdom there. True of a lot of things from that era of the game.

I kind of agree, sort of, maybe, but then again I sort of feel like the problem is the average size of 40K games being forced up, and the solution (in part) being to let it be known to GW that we don't want the game to be inflated in such a way. How exactly that would be accomplished I don't know, but something needs doing.

[jaxom]

@Lexington and @Evil Eye, your comments reminded me of something I read, from one of the great engineers who was alive during both the transition to true automation and during the transition to computers. He had an example about the switch from factories manufacturing with rivets to manufacturing with welds. He said engineering design should not seek to simply replace rivets with welds, but to produce a new product which fulfilled the same design function while taking advantage of the properties of welds. Looking back, I think too much of 8th edition was directly ported over with thinking about how that would impact the design function. For example, Marines and bolters were ported directly over and they didn't play like Marines in previous editions. Relative durability and offense dropped, so they got a points drop, so the "elite" relied on bodies, etc. New interactions between the new wound values and old ported stats made anti-infantry weapons efficient tank-killers so tanks fell off, etc.

 

I think the AP system is fine, it's the stats around it and associated with it that could use tweaking. However, at that point, it's such a paradigm shift from the stats we're used to see.... Yet at the same time, now Orks are T5 standard, so who knows?

[Madao]

In my opinion, current AP system is quite nice and easy to use, but has some issues. And (contrary to some people) I think that GW should even increase the AP of some weapons. "Are you mad!?" some would say, but let me explain.

 

IF we stop thinking about save as limited to the 2+ range, some units (e.g. tanks) could have save 1+, 0, or even -1. And yes - it would make them "invulnerable" to small arms fire - which should be the case! Can you think of modern tank (after 1950), that could be "hurt" by some rifle? This is why there are weapons like lascannons or melta. Increasing the range of possible save values (and AP) could also provide another factor of weapon balance (e.g. high AP => small range and rate of fire).

 

What about the units, that don't have weapons sufficient to damage the tank, you would say? Here comes my crazy idea - just give ALL troops a melta bomb equivalent. IF they manage to get in 6" of the tank, they can throw it and potentially hurt a tank/knight/whatever. Important factor - only troops! Elites should be specialized units and not have a troop universality. Of course - it should be done along with limiting access to heavy weapons in troops squads (good example - max 1 for each 5 tacticals in a unit). To boost troops even more (which is something, that many people are complaining about) I have some additional ideas:

- give all troops action "Fortify" - started at the beginning of the movement phase and finished at the beginning of shooting phase when TROOP unit holds an objective - while the unit stays on this objective, they are treated as being in terrain with 'light cover' and 'defensible' traits, which would represent them fortifying the position (think of it as the bridge scene in Saving Private Ryan)

- limit obsec heavily (or even remove the possibility to score objectives by heavy units - tanks, questoris+ knights and so on) - the goal of tanks is not to secure key areas, but to pose a threat to the enemy. Taking and holding objectives is a troops role.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, Cleon said:

I would argue that it's lazy rules writing. 'Core' should be for the classic main troops and there shuold be a second 'Retinue' or similar keyword for elite units that expect to gwet HQ buffs and each rule can then specify if it works on Core, or Core and Retinue.

Right? Core should go to units that make up the core of a faction’s army.

[MARK0SIAN]

To be honest ‘Core’ is another mess that could probably be thread all on its own. It’s like they introduced the idea of core but no one seemed to have a clear idea what it was for and what it should look like for each faction. Some of the choices for what gets core and what doesn’t seem utterly arbitrary, especially with the way they add it or remove it from certain things. Basically the whole core thing is a mess so I don’t think we are well served looking for any solutions to AP or any other issue by utilising the core keyword.

[jaxom]

35 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

It’s like they introduced the idea of core but no one seemed to have a clear idea what it was for and what it should look like for each faction.

The idea started well-defined: core was any unit that the designers wanted the (usually) HQ to be next to on the table top. It was an aesthetic design. Necron Lord-types were meant to be next to Warriors and Immortals, not slumming it with constructs and vehicles. Space Marine Captains should be leading their troops, not babysitting tanks. The problem was that core became a lever to adjust power. Canoptek units underperforming, but you don't want to flood the board ? Make them core. That box-of-three a problem to tune as a 3 person unit, needs a bit more efficiency? Make it core. Etc, etc.

[MARK0SIAN]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

The idea started well-defined: core was any unit that the designers wanted the (usually) HQ to be next to on the table top. It was an aesthetic design. Necron Lord-types were meant to be next to Warriors and Immortals, not slumming it with constructs and vehicles. Space Marine Captains should be leading their troops, not babysitting tanks. The problem was that core became a lever to adjust power. Canoptek units underperforming, but you don't want to flood the board ? Make them core. That box-of-three a problem to tune as a 3 person unit, needs a bit more efficiency? Make it core. Etc, etc.

I think the concept of core wasn’t as clear as that. If it was just about buffs from other units then the other things that interact with ‘core’ wouldn’t make sense. I think the concept was that it should be exactly what it says on the tin, the core of an army, it’s just they didn’t really have an idea what that should be in each codex. Like why did Ironstriders have it but not Kataphrons for example. 
 

You’re definitely right about it becoming a lever to boost or nerf units though, which kind of makes you think there wasn’t a strong concept or vision for core in the first place if they were happy to change it so easily.

[Emperor Ming]

Core was just brought in as balancing crutch

[Reskin]

2 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

Core was just brought in as balancing crutch

hasn't worked for 3 out of 4 of your armies :P so what's balanced?

[The Unseen]

Anyone who wants to go back to the old school AP system should see what making that functional looks like, go look at HH 2.0, meaning anything better than AP4 is heavily costed, or just non existent in the case of AP2/3 blasts. Even plasma is now only AP2 effective on a 4+ to wound, while still wounding marines on a 2+. 

 

I played 4th-current, and much prefer the scaling AP compared to where we were at even by the end of 5th, where AP3 or better weapons were basically all anyone ever took they were so prevalent, because that's how you killed marines, so large blast AP3 artillery would just scoop entire marine squads with no save, and no fnp because it was Str8 and you didn't get wound shrugs if the strength was double your toughness. So you hugged cover for a 5+ cover save and died like guardsmen. You can cost low AP weapons in proportion to their cost and make them effective if they still have *some* effect on higher saves.

 

I do miss the old To-Wound system though, I think having to get to double strength to wound on 2s has made the middle tier of weapons incredibly weak, since they lost the utility of wounding infantry on 2s and still being capable of doing damage to light tanks. The variance between anti tank weapons has similarly shrunk, uses to be that Str7, 8, 9, and 10 had HUGE effects on how effectively they dealt with a lot of different Toughness. 7 wounded infantry on 2s, and glanced light vehicles on 3-4s, and could get lucky vs medium armor on 6s. Str8 doubled out marines preventing fnp, and would reliably hurt light vehicles, and could hurt the heaviest stuff on 6s. Str9 could PEN the heaviest armor on 6s and guarantee damage to light armor, and Str10 could crack even the best armor in the game on 5s and doubled out multiwound T5 models like bikes and cavalry. 

 

Nowadays, the different between Str8, 9, and 10 is wounding T5 on 3s vs 2s, and wounding a half dozen tanks on slightly different numbers. 

I don't miss big stuff being totally immune to small stuff just because now armies of entirely big stuff are way to embedded in the game to roll back, but it worked back then till Knights came out. Having an entire army of AV13 was completely dumb, and rendered 75+% of a balanced list useless, meaning most of your guys stood on objectives and tried not to die if all your anti-tank got killed, especially stuff like marines that relied on krak grenades to help deal with armor spam, that couldn't do anything other than scratch paint on knights.

[Djangomatic82]

1 hour ago, The Unseen said:

Anyone who wants to go back to the old school AP system should see what making that functional looks like, go look at HH 2.0, meaning anything better than AP4 is heavily costed, or just non existent in the case of AP2/3 blasts. Even plasma is now only AP2 effective on a 4+ to wound, while still wounding marines on a 2+. 

 

I played 4th-current, and much prefer the scaling AP compared to where we were at even by the end of 5th, where AP3 or better weapons were basically all anyone ever took they were so prevalent, because that's how you killed marines, so large blast AP3 artillery would just scoop entire marine squads with no save, and no fnp because it was Str8 and you didn't get wound shrugs if the strength was double your toughness. So you hugged cover for a 5+ cover save and died like guardsmen. You can cost low AP weapons in proportion to their cost and make them effective if they still have *some* effect on higher saves.

 

I do miss the old To-Wound system though, I think having to get to double strength to wound on 2s has made the middle tier of weapons incredibly weak, since they lost the utility of wounding infantry on 2s and still being capable of doing damage to light tanks. The variance between anti tank weapons has similarly shrunk, uses to be that Str7, 8, 9, and 10 had HUGE effects on how effectively they dealt with a lot of different Toughness. 7 wounded infantry on 2s, and glanced light vehicles on 3-4s, and could get lucky vs medium armor on 6s. Str8 doubled out marines preventing fnp, and would reliably hurt light vehicles, and could hurt the heaviest stuff on 6s. Str9 could PEN the heaviest armor on 6s and guarantee damage to light armor, and Str10 could crack even the best armor in the game on 5s and doubled out multiwound T5 models like bikes and cavalry. 

 

Nowadays, the different between Str8, 9, and 10 is wounding T5 on 3s vs 2s, and wounding a half dozen tanks on slightly different numbers. 

I don't miss big stuff being totally immune to small stuff just because now armies of entirely big stuff are way to embedded in the game to roll back, but it worked back then till Knights came out. Having an entire army of AV13 was completely dumb, and rendered 75+% of a balanced list useless, meaning most of your guys stood on objectives and tried not to die if all your anti-tank got killed, especially stuff like marines that relied on krak grenades to help deal with armor spam, that couldn't do anything other than scratch paint on knights.

Oif, just reading how convoluted they made wounding back then makes me want to tune out. Luckily, it isn't intrinsic to a binary armour save system.